criterionforum.org

I was thinking in terms of having two versions to put out, as well as having catalogue films and new versions of the film on Blu Ray competing for the same audience online and on the shelves.

To be honest I don't think it would have a drastic impact on their future line up, as you say by now they are probably planning Blu Ray on every film the are signing now, provided the materials allow for it.

But it would finally draw a line under the issue, on speculation about 'such and such a film could've been Blu Ray' and give people still undecided a final push to prepare for it in the next year or so it takes to have the final specs of the first films after that date ready to announce.

I think (and hope) that Criterion will eventually use Blu-ray for their Eclipse line. They could encode them at 720p instead of 1080p so they can fit two or even three shorter films on each disc. At 720p they could fit 5.5 - 6 hours of content without sacrificing quality. In fact, the quality would have 167% more resolution than NTSC DVD, and can be more efficiently encoded using MPEG4-AVC or VC1 instead of being restricted to MPEG2.

akaten wrote:For what its worth I think the best thing for them to do would be to have a clear public announcement on future policy, something along the lines of "from now on, all films going in production for the Criterion range, providing the rights and materials allow for it, will be HD only and released only on Blu Ray."

That would still give people plenty of time to buy a Blu Ray player before this came into effect on the releases being lined up each month and crucially would finally put to bed any complaints and speculation as to what their approach is on the matter in the years to come.

I don't understand why you would give two shits whether I have a Blu Ray player or whether or not I buy one in the future.

Criterion has a history of using the best medium of its time to contain cinema - this is why it used LD rather than Beta, and after LD became untenable why it switched to DVD rather than VHS. SD DVD has been surpassed by Blu, plain and simple.

hangman wrote:Ok I can understand that you want to see the films in the best possible material but unfortunately for some titles that is unlikely, any time soon or ever, so would you rather have those films never released at all?

This is totally misleading. Because a film cannot be released in Blu right now - the Sternbergs, for example - does not mean that it will "never" be released. I'd rather wait one, two, three years or more than buy something in an inferior format right now. All it takes is patience. And seeing as how all major distributors have embraced Blu, it is safe to buy without the fear that the next format is just around the corner.

By that logic, shouldn't you hold off buying anything lest a better transfer or a superior edition come out at some point?

matrixschmatrix wrote:By that logic, shouldn't you hold off buying anything lest a better transfer or a superior edition come out at some point?

See:

CrazedCollector wrote:And seeing as how all major distributors have embraced Blu, it is safe to buy without the fear that the next format is just around the corner.

CrazedCollector wrote:

matrixschmatrix wrote:By that logic, shouldn't you hold off buying anything lest a better transfer or a superior edition come out at some point?

See:

CrazedCollector wrote:And seeing as how all major distributors have embraced Blu, it is safe to buy without the fear that the next format is just around the corner.

That wasn't really my point. There have already been blu re-releases- Gangs of New York, notably- so even once something is out on blu, you don't necessarily have the best possible format. Criterion themselves have said "If you love these films, keep buying DVDs. It is going to be quite a while before the Blu-ray marketplace can support many of the titles Criterion releases on DVD." For something like the Sternberg box set, it seems insane to me to refuse to get something that has just finally become available on digital media in the first place on the assumption that someday, they will make it still better.

matrixschmatrix wrote:

CrazedCollector wrote:

matrixschmatrix wrote:By that logic, shouldn't you hold off buying anything lest a better transfer or a superior edition come out at some point?

See:

CrazedCollector wrote:And seeing as how all major distributors have embraced Blu, it is safe to buy without the fear that the next format is just around the corner.

That wasn't really my point. There have already been blu re-releases- Gangs of New York, notably- so even once something is out on blu, you don't necessarily have the best possible format. Criterion themselves have said "If you love these films, keep buying DVDs. It is going to be quite a while before the Blu-ray marketplace can support many of the titles Criterion releases on DVD." For something like the Sternberg box set, it seems insane to me to refuse to get something that has just finally become available on digital media in the first place on the assumption that someday, they will make it still better.

Very simple rules I live by:
1. No more DVDs (it's 600 lines of resolution short of today's standard);
2. Research non-Criterion Blus before purchase; if quality is poor, pass, but buy if quality is good (why I passed on the original Gangs).

Given the noteworthy backlash over the Sternberg set's lack of a Blu option (here and elsewhere), I do think it is fair to conclude Criterion will EVENTUALLY get around to a hi-def re-release. I look forward to seeing them for the first time in optimal resolution.

Don't hold your breath.

akaten wrote: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.

Tribe wrote:

akaten wrote:For what its worth I think the best thing for them to do would be to have a clear public announcement on future policy, something along the lines of "from now on, all films going in production for the Criterion range, providing the rights and materials allow for it, will be HD only and released only on Blu Ray."

That would still give people plenty of time to buy a Blu Ray player before this came into effect on the releases being lined up each month and crucially would finally put to bed any complaints and speculation as to what their approach is on the matter in the years to come.

I don't understand why you would give two shits whether I have a Blu Ray player or whether or not I buy one in the future.

because he has one and it's awesome.

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.

CrazedCollector wrote:

matrixschmatrix wrote:

CrazedCollector wrote: See:

That wasn't really my point. There have already been blu re-releases- Gangs of New York, notably- so even once something is out on blu, you don't necessarily have the best possible format. Criterion themselves have said "If you love these films, keep buying DVDs. It is going to be quite a while before the Blu-ray marketplace can support many of the titles Criterion releases on DVD." For something like the Sternberg box set, it seems insane to me to refuse to get something that has just finally become available on digital media in the first place on the assumption that someday, they will make it still better.

Very simple rules I live by:
1. No more DVDs (it's 600 lines of resolution short of today's standard);
2. Research non-Criterion Blus before purchase; if quality is poor, pass, but buy if quality is good (why I passed on the original Gangs).

Given the noteworthy backlash over the Sternberg set's lack of a Blu option (here and elsewhere), I do think it is fair to conclude Criterion will EVENTUALLY get around to a hi-def re-release. I look forward to seeing them for the first time in optimal resolution.

those are stupid rules that prevent you from owning some incredible movies in the best presentation available. And if Criterion could have gotten blu rights for the Sternbergs then they would have. It's pretty clear that they were only able to get SD rights, so you are going to be waiting a long long time for blu rays that will never happen. which again, is stupid.

CrazedCollector wrote:Given the noteworthy backlash over the Sternberg set's lack of a Blu option (here and elsewhere), I do think it is fair to conclude Criterion will EVENTUALLY get around to a hi-def re-release. I look forward to seeing them for the first time in optimal resolution.

This would only be a reasonable argument if a) you were only allowed to watch each movie ever made once in your life, and b) DVDs each cost $500.

HistoryProf wrote:

CrazedCollector wrote:

matrixschmatrix wrote: That wasn't really my point. There have already been blu re-releases- Gangs of New York, notably- so even once something is out on blu, you don't necessarily have the best possible format. Criterion themselves have said "If you love these films, keep buying DVDs. It is going to be quite a while before the Blu-ray marketplace can support many of the titles Criterion releases on DVD." For something like the Sternberg box set, it seems insane to me to refuse to get something that has just finally become available on digital media in the first place on the assumption that someday, they will make it still better.

Very simple rules I live by:
1. No more DVDs (it's 600 lines of resolution short of today's standard);
2. Research non-Criterion Blus before purchase; if quality is poor, pass, but buy if quality is good (why I passed on the original Gangs).

Given the noteworthy backlash over the Sternberg set's lack of a Blu option (here and elsewhere), I do think it is fair to conclude Criterion will EVENTUALLY get around to a hi-def re-release. I look forward to seeing them for the first time in optimal resolution.

those are stupid rules that prevent you from owning some incredible movies in the best presentation available. And if Criterion could have gotten blu rights for the Sternbergs then they would have. It's pretty clear that they were only able to get SD rights, so you are going to be waiting a long long time for blu rays that will never happen. which again, is stupid.

Sorry, Mr. Maturity, but the current "best presentation available" is not up to my standards, however "stupid" you may think my rationale. But to each their own.

swo17 wrote:

CrazedCollector wrote:Given the noteworthy backlash over the Sternberg set's lack of a Blu option (here and elsewhere), I do think it is fair to conclude Criterion will EVENTUALLY get around to a hi-def re-release. I look forward to seeing them for the first time in optimal resolution.

This would only be a reasonable argument if a) you were only allowed to watch each movie ever made once in your life, and b) DVDs each cost $500.

Sorry, but paying $64-80 for a pack of DVDs in 2010 is, itself, lunacy.

Is this Mr. Wells? We know he frequents the forum and this future flameout is using the same level of insane anti-logic.

knives wrote:Is this Mr. Wells? We know he frequents the forum and this future flameout is using the same level of insane anti-logic.

No, no, not the same. I've posted elsewhere on this forum quite cogently. Just frustrated at hi-def holdouts for the time-being - if my admittedly shaky argumentation has offended you, good sir, I apologize.

Hi-def holdouts bother you that much? A movie is a movie, regardless as to its resolution.

Personally, I only watch movies on vhs bootlegs, using a portable b&w TV. Anything bigger than that it totally overkill, tech-fetishism at its worst!

eljacko wrote:Personally, I only watch movies on vhs bootlegs, using a portable b&w TV. Anything bigger than that it totally overkill, tech-fetishism at its worst!

](*,)
...
lol

Are you guys going to stop acting like a bunch of children or do I have to shut this thread down?

CrazedCollector wrote:This is totally misleading. Because a film cannot be released in Blu right now - the Sternbergs, for example - does not mean that it will "never" be released. I'd rather wait one, two, three years or more than buy something in an inferior format right now. All it takes is patience. And seeing as how all major distributors have embraced Blu, it is safe to buy without the fear that the next format is just around the corner.

I think you missed out the other option, which I used Vampyr as an example. Wherein said film would be released in god knows how many years after a restoration, assuming its lucky enough, has been done to allow for a transfer that would be carried well by the new format. Of course the issue here is that it only took oh say 8 years from the original announcement of Vampyr to the actual release, while other titles such as the Eisenstein films lost their rights to the film. Its not just a matter of patience on the part of distributors it also involves the luck of a film in acquiring a good restoration, films of a great director or part of a canon have a significantly better amount of luck on this front. Course the other issue with holding out is that by the time the said film is finally released at an acceptable level of quality for the format envisioned a new better format may have been invented, then you would have to wait yet again until restorations are undertaken so that the film would be acceptable in the new format (that is if restorations are funded).

Any case this is just a repeat of the nth time of the same old discussion on Blu-ray, not on this topic but on the Blu-ray thread.

Edit: I think part of the mentality about holding out or rather why its so easy for some to say that is because the film they have in mind is already there. I think it would be much harder to hold out when its completely unknown if said film would even be released but when the film is released, albeit in an "inferior" format but with great picture quality it becomes much easier to believe that a better version will come out (without considering just HOW LONG in the pipeline said title was, discovering materials, restoring it, prioritizing release, etc) because at least they've found materials. However, those complications to the release in the first place could very well apply to transferring the film onto the new format and may have to wait god knows how long.

hangman wrote:

CrazedCollector wrote:This is totally misleading. Because a film cannot be released in Blu right now - the Sternbergs, for example - does not mean that it will "never" be released. I'd rather wait one, two, three years or more than buy something in an inferior format right now. All it takes is patience. And seeing as how all major distributors have embraced Blu, it is safe to buy without the fear that the next format is just around the corner.

I think you missed out the other option, which I used Vampyr as an example. Wherein said film would be released in god knows how many years after a restoration, assuming its lucky enough, has been done to allow for a transfer that would be carried well by the new format. Of course the issue here is that it only took oh say 8 years from the original announcement of Vampyr to the actual release, while other titles such as the Eisenstein films lost their rights to the film. Its not just a matter of patience on the part of distributors it also involves the luck of a film in acquiring a good restoration, films of a great director or part of a canon have a significantly better amount of luck on this front.

Any case this is just a repeat of the nth time of the same old discussion on Blu-ray, not on this topic but on the Blu-ray thread.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I do think in more of a case-by-case sort of way - given the talk that sources for Rosselini's War Trilogy and 2/3 of Fontainhas were not up to HD snuff, I bought both and have been immensely pleased with those six films.

In the particular case of Vampyr (which I snapped up at the last B&N 50% sale), I tend to agree with you that it was better to release it at the time rather than start all over again (and wait another 8 years!) But this Eisenstein business I am unfamiliar with - could you please elaborate?

Sorry if I came off a little fascist before. I got a little leery after Days of Heaven was ported to Blu with only a hundred-odd new titles in-between, is all.

Already PMed this to crazed but for those curious... Not hoping to drudge up old wounds.
From Speculation Thread Vol 3:

Cinephrenic wrote:

EISENSTEIN SILENT YEARS boxset - from December 1999 Cineaste interview with Peter Becker: "We're now working on THE BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN, OCTOBER, STRIKE, OLD AND NEW, also known as THE GENERAL LINE, plus GLUMOV'S DIARY, a short that's never been seen here. These are enormous projects, so what we try to do is to ally ourselves with a small group of scholars. On the Eisensteins, we're being helped by David Bordwell, Naum Kleimann, Annette Michelson, Ian Christie, Richard Taylor, and Yuri Tsivian. The idea basically is that if all of these people help us find our way, we won't be too far off."

And a chat transcript from the Digital Bits: (Just use ctrl+f and type Eisenstein to find it)

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. As for how the rights ended up with Kino well its either a) Criterion gave them the rights (somewhat unlikely since they were working on it) or b) rights ran out and Kino snapped em up or c) some other complex reason.

Edit: Good thing I left c open then

hangman wrote:As for how the rights ended up with Kino well its either a) Criterion gave them the rights (somewhat unlikely since they were working on it) or b) rights ran out and Kino snapped em up or c) some other complex reason.

I believe it's actually "c," but others here on the forum know much more about it than I do.

Interesting discussion. I love bluray and the Criterion blurays that I own are magnificent. But I find it hard to understand why people would deny themselves a movie well transferred to DVD. I am still building a collection and there are many many movies that I want to see that I know will not see a bluray release for some time, if ever.

I agree that Criterion would be foolish to abandon DVD with the huge user base of DVD-only viewers. None of the major studios would take that risk, so why should Criterion?

The thing that has been on my mind recently (and has been mentioned here) is whether hi-def formats have contributed to a reduction in range of movies generally on DVD. I'm sure the economic climate comes into it, but we've seen Warners stop releasing many classics and churn out DVD-Rs with cheap transfers. Paramount is letting titles go out of print on DVD. I recently tracked down "The Strange Loves of Martha Ivers" on the Paramount DVD, which is an excellent transfer, as opposed to the numerous awful public domain versions out there. The Paramount disc is out of print - can we really imagine that a title like that would see light of day on bluray? It's more likely that Paramount might reissue their DVD or have it available on a burn-to-order system like Warners, or make it downloadable.

So I for one am not stopping buying DVDs - I am buying up classics before or as they are going out of print, because I don't want to be denied the opportunity of seeing them.

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.