Stanley Kubrick Collection

[med]

Barry Lyndon is def 1.85:1, if those grabs are any indication.

[MichaelB]

That's already been confirmed beyond any doubt.

[Gregory]

I wonder if anyone will do a comparison of matched screencaps to show how much they opened up the sides vs. how much they took off the top and bottom (not to say I'd be too happy about the former, but it's better to add to the frame than take anything away).

[Oedipax]

I wonder if anyone will do a comparison of matched screencaps to show how much they opened up the sides vs. how much they took off the top and bottom (not to say I'd be too happy about the former, but it's better to add to the frame than take anything away).

Yikes, this isn't gonna be pretty. It's definitely cropped heavily on top and bottom, with a miniscule amount added to the sides. The new BD definitely comes down more on the side of chopping off information rather than opening anything up.

Here's a quick and dirty comparison using one of the screencaps linked above. Not an exact frame match, but you can still see the difference quite clearly.

As a side note, I wouldn't put too much stock into the color differences seen here yet - different capturing methods, color profiles, color modes, etc. could account for a lot of this. I'll leave that to the pros


Bluray scaled down to DVD size


DVD at native resolution


Both images overlaid, DVD underneath, bluray on top

[Feego]

Here are a few more comparisons (these images have been resized considerably, so pay no attention to the sharpness, etc.):

Blu-ray (the yellow lines on the sides indicate how much information has been added)


DVD (the yellow lines on the top and bottom indicate how much was removed for the Blu-ray)

Capture 2 (Blu-ray)
Capture 2 (DVD)

Capture 3 (Blu-ray)
Capture 3 (DVD)

Also, it appears that either the DVD image was vertically stretched or the Blu-ray was vertically squashed. I'm no expert on this, but the blu-ray image looks more accurate to me in this respect. The faces look a bit too thin on the DVD by comparison.

[Gregory]

Thank you, Oedipax and Feego.

[Roger Ryan]

...Also, it appears that either the DVD image was vertically stretched or the Blu-ray was vertically squashed. I'm no expert on this, but the blu-ray image looks more accurate to me in this respect. The faces look a bit too thin on the DVD by comparison.

Given the potential for the DVD image to have been stretched somewhat, then it's possible that we're not losing quite as much info in the Blu-ray in the area above and below the yellow cropping lines or in the overlay posted by "Oedipax", right?

Just trying to look on the brightside

Thanks to you both for posting.

[MichaelB]

Well, there's no doubt that the image should be 1.66:1-shaped, but if it's either a 1.85:1 version or nothing, I know which I'd prefer. And it doesn't look as though the damage is too bad.

Anyway, I've ordered the box - I only had two Kubrick Blu-rays, and one of them was the US cut of The Shining, whereas the UK box will almost certainly contain the European cut.

[Nothing]

Christ, the cropping destroys the composition imho What happened, where was Leon Vitali?!...

[Tom Hagen]

You know what I love about all of the endless Kubrick aspect ratio controversies? That the films still look absolutely fine in just about every ratio they've tried.

[Gregory]

For virtually any wrong presentation of a film, there are inevitably lots of people to whom it looks absolutely fine. What's the relevance of that? Can you give one good reason why they should go against Kubrick's established preference, rather than doing the same thing they did with the Lolita BD?

[Tom Hagen]

The whole problem is that there's a lack of clarity as to what Kubrick's definitive intentions were with a lot of these films. Hence these reductive debates every time there's a new home video release of his films.

[swo17]

Is there such a debate for Barry Lyndon though?

[MichaelB]

Not only is there not such a debate for Barry Lyndon, it's just about the only one of Kubrick's post-1960s films about which there's no doubt whatsoever - the aspect ratio should unambiguously be 1.66:1.

But his last three films were primarily composed for 1.85:1, but designed so that they could be opened up all the way for 4:3 without causing any damage - so I'm completely happy with 16:9-framed versions of those. In fact, despite living with a 4:3-framed The Shining ever since I taped it off the television in the 1980s, I personally prefer the 16:9 framing of the Blu-ray: the compositions feel tighter. And of course you don't get the notorious helicopter shadow in the opening credits.

[Tom Hagen]

Oh, okay, thanks Michael.

Outrage justified (though I'll have to see some non-tree screengrabs before I decide if this screws up the film too much for me).

[swo17]

I wonder where they even got the notion to go with exactly 1.85:1. I could understand 1.78:1 so it would completely fill a widescreen TV (and even though I would be more opposed to this morally at least it would be closer to 1.66:1!) but the slightly wider ratio seems like a deliberate choice.

[flmfrkcentral]

I wonder where they even got the notion to go with exactly 1.85:1. I could understand 1.78:1 so it would completely fill a widescreen TV (and even though I would be more opposed to this morally at least it would be closer to 1.66:1!) but the slightly wider ratio seems like a deliberate choice.

It is 1.78:1. I have the BARRY LYNDON Blu-ray disc in my possession and the image measures, like the framegrabs above, 1920x1080--or the native aspect ratio of HDTV, which is 1.78:1.

Despite Warner's typically erroneous cover claim of 1.85:1, BARRY LYNDON is most assuredly presented in screen-filling 1.78:1.

[MichaelB]

I just logged on to post exactly the same thing - my UK copy is also most definitely 16:9.

[swo17]

Well that explains it then. Worse crimes have been committed (and I'll still buy this) but this is the kind of OAR tampering that bothers me the most--complete disregard for authorial intentions mixed with a fearful pandering to the least informed consumers. At least with something like Touch of Evil, some research and/or respect for how the film looks best are taken into consideration when deciding how to present it (even if opinions differ on those matters and one of them gets sidelined in the end). At least Barry Lyndon wasn't meant to be in 1.33:1 though.

[Cash Flagg]

Despite Warner's typically erroneous cover claim of 1.85:1, BARRY LYNDON is most assuredly presented in screen-filling 1.78:1.

Not according to Glenn Kenny.

[swo17]

So...he's saying it actually is in 1.66:1? Those photos he posted are a little hard to compare, and he also doesn't say how his TV settings are formatted. I know the default setting on my plasma makes it impossible to tell the difference between 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 but I can definitely tell the difference on my projector.

[domino harvey]

Quit getting tizzy'd

[Tom Hagen]

Can't you see the black bars on the side of the black frame of the black tv?

Though the tree stump does move us through the looking glass on this one. I am reserving judgment until I see the original, long form aspect ratio.

[domino harvey]

"Black"? Maybe to the layman

[Gregory]

Can't you see the black bars on the side of the black frame of the black tv?

No, I can't see the black bars. It just looks like the bezel of his TV. I need better photos, or actual screencaps, which would be more accurate if he really wants to show how right he is. And I'd be happy to have my fears and Warner's specs be wrong on this.

Though the tree stump does move us through the looking glass on this one. I am reserving judgment until I see the original, long form aspect ratio.

Oh, jeez, Kenny took the image from the heading above the article at Blu Brew, which is not supposed to be a representation of the framing of the Blu-ray. It looks like it's in CinemaScope or something. Lots of web pages require an image of certain exact dimensions at the beginning of a story. Red herring.
Here is the actual screencap from further down the page, if he'd bothered to look and be fair about it.

One more comment, I'm just going on the information I have and trying to verify what's correct. Kenny's whole tone seems to be: Come on, people, Jesus. I'm right, you're wrong.
Sounds just like what he's complaining about with Wells. I'll take Kenny's side over Wells in that little grudge fight, but I'd expect better than this from Kenny.