Shane Blu-ray... in 1:66? (1 Viewer)

[DVDvision]

Eh, that distinction is pretty much hair-splitting in the home video world.

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.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

So that makes... one.

 

[Mark-P]

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.

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.

 

[DVDvision]

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.

 

[David_B_K]

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.

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.

 

[EddieLarkin]

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.

 

[DVDvision]

Note that "The Artist" was 1.37:1 not 1.33:1. The director knew his film history

 

[Richard V]

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.

 

[EddieLarkin]

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.

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

 

[lukejosephchung]

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...

 

[Mark-P]

Note that "The Artist" was 1.37:1 not 1.33:1. The director knew his film history

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!

 

[DVDvision]

Your right! I don't know why I confused both formats! Serves me right for posting in 90° degrees heat!

 

[Retro00064]

[...]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. [...]

"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).

 

[Dee Zee]

You'd be seeing a lot of boom mics if they did that.

 

[Retro00064]

You'd be seeing a lot of boom mics if they did that.

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.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

you certainly never got that much image in any theater. Films should generally be cropped a little bit.

 

[Will Krupp]

Post deleted as I'm not sure I have it entirely right

 

[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.

 

[kinzoels]

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.

 

[moviebuff75]

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?