This site lists the criterion version of jason and the argonauts.as being 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Can anyone clear this up for me? I thought criterion was the holy grail of laserdisc film. Must be a mistake

From what I've read/understand, Ray Harryhausen didn't like filming in the widescreen ratios, and preferred the Academy Ratio. He begrudgingly shot movies to be shown matted to 1.85:1.

According to the laserdisc jacket:

"This exclusive new digital film-to-tape transfer of Jason and the Argonauts was made from the best elements of the two existing archival interpositives. Ray Harryhausen was consulted during the transfer on how each scene should appear. For this edition we have presented Jason in its original 1.33:1 full frame aspect ratio."

IMDb lists the aspect ratio as 1.85:1. They need to step their game up

Criterion didn't always go for widescreen. They sometimes opted for open matte presentations.

Like the Special Edition of Carrie

Widescreen was a way for the studios to get people in the theater & away from their TV's. Like many gimmicks in the film industry, some filmmakers embraced it and some didn't. Some, like Kubrik, had the foresight to know that their films would eventually be shown on TV and kept the image in the Academy Ratio. There is no hard and fast rule with correct ratio's, it's the filmmakers preference.

Ron

If it's how Harryhausen filmed it and wanted it to be seen, then I'm fine with it being Academy Ratio.

He hasn't done too many commentaries, this was more candid than others and the dvd version does not have a commentary. I was pleasantly surprised how good the transfer was on ld

Which sure made the girl's locker room scene more interesting.

I was just about to post something similar to what you did.

TLK

personally i have no preference for widescreen or 4:3 as long as im watching the original aspect ratio and not loosing any picture

I agree. I honestly forgot there were movies still being made past the 40's where the aspect ratio was 4:3. I thought they all caught on by then

by the way, I'd like to see a movie with 1:2.35, just to see if it's possible. It'd be like seeing everything through a keyhole.

I guess someone would have to shoot a movie holding the camera sideways.

Then the projector would have to be held sideways when projecting that!

Another example of that would be Paths of Glory.

When TV technology was being developed there was a direction explored for the image to be portrait instead of landscape. The argument being that the human form fits a portrait frame. They weren't really considering what our natural optical field of view is.

I think this is an important point... the aspect should only be what the filmmakers intended originally.

Vengeance is Mine #34 (1979) [CC1134L] I hope this is a mistake...

Past the '50s you mean.

But 1963 is very late.

So are the sides cropped off to make it 4:3? Or were the top and bottom cut off the 4:3 to make it widescreen?

The latter.

In that case presenting it 4:3 really restores what was missing.
But beware, some films were recorded widescreen that way too, that may look 4:3 if you see the film strip, but the top and bottom were always meant to be cut, either when the film prints were struck for distribution, or even in the film projector.
Shadows and microphones may appear there, because that part was simply accidentally recorded. (And that's because film wasn't really geared for widescreen - in fact a film frame was twice as high as necessary for the wider screened films, huge impractical waste due to legacy systems that were in use for what, 80 years?)

Ultimately it comes down to what the director and/or cinematographer intended. There's usually a good reason why a film was matted.