Questions for you Western Buffs. RE: Shane

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Robert G, Sep 1, 2001.

  1. Robert G

    Robert G Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2000
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I tried to search the archives on this one and came up empty. I did read Obi's reveiw and found it interesting and informative. However, I still have one big question. Is this films OAR 1.33 to 1? I would love to get this disc if it is indeed OAR. Any information on where to purchase is also greatly appreciated. I would like to try some local B&M's today because I'm dying to see all of this film NOW but if that does not work I'll probably order on line.
    I stumbled upon this movie on sattelite this morning and could not turn the channel. But, my sattelite went out due to the weather we have been having here in Houston lately. Figures, I finally catch something good on TV and the damn thing goes out.
     
  2. Deepak Shenoy

    Deepak Shenoy Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 1998
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am no Western buff, but I believe Shane (as well as Stevens' Giant) were shot in the Academy aspect ratio of 1.37:1 and then matted down to 1.66:1 for theatrical exhibition.
    [Edited last by Deepak Shenoy on September 01, 2001 at 09:44 AM]
     
  3. Jim_K

    Jim_K Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,090
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SHANE was filmed & intended to be presented in the acadamy ratio (1.37:1) but at the time it was released the widescreen revolution was taking place so it was often cropped to as much as 1.85:1 when shown in theaters. The DVD has the correct aspect (1.33:1) ratio so its safe to get.
    Also if you want it right away I know the Best Buy's in my area always carry it.
    Jim
     
  4. Todd Phillips

    Todd Phillips Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2000
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have it, and it seems to be cropped down from its matted version. For example the picture on the back of the case (which is 1.66:1) is much better composed than the same scene in the actual movie. Arms of the characters on the edge of the frame are cut off in the scene in the movie. The vertical composition is still the same.
    I don't think it is an open matte presentation. [​IMG]
    ------------------
    Todd Phillips
    [Edited last by Todd Phillips on September 01, 2001 at 01:21 PM]
     
  5. Jim_K

    Jim_K Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,090
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  6. Todd Phillips

    Todd Phillips Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2000
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, I have adjusted my (trinitron) monitor for minimal overscan.
    But I feel that is beside the point: the difference between 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 is quite noticeable. the picture on the back of the case is 1.66:1, it matches the vertical composition of the actual film, and it shows more on the left and right sides of the frame than the film.
    Please don't mistake me: I'm not demanding that I'm right, but the composition felt overly tight while watching the whole film, and it's not something I normally experience when watching other films that I know are 1.37:1 (for example, Singing in the Rain). Then when I compared it to the still frame on the back I was a bit disappointed.
    ------------------
    Todd Phillips
     
  7. Greg Krewet

    Greg Krewet Stunt Coordinator
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 1999
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    110
    I am not sure about the aspect ratio, but I believe true
    fans of this movie might be interested in a CD-rom called the "Making of Shane" It shows the present day sites of all the locations used in Jackson Hole Wyo. It also presents
    expenditure sheets, daily casting calls, continuity errors and other trivia. It is unusual for a movie of this age to be documented so well.
    I found my copy at Amazon and the author is Walt Farmer.
    Best
    Greg
     
  8. Robert G

    Robert G Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2000
    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks guys. I 'll have to pick it up. I didn't get a chance yesterday due to the constant downpours of rain here. Thanks for the information.
     
  9. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Archivist
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 1999
    Messages:
    10,382
    Likes Received:
    7,659
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Real Name:
    Robert Harris
    Just as a point of reference...
    All films produced before the advent of what one might consider "modern" wide screen were NOT 1.37:1 AR.
    Many were 1.37; in fact most may have been 1.37...
    but there were many different sizes and shapes of film inclusive of 70mm or 70mm-like productions in the 1890s;
    and many silent productions which had a more vertical
    shape than the later Academy ratio with its thicker
    frame lines.
    And yes, Shane was photographed 1.37 in three strip Technicolor and probably exhibited in many venues with
    1.66 aperture plates; the same situation as Rear Window.
    RAH
     
  10. David Tallen

    David Tallen Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 1999
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mr. Harris is (of course) correct. The facts about aspect ratio are frequently misstated on this forum. A great example of an early widescreen movie was recently shown on AMC or TCM (sorry, can't remember which) in its OAR. It was an early John Wayne movie, The Big Trail, directed by Louis Loeffler and Raoul Walsh, released in 1930. According to IMDB, it was filmed in 70 mm "Grandeur", which was about a 2.1:1 aspect ratio. Although not a great movie by modern standards, it is a must-see for any movie buff.
    ------------------
    "If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety record of nuclear is really very good." Paul O'Neill, Treasury Secretary.
     
  11. Todd Phillips

    Todd Phillips Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2000
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I love dragging up old threads...
    I finally got a dvd-rom, and now I can examine films without overscan...I still hold that Shane is cropped. It seems way too tight. Perhaps the aspect ratio is correct, so maybe it's just zoomed in a bit. Here are my examples.
    First is the screen capture from the DVD:
    [​IMG]
    Then the image from the back cover of the DVD:
    [​IMG]
    No one is cropped in the cover picture, but they are in the screen shot. However the screen shot shows more headroom and leg room. To me the cover shot is the more pleasing and well composed. This cropping is unfortunate since the film is very tightly composed.
     
  12. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,596
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Shane was filmed at 1.33:1 and NEVER intended to be seen at ANY other ratio whatsoever.

    Paramount decided to allow 1.66:1 matting to be done in theaters in the original release to cash in on the new widescreen craze.

    Comparing frames from the film with a still is not that good of a comparison. A better one would to compare an actual frame of film.

    Also, framing has to be taken into consideration as well.
     
  13. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you look at the movie, it should be completely obvious that it is supposed to be 1.37:1.
    As further evidence, I have a book at home containing a series of screenshots from Shane, specifically discussing composition. The screenshots are also 1.37:1.
     
  14. Todd Phillips

    Todd Phillips Second Unit

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2000
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'd conceded that Shane is 1.37:1. My point was that the DVD framing is still too tight (perhaps from zooming in).
    Do you all not feel this way?
    Lacking the actual film, I thought the cover picture was evidence of missing picture.
    (For my final trick) Here is a combined image from those two pictures with a 1.37:1 frame.
    [​IMG]
    I think it is much better composition than the DVD shows. Am I being anal-retentive? Perhaps. But it still bothers me.
     
  15. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    33,061
    Likes Received:
    8,121
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    I think the framing of the dvd is just fine and Paramount did an excellent job with this dvd release.

    Crawdaddy
     
  16. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Todd,
    If you went to see Shane in a cinema, you would probably also see a variation in the framing.
    Aspect ratios/framing is far from an exact science.
    Robert Harris did an article on www.thedigitalbits.com which discussed this very thing. You may want to give it a read.
    I recent went to see some "new 35 mm prints" of some old 1.37:1 films in a cinema and the framing was tighter than on their respective DVDs.
    Some variation is inevitable and not worth losing sleep over.
     
  17. Joe Caps

    Joe Caps Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2000
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    1,610
    Never compare to a photo which may just be the studio publicist on the set doing a quick snap for that scene.

    Another wrong thing about aspect ratio I constantly see is that many think that all early Cinemascope films are 3:55 to 1, but Fox dropped that very early on and quickly went to 2:35. I have seen too many transfers of 2:35 films cropped top and bottom to make them looke like 2:55 scope films!
     

Share This Page