Stanley Kubrick BDs (Once more with feeling)

[Scott1174]

Has the Shining been announced for Blue Ray or HD?

[Deciazulado]

The French article with their list (a translation of the list is around here somewhere) had several Kubricks for around Christmas. I hope they do it in the proper 1.85 ratio.

[Banjo]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

The French article with their list (a translation of the list is around here somewhere) had several Kubricks for around Christmas. I hope they do it in the proper 1.85 ratio.

It was released to the theatres in 1.85:1 but the movie was filmed in 1.37:1 though I'll have to mention that it was released in 1.66:1 in Europe.

So which is the true original aspect ratio? :-/

Probably the negative ratio since Stanley Kubrick was pretty anti-widescreen in his later years.

[javayoda]

I don't think Kubrick liked black bars on a 4:3 television. I remember an interview with Kubrick's assistant Leon Vitali. He stated future high-def Kubrick releases with the exception of 2001 would be released in 4:3 per Stanley's wishes. Since then, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange and Eyes Wide Shut have been shown in high-definition 1.85 widescreen on various cable and satellite channels. As we all know, Full Metal Jacket is widescreen on Blu-Ray. Frankly, I'm pleased Warner Brothers and the Kubrick estate have re-evaluated this position.

I think Kubrick, had he lived, may very well have changed his mind with the advent of quality 16:9 displays.

I want Barry Lyndon on BD50.

[Knight-Errant]

Yeah I've been puzzling about this issue too. I knew Stanley preferred 4:3 to letterbox, but then the situation is very different now.

You can get an affordable video projector that will fill your wall with a WS image. It's a different reality essentially.

So I of course support WS BD versions of Kubrick movies.

[Deciazulado]

I hope you all are aware that movies have been projected in Widescreen in the US since the mid fifties, and the USA spherical widescreen ratio is 1.85 and no movie composed for Academy 1.37 can be projected cropped into 1.85 without damaging it. So what do you think a movie made for a US company like Warner for exhibition in the US was composed for?

I've seen the last 7 Kubrick's films in the theater except one, even have projected some of them. All in 1.85 except 2001 which was a 70mm print.

[marzetta7]

redrum....Redrum...REDRUM...REDRUM!!!

[Deciazulado]

REDRUM !

Originally Posted by Banjo

It was released to the theatres in 1.85:1 but the movie was filmed in 1.37:1 though I'll have to mention that it was released in 1.66:1 in Europe.

So which is the true original aspect ratio? :-/

Probably the negative ratio since Stanley Kubrick was pretty anti-widescreen in his later years.

Oh and just to clear something up, movies are not released IN 1.85 or 1.66, they are projected AT 1.85 and 1.66.

it's a slighly different concept. There's no separate "1.66" print and "1.85" print.

It's the same print for both (a 35mm spherical 1.37 print).

The projector aperture on a 1.66 screen just shows more height of the print.

The negatives (and prints) of most spherical widescreen movies you have seen have an 1.37 image exposed on them, unless they used a hard matte on the camera or in printing. That's why you see them have more image in most 4:3 video transfers, they're showing the negative camera exposure "naked"

[Jack Torrance]

Kubrick post 2001 composed the ratio of his films to support both full frame and matted 1:85 (a fail safe in case the projectionist showing it messed it up somehow... this is also why the soundtracks of Kubrick's films up to as late as Full Metal Jacket were Mono, because how do you screw up Mono?) - but only the full frame version was allowed TV and for home video/dvd releases.

Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, The Shining (and I believe Barry Lyndon?) where shown recently on the HD Net movie channel in 16x9 transfers and looked gorgeous.

Frankly, I prefer the Shining in the matted 1:85 ratio... lops off the helicopter shadows and rotor blades visible in the opening sequence.

I definitely think Kubrick, with the advancement in technology of digital sets, would've approved 16x9 transfers of his movies.

[javayoda]

You're absolutely right. Kubrick composed his later films for 16:9 and 4:3 knowing they would eventually make their way to television. It's nice to know the helicopter shadow and rotor blades are cropped from the 1.85 version. I've never seen The Shining widescreen (and it's one of my favorite films).

Come on Warners!

[Deciazulado]

Sorry. You can't compose for two ratios.

You can compose for ONE, and protect for another.

Compose for 1.85, protect for 1.37. Possible

Compose for 1.37, and protect for 1.85. Kimpossible.


In the first case you show extra empty space in the 1.37 ratio.

In the second case, you crop out and amputate the elements you carefully composed for in 1.37 when you crop to 1.85. Not possible.

Case closed.
Next

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Sorry. You can't compose for two ratios.

You can compose for ONE, and protect for another.

Compose for 1.85, protect for 1.37. Possible

Compose for 1.37, and protect for 1.85. Kimpossible.


In the first case you show extra empty space in the 1.37 ratio.

In the second case, you crop out and amputate the elements you carefully composed for in 1.37 when you crop to 1.85. Not possible.

Case closed.
Next

Well okay Mr Picky -- compose was a bad choice of word, forgive me. But compose for 1:85 and protect 1:37 is more correct. But Kubrick tried to make everything as foolproof as possible as it was his way not to trust anyone once the film was out of his hands. Woe the theater owner who had one of Kubrick's spies there and everything wasn't just perfect.

Anyway, please don't send me to detention or wear the dunces cap.

[Deciazulado]

hey where do you get that idea. Most people here are advanced class.



All I want is for you to ace your tests and be prepared for when you go out into the field. Full Metal Jacket

[javayoda]

If anyone could compose for both it'd be Stanley Kubrick.

Picking nits aside, how about Dr. Strangelove? Some versions of the film change aspect ratio while you're watching.

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by javayoda

If anyone could compose for both it'd be Stanley Kubrick.

Picking nits aside, how about Dr. Strangelove? Some versions of the film change aspect ratio while you're watching.

This was, as stated in several books on Stan the man, a "multi-aspect ratio" movie. Though quite how that is possible, I'll defer to Dec's greater knowledge

The only theatrical screening I saw of DS showed it in one consistent aspect ratio

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by javayoda

If anyone could compose for both it'd be Stanley Kubrick.

Picking nits aside, how about Dr. Strangelove? Some versions of the film change aspect ratio while you're watching.

Yes I agree Kubrick is the most technical of directors, a photographer master.

If you composed perfectly and beautifully as he did, and you pulled back (unzoomed, open matted) the widescreen image, the image is probably simetrically pretty. I mean you are adding the same space above and below. So you could have the illusion the shot looks fine too. But it becomes a different "language". A close up becomes a medium shot, a medium shot becomes a long shot, etc. So you get a different film (Film is expressed through the language of the shot. That's why OAR and proper vertical framing and no overscan are important things to preserve.)

No film version of Dr. Strangelove changes aspect ratio while running in a proper projection. That's only possible/the result of showing the 35mm image without the projector matte (like on the video) and you can see the different camera/shots hard mattes. Same as if you did it to Back to the Future or T2 original elements. You'd see the live action shots being filmed full frame and the SFX being hard matted, costantly changing aspect ratio. As I said: watching the film "naked!"

I can assure you personally one of the best of DS prints was shown in 1.85 in a theater.

Jack Torrance, head of platoon!

[Deciazulado]

Here, from the master himself (courtesy of a HTF soul )



(The 18mm you see must refer to the full frame (Silent) aperture height (18 x 24mm))

The vertical line (or column) on the left, denotes the space that the optical track would cover on a Sound print

Now read the part where it says:

Originally Posted by SK

THE FRAME IS EXACTLY 1-1:85
Obviously you compose for that

and you can see his brown 1-1:85 marker showing the 1.85 height or crop area inside the Sound limited area width, inside the Silent area full frame.

These are markings to be followed in the groundglass of the camera, where the cameraman composes (or frames) the shots.

[javayoda]

Wow. That image is a great find!

As far as Dr. Strangelove, one of my early DVDs has the following verbiage on the back: "Because this particular movie was originally photographed with MULTI-ASPECT RATIOS, the proportions of the screen image will change periodically throughout the film." (Original capitalization)

So you're saying we're just seeing the film open matte - is that the term?

I have a newer version that's listed as 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen. Regardless of Kubrick's fears and desires , this is the one I prefer.

Very interesting. Thanks.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by javayoda

As far as Dr. Strangelove, one of my early DVDs has the following verbiage on the back: "Because this particular movie was originally photographed with MULTI-ASPECT RATIOS, the proportions of the screen image will change periodically throughout the film."

...

So you're saying we're just seeing the film open matte - is that the term?

Don't believe everything you read. Very few films are multiple aspect ratios. The opening of Galaxy Quest 1.33->1.85->2.39, Brainstorm real life 35mm 1.66->2.20 70mm mind recordings, Brother Bear human vision 1.75->2.39 Bearvision, etc. But all this movies are projected at the SAME PICTURE HEIGHT. The "formats" are inside the biggest widest format in the print. It's the width of the image inside it that changes. The print format doesn't change. You've never seen DS in a theater changing width (or heights!), because it was projected in widescreen in one format. Its format.


...


yes

Originally Posted by Banjo

You ever noticed how they would pan from one side to the other side in full screen? It was pretty noticeable and I always cringed whenever they did that.

Oh thank god I don't have to put up with that anymore.

REDRUM ! REDRUM !

[javayoda]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Don't believe everything you read.

Yeah, okay. Got it. Luckily I won't be giving up my career for Hollywood anytime soon...unless those BD-Java guys need some help.