The Shining (1980)

[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.

[Banjo]

First, Deciazulado... thanks for the correction. Now...

Originally Posted by javayoda

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

There's also the term, 'Letterbox'. Often when you see "Letterbox" on a DVD, it's usually matted.

For instance, "A Fish Called Wanda". The original edition on region 1 disc was a flipper. One had the widescreen (matted) version and the full-frame (open matte). In the scene where John Cleese is in the nude, you can see that he's wearing a pair of jeans. So, sometimes it's better to just have them matted as the director may had originally intended to.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Sorcerer's) and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets were both processed in Super 35. So, either widescreen or full-frame are the whole picture, at least in most cases it isn't. Terminator 2 is a good example.

For the first 2 Harry Potter movies, the director matted it for the theatres to project in 2.35:1. When you watch both full-frame and widescreen, you'll see that some scenes are radically different in how much you see. They don't stick to one area of the movie the whole time, they change how much you see of the picture all through the movie. They used to have a site where they showed some examples from that movie, tried to google for it but couldn't find it.

I'm all for OAR (Original Aspect Ratio) as long it matches the director's intentions and visions.

Just curious, anybody remember watching Sony movies in full screen on VHS in the ol' days, in the mid-90s before DVD came out. 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. That was a long, long time ago.

[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.

[Jack Torrance]

Thank you Master Deciazulado for all the wise info.

BTW, did the image you posted here of SK's set up come from the Tascan oversize book on Kubrick? I got that as a gift over a year ago... bloody brilliant book, but haven't had the time to dig through it all.

"Does this mean that Ann Margret isn't coming?"

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by javayoda

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.

That's an area where BDA needs help. If you don't have a high paying job, you might wanna move to Hollywood. Besides, the perks are great. You get to bring home BD test discs.

As for Da Shining (DS?), I couldn't make much sense of it. BUT it has a sense of creepiness to it.


fuad

[Knight-Errant]

Seems to me the ideal would be OAR = as designed to be shown in cinemas under optimal conditions

[Tekman]

will be released on October 23, 2007

http://www.amazon.com/Shining-Specia...blurayforum-20

[dgator783]

all work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boy all work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boy all work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boyall work and no blu ray, makes Roger a dull boy

[WriteSimply]

aka "What happens to supporters when HD-DVD dies".


fuad

[Blu As Hell]

^^^

Lol!!!!!

[darkpoet25]

I just hope it has a widescreen transfer as opposed to the full frame dvd. I wonder what makes it the special edition. I will most likely be picking this up. Definetly looking forward to Oct. and Nov. lots I want to pick up.

[DTMoney84]

Definately looking forward to this one. Late fall/ Winter is going to be a very expensive season for me.

[micks_address]

dont think it can be widescreen as kubrick filmed it on fullscreen... so the current release(s) on dvd are as the director intended

[ftrez]

Originally Posted by micks_address

dont think it can be widescreen as kubrick filmed it on fullscreen... so the current release(s) on dvd are as the director intended

Well, they were projected in matted widescreen theatrically, so they could release the BD that way.

[Razzy]

Originally Posted by darkpoet25

I just hope it has a widescreen transfer as opposed to the full frame dvd. I wonder what makes it the special edition. I will most likely be picking this up. Definetly looking forward to Oct. and Nov. lots I want to pick up.

I was wondering the same...what makes it special? I need to know!!

[JayAuritt]

Originally Posted by darkpoet25

I just hope it has a widescreen transfer as opposed to the full frame dvd.

Per The Digital Bits:

In addition, A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining and Full Metal Jacket are all debuting in anamorphic widescreen format.


Case closed.