Criterion Blu-ray

[Ben Cheshire]

Next Blu classics...

The Red Shoes
Jules and Jim
The Rules of the Game
L'avventura
Seven Samurai
M
Pickpocket
Breathless
Amarcord
Army of Shadows

Some of these have already been announced. Breathless will be an early 2010 title for the Studio Canal collection who've recently done Ran, Deer Hunter, Le Mepris etc in region B territories (all three of aforementioned are region-free).

Red Shoes is already available on a superb british disc that is region-locked B, but everyone should be region free I think.

A better way other than random guessing is to look at the films that have recently been added to bluray.com's "just listed" for Oct 15. A superb slate of titles including Citizen Kane, Seven Samurai (which would suggest a major studio are doing it, not Criterion), Vertgo, Psycho, Rear Window, and plenty of gems.

[swo17]

Jun-Dai, thank you for the clarification about pixel relativities. I had remembered reading something about this a while back (probably on this forum), including a chart that showed 4K, 2K, 1080p, etc. frames as boxes within each other. It looks like my figures exaggerated the difference between Blu-ray and 35mm by some margin, but that there is still quite a difference between the two.

As regards your logical dilemma:

Right, speaking of voting with one's dollars, assuming you have a limited money supply for these purposes, it's a little ambiguous to me which would encourage Criterion to release a Blu-ray of film X more:
* Buying film X on DVD (indicates support for the film)
* Buying film Y on Blu-ray (indicates support for the format)

As long as Blu-ray sales are doing sufficiently well from others' purchases to support the continuation of the format (and I understand that they are), it's obvious that, if your end goal is, say, to see The Human Condition on Blu-ray, the best way to vote for this is to buy the DVD of it. If you give your limited money to Criterion, this will help their bottom line and allow them to keep their business functioning. Since there is a market for Blu-ray, they are going to choose some titles to upgrade, and they are going to do this based on, among other practical considerations, which sold the best on DVD.

[Cinephrenic]

Ben, I was talking about Criterion, not other regions.

Sorry for my ignorance, but does Criterion have to secure rights to release DVDs on Blu or any company for that manner?

[Blood Pie]

Jun-Dai, thank you for the clarification about pixel relativities. I had remembered reading something about this a while back (probably on this forum), including a chart that showed 4K, 2K, 1080p, etc. frames as boxes within each other. It looks like my figures exaggerated the difference between Blu-ray and 35mm by some margin, but that there is still quite a difference between the two.

As regards your logical dilemma:

Right, speaking of voting with one's dollars, assuming you have a limited money supply for these purposes, it's a little ambiguous to me which would encourage Criterion to release a Blu-ray of film X more:
* Buying film X on DVD (indicates support for the film)
* Buying film Y on Blu-ray (indicates support for the format)

As long as Blu-ray sales are doing sufficiently well from others' purchases to support the continuation of the format (and I understand that they are), it's obvious that, if your end goal is, say, to see The Human Condition on Blu-ray, the best way to vote for this is to buy the DVD of it. If you give your limited money to Criterion, this will help their bottom line and allow them to keep their business functioning. Since there is a market for Blu-ray, they are going to choose some titles to upgrade, and they are going to do this based on, among other practical considerations, which sold the best on DVD.

I have no problem with anything you are saying except the part that we should buy the titles we really want on BD that aren't available now with the hope that we will have the privilige of double dipping it at a later date on BD.

I think its a stretch and has little to nothing to do with the decision making process of CC. In fact, (and I promise I'll look up the thread and post a link or quote) but when the surprisingly high 30% sales split between BD and DVD CC releases were announced it was made clear that a driving factor in releasing more BDs would be that sales split rising to a majority figure (aka at least 51% being sold on BD). If a title is released only on DVD how can CC gauge anything about BD demand especially if people are ONLY buying DVDs in hopes its released on BD at some point.

I just think you have it backwards in that regard. If DVD sales started to dip with a correlated rise in BD sales then we will see more BD releases especially concerning titles releases simultaneously. Simply buying DVD only releases (especially for all new titles from here on out) only tells them DVD is still viable.

[aox]

As long as Blu-ray sales are doing sufficiently well from others' purchases to support the continuation of the format (and I understand that they are), it's obvious that, if your end goal is, say, to see The Human Condition on Blu-ray, the best way to vote for this is to buy the DVD of it. If you give your limited money to Criterion, this will help their bottom line and allow them to keep their business functioning. Since there is a market for Blu-ray, they are going to choose some titles to upgrade, and they are going to do this based on, among other practical considerations, which sold the best on DVD.

I find this well reasoned, but ultimately sophist. The problem is that there are just as many people not buying the SD of The Human Condition in the hopes of a Blu release (me) as there are people who bought the SD release, are pleased, will remain pleased, and will never upgrade if a Blu was announced today or 5 years from now. They sort of cancel each out in my mind. If anything, relying on the SD purchasers is where the deck is stacked, because then you also battle the notion of double dipping on top of those that are completely satisfied with the SD set.

[domino harvey]

The problem is that there are just as many people not buying the SD of The Human Condition in the hopes of a Blu release (me) as there are people who bought the SD release, are pleased, will remain pleased, and will never upgrade if a Blu was announced today or 5 years from now.

I think the bigger problem is completely unprovable conjecture like that quoted above. And remember, every point I make in every post is really a much stronger argument than it seems because there's untold people reading my posts and not having to also post what I think or say since I did it first.

[aox]

The problem is that there are just as many people not buying the SD of The Human Condition in the hopes of a Blu release (me) as there are people who bought the SD release, are pleased, will remain pleased, and will never upgrade if a Blu was announced today or 5 years from now.

I think the bigger problem is completely unprovable conjecture like that quoted above. And remember, every point I make in every post is really a much stronger argument than it seems because there's untold people reading my posts and not having to also post what I think or say since I did it first.

yeah, you're right. the opposite of what I said is completely true. I should have thought about that.

[Jun-Dai]

But thats my point. 1080p may not be perfect or as insane as using a red camera with a 35mm lens but it stacks up quite well against 2k as they are pretty close.

And correct me if I'm wrong (as I don't pretend to know a lot about 4k or 6k resolutions in terms of practical usage) but aren't most Digital projectors that are used in theaters running at 2K? I recently saw Star Trek on a DLP projector and it looked stunning. If 2K looks that good on a large theater screen and 1080p is very close I'm perfectly happy with those results.

Likewise, to see something shot and presented in a native 4k or 6k resolution would you not need a HUGE screen to really notice the fine details?

On the other hand it seems like HD masters scanned at the resolution of 4k (even with old titles like Blade Runner) then down converted to 2K or 1080p really benefit from the process.

For a lot of people, VHS is quality enough. DVD didn't win because it was higher quality, it won because was the more convenient format (smaller, no rewinding, less expensive to manufacture, plays CDs in the same machine, etc.).

For most of the people for whom VHS isn't good enough, DVD is good enough. It seems very unlikely (to me) that Blu-ray will ever destroy the DVD market, even if it is on track to become a more-or-less mainstream format.

And, of course, for most of the people for whom DVD isn't good enough, Blu-ray is good enough.

But there are some for whom Blu-ray is not necessarily the last stop in increasing video resolution. Those for whom 1080p is not the point where diminishing returns has been reached. And I suspect that when 4K becomes a feasible option, that number of people will grow.

And noticing the details is not purely a factor of size, it's a factor of size and distance (or amount of peripheral vision covered). I mean, anyone here could notice the difference between 4K and 6K on an 8.5 x 11" sheet of paper, provided they were looking closely enough.

[swo17]

I have no problem with anything you are saying except the part that we should buy the titles we really want on BD that aren't available now with the hope that we will have the privilige of double dipping it at a later date on BD.

Given that Criterions typically hold their value well and can usually be sold for about the price of a Blu-ray upgrade during a 50% off sale, can we agree that "double dipping" as regards Criterions is not really a big deal?

I just think you have it backwards in that regard. If DVD sales started to dip with a correlated rise in BD sales then we will see more BD releases especially concerning titles releases simultaneously. Simply buying DVD only releases (especially for all new titles from here on out) only tells them DVD is still viable.

Do you honestly think that by not buying, say, The Human Condition, you are giving Criterion the message that you are part of the global coalition to bring about the demise of the DVD format as we know it? No, they are just going to think you are one more schlub that doesn't know or care about the film. And you're just proving them right in their assumption that the title wouldn't sell well.

[Brian C]

This is all very interesting, to ponder where the home video resolution upgrade madness will end. Obviously, there were a lot of folks who thought HDTV and then Blu-ray would never catch on, and while they were wrong, their logic was to some extent sound. Sooner or later we will hit a wall, where consumers are tired of needing to upgrade and producers are reluctant to take the next step. Maybe 1080p is the last stop for a while, or maybe not.

Are there any manufacturers that are planning 4k home video equipment? I haven't heard anything yet. Seems like by this point in DVD's life cycle, HDTVs were already on the horizon. And by the time HDTVs got a foothold in the market, next generation discs (i.e., HD-DVD and Blu-ray) were on their way. Seems like things are pretty quiet on this front right now, however. There's a certain equilibrium right now that we haven't seen in awhile.

[Brian C]

Do you honestly think that by not buying, say, The Human Condition, you are giving Criterion the message that you are part of the global coalition to bring about the demise of the DVD format as we know it? No, they are just going to think you are one more schlub that doesn't know or care about the film. And you're just proving them right in their assumption that the title wouldn't sell well.

(emphasis mine)

I would have to think that Criterion's market research is a little more sophisticated than that.

[captveg]

Next Blu classics...

The Red Shoes
Jules and Jim
The Rules of the Game
L'avventura
Seven Samurai
M
Pickpocket
Breathless
Amarcord
Army of Shadows

I would buy at least 7 of those... :-k

[swo17]

Do you honestly think that by not buying, say, The Human Condition, you are giving Criterion the message that you are part of the global coalition to bring about the demise of the DVD format as we know it? No, they are just going to think you are one more schlub that doesn't know or care about the film. And you're just proving them right in their assumption that the title wouldn't sell well.

(emphasis mine)

I would have to think that Criterion's market research is a little more sophisticated than that.

There is no nuance to the money that Criterion doesn't make. If you don't buy a product, they can only assume that it didn't interest you. Whether this is because you are a schlub or well informed but stingy, I doubt Criterion spends much time wondering how to please you.

[perkizitore]

Jun-Dai, thank you for the clarification about pixel relativities. I had remembered reading something about this a while back (probably on this forum), including a chart that showed 4K, 2K, 1080p, etc. frames as boxes within each other. It looks like my figures exaggerated the difference between Blu-ray and 35mm by some margin, but that there is still quite a difference between the two.

As regards your logical dilemma:

Right, speaking of voting with one's dollars, assuming you have a limited money supply for these purposes, it's a little ambiguous to me which would encourage Criterion to release a Blu-ray of film X more:
* Buying film X on DVD (indicates support for the film)
* Buying film Y on Blu-ray (indicates support for the format)

As long as Blu-ray sales are doing sufficiently well from others' purchases to support the continuation of the format (and I understand that they are), it's obvious that, if your end goal is, say, to see The Human Condition on Blu-ray, the best way to vote for this is to buy the DVD of it. If you give your limited money to Criterion, this will help their bottom line and allow them to keep their business functioning. Since there is a market for Blu-ray, they are going to choose some titles to upgrade, and they are going to do this based on, among other practical considerations, which sold the best on DVD.

I have no problem with anything you are saying except the part that we should buy the titles we really want on BD that aren't available now with the hope that we will have the privilige of double dipping it at a later date on BD.

I think its a stretch and has little to nothing to do with the decision making process of CC. In fact, (and I promise I'll look up the thread and post a link or quote) but when the surprisingly high 30% sales split between BD and DVD CC releases were announced it was made clear that a driving factor in releasing more BDs would be that sales split rising to a majority figure (aka at least 51% being sold on BD). If a title is released only on DVD how can CC gauge anything about BD demand especially if people are ONLY buying DVDs in hopes its released on BD at some point.

I just think you have it backwards in that regard. If DVD sales started to dip with a correlated rise in BD sales then we will see more BD releases especially concerning titles releases simultaneously. Simply buying DVD only releases (especially for all new titles from here on out) only tells them DVD is still viable.

That cannot happen now unless the total sales plummeted. Criterion customers may be more tech savvy than the general population, but how many have blu-ray equipment? Criterion does its best, prices the blu-rays lower on Amazon than the DVDs, but they will never release a film on blu if the sales are mediocre. They have upgraded Playtime, The Last Emperor etc. and that was solely based on the sales volume and NOT because they think The Last Emperor is a great masterpiece that needs to be seen in HD to understand its everlasting glory. Even if they believed that, i am sure they are many titles in their collection that they like MUCH better.

[tenia]

They will never release a film on blu if the sales are mediocre. They have upgraded Playtime, The Last Emperor etc. and that was solely based on the sales volume and NOT because they think The Last Emperor is a great masterpiece that needs to be seen in HD to understand its everlasting glory. Even if they believed that, i am sure they are many titles in their collection that they like MUCH better.

Is there also a big part of the dilemna coming from the possibility or not to do a technically great Blu Ray ?

I mean, Fritz Lang's Mabuse, der Spieler on Blu is, imo, highly improbable, due to the quality of the source so far, and that, even with a huge restoration, it will still be under the format technical norm.

Watching the DVD is kind of really hard for the eyes, I don't think they will be someday able to improve the master so much that the quality would be "Blu Ray approved".

When you take something as The Last Emperor, Playtime, or all of most the BD they did, I think that most of them already were technically possible in HD.

I think that these quality issues are also very important in their choices of what to improve in HD or not.

[Blood Pie]

Jun-Dai, thank you for the clarification about pixel relativities. I had remembered reading something about this a while back (probably on this forum), including a chart that showed 4K, 2K, 1080p, etc. frames as boxes within each other. It looks like my figures exaggerated the difference between Blu-ray and 35mm by some margin, but that there is still quite a difference between the two.

As regards your logical dilemma:

As long as Blu-ray sales are doing sufficiently well from others' purchases to support the continuation of the format (and I understand that they are), it's obvious that, if your end goal is, say, to see The Human Condition on Blu-ray, the best way to vote for this is to buy the DVD of it. If you give your limited money to Criterion, this will help their bottom line and allow them to keep their business functioning. Since there is a market for Blu-ray, they are going to choose some titles to upgrade, and they are going to do this based on, among other practical considerations, which sold the best on DVD.

I have no problem with anything you are saying except the part that we should buy the titles we really want on BD that aren't available now with the hope that we will have the privilige of double dipping it at a later date on BD.

I think its a stretch and has little to nothing to do with the decision making process of CC. In fact, (and I promise I'll look up the thread and post a link or quote) but when the surprisingly high 30% sales split between BD and DVD CC releases were announced it was made clear that a driving factor in releasing more BDs would be that sales split rising to a majority figure (aka at least 51% being sold on BD). If a title is released only on DVD how can CC gauge anything about BD demand especially if people are ONLY buying DVDs in hopes its released on BD at some point.

I just think you have it backwards in that regard. If DVD sales started to dip with a correlated rise in BD sales then we will see more BD releases especially concerning titles releases simultaneously. Simply buying DVD only releases (especially for all new titles from here on out) only tells them DVD is still viable.

That cannot happen now unless the total sales plummeted. Criterion customers may be more tech savvy than the general population, but how many have blu-ray equipment? Criterion does its best, prices the blu-rays lower on Amazon than the DVDs, but they will never release a film on blu if the sales are mediocre. They have upgraded Playtime, The Last Emperor etc. and that was solely based on the sales volume and NOT because they think The Last Emperor is a great masterpiece that needs to be seen in HD to understand its everlasting glory. Even if they believed that, i am sure they are many titles in their collection that they like MUCH better.

I was simply putting the thought process into economic terms that most viable companies adhere to. At the end of the day Criterion won't ponder or deduce anything but sales numbers. Period. When BD sales surpass the DVD sales of a day and date title is when we will see BD as the lead format. That's a general statement that has little to do with my tastes, a timeline or any of our theories concerning CC's thought process. Sure, we may see a poll here and there or some speculation every now and again but sales figures will dictate when the format becomes the norm for Criterion.

As for how many CC fans own BD equipment I think its impossible to get an accurate number in any concrete manner but I would think a safe starting point would be around 30% since that what the splits are supposedly hovering around for titles released day and date on both formats.

[HerrSchreck]

For a lot of people, VHS is quality enough. DVD didn't win because it was higher quality, it won because was the more convenient format (smaller, no rewinding, less expensive to manufacture, plays CDs in the same machine, etc.).

I'm not sure if you're speculating or you've actually have data to back that statement up, but I'm leery. I think it's everything you wrote above, plus the fact that it's higher quality, more condusive to w/s images, doesn't lose fidelity with each spin, doesn't get eaten by machines, fits more extras-- an all around home run. But believe me, if the image quality were not superior, the market would not have been persuaded en masse to invest in & adopt the technology.

I think what blu is experiencing right now is what I'd call "cycle fatigue". People are sick of chucking out a form of technology every five to seven years and buy a whole new library of the same films. They're only willing to do this so many times... and I think the industry is waking up to that fact: the public is not that Easy. The funny thing is I believe the buyers the business would think to be the most likely candidates for complete fanatical overhaul, are the ones turning out to be most resistant: the real film fanatics with gigantic film collections on disc. I'm talking dudes with thousands of dvd's like me. They invested a lot in these libraries which they're proud of. They are NOT going suddenly regard them like they once regarded their VHS collections-- outdated shlop-- that easily this time, and be persuaded to toss out every dvd they own for a blu replacement. I know I'm not. You can only have so many times, where, within the same film, you bounced around your couch seeping precum because you saw a blade of grass you missed in the previous encoded edition's version of Quality Image Technology. You upgrade your old Dracula VHS to a digitally remastered special edition VHS. Then you buy a laserdisc and your mind is blown by how much you see... makeup lines, etc. Then you buy a DVD. Then you buy a hi-definition digital transfer DVD. Eventually that new bit of this or that you see, makeup crease or wisp of cloud not visible in prior encode, the novelty of that gets old (and allows going to the cinema to remain a pleasure) and you have to fall back on the viewing experience of the film... and you realize you've bought it more times over the past ten years than you've actually pulled it out to watch it, unprompted. And you go-- no more. What I have here is just fine.

[perkizitore]

For a lot of people, VHS is quality enough. DVD didn't win because it was higher quality, it won because was the more convenient format (smaller, no rewinding, less expensive to manufacture, plays CDs in the same machine, etc.).

I'm not sure if you're speculating or you've actually have data to back that statement up, but I'm leery. I think it's everything you wrote above, plus the fact that it's higher quality, more condusive to w/s images, doesn't lose fidelity with each spin, doesn't get eaten by machines, fits more extras-- an all around home run. But believe me, if the image quality were not superior, the market would not have been persuaded en masse to invest in & adopt the technology.

I think what blu is experiencing right now is what I'd call "cycle fatigue". People are sick of chucking out a form of technology every five to seven years and buy a whole new library of the same films. They're only willing to do this so many times... and I think the industry is waking up to that fact: the public is not that Easy. The funny thing is I believe the buyers the business would think to be the most likely candidates for complete fanatical overhaul, are the ones turning out to be most resistant: the real film fanatics with gigantic film collections on disc. I'm talking dudes with thousands of dvd's like me. They invested a lot in these libraries which they're proud of. They are NOT going suddenly regard them like they once regarded their VHS collections-- outdated shlop-- that easily this time, and be persuaded to toss out every dvd they own for a blu replacement. I know I'm not. You can only have so many times, where, within the same film, you bounced around your couch seeping precum because you saw a blade of grass you missed in the previous encoded edition's version of Quality Image Technology. You upgrade your old Dracula VHS to a digitally remastered special edition VHS. Then you buy a laserdisc and your mind is blown by how much you see... makeup lines, etc. Then you buy a DVD. Then you buy a hi-definition digital transfer DVD. Eventually that new bit of this or that you see, makeup crease or wisp of cloud not visible in prior encode, the novelty of that gets old (and allows going to the cinema to remain a pleasure) and you have to fall back on the viewing experience of the film... and you realize you've bought it more times over the past ten years than you've actually pulled it out to watch it, unprompted. And you go-- no more. What I have here is just fine.

Yes, but for new collectors like me Blu-ray is a revelation! I am still buying more DVDs than blu-rays, but mostly titles that are not likely to be soon upgraded. Even if they are, i didn't spend much on them (DVD prices have fallen considerably since Blu-ray entered the market) and i will only have to replace them once for the foreseeable future.

[tenia]

Yes, but for new collectors like me Blu-ray is a revelation! I am still buying more DVDs than blu-rays, but mostly titles that are not likely to be soon upgraded. Even if they are, i didn't spend much on them (DVD prices have fallen considerably since Blu-ray entered the market) and i will only have to replace them once for the foreseeable future.

For a new collector, it's buying the movie.
For us that already own thousands of dvds, it's buying the disc.

I totally agree with HerrSchreck : I don't want to trash again my collection for buying the exact same collection, but in a NEW ! BETTER ! UPGRADED ! CHANGE NOW ! format. Moreover, I think that the DVD brought with it lots of almost lost pearls that BD will never be able to dig. I don't think that BD will be the format that will bring us, let's say, the lost movies of early Ozu. From a clear upgrade of picture, sound, and confort (with all the extras, the possibility of having the dubs, the original language and several subs), BD seems to me like an expensive upgrade only due to some techno geeks that don't think in terms of quality/price ratio.

So yes, I think too that a lot of people that are reluctant to upgrade are just tired of having to buy all their movies all over again every 7 years or so.

Plus, if I remember well, the appearance of BD is also due to its huge capacity, that would, at some point, prevent the downloading of movies (thanks to the huge size of the files and the NEW ! UNCRACKABLE ! security codes...).

[Finch]

I couldn't agree more with Schreck and I only have somewhere between 300 and 350 titles at the moment: even so, I also have no burning desire to upgrade every third or fourth title in my collection, let alone every single one. I am perfectly content with the upscaled DVDs, especially when they look as excellent (IMHO) as Master & Commander or Criterion's disc of Days of Heaven. And as tenia (I think) already mentioned: the source materials for the likes of Vampyr are so damaged that it's not going to look appreciably better on Blu and that these titles would not showcase the video capabilities of that format. I completely accept and recognise that most titles look better on Blu but the difference as I perceive it is not such that I want to upgrade everything all over again. Couple that with the gloomy predictions that even fewer classics and little seen films will make the transition from DVD to Blu than with the change from VHS to DVD, I'm not particularly inclined to upgrade to Blu, let alone anytime soon (and despite the fact that I actually own a television large enough to benefit from the increased resolution and have savings to afford a multi-region Blu player). Despite the pioneering work that the BFI and increasingly MoC do in trying to fill the gaps in the Blu library as far as non-mainstream titles go, I think it really would have to take a mass move of all or the vast majority of the studios and distributors from DVD to a Blu-only stance on old and new films alike to make me upgrade to Blu - especially when I read elsewhere on the forum that Blu is a holdover format until 4K becomes viable for home entertainment.

[GringoTex]

I'm a patient man ... and I'm always surprised when other cinephiles are willing to settle for something really inferior.

Several years ago, I decided to buy Bunuel's Mexican Studio films in Mexico - really inferior transfers as you can imagine - because I was no longer willing to wait for them. And I wouldn't trade these several years for the world, because I have lived in the films' glory. I actually feel sorry for everyone who hasn't seen them. That's the true definition of cinephilia.

[Murdoch]

I'm a patient man ... and I'm always surprised when other cinephiles are willing to settle for something really inferior.

I bought the cropped, shitty R1 of Repulsion because, um, I don't know why.

[knives]

I understand not buying something if it is the absolute pits, the old school Repulsion disc, but waiting for a modern format version that may take decades to come when a perfect version for the format it is on, the new Human Condition set, exists is just plain silly.

[HerrSchreck]

I'm a patient man ... and I'm always surprised when other cinephiles are willing to settle for something really inferior.

Several years ago, I decided to buy Bunuel's Mexican Studio films in Mexico - really inferior transfers as you can imagine - because I was no longer willing to wait for them. And I wouldn't trade these several years for the world, because I have lived in the films' glory. I actually feel sorry for everyone who hasn't seen them. That's the true definition of cinephilia.

Absolutely-- what Cobb is describing is technophilia, not cinephilia.

[fiddlesticks]

So yes, I think too that a lot of people that are reluctant to upgrade are just tired of having to buy all their movies all over again every 7 years or so.

To each his/her own, I guess, but I really fail to understand this viewpoint. Despite buying a Blu-ray player (two, actually, if you count my computer's BD-drive), I have yet to feel any pressure to get rid of my 1400 DVDs and re-buy all of them in Blu. Even if it were possible to do so, I have absolutely no intention of re-buying the vast majority of my DVD collection in Blu, or any other, future format. But try as I might, I haven't yet acquired every title worth owning in the history of cinema, and now I can enjoy new acquisitions (such as the BFI's Comrades) in the best available home video format, and I can also selectively upgrade (such as ITV's Black Narcissus) for titles that I think will offer a significantly enhanced viewing experience in the new format. One of the best things about Blu-ray, especially when compared to the switch from VHS to (laserdisc and thence to) DVD is the backwards compatability of Blu, meaning that even if I wear out my DVD players, and if and when DVD dies as a viable format, there will be machines on the market for the foreseeable future that will play my non-retired DVD collection. So while there's myriad reasons not to go Blu, most of them in the realm of personal finance, being forced to "re-buy" your four-digit DVD collection isn't one of them.