UHD Review The Shining (1980) UHD Review (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

"My point remains that we have no idea what Kubrick would want in 2019 so evocations of Stan's "stated preferences" become irrelevant."
I find that statement incredibly ahistorical and self-serving. "irrelevant" are Kubrick's own words, but the wishes of someone having nothing to do with any of his films carries weight. Just incredible.

When someone wishes are based on outdated technology, then yeah - their "stated preferences" are irrelevant.

I don't care how someone wanted to present his movie on a 27" 1.33:1 TV when I have a 65" 1.78:1 TV.

Really, I just want to see movies as they ran theatrically - OAR, original audio. If a filmmaker decided to alter those for home video, that doesn't mean I have to agree with those wishes.

Remember how people went bat guano crazy when Friedkin messed with "French Connection"? Was it self-serving of film fans to decry those alterations?

Or how about the changes to the "Star Wars" OT? No one should've said a peep because the filmmaker wanted those alterations?

 

[haineshisway]

Sorry, did I miss the post where someone wanted this full frame? What or who is Colin responding to? Confused.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Sorry, did I miss the post where someone wanted this full frame? What or who is Colin responding to? Confused.

It started on the 1st page, where someone else said that the 4K's aspect ratio was incorrect because it's 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1.

Then the notion that this slightly altered aspect ratio honored Kubrick's "wishes" came up, and we went down the rabbit hole...

 

[PMF]

Well, you name it, we've all got our specific topics; be it correct ratios, sound designs, transfers, restorations and even steel books. But, in the end; and no matter where we're coming from; all of our questions and concerns remain valid and our education continues. In this instance, as its turned out, we now know that the latest incarnation of The Overlook was in good hands from the start. So enjoy the weekend, put your feet up and may all partake, enjoy and bask within this new release.
FILE UNDER: "The Shining or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the UHD".

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I seem to recall a similar brouhaha over the AR of Barry Lyndon, and papers surfaced that indicated the maximum acceptable AR was 1.75:1, with a preferred AR of 1.66:1, with people going nuts over Warner's release at 1.78:1. Simple math tells us that the difference between 1.75 and 1.78 is less than 1%, but Heaven forbid anyone bring that up. Nevertheless, when the Criterion release came out in 2017, it was 1.66:1. There's a battle concept of "hills you're willing to die on." When it gets this infinitesimally small, is it really worth dying on?

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

 

[moviebuff75]

This release is fantastic.

 

[PMF]

This release is fantastic.

x's 4

 

[Lord Dalek]

It started on the 1st page, where someone else said that the 4K's aspect ratio was incorrect because it's 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1.

Oh brother. There's little to no difference between 1.78 and 1.85. Soft matting is, as I have said multiple times, a complete turkey shoot.

 

[Robert Harris]

Oh brother. There's little to no difference between 1.78 and 1.85. Soft matting is, as I have said multiple times, a complete turkey shoot.

And theatrically, totally dependent upon the projectionist.

 

[Alan Tully]

It started on the 1st page, where someone else said that the 4K's aspect ratio was incorrect because it's 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1.

1:78 - 1:85. As John Wayne once said in a western (I can't remember which one, but I'm sure someone here will), "I wouldn't like to live on the difference"

 

[Robert Crawford]

1:78 - 1:85. As John Wayne once said in a western (I can't remember which one, but I'm sure someone here will), "I wouldn't like to live on the difference"

I'm pretty sure that's Rio Bravo when John T. Chance is talking about the gun skill of Dude and Colorado.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Oh brother. There's little to no difference between 1.78 and 1.85. Soft matting is, as I have said multiple times, a complete turkey shoot.

No argument here. That said, I still think it's stupid of studios to go 1.78:1 because it's such a minor difference.

When hardly anyone will notice, why not go with the letter of the law and use 1.85:1?

 

[Robert Harris]

No argument here. That said, I still think it's stupid of studios to go 1.78:1 because it's such a minor difference.

When hardly anyone will notice, why not go with the letter of the law and use 1.85:1?

Aspect ratios are odd ducks, especially when prints were open matte. I'd bet that no more than a dozen theaters actually ran these films Properly at 1.85.

It's all about the dynamics of the theater, their projection system, optics, aperture plates. Endless. In the end, what we see in a home theater environment at either 1.85 or .78 are far closer to the filmmakers' intent than ever seen in theaters.

My take. Unless there are some productions situations which prevent doing so, it doesn't matter.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Aspect ratios are odd ducks, especially when prints were open matte. I'd bet that no more than a dozen theaters actually ran these films Properly at 1.85.

It's all about the dynamics of the theater, their projection system, optics, aperture plates. Endless. In the end, what we see in a home theater environment at either 1.85 or .78 are far closer to the filmmakers' intent than ever seen in theaters.

My take. Unless there are some productions situations which prevent doing so, it doesn't matter.

Exactly. The space in between 1.33/1.37 and 2.35 (or 2.20 as that's making a comeback in the Netflix era) is so nebulous that you're just splitting hairs demanding one ratio over the other.

Also doesn't help that the mattes are usually in the overscan area anyway.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This release is fantastic.

It's an excellent disc! I never loved this film as I'd always been lukewarm to it, but I'm glad I bought the disc instead of the digital.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Aspect ratios are odd ducks, especially when prints were open matte. I'd bet that no more than a dozen theaters actually ran these films Properly at 1.85.

It's all about the dynamics of the theater, their projection system, optics, aperture plates. Endless. In the end, what we see in a home theater environment at either 1.85 or .78 are far closer to the filmmakers' intent than ever seen in theaters.

My take. Unless there are some productions situations which prevent doing so, it doesn't matter.

So again: why not follow the letter of the law? Especially given that a home video presentation should have the ability to stick with the original framing more than the vagaries of theatrical projection.

Not making a federal case out of 1.78:1 for 1.85:1 films, but I just don't get why they'd bother to offer even the slight cropping when it's unnecessary...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Also doesn't help that the mattes are usually in the overscan area anyway.

Shouldn't be the case with good modern TVs.

On my LG OLED, there's definitely evidence of thin bars for 1.85:1 films...

 

[Robert Harris]

So again: why not follow the letter of the law? Especially given that a home video presentation should have the ability to stick with the original framing more than the vagaries of theatrical projection.

Not making a federal case out of 1.78:1 for 1.85:1 films, but I just don't get why they'd bother to offer even the slight cropping when it's unnecessary...

Because sometimes, it’s necessary

 

[Patrick McCart]

edit: didn't mean to post