Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

So did the OP leave because he convinced himself that he "won the argument"?

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

It looks like it. I find it funny he stated "I won this argument," as if that's how it worked. :lol:

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

The one movie where we can be absolutely certain what aspect ratio Kubrick wanted is of course one that Warner has overmatted for the new Blu-ray transfer.

When Barry Lyndon was released in 1975, Kubrick demanded that every theater showing it be equipped with proper 1.66:1 projector mattes, even though that was never a standard in North America. He was probably the only filmmaker who could get away with something like that. Legend has it that he even sent spies to various theaters to report on which ones projected it properly.

Every single home video release was letterboxed to 1.66:1 at his insistence, even VHS (which was released at a time when letterboxing was virtually unheard of).

The Blu-ray is a 16:9 (1.78:1) transfer. It looks fine and isn't noticeably cropped, but I doubt anyone is the perfectionist that Kubrick was.

Considering that the Blu-rays for both Lolita and Clockwork Orange are 1.66:1, I have no idea why Warner cropped this one.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

Here's some screencaps of the 1.78:1 transfer:
http://blubrew.com/2011/05/20/barry-lyndon-sneak-peek/

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

What you wrote here might make sense except that Criterion has released MANY full frame academy ratio 1.33:1 Blurays. They would never make the decision to crop to 16x9 purely for financial reasons.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

Fish Tank for example is FF..cuz it was made that way but still...they don't cut corners.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

Yeah, saying Criterion made a certain creative decision for financial purposes is gross mischaracterization and shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the company.

They were releasing films in letterbox on LD long before widescreen was considered cool. They have consistently stuck to the OAR, excepting a few films where the director explicitly chooses a different aspect ratio for the release.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

So photography professors of today are advocating large areas of dead space on the above and below the subjects of an image? How times have changed.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

Geez, what do you guys not understand about "I won this argument"? He declared himself "winner" of this thread a week ago - end of discussion, no take-backs!

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

When I went to film school, I was taught that the "golden rule" was that close-ups of actors' faces should position the eyes approximately 2/3 up from the bottom of the frame (1/3 down from the top). A viewer is naturally drawn to the character's eyes, not to their forehead.

The open-matte transfers of Kubrick's films often leave the actors' eyes too low in the frame.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

All this photography theory talk is irrelevant, though. Yes, Kubrick was a photographer, but this is cinematography- we're talking about movies. The relative aesthetic goals of photography and cinematography are never necessarily in sync and are often entirely opposed.

I could go on about how the tone of the dusk skyline in Barry Lyndon doesn't match the tube of pthalo blue in my box of paints, but that wouldn't be relevant, either- different mediums, different needs and aims.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

Read my post again. I went to film school, not photography school. Different things.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

Read my post again. I was agreeing with you that if conventional theory is going to be applied, it should be cinema theory, not photography theory.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

What you are saying is true, but much of what you learn studying photography can be applied to cinematography, like lighting, lens and f-stop choices, and most aspects of composition. Just look at how well composed and dynamic the first Lumiere brothers films were.

There is a reason why so many filmmakers turn to the work of photographers and painters when deciding on the look for their movie.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

Of course it can, but there are other very important compositional concerns in cinematography that simply aren't present in still photography (not the least of which being the relationship of the frame to motion and the image-dimension limitations of the theatrical market). An interpretation of a filmmaker's compositional intentions made by evaluating single frames of his film as if they were still photographs is a dangerously inappropriate path.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

I won this argument.

Re: criterion paths of glory cropped?
 

Once again, I am not arguing against this, but the stills discussed in this thread do represent the most obvious compositional problems present in most every shot of Kubrick's open matte transfers. For comparison, most of us have seen these on DVD, VHS and/or cable. Plus, if David Bordwell finds stills useful... :)