Posted by Matthew Kirkcaldie on 10/11/05 03:41

In article <AjG2f.12887$QE1.1369@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@mind-NOSPAM-spring.com> wrote:

> This is only partially correct. Kubrick's estate is holding firm to the
> decision about aspect ratios that he made in the early 80s, but the most
> recent DVDs have been substantially cleaned up otherwise. It was the
> first DVD releases that featured dirty 20 year-old VHS transfers. The
> newer DVD releases that say, "New digital transfer from restored
> elements" are improvements in all areas except aspect ratio.

Sigh. Maybe you'll believe Leon Vitali, his technical assistant of 25
years, and overseer of ALL the transfers to video and DVD, instead (from
www.dvdfile.com):

---

DF: Well, now on to the question of aspect ratio. This is by far the
most contentious area of debate among our readers. Many are confused
between the aspect ratio Kubrick shot his films in, how they were
exhibited theatrically, and how they are shown on home video...

LV: Very often, well, if you go back to Dr. Strangelove, for example, he
shot that in the camera basically "full frame,." (Roughly 1.37:1) But
you will see if you look at the film that very often, there will be
mattes (Editor: Black bars on the top and bottom masking off a portion
of the image to achieve a wider aspect ratio) in one shot, then in the
next shot there will be no mattes. Then the next shot there will be,
then the next shot there won't. With A Clockwork Orange, it is basically
1.66:1, and that is how he shot it in the camera, but from time to time
you'll see that there is a slight shift in his aperture (thus slightly
affecting the aspect ratio.) And that is just how he shot it, and what
Stanley had always wanted was a video version of his film as he shot it
in the camera, not necessarily how it was projected. That was very
important to him. And he did not particularly like 1.85:1.

DF: Well, to take The Shining as an example again, many are distracted
in the opening sequence by the infamous "helicopter blades." Because the
video is not matted, you can see the helicopter blades at the top of the
shot. Some have taken this to be "evidence" that Kubrick's preferred
compositions were not be transferred properly to home video. To be
honest, I, too have often wondered about this and am distracted by those
helicopter blades! (laughs)

LV: That's just how he wanted it. And the helicopter blades, for him,
well...for him, they were totally inconsequential. If I can just say to
you, that for Stanley each shot, each scene, stood for itself as a
composition. And if he liked something in that shot, he would use it
regardless of aspect ratio. I could probably catalogue for you plenty of
things like the "helicopter blades syndrome" which are in his films. But
if he liked the acting, or let's say there was a particular sound that
he liked, if there was some kind of extraneous noise and it was just
there and there wasn't anything you could do about it but he liked the
actual take, he would use that anyway. And that is how he approached his
work.
With A Clockwork Orange, now in multiplexes - and I think it is terrible
- you can only really project it in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. If you project A
Clockwork Orange in 1.85:1, it kills it, it really does. It was composed
for 1.66:1 and that is how it should look.

DF: I think some confusion is due to the fact that films like The
Shining and Eyes Wide Shut were shown theatrically in 1.85:1...but not
on video.

LV: That is because at the time (of The Shining) 1.85:1 was becoming an
industry norm in the United States, so what he did was, he shot his
original negative, then he made the interpositive, then for theatrical
release he would mask the interpositive, which meant he still had the
original negative in full frame. (Editor: This is sometimes referred to
as "soft matting," where you only mask prints or matte a full frame film
via the projector, instead of "hard matting" the original negative.)
This was also very important to Stanley. He was very conscious of the
fact that you lose I think 27% of your picture when it is matted to
1.85:1. He hated it, he didn't find it satisfactory. He liked height.
(laughs)

----

Also on the transfers:

DF: When it came time to do the transfers, did you use the old elements
or did you go back and strike new prints? Did you do any restoration to
the original materials?

LV: I'll tell you what we did, we effectively killed two birds with one
stone. We took the original negatives, some of which - and I'm sure you
can understand by their age - were badly battered. We took them to a lab
called Y/C Cinema where they actually worked through the each title
frame by frame. And where they could remove the dirt and blemishes,
they'd remove it. Then we projected it and made a "check print," looked
at it, then I would time the negative so we get the correct color
balance, contrast and density. Then, what I would do was make a new
interpositive element, which timed correctly to the timings that should
have been on the original negative.
Then we took that interpositive and scanned it in on a Spirit
(telecine.) The beauty of it (the Spirit) is that because it is not a
"tube" (Editor: An old analog type of telecine) it is digital, and you
only had to put the element up once. Thus, you did not risk have to risk
damage by putting it up repeatedly, which you had to do with the tube,
like a Rank telecine or other such systems. So that is the beauty of
this whole thing, that once it has been scanned in, I can work with it
as I did in the digital realm dozens and dozens of times without ever
having to risk that element going up again. Then we put it on to
high-definition tape, and aside from (authoring) the DVD, it is ready
for high-def and doesn't have to be done again.

[Back to original message]