Full Metal Jacket HD - ratio speculation [Archive]

View Full Version : Full Metal Jacket HD - ratio speculation

EvaUnit02

07-04-2006, 07:45

I noticed that Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket is one of the HD launch titles. What ratio do you reckon this will be released in?

We know that the native aspect ratio of HD is 1.78:1, perhaps the film will matted into widescreen? Or if they keep the unmatted 4:3 ratio, will it be in anamorphic pillarbox?

drush9999

07-04-2006, 07:58

Warner in the recent Home Theater Forum chat stated that the re-release of Kubrick titles in SD-DVD will be 1.78:1 and not open-matte. So I guess the HD versions will be also :)

Bluesman

07-04-2006, 12:43

Isn't 1.66 Kubricks favourite ratio?

bradavon

07-04-2006, 13:52

I don't think he had a favourite ratio, he used them all.

I don't see what the native ratio of HD has to do with much; I seriously doubt WB are going to alter the ratio.

Niceguygeoff

08-04-2006, 19:01

I don't think he had a favourite ratio, he used them all.

I don't see what the native ratio of HD has to do with much; I seriously doubt WB are going to alter the ratio.
See drush9999's post above. Warner said they will be in widescreen, and about time too. We know which ratio Kubrick preferred (although it was only with his last three films that he opted for the full frame home video presentation) but Shining/FMJ/EWS were composed with an eye for both matted widescreen and opened-up 4:3. I've got the 4:3 editions on DVD and they're fantastic. But in the HD age I want them in anamorphic widescreen, and it looks as if Warner will deliver. Cue remark about how bad the Strangelove re-issue is (personally I love it :D). . .

Grandmaster

20-04-2006, 05:42

Just a slightly anal point - HD titles aren't anamorphic widescreen, they use a native widescreen resolution. Anamorphic PAL is 720x576, with the pixels expanded horizontally to give a 'virtual' 16:9 resolution of 1024x576. There are no such rectangular pixels with either HD format :)

camaj

20-04-2006, 20:01

Some of them are listed as 16x9 on the packaging and I can't think of any reason they can't be anamorphic. You could say cinema is native widescreen and some if not all films are anamorphic.

Grandmaster

20-04-2006, 20:16

There are anamorphic HD formats such as 1440x1080i, which are expanded horizontally to give a 'virtual' 1920x1080 image. Panasonic's DVCPRO-HD tape format is similar - blowing up 960x720p to 1280x720. In all cases, the final viewer is being short-changed and neither HD-DVD nor BluRay use this rectangular pixel format to the best of my knowledge.

As you yourself have pointed out in the past, film has a colossal range of resolution to offer - approximately 4x the 1080p standard. Therefore there's plenty of horizontal resolution to gain from the original film source, without having to resort to rectangular pixels or other such anamorphic trickery.

Perhaps when next-next-gen HD is the standard with 4k level transfers, anamorphic footage will make a return, but right now there's simply no need when a native, non-horizontally expanded 1920x1200 image can be derived from film.

Niceguygeoff

20-04-2006, 21:05

But how come all my DVHS tapes say 'Anamorphic Widescreen' on the back? I don't see how HD can properly fit a 16:9 display without zooming or cropping if it hasn't been vertically stretched beforehand. Are you simply saying that HD has enough resolution to not have to be stretched in the first place? But how does it fit a 16:9 disp. . . oh, done that one. Me confused. :?:

camaj

21-04-2006, 02:27

Zooming and cropping are essentally the same thing!

My, admitedly basic, understanding of anamorphic stuff is that the image is stretched but contains more picture information because it fills a full 4:3 frame. When it's played back it's squashed so it looks normal but the increase in picture information is still there.

Bluesman

21-04-2006, 13:54

When the film industry changed from 4:3 to 16:9 they did not want to have to replace all their existing cameras and so anamorphic lenses were used to produce the 16:9 image.

Any film that has not been filmed using HD cameras will be using anamorphic lenses for 16:9 films. The DVD is a 4:3 pixel format and so any widescreen films are using an anamorphic picture (unless the pixels outside the 16:9 area are all black).

HD DVD is a 16:9 pixel format, but the original image will still have been produced with an anamorphic lense if non-HD cameras were used.

Niceguygeoff

21-04-2006, 18:46

Bluesman, not everything put on film is shot in anamorphic. Actually I'd go as far to say that the majority of stuff shot on film nowadays utilises spherical lenses and not anamorphic ones.

DeadKenny

27-04-2006, 23:07

Warner in the recent Home Theater Forum chat stated that the re-release of Kubrick titles in SD-DVD will be 1.78:1 and not open-matte. So I guess the HD versions will be also :)
Won't be buying it then if that's the case :(. As far as I'm concerned that's a crop and with FMJ especially it would harm the composition as many scenes work effectively well in 1.33:1. The Shining even more so, especially those corridor scenes. Despite the higher resolution of HD I'd be losing out on huge chunks of the picture.

As for preferred ratio there's a lengthy discussion about that here ;)...

http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=362269

Suffice to say that conjecture in there based on one inconclusive comment on a storyboard doesn't indicate much compared to Vitali's interview which clearly states how frustrated he was having to release at the cinema in wide ratios. This (http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5294201&postcount=35) in particular is conclusive for me and crops on the newer DVDs and HD versions will be going against his wishes.

Niceguygeoff

28-04-2006, 21:14

Personally it's got nothing to do with seeing more or less picture information as long as I'm seeing what was intended for theatrical projection. Just as I crave an edition of Apocalypse Now in its theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35:1, I want to see The Shining, FMJ et al at their originally projected ratios of 1.85:1 (or near-as-dammit 1.78:1). I'm well aware of Kubrick's wishes just as I am of Coppola's, but on this issue I'm happy to ignore both men. :D

John Hodson

12-05-2006, 08:17

From The Bits:

"One quick note today... we've gotten our hands on Warner's HD-DVD version of Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket. The film IS presented in widescreen (we believe at 1.78:1 aspect ratio, but we'll look more closely and confirm that this weekend). Just FYI."

EDIT - confirmed at DVD Times here (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=61507).

kippertron

12-05-2006, 09:44

When the film industry changed from 4:3 to 16:9 they did not want to have to replace all their existing cameras and so anamorphic lenses were used to produce the 16:9 image.

The film industry moved from 1.33:1 to 1.85:1 and, instead of using anamorphic lenses, simply masked the full height (4:3) 35mm frame during projection or in some cases during photography. This process was used almost universally until the introduction of 3-perf 35mm in the nineties (I think).

The use of anamorphic lenses in feature films was introduced with CinemaScope to create an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 using the full height of a 35mm frame. Anamorphic and 16:9 only applies to video's 4:3 AR and the creation of a wide format for television.

bruceames

12-05-2006, 10:19

John Hodson

12-05-2006, 10:39

According to the IMDB, the film negative is 1.37:1. Also the link below says it will be fullscreen as well, but if The Bits already have a copy in widescreen, then it will be disappointing to have the movie cropped to fill a widescreen TV. There's something to be said for seeing ALL of the movie

http://www.dvdtown.com/discdetails/fullmetaljackethd-dvd/18963/

This is one of those arguments that can go round and round forever; however Kubrick wanted to film it, he did so in the knowledge that it would be projected around the world cropped to widescreen. That's how it was seen by millions theatrically, that's how you're going to see it now on HD-DVD. You already got it full frame. If you haven't got the SD version of the film, then frankly, it's not an issue you care about.

Stanley may also have wanted us to view it while standing in a bucket of custard, holding a rubber chicken. Like, many other issues, we'll never know, Stanley has joined the choir eternal. And I suspect, wherever he is, he's having a celestial chuckle...

bruceames

12-05-2006, 12:39

Point noted. Of course, if he knew it was to be cropped, then he must have filmed the (to be) cropped portion with nothing worth saving.

haineshisway

12-05-2006, 16:29

bruceames

12-05-2006, 17:03

Very interesting. Thanks for clarifying that. I wonder how many other films there are out there like that (shot in 1.33 but in the end meant for 1.85)

DeadKenny

12-05-2006, 21:14

When a storyboard for The Shining that has Mr. Kubrick's handwriting on it, and that handwriting clearly says "Frame exactly for 1:85 but protect for 1:33" the argument about this nonsense is over. He was protecting for televisions (before widescreen TVs were even a notion) the way ALL films did, using the full negative. He was a FILM director and not an idiot - he knew how his films would be projected and that's how he framed them. Yes, in 1991 he preferred them open matte, because they were shown on standard TVs and the best resolution was the laserdisc, and as we know, not all that good. The Shining and Full Metal Jacket are almost unwatchable in 1:33 with all that ridiculous and useless headroom.
As said, we'll go round and round on this one and we're not going to agree, but I say again that one single storyboard people are clinging to doesn't say what he prefers only that he was (as you rightly point out) well aware of how his films would be projected at the cinema and thus needed to protect for the cinema. It's all speculation based on a scribble and it doesn't say much. However Vitali's interview is more authoritative and if people are happy to accept his 5.1 supervised versions of Kubrick's mono tracks then surely they'd agree with him on 1.33:1 ;)

However he was a photographer first and as a photographer would know that framing isn't about a fixed size or shape.

Plus I totally disagree about The Shining and FMJ being unwatchable in 1.33:1. Personally I think they are far better as such. The stedicam work in the corridors in the hotel in The Shining and around the training base in FMJ just work so much better with a frame that emphasises the height than the width. Beautiful.

In my opinion :p

haineshisway

13-05-2006, 01:57

But, you see, Mr. Vitali has changed his tune - he and the estate are allowing the HD widescreen versions of the films. Mr. Vitali is a yes-man, plain and simple. And I certainly do NOT agree with his 5.1 remixes, and neither would Mr. Kubrick.

Furthermore, the storyboard doesn't say "protect for the cinema, but frame for 1:85" does it? What it says is "FRAME EXACTLY FOR 1:85 and PROTECT for 1:33". There's no going around on it, because he wrote what he meant.

Gary Couzens

13-05-2006, 09:46

Very interesting. Thanks for clarifying that. I wonder how many other films there are out there like that (shot in 1.33 but in the end meant for 1.85)

Lots.

Having said that, it's also very common to shoot with a 1.66:1 hard-matte (metal plate) in camera but compose for 1.85:1. Allen Daviau - who has photographed many of Spielberg's films - prefers to work that way. That way, he allows for cinemas in countries that show films in narrower ratios (1.66:1 or 1.75:1) to avoid having black bars on the cinema screen as they would if the film were matted into 1.85:1; he gives a better compositional guide for the projectionist; and also he is able to hide studio lights and boom microphones behind the hard-matte.

John Hodson

13-05-2006, 10:12

Very interesting. Thanks for clarifying that. I wonder how many other films there are out there like that (shot in 1.33 but in the end meant for 1.85)

And this is a great site to learn more about the mechanics behind various widescreen formats: The Widescreen Museum (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/lobby.htm).

bruceames

14-05-2006, 02:16

Gary Couzens

14-05-2006, 06:18

Thanks John. It would be nice if the IMDB showed not only what aspect ratio the movie was filmed in, but what intended aspect ratio(s) the filmmaker(s) had in mind. Of course, that could be somewhat of a gray area.

Quite often the IMDB does do that. But this is also dependent on accurate information being input in the first place, which doesn't always happen. I think they've been corrected now, but I remember the IMDB claiming that Ran and Dead Man Walking were both 2.35:1, when they are both 1.85:1.

bruceames

19-05-2006, 01:20

Here is a review on the film.
http://www.dvdtown.com/review/fullmetaljackethd-dvd/18963/3674/

DeadKenny

19-05-2006, 10:32

Hmm, not a glowing review (ignoring the review of the film itself). Would be interesting to know if the reviewer had a true 1080 display though or was watching 1080 on a 720 display like the vast majority of people will be doing until true 1080 displays become more widely available (and cheaper).

I kind of expected noticeable flaws and grain in prints to become more obvious. I don't mind if the film is naturally grainy, I just hope that it doesn't encourage them to do glossy remastering to smooth it out.

The ratio comments I agree with of course, but that's just my opinion ;). I do think it's a mistake if Warner are going with 1.85:1 ratios purely because they think most people will have a widescreen TV and won't like black bars at the side :oh-hum:. To me doing that is as much a sin as pan&scan on a 4:3 telly.

SimonI

19-05-2006, 11:43

Yeah, roll on a 7.1 remixed widescreen Casablanca :lol:

...it's only a matter of time...

bruceames

20-05-2006, 00:04

[QUOTE=The ratio comments I agree with of course, but that's just my opinion ;). I do think it's a mistake if Warner are going with 1.85:1 ratios purely because they think most people will have a widescreen TV and won't like black bars at the side :oh-hum:. To me doing that is as much a sin as pan&scan on a 4:3 telly.[/QUOTE]

I think the reviewer just assumed WB released it in 1:85 just to fill the screen. But the people at WB are pretty smart too, and maybe decided that the movie SHOULD be shown that way, for pretty much the reasons explained earlier in the thread, (i.e. lots of headroom).

I just ordered the movie from Amazon yesterday, so when I see it, I'll comment here about my opinion of the HD transfer (as compared to other HD movies I have). I haven't even seen the movie yet, so to watch it for the first time in HD should be a real treat!

DeadKenny

20-05-2006, 11:28

You've got an HD-DVD player then?

bruceames

20-05-2006, 11:39

Yes. They started selling the player here in the u.s. on April 18. Toshiba only released 15000 or so, therefore they are real hard to find. When do they plan to sell the players there?

DeadKenny

20-05-2006, 11:46

Don't know for sure but I've seen posts saying November. Discs I guess come out at a similar time.

bruceames

20-05-2006, 14:00

So HD DVD will be debuting there at about the same time as Bluray/Ps3?

RomerojpgX

22-05-2006, 17:34

Here is a review on the film.
http://www.dvdtown.com/review/fullmetaljackethd-dvd/18963/3674/

A film with Single trailer gets 2 stars for extras, way to go. :shrug:

Not a glowing review for the quality of the dvd, but hey its the best we have I guess, until they re-release it in fullscreen later on.