criterionforum.org

I have never met anyone who gives a damn about the digital copy disc. "Oh boy, a Windows Media file of Live Free or Die Hard!!!"

Michael Kerpan wrote:Blu-Ray sound is just fine when piped through our regular 15 year old (middle-tier) receiver to our 10 year old Klipsch speakers. Our BR player co-exists on the very same system with a turntable.

In fact I got a Blu-ray player recently, and it turned out it sounded way better through my old, no-HDMI/advanced audio codec Denon receiver vs. a new HDMI/advanced audio codec equipped Denon. Having a better amp (which my old Denon obviously does) counts for way more than "Dolby TrueHD" etc.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The other fallacy with that article is "everyone is going to download everything" argument. Not going to happen. With ISPs charging more for less bandwidth, it's not realistic. Furthermore, being in Canada, rights issues means tons of movies available on US iTunes aren't available here. And simple things like watching a Hulu video or even streaming certain content with NBC is met with geolocking. So far the download era is met with more restrictions than anything presented by physical discs.

I agree with you about the restrictions, but just as we have circumvented DVD region coding, I'm sure we will circumvent download locks as well.

Downloads however are the future. Moore's law pretty much guarantees it. It is just a matter of time.

As for extra cable company based ISP charges: There is competition from FIOS/DSL, so cable cos jacking rates/capping data will throw customers to the phone cos. In a pinch Google/Apple may go into the ISP business.

Also, it is likely to to be politically untenable. The Obama admin views broadband as vital infrastructure akin to electrification and water. They recognize we are already far behind Europe/Asia. Any attempt by the cable cos to further deteriorate service will get them in severe trouble -- they depend on government looking the other way to preserve their monopoly franchises as it is.

Yes, I realize you are in Canada, but I would be surprised if the political/competitive realities for ISPs are really different up north.

Ted Todorov wrote:Yes, I realize you are in Canada, but I would be surprised if the political/competitive realities for ISPs are really different up north.

Canada is one step above North Korea when it comes to internet and mobile pricing and access. I don't see downloading of HD material being a viable option for at least 10 years here. Even then it won't matter as by then we'll be buying content for our 4K televisions and Canada will still be a generation behind on digital content delivery.

domino harvey wrote:I have never met anyone who gives a damn about the digital copy disc. "Oh boy, a Windows Media file of Live Free or Die Hard!!!"

I don't really give a damn about them, but I doubt that they drive up the prices of any release, considering the low prices we've seen lately. So I'd never turn one down - I have actually watches them on laptopless iPhone equipped plane rides before. I mean, come on, it's a plane ride.

Ted Todorov wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:The other fallacy with that article is "everyone is going to download everything" argument. Not going to happen. With ISPs charging more for less bandwidth, it's not realistic. Furthermore, being in Canada, rights issues means tons of movies available on US iTunes aren't available here. And simple things like watching a Hulu video or even streaming certain content with NBC is met with geolocking. So far the download era is met with more restrictions than anything presented by physical discs.

I agree with you about the restrictions, but just as we have circumvented DVD region coding, I'm sure we will circumvent download locks as well.

Downloads however are the future. Moore's law pretty much guarantees it. It is just a matter of time.

As for extra cable company based ISP charges: There is competition from FIOS/DSL, so cable cos jacking rates/capping data will throw customers to the phone cos. In a pinch Google/Apple may go into the ISP business.

Also, it is likely to to be politically untenable. The Obama admin views broadband as vital infrastructure akin to electrification and water. They recognize we are already far behind Europe/Asia. Any attempt by the cable cos to further deteriorate service will get them in severe trouble -- they depend on government looking the other way to preserve their monopoly franchises as it is.

Yes, I realize you are in Canada, but I would be surprised if the political/competitive realities for ISPs are really different up north.

The issue isn't so much access to broadband line, which I agree, will become less of an issue over the next decade, but byzantine and restrictive copyright laws which every government body seems willing to enforce to ludicrous degrees on behalf of mega-corps.

While there are already ways around geo-locking, I can't be bothered (I'm a young, pretty technically savvy guy, but I'm not going to bother routing my IP address so I can watch an SNL digital short on HULU).

Maybe, way way way down the line when they figure out a way to make lots of content available without hurdles, streaming will become a norm (and by norm I mean everyone between the ages of 8 and 80 knows how to do it), but yeah, it will probably be a very regional phenomenon first. I can easily see the United States being big consumers of streaming movies and shows long before anyone else. But for the rest of us who want to watch, I dunno, Sin Nombre (which I couldn't even rent, only purchase, on iTunes Canada for a train trip last week. WTF) physical media are still going to be around for a long, long time.

Right now, streaming technology is about as niche as 3D television sets which the industry is already getting in a lather over.

tavernier wrote:Dave Kehr is wary of Blu.

His concerns aren't particularly anything new on this forum, its been noted in many threads including this one. Though his sentiments on burn on demand and the hopeful following of suit of other companies is not something that I'd agree with.

I share many of Dave Kehr's views, but I am really very astonished that he's praising Warner Brothers for their burn-on-demand programme in the name of accessibility and diversity. There may be much to bash here, but let me hint at the missing subtitles. I am of the opinion that this is one of the most important issues of this WB's strategy which is addressed too scarcely.
I mean these company agents and their so-called critics have to realize that it can't be taken for granted no more that everybody can understand the sound track even within the national borders. That is there are not only deaf people but there are also many guys who do not or only in a limited way understand the national language. I am a bit baffled that some American critic like Kehr can completely blank that. I mean I am living in Germany that is in a country which is rightly infamous for its racist policies and for its (at least conservative and liberal) governments trying to pursue a politics of exclusion and assimilation, but even here, you have to have those subtitle tracks if you want to watch a movie with some friends in the bigger cities as they might have emigrated from other countries or are staying here only temporarily. From this perspective I can only shake my head in disbelief when I read Kehr is praising Warner Brothers in the name of accessibility and diversity. This is, I can't help, both counterproductive and completely absurd.

hangman wrote:

tavernier wrote:Dave Kehr is wary of Blu.

His concerns aren't particularly anything new on this forum, its been noted in many threads including this one. Though his sentiments on burn on demand and the hopeful following of suit of other companies is not something that I'd agree with.

Nothing he has said is new in any capacity regarding the format. I read the same write up twenty times almost 3 years ago.

The best test for how a format is doing is go into Best Buy and browse the BD aisles. It went from literally me and no one else with two aisle caps to occasionally a few people and a new aisle or two to me barely being able to look at titles without bumping shoulders and 4 or 5 times the shelf space...

I think, at this point, all the debating is moot. The format did better than expected this holiday season and in my humble opinion isn't going anywhere.

The real dilemma, especially to a lot of people who post here, is what will happen to DVD. Will it be a shared existence with Blu Ray or will it eventually (even if it takes years) be phased out as costs continue to come down.

To me, with 100s of DVD and no Blu, there is no dilemma, as long as DVD works on a Blu player (a great relief to me). I just watched 2 Or 3 Things I Know About Her on my old CRT, using my $29 DVD player, and the experience was otherworldly. I'm still trying to understand how "technical perfection" fits into these experiences.

It's not an issue of "technical perfection," it's an issue of presenting a film in as close to its original appearance as possible (whether that's being done in all cases is another issue). Blu-ray's capacity, compression and resolution allow for staggeringly more accurate (but in no way "perfect") reproductions.

Anyhow, I don't see DVD going away completely, especially when companies like Disney and Warner have switched to including DVDs with their Blu-rays in order to keep the format growing—and Warner's new combo packs are supposedly going to cost the same as a solo DVDs! The big question mark for me is whether BD can ever reach the heights of DVD, which raised film ownership significantly higher from the VHS days. BD prices dropped significantly this holiday season—a lot more than was expected—suggesting that the tide may be turning against those who wanted to maintain high premiums.

According to MusicTap, The Kids Are Alright will come out on BR in March.

Noiretirc wrote: I just watched 2 Or 3 Things I Know About Her on my old CRT, using my $29 DVD player, and the experience was otherworldly. I'm still trying to understand how "technical perfection" fits into these experiences.

You're praising art that is delivered visually and is completely based on a visual experience; yet, you're finding it hard to comprehend that 'seeing' the art as clear (and complete) as you can is beneficial to the overall experience? This is difficult?

Analogously, there is a reason why audiophiles don't listen to/prefer MP3's, when they are perfectly suitable to many or most.

Actually there's the "talkie" part about them too. Kind of hard to figure out most films without being able to hear them. (And blu-ray has commensurately improved that part of it too, via lossless audio.)

aox wrote:

Noiretirc wrote: I just watched 2 Or 3 Things I Know About Her on my old CRT, using my $29 DVD player, and the experience was otherworldly. I'm still trying to understand how "technical perfection" fits into these experiences.

You're praising art that is delivered visually and is completely based on a visual experience; yet, you're finding it hard to comprehend that 'seeing' the art as clear (and complete) as you can is beneficial to the overall experience? This is difficult?

Analogously, there is a reason why audiophiles don't listen to/prefer MP3's, when they are perfectly suitable to many or most.

Completely based on the visual experience? The Mona Lisa, yes. A film? I beg to differ. And no, it's not just image + sound either.

aox wrote:Analogously, there is a reason why audiophiles don't listen to/prefer MP3's, when they are perfectly suitable to many or most.

Of course, a music lover (as opposed to a lover of audio equipment) will listen to an other-wise unavailable potentially treasurable rarity in even a sub-average format. Same for movies. While I prefer Blu-Ray when available, I will still watch a cruddy videotape of something I desperately want to see (but as my eyes age, this becomes harder). ;~}

Michael Kerpan wrote:

aox wrote:Analogously, there is a reason why audiophiles don't listen to/prefer MP3's, when they are perfectly suitable to many or most.

Of course, a music lover (as opposed to a lover of audio equipment) will listen to an other-wise unavailable potentially treasurable rarity in even a sub-average format. Same for movies. While I prefer Blu-Ray when available, I will still watch a cruddy videotape of something I desperately want to see (but as my eyes age, this becomes harder). ;~}

Indeed.

I'm not against Blu/HD, but I'm in no hurry for it either. Weren't many of us absolutely blown away by certain films in our teens/twenties? What was the setup/system then? I'm just not convinced that 1080 this and HD that is a big deal towards the real film experience.

(I consider myself to be a huge music maniac too, but let's not get into the details of my extremely modest music system.)

My analogy is Hummer vs VW Golf (my car): I still get there, comfortably.

Noiretirc wrote:My analogy is Hummer vs VW Golf (my car): I still get there, comfortably.

Turn it in the other direction, though. Why do you even own a DVD player? The first time I saw 2 or 3 Things it was on a washed-out VHS copy with terrible sound and a VCR that couldn't track properly. Just because that experience was also amazing doesn't mean I should just brush aside Criterion's DVD and say it's not worth it.

Noiretirc wrote:Weren't many of us absolutely blown away by certain films in our teens/twenties? What was the setup/system then?

35mm, almost exclusively. I spent my teens in various London rep cinemas, and helped run one in my twenties.

I'd resort to TV/video if I had no alternative, but I wasn't fooling myself that it was anywhere close to the same - especially as pan-and-scan was pretty much de rigueur back then.

Blood Pie wrote:The real dilemma, especially to a lot of people who post here, is what will happen to DVD. Will it be a shared existence with Blu Ray or will it eventually (even if it takes years) be phased out as costs continue to come down.

I predict shared existence for years. The simple fact is that there are vast numbers of films that either don't benefit from HD at all or where materials of sufficient quality for a viable HD transfer simply aren't available. And of course the vast majority of pre-2000s TV will see no visual benefit from an upgrade. So the situation is very different from VHS to DVD, when DVD offered a measurable visual/aural improvement in the overwhelming majority of cases, quite aside from the convenience factor.

fdm wrote:Actually there's the "talkie" part about them too. Kind of hard to figure out most films without being able to hear them. (And blu-ray has commensurately improved that part of it too, via lossless audio.)

They had these things called 'silent films' for 40 years. But still, Blu Ray, as you note, improves audio as well. My point stands.

Noiretirc wrote:

aox wrote:

Noiretirc wrote: I just watched 2 Or 3 Things I Know About Her on my old CRT, using my $29 DVD player, and the experience was otherworldly. I'm still trying to understand how "technical perfection" fits into these experiences.

You're praising art that is delivered visually and is completely based on a visual experience; yet, you're finding it hard to comprehend that 'seeing' the art as clear (and complete) as you can is beneficial to the overall experience? This is difficult?

Analogously, there is a reason why audiophiles don't listen to/prefer MP3's, when they are perfectly suitable to many or most.

Completely based on the visual experience? The Mona Lisa, yes. A film? I beg to differ. And no, it's not just image + sound either.

Just FYI, Blu Ray improves sound as well. Lossless Audio.

OK, glad we cleared that one up. You guys really got me on that one.

Honestly, I have never seen a thread/forum in my life that was so self-contradictory and done with a straight face. There isn't even any cognitive dissonance in sight. At least squirm when making these nonsensical arguments. Any lover of film (a visual and sound medium) trying to argue against seeing and hearing something they love in the best possible manner is ridiculous. Why go to a movie theater? Why even watch a DVD? Is VHS too good for too? Obviously, there is stuff that hasn't even seen release on DVD, everyone gets that. I don't know why people cower to that 'talking point'. No one is making that argument. No one is saying "don't watch ****" because it isn't on Blu-Ray.

If picture quality is the be all and end all, surely you should move to Japan and watch one of the 4000p 'Super Hi-Vision' monitors already going on sale there?

Caged Horse wrote:If picture quality is the be all and end all, surely you should move to Japan and watch one of the 4000p 'Super Hi-Vision' monitors already going on sale there?

Is the argument really this unclear?

No, I just like winding up devotees of the Blu.

Caged Horse wrote:No, I just like winding up devotees of the Blu.

A less generous moderator might call that "trolling."

Caged Horse wrote:If picture quality is the be all and end all, surely you should move to Japan and watch one of the 4000p 'Super Hi-Vision' monitors already going on sale there?

Nah, just install a 35mm projector, and insist only on screening prints struck freshly from the original interneg. It's expensive, granted, but if you want perfection you have to pay for it.