Columbia/Tri-Star OAR petition: "We're looking into the matter." (1 Viewer)

[David Lambert]

All this and we still do not have an official statement from Columbia on whether these are fullscreen or pan and scan on the fly.

No, but I don't think it is. I have a person I know who is in a position to see the proposed cover art for these releases...both front and back sides. On each and every title mentioned in the Video Store Magazine article and the petition, the only indication on the back of the box are these exact words:
Full Screen Presentation
It's listed as a "feature", for chrissake!!

All I can say is, don't let up! Keep this thing going, and let 'em know that this will get them in the wallet..
Think about it. One of the titles involved is Race The Sun. Starring recent Oscar-winner Halle Berry. Don't you think there will be an above-average interest in this title by "Joe Six-Pack" due to her win? Especially since the cover features her in a bikini top? Yeah, I know it's no Swordfish...but guys will be guys, y'know? "Sexy" sells...and they can slip it past the missus with the excuse of "let's check it out...she won an award!".
What will sales of this title say to Columbia about the popularity of full screen presentations? :frowning:

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Well ... According to DVD Angle that's what CTS means by "Full Screen" : A 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen presentation for a 16:9 display, and a downconverted cropped and zoomed presentation for a 4:3 display. In each case it's Full Screen although the transfer provided for 16:9 owners provides far more information and with increased resolution to boot.
Here's a direct quote from the article:

utilize "anamorphic pan&scan." That being said, there is no indication on the packaging (which is also true for all "anamorphic pan&scan" releases). No doubt they're losing valuable sales because of it. Perhaps they should include a mention on the package – it would be a wise marketing decision. Without being told, the only way to tell if the "anamorphic pan&scan" process is being utilized is to view the same disc on a widescreen TV.

Evidently, the option to select a 1.78:1 4:3 LBX presentation, downconverted from the 1.78:1 anamorphic transfer, has been locked-out..
This won't effect me, since I own a 16:9-capable display, but I agree that there's still a battle to be waged here for all the legacy 4:3 display owners.

 

[SteveGon]

Evidently, the option to select a 1.78:1 4:3 LBX presentation, downconverted from the 1.78:1 anamorphic transfer, has been locked-out.

Columbia, I'll buy the dvds in question if you buy me a 16:9 tv! Seriously...

 

[Ted Todorov]

Evidently, the option to select a 1.78:1 4:3 LBX presentation, downconverted from the 1.78:1 anamorphic transfer, has been locked-out..

I didn't realize it was possible to lock it out the 4:3 LBX option -- do we know that it is?

If true, that's the next big area to be conquered after making DVD players region free -- make them capable of the of defeating all the "forbidden" functions. My personal bête noir is the "mandatory" subtitles (the other side of the no changing of the soundtrack on the fly coin).

Ted

P.S. How much cropping before it is P&S -- to me any amount which is routinely within the variations in matting during a theatrical presentation does not count. 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 definitely falls in that category. Of course I'd rather have it in 1.85:1, my set up is capable of 0% overscan, but really, we have much bigger things to worry about -- this one is way down on the list.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

Generally speaking, if you set your DVD player to 4:3 Letterbox, the movie will play in its original widescreen aspect ratio. However, this option can (but rarely) be locked out when the DVD is created and you will be forced to view the movie in pan&scan. You do not have control over this – none. If you try to change the settings on your player from 4:3 (pan&scan or letterbox) to 16:9 you will be watching the anamorphically enhanced version, which appears as a vertically stretched full screen image that, frankly, looks bad. This lock-out is optional when the disc is created and up to this point, it has been employed.

I can only assume that CTS is doing this to cut down on support calls, since they are the first major studio to utilize the "P&S ON-THE-FLY" DVD hardware option.
The thing is, they need to understand that DVD owners, demographically, are not dummies. We're perfectly capable of finding our DVD players' DISPLAY OPTION Menu.
If they're going to "slightly crop" down to 1.78:1 such that "Anamorphic P&S" becomes feasible, then they should go all the way with it and activate all of its functions!!

 

[David Lambert]

I can only assume that CTS is doing this to cut down on support calls, since they are the first major studio to utilize the "P&S ON-THE-FLY" DVD hardware option.

Again, this is all assuming that the DVD Angle article is correct. Color me skeptical; they are a fine enought site, but I just don't see why they'd have the "exclusive" on this information!
I also think you're a fine fellow, Joseph, but I must now point out that you are being very circular in your logic: you're quoting an article and stating it as fact, although you have no corroboration to it. We then ask questions and point out possible flaws in these "facts". You then respond by re-quoting the artcile, without bringing anything new to answer our concerns.
There's an episode of ST:TNG, season 3. It's called "The Defector", and a Romulan Admiral has defected and sought asylum on the Enterprise. He brings tales of the Empire making plans for war, getting ready to invade. He has no records, no proof. He tries to convince Capt. Picard of the impending conflict.
He asks, "What must I do?"
Picard responds, "You must convince me, Admiral!"
I find myself in similarly unconvinced position that Columbia/TriStar is utilizing P&S-on-the-Fly. However, I can remedy that. I have a phone # for one of their Home Entertainment Dept.'s Vice Presidents. I will call him on Monday, time permitting.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

Quote:

Again, this is from the mouths of DVD Angle and not CTHV. I am not saying I doubt or deny everything DVD Angle is writing. They may very well be holders of the truth. But, one company alone has the undeniable answer to all of this and we haven't heard from them. I want the Angle article to be true but I just can't say for sure and that's what bothers me.
Bruce

 

[Jeremiah W]

I'll beleive it when I see it.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

I also think you're a fine fellow, Joseph, but I must now point out that you are being very circular in your logic: you're quoting an article and stating it as fact, although you have no corroboration to it. We then ask questions and point out possible flaws in these "facts". You then respond by re-quoting the artcile, without bringing anything new to answer our concerns.

Well, the fact of the matter is, I have no additional proof on this, of course!
I have emailed DVD File and have asked them to look into this, but have received no response from them as of yet.
I also *suspect* that 2001: A Space Travesty may have been mastered this way, but I have no desire to purchase this title and it's not available for rent at any of the stores around me. (The box states that it's an anamorphic transfer, and then, elsewhere, it states that it's "Full Frame".) I have read two reviews of this title, but in both cases the title was reviewed on 4:3 equipment. The reviewers, of course, may not have known to check for a 16:9 anamorphic transfer; and they especially would not have suspected that a slightly-cropped widescreen presentation was available if the 4:3 LBX downconversion option was locked-out.
Anyway, there's two points here:
1. We should know something definitive regarding this early next week.
- and -
2. All 4:3 legacy display owners are still stuck with a P&S transfer, even if this information proves to be true, assuming the DVD Angle report is correct, due to the lock-out of the 4:3 LBX option. So this process isn't helping at all as far as any of them are concerned.
BTW, I love Star Trek, and I certainly recall that episode that you alluded to!

 

[Sarah S]

I d not own a 16:9 tv yet; and getting one is quite a few yeas down te road for me & my family. I still want OAR on all my movies, & if CTS utilizes the "lock out" feature on those discs, then I will consider them to be P&S & NOT buy them.

Just because you happen to have a 16:9 tv do not assume that it is acceptable to only have widescreen available for widescreen tvs.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

In regards to any DVD producing company:

They'll blow it, they always do.....

 

[Larry Schneider]

http://www.dvdfile.com/software/dvd-....html#04012002
Apparently it is full-frame only.

 

[Steve Owen]

The thing is, they need to understand that DVD owners, demographically, are not dummies. We're perfectly capable of finding our DVD players' DISPLAY OPTION Menu.

We are, but I think you severely overestimate the technical prowess of the average DVD player owner.
-Steve

 

[Jay E]

Well as long as they are "looking into it" I will not be ordering any of their full frame DVDs. I see Columbia has no problem promoting these DVDs such as 84 Charing Cross Roard & Cowboy as Widescreen in the UK. I guess the U.S. is

not worth the trouble.

 

[Rain]

I also *suspect* that 2001: A Space Travesty may have been mastered this way...

According to my sources, this title is a 1.33:1 presentation even on 16x9 equipment.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Gentlemen,
Please trust me when I tell you that
it has been confirmed that the DVD ANGLE
article is incorrect and that the Columbia
titles in question will not utilize P&S on
the fly. These are full-frame releases ONLY.
My recommendation is not to purchase them.
Do not support titles that are not released
in their proper aspect ratio.

 

[Jay E]

Thanks Ron for clearing that up.

Columbia, the fight is still on!

 

[Rain]

That comes as no big surprise to me, Ron. I figured those claims were bogus.
Thanks for the feedback, dreary as it may be. :frowning:

 

[PatrickL]

I'm so discouraged to read that Columbia is releasing Perfect MAR. I've wanted this title, because I'm a fan of the cinematographer Gordon Willis, and I've never seen it OAR. Now, of course, I wouldn't want the disc even if they were giving it away.
That brings my personal grand total to 4 discs I would have bought from Columbia, if they were OAR.

 

[Joseph Bolus]

I apologize, profusely, for bringing the "DVD Angle" article to the attention of this forum.
I guess I was just hoping against hope that this report was true, mainly due to the fact that, from the very first day of the DVD format, I had never known CTS to give us anything other than anamorphic widescreen transfers where applicable.
It still makes no sense to me that they would start issuing P&S only transfers at this time; especially since many new DVD owners are in the process of finally being weaned off cropped and zoomed versions of their favorite movies; and both Sony 16:9 monitors and 4:3 monitors with 16:9 modes are starting to make a real percentage penetration into overall new TV sales.
To me, 4:3 displays and non-anamorphic P&S transfers reek of 1950's technology, irrespective of the format that they are delivered on.
It's certainly no way to view a widescreen movie in the first decade of the 21st Century.