criterionforum.org

They are, you just can't update the firmware.

Aye, guess it's time to break the bank again. Thank you.

Trust me, you'll be glad you spent the extra $20-$50.

swo17 wrote:Lost in Translation on Blu-ray in December.

Hopefully it's an upgrade of the HD DVD transfer, given the three-year wait.

nsps wrote:

swo17 wrote:Lost in Translation on Blu-ray in December.

Hopefully it's an upgrade of the HD DVD transfer, given the three-year wait.

Or it could be yet another Universal add some DNR (remove some more grain) and some EE (to overcomensate for the removed grain) and pretend it's even better than the HD DVD let down. (Not that I've seen the HD DVD.) Haven't we been getting these pretty much all year long (some not as extreme as others)?

fdm wrote:

nsps wrote:

swo17 wrote:Lost in Translation on Blu-ray in December.

Hopefully it's an upgrade of the HD DVD transfer, given the three-year wait.

Or it could be yet another Universal add some DNR (remove some more grain) and some EE (to overcomensate for the removed grain) and pretend it's even better than the HD DVD let down. (Not that I've seen the HD DVD.) Haven't we been getting these pretty much all year long (some not as extreme as others)?

Yes, it just astounds me that it takes so long for them to do that! Oh well, if it's no better (or actually worse) I'm always happy to save some money and stick with my HD DVD as long as my player still works.

And STILL this whole "region free", "firmware" (wtf that is), "SACD" shit leaves me Bluless. Sigh.....

It's actually far more simple than it sounds. I'm sure you're more than aware about region coding so firmware is really the only possible problem. If you're wireless and decide not to go with a Sherwood or Momitsu clone you just connect it constantly. It's a lot like a video game console in that sense. After the initial set up everything should update automatically. If you do go with one of the region free players you can just ignore the whole firmware bit.
Can't help on SACD though, still a vinyl dinosaur.

mfunk9786 wrote:Trust me, you'll be glad you spent the extra $20-$50.

So far so true. Got mine just now and tested a few things. Thanks for pushing me over the edge on this. It works so slickly, though the remote is hit or miss. Now just need to pick up Profound Desire for the ultimate test.

I promise that when MOVIE X comes out Region B-locked in a cool steelbook or a stacked StudioCanal edition, instead of panicking like me you'll breathe a sigh of blissful relief that you don't have to buy your [in my case] third Blu-ray player to play it.

Oh, man, I can't wait for the MoC of Movie X. Best of 20XX, for sure.

knives wrote:

mfunk9786 wrote:Trust me, you'll be glad you spent the extra $20-$50.

So far so true. Got mine just now and tested a few things. Thanks for pushing me over the edge on this. It works so slickly, though the remote is hit or miss. Now just need to pick up Profound Desire for the ultimate test.

What model are we talking about now? The Sherwood?

Yes, Sherwood BDP-5004

mfunk9786 wrote:Yes, Sherwood BDP-5004

Was hoping to get my player back from Sherwood this week. Hope it works a lot longer than 3.5 months before it needs to go back for repairs.

almost sold on the Sherwood, but what are the risks of not being able to update firmware? is it possible that future releases will be incompatible with the player or something?

DDillaman wrote:almost sold on the Sherwood, but what are the risks of not being able to update firmware? is it possible that future releases will be incompatible with the player or something?

That's a fair question and one that I don't fully understand. There obviously wouldn't be firmware if that wasn't the case, right?

Sherwoods being made now will have firmware that does not allow region changing. You might luck out and find one for sale with old firmware. Mine needed to be repaired -- and came back with the new (useless to me) firmware. Hopefully, I will find a way to "downgrade" the firmware so I can actually use the player.

A Guardian blogger argues that the lower resolution of DVD makes things look better than on Blu-ray. He agrees with some Virgin Megastore employee that "shit don't look real no more." And (quoting "critic" Jeffrey Wells), he's troubled that we can now "see stuff that you weren't intended to see, but which Blu-ray has now revealed." These people are basically stating explicitly that a Blu-ray is sharper and more detailed than the film source.

It seemed weirdly artificial, somehow, and watching it, I felt that I could almost see the grain of the film stock, the flicker and shudder of individual frames, such was the degree of visual information on offer. I felt, suddenly, like Ray Milland's character in The Man With the X-Ray Eyes. This could, I realised, drive me mad, if I let it.

As points of reference he mentions an in-store display setup (with who knows what settings getting in the way of a natural-looking image), the way things are supposed to look on his cathode-ray setup at home, and his "memory" of seeing the Godfather in the theater.

Amongst those who don't watch movies on Blu-Ray, there seems to be two conflicting reasons for not doing so: the first camp say there's no point because they can't see any difference between Blu-Ray and DVD; and the second camp claim they don't watch Blu-Ray movies because the picture is too sharp and detailed and you can even the see the make-up smears on the actors' faces.

Even though the latter camp is just as crazy as the first camp, they're not entirely wrong. The system of photochemical duplication of film has an inherent loss of resolution (even though that's not really an appropriate term to use for the process, but people understand what it means). When you go from negative to interpositive to duplication negative to release print (let's ignore digital projection for the sake of argument), each step introduces some loss of clarity and crispness. And when that print gets a little banged up and dirty from running through a projector 5-7 times a day and is usually shown just slightly out of focus, you get even further away from the image that came out of the camera.

When it comes to Blu-ray, you are usually looking at a scan made from the camera negative or an interpositive and you're seeing detail that you would not have seen in the theater. Filmmakers before the digital era depended on the loss of resolution in the process of making release prints to cover up wires, mattes, makeup lines, backdrops, and all the other visible craft of making movies. They didn't have the option of erasing them on a computer. Personally, I love seeing all this stuff, but I can see why people might find it distracting and "too real" and why Warner Bros. would go through the trouble of digitally erasing special effects wires in The Wizard of Oz for the Blu-ray release. And I'm well aware how the viewing environment or the condition of a film can affect the reception of a film, but people also ought to get over themselves and embrace all the physical nature of older films (grain, specifically) and the nature of filmmaking (makeup, mattes, wires) instead of expecting everything to look like it was made on a computer.

I'm of the firm opinion that you pick and choose what you want on blu ray and what you want on dvd. Films that are spectacle or have stunning cinematography are great for blu so I have films like the Last Emperor, Red Desert, Blade Runner, etc. on Blu but I typically buy the other stuff on dvd since it saves money and cinematography or spectacle may not be crucial to the film overall.

Matt, I guess I figured that generally the losses of clarity that you mention would ultimately not tip the scales to greater detail on Blu-ray than on a release print given the vastly greater resolution inherent in 35mm. To continue with the example from the link, I certainly didn't think the Blu-ray of The Godfather looked sharper than in the theater (and yes the projectionist needs to have it properly focused). If a Blu-ray were sharper than the film prints distributors provide to theaters, I'd think they all would have gone digital by now, saving the huge expense of duplicating prints etc.
Anyway, it seems that the part about Pacino "looking like a cartoon" shows that the issue is not just greater detail but how the setup had been installed and calibrated. I just can't believe someone would post something like this in 2010 without taking that into account.

What I can certainly understand is many people's automatic suspicions of it because they're tired of being told they need to buy the newest, best thing that's just come out. If people are seriously questioning the need to get all the latest gadgets just because they're supposed to be new and exciting rather than because they're actually worth producing and purchasing. For selfish reasons, though, I'd have liked to seen greater saturation for Blu-ray by now, considering one still can't buy a reliable all-region player without spending a fortune.

I've had the UK release of Straw Dogs preordered for a long, long time and it's supposed to be coming out on Sunday, but... I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath?

Also, a question for anyone who's seen it (I've already read a fair amount about it and don't need that reiterated, I'm curious to get opinions straight from the horse's mouth): how is the UK Suspiria release? I'm reluctant to order it and can't seem to find screenshots of it.

Here's a full rundown on the UK Suspiria BD. Personally, I'm sticking with my Anchor Bay DVD for now, waiting for something better. There are some reactions from forum members in this thread.