-

Jump to content



Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray?

Paramount

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

Poll: Which Aspect Ratio(s) is your preference for "Shane" on Blu-ray? (144 member(s) have cast votes)

Which of the three options below would you choose to purchase "Shane" on Bluray?

  1. Shane with 1.66:1 Aspect Ratio Only (10 votes [6.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.94%

  2. Shane with 1.37:1 Aspect Ratio Only (28 votes [19.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.44%

  3. Shane with both, 1.66:1 and 1.37:1 Aspect Ratios (106 votes [73.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.61%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 of 317 OFFLINE   ahollis

ahollis

    Producer

  • 5,743 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted April 12 2013 - 07:45 AM

Gentlemen, you can tell me I'm wrong but what I meant by 'proper' widescreen is that it isn't 1.85 or 2.35, 2.55, 2.76 etc. I do not think of 1.66 as widescreen - just a personal view!


Still today In the movie exhibition industry Widescreen is used as a reference for the 1.85:1 aspect ratio and Scope is a reference for 2.35:1 ratio. Something's just don't change and this reference is used for format identifications of digital presentations.
"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#42 of 317 OFFLINE   JSul

JSul

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 59 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 12 2013

Posted April 12 2013 - 12:16 PM

Both for me.

#43 of 317 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 2,290 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 12 2013 - 12:32 PM

I would like both.  And, as I've said before, we don't really know WHAT we're getting because there has been no official announcement.  I can guarantee you that the disc has been authored so whatever it is it is - but I'm just patiently waiting to get the official word.



#44 of 317 OFFLINE   Cremildo

Cremildo

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 243 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 12 2013
  • Real Name:Gustavo H. Razera
  • LocationBrazil

Posted April 12 2013 - 01:36 PM

I voted both.

 

The main feature would be 1.37:1.

 

The widescreen version, which seems to be a compromise of Loyal Griggs' and George Stevens' original artistic intent (and won't even be the same widescreen framing shown theatrically in the fifties and beyond), should be included to appease consumers who dislike big black bars. It could be added as a bonus.

 

It must be said I'm still awaiting Mr. Furmanek's final report on his research, though. I wonder if there will be any surprising new info.


Edited by Cremildo, April 12 2013 - 01:57 PM.


#45 of 317 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,481 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 12 2013 - 02:42 PM

Yes, there will...


  • Cremildo likes this

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#46 of 317 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 2,290 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 12 2013 - 04:35 PM

I voted both.

 

The main feature would be 1.37:1.

 

The widescreen version, which seems to be a compromise of Loyal Griggs' and George Stevens' original artistic intent (and won't even be the same widescreen framing shown theatrically in the fifties and beyond), should be included to appease consumers who dislike big black bars. It could be added as a bonus.

 

It must be said I'm still awaiting Mr. Furmanek's final report on his research, though. I wonder if there will be any surprising new info.

This isn't about "customers who dislike big black bars."  This is about how this film was shown on its original engagement.  I'm for both versions and will be watching both happily if given the opportunity.  Whatever Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done, I'm sure it's minor tweaks up and down, just like every home video transfer in any widescreen ratio forever.



#47 of 317 OFFLINE   Cremildo

Cremildo

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 243 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 12 2013
  • Real Name:Gustavo H. Razera
  • LocationBrazil

Posted April 12 2013 - 05:23 PM

This isn't about "customers who dislike big black bars."  This is about how this film was shown on its original engagement.  I'm for both versions and will be watching both happily if given the opportunity.  Whatever Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done, I'm sure it's minor tweaks up and down, just like every home video transfer in any widescreen ratio forever.

 

Yes, it is.

 

For lots of people it is.

 

Regular folk just want their expensive 16x9 screen totally filled with image. General audiences don't know and don't care about film history, about aspect ratios, about the artists' original intentions. They want entertainment that looks great on their TV. I don't want to sound patronising; it's just reality.

 

This is a very particular subject which is important for hardcore cinephiles, film historians, film critics, collectors and such. Just because this particular web forum is paying utmost attention to the debate doesn't mean buyers out there are obsessing about it, too.



#48 of 317 OFFLINE   Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway

    captveg

  • 7,215 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted April 12 2013 - 05:27 PM

Warner has shown that they are not shy about releasing 1.37:1 content properly on Blu-ray if a film was presented that way in its initial theatrical run. They have a whole box set of such films coming out in May in the Gangster Collection. I think this particular decision has little to do with the "fill up the screen" mentality. If that was the case it would be 1.78:1, not 1.66:1.


"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932


#49 of 317 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 2,290 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 13 2013 - 12:11 AM

Yes, it is.

 

For lots of people it is.

 

Regular folk just want their expensive 16x9 screen totally filled with image. General audiences don't know and don't care about film history, about aspect ratios, about the artists' original intentions. They want entertainment that looks great on their TV. I don't want to sound patronising; it's just reality.

 

This is a very particular subject which is important for hardcore cinephiles, film historians, film critics, collectors and such. Just because this particular web forum is paying utmost attention to the debate doesn't mean buyers out there are obsessing about it, too.

No it is not - not THIS specific discussion about THIS specific film on THIS specific forum.  You'd be hard-pressed to show me anyone here who is like what you're describing.  That is the POINT of here.



#50 of 317 OFFLINE   Malcolm Bmoor

Malcolm Bmoor

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 93 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 27 2004
  • Real Name:Malcolm Blackmoor
  • LocationUK

Posted April 13 2013 - 12:26 AM

Having just read that IMDB has managed to escape being sued for $1M for revealing an actress's age this is a very small matter. It lists SHANE as being in mono but GREENBRIAR (a marvellous site if you don't know of it)

 

http://greenbriarpic...blogspot.co.uk/

 

- are currently showing an original release poster that as well as proclaiming a huge wide screen also describes stereo-phonic (!) sound. So I'm confused and wonder what the Blu-ray sound will be.


Malcolm Blackmoor

#51 of 317 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,481 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 13 2013 - 06:38 AM

Details on SHANE's stereo release can be found here: http://www.3dfilmarc...n-documentation


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#52 of 317 OFFLINE   Cinescott

Cinescott

    Supporting Actor

  • 838 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 2010
  • Real Name:Scott
  • LocationMilwaukee, WI

Posted April 13 2013 - 07:26 AM

*
POPULAR

Slightly off-topic, but for those interested, this is what the "Shane" cabin looked like as of a few years ago. During a trip to Grand Teton National Park, I asked a ranger if there was anything left of the shooting location, and he guided me here. [attachment=677:wyoming10.jpg]

[attachment=678:wyoming11.jpg]

[attachment=679:wyoming12.jpg]

[attachment=680:wyoming13.jpg]

wyoming16.jpg  

Attached Thumbnails

  • wyoming10.jpg
  • wyoming11.jpg
  • wyoming12.jpg
  • wyoming13.jpg

  • John Hodson, Frank Ha and ahollis like this

"There are two types of people in the world, my friend. Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."


#53 of 317 OFFLINE   Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted April 13 2013 - 08:13 AM

Thanks for the location photos, Cinescott. I'm always interested in location photos. If I didn't know better I'd think that was an authentic century cabin. It's built the same way. Instead of using facade materials like in so many films, the producers of SHANE used the real materials and built the sets in the real way. This attention to authenticity is partly what makes SHANE a very special western.


  • JSul likes this

#54 of 317 OFFLINE   Professor Echo

Professor Echo

    Screenwriter

  • 1,530 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 28 2008
  • Real Name:Glen
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 13 2013 - 11:41 AM

Great pics, Cinescott! Thanks for posting.

 

(OT: I miss the old HTF where everyone had to post at least their first name, whether true or not. It at least seemed like a friendlier place).



#55 of 317 OFFLINE   Jeff Adkins

Jeff Adkins

    Screenwriter

  • 1,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 18 1998
  • Real Name:Jeff Adkins

Posted April 13 2013 - 02:44 PM

This isn't about "customers who dislike big black bars."  This is about how this film was shown on its original engagement.  I'm for both versions and will be watching both happily if given the opportunity.  Whatever Mr. Stevens, Jr. has done, I'm sure it's minor tweaks up and down, just like every home video transfer in any widescreen ratio forever.

I voted both as well, since it never hurts to have options.  But I believe it was stated in the other thread that Shane sat on the shelf a year before it was released.  If it had been released when it was originally scheduled, it would have been 1.37.  The only reason it exhibited at 1.66 was because of that year delay.  

 

The 1.66 version being presented on the upcoming Blu-Ray will not be "how the film was shown on its original engagement" since it has been re-framed on a shot-by-shot basis.  

 

The Blu-Ray version will be neither the original composition, nor the originally exhibited composition.   I'm going to pass on this one.



#56 of 317 OFFLINE   haineshisway

haineshisway

    Screenwriter

  • 2,290 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2011
  • Real Name:Bruce
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted April 13 2013 - 03:35 PM

I voted both as well, since it never hurts to have options.  But I believe it was stated in the other thread that Shane sat on the shelf a year before it was released.  If it had been released when it was originally scheduled, it would have been 1.37.  The only reason it exhibited at 1.66 was because of that year delay.  

 

The 1.66 version being presented on the upcoming Blu-Ray will not be "how the film was shown on its original engagement" since it has been re-framed on a shot-by-shot basis.  

 

The Blu-Ray version will be neither the original composition, nor the originally exhibited composition.   I'm going to pass on this one.

Then you may as well skip every Blu-ray ever made because every transfer has reframing - it's been said here over and over and over again.  First of all, I don't think anyone here would know how it was framed in its original release, save for perhaps Mr. Stevens, Jr.  Second of all, I'm sure what he's done is just tweak the shots as is done in every home video transfer.  Tweaking is what would have happened in any theater back then, because no one had any control over how the projectionists were centering the frame on a 1.66 film.  There would have been differences in every theater.


Edited by haineshisway, April 13 2013 - 07:32 PM.

  • Moe Dickstein and JohnRa like this

#57 of 317 OFFLINE   Moe Dickstein

Moe Dickstein

    Filmmaker

  • 3,145 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 06 2001
  • Real Name:T R Wilkinson
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA

Posted April 13 2013 - 08:45 PM

I love how nearly to a man people are asking for an inferior framing on the 1.66 version... Seems that those of us who have been able to do such frame tweaks are the ones that get it though.
Yes, these strange things happen all the time - PT Anderson, Magnolia

#58 of 317 OFFLINE   lukejosephchung

lukejosephchung

    Screenwriter

  • 1,205 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 31 2007
  • Real Name:Luke J. Chung
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA., USA

Posted April 13 2013 - 09:44 PM

I love how nearly to a man people are asking for an inferior framing on the 1.66 version... Seems that those of us who have been able to do such frame tweaks are the ones that get it though.

I find it insulting to the aesthetic judgments of the Forum's membership that you are automatically dismissing the theatrical OAR as "inferior" without so much as even looking at the final results, since it isn't even available for visual inspection yet!!! :rolleyes:


Edited by lukejosephchung, April 13 2013 - 09:44 PM.


#59 of 317 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,703 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 13 2013 - 10:02 PM

I find it insulting to the aesthetic judgments of the Forum's membership that you are automatically dismissing the theatrical OAR as "inferior" without so much as even looking at the final results, since it isn't even available for visual inspection yet!!! :rolleyes:

To be fair, few if any of us have seen the theatrical OAR either.  The only thing most of us have viewed is the 1.37:1 presentation on some movie theater showings, TV broadcasts and previous video format releases.


  • lukejosephchung likes this

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#60 of 317 OFFLINE   lukejosephchung

lukejosephchung

    Screenwriter

  • 1,205 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 31 2007
  • Real Name:Luke J. Chung
  • LocationSan Francisco, CA., USA

Posted April 13 2013 - 10:06 PM

To be fair, few if any of us have seen the theatrical OAR either.  The only thing most of us have viewed is the 1.37:1 presentation on some movie theater showings, TV broadcasts and previous video format releases.

Agreed, Crawdaddy...I'm just finding some of the needlessly pre-emptive comments being made in the heat of the moment to be a more than a little off-putting...I'm withholding judgment myself until I see the results on my screen when the title reaches my possession...since this is the only game in town as far as getting "Shane" in HD-BD, I've already pre-ordered this from Amazon...







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Paramount

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users