I know this is hardly a reason for windowboxing, but as I won't be able to afford the hi-end stuff you guys are talking about in the next 5-10 years at best, I'm actually pretty glad with this measure. I have been trying again and again to find solutions for the overscan that my budget allows, and have settled that a solution won't come cheap and has to wait.
The widescreens overscanning really didn't bother me that much, but as the 1.33 has overscans on all edges on my system I really am looking forward to my copy of Late Spring with windowboxing. (they should be putting a sticker on the box: NOW WITH ALL NEW IMPROVED WINDOWBOXING )
this is a silly topic. I'd rather Criterion stop releasing dvds all together than listen to, or rather do anything in response to, us bitching about not being able to see a leaf or two on the left edge of a frame.
can anyone honestly tell me something we've missed out on by this process? anyone who says "it doesnt fit my awesome tv right" can shut the fuck up.
SncDthMnky wrote:this is a silly topic. I'd rather Criterion stop releasing dvds all together than listen to, or rather do anything in response to, us bitching about not being able to see a leaf or two on the left edge of a frame.
can anyone honestly tell me something we've missed out on by this process? anyone who says "it doesnt fit my awesome tv right" can shut the fuck up.
And if that's the manner in which you continue to put your point of view across, you'll be banned from this forum.
SncDthMnky wrote:this is a silly topic. I'd rather Criterion stop releasing dvds all together than listen to, or rather do anything in response to, us bitching about not being able to see a leaf or two on the left edge of a frame.
can anyone honestly tell me something we've missed out on by this process? anyone who says "it doesnt fit my awesome tv right" can shut the fuck up.
And if that's the manner in which you continue to put your point of view across, you'll be banned from this forum.
davidhare wrote:I just signed the petition and I'm amazed the signatures are only up to 48 so far.
Everyone, PLEASE sign this!
By all means, spread the word, my good man. I started a thread at HTF to highlight this issue (which got some mixed responses) and there should be something coming up on a couple of other sites soon. But every extra signature and email helps!
Do you have any grasp of the issue of context? I'm not saying don't offer your opinion, I'm saying don't do it in a deliberately hostile and abusive tone while bringing nothing else to the table aside from snide attacks.
Listen, it's not a question of "fitting my awesome TV." I am able to zoom in slightly to rectify the problem, but I'm loosing resolution!
I can't understand why people actually want this. Even if it takes you 10 years to upgrade your TV. That's still a relatively small portion of your DVD-viewing-life, unless you're an octagenarian. When you do upgrade you'll not want any windowboxing. Believe me.
denti alligator wrote:Listen, it's not a question of "fitting my awesome TV." I am able to zoom in slightly to rectify the problem, but I'm loosing resolution!
I can't understand why people actually want this. Even if it takes you 10 years to upgrade your TV. That's still a relatively small portion of your DVD-viewing-life, unless you're an octagenarian. When you do upgrade you'll not want any windowboxing.
For Standard Definition releases, while 'High-end equipment' is (by definition) used by a minority: Criterion should use windowboxing, but only for title-cards & intertitles. (C.f. 317 The Tales of Hoffmann. ) And have an extra line about TV overscan in the DVD booklet.
If and when Criterion go HD, when 'High-end equipment' is a pre-requisite of watching in the first place (and so probably not really 'High-end' any more): then, obviously, they should by no means use windowboxing.
SncDthMnky wrote:this is a silly topic. I'd rather Criterion stop releasing dvds all together than listen to, or rather do anything in response to, us bitching about not being able to see a leaf or two on the left edge of a frame
Actually, and to be totally honest, Criterion has gone on record stating they specifically created the windowboxing as a result of people complaining-- i e they d(id) anything in response to, us bitching about not being able to see a leaf or two on the left edge of a frame.
The issue doesn't drive me as nuts as some others here, as their hi-def transfers are still far more detailed even windowboxed than competing issues from other regions. A couple of pixels doesn't make or break a transfer.
Criterion may have been looking at some of the DVD Beaver caps in conjuction with the complaints they had about cropping on 1.37:1 films. It could just be that such scrutiny of their transfers on our part backfired; instead of being more careful in extracting the 1.37:1 image during the telecine process, which is what the concern was, they instead mistook the cropping of the 35mm film element, for cropping of the transfer on uncalibrated 4:3 and 16:9 television sets.
Looking at the DVD Beaver comparison for Pickpocket, it is blatantly evident that the windowboxing did nothing, that it is still cropped on the right and top edges: Click here
Windowboxing for 1.37:1 sound films isn't worth it, really. You're already letting image area go in 4:3 mode on your 16:9 display and if your screen in set to 2-3% overscan, then your losing even more real estate.
Gordon McMurphy wrote:Looking at the DVD Beaver comparison for Pickpocket, it is blatantly evident that the windowboxing did nothing, that it is still cropped on the right and top edges: Click here
They didn't crop. They chose to frame lower than AE. The MK2 is cropped.
That's true. If you look at the screen grabs, there is admittedly less space on the top, but there is more information on the bottom of the screen than either of the PAL releases.
I just had an opportunity to watch my first pictureboxed Criterion movie (Bete Humaine). I was all set to get indignant about it. But when actually watching the pictureboxed movie, the issue seemed incredibly minor. On my 61" screen there was a black border of no more than about an inch on each side and on top, and no border on the bottom. The picture was still nice and big with fine resolution. I wouldn't have even noticed the fact that the picture was smaller except that the borders on the sides were a slightly different shade of black than the normal columns on either side for a 1:33 movie, and of course a non-pictureboxed movie would have no border on top. If this minor reduction in picture size is the only impact from pictureboxing then it seems like a very reasonable tradeoff when measured against people without HD sets losing part of the picture. Is this small reduction in picture size all we are really complaining about, or is there a more substantive negative impact from pictureboxing that I am missing? Or was Bete Humaine just pictureboxed "better" than other affected movies?
That's a perfect candidate, actually, to compare a CC windowboxed transfer of La Bete Humaine to the UK Warner at DVD Beaver. One can clearly see that, despite the fullscreen transfer of the Warner UK versus the windowboxed CC, CC's still clearly surpasses in detail.
Gordon McMurphy wrote:Criterion may have been looking at some of the DVD Beaver caps in conjuction with the complaints they had about cropping on 1.37:1 films. It could just be that such scrutiny of their transfers on our part backfired; instead of being more careful in extracting the 1.37:1 image during the telecine process, which is what the concern was, they instead mistook the cropping of the 35mm film element, for cropping of the transfer on uncalibrated 4:3 and 16:9 television sets.
This is exactly the issue. They must think their customer base is a little stupid if windowboxing is an answer to cropping. One would think that they would research the real issue before making such a huge policy change.
I noticed that on Lacombe Lucien the credits are also 'windowboxed' (i.e. there are black bars at the bottom and top (prob left and right too) making the picture smaller, then once the credits are over, it goes to full 1.66 and the picture size increases quite significantlyand quality also improves. What is the point of that?
rlendog wrote:I just had an opportunity to watch my first pictureboxed Criterion movie (Bete Humaine). I was all set to get indignant about it. But when actually watching the pictureboxed movie, the issue seemed incredibly minor. On my 61" screen there was a black border of no more than about an inch on each side and on top, and no border on the bottom. The picture was still nice and big with fine resolution.
Arn777 wrote:I noticed that on Lacombe Lucien the credits are also 'windowboxed' (i.e. there are black bars at the bottom and top (prob left and right too) making the picture smaller, then once the credits are over, it goes to full 1.66 and the picture size increases quite significantlyand quality also improves. What is the point of that?
Shrinking this sequence to be within the TV safe area should stop any credit text being truncated on TVs with overscan (the great majority).
mbalson wrote:This is exactly the issue. They must think their customer base is a little stupid if windowboxing is an answer to cropping. One would think that they would research the real issue before making such a huge policy change.
Obviously, window boxing doesn't do anything to lower the amount of cropping when creating the transfer. It only helps the cropping that occurs from over scan.
The fact that the resolution still looks good is irrelevant. The point being made here is that it could be a little better still.
Just saying "I prefer windowboxing" or "I don't mind windowboxing" doesn't add much to the discussion of whether Criterion is justified in sticking with this policy. Even if a few people here are planning to use non-zooming DVD players and tube TVs for the rest of their life (if tubes will even be available that long), it doesn't necessarily follow that that's what Criterion should cater to, even if hypothetically it were a majority preference. If Criterion did everything the majority wants they never would have presented films in their original aspect ratio, for example.
And, to reiterate a point I made earlier, if Criterion didn't tend to frame their transfers in such an unusually tight way, overscan would be less of an issue to start with. Very often in DVD Beaver comparisons non-Criterion editions show a little more information on at least two sides. If Criterion could just match that on all four sides it seems like we'd be in a position to satisfy everyone concerned, assuming that's possible. If not, then Criterion should really adopt whatever policies will maximize quality. They're a high-end company and optimal transfer quality is one of the main things their customer base cares about. And people who care about that can find their own way to deal with overscan.
When there is a switch to HD discs they can cater to the majority that [should] have HD displays without overscan.
The people that are probably planning on using non-zooming DVD players and tube TVs for the rest of their lives are probably the ones that are going to be watching movies on the current DVD format for the rest of their lives.
I don't see windowboxing of current DVDs as much of an issue. Cropping, on the other hand, is a issue worth discussing. Windowboxing just removes a slight amount of resolution. I doesn't removing more of the original image.
So, while I do not prefer windowboxing, I don't mind it. Cropping I do mind.
I plan to watch many of my DVDs for the rest of my life, and many people I know who are serious about technical quality have the same plans. With many of the more arcane films that are coming out now, it'll be a long time before better releases come along. Some of them may never be trumped.
This retreads a lot of the previous discussions about high definition formats and the fate of DVD, but I think it's safe to say the current DVDs that Criterion and other companies are producing now will remain the best editions for many years, just like we'll still be listening to old fashioned CDs (and even vinyl) even though it's theoretically possible for them to be released on newer media they haven't been and won't be for the foreseeable future.
Last edited by Gregory on Thu May 04, 2006 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you don't mind watching DVDs for a long time to come, why are you bothered about a small loss in resolution? If that resolution mattered so much, then why not get HD Disc with far greater resolution still?
That said, I will still be watching many of my disc for quite a while too. And, while it would be good for the slight bit of extra resolution, I don't see Criterion or any other company caring too much. Why should they cater to the minority that are going to keep their DVDs for a long time (without spending money to upgrade), when they can please the majority now (in the hope of increasing profits)?
jcelwin wrote:If you don't mind watching DVDs for a long time to come, why are you bothered about a small loss in resolution? If that resolution mattered so much, then why not get HD Disc with far greater resolution still?
Because when CC is charging a premium for their releases, and they have a reputation, deserved or otherwise, they should do better. I find the windowboxing concerns, as well as the cropping issues, very much ado about very little (hell, it took me weeks to even see the windowboxing on my own widescreen TV...it's that minimal). Still, if CC is going to claim a higher standard for itself they are justifiably, and rightfully, going to be held to a higher standard.
)
