The OAR of Kubrick

[jimidini]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

It's the a 4:3 (1.33) TV video version that shows what's exposed on a camera negative when shooting, the movie was shot composed and projected for standard widescreen, but particular cameras expose on film whatever the gate area they happen to have. I've projected it myself. My friend has a US DVD that shows the same and you can see the mic boom over the bed in a scene of GCS with gf

http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparison....php?fid=712#4

General notes about the aspect ratio:
The film was originally shot using in-camera mattes with alternating aspect ratios, between 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 (it has been said, that during the original release in theaters, this was matted to 1.85:1). The different mattes for the film's different aspect ratios are probably best noticeable at the top of the frame, in the shots where Major Kong puts on his Stetson hat. Also, as Kong rides the bomb, the bomb can be seen jumping "over" the background matte plate.

and

Do note, that in these new releases, the aspect ratio is 1.66:1 throughout the film (in the other DVD-releases, the aspect ratio is occasionally switching between open matte 1.33:1 and letterboxed 1.66:1, as intended by the director).


That's why purists like me prefer the Japanese Superbit.

btw. I tried to reply to one of your PMs, but PM-replies to you are not possible currently.

[Deciazulado]

Well in the theaters which is the authentic presentation and to where the movie was designed to be seen in the fisrt place, there was no variable matte. If it was a proper theater it was projected in standard widescreen and in the US and most of the world that would be about 1.85. The two times I've seen it on the screen it has been in 1.85. Did you go see it on theaters in Academy (which should be 1.37, not 1.33) with the mattes going up and down as the different cameras changed? With the boom mic? If releases followed that "purist" approach, most Blu-rays would have to present films not shot with anamorphic lenses in 4:3 ratio because that's how almost all the "naked" negatives/prints are. Just like they did on TV DVD and VHS for 50 years. But that's not the way the movies were, should be, and are, presented. On theaters. Which is for where they are made. As I've said many times: what the camera gate exposes on the film is not the aspect ratio of the movie, just the working aperture of the 35mm format which is 4:3 shaped natively. I repeat: a Camera's Aspect ratio is not = to a movie's OAR. On the other hand, if watching the full camera gate is your preference, SD 4:3 video versions are still around. But they are not OAR.

[jimidini]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Well in the theaters which is the authentic presentation and to where the movie was designed to be seen in the fisrt place, there was no variable matte. It it was a proper theater it was projected in standard widescreen and in the US and most of the world that's about 1.85. The two times I've seen it on screen it has been in 1.85. Did you go see it on theaters in Academy (which should be 1.37, not 1.33) with the mattes going up and down as the different cameras changed?

I didn't see it in theaters back then, because I would have been too young to be allowed in. Putting mattes up in cinema multiple times during the movie would have been way too complicated I guess or too much work, idk, so most (?) of the cinemas went with 1.85 only. It IS a really special case. I think no other movie did it that way.

With the boom mic?

Happens in a lot of movies. Kubrick wasn't perfect.

If releases followed that "purist" approach, most Blu-rays would have to present films not shot with anamorphic lenses in 4:3 ratio because that's how almost all the "naked" negatives/prints are.

I quote:
"The original theatrical presentation varied between 1.33 and 1.66. In recent years however, we're told that Kubrick's associates (who manage his estate) have become more comfortable with the 16x9/1.78:1 aspect ratio of HD displays, and they believe that Kubrick himself - if he'd really had the chance to look into it - would have preferred his full frame films to be presented on home video (in HD) at a steady 1.66 to take better advantage of the 1.78:1 frame. So that's the reasoning for the decision."

Which I personally can't accept, because it's not from Kubrick himself. But that's the reason of the change to 1.66:1 all the time. I see it as the personal preference of those associates, which doesn't make it valid. If Kubrick was still alive and actually said that he prefered it this way, then I would go with it.

Just like they did on TV DVD and VHS for 50 years. But that's not the way the movies were, should be, and are, presented.

The movie was shot that way. Kubrick used in-camera mattes on purpose. It was not an accident and it was intended to be that way. It's okay, if you don't want to watch the movie as Kubrick intended, but I do.

a Camera's Aspect ratio is not = to a movie's OAR. On the other hand, if watching the full camera gate is your preference, SD 4:3 video versions are still around. But they are not OAR.

The movie is not 1.33:1 the whole time, so please don't call the release 4:3 video. It switches between 1.33:1 (4:3 "fullscreen") and letterboxed 1.66:1. And not just once, but many times. This was done because of technical restrictions. If it was possible to switch between non-anamorphic and anamorphic on the fly dynamically on DVD, they would have released it half non-anamorphic 1:33:1 and anamorphic 1.66:1.

And being non-anamorphic is not a big problem anyways. The Superbit looks fantastic. I would prefer BluRay of course, but there is no BluRay available that is using multiple aspect ratios. It's all 1.66:1 only, so a no-go for me.

I know about 4:3 fullscreen DVDs, you don't need to tell me. None of my other DVDs are 4:3 fullscreen besides TV series. I always prefer anamorphic DVDs in OAR. I even imported many DVDs, because of this. Dr. Strangelove is just a special case. I mean especially for Strangelove I went great lengths to get the Superbit. Would have been way less expensive to just buy the AE DVD or one of the current BluRays.

----

Oh and I just found quotes from Kubrick himself taken from the Criterion catalog in 1992 about the Dr. Strangelove Laserdisc transfer:
http://articles.dhwritings.com/p05.html

"'Dr. Strangelove... needed to be approved by Kubrick. And Stanley felt very strongly that the Criterion edition of 'Dr. Strangelove' be perfect. He was very disappointed not only with previous home video versions, but also with the way the film had originally been presented in movie theaters....

"We started working from... Kubrick's personal print, which had been copied directly from the camera original....

"Aspect ratio is the relationship between the length and the width of the film as it appears on the theater screen or video monitor.... Stanley... noted that he had shot the film in full frame 1.33:1 and camera-matted 1.66:1 aspect ratios. However, due to projection conventions at the time of the film's original theatrical release, 'Dr. Strangelove' appeared in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio; in rare cases, it appeared in the 1.66:1 ratio. Mattes were used to cover up the very top and bottom of the film as it was projected. Kubrick asked us to use the 1.66:1 and 1.33:1 aspect ratios in our transfer. This had been his original vision.

I saw that your profile shows a photo from Dr. Strangelove, so maybe this will make you want to get the Japanese Superbit as well

[benricci]

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by benricci

+1,000

Granted most people here are mature and stable enough to handle the conversation. But it's only a matter of time until someone from the extreme comes in and ruins it for everyone.

[jimidini]

Originally Posted by Snicket

+1,000

Granted most people here are mature and stable enough to handle the conversation. But it's only a matter of time until someone from the extreme comes in and ruins it for everyone.

I'm sorry. I originally asked for aspect ratio "1.66:1, 1:33.1" to be included on the site (because I added Dr. Strangelove Japanese Superbit). I didn't create this thread and I also didn't really want to discuss it through. This here was just cut out of the "Home Theater Database and Wiki System Help Thread".



And I respect everyone's taste. If someone prefers 1.66:1 only, it's not a problem. I just wanted to enter both aspect ratios on the Superbit DVD.

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Prepare yourself jimidini,prepare yourself!

I added loads of DVDs and also fixed some BluRay data. And I really don't want to discuss it further. It was one DVD out of maybe 100 or more that I added in the last few days.

[Mahatma]

Prepare yourself jimidini,prepare yourself!

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by benricci

+1

This is the deadest horse ever.

[Vriess]

Seriously, use the search function

[Deciazulado]

I moved this out of the HT database thread, so jimidini didn't 'create" this thread so don't shake him for not using the Search . That was not the thread to keep discussing these things, (Kubrick/Disney/Beatles 60's Widescreen movies OARs being presented in 1.33 video versions for years on TV making people forget the original theatrical presentation which btw has been discussed ad naseum on the Blu-ray movies threads)

Originally Posted by jimidini

I didn't see it in theaters back then, because I would have too young to be allowed in. Putting mattes up in cinema all the time would have been way too complicated I guess, so most (?) of the cinemas went with 1.85 only.

I did see most of those in the theaters, while the directors were alive. Theaters don't put mattes, they change lenses. I'm a projectionist. There's no "variable" mattes. You guess right it would be way too complicated. That's why this doesn't exist. in other words, the movie wasn't made to use a complicated variable matte system that doesn't exist nor is not used in the first place.

In theaters, there are metal aperture plates to prevent light spill, and there are lenses of selected different focal lengths to properly magnify the correct film area (the OAR) to be projected on the screen, and since the widescreen era, most theaters have two: one flat lens for widescreen projection and one anamorphic lens for "CinemaScope" projection.

Happens in a lot of movies. Kubrick wasn't perfect.

No it doesn't happen in theaters, at least in a real theater, unless the theater is screwing up the projection which means it's a bad theater not worthy of being considered a theater.
It happens a lot on TV video versions because they are showing the open gate. Theaters are (or were) proffesional and professionals follow standards. Like OARs.

And Kubrick was near perfect

I quote:
"The original theatrical presentation varied between 1.33 and 1.66.

No the original presentation on a proper theater would be widescreen, otherwise you'd see matte lines, boom mikes and other stuff. Even if it was projected with an Academy lens by mistake the tallest parts would been 1.37 (1.33 is a TV ratio and a Silent movie ratio which is a totally different format and needs yet another 4th lens) As I said every time i've seen these movies in a theater they were in widescren and that's how they were presented while the directors were alive.

Which I personally can't accept, because it's not from Kubrick himself. But that's the reason of the change to 1.66:1 all the time. I see it as the personal preference of those associates, which doesn't make it valid. If Kubrick was still alive and actually said that he prefered it this way, then I would go with it.

Yes all this talk is about home video presentations, not theater's. As I said I saw these movies on theaters, while Kubrick was alive. They were not shown in "Academy" not a single one. And as at the time in the Western world about 7:1 of the theaters were equipped to project widescreen movies in 1.85 that the ratio that was used. This Kubrick knew (if I know it. he knows it 10 times better than me) even to the point of calculating that due to the reduced circle of coverage created by widescreen format's projector apertures of 1.66 AR or wider he could get away with using the special fast lens he desired for Barry Lyndon ambient light shooting without vignetting. That' why he specifies the movie was made in 1.66. Not to pigeonhole it in that AR but to make sure it wasn't projected in less wide formats (like Academy) which show more vertical area and therfore would vignette on screen if projected that way.

The movie was shot that way. Kubrick used in-camera mattes on purpose. It was not an accident and it was intended to be that way. It's okay, if you don't want to watch the movie as Kubrick intended, but I do

You're mistaken . What you mean is the film was exposed that way. That's not the way he intended it to be watched because he knows nobody except someone with control of the print could have watched it that way. So he made a theatrical movie in a way nobody could watch it out of the millions that watched it in theaters? Now to explain why matte lines are burned in negatives and prints, it is to prevent things like unfinished sets light scaffolding mics dolly tracks breast underpants on supposedly naked people or viceversa and any other thing destructive to the film story being shown in any presentation of the film be it by an incompetent projectionist misframing the widescreen film 35% up and down (remember the actual film extends that much up and down phisically) by error on the projector's frame knob, a wiseguy projectionist wanting to see more of Janet Leigh, or for example if the film was indeed projected in Academy ratio by someone, or in a full gate TV transfer that doesn't pan scan from the widescreen's movie correct vertical framing and shows too much what should not be seen. Not to create "variable aspect ratio movies". Is just part of the manufacturing tech used to make films like sprockets screws and aperture plates on projectors to prevent light spill. Not part of the presentation.

The movie is not 1.33:1 the whole time, so please don't call the release 4:3 video. It switches between 1.33:1 (4:3 "fullscreen") and letterboxed 1.66:1. And not just once, but many times. This was done because of technical restrictions. If it was possible to switch between non-anamorphic and anamorphic on the fly dynamically on DVD, they would have released it half 1:33:1 and anamorphic 1.66:1.

Again this movie wasn't made for TV. If Kubrick really wanted the aspect ratio to switch between 1.33 (A format not used in theaters since 1931) and 1.66, when 80-90% could only project 1.85, he would have optically reduced those areas to fit inside the common height so 90% of the people saw it the way he wanted it It's kind of a schizo thing if he did that to think that he shot things in a way nobody but him could see them ("Secret Kubrick") so that 10 years later they were 'discovered' in a VHS tape or TV broadcast and then people would say Ahhhhh the wine... err I mean Ahhh that's the way Secret Kubrick planned it all along! I guess all those millions that saw it in theaters the first, second, third run and repositions, never knew what they were missing. Sad. They were scammed! I want my box office money back!

About the quotes quoting the "quotes" of a man. Lets just say just like the 1.66 is called "In Family Friendly 1.66!" in Disney first letterboxed widescreenDVDs, a presentation made for 4:3 video filling the most of the screen at the time and minimizing hated to death despicable black bars, gains a lot of "weight'" if you say that's how it shoulda been all along. he. just. couldn't. do. it. till. now.

My profile pic is in 1.85 btw. As I said I projected the film. The 35mm film. The original copy: One of the archival ones in the US.

oh and i would get the Superbit no problem, I have a few open gate DVDs of movies composed in widescreen (in addition to the windscreen version of course) as a 'supplement' as it is kind of a documentary 'version', a document of how the movie would have looked being shot from behind the camera (farther away ) like if you were on the set watching. And because as a projectionist I've seen many of the movies with the "matte" off when handling the prints (the prints as I said are exposed "full frame") so a little nostalgia for me. (Strangelove in 4:3 variable i watched on my friend's plain bit DVD)

[jimidini]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Theaters don't put mattes, they change lenses. I'm a projectionist. There's no "variable" mattes. You guess right it would be way too complicated. That's why this doesn't exist. in other words, the movie wasn't made to use a complicated variable matte system that doesn't exist nor is not used in the first place.

I'm not that in-depth into cinema projection on the technical side. Your explanations are very interesting.

I'm wondering about the Criterion quotes. I don't think that they aren't real, so I wonder how he wanted Dr. Strangelove to get shown in cinemas. Maybe he wasn't happy because of 1.85:1 instead of 1.66:1. Sadly no exact details are mentioned.

No it doesn't happen in theaters, at least in a real theater, unless the theater is screwing up the projection which means it's a bad theater not worthy of being considered a theater.

I meant that it may have been a mistake during filming. Yes, Kubrick was a genius, but even geniuses may make mistakes at some point. Although yes, not that plausible. Or maybe the DVD, that you saw had an error in the transfer (a scene shown in 1.33:1, where actually 1.66:1 should have been used). I would need to check that scene using the Superbit release.

If the US DVD uses the same aspect ratios per scene as the Criterion Laserdisc, it would be Kubrick aproved. And then I wouldn't really understand it at all. Even if it was a mistake, I would guess that he would have requested for an aspect ratio change to mask the mistake. Anyway, quite interesting.

As I said every time i've seen these movies in a theater they were in widescren and that's how they were presented while the directors were alive.

Maybe he was unhappy because of 1.85:1 instead of 1.66:1. That would make more sense?!

You're mistaken . What you mean is the film was exposed that way.

I'm not technical indepth into film making and English is not even my first language, so sorry about that.

That's not the way he intended it to be watched because he knows nobody except someone with control of the print could have watched it that way. So he made a theatrical movie in a way nobody could watch it out of the millions that watched it in theaters?

I can only assume by using the Criterion quotes. Maybe he originally wanted to use 1.33:1 for home video and 1.66:1 for cinema. And then when it was possible to mix them up, he wanted to get 1.33:1 & 1.66:1 mixed together for home video. That would explain the Criterion Laserdisc transfer. Someone should really have made an indepth interview with him on that topic.

Again this movie wasn't made for TV. If Kubrick really wanted the aspect ratio to switch between 1.33 (A format not used in theaters since 1931) and 1.66, when 80-90% could only project 1.85, he would have optically reduced those areas to fit inside the common height so 90% of the people saw it the way he wanted it!. it's kind oif a schizo thing

It seems that he planned ahead for home video. So maybe he planned Dr. Strangelove for cinema and home video at the same time - I mean it's Kubrick, would make perfect sense. And home video was fixed to 1.33:1 back then. Later the technology got to a point, where it was possible to mix both "versions", which would explain his explicit request for mixed aspect ratios.

he. just. couldn't. do. it. till. now.

That's right.
You could see it this way - he wanted to make parts of his movie perfect for home video and other parts perfect for cinema. And when it was finally possible to mix the perfect parts, he was happy about that and wanted to do so.

That would explain his wishes and approval for the LD. We will never know for sure sadly.

Or maybe his complaint about the cinema release was that he just didn't like the result of the half cinema half home video movie in cinemas and then used the LD transfer to combine them together. This wouldn't be really pulling a Lucas, because the parts were surely planned in some of way like that (home video and cinema).

So maybe the 1.66:1 BluRays are the "perfect" Kubrick cinema release of Dr. Strangelove. And the mixed aspect ratio version the "perfect" mix. And the 1.33:1 only version the "perfect" Kubrick home video release. That's how one could see it as well. Maybe he did this all on purpose, so people around the world would talk about it for ages

[stvn1974]

I want Warner Bros. to re-release all of Kubrick's films with a green tint.

[MikeyHitchFan]

Originally Posted by benricci

So true! Thanks for the laugh!

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by benricci

[Show spoiler]

Well it's about time this topic had a thread of its own. Every Kubrick thread on this site is getting hijacked by this same topic causing moderators to lock almost all of them.

[James Luckard]

I'm glad to see this endless circular argument has its own thread, so the threads relating to Kubrick's films can hopefully be free from this argument popping up ad nauseum.

[Beaucamper]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I want Warner Bros. to re-release all of Kubrick's films with a green tint.

Well it worked for Gene Autry.
You have to be old like me to know why that's true. And what about that? When the Gene Autry movies hit BluRay will we get the original green tint?

And I saw Strangelove when it was new. I was decades before I knew it had varying OAR. If Gene Autry had produced Strangelove it would have had a green tint.