Criterion Blu-ray

[Tommaso]

I didn't say it might happen right NOW. And the question is precisely how long Blu Ray will remain 'marginal'. Create a craze for it, and people will jump on it. And it might not even be CC who starts the craze.

[foggy eyes]

Lots to take in. I think at this point I have three worries:

1. A point raised by Dave Kehr:

Obviously, it’s good to have films reproduced on video in the highest quality available; on the other hand, every time there has been an technological advance in home video, hundreds if not thousands of titles have dropped out of circulation, to the point where even VHS is starting to look like a golden age for film availability.

2. A potential slowing up of Criterion / MoC / Kino's schedule as more effort/resources are ploughed into BR (reissues, etc), rather than just getting films that need a release out in the first place.

3. How much all this is going to cost! One needs heavy going equipment to get the most out of BR, if not to even notice the difference in the first place - and the hardware is still very expensive. Personally, I won't be able to afford the upgrades without sacrificing discs themselves - and seeing the films has to come first.

I hope the two mediums will be able to co-exist quite happily for a good while yet - with a continued emphasis on SD. Let's not rock the boat too much.

[Morgan Creek]

I understand perfectly well that every film profits from the higher resolution (always provided you have a TV that can make use of it), but given my general tastes in film, for me it's like playing an old 78rpm recording on a supa-dupa CD player. I'm not sure whether it would make much sense seeing more details of the nitrate decomposition of a silent or more detailed tramlines on 30s Mizoguchi via Blu Ray.

Tom, I think an argument can made that, once digital technology reached a certain level of sophistication, - the early years of CD revealed that "the perfect sound" was seldom that - the improvements it was able to achieve with even old 78s were remarkable. (Of course, there will always be people who prefer LPs, but let's not open that can of worms.)

It's hard to know at this point just how much we can expect from HD technology on older films. The majority of material that has been released has, unfortunately, been contemporary, and much of that has been crap. Among older Hollywood films, The Adventures of Robin Hood , The Searchers , and Casablanca all looked terrific on HD-DVD; others less so. I assume the usual factors apply: quality of the original elements, skills of the operators, etc.

[Darth Lavender]

It may not happen with this film yet, but later with others: the upgraded disc might ONLY appear on BluRay.

Oh yeah, because Criterion loves to cut their own profits on any given title by alienating the vast majority of their audience in a time when they're reluctant to upgrade to a still-marginal new technology.

That's good business.

Got to agree with the sarcasm here...
In fact, it was precisely the reluctance to do this that contributed to HD-DVD's failure. Universal and Warner were producing "combo" disks that had a DVD side, but still releasing the plain "SD" DVDs as well.
To the best of my knowledge the ONLY time a film has been released "excusively" (somewhat) to High Definition, was the remastered Star Trek (released only in the combo format. And that instance was very heavily subsidised by Toshiba)

As for the usefulness of Bluray for older films; there have been a few HD releases of films with very mediocre elements (Rio Bravo and Bullit are both VERY grainy, worn, images) On my 720p display, there's enough difference to prefer HD over SD, but not enough to upgrade if one already has these films in NTSC. Colors might be slightly better and sharpness is definitely a tiny bit little improved, but the biggest advantage is that grain looks more like film-grain and less like digital noise & artefacting.
(Remember, though, I'm watching on 720p. Getting a 1080p screen this week, which should be a further improvement)
(One could also argue that films like The Phantom of the Opera (with its deliberately aged opening scenes) might offer a good idea of what a silent movie will look like on HD (depends what processes were actually used to age those scenes.) Although, to be honest, I haven't really done much of a comparison there (my DVD is at home, my HDDVD is on campus)

[Person]

Will it be the case that less films per week will be released on Blu-Ray than there currently or were on SD DVD? I ask this because as the standards are so high with Blu-Ray, ie. you have to produce a 1080p transfer of exceptionally high quality and you have to do it as quickly and at as low a cost as possible to make a good turn over of discs that will be quite expensive for the first few years. I think that things could get lean in the coming years. You can't expect independent or 'boutique' labels to be prolific and reach the highest technical standards with Blu-Ray. Second Run - a great company - would struggle to do what they do with SD with Blu-Ray.

I think that SD DVD will be around for at least another seven years, unless production prices drop all over American and Europe and mass producing discs of HQ 1080p transfers becomes easier and less costly. The difficulties with the audio is also a stumbling block for many companies.

[Tommaso]

Tom, I think an argument can made that, once digital technology reached a certain level of sophistication, - the early years of CD revealed that "the perfect sound" was seldom that - the improvements it was able to achieve with even old 78s were remarkable. (Of course, there will always be people who prefer LPs, but let's not open that can of worms.)

Yes, better leave the can closed
Your point is valid, but the fact that 78s transferred to CD in 2007 sound better than transferred in 1985 is not due to a change in the playback standard, but simply because the mastering technology is now so much better. If you want to stick to the analogy: DVDs from the stone age (before 2000 or so) almost all look worse than CC's and most other companies' newest efforts (all progressive, colour-corrected, cleaned-up etc.). But it's still the same medium. Perhaps the shift from DVD to Blu Ray can be compared to that between CD and SACD, only that Blu Ray in my view will become far more popular, which in the long run is certainly a good thing (I'm raving even about the relatively small difference in sound between SACD-Stereo and normal CD, a very clear improvement). Still, a 78rpm record transferred to SACD will still not sound very 'hi-fi', and those who love old recordings from the 30s or 40s won't care if they don't. That was the point of my analogy: a silent film will never look as good as a film from the 60s onwards, with very few exceptions, and so I believe that it will take a long time after Blu Ray has been widely established before they release that kind of stuff on that medium. Which wouldn't be a problem if all these important films were out on dvd, but many, many simply are not. In other words, I fear that hi-tech nerdiness will be far more important for companies' release schedules ( at least for a certain time) than historically important films. And as capacities for production are limited, fewer films will probably be released by CC (regardless of what medium they're on).

[Schkura]

Won't it be difficult to cram paperback books and postcards into a standard Blu-Ray case?

[Morgan Creek]

Tom, I think an argument can made that, once digital technology reached a certain level of sophistication, - the early years of CD revealed that "the perfect sound" was seldom that - the improvements it was able to achieve with even old 78s were remarkable. (Of course, there will always be people who prefer LPs, but let's not open that can of worms.)

Yes, better leave the can closed
Your point is valid, but the fact that 78s transferred to CD in 2007 sound better than transferred in 1985 is not due to a change in the playback standard, but simply because the mastering technology is now so much better. If you want to stick to the analogy: DVDs from the stone age (before 2000 or so) almost all look worse than CC's and most other companies' newest efforts (all progressive, colour-corrected, cleaned-up etc.). But it's still the same medium. Perhaps the shift from DVD to Blu Ray can be compared to that between CD and SACD, only that Blu Ray in my view will become far more popular, which in the long run is certainly a good thing (I'm raving even about the relatively small difference in sound between SACD-Stereo and normal CD, a very clear improvement). Still, a 78rpm record transferred to SACD will still not sound very 'hi-fi', and those who love old recordings from the 30s or 40s won't care if they don't. That was the point of my analogy: a silent film will never look as good as a film from the 60s onwards, with very few exceptions, and so I believe that it will take a long time after Blu Ray has been widely established before they release that kind of stuff on that medium. Which wouldn't be a problem if all these important films were out on dvd, but many, many simply are not. In other words, I fear that hi-tech nerdiness will be far more important for companies' release schedules ( at least for a certain time) than historically important films. And as capacities for production are limited, fewer films will probably be released by CC (regardless of what medium they're on).

Agree on all points - the crux of my argument was that a lot of what's at issue here is the maturity of the technology, and it'll be interesting to see what Criterion, with its generally higher standards, can achieve here.

I share your concern about the what's likely to be released in the new format. A large part of my frustration with BluRay - apart from the apparent inability to achieve a settled standard, as many discs are still appearing that won't play in given players - is the quality of the offerings. I can understand the commercial wisdom of trying to establish a new format by releasing big box-office hits, but week after week sees BR versions of third-rate films that tanked commercially. Apart from the studios' trying to recoup some of their investment, what's the point? Is there really likely to be a much larger audience for this junk on video?

Dave Kehr argued recently on his blog, with respect to the Criterion BR announcement: "I’m very much of two minds about this. Obviously, it’s good to have films reproduced on video in the highest quality available; on the other hand, every time there has been an technological advance in home video, hundreds if not thousands of titles have dropped out of circulation, to the point where even VHS is starting to look like a golden age for film availability." There may be some validity to that argument, but given that, to take just one example, nearly the entire oeuvre of Mizoguchi is now available on DVD, it seems to me to be a remarkable time for film lovers. Of course, there are still big holes in film history that need to be filled, but more and more smaller companies seem to be stepping up to undertake that task.

[Rupert Pupkin]

any chance to see one day Criterion releasing Atom Egoan's Exotica on Blue-Ray ?... (I have a slight problem with Mia Kishner )
The Miramax DVD is probably out of print now...
I bought it years ago it was just non-anamorphic transfer, just ok...
A DVD z2 Belgium transfer (anamorphic) came out 3 years ago but colour and picture are so so- And the z2 fr DVD which came out last year (and which I bought too), albeit anamorphic is not a significantly improvement too...

I can't understand why there are no HD movies released of Atom Egoyan... Where The Truth Lies should have been released on HD media... too bad...!

[miless]

who knows if Criterion are even licensing films straight from Miramax. Things will become much clearer after the titles are released.

[Tommaso]

Dave Kehr argued recently on his blog, with respect to the Criterion BR announcement: "I’m very much of two minds about this. Obviously, it’s good to have films reproduced on video in the highest quality available; on the other hand, every time there has been an technological advance in home video, hundreds if not thousands of titles have dropped out of circulation, to the point where even VHS is starting to look like a golden age for film availability." There may be some validity to that argument, but given that, to take just one example, nearly the entire oeuvre of Mizoguchi is now available on DVD, it seems to me to be a remarkable time for film lovers. Of course, there are still big holes in film history that need to be filled, but more and more smaller companies seem to be stepping up to undertake that task.

I agree on all your points, also those not quoted here, and very much share Kehr's concerns, and at least as far as the shift from VHS to DVD is concerned, he's completely right in my view. When did VHS go largely out of production, 2001/02 or something? Well, a lot of important films still haven't made it onto dvd since then. There was an absolute drought on silents until roughly 2003/04, and then only the most well-known classics like "Metropolis" began to appear, a situation that has only improved in the last two years (with a lot of masterpieces from that era still unavailable). The problem for the smaller companies MIGHT be that such dvds of important, but little known films take several years to recouperate the costs, in some cases perhaps even up to 10 years. If such small companies might expect Blu Ray to be the standard rather sooner than later, they might have fears to put out those films even only on standard dvd because they might suspect no-one would buy them any more. Admittedly, dvd is a fine and very well-established medium (at least much more than VHS ever was, commercially and technically), and perhaps I'm wrong with my somewhat pessimistic outlook about the release schedule. I hope I am. And yes, it's indeed a remarkable time for film lovers, and I hope it will go on a littlewhile longer.

[cgray]

I've been enjoying reading the comments, concerns, etc. on this page.

My mind, however, keeps returning to this comment

And it might not even be CC who starts the craze.

Is there any reason to think that CC will, or even could, start this craze? While their announcement surely will cause many board members to get a blu ray player (at all, or at least earlier than they otherwise might have), I find it hard to think that CC has the market pull (with either consumers or the industry) to create the frenzy necessary to lead to mass acceptance of the medium.

However, I do think there that bigger or similarly-situated studios/production houses will think, "Well, if they can do it, maybe we can too." So in terms of being a relatively ballsy move, I guess I would have to agree that it could help forge the path to bigger blu product penetration. Is that your reasoning? I'd be interested to hear more...

[bugsy_pal]

I think Criterion's announcement was well-timed, given that HD-DVD has now dropped out of the race. It can only help the adoption of Blu-Ray - I for one will be getting a player sooner rather than later with teir support of the format. And it is in line with their history of delivering movies in the best possible quality at a reasonable price.

While I too lament the fact that a new format may slow down release of some titles on DVD, I think that we'll still see many obscure titles coming out on DVD for years to come. (I'm still waiting for a DVD of 'Isadora'...).

It's interesting to compare with what happened with SACD and DVD-A - the high end audiophile formats. There was no winner in that format war, and they both just petered out, even with big labels dipping their toes in the formats - although they are still niche formats, CD remains the format for small labels and obscure reissues from Japan, etc. However, I suspect that Blu-Ray will forge ahead, but it will take a few years before it makes much of a dent in DVD.

[Scharphedin2]

In trying to remain optimistic for the future, I was thinking today that probably Criterion plans further into the future than a few months, and I imagine that one could see the launch of the Eclipse line as first stage in their transition to Blu-ray.

So, if the future looks something like an average of three titles released under the Eclipse banner per month + 1 or 2 new films added to the Criterion line + x number of recycled older catalogue titles remastered for Blu-ray, then I suppose the film lovers are still well served -- both the ones that enjoy to discover hitherto unseen films, and the ones that are concerned with perfection of presentation.

With respect to Dave Kehr's comment, is this not mostly pertaining to old Hollywood titles and R1 releases? There are definitely many, many studio films that were available on video that have not yet appeared on DVD. However, once we begin to look at releases globally, this gap is somewhat filled -- many fine releases of vintage Hollywood pictures have come out in UK, France, Germany and Spain that are not available in the States. And, with respect to global cinema, I can't agree with Kehr at all. Surely, DVD has blown open the world of film in a way that no other medium ever even came close to. Look back at posts from the beginning of this board, and compare with the last year, and I think we see a huge leap in the amount of different directors and films discussed, with almost monthly discoveries of previously unknown filmmakers and films by the forum's members -- all largely through the wonders of DVD.

[SimonI]

With respect to Dave Kehr's comment, is this not mostly pertaining to old Hollywood titles and R1 releases? There are definitely many, many studio films that were available on video that have not yet appeared on DVD. However, once we begin to look at releases globally, this gap is somewhat filled -- many fine releases of vintage Hollywood pictures have come out in UK, France, Germany and Spain that are not available in the States. And, with respect to global cinema, I can't agree with Kehr at all. Surely, DVD has blown open the world of film in a way that no other medium ever even came close to. Look back at posts from the beginning of this board, and compare with the last year, and I think we see a huge leap in the amount of different directors and films discussed, with almost monthly discoveries of previously unknown filmmakers and films by the forum's members -- all largely through the wonders of DVD.

I agree - you only have to look at what has happened in classical music since CD replaced vinyl - thousands of hitherto lost historical recordings have appeared, courtesy of many new boutique labels; and the dominance of the big companies has been eroded by many new labels recording both new and obscure works. It has become a golden age. No reason, really, why the same can't continue to happen in the video world.

[Tommaso]

However, I do think there that bigger or similarly-situated studios/production houses will think, "Well, if they can do it, maybe we can too." So in terms of being a relatively ballsy move, I guess I would have to agree that it could help forge the path to bigger blu product penetration. Is that your reasoning? I'd be interested to hear more

This was more or less precisely my reasoning. Look at the general CC line: while perhaps many 'normal' or 'occasional' dvd buyers won't have many CC discs (or, if they live overseas, none at all), all us dedicated film fans and disc collectors regard CC as the 'standard', the sine qua non of dvd production (to the point that some people collect every disc Criterion releases and order them according to spine numbers....). I see a lot of people jump on the Blu Ray wagon simply because CC starts to release BRs (with MoC and Kino following). That doesn't necessarily cause a 'craze' in wider terms, but should help to establish the medium firmly with those buyers the industry can most firmly rely on: avid collectors and film fans. And once you have a BR player, you will certainly buy some BR from Sony and Universal as well.

But especially for film collectors it will be important that BR players will be regionfree, and while some are already available apparently, the cost for these is forbidding. As long as the prices don't drop, and the region problem is overcome as easily as it is for normal players, it will certainly inhibit the chances for Blu Ray with the dedicated film collectors.

It's interesting to compare with what happened with SACD and DVD-A - the high end audiophile formats. There was no winner in that format war, and they both just petered out, even with big labels dipping their toes in the formats

Curiously, I think that while many people are really interested in getting high class projectors/LCD screens etc., the same people are often content to listen to music via speakers that are not even average; and so the interest in the high end audiophile formats was far less than in high end videophile formats from the beginning. The format war also contributed to this, of course, but many newer dvd players will play everything, including SA-CD, DVD-A, normal CD etc. etc. I wouldn't describe myself as an audiophile, and I didn't bother to get me a standalone SA-CD player, but now that I can play them, I'm really happy to enjoy the difference (even though my normal CD player sounds better in general, the SA-CD sound from the dvd player is far more 'defined', and the 'over-brilliance' I perceive in the SA-CD sound I ascribe very much to the particular player - after all, made for playing dvds in the first place, not for high end audio - rather than to the medium). I don't think SA-CD has completely petered out, at least not as far as classical music is concerned. Lots of hybrid SA-CD/CDs are still released in that field, and with good reason.

[bugsy_pal]

I would agree - comparing SACD with Blu-Ray is not strictly valid, as the people who seek out SACD tend more to be audiophile freaks looking for that extra detail from digital sound recordings which for most people would seem not worth the effort - the sonic differences from standard CD can be quitesubtle. HD video, on the other hand, seems to offer a much more obvious or tangible upgrade from SD - so Blu-Ray is much more likely to succeed than either SACD or DVD-A ever could.

[Bryant Frazer]

HD video, on the other hand, seems to offer a much more obvious or tangible upgrade from SD - so Blu-Ray is much more likely to succeed than either SACD or DVD-A ever could.

I'm sorry to say that I'm not so sure about this. Yes, SACD and DVD-Audio were sabotaged by the tin ear of the collective music-consuming populace. Once you're on the subway, listening to that Michael Nyman score or the new Ghostface Killah CD or Beethoven's Ninth in the MP3 format through the white earbuds connected to your iPod, most of the truly subtle nuances in any recording are rendered inaudible or simply distorted out of existence.

But I think that what the mass audience really likes about HDTV is the form factor, not so much the HD picture quality. The screens are (generally) bigger, yet slimmer. You can mount them on the wall. They're much lighter. (My 47-inch Sony Bravia XBR3 LCD screen actually weighs less than my old 27-inch Wega tube, which is an important enough consideration when you live in a fourth-story walk-up.) And people do like the way standard-definition DVDs look. A lot. Just getting rid of the interlaced picture format makes even 480p video look sexy and new. And I'm convinced that a lot of the people who bought HD DVD players last year figured not that they were buying a player for HD DVDs, but rather a player that would play back their existing DVD collection on an HD screen.

What worries me in regards Blu-ray is that in online home-theater forums, I keep reading, "My upconverted DVDs look great!" Some people claim they can't see a difference, in most cases, between a standard DVD and a Blu-ray version. Others speculate that, while newer movies benefit from the treatment, older movies won't look better in high-definition. So I do sometimes worry that even educated cinephiles won't always embrace Blu-ray technology, even if they take the plunge to buy a nice HD display.

Of course there will always be a core audience of videophiles who appreciate the difference, and the good news is that audience is much bigger now (and the technology more affordable, assuming you already have the HDTV in house) than it was back in the laserdisc days, when Criterion was originally blazing trails. When I bought a laserdisc player, the bottom-of-the-line model was $400 and discs were generally $40-$50 apiece. Adjust those numbers for almost 20 years of inflation and Blu-ray hardware and software still looks like a bargain. But it takes a certain kind of consumer to embrace that model, and I don't know how many of them are out there.

[Slothrop]

With Grand Theft Auto 4, Metal Gear 4, Gran Tourismo 5 and now this announcement, I guess I'm finally going to take the PS3 plunge.

Question: I have a 32 inch 720p LCD--how much better will Blu look on this set than upconverted SD? Will I even be able to tell the difference?

[Darth Lavender]

Yes, you'll definitely be able to tell the difference (720p, 32" is what I have at the moment... Although I sit quite close to it)

How big a difference depends how good your upconverter is and how close you sit to the television.

I would, nonetheless, strongly urge you to look into getting a HTPC setup. Depending on what kind of computer you have already, it might prove much cheaper than a Playstation, and it will definitely give you more peace of mind in terms of region-coding, bizarre new anti-piracy technologies, etc.

[Slothrop]

Hmm...I guess I haven't really given too much thought to going the HTPC route. The versatility is certainly attractive, but I guess I'm just more of a plug & play type of guy. How complicated is HTPC for a newbie to get into?

I appreciate the response. I sit pretty close to my tv too (I'm near-sighted and too vain to buy glasses), so if you notice a difference, I'm sure I will.

[Darth Lavender]

There's a whole lot of minor details involved that vary from computer to computer but, basically...

If you have a good graphics card and a decent CPU (Cyberlink has a free tool you can download to see if your computer is "HD capable") then it should just be a matter of; connecting your TV to your computer (a lot of HD televisions have a PC ('DVI') input,) installing PowerDVD (or "WinDVD" or "Arcsoft Totalmedia" (If you have Vista 64bit, I've heard the Windows Media Player can play HD (the feature was, annoyingly, disabled on 32bit because the studios didn't think 32 bit could offer enough encryption)) and buying a Bluray drive (externals are a little bit more expensive, but just need to be plugged into the USB port. Internals require a bit more effort (opening the computer, etc.) but it's easy enough for someone without technical skills to follow the instructions and connect an internal)

If your television doesn't have a "DVI" input, I've heard there's "HDMI to DVI" adapters and what not.

There's also programs like "AnyDVD HD" and "DVDFab Decrypter HD" which are useful in getting around region codes, etc. and www.doom9.org has a lot of information on that whole aspect (mostly relating to DVD)

EDIT: Here's the Cyberlink tool I mentioned. It will tell you the minimum requirements, etc. and if your computer meets them

[Luke M]

I've never understood the upconverted DVD vs. Blu-ray argument. There's absolutely no comparison at all. Yeah, upconverted DVDs look great but every HD DVD and Blu-ray looks a lot better than an upconverted DVD.

[Svevan]

I'm terrified that the Criterions I buy during the upcoming bi-annual sales will become Blu-Rays in a month. What do I do?

[fdm]

I'm terrified that the Criterions I buy during the upcoming bi-annual sales will become Blu-Rays in a month. What do I do?

Quit watching Fox News?