Kubrick SE collection in Oct - HD + DVD

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 04 Aug 2007, 06:04

HD formats
DVD

All matted to fixed widescreen ratios and the DVDs are anamorphic (FINALLY). No original mono/stereo tracks though where applicable, such a shame. If you want the original audio, you'll to put up with old shit DVDs taken from laserdisc masters.

Hopefully FMJ has been remastered again. Reportedly the transfer on the barebones HD-DVD/BD was pretty ugly, showing all the faults that were hidden by SD.

Oh yeah and be sure to get a R1/American release of The Shining, good chance the original longer TC won't released out of North America. Also the censored R-rated version Eyes Wide Shut will probably only be available in North America, grab an uncut international release (that is if you like that crap movie).

EDIT: The Eyes Wide Shut Special Edition includes both the Rated and Unrated versions,

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 04 Aug 2007, 23:43

shining & clockwork orange for me

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 04 Aug 2007, 23:54

I'd get The Shining, 2001, FMJ and Clockwork Orange.

EWS is a terrible film.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Aug 2007, 03:09

2001, The Shining and Clockwork Orange for me but I'll wait for the BDs. EWS was worse than terrible that's being too kind.

I've yet to get around to seeing FMJ.

Oh yeah and be sure to get a R1/American release of The Shining, good chance the original longer TC won't released out of North America.

It's almost a definite what with WB still going along with Kubrick's odd wishes on this one. It's some cuts too, about 50 minutes. Funny I'm sure The Shining was shot 1.33:1 so shouldn't be 1.78:1. I guess not, unless it's window boxed.

p.s - Odd that only 2001 is getting PCM on BD.

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 07 Aug 2007, 08:10

Shining was composed for 1.85, show in theaters in 1.85, but shown on DVD in unmatted 1.37:1.

The cool looking version is the 1.85, the square one looks just like a TV movie, with all the compositions a bit lost.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 07 Aug 2007, 12:11

All those "composed for 4:3" myths were debunked long ago. These are all widescreen films.

Why aren't they putting out DVD SEs/HD releases of Barry Lyndon and Lolita I wonder?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Aug 2007, 14:39

Thanks. I wonder why it was ever released in 4:3 then. I'll definitely be getting the BD then. I've never seen The Shining in WS.

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 07 Aug 2007, 16:20

I believe there is a problem with the format of both BL and Lolita. Kubrick said it's a mix of 4/3 and 1.66, so there might be a debate amongst the legacy holders about how to show those.

Just give me some Kubrick negatives, and I'll HARD MATTE those for posterity to cut the crap hahaha

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 07 Aug 2007, 16:57

The trouble with HD IMO is the lack of a HD 4:3 standard so everything gets bunged into pillar box mess. Which could even possibly (in theory) get me to stick with the DVD for 4:3 titles.

I've yet to see how bad it is, but the idea sounds dreadful. There is no reason why you cannot have HD 4:3 except they've opted not to create a resolution for it.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 07 Aug 2007, 20:01

bradavon wrote:The trouble with HD IMO is the lack of a HD 4:3 standard so everything gets bunged into pillar box mess. Which could even possibly (in theory) get me to stick with the DVD for 4:3 titles.

Having pillarboxed 4:3 HD titles is a great idea, it crams the director's/cinematographer's original intentions down the throats of asshats like you who zoom-in 4:3 material.

I've yet to see how bad it is, but the idea sounds dreadful. There is no reason why you cannot have HD 4:3 except they've opted not to create a resolution for it.

My friend has the HD-DVD of Robin Hood (with Errol Flynn), the results are gorgeous.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 07 Aug 2007, 20:34

What's wrong with pillarboxing 4:3 material? It's a fine idea, only the one resolution.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 07 Aug 2007, 20:43

Brad hates 4:3 material on 16:9 TVs, he always zooms it.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 07 Aug 2007, 20:46

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH YOUR JOKING ME!

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 07 Aug 2007, 21:08

This forum has such interesting users...

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 08 Aug 2007, 07:38

OK 4/3 is another problem on DVD entirely. The problem is, most movies that were made square, have a ratio of 1.37 (not 1.33), and basically, when shown on TV, they are zoomboxed, meaning you have a 1.33 square scanned INTO the 1.37 image, making you loose lots of information.

When a movie is 1.66, it's a no brainer : like the first 3 Bond movies, you just window box it in 16/9, the pillar are lost in the overscan of the TV, and you don't loose a lot north and south if the scan is done right.

a square movie, say, Robin Hood, should in my opinion either be sightly matted in 1.66/16/9, or shown in 1.37, thus having smaller pillars on the left and right. A bit like they do when they transfert the opening credits of those, it's called windowboxing and show the entire frame. like Hitchcock Rebecca opening credits on Criterion for example.

The Kubrick problem is they could transfert Lolita in 1.66 / 16/9, but apparently, Kubrick preferred to go up and down with the format for home video, so I guess they are trying to figure out if this works or not in 1.66.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 08 Aug 2007, 14:02

Lourdes wrote:What's wrong with pillarboxing 4:3 material? It's a fine idea, only the one resolution.

I prefer the choice which DVD allows me HD does not.

But yes Eva is right those ugly huge black bars on the sides no thanks. It fits perfectly fine with minimal cropping to the top/bottom using the right mode on my TV. No stretching of the picture just fitting to my TV shape.

I still cannot believe anyone would watch a film in a square on a Widescreen TV. Sure the 1.33:1/1.37:1 is how it was shot but boy it doesn't make it easy to watch it on a Widescreen TV.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 08 Aug 2007, 14:29

bradavon wrote:I still cannot believe anyone would watch a film in a square on a Widescreen TV. Sure the 1.33:1/1.37:1 is how it was shot but boy it doesn't make it easy to watch it on a Widescreen TV.

Believe it, you have a supremely unpopular opinion in any hardcore film fan community and they'd probably be label a supreme idiot for that opinion.

People in the mainstream audience might hate pillarboxing but they're same ignorant close-minded idiots whom write off films simply for being subtitled and in a foreign language; not being in colour. If every trend whore in high street jumped off the bridge, so would you the typical serious film fan's eyes. Be honest, we are eltist assholes and such an opinion will leave labeled a retard and/or a pariah and have you lumped in with the mainstream tards.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 08 Aug 2007, 15:50

EvaUnit02 wrote:Believe it, you have a supremely unpopular opinion in any hardcore film fan community and they'd probably be label a supreme idiot for that opinion.

Well, this is the guy who once argued that black and white films couldn't possibly look as good as colour films in High Definition. I actually fear that there might be people out there who actually put stock in his "technical" opinion

slasher13 · Post by **slasher13** » 08 Aug 2007, 16:04

I can't stand watching 4:3 shows in widescreen (zoom) function, it looks horrible. All the actors are fat and wide

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 08 Aug 2007, 17:48

Here's another theory about TV shows from the sixties for example : thought the episodes were shown in 1.33:1 on the TV, that was with SERIOUS overscan.

The directors shot knowing full well that a lot of peripheral information was to be lost on the airing.

But now that we have 1.33 TV with much less overscan, we have TV shows on DVDs where we actually suddenly see the feets of the cameraman, cable, and such things.

How hard would it be, to just damn transfert those from the original negatives in 1.66, and hide all those damn cables, mikes, and marks on the floor ? It's always a north / south problem, never east & west.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 08 Aug 2007, 18:47

Shingster wrote:Well, this is the guy who once argued that black and white films couldn't possibly look as good as colour films in High Definition. I actually fear that there might be people out there who actually put stock in his "technical" opinion

*Coffee spit take*
Brad actually tried to argue that at one point? WTF?

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 08 Aug 2007, 19:24

bradavon wrote:
Lourdes wrote:What's wrong with pillarboxing 4:3 material? It's a fine idea, only the one resolution.
I prefer the choice which DVD allows me HD does not.

But yes Eva is right those ugly huge black bars on the sides no thanks. It fits perfectly fine with minimal cropping to the top/bottom using the right mode on my TV. No stretching of the picture just fitting to my TV shape.

I still cannot believe anyone would watch a film in a square on a Widescreen TV. Sure the 1.33:1/1.37:1 is how it was shot but boy it doesn't make it easy to watch it on a Widescreen TV.

I don't understand how watching 4:3 on a 16:9 display is any different to watching 4:3 on a 4:3 display; you just have blank picture at the sides instead of... wall.

Lourdes · Post by **Lourdes** » 08 Aug 2007, 22:28

Come on guys, losing 20% of the vertical resolution is nothing...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Aug 2007, 14:25

EvaUnit02 wrote:Believe it, you have a supremely unpopular opinion in any hardcore film fan community and they'd probably be label a supreme idiot for that opinion.

Hardcore film fan community aka film snobbery.

Seriously do you guys watch normal TV (which isn't broadcast in 16:9) using the 4:3 setting on your Widescreen TVs?

I just said we should be given the choice, just like we should always get both the original language plus an English dub (instead of just an English dub).

Shingster wrote:Well, this is the guy who once argued that black and white films couldn't possibly look as good as colour films in High Definition. I actually fear that there might be people out there who actually put stock in his "technical" opinion

Yawn!

No he didn't, you completely misunderstand what I was saying. Anyway if you think what I've said was technical you're even thicker than I thought you were.

slasher13 wrote:I can't stand watching 4:3 shows in widescreen (zoom) function, it looks horrible. All the actors are fat and wide

Only if you use the wrong TV mode

gasteropod wrote:I don't understand how watching 4:3 on a 16:9 display is any different to watching 4:3 on a 4:3 display; you just have blank picture at the sides instead of... wall.

Fair point, except 4:3 sets are designed for 4:3, 16:9 sets are not which leaves enormous black bars at the top and bottom.

Okay do you guys zoom non-anamorphic content (particularly 2.35:1) to better fit the screen? Why? Because the black bars are huge and fill most of the screen.

Well doing this results in massively decreased quality. Non-anamorphic DVDs are meant to be left with the black bars there but I bet most people try to hide them.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 10 Aug 2007, 14:26

Anyway as these Kubrick films are no longer in 4:3 it's a moot point. If they were I may have to go with the DVD versions.