I've been waiting for the first Tuesday in September all year (though I didn't really know it at the beginning of the year). Kurosawa's "Seven Samurai" is finally being re-released by Criterion with the deluxe, loving treatment it deserves. I've been hoping against hope that the film would be spread across 2 DVDs, and from the reviews I've read I'm extatic to find that it is!

I have cut back my DVD buying severely, and I know that this movie will make it to an HD format sooner rather than later. But given that it's one of my favorite films I will be picking this up for sure (along with the original Godzilla on the same day).

All three reviews that I've seen have been very positive regarding the video and audio quality of the new version and I can't wait to watch it myself. Next up, Yojimbo and Sanjuro re-releases. No official date announced yet for those two.

Sounds cool... I am waiting for HD on those. To bad we'll probably go through the same cycle of incomplete extras, etc. to get the HD Ultimate release.

I'm sure this is a very good release, but I find Criterion's recent policy of windowboxing 4:3 films very troubling.

I have a Criterion SS from a good while back. It's already a pretty long film. Is this one even longer? It has an excellent, semi-scholarly commentary track as well.

I have a Criterion SS from a good while back. It's already a pretty long film. Is this one even longer? It has an excellent, semi-scholarly commentary track as well.

Wait, is someone implying this is a new version? The page on the Criterion site listing it as a September release does not mention it being changed, and in fact displays it having a spine number of 2.

http://www.criterionco.com/asp/coming_soon.asp

http://www.criterionco.com/asp/release.asp?id=2

It's a "re-issue," so the spine number stays the same. The original Jeck commentary stays, there's a second commentary with multiple contributors, new transfer, new subs (controversial, according to some) essentially the same length, a third disc with the bulk of the bonus features & documentaries, reviewed here:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/sevensamurai.htm

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=23429

Agree about the recent picture-boxing policy, Josh, hate it, and it's prompted me to rent most Criterion titles lately rather than buy.

I find Criterion's recent policy of windowboxing 4:3 films very troubling.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of it either, but it's not a make or break issue for me.

Agree about the recent picture-boxing policy, Josh, hate it, and it's prompted me to rent most Criterion titles lately rather than buy.

What is this "windowboxing" folks are mentioning? I see it mentioned on Criterion's site, are they just matting the image slightly so that all the old school people with direct view CRT sets don't "lose" any image to the overscan under the plastic edges of their set? Or is this something else?

What is this "windowboxing" folks are mentioning? I see it mentioned on Criterion's site, are they just matting the image slightly so that all the old school people with direct view CRT sets don't "lose" any image to the overscan under the plastic edges of their set? Or is this something else?

Yes, that's exactly right.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/bigbro79/s7-comp2.jpg

It's unnecessary and extremely distracting on a zero-overscan digital display. Not to mention that it throws out available resolution.

arrg and I love that movie, why worry about people with old displays, they will be forced to move on to a new one sooner or later, why should people with newer TV's be punished, foolish

Elsewhere, this issue has been discussed for a while, there's even a petition to sign protesting this misplaced Criterion decision. More details here:

http://www.criterionforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3895

What is this "windowboxing" folks are mentioning? It's a technique used to allow viewers to see the entire movie as the director intended. However, it leads to howls of protests from viewers who find black bars on their screen horrible distracting. Hmmm, sounds familiar :)

arrg and I love that movie, why worry about people with old displays, they will be forced to move on to a new one sooner or later, why should people with newer TV's be punished, foolish


It is just plain dumb IMO....Criterion has always had a bit of an anti-tech lean in their philosophy.
It's a little odd. :confused:

It's a technique used to allow viewers to see the entire movie as the director intended. However, it leads to howls of protests from viewers who find black bars on their screen horrible distracting. Hmmm, sounds familiar


That's not the case here. It's adding black bars that don't need to be there to maintain the correct AR. It's correct to present a 4x3 movie at 4x3, but then to further reduce the image size to add bars on top and bottom as well makes no sense, and unecessarily throws away resolution.

It's a technique used to allow viewers to see the entire movie as the director intended

Dean's right--that's not the case here--what we're talking about here has nothing to do with what the director intended. Read the links. This technique is Criterion's shortsighted attempt to pander to the lowest common denominator of viewers, those still on tube tvs. And they're now doing it on widescreen material as well, a la 'Seduced and Abandoned.'

Dean's right--that's not the case here--what we're talking about here has nothing to do with what the director intended. Read the links. This technique is Criterion's shortsighted attempt to pander to the lowest common denominator of viewers, those still on tube tvs. And they're now doing it on widescreen material as well, a la 'Seduced and Abandoned.' Sheesh - you make a jokey post - even put the smiley face on it - and people still attack you. Well, here goes...

No, Dean isn't right. He brings up irrelevant information about aspect ratios. What I said is 100% true - the picture boxing allows the viewers to see the entire filmed frame.

And to address your point, we aren't talking about the lowest common denominator of viewers - those with tube TV's. Almost all TV's - including fancy new LCD and DLP's have overscan. Zero overscan setups are extremely rare.

Yes, that's exactly right.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/bigbro79/s7-comp2.jpg

It's unnecessary and extremely distracting on a zero-overscan digital display. Not to mention that it throws out available resolution.

That does seem kind of useless, but it also seems like it would only take a quick reach up to the zoom ring to "fix" if need be.

Well, I'll still with my fancy pants upper class version that uses all of my zero overscan image area.

That does seem kind of useless, but it also seems like it would only take a quick reach up to the zoom ring to "fix" if need be.

that's right, except if the image you're getting to begin with has less overall resolution and adds an unsightly black frame around the entire picture--in short, if it is a dumbed down product, as this is--NTSC frames are already only 480 vertical lines, and Criterion is unnecessarily reducing even that, because the windowboxed black areas are included within the 480.

Now, Newnameguy, I wasn't trying to be confrontational, I'm much more obvious when I am (trying to be confrontational) and I apologize for not respecting the smiley. That said, with respect to this:

What I said is 100% true - the picture boxing allows the viewers to see the entire filmed frame.

we disagree--seeing the entire filmed frame and cropping the image are two different issues--what you actually said was that:

It's a technique used to allow viewers to see the entire movie as the director intended

and that's not what this is. I doubt every director living or dead would approve Criterion putting a large black frame around his entire image which doesn't actually add visual information to the disc but shrinks the existing image down, excising precious resolution to accomodate those who have cheap CRT displays.

The crux of where we disagree is this, and that crux is neither humorous nor elitist: Criterion, a software producer, shouldn't be trying to solve a hardware issue (overscan) the wrong way. Criterion should not be concerned about the hardware of their users but concentrate instead on presenting their software in the best possible way. They're not doing that by windowboxing 1.33:1 titles or by reducing the resolution of their product to make it look better on inferior displays like 4:3 CRTs.

Since I care enough to have good high def digital displays that have minimal to no overscan, also good upscaling dvd players and an HTPC to playback dvds-- what I wind up with is wasted resolution on black bars, an inherently smaller image with poorer resolution surrounded by wasted display area. I can overcome that to a certain extent, but that's not what I expect from Criterion, especially when I'm paying $39.95 for a dvd versus $10, when I plan to watch those dvds for several years, and when the likelihood of those titles ever being released in HD is nil.

Years ago, I was also annoyed that studios weren't releasing 1.66 films in anamorphic because most tv set owners had 4:3 sets. This recent picture-boxing/window-boxing, while not as egregious, is eerily similar.

chefklc,

I hear what you are saying, and don't really disagree that much. My main point is that what I see as being "eerily similar" are the howls of pain from people having to watch these horrible black bars. And I think it's kinda funny.

The one point of real disagreement I have with your post is the notion that overscan is a problem for people with cheap CRT screens. It's a problem for almost every TV - including pricy LCD's and DLP's.

The one point of real disagreement I have with your post is the notion that overscan is a problem for people with cheap CRT screens. It's a problem for almost every TV - including pricy LCD's and DLP's.

Wait are you kidding me? I've never owned even remotely high end equipment and all my DLP or LCD displays have a checkbox in the menu, it says "overscan?" and I say "um, no thanks."

?

Yeh, even my low end CRT projector has no overscan. Rear projectors tend to have it because of the extreme angle of deflection at the far edges. But Plasmas, and pretty much all CRT and digtal front projectors are fine with zero overscan.

Sorry, not being a front-projetor guy, I didn't realize you thought of those things as "TV's".

When you mentioned pricey DLPs and LCDs, I assumed that included FP systems as well. If just mean straight direct view CRTs, then yeah they all will have some overscan. But, I also agree with the position that it's not the DVD maker's business to get into adjusting for overscan, since someone watching it on a 19" TV could have a lot of overscan and still not see all of it even with their window boxing. They should make DVDs like everyone else does and use the whole available image area for the AR it has.

At least they cleaned the movie up quite a bit. The improved constrast looks great, imo. (read the review on DVDtalk)

There is a way to change Criterion's current behavior...
DON'T frickin buy these $39.95 disks.

It is frustrating that Criterion does this stuff, first the non-anamorphic discs and now window boxing. I'm sure that they will eventually cease this practice. I read that the new anamorphic "Brazil" is not window boxed.

It is frustrating that Criterion does this stuff, first the non-anamorphic discs and now window boxing. I'm sure that they will eventually cease this practice. I read that the new anamorphic "Brazil" is not window boxed.
I guess they are only doing it to 4x3 material. If it's widescreen and you try and watch it on a 4x3 display it seems they figure a little overscan on the sides only doesn't matter. Which is a bit inconsistent, really, but good.

It's a technique used to allow viewers to see the entire movie as the director intended. However, it leads to howls of protests from viewers who find black bars on their screen horrible distracting. Hmmm, sounds familiar :)

No, its a retarded decision that panders to people with crappy setups and a ton of overscan.

I have no overscan in my setup either, and this kind of stuff just sucks. Quality compromises for people watching in crappy setups really irks me. The goal should be the best quality possible, period. None of this "best 'quality' for people who don't care about quality and will never know the difference" crap. How can Criterion figure out how much overscan people have in their systems? They can't. Which means that some people will still be losing stuff and some people will still be seeing bars. It's the worst of every possible world.

It's the same thing as cropping Apocalypse now so that people with small TVs get a bigger picture. What crap. Somebody needs to drag these people out into the woods somewhere and crop off some of their body parts or smash them down to a smaller size, or stretch their body into new proportions. See how they like it. :mad:

It makes you wonder WHY Criterion is doing this...

After all, their products are aimed at the collector, the hobbyist, the cinemaphile, those that are very serious about the art of film.

Do they believe that J6P will buy their disks on a regular basis? :rolleyes:

THE MAN at Criterion needs to borrow a Samurai Sword for some intense housecleaning....

I'd actually prefer my 4:3 movies in full 1.37:1, even with tiny black bars top and bottom. IIRC, the HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN DVD in the Frankenstein set starts out with black bars all around the image, and then a few seconds after the credits, it "zooms in" to eliminate the top and bottom black bars. Which means that a bit of the picture is shaved off top and bottom. I have an LCD RPTV, which has about 5% overscan all around. I don't mind the tiny black bars if it means seeing the entire image.

Or am I misunderstanding this?

eweiss: yes I think you are, they're putting black bars ALL AROUND the image. I have no problem with bars to preserve OAR even if they're the very small difference between 1.33 and 1.37. They're taking the image and then windowboxing(bars all around it regardless) it for overscan reasons which really is a synonym for "we're on drugs" reasons.

Overscan is a problem with certain improperly calibrated displays, changing the source is to correct this is ludicrous. This would be the same as if 10% of the cars on the road have an improper alignment making them pull to the right and they crowned the roads to fix it. Forcing the other 90% of us to correct to the left. Correct the problem with the display, not the source. If the viewer can't be bothered to correct the overscan, chances are they don't notice it or simply don't care.

Overscan is a problem with certain improperly calibrated displays, changing the source is to correct this is ludicrous. This would be the same as if 10% of the cars on the road have an improper alignment making them pull to the right and they crowned the roads to fix it. Forcing the other 90% of us to correct to the left. Correct the problem with the display, not the source. If the viewer can't be bothered to correct the overscan, chances are they don't notice it or simply don't care.

Exactly.

It's like having a handicapped policy where we amputated everybody's legs instead of just building handicapped ramps.

It's the same thing as cropping Apocalypse now so that people with small TVs get a bigger picture. Funny, I think of it being exactly the opposite...

Cropping - giving up some of the viewable picture to increase the amount of screen space used

Windowboxing - giving up some of the screed space used to make sure the entire frame is viewable

Overscan is a problem with certain improperly calibrated displays, changing the source is to correct this is ludicrous. This would be the same as if 10% of the cars on the road have an improper alignment making them pull to the right and they crowned the roads to fix it. Forcing the other 90% of us to correct to the left. Correct the problem with the display, not the source. If the viewer can't be bothered to correct the overscan, chances are they don't notice it or simply don't care. If only 10% of displays had overscan, I'd agree with your point.

Funny, I think of it being exactly the opposite...

Cropping - giving up some of the viewable picture to increase the amount of screen space used

Windowboxing - giving up some of the screed space used to make sure the entire frame is viewable

The entire frame should be viewable in high quality systems.

Do not compromise my viewing experience for the sake of joe schmoe, period.

With windowboxed titles, I need to zoom the frame and introduce unwanted non-integer scaling to eliminate the BS windowboxing.

No other content creators do this. Do you see other commercial DVDs accomodating for overscan by windowboxing? No of course not.

Is it as bad as non-OAR titles, no, but it is not desireable. I don't know that most others with no overscan problems have the capability to adjust AR or zoom custom and per-title like I do, and those people are all stuck with windowboxing.

C'mon, this is just egalitarianism in action. Why should those with inferior displays be punished because they can't afford fancy fixed pixel zero-overscan monitors or projectors?? It's time DVD makers quit pandering to the interests of the most privileged among us. Same with Apocalypse Now. Power to the people.


Yes, that's sarcasm.

You had me going there for a minute, Fred.... :D

God wills it!

God wills it!
:p :D

I just picked this up, and I have a quick question about the Dolby Surround Mix.

My Denon 2900 is registering just two channels of sound are being output. If this is indeed a Dobly Surround Mix (I believe it's supposed to be 4.0), shouldn't my player show that four discreet channels are being sent to the receiver? Granted, my receiver can take the stereo signal and artificially disperse the sound across five channels using the Pro-Logic circuitry, but this title is supposedly MIXED in Dolby Surround, so it should output at least 4 discreet channels of sound.

When I listen in using the receiver's analog "6-CHANNEL INPUT" mode, sure enough I only get two channels. Every other title I own that is presented in "Dolby Surround" offers at least 4 channels of sound (usually 5.1 channels, of course).

Anyone else experiencing this?

No, if it's mixed in dolby surround that is a matrix format that uses just Lt/Rt that is stereo. You need to use a matrix decoder such as a PL or PLII on the soundtrack if you want.

I think I just discovered the error of my ways. I was thinking of 4.0 surround as Front Left & Right and Rear Left & Right, instead of Front Left & Right, Center, and Rear Mono. I think that's the problem. So this is mixed like an old-school Dolby Pro-Logic movie, with identical information coming from bother rear speakers.

Is that right?

If this is indeed a Dobly Surround Mix (I believe it's supposed to be 4.0), shouldn't my player show that four discreet channels are being sent to the receiver? Granted, my receiver can take the stereo signal and artificially disperse the sound across five channels using the Pro-Logic circuitry, but this title is supposedly MIXED in Dolby Surround, so it should output at least 4 discreet channels of sound. Just to be clear as to what Dolby Surround does... it takes multichannel sound and uses an encoding algorithm to store those multiple channels in just two channels. The two channels are stored on the DVD/LD/etc. and sent to your receiver. The receiver then undoes the encoding algorithm to reproduce the original multichannel sound.

It's not a perfect system, but it's far from artificial.

/me glad I have the properly OAR version shown on World Cinema HD...

I think I just discovered the error of my ways. I was thinking of 4.0 surround as Front Left & Right and Rear Left & Right, instead of Front Left & Right, Center, and Rear Mono. I think that's the problem. So this is mixed like an old-school Dolby Pro-Logic movie, with identical information coming from bother rear speakers.

Is that right?

Yes that should be right. The soundtrack itself is just stereo, but mixed with PL in mind. PL creates mono surrounds and a center (somewhat poorly). PLII creates a much better center and stereo surrounds. Obviously what you have available to you depends on the processor you are using.

Wonder why they would go through the trouble of doing a surround mix and not release it as 5.1? Perhaps because they were creating it from a mono source...?

I do not know. Kurosawa has passed away, so I'm sure there's reluctance to completely redo a soundtrack. In my opinion, I prefer doing a matrix encode and leaving it stereo, because as technology moves forward processing improves. I have some DVD's with 5.1 soundtracks that were originally just stereo, and they did a PL decode and then encoded that as 5.1. It sounds bad because PL is pretty dated. It would be significantly better with PLII, but that option is no longer available to me because now I'm stuck with a 5.1 track that sucks.

Sometimes, and this is the best option, is if a new 5.1 is done, also to include the original stereo or mono track for that reason and to maintain the exact original intent.

Sometimes surround isn't wanted. I don't know that to be the case here at all, but I just watched Match Point the other day which is a new film, and that's only in mono!

Sometimes surround isn't wanted. I don't know that to be the case here at all, but I just watched Match Point the other day which is a new film, and that's only in mono!

All of Woody Allen's films are mixed in mono. He's stereophobic.

All of Woody Allen's films are mixed in mono. He's stereophobic.

I know. What a weirdo. :rolleyes:

Surprised he doesn't just go for silent films.... :p

I only listened to a little of each track, but the 4.0 track sounded a bit more clean and clear than the original mono. I once showed the original Criterion disc to a Japanese friend and he said he had to read the subtitles because the sound wasn't clear enough, I think that wouln't be necessary with this new track.

on a cursory listen to the new surround track on this disc, I noticed some changed sound effects.

What really stood out to me was the sound of Kyuzo's sword hitting the man he dueled when we frist meet him.


Origonally, it was a subtle -- almost dull -- chop as he sliced. Now though, it has an almost cartoony sound that I have heard in some chambara movies. It seems out of place in this movie. The are other sounds like this, mostly durring the battle scenes.

Incidentally, check out the special features.
It includes an interesting interview with Kurosawa.
I've seen documentaries on Kurosawa elsewhere but this is the first interview I've come across.

on a cursory listen to the new surround track on this disc, I noticed some changed sound effects.

What really stood out to me was the sound of Kyuzo's sword hitting the man he dueled when we frist meet him.


Origonally, it was a subtle -- almost dull -- chop as he sliced. Now though, it has an almost cartoony sound that I have heard in some chambara movies. It seems out of place in this movie. The are other sounds like this, mostly durring the battle scenes.
It's inevitable, I would think- Surely there are no original elements to get separation of those sounds for any kind of remixing, let alone surround. I'd be interested in hearing that track as a curiosity but SS is the kind of film I imagine I would generally want to fall back on the original mix. There's no reason for a 60 year old film to have to try and sound like a modern one- especially when I can't understand the dialog anyway :D

I need to purchase this for a film class I'm taking (well I don't need to, but I sure want to). After reading this thread again after seeing it months ago, I've decided I really want to track down the original Criterion release without the windowboxing.

Does anyone know of a good way to tell them apart, as I doubt any stores would have one next to the other? If anyone knows the UPC that would help too, because I might try to track down the older one on ebay or something and having the same spine number really sucks for that...

TIA!

I need to purchase this for a film class I'm taking (well I don't need to, but I sure want to). After reading this thread again after seeing it months ago, I've decided I really want to track down the original Criterion release without the windowboxing.

Does anyone know of a good way to tell them apart, as I doubt any stores would have one next to the other? If anyone knows the UPC that would help too, because I might try to track down the older one on ebay or something and having the same spine number really sucks for that...

TIA!

Why would you want the old transfer? It is significantly worse than the new one. I would strongly recommend you stick with the new one.

Why would you want the old transfer? It is significantly worse than the new one. I would strongly recommend you stick with the new one.

I appreciate your concern, but no matter how much better the new transfer is, it won't look consistently good at both my place and all my friends' places because while nobody I know has a display with underscan anymore, plenty of people I know lack a player or a TV that does a decent job of zooming (without very obviously blocking things up).

Everyone is irked by different things and windowboxing matted into the video signal would drive me crazy.

I appreciate your concern, but no matter how much better the new transfer is, it won't look consistently good at both my place and all my friends' places because while nobody I know has a display with underscan anymore, plenty of people I know lack a player or a TV that does a decent job of zooming (without very obviously blocking things up).

Everyone is irked by different things and windowboxing matted into the video signal would drive me crazy.

Then don't zoom. I'm sorry, but this really does sound like a ridiculous point. I am not happy with Criterion's decision to letterbox in this way, but the amount of letterboxing is not hugely significant. The PQ improvement is VAST, and you're really doing yourself a huge disservice by seeking out a much poorer transfer all because of the possibility of a very small area of black surround which in all likelihood won't even be visible unless you have a system without any overscan (unlikely). And even then, it's hardly the kind of irritant that would justify watching a vastly degraded picture.

I agree with Chris- but it's not my call so:

The new edition is 3 disks and has a kind of cardboard outer box all black with no picture and Seven Samurai written on the front. The older edition is in Criterion's typical black keepcase with a picture of Toshiro Mifune on the front. They look nothing at all like each other so it would be easy to know which you have, but you're probably only going to find the old one online or on eBay- at a good price I imagine since everyone is dumping theirs. In fact- I have one if you want it so bad! :D

I agree with Chris- but it's not my call so:

The new edition is 3 disks and has a kind of cardboard outer box all black with no picture and Seven Samurai written on the front. The older edition is in Criterion's typical black keepcase with a picture of Toshiro Mifune on the front. They look nothing at all like each other so it would be easy to know which you have, but you're probably only going to find the old one online or on eBay- at a good price I imagine since everyone is dumping theirs. In fact- I have one if you want it so bad! :D

Yeah I noticed they're being dumped on ebay, so I'll just buy one of those. If I wanna see how the newer version looks I can just borrow it or perhaps Netflix it. That's what I usually do when I wanna see the extras from something I'd rather not support directly with money.

The thing that fundamentally angers me about this is you know, you just know, that the person at Criterion who probably was convinced to make this decision has no technical knowledge of video. Maybe they know tons about film, but this smacks of ignorance.

Let's look at who this approach helps, and who it hurts:

The only people who can be helped by this approach are owners of direct view or projection CRTs which have never been properly calibrated to display the full frame of their DVD player. These people could solve their own problem easily, but haven't either by choice or ignorance. Certainly it can be assumed that the ignorant would never care, and thus this would never influence their purchasing decisions anyway.

The people this hurts are everyone else! Let's look at what kinds of modern display devices typically have no overscan at all, or can be very easily configured not to...

- Plasma panels
- LCD panels
- LCD RPTV
- DLP RPTV
- LCD FP
- DLP FP

...do I need to keep going? Come on people. Also, who has a CRT display, of any kind made in any year, which can't be properly calibrated to a DVD player to show the full frame? Did you raise your hand? If you did, you may not know it, but you're probably wrong. It might require a service menu or opening the back of a set, but it can probably be done.

So who is Criterion trying to help here? Some angry old man someplace with what was once an expensive CRT who refuses to opt for professional calibration or upgrade his technology? That's the only person I can think of who is helped by this. Absolutely everyone else is inconvenienced, and to repeat, everyone else can't solve this problem easily (or at all) and the people supposedly needful of this help can. Who the heck does Criterion think their consumer base is?

*sigh*

The only people who can be helped by this approach are owners of direct view or projection CRTs which have never been properly calibrated to display the full frame of their DVD player. The "only" people. Those are still the vast majority of TV's out there.

Let's look at what kinds of modern display devices typically have no overscan at all, or can be very easily configured not to...

I have one of them DLP RPTV's. I guess I'm ignorant like those folks at Criterion, cause I haven't a clue how it can be easily configured not to have any overscan.

Please - do tell what this easy adjustment is.

The "only" people. Those are still the vast majority of TV's out there.
...
I have one of them DLP RPTV's. I guess I'm ignorant like those folks at Criterion, cause I haven't a clue how it can be easily configured not to have any overscan.

Please - do tell what this easy adjustment is.
Well, usually it's right in an onscreen menu. RTFM. I'm sorry but Khyron, even if not tactful, is right. Criterion is allegedly trying to cater to the top tier videophile with technically advanced releases. The people with overscanning displays have been seeing EVERYTHING overscanned and they've survived. Why should we that have non-overscan displays (and apparently, you're one of them) be punished by appealing to a lower common denominator? Why did Criterion ever even start making DVD's with anamorphic enhancement, fer gawd's sake. By your logic the majority of people still have 4x3 CRT displays so it doesn't do them a bit of good.

RTFM. Oh wow, what I great I idea. Why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, I did. No such adjustment. But thanks for the helpful advice.

I'm sorry but Khyron, even if not tactful, is right. Actually, he's not, and neither are you in this case. While I'm sure some of these TV's can be easily adjusted to eleminate overscan, it sure isn't all of them.

Criterion is allegedly trying to cater to the top tier videophile with technically advanced releases. Although it is sometimes lost on AVS, being a lover of good movies is not the same thing as being a lover of high-end AV equipment.

The thing that fundamentally angers me about this is you know, you just know, that the person at Criterion who probably was convinced to make this decision has no technical knowledge of video. Maybe they know tons about film, but this smacks of ignorance.

Let's look at who this approach helps, and who it hurts:

The only people who can be helped by this approach are owners of direct view or projection CRTs which have never been properly calibrated to display the full frame of their DVD player. These people could solve their own problem easily, but haven't either by choice or ignorance. Certainly it can be assumed that the ignorant would never care, and thus this would never influence their purchasing decisions anyway.

The people this hurts are everyone else! Let's look at what kinds of modern display devices typically have no overscan at all, or can be very easily configured not to...

- Plasma panels
- LCD panels
- LCD RPTV
- DLP RPTV
- LCD FP
- DLP FP

...do I need to keep going? Come on people. Also, who has a CRT display, of any kind made in any year, which can't be properly calibrated to a DVD player to show the full frame? Did you raise your hand? If you did, you may not know it, but you're probably wrong. It might require a service menu or opening the back of a set, but it can probably be done.

So who is Criterion trying to help here? Some angry old man someplace with what was once an expensive CRT who refuses to opt for professional calibration or upgrade his technology? That's the only person I can think of who is helped by this. Absolutely everyone else is inconvenienced, and to repeat, everyone else can't solve this problem easily (or at all) and the people supposedly needful of this help can. Who the heck does Criterion think their consumer base is?

*sigh*

I certainly agree with your sentiment, however if your goal is to get the best video quality, the minor loss of resolution is not an inherent deal breaker, especially in light of the vastly improved PQ of the new transfer.

I've railed against criterion for this windowboxing, but still, you have to consider what provides you the best picture quality, and this is only one very small part of that which is vastly overwhelmed by other considerations.

Oh wow, what I great I idea. Why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, I did. No such adjustment. But thanks for the helpful advice.

Actually, he's not, and neither are you in this case. While I'm sure some of these TV's can be easily adjusted to eleminate overscan, it sure isn't all of them.

Although it is sometimes lost on AVS, being a lover of good movies is not the same thing as being a lover of high-end AV equipment.
Look, if you honestly have overscan and can't get rid of it (and I don't believe that on a DLP monitor, why don't you say what model you have??) it doesn't change the fact that in that case you have been living with that percentage of picture missing on pretty much everything you've been watching anyway. Punishing people who have invested in better displays because some don't have them is like rolling off everything above 10Khz and introducing audible distortion in a cd because most people will rip it to their iPod.

Look, if you honestly have overscan and can't get rid of it (and I don't believe that on a DLP monitor, why don't you say what model you have??) A Samsung HLM507. If you are really curious, here's the FM to read:

http://www.retrevo.com/s/Samsung-HLM507W-TVs-review-manual/id/275dj995/t/1-2/

A Samsung HLM507. If you are really curious, here's the FM to read:

http://www.retrevo.com/s/Samsung-HLM507W-TVs-review-manual/id/275dj995/t/1-2/
Page 43 (though they don't make it very clear). Wide (PC) mode apparently is designed to shrink an incoming signal on the digital (or I'm guessing analog VGA) inputs down to overcome any overscan that might be occurring. A lot of sets unfortunately don't give you this type of option on component, S-Video and composite inputs. It's not as nice as being able to just turn overscan off but it would do the job. Shame Samsung designed it that way.

The irony is that if the Criterion disk DIDN'T have the shrinky transfer, and you engaged the function on your TV you would wind up with essentially the identical slightly boxed image that you have anyway and Criterion is forcing the rest of us to have. :)

Page 43 (though they don't make it very clear). Wide (PC) mode apparently is designed to shrink an incoming signal on the digital (or I'm guessing analog VGA) inputs down to overcome any overscan that might be occurring.

The irony is that if the Criterion disk DIDN'T have the shrinky transfer, and you engaged the function on your TV you would wind up with essentially the identical slightly boxed image that you have anyway and Criterion is forcing the rest of us to have. :) Keep in mind that Wide(PC) mode isn't really a zero-overscan mode, but a throw away a bunch of pixels mode. It looks like complete crap. Not even close to the quality of an window-boxed designed DVD.

To be honest, I don't really care which was Criterion goes with the authoring. It's just that the arguements against window-boxing in this thread are ridiculous. Most TV's still have overscan. Criterion's audience isn't just high-end AV folks. And, the silliest of all, black bars shouldn't be distracting.

Well, I agree to some extent- I'd much rather have the beautiful new transfer boxed than the old one not boxed and it's the one I watch. I do understand why they did it; they figure this way no one with any kind of display will ever miss any of the picture. But I really think that the number of people who are benefiting on displays with overscan and have any idea that they actually are benefiting is really small compared to the number of people who clearly see a loss of picture size and slight reduction of resolution on a big no overscan display. In other words, before you got this new version did you ever watch Seven Samurai in its original release and go "Dammit, there's 2% of the picture missing at the edge!!" I have no way to prove it of course; Criterion probably has a better idea just based on buyer feedback. You're right, it's a bit of a trivial bitch from either side of the argument- I just think that our side is probably the type that will bitch louder to Criterion :p :D

I just think that our side is probably the type that will bitch louder to Criterion

WWHHHHHAAAAAAAATTTTTTTT?

;) :) :D ;)

I mean that I have to believe many, many more people have written them saying "We think the way your new 1.33 AR releases look on our displays sucks" than ever bothered to write them before saying things like "We really wish you would change the way you frame 1.33 AR films because a tiny part of the picture doesn't show up on my TV (in much the same way as every other full-frame DVD from every other DVD maker in the world)."

I could be wrong of course. :)

I agree with you, I was just making a joke about our loudness and how I've gone nearly deaf from all the retentive nitpicking(of which I'm one of the worst)... ;)

If I wanna see how the newer version looks I can just borrow it or perhaps Netflix it. That's what I usually do when I wanna see the extras from something I'd rather not support directly with money.
Better yet, watch it on Dish Network's Kungfu HD channel (Kurosawa films are in regular rotation).

I agree with you, I was just making a joke about our loudness and how I've gone nearly deaf from all the retentive nitpicking(of which I'm one of the worst)... ;)
Oh, I see- obviously the effect on me is to get pretty dense *lol*