Duel at Diablo (1966) UPDATED

[Brent_Reid]

The DVD footnote needs updating, as several discs now have anamorphic transfers, but the 1.78:1 PAL releases are closest to the 1.75:1 OAR.

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

Where does it say the original aspect ratio is 1.75:1? IMDB lists 1.66:1.

[Brent_Reid]

IMDb is, ahem, far from infallible. In this case it's utterly wrong. Diablo is 1.75, protected for 185 and 1.66. I've discussed this before here and flagged up this thread, which has been debunking and correcting these AR myths for years. But not every home video label is on board with it. Many got it wrong in the bad old days, and they're still getting it wrong now.
I guess you want to see some hard evidence, right?

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

If that is the case any of those three could be considered the original aspect ratio, probably depending on where it was shown.

[Brent_Reid]

No, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that. Apart from rare exceptions, eg Christopher Nolan's multi-AR IMAX films, nearly every film ever made has only one original aspect ratio, which is usually mandated by the studio. Most studios for at least the first four decades of the widescreen era (1952 onwards) had a single, specific house ratio for 'flat' films, with perhaps a second if they also produced anamorphic or scope films. That single AR is what the director and cinematographer saw in the camera's viewfinder, and is what they composed for. In fact, it simply isn't possible to compose for more than one AR at a time; any secondary ARs are mere compromises.

In the US, Europe and elsewhere, once a studio locked down production details for a given title (exact AR, cast, crew, etc), they were directly forwarded for publication to the trade press for distributors and exhibitors.
For example, one of the regular posters in the thread linked above has an ongoing project researching production details of every British film from the start of the widescreen era to the 1980s. He's basing it on publications such as Kine Weekly, the British trade magazine from the dawn of cinema to 1971, and other original documents held at the British Library, BFI and elsewhere. Here's a graph he produced, showing the percentages of official ARs for all films released between 1957-1970:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/posts/4339615/

As you can see, 1.66:1 was always a minority AR, and after just a few years went into swift decline. There's also a ton of research and documentation in the widescreen sections of this site:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/

Basically, various home video labels, including those who should really know better (Criterion, Eureka, the BFI, etc), are regularly releasing 1.66:1 transfers, though it flies in the face of all available evidence. The only fathomable reason is that they're all assuming that if everyone else is doing it, then it must be right! They've had it pointed out numerous times, and for a few titles, have corrected them in time. The transfer AR mistakes of the past have never been fully erased, and for the most part, many labels are still cocking their releases up.

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

The transfer AR mistakes of the past have never been fully erased, and for the most part, many labels are still cocking their releases up.

Warner Brothers is probably the worst at that. Where is the info that this film is in 1.75:1?

[Brent_Reid]

Have emailed you.

[James-Masaki_Ryan]

Got the email, updated

[Brent_Reid]

Cheers, James. Much appreciated.