Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray? (1 Viewer)

[haineshisway]

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).

Another film not available in its theatrical version now is Topaz - and no one knows the film apparently, since no one EVER talks about it. That thing on the Blu-ray (and previously on DVD) is some early preview version, and while it's fun to have the extra footage, that version was never EVER seen in theaters and the theatrical version, whatever one may think of the film itself, plays much tighter and more tautly than the bloated preview version - which is most likely why Mr. Hitchcock made the cuts he did.

 

[KMR]

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.

At the risk of beating this into the ground...

The 1.66 version that George Stevens, Jr. supervised is not the version that was seen by audiences in the initial release. It is the same aspect ratio (1.66:1) but the actual picture appearing within that rectangle is not the same. According to information we have been given, the new 1.66 version has the framing adjusted shot-by-shot throughout the entire duration of the film. In any given shot, we may be seeing more or less information at the top or bottom than what was seen by the original audiences.

 

[Brandon Conway]

KMR - ANY 1.66:1 home video version would be different than the 1953 1.66:1 theatrical version.

To pick another random example, the 1.85:1 presentation on Twilight Time's upcoming blu-ray of Philadelphia (1993) is going to be different than the 1993 1.85:1 theatrical presentation. This is an INEVITABLE reality for ALL non-scope Widescreen films when brought to home video.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

A preview of our upcoming article: https://sites.google.com/site/3dfilmarchive/shane-in-widescreen

 

[Brandon Conway]

A preview of our upcoming article: https://sites.google.com/site/3dfilmarchive/shane-in-widescreen

Now there's a quote worthy of this conversation!

 

[David Weicker]

so the open-matte MAR version wins, and the film that audiences originally watched and that won an academy award loses.
And for all this discussion about 'director's intent', its only speculation here. Since we don't know how George Stevens Sr. felt about the 1.66 version (or what his participation in its preparation was), we don't even know what his intent was at the time of release.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

David, many of those questions will be answered in the article.

We're still doing research but I expect to have it finished and posted by the end of this month.

Some of our findings will surprise you!

 

[Robert Crawford]

so the open-matte MAR version wins, and the film that audiences originally watched and that won an academy award loses.
And for all this discussion about 'director's intent', its only speculation here. Since we don't know how George Stevens Sr. felt about the 1.66 version (or what his participation in its preparation was), we don't even know what his intent was at the time of release.

How many times does it have to be said that the reframed 1.66:1 version, Steven Jr. worked on, isn't the same 1.66:1 version that won the AA in 1953/1954?

I'm not so sure about that until I see Bob's article, but we do know what his intent was at the time of filming this movie.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Robert is correct.

The new 1.66:1 master is not the exact same framing as what audiences would have seen in 1953, unless the operator was riding the framing thoughout every show.

I tend to doubt that!

 

[Vincent_P]

KMR - ANY 1.66:1 home video version would be different than the 1953 1.66:1 theatrical version.

To pick another random example, the 1.85:1 presentation on Twilight Time's upcoming blu-ray of Philadelphia (1993) is going to be different than the 1993 1.85:1 theatrical presentation. This is an INEVITABLE reality for ALL non-scope Widescreen films when brought to home video.

So you're saying that ALL flat widescreen movies shot open-matte are ALWAYS reframed for home video, even when presented in widescreen? I highly doubt that.

Vincent

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

so the open-matte MAR version wins, and the film that audiences originally watched and that won an academy award loses.

The widescreen film audiences originally watched in 1953 was a mutilated cropped version of the original 1.37:1 image intended by the director and the DOP.

And for all this discussion about 'director's intent', its only speculation here. Since we don't know how George Stevens Sr. felt about the 1.66 version (or what his participation in its preparation was), we don't even know what his intent was at the time of release.

Shane was filmed in 1951. Widescreen was put in practice for the first time two years later.

Stevens and Griggs designed and shot with 1.37:1 in mind. Because there weren't other options back then.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

I will say this much: documents have shown that George Stevens had an interest in widescreen in 1951...

 

[Cine_Capsulas]

I will say this much: documents have shown that George Stevens had an interest in widescreen in 1951...

Truth be told, regarding this whole debacle, all I care about is whether Shane was designed and made having widescreen exhibition in mind. So far, all the info I've read here points otherwise. I'm really anticipating your impending article.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No, when filming began on July 25, 1951, SHANE was composed for the standard ratio of 1.37:1.

 

[DVDvision]

So you're saying that ALL flat widescreen movies shot open-matte are ALWAYS reframed for home video, even when presented in widescreen? I highly doubt that.

Vincent

Vincent, I once helped a director on a high def transfer of his first feature made a decade before, which was shot for 1.85:1 but open matte. As we went along, he kept modifying the framing, sometimes thightening it to lose the border of a set which we could see in HD (but was hidden in most TV overscans on past transfers) or adjust the verticality when he saw more information was available up and down.

While fiddling with the commands, I uncovered that there was exposed footage in the place where the optical sound was supposed to be also, and we even discussed the idea of making an alternate widescreen 2.35:1 version instead of 1.85:1 because it gave scope to the footage. (ie more wider and more breathing space) but we decided against it when we saw there would be too much work to reframe shots where edge of sets appear on the borders.

So in essence, anything was possible and is. In the end we kept it the original 1.85:1 only with different frame adjustments torough. No one noticed the difference, not even Video Watchdog when reviewing it, all that matters is that the theatrical aspect ratio is respected. What comes inside it can be fiddled by the director (or heir to) as it's all about making the movie look the best on home video. So yes it's very frequent. Jurassic Park is one example (I won't give the other above because the director may not wish it's revealed on a public forum).

 

[Robert Harris]

Vincent, I once helped a director on a high def transfer of his first feature made a decade before, which was shot for 1.85:1 but open matte. As we went along, he kept modifying the framing, sometimes thightening it to lose the border of a set which we could see in HD (but was hidden in most TV overscans on past transfers) or adjust the verticality when he saw more information was available up and down. While fiddling with the commands, I uncovered that there was exposed footage in the place where the optical sound was supposed to be also, and we even discussed the idea of making an alternate widescreen 2.35:1 version instead of 1.85:1 because it gave scope to the footage. (ie more wider and more breathing space) but we decided against it when we saw there would be too much work to reframe shots where edge of sets appear on the borders. So in essence, anything was possible and is. In the end we kept it the original 1.85:1 only with different frame adjustments torough. No one noticed the difference, not even Video Watchdog when reviewing it, all that matters is that the theatrical aspect ratio is respected. What comes inside it can be fiddled by the director (or heir to) as it's all about making the movie look the best on home video. So yes it's very frequent. Jurassic Park is one example (I won't give the other above because the director may not wish it's revealed on a public forum).

Not unusual for a filmmaker not to know what aperture was in camera. All that matters is the what the DP is seeing through the viewfinder, offset or reflex, and placing the necessary information where it belongs.It is irrelevant that a film is shot FA, as long as the DP and lab knows what part of the captured image to use. Problems occur when a film is shot FA, for an optically centered image, and prints, or video masters, are produced for RA.This occurred on Kwai, which was a FA shoot, but prints were RA derived, cropping off the track area, and losing a properly centered image.For many Technicolor printings, and Kwai was one, the lab could go either way, as production would be optical.The majority of the Universal Hitchcock productions were FA, to be printed dye transfer, which yielded a more highly resolved image, with slightly less grain structure.The filmmaker you're noting, seems to have been totally lost, and treating the image as if it was shot S35, which as far as real estate goes, is basically just FA or silent aperture.It's all a matter of design, planning and intent.Video mastering has the capability to confound and confuse.RAH

 

[Vincent_P]

Oh, I don't doubt that fiddling and reframing happens (the special edition DVD release of Fincher's SEVEN- shot Super-35 for 'Scope release- even has a featurette about the shot-by-shot repositioning on that transfer), but I do doubt Brandon's contention that it ALWAYS happens on ALL open-matte flat widescreen films.

Vincent

Vincent, I once helped a director on a high def transfer of his first feature made a decade before, which was shot for 1.85:1 but open matte. As we went along, he kept modifying the framing, sometimes thightening it to lose the border of a set which we could see in HD (but was hidden in most TV overscans on past transfers) or adjust the verticality when he saw more information was available up and down.

While fiddling with the commands, I uncovered that there was exposed footage in the place where the optical sound was supposed to be also, and we even discussed the idea of making an alternate widescreen 2.35:1 version instead of 1.85:1 because it gave scope to the footage. (ie more wider and more breathing space) but we decided against it when we saw there would be too much work to reframe shots where edge of sets appear on the borders.

So in essence, anything was possible and is. In the end we kept it the original 1.85:1 only with different frame adjustments torough. No one noticed the difference, not even Video Watchdog when reviewing it, all that matters is that the theatrical aspect ratio is respected. What comes inside it can be fiddled by the director (or heir to) as it's all about making the movie look the best on home video. So yes it's very frequent. Jurassic Park is one example (I won't give the other above because the director may not wish it's revealed on a public forum).

 

[DVDvision]

It really depends on the director's involvement (or the DP). When there's no input, usually the movie is reframed straight (ie once the guy in charge of the transfer sets his framing up, which can vary as some prefer to zoombox to get closer to the actors, (and hide imperfections on the borders thus saving hours of digital correction and manwork) whereas others prefer to get set edge to edge.

 

[Brandon Conway]

It really depends on the director's involvement (or the DP). When there's no input, usually the movie is reframed straight (ie once the guy in charge of the transfer sets his framing up, which can vary as some prefer to zoombox to get closer to the actors, (and hide imperfections on the borders thus saving hours of digital correction and manwork) whereas others prefer to get set edge to edge.

This is what I mean by always. Even if it's not adjusted shot for shot, whoever it is doing the "straight reframing" has by default framed it a specific way that does not necessarily reflect the way people saw it theatrically. And pretty much every theater will likely matte it slightly differently anyway, so if one truly wanted to recreate everyone's theatrical experience, each film should get a video release with about 12-15 different mattings. One for the slightly higher matting at the Sacramento UA 16, one for the lower matting of the Jersey City Regency 6, etc.

While we all say that we want the closest we can get to the theatrical experience for our home video releases, this isn't strictly true. If we can get some things better than the theatrical experience that benefits the film presentation we generally accept it. Removal of reel markers is a simple example. Accepting the matting of a non-scope film for video presentation as essentially correct is another. And really, only when it's blatantly wrong do we usually notice. (Such as the Pirates of the Caribbean blu-ray snafu).

 

[Robert Harris]

This is what I mean by always. Even if it's not adjusted shot for shot, whoever it is doing the "straight reframing" has by default framed it a specific way that does not necessarily reflect the way people saw it theatrically. And pretty much every theater will likely matte it slightly differently anyway, so if one truly wanted to recreate everyone's theatrical experience, each films should get a video release with about 12-15 different mattings. One for the slightly higher matting at the Sacramento UA 16, one for the lower matting of the Jersey City Regency 6, etc.

While we all say that we want the closest we can get to the theatrical experience for our home video releases, this isn't strictly true. If we can get some things better than the theatrical experience that benefits the film presentation we generally accept it. Removal of reel markers is a simple example. Accepting the matting of a non-scope film for video presentation as essentially correct is another. And really, only when it's blatantly wrong do we usually notice. (Such as the Pirates of the Caribbean blu-ray snafu).

Far more complex. Basically every theatre would have a slightly different matte. With any theatre with a downward projection angle, literally projecting a trapezoid. And people are concerned with the different between 1.33 and 1.37...

RAH