RodneyT

Roadshow DVD Going Backwards

Situation 1: I recently purchased the R4 version of The Boondock Saints, put out by Roadshow here in Australia. The front cover states that the film is 16:9 enhanced, ie, anamorphic. The rear cover says "original aspect ratio 2.35:1, 16:9 enhanced". Yet, upon playing the film, find that the disc has NOT been encoded for 16:9, and instead uses the same transfer as the R1 version (4x3).

Situation 2: Last night i had a look at the R4 release of The Castle on DVD, again a Roadshow release. The film was shot in 1.85:1 aspect, and admittedly the quality of the film stock is pretty low grade, so the film was never going to look particularly sharp. The R1 release has an anamorphic 1.85:1 aspect presentation, yet the deluxe edition from Roadshow here in Australia has a 1.33:1 (4x3) "aspect" without anamorphic enhancement.

A couple of questions come out of these two situations.

1) With regards to The Boondock Saints, is the misleading advertisment of "16:9 enhanced" enough for me to get my money back as a false advertising claim? I purchased this version with the understanding it was anamorphic, whereas my R1 version was not. naturally, i was severely annoyed that i had shelled out good money for a product that wasnt labelled correctly (but still for sale nonetheless).

2) Whom should i write to? The place I purchased the DVD (K-Mart) or the company that produced it? Which would get the best response?

3) With regards to the Castle DVD release, am I incorrect in saying that the correct aspect of the picture should in fact be 1.85:1? If i am right, and the correct natural aspect of the film is 1.85:1, then why has it been transferred not only in a non-anamorphic picture, but in a cropped version of same as well?

4) Are there any checks or systems of analysis in place with DVD companies that false or misleading information is not placed on DVD's, so as to prevent this kind of problem?

Roadshow have never really put a foot wrong, after all they have so obviously embraced the DVD format that they are among the top producing studios in this field. The LOTR and Matrix DVD's have been top class all the way. Their audio formats (including DTS and ES/EX sound as well) have always maintained a relatively high standard. Their video transfers have always been among the best alongside Fox and Warner. Why have these two releases, one of which is blatantly not 16:9 but states so explicitly on the cover, been given hamfisted treatment by a company known for putting out quality film DVD productions?

Anybody have any answers?

Thanks for listening.....

I once stood out from the crowd. Now, I am trying desperately to get back in.

BenjaminG

Gday,

Cant help with Boondock Saints.. As far as I am concerned, yes, it is misleading, even though it was a simple mistake.

With the Castle though, it was filmed in 1.33:1, but screened at a matted 1.85:1 aspect ratio. According to Rob Sitch, it was intended to be 1.33:1.

Cheers,
Ben

Eric.

I gave up worrying what Australian distributors do long ago.The best thing to do is just use one of the great dvd comparison sites on the net and buy the best version from wherever it may be in the world.For the most part i'm happy enough to go with the r3 releases because they are cheaper and most of the time have the same transfer as the r1 counterpart.My copy of Dawn of the dead 2004 directors cut shipped last week and looks to be identical to the r1 release.I also had a copy of Kill Bill Vol.2 (dts) ship yesterday for $24aud,although there is likely a definitive version of K B 1&2 it may be 12 months before we know what it is so the hk version should do fine till then.

RodneyT

I once stood out from the crowd. Now, I am trying desperately to get back in.

Julian Lalor

Did he also intend for the 1.33 version to be cropped in comparison to the 1.85:1 version? Because the R4 DVD is cropped on the sides and offers only slightly more picture information on the top and bottom in comparison to the R1 DVD.