tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8566408705248423573.post7699388951971952599..comments2024-03-25T21:40:33.065-04:00Comments on DVD Exotica: Kubrick Compliant: Eyes Wide Shut (DVD/ Blu-ray Comparison)John W McKelveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07224424721208024907noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8566408705248423573.post-85289190504021053872023-08-18T05:39:38.578-04:002023-08-18T05:39:38.578-04:00The compromise aspect ratio of all which is gainin...The compromise aspect ratio of all which is gaining wide favour in many circles is 2.0.0 and is seen in streamed TV shows and a lot of films. However I still think 1.33 or 1.37 frames a person's full face the best! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8566408705248423573.post-65517540029721022552023-08-18T00:11:17.117-04:002023-08-18T00:11:17.117-04:00"After framing some of his earlier movies for..."After framing some of his earlier movies for the standard 1.85 theatrical aspect ratio, Kubrick had been appalled at the butchered cropping to 1.33:1 for VHS releases, and then the fullscreen DVD releases that were prevalent in the nineties."<br /><br />This is just incorrect.<br /><br />Kubrick was appalled by the cropping of "Spartacus" and "2001" for TV, which is why he stopped shooting the wider aspect ratio and started shooting 1.66 or 1.85 images which could be opened up to fullscreen instead of cropping them. He considered that fullscreen to be less compromised than cropping, but it was still a compromise. You can't frame a picture for more than one aspect ratio, you can just frame it for the intended aspect ratio and then protect it from the unmatted version.<br /><br />Regarding the fullscreen DVDs, they were all based on the final masters that Kubrick personally prepared and approved, which were actually done before the DVD era. Kubrick had intended to create new masters for DVDs after completing "Eyes Wide Shut", which would've been in widescreen because of the new technology, but died before he was able to, and WB rushed out the only approved masters that they had because they wanted to take advantage of the publicity around Eyes Wide Shut to sell more DVDs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8566408705248423573.post-41113905069686955162019-03-24T20:05:01.492-04:002019-03-24T20:05:01.492-04:00I own both the original UK DVD and Blu-ray. I also...I own both the original UK DVD and Blu-ray. I also prefer the DVD screen ratio, as there is more to see. I hope some day for the Blu-ray to be re released containing both ratio's :)WEChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14007457865074451462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8566408705248423573.post-61685863353621163642018-02-04T03:05:35.321-05:002018-02-04T03:05:35.321-05:00Hi John,
I have watched the fullscreen PAL DVD fr...Hi John,<br /><br />I have watched the fullscreen PAL DVD from Europe as well as the 1.78:1 US Blu-Ray (there is also a Blu-Ray from France that shows it in the 1.85:1 ratio it was screened in theaters in, but I haven't seen that one.)<br /><br />After framing some of his earlier movies for the standard 1.85 theatrical aspect ratio, Kubrick had been appalled at the butchered cropping to 1.33:1 for VHS releases, and then the fullscreen DVD releases that were prevalent in the nineties.<br /><br />For Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick resolved to do his own framing for 1.33:1, 1.78:1 and 1.85:1, and specified the matting for all scenes. This is probably one of only a few films that have been blocked this way.<br /><br />Kubrick filmed with an Arriflex in Academy ratio (1.37:1) but Kubrick's framing was still matted for 1.33:1, and he often shot wide so that some screens wouldn't be chopped too much in widescreen.<br /><br />I would suggest taking in the film in fullscreen again. The reason is that Kubrick was filming in Academy though the viewfinder, and he composed some breathtaking scenes in the fullscreen ratio. For example, the scene where Harford is going into the first room in the orgy sequence is just him going though an entrance in widescreen, but in fullscreen it looks spectacular with the details beautifully arranged over the top of the balcony and floorpace visible so you get an idea of just how much space there is in this ballroom. It's much more like you're there in the room experiencing its space.<br /><br />In fact, in the widescreen as he passes through the rooms, door lintels are cut off,figures have their feet cut off and everything feels cramped.<br /><br />In fullscreen doors are complete, you can see details overhead, and as before, you have more of a sense of actually experiencing the room. You also realize that Kubrick had arranged many of his lounging nude figures in artful patterns that are gone with their lower limbs cropped in the widescreen view.<br /><br />Also in some street scenes the fullscreen version includes interesting symbolic details on the buildings that are cropped in the widescreen edition.<br /><br />Watching the fullscreen edition gives you a much better feeling for what a great compositionist Kubrick was. <br /><br />It also gives you a better sense of what Kubrick would have seen in the viewfinder as he was filming (this was back in the days when all viewfinders were optical, of course.)<br /><br />Oh, and one last thing. The PAL DVD with its higher resolution does look noticeably better than the NTSC North American DVD.<br /><br />Just my 2 cents worth. Hope you enjoy.Harry Dresdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8566408705248423573.post-68529027087014967002016-02-06T07:32:48.134-05:002016-02-06T07:32:48.134-05:00Absolutely, great idea.Absolutely, great idea.Paul WJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14745200069891956986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8566408705248423573.post-53760613959590020542016-02-04T07:21:32.843-05:002016-02-04T07:21:32.843-05:00Yeah, I haven't actually watched the fullscree...Yeah, I haven't actually watched the fullscreen version all the way through since back in 2001-02. But scrubbing through it for this comparison, I saw a lot of head room and relatively vacant space. Once I got the widescreen disc, I preferred it and never looked back. But I've never done a full taste test, watching them both all the way through back-to-back.<br />But I'm always for studios giving us the option. And since this blu could use an upgrade anyway, certainly an ideal release would have include both ARs, even if they just made one a limited edition collector's set for the serious fans, and then a cheaper sell-through single disc release with just the widescreen.John W McKelveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07224424721208024907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8566408705248423573.post-8942701650476477512016-01-30T11:44:17.176-05:002016-01-30T11:44:17.176-05:00Nice article of a masterful film. Unlike you thou...Nice article of a masterful film. Unlike you though I definitely prefer EWS in its 1.33:1 iteration, and won't be upgrading to any Blu unless it contains this (I guess the ideal disc would contain the unmasked and theatrical iterations so that viewers can make their own choice, alongside being 4K scanned from the OCN naturally!). I'm in the UK and its worth noting that the DVD I bought at the time was not censored in the way that it was in the US, but the music track was dicked around with slightly in order to avoid offending minority religious groups (ridiculous, yes!). I live in hope for the ideal edition that does EWS justice it deserves.Paul WJMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14745200069891956986noreply@blogger.com