I just read an article over at Rotten Tomatoes regarding out of print Criterion DVDs, and "Salo" is the featured film. Toward the end of the article, they say that Criterion has "regained the rights and intend to re-release 'Salo' sometime in 2007 (and in HD!)..."

Is this true, or just a mistake by Rotten Tomatoes? Maybe they've misinterpreted the "high-definition digital transfer" that Criterion touts on their DVDs. If true, this is huge news, as Criterion has an incredible library of films. I would buy into either format just to get Criterion in high definition.

Criterion is probably in a sticky situation when it comes to releasing in HD due to the very fact they work with so many different studios who loan them prints and/or already packaged video masters. Criterion has worked with Universal before, and they are currently only in the HD-DVD camp (but that could change). That said, Criterion has also worked with Disney on some of their releases and Disney is in the Blu-ray camp.

See the dilemma?

Dan

The last official statement from Criterion (which, in fairness, was probably mid-2006) was that they were sitting out the war. They didn't want to release in 2 formats, and they didn't want to pick sides. They were waiting in the hopes that either one side would be victorious or both would come to their senses and release a single unified format.

Since it's unlikely that either of those things will happen, I'm not sure what their plans are at this point. Officially, they're still fence-sitters.

Unfortunately, they'd do either an abomination like TotalHD (which means effectively both so why not do both separately?) or neither. My bet is on neither until at least 2008...

I've always appreciated the care and attention they give their movies and many of my favorite DVDs are Critereon (Spartacus, Kurosawa's stuff, etc).

Image just released Discovery Docs on both HD DVD & Blu-ray, Image owns Criterion. I dont see what the problem is they can release on both formats and they have. Like Warner said its the best of both worlds, more profit and they wont offend any studios by doing so. And its not entering new territory because they have already done it! I would definitely double dip and buy an $80 copy of Luchino Visconti's The Leopard (the dvd was $50).

The last I read about Criterion's plans for HD were a few months ago, and yes they didn't want to alienate their supporters by favoring a single format.

They are already a niche market and probably don't want to release to what would be an ostensibly micro-niche market.

They do seem a natural for HD in that their customers want quality and pay extra $ to get it.

Of course my bias is that HD DVD would be their best bet since many of their films are European and they could sell world-wide if region free.

It would be funny if Salo became their first HD title, the unsuspecting wouldn't know what hit them.

I really doubt Criterion is planning to go HD anytime soon.

It would be funny if Salo became their first HD title, the unsuspecting wouldn't know what hit them.

"Ooh, Criterion is now releasing HD discs! They are synonymous with quality so I will have to pick up this "Salo" movie even though I've never heard of it"

Then, the next day on AVS:

"WTF!!! That was disgusting!! This is going up on eBay immediately"

:D

Image owns Criterion.

Image does not own Criterion, they are simply distributors of Criterion titles through at least 2010:

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=109706&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=738374&highlight=


Image has put out 7 titles on HD DVD and 4 titles on BD. But Criterion calls the shots on when/if/how they will distribute in HD. And, so far, they have claimed that they won't play ball during a format war.

"Ooh, Criterion is now releasing HD discs! They are synonymous with quality so I will have to pick up this "Salo" movie even though I've never heard of it"

Then, the next day on AVS:

"WTF!!! That was disgusting!! This is going up on eBay immediately"

:D
:D
The funny thing is that at the dawn of DVD you could pick it up at Best Buy, because they were trying so hard to fill the shelves, Criterion got so much hate mail they pulled it from circulation and copies started fetching $300-$500 on Ebay.

I just picked up a region 2 for $30, which actually ran a bit longer.

I (heart) Criterion. I'd love nothing more than to have them start releasing in HD.

BUT, honestly, they're a niche label, and HD media is a niche format. Anything they put out will be a niche within a niche... very hard to see a return on investment on such a project. Criterion can't afford to lose money on releases because of the expensive way they do business.

I don't see it happening before the format war is ironed out.

BUT, honestly, they're a niche label, and HD media is a niche format. Anything they put out will be a niche within a niche... very hard to see a return on investment on such a project. Criterion can't afford to lose money on releases because of the expensive way they do business.

Let's not forget that Criterion made laserdiscs for 15 years. Laserdisc was a niche format.

Let's not forget that Criterion made laserdiscs for 15 years. Laserdisc was a niche format.


True, but the economics aren't the same, I think their LD titles were about $50-$70 and they were a decent sized fish in a little pond.

So they could charge $50-70 per for specific titles (any individual Star Wars, LOTR, and/or the like) if they were worth it - BD50, 24/48 PCM 7.1 track, excellent PQ (whatever codec they want/need to achieve that, extras on a separate disc if need be).

^

There's a boatload of difference between Salo and La Jetée and Star Wars and LotR. Criterion wouldn't get very far charging LD prices for HD discs.

I just hope their hi-def discs aren't $$$$$ like their DVDs were.

ie, in the old days:

Regular DVD: $25
Special Edition DVD: $30
Criterion DVD: $40

It would be funny if Salo became their first HD title, the unsuspecting wouldn't know what hit them.Yeah, not exactly demo material, is it? Although I'd expect a fair amount of us complaining about film grain, of all things.

I just hope their hi-def discs aren't $$$$$ like their DVDs were.

ie, in the old days:

Regular DVD: $25
Special Edition DVD: $30
Criterion DVD: $40

I would expect their HD pricing to be similar. At least it beats the LD prices ($50 CLV bare bones, $100-125 CAV w/some extras).

I would expect their HD pricing to be similar. At least it beats the LD prices ($50 CLV bare bones, $100-125 CAV w/some extras).

I have no problem with a $40 list on Criterion titles, you never end up paying that much and you can wait for sales, because most of their catalog stays in print.

People forget that they are not a studio, so they have to find and license the materials they release, and they charge what they do so that they don't have to just pick cash-cows for everything they tackle.

The codecs are the same across the formats, so no big hassle there. They can just do a Warner and keep the disc image size to 30GB. If they want to stick on an extra $5 for replication fees in both formats, whatever. But if they're going to basically say "if we can't have what we want in formats, then nobody is getting our products", well I can play that game too. Since I've already committed to not purchasing SD-DVD anymore, I guess I'm already technically boycotting Criterion products. I hope niche pricing in a mainstream, obsoleted format works out for them.

The codecs are the same across the formats, so no big hassle there. They can just do a Warner and keep the disc image size to 30GB. If they want to stick on an extra $5 for replication fees in both formats, whatever. But if they're going to basically say "if we can't have what we want in formats, then nobody is getting our products", well I can play that game too. Since I've already committed to not purchasing SD-DVD anymore, I guess I'm already technically boycotting Criterion products. I hope niche pricing in a mainstream, obsoleted format works out for them.


Really, asking them to go high-def now, is pretty-much expecting them to cut their own throat. They should just try one in a year or so and see what goes down.

As far as boycotting SD, my Anchor Bay ALEJANDRO JODOROWSKY boxed set just showed up today, and after decades of inferior boots, and censored third-generation imports of El Topo and Holy Mountain; I'd eat my $hit before I would let format snobbery get the way of seeing these DVDs (struck from original negs no less).

I hope niche pricing in a mainstream, obsoleted format works out for them.

It's going to work out great for them. Certain a lot better than releasing their stuff in HD at this stage.

When a huge, well-known classic like Casablanca can only sell a few hundred copies, how many copies of The Burmese Harp or Ivan’s Childhood do you think Criterion will sell?

Criterion is making a (smart) business decision here. They're not acting out of spite. While there is a small install base and a format war going on that is keeping lots of people away, it doesn't make any sense for them to release their catalog in HD (which is mostly made up of obscure, older, foreign titles).

I believe that they will wait.

However, it is a historical irony that they are waiting. Criterion was a pioneer in laserdisk over 20 years ago and pushed the envelope on interactive disks, special features, commentary tracks, etc.

They did not need a market analysis to tell them these were good idea. They shipped titles like Citizen Kane into a format that was practically invisible, giving that format its viability and also providing the model for DVD.

It is sad that a company that was so far ahead is now very deliberately behind.

I believe that they will wait.

However, it is a historical irony that they are waiting. Criterion was a pioneer in laserdisk over 20 years ago and pushed the envelope on interactive disks, special features, commentary tracks, etc.

They did not need a market analysis to tell them these were good idea. They shipped titles like Citizen Kane into a format that was practically invisible, giving that format its viability and also providing the model for DVD.

It is sad that a company that was so far ahead is now very deliberately behind.

I guess I wouldn't characterize them as being cowards, most any specialty label is sucking wind at the moment, and spending major coin to release to a format that can only be used by a sub-fraction of a fraction could be real trouble for them. I think they were always teetering on the edge with LD, and didn't Image have to buy them out (on LD)?

I'd rather have them join when the time is right, because if they went under I don't know who would fill the void.

Maybe it's not going out on a limb, but my prediction is that Criterion will announce releases within a year. The niche area does not bother them the way that it bothers some big studios. Sure, at this point the niche is small, but there weren't that many DVD players out there when Criterion ventured into DVD for the first time. And I would say that Criterion is more ready for the high def formats than they were for DVD back in 1998. Many of those early Criterion DVDs were horrible, as they used old laserdisc masters and no anamorphic enhancement. Today Criterion is sitting on many high def masters. As soon as it becomes clear that the two high def formats are here to stay (this has already become clear to some people), I expect Criterion will make an announcement, followed by the inevitible announcement of delays (this is Criterion, after all). Some of their first releases will probably be some of their higher profile properties, like The Seven Samurai, and don't forget their relationship with Universal. Releasing earlier rather than later also means these releases receive more attention from the news sites/forums.

Well, if Criterion released the Seven Samurai in high def, I would double dip at double the cost. If they released Ran, I would triple dip (Laserdisc, SD DVD already in hand!).

Well, if Criterion released the Seven Samurai in high def, I would double dip at double the cost. If they released Ran, I would triple dip (Laserdisc, SD DVD already in hand!).

I'm pretty sure Studio Canal is putting Ran out in a month or so.

Unfortunately, they'd do either an abomination like TotalHD (which means effectively both so why not do both separately?) or neither. My bet is on neither until at least 2008...

I've always appreciated the care and attention they give their movies and many of my favorite DVDs are Critereon (Spartacus, Kurosawa's stuff, etc).

It's interesting you mention Kurosawa because Seven Samurai was among their first releases thus one of the crappiest ever, hence they have re-released a vastly improved version later.

Well, if Criterion released the Seven Samurai in high def, I would double dip at double the cost. If they released Ran, I would triple dip (Laserdisc, SD DVD already in hand!).

Same here. Reason I stopped buying their stuff about a year ago is because I'm waiting for their HD releases now.

Oh and somebody, please, make a nice transfer of Looking for Mr Goodbar - it's ridiculous last release was VHS and I eventually ended up buying it on Laserdisc w/ LD player for it ...

I love Criterion but I wish they would stop whining about the format war and get on with the business of giving customers what they want. Criteron's market is people who love movies. Those very same people who buy Criterion releases have already bought high def TVs and high def players and are already upconverting their Criterion SD-DVDs. They all want to buy their Criterion releases in high def. Personally I prefer HD-DVD over Blu Ray because I appreciate how well Toshiba has treated their customers and I abhor Sony's business practices. But if necessary I will buy a Blu Ray player so that I can watch my Criterion releases in high def. STOP STALLING CRITERION! It's time to give your customers what they all want -- high definition, preferrably in HD-DVD.

Well, if Criterion released the Seven Samurai in high def, I would double dip at double the cost. If they released Ran, I would triple dip (Laserdisc, SD DVD already in hand!).

Definitely. I've already triple-dipped for Ran just on DVD!

I love Criterion but I wish they would stop whining about the format war and get on with the business of giving customers what they want. Criteron's market is people who love movies. Those very same people who buy Criterion releases have already bought high def TVs and high def players and are already upconverting their Criterion SD-DVDs. They all want to buy their Criterion releases in high def. Personally I prefer HD-DVD over Blu Ray because I appreciate how well Toshiba has treated their customers and I abhor Sony's business practices. But if necessary I will buy a Blu Ray player so that I can watch my Criterion releases in high def. STOP STALLING CRITERION! It's time to give your customers what they all want -- high definition, preferrably in HD-DVD.

Couldn't care less about them - if somebody else would start producing high-quality HD transfers of these type of movies I'd buy them immediately.

Same here. Reason I stopped buying their stuff about a year ago is because I'm waiting for their HD releases now.

Oh and somebody, please, make a nice transfer of Looking for Mr Goodbar - it's ridiculous last release was VHS and I eventually ended up buying it on Laserdisc w/ LD player for it ...

Boy, I'd at least like to see an SD of it if nothing else. It was kind of a big deal when it came out, so I'm frankly surprised that it hasn't been revisited in over a dozen years.

I was going to buy the LD back in the day, but it really wasn't much improvement over the VHS.

I love Criterion but I wish they would stop whining about the format war and get on with the business of giving customers what they want. Criteron's market is people who love movies. Those very same people who buy Criterion releases have already bought high def TVs and high def players and are already upconverting their Criterion SD-DVDs.


I can see why ya might think their customers are all pro-HDM, but I wouldn't bet on it. At this stage they could just as easily feel they made a big investment in the Criterion Collection as it is and don't feel the need to upgrade what they have long felt to be a definitive release.

Count me as someone who wants to see them be cautious and do what they need to do when they need to do it. There is no other company (in the US) who will place the same value Criterion has on vintage Foreign Language titles, to me they are indispensable.

The first one to 1080p wins. The hare thought it had the race won because it was so cool. Criterion better watch out, because making good masters is no longer a lost art form (despite what Sony attempted to prove), and HD is HD. I don't want to diss what Criterion has done in the past, because I am appreciative, but you must adapt or die (or buy a bunch of senators to change the law to protect your revenue stream).

I'll buy "Seven Samurai", "Ran", "Robocop", or whatever from the first company to give it to me on HDM, with a decent print. Extras or no extras. Even if it's $40.

The first one to 1080p wins. The hare thought it had the race won because it was so cool. Criterion better watch out, because making good masters is no longer a lost art form (despite what Sony attempted to prove), and HD is HD. I don't want to diss what Criterion has done in the past, because I am appreciative, but you must adapt or die (or buy a bunch of senators to change the law to protect your revenue stream).

I'll buy "Seven Samurai", "Ran", "Robocop", or whatever from the first company to give it to me on HDM, with a decent print. Extras or no extras. Even if it's $40.

Wow, you are really inflating the value of HDM at this juncture. Why should a company that releases titles that have limited appeal cripple themselves by entering a market where some titles have sold as little as 200 copies?

They never said they wouldn't, they just said this all had to be a little more sorted out.

There were a couple independent labels poised to release to HDM (Synapse, BCI), but when they started to see the numbers, they realized it would be suicidal until there was a more established buyer-base.

Give them some credit for knowing what the market will bare.

Give them some credit for knowing what the market will bare.
I guess one thing I am not taking into consideration is the cost of licensing. I am just thinking of actual replication cost, authoring costs, and such, which are negligible. I'd be paranoid about my primo titles being released by another studio first in HD, because it's going to be a hard sell to say "my HD-DVD is better than your HD-DVD". But then you could be right in that if they have to pay $500,000 to get the rights for a new release of some obscure Kurosawa film and it sells 5,000 copies at $50, then that's definately a bad deal.

Consider the foaming at my mouth mere enthusiasm for come big-time classics in real quality.

I'd be paranoid about my primo titles being released by another studio first in HD, because it's going to be a hard sell to say "my HD-DVD is better than your HD-DVD". But then you could be right in that if they have to pay $500,000 to get the rights for a new release of some obscure Kurosawa film and it sells 5,000 copies at $50, then that's definately a bad deal.

If the kind of stuff were getting now is any indication, you won't be seeing any 30-60 year-old foreign-language classics being pumped out by the majors anytime soon.

Even if they did it would be at such a slow rate that Criterion could hop on anytime they wanted. In fact, Criterion might even be grateful to see a studio risk releasing a few "art-house" films first, so they can see if they sell before they stick out their necks.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see them eventually do so, especially with some of their first less-than-stellar DVDs, or better yet, resurrect laser titles like their magnificent Repulsion set that never made it to DVD.

Everyone who is 'upset' at Criterion would be better off directing their energy in two different places:

1. Audience. Your fellow purchasers of HDM have begun to show that they aren't interested in the classics. Even something like Casablanca can only scare up pretty pathetic sales figures of a few hundred units. Until people out there start showing that they want stuff like that (instead of -- or at least in addition to -- things like Doom or Stealth), I expect even the major studios to hold back on these kinds of titles.

2. Retailers. Right now, few retailers are stocking titles in any quantity and they are sticking with major studios/titles. That's why BCI/Eclipse claims that they haven't released their HD DVDs that they planned for fall 2006 -- they can't get any presence at retail. Until the Best Buys and Wal-Marts of the world start stocking this stuff, good luck convincing an indie studio to release titles.


I expect most of these problems to sort themselves out with time, as the formats become more and more popular. And I think that Criterion does too... that's why they're waiting this out. And I don't blame them.

I have not bought a single Criterion DVD in the last 4 years. I wait for HD. Stunts like windowboxing don't really help either to make me buy any more DVDs from them. Image quality on their DVDs is uneven. Some are good, some have issues.

I guess one thing I am not taking into consideration is the cost of licensing. I am just thinking of actual replication cost, authoring costs, and such, which are negligible. I'd be paranoid about my primo titles being released by another studio first in HD, because it's going to be a hard sell to say "my HD-DVD is better than your HD-DVD". But then you could be right in that if they have to pay $500,000 to get the rights for a new release of some obscure Kurosawa film and it sells 5,000 copies at $50, then that's definately a bad deal.

Consider the foaming at my mouth mere enthusiasm for come big-time classics in real quality.

I'd highly doubt right to release an abscure movie would cost half a million dollar - if so then don't release it and tell the rights owner to f***k off, you are willing to pay $150k or he won't make a single cent.
If impossible to make money on it then don't buy it, he will have to lower the price - it's the good ol' supply and demand, as always.

I have not bought a single Criterion DVD in the last 4 years. I wait for HD. Stunts like windowboxing don't really help either to make me buy any more DVDs from them. Image quality on their DVDs is uneven. Some are good, some have issues.


How is windowboxing a stunt? It allows us to see information on films who's aspect ratio that doesn't conform to the shape of our TVs. I'd rather see tiny gray bars than the tops of heads lopped off.

Everyone who is 'upset' at Criterion would be better off directing their energy in two different places:

1. Audience. Your fellow purchasers of HDM have begun to show that they aren't interested in the classics. Even something like Casablanca can only scare up pretty pathetic sales figures of a few hundred units. Until people out there start showing that they want stuff like that (instead of -- or at least in addition to -- things like Doom or Stealth), I expect even the major studios to hold back on these kinds of titles.

As has been stated elsewhere, Casablanca is not the best example to use because it is one of Toshiba's giveaway titles, so presumably a fair number of people own it that is not reflected by those sales figures.

How is windowboxing a stunt? It allows us to see information on films who's aspect ratio that doesn't conform to the shape of our TVs. I'd rather see tiny gray bars than the tops of heads lopped off.

Many people, especially people on this forum, have displays with very little overscan, therefore the windowboxing is not only unnecessary, it is an annoyance. If Criterion continues this practice into high definition there will be a lot of outraged people around here.

How is windowboxing a stunt? It allows us to see information on films who's aspect ratio that doesn't conform to the shape of our TVs. I'd rather see tiny gray bars than the tops of heads lopped off.
Dumbing down disc content for shortcomings of displays of a part of the audience is simply... stupid. Some people's displays have their color screwed up. Others have soft displays. Yet others can't handle full range audio. Maybe we should optimize the master further by predistorting the color, sharpen the content and filter out all high and very low frequency detail from the audio? No? :rolleyes:

I'd highly doubt right to release an abscure movie would cost half a million dollar - if so then don't release it and tell the rights owner to f***k off, you are willing to pay $150k or he won't make a single cent.
If impossible to make money on it then don't buy it, he will have to lower the price - it's the good ol' supply and demand, as always.

If only it really worked that way. The media industry (and Hollywood), like the recording industry, doesn't operate on standard market principles like supply and demand. Seriously. A rights owner will sit on a property for 50 years hoping to strike oil and get rich. In other instances, rights get transferred and swapped so that a hot title isn't even possible to release anymore. It's more about ego and gambling than economics.

Many people, especially people on this forum, have displays with very little overscan, therefore the windowboxing is not only unnecessary, it is an annoyance. If Criterion continues this practice into high definition there will be a lot of outraged people around here.

It was my understanding that some 30's and 40's films have an almost vertical aspect ratio to accommodate the original audio track. If even the standard TV ratio is a tad wide there would still have to be a slight amount of dead space on the sides to avoid trimming the top or bottom if you filled the whole screen, even with some undrescanning. I'll agree that a complete masking on all sides doesn't make sense, but I haven't really seen much if any of that.

If only it really worked that way. The media industry (and Hollywood), like the recording industry, doesn't operate on standard market principles like supply and demand. Seriously. A rights owner will sit on a property for 50 years hoping to strike oil and get rich. In other instances, rights get transferred and swapped so that a hot title isn't even possible to release anymore. It's more about ego and gambling than economics.

That's true enough. This collector in Wisconsin owned the only existing print of Thomas Edison's Frankenstein from 1910. He sat on the dam thing for 50 years, trying to get a million bucks from AFI and other archives. Finally he himself did a half-assed DVD release from an of 35mm transfer, that lost money because he didn't have the wherewithal to market it.

Last year he was found dead of natural causes in his apartment, who know what happened to the originals. One thing is that his greed ended up costing him money in the end.

Studio's aren't even in possession of the best materials for the films they own the rights to, many Criterion releases require the rights be purchase one place and the film elements tracked down elsewhere.

Dumbing down disc content for shortcomings of displays of a part of the audience is simply... stupid. Some people's displays have their color screwed up. Others have soft displays. Yet others can't handle full range audio. Maybe we should optimize the master further by predistorting the color, sharpen the content and filter out all high and very low frequency detail from the audio? No? :rolleyes:

Why, thanks for the snottiest possible answer to a fair question.

I wrote criterion and they referred me to a somewhat dated but interesting blog that gives one a good idea where their perspective lies with HDM.
http://www.criterion.com/blog/2006_11_01_archive.html

It was my understanding that some 30's and 40's films have an almost vertical aspect ratio to accommodate the original audio track. If even the standard TV ratio is a tad wide there would still have to be a slight amount of dead space on the sides to avoid trimming the top or bottom if you filled the whole screen, even with some undrescanning. I'll agree that a complete masking on all sides doesn't make sense, but I haven't really seen much if any of that.

I'm not talking about pillarboxing, which preserves the aspect ratio for some older movies by placing black bars on the sides. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the term "windowboxing" and the merits therof. Criterion has used windowboxing on several releases. Hopefully this practice will stop when it comes to their high def releases. For more opinions on this practice, check this thread (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=233943&highlight=windowbox), which includes some very informational posts on the second page.

I'm not talking about pillarboxing, which preserves the aspect ratio for some older movies by placing black bars on the sides. There seems to be a lot of confusion about the term "windowboxing" and the merits therof. Criterion has used windowboxing on several releases. Hopefully this practice will stop when it comes to their high def releases. For more opinions on this practice, check this thread (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=233943&highlight=windowbox), which includes some very informational posts on the second page.


Interesting, I suppose it has some advantage to people who don't own a "state-of-the-art" TV. I honestly don't know how common TVs are with underscan capability. My LCD projector has it now that I use a DVDO upscailer, but my aging JVC SD set does not.

I'll concede that it's a practice who's days should be numbered.

Windowboxing is horrible, I'llnever buy anything framed, not even my fav movies.

Dumbing down disc content for shortcomings of displays of a part of the audience is simply... stupid.

Not for nothing, but it could be argued that LETTERBOXING is "dumbing down disc content for the shortcomings of displays", too. After all, precious pixels are thrown away on those black bars, merely because the displays don't conform to the aspect ratio of the original films.

Criterion has done more for classic films on home video than just about any other company. To dismiss them outright because you disagree with one of their practices is simply... stupid.

Vincent

Not for nothing, but it could be argued that LETTERBOXING is "dumbing down disc content for the shortcomings of displays", too. After all, precious pixels are thrown away on those black bars, merely because the displays don't conform to the aspect ratio of the original films.

Criterion has done more for classic films on home video than just about any other company. To dismiss them outright because you disagree with one of their practices is simply... stupid.

Vincent

So, do you support windowboxing for high def releases?

Why, thanks for the snottiest possible answer to a fair question.
You haven't seen snotty yet..
But yeah, such ideas from a supposedly videophile label make me angry indeed. It's as 'clever' as all the EE and noise reduction going on. :mad:

Not for nothing, but it could be argued that LETTERBOXING is "dumbing down disc content for the shortcomings of displays", too. After all, precious pixels are thrown away on those black bars, merely because the displays don't conform to the aspect ratio of the original films.
One could argue that but it's not so clear cut. Dumbing down means reducing the quality/format of the master to adapt it to shortcomings of displays. To some degree dumbing down for video is inevitable since the master is usually a 35mm film element and the display a video display with less resolution than this element. When dumbing down happens some points need to be looked at:
1. are there other means to achieve the desired effect?
2. is there a not dumbed down version available as well for people that do not want this dumbing down?
3. Is there actually any demand for that dumbing down?
4. How much dumbing down is the right amount?

Overscan
1. Turning overscan off where possible. Use a video processor. Buy a display without overscan.
2. Not available in Criterion's case (not from Criterion, that is).
3. Questionable. People aware of video technology and film technology tend to know about overscan and if they don't like it buy a display that has none or has defeatable overscan. People that are not aware of the issue will hardly look at the DVD and say: Hey! I'm missing some picture here! I WANT MORE PICTURE! (They see a picture with no borders after all and have no original to compare to. And original framing is usually not so critical that crucial details are cut off. The missing image due to pan and scan and other framing issues in the mastering chain are far more relevant.)
4. ? Overscan is not the same on all displays that have it.

Letterbox
1. Not really except for buying a widescreen display. Either letterbox or lose a good part of the picture (much more than the Overscan case and not only around all 4 edges symmetrically) (or use nonlinear scaling which looks, well, awful, if there is relevant stuff outside the center).
2. Many films have both, letterboxed and full screen.
3. There is demand since there are (many) people who want to see all of the film without the sides chopped off (much more image missing than the average overscan case and often involving important detail)
4. As much as needed to show the full width of the film. No ambiguity here.

Dumbing down disc content for shortcomings of displays of a part of the audience is simply... stupid. Some people's displays have their color screwed up. Others have soft displays. Yet others can't handle full range audio. Maybe we should optimize the master further by predistorting the color, sharpen the content and filter out all high and very low frequency detail from the audio? No? :rolleyes:

I can't agree more. I am strongly ambivalent with regards to Criterion. At least they figured out anamorphic, but the windowboxing is very bizarre and unfortunate. It doesn't bother me that much specifically because I can just zoom it, but for others I'm sure it's more irritating. But any label, videophile or not, should be attempting to idealize their content for a reference system, not a 27inch TV. The people who are not aware of overscan or anamorphic or whatnot don't know the difference, but the people who are then have to suffer.

On the other hand, they do have by far the most excellent transfers on DVD for many movies, so they do do excellent work there. That I'm extremely grateful for.

Criterion is now considering several of their best selling titles to be produced in an HD optical format and will make a decision on which format and titles will be released by mid-end of this summer.

-Robert

Hopefully it won't take them too long to figure out what is completely obvious to their customers. As I said, I love Criterion releases. They pick the best movies, take the greatest care in their transfers, and they have the only extras worth watching. All that's missing from their offering is 1080p, ideally on HD-DVD.

Criterion sits on some HD material that is potentially mouth watering, certainly as far as the film is concerned and technically as well extrapolating from the DVD. If they release high quality HD discs of films like, say "Il Gattopardo", I'm first in line to buy them. So many classics on HD would look a lot better than on any DVD.

One could argue that but it's not so clear cut. Dumbing down means reducing the quality/format of the master to adapt it to shortcomings of displays. To some degree dumbing down for video is inevitable since the master is usually a 35mm film element and the display a video display with less resolution than this element.

Some times aspect ratio is a tough call, the majority of widescreen titles from the mid-fifties on were shot open matte with the expectation that theaters would "soft-matte" at point of projection.

I've seen some transfers of films both new and old that are all over the map, sometimes zooming in on specific scenes so that info is lost on all four sides.

The composition of animation tends to be easy to "read," so I find the cropping of cartoons from the 30's-50's often very pronounced. Sadly in many cases some cropping issues originate in the carelessly made preservation prints and inter-negs themselves. When cartoons were no longer viable to theatrical screenings, but still in demand for television syndication packages, transfers that zoomed in to compensate for small TV screens became routine, many titles exist only in that compromised form.

So, do you support windowboxing for high def releases?

In HD there's no need for windowboxing- 4:3 material would simply be pillarboxed within the 16:9 frame. The problem Criterion was addressing when windowboxing classic 4:3 movies is that the vast majority of 4:3 standard-def monitors would be cropping the image on ALL FOUR SIDES due to overscan. With 16:9 HD monitors, this is no longer an issue.

Vincent

In HD there's no need for windowboxing- 4:3 material would simply be pillarboxed within the 16:9 frame. The problem Criterion was addressing when windowboxing classic 4:3 movies is that the vast majority of 4:3 standard-def monitors would be cropping the image on ALL FOUR SIDES due to overscan. With 16:9 HD monitors, this is no longer an issue.

Nonetheless, they continue to do it.

Nonetheless, they continue to do it.

Yes, but the question he was asked was if he supported it in HD releases.