Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

A few words about... Full Metal Jacket -- In High Definition

A Few Words About

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
44 replies to this topic

#1 of 45 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Lead Actor

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted May 10 2006 - 03:28 PM

Note: The review below pertains to the original release, which many people found lacking. Looking back, I was pleased to see it in HD, and bypassed some of its shortcomings. It has been re-released, now in Blu-ray, in a superior version.

For many people, history is being made next week, with the arrival of the first Stanley Kubrick film in the new High Definition format.

Full Metal Jacket (1987) has a totally different look than either Unforgiven or the most recent films on HD.

While differences in grain structure and resolution are less apparent in regular definition video, in High Definition they take on attributes more like projected film.

As such, Full Metal Jacket has (quite appropriately) visible film grain.

This is as intended and as shot.

What is also new to this version is the clarity of color and tonality discussed in other "Few words" pieces.

The greens of uniforms, the whites of the Viet-UK skies, and the subtle differentiations in the complextions of the soldiers in the many close-ups, all come together to create a perfect home experience for Mr. Kubrick's work.

A great and important film done right. I believe Mr. Kubrick would be pleased.

I can only imagine what Spartacus will look like when Universal pulls the trigger on that one.

Give me more HD.

Yet another release highly recommended.

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#2 of 45 Jack Briggs

Jack Briggs

    Executive Producer

  • 16,725 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 03 1999

Posted May 11 2006 - 04:12 AM

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for reporting on a favorite film of mine. I am increasingly inclined to simply break down and buy into HD DVD now.

#3 of 45 Steve Blair

Steve Blair

    Second Unit

  • 380 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 27 1999

Posted May 11 2006 - 04:15 AM

Give in, you won't regret it Posted Image Thanks Robert, buying both this and Unforgiven on tuesday. Warner and Universal are really doing well with hd dvd output as I'm buying 2-4 per week...

#4 of 45 Dan Hitchman

Dan Hitchman

    Screenwriter

  • 2,714 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 11 1999

Posted May 11 2006 - 04:23 AM

Is it framed in widescreen... finally?

I'd assume as with most "matted" WB releases it would be 1.78:1.

Dan

#5 of 45 Michael Boyd

Michael Boyd

    Second Unit

  • 278 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 19 2000

Posted May 11 2006 - 04:24 AM

^ What I am curious about.
Michael Boyd

Currently enjoying movies in China via itunes on a 13 inch Macbook.

#6 of 45 Walter Kittel

Walter Kittel

    Producer

  • 4,570 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted May 11 2006 - 04:31 AM

Dan, there is another Full Metal Jacket thread in High Definition that discusses the A.R.; in this case 1.78:1.

- Walter.
Fidelity to the source should always be the goal for Blu-ray releases.

#7 of 45 Michel_Hafner

Michel_Hafner

    Supporting Actor

  • 716 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2002

Posted May 11 2006 - 11:03 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Give me more HD.
RAH

Yes, it's quite addictive. I had my HD initiation some years ago with naturally not so well compressed material. Then came D-Theater. Many, many times I felt like weeping looking at the pictures, going from perfect black (courtesy of CRT projection) via the most gorgeous colors to white. Unreal beauty unleashed by master photographers: Moulin Rouge, American Beauty, Blue Velvet and so on (HD docus in 1080i with the regular HD video look bore me mightily on the other hand). On top material all the usual DVD garbage (such as EE) was gone.
The average opinion may be that HD is not much better than DVD. Whoever can see what really is on the sources knows better, though. There is no comparison.

#8 of 45 Michael Osadciw

Michael Osadciw

    Screenwriter

  • 1,325 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 24 2003

Posted May 11 2006 - 03:46 PM

"greens in uniforms"

...I have to agree with this (even though I haven't seen the FMJ HD-DVD yet) because it was the colour green that I saw a huge improvement with HD over SD-DVDs.

I admit I'm very curious to see how a grainy film translates to HD. I expect it to look very different than it does on SD-DVD.

Thanks for igniting that thought, now I'm a little more eager than ever...

Mike
Warner Bros. Blu-ray Reviewer
Anchor Bay/Starz Entertainment Blu-ray Reviewer

THX/ISF Professional Video Calibrator
HIGHEST FIDELITY CALIBRATIONS

#9 of 45 PaulBigelow

PaulBigelow

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 139 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 2002

Posted May 11 2006 - 04:22 PM

FMJ has been in HD on HDNet Moves, 1.78:1 Very nice transfer.
Best regards,

Paul Bigelow

#10 of 45 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Lead Actor

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted May 12 2006 - 02:16 AM

While FMJ displays grain, it cannot be considered "grainy."

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#11 of 45 Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer

  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 12 2006 - 07:09 AM

Mr. Harris,
Would you know the reason behind the change in aspect ratio from the previous home video release?
Thank you.

Any one else that would like to chime in with "news" (facts) of why this title is widescreen, would all so be welcome to by me.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#12 of 45 Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter

  • 2,097 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted May 12 2006 - 07:17 AM

The late director Stanley Kubrick insisted that "Full Metal Jacket" as well as "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" be presented in full frame (1.33:1) on DVD. He says he shot them at that ratio and that is the ratio he wants them presented in for video. However, he didn't seem to have a problem with them being projected at 1.85:1 in theaters. And since High Definition is natively widescreen, I'm going to assume that Warner thinks maybe he wouldn't have minded if they are shown that way.

#13 of 45 ChristopherDAC

ChristopherDAC

    Producer

  • 3,729 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2004

Posted May 12 2006 - 07:36 AM

Is anybody else sick and tired of every single thread involving one of these Kubrick movies degenerating into a "FILMED FULL-HEIGHT!" "PROJECTED MATTED!" shouting match over what the proper aspect ratio is, with all kinds of people claiming on the basis of some reference or other to be able to speak for a DEAD MAN? Posted Image
They're out there in Full Screen 4:3. They're also, mostly, out there in a matted-widescreen ratio. On High Definition, they're going to be released in Full Screen 16:9, which just happens to also be Wide Screen at about the original projection ratio [some seem to have been projected both at 1.85 and at 1.66]. It's as good a choice as any.

#14 of 45 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Lead Actor

  • 7,320 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted May 12 2006 - 08:15 AM

As a point of reference, many films meant to be projected at 1.85 el al, were shot open matte -- and not printed with a matte -- as a matte necessitated an optical stage during printing. This affected image quality.

The aspect ratio was created during projection.

Further, those films shot with mattes in camera, were generally shot with a 1.66 - 1.75 matte, again leaving the 1.85 crop to be performed during projection, thus covering and camera niz or detritus that might have adhered to the edges of the aperture.

The High Definition aspect ratio of 1.78:1 works perfectly for all of these situations, inclusive of Full Metal Jacket.

RAH

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence


#15 of 45 Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer

  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 12 2006 - 08:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
As a point of reference, many films meant to be projected at 1.85 el al, were shot open matte -- and not printed with a matte -- as a matte necessitated an optical stage during printing. This affected image quality.

The aspect ratio was created during projection.

Further, those films shot with mattes in camera, were generally shot with a 1.66 - 1.75 matte, again leaving the 1.85 crop to be performed during projection, thus covering and camera niz or detritus that might have adhered to the edges of the aperture.

The High Definition aspect ratio of 1.78:1 works perfectly for all of these situations, inclusive of Full Metal Jacket.

RAH
That's for the quick reply, Mr. Harris.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#16 of 45 Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer

  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 12 2006 - 09:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherDAC
Is anybody else sick and tired of every single thread involving one of these Kubrick movies degenerating into a "FILMED FULL-HEIGHT!" "PROJECTED MATTED!" shouting match over what the proper aspect ratio is, with all kinds of people claiming on the basis of some reference or other to be able to speak for a DEAD MAN? Posted Image
WoW
Where did that come from?
Dan posted;
Is it framed in widescreen... finally?
I'd assume as with most "matted" WB releases it would be 1.78:1.
Michael posted;
^ What I am curious about.
Walter posted;
Dan, there is another Full Metal Jacket thread in High Definition that discusses the A.R.; in this case 1.78:1.
Paul posted;
FMJ has been in HD on HDNet Moves, 1.78:1 Very nice transfer.
I posted;
Mr. Harris,
Would you know the reason behind the change in aspect ratio from the previous home video release?
Thank you.
Any one else that would like to chime in with "news" (facts) of why this title is widescreen, would all so be welcome to by me.
Mark posted;
The late director Stanley Kubrick insisted that "Full Metal Jacket" as well as "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" be presented in full frame (1.33:1) on DVD. He says he shot them at that ratio and that is the ratio he wants them presented in for video. However, he didn't seem to have a problem with them being projected at 1.85:1 in theaters. And since High Definition is natively widescreen, I'm going to assume that Warner thinks maybe he wouldn't have minded if they are shown that way.

Not one post is "shouting".
Not one post claims "to be able to speak for a DEAD MAN".
One post states Kubricks feelings on AR, which were maded by him during interviews for the DVD releases.
One post "assume(s)" Warners intention.
That's it.
If you have a problem with me asking about this, then it is your problem. I know there are different AR's for this movie. I just did not know why this AR was chosen this time. Would you like me to post I'm "sick and tried" of a question of yours? To accuse you of "shouting"? Maybe another thread got you into a fury, I don't know. When I read these posts, I see a civil discourse, till your post.

If you already know everything about this subject,
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherDAC
They're out there in Full Screen 4:3. They're also, mostly, out there in a matted-widescreen ratio. On High Definition, they're going to be released in Full Screen 16:9, which just happens to also be Wide Screen at about the original projection ratio [some seem to have been projected both at 1.85 and at 1.66]. It's as good a choice as any.
I just ask for patience for the rest of us.
Thanks.

Wow
Christopher, I just reread the last part of your post. Whom are you speaking for? I mean for you, not Kubrick to say "it's as good a choice as any". I don't know how that can be, without speaking for a DEAD MAN. Careful!
It's tough to post on the web. People take things the wrong way. Just so you know. when I asked the question, I really just wanted to know how this AR came about. Not inflame anything. I'm glad its widescreen, I just don't know enough about the subject to know that it is "right".

Peace, Love, & HiDef Forever!
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#17 of 45 ChristopherDAC

ChristopherDAC

    Producer

  • 3,729 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 18 2004

Posted May 12 2006 - 09:22 AM

It's not this thread specifically. Try searching the forum for any Kubrick film shot in 35mm, and you will come up with hundreds of pages of endless discussions of people saying "He was a photographer, he composed what he saw through the lens" and other people saying "He was a filmmaker, he compoed for the theater". Half of the people claim to be able to say with certainty that the "director's intended vision" was to have his film seen at a widescreen ratio [although they don't agree which one], the other half claim claim to be able to say with certainty that the "director's intended vision" was to have his film seen at Academy Ratio. Then they start talking about how certain shots seem "tight", or how something-or-other "spoils the composition". I swear, it's enough to put one off watching his films at all, which is a shame because they are rather good. All I know is that A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, a film which he could be sure would never be shown on TV, is hard-matted to at least 1.5:1 in every frame.

And when I say that "16:9 Full Frame is as good a choice as any" my logic is simple. For something which was shot full-frame and projected at ratios up to and including 1.85:1, if there is doubt about the "proper" ratio, one can pretty safely say that it lies in the range 1.33:1-1.85:1, which includes 16:9. As Mr. Harris points out, 16:9 is a reasonable ratio for a "soft-matted" film, which were generally projected in a kind of "flexible" manner. Furthermore, about half of the people who think that Mr. Kubric wanted his films presented at 4:3 open matte, suppose that he wanted them presented that way on television to use the whole resolution of the frame for his picture, and 16:9 Full Screen High Definition does just that. Since there is no clear reason to think that the 16:9 ratio is "better" or "worse" in any absolute sense than any other — as opposed to obviously "wrong" ratios like 1:1 square or 2.75:1 Ultra Panavision — by process of elimination it has to be "as good as any".

#18 of 45 Mike Williams

Mike Williams

    Screenwriter

  • 1,020 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 03 2003

Posted May 12 2006 - 09:27 AM

There HAVE been numerous threads that argue for or against Mr. Kubrick's alleged "full screen" preference for his films. For the record, I am against. But I am resolved to believe that anytime a new Kubrick DVD is released -- and this time the theatrical aspect ratio is preserved (which parts with Mr. Kubrick's wishes at the time of his death, as far as we know) -- then the discussion will most certainly come up again and this time, especially, with very good reason.

I am very happy to know that FINALLY the proper aspect ratio has been preserved and when I convert to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (as soon as second generation players are released that fix their first generation problems), I will most certainly be picking up this Kubrick film, along with 2001 and The Shining.

#19 of 45 Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Producer

  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted May 12 2006 - 09:32 AM

Christopher,
Thanks for your polite reply.
And ,yes, this has been a "Hot Topic" in the past (and will be in the future ;-) ).
Glad this AR works with HD!!!
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#20 of 45 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,456 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationBlairsville, GA, USA

Posted May 12 2006 - 09:47 AM

FYI, Kubrick's decisions over aspect ratios for his films owned by WB apparently came about in 1991 when he approved transfers for laserdisc. The stuff mentioned by Leon Vitali about the tech specs has a ton of errors, so who knows.


Back to Blu-ray



Forum Nav Content I Follow