Criterion's 1.33:1 windowboxing practice - why? (please help) (1 Viewer)

[MichaelEl]

What windowboxing amounts to - even for 4:3 sets - is a serious loss of resolution in exchange for a tiny amount of information at the sides of the screen. (See the review of The Virgin Spring at DVDBeaver.com to see what I'm talking about). This is really a dumb idea, and I'm am shocked that Criterion would release anything in this format.

I was really looking forward to the forthcoming upgrade of The Seven Samurai, but no way would I shell out $30+ for a windowboxed version. Hopefully Criterion will change their mind on this. I would recommend everyone sign the petition to Criterion.

 

[MichaelEl]

What windowboxing amounts to - even for 4:3 sets - is a serious loss of resolution in exchange for a tiny amount of information at the sides of the screen. (See the review of The Virgin Spring at DVDBeaver.com to see what I'm talking about). This is really a dumb idea, and I'm am shocked that Criterion would release anything in this format.

I was really looking forward to the forthcoming upgrade of The Seven Samurai, but no way would I shell out $30+ for a windowboxed version. Hopefully Criterion will change their mind on this. I would recommend everyone sign the petition to Criterion.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I thought the "loss of resolution" part and the "amount of information" part would be pretty much proportional. So why is one "serious" and the other "tiny"...?

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I am offended at being characterized as someone who has a cheap display and who doesn't care and wouldn't spend the money on a Criterion disc.

I have a very nice 4:3 rear projection display that I bought three years ago. I bought a standard definition set because I have a very substantial collection of laserdiscs, and at the time HD programming was severely limited. In fact, it still is -- very little of what I watch regularly, aside from baseball, is available to me in HD. I decided that I didn't want everything that I watch to look lousy, having its limitations revealed by an HD set.

I only spent about $1200. The unit does not have a user-accessable option to disable the overscan as far as I can tell. I am happy with my own calibration and cannot justify paying someone to come out and do it for me -- and as a colour printer by trade, I'm picky about the way things look and would rather have 90% of what I watch look good than have the TV calibrated perfectly at the viewing expense of my imperfectly-mastered program material.

Ted, I'm sorry that Criterion is aiming for the educated film fan who has spent less than $1500 on his TV. I'm guessing that even in the film-loving world, those of us with "cheap" TVs outnumber those with "good" TVs by a very, very large margin. But don't tell me that I don't care -- I do care, and I object to you putting words in my mouth.

Speak for yourself and don't presume that you know what's best for the rest of us, or even what we want. I don't presume to speak for "cheap" TV owners -- only for myself.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Why are you buying DVDs with an eye to long-term when a successor format is already out there?

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

When have we been able to see the same transfer both ways? It's a rare occurance, and without being able to compare, we're also not able to complain about it. At least, I don't complain about theoretical things that I can't see.

Usually we see a non-anamorphic DVD replaced with an anamorphic DVD that has a new transfer -- the new transfer is enough of an improvement to negate the downgrade caused by the downscaling.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Edward -- I believe that economic status reared up it's ugly head when numerous anti-windowbox posters decided to call pro-windowbox posters cheap and uncaring. Making offensive assumptions about the personal lives of other posters has no place here.

Frankly, I disregarded the whole anti-windowbox argument after the first insulting post -- I agree that it demeans their position. I just can't take it seriously anymore.

 

[Jon Robertson]

Well, neither HD-format is anything close to a sure thing yet (indeed, Criterion are sitting it out for the time being), and it seems a dim possibility we'll be seeing films like The Children are Watching Us or Mr. Arkadin on either format in the foreseeable future. These movies aren't commercial juggernauts, and it seems very likely this is the only real shot they'll get at a quality release for quite a while. So, with that in mind, why not request their presentation isn't compromised in this way?

 

[Jon Robertson]

You can't see that the picture is smaller and has a whacking great frame around it?

 

[Cees Alons]

Please, people, will you STOP making multiple posts in a row? It is frowned upon in this forum.

Even when, on afterthought, you want to add some more text to what you have posted, you're asked to edit your previous post and add it there if that's still the last one of the thread.


Cees

 

[cafink]

This windowboxing practice strikes me as insane.

It's Criterion's job to transfer film to DVD, and they should do so with the aim of getting the most out of the DVD format. When it comes to films with an aspect ratio of 4:3, that means using every last pixel of the display, because DVD supports the 4:3 aspect ratio natively.

If a television set cannot display a simple, standard-definition, 4:3 image properly, that is a problem to be dealt with by the hardware manufacturers, not the software producers. The software should not be dependent on the peculiarities of certain models of hardware.

Reading this thread, it appears that there are consumers who inexplicably prefer windowboxed transfers, apparently because their television crops the image unacceptably due to overscan. This puzzles me. There are millions of DVDs, laserdiscs, VHS casettes, and broadcast television programs presented without windowboxing. If this overscan is such a problem, why didn't these consumers opt for a display that better meets their needs, rather than insisting that software producers reduce the resolution of their product to make it look better on an inferior display?

Both hardware manufacturers and software producers should do everything they can to deliver the best product possible. If overscan is a serious problem for you, then you should ask the hardware manufacturer to improve his product, instead of asking the software producer to worsen his.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

I think this is a fundamental disconnect here -- why is a 16x9 HD television a "superior" display for 4:3 material on a standard definition format? I specifically did not purchase a 16x9 HD television because I watch a lot of 4:3 standard definition programming, and own a lot of it. It was, actually, a far better display for what I was going to watch on it than the more expensive options available at the time. I hear that there are much better upsampling TVs now, so hooray! But they're still the wrong shape.

 

[Cees Alons]

Aaron,

I'm not sure what you're asking here of me. I never commented on the way you like to see your DVDs or set up your TV.

I have an opinion about Criterion's window-boxing, but it has nothing to do with you.


Cees

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

My TV is not old or small, and I do care about adjusting my television. No matter how many times different people parrot "their TVs are old and small and they don't care" and/or "they're obviously cheap so they don't buy Criterion anyways", it won't be true in my case, and it's irritating to have it trotted out over and over as the reason that I am wrong for liking what I do.

It's a poor argument and one that does not contribute to the conversation, other than to set up divergences like this one.

 

[cafink]

I certainly don't believe that a 16:9 display is the superior choice for 4:3 material, and I didn't say anything to that effect.

 

[Cees Alons]

And then asking me to extend the insult I didn't make in the first place (nor intended to make in the least) is a request not going to be honoured.
If you meant to ask me NOT to do it: I won't, I didn't, I'm sorry if you got that impression.

I agree that owning a TV with overscan that cannot be (or at least isn't) corrected doesn't necessarily make anyone a cheapgoat. But then demanding that his/her hardware shortcomings be corrected to the incorrectable disadvantage of those having correctly adjusted hardware can be felt as rather unreasonable, doesn't it?


Cees

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

So, Cees, howzabout if you and others kindly refrain from making such idiotic sweeping generalizations re: those of us who own 4x3 sets having "cheaper" "inferior", or otherwise not-as-good of a setup as those who own some sort of 16x9 setup, and that we don't care enough to adjust it, or buy a "better" display, or care enough about films to pick up a Criterion release, etc. etc. ad nauseam, and then you'd avoid being accused of making classist remarks. It's as simple as that. Believe me, I wish I could adjust my 1991 Sears LXI CRT monitor for overscan. But guess what, Cees -- I can't do it. Otherwise it's a great CRT, with excellent color and black levels, and since I can't afford a few hundred clams to spend on a hotshot whiz-bang new 16x9 set, I'll be watching those for-snobs-only Criterion releases on it for some time to come. Actually, perhaps they're not for-snobs-only, since they're windowboxing them for us common folk who don't care enough to adjust our unadjustable sets or to buy displays we can't afford.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Cees, who in this thread are you aiming it at, then? Because there have been a number of people who have stated their preference, and you're dismissing them along with these phantom people who've made this other phantom argument that you're refuting -- that's called a straw man, and it's exceptionally bad form. Your general characterization is not applicable to anyone here, yet you use it to dismissively ignore our argument.

If I came out with some crap about how the only people who don't want windowboxing are navel-gazing pixel measurers who whine about resolution because they've overspent on their televisions but don't want to buy HD material to go with it, everyone would be rightly up in arms -- none of the anti-windowboxers made that kind of complaint. Oh, but maybe someone did, somewhere -- but I certainly can't use that in an debate with you, can I? It's offensive, it's wrong, it doesn't apply and it would turn this otherwise useful conversation into spiteful flame-throwing.

(And for the record, I absolutely do not feel that way about anyone here or anyone who doesn't like windowboxed program material.)

 

[Cees Alons]

I'm not "aiming" at any consumer. I'm seldom "aiming" anyway. Well, at Criterion possibly (in this specific context). And I never posted anything remotely like the "crap" you used as an example. Why not? Again: because I honestly never think that way about anyone.

We're talking about windowboxing - not about other posters. This thread was started by someone who hated that windowboxing. Others come in and tell us they like the windowboxing. That's OK.

You disagree with some of us who dislike the windowboxing. Fine. You like the windowboxing we're talking about. Fine again. No-one is denying you that opinion.

And we all gladly read each other's opinions. But some readers will agree with you, some others not. It's not necessary to get angry at those that do not agree, certainly not by construing an insult that reasonably isn't there. And even if it was: it doesn't make their or your arguments any better or worse.

But please stop attacking other posters!


Cees

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Older TV sets, smaller TV sets, don't care. You dissmissed our arguments thus, and did not address them again. Like I said, this is a straw man, a very bad debating tactic.

Granted, you did not post yours in anywhere as offensive a manner as others in the thread, but you did parrot the same generalizations as the others.

edited for clarity