- Joined: April 2000
- Post Count: 4,317
This studio used to lead the way in great DVDs, but now they drop so many balls I have to take an umbrella into Best Buy. A list of recent transgressions against the DVD format:
—Irregular TV show release patterns
—P&S releases of movies, including one filmed in Panavision (Casey's Shadow), and one with a letterbox master airing on TCM (The Trouble With Angels)
—Poor transfers on some older films
—Allowing cut episodes of TV shows to surface (2 Sanford & Son, 2 Soap, 1 Forever Knight) (Don't tell me they don't exist, as some of the uncut ones have surfaced on Columbia House tapes)
—Overcrowding TV show episodes onto as few discs as possible (if I liked Dawson's Creek at all I would be mortified)
—Not even addressing these issues
What is happening here?
STOP THE MADNESS! STOP THE BUTCHERING AND ABANDONMENT OF TV SHOWS ON DVD!
My DVD List at DVD Aficionado, Now Featuring Blu-Ray
- Joined: April 1999
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Post Count: 3,701
You must be reading my mind- I was going to post the exact same thing! Though this has been going on more than a year now. Considering the amount of "press releases" they send, I think someone should explain what the heck's going on with them. This should go in Feedback though, maybe someone'll see it there.
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc
- Joined: December 1969
- Post Count: 4,195
Let's add:
Use Sony compression equipment, which seems to add excessive edge enhancement to all transfers that use it, even when EE is turned off (see Lawrence of Arabia Superbit).
I have trouble coming up with any CTHV releases that don't have EE plaguing them.
- Joined: April 1999
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Post Count: 3,701
But the titles that aren't worthy of being released in Superbit just get a "full screen" pan and scan transfer now.
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc
- Joined: May 2002
- Post Count: 930
Does anyone know how Sony's shoddy handling of its DVD releases has affected its sales and market share? I'd like to think that consumers aren't rewarding their half-assed efforts and shameful marketing gimmicks like the Superbit line by purchasing more of their DVDs. I know I'm not.
At this point, only Fox, New Line, WB, and Dreamworks have gained my complete trust to the point where I don't fear preordering one of their titles before reading any reviews.
I should really learn to knock....in case there's a threesome going on in my bedroom. - Sandy Cohen, The O.C., The Countdown
My DVD Collection
- Joined: January 2000
- Location: SoCal
- Post Count: 4,495
Quote:
| Use Sony compression equipment, which seems to add excessive edge enhancement to all transfers that use it, even when EE is turned off (see Lawrence of Arabia Superbit). |
The equipment they use always adds edge enhancement (even the holy grail DVD's like the Superbit version of The Fifth Element has some) but it is not always excessive.
I think when used conservatively, the EE that the Sony equipment adds had at least some positive impact on what many people thought were good, sharp, transfers if they were viewing on a smaller or average size rear projection TV (say 50 inches or smaller).
On bigger, front projection screens, the EE has always been noticeable and distracting to varying degrees (see posts by Bjorn Roy).
For ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.
- Joined: May 2003
- Post Count: 747
Man, you guys are harsh. 
Can I serve as the lone voice of dissent here, and say that Universal and Columbia are my second and third favorite of the major studios right now for DVD support, with Warner Bros. first? I find their recent work excellent.
The primary trouble with C/T is edge enhancement, but this seems only to plague their 'Scope and large format transfers (of which Lawrence of Arabia is of course one). I've only noted it as a problem on 'Scope/large format material, and others have said this is the case, but I haven't re-examined their matted and full screen material to check. I can, however, say that their classic transfers have been lovely for quite some time, and those I've recently examined show few if any signs of visible edge enhancement; while I haven't seen the infamously contentious transfers of The Awful Truth and You Can't Take It With You (both may be element related, rather than transfer related), I find a number of Columbia's classic titles set an absolute reference standard for the format: you simply will not find better B&W transfers than Only Angels Have Wings and His Girl Friday, and many others (both B&W and color), including Pennies From Heaven (Bing Crosby), Lost Horizon, It Happened One Night, Pal Joey, and ... so many titles are just terrific, a joy to watch. Many of these were issued early in the format, but a number of recent classic titles from the studio have received very positive reviews (I haven't yet seen them myself), including Cover Girl, You'll Never Get Rich, and others. The studio has at least two more classics due by year's end: Platinum Blonde (Capra, Harlow) and Ship of Fools, and both boast transfers downconverted from high definition masters (a policy which Columbia/TriStar put into place way back in 1997, and one which made their early product rise so readily above the competition). There remains some confusion concerning SoF's AR, but we'll know more when box cover scans are up, and of course when reviews are in. Other recent classics include The Marrying Kind, The Jolson Story, Jolson Sings Again ... the titles stretch on and on.
I think the studio's very much on the right track. If they could eliminate visible EE from their 'Scope and large format transfers, and perhaps maintain a steady flow of classics (one or two titles a month, well done), there'd be little room for criticism. I'm very pleased with their current classic support, and DVD packages such as Starship Troopers: SE 2-disc (I haven't seen the Superbit) are really quite superb.
As to Universal, they remain the only major studio to widely support double feature releases at a competitive, single-feature price point. Their many Bob Hope Tribute Series releases (the Road pictures are one to a disc, but most of the others are double features, I believe), their trio of Bing Crosby releases (including a DVD-14 for A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court / Emperor's Waltz), and their exceptionally-priced triple feature George Burns Collection, are outstanding examples of classic films done right on DVD. Of the Bing Crosby releases, the B&W transfer of Rhythm on the River (of Rhythm on the Range / Rhythm of the River) is particularly good.
The studio has also notably licensed several of their Paramount titles to Kino for release, among them three William Wyler films and two upcoming Rouben Mamoulian films. They've also licensed product to Criterion (Lubitsch's Trouble in Paradise, and I believe Sturges' The Lady Eve -- mediocre elements -- and Sullivan's Travels -- much better; it seems they also licensed The Scarlet Empress to Criterion, but I'm only going by memory here, and there are at least one or two more Kino titles as well ...). The elements/transfers have ranged from excellent (The Love Trap, minus a brief digital glitch) to rather poor (Counsellor At Law -- this may be the best condition in which it survives, for all I know), and I do wish Universal would release these themselves (to their recent standards of excellence in both quality and pricing), but at least they're putting the material out there, even if through license, and Kino and Criterion are fine independents to whom to license.
Recently, Universal's website posted news of February releases to include an eight film set (reportedly two DVD-18s, though I don't know if the site itself has confirmed this) of Abbott and Costello releases, a set of all four Airport films (DVDFile says each will offer 16x9 formatting), and a new double feature of both the original Imitation of Life (1934) and its Douglas Sirk remake (which is already available as a single disc).
It sounds as if 2004 has a great deal in store from both studios, and I'm pleased as punch with their output right now, and the quality they maintain (EE for C/T my one serious point of contention).
The EE problems for Columbia are ultimately better, for their seeming exclusivity to wide releases, to the excessive and distracting EE found on some of the early Fox Studio Classic releases, for instance (I've heard positive word on recent offerings, and hope this problem has been fixed, but it was glaringly troublesome on Gentleman's Agreement, to name one title). While all studios (even Warner Bros., with their very distressing lack of 1.66:1 16x9 formatting support and lack of 3-D support) have points for improvement, I find the output of Universal and Columbia to be a standard among classic libraries, a standard that continues to rise. The foremost standard rests with Warner Bros., due in part to their work both with LDI and in-house on image and sound quality, and further due to WB's wonderful work in the arena of supplemental content management/creation (which is on full display in their 2-disc SEs), but in areas of both quantity and quality, I believe Columbia and Universal serious contenders for the crown. And while they've had their spotty "new" releases* (Back to the Future misframing, 'Scope and large format-sourced Superbits with excessive EE, etc.), I have nothing but praise and encouragement for the release models both studios seem to be embracing ever more steadily. 
I don't expect all to share my contentment, but I do believe it justified, and I hope both studios know how much I appreciate their work.
* Certain other new releases, however, absolutely shine; some here have been very miffed by the forced trailers (I get those every week in the multiplex; they're not a big deal for me), but the OAR 16x9 re-release of Babe, with DD and DTS, commentary, intro, and brief segment on the FX, all for about $15 retail, is an outstanding bargain -- a while in coming, but very welcome and very praiseworthy. I hope Universal similarly revisits the hilarious Fierce Creatures (not so much a family film, that one, but a classic all the same 
).
“That line was screwy.”
- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938
- Joined: April 2000
- Post Count: 4,388
Quote:
| Month Python's The Meaning of Life: Problems for nearly all with high end progressive DVD players. |
Meaning of Life is a Universal DVD...
- Joined: January 2000
- Location: SoCal
- Post Count: 4,495
Quote:
| I'm at a loss as to the anti-Columbia feelings here. It's ridiculous, really. |
While Columbia has released some really good titles and transfers, there is always room for improvement. I now put Columbia somewhere in the middle of my list of top studios for quality DVD's.
Wanting a studio to improve on their DVD releases doesn't necessarily equate to "anti-Columbia feelings", does it?
For ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.
- Joined: April 2000
- Post Count: 4,317
Bye Bye Birdie was released in 1999. In fact, it was one of the earliest DVDs I bought.
STOP THE MADNESS! STOP THE BUTCHERING AND ABANDONMENT OF TV SHOWS ON DVD!
My DVD List at DVD Aficionado, Now Featuring Blu-Ray
- Joined: May 2003
- Post Count: 747
Rob wrote:
Quote:
| I think when used conservatively, the EE that the Sony equipment adds had at least some positive impact on what many people thought were good, sharp, transfers if they were viewing on a smaller or average size rear projection TV (say 50 inches or smaller). |
Perish the thought. I honestly couldn't disagree more -- I watch at 32" (16x9 capable) from about seven feet away, no SVM, Avia calibrated, and easily see edge enhancement on titles such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Superbit), Fox's Gentleman's Agreement (Studio Classics), and so forth. It's very distracting.
This site (and specifically this page of the site) explains why EE is a bad thing in a postage-sized screen cap, much less on a television screen:
http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm
And the most egregious DVD example of the disease (as I'm intent on calling it henceforth) noted on that site can be found here:
http://www.videophile.info/Review/TPM/TPM_01.htm
Most EE is of a far lesser intensity, and it still bothers me to no end. It's not there in the theatre (barring heavily processed shots in films like Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle, where it's quite intentional), so I shouldn't see it on a 32" Wega.
Quote:
| Wanting a studio to improve on their DVD releases doesn't necessarily equate to "anti-Columbia feelings", does it? |
Have you read Dick and Adam's posts (# 7 and #8)? If anyone said such things about me, I wouldn't hesitate to label them anti-Bill. 
“That line was screwy.”
- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938
- Joined: January 2000
- Location: SoCal
- Post Count: 4,495
Quote:
| This site (and specifically this page of the site) explains why EE is a bad thing in a postage-sized screen cap, much less on a television screen: |
Those are not postage sized screen caps. My sig is bigger than a postage stamp, and is notorious for bad EE. Do you see EE in my sig? I don't.
Quote:
| I watch at 32" (16x9 capable) from about seven feet away, no SVM, Avia calibrated, and easily see edge enhancement on titles such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Superbit) |
Ok. So, I assume then that you agree that there is room for Columbia to improve their transfers!?
Come on Bill, you can admit this without being considered "anti-Columbia"
For ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.
- Joined: May 2003
- Post Count: 747
There's nothing for me to admit, Rob. I said it in just as many words earlier. I didn't, however, call them names ("imbecile," etc.), as earlier posters have, and I've pointed out their excellence in many other regards.
You're quibbling, which really isn't constructive. "Air mail postage size," if it makes you happier. "Trading card size." "Decal size." It makes no difference. Much smaller than a television screen, of course, is the point, and EE is nonetheless very visible in those captures, and well described by the text accompanying them.
“That line was screwy.”
- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938
- Joined: June 2002
- Post Count: 839
part of it has to do with outting out a rediculous number of DVDs of the same movie, ie Men In Black , so instead ofconcentarting on quality they worry about quantity
I mean we can't even get a WS version of The Karate Kid
CTS is the worst DVD studio IMO
Samsung HL-S5688W 56" DLP
Panasonic TC-P50X1 50" Plasma TV (bedroom)
Toshiba HD-A2 HD DVD's
Panasonic BMP-BD60
Sony BDP300 Blu Rays (bedroom)
- Joined: January 2000
- Location: SoCal
- Post Count: 4,495
Quote:
| Much smaller than a television screen, of course, is the point, and EE is nonetheless very visible in those captures, and well described by the text accompanying them. |
Obviously Bill. That's why I made reference to Bjoern's posts earlier in this thread!
As far as comparing screen captures to viewing a movie on a television, these are not the same thing for numerous reasons that should be obvious, including the fact that most people sit less than two feet from their computer monitor. I can only assume they do not sit that close to their television!
For ordinary men, it's a burning, fiery furnace.
- Joined: May 2003
- Post Count: 747
Rob wrote:
Quote:
| As far as comparing screen captures to viewing a movie on a television, these are not the same thing for numerous reasons that should be obvious, including the fact that most people sit less than two feet from their computer monitor. |
Exactly two feet in my case, which is precisely the screen size-to-distance ratio recommended for home theatre viewing (1.5x). It's much too far away for viewing those thumbnails, which don't fill the screen. And EE remains blatant (the close-up extracts from larger images must, of course, be compared with similar close-ups of EE-free titles, and ideally a reader's previous experience with edge halos, to get a clear sense of how the EE will affect the entire image from a proper viewing distance, but I thought this should be self-evident; the close-ups serve to establish its presence or absence, and the intensity of the halo or edge, not to capture the impression it will make in viewing the entire image; DVDFile's reviews often incorporate a similar philosophy). The site discusses, at those links and elsewhere (particularly on a dedicated page for on-line compression info -- I believe it's linked from the main page) precisely how to gauge EE in a compressed gif or jpeg, rather than on a television screen or projection screen, and offers excellent comparisons of varying compression schemes and what they do and do not do to EE levels.
Let's not continue arguing this -- what's obvious is that EE is video science, its presence or absence is fact, not opinion, and folks can judge for themselves whether or not it bothers them, and the intensity of visible EE that serves as their personal cut-off for "good title" and "bad title." We've made our points, and my primary point, for this thread, was to emphasize Columbia's good work before criticizing their shortcomings, not wind up side-tracked into another no-win EE debate.
“That line was screwy.”
- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938
- Joined: May 2003
- Post Count: 747
Bruce wrote:
Quote:
| The only problem I had with Anger Management was its incredible ineptitude as a motion picture. |
I never saw it, but after a couple of Adam Sandler pictures, I know they're not my cup of tea. I understand, however, that he's one of the highest paid actors in show business now (his production company's work may factor into this). He clearly has his thumb on someone's pulse, but ... not mine. Ah well -- more power to him.
“That line was screwy.”
- Outtake
Warner Bros.' Breakdowns of 1938
- Joined: April 1999
- Location: Sacramento, CA
- Post Count: 3,701
Well I refused to believe this until I saw it for myself- They ARE reissuing movies that previously had both WS and P&S formats in P&S only, and no, they're NOT being sold exclusively at Wal-Mart. I saw "Last Action Hero" with only "Fullscreen" format at a Tower Records store today- the cover looks the same as the other release other than the mentions of widescreen format. What the hell is going on here???
Home video oddities, old commercials and other junk: http://www.youtube.com/user/eyeh8nbc
