Barry Lyndon 4K UHD (1975) (UK)

[MifuneFan]

Barry Lyndon 4K Blu-ray

Barry Lyndon 4K Blu-ray Steelbook

Barry Lyndon 4K Blu-ray




Looks like Warner will be releasing Kubrick's Barry Lyndon on 4K directly. There will be both a Standard and Steelbook editions released. Will update the post with more info as it comes in.

Redmond Barry is an Irish country boy who falls in love with a well-to-do local girl and is subsequently tricked by her family into leaving town. Disillusioned with love, the brokenhearted youngster embarks on an adventure which sees him serve in the Seven Years War, earn a living as a professional gambler, and eventually move into the higher ranks of society, when he meets and marries the beautiful Lady Lyndon. Despite the luck that has brought him such riches, it is this final move, the cynical choice to marry for social advancement rather than love, which brings about his downfall.

HMV Steelbook
Rarewaves

[Jackie Scanlon]

So the aspect ratio is still wrong then.

[Frank169]

Originally Posted by Jackie Scanlon

So the aspect ratio is still wrong then.

Which is the correct one?

Many years ago I read a reliable article according to which Stanley Kubrick hated black bars of any kind.

With the 4:3 DVD (suitable for 4:3 CRT TVs, then) I made the experiment to have it zoomed in on my 16:9 front projector and the image composition still looked intact to my eyes.

It appears he had multiple formats in mind, provided the film would appear without any bars.

Since 16:9 or 1.78:1 is the leading worldwide viewing format, I'm uncertain whether Kubrick would have preferred that or 1.66:1 (again, thin black bars left and right...).

Wait, found this: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=1145

If 1.66:1 projection wasn't possible and 1.85:1 admissable, then 1.78:1 (after all the widescreen format agreed upon as the compromise between both) should be perfectly okay, IMHO.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Frank169

Which is the correct one?

Many years ago I read a reliable article according to which Stanley Kubrick hated black bars of any kind.

With the 4:3 DVD (suitable for 4:3 CRT TVs, then) I made the experiment to have it zoomed in on my 16:9 front projector and the image composition still looked intact to my eyes.

It appears he had multiple formats in mind, provided the film would appear without any bars.

Since 16:9 or 1.78:1 is the leading worldwide viewing format, I'm uncertain whether Kubrick would have preferred that or 1.66:1 (again, thin black bars left and right...).

Wait, found this: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=1145

If 1.66:1 projection wasn't possible and 1.85:1 admissable, then 1.78:1 (after all the widescreen format agreed upon as the compromise between both) should be perfectly okay, IMHO.

Time to break out the letter again...



He instructed 1.66 except compromise would be permitted to a certain point. That's no longer applicable and there is no constraint in the home. It doesn't have to be anything other than 1.66, there is no reason for it to be anything other than 1.66, and I doubt it's going to be anything other than 1.66 ever again. They've long since corrected it and I don't see why anybody would change that now.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Frank169

Which is the correct one?

You can see the 3 ratios here

The story goes that Kubrick found 2/3ds of theaters in France and Germany already couldn't show movies in 1.66 in 1971 and he fixed that by sending them 1.66 projector aperture plates which doesn't fix a thing.

I don't know how he fixed that 4 years later. I'm sure the majority of people saw it in 1.85 in it's theatrical exhibition.
I know I saw the X-rated cut of ACO with the extended speeded-up sequence shot at 2fps, in 1.85. The film script photo-book he published for which he selected the frames enlargements they certainly are not in 1.66. Measure them. I did.

[sherlockjr]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

The story goes that Kubrick found 2/3ds of theaters in France and Germany already couldn't show movies in 1.66 in 1971 and he fixed that by sending them 1.66 projector aperture plates which doesn't fix a thing.

I don't believe that story--different projector models need different aperture plates, they're not interchangeable. They're often not interchangeable, even between different projector models from the same projector manufacturer. A whole lot of work would go into getting the right pair of the correct model aperture plate to every theater running the film. And then different aperture plates to different theaters when they changed venue.

Also, once you have the correct model undercut aperture plate you then need to file the aperture plate to match the particular projector angle to the screen. Plus you'd need different focal length lenses matched for that theaters projector throw and/or changes to screen masking so that the taller image doesn't just end up in the black screen masking.

Kubrick may have arranged for 1.66 equipment for premier engagements in some major cities, but I highly doubt he was having his distributor send out aperture plates, etc for every sub run and smaller engagement that followed for the next year or so.

Finally, films from France and Germany from around 1971 sure seemed to be in 1.66, especially the locations of the subtitles vs the tops of the actors heads when I got the prints in the US 15-20 years later. So I'd expect that most theaters in those countries could still run 1.66 in 1971. The US would have been a different story, they'd standardized at 1.85 15 years before, so I could see them without the equipment to run 1.66 in many venues and Kubrick's distributors arranging for the 1.66 gear for those major premier locations.

[professorwho]

Willing to bet it’s just placeholder lifted from the BD

[Jackie Scanlon]

I'm not so sure - the 2019 WB blu was still 1.78, and by then it had been known for several years that 1.66 was Kubrick's intended ratio and the Criterion blu had been available for two or three years already.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by Jackie Scanlon

I'm not so sure - the 2019 WB blu was still 1.78

Because it was a direct port of the 2011 US BD.

[NoFro]

The Q4 announcements are starting to trickle through. Hold onto your wallets, everyone.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Jackie Scanlon

I'm not so sure - the 2019 WB blu was still 1.78, and by then it had been known for several years that 1.66 was Kubrick's intended ratio and the Criterion blu had been available for two or three years already.

Was the 2019 WB Blu not just a copy-paste of the one they released in that Kubrick set years prior?

EDIT: Beaten to it.

[SpookyDollhouse]

Originally Posted by Jackie Scanlon

I'm not so sure - the 2019 WB blu was still 1.78, and by then it had been known for several years that 1.66 was Kubrick's intended ratio and the Criterion blu had been available for two or three years already.

There is zero chance they release the UHD in anything but 1.66 IMO. The real question is how much effort they'll put into the encode. If it's like their Full Metal Jacket I'd just stick with the Criterion.

[Jackie Scanlon]

Well, we'll see. But I think anyone who imported the Criterion should hold onto it until it's been confirmed. I certainly will be.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Jackie Scanlon

Well, we'll see. But I think anyone who imported the Criterion should hold onto it until it's been confirmed. I certainly will be.

My Criterion arrived damaged so it's going back to Amazon. Torn between requesting a replacement or just waiting to see what WB UK do.

[Matt89]

Originally Posted by Jackie Scanlon

Well, we'll see. But I think anyone who imported the Criterion should hold onto it until it's been confirmed. I certainly will be.

Nah, Warner has been releasing films in their proper ratios for a while now, it's definitely just a placeholder.

There's also only one 4K master of this film that currently exists. I'd be very shocked if this turns out to be 1.78 and not 1.66. After all, WB released Clockwork Orange in its correct 1.66:1 ratio.

[Fat Phil]

Schweeet. Hoping for a juicy collector’s edition to match my Shining, Clockwork, FMJ and 2001 boxsets.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Schweeet. Hoping for a juicy collector’s edition to match my Shining, Clockwork, FMJ and 2001 boxsets.

Don't think it will be. The price tag for the Steelbook is £30.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Don't think it will be. The price tag for the Steelbook is £30.

[Tuc0]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Schweeet. Hoping for a juicy collector’s edition to match my Shining, Clockwork, FMJ and 2001 boxsets.

Just what I was thinking

[Matt89]

Also worth noting that according to the booklet in the Criterion edition, the 4K restoration was carried out by Warner themselves, using Kubrick's detailed notes to projectionists from its original release in December 1975 and the high definition master created in 2000.

There's no way they're releasing this in 1.78:1.