What's the aspect ratio on the current "CLOCKWORK ORANGE" dvd? (1 Viewer)

[Casey Neutron]

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.

 

[Rain]

I'm pretty sure the newest DVD is 1.66:1 or very close.

 

[Jon Sheedy]

I don't EVEN want to use the words Kubrick and aspect ratio in the same sentence! 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

 

[CraigF]

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?

 

[Mark_vdH]

The remastered R2 dvd has listed an AR of 1.59:1.

 

[Mark_vdH]

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?

The 2 disc edition has exactly the same movie disc as the remastered edition. The second disc contains the original soundtrack on a CD.

 

[CraigF]

Thanks, haven't even seen that 2 disc one here yet.

 

[Jon Robertson]

The remastered R1 DVD looks smack-bang 1.66:1 to my eyes.

 

[Ken_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,

 

[Bill Leber]

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.

 

[ChuckDeLa]

The remaster will say "DIGITALLY RESTORED AND REMASTERED" across the front under the words "STANLEY KUBRICK COLLECTION".

 

[Mark_vdH]

Old DVD:


New DVD:

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Yet another 1.66:1 WB title that's not 16x9 encoded (which adds resolution for 1.66:1 titles vs 4x3 encoding)

grrr.

 

[Kevin M]

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.

 

[Damin J Toell]

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?

Nothing would have to be cropped. 1.66:1 anamorphic has black bars on the sides of the image, as you suggest.

DJ

 

[Ken_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,

 

[Dave H]

Why can't a full 1:33 AR be anamorphic?

 

[Mark_vdH]

Why can't a full 1:33 AR be anamorphic?

What's the point?

You would be losing resolution.

[Edit] It theoretically can be 4:3 anamorphic though, and Anchor Bay tends to this with 4:3 behind the scenes documantaries (and stuff like that). The thought behind this seems to me that (widescreen) movieclips that are in these documentaries can be shown "properly" on 16:9 sets this way, instead of looking window-boxed.

Sorry, can't really explain it properly in English