Criterion: Cropping & Original Aspect Ratios

[mbalson]

Well it would seem that way. Which doesn't make it any more acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Although this apparent cropping is actually overscanning, one of the worst offenders is The Leopard in which, take the opening prayers scene, you can hardly see Pierre Clementi on the edge, but he is visible and all the frame contents are paradoxically visible in the Fox Scope version.

An apt example of Criterion's overly-tight framing of "The Leopard". Not only is Clementi visible in the Fox version, he's visible in the older Medusa version, as well. And he's there, by the way, whenever the film's shown on a movie screen, just as the director intended. (You could probably see him in the Criterion transfer, too, if you've got a TV set with zero overscan. But just barely.)

Unfortunately, Criterion seems to be in denial regarding this particular problem with the disc. They seem to prefer repeating the refrain that the film's DP Guiseppe Rotunno approved their transfer, and that folks at Criterion are perfectly happy with it, and leave it at that. (Fine, but there's no way I'm believing Rotunno ok'd Criterion's framing. Not if he watched the disc on a TV set with the usual 5-10% overscan.)

As if to prove Criterion's lie, or at least their state of denial, the BFI (which uses Criterion's transfer on their own edition) chose to add slight black bars to the frame on their version. Though not a popular practice among DVD purists, the BFI decided it was wiser to add black bars to the left and right sides of the frame (and thereby lose a bit of image resolution), than let the composition damage caused by Criterion's 'creative reframing' persist on their disc.

By trading black bars for viewable image area, the viewer can now see more of the available frame, and more of the action within that frame, which would have been lost to overscan on the Criterion disc. (And in showing more of the frame, the BFI also provides something nearer to the 2.21:1 aspect ratio both versions claim to offer.) For my money, the BFI version of "The Leopard" looks closer to how the film might appear on a movie screen, than the Criterion does. That point, at least for me, is an essential factor in deciding whether to buy these discs in the first place.

[mbalson]

While windowboxing has been useful in the past it really isn't a good idea for the future. More and more people are gaining setups that eliminate overscan and it's generally a bad idea to author for the lowest common denominator. Really, this topic isn't even about windowboxing or overscan, it's about cropping. The removal of valid image information from the picture entirely.
Having said that, I don't we're going to get any closer to understanding why this occurs on a fair amount of releases without further information from someone closer to Criterion.

[jcelwin]

While I watch most movies with overscan, I still like the fact that they are using the maximum resolution as it would be better for future systems. It would be nice if most dvd-players had a zoom that allowed many different levels so that users could eliminate overscan themselves.

If the cropping is a result of severely damaged edges of the print, then I see no problem with it. However, when companies crop another edge (which they surely must) to bring the original aspect ratio back, then I see this as a major problem. It would be much better just leaving the edge empty (black) instead of cropping another.

[Gregory]

If they were cropping to get an exact ratio one would expect it to be from either the sides or the top and bottom. However, Criterion's cropping is often the image is cropped on two adjacent sides (e.g. top and left).

The windowboxing proposal is controversial, but what I've suggested -- providing a little extra image, rather than too little, that may or may not be hidden by overscan ensuring that the more important parts of the image always remain visible -- is much less so. For me, the only mysteries here are why they don't do that and, if they do have a good reason not to, why they won't state it to people who enquire about this issue.

[jcelwin]

If they were cropping to get an exact ratio one would expect it to be from either the sides or the top and bottom. However, Criterion's cropping is often the image is cropped on two adjacent sides (e.g. top and left).

Exactly. When cropping the image to remove damage or as a process of the restoration, it is very unlikely that the amount removed will leave the image in the 'original aspect ratio'. So, in order to bring the image back to the 'original aspect ratio' they would either have to add a border or crop a perpendicular side/s. As you have pointed out this is what usually happens.

It seems that extra cropping is the most frequent solution, as it isn't usually very obvious and still looks like the ratio is maintained.

[mbalson]

The windowboxing proposal is controversial, but what I've suggested -- providing a little extra image, rather than too little, that may or may not be hidden by overscan ensuring that the more important parts of the image always remain visible -- is much less so.

I can think of two Criterion releases that loose picture information to so-called preventative matting: 'Charade' and 'M'. Charade is essentially the 16X9 Universal transfer with thin black bars on either side that mask out otherwise visible picture. Also, as the DVDBeaver comparisonshows Criterion's remastered 'M' has less image than the Eureka disc. Criterion states that it is presented in it's OAR of 1.19:1, which should mean that more picture information is visible vertically when compared to a 1.33:1 transfer. This is not true as the Eureka disc shows more picture on all sides. It's a real shame because the Criterion transfer is clearly the best in terms of detail and contrast.

[Tribe]

Any ideas how this is happening, and I mean Criterion's cropping issues. Is it just plain sloppiness?

[Guest]

Really, this topic isn't even about windowboxing or overscan, it's about cropping. The removal of valid image information from the picture entirely.

Right, but in the case of "The Leopard", windowboxing was, apparently, the best solution the BFI could come up with to deal with the cropping problem Criterion handed them. It's unfortunate Criterion provided the BFI with a master that was so tightly cropped -- overcropped -- to begin with, rather than give them something closer to full-width (which in the case of Italian Technirama would probably have an ar of 2.42:1). Ironically, since Technirama was especially designed for adjustable aspect ratio printing (1.85; 2.21; 2.35; 2.66:1), there's already more than enough 'extra' image area on the sides of the frame to lose to any overscan. But Criterion, having cropped the original frame so tightly, almost seems to have disregarded the overscan issue here. Hence, most viewers lose a portion of viewable image area that, in most any other case, would be completely inconsequential. However, when the frame is, essentially, overcropped to begin with, that bit of image area now becomes valuable property of a sort. At least the BFI seemed to think so.

Why is "The Leopard", among other Criterion titles, so tightly cropped? I don't know enough about dvd mastering to say for sure, but my best guess is that tight framing contributes to a better-looking video image. In mastering a film for dvd, there are only so many lines of video resolution to work with, and devoting those lines to a relatively tight, compact image area is probably going to provide a picture that's more 'impactful'. In the end, the DVDs image will be richer, sharper, better-defined. (The picture on the disc of "The Leopard" certainly is.) But that's just an educated guess. Maybe someone with more technical expertise can verify that theory-- or shoot it down. Of course, if that is the case, that Criterion images look so good because, in part, they're tightly cropped, I wish someone from Criterion would just admit it.

[Guest]

David, as you may know, "The Leopard" was shot in 35mm, as were all Technirama and Super-Technirama films (the filming process was the same, it's the printing processes that differ). Unlike standard 35mm filming, the Technirama system utilized a double-frame, 8-perf, 35mm negative that ran through the specially designed camera horizontally, rather than vertically. The large-format anamorphic negative would then be printed up in multiple formats (flat 35, anamorphic 35, flat 70, anamorphic 16) and at various aspect ratios (1.85, 2.35, 2.21, 2.66).

Until the early 1960s, when "The Leopard" was made, the fully-unsqueezed image exposed on an 8-perf Technirama frame had an aspect ratio of approximately 2.42:1. (On European productions, that is. The camera aperture plate specs on Technirama's American films were slightly different, producing a 2.25:1 image when unsqueezed.) Now, since aperture specs on Technirama's European productions were, in fact, changing at the time "The Leopard" was filmed (Spring/Summer '62), it's entirely possible that full-frame width on "The Leopard" is actually only 2.25. Still, based on what probably amounts to circumstantial evidence (and an educated hunch or two), I'm going to bet that Visconti and Rotunno were working with those older 2.42 European specs. (Though I do admit I could be wrong.)

[denti alligator]

Maybe peerpee could chime in here. He's overseen the process of transfering film to dvd (I assume, as the man who runs MoC) and might be able to shed some light on the process and the choices made: how much of the negative to crop or not, etc. Since MoC's Onibaba shows more of the negative than Criterion's, maybe his insights will help us better understand what's going on.

[l'avventurist]

So, while i understand this thread is supposed to be about cropping, the sticky issue of overscan keeps popping up. I'm wondering how others on the forum overcome overscan. I've noticed that overscanning loses about 10-12% of the image on a dvd player with TV versus on my laptop. i prefer not to watch dvds on a laptop, but what is one to do?

[AZAI]

the overscan issue is my no. 1 annoyance, and as far as I know the only way to deal with it is a DVD-player with incremental zoom, so you can zoom out with small steps. Unfort. I am still looking for a decent one, at least here in Europe these players are hard to come by. Some threads on dvd-players/overscan.

[mbalson]

and as far as I know the only way to deal with it is a DVD-player with incremental zoom, so you can zoom out with small steps.

You could get a display that doesn't overscan. My 42" Sony Grand Wega is one of the most common TVs around and it doesn't take much to get into those service menus and eliminate overscan. At this moment my TV only has about a 3 pixel overscan. Most times while watching HDTV or DVD there is so little overscan that rough edges from the source are visible. I'd rather that than cutting something off.

[otis]

mk2:

Criterion:


DVD Beaver wrote:

Also Criterion have been caught a number of times with cropping issues in the past, but since the use of their new quantization matrix (1st seen in Pickpocket) this no longer seems to be an issue, but we will keep attentive in any case. This is actually very good news as it shows that Criterion appear to be improving - raising the bar another notch.

No idea what a quantization matrix is, but it seems to have worked with Tirez sur le pianiste. Maybe someone at Criterion likes us after all.

[Gregory]

This explains it fully but is fairly technical.

[denti alligator]

their new quantization matrix (1st seen in Pickpocket) this no longer seems to be an issue.

But it was an issue with Pickpocket...

[Andre Jurieu]

But it was an issue with Pickpocket...

Did the missing Coca-Cola sign really effect the film that much? It's not like they cropped the radio out of Au Hasard Balthazar.

[stroszeck]

I finally got the time to watch Tales of Hoffman last night, and in my opinion, a pretty glorious transfer, but again, I noticed this same damn Criterion cropping problem. So far this year, both Pickpocket and Tales showed significant "slicing" in the left and right hand sides of the frame. CLEARLY cut were whole words from the individual booklet introductions to the tales in Hoffman, which made it difficult and annoying to read so I had to pause or rewind to read the character descriptions.

I still don't understand how in spite of their otherwise flawless work, that Criterion would allow something like this, which I was told by a friend occurred especially severly on his original Playtime issue, to continue on? Its friggin annoying, to say the least. Are we supposed to shoot off more e-mails to Mulvaney?

[glueman]

CLEARLY cut were whole words from the individual booklet introductions to the tales in Hoffman, which made it difficult and annoying to read so I had to pause or rewind to read the character descriptions.

I watched this on my computer and didn't notice anything missing from the introductions; reviewing these just now via TV, however, I can see what you mean. Regardless of any 'cropping' there may be, the practical problem here is TV overscan.

[thechallenger]

What is Criterion doing to address the following releases with wrong aspect ratios.

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (102)
- The correct aspect ratio is 1.66:1 but the transfer is around 1.78:1

Gertrud (127) from the Dreyer Box Set.
- The correct aspect ratio is 1.66:1 but the transfer is around 1.78:1

The Marriage of Maria Braun (204) from the Fassbinder's BRD Trilogy.
- The correct aspect ratio is 1.66:1 but the transfer is around 1.78:1

Are there any other Criterion releases suffering from this problem?

Monsters and Madmen - all four films at cropped and/or reformatted bogus 1.33:1 ratios, when they should be 1.66:1 or 1.85:1.