Armageddon Criterion Collection DVD (MERGED THREAD) (1 Viewer)

[Niko Nykanen]

Scott_MacD:
If I may correct you, two GREAT Audio commentaries.

 

[Declan]

plus the gag reel, funny as fu..........well ya know what I mean.

 

[Declan]

"Broken record time"
The standard LD sounds better than the CC DVD.
Wonder how the DTS LD fares, hhimmmmmm

 

[Dave Moritz]

I would love to have the DTS LD

 

[Matthew_Millheiser]

I wonder what kind of movie might have resulted if -- in accordance with the gag reel -- Billy Bob Thornton decided to save the world by drilling in Bruce Willis's ass...

 

[Jon Smith]

the R2 disc is anamorphic, but missing the gags reel.

 

[Travis D]

"We bring in Bruce Willis.... the best deep core driller in my ass."

 

[Shaun C]

There is no need to create a new transfer - the one used for the Criterion disc (the Michael Bay-supervised director's cut version) is already high-definition and was used to make anamorphic PAL masters for the R2 and R4 2-disc versions.

Then there is no reason they can't put out a Region 1 Anamorphic Special Edition!

 

[Thomas H G]

I'd buy what they currently have if only it dropped in price a few bucks.

 

[Chad Ferguson]

I would like to point out that Criterion did have a justified reason for it not being anamorphic(In my opinion) After many tests they felt it looked worse on a 4:3 TV and since most homes contain that kind of TV they went with the majority. Seems like a logical reason to me.

Thanks

 

[Qui-Gon John]

This title needs to be re-released in anamorphic, also DEEP IMPACT. I like both of these and would buy an anamorphic release.

 

[Marc Colella]

I would like to point out that Criterion did have a justified reason for it not being anamorphic(In my opinion) After many tests they felt it looked worse on a 4:3 TV and since most homes contain that kind of TV they went with the majority. Seems like a logical reason to me.

Funny how people can justify Criterion releasing it non-anamorphic while other studios at the same time weren't let off the hook.

Like all studios, there's no excuse to release a non-anamorphic widescreen transfer.

 

[Andy_MT]

i was under the impression disney wouldn't supply criterion with an anamorphic master. by all accounts, criterion wanted this to be 16x9E. if it's released again, i expect it'll come under BV (disney) sans criterion extras.

 

[Dave H]

I finally got around to watching this again. And, again, I have to say the transfer is very good. There is noticable edge enhancement in the brighter (daylight) scenes, but everything else looks quite good. The blacks and whites are very strong in the picture and really stand out. I don't think the soundtrack could be any better - great DVD to own.

 

[Tom Tsai]

I emailed Criterion last year about possibly reissuing older widescreen titles in their catalog that were non-anamorphic. They said it's a project they're considering but don't expect anything soon. This was last year around summer time...so I don't know if the project is still on track.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Well they should do more than consider it. They should get rolling on it. Especially people who have widescreen sets, the picture is so much nicer, and bigger with Anamorphic Enhancement. WTF is wrong with these studios screwing us over by not providing Anamorphic Enhancement?

 

[Dave Moritz]

Dont be looking in the stores for HD-DVD anytime soon :frowning: . The people I spoke with at the CES show this past weekend all agreed that it may be up to 10 years away. I would love to see Armageddon HD-DVD or anamorphic dvd come out. But like others have said it does appear to be a very good transfer. I would be willing to bet that before a anamorphic dvd comes out they will release it in HD-VHS.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

The thing is, it is my understanding this is already anamorphic in other regions, so it would be very easy to release it anamorphic in the US. If they put it out on HD-VHS they should also put out the anamorphic version on DVD.

From what I can tell HD-VHS is not taking off. I've heard squat about it from retailers. And I think too many people now think DVD is better than any tape format, (it is), so I think HD-VHS will die an early death.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Criterion did have a justified reason for it not being anamorphic(In my opinion) After many tests they felt it looked worse on a 4:3 TV and since most homes contain that kind of TV they went with the majority. Seems like a logical reason to me.

The vast majority of DVD viewers listen through their TV speakers (only the small minority have any stereo/surround 5.1 system). Should Criterion also compress the audio to remove the dynamic range and filter out the low-frequencies so it will sound its best to the majority of listeners since the 5.1-equipped consumers are in the minority?
I'm sure you and everyone else would have no problem explaining that those listening through their TV speakers don't really care about sound-quality and so it's really the minority with the 5.1 systems that should matter the most...and that those audiophiles who *do* care about sound quality but are stuck listening through their TV speakers don't want their DVD sound compromised for their TV set...they'd rather have it sounding it's best in 5.1 for when they finally can afford to upgrade their auido system.
See a principle here that can apply to 4x3 vs 16x9 video?
It doesn't seem logical to degrade the abosolute picture quality of the image on the DVD itself by stripping it of 33% of it's potential resolution because it's better to optimize playback performance for obsolete technology (NTSC) rather than optimizing for the present and future of evolving home-theater technology (16x9)???
It's true that this was Criterion's position but they were at fault for thinking that way.
The key isn't what is the most common shape of TV used to view DVDs...the key is what do the videophiles who care the most about picture quality want.
Even before I had a 16x9 TV, as a videophile I wanted my DVDs to be mastered 16x9 because I *knew* that my *next* TV would be 16x9. Almost every other home-theater enthusiast without a 16x9 display that I've talked to feels the same way.
The improvement garnered with a 16x9 disc on a 16x9 display outweights the *slight* compromise on 4x3-limited hardware. Besides...any videophile who cared enough to be bothered by the downconversion artifacts on his 4x3 NTSC set could buy a DVD player that has good downconversion. By spending $100 on a decent DVD player, he can then continue to enjoy collecting 16x9 films which will total in price far above the $100 price of the player (how much did your DVD collection cost you??? every 5 discs is roughly $100!!!). Now that collection of 16x9 discs is there to look it's best when that videophile upgrades to a large-screen 16x9 HD front/rear projection system or even a new 4x3 TV with a 16x9 mode.
degrading software for the poorest-performing playback hardware is a bad philosphy
It's the same bad principle that ruins the CDs that are mixed to sound good on crappy car-speakers or music that's been compressed leaving no dyanamic range so it will sound "louder" on your boom box.
Here's the final point:
Those 4x3 viewers who care about picture quality also care about how their DVDs will look when they can finally afford that HDTV they're waiting for. The rest of the 4x3 viewers wouldn't know a downconversion artifact if it hit them in the face. If you're going to worry about picture quality...make sure you're mastering for the videophile who cares.
-dave

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

One or two manufactures have improved their downconversion circuits (Panasonic), others still use the terrible artifact-ridden process they've used since day one (Toshiba) and others have always had excellent downconversion performance (Sony).

Actually, most of the Sony players I have seen tend to create soft looking downconversions. My 2nd generation Pioneer player did much better downconversions than my new Sony does, but since I am now in 16:9 land, it does not matter much to me.

Regards,