CTHE Press Release: Dr. Strangelove 40th Anniversary (1 Viewer)

[Richard Kim]

Again, I bring up Lolita. How come nobody's complaining about the remastered DVD being "deformed" from the Criterion LD(just like the new Strangelove DVD)? And also, how about A Clockwork Orange? The LD and initial DVD had a 1.5:1 AR, but the remastered DVD has a "deformed" 1.66:1 AR. How come nobody complains about that, either?

 

[Bryan Tuck]

At the risk of getting bogged down in another Kubrick aspect ratio discussion, I would have to say I really don't mind their putting Strangelove in 1.66:1, as that (or 1.85:1, depending on which country you saw it in) is technically the "Original Aspect Ratio." This is the very rare case where "director's preference" and "original aspect ratio" are two different things, apparently. I still don't understand why Kubrick wanted Strangelove presented the way it has been on video, but it's his choice, I guess.

At any rate, I think it's good that both are going to be available now (assuming the previous SE will remain available), even though you'd have to buy 2 different releases to get both ratios.

I'm actually more worried about Zachary's claim that the new transfer is darker and murkier. I guess we'll see come Election Day.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Double-post; sorry.

 

[Patrick McCart]

It looks like Turner Classic Movies is showing the new restoration/remaster as part of the "Party Politics" screening tonight (hosted by Senator John Edwards).

The quality is incredible, even in comparison to the old master. Also, it's 1.66:1 all over, including the stock footage/effect shots. There is a LOT less dirt and scratches, detail is better, and there's actually some decent grayscale.

The sound also seems to be a lot better.

If a TV broadcast looks this good, I can't wait to see how the DVD looks.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I've seen Dr. Strangelove projected in several different theaters over the years, and it was always shown at something at or aroung 1.85:1. I've seen it countless times on video and DVD, but I honestly had no objection to the 1.85:1 framing at the theaters. It looked good there, and I expect it will look good at home too.

 

[ZacharyTait]

Actually, Jeff Wells said that, not me. I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Oops. :b I guess I should read things more carefully. Sorry about that.

 

[Peter Svensson]

Does anybody know how this new edition compares to the Japanese Superbit? I have that and I´m wondering if I should upgrade? I don´t care about the extras or the booklet, I´m strictly talking about A/V.

Is the new transfer different from the one on the Japanese Superbit? In that case, which transfer is used for the R1 Superbit? The Japanese edition has only the 4:3 option and it´s not anamorphic. I guess even the DTS track could be different since there´s a new sound mix.

 

[Robert Harris]

All past releases of Dr. Strangelove were derived from full contrast 35mm prints.

This is the first time the film has been transferred from a pre-print element, in this case a 35mm fine grain master.

The new release makes all previous versions outdated as far as quality.

RAH

 

[george kaplan]

Robert,

Could you speak to the aspect ratio issue? A great looking dvd with picture chopped off the top and bottom is of little or no interest to me.

 

[ArthurMy]

I'll speak to the ratio - or you might just want to go back and peruse this entire thread. Whatever Mr. Kubrick, in later years for VHS and laserdisc releases, wished, the film was projected in 1:85 here in the US and most likely 1:66 elsewhere. This new DVD at long last gives us a 1:66 transfer, enhanced for widescreen - what's to think about.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/mo...ef=login&8hpib

Daniel Ellsberg considered it a documentary! This is quite an interesting article.

 

[Peter Svensson]

Ok, thank you! But will the upcoming R1 Superbit have the same transfer as the Anniversary Edition, or will it have the same transfer as the Japanese Superbit?

 

[Kevin M]

I'll wait for the inevitable side by side comparisons before I make any decision regarding this.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Considering what Mr. Harris says, this forthcoming release is one to die for. We cannot allow for a transfer gap.

 

[george kaplan]

But I'm concerned with the aspect ratio gap, Mein Fuhrer!

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Yeah, but you don't expect me to go into combat with loose change in my pockets, do you?

 

[Patrick McCart]

The new transfer doesn't appear to have any framing problems from being 1.66:1 all the way through. Of course, the scene with the nuke going down is finally framed right so that the matte on the rear projector isn't visible, spoiling the effect. Now, if Columbia made the transfer at 1.85:1, that would totally spoil the framing of the film.

As for the 1.66:1 matting preserving the film's correct composition... it is not only possible, it is essential.

 

[Seth--L]

Yeah, especially since this will be a tripple dip.

 

[Robert Harris]

Dr. Strangelove was apparently photographed, as were many films during the era, with more than one camera body and different mattes allowing exposure.

The film was originally projected as intended by DP Gil Taylor and director Kubrick at 1.66:1, but was more frequently seen at 1.85:1.

If you return to one of my earliest Bits pieces, you'll find an aspect ratio chart showing the minute difference between 1.37 and 1.66.

Mr. Kubrick's desire to make his films more appropriate for television veiwing were not based upon current technology, but rather a square monitor and decisions dating back over a decade. I firmly believe that were he still with us, Mr. Kubrick's desires would change along with technology.

With the current popularity of wide screen viewing devices and the fact that they will soon become the standard, it makes no sense to offer new software designed for archaic hardware. Those with wide screen monitors will attest the negative situation found with 1.66 non-anamorphic releases which must be zoomed to improperly "fill" a 1.78 display rather than view the image surrounded by black on four sides.

Dr. Strangelove used stock footage, rear projection and other devices which also take one out of the film if viewing without a 1.66 matte, as one is seeing things that simply aren't meant to be seen.

1.66:1 is the proper aspect ratio for Dr. Strangelove.

There is more detail in the new transfer, which is "printed" heavier than in previous releases, which were created from high contrast prints.

A great deal of effort has gone into this release with actual restoration and cleanup work being done for the first time.

The original negative no longer exists, which precludes doing certain things as might have been done as far as contrast ratios, highlights and other elements which might have been controlled slightly differently.

Older transfers had visual elements which were literally burned out as white because there was no way to control the contrast. This also prevented the image from being transferred with proper density.

As one can see from viewing improperly thought out or ill-prepared releases in which cars drive through streets in daylight with their lights on, or a crowd of townspeople rush through a daylit town carrying burning torches, one is not always meant to see the entire depth of an image as recorded to film. Proper exposures to print are necessary.

Columbia's Grover Crisp and his staff have done a beautiful and high quality job of presenting this film on DVD -- not an easy task.

And with the advent of wide screen monitors which can yield a superb 1.66:1 image from an anamorphic enhanced DVD, I'm quite certain that this would be a "director approved" release were the gentleman available to grant his approval.

RAH