The Shining 4K UHD (1980)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by -shadow-

I thought that the film was composed for 1.66:1 like most of his work and had it protected for 1.33:1 and 1.85:1.

You might be thinking of Lyndon. Shining, FMJ and EWS were all framed up for 1.85 but protected at full height.

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

Well actually he sort of did, any 1:85 film has the whole of the 1:33 frame exposed, & the prints are masked at 1:85. I think it's easy, the ratio shown at the cinema is the correct ratio, in fact 16:9 would suit me, & do away with those tiny black lines top & bottom.

Yes, I know this. I understand this, but it wasn't intended to shown that way. Unless you take a time machine back to when we had old tvs.

I mean the man himself said "The frame itself is exactly 1:85, obviously you compose for that, but protect the full 1:33 area"

[postmodel]

I wonder how many pages this thread will hit until the official announcement with a full spec breakdown.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by postmodel

i wonder how many pages this thread will hit until the official announcement with a full spec breakdown.

237

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Yes, I know this. I understand this, but it wasn't intended to shown that way. Unless you take a time machine back to when we had old tvs.

I mean the man himself said "The frame itself is exactly 1:85, obviously you compose for that, but protect the full 1:33 area"

Honestly, I don't see the appeal of asking for full frame editions of films that were meant to be seen in widescreen. I see it as just eating up disc space.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

Honestly, I don't see the appeal of asking for full frame editions of films that were meant to be seen in widescreen. I see it as just eating up disc space.

Guy must be watching his 4K Ultras on this badboy...

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

Honestly, I don't see the appeal of asking for full frame editions of films that were meant to be seen in widescreen. I see it as just eating up disc space.

It is the meant to be seen part of what you are saying that is the issue

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

Guy must be watching his 4K Ultras on this badboy...

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

It is the meant to be seen part of what you are saying that is the issue

What? I don't see the need for an "open matte" presentation of a film that was meant to be seen in widescreen.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

What? I don't see the need for an "open matte" presentation of a film that was meant to be seen in widescreen.

1.85 is my favorite AR. There's great films in every AR though.

[johnnyringo7]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

1.85 is my favorite AR. There's great films in every AR though.

Agree. I like the best 1.85 or 1.78 follow for the non common 2.20 (Patton format) and the worst is 1.33 in my opinion.

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

1.85 is my favorite AR. There's great films in every AR though.

I'm not trying rag on 1.85 or any other aspect ratio; the film was made to be projected in widescreen. Some people earlier in the thread were hoping for "full frame" presentations, I don't see the need for a 1.33 presentation for a widescreen film.

[RustinCohle]

I’ll believe this is happening when I see Tyrok post a picture of it.

[CinemaScope]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

Yes, I know this. I understand this, but it wasn't intended to shown that way. Unless you take a time machine back to when we had old tvs.

I mean the man himself said "The frame itself is exactly 1:85, obviously you compose for that, but protect the full 1:33 area"

Yes I totally agree. As I said, the cinema ratio is the right one, if we'd had 16:9 TVs ten years earlier then Kubrick would never have bothered with all this 4x3 stuff.

So, it should be a 4k transfer of both cuts, plus the hospital scene as part of the many extras. Well I can hope

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by CinemaScope

Yes I totally agree. As I said, the cinema ratio is the right one, if we'd had 16:9 TVs ten years earlier then Kubrick would never have bothered with all this 4x3 stuff.

So, it should be a 4k transfer of both cuts, plus the hospital scene as part of the many extras. Well I can hope

We can hope for the Hospital scene, but I think it will never happen. Oh well.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

1.85 is my favorite AR. There's great films in every AR though.

Academy is my favorite AR but even then I'd prefer Shining stay in 1.85:1 (or 1.78:1).

[Bronson13]

Originally Posted by AlexIlDottore

We can hope for the Hospital scene, but I think it will never happen. Oh well.

Unless someone finds a wandering reel of it somewhere. Of some theater head actually kept it for himself and didn’t send it back. That’s probably the only way.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

What? I don't see the need for an "open matte" presentation of a film that was meant to be seen in widescreen.

It's debatable the ratio it was meant to be seen in

[FLIR]

Originally Posted by stephengizmo

The shining is coming !!!

I will buy it, simply because I want "Barry Lyndon" on UHD...

[AlexIlDottore]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

It's debatable the ratio it was meant to be seen in

No it isn't. Kubrick was clear.

[Cvalda]

Saw what might have been this new restoration a couple months ago with Leon Vitali in attendance. It looked terrific, certainly better than the old Blu-ray master, which I've also seen projected several times. Though interestingly there were some white specks here and there.