Blu-ray, in General

[Stuart Galbraith IV]

With a Blu-ray, just toggling through the subtitle or audio options won't access everything? Or is it like a disabled toggling function?

I'll have to try that. Actually, recently I bought a Blu-ray disc of "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers" from the United Kingdom, and that not only defaulted to Japanese menus also, but for some reason it would play only the colorized version and not the B&W original, even when that option was selected. (This may be some funky Firmware issue, however. My Blu-ray recorder is an early model and very finicky.) In any case I think all or nearly all the WHV titles default to Japanese, as do many of the Sony/Columbia ones.

[eerik]

More and more silent classics are coming. Sergei Eisenstein's "The Battleship Potempkin" will be released in Sweden on October 28th.

[Ben Cheshire]

The product page for that Swedish Potemkin lists it as not having English "text" which I'm assuming means intertitles.

[stwrt]

A Dutch website has Fincher's "Seven" on Blu-Ray release here: http://www.mediadis.com/video/detail.asp?id=211511" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; This disc is region-free and though without any of the extra features on the 2000 DVD release, it could hold you over until the inevitable US release.

[AtlantaFella]

I was shocked to see The Searchers Blu-Ray for 7.99 at Amazon. Is there something monumentally wrong with the transfer? It seems DVDBeaver said it had some issues but they don't seem too major but I remember the 2DVD set was supposedly terrible. I was curious if someone else owns it and can tell me if the Blu-Ray is a good transfer or if it's a travesty.

I own The Searchers on Blu-ray and have watched it multiple times in 1080p/24fps. It is a gorgeous transfer. I suspect the low price is related to oversupply... definitely a steal at <$10.

[fdm]

I was shocked to see The Searchers Blu-Ray for 7.99 at Amazon. Is there something monumentally wrong with the transfer? It seems DVDBeaver said it had some issues but they don't seem too major but I remember the 2DVD set was supposedly terrible. I was curious if someone else owns it and can tell me if the Blu-Ray is a good transfer or if it's a travesty.

I own The Searchers on Blu-ray and have watched it multiple times in 1080p/24fps. It is a gorgeous transfer. I suspect the low price is related to oversupply... definitely a steal at <$10.

Have yet to watch anything but the DVD, but thought at the time the Beaver had a pretty interesting comparison between the DVD editions and the HD-DVD. At some point later a separate review of the Blu-Ray appeared.

It still bugs me that Warner's HD-DVDs usually had at least Dolby DIgital Plus soundtracks while the same-titled Blu-Rays just got Dolby Digital ones (The Searchers being one of these). At least they finally (and not really all that long ago) realized that we wanted lossless soundtracks for everything on Blu-Ray, including the oldies.

[Jeff]

they don't make laserdiscs anymore either and according to someone on this board a few weeks ago, Criterion only continued to make and release LD's for a year after the introduction of DVDs.

Blu Ray players are $100 now (what DVD players were 4 years ago), and Blu Rays are just as comparably cheap. Time to move on.

Don't be silly, aox. I like my Blu-rays as much as you do and wish that I could by everything on the format, but that's not even remotely realistic. I don't see how the fact that it's "almost 2010" is relevant. Is that the date when companies are scheduled to start throwing away money? The Blu-ray market is growing rapidly, but it's still only a fraction of the home video market, and the increased costs of production and replication mean that many companies are producing them at a loss.

Regardless of the cost of Blu-ray players, they can only be found in about 8% of American homes, whereas DVD players are found in about 90%.

The laserdisc scenario is not comparable. The laserdisc market only reached a peak penetration of about 2%, and a year after DVD rolled out, it was at virtually zero. Criterion stopped making laserdiscs because there was literally almost no one to buy them. There are 92 million DVD players in the U.S.

[gubbelsj]

Regardless of the cost of Blu-ray players, they can only be found in about 8% of American homes, whereas DVD players are found in about 90%.

The laserdisc scenario is not comparable. The laserdisc market only reached a peak penetration of about 2%, and a year after DVD rolled out, it was at virtually zero. Criterion stopped making laserdiscs because there was literally almost no one to buy them. There are 92 million DVD players in the U.S.

8% still seems like a niche market. Maybe this isn't the appropriate place for this, but I do wonder about the number of blu-ray players owned by "film enthusiasts". I would imagine the numbers would still be quite low. Have we ever done a forum poll on this? I'd be curious how many of us here have gone blu. I imagine it's still a big jump for many people to take.

[Cinephrenic]

Just buy a PS3, you get Blu-ray and gaming.

[keeproductions]

Just buy a PS3, you get Blu-ray and gaming.

I bought both the PS3 for the TV room and a network LG BR for the bedroom specifically for Criterions.

Now with the Netflix Instant View capabilities of the LG, I spent all my time watching "The Rockford Files."

Oh well...

[willoneill]

I bought both the PS3 for the TV room and a network LG BR for the bedroom specifically for Criterions.

Now with the Netflix Instant View capabilities of the LG, I spent all my time watching "The Rockford Files."

The Rockford Files are on Criterion now? Awesome. You go, James Garner!

[keeproductions]

I bought both the PS3 for the TV room and a network LG BR for the bedroom specifically for Criterions.

Now with the Netflix Instant View capabilities of the LG, I spend all my time watching "The Rockford Files."

The Rockford Files are on Criterion now? Awesome. You go, James Garner!

Methinks you missed the point of my post!

[aox]

To me, the key here is the price of the player. The players are now down in price to where DVD players were when the format began (Blu). Discontinue making DVD players completely, and those that have to buy a player tomorrow for the first time or to replace will have a blu ray player whether they realize it or not (no other option). Continue pressing DVDs maybe for a few years fazing the format out.

You guys are right about one thing: this is different from the VHS (or LD)->DVD switch. It is a much friendlier switch for mainstream people that don't care or HD, don't notice, or are simply too lazy to make the switch.

Now, I realize that is far too simple and efficient. The large companies plan on milking the dying format dry which means prolonging the turnover even by a year or two (it'll be longer judging from the numbers). But there is nothing wrong with idealism if you recognize realism.

[domino harvey]

If you love cinema older than you are, you better pray Blu-ray stays a niche market for as long as possible

[aox]

If you love cinema older than you are, you better pray Blu-ray stays a niche market for as long as possible

mass production=shoddier transfers and production? Is that where you are going with that?

[knives]

I think he's going on the point zero thought. All the old movies that have gotten SD, and those that haven't, will have to start from the beginning again.

[fiddlesticks]

If you love cinema older than you are, you better pray Blu-ray stays a niche market for as long as possible

mass production=shoddier transfers and production? Is that where you are going with that?

I've "been Blu" for almost a year now. So far this year, I've purchased 17 Blu-ray titles, vs. about 200 DVDs. Since I don't find Vince Vaughn any more charming in Hi-Def, I am uninterested in the overwhelming majority of what the studios see fit to release on BD. I think that's where he's going with that.

[domino harvey]

Blu-ray's great for new films, I won't argue with that. But when classic film releases are already a dangerously niche market, studios focusing solely on Blu-ray spells doom for the thousands of films that will never see a home video release for even a first time

[perkizitore]

Blu-ray's great for new films, I won't argue with that. But when classic film releases are already a dangerously niche market, studios focusing solely on Blu-ray spells doom for the thousands of films that will never see a home video release for even a first time

People interested in 'niche' films will never stop buying, no matter the format. Nick from MoC said that their sales are now 50-50 where they have released the movie in both formats, whilst the UK blu-ray penetration is still around 5%. The bad news are for titles dead-locked in rights issues, like silents and other major titles from Warner or Universal.

[Michael Kerpan]

The bad news are for titles dead-locked in rights issues, like silents and other major titles from Warner or Universal.

I wonder whether or not one problem is that the films are "worth" more (on corporate balance sheets) when NOT made available. Possibly there are lots of movie assets that are valued at WAY more than their real market value. If one puts a bunch of things on the market -- and they bring in less money than their value on paper -- then the accountants might have to begin re-assessing the supposed value of the whole back library.

Disclaimer: IANAA

[jedgeco]

If you love cinema older than you are, you better pray Blu-ray stays a niche market for as long as possible

Well, I remember reading (and writing) this same post about DVD hundreds of times on alt.video.laserdisc and alt.video.dvd in 1997-98. We thought DVD would never match Laserdisc's 10,000-title library, that digital compression would be too expensive and complicated for smaller publishers and distributors, and that the people buying DVD would never be interested in niche-market films.

Maybe that won't be the case this time, but based on history, I guess I'm more optimistic.

[fiddlesticks]

Well, I remember reading (and writing) this same post about DVD hundreds of times on alt.video.laserdisc and alt.video.dvd in 1997-98. We thought DVD would never match Laserdisc's 10,000-title library, that digital compression would be too expensive and complicated for smaller publishers and distributors, and that the people buying DVD would never be interested in niche-market films.

Maybe that won't be the case this time, but based on history, I guess I'm more optimistic.

Laserdisc makes a convenient strawman in these types of arguments, but it's hardly the point as Laserdisc never really caught on with the consuming public. VHS, however, did, and after a decade or so of market dominance, DVD still hasn't caught up with the back-catalog offerings that were available on VHS. If the "availability curve" suggested by the VHS-to-DVD progression is extended to Blu, cineastes are in for hard times.

[perkizitore]

Well, I remember reading (and writing) this same post about DVD hundreds of times on alt.video.laserdisc and alt.video.dvd in 1997-98. We thought DVD would never match Laserdisc's 10,000-title library, that digital compression would be too expensive and complicated for smaller publishers and distributors, and that the people buying DVD would never be interested in niche-market films.

Maybe that won't be the case this time, but based on history, I guess I'm more optimistic.

Laserdisc makes a convenient strawman in these types of arguments, but it's hardly the point as Laserdisc never really caught on with the consuming public. VHS, however, did, and after a decade or so of market dominance, DVD still hasn't caught up with the back-catalog offerings that were available on VHS. If the "availability curve" suggested by the VHS-to-DVD progression is extended to Blu, cineastes are in for hard times.

Quality versus quantity, past and future. What do you prefer?

[gubbelsj]

Quality versus quantity, past and future. What do you prefer?

But do you mean "quality" as in actual artistic or aesthetic accomplishment, or "quality" as simply picture quality? (not something I'm dismissing in importance, just noting the difference)

[fiddlesticks]

Quality versus quantity, past and future. What do you prefer?

We're not Luddites, you know. As I noted above, I've had a Blu-ray disc player for nearly a year now. The possibility of high quality, high-resolution transfers of great films on home video leaves me giddy. And I love my Third Man, Chungking Express, Black Narcissus, and Seventh Seal on Blu. But I mostly buy DVDs, because most of the films I want to see are on DVD and not on Blu-ray, at least at this moment. The economics of home video (as I understand it), the current state and perceived direction of the Blu-ray catalog, and the VHS-to-DVD transition history all suggest to me that a full-on switch to Blu would be a setback for classic and niche film fans, at least for a good while. I don't think the hard-core silent film fans have recovered from the demise of VHS yet, and their pain may be our prophecy. So to answer your questions, I'll take the "quality" of Die Austernprinzessin on DVD over the "quality" of Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise on Blu-ray any day.

And as for the past vs. the future, in the words of Billy Wilder as expressed by Oliver Larrabee (and bumped forward a few decades), "[twenty-first] century? Why, I could pick a century out of a hat, blindfolded, and come up with a better one." What else would you expect from a Luddite?