So, I watched Full Metal Jacket In Widescreen Today
09-24-03 | 07:38 PM
#1
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Legend
So, I watched Full Metal Jacket In Widescreen Today
INHD TV - Full Metal Jacket Widescreen
I was watching (currently am watching) the HD widescreen version of Full Metal Jacket. I thought that it was only available in full screen. I guess not. I have to say though, the picture is fabulous. Maybe it was just the DVD that they wanted in full screen.
Oh, the INHD channel is now available on my comcast cable.
I was watching (currently am watching) the HD widescreen version of Full Metal Jacket. I thought that it was only available in full screen. I guess not. I have to say though, the picture is fabulous. Maybe it was just the DVD that they wanted in full screen.
Oh, the INHD channel is now available on my comcast cable.
09-24-03 | 08:29 PM
#4
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Reading, PA
DirecTv's HDMN also showed this & Clockwork Orange. I'm sure FMJ was matted, but I watched the dvd the same way (I have a 16x9 set) & it looked pretty well composed & that's what they did in the theaters anyway. Did Comcast also show Eddie Murphy Raw, Greystoke, Year Of The Dragon & After Hours? Maybe they both show the same movies. It's funny seeing these movies in HD & 5.1 when they're not even out on dvd yet
09-24-03 | 10:03 PM
#7
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: The Edge of Obscurity
I watch it as the director originally intended (full frame) and I get more bang for my buck.
BTW, the real reason Kubrick wanted his flat films transferred to video full frame was simply because he didn't like letterboxing. That from one of the producers of the Criterion laserdisc of Dr. Strangelove who corresponded with Kubrick getting approval of that transfer.
I've also seen Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange in HD at 1.78:1 and I've watched the DVD of The Shining "zoomed" to 1.78:1 using a Panasonic RP91 player. Anyone with a half-way decent eye for composition can plainly see these films were composed for 1.85:1 projection.
09-24-03 | 11:33 PM
#8
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Legend
DirecTv's HDMN also showed this & Clockwork Orange. I'm sure FMJ was matted, but I watched the dvd the same way (I have a 16x9 set) & it looked pretty well composed & that's what they did in the theaters anyway. Did Comcast also show Eddie Murphy Raw, Greystoke, Year Of The Dragon & After Hours? Maybe they both show the same movies. It's funny seeing these movies in HD & 5.1 when they're not even out on dvd yet.
I've also seen Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange in HD at 1.78:1 and I've watched the DVD of The Shining "zoomed" to 1.78:1 using a Panasonic RP91 player. Anyone with a half-way decent eye for composition can plainly see these films were composed for 1.85:1 projection.
09-25-03 | 01:37 AM
#9
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Detroit, MI
Originally posted by Robert George
I've also seen Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange in HD at 1.78:1 and I've watched the DVD of The Shining "zoomed" to 1.78:1 using a Panasonic RP91 player. Anyone with a half-way decent eye for composition can plainly see these films were composed for 1.85:1 projection.
I've also seen Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange in HD at 1.78:1 and I've watched the DVD of The Shining "zoomed" to 1.78:1 using a Panasonic RP91 player. Anyone with a half-way decent eye for composition can plainly see these films were composed for 1.85:1 projection.
09-25-03 | 02:32 AM
#10
Since we can't ask the man himself we'll never know. But from what I've read I gathered that Kubrick made use of shotting his pictures full frame as a comprimise. He wanted to allow people watching his films on TV and video to see his pictures as close as possible to how they were filmed for the theater. Showing more of the top and bottom was prefferable to cutting off the sides. But I still believe he was compsoing the shots first for the theatrical experience.
It's personal preference, but I differnetly like the rectangular shape to a square one. The last time I watched Eye's Wide Shut I duct taped some cardboard over the TV to try and creat my own projection matt. The compositions look better to my eye in that shape as opposed to a square. There's a reason why when you go to the art gallery, you don't see too many perfectly square canvuses.
It's personal preference, but I differnetly like the rectangular shape to a square one. The last time I watched Eye's Wide Shut I duct taped some cardboard over the TV to try and creat my own projection matt. The compositions look better to my eye in that shape as opposed to a square. There's a reason why when you go to the art gallery, you don't see too many perfectly square canvuses.
09-25-03 | 02:35 AM
#11
Kubrick liked height more than width. 
09-25-03 | 06:33 AM
#12
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Crocker Jarmen
The last time I watched Eye's Wide Shut I duct taped some cardboard over the TV to try and creat my own projection matt.
The last time I watched Eye's Wide Shut I duct taped some cardboard over the TV to try and creat my own projection matt.
09-25-03 | 07:50 AM
#13
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: New York City
Originally posted by marty888
You can also place tinted cellophane over your TV so that you can watch black and white movies "in color".
You can also place tinted cellophane over your TV so that you can watch black and white movies "in color".
09-25-03 | 08:26 AM
#14
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 31,731
Received 2,824 Likes
on
1,873 Posts
From: Greenville, South Cackalack
Originally posted by marty888
You can also place tinted cellophane over your TV so that you can watch black and white movies "in color".
You can also place tinted cellophane over your TV so that you can watch black and white movies "in color".
09-25-03 | 08:27 AM
#15
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Kromax
Good idea. I'm going to try this with The WIZ.
Good idea. I'm going to try this with The WIZ.
09-25-03 | 10:50 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Once you read the book, you'll be amazed that they even tried to make it into a film...
The Short Timers and the sequel...Phantom Blooper
The Short Timers and the sequel...Phantom Blooper
09-25-03 | 11:12 AM
#17
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: The Edge of Obscurity
So what you're saying is, even though Kubrick filmed these fully intending they later be viewed on a standard full frame display (home video at the time), you'd rather lose some picture just so it fills up your widescreen? I'm just not following that.
You are making a major presumption that Kubrick even gave a thought to home video when he made his films. Based on what I know of Kubrick the man and Kubrick the filmmaker, I would say home video was never a consideration. It was only later when video became a major economic factor Kubrick was given the option to supervise/approve video transfers of his films that this issue came up.
Stanley Kubrick made movies for the cinema, not for television. Theatrical presentation for the past 50 years has meant widescreen, be it 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, or any of the other less common projection ratios. No director worth his salt, especially at the time Kubrick was making movies, would ever step behind a camera to make a feature film with the intent that it look best on television.
Second, you don't seem to be aware that the practice of matting the 1.37:1 35mm film frame to 1.85:1 for theatrical presentation has been a common practive for decades. Occasionally that matting was done in-camera (hard matte), but most often it is done in projection. This is why the term "composition" is important when discussing how a film should be presented. The Kubrick films we are discussing here were shot full aperture 35mm (except Dr. Strangelove which uses in-camera mattes for some shots) but were composed for 1.85:1 matting.
These films should be presented with matting to replicate the theatrical framing, Stanley Kubrick's eccentricity not withstanding.
09-25-03 | 11:39 AM
#18
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Detroit, MI
Originally posted by Robert George
You are making a major presumption that Kubrick even gave a thought to home video when he made his films. Based on what I know of Kubrick the man and Kubrick the filmmaker, I would say home video was never a consideration. It was only later when video became a major economic factor Kubrick was given the option to supervise/approve video transfers of his films that this issue came up.
You are making a major presumption that Kubrick even gave a thought to home video when he made his films. Based on what I know of Kubrick the man and Kubrick the filmmaker, I would say home video was never a consideration. It was only later when video became a major economic factor Kubrick was given the option to supervise/approve video transfers of his films that this issue came up.
You say I make a major presumption that Kubrick considered home video when he made his films. You make a presumption that he didn't. I don't see the difference.
Originally posted by Robert George
Second, you don't seem to be aware that the practice of matting the 1.37:1 35mm film frame to 1.85:1 for theatrical presentation has been a common practive for decades.
Second, you don't seem to be aware that the practice of matting the 1.37:1 35mm film frame to 1.85:1 for theatrical presentation has been a common practive for decades.
09-25-03 | 12:43 PM
#19
DVD Talk Legend
What I'm getting from this is that Kubrick made movies for display in theaters (in a variety of aspect ratios), but preferred his movies to be released so they fill the TV screen, right?
So basically Stanley Kubrick was a Joe Six-pack who didn't like black bars on his TV when watching a movie.
So basically Stanley Kubrick was a Joe Six-pack who didn't like black bars on his TV when watching a movie.
09-25-03 | 03:45 PM
#20
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Georgia, USA
A lot of people see right past the intent...
Kubrick filmed Full Metal Jacket for 1.85:1 and 1.33:1. He filmed it so both ratios would look great.
Two things:
1. He wanted people to see the whole image without matting. Except for his two large format films (2001 and Spartacus), all of his films are presented as such.
2. He didn't like wasted resolution, so he wanted as much of the image exposed for home presentation.
I know you're wondering... "Why didn't he do this for theaters?"
First, by the 1980's, most theaters could show only films in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. (Second,) He could have had a reduction made, but that means that the quality of the film print is reduced.
Kubrick filmed Full Metal Jacket for 1.85:1 and 1.33:1. He filmed it so both ratios would look great.
Two things:
1. He wanted people to see the whole image without matting. Except for his two large format films (2001 and Spartacus), all of his films are presented as such.
2. He didn't like wasted resolution, so he wanted as much of the image exposed for home presentation.
I know you're wondering... "Why didn't he do this for theaters?"
First, by the 1980's, most theaters could show only films in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. (Second,) He could have had a reduction made, but that means that the quality of the film print is reduced.
Last edited by PatrickMcCart; 09-26-03 at 07:38 PM.
09-25-03 | 04:53 PM
#22
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by PatrickMcCart
I know you're wondering... "Why didn't he do this for theaters?"
First, by the 1980's, most theaters could show only films in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. He could have had a reduction made, but that means that the quality of the film print is reduced.
I know you're wondering... "Why didn't he do this for theaters?"
First, by the 1980's, most theaters could show only films in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. He could have had a reduction made, but that means that the quality of the film print is reduced.
09-25-03 | 06:40 PM
#23
DVD Talk Special Edition
There is an interesting interview from a few years ago by the The Digital Bits with Leon Vitali, someone who worked with Kubrick for over 25 years and supervised the latest transfers for the Stanley Kubrick Collection. Here is a link to the full interview.
Here is an excerpt of the interview that might shed light on this discussion.
Here is an excerpt of the interview that might shed light on this discussion.
Bill Hunt: So let's talk about this new DVD set. One of the features of DVD is the ability to present widescreen aspect-ratio films anamoprhically, to allow for the highest possible resolution when watching on widescreen TV sets. And our understanding is that there were only three Kubrick films that were intended to be seen in a widescreen aspect ratio...
Leon Vitali: Correct. There was Spartacus and 2001. And then there was Lolita, which was 1.66. The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted.
Now Lolita is 1.66 and Dr. Strangelove is sometimes like 1.33, but sometimes you see a little bit of a mask in there. That's the thing about Stanley - as long as he was pleased with the individual composition of a shot for maximum dramatic effect, he didn't mind that the aspect ratio might be slightly different. Or, for example, that you might see the helicopter blades in The Shining. As long as the shot was good for him, it didn't matter. He thought it was part of his artistic license.
Todd Doogan: So the idea was always to present the original in-camera aspect ratio on DVD.
Leon Vitali: Absolutely.
Bill Hunt: Was there ever talk about doing alternate anamorphic widescreen versions of the later films - the ones that were shown theatrically at 1.85? So you could have both versions on DVD?
Leon Vitali: Yes, it was discussed. But Stanley just wasn't interested.
Todd Doogan: So 2001 is going to be in anamorphic widescreen on DVD. But a lot of people are going to have a question as to why Lolita, which is 1.66, isn't anamorphic on DVD...
Leon Vitali: Well... Stanley just didn't want it done. You know, someone could have a disagreement with that, but the only thing I can tell you is that that's what he wanted. And we didn't feel it was appropriate to go against his wishes.
Bill Hunt: So how will the open matte films be presented in future high definition broadcasts, hi-def having a 1.78:1 aspect ratio?
Leon Vitali: They'll have black bars on either side.
Leon Vitali: Correct. There was Spartacus and 2001. And then there was Lolita, which was 1.66. The important thing to know about Stanley, is that he wanted all of his films shown on video - anything that wasn't a theatrical presentation - in the original camera ratio that he shot it in. He wanted you to see the films exactly as he saw them when he looked through the camera lens and composed them on set. He was no fan of 1.85, because he felt that you were losing part of the image he composed. Now he knew that, with a film like The Shining or Full Metal Jacket, that they would have to be shown in theaters in 1.85 format. But for video, he could present the full frame as he composed it - that's what he wanted.
Now Lolita is 1.66 and Dr. Strangelove is sometimes like 1.33, but sometimes you see a little bit of a mask in there. That's the thing about Stanley - as long as he was pleased with the individual composition of a shot for maximum dramatic effect, he didn't mind that the aspect ratio might be slightly different. Or, for example, that you might see the helicopter blades in The Shining. As long as the shot was good for him, it didn't matter. He thought it was part of his artistic license.
Todd Doogan: So the idea was always to present the original in-camera aspect ratio on DVD.
Leon Vitali: Absolutely.
Bill Hunt: Was there ever talk about doing alternate anamorphic widescreen versions of the later films - the ones that were shown theatrically at 1.85? So you could have both versions on DVD?
Leon Vitali: Yes, it was discussed. But Stanley just wasn't interested.
Todd Doogan: So 2001 is going to be in anamorphic widescreen on DVD. But a lot of people are going to have a question as to why Lolita, which is 1.66, isn't anamorphic on DVD...
Leon Vitali: Well... Stanley just didn't want it done. You know, someone could have a disagreement with that, but the only thing I can tell you is that that's what he wanted. And we didn't feel it was appropriate to go against his wishes.
Bill Hunt: So how will the open matte films be presented in future high definition broadcasts, hi-def having a 1.78:1 aspect ratio?
Leon Vitali: They'll have black bars on either side.
09-25-03 | 07:13 PM
#25
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: The Edge of Obscurity
I don't read anything in that excerpt that contradicts what I have said. Only that Kubrick wanted these films shown 4:3 on video. Nowhere is it said or implied that Kubrick intended the theatrical presentations to be 4:3. Home theater enthusiasts are supposed to be about preserving the theatrical experience to the greatest degree possible in the home. That means presenting films the way they were intended to be seen in the cinema.
Just because Kubrick wanted his films seen in a way that is different than the theater does not make it right or correct, only that it was what he wanted. Kubrick was a little weird, by the way.
Just because Kubrick wanted his films seen in a way that is different than the theater does not make it right or correct, only that it was what he wanted. Kubrick was a little weird, by the way.