Full Metal jacket & A Clockwork Orange ?'s
01-13-05, 08:24 AM
#1
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Full Metal jacket & A Clockwork Orange ?'s
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I thought S. Kubrick shot all his films in P & S. Yet my Clockwork DVD is in widescreen and Full Metal Jacket in fullscreen. It says "formatted to fit your TV screen" on the back of FMJ. Why would it have to be formatted if its already P & S and why would they make A Clockwork Orange widescreen if it was originally shot in Full? It does say "presented in a matted..." on the back of clockwork. Does this mean its just fullscreen with black bars on top and bottom?
01-13-05, 08:46 AM
#2
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by JZ1276
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I thought S. Kubrick shot all his films in P & S. Yet my Clockwork DVD is in widescreen and Full Metal Jacket in fullscreen. It says "formatted to fit your TV screen" on the back of FMJ. Why would it have to be formatted if its already P & S and why would they make A Clockwork Orange widescreen if it was originally shot in Full? It does say "presented in a matted..." on the back of clockwork. Does this mean its just fullscreen with black bars on top and bottom?
I think Clockwork was shot in a 1.33:1 (a perfect square like a tv) ratio and shown in 1.66:1 in theatres and should be the same on DVD. The matted means that Kubrick took the 1.33:1 negatives and put black bars over the top and bottom to get a 1.66:1 ratio. Yes, you do "lose some picture" but that picture was never really intended to be seen. For all intents and purposes, this is widescreen (not 1.85:1 but still widescreen).
As for FMJ, the negative had a ratio of 1.37:1 and was matted for theatres to the now standard 1.85:1. The DVD gives you the full negative ratio. The blurb about formatting is just stating that it is different from when shown in theatres. No real conversion went through to format the size, but it is much cheaper (and easier) for WB to just put that disclaimer than try to explain the situation at length.
01-13-05, 08:56 AM
#3
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne, FL
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brain Stew
The movies are not pan & scan.
I think Clockwork was shot in a 1.33:1 (a perfect square like a tv)
I think Clockwork was shot in a 1.33:1 (a perfect square like a tv)
01-13-05, 09:16 AM
#4
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JZ1276
Sorry if this has been asked before,
but I thought S. Kubrick shot all his films in P & S.
Yet my Clockwork DVD is in widescreen
and Full Metal Jacket in fullscreen. It says "formatted to fit your TV screen" on the back of FMJ. Why would it have to be formatted if its already P & S
why would they make A Clockwork Orange widescreen if it was originally shot in Full?
It does say "presented in a matted..." on the back of clockwork. Does this mean its just fullscreen with black bars on top and bottom?
01-13-05, 12:58 PM
#6
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Actually only films made in 1:85 or less state 'matted' on Warner packages. Meanwhile films in 2:35 or anything greater than 1:85,they state "Widescreen,preserving the original 'scope'....." framining etc.
I am sure the wording on Full Metal Jacket was just a mistake. Since usually that wording means it was 'altered'(usually panned & scanned or simply open matte..but not approved by the director). Meanwhile the other Kubrick films state they are presented in the full apature of the original camera negative as Kubrick wanted. Probably too avoid confusion by those thinking 'fullframe is evil,arggg,it's pan & scan!'
I am sure the wording on Full Metal Jacket was just a mistake. Since usually that wording means it was 'altered'(usually panned & scanned or simply open matte..but not approved by the director). Meanwhile the other Kubrick films state they are presented in the full apature of the original camera negative as Kubrick wanted. Probably too avoid confusion by those thinking 'fullframe is evil,arggg,it's pan & scan!'
01-13-05, 01:18 PM
#7
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 3,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others touched on, pan & scan is NOT the same as 1.33:1 aspect ratio.
http://www.ryanwright.com/ht/oar.shtml
http://www.ryanwright.com/ht/oar.shtml
01-13-05, 08:37 PM
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Julie Walker
Actually only films made in 1:85 or less state 'matted' on Warner packages. Meanwhile films in 2:35 or anything greater than 1:85,they state "Widescreen,preserving the original 'scope'....." framining etc.
Originally Posted by JZ1276
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I thought S. Kubrick shot all his films in P & S.
Last edited by Mr. Salty; 01-14-05 at 02:06 AM.
01-13-05, 08:40 PM
#9
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty
Don't confuse matters further. 1:85 and 2:35 are not ratios.
DJ
01-13-05, 08:46 PM
#10
DVD Talk Legend
A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon were photographed with hard mattes over the camera gate. This prevented light from exposing the top and bottom of the 1.37:1 film negative. What wound up on the negative is about 1.5:1 in aspect ratio. In addition to this, the movies would have had additional matting added during projection to bring their ratios down to 1.66:1 (European standard) or 1.85:1 (American standard).
Full Metal Jacket was not photographed with any hard mattes in place. The entire 1.37:1 camera negative was exposed. This was later matted during to projection to those same ratios.
For home video, Kubrick asked that all post-production matting be lifted so that the entire image on the camera negative would be in the video. So Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon are 1.5:1, and Full Metal Jacket (and The Shining, and others) 4:3.
Dr. Strangelove was photographed with some shots hard-matted and others not. That's why the original DVD release (not the current SE) varies in aspect ratio from scene to scene. This was pointed out to him at the time the film was mastered for its Criterion laserdisc release, and Kubrick insisted that he didn't care. He preferred that the aspect ratio vary than that any additional letterboxing be added. The recent SE DVD restores the movie's original European theatrical aspect ratio at a constant 1.66:1. Obviously, Kubrick didn't approve this DVD specifically, but it is known that 1.66:1 was his preferred theatrical aspect ratio; at a retrospective of his films before his death, he asked that they all be projected at 1.66:1.
Full Metal Jacket was not photographed with any hard mattes in place. The entire 1.37:1 camera negative was exposed. This was later matted during to projection to those same ratios.
For home video, Kubrick asked that all post-production matting be lifted so that the entire image on the camera negative would be in the video. So Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon are 1.5:1, and Full Metal Jacket (and The Shining, and others) 4:3.
Dr. Strangelove was photographed with some shots hard-matted and others not. That's why the original DVD release (not the current SE) varies in aspect ratio from scene to scene. This was pointed out to him at the time the film was mastered for its Criterion laserdisc release, and Kubrick insisted that he didn't care. He preferred that the aspect ratio vary than that any additional letterboxing be added. The recent SE DVD restores the movie's original European theatrical aspect ratio at a constant 1.66:1. Obviously, Kubrick didn't approve this DVD specifically, but it is known that 1.66:1 was his preferred theatrical aspect ratio; at a retrospective of his films before his death, he asked that they all be projected at 1.66:1.
01-13-05, 08:55 PM
#11
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by Josh Z
at a retrospective of his films before his death, he asked that they all be projected at 1.66:1.
DJ
01-13-05, 10:38 PM
#12
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by djtoell
That must've made for crappy Spartacus and 2001 viewing.
01-14-05, 02:04 AM
#13
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by djtoell
Yes, they are. They're just not standard film aspect ratios.
DJ
DJ
I've edited my original post for those who want to play pointless semantics.
Last edited by Mr. Salty; 01-14-05 at 02:07 AM.
01-14-05, 06:39 AM
#15
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: On the penis chair
Posts: 5,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From this link (I forgot where I got this link - probably from this forum or somewhere else but I kept it on bookmark): http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index.html#slot11
11/ Why are Some Kubrick films only available in the "full frame" aspect ratio (1) on VHS video, DVD and Laserdisc?
It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview (2): "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."
The decision to release Kubrick's back catalogue as full frame only has been very controversial. The problem for Vitali and other defenders of the Kubrick legacy is that Kubrick never publicly voiced the preference now being attributed to him, so they are always open to the charge of over zealousness in protecting his legacy or even outright betrayal of that legacy. But this seems excessively harsh, Vitali' has been given the Hobson's choice of remaining true to his employers wishes no matter how anachronistic they seem (or may seem in future given the recent advances in home entertainment technology). Like a devoted acolyte, protecting his masters life work his position he will not yield to the clamour of criticism but will remain intractable in his resolve because he is not fighting for himself or defending his personal opinions, but those of the person he devoted half his adult life to serving. Ironically no one will ever know what would have happened if 16:9 widescreen TV sets became commonplace before Kubrick died -- he could might rethought his films one more time and chosen to transfer them to that widescreen ratio, or offered consumers the choice. Who knows? But one thing is certain, as long as his loyal staff and family still have a say in the matter, we will only being seeing his films in the format he wanted them to be shown in before he died.
RM
Notes
(1) Definition of Aspect Ratio
The aspect "aspect ratio" of a cinema pictue is the shape of the projected image in terms of proportions of height to width.
1 : 1.85 means a rectangle that is "1" unit tall by "1.85" units wide.
Most films in U.S. theaters are now primarily shown in two 35mm widescreen formats: "flat" 1:1.85 and "scope" 1:2.35.
The 1:1.85 ratio is achieved by the projector gate masking the nearly square 35mm frame on the top & bottom to achieve a wider-looking shape. The unmasked 35mm film is where the term full frame comes from. In the post silent film era the full frame aspect ratio was called "Academy Aperture" and had an aspect ratio of 1:1.37 until the 1950's when the Academy Aperture was cropped to the widescreen ratios, varying from 1:1.66, 1:1.75, to 1:1.85.
Most films are shot "open-matted" with an image filling the 1:1.37 Academy Aperture, but the image is composed for its later cropping in the theaters to the theatrical aspect ratio. Which effectily means that the director must ensure nothing of interest must happen in the top or bottom sixth of the screen, because it will be masked out by the crop when the film is shown in cinemas
"Scope" or anamorphic photography is different and does not involve cropping, but instead has a wide 1:2.35 image squeezed onto the 35mm frame, to be unsqueezed by a projector with an anamorphic lens.
It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview (2): "The thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested."
The decision to release Kubrick's back catalogue as full frame only has been very controversial. The problem for Vitali and other defenders of the Kubrick legacy is that Kubrick never publicly voiced the preference now being attributed to him, so they are always open to the charge of over zealousness in protecting his legacy or even outright betrayal of that legacy. But this seems excessively harsh, Vitali' has been given the Hobson's choice of remaining true to his employers wishes no matter how anachronistic they seem (or may seem in future given the recent advances in home entertainment technology). Like a devoted acolyte, protecting his masters life work his position he will not yield to the clamour of criticism but will remain intractable in his resolve because he is not fighting for himself or defending his personal opinions, but those of the person he devoted half his adult life to serving. Ironically no one will ever know what would have happened if 16:9 widescreen TV sets became commonplace before Kubrick died -- he could might rethought his films one more time and chosen to transfer them to that widescreen ratio, or offered consumers the choice. Who knows? But one thing is certain, as long as his loyal staff and family still have a say in the matter, we will only being seeing his films in the format he wanted them to be shown in before he died.
RM
Notes
(1) Definition of Aspect Ratio
The aspect "aspect ratio" of a cinema pictue is the shape of the projected image in terms of proportions of height to width.
1 : 1.85 means a rectangle that is "1" unit tall by "1.85" units wide.
Most films in U.S. theaters are now primarily shown in two 35mm widescreen formats: "flat" 1:1.85 and "scope" 1:2.35.
The 1:1.85 ratio is achieved by the projector gate masking the nearly square 35mm frame on the top & bottom to achieve a wider-looking shape. The unmasked 35mm film is where the term full frame comes from. In the post silent film era the full frame aspect ratio was called "Academy Aperture" and had an aspect ratio of 1:1.37 until the 1950's when the Academy Aperture was cropped to the widescreen ratios, varying from 1:1.66, 1:1.75, to 1:1.85.
Most films are shot "open-matted" with an image filling the 1:1.37 Academy Aperture, but the image is composed for its later cropping in the theaters to the theatrical aspect ratio. Which effectily means that the director must ensure nothing of interest must happen in the top or bottom sixth of the screen, because it will be masked out by the crop when the film is shown in cinemas
"Scope" or anamorphic photography is different and does not involve cropping, but instead has a wide 1:2.35 image squeezed onto the 35mm frame, to be unsqueezed by a projector with an anamorphic lens.
01-14-05, 10:35 AM
#16
DVD Talk Legend
i hope when they do the next re-release of these disc they put both version on the disc so everyone can sit in blisse and we can get back to talking about goodburger criterion collection box sets
01-14-05, 01:55 PM
#17
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thanks Josh Z and Edoon--every time I read one of these Kubrick threads I learn something new. I think I'm (finally) convinced that releasing FMJ Full Screen was a good decision
I still hope that when these get released on one of the HD formats they include one of the theatrical ratios as well as the negative ratio, that way I can see for myself which one I like.
I still hope that when these get released on one of the HD formats they include one of the theatrical ratios as well as the negative ratio, that way I can see for myself which one I like.
Last edited by Ginwen; 01-14-05 at 01:57 PM.
01-15-05, 10:21 PM
#20
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JZ1276
I still dont understand what the point was to add the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen on Clockwork Orange
The DVD is basically perfect, otherwise, though. I didn't see one speck or scratch during the whole movie. The color is beautiful... the old DVD has way too much debris and scratches, not to mention being too dark or desaturated in certain scenes. And the 5.1 remix is nothing short of spectacular. It sounds like Malcolm McDowell's voice was newly recorded, rather than a nearly 35 year old recording. It's that clear.
01-15-05, 10:41 PM
#22
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty
They aren't non-standard film aspect ratios either.
The point you're (sloppily) attempting to make must be that the mentioned ratios have never been used at all for film. This is a bold statement to make in light of the scores of experimental projects and installations in the history of filmmaking. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised at all that an image has been projected at 1:85 at least one time throughout the entire history of film. Rather than attempting to make wildly broad statements completely lacking in support for the sole purpose of being disagreeable because you're annoyed at someone, it's a tad easier to make the much more conservative estimation that the named ratios are simply non-standard. It also avoids digging your linguistic hole even deeper by having to attempt to achieve some kind of intendedly sly but actually nonsensical double-negative point.
I've edited my original post for those who want to play pointless semantics.
DJ
01-15-05, 10:45 PM
#23
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by DavidH
Why isn't the Clockwork Orange DVD anamorphic?!?
01-15-05, 11:19 PM
#24
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by djtoell
Huh? If they're not standard, how can they also be not non-standard? It must be either one or the other. These aren't Schroedinger's Ratios.
This is a bold statement to make in light of the scores of experimental projects and installations in the history of filmmaking. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised at all that an image has been projected at 1:85 at least one time throughout the entire history of film.
You pointlessly criticize someone for sloppy use of punctuation, but get annoyed when it's pointed out that your own criticism is incorrect? If you don't want to play pointless games, don't start them.