Aspect, The Shining was optimized for 1.85:1 but protected for 1.33:1. The film was designed to withstand these changes of aspect ratio, whereas Barry Lyndon was, in the words of Stanley Kubrick himself: "photographed in 1.66:1". And - surprise - the home video releases of Barry Lyndon appoved by Kubrick did NOT fill the screen, it has never filled the screen... until now.
Also, as I've said elsewhere, the whole idea of "Kubrick's wishes were he still alive" is a total Mcguffin. Unless you're George Lucas, the aim of any home video presentation should be to present a film as close to the way is was ORIGINALLY intended as possible, this is where the term ORIGINAL Aspect Ratio comes from - and the letter from Kubrick confirms without a doubt that the OAR of Barry Lyndon is 1.66:1. End of. And there was me thinking that the battle for OAR had been won a decade ago
swo: whatever game you're playing there, the gun-barrel is clearly fatter in the first image than in the second. If they're both from the DVD, that would at least explain why the colour timing is the same
Nothing wrote:Also, as I've said elsewhere, the whole idea of "Kubrick's wishes were he still alive" is a total Mcguffin. Unless you're George Lucas, the aim of any home video presentation should be to present a film as close to the way is was ORIGINALLY intended as possible, this is where the term ORIGINAL Aspect Ratio comes from - and the letter from Kubrick confirms without a doubt that the OAR of Barry Lyndon is 1.66:1. End of. And there was me thinking that the battle for OAR had been won a decade ago
Then your argument that the DVD should be considered definitive falls apart, since it also is not in OAR.
Nothing wrote:the gun-barrel is clearly fatter in the first image than in the second. If they're both from the DVD, that would at least explain why the colour timing is the same
And did you come to that conclusion with only one image open at a time like I asked? I'm not disputing that there is a discernible difference if you take measurements or do a side-by-side comparison, but that it's not enough of a difference to discern with the naked eye. Also, I never insinuated that the two screengrabs were from different transfers, just that one had been stretched by about 2% from the other. Also, I don't even actually remember at this point which one of them I really stretched, and I'm not sure that I care.
I never said the DVD was definitive. Lyndon should be presented on BD windowboxed to 1.66:1, as with A Clockwork Orange (which is also slightly cropped in comparison to the DVD).
Actually, that raises a thought - has anyone compared the Clockwork Orange and Lolita DVDs and BDs? Might provide some interesting comparative data.
swo - no, I looked at 'em both at the same time, sorry
Nothing wrote:Actually, that raises a thought - has anyone compared the Clockwork Orange and Lolita DVDs and BDs? Might provide some interesting comparative data.
I'm surprised you haven't heard of DVDBeaver. They're a website that takes screengrabs of DVDs and Blu-rays and compares them. Perhaps they might have the information you're looking for.
Here's the thing - when I go home tonight and suddenly decide I want to watch Barry Lyndon, which disc am I going to watch? My non-anamorphic DVD with the inferior picture quality that shows more of the exposed negative than the Blu-ray, but which I then have to decide whether I want to watch it in my 16:9 TV's standard 1:33:1 setting to see the whole image (creating a tiny picture with black bars surrounding it), or zoom it to fit the 16:9 frame, thus losing some information in the image anyway, or bizarrely stretching it OR my new Blu-Ray with the gorgeous picture that cuts off 3% of the top and bottom each, but creates a pleasing image that allows me to enjoy the movie without fiddling with settings and, despite the slight cropping, displays a more than pleasing picture which which to enjoy the story and experience of Barry Lyndon.
Nothing: as far as I can tell, nobody on this forum has said that Barry Lyndon should not be shown in 1:66:1. Warner Bros. and Leon Vitali have said that. Since none of us have the power or authority to put a new 1:66:1 transfer of the film into motion, it becomes a question of the lesser of two evils. Neither the DVD nor the Blu are optimal. In this case, I choose the Blu-ray. I'm not alone on this either (MichaelB). Anyway, as I've said in an earlier post, it could be a lot worse. As far as revisionism goes, this is pretty minor (though STILL disagreeable, don't get me wrong). What Criterion themselves (along with Storaro) did to The Last Emperor is much worse.
The important part is to know that the BD is not optimal. As a consumer you are now able to make an informed decision wheter that matters to you or not and what you want to do as a result. Which is obviously nice.
False dichotomy, Aspect. Watching 1.66 films on modern widescreen TV's looks absolutely splendid. No need to zoom or change to 1.33 full frame mode (why would you?).
I can take some comparison shots of the Lolita dvd/blurays when I get home.
Total speculation here, but perhaps Kubrick's aversion to presenting films in wider ratios on home video had to do with the fact that a widescreen image is supposed to impress you with how much wider it is than what you typically see on TV, whereas when you watch it on a 4:3 TV in the OAR, it makes the film look puny. (You now get this effect on widescreen TVs for any film with an appreciably wider ratio than 1.78:1.) I can't imagine it was the actual presence of black bars above and below the image that bothered him. I mean, there's always going to be something above and below the image in your field of view. A pane of black has to be the least distracting thing to see there.
swo17 wrote:Total speculation here, but perhaps Kubrick's aversion to presenting films in wider ratios on home video had to do with the fact that a widescreen image is supposed to impress you with how much wider it is than what you typically see on TV, whereas when you watch it on a 4:3 TV in the OAR, it makes the film look puny.
If I remember rightly, that was indeed part of the reason.
EC666 wrote:False dichotomy, Aspect. Watching 1.66 films on modern widescreen TV's looks absolutely splendid. No need to zoom or change to 1.33 full frame mode (why would you?).
I can take some comparison shots of the Lolita dvd/blurays when I get home.
Then be happy with the Lyndon dvd and forget the Blu-ray ever existed. But in my experience, some picture information is lost when watching non-anamorphic 1.66:1 on a 16:9 set, unless you perfect the settings. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. I don't really care though. There can be no argument that the resolution of the Blu is vastly superior to that of the dvd. The point is, the consumer has a choice, as Zot! said.
Aspect wrote:Then be happy with the Lyndon dvd and forget the Blu-ray ever existed.
Isn't that very cynical? It is a very apathetic stance to take. The work should be treated with respect and not brushed aside as though little "errors" can be ignored and "put up with". You either care about the film, or you don't. This middleground you suggest, however, is far more dangerous, in all things, not just art.
Aspect wrote:Then be happy with the Lyndon dvd and forget the Blu-ray ever existed.
Isn't that very cynical? It is a very apathetic stance to take. The work should be treated with respect and not brushed aside as though little "errors" can be ignored and "put up with". You either care about the film, or you don't. This middleground you suggest, however, is far more dangerous, in all things, not just art.
What? Why do I care what Warner thinks about the movie? They've released what is easily the best release of Barry Lyndon available on home video, so I bought it, and I've watched it. I would prefer if it were in 1:66, but it's not as though what I'm watching is so compromised as to be an insult to the movie- it's suboptimal, not shitty. I don't know why or how this turned into an ideological war (well, I do, but that's just sort of what Nothing does.)
EC666 wrote:Isn't that very cynical? It is a very apathetic stance to take. The work should be treated with respect and not brushed aside as though little "errors" can be ignored and "put up with". You either care about the film, or you don't. This middleground you suggest, however, is far more dangerous, in all things, not just art.
Aspect wrote:Then be happy with the Lyndon dvd and forget the Blu-ray ever existed.
Isn't that very cynical? It is a very apathetic stance to take...
It's also a little... inconsistent. Above, Aspect expressed dismay about the way Criterion released Last Emperor. So forget the Criterion releases and just be happy with the inexpensive, fairly-lousy-looking Optimum DVD that's in the original aspect ratio.
I don't think looking the other way over widescreen revisionism makes much sense, nor is it a "middleground" to tell people to go on watching some old non-anamorphic release when there's no good reason why the aspect ratio needed to become wider than 1.66:1. Not to mention that the DVD wasn't exactly the right ratio either.
I have a feeling that if this had happened to A Clockwork Orange, there'd be a hell of a lot more understanding of the dissatisfaction here -- and to me personally, Barry Lyndon is by far the more important film, so that's where my priorities are.
I think the real issue now is that when the film inevitably gets re-released in 2 or 5 or 10 years time, folks (including myself) don't want it to henceforth-and-for-eternity be stuck with this incorrect 1.78:1 aspect ratio and best way to try and guard against that is both to make as much fuss now as possible + to vote with your feet by not buying the disc. We've already achieved some limited success with the unearthing of this letter, something Warner/Vitali will hopefully find harder to disregard by the time the next release comes around.
Eh, fair enough. I'm not confident it will ever be released on Blu again, but if there's a special edition that fixes the aspect ratio (and hopefully adds some features) at some point, and it too only costs $15, I'll buy it happily. As it is, I have a much improved viewing experience of Lyndon, right now, for the price of seeing a shitty multiplex movie and some popcorn.
The trouble with the "don't buy the disc" argument is that it's much more likely to send a message to Warners that the film just isn't that popular and isn't worth a second edition - which is probably the opinion that they reached some time ago anyway.
But I'll very happily buy it again if they reframe it to 1.66:1.
And so would I. I don't think I've been inconsistent, cynical, or apathetic in my views at all. I understand the problem, but since I love (which is hardly a cynical or apathetic feeling) Barry Lyndon, I bought the Blu-ray. It's a phenomenal home viewing experience that is compromised in a very minor way. I'm sure we've all bought sub-par editions of films in the hopes they'd be reissued in better editions someday. As I said before, this won't be the last release of Lyndon and speculation on what those editions will look like is entirely hypothetical. With the release of the letter, I do agree that Warner might be convinced they made an error. Now, whether they rectify this in the near future or far future is anyone's guess. However, this current Blu-ray is what we have right now, and though it might seem apathetic to some, my love for the film easily trumps 3% image loss on the top and bottom when there are so many other elements of Lyndon to ponder and enjoy.
Is it normal for Amazon exclusives to have no option to buy/sell from their Marketplace? There's no way I'm ever going to try out the Barry Lyndon Blu-ray if I can't resell it on Marketplace if I decide I don't want to keep it. I don't understand the logic, as they'd earn a nice profit on the sale, as they always do.
Anyone have or heard about any technical issues with these discs? 2001, Lolita, and Dr. Strangelove played fine, but Clockwork and Eyes both grind to a stop about an hour in. This is consistent now for two different blu ray players, the latest with Dec. 2011 firmware.
