PDA

View Full Version : How Long Before We Regular DVD Buyers Will Be SHUT OUT By Blue-Ray?



Mark R. Hill
03-16-2008, 01:40 AM
How Long Before We Regular DVD Buyers Will Be SHUT OUT By Blu-Ray?

How long do you suppose it will be before those of us that think regular DVD is just fine, and/or just can't afford to upgrade to the next level will be shut out of new purchases, even GENRE titles, because they will be available ONLY in Blu-Ray? (I'm thinking the new BLUE UNDERGROUND HD releases mentioned in another recent thread.)

Will they keep making regular DVDs for us with gas powered DVD players and TVs for a while? Or do you think they will phase them out as they did VHS?

I have seen a FEW double-sided DVDs with regular on one side and HD on the other. Do you think many would release these to keep both options open? And for how long?

I loves me my DOLLAR DVDS, too. (like DIGIVIEW and the like) Can't tell you how many of those I have and how they helped me see certain titles I'd NEVER have paid full price for. How long B4 *those* go HD, too???

Just Wondering...

Dr. M

scott favareille
03-16-2008, 02:14 AM
Blu-Ray will get no higher player penetration than laser disc. And VHS outlasted that.

I think DVD will be here for a while.

Wayne Schmidt
03-16-2008, 02:31 AM
It's going to take a very long time. And by the time it happens, like VHS, the prices on both machines and software will have dropped to regular DVD prices.

Horace Cordier
03-16-2008, 02:41 AM
It's going to take a very long time. And by the time it happens, like VHS, the prices on both machines and software will have dropped to regular DVD prices.

I agree. This is going to be a long and slow death march - one that takes YEARS not months. Keep in mind that even today, vhs machines are still being made. Laserdisc is not a good model because it never had the market penetration that vhs did and dvd has now. By the time we get to a Blu-Ray only world, the machines will cost the same as dvd players now. And all Blu-Ray players can play regular dvds - I don't see why the manufacturers would remove that ability from the players.

davidf
03-16-2008, 04:29 AM
Blu Ray is just an upgrade of DVD, unlike LD which was costly, big and cumbersome, BR is as simple to use as a DVD. There's basically no difference except better PQ, SQ, space and interactivity, it's still a CD sized disc. I think the phasing will come, but not before at least 10 years, by then, we all be over the moon on 3D anyway, and when the mass market adopt BR in place of DVD, we will all be the first owners of 3D players and set.

Tony J Case
03-16-2008, 06:04 AM
By the time we get to a Blu-Ray only world, the machines will cost the same as dvd players now.


And the studios will be lining up the Next Big Home Video Thing by that time. They smell the blood in the water, so getting the consumers into this 8-10 year cycle like video game consoles will be their fondest dreams!

davidf
03-16-2008, 06:16 AM
Actually, it's not some studio scheme, it's just progress. To complain having to rebuy movie is a bit to me like complaining having to rebuy a car or a computer every 5 to 10 years. That's progress, and I'll take it over any antique home cinema format like VHS.

Wostry Ferenc
03-16-2008, 06:22 AM
Fuck that Blu-ray shit.

Aaron G
03-16-2008, 06:46 AM
Fuck that Blu-ray shit.

I totally agree!

Fucking BLu-Ray machines that hafta run on fucking Hi-Def LCD/Plasma motherfuckers that consume more fucking power to fuck the ozone layer to a gape worse than Belladonna's (herpes infected) shitlovebox! (heck maybe thats why anal gape is so popular, its a sublimated erotics response to the ozone hole thats killing us!)

I don't wanna see a noir film made in 1948 that looks like a fucking CGI anime, coz everything on fucking Blue-Ray looks 'so clear' and 'fakely real' it's ridiculous - if I wanna do that i'll watch a fucking CGI anime - no film made after 1995 will be majorly better on Blue-Ray that on Prog-scan DVD, so whats the point? And I mean if you want 'reality' and 'visual clarity' maybe go and experience real fucking life you fucking greedyshit consumer motherfuckers!

Hollywood and the motherfucker money-grubbing motherfuckers and their bullshit technology can eat my dhiarrea! I got no wanky consumer 'desire' :mad: for this fucking 'product' go fucken con some other fucken pack of cunts that have borrowed money they can't even afford before offering us this shit!

And besides I can't afford this shit, so don't force me to buy some shit I can't afford like all the fucken bastards do these days!!

FUCK 'EM!

Wostry Ferenc
03-16-2008, 07:24 AM
Yeah. :D

Scott Ruhl
04-17-2008, 02:31 PM
Fuck Blu-ray, I'm sick of hearing about this bullshit.

Morten Solberg
04-17-2008, 03:31 PM
http://www.blue-underground.com/blu-ray.php

I don't know when they will start releasing them, or wich movies, but as long as they will stay in bussiness and also releasing movies not previously released by Anchor Bay, I'd be happy.

Thomas Hart
04-17-2008, 06:43 PM
Blue Underground hasn't released a new title in over 8 months on DVD, so I'm soooooooo excited about their rereleasing titles I already have on 2 different formats now :rolleyes:. Give me a break.

Plus, it's been stated over and over in interviews with Bill Lustig that quite a few of their titles (Euro Crime and Spaghetti Westerns especially) have sold rather poorly on standard DVD. So, do you think slightly improving the picture and then jacking up the retail price $10-20 is going to sell more discs?

I'd rather see more money put toward obtaining film licenses than re-authoring old titles on a niche format.

Shane K
04-17-2008, 07:53 PM
For me it's about quailty films, not quanity of films. Mainly I keep a collection that has a decent replay value. However, I am guilty of double-dipping and impulse purchasing just as much as the next guy. I just can't understand the type who own 5,000 discs, and rarely rewatch them, yet have to be current with upgrades. I'm happy with an upconverter for my 1080p LCD, and a moderate collection that gets revisited, as I don't plan on living forever.

Jason S
04-18-2008, 06:17 AM
Funny thread to read here on the new A/V Maniacs.

I worked in a laserdisc store when dvds first came out. I saw the same type of "fuck blu ray" attitude and hostility towards dvds from laserdisc owners.

Blu Ray kicks ass. And for my eyes, is the closest I'm getting to reproducing a film in my home. However, I purchase discs with caution. Sadly, there's not many titles to entice me....yet. DVD will be around for awhile, dvd to blu ray isn't the huge jump that vhs to dvd was.

As for "dvd only" people being "shut out" by companies like Blue Underground- Not gonna happen for a long time, not until BD units are in most PCs like dvds player/burners are now. If you have an HD transfer it's easy to make a standard dvd off it, so a company will do this as long as its profitable. Don't remember anyone complaining when Anchor Bay stopped making VHS.

Russ F
04-19-2008, 10:03 PM
If downloading HD movies catches on, I think we'll see SD and HD disks disappear from store shelves in the next 3-5 years. :eek:

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
04-20-2008, 02:34 AM
If downloading HD movies catches on, I think we'll see SD and HD disks disappear from store shelves in the next 3-5 years. :eek:
7-10.

Barry M.
04-20-2008, 02:41 AM
7-10.
OK, but for the last half of that, it's going to be the same way you can still buy VHS. Discount stores, ends-of-line, unpromoted, and only for those who're old and in the way. Everybody else is going to treat physical media like shit on their shoes, or the way some religions treat the human body -- it's a nuisance, it's a bit dirty, and the sooner we're rid of it, the better.

All hail the new flesh, or web 3.0, whichever gets here first.

Scott Ruhl
04-20-2008, 09:27 PM
OK, but for the last half of that, it's going to be the same way you can still buy VHS. Discount stores, ends-of-line, unpromoted, and only for those who're old and in the way. Everybody else is going to treat physical media like shit on their shoes, or the way some religions treat the human body -- it's a nuisance, it's a bit dirty, and the sooner we're rid of it, the better.

All hail the new flesh, or web 3.0, whichever gets here first.

I agree. But the one thing DVD still holds over VHS is it's staying power, lack of degradation through repeat views. Yeah they can get scratched but when handled well (like we do) it makes a nice archival addition to a physical library.

I dig the idea of downloads on demand or buying media files sans packaging, but I wonder if some of our favorite foreign/exploitation films will be readily available.

Steve R
04-20-2008, 10:05 PM
I had this dicussion with Tim Leary a bunch of years back and he told me that my daily newspaper would come on a tv screen with constantly updating information. I told him I liked to spread the paper out on the table reading it while I drank my coffee and really liked the feel of newsprint on my fingers.

He said they'd mail me a vial of newsprint I could rub on my hands as I read it.

Paul A J Lewis
04-21-2008, 10:10 AM
I had this dicussion with Tim Leary a bunch of years back and he told me that my daily newspaper would come on a tv screen with constantly updating information. I told him I liked to spread the paper out on the table reading it while I drank my coffee and really liked the feel of newsprint on my fingers.

He said they'd mail me a vial of newsprint I could rub on my hands as I read it.
That's the best post on the new forums, Steve :D

Jonathan Douglas
04-21-2008, 11:37 AM
Totally agree with Aaron and Wostry, I'd hate to see movies becoming more realistic in their look, I don't need this 3D vision to enjoy a film. Seems to be just another excuse for companies/studios to make more money off kids with the latest crave. So hell yeah, fuck BR and those ugly game-like covers, look like something I want to target practice on or use as toilet paper. Yuck.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZZCDLqyjL._SL500_AA240_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516YJWW9UfL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Grant W
04-21-2008, 12:28 PM
I'm quite happy not to pay for a new tv and player and continue with DVD for a few years yet.

Fuck Blu-Ray indeed.

Barry M.
04-21-2008, 12:36 PM
I agree. But the one thing DVD still holds over VHS is it's staying power, lack of degradation through repeat views. Yeah they can get scratched but when handled well (like we do) it makes a nice archival addition to a physical library.

I dig the idea of downloads on demand or buying media files sans packaging, but I wonder if some of our favorite foreign/exploitation films will be readily available.

I hope digital = archival, but I'm coming to realize that the media is weak. Digital preservation's a big thing in the librarian world, and the philosophy there seems to be remarkably close to P2P: the acronym's LOCKSS, for Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe. How to rationalize content ownership/rights issues with the kind of vastly distributed storage models that mean things'll survive Alexandrian type disasters is kind of fascinating. I'd like to think that once content providers, content consumers, and the ever-lovin' librarians figure this out, everything will be available everywhere all the time. (What's it going to cost, a sad little voice wonders?)

Vincent Pereira
04-21-2008, 05:16 PM
This has nothing to do with making movies "3D", "more realistic" or whatever, it's about presenting the actual image quality of the original film elements at home. I agree that this isn't important to everybody, but it is to some of us. A quality Blu-ray or HD-DVD looks like a pristine 35mm print- no visible video artifacts, just a solid, film-like image. And that's what I want when I'm viewing my favorite movies at home :)

Vincent


Totally agree with Aaron and Wostry, I'd hate to see movies becoming more realistic in their look, I don't need this 3D vision to enjoy a film. Seems to be just another excuse for companies/studios to make more money off kids with the latest crave. So hell yeah, fuck BR and those ugly game-like covers, look like something I want to target practice on or use as toilet paper. Yuck.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZZCDLqyjL._SL500_AA240_.jpghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516YJWW9UfL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

Jonathan Douglas
04-21-2008, 05:44 PM
Films will inevitably become more 3D-like, some day we'll be sittting with some headset to get 'more involved' in the action. And what about those shit-ass covers, they still have to sit on my shelf. No, thanks. :p

Brett Evans
04-21-2008, 05:45 PM
My answer to the OP's question is I don't know.

I think, in a number of years, downloading movies might become the standard rather than buying a DVD/BR like it is becoming in music.

How long has BR been around? Already a couple of years? It took a number of years for DVD to overtake VHS if I remember correctly. I think it might be a little faster with BR outselling DVD ......but I'm not sure.

Matt A
04-21-2008, 05:50 PM
Do you think people had these conversations when sound and color began to be standard?

"Talkies? No thank you, sir! I will gladly see films with live piano accompaniment, but a soundtrack synched with the visuals? And you hear the actors' voices? Never!"

Jonathan Douglas
04-21-2008, 06:07 PM
I'm not saying I'll never buy it, but until it maybe becomes unavoidable somehow it's not a priority of mine.

Vincent Pereira
04-21-2008, 06:09 PM
This thread reminds me of the opening comments by Kevin Smith on the Criterion CHASING AMY commentary (originally recorded for the LaserDisc, later ported over to the DVD)...

Vincent

Jonathan Douglas
04-21-2008, 06:13 PM
I remember a time in the mid-90s where I could've sworn I'd never jump on any bandwagon and buy a computer, and go on-line, what would I need that hyped crock of shit for, eh. Now you can't live without it. :D

Matt D
04-21-2008, 07:09 PM
I don't think the internet and home computers really compare to DVD vs Blu Ray.

Jonathan Douglas
04-21-2008, 08:30 PM
In terms of thinking you wouldn't need something, only to find out you do, I think it does. I'm sure many people didn't want to start with DVD, but eventually did.

Russ F
04-21-2008, 09:41 PM
Do you think people had these conversations when sound and color began to be standard?

"Talkies? No thank you, sir! I will gladly see films with live piano accompaniment, but a soundtrack synched with the visuals? And you hear the actors' voices? Never!"

Yeah. Fuck that sound shit. Seriously. ;)

Edwin Samuelson
04-21-2008, 11:14 PM
I don't think DVD is going anywhere for a long time as Blu-Ray players can play DVDs. I also think a lot of the stuff that you saw released in the past will never be re-released. I highly doubt that The Anti-Christ or Torso will be released on Blu-Ray in this century.

Brett Evans
04-22-2008, 12:50 AM
I also think a lot of the stuff that you saw released in the past will never be re-released. I highly doubt that The Anti-Christ or Torso will be released on Blu-Ray in this century.

That is a good point. There is still a heap of stuff that was released on VHS that still (and probably never) will find its way on DVD let alone BR.

Matt D
04-22-2008, 01:58 AM
In terms of thinking you wouldn't need something, only to find out you do, I think it does. I'm sure many people didn't want to start with DVD, but eventually did.

The internet has drastically changed countless aspects of our lives, from how we do business to the way we meet and stay in touch with friends and family right down to the everyday tasks like getting news.

Blu Ray is a minor to midrange upgrade in quality from DVD, it doesn't come close to the changes we saw from VHS to DVD.

Jonathan Douglas
04-22-2008, 02:12 AM
That's true enough.

KennethR
04-22-2008, 08:52 AM
Most people who aren't movie nerds, such as us, don't notice a difference in quality between Blu Ray and DVD. Most of them still complain about widescreen DVDs, and have their systems set up wrong. So I don't think blu ray is really going to overtake DVDs, mostly because it's not any easier than DVD. DVD was much easier than VHS, no rewind, etc, and much better quality, so it caught on.

Griffin B.
04-22-2008, 09:34 AM
Let's not forget the other reason why DVD became so popular was the drastic drop in price for hardware and the dramatic increase in titles that occurred in the early 2000's. Even Joe VHS couldn't argue with that.

The production of regular DVDs won't cease until the Blu Ray and downloadable alternatives are so cheap and widely available that there won't be any point in continuing to manufacture them. Of course, due to the immense popularity of DVD, future systems will almost certainly be backwards compatible for many, many years.

And, hey, if people are still playing perfect arcade board emulations of Frogger on their PCs today, I think the stuff will still be floating around long after they stop producing the hardware. Retro-viewers of the future will be downloading virtual DVDs like obscure mp3's...

Matt A
04-22-2008, 10:53 AM
Blu Ray kicks ass. And for my eyes, is the closest I'm getting to reproducing a film in my home. However, I purchase discs with caution. Sadly, there's not many titles to entice me....yet. DVD will be around for awhile, dvd to blu ray isn't the huge jump that vhs to dvd was.

As for "dvd only" people being "shut out" by companies like Blue Underground- Not gonna happen for a long time, not until BD units are in most PCs like dvds player/burners are now. If you have an HD transfer it's easy to make a standard dvd off it, so a company will do this as long as its profitable. Don't remember anyone complaining when Anchor Bay stopped making VHS.

Agreed.

While I won't be buying a Blu-Ray system for at least another year, my one experience with it (watching THE ROAD WARRIOR with Jay) was enough to get me excited about re-watching films that I doubt I'd ever give another chance on standaed DVD - DAWN OF THE DEAD being an example. I've had my fill of that movie but the opportunity to see it again in this new format gets me excited, and if I can get excited about a movie I've seen dozens of times then that's a good thing.

Paul A J Lewis
04-22-2008, 04:06 PM
That is a good point. There is still a heap of stuff that was released on VHS that still (and probably never) will find its way on DVD let alone BR.

I'm curious to see what happens to VT-recorded television shows in the era of HD television: I'd be pleasantly surprised if someone released a show like PORRIDGE on Blu-Ray disc, but I don't think it'll happen. Some classic television shows are still absent from DVD because the master tapes are in such a poor condition that companies don't think they're 'saleable': the fourth series of CALLAN is a particular example. (Thankfully, it's now been released on DVD by Umbrella in Australia.) However, I would imagine that some of these vintage shot-on-tape shows are an even less 'saleable' proposition to companies that specialise in releasing material on HD formats, because they don't play to the strengths of the format and there could be all sorts of comeback. (On that subject, at the dawn of the DVD format I always remember watching an episode of the British consumer affairs show WATCHDOG in which a man complained because he had bought the DVD release of TITANIC and found that when it was played back on his newly-acquired widescreen television set, the screen still had horizontal letterboxing bars at the top and bottom. The story is a nice reminder that early adopters aren't always the most 'savvy'.)

Griffin B.
04-22-2008, 07:11 PM
Blu Ray does offer much larger storage capacity and more efficient encoding than DVD so even ~standard definition material, like your old shot-on-tape shows, will benefit somewhat from the ability to store entire/multiple seasons on a single disc. Perhaps not enough to convince somebody to repurchase a TV series but certainly more enticing to those who are intimidated by bulky boxsets and the like.

Scott Ruhl
04-22-2008, 08:24 PM
Blu Ray does offer much larger storage capacity and more efficient encoding than DVD so even ~standard definition material, like your old shot-on-tape shows, will benefit somewhat from the ability to store entire/multiple seasons on a single disc. Perhaps not enough to convince somebody to repurchase a TV series but certainly more enticing to those who are intimidated by bulky boxsets and the like.


It remains to be seen if studios take advantage of this, but I'm hopefull.
I was just thinking how cool it would be to make a Blu-Ray trailer comp, how many hours long could they make such a beast?

Jason S
04-22-2008, 09:20 PM
Agreed.

While I won't be buying a Blu-Ray system for at least another year, my one experience with it (watching THE ROAD WARRIOR with Jay) was enough to get me excited about re-watching films that I doubt I'd ever give another chance on standaed DVD - DAWN OF THE DEAD being an example. I've had my fill of that movie but the opportunity to see it again in this new format gets me excited, and if I can get excited about a movie I've seen dozens of times then that's a good thing.

Another friend came over and watched "Enter the Dragon", his all time favorite movie. He noticed a tear from Bruce Lee, when he talked about his sister's demise, for the first time. This guy has seen Enter the Dragon countless times.

I've got 16 Blu Rays and it's just about everything I care to own. Hopefully, Blue Underground, Anchor Bay, BCI and Synapse will start releasing stuff, or more stuff.......

I agree with Edwin that we won't be seeing Torso on Blu Ray(1080p) or as a HD download. But maybe we'll see 5-7 movies(480i/p) on a BluRay disc from Anchor Bay as the "Euro-Horror Collection". The past 10 years have been a golden age for film fans like us.

Hope I'm wrong and can buy some Mondo Macabro Blu Rays one day.

Russ F
06-03-2008, 11:29 AM
New hope for the moribund?

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2217906/enhanced-dvd-compete-blu-ray

I still believe downloads will eventually replace physical media, but would love another 10-12 years out of my SD DVDs. ;)

Hollie Thomas
06-03-2008, 11:48 AM
When dvds first came out I was very: "I'm just going to keep buying VHS forever" and very into all the Anchor Bay clamshell VHS, until I saw how amazing dvd format was. I have an LCD/HD tv but I still cannot afford a blu-ray dvd player, if anything I might just get a PS3 w/ blu-ray, but even that is pricey. It will probably be another 2 years or so until I can afford one but I think it will be even longer than that before they start pushing dvds to sections as small as VHS were years ago in Media Play. Fuck, people still have analog TVs..ha..it's going to be a while.

Alli R
06-03-2008, 06:29 PM
I totally agree!

Fucking BLu-Ray machines that hafta run on fucking Hi-Def LCD/Plasma motherfuckers that consume more fucking power to fuck the ozone layer to a gape worse than Belladonna's (herpes infected) shitlovebox! (heck maybe thats why anal gape is so popular, its a sublimated erotics response to the ozone hole thats killing us!)



*falls over*

How the hell am I going to read the rest of the thread after that? haha

And I hope DVD sticks around for a long time. It took way too long to build my collection to be dealing with something new. And I don't even have a fancy tv anyway.

Thomas Hart
06-03-2008, 06:41 PM
I've been on several boards (HTF, DVDTalk, Mobius, Latarnia, etc.), and it's Blu-ray this and Blu-ray that. Well, gas is $4.00 and climbing, my house isn't worth shit, my property tax is higher than the cast of EASY RIDER, PSE&G is going to charge an extra $30 a month, cable is up, medical is up, college tuition is up, food is up, and the only thing that isn't up is my paycheck.

But hey, let me rebuy everything I already own for $10-$20 more for a slightly clearer picture, cause I'm a sheep of the masses.

Releasing a new, more expensive media format during a recession, priceless!

Nick H.
06-03-2008, 06:49 PM
My two cents: I just bought a PS3 and a nice Samsung widescreen and the combo is pretty much blowing my mind. I don't have any plans really to buy films in the future until they see a release on Blu-Ray. There's just no comparison in the quality of the picture for me. I'll trade in my dvd collection as they get released on Blu-Ray if it's something I'd like to rebuy. I only scan the future Blu-Ray releases and don't bother with the dvd section anymore. I'm thrilled that Blue Underground and Dark Sky have started getting their catalogues together for Blu-Ray. I CANNOT WAIT.

I guess it was more like 10 cents.

Hollie Thomas
06-03-2008, 06:52 PM
I guess it was more like 10 cents.

That made me laugh way more than it should have...Reminds me of Jack Handey, and I read far too many Deep Thoughts.

Griffin B.
06-03-2008, 08:10 PM
But hey, let me rebuy everything I already own for $10-$20 more for a slightly clearer picture, cause I'm a sheep of the masses.

Actually, according to the stats, its something like 6 times clearer...

Russ F
06-03-2008, 10:39 PM
Has anyone had a chance to compare video quality of a blu-ray DVD against an upscaled, standard-def DVD? I'd be curious to know how wide the difference is....

Griffin B.
06-04-2008, 02:23 AM
Has anyone had a chance to compare video quality of a blu-ray DVD against an upscaled, standard-def DVD? I'd be curious to know how wide the difference is....

Not Blu Ray but here's a comparison between the DVD and HD-DVD versions of HOT FUZZ that demonstrate the benefit of higher resolution and better compression:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=885362

Aaron G
06-04-2008, 05:15 AM
Actually, according to the stats, its something like 6 times clearer...

..thats right, so now, when you watch Blue Ray pr0n - incidentally already flooding the market - you will be able to see Belladonna's anal herpes in graphic clarity, you will be able to see John Wayne Bobbit's stitchmarks, you will be able bits of cucka that wasn't cleared out in the enema before a Max Hardcore gape session, and the trackmarks well be impossible to hide!!!!

Shit imagine how 'real' pr0n will look SIX TIMES CLEARER!!! I can't wait!

Aleck Bennett
06-04-2008, 10:18 AM
..thats right, so now, when you watch Blue Ray pr0n - incidentally already flooding the market - you will be able to see Belladonna's anal herpes in graphic clarity, you will be able to see John Wayne Bobbit's stitchmarks, you will be able bits of cucka that wasn't cleared out in the enema before a Max Hardcore gape session, and the trackmarks well be impossible to hide!!!!

Shit imagine how 'real' pr0n will look SIX TIMES CLEARER!!! I can't wait!

That's it. You've convinced me. I don't know what I was thinking, watching Blu-Ray discs. Movies *should* have digital artifacting popping up all over the place. I don't want a DVD to look too close to what the film source looks like -- I want it encoded with really inefficient codecs, compressed to hell and back to fit on standard-def DVDs, and looking blocky as hell. In fact, I shouldn't even be watching movies on film. There's too much resolution! 35mm has, what, 4K resolution??? Fuck that noise, that's even more than Blu-Ray! 35mm is gonna make everything look like fuckin' Shrek! In fact, I think everything should be viewed on VCDs. Screw the 4.5 gig disc capacity of standard-def, compress everything down to 700 meg .avi files and burn it to CD!

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
06-04-2008, 12:12 PM
That's it. You've convinced me. I don't know what I was thinking, watching Blu-Ray discs. Movies *should* have digital artifacting popping up all over the place. I don't want a DVD to look too close to what the film source looks like -- I want it encoded with really inefficient codecs, compressed to hell and back to fit on standard-def DVDs, and looking blocky as hell. In fact, I shouldn't even be watching movies on film. There's too much resolution! 35mm has, what, 4K resolution??? Fuck that noise, that's even more than Blu-Ray! 35mm is gonna make everything look like fuckin' Shrek! In fact, I think everything should be viewed on VCDs. Screw the 4.5 gig disc capacity of standard-def, compress everything down to 700 meg .avi files and burn it to CD!
Quoted for Pwnage! :p

Shane K
06-04-2008, 12:12 PM
I've been on several boards (HTF, DVDTalk, Mobius, Latarnia, etc.), and it's Blu-ray this and Blu-ray that. Well, gas is $4.00 and climbing, my house isn't worth shit, my property tax is higher than the cast of EASY RIDER, PSE&G is going to charge an extra $30 a month, cable is up, medical is up, college tuition is up, food is up, and the only thing that isn't up is my paycheck.

But hey, let me rebuy everything I already own for $10-$20 more for a slightly clearer picture, cause I'm a sheep of the masses.

Releasing a new, more expensive media format during a recession, priceless!

Fucking A! I couldn't agree anymore with you. Blu-Ray is fine, but to replace everything you own that you may have watched a few times, so you can watch it on a better format maybe a few more times, is fucking ridiculous. Newsflash, you don't live forever! More than half of my collection will more than likely never see a Blu-Ray release, let alone a standard DVD-9 re-release. I'm convinced that anyone serious about replacing their 1000+ titles exclusively onto Blu-Ray, is nothing more than a fucking shill.

Russ F
06-04-2008, 12:21 PM
Not Blu Ray but here's a comparison between the DVD and HD-DVD versions of HOT FUZZ that demonstrate the benefit of higher resolution and better compression:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=885362

Grazie. Now I just have to decide whether to continue purchasing standard-def DVDs, invest in blu-ray, or wait for the inevitable 2160p encodings which should be along in 4-5 years.... :eek:

Todd J
06-04-2008, 04:52 PM
I love the picture of Blu-Ray. I still buy plain ol' DVDs of stuff not on the HD format, and I certainly am not going to replace anything I have available in HD. I make sure all titles available in Blu-Ray on Netflix come to me however. Also, movies I watch over and over and love will be bought on Blu-Ray. I got Dirty Harry yesterday. The other exception is if there is more extras on a new Blu-Ray version.

Am I alone in my thinking that the masses don't really care about HD? I mean, if you go over to someone's house with an LCD, they think hi-def is making the picture fill the screen. you know, fat-o-vision, and they think it looks fine. The only thing I ever hear anyone really cream obver in HD is sports. Movies they dont seem to care. So, no, I dont think it will be any time soon that standard DVDs go the way of VHS.

Thomas Hart
06-04-2008, 07:56 PM
I got Dirty Harry yesterday.

Ah yes, Dirty Harry on Blu-Ray, scrubbed squeaky-clean of all that pesky natural looking film grain, just like Blu-Ray's Pan's Labyrinth. Wasn't the director's/producer's/editor's/color timer's intent? So what! This is what HD was meant for.

http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononhollywood/2008/06/wheres-the-grit.html#more


Am I alone in my thinking that the masses don't really care about HD? I mean, if you go over to someone's house with an LCD, they think hi-def is making the picture fill the screen. you know, fat-o-vision, and they think it looks fine. The only thing I ever hear anyone really cream obver in HD is sports. Movies they dont seem to care. So, no, I dont think it will be any time soon that standard DVDs go the way of VHS.

No, you're not alone. I've heard at least 4-5 people tell me actually the same thing (my co-workers, my neighbor, my wife's family). My wife's cousin bought an LCD TV and while we were over, he put on a football game. Immediately, he noticed the black bars on the sides and zoomed in the picture to fill the whole screen, thus cutting the score and other info off the top and bottom. I said it was getting late and left soon after.

Shane K
06-05-2008, 12:08 AM
Altman on Blu-Ray, will be nothing short of blasphemy.

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
06-05-2008, 12:28 AM
Altman on Blu-Ray, will be nothing short of blasphemy.
Let's not be completely alarmist - 'Blu-ray' is not synonymous with 'de-grained' just yet. Consumers have a voice - and not just the ones who are badly-informed.

DVD producers and executives track forums like this.

Alex K.
06-05-2008, 01:07 AM
At this point I honestly think that Blu-Ray in itself will be shut out by downloading movies. I think of it like this: Why pay $25-30 for a film that looks better, but has the same extras as the original DVD? Eventually when Blu-Ray drives become cheaper, and/or more people simply hook up their HD sets directly to the PC, more people will watch films through the PC. Then Blu-Ray will be relegated to niche item, Then we have to make way for 2K then 4K HD sets, with direct downloads built into the set, to match our computerized brains and tracking chips in our fingers. Then we have to make way for Holographic projectors that will beam streaming video into our eyes.

But I'm begining to get ahead of myself.

Erik David Herrera
06-11-2008, 05:06 AM
OK, but for the last half of that, it's going to be the same way you can still buy VHS. Discount stores, ends-of-line, unpromoted, and only for those who're old and in the way. Everybody else is going to treat physical media like shit on their shoes, or the way some religions treat the human body -- it's a nuisance, it's a bit dirty, and the sooner we're rid of it, the better.

All hail the new flesh, or web 3.0, whichever gets here first.


I don't know. You might be right, but am I really the only geek who spends way too much time standing in front of his DVD/BlU-RAY/HD collection, gazing lovingly at the spines and pulling out titles and adoring the covers, pulling out inserts, reading the liner-notes, feeling the bulk of the special editions, snapping out the discs and feeling the texture of their tops, arranging the titles by catatogies and whatnot, once in a while putting one in the player and watching it? I can't be the only one....... can I?

Erik David Herrera
06-11-2008, 05:10 AM
Altman on Blu-Ray, will be nothing short of blasphemy.

I had this argument with a friend the other night! Altman intentionally fucked with the focus and the definition of most (if not all) of his movies on purpose! If you took, say, Mccabe & Mrs Miller or 3 Women and shot them into the Blu-Ray stratosphere, wouldn't that...... I mean, sure, they would "look better" but they would still actually...... look worse, right?

K.O. Svines
06-11-2008, 07:21 AM
I don't know. You might be right, but am I really the only geek who spends way too much time standing in front of his DVD/BlU-RAY/HD collection, gazing lovingly at the spines and pulling out titles and adoring the covers, pulling out inserts, reading the liner-notes, feeling the bulk of the special editions, snapping out the discs and feeling the texture of their tops, arranging the titles by catatogies and whatnot, once in a while putting one in the player and watching it? I can't be the only one....... can I?

You're not alone. I also smell my discs on a regular basis (although the plastic on DVD cases does not come close to the great smell of 20-year old laserdiscs).

Matt A
06-11-2008, 01:54 PM
You're not alone. I also smell my discs on a regular basis (although the plastic on DVD cases does not come close to the great smell of 20-year old laserdiscs).

The other day I turned on the air conditioner in my car and it smelled like the video store I used to work at. :)

Aleck Bennett
06-11-2008, 02:10 PM
I had this argument with a friend the other night! Altman intentionally fucked with the focus and the definition of most (if not all) of his movies on purpose! If you took, say, Mccabe & Mrs Miller or 3 Women and shot them into the Blu-Ray stratosphere, wouldn't that...... I mean, sure, they would "look better" but they would still actually...... look worse, right?

Sure, because Altman intended his films to be compressed to hell and back for standard-def.

I hate to sound like a broken fucking record here, but Altman composed his films for theatrical display, which has *more inherent resolution than Blu-Ray*. A thoughtful transfer of Altman's films on Blu-Ray should be *closer* to their intended look than standard-def DVD. Blu-Ray does not automatically equate to the look of Hi-Def NFL broadcasts.

Wayne Schmidt
06-11-2008, 02:27 PM
Sure, because Altman intended his films to be compressed to hell and back for standard-def.

I hate to sound like a broken fucking record here, but Altman composed his films for theatrical display, which has *more inherent resolution than Blu-Ray*. A thoughtful transfer of Altman's films on Blu-Ray should be *closer* to their intended look than standard-def DVD. Blu-Ray does not automatically equate to the look of Hi-Def NFL broadcasts.Absolutely. People confuse techniques that are employed, like grain reduction, with the native look of HD. You can make a standard def transfer look just as unnatural and "plastic" (they do it all the time). Done correctly HD is going to get you closer to the actual look of 35mm film than any other video format. If you take the same source master, downconvert to standard def and compare it to a blu-ray counterpart and latter is going to have more detail and fidelity to the original, not less.

Shane K
06-11-2008, 03:42 PM
Am I ill-informed for not appreciating Blu-Ray? Not in my opinion. It's a matter of preference. I know plenty of people who prefer to watch their pre-cert tapes over their discs. I watch mostly sleaze and trash titles, and I prefer them to look just like that, it tends to build atmosphere. If everything I watched was the Deer Hunter or Capote, I would more than likely support the format.

Jonathan Douglas
06-11-2008, 04:05 PM
Not ill-informed at all IMO Shane, how daft does it sound anyway to say "think I'll pop down and rent some blu-rays today"? Sounds like candy sweets or something. :p

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
06-11-2008, 04:11 PM
Rather than attempt to clarify yet again what's just been explained rather well by Aleck and Wayne, I think I'll instead go buy a Playstation at Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10039674).

Scott Ruhl
06-11-2008, 04:15 PM
Am I ill-informed for not appreciating Blu-Ray? Not in my opinion. It's a matter of preference. I know plenty of people who prefer to watch their pre-cert tapes over their discs. I watch mostly sleaze and trash titles, and I prefer them to look just like that, it tends to build atmosphere. If everything I watched was the Deer Hunter or Capote, I would more than likely support the format.

I'm with you Shane. I have no desire to rebuy everything I have, maybe once I get an HDTV I'll change my mind but I figure that's still plenty ways off for me. Quality wise SD DVDs look great. There's still plenty of films I want and it will be quite some time if ever that they are released on Blu-Ray.

Ramon V.
06-11-2008, 04:17 PM
Found this interesting article (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?sec_id=2&article_id=12904) about Warners Brothers future plans for BluRay, Downloads and DVD.

Here are some of the article's finer points.

“Our motivation is to improve our return on capital,” Bewkes said. “Doing that we believe we can move profit up.”

"To accomplish this, the CEO said the studio will focus on building wider consumer adoption of Blu-ray, expanding cable video-on-demand simultaneously with standard DVD (Bewkes said cable VOD generated more than three times the margins of DVD rental) and other electronic distribution."

"Bewkes said expansion of Blu-ray, VOD and related improvements in electronic distribution by moving away from physical DVD would help grow filmed"

It looks like Warner who has one of the largest film catalogs is looking to shift away from DVD and make Blu-Ray and VOD the new business model. They did help Blu-Ray knock out HD DVD when they went Blu-Ray exclusive. They also spear headed the DVD revolution elevn years before. So look for other major studio’s to follow Warner’s lead like they have in the past. Also it makes sense to move away from Standard def DVD’s since the shift away from standard def televisions and T.V. network’s broadcasting in standard def has already taken started.

Another sign that Blu-Ray is not a flash in the pan is that Wal-Mart one of the world’s largest retailers is heavily pushing it and recently they had player for under $300 that also came with $100 gift cards. Recently I have noticed that many of the newer film releases are often being sold cheaper on Blu-Ray then the asking price for the DVD. One thing that I hear far too often is that people don’t like the idea of re-buying their collection on DVD. No one says you have to since Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible. Just buy or re-buy the titles you will re-watch the most.

Found this informationhere (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=533314).

Ramon V.
06-11-2008, 04:23 PM
Rather than attempt to clarify yet again what's just been explained rather well by Aleck and Wayne, I think I'll instead go buy a Playstation at Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10039674).

Even though I already own a Blu-Ray player. I will be buying the Playstation 3 with my government rebate check. Thanks for posting that link.:)

Aleck Bennett
06-11-2008, 04:25 PM
I always like to base my video-buying decisions on whether or not somebody's going to think it sounds like a piece of candy. There's yer standard of quality right there. And I always want my movie-watching experience to be as far from film-like as possible. That's why I advocate replacing all home video players with the Mutoscope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutoscope) DVDs? They're all made up of zeros and ones. That ain't movies. Videotapes? That's all plastic inside of a plastic case. And did you ever try to pull the tape out and look at it? That isn't entertainment! Film? Too much resolution making everything look like fucken Shrek. I tried converting all my movies to Super-8, but it was still too clear. Fuck technology, man. There's nothing good in it. That's why I want my home video experience to be a series of photographs flipped by in rapid succession and viewed through an eyepiece.
I also advocate the wearing of red-striped shirts, black suspenders and pants, straw hats, and handlebar moustaches.

Wayne Schmidt
06-11-2008, 04:52 PM
I remember a lot of the same blowback from fans when DVDs were first released, especially from laserdisc owners. If you have a substantial investment in a format you don't want to hear something better will make it obsolete. But as was mentioned earlier buying a blu-ray player doesn't mean you have to abandon what you've got or stop buying standard def, and although the studios would like you to they're not going to stop supporting the current format for a looong time. I think blu-ray looks great, but I don't have the pesos to get into it for now. By the time I do more titles that interest me will be available (if the format lasts and doesn't get creemed by downloading or something else). And as for sleaze and trash films, it's gonna be a good wait before the vast majority are released BR anyway. Unless the distributor mastered in HD to start with it's not going to be very cost effective to go back and re-do them for such a (currently) tiny market share. I've had to double (and in rare cases) triple dip a lot more in standard def DVD upgrades than I see having to do blu-ray when I finally get to it.

Ramon V.
06-11-2008, 04:53 PM
I don't know. You might be right, but am I really the only geek who spends way too much time standing in front of his DVD/BlU-RAY/HD collection, gazing lovingly at the spines and pulling out titles and adoring the covers, pulling out inserts, reading the liner-notes, feeling the bulk of the special editions, snapping out the discs and feeling the texture of their tops, arranging the titles by catatogies and whatnot, once in a while putting one in the player and watching it? I can't be the only one....... can I?

Well said, I also enjoy smelling. holding and gazing endlessly at my collection of movies. :) Downloading films will never take off at least not with me because the wait time and compressed video leaves me wanting more. The exhilaration of going into to a store and psychical buying a movie can never be replaced by downloads.

Jonathan Douglas
06-11-2008, 05:09 PM
The more people hype BR the more I'll stay away from it, Wal-Mart like all other retailers know the general public are suckers for the latest thing, that's the only reason they're behind it. The one who hypes the best wins. Technology is hipper than ever to be into, but I'm sticking with DVD so far.

Wayne Schmidt
06-11-2008, 05:24 PM
No, I'm sorry . . . . . the video police will be dispensed to your home, Fahrenheit 451-style, and bonfire your standard def DVDs. You'll buy BR and you'll LIKE it, sucker! :p

Ramon V.
06-11-2008, 05:41 PM
The transition from DVD to Blu-Ray is like that movie Ground Hog Day. We have heard the same thing eleven years ago when DVD was the new kid on the block and now the same mantra is being repeated with the only difference being the new devil is Blu-Ray. Technology is very similar to life nothing lasts forever and change is an Inevitable part of the process which you either embrace or you try to avoid it for as long as you can until you are forced to change. No one knows the future of home video and anything we all say is purely speculation on our part. In my lifetime there have been at least eight home video formats VHS, Beta, Laserdisc, VCD, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-Ray and most recently digital downloads. Also in the evolution of Home Video there has always been a movement to a format this is equal or superior to the last format (excluding Beta which was better then VHS). With everything going Hi Def I don’t see consumers going backwards especially when prices start going down.

Erik David Herrera
06-12-2008, 01:54 AM
[QUOTE=Aleck Bennett;586997]Sure, because Altman intended his films to be compressed to hell and back for standard-def.

I would venture that this is wrong. At the time Altman was composing the look and feel of Mccabe/3 Women, Nashville, California Split, well, ALL his 70s movies, there was no home video to speak of. Even in the 80s and 90s he was perhaps the least represented major director on home video. Health, for instance, STILL isn't even out on DVD! So, I don't think he gave two shits about "standard-def" and I doubt he cared less even after the advent of DVD. I'm doing some speculating here. And you're absolutely right about a careful blu-ray presentation of any of his films being "better" in many technical ways. The key word being "careful" which I suppose is the whole point here.

Erik David Herrera
06-12-2008, 02:00 AM
Absolutely. People confuse techniques that are employed, like grain reduction, with the native look of HD. You can make a standard def transfer look just as unnatural and "plastic" (they do it all the time). Done correctly HD is going to get you closer to the actual look of 35mm film than any other video format. If you take the same source master, downconvert to standard def and compare it to a blu-ray counterpart and latter is going to have more detail and fidelity to the original, not less.

Well, know what? ....... I don't exactly trust the individuals who are responsible for such things. Because, for one, I honestly don't think they're film fans in the same way all of us are. I work in "the biz" and I can tell you, there are way too many gear-techno-heads out there who don't know any better than to steamroll over someone's work just because they..... can.... and will...... Go back to that Dirty Harry article for a bit of confirmation.

Erik David Herrera
06-12-2008, 02:01 AM
Rather than attempt to clarify yet again what's just been explained rather well by Aleck and Wayne, I think I'll instead go buy a Playstation at Wal-Mart (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=10039674).


Ok, I DO love blu-ray!!!!!! I just don't like the look ALL the time. I have a sneaking suspicion that as soon as Susperia's out on Blu-Ray, I'll drink the cool-aid in giant gulps!

Wayne Schmidt
06-12-2008, 02:41 AM
Well, know what? ....... I don't exactly trust the individuals who are responsible for such things. Because, for one, I honestly don't think they're film fans in the same way all of us are. I work in "the biz" and I can tell you, there are way too many gear-techno-heads out there who don't know any better than to steamroll over someone's work just because they..... can.... and will...... Go back to that Dirty Harry article for a bit of confirmation.I've worked at two studios in the transfer process and have been in the industry most of my life, so I've a pretty good idea of what kind of people are in this business; they range from gear-heads, businessmen and **gasp** film fans like myself who care very much about the integrity of the film's presentation. Home video, like the rest of the entertainment industry is a combination of art and commerce, and sometimes decisions were made that I certainly didn't agree with but a large percentage of the time we got our way. At both studios a huge effort was made to bring in the talent - director and / or DP - to sit in on the telecine sessions and let us know what they thought matched their original theatrical intentions. If they couldn't do that a check cassette or disc was sent to them for comments or suggestions. This wasn't just new films but catalog titles as well. I'm not saying that mistakes don't happen many times, but it's also unfair to condemn these people for not caring, especially considering how many thousands of titles get released each year. And a very large percentage look better than they have since their theatrical days. I never worked at Warner but their restoration projects and the majority of their home vid releases look great.

Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you were referencing in my earlier post . . . . these same people are and have been supervising the standard def home video releases, and a lot of times it's the same HD master, just downconverted for the regular version. As I mentioned before many of the grain reduction or edge enhancement tools are used for both formats, so it's not just a "blu-ray" thing. If people are unhappy with a certain title they should write the studio and politely tell them why and what's wrong with it. Those letters do get read . . . . . I know, I was handed a few with films I was involved in and asked to respond to the complaint.

Erik David Herrera
06-12-2008, 03:30 AM
I've worked at two studios in the transfer process and have been in the industry most of my life, so I've a pretty good idea of what kind of people are in this business; they range from gear-heads, businessmen and **gasp** film fans like myself who care very much about the integrity of the film's presentation. Home video, like the rest of the entertainment industry is a combination of art and commerce, and sometimes decisions were made that I certainly didn't agree with but a large percentage of the time we got our way. At both studios a huge effort was made to bring in the talent - director and / or DP - to sit in on the telecine sessions and let us know what they thought matched their original theatrical intentions. If they couldn't do that a check cassette or disc was sent to them for comments or suggestions. This wasn't just new films but catalog titles as well. I'm not saying that mistakes don't happen many times, but it's also unfair to condemn these people for not caring, especially considering how many thousands of titles get released each year. And a very large percentage look better than they have since their theatrical days. I never worked at Warner but their restoration projects and the majority of their home vid releases look great.

Beyond that, I'm not really sure what you were referencing in my earlier post . . . . these same people are and have been supervising the standard def home video releases, and a lot of times it's the same HD master, just downconverted for the regular version. As I mentioned before many of the grain reduction or edge enhancement tools are used for both formats, so it's not just a "blu-ray" thing. If people are unhappy with a certain title they should write the studio and politely tell them why and what's wrong with it. Those letters do get read . . . . . I know, I was handed a few with films I was involved in and asked to respond to the complaint.

very well put. you have my complete respect.

Jonathan Douglas
06-12-2008, 06:07 AM
For instance, will Fulci horror look that much better on BR, and should we really care if it does...? Some things are better 'raw'.

Aleck Bennett
06-12-2008, 09:21 AM
Sure, because Altman intended his films to be compressed to hell and back for standard-def.

I would venture that this is wrong.

I know. I was being sarcastic. :)

Wayne Schmidt
06-12-2008, 11:24 AM
For instance, will Fulci horror look that much better on BR, and should we really care if it does...? Some things are better 'raw'.Considering how many threads here have been about which DVD release of his different titles is "better", complete with screen caps comparisons I'd say people care. Again, Fulci shot on 35mm and properly done HD will get you closer to what a theatrical print would look like. The difference between HD and standard def isn't "rawness", it's detail and resolution. By that logic you should watch his stuff on VHS because it's even more "raw".

If, when they're released (if they are) to blu-ray they use more grain reduction or some other tool to make it "prettier" than you'd like is not a fault of the format. That's like complaining about a specific standard def title and saying "See? The format sucks."

Aleck Bennett
06-12-2008, 11:34 AM
Considering how many threads here have been about which DVD release of his different titles is "better", complete with screen caps comparisons I'd say people care. Again, Fulci shot on 35mm and properly done HD will get you closer to what a theatrical print would look like. The difference between HD and standard def isn't "rawness", it's detail and resolution. By that logic you should watch his stuff on VHS because it's even more "raw".

Especially if that VHS is cropped to 4:3, so that instead of Fulci's trademark closeups of people's eyes you get closeups of bridges of noses. You can't get more raw than the bridge of Patrick Magee's nose in The Black Cat. That's some straight-up horror right there!

Wayne Schmidt
06-12-2008, 12:28 PM
Also, people seem to care about whether a DVD is anamorphically enhanced. If they object to the additional detail in HD, why bother? All you're doing with an enhanced transfer is trying to squeeze as much resolution out of standard def as possible.

Again, what I'm talking about is not whether it's worth it to upgrade every title in your library to blu-ray, it's the misconceptions about the format itself. I've seen things like the Castle films, some of the Hammers and other genre stuff in HD and it's a lot more fun than the standard def counterpart. If all you're into is Something Weird level subterranean cult stuff (which most likely will never make it to BR anyway) then it's not the format for you. I'll concede Andy Milligan projects probably won't benefit all that much by going blu-ray. :D

Steve R
06-12-2008, 01:47 PM
Wayne, very well put!.

I too have worked in this bizz the majority of my life. I can recall being in a color correction session. There were folks from the client, the advertising agency and the technician. I sat in as the Tech's assn't (just a friend, really).
Because the console and process was so detailed you really could change very much of what you saw and not just in terms of color, but brrightness, contrast and may other EQ like settings. The agency people had the tech show off and they all had some laughs. The client fell into that just see what this knob here does and what does that do so they could have their say over all of it. Color correcting this sequence with this many people and all their opinions looked like it'd take the whole afternoon.

However after about a half hour of this they eased back into their own conversations and my buddy was able to breeze through everything accompanied by the usual, "looks nice" "Now that's what I like to see" comments. He had a great eye and knew what format he was mixing for - TV.

To be fair, some are good and some are bad, but technicians do most of this work and you can leave the good ones alone and be very, very satisfied with their work. Taste is taste but rarely have I met a tech that did not know how something was supposed to look and have the ability to make it look it's best with the machines/process at hand.

Much of what looks shitty on film is either crap film stock, bad prints, poor shooting, a director's bad choices, horrid set ups, garbage lighting, and a ton of other things that a professionally made film will handle well. The lighting set up is really key. You can not bring out what is not there, you just can't.

The only area that, for me, is one of real contention is the brightness level that gets boost when it was dark on purpose and the element of grain.

I am all for technology that will make it look better and then come down to an affordable fee when it proves successful. I am in no hurry at all. Downloads are crap to me, but as long as the new HD players can accommodate my regular collection, that's fine.

I am not there yet at all, but if you tell it really is an improvement and it is, that's a good thing. I spent so many years seeing faded and beaten up prints that this whole DVD thing is just fantastic!

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
06-12-2008, 02:15 PM
Those letters do get read . . .
...as do forums such as this one.

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
06-12-2008, 02:22 PM
Bought the Playstation, by the by. Cuz I'm a slave to trendy technology and all.

Only picked up a few flicks so far (with the Wal-Mart promotional gift card that came with purchase) - RATATOUILLE, THERE WILL BE BLOOD, FACE/OFF, and DIE HARD. All look varying degrees of awesome, of course - I already had Toshiba's XA2 HD DVD player, so there's not much novelty to be had. Just, you know, back in the game after that little 'dead format' hiccup. ;)

I did spot check some DVDs, and I think the Playstation may actually offer more detailed upconversion than did the XA2 - which is saying something.

Wayne Schmidt
06-12-2008, 02:27 PM
...as do forums such as this one.Yeah, I've actually directed some of my ex-compatriots to threads that have taken issue with a transfer they supervised. Many times the problems deal with something they were aware of that's out of their control, but they're interested to see people noticed or whatever.

Aleck Bennett
06-12-2008, 02:36 PM
Wayne, very well put!.

Wayne's got it going on in the knowledge department, that's for sure. And he's not a snark-filled sumbitch, either, which is good. Good for both of us, actually, since that leaves that spot in the marketplace of ideas open for me. :D

Jonathan Douglas
06-12-2008, 02:39 PM
I see Aleck is a funnyman about this, but gore fans seem to be happy with what they have of Fulci stuff (from AB/BU) on DVD, on B-R his films will probably look cleaner than they ever did theatrically. In other words, aren't we're doing to these films what a director never envisioned or dreamed of? When I saw Tobe Hooper's TCM (on DVD) without the grain, man, it just wasn't the same nasty experience anymore. :( It'll be a million years before even the most important horror/sci-fi stuff is out on B-R, it may be five or ten years for it all (if ever), no one knows what's down the line by then.

Aleck Bennett
06-12-2008, 03:21 PM
I see Aleck is a funnyman about this, but gore fans seem to be happy with what they have of Fulci stuff (from AB/BU) on DVD, on B-R his films will probably look cleaner than they ever did theatrically. In other words, aren't we're doing to these films what a director never envisioned or dreamed of?

Frankly, no. I don't think any director worth his or her salt has actually thought "hey, the fact that MPEG encoding is *really lousy* at handling film grain is really going to benefit this movie!" And I don't think that any director who cares about how their films look has wished for lousy print duplication, mishandling and damaging of prints, or lousy reel splicing (in other words, things that would be completely out of their control in the first place, and impossible to predict the end results of) to degrade the image that they were shooting as well on the theatrical front. I think Fulci -- if he gave a shit one way or the other, I can't claim to know if he did -- would probably have wanted his films to look about as close to what he was getting struck to negative in the first place, since that was the image he committed to celluloid. And a decent BD transfer would get about as close as possible given today's technology. As much as I love the AB/Grindhouse release of The Beyond (and I watch that disc more than just about anything else in my collection), would I appreciate more fine-grain detail? Sure. Would I like for the film to have more breathing room on the disc so that it's not so tightly compressed? Boy howdy. Would I like a better codec to be used so that the inherent grain of the image isn't digitally compromised by MPEG-2's inefficiency? You betcha.


When I saw Tobe Hooper's TCM (on DVD) without the grain, man, it just wasn't the same nasty experience anymore. :(

There's grain in the standard-def TCM.


It'll be a million years before even the most important horror/sci-fi stuff is out on B-R, it may be five or ten years for it all (if ever), no one knows what's down the line by then.

And no-one is saying that you can't watch your standard-def DVDs. In fact, all of the players out there are backwards-compatible so that you can continue watching 'em. And nobody's making any claims about what's going to be available in the future on BD, so I don't know where that argument comes from. But a standard-def DVD is not inherently closer to what directors "envisioned or dreamed of" than BD, and to insist that higher resolution (which should bring the image *closer* to 35mm film's resolution, not depart *from* a film-like image) is a step in the wrong direction is simply misguided. It might not play to someone's nostalgia for VHS, or even battered and aged film prints, but then, it's not really supposed to.

Wayne Schmidt
06-12-2008, 03:26 PM
I see Aleck is a funnyman about this, but gore fans seem to be happy with what they have of Fulci stuff (from AB/BU) on DVD, on B-R his films will probably look cleaner than they ever did theatrically. In other words, aren't we're doing to these films what a director never envisioned or dreamed of? When I saw Tobe Hooper's TCM (on DVD) without the grain, man, it just wasn't the same nasty experience anymore. :( It'll be a million years before even the most important horror/sci-fi stuff is out on B-R, it may be five or ten years for it all (if ever), no one knows what's down the line by then.
Well, 20 Million Miles to Earth is already out, other Harryhausens are planned. Not a milestone of sci-fi history, but I'm using it as an example of studio cult stuff that's dripping through. Warners released Forbidden Planet on HD-DVD, it'll show up on blu-ray before long. But sure, they're gonna concentrate on "eye candy" titles for awhile and try to jump start a foundation for the format. Releasing The Sam Katzman Collection in blu-ray isn't going to cause the sales department to go "Wow"! :)

I haven't seen TCM in HD, but it's a bit of a special case. As I mentioned in another thread it was a blow-up to 35mm in it's original release, so it looked pretty nasty even then. That "patina" did contribute to it's effectiveness for me. I don't know how I'd feel about the HD version, maybe it's too clean but I'll pass judgment after I've seen it. I don't know that Hooper shot it on 16mm for any other reason than cost, though. Has he made any sort of comment on how he feels about the new transfer?

Again, as far as Fulci I've got news . . . . theatrically his films didn't look the way they do on the current DVDs. Most of the time domestic prints were many generations down from the original neg, probably printed at very cheap labs. So if you're trying to capture a "legitimate" theatrical grindhouse experience you're not gonna do it with DVD at all, 'cause nobody's going to put out an intentionally shitty looking version taken from an inferior element if something better is around. I can't see how putting them out in a format that comes closer to the resolution the film was originally shot on would be an affront to Fulci or any director. If they wanted a diminished look why shoot on 35mm at all?

I just don't understand the hostility about the format, though. If you're happy with the current discs nobody's forcing anyone to upgrade. If you buy a blu-ray player at some point it'll play what you've got just swell. That's a better deal than laserdisc (myself included) or beta owners got. :)

edit: I see Aleck just posted with a lot of the same points, but I spent too much time typing this out so I'm hitting the button anyway! :D

Jonathan Douglas
06-12-2008, 03:31 PM
So, just to get this right, Fulci may never have seen his films look as 'good' as they would on B-R? Isn't that doing something more to his vision, that what he himself saw originally?

Wayne Schmidt
06-12-2008, 03:44 PM
I have no idea what he saw, but theoretically he saw them better than BR. He most likely looked at an answer print, and that's struck off the original negative. That would have more resolution. Again, his "vision" most likely would not be to visually degrade what he shot. That was a by-product of film distribution back then, not an intentional choice.

Aleck Bennett
06-12-2008, 03:45 PM
So, just to get this right, Fulci may never have seen his films look as 'good' as they would on B-R? Isn't that doing something more to his vision, that what he himself saw originally?

A pristine film print struck from an unblemished negative and projected optimally is going to look better than Blu-Ray simply because of technological limitation in the home video marketplace. 35mm film has better resolution than BD. Fulci may have only seen *really shitty* prints, or he could have seen lovely prints of his films; I don't know what Fulci watched. He may have never watched a single film of his after it was completed, for all I know (which would mean that I guess nobody else should either, following the above logic). But the point is that it doesn't matter if Fulci only ever saw his films on battered and damaged prints, taken from generations on down the line. As Wayne astutely comments, even your standard DVDs are "doing something more to his vision" than what he originally saw if that were the case. The point is to get as close to the look presented in the original elements as possible. That's the aim of any decent standard-def DVD, and should be the aim of any decent BD release. BD is just more successful at presenting an image closer to those elements due to enhanced resolution, more efficient codecs, and increased storage capacity.

Jonathan Douglas
06-12-2008, 04:16 PM
The increased storage capacity is what attracts me the most, it'll be a small revolution for TV shows I gather, being able to store several seasons on one disc. If they indeed go about it like that - and if the price is right, of course...

Wayne Schmidt
06-12-2008, 04:32 PM
The TV thing would be very cool. It'll probably be awhile before they start to play with those sorts of possibilities, but it'll be nice. One of the factors of pricing TV box sets is manufacturing and shipping costs. It you can get a set that takes up a bunch of standard def discs down to one or two BD it'll be cheaper for sure.

I shudder to think how PD companies that do those "50 Horror Movies" style boxes would use it though!!

Steve R
06-12-2008, 06:53 PM
I read that Neil Young was planning on releasing the first mega volume of his archives on BR so he could take advatage of the quality and space to fit all the video, music, photos and other material in one package.

Upon that annoucement there ensued a major backlash from folks clamoring that his most ardent supporters woudl never embrace the new media. Why can't it all be on CD with a bonus DVD.

At the time when CDs were making their debut,the pundits claimed that Bruce Springsteen's just released multi CD live set drove purchases of the new CD machines.

Wayne Schmidt
06-12-2008, 07:21 PM
It's nice to hear of novel ideas like that. Blu-ray doesn't have to be just about movies. There are a lot of things that can be done with that sort of storage space. I think they're letting people get acclimated to the technology before muddying the waters.

Chris Polvi
06-12-2008, 07:33 PM
Film has no resolution! To state that it does is just as absurd as saying that blue-ray has less light-sensitive emulsion and silver halide crystals than film. From now on this is what I'm going to say to people instead of talking about resolution.

(although of course if you go to a digital intermediate a movie suddenly can be talked about in terms of resolution.) God bless film school!

Aleck Bennett
06-12-2008, 07:58 PM
Film has no resolution! To state that it does is just as absurd as saying that blue-ray has less light-sensitive emulsion and silver halide crystals than film. From now on this is what I'm going to say to people instead of talking about resolution.

(although of course if you go to a digital intermediate a movie suddenly can be talked about in terms of resolution.) God bless film school!

You're absolutely correct, but it's necessary to kind of simplify the issue for comparison's sake. We're talking about digital vs. analog media, which is always a tricky thing. There is no resolution per se in film, and the question of what the equivalence is to the video medium is a somewhat contested one, but the one thing that's agreed upon is that film stores a good deal more information than high-definition video.

Chris Polvi
06-13-2008, 12:45 AM
I know, I'm just being cheeky. I'm just kinda sick of blu-ray and how it's taking over all my favorite mainstream (ie non cult) dvd review sites. Probably mostly jealousy because I'm not on the boat yet.

But some of them are getting ridiculous in championing it. There's an 'article' linked on the main page of dvdfile.com that claims that not only is blu-ray superior to watching a movie in a theatre, but that the 'resolution' of a theatrical release print is about the same as a standard-definition dvd! I mean come on!

Wayne Schmidt
06-13-2008, 01:36 AM
There's an 'article' linked on the main page of dvdfile.com that claims that not only is blu-ray superior to watching a movie in a theatre, but that the 'resolution' of a theatrical release print is about the same as a standard-definition dvd! I mean come on!I don't pretend to know the degree of drop-off, but there's certainly generational breakdown from camera negative to IP to IN to release print (more so in the older days with cruder duping stocks and before digital intermediates). But yeah, unless it's a really bad release print I would think it would certainly trump a standard def DVD, and most likely blu-ray (although I really don't know).

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
06-13-2008, 02:56 AM
I don't pretend to know the degree of drop-off, but there's certainly generational breakdown from camera negative to IP to IN to release print (more so in the older days with cruder duping stocks and before digital intermediates). But yeah, unless it's a really bad release print I would think it would certainly trump a standard def DVD, and most likely blu-ray (although I really don't know).
There's also the question of *apparent* resolution (or 'resolution' if preferred) in theatrical exhibition. If the bulb's not quite bright enough, if the lens is slightly cooked, if there's gatefloat, if the exit sign is spilling light onto the screen, on and on and on...

How many perfect theatrical experiences can one expect to experience in one's life - unless you live in L.A., run your own theater, or are lucky enough to reside near one that still employs a dedicated projectionist, and not just floorstaff and a tech who comes through every so often to keep the equipment from breaking down entirely.

ROBERT BLACK
06-13-2008, 06:19 AM
I'd rather see more money put toward obtaining film licenses than re-authoring old titles on a niche format.

What he said. So many worthy films that would make steller DVD releases and we're being re-sold the same crap.:rolleyes:

Blu-ray will be this generation's laserdisc. I expect it to kick around the periphery of the market for the next 5 years before summarily being fazed out by the next format which will have more staying power, and offer more value for the consumer. Remember VHS was an inferior format and it still outlasted Laserdisc by years. VCD is inferior to DVD yet it's still around.

ROBERT BLACK
06-13-2008, 06:43 AM
Newsflash, you don't live forever! More than half of my collection will more than likely never see a Blu-Ray release, let alone a standard DVD-9 re-release.

That's what it comes down to. How many of us have titles that bombed on DVD and will most likely be passed over for Blu-Ray? How many of the Euro/Asian/Indie cult titles have insufficient quality materials available to make an adequate HD master? Some of them don't look very good on my upconverting DVD Player. I have an HDTV,Rogers HD cable package, and yes alot(but NOT ALL) of HD Programming LOOKS GREAT! But most of my collection consists of lesser known films and some pretty esoteric cinematic obscurities. I see little point in waiting forever for the next format to meet the needs of the cult film collector, if anything I can record mainstream programming on my future HD PVR and stream it to my TV. No need for Blu Ray.

Aleck Bennett
06-13-2008, 09:34 AM
That's what it comes down to. How many of us have titles that bombed on DVD and will most likely be passed over for Blu-Ray? How many of the Euro/Asian/Indie cult titles have insufficient quality materials available to make an adequate HD master? Some of them don't look very good on my upconverting DVD Player. I have an HDTV,Rogers HD cable package, and yes alot(but NOT ALL) of HD Programming LOOKS GREAT! But most of my collection consists of lesser known films and some pretty esoteric cinematic obscurities. I see little point in waiting forever for the next format to meet the needs of the cult film collector, if anything I can record mainstream programming on my future HD PVR and stream it to my TV. No need for Blu Ray.

Then what's the problem? If you're happy with standard-def, if you're convinced that BD is going to be a niche format, if you're convinced that you have no need for BD, then what's the issue? Nobody is twisting your arm into buying anything on BD, nobody is forcing you to abandon your discs, nobody is forcing you to wait for all your genre favorites to appear on BD (indeed, nobody is even suggesting that one wait), and even if your DVD player konks out and your only recourse is to replace it with a BD player (unlikely situation, but let's entertain it for shits'n'giggles), it'll play your standard-def discs just fine. It seems a complete non-issue for me. I don't get where some folks' hostility toward a video format is coming from.

Matthew B.
06-13-2008, 09:45 AM
Then what's the problem? If you're happy with standard-def, if you're convinced that BD is going to be a niche format, if you're convinced that you have no need for BD, then what's the issue? Nobody is twisting your arm into buying anything on BD, nobody is forcing you to abandon your discs, nobody is forcing you to wait for all your genre favorites to appear on BD (indeed, nobody is even suggesting that one wait), and even if your DVD player konks out and your only recourse is to replace it with a BD player (unlikely situation, but let's entertain it for shits'n'giggles), it'll play your standard-def discs just fine. It seems a complete non-issue for me. I don't get where some folks' hostility toward a video format is coming from.

Thread over.

Matthew B.
06-13-2008, 09:51 AM
All kidding aside, I was a skeptic of the blu-ray format. I too shouted from the rooftops that I would play a waiting game and never give in. I screamed how upconverting looked great and I had no desire to make the move. Then I bought a PS3 for games. Then a blu-ray title followed. Then another.

I now have a change of heart. I'm glad that I made the jump. There is a resounding difference in visual clarity compared to a standard DVD. I see myself from here on out continuing my movie library with blu-ray for any title when the option is there. Sure I'll still purchase standard DVDs, but only if I have no choice for the title I want. I could care less if the format takes off, I'll be enjoying my films in hi-def until the next big thing happens.

Mark C.
06-13-2008, 02:36 PM
All kidding aside, I was a skeptic of the blu-ray format. I too shouted from the rooftops that I would play a waiting game and never give in. I screamed how upconverting looked great and I had no desire to make the move. Then I bought a PS3 for games. Then a blu-ray title followed. Then another.

I now have a change of heart. I'm glad that I made the jump. There is a resounding difference in visual clarity compared to a standard DVD. I see myself from here on out continuing my movie library with blu-ray for any title when the option is there. Sure I'll still purchase standard DVDs, but only if I have no choice for the title I want. I could care less if the format takes off, I'll be enjoying my films in hi-def until the next big thing happens.

My sentiments exactly. There is no way I'll be rebuying my thousands of dvds on blu-ray, but from now on if I dont have it on sd-dvd and its available on blu-ray then i'll buy the obvious. I would go nuts if I felt that I needed to re-buy films I already own just for more clarity of picture etc...But there are some obvious duoble dips that I can't pass by.

Wayne Schmidt
06-13-2008, 02:49 PM
Just curious - do any of the blu-ray players play SACD?

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
06-13-2008, 03:05 PM
Just curious - do any of the blu-ray players play SACD?
Apparently, the Playstation 3 (http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html) can.

Paul A J Lewis
06-13-2008, 03:12 PM
Out of curiosity, how much does the combined cost of an HD television and Blu-Ray facilities cost in a country such as the US, especially in relation to people's earnings?

Over here in the UK, the only people I know who have taken the dive into HD are those who earn around £25-30,000 a year (and, oddly enough, students--who tend to live with their parents anyway). I would guess that a good HD television and a Blu-Ray player would set you back around £1,000 or so. I doubt that anyone on less than £15-20,000 a year would even be able to consider making the move into HD without getting themselves into considerable debt. To put things into perspective, most one/two-person households' monthly expenditure--mortgage/rent, gas/electricity, Council Tax, water rates, insurance, etc--equates to about £1,000; so the 'dive' into an HD format would for most people be roughly around 10% of their annual income* or one month's living expenses, meaning that for most people the only way to manoeuvre themselves into the HD battleground would be either to purchase on credit (not sensible in this day and age, says I) or simply have very little in terms of financial commitments (i.e. living in a shared accomodation/with their parents).

What's the cost of HD in the US, in relation to people's earnings?



* The average wage in the UK is said to be about £24,000, but that figure is pushed up by the much higher wages that people earn in the big cities, where the cost of living is also much higher; in most parts of the country it's about £10-15,000, I would say.

Wayne Schmidt
06-13-2008, 03:29 PM
Apparently, the Playstation 3 (http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html) can.Awesome. :)

edit: Oops. Not so awesome.

"Do all PS3s play SA-CD?

Not anymore, unfortunately. The third generation, introduced worldwide in October/November 2007, is the first model that is not SACD-compatible. Probably all future models aren’t either."

Wayne Schmidt
06-13-2008, 03:51 PM
Out of curiosity, how much does the combined cost of an HD television and Blu-Ray facilities cost in a country such as the US, especially in relation to people's earnings?

Over here in the UK, the only people I know who have taken the dive into HD are those who earn around £25-30,000 a year (and, oddly enough, students--who tend to live with their parents anyway). I would guess that a good HD television and a Blu-Ray player would set you back around £1,000 or so. I doubt that anyone on less than £15-20,000 a year would even be able to consider making the move into HD without getting themselves into considerable debt. To put things into perspective, most one/two-person households' monthly expenditure--mortgage/rent, gas/electricity, Council Tax, water rates, insurance, etc--equates to about £1,000; so the 'dive' into an HD format would for most people be roughly around 10% of their annual income* or one month's living expenses, meaning that for most people the only way to manoeuvre themselves into the HD battleground would be either to purchase on credit (not sensible in this day and age, says I) or simply have very little in terms of financial commitments (i.e. living in a shared accomodation/with their parents).

What's the cost of HD in the US, in relation to people's earnings?



* The average wage in the UK is said to be about £24,000, but that figure is pushed up by the much higher wages that people earn in the big cities, where the cost of living is also much higher; in most parts of the country it's about £10-15,000, I would say.I'm not sure of the relation to earning, but I've seen 37" LCDs for around $500. If you're replacing a TV you'd be hard pressed NOT to buy HD. There's not that many standard def sets being made these days. The players are all around $400, but as Jeffrey pointed out Walmart's running a special of a $100 gift certificate, which brings it down to three.

I have HD monitors, but I most likely won't be buying blu-ray for awhile. If my standard def DVD player broke I'd mull it over . . . . hopefully by then they'll be cheaper than right now.

Aleck Bennett
06-13-2008, 03:55 PM
Awesome. :)

Not all of them, though, right? According to the link, the third-generation ones introduced after Oct/Nov 2007 aren't SACD-compatible (though mine is a CECHG model that outputs NTSC, and the FAQ linked says that the CECHG models are PAL, so I don't know what the hell's going on with mine). Apparently, mine doesn't play SACD. :(

***Edit: Wayne, we *really* need to stop posting over each other. :D ***

Paul A J Lewis
06-13-2008, 03:56 PM
I'm not sure of the relation to earning, but I've seen 37" LCDs for around $500. If you're replacing a TV you'd be hard pressed NOT to buy HD. There's not that many standard def sets being made these days. The players are all around $400, but as Jeffrey pointed out Walmart's running a special of a $100 gift certificate, which brings it down to three.

I have HD monitors, but I most likely won't be buying blu-ray for awhile. If my standard def DVD player broke I'd mull it over . . . . hopefully by then they'll be cheaper than right now.
Thanks for that info, Wayne :) It seems that the HD 'revolution' is quite a bit cheaper in the US than in the UK: $500 is around £250. From what I can tell, in the UK a 37 inch HD LCD television will cost you over £500 (at the cheapest end of the spectrum), which is around $1,000. That's a pretty eye-opening difference, I think.

Wayne Schmidt
06-13-2008, 05:06 PM
***Edit: Wayne, we *really* need to stop posting over each other. :D ***Great minds think alike, or . . . . . . (insert nasty insults from other board members here). :D

Jonathan Douglas
06-13-2008, 06:01 PM
The Blu-Ray Maniacs sounds like a country rock group. :D

Wayne Schmidt
06-13-2008, 06:03 PM
Thanks for that info, Wayne :) It seems that the HD 'revolution' is quite a bit cheaper in the US than in the UK: $500 is around £250. From what I can tell, in the UK a 37 inch HD LCD television will cost you over £500 (at the cheapest end of the spectrum), which is around $1,000. That's a pretty eye-opening difference, I think.I'd imagine it'll get there in short order, Paul. The price drops on sets here have been dramatic in the last year and a half.

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
06-13-2008, 10:26 PM
Awesome. :)

edit: Oops. Not so awesome.

"Do all PS3s play SA-CD?

Not anymore, unfortunately. The third generation, introduced worldwide in October/November 2007, is the first model that is not SACD-compatible. Probably all future models aren’t either."
Err, oops meownself!

That's what I get for Googling 'Playstation' & 'SACD', posting the results, and running out the door to see a generally pretty underwhelming flick (THE HAPPENING).

My Playstation ain't supporting SACD either, as it turns out. Sorry to lead ya astray!

Dick Ringeisen
06-13-2008, 11:23 PM
Someone in this thread mentioned Wal-Mart's discount.

Well, youc an actually buy a Blu-Ray player for a little less than $200, if you factor in that $100 gift card (Buy some toilet paper with it, something...)

Wal-Mart has a Magnavox Blu-Ray player. This is not the magnavox most remember. The player is built by Funai, and has been branded Insignia (Best Buy brand), Phillips, Magnavox, and Sylvania. Each have a few difference, but the core of them is pretty much the same.

Decent players, especially for a bit less than $200.

My father has one. He's happy. The difference in the picture in sound is noticeable, even to him! He is very happy with it, and may actualyl revisit the new Rambo movie and Cloverfield, both films he recently watched on regular DVD (On an Oppo upconverting player I gave him...)

The player is Blu-Ray profile 1.1, but for the price, it's nice. Not everyone is interested in online only special feaures. Some people are happy enough with the 1080 picture.


I think Blu-Ray will eventually take the majority of disc sales, but DVD will still be around, as the player can play both formats. It will take some time, but just as HD-TV prices have dropped, Blu-Ray players will continue to drop, so that when your DVD player gives up the ghost, you will be in a situation where it wouldn't make sense NOT to buy a Blu-Ray player.


Wal-Mart.com still has the offer going on their players. The Magnavox is $298, plus $100 ONLINE ONLY gift card. HOWEVER, you can use that online gift card to buy a physical giftcard. You still have to pay shipping. From what I've heard from others, many stores are selling out of this player, and some people overlook on their website that the "Virtual gift card" can be used to buy a physical one.

Still, if you miss this deal, i'm sure there will be otehrs. iw ouldn't be surprised if these Funai Blu-Ray players are being sold for $150 during December 2008.

Wayne Schmidt
06-14-2008, 12:54 AM
It's probably been covered in other threads, but how are the Anchor Bay blu-rays, especially Halloween?

Jeffrey Allen Rydell
06-14-2008, 03:19 AM
It's probably been covered in other threads, but how are the Anchor Bay blu-rays, especially Halloween?
All but HALLOWEEN are supposed to have varying degrees of crippling Noise Reduction - with EVIL DEAD II being especially horrific.

HALLOWEEN is said to be fairly unburdened by digital issues, *but* uses the later 'DiviMax' transfer's color timing, with some additional corrective tweaking that unfortunately doesn't adequately address the lack of blue saturation in night scenes. I nearly bought it anyway, but I think I'll just Netflix it instead.

Erik David Herrera
06-15-2008, 06:24 PM
all I know is I can see Jamie Lee Curtis' nipples now on the blu-ray, so all is good.

Erik David Herrera
06-15-2008, 06:26 PM
I read that Neil Young was planning on releasing the first mega volume of his archives on BR so he could take advatage of the quality and space to fit all the video, music, photos and other material in one package.

Upon that annoucement there ensued a major backlash from folks clamoring that his most ardent supporters woudl never embrace the new media. Why can't it all be on CD with a bonus DVD.

At the time when CDs were making their debut,the pundits claimed that Bruce Springsteen's just released multi CD live set drove purchases of the new CD machines.


yeah, and I really hope he does this! he was promising to put out a huge archive box-set thingy on DVD Audio, because , as well all know, he HATES CDs!!!!! I hope it comes out before there's something better than blu-ray and he has to start all over again. Then again, we really need to hand it to him for caring so much about audio quality.

Erik David Herrera
06-15-2008, 06:33 PM
Thread over.

there's also really no need to look at blu-ray as some NEW FORMAT!!! or to compare it to the jump from VHS to DVD. it's just an upgrade in DVD technology, in my opinion. or at least that's what I'm telling myself. It's not like y6ou have to melt all your DVDs in order to adapt to blu-ray, and my guess is they might NEVER stop making new standard-def DVDS. maybe I'm wrong, but it's the impression I get. and if you want to keep watching only standard-def DVDs, they will look A LOT better on a blu-ray player... VHS was always shitty. we knew it was shitty but made do with it because it was easy and LD was expensive both in the players and the discs. other than elite and anchor bay (loved those clamshells) making quality geek-friendly VHS releases, it was a crappy format that laster a lot longer than it should have. I think everyone can agree that DVD is amazing! blu-ray is just a necessary jump up in technology perhaps. I'm not fond of the look in every case (terrified to see Altman on BR) and kinks will continue to be worked out, but it shouldn't be looked at as some giant blue monster that's gonna eat all your DVDs and then kill you!!!

Reyne M
06-16-2008, 10:39 AM
I'm still stuck at converting my vhs to dvd- I wish I knew how. I can barely burn dvd's. I think Blue Ray will have to go on without me.

Jonathan Douglas
06-19-2008, 06:19 AM
Maybe I've missed this info somewhere, but is there such a thing as the layer-change pause on B-R, that we sometimes see on DVD?

Vanessa R
01-14-2009, 04:08 AM
I don't think it'll last. Sorry folks...

I see Blu-Ray as a gimmick. Just like the Super VHS. It's not here to stay, but it's here to appeal those who are tech savvy and like spend money on their movies and think they are getting the best quality. Those who buy DVDs could care less about Blu-ray. Go into a Best Buy, and ask people if they buy Blu Ray DVDs. The majority will say no.

Vanessa R
01-14-2009, 04:08 AM
I'm still stuck at converting my vhs to dvd- I wish I knew how. I can barely burn dvd's. I think Blue Ray will have to go on without me.

Me and you both babe!

Derek Steckler
01-14-2009, 09:29 AM
Maybe I've missed this info somewhere, but is there such a thing as the layer-change pause on B-R, that we sometimes see on DVD?

No, you don't get the layer pause the way you do on standard dvds.

Kester Pelagius
01-14-2009, 12:06 PM
I see Blu-Ray as a gimmick. Just like the Super VHS. It's not here to stay, but it's here to appeal those who are tech savvy and like spend money on their movies and think they are getting the best quality.

Funny thing about S-VHS. I've NOT seen a S-VHS blank tape in any retailers in years (not like they ever really carried them) and NEVER seen a S-VHS prerecord. I say that's funny because I own a S-VHS deck. Actually bought the very last model CC ever sold. Never was able to find S-VHS media, which was supposed to be much better than regular VHS media, to use for it. But darned if it didn't recorded crisper and clearer, even in SLP mode, than my standard deck!

Then again standard decks didn't have S-Video outputs at the time. So you got very nice picture quality. Which was nice if you were recording something for relatives. OTOH if you accidentally recorded something in S-VHS mode you couldn't play it back in any other deck. So if your S-VHS player were to ever break down you'd be stuck with a lot of paper weights.

Kester Pelagius
01-14-2009, 12:17 PM
I'm still stuck at converting my vhs to dvd- I wish I knew how. I can barely burn dvd's. I think Blue Ray will have to go on without me.

It all depends on how you want to accomplish the task. If it's via computer then you'll probably want to go to a site like videohelp dot com (and I hope I remembered that URL right) to find out what software et al you will need. The quickest and easiest method is probably to purchase a dual deck VHS/DVD recorder and make your archives that way. Or, if you still have a VCR and own a DVD recorder, you can always hook them up and make your archival transfers that way.

Just be aware that protected tapes wont let you make archival transfers of them without some form of signal correction device when using off-the-shelf consumer decks.

Steve R
01-14-2009, 02:02 PM
I've still got some great stuff on Beta. Which was better than VHS.

Wayne Schmidt
01-14-2009, 03:39 PM
Funny thing about S-VHS. I've NOT seen a S-VHS blank tape in any retailers in years (not like they ever really carried them) and NEVER seen a S-VHS prerecord. I say that's funny because I own a S-VHS deck. Actually bought the very last model CC ever sold. Never was able to find S-VHS media, which was supposed to be much better than regular VHS media, to use for it. But darned if it didn't recorded crisper and clearer, even in SLP mode, than my standard deck!

Then again standard decks didn't have S-Video outputs at the time. So you got very nice picture quality. Which was nice if you were recording something for relatives. OTOH if you accidentally recorded something in S-VHS mode you couldn't play it back in any other deck. So if your S-VHS player were to ever break down you'd be stuck with a lot of paper weights.A bit off topic, but I actually had ONE pre-recorded S-VHS . . . I think it came with a JVC deck I bought. It was INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE. It didn't look all that terrific. Laserdisc still had a much nicer picture. S-VHS was sharper than VHS but I always thought the noise level was no better. At least that's the way it looked to me. Also, Panasonic was making standard VHS decks that could play S-VHS tapes (they'd be at regular res, however) for a couple of years. I still have one, in fact.