How to letterbox his films

[mutinyco]

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.

[Cecil]

but kubrick wants us to watch them full frame. can anyone screen cap some  of the differences?

[mutinyco]

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.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Yes, he was.

[mutinyco]

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.

[ShanghaiOrange]

Mutinyco is Dr. Frankenstein.

[cowboykurtis]

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.

[mutinyco]

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.

[Duck Sauce]

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

[mutinyco]

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.

[Pubrick]

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.

[bonanzataz]

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?

[bonanzataz]

The Shining was intended for a 1.66:1 ratio.

not quite, mogs.

[Pubrick]

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.

[Keener]

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

Agreed but I still prefer widescreen. But I don't mind watching the way Kubrick intended.