Kubrick's final three films -- The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut -- are presented on DVD in the original camera aspect ratio of 1.33:1. They can be masked to create their theatrical aspect ratios.
FMJ is easiest. Go to the shot where the troop is marching along with Gomer Pyle sucking his thumb behind them. The troop is uniform in size, so use the bottoms of their boots and the tops of their rifles as a guide -- give a drop of breathing room. That should approximate a 1.85:1 ratio. The compositions are exquisite. This film was made before digital anything. It's all analog. Tight as a nun.
The Shining was intended for a 1.66:1 ratio. I find a good place to reference is the interview scene, using Ullman's mid-shots at the desk. It's slightly wider than FMJ. But the camera movements take on a greater velocity in cropped form as oposed to the full frame.
EWS is the trickiest. Again, it should be cropped to 1.66:1. However, you need to crop more of the bottom than the top. A good reference is the shot behind Nicole when Sandor Szavost approaches her. Use the top of her head as a reference, then bring the bottom close to the edge of the table, though with a drop of room.
Enjoy.
but kubrick wants us to watch them full frame. can anyone screen cap some of the differences?
I never thought twice about it until I saw FMJ at Film Forum's Kubrick retro back in 2000. I saw it on screen for the first time since its original release in '87. It was like watching the film anew. Trust me. Kubrick also prefered to mix his films in mono. He wasn't right about everything.
Yes, he was.
I think Kubrick was the greatest director in history. That said, his films were intended to be seen on the big screen. Their theatrical releases cropped the films differently. Try my suggestions and make up your own mind.
Mutinyco is Dr. Frankenstein. :(
dont you realize that if a film is shot in a 1.33 aspect ratio and you "mask" it by putting letterboxes over the image, you would be losing information. letterboxing doesnt mean widescreen. widescreen is 1.85 or 2.35; those film werent composed for a "letterbox" aspect ratio. you'd just be cutting the image off at the top and bottom. many people have a false idea about what widecreen really is -- letterbox is rubbish, its nothing, you'd be just as well off putting 2 strips of duct tape at the top and bottom of your tv screen.
Wizard, how exactly do you think a 1.85:1 or super-35 2.4:1 ratio is achieved? They aren't masked when they're shot! They're shot using the full camera negative at 1.33:1! They're cropped afterward by the projector!
Ever see a boom mic wind up on screen in a theater? That's because it was considered in the safe zone during photography, but the projectionist cropped it poorly on the screen.
You're not losing information by masking these images. You're cropping them to how they would look on a movie screen after the projector has blocked them into 1.85 or 1.66.
These disks aren't pan and scan, which would be blowing up an already cropped image to fit your screen. These disks are using the full camera negative prior to being cropped. You're only doing what a projector would in the theater.
its weird to me how any other movie shot at 1.33:1 seems like a Disney Channel movie, while Kubricks are brilliant. He really understood that aspect ratio and made it cool for the kids
HAVE ANY OF YOU EVER SEEN HIS FILMS IN THE THEATER? THEY WEREN'T PROJECTED IN 1.33 -- THEY WERE SHOWN IN 1.85 AND 1.66 RESPECTIVELY. JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. THE FIRST TIME ANYBODY SAW THEM IN 1.33 WAS ON VIDEO.
ALL YOU'RE DOING IS CROPPING THEM THE WAY THEY'D LOOK IN A THEATER. KUBRICK DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE HELICOPTER SHADOW IN THE SHINING TILL LONG AFTER, BECAUSE HE HAD HIS MOVIOLA CROPPED TO 1.66 AND IT WAS BLOCKED OFF.
um, ok. i don't know how everyone took this shit so badly..
i agreed with u on the other thread about taping the top and bottom of FMJ, it's like bringin new life to it and it's not entirely wrong to do so as that was how the film was originally seen theatrically.
PEOPLE IF U DON'T WANT TO DO IT U DON'T HAVE TO, INSECURE FUCKERS, IT WAS ONLY A SUGGESTION.
no need to get defensive. i'm thankful for the information, but i don't think i'll utilize it. for one thing, i think the films look fine as standard screen, and for another thing, i'm way too lazy to crop off the tops and bottoms of my screen with duct tape.
why did kubrick make his dvd's like this? it doesn't make sense to me. if he framed movies a certain way, wouldn't showing the parts that should be cropped leave lots of extra headroom?
Quote from: mogwai(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fw1.422.telia.com%2F%7Eu42243560%2Fimages%2Fshining_fake_letterbox.jpg&hash=e0b9974c8ecd66a5d7e2ddd5de298dbb14d8408c)
Quote from: mutinycoThe Shining was intended for a 1.66:1 ratio.
not quite, mogs.
is anyone actually reading what is being said, jesus, this ratio crap is the boringest thing that no one EVER SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND.
it's been explained so many times i wanna lock this thread and cut myself.
Quote from: Duck Sauceits weird to me how any other movie shot at 1.33:1 seems like a Disney Channel movie, while Kubricks are brilliant. He really understood that aspect ratio and made it cool for the kids
Agreed but I still prefer widescreen. But I don't mind watching the way Kubrick intended.
Quote from: Pis anyone actually reading what is being said, jesus, this ratio crap is the boringest thing that no one EVER SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND.
it's been explained so many times i wanna lock this thread and cut myself.
yeah, but people like controversy, even when there is none.
Quote from: Pis anyone actually reading what is being said, jesus, this ratio crap is the boringest thing that no one EVER SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND.
it's been explained so many times i wanna lock this thread and cut myself.
Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?
i am in a world of shit.
I thought I read somewhere that Kubrick's assistant said Stanley decided (after final cut) of The Shining, that he wanted to have it 1:33, rather than 1:85 as they first intended, and when he was made aware of the helicopter shadow, he felt it didn't bother him that much.
This is not something I "think", it's something I read.
So, I guess the point was that he decided after the fact to have these dvd's in 1:33. I dunno if that's true. One time I questioned it, and several people here bit off my head for looking for a "conspiracy". Now, mutinyco is basically saying that the dvd's are NOT what was intended. So what is the fucking truth? Will we ever know?
What I'm saying is that he intended the DVDs to be in 1.33. Nobody screens theatrical films in 1.33, unless its an old film prior to the 1950s. His films were cropped at 1.85 and 1.66 in theaters.
His ratio of 1.33 is simply the image prior to cropping. He liked it because he liked height, and as somebody with a background in still photography, this is the negative ratio.
I think they look better with the theatrical cropping. I think they feel more dynamic.
i like them full screen because the image is harder hitting, but i wouldn't complain if they were wide. i would probably prefer them wide if they were being screened, but in my living room, i like the full (where it applies).
I'd like to see FMJ in 1:66. Aside from that, the other two are fine for me.
I'm gonna shoot my first feature in 1.33:1, and have it projected that way as well. It just suits the story so much more than widescreen would.
Then after that, everything else will be anamorphic. If anybody cares...
Quote from: SoNowThenI'm gonna shoot my first feature in 1.33:1, and have it projected that way as well.
aside from maybe art house theatres, do some cinemas still project at 1.33 or even 1.66? would the studio let you crop the sides so that you get your 1.33 even though its being projected at 1.85?
The theaters wouldn't crop anything. The image is already 1.33. The last movie I saw in 1.33 was Blair Witch. Good luck.
Quote from: mutinycoThe theaters wouldn't crop anything.
yes but you need to put the lens on the projector: either flat or scope. what is being masked would end up being above and under the screen anyway. so it would need to be cropped on the side and projected 1.85
That's incorrect. There's more than one aspect ratio a flat lens can have. Ever see any documentaries? Ever see an old film in the theater? Nothing's being cropped. It's simply a square image.
Besides, it isn't the lens that does the actual cropping, there's a separate plate that does that. Ever see a projected image get shifted on the screen to fit correctly?
I used to hate 1.33:1, even in the old films that actually shot in that ratio. I just could never get into the framing. But then I started watching early Godard stuff, and I finally found someone who frames in a cool way for 1.33. Sure, I know that lots of other masters used this ratio, but it's particularily Godard that has excited me to the possibilities of the full frame. ANd now, re-examining the Kubrick stuff, even though it's WAY different from how I would frame, it is of course a thing of beauty.
But like I said, 1 in 1.33:1, then all the rest in 2.35:1. I love the wide-widescreen the best.
Most filmmakers nowadays shoot in Super-35, not anamorphic. Super-35 is flat. It's also 2.4 instead of 2.35. Some still use anamorphic, like Wes Anderson. He likes the round shape. Others find the lens too bulky, and it doesn't have good depth of focus, which hurts if you like shooting with low light levels.
Quote from: mutinycoThat's incorrect. There's more than one aspect ratio a flat lens can have. Ever see any documentaries? Ever see an old film in the theater? Nothing's being cropped. It's simply a square image.
yes i know, but what im saying is that most theatres, if not all, are not even equiped to show a film in anything else than 1.85 or scope. thats why kubrick had to have his films projected in 1.85 (well after 1.66 dissapeared at least).
1.66 is still the European standard. Yeah, he preferred 1.33. But it looks better in 1.85. Try my tips and see.
eyes wide shut looks fantastic when cropped; i just tried it
Quote from: mutinycoEWS is the trickiest. Again, it should be cropped to 1.66:1. However, you need to crop more of the bottom than the top. A good reference is the shot behind Nicole when Sandor Szavost approaches her. Use the top of her head as a reference, then bring the bottom close to the edge of the table, though with a drop of room.
Okay, now how do you get rid of the digital people in the orgy scene?
the uncensored version is available everywhere on the internet, so theoretically you could splice it into your current copy of ews if you have a dvd burner. at least they don't look incredibly fake, however it is very convenient. kubrick must be rolling in his grave at that
Or you could buy yourself an all region DVD player, then get the European version...
i remember when they reissued snow white a while back the screen was 1.33:1 and the sides of the screen not being used were just black. my first encounter with aspect ratios at a young age.
I watched Touch of Evil the other night and I actually enjoyed it as is. I think I liked that specific movie that way more than I would in widescreen. So bizarre.
I don't know what version of Touch of Evil you saw, but the restored DVD is 1.85 widecreen.
Quote from: mutinycoI don't know what version of Touch of Evil you saw, but the restored DVD is 1.85 widecreen.
Really? I need to get ahold of that then. I saw the VHS which was the restored version (the one they edited best they could to fit Orson's original vision from his letters to the studio). I liked alot of the shots as was but now I must seek down this 1.85 you speak of.
Quote from: mogwaiQuote from: MacGuffinOkay, now how do you get rid of the digital people in the orgy scene?
Quote from: sphinxthe uncensored version is available everywhere on the internet, so theoretically you could splice it into your current copy of ews if you have a dvd burner. at least they don't look incredibly fake, however it is very convenient. kubrick must be rolling in his grave at that
Aha, does this mean I will show some raunchy caps soon?
Anyone want to post caps of the non-censored version vs. the censored version?
aw
mutinyco,
im sorry to say partner, but you dont know what you're talking about. a full double perf 35mm camera negative is 1.85, not 1.33. when shooting 1.33 they use a tv safe ground glass and then crop the image later. with 2.35 its either anamorphic: it squeezes the image onto the negative and then unsqueezes it when projected or its single perf super 35mm (2.40). there is no existing camera negative that has a 1.33 aspect ratio in 35mm. double perf. 16mm is close (1.66), and super 16(single perf) is utilizing the whole neg area which is about 1.79( close to 1.85). its never cropped in the theater bucko. before you call me wizard, know what you're talking about, buddy.
I am correcting you. Because you are wrong. A 35mm camera negative looks exactly like the 35mm negavitve you'd shoot in a 35mm still camera. It's 35mm. It doesn't look anything like 1.85, 1.66, or 2.35 anamorphic (2.4 Super-35). These aspect ratios came about only after TV became a major competitor to the movies. They started experimenting with various screen sizes, including 70mm and Cinerama, which consisted of multiple projectors creating a giant image. This is also when 3-D came into vogue.
Eventually, they settled on 1.85 for North America and 1.66 just about everywhere else -- notwithstanding anamorphic, which, as you explained, is a squeezed image.
But yes, these DVDs are presented in the original camera negative aspect ratio. As well, double perf 16mm is 1.33, not 1.66 as you said. Super-16 is 1.66, not 1.79. 1.79 is 16:9 digital widescreen.
Most filmmakers shoot using the full camera negative, with a glass to show the outline of their preferred aspect ratio for composition. This is done because, among other things, if a hair or a piece of dust winds up in the gate it will most likely stick at the bottom. If you use a 1.85 plate in your camera as you shoot, then that hair will be part of your final image. If you shoot with the full negative, you can crop it out. Same goes for boom mics, hense my example of poor projection cropping in theaters.
I was under the impression that Super-16mm was 1.85:1....
why would it be 1.66:1??
Rename this thread "How to Vandalize a Picasso and more"
Well, if its no problem, would you post it?
aw
cowboykurtis, you been BITCHSLAPPED!
jerry springer, eat your heart out...
Quote from: bonanzatazcowboykurtis, you been BITCHSLAPPED!
jerry springer, eat your heart out...
far from my furry little friend
Quote from: mutinycoI am correcting you. Because you are wrong. A 35mm camera negative looks exactly like the 35mm negavitve you'd shoot in a 35mm still camera. It's 35mm. It doesn't look anything like 1.85, 1.66, or 2.35 anamorphic (2.4 Super-35).
.
if your think still 35mm has the same aspect ratio as 1.33, you are more mistaken than you know. where did you learn your trade, poster boy.
>if your think still 35mm has the same aspect ratio as 1.33, you are more mistaken than you know. where did you learn your trade, poster boy.
cowboykurtis <
Probably the same place you learned that 35mm is 1.85 prior to cropping. The only use for a TV safe zone is if you're worried about showing your work on TV. You use a TV safe zone predominantly when you're dealing with a TV shaped image, or 1.33. The edges will be cut off all around to fit the TV. (In digital editing there's even a title safe zone.) Or, of course, if you're a pussy director who's afraid of actually creating interesting widescreen compositions.
If 35mm is 1.85 to begin with, then why would old films approximate a square shape? And why would Europeans still use 1.66? Are you suggesting they lop off the sides of the film just because they think the image should be high instead of wide, thereby blowing up the image and degrading the quality?
1.85 was only standardized in this country in the last couple of decades. And it only first showed up in theaters, again, to compete with TV -- in essence, to make the pictures look LARGER.
And even more so, the whole point of this is that Kubtick shot using the full camera negative and preferred for his last 3 films to be viewed on TV screens in THAT SHAPE. If it were wider there would be black at the top and bottom. He certainly wasn't against letterboxing, if you view his films prior to The Shining.
What I was offering were tips to anybody who would like to see what the films looked like in the theater AFTER BEING CROPPED TO 1.85 OR 1.66 RESPECTIVELY.
Quote from: mutinycoThe only use for a TV safe zone is if you're worried about showing your work on TV.
i agree with you about the ratios, not certain about the ones youve given about 16mm but i trust you. though, just to correct you, tv safe is also used for home video releases of the movie, and fullscreen dvd releases (which, like many have said, is what kubrick prefered). but im really curious in watching his movies in widescreen though. next time i watch em, ill be sure to try this.
There's a difference between "full screen" and the Kubrick DVDs. A traditional full screen release crops an already cropped image (1.85 for instance) into a TV shape. That's why it's called "pan and scan". The Kubrick DVDs are simply the camera negative prior to cropping. That's what I've been explaining -- the cropping I'm describing is how you then take it to 1.85...
no not all 1.85 films are pan&scan. most are fullscreen (unmatted). pan&scan is usually used for scope films.
Most 1.85 films don't need to "pan and scan." It's just a term that I find applied to anything that's full screen. But you're right, scope films are generally "pan and scan."
in america, was EWS projected at 1.85:1 or 1.66:1? I know you said it was intended for 1.66:1, but america doesn't use that ratio. what do they do in a case like this, just crop out more of the top and bottom?
If you pay close attention, most theaters crop films slightly differently. I saw EWS in theaters at least 5 times. Looked slightly different at each theater.
The print that's sent to theaters is the full negative as you see on the DVD. Since most theaters in the US crop for 1.85, that's what people saw. In Europe they got 1.66. Kubrick hated 1.85, but understood it was the norm here. But just to clarify, cropping takes off the top and bottom. But the shots were composed with that in mind. Try cropping it with my instructions. See what I mean.
i would, but i'm just so damn lazy and forgetful it's amazing. if i do it with any, i'll do it with FMJ though, because the 1.33:1 to 1.85:1 jump is a big one. the other ones, not so big a change, and i probably wouldn't feel like doing it (but maybe. it could be a fun little experiment). Thanks for all the info. i don't know why everybody's jumping down your throat for being helpful...
You'll get the most by cropping FMJ. Looks amazing...
Quote from: mutinyco>if your think still 35mm has the same aspect ratio as 1.33, you are more mistaken than you know. where did you learn your trade, poster boy.
cowboykurtis <
Probably the same place you learned that 35mm is 1.85 prior to cropping..
im not going to sit here and debate with you, im not going to DEBATE. (i just had to say that line from fargo).
Just use a better marker for your loot than an ice scraper...
My god could we argue a little more about this.
Cowboy Kurtis, I'm glad you've decided to stop arguing because 35mm is 1.33, there is no question, I've shot 35mm, we masked, giving us 1.85, but the print was 1.33.
The only thing I'm not sure Mutinyco is right about is the projection. I've shot film and projected it and most American theaters will only present 1.85 or 2:35. Otherwise, like Cecil was saying, the image would show over the top and bottom of the screen.
When they show 1.33 films in the theaters now days (Gone with the Wind, Wizard of OZ, and Blair Witch were all like this while I was a projectionist), they black box it, which is cropping the top, bottom, left, and right of the frame so that when masked, the 1.33 image shows in the center of the screen and black bars appear on the left and right.
The deal with Kubrick... I really think he has no problem with Letterboxing, I just think he prefers to utilize the whole negative.
What leads me to believe this is that throughout Strangelove (the letterboxed version), the aspect ratio changes from a bizarre 1.37:1 to 1.66:1. Such an unnoticable switch, but I think that's just him showing as much of the frame as he could at any given time of the video presentation.
Quote from: RegularKarateMy god could we argue a little more about this.
I DISAGREE!
He actually shot Strangelove in multiple aspect ratios. I've never quite understood why, though when he created the restored print he went straight for 1.33 -- however, because of the cropping on some of the scenes you can still see borders.
By the way, he personally created the restored print by setting up a Nikon still camera in front of a print of the movie -- and he personally photographed each frame...
Regardless of how they achieve a 1.33 in theaters, the point is that the shape of a 35mm negative is 1.33. Interestingly, Super-35 is 1.4, yet when its transfered to anamorphic for projection, you're back to 2.35. On DVD, however, many of those movies go back to the original aspect ratio -- Minority Report, for instance is approx. 1.39...
I wish I had half of the knowledge you guys have. This stuff interests me and I'm trying to follow all your posts. Keep up this conversation!
Quote from: RegularKarateMy god could we argue a little more about this.
Cowboy Kurtis, I'm glad you've decided to stop arguing because 35mm is 1.33, there is no question, I've shot 35mm, we masked, giving us 1.85, but the print was 1.33.
.
i admit i was wrong. i have only shot super 16 -- i assumed the same applied to 35mm. My hat goes off to the both of you. Karate, what have you shot on 35mm? just out of curiousity. would love to see it... is there any way of posting our shorts on here?
Quote from: cowboykurtisjust out of curiousity. would love to see it... is there any way of posting our shorts on here?
http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=69
Quote from: cowboykurtis. Karate, what have you shot on 35mm? just out of curiousity. would love to see it...
In school we shot a twenty five minute short on 35mm... it was the final project.
The way we did it was everyone basically applied for the position they wanted and based on the knowledge they've shown, they would get an appropriate position.
The film is kind of a sore spot for me because they way they chose the screenplay was that everyone wrote one, the students narrowed it to five and that Instructors picked from there. Well... they picked the worst of the five (and it was extra insulting to me because one of mine was being considered)... I don't mean this in a bitter jealous way, it was written by someone who couldn't even properly speak english... it was like a bad dubbed German soap opera... what a waste of a great opportunity.
Anyway, I had gone the whole year wanting to go for director and had basically been told that it would be between me and two others, but based on the screenplay, I decided I would learn more if I were in the camera department so I became the First AC. Experience-wise, it was a great decision because I learned more shit on that shoot than I did almost the entire time I was there.
But it's seriously nothing I would really want to show to anyone else because of how bad it really is story/dialogue/acting wise. I wouldn't want to post it and make people think that I made that movie because I just helped shoot it.
Sorry about the length of this post.
Heh, that's no problem in my opinion. I'd like to see more long posts like that. And, you have an excellent point I'd never thought of. Don't take credit for a picture unless you are happy with having creative control. And yeah, definitely a smart move getting camera experience, too. Lesson learned, and hey, you can always shoot your screenplay on your own at a later date, when you get to do it your way.
RegularKarate: I'm new here, but I already know, just from reading, you went to Full Sail. When did you graduate? What films did you work on? We may know each other :wink:
woo new ppl are saying things! and they know RK!
this is good.
So... does anyone know a good DVD player for Mac that can crop?
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanSo... does anyone know a good DVD player for Mac that can crop?
I dunno if this is still the case, but it's all I found just quickly looking for something.
Quote from: http://www.wormintheapple.gr/macdvd/faq.html#3Currently the only software DVD player for the Macintosh which offers "professional" quality is Apple's DVD player, which comes with the operating system in all Mac models which have a built-in DVD-ROM drive.
Audrey Tatou is too cute. She should've played Monica Belucci's role in Irreversible.
Quote from: mutinycoAudrey Tatou is too cute. She should've played Monica Belucci's role in Irreversible.
I think I would be scarred for life. That would be completely different, for some reason.
Hopefully ebeaman doesn't read that.
Can't you just picture cute Amelie getting ass raped by a French De Niro look-alike?
Oh come on, you didn't have to say it. :yabbse-angry: :yabbse-cry:
Actually, I should get some images, then go to work in Photoshop to create a visual diagram...
Quote from: mutinycoCan't you just picture cute Amelie getting ass raped by a French De Niro look-alike?
This is unfortunate... I don't know if this was on purpose or what..
Everything's on purpose.
What is this letterboxing thing? How is it done?
Quote from: Chest RockwellWhat is this letterboxing thing? How is it done?
It's at the beginning of the thread...
Quote from: Chest RockwellWhat is this letterboxing thing? How is it done?
ah chest...this cracks me up, after seeing the other thread.
ps.
Quote from: mutinycoCan't you just picture cute Amelie getting ass raped by a French JJ look-alike?
i picture it all the time. :oops:
I know, clockwork. I know. But no one will fucking explain it! I'm not quite as experienced as everyone else with this ratio shit, but when i asked as a separate thread, P told me to look at this, which I had already previously looked at as my separate thread explains. So i said 'what the fuck' and i made another brief inquiry as to how to actually letterbox, in general. And still no one answers... It better be something better than taping cardboard to the screen. But seriously, I know what it is, and I understand it's been covered in specific territory, but what I wanna know is how the fuck to do it at all. Hopefully that clears anything up.
Quote from: Chest RockwellI wanna know is how the fuck to do it at all. Hopefully that clears anything up.
well, i would first rip the dvd video and sound to workable formats. then i would import it into premiere or some other editing program. then simply apply a black "letterboxed" mask...then push it back out to DVD.
Quote from: aclockworkjj
well, i would first rip the dvd video and sound to workable formats. then i would import it into premiere or some other editing program. then simply apply a black "letterboxed" mask...then push it back out to DVD.
umm...black foam core.