Artificial Eye / Curzon Film World

Vinegar Syndrome, Deaf Crocodile, Imprint, Cinema Guild, and more.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Artificial Eye

#1226 Post by manicsounds » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:27 am

I remember one of the new Ealing Studios Optimum DVDs were also like this. Which means if you still have a 'square' TV, then the picture will be completely windowboxed. Very silly decision, yes.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#1227 Post by peerpee » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:16 am

Felix wrote:Some DVD players, such as my Sony DVD recorder, require one to go into the core menu settings to set it for either 4:3 or 16:9. Presumably it won't be necessary on these discs.
All DVD players have an option in the menus which toggles between 4:3 / 16:9 / or AUTO. When DVD players first came out, a lot of them defaulted to 4:3 out of the box, but since about 2000, most DVD players default to "AUTO" which means that if a DVD is flagged anamorphically, it will auto identify it and flip to 16:9.

The problem with this, from about 2006 onwards, was that 16:9 TVs then brought another layer of complexity into things and, depending on which brand you have, and whether you're connected via SCART or not, the TV usually screws things up and displays the DVD either cropped and zoomed in *14:9*, 4:3 stretched to 16:9, or 16:9 squished to 4:3. A giant, appalling user interface problem which everyone's been wrestling with for years.

Blu-rays are natively 16:9 (1920x1080) and thus don't require any anamorphic popping or anything. Quite a relief, but now this seems to be retroactively affecting DVD authoring of 1.33:1 films!

User avatar
Felix
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: A dark damp land where the men all wear skirts

Re: Artificial Eye

#1228 Post by Felix » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:36 am

peerpee wrote:
Felix wrote:Some DVD players, such as my Sony DVD recorder, require one to go into the core menu settings to set it for either 4:3 or 16:9. Presumably it won't be necessary on these discs.
All DVD players have an option in the menus which toggles between 4:3 / 16:9 / or AUTO. When DVD players first came out, a lot of them defaulted to 4:3 out of the box, but since about 2000, most DVD players default to "AUTO" which means that if a DVD is flagged anamorphically, it will auto identify it and flip to 16:9.
Not sure if I read you correctly but mine all play at 16:9 regardless of anamorphic and if I wish it to be 4:3 I have to go into the video output menu to change it, handset will not do it. OK with 1.66 though.

To be sure it doesn;t explain why they are doing the disc this way, can't imagine they would care.

Jonathan S
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Artificial Eye

#1229 Post by Jonathan S » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:43 am

With my DVD player and 16:9 projector set-up, I've always had to choose the display format on the projector - 16:9, 4:3 or occasionally zoom for non-anamorphic titles. I seldom use my blu-ray player (partly because it's so bloody slow, but it's not multi-region even for DVD and the projector is SD anyway) but I recently discovered that machine has an additional option in its set-up menu that recognises 16:9 or 4:3 automatically (though not with TV broadcasts I've tried).

When using this player option, I was amazed to discover that Academy ratio films display slightly wider than when selecting 4:3 on the projector - and, to cut a long story short, I eventually realised through extensive comparisons that the projector's 4:3 option crops the sides of all Academy ratio films! I always assumed this was impossible on a 16:9 display as there is so much space at the sides. It's no worse (perhaps less bad) than overscan on a 4:3 TV, but enough for instance to crop the end off one of the huge horns in the second shot of Black Narcissus... which I'd always assumed was the fault of the DVD transfer!

User avatar
TMDaines
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:01 pm
Location: Stretford, Manchester

Re: Artificial Eye

#1230 Post by TMDaines » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:48 am

I'm not sure whether this still the case but most Sky HD boxes can't automatically switch between content either. 4:3 gets automatically stretched to 16:9 and the only way to solve it, is to squish it to 4:3 with your TV settings, which of course fucks the EPG up. It's now hard to imagine Del Boy and Rodney in their normal proportions.

User avatar
Felix
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: A dark damp land where the men all wear skirts

Re: Artificial Eye

#1231 Post by Felix » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:51 am

Jonathan S wrote:With my DVD player and 16:9 projector set-up, I've always had to choose the display format on the projector - 16:9, 4:3 or occasionally zoom for non-anamorphic titles. I seldom use my blu-ray player (partly because it's so bloody slow, but it's not multi-region even for DVD and the projector is SD anyway) but I recently discovered that machine has an additional option in its set-up menu that recognises 16:9 or 4:3 automatically (though not with TV broadcasts I've tried).
My BR recognises the AR automatically, even though it is also a Sony and it does play anything I have recorded on the other one at the correct ratio even though the recorder itself won't... So a 4:3 film I have recorded is16:9 on the recorder but when I burn it to disc and play it on the BR it plays back correctly. It's a pain for a technophobe like me.

User avatar
Felix
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: A dark damp land where the men all wear skirts

Re: Artificial Eye

#1232 Post by Felix » Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:53 am

TMDaines wrote:I'm not sure whether this still the case but most Sky HD boxes can't automatically switch between content either. 4:3 gets automatically stretched to 16:9 and the only way to solve it, is to squish it to 4:3 with your TV settings, which of course fucks the EPG up. It's now hard to imagine Del Boy and Rodney in their normal proportions.
I think that women have become fatter since 16:9 came in because images were stretched out and they became accustomed to women on TV looking wider too...

User avatar
lubitsch
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#1233 Post by lubitsch » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:24 pm

The same authoring idea occured to Murnau Stiftung in Germany. There was a wave of protest (myself included) and since the original DVD had also an out-of-sync soundtrack, it was withdrawn and reformatted.

Could anyone who got or will get the set please confirm that this is really the case with the Mizoguchi box?

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#1234 Post by MichaelB » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:29 pm

I was very annoyed when Optimum withdrew their edition of Napoléon at almost the last minute a few years ago, not for the obvious reason but because I'd just written a blistering Sight & Sound review complaining about the anamorphic 4:3 treatment.

I suspect the rationale was twofold: firstly, by lowering the resolution it helped cram a very long film onto a single disc (!), and secondly, by making the entire film anamorphic it meant that no glitches were introduced when it switched to the triptychs at the end.

That wasn't the only problem with that release: it was the Coppola version, which meant that it was running at the wrong speed (24fps versus Kevin Brownlow's recommended 20fps - actually, since it was PAL it may have been 25fps!) - so it was no great loss to the DVD market when it was withdrawn for rights reasons. Mind you, I do appreciate that for those who haven't been lucky enough to see it "live" with the Carl Davis score, even a second-rate version might have been better than nothing - but it was decidedly second-rate.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#1235 Post by Michael Kerpan » Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:25 pm

lubitsch wrote:Could anyone who got or will get the set please confirm that this is really the case with the Mizoguchi box?
My copy is supposedly "in the mail".

User avatar
manicsounds
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Tokyo, Japan

Re: Artificial Eye

#1236 Post by manicsounds » Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:27 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:
lubitsch wrote:Could anyone who got or will get the set please confirm that this is really the case with the Mizoguchi box?
My copy is supposedly "in the mail".
Michael Kerpan, you went with the DVD version? Seriously?

I got the Blu-ray version, so there will be no trouble for me aspect ratio-wise.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#1237 Post by Michael Kerpan » Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:10 pm

manicsounds wrote:Michael Kerpan, you went with the DVD version? Seriously?
Not willing to pay an extra $30 for BRDs that I expect won't look that much better to me than the DVDs. Had the premium not been so high, I would have gone Blu, however ... ;~}

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#1238 Post by MichaelB » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:49 am

Michael Kerpan wrote:
manicsounds wrote:Michael Kerpan, you went with the DVD version? Seriously?
Not willing to pay an extra $30 for BRDs that I expect won't look that much better to me than the DVDs. Had the premium not been so high, I would have gone Blu, however ... ;~}
The Blu-rays are currently going at fully twice the price of the DVDs, and DVDs are much more convenient for me for many reasons. I haven't taken the plunge in either direction yet, but the DVDs are offering much better value for money right now*.

*aside from potential formatting issues, that is.

User avatar
John Edmond
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#1239 Post by John Edmond » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:52 am

Currently is the key word. It's Artificial Eye, in 3-6 months time those blu-rays will be cheaper than the DVD are now. And if your eyes are so visually sensitive to a lower resolution that the formatting issue (which is basically an acknowledgement that people are more likely to own a 16:9 TV nowadays) is a significant problem....well you should probably be buying the blu-rays, even if they are double the price.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#1240 Post by MichaelB » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:58 am

John Edmond wrote:Currently is the key word. It's Artificial Eye, in 3-6 months time those blu-rays will be cheaper than the DVD are now. And if your eyes are so visually sensitive to a lower resolution that the formatting issue (which is basically an acknowledgement that people are more likely to own a 16:9 TV nowadays) is a significant problem....well you should probably be buying the blu-rays, even if they are double the price.
I'm fully aware of the resolution advantage, but I'd never pay double price for a Blu-ray over a DVD. Especially not for films that weren't in the best condition to begin with.

But of course the reason why I haven't bought either package yet is precisely because I'm equally aware of Artificial Eye's pricing history - I bought a whole load of their back catalogue Blu-rays for just £6.49 apiece last month.

User avatar
John Edmond
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#1241 Post by John Edmond » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:12 am

Yep - I do wonder if Artificial Eye should be slightly less rigorous with their pricing, anybody who's vaguely money conscious waits.

I wouldn't pay that much extra for a blu-ray either, but my point was that if you're that finicky about resolution that the formatting problem is an issue then you're probably somebody who should pay double for a blu-ray, it'll be worth it to you. But only if you're that finicky. I'm also guessing that companies that release DVDs and blu-rays of the same movie are going to be less worried about the visual quality of the DVD release being optimal - they know that the really picky consumers are buying the blu-ray.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#1242 Post by MichaelB » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:26 am

John Edmond wrote:I wouldn't pay that much extra for a blu-ray either, but my point was that if you're that finicky about resolution that the formatting problem is an issue then you're probably somebody who should pay double for a blu-ray, it'll be worth it to you. But only if you're that finicky. I'm also guessing that companies that release DVDs and blu-rays of the same movie are going to be less worried about the visual quality of the DVD release being optimal - they know that the really picky consumers are buying the blu-ray.
Then again, the DVDs should be sourced from the same HD masters, so there's no reason why they shouldn't look absolutely fine (for SD video). I can't speak for Artificial Eye, but I certainly haven't seen any evidence that, say, my former BFI colleagues are deliberately cutting costs on the DVDs so they can devote more time to the Blu-rays. In all the cases where I've looked at both, the DVDs have turned out exactly how I'd expect them to turn out once resolution and bitrate differences are taken into account.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#1243 Post by peerpee » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:41 am

When we used to receive Digibeta downconversions from HD masters, we'd often receive anamorphic 16:9 Digibeta downconversions of 1.33:1 films (ie. correct aspect ratio film (1.33:1) but incorrectly rendered anamorphically within a 16:9 frame with pillarboxing as part of the screen information), and had to send them back and request a 1.33:1 non-anamorphic Digibeta downconversion. I heard about exactly the same thing happening with another UK label just a few months ago and luckily they dealt with it in time.

So many SD downconversions are done of 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1 films from HD masters that they probably just left the 16:9 switch flipped on the 4:3 stuff.

I suppose it's possible (if this really has happened on the AE Mizoguchi discs (and what happened on those StudioCanal DVDs of Ealing stuff) that this has just been an oversight that someone hasn't really put too much thought into?

User avatar
John Edmond
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#1244 Post by John Edmond » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:42 am

Sorry. Not saying BFI have, and I do hope companies don't - I was just pointing out that a fraction of the finicky pressure has been taken off the DVD market. That wasn't meant to be a bash on AE, more a comment on human/company nature. Hopefully standards maintain, but who knows. If you can almost fit the movie and extras on one DVD9 without causing any problems, and you're already releasing a blu-ray for the finicky crowd...Anyway, tangental, it was mostly idle thought.

peerpee
not perpee
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:41 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#1245 Post by peerpee » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:49 am

It's getting harder and harder to find out any hard facts about DVD editions when they also have Blu-ray editions. Everywhere just reviews the BD, and nobody bothers with the DVDs. I totally understand why, and I'm personally only interested in the BDs -- but it's just an observation from the last year or so!

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#1246 Post by MichaelB » Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:55 am

peerpee wrote:It's getting harder and harder to find out any hard facts about DVD editions when they also have Blu-ray editions. Everywhere just reviews the BD, and nobody bothers with the DVDs. I totally understand why, and I'm personally only interested in the BDs -- but it's just an observation from the last year or so!
Some companies send me both versions to review - Eureka and the BFI do this regularly, and others do it occasionally - but in general I get sent one format or the other, and it's usually (though not always) the Blu-ray.

And of course even if I get sent both formats it's very rare that I'll actually watch both all the way through, though if they have a commentary I generally watch it on the DVD rather than the Blu-ray, so at least I can get a good idea of what the transfer is like visually.

Jonathan S
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:31 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Artificial Eye

#1247 Post by Jonathan S » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:51 am

peerpee wrote:I suppose it's possible (if this really has happened on the AE Mizoguchi discs...
Yes, I can confirm it has happened - on a 4:3 TV the image is very heavily windowboxed on all four sides. I now watch everything on a 16:9 projector so it shouldn't bother me too much. But the set will be going back to Amazon - two discs are badly scratched (though not loose) and on another the turquoise colour from the AE banner on the label has leaked right through the disc, causing it to freeze....

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

Re: Artificial Eye

#1248 Post by Tommaso » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:57 am

Thanks for the information. There's no way I'm buying this set in this form. I only hope that the Eclipse Mizo set has sold relatively well, so that CC will do something for "Chrysanthemums" and "Utamaro".

User avatar
lubitsch
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm

Re: Artificial Eye

#1249 Post by lubitsch » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:03 am

I already sent a protest mail to info@artificial-eye.com (their homeentertainment mail gives me a delivery failure) . The more they get the better.

Edit: The mail was forwarded to their team steve.lewis@artificial-eye.com and richard.mortiboys@artificial-eye.com
Last edited by lubitsch on Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Artificial Eye

#1250 Post by MichaelB » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:14 am

peerpee wrote:When we used to receive Digibeta downconversions from HD masters, we'd often receive anamorphic 16:9 Digibeta downconversions of 1.33:1 films (ie. correct aspect ratio film (1.33:1) but incorrectly rendered anamorphically within a 16:9 frame with pillarboxing as part of the screen information), and had to send them back and request a 1.33:1 non-anamorphic Digibeta downconversion. I heard about exactly the same thing happening with another UK label just a few months ago and luckily they dealt with it in time.

So many SD downconversions are done of 1.66:1, 1.85:1, and 2.35:1 films from HD masters that they probably just left the 16:9 switch flipped on the 4:3 stuff.
Whenever I had to deal directly with telecine and transfer houses, I'd typically be anal to the point of making Viz's Mr Logic seem casually lackadaisical in terms of specifying exactly what I wanted the end result to look like. Not least because if I had to ask them to do it again, I'd have written evidence that they didn't follow my original instructions.

Annoyingly, sometimes I'd find mistakes that I hadn't anticipated - for instance, I really should have flagged up in advance that Cottage to Let has a flash of red, because the telecine house presumably thought that since it was a black and white film, they'd set everything to greyscale from the start. Unsurprisingly, they weren't prepared to do it again for the sake of a single frame - at least not at their expense - so I had to wait until BFI DVD Publishing remastered it properly for DVD and then borrow their master.

Post Reply