Myabe he meant a "perfect rectangle."

Any ratio can be a film aspect ratio. I don't know why this is a difficult proposition for you.

Of course, that's an appeal to ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Stating something without any proof and then asking to be proven wrong is completely worthless. If you don't actually have the ability to prove something doesn't exist, don't bother claiming so.

And, of course, you ask for a bit much when you demand that a film be intended to be shown at 85 feet tall - 1:85 could be used for much smaller dimensions. Anyway, just to make you happy, I'll have a film student friend design a simple projection matte for a project that will result in the definitive existence of a 1:85 film. Voila.

And I thought it was a significant mathematical error that could further confuse people for you to claim that 1:85 and 2:35 weren't ratios. Surely a discussion of film aspect ratios can't be had if people don't even know what a ratio is in the first place. I don't consider such a correction to be pointless.

DJ

Can be, but they aren't. Just like monkeys might fly out of my ass, but they don't.

No I didn't. Your reading skills are slipping.

Any further discussion on this topic is only going to serve to drag this thread further off course and lead to a violation of forum rules that might get one or both of us suspended, so I suggest we drop it and move on.

I still believe, in my heart, that had Kubrick lived to see the wonders of HDTV and widescreen tv screens, he would have prefered to project his films in widescreen format. I do hope WB take this thought into account and release his films widescreen anamorphic.

Both HDTV and widescreen tv sets appeared during Mr. Kubrick's lifetime.

What, exactly, do you want them to take into account? The uneducated guess of someone who didn't actually know Kubrick? I would actually hope that they wouldn't take such things into account.

DJ

But widescreen and HDTV werent as popular as at the time he was alive, perhaps had he lived to today, he would appriciate the format and embrace it and would agree that widescreen is the way to go.

how could they be re released in WS format when they were origianlly shot in fullscreen?

Why did Kubrick want The Shining in fullscreen?

Because there's so many people who continue to make the assumption that OAR always equals widescreen?

This is sort of a generalization, but, hopefully, it will get the point across successfully.

If a movie is shot in FF, it is matted to WS for theatrical presentation. Since the WS aspect ratios were introduced, however, generally, 3:4 is not used any more for filming (unless there is some specific puropose to be gained from it . . . e.g., The Blair Witch Project).

The cropping and matting process generally work like this:



If I recall correctly, Kubrick, more or less, didn't like black bars that showed for WS films on 3:4 TV's, so, he continued to film in FF ratios, keeping in mind that the film would be matted to WS for theaters, but also shown in FF during TV presentation. Given that, he then "ordered" that the films for which he utilized this approach, were never to be released in WS because he had shot in FF specifically so it could be viewed without "black bars" on a TV.

I believe that Kubrick films that are available in WS were made before he began using that approach (i.e., earlier in his career) and, apperantly, he thought that WS with black bars on a TV was better that a P&S version of a film shot in WS that filled up the TV screen (wise man ) . . . hence WS only versions of some of his films.

Honestly, it's pretty impressive that he was able to frame scenes for both FF and WS at the same time. I'd imagine that that is kind of hard to do.

As HDTV takes over as the mainstream television format, with 1.78 being the "fullscreen" ratio, will we see FMJ back in the original theatrical aspect ratio or will we have to put up with black bars on the sides? Could somebody perform a seance and ask Mr. Kubrick whether it was the black bars or the aspect ratio that was important to him?

You recall incorrectly. Kubrick's preference had nothing to do with how his films were presented on home video, widescreen TVs or not. It had to do with his background as a still photographer.

From a post earlier in this very thread:

No seance necessary. Please see my post above.

OK, but alot of films that are on DVD that are fullscreen are actually fullscreen films that was shot with a matting in mind, so when they did come out on DVD asfullscreen, then we shouldnt be calling them pan and scam as well, because even though the director intended to have blackbars, they are just like a kubrick film, we are not GAINING new images, but rather losing when they are presented matted widescreen instead of fullscreen, (so fullscreen DVD of ACE VENTURA, DOC HOLLYWOOD, CLIFFORD, JUST ONE OF THE GUYS etc we are NOT losing anything, just GAINING areas we shouldnt see, so basically, we SHOULDNT complain about these)??

I agree, we shouldn't call them pan and scam, because besides being inaccurate, I think the term, along with foolscreen, is juvenile.

In answer to your other question, we complain because in most "open matte" cases we are not seeing the films the way they were meant by their directors to be seen. Because Kubrick preferred for most of his films to be seen at 1.33:1, he framed them with that ratio in mind.

Just because we are "gaining" image when mattes are removed doesn't mean it's acceptable. People will mention you see unintended things such as mic booms, but besides that, the composition of the frame is off, with too much head space at the top and/or slop at the bottom of the frame.

As they say, it isn't about more image or less image; it's about the correct image.

Dang it!!! Now your are forcing me to go back and find out where I got that information.

As for the open matte issue, it's not used very ofter in making FF DVD's is it? I thought P&S was pretty much standard for that these days? I am happy to say that it has been so long since I've watched a non-OAR FF, that I don't have enough reference to know the answer to this question.

99% of all 1.85:1 movies are shot full-frame and then matted for theaters. The "Full Screen" home video releases have the mattes lifted to expose extra picture information on the top and bottom of the screen.

50% of all 2.35:1 movies are shot in the Super35 process, which also uses a full 1.37:1 camera negative and requires matting for its theatrical ratio. And again, these also have the mattes lifted for "Full Screen", although selected shots may be cropped (such as digital effects, which are generally only rendered for the active theatrical portion of the frame).

Okay . . . I don't belive this is where I heard it the first time, but it does sort of support the idea that I was getting at. From the an interview with Leon Vitali on Kubrick and his work: