Amazon is listing the new Dr. Strangelove DVD as 1.66:1 anamorphic? Does this new release feature an anamorphic transfer of the film?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...d&vi=tech-info
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...d&vi=tech-info
New Strangelove anamorphic?
- Status
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
As long as they don't do a "one size fits all" and crop things to make the various aspect ratios used in this film all fit 1.66:1. And ... will it be a TRUE 1.66:1 with slim black bars on the left and right sides? If you don't see those slim black bars, you are losing top and bottom information/picture, even if it's only slight.
I'm confused. I can see how a 2.35-1 or a 1.85-1 can be presented in an anamorphic format. But, how can a movie less than 1.78-1, like Strangelove, which is a 1.66 ratio (and some parts are full frame - Kubrick used more than one ratio in this one) that is made from a 1.37-1 negative, be transfered to an anamorphic DVD format? It's my understanding that Kubrick shot almost all of his films in full frame academy aspect, but knew that many theaters would choose to matte the presentation to fit their wide screens, if they wished to.
Quote:
Forbidden Planet was shot in 2.35:1 cinemascope.
| Originally posted by canue Paddy there was more than one version of scope pics, Quatermass and the Pit, "A Night to Remember", and 1956 Forbidden Planet are all 1.66:1 anamorphic, so if you have any of the above, the OAR will be just like it/them using a DVD in prog scan. |
Quote:
With thin vertical bars, as in In the Mood for Love.
And regarding the proper aspect ratio of Strangelove, I defer to what guru Robert A. Harris said on HTF:
Quote:
| Originally posted by paddy I'm confused. I can see how a 2.35-1 or a 1.85-1 can be presented in an anamorphic format. But, how can a movie less than 1.78-1, like Strangelove, which is a 1.66 ratio (and some parts are full frame - Kubrick used more than one ratio in this one) that is made from a 1.37-1 negative, be transfered to an anamorphic DVD format? |
And regarding the proper aspect ratio of Strangelove, I defer to what guru Robert A. Harris said on HTF:
Quote:
| Dr. Strangelove was apparently photographed, as were many films during the era, with more than one camera body and different mattes allowing exposure. The film was originally projected as intended by DP Gil Taylor and director Kubrick at 1.66:1, but was more frequently seen at 1.85:1. If you return to one of my earliest Bits pieces, you'll find an aspect ratio chart showing the minute difference between 1.37 and 1.66. Mr. Kubrick's desire to make his films more appropriate for television veiwing were not based upon current technology, but rather a square monitor and decisions dating back over a decade. I firmly believe that were he still with us, Mr. Kubrick's desires would change along with technology. With the current popularity of wide screen viewing devices and the fact that they will soon become the standard, it makes no sense to offer new software designed for archaic hardware. Those with wide screen monitors will attest the negative situation found with 1.66 non-anamorphic releases which must be zoomed to improperly "fill" a 1.78 display rather than view the image surrounded by black on four sides. Dr. Strangelove used stock footage, rear projection and other devices which also take one out of the film if viewing without a 1.66 matte, as one is seeing things that simply aren't meant to be seen. 1.66:1 is the proper aspect ratio for Dr. Strangelove. There is more detail in the new transfer, which is "printed" heavier than in previous releases, which were created from high contrast prints. A great deal of effort has gone into this release with actual restoration and cleanup work being done for the first time. The original negative no longer exists, which precludes doing certain things as might have been done as far as contrast ratios, highlights and other elements which might have been controlled slightly differently. Older transfers had visual elements which were literally burned out as white because there was no way to control the contrast. This also prevented the image from being transferred with proper density. As one can see from viewing improperly thought out or ill-prepared releases in which cars drive through streets in daylight with their lights on, or a crowd of townspeople rush through a daylit town carrying burning torches, one is not always meant to see the entire depth of an image as recorded to film. Proper exposures to print are necessary. Columbia's Grover Crisp and his staff have done a beautiful and high quality job of presenting this film on DVD -- not an easy task. And with the advent of wide screen monitors which can yield a superb 1.66:1 image from an anamorphic enhanced DVD, I'm quite certain that this would be a "director approved" release were the gentleman available to grant his approval. |
Quote:
An anamorphic DVD is 16:9 or 1.78:1 natively.
Therefore an anamorphic 1.85:1 DVD will have small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen to fill it out to 1.78:1.
An anamorphic 1.66:1 DVD will have small black bars on the sides to fill it out to 1.78:1.
| I'm confused. I can see how a 2.35-1 or a 1.85-1 can be presented in an anamorphic format. But, how can a movie less than 1.78-1, like Strangelove, which is a 1.66 ratio |
Therefore an anamorphic 1.85:1 DVD will have small black bars at the top and bottom of the screen to fill it out to 1.78:1.
An anamorphic 1.66:1 DVD will have small black bars on the sides to fill it out to 1.78:1.
Joined
·
4,981 Posts
A friend at the outskirts of the industry related a tale of Spielberg meeting Kubrick. Kubrick was sitting with a 35mm camera body and a huge film pack connected to it and re-photographing an exemplary print of Dr Strangelove frame-by- frame, as this gave a better result than the usual method of duplication. This was due to the loss of the original negative.
I remember seeing the film at a second-run movie house (The Plaza in Atlanta) during its original release. The print was rather worn, but I can still recall being bowled over by the beauty of the B&W photography. It was rather high-contrast, but it had a wonderful, full tonality at the same time. I would be really interested in just how good the new release looks.
I remember seeing the film at a second-run movie house (The Plaza in Atlanta) during its original release. The print was rather worn, but I can still recall being bowled over by the beauty of the B&W photography. It was rather high-contrast, but it had a wonderful, full tonality at the same time. I would be really interested in just how good the new release looks.
All you wanted to know about the new release, PQ, AR, etc.
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/revi...rangelove.html
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/revi...rangelove.html
Where's my credit card? Looks like a must have for the colection.
______________________________________________________
Ripper:
Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake:
Well, no I... I can't say I have, Jack.
Ripper:
Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake:
Well I... I believe that's what they drink, Jack. Yes.
Ripper:
On no account will a commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
____________________________________________________________ _____
link to the movie script http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html
link to original script http://scifiscripts.com/scripts/strangelove.txt
______________________________________________________
Ripper:
Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake:
Well, no I... I can't say I have, Jack.
Ripper:
Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake:
Well I... I believe that's what they drink, Jack. Yes.
Ripper:
On no account will a commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
____________________________________________________________ _____
link to the movie script http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0055.html
link to original script http://scifiscripts.com/scripts/strangelove.txt
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
- Status
Join the discussion
