An interesting rumour... (1 Viewer)

[Patrick McCart]

Exactly. I really think Leon Vitali was just taking Kubrick's preferences in the wrong way. He even said the last 3 films would be pillarboxed, yet Eyes Wide Shut is shown at 1.78:1 on HD stations! Kubrick filmed safe for 1.33:1, so there's absolutely no reason not to make every post-Spartacus film 16x9 enhanced and 1.66:1 or 1.78:1. If it was about exposing the most picture, it didn't happen to A Clockwork Orange since it's exactly 1.66:1 on the remastered DVD, yet the matting is around 1.50:1 on the old DVD (with hard mattes often visible).

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

I have watched Lolita; A Clockwork Orange; Barry Lyndon; The Shining; Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut zoomed-in to 1.78:1 and the framing looks like any other anamorphic 1.78-1.85 transfer. The headroom is fine. Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket have been shown on TV in various parts of the world in HD at 1.78:1 and are said to have looked amazing. The current (restored and remastered) non-anamorphic and 1.33:1 open-matte transfer otherwise look stunning - if only they were anamorphic!

But if Warner get it into their head that Lolita; Clockwork and Lyndon should be 1.66:1, then I doubt that we'll see anamorphic transfers. BTW, what was the last 1.66:1 Warner transfer?

 

[Damin J Toell]

2001 is a post-Spartacus film, you know...

DJ

 

[Patrick McCart]

^
Yeah, I goofed. Although, I expect people to know that 2001 isn't part of the majority of Kubrick aspect ratios.


Apparently, it was Giant (released in 2003). They HAVE done 1.66:1 at least once, with Friendly Persuasion.

 

[Kevin M]

Offering both AR's of Kubrick's post 2001 films would quell some of the screaming, as BR/HD-DVD have the space to do so without compromising quality (even up to including a second disc for extras if need be) I see no reason not to.


Oh, I'm sorry...am I being reasonable and all inclusive...how dare I?

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Ah. How many 1.66:1 films have they fudged to 1.78:1 anamorphic (Horror of Dracula; Curse of Frankenstein, etc) since Giant? Wasn't the elusive Canadian DVD that preceded the SE 1.78:1 anamorphic? Didn't George Stevens' son insist on 1.66:1 for the film? Frankly, I feel that Giant would be been better off being 1.33 on DVD. I feel this way about most 1950s films that are 1.66 on DVD, not counting VistaVision films, which should be anamorphic on DVD.

MGM continue to shit on us with 1.66:1 letterbox and now 1.33:1 p&s/open-matte on stuff like Pontecorvo's recently restored, Burn! (Brando). I was hoping that the Sony take-over would have seen to the end of non-anamorphic MGM transfers.

 

[Vincent_P]

I've seen THE SHINING twice in 35mm projected at 1.85:1, and it indeed looks terrific and perfectly composed that way.

Vincent

 

[Al (alweho)]

Gordon, on the recently released 'enhanced for widescreen' "James Dean: Forever Young" documentary I was pleasantly surprised to see the clips from Giant shown in 16x9.

To my eyes at least they looked a heck of a lot better on my 50" widescreen than the 1.66 non-enhanced SE DVD. The picture composition seemed to work very well. IMHO it's a shame we didn't get a choice of aspect ratios on this title.

YMMV of course.