-

Jump to content



Photo
* * * * * 3 votes

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

Paramount

  • 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

#141 of 317 Persianimmortal

Persianimmortal

    Supporting Actor

  • 937 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 2012
  • Real Name:Koroush Ghazi
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted April 19 2013 - 05:53 AM

So a release with both versions has pretty much been ruled out?

I'd never heard of Jeffrey Wells prior to this incident, and in the wake of his negative influence, I get the distinct impression that he is the Jerry Springer of film blogging.
  • Moe Dickstein and Stephen_J_H like this

#142 of 317 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,449 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted April 19 2013 - 07:28 AM

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.

 

Robert,

 

The 1.37, which has always been available, is the OAR.  The 1.66 was adapted for marketing.  And while the new 1.66, which will probably be available in an attempt toward TV sales, may be interesting as an adaptation and experiment, the 1.37 is the proper aspect ratio as planned and photographed.

 

Every print that I have ever examined has been the 1.37.

 

RAH


  • Rob_Ray likes this

"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


#143 of 317 Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter

  • 1,266 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted April 19 2013 - 07:32 AM

Robert,

 

The 1.37, which has always been available, is the OAR.  The 1.66 was adapted for marketing.  And while the new 1.66, which will probably be available in an attempt toward TV sales, may be interesting as an adaptation and experiment, the 1.37 is the proper aspect ratio as planned and photographed.

 

Every print that I have ever examined has been the 1.37.

 

RAH

 

I might be wrong, but My guess is that he was saying the DVDs will have been zoomboxed and 1.33:1, whilst the new Blu-ray Disc will be the complete frame area and 1.37:1.

 

My apologies to everyone if I have that wrong.

 

Steve W


Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#144 of 317 Yorkshire

Yorkshire

    Screenwriter

  • 1,266 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 22 2009

Posted April 19 2013 - 07:37 AM

They should release both... because if they don't, it means the theatrical aspect ratio of any movie doesn't count anymore, and any blogger with a strong voice and time to waste can twist the major companies arms into releasing squared versions of widescreen films, without any regards to the initial theatrical run format.

 

An academy version of Shane should be an alternate, or extra release. Not the main release. It's interesting, from an aficionado point of view, but the movie was released theatrically in widescreen. This should be the main release.

 

I suppose it really doesn't matter, but I can't agree that the directors original vision should be seen as playing second fiddle to the studio's marketting department.

 

But for me, this reminds me a little of the CoF release, where at least one person thought the 1.66:1 version was correct but refused to buy the release as Hammer were saying the 1.37:1 was correct, even though it contained both.

 

Look, I don't care if they release LoA in 16:9 saying that's the correct ratio, as long as the proper 'scope version is there, even if only tucked away as an extra.  Well, okay, I do care, but I hope you get what I mean - as long as you get what you want, why worry that the packaging says the other ratio is the correct one?

 

 

There are far too many great films we'll maybe never see on Blu-ray Disc at all to worry about the things we do get being mis-labelled.

 

Steve W


  • Rob_Ray likes this
Correct a fool and he will hate you, correct a wise man and he will thank you.

#145 of 317 ahollis

ahollis

    Producer

  • 5,695 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 01 2007
  • Real Name:Allen
  • LocationNew Orleans

Posted April 19 2013 - 07:39 AM

I am glad the decision had been made to release this in 1.37:1, but I was hoping for both for I would find it interesting to view the title as a majority of the Academy Members would have in order to honor it with an Oscar for cinematography.

Any way it's a buy.

Edited by ahollis, April 19 2013 - 07:45 AM.

  • JohnRa likes this
"Get a director and a writer and leave them alone. That`s how the best pictures get made" - William "Wild Bill" Wellman


#146 of 317 John Hodson

John Hodson

    Producer

  • 4,445 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 14 2003
  • Real Name:John
  • LocationBolton, Lancashire

Posted April 19 2013 - 07:53 AM

But for me, this reminds me a little of the CoF release, where at least one person thought the 1.66:1 version was correct but refused to buy the release as Hammer were saying the 1.37:1 was correct, even though it contained both.

 

Really? Even though Hammer were off their chump? Why would anyone do that?


So many films, so little time...
Film Journal Blog
Lt. Col. Thursday: Beaufort; no preliminary nonsense with him, no ceremonial phrasing. Straight from the shoulder as I tell you, do you hear me? They're recalcitrant swine and they must feel it...


#147 of 317 Howard Tom

Howard Tom

    Extra

  • 21 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 05 2003
  • Real Name:Howard Tom

Posted April 19 2013 - 08:24 AM

So, by the announcments at one time or another that the upcoming blu-ray would have one aspect ratio, then the other, but (maybe) not both it seems to be clear that digital masters exist of both versions.  What I would be curious about is what difference there would/could be in both picture detail and grain, if any. By this I mean:

 

1) If the two versions were downconverts to 2k from separate 4k masters (still scanned off an Academy print/negative/IP), then the widescreen version might actually have better picture quality (while losing screen information off the top and bottom), given the necessary compression and processing to bring it down to HDTV resolution would be (I assume) greater for the academy version than the Widescreen version.  How much better would be another issue.

 

2) But if the widescreen version was simply created from the Academy ratio 2k master then what we would have is in fact a digitally zoomed version of the Academy version, and that would mean less detail and possibly less well handled grain/more digital artifacts.

 

Of course, I have no idea if a 4k scan was even made, or if the source used even has that much more detail than the scan or blu-ray can resolve.  But given we're going to be waiting a bit longer than originally for this release there is not much to do besides speculate about other things out of our control. ;)



#148 of 317 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,512 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 19 2013 - 08:27 AM

Robert,

 

The 1.37, which has always been available, is the OAR.  The 1.66 was adapted for marketing.  And while the new 1.66, which will probably be available in an attempt toward TV sales, may be interesting as an adaptation and experiment, the 1.37 is the proper aspect ratio as planned and photographed.

 

Every print that I have ever examined has been the 1.37.

 

RAH

RAH,

 

First off, you quoting my post which was in response to somebody espousing the 1.66 ratio over the 1.37 is the main reason why people should be careful on how they word their comments.  Otherwise, your original point is lost as to what you were trying to convey to others because some will simply focus on your miswording and not the point you were trying to make in the discussion.

 

Secondly, I understand the movie was filmed at 1.37 ratio in 1951, almost two years before the push towards widescreen in 1953.  I am not disputing that fact, so yes, the movie's OAR as filmed was 1.37.  I was simply stating that for the most part except for those that viewed the film during its original theatrical run, most of us have only viewed this great film in 1.37, it's OAR as filmed.  Forgive me for using the term "theatrical OAR" when I should of simply stated "1.66 theatrical presentation".


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#149 of 317 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,512 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 19 2013 - 08:31 AM

I am glad the decision had been made to release this in 1.37:1, but I was hoping for both for I would find it interesting to view the title as a majority of the Academy Members would have in order to honor it with an Oscar for cinematography.

Any way it's a buy.

I just think it would've been interesting to see it in both ratios.  Anyhow, if it's 1.37 only then that's what I'll only view it in.


  • JohnRa likes this

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#150 of 317 JoeDoakes

JoeDoakes

    Screenwriter

  • 1,889 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 01 2009
  • Real Name:Ray

Posted April 19 2013 - 08:40 AM

Lou states in his Shane article about Jeffrey Wells:

 

While I don't agree with Jeffrey's bullying tactics -- and his dubious championing of 1:66 video releases for films shot in 1:78 as well as advocating scrubbing away film grain -- I suppose congratulations are in order. But I would still like to see Stevens Jr.'s version at some point, and even Wells has indicate he would tolerate a release with both aspect ratios.



Read more: DVD Extra Extra: 'Shane' Blu-ray now going out at 1:37 http://www.nypost.co...P#ixzz2QvZi7S3F

 

I hadn't been aware of Mr. Wells before this latest controversy and I know nothing about these other issues to which Lou refers, but I suspect that the reason for Mr. Wells success in this instance is that what was being planned in regards to Shane really touched a nerve.  Very few people would have gotten upset if WHV had planned to release both versions from the beginning, but to take a film with status of Shane and release it in a doctored version only in the days of blu ray was really going too far. Despite the fact that Shane was originally released with widescreen in mind, the original decision was roughly the equivalent of WHV saying that they would only release The Wizard of Oz in the forthcoming 3D version from hear on out.


Edited by JoeDoakes, April 19 2013 - 08:47 AM.


#151 of 317 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,449 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted April 19 2013 - 08:43 AM

I might be wrong, but My guess is that he was saying the DVDs will have been zoomboxed and 1.33:1, whilst the new Blu-ray Disc will be the complete frame area and 1.37:1.

 

My apologies to everyone if I have that wrong.

 

Steve W

 

The concept of "zoom-boxed" and 1.33 vs. 1.37 is almost irrelevant.  Original theatrical presentations of all films were usually so tainted that at the home video level, unless something has gone terribly wrong, one gets into picking nits.

 

RAH


  • Moe Dickstein likes this

"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


#152 of 317 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,449 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted April 19 2013 - 08:45 AM

So, by the announcments at one time or another that the upcoming blu-ray would have one aspect ratio, then the other, but (maybe) not both it seems to be clear that digital masters exist of both versions.  What I would be curious about is what difference there would/could be in both picture detail and grain, if any. By this I mean:

 

1) If the two versions were downconverts to 2k from separate 4k masters (still scanned off an Academy print/negative/IP), then the widescreen version might actually have better picture quality (while losing screen information off the top and bottom), given the necessary compression and processing to bring it down to HDTV resolution would be (I assume) greater for the academy version than the Widescreen version.  How much better would be another issue.

 

2) But if the widescreen version was simply created from the Academy ratio 2k master then what we would have is in fact a digitally zoomed version of the Academy version, and that would mean less detail and possibly less well handled grain/more digital artifacts.

 

Of course, I have no idea if a 4k scan was even made, or if the source used even has that much more detail than the scan or blu-ray can resolve.  But given we're going to be waiting a bit longer than originally for this release there is not much to do besides speculate about other things out of our control. ;)

 

No difference, with the exception of slightly more enlarged grain structure at 1.66 due to the field enlargement.  Everything was harvested from the original black & white negatives at 4k.

 

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


#153 of 317 Robert Harris

Robert Harris

    Archivist

  • 7,449 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 08 1999
  • Real Name:Robert Harris

Posted April 19 2013 - 08:48 AM

RAH,

 

First off, you quoting my post which was in response to somebody espousing the 1.66 ratio over the 1.37 is the main reason why people should be careful on how they word their comments.  Otherwise, your original point is lost as to what you were trying to convey to others because some will simply focus on your miswording and not the point you were trying to make in the discussion.

 

Secondly, I understand the movie was filmed at 1.37 ratio in 1951, almost two years before the push towards widescreen in 1953.  I am not disputing that fact, so yes, the movie's OAR as filmed was 1.37.  I was simply stating that for the most part except for those that viewed the film during its original theatrical run, most of us have only viewed this great film in 1.37, it's OAR as filmed.  Forgive me for using the term "theatrical OAR" when I should of simply stated "1.66 theatrical presentation".

 

Got it.  I saw the film during its original theatrical.  Whether it was 1.37ish, or 1.66ish, I have no idea.  No memory except for that poor dog, Yeller...

 

Am I confused?

 

RAH


  • Stephen_J_H likes this

"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


#154 of 317 Joe Bernardi

Joe Bernardi

    Supporting Actor

  • 755 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 24 2000
  • Real Name:Joe Bernardi
  • LocationDC area

Posted April 19 2013 - 09:22 AM

If Shane is released only in 1.37, I'll be surprised that they totally ignored the work that George Stevens, Jr. did with recomposing in 1.66.

 

They should include both versions, label 1.37 as the original OAR as filmed and 1.66 as the original theatically presented ratio.



#155 of 317 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,387 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 19 2013 - 10:39 AM

*
POPULAR

I've gotten confirmation that the final two words, "Bye Shane" are back where they belong in the new masters for the film.


  • John Hodson, Rob_Ray, FoxyMulder and 2 others like this

Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#156 of 317 Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,512 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted April 19 2013 - 11:39 AM

I've gotten confirmation that the final two words, "Bye Shane" are back where they belong in the new masters for the film.

Yeah, I forgot to address that issue yesterday.  Back in the original Shane thread about those final two words, over ten years ago, I played the VHS tape of Shane and I heard those last two words on the tape and then played the DVD that came out in 2000 and they were missing on the DVD.


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#157 of 317 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,387 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 19 2013 - 12:00 PM

It was an unfortunate mistake that has since been fixed.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg


#158 of 317 Dave B Ferris

Dave B Ferris

    Supporting Actor

  • 733 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 27 2000

Posted April 19 2013 - 12:27 PM

 

It was an unfortunate mistake that has since been fixed.

 
That seems to be the reasonable conclusion, although in that original thread, for which I provided a link on Page 7, the studio source (Martin Blythe) denied there had been a mistake.

#159 of 317 HDvision

HDvision

    Supporting Actor

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

Posted April 19 2013 - 12:35 PM

I suppose it really doesn't matter, but I can't agree that the directors original vision should be seen as playing second fiddle to the studio's marketting department.

 

It's a fact of the film life. It's like what happened to the theatrical cut of Pat Garret & Billy The Kid which was not released (unless I'm mistaken) on DVD, replaced by the director original intent. The theatrical version only exists on VHS now and is highly sought after by collectors due to it's rarity. But this is how the movie was released, it should be archived next to any other version on the new formats.

 

I don't dispute that the original intended aspect ratio is academy, and I am all for multiple versions and choice. I dispute that the original theatrical aspect ratio will not be available, replaced by a version which is not what people saw in "panoramic screens" theaters as advertised by the posters.

 

This was one of the first, if not the first western of the widescreen revolution. It looks bad that it will appear in academy on Blu-ray, just to please a small crowd of purists.

 

Both versions should be released (and I'll probably get them both).


  • JohnRa likes this

#160 of 317 Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer

  • 3,387 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted April 19 2013 - 12:38 PM

It was the first feature presented widescreen in 1953.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Snipe_zpsa426c063.jpg






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Paramount

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users