DVD File's Review Makes it seem its no big Deal that it's MAR (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

Peter,

thanks for sharing your comments here (no, it wasn't me who forwarded the link).

It would be nice if one reading reviews and editorials on your site got the same impression that you tried to communicate here in this thread. Many MANY DVD enthusiasts read your site...many who aren't educated about OAR issues. Your site could be a pro-active force to help educate and motivate film lovers about these issues to effect change. Why didn't you post anything urging consumers to contact Disney if they were dissatisfied (or satisfied) with the P/S only DVD releases?

Yes, it's your site. But these are *our* movies and there's nothing unexpected about people who feel passionate about their films wanting hi-profile entities like your own that purport to support these issues doing what they can to effect real change or influence.

In any case, we all do love and enjoy your site. It just gets a little unsettling when a review seems to speak out of both sides of the mouth...on the one hand mentioning the lack of OAR for a title but on the other hand praising the transfer or recommending a purchase. Your reviews have great influence over many serious and novice DVD collectors alike...and directly or indirectly studio marketing decisions. Please make an effort to use that influence to help protect the interests of the serious movie/DVD collector.

Thanks for all the work that you put into your great site,

David Boulet

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I Agree George good post

 

[Bryant Frazer]

Ted, I've always said the same thing. Saw Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, and Blair Witch in modern theaters in 1.37:1. If a director ***REALLY*** views this as his inteded aspect ratio for a film...the choice is there.

David, you must have really terrific theaters down there in D.C. Up here in New York, Gone With the Wind and Blair Witch were shown at 1.85:1. The 1.37:1 projected image was windowboxed on both sides to fill out the screen. Heck, I recently saw Rififi in the wrong aspect ratio at an art house that should have known better, and I've even seen Casablanca shown with the top and bottom cropped. 1.33:1 exhibition in mainstream movie theaters continues to be a rare bird.

-bf-

 

[JamesCS]

Frankly the world's greatest transfer of a film that only shows 2/3 of the film is just about the world's worst transfer of a film.

Outstanding! This one sentence, in my opinion, will forever discredit any past or future positive review of a Pan & Scan DVD. Here's an analogy: just imagine a world where music was panned & scanned such that two-thirds from the top and bottom frequencies were chopped off. Now imagine a song review which laments the missing highs and lows but praises the mid-range.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Bryant,
to be fair, when I said I saw these films projected at 1.37:1 I may have mislead (didn't mean to). I also saw these films windoboxed on a 1.85:1 screen...apparently the prints had been made to accomodate a standard 1.85:1 aspect ratio projection while preserving the 1.37:1 aspect ratio of the image area...like a windowboxed 1.33:1 image on a 16x9 TV.
However...the point to make here is that the image composition was not compromised. This method of displaying a 1.37:1 image in a theatrical venue is perfectly viable and it shows how it's possible to present an accademy aspect ratio image without the necessity of "masking" it down to 1.85:1 because of the limitations of the hardware in the theater.
If a director really feels that 1.37:1 is the perfect aspect ratio for his image composition (as with Blair Witch), this option is there. If they feel that due to increased size or resolution they'd rather project at 1.85:1 WS then by the same logic that should give me a 16x9 WS DVD image for my (future) front-projection home-theater.
-dave

 

[Ted Todorov]

David, you must have really terrific theaters down there in D.C. Up here in New York, Gone With the Wind and Blair Witch were shown at 1.85:1. The 1.37:1 projected image was windowboxed on both sides to fill out the screen. Heck, I recently saw Rififi in the wrong aspect ratio at an art house that should have known better, and I've even seen Casablanca shown with the top and bottom cropped. 1.33:1 exhibition in mainstream movie theaters continues to be a rare bird.

Braynt,
Could you be specific about which theaters are screwing AR up? I will list the ones where I have seen correctly framed Academy films in the last 12 months:
Walter Reade
Lincoln Plaza
Film Forum
MOMA
Florence Gould Hall
Alice Tully Hall
Museum of the Moving Image
Probably others as well, these immediately come to mind.
The one framing error I experienced was Bunuel and King Solomon's Table being shown at 1.85:1 instead of 1.66:1 -- the error was blatantly obvious. I can't imagine how they could have projected Rififi at 1.85:1 without cutting off either subtitles or heads (both were in evidence when I saw it ).
Ted

 

[Dharmesh C]

My suggestion would be a big (and I mean BIG) disclaimer at the top. WARNING: THIS FILM IS NOT IN IT'S ORIGINAL ASPECT RATIO. YOU ARE NOT SEEING THE PICTURE AS IT WAS INTENDED

Wholeheartdly agree here

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Ted,

the theater you visit may still be projecting a windoboxed 1.85:1 image presenting the 1.37:1 area in its proper aspect ratio...but maybe the curtains in your theater can close more narrowly than the 1.85:1 aspect ratio to hide the side-boxing. Apparently, some theaters can't close their curtains past 1.85:1!

-dave

 

[Damin J Toell]

the theater you visit may still be projecting a windoboxed 1.85:1 image presenting the 1.37:1 area in its proper aspect ratio

I'm fairly certain that houses like Film Forum aren't wasting their time with windowboxed prints. Since most 1.37:1 prints (that is, not those are intended for anything resembling a wide release) are only intended to be shown in theatres that are actually capable of projecting at that AR, no windowboxing is necessary and the prints fill the entire 1.37:1 aperture.

DJ

 

[Ted Todorov]

Yes, I'll second that -- these are definitely 1.37:1 prints we're talking about. The Film Forum usually has new prints struck for any run of at least a week. And the matting (screen curtains) are adjustable from Academy to Scope.

I remember being in the Walter Reade between films and they were projecting a slide (or piece of film) with the markings for 1.37:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1, 2.40:1 so that the matting could be adjusted to be exactly correct.

Ted

 

[Ryan Spaight]

Here's an analogy: just imagine a world where music was panned & scanned such that two-thirds from the top and bottom frequencies were chopped off. Now imagine a song review which laments the missing highs and lows but praises the mid-range.

That world exists, and it's the one we live in (except reviewers rarely mention the bad sound quality).

What you describe sounds like most CDs released these days. Dynamic range compression and screwy EQ are commonplace on new releases and recent remasters, all in the name of making things sound "loud" and "in your face." Check out the thread in Music about the new Rush CD for just one example. Audiophiles are in a lather over it, but no one else seems to care as long as the CD sounds "good" on their boom boxes, computer speakers and car stereos.

Sound familiar?

Ryan

 

[Jon Robertson]

If you're going to lower the rating automatically because a disc is pan-and-scan or full-frame, then what about remixed discs that don't offer the original soundtrack format?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Gentlemen,
For future reference....
From now on, if you have a complaint with
another forum or individual that runs that
forum -- take it up with them.
We do not want this forum to be used as
a place to air dirty laundry about other
sites -- especially since we are friends
with all the site owners of this very small
Home Theater community.
I have already removed personal comments
that were made about Peter Bracke. It was
uncalled for, and the next person that makes
personal attacks in this manner will be
removed from this forum.
I am sorry it took me so long to put a halt
to this nonsense, but I was just made aware
of this continued badmouthing of a site that
we think very highly of.
Peter has supported HTF in ways many of you
don't know. He has shown up to ALL our HTF
functions including our dinners. He doesn't
HAVE to do these things, but he DOES because
he WANTS to support us.
Take it from someone who has had their name
plastered all over other sites in the most
unflattering manner (it comes with the job
I suppose) -- there is nothing more sad than
to see other people post one-sided stories
and personal attacks with your name included
in them.
You are all entitled to your opinions, but
the fact that we allow you to air dirty laundry
like this only makes us as a forum look bad.
Thank You.

 

[Bryant Frazer]

Hi, Ted. Obviously, the NYC venues you mentioned above are all spot-on where exhibition is concerned. The point I meant to make was that mainstream exhibitors are rarely equipped to show 1.33:1 films, and generally must use a kludge on the rare occasions when it becomes necessary for them to do so.

I saw Rififi at the Jacob Burns Film Center up here in Pleasantville, NY. It's a very nice three-screen art house, a little less than a year old, which is programmed in conjunction with the Film Society of Lincoln Center. Needless to say, I was a little steamed at the presentation. The projectionist, who was obviously aware of the problem, had framed the image so that the subtitles were just barely visible along the bottom of the screen (the descenders on letters like g and y were actually projected on the black masking just below the screen), and the performers were generally cut off right below the eyebrows. During the big Rififi musical number, the singer's eyes kept disappearing off the top of the screen. Oh yeah, I was miffed, and I wrote a letter to the executive director. The programming director and I exchanged voice mail messages for a week or so but I never really got an apology or a thank you for showing us the error of our ways or an explanation or even an offer of a free pass. But they showed Chungking Express a couple weeks ago, so I still have to give 'em my business.

The screening of Casablanca took place some years ago at the THX-certified Mann multiplex at the Cherry Creek mall in Denver. To be fair, the big Landmark-run arthouses in Denver, the Esquire and the Mayan, always showed films at 1.37:1 whenever necessary. But you can't distribute a film like Eyes Wide Shut, for instance, only to arthouses.

Hi, David. You cited Blair Witch and Gone With the Wind, both of which were recently distributed in a fashion that preserved the OAR but compromised the image quality (not so much with Blair Witch, which was shot on video) in order to accommodate American movie theaters. Gone With the Wind was a particular travesty; the 1.37:1 image was windowboxed in the center of a 2.35:1 scope print of the film, and the results at my local multiplex were pretty freaking awful. I saw Blair Witch at its exclusive engagement at the Angelika Film Center, which showed a windowboxed print.

You also mentioned The Wizard of Oz. I don't know when or where you saw that, so I can't comment. And then you wrote:

This method of displaying a 1.37:1 image in a theatrical venue is perfectly viable and it shows how it's possible to present an accademy aspect ratio image without the necessity of "masking" it down to 1.85:1 because of the limitations of the hardware in the theater.

I disagree. You're using so much less of the available image area that the picture quality suffers compared to a real Academy-ratio print. It's not at all unlike comparing an anamorphic widescreen DVD to a non-anamorphic widescreen DVD in terms of lost resolution. And we all know how you, of all people, feel about that!

-bf-

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I started this thread and did not want this to degenerate to a personal attack on Peter Bracke, I'm glad that thread was removed and the person suspended. But this topic is a very valid one for discussion. And my points still stand.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

You guys can certainly debate this point
further. I am really sorry that it degenerated
the way it did, but the situation has been
taken care of.

Sorry to rain on the parade here.

Back to business as usual....

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I noticed that DVDFile's copyright is by InterActual, the maker of that infamous DVD player/web browser. Is DVDFile sponsered by them? If so, they may have an obligation to give a helping hand to the studios InterActual is allied with.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I noticed that DVDFile's copyright is by InterActual, the maker of that infamous DVD player/web browser. Is DVDFile sponsered by them?

From their about page: "DVDFILE.COM is a resource and community for DVD enthusiasts. Owned by InterActual Technologies, Inc., the site is run and operated by the editor and webmaster and a contributing staff of writers, reviewers and technical assistants."
DJ

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Certainly we all need to be polite and respectful.

However there are and will be times when entities we typically are very proud of, such as dvdfile, thedigitalbits, and FOX do or say things that shouldn't be ignored. If Fox suddenly abandoned 16x9 anamorphic or if Universal and Dreamworks quit support of DTS I would hope we'd be allowed as a community of enthusiasts to discuss it and how it might impact the DVD market.

When the Bits supported the lack of 16x9 encoding on 1.66:1 titles it was right to challenge this. When Fox ignores the DTS delay on Moulin Rouge or a well-respected DVD site read by many new DVD enthusiasts who lack education about issues like OAR starts to sound benevolant or at least tolerant towards P/S-only DVDs, it shouldn't be wrong to talk about it on this forum.

And Contacting these entities directly is always the right thing to do, but not always the way to help raise awareness of these important issues.

These guys may all be our friend's and all do super jobs at what they do. But they are in high-visibility positions and are very influential in leading both consumer and industry opinion. As long as the input we give here is civil and polite, there's no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to help ensure that these opinion leaders stay on-the-mark of the HT values that apparently we can't take for granted.

-dave

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Dave,

You are correct.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, and
I apologize.

I don't care if you rant and rave objections
about any studio, any product, or any other
forum.

The problem is when personal attacks begin.

For example:

* Boy those people at (STUDIO) are a bunch
of assholes.

* (PERSON'S NAME) is an asshole.


Most of the posts in this thread are fine. You
guys have really done nothing wrong.

My concern is I don't want to see people unfairly
judged and called names. It happened only in a
few instances in this thread, and we took care of
those problems.

We are not censoring your opinions -- we are
censoring what we feel is unjust behavior towards
other individuals.