criterionforum.org

Caged Horse wrote:

Jun-Dai wrote:And if Red has their way with the industry, people will all start talking about 4K by then.

Given that 4K monitors and projectors are already available in Hollywood production and Japan is gearing up to sell them to the public, it beats me as to why I should invest in 1080p hardware in the meantime.

Given that most theaters project in 2K still, and that 4K projectors start in, I believe, just north of $100K, it would take a tremendous shift in the industry (hence "if Red has their way with the industry") or a gradual descent over, say 5-15 years, before you could consider 4K as a viewing format to be "affordable" even for a high-end home theater. The biggest problem is that the companies have to envision the ability to mass produce it before they can consider producing it at all, and until that happens. The costs of 4K run across the whole spectrum: you can't run it over HDMI, you can't fit a 2-hour film onto a blu-ray disc at good quality with any of the major codecs, very few films have HD transfers at 4K or above, so there aren't many films that could take advantage of the format (and there won't be for a while yet). 4K LCD displays are going for $12-50K, and require four DVI cables and an appropriate number of DVI outs.

Watching Blu-Ray sales crawl their way up to being a "major format" has probably not encouraged any of the major companies to investigate a 4K consumer format, and the major companies tend to move very slowly as these things go. Remember how long it took Blu-ray to go from a format that people were talking about to now, where there are maybe 30-40 good movies available on the format in the US. Well, there's no 4K consortium yet, and the Blu-ray consortium was founded 7 years ago.

Having said all that, Red is convinced that they can put out a quality 4K player that uses 9 GB DL DVDs for full-length films for about $1,000, and has hinted at putting out 4K projectors and 4K LCDs at some point in the future. They are determined to shake up the industry. I remain skeptical, but I also wouldn't be willing to bet against them given the then-impossible things they've already accomplished on the production-side of things.

Even if (and it's a big IF) Red becomes a viable player in the HD home theater industry, I don't see what the attraction would be for the majority of members on this forum. As we've seen from VHS to DVD and now DVD to BluRay, the majority of the studios have little to no interest in visiting their back catalogs at all or even bothering to upgrade them for HD. As the formats have gotten more high end, the studios are more interested in releasing films like Terminator 2 for the 50th time to show off the bells and whistles, than making sure silents and classics are being restored and released. I mean, we're nearly twenty years into DVD and we still don't Greed, The African Queen or The Magnificent Ambersons in proper releases fer chrissakes. Not to mention that hundreds of other titles that were released on VHS but have yet to see their day on DVD (one of the most glaring examples for me is The Crowd, among many, many, many others (I'm sure HerrSchreck has a running list of them))

And before anyone mentions it, yes WB's Archive is a nice thing, but at the end of the day it's $25 for a DVD-R and we're going to see a lot of titles that could've benefited from far more comprehensive restorations/releases being scuttled off into that void.

And of course one of the big challenges with upgrading to HD (never mind 4K) is getting hold of viable materials. With VHS, you could get away with a less than stellar source print, but this was much harder with DVD, especially as consumers grew fussier (remember the Godawful Pixelvision-quality dreck that Madacy used to release in the late 1990s?) - but the fact that it was still an SD video format meant that the more cheapskate labels could get away with recycling old broadcast masters created years earlier. They still do this to this day, as anyone who's bought one of Optimum's back-catalogue titles can readily attest.

But you can't do that with HD. To make a viable Blu-ray, unless you're in the statistically unlikely position of having an already-created HD master to hand, you need to source the best possible print (ideally the original neg or interpos) and do a fresh telecine from scratch - and you'll almost certainly have to give the end result a digital cleanup as physical blemishes will stick out a mile. That's vastly more expensive than making a DVD from existing materials and is correspondingly a much bigger commercial risk, especially given that the size of the market is still a fraction of that for DVD.

4K is more expensive still, and the challenges correspondingly much greater. So even if it gains the merest toehold in the domestic market, I think it's vanishingly unlikely that there'll be a significant number of back-catalogue titles released in the format.

MichaelB wrote: ...To make a viable Blu-ray, unless you're in the statistically unlikely position of having an already-created HD master to hand, you need to source the best possible print (ideally the original neg or interpos) and do a fresh telecine from scratch - and you'll almost certainly have to give the end result a digital cleanup as physical blemishes will stick out a mile. That's vastly more expensive than making a DVD from existing materials and is correspondingly a much bigger commercial risk, especially given that the size of the market is still a fraction of that for DVD...

Which is precisely why I hope Blu-ray does make it. I suspect that if everything goes on line there will be little incentive to fix up any movie when showing it in high-def. The general public will and does watch anything. I have seen many friends streching out academy sized films to fill their new widescreen televisions. That, in and of itself, shows you what level of image they will tolerate.

Where will the incentive be to make good quality transfers if you are not getting a physical product to have and to hold? I suspect we are currently in the salad days for collectors, once everything goes online it will be downhill. The average Joe will just pay his reletively inexpensive monthly fee and get crappy high-def transfers of everything that isn't new.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I mean, we're nearly twenty years into DVD

Uh...are you from the future, or did I miss the DVD launch party back in 1989? You make good points, but your hyperbole is a tad overdoing it here. We're almost twelve years in, bud.

CSM126 wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:I mean, we're nearly twenty years into DVD

Uh...are you from the future, or did I miss the DVD launch party back in 1989? You make good points, but your hyperbole is a tad overdoing it here. We're almost twelve years in, bud.

I think the development of the DVD format began in '92 or '93, so maybe he's talking about that. Given that the first six titles didn't come out until March of '97, however, it's definitely a stretch to say that we're nearly twenty years in in any meaningful sense.

...

I'm pretty sure the development of a 4K format will be driven by films shot at 4K or higher. Given that's where most of the market interest lies, those of us interested in older films can sort of ride on its coattails as every 4K (e.g., most restorations these days, I believe), 6K (e.g., the Kurosawa films), or even 8K (Baraka) restoration would have no reason not to be on such a format. Given that 1080p is more than good enough for most people, however, I'd have to imagine that the adoption and mass production of any 4K format would be even slower than it has been for Blu-ray, and with a nice, ugly format war, it could just end up going the way of DVD-Audio and SACD.

Having just got a 1080p projector, I can finally take advantage of Blu-ray, and I have to say, when it's big enough to fill my glasses frame (e.g., when I'm watching Planet Earth, I can definitely see where it would be nice to have 4K (although I fear most of Planet Earth was probably shot at 1080p).

Jun-Dai wrote:...I'd have to imagine that the adoption and mass production of any 4K format would be even slower than it has been for Blu-ray...

The rate of adoption of Blu-ray has been keeping pace with that of DVD when it first appeared. (Whether it will sustain that rate is anybody's guess.)

I buy all my DVDs again in 1080p, only to have to buy them all over again in 4K?! To heck with that...

Caged Horse wrote:I buy all my DVDs again in 1080p, only to have to buy them all over again in 4K?! To heck with that...

It really sucks when things just keep getting better, doesn't it?

But seriously, 1080p is never going to look bad. Even DVD won't ever really look bad, unless you blow it up big enough that it starts to fill your field of view. If you're that troubled by the fact that your very good copy of The Seventh Seal might be replaced by an even better format ten years later (nevermind the possibility of a reissue three years from now—not so much a danger with The Seventh Seal, but certainly with films that are not in as good a condition or are in danger of having their rights expire), then maybe you should just stick to renting.

When you buy something, it's fair to expect that it will still work in 5, 10, 15 years. But to expect that it will continue to be the superlative, definitive edition for 5, 10, 15 years is ridiculous. It's not like someone putting out a better edition has made your copies any worse—unless of course you only bought them because they were the best and not because of what they actually were.

…or were you being sarcastic?

Fake Blu Rays have started to appear in China.
A limited selection of only a few dozen, mainly blockbusters, so far.
But two Criterions have also turned up -- The Last Emperor and In the Realm of the Senses.

So a few questions:
How can you tell if a Blu Ray disc is genuine?

How can you tell if a disc is actually Blu Ray?
I guess it shouldn't work in a standard Dvd player for one thing.
Would my computer's Dvd-Rom be able to read what files/folders are on the disc?
If so, what would you look for to know it's BR?
Is there anything to look for on the surface of the disc itself?
(for example, D9's have a wavy pattern when held up to the light, which D5's don't)

If you light it on fire, the flame has more of a bluish tinge.

Is all you want to know whether it's DVD or BD? Yeah, see if it will play in a Blu-ray player but not a DVD player. Also, you should need a BD-ROM drive in order to be able to read a BD, so you should be able to do the same test on a computer. Also, some Blu-ray players will display different settings depending on what type of disc it is playing. For example, my Panny says on the status screen that it is playing something in 24p if it is a BD, but otherwise, I believe it just says "DVD."

How would you distinguish a real Blu-ray from a fake one?

What do you mean by "fake" Blu-ray?

Do you mean a DVD that looks and is labelled like a Blu-ray?
Or do you mean a Blu-ray disc that's been derived from a DVD/laserdisc/VHS tape as its source and is not "genuine" in the sense that it's not at the level of quality implied by the format branding?
Or do you mean something that is actually a Blu-ray but is not genuine in the sense that it hasn't actually been put out with the full blessing of the label it's attributed to and the Blu-ray consortium?

Pirated/bootleg Blu-Rays are starting to turn up.
And they copy the BR disc artwork, cover, and case.

Was wondering how to distinguish a pirated BR from a genuine one?

Lemmy Caution wrote:How would you distinguish a real Blu-ray from a fake one?

Are you trying to say "how can I tell a bootlegged Blu-ray disc from a studio produced one" ('cuz I suppose the Chinese are smart enough to bootleg Blu-rays). If that is your question my dealings with boots on SDVD's has usually been that they have xeroxed or just plain cheezy covers and the disc looks as if it hasn't been professionally printed. That doesn't necessarily mean I haven't got some fine boots, though.

From dvdactive.com:

Title: This is Spinal Tap (IMDb)
Starring: Christopher Guest
Released: 28th July 2009
SRP: $34.99

Further Details:
MGM Home Entertainment has announced a 2-disc Blu-ray release of This is Spinal Tap for the 28th July. Retail will be $34.99. The film will be presented in 1.85:1 widescreen, along with English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio. Extras will include commentary by the Members of Spinal Tap, over 1 hour of deleted scenes and outtakes, a Catching Up With Marty DiBergi featurette, Flower People Press Conference, music videos ("Gimme Some Money", "(Listed to the) Flower People", "Hell Hole", "Big Bottom"), a "Stonehenge" Performance at the 2007 Live Earth Concert, a National Geographic Stonehenge Interview with Nigel Tufnel, a Spinal Tap Appearance on The Joe Franklin Show, and more. We've attached the official package artwork below:

Cash Flagg wrote:Stop Making Sense: 10/13/09

Hallelujah! I think I could watch that movie every day of my life.

Nice! Though what'd push that release from 'great' to 'freaking awesome' would be including their Rome 1980 concert as an extra somewhere.

I hope the fact that this thread has pretty much died off isn't indicative of the lifespan of the format!

Oh well, I got in cheap and didn't have a choice. I'll console myself with those thoughts. And with blu-rays of The Red Shoes and Sunrise.

Cinetwist wrote:I hope the fact that this thread has pretty much died off isn't indicative of the lifespan of the format!

I think it's more indicative of the fact that Blu-ray is no longer a novelty or an unknown quantity, and most Blu discs are just discussed within the threads for their films.

I hope your right. But I was surprised to see just how little discussion there was of the Criterion blu-rays in their respective threads.

I can't believe people like you still exist. After seeing the power of Blu, I will never buy another DVD for as long as I live. Sucks, because I would easily be blind buying many of Criterion's releases this year (eg. The Human Condition), but I guess I will Netflix them until they are released on Blu.