Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory 4K UHD (1971)

[Kyle15]

I hope the new edition replaces the old and not modern Willy Wonka with a new modern Willy Wonka who looks like Johnny Depp but isn't really, and then the movie will be actually watchable according to today's standards.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

I hope the new edition replaces the old and not modern Willy Wonka with a new modern Willy Wonka who looks like Johnny Depp but isn't really, and then the movie will be actually watchable according to today's standards.

So, keep the original version intact then. Got it.

[Viking61]

From HDMovieSource.

WillyWonka.JPG

[HD Goofnut]

I wonder if we'll finally get the opening credits without windowboxing.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Viking61

From HDMovieSource.

Except for the release date that information from that site is completely useless since they more than likely made it up.

Yes, it will have English audio. Yes it will have (at least) HDR10. Yes it's 1.85 (even 1.78 is called 1.85 in Warner-land). Yes it's rated "G" and will have a 4K disc and BD disc.

[Viking61]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except for the release date that information from that site is completely useless since they more than likely made it up.

Yes, it will have English audio. Yes it will have (at least) HDR10. Yes it's 1.85 (even 1.78 is called 1.85 in Warner-land). Yes it's rated "G" and will have a 4K disc and BD disc.

They do have the UPC number though.

[BluAsa97]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except for the release date that information from that site is completely useless since they more than likely made it up.

Yes, it will have English audio. Yes it will have (at least) HDR10. Yes it's 1.85 (even 1.78 is called 1.85 in Warner-land). Yes it's rated "G" and will have a 4K disc and BD disc.

Wait wait wait

What's this thing with 1.78 = 1.85 in Warner-land?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by BluAsa97

Wait wait wait

What's this thing with 1.78 = 1.85 in Warner-land?

Paramount and Warner always open up 1.85:1 to 1.78:1.

[BluAsa97]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Paramount and Warner always open up 1.85:1 to 1.78:1.

So that's why some movies compared from Bluray to 4K are zoomed-like!

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by BluAsa97

So that's why some movies compared from Bluray to 4K are zoomed-like!

No, they've been doing this since the beginning of BD. They are typically open matte though.

[IndyFan12]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Paramount and Warner always open up 1.85:1 to 1.78:1.

Some of their recent 4Ks have been 1.85:1. Not all of them (for some reason), but some of them.

[moviebuff75]

Just give us the original mono as an option. I don't care about extras.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by IndyFan12

Some of their recent 4Ks have been 1.85:1. Not all of them (for some reason), but some of them.

I honestly wish they had just done 1.85:1 from the start on both formats.

[Kyle15]

In the case of The Shining they zoomed to 1.78, which sounds completely bizarro but they did it.

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Paramount and Warner always open up 1.85:1 to 1.78:1.

If the film was hard matted to 1.85:1 they crop the sides a bit. An absolutely absurd practice of theirs.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

If the film was hard matted to 1.85:1 they crop the sides a bit. An absolutely absurd practice of theirs.

Personally I can't think of a film that was hard matted beyond 1.66 to 1.75 - even VFX shots.

Some transfers, even if matted to 1.85 or 2.35 will still be zoomed in on the sides though.

[reanimator]

thank God, finally an aspect ratio discussion

[FilmFreakosaurus]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Personally I can't think of a film that was hard matted beyond 1.66 to 1.75 - even VFX shots.

Some transfers, even if matted to 1.85 or 2.35 will still be zoomed in on the sides though.

Some films from the 70's and 80's, especially, and even into the 90's were hard matted to 1.85:1. It made it easier, they thought, to frame up the projected image at the theater. Soft matted flat pictures at the time of 35mm projection, unless calibrated by trained projectionists, tended to be shown with either too much on the top of the frame or the bottom. The movie houses were mostly staffed with underpaid, pimply teenagers who didn't know shit from shinola.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by reanimator

thank God, finally an aspect ratio discussion

And it’s not even a Kubrick thread!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Some films from the 70's and 80's, especially, and even into the 90's were hard matted to 1.85:1. It made it easier, they thought, to frame up the projected image at the theater. Soft matted flat pictures at the time of 35mm projection, unless calibrated by trained projectionists, tended to be shown with either too much on the top of the frame or the bottom. The movie houses were mostly staffed with underpaid, pimply teenagers who didn't know shit from shinola.

Hard matting was more common on earlier films and in Europe - think the 1960s.

In the '90s a lot of films were shot full frame to accommodate VHS & home video. Super35 for 2.35 films were common and true anamorphic scope became an endangered species. It wasn't until the mid-late 2000s that anamorphic made a huge comeback. "Full frame" digital of course was 1.78