Stanley Kubrick Collection

[MyNameCriterionForum]

I'm still confused how Rosemary's Baby relates to all this

[MichaelB]

I'm still confused how Rosemary's Baby relates to all this

Kubrick is of Polish stock, and Polanski and Kubrick both worked with Gil Taylor in the mid-1960s. Do keep up.

[Nothing]

I must say, I'm a little surprised at how much trouble folks are having getting their heads around this...

It's not an exact frame match, no, I was working with what was available online. But just ignore the figures (and the leaves). Look at the wall and the trunks and branches of the trees - ie. the elements of this static framing which remain stable. To align the two images perfectly (other than the moving figures/leaves), you would have to squeeze the horizontal width of the BD down by 98%. I've even added some markers at the sides of the frame to make it easier to understand for the layman ](*,)

All DVD and laserdisc editions are 1.59:1 (Vitali incorrectly claimed they were 1.77:1), whilst the evidence would suggest that the prefered theatrical aspect ratio is 1.66:1 (or "1.75:1 at the widest", as Kubrick wrote in his projection note). What we have on the BD, precisely, is a 1.74:1 transfer stretched to fit a 1.78:1 frame.

[MichaelB]

I must say, I'm a little surprised at how much trouble folks are having getting their heads around this...

I'm having no problem getting my head round your argument in itself, but I'm having a major problem overcoming the fact that I really don't care - and I suspect the recent outbreak of blatant piss-taking means that I'm not alone.

I didn't watch the Blu-ray with an overlaid DVD image, and neither did I pause it repeatedly to make intricate geometrical calculations based on individual freeze-frames. I suspect if I did, while my wife might not divorce me there and then, she'd certainly cite it as evidence of unreasonable behaviour in any future petition.

The simple fact is that to someone who sits down to watch it without the aid of protractors, calipers and reference prints, the Blu-ray looks absolutely fine. In fact, it's the first video edition of Barry Lyndon that I've come across (others being an old Warner Home Video VHS, the 1999 and 2001 DVDs) that hasn't actively annoyed me to the point of affecting viewing pleasure.

[Nothing]

Okay, so this should make things even clearer... Download both images then lay them precisely on top of each other, switch between one and then the other and you'll see the problem immediately and very clearly:


Of course, if you don't mind watching a (literally) distorted version of the film then don't bother...

One might also add that the colour timing from the DVD framegrab is much more attractive, with the blue in the sky to offset the overall green dominance of the image.

[swo17]

What we have on the BD, precisely, is a 1.74:1 transfer stretched to fit a 1.78:1 frame.

It could also be the case that the BD transfer is proportioned accurately while the DVD features a 1.63:1 transfer squished to 1.59:1. Or some combination of the BD transfer being stretched and the DVD transfer being squished.

[Nothing]

Swo17, I considered that at first, but since Kubrick himself signed off the laserdisc/DVD version surely that's the one we should take as gospel. From the looks of things, WB couldn't even get the colour timing right on this latest release.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

There are two possible outcomes of this thread.
Firstly we have Nothing perched on a rooftop with a sniper's rifle (telescopic sights calibrated to 1.66:1 natch) or else we have the raw material for some Pinteresque stage play.

A cinema auditorium. Deserted save for two figures in the gloom.

Nothing.
It's squished. No doubt about it.
(Pause)
I know squished when I see it and that's squished.

Michael B.
According to you.

Nothing.
No, objectively. Look at the diagram.
(Pause)
That's squishing.
(Pause).
That's squishing in my book.

MichaelB
'In my book' is the same as 'according to you'.

Nothing.
You telling me you don't see squishing?

MichaelB
I'm tired.

Nothing
That Vitali
(BIG PAUSE)
What a Cunt.

[swo17]

Swo17, I considered that at first, but since Kubrick himself signed off the laserdisc/DVD version surely that's the one we should take as gospel.

Then again, 1.59:1 doesn't fit within the 1.66:1 to 1.78:1 range that I thought had been established as encompassing Kubrick's intentions, so it doesn't seem like we can unquestionably accept everything about the DVD transfer. In any case, we're talking about maybe a 2% stretching of the image, which, as people who have watched the BD seem to be saying, is more or less imperceptible. Also, others here probably know more about this than me, but I understand that very slight stretching of this nature is very common--compare for example Criterion vs. MoC's L'enfance nue, where one has clearly been stretched either horizontally or vertically compared to the other, but it's very difficult to tell which one is more accurate; in fact, both are likely within a range of proportionality that could be considered acceptable.

[GregT]

Here's how it appears in my copy of the Kubrick Archives book. Pardon the quality:

[Doctor Sunshine]

I don't think any proportion of distortion is acceptable but it seems to go unnoticed by professionals and laymen alike more often than other problems. Reviews almost never mention it. And how many of us have friends and loved ones that watch 4:3 shows and movies stretched out to 16:9 on their LCD screens like it's nothing. I just want to punch 'em. Punch my friends and loved ones right in the gut. Possibly with cameras in general capturing things a little differently than straight up human vision--the adding ten pounds thing--further distortion along similar lines may be less discernible but I was a little surprised by the laissez-faire response when the subject's come up before. Aspect ratio/cropping/tinting: sin; frame distortion: meh.

[Zot!]

Right, while I'm sure I would never have noticed either, I'd like to add a vote of thanks to Nothing's investigative research, as he does indeed seem to be correct. The picture appears to be marred both by aspect ratio and by distortion, and discussing such "minor" quibbles is certainly worthwhile. I don't know why he's being mocked as a malcontent.

[NABOB OF NOWHERE]

Right, while I'm sure I would never have noticed either, I'd like to add a vote of thanks to Nothing's investigative research, as he does indeed seem to be correct. The picture appears to be marred both by aspect ratio and by distortion, and discussing such "minor" quibbles is certainly worthwhile. I don't know why he's being mocked as a malcontent.

I totally agree. We need more tenacity and rigour on this forum and good old Nothing is just the man for the job.

[MichaelB]

And how many of us have friends and loved ones that watch 4:3 shows and movies stretched out to 16:9 on their LCD screens like it's nothing.

You have to be blind not to notice 4:3-to-16:9 distortion, at least when it's pointed out.

On the other hand, I seriously doubt that anyone could spot 1.74:1-to-1.78:1 distortion reliably by eye without actually taking measurements. And since normal people don't do this, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

[domino harvey]

That's fine as personal preference, but acting as though it is not in fact a distortion is peculiar-- though insulting those who care as being abnormal really sells it, I think

[Brian C]

That's fine as personal preference, but acting as though it is not in fact a distortion is peculiar-- though insulting those who care as being abnormal really sells it, I think

Except that, unless I've missed something, we have no idea if it actually is distorted - all we know is that it's different from the older transfer. I know Nothing's been getting around this by granting godlike perfectionism to Kubrick, at least when it serves his purposes, but the fact is that Kubrick himself almost certainly wouldn't have noticed "distortion" this minor had it been present at the time. We'd have to go back and compare to the original elements to know anything for sure, and I suspect that if we did that systematically with every DVD out there we'd find a lot more variance than a lot of us would guess.

In short, it appears to me that all Nothing has done is prove that two boxes of Cheerios taste slightly but almost imperceptibly different. That's probably good to know for posterity if nothing else, but he started off with the idea that this release needed to be torn down and he's clearly grasping at straws to do so (see also, his new comments about color timing being "more attractive" on the old version, which suddenly become authoritatively not "right" in his further comments).

[Michael Kerpan]

And , perhaps, MichaelB (among others) might be getting weary of the overly pugnacious _tone_ of nothing's niggling (whether accurate or not).

And seconding BrianC's comment above.

[matrixschmatrix]

For what it's worth, I have both the DVD and Blu-ray as of this afternoon, and I tried to make a head to head screencap that would actually be the same frame. Unfortunately, the Blu being brand new, AnyDVD can't decode yet and thus I can't get a screengrab- but eyeballing it, it does look like there is a slight stretch throughout the frame, with heads in the Blu being slightly wider than on the DVD. To my eye, the Blu looks more accurate.

[MichaelB]

Except that, unless I've missed something, we have no idea if it actually is distorted - all we know is that it's different from the older transfer. I know Nothing's been getting around this by granting godlike perfectionism to Kubrick, at least when it serves his purposes, but the fact is that Kubrick himself almost certainly wouldn't have noticed "distortion" this minor had it been present at the time.

I completely agree, especially as he'd almost certainly have been assessing this telecine from a CRT (would he have had any other option back then?), with all that that implies in terms of mild distortion introduced as a by-product of curvature of the tube. In fact, it seems to me to be much more likely that a digital HD scan to current standards would be less distorted than an analogue transfer made in the early 1990s.

Unfortunately, without an actual 35mm frame to hand, this can't be settled on the basis of the available evidence.

And , perhaps, MichaelB (among others) might be getting weary of the overly pugnacious _tone_ of nothing's niggling (whether accurate or not).

If I was genuinely tired of this, I'd have bowed out long ago - but I think there does come a point where nit-picking becomes more a case of anti-Leon Vitali point-scoring than demonstrating anything especially useful. For starters, has anyone here actually supported Vitali's comments? I certainly haven't - absolutely nothing about this discussion has changed my view that the ideal screening ratio should be 1.66:1.

[jedgeco]

At risk of derailing/reviving the aspect ratio hubbub, the UPS man just showed up with the Blu-ray box set. While I can't watch the discs at work, I must say that this is a really good looking set. Very well constructed and solid packaging, along with nicely bound book (although the content is a little sparse). Much better than the 1999 & 2001 retail-discs-in-a-cardboard-box set.

No regrets on the $40 I spent to upgrade after selling my old Blu-s and DVDs.

[manicsounds]

For me, not because of the ratio reasons, but I'm not buying the two new releases as they have no extras. It makes me wonder why they held off on these 2 discs for so long...

Then again, if you want to get into a bigger AR debacle, why doesn't Warner Brothers EVER use 1.85:1 on their releases? (DVD or BD) always opened up to 1.78:1....

Although it would be good if someone made a featurette called: "Kubrick: The Aspect Ratio Controversy" (obviously having it open ended....)

I guess I'll be waiting for "Anniversary" editions, as Clockwork got one, with a few upgrades. I'm still fine with the DVD boxset from a few years ago (the one without Lolita or Lyndon).

[matrixschmatrix]

I wouldn't hold my breath- the only new thing Clockwork got was the excellent but previously released Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures documentary, which isn't even in HD. They held off on Barry Lyndon and Lolita for this long because they didn't think they would be big sellers, and given the state of the home video industry at this point, I don't think they're going to be in a rush to re-release them again. It's not like there's a wealth of features on Lyndon that they'd already put on DVD that just needed an upgrade.

Also, the difference in picture quality on Lyndon is amazing, and its a movie that desperately needed it- you can pick out the expressions on individual faces in the huge crowd scenes, and the whole movie plays more smoothly for me- I can see camera moves that were invisible before, and subtleties of expression that used to be lost.

[MyNameCriterionForum]

Also, the difference in picture quality on Lyndon is amazing... I can see camera moves that were invisible before...

A little confused how that's even possible. Can you clarify or mention something specific? Not sure how picture resolution affects perception of camera movement, no matter how subtle.

[matrixschmatrix]

Well, particularly, some of the extremely, extremely slow camera pullbacks- they're visible in the DVD when I look back to it, but very difficult to see, because the edge of the frame is significantly less sharp.

[Drucker]

Since people are already discussing aspect ratios, if a DVD is the right aspect ratio, then what do you have to do to ensure the TV is as well? I got an LED TV the other week, and I think the people setting it up put it to default 16:9. Should I change that for my blu-rays and Criterions?