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. Persianimmortal

    Persianimmortal Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    Real Name:
    Koroush Ghazi
    So a release with both versions has pretty much been ruled out?I'd never heard of Jeffrey Wells prior to this incident, and in the wake of his negative influence, I get the distinct impression that he is the Jerry Springer of film blogging.
     
    Stephen_J_H and Moe Dickstein like this.
  2. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,257
    Likes Received:
    5,132
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    Robert,

    The 1.37, which has always been available, is the OAR. The 1.66 was adapted for marketing. And while the new 1.66, which will probably be available in an attempt toward TV sales, may be interesting as an adaptation and experiment, the 1.37 is the proper aspect ratio as planned and photographed.

    Every print that I have ever examined has been the 1.37.

    RAH
     
    Rob_Ray likes this.
  3. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    I might be wrong, but My guess is that he was saying the DVDs will have been zoomboxed and 1.33:1, whilst the new Blu-ray Disc will be the complete frame area and 1.37:1.

    My apologies to everyone if I have that wrong.

    Steve W
     
  4. Yorkshire

    Yorkshire Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,376
    Likes Received:
    309
    Real Name:
    Steve
    I suppose it really doesn't matter, but I can't agree that the directors original vision should be seen as playing second fiddle to the studio's marketting department.

    But for me, this reminds me a little of the CoF release, where at least one person thought the 1.66:1 version was correct but refused to buy the release as Hammer were saying the 1.37:1 was correct, even though it contained both.

    Look, I don't care if they release LoA in 16:9 saying that's the correct ratio, as long as the proper 'scope version is there, even if only tucked away as an extra. Well, okay, I do care, but I hope you get what I mean - as long as you get what you want, why worry that the packaging says the other ratio is the correct one?


    There are far too many great films we'll maybe never see on Blu-ray Disc at all to worry about the things we do get being mis-labelled.

    Steve W
     
    Rob_Ray likes this.
  5. ahollis

    ahollis Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    6,534
    Likes Received:
    1,510
    Location:
    New Orleans
    Real Name:
    Allen
    I am glad the decision had been made to release this in 1.37:1, but I was hoping for both for I would find it interesting to view the title as a majority of the Academy Members would have in order to honor it with an Oscar for cinematography. Any way it's a buy.
     
    JohnRa likes this.
  6. John Hodson

    John Hodson Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    4,524
    Likes Received:
    313
    Location:
    Bolton, Lancashire
    Real Name:
    John
    Really? Even though Hammer were off their chump? Why would anyone do that?
     
  7. Howard Tom

    Howard Tom Agent

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    2
    Real Name:
    Howard Tom
    So, by the announcments at one time or another that the upcoming blu-ray would have one aspect ratio, then the other, but (maybe) not both it seems to be clear that digital masters exist of both versions. What I would be curious about is what difference there would/could be in both picture detail and grain, if any. By this I mean:

    1) If the two versions were downconverts to 2k from separate 4k masters (still scanned off an Academy print/negative/IP), then the widescreen version might actually have better picture quality (while losing screen information off the top and bottom), given the necessary compression and processing to bring it down to HDTV resolution would be (I assume) greater for the academy version than the Widescreen version. How much better would be another issue.

    2) But if the widescreen version was simply created from the Academy ratio 2k master then what we would have is in fact a digitally zoomed version of the Academy version, and that would mean less detail and possibly less well handled grain/more digital artifacts.

    Of course, I have no idea if a 4k scan was even made, or if the source used even has that much more detail than the scan or blu-ray can resolve. But given we're going to be waiting a bit longer than originally for this release there is not much to do besides speculate about other things out of our control. ;)
     
  8. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,310
    Likes Received:
    4,679
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    RAH,

    First off, you quoting my post which was in response to somebody espousing the 1.66 ratio over the 1.37 is the main reason why people should be careful on how they word their comments. Otherwise, your original point is lost as to what you were trying to convey to others because some will simply focus on your miswording and not the point you were trying to make in the discussion.

    Secondly, I understand the movie was filmed at 1.37 ratio in 1951, almost two years before the push towards widescreen in 1953. I am not disputing that fact, so yes, the movie's OAR as filmed was 1.37. I was simply stating that for the most part except for those that viewed the film during its original theatrical run, most of us have only viewed this great film in 1.37, it's OAR as filmed. Forgive me for using the term "theatrical OAR" when I should of simply stated "1.66 theatrical presentation".
     
  9. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,310
    Likes Received:
    4,679
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I just think it would've been interesting to see it in both ratios. Anyhow, if it's 1.37 only then that's what I'll only view it in.
     
    JohnRa likes this.
  10. JoeDoakes

    JoeDoakes Cinematographer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    2,513
    Likes Received:
    654
    Real Name:
    Ray
    Lou states in his Shane article about Jeffrey Wells:

    While I don't agree with Jeffrey's bullying tactics -- and his dubious championing of 1:66 video releases for films shot in 1:78 as well as advocating scrubbing away film grain -- I suppose congratulations are in order. But I would still like to see Stevens Jr.'s version at some point, and even Wells has indicate he would tolerate a release with both aspect ratios.
    Read more: DVD Extra Extra: 'Shane' Blu-ray now going out at 1:37 http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/dvd_extra_extra_shane_blu_ray_now_rRRLlr9Ts3GDyA5zhGErQP#ixzz2QvZi7S3F

    I hadn't been aware of Mr. Wells before this latest controversy and I know nothing about these other issues to which Lou refers, but I suspect that the reason for Mr. Wells success in this instance is that what was being planned in regards to Shane really touched a nerve. Very few people would have gotten upset if WHV had planned to release both versions from the beginning, but to take a film with status of Shane and release it in a doctored version only in the days of blu ray was really going too far. Despite the fact that Shane was originally released with widescreen in mind, the original decision was roughly the equivalent of WHV saying that they would only release The Wizard of Oz in the forthcoming 3D version from hear on out.
     
  11. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,257
    Likes Received:
    5,132
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    The concept of "zoom-boxed" and 1.33 vs. 1.37 is almost irrelevant. Original theatrical presentations of all films were usually so tainted that at the home video level, unless something has gone terribly wrong, one gets into picking nits.

    RAH
     
    Moe Dickstein likes this.
  12. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,257
    Likes Received:
    5,132
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    No difference, with the exception of slightly more enlarged grain structure at 1.66 due to the field enlargement. Everything was harvested from the original black & white negatives at 4k.

    RAH
     
  13. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    9,257
    Likes Received:
    5,132
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    Got it. I saw the film during its original theatrical. Whether it was 1.37ish, or 1.66ish, I have no idea. No memory except for that poor dog, Yeller...

    Am I confused?

    RAH
     
    Stephen_J_H likes this.
  14. Joe Bernardi

    Joe Bernardi Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    781
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Sarasota, Florida
    Real Name:
    Joe Bernardi
    If Shane is released only in 1.37, I'll be surprised that they totally ignored the work that George Stevens, Jr. did with recomposing in 1.66.

    They should include both versions, label 1.37 as the original OAR as filmed and 1.66 as the original theatically presented ratio.
     
  15. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,742
    Likes Received:
    5,063
    I've gotten confirmation that the final two words, "Bye Shane" are back where they belong in the new masters for the film.
     
  16. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,310
    Likes Received:
    4,679
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    Yeah, I forgot to address that issue yesterday. Back in the original Shane thread about those final two words, over ten years ago, I played the VHS tape of Shane and I heard those last two words on the tape and then played the DVD that came out in 2000 and they were missing on the DVD.
     
  17. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,742
    Likes Received:
    5,063
    It was an unfortunate mistake that has since been fixed.
     
  18. Dave B Ferris

    Dave B Ferris Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2000
    Messages:
    998
    Likes Received:
    121
    That seems to be the reasonable conclusion, although in that original thread, for which I provided a link on Page 7, the studio source (Martin Blythe) denied there had been a mistake.
     
  19. HDvision

    HDvision Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    It's a fact of the film life. It's like what happened to the theatrical cut of Pat Garret & Billy The Kid which was not released (unless I'm mistaken) on DVD, replaced by the director original intent. The theatrical version only exists on VHS now and is highly sought after by collectors due to it's rarity. But this is how the movie was released, it should be archived next to any other version on the new formats.

    I don't dispute that the original intended aspect ratio is academy, and I am all for multiple versions and choice. I dispute that the original theatrical aspect ratio will not be available, replaced by a version which is not what people saw in "panoramic screens" theaters as advertised by the posters.

    This was one of the first, if not the first western of the widescreen revolution. It looks bad that it will appear in academy on Blu-ray, just to please a small crowd of purists.

    Both versions should be released (and I'll probably get them both).
     
    JohnRa likes this.
  20. Bob Furmanek

    Bob Furmanek Insider
    Insider

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    4,742
    Likes Received:
    5,063
    It was the first feature presented widescreen in 1953.
     

Share This Page