Home Theater Forum  ›  Forums  ›  Hi-Definition  ›  HT Software - High Definition  ›  Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread

Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

#121
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 7:34am
  • Joined: December 1998
  • Post Count: 7,866

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
One of the biggest problems with many, if not most, of today's DVD reviewers is that they no longer watch film. All their viewing is on video; so they no longer have any sense of what constitutes a good reproduction.
Something else to question a reviewer on: Did he see the movie in a theater, or does he at least watch film.
Export to Wiki
#122
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 8:56am
  • Joined: July 2001
  • Location: Whittier, California
  • Post Count: 2,598

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Has there been any announcement about the Jack Ryan Collection and when we might see it on Blu-ray?

1080p High Definition SupporterLossless Audio Supporter Current Library: 221 DVD's / 70 HD-DVD's / 181 Blu-ray's (251 HD Titles)

Export to Wiki
#123
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 9:12am
  • Joined: November 2006
  • Location: Phoenix, Arizona
  • Post Count: 3,815

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
That's nonsense. It is an oft-repeated but inaccurate claim that Super35 films are automatically grainier than films shot with anamorphic. Many factors influence grain. Shoot anamorphically with fast film in low light, then "push" the film in processing, and you'll get plenty of grain. (And if you don't believe me, I'll cite you to posts in the archive from a professional cameraman.)


Actually its not nonsense at all, it's basic geometry. An anamorphic film is using the complete academy aperture frame. A super 35 shot for 2.35:1 is using just a little over half of that real estate. There for the frame of a super 35 films is being enlarge almost twice as much to fill the same screen size and as a result the film grain is also being enlarged almost twice as much. (think of an anamorphic DVD filling a 16x9 screen as apposed to blowing up a non anamorphic DVD to fill the same screen)

Yes there are other factors such as ISO rating and method of processing that can effect the visible grain structure, however all things being equal, grain will appear to be much finer in an scope photographed film than in a super 35 film projected on the same size screen. Of course a super 35 film can appear to be sharper than an anamorphic film because spherical lenses are typically sharper than anamorphic, and also tend to be faster, meaning you could potentially shoot with slower film stock. But if you can afford the best anamorphic lenses from Panavision then those factors are really not much of an issue.

By the way I am a professional cameraman and I've been shooting film for 25 years.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
Export to Wiki
#124
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 11:00am
  • Joined: March 2008
  • Post Count: 33

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR
I think the explanation is readily apparent: The reviewer you quoted is essentially oblivious to DNR and/or doesn't like film grain and isn't bothered by its absence.

I think I will make a point of reading reviews to see if the reviewer makes any negative comments about film grain (such as "the transfer was beautifully grain-free", etc.) and respond appropriately.
The explanation is not readily apparent to me and I would hazard a guess that it's not apparent to 99% of CE consumers outside this forum.
I must confess I don't know much about "DNR" nor do I want to know and I see nothing wrong with remaining blissfully ignorant of the subject. Like, perhaps, most viewers that simply trust their eyesight and experience, the main focus for me is enjoying the movie experience in my home theater and yes - it's enjoyment of the story that counts the most, as it should.
I do, to some extent, trust professional film reviewers, and if they describe the PQ as first rate than, certainly, I'm not going to worry about DNR since its affects are, at most - subtle.
Export to Wiki
#125
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 11:17am
  • Joined: November 2006
  • Location: Phoenix, Arizona
  • Post Count: 3,815

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goko
The explanation is not readily apparent to me and I would hazard a guess that it's not apparent to 99% of CE consumers outside this forum.
I must confess I don't know much about "DNR" nor do I want to know and I see nothing wrong with remaining blissfully ignorant of the subject. Like, perhaps, most viewers that simply trust their eyesight and experience, the main focus for me is enjoying the movie experience in my home theater and yes - it's enjoyment of the story that counts the most, as it should.
I do, to some extent, trust professional film reviewers, and if they describe the PQ as first rate than, certainly, I'm not going to worry about DNR since its affects are, at most - subtle.

The problem is that most average viewers are used to watching a movie at home in standard definition which tends to hide the film grain. When they see a film in HD suddenly there is all this grain they aren't used to seeing, even though it is supposed to be there.

It's really a matter of educating people about what they are supposed to and not supposed to be seeing in a movie that was shot on film. Ignorance is fine until you understand what you are missing out on. Grain in a natural part of movies shot on film and you see it every time you go to the movie theater. You should also expect to see it at home. When you start to use DNR just to remove film grain, you also start removing details in the actual image.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
Export to Wiki
#126
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 11:26am
  • Joined: December 1998
  • Post Count: 7,866

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
I must confess I don't know much about "DNR" nor do I want to know and I see nothing wrong with remaining blissfully ignorant of the subject.
You can choose to be ignorant about anything you want, but anyone who is reviewing films on Blu-Ray (or DVD for that matter) has no business being "blissfully ignorant" of things such as DNR, EE, and aspect ratio (you seem to think a "professional reviewer" can't be ignorant of anything, which is not true). "Blissful ignorance" is what causes companies to release films in pan and scan versions, colorize films, and apply excessive EE and DNR. "Enjoyment of the story" doesn't mean people shouldn't care about getting the most faithful presentation of the film, else we'd all still be watching VHS.
Export to Wiki
#127
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 12:01pm
  • Joined: August 2000
  • Post Count: 4,818

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

RobertR and Douglas...couldn't have said it better.
Export to Wiki
#128
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 12:04pm
  • Joined: February 1998
  • Location: New York City, Office space for rent - cheap!
  • Post Count: 19,273

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
however all things being equal
That's a key qualifier, Doug. And most people who make the Super35/anamorphic comparison don't understand the importance of including it.

And, really, in your experience as a cameraman, how often are all things really equal?

I'm no doubt overly sensitive on this issue, having had to explain it numerous times to people who would never be able to respond with phrases such as "ISO rating". It's a classic example of a little learning being a dangerous thing.

Now back to the topic at hand . . .

M.
Zoloft and Paxil and Buspar and Xanex, Depacon, Chronaphin, Ambien, Prozac,
Ativan calms me when I see the bills.
These are a few of my favorite pills.
(Next to Normal)              HTF Rules & Regs     My 2009 Film List
Win cool stuff: www.hometheaterforum.com/contest for details!
Export to Wiki
#129
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 12:17pm
  • Joined: November 2006
  • Location: Phoenix, Arizona
  • Post Count: 3,815

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
That's a key qualifier, Doug. And most people who make the Super35/anamorphic comparison don't understand the importance of including it.

And, really, in your experience as a cameraman, how often are all things really equal?

I'm no doubt overly sensitive on this issue, having had to explain it numerous times to people who would never be able to respond with phrases such as "ISO rating". It's a classic example of a little learning being a dangerous thing.

Now back to the topic at hand . . .

M.

Well lets put it this way, if I were the DP on a particular film, and the Director said to me that he didn't like to see grain, or he wanted a paricularly clean look to the film, and he wasn't concerned about depth of field, there would be no question about it. I would shoot anamorphic.

Now this might mean that the gaffer's budget is going to have to go up because I'm going to need more lights in order to get the levels I need for proper exposure. Or it might mean that I would rent the fastest anamorphic lenses available, although I would rather shoot at a T stop where the lenses are sharpest, typically around t5.6.

Yes it would be possible to get a clean low grain look in super 35, I've seen many films that look like "cotton candy" bright clean low grain, (Enchanted comes to mind) but starting out with more negative real estate would clearly make getting this look easier.

Both formats have their advantages and disadvantages and the needs of the film would dictate which to use. Of course these days most distributors would probably prefer that if a film is going to be shot 2.35:1 that it be shot super 35 to make broadcast in 4x3 easier.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
Export to Wiki
#130
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 12:25pm
  • Joined: August 2001
  • Post Count: 1,826

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

One thing to keep in mind with this discussion is that film grain uses more space when it comes time to run the image through compression for mastering. What I mean is the more film grain, the more the compression algorithms must work. What this means if you have a film with film grain, you will not be able to compress it well as the same film with less grain (after dnr). So either you will start to get compression artifacts, or you will need more space on the disc.

We all know that a static image compresses much more easily than a rapidly changing image. If there is a lot of visible film grain, the compression algorithm sees this as a rapidly changing image and the engine cant compress the image as easily.

I wonder if that is another reason for the use of some noise reduction during the mastering process? It helps save disc space.

Just a thought.

By the way, I work with an engineer that has spent his whole career working on video compression hardware. I am getting this info from our many discussions about the subject, not from first hand experience.

-----
Scott

View My DVD Collection
Stop the on-screen Bugs!!!!!!

Export to Wiki
#131
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 12:33pm
  • Joined: November 2006
  • Location: Phoenix, Arizona
  • Post Count: 3,815

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott-S
One thing to keep in mind with this discussion is that film grain wastes space when it comes time to run the image through compression for mastering. What I mean is the more film grain, the more the compression algorithms must work. What this means if you have a film with film grain, you will not be able to compress it well as the same film with less grain (after dnr). So either you will start to get compression artifacts, or you will need more space on the disc.

We all know that a static image compresses much more easily than a rapidly changing image. If there is a lot of visible film grain, the compression algorithm sees this as a rapidly changing image and the engine cant compress the image as easily.

I wonder if that is another reason for the use of some noise reduction during the mastering process? It helps save disc space.

Just a thought.

By the way, I work with an engineer that has spent his whole career working on video compression hardware. I am getting this info from our many discussions about the subject, not from first hand experience.


This is very true, but in the case of blu-ray, there is more than enough bandwidth and storage space to handle just about any situation with regard to film grain.

Now this requires more skill on the part of the compression artist, and that he or she be more diligent about their job, but I can't see any situation with 35mm film that could not be handled with a modern codec such as AVC or VC1 on blu-ray. I mean if The Sting can fit on an HD DVD, and it is a nicely naturally looking grainy film, then where is the problem?

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
Export to Wiki
#132
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 12:49pm
  • Joined: February 1998
  • Location: New York City, Office space for rent - cheap!
  • Post Count: 19,273

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott-S
One thing to keep in mind with this discussion is that film grain wastes space when it comes time to run the image through compression for mastering.
That's an interesting choice of phrase: "wastes space".

So tell me, does it "waste space" to have a big battle scene with lots of extras, maybe multiplied many times with CGI? Because all that extra motion "wastes space" by making the image less compressible. Should we require the filmmaker to have fewer figures in the frame so that less space is wasted? Maybe we should redo the scene for video to remove, say, half the combatants so that less space is "wasted".

This may seem like a specious comparison, but it isn't. Grain is an inherent part of film. A director and a DP choose a look for a film, and that decision is just as important as choosing the framing. Most people here would be up in arms if the film's OAR were compromised so as not to "waste space" on the disc. Why shouldn't the same standard apply to preserving the grain structure that accompanies the lighting and texture of the film?

It's not "wasting space". It's using the available space for exactly the reason it's there.

M.
Zoloft and Paxil and Buspar and Xanex, Depacon, Chronaphin, Ambien, Prozac,
Ativan calms me when I see the bills.
These are a few of my favorite pills.
(Next to Normal)              HTF Rules & Regs     My 2009 Film List
Win cool stuff: www.hometheaterforum.com/contest for details!
Export to Wiki
#133
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 12:55pm
  • Joined: August 2001
  • Post Count: 1,826

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Sorry Michael. I edited my post. "Wasted space" is perhaps not the best terminology.

-----
Scott

View My DVD Collection
Stop the on-screen Bugs!!!!!!

Export to Wiki
#134
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 1:02pm
  • Joined: November 2006
  • Location: Phoenix, Arizona
  • Post Count: 3,815

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
That's an interesting choice of phrase: "wastes space".

So tell me, does it "waste space" to have a big battle scene with lots of extras, maybe multiplied many times with CGI? Because all that extra motion "wastes space" by making the image less compressible. Should we require the filmmaker to have fewer figures in the frame so that less space is wasted? Maybe we should redo the scene for video to remove, say, half the combatants so that less space is "wasted".

This may seem like a specious comparison, but it isn't. Grain is an inherent part of film. A director and a DP choose a look for a film, and that decision is just as important as choosing the framing. Most people here would be up in arms if the film's OAR were compromised so as not to "waste space" on the disc. Why shouldn't the same standard apply to preserving the grain structure that accompanies the lighting and texture of the film?

It's not "wasting space". It's using the available space for exactly the reason it's there.

M.


This is a great point. And now Directors and DPs have the option to shoot digitally and have no grain at all, so it's not like the old days where the film stock choices were limited to 2 or 3 types.

Ironically I'm working on a project now that is being shot digitally, but is emulating the look and feel of a film from the late 1940s. So I'm doing all kinds of tests to add realistic looking film grain to a b&w image, and even adding minor film damage such as dust specks and reel change markers.

Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers
Export to Wiki
#135
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 1:06pm
  • Joined: February 1998
  • Location: New York City, Office space for rent - cheap!
  • Post Count: 19,273

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

I appreciate the change of phrase, Scott, but I stand by my point: Grain is a legitimate picture element, and it's the compressionist's job to keep it intact, just as it's the telecine colorist's job not to eliminate it.

M.
Zoloft and Paxil and Buspar and Xanex, Depacon, Chronaphin, Ambien, Prozac,
Ativan calms me when I see the bills.
These are a few of my favorite pills.
(Next to Normal)              HTF Rules & Regs     My 2009 Film List
Win cool stuff: www.hometheaterforum.com/contest for details!
Export to Wiki
#136
Rating: 0
5/7/08 at 1:46pm
  • Joined: July 2002
  • Post Count: 6,066

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

One of the reasons the import of the '76 version of King Kong (coincidentally under Paramount control in the US) is one of my favorite HDMs is bittersweet nostalgia.
The other reason is because it provides a clear illustration of how well HD can replicate the signature of film thru the reproduction of unmolested fine grain. At the same time, a comparison with the R1 dvd shows how much is lost with DVNR applied to this 'grainy' film. With the grain fully intact, the HD DVD sparkles with detail and immediacy - whereas the dvd has a veiled, smeared look in comparison preserving only the 'big picture'. I have little doubt the NR was necessitated by the compression demands, especially early on when the disc was first released. But HD DVD provides first hand proof grain adds not detracts, and can be beautifully preserved on these formats without having to be scrubbed down to appease technical limitations.
That disc is the primary reason I bought a spare HD DVD player. Even if the earth shifts on it's axis and Paramount decided to release that particular title on Blu-ray in R1, I would not expect the end result to look anywhere near as pure and film-like as the Studio-Canal version.
Export to Wiki
#137
Rating: 0
6/7/08 at 2:14pm
  • Joined: February 1998
  • Location: New York City, Office space for rent - cheap!
  • Post Count: 19,273

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

I'm revisiting this thread, because I've come across another Paramount release with excessive DNR: Trading Places, which is so far only on HD DVD.

Now don't get me wrong: It was great seeing this classic comedy in hi-def and getting all the great scenic detail of Philadelphia from 25 years ago. I happen to think that Trading Places is John Landis' best comedy (yes, even including Animal House and The Blues Brothers), because it has a perfect balance of a tightly structured script and some very funny comic actors playing fast and loose within that structure. And the pacing never flags.

But the first thing I thought when the HD DVD started to play was this: "What the hell is wrong with Dan Aykroyd's face?!" It was pasty and sickly and looked they'd grabbed the first person who walked in off the street to do the make-up.

Then it hit me -- it's a 1983 film, and there's isn't a flicker of grain. DNR strikes again.

It isn't too bad in long and medium shots, but whenever the camera gets close to anyone, most of the younger cast members have about the same quality of skin tones as Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy. The movie's good enough to get past this alteration, and I'm not sorry to own this disc, because it's probably the best this classic will look for a long time to come. But once again, the good folks at Paramount have succumbed to the temptation to "modernize" an 80s film and have succeeded only in making the characters look like animated mannequins.

Shame on you, Paramount.

M.
Zoloft and Paxil and Buspar and Xanex, Depacon, Chronaphin, Ambien, Prozac,
Ativan calms me when I see the bills.
These are a few of my favorite pills.
(Next to Normal)              HTF Rules & Regs     My 2009 Film List
Win cool stuff: www.hometheaterforum.com/contest for details!
Export to Wiki
#138
Rating: 0
6/7/08 at 4:33pm
  • Joined: July 2000
  • Location: Surf City, USA
  • Post Count: 5,295

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

I looked at some comparison shots from Pans Labyrinth that showed screen caps with DNR and ones without, to be honest I could not see a difference between them. Guess it's a good thing, ignorance is bliss when it comes to this kind of stuff.

I learned my lesson when opening up a thread on EE many years ago, wish I never did.

Sometime's you reach what's real by making believe.

Export to Wiki
#139
Rating: 0
6/7/08 at 6:39pm
  • Joined: February 1998
  • Location: New York City, Office space for rent - cheap!
  • Post Count: 19,273

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-P
I looked at some comparison shots from Pans Labyrinth that showed screen caps with DNR and ones without, to be honest I could not see a difference between them.
As I have only recently begun to appreciate, the evils of DNR don't reveal themselves well in screencaps. You need moving pictures to see what happens when fine detail has been scrubbed away.

M.
Zoloft and Paxil and Buspar and Xanex, Depacon, Chronaphin, Ambien, Prozac,
Ativan calms me when I see the bills.
These are a few of my favorite pills.
(Next to Normal)              HTF Rules & Regs     My 2009 Film List
Win cool stuff: www.hometheaterforum.com/contest for details!
Export to Wiki
#140
Rating: 0
6/8/08 at 11:48am
  • Joined: July 2000
  • Location: Surf City, USA
  • Post Count: 5,295

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Good then, I don't want to see what DNR looks like so I won't be distracted by it. I like watching a movie and enjoying it, not nit-picking the image quality and being distracted by issues like these.

Sometime's you reach what's real by making believe.

Export to Wiki
#141
Rating: 0
6/8/08 at 11:55am
  • Joined: February 1998
  • Location: New York City, Office space for rent - cheap!
  • Post Count: 19,273

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron-P
Good then, I don't want to see what DNR looks like so I won't be distracted by it. I like watching a movie and enjoying it, not nit-picking the image quality and being distracted by issues like these.
That's your prerogative, Ron. But it's the prerogative of others who see these phenomena to raise the issue and try to do something about it, and there's really no reason for you to denigrate our efforts by dismissing them as "nit-picking".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't appear that you've seen the HD DVD of Trading Places. I assume that's why you've limited your comments to Pan's Labyrinth (which I have and which I don't consider to be a particuarly severe case of DNR, certainly nothing like the Paramount discs I've discussed in this thread). If in fact you haven't seen the disc, then you're really in no position to comment, and there's no point to your last two posts other than thread-farting.

M.
Zoloft and Paxil and Buspar and Xanex, Depacon, Chronaphin, Ambien, Prozac,
Ativan calms me when I see the bills.
These are a few of my favorite pills.
(Next to Normal)              HTF Rules & Regs     My 2009 Film List
Win cool stuff: www.hometheaterforum.com/contest for details!
Export to Wiki
#142
Rating: 0
6/9/08 at 12:23am
  • Joined: July 2000
  • Location: Surf City, USA
  • Post Count: 5,295

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

If you see it as farting, not much I can do about that, I don't see it as that, just stating my opinion on what I've seen from the images people have posted about it. If the images don't accurately represent what DNR is, people shouldn't post the images. If they do, expect comments about them.

Sorry if I offended, that was not my intention.

Sometime's you reach what's real by making believe.

Export to Wiki
#143
Rating: 0
6/9/08 at 6:24am
  • Joined: February 1998
  • Location: New York City, Office space for rent - cheap!
  • Post Count: 19,273

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

So, IOW, my assumption is correct, and you haven't viewed the HD DVD of Trading Places, haven't seen the specific images I'm talking about, and have nothing to add to the discussion of that particular disc.

You just decided to "state your opinion" of images from a non-Paramount disc posted somewhere else by unnamed people not participating in this thread for the purpose of being dismissive of the issue under discussion.

I'll take you at your word about your intentions, but it wasn't a helpful contribution.

M.
Zoloft and Paxil and Buspar and Xanex, Depacon, Chronaphin, Ambien, Prozac,
Ativan calms me when I see the bills.
These are a few of my favorite pills.
(Next to Normal)              HTF Rules & Regs     My 2009 Film List
Win cool stuff: www.hometheaterforum.com/contest for details!
Export to Wiki
#144
Rating: 0
6/9/08 at 7:06am
  • Joined: May 2007
  • Location: Helsinki
  • Post Count: 2,026

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

This DNR-debate is starting to spread in too many threads, if you ask me. Then again, nobody asked me.

Rewind - DVDcompare/Site Administrator
*US PS3 (1080p) - Xbox 360 Elite (HDMI) - Nintendo Wii (Euro) - Sony PSP-2000 - Nintendo DSi
*HD DVD Toshiba XE1 (1080p) - Sony Bravia KDL-40W2000 (1080p) - Yamaha RX-V1800 (HDMI 1.3)

Export to Wiki
#145
Rating: 0
6/9/08 at 7:10am
  • Joined: February 1998
  • Location: New York City, Office space for rent - cheap!
  • Post Count: 19,273

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jari K
This DNR-debate is starting to spread in too many threads, if you ask me.
That's one way to look at it. Another is that DNR is affecting too many discs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jari K
Then again, nobody asked me.
When has that ever stopped you, Jari?

M.
Zoloft and Paxil and Buspar and Xanex, Depacon, Chronaphin, Ambien, Prozac,
Ativan calms me when I see the bills.
These are a few of my favorite pills.
(Next to Normal)              HTF Rules & Regs     My 2009 Film List
Win cool stuff: www.hometheaterforum.com/contest for details!
Export to Wiki
#146
Rating: 0
6/9/08 at 7:24am
  • Joined: July 2002
  • Post Count: 2,583

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
That's one way to look at it. Another is that DNR is affecting too many discs.

Exactly. It is just like the complaints about Fox's pricing. These are problems most enthusiasts feel to be 'real', thus they're going to keep popping up until they're resolved.

I would however like to offer any studios listening a compromise. I'll stop complaining about the prices, if they stop DNR-ing the hell out of the discs. Deal?
Export to Wiki
#147
Rating: 0
6/9/08 at 7:58am
  • Joined: December 1998
  • Post Count: 7,866

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
I'll stop complaining about the prices, if they stop DNR-ing the hell out of the discs. Deal?
Well, the complaint all along has been that top quality (including extras) hasn't accompanied top prices. Paying lots of money for lots of DNR really is adding insult to injury.
Export to Wiki
#148
Rating: 0
6/9/08 at 8:54am
  • Joined: July 1997
  • Location: Amsterdam, Holland
  • Post Count: 16,244

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
I'll stop complaining about the prices, if they stop DNR-ing the hell out of the discs. Deal?
Difficult.

Prices = Fox.
DNR = Paramount.


Cees
HTF Rules (uhm ... and has Rules)
Export to Wiki
#149
Rating: 0
6/9/08 at 8:58am
  • Joined: July 2002
  • Post Count: 2,583

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cees Alons
Difficult.

Prices = Fox.
DNR = Paramount.


Cees

Well, I think that is a bit over-simplified. Afterall, Patton, The Longest Day = DNR = Fox, and Fox, Paramont, and Universal all have the highest price points for BD, even if Paramont and Universal's high price points are for new releases whereas Fox's are across the board.
Export to Wiki
#150
Rating: 0
6/9/08 at 9:24am
  • Joined: October 2001
  • Location: Rensselaer, NY
  • Post Count: 17,544

Re: Paramount Makes Official Blu-Ray announcement! Read the press release here.

And, high prices = niche.

They MUST come down. It's to my benefit that they are so high, however, because I cannot tell you how many titles I have held in my hand that would have come home from the store with me if it wasn't for the price I perceived as too high. So while my wallet thanks me, the studios/distributors are going to really need to re-think their pricing schemes if they want to mainstream their product.

There's Jessie the yodeling cowgirl. Bullseye, he's Woody's horse. Pete the old prospector. And, Woody, the man himself. Of course, it's time for Woody's RoundUp. He's the very best! He's the rootinest, tootinest cowboy in the wild, wild west!
Export to Wiki
Forum Nav More Forums | All New Posts | New Thread