criterionforum.org

Feego wrote:...Also, it appears that either the DVD image was vertically stretched or the Blu-ray was vertically squashed. I'm no expert on this, but the blu-ray image looks more accurate to me in this respect. The faces look a bit too thin on the DVD by comparison.

Given the potential for the DVD image to have been stretched somewhat, then it's possible that we're not losing quite as much info in the Blu-ray in the area above and below the yellow cropping lines or in the overlay posted by "Oedipax", right?

Just trying to look on the brightside

Thanks to you both for posting.

Well, there's no doubt that the image should be 1.66:1-shaped, but if it's either a 1.85:1 version or nothing, I know which I'd prefer. And it doesn't look as though the damage is too bad.

Anyway, I've ordered the box - I only had two Kubrick Blu-rays, and one of them was the US cut of The Shining, whereas the UK box will almost certainly contain the European cut.

Christ, the cropping destroys the composition imho What happened, where was Leon Vitali?!...

You know what I love about all of the endless Kubrick aspect ratio controversies? That the films still look absolutely fine in just about every ratio they've tried.

For virtually any wrong presentation of a film, there are inevitably lots of people to whom it looks absolutely fine. What's the relevance of that? Can you give one good reason why they should go against Kubrick's established preference, rather than doing the same thing they did with the Lolita BD?

The whole problem is that there's a lack of clarity as to what Kubrick's definitive intentions were with a lot of these films. Hence these reductive debates every time there's a new home video release of his films.

Is there such a debate for Barry Lyndon though?

Not only is there not such a debate for Barry Lyndon, it's just about the only one of Kubrick's post-1960s films about which there's no doubt whatsoever - the aspect ratio should unambiguously be 1.66:1.

But his last three films were primarily composed for 1.85:1, but designed so that they could be opened up all the way for 4:3 without causing any damage - so I'm completely happy with 16:9-framed versions of those. In fact, despite living with a 4:3-framed The Shining ever since I taped it off the television in the 1980s, I personally prefer the 16:9 framing of the Blu-ray: the compositions feel tighter. And of course you don't get the notorious helicopter shadow in the opening credits.

Oh, okay, thanks Michael.

Outrage justified (though I'll have to see some non-tree screengrabs before I decide if this screws up the film too much for me).

I wonder where they even got the notion to go with exactly 1.85:1. I could understand 1.78:1 so it would completely fill a widescreen TV (and even though I would be more opposed to this morally at least it would be closer to 1.66:1!) but the slightly wider ratio seems like a deliberate choice.

swo17 wrote:I wonder where they even got the notion to go with exactly 1.85:1. I could understand 1.78:1 so it would completely fill a widescreen TV (and even though I would be more opposed to this morally at least it would be closer to 1.66:1!) but the slightly wider ratio seems like a deliberate choice.

It is 1.78:1. I have the BARRY LYNDON Blu-ray disc in my possession and the image measures, like the framegrabs above, 1920x1080--or the native aspect ratio of HDTV, which is 1.78:1.

Despite Warner's typically erroneous cover claim of 1.85:1, BARRY LYNDON is most assuredly presented in screen-filling 1.78:1.

I just logged on to post exactly the same thing - my UK copy is also most definitely 16:9.

Well that explains it then. Worse crimes have been committed (and I'll still buy this) but this is the kind of OAR tampering that bothers me the most--complete disregard for authorial intentions mixed with a fearful pandering to the least informed consumers. At least with something like Touch of Evil, some research and/or respect for how the film looks best are taken into consideration when deciding how to present it (even if opinions differ on those matters and one of them gets sidelined in the end). At least Barry Lyndon wasn't meant to be in 1.33:1 though.

flmfrkcentral wrote:Despite Warner's typically erroneous cover claim of 1.85:1, BARRY LYNDON is most assuredly presented in screen-filling 1.78:1.

Not according to Glenn Kenny.

So...he's saying it actually is in 1.66:1? Those photos he posted are a little hard to compare, and he also doesn't say how his TV settings are formatted. I know the default setting on my plasma makes it impossible to tell the difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 but I can definitely tell the difference on my projector.

Quit getting tizzy'd

Can't you see the black bars on the side of the black frame of the black tv?

Though the tree stump does move us through the looking glass on this one. I am reserving judgment until I see the original, long form aspect ratio.

Tom Hagen wrote:Can't you see the black bars on the side of the black frame of the black tv?

No, I can't see the black bars. It just looks like the bezel of his TV. I need better photos, or actual screencaps, which would be more accurate if he really wants to show how right he is. And I'd be happy to have my fears and Warner's specs be wrong on this.

Though the tree stump does move us through the looking glass on this one. I am reserving judgment until I see the original, long form aspect ratio.

Oh, jeez, Kenny took the image from the heading above the article at Blu Brew, which is not supposed to be a representation of the framing of the Blu-ray. It looks like it's in CinemaScope or something. Lots of web pages require an image of certain exact dimensions at the beginning of a story. Red herring.
Here is the actual screencap from further down the page, if he'd bothered to look and be fair about it.

One more comment, I'm just going on the information I have and trying to verify what's correct. Kenny's whole tone seems to be: Come on, people, Jesus. I'm right, you're wrong.
Sounds just like what he's complaining about with Wells. I'll take Kenny's side over Wells in that little grudge fight, but I'd expect better than this from Kenny.

If Glenn Kenny's correct, and perhaps he is, then that's great news. I'm baffled as to what the hell went wrong with Blubrew's screencapping process, however. I'm not talking about the obviously cropped banner, I mean the full-res capture linked below the review. That part just doesn't make sense to me, since properly screencapping blurays is one of the basic requirements of review sites (unless you prefer the Kenny method - ahem).

Now, on to more pressing matters: how are you guys getting your copies a week ahead of the official release date?

Weird: Kenny's screen shows more at the bottom of the tree and rock wall compared to the full screencap, but a bit less at the top (compare the leaves at the upper right). So that comparison does make me wonder about those caps, but Kenny's post does little to clear up what's exactly going on, I'm afraid.

I am the author of the review at BluBrew and I can guarantee 100% that the blu-ray of Barry Lyndon has an aspect-ratio of 1.78:1 - as unfortunate as that might be.

We take great care in ensuring the accuracy of our screenshots, and unfortunately this blogger has misinterpreted one of our lay-out images as being a screenshot of the disc.

Sorry to disappoint.

Then why is there more of the tree and rock wall visible at the bottom of Kenny's TV compared to the screencap (the one I linked above, not the layout image that Kenny posted) ?

Gregory wrote:Then why is there more of the tree and rock wall visible at the bottom of Kenny's TV compared to the screencap (the one I linked above, not the layout image that Kenny posted) ?

Because that shot is not a direct match to the full image we posted, making a straight comparison in this case rather futile.

Lolita is presented in 1.66:1, Barry Lyndon in 1.78:1 - wish I could tell you otherwise.

The fact that this person is basing his findings on a cropped image from our lay-out, doesn't really aid in supporting his credibility. Not to mention that two members here (on the previous page) have also confirmed an aspect-ratio of 1.78:1 - based on their own findings.

The contrast differences (especially at the bottom) make it hard to tell, but I'm pretty sure there's no more of the wall or the tree in Kenny's photograph as compared to the BluBrew capture, and I think there might actually be a little less. And there's definitely information lost on the top and the right side. As BsRoz noted, the two frames aren't identical, so it's possible there's movement in the shot that accounts for the difference; it's also possible there's a calibration issue with Kenny's display that's causing him to lose parts of the image. I'm going to break out my Chungking Express BD when I get home to see if it matches what he's showing.