criterionforum.org

AfterTheRain wrote:I just got a Blu-ray player today for my birthday. Does anyone know about any DVD-for-Blu-ray exchange programs that are going on? It's because I have a couple of titles that are out on the format and I would really like to know.

Disney and Warners come to mind as possibilities. Check blu-ray.com

Oh yeah, and Criterion, though not worth the bother (may as well sell your DVD and buy the blu-ray, likely much less pricey).

Warners' can be found at http://www.dvd2blu.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suppose it's probably a good deal for some discs, but in a similar vein to what fdm said about the Criterions, you might be able to find the blu-rays cheap and sell your DVDs used and end up with a better deal.

This is from the Yojimbo/Sanjuro announcement:

from Facebook wrote:Jimmy G%#s
Is there a rebate for those who own the DVD set?
10 minutes ago

Why is there such a culture of entitlement surrounding Blu Ray and DVD owners?

Is this unprecedented? Was there this much fuss from VHS owners to the switch to DVD? or LD owners to the switch to DVD?

Culture of entitlement? I long gave up on expecting fairness, but typically it is the studios recycling long-dead artists material and then slapping a copyright notice on it who feel the most entitlement. Obviously in the world of smaller companies, we should try to support them as much as possible, and I certainly can't blame an MOC for not being able to support upgraders, although tiny Animeigo had a VHS to DVD policy many years ago, that was very progressive. Regardless, some dude expecting a trade-in from Criterion sounds perfectly fair to me, why shouldn't he pay cost only? Of course these days, ebay or other marketplaces are a nice alternative.

If I want to eat a hot dog today for lunch, should I get it for free since I bought a hot dog for lunch yesterday?

not to mention that Criterion does have a trade-in policy. It's not a very good one, but it's there.

Zot! wrote:...but typically it is the studios recycling long-dead artists material and then slapping a copyright notice on it who feel the most entitlement.

It's called intellectual property rights. It has nothing to do with entitlement. Do you think that films starring artists who are deceased or directed by directors who have dropped off the twig should be distributed for free?

Zot! wrote:...some dude expecting a trade-in from Criterion sounds perfectly fair to me, why shouldn't he pay cost only?

Putting aside residuals owed to the artist's estate or heirs, how is everything else involved in the production of a DVD or BD to be paid for? Why do feel it's the obligation of the production house to let you have the BD at cost just because a few years ago they issued the same film on DVD and you bought it then? If you were satisfied with your purchase then, they fulfilled their contract with you and owe you nothing more. To their credit Criterion, among others, offer a trade-in program. if you don't like the terms of that program, you have alternatives, as you pointed out.

To follow your logic, I bought an Audi a few years ago. Now I want to go back to the dealer and tell him I want a 2010 Audi with all the new bells and whistles and since I bought an Audi awhile back, he should give me the 2010 model at cost because it has a bunch of stuff I would have wanted a few years if it had been available only it wasn't but it is now so I think I ought to get it at essentially no expense for the upgrade while Audi absorbs all the R&D costs. Oh, and I want to keep my old Audi and sell it on eBay.

Right, you guys are being resonable, so I don't want to turn this into another horrible internet argument, but what I think the customer shouldn't have to pay for endlessly is the actual intellectual property. Like when you upgrade software, you are paying for the improvements, so in the world of a film, this would be a new transfer, new raw materials, and new extras, etc. etc. Now if Criterion has to pay new licensing fees to put out a Blu-Ray of a film they don't own, then all bets are off, and that should obviously also be paid for by the customer. I think my complaint is more about major labels who own the films and don't license them, and still make you pay full-price for Gone with the Wind or whatever, which you already own.

Zot! wrote:I think my complaint is more about major labels who own the films and don't license them, and still make you pay full-price for Gone with the Wind or whatever, which you already own.

Well they did just sink dunno how many millions into remastering it... And who pays full-price for anything... unless they go out of their way to do so? Or for that matter, who is making you pay anything?

Simple question that's probably been answered a hundred times before, but will a Blu player play all standard disc regions. For example a Region A player will by default play Region 1, 2, 3, ect.

Zot! wrote:Right, you guys are being resonable, so I don't want to turn this into another horrible internet argument, but what I think the customer shouldn't have to pay for endlessly is the actual intellectual property. Like when you upgrade software, you are paying for the improvements, so in the world of a film, this would be a new transfer, new raw materials, and new extras, etc. etc. Now if Criterion has to pay new licensing fees to put out a Blu-Ray of a film they don't own, then all bets are off, and that should obviously also be paid for by the customer. I think my complaint is more about major labels who own the films and don't license them, and still make you pay full-price for Gone with the Wind or whatever, which you already own.

You're not paying for the intellectual property. You're paying for the right to personal use of the intellectual property in its current form. As far as software goes, the same holds. You're paying for the right to access the software in its latest form. The fact that the upgrade costs less than the original package reflects the difference in R&D that went into each. When you buy software you buy a right-to-use license. You never get the underlying code. With a film, you get a copy with specific use restrictions. You don't get the script, o-neg or a 1st generation print.

knives wrote:Simple question that's probably been answered a hundred times before, but will a Blu player play all standard disc regions. For example a Region A player will by default play Region 1, 2, 3, ect.

Depends on the player, unfortunately. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Oppo BD-83 will come region locked for Blu (without the aftermarket hack) but will be region free for Sd. But the more common brands down at Best Buy like Sony are region locked throughout (though there are firmware and/or hardware hacks for a lot of those.)

I have to say everything I've read about the travails of folks trying to go region free for BD and SD with stand-alone players makes me wonder why more aren't trying the software route with a PC. I'm using a Mac Mini with a Bootcamp partition and I have never had any of the difficulties I've read about here and elsewhere (which could mean my comeuppance is just around the corner, I guess.)

I always thought that was what the Proof Of Purchase tabs were for....
In case of upgrades and stuff...

triodelover wrote:The fact that the upgrade costs less than the original package reflects the difference in R&D that went into each.

Exactly, I rest my case.

Zot! wrote:

triodelover wrote:The fact that the upgrade costs less than the original package reflects the difference in R&D that went into each.

Exactly, I rest my case.

Well, don't be surprised when the jury goes against you. It's not much of a case. Your closing argument boils down to "I'm cheap and I think I ought to get what I want for what I want to pay despite what it costs to provide it."

Criterion has said it takes about as much work to update a catalog title to Blu-ray as it does to put out any other new release. Not to mention it costs more for them to press BDs than DVDs. As I understand it, they are actually selling BDs at a loss as it is. The software upgrade analogy doesn't quite apply here.

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:

swo17 wrote:As I understand it, they are actually selling BDs at a loss as it is.

Where did you hear this? They may not have recovered the costs of the switchover yet, but I find it hard to believe they're still taking a continuing loss on every title they produce.

I don't have any solid evidence here, but I remember reading info to this effect here and elsewhere around the time Criterion started offering BDs. This could very well no longer be the case. However, Criterion has explained in the last few months on Facebook that BD upgrades take about as much work as any other new release, and I think it has been widely reported that it costs more to press BDs than DVDs. In spite of this, Criterion charges the same for a DVD and a Blu-ray. So they are already giving the consumer a little bit of a break in this sense. It may be more profitable now than it was in the beginning, but I doubt it's a windfall for them.

Either Becker or Turrell said early on that they were taking a small loss on most Blu-rays. I'm sure things have improved a little bit, but I think it's generally accepted that releasing Blu-rays still isn't very profitable for anybody right now. Here's what Jon Turrell told The Playlist in August:

“The cost of authoring is very expensive compared to [Standard Definition], and the cost of manufacturing is multiples [compared to SD]. So if I sell a disc in SD and I sell it in BluRay I can do a much better job of paying overhead if I sell it in SD. We could do what the studios do and charge more for BluRay, but we said we didn’t want do that, and we’re trying not to do that, but it’s very problematic for us....It doesn’t look like BluRay is [bringing in] a new audience, it just [serves] an audience of our customers who have migrated from SD.”

swo17 wrote:Criterion has said it takes about as much work to update a catalog title to Blu-ray as it does to put out any other new release. Not to mention it costs more for them to press BDs than DVDs. As I understand it, they are actually selling BDs at a loss as it is. The software upgrade analogy doesn't quite apply here.

I am sorry to say it, but your understanding is incorrect -- right now in 2010.

And as far as the above quote is concerned, replication and authoring costs have been reduced dramatically since August.

Pro-B

triodelover wrote:

knives wrote:Simple question that's probably been answered a hundred times before, but will a Blu player play all standard disc regions. For example a Region A player will by default play Region 1, 2, 3, ect.

Depends on the player, unfortunately. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Oppo BD-83 will come region locked for Blu (without the aftermarket hack) but will be region free for Sd. But the more common brands down at Best Buy like Sony are region locked throughout (though there are firmware and/or hardware hacks for a lot of those.)

I just got an Oppo BDP-83 today. For some reason it plays MOC dvds labeled as region 2 (Nosferatu, Tartuffe, Vampyr), but won't play Artificial Eye and the one German DVD I've tried.

markhax wrote:

triodelover wrote:

knives wrote:Simple question that's probably been answered a hundred times before, but will a Blu player play all standard disc regions. For example a Region A player will by default play Region 1, 2, 3, ect.

Depends on the player, unfortunately. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Oppo BD-83 will come region locked for Blu (without the aftermarket hack) but will be region free for Sd. But the more common brands down at Best Buy like Sony are region locked throughout (though there are firmware and/or hardware hacks for a lot of those.)

I just got an Oppo BDP-83 today. For some reason it plays MOC dvds labeled as region 2 (Nosferatu, Tartuffe, Vampyr), but won't play Artificial Eye and the one German DVD I've tried.

A lot of MoC DVDs are actually Region 0. Which ones were you able to play?

If anyone's looking for a good deal, I got my Sherwood 5004 from thenerds.net with a discount code easily found via Google and from the order being placed to my receiving it was within 48 hours, all at the basic shipping charge. Niiiiice!

Although, now that it's here and I've been playing around with a dozen or so Blu-rays I picked up... man, I think hi-def is too hi-def for me!

domino harvey wrote:man, I think hi-def is too hi-def for me!

Glad to see you're inaugurating your Blu-ray player entirely with pornography.

swo17 wrote:

domino harvey wrote:man, I think hi-def is too hi-def for me!

Glad to see you're inaugurating your Blu-ray player entirely with pornography.

Have you watched Repulsion yet? It's mind blowing how well it looks.

Nope, I haven't picked that one up yet. The amount of detail is actually distracting me, so I hope I get the hang of this thing pretty soon. It feels too much like looking at one of those LED status screens in an airport right now and less like the smoothness I'm accustomed to. Would probably love this technology a lot more if I had a projector screen instead...

Are you sitting too close? I had to move my 60' into a bigger room. You might have to play around with the contrast too. Especially on B&W films. If you have a 240hz the judder may need to be turned down when watching movies, and up for sports.

What are some of the discs you've been testing it with?