Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray? (2 Viewers)

[haineshisway]

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.

I can't speak for Moe, but I think you've both misunderstood what he was posting, at least the way I read it - I "think" what he was getting at in terms of inferior framing of a 1.66 version, is the people who are saying that what Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done wouldn't match necessarily the framing in 1.66 during its original engagements. I think that's what he meant because of his second sentence about tweaking the frame placement during the transfer phase, which happens on virtually every film put on home video. Moe can tell me if my interpretation is correct.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I can't speak for Moe, but I think you've both misunderstood what he was posting, at least the way I read it - I "think" what he was getting at in terms of inferior framing of a 1.66 version, is the people who are saying that what Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done wouldn't match necessarily the framing in 1.66 during its original engagements. I think that's what he meant because of his second sentence about tweaking the frame placement during the transfer phase, which happens on virtually every film put on home video. Moe can tell me if my interpretation is correct.

Bruce,

I haven't misunderstood that point about reframing as I'd visited on more than a few times, the facilities in which the studios have done such work in preparation for DVD or BD releases. I'm just stating the point about the 1.37:1 presentation is the only aspect ratio, most of us have viewed Shane in.

 

[DVDvision]

what Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done wouldn't match necessarily the framing in 1.66 during its original engagements.

Not any of the 1.33:1 masters ever made of this movie, probably match the original academy engagements either.

 

[Matt Hough]

I know the case for Shane and the case for On the Waterfront are two entirely different entities: not the least bit comparable except in terms of my own experience. All I can say is that when I saw the 1.66:1 version of On the Waterfront after having grown up only with the 1.37:1 TV version (never saw it in theaters, not even in revival houses), I was thunderstruck by a new and completely different (and far more powerful) viewing experience. I am eagerly looking forward to seeing if Shane in the new (to me) aspect ratio will affect me similarly. I'm thinking that it will, and in any event, I can't wait to get a version which improves (I assume) greatly on sharpness, color control, and contrast, elements which the current DVD are sorely lacking in.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

My point is, invariably when you have the means to adjust each shot to its ideal framing in 1.66 it will be visually superior to a presentation where you select one position and ride it straight through. Is it what the audience would have got in a theater? No.Would it have been done at the time if it were possible without generation loss? Absolutely.If given the choice between something cropped with thought and care on a shot by shot basis, I take that over a "historical" one position transfer. Are we running a museum or enjoying the films?

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Mr. Kimmel is exactly right. I am referring to 1.66 as reframed by Stevens Jr. Versus a "historical" 1.66 which is a straight center crop, based on title placement as would have been done in a theater.The 1.37 version doesn't play into my comments and re-reading i see how that could have been misunderstood.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Moe, the 1.66 1953 version of SHANE was not a straight center crop. See here for more info: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

Also, how do we know that Paramount and George Stevens, in an effort to make the first widescreen looks its very best at Radio City Music Hall (and in every major city around the country) did not re-cut and/or optically adjust the film to "fix" problem shots? MGM did just that with their first widescreen release, YOUNG BESS.

Coming Soon: The Facts about SHANE in Widescreen​

 

[Robert Harris]

Moe, the 1.66 1953 version of SHANE was not a straight center crop.

Also, how do we know that Paramount and George Stevens, in an effort to make the first widescreen looks its very best at Radio City Music Hall (and in every major city around the country) did not re-cut and/or optically adjust the film to "fix" problem shots? MGM did just that with their first widescreen release, YOUNG BESS.

Because, with only about 300 dye transfer prints being struck, it would be extremely doubtful that Paramount and Technicolor would strike a totally different set of matrices. There have been numerous original prints of Shane available. I've examined a decent number, and I've never seen or heard of anything other than a straight 1.37. "Special" prints would have to be matted 1.66.

I can't say that a few Eastman direct positives might have been specially optically printed, but a special run of dye transfers that have never been seen in modern times, is extremely unlikely.

RAH

 

[Bob Furmanek]

The initial Technicolor print order for SHANE was 400.

I'm not talking about matting to 1.66, I'm suggesting some shots might have been re-edited by Stevens before the lab work was done in order to minimize compositional issues with widescreen.

 

[Frank Ha]

I voted for both. I'd like to be able to see both versions. The 1.37 version is my preference and I think it should be included because it was originally framed that way. However, I would also like to see what the widescreen version (with the tweaks from George Stevens, Jr.) looks like. Who knows? Maybe I'll prefer it.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Again, please keep in mind, the film was un-released prior to the decision to go widescreen. Only a few test audiences had even seen it. And we know that George Stevens was part of the promotional push in New York and several major cities. He was on a Paramount press junket for six weeks in April/May of 1953.

What if we discover that he was involved in the entire process to adapt it to widescreen and even re-cut some of it in order to make it work?

The only reason it's been shown in 1.37:1 on television is because up until recently, we lived in a 4 by 3 world. After all, the theatrical re-issues in 1959 and 1966 were widescreen as well.

Repertory bookings would get a print with academy ratio information and assume that's how it should be seen. For instance, every revival of DIAL M FOR MURDER for the past 30 years was 1.37:1. We know that it was intended for 1.85:1.

Just something to think about.

 

[Frank Ha]

What if we discover that he was involved in the entire process to adapt it to widescreen and even re-cut some of it in order to make it work? Just something to think about.

Your point is well taken. I do have an open mind and will endeavor to keep it open.I'm looking forward to when you have finished your research on this. Enlightenment is always a good thing.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Looking forward to the results of your "Shane" aspect ratio research eagerly, Bob...hopefully your findings will at least quell to a certain extent the controversy regarding George Stevens, Jr.'s. decision to release the BD in theatrical OAR rather than the 1.37:1 Academy ratio we've all been accustomed to for the past 5-6 decades...

 

[John Hodson]

What if we discover that he was involved in the entire process to adapt it to widescreen...

I'd always assumed that he was.

...and even re-cut some of it in order to make it work?

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I wondered, briefly, if you'd turn up a revelation that he'd re-shot scenes. Now I'm wondering where on earth the pre-cut trims are; I want 'em slapped back in the Academy version. In a perfect world.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, I have not found anything to suggest that scenes were re-shot.

 

[haineshisway]

Bruce,

I haven't misunderstood that point about reframing as I'd visited on more than a few times, the facilities in which the studios have done such work in preparation for DVD or BD releases. I'm just stating the point about the 1.37:1 presentation is the only aspect ratio, most of us have viewed Shane in.

This is true. I don't think anyone has seen it in widescreen - I was something like five when it came out and I didn't see it back then. I really do hope both end up being on the disc.

 

[haineshisway]

Not any of the 1.33:1 masters ever made of this movie, probably match the original academy engagements either.

Agreed.

 

[bujaki]

I did see Shane in widescreen sometime in the late sixties in San Juan, Puerto Rico. I was in college at the time. This was my first experience viewing Shane in any format.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Moe, the 1.66 1953 version of SHANE was not a straight center crop.

I also said based on title placement as i learned in your article, I just worded it poorly. My point was that they wouldn't have been riding the framing manually the whole show unless you've uncovered evidence of that?

 

[DVDvision]

Would George Stevens have deleted some shots, and replaced them with alternate angles, to make sure the widescreen version works? If he could, he probably did. Many filmmakers tinker with the release up until release date. I wouldn't be surprised.