Aspect Ratio and Stanley Kubrick... (1 Viewer)

[Eric T]

Someone on the hardware forum told me that if I watch the 4:3 Kubrick films zoomed on my TV to 16x9, then it would be the same as it was presented theatrically, with cropping top and bottom. Is this true? If so, it doesn't hold well for the floor/ceiling framing that Seth mentions.

 

[Jeff D]

Good point on the framing, if that's the way it's done. I can't see how else it would be done.

 

[GerardoHP]

Indeed, the Kubrick films were not shown theatrically at 1.33:1 and, despite Mr. Vitale's statement that they would be shown in high definition matted for the 1.33:1 aspect ratio, EWS keeps showing up on HBO HDTV (which occasionally does show films in their OAR) as a 1.78:1 movie.

 

[David Lambert]

EWS keeps showing up on HBO HDTV (which occasionally does show films in their OAR) as a 1.78:1 movie.

In that statement it is clear and obvious to me that the folks at HBO HDTV think that 1.78:1 is the OAR for EWS and are trying to be "good" by showing it widescreen.
They just probably don't have a clue that the director's intent was otherwise! A twist, to be sure.

 

[Jesse Leonard]

In that statement it is clear and obvious to me that the folks at HBO HDTV think that 1.78:1 is the OAR for EWS and are trying to be "good" by showing it widescreen.

Don't take what HBO shows on HD-HBO as any type of answer for what OAR of a movie is. They most often Pan&Scan 2.35 movies down to 1.78. HBO couldn't care less what OAR of a movie is!

 

[Robert Harris]

Re: Seth Paxton's comments:

2001 has a "flatter" look, as you call it because of decreased depth of field via the larger aperture of SP70 and additional illumination necessitated by the format.

Spatacus was not 2.35, but rather 2.21.

RAH

 

[GerardoHP]

It just makes me wonder why the Kubrick people are so rigid about releasing his films on video in 1.33:1 but will let something like this ride, when HBO HDTV already shows tons of movies at 1.33:1.

I firmly believe that the whole notion that his films must be shown at 1.33:1 is a lot less written in stone than the Kubrick forces would cares us to believe. As for myself, I wish his films were also available in anamorphic 16x9 widescreen. Anamorphic because it looks far better than non, and 16X9 because this is a closer to what I originally experienced in the movie theater, which is, for me, the whole point of investing in a home theater.

 

[Eric T]

They most often Pan&Scan 2.35 movies down to 1.78. HBO couldn't care less what OAR of a movie is!

This is true. Last weekend they showed Finding Forrester in 1.78. I had no idea it wasn't the OAR until they rolled the credits at the end and it switched to 2.35 letterboxed :frowning:

 

[TedD]

The aspect ratio of the 65mm negative is around 2.13:1

Nope, here is the correct camera aperture A.R.
Aperture Dimensions: 1.912" x .0.870" nominal
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Reference:
http://www.dvdaust.com/film_formats.htm
The magnetic stripes added to the release print decrease the projected A.R. to approx 2.2:1.
Ted

 

[Mattias_ka]

I don't get it! You people that "zoom" the 4:3 image to get a 16x9 is no better than the "rednecks" that want their tv filled without any black bars. Stanley WANTED the 1.33:1- 1.66:1 soft matt on his movies on VHS, LD and DVD.
As the Swedish Eyes wide shut DVD, before the picture it says that Stanley WANTED the movie to have the 1.33:1 framing for the DVD.

 

[Jon Robertson]

Nice one, Mattias!
The OAR hypocrisy of some over this issue is astonishing. They are presented at Kubrick's wishes, and if they were anamorphical and matted, nearly each and every one of you would complain because it wasn't in accordance with what Kubrick wanted!
It's just the whole Evil Dead 1.85:1 thing again...
Aspect ratios are not set in stone from the camera to the cinema to the television.
Or, to put it another way - a film is shot 1.37:1 on film, matted to 1.85:1 at the cinema, and then the matting is 1.78:1 for high-def and DVD. There are dozens and dozens of examples of this, yet no-one goes to pieces - why in this instance, when we go back to how it was originally shot and Kubrick wanting you to see every inch of what he captured on film?

 

[Sean Patrick]

that's funny, this redneck thinks that zooming EWS on his 16:9 looks a whole lot like it did in the theater....

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Clockwork Orange was intended to be presented 1.66:1, if I'm not mistaken. When HBO show it, are there ANY bars on the sides? I recall that Kubrick was disturbed that the UK theatrical run of CO a few years back was 1.85:1.

 

[Jack Briggs]

As for myself, I wish his films were also available in anamorphic 16x9 widescreen. Anamorphic because it looks far better than non, and 16X9 because this is a closer to what I originally experienced in the movie theater, which is, for me, the whole point of investing in a home theater.

But it depends on what the director intended, and he was painfully aware that his wishes were not carried out in the commercial cinemas as well as in the home-video market. My goodness, but we're talking about a man who sent out his deputies with SPL meters to determine if individual commercial cinemas were screening A Clockwork Orange at the proper volumes.

My take on properly screening a Stanley Kubrick film:

What did Stanley Kubrick want me to see?

 

[Damin J Toell]

Or, to put it another way - a film is shot 1.37:1 on film, matted to 1.85:1 at the cinema, and then the matting is 1.78:1 for high-def and DVD. There are dozens and dozens of examples of this, yet no-one goes to pieces - why in this instance, when we go back to how it was originally shot and Kubrick wanting you to see every inch of what he captured on film?

Because most directors who shoot in 35mm film for 1.85:1 acquisition don't want the entire exposed negative to be displayed. It doesn't matter what the AR of the exposed negative is, it matters what the intended AR is. For virtually every film projected at 1.85:1 in theatres, 1.85:1 is the intended AR. No one "goes to pieces" when they are shown ~1.85:1 because that's how they are supposed to be shown. For Kubrick, however, his last three films were shown 1.85:1 in American theatres, but his intended AR was 1.37:1. There are not "dozens and dozens" of other films like this. Not by a long shot. Kubrick is Kubrick, and, like any director, should have his intentions with regard to his own films met. This has nothing to do with "going back to how it was originally shot" and everything to do with showing a film the way the director wants it to be shown.

There is no hyprocisy here. I want what the director wants.

DJ

 

[Jean-Michel]

I recall that Kubrick was disturbed that the UK theatrical run of CO a few years back was 1.85:1.

I was under the impression that the rerelease of ACO was after his death. The BBFC lists it as being classified in December of 1999 so I guess it was possible he was around to supervise the prints.

 

[Jon Robertson]

Damin - I was not referring to Kubrick and I am a big fan of his later films in the academy ratio.

I was referring to the exactness of the aspect ratio that some demand to see, when what we finally end up with isn't in a ratio the film has either been composed or theatrically seen in, yet you'd expect a full-scale internet riot the way some folks carry on.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

I was under the impression that the rerelease of ACO was after his death. The BBFC lists it as being classified in December of 1999 so I guess it was possible he was around to supervise the prints.

You are correct. The exact quote I was remembering was from Leon Vitali - whose feelings, I'm sure, were Kubrick's as well... Here's the bit...

With A Clockwork Orange, now in multiplexes - and I think it is terrible - you can only really project it in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. If you project A Clockwork Orange in 1.85:1, it kills it, it really does. It was composed for 1.66:1 and that is how it should look.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I was referring to the exactness of the aspect ratio that some demand to see, when what we finally end up with isn't in a ratio the film has either been composed or theatrically seen in, yet you'd expect a full-scale internet riot the way some folks carry on.

Jon - I'm sorry that I misread you. I guess when it comes down to problems like 1.85:1 films being opened to 1.78:1 for DVD transfers, it seems that there are bigger fish to fry in the quest for proper presentation on films.

DJ

 

[Robert Harris]

Re: Ted D's find on DVDaust...
"Nope, here is the correct camera aperture A.R.
Aperture Dimensions: 1.912" x .0.870" nominal
Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
Reference:
http://www.dvdaust.com/film_formats.htm
The magnetic stripes added to the release print decrease the projected A.R. to approx 2.2:1."
*******
The web site's math is off here as is their information.
Camera aperture for spherical 65mm Panavision and Todd-AO is
2.066 x .906, which yields an AR of 2.2803.
Minimum protected projector aperture is 1.912 x .870, which yields an AR of 2.1977 -- not 2.35.
The majority of plates in perfectly conformed projection venues are cut to 2.21:1.
Beyond the mag stripes, one must take into consideration both splice lines (horizontal, at the top and bottom of frame on SP70) and "niz." Niz are the small particles of dust and dirt which accumulate both in the camera aperture, even though cleaned with each load -- and within the projector aperture. It is generally seen building up at the top of frame and "hanging down" from bottom, as frame is viewed upside down.
RAH