Windowboxing / Pictureboxing: Now with a shiny new petition!

[Gregory]

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 as I already explained (then elaborated on further in my edit), it will be a very long time before most of the things I care the most about will be released on a high definition format, if ever.

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)?

It seems to me that the main point of buying DVDs is to keep them a long time. If one plans to watch a DVD only a few times over a period of several years, it's much cheaper to rent it, especially now that services like Netflix make this much more of a possibility for unusual titles. Criterion should be shooting for the highest possible quality, and catering to those who buy their discs and care the most about technical presentation. You might remember reading my earlier point that if they tried to maximize their profts by pleasing the majority they would not be the company they are. They wouldn't have bothered with preserving OAR, which they stuck with even though it baffled all but a handful of customers in the beginning.

If you have any evidence that most people plan to either use tube TVs for the rest of their life or replace their whole DVD collection with a new format, I'd be interested. Getting a TV that's better than an old tube is a fairly easy and relatively inexpensive proposition now. Replacing one's Criterion Collection is far more expensive and difficult, the main barrier being actually getting all those films released in a better format. It took Criterion 22 years to release Late Spring. They never released it on laserdisc, and they put out DVDs for about eight years before getting it released on this format. It's far from a sure thing if or when we'll be able to buy it again on a high-definition format.

[jcelwin]

But if most people watching DVDs have displays that overscan, using windowboxing will actually present the image at a better quality for the majority. So, for the majority windowboxing is the higher standard.

Like I said earlier, I would rather no windowboxing. But Criterion have a good reason for doing what they are doing; they want to sell DVDs today. While consumers may want to keep their DVDs forever, I doubt any company really wants this. It is better for them to present the best viewing experience for the majority of consumers today (not what they predict will be required in the future). They can cater for the future consumer tomorrow.

[cdnchris]

I was actually quite shocked. I finally moved into my own place and got around to hooking up my cheap Sanyo 27" TV I brought with me and threw in Mr. Arkadin and was surprised I could see the borders around the image! I couldn't before on my in-laws' TV. It was actually pretty annoying, even though it still didn't look as bad as the caps present on the DVD Beaver site. So when I get my kickass new HDTV I'm only dreading how it (and my other recent Criterion purchases) will look on that.

[Gregory]

[T]hey want to sell DVDs today. While consumers may want to keep their DVDs forever, I doubt any company really wants this. It is better for them to present the best viewing experience for the majority of consumers today (not what they predict will be required in the future). They can cater for the future consumer tomorrow.

Most likely you're exactly right that this is where they're coming from on this issue, otherwise they probably wouldn't do anything about overscan. However, they clearly have not catered to the majority of the public in many other ways -- they released laserdiscs, which most people couldn't watch, and they released films in their OAR which baffled most people, and they've released certain titles by directors totally unfamiliar to most of the DVD-buying public. In these ways they've made a name for themselves by presenting their releases differently (and technically better) than what most people normally expect. You're right that they don't always take this approach, but that's exactly the kind of short-sighted tendency we're trying to nip in the bud by petitioning and e-mailing them. It's the same thing that led them to release non-anamorphic DVDs for so long.

[zedz]

However, they clearly have not catered to the majority of the public in many other ways -- they released laserdiscs, which most people couldn't watch, and they released films in their OAR which baffled most people, and they've released certain titles by directors totally unfamiliar to most of the DVD-buying public. In these ways they've made a name for themselves by presenting their releases differently (and technically better) than what most people normally expect.

But I think there's a significant distinction between "the majority of DVD purchasers" and "the majority of Criterion's target audience" that you're glossing over. It's quite conceivable that the majority of Criterion's current audience are now receiving a better (and truer-to-the-director's-vision)visual experience thanks to windowboxing, but that same audience would never have stood for pan-and-scan or cropping, or a release schedule that eschewed art-house titles.

Isn't the issue here a decision that makes the image incrementally less than optimal on certain viewing systems (but better on the majority), but doesn't lose any image information, and still delivers a high quality image? In no way is this comparable to butchering a widescreen film to 1.33.

[Gregory]

Isn't the issue here a decision that makes the image incrementally less than optimal on certain viewing systems (but better on the majority), but doesn't lose any image information, and still delivers a high quality image? In no way is this comparable to butchering a widescreen film to 1.33.

My point was not that windowboxing is as egregious as substantially altering the OAR. I believe there is an analogy to be made regarding consumers' desires and expectations, which change over time. The main problem to me is not only that this practice is short-sighted but that it's a totally misguided response to the problem of cropping, as has already been discussed in this thread.
I don't mean to make a bigger deal out of this than it is. I'm not going to let this diminish the pleasure I'll get from seeing Late Spring again.

[mbalson]

The biggest issue for me right now is that when I watch a current Criterion 1.33:1 transfer on my <1% overscan TV I get a VERY noticeable black frame all the way around. Zooming, using the TV or player is not an option as it ruins the image quality.

[HerrSchreck]

The fact that the resolution still looks good is irrelevant. The point being made here is that it could be a little better still.

No it's not irrelevant greg, this is the point. The transfer can always be made better until at least we zoom along at a potentially straightahead 10mb/second bitrate. The compromise for windowboxing is nothing compared to the compromise made for squeezing commentary, trailers, and extras onto a disc. Why not blast missives via petition demanding that extras not be included on the feature disc because it knocks down potential resolution?

And I could be wrong here, I don't know how compression & authoring occurs-- but isn't resolution and image size two different things all together? Might it not be possible that the encoding that determines image display size is not the same as that which determines resolution? In other words, the transfer is at the resolution y'all are dreaming about acquiring, but that they are encoding the transfer to appear on your screen at a scaled down size, thereby not reducing the resolution, only the image size?

Anybody know authoring & telecine well enough? Obviously there are independant controls for size and resolution (you can scale up a shit image to any size, and you can scale down the finest possible image to a smaller size). I'm sure nativity has some play here too of course, but I'm talking about encoded image size vs display size...

[zedz]

Maybe we need a direct comparison of a windowboxed and a non-windowboxed presentation of the exact same transfer in order to see what visible loss of resolution there is (as opposed to a notional loss of resolution) before we can settle this. But does such a thing exist?

[HerrSchreck]

I just have to say this... I can't help it. I've been wanting to say this for days but I don't wanta be a firestarter, but this is outa control.

Folks complained on other threads that they held CC to a higher reputation due to price and "aura" than to be releasing lite teenage comedy and basement budget claymation cult films whose sole 12 fans were in rat infested tubercular jails in 3rd world countries devoid of basic inoculations... and uh (cough, mushy moist mouth sounds)... Malle in color. They were leapt upon and pounded by those proclaiming that why should Criterion cater to your own personal hi-minded perception of what a supersnob hi-rent dvd company should do, rather than put out dvd's precisely as they want and in the fashion that they choose. Now it's the very same "leave them alone to do their own thing" crowd who are wounded because they feel betrayed... they have become their enemy having found their own Criterion toe-splinter. Relax, all-- enjoy the groovy dvd's & zoom awready.

I know there'll be a response that resolution-cutting is a demostrable flaw, whereas Artistic Quality is not measurable. Some folks get jolted over a perceived breach of the line they draw for Artistic Quality on $40 srp'd dvd's, some folks give more of a shit about resolution while not caring what they release. Everyone inhabits a zone of concern. This is why clubbing someone for beefing CC on one issue, then turning around and beefing CC for 3 or 4p of resolution is.... funny.

[HerrSchreck]

Dave I'm talking about image resolution... what the image's resolution is as a file on disc. I can look on my pc screen right now at your avatar.. grab it & scale it up and scale it down... your avatar still has a resolution of 60x60. This is what I'm talking about... you're talking about the number of lines occupied onscreen. People here are talking about resolution-- this is what I'm picking up and asking about here. Scaling is scaling.. image resolution is resolution, no?

What I'm asking is are CC actually scaling down resolution or image size?

[Gregory]

Schreck, I respect you and have no intention of getting into an argument with you over this, but I've seen you say in several different threads that those who complained about recent titles announced by Criterion were "leaped upon," "clubbed," and so on. For my own part, I never begrudged anyone their opinion about those titles. I was simply trying (in vain) to get people who were complaining to say (1) why Criterion should not release the films in question (2) what terms like "these kinds of films" mean (to describe a group of films as diverse as Equinox, Dazed and Confused, Koko, and Yi Yi, and (3) on what grounds they would presume to critique films they had apparently never seen.
I've simply been trying to do roughly the same thing here: rationally sort through the complaints and justifications to see what holds up. I'm of course fully willing to admit I'm in the wrong on the windowboxing issue.
Also, I believe neither that all complaints against Criterion are valid nor that Criterion is above criticism. That's why its necessary to investigate which criticisms are worthwhile (unless no part of these discussions is particularly edifying, which I often suspect).

[HerrSchreck]

To be fair I'd say greg that you're least "guilty" among the bunch I'm talking about, not least because I believe that you are inocuously sincere and are never mean spirited. Therefore not among those who I said "clobbered" folks, you never have that nails-down-a-chalkboard tone "please shut down this thread Matt these post Nov 2 '04 newjack member-dorks are driving me crazy telling CC what to do as if their preferences should be blanketed over the rest of the world".

You're so level headed in fact I'd love to see you once come reeling in dead drunk short-circuiting & throwing sparks & politically incorrect fireballs at someone. But you know that the respect is reciprocal and I always greedily tune into your posts to learn stuff I didn;t previously know.

[kschell]

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.

I would think that hearing from people who PREFER it actually DOES add to the discussion of whether they should stick with it.

[jcelwin]

What I'm asking is are CC actually scaling down resolution or image size?

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly, but:

Since all the DVDs all that the same resolution, putting a border around the image means that the actual movie-image occupies less space and is probably of lower quality.

I think all the new transfers are made so they can use them for HD also, so this means that they are scaled down to a lower resolution for the DVD. But, this has no bearing on the issue.

[Gregory]

I would think that hearing from people who PREFER it actually DOES add to the discussion of whether they should stick with it.

If someone were attempting to conduct a poll here, that's one thing (although of questionably statistical validity). In contrast, any discussion (or surely any one worth having) involves supporting arguments, evidence, thorough consideration of all counterproposals and so on.
Anyway, you took my sentence out of its context. I went on to explain that just because person x prefers windowboxing, it doesn't necessarily add to the case for Criterion continuing it. The company can't please everyone, so the question is then "Who should they cater to?" As a high-end DVD company perhaps not to those who haven't done anything to overcome overscan and don't plan to do so anytime in the foreseeable future. But it's up for discussion, of course.

[HerrSchreck]

zedz, just wanted to let you know I have a reply for you sitting in my outbox since last night, I don't know why it's not xmitting. I tried again so you may get it twice.

[thomega]

the issue with windowboxing (correct me if I'm wrong) is that 16% or more of the useable pixels are rendered black, reducing the resolution to less than 84% of it's maximum capacity.

That's correct, iff you only consider the number of pixels. However, that's only part of the story: all DVDs are MPEG2 encoded, which is a lossy compression. Therefore, if there are less pixels, the encoding of the remaining pixels can actually be better for a given maximum bitrate (10mbit/s for DVDs). The grain that we love so much in the Criterion transfers eats a lot of bandwidth.

If the number of pixels were the only deciding factor, we would all buy PAL DVDs (ingnoring the speedup for the sake of the argument). But I find that I prefer the NTSC quite often, even though I live in PAL country.

I think Criterion is overdoing it, but the issue is complicated and can not be decided without comparing two professionally mastered transfers with and without windowboxing.

[Morbii]

That's correct, iff you only consider the number of pixels. However, that's only part of the story: all DVDs are MPEG2 encoded, which is a lossy compression. Therefore, if there are less pixels, the encoding of the remaining pixels can actually be better for a given maximum bitrate (10mbit/s for DVDs).

AFAIK, there aren't less pixels. Some are just black instead. It's not like anamorphic vs non-anamorphic... but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Cinesimilitude]

That's correct, iff you only consider the number of pixels. However, that's only part of the story: all DVDs are MPEG2 encoded, which is a lossy compression. Therefore, if there are less pixels, the encoding of the remaining pixels can actually be better for a given maximum bitrate (10mbit/s for DVDs).

AFAIK, there aren't less pixels. Some are just black instead. It's not like anamorphic vs non-anamorphic... but someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

you are correct, but to further his point, black pixels contain practically no image information. with any of the bit rate analysis' on DVDBeaver, the ones that jump up and down, the drops in bitrate are due to the darkness of the pixels, the lowest being a black screen, so the black border takes up like 0.15 of the 10.0 mbps possibility, and most transfers are around 7.9-8 mbps. so We could complain as to why their previous releases weren't all 10 mbps transfers, meanwhile, we're complaining about the same quality, just a little smaller. That's just what I think, feel free to correct me also.

[denti alligator]

Whaoh now! The windowboxing on the credit sequence to Murmer of the Heart is whose doing? Malle's or Criterion's?

If this is Criterion's doing, then this is worse, imo, than windowboxing an entire film. At least in that case I'm getting the same size picture throughout. But if only one part of a film is windowboxed then the size fluctuates. This is ridiculous. Just plain ridiculous.

[Ishmael]

Back when Criterion did laserdiscs, the credit sequences of all letterboxed films were heavily windowboxed in exactly the same way that new Murmor of the Heart disc is. I never could figure out why.

[ola t]

It's because it's important for legal reasons that the names shown in the credits remain legible. Back in the dark ages, you'd often see transfers where the credits were letterboxed, only to switch to pan & scan when the first scene started.

[Ishmael]

It's because it's important for legal reasons that the names shown in the credits remain legible. Back in the dark ages, you'd often see transfers where the credits were letterboxed, only to switch to pan & scan when the first scene started.

This is true, but why would this require the windowboxing of a transfer that's already letterboxed? If overscan was being taken into consideration, then all letterboxed title sequences would be windowboxed, which was/is definitely not the case. And I don't think Criterion is just that much more paranoid about legal issues, since they don't include the FBI warning on their discs.

[HerrSchreck]

Interesting article here