The Shining 4K UHD (1980)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Are you calling me a troll? I think your definition could use some work, if so.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Are you calling me a troll? I think your definition could use some work, if so.

[Mr Anderson]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

The Shining on 4K looks phenomenal! Like crispy clear and buttery delicious!

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Are you calling me a troll? I think your definition could use some work, if so.

Well you are an Arsenal fan

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Mr Anderson

The Shining on 4K looks phenomenal! Like crispy clear and buttery delicious!

Butter and jam sir. Don't forget that jam.

[JohnCarpenterFan]

I've stated in the past many times, that I've seen more framing issues on films actually presented in their OAR on Blu-ray than I've seen on Blu-rays which open up or "crop" the ratio from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1. I can't think of a single issue I've seen on a Blu-ray that has been caused by modifying the ratio from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1.

The framing on prints would slightly differ from print-to-print or due to different aperture plates, that could add or subtract more image area than the difference we see between the two aforementioned ratios.

Also, very important to mention that home video releases of films tend to show more information than what was intended, or would be shown theatrically to account for overscan or to just err on the side of caution as demonstrated in the image moviebuff75 posted. The old Blu-ray shows information on the right which isn't even present on the print, plus slivers of information would be taken off the sides of the print during projection (if it weren't then you'd see some slight vignetting) so you may end up with the same horizontal image area as seen on the open matte DVD.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I've stated in the past many times, that I've seen more framing issues on films actually presented in their OAR on Blu-ray than I've seen on Blu-rays which open up or "crop" the ratio from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1. I can't think of a single issue I've seen on a Blu-ray that has been caused by modifying the ratio from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1.

The framing on prints would slightly differ from print-to-print or due to different aperture plates, that could add or subtract more image area than the difference we see between the two aforementioned ratios.

Also, very important to mention that home video releases of films tend to show more information than what was intended, or would be shown theatrically to account for overscan or to just err on the side of caution as demonstrated in the image moviebuff75 posted. The old Blu-ray shows information on the right which isn't even present on the print, plus slivers of information would be taken off the sides of the print during projection (if it weren't then you'd see some slight vignetting) so you may end up with the same horizontal image area as seen on the open matte DVD.

I don't think you understand my unending need to see that whole washbasket sir.

[Mr Anderson]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I don't think you understand my unending need to see that whole washbasket sir.

You can only dream about what the top part of that wash basket handle looks like!

[oddbox83]

Just a thought.

Warner are likely doing full width 1.85:1 4K DIs for these as an archival format for future use. These are from the negatives, so obviously they have a bit more picture area than projection prints. That's expected.

Warner don't do 1.85:1 on home media. Rather than fiddle with different extractions of the source scan, they just take this finished 4K DI and crop the sides for the UHD master.

Does that make sense?

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Mr Anderson

You can only dream about what the top part of that wash basket handle looks like!

Kubrick hid his intended meaning to the film in it.

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I've stated in the past many times, that I've seen more framing issues on films actually presented in their OAR on Blu-ray than I've seen on Blu-rays which open up or "crop" the ratio from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1. I can't think of a single issue I've seen on a Blu-ray that has been caused by modifying the ratio from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1.

The framing on prints would slightly differ from print-to-print or due to different aperture plates, that could add or subtract more image area than the difference we see between the two aforementioned ratios.

Also, very important to mention that home video releases of films tend to show more information than what was intended, or would be shown theatrically to account for overscan or to just err on the side of caution as demonstrated in the image moviebuff75 posted. The old Blu-ray shows information on the right which isn't even present on the print, plus slivers of information would be taken off the sides of the print during projection (if it weren't then you'd see some slight vignetting) so you may end up with the same horizontal image area as seen on the open matte DVD.

Though this rerelease crops from the top and left, not the right. Not that I am really arguing much of anything here. I wish it was 1.85:1, but if Kubrick was okay with 1.33:1 for "TV VIEWING REASONS", it is reasonable to think that he would have been completely fine with 1.78:1 also "for modern TVs". Should they have "opened" it up instead of trimming the sides?

[Brian81]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Just a thought.

Warner are likely doing full width 1.85:1 4K DIs for these as an archival format for future use. These are from the negatives, so obviously they have a bit more picture area than projection prints. That's expected.

Warner don't do 1.85:1 on home media. Rather than fiddle with different extractions of the source scan, they just take this finished 4K DI and crop the sides for the UHD master.

Does that make sense?

The question is - do you know that this is what they are actually doing, and not something else?

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

Just a thought.

Warner are likely doing full width 1.85:1 4K DIs for these as an archival format for future use. These are from the negatives, so obviously they have a bit more picture area than projection prints. That's expected.

Warner don't do 1.85:1 on home media. Rather than fiddle with different extractions of the source scan, they just take this finished 4K DI and crop the sides for the UHD master.

Does that make sense?

The Batman’s were in 1.85:1.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

The Batman’s were in 1.85:1.

Maybe that was done to make Keaton look taller.

[oddbox83]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

The Batman’s were in 1.85:1.

Burton might have a hand in that, rather than a decision by Warner because it's not their usual "fill the screen" stance on 1.85.

Originally Posted by Brian81

The question is - do you know that this is what they are actually doing, and not something else?

No, like I said it was just a thought to try and explain why newer remastered are coming out with the sides cropped slightly rather than opening up the matte, as they used to more commonly do.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

No, like I said it was just a thought to try and explain why newer remastered are coming out with the sides cropped slightly rather than opening up the matte, as they used to more commonly do.

We're not so different, you and I: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=532

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

I've stated in the past many times, that I've seen more framing issues on films actually presented in their OAR on Blu-ray than I've seen on Blu-rays which open up or "crop" the ratio from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1. I can't think of a single issue I've seen on a Blu-ray that has been caused by modifying the ratio from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1.

That’s funny- I can think of an issue on every single one of them. *The movie is in the wrong ratio* would be the issue.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

The framing on prints would slightly differ from print-to-print or due to different aperture plates, that could add or subtract more image area than the difference we see between the two aforementioned ratios.

While this is absolutely true (and something I’ve already alluded to), it doesn’t change the fact that it’s just as easy for the digital preparation of these modern home video masters to be done with the correct ratios. That there have surely been less accurately framed presentations of these movies is not a good reason to forgo doing it right when it isn’t any more expensive to do so.

Originally Posted by JohnCarpenterFan

Also, very important to mention that home video releases of films tend to show more information than what was intended, or would be shown theatrically to account for overscan or to just err on the side of caution as demonstrated in the image moviebuff75 posted.

And this is a practice which is completely outmoded. No one’s watching UHD media on analog CRTs with overscan. One of the best qualities of digital media is that one-to-one mapping means that framing can always be accurate on these virtually master-quality presentations, but that benefit is destroyed if the distributors kneecap the format by putting the wrong framing on disc as a matter of policy.

[BluPat]

Sorry if this has been asked, but does the 4K UHD Blu-ray of The Shining come with a ticket for Doctor Sleep?

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by BluPat

Sorry if this has been asked, but does the 4K UHD Blu-ray of The Shining come with a ticket for Doctor Sleep?

Nope, just a sticker telling you to go watch it.

[BluPat]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

Nope, just a sticker telling you to go watch it.

Wow lol. How rude of Warner Bros.