Windowboxing / Pictureboxing: Now with a shiny new petition!

[Narshty]

I got hold of the La Bete Humaine disc recently, and was bemused to see the opening credits have been fairly heavily windowboxed, after which point the windowboxing becomes more slight.

And in case you missed it, the transfer info for Seven Samurai indicates that disc will too be windowboxed.

[denti alligator]

I got hold of the La Bete Humaine disc recently, and was bemused to see the opening credits have been fairly heavily windowboxed, after which point the windowboxing becomes more slight.

I find this more annoying than windowboxing the same amount throughout the whole film. When the credit sequence is more heavily windowboxed (or just plain windowboxed, where the rest of the film isn't), then viewers have to pause the film after the opening credits, readjust their DVD player's zoom (assuming they have this), and then continue with the rest of the film.

I began watching Viridiana, for example, and had to zoom in a little, since as an anamorphic 1.66 it appears "windowboxed" on my 15x9 (1.66:1) monitor (this is a technicality with 1.66 anamorphic DVDs, which have side bars programmed into the image--they are essentially 1.78 AR films with forced black side bars. My 1.66 monitor thus has to compensate by addding bars to the top and bottom). So I zoomed in a little, as I usually to, do eliminate those side bars and top bars. However, 10 minutes into the film I began suspecting that the framing was too tight. Sure enough, I had zoomed the picture in based on the opening credit sequence, which is actually windowboxed, so that when the film proper began I was left with a cropped image. Ridiculous.

[cdnchris]

I always just assumed that that's how the credits were being framed originally, though, and instead of zooming in, they just leave it that way. Or am I wrong in that assumption? A few of their older releases do that.

[kinjitsu]

I'm wondering how many members of this forum have taken the time to sign Narshty's petition.

Posted by MoC's Doug Cummings earlier today:

Over the last few weeks, we've received a lot of email protesting the new windowboxing policy of the Criterion Collection (USA), the vanguard DVD company known for its fastidious presentations. Customers with newer displays must now contend with reduced resolution and screen size. As DVDBeaver recently put it, "equipment invariably improves at a much lower price and much faster these days and catering to people with inferior equipment can easily come back and haunt you. . . . We feel you will own your DVDs (especially your Criterion DVDs) much longer than you will own your current viewing system."

Jon Robertson has set up a petition in the hopes of convincing Criterion the error of their ways. He states: "It's not a trial run but an actual implemented policy and unless people kick up enough of a fuss, they'll blithely carry on spoiling the good work they're otherwise performing on classic films." - D.C.

[Anonymous]

It's reportedly easy to correct overscan with some DVD players. If that's true, would someone here please list some of the DVD players that can perform that function without distorting the image? I have a relatively new HDTV with pretty bad overscan, and unless new DVD players are available on the market that can fix this problem, I cast my vote in support of Criterion's decision to windowbox old 1:33 movies.

[kinjitsu]

It's reportedly easy to correct overscan with some DVD players. If that's true, would someone here please list some of the DVD players that can perform that function without distorting the image?

More or less under discussion here.

[souvenir]

Seduced and Abandoned becomes the first widescreen to be pictureboxed

[denti alligator]

Seduced and Abandoned becomes the first widescreen to be pictureboxed

Well, I guess we should throw in the towel and accept that this will be Criterion's standard presentation for DVDs. With HD-DVD they will surely drop the practise.

[Highway 61]

Wow. I just don't get it. Windowboxing has generated more complaints than their cropping ever did. And now they're going to do the same thing to widescreen films? Just plain ignorant.

Can somebody more technically well-versed than me explain why it's seemingly so difficult to put out a DVD that isn't cropped? There must be some difficulties that I'm unaware of because it strikes me as nothing but carelessness. In my mind, if Gary can see that a transfer is cropped, then Criterion, or Warners, or any label with major resources has no excuse for not catching the mistake themselves.

[Cinesimilitude]

Wow. I just don't get it. Windowboxing has generated more complaints than their cropping ever did. And now they're going to do the same thing to widescreen films? Just plain ignorant.

Can somebody more technically well-versed than me explain why it's seemingly so difficult to put out a DVD that isn't cropped? There must be some difficulties that I'm unaware of because it strikes me as nothing but carelessness. In my mind, if Gary can see that a transfer is cropped, then Criterion, or Warners, or any label with major resources has no excuse for not catching the mistake themselves.

1. They are only shrunk a little, no cropping, to (we assume) compensate for overscan which effects a large portion of television sets.

2. Just because Seduced and Abandoned is windowboxed doesn't mean that it's general practice. wit hthe amount of time criterion spends on bonus features, this could just be a transfer that was done when they thought it was a good idea. hell, we might see one years down the road, that just happened to also fall into that time period. the fact is, they probably stopped doing it, as a few films since have not been windowboxed.

[HerrSchreck]

I recall a very similar policy-questioning over on the Flicker Alley thread viz creating english intertitles for english-market silent releases, i e duplicating the old-days theatrical practice of intertitles-by-market, rather than one set of intertitles, subtitled, in turn, by market. Naturally devotees like us prefer to read computer-generated subs rather than computer-generated complete replacements of the originals. But, en masse, we're probably not going to get what we want... and for reasons unbeknownst to me, it disturbs me to see folks allowing their viewing experiences to be totally ruined by such factors.

On this windowboxing thing, the question is still drifting about-- "WHY?" And though one might be tempted to say "Because it duplicates the cinematic experience whereby the actual frame-boundaries can be seen" (leaving out for now the issue of cropping i e What actually constitues the Frame Boundaries.. is it the neg edges, or something hemmed a bit in as the directors never intended for the neg lines or aperture corners to be visible onscreen yadda yadda etc), I really don't think that this is the actual answer. It's the reason for the actual answser, but not the answer itself.

People take musical instruments in to shops and pay a fortune to effect changes which, if they took a moment to get to know their instrument, they'd discover would take 3 minutes with a screwdriver and their eyes closed. The simplest PC-related installations & software require consultants and service technicians because they refuse to Read Manuals. They hire accountants to file their taxes for them whereas if they simply followed the provided instructions, and used a bit of insight, the average consumer could do them in the time it takes to get to the CPA's location.

I'm connecting this--above-- to the Intertitle Controversy because I suggested that the reason Flicker Alley & BFI & Kino etc etc recreate english intertitles is because they are catering to the Average Dummy who doesn't like tiny subs, and who is not interested in having the original language intertitles "on file" as historical reference for the record... and who is also looking to have the vintage era experience of seeing the film with the "kind" of intertitles they woulda seen had they been alive in 1920-whatever. They don't take it as seriously as we do-- they just want to see the film. Not even buy it to have it as a Historical Relic, just rent it & see it. The reply came back that the "Average Dummy" would not even be interested in a silent film in the first place, rendering the explanation moot.

I disagree... within every field of interest there are varying degrees of devotion and fanaticism. Here on this forum there are a substantial number of folks who would be considered "hardcore". We go out and choose our equipment very carefully, we shop globally, and do our best to get the premium edition of all films possible.

We mustn't forget that the vast bulk of people who buy the films we love don't float through webforums, don't go to dvdbeaver.com, don't debate the minutiae of intertitles and resolution and windowboxing. They don't have collections of hundreds, even thousands of films like we do. They probably didn't buy laserdiscs-- they bought vhs's. They don't watch the same film several times a month. They're middle-aged folks looking for the greats from their younger years, theyre husbands & wives looking for a sublime escape from the hellish grind of mortgages, disrespectful kids, even more disrespectful spouses, pattern baldness, not-at-all-secured retirements. A bit like a day at the museum for them-- simply be reminded that there is still Beauty resident someplace in the world instead of the upcoming MAGNUM PI remake, and that there is still somebody concerned with being it's caretaker. They rent, or when they buy they take it for granted that This Is The Version That Is Available. They're not all that hip to region-encoding. And they certainly don't know the in's & out's of reducing overscan via zoom. The vast bulk of them must have conventional televisions (no surprise there), because CC is clearly letting the majority rule for the time being as they are pictureboxing with a particular mass-market equipment in mind.

Within any and every zone of interest, there are many levels of disposition and intelligence. And technical adeptness. Certainly incremental zoom is not the most common feature on units which proliferated the market over the years and now sit in most folks homes, and the connection of this feature in the minds of the average consumer with the overscan/windowboxing issue is even less common. That CC is catering to this mass base shouldn't be all that surprising. Much less enraging. We have cutting edge interests & desires-- there's nothing we can do about the fact that the world isn't "into" the experiences we so desperately cherish as much as we do. I'm not an old man, but at a mere 39, I can tell you guys we got it a helluva a lot better than it was a mere 10 yrs ago. Go back 30 yrs ago and you're in the dark ages, where simply being able to SEE Caligari was a miracle.

But allowing a few lines of resolution to ruin an otherwise sublime release is really a shame. Surely it's not that bad! To be honest, what I find even more disturbing is the ever-shrinking size of cinema-screens: up to at least the 80's, movie screens used to be at least a couple stories tall. With multiplexing gone haywire via cramming 50 movie screens into a bathroom sized piece a property, the screens nowadays basically replicate my viewing experience at home on my large monitor. The days of seeing a star in closeup, with his or her face the size of a brownstone building, are fast disappearing forever... which really sucks. Larger-than-life is starting to mean prior to multiplexing.

[GringoTex]

But allowing a few lines of resolution to ruin an otherwise sublime release is really a shame. Surely it's not that bad!

I have my cake and eat it, too. When the windowboxing was first revealed, I bitched on this forum, signed the petition, and sent Criterion two emails letting them I know I was boycotting their windowboxed editions. Since then, I've bought every single one of their releases and viewed them with extreme pleasure. I'm a militant- just not a dedicated one.

[zedz]

I think I agree with everything Schreck said (but only in the above post - I'll have to take his word about Nina), especially:

To be honest, what I find even more disturbing is the ever-shrinking size of cinema-screens: up to at least the 80's, movie screens used to be at least a couple stories tall. With multiplexing gone haywire via cramming 50 movie screens into a bathroom sized piece a property, the screens nowadays basically replicate my viewing experience at home on my large monitor. The days of seeing a star in closeup, with his or her face the size of a brownstone building, are fast disappearing forever... which really sucks. Larger-than-life is starting to mean prior to multiplexing.

Is there any moviegoing experience more depressing than going to see a Cinemascope film and watching the screen shrink to accommodate the image?

[HerrSchreck]

RE Langlois: The ideal "state of home video grace", you achieved. Recognizing that slight imperfections in the very best of the very best-- in other words simply because the aforementioned is not 100% Perfect-- shitsure doesn't ruin em. Make your best case scenario known & move on with Ongoing Nirvana.

Zedz: the situation you describe is like when I'm back home w momma and she sticks some widescreen film on the player and she zooms in so she doesn't see the black bars top & bottom.

Speaking of fullsize tops & bottoms, zedz my good man, consider yourself "deprived" for not having seen Ms. Nina's bottom, her status quo top notwithstanding.

[zedz]

what the hell, if Criterion keeps picture-boxing all of their 1.33:1 films, im going to have to hold off on buying them till they rerelease them on HD. [. . .]

oh yah, the transfer is amazing

OK, I confess that this is where the picture-boxing debate leaves me baffled (see also the Powell-Pressburger thread elsewhere). Isn't the primary objection to the practice that it theoretically reduces the resolution and thus the picture quality? I say theoretically, because I've yet to see anybody point to any conclusive evidence that one of Criterion's picture-boxed transfers is visibly inferior to somebody else's non-picture-boxed transfer from the same source.

So, if the picture-boxed transfer is "amazing" (in the case of this film), or obviously more detailed than the non-picture-boxed transfer (in the case of A Canterbury Tale) - what exactly is the problem? Are we now holding out for Platonically ideal DVD transfers that may never happen, or, if they do, may not yield improvements visible to the naked eye?

Maybe it's a cultural thing. For me, any home video format is simply about reference and accessibility: the optimal viewing situation is always going to be a good 35mm print in a cinema, not a hypothetically flawless DVD. For me, an "amazing" DVD transfer will do nicely, thanks.

[arsonfilms]

The argument doesn't so much have to do with picture quality as much as resolution, which aren't technically the same thing. I for one agree wholeheartedly that the stunning transfer is whats important, since I view most of my movies on a laptop anyway. The biggest difference is just the size of the pictureboxed image. If you were to zoom in on the image to fill the screen, the picture might arguably not be as crisp as it COULD have been had it not been pictureboxed. Since the transfers are so amazing though, I'm more than happy to forgive the smaller image size in favor of balance and clarity.

[Napoleon]

If you watch a picture-boxed 4:3 film on a plasma with the side bars set to white (to prevent burn in), the picture-box frame is distracting.

If burn in isn't an issue and you have the side bars set to black, then you shouldn't notice the picture-box. Not unless you turn the brightness up to 11, which isn't necessary when viewing a criterion as they will have already done that for you when they cleaned up the picture.

The other issue is lack of resolution, but although you are losing a few pixels worth of resolution on all sides, this is still preferable to criterions old practice of trimming a few pixels of actual information on each side.

[arsonfilms]

Anyone else notice that none of the February 1.33 titles are windowboxed? Bicycle Theives, Green for Danger and 49th Parallel are all full-resolution. The practice seems to end with the January titles.

[Gigi M.]

Did you get early copies or something, because only Border Radio of the 1.33 January titles says is windowboxed. I believe the only titles that says they're windowboxed on the Criterion website are Seven Samurai, and Border Radio. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[HerrSchreck]

..and I thought Becker or Turell already acknowledged via blog or somesuch that they have adopted the windowboxing practice i e "making it official", and that they deeply enjoy the soft silken fabric-- like exhaling opium smoke-- of the easy stimulation of annoying the throbbing piles outa cabdriving technophiles in Northern North America and beyond...

[dadaistnun]

As far as the specs listed on the site go, Pandora's Box isn't listed as being windowboxed even though it is.

[arsonfilms]

My bad then, carry on as you were.

[Anthony]

Does everyone realize that Criterion isn't just windowboxing their 1:33 size films, but all of them. If you view any of their DVDs issued during 2006 or later on a widescreen screen, you will notice black bars on the left and right of the movie. This is true of any movie in the aspect ration 1:66 or greater. I find this practice to be very annoying. Does any other DVD distributor do this? Playtime is the only exception to their current windowboxing practice that I could find (probably due to the fact that they were working on the new transfer prior to their new rule).

[fdm]

Not sure what's up with Criterion, but they certainly are not being the best they could be. (windowboxing, not quite complete frames, apparently some not necessarily best choices on coloring, etc). You'd think top dollar would give you top quality film reproduction, rather than just "high quality" (and I use the term loosely) packaging.

I guess they chose to waste money on packaging rather than on best possible PQ. And a general price bump to go with it.

[Tribe]

Does everyone realize that Criterion isn't just windowboxing their 1:33 size films, but all of them.

Please explain.

Tribe