Refusal to buy non-anamorphic titles (1 Viewer)

[Alex Spindler]

I used to have the belief that I wouldn't be watching DVDs on a 16:9 HDTV. But here I am with one. Take it from me that you are doing yourself and incredible favor by pursuing anamorphic releases. You will find that the non-anamorphic titles in your library will seem lackluster in comparison. Even the best case examples (Armageddon and Abyss) all have a constant reminder that the resolution is poor. If you purchase titles, you should well assume that you will have it when you do have a 16:9 display (how long have people had LD's in the library just to repurchase OAR for the same title.
I do myself the favor of waiting for the correct version. There are so many titles done right from the start that I can send the message that anamorphic releases are the default.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

...hey, I got the urge to watch DAYS OF THUNDER again and felt like I should make it a part of my collection again. It's still preferrable to VHS.
If you want the film bad enough, you will buy the movie on DVD...bad transfer or not.
But if its a film you really don't care for, its easy to dismiss it...good transfer or not.
Take that, Jon!
------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Tom-G]

Look at it this way: would you rather watch the VHS version? I wouldn't.
DVD at it's worst is better than anything VHS.
------------------

 

[Joe Schwartz]

One day all of us will be watching 16:9 monitors [as some already are]. Some of us are trying to avoid repurchasing titles again.

I've given up trying to avoid repurchasing titles -- I just sell the old version on eBay, like everyone else.
Face it, one day all of us will be watching HDTV monitors, and we'll repurchase everything on HD-DVD. Does that prevent you from buying regular DVDs today?

 

[Jerry Gracia]

DVD at it's worst is better than anything VHS.

DVD is definitly preferrable (for me) because it offers instant access to scenes and no degradation or rewinding...but the SCAREFACE DVD is pretty horrible looking. I honestly remember the VHS being of better quality (transfer wise) than the current DVD. If you haven't scene the DVD of SCAREFACE, check it out, you'll see what I mean.
It looks pretty much like shit. Muted colors, severe jaggies and the transfer is riddled with what appears to be a million microscopic ants crawling all over the picture. The blacks are muddy and lacking in detail as well.
The DAYS OF THUNDER DVD is only slightly better than the SCAREFACE DVD...but they are both in the shit category of DVD transfers.
But hey...I liked those two films and I don't 'do' VHS anymore.
I'll just wait and hope these movies get brand spanking new transfers in anamorphic widescreen.
------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Hey Jerry, you just ran off with my 2 cents, GIVE EM BACK!

------------------
To the men and women of the N.Y. police and fire department
God bless you.
To the victims and their families
God keep you.
To the dirtbags who caused all this
God help you!!!
[Edited last by John Williamson on November 17, 2001 at 10:27 PM]

 

[Justin Lane]

Jerry, you make a good point about Scarface and Days of Thunder, but the bottom line is that if the same dirty negative is used for an anamorphic transfer the presentation will still look like shit. Restoration is what is needed first, and then the benefits of an anamorphic transfer can really be felt
Other than MGM ocassionally, almost every studio gives us nothing but anamorphic transfers, so it is no longer an issue. If you are a big fan of a film only presented non-anamorphically, it is a good chance you already own it by now anyway.
J
------------------
Don't be a luddy-duddy! Don't be a mooncalf! Don't be a jabbernowl!

 

[Jon Robertson]

Plain bad transfers that happen to be non-anamorphic are not exactly good examples for championing the virtues of anamorphic.
All along I have said how much better anamorphic titles are - with the odd exception they far outdo their non-anamorphic counterparts.
Indeed I do have a widescreen television - not 65 inches, as I neither have the money nor space to accommodate such a beast (mine is 28 inches) - and with NTSC scan-lines present on a PAL set (if you sit too close) when a letterboxed transfer is zoomed in, I am more than aware what a difference anamorphic enhancement makes. For those who don't know what that looks like, take a look at Robocop's eyeview.
However, often when I watch a disc with a non-anamorphic picture, it strikes me that's the only thing wrong with it. There are so many wonderful films on splendid discs that I could not live without - see my collection for the offending items - that I would much rather buy them now, put up with the quite acceptable quality, then re-sell them IF they were ever re-released, simply so I could enjoy the film for all that time.
To be honest, I think some of you guys way overblow the improvements offered by anamorphic enhancement, or at least the quality of non-anamorphic titles on widescreen televisions. If a non-anamorphic title counts as "unwatchable", then a 33% increase in vertical resolution should render it "barely eye-watering"!

 

[Barry S]

Man, you've got a LOT of Criterion DVDs, dude. Wow. Do you have the whole Criterion Collection?
[Edited last by Barry S on November 18, 2001 at 05:03 PM]

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It's also a resolution issue. And that's why you see the 'demand' for full-frame [ala Citizen Kane, and I'll be yelling about King Kong] anamorphic DVD's.

Actually, window-boxed anamorphic DVD's would lose quite a bit of resolution.
------------------
My DVD Collection
My Preorders
My Wishlist
Potter is coming...

 

[Rob Tomlin]

We are lucky that this topic is not as hot as it once was. This is because the vast majority of DVD's released currently ARE anamorphic!
My Mistubishi 46-805 locks in to a stretch mode when it receives a progressive signal, so non-anamorphic DVD's are distorted on my monitor. Thus, Non-anamorphic = No sale!
I am still waiting for some titles to be re-released in anamorphic transfers, including Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas Titanic, The Abyss and Raging Bull.

 

[Joe Schwartz]

Technically to do a Anamorphic tranfer requires the studios to go back to the negatives to do it so they would never be able to use a non-Anamorphic tranfer to do a Anamorphic transfer.

That's not strictly true. To produce an anamorphic DVD, they just need to use a high-resolution digital source. As I understand it, most transfers are done at higher-than-NTSC resolution and then downsampled for DVD. If such a transfer were used to produce a non-anamorphic DVD, the same transfer could be used for an anamorphic version.

 

[Luis Gabriel Gerena]

To be honest, I think some of you guys way overblow the improvements offered by anamorphic enhancement, or at least the quality of non-anamorphic titles on widescreen televisions. If a non-anamorphic title counts as "unwatchable", then a 33% increase in vertical resolution should render it "barely eye-watering"!

My friend, I think this is the case of making an opinion based on lack of knowldege. Maybe in a 36" inch tv you won't notice a 33% increase but in the case of big RPTV or worst, in my case and many others that have FP dislays, 33% means A LOT! At 8' wide even a blind man can tell the difference. Why should I settle for a non anamorphic transfer as there is no excuse for it? My FP has 16:9 native panels so for non-ana transfers I have to use the 4:3 mode hence I am losing resolution already and with an image this big, it hurts my eyes to drop all those pixels.

I started to avoid non-ana disc way before I got my FP because I was thinking about the future and I am glad I did cause I have seen a couple (rent) non-ana at my set up and they look pathetic next to my anamorphic discs.

So simply put, that you have no reason not to dislike non-ana disc doesn't mean by any stretch of imagination, that others don't either. Believe me, many of us DO have great reasons to avoid non-ana dvds.

Regards

 

[GlennH]

I'll second Frank's discussion about the Panasonic RP91 scaling feature.

I never refused to buy non-anamorphic DVDs if I wanted the movie, but it is a consideration on marginal purchase decisions and I was really unhappy with they way they looked when I got a 58" 16:9 RPTV.

But the RP91 has changed that. While still not as good as anamorphic, they are very watchable (no ugly raster lines from using the TV's ZOOM mode). And you can leave the TV in FULL mode all the time and let the player handle it. Makes a world of difference. JVC also has players that do this very well.

 

[Ted Todorov]

I have noticed from time to time people stating their refusal to buy non-anamorphic DVDs, even if that is the only thing wrong with them, either stating they're waiting for a better version (even though there often isn't a wisp of a rumour such a release might take place) or deciding they will not "fund" such "lack-lustre" releases.

While I have no absolute rule, I almost always avoid non-anamorphic releases. When I state that publicly, inevitably some one will say: "How can you miss out on ...etc."

The fact is, I have over 400 DVDs and have watched maybe 1/4 of the total. I go to the movies far more often than I watch DVDs. I am not missing out on anything by waiting. There will be an anmorphic release of everything worth having, if not in R1, then R2, R3, R4 etc. While I wait (years, if necessary) maybe, just maybe I can make some small dent in the unwatched pile.

And, yes, I do have a 16:9 TV. While it is true that very bad anamorphic releases exist, it obscures the fact that in 95+% of the cases the anamorphic releases are vastly superior. I just repleced a whole bunch of non-anamorphic Fox-Lorber DVDs of Francois Truffuat's movies with the (R2 France) anamorphic MK2 DVDs, and boy am I mad at myself for having bought the incomperably worse F.-L. garbage. I should have waited for the not "a wisp of a rumour such a release might take place" anamorphic versions.

I have learned my lesson -- now I wait. When Criterion releases a new $40 list widescreen DVD with a non-anamorphic transfer, I say "no, thank you".

Ted

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I'll add yet another endorsement for the Panasonic RP-91. While I, too, much prefer anamorphic transfers on my 56-inch 16x9 TV, the RP-91 does make non-anamorphic transfer very watchable. Before upgrading to this player, I had a difficult time watching the degraded picture quality of non-anamorphic transfers.

 

[Patrick McCart]

I don't buy non-anamorphic widescreen DVD's if I can help it.

I have a few open matte 1.33:1 DVD's and a few non-anamorphic widescreen titles (The Abyss is great for a non-anamorphic transfer...it looks great even in zoom mode)

Of course, 1.33:1 movies like Casablanca and Citizen Kane are more than welcome in my library. I want OAR and widescreen to ALWAYS be anamorphic if possible.

 

[Mattias_ka]

If anyone don't buy a movie because it's non anamorphic, than that guy/girls is not a movie lover just a picture/audio lover.

 

[Edwin-S]

If anyone don't buy a movie because it's non anamorphic, than that guy/girls is not a movie lover just a picture/audio lover.

------------------------------------------------------------

I respectfully have to disagree. Just because a person refuses to buy a non-anamorphic transfer doesn't mean that they are not movie lovers. I would say that, in fact, it is just the opposite. Movie fans are aware that there is a technology available which improves the quality of the movies that they love, so why would they settle for a lower quality presentation. The very fact that a lot of people would hold off buying a title that they like, shows that they have a great respect for the film and want the very best home video presentation that can presently be delivered by existing technology.

The above applies to widescreen ratios only, of course.

 

[Mattias_ka]

Thats true but if I want a movie I don't care if it's not 16x9. And if YOU don't buy because of that, than you don't care about the movie, and that the final line! The movie is ALWAYS more importent than 16x9.