PDA

View Full Version : Warner dumps HD DVD


drown021
02-02-2008, 02:52 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20080202/tc_pcworld/141984

Havent checked any other sites,but If this is true,bye bye HD DVD. I think Blu Ray is the better of the two and is going to be the winner,but anyhoo.Posted just in case anyone cares.

drown021
02-02-2008, 02:58 AM
Dude,If this is like a month old news,I'm laughing at myself......

othervoice1
02-02-2008, 03:02 AM
yea this is pretty old news

dwatts
02-02-2008, 03:07 AM
Dude,If this is like a month old news,I'm laughing at myself......

I'm laughing with you.

drown021
02-02-2008, 03:12 AM
I'm laughing at myself.I'm kinda..say..under the influence and for some reason saw it and thought...whatever.I was hoping no one would see this.

drown021
02-02-2008, 03:16 AM
So to redeem my dumb ass,I would like to say that I would love to see Universal drop HD DVD and go Blu Ray exclusive due to all the old school horror films they have the rights to.They have a great catalog.Once they convert to BR we will be golden.

dwatts
02-02-2008, 03:43 AM
Well, me too. Universal and Paramount are the last hold outs. Blu-Ray winning is crap - because region encoding is the work of Satan - but that's what we've got, so let's get on with it. The Universal Monsters in hi-def would be sweet......

X-human
02-02-2008, 04:51 AM
Well it's stupid of PC World to put that on their cover page, I guess they're just as happy to see it over as the rest of us.

booper71
02-02-2008, 12:48 PM
it explains why hd players are now below $150.

SEANVALEN
02-02-2008, 02:23 PM
http://news.sky.com/skynews/xml/article/tech/0,,91221-12532,00.html

HD DVD sales step up in the States


Well, compared to blue ray for now, any HD title and players will be cheaper, if you get a large chunk of your favorite films on hd-dvd already, prices will be dvd sales like, I've seen some reduced hd-dvds selling cheaply in uk already.

dwatts
02-02-2008, 02:48 PM
Well, cheap prices, and the fact that these apparently make very good SD players helps. That's still only a third of the market..... HD-DVD isn't about the titles that are right now, but about the ons that'll be out in the next year... which doesn't look very good.

SEANVALEN
02-02-2008, 06:34 PM
Well, cheap prices, and the fact that these apparently make very good SD players helps. That's still only a third of the market..... HD-DVD isn't about the titles that are right now, but about the ons that'll be out in the next year... which doesn't look very good.


Until Paramount and Universal say enough is enough, there seems a whisker of hope, I rather wish they had gone to blue ray all together, it's kinda like false hope. This slow death of HD-DVD is more painful then I thought it would be, and the fact their discs are all region free, what a lost opportunity, I hate blu ray for it being done by Sony, kinda being pushed into it, which is the cauality of war.

dwatts
02-02-2008, 06:57 PM
Oh - I didn't want Blu-ay to win, I don't see the consumer win at all. But since each format decided the way forward was to hold films we want to ransom, I don't like either to be honest. The sooner this is over the better.

rhett
02-02-2008, 09:19 PM
I'm really just hoping that even if Blu-Ray wins, which they likely will, they'll still fail to create any dent in the marketplace. I think it's too soon for everyone to upgrade to the same sort of format as DVD - I think it will take something like solid state technology to really convince buyers that change is good.

dwatts
02-02-2008, 10:07 PM
Why get hooked on the media, Rhett? Movies mastered and released in hi-def, whether it be a disc, downloaded, or solid state is such a blessing for movie fans. I say let those of us who want more quality move on. Still, no-one has to upgrade if they don't want, so I don't see the loss for everyone who prefers lesser quality DVD if that's what they want.

The Chaostar
02-02-2008, 10:47 PM
It is still early for BR. And it is still early to talk about lesser quality in general.

Remember the first days of DVD?

First all the reviews were filled with praises. Then, some months later we started reading about edge enhancement and blocking and artifacts... We learned. Then we'd get a re-release of the same film albeit with a new transfer, some years later and you'd read a review again filled with praises when, the same reviewer, 5 years ago, wrote, for the inferior old transfer, the famous quote "this is the best this will look on DVD". Yeah right.

Not all BRs are good. Some look like shit. It will take time for the studios to really master the technology.
And my Criterions look awesome with upscaling when projected so I am not that eager for ther BR versions.
Unless I see some Fulci or Argento films (at least), unless prices fall, DVD will do... just fine.

dwatts
02-02-2008, 11:09 PM
And it is still early to talk about lesser quality in general.

It'll always be that way, as it is with DVD. Trust me, I'd never confuse technology with quality. Good mastering, good transfer to disc, that's what matters. But that chances of getting a better presentation are greatly improved just be decreasing compression - so that's a great opportunity (then the extra resolution alone helps..... ask whether the Americans think upscaling helps them or not......)

But yeah, we're all waiting. The Criterions we've gotten used to, but I see no reason to believe a Blu-Ray Criterion won't be an improvement. Regardless, Blu-Ray discs already cost about the same as a Criterion in the US..... Still, if some people don't want hi-def that's fine.... as long as us that do can have it. :)

booper71
02-03-2008, 12:14 AM
The market that matters, HD-DVD porn is flat out killing the BluRay porn, and this is the genre that helped many people accept the DVD format originally. Sony is still trying to get BRP blocked, while HD welcomes it. :sperm:

rhett
02-03-2008, 12:17 AM
Why get hooked on the media, Rhett?
Isn't that what you're doing? If the interest is in the films themselves, then seeing them in their original aspect ratio on DVD should be more than sufficient. Fussing over pixels, and so few at that, seems to me more about the technology than anything. That's not what I'm against though - I'm against the future of an art form being solely in the hands of Sony, especially when they have a vested interest with their own production line. Seems to incestuous and political for what has traditionally been a medium of revolution and change.

booper71
02-03-2008, 12:29 AM
I am content with DVD, just get those classics out while we're still young, I'd like to see my what's not on dvd list dwindle some more.:cry:

KR~!
02-03-2008, 12:32 AM
The market that matters, HD-DVD porn is flat out killing the BluRay porn, and this is the genre that helped many people accept the DVD format originally. Sony is still trying to get BRP blocked, while HD welcomes it. :sperm:

Not true, no need for blu-balls for blu-ray owners:

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=920

KR~!
02-03-2008, 12:34 AM
That's not what I'm against though - I'm against the future of an art form being solely in the hands of Sony, especially when they have a vested interest with their own production line. Seems to incestuous and political for what has traditionally been a medium of revolution and change.

Blu-Ray is not just Sony!

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) is the industry consortium that develops and licenses Blu-ray Disc technology and is responsible for establishing format standards and promoting business opportunities for Blu-ray Disc. The BDA is divided into three levels of membership: the Board of Directors, the Contributors, and the General Members. [1]

The "Blu-ray Disc Founder" was founded in May 2002 by nine leading electronic companies: Matsushita, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, Samsung, and Sony. Spearheaded by NP Infotech, on February 19th 2002 the companies announced [2] that they were the "Founders" of the Blu-ray Disc and later changed their name to the "Blu-ray Disc Association" on May 18, 2004 to allow more companies to join their development. Some examples of companies that signed in include Apple, TDK, Dell, Hewlett Packard, The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros. and Universal Music Group. As of December 2007, there are more than 250 members and supporters of the Association.

read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association

rhett
02-03-2008, 12:45 AM
But there's no doubt Sony has the biggest sway, and considering it is the backbone of their PS3, the whole thing just screams monopoly to me.

dwatts
02-03-2008, 12:50 AM
Isn't that what you're doing? If the interest is in the films themselves, then seeing them in their original aspect ratio on DVD should be more than sufficient.

No - that's not even close to what I'm doing. I want to get as close to cinema as I can get for my humble dollar. Who are you to suggest DVD "should" be good enough? Why should it? On a big home screen DVD can sometimes suffer. Maybe watching it on your V is good enough for you, but since I'm paying my own money for the films I own, I'll look forward to getting them in as good a quality as I can. I think as a fan of cinema - compressed image and sound is not optimal, and it's not what the filmmaker would want ideally. If the quality jump isn't good enough for you, fine. For me, I'm seen hi-def work wonders, and I look forward to seeing all my favorites in the superior format.

It's my understanding Sony own the patents...... which is really what the war was all about.

I'm against the future of an art form being solely in the hands of Sony, especially when they have a vested interest with their own production line. Seems to incestuous and political for what has traditionally been a medium of revolution and change.

100% agree. But there's nothing we can do about it now. It was them or Toshiba/Microsoft. So it wasn't really much of a choice. But yeah - I didn't want Sony to win either.

KR~!
02-03-2008, 12:52 AM
But there's no doubt Sony has the biggest sway, and considering it is the backbone of their PS3, the whole thing just screams monopoly to me.

Well, Sony and Phillips created the CD, were you concern about that as well back then? Also Sony and Phillips play a big part in DVD, so why should this time be somehow any different than what happen with those two formats? There are lots of legit reasons not to like Sony, but this isn't one of them, IMHO.

dwatts
02-03-2008, 12:55 AM
Their strict compliance with region coding is a good reason to hate Blu-Ray.

But I have no issue with the PS3 having Blu-Ray, it needed something for additional content, so it makes sense for them to use Blu-Ray.

I just wish player prices would fall!!

KR~!
02-03-2008, 01:01 AM
Their strict compliance with region coding is a good reason to hate Blu-Ray.

But I have no issue with the PS3 having Blu-Ray, it needed something for additional content, so it makes sense for them to use Blu-Ray.

I just wish player prices would fall!!

Me too!

It will happen, in due time:
http://www.techgadgets.in/misc-gadgets/2008/29/sony-develops-the-worlds-smallest-blu-ray-readerwriter-module-in-less-price/

dwatts
02-03-2008, 01:13 AM
Damn straight!

Hey, think of it this way. Cloverfield comes out for home viewing. You have some money in your pocket and can afford to buy it. Now, all things being equal, would you say to yourself: "Hey, DVD is good enough, so I'll go with that." Or would you buy the best quality you could, and pick up the hi-def version? Why choose a more compressed version, with fewer sound options? Why have the mammoth cinema sound this movie has, compressed - when you can have it sounding better?

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying SD is bad, not at all. I have a couple thousand of the bastards - but in future I'll increasingly spend my money on buying something with better quality - that's all.

rhett
02-03-2008, 02:22 AM
No - that's not even close to what I'm doing. I want to get as close to cinema as I can get for my humble dollar. Who are you to suggest DVD "should" be good enough? Why should it? On a big home screen DVD can sometimes suffer. Maybe watching it on your V is good enough for you, but since I'm paying my own money for the films I own, I'll look forward to getting them in as good a quality as I can.Why not invest in a 35mm projector then? It's your money, may as well have the best. I've settled on DVD because it is the first widespread format to embrace the original aspect ratio, and really, anything other than that is superfluous. I think technology has really come to cloud the art of film itself, adding speakers and pixels at a rate that seems totally excessive. Does having a film in DTS 7.1 ES EX whateversuffixisnext really make a film that much more enjoyable? I'd argue it makes it worse: a gimmick.

The Chaostar
02-03-2008, 02:41 AM
Rhett I agree 100% on the monopoly issue.
But having seen Casablanca projected in HD I must say that BR it's not just a gimmick. And it is indeed much cheaper than a 35mm print and a projector.
DVDs are fine with me but if I can get a good BR player and there are some indeed great euro-horror titles out there I will purchase.

I understand every bit of your ethical stance. but when I imagine a Peter Greenaway film in HD, or Last Year at Marrienband, or Suspiria, then, I confees, I feel defeated.

dwatts
02-03-2008, 03:18 AM
Why not invest in a 35mm projector then? It's your money, may as well have the best.

Well, you know full well. ;) Can you get pristine prints for it? Can you get them for under $20? Can you buy them at the local store? Can you get them from Amazon? Do they have commentary tracks on them? Nah - 35mm would be the closest to film (!) but as you well know, it's not a feasible option.

Does having a film in DTS 7.1 ES EX whateversuffixisnext really make a film that much more enjoyable? I'd argue it makes it worse: a gimmick.

And I'd argue you've forgotten what it was like to go from VHS to DVD - and that a new change with the similar benefits is a joyous thing. There's nothing wrong with wanting the most for your money. And yes, I prefer to watch a cleaner image - it does help a film. Why not watch Cloverfield in mono? Why not listen to it compressed? Sorry, you've lost me. Why do you suggest a desire for the best image quality for your dollar, and the best sound, somehow goes hand-in-hand with not caring about the film itself? Why should they be mutually exclusive?

What do you watch your movies on? If you have a 32" TV or something, then maybe you won't benefit. I forget how you watch your films...... But you seem to be suggesting that a wide screen image, uncut, and remastered is great - but only if it's unecessarily compressed. Getting surround sound mixes of sound in DTS is good - but only if it's compressed. Wanting more is somehow a bad thing and makes us appreciate film less? Or did I miss something? I say - widescreen uncut good, less compression on the master good. Surround sound good, less compression on the sound is good. Better. It won't make some of the crap I watch better (as in a better film), but it's great value for my dollar, and it can help. It certainly won't hurt.

I understand every bit of your ethical stance.

I don't. This isn't a life and death issue - it's about film, and it's about the value for a dollar. Ethical stance? More luddite really. Are we going to argue that there should never be another format because, you know, DVD is good enough? Why does every review on this web site go into detail on the A/V if it's not really that important? Because it IS important. And extra quality has helped people enjoy cinema like never before. And was that simply because films are uncut and widescreen, or did the extra quality matter too? And if the quality mattered, why wouldn't more quality be even better?

Casablanca in hi-def brings tears to your eye. Seriously. It can make you cry. It is so stunning, it literally takes you back in time. Is that wrong then? Should I just have been happy with the compressed DVD? Why should I not be able to enjoy such a wonderful film looking like it does in hi-def? Does it increase the quality of the film? Depends what you're defining as the "film". If you're talking about the performances, the writing, the direction.... then no. If you're talking about the lighting, the photography, the score.... yes. In fact, hell yes! It looks.... like a little bit of heaven fell onto the screen. Yes, a BETTER experience than I've ever seen before. So yeah, overall, watching the hi-def version is seeing it like never before. Of course you can enjoy this to some extent on DVD, but it's not the same - not exactly the same.

Let's face it, for many the issue is cost. That's MY issue. People don't want to spend the money, they don't want to feel they have to upgrade what they've collected. I can appreciate that. So let's not invent arguements against getting closer to the quality of film - as though we're supposed to feel bad that we care about the beauty of the photography, and want to see it at the best of current capabilities? If Argento and his crew spent all that time making Suspiria in all its splendor, is it really unreasonable to wish to see it as beautiful as it can be? Is there something wrong with wanting to see it as close to the original vision as possible? Do the visuals not matter then because the compressed image of DVD is good enough for some?

Sony? Hate them.

Rhett - do you feel the same about upscaling DVD?

rhett
02-03-2008, 06:34 AM
And I'd argue you've forgotten what it was like to go from VHS to DVD - and that a new change with the similar benefits is a joyous thing.
No, I remember full well, and that's just the point. The jump from VHS to DVD is monumentally larger than DVD to HD. In the VHS days we were dealing with stereo soundtracks (at best), cropped picture, censored scenes, poor resolution, etc. DVD (thanks to LaserDisc) really helped to push the concept of film back as art. We finally got films in their original aspect ratio, original sound mixes and in their complete form, all in a consistent format free of time or handling degradation. None of that has changed with HD, the colors just look a little fuller, the picture a little clearer and the sound with even more timbre in those frequencies the ears cannot hear. If going from VHS to DVD is like going from a bicycle to a car, then going from DVD to HD is like going from a Sunfire to a Cadillac. A nice upgrade, but certainly not essential.

I have a beautiful big screen HDTV. I've got an HD satellite subscription. I've watched HD movies. They look nice, but to me it's just not that big a deal. More often than not I just prefer to throw something up on my 30 inch CRT sitting in my room. It's more intimate that way, more personal. The whole concept of "home theater" has always seemed sort of exhibitionist to me. It's like getting neon strips on the bottom of your car, or a really big sub woofer in the trunk. Cool, sure, but again, is it really necessary?


Why not watch Cloverfield in mono? Why not listen to it compressed?
How about not watch it at all?


Why does every review on this web site go into detail on the A/V if it's not really that important? Because it IS important. And extra quality has helped people enjoy cinema like never before. And was that simply because films are uncut and widescreen, or did the extra quality matter too? And if the quality mattered, why wouldn't more quality be even better?
No matter how good the quality of future formats gets, it will never, ever rival the beauty of seeing a film projected in a theater. This has nothing to do with video or sound quality, but the "idea" of film as a tangible, tactile art form. See, it's never about clarity, but more just the experience. I recently got to watch ERASERHEAD and BLUE VELVET on the big screen. The prints were old, beat up and rustic, but there was a beauty in sitting there in that darkened room thinking about nothing other than the image. Not worrying about 2:3 pulldown, DTS or Dolby Digital, anamorphic or non, just the words of the actors, the images on the screen and the sound from the speakers. Simple really, and something this whole fuss over technology has to an extent perverted cinema into some nitpicking about the form. Wine tastes like wine regardless of the bottle.

killit
02-03-2008, 06:59 AM
I have nothing to add except blue velvet is the best DVD I have. It's gorgeous. And I hope hd wins

dwatts
02-03-2008, 01:34 PM
They look nice, but to me it's just not that big a deal. More often than not I just prefer to throw something up on my 30 inch CRT sitting in my room. It's more intimate that way, more personal. The whole concept of "home theater" has always seemed sort of exhibitionist to me.

And that is perfectly fine. Your opinion, we all have one. For someone like yourself, who claims to love the art of movie so much, to not want a decent projected home theater seems ridiculous to me, I might even say, you're missing the big picture (:D). But again, that's just my opinion. Getting as close to a cinematic experience increases the power of the art form - but you don't want it. Still, that's up to you. I won't go as far as to suggest you "should" want a decent home theater, I'll simply accept you have a different viewpoint. It's not something I'll ever understand mind you.

The whole concept of "home theater" has always seemed sort of exhibitionist to me. It's like getting neon strips on the bottom of your car, or a really big sub woofer in the trunk. Cool, sure, but again, is it really necessary?

Films ARE for exhibition. :) And what's with all this "necessary" talk? Films are made to be shown in theaters, big theaters (except TV movies I suppose). So to replicate that at home seems a logical step. A 30" CRT isn't worthy of game playing. But that's just me. Come to think of it, you can watch film on a 14" color portable - is a 30" CRT necessary, Rhett?

Here's what I don't understand. Are you saying there is no difference at all for you watching a movie at a theater, with say a 40 foot screen, than watching one on your 30" CRT? If not, just simply a "wow." If yes, then are you saying it's a black and white thing - and that a 7 foot screen can't improve on watching on a 30" CRT, that there aren't levels inbetween? For me there's a huge difference. It's not a pissing match over who loves movies as an art form more or less, it's just simple - films were made to be shown big, on large screens, it's part of their magic. So steps toward that all improve on the overall experience. If you've settled for a 30" CRT, that's fine. But others of us want to go a step further, to wring every pleasure we can out of the movie experience. That's all. It's not wrong, and it's nothing like sticking neon lights on a car, since doing that does nothing to improve the experience of driving. And to me, it indicates a greater love and respect for the artists at work, a dedication. It doesn't make me better, more knowledgable, or more sentimental, than those with 30" CRT's. Just a tad more dedicated to the experience and the hobby of movie watching.

No matter how good the quality of future formats gets, it will never, ever rival the beauty of seeing a film projected in a theater.

It's about getting close. And infact, you are aware that the movie industry itself is the early throes of getting rid of film, right? Digital projection at some cinemas (no film), and now digital cameras (hi-def) to shoot them, it's coming, and over the years we'll see film dwindle. It'll take time. I think around 600 cinemas in the UK were converted to digital projection..... Over time.....

Still, it's about getting as close as possible. Film is film. You want something exactly like film, get film. I'd love to have film, but as noted earlier, I would not be able to get the titles I want, in the condition I want. So we all compromise with digital media. We can try to get close though.

I recently got to watch ERASERHEAD and BLUE VELVET on the big screen. The prints were old, beat up and rustic, but there was a beauty in sitting there in that darkened room thinking about nothing other than the image. Not worrying about 2:3 pulldown, DTS or Dolby Digital, anamorphic or non, just the words of the actors, the images on the screen and the sound from the speakers.

Do you really worry about 2:3 pulldown, DTS, anamorphic while watching DVD's? I don't. I put the disc in, play the film, and enjoy. I would add - I used to watch movies on a black and white TV, pan and scanned prints, and I STILL enjoyed the art of the film. I was missing some things, but the artistry involved still drew me in. I fell in love with Argento in pan and scan - there was no widescreen back then. They were pretty wretched VHS tapes too. So what's the point? Why all the fuss over DVD? Because now it's widescreen and you can see more? Is it that simple? Was I really not enjoying the films back then?

We can agree to disagree. You love DVD and all that it brings, but you're suggesting it ought to be good enough even though it's compressed to fit an arbitrary sized storage media. You suggest we should like the compression, even if you don't have to suffer it by simply putting your money into a different format. And then you put down people who love film so much so they put aside huge spaces in their homes to get even closer to their beloved titles. Interesting.

Hi-def is no different from DVD, the DVD you love. It's simply got less compression on video and sound. Yet you're promoting unecessary damage to the picture and sound. You promote going to the cinema, yet ridicule people who want their movies to always feel that way. All sounds a bit strange to me, but there you go, the world is a strange place.

Oh -and I saw Crash in a theater recently. The print was crap, and I wish they had just projected the DVD. Watching with an audience can be interesting, but there's no reason to put up with washed out colors, splices, and sound drop outs, there's nothing sentimental about it. I suspect it wasn't something Cronenberg had planned for us either.

Simple really, and something this whole fuss over technology has to an extent perverted cinema into some nitpicking about the form. Wine tastes like wine regardless of the bottle.

Well, you keep writing your reviews with details on A/V and extras mate. Keep perverting the artform. Maybe you feel that way because you get so many free discs and don't have to spend your own money on most of them? Personally, that's my hard earned cash that's being spent, so I want good value. Not to mention, I've read and seen plenty of interviews with film technicians talking about how hard they worked to get a certain look of effect down. It's not "perverted" to want to see it as they intended - and to not want scratches etc. all over it. it's just about the love of film.

I have nothing to add except blue velvet is the best DVD I have. It's gorgeous. And I hope hd wins.

Yes, some DVD's look fantastic. No doubt. If I love a film I want it looking as good as it could possibly get, but it's not like DVD suddenly got bad or anything. HD-DVD though... that's not going to win - SuperBowl commercial or not....

Shannafey
02-03-2008, 04:01 PM
I really want an HD format, but I am still waiting this out. I think Blu Ray will triumph, but it still remains to be seen. I never bought an LD player and waited at least 1-2 years for a DVD player, so I can definitely wait this one out. Besides, my Upconverted DVDs look beautiful. And in all honesty, I get most DVDs used for under $10 and that is fine by me. I also rip a good share of them and they look great as well! When I do invest in an HD format, I'm going to be very sparing in what I buy. The newest romantic comedy or even most horror films don't need to be in HD, but an epic period piece or a high budget scifi will probably get my bucks!

dwatts
02-03-2008, 04:33 PM
Same with me - Shannafey. I won't be buying everything in HD due to cost constraints. But let me put it another way....

All things being equal..... you have a Blu-Ray player, you have a DVD player. A new movie comes out and the SD version and the hi-def version cost the same amount to own. Which would you buy, and why? For me, I'd buy the hi-def version every single time - it's money better spent. But the question is, all things being equal - which would you buy? Which would you buy, Rhett? SD?

Same with a nice big screen at home with a projector. If you had a projector and a ten foot screen, and a 30" CRT. What would you choose to watch Cloverfield on? The 30" CRT because it's good enough, or on a nice large screen? For me the answer is pretty obvious, but I'd be curious to know why anyone would choose a 30" CRT over a big screen experience....

These higher end speced things have been going on forever. Same with music. I love music, and listen to a lot. I can listen to it on a computer in crushed MP3, or on CD or SACD. Some people listen on iPods, others spend tens of thousands of dollars getting a high-end system. Of course it's the same song, and we all have a personal relationship with our music - but no-one will convince me it isn't a better experience in every way listening on a top-line Linn system than it is on a set of computer speakers with MP3. it's not the same, it's not as good, it's not as beautiful. Good - but not THAT good.

Same with high-performance cars.... they all get from A-Z - but one gives a way better ride than the other..... is that wrong? Is it wrong to be concerned about the extra bump you might feel in the road? Nah.

rhett
02-03-2008, 07:17 PM
Films are made to be shown in theaters, big theaters (except TV movies I suppose). So to replicate that at home seems a logical step...It's not a pissing match over who loves movies as an art form more or less, it's just simple - films were made to be shown big, on large screens, it's part of their magic. So steps toward that all improve on the overall experience.
Films began being projected in theaters not to attain an improved level of quality over the previous standard of viewing them through small eyepieces, but instead to attract more customers. When the first theaters were built, it was clear - cinema was an art meant for the masses. Anyone could go and watch a movie. You didn't have to be high class like with art, or the symphony, all you needed was a nickel and the world was yours. You've seen THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE...for sure that print of FRANKENSTEIN they watch is projected under meager conditions, but that gym is still full, and that was a more magical experience for that little girl (in reality, too) than any beautifully mounted theater or home setup could ever provide.

When you get into HD and DTS 9.1 ES EX, it moves away from being a public medium and into one that is accessible only to those with large amounts of disposable income. Would Argento, or god forbid Matt Reeves, really want that? No. Their movies were made for the masses. Did Argento make SUSPIRIA for your multi-speaker sound setup? No. He made it so it could be seen by many, and for little. The drive-in certainly doesn't present films in top quality, but that's what many people made their movies for. It was good enough to hear the mono sound through a clip on the side of your window, why is it not so anymore?

Surely improvements in film technology will help one day eventually remove all the grain structure from movies shot on "film" to remove that artifice. It theoretically would make the film look more realistic. But there comes a point when that process sucks the organic magic out of the movies, where it becomes an excessive focus on the presentation rather than the medium itself.

DVD has been accepted as the universal home video medium, one that everyone can experience. Would it have been better, all things being equal, that Blu-Ray hold that distinction? Sure, you could argue that. But they aren't equal, and DVD is the first format to truly present films as they were intended to be seen, and it's the one that is cheapest and most accessible to all. That's the one I'll back.

dwatts
02-03-2008, 11:09 PM
Films began being projected in theaters not to attain an improved level of quality over the previous standard of viewing them through small eyepieces, but instead to attract more customers.

Well, this isn't quite accurate. Technology allowed for a different kind of film - those things with eyepieces never truly replicated what was presented on screens - and screen viewings replaced it by doing something different. The original Praxinoscope was a personal experience the rich enjoyed at home. It moved downward (socially), and turned into cinema, which was public display. The move to cinema was an industrial process, it wasn't a bunch of artists getting together and making a beautiful thing - it was engineering that essentially invented rolled film, projection systems, etc. Interestingly - Edison was the guy who started the patent race we still see today - he loved buying up other people inventions and patenting them so he could get the licensing fees. I guess things haven't changed at all.....

In other words, technology moved on - bringing with it new types of film, better quality, and a more consuming experience. Not so different from what we have today.

You've seen THE SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE...for sure that print of FRANKENSTEIN they watch is projected under meager conditions, but that gym is still full, and that was a more magical experience for that little girl (in reality, too) than any beautifully mounted theater or home setup could ever provide.

But you're confusing sentimentality with home viewing. Yes, what is shown in Spirit of the Beehive is touching - a poignant moment in time - but that doesn't mean wanting great quality at home for viewing on your own is a bad thing, or an experience any less special. They BOTH can be special. As I stated elsewhere, I grew up in a day and age when there was virtually NO home viewing other than through TV - which was black and white. I still loved film - and I remember films fondly. I've never experienced Dracula any more forcefully than when I was an impressionable kid. I've not forgotten that, but I also won't let my good memories delude me into thinking what we have today isn't infinitely better. If we're talking about emotional connection, it's still possible to go back and watch the films of Edison and be in awe - I know I am (and own them on DVD). But that's a different argument, because I've never seen anyone state they can only emotionally connect with todays films if they have hi-def and surround sound....

When you get into HD and DTS 9.1 ES EX, it moves away from being a public medium and into one that is accessible only to those with large amounts of disposable income. Would Argento, or god forbid Matt Reeves, really want that?

Well, I'm sorry, but is this really about the poor then? The unemployed? The disabled? Those poor unfortunate people can't afford HD, so therefore there's something wrong with HD, or the people that can afford it? Seriously? :D

Those who can't afford it - and frankly - those that don't WANT it - can still enjoy film (if you can't afford a DVD or a HD disc, can you afford to go to a cinema today?!?) Hell, I know plenty of people who watch film and never concern themselves with the quality of direction, lighting, photgraphy, etc. Most people watch movies for entertainment and don't give a fig about such things - they just want a good time. If they don't want these things, that's fine, isn't it? But I don't feel sorry for them, or bad about myself because I enjoy my home theater.

Did you feel the same when widescreen movies came into the mainstream? I mean, we all had 4:3 TV's, and the Academy ratio worked well on that. Then everything went widescreen and we were cheated. No-one could get a widescreen set - is that an argument that movies moved away from the masses? Of course not. How about color? How about good old 5.1 surround? It's really relatively recent that we've been able to afford it in our homes - were the masses being denied with VHS? Strange argument that - it's mostly progress.

Now, would Cloverfield be as great a cinema experience if not for it's booming sound? Haven't the sound engineers spent considerable time on that film making it terrific? If they know they have a 9.1 setup to play with, don't they design for it, take it into acount, push their new tools to their limits? Why not? Sure the film could be watched in mono - but I seriously doubt it was conceived that way, and that surround sound wasn't an intrinsic part of the soundstage design. Every technician deserves to have their work shown in its best way, don't they?

The drive-in certainly doesn't present films in top quality, but that's what many people made their movies for. It was good enough to hear the mono sound through a clip on the side of your window, why is it not so anymore?

Who says it's not? It's just that I don't want to watch EVERYTHING this way. And people didn't watch everything that way back in the day either. Again, it's simply progress. Nostalgia and sentimentality is one thing, but there seems to be an assumption that people can't connect in the same way just because something is projected at home, in a pristine print, in hi-def, with surround sound. Whereas - the people investing in such things actually love film - love movies - make a real commitment to it. Connect with cinema? Try investing lots of money, giving over rooms of your home, and spending hours in there doing what's most fun to do - watching movies. That's terrific!

Drive-in? I don't actually know why they largely failed, but wasn't it a case of the public speaking? They didn't want to go to drive-ins anymore... TV, brick and mortar cinemas.... didn't the people speak and decide against them for the majority of their viewing?

DVD is the first format to truly present films as they were intended to be seen

Wasn't that laserdisc? And films were never meant to be seen compressed - in a format that inherently requires damage to the image and sound. That damage might be something you find acceptable - but if you don't need to suffer it, why bother? Just grab a Blu-Ray. For about the same money I can get a cleaner experience and better investment for the future.

You know, I watched a right piece of (fun) nonsense this afternoon - Massacre in Dinosaur Valley. Due to the mastering, there's a nice pause at the layer change - that's a fine technology for you. Now, it didn't totally spoil the experience of the film as such, but it would have been better not to have been taken out of the moment, no? We need something other than DVD for that though - or a more highly compressed image to fit on a single layer.... I think they call it hi-def.

Of course DVD is cheaper and more accessible. Hi-def is relatively new, and it's been stuck in a pathetic war. It'll sort itself out. Luckily, I can enjoy it now. If people don't want it, then that's just fine.

X-human
02-04-2008, 12:16 AM
35mm would be the closest to film (!)

:hum:

:D

SEANVALEN
02-04-2008, 09:20 AM
Alot of tv shows and films I'm pleased with on dvd, but other films and alot of the new stuff I would like to buy on HD. I think I'm one of those who will have mixture of the formats, personally I think HD is the best thing to happen to DVD buyers, dvds are cheaper now, a while ago, a new x files season boxset cost 90 pounds in the shops, just one season, NOW, I brought all nine seasons in a collectors box edition for 70 pounds, that's like buying each season for 8 pounds! amazing. Online dvd sales in January.


Blu Ray will obivously be expensive for a while, in the meantime I'll make sure what I want on dvd I get cheap, and not upgrade those, and what I wait for, I'll leave for HD.

spawningblue
02-04-2008, 10:39 PM
All things being equal..... you have a Blu-Ray player, you have a DVD player. A new movie comes out and the SD version and the hi-def version cost the same amount to own. Which would you buy, and why? For me, I'd buy the hi-def version every single time - it's money better spent. But the question is, all things being equal - which would you buy? Which would you buy, Rhett? SD?


Sadly some new Blu Ray movies don't have all the extras that their DVD counterparts have, nor do they always have the unrated cuts. That is one of the reasons I am not jumping in right now, well that and the fact that the war is still somewhat going. I'm sure a lot of the current Blu Ray discs will be replaced with better editions later on, like what happened with DVD. So I'm not going to run out and replace my DVD, only to replace the Blu Ray edition in a few years. It seems to me that they are rushing out a lot of the Blu Ray movies. Look at the Spider-Man trilogy. I was expecting it to have every extra ever released, including the crap they released as exclusives to Best Buy and what not, and what do you get? A decent SE of the third movie and bare bone discs for the first two. What the hell is that!? They want people to replace their DVDs, and they are putting out shit like that. That is not progress, that is less for more money.

Anyways, I'm sure in a year or two I may jump into Blu Ray but I really feel no rush to. Like a lot on here have said, to really experience Blu Ray you need a ridiculously big TV and a new surround system. Because of this I really don't see everyone jumping on Blu Ray when they have DVDs. I think it will be like laser disc, and hang around for the hardcores who have money to spend. Maybe when I find a better job this will be me, but right now I'm fine with DVD, and couldn't afford to experience Blu Ray in the way that it would really be better then DVD.

Oh, and even if I do get into Blu Ray, I will probably only buy newer movies, unless like some have said it is worth getting, ie. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, ect. I doubt I will have to start replacing movies like American Pie or Zombie 4.

dwatts
02-04-2008, 11:21 PM
Sadly some new Blu Ray movies don't have all the extras that their DVD counterparts have, nor do they always have the unrated cuts.

yeah, it'll vary disc to disc. Some discs won't look as good for one reason or another, no doubt. We have to stay on our game! I did see Saw III claims it has Blu-Ray only extras, for instance. don't know what they are though....

What they need to do is to start pahsing extras off DVD - drop prices etc. It's not like it hasn't happened before (that's how CD worked).

Reverenddave
02-04-2008, 11:30 PM
Sadly some new Blu Ray movies don't have all the extras that their DVD counterparts have, nor do they always have the unrated cuts.

Unfortunately this is true. I don't care about extras. But it really sucks that some movies are being released on HD using only the theatrical cut. Given the space on a HD disc and the ability to use seamless branching, there's no acceptable excuse for not including all available cuts.

dwatts
02-05-2008, 01:35 AM
Or the two-disc sets. I can't fathom that at all. I own a couple Blu_ray double disc sets. Surely there's no need? Weird.

KR~!
02-05-2008, 01:54 AM
Or the two-disc sets. I can't fathom that at all. I own a couple Blu_ray double disc sets. Surely there's no need? Weird.


no need if they compress the holy hell of the video and the audio, haven't we had enough of that already?

dwatts
02-05-2008, 07:52 AM
Actually, I think they're only using half the disc capacity on these titles.... If it required the entire disc to house them, HD-DVD truly was screwed......

KR~!
02-05-2008, 10:52 AM
Actually, I think they're only using half the disc capacity on these titles.... If it required the entire disc to house them, HD-DVD truly was screwed......

no shit...

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews33/_clockwork_orange_HD_Blu-ray.htm

dwatts
02-05-2008, 11:01 AM
Although I never wanted to become one of those guys who focused 'too much' on image and sound quality - I find HD is swiftly pushing me in that direction. So be it

And yes, some of those captures look like a thing of beauty, no?

marcx
02-05-2008, 10:34 PM
I have a 720 p projector and a 92" screen, a 7.1 set up, and both hd-dvd, and blu-ray. I still love to go tothe movies. But I also love the shit out of my home set up.

HD does make a big difference over SD, especially when the screen is that large. 7.1 soundtracks immerse you in the film. I like to get lost in afilm. The best 7.1 track is one that I don't realize how great it is until afterwards because I've been lost in the film..

eric_angelus
02-06-2008, 05:09 AM
I have a 720 p projector and a 92" screen, a 7.1 set up, and both hd-dvd, and blu-ray. I still love to go tothe movies. But I also love the shit out of my home set up.

HD does make a big difference over SD, especially when the screen is that large. 7.1 soundtracks immerse you in the film. I like to get lost in afilm. The best 7.1 track is one that I don't realize how great it is until afterwards because I've been lost in the film..

Agree 100%. In the last year or so, when I am at home watching a movie...I find myself easily distracted by other stuff in my apartment...ie running to get a drink, check e-mail, etc...but since I got my blu-ray player and my new TV...I do find myself getting lost in the movies again. For me that makes the money very well spent.

X-human
02-06-2008, 10:16 PM
Well to get back to the subject at hand, Warner has announced some of the new titles for 2008/2009:The list of titles previewed at last night's event are as follows (note that the studio stressed that this is not a complete list of planned Blu-ray releases, simply the highlights):

Q2 2008: 'Dirty Harry: Ultimate Collection' (includes 'Dirty Harry,' 'Magnum Force,' 'The Enforcer,' 'Sudden Impact,' 'The Dead Pool' and bonus disc "Clint Eastwood: Out of the Shadows')

Q3 2008: 'Batman Anthology' (includes 'Batman,' 'Batman Returns,' 'Batman Forever,' 'Batman & Robin,' 'Batman Begins'), 'Batman Begins'

Q4 2008: 'Otis: Uncut'

2009: 'Gone with the Wind,' 'North By Northwest,' 'The Wizard of Oz,' 'Woodstock'

2008/2009 Theatrical Releases: '10,000 B.C.,' 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,' 'The Dark Knight,' 'Get Smart,' 'Speed Racer'' and 'Where the Wild Things Are.'

Warner has not released specific street dates or technical specs, but full announcements are expected over the coming months as the studio rolls out its complete 2008/2009 line-up.http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Warner/Disc_Announcements/Warner_Previews_2008/2009_Blu-ray_Slate/1439

Yet my question remains unanswered, where in the hell is Forbidden Planet on Blu-ray damn it!