16x9 anamorphic 1.66:1...Has Warner FINALLLY done it!!!???!!! (1 Viewer)

[PhilipG]

I am not bothered by such "pillarboxing" (and my TV set has pretty high overscan, so I probably wouldn't see them anyway), but I am sure that many 4x3 TV owners with DVD players, and with TVs in which the pillarboxing can be easily seen, will find this somewhat annoying, as they are getting a smaller image than they could be getting (with a 1.66:1 non-anamorphic transfer). Even if these people support OAR, they may feel cheated by this.

But how do they know they are getting a smaller image unless they have both versions of the same film at hand? I would argue that many 4:3 owners, on comparison, would prefer the anamorphic version because less of the image is cut off by overscan at the sides.

I'd like to hear from one person who is actually annoyed about anamorphic 1.66:1 for the reason you stated. Anyone? Or is it entirely supposition on your part that such people exist?

When I had a 4:3 set, I never saw the side bars on anamorphic 1.66:1. I doubt anyone with a standard, non-professionally-calibrated set has. If Disney can trust their "family features" with anamorphic 1.66:1, then surely Warner Brothers can experiment doing it too, and see just how many complaints they get, how many "I will not buy"'s, compared to their current policy.

As it stands, no sale on Giant for me. I live in hope that they (and MGM) will snap to their senses, one of these years.

As for DVD File, this is more proof that some of their reviewers no longer watch the discs, just run their random clever phrase generator. Thank goodness for forums like this one.

 

[Rain]

Re: Shane

I'd bet my left [appendage of your choice] that the film was composed with 1.37:1 in mind.

Personally, how it was shown is of far less importance.

Showing Shane at 1.66:1 is not different from showing Citizen Kane at 1.33:1.

This statement does not make sense to me.

 

[Jon Robertson]

If you aren't going to buy this new improved release of Giant (and it is improved, by all accounts - when will people learn that anamorphic doesn't always mean "the best"?), then at least let Warner know why with an e-mail or a phone call.

It's all very well complaining that Warner doesn't put out its classic back catalogue titles, but they're hardly going to be motivated to do so if they put out a deluxe 2-disc set of one of their classics and no-one buys it, are they?

I, for one, will be thrilled to purchase it, but non-anamorphic 1.66:1 is less of a problem for European widescreen owners, as most televisions have the option of a 14:9 zoom.

 

[Patrick McCart]

This statement does not make sense to me.

Shane was made for 1.66:1 matting just as much as Kane was.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Is there adequete headroom for 1.66:1 matting in Shane? I haven't seen the film in years. Could the current DVD be matted to 1.66:1?

Paths Of Glory was probably shown at 1.66:1 and 1.85:1 in some cinemas back in '57, by dunderheaded projectionists.

And the upcoming Duel DVD will be 1.33:1 - but it was shown at 1.85:1 in cinemas... or was it? Could this TV movie have been 'successfully' matted to 1.85:1? The initial DVD artwork stated "WIDESCREEN" at the top. This is probably why the DVD's release was stopped, as all the other specs remain the same on this upcoming edition. But there's DTS! Strange logic, says I!

Anchor Bay matted The Amazing Howard Hughes to 1.78:1 anamorphic! Why? What was the point in that? A TV movie, shot for TV at 1.33/37:1 should be shown in that ratio.

George Stevens didn't want 1.66:1 matting for Giant. Warner should just have transfered at 1.33:1!
Would that have been worse?!

OAR debates can make ya crazy. :p)


Gordy

 

[Adam Tyner]

Anchor Bay matted The Amazing Howard Hughes to 1.78:1 anamorphic! Why?

Didn't Ron say in his review that it was shot with widescreen in mind for theatrical exhibition overseas? If it wasn't in his review, I definitely read that somewhere...

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Yeah, I think you're right, Adam; the film was 'safely' shot for 1.85:1 projection should the film have been shown in cinemas in Europe.

But I'm glad the Duel will be 1.33:1.

Cheers, Adam.


Gordy

 

[John Hodson]

While I've never seen Shane theatrically, and in fact hadn't read any of these threads when I first watched the DVD, I have to tell ya' ... some scenes look a bit cramped.

Quite agree; something is distinctly wrong (still doesn't stop me thoroughly enjoying the current release however).

---
So many films, so little time...

 

[Damin J Toell]

Showing Shane at 1.66:1 is not different from showing Citizen Kane at 1.33:1.

What you say is that showing Shane wrongly is not different from showing Kane correctly. And, of course, they are different.

DJ

 

[Colin Jacobson]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing Shane at 1.66:1 is not different from showing Citizen Kane at 1.33:1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What you say is that showing Shane wrongly is not different from showing Kane correctly. And, of course, they are different.

Perhaps Patrick's statement related to the fact that Kane's accurate AR is 1.37:1, not 1.33:1?

 

[Jon Robertson]

In cases where there is genuine confusion over whether a full-frame title should be matted or not, my instinct is to leave it at 1.33:1 - better to have too much than too little in such circumstances.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I screwed up my post.

I'll start reeding my posts for errrosrs...

 

[Bill Burns]

Regarding Shane at 1.66:1 and Kane at 1.33:1:

Patrick has clarified his post, so my response is no longer accurate. The way I was processing that comparison was as follows: Kane was shot for 1.37:1, but is shown at home at 1.33:1. This is considered perfectly acceptable. Shane was shot in 1.37:1 and matted from the beggining in theatres at 1.66:1. While a more significant difference, I assumed a comparison was being drawn between the alterations. Both are presentational changes that do no appreciably affect the quality of the film. As to the question of whether Shane "can" be matted -- it was. In theatres. Upon release. If it cut off heads and made the film look silly, I doubt the head of Paramount (no pun intended) would have okayed it.

Again, the side cropping noted on the other thread I linked awhile ago could be overscan, or it could represent a bit of unnecessary cropping. Add in the missing line of dialogue ... I'd like to see another release. I'm happy with this disc, I enjoy it, I watch it, I own it (as said before), but ... I see room (headroom, nuck nuck) for improvement.

As to Giant: I think WB knows most home theater enthusiasts want their 1.66:1 films enhanced. I'm sure they know most other studios (excepting notably MGM) do so. Much like field sequential 3D on films intended for 3D (Slingshot has a viewing system out there right now), fan insistence and discussion is the best bet to bring about improvement. Warner Bros. is a great studio that puts out great DVDs -- if they weren't, these issues wouldn't be nearly so irritating, because they'd be a drop in the bucket. As it is, they're about the only faults I detect (lack of DTS support doesn't really bother me), so criticisms concerning them are offered in the strict spirit of helping to make something great just a little bit better. WB has my firm seal of approval (and while I've skipped smaller films at 1.66:1 for lack of enhancement, I really do encourage everyone to pick up Giant, as this is an extensive special edition at a great price, and, most importantly, a truly fantastic motion picture; I'm sure the image quality will be very pleasing); they've been a fantastic presence in the DVD market since day one, and have my continuing admiration and appreciation. No, they're not paying me to say any of this.

Which reminds me ... has there been any update on Kiss Me Kate? I'll locate and post to that thread quickly to see if there's any news.

 

[Jon Robertson]

I think everyone just needs to stop searching for nirvana-level perfection in every single release that comes out, because it's not going to happen. Film is far too flawed a medium for that to happen.

You see the film at the cinema? Most likely it'll have several times the print damage visible on the DVD. You watch the movie on laserdisc? You've got to flip the disc and accept a loss in picture quality.

The DVD is without a doubt the best way to see this movie and about 95% of others currently available on the format. Stop looking for perfection and start looking for the best available, because - you know what? - it's the best you're gonna get, like it or lump it.

You can either sit around moaning that you can't get a third better picture resolution, you can sit behind your keyboard making pointless threats to boycott certain releases that only score 85% or so on your personal rating scale, or you can forget the slight differences or inaccuries in framing, forget the minor flaws and just watch the film and enjoy it for what it is!

Doesn't anyone realise what a golden age we film fans live in? Isn't anyone blown away by the fact you can actually own, all things considered, an astonishingly good copy of a film instead of having to wait years for it to show up on TV or turn up at a reportory cinema?

We've never, ever had it so good, yet most of these fans are pickier, absurdly demanding and more ungrateful than ever before.

 

[Bill Burns]

You, of course, have a point, Jon. DVD is a marvelous technology, and this is a marvelous time for a film lover to be alive. But there's one factor here I have to emphasize: in virtually all areas of life, and certainly in sales, no one ever finds or receives the best when they're willing to settle for less.

David Letterman said many times on his show, in the heyday of laserdisc, that he found it "amazing" that anyone could take Gone With the Wind home in a box. A VHS box. He'd ask Siskel and Ebert to "convince" him he needed to buy a laserdisc player just about every time they were on the show. They tried. I doubt he ever did.

When we're happy with what we have, that's a very peaceful and positive thing. But when we recognize room for improvement and call for that improvement, that's progress. If not for the voices of film fans, Criterion's movement for OAR presentation of films in the 80's would have never caught on, and we'd likely be watching every film on DVD in P&S or open matte. They'd still look much better than VHS. But they'd be less than they could be. And Criterion would be out of business. Widescreen presentations were possible even on VHS, and they became a reality when the folks buying the product raised their voices to say "this is what we want." Supply met demand.

I think most of us here are just raising our voices to say "anamorphically enhanced 1.66:1 is what we want." Other studios are providing it, we like it, and we'd like to see Warner Bros. and MGM provide it. Hopefully that request will be heard, because at least a little more product will move off of retail shelves if it is. I'm going to buy and cherish Giant regardless of enhancement (that wouldn't be the case at 1.78:1 or wider), but I respect those who wish to put their money into product that takes full advantage of the DVD spec. There are thousands upon thousands of great DVD choices out there; in a competitive market, recognizing and achieving the best is a winning game for product providers (studios).

I should again emphasize that Warner Bros. has distinguished themselves in many ways as a leader in this technology, most notably by providing the finest live action film transfer I've yet seen (among more than 700 discs viewed): Christopher Nolan's remake of Insomnia (widescreen version), and also by supporting the technology from its very inception and 1997 rollout (unlike many studios). I love the studio and their product, but I recognize room for improvement, and I hope they'll make those improvements in good time, that they may stand all the higher above the crowd.

To adapt those wonderful words of Louis Armstrong in High Society: end of rant, beginning of show (a DVD awaits my attention).

 

[PhilipG]

Excellent post, Bill.

I'll add to that the fact that if I didn't have so many unwatched DVDs at home, or if Giant was a film I really loved (rather than a potential blind buy), or if I had slightly deeper pockets, or if the studios would slow down with their great TV product, then I'd happily buy non-anamorphic 1.66:1 discs from Warner Bros and MGM. But there are too many discs "done right the first time" for me to buy stuff that I'd have to double-dip on sometime in the future.

Actually, I make the same argument on Paramount's / Dreamwork's / Universal's Canadian bilingual covers, which I recognize to be far more trivial than the non-anamorphic 1.66:1 issue.

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

Doesn't anyone realise what a golden age we film fans live in? Isn't anyone blown away by the fact you can actually own, all things considered, an astonishingly good copy of a film instead of having to wait years for it to show up on TV or turn up at a reportory cinema?

We've never, ever had it so good, yet most of these fans are pickier, absurdly demanding and more ungrateful than ever before.

I agree 100%. And one thing I am not in 'ungrateful'. £10-20 for a pretty damn-good copy of your favourite film? Shoot, that's a friggin' godsend!

I didn't start the fire!

Cheers, Jon.


Gordy

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Excellent posts from Bill and Philip. Thanks as always for contributing such valuable discussion.

One minor point to clarify:

Anything wider that 1.33/1.37:1 benefits from anamorphic encoding.

Actually that's not quite true. At some point transitioning from 1.33:1 to 1.78:1 you hit a "half way" aspect ratio that splits the difference evenly...whether you "letterbox" it in a 4x3 frame or "pillarbox" it in a 16x9 frame...you're using an equal number of pixes to encode the image.

This mid-point aspect ratio is about 1.55:1. so if a transfer of a film was done at exactly 1.55 then I'd perhaps not be so dogmatic (though I still like the idea of going 16x9 as that's the future). Anything less than 1.55:1 *should* be 4x3 encoded as it will gain the most resolution in a 4x3 frame. Anything wider than 1.55:1 *should* be encoded 16x9 to gain the most resolution.

Which naturally includes 1.66:1

BTW...amazing how many people *still* persist with the myth that 4x3 viewers will be distracted by visible side-boxing. Does Warner send out little leaflets with this false doctrine out to the masses? No consumer has *ever* complained about "side bars" on his 1.66:1 16x9 Tarzan or Lilo and Stitch DVD and yet this myth continues. Thankfully, the gods of consumer-4x3-NTSC TVs seem to be very generaous about gracing televisions under their care with copious overscan to ameliorate any such concerns.


16x9 1.66:1 encoding:

The 4x3 masses are happy and content. The 16x9 100" projection-screen videophile is happy and content WIN WIN. WB...why can't you understand this????

 

[Patrick McCart]

Just because they don't support it doesn't mean they don't know its benifits.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

For me, I will not pass up on a 1.66:1 non-anamorphic DVD of a film I want if everything else is right about the transfer (aspect ratio, density, color, sound). It is an annoyance that could sway me positive or negative on a title that is "on the bubble", though.

Regards,