Stanley Kubrick Collection

[mckeldinb]

Well that's that, as far as I'm concerned. Vitali is wrong, and WHV is covering their collective ass. However, that still begs the question: is the BD overly cropped or geometrically stretched? I think it's the latter -- either way, one has to admit that it's a flawed telecine. (Still looks gorgeous though).

[Tom Hagen]

Ha! Even Kubrick's missives were in Futura!

[andyli]

geometrically stretched

Any proof of that?

[mckeldinb]

geometrically stretched

Any proof of that?

Not a shred, as I admitted (quoting two words of mine with no context is unfair). However, my eyes tell me that one of the two captures posted above suffers from geometric distortion. And here's what I originally wrote:

I suspect what happened was that it was matted to 1.66 and then geometrically stretched to 1.78. Doing an eyeball crop (not very scientific, I grant you) of the DVD capture above so that it matches the screen information in the BD cap, I got a 1.67 AR; whereas the BD cap itself is 1.78. Since there is obviously a difference in the geometry of the two images, I suspect that the proper 1.66 matte was used for the BD transfer, but then stretched to fill the 16x9 screen. Mind you, I'm completely guessing here, but this idea makes sense to me.

So my supposition is based on the fact that when I cropped the DVD cap to approximate the same frame as the BD cap, I got a 1.67 AR. Since it has now been proven that Kubrick's desired ratio was 1.66 and since the geometry of the DVD and BD caps clearly differ, I'm *guessing* that someone, somewhere at WHV got the bright idea to matte the frame according to Kubrick's wishes but then geometrically stretched the frame to fill in a 16x9 TV screen. The operative word here is "guessing."

What is not a guess is that somebody screwed up. Admittedly, a screw-up that doesn't affect my personal enjoyment of the movie, but as Gregory has already said, it's not a good idea to start down the slippery slope of reformatting for the TV screen.

BTW, I was initially all set to dismiss charges of telecine mistakes, but I feel the proof is incontestable at this point (the image has either been cropped beyond what Kubrick would have liked, or has been stretched... or some combination of the two).

[matrixschmatrix]

Well that's that, as far as I'm concerned. Vitali is wrong, and WHV is covering their collective ass. However, that still begs the question: is the BD overly cropped or geometrically stretched? I think it's the latter -- either way, one has to admit that it's a flawed telecine. (Still looks gorgeous though).

It certainly seems clear that Vitali was wrong in saying that the movie was never 1.66, but as I recall the aspect ratio he actually specifies is 1.75, which is within Kubrick's range- Vitali just argued that the difference between 1.75 and 1.78 was negligible. To some degree, I think the missive validates both sides: 1.66 is and always was optimal (though some of the DVD releases were specified as being in the 1.5 range, that doesn't match what is on my release), but the BD is pretty well within the acceptable parameters (I would challenge anyone, anywhere to distinguish between 1.75 and 1.78 by eye.)

I think it's pretty certain that it's not strictly a stretched 1.66 image- the loss of information at the top and the bottom makes that clear. Perhaps it's actually a 1.75 image minutely stretched to 1.78?

[mckeldinb]

I think it's pretty certain that it's not strictly a stretched 1.66 image- the loss of information at the top and the bottom makes that clear. Perhaps it's actually a 1.75 image minutely stretched to 1.78?

I would have thought that too, except that the DVD image is opened up to 1.58 (I just remeasured it, based on the DVD cap above). I think the difference in missing information is accounted for by going from 1.58 to 1.66; and the 1.66 to 1.78 is accounted for by a horizontal stretch. Though it could be the 1.58 isn't opened up, but a vertically stretched 1.66. Oy! I've got a headache. At any rate something's funny somewhere, and I wouldn't care that much (since for all intents and purposes the BD looks fabulous) except for the ramifications of possible future transfers.

[swo17]

I suspect what happened was that it was matted to 1.66 and then geometrically stretched to 1.78.

I tend to agree but I want to say it looks like Warner matted the BD to more like 1.75:1 (still "fulfilling Kubrick's wishes") and then stretched it slightly to 1.78:1 (fulfilling the wishes of people who like their TV filled up). They probably think they are geniuses for thinking of this.

In any case, yes, Warner clearly did wrong here, but nothing as egregious as cropping to 1.33:1 or, in the grand scheme of things, apartheid. Annoying, but not necessarily worth going without having the film in HD at all for, or filling nine pages of a message board over. And yet here we are. Honestly though, if all of the image from a 1.66-1.75:1 masking is there and its only been stretched to a miniscule degree, can any of you really tell the difference between the two images without using a ruler or something? One of these spoiled images is unstretched and the other is stretched by the difference between 1.75:1 and 1.78:1. Open them one at a time and tell me which one has been stretched.

SpoilerShow

SpoilerShow

[Brian C]

Try not naming your images '175' and '178', dude.

[Roger Ryan]

...Though it could be the 1.58 isn't opened up, but a vertically stretched 1.66. Oy! I've got a headache. At any rate something's funny somewhere, and I wouldn't care that much (since for all intents and purposes the BD looks fabulous) except for the ramifications of possible future transfers.

Doesn't this make the most sense since, logically, the film should have been hard-matted for it's initial laser disc and DVD releases at 1.66:1 per Kubrick's preference? Where is the logic in matting it to 1.58:1?

Oh, wait a minute...I suppose someone might have thought less visible black bars at the top and bottom might upset viewers less when displayed on 4:3 screens (and Kubrick didn't care). This would be the same thinking that resulted in a 1.78:1 image where no black bars will be visible on the sides when displayed on 16:9 screens!

Nah, I think the BD image looks more accurate and that the old DVD image was stretched vertically.

[Jameson281]

I suspect what happened was that it was matted to 1.66 and then geometrically stretched to 1.78.

No major studio masters a film that way. For widescreen movies, you scan the full frame, then "extract" 3 versions: the original aspect ratio; a 1.78:1 version (sometimes called "16 x 9 full frame"); and a 1.33 side-matted version you use for standard def downconversions.

[Nothing]

An infinite amount of care was given to the look of Barry Lyndon... all of this work is now in your hands... Barry Lyndon was photographed in 1-1.66:1 aspect ratio

Well that fucking settles it doesn't it (as if it wasn't already clear as mud)... And yet Vitali and Warners are still trying to deny the evidence in front of them. Wonderful.

geometrically stretched

Any proof of that?

We've been through this already, I did a numerical comparison in Photoshop (go back through the thread). In comparison to the Kubrick-approved laserdisc and DVD transfers, the BD has been cropped to 1.74:1 and then stretched to 1.78:1. The vertical framing has then been adjusted shot-by-shot within the crop, further emphasising that the film just doesn't work naturally at this ratio. And the new grading isn't accurate either.

[matrixschmatrix]

Actually, you said 1.74 before. Where are you getting those numbers?

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that if the previous releases were 1.59 or lower, your argument that they should be considered automatically definitive gets thrown out the window- the difference between that and 1.66 is nearly as large as the discrepancy on the blu.

[movielocke]

Stanley Kubrick's letter to projectionists on Barry Lyndon

Hey Nothing,

Out of curiosity, how come you are not screaming for an "X" to be on a few frames at the end of reel 3B?

Clearly Kubrick wanted it there, so it should be on the bluray, right? That's how it was theatrically.

[GaryC]

Stanley Kubrick's letter to projectionists on Barry Lyndon

I'm as certain as I can be, twenty-six years later, that that was the letter that was stuck inside the can of Reel One when we showed Barry Lyndon. I remember the bit about the foot-lamberts.

[MichaelB]

I don't think I ever saw the letter myself, but I've never been in any doubt about the theatrical aspect ratio of Barry Lyndon - and I assume this lack of doubt must have come from somewhere, as I was never anywhere close to being as certain about The Shining or Full Metal Jacket at the time!

In fact, until this recent kerfuffle, I'd always assumed this was the least contentious of Kubrick's films when it came to the aspect ratio.

Anyway, just to ramp up the entertainment value, Jeffrey Wells got in touch with Leon Vitali again, and this was the result. For what it's worth, I'm in general agreement with what appears to be a growing consensus that Vitali has screwed up - the 1.77:1 aspect ratio simply didn't exist in 1975, and while Kubrick was renowned and indeed notorious for unconventional thinking, he was also acutely aware of the technical limitations at the screening end.

On the other hand, if screwup it is, the Blu-ray disc has come out of it remarkably well - possibly because Kubrick's letter tacitly confirms that it should look OK at 1.75:1. Which would seem to be supported by the visual evidence.

[Nothing]

how come you are not screaming for an "X" to be on a few frames at the end of reel 3B?

Ah, it's Mr. "confirmation bias", pedalling water as fast as Vitali himself in a desparate effort not to concede defeat despite the now overwhelming evidence...

schmatrix - sorry, I meant 1.74:1 (1.738:1 actually), based on a precise comparison in Photoshop (images posted on p.31 of the thread if you want to do this comparison for yourself). The earlier home video editions were, as per all Kubrick-approved transfers, opened out to reveal the full camera negative.

Basically, either the new transfer is cropped from 1.66:1 to 1.74:1, stretched to 1.78:1 and pan and scanned OR, if we adopt the premise that it is all of the previous Kubrick-approved transfers that were distorted, the current transfer is cropped from 1.66:1 to 1.78:1 and then pan and scanned. Incorrect which ever way you look at it.

[swo17]

I will now make the dramatic reveal that of the two pictures posted here, it is the second one that has not been stretched. You couldn't tell, could you? (Unless you cheated and checked the actual dimensions of each framegrab.)

[Aspect]

You know what the best part of all this is? KUBRICK WOULDN'T CARE. This is a man who released full frame versions of The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut on VHS, not giving a flip if it wasn't the way it was shown in theaters. He liked to take advantage of the whole screen for home viewing, which at that time was, of course, 1:33:1. I grew up watching The Shining (probably 50 times throughout my youth, lol), and when I think about the film, I still imagine it in 1:33:1. Nevertheless, I've owned the widescreen version on both DVD and now Blu-Ray. Guess what? It's still the same film. Kubrick, even though he was very attuned to how his stories were presented via camera angle and aspect ratio, allowed for this leeway. There's little Danny Lloyd riding that tricycle down the hallways (thump... hmmmmm... thump... hmmmmm) and there's Jack staring maniacally into the camera. And it all looks great. Pleasing to the eye and just another of Kubrick's tools in presenting his stories including sound, music, light, blocking, actors, dialogue, etc.

Similarly, who's not to say Kubrick wouldn't want Barry Lyndon to fill up the frame for today's home viewers? Maybe he'd think to himself, "Well, most people have 1:78:1 available to themselves in their homes. Barry wouldn't lose any of its impact in that ratio. I actually dig that ratio quite a bit. Sure, what the hell, let's do it." Now, granted, he's dead, so clearly we can't know it for sure, but there are precedents for this kind of thinking on his part. Not only the three film mentioned previously, but also Dr. Strangelove. Who else had the first DVD release with the jumping aspect ratios? Who else didn't give a flying foofoo? The movie's awesome.

Kubrick was ahead of his time in allowing for variable aspect ratios in presentations of his films. Hence the letter which states 1:66:1 - 1:75:1 are perfectly acceptable. I think Kubrick would be laughing his head off at this whole "controversy" and tell people to shut up and watch how Barry heedlessly pushes forward with his wish to be high class, not caring about who he hurts or how he does it along the way. "Listen to the Handel," he'd say. "I couldn't have picked a better song for this film's score, could I?" No, Mr. Kubrick. Thanks for the film. And thanks for being mindful about the ways people would watch your films in the future and being flexible enough in your compositions to allow the whole screen to be filled, as you liked it when you were alive. Damn, Lyndon looks good any way you shake it, and is a clinic on how to compose for the cinema.

[swo17]

Welcome to the forum, president of Warners!

[Nothing]

the second one was from the DVD, was pretty obvious.

[EC666]

This is a man who released full frame versions of The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut on VHS, not giving a flip if it wasn't the way it was shown in theaters.

Doesn't this prove he liked image height more than length?

[Aspect]

Welcome to the forum, president of Warners!

Thanks! LONG time lurker, but I've only been posting recently. I'm so happy you love both the Lyndon Blu and our magnificent Warner Archive! It's good to know we're always pleasing the cinephiles out there :)

But seriously, I don't think Warner butchered the Blu-ray of Barry Lyndon and I don't think anyone knows what Kubrick's wishes at this stage of the game would have been. As for it being a matter of principle, I agree with that too. From what I've read, it doesn't appear Warner made this decision lightly; more than likely, they predicted the controversy to come. That said, it doesn't appear they are going to start cropping 2:35:1 films to 1:78:1 like our friends at Echo Bridge are fond of doing. The alarmist attitude arising from this one release strikes me as a little silly. From my experience with Warner DVDs and Blu-rays, they respect the filmmaker. They REALLY respect Kubrick. They gave him a home there and basically anything he wanted when he was alive.

Maybe they messed up a little with this release. It won't be the last release of Barry Lyndon, I can assure you of that. Maybe a digital download of it in the future will be 1:66:1 again. In the end, I think passing up on this release is silly. The film, to my eyes, has never looked better and it will be years before another transfer surfaces. Life's too short to worry about split hairs. My previous post was meant to convey that, IMHO, Kubrick himself wouldn't worry too much about it either. He would be busy working on his next film and, knowing his previous views on home video releases, probably composing for 1:78:1. Unless he was making another 70 mm film like 2001, of course.

[MichaelB]

Welcome to the forum, president of Warners!

Thanks! LONG time lurker, but I've only been posting recently. I'm so happy you love both the Lyndon Blu and our magnificent Warner Archive! It's good to know we're always pleasing the cinephiles out there

Yeah, but when are you going to release The Devils?

On a more serious note, I think a huge amount of hyperbole has been inflated around a pretty trivial event. Words like "butchered" imply that the end result is as unwatchable as a 1980s television screening of a Sergio Leone western, which is clearly light years from the case. In fact, while it's been demonstrated beyond any serious doubt that it isn't perfect (and I never did have any serious doubt that the correct ratio should have been 1.66:1, regardless of what Vitali claimed), it is nonetheless substantially closer to perfection than either of the DVD releases, both of which were deeply unsatisfactory on almost every count aside from showing more of the original negative area.

And when you resort to analysing images in Photoshop on a pixel-by-pixel basis (which I've done myself, so this isn't a dig at anyone) to prove something that can't be reliably demonstrated by means of the naked eye alone, that's when you clearly have an excess of time on your hands that would be far better spent actually watching the film.

[swo17]

the second one was from the DVD, was pretty obvious.

Yes, so obvious that you waited until after I said it was the second one to say anything. (Also, they were both from the DVD, I just stretched one of them.) Also, I was lying. It's the first one that was unstretched.

[willoneill]

Yes, so obvious that you waited until after I said it was the second one to say anything. (Also, they were both from the DVD, I just stretched one of them.) Also, I was lying. It's the first one that was unstretched.

Clever ruse.

I haven't picked up the blu-ray yet, but probably will soon. After reading countless pages of this thread, and studying everyone's screenshots, I honestly can't see an obvious difference, except in Nothing's exercise where he overlayed two images. And yes, there, there is obvious distortion in one of them. But I don't see it as significant distortion. That being said, I appreciate what I think Nothing's argument is, in that if consumers just accept home video errors (be they objective or subjective) from the studios without protest, then those studios will have no incentive to ever get anything right (I'm looking at you, Star Wars fans). So I'm torn, but since I don't have the technical knowledge that others here have, I'm still going to buy this, I guess. Then starting putting pennies aside from the inevitable double-dip.

At the end of the day, however, this has got to be one of the ultimate examples of http://www.whitepeopleproblems.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;