Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

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

Warner Paramount

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

#401 of 420 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor



  • 982 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted July 25 2013 - 11:13 PM

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.


  • John Hodson and David_B_K like this

#402 of 420 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker



  • 3,149 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted July 25 2013 - 11:36 PM

So that makes... one.
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#403 of 420 ONLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter



  • 2,368 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted July 25 2013 - 11:50 PM

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.


Edited by Mark-P, July 25 2013 - 11:52 PM.


#404 of 420 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor



  • 982 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted July 26 2013 - 02:34 AM

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.



#405 of 420 OFFLINE   David_B_K

David_B_K

    Advanced Member



  • 1,556 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 13 2006
  • Real Name:David

Posted July 26 2013 - 05:52 AM

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.



#406 of 420 OFFLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



  • 815 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2012
  • Real Name:Nick
  • LocationYorkshire

Posted July 26 2013 - 07:20 AM

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.


  • Bob Furmanek and HDvision like this

#407 of 420 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor



  • 982 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted July 26 2013 - 07:37 AM

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


Edited by HDvision, July 26 2013 - 07:37 AM.


#408 of 420 OFFLINE   Richard V

Richard V

    Screenwriter



  • 1,595 posts
  • Join Date: May 14 2009
  • Real Name:Richard

Posted July 26 2013 - 07:55 AM

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.


  • Moe Dickstein and Cremildo like this
See you at the pah-ty, Richter.

#409 of 420 OFFLINE   EddieLarkin

EddieLarkin

    Supporting Actor



  • 815 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 16 2012
  • Real Name:Nick
  • LocationYorkshire

Posted July 26 2013 - 08:13 AM

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-ho...on.php?cID=1020

 

http://www.caps-a-ho...on.php?cID=1195



#410 of 420 ONLINE   lukejosephchung

lukejosephchung

    Screenwriter



  • 1,259 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 31 2007
  • Real Name:Luke J. Chung
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA., USA

Posted July 26 2013 - 09:18 AM

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:


Edited by lukejosephchung, July 26 2013 - 09:20 AM.


#411 of 420 ONLINE   Mark-P

Mark-P

    Screenwriter



  • 2,368 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 26 2005
  • Real Name:Mark Probst
  • LocationCamas, WA

Posted July 26 2013 - 12:54 PM

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!


  • nara and Cremildo like this

#412 of 420 OFFLINE   HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor



  • 982 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 11 2007
  • Real Name:David
  • LocationPandora

Posted July 26 2013 - 10:15 PM

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


Edited by HDvision, July 26 2013 - 11:22 PM.


#413 of 420 OFFLINE   Retro00064

Retro00064

    Agent



  • 27 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 27 2013
  • Real Name:Zachary

Posted July 27 2013 - 02:26 PM

[...]
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).


  • Mark B likes this

#414 of 420 OFFLINE   Dee Zee

Dee Zee

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 175 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 24 2012
  • Real Name:Tom
  • LocationFalls Church VA, USA

Posted July 27 2013 - 02:52 PM

You'd be seeing a lot of boom mics if they did that.
  • Cremildo likes this

#415 of 420 OFFLINE   Retro00064

Retro00064

    Agent



  • 27 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 27 2013
  • Real Name:Zachary

Posted July 27 2013 - 05:17 PM

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.



#416 of 420 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker



  • 3,149 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted July 27 2013 - 06:20 PM

you certainly never got that much image in any theater. Films should generally be cropped a little bit.
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#417 of 420 OFFLINE   Will Krupp

Will Krupp

    Screenwriter



  • 1,122 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 02 2003

Posted July 27 2013 - 06:31 PM

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

 


Edited by Will Krupp, July 27 2013 - 06:37 PM.


#418 of 420 ONLINE   Rob_Ray

Rob_Ray

    Screenwriter



  • 1,512 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 12 2004
  • Real Name:Rob Ray
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted July 28 2013 - 07:15 AM

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

#419 of 420 OFFLINE   kinzoels

kinzoels

    Agent



  • 42 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 25 2012

Posted August 12 2013 - 06:17 AM

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.

#420 of 420 OFFLINE   moviebuff75

moviebuff75

    Supporting Actor



  • 552 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 04 2009
  • Real Name:Eric Scott Richard
  • LocationIndianapolis, Indiana

Posted August 12 2013 - 06:43 AM

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?


Proud HTF Member Since: April, 2001






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Warner, Paramount

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users