3 ms·

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?

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?