criterionforum.org

These points have been made by other users of DVDBeaver, but in case Gary is tracking the responses, here are my reactions.
I much prefer the previous layout.
The importance of being able to look at all future releases cannot be overstated. I very much miss this feature in the new design.
One could invoke an alphabetic listing of what has been reviewed. This had the benefit of "browsing" capability. We have lost that.
In short, the previous format gave a richer set of choices. The new format assumes we know what the majority of users seek, and makes it available more easily. I think the loss is bigger than the gain (at least for me).
I have no understanding of the technical motivation for the change. If we had to do this for the "bandwidth" reason, then I guess the discussion on the topic is futile.

kekid wrote:These points have been made by other users of DVDBeaver, but in case Gary is tracking the responses, here are my reactions.
I much prefer the previous layout.
The importance of being able to look at all future releases cannot be overstated. I very much miss this feature in the new design.
One could invoke an alphabetic listing of what has been reviewed. This had the benefit of "browsing" capability. We have lost that.
In short, the previous format gave a richer set of choices. The new format assumes we know what the majority of users seek, and makes it available more easily. I think the loss is bigger than the gain (at least for me).
I have no understanding of the technical motivation for the change. If we had to do this for the "bandwidth" reason, then I guess the discussion on the topic is futile.

For what it's worth, you can still get the aforementioned features by following the link, or alternatively, clicking on any of the new reviews on the main page and then using the same old links in the toolbar at the top.

bamwc2 wrote:

kekid wrote:These points have been made by other users of DVDBeaver, but in case Gary is tracking the responses, here are my reactions.
I much prefer the previous layout.
The importance of being able to look at all future releases cannot be overstated. I very much miss this feature in the new design.
One could invoke an alphabetic listing of what has been reviewed. This had the benefit of "browsing" capability. We have lost that.
In short, the previous format gave a richer set of choices. The new format assumes we know what the majority of users seek, and makes it available more easily. I think the loss is bigger than the gain (at least for me).
I have no understanding of the technical motivation for the change. If we had to do this for the "bandwidth" reason, then I guess the discussion on the topic is futile.

For what it's worth, you can still get the aforementioned features by following the link, or alternatively, clicking on any of the new reviews on the main page and then using the same old links in the toolbar at the top.

Thank you, bamwc2. With that clarification my issues are addressed.

There needs to be pictures of the DVD / Bluray covers for the newly reviewed discs. That was what made me click the comparissons so easily before. Without them, it just seems like a jumble of words. Streamlined, but Unattractive.

The vertical layout doesn't bother me and in fact is more logical and streamlined. However, I do agree with the previous post that I miss the cover pics for the most recent reviews; good cover art will get me to look at reviews I might otherwise not bother with.

manicsounds wrote:There needs to be pictures of the DVD / Bluray covers for the newly reviewed discs. That was what made me click the comparissons so easily before. Without them, it just seems like a jumble of words. Streamlined, but Unattractive.

Seconded.

Also the new layout I think could use the side menu that has access to DVD of the year and the Film/DVD review content, I'm surprised that part was forgotten and I don't like using the search bar.

No Beaver review of The Fritz Lang Mabuse Box yet?

What are you waiting for, Gary?

I am also waiting on Gary's validation. I already have the set, but I won't watch it until Gary tells me it's okay to do so.

I am not waiting for his validation, I am just curious as to why he hasn't posted a review yet.

Why the sarcasm?

Der Spieler wrote:I am not waiting for his validation, I am just curious as to why he hasn't posted a review yet.

Then why don't you ask Gary? He's got an email address: [email protected]. No one else is going to have the answer to your question, and Gary hasn't visited this site since August.

You, sir, are rude for no reason.

Well to be fair this question was already in the thread of the set and even caused a discussion on past beaver reviews, in any case while it is odd that he hasn't jumped on reviewing this set (considering his enthusiasm for Lang and MoC titles too) he's probably just busy or something. There are already reviews posted on the thread by other sites, DVDOutsider for one, so curiousity regarding content of extras and images are there (even without the site it was already noted earlier on the thread that MoC would gather the best of the existing versions of the film i.e. Eureka Gambler and Criterion Testament.)

Edit: Speaking of question and subsequent discussion on the thread its been moved here

Don't worry, Spieler, I look forward to Gary's reviews too.

...and the site is down for some reason

Not meaning to ignite this unpleasant episode again, but I really think it is time that a solution to this screengrabs debacle is reached. Nothing can come out of feuding for either side.

Can we at least agree on these points:

1. Gary Tooze and DVDBeaver do an overall great service to people shopping for rare and hard to find movies on DVD.

2. Contrary to popular belief, it is quick, easy, and inexpensive (perhaps even free) to take accurate, clear screen captures - if you know the right method. It can be done on a computer running Windows - it does not require expensive hardware.

3. Most people are not aware of video calibration (beyond setting basic controls like Brightness) and/or haven't had their TVs professionally calibrated with a measuring device, so what they are seeing on their TVs already has a layer of abstraction added to it compared to how the cinematographers intended. DVDBeaver nor DVD/BD producers can really do anything about this, beyond promoting imaging standards. However, almost no incorrectly configured TVs actually blur the picture (take that from a guy who calibrates and reviews TVs for a half-living, and also advises TV manufacturers' technical departments).

4. There is nothing wrong with saving screen grabs as high quality JPEGs. Once again, from an anal-retentive videophile and video compressionist: there is nothing wrong with saving screen grabs as high quality JPEGs. And again: JPEG IS FINE. And once again: compression is NOT the reason for those blurred screen captures. This is a misconception I see time and time again, in fact DVDBeaver's own "open response" page even fell victim to this. Over-compressed JPEG (and MPEG, for that matter) pictures look blocky, not blurred.

5. DVDBeaver issuing written recommendations is an entirely separate issue to that of the inaccurate images.

6. As a screen capture comparison site, DVDBeaver has a responsibility not to allow their process to abstract or filter the screen grabs they post - especially not selectively. Some of their captures are fine, whereas others are blurred - and that is a serious issue. It's the main reason why Mondo Vision, myself, and I believe at least one other DVD producer, have been outspoken regarding this issue.

It is quite likely that the methods DVDBeaver are using to take screen grabs could actually be replaced with quicker, more efficient ones, while at the same time showing the disc's contents exactly. I am completely willing to help solve the issue, because like I said - it would benefit everyone and there is no point in holding grudges over this going forward.

Couldn't you maybe post how to correct it, and also a couple of screenshots that shows both from dvdbeaver and how they're supposed to be, so we can see the difference?

I'm very interested, my main review sites are dvdbeaver and blu-ray.com, and that's mainly because they show screenshots and I believe them more than whatever star rating system they give.

Yes, that's probably the best way forward. I'll write an article in the next week or so when I have time that anyone can use.

David Mackenzie wrote:Yes, that's probably the best way forward. I'll write an article in the next week or so when I have time that anyone can use.

Great, looking forward to it. Can you already give us an idea which software you'll use? I currently grab all my screenshots with VLC as it is free, fast and easy to use. I'm sure I'm doing things wrong when it comes to interlaced titles but other than that I have some hope they're done right I grab five PNG screenshots of every new dvd I get to be able to compare it to other editions online and get a good idea about its picture quality.

Here are my caps of the controversial La vie de Jésus. They look more like the Beaver shots than those that MoC posted back then so I fear/hope I'm doing something wrong

I will make sure to test VLC out.

Add Mantan Moreland to the list of things DVDBeaver loves, right below nudity

I wanted to make up for lack of Mantan Moreland in my other reviews. Sorry to upset you for not including any nude Moreland captures...

I was actually kind of disappointed that Willem Dafoe failed to make an appearance.

But what's not to love about Mantan Moreland?