The Shining widescreen question
Michael Graves
I ordered from Columbia House (I know...I know...) is fullscreen. The
cinematography and camera work was one of the defining characteristics
of this movie and I really would like to see it in it's full beauty.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all its contents. We live in a placid island of
ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant
that we should voyage far.The sciences, each straining in its own
direction,have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing
together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of
reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go
mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace
and safety of a new dark age."
H. P. Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu (1926)
the_new_...@my-deja.com
Michael Graves <loneg...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
> Is there more than one release of Kubrick's The Shining on DVD? The
copy
> I ordered from Columbia House (I know...I know...) is fullscreen. The
> cinematography and camera work was one of the defining characteristics
> of this movie and I really would like to see it in it's full beauty.
> --
Kubrick did a handful of films, including this one, where he exposed
the whole camera negative (which is approx 1.33). From that, he would
matte the top and bottom for the theaters but unmatte for the home
video release. There are supposedly remasters coming this year that
will have widescreen matted versions, since 16x9 tvs can now present a
movie more like a theater.
--
I had a pithy comment here about George Lucas, but
people have no sense of humor.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
CaNeMa
<loneg...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>Is there more than one release of Kubrick's The Shining on DVD? The copy
>I ordered from Columbia House (I know...I know...) is fullscreen. The
>cinematography and camera work was one of the defining characteristics
>of this movie and I really would like to see it in it's full beauty.
I believe it is in it's full beauty, just like Eyes Wide Shut. Filmed
in 4:3 - as the director intended. So you are not missing anything. As
a matter of fact, if the 16:9 ever comes out, it will be the butchered
version.
Douglas Bailey
...which is to say, it'll look just like the (director-approved)
original theatrical release of the film. *Neither* version is
"butchered".
doug
--
--------------douglas bailey (trys...@ne.mediaone.net)--------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
David Mullen
>in 4:3 - as the director intended. So you are not missing anything. As
>a matter of fact, if the 16:9 ever comes out, it will be the butchered
>version.
That's inaccurate. The later films were composed for matted widescreen
theatrical release, which means matted to 1.85. On the Kubrick newsgroup,
someone who worked with Kubrick as an assistant editor on "The Shining" has
stated that all camera and editing equipment were marked to indicate the
1.85 cropping. The steadicam operator Garrett Brown has also stated that
all of his steadicam work was framed for 1.85.
Ths is also blatently obviously in all the medium close-ups in the film,
which are unusually low in frame in the matted TV version. In the transfer
of "Eyes Wide Shut", which Kubrick did NOT supervise, the headroom and
framing has been adjusted to look "correct" in full-frame, while the
transfers of "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" are straight unmatted
transfers with no framing adjustments -- hence the odd headroom and dead
space above people's heads in a number of shots.
Kubrick simply preferred that his films be shown unmatted on 4:3 TV's -- he
didn't compose them for 1.33, or else they would have been oddly
cropped-looking in the movie theaters (ever seen an old Academy 1.37 film
cropped to 1.85? Looks terrible.) He wanted them to be transferred
full-frame to 4:3 video, hence why "Dr. Strangelove" comes out as having
multiple aspect ratios (since now some in-camera mattes have become visible
that weren't seen theatrically), and why "Clockwork Orange" is slightly
letterboxed but has one scene with a different hard matte, and why "Barry
Lyndon" is slightly letterboxed, since it also used a camera matte. His
last three films were shot unmatted, so no mattes appear in the transfer.
When he's been asked about his PREFERRED projection format for film
festivals, he's asked for a 1.66 : 1 matte to be used -- not to show them
projected in 1.33 even though a film festival could do that.
Apparently for "Barry Lyndon" he had 1.66 mattes sent to all the theaters
showing the film that only had 1.85 mattes. But by "The Shining", I think
he realized that 1.85 was going to be used, since it was going to get a much
wider release than "Barry Lyndon" and 1.85 was becoming the world-wide
standard for matted widescreen projection.
So to say that a matted widescreen version would be "butchered" is
inaccurate and misleading. Kubrick never indicated what he thought should
be done for his films if 16:9 TV ever became commonplace (which is hasn't
yet.) I doubt he would have insisted on a 4:3 image boxed on the sides of
16:9.
In any case, a 1.66 : 1 matte would preserve the aspect ratio that Kubrick
seemed to prefer for theatrical projection. It wouldn't be a "butchering"
of the image since Kubrick was making films primarily for widescreen movie
theaters, not for 4:3 TV. Anyway, the 4:3 full-frame transfers of his
films, the ones that he supervised, are currently available for those who
want to see them.
David Mullen
Skid
bottom for widescreen theatrical release (1.66:1.) He insisted that the home
video version be unmatted and fullscreen, and that's the version on the DVD.
You don't see less of the frame as in a typical pan&scan, but actually more
of the top and bottom. So you will be seeing it in its "full beauty." The
video transfer is not as crisp as might be wished, but it's the best
available of this classic, and worth owning IMHO.
"Michael Graves" <loneg...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:3A619BF7...@crosswinds.net...
Vincent Pereira
at the sides, at least the credits are. I saw this projected last summer in a
(stunning) new 35mm print at the Film Forum in NYC, and the "screenplay by
Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson" credit was fully on-screen with a nice chunk
of additional picture on either side of "Stanley" and "Johnson"- on the
full-frame video transfer, the credit BARELY fits on screen. On a set with
absolutely no overscan there might be a smidgen of additional space left/right,
but the amount seen on the 35mm projection of THE SHINING was more than would be
matted off by overscan. Not to mention, the quality of the print just blew the
DVD presentation away- whereas the opening titles are a pale whitish-blue on
the DVD, they are a deep, DEEP blue on the print, and so goes the color scheme
for the entire movie. I hope the new 16:9 DVD captures the color quality that I
saw in that 35mm presentation.
--
VINCENT PEREIRA
http://www.viewaskew.com/vincent/
writer/director/editor: A BETTER PLACE
ABP official website: http://www.film-411.com/A_Better_Place
David Mullen wrote:
> The later films were composed for matted widescreen
> theatrical release, which means matted to 1.85. On the Kubrick newsgroup,
> someone who worked with Kubrick as an assistant editor on "The Shining" has
> stated that all camera and editing equipment were marked to indicate the
> 1.85 cropping. The steadicam operator Garrett Brown has also stated that
> all of his steadicam work was framed for 1.85.
> Ths is also blatently obviously in all the medium close-ups in the film,
> which are unusually low in frame in the matted TV version. In the transfer
> of "Eyes Wide Shut", which Kubrick did NOT supervise, the headroom and
> framing has been adjusted to look "correct" in full-frame, while the
> transfers of "The Shining" and "Full Metal Jacket" are straight unmatted
> transfers with no framing adjustments -- hence the odd headroom and dead
> space above people's heads in a number of shots.
> Kubrick simply preferred that his films be shown unmatted on 4:3 TV's -- he
> didn't compose them for 1.33, or else they would have been oddly
> cropped-looking in the movie theaters (ever seen an old Academy 1.37 film
> cropped to 1.85? Looks terrible.) *SNIP*
> David Mullen