*** FOX goes PAN&SCAN? 10 Fox discs re-released in MARCH (1 Viewer)

[Qui-Gon John]

Ok guys let me say first and foremost that I wont but a DVD in P&S in fact lately I wont buy it unless its anamorphic but the reality is that I sell DVD players for a living and our best selling brand of DVD players is Toshiba.....

I agree. I have a 58" 16x9 RPTV. I like to see things OAR and I don't realy like the black bars either. With my TV and a 1.89:1 ana I get no black bars and with 2.35:1 ana the bars are small enough I can live with them. When it's non-ana, the 1.89:1 alredy has larger bars than I like and the 2.35:1 the bars are huge, nearly 1/3 the vertical height for each bar. Not only death to P&S but death to non-ana, as well!

 

[Jay Taylor]

This situation is scarier than simply the availability of inexpensive 16:9 digital TVs. One of my friends absolutely hates widescreen. She hates the skinny narrow widescreen TVs being sold at Best Buy no matter how large the set is.
She demands the big fat screens that she grew up with. She doesn’t care what shape the screen is in the movie theater or what has to be chopped off the sides to make it fit the screen. She wants a tall full screen.
Unfortunately many people will continue to hold that opinion when the 2006 deadline for TV stations to switch to the new digital frequencies occurs. My fear is that congress will be pressured to delay the mandatory switch and the 16:9 format will be indefinitely delayed. Does this remind you of our switch to the metric system?
Steven Page mentioned something that I believe could have a significant improvement with the P&S problem:

Why can't the studios and player manufacturers come together to develop a single disc that can be based on Widescreen but like someone else pointed out, be an option thru the player to watch the movie in P&S without resorting to taking up the second side of a disc or a separate release?

Couldn’t this feature be implemented by encoding just one number per frame onto the disc? That number being the location of the start to the P&S image from the widescreen image. For example a “0” would mean that the P&S image was at the far left. A “65535” (1111111111111111 binary) would mean that the P&S image was at the far right.
The implementation of this automatic pan&scan feature on a DVD player seems like a remedy too good to pass up. It would make the DVD manufacturers, the OAR & the P&S crowds happy.
Jay Taylor

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Jesse Skken said:

When DVD came out they hyped being able to have several different versions of the movie on the SAME disc, so stuff like this is riduculous

That was 1997... this is 2002.
With each year DVD's advance another set of issues and complaints crop up.
When DVD-18 came about was when people were asking for PLENTY of extras and so they got them in abundance - but not without the price of sacrificing the flip-side P&S version of the movie.
Over time, studios realized that the HT advocates wanted MORE and MORE without paying an extra dime for it, which gets into another problem concerning actors pay and extras, which I won't go into here. The studios answered by starting a 2-disc trend (Cleopatra is 3-discs) so they could house all the extras.
How soon people forget when they become complacent.
If they were to dump extras for a P&S version on the "same" disc, you would have a bloody mutiny on your hands!
I LOVE my extras and would be one whirling a sword!

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Jay Taylor mentioned:

Steven Page mentioned something that I believe could have a significant improvement with the P&S problem

Jay... thanks for your support!

Why can't the studios and replicators do something as SIMPLE as what you are proposing with my idea?

Are they blind? Ignorant? Or just like spending money?

 

[PhilipG]

John Co,
Seems to me that you are watching all your anamorphic discs in a non-anamorphic TV mode (i.e. everything is stretched taller), or all your non-anamorphic discs in anamorphic mode (i.e. everything is stretched shorter). If the latter is the case you should be using the 16x9 zoom for ratios of 1.77:1 and above. There should be no appreciable difference in black bar size when comparing an anamorphic disc in one ratio with a non-anamorphic disc in the same ratio.
Needless to say, watching a stretched image is not watching in OAR.

 

[AaronMK]

P&S on the fly was also touted as being a feature, but as of yet there hasn't been any product to utilise it (1 or 2 titles maybe, but that's it).

Practically all DVDs use it, as most menus and FBI warnings are encoded this way. Image quality does not suffer, and that includes menus with video.

I think this is the way to go. For 2.35:1 films the black bars would not be that big (almost exactly the same size as the bars on E.R. and Enterprise, nothing J6P would notice or complain about), and practically no existant for 1.85:1 films.

It takes very little disc space to encode the points, only one tranfer and release is needed, it won't cut into quality or extra features.

Everyone is happy. Problem solved.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Well my DVD Player, Pioner DV-434, has two setting, widescreen and standard. I have it set to widescreen. My RPTV, Pioneer SD-582-HD5 is set to FULL. With these settings, I get the results I mentioned above. Additionally, I can, if I choose, when viewing 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, switch the TV to NATURAL-WIDE, CINEMA-WIDE or ZOOM, to reduce or eliminate black bars at top and bottom. I realize this may slightly alter the aspect ratio. However, as I said, the view I related in my prior post is all on FULL, which essentially means you see the entire frame coming from the player.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

OK. Can someone from FOX tune in now and comment on our findings?

I believe we are on the right track for a soultion to satisfy everyone!

Fox has become a leader in the industry by consistantly putting out top-notch quality products at a bargain.

This would give them an opportunity to become a leader in another area and earn more than a following if they can pull it off!

I would hate to see them miss the boat on this one.

Possibly our findings can be posted in the Studio Feedback areas?

 

[Mark Cappelletty]

Knowing people who work at Fox and learning first-hand just how ridiculously cheap that company can be, I'm willing to bet this edict came straight from NewsCorp and the top brass in Murdoch's operation. I'm willing to bet that Peter Staddon didn't have much of a say in this at all, save for nixing the extras and leaving these as one-disc sets.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth,

but I don't believe for a second that Peter

Staddon put his heart into this decision.

You know, this may sound terribly insensitive

and selfish, but it is what I feel....

As far as I know, HDTV is going to eventually

be forced upon everyone whether they want it

or not. People are going to have to either upgrade

to a HTDV compatable set or buy a box that downconverts

the digital signal.

We have ALWAYS had technology progress forced

upon us whether we want it or not. Fortunately,

most of this technology has improved our lives.

My point.....

Studios should FORCE the public to accept

widescreen. They should stop putting out

pan & scan versions.

By catering to these people, the studios are

only making matters worse. The public will expect

more pan & scan product and NEVER accept widescreen.

Whether people buy Pan & Scan or not, DVD is

going to become the biggest movie media entertainment

source in the next few years. VHS is going to be

rapidly dying over the next decade.

If we force widescreen on the public and offer

them nothing else, the public will have no other

choice but to accept. Once VHS starts its decline

(catalog production is already being stopped), the

public will have no other means to rent or buy

entertainment (other than pay-per-view).

This is a HUGE mistake for the studios to be

catering to the public like this when we have

entered the dawn of digital widescreen television

and the government and industry are trying to coax

public acceptance of what will ultimately be the

future of Home Entertainment.

With that in mind, releasing P&S product is only

taking us a step backwards instead of forward.

 

[Jay Taylor]

Steven Page Suggested:

OK. Can someone from FOX tune in now and comment on our findings?

I believe we are on the right track for a solution to satisfy everyone.

Possibly our findings can be posted in the Studio Feedback areas?

Okay guys, I started a thread on this in the studio feedback area. Let’s give them our suggestions.

Jay Taylor

 

[David Lambert]

Again, Ron...you are right on target. That is EXACTLY what I meant about using leverage.

As to this:

Simple facts, Hick*Mart sells at least 25% of the home videos in the industry. Fox could take a stand and refuse to sell to them; but as Universal found out last year, when they tried to sqare off against Blockwhore about VOD, they can't stand up to their most powerful customers.

Jack Hastra is dead on, you can't fight economics. Sure Fox could protest Hick*Mart and not sell to them, thus elimiating a stream of revenue. Would Hick*Mart care? Hell no, they'd just go stock up on more product from another studio. Hick*Mart also has tons of other sources of revenue to fall back on, Fox does not.

Quite simply, are you seriously trying to get me to believe that 25% fewer people would buy Star Wars just because they could not find it at Wal-Mart? Is that what you are implying?

Believe me, if Wal-Mart stopped selling Fox titles because they were only widescreen, that would suit everyone else down to the bone. Kroger would stock up on Fox titles. Home Depot would start selling Fox DVD's if Star Wars were part of the package.

Yeah, maybe a few impulse buys would be lost because folks didn't happen to spot a title with some jiggly girls in it for $15 at Wal-Mart while buying a new hose or whatever. But the vast majority of DVD sales are "destination" titles: people see a commercial for the hot flick they want, and seek it out because they love seeing it.

And - sadly - Wal-Mart's prices suck more often that you think. I realize that every time I do the Weekly Report, which is why Wal-Mart rarely gets a mention! They are always at their permanent street price, and rarely do a first-week special like Best Buy or Circuit City or even Target does.

No, I guarantee you that Fox is holding the cards. They just have to wake up and realize. 13 years in retail management are telling me this!

 

[Steve Felix]

I totally agree Ron.
I can't speculate too well on what the economics are or just how much power Wal-Mart has, but I think that any loss of revenue in sticking to widescreen would be very temporary, and the strategy would probably be simpler and cheaper in the long run.
But who knows. It's not our job to worry about finances, it's our job to fight for what is right!

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

Ron,

I am sure there is no one here that can belittle you for your opinion. You are entitled to one but it is only "one" person's viewpoint as many have pointed out.

Unfortunately, the $$$ and politics within the studios dictate what goes and what stays rather Peter Staddon has or hasn't put in his .02¢ worth or not. He may be head of Marketing but someone higher pays his salary. And that person may be as wrong and ignorant about marketing as a 3 year old, but if they want it and have the clout, that is that.

Rather than fight the machine, just find a solution to cater to everyone.

As the original message of this thread point to an article about Fox's move, it did state that the Widescreen versions will remain on the market.. not replace them. I am assuming these new re-issues will be bare bones much like MGM's theme series (Midnite Movies, etc...).

All we can do now is apeal to the studios and offer alternative meathods to handle the situation cheaply and completely.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

It's not our job to worry about finances, it's our job to fight for what is right!

That is a very narrow-minded and selfish statement.

If the studio can't make money, they can't produce the DVD's we want. If they stop making DVD's because of lack of interest and finances, we ALL loose out.

That is why I say work towards finding a solution that satisfies everyone.

As the old saying goes... "You Can't Have Your Cake And Eat It Too."

 

[Michael St. Clair]

As far as I know, HDTV is going to eventually
be forced upon everyone whether they want it
or not. People are going to have to either upgrade
to a HTDV compatable set or buy a box that downconverts
the digital signal

You both know incorrectly. There is no HDTV mandate. Not from Congress, and not from the FCC.
The only mandate that exists is that after 2006 once 85% of the homes in a given market can receive a digital signal, that the stations in that market stop their analog broadcasts. The digital broadcasts that would remain for those stations are not required to be HDTV. They are only required to be digital. 480-line 4:3 aspect-ratio digital broadcast meets this requirement.
There is no HDTV mandate, there never has been an HDTV mandate, and by 2006 what little mandate exists will probably be replaced by something even more wimpy. Wait until you hear Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton complaining that poor minorities (and other poor people that they won't mention) are having their TV taken away from them (a point with some validity). Look for analog broadcast to actually disappear at some point after subsidized set-top boxes for the poor are made available. Maybe 2012 is when regular TV will really go away, and there is a good chance that most stations will just be broadcasting 4:3 SDTV at that point anyway.
And 16:9 solves nothing. It will make things worse. Once Joe Six Pack buys a widescreen set, he gets even more pissed when he finds out that he still gets bars on all of his academy-ratio material and 'scope films.
Anyhow, the primary responsibility of the FOX executives is to the shareholders of the company, not to a minority of the american public who views artistic integrity as something that should not be compromised (a minority that I belong to). Given this, and given the weakened economy right now, Peter and his associates are doing exactly the right thing. Anybody who feels otherwise should tell us which of their investments they would want devalued in order to prevent optional pan-and-scan, and if they would take a cut in their paycheck to stop the 'Six Pack' crowd from having this option.

 

[DarrenA]

when viewing 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, switch the TV to NATURAL-WIDE, CINEMA-WIDE or ZOOM, to reduce or eliminate black bars at top and bottom.

John,

When viewing DVD movies, you need to use the Full mode on your television for Anamorphic widescreen DVDs. However, with non-anamorphic widescreen DVDs you need to use the ZOOM mode to obtain the proper geometry of the aspect ratio. A DVD's aspect ratio will remain constant whether it's anamorphic or not. It's simply up to you to adjust your television's viewing mode to achieve that aspect ratio.

 

[Justin Lane]

I am not going to complain about Fox and P&S until they begin releasing titles in P&S only and do not give us an OAR option.

As it stands now Fox is still giving us awesom 2 disc SEs while the P&S lovers are getting one disc jobs with no extensive extras (and probably no DTS either).

I don't mind paying 5 or even 10 bucks more to get my discs in OAR and SE form. It is still the best bargain ever in home video presentation.

J

 

[Steve Felix]

Steven:
The statement you quoted was lighthearted, but I stand behind it. I don't appreciate that studios pander to ignorance for short-term profit by wrecking artistic visions when they could just clear the confusion in the marketplace over a year or two.
Just because I'm against the decision doesn't mean I don't understand their position. (I would have understood the financial benefits of holding slaves, but I still wouldn't have been looking to compromise on the issue. And don't bother telling me that p&s isn't exactly slavery. ) However, I really doubt that Fox is hurting so badly that they can't afford to push some of the population forward. (After all, DVD has sparked a collector mentality in so many!) If the profit hit is enough to slow DVD and film production, I can live with that. It would have to be temporary -- Wal-Mart isn't going to bring down the movie industry.
Would I take a pay cut to prevent panning and scanning? If I was still making a decent living I would. I'd hold the job for love of film, which is why I'd never hold the job. Companies have stockholders, but they also have stakeholders who benefit or lose from their decisions.
I'm selfish on behalf of those losing stakeholders: artists and the segment of J6P who don't deserve the title: those that could come to appreciate OARs.
And I certainly would mind paying more for the feature even more basic than "Interactive menus," widescreen.
About 16:9 TVs -- I can imagine a lot of J6Ps thinking, "This show was made for my old TV, so I understand why it doesn't fill up this one." Half would still say, "MY EYES, THEY BURN! STRETCH THE PICTURE NOOOOW!" but like I said earlier, the light bulb would at least be coming on.

 

[Walt Riarson]

As if the decision to go P/S isn't bad enough...

"The titles are Cast Away, Men of Honor, The Abyss, Anna and the King, Big Momma’s House, Edward Scissorhands special edition, Entrapment, Independence Day, Lake Placid and Predator."

Okay, so you mean to tell me...that as of March...Fox will have officially TRIPLE-DIPPED on the release of Predator??? And not ONE of them is a SPECIAL EDITION? This has to be a record.

Great. Just another reason for them to put off an R1 special edition. "We're sorry, but we've released that title 3 times already, despite the fact that R2 is getting the extras-packed SE in 2002..."

Idiots.

You guys complain about MGM so much, but Fox is just downright pathetic. At least MGM puts 16:9 and P/S on the same disc, as it should be.