The Hammer Frankenstein Thread

[the blob]

Originally Posted by Robert W

Well according to Hammer, the film was originally meant to be viewed in the 1.66:1 aspect ratio, but judging by the screencaps, I'm a little leery of that claim, as the fullscreen/1.33:1 version does looks, at least to my eyes, the better framed of the two.

Still, I really don't see how you can complain about the 1.33:1 version, as it does contain more information than any other previous version released to date. That and the fact that Hammer didn't decide to "juice up" the special effects with some new CGI shots, make this, imo, the definitive release of the film.

Of course there's always the old WB R1 disc.

According to Hammer it's supposed to be 1.37:1. According to everyone else pretty much, it's supposed to be widescreen. Like I said earlier, the reason that looks better than the 1.66:1 version is they haven't framed the 1.66:1 properly.

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by the blob

According to Hammer it's supposed to be 1.37:1. According to everyone else pretty much, it's supposed to be widescreen. Like I said earlier, the reason that looks better than the 1.66:1 version is they haven't framed the 1.66:1 properly.

Exactly. The same reason I would have preferred the 1.77 version included instead of the 1.66 version, the framing is much better.

[the blob]

Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs

Exactly. The same reason I would have preferred the 1.77 version included instead of the 1.66 version, the framing is much better.

The points are being missed by a lot of people it seems.

The 1.77:1 transfer is Warner's old SD transfer for their DVD. Hammer never made a new 1.77:1 transfer after the new 4K scan and restoration so there is no separate restored 1.77:1 version to include.

To include one, they would have had to do a new one from scratch and probably would again have done a central crop throughout which would have looked even worse than their 1.66:1.

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by the blob

To include one, they would have had to do a new one from scratch and probably would again have done a central crop throughout which would have looked even worse than their 1.66:1.

That's an awfully big assumption. And all I'm saying is that the 1.77 version looks better than the 1.66 version. Am I right? I'm missing no point.

[the blob]

Originally Posted by Stephen@Cult Labs

That's an awfully big assumption. And all I'm saying is that the 1.77 version looks better than the 1.66 version. Am I right? I'm missing no point.

Well, if you read Hammer's analysis of the 1.77:1 version using different framing for different shots instead of a constant matte throughout, wouldn't you have thought they'd do the same with the 1.66:1 version if they approved of that method?

Their argument is that the technology to reframe like that wasn't available in 1957 so it would have had to use a constant matte throughout the whole film, so it's entirely logical to assume a 1.77:1 version from them would be cropped even tighter.

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by the blob

Well, if you read Hammer's analysis of the 1.77:1 version using different framing for different shots instead of a constant matte throughout, wouldn't you have thought they'd do the same with the 1.66:1 version if they approved of that method?

Their argument is that the technology to reframe like that wasn't available in 1957 so it would have had to use a constant matte throughout the whole film, so it's entirely logical to assume a 1.77:1 version from them would be cropped even tighter.

Arrgghhhhhh!

[Daemonia]

And this is all on the assumption that the 1.37:1 transfer is framed correctly.

Sorry, couldn't resist confusing things even further. But people have speculated that possibly the fullscreen version isn't framed properly and that's why the 1.66:1 version looks 'off'. I dunno, it's all a muddle, so I think I'll just have to buy it and judge for myself. Like I say, friends of mine are telling me it's a really good set, so I'll trust their recommendation. If they're wrong I'll attack them with a dead fish.

[Rik]

I've just watched this again with the audio commentary from Marcus Hearn & Jonathan Rigby, one of the best commentaries I've heard in years, really informative and full of trivia that I didn't know before.
Followed it with the making of doc and then the "Life with Sir" featurette. I challenge anybody to watch this and not be moved by it, it really does tug on the old heart strings and brought back the memory of a 15 year old Rik being sat down by his dad to be told that Peter Cushing had sadly passed away, quickly followed by a very upset Rik hiding away in his room silently crying watching this very film on VHS recorded from the BBC

[J Harker]

But what's the picture quality itself like? Doesn't matter what the framing's like to me if the picture's no great improvement on my old Hammer Originals disc which in my opinion is quite decent.

[Rik]

IMO the picture looks great, I would definitely say it's the best I've seen it look and the extras make it a worthy purchase.