A Few Words About A few words about...™ Barry Lyndon -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Jay G.]

Going back to Jerome's comparison pics in post 43 of this thread, it looks like the 1.78:1 frame actually crawls up and down the 1.66:1 frame, depending on the shot, suggesting a vertical P&S transfer for the 1.78:1 Blu-ray. If this vertical P&S truly happened (as the screenshots suggest it did), then that severely undermines 1.77:1 as an "official" aspect ratio, since no DP would ever compose for anything other than a straight center crop, or even an "acceptable" aspect ratio, since this type of vertical panning and cropping for 1.78:1 should be no more acceptable than the horizontal panning and cropping for 4:3 was.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay G.

Going back to Jerome's comparison pics in post 43 of this thread, it looks like the 1.78:1 frame actually crawls up and down the 1.66:1 frame, depending on the shot, suggesting a vertical P&S transfer for the 1.78:1 Blu-ray. If this vertical P&S truly happened (as the screenshots suggest it did), then that severely undermines 1.77:1 as an "official" aspect ratio, since no DP would ever compose for anything other than a straight center crop, or even an "acceptable" aspect ratio, since this type of vertical panning and cropping for 1.78:1 should be no more acceptable than the horizontal panning and cropping for 4:3 was.

What I'm seeing is someone working to most properly frame the film, shot by shot, as opposed to setting center and letting it run.

RAH

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Quote:
What I'm seeing is someone working to most properly frame the film, shot by shot, as opposed to setting center and letting it run.

RAH

Right, but who is that "someone", making these decisions? Yes, the difference may be negligible, but that's not the point. Again, it's interesting that many here go absolutely nuts about any DNR, yet are OK with cropping.

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by urbo73
Again, it's interesting that many here go absolutely nuts about any DNR, yet are OK with cropping.

I'd much rather live with an image that's been slightly cropped than an image that's been DNR'd. The new release of Predator is in it's correct aspect ratio, but the digital manipulation makes it unwatchable. Lyndon may be slightly cropped, but you're still probably seeing more of the image than you would have in the cinema. Not perfect, but definitely the lesser of two evils.

 

[Jay G.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
What I'm seeing is someone working to most properly frame the film, shot by shot, as opposed to setting center and letting it run.

But the question is: why was such constant adjusting of the frame necessary for this transfer, and should it be necessary for a film transfer in the proper aspect ratio? Do normal 1.78:1 transfers of 1.85:1 films have to resort to this type vertical P&S as well?

Obviously, Kubrick would've composed the film for a straight-up center vertical crop, as when the film would be projected, it would be with standard center-crop matting, and not needing constant vertical adjustment shot-for-shot.

I'm assuming the earlier 1.66:1 DVD transfer likewise used a center crop, as the height of the frame would mean that this constant vertical adjustment wouldn't be as necessary. That this new 1.78:1 transfer had to resort to this vertical adjusting of each shot suggests that it's not the proper aspect ratio/framing for this film, and while whoever did the transfer did an admirable job of pan and scanning the film, cropping 1.66:1 films to 1.78:1 shouldn't be viewed as acceptable behavior.

 

[PaulDA]

Originally Posted by Worth
I'd much rather live with an image that's been slightly cropped than an image that's been DNR'd. The new release of Predator is in it's correct aspect ratio, but the digital manipulation makes it unwatchable. Lyndon may be slightly cropped, but you're still probably seeing more of the image than you would have in the cinema. Not perfect, but definitely the lesser of two evils.

I concur (emphasis on "slightly cropped"). Ideally, OAR would be respected every single time. But that is not always as simple as it sounds (and Kubrick's body of work is an excellent example of that--the debates over The Dark Knight are another). Perfection is exceedingly rare in any endeavour. And we should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay G.
Quote:
But the question is: why was such constant adjusting of the frame necessary for this transfer, and should it be necessary for a film transfer in the proper aspect ratio? Do normal 1.78:1 transfers of 1.85:1 films have to resort to this type vertical P&S as well?

Obviously, Kubrick would've composed the film for a straight-up center vertical crop, as when the film would be projected, it would be with standard center-crop matting, and not needing constant vertical adjustment shot-for-shot.

I'm assuming the earlier 1.66:1 DVD transfer likewise used a center crop, as the height of the frame would mean that this constant vertical adjustment wouldn't be as necessary. That this new 1.78:1 transfer had to resort to this vertical adjusting of each shot suggests that it's not the proper aspect ratio/framing for this film, and while whoever did the transfer did an admirable job of pan and scanning the film, cropping 1.66:1 films to 1.78:1 shouldn't be viewed as acceptable behavior.

I would presume nothing. The film may not have been set for center.

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Worth
I'd much rather live with an image that's been slightly cropped than an image that's been DNR'd. The new release of Predator is in it's correct aspect ratio, but the digital manipulation makes it unwatchable. Lyndon may be slightly cropped, but you're still probably seeing more of the image than you would have in the cinema. Not perfect, but definitely the lesser of two evils.

The idea is to strive for both. So far, I'm not seeing any evidence that what WB did to Barry Lyndon makes ANY sense, yet I see a lot of people who normally strive for the "integrity" of Blu-ray releases (whether that's DNR, etc.), make excuses for WB or try somehow to justify it (i.e. it was not shown in theaters this way, framing vs. aspect ratio, etc, etc.). It's both condescending and silly, because it's not that complicated. People get it. Just like it's not complicated to do a proper transfer w/o digital manipulations. In the end, as I said before, it's not a huge deal, but it's noteworthy. And I'm surprised to see people make justifications, etc. I noticed how the Lolita question was avoided BTW.

 

[Torsten Kaiser]

Originally Posted by Jay G.
Quote:
But the question is: why was such constant adjusting of the frame necessary for this transfer, and should it be necessary for a film transfer in the proper aspect ratio? Do normal 1.78:1 transfers of 1.85:1 films have to resort to this type vertical P&S as well?

Obviously, Kubrick would've composed the film for a straight-up center vertical crop, as when the film would be projected, it would be with standard center-crop matting, and not needing constant vertical adjustment shot-for-shot.

I'm assuming the earlier 1.66:1 DVD transfer likewise used a center crop, as the height of the frame would mean that this constant vertical adjustment wouldn't be as necessary. That this new 1.78:1 transfer had to resort to this vertical adjusting of each shot suggests that it's not the proper aspect ratio/framing for this film, and while whoever did the transfer did an admirable job of pan and scanning the film, cropping 1.66:1 films to 1.78:1 shouldn't be viewed as acceptable behavior.

I read a lot of definitives in your posts. You post with absolute certainly that BL was (always and only) screened 1.66:1. That may prove to be a hastely made statement. From what I have seen on the Blu-ray disc, I have not found any relevant problems in composition. If the Safe Action Area of the 35mm frame was properly used as guideline during the scanning/mapping/final playout to master, it in turn would suggest that an AR of 1.75:1 is much more likely. In 1.66, some shots would reveal the impression of a set, something Kubrick would have understood and avoided. One vital isue cannot be answered by screen grabs off DVD, LD or BD issues - and that is where the protected area ends. This will tell you your ref point as to SAA, and that would be the projected area with proper AR. From what I have seen, 1.66, while certainly possible, is probably more of a compromise than 1.75 would be. Again, one also has to remember that for many flat lens films various ARs were used in theaters, not necessarily always a single one. Especially in the 1950s and 1960s pictures we screened as open as 1.37 and as tight as 2:1 - the same picture, mind you. It happend to THIS ISLAND EARTH and others.

As for the DVD vs Blu-ray shapes of BL and the "adjustments": you are assuming that the master used for the Blu-ray was (ever so slightly) adjusted, up, down, left, right. However, all you have as reference are the screen grabs off the DVD and Blu-ray. What is missing here, physically as in most of the posters minds, is the crusial reference of the film element (exposed area of the frame) itself. And since that reference is missing: what makes you so sure the position of the framing was not changed during the transfer used for the DVD instead of that of the Blu-ray ? One is just as possible as the other. That is the problem if one only interprets screen shots, ignoring all other fact(or)s.

 

[Vincent_P]

If anybody is being "condescending and silly" it's you, with your earlier snide comment re: "friends at Warner Bros.", etc. Harris answered the question re: LOLITA by the way.

Vincent

Originally Posted by urbo73
The idea is to strive for both. So far, I'm not seeing any evidence that what WB did to Barry Lyndon makes ANY sense, yet I see a lot of people who normally strive for the "integrity" of Blu-ray releases (whether that's DNR, etc.), make excuses for WB or try somehow to justify it (i.e. it was not shown in theaters this way, framing vs. aspect ratio, etc, etc.). It's both condescending and silly, because it's not that complicated. People get it. Just like it's not complicated to do a proper transfer w/o digital manipulations. In the end, as I said before, it's not a huge deal, but it's noteworthy. And I'm surprised to see people make justifications, etc. I noticed how the Lolita question was avoided BTW.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let's calm down now!





Crawdaddy

 

[EC666]

Was the Saul Bass logo removed for legal reasons? Shame, that's a part of the film's history.

Two Stanley Kubrick biographies mention the film being composed for 1.66. In France, the film was projected 1.66 upon release and whenever it was screened on special occasions in later decades. The Bluray is stretched horizontally as well as cropped top and bottom. Several shots have been 'recomposed' or 'pan and scanned' very slightly, the image either lifted or lowered. Those overseeing the Bluray cropped certain shots more heavily above than below, and vice versa on other shots. The original dvds were all from original 1.66 sources, but one of the releases cut the horizontal sides to fit full frame tvs. The film was never screened at 1.77 or 1.78 because no projector allowed that ratio at the time. Warner has made the assumption that the film would look better as conventional widescreen, but there is no evidence to suggest that this stretched, thinner, altered image, is how this masterpiece was meant to be viewed.

 

[Worth]

The Bluray is stretched horizontally as well as cropped top and bottom

What is the evidence for this?

 

[Jay G.]

Quote:

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Quote:

The film was composed for 1.66 - 1.75, and protected to 1.59.

I think WB should have released it in every aspect ratio available from 1.66:1 to 1.78:1. Imagine how awesome a 13 disc set with those choices would have been! (Personally, I'd go for 1.71:1).

 

[Jay G.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Worth /forum/thread/311684/a-few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray/60#post_3817031



Originally Posted by EC666 /forum/thread/311684/a-few-words-about-barry-lyndon-in-blu-ray/60#post_3817030

The Bluray is stretched horizontally as well as cropped top and bottom.

What is the evidence for this?


The first evidence for this was posted a number of days ago by user Feego over on criterionforum, after making some comparison shots:
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=339203#p339203

Also, it appears that either the DVD image was vertically stretched or the Blu-ray was vertically squashed.

On the same forum, user Oedipax posted a resized Blu-ray screenshot that's been squished to 1.76:1 in size, presumably to fit with the DVD screenshot he compared it with:
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=339195#p339195

This suggests that the distortion may be as little as 1%.

Then, on Sunday, user Nothing on that forum took the idea of the BD being stretched and ran with it, starting about here:
http://criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=340596#p340596

To me, it's not clear which transfer is at fault here. It could be that the BD is slightly stretched, but just as easily the DVD transfer could be the culprit. Neither look drastically deformed though, and there's still visibly more side information on the BD, with less vertical information, so the majority of the aspect ratio difference between the two can be explained via matting differences.

 

[EC666]

Originally Posted by Jay G.
Quote:
It could be that the BD is slightly stretched, but just as easily the DVD transfer could be the culprit. Neither look drastically deformed though, and there's still visibly more side information on the BD, with less vertical information, so the majority of the aspect ratio difference between the two can be explained via matting differences.

Another way to tell the DVD was not squashed (one was 1.66 but cut on sides) is by comparisons with promotional stills and cell prints from 1970s, which were all 1.66.

 

[Brandon Conway]

The Truman Show aside, history suggests it is usually the older DVD that have the stretch distortions.

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Vincent_P
If anybody is being "condescending and silly" it's you, with your earlier snide comment re: "friends at Warner Bros.", etc. Harris answered the question re: LOLITA by the way.

Vincent

Easy there! Yes, the question was answered - it's OK to crop some films, but not others....OK....

 

[WinstonCely]

I didn't feel like re-typing this, but it's a quote from what I wrote over at IMDb:

I just got my BD of Barry Lyndon and Lolita yesterday. Although I haven't watched Lolita yet, I have to say Barry Lyndon looks incredible. Granted, as it's been said before, the candlelit scenes are pretty soft, but overall there is incredible fidelity in the picture over all, and a giant leap forward from any previous release.
As far as the aspect ratio is concerned, I compared it to my remastered SD DVD and can barely tell any difference. I don't think I would notice it had I not been looking so intently at the screen for the sole purpose of finding the difference in aspect ratios. I'm not trying to convince or make excuses for the difference in aspect ratios. All I'm saying is that from someone who dearly loves all of Kubrick's films, for me PERSONALLY, I can't see any loss in composition or artistic integrity in Barry Lyndon. I'm very happy with this Blu-ray (other than the lack of special features) and can't wait to watch Lolita.
For me, this ratio debate is over. Thankfully! Man, reading these posts from all these forums was taking up waaaaaaaaaaay too much of my time. LOL.