Det er en vidunderlig tid at være westernfan i. Det vælter ud med gamle westerns i HD formatet og nu er endnu én på vej. Ja den er faktisk ude, men kun i Walmart i USA :(
Time Magazine describes it as 'an art film spectacle. The most ravishing set of images ever printed on a single strip of celluloid."
Apropos Barry Lyndon. Nu kan man igen være helt rolig omkring udgivelsens kvalitet. Robert A Harris to the rescue:
Even a viewer with the most pedestrian of tastes, and no knowledge of the cinema, can be pointed toward a screen with eyes open, and know within moments that they are seeing something extraordinary.
Mr. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon is one of those magisterial masterpieces that seldom appears, much like the sighting of a comet making its way across the horizon.
This one happened to appear 35 years ago.
Meticulously photographed by John Alcott in the style of 18th century paintings, and with many interiors shot via available light with specially designed optics, Barry Lyndon is a visual revelation.
Even revelations can be destroyed by the wrong person turning the wrong knob just a bit too much, and I'm pleased to report, after initially seeing some footage on screen late last year, that the Blu-ray of Barry Lyndon, had the right eyes turning the right knobs just the correct amount in our very dangerous digital world.
To my eye, the work performed to bring Barry Lyndon to the home theater environment via Blu-ray, has delivered a perfect final product.
Color, densities, black levels, shadow detail and grain structure all appear to be dead on. The uncompressed audio is, likewise, perfect.
A note about aspect ratios. There has been discussion that Barry Lyndon was composed for projection at 1.66:1, and this is an interesting thought. The problem, even in 1975, would have been that few cinemas were equipped to project that aspect ratio unless specially set up. In a very general sense, much of the world was running spherical at 1.75:1, while here in the colonies we were running at 1.85:1. 1.66:1 was a specific setup for revival theatres equipped with the necessary aperture plates, optics and maskings.
My feeling has always been that I would be thrilled if Barry Lyndon were to be released on Blu-ray at the HD native aspect ratio of 1.78:1, and the incorrect technical information on the reverse of the packaging aside, that is precisely what has occurred. Warner's new Blu-ray of Barry Lyndon is a treasure, and will be one of the most important catalog releases of 2011.
An absolutely perfect Blu-ray.
Extremely Highly Recommended.
RAH
Og han tilføjer omkring aspect ration situationen:
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
Alle har et fradrag, Helle hun har to ... Helle ... havets tournedos
#4261 Slettet Bruger [693029259] 14 år siden
#4262 Takfornu 14 år siden
#4263 Bruce 14 år siden
Der er tale om William Wylers The Big Country
#4264 Benway 14 år siden
#4265 Bruce 14 år siden
#4266 Benway 14 år siden
#4267 Bruce 14 år siden
#4268 Takfornu 14 år siden
#4269 Bruce 14 år siden
#4270 Bruce 14 år siden
Apropos Barry Lyndon. Nu kan man igen være helt rolig omkring udgivelsens kvalitet. Robert A Harris to the rescue:
Even a viewer with the most pedestrian of tastes, and no knowledge of the cinema, can be pointed toward a screen with eyes open, and know within moments that they are seeing something extraordinary.
Mr. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon is one of those magisterial masterpieces that seldom appears, much like the sighting of a comet making its way across the horizon.
This one happened to appear 35 years ago.
Meticulously photographed by John Alcott in the style of 18th century paintings, and with many interiors shot via available light with specially designed optics, Barry Lyndon is a visual revelation.
Even revelations can be destroyed by the wrong person turning the wrong knob just a bit too much, and I'm pleased to report, after initially seeing some footage on screen late last year, that the Blu-ray of Barry Lyndon, had the right eyes turning the right knobs just the correct amount in our very dangerous digital world.
To my eye, the work performed to bring Barry Lyndon to the home theater environment via Blu-ray, has delivered a perfect final product.
Color, densities, black levels, shadow detail and grain structure all appear to be dead on. The uncompressed audio is, likewise, perfect.
A note about aspect ratios. There has been discussion that Barry Lyndon was composed for projection at 1.66:1, and this is an interesting thought. The problem, even in 1975, would have been that few cinemas were equipped to project that aspect ratio unless specially set up. In a very general sense, much of the world was running spherical at 1.75:1, while here in the colonies we were running at 1.85:1. 1.66:1 was a specific setup for revival theatres equipped with the necessary aperture plates, optics and maskings.
My feeling has always been that I would be thrilled if Barry Lyndon were to be released on Blu-ray at the HD native aspect ratio of 1.78:1, and the incorrect technical information on the reverse of the packaging aside, that is precisely what has occurred.
Warner's new Blu-ray of Barry Lyndon is a treasure, and will be one of the most important catalog releases of 2011.
An absolutely perfect Blu-ray.
Extremely Highly Recommended.
RAH
Og han tilføjer omkring aspect ration situationen:
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