Stanley Kubrick Collection

[Oedipax]

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?

16x9 is basically correct, however your TV might offer an additional option that eliminates any overscan (slight zooming) of the 16x9 image. On my Samsung LCD it's called "Just Scan." I leave it on that all the time, unless I'm watching a 4x3 DVD.

[Nothing]

Re: the colour timing, the Kubrick-supervised laserdisc transfer is in agreement with the DVD:

There is just enough blue to bring out the centre of the frame and lend a lyrical quality to the image, whereas the BD is just a flat and murky green... I've no idea what other grading lapses permeate the film, but this is yet-more evidence that the BD has been handled without due care (remember, Jan Harlan and others didn't even want to release it a year ago, thinking it wouldn't make them enough money).

[matrixschmatrix]

Honestly, the Blu is available now- would you watch it, instead of making all your claims based on screencaps?

[Nothing]

"claims".

Yes, screencaps tell us nothing because, of course, the framing and the colour timing magically correct themselves during their journey down the HDMI cable.

I'm not going to bless WB's mistreatment of the film with one penny of my money, I'm afraid.

[frankiecrisp]

"claims".

Yes, screencaps tell us nothing because, of course, the framing and the colour timing magically correct themselves during their journey down the HDMI cable.

I'm not going to bless WB's mistreatment of the film with one penny of my money, I'm afraid.

I expect Warners shares to go into freefall because your not blessing this excellent Blu-ray.

[Nothing]

That's not the point, is it. But it's good to know that the BD is excellent, thanks for clearing that up #-o

[bringmesomechemicals]

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.

I just happened to notice that Barry Lyndon is Amazon.com's #12 bestselling blu-ray at the moment. Though this doesn't necessarily portend a future feature-packed release, it can't hurt. Lolita is a more modest #45.

[AALFW]

Got my Blu-ray editions of Lolita and Barry Lyndon today.

Is it just my copy of BL, or is there a kind of partial audio-drop at a cut at 1:36:14? Anybody else notice this? I dusted off my DVD and there's no drop on that disc (the segment in question is at 1:36:12-13 there).

Only played my Blu at Dolby 5.1, did not try it through my TV speakers.

[Roger Ryan]

Is it just my copy of BL, or is there a kind of partial audio-drop at a cut at 1:36:14? Anybody else notice this? I dusted off my DVD and there's no drop on that disc (the segment in question is at 1:36:12-13 there).

You're referring to the cut outside as Lady Lyndon leaves the card party, right? No problem with my Blu-ray. Now the room ambient noise drops out completely at that point, but that's intended since we're cutting to an exterior shot. The on-going score continues without any perceived shift in level.

[AALFW]

Is it just my copy of BL, or is there a kind of partial audio-drop at a cut at 1:36:14? Anybody else notice this? I dusted off my DVD and there's no drop on that disc (the segment in question is at 1:36:12-13 there).

You're referring to the cut outside as Lady Lyndon leaves the card party, right? No problem with my Blu-ray. Now the room ambient noise drops out completely at that point, but that's intended since we're cutting to an exterior shot. The on-going score continues without any perceived shift in level.

That's the cut. And there was a very brief but very noticeable drop in the music (non-diegetic). I'm going to try it again today through my TV's speakers (as opposed to surround) and see what happens... but I'm afraid it looks like I have a uniquely faulty disc, if I'm the only one affected.

Fiddlesticks, indeed.

[Faux Hulot]

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 once tried to explain the concept of letterboxing to my sister, how it represents the creator's intentions by respecting the integrity of the original composition. I even drew her a little picture to show how much is lost by pan-and-scanning. She looked at me blankly and said, smugly, "I can tell what's going on. I like the picture to fill up the whole screen."

](*,)

[domino harvey]

Aspect ratios are my default "lesson" when people fond out I was a film studies major and request I teach them something. It works perfectly with a restaurant napkin, actually. It is amazing how many people really don't have a clue about 'em

[Zot!]

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 once tried to explain the concept of letterboxing to my sister, how it represents the creator's intentions by respecting the integrity of the original composition. I even drew her a little picture to show how much is lost by pan-and-scanning. She looked at me blankly and said, smugly, "I can tell what's going on. I like the picture to fill up the whole screen."

](*,)

Yeah, philistines like to pretend that one is being an elitist, but the 4x3 to 16x9 stretch is literally nauseating, even P&S is much preferable. No wonder ugly people get laid, some folks just have no sense of a pleasing composition. I think the best example you can do is with something like the Last Supper, which every Da Vinci Code fan is familiar with and show them how squeezing and cropping it would ruin that stupid book.

[zedz]

No wonder ugly people get laid

Analogy of the week, Zot!

[swo17]

Maybe I need to try out that napkin thing. It seems like every time I try to fix someone's widescreen TV to display 4:3 material properly I get a response like "If you say so," "No one notices that stuff but you," or my personal favorite: "Please don't make me watch my TV this way."

[Michael Kerpan]

I once tried to explain the concept of letterboxing to my sister, how it represents the creator's intentions by respecting the integrity of the original composition. I even drew her a little picture to show how much is lost by pan-and-scanning. She looked at me blankly and said, smugly, "I can tell what's going on. I like the picture to fill up the whole screen."

I had virtually the same conversation with MY baby sister -- all the picture drawing and calculations in the world were useless (and she's the one with an engineering degree).

[knives]

The funniest such incident I can think of is trying to explain the concept to one of my older friends who was just impervious to the concept. His parents overheard the conversation and said, "Like Cinemascope?" Even after his parents got it he was still playing confused.

[matrixschmatrix]

With the 4:3 stretching- it usually does that strange concave lens thing where the figures in the middle look normal, and the real stretching happens off to the edges, which I think is why people so often don't notice it. If you had everyone's face stretched waaay out, it would be immediately obvious, but people's attention seems like it's usually drawn to the middle- particularly on things composed for TV- so it seems easier not to notice the weird shit happening on the sides.

I use a projector, so a lot of the time it's unclear to me exactly how to set other people's TVs to show things in whatever ratio they're meant to be- particularly since so much TV seems to be shown in non-anamorphic widescreen, so people have it set on zoom all the time.

[Murdoch]

The horizontal stretching is most noticeable when the camera pans, as everything along the sides stretches out, then returns to normal in the middle of the frame, then stretches out again on the side. It's like a funhouse mirror, and why I never watch movies on AMC, I'm amazed when someone watching with me doesn't notice.

[Gregory]

@ matrixschmatrix and Murdoch:
If that's true, I'm a little surprised. I've seen 4:3 broadcasts stretched to 1.77:1 countess times and every time, the people look evenly stretched out in the middle of the screen. They all have a consistently obese/mutated look, and the few times I've raised the issue with "casual observers" they've seemed oblivious and unconcerned with such obvious distortion.
I thought the uneven stretching at the edges was exclusive to weird devices like the Philips 21:9-ratio displays.
Anyway, I've played around with settings on some of these cheaper displays and it seems like there is often no setting that will prevent stretching or cropping no matter the aspect ratio of the source.

[Peacock]

My family are so used to watching things stretched that its been amusing to see their reactions since we got a projector/cinema room recently. My mother told me she'd tried watching Rob Roy (her favorite film of all time) projected but there was so much black, that the picture was tiny. I explained that's how it was shot, that on a 16:9 screen there will be black at the top and bottom, but she retorted - it wasn't like that on the plasma. I said the projector forces you to watch things in the right ratio (not sure if this is true, but I have to teach them somehow!), she then decided she'll just have to do without seeing the film then as the amount of black is distracting!

I really do believe that the vast majority of people just want the screen filled, no matter the cost.

[swo17]

They really should have made the widescreen TV standard something more like 2.4:1 so that wider ratio films would actually look wider instead of filling out to a certain point and then just losing height to maintain the ratio. Also, presumably people would realize that this doesn't look right:

Spoiler

[domino harvey]

Horizontal stripes just are not flattering

[scotty2]

Funny how the black kind of disappears when the movie is watched in darkness, as in a theater. I think a lot of people just don't create that kind of environment when they view a film, so they notice the black bars more.

[Brian C]

Funny how the black kind of disappears when the movie is watched in darkness, as in a theater. I think a lot of people just don't create that kind of environment when they view a film, so they notice the black bars more.

This is, presumably, why the cinema exhibition industry invented "masking" - so that the screen is actually filled.