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

[Powell&Pressburger]

The original WB Saul Bass Opening Logo INTRO for Barry.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by Powell&Pressburger
The original WB Saul Bass Opening Logo INTRO for Barry.

I have no idea why they do like they do...

Personally, if I were making a change, I'd be going Vitaphone.

RAH

 

[Scott Calvert]

I have viewed the bluray and it looks great. However, I'm left shaking my head at some of Warner's decisions. They generally do great work which is why their faults are so bothersome. A perfect representation of Barry Lyndon on bluray would have required no more effort than what we have received:

1) 1.66 aspect ratio
2) Original animated Warner Communications logo
3) Fill the darn disc up. You have 50gb. Use it.

If Warner had done these three things there would be almost 0 controversy.

 

[Jay G.]

3) Fill the darn disc up. You have 50gb. Use it.

Including the original mono would've used up some of this space.

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Even a viewer with the most pedestrian of tastes, and no knowledge of the cinema, can be pointed toward a screen with eyes open, and know within moments that they are seeing something extraordinary.

Mr. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon is one of those magisterial masterpieces that seldom appears, much like the sighting of a comet making its way across the horizon.

This one happened to appear 35 years ago.

Meticulously photographed by John Alcott in the style of 18th century paintings, and with many interiors shot via available light with specially designed optics, Barry Lyndon is a visual revelation.

Even revelations can be destroyed by the wrong person turning the wrong knob just a bit too much, and I'm pleased to report, after initially seeing some footage on screen late last year, that the Blu-ray of Barry Lyndon, had the right eyes turning the right knobs just the correct amount in our very dangerous digital world.

To my eye, the work performed to bring Barry Lyndon to the home theater environment via Blu-ray, has delivered a perfect final product.

Color, densities, black levels, shadow detail and grain structure all appear to be dead on. The uncompressed audio is, likewise, perfect.

A note about aspect ratios. There has been discussion that Barry Lyndon was composed for projection at 1.66:1, and this is an interesting thought. The problem, even in 1975, would have been that few cinemas were equipped to project that aspect ratio unless specially set up. In a very general sense, much of the world was running spherical at 1.75:1, while here in the colonies we were running at 1.85:1. 1.66:1 was a specific setup for revival theatres equipped with the necessary aperture plates, optics and maskings.

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.

Warner's new Blu-ray of Barry Lyndon is a treasure, and will be one of the most important catalog releases of 2011.

An absolutely perfect Blu-ray.

Extremely Highly Recommended.

RAH

Watched the first two hours last night and was so impressed with the film, the cinematography and the transfer. This was a blind purchase for me and one I am very happy to own. Hope to see more like it

 

[Charles Smith]

My copy arrived yesterday, and though devoting the evening to properly watching the film was not in the cards last night, I had to spend a few minutes with the chapter stop button to see what this looks like.

Oh my dear god.

One word. Stunning.

 

[gruagach]

When I first saw Barry Lyndon in the theater upon its first released, it became one of my best films. About 12 years ago I tried watching it on a rental VHS tape. The image was so grainy, I stopped half way. Then a couple years ago, I watched the remastered DVD. I liked the story line, but the imagery just didn't wow me like that first viewing. I thought maybe it was me and the time back in the 70's. So I took a chance with this Blu-ray version. The wow factor was back.

 

[Pete York]

Stanley Kubrick's letter to projectionists on BARRY LYNDON [via Glenn Kenny].

 

[Jarod M]

Originally Posted by Pete York
Stanley Kubrick's letter to projectionists on BARRY LYNDON [via Glenn Kenny].

So is there ANY defense now for not presenting Barry Lyndon at 1.66:1 on Blu-ray? That's how Kubrick wanted it. End of story?

 

[Hal F]

Originally Posted by DellaStMedia
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.

Couldn't agree more. Finally got a chance to watch this last night with my wife. An utterly beautiful film that I think the transfer did justice to.

 

[Mark-P]

I all fairness the document does say "and in no event less than 1-1:75" which means from 1.66:1 up to 1.75:1. So technically Warmer's 1.78:1 is just a minute sliver off of the widest ratio Kubrick would allow.

Originally Posted by Jarod M
So is there ANY defense now for not presenting Barry Lyndon at 1.66:1 on Blu-ray? That's how Kubrick wanted it. End of story?

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Interesting letter. I'd LOVE to see the one he did for The Shining!

 

[Jeff Adkins]

After spending a few minutes thinking about this new letter that has surfaced, I've come to this basic conclusion (regarding the aspect ratio):

It's wrong, but I can live with it for the time being.

The disc looks beautiful and the framing is so close to 1.75 that it doesn't take away from the viewing experience. Having said that, I find it hard to believe that the powers that be didn't have access to this information. I don't expect that Warner is going to re-transfer the film anytime soon, but one day they will. When that happens, anything other than 1.66 would be unacceptable.

 

[MatS]

aspect ratio blah, blah, blah .......

I had no idea until recently that Ryan O'Neal named one of his sons Redmond
how bad ass is that

 

[Vincent_P]

Actually since the Blu-ray has been shown to have more information side-to-side compared to the 1.66:1 DVD*, I'm guessing they didn't crop off anything beyond the 1.75:1 limit at all. The top/bottom framing might even be somewhere in between 1.66:1 and 1.75:1 since they opened up the sides a bit (I'm pretty sure Robert Harris has said as much in this very thread).

Vincent

* In fact the screen shots suggest that about an equal amount was added to the sides as was matted top and bottom.

Originally Posted by Mark-P
I all fairness the document does say "and in no event less than 1-1:75" which means from 1.66:1 up to 1.75:1. So technically Warmer's 1.78:1 is just a minute sliver off of the widest ratio Kubrick would allow.

 

[Jarod M]

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins
After spending a few minutes thinking about this new letter that has surfaced, I've come to this basic conclusion (regarding the aspect ratio):

It's wrong, but I can live with it for the time being.

The disc looks beautiful and the framing is so close to 1.75 that it doesn't take away from the viewing experience. Having said that, I find it hard to believe that the powers that be didn't have access to this information. I don't expect that Warner is going to re-transfer the film anytime soon, but one day they will. When that happens, anything other than 1.66 would be unacceptable.

If you go to that link, at the bottom is a quote from a Warner representative, who says they DID have access to this information.

Wells site also just posted a response from Leon Vitali, who is even more befuddling.

 

[Geoff_D]

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins
After spending a few minutes thinking about this new letter that has surfaced, I've come to this basic conclusion (regarding the aspect ratio):

It's wrong, but I can live with it for the time being.

The disc looks beautiful and the framing is so close to 1.75 that it doesn't take away from the viewing experience. Having said that, I find it hard to believe that the powers that be didn't have access to this information. I don't expect that Warner is going to re-transfer the film anytime soon, but one day they will. When that happens, anything other than 1.66 would be unacceptable.

While I'm a bit more forgiving re: the ratio - simply because not so much as a hair looks out of place on the 1.78 version - I do agree that any future version really should be at 1.66.

 

[TheHutt]

Actually since the Blu-ray has been shown to have more information side-to-side compared to the 1.66:1 DVD*, I'm guessing they didn't crop off anything beyond the 1.75:1 limit at all.

That's what Torsten Kaiser confirmed, actually.

During the mastering of the Barry Lyndon Blu-Ray Disc parts of the horizontal image outside of the safe areas which could be "rescued" - i.e. exposed material was made visible which was not visible in cinema projection before. That is how the AR became some wider. Although Barry Lyndon is 1.66, however, when I analyzed one of 35mm Print Master POS approved by Kubrick, I found out that a) the 1.66 matting was very tight and b) because of instabilities during copying it became even tighter and in some places, it is even "underrun", making the matte/blanking on the material visible. That might be the reason why the SK Estate prefers the 1.75:1 as an alternative. In 1.75:1, the aspect ratio is absolutely clean under the safe area conditions, and when you add to it (like WB did) the existing parts of the image from outside, you can get to 1.78 without changing the composition.

Bei dem mastering der Barry Lyndon Blu-ray Disc wurden in der Breite AUSSERHALB des Safe Areas die noch "mitnehmbaren" - also auf dem Material noch belichteten - Bildanteile sichtbar gemacht. Diese sind im Kino so nicht zu sehen gewesen. Dadurch wird das AR ohnehin etwas breiter. BL ist zwar 1.66, aber ich habe bei der genauen Analyse eines von Kubrick abgezeichneten 35mm Print Master POSs festgestellt, dass a) das 1.66 matting sehr knapp ausgelegt wird und b) dies leider durch Kopiertechnische Instabilitäten noch knapper bzw an einigen Stellen sogar "unterlaufen" wird. Die matte / das blanking auf dem Material wird also teils sogar ein wenig sichtbar. Dies dürfte auch der Grund sein, warum 1.75:1 als Alternative nun vom SK Etate lieber genommen wird. In 1.75 ist das AR unter Safe Area Bedingungen absolut sauber, nimmt man (wie WB) die ausserhalb noch bestehenden Bildanteile außerhalb hinzu, kommt man auf 1.78 ohne die Komposition anzugreifen.

 

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins
After spending a few minutes thinking about this new letter that has surfaced, I've come to this basic conclusion (regarding the aspect ratio):

It's wrong, but I can live with it for the time being.

The disc looks beautiful and the framing is so close to 1.75 that it doesn't take away from the viewing experience. Having said that, I find it hard to believe that the powers that be didn't have access to this information. I don't expect that Warner is going to re-transfer the film anytime soon, but one day they will. When that happens, anything other than 1.66 would be unacceptable.

My thoughts exactly!

However, that 'new' letter was first mentioned by Jay G in his post #32. If a copy had been published then, this thread would - and logic dictates it should - have ended then.

Leon Vitali's name continues to crop up. He's so brilliant in the movie that I feel uncomfortable criticizing him for any reason, but he has abolutely no credibility and, after this, should be ignored as an authority on anything other than acting. His efforts to portray himself as the keeper of SK's flame is actually a little sad, as evidenced by his willingness to give a 'definitive' answer to the question of aspect ratios - which apparently he wasn't ready for yet allowed his ego to override common sense. If he'd qualified his remarks as an opinion only he'd still be in pretty good shape.

It's also painful for me to think that a lot of the science and geometry and mathematics submitted by my hero RAH and the marvellous Torsten K. to defend the aspect ratio we're given is disingenuous to say the least. Both seem to be saying that 1:66 is just a 'number' that signifies 'nothing' (as far, I presume, as the amount of information in a frame is concerned). If I understand the reasoning, a piece of film the size of a large postage stamp cut from (but in the shape of) a 65mm frame would still be considered to have the aspect ratio of that frame but represent only a fraction of the image on the original. I think we all understand that, but we also know that the 1:66 image Kubrick refers to in his letter contains more information than the 1:78 one on the BD, the 'additional' information we gain on the sides notwithstanding. One can even argue, from a purist point of view, that this extra image is in fact extraneous, and wasn't meant to be seen.

The thing is, there's an extraordinary amount of parsing and rationalising done by all those who are satisfied with the BD (Karsten makes a good argument for safeguarding against the problem of 'underrun', but this doesn't explain the apparently stable additional verticle information on the DVD - see the overlay examples in an earlier thread - while RAH apparently has no problem with the verticle p&s done to center(?) the image). For myself, I watched it last week and am absolutely thrilled with it. As RAH said, for what we get for the price, it's a no-brainer, and again I thank WB from the bottom of my heart for it.
However, even though I'll never lose a second of sleep over what is apparently a compromise, the fact is that the aspect ratio is NOT the one envisioned by Kubrick, and that's not fair to him. Surely it's obvious to any reasonable person that Kubrick's willingness to allow his baby to be projected up to 1:75 was only a real-world compromise and not what he envisioned and hoped an audience would see; and any later thoughts Kubrick might have had vis a vis TV and home theater are irrelevant to a discussion on his preference for the theatrical presentation of this masterpiece. In any case, that problem is moot with today's large sets and screens.

My sincere apologies to the aforementioned if I've gotten this wrong, but I see it as the thin edge of the wedge if the pillars of this community stop being the purists I feel they should be. This post is a criticism of what I perceive to be a somewhat arbitrary complacency on their part and not directed against Warner's gorgeous BD. With all due respect to those who feel about Barry Lyndon as I do about Lawrence, what gives me chills about this compromise is not what has happened to the former as much as my fear of the latter suffering the same or some similar fate. I mentioned in another thread my despair at seeing RAH's restoration of Lawrence at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and being confronted with more horizontal information than that contained on my $140 Criterion laserdisc set. My heart sank at the realisation that I still didn't have the movie in my grubby little hands that David Lean intended me to see.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by marsnkc
My thoughts exactly!

However, that 'new' letter was first mentioned by Jay G in his post #32. If a copy had been published then, this thread would - and logic dictates it should - have ended then.

Leon Vitali's name continues to crop up. He's so brilliant in the movie that I feel uncomfortable criticizing him for any reason, but he has abolutely no credibility and, after this, should be ignored as an authority on anything other than acting. His efforts to portray himself as the keeper of SK's flame is actually a little sad, as evidenced by his willingness to give a 'definitive' answer to the question of aspect ratios - which apparently he wasn't ready for yet allowed his ego to override common sense. If he'd qualified his remarks as an opinion only he'd still be in pretty good shape.

It's also painful for me to think that a lot of the science and geometry and mathematics submitted by my hero RAH and the marvellous Torsten K. to defend the aspect ratio we're given is disingenuous to say the least. Both seem to be saying that 1:66 is just a 'number' that signifies 'nothing' (as far, I presume, as the amount of information in a frame is concerned). If I understand the reasoning, a piece of film the size of a large postage stamp cut from (but in the shape of) a 65mm frame would still be considered to have the aspect ratio of that frame but represent only a fraction of the image on the original. I think we all understand that, but we also know that the 1:66 image Kubrick refers to in his letter contains more information than the 1:78 one on the BD, the 'additional' information we gain on the sides notwithstanding. One can even argue, from a purist point of view, that this extra image is in fact extraneous, and wasn't meant to be seen.

The thing is, there's an extraordinary amount of parsing and rationalising done by all those who are satisfied with the BD (Karsten makes a good argument for safeguarding against the problem of 'underrun', but this doesn't explain the apparently stable additional verticle information on the DVD - see the overlay examples in an earlier thread - while RAH apparently has no problem with the verticle p&s done to center(?) the image). For myself, I watched it last week and am absolutely thrilled with it. As RAH said, for what we get for the price, it's a no-brainer, and again I thank WB from the bottom of my heart for it.
However, even though I'll never lose a second of sleep over what is apparently a compromise, the fact is that the aspect ratio is NOT the one envisioned by Kubrick, and that's not fair to him. Surely it's obvious to any reasonable person that Kubrick's willingness to allow his baby to be projected up to 1:75 was only a real-world compromise and not what he envisioned and hoped an audience would see; and any later thoughts Kubrick might have had vis a vis TV and home theater are irrelevant to a discussion on his preference for the theatrical presentation of this masterpiece. In any case, that problem is moot with today's large sets and screens.

My sincere apologies to the aforementioned if I've gotten this wrong, but I see it as the thin edge of the wedge if the pillars of this community stop being the purists I feel they should be. This post is a criticism of what I perceive to be a somewhat arbitrary complacency on their part and not directed against Warner's gorgeous BD. With all due respect to those who feel about Barry Lyndon as I do about Lawrence, what gives me chills about this compromise is not what has happened to the former as much as my fear of the latter suffering the same or some similar fate. I mentioned in another thread my despair at seeing RAH's restoration of Lawrence at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and being confronted with more horizontal information than that contained on my $140 Criterion laserdisc set. My heart sank at the realisation that I still didn't have the movie in my grubby little hands that David Lean intended me to see.

Agreed 100%. It's a good BD and I'm glad to have it. There should however be no defense of the aspect ratio chosen. It should have been 1.66, period.