Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray?

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Robert Crawford, Apr 11, 2013.

Tags:
?

Which of the three options below would you choose to purchase "Shane" on Bluray?

  1. Shane with 1.66:1 Aspect Ratio Only

    13 vote(s)
    8.2%
  2. Shane with 1.37:1 Aspect Ratio Only

    32 vote(s)
    20.1%
  3. Shane with both, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 Aspect Ratios

    114 vote(s)
    71.7%
  1. ahollis

    ahollis Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    6,500
    Likes Received:
    1,473
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Real Name:
    Allen
    Still today In the movie exhibition industry Widescreen is used as a reference for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio and Scope is a reference for 2.35:1 ratio. Something's just don't change and this reference is used for format identifications of digital presentations.
     
  2. JSul

    JSul Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    5
    Both for me.
     
  3. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    I would like both. And, as I've said before, we don't really know WHAT we're getting because there has been no official announcement. I can guarantee you that the disc has been authored so whatever it is it is - but I'm just patiently waiting to get the official word.
     
  4. Cine_Capsulas

    Cine_Capsulas Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brazil
    Real Name:
    Gustavo H. Razera
    I voted both.

    The main feature would be 1.37:1.

    The widescreen version, which seems to be a compromise of Loyal Griggs' and George Stevens' original artistic intent (and won't even be the same widescreen framing shown theatrically in the fifties and beyond), should be included to appease consumers who dislike big black bars. It could be added as a bonus.

    It must be said I'm still awaiting Mr. Furmanek's final report on his research, though. I wonder if there will be any surprising new info.
     
  5. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,673
    Likes Received:
    4,734
    Yes, there will...
     
    Cine_Capsulas likes this.
  6. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    This isn't about "customers who dislike big black bars." This is about how this film was shown on its original engagement. I'm for both versions and will be watching both happily if given the opportunity. Whatever Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done, I'm sure it's minor tweaks up and down, just like every home video transfer in any widescreen ratio forever.
     
    HDvision likes this.
  7. Cine_Capsulas

    Cine_Capsulas Second Unit

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    203
    Location:
    Brazil
    Real Name:
    Gustavo H. Razera
    Yes, it is.

    For lots of people it is.

    Regular folk just want their expensive 16x9 screen totally filled with image. General audiences don't know and don't care about film history, about aspect ratios, about the artists' original intentions. They want entertainment that looks great on their TV. I don't want to sound patronising; it's just reality.

    This is a very particular subject which is important for hardcore cinephiles, film historians, film critics, collectors and such. Just because this particular web forum is paying utmost attention to the debate doesn't mean buyers out there are obsessing about it, too.
     
  8. Brandon Conway

    Brandon Conway captveg

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    8,349
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    Brandon Conway
    Warner has shown that they are not shy about releasing 1.37:1 content properly on Blu-ray if a film was presented that way in its initial theatrical run. They have a whole box set of such films coming out in May in the Gangster Collection. I think this particular decision has little to do with the "fill up the screen" mentality. If that was the case it would be 1.78:1, not 1.66:1.
     
  9. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    No it is not - not THIS specific discussion about THIS specific film on THIS specific forum. You'd be hard-pressed to show me anyone here who is like what you're describing. That is the POINT of here.
     
  10. Malcolm Bmoor

    Malcolm Bmoor Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    UK
    Real Name:
    Malcolm Blackmoor
    Having just read that IMDB has managed to escape being sued for $1M for revealing an actress's age this is a very small matter. It lists SHANE as being in mono but GREENBRIAR (a marvellous site if you don't know of it)

    http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.co.uk/

    - are currently showing an original release poster that as well as proclaiming a huge wide screen also describes stereo-phonic (!) sound. So I'm confused and wonder what the Blu-ray sound will be.
     
  11. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,673
    Likes Received:
    4,734
  12. Cinescott

    Cinescott Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Real Name:
    Scott
    Slightly off-topic, but for those interested, this is what the "Shane" cabin looked like as of a few years ago. During a trip to Grand Teton National Park, I asked a ranger if there was anything left of the shooting location, and he guided me here. wyoming10.jpg
    wyoming11.jpg
    ‚Äč wyoming12.jpg
    wyoming13.jpg
    wyoming16.jpg
     
  13. Richard--W

    Richard--W Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,527
    Likes Received:
    167
    Thanks for the location photos, Cinescott. I'm always interested in location photos. If I didn't know better I'd think that was an authentic century cabin. It's built the same way. Instead of using facade materials like in so many films, the producers of SHANE used the real materials and built the sets in the real way. This attention to authenticity is partly what makes SHANE a very special western.
     
    JSul likes this.
  14. Professor Echo

    Professor Echo Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,947
    Likes Received:
    1,035
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Glen
    Great pics, Cinescott! Thanks for posting.

    (OT: I miss the old HTF where everyone had to post at least their first name, whether true or not. It at least seemed like a friendlier place).
     
  15. Jeff Adkins

    Jeff Adkins Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 1998
    Messages:
    1,771
    Likes Received:
    15
    Real Name:
    Jeff Adkins
    I voted both as well, since it never hurts to have options. But I believe it was stated in the other thread that Shane sat on the shelf a year before it was released. If it had been released when it was originally scheduled, it would have been 1.37. The only reason it exhibited at 1.66 was because of that year delay.

    The 1.66 version being presented on the upcoming Blu-Ray will not be "how the film was shown on its original engagement" since it has been re-framed on a shot-by-shot basis.

    The Blu-Ray version will be neither the original composition, nor the originally exhibited composition. I'm going to pass on this one.
     
  16. haineshisway

    haineshisway Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    3,143
    Likes Received:
    2,143
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Real Name:
    Bruce
    Then you may as well skip every Blu-ray ever made because every transfer has reframing - it's been said here over and over and over again. First of all, I don't think anyone here would know how it was framed in its original release, save for perhaps Mr. Stevens, Jr. Second of all, I'm sure what he's done is just tweak the shots as is done in every home video transfer. Tweaking is what would have happened in any theater back then, because no one had any control over how the projectionists were centering the frame on a 1.66 film. There would have been differences in every theater.
     
    Moe Dickstein and JohnRa like this.
  17. Moe Dickstein

    Moe Dickstein Filmmaker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,267
    Likes Received:
    918
    Location:
    West Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    T R Wilkinson
    I love how nearly to a man people are asking for an inferior framing on the 1.66 version... Seems that those of us who have been able to do such frame tweaks are the ones that get it though.
     
  18. lukejosephchung

    lukejosephchung Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,393
    Likes Received:
    391
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA., USA
    Real Name:
    Luke J. Chung
    I find it insulting to the aesthetic judgments of the Forum's membership that you are automatically dismissing the theatrical OAR as "inferior" without so much as even looking at the final results, since it isn't even available for visual inspection yet!!! :rolleyes:
     
  19. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,246
    Likes Received:
    4,621
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    To be fair, few if any of us have seen the theatrical OAR either. The only thing most of us have viewed is the 1.37:1 presentation on some movie theater showings, TV broadcasts and previous video format releases.
     
    lukejosephchung likes this.
  20. lukejosephchung

    lukejosephchung Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,393
    Likes Received:
    391
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA., USA
    Real Name:
    Luke J. Chung
    Agreed, Crawdaddy...I'm just finding some of the needlessly pre-emptive comments being made in the heat of the moment to be a more than a little off-putting...I'm withholding judgment myself until I see the results on my screen when the title reaches my possession...since this is the only game in town as far as getting "Shane" in HD-BD, I've already pre-ordered this from Amazon...
     

Share This Page