But there are prints released on different film sizes for various theaters at the time of release based on what they were capable of projecting, which results in different aspect ratios. How do you determine which is correct?
Or I can't understand correctly you, or you don't know really what cinema works.

All copies of one film, are equal, has the same aspect ratio. Other thing and not the thing we are talking is that in cinemas the screem could be not have exactly the format, or has some tolerance bacuse optic are made in limited characteristic and is not posible do a screem exactly in format in all decimal. The projection format is not exactly the format, baut is very similar and in the tolerance, because that the format of the print is alsolluty unique al valid for our interes.

The only diferent copies where a limited copies was made for not anaforfic optical cinemas in the firts moment of the scope, that respect the same aspect rario (using a big black band). Very few titles and is not problem because they has the same aspect ratio.

The other only diferent aspect ratio copies, is with 35mm copys of 70mm copys or 70mm of 35 copys. In that case, one film format is original and the other a derivated, the original is the only correct. I don't not the technical mane for the procedure for tranfers proces, but it is very clear that the original is only one, not he secondary format. I talk about the case of Dirty Dozen and I think is very clear thing.

If you know one case that there are not in the posibilites I say, tell to us, but I don't kwon any case. Other problem could be determinated the correct format because during years made copys for tv, vhs or other that not respesct the original format, and is confused, but these case are now investigated and more clear that some years ago.

Oh my FH, multiple prints were VERY common back in the "old" days.
Very few. Only in the period of implanting of the new formats, and only very few important titles.



You are working with incorrect concept. It isn't a multiple prints, it is a multiple shooting and that means is a two diferent film very similar, and every one with its original aspect ratio.

That means that you have with one title two diferent films, not one film with multiple prints or formats:
- Lady and the trap scope shooting (original aspect ratio 2:35)
- Lady and the trap spherical shooting (original aspect ratio 1:33)

More clear, the case os Seven Briders for Seven Brothers. They do two films in one production. They prepared scope filming, they act, director say cut, and they prepare spherical shooting, they act and director say cut. And they go to the next scene and repeat the process.

It's some similar that was do in the sound firts times, some Laurel and Hardy films has a second versión in other languaje, not dubbed versión, a second shooting, in some times changing secondary actors.

In Seven Brides, finally, they have two films with the equal actors, equal dialogs, but diferen shooting, because that, they are diferent film. And all print for one film has one format, and all prints for the other films has one format, diferent that the other shooting.

In the case of Lady and the Trap, they reuse the animation in two shootings, with change in conposition (Pixar do recently some similar), in the case os Seven brides for seven brothers, is not the same actuation, some minumun changes are, it's imposible do the exactly identical acting.

Think the second shooting, allwais was considerer a shooting for compatibility cinemas, not the real intented aspect ratio, and only for use for the time of adaptation. The second shooting is a curiosity, because that only the first shoot is dubbing outside USA.

Now with dvd, some second shooting are recovered, Seven Brides is an example, and the second shotting is in the second disc, because is more than extra or secondary.

Another case is Lady and the Trap. Disney think in children use and like more edit in 1:33. Is better use the second shooting for edit the film that do a pan&scan from scope shooting. Now Disney is starting to respect original aspect ratios and Lady and the Trap will be corrected.


Because that I explained, It is not problem to know original aspect ratio. Problem will be that dvdprofiler because very rare two filmings, not has posibility to identificatión the format of the second disc or version.

I use the originally intented ratio for that case.

Quoting nolesrule:

Quote:
Ben-Hur is a great example of what I'm talking about:

It was shown 70mm at 2.75:1.

I'd call that the OAR.

Quote:
It was shown on 35mm at 2.50:1 (hard matted).

I'd call that a compromise due to technical limitations.  It would have been shown at 70mm 2.75:1 had that been an option.

You can't determine what the original aspect ratio is by how it was filmed or edited. Only the ratio of its original presentation. Ben-Hur's presentation theatrically was in both 2.76 and 2.5. This makes the second generation print argument a red herring. In the case of a movie like Revenge of the Sith, the first generation film print was the second generation "print", the first being digitally recorded and edited.

Furthermore, we start getting into the Super35 and Open Matte debates, and we really don't want to go there, do we?

Oh, and you'll get no argument from me about what should be the correct OAR for Ben-Hur. I was just using it as an example of how it can be difficult to determine.

Only the ratio of its original presentation. Ben-Hur's presentation theatrically was in both 2.76 and 2.5.
False. Ben-Hur's presentation is originally 2,76 and 2,5 in secondary for cinemas can't used original films format. Think in premiere of the film. Think than cinemas can use the two film sizes (70mm proyector can work with two sizes, 35mm only with 35mm), they not choose the secondary format bezause film was made in one original aspect ratio, and the original aspect ratio is for they.

That is the true, Ben Hur has only one ORIGINAL format, the other is SECONDARY (that means not primari, and logicaly if is not primari is not originally).





In the case of a movie like Revenge of the Sith, the first generation film print was the second generation "print", the first being digitally recorded and edited.
It's correct, but one thing, betwen the master and the proyection film you see in cinemas, allwais are more than one generation diference. For security, the original masters is touch the less posible, because that is doing a master copy... and another intermate prints.

In that case, they can use less generations, if easy do with any risk a second generation master with telefilmation, but is not process for do multiple prints, is use laboratory copy metodhs.




[i]Furthermore, we start getting into the Super35 and Open Matte debates, and we really don't want to go there, do we?
[/i]
Shooting format is not important, the important is the shooting the format for the composition is made. Super35 and oppen matte are use to shoot, but thinking they go to cutting image in laboratory or proyection for Original aspect ratio.

Super35 and oppen matte is a trick is made in shooting for the secondary formats be less agresive. These is create for not use pan&scan method that in many case cut important information.

Shooting with these techniques is doing with ONE ORIGINAL FORMAT and the others are secondary. Think in Lord of the rings. DVD has original aspect ratio, VHS was made in secondary format 1:33.





Oh, and you'll get no argument from me about what should be the correct OAR for Ben-Hur. I was just using it as an example of how it can be difficult to determine.
I can't argument the OAR of any films, forever one has one, and it can be argument. Is the choose in the shooting of director. Why the choose? But they allwais do one choose for original aspect ratio, and if producters say, they do composition for can do secondary format.

Ben Hur was shooting for 70mm cinemas with the carefully not put important information where will be cut for the prints for compatibity film size. The thing is that, and it can't be argument, only explained, like appel go to the floor and not to he skie.

It's not difficult to determinate is you investigate a few about shooting and if you know what and why was made the diferents cinema formats.





It's a nice idea, but I don't see it as realistically implementable and documentation in many cases would probably be problematic at the very best.
I am a cinema projectionist, I work in cinemaclub, not only actuall films, and I don't have problem to know Original aspect ratio. I know who things are made usually, how do secondary formats for compatibility or tv.

Thanks to digital domestic copies now are made not using many generations prints, they are made using original materials and editors like Warner are mading special editions that use for firts time the original aspect ratio.

The problem is people that is usually waching these films in VHS or TV copies that nor use the original aspect ratio. They think because they don't kwon mayors what do use do, the film is correct present. That is the reason than finally in USA is usually edited with two formats, originally and 1:33. In europe usually have one disc less, usually is use only original aspect ratio.

Is easy know betwen the formats are present in the same edition, what is original and what is not original.

Some dates, cinema films after 1960, original aspect ratio is not in 1:33 (some very, but very rare exceptions. I don't kwon ten cases). Betwen 1960-80 the panoramic use in europe is 1:66 and 1:85 in USA, salve animation films, usually in 1:66 (The day that Disney use Original Aspect ratio in domestic in all films,

Lord of the Rings was shot in Super35, digitally scanned and edited with the CGI rendered at 1.78:1 and projected theatrically at 2.35.

As for Ben-Hur, the 35mm was hard matted to 2.5 for 35mm. It could have been hard-matted to the same ratio as 70mm, or it could have been hard-matted to Cinemascope ratio, which while close, it was not.

And then we get into all the DVDs that are shot full frame and use soft mattes for projection to 1.85:1. Many of these films are on DVD using the full 16x9 anamorphic frame without even the very small black bars necessary for a proper 1.85 presentation. Is that then "close enough" to OAR? Hell, overscan on CRTs covers up differences between 1.66, 1.78 and 1.85 to make them indistinguishable.

Quoting RHo:

Quote:
The same is true for country of origin and SRP. Both require expertise and still we are able to enter the data. I would welcome a OAR field.

I don't know that I would compare figuring out CoO to figuring out OAR.  It isn't that hard to follow the money trail and figure out where a production company is located.  Finding the 'real' OAR, on the other hand, would require information that I don't believe is readily available.

That is, of course, just my opinion.  For all I know there is a repository of this information somewhere and I just haven't found it yet. 

Sure it's hard to figure out.  So what?  You do the best you can.  If you later find evidence to the contrary, you update it.  If you have no idea to begin with, you leave it blank and hope someone with more knowledge comes along to fill it in.  I'd rather have that data on 90% of my collection than nothing at all.  If that's something you can't deal with (and we all know we have users who can't believe a shred of data unless they verify it themselves), ask Ken to somehow make it an optional field that you don't have to see.

Just because you have the ability to enter data in every field doesn't mean you must fill in every detail when making a contribution.