criterionforum.org

Posted: **Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:27 pm**

"commentary by Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood". this should be a laugh riot.

Posted: **Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:49 pm**

Andre Jurieu wrote:
denti alligator wrote:The 1.78 AR is a troubling phenomenon. There are a number of 1.85 films that end up as 1.78 in HD. This needs to end. Now.
Isn't this just done to better match the 16:9 ratio? Does the image ever really suffer from the missing portion? I'm all for as much image as possible, but I'm not really going to start pulling out my hair unless it's valuable image that is being lost. If you watch any 1:85 or 2:35 film at the theatre there are slight portions of the image that never synch up to the screen perfectly and I have my doubts that every theatre ever created has a perfectly constructed screen that matches the desired ratio exactly. If someone can actually point out at least a handful of films that suffer greatly from the missing 0.07 then I would also start to protest this routine formatting practice because it has been proved to be consequential. However, I doubt I've ever observed an instance in which including the missing 0.07 results in a dramatically different interpretation of the film based on the bastardized images. This doesn't strike me as a similar occurence as "colorizing" black and white films, since that practice usually resulted in drawing attention away from specific aspects of the original image. I doubt very many directors or cinematographers even worry that much about the practice.

No, but I think the issue kind of floats around the matter of getting ready to shell out for the same film for the second or third time...and finding that they're still not getting it right.

Posted: **Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:02 pm**

skuhn8 wrote:No, but I think the issue kind of floats around the matter of getting ready to shell out for the same film for the second or third time...and finding that they're still not getting it right.

I guess that's fairly frustrating, but isn't the whole 1.78 vs 1.85 kind of a standard for anamorphic DVD transfers nowadays?

Posted: **Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:14 pm**

Andre Jurieu wrote:
denti alligator wrote:The 1.78 AR is a troubling phenomenon. There are a number of 1.85 films that end up as 1.78 in HD. This needs to end. Now.
Isn't this just done to better match the 16:9 ratio? Does the image ever really suffer from the missing portion? I'm all for as much image as possible, but I'm not really going to start pulling out my hair unless it's valuable image that is being lost. If you watch any 1.85 or 2.35 film at the theatre there are slight portions of the image that never synch up to the screen perfectly and I have my doubts that every theatre ever created has a perfectly constructed screen that matches the desired ratio exactly. If someone can actually point out at least a handful of films that suffer greatly from the missing 0.07 then I would also start to protest this routine formatting practice because it has been proved to be consequential. However, I doubt I've ever observed an instance in which including the missing 0.07 results in a dramatically different interpretation of the film based on the bastardized images. This doesn't strike me as a similar occurence as "colorizing" black and white films, since that practice usually resulted in drawing attention away from specific aspects of the original image. I doubt very many directors or cinematographers even worry that much about the practice.

Well said. And 1.85 films that are transferred at 1.78 aren't actually "missing" any image. They are gaining 0.07. 1.85 films are almost always shot at 1.37 then matted for projection. When they are transferred at 1.78, the mattes are opened up slightly.

The Clockwork Orange situation is slightly different since it is intended to be shown at 1.66, so it may indeed be slightly overmatted.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:20 am**

For the ones shot open matte (Full Metal jacket, The Shining, EWS), I actually prefer 1.78 to 1.85, since it's a nice compromise between the US and European theatrical AR.

For A Clockwork, I though it was meant for 1.66 everywhere.
Turns out it's not 1.78. DVD Beaver made an error:

DVDBeaver has made an error. We indicated the HD of A Clockwork Orange had an aspect ratio of 1.78. It is closer to its theatrical of 1.66:1.

So that's not an issue.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:37 am**

Just to say, pretty much ALL Warner DVDs that originally had the 1.85:1 ratio are opened up to 1.78:1. I can't recall a single Warner DVD that has the 1.85:1 ratio preserved. It's not just the Kubrick set.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:44 am**

A poster over at the AVS Forum has a rundown of all the releases on Blu-ray, and assures that Clockwork is indeed 1:66:1.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:52 am**

chizbooga wrote:"commentary by Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood". this should be a laugh riot.

Agree, couldn't Warner remove that track instead for the scene-specifik for Eyes Wide Shut?

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:53 am**

davidhare wrote:Not yet bought these but I am really bothered by the 1.78 framing for EWS. I had never seen it theatrcally so of course Im only accustomed to seeing it in 1.33 but simply looking at Gary's comp caps gave me the willies. This is now firmly to me a picture that needs Academy ratio, if not in large part for the general atmosphere and the detached dreamlike period feeling of the narrative. I was particularly looking forward to getting most fo these on HD but given the AR issues - certainly with EWS and the Shining - I am really not at all happyl.

Agree. I saw EWS when it first came out in the theater, but have since grown used to the 1.33 dvd presentation. The compositions really look better in full screen. For example, I always interpreted the first shot of Nicole undressing as a voyeuristic nod to the audience, as if she's undressing on a stage, as she did in The Blue Room. In wide screen the space at her feet is absent, taking away the allusion to a stage. Furthermore, the many symmetrical compositions - which are also visible in this first scene: rackets, mirror, pillars - come out better in full screen.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:17 pm**

DVD Beaver wrote:DVDBeaver has made an error. We misidentified the HD of A Clockwork Orange as having an aspect ratio of 1.78. It is closer to its theatrical of 1.66:1. But, as we indicated, the package is spread over 2 - HD discs where, it has been reported to us that, the Blu-ray is on only one (both share the same VC-1 encode). It appears as though Blu-ray's larger disc capacity has come into play, from a practicality standpoint, in the format war.

He goes on to call the Blu-Ray superior over the HD-DVD (even though he apparently hasn't seen the BR first hand) and that the Blu-Ray having 1 disc over the HD's 2 represents a "huge separation point" in the formats despite no technical difference. Apparently an extra disc, in the same size case, represents a serious inconvenience for some people.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:11 pm**

Unfortunately, I more or less qualify as a HDDVD supporter* so I can't say this without sounding partial, but I really do think the fellow prattles on far too much about the number of disks. Sure, it's an interesting (albeit, minor) point and worth noting, but how many times in that review does he type it out all italics and bold and what not?

*I am planning on adding a Bluray drive to my HTPC and, thus, becoming format neutral, just as soon as one is released in Australia at a reasonable (<$250) price and with the ability to actually play Bluray disks.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:12 pm**

Has anyone been able to get this set? All of the stores in my town have the individual releases, but not the box set.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:59 pm**

TechNoir wrote:Has anyone been able to get this set? All of the stores in my town have the individual releases, but not the box set.

Yeah, and Amazon now says "usually ships within 4 to 6 weeks". What's going on?

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:33 pm**

Gigi M. wrote:
TechNoir wrote:Has anyone been able to get this set? All of the stores in my town have the individual releases, but not the box set.
Yeah, and Amazon now says "usually ships within 4 to 6 weeks". What's going on?

Get down to Best Buy and get there fast. My local store on Cape Cod only had one copy of the full set and guess who has it now. They showed a price of $69.99 on the box but it rang up for $54.99 at the register.
Stop reading. Start driving!

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:35 pm**

Belmondo wrote:Get down to Best Buy and get there fast. My local store on Cape Cod only had one copy of the full set and guess who has it now. They showed a price of $69.99 on the box but it rang up for $54.99 at the register.
Stop reading. Start driving!

Thanks, but no dice for me. I live in the Dominican Republic.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:48 pm**

Amazon.ca has the Kubrick set in stock.

Bear in mind, it probably has bilingual packaging if that kind of thing bothers you.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:12 pm**

Peter Howell of the Toronto Star has a bone to pick with the box set and bizarrely bemoans the lack of Kubrick commentary tracks.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:16 pm**

Antoine Doinel wrote:Peter Howell of the Toronto Star has a bone to pick with the box set and bizarrely bemoans the lack of Kubrick commentary tracks.

...and then adds not to tell him it couldn't be done.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:51 pm**

Surprisingly articulate interview with the nude bathroom chick from EWS. (Oh, and Larry Smith too.)

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:01 pm**

Why is it surprising that she's articulate? And why "nude bathroom chick" instead of "actress?"

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:09 pm**

Donald Brown wrote:Why is it surprising that she's articulate? And why "nude bathroom chick" instead of "actress?"

Welcome to Barmy's Worldâ„¢.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:14 pm**

Cold Bishop wrote:
Antoine Doinel wrote:Peter Howell of the Toronto Star has a bone to pick with the box set and bizarrely bemoans the lack of Kubrick commentary tracks.
...and then adds not to tell him it couldn't be done.

I can't believe a newspaper is willing to give this guy a salary for this type of review. Then again it is The Toronto Star.

Just because you can dream it up doesn't mean WB has a duty to produce something specifically to your tastes. His requests are so ridiculously self-involved that reading that article made me die a little inside (please don't cheer so loudly at that last part). Sometimes I really can't stand our consumer-culture.

tavernier wrote:Welcome to Barmy's Worldâ„¢.

Wow! Already trade-marked. That's thinking ahead.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:58 am**

Apparently, the release has been a huge clusterfuck.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:05 am**

kaujot wrote:Apparently, the release has been a huge clusterfuck.

How so? Not to sound nieve, but I had no trouble getting ahold of a copy of the standard-def boxset today.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:54 am**

Yeah, I don't how the release is a "clusterfuck" either. Popped into Future Shop here in Canada today and it was on the shelves along with the single release titles.

criterionforum.org

Stanley Kubrick Collection