criterionforum.org

David Mackenzie wrote:There's no reason why the contrast of Blu-ray Disc should be better than DVD.

Well, yes and no. Most HD encoding does use an improved* color space (BT.709 vs. BT.601) which can theoretically offer a richer and more accurate palette than SD video. I know from making BDs and DVDs of my own HD footage that rich colors, reds in particular, come through much more strongly and crisply on Blu-ray, all other things being equal (player, display, etc). The higher resolution and better compression rates can also improve color separation. It may be true technically (that is to say, numerically) that none of these things affect contrast, but it's easy to understand why they can appear to offer better contrast to the naked eye. But you're right, of course, that this is largely dependent on the display: it doesn't matter if your source video uses BT.709 if your display only uses BT.601. And that's not even getting into proper calibration.

*Granted, it's not uncontroversial to say that BT.709 is an improvement. It is certainly compromised in many ways.

I think we're largely discussing a difference in terminology here. I would say that what you discussed relates to colour gamut (although BT.601 does not actually specify colour gamut).

As you say, the larger gamut specified in Rec.709 could be perceived as brighter and richer by the viewer. (Although they probably aren't watching on a calibrated display anyway).

It's funny, because here in Europe I often see claims made that "HDTV has brighter pictures with more vivid colours!". The Rec.709 primaries are nearly identical to the EBU ones so this claim has effectively no basis in fact over here.

aox wrote:BD begins to cover DVDs losses

Well hell, that's heartening. Particularly the part in there about increased sales of catalog titles- it would be amazing if the floodgates really opened there in the next few years, and a Blu release because more common than not.

(It would also be amazing if magical leprechauns gave me a pot of gold, so...)

O Brother, Where Art Thou? Blu-ray in September. Never thought I'd see the day, to be honest, given Disney's near-complete lack of interest in non-animated catalogue titles on Blu. I know it's a popular title and all, but it's not that popular; is Disney perhaps opening up a bit?

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World is going to be a Walmart exclusive blu-ray on July 5th, along with Throw Momma From The Train, A Fish Called Wanda, When Harry Met Sally, Legally Blonde.

EDIT: some Miramax titles as well, in September will see:

9/13
Trainspotting
9/20
Scary Movie 2
Scary Movie 3
The Others
9/27
The Crow
Mimic
10/4
Jackie Brown

and Pulp Fiction is up for pre-order for 10/4 (not exclusively). Nice...

Peter Falk dies, Geneon/Universal announces 35-disc set of Columbo. Must be (one of) the biggest Blu-ray boxset(s) so far?

Pina coming to 3D Blu-ray in September: 2-disc set and 3-disc set.

Not sure how much text or dialog is in this film or if this Blu-ray will have English friendly options, probably won't.

It's a pretty safe bet that Artificial Eye will be releasing it in the UK, probably in an English-friendly clone of the same package.

The Artificial Eye of Pina is listed in the latest edition of Sight and Sound (August 2011 page 51) for 12th September. Unfortunately at the moment it looks like it will be DVD only (compared to 13 Assassins listed for a 5th September release on DVD and Blu-Ray next to it), let alone 3D Blu-Ray.

AE had also scheduled it for Blu-ray (and pre-orders were up) but now it indeed looks like the Blu-ray has been canceled.

No need to panic. Reply via Facebook:

Hi Eerik, we're working on a 3D Blu-Ray but it will take a little longer to complete. We'll let you know as soon as a release date has been confirmed. Cheers AE

A milestone for the format will be released in September, in the form of British musician Steven Wilson's Grace For Drowning. Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Grace For Drowning also represents a milestone in audio fidelity as the first-ever new rock album released primarily as a Blu-Ray video disc, with music in 5.1 surround sound and accompanying video content for every song. The video content includes music videos starring Wilson (he’s only appeared in two previous music videos) as well as excerpts from the recording, mixing, and mastering sessions, presented in interactive formats that bring fans closer than ever to the production process.

I've mentioned him and a few of his other projects/bands before (Porcupine Tree, No-Man), and was a big fan of his last solo effort. My enthusiasm aside, this sounds very promising for the Blu-Ray audio industry.

eerik wrote:Peter Falk dies, Geneon/Universal announces 35-disc set of Columbo. Must be (one of) the biggest Blu-ray boxset(s) so far?

Artwork of the box is now up on Amazon.

And get ready for this:

8-disc set of The Persuaders! - The Complete Series



Highly anticipated on Blu-ray, this highly popular action adventure series is presented here in stunning High Definition for the first time. All 24 episodes are featured alongside a wealth of special features, many previously unseen:

Special Features
• Digitally restored, High Definition transfers
• 156 page fully-bound book of viewing notes by Andrew Pixley
• Recently found, extensive textless material (including some behind the scenes) (HD)
• Previously unseen alternate title sequence (HD)
• Extensive HD image galleries of rare and previously unseen stills
• 1972 Sun TV Awards footage with Tony Curtis
• Contemporary French interview on location from 1971
• Moore and Curtis reunion on the Alan Titchmarsh Show from 2008
• Merchandise image gallery (HD)
• The Morning After - Remembering The Persuaders! exclusive documentary
• Commentaries with Roger Moore, Tony Curtis and production staff
• AVROSkoop contemporary documentary from 1971
• Top of the Pops promotional video for John Barry's theme
• Promotional spots
• Trailers and archive newsreel footage
• Tony Curtis interviewed by Russell Harty
• French titles
• Commercial break bumpers
• Script PDFs
• International movie versions and trailers for London Conspiracy, Mission: Monte Carlo, Sporting Chance and The Switch
• and more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS90FYxM4LA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.networkdvd.net/product_info. ... ts_id=1414" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Persuaders-Comp ... 005C3DPNE/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's a disturbing trend going on at forums like the one at Blu-ray.com - people are actually getting excited about films being in 1.85:1 and getting upset when films are in 2.35:1 (sometimes to the point of not buying them) because they don't fill out their screen. Will people ever learn?

I think what still drives me nuts are people like my father-in-law* who insist on stretching 1.33:1 ratio films or TV shows to fill the entire screen. In most cases it's not like you're losing information, and even if you were, stretching it out isn't going to magically fill it in so all you end up with is short pudgy people on screen.

It really drove my father-in-law nuts when he bought Gone with the Wind on Blu-ray and he couldn't stretch it out to fill the screen (I'm not sure if this is something you can do but he couldn't do it with his set up at any rate.) I think he ended up zooming in and cutting off the top and bottom, ironically doing what he feared widescreen films shown on 4:3 televisions were doing. But it didn't matter because it at least filled the entire screen. The black bars on either side really bother him, which I don't get, since it's the same ratio as the CRT he's had for years.

(What also drove me nuts were people who had widescreen televisions back in the day but still bought Full Screen DVDs that also had alternate Widescreen editions and still stretched them out to fill the screen.)

*whom I do love dearly

These are format junkies, though. They understand OAR and go out of their way to find it out, ans then proceed to say either "Yessss - 1.85:1 fullscreen!" or "These 2.35:1 releases have got to stop." as if all the stuff that cinephiles finally thought was over is right back to square one.

1.85:1 does have small black bars though unless your overscan is covering them up.

cdnchris wrote:It really drove my father-in-law nuts when he bought Gone with the Wind on Blu-ray and he couldn't stretch it out to fill the screen (I'm not sure if this is something you can do but he couldn't do it with his set up at any rate.) I think he ended up zooming in and cutting off the top and bottom, ironically doing what he feared widescreen films shown on 4:3 televisions were doing.

I think something similar happened when the film was reissued in the 1960s in a 70mm blowup. It certainly wasn't framed at 4:3, anyway.

MichaelB wrote:

cdnchris wrote:It really drove my father-in-law nuts when he bought Gone with the Wind on Blu-ray and he couldn't stretch it out to fill the screen (I'm not sure if this is something you can do but he couldn't do it with his set up at any rate.) I think he ended up zooming in and cutting off the top and bottom, ironically doing what he feared widescreen films shown on 4:3 televisions were doing.

I think something similar happened when the film was reissued in the 1960s in a 70mm blowup. It certainly wasn't framed at 4:3, anyway.

I flipped through a "Making of GONE WITH THE WIND" book a while back that demonstrated how the 70mm blowup producers manually cropped each shot so it would look more acceptable in 1.66:1.

I refuse to allow my family to succumb to "black bar phobia". They make fun of me for bringing it up, but they understand that films come in different aspect ratios. I felt vindicated years ago when my (then) 10-year-old son complained that the pan-and-scan broadcast of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA he was watching with his grandmother was being shown in the wrong ratio and looked terrible!

Anybody who hates black bars is just racist. :-$

I've never understood why people see, and describe, it as "black bars" rather than "empty space." Or better yet, "unused space." The battle was lost over that bit of semantics, I've always felt.

Just wait until they buy projectors, and start complaining that the films are not the same aspect ratio as their wall!

Roger Ryan wrote:I refuse to allow my family to succumb to "black bar phobia". They make fun of me for bringing it up, but they understand that films come in different aspect ratios. I felt vindicated years ago when my (then) 10-year-old son complained that the pan-and-scan broadcast of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA he was watching with his grandmother was being shown in the wrong ratio and looked terrible!

The only time one of my kids has complained was with the Blu-ray of Disney's Sleeping Beauty - which, to be fair to my then four-year-old daughter, probably did look "wrong" given that 2.55:1 would look alarmingly elongated if you don't know what's going on.

MichaelB wrote:

cdnchris wrote:It really drove my father-in-law nuts when he bought Gone with the Wind on Blu-ray and he couldn't stretch it out to fill the screen (I'm not sure if this is something you can do but he couldn't do it with his set up at any rate.) I think he ended up zooming in and cutting off the top and bottom, ironically doing what he feared widescreen films shown on 4:3 televisions were doing.

I think something similar happened when the film was reissued in the 1960s in a 70mm blowup. It certainly wasn't framed at 4:3, anyway.

I saw Gone With the Wind for the first time at my local cinema (in 35mm obviously) in the early 1980s, and it definitely wasn't in 4:3 then either. I guess they did the same as Disney did with their reissues of pre-1953 titles - reframed each shot so that it didn't look too bad in up to 1.85:1 - though still obviously cropped if you knew what was missing, which obviously most cinemagoers wouldn't have. Disney started pillarboxing these titles sometime in the 1990s: they even did it with a reissue of The Aristocats, which dates from 1970 and would have been intended for probably 1.85:1 anyway.