I was very pleased to hear that many of you agreed with me regarding last week’s evaluation of Warner’s introduction of low price DVDs in the market, although they contain pan&scan transfers and Dolby Surround soundtracks only. By the way, it is most likely that instead of seeing cropped pan&scan versions of the films in the fullscreen $14.95 line-up, we will find open matter transfers on the DVDs, which actually add additional picture information at the top and bottom, instead of cropping the image at the sides. I am also aware, however, that there are people out there, who believe every transfer is a bad one, unless it has black bars… well, what can you say?
Some interesting questions were raised in the context however, which I would like to publicly address and discuss here.

Why are pan&scan transfers cheaper than letterbox transfers? It seems I have been a little unclear on this issue. Per se pan&scan transfers are not cheaper, but the fact that they are readily available from the according VHS releases, while letterbox versions oftentimes require completely new transfers, makes them cheaper. The cost to create the actual transfer has already been offset against the VHS releases.

Why don’t studios just put both versions on a disc? After all it can’t be so expensive, can it? The answer is simple, yes it can be extremely expensive. Again letterbox transfers for many films are not available or tangled in licensing limbo. Simply because there is a Laserdisc with a widescreen transfer floating around, does not mean the studio releasing the DVD has the rights to use that very transfer. Make no mistake, there are more lawyers in Hollywood than anywhere else in the world, I would assume, and they all are there just to make sure no one gets away with something he doesn’t have the explicit rights to. So, putting two versions of a film on a disc does not only require two transfers, one of which might have to be created from scratch at substantial costs, it also requires additional authoring and pressing costs. This is absolutely nothing any studio can do “el cheapo” and the most important reason why studios like Warner and Columbia are doing this for most of their regular releases is simple. Both studios have actively been involved in the creation of DVD and own a number of patents in the format. They want to see DVD to succeed, because every released DVD disc, no matter from which publisher, and every DVD player sold, produces money for them. They push the envelop with their releases because they want to make sure the format looks and feels as attractive as it can.

Studios will make DVD a success only if they put plenty of supplements and letterbox version on the discs. Quality sells and everything else is pointless and will not help to expand the market. This comment can be heard a lot, but it has more to do with wishful thinking than the reality of home video markets, unfortunately. The problem is that “quality” is subjective, especially when it comes to home video, it seems. If we can agree on the fact that DVD needs to expand its market if it ever wants to become mainstream and not reside in a niche like Laserdisc did in the last ten years, the publishers of DVD need to do something to make DVD appealing to masses. The fact of the matter is - and both, VHS and Laserdisc, are clearly evidence for this thesis - that most average consumers do not care for supplements and that many people simply do not want widescreen versions of films. They do not consider it quality. It’s not only a question of feasibility, whether the studios could put letterboxed versions on the discs or not, when the main reason is, that the audiences do not want them. Think of it this way, studios are mainly there to create films, not to butcher them. If they do so, it is because popular demand forces them to.

Let’s get away from this whole letterboxed vs. fullscreen issue. It has been flogged to death for my taste. There is another interesting issue however, which has been raised over and over again, since the first release of movies on the DVD format. Let’s talk about anamorphic transfers a little.

Many people are disappointed when they buy a DVD and it turns out their favorite film has not been released in an anamorphic, widescreen enhanced transfer. Why does a film like “Half Baked” have an anamorphic transfer, when all time classics like “2001” do not. Who makes those stupid decisions, you ask? Well, the answer is very simple. This decision is made by executives in the studios and although it might appear stupid, be assured it is not. There is reason, and it is this reason I would like to explain a little more.

Up until a few years ago there was no medium that was able to utilize anamorphic transfers. Only with the advent of DVD, we now have a home video format that can actually utilize the higher resolution of this special transfer. All the films that have been transferred to video more than, let’s say for argument’s sake, four or five years ago, are non-anamorphic, because no one was able to predict the evolution of digital storage media and their impact on home video entertainment. Now, when a film is transferred to digital video for release on a home video format, of course, the studios take according measures and have the films transferred in the enhanced resolution. That’s the primary reason why a DVD like “Half Baked” is anamorphic and “2001” is not.

Okay, I hear you say, but why don’t they make a new transfer then to pay homage to the superior film? The answer is just as simple and maybe, just as disillusioning. Money. How much do you think a brand new anamorphic transfer of a film costs? $5.000? $10.000? $20.000? Wrong. New transfers can cost up to $100.000, depending on the length of the film and the quality of the source material. Now, that is a substantial investment, isn’t it? This is nothing you just throw out the window, not even if you are a Hollywood executive. Although the DVD market is constantly growing at a promising rate, the fact of the matter is that it is still very small. Within that niche market, try to spot the people who actually have access to widescreen TV sets that can utilize the enhanced, anamorphic format. Priced beyond the $4.000-$5.000 mark, widescreen TVs are clearly a niche within a niche. Nothing that would justify the expense of a brand spanking new anamorphic transfer. Not yet. With TV generations changing in the next 10 years, switching to High Definition TV sets, this will change, but at this point in time. There is simply no good reason for studios to take the risk and spend an exorbitant amount of money on new transfers when non-anamorphic ones are available at no extra charge. This will change. More widescreen TVs will arrive on the stage and more people will ask for enhanced DVDs and at some point in time, I am sure we will see even anamorphic releases of “2001”. This time has just not come yet.

So much for this time. Take care everyone and enjoy some of those great releases we had this week.

 August 30, 1998

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