The controversy about 16x9 enhanced discs, their benefits and their downfalls are as old as the DVD format itself. Interestingly Criterion has issued some information on their website this week, as to why their upcoming Special Edition release of “Armageddon” and other releases are not 16x9 enhanced. This explanation is by far the most ridiculous excuse I have heard from any publisher in this regard.

Anamorphic discs contain additional information that is visible only on 16x9 widescreen TV sets. For all other users, the picture content of the disc is automatically reduced to the lower resolution needed to display letterboxed images on standard 3:4 TV sets. The reduction of information can introduce aliasing distortion and is a side effect of these anamorphic discs.

Now, one of Criterion’s claims why they don’t support 16x9 enhanced discs is that they cannot guarantee maximum quality of these discs because every player handles this downconversion differently and the results would be unpredictable and thus unacceptable. While it is true that the converted image might look different on every player, fact of the matter is that it is working perfectly well for all other studios. Any 16x9 enhanced disc on the market looks better than the half-hearted releases Criterion is presenting us with. While they still contain a plethora of supplements, the actual quality of the feature film and these supplements is almost constantly sub par and does not meet the quality standards set by studios like Universal or Columbia. Especially in the light of the dawning age of high definition TVs, this argument is bursting like a bubble. All HDTV sets are widescreen and support anamorphic modes. If Criterion would think only one year ahead, the imminent need for 16x9 enhanced releases would be blatantly obvious to them. It almost seems as if the company doesn’t have the slightest interest in maintaining their already cracked reputation as a supplier of the best possible video entertainment.

However, I don’t really care about Criterion giving up their former market-leading position to competitors like Universal, New Line or Warner. What I really don’t like is Criterion’s attitude. In another part of their exposition about anamorphic releases, Criterion’s Jon Mulvaney expresses his fear that DVD users are not able to set up their players correctly and would as a result watch their releases in a “squeezed” format. This disrespectful and ignorant comment is as if a Hollywood studio were saying “We’re not doing theatrical movies because some projectionists might not know how to set up the soft mattes correctly.” In fact, it shows what kind of attitude Criterion has developed towards its customers. It makes me wonder what they are in business for in the first place, if everyone “out there” is just an uneducated idiot who doesn’t appreciate the beauty of their work anyway. Well, I guess, as long as we pay them, they just don’t really care that much and all this continuous marketing babble about their superior quality is nothing but thin air.

To top things off, Criterion’s Jon Mulvaney offers us some insight into the fact that anamorphic enhancements are inappropriate for standard 1.33:1 aspect ratios. While this is true, fact of the matter is, that a vast number, if not the majority, of Criterion’s library consists of films that feature a 1.85:1 aspect ratio or higher. Ratios where 16x9 enhancements would make perfect sense.

Ever since Criterion entered the DVD market I wondered what happened to this company’s original philosophy? The company that used to bring us the highest quality in home video entertainment has degraded itself to a mediocre and unreliable outlet of DVD shovelware. While the selection of their titles may be laudable for some part, Criterion has not yet even started to scratch the surface of their library. Many DVD owners had the highest of hopes for Criterion to deliver goods other publishers denied them, but Criterion has yet to deliver.

To me it looks like Criterion just don’t want to make a substantial investment into DVD. The company has spent fortunes on their Laserdisc box sets and sold them for fortunes as well. With DVD prices as low as they are, Criterion seems to have a serious dilemma. With the arthaus film selections they currently offer the market is extremely limited and it is hard if not impossible to recoup the costs for new anamorphic film transfers. In other cases, licensing might be an issue, when Criterion has to use certain transfers given to them by other studios. All this is understandable. The cheap excuses and the arrogance with which the company now presents itself as the self-imposed caretaker and insults its customers is hardly excusable however.

That’s it for this week. Until the next time, take care and keep those DVDs spinning.

 January 18, 1998

© 1997-99 by “DVD Review”. All rights reserved.