3 ms·

If you consider buying a Blu-Ray version of "Barry Lyndon" currently available, note that it has a wrong format. Apparently, the film was made in a 5:3 format w

by acqq 11y ago

If you consider buying a Blu-Ray version of "Barry Lyndon" currently available, note that it has a wrong format. Apparently, the film was made in a 5:3 format which would, if transferred correctly to the current TV aspect ratio (16:9) leave black stripes to the left and the right of the picture. But it would be true to the original. And the only current offer unfortunately cuts off the upper and the lower part of the picture to "fill" the TV screen. The apparent result is that, for example, the scene for which the filmmaker waited weeks before the sky "looks right" almost doesn't contain the sky anymore. I know there are customers who just want the "full" picture even if nothing looks how it should (shorter people or missing parts of the content) but those who want to get what author made should probably wait for (hopefully) some later different edition, if it ever happens ("blah blah average customer etc"). But I guess the current format is a partial reason why those disc are untypically cheap. The real fans who want to own the film could care. Others don't want to watch it more than once and don't particularly even need to buy the disc.

dexterdog 11y ago
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/barry-lyndon-aspect-ratio/ http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/barry-lyndon-aspect-ratio/
- acqq 11y ago
  Thanks. Worth for seeing the Kubrick's typography decisions for his 1975 letter (I know that he didn't decide anything just for that letter, but I'd still like to know what was that that produced such fonts?) and his explicit instructions regarding the subject. As an example for everybody to evaluate if they consider left-out pixels significant for them, this "Barry Lyndon" snapshot is 16:9 (1280:720) https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/121.jpg https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/121.jpg In that resolution, what's missing is "just" 72 pixels total above or under the picture. The difference would be that there's no "cut" of the stones of the fire. On another snapshot https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/421.jpg https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/421.jpg the foot that misses the sole would be whole. Seem to be small differences. There are certainly enough films which were shoot with the intention not to project everything that's in the frame (that's why the mics are often "in frame" in "wrong" transfers -- the idea was that the last correction was during the projection, and there actually keeping everything is against the director's intention). But "Barry Lyndon" is exactly the movie that went to extraordinary lenghts for the photography aspect of it. Think about it: it's technically hugely inconvenient not using modern lights during shooting of the whole movie, but that was one of the major decisions of the director. The piece of the object cut off the photograph when not intended is the photographer's nightmare. But I can really understand that people who wouldn't care honestly wouldn't. By the way, the "exact" transfer to the TV HD would give 1800 instead of 1920 pixels wide image, that is, 60 pixels left and right would be black. Would some customers complain as "not wanting black pillars" too? Probably. But the fans?

by acqq 11y ago

dexterdog 11y ago

http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/barry-lyndon-aspect-ratio/ http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/barry-lyndon-aspect-ratio/

acqq 11y ago
Thanks. Worth for seeing the Kubrick's typography decisions for his 1975 letter (I know that he didn't decide anything just for that letter, but I'd still like to know what was that that produced such fonts?) and his explicit instructions regarding the subject. As an example for everybody to evaluate if they consider left-out pixels significant for them, this "Barry Lyndon" snapshot is 16:9 (1280:720) https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/121.jpg https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/121.jpg In that resolution, what's missing is "just" 72 pixels total above or under the picture. The difference would be that there's no "cut" of the stones of the fire. On another snapshot https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/421.jpg https://stillsfrmfilms.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/421.jpg the foot that misses the sole would be whole. Seem to be small differences. There are certainly enough films which were shoot with the intention not to project everything that's in the frame (that's why the mics are often "in frame" in "wrong" transfers -- the idea was that the last correction was during the projection, and there actually keeping everything is against the director's intention). But "Barry Lyndon" is exactly the movie that went to extraordinary lenghts for the photography aspect of it. Think about it: it's technically hugely inconvenient not using modern lights during shooting of the whole movie, but that was one of the major decisions of the director. The piece of the object cut off the photograph when not intended is the photographer's nightmare. But I can really understand that people who wouldn't care honestly wouldn't. By the way, the "exact" transfer to the TV HD would give 1800 instead of 1920 pixels wide image, that is, 60 pixels left and right would be black. Would some customers complain as "not wanting black pillars" too? Probably. But the fans?