"Monsoon Wedding" Not Anamorphic! (1 Viewer)

[Sanjay Gupta]

If Universal hadn't bought Monsoon Wedding someone like Anchor Bay or Criterion would have grabbed it a second -- it certainly wouldn't be gathering dust in some vault.

I concur with that view and with Criterion or Anchor Bay we would have gotten a DVD of the quality that this film deserves.

Sanjay

 

[Doug D]

well that's all well and good - but surely Universal has other films in their vault that we'd like to see done right, no? I'd hate to see other films under their ownership that didn't have the mainstream success of MONSOON WEDDING get deprioritized for DVD release because they interpret the bad sales of MONSOON WEDDING as a sign that foreign DVDs sell poorly.

So, the point is - if you aren't buying it because it's anamorphic, the only way you'll "send a message" - or at least the desired message - to the studio is by contacting them directly.

Personally, I'm not buying it because I think it's a bad movie, but that's besides the point.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Well...

I hope that everyone in this thread *IS* contacting them directly. I've posted the info several times in this thread for those interested.

 

[Darrel Johansen]

Funny thing about this movie is that it is clearly stamped "anamorphic" on the disk itself. I looked closely at the packaging at the rental store and it said widescreen. I saw the DTS label and thought to myself, why would they bother with DTS and not do anamorphic? I was hoping for anamorphic on my big screen, but as soon as it started playing, obviously it was not. I had to blow up the image on my 10' screen, but it still looked pretty good for non-anamorphic. Interesting movie, not as good as Lagaan, IMHO, but a nice look to it.

I sometimes think that movies like this allow us to get a look inside another country. They have been watching Hollywood movies for decades, seeing what life is like (or supposed to be like) in America. Now we get a chance to peek into life in other countries.h

I suspect someone messed up somewhere. Why else have an R2 anamorphic? It's not like this version is P&S. It's still widescreen, and the same people who object to anamorphic black bars will object to wide screen black bars.

 

[Kwang Suh]

Sniff sniff... I just saw this. Shame about the non-anamorphic transfer, even if it's the best non-anamorphic transfer I have ever seen. GREAT movie though.

Oh, my version had DTS on it, even though I noticed that the DVDFile review had no mention of it. Perhaps just a Canada thing?

 

[Edwin-S]

Just read through this thread. It is unfortunate that Universal did not produce an anamorphic transfer of the film, but at least the film was made available for viewing. There are lots of people still waiting for films that they would like to watch which are not being made available on DVD, in any form . I would like a copies of The Plague Dogs or Rock and Rule (Two obscure animated films) to be released. It certainly doesn't look like I'm going to be able to see those films any time soon. I know a lot of "connoisseurs" will think, "so what, those are third rate films anyway", but the films deserve to be released no more and no less than "Monsoon Wedding".
The best thing to do would be to write Universal and voice displeasure regarding their treatment of the film. In the meantime, just rent the film rather than purchase it. If Universal received a lot of letters of complaint and low sales, maybe they would re-think the wisdom of releasing non-anamorphic transfers. People should be somewhat thankful that the movie is available for viewing in some form.
I know "Monsoon Wedding" was successful at the box office, but has it occurred to anyone that Universal might have decided to cut a corner and release a non-anamorphic transfer in region 1 because they thought sales would be relatively low?

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

I know "Monsoon Wedding" was successful at the box office, but has it occurred to anyone that Universal might have decided to cut a corner and release a non-anamorphic transfer in region 1 because they thought sales would be relatively low?

Considering the fact that relatively really small Indian DVD companies in the US regularly release Indian movies with Anamorphic DVDs and that they are able to justify the cost even with sales to only a very small market, I fail to understand how Universal could justify such a decision when Monsoon Wedding most probably sold tens of times more copies than the regular Indian DVD.

Sanjay

 

[Bryant Trew]

As I implied in my first post on this thread, if people are sitting watching a film thinking 'it's not anamorphic, it's not anamorphic' then they're not into movies, they're into showing off their home theatre equipment.

This has got to be one of the most obnoxious posts I've ever read. If you were in a theater and Monsoon showed up horizontally distorted, as non-anomorphic pictures do on widescreen TVs, you'd be raising the same questions. Why does everyone look fat in this film? Why does the car look so wide? Why does that circle look oval shaped?
I actually watched this film in my bedroom on a 19" 4:3 set without surround sound, just because it would look better than being stretched on my 58" 16:9. This has got NOTHING to do with showing off home theater equipment. This is an excellent film that should be enjoyed as the director intended - as clear as possible when compared to film, but most importanly, undistored on the horizontal plane.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

This has got to be one of the most obnoxious posts I've ever read. If you were in a theater and Monsoon showed up horizontally distorted, as non-anomorphic pictures do on widescreen TVs, you'd be raising the same questions. Why does everyone look fat in this film? Why does the car look so wide? Why does that circle look oval shaped? I actually watched this film in my bedroom on a 19" 4:3 set without surround sound, just because it would look better than being stretched on my 58" 16:9. This has got NOTHING to do with showing off home theater equipment. This is an excellent film that should be enjoyed as the director intended - as clear as possible when compared to film, but most importanly, undistored on the horizontal plane.

I am still trying to figure out why in the world would non-anamorphic pictures appear distorted (stretched) on a 16:9 tv. I have been watching films on my 16:9 TV for years, including a lot of non-anamorphic one's, and I have never faced the problem you talk about.

By the way the issue is not just about the DVD being inAnamorphic or not, the issue is importance given to this title, or should I say step fatherly treatment by Universal. Why should a new film, obviously with a new transfer, not get an anamorphic release? It's not as if Universal charged a lower price than normal for this DVD. Also most importantly can you explain why the DVD has burnt-in sub titles, something which is very irritating to those of us who understand Hindi & Punjabi?

Guess what I am trying to say is, it is not about showing off our systems, but rather about getting the best presentation of the film possible and about getting our money's worth.

Sanjay

 

[Yumbo]

The price has dropped to $19.95.

 

[Bryant Trew]

Guess what I am trying to say is, it is not about showing off our systems, but rather about getting the best presentation of the film possible and about getting our money's worth.

Here, here. This is an absolutely fantastic film, and we have been shortchanged!

 

[Ted Todorov]

Even if you switch your player to interlaced mode, a 16:9 tv will try to stretch a film like this across the 16:9 frame. Some TV's do a half-decent job. My pioneer tries to do a natural stretching, where most of the stretching is done on the outer 25% (left/right) of the screen. But still, even on a 1.85:1 film, the stretching is obvious to my eyes. On a 2.35:1 transfer, it's just horrid. Damn near half the screen is wasted on black bars, and the people are squeezed like hobbits.

Bryant,

I don't know what you are doing, but every 16:9 TV I know of has a "zoom" mode which enlarges non-anamorphic letter-boxed material to the 16:9 frame without in any way distorting (stretching) the picture. (my Sony also has a 14:9 zoom mode for 1.66:1 non-anamorphic material). If your TV doesn't do that, I strongly suggest getting a new TV, or at a minimum a DVD player like a Malata or Pansonic model which will do the zoom for you and output an anamorphic signal to the TV.

Anyway, for this specific title, the R2-UK DVD has a fine anamorphic transfer and all the same extras...

I haven't a clue why Universal put out an non-anamorphic transfer. This isn't some old title where they can save money by recycling the laser disk transfer. I fail to see how it would be any cheaper or easier to do a new non-anamorphic than an anamorphic one -- can someone enlighten us?

Ted

 

[DaViD Boulet]

For me it's about sending a message to Universal they I won't tolerate their releasing such an unnecessarily sub-standard DVD for a new film that required a fresh transfer anyway.

I hope everyone in this thread has taken the time to contact Universal and express their views.

 

[Bryant Trew]

I don't know what you are doing, but every 16:9 TV I know of has a "zoom" mode which enlarges non-anamorphic letter-boxed material to the 16:9 frame without in any way distorting (stretching) the picture. (my Sony also has a 14:9 zoom mode for 1.66:1 non-anamorphic material). If your TV doesn't do that, I strongly suggest getting a new TV, or at a minimum a DVD player like a Malata or Pansonic model which will do the zoom for you and output an anamorphic signal to the TV.

While the zoom feature fixes the distortion, you then lose information on the left/right. But worse, you can then see how crappy the resolution of the disc is. I'd rather watch it distorted than see line structure.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

While the zoom feature fixes the distortion, you then lose information on the left/right.

No No No.

I'm not sure what type of zoom you're thinking about, but taking a 4x3 lbxed transfer and "zooming" it to fill a 16x9 screen doesn't cut off anything left-to-right...it only lops off the image above and below the 16x9 window which is basically your letterboxing.

Obviously, I'm not condoning a non-anamorphic transfer of this or any other film for the clear advantage to having 1/3 more resolution, but this mistaken point about not being able to properly display a 4x3 lbxed transfer needs to be addressed.

 

[Bryant Trew]

No No No.

I'm not sure what type of zoom you're thinking about, but taking a 4x3 lbxed transfer and "zooming" it to fill a 16x9 screen doesn't cut off anything left-to-right...it only lops off the image above and below the 16x9 window which is basically your letterboxing.

You may want to verify that on your TV, because this is what happens on mine. Naturally the top and bottom take a hit, but that's normally just the black bars. But yes, on my TV you do lose some of the left and right. Pop in something like Dune, and you'll see for yourself (well my TV does).

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

Naturally the top and bottom take a hit, but that's normally just the black bars. But yes, on my TV you do lose some of the left and right. Pop in something like Dune, and you'll see for yourself (well my TV does).

I am really curious to know what TV you have and why and how would you lose picture on the sides. I can't imagine any zoom mode that would make you lose info on the sides, not unless there is something wrong with the TV itself or maybe it has something to do with incorrect overscan settings in a particular zoom mode. As a matter fo fact the only time you lose any picture on a 16:9 TV is when you zoom into a 4:3 (non letter boxed or full screen)picture to fill up the 16:9 screen, in which case you would lose info on the top & bottom.

Sanjay

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Bryant,
My TV has zilch horizontal cropping when in standard zoom mode, and I used to sell HDTVs and 16x9 projectors and yours is the first case I've heard of such an issue.
What TV make and model do you have? Perhaps your set can have the overscan calibrated individually for each zoom setting...I know that's the case with my ProScan. In fact, when I first bought it I adjusted the vertical raster in the service menu bcs it was slightly distorting things in one of the zoom modes (it has about 3 zoom modes).
When things are working properly, most 16x9 displays do a decent job of presenting 4x3 lbxed material...albiet w/out the added resolution of anamorphic enhancement.
dave

 

[Bryant Trew]

Pioneer Elite 610. I lose part of the left and right. I suppose it could be overscan for that mode.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

My pioneer tries to do a natural stretching, where most of the stretching is done on the outer 25% (left/right) of the screen.

I am familiar with this zoom mode which is there on quite a few 16:9 televisions, but different manufacturers have slightly different variants of it and with varying success. The best use of this zoom mode I have seen is on a JVC 16:9 television, in which the television uses a mixture of zoom and squeeze to get a pretty viewable, albeit slightly distorted, picture. Anyhow this mode is the incorrect zoom mode to view your non-anamorphic letterboxed titles. This particular mode that you are using is meant to be used with non-letterboxed 4:3 DVDs or television broadcasts, the idea is that by using this method of zooming you lose less of the picture on the top and bottom. For watching non-anamorphic 4:3 letterboxed DVDs or television broadcasts you should be using a different zoom mode, which does not alter the picture in anyway except for a straightforward zoom in. This results in a non distorted zoomed picture wherein you lose info on the top and bottom (mostly the black bars area). Unfortunately since different manufacturers use a different term for their zoom modes I cannot specify what that mode is called on your tv. But I am sure someone else here who has more experience with a Pioneer 16:9 television, might be able to help you with it. Or you might want to go thru the manual and read the description of each zoom mode more carefully, to identify which mode to use when.

I hope I don't come across as trying to preach or as a know it all. I am just trying to help.

Sanjay