It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:08 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:40 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
There's a couple places where the Criterion looks like a real improvement, enough so that I'm guessing it will be pretty noticeable when actually watching it- look at the treeline in the sixth comparison down, with the firing line- even apart from the extra information, it looks significantly clearer. I get sort of an ongoing impression of improvement in the faces, too- it looks more visible that it's a human colored face with a lot of makeup on it, in a way that changes and clarifies the effect.


Top
 Profile  
 

 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:37 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC
mfunk9786 wrote:
Magic Hate Ball wrote:
An improvement so massive it's almost startling.

Am I crazy for not seeing nearly as much difference as everyone expected?

Nope. Most of the caps for both are pretty close to one another. The correct aspect ratio and the extras are really the big selling points, but if one isn't much of a fan, I wouldn't splurge. I am a fan, so I will.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:40 pm
Location: NYC
I'll go ahead and pick it up, sure, because it's Kubrick and it's BARRY LYNDON and those extras, hell yes. But I can't deny that there's just not a lot of difference going on there, aside from a slight uptick in color vibrancy and a sliver more picture info at top and bottom (woo hoo -- two extra rocks are clearly visible!!). I can't blame anybody for not being all that impressed, based on the comparison.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am
The colors on the original are obviously mostly accurate, but they look far better in the new disc. I think it's a big step up, the grain is more visible, and one thing that stuck out to me in theatrical screenings (especially of the 4k) was how over the top the makeup was, which didn't hit me the times I watched the Warner blu-ray. I think that is clearly more apparent now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:50 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Roscoe wrote:
and a sliver more picture info at top and bottom (woo hoo -- two extra rocks are clearly visible!!).

This is the biggest standout to me. I'm not sure why I wasn't mentally prepared for .12 more ratio being a bit worthless, but considering all of the bellyaching here and elsewhere when the Warners disc released, it's humorous how little of a difference any of this makes, particularly when dealing with this film, which is very visually specific by design and therefore has a bit of a ceiling for home video that "clean" looking pictures don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:58 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
mfunk9786 wrote:
Roscoe wrote:
and a sliver more picture info at top and bottom (woo hoo -- two extra rocks are clearly visible!!).

This is the biggest standout to me. I'm not sure why I wasn't mentally prepared for .12 more ratio being a bit worthless, but considering all of the bellyaching here and elsewhere when the Warners disc released, it's humorous how little of a difference any of this makes, particularly when dealing with this film, which is very visually specific by design and therefore has a bit of a ceiling for home video that "clean" looking pictures don't.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who almost have to look three times to find out the extra elements thanks to the change of ratio.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm
mfunk9786 wrote:
Roscoe wrote:
and a sliver more picture info at top and bottom (woo hoo -- two extra rocks are clearly visible!!).

This is the biggest standout to me. I'm not sure why I wasn't mentally prepared for .12 more ratio being a bit worthless, but considering all of the bellyaching here and elsewhere when the Warners disc released, it's humorous how little of a difference any of this makes, particularly when dealing with this film, which is very visually specific by design and therefore has a bit of a ceiling for home video that "clean" looking pictures don't.
I was one of the ones "bellyaching," if that's a fair term for expressing a perfectly reasonable opinion that Warner had made an error in not keeping the OAR. And speaking for myself, it was never about being able to see the extra information, the two extra rocks. For one thing, I think dimensions and ratios have a formal importance of their own, not just in terms of adding or subtracting information. For another, it was about disliking the precedent set whenever a well-known aspect ratio is changed for a release and no one says much about it. I'd agree that there are aspect ratio changes so minute that they're not worth worrying about, but I wouldn't want to see more 1.66:1 films reformatted to 1.78:1 just to fill out screens better. They didn't do that for their concurrent Lolita Blu-ray, so the decision to change the BL ratio made no real sense, and again sets a bad precedent for that kind of change without the director being around to approve it.
And this seemed worth discussing for a moment, until Jeff Wells completely ruined it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:15 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Rayon Vert wrote:
I read the Magic Hate Ball post as irony.

Partially, but there's a lot of detail that wasn't there before, such as the lace on her collar and a sudden clarity of grain - I think this is going to be a notable improvement overall.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:03 pm 

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 8:04 am
Because of these precise discussions, i joined the forum many years ago. The so called aspect ratio is the essential canvas for everything, and i find it quite strange that people argue about tiny little details in home video releases but ignore the mutilation of an artwork. As Gregory said, its not about what is missing but that art has to follow the market here. Its very important that people point these things out, in other disciplines too, because once certain standards are broken down, it will be more and more difficult in the future to preserve things as they were meant to bee seen, read etcetera..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:38 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT
The difference in amount of image between 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 is less than you might get from just masking the image more or less tightly. With Barry Lyndon this was more an issue on principle of WB essentially saying that the arbitrary widescreen TV standard > authorial intent.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 3:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:00 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
If a film is very carefully composed, I do think that the sliver of height lost when a film with an OAR of 1.66 is cropped to 1.78 can make a bigger difference than is immediately apparent just by comparing a handful of screen captures. Dreyer's GERTRUD is a key example of this. Compared to the BFI Blu-ray, the 1.78 Criterion DVD looks a little tight in places, especially on top. The difference is subtle, but the image has more breathing room on the BFI Blu-ray. It's interesting that Henning Bendtsen signed off on the Criterion transfer, if memory serves correctly.

That said, how much it matters may depend on the individual film.

Regarding BARRY LYNDON, I will happily replace the Warner Brothers Blu-ray with the Criterion Collection edition!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:55 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
swo17 wrote:
The difference in amount of image between 1.66:1 and 1.78:1 is less than you might get from just masking the image more or less tightly. With Barry Lyndon this was more an issue on principle of WB essentially saying that the arbitrary widescreen TV standard > authorial intent.


Kubrick’s famous letter to projectionists acknowledged that a perfect 1.66:1 might not always be achievable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm
I remember a lengthy argument with Nothing about the first disc, in which he insisted that, rather than being cropped, the Warner disc must have been squeezed, distorting the aspect ratio of the objects within the frame- if nothing else, it seems as though this release makes that argument that took place years ago with a member who is now banned moot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
I just hope they fixed the Warners logo card at the beginning. That was by far the biggest sin of the Warner BD.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:02 am 

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:31 pm
I just can't wait to hold the disc in my hands.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
All the Best People wrote:
I just hope they fixed the Warners logo card at the beginning. That was by far the biggest sin of the Warner BD.


They did fix it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 4:59 am 

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm
MichaelB wrote:
All the Best People wrote:
I just hope they fixed the Warners logo card at the beginning. That was by far the biggest sin of the Warner BD.


They did fix it.

Terrific. Great news overall, even if it took 6 years, but oh well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 5:48 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am
Looks good! So playing devil's advocate, anyone else see the "criterion" version as being a marketing ploy, and really at this stage they should have skipped ahead to a 4K release? I don't own the gear, but wouldn't that in 2017 be the logical next step to get something substantial out of the evergreen Kubrick catalogue?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:34 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:06 am
While I am really glad that Criterion are releasing this, I do seriously hope it doesn't mean a 4K release won't been seen in the near future because of it. I have an Oppo 4K player, and what I've been waiting for is something substantial like this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:59 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Zot! wrote:
LSo playing devil's advocate, anyone else see the "criterion" version as being a marketing ploy [...] ?

I'd say it's at least more than a marketing ploy because IIRC, it's the first time on digital video that the movie is getting substantial extras. So for this reason at least and because I suppose a UHD release would be through Warner and would thus again be barebones, it has quite some interest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:42 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:58 pm
Yes, it's a marketing ploy to release the film in the correct aspect ratio and to give it to substantial supplements for the first time ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm
It's also handily by far one of the Kubricks with the least name recognition., despite being known among movie buffs as one of his best. We'll see 2001 and the Shining put out on UHD by Warners first because they'd sell far better.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:47 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
I still think a boutique-label UHD release is some distance away. And Criterion tends to be pretty conservative when adopting new technologies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:06 am
Ribs wrote:
It's also handily by far one of the Kubricks with the least name recognition., despite being known among movie buffs as one of his best. We'll see 2001 and the Shining put out on UHD by Warners first because they'd sell far better.


That's very likely the way things will pan out. I'd imagine 2001 to be the first Kubrick in UHD. I don't see Criterion adopting UHD in the near future, so Warner is the one who'll release this in UHD if someone will. Hopefully whatever they're releasing from Kubrick in the future sells well enough for them to bother with Barry.

Lest my words be misinterpreted, though, I'd like to stress that while this would be glorious to have in 4K now, I'm over the moon to have a Criterion Blu-ray of it now, too. (Or in three weeks, but I like repetition, so there. There.)

I do wonder whether there's a secret compartment to stash a tricorn, though?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 897 Barry Lyndon
PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:27 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:09 am
Y'know, I'll fully cop to my ignorance. I saw that Bridge in the River Kwai was out on UHD and figured that was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of classic films on the format. Turns out there is still only a paltry few older films presented as such. I was also conflating it with the whole 4K masters releases like Taxi Driver. So no, I don't think a proper Barry Lyndon BD is out of step with the market anymore. As mentioned by others it's possible nothing beyond 2001 would materialize at this rate.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection