criterionforum.org

Matt wrote:So, which do you prefer: digipaks or keepcases?

I have voted and I prefer digipaks. Actually, I prefer ThinPaks.

So make ThinPaks an option, too.

Wait. Matt, you voted for digipaks? I thought you preferred keep cases.

denti alligator wrote:Wait. Matt, you voted for digipaks? I thought you preferred keep cases.

Oops. Fixed.

ThinPaks are just skinny keepcases, so anyone favoring them can just vote for keepcases. No reason to complicate the issue.

In my personal experience Digis are nice and durable and many keepcases have issues with floating discs and that weird crumpling of the plastic (which is way more unsightly than any digi dings I've heard people complain of). Digis also offer more surface area for neat-o artwork, and that's OK by me.

Digis, all the way.

I always prefer digipaks, as the artwork always entices me. Some of mine are a bit buckled and torn in places, and I know they won't last forever, but I just look after them - simple solution really. Sometimes they arrive slightly dented from transit, but I haven't had any floaters from Criterion. The extra artwork always impresses me, so my vote is for digipaks, resoundingly.

I love the art and creativity that is made possible by the digipak, but they just aren't durable enough, even with proper care. Vote goes to keep cases though, my old dvds look as good as new, while my old digis look dinged up (and i take care of mine). Plus, the old Criterion double-alphas were kickass. Wish they still used them.

I am in favor of keepcases for all single disc releases and slim cases/thinpaks for all multidisc releases. I really like the approach Warner's has taken on recent box sets (The Exorcist Anthology, Bogart Sigs, Astaire/Rogers, etc.) Criterion should take note. I recommended that approach when I e-mailed them for my Rohmer box replacement.

indeed the bubbling (for lack of a better word, not native) of the plastic on double keepcases is very ugly.... so go go Digipack!

but keep cases are so easy to replace!

I'm sorry but i don't know the difference between digi packs and keep cases

Macintosh wrote:I'm sorry but i don't know the difference between digi packs and keep cases

digipaks = flimsy cardboard; keep cases = durable plastic

Personally I prefer keepcases. Digipacks are nice but kind of unneccessary (but better than snappercases…).

Keepcases, definitely. Digipacks are unneccessary, especially if it's just one disc. With multi-disc sets more than two or three I can see how they are a bit neccessary.

Keepcases are replaceable if damaged. Pull out the paper under the plastic sleeve, and insert it in the new case. If a digipack is damaged, it cannot be replaced because the cover is the integral part of the pack. For that reason I prefer keepcase.

I can't say I really care either way. I like being able to replace a damaged keepcase, but other than that I'm lazily ambivalent.

Now, if we're going to talk about multi-disc sets like the Alien Quadrilogy, then I can get interested. That thing is a monstrosity; who thought a nine disc folding digipak would be a good idea? Should have been thinpaks.

Still voted "don't care."

Mr_sausage wrote:I can't say I really care either way. I like being able to replace a damaged keepcase, but other than that I'm lazily ambivalent.

Finally we agree on something!

Also voted don't care. I can't believe this got 90 votes already, I wish more lurkers would post...

Content is more important than the packaging for me.

But when studios give you a choice, released 2 versions, then which would you choose?

Digipaks have inbuilt obsolescence. They quickly get tardy, if they aren't already so when you receive them through the mail. I've tried very hard to like them over the last few years, but I just can't --- the killer factors are that once the spindle on a digipak is damaged, the whole case is useless, and more importantly, that digipaks are much more environmentally unsound.

Digipaks suck.

Lino wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:I can't say I really care either way. I like being able to replace a damaged keepcase, but other than that I'm lazily ambivalent.

Finally we agree on something!

Naturally it would be that the one thing we can agree on is apathy.

digipaks suck. Because they look good now, but can you image in five, six, seven years taking them out and looking the same? Not to mention having to carefully unfold them. My favorite is clear, thin cases.

repost of previous post in cover art thread:

must admit, I don't fully understand why some people seem to dislike digipaks.

If you look around the world, you will find the leading prestige dvd releases (especially box sets) in countries like France and Japan are nearly alway digipaks.

Nearly all TV on DVD comes out on digipak.
Its not like this is a new thing or criterion are the only ones doing it.
theres hundreds of dvd sets which use digipaks.

they look better.
they use significantly less shelf space.
they provide more options for more beautiful packaging and artwork.

and if they get damaged in shipping, surely thats the fault of the shipping company?
Ive ordered numerous digipaks and they all came thru the mail just fine.

This would have been a much more interesting poll if snappers were added to the list, and to see how many of us would vote for them lol.

Mr_sausage wrote:

Lino wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:I can't say I really care either way. I like being able to replace a damaged keepcase, but other than that I'm lazily ambivalent.

Finally we agree on something!

Naturally it would be that the one thing we can agree on is apathy.

You have a sick pleasure in twisting other person's words, don't you?

peerpee wrote:...and more importantly, that digipaks are much more environmentally unsound.

Hadn't really thought about that. Paper processing doesn't necessarilly have to be a shoddy operation (though it surely is in this case, in every sense of the word "to keep prices low"), and keepcases are probably more cleanly made. There is even a chance you could "recycle" the keepcases by using them over again, but I doubt it would be something that caught on.

Maybe the people at Criterion should read Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things by William McDonough and Michael Braungart. A great book.

peerpee wrote:that digipaks are much more environmentally unsound.

This statement is contentious at best. Do you have any evidence or references to back up your claim?

In fact my thought is digipaks are better for the enviroment. Plastic is very damaging to the environment in all it's forms. some links in support of digipaks.

1) The Digipak is more environmentally friendly than the standard plastic jewel case. Digipak use about 65 % less plastic than typical jewel cases. That is why some of the more famous bands that make a point of being environmentally conscience, such as Pearl Jam (their "Riot Act" CD, for example) and The Police (their "Every Breath You Take - The Classics" CD) use Digipaks

Another advantage of the digipak is that while it is more eco-conscious and environmentally friendly than jewel case packaging, it is one of the few other practical and acceptable retail packaging styles.