1. Guest,
    If you need help getting to know Xenforo, please see our guide here. If you have feedback or questions, please post those here.
    Dismiss Notice

Shane Blu-ray... in 1:66?

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by PaulaJ, Mar 22, 2013.

  1. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    It's very important to me, I can see the difference on my screen between a 1.33:1 and 1.37:1 master. Historically, 1.37:1 is a film format, 1.33:1 is not.
     
    David_B_K and John Hodson like this.
  2. Moe Dickstein

    Moe Dickstein Filmmaker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    916
    Location:
    West Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    T R Wilkinson
    So that makes... one.
     
  3. Mark-P

    Mark-P Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    786
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    1.33:1 is a film format as well, as it was the full aperture silent ratio.
    But I agree with you on the significance of the distinction, because the difference for this film and others finally being presently correctly at 1.37:1 on Blu-ray is that you are finally seeing the whole picture. On DVD, at 1.33:1, a sliver was sliced off the sides. The Beaver's screencaps beautifully illustrate this. Also check out the difference in Niagara.
     
  4. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    I meant of course talking movies, there was a lot of different apertures in the silent era. The 4/3 television tube format have been boxing the intended formats for too long.
     
  5. David_B_K

    David_B_K Advanced Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,811
    Likes Received:
    313
    Real Name:
    David
    I agree. It used to be hair-splitting when over-scanning TV's were the norm. On my previous TV, a 1.66:1 picture filled up the screen, as the over-scan was so agressive. I welcome every bit of picture from Shane I can get.
     
  6. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    I agree that it is hair-splitting, but regardless it bugs me a little when an Academy film on Blu-ray is 1.33:1, and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside when one's 1.37:1. Because I can tell the difference, though not by looking at the film itself, but rather the size of the pillar bars.
     
    HDvision and Bob Furmanek like this.
  7. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    Note that "The Artist" was 1.37:1 not 1.33:1. The director knew his film history :)
     
  8. Richard V

    Richard V Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,942
    Likes Received:
    430
    Real Name:
    Richard
    After looking at the samples of Shane and Niagra, I don't know. I'm not a film expert, just a guy who loves movies and the framing difference between 1.33 and 1.37 is not only splitting hairs, it is splitting frog hairs. Of course JMO.
     
    Cine_Capsulas and Moe Dickstein like this.
  9. EddieLarkin

    EddieLarkin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    989
    Likes Received:
    464
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Real Name:
    Nick
    I think it's less to do with the sliver of extra information, and more the shape of the image. 1.33:1 looks a little too narrow to me, though this may be a side effect of being used to 4x3 DVD transfers for so long, as they were often squashed a bit. Check these comparisons out:

    http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cID=1020

    http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cID=1195
     
  10. lukejosephchung

    lukejosephchung Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,393
    Likes Received:
    389
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA., USA
    Real Name:
    Luke J. Chung
    While everyone on this thread is hairsplitting about the AR, HTF's resident film restoration export Robert Harris has his review up for the 1.37:1 aspect ratio blu-ray...he gives the image quality a 5 rating and the audio 4.5 and says it's very highly recommended... :cheers:
     
  11. Mark-P

    Mark-P Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    2,890
    Likes Received:
    786
    Location:
    Camas, WA
    Real Name:
    Mark Probst
    Nope. The Artist's aspect ratio is 1.33:1. And the director did indeed know his film history because that is the correct ratio for a silent film!
     
    Cine_Capsulas and nara like this.
  12. HDvision

    HDvision Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    185
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Real Name:
    David
    Your right! I don't know why I confused both formats! Serves me right for posting in 90° degrees heat!
     
  13. Retro00064

    Retro00064 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    15
    Real Name:
    Zachary
    "Whole picture"? Are the actual edges of the physical film frames visible, including the round corners of the frames?

    While it may not be a huge issue, I, for one, sure would prefer it if the studios would end this long-standing, widely-followed tradition of cropping the edges of film transfers and start allowing us to see the true entirety of the picture as recorded on the film elements, round corners, true original aspect ratio and all (widescreen pictures that were supposed to be matted when projected excluded, of course).
     
    Mark B likes this.
  14. Dee Zee

    Dee Zee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    239
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Falls Church VA, USA
    Real Name:
    Tom
    You'd be seeing a lot of boom mics if they did that.
     
    Cine_Capsulas likes this.
  15. Retro00064

    Retro00064 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    15
    Real Name:
    Zachary
    In 1.375:1 films? Interesting. I can justify cropping the edges in those cases. But otherwise, I'd prefer to see the entire picture.As I stated, films that were intended to be cropped/matted to widescreen when shown (which may have boom mikes or other garbage visible if not matted) are excluded.
     
  16. Moe Dickstein

    Moe Dickstein Filmmaker

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    3,266
    Likes Received:
    916
    Location:
    West Hollywood, CA
    Real Name:
    T R Wilkinson
    you certainly never got that much image in any theater. Films should generally be cropped a little bit.
     
  17. Will Krupp

    Will Krupp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Real Name:
    Will
    Post deleted as I'm not sure I have it entirely right
     
  18. Rob_Ray

    Rob_Ray Premium
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,783
    Likes Received:
    1,070
    Location:
    Southern California
    Real Name:
    Rob Ray
    I saw an uncropped, round-edged print of Gone With the Wind a few years back in that terrible Technicolor re-release. I saw that the tops of sets weren't complete, and a lot of matte shots had dirt at the top of the screen. It totally destroyed the film. You want a slight cropping in all films.
     
    Moe Dickstein likes this.
  19. kinzoels

    kinzoels Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    5
    As regards to SHANE aspect ratio, if the argument here is directors vision Vs. studios vision, IMHO, the directors vision should win all the time. To appease all, both versions should be on the disc. However, as usual, this AR issue is taken to the limit and I respect everyones feelings on it, but for me, image quality outranks this. EG: supppose the blu ray Curse of Frankenstein was released in a for certain director preference aspect ratio, it wouldn't have ment s..t because the transfer SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!! And like I said once before, if SHANE comes out only at 1:37 and you've got to have the theatrical AR, get out your cardboard and start masking.
     
  20. moviebuff75

    moviebuff75 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Likes Received:
    306
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Real Name:
    Eric Scott Richard
    What is used as a guide for framing dvd/Blu-ray? I noticed that in some scenes, the UK dvd of "Citizen Kane" shows more info on the right side and a lot less on the left than the US Blu-ray does. Maybe not centered correctly?
     

Share This Page