Criterion Blu-ray

[Cinephrenic]

You telling me there are people who haven't went Blu yet on here? Oh my....I'm gonna have a drink now. #-o

[CrazedCollector]

I think eventually Criterion will sell Blu-ray and DVD discs in a single package, instead of separate Blu-ray and DVD editions. The money saved on DVD only packaging would cover the cost of authoring and pressing the DVD disc.

You'd think so, right? But think: what would this mean for packaging - the clear figure-8 cases? What about SD supplement discs - a case like the one for Science is Fiction? And as far as costs are concerned, I recall reading elsewhere on this forum that MoC considered the dual-packaging option but thought it too costly (correct me if I'm wrong).

If only it were possible to produce SD/Blu hybrid discs, like they did for CD/SACD, I have a very strong feeling this would be an easier transition.

EDIT: Check this out: http://www.tgdaily.com/games-and-entert ... ve-blu-ray" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A little old, but intriguing all the same.

[akaten]

Not sure why you are both being hostile towards me, we disagree sure but lets be civil.

@Tribe Its down to install base, and the investment that would come if more people moved over at a quicker rate, also DVD sales are down overall, although the likes of Criterion are probably buffered by their brand and their choice of films compared with others and Blu Ray has yet to really take off.

Right now my view is we're in a transition and I think it requires companies to make that change over a policy decision at some stage, that doesn't mean DVD will go away, but its a signal that it is set to be their secondary market for home releases in the years to come.

The reason is simple, while it was understandable a year or so ago for indecision on the matter, is it best to continue dividing your audience into two groups with two products to produce, market and distribute when you can outline a policy decision now which over time (when the films signed from now onwards are ready) will ensure they are all buying the same version.

It also gives people plenty of forewarning and time to seriously consider and save for a Blu Ray player (and HD TV) if they haven't done so before.

who cares? how is the audience "divided" when they are watching the same film? this is fanboy nonsense, pure and simple. As long as you are getting them in blu, what difference does it make? and in the cases where you aren't, then there are pretty simple reasons for it: either they couldn't get blu rights or the materials weren't suitable. it's one or the other. Frankly, I'd rather have Night Train to Munich and Make Way For Tomorrow on DVD than not at all.

This argument is stupid.

In my original post I never said to stop doing films that can only be done on DVD, in my idea of a policy it stated 'rights and materials permitting,' so it doesn't prevent those films being possible at all. They are watching the same film but its not the same product, that was my point, apologies if it wasn't clear in my posts.

I'm not sure I appreciate being labelled a fanboy, I happily buy DVD and will continue to do so. I certainly wasn't one of those refusing to buy The Human Condition and The War Trilogy on DVD, they have fast become two of my most cherished sets and I'm currently saving for the Sternberg set now.

I'll be buying DVDs from smaller boutique labels like Flicker Alley, Animeigo and Second Run etc for years to come. Living in a small town, home releases are the only way I can invest in cinema. The only way the people at those companies, or little known contemporary filmmakers or (if by some miracle one of their releases sold very well) the chance that a new restorations can receive serious amounts of investment is if people like me continue to go out and buy DVDs from them.

But for Criterion with its greater visibility, following and large catalogue of received wisdom favourites yes I would rather they focus more on Blu Ray, it might even give those other labels more market space to grow.

He also doesn't seem to comprehend why Criterion would ever consider alienating a significant number of customers by going blu only....that would be financial suicide. and again, as long as they are releasing in both, who cares? what difference is it to you if someone else buys Mystery Train in Sdvd? you have it on blu, so be happy.

I did consider it which is why I said if they were to ever take a decision it should be done in a way as to give people a year or so advance notice before it came into effect. Neither or us know whether it would be financial suicide as we don't have access to figures so its a moot point. But if anyone can manage it, a boutique company like Criterion with its comparative wealth and brand appeal can do it and pull it off, allbeit with some initial misgivings.

I don't think it would make a huge difference at this stage, which I noted in my third post, more symbolic than anything but it would help clear the air, clarity over why long term projects like the Sternberg set, or films whose materials or the rights bought at the time are not suitable for HD. If there is any impact on their main line, either the Eclipse range or other smaller boutique labels can fill that gap.

[Jonathan S]

The boxset of Eisenstein silents were in the works but as you can see it never materialized, presumably because of the difficulty with working on the materials for so long (which they were having trouble with it, mainly from red tape). Instead the films ended up with Kino, which has now released the films.

But so far Kino has only released Potemkin of the five films Criterion said they were working on. I seem to recall Kino did announce Strike and October as "forthcoming" in their catalog a couple of years ago but I've not read anything since. Have properly restored editions been released in other regions? (I have a 1992 UK TV broadcast of October which uses a better print than any commercial release I've seen - and it has the Meisel score.)

[Cinephrenic]

Aren't all these public domain?

[Ashirg]

They are public domain if you want to release any 16 mm crappy third generation disc. They are not public domain if you want to work with archives/Mosfilm to release authorized version from restored transfer.

[hangman]

The boxset of Eisenstein silents were in the works but as you can see it never materialized, presumably because of the difficulty with working on the materials for so long (which they were having trouble with it, mainly from red tape). Instead the films ended up with Kino, which has now released the films.

But so far Kino has only released Potemkin of the five films Criterion said they were working on. I seem to recall Kino did announce Strike and October as "forthcoming" in their catalog a couple of years ago but I've not read anything since. Have properly restored editions been released in other regions? (I have a 1992 UK TV broadcast of October which uses a better print than any commercial release I've seen - and it has the Meisel score.)

Ah yes my bad, checked my copies and they are Image Entertainment, but I mistook Image for Kino since I recalled that old forthcoming announcement as well. That and they've released Battleship Potemkin all of which don't spell well for that Silent box.

[ShowsOn]

But the trouble with that idea is, if Crit goes 720p for Eclipse, it risks having straight clones (more or less) of its 720p encodes going out to all the fucking fileshare sites.

I think the 1080p or even upscaled simulacra for the same price is relatively foolproof, at least for the next couple of years.

The resolution doesn't make a Blu-ray easier or harder to copy considering hard disc space is so cheap. So I don't see releasing the films at 720p would make them more likely to be file shared than DVDs. In fact, it would be harder if they were distributed on Blu-ray rather than DVD, because Blu-rays are harder to decrypt than DVDs. (In fact, Criterion could make it even harder if they started using BD+ copy protection, but it seems they don't do this because they want to ensure their discs are as compatible as possible with even very early Blu-ray players).

I think 720p Blu-ray would be a good option for the Eclipse line when Criterion stops releasing DVDs. It would reduce number of discs that need to be pressed, you could have 6 2-hour films in 720p on 2 x 50 GB Blu-rays. I accept that at the moment that would cost more than just pressing 6 DVDs, but it would be a better quality product, and by this time next year the authoring and pressing costs may be the same (2 Blu-rays versus 6 DVDs)

You could easily fit 6 - 7 hours of 720p content (instead of 4 - 4.5 hours of 1080p content) without creating compression artifacts. The bitrate would still be close to 20 Mbps, but the reduced resolution would ensure the quality was very good (far better than NTSC DVD!)

I am with you on the go straight HD however. The still egregious example of how this works is their inability to secure BD rights for the Sternbergs.. the problem being that - good as the SDs will undoubtedly be - HDs of this (which were already prepped in HD telecines) would be at, say, the level of their superb Stagecoach. And Nobody, repeat nobody, is ever going to do these titles again in a Hires format.

Well, that's the sad thing about a lot of the Eclipse line. I'm pretty sure Criterion still uses their 2K telecine, but it is sad that they are only on DVD, even when all of them that I own are surprisingly good transfers. I'd love a reissue of the Late Ozu box in 720p for example.

[CSM126]

When it comes to Eclipse, I get the idea that Criterion don't actually do any "work" on the films. They just license existing digital masters from whoever and throw them out there. Some films probably don't have HD masters waiting, and Criterion seeking out and then scanning original elements at 2k or 4k would probably render the whole Eclipse project cost ineffective. I mean, sure, if they can find hi-def material to work with then do it, but otherwise I understand why it would stay a DVD line.

[HistoryProf]

I think people need to realize that the kind of people posting here and thinking blu ray only releases would be a good thing are about .01% of the population - a SIGNIFICANT minority. I've heard from most friends in retail that DVDs still CLEARLY outsell blu-rays 10 to 1 easily...same goes for rentals...the place closest to me got 100 Avatar DVDs and 3 blu rays - and one or more is always available. Despite the PS3s and more players in houses, they still upconvert regular dvds and for millions and millions of people, that's just fine with them. Why pay $10 more for the same movie? They don't see the difference in quality.

You can call them idiots all you want, but the simple fact is that they drive the market, not you and your "DVD is an inferior format so I will therefore never buy a DVD again!" crusade to see everything possible on blu. It's just never going to happen. Divergent pricing is only going to ensure that blu ray remains a highly specialized niche product, which is frankly fine with me. If selling DVDs cheaper helps Criterion move more units and make more money for other costly projects, then fan fucking tastic! I honestly don't care. I also understand that it's just not feasible to release EVERYTHING in both formats, and that some titles will still only be regular releases - and i'll never understand the vitriol over such choices. I'll gladly pick up Night Train to Munich next month for $13 and enjoy the hell out of it and never once wonder 'but what if it were blu!??!?' That's all just very silly to me, and frankly, puts one in a category with that Jack guy on Cinemania

[Tribe]

I think people need to realize that the kind of people posting here and thinking blu ray only releases would be a good thing are about .01% of the population - a SIGNIFICANT minority.

If that.

I've simply never understood why the BluRay-only crowd cares what format the rest of the world watches.

[Peacock]

It's simple, because if companies decide to go BD-only they will (maybe not right away as you'll have to wait for a few people to upgrade to Blu as a result) be able to afford to release more films than they would if they just did two formats.
Or if Blu was the norm, it would mean we'd get Night Train to Munich in HD only rather than SD only.
I view this as a benefit.

[Tribe]

It's simple, because if companies decide to go BD-only they will (maybe not right away as you'll have to wait for a few people to upgrade to Blu as a result) be able to afford to release more films than they would if they just did two formats.

Of course it's simple....when you take such a great leap of faith into utter speculation.

[Jeff]

I've heard from most friends in retail that DVDs still CLEARLY outsell blu-rays 10 to 1 easily...same goes for rentals...the place closest to me got 100 Avatar DVDs and 3 blu rays - and one or more is always available.

It's not quite that lopsided. As of last week, 39% of all copies of Avatar sold have been Blu-ray. Most new titles hover in the 25% to 30% range. The Hurt Locker has actually sold more Blu-rays than DVDs, and Criterion was running at 50% Blu-ray six months ago. I'm sure that has only gone up, but they don't release sales figures. Blu-ray's overall market share is at 14%, largely due to the massive amount of catalog titles available on DVD that just aren't there for Blu-ray.

All of that being said, I'm not in any hurry for DVD to go away, I have no problem continuing to buy standard DVDs from Criterion or anyone else, and I don't really care if Tribe goes Blu or not.

[aox]

I've simply never understood why the BluRay-only crowd cares what format the rest of the world watches.

Because you are holding us back.

I wanted the Human Condition on Blu. Criterion expressed the same to me in correspondence with them. They seemed really regretful and agreed it was the perfect format for this beautiful 11 hour film, but stated it wasn't economically viable. Why? Because too many people still buy this shitty DVD format. That means people who are ready to move on into the future are being held back by a majority populace that is playing conservative. I was forced to buy The Human Condition in an inferior format just to placate a market dictated by a stubborn majority that will eventually join in anyway down the road.

[Lemmy Caution]

Why? Because too many people still buy this shitty DVD format. That means people who are ready to move on into the future are being held back by a majority populace that is playing conservative. I was forced to buy The Human Condition in an inferior format just to placate a market dictated by a stubborn majority that will eventually join in anyway down the road.

Better than being dictated to by a shrill minority.
The stubborn majority will upgrade in the future, when prices for BR players and HD TV's are much cheaper, and often when their current players and Tv's need replacement. Rational, financial-based upgrading.

It might shock many, but I'm sure there are plenty of folks who love film and music but don't get too caught up in the technical aspects, which many here are beyond fascinated by. One of the biggest positives about the Criterion and MoC brands is that I can trust them to worry about the technical presentation so that I don't have to be bothered.

In fact, mostly I want to see interesting films and standard Dvd works just fine for my purposes. My technical equipment has limitations, from my shortsightedness and limited color-blindness, to my tin ear. Somehow I manage to appreciate film and music. I'll be happy to investigate Blu Ray at some point, but would be surprised if it impacted my viewing experience in any substantial way.

[Jeff]

you are holding us back...I wanted the Human Condition on Blu...too many people still buy this shitty DVD...people who are ready to move on into the future are being held back by a majority populace

You aren't doing yourself or your cause any favors with comments like this. The marketplace doesn't owe you anything, and not offering the movies you want in the format you want is hardly oppresive.

There is no way Criterion would have gone Blu on The Human Condition anyway. The materials are in awful shape. Just making them look presentable on DVD took huge chunks of their budget -- the most expensive project in their history. They have said several times that their production costs for an average Blu-ray are twice as much as DVD, so you can imagine how much a Blu-ray of the trilogy would have cost them. There are no circumstances in which releasing a Blu-ray of The Human Condition would have been financially feasible. If 100% of their consumers only bought Blu-ray, they probably wouldn't have released the films at all. They've already conceded that they're probably going to take a substantial loss just doing the DVD.

[aox]

Better than being dictated to by a shrill minority.
The stubborn majority will upgrade in the future

You don't see the contradiction in these two statements? How much cheaper does the technology have to get?

The marketplace doesn't owe you anything, and not offering the movies you want in the format you want is hardly oppresive.

That's exactly my point. The marketplace doesn't owe people with 10-20 year old technology any favors. Upgrade.

Thank you.

There is no way Criterion would have gone Blu on The Human Condition anyway. The materials are in awful shape. Just making them look presentable on DVD took huge chunks of their budget -- the most expensive project in their history. They have said several times that their production costs for an average Blu-ray are twice as much as DVD, so you can imagine how much a Blu-ray of the trilogy would have cost them. There are no circumstances in which releasing a Blu-ray of The Human Condition would have been financially feasible. If 100% of their consumers only bought Blu-ray, they probably wouldn't have released the films at all. They've already conceded that they're probably going to take a substantial loss just doing the DVD.

Almost every line contradicts the one before it (is it elements or cost?), so I will just say respectfully that if 100% of people were HD, the costs would be down; therefore, making a BD release of THC feasible. Criterion wanted to.

[Jeff]

The marketplace doesn't owe you anything, and not offering the movies you want in the format you want is hardly oppresive.

That's exactly my point. The marketplace doesn't owe people with 10-20 year old technology any favors.

By "the marketplace," I am referring to the consumers who purchase products. They do not owe it to you to spend money on an upgrade that they don't want so that you can theoretically have more things in your preferred format. Consumer DVD players were released in select markets beginning in 1997 and peaked around 2005, so I'm not sure where 20 years comes into play.

Upgrade.

I don't need to upgrade. I've had a Blu-ray player for quite a while now, and I'm at about 150 Blu-ray discs.

Thank you.

You're welcome?

Almost every line contradicts the one before it (is it elements or cost?)

There is no contradiction. The astronomical costs were directly related to the condition of the elements.

[perkizitore]

They want the upgrade, they just don't know it yet! Why did they dump their VHS players 6 years ago?

[aox]

I am tired of arguing with people (nothing personal against you Jeff. I just mean in general) about something they are going to upgrade to anyway in the coming years. Just to clarify:

1. I said 10-20 years to fend off the "gotcha" technicality krew. The technology for DVDs came about 1993, and were released to the market in 1996/97. "10-20" (15) years.

2. I simply answered Tribe's question. Sorry some of you didn't like the answer, but this transcends way past me, Tribe, you or anyone else. It's a very frustrating situation. Not the people who haven't gotten around to upgrading to something they will eventually and understand the benefits; but, the people who are completely intellectually dishonest about the benefits and/or actually rail against the coming technology as if it is offensive. I don't understand this defiant phenomenon. If you aren't ready to upgrade, that's cool. But to actively be against something you eventually will have to, is infinitely perplexing. These same people come out in droves every 10-20 years. Has history taught us nothing?

[Jeff]

I am tired of arguing with people about something they are going to upgrade to anyway in the coming years (yet I am somehow the bad guy for embracing it now).

You are not "the bad guy for embracing it now." Again, I've had an HDTV, Blu-ray player, and many discs for a while now. I am embracing it too. It is your continued insistence that anyone else who doesn't embrace it with the same fervor as you is a Luddite that chafes.

If you aren't ready to upgrade, that's cool.

quoting for posterity

[aox]

If you aren't ready to upgrade, that's cool.

quoting for posterity

Has been my position since Day 1. Please continue reading my post that clarifies.

[matrixschmatrix]

How do you get from people continuing to buy things on dvd (which is where this started) to

people who are completely intellectually dishonest about the benefits and/or actually rail against the coming technology as if it is offensive.

It's not people who were making intellectually dishonest arguments against blu ray that stopped you getting your hypothetical HD The Human Condition, it's a consideration of what is most likely to be profitable.

I mean, this kind of argument made sense with blu-ray vs. hd-dvd, because there getting both was impractical and if the market went with the one you didn't pick you could get screwed. But movies being released in dvd are still just as watchable for you as they are for anyone else. They still look pretty great. If you feel like dvd isn't good enough, you can shoot the moon and hope it will come out on blu-ray soon. But getting pissed at people for buying it- which is what you did, wherever your position wandered to after- is silly.

[aox]

How do you get from people continuing to buy things on dvd (which is where this started) to

people who are completely intellectually dishonest about the benefits and/or actually rail against the coming technology as if it is offensive.

There are two groups:

1. Those who aren't upgrading for various practical reasons based on one's own situation; nothing to do with the technology itself or lack of want.
2. Those who are defiantly not upgrading and are actively spending energy railing against the technology, as if offensive somehow.

Look, progress moves slow (see Group 1), but Group 2 is ultimately offensive. Progress moves slow by itself. It doesn't need Group 2 championing its demise.

I was speaking about Group 2, and have been the whole time. Sorry those two groups seemed conflated.