Shane Blu-ray... in 1:66? (1 Viewer)

[Richard--W]

If George Stevens Jr knew his father's ethics and aesthetics he wouldn't be cropping the film today.

Many people who voted for the 1.66-1 cropping in the brother thread are going to be disappointed when they see it, because the director and photographer did not provide for a cropped frame while they were composing their shots.

 

[Robert Crawford]

If George Stevens Jr knew his father's ethics and aesthetics he wouldn't be cropping the film today.

Many people who voted for the 1.66-1 cropping in the brother thread are going to be disappointed when they see it, because the director and photographer did not provide for a cropped frame while they were composing their shots.

There were only 7 out of almost 100 people that voted for the 1.66:1 only. As to your next point about being disappointed, that remains to be seen, but I don't expect you'll be among us to see so either way as I thought you had no interest in the 1.66:1 only BD.

 

[Richard--W]

I see that over 75 people voted for the cropped version together with the 1.37-1.

People I know will be offering to show me SHANE. There will be plenty of chances to check it out without my having to buy it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I see that over 75 people voted for the cropped version together with the 1.37-1.

People I know will be offering to show me SHANE. There will be plenty of chances to check it out without my having to buy it.

That doesn't mean those 75 or so people will be buying it. I know John Hodson won't be and there are plenty of others that won't do so either. It's all about personal decisions.

 

[haineshisway]

I'll certainly be purchasing it and I'd guess enjoying it just as audiences did when it was originally released in 1.66. I'm hoping both versions will be there, but I'm happy to watch the 1.66 should that be all there is.

 

[euqsob]

If we hadn't known it should ideally be seen in 1.66 would our enjoyment have been spoiled ? I'll be happy and just hoping the transfer to Blu-Ray is a good one.

 

[Robin9]

I'd much prefer to have both versions. I'll buy a 1.66 only BRD if - but only if - it's a really high quality transfer. If it's not, I'll stick with the DVD.

I take it for granted that HTF will be reviewing this disc.

 

[John Hodson]

That doesn't mean those 75 or so people will be buying it. I know John Hodson won't ...

Whoa there hoss! I'm as mad as hell, but call me still open for persuasion; I'm currently waiting to see how this plays out...

This is a vital, beautiful, historically important and (if there is such a thing) flawless movie. Of the hundreds and hundreds of westerns that I've seen, I can put my hand on my heart and say that it's stands in my affections second only to The Searchers. But, despite initial 'wet hen' comments, I won't make any decision until the jury is in.

 

[Douglas Monce]

If George Stevens Jr knew his father's ethics and aesthetics he wouldn't be cropping the film today.

Many people who voted for the 1.66-1 cropping in the brother thread are going to be disappointed when they see it, because the director and photographer did not provide for a cropped frame while they were composing their shots.

On two different occasions I shot short films in HD at a 1.78:1 ratio, then changed my mind in post and recomposed them, one for 2.35:1 and the other to 1.33:1. It was not particularly difficult to reframe the shots for the new ratio, and on screening, no one was the wiser in either case.Once the decision was made to release Shane wide screen, I'm sure Stevens would have approached the problem as any professional would. Of course the original 1.33 framing would no longer work, but that doesn't mean that the new 1.66 framing wouldn't be atheistically pleasing to both the film makers and the audience.

I doubt that Stevens would have had the chance to reframe on a shot by shot basis, as that would have required making dupes, but feel quite sure he would have if he could.

Is this the best possible situation? No, of course given the chance he would have shot the film with 1.66 in mind, but that doesn’t mean that the film can’t work equally well in both ratios as shot. Realistically, 1.66 is not THAT far off from 1.33. If they were pulling a Gone With the Wind and cropping it to CinemaScope proportions, I might have a bit more sympathy.

Doug

 

[Robert Crawford]

Whoa there hoss! I'm as mad as hell, but call me still open for persuasion; I'm currently waiting to see how this plays out...

This is a vital, beautiful, historically important and (if there is such a thing) flawless movie. Of the hundreds and hundreds of westerns that I've seen, I can put my hand on my heart and say that it's stands in my affections second only to The Searchers. But, despite initial 'wet hen' comments, I won't make any decision until the jury is in.

Sorry, I thought you stated you had no interest in the 1.66:1 only BD.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/322187-shane-blu-ray-in-166/?p=3940085

 

[John Hodson]

That was me in full-on, standing on a matter of principle, why can't I have what I bloody well want, mode. There's alot of it about.

It's hard to be rational, but I try. Honest I do...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Understood as we're all prone to such action.

 

[Ruz-El]

I voted for both but wont buy anything until I see some reviews, regardless if we get both or just 1:66. there seems to be way too many ways that this release can get a bit botched from the usual transfer things for a film of the period to revisionist tampering so I'll hold off.

 

[euqsob]

That was me in full-on, standing on a matter of principle, why can't I have what I bloody well want, mode. There's alot of it about.

It's hard to be rational, but I try. Honest I do...

I bet he's already got it on pre-order

 

[John Hodson]

You'd lose.

 

[haineshisway]

On two different occasions I shot short films in HD at a 1.78:1 ratio, then changed my mind in post and recomposed them, one for 2.35:1 and the other to 1.33:1. It was not particularly difficult to reframe the shots for the new ratio, and on screening, no one was the wiser in either case.Once the decision was made to release Shane wide screen, I'm sure Stevens would have approached the problem as any professional would. Of course the original 1.33 framing would no longer work, but that doesn't mean that the new 1.66 framing wouldn't be atheistically pleasing to both the film makers and the audience.

I doubt that Stevens would have had the chance to reframe on a shot by shot basis, as that would have required making dupes, but feel quite sure he would have if he could.

Is this the best possible situation? No, of course given the chance he would have shot the film with 1.66 in mind, but that doesn’t mean that the film can’t work equally well in both ratios as shot. Realistically, 1.66 is not THAT far off from 1.33. If they were pulling a Gone With the Wind and cropping it to CinemaScope proportions, I might have a bit more sympathy.

Doug

Plus the little fact that it won an Academy Award for photography - and the Academy members would have seen it in 1.66.

 

[ahollis]

Plus the little fact that it won an Academy Award for photography - and the Academy members would have seen it in 1.66.

My point exactly. We can not forget that the Academy Award nomination and winning was based on at least 90% viewing the film in widescreen. I'm sure most if not all Theatres in the LA area were capable of widescreen projection. At least Paramount would have made sure it was viewed in that ratio

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Coming Soon: The Facts about SHANE in Widescreen​

 

[DVDvision]

Nice! It's funny people complain here about the frame adjustments as advertised for the upcoming Shane... (people say it's not the true 1.66:1 as seen in theaters in the days) --

But I don't see none of you complaining about frame adjustments in the academy version of On The Waterfront which is both cropped on the sides, and zoomboxed in several scenes. Why?

 

[Keith Cobby]

I have zero interest and always will have in what the Academy thought and think based on what they did to Hitchcock!