Seven Samurai Criterion Re-Release

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.

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/DVDCom...vensamurai.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.

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.



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/...pic.php?t=3895

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

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.

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.

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.

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'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:


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


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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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