Barry Lyndon Blu-ray in a wrong format
nessuno2001
Lyndon is in 1.85:1 aspect ratio.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B001AQT0OU/
"One of the most beautiful movies of all time makes it long-awaited hi-
def debut" boasts the cover... in a wrong format, they should add.
Can anyone explain how it is simply impossible to have a decent
edition of most of the Kubrick films?
- TS, FMJ, EWS are in 1.77 (standard 16/9) instead of 1.33 or 1.85;
- BL is now 1.85 instead of 1.59, which is simply absurd, it's even
tighter than standard 16/9.
Yet they are apparently doing Lolita in 1.66 (it is correct), so
what's the problem in having BL correctly framed?
It's been 10 years that they are making a mess with SK films on home-
video. I just can't see why.
And besides, who is "they"? I'd like to know who is behind these
choices. Someone at Warner Bros.?
F.
MP
Hi. What's the correct aspect ratio for Lyndon, and how do you know
the Bluray is 1.85:1?
The Shining's colors are messed up for the new dvd, so im not
surprised a similar thing is happened for Lyndon.
MP
>
> - Show quoted text -
This means that the film is cropped slightly at the top and bottom of
the frame, right? Similar thing on the Eyes Wide Shut DVD, which I
didn't like.
nessuno2001
> Hi. What's the correct aspect ratio for Lyndon,
1.59:1 was the ratio in the UK DVD, and that was correct. The US DVD
was 1.66:1, I don't know why.
> and how do you know the Bluray is 1.85:1?
It's in the cover I found on Amazon, linked above.
At 1.85:1 BL will be heavily cropped at the top and bottom, loosing
its composition.
F.
s_o_keefe
The issue is certain home video consumers want the theatrically-matted
1:85 presentation (whilst SK ultimately composed for full-frame).
Warners could have addressed this LONG ago with 'flipper' DVDs
(widescreen on one side, full-frame on the other). Likewise, both
presentation formats would easily fit onto one Blu-ray disc. Why
Warners didn't/doesn't address this simple feat is beyond me.
Regards,
Steve
MP
Personally, I think Kubrick's compositions always look better with the
extra room on the top and bottom of his object's of focus/ or frames.
This creates a slight distancing effect. The more compact compositions
always seem slightly off to me. He's also one of the few directors
who's films look great and very stark in square, 4:3 ratios.
nessuno2001
> The issue is certain home video consumers want the theatrically-matted
> 1:85 presentation (whilst SK ultimately composed for full-frame).
> Warners could have addressed this LONG ago with 'flipper' DVDs
> (widescreen on one side, full-frame on the other). Likewise, both
> presentation formats would easily fit onto one Blu-ray disc. Why
> Warners didn't/doesn't address this simple feat is beyond me.
> Regards,
> Steve
I can't see any point in this either... They treat old films
correctly, using black bars to fit them into the now standard 16/9
screens, so why trying to adapt BL to the new format instead of
preserving it as it was? And they are doing it with ACO, Lolita,
etc...
Besides, they could have added the original mono tracks as an
additional audio choice. After all, their size in MB is minimal and
they are the only ones done by Kubrick. This applies to the old DVDs
as well.
F.
s_o_keefe
Yes, Blu-ray would be the perfect opportunity to make SK's approved
mono mixes available again. They could even pull them from the old
Laserdisc's digital tracks - it's a no-brainer.
Best,
Steve
MP
http://i55.tinypic.com/dvabk.jpg
It's the difference between my original EWS DVD and HD copy.
I assume the new Barry Lyndon will feature the same amount of cropping
on top and bottom?
Which composition do you prefer?
kelpzoidzl
I have to say that I was alwasy a bit annoyed that BL wasn't shot in
70 mm...I felt the same way about ACO TS AND FMJ. I've never
understood why SK did it this way. Maybe just costs. But I've alwasy
been a wide screen nut since I first saw "This is Cinerama" at age 5.
On the other hand if this is true about BL being cropped, that is
dispicable. Like said above---have the disc contain both.
MP
The shop assistant in the toy store Magic Circle performs a similar
act as Red Cloak does in his magic circle.
Bill Reid
OH LORD THE FRIGGIN' ASPECT RATIO WARS!!!
And this after I asked here for KNOWLEDGABLE input on the
quality of the blu-ray releases of Kubrick's movies and
got essentially squat in the way of responses...well, anyway,
for what it's worth (since it's my opinion, it's fantastic,
unlike anybody else contributing to this thread)...
On Apr 2, 12:49 am, kelpzoidzl <kelpzoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2:25 am, nessuno2001 <nessuno2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Judging from the cover art on Amazon, the HD Blu-ray transfer of Barry
> > Lyndon is in 1.85:1 aspect ratio.
>
YES, BUT IS IT?!!??!! I mean, are you really judging a
"book by its cover"? Are you unaware that quite often
those ostensible aspect ratios on the covers are incorrect?
The most common inaccuracy is that the DVD is listed on
the cover as 1.85:1 but is actually 1.78:1 (the 16:9
aspect ratio of most all modern flat-screen TVs).
>
> > "One of the most beautiful movies of all time makes it long-awaited hi-
> > def debut" boasts the cover... in a wrong format, they should add.
>
B-b-but, what IS the correct aspect ratio? How was it shown in
theaters? Are you saying it was NEVER projected at 1.85:1
theatrically?
> > Can anyone explain how it is simply impossible to have a decent
> > edition of most of the Kubrick films?
That's the question I asked here, and never got an decent answer.
However, I was worried about more than just the friggin' aspect
ratio, which has been a gigantic joke for almost 60 years now...
> > - TS, FMJ, EWS are in 1.77 (standard 16/9) instead of 1.33 or 1.85;
You see, this does not bother me so much; however, I will say that
probably ideally, all Kubrick movies except "2001" should be in
1.66:1,
like the blu-ray version of "Dr. Strangelove" (more on this
later)...
> > - BL is now 1.85 instead of 1.59, which is simply absurd, it's even
> > tighter than standard 16/9.
>
Again, are you saying that is how it was projected on all movie
screens?
If by chance some errant projectionist matted it for 1.85:1 just out
of sheer force of habit because that's how every other non-widescreen
movie was projected, was the movie audience gypped out of their
hard-earned money?
> > Yet they are apparently doing Lolita in 1.66 (it is correct), so
> > what's the problem in having BL correctly framed?
>
Yes, and again, the blu-ray version of "Dr. Strangelove" is 1.66:1,
with quite thin virtually unnoticeable "pillar boxes" on each side
of the screen, so it can be done...but once again, what makes you
think "Lolita" is "correct" at 1.66:1? I mean, you are probably
"correct" (as far as a rough compromise can be "correct"), but
why do you think so and feel so strongly about it? I only ask
because the hysteria about aspect ratios is sometimes amusing if not
so occasionally counter-productive ("Dr. Strangelove" is the classic
example, again, more on that later).
> > It's been 10 years that they are making a mess with SK films on home-
> > video. I just can't see why.
>
When I asked about blu-ray Kubrick, I posited it was money
and "goofballiness"...and hysteria over aspect ratios is another
manifestation of "goofballiness"...
> > And besides, who is "they"? I'd like to know who is behind these
> > choices. Someone at Warner Bros.?
> >
The response I got here was a link to an article that talked
about how Kubrick's long-time personal assistant was handling
this...but it was clear from the article that the guy didn't
know what he was doing or talking about...
> I have to say that I was alwasy a bit annoyed that BL wasn't shot in
> 70 mm...I felt the same way about ACO TS AND FMJ. I've never
> understood why SK did it this way. Maybe just costs. But I've alwasy
> been a wide screen nut since I first saw "This is Cinerama" at age 5.
>
OH LORD, THIS IS THE GOOFBALL THAT WANTED A "CURVED SCREEN"
PRESENTATION FOR "2001" ON BLU-RAY!!! NOW HE WANTS TO RETROACTIVELY
MAKE EVERYTHING KUBRICK DID IN CINERAMA(TM)!!!
To quote the last line of the only David Lean movie I liked:
"MADNESS!!!"
Look dude, a lot of what anybody says about Kubrick shooting
a particular movie in a particular aspect ratio is largely nonsense,
but we can be sure about one thing: Kubrick only intended one
of his movies to be in wide-screen with a stereo soundtrack,
and that was "2001". He did this specifically because he SOLD
the movie to MGM as "Cinerama(TM) in Space", and that's pretty
much all he delivered as far as MGM was concerned, and they
were happy and I was happy...
Now for "Clockwork Orange", he specifically SOLD the movie
to Warner Brothers as a "low-budget movie" (source: the blu-ray
"extra" of an interview with Warner Brothers executives), so
it would have been pretty ridiculous to shoot it for Cinerama(TM),
RIIIIIIIGGHHHTTT?!!?!!
Aside from going for a "low-budget" feel for "Clockwork
Orange" (which to ME is one of its great charms), Kubrick
had made a neurotic decision never again use a stereo soundtrack
after watching "2001" in a poorly-set up theater in London. He
also had apparently expressed an opinion that the old 1.4:1
"academy apeture" used as a standard from 1932-1952 was better
from a compositional standpoint than any "wide-screen" format
(not surprising coming from a former journalistic photographer).
Now here is where it gets tricky, and where attitudes like
yours can be very counter-productive. Kubrick only made one
movie with a stereo soundtrack (actually a six-channel surround
sound).
But this grates on the GOOFBALLS who are doing the technical
work on the blu-ray versions. You see, they feel compelled to
respond to what they perceive as a general demand by people
LIKE YOU for SURROUND SOUND on blu-ray disks, regardless of
whether that is how the soundtrack was originally recorded.
So that's how they managed to screw up the soundtrack on
the blu-ray version of "Clockwork Orange", which I complained
about here. Like Ted Turner "colorizing" old movies, the
goofballs remixed a phony-baloney stereo soundtrack for
the movie, and screwed up the original aural characteristics
of the movie that I GUARANTEE you Kubrick very carefully
worked on.
> On the other hand if this is true about BL being cropped, that is
> dispicable. Like said above---have the disc contain both.
>
But even blu-ray discs don't have unlimited storage capacity,
so by including both you reduce the quality of both...unless you
go to two discs, but that was my complaint about "2001", they
deliberately put all the extras on the same disc as the movie,
that used to be on a separate disc for the DVD version. The
result: the quality of the blu-ray version was better than
the DVD, no question, but could have been even better, perhaps
MUCH better.
Look, the hysteria over aspect ratios has ALWAYS been
total "MADNESS!!!" since 1952. That's when the movie
theaters and studios went nuts with fear over television
ruining their business, so they started matting standard
35mm movies in the theater to make them "wide-screen"
and thus something "different" from TV, which of course
hilariously was in that particular 4:3 aspect ratio to duplicate
the movies of the time. Of course, even more hilariously,
TV viewers could have duplicated the same "wide-screen" effect
at home by putting masking tape over the tops and bottoms
of their TVs. So then the movie-makers came up with
TRUE wide-screen formats: 65/70mm, anamorphic wide-screen,
Todd-AO(TM), et. al., all in an effort to make their
movies UNWATCHABLE on TV.
Of course, the problem was, the movie studios out-foxed
themselves, because increasingly their revenues were
coming from their movies being watched on 4:3 TVs, particularly
after the introduction of home videotape equipment. At
a certain point in the early 90s, MORE revenues were
generated from home video viewing of movies than theatrical
presentations. It was at that point the movie studios
completely reversed their earlier hysterical actions,
and began to shot movies "full-frame" by default (no
"hard" or in-camera 35mm mattes, only projected with
"soft mattes" in-projector theatrically at the standard
1.85:1 aspect ratio). The movies were also composed so
as to minimize or eliminate any sort of "pan-and-scan"
or other techniques needed to make "wide-screen" movies
watchable on home video.
OK, now what does this have to do with Kubrick? Well,
for cryin' out loud, he damn well knew how his movies
were going to be projected in the theater, and like
every other moviemaker worked as best he could within
those parameters. I mean sure, by 1999, he shot
"Eyes Wide Shut" "full-frame", BUT SO DID EVERY OTHER
MOVIEMAKER IN AMERICA.
Now the box for VHS version of "Eyes Wide Shut" says
that it is in the "full-frame" format, AS STANLEY
KUBRICK INTENDED, but that can't possibly be the
whole truth. But I DO prefer the LOOK of the movie
on VHS than what I saw in the theater, EXCEPT there
seems to be too much "headroom". Now along comes
the blu-ray at 1.78:1, and it's got too little
"headroom" and doesn't look quite as good as far
as the colors are concerned as the VHS tape. That's
why I think 1.66:1 would have been a better "compromise"
for this and all other Kubrick movies except "2001",
BECAUSE THE ASPECT RATIO WAS ALWAYS A COMPROMISE
IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Now it gets even nuttier, if that's possible, with
"Dr. Strangelove". If you have the VHS version of
the movie, you'll notice it is letter-boxed (at
about 1.66:1) for some scenes, and "full-frame" for
others. A sane person might ask: WHY??!!!??
Well, this goes back to Criterion, apparently. You
seen some aspect-ratio GOOFBALLS there went back to
the original negatives to get the best possible
picture quality. And they noticed something a little
odd: some scenes used an in-camera "hard" matte,
other didn't. SO THEY CAME TO THE ABSOLUTELY
INSANE CONCLUSION THAT KUBRICK INTENDED THE MOVIE
BE SEEN AT TWO DIFFERENT ALTERNATING ASPECT RATIOS!!!
So that's how they mastered the laser disc which
then was used for the VHS tape.
Of course, the reason some scenes had in-camera
mattes was just that they were using cameras that
had been set up that way previously and nobody
thought about changing the mattes or even noticed
them, BECAUSE IN 1962 KUBRICK FRIGGIN' KNEW THE
MOVIE WOULD BE PROJECTED AT SOMETHING LIKE 1.85:1,
SO WHO THE HELL CARES!!! (To believe otherwise
would be to believe Kubrick was so insane as to
issue some type of impossible instructions to
projectionists to keep switching the aspect ratio
and of course the related focus and projection
size back and forth as the movie ran.)
So it's all "MADNESS!!!" and you guys really
aren't helping the cause any. As far as the blu-ray
version of "Strangelove" is concerned, somehow
in the midst of getting the 1.66:1 "correct"
ratio right throughout the movie, they managed
to introduce a whole bunch of previously
unseen film grain...I've seen the movie on a HUGE
screen at a revival and never saw all that grain
before, and it's that weird kind of "digitized"
film grain that doesn't really move the same
way as real film grain and is annoying in some
scenes. I mean the film is sharp enough that
you can spot the "fake" non-Sellers Strangelove
sitting at the table, but it is more difficult
to see the hilarious dandruff and cigarette
ashes on the "real" Sellers Strangelove close-ups.
Basically, they should have turned over the
transfers of the blu-ray Kubrick movies to me,
because as should be perfectly clear, I AM NOT
A GOOFBALL!!!
---
William Ernest "Weirdo" Reid
MP
> So that's how they managed to screw up the soundtrack on
> the blu-ray version of "Clockwork Orange", which I complained
> about here. Like Ted Turner "colorizing" old movies, the
> goofballs remixed a phony-baloney stereo soundtrack for
> the movie, and screwed up the original aural characteristics
> of the movie that I GUARANTEE you Kubrick very carefully
> worked on.
That sounds terrible. In what ways is the Blu Ray audio different?
s_o_keefe
<snip>
> > On the other hand if this is true about BL being cropped, that is
> > dispicable. Like said above---have the disc contain both.
>
> But even blu-ray discs don't have unlimited storage capacity,
> so by including both you reduce the quality of both...unless you
> go to two discs, but that was my complaint about "2001", they
> deliberately put all the extras on the same disc as the movie,
> that used to be on a separate disc for the DVD version. The
> result: the quality of the blu-ray version was better than
> the DVD, no question, but could have been even better, perhaps
> MUCH better.
>
The Blu-ray disc capacity limit for HD ('normal' bit-rate 1080p) video
is nine hours. Bit-rate could therefore be increased for most SK
movies 3X normal (total overkill), but the reality is that 35mm film
formulated from 1980s and before would very likely need DNR ('digital
Botox') to up-resolve that far. I'm not for the DNR process, and I'm
glad Criterion didn't go that route with the POG Blu-ray.
Since the SK extras are limited, I would have compiled all extras from
the boxed-set titles onto one single indexed Blu-ray disc. I'm sure
Warners is interested in breaking-out the boxed titles for individual
sale - ruling-out that simplicity.
I can't speak for the other SK Blu-rays which have been released, as
I've been holding out for the eventual box set. Overall, I think
'normal' bit-rate HD is probably the acceptable limit for SK's 35mm
films as far as granularity goes. Both full-frame and 1.85:1
'theatrically-matted' versions would therefore easily fit on one Blu-
Ray. Also, Blu-ray has advanced graphical features, and a theatrical
matte could also be accomplished graphically without two copies on the
disc. However, I think consumers would prefer the top resolution from
both presentation formats, and two versions could still fit at 2X
normal bit-rate with the existing, limited, standard definition
extras.
2001:aso apparently had an 8K resolution scan (hopefully at 2.20:1)
and, therefore, should justify one feature Blu-ray disc and a separate
extras disc, like the DVD, as mentioned.
Steve
Bill Reid
A lot of the "background" music is at a much lower volume
than it was mixed in the original film. In the original film
the "background" music was deliberately set at a very
high volume, almost overwhelming the dialog, effectively
putting the music in the "foreground". Kubrick clearly
did this intentionally in light of the important role that
music played in the plot of the movie.
But that's not how the vast majority of movies mix in
"background" music, so when the goofballs creating the
blu-ray disc added their superfluous stereo soundtrack
in anticipation of the goofball blu-ray buying public
complaining about not getting their money's worth for
their surround sound systems with the original mono
soundtrack, they just mixed the music the way it would
have been mixed in most movies. And just like that,
for me at least, they destroyed half the movie (looks
good, though)...
It wasn't the first time that goofballs screwed around
with a Kubrick soundtrack, since various goofballs did
several different versions of the "2001" soundtrack.
For the VHS version, there was some not-too-bad upmixing
of some of the music and sound effects. But for the
horrible "restored" 70mm prints they showed in a limited
revival in 2001, some goofball went nuts and turned the
dial to "11" on some of the music and effects at certain
times, but even worse set "HAL"'s voice to "12", changed
its tone to basso profundo, added an echo, all in some
kind of apparent juvenile attempt to make him sound like
Darth Vader...
Now on the blu-ray it is back to CLOSE to the original
audio mix for the most part, except now some of the sound
effects that were originally intended to be VERY loud
(such as the blast the monolith puts out on the moon)
are not quite as loud as in the original...the problem
apparently is, once they start screwing around with this
stuff, it appears to be impossible to ever get it back to
where it was originally...
---
William Ernest "Spinal Tapped" Reid
nessuno2001
> "book by its cover"? Are you unaware that quite often
> those ostensible aspect ratios on the covers are incorrect?
Sure I am. In fact I was looking for a press release or something on
several websites and found nothing except that image on Amazon. I am
still hoping it is a mistake.
> B-b-but, what IS the correct aspect ratio? How was it shown in
> theaters? Are you saying it was NEVER projected at 1.85:1
> theatrically?
I am just saying that the film was shot at 1.59:1 and I believe this
is the ratio Barry Lyndon should have in home-video formats. In fact,
the transfer that were made while Kubrick was alive were at 1.59:1.
Quite strangely, the US DVD was 1.66:1.
> Again, are you saying that is how it was projected on all movie
> screens?
> If by chance some errant projectionist matted it for 1.85:1 just out
> of sheer force of habit because that's how every other non-widescreen
> movie was projected, was the movie audience gypped out of their
> hard-earned money?
I believe that home-video releases should be as correct as possible,
so I see no point in saying that probably Barry Lyndon was projected
at 1.85:1 sometimes when the projectionist was lazy or something. If
Kubrick transferred it at 1.59:1 I can't see what could be more sure
than that.
> what makes you
> think "Lolita" is "correct" at 1.66:1?
The fact that the digital transfer by Criterion for their Laserdisc
was supervised by Kubrick and it is full frame with a 1.66:1 hard
matte, with the exception of three or four shots that are 1.33:1,
probably pick-up scenes. I think the film should therefore be
transferred at 1.66:1 throughout.
> But this grates on the GOOFBALLS who are doing the technical
> work on the blu-ray versions. You see, they feel compelled to
> respond to what they perceive as a general demand by people
> LIKE YOU for SURROUND SOUND on blu-ray disks, regardless of
> whether that is how the soundtrack was originally recorded.
>
> So that's how they managed to screw up the soundtrack on
> the blu-ray version of "Clockwork Orange", which I complained
> about here. Like Ted Turner "colorizing" old movies, the
> goofballs remixed a phony-baloney stereo soundtrack for
> the movie, and screwed up the original aural characteristics
> of the movie that I GUARANTEE you Kubrick very carefully
> worked on.
I totally agree on this. I believe that they were very wrong in not
adding the original mono mixes done by Kubrick even in the old DVDs.
The remixes are totally arbitrary to me.
> Well, this goes back to Criterion, apparently. You
> seen some aspect-ratio GOOFBALLS there went back to
> the original negatives to get the best possible
> picture quality. And they noticed something a little
> odd: some scenes used an in-camera "hard" matte,
> other didn't. SO THEY CAME TO THE ABSOLUTELY
> INSANE CONCLUSION THAT KUBRICK INTENDED THE MOVIE
> BE SEEN AT TWO DIFFERENT ALTERNATING ASPECT RATIOS!!!
It was Kubrick who decided upon this. The Laserdisc was supervised by
him, he gave his print to do the transfer and checked (and re-checked)
the result. The story is told in an interview with Maria Palazzola of
Criterion who worked with Martin Hunter, editor of FMJ and then
assistant to Kubrick in these Laserdisc transfers.
Strangelove was shot with different stock of films, and Kubrick chose
to have a full frame transfer, with visible alternating mattes. When
projected, I guess it was either in 1.66:1 or in 1.85. My ideal
transfer for this film would be 1.33:1 with visible mattes, but I
don't see anything particularly wrong in a 1.66:1 transfer.
Filippo
Bill Reid
> On Apr 2, 9:07 pm, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > On the other hand if this is true about BL being cropped, that is
> > > dispicable. Like said above---have the disc contain both.
>
> > But even blu-ray discs don't have unlimited storage capacity,
> > so by including both you reduce the quality of both...unless you
> > go to two discs, but that was my complaint about "2001", they
> > deliberately put all the extras on the same disc as the movie,
> > that used to be on a separate disc for the DVD version. The
> > result: the quality of the blu-ray version was better than
> > the DVD, no question, but could have been even better, perhaps
> > MUCH better.
>
> The Blu-ray disc capacity limit for HD ('normal' bit-rate 1080p) video
> is nine hours.
It is? I must confess I've never heard that before, though I'm
perhaps not as knowledgeable about HD codec sizes as I could be
(I suspect I'm not alone on this, even among people who are actively
working on movie->DVD conversions for a living!).
I've always THOUGHT I heard something more along the lines
of about 2hrs 2mins for 1080p quality blu-ray "capacity", and
I just went to Wikipedia (I know, but bear with me) and
although I couldn't quickly locate anything on the issue
directly I did note a blu-ray "bit rate" and a data capacity
which when I did the math on the full "bit rate" for an
entire movie worked out to be a little over 2hrs for the
disc capacity...
In any event, I'm just always in the mind that with these
HIGHLY compressed home video codecs (the typical average
quoted compression is 55-fold with respect to native addressing
of each pixel with 24-bit color (which some would say is
a quantitization compression in and of itself, note the
existence of "deep color spaces" of 36-48 bits), or conversely
they compress the data to less than 2% of the "original"
(and I've done the math on this as well)), the more data the better,
and if you could use the entire data capacity of the disc
for one movie, it would be of somewhat higher quality...
> Bit-rate could therefore be increased for most SK
> movies 3X normal (total overkill), but the reality is that 35mm film
> formulated from 1980s and before would very likely need DNR ('digital
> Botox') to up-resolve that far. I'm not for the DNR process, and I'm
> glad Criterion didn't go that route with the POG Blu-ray.
>
That's next on my list, the reviews are good, but currently it's
quite a bit pricier than the others so I've held off...
> Since the SK extras are limited, I would have compiled all extras from
> the boxed-set titles onto one single indexed Blu-ray disc. I'm sure
> Warners is interested in breaking-out the boxed titles for individual
> sale - ruling-out that simplicity.
>
Well, the number of extras is different for different movies, and
are sometimes quite odd, sometimes humorously so, sometimes boringly
so...
> I can't speak for the other SK Blu-rays which have been released, as
> I've been holding out for the eventual box set. Overall, I think
> 'normal' bit-rate HD is probably the acceptable limit for SK's 35mm
> films as far as granularity goes.
Yeah, I'm sort of satisfied (with noted exceptions) that the
images I'm seeing are probably as close to the theatrical
presentation as the technology will allow (note that there
was a study that examined the typical resolution of 35mm prints
and found it was actually LESS than 1000 lines).
> Both full-frame and 1.85:1
> 'theatrically-matted' versions would therefore easily fit on one Blu-
> Ray.
Yeah, maybe...
> Also, Blu-ray has advanced graphical features, and a theatrical
> matte could also be accomplished graphically without two copies on the
> disc.
Or just use the "zoom" feature on their TVs! I'm not sure about
all the bells and whistles of blu-ray, I just decided a while back
that because they record 24fps film content at 24fps natively,
that would be the thing for me, with a TV that also could operate
at 24fps (this actually took some doing because of some
undocumented counter-productive default behavior of the
TV, which has "motion control" technology, and would turn 24fps
into 48fps or something, resulting in "soap opera" motion in
movies, but eventually I figured out how to turn it off as
a default when I play a blu-ray movie).
> However, I think consumers would prefer the top resolution from
> both presentation formats, and two versions could still fit at 2X
> normal bit-rate with the existing, limited, standard definition
> extras.
>
Not at all sure what a "normal" bit rate is...
> 2001:aso apparently had an 8K resolution scan (hopefully at 2.20:1)
> and, therefore, should justify one feature Blu-ray disc and a separate
> extras disc, like the DVD, as mentioned.
>
I don't know, I've seen a list of 8K scans and "2001" wasn't
on it, as a 70mm film it should have been done that way (or
even 16K!), and if it wasn't, that's just another example of
somebody cheap-jacking a blu-ray release (which happens a lot).
I'm also not sure how the scan relates to the final size of
the AVC file (or whatever), or whether different film formats
"deserve" different final sizes...the problem is that as
a 70mm film, you aren't going to get anywhere near the
resolution I saw in its original Cinerama(TM) presentation
with current TVs, and though it's quite good and better
than it ever looked on DVD or VHS (though I'm the last one
to knock good quality VHS on a quality CRT, oddly enough),
it's now close enough to the original that I get irritated
by any digital imperfections (the seams in the background material,
the banding of the light show at the end, etc.); I accept the
fact that I'll never be able to read the name tag on the
stewardess through the window as the Pan-Am "Space Clipper"
first sails by, as you practically could in 70mm...
Also, I'm still trying to figure out why certain high-def
movies and other shows on BROADCAST TV look so much better
than anything I've seen on blu-ray...
---
William Ernest "Definition Hog" Reid
s_o_keefe
<snip>
> I've always THOUGHT I heard something more along the lines
> of about 2hrs 2mins for 1080p quality blu-ray "capacity", and
> I just went to Wikipedia (I know, but bear with me) and
> although I couldn't quickly locate anything on the issue
> directly I did note a blu-ray "bit rate" and a data capacity
> which when I did the math on the full "bit rate" for an
> entire movie worked out to be a little over 2hrs for the
> disc capacity...
<snip>
> Not at all sure what a "normal" bit rate is...
To discuss 'normal' for Blu-ray, it gets technical. 'Normal' video
bitrate for Blu-ray disc is the bitrate required to achieve HD 1080p
delivery, and it varies by the codec used (MPEG-2, MPEG-4 or VC-1).
Warners used VC-1 for the previous SK Blu-rays, and their average
video bitrate (not factoring audio bitrate) in Mbps is:
2001:aso = 13.39
ACO = 18.98
TS = 14.67
FMJ = 17.09
EWS = 17.18
There are sites which list the various Blu-ray title specs on the web,
and the maximum total bitrate (video+audio) delivery for the Blu-ray
format is 40Mbps.
The previous SK Blu-rays do have 'average' video bit-rate, although
the 2001:aso bitrate seems to have been lowered to factor single-disc
capacity with the extras, as you mentioned.
One thing to note is that the existing SK Blu-rays were likely dual-
layer (50GB), but the Blu-ray disc format has been future-proofed to
increase capacity in 25GB layers to a maximum capacity of 200GB.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=200Gb+%22blu-ray%22
The 'average' video bitrate for modern movies in VC-1 is 20-30mbps.
These films' negatives are usually scanned at 4K and a digital
intermediate is used throughout post-production. The resulting,
peerless digital quality can be 'shown off' with a higher bitrate.
SK films on Blu-ray were scanned from interpositives (albeit, freshly-
minted interpositives for HD transfer), so the HD resolution for an
35mm IP from an older negative film can only resolve-up so far before
its 'digital Botox' time. Films like 2001:aso (65mm) and
'Spartacus' (Technirama) are another matter, as discussed.
Regards,
Steve
s_o_keefe
<snip>
> There are sites which list the various Blu-ray title specs on the web,
> and the maximum total bitrate (video+audio) delivery for the Blu-ray
> format is 40Mbps.
Errata: the the maximum total bitrate (video+audio transfer rate) for
the Blu-ray format is 54Mbps, the maximum video bitrate is 40Mbps.
Steve.
Bill Reid
> On Apr 3, 6:50 pm, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I've always THOUGHT I heard something more along the lines
> > of about 2hrs 2mins for 1080p quality blu-ray "capacity", and
> > I just went to Wikipedia (I know, but bear with me) and
> > although I couldn't quickly locate anything on the issue
> > directly I did note a blu-ray "bit rate" and a data capacity
> > which when I did the math on the full "bit rate" for an
> > entire movie worked out to be a little over 2hrs for the
> > disc capacity...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Not at all sure what a "normal" bit rate is...
>
> To discuss 'normal' for Blu-ray, it gets technical. 'Normal' video
> bitrate for Blu-ray disc is the bitrate required to achieve HD 1080p
> delivery, and it varies by the codec used (MPEG-2, MPEG-4 or VC-1).
>
> Warners used VC-1 for the previous SK Blu-rays, and their average
> video bitrate (not factoring audio bitrate) in Mbps is:
>
> 2001:aso = 13.39
> ACO = 18.98
> TS = 14.67
> FMJ = 17.09
> EWS = 17.18
>
Can I sue somebody for this, maybe a class action suit for egregious
criminal aspect ratio incorrectness and fraudulent bit-rate
manipulation?
> There are sites which list the various Blu-ray title specs on the web,
> and the maximum total bitrate (video+audio) delivery for the Blu-ray
> format is 40Mbps.
>
Yes, I saw the Wikipedia entry that listed that...things are
getting a little clearer at the same time as the vaunted blu-ray
picture is getting murkier due to bit-rate fraud...
> The previous SK Blu-rays do have 'average' video bit-rate, although
> the 2001:aso bitrate seems to have been lowered to factor single-disc
> capacity with the extras, as you mentioned.
>
THOSE BASTARDS!!!
> One thing to note is that the existing SK Blu-rays were likely dual-
> layer (50GB), but the Blu-ray disc format has been future-proofed to
> increase capacity in 25GB layers to a maximum capacity of 200GB.
>
> http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=200Gb+%22blu-ray%22
>
Yeah, I saw that too, I'm not sure I fully believe it, though
I will if I can get a working firmware upgrade into my blu-ray
player...then I suppose THOSE BASTARDS!!! will issue a NEW
"IMPROVED" high bit-rate version of "2001"...FRAUD!!!
> The 'average' video bitrate for modern movies in VC-1 is 20-30mbps.
And this answers my question about why some hi-def broadcast
television looks better than blu-ray discs, since I think the
bit rate for a 1080i channel is like 27mbps(24?)...what this
is all leads to is the general perception among many people
that blu-ray is not all it's cracked up to be, so the blu-ray
people are kind of shooting themselves in the foot with
this cheap-jackery...
> These films' negatives are usually scanned at 4K and a digital
> intermediate is used throughout post-production. The resulting,
> peerless digital quality can be 'shown off' with a higher bitrate.
>
> SK films on Blu-ray were scanned from interpositives (albeit, freshly-
> minted interpositives for HD transfer), so the HD resolution for an
> 35mm IP from an older negative film can only resolve-up so far before
> its 'digital Botox' time. Films like 2001:aso (65mm) and
> 'Spartacus' (Technirama) are another matter, as discussed.
>
I think I get it...you wind up scanning "noise" (grain) rather
than picture...maybe that's what happened to "Dr. Strangelove",
where previously non-existant grain appeared in the blu-ray
version...however, since there are any number of people here
who just love all the annoying grain in the theatrical presentation
of "Eyes Wide Shut", they should be thrilled with the grainy
blu-ray "Dr. Strangelove", "as Stanley wanted it"...
---
William Ernest "Kubrick Wanted Me To Post This" Reid
nessuno2001
> > YES, BUT IS IT?!!??!! I mean, are you really judging a
> > "book by its cover"? Are you unaware that quite often
> > those ostensible aspect ratios on the covers are incorrect?
>
> Sure I am. In fact I was looking for a press release or something on
> several websites and found nothing except that image on Amazon. I am
> still hoping it is a mistake.
Just found the cover artwork for the box-set and it's still listing BL
as 1:85:1.
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5277/kubrickbluboxxxl.jpg
It also lists TS, FMJ and EWS at 1:85:1, they were 1.77:1 previously.
Since I doubt they changed anything in the last films transfers,
probably it's a mistake on the cover and they're all 1.77:1. Still, I
can't see why BL is not like Lolita at 1.66:1.
F.
Bill Reid
>
> > YES, BUT IS IT?!!??!! I mean, are you really judging a
> > "book by its cover"? Are you unaware that quite often
> > those ostensible aspect ratios on the covers are incorrect?
>
> Sure I am. In fact I was looking for a press release or something on
> several websites and found nothing except that image on Amazon. I am
> still hoping it is a mistake.
>
- "A Clockwork Orange" listed as "1.66:1" on blu-ray cover,
actually 1.78:1
- "Eyes Wide Shut" listed as "1.85:1" on blu-ray cover,
actually 1.78:1
- "2001" "anamorphic wide-screen" DVD is at the original
2.2:1, but cover says it preserves "'SCOPE' ASPECT RATIO
OF ITS ORIGINAL THEATRICAL EXHIBITION"...of course, the
movie was not a "scope" (CinemaScope(TM), or some type
of "anamorphic 35mm widescreen) film, but a 70mm Cinerama(TM)
etc., etc., etc., ("Dr. Strangelove" blu-ray cover is actually
correct on the contents, and it contains a little booklet
with some pages of exised scenes from the movie; "Buck
Turgidson"'s character's name was originally "Connor"!)
> > B-b-but, what IS the correct aspect ratio? How was it shown in
> > theaters? Are you saying it was NEVER projected at 1.85:1
> > theatrically?
>
> I am just saying that the film was shot at 1.59:1
It was? How? Did they use a "hard" in-camera matte
for all the footage shot?
> and I believe this
> is the ratio Barry Lyndon should have in home-video formats. In fact,
> the transfer that were made while Kubrick was alive were at 1.59:1.
> Quite strangely, the US DVD was 1.66:1.
>
You're really being a little picky here...that's less than a
4% difference between the DVD and your greatly-desired "correct"
aspect ratio...obviously "letter-boxing" it to 1.85:1 would be
a silly waste of time, but again, the odds are against it,
you'll likely get the DVD aspect ratio or 16:9 (1.78:1)...
> > Again, are you saying that is how it was projected on all movie
> > screens?
> > If by chance some errant projectionist matted it for 1.85:1 just out
> > of sheer force of habit because that's how every other non-widescreen
> > movie was projected, was the movie audience gypped out of their
> > hard-earned money?
>
> I believe that home-video releases should be as correct as possible,
My goal (perhaps as Quioxtic as yours) is to re-create the
MOVIE-GOING experience in my living room...that was the primary
consideration in my getting a big-screen TV and blu-ray player
and surround-sound system.
So to me "correct" is as close as possible to how it was
seen in the movie theater, not what either you OR Kubrick
OR Criterion thinks is "correct"...
> so I see no point in saying that probably Barry Lyndon was projected
> at 1.85:1 sometimes when the projectionist was lazy or something.
It's been a long time, but it seemed to me at the time that
the screen was a little narrower than usual for "Barry Lyndon"
(they pulled the drapes in a little), so although I can't
give you an exact aspect ratio, I would be satisfied with
anything between 1.6:1 to 1.78:1 (as I've said, I think
that 1.66:1 is a good compromise for all Kubrick movies
except "2001", but I'm not gonna pitch a bitch if it
fills up my wide-screen, because like most people, I'm
not crazy about any type of letter-boxing or pillar-boxing,
but 1.66:1 pillar-boxing is virtually unnoticeable on
a 16:9 TV...
> If
> Kubrick transferred it at 1.59:1 I can't see what could be more sure
> than that.
>
Yeah, I'm also a little skeptical that he "transferred"
anything at anything, but maybe...
> > what makes you
> > think "Lolita" is "correct" at 1.66:1?
>
> The fact that the digital transfer by Criterion for their Laserdisc
> was supervised by Kubrick and it is full frame with a 1.66:1 hard
> matte, with the exception of three or four shots that are 1.33:1,
> probably pick-up scenes. I think the film should therefore be
> transferred at 1.66:1 throughout.
>
My latest copy of "Lolita" is actually just a videotape I
made of a PBS broadcast...I can't remember if it was actually
pillar-boxed for 16:9 and it's been a while since I looked
at the tape that I recorded from my converter box at full
letter-box zoomed out aspect ratio...it may have been
broadcast at 16:9 as it just about all movies on TV these
days, and I'm pretty much fine with that and even in favor
of it (I tend to prefer it for "scope" movies that would
otherwise be heavily letter-boxed on DVD/blu-ray)...
> > But this grates on the GOOFBALLS who are doing the technical
> > work on the blu-ray versions. You see, they feel compelled to
> > respond to what they perceive as a general demand by people
> > LIKE YOU for SURROUND SOUND on blu-ray disks, regardless of
> > whether that is how the soundtrack was originally recorded.
>
> > So that's how they managed to screw up the soundtrack on
> > the blu-ray version of "Clockwork Orange", which I complained
> > about here. Like Ted Turner "colorizing" old movies, the
> > goofballs remixed a phony-baloney stereo soundtrack for
> > the movie, and screwed up the original aural characteristics
> > of the movie that I GUARANTEE you Kubrick very carefully
> > worked on.
>
> I totally agree on this. I believe that they were very wrong in not
> adding the original mono mixes done by Kubrick even in the old DVDs.
> The remixes are totally arbitrary to me.
>
It's public pressure, no doubt. The scariest thing I ever
read was a review of "2001" saying the blu-ray disc had "tape
hiss" on it in some scenes. "2001" didn't have any "tape
hiss" on it ever, but Kubrick added a hissing sound for
a lot of the scenes with the astronauts that I guess was
supposed to be the sound of their air delivery and ventilation
systems (along with an omnipresent mechanical noise for all
scenes except set in a vaccuum which I guess was supposed to be
the centrifuge mechanism).
I could just see some "technician" saying, "Hey, this old movie
has tape hiss in it, let's fix that."
> > Well, this goes back to Criterion, apparently. You
> > seen some aspect-ratio GOOFBALLS there went back to
> > the original negatives to get the best possible
> > picture quality. And they noticed something a little
> > odd: some scenes used an in-camera "hard" matte,
> > other didn't. SO THEY CAME TO THE ABSOLUTELY
> > INSANE CONCLUSION THAT KUBRICK INTENDED THE MOVIE
> > BE SEEN AT TWO DIFFERENT ALTERNATING ASPECT RATIOS!!!
>
> It was Kubrick who decided upon this.
Ah, again, I'm skeptical, except perhaps he was that
bat-crap crazy...
> The Laserdisc was supervised by
> him, he gave his print to do the transfer and checked (and re-checked)
> the result.
Skeptical.
> The story is told in an interview with Maria Palazzola of
> Criterion who worked with Martin Hunter, editor of FMJ and then
> assistant to Kubrick in these Laserdisc transfers.
>
Yeah, remember I was pointed here to an interview with his
personal assistant who allegedly supervised all the new
blu-ray transfers and as I and others pointed out, the guy
didn't know what the hell he was talking about...
> Strangelove was shot with different stock of films, and Kubrick chose
> to have a full frame transfer, with visible alternating mattes.
Well, this was a not too bad COMPROMISE for the then-current
1.33:1 TVs, but again, I personally am trying to re-create the
movie-going experience soooooo...
> When
> projected, I guess it was either in 1.66:1 or in 1.85.
I've seen it projected, on a huge screen. Again, I
couldn't give you an exact aspect ratio, but it was
definitely NOT 1.33:1 with alternating mattes, so what
I saw on the big movie screen is what I want to see
at home (the blu-ray 1.66:1 is fine, except for the
stupid grain they added)...
> My ideal
> transfer for this film would be 1.33:1 with visible mattes, but I
> don't see anything particularly wrong in a 1.66:1 transfer.
>
Your "ideal" is pretty sub-optimal for people with
wide-screen TVs who lose 40% of their screen to black
pillar-boxes, only to then alternately lose even more
to the matted scenes...again this is "MADNESS"!!!
---
William Ernest "We must not allow a bit-rate gap!" Reid
Bill Reid
> On Apr 3, 3:05 pm, nessuno2001 <nessuno2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > what makes you
> > > think "Lolita" is "correct" at 1.66:1?
>
> > The fact that the digital transfer by Criterion for their Laserdisc
> > was supervised by Kubrick and it is full frame with a 1.66:1 hard
> > matte, with the exception of three or four shots that are 1.33:1,
> > probably pick-up scenes. I think the film should therefore be
> > transferred at 1.66:1 throughout.
>
> My latest copy of "Lolita" is actually just a videotape I
> made of a PBS broadcast...I can't remember if it was actually
> pillar-boxed for 16:9 and it's been a while since I looked
> at the tape that I recorded from my converter box at full
> letter-box zoomed out aspect ratio...it may have been
> broadcast at 16:9 as it just about all movies on TV these
> days, and I'm pretty much fine with that and even in favor
> of it (I tend to prefer it for "scope" movies that would
> otherwise be heavily letter-boxed on DVD/blu-ray)...
>
and the composition looks "correct" at that ratio, all the
elements in the picture are very nicely balanced and well-nigh
perfect...that SHOULD be how they do the blu-ray...
---
William Ernest "Perfectly Photographed Perversion" Reid
MP
Kubrick's 'preferred' aspect ratio was always the original one, the
full 35mm frame, 4/3 or 1.33:1 (or "Academy Aperture" of 1.37), for
the simple reason that he started out as a (35mm) photographer:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown
in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his
long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali, that was the way he
composed them through the camera viewfinder and if it were technically
still possible to do so, he would have liked them to be shown full
frame in cinemas as well. As Vitali said in a recent interview: "The
thing about Stanley, he was a photographer that's how he started. He
had a still photographer's eye. So when he composed a picture through
the camera, he was setting up for what he saw through the camera - the
full picture. That was very important to him. It really was. It was an
instinct that never ever left him. [...] He did not like 1.85:1. You
lose 27% of the picture, Stanley was a purist. This was one of the
ways it was manifested."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is probably the reason that his back catalogue, following his
death, was released on DVD in full (Academy) frame.
In practice, of course, Kubrick shot with multiple aspect ratios in
mind. For instance, with the VCR and videos becoming widespread in the
late-1970s, his last three films - TS, FMJ, and EWS - were framed for
two ratios, one ratio - full frame, 1.33/1.37 - for 'home video' and
TV broadcast, and the other ratio, flat widescreen or 1.85, for
theatrical projection (or 1.66 internationally, as you say in your
post above). The reason for the discrepancy between the international
ratio of 1.66 and the American one of 1.85 is due to the latter having
become the standard projection ratio in most all theatres in the US by
the late-1970s, not because it was Kubrick's 'preferred' ratio, as his
two previous films - ACO and BL - were also shot for two ratios, full
frame (for TV, and to avoid the then widespread practice of 'pan and
scan') and 1.66 for theatrical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Barry Lyndon," was released theatrically in 1.66:1, even in the U.S.
since Kubrick insisted on 1.66 hard mattes being sent to the various
theatres showing the film (1.85 is the common "flat" widescreen ratio
in the U.S.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, these films were all framed for 1.66 for projection
and full frame for video/TV, as had films prior to 2001 eg Dr
Strangelove was also framed for 1.37 and screened at either 1.66 or
1.37, as the Academy 1.37 aspect ratio was very much becoming obsolete
as a projection format in most theatres by the 1960's, being replaced
or cropped/matted first to 1.66 flat widescreen and later being added
to by a range of others including 1.75 and 1.85. The situation was
obviously different for his preceding film, 2001, given that it was
shot in 65mm Super Panavision for screening at 2.20:1 on 70mm or 35mm
prints, and for Spartacus, shot in 'scope' or 35mm anamorphic for
projection at 2.25:1 for 35mm prints and 2.20:1 for 'blow up' 70mm
prints. He probably didn't envisage them being shown on TV, or wasn't
particularly concerned about it ... And as far as I recall, his
earlier films, Lolita, Paths of Glory, The Killing, etc, were a
mixture of both ratios, either Academy Aperture/full frame 1.37
(Lolita, The Killing, Killer's Kiss)) or 1.66 (Paths of Glory).
In short, 1.37/33 Academy for TV/video/DVD and 1.66 flat widescreen in
theaters, but with 2001 and Spartacus at 2.20/2.25 scope of super
panavision in theatres.
(None of his films, while he was alive, were ever released in 1.77
(16/9). This is a very recent practice, since the advent of flat panel
widescreen TVs and HDTV).
________________
Can someone explain this: why can't a 1:33:1 image (Full frame?) be
stretched to fit a 2:35:1 screen (widescreen?) without the tops and
bottoms of the frame being cut?
s_o_keefe
> Harry Bailey says:
>
<snip>
> ________________
>
> Can someone explain this: why can't a 1:33:1 image (Full frame?) be
> stretched to fit a 2:35:1 screen (widescreen?) without the tops and
> bottoms of the frame being cut?
Stretching 1.33:1 horizontally to 2.35:1 would warp the image. If you
mean 1.33:1 for widescreen (16x9) video displays, the 1.33:1 academy
aperture image would be transferred as 'pillarbox', with black bars to
the left and right to establish the 'square' format.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarbox
I know that Disney has done this with its early animated works on Blu-
ray, and there's been no fuss.
Regards,
Steve
MP
Thanks for the response, Steve. Sorry for bugging, but I'm still
confused about something. If image 1 in the following picture
represents the 4:3 image...
http://i51.tinypic.com/wbqqz7.jpg
...why cant this be scaled up to a widescreen image without the loss
of the tops and bottoms of the frame, as seen in image 4 from the Blu
Ray?
Bill Reid
EXTRODINAIRE, FOR DISPOSITION OF THE ISSUE...
> Kubrick's 'preferred' aspect ratio was always the original one, the
> full 35mm frame, 4/3 or 1.33:1 (or "Academy Aperture" of 1.37), for
> the simple reason that he started out as a (35mm) photographer:
>
Yeah, sure, except that as a photo-journalist every frickin'
thing he ever shot was cropped to varying aspect ratios for
publication...
> It seems to have been Kubrick's preference for his films to be shown
> in the 4:3 or "full frame" aspect ratio, because, according to his
> long-standing personal assistant Leon Vitali,
Discredited source...
>
> This is probably the reason that his back catalogue, following his
> death, was released on DVD in full (Academy) frame.
>
Nice use of the word "probably" there...the REAL reason was
that a) at the time, EVERYTHING was released that way and b) it
isn't true (I believe some movies were letter-boxed in whole
or in part).
> In practice, of course, Kubrick shot with multiple aspect ratios in
> mind.
Of course, as I pointed out, EVERYBODY DID!!! Sheesh...
> For instance, with the VCR and videos becoming widespread in the
> late-1970s, his last three films - TS, FMJ, and EWS - were framed for
> two ratios, one ratio - full frame, 1.33/1.37 - for 'home video' and
> TV broadcast, and the other ratio, flat widescreen or 1.85, for
> theatrical projection (or 1.66 internationally, as you say in your
> post above).
Yes, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!!! As a matter of fact, for non-widescreen
movies, the theatrical presentation format was actually inferior
BY INTENTION for most movies (there were things happening in the
tops and bottoms of the screen that you couldn't see until you
watched it "full-frame" on TV)...Kubrick actually put more "headroom"
into his "full-frame" compositions to avoid this...
> The reason for the discrepancy between the international
> ratio of 1.66 and the American one of 1.85 is due to the latter having
> become the standard projection ratio in most all theatres in the US by
> the late-1970s, not because it was Kubrick's 'preferred' ratio, as his
> two previous films - ACO and BL - were also shot for two ratios, full
> frame (for TV, and to avoid the then widespread practice of 'pan and
> scan') and 1.66 for theatrical.
>
Really doubtful that "A Clockwork Orange" was shot "full-frame",
because to the best of my knowledge no such "full-frame" version
exists...Kubrick actually personally developed a book that had
every shot from "A Clockwork Orange" in sequence with the dialog
and script shot descriptions, and those shots were NOT "full-frame".
Every "full-frame" version I've seen of "A Clockwork Orange"
were missing some important action in the sides of the frame
(such as "Billy-Boy"'s knife flick) that were only seen in
theater or in a letter-boxed or 16:9 version of the movie...in
conclusion, I think Kubrick may have learned from his earlier
mistakes and "hard-matted" "A Clockwork Orange" and probably
"Barry Lyndon" as well...
>
> "Barry Lyndon," was released theatrically in 1.66:1, even in the U.S.
> since Kubrick insisted on 1.66 hard mattes being sent to the various
> theatres showing the film (1.85 is the common "flat" widescreen ratio
> in the U.S.).
Of course the theater could have still done (and in many cases
probably did) just use a 1.85:1 projector matte, but you're just
making my case that "Barry Lyndon" used "hard mattes" so was
NOT intended EVER to be "full-frame"...
> In other words, these films were all framed for 1.66 for projection
> and full frame for video/TV,
No they weren't, because we know for a fact that some shots
in "Dr. Strangelove" used IN-CAMERA mattes, and probably ALL
the shots in "A Clockwork Orange" used IN-CAMERA mattes...
> And as far as I recall, his
> earlier films, Lolita, Paths of Glory, The Killing, etc, were a
> mixture of both ratios, either Academy Aperture/full frame 1.37
> (Lolita, The Killing, Killer's Kiss)) or 1.66 (Paths of Glory).
>
I thought we established "Lolita" was "intended" for 1.66:1; I
just looked at it, and it sure looked like the film was specifically
composed for that aspect ratio...
>
> Can someone explain this: why can't a 1:33:1 image (Full frame?) be
> stretched to fit a 2:35:1 screen (widescreen?) without the tops and
> bottoms of the frame being cut?
Well, as explained, you can, it's just that the picture will be
distorted, unless you use an "anamorphic" lens to shoot the picture,
and then project it with an opposite "anamorphic" lens, a la
"CinemaScope(TM)", which is how all "wide-screen" movies are
shot these days.
What's really irritating to me is that there is this perception
that every single inch of a wide-screen TV must be filled, even if
you have to distort the picture, and I guess it is so prevalent that
this stupid TV I bought by default sets all the "standard definition"
channels to "full" (anamorphic stretching of the 4:3 picture to
16:9), and I had to go in and reset this behavior so a lot of
my channels weren't all distorted. But apparently one of the
big complaints about wide-screen TVs is that when the goofballs
get them home they expect everything they see on them to
be 16:9, and apparently goofballs drive the market for TVs
and DVDs and blu-ray discs...
---
William Ernest "Stretch Armstrong" Reid
s_o_keefe
Hi again,
The image 1 can't be scaled-up to full 'widescreen' without cropping
or warping, because the source image was never widescreen - it's
Academy aperture (1.33:1).
The square 'units' in the linked image is a good illustration: the
proper scale of image 4 in widescreen for home video would use 12x9
'units' on a widescreen television which allocated 16x9 'units'.
4/3 = 1.33
12/9 = 1.33
Any other method of fitting the 4x3 image to completely fill 16x9 will
involve cropping, warping or both. 'Letterbox' is used to present an
image in an aspect ratio which is not the television's aspect ratio.
'PIllarbox' for 1.33:1 or IMAX film on home video is no different,
except that the black bars are on the sides.
Best,
Steve
nessuno2001
> > I am just saying that the film was shot at 1.59:1
>
> It was? How? Did they use a "hard" in-camera matte
> for all the footage shot?
I believe they did. Otherwise, why Barry Lyndon wasn't transferred for
home-video in full frame, 1.33:1? The old VHS tapes and the Laserdisc
were 1.59:1 or 1.66:1. Since the UK version at 1.59 has a bigger image
(more stuff visible at the top and bottom of the image, while same
things visible at left and right sides), my conclusion is that BL was
hard matte at 1.59:1.
> You're really being a little picky here...that's less than a
> 4% difference between the DVD and your greatly-desired "correct"
> aspect ratio...
I don't think I am picky. I can't understand why we accept watching
old films like silent films at their ratio, as bizarre at it might
sound to someone – 1.17:1 for instance, and then we don't care about a
film of the '70s, and say that it can be adapted to modern TV screen
because it's just a 4% loss of image. To me, it's not about how much
you loose or you gain, it's about preserving the films as they were.
> So to me "correct" is as close as possible to how it was
> seen in the movie theater, not what either you OR Kubrick
> OR Criterion thinks is "correct"...
To me, the only thing one should follow is what the director of the
film did. Since we have pretty valid information about how Kubrick's
films were shot and screened, I can't see why they should differ from
that.
EWS: shot at full aperture, screened at 1.85:1, to be transferred at
one of these two.
FMJ: same as above.
TS: same as above.
BL: shot at 1.59, screened at 1.66, to be transferred at one of these
two.
ACO: shot at 1.66, screened at 1,66, to be transferred at 1.66.
2001: shot at 2.20:1, screened at 2.2:1 or 2.35:1, to be transferred
at 2.20:1.
DS: shot at full aperture and 1.66:1, screened at 1.66:1 or 1.85:1, to
be transferred full frame or at 1.66:1.
Lolita: shot at 1.66:1 and full aperture, screened at 1.66:1, to be
transferred at 1.66:1.
Spartacus: shot at 2.20:1, screened at 2.35:1, to be transferred at
2.20:1.
POG: shot at full aperture, screened at 1.66:1, to be transferred at
1.66:1
TK: same as above, probably.
KK: same as above, probably.
(As a side note: I think the above is right, but I don't see it carved
in stone. To be honest I am quite uncertain myself, since this topic
has always been treated in a confusing manner, or as you said opening
your replies, "the frigging aspect ratio wars!" I am not saying it's
you, in fact you are one of the few people answering peacefully about
the topic. The "wars" were started years ago I believe, I wasn't
following this NG back then, and I have nausea whenever I google and
find tons of polarised discussion of those years. I mean, why can't we
discuss it openly and trying to get the record straight? End of the
note)
2001 and Spartacus case are exemplar. Why do we want them at 2.20:1
which was the Roadshow Cinerama presentation not the usual standard
cinema screening, and then we shouldn't care about the original
aspects for the other films?
> Yeah, remember I was pointed here to an interview with his
> personal assistant who allegedly supervised all the new
> blu-ray transfers and as I and others pointed out, the guy
> didn't know what the hell he was talking about...
Actually the interview in the Criterion Laserdisc catalogue of Autumn
1992 is pretty unbiased to me. Ms Palazzola consulted with Martin
Hunter in L.A., they worked together and send the Strangelove material
to Kubrick who disapproved it three times and when everything was
cleared they approved the transfer and did the LaserDisc. Kubrick
wanted the transfer to be full screen and show the alternating aspect
ratios of the film, for whatever reason.
> Well, this was a not too bad COMPROMISE for the then-current
> 1.33:1 TVs, but again, I personally am trying to re-create the
> movie-going experience soooooo...
So, since the original aspect is preserved in the old DVDs, I won't
complain too much about the "restored" DVD and Blu-ray transfers are
1.66:1.
F.
MickeyMoop
'I LUV THIS ROOM!' harry bailey l o o o
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo lll l Bog bless ye, merry gentlemen.
'The things they ratioed.'
Don Stockbauer
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bog and the Universe are identical memes.
MickeyMoop
>
> - Show quoted text -
i hope yer taking notes, donno - there will be a test at the end
of this thread. these guys are the finest techies you'll ever know;
when you rotate back to Clara's PECAN WINNING orchard, you'll miss not
having them around anymore {like brother Jackson, too busy i guess
assistant directing for Malick} .
Don Stockbauer
Clara has a pecan winning orchard in addition to that nutcracker she
uses as a dildo??????????
MickeyMoop
>
> - Show quoted text -
that North Polecat is formatted in a strange ratio - where DU you
find these "people" ? ? GEOFF, COME BACK, Gordo, Nick Frewin...grocers
of St. Alban's...put down those paint brushes, Lambkini, play with
us...or Reid, at least.
MickeyMoop
>
> - Show quoted text -
St. Albans. private stockboy, do you even believe in the EmmyLou
Harris?
Don Stockbauer
I beleiev in EmmyLou,Harris,
The Father Almighty,
Creator of music.
MickeyMoop
>
> - Show quoted text -
You believe in James B. Harris? Or Harris O'Bailey? Father Orson
"Welles" Mapple?
Don Stockbauer
I believe in 6.02 times 10 to the 23rd power impossible things before
breakfast.
kelpzoidzl
TV technology and storage will keep changing to be more flexible.
I doubt the desire for correct aspect ratios of SK films will
diminish. The current available products is what there is. There are
limitations in technology, so shortcuts are taken.
Don Stockbauer
I want a 1:1,000,000,000,000 ratio. The so-called "Ultimate
Spaghetti" ratio for Flatlanders.
kelpzoidzl
I for one think you will get your wish.
It will be a Dr. Suess ending. In the antlers. Eyes with. + signs
Don Stockbauer
I love it when I get my wish.
Bill Reid
>
> > > I am just saying that the film was shot at 1.59:1
>
> > It was? How? Did they use a "hard" in-camera matte
> > for all the footage shot?
>
> I believe they did. Otherwise, why Barry Lyndon wasn't transferred for
> home-video in full frame, 1.33:1?
This was my point about "A Clockwork Orange"; however, I am
not familiar with "home-video" presentations, except how they
used to show the movie on cable (1.33:1), and that might have
very well been a crop of the 1.59:1 ratio "as Stanley intended
and actually shot the thing"...
> The old VHS tapes and the Laserdisc
> were 1.59:1 or 1.66:1.
If so, this MIGHT imply how the film was shot, since Kubrick
may have framed it with no consideration of the "home-video"
market at that time...
> Since the UK version at 1.59 has a bigger image
> (more stuff visible at the top and bottom of the image, while same
> things visible at left and right sides), my conclusion is that BL was
> hard matte at 1.59:1.
>
Seems like a reasonable conclusion...
> > You're really being a little picky here...that's less than a
> > 4% difference between the DVD and your greatly-desired "correct"
> > aspect ratio...
>
> I don't think I am picky.
It's a little picky either way, but once again, if the movie
was shot with the intent of being shown THEATRICALLY in a particular
aspect ratio then that's what I want to see...except of course,
MAYBE in the several cases where I've actually been disappointed by
movies shot in the 80s-90s that look BETTER at "full-frame",
which to some extent includes "Eyes Wide Shut" (this is why this
topic
is so friggin' frustrating)...
> I can't understand why we accept watching
> old films like silent films at their ratio,
Wait second...are you telling me that Ted Turner DIDN'T
DUB IN DIALOG FOR SILENT MOVIES??!?! How could anybody
but the deaf enjoy them!???!!
> as bizarre at it might
> sound to someone – 1.17:1 for instance, and then we don't care about a
> film of the '70s, and say that it can be adapted to modern TV screen
> because it's just a 4% loss of image.
Well, the very minor difference between letter-boxing and
not letter-boxing a 1.85:1 movies is pretty small, but for
whatever reason I am much more disturbed by slight letter-boxing
than SLIGHT "pillar-boxing", but that's just me, maybe...
> To me, it's not about how much
> you loose or you gain, it's about preserving the films as they were.
>
Yeah, I just want the "movie-going experience" at home, but
for various reasons I ain't going to get exactly that and I
don't always even REALLY want that...
> > So to me "correct" is as close as possible to how it was
> > seen in the movie theater, not what either you OR Kubrick
> > OR Criterion thinks is "correct"...
>
> To me, the only thing one should follow is what the director of the
> film did. Since we have pretty valid information about how Kubrick's
> films were shot and screened, I can't see why they should differ from
> that.
>
But there seems to be a bit of double-think by Kubrick as
well as everybody else in the movie industry, which is partly
where the wiggle-room comes from that gets turned into carte-blanche
re-working of picture and sound...
> EWS: shot at full aperture, screened at 1.85:1, to be transferred at
> one of these two.
I'm satisfied with 1.78:1, probably would like it better at
1.66:1, where image and framing would probably be closest to
ideal; image is ideal at "full-frame"
> FMJ: same as above.
Well, to cut to the chase, I've already said I think all
Kubrick movies except "2001" (or "Spartacus") should be
at 1.66:1...
> TS: same as above.
IBID. As as been noted, it is not fully "full-frame safe",
so that's right out...
> BL: shot at 1.59, screened at 1.66, to be transferred at one of these
> two.
Again, I choose 1.66:1, but we're quibbling about small stuff
again...
> ACO: shot at 1.66, screened at 1,66, to be transferred at 1.66.
I was incorrect earlier in this thread; the blu-ray version
of "A Clockwork Orange" is apparently 1.66:1, NOT 1.78:1...upon
closer further inspection, there are those VERY thin "pillar-boxes"
at the sides of the screen, SO thin you can hardly even notice
them against the black TV frame...
> 2001: shot at 2.20:1, screened at 2.2:1 or 2.35:1, to be transferred
> at 2.20:1.
Which it is. Interestingly, 1.33:1 versions don't require a
lot of "pan and scan", and I've even seen a 1.33:1 version of
the opening credits where the credits had been re-done to
fit in the TV screen...
> DS: shot at full aperture and 1.66:1, screened at 1.66:1 or 1.85:1, to
> be transferred full frame or at 1.66:1.
No, only should be 1.66:1, some of the shots would have to be
cropped for no apparent good effect otherwise...
> Lolita: shot at 1.66:1 and full aperture, screened at 1.66:1, to be
> transferred at 1.66:1.
I think that may be the way it is done in the blu-ray, but
I haven't seen it...
> Spartacus: shot at 2.20:1, screened at 2.35:1, to be transferred at
> 2.20:1.
How exactly did they shoot "Spartacus"? I mean, what goofy
brand name did they use?
> POG: shot at full aperture, screened at 1.66:1, to be transferred at
> 1.66:1
OK.
> TK: same as above, probably.
> KK: same as above, probably.
>
Oddly, I've seen both of these on a HUGE screen, but it's
been a while and I'm can't really remember any aspect ratio
details, except they seemed to be narrower than 1.85:1...
> (As a side note: I think the above is right, but I don't see it carved
> in stone. To be honest I am quite uncertain myself, since this topic
> has always been treated in a confusing manner, or as you said opening
> your replies, "the frigging aspect ratio wars!" I am not saying it's
> you, in fact you are one of the few people answering peacefully about
> the topic.
That would be a first for me...there's a couple of things
that set ME off...one is anybody who INSISTS that "full-frame"
in any way should be mandatory for any Kubrick film, and
some people do INSIST on it...I'm terrified that one day
I'll go out, and not be able to find anything but what
somebody declared was "what Stanley wanted"...
> The "wars" were started years ago I believe, I wasn't
> following this NG back then, and I have nausea whenever I google and
> find tons of polarised discussion of those years. I mean, why can't we
> discuss it openly and trying to get the record straight? End of the
> note)
>
Because, as I've said, the record can never be set
entirely "straight"...
> 2001 and Spartacus case are exemplar. Why do we want them at 2.20:1
> which was the Roadshow Cinerama presentation not the usual standard
> cinema screening, and then we shouldn't care about the original
> aspects for the other films?
>
Well, truth to tell, I do find letter-boxing to be VERY annoying,
particularly 2.40:1 (2.39? 2.35? what's the deal on THAT?) on a
16:9
screen. I generally don't use the "zoom" function on the TV
to defeat it, but I can note a couple of things: they typically
do use the "zoom" function when demoing TVs in stores by showing
something like "King Kong" (I'm sure because they think that
people won't buy a TV with letter-boxing on it, as silly as
that seems), and I actually prefer the typical network presentation
of most wide-screen movies, which are NOT letter-boxed and
may employ a touch of "pan and scan" (they look sharper and
have more "presence" than the letter-boxed DVDs and blu-rays)...
> > Yeah, remember I was pointed here to an interview with his
> > personal assistant who allegedly supervised all the new
> > blu-ray transfers and as I and others pointed out, the guy
> > didn't know what the hell he was talking about...
>
> Actually the interview in the Criterion Laserdisc catalogue of Autumn
> 1992 is pretty unbiased to me. Ms Palazzola consulted with Martin
> Hunter in L.A., they worked together and send the Strangelove material
> to Kubrick who disapproved it three times and when everything was
> cleared they approved the transfer and did the LaserDisc. Kubrick
> wanted the transfer to be full screen and show the alternating aspect
> ratios of the film, for whatever reason.
>
OK, I was talking about something much later, the blu-ray stuff,
in any event what Kubrick wanted for 1.33:1 displays may not have
been what he wanted for 1.78:1 displays that appeared after his
death...
> > Well, this was a not too bad COMPROMISE for the then-current
> > 1.33:1 TVs, but again, I personally am trying to re-create the
> > movie-going experience soooooo...
>
> So, since the original aspect is preserved in the old DVDs, I won't
> complain too much about the "restored" DVD and Blu-ray transfers are
> 1.66:1.
>
Well, my original goal was get a whole new set of blu-rays for
anything I cared about, but I've been re-thinking that goal recently,
as are apparently all other humans on the planet...
---
William Ernest Reid (now waiting for ultra-violet-ray)
Don Stockbauer
Blarp.
MickeyMoop
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Whose side are you on, son?"