Stanley Kubrick Collection

[matrixschmatrix]

So, pro: it largely looks fine, there's evidence that it's generally within the constraints of Kubrick's wishes, and the difference between this and what is apparently the ideal ratio is only about 7% of the screen

Con: Nothing seems really convinced this is wrong

[Nothing]

justleblanc - you appear to be skirting around the point. Where is your evidence of a surround or stereo mix existing for The Shining or Full Metal Jacket prior to the 2001 DVD re-masters (upon which all of your observations appear to be based)? Mono means mixing to a single front channel in the dub, which, for the optical Dolby Stereo soundtrack format (SVA) in common use in theatres in the 1980s, would then be printed identically to both tracks in equal balance so that the surround decoder in the theatre sends the entire mix to the front channel as desired. In other words yes, original prints of The Shining and Full Metal Jacket are of course SVA encoded, but with a mono mix that contains no left, right or surround information.

So I don't think these particular anecdotes disproves Vitali...

But you're forgetting that's he's already disproved himself by claiming that the film has always been released in the 1.78:1 ratio on home video - whereas, as we all know, all previous releases were either 1.59:1 or 1.66:1, including the laserdisc transfers that Kubrick himself approved. By far the most likely and logical conclusion therefore is that Vitali has confused 1.66:1 and 1.77:1 in his mind and, believing that to be the correct ratio, has imposed 1.78:1 on this new release without properly checking it or comparing it to the previous masters.

The point of my visual comparison above, btw, was to highlight the difference between the three later films, which were optimised for 1.85:1, and Lyndon which, like A Clockwork Orange and Lolita, looks best at 1.66:1. None of these tired arguments about opening up the mattes for home video apply to Lyndon - and, in his banging on about North American theatrical ratios, Harris (a well known studio shill these days, eg. the Disney BD re-colourizations) seems to forget that Kubrick had been living in England for over a decade, where 1.66:1 was prevalent. If, as Harris seems to be arguing, Kubrick would not compose a film for 1.66:1 after 1953, then how does he explain Lolita and A Clockwork Orange?

Alright... the film probably looks "okay" at 1.78:1 - that is, if you've got a projector/display that can eliminate overscan - however it would look optimal at 1.66:1, something even Harris concedes, and I refuse to subscribe to the idea that we should ignore both the evidence of our own eyes and the masters that Kubnck himself approved, just because God has Spoken.

Speaking of whom, a poster on Kenny's blog recalls this quote (which sounds familiar, perhaps from a HTF chat of old?):

Barry Lyndon was released theatrically in 1.66:1, even in the U.S. since Kubrick insisted on 1.66 hard mattes being sent to the various theatres showing the film (1.85 is the common "flat" widescreen ratio in the U.S.)

If this quote can be sourced it should be conclusive, surely.

Edit: One further act of sacrilege: apparently they've removed the original Saul Bass WB logo from the head of the film

[EC666]

From Baxer's bio: "Once the film opened in the West End [of London], Kubrick's interest in how it was received became even more intense. Five minutes into one of its first screenings at Warners' flagship Leicester Square cinema, a Kubrick assistant burst into the manager's office and demanded that the film be stopped and restarted, as the projectionist was showing it in the 1.85:1 ratio, not the 1.66:1 ratio which Kubrick preferred. When the manager declined, the assistant responded with the familiar wail, 'But what am I going to tell Stanley?' "

Julian Senior, publicity director, from the Ciment bio: "He believes that every essential question can be answered through logic and common sense. I recall very clearly that, at the time of A Clockwork Orange, we drew up together what we jokingly referred to as a 'memory jogger' on releasing a film: how many prints should be made, how many trailers, does every cinema possess a projector with a 1.66 mask, do the TV networks prefer video or film, etc." (N.b., the Clockwork disc is in 1.66.) On Lyndon specifically: "For Barry Lyndon it was very important—given the experiments in lighting—for the projection equipment to be the best possible. Of course, we had neither the means nor the authority to replace them all, but what we discovered from checking all the principal cinemas in France and Germany was that two-thirds of them didn't have a 1.66 mask, something that costs no more than a few pounds. The projectionists told us that the image would overlap a little on the sides. So Kubrick's assistants had all the projectors equipped for a decent screening of the film—and at the same time for every other film!"

Listen, the film looks better in 1.66, more alienating, more like a Gainsborough canvas. Warner is trying to rewrite history. They already gumked up The Shining Bray composition. Too bad George Lucas isn't a head at Warner, so we can get twenty versions of these films and pick which we want.

[Nothing]

Hmm, okay, so looking at the 2001 re-issue things aren't perhaps as clearcut as they might appear. The BD offers significantly more information on the left and right, which may mitigate the problem with the aspect ratio. The top edge looks pretty much identical, however where there does seem to be some significant loss is on the bottom edge.

If anyone can manage it, I'd love to see captures from the BD disc showing the beginning and end of the first shot of the British army marching at c.6m16s into the film. Whether or not their feet are visible at the beginning + the feet of the watching crowd at the end of the zoom should determine whether or not there really is a significant problem with the new transfer.

[MichaelB]

I can't do proper framegrabs, and I won't have access to the Blu-ray till after the kids go to bed, but I'll see what I can do.

[aox]

bluray.com on Barry Lyndon

[perkizitore]

Blu-ray.com on Lolita

[mfunk9786]

So it turns out that these releases are both fine and everyone can shut up now?

[Feego]

If it involves Kubrick and aspect ratios, people will never shut up.

[Gregory]

And whenever there is an issue with an aspect ratio that people are talking about, there's seldom any shortage of people who pop in just to suggest in one way or another that it's essentially a stupid thing to discuss and people should shut up, or to offer "funny" recaps or takes on the discussion that imply how silly it is. I've seen it happen again and again with aspect ratio discussions, but not with debates over color timing. Why is that?

[Nothing]

So quite a few old Vitali interviews circulating in relation to this controversy and there's a quote here that should be interesting to justeleblanc (who appears to have skulked away...):

the only film that he made (apart from Eyes Wide Shut, that was recorded in mono) in stereo, was 2001... All the other movies, what he understood was if they were going into cinemas, they may or may not have decent stereo sound... Even by 1987, some cinemas hadn't even looked at their sound systems for like ten years... His notion was better good mono than bad stereo.

[justeleblanc]

Nothing....

First, how can you say Vitali is not a reliable or trustworthy source, then use his words selectively when they corroborate your point?

Second, Kubrick may have MIXED his films in mono, but this is not the same as RECORDING his films in mono. There would be no reason Kubrick wouldn't record his films using Dolby's noiseless compaction matrix, as the frequency range and quality of sound was far better than previous mono recording technologies. Do you have enough evidence to suggest Kubrick did not record with Dolby's stereo technologies?

Third, most filmmakers knew that plenty of first run theaters had not switched over to proper stereo systems, so they would mix mostly everything to the front-center track. This would not negate certain sounds from being doubled in the rear-mono track as well, such as ambient noise. Kubrick could still have done just this. All the narrational information is still in the front-center speakers, but smaller sounds are simply doubled in the rear. Films that do this tend to have slightly more detailed ambient noise in certain scenes. As I mentioned earlier, both Shining and FMJ have far more detailed ambience in their films (I only watch these on my mono computer speakers) than do Lyndon and Clockwork. To me this suggests they were using Dolby stereo's noise reduction matrix. And Vitali's highly nuanced description leaves room for this explanation.

Fourth, if you are going to use your own observations as to whether or not a film should be in x or y aspect ratio, you need to be much more systematic. You are merely pointing to select shots and implying that a) the shot looks incorrect, because b) Kubrick would never frame a shot like that. First, you've primed yourself into thinking the aspect ratio is wrong, so perceptually more shots look wrong to you than to others, and each shot that you classify as wrong is suddenly more salient that those shots that look fine. Second, your argument is failing as you have not offered enough analysis of the entire BD, nor have you compared it to the compositional styles of his other films. Your argument simply carries too many evaluative and subjective assumptions to warrant further attention. Without more detailed analysis, continuing this argument is just a waste of time.

Finally, you seem to completely misunderstand that home experiences (whether Blu or VHS) are only traces of the theatrical experience, despite what the ads say. Color, sound, contrast, frame rate, picture size and location, lighting, and other factors differ heavily between the two, and do so to a greater degree if the film is older. For instance, do you actually think the vibrant color scale for WIZARD OF OZ's BD is an accurate representation of 1939 technicolor technology? Further, you assume that all theatrical experiences reflect the intentions of the filmmakers. This is simply not true. Aspect ratios might differ, the quality of the projection lamp might differ, certain screens are thicker and muffle the front-center speaker differently in varying theaters. And even prints can vary. Even if your BD could accurately reflect the theatrical experience without any variation (and this simple can not happen), to which theatrical experience should it reflect? How bright of a projector lamp should it assume? How loud should the volume be? How should you calibrate your TV to reveal the most accurate color saturation (as opposed to the most aesthetically pleasing)? etc etc etc.

[MichaelB]

If anyone can manage it, I'd love to see captures from the BD disc showing the beginning and end of the first shot of the British army marching at c.6m16s into the film. Whether or not their feet are visible at the beginning + the feet of the watching crowd at the end of the zoom should determine whether or not there really is a significant problem with the new transfer.

OK, here you go. They're not absolutely the first and last frames (too much of a faff to get absolutely precise on a Playstation 3), but they do accurately represent the composition before and after the zoom.





Stating the obvious, these are iPhone shots of the screen, not proper framegrabs - the perspective isn't that skewed, and the first shot isn't that blurry! In fact, you can't see black bars on the actual screen at all, though I deliberately left part of the TV in when cropping the photos to make the image composition clear.

Fourth, if you are going to use your own observations as to whether or not a film should be in x or y aspect ratio, you need to be much more systematic. You are merely pointing to select shots and implying that a) the shot looks incorrect, because b) Kubrick would never frame a shot like that. First, you've primed yourself into thinking the aspect ratio is wrong, so perceptually more shots look wrong to you than to others, and each shot that you classify as wrong is suddenly more salient that those shots that look fine.

I agree with this. I was instinctively on Nothing's side of this argument until I actually saw the Blu-ray with my own eyes - but after about 10-15 minutes of asking myself "would this look significantly different/better if the camera pulled out just a fraction?" and invariably answering "no", I forgot all about it and just started watching the film instead.

[Nothing]

how can you say Vitali is not a reliable or trustworthy source, then use his words selectively when they corroborate your point?

He isn't, but I find his admission here re: Eyes Wide Shut interesting (a comment made only 2 yrs after the film was released). Regarding Kubrick's choice of a mono mix for The Shining and Full Metal Jacket, this really is common knowledge and I'm sure you can find corroboration from many other sources.

Beyond this, you appear to have confused the 4-channel Dolby Stereo matrix in common usage in theatres during the 1980s with Dolby A noise reduction, which could be applied to mono, stereo and matrixed recordings in any number of different settings. A Clockwork Orange was the first film (ever) to utilise Dolby A noise reduction on the original production tracks, however all of Kubrick's films bar 2001 were recorded and mixed in mono (not "mostly everything", everything - a 1.0 mix). These two things have nothing to do with each other.

Vitali's highly nuanced description leaves room for this explanation.

Er... No it doesn't.

The 1999 US boxset is the only DVD release to contain Kubrick's original mixes, you do realise this, yes?

Re: the framegrabs - thanks Michael! I think these do almost confirm that the bluray release is actually fine (except, of course, for the absence of the original mono audio track ). Happy to be wrong in this case... The one remaining issue, however, is whether or not the picture has been vertically stretched to achieve the 1.77:1 ratio - or whether the original releases are vertically squeezed. It's one or the other, but which is it...? Thoughts? Hard to judge this one without actually owning the thing.

[Roger Ryan]

...The one remaining issue, however, is whether or not the picture has been vertically stretched to achieve the 1.77:1 ratio - or whether the original releases are vertically squeezed. It's one or the other, but which is it...? Thoughts? Hard to judge this one without actually owning the thing.

Actually, I believe the opposite is the assumption (according to "Feego" and the screengrabs). If they were reformatting a 1.66:1 ratio film, they wouldn't vertically stretch it and then crop it to 1.77:1; that would result in even more image loss. To my eye, the original DVD release appears to have been slightly vertically stretched (up-and-down) whereas the new Blu-ray looks more natural.

[GaryC]

2001 is the only multi-channel Kubrick-approved soundmix that I know of.

Did he approve the 6-channel sound mix used on the 70mm prints of Spartacus? I always presumed that he must have done, though could be wrong.

[Nothing]

Sorry, and Spartacus. Forgot that one as I don't really consider it a Kubrick film...

Actually, I believe the opposite is the assumption... To my eye, the original DVD release appears to have been slightly vertically stretched (up-and-down) whereas the new Blu-ray looks more natural.

A question of description (squeezed, stretched, and in which direction?!)... But anyway, if it is the BD that is correct then that's all well and good, HOWEVER... does it really seem likely that Kubrick's original transfer is the one at fault here?

Can anyone recall if there are any shots of spherical objects in the film? Globes, balls, the sun, the moon, etc? This would settle the matter unambiguously - perhaps even providing enough evidence for Vitali to recant, if the BD proves to be at fault.

[MichaelB]

The baby's eyes appear to be pretty spherical in this enlargement from one of the Beaver framegrabs:



...and, just to absolutely settle this, I superimposed some perfect Photoshop spheres over the eyes in question:

[Nothing]

Do BDs use square pixels, though? ie. will the aspect ratio be the same when viewed/projected as when captured on a computer? I'm ignorant on this point... Also, you've chosen such a small point of reference within the frame that it's still hard to judge for sure. Eg. the buttons on the coats in the beaver/blubrew grabs do look a little squished but they're also a bit small to judge really.

Are there any website reviews out there that have full resolution screen captures from the DVD?

[MichaelB]

That was a full-resolution capture - or rather, I took the 1920x1080 image posted by DVD Beaver and extracted the child from that. I originally posted the full frame, but that played havoc with the forum layout.

Photoshop also informs me that the pixels in DVD Beaver's images are square.

To be honest, I think I'm done with this discussion - I'm very happy with the Blu-ray, and all the evidence suggests that Warner have done exactly what was asked of them once the Kubrick estate requested a 16:9 aspect ratio.

[Nothing]

Mmm... I mean it needs to be a spherical object large enough that it'll show up on the earlier SD DVD transfers for comparison. But don't worry, I'm sure this will go on and on... The fact is, Warner have only done their job here if Kubrick previously fucked up and delivered a transfer that squished the image into the wrong dimensions - a complaint that has NEVER been raised in the 20 years since his approved version was first released on laserdisc, and considering also Kubrick's renowned perfectionism - so I'd say that's still a pretty big if.

Nb. quite a few of the Beaver / BluBrew captures show up in this trailer and the difference in proportions is quite obvious.

Evidence of stretching, if anyone is still in any doubt:

[Duncan Hopper]

Here's an incomprehensible diagram, it also means nothing.

[Nothing]

?

The image simply shows what happens if you proportionately scale down the BD and place it over the 2001 DVD (with 50% opacity). The two screengrabs align in the centre, but they fall out of phase the further you get to the left and right edges.

[feckless boy]

Hans-Christoph Steiner's score for Solitude, excerpt in 1.66:1. Beautiful isn't it?

[matrixschmatrix]

?

The image simply shows what happens if you proportionately scale down the BD and place it over the 2001 DVD (with 50% opacity). The two screengrabs align in the centre, but they fall out of phase the further you get to the left and right edges.

Given that the pistol is in two different positions, it seems unlikely that this is an exact match. Moreover, didn't you just spend the majority of the thread arguing that the previous releases of Lyndon had all been in 1:66, and that Vitali was untrustworthy based on his claim that they weren't?