Shane (1953)

[octagon]

Originally Posted by captveg

I don't disagree that 1.37:1 is the preferred AR as shot. All I am saying is that the 1.66:1 version of Shane has a unique history and is a valid representation of how most people would have seen the film in 1953. Chances are that when the members of the Academy voted it the Oscar for Cinematography it was from seeing it 1.66:1.

I tend to agree. Theatrical cuts should always be included absent some compelling reason to omit them. And ftr, expense could be a pretty compelling reason. It doesn't sound like it in this particular case but who really knows.

[Daredevil666]

Originally Posted by bluskies

The version shown at the festival was 1:37:1 and THAT is the way it should be. Director George Steven took so much time in how he did every single shot, including waiting until the sky was just right.

And yet he released the movie in 1.66:1. People should respect his decision. He was the bloody director of the film! I'm fine with the alternate "originaly intended" aspect ratio as a supplement or a variant, but the movie was released in 1.66:1. The theatrical aspect ratio is 1.66:1. That, is how the main Blu-ray release should be.

If it ain't, it means that it's OK to alter theatrical aspect ratios and replace them with any other ratio, just because a bunch of movie fans think so. It's wrong.

[joie]

I got the impression from reading this thread that it's going to be released at 1.37:1. I cancelled my order.

[Canada]

Hopefully the transfer on Shane will be great, I know that the Great Escape is a different studio but I hope that Shane is free of DNR.

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by Canada

Hopefully the transfer on Shane will be great, I know that the Great Escape is a different studio but I hope that Shane is free of DNR.

Given that Paramount was behind it, a DNR-free transfer is less likely than with Fox or Warner.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by HDvision

And yet he released the movie in 1.66:1. People should respect his decision. He was the bloody director of the film! I'm fine with the alternate "originaly intended" aspect ratio as a supplement or a variant, but the movie was released in 1.66:1. The theatrical aspect ratio is 1.66:1. That, is how the main Blu-ray release should be.

Did Paramount release it in 1.66:1 without Stevens' approval or was it framed for 1.66:1 the whole time?

[RiFiFi1955]

What the bleep is going on here? I don't understand...from what I gather they have two HD transfers in both aspect ratio's...well than just release them both. Criterion gave us three aspects ratio's for On The Waterfront, you make everyone happy then.

[Sherlock_Jr]

Originally Posted by HDvision

And yet he released the movie in 1.66:1. People should respect his decision. He was the bloody director of the film! I'm fine with the alternate "originaly intended" aspect ratio as a supplement or a variant, but the movie was released in 1.66:1. The theatrical aspect ratio is 1.66:1. That, is how the main Blu-ray release should be.

If it ain't, it means that it's OK to alter theatrical aspect ratios and replace them with any other ratio, just because a bunch of movie fans think so. It's wrong.

Just because a theater/studio masks a film (after the fact) incorrectly doesn't mean it's supposed to be shown that way. He composed it for 1.37:1, regardless of what an exhibitor does with the print. He shot the film in 1951, before "widescreen was even around. by the time the film was released, they improperly masked the top and bottom off to give it the illusion of a widescreen, in effect chopping off heads and feet.

I can put a 2.39:1 mask on a 1.85 film, but that doesn't make it correct.

Originally Posted by joie

I got the impression from reading this thread that it's going to be released at 1.37:1. I cancelled my order.

Yes, it's OAR at 1.37:1.

[MichaelR]

Warner has just announced a street date postponement to August 13, to allow additional time for remastering.

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by Sherlock_Jr

Just because a theater/studio masks a film (after the fact) incorrectly doesn't mean it's supposed to be shown that way. He composed it for 1.37:1, regardless of what an exhibitor does with the print. He shot the film in 1951, before "widescreen was even around. by the time the film was released, they improperly masked the top and bottom off to give it the illusion of a widescreen, in effect chopping off heads and feet.

I can put a 2.39:1 mask on a 1.85 film, but that doesn't make it correct.



Yes, it's OAR at 1.37:1.

Damn straight!

[bluknight1]

Originally Posted by MichaelR

Warner has just announced a street date postponement to August 13, to allow additional time for remastering.

Hey, if we have to wait a few more months to get the 1.37 version, I'll be happy

[JGD]

I have just a quick comment on aspect ratios. I really do prefer a widescreen presentation but if it was shot 1.37 it should probably stay that way. But if it was released at 1.66 and cropped for theatrical release that is a good point too.

When I purchased "The Quiet Man" I could watch it 1.37 with black bars on the sides or my HDTV could stretch it a little left and right making it look widescreen. It is not totally objectionable but it is slightly distorted and this may bother some people.

However, for some reason I used the zoom feature and noticed that my LG Blu-ray player is capable of zooming in 2% increments. At about 112% the screen is almost completely filled or maybe it actually is. I found this a nice feature and maybe other Blu-ray manufacturers could implement this as well to satisfy everyone. This way the full resolution of the original source material is not compromised nor the AR.

This way the original film is not cropped and the studio cannot be criticized for doing so. It is also certainly easier for the Blu-ray player manufacturers to implement this digitally anyway. And if the Blu-ray transfer is descent I doubt you'll notice any reduction in sharpness either. This way the user can crop the film himself for a widescreen presentation.

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by JGD

I have just a quick comment on aspect ratios. I really do prefer a widescreen presentation but if it was shot 1.37 it should probably stay that way. But if it was released at 1.66 and cropped for theatrical release that is a good point too.

When I purchased "The Quiet Man" I could watch it 1.37 with black bars on the sides or my HDTV could stretch it a little left and right making it look widescreen. It is not totally objectionable but it is slightly distorted and this may bother some people.

However, for some reason I used the zoom feature and noticed that my LG Blu-ray player is capable of zooming in 2% increments. At about 112% the screen is almost completely filled or maybe it actually is. I found this a nice feature and maybe other Blu-ray manufacturers could implement this as well to satisfy everyone. This way the full resolution of the original source material is not compromised nor the AR.

This way the original film is not cropped and the studio cannot be criticized for doing so. It is also certainly easier for the Blu-ray player manufacturers to implement this digitally anyway. And if the Blu-ray transfer is descent I doubt you'll notice any reduction in sharpness either. This way the user can crop the film himself for a widescreen presentation.

Yes, stretching the picture to fill the 16x9 screen IS most certainly "totally objectionable" just as much as watching an anamorphic widescreen image in its squished-to-1.18 format and cropped to 1.33 would be, but zooming in to crop off a bit off the top and bottom is far less objectionable, and actually can often be preferable for many films released during or after 1953. And THE QUIET MAN is definitely a 1.37 film, although any re-releases were likely projected somewhere between 1.66 and 1.85 (most likely at 1.85).

Those 1952-53-54 and even 55-56 production and release years are frequently "iffy" as far as optimal aspect ratio. I'd say that if the distributor does not want to go to the expense of releasing the Blu-ray edition with multiple aspect ratios (like Criterion's ON THE WATERFRONT and Olive's THE TRAP), then it's best to release it in 1.37 and let the consumer use the zoom function on their HDTVs or projectors to watch the movie in widescreen. A little bit of resolution is lost in the process, but with a good full-HD scan the loss of quality with that amount of enlargement is minimal.

I'd like to see the 1.66 version of SHANE on Blu-ray as an option, but if it was a choice between only the 1.66 or only the 1.37, I'd definitely prefer the 1.37 and am really glad they've decided to use that one instead of the 1.66 (though I'd still prefer both options since they seem to have manually reframed each shot to look its best in that format). With a projector I can still zoom the lens out to display exactly a 1.66 image, with the excess above and below barely visible projected onto black masking, or I can just use the digital zoom function to enlarge and crop it to 1.78 (which is an adequate compromise between 1.66 and 1.85 but I expect will probably be a bit too much cropping for something originally composed for 1.37).

[widegambler2012]

Originally Posted by MichaelR

Warner has just announced a street date postponement to August 13, to allow additional time for remastering.

Amazon Changed the release date on there website back to June 4th

I remember it was August 13 last week do you think It was bumped back up?

Since they did remaster it In both aspect ratio's and the 1:37:1 version was shown at the TCM Festival, I never understood why additional time was needed in the first place

[Pirate King]

It is going to be August 13th. That is not a very long wait.

[Bubba_Hotep]

Man I cant wait! This is one movie I having been hoping to add to my Blu-ray collection.

[BluPat]

The cover looks so generic but, I will be getting this!

[cpstevens]

Just read the book for school and watched the film for the first time. It's a good western despite the obnoxiousness of Joey (Bob in the novel) and Marian. Poor acting on both of their parts. Alan Ladd makes up for their performances with a great performance as the title character. One of the better Western's that I've seen, and hopefully it looks beautiful on Blu-ray. Given that all goes well with the transfer, this will be a day one pick up for me.

[Visco.]

This is gonna be a blind buy.

[rkolinski]

Originally Posted by silverlakephil

Review from DVDbeaver. All I gotta say is..wow:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/shane.htm

Thanks for sharing this link; just reading the bit rate difference between the DVD and BD was thrilling to see. Also, I was really impressed with the detail one could see in Jack Palance's holster!

[Show spoiler]