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

[Dan Brecher]

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.

Well to be fair you miss the point of D-Theatre. It does not exist to form as any kind of competition or full time successor to DVD.

The greatest thing about the players is people can tape HDTV content, and it just so happens that on top of that aspect a few select studios are playing to the niche handful who lust after pre-recorded HD content regardless of the delivery format. If anything, D-Theatre interest is going to get people closer to an eventual HD DVD format.

DVD can go two ways from here. One way is that studios revisit old releases and fix their mistakes in their want to desperately re-sell something people will probably already own (see Sony), or DVD continues with such mistakes being left as is for the many years between now and the next format.

I am fearing the latter option is well beginning to take shape as DVD rapidly becomes "the new VHS". Quicker, faster, more rushed released, less care spent on the AV side of things. Just look at some of Disneys recent output. Criterion being who they are, I couldn't say I could never see them fixing past mistakes...

Dan

 

[Dave H]

I still have an interlaced set-up. 61" Sony (ISF'd) RPTV and a Panasonic RV80 DVD player. As far as artifacts, I don't see anymore with anamorphic than non-anamorphic. Downcoversion has come a long way. I will say that I want all my DVDs to be anamorphic because within two years I will have an HDTV.

 

[Patrick McCart]

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.

You're wrong. Criterion has to make do with what they get. Were they supposed to sneak into one of Disney's vaults and take the interpositive, then scan it secretly?

If they refused to do the disc without the 16x9 master, then you'd have just that bare-bones DVD from BV.

If you want to see what a real example of bad non-anamorphic, just look at the first version of MGM's 2001, before the WHV remaster.

 

[David L]

:frowning: I just wish I could watch Armageddon in full 16X9 glory on my widescreen tv. I guess I have to settle for watching it on my little 27 inch 4x3 television set. What a shame...this one deserves better. When you think about it...it just doesn't make sense when Anaconda is in full anamorphic glory and Armageddon is not. I see them on the shelves together and it just...gets me.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

You're wrong. Criterion has to make do with what they get. Were they supposed to sneak into one of Disney's vaults and take the interpositive, then scan it secretly?

In this case it's true...Criterion only had access to the digital master that BV provided them...but that's not always the case. Sometimes Criterion gets to be much more involved in how the master is prepared (film to tape transfer supervision? I think that's the case with the new Beauty and the Beast DVD they're preparing).

IMO personal opinion, just like THX shouldn't approve transfers that aren't up-to-snuff...sometimes I *DO* think Criterion should refuse to do a title on the basis that the image quality will not be up to par (Time Bandits). In the case with Armagendon, at least it's a really *good* 4x3 lbxed transfer so it's not so cut and dry.

Hopefully these types of issues will become less and less of an issue in the future...and I *really* hope that Criterion does start to refuse to issue some titles on DVD if the master is a *substandard* 4x3 lbxed transfer. I know I just paid $$ for Walkabout on DVD and the DVD image is ghastly! Not as bad as Time-bandits and it probably looks fine on a small direct-view monitor...but clearly nothing "film like" when expanded to fill a large viewing-screen.

-dave

 

[Kwang Suh]

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, Toshiba players have very good anamorphic downconversion these days.

As well, I've seen some extremely budget players with astonishingly good anamorphic downconversion. So this should never be an issue again.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Funny...I had a friend recently get a Toshiba and we were watching a DVD on a 4x3 TV and I could sweare it had all the 'jaggies' of the old-fashioned "drop every 4th scan line" downconverion method...

dave

 

[Bill Griffith]

I have this movie but I haven't watched it in about a year.

So I watch it last weekend. I noticed that I have these huge bars on my TV.

I have a 47" Panny.

I know the TV was set at Full, which is what I normally watch dvd's at. And the DVD player was set for Widescreen (I also tried it set at Letterbox)

So my settings were exactly what they normally are for movies.

Why am I getting these huge bars one this. I figured 2.35:1 would reduce the bars considerably on a widescreen TV. These are the tallest fricken bars I've ever seen. they are at the top and bottom of the screen (Simialr to a letterbox presentation on a 4:3 TV), and they are each about 3" tall.

What gives?

 

[Adam_WM]

You are getting the large bars because the Armageddon Criterion is not anamorphic. You have to do the 16:9 enhanced zoom or whatever it is for your TV. It's sad, I know.

 

[MarcinL]

Oh man, I can see another Anamorphic thread becoming of this here, Armageddon is not anamorphic so the TV wont reduce the bars, so use the zoom feature on the TV to reduce the bars. Thats all I'm going to write, since these topics get started every 2 days and are same over and over

 

[Michael Reuben]

What always amazes me is how people get so fixated on the size of the bars that they don't seem to notice that the people are misshapen.

It's a non-anamorphic disc. "Full" mode is the wrong mode for viewing.

M.

 

[Bill Griffith]

What always amazes me is how people get so fixated on the size of the bars that they don't seem to notice that the people are misshapen.

Its easier to explain the size of the bars than the fact that the people looked squished.

I tried it on Zoom mode also under both the letterbox and widescreen settings (From DVD player) and yes it filled up more of the screen but then I was worried I might be loosing some of the picture. I couldn't tell, so I imagine I wasn't losing much if anything. Also the clarity of the movie decreased when viewing it under zoom (kind of got grainy) instead of Full or Just (much sharper but squished). When UNder Just It seemed to get rid of some of the squished look. But the damn bars were still there.

I looked at the last few discussions regarding this movie (Before I started this topic, and wasn't sure what these people were talking about because it all focused on Anamorphic and non-anamorphic, the dvd is obviosly non-anamorphic because it doesn't say it is) and I can swear that I have movies that say 2.53:1 and they don't say anamorphic, and the pictuire doesn't look like this. But I may be wrong. I'll have to look into it more. They only other DVD I have that I have to watch it in Zoom mode is Dune (really unfortunate).

 

[Michael Reuben]

I tried it on Zoom mode also under both the letterbox and widescreen settings (From DVD player)

Those settings on the player won't make any difference with non-anamorphic discs. Leave the player in widescreen for everything.
M.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

I wish we could go back in time and make sure studios knew about anamorphic and used it from day one. I HATE NON-ANAMORPHIC!!!

 

[Jeff Kleist]

It had nothing to do with them not knowing, they even had the masters. It had to do with some execs thinking they'd just sell it again later as anamorphic. A few, like Criterion said that the early downconversion technology was unacceptable to them so they made it non-anamorphic

 

[Bill Griffith]

Is there a lists of DVD releases that have this Aspect Ratio and aren't anamorphic.

Just to clarify I know what anamorphic is, I know about the aspect ratio's. I just never realized how horrible a picture a non-anamorphic movie at 2.35 : 1 is. Because I only recently about a year ago got my widescreen TV. So I figured maybe it was something I was doing that was wrong, because people in other threads were saying how good the transfer was (sorry but I don't see it this way). So I was confused. Makes me worry about several of my other movies.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

There's a ton, general rule

Any Fox title released before May 1999(and it was spotty until early 2000)

Any Disney title released before March 2000

Columbia and New Line and Warner are generally across the board anamorphic

MGM was (and to a degree is) all over the board

 

[Drew_W]

So I got this DVD off eBay for $12, but it came in a very worn case (actual cover and insert in good condition, perfect discs), and well, it looks like crap on my shelf, so I need a new one. The only problem is that it's the thick dual DVD case, and I crawled the web and the local computer district today in search of such replacement cases. If anyone knows where I can get one (or a few I guess, for the future), I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Good luck. I tried to find one of these for my Star Trek IV CE and wound up simply cannibalising my The Mummy:UE and using a single width double for it. Works better for the latter anyway. There are lots of places online where you can get double Alphas (the kind of case you're looking for), but you have to purchase in multiples so you don't get slammed for shipping & handling.

BTW, is the legend true about the Ben Affleck commentary?

 

[Drew_W]

What legend?

Are there any places in Canada that you can get the double Alphas? I checked ncix and tigerdirect, but to no avail. I'd order a few anyways because of postage, maybe some other products, depending on where I can find them....