Kubrick Blu-ray aspect ratios

[VoodooSamurai]

I have read that many of these blu-ray kubrick films are not his preferred aspect ratio. here is a quote from lean vitali:

"From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see where the 1.85 lines. He composed his shots for 1.66, which is the full screen, but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it."

So the blu-ray releases with 1.85 frame, he could live with, because theaters could only show them that way. but artistically he preferred them as 1.66 ... as his fan, that means I prefer it too. if you look at the comparisons in still frame you see a huge difference, the compositions are way better and powerful at their original frame.

so these ones are butchered:
Paths of Glory (cropped to 1.66 from full screen)
Eyes wide shut (1.85)
Shining (1.85)
Full Metal Jacket (1.85)
Barry Lyndon (1.85)

are not Kubrick's preferred aspect ratio

and:
Clockwork Orange
2001
Dr strangelove
Spartacus
are correct.

not sure (can someone say?)
Lolita

I think they only released the butchered ones as a business decision, to fill the HD screen. to get the correct ones we have to go back to the dvds released in the early 2000's. but they probably look awful.. everythings a compromise. what should us purist fans do??

[VoodooSamurai]

looks like WB agreed in the early 2000s with the first DVD set:

"A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon were shot and released in most theaters in the matted 1.66 : 1 widescreen ratio, and The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut were shot open-matted (or full-frame) and framed for a theatrical release in the American standard ratio of 1.85 : 1.

However, Kubrick preferred on all these films that they be transferred to home video fullscreen (a ratio of about 1.37 : 1). Had he remained alive to see the rising popularity of widescreen and high-definition TVs, he may have eventually changed his mind about these films."

yeah, except now they changed his mind for him

[42041]

Um, if they played in 1.85:1 in theaters, then the blu-rays are correct. Who cares how he formatted them for VHS?

[VoodooSamurai]

they were only released in theaters that way, as a compromise. he was willing to live with it. however, with art, we have to respect the artist's preference, not what they settle for. plus, it isn't even philosophical... the aspect ratio he preferred, look like works of art/photographs. those are the true versions. these new blu-rays aren't the correct ones. even if they were in theaters that way, they aren't his preferred vision as a cinematographer. at least they should have given us both versions.

[VoodooSamurai]

here is the full quote by vitalli in the interview:

"Q: If full frame was so important why didn't Kubrick release them theatrically that way?

A: After Barry Lyndon, more and more theaters were showing films 1.85 or in Cinemascope even if it wasn't shot that way. He had no control. He couldn't go around every cinema and say "You show this film in 1.66" as you could with Clockwork Orange, because then the projectors had 1.66 mask. With multi-plexes things are different and so they only show a film in 1.85 or in 2.21, the Cinemascope. You know? You cannot put a mask in 1.66 as it should be for Clockwork Orange. You can't put a 1.77 in as it should be for Barry Lyndon and that's what Stanley understood with The Shining onwards. He realized that his films we're going to be shown in 1.85 whether he liked it or not. You can't tell all the theaters now how to show your movies. They say it's 1.85, that's it. Stanley realized that masking for 1.85 would far outweigh having 1.66 projected at 1.85. We did a re-release of Clockwork in the U.K. and it's 1.66. It's composed for 1.66. It's shot in 1.66, and the whole shebang. Well, you know, they had to screen it in 1.85. I can't tell you how much it hurt that film.

Q:That must have been awful.

A: It's horrible. It's horrible. It's heartbreaking. I mean, it's heartbreaking. You realize that when we got to The Shining, this was after the release of Barry Lyndon, this is how it was all being done. He realized that the best thing he could do is to at least do it so that he understood that beside the 1.85 frame line, they were going to have the composition that he would want you to see. From The Shining and Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley had marks on the camera lens so he could see where the 1.85 lines. He composed his shots for 1.66, which is the full screen, but he wouldn't be hurt by going to 1.85 if he had to do it."

So the movies were composed for 1.66
that is how he envisioned them

1.85 was to protect his movies from looking awful in the theaters, because theaters could not display his preferred aspect ratio.now we're not just talking any movie but the most brilliantly photographed in movie history, wheres the outcry, for kubrick's preferred compositions?

[KubrickFan]

If he wanted them to be in 1.66:1, then why did he give instructions to shoot for 1.85:1?


Look at this storyboard, and read what the aspect ratio is.

Vitali already said that the full frame versions were Kubrick's preferred versions, and above he states that cinemascope is 2.20:1. Apparently, he's not an expert on the subject. If you watch The Shining, Full Metal Jacket or Eyes Wide Shut on Blu-ray, absolutely no shot feels cramped, like they would if it was composed for the 1.66:1 ratio. That should really tell enough.

[CheapChildren]

People assume the 1.85:1 versions are "butchered" simply because they contain less information. But the truth is that Kubrick shot them like that for the eventual video release. But 1.85:1 is how they were experienced in cinemas, and that's how they should be experienced period..

Due to the fact that Kubrick would rather have shot excess to prevent actual butchering has confused many good intentioned fans of his to be mislead.

[HyperRealist]

I thought 1.66:1 was European widescreen. Who really cares? The difference isn't much. Its not like 1.85:1 vs. 2.39:1.

Some European countries have 1.66:1 as the wide screen standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_%28image%29

[Eny-]

It's 2011 already. Still beating a dead horse?

Since Kubrick saw a P&S version of 2001 on TV, he started to compose his movies for 1.85 while protecting the 1.33 ratio for future home releases/TV to prevent such a disaster. The scan from the Kubrick Archives book posted by Kubrickfan proves this.

Warner was preparing the Kubrick DVD set when he died in 99 and the only transfers he had approved until then were the 1.33 versions since Widescreen still wasn't the norm for home viewing in the late 90s. So Warner released the set that way with Vitali's approval. Only now Warner released the movies how they were originaly shot (and composed) and showned at the cinema.

[Deciazulado]

As mentioned in other posts when previous "video" versions seen for decades on TV are released in Blu-ray in their theatrical OAR:

Cinema went widescreen in the mid 50's, the directors and cameramen compose the shots for widescreen, with the composition centered on the frame (red line) as the cameras expose the film negative the same way as it did before (black line), which was conveniently used for making the 4:3 shaped TV video versions without cropping the sides. That's the way most movies are made since the mid fifties



The widescreen ratio for non anamorphic movies aims to be 1.85 in the majority of theaters. A small number of theaters might had a sligthly wider angle lens which blew the image up a little less (11%) showing them at 1.66 (red dotted lines) (you see about 5% more image √[1.00 x 1.11])

Kubrick (paraphrasing his notes) obviously composed his films so they could be exhibited in 1.85 in the World.

Here's Kubrick in 1.85 :

The Shining (1980)

Barry Lyndon (1975)

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Dr. Strangelove (1964)

Paths of Glory (1957)

The Killing (1956)

Btw 1, changing the "mask" (the projector aperture plate) doesn't change anything on the screen. You have to change the LENS on each and every one of the theaters to be able to do films at 1.66. (It's the lens that changes the image. Or you can move the projector 11% closer to the screen by breaking the wall above the moviegoer's heads and having the projector floating in the air, closer to the screen)

Btw 2, according to someone by 1975 only 1 out of 3 theaters in France and Germany for example remained capable of projecting 1.66.

[HyperRealist]

Ah, I see how Paths of Glory was cropped from 1.33 to 1.66. Why is Vitali calling 1.66 fullscreen? Fullscreen is 1.33.

[Capt Spaulding]

There was a kubrick retrospective at the french cinémathèque recently. I went to see FMJ and the movie was shown in 1.37. (although I couldn't say for sure that there wasn't other screenings in 1.85)

When I compare the DVD and blu ray versions, 1.37 feels more like the original composition imo, especially on FMJ and EYS, but both versions have advantages and both offer a unique experience.

I think that if you really want to do it right, you should offer the choice to see those three either in 1.37, 1.66 or 1.85.

At least release one HD version either for the 1.37 or the 1.66. I think that it would be interesting for everybody who love these films, even those who thinks that the 1.85 is ten times better.

[frightism]

I don't really get why people are making such a big deal about this, really. The films look fine on BD...

[steve_dave]

Why does this come up all the time?

Oh yeah, there is no way to get a definitive answer anymore.

The short version of what I posted in the past.

Kubrick shot and framed 2001 in the scope aspect ratio. BBC pan and scanned it for television broadcast without Kubrick's approval. He was livid about this.

Hence, after that he shot his films with a 1.37:1 negative aspect ratio. US theaters couldn't do 1.66:1 so US theatrical is 1.85:1, European theaters didn't have an issue so Europe got 1.66:1.

Now when the movie is shown on television, nothing is lost because the mattes are removed. Flash forward to home video, letterboxing on VHS was rare so the VHS releases used the 1.37: negative versions while some of the laserdiscs were letterboxed.

Flash foward to DVD, letterboxing/anamorphic was starting to become the norm but in the early days, the Kubrick DVDs used the old Laserdisc masters before getting new releases after Kubrick's passing.

Since most of us, as cinema enthusiasts, have only just recently seen these "widescreen" versions for the first time since their theatrical runs; the "new" framing feels weird even though it is not.

The same thing happened to Evil Dead where we have been exposed to the 1.33:1 version for so long that when Sam Raimi was finally able to produce and release his "widescreen" version, a lot of fans cried foul.

[Andrewtst]

In my opinion, Kubrick choose 1:33 for home user as I believe he more prefer his film in full screen without any black bar occur on top/bottom or left/right. During he still alive, most home TV is 1:33.

I believe if he still alive now, he may change and preferred his film in 1:85 for home user.

Anyway this was not a big issue, since most his film shoot in widescreen mode.

[whitesheik]

First of all, to "Clint Eastwood" who began this thread: No, Paths Of Glory is not "butchered" - it is FINALLY being seen in something close to its original ratio. The open matte that we've all had to endure is so filled with extraneous head room it's a joke. Finally we have the correct framing and it looks great. There were no theaters left that could properly show 1.37 by the time of Paths of Glory. So, unless Kubrick was a total idiot, he shot his film knowing how it would be projected in theaters. There was no home video then, and I'm quite certain that TV showings were not on his mind in those early days. All the blu-ray ratios finally look so much better than their full-frame counterparts. The Shining looked ridiculous in full-frame - every theater in the US showed it the only way it could be shown - in 1.85. His storyboards clearly tell this story in a way that cannot be argued and yet here we are still having the same old tired BS.

[notops]

Originally Posted by whitesheik

First of all, to "Clint Eastwood" who began this thread: No, Paths Of Glory is not "butchered" - it is FINALLY being seen in something close to its original ratio. The open matte that we've all had to endure is so filled with extraneous head room it's a joke. Finally we have the correct framing and it looks great. There were no theaters left that could properly show 1.37 by the time of Paths of Glory. So, unless Kubrick was a total idiot, he shot his film knowing how it would be projected in theaters. There was no home video then, and I'm quite certain that TV showings were not on his mind in those early days. All the blu-ray ratios finally look so much better than their full-frame counterparts. The Shining looked ridiculous in full-frame - every theater in the US showed it the only way it could be shown - in 1.85. His storyboards clearly tell this story in a way that cannot be argued and yet here we are still having the same old tired BS.

^^^
THIS

Now if only people would stop listening to Vitalli's BS about ratios (1.66 is, according to him, "full screen" for Shining/Full Metal Jacket/Eyes Wide Shut, what a doofus. 1.37 is the aspect ratio of 35mm film and none of those were shot Hard Matte style). Leon Vitalli has no credibility when it comes to ratios and it is a shame WB continues to listen to his input.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by frightism

I don't really get why people are making such a big deal about this, really. The films look fine on BD...

Even if one were to assume 'fine' is adequate for most releases (and that's a questionable premise) don't some films/directors warrant a somewhat higher standard?

I don't have any really strong feelings about which aspect ratios are correct (to be honest, my eyes tend to glaze over a bit while reading most posts about it) and I do agree that some people get a little zealous at times but I don't think the question itself is at all trivial.

It's well worth discussing even if the discussion does get a little silly at times.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by octagon

Even if one were to assume 'fine' is adequate for most releases (and that's a questionable premise) don't some films/directors warrant a somewhat higher standard?

I don't have any really strong feelings about which aspect ratios are correct (to be honest, my eyes tend to glaze over a bit while reading most posts about it) and I do agree that some people get a little zealous at times but I don't think the question itself is at all trivial.

It's well worth discussing even if the discussion does get a little silly at times.

To some degree, yes, but "Clint Eastwood" drags out the silly argument that 1.33:1 (or 1.66:1) approximates photography more than 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. So what? It's not as if photographers didn't re-frame their photos when displaying them, either by cropping or zooming on the negative when their photos were published (i.e. newspapers, magazines, books, etc.) or printed for hanging on walls.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by octagon

Even if one were to assume 'fine' is adequate for most releases (and that's a questionable premise) don't some films/directors warrant a somewhat higher standard?

I don't have any really strong feelings about which aspect ratios are correct (to be honest, my eyes tend to glaze over a bit while reading most posts about it) and I do agree that some people get a little zealous at times but I don't think the question itself is at all trivial.

It's well worth discussing even if the discussion does get a little silly at times.

agreed.

For the aspect ratio of the three last films, I think that none of the versions should be discarded, and that it's pretty childish to state that one version sucks over another, since they were all designed to work by kubrick. (the interesting debate may lay in what's the best one)

And then there's always the question of the respect of lighting and colors in the HD versions, but that's a whole other debate.