What's the aspect ratio on the current "CLOCKWORK ORANGE" dvd?

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Casey Neutron, Mar 24, 2003.

  1. Casey Neutron

    Casey Neutron Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2001
    Messages:
    127
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have the laserdisc and the first dvd release of this film. Both versions are letterboxed at around 1.55:1. IFC has been showing "A CLOCKWORK ORANGE" lately and it's a slightly wider version, somewhere around 1.66:1, with a little more picture information at the sides than the laser and dvd versions I have. Is the re-released "CLOCKWORK ORANGE" dvd in the same aspect ratio as the IFC version
    or is it just like the others? If the newer dvd is truly 1.66:1 it would merit an instant re-buy.
     
  2. Rain

    Rain Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2001
    Messages:
    5,015
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm pretty sure the newest DVD is 1.66:1 or very close.
     
  3. Jon Sheedy

    Jon Sheedy Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1997
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't EVEN want to use the words Kubrick and aspect ratio in the same sentence! [​IMG] But I will say that the remastered Clockwork dvd is a considerable improvement, picture and soundwise, over the previous release...more than enough to merit a re-buy in itself, imo.

    JoN
     
  4. CraigF

    CraigF Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    116
    Location:
    Toronto area, Canada
    Real Name:
    Craig
    Which version are you guys talking about? The 2000 re-master DVD with 5.1? Or the 2 disc one, which I know nothing about?
     
  5. Mark_vdH

    Mark_vdH Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,035
    Likes Received:
    0
    The remastered R2 dvd has listed an AR of 1.59:1.
     
  6. Mark_vdH

    Mark_vdH Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,035
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  7. CraigF

    CraigF Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    116
    Location:
    Toronto area, Canada
    Real Name:
    Craig
    Thanks, haven't even seen that 2 disc one here yet.
     
  8. Jon Robertson

    Jon Robertson Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    The remastered R1 DVD looks smack-bang 1.66:1 to my eyes.
     
  9. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    6,187
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Livonia, MI USA
    Real Name:
    Kenneth McAlinden
    I used a cursor to measure the latest R1 DVD[geek alarms blaring all over the forum], and it was 1.66:1 almost on the dot, as was Lolita. IIRC, Barry Lyndon was something like 1.54:1.

    Regards,
     
  10. Bill Leber

    Bill Leber Stunt Coordinator

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    0
    How can you tell the difference between the original DVD and the remaster? Is the cover different, or should I check the aspect ratio on the back of the box? A Clockwork Orange is on top of my list of favorite movies I don't own the DVD of because I heard it was a lousy disc. I didn't even know they re-released it.
     
  11. ChuckDeLa

    ChuckDeLa Cinematographer

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,802
    Likes Received:
    0
    The remaster will say "DIGITALLY RESTORED AND REMASTERED" across the front under the words "STANLEY KUBRICK COLLECTION".
     
  12. Mark_vdH

    Mark_vdH Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,035
    Likes Received:
    0
    Old DVD:
    [​IMG]

    New DVD:
    [​IMG]
     
  13. DaViD Boulet

    DaViD Boulet Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 1999
    Messages:
    8,800
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yet another 1.66:1 WB title that's not 16x9 encoded (which adds resolution for 1.66:1 titles vs 4x3 encoding)

    grrr.
     
  14. Kevin M

    Kevin M Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2000
    Messages:
    5,172
    Likes Received:
    2
    It wouldn't have been a huge leap to make it 16:9 enhanced but they still would have had to cut a small bit of the proper framing to accomplish it, right?

    They could have window-boxed it I suppose.
     
  15. Damin J Toell

    Damin J Toell Producer

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,762
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Real Name:
    Damin J. Toell
     
  16. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    6,187
    Likes Received:
    72
    Location:
    Livonia, MI USA
    Real Name:
    Kenneth McAlinden
    The trade-off with 16:9 enhancement and windowboxing of 1.66:1 films is pretty slight for 4:3 TV viewers. It starts to become more severe when you are dealing with aspect ratios less than 1.60:1, though.

    Regards,
     
  17. Dave H

    Dave H Producer

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2000
    Messages:
    5,540
    Likes Received:
    177
    Why can't a full 1:33 AR be anamorphic?
     
  18. Mark_vdH

    Mark_vdH Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Messages:
    1,035
    Likes Received:
    0
     

Share This Page