Just read an article on HD Digest saying that Paramount has postponed (without explanation) their next two new releases until March.
Personally, I consider Paramount & Universal's next move to be a win/win situation for me. If the format is officially killed, I get to pick up lots of cheap HD titles (wouldn't mind having Casablanca or Adventures of Robin Hood for a few dollars. Got them both on DVD, so I'd never pay the full $25 for a few extra pixels...) and I can always be thankful for a format war that allowed me to get a HD drive for only $250 Australian (that's $210, if you subtract the value of the free King Kong HDDVD)
Not to mention various cases like The Phantom of the Opera, Alice Cooper Live at Montreux and 300 were having the movie on HDDVD means better specs or extra features.
If Paramount and/or Universal continue with the war; my chances of a reasonably priced Bluray drive increase, as do my chances of getting The Godfather or Apocalypse Now on HDDVD (there's other titles from both studios that I'd buy again in High Definition, but those seem the two most likely releases.
As for the logic of Paramount continuing with HDDVD; Transformers and Shrek 3 clearly have a small window for making big profits (like any blockbuster) but as for most of their other titles, they'll probably make more money selling them on HDDVD this year, selling them to Bluray camp next year, and keeping the 1.5 mill by sticking to the end of the contract.
Finally, on the subject of Warner (and other bluray companies) accepting bribes, I have come to the conclusion that these people are either imbeciles or liars...
- If Warner wants to back Bluray, and the Bluray camp is offering them money/incentives to do so. Then they owe it to their shareholders to *take* those incentives.
What are they going to say? "No, thank you. You can keep your money, we've decided to switch to Bluray for free"
I know that if I had any sizable shares in Warner, I would be royally displeased at a decision like that.
- Second possibility, of course, is that Warner did take money and/or incentives and are just flat-out lying. (This seems, to me, the most likely explanation. Remember, just a few days before they announced the switch to Bluray, they announced a dual-format release of 'The Dark Knight' (late in 2008))
Blu-ray, in General
-
Rufus T. Firefly
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:24 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
If you read the article it says nothing of the sort, and also I note you omitted the question mark at the end of the headline which gives it a somewhat different meaning i.e. it is merely speculative*
*at the time of writing
I watched 2001 on HD DVD last weekend. In one or two scenes there was some very faint edge enhancement, in most there was none. Nothing like what you are reporting. It's unlikely that the BD transfer is different between the two formats, so I suspect the problem is indeed with your set-up somewhere. I'm just guessing, but maybe the PS3 or your display (or both) might have a "sharpen" function which is set to too high a level.Ben C wrote:I just got a PS3 today along with 2001, A Clockwork Orange and several other non Kubrick BDs. 2001 was the first thing I popped in and I saw lots of serious edge enhancement. It could be that I'm watching it in 720 component or it could be some other obscure setting that's not right.
-
denti alligator
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:36 am
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
-
KeystoneCop
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:55 pm
Does anyone really think HD-DVD can survive at this point? I was never in either camp -- don't even own an HDTV. But with Blu controlling what it does now, the continued support from Paramount/Universal seems like it MUST be strictly cosmetic.
I mean, how do they think the mass populous is going to react when they realize they can't get any of the Lord of the Rings movies, can't get any of the Harry Potter movies, can't get any Disney movies for their kids. No Matrix, no Star Wars, no Pirates, no Spiderman, no HBO shows, and even though Universal and Dreamworks are HD, Spielberg opts to put out on Blu-Ray too. In terms of what the public wants, what does HD-DVD even have on its side at this point?
Titanic? Transformers? Shrek?
I'm really annoyed that Toshiba isn't just admitting defeat and allowing consumers to bring high definition to their homes without mucking up the waters.
I mean, how do they think the mass populous is going to react when they realize they can't get any of the Lord of the Rings movies, can't get any of the Harry Potter movies, can't get any Disney movies for their kids. No Matrix, no Star Wars, no Pirates, no Spiderman, no HBO shows, and even though Universal and Dreamworks are HD, Spielberg opts to put out on Blu-Ray too. In terms of what the public wants, what does HD-DVD even have on its side at this point?
Titanic? Transformers? Shrek?
I'm really annoyed that Toshiba isn't just admitting defeat and allowing consumers to bring high definition to their homes without mucking up the waters.
Last edited by KeystoneCop on Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
denti alligator
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:36 am
- Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"
-
davebert
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: NY
- Contact:
Yeah, these companies want to put on a strong CES show - which is a nice opportunity to flex for opponents as well as consumers - and no one wants to dampen the mood by admitting colossal defeat during such an event (even if they cancelled the HD-DVD press conference).
I don't see this going on much longer. In terms of people saying they won't jump into the HD waters until the catalog holds something of value, I don't propose dumping SD anytime soon. The way I see it, I'll be buying 90% standard, but if it's a good mainstream/modern dual release, I'll go for the HD. Not much extra effort on my part, as I would have owned a PS3 anyway...
I don't see this going on much longer. In terms of people saying they won't jump into the HD waters until the catalog holds something of value, I don't propose dumping SD anytime soon. The way I see it, I'll be buying 90% standard, but if it's a good mainstream/modern dual release, I'll go for the HD. Not much extra effort on my part, as I would have owned a PS3 anyway...
-
KeystoneCop
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:55 pm
On another note, there seems to be a lot of discussion in this thread regarding the relevance of high definition when it comes to classic films. Lots of people seem to be of the mind that DVD is fine for pre-1950 films, or even any films that aren't in a widescreen aspect ratio.
Remember that even in the early parts of the century, films were shot on 35mm, and DVD resolutions are NEVER going to be able to capture all of the qualities of a 35mm print. Especially starting in the 1930s, Hollywood films had astonishingly detailed, sharp and luminous cinematography. On a well-restored release, HD has much more of a capacity to close the gap between what the original presentation looked like and what we can hope to see in our homes (especially on large-screen TVs and projection systems, which is where things seem to be moving for cinema fans).
Of course, it's probably going to be a long, long time before we'll see large quantities of 30s Howard Hawks or Josef von Sternberg or Frank Borzage or Leo McCarey films on HD, but one can always dream!
Remember that even in the early parts of the century, films were shot on 35mm, and DVD resolutions are NEVER going to be able to capture all of the qualities of a 35mm print. Especially starting in the 1930s, Hollywood films had astonishingly detailed, sharp and luminous cinematography. On a well-restored release, HD has much more of a capacity to close the gap between what the original presentation looked like and what we can hope to see in our homes (especially on large-screen TVs and projection systems, which is where things seem to be moving for cinema fans).
Of course, it's probably going to be a long, long time before we'll see large quantities of 30s Howard Hawks or Josef von Sternberg or Frank Borzage or Leo McCarey films on HD, but one can always dream!
-
Darth Lavender
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:24 pm
Actually, 35mm prints (not the original camera negative, but prints taken from that negative) are considered to be 2K (same as High Definition)
Were classic films can really shine, though, (the most obvious examples being The Searchers and Mutiny On The Bounty on HDDVD) is in their use of 70mm film stock (or the comparably large Panavision, etc.) both because the materials (if they still exist) are more detailed than HDDVD (or even 35mm) and perhaps more importantly; because one of the main 'draws' of these films is the landscapes (heck, one of the formats is even called VISTAvision,) etc. which is one of HD's strong points.
The problem with classic films, however, is; how many are in a state to really benefit from HD? Quite a few, I'm sure (another annoyance of Warner's Bluray exclusivity; no "Gone With The Wind" for a while (of course, I doubt Blues & Purples will get it either) but certainly not all of them, and probably not even 'most.'
There's definitely films I've seen, which sport excellent DVD transfers that likely could not be improved with High Definition. Most obviously, the Ozu films I'm currently watching. I understand a lot of film-noir (Double Indemnity, etc.) is a bit on the soft side. Well worth having, in restored editions, on DVD, but there's simply nothing to be added with HD
Don't misunderstand, I'm entirely in favour of classics in High Definition (were the filmstock merits High Definition) Much more than, say, The Phantom Of The Opera, were everything looks about as sharp as upscaled SD (literally, I did some 'blind' testing and couldn't tell the difference.) But there's a heck of a lot of well-restored classics which simply don't have much to gain from HD.
Although, I will add, perhaps the most problematic era seems to be the 1980s. I'd be interested to hear opinions on why this is, but there seems to be a vogue for shooting things a little soft, and I've heard the filmstock used in that decade was a lot less durable than in other eras (perhaps because the big money-maker was seen as being TV & VHS rentals? I certainly have noticed on some 80s & 90s films a lot of dead space to accomodate Pan & Scan)
Were classic films can really shine, though, (the most obvious examples being The Searchers and Mutiny On The Bounty on HDDVD) is in their use of 70mm film stock (or the comparably large Panavision, etc.) both because the materials (if they still exist) are more detailed than HDDVD (or even 35mm) and perhaps more importantly; because one of the main 'draws' of these films is the landscapes (heck, one of the formats is even called VISTAvision,) etc. which is one of HD's strong points.
The problem with classic films, however, is; how many are in a state to really benefit from HD? Quite a few, I'm sure (another annoyance of Warner's Bluray exclusivity; no "Gone With The Wind" for a while (of course, I doubt Blues & Purples will get it either) but certainly not all of them, and probably not even 'most.'
There's definitely films I've seen, which sport excellent DVD transfers that likely could not be improved with High Definition. Most obviously, the Ozu films I'm currently watching. I understand a lot of film-noir (Double Indemnity, etc.) is a bit on the soft side. Well worth having, in restored editions, on DVD, but there's simply nothing to be added with HD
Don't misunderstand, I'm entirely in favour of classics in High Definition (were the filmstock merits High Definition) Much more than, say, The Phantom Of The Opera, were everything looks about as sharp as upscaled SD (literally, I did some 'blind' testing and couldn't tell the difference.) But there's a heck of a lot of well-restored classics which simply don't have much to gain from HD.
Although, I will add, perhaps the most problematic era seems to be the 1980s. I'd be interested to hear opinions on why this is, but there seems to be a vogue for shooting things a little soft, and I've heard the filmstock used in that decade was a lot less durable than in other eras (perhaps because the big money-maker was seen as being TV & VHS rentals? I certainly have noticed on some 80s & 90s films a lot of dead space to accomodate Pan & Scan)
-
Rufus T. Firefly
- Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2004 8:24 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Darth, there's something I think you have overlooked in terms of putting older films on HD formats. It is true that a lot of old films exist in less than pristine condition. However in transferring these films to DVD a considerable amount of compression needs to be applied in order for them to fit on the discs. For people with large displays this means that many video artefacts are apparent, and using the greater capacity of HD discs means that these artefacts can be reduced or eliminated. The example of 2001 is a good one: the original DVD had a hellish amount of edge enhancement which is virtually absent in HD. I did not notice the edge enhancement on the DVD when watching it on my old TV, but as soon as I tried viewing it through a projector I realised it was not watchable. Other artefacts like aliasing (what many people call "jaggies") are also practically eliminated.
The same principle applies to audio. Some high and low frequency information is lost in DVD compression and this often results in a flat or slightly distorted sound. The HD formats provide the opportunity to include a lossless audio track which will better represent the analogue original. Even with early mono recordings, as some information is lost when the audio is compressed.
So while you might not think the level of detail can be improved (although I would probably also disagree with you on that if 35mm elements survive) there are other important advantages to high definition.
The same principle applies to audio. Some high and low frequency information is lost in DVD compression and this often results in a flat or slightly distorted sound. The HD formats provide the opportunity to include a lossless audio track which will better represent the analogue original. Even with early mono recordings, as some information is lost when the audio is compressed.
So while you might not think the level of detail can be improved (although I would probably also disagree with you on that if 35mm elements survive) there are other important advantages to high definition.
-
Jeff LeVine
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:27 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Ben - setting up the ps3 is complicated and can be frustrating. In a way it's more of a "computer" than "console," or at least the way we are used to thinking of consoles. Make sure you have the right kind of cable selected as your output and then make sure you have selected the correct resolution for the ps3 to output at. I use my old ps2 component cables with no problems (haven't watched 2001 on blu-ray yet tho). Also hook that thing up to the internet if you haven't already and download the latest system firmware (it should detect what you need automatically when you hook it up and turn it on). Even tho you have a brand new ps3, you'll probably have to do a couple updates - each of which will take an hour or two, depending on your connection speed.
-
Nothing
- Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:04 am
4-8k depending on who you talk to. Anyone claiming that 2k is equal to the quality of a 35mm show print has an agenda. Also, HD is not the same as 2k, not simply resolution but also colour depth and latitude.Darth Lavender wrote:Actually, 35mm prints (not the original camera negative, but prints taken from that negative) are considered to be 2K (same as High Definition)
-
patrick
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:15 pm
- Location: Philadelphia
This is purely speculation on my part, but since Paramount caught such flack for taking money from Toshiba, it's possible that WB might have a different sort of deal set up with Sony. Their licensing costs for the Blu-Ray technology might have been reduced, or perhaps they're getting some sort of sweetheart deal on the manufacturing to make the discs even more profitable.Darth Lavender wrote:Finally, on the subject of Warner (and other bluray companies) accepting bribes, I have come to the conclusion that these people are either imbeciles or liars...
- If Warner wants to back Bluray, and the Bluray camp is offering them money/incentives to do so. Then they owe it to their shareholders to *take* those incentives.
What are they going to say? "No, thank you. You can keep your money, we've decided to switch to Bluray for free"
I know that if I had any sizable shares in Warner, I would be royally displeased at a decision like that.
- Second possibility, of course, is that Warner did take money and/or incentives and are just flat-out lying. (This seems, to me, the most likely explanation. Remember, just a few days before they announced the switch to Bluray, they announced a dual-format release of 'The Dark Knight' (late in 2008))
-
ellipsis7
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:56 pm
- Location: Dublin
Figures I read today... UK/Ireland DVD sales increased 10% from 229 million units in 2006 to 250 million units in 2007... While combined sales of HDDVD & BluRay discs for 2007 was only a paltry 1 million units in 2007... The lapsing of standard DVD as a preferred format is thus a very premature presumption, while the success of any or either of the new formats is a very distant dot on the horizon which shows no sign yet of getting nearer....
While on the prodction side hidef dramas are encountering their own problems with makeup and set design as described here... The BBC's recent period drama CRANFORD, made on hidef, exposed in minute detail actors' every pore, mole, wrinkle and facial hair when watched on HD projection... All the characters looked about 90!....
While on the prodction side hidef dramas are encountering their own problems with makeup and set design as described here... The BBC's recent period drama CRANFORD, made on hidef, exposed in minute detail actors' every pore, mole, wrinkle and facial hair when watched on HD projection... All the characters looked about 90!....
-
Darth Lavender
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:24 pm
That sounds pretty plausible to me, too (hence "bribes/incentives") I seriously doubt it's just the "Warner are imbeciles" explanation.patrick wrote:This is purely speculation on my part, but since Paramount caught such flack for taking money from Toshiba, it's possible that WB might have a different sort of deal set up with Sony. Their licensing costs for the Blu-Ray technology might have been reduced, or perhaps they're getting some sort of sweetheart deal on the manufacturing to make the discs even more profitable.
My understanding is that the Paramount thing only became known when one of the studio heads outright told the press, so I can certainly see how Warner would have 'learnt' from that and decided to just deny any payoff (money or incentives)
Personally, I have absolutely no problem with studios being paid off, provided both formats are equal (which Bluray & HDDVD basically are,) and unlike most, I'm actually glad we got a format war. I seriously doubt we in Australia would have gotten $250 HD-DVD drives anytime soon without a war (not to mention the upcoming possibility of ultra-cheap HDDVDs)
-
Faux Hulot
- Jack Of All Tirades
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:57 pm
- Location: Location, Location
This ought to settle it once and for all: the porn industry is siding with Blu-ray
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
-
davebert
- Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 8:00 pm
- Location: NY
- Contact:
I'm not sure of the exact penetration rate (cymbal crash), but as a former video store clerk, I can definitely testify that the business is booming--but not necessarily on hi-def. I always got the feeling that the crucial old men demographic can't use the Internet, hence their turn to video, but what's the tech adoption rate like there?
-
Jack Phillips
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:33 am
-
patrick
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:15 pm
- Location: Philadelphia
I'm fairly certain that porn isn't going to have anything to do with the ultimate outcome of the format war. At my store (a regular video store, not a porn shop) most of our customers head straight for the "1 for 11.99, 3 for 24.99" bin, I doubt there's going to be much interest in buying a $45 porno on Blu-Ray except as a novelty.
-
"membrillo"
- Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:12 pm
- Location: San Diego, California / Tijuana, Baja California Norte
-
cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
Just thought I'd say any HD DVD owners out there on the fence about getting Zodiac I went out there and picked it up anyways. Wow! It looks absolutely incredible, easily the best looking hi-def disc I've come across yet (that wasn't a Pixar Blu-Ray release.) I guess it benefits the film was shot in hi-def, but this sucker looks good. Almost too good...
-
Darth Lavender
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:24 pm
HD DVD Review: Zodiac: Director's Cut | High-Def Digest
Most of them, it seems. (Same with a lot of Paramount releases; M:I3, Face/Off, etc.) Personally, I'm not really worried about HD interviews, etc. but I think deleted scenes should always be HD (one of the biggest marks against several of my HDDVDs is the SD deleted scenes (especially annoying (and sometimes a dealbreaker) if it's a movie I already own on SD.
Most of them, it seems. (Same with a lot of Paramount releases; M:I3, Face/Off, etc.) Personally, I'm not really worried about HD interviews, etc. but I think deleted scenes should always be HD (one of the biggest marks against several of my HDDVDs is the SD deleted scenes (especially annoying (and sometimes a dealbreaker) if it's a movie I already own on SD.
-
cdnchris
- Site Admin
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:45 pm
- Location: Washington
- Contact:
I haven't looked at everything yet, but the docs I've watched are in 1080. The back of the box says one feature (a comparison between animatics and the finished film) isn't, but I haven't looked yet. It's an excellent set and I'm glad I picked it up. I'm sure it will be released Blu sometime (no idea how long, though) but if you have an HD DVD player and want it now, might as well pick it up.patrick wrote:Are any of the special features in 1080 on Zodiac?
