criterionforum.org

ellipsis7 wrote:while PS3 is low end Blu-Ray

Says who? I got the impression when researching that it was one of the better players in its price range, and probably the most future-proof at the time of purchase (last summer). Which is why I bought one.

MichaelB wrote:

ellipsis7 wrote:while PS3 is low end Blu-Ray

Says who? I got the impression when researching that it was one of the better players in its price range, and probably the most future-proof at the time of purchase (last summer). Which is why I bought one.

Blu-Ray technology allows updates online, so you will be kept up to date (as will also current Sony players), however the PS3 has many functions (primarily gaming - there is a PS 3 upstairs here), while more expensive dedicated high end players (such as the Arcam BR in development) will deliver heretofore unprecedented quality images off BR, such as their high end SDVD counterparts do off DVD...

Yes, but even a basic Blu-ray is going to be able to resolve higher-definition images than a top-of-the-range SD-DVD player, for the simple reason that there is more information to be had.

My Oppo is magnificent, but even at its best its images aren't as good as the PS3's - Sleeping Beauty offers a particularly good example, as the fine detail of the background artwork on the Blu-ray is just incredible (you can walk right up to the screen and examine it in detail from just centimetres), whereas if you get too close when the SD-DVD's playing, you just see a lot of grain and artefacting. And that's through what's supposed to be one of the best players on the market.

And David Hare's point about grain is an excellent one: the most striking difference between the Blu-ray and DVD of Red Desert is that the Blu-ray has much finer but nonetheless still clearly visible grain, which creates a much more filmic "feel". The SD-DVD has most of the same virtues (it was, after all, downconverted from the same master), but not that one - but you have to actually watch the Blu-ray to appreciate the difference.

ellipsis7 wrote:To put cat among pigeons in the SDVD vs. BR debate, this is a quote from Tim Lucas' review of Criterion's WHITE DOG, which appears in the February issue of 'Sight and Sound', the BFI's own magazine...

Criterion's DVD marks its first ever availability on disc. The presentation is superlative, built around a new transfer that's so vivid and film-like it could scarcely be improved upon by Blu-ray.

Tim Lucas' remark is utter nonsense. He's essentially saying that the new transfer is "so vivid and film-like" that there's little point in displaying it in a higher resolution than 480 lines. It makes no sense at all.

So many people, including "professional" reviewers, seem to think Blu-Ray offers an advantage over SD DVD that is some kind of slight and undefined improvement, whereas in fact the advantage is, among other things, an HD image vs an SD one, which is huge. Even an old, scratched 16mm print will benefit dramatically from being transferred and viewed in HD vs SD. Anybody who has compared 16mm images projected from film, or from an HD transfer, with 16mm images on SD video should be able to attest to that. SD can't resolve the grain structure accurately. Old TV shows from SD masters are about the only commonly used source that may not benefit much from the advent of Blu-Ray.

Whether the majority of viewers care about all this is another matter. But for enthusiasts, Blu-Ray clearly offers a vastly improved image over SD DVD, not just a slight one.

This is obviously totally correct. I think reviewers like this are justifying good SD transfers to make themselves feel better. But what we can agree on, I think, is that an excellent SD transfer is nothing to complain about. It's better than nothing, and certainly watchable.

chaddoli wrote:But what we can agree on, I think, is that an excellent SD transfer is nothing to complain about. It's better than nothing, and certainly watchable.

Absolutely! I am still sadly Blu-Ray-deprived at home, and enjoy my DVD collection immensely. DVD is no VHS.

In addition (and perhaps forgive my phaseology) the "greyscale" on Bluray is finer, displaying a much more subtle gradation in colors, and from black to white. It creates a photographic crispness to the image that just can't be equalled on standard DVD (which in comparision always looks a bit murky and cartoonish to me now). Add the aforementioned grain and it comes very close to capturing the look and feel of film. For standard DVDs, I run a taxing configuration of ffdshow on an HTPC, and while it can produce a very sharp, clean image (so long as the DVD is well produced), there is no comparision.

And as for upgrading I think I will remain content with most of the older, academy ratio films I have on DVD. Widescreen titles may be a different story though. Anamorphic DVDs alway appear to lack the sharpness that 1.33 format titles have. I'm not sure what the technical reasons for this are (or if its due in part to my set-up). So my greatest wish is for something like the Sweet Smell of Success on Blu. I have yet to see any widescreen b&w films in HD and am really excited to see what it has to offer (BFI's The Lonliness of the Long Distance Runner is sure to be my first).

Yep, I'm really looking forward to spinning the DESERTO ROSSO BR on my system via the PS3... It's my 5th dip on this title!...

Other thing I understand about the 'Tru-Blu' experience is that you also have to have a new generation amp and decoders that can work True HD sound (the core and the stems) rather than make do with the compressed Dolby Digital or DTS (that lies in just the core)...

If you're simply looking for an improvement in picture quality there's no need to bother with an upgraded amp etc, and given the noise laws in lots of countries not everyone is able to playback the sound on discs to TrueHD levels.

Really interesting article on the death of VHS and the thousands of titles that were issued on that format but are not available on DVD (or Bluray).

Sony introduces Blu-specCD, a new audio format that actually has less audio quality than SACD, and are really just better encoded discs that current CDs. Are these guys trying to lose money on purpose?

Antoine Doinel wrote:Sony introduces Blu-specCD, a new audio format that actually has less audio quality than SACD, and are really just better encoded discs that current CDs. Are these guys trying to lose money on purpose?

The Onion: Sony Releases New Stupid Piece of Shit That Doesn't Fucking Work (warning: video starts automatically)

Antoine Doinel wrote:Really interesting article on the death of VHS and the thousands of titles that were issued on that format but are not available on DVD (or Bluray).

Really good article on studios sitting on their catalogs and not doing anything with them. I still can't understand why is taking WB and Paramount to release the Magnificent Ambersons and The African Queen respectively. It has to be complete bs that they are still restoring the film.

To me the solution to this issue is to give back the film rights to the living directors so they can shop around the film to independent distributors. That is much better than studios keeping this movies in a storage and re-releasing for the nth time the latest Rob Cohen, or lousy horror movie of the week DVD.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Really interesting article on the death of VHS and the thousands of titles that were issued on that format but are not available on DVD (or Bluray).

Regarding this quote from the article "I never understood how this myth that 'everything is available on DVD' got started," Same for CD's. Most people assume that every bit of music recorded is available on CD, mp3 or in some sort of digital format.

Warner throws their support behind CBHD, yet another new HD format in China.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Warner throws their support behind CBHD, yet another new HD format in China.

Next month's National Geographic will feature an article on the discovery of trees that sprout money, I have heard.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Warner throws their support behind CBHD, yet another new HD format in China.

Isn't this the same HD DVD-based format that they have been working on for a few years now?

I understand that it does support the 51GB triple-layer formatting that Toshiba developed. It is different enough from HD DVD that existing HD DVD player would not be able to play them, at least not without a major firmware upgrade.

It also uses different copy protection and different Chinese-developed codecs. I don't see any chance that existing HD DVD players will be compatible. I haven't read anything about triple-layer support, though -- the CBHD website is of no help and these detailed Chinese writeups from November and yesterday make no mention of triple-layer discs.

A brief video from A&E about their restoration of Pride & Prejudice.

subliminac wrote:In addition (and perhaps forgive my phaseology) the "greyscale" on Bluray is finer, displaying a much more subtle gradation in colors, and from black to white. It creates a photographic crispness to the image that just can't be equalled on standard DVD (which in comparision always looks a bit murky and cartoonish to me now).

Not true - both BD and DVD use 8-bit video. This is one of the few areas where BD isn't blatantly superior, in fact. It's possible that BD titles will show smoother gradation because of better encoding, though, but there's not much technical reasoning why this should be the case.

I await the day when I can own all my favorite titles as 10bit dpx sequences

StevenJ0001 wrote:So many people, including "professional" reviewers, seem to think Blu-Ray offers an advantage over SD DVD that is some kind of slight and undefined improvement, whereas in fact the advantage is, among other things, an HD image vs an SD one, which is huge. Even an old, scratched 16mm print will benefit dramatically from being transferred and viewed in HD vs SD. Anybody who has compared 16mm images projected from film, or from an HD transfer, with 16mm images on SD video should be able to attest to that. SD can't resolve the grain structure accurately.

Since this post was made, the BFI has demonstrated the essential truth of this by releasing Blu-rays of 16mm films by Jeff Keen and Ron Peck. My initial reaction to watching Nighthawks in Blu-ray was "why the hell was this title picked when the number of BFI HD releases has yet to hit double figures?", but it's implicitly making the polemical point that even an extremely grainy 16mm production will benefit from an HD upgrade.

In the case of Nighthawks, the chances are pretty high that the HD source master has resolved as close to every bit of information on the original negative as makes very little difference. While this will obviously have been compromised to a certain extent by the compression codec used for the Blu-ray, it's probably safe to assume that short of the extremely unlikely event of uncompressed HD masters becoming domesticated, this is probably the best this film is ever likely to look.

And having sat in on the telecine myself and seen zoomed-in A/B comparisons between the original 16mm camera negative and what was recorded on the HD master, I'm pretty confident in asserting that the same is true of the forthcoming The Other Side of the Underneath.

You can access the program here. The rules of the program are here.

Ugh, kind of obnoxious they only have 3 of the 5 Kubrick's on there. I might take that up on a couple of titles I'm having playback issues on, and at least keep the one's that were combos. I have to admit I liked the option of having a DVD version as well. At least Disney includes DVDs with some Blu titles.

EDIT: Huh, weird, I refreshed and all the Kubrick's showed up.

From reading the rules, it seems that only the packaging sleeve for the HD-DVD gets sent in. Not the disc itself.

And you get a $15 off $50 coupon good on Blu-ray titles at WB Shop through the end of the year.

As someone who never purchased an HD-DVD, I wonder if it would be worth picking some up second hand just to get the Blu-ray for cheaper than getting it directly. For example, I could get a used HD-DVD of Casablanca for about $13 on amazon. I could then pay the $5 + the $7 shipping to get it exchanged for Blu. It seems like this would get me the Casablanca Blu-ray set (MSRP $65) for just about $25. That is, assuming they would send the Ultimate Collector's Edition, and not some custom-made thing with just the movie.