Naranja Mecanica R4

[negrabarba]

Me las encontre a un precio decente y compra ambas. Ayer intente ver la pelicula en wide y la vi estirada, le cambie a full y mejoro bastante aunque aparecen las barras negras arriba. Como se debe setear esta pelicula?

Es OAR, creo que Kubrick la filmó en 1.33:1 directamente. Así que Full Screen es su formato nativo. Por ahí debe estar toda la discusión de esas películas y el formato. Déjame ver...

Be aware that for the past thirty years or more the majority of mainstream Hollywood films have been shot at a 1.33:1 ratio (or OCN, original camera negative) and then cropped or matted for theatrical release (or TRS, theatrical release size or TED, theatrical exhibition dimension). The reason for shooting at 1.33:1 is to enable the director to edit the film size later, cutting out whatever material is extraneous at the top or bottom of a frame. It's also cheaper to matte later than to reshoot scenes that must capture exactly the right material in each frame of a widescreen camera.

It is not uncommon for a studio to matte the original 1.33:1 camera negative to widescreen and then to further cut up the widescreen into a pan-and-scan rendering. Yikes. A studio could have on hand three different filming dimensions of a single frame. This is why on many DVDs that contain both a so-called fullscreen and a widescreen version of a film, the fullscreen actually shows more information at the top and bottom of the screen, with little or no loss of information at the sides. They're sometimes giving us the OCN.

I've mentioned before that Stanley Kubrick considered the 1.33:1 shots of his later films their "original aspect ratio," even though his films were always matted for theatrical distribution. But it's why he insisted his later films be transferred to DVD in what he considered their OAR, which was 1.33:1.

Generally speaking, then, OAR refers to the dimensions of a film as it was originally projected during theatrical distribution, but keep in mind that the OCN, the TRS, and the TED could also come into play, not to mention the TBS, the TBA, and the NFL.

We at DVD Town believe that a film should be viewed in the home as it was seen in a theater. That's the whole point of a "home theater." Unless you're Stanley Kubrick.

http://dvdtown.com/messageboard/topic/3/2620/

Si, creo que Kubrick filmaba en 1.33:1. Con excepción de Espartaco.

A ver de nuevo, ya encontré una mejor referencia

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_repo...ick_2.html

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.

Tons, hay que verla en 1.66:1. Ya ves, a Kubrick no le gustaba el Widescreen.