Dr. Strangelove aspect ratio/anamorphic question
 

So I finally received my copy of the Dr. Strangelove 40th Anniversary Edition in the mail the other day. The back of it states that its 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen, to which I think "how is that possible?". So I pop it in just to see...I have a 16:9 HDTV...but somehow this 1.66:1 aspect ratio fills the screen. The first thought is of course, overscan. So I set the TV on 4:3 mode, and the picture fills that frame (ie, there are no thin black pillarbox bars on the sides like there would need to be to actually be 1.66:1 on a 1.78:1 TV). So whats the real deal with this DVD?

Also, Im curious, for those who have the Kubrick box set, are you selling the original version, or keeping it since the new version wont fit in the box? Oh and I did do a search for this but amazingly nothing turned up, so I apologize if this has actually been covered before.

Well, I haven't seen it yet, I'm waiting to pick it up from CH when it becomes available for enrollment. So, I suppose it could actually be 1.78:1 and not 1.66:1 but I'd wager that you've already nailed it... Overscan. Even in 4X3 mode, you're most likely looking at ~ 5% overscan. Give or take. Maybe your overscan levels are higher that that. ??? Have you checked your set with the Avia overscan pattern (or something similar?).

I'll most likely just hang on to the old copy of Strangelove and sell/trade it with the rest of the films in the box after the next re-re-re-release. Maybe.

BTW, I checked out your collection. Rear Window is also 1.66:1 anamorphic widescreen. Pop that one in and do the same kind of test.

If your TV has approximately 5% overscan (which most do), the pillarbox bars on the sides probably won't be visible. Most 16:9 televisions retain the 5% overscan percentage even when viewing 4:3 content in the center of the screen. The set uses electronic blanking to cover up the left and right edges of the image.

This isn't done just to be cruel. Overscan is a standard part of almost all televisions because without it you'd see a lot of signal crap on the edges of broadcast TV signals.

This may not help, but this movie's aspect ratio has always been a complete mystery to me. I bought the widescreen version years ago, popped it in my player, then saw the dreaded "formatted to fit your screen" message at the beginning. Since it was obviously not widescreen (i.e., no black bars at the top and bottom), I returned it, got a different release of the same movie (different cover but still labelled as "widescreen"), and rolled my eyes when I saw it was just like the first one. Shortly after that I learned Stanley Kubrick preferred an open-matte version of his films for home video, so I decided to just live with it.

But I still don't believe this movie is in widescreen. Perhaps someone else can finally clear this up for me.

Well I popped it into my DVD-ROM to see what it looked like there...I guess I was just confused as to what overscan was, as there are indeed black bars to the left and right of the picture. I had been under the impression that when I squeezed the picture back down to 4:3 (ie, the picture is skinny and the TV is generating pillarboxes) that I would be able to see all of the image to the left and right (so therefore, the bars would be seen). Oh well...thanks for the info.

Several shots in the film are 1.66:1, the majority is 1.33:1 ... it's been a while, but I believe that the inside-the-bomber stuff covers most of the widescreen shots. I could be way wrong on that, though.

Kubrick himself approved the multi-aspect ratio transfer. My understanding is that he wanted the whole thing to be 1.33, but some of the shots had already been hard-matted in camera, so it wouldn't work. From what I've read, though, he always hated the way the war room sequences looked in theatrical distribution (1.85 or so) because it cut off certain things around the edges which he wanted in.

[QUOTE=ThatGuamGuy]Several shots in the film are 1.66:1, the majority is 1.33:1 ... it's been a while, but I believe that the inside-the-bomber stuff covers most of the widescreen shots. I could be way wrong on that, though.
QUOTE]

So does anyone else have further clarification on this. My understanding was that it was a multi-aspect ration (or more correctly a dual aspect ratio). The original DVD in the 1st box set is this way. I have never seen the later 2 versions (including the newest), but there seems to be some confusion. The 2nd release indicates on the back that it is fully 1.33:1. DVD Savant's review of the new disc though indicates that 1.66:1 was correct for the whole movie. So, can we get further clarification?

[QUOTE=jrsl76]Strangelove was shot 1.33:1 and some scenes were also composed for 1.66:1. Previous DVD releases maintained the (Kubrick approved) "alternating aspect" ratio. The new DVD is matted to 1.66:1 all the way around and anamorphically enhanced. When exhibited theatrically, Strangelove was most likely shown at either 1.85:1 or 1.66:1.

> <i>"Dr. Strangelove," was released in home video in Kubrick's preferred "multiple aspect ratio" but there is no way it could have been shown that way theatrically since you cannot change projector mattes in mid-screening (although it could be shown in Academy 1.37 and various hard mattes could appear in the image, cropping it to 1.66 at times -- however, Academy 1.37 had pretty much become obsolete as a projection format in most theatres by the 1960's.) I saw it projected to 1.85 at the Cinerama Dome and the framing looked fine; it was a little "tight" so I suspect that 1.66 would look perfect.</i>

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index.html#s11n2

http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/

There is a lengthy and very informative discussion of this release over at the Home Theater Forum, including comments by film preservationist Robert A. Harris. He comments at length in Page 2 of the thread, but the whole thing is worth reading. You can see so for yourself here.

This is incorrect. I saw "Strangelove" theatrically a few years ago and it was indeed in the multi-aspect ratio (I believe the print was from the same source as the previous SE DVD). The projector was matted for 1.37:1 and the film print was hard-matted.

Although the academy ratio is not common today, projectors are still quite capable of showing it.

What's incorrect about the statement? The second option given in the statement is exactly what you said ("it could be shown in Academy 1.37 and various hard mattes could appear in the image, cropping it to 1.66 at times").

Repertory houses are capable of showing it, but it's not a viable wide release option. That's why it says "most theatres." For example, Coppolla was only able to release One From the Heart in a handful of theatres (which he sometimes even personally prepped) because most theatres lack the plates and lenses for 1.37:1.

DJ

The beginning part that reads "there is no way it could have been shown that way theatrically" is certainly misleading, and an overstatement. The writer does hedge his bets in the second half of his statement, but for clarification's sake I wanted to point out that he/she was entirely off base.

Well, that's the point of using the word "although" in a sentence, but whatever...

DJ

But the "although" was followed by a "however".

Check out this interview for lots of enlightening discussion of this issue:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...interview.html

Yet "Blair Witch Project" was 1.33:1 and was a wide release. It was probably printed pillarboxed, but clearly it is possible to widely ditribute a movie in the Academy ratio.

One solution is to put the 1:33 image in the center of a 1:85 frame (below someone calls this "pillar boxing"). The first time I heard of this being done was for the c. 1990 Fantasia reissue, which was slated for many multiplexes, of course. Before that, Disney actually cropped some of their 1:33 films on the top and bottom to fill the whole 1:85 frame! Horrible!

The film was projected at 1.85:1 with pillarboxing. The active image area on the screen may have been ~1.33:1, but the film was projected at 1.85:1. 1.85:1 lenses and plates were used and a 1.85:1 shape was projected onto the screen, even if parts of it were inactive. It's a far cry from a true Acamdey projection. This is a fine option for a low-res 16mm and video production like Blair Witch. However, for a 35mm production where every tenth of a square inch on the negative adds precious image resolution, that's a horrible option, and not one that filmmakers like Kubrick or Coppolla would be very happy with. It would be like watching a 16mm dupe. So it's not surprising that Kubrick allowed various films to be matted and Coppolla barely had One From the Heart released at all.

DJ

And that "however" spoke to "most theatres" and was absolutely correct. Anyone who has seen Strangelove projected in Academy has surely seen it in a repertory theatre, and not a venue best described as being similar to "most theatres."

DJ

Sorry, but no. I saw it at a Kerasotes theater at the mall, which is a major chain here in the Midwest.

Good to know that theatre is well-equipped. If you talk to most projectionists around the country (or Francis Ford Coppolla and the producers of Blair Witch, for that matter), you'll find out quickly that most theatres still lack the lenses and plates for Academy.

DJ