Shane Blu-ray... in 1:66? (1 Viewer)

[PaulaJ]

"Full screen" means that it fills standard home video screens. Apparently at whatever ratio one possesses.

Therefore, it would mean either 1.33 or 1.78. If your screen happens to be one of those two, you'll be safe.

Heh heh.

 

[kingofthejungle]

Note that details from ClassicFlix also lists the format as DVD. I think this is a quick copy-paste job from the old edition with a few hasty updates.

 

[JoeDoakes]

There's an absolute reverse paranoia on films formats out there. In the 80's, we lobbyed for widescreen movies. Now people looby for boxy movies of films they thought always were boxy when they were widescreen.

You can't compare with Citizen Kane, which was shot and released in 1941 in academy format more than a decade before the conversion of the industry to widescreen, and in such a way that converting to 1.66 would damage the compositions and be an heresy.

Shane was released in 1.66:1. It will appear on Blu-ray in 1.66:1. That is the correct theatrical aspect ratio (with some slight adjustments to make it look better, which other directors always do on new transfers). Deal with it.

My recollection of the criticism of what was being released on home video in the 1980s was not that it was boxy, but that it was presenting a false image of many widescreen films. I recall an episode of Siskel & Ebert in which they spoke in favor of letterboxing, and they explained what pan and scan meant. I forget what film they used as an example, but in the scene they showed, a group of people were sitting in the stands at a sporting event. In the original film, the camera was relatively static and one saw the entire group throughout the scene. However, in the pan and scan version, the home video transfer first "panned" over the entire widescreen frame, then "scanned" bits of the subsequent frames depending upon who was speaking. The end result is that lots of the original film was being excluded from what the home video viewer saw. If Shane is being released in a widescreen only format, it's basically replicating the whole pan and scan problem.

I see no reason the comparison with Citizen Kane isn't apt. I am not aware that Stevens thought of the possibility that his film would be projected in widescreen any more than did Welles.

As for disliking Academy ratio so much that one would prefer that the top and bottom of the screen of Academy ratio films were chopped off, I find that inexplicable. It seems analogous to those who dislike black and white and want everything colorized.

 

[JoeDoakes]

"Full screen" means that it fills standard home video screens. Apparently at whatever ratio one possesses.

Therefore, it would mean either 1.33 or 1.78. If your screen happens to be one of those two, you'll be safe.

Clarity is a nice thing.

RAH

Does that mean that you won't even get a widescreen 1.66 for the Shane disk unless you project it? What if you play the Shane disk on a 1.33 television, would you get a letterboxed image of the 1.66 ratio like you get when you currently play an anamorphic widescreen DVD on a 1.33 television? If anyone gets a review copy of the Shane blu, it would be nice to see the language on the back about the format.

 

[DVDvision]

It's hard to judge on that shot, it may be zoomboxed and it may be framed with the same top and bottom information, but with extra info on the sides on the new master. We'll see.

PS I want the TV shows too. In 1.66. They know they can do it

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Presumably, with a centred 1.66:1 matte, cinema audiences must have seen something like this:

But SHANE was not supposed to be projected in 1.66 with a dead-center matte.

The main titles - which would have given the operator a framing guide - are centered to favor the upper part of the image.

That was a common practice when studios suggested widescreen presentation on 1.37 films. Look at the title placement for THE BIG HEAT and LET'S DO IT AGAIN: both were composed for 1.37 and suggested to exhibitors for 1.85.

As I've said many times before, you have to determine the studio policy during production to discover the director-intended aspect ratio.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Does that mean that you won't even get a widescreen 1.66 for the Shane disk unless you project it? What if you play the Shane disk on a 1.33 television, would you get a letterboxed image of the 1.66 ratio like you get when you currently play an anamorphic widescreen DVD on a 1.33 television? If anyone gets a review copy of the Shane blu, it would be nice to see the language on the back about the format.

There are two "Full Screen"s out there.

There is 4x3 Full Screen for 4x3 TVs, which is 1.33:1. This terminology is reserved for DVDs only.

And there is 16x9 Full Screen for 16x9 TVs, which is 1.78:1. This terminology is reserved for Blu-rays only.

All - and I do mean ALL - HD video content on Blu-ray discs is encoded in 1.78:1 16x9. No matter the aspect ratio of the content (1.21-2.89) it is all 1.78:1 16x9 with pillar/letter boxing if needed.

Gone with the Wind on Blu-ray is 1.37:1 Pillar Box 16x9, for example. If you were to play the Gone with the Wind Blu-ray on a 4x3 TV it would be windowboxed - you would have the hard-matted side black bars within the 16x9 video encode, and the player/monitor created top & bottom bars so that the 16x9 video encode can be played without stretching.

Of course, the number of people out there with Blu-ray players hooked up to 4x3 TVs is probably a handful at best.

As for that listing.... it's more than likely a copy-paste from the DVD spec.

 

[haineshisway]

If this has a June 4 release date, then what's done is done. It's already at the pressing plant, most likely. However, since no one anywhere has seen one official iota of information about what the Blu-ray will contain, I will, as always, take a wait and see attitude. All the posts in the world can't change what it is now - if it turns out to be that it's just one version, then everyone has every right to post whatever they like about it - yay or nay. But this has happened before, where no information is out there and people assume things that then don't turn out to be correct. It's happened a lot, actually.

 

[Robert Harris]

If this has a June 4 release date, then what's done is done. It's already at the pressing plant, most likely. However, since no one anywhere has seen one official iota of information about what the Blu-ray will contain, I will, as always, take a wait and see attitude. All the posts in the world can't change what it is now - if it turns out to be that it's just one version, then everyone has every right to post whatever they like about it - yay or nay. But this has happened before, where no information is out there and people assume things that then don't turn out to be correct. It's happened a lot, actually.

But what if the North Koreans are unhappy?

 

[haineshisway]

Well, the North Koreans... Are they ever happy?

 

[SilverWook]

There are two "Full Screen"s out there.

There is 4x3 Full Screen for 4x3 TVs, which is 1.33:1. This terminology is reserved for DVDs only.

And there is 16x9 Full Screen for 16x9 TVs, which is 1.78:1. This terminology is reserved for Blu-rays only.

All - and I do mean ALL - HD video content on Blu-ray discs is encoded in 1.78:1 16x9. No matter the aspect ratio of the content (1.21-2.89) it is all 1.78:1 16x9 with pillar/letter boxing if needed.

Gone with the Wind on Blu-ray is 1.37:1 Pillar Box 16x9, for example. If you were to play the Gone with the Wind Blu-ray on a 4x3 TV it would be windowboxed - you would have the hard-matted side black bars within the 16x9 video encode, and the player/monitor created top & bottom bars so that the 16x9 video encode can be played without stretching.

Of course, the number of people out there with Blu-ray players hooked up to 4x3 TVs is probably a handful at best.

As for that listing.... it's more than likely a copy-paste from the DVD spec.

My Panasonic Blu Ray player has a setting called "side cut", that I presume would eliminate the side bars on a 4:3 set? Turning it on does nothing on my HD set of course.

 

[Yorkshire]

But SHANE was not supposed to be projected in 1.66 with a dead-center matte.

The main titles - which would have given the operator a framing guide - are centered to favor the upper part of the image.

That was a common practice when studios suggested widescreen presentation on 1.37 films. Look at the title placement for THE BIG HEAT and LET'S DO IT AGAIN: both were composed for 1.37 and suggested to exhibitors for 1.85.

Big Heat.jpg

letsdoitagain.jpg

As I've said many times before, you have to determine the studio policy during production to discover the director-intended aspect ratio.

But when Shane was shot studio policy was 1.37:1. You can't infer anything from title cards intended for 1.66:1 projection made months after a film was made, shot to be shown at 1.37:1.

That aside, you've made a strong point about prejection in general. From what you've said, if the studio wanted it masked centrally the titles would be central, but if the studio wanted it framed upwards they alter the titles asccordingly.

Steve W

 

[DVDvision]

What I meant JoeDakes is that many people who are used to see movies "unmatted" get upset when they are matted to their correct aspect ratio because they suddenly get less of the image than what they used to see. So suddenly, matting films become analogous to Pan & Scan... which it's not.

I love academy for films shot and shown academy, and I love widescreen for films shot and shown widescreen. I also love widescreen for films shot academy and shown widescreen, (like Shane) because they existed in that time and place of changeover, and that makes them mutants.

 

[kingofthejungle]

But in this case the "matted" ratio destroys the director's intended compositions, which is not the case for films shot open matte and composed for 1.66 or 1.85.

 

[Robert Crawford]

But in this case the "matted" ratio destroys the director's intended compositions, which is not the case for films shot open matte and composed for 1.66 or 1.85.

Which is probably what Stevens Jr. alleviated with his work on this 1.66 presentation.

 

[kingofthejungle]

Which is probably what Stevens Jr. alleviated with his work on this 1.66 presentation.

As the frame John Hodson posted demonstrates so well, it's an impossible task. Any choice one makes sacrifices crucial visual information. (In this case either the detail of the dog on the floor, or the grave look on the bartender's face- Stevens wanted to communicate both)

 

[John Hodson]

As I alluded in that post, there may be more information (on all sides) on the materials which form the basis of the upcoming BD; we'll have to wait and see.

With deepest respect to George Stevens Jr., but he can say what he wants about the newly framed transfer (and how sure he is that his father would have approved). All I know is that the Academy version Stevens shot, and the widescreen version that we must assume that he did give his approval to (regardless of the framing limitations of the time), will be, it does seem right now, MIA.

 

[JohnWeller]

I say present both options or go for Academy.

 

[Robert Crawford]

As I alluded in that post, there may be more information (on all sides) on the materials which form the basis of the upcoming BD; we'll have to wait and see.

With deepest respect to George Stevens Jr., but he can say what he wants about the newly framed transfer (and how sure he is that his father would have approved). All I know is that the Academy version Stevens shot, and the widescreen version that we must assume that he did give his approval to (regardless of the framing limitations of the time), will be, it does seem right now, MIA.

George Stevens Jr. isn't saying very much compared to some other people as this discussion continues while we wait for June 4th. As a filmmaker, he'll let the viewer judge his efforts and at his advanced age, I'm sure he's comfortable with that.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Some new research, including 1953 quotes from George Stevens, will be posted on my website very soon...