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...™ Stanley Kubrick Collection -- in Blu-ray

A Few Words About

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#21 of 52 Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,064 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted June 07 2011 - 04:40 PM



Originally Posted by Jarod M 

The party scene was swimming in grain.




Grain and Christmas lights.  It's been more than a decade since I've seen a 35mm print of the film, and I still remember that as if it were yesterday.



#22 of 52 Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • 9,593 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted June 08 2011 - 04:44 AM



Originally Posted by Jarod M 


The party scene was swimming in grain.




Again, I don't remember noticing. I wonder if that was an artistic choice, or a result of the censorship that Kubrick approved but didn't over see. I think he passed away before that was done?  I'm presuming you're talking about the North American version. I still haven't watched the blue ray yet.  :)


Perhaps Mister Harris can shed some light on this mystery.



My wallet cries me to sleep!
 
This post kills threads!


#23 of 52 cafink

cafink

    Producer

  • 3,017 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 1999

Posted June 08 2011 - 04:49 AM

I think Jarod means the Christmas party at the beginning of the film, not the later orgy scene.


 

 


#24 of 52 Powell&Pressburger

Powell&Pressburger

    Screenwriter

  • 1,087 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 26 2007
  • LocationMPLS, MN

Posted August 23 2013 - 08:56 PM

When Eyes Wide Shut was released I was working as a projectionist at a movie theatre that was brand new at the time and it was the first movie I was asked to build up and also break down the reels when its run came to an end. I'm trying to recall if the film was 8 or 9 reels. I was so excited to see the film and I did watch it twice and when we had to send the reels back I spliced out several frames on the reel that featured the mask on the pillow I just wish I could find them!

I can't really recall 100% how grainy the film seemed but watching it on my panasonic ZT60, I feel like the picture quality seems like it should contain more grain.

The only other film that I remember strong grain was Spike Lee's Summer of Sam which I used to sneak into between starting movies up etc and just watch specific scenes that it was the first time I really took notice to film grain, I thought it looked incredible. If it ever gets a good Blu release I would hope the transfer looks as great as it should. Will be a tricky transfer for sure.

Stop the Replacing of original Studio Opening / Closing logos! They are part of film history.

Marantz SR7007
MartinLogan: ESL, Grotto i, Motif, FX2, Motion 15
Oppo BDP-103 LG BD550 Region Free 
Pioneer LD CLD-D505
Panasonic 65" TC-P65ZT60

 


#25 of 52 haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 1,991 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 23 2013 - 09:50 PM

The release prints of Eyes Wide Shot were horrible and grainy beyond belief.  Just bad and I'm sure going from the camera negative would offer something much nicer looking.  I couldn't believe what I was seeing, frankly, and I saw it in both a regular theater and the DGA.  Terrible prints.



#26 of 52 mikeyhitchfan

mikeyhitchfan

    Second Unit

  • 447 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2012
  • Real Name:Mike
  • LocationCosta Mesa CA

Posted August 24 2013 - 07:44 AM

The release prints of Eyes Wide Shot were horrible and grainy beyond belief.  Just bad and I'm sure going from the camera negative would offer something much nicer looking.  I couldn't believe what I was seeing, frankly, and I saw it in both a regular theater and the DGA.  Terrible prints.

 

The grainy look was intentional, and I would imagine the negative would look similar as this was the look Kubrick wanted. According to the SK Archives book, after testing many film stocks he picked a Kodak film stock that was discontinued, which Kodak provided especially for him. He then shot in low existing light as much as possible, then deliberately had the lab push process the film for the more grainy look. He was also well known for checking release prints to ensure they were right before they were distributed. 



#27 of 52 Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter

  • 1,693 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted August 24 2013 - 08:07 AM

The grainy look was intentional, and I would imagine the negative would look similar as this was the look Kubrick wanted. According to the SK Archives book, after testing many film stocks he picked a Kodak film stock that was discontinued, which Kodak provided especially for him. He then shot in low existing light as much as possible, then deliberately had the lab push process the film for the more grainy look. He was also well known for checking release prints to ensure they were right before they were distributed. 

Unfortunately Mr. Kubrick was unavailable to check any of the release prints of EYES WIDE SHUT.

 

Vincent



#28 of 52 haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 1,991 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 24 2013 - 08:22 AM

Unfortunately Mr. Kubrick was unavailable to check any of the release prints of EYES WIDE SHUT.

 

Vincent

Thank you - a little research is always good :)  I don't believe Mr. Kubrick was alive to even fine tune his final cut - I think he would have done further work if he'd remained alive and the proof of that is Warner Bros. releasing the film into theaters in which a shot of Mr. Kubrick and camera crew was completely visible.  If people don't think he would have digitally removed that prior to the release (as Warners did when it came to home video), think again.



#29 of 52 haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 1,991 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 24 2013 - 08:23 AM

The grainy look was intentional, and I would imagine the negative would look similar as this was the look Kubrick wanted. According to the SK Archives book, after testing many film stocks he picked a Kodak film stock that was discontinued, which Kodak provided especially for him. He then shot in low existing light as much as possible, then deliberately had the lab push process the film for the more grainy look. He was also well known for checking release prints to ensure they were right before they were distributed. 

That would have been a neat trick, since he was dead.



#30 of 52 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,786 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted August 24 2013 - 08:42 AM

That would have been a neat trick, since he was dead.

 

He would have been alive when he chose the film stock, he would have known precisely what that film stock would bring to the production, so wouldn't that tell us a little something of the film texture look he was going for in the movie.  I think so.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#31 of 52 haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 1,991 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted August 24 2013 - 11:21 AM

He would have been alive when he chose the film stock, he would have known precisely what that film stock would bring to the production, so wouldn't that tell us a little something of the film texture look he was going for in the movie.  I think so.

Here's what I know - neither you nor I know anything about the film stock he chose and what it would have ultimately looked like had he even gotten to the point of supervising an answer print.  That's what I know.  And I also know what the theatrical prints looked like and said at that very first screening that he would turn over in his grave if he saw what they'd done.  You apparently didn't see it in theaters.  I did.



#32 of 52 FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン

  • 3,786 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted August 24 2013 - 11:30 AM

Here's what I know - neither you nor I know anything about the film stock he chose and what it would have ultimately looked like had he even gotten to the point of supervising an answer print.  That's what I know.  And I also know what the theatrical prints looked like and said at that very first screening that he would turn over in his grave if he saw what they'd done.  You apparently didn't see it in theaters.  I did.

 

If that book mentioned below is correct then he was going for a certain look, remember this is the same Kubrick who would send notes out to theaters asking that the projectionist make sure the cinema was showing the film with 16fl to 18fl lamberts of light output, why else would he pick a discontinued Kodak stock, maybe the cinema prints which IMDB says were Agfa CP20 did not represent the intended look but one thing is for sure and that is that Kubrick knew what he was doing when he picked the film stock, now i have no idea if IMDB is right about the prints and i have no idea if the cinema look was correct, all i am saying is that Kubrick knew what he wanted, hopefully Warner knew and have presented it correctly on blu ray.

 

The grainy look was intentional, and I would imagine the negative would look similar as this was the look Kubrick wanted. According to the SK Archives book, after testing many film stocks he picked a Kodak film stock that was discontinued, which Kodak provided especially for him. He then shot in low existing light as much as possible, then deliberately had the lab push process the film for the more grainy look. He was also well known for checking release prints to ensure they were right before they were distributed. 


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#33 of 52 Dave H

Dave H

    Producer

  • 5,217 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 13 2000

Posted August 24 2013 - 12:20 PM


I can't really recall 100% how grainy the film seemed but watching it on my panasonic ZT60, I feel like the picture quality seems like it should contain more grain.

 

 

It's quite possible as Warner was filtering their titles with low bit VC-1 during the early years of BD (and HD DVD).



#34 of 52 Patrick McCart

Patrick McCart

    Lead Actor

  • 7,453 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2001
  • Real Name:Patrick McCart
  • LocationBlairsville, GA, USA

Posted August 24 2013 - 12:56 PM

I'm surprised that Eyes Wide Shut wasn't supposed to be so grainy. I saw a 35mm print back in 2006 and it looked amazing. It was very colorful and grainy, almost like a 16mm Ektachrome blowup. It gave more of a dreamy feel to the film. The exception would be the shots in the orgy sequence with pasted characters. All of those shots looked pasty and flat compared to the bulk of the film.



#35 of 52 mikeyhitchfan

mikeyhitchfan

    Second Unit

  • 447 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2012
  • Real Name:Mike
  • LocationCosta Mesa CA

Posted August 24 2013 - 04:12 PM

Here's what I know - neither you nor I know anything about the film stock he chose and what it would have ultimately looked like had he even gotten to the point of supervising an answer print.  That's what I know.  And I also know what the theatrical prints looked like and said at that very first screening that he would turn over in his grave if he saw what they'd done.  You apparently didn't see it in theaters.  I did.

 

The film stock is mentioned in the heavily researched and family authorized Stanley Kubrick Archives book. They interviewed the DP and others involved, so I do know what stock he used. IMDB is not necessarily reliable. OK, he died before the release prints could be seen by him, but he did attend a screening with WB execs and the 2 stars, so he saw at least one. He had Leon Vitali as his long time assistant and his brother in law as assitant producer and they did know his intentions on how it should look. I saw it theaters day one and the blu-ray looks very close to what I saw. 



#36 of 52 Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter

  • 1,693 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted August 24 2013 - 04:30 PM

Re: the filmstock and it having been "discontinued"-  EYES WIDE SHUT was shot on Kodak's 500 ASA 5298 filmstock.  When EWS went into production in 1996 it had literaly JUST been replaced by a newer 500 ASA stock, so it's not like Kodak had to dig deep into the archives to supply Kubrick with what he wanted.  Kubrick and his cinematographer Larry Smith actually tested the then brand-new Kodak 500 ASA stock but decided to use 5298 instead because the newer stock's color shifted more when it was push-developed, whereas 5298 didn't shift so much, and they knew they'd be pushing the film. 

 

Vincent



#37 of 52 Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter

  • 1,693 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted August 24 2013 - 04:33 PM



The film stock is mentioned in the heavily researched and family authorized Stanley Kubrick Archives book. They interviewed the DP and others involved, so I do know what stock he used. IMDB is not necessarily reliable. OK, he died before the release prints could be seen by him, but he did attend a screening with WB execs and the 2 stars, so he saw at least one. He had Leon Vitali as his long time assistant and his brother in law as assitant producer and they did know his intentions on how it should look. I saw it theaters day one and the blu-ray looks very close to what I saw. 

 

I was under the impression that the screening you're talking about occured in March of 1999 New York City.  If so, I sincerely doubt Mr. Kubrick was at that screening, since at that point he hadn't set foot into the US in decades and especially since said screening occured mere days before he died.

 

Vincent



#38 of 52 SilverWook

SilverWook

    Screenwriter

  • 1,397 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 11 2006

Posted August 24 2013 - 07:25 PM

Thank you - a little research is always good :)  I don't believe Mr. Kubrick was alive to even fine tune his final cut - I think he would have done further work if he'd remained alive and the proof of that is Warner Bros. releasing the film into theaters in which a shot of Mr. Kubrick and camera crew was completely visible.  If people don't think he would have digitally removed that prior to the release (as Warners did when it came to home video), think again.

Stanely was visible in an astronaut faceplate in 2001, and it's alleged a reflection in The Shining's Overlook Hotel manager's office window is him as well. Don't tell Warners! ;)


Edited by SilverWook, August 24 2013 - 07:28 PM.


#39 of 52 AdrianTurner

AdrianTurner

    Second Unit

  • 358 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 05 2007

Posted August 24 2013 - 09:27 PM

I think he's in Clockwork Orange as well, in the record shop scene when the camera tracks 360 degrees.  


Edited by AdrianTurner, August 24 2013 - 11:10 PM.


#40 of 52 mikeyhitchfan

mikeyhitchfan

    Second Unit

  • 447 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2012
  • Real Name:Mike
  • LocationCosta Mesa CA

Posted August 25 2013 - 08:26 AM

I was under the impression that the screening you're talking about occured in March of 1999 New York City.  If so, I sincerely doubt Mr. Kubrick was at that screening, since at that point he hadn't set foot into the US in decades and especially since said screening occured mere days before he died.

 

Vincent

 He died on March 7 1999. The book states that the screening for Warner Brothers took place 6 days earlier, so, March 1 1999. Obviously it took place in England, and the execs flew in to view it eagerly I'm sure. Cruise and Kidman confirm in interviews that they also attended this screening, as it was then considered the final cut. 







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: A Few Words About

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users