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

[Moe Dickstein]

And some TV sets don't allow re-formatting or sizing of HD inputs. Mr Furmanek, so sad to see you don't have any love for 2.76 Ultra Panavision either...

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Oh, boy, don't get me started on Cinerama either.
After all, boxy IS beautiful!

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I hope whoever says that drives a Volvo.

 

[JoeDoakes]

Just a reminder, according to Jeffrey Wells:

...Stevens also told me yesterday afternoon that a 1.37 version (which he called “an Academy aspect ratio version matching the original”) had been prepared for high-def/Bluray viewing. But he said that he was very satisfied with the look of the 1.66 version. and that “given the choice of having a 1:37 version placed in the center of a horizontal television screen with bars on each side, or a carefully configured 1:66 to 1 version that filled the screen, I am confident George Stevens would subscribe to the latter.”

According to Wells, the founder of the AFI simply wants to fill his widescreen TV. Which is flabbergasting.

That indicates that there is a 1:37 version out there, so maybe we can get Warner archive to sell it. I'm sure that they could sell a couple thousand copies of such a title (or at least as many as that Natalie Wood movie they issued on blu).

 

[JoeDoakes]

I don't really understand why anyone would be upset about black bars on a tv screen. Unless I was trying to watch something like TCM's broadcast of How the West Was Won on my traditional tv where there was more black than picture and the picture was tiny, I have never cared about it.

BTW: If William Wyler had supervised a pan and scan version of Ben Hur for television, would that make it acceptable to release only the pan and scan version?

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Edit

Article coming soon...

 

[ROclockCK]

Just for the hecuba...an approximation of what this aspect ratio rejigging might look like if it becomes more standardized practice for the presentation of Academy format films in HD:

I think I r-e-a-l-l-y want a second Shane disc in 1.37:1...

 

[Keith Cobby]

Would we want Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz or The Adventures of Robin Hood reformatted to 1.66:1? It is great to see Shane coming out on Blu-ray but in the 'correct' ratio please.

 

[Moe Dickstein]

I love how people are extending straw man arguments of "where does the madness stop".This film was released to theaters in its first run at 1.66, nobody is cutting the top off citizen Kane for goodness sake.

 

[DVDvision]

There's an absolute reverse paranoia on films formats out there. In the 80's, we lobbyed for widescreen movies. Now people looby for boxy movies of films they thought always were boxy when they were widescreen.

Shane was released widescreen 1.66:1. A widescreen 1.66:1 release is thus to be expected on HD. That it was shot intended for 1.37:1 make it interesting, and would make an additional alternate format bonus disc release possible, but the film original release format is 1.66:1.

Why George Stevens allowed this is that his film was shot in a variety of medium and large shots, which made the conversion possible without much damage (and this conversion was approved and supported by the director, as it obviously offered him a hype advantage and wider exposure for the theatrical release).

You can't compare with Citizen Kane, which was shot and released in 1941 in academy format more than a decade before the conversion of the industry to widescreen, and in such a way that converting to 1.66 would damage the compositions and be an heresy.

Shane was released in 1.66:1. It will appear on Blu-ray in 1.66:1. That is the correct theatrical aspect ratio (with some slight adjustments to make it look better, which other directors always do on new transfers). Deal with it.

 

[Yorkshire]

Davis, whilst I don't entirely disagree with all of your post, surely the fact that was shot for projection at 1.37:1 is more than just 'interesting'.

Steve W

 

[Rob_Ray]

Weren't there a few titles shot late in the 3-D craze which were shot 3-D and only released flat? Should these titles never be released in 3-D because that's not their "original theatrical aspect ratio"? To me, it's all about how the film was *intended* to be shown, regardless of what it looked like upon actual release. Include a 1:66-1 version of Shane by all means, but please also give us the the film in its proper 1:37-1 aspect ratio.

 

[John Hodson]

I've just be reading the comments of a contemporary projectionist, who says that to avoid chopping heads they set the aperture to the top of the frame, thus a deal of image was chopped at the bottom. Stevens and Griggs used the whole of the Academy frame when filming Shane, and, yes, I'm well aware of the value of screenshots, especially taken from the DVD (when they have had the whole of the neg to play with), but I'm interested, for instance, how they will deal with, say, this kind of shot:

 

[Robert Harris]

I've just be reading the comments of a contemporary projectionist, who says that to avoid chopping heads they set the aperture to the top of the frame, thus a deal of image was chopped at the bottom. Stevens and Griggs used the whole of the Academy frame when filming Shane, and, yes, I'm well aware of the value of screenshots, especially taken from the DVD (when they have had the whole of the neg to play with), but I'm interested, for instance, how they will deal with, say, this kind of shot:

vlcsnap-2013-03-28-12h54m18s100.png

Easy.

 

[PaulaJ]

ClassicFlix has just posted the details of this disc (with bigger artwork).

It says... "full screen." Nowadays I'm not sure WHAT that means.

Shane (Blu-Ray) (1953)
NOW ACCEPTING ADVANCE ORDERS! Starring: Alan Ladd, Jean Arthur, Van Heflin, Jack Palance, Brandon De Wilde, Ben Johnson, Edgar Buchanan, Elisha Cook Jr., Emile Meyer, Douglas Spencer, John Dierkes, Ellen Corby Director: George Stevens Genre: Blu-Ray, Westerns Year: 1953 Studio: Warner Home Video Length: 117 minutes Release Date: June 4, 2013 Rating: NR Format: DVD Misc: Color, NTSC, Full Screen Language:
English(Original Language)

 

[PaulaJ]

P.S. If Paramount really wanted to make us happy they'd not only release a dual version of Shane, but they'd also put out a box set of the short-lived 1966-67 TV series.

 

[Robert Harris]

ClassicFlix has just posted the details of this disc (with bigger artwork).

It says... "full screen." Nowadays I'm not sure WHAT that means.

Shane (Blu-Ray) (1953)
NOW ACCEPTING ADVANCE ORDERS! Starring: Alan Ladd, Jean Arthur, Van Heflin, Jack Palance, Brandon De Wilde, Ben Johnson, Edgar Buchanan, Elisha Cook Jr., Emile Meyer, Douglas Spencer, John Dierkes, Ellen Corby Director: George Stevens Genre: Blu-Ray, Westerns Year: 1953 Studio: Warner Home Video Length: 117 minutes Release Date: June 4, 2013 Rating: NR Format: DVD Misc: Color, NTSC, Full Screen Language:
English(Original Language)

"Full screen" means that it fills standard home video screens. Apparently at whatever ratio one possesses.

Therefore, it would mean either 1.33 or 1.78. If your screen happens to be one of those two, you'll be safe.

Clarity is a nice thing.

RAH

 

[Yorkshire]

I've just be reading the comments of a contemporary projectionist, who says that to avoid chopping heads they set the aperture to the top of the frame, thus a deal of image was chopped at the bottom. Stevens and Griggs used the whole of the Academy frame when filming Shane, and, yes, I'm well aware of the value of screenshots, especially taken from the DVD (when they have had the whole of the neg to play with), but I'm interested, for instance, how they will deal with, say, this kind of shot:

vlcsnap-2013-03-28-12h54m18s100.png

Presumably, with a centred 1.66:1 matte, cinema audiences must have seen something like this:

 

[Tom Logan]

My vote is for 1.37. Framing matters in a film whose makers were careful enough to get a shot where the hero is deliberately--literally--framed by a live deer's (elk's?) antlers in an opening scene.

And this discussion is illuminating. Thanks to all for participating.

 

[John Hodson]

Easy.

vlcsnap-2013-03-28-12h54m18s100.png

Or they may choose to screw the pooch.