Criterion Blu-ray

[Blood Pie]

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.

And I think you are hitting on a key problem shared by most of the people who are apathetic or slightly interested in buying blu rays but no one is openly admitting it.

Some of you have thousand + DVD collections. That is a huge monetary and emotional investment and too big of a collection to sell off and double dip everything in HD (presuming it were all available).

And really nothing is wrong with that. My DVD collection was around 400-500 at its peak (and never at once because I constantly traded and sold DVDs from 1998 to last year) so it it wasn't a huge loss of time or money for me to slowly upgrade my favorite titles to BD.

Likewise, 1080p is the sweet spot for me. My long term view of the format is that it will serve me fine if 4k or 6k TVs and media become mass market because it is "good enough" for me. I also figure that some form of upscaling will be part of the TV and new formats identity so its win win for me.

And as I have said a few times, I don't have a hard line stance against DVDs. To each his own.

[kekid]

I would like to refer to an analogous situation in the realm of audio recordings. Several years ago the Super Audio format was introduced, which is available in backward-compatible "hybrid SACD" version. In my listening experience there is no doubt that the sound quality of SACD is superior. The recording industry should have started issuing all new CD's in hybrid Super-Audio format. Consumers would have the option of upgrading their existing recordings at the pace they choose. Instead, the industry chose to continue with the standard CD's, making SACD's a niche. Small labels such as Pentatone embraced the higher quality format, while giants like polygram continued on the trodden path. It could not be simply a cost issue, because RCA issued (for a while) the Super Audio versions of some of their greatest recordings at mid-tier pricing (as did Mercury). I think the indifference of the corporate decision-makers to the potential of new formats has killed off some of the better-quality options for consumers.

The difference between the Blu Ray and hybrid SACD is that you could play the hybrid SACD on regular CD players (though you would not get the benefit of the higher quality), but to play a Blu Ray disc you need a Blu Ray player. This distinction increses the chance of making Blu Ray a niche format, meant largely for techies. I cannot understand why everything cannot be issued in Blu Ray only form from this point onwards. Costs of Blu Ray machines have come down to a point where they are reasonable for most buyers. And these machines can play regular DVD's, so one does not need another machine. The only cost to the consumer would be a one-time purchase of the machine. They do not need to upgrade DVD they own if they do not want to. On the other hand, everything they buy from this point forward would be in the best format available.

That is my opinion. Let the furious debate begin.

[hangman]

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.

And I think you are hitting on a key problem shared by most of the people who are apathetic or slightly interested in buying blu rays but no one is openly admitting it.

Some of you have thousand + DVD collections. That is a huge monetary and emotional investment and too big of a collection to sell off and double dip everything in HD (presuming it were all available).

And really nothing is wrong with that. My DVD collection was around 400-500 at its peak (and never at once because I constantly traded and sold DVDs from 1998 to last year) so it it wasn't a huge loss of time or money for me to slowly upgrade my favorite titles to BD.

Likewise, 1080p is the sweet spot for me. My long term view of the format is that it will serve me fine if 4k or 6k TVs and media become mass market because it is "good enough" for me. I also figure that some form of upscaling will be part of the TV and new formats identity so its win win for me.

And as I have said a few times, I don't have a hard line stance against DVDs. To each his own.

Its not just a matter of to each his own, mainly because they have this X amount of collection already, but also as has been noted many times previously there are films whose materials are not at all in the greatest of conditions or are so obscure that a better format upgrade to Blu is unlikely to happen in the future (many many years down the line). Or just as Zedz mentioned there are DVD versions of films released already in other countries, sans English subs, for many years now but you also don't see them in any forseeable english friendly release and the chances of blu-ray are even slimmer. So there are DVDs that are kept, much like some VHS, for that reason, and not simply a matter of budget line constraint. The Hou films are a prime example, or the films released by panorama would be another great example (in general most Asian films would be guilty of these). Then going back to the conditions of materials going blu-ray with them would still be in a sense a loss for the blu-ray purchasers in that the film though presented in a more technologically superior format would have an image vastly inferior to films transfered in the same format but had good print material, in the end you'd just get bitching about how the image clearly looks more akin to a DVD than a Blu-ray. So one is better off buying or producing the DVD in the end as at least that doesn't necessarily put out or buy a sub-par product in relative comparison to those with better transfers, plus it may end up costlier to HD encode the print for Blu just for those small extra details while you can encode the same print for DVD with only slightly less detail but end up costing less (this of course is a rough view of the production side but what would also be as important to note is the cost of upgrading capital would be in a company, which is crucial to note seeing as the companies do have the home version rights to the film). In a sense this would be in line with the idea of the Eclipse line, rather than having to release the films barebones and in less than stellar conditions in the main line Eclipse is one way of having them released while as noted earlier by someone keeping in line with the idea that the mainline (criterion) sticking to its image.

Now there is the argument that one can wait for the better format release and have the patience for it, taking into account that you'd also have to wait for the restoration of the said film (which takes a bulk of the time for most great releases), in lieu that they'd settle for the first best rather than the second best. But face it buying the so called lesser format, second best, may necessarily be the only option or better put "satisficing" way to see the film. A better image in the best possible format would be the way to go but assuming that the film is what you're after (well ideally you should) the format is what you can sacrifice to satisfice your viewing of the film, and in many cases of the more exciting releases (e.g. Second Run, Flicker Alley, Milestone, and Eclipse line) I'd rather settle for what format I can get watching and immersing myself into the film rather than worrying about whether its DVD or Blu. Or another way of putting it outside of disc transfer even prints being shown on cinemas aren't necessarily in ideal conditions themselves, and may end up (and does happen) looking inferior to an existing DVD release (top of my head experience would be Maurice Pialat's Van Gogh) but even then that is a price one can easily pay because lets face it the experience of watching in the cinema and catching the film is what you're after not necessarily the ideal means of viewing it. While there is also the option of watching the film in a retrospect/limited screening. Like davidhare there are those who live in countries where

the opportunity for archival/rep, even limited release new screenings is so thin it's non existent

so again we'd have to satisfice in that situation just to see the films.

(Ugh, I can't believe I applied economics here ~_~ DAMN FINALS!)

@kekid: The bigger issue isn't necessarily backwards compatability, though that would be an interesting aspect (what if blu-ray players weren't backwards compatible, that certainly was one factor in consdering an upgrade from laser to DVD, or rather Laser-VCD-DVD in my case). Though I would argue that though the prices of Blu-ray players are down in relative comparison to before its still a rather pricy upgrade to many, even moreso when you don't plan to use that blu-ray player to play Blu-rays but DVDs your marginal output gained from it would still be relatively small. Yes, its an investment but again it depends on how the Blu-DVD ratio is, adding to that there is the factor of what type of screen you're using (LCD or are you still a tube/flatscreen TV, which I'm sure I'm not alone at).
What is getting people up in the airs is opting to discontinue DVDs or rather ignore the film in favor of having it available/released in the best possible technology of the time (in this case Blu).

[aox]

I would like to refer to an analogous situation in the realm of audio recordings.

I am really not trying to be disrespectful (we both love film and I am sure we would share a laugh or two), but I stopped reading here because I don't find this analogous at all. It works both ways; DVDs play on Blu Ray players and Blu Ray players are now cheap. The experience from music and and film are completely different: not better or worse; just different. Their fans are drawn to them for different reasons, the experience is different, and the lazy members of each following are quite different in terms of what is acceptable and what is not (very few music fans actually sit and listen to an album with nothing else distracting them). Some music fans actually root for 'shit'. Ever hear of hipsters in Brooklyn and their lo-fi? yeah...

[Kirkinson]

I would like to refer to an analogous situation in the realm of audio recordings.

Indeed, several things complicate this analogy. For starters, SACD did not have the high-end audio market to itself. It was engaged in an ongoing (albeit rather mellow) format war with DVD-A, a war which neither format ever won. Blu-ray has already eliminated its competitors, so it can sell itself as the only high-definition option for home video. More importantly, SACD didn't simply fail to take off: it was launched at the head of the digital download age, which threw the entire music industry for a loop and hasn't affected home video to the same degree (though it could be coming). SACD was always going to be a tough sell when the general public already can't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 encoded at 128kbps. (And I'm not sure pop music today is suited for SACD in the first place, with dynamic range compressed to hell and everything mixed as loudly as possible.) I realize this is a bit like a Barmy audience reaction, but I would speculate that for most consumers the difference between SD video and HD video is more immediately noticeable than the difference between a CD and a SACD (I would love to see any numbers or studies on this, whether they support or refute my idle speculation).

You also have to take into account the different ways in which people experience movies and music. People tend to sit down to watch a movie and do nothing but watch that movie until it's over. I know very few people who listen to whole albums of music this way any more (which is a shame). They multitask instead; reading, working, driving, doing laundry, etc. Even dancing could be included here. The detail of focus simply isn't there to appreciate the difference in sound quality. It's for this reason I would argue that simple convenience is a greater factor in music purchasing than in film purchasing, and backwards compatibility wasn't enough. Though again, this is all idle speculation.

Don't get me wrong: I've heard SACD demos. I think they're fantastic, and since I listen mostly to classical music I very much appreciate the additional "depth" the format offers, even more than I appreciate the loss I take with MP3s (though I tend to listen to those mostly in my car where it's already noisy enough that the difference isn't noticeable). I would love it if SACD became the standard, even though I can't afford the upgrade. And I also can't argue with your assertion that the format could have used a much harder push. But I don't think the circumstances make it an easy comparison to Blu-ray. And I also don't know that it would have worked to just force out any production of CDs, a format that the public was very accustomed to. I have a feeling that rather than getting everyone to switch over to SACD, a move like that would instead just have accelerated the mad dash to digital downloads.

[aox]

I would like to refer to an analogous situation in the realm of audio recordings.

Indeed, several things complicate this analogy. For starters, SACD did not have the high-end audio market to itself. It was engaged in an ongoing (albeit rather mellow) format war with DVD-A, a war which neither format ever won. Blu-ray has already eliminated its competitors, so it can sell itself as the only high-definition option for home video. More importantly, SACD didn't simply fail to take off: it was launched at the head of the digital download age, which threw the entire music industry for a loop and hasn't affected home video to the same degree (though it could be coming). SACD was always going to be a tough sell when the general public already can't tell the difference between a CD and an MP3 encoded at 128kbps. (And I'm not sure pop music today is suited for SACD in the first place, with dynamic range compressed to hell and everything mixed as loudly as possible.) I realize this is a bit like a Barmy audience reaction, but I would speculate that for most consumers the difference between SD video and HD video is more immediately noticeable than the difference between a CD and a SACD (I would love to see any numbers or studies on this, whether they support or refute my idle speculation).

You also have to take into account the different ways in which people experience movies and music. People tend to sit down to watch a movie and do nothing but watch that movie until it's over. I know very few people who listen to whole albums of music this way any more (which is a shame). They multitask instead; reading, working, driving, doing laundry, etc. Even dancing could be included here. The detail of focus simply isn't there to appreciate the difference in sound quality. It's for this reason I would argue that simple convenience is a greater factor in music purchasing than in film purchasing, and backwards compatibility wasn't enough. Though again, this is all idle speculation.

Don't get me wrong: I've heard SACD demos. I think they're fantastic, and since I listen mostly to classical music I very much appreciate the additional "depth" the format offers, even more than I appreciate the loss I take with MP3s (though I tend to listen to those mostly in my car where it's already noisy enough that the difference isn't noticeable). I would love it if SACD became the standard, even though I can't afford the upgrade. And I also can't argue with your assertion that the format could have used a much harder push. But I don't think the circumstances make it an easy comparison to Blu-ray. And I also don't know that it would have worked to just force out any production of CDs, a format that the public was very accustomed to. I have a feeling that rather than getting everyone to switch over to SACD, a move like that would instead just have accelerated the mad dash to digital downloads.

thank you for saying so eloquently what I was implying (trying to say) above.

[tenia]

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.

Because DVD is totally enough for me and my 86 cm WS TV.

I already paid around 10 000€ ($15 000) in my collection, and will probably spend about 100€ per month during the next year. I don't want to sell it and buy the exact same movies but in a better format, as I did during the DVD / VHS changes. I don't want to put money in a whole NEW ! BETTER ! BIGGER ! TV that I don't even have the space to have. So basically, I don't need HD.

I'm glad for the new possibilities. I'm glad for the improvement of the picture and the sound.

But 5.1 is enough for me, as AC3. A 8Mbps MPEG2 bitrate is enough for me. A 80 cm WS TV is enough for me.

It's like the new digital picture camera. 'Oh, nice, it's 12 fucking megapixels !' I DON'T CARE I ONLY PRINT THEM IN 10cm*15cm ! I CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE !
Except, of course, if I'm willing to upgrade my printer for a NEW ! BETTER ! FASTER ! and that I will only do posters of the pictures of some drunk friend at a party.

I was a technophile when I went from VHS to DVD. But I'm not anymore. I'm tired. And I don't think a BD of An Autumn Afternoon will be that interesting. Still, I'm much more interested by a well packaged collector DVD edition than a BD.

Cause DVD quality is enough.

I'm looking at the DVDs on my shelves and wonder "Do a BD of Ozu's There was a father would be so useful ? What about a BD of Children of Paradise ? Or A Woman under the Influence ? Or The Maltese Falcon ? Or The Serpent's Egg ? Or Iron Monkey ? Or Tsui Hark's Don't Play With Fire ?".

There are so many movies that should first have a nice DVD edition, or simply a DVD edition. I'm still waiting for a good edition of Peking Opera Blues for example.
There are plenty of movies still in shitty edition, or that don't even have a DVD edition. But still, we should sell the great ones we already bought for 'better' ones ?

I don't want my mind to be blown by the picture, or the sound or anything. I just want to see the movie in a quality good enough for enjoying the movie. That's it. And DVD does it perfectly for the last 6 years.

I'm a man of simple taste.

I will upgrade when I will be compelled to. And when I will be so fraking rich I will be able to throw away all my collection, that took me 6 years to build, for starting all over again. But right now, I just want to see the movies in a good quality. And as I'm watching more and more 'old' movies, I don't see the point. I don't see the point of lossless sound on El Norte, for example.

From all the Criterions or MoC 'old' movies catalogue, DVD is sooooo enough for me.

But I think HerrSchreck probably said all that, much better than I just did.

[Michael Kerpan]

All I can say is that good-quality DVDs look awfully good on a 50" HDTV. Not cerain at what point they would start looking bad on a larger TV -- but not likely to ever HAVR a bigger one, so no problem for me.

I love getting BRDs of film I don't already have on DVD (or even replacing a few poor-quality DVDs I have now and then). but I still have all my LPs (and never replaced things I had already with CDs -- unless these wore out). I anticipate behaving the same way with DVDs.

[HerrSchreck]

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.

Anybody knows that, and this is pretty much the thrust of what I was saying, actually. Nobody's complaining that Disc Police are making the rounds with pepper spray and forcefully seeing to it that everybody dump their hard-won dvd collections. My point is partially a general one, spoken out into the general industrial atmosphere regarding the studios and manufacturers who may have thought that DVD--> BD was going to be as easy as VHS-->DVD, but it's just not going to happen. Not now, anyway-- BD is going to remain, for the most part and beyond a few brave companies, a mere compliment. An augment.

It may be fine to introduce a new video game technology every four years or so-- Christmas comes around each year and kids are constantly coming of age... but the market of cineastes is far more stable, and is added to only slightly each year as the general pool gets its new batch of teen film lovers who actually love old movies. This group is already shopworn by endless revisions to the same old titles (how many Frankensteins in a decade?) within the VHS and DVD medium for them to repurchase titles en masse on blu that they already own several times over. It's just not going to happen---> it's just not going to happen.

The point of my mentioning this is to tie it in with what this means for the Blu arthouse library: it is not going to come close to resembling, at least for a long time, the scope and breadth of the DVD library of available titles. Blu ray is not constituting the Total Technological Turnover, nor will it for a long time, of VHS/LD--> DVD. I know that the studios thrive on finding new ways to sell the same titles over and over again to consumers who fall for each new widget (and I'm sure they have the next upgrade after Blu already wishfully planned and shelved for now), but it's not happening this time. It's a slow trickle just getting the very basics of POwell/Press-Kurosawa-Hitchcock-etc out there... let alone stuff from the Milestone/All Day/Kino/Flicker A line. Saying you wont watch anything but Blu means you wont watch anything but the most painfully obvious of titles for the most part.

So the point is to relate that the vigil for this kind of material on Blu-- either refusing to purchase on DVD or even watch in the first place because it is 'inferior technology'-- is misguided... and the only result is a self-deprived cineaste severely limiting his/her own filmic education and development.

[aox]

I love getting BRDs of film I don't already have on DVD (or even replacing a few poor-quality DVDs I have now and then). but I still have all my LPs (and never replaced things I had already with CDs -- unless these wore out). I anticipate behaving the same way with DVDs.

Your point aside, this isn't a fair analogy. LP's sound better and have always sounded better than CDs.

Saying you wont watch anything but Blu means you wont watch anything but the most painfully obvious of titles for the most part.

I agree. I just don't know who has made this claim in this thread or anywhere else. Kind of moot. Again, that statement conflates viewing and purchasing.

[HerrSchreck]

Saying you wont watch anything but Blu means you wont watch anything but the most painfully obvious of titles for the most part.

I agree. I just don't know who has made this claim in this thread or anywhere else. Kind of moot. Again, that statement conflates viewing and purchasing.

Maybe what we've been talking about on this page? i e:

How about Hou Hsiao-Hsien? Are you going to entirely avoid his pre-2000 films, one of the most important bodies of work in modern cinema, simply because they've never been released in decent transfers? So far we've been waiting about twelve years since the first mediocre releases, we've got all the way through the supposed 'DVD boom', and none of these films have got first-rate releases. I guess it's time to call it quits and resign yourself to the substandard discs. It's better than not seeing the films at all, right?

Well, no, actually. I'm quite content to wait another 12 years to see these, or 20, or 30.

In 30 years, I'll be 62, at which point it might be time to start thinking about settling for substandard transfers before I, y'know, die. Until then, why settle for a shitty Fox Lorber DVD when MoMA could program a Hou retro next month or, less likely, Criterion could decide to release something other than new IFC movies? Especially as long as my kevyip remains in the low three digits and my potential Netflix rentals (just of movies I've never seen) in the mid-four digits.

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

[Blood Pie]

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.

Anybody knows that, and this is pretty much the thrust of what I was saying, actually. Nobody's complaining that Disc Police are making the rounds with pepper spray and forcefully seeing to it that everybody dump their hard-won dvd collections. My point is partially a general one, spoken out into the general industrial atmosphere regarding the studios and manufacturers who may have thought that DVD--> BD was going to be as easy as VHS-->DVD, but it's just not going to happen. Not now, anyway-- BD is going to remain, for the most part and beyond a few brave companies, a mere compliment. An augment.

It may be fine to introduce a new video game technology every four years or so-- Christmas comes around each year and kids are constantly coming of age... but the market of cineastes is far more stable, and is added to only slightly each year as the general pool gets its new batch of teen film lovers who actually love old movies. This group is already shopworn by endless revisions to the same old titles (how many Frankensteins in a decade?) within the VHS and DVD medium for them to repurchase titles en masse on blu that they already own several times over. It's just not going to happen---> it's just not going to happen.

The point of my mentioning this is to tie it in with what this means for the Blu arthouse library: it is not going to come close to resembling, at least for a long time, the scope and breadth of the DVD library of available titles. Blu ray is not constituting the Total Technological Turnover, nor will it for a long time, of VHS/LD--> DVD. I know that the studios thrive on finding new ways to sell the same titles over and over again to consumers who fall for each new widget (and I'm sure they have the next upgrade after Blu already wishfully planned and shelved for now), but it's not happening this time. It's a slow trickle just getting the very basics of POwell/Press-Kurosawa-Hitchcock-etc out there... let alone stuff from the Milestone/All Day/Kino/Flicker A line. Saying you wont watch anything but Blu means you wont watch anything but the most painfully obvious of titles for the most part.

So the point is to relate that the vigil for this kind of material on Blu-- either refusing to purchase on DVD or even watch in the first place because it is 'inferior technology'-- is misguided... and the only result is a self-deprived cineaste severely limiting his/her own filmic education and development.

A. I would hardly call being able to watch films in 1080p encoded at 24fps on a nice HDTV falling for a new widget. The difference in quality may not be worth the upgrade to you but for a lot of us it is well worth it in every conceivable way and in most cases shows films in a manner that DVD could never replicate.

B. I would argue there are more "arthouse" titles available to me as a BD consumer (especially as someone who loves Asian cinema) within the same life cycle period as DVD due to Asia sharing the same region coding as the U.S. Not to mention the fact that a lot of titles from the U.K which are listed as region B are often times region free. Perhaps this factoid only applies if you like Asian cinema but for me I have had a much larger library of titles available to me WITHOUT purchasing a region free player or hacking my own.

C. No one here is refusing to purchase or watch DVDs. All of us have said that if we want something that bad we will hold onto the DVD copy or purchase the DVD copy or at least rent it and enjoy just fine. I don't have to buy a title to support or love a particular film, genre, director, production house and so on.

I'm not sure why the pro DVD side have to view this debate in such a vitriolic manner when the BD supporters are open to anyone doing what they want.

I like the quality of BD. Thats the only justification I need to spend hard earned money on a film.

[Tribe]

I'm not sure why the pro DVD side have to view this debate in such a vitriolic manner when the BD supporters are open to anyone doing what they want.

There was nothing vitriolic in any of these posts until yours.

[zedz]

I don't have to buy a title to support or love a particular film, genre, director, production house and so on.

but it helps. These guys need to feed their families too.

How long do you think, say, MoC would last if people stopped buying their discs but continued to really, really respect what they did?

(See also the downloading / cumstain thread.)

[Jun-Dai]

Sure, but what if I don't want to own a bunch of DVDs? Maybe CC and MoC should just have a "donate" button on their homepage.

[Sanjuro]

Funny people should mention Ozu. After being treated to months of HD Ozu (amongst other classics) on the Nihon Eiga Senmon Channel recently, I'm finding myself momentarily dissapointed with the picture quality when I try watching my DVDs of the same films. I imagine Blu Ozu will be very nice. Not that I'll bother replacing any of my discs.
I'm happy with upscaling my exisitng DVDs and buying stuff I don't have on Blu-Ray (I think the BFI have me convinced of the potential for 'obscure previously unreleased arthouse in HD').

[HerrSchreck]

I'm not sure why the pro DVD side have to view this debate in such a vitriolic manner when the BD supporters are open to anyone doing what they want.

There was nothing vitriolic in any of these posts until yours.

Thanks, Tribe-- indeed you're right. The guys who are getting defensive here should understand that there are a number of people like Perkins Cobb, excessively Blu-enamored technophiles who consider anything Not Blu to be unworthy of a view, not to mention purchase... I mentioned at the beginning of my post that my point was

a general one, spoken out into the general industrial atmosphere

...and the idea is certainly not to condemn anyone's craving the HD format-- hell I don't think anybody here wouldn't wish to have their whole library of films be subject to a magical Bibbity Bobbity Boo that would immediately transform all transfers therein to 1080p (1080i for silents not filmed at 24fps). Of course Blu is desireable. My point was primarily to suggest that this changeover process is not going to be moving along at the prior changeover to DVD, with the vast expansion of never-before available titles that provided. And that because of the slowness of this transition, the wait for the wheels to really begin turning for a full, substantive arthouse library in Blu is going to be a long one. Look at labels like Kino, Milestone, Flicker Alley, all those silents on Image Ent, etc-- they've yet to even release a Blu title. If I have missed something from these guys, we're talking no more than a title or two from, I believe, Kino (I know they announced some coming Blu's, but I don't think they've hit yet).

Any one person's feeling about Blu, or opinions about the sum library right now ("Asian Film situation", which I don't think comes close to the state of DVD across the board by 2001-2002, even without a Pal/Ntsc player that spins anything) are not the point... because they don't change the situation en masse. At least for the moment. Especially in this shitty economy, made even worse for labels by the growth of p2p sites.

[Michael Kerpan]

Funny people should mention Ozu. After being treated to months of HD Ozu (amongst other classics) on the Nihon Eiga Senmon Channel recently, I'm finding myself momentarily dissapointed with the picture quality when I try watching my DVDs of the same films. I imagine Blu Ozu will be very nice. Not that I'll bother replacing any of my discs..

Go ahead -- make us all jealous.

[perkizitore]

Funny people should mention Ozu. After being treated to months of HD Ozu (amongst other classics) on the Nihon Eiga Senmon Channel recently, I'm finding myself momentarily dissapointed with the picture quality when I try watching my DVDs of the same films. I imagine Blu Ozu will be very nice. Not that I'll bother replacing any of my discs...

Is this a freeview/freesat channel?

[aox]

Saying you wont watch anything but Blu means you wont watch anything but the most painfully obvious of titles for the most part.

I agree. I just don't know who has made this claim in this thread or anywhere else. Kind of moot. Again, that statement conflates viewing and purchasing.

Maybe what we've been talking about on this page? i e:

How about Hou Hsiao-Hsien? Are you going to entirely avoid his pre-2000 films, one of the most important bodies of work in modern cinema, simply because they've never been released in decent transfers? So far we've been waiting about twelve years since the first mediocre releases, we've got all the way through the supposed 'DVD boom', and none of these films have got first-rate releases. I guess it's time to call it quits and resign yourself to the substandard discs. It's better than not seeing the films at all, right?

Well, no, actually. I'm quite content to wait another 12 years to see these, or 20, or 30.

In 30 years, I'll be 62, at which point it might be time to start thinking about settling for substandard transfers before I, y'know, die. Until then, why settle for a shitty Fox Lorber DVD when MoMA could program a Hou retro next month or, less likely, Criterion could decide to release something other than new IFC movies? Especially as long as my kevyip remains in the low three digits and my potential Netflix rentals (just of movies I've never seen) in the mid-four digits.

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

I must have missed this post. I personally am not making the same declaration, and most people participating in this discussion are not either.

and Ozu on HD? Yes, please.

[HerrSchreck]

Okay-- for the third time:

I mentioned at the beginning of my post that my point was a general one, spoken out into the general industrial atmosphere...

Aox, my friend, chill. Nobody is saying you said anything-- I'm not addressing you specifically & as an individual in my posts. So relax your combative stance and know that there's no reason for you to continue placing yourself at the topical center of these posts. Debate the general industrial points of the topic, not what you think people are saying that you said... and how they're in error.

[mteller]

My philosophy is that any film worth owning is worth owning on the best available format. So I'll happily upgrade my 8 1/2, my Third Man, et cetera. The moment anything in my collection is announced on Blu, I put my old disc on eBay (which burned me on Ran, but oh well). But I'm also quite satisfied owning Pakeezah in any format, even a shitty Shemaroo DVD if that's the best I can get.

[Blood Pie]

I don't have to buy a title to support or love a particular film, genre, director, production house and so on.

but it helps. These guys need to feed their families too.

How long do you think, say, MoC would last if people stopped buying their discs but continued to really, really respect what they did?

(See also the downloading / cumstain thread.)

Except you only quoted the last part of my statement out of context which entirely changes the intent of what I meant. In context I already stated I ALWAYS rent DVDs and in the rare case something I absolutely have to own is only available on DVD I will buy it (or keep my DVD version if it doesn't have a quality BD counterpart in retail or one coming down the line) .

Also, putting what I said into the context of the larger debate I obviously buy the BDS. I currently own the BD MOC series 2 and 3 and have 1 on order and I own 7 CC BDs with 2 on order and plan on buying 5 more by January based on titles coming out in January. So the argument is moot.

Unless we plan on switching gears to rating how much one supports a company based on how many titles they buy your comment doesn't fairly reflect what I truly said or meant.

[Blood Pie]

My philosophy is that any film worth owning is worth owning on the best available format. So I'll happily upgrade my 8 1/2, my Third Man, et cetera. The moment anything in my collection is announced on Blu, I put my old disc on eBay (which burned me on Ran, but oh well). But I'm also quite satisfied owning Pakeezah in any format, even a shitty Shemaroo DVD if that's the best I can get.

And that simply sums up my stance.

Well said.

[swo17]

My philosophy is that any film worth owning is worth owning on the best available format...

And that simply sums up my stance. Well said.

Even if the best available format for a particular film is on DVD?