Curvature aside, isn't How the West Was Won around 2.89:1 on BD?
The flat version is 2.89:1. It shows all of the available image on the three negatives. The curved presentation is I believe 2.59:1 because a little bit was cropped (as intended) when projected.Originally Posted by Brandon Conway
Curvature aside, isn't How the West Was Won around 2.89:1 on BD?
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
1.66:1 was an aspect ratio that ended here in the Colonies c. 1953, with films like Rear Window. By 1954, Paramount's VistaVision had set 1.85:1 as a perfunctory standard. Columbia and other studios followed suit. By 1975 few theaters were able to run at 1.66, as standards were 1.85 and 2.35. Not long after, the standard for some theaters unfortunately became 2:1. That made things easy. Crop both spherical films as well as scope productions to the same imagery.
One screen fits all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most of Warner's "1.85:1" Blu-rays actually 1.78:1?
My feeling has always been that I would be thrilled if Barry Lyndon were to be released on Blu-ray at the HD native aspect ratio of 1.78:1, and the incorrect technical information on the reverse of the packaging aside, that is precisely what has occurred.
In projection the difference between 1.75 and 1.85 are a different set of aperture plates and lenses, unless one deals strictly with maskings to accommodate.Originally Posted by DellaStMedia
One thing I might add (brought up by someone else in another forum) that in the Michel Ciment book "Kubrick" it says the following:
For Barry Lyndon it was very important—given the experiments in lighting—for the projection equipment to be the best possible. Of course, we had neither the means nor the authority to replace them all, but what we discovered from checking all the principal cinemas in France and Germany was that two-thirds of them didn't have a 1.66 mask, something that costs no more than a few pounds. The projectionists told us that the image would overlap a little on the sides. So Kubrick's assistants had all the projectors equipped for a decent screening of the film—and at the same time for every other film!
Now, I'm wondering if this doesn't mean something around the lines of: for specific premier theaters Kubrick has a specific idea in mind for the aspect ratio to be used in Europe? There's no mention of what it was supposed to be shown at in the US. Similar to the initial Apocalypse Now prints that were in 70mm for the premier screenings....
I don't know. Just seems to me that the difference between the 1.66 and 1.78 is so minimal that it shouldn't be this big of an issue anymore. I'm holding my final verdict until I get mine delivered to me, but I'm certainly more at ease now than I was.
Warner Bros never remove the Leo the Lion M-G-M logo on any of their M-G-M owned titles.Originally Posted by Cameron Yee
That's interesting because the MGM logo is intact on the BD of "Lolita."
I've been following this debate across several forums and blogs. Over at criterionforum, a poster named GaryC recalls receiving a note signed by Kubrick with a print of Barry Lyndon for a screening that dictated an aspect ratio of 1.66:1 or "no wider than 1.75:1". Is it possible that the the Egyptian's screening was simply using the maximum width allowed by Kubrick, not necessarily the specifically dictated aspect ratio?Originally Posted by Robert Harris
When Barry Lyndon was screened at the Egyptian in 2002, as one of the earliest SK retrospectives, it was done under an absolute proviso
from the estate, that it be presented in 1.75:1.
Not 1.66, not 1.85, but 1.75.
The current Warner Blu-ray presentation adds a few additional lines of information to the top and bottom of the image.
Also, all of the more recent prints have been hard-matted at 1.66, which would make something wider than
1.66 the highest image possible.
Originally Posted by Worth
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that in one thread you have people expressing excitement over the 3D release of a film that wasn't made in 3D, while in this one there is an anally-retentive raging debate over minute differences in aspect ratios?
Originally Posted by marsnkc
I've several times 'borrowed' Time magazine's opinion of BL as, "The most ravishing set of images ever assembled on a single strip of celluloid" to (more accurately, I think) describe 'Lawrence'....... Anyway...........
I just read the somecamerunning linked discussion in which poster Jeffrey Wells mentions the received wisdom (my words) that Kubrick framed BL to "simulate" 18th century paintings. Glenn Kenny, in response, asks for documentary evidence of this. He has a point. For my part, I don't have any evidence to support my similar memory of such a contention, but obviously it was out there in some form at one time or another, whether on paper or TV or radio.Originally Posted by urbo73
Interesting reading here regarding Kubrik's preferred 1.66:1 ratio for Barry Lyndon:
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2011/05/leon-vitali-on-the-barry-lyndon-aspect-ratio-issue.html
Leon Vitali has changed his mind on this matter several times, so he's not to be trusted anyhow. But read towards the end.
And if theaters were not equipped to project 1.66:1, that doesn't mean the Blu-ray couldn't have done it right. I suspect they just went to fill the 16:9 screen. Seems simple to me. It could have been done right, and it wasn't.
First, as to Mr. Alcott's style, I was referring more to look and texture than aspect ratio, which was not quite set in stone for paintings.Originally Posted by marsnkc
I just read the somecamerunning linked discussion in which poster Jeffrey Wells mentions the received wisdom (my words) that Kubrick framed BL to "simulate" 18th century paintings. Glenn Kenny, in response, asks for documentary evidence of this. He has a point. For my part, I don't have any evidence to support my similar memory of such a contention, but obviously it was out there in some form at one time or another, whether on paper or TV or radio.
I submit, however, that Kubrick would have been the last person on earth to have gone to the trouble of having lenses specially ground in order to successfully photograph many scenes by candlelight, yet be content to leave it up to exhibitors to arbitrarily decide which aspect ratio his obsession should be projected in (a contention someone here or on the linked discussion makes), available equipment notwithstanding.
I knew three actors who appeared in the movie. All three (one of them my room-mate at the time) told of Kubrick's obsession with the smallest detail, so it makes the most sense to me that the aspect ratio he would choose would be that which most closely resembled the shape of those 18th century landscape and group paintings he was obvioulsy attempting to 'bring to life'. That shape was pretty much universally comparable to a film ratio of 1.66:1. Though he doesn't make the same connection I do, RAH's opinion of BL as being "meticulously photographed by John Alcott in the style of 18th century paintings" seems to (albeit unwittingly) support my opinion.