Those Redheads From Seattle

Year:	1953
Country:	USA
Language:	English
Genre:	Musical, Adventure, Romance
IMDB:	IMDB Page
Rating:	Rate
Collection:	Seen It Wishlist
Community:	2 Have Seen


Director	Lewis Foster
Selected Cast	Teresa Brewer
	Rhonda Fleming
	Guy Mitchell
	Gene Barry
	Agnes Moorehead

Notes

Paramount picture known as the first musical filmed in 3-D. However it was not distributed in 3-D.

On DVD & Blu-ray World

DVD

Those Redheads From Seattle - Kino Lorber - USA (2017)

Blu-ray

Those Redheads From Seattle - Kino Lorber - USA (2017)

Images

Comments and Reviews


George Slv 22nd May 2017		Disc release is out this month. US and Canada region only. 3D and flat. My image above showing cropping is not correct. It turns out the 4:3 TV edition was cropped from the 1.66 widescreen, so there is a lot more image on the sides. Youtube HD widescreen preview ["trailer" lol] from 3DFILMARCHIVE This video is the right shape, but on the disc release the preview turns out a little too wide.



George Slv 24th Aug 2016		Image 1137364 movie poster. See how they publicized Rhonda Fleming in a showgirl costume, but she did not do that in the movie, only Teresa. The others disapproved.



albert 23rd Aug 2016		This Wikipedia article mainly discusses widescreen but is also cross linked to other formats so you may find some answers there. It also discusses masking and matte etc, (bit of an information overload really). I was also intrigued that cinemascope was not the first widescreen, though earlier innovations didn't seem to take off, quite an interesting read.



George Slv 21st Aug 2016		Interesting to know that you have that professional background. Full-frame 35mm still photography fits horizontally on the strip, so Movie film is like half-frame, fitting across the width of the strip, and running vertically thru the camera. Except VistaVision which was horizontal full-frame. I need to know more about how 4:3 ends up 1.37 22x16mm. The audio is on the sides, which should only affect the width of 24mm.



Twistin 21st Aug 2016		During my many years as a projectionist, when I would have to remove the aperture plate during a running 1.37:1 film to, for example, remove dust that is projecting onto the screen, I was able to see additional information on the top and bottom, displaying onto the curtains (and I could also see the sound strip on the left side curtain, as well). In those days, I really was not concerned with aspect ratios and just brushed it off as an anomaly that I couldn't be bothered with (I was young...) I also noticed this during a bad splice that would cause the film to go out of frame. The prints with hard-matting were easy to re-frame after the bad splice because the black bars served as a guide. That tells me that theaters showing 1.37:1 films were presenting them in 1.85:1 -- at least the many theaters I worked for. There were probably theaters in larger markets that were able to display 1.37:1 proper, but we always used two formats: flat & scope. For scope, we had to change to an anamorphic lens and use a different aperture plate. Hence, a hard-matted 1.85:1 non-anamorphic film projected on-screen identically to a 1.37:1 film. Also, when showing anamorphic widescreen films, the side curtains were opened wider in order to display the full 2.35:1 frame. Not sure what you mean by half frame, but with 35mm film the image area is located between the sprocket holes, 4 perforations on each side. That image area is 24.89x18.67mm (1.33:1), but with the optical sound added it is 22×16mm (1.37:1). I think your numbers are counting the full width of the film, including the sprocket perforations which are not used for the image.



George Slv 21st Aug 2016		Thanks a lot Twistin for more insight. Are you saying the soundtrack overlaps the left image? I didn't think so. This was half-frame photography, 24x18mm, is that right? Full-frame 35mm is 36x24mm. 1.37 was shown as 1.37 in theaters. For 4:3 TV and video the sides were cropped. Don't tell me it was squeezed horizontally. I'm afraid some video releasers may have done that.



Twistin 21st Aug 2016		George, I can respond to aspect ratios. Think of 1.33:1 and 1.37:1 as basically the same thing because they more or less are; 4:3 films are referred to as the two aspect ratios liberally. The difference in the two is based upon the image shot on film in the camera, which uses the full 35mm frame size of 1.33:1 (also for 16mm), but once the soundtrack is added to the film, it occupies the left edge of the frame area contiguously, thus reducing the aspect ratio width to 1.37:1. Hence, there is no area of the frame being cropped from the final negative and printed film release. Perhaps the reason for the confusion is the display area of TV was until recently 1.33:1, so even if a theatrical film is 1.37:1, some variation alters that to a 1.33:1 broadcast AR. At the cinema, what you see on the screen can vary. The most common aspect ratio is 1.85:1, created by matting (cropping) the 1.37:1 frame, theatrically matted with the projector's aperture plate. You can often locate TV or VHS copies of 1.85:1 films which are un-matted and reveal additional information on the top and bottom of the screen, never intended to be seen by the public. However some films are hard-matted* and instead of the information still existing on the print, that area of the frame is solid black, thus preserving the director / cinematographer framing. The downside is that those 4:3 versions have to be panned & scanned, like is done with anamorphic widescreen films (2.35:1 / 2.39:1). Sadly, I am often finding 2.35:1 films on cable TV (and starting to turn up on DVD / Blu-Ray) that crop the sides in order to achieve 1.78:1 aspect ratio for the purpose of filling the screen space of 16:9 TV's / monitors which are the norm in most homes today. This practice is not unlike the past practice of butchering widescreen films to fill the screen on old 4:3 TVs. (sigh) * European filmmakers often prefer matting to 1.66:1 rather than 1.85:1.



George Slv 14th Aug 2016		With image 1131469 of the dance scene I wanted to talk about aspect ratios. See if anyone knows this subject well. This is from a 4x3 TV copy I assume, from someone's collection. My understanding is that the basic film is 1.37, and when cropped to 1.33 some of the sides are lost - black sides I've added. When that film was cropped to 1.667 for theaters, assuming the crop was simply in the middle, you get the white outline. If a DVD were issued that's what you should get. So full screen 1.33 loses a bit on the sides but gains vertically. Theatrical will lose some legs in many scenes. (This is my screen capture of my image editor showing a bit of the panel edges.)



LouisSidney 27th May 2015		I saw it in 3D not long ago, in Paris.

Add a Comment or Review about this movie

Tags: Teresa Brewer

This Movie: Add Image : Add Video : Add Missing Info : Make Correction : Add to List : Add See Also : Add Tag : Edit Images : Show Image Data : Credits : BBCode