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

[SeanAx]

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.

Succinctly put. It's a beautiful disc and I'm glad to have such clarity. But it could have been a perfect disc and we would be remiss if we did not call out its shortcomings.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by marsnkc
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.

Now that one I can answer. At the time of the initial video masters for Lawrence, there was no quality means of extracting an image from a 65mm element as data. Also, the program which I created in 1994 toward harvesting an image from a 35mm element had not yet come to fruition. That occurred with My Fair Lady.

The problem with the early LoA masters were that they were all produced from generic 35mm reduction elements. Crop the top and bottom, crop the sides a bit for safety, and voila!

I've a feeling you'll like the new one.

RAH

 

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Now that one I can answer. At the time of the initial video masters for Lawrence, there was no quality means of extracting an image from a 65mm element as data. Also, the program which I created in 1994 toward harvesting an image from a 35mm element had not yet come to fruition. That occurred with My Fair Lady.

The problem with the early LoA masters were that they were all produced from generic 35mm reduction elements. Crop the top and bottom, crop the sides a bit for safety, and voila!

I've a feeling you'll like the new one.

RAH

Thanks for that, Robert, and my apologies to Torsten for referring to him as 'Karsten', my wonderful, long-time German mechanic.

If I may add some ironic thoughts on aspect ratios: To paraphrase Voltaire (though there's a dispute about that, too!), while I believe in defending and preserving a director's intentions, even if I may not agree with them, I could never fathom Mr. Kubrick's preference for 1.66, nor his apparent revulsion for any ratio wider than 1.75. Apart from a decades-old poll that concluded that a widescreen image was more pleasing to the eye for most people (it 'breathes' better!), epic movies simply cry out for a minimum of 1.85. If Mr. Vitali (here we go again!) is to be believed in this instance, S.K. felt anything wider than 1.66 was a waste of space! Maybe for a sense of claustrophobia in a kitchen-sink drama, but epics like Lyndon, with all that eye candy, simply cry out for panorama. Contrarily, the amount of wasted vertical space in Lyndon (even in the 1.78 BD!) is astonishing - there's more sky in outdoor scenes (especially in the Irish segment) than a viewer knows what to do with, and I find it hard to believe that was intentional. Look at the opening duel scene! It looks to me like he set the camera at the distance he did in order to show as much surrounding countryside as possible (and/or how little we are in relation to nature?), something he could have achieved with a wider lens without including the whole of the heavens. Maybe in this instance the dark, ominous clouds added an atmosphere he sought, but I think his chosen AR handicapped him when it came to the ribbon scene with Leonard Rossiter, and others like it with their breathtaking backgrounds. We could have done with more green and less blue! Even the indoor scenes would have benefitted from a wider lens. Aside from Barry's and the farmer's wife's cottages, most of the dwellings consisted of palaces whose enormous rooms could have been better utilized to heighten even more the sense of wealth and power they give.

 

[EC666]

"I could never fathom Mr. Kubrick's preference for 1.66, nor his apparent revulsion for any ratio wider than 1.75"

A simple glance at the Bluray and DVD side by side should answer your confusion. The 1.66 DVD looks better, more boxy like a Hogarth painting, and captures the alienated feeling and distancing effects which Kubrick was known for. The added image height was also important to Kubrick, whose films thrive on their distance and remoteness. Kubrick's preference for 1.66 was also based on extensive studies of period paintings and their compositions. 1.66 is also, as many mathematicians and architects would argue, more aesthetically pleasing. It is only recently that widescreen has become a fetish. Though now it has been thoroughly banalized. Today everything is widescreen and nothing is (widescreen is dead when every **** can be watched in widescreen). The desire to force 1.78 upon Barry Lyndon only banalizes it under the guise of making it more "panoramic" and "special", but of course those who are enamoured by such buzzwords have no understanding of what constitutes good, genuine widescreen compositions anyway.

And as others have said, the notion that 1.78 is okay because it's "almost 1.75", reeks of apathy. This is cynicsm of the worst kind. It's the notion that things can be brushed aside because "they're not that important anyway". But if you care about the film it is important, and the "new ratio" does alter how the film plays.

 

[AlexCosmo]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have an idea what percentage of theaters in 1975 would have actually showed the movie in 1:66?

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by AlexCosmo
Just out of curiosity, does anyone have an idea what percentage of theaters in 1975 would have actually showed the movie in 1:66?

The overriding point should be how many could have shown it in 1.66, which necessitated optics, aperture plates and maskings. 1.66 was an early widescreen standard c. 1953, and continued more in Europe than in the U.S. When used in the U.S., it was mostly held by art houses running UK productions. Running Barry Lyndon at 1.66 in that era, especially in the U.S., would be rather like attempting to run an anamorphic 70mm print today -- in general release.

RAH

 

[John Hodson]

The overriding point is that Stanley Kubrick's instructions were clear: 'Barry Lyndon' was photographed in 1.66:1 aspect ratio. Please be sure you project it at that ratio, and in no event less than 1.75:1'

Any other interpretation surely must be considered obfuscation. That's how it was, we know that's what he wanted. Whether they were able to project it so is neither here nor there. Warner were clearly able to transfer the film in accordance with Kubrick's Plan 'A', but chose something close to Plan 'B'. For whatever reason.

It's not the end of the world, it doesn't fatally damage the compositions so I'm told. But it's odd; Kubrick's probably sat on a cloud, having a good old chuckle...

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by marsnkc
To paraphrase Voltaire (though there's a dispute about that, too!), while I believe in defending and preserving a director's intentions, even if I may not agree with them, I could never fathom Mr. Kubrick's preference for 1.66, nor his apparent revulsion for any ratio wider than 1.75. Apart from a decades-old poll that concluded that a widescreen image was more pleasing to the eye for most people (it 'breathes' better!), epic movies simply cry out for a minimum of 1.85.

Frankly, I've always found it baffling that anyone has a preference for one aspect ratio over another. While I think the original format should always be preserved, I couldn't care less what it is.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Now that one I can answer. At the time of the initial video masters for Lawrence, there was no quality means of extracting an image from a 65mm element as data. Also, the program which I created in 1994 toward harvesting an image from a 35mm element had not yet come to fruition. That occurred with My Fair Lady.

The problem with the early LoA masters were that they were all produced from generic 35mm reduction elements. Crop the top and bottom, crop the sides a bit for safety, and voila!

I've a feeling you'll like the new one.

RAH

Perhaps you can clear up a bit of confusion for me. I remember George Feltenstein promoting the MGM laserdisc releases of West Side Story and 2001: a space odyssey back around 1990 or 1991 stating this was the first time that they were able to transfer from 65mm elements. I found this Robert Wise intro from the laserdisc talking about it and they show a clip of the transfer being worked on.





My question is, were 65mm transfers common after these or did they go back to transferring from 35 for a few years until technology improved? The reason I ask is that I don't remember hearing of any other laserdiscs being promoted as such after these initial two titles for many years.

 

[Jarod M]

So since Kubrick died, Warner has done the following:
1. Censored Eyes Wide Shut in the theaters
2. Refused to release an uncensored version of Eyes Wide Shut on DVD, despite the availability of the uncensored version in other parts of the world.
3. Released open matte 4:3 versions of The Shining and FMJ, under the guise that these were "Kubrick approved" and that Kubrick actually preferred these versions to the way they were seen in the theater.
4. Initially releasing a botched version of FMJ on Blu-ray.
5. Going against Kubrick's expressed wish for a 1.66 ratio for Barry Lyndon, in addition to removing original logo.

Some people also feel that 2001 could look significantly better if the large format elements were newly scanned.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Worth]

They also announced an upcoming special edition of Lolita immediately after releasing the bare-bones version.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Originally Posted by Jarod M
So since Kubrick died, Warner has done the following:
1. Censored Eyes Wide Shut in the theaters
2. Refused to release an uncensored version of Eyes Wide Shut on DVD, despite the availability of the uncensored version in other parts of the world.
3. Released open matte 4:3 versions of The Shining and FMJ, under the guise that these were "Kubrick approved" and that Kubrick actually preferred these versions to the way they were seen in the theater.
4. Initially releasing a botched version of FMJ on Blu-ray.
5. Going against Kubrick's expressed wish for a 1.66 ratio for Barry Lyndon, in addition to removing original logo.

Some people also feel that 2001 could look significantly better if the large format elements were newly scanned.

Did I miss anything?

1. Kubrick would have certainly done some sort of cutting or censoring as he was under contract to deliver an "R" rated film. The way it was handled was about the best way I could see to handle it.
2. I agree that was stupid. It was some sort of corporate policy of not releasing unrated or NC-17 films on video under the "Warner Bros." name. What was ridiculous was that they would release unrated product under the "Warner Home Video" label when it came from a subsidiary like Morgan Creek or Castle Rock. Thankfully, it's no longer an issue.
3. Warner wanted to release FMJ and The Shining in widescreen on laserdisc and Kubrick wouldn't allow it. He even forced Criterion to re-transfer Dr. Strangelove for their laserdisc because he wanted it open-matte. There's several threads discussing and debating this in-depth. We'll never know what Kubrick would have done had he been alive, but we now have the option of viewing these films in both 1.33 and 1.85.
4. Agreed.
5. Agreed.

I would add that Eyes Wide Shut is messed up on Blu-Ray since it removes nearly all the prevalent film grain that existed in the theatrical prints. Anyone who saw the film theatrically can attest to the substantial amount of grain that was originally there.

 

[WinstonCely]

I find it amazing that the grain in Eyes Wide Shut went almost completely unnoticed to me when I saw it on opening day in the theater. I remember being completely engaged in the story, if not slightly confused by much of it, but the grain was the last thing on my mind. I compared the DVD to the Blu-ray, and I think the Blu-ray does a great job of representing the grain even if it is somewhat decreased. I don't notice any negative side effects from the decrease in grain, although I think they should put it back if there was indeed as much grain removal as many seem to think there is.

I remember reading about pushing the stock in development much further than most would consider comfortable, and the natural bi-product of that process would be a substantial increase in grain. However, in my views of the film on BD, I've felt there is a good amount of grain and adds to the ambience of the story quite nicely. Anyway, just IMHO.

 

[Jarod M]

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins
I would add that Eyes Wide Shut is messed up on Blu-Ray since it removes nearly all the prevalent film grain that existed in the theatrical prints. Anyone who saw the film theatrically can attest to the substantial amount of grain that was originally there.

I've kinda given up on the grain issue. That's the way I remember it too, but no authorities on film have questioned the presentation of EWS on Blu-ray, so there isn't much basis to prove that Warner is at fault here.

 

[WilliamMcK]

Regarding the possibility of Barry Lyndon being presented in 1.66 in 1975/1976 at North American theaters:

I saw this movie in early 1976 in Knoxville, TN. I was 15 and it made a huge impression on me. One of the things I distinctly remember about the presentation was that the sides were "fuzzy" and the image didn't take up the entire width of the screen. Even at the time I was aware of aspect ratio issues (though I was unfamiliar with the phrase) and I thought that since the previous film the theater had screened had been Jaws (in 2.35), that the management had been lazy about reformatting their masking (it was sort of a dumpy theater, the kind of place -- as my mother would say -- where "you check your crowbar at the door"). Looking back on it now, I tend to think the theater management was adhering to Kubrick's wishes and showed the film in 1.66. Would that fuzzy "home movie" look on the side edges of the frame be consistent with projecting a film without the proper aperture?

 

[Jay G.]

WilliamMcK ,

I think the fuzzy sides was a result of the theater possible using the correct aperture plate, but on a screen that was wider than 1.66:1

From a very informative article:
http://lennylipton.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/the-projection-dilemma/

The aperture plate is closer to the lens than the pressure plate. It forms a rectangle around the frame, and aperture plates are often interchangeable to accommodate how much of the frame is used. For example, when projecting motion pictures a larger aperture plate can be used for Panavision or CinemaScope movies, because more of the frame is used. The film and the aperture plate, which is in front of the frame, cannot both be brought into sharp focus on the screen. If you bring the aperture plate into sharp focus, the film is out of focus, and vice versa. There’s no choice; you have to focus on the film, because who cares about a sharp aperture plate?



However, if you focus on the film, the aperture plate–or that which is surrounding the film–is going to be blurry. That is why movie projection is set up so that the image bleeds onto the black rectangle that surrounds the screen. If you don’t do it this way, you’ll have blurry edges for the vertical and horizontal portions of the projected edges, and for aesthetic reasons that would is deemed to be unpleasing. Therefore, some of the image is wasted. It is sacrificed in order to make a nice, crisp, sharp surround.

From your description, it sounds like they had the top and bottom bleeding into the border of the screen, but since the image's aspect ratio was less wide than the screen, the sides bled onto unused screen space instead of the screen border. Typically, the side border could be adjusted between 1.85:1 and scope, via moving curtains, but possible not for a 1.66:1 ratio.

Or, like you assumed, maybe the theater was showing it in 1.85:1, and had forgotten to change the screen's masking from its scope 2.35:1 configuration.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Worth
They also announced an upcoming special edition of Lolita immediately after releasing the bare-bones version.

I'll be shocked if the Anniversary release is anything other than the exact same disc in a Digibook package.

 

[marsnkc]

Originally Posted by John Hodson
The overriding point is that Stanley Kubrick's instructions were clear: 'Barry Lyndon' was photographed in 1.66:1 aspect ratio. Please be sure you project it at that ratio, and in no event less than 1.75:1'

Any other interpretation surely must be considered obfuscation. That's how it was, we know that's what he wanted. Whether they were able to project it so is neither here nor there. Warner were clearly able to transfer the film in accordance with Kubrick's Plan 'A', but chose something close to Plan 'B'. For whatever reason.

It's not the end of the world, it doesn't fatally damage the compositions so I'm told. But it's odd; Kubrick's probably sat on a cloud, having a good old chuckle...

Beautifully summarised, except I think he's sat on a cloud having a good old fit...........

 

[WilliamMcK]

Terrific article. Thanks for the link. It explains exactly what I experienced. In addition, it gives some eye-opening information about both film and digital projection.

Originally Posted by Jay G.
WilliamMcK ,

I think the fuzzy sides was a result of the theater possible using the correct aperture plate, but on a screen that was wider than 1.66:1

From a very informative article:
http://lennylipton.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/the-projection-dilemma/

 

[AdrianTurner]

Originally Posted by John Hodson

It's not the end of the world, it doesn't fatally damage the compositions so I'm told. But it's odd; Kubrick's probably sat on a cloud, having a good old chuckle...

Yawning's more like it.