criterionforum.org

Peacock wrote: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.

And these are the same people who somehow manage not to notice DOGs and IPPs on TV broadcasts. Those things drive me insane...

Well, there's a difference between the "Expanded" view found on most TVs (slightly cropping the top & bottom of a 4:3 image and stretching the sides to fill a 16:9 screen) and simply stretching the 4:3 image evenly across a 16:9 screen. The former requires that the viewer is actually aware that the image is going to be compromised and is willing to allow the TV to tinker with the image to have it fill the screen. The latter can be found on every widescreen TV installed in every restaurant, bar, airport and hotel I've been to over the past ten years, and is proof that most people just don't care if the image looks good. Even the big box stores (as they're called in the U.S.) used to show 4:3 programming stretched to 16:9 on the widescreen TVs they were trying to sell (when they were not showing the latest Pixar movie). "Look how beautifully this new product destroys the image" seemed to be part of their sales pitch.

These days there is a new enemy which is 120 Hz refresh (or higher) and its conjoined twin which goes by several alias such as "TruMotion" or "MotionFlow". These evil mothers' job is to make all film-based material (and HD-shot material trying to approximate film) look like it was shot on a cheap video camera. Going into an electronics store, you suddenly wonder why THE SOPRANOS looks like a soap opera or why INCEPTION resembles community access programming. Ostensibly designed to reduce flicker and "smooth-out motion", these "enhancements" are often the default setting for any new TV. It's all you see in the stores and most of my friends and relatives never think to turn this setting off. I lecture them constantly about how the image is being degraded, but they like how "real" the picture looks! #-o

Suffice to say, Kubrick would be aghast at how consumers watch his films today.

thedigitalbits have announced that next year will see new editions of Lolita and Full Metal Jacket:

Lolita: 50th Anniv. SE (2012), Full Metal Jacket: 25th Anniv. SE (2012)

Warner's just wants to annoy everybody, huh?

Can't wait for the 1.66:1 Barry Lyndon release in 2015

knives wrote:Warner's just wants to annoy everybody, huh?

The Kubrick estate has been amazingly consistent on one thing: DVD (and now Blu) repackages.

I think it's ultimately up to Warner Bros., not so much the Kubrick Estate.

At least we didn't get this.

BluBrew has a comparison between the Clockwork Orange Anniversary Edition Blu-ray and footage sourced from the new 4K restoration of A Clockwork Orange.

This 4K restoration footage comes from the documentary 'Turning like Clockwork' which is included on the Anniversary blu-ray.

Wow. HUGE difference. That's just total bullshit - they popped in the 4k restoration for the bonus doc, but they couldn't drop it in for the main feature?

I don't know what to make of this. It's insulting. Not that I had Warner in high esteem, but this is a farce. Knowing them, it's pretty clear they're holding out the new restoration for yet another edition in a year or two - maybe sooner, who knows. One thing for sure: I'm done with multiple dipping on Kubrick titles. Enough is enough. I don't care how good the new editions will be - it's over. I'm tired of Warner laughing in people's faces.

Guys, I don't see what the problem is here, it would have taken them a whole afternoon to replace the main feature with the 4K restoration, I'd rather get my Anniversary Edition with brand new extras sooner.

This makes me glad that I *didn't* order the big box set or any of the Warner Kubrick Blu-rays. I can easily wait a couple more years until the dust has settled and the remastered editions are out. There are plenty of other Blu-rays to enjoy in the meantime, not to mention fine food, the outdoors and the company of friends.

broadwayrock wrote:BluBrew has a comparison between the Clockwork Orange Anniversary Edition Blu-ray and footage sourced from the new 4K restoration of A Clockwork Orange.

This 4K restoration footage comes from the documentary 'Turning like Clockwork' which is included on the Anniversary blu-ray.

At the risk of reviving the Kubrick aspect ratio thing AGAIN, the 4K restoration caps show that the film has apparently been cropped to 16x9 (missing information on the top and bottom).

When they showed the restoration at MoMa it looked like 1.66:1. Could be wrong, it's not like I measured the damn screen, but those caps were taken from the doc, and if they made the doc at 16x9 (which is likely), I wouldn't be surprised if they blew up the 4k restoration to fit the doc's aspect ratio since the cropping wouldn't have been "moderate" compared to, say, an academy ratio film.

mfunk9786 wrote:I think it's ultimately up to Warner Bros., not so much the Kubrick Estate.

definitely disagree with that

This is very interesting - the 4k restoration of ACO has very similar grain/detail to the Barry Lyndon transfer - AND... it appears to have been cropped to 16:9...

It's possible this was just done for the doc, but also possible that Warner went ahead and telecined the film at 16:9, without paying due care and attention to the OAR, and the estate refused to sign off on the transfer (why else wasn't it utilized for this new edition?) However, the estate consented to a similar butchering of Barry Lyndon, either believing that the aspect ratio was correct or that it wasn't significant enough to raise a fuss (especially if the alternative Warner were offering was no HD release - ie. no money! - at all... This might even explain Vitali's foul attitude in interview...)

No.

Nobody at WB MPI or any other respected telecine house (which would do ACO) would harvest the image at less than the full exposed area of the negative.

You don't know what you're talking about.

movielocke wrote:No.

Nobody at WB MPI or any other respected telecine house (which would do ACO) would harvest the image at less than the full exposed area of the negative.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Is that true? So the resulting 4k scan of a matted widescreen movie is considerably lower resolution than that of a academy movie once ultimately cropped? It doesn't sound right.

Why don't they resolve the Kubrick controversy by releasing a disc with more than one version of the films, each in a different aspect ratio, the same way that special editions will feature multiple cuts? Is it cost-prohibitive?

onedimension wrote:Why don't they resolve the Kubrick controversy by releasing a disc with more than one version of the films, each in a different aspect ratio, the same way that special editions will feature multiple cuts? Is it cost-prohibitive?

It's Warner. It's probably not cost prohibitive, not for such a studio. But it would just prevent an other Ultimate edition to see the light of the day ! :-"

movielocke wrote:No. Nobody at WB MPI or any other respected telecine house (which would do ACO) would harvest the image at less than the full exposed area of the negative. You don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know Warner's particular internal policy on this matter, no. I'm guessing you do, hence the ridiculously defensive attitude (are you the telecine op who distorted Barry Lyndon from 1.73:1 to 1.78:1 perchance? Talk about 'respected'...). However... it wouldn't be unknown to 4k telecine a soft matted 35mm feature at 1.66:1 or 1.77:1, as this would represent a significant saving of space - ie. saving money and making the data easier to handle. And even if the 4k telecine captured the entire negative (more likely, I'll admit), if the subsequent HD-SR reduction was cropped to 16:9 this itself is an expensive process and isn't something Warner would necessarily be happy to re-do, especially on a speciality title like Barry Lyndon (which almost didn't receive an HD release at all, according to Jan Harlan's comments last year).

I picked up the Kubrick Blu-ray set over the weekend and popped in Barry Lyndon last night for a quick look-see. I didn't want to stay up too late, but couldn't help it. It looks absolutely fantastic; some of it looks like it was shot yesterday. I've seen Lyndon many times on DVD as it's one of my favorite Kubrick films and I didn't notice anything wrong with the Blu-ray. For those on the fence, don't be. The Lyndon transfer is a thing of beauty and I see nothing to complain about. On the contrary, it's a cause for celebration. What a gorgeously hypnotic film!

Not to open healed wounds, but AnyDVD just updated, so I can finally get blu-ray caps of Barry Lyndon. This is as close a match as I could manage between DVD and Blu:





You can see that the blu does lose a tiny bit of information from the top and bottom, and it does look slightly stretched horizontally. The difference in PQ obviously speaks for itself. If anyone wants any other comparisons, I'd be happy to make them.

With regards to those who claim that Warner's telecine ops are 'true professionals', that the image couln't possibly be stretched, etc, they should perhaps consider that if this ISN'T stretched it means that every other transfer of the film, from 1980 through to 2001 (incl. the 1990 lasterdisc transfer and the 2001 DVD transfer, which have a very similar framing) is squeezed. That vertical pan and scanning has also been utilized here should confirm for anyone with half a brain that an agenda has been pursued here to squish the film into a 16:9 aspect ratio by whatever means necessary.