I Just Bought...

[Pubrick]

my first ever blu-ray purchases.

[Pozer]

best first evers ever.

well since mine. replace Searchers with CMBB & Walle and you got mine.

welcome to the wonderful world of blu-ray.

[Pubrick]

thanks poz.

i think your combo is better. i got the searchers cos it was on sale with 2001 (and it's one of my faves ever).

already have all these on peasant disc so i am keen to see the upgrade, in some cases it'll be like seeing them for the first time. for example i've never seen the shin and EWS in widescreen (as must be the case for everyone until now who didn't see them in theatres). i'm hoping it kickstarts a new slew of analyses cos i've been in kind of a rut lately..

[Ravi]

already have all these on peasant disc so i am keen to see the upgrade, in some cases it'll be like seeing them for the first time. for example i've never seen the shin and EWS in widescreen (as must be the case for everyone until now who didn't see them in theatres).

The Kubrick DVD set with the black covers has widescreen transfers of everything.  No Lolita or Barry Lyndon, though.

[SiliasRuby]

[Ravi]

[SiliasRuby]

Back To The Future Trilogy Blu-ray

[modage]

4 Films = $108


B&N 50% Criterion Sale is on.

[socketlevel]

thanks poz.

i think your combo is better. i got the searchers cos it was on sale with 2001 (and it's one of my faves ever).

already have all these on peasant disc so i am keen to see the upgrade, in some cases it'll be like seeing them for the first time. for example i've never seen the shin and EWS in widescreen (as must be the case for everyone until now who didn't see them in theatres). i'm hoping it kickstarts a new slew of analyses cos i've been in kind of a rut lately..

full frame kubrick you see more, shin and EWS were shot full frame, they don't pan and scan it because kubrick intended the home video to be 4:3

[Pubrick]

thanks poz.

i think your combo is better. i got the searchers cos it was on sale with 2001 (and it's one of my faves ever).

already have all these on peasant disc so i am keen to see the upgrade, in some cases it'll be like seeing them for the first time. for example i've never seen the shin and EWS in widescreen (as must be the case for everyone until now who didn't see them in theatres). i'm hoping it kickstarts a new slew of analyses cos i've been in kind of a rut lately..

full frame kubrick you see more, shin and EWS were shot full frame, they don't pan and scan it because kubrick intended the home video to be 4:3

thank you for that basic information.

all i was saying was that before these widescreen releases of his films no one would have seen them in widescreen unless in the cinema.

we've all discussed this in many threads in the kubrick forum, but what remains a misconception is that kubrick INTENDED his last three films to be seen fullscreen. this isn't true.. nor is it true that they necessarily provide you with more image. the only reason kubrick shot full screen was because a 35mm negative is already framed full screen unless otherwise masked, and knowing that most ppl were watching his movies on VHS and therefore on their TV he decided to do the 4:3 cropping himself IN-CAMERA instead of letting other freaks do it from the 1.85 theatrical ratio as is usually done, which results in a cropped image. again, he started doing this in the 80s because that's when VHS came out and so it made sense to prepare for the home release.. he was meticulous like that.

the result of this is obviously a lot more headroom, but you don't get any USEFUL extra image space. look at the shining, fmj and ews on regular 4:3 dvd and you will see an OBSCENE amount of headroom. the conversion to 1.85 was also not akin to just putting black tape across the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame because all these widescreen transfers actually give you slightly MORE image space on the SIDES. this is all possible because when ppl shoot a movie they don't frame right to the very edge of the picture.. there is always extra room for what used to be generally lost on the edges of a TV set even on a supposed "full" 4:3 frame.

widescreen transfers of kubrick's last three films offer you the actual true director's cut of the film where you can be sure that everything in the image is necessary.

so back on topic:



blu-ray collection pretty much complete.

[modage]

forgot these...



Sound Of Music for the GF.

[Ravi]

Sound Of Music for the GF.

SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRE...

[polkablues]

And Toy Story 3 was for Stefen's kid.

[socketlevel]

thanks poz.

i think your combo is better. i got the searchers cos it was on sale with 2001 (and it's one of my faves ever).

already have all these on peasant disc so i am keen to see the upgrade, in some cases it'll be like seeing them for the first time. for example I've never seen the shin and EWS in widescreen (as must be the case for everyone until now who didn't see them in theatres). i'm hoping it kickstarts a new slew of analyses cos i've been in kind of a rut lately..

full frame kubrick you see more, shin and EWS were shot full frame, they don't pan and scan it because kubrick intended the home video to be 4:3

thank you for that basic information.

all i was saying was that before these widescreen releases of his films no one would have seen them in widescreen unless in the cinema.

we've all discussed this in many threads in the Kubrick forum, but what remains a misconception is that Kubrick INTENDED his last three films to be seen fullscreen. this isn't true.. nor is it true that they necessarily provide you with more image. the only reason Kubrick shot full screen was because a 35mm negative is already framed full screen unless otherwise masked, and knowing that most ppl were watching his movies on VHS and therefore on their TV he decided to do the 4:3 cropping himself IN-CAMERA instead of letting other freaks do it from the 1.85 theatrical ratio as is usually done, which results in a cropped image. again, he started doing this in the 80s because that's when VHS came out and so it made sense to prepare for the home release.. he was meticulous like that.

the result of this is obviously a lot more headroom, but you don't get any USEFUL extra image space. look at the shining, fmj and ews on regular 4:3 dvd and you will see an OBSCENE amount of headroom. the conversion to 1.85 was also not akin to just putting black tape across the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame because all these widescreen transfers actually give you slightly MORE image space on the SIDES. this is all possible because when ppl shoot a movie they don't frame right to the very edge of the picture.. there is always extra room for what used to be generally lost on the edges of a TV set even on a supposed "full" 4:3 frame.

widescreen transfers of kubrick's last three films offer you the actual true director's cut of the film where you can be sure that everything in the image is necessary.

first off I'm not saying he didn't frame for 1.85. but if you're saying was exclusively the case, and he didn't frame for 4:3 then you'd see the boom, which is standard practice when shooting super 35 with the intention of cropping to 1.85. That's why when you look at their video feed there are greyed out areas above and below the frame. A lot of directors/DOPs only concern themselves when the boom drops below said areas. Even on some film projections, if the projectionist doesn't frame the super 35 frame correctly you'll see this. i remember going to see "the gift" which wasn't framed correctly on playback and there were booms in almost all close ups. at first i thought sam raimi fucked up, but the widescreen DVD didn't have any of it.  If Kubrick was conscious to not have the boom enter even the 4:3 frame then obviously he was framing for both the cropped and open frame (for the home video reasons). This is also evident because he was avoiding pan and scan. So if he was conscious of this, then there is some intent behind it and thus having those transfers are also beneficial.

gus van sant did the same thing for elephant because originally it was going to be shot for HBO and seen on television. if you have the elephant DVD you see more when watching the full frame edition vs. the widescreen. Also, it's often believed (based on taste) that stedicam has more effect with full frame, going widescreen doesn't show it off, or at least only gives the lateral effect. now considering kubrick loved the stedicam later in his career i'm sure these conversations with the DOP must have come up. The shining and elephant both use stedicam as the main camera device. I share the opinion that stedicam looks nicer on full frame, so therefore with that specific movie i'd rather watch it open.

[Ravi]

You can't really frame for two different aspect ratios, but you can frame for one and protect the other from boom mics, lights, etc.  Kubrick wasn't the only one who protected the 4:3 frame, but some protect more than others.