Kubrick Blu-ray aspect ratios

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by VoodooSamurai

*Leon Vitali interview:
"Q: If full frame was so important why didn't Kubrick release them theatrically that way?

A: He did not like 1.85:1. You lose 27% of the picture on 1.85. Stanley was a purist. This was one of the ways it was manifested. He realized that his films we're going to be shown in 1.85 whether he liked it or not. You can't tell all the theaters now how to show your movies. They say it's 1.85, that's it."

Leon Vitali is not to be trusted on such matters. When Warner announced 1.78:1 for Barry Lyndon on BD, he came out and said Kubrick never composed it 1.66:1 but 1.77:1 instead (you know, a ratio that didn't even exist in the 70s). He had nothing to say once the note to projectionists proving 1.66:1 as the intended AR was published.

And it was the same when he said that nonsense you've quoted: the DVDs were coming out from WB, they were 4x3, and it was Vitali's job to make up some rubbish about them being Kubrick's preferred ratio. He of course has never mentioned this supposed preference again since the first 16x9 DVDs were released.

And even if Kubrick truly preferred 1.33:1 as a compositional ratio over 1.85:1, that does not mean he prefers films he composed at 1.85:1* to be shown open matte! It just means if he had his way he would have shot it differently back in the day. After all, he may have wanted to shoot some of his b&w films in colour originally, does that mean we should colourise them now, and that he would support that?

*proof in post #79

[Eny-]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Leon Vitali is not to be trusted on such matters. When Warner announced 1.78:1 for Barry Lyndon on BD, he came out and said Kubrick never composed it 1.66:1 but 1.77:1 instead (you know, a ratio that didn't even exist in the 70s). He had nothing to say once the note to projectionists proving 1.66:1 as the intended AR was published.

And it was the same when he said that nonsense you've quoted: the DVDs were coming out from WB, they were 4x3, and it was Vitali's job to make up some rubbish about them being Kubrick's preferred ratio. He of course has never mentioned this supposed preference again since the first 16x9 DVDs were released.

And even if Kubrick truly preferred 1.33:1 as a compositional ratio over 1.85:1, that does not mean he prefers films he composed at 1.85:1* to be shown open matte! It just means if he had his way he would have shot it differently back in the day. After all, he may have wanted to shoot some of his b&w films in colour originally, does that mean we should colourise them now, and that he would support that?

*proof in post #79

Long story short. After Kubrick watched a butchered 2001 on TV, he started to protect all his movies to 1.33 because that was the standard for TV.

The confusion comes from the fact that Kubrick only approved 1.33 AR of his movies for home video, because when he died in '99 4:3 TVs were still the standard. DVD and OAR at home was only in it's infancy.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by oddbox83

The Killing and Paths of Glory were likely projected as wide as 1.85:1 and Kubrick would well have known that.

But there's the problem.

We also know that many cinemas in the States wouldn't have had the facility to show BL in 1.66:1, but that's what SK wanted, and he said no wider than 1.75:1, despite the majority of US cinemas only having 1.85:1 masking plates.

The reason this is a problem in the debate is that 'directors wouldn't have shot for a ratio they knew couldn't be projected' is a MAJOR point of argument often raised.

SK composing for and insisting on 1.66:1, despite knowing the majority of times this wouldn't be possible, blows a rather big hole in the argument.

Steve W

[Geoff D]

It's a pity we can't have the movies treated like Criterion did with On The Waterfront, containing several aspect ratios in one package. Still, Criterion themselves didn't feel it was necessary for Paths or The Killing.

1.66 seems to be a common ratio across Kubrick's non-large format movies right up to Lyndon, then from The Shining onwards 1.85 framing becomes the norm. Lyndon itself is the only odd one out on Blu-ray with the 1.78 framing*, but seeing as we've got a note from Kubrick himself saying that 1.75 is acceptable it's not the unmitigated disaster that people make it out to be.

* There's also Warners opening up the 1.85 movies to 1.78 as per their usual MO, but that's a very minor niggle.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Lyndon itself is the only odd one out on Blu-ray with the 1.78 framing*, but seeing as we've got a note from Kubrick himself saying that 1.75 is acceptable it's not the unmitigated disaster that people make it out to be.

That's one way of putting it... Another way would be to say that the blu ray release of Barry Lyndon goes even beyond the furthest limits of the aspect ratio Kubrick instructed to be barely acceptable.

[Geoff D]

Increasing the width of the frame by 1.7% beyond Kubrick's instructions doesn't keep me awake at night.

[zarquon]

What was the original framing for 2001: A Space Odyssey? The blu-ray is 2.20:1, but wasn't it originally shown in Cinerama which is, what, about 2.6:1?

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by zarquon

What was the original framing for 2001: A Space Odyssey? The blu-ray is 2.20:1, but wasn't it originally shown in Cinerama which is, what, about 2.6:1?

2001 has always been 2.20:1, the aspect ratio of 70mm. It wasn't true Cinema.

And regardless of Barry Lyndon being intended for 1.66, Kubrick would've had to safe-frame for 1.85 because that was how it would be shown in many places. So there's no information or arguably composition lost in the 1.78 blu, just some head and foot room that most people never saw in the first place, depending on the projection. It would've been nice to see it in 1.66, given all the beautiful cinematography, but I lose no sleep over how the blu is presented.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by Pecker

The reason this is a problem in the debate is that 'directors wouldn't have shot for a ratio they knew couldn't be projected' is a MAJOR point of argument often raised.

SK composing for and insisting on 1.66:1, despite knowing the majority of times this wouldn't be possible, blows a rather big hole in the argument.

How about that when directors used non-standard ratios they had to write letters to projectionists stating their preference if they actually wanted it to be respected? Like Kubrick did. It doesn't have any bearing on the ARs of his other films.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's a pity we can't have the movies treated like Criterion did with On The Waterfront, containing several aspect ratios in one package. Still, Criterion themselves didn't feel it was necessary for Paths or The Killing.

Because it wasn't. Nor was it for OTW.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

1.66 seems to be a common ratio across Kubrick's non-large format movies right up to Lyndon, then from The Shining onwards 1.85 framing becomes the norm.

1.66 is common across home video releases for those films, which is no indication of the actual ratio. My post from months ago are the ratios that are supported by contemporary documentation (and since there is none that I know of, ACO was left out).

Originally Posted by zarquon

What was the original framing for 2001: A Space Odyssey? The blu-ray is 2.20:1, but wasn't it originally shown in Cinerama which is, what, about 2.6:1?

2.20:1 is correct. That was the only compositional ratio for Super Panavision, which had a negative ratio of 2.29:1. If it did play wider on Cinerama screens (and it may not have), it would have been cropped top and bottom.

[MikeyHitchFan]

I saw The Shining, FMJ and EWS in their original theatrical runs in the U.S., and they were all shown at the 1.85 aspect ratio.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

1.66 is common across home video releases for those films, which is no indication of the actual ratio. My post from months ago are the ratios that are supported by contemporary documentation (and since there is none that I know of, ACO was left out).

Well, seeing as 1.66 is a common throughline with how three separate companies have interpreted Kubrick's works (Sony, Criterion, Warners), I'm happy with that. It's a nice compromise between the height of the old 4:3 editions which were Kubrick approved well into the era of OAR home video and the theatrical 1.85 masking which Kubrick knew full well his films would be exhibited at.

This isn't a contemporary report, but I saw Clockwork Orange at 1.85 when they re-released it after Kubrick's death in 1999. Love the 1.66 Blu-ray though.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, seeing as 1.66 is a common throughline with how three separate companies have interpreted Kubrick's works (Sony, Criterion, Warners), I'm happy with that. It's a nice compromise between the height of the old 4:3 editions which were Kubrick approved well into the era of OAR home video and the theatrical 1.85 masking which Kubrick knew full well his films would be exhibited at.

But if you consider each individual studios reasoning you'll find that there is no common throughline at all.

Criterion released The Killing and Paths of Glory at 1.66:1 because that is what the transfers were done at by MGM. THEY did them at 1.66:1 because the films are United Artists product; the vast majority of UA titles released by MGM are 1.66:1, for no other reason that a long time ago someone told them that UA's house ratio was 1.66:1, and they've been going off that complete rubbish for years (seriously, check any of your MGM UA releases; the only major exception I can think of Woody Allen, and that's probably down to the director himself having to step in.).

Sony released Dr Strangelove at 1.66:1 because some of it is hard matted to that ratio (for protection purposes only), and we can discard WB releasing ACO at 1.66:1 since that actually might be the true ratio (though I wager that if they did new transfers of ACO and Lolita today they'd do them at 1.78:1).

[StingingVelvet]

I'm firmly in the "composed for 1.85 theatrical viewing but protected for 1.33 home viewing" camp. Similar to how TV shows still today are protected for 1.33 (or even composed for 1.33) because many older viewers still have 4:3 televisions.

[Geoff D]

I'm not saying you're not right Eddie, I'm saying it works for me for the reasons outlined in my previous post. The people in charge of the Blu-rays have made those decisions, so it's no use crying over spilt moo juice. And Lolita was in 1.66 on the old Kubrick-approved non-anamorphic DVD as was Clockwork Orange so there's some continuity there, although if memory serves Lyndon was at 1.59 so Warners definitely changed their tune on that one.

A mega boxset with better transfers/encodes and multiple ratios would be awesome. You mightn't like it good sir, but I'd be all over it like white on rice. That said, I still haven't broken the seal on my copy of the 'Visionary Filmmaker Collection' that they released a few years ago, more out of apathy for those old transfers than anything. If I've needed a fix of the K-Man I've busted out a DVD or caught one of them on TV.

Hopefully Warners will revisit them at some point. Hell, when it gets to the stage when even Universal are remastering their Kubrick movie, you know you're falling behind.

[BobbyMcGee]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already or how relevant to the conversation this is, but according to the Stanley Kubrick Archives by Taschen:



Here are the aspect ratios of Kubrick's filmography (pg. 4, Contents):

[EddieLarkin]

Yes, Lyndon was 1.59:1, perhaps because that might be what it was hard matted to. Studios still get tripped up by stuff like that (Dr Strangelove).

As for remasters, it is of course inevitable. I would prefer the real ratios, but I can live with whatever as long as it's widescreen. I won't pretend there's a huge difference between 1.66:1-1.85:1.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by BobbyMcGee

Not sure if this has been mentioned already or how relevant to the conversation this is, but according to the Stanley Kubrick Archives by Taschen:

[Show spoiler]

Here are the aspect ratios of Kubrick's filmography (pg. 4, Contents):

Er, no. Those listings are directly contradicted by Kubrick's own production notes, taken from that very same archive book, which have been posted here already. Regardless of the blurb on the right, those listings are presumably all of the negative ratios for each film.

They also seem to think Spartacus was a 70mm production for some reason.

[I KEEL YOU]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Increasing the width of the frame by 1.7% beyond Kubrick's instructions doesn't keep me awake at night.

Maybe you should read the note again. His instructions were that it should be projected at 1.66:1:



1.75:1 was not how he instructed that it should be projected, but was the very limit which was acceptable to him. Yet Warner's blu ray goes even beyond this.

[Christian Muth]

Originally Posted by I KEEL YOU

Maybe you should read the note again. His instructions were that it should be projected at 1.66:1:



1.75:1 was not how he instructed that it should be projected, but was the very limit which was acceptable to him. Yet Warner's blu ray goes even beyond this.

But Warner's Blu-ray also shows slightly more at the sides than the previous 1.66:1 version. If you crop the width of the Blu-ray to match the width of the 1.66:1 DVD, the aspect ratio is somewhere around 1.72:1- so yes, it's matted beyond the 1.66:1 preference, but still less than the 1.75:1 maximum that Kubrick specified. So it's not "perfect" but hardly the travesty that some would have you believe.

Chris

[Egbert Souse]

Here's a photo that I cropped to 1.75:1 and 1.78:1.





That's about as much difference the two aspect ratios make.

It would be better to question why no one can hear the original mono mixes on A Clockwork Orange through Full Metal Jacket, which I think is more crucial in experiencing a film as it was intended rather than splitting hairs over technicalities.