Originally Posted by NoirFan

Also a healthier file size: 38.9 GB, versus Lolita's paltry 23.5.

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Well, you're also looking at 3 hours of color versus 2.5 hours of monochrome, so it's not a level playing field, so to speak.

Originally Posted by NoirFan

True, but I still think Lolita's image would have benefited from a larger size/double-layer disc, though after poking around, I found out that Maltese Falcon, Casablanca and Sierra Madre all had similar feature sizes, so who knows.

Originally Posted by Dwigt

There are reports in the John Baxter biography [Stanley Kubrick: A Biography] that a projection [of Barry Lyndon] was stopped in London as the theatre had picked the wrong aspect ratio.

There's an interview with the at the time Warner head of publicity for Europe in the Michel Ciment book [Kubrick: The Definitive Edition] where he states that Kubrick as curious about how the movie would be screened. He had a few questions for the theaters that were booked in France and Germany and discovered that most of them didn't own a 1.66:1 soft matte anymore, while it cost a few quids. So, they sent the matte to all theaters.

Originally Posted by Bilge Ebiri

I want to add that the old laserdisc [in 1.66:1] actually SAYS on it that it was transferred under Kubrick's supervision. FWIW.

To wit: "Transferred under the supervision of Mr. Kubrick, 'Barry Lyndon' is presented in a matted widescreen format preserving the aspect ratio of its original theatrical presentation. The black bars at the top and bottom of the screen are normal for this format."

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

For what it's worth, when I was at the Everyman Cinema in London in the early 1990s - which for many years was the only UK venue to play 'Barry Lyndon' (the booking guy at Warners once joked that he might as well let us look after the print, as it only ever seemed to shuttle backwards and forward between us and the depot) - we always screened it at 1.66:1, under the impression that that was the correct aspect ratio. Since I don't recall any discussion of this at the time, I assume it was marked that way on the film cans.

We knew for a fact that it wasn't 1.85:1, because of an anecdote we'd heard from Geoff Andrew (Time Out/BFI Southbank programmer) - when he was a projectionist at the Electric Cinema, he ran it at 1.85:1, and received an outraged complaint from Kubrick's office, who had sent a spy to the screening. I know for a fact that the practice continued into the 1990s, as I had two or three calls from Vitali (representing Kubrick's office) about other matters in connection with our screenings, based on reports received - but he never once complained about the aspect ratio.

Not that it would have done him much good if he had, because as Dwigt points out above, the 1.77:1 aspect ratio was non-standard. We could handle 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, but that was it - and I doubt very much that many other cinemas could say anything different. In fact, we did better than many, as we could at least show 1.33:1 properly.

Originally Posted by David Mullen

But to confuse the issue more, in the Ciment book on Kubrick, a Warners
Publicity person remembers that for "Barry Lyndon" Kubrick had 1.66
projector masks shipped to certain theaters in France and Germany that only
had 1.85 masks.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

This is one of those situations where everyone (almost) is correct.

Mr. Kubrick passed away a dozen years ago, and at that time he had set standards for home video viewing of his works for both WB and Criterion.

To this day, I find his Criterion directives to have a bit of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" attitude about them, with their exposure of multiple aspect ratio in-camera mattes.

His films, by his authority, were set up to be viewed in the highest possible aspect ratio. And they were designed that way because that was the way he wanted them to be seen.

On home video.

On 4:3 screens.

Some up to a huge 35" diagonally.

He abhorred pan & scan, preferring to open mattes even to the point of revealing certain things that today might be digitally erased.

If anyone understood his directives, it was Mr. Vitali, and after SK's passing it is Mr. Vitali who within rational limits, and based upon ever-changing technology does his best to see that SK's work is handled in the best way possible.

I've not examined the OCN of Barry Lyndon, but it is said that the film was shot open matte at around 1.6:1, ie. via a camera aperture. This makes sense.

The film would have been protected at least to 1.66, but with the exception of controlled screenings, would not have been seen that way.

1.66:1 was an aspect ratio that ended here in the Colonies c. 1953, with films like Rear Window. By 1954, Paramount's VistaVision had set 1.85:1 as a perfunctory standard. Columbia and other studios followed suit. By 1975 few theaters were able to run at 1.66, as standards were 1.85 and 2.35. Not long after, the standard for some theaters unfortunately became 2:1. That made things easy. Crop both spherical films as well as scope productions to the same imagery.

One screen fits all.

Barry Lyndon looks terrific at 1.66. My personal feeling is that at 1.85, it is cramped, and would prefer not to see it at that ratio.

But the native HD ratio of 1.78:1 works just fine with the film.

1.66 would also, just slightly different. And to most, an unnoticeable difference.

Mr. Vitali knows of what he speaks. Beyond his acting career, he's a filmmaker. He is also still supporting SK, as he has in the past.

And with his knowledge, he understands that things change, and that decisions made by Mr. Kubrick in the late 1990s no longer apply in the home theater world of today.

I don't think I'd be going out on the limb by saying that I believe SK would be pleased with what WB has done with his film. It is more highly resolved and more stable than any print had ever been. The work performed by Warner's MPI is as perfect as technologically possible.

And as far as aspect ratios go, anything between 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 will do just fine.

Keep in mind that in stating this, I'm leaving the real world behind. That world of cinemas to project necessitates (in many cases) reverse trapezoidal projection aperture plates, in order to create the illusion of a rectangular image on screen.

All of this, in the real world, means that in 1975, most theaters would have run Barry Lyndon at 1.85, and probably 1.75 in Europe and the UK. In some theaters it may well have run at 1.66.

At the beginning of this comment, I noted that almost everyone is correct. The single incorrect notion is that the film would ever be properly projected at 1.59 or 1.6:1, as shot, but never intended to be seen.

Mr. Wells is passionate about film, and that passion is to be respected. Mr. Vitali knows precisely what Mr. Kubrick's desires and mindsets were, and is uniquely capable of translating them to the necessities of current home theater technology.

RAH

Originally Posted by mcharro3

In other news: the packaging for the new limited set is BRUTAL. I mean, it's really very pretty, very nicely designed from a visual standpoint, but you have to dig in to the VERY tight cardboard sleeve each movie is housed in with your index finger and thumb and PULL. Lolita wouldn't play for me at first until I noticed I'd left multiple smudge marks on the disc! And no, before anyone asks, I'm not overly greasy or anything!

Also, I have to say, even though it's good value for money, I'm really disappointed this set is essentially just repackaging of the already existing blu-rays with two new discs thrown in. The older releases could really have used new mastering...REALLY.

Originally Posted by Superdaddy

Glad I'm acquiring the Kubrick BDs separately.