or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Shane - Stunning
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Shane - Stunning

post #1 of 50
Thread Starter 
Another stunning Technicolor restoration ala Niagara but slightly better, imo, but I'm not a nitpicker.
Highest recommendation. FWIW.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #2 of 50

Yup, I watched it last night and it's very, very nice - stunning, in some scenes.  First time in Academy I do believe.

post #3 of 50
Sam Peckinpaw: The Greatest Story Of the West Ever Filmed.

The remastered version of Shane is simply dazzling and is a showcase by director George Stevens in the art of story telling. This movie is not for those who crave action or special effects of either the visual and/or audio types (such as Transformers). It is a must have for any cinema-phile who realizes that we are in the golden age of cinema and Shane is clearly one of its high points from 1953. And e-gads it is not wide screen, but in an aspect ratio of 1.37:1.
post #4 of 50
I could be wrong but it seems there are more Paramount catalog tiles coming out on BD since WB took over the distribution.
post #5 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

Sam Peckinpaw: The Greatest Story Of the West Ever Filmed.

The remastered version of Shane is simply dazzling and is a showcase by director George Stevens in the art of story telling. This movie is not for those who crave action or special effects of either the visual and/or audio types (such as Transformers). It is a must have for any cinema-phile who realizes that we are in the golden age of cinema and Shane is clearly one of its high points from 1953. And e-gads it is not wide screen, but in an aspect ratio of 1.37:1.

If you go to HTF.com, you'll read why 1.37:1 is the correct aspect ratio!
post #6 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

Another stunning Technicolor restoration ala Niagara but slightly better, imo, but I'm not a nitpicker.
Highest recommendation. FWIW.

Niagara is Fox however while Shane is Paramount.
post #7 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Niagara is Fox however while Shane is Paramount.
And the release is actually the work of Warner. Warner is now doing Paramount's new releases just like Fox does MGM (post 1986) and UA movies.
post #8 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

And the release is actually the work of Warner. Warner is now doing Paramount's new releases just like Fox does MGM (post 1986) and UA movies.

Do you have some source that WB is doing the mastering for the Paramount titles? Fox does not necessarily do the mastering for MGM titles. Both are distribution arrangements rather then taking over everything.
post #9 of 50
I seem to remember George Feltenstein saying something about this on a podcast or posting. I am pretty sure that WB has not only taken over distribution but also mastering for Paramount. I can't find the specific citing at the moment though.
post #10 of 50
If Warner didn't do this disk mastering, it is probable that Technicolor did it via their contract with Paramount. Fiinding out who mastered a disk can be a difficult task.
post #11 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

I seem to remember George Feltenstein saying something about this on a podcast or posting. I am pretty sure that WB has not only taken over distribution but also mastering for Paramount. I can't find the specific citing at the moment though.

If that's true then who did the mastering on Betty Boob? There are claims Paramount did it rather then WB or Olive.
post #12 of 50
I have no idea about Betty Boop. There is some information about contracts out on the net that indicates that mastering for Paramount as of 2009 and afterward was done by Technicolor but it is close to impossible (for me anyway) to find which disk used which mastering house. The reason I think Shane may have been done by Warner is that the original 1:37 aspect ratio is on this release and Warner has been better than most studios about getting aspect ratios right in classic material. Warner may not actually do mastering in-house either. The same info I saw re Paramount and Technicolor indicates that Technicolor has done mastering for Warner. There is the additional question as to where the original film elements used in the mastering came from. I would assume Paramount material comes from Paramount but these days who knows.
post #13 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

I have no idea about Betty Boop. There is some information about contracts out on the net that indicates that mastering for Paramount as of 2009 and afterward was done by Technicolor but it is close to impossible (for me anyway) to find which disk used which mastering house. The reason I think Shane may have been done by Warner is that the original 1:37 aspect ratio is on this release and Warner has been better than most studios about getting aspect ratios right in classic material. Warner may not actually do mastering in-house either. The same info I saw re Paramount and Technicolor indicates that Technicolor has done mastering for Warner. There is the additional question as to where the original film elements used in the mastering came from. I would assume Paramount material comes from Paramount but these days who knows.

Not sure what years you mean by classic but WB often puts out 1:85.1 OAR films as full screen instead unlike say Sony.
post #14 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Not sure what years you mean by classic but WB often puts out 1:85.1 OAR films as full screen instead unlike say Sony.

Classic to me is anything prior to 1970 or so. What 1.85:1 OAR films has Warner put out as full screen recently? I don't really count anything from the early days of DVD since everyone was releasing full screen pan-and-scan versions of widescreen movies. The only thing I object to from Warner these days is that they have released some 1.85:1 films in the Warner Archive series as 1.78:1. My guess is that Warner Archive uses mostly (all?) masters prepared for the TCM cable channel and that it is someone in that organization who is controlling this. I don't really like the TCM operation because they continue to windowbox widescreen movies on TCM-HD for "compatibility" with the non-HD channel. But that is a whole other issue.
post #15 of 50
I don't really like the TCM operation because they continue to windowbox widescreen movies on TCM-HD for "compatibility" with the non-HD channel. But that is a whole other issue.

??
post #16 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

The reason I think Shane may have been done by Warner is that the original 1:37 aspect ratio is on this release and Warner has been better than most studios about getting aspect ratios right in classic material.

The aspect ratio on this disc has nothing to do with the distribution by Warner or Paramount. The disc was originally announced to be a 1.66:1 transfer reframed shot-by-shot under the supervision of George Stevens, Jr. However, after uproar by fans, who pointed out to him the importance of preserving the 1.37:1 framing that his father actually composed the film for, Stevens relented and asked the studio to remaster it in Academy Ratio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

What 1.85:1 OAR films has Warner put out as full screen recently?

Both Warner and Paramount open the mattes on all 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1 as a matter of policy. Recent Warner Blu-rays like this include Flashdance, Action Jackson, National Lampoon's Vacation and Vegas Vacation, An Officer and a Gentleman, and The Great Gatsby (1974).
post #17 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by inspector View Post

If you go to HTF.com, you'll read why 1.37:1 is the correct aspect ratio!

You misunderstood my comment. Today, it is expected, by most, to have a wide screen aspect ratio. It wasn't all that long ago that some buyers wanted to see stuff full screen, without any black bars.
post #18 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The aspect ratio on this disc has nothing to do with the distribution by Warner or Paramount. The disc was originally announced to be a 1.66:1 transfer reframed shot-by-shot under the supervision of George Stevens, Jr. However, after uproar by fans, who pointed out to him the importance of preserving the 1.37:1 framing that his father actually composed the film for, Stevens relented and asked the studio to remaster it in Academy Ratio.
Both Warner and Paramount open the mattes on all 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1 as a matter of policy. Recent Warner Blu-rays like this include Flashdance, Action Jackson, National Lampoon's Vacation and Vegas Vacation, An Officer and a Gentleman, and The Great Gatsby (1974).
By "full screen" I thought you meant 1.85:1 at 1.33:1 and not showing 1.85:1 material at 1:78. I object to that too and indicated that I didn't like that Warner was doing that.
post #19 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

You misunderstood my comment. Today, it is expected, by most, to have a wide screen aspect ratio. It wasn't all that long ago that some buyers wanted to see stuff full screen, without any black bars.
I don't think you should have a widescreen aspect ratio if that isn't how the movie was intended to be seen. I watch lots of classic movies and I wouldn't want to see them cropped to be widescreen. Cropping is every bit as bad as pan and scan in my estimation.
post #20 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

By "full screen" I thought you meant 1.85:1 at 1.33:1 and not showing 1.85:1 material at 1:78. I object to that too and indicated that I didn't like that Warner was doing that.

The difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 is a few scan lines and doesn't affect the compositional intent of the photography. The difference is well within the expected tolerances for theatrical projection variances. No director has ever complained about his 1.85:1 movie being opened up to 1.78:1. There are much more important battles to fight.
post #21 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzGuyy View Post

I don't think you should have a widescreen aspect ratio if that isn't how the movie was intended to be seen. I watch lots of classic movies and I wouldn't want to see them cropped to be widescreen. Cropping is every bit as bad as pan and scan in my estimation.
I think most people here would agree with you. The problem is the masses of stupid people for whom the presence of black bars (either vertical or horizontal) is simply beyond all comprehension. It's not just that they don't want them there, but they actually don't understand why they're there in the first place.

As annoying as it would be, I wouldn't really be against the idea of putting a "this film has been formatted" message in front of any movie that doesn't fill up a 16:9 display (although I also agree that 1.85 is pretty much unnoticeable). And not just "the black bars at the top and bottom are normal", because that only states that they're supposed to be there, but doesn't explain why.

"This film is presented in its original 1.33:1 aspect ratio, as originally filmed and projected. The black bars on the left and right are normal and preserve the filmmakers' original presentation." or something along those lines.

I absolutely applaud releases that stick to the original intent, even if it might piss off a bunch of ignorant &^*()&s.
post #22 of 50
I will admit the picture looked great, though I for one feel the day for night sequences simply too dark.

Small side note: did anyone catch the same freaking error on the packaging that Warner's pulled back on the 2000 DVD edition? Check the back and you will see most of a full figure shot of Alan Ladd taken not from Shane but The Carpetbaggers from 1964. Will someone wake up that idiot in Marketing and Promotion! mad.gif
post #23 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chazcdc54 View Post

I will admit the picture looked great, though I for one feel the day for night sequences simply too dark.

Maybe you need a brighter display, like a plasma. It looks fine on my plasma, a Panasonic 65VT50.
post #24 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by fookoo_2010 View Post

Maybe you need a brighter display, like a plasma. It looks fine on my plasma, a Panasonic 65VT50.
Yea, I agree this is a gorgeous transfer. I've never saw Shane look this great. Watched on ISF calibrated Panasonic 65PZ850U in my dedicated HT.
post #25 of 50
Thread Starter 
Leave it to AVS to turn a thread about a classic movie and awesome transfer into a studio\aspect ratio re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-hash.
post #26 of 50
Thanks Max Headroom. Plus I always thought HD DVD was a format for classic film fans. Why isn't this being released on HD DVD? wink.gif
post #27 of 50
HD DVD ceased to exist several years ago.
post #28 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RUR View Post

Yup, I watched it last night and it's very, very nice - stunning, in some scenes.  First time in Academy I do believe.
Surprise Netflix has this on Blu-ray, will have a look at it.
post #29 of 50
Rented SHANE from Netflix. Good blu ray. Dated film.
post #30 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by P Ross View Post

Rented SHANE from Netflix. Good blu ray. Dated film.

What do you mean by dated film?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Shane - Stunning