Kubrick 16:9

Discussion in 'DVD' started by BobLAR, Feb 23, 2006.

  1. BobLAR

    BobLAR Auditioning

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    During the discussion Warners mentioned that the new Kubrick SE discs will be released in 16:9, which I am extremely grateful. Then they mentioned that the aspect ratio will be 1.77. I'm wondering why they chose that ratio, when in at least two books (The Stanley Kubrick Archives being one) There is a photo of the real "Overlook Hotel" with notes on it by Kubrick himself. His notes were for the second unit shooting in Oregon. It reads "THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1-1:85 obviously you compose for that but protect the full 1-1:33 area" It clearly shows that Kubrick composed "The Shining" for 1:1.85, so why is Warner's choosing 1.77. Anyone know the answer?
    Thanks.
     
  2. Vincent-P

    Vincent-P Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    2
    Check your DVDs. All Warner "1.85:1" DVDs are really 1.78:1. They simple open up the mattes a little. Paramount does it too. It's been going on for years. If you haven't noticed by now, it won't bother you in the future.
     
  3. Vincent_P

    Vincent_P Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,886
    Likes Received:
    229


    The difference is now he KNOWS that a lot (if not most) of the 1.85:1 theatrical movies he's been watching on DVD have been ever-so-slightly "opened up" to 1.78:1 (which he wouldn't notice anyway due to overscan, but I digress...).

    Let the "NO OAR = NO SALE" bitching commence! [​IMG]

    Vincent
     
  4. Andrew Bunk

    Andrew Bunk Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will now insert the obligatory overscan comment. [​IMG]
     
  5. PaulP

    PaulP Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    3,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    Watching DVDs on a PC monitor or a calibrated TV, you get no overscan.
     
  6. Andrew Bunk

    Andrew Bunk Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    0
    My set's been calibrated by one of the best in the biz....some overscan is unavoidable with CRT.
     
  7. John Alderson

    John Alderson Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    562
    Likes Received:
    0
    The difference between 1.85 and 1.78 is less than 4% (18 out of 480 scan lines of DVD). If you want to let this bother you, that is your choice.
     
  8. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,555
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Personally, I think it's better to go for 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1. Sometimes, it opens up just enough to keep things from being too cropped.

    And I'm thrilled that Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining will be 16x9. I saw EWS in 35mm tonight and it's perfect at 1.85:1.
     
  9. Andrew Bunk

    Andrew Bunk Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm happy they're doing it this way, because I plan to hang on to my 4:3 copies so I can have both. Honestly, I enjoy the films in both ratios. They have sort of a unique look in 4:3, but are also more cinematic in 16:9. At least with the new versions, when I want to see them at 1.85:1, I can get extra resolution.
     
  10. Stephen Lilley

    Stephen Lilley Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'm also probably going to end up hanging onto my current release of THE SHINING, if only because I think it looks so strikingly beautiful in 4:3. It's one of the best looking movies I've ever seen, and I think that ratio really does something to emphasize that.
     
  11. PaulP

    PaulP Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2001
    Messages:
    3,291
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wouldn't say "beautiful". I think the 1.33:1 of The Shining somehow makes it more claustrophobic and alien-looking.
     
  12. Jack Briggs

    Jack Briggs Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 1999
    Messages:
    16,738
    Likes Received:
    129
    Solution: Keep your present discs, but plan on purchasing the new ones. You will be happy. [​IMG]
     
  13. Rich Malloy

    Rich Malloy Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2000
    Messages:
    3,998
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm looking forward to these - particularly an improved "2001" and hopefully anamorphic transfers on the 1.66:1 ratio titles - but I don't know if I'll ever prefer to watch "EWS" or "The Shining" in the wider format (I haven't seen "FMJ" in anyway other than 1.33:1). In the past year, I did see "EWS" presented in 1.78:1 on HD Movienet, and did not prefer the framing. I wonder if I'll change my mind?
     
  14. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,429
    Likes Received:
    972
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    The Shining looked so perfect on a theatre screen in 1.85 when I ran it last October that I can't imagine going back to the current DVD's framing again.
     
  15. Rob Willey

    Rob Willey Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,317
    Likes Received:
    60
    Real Name:
    Rob
    Haven't seen this anywhere, but I have to ask the obligatory question: will we finally get to see the "unadulterated" version of EWS without those awful CGI characters the way the rest of the world sees it?

    Rob
     
  16. Dave H

    Dave H Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,540
    Likes Received:
    177
    One thing we can all agree on is that there was no good reason why Clockwork Orange was not anamorphic...glad to see they are fixing this for the next release.
     
  17. Jack Johnson

    Jack Johnson Second Unit

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been surprised how often open matte looks great for films shot for 1.85:1, at least the ones which can have the matte line opened-up. I mean, if the image is covered for it...and if it was good enough for Kubrick... Sometimes the composition is very satisfying. In some cases, I've sought out that version for recording when it's not made commercially available. It often seems more immersive on smaller screens, without being a cropped abomination that 2.35:1 in panavision would be, say.

    I found this to be the case with David Lynch's Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. Or, maybe I only grew accustomed to seeing it unmatted, and missed all the image which was framed out in the otherwise fine looking dvd from Newline. This was a case where the film was cropped significantly on all sides to arrive at the wider ratio...

    And I just drink in the Kubrick in 4:3, of which I have Eyes Wide Shut and The Shining. If the composition's okay for that format--and Kubrick obviously thought so--it really bothers me to see less of the frame.

    And now with 2.35:1 most often shot in Super35, there're that many more films which--in some cases--work very well in 4:3 that are significantly cropped on the vertical for 2.35:1. And if I ever see the unmatted version on cable and find something "interesting"--ahem... well, okay, okay...usually it's nudity or certain racy something--that is completely lost in the theatrical widescreen framing, I'm tempted to second guess how the director lensed his own film.

    I would gladly do without this burden of choice.




    --Jack
     
  18. MarcoBiscotti

    MarcoBiscotti Producer

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,799
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm slightly dissapointed that *both* versions are not being included but the initial sets were so fantastic that I don't really mind hanging on to them.

    I'm just curious if WB will be able to license the Anniversary Edition of Dr. Strangelove for this set or how they will see to include it in the upcoming box?

    I guess I'll be owning 2 versions of all of these movies. I just can't wait to get further specs on what exactly will be released as well as extra content...
     
  19. Haggai

    Haggai Producer

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,883
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marco, I think Robert Crawford said that they're not planning on a box set for these new 2-disc SEs, just individual releases.
     
  20. Ken Groulx

    Ken Groulx Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am I correct in assuming these will be among the early titles Warner will release on Blu-ray in conjunction with their standard DVDs?
     

Share This Page