Is it still worth owning DVD's? (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

Yes, actually I do. While I have over 1000 dvds, every single one is something I love, and will watch again. That's not to say that there aren't thousands and thousands of films I don't want to see again, but I never buy those dvds. Perhaps there are only 100 films you like enough to want to see again. And maybe most of those, if they were never available again, you wouldn't care. But there are 1000 or more films that I love, and want to see again, and am not willing to take the chance that the dvds won't be there.

A long time ago, I had to wait til a film was on tv to catch it. While rentals are better than that, it's still the case that films are not available, and certainly not when you want and with certainty. It is worth every penny I've spent on them to watch what I want, when I want. I could never see myself relying on rentals as the primary way to watch films. I hate the thought of a future with pay-per-view as the only way to watch a film. I want to buy a film and pay for it once, and be able to watch it as many times as I like without having to pay each time. You certainly can't do that with rentals.

 

[BrettGallman]

There certainly is something about DVD's that makes me want to keep collecting them. I owned maybe 5 movies growing up on VHS, and only 2 of those movies weren't called "Star Wars." But now I have close to 300 DVD's. I really think that DVD just offers a much richer experience than VHS, with surround sound, OAR, etc.

 

[James@R]

I was just trying to find some new shelf space earlier this week, and thinking about what a strange hobby it is. The problem is, they are currently so cheap and readily available, they've become like tribbles.

Personally, I no longer buy every new title that comes out. In fact, I hardly buy current releases anymore, opting instead to only collect cult or classic films. For example, even if I bought King Kong (2005), I would never actually get around to watching all the extras. But I watched every extra on the original (Adam West) Batman movie in one sitting.

One nice benefit to this approach is that I almost never have to lend out any dvds. Everyone usually just stares at my massive collection and asks, "Don't you have anything good?!"

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Yeah, I'm sure many are disappointed. I came out against the
format war at the beginning, but despite what one person has
stated in this thread, HD-DVD is as good as it has been touted
and I predict it will do quite well. D.O.A? Hardly!

I just bought a new display that supports HDMI. If you guys
saw the picture that a HD-DVD produces on this display, you
would think twice about wanting to continue agressively buying
standard DVD titles. I'm telling you guys straight out, HD-DVD
is incredible!

I haven't stopped buying standard DVDs altogether, but what
was once up to 12-15 titles on a good month has been reduced
to 1 or 2. The only stuff I am buying is classic and obscure titles
that won't see the light of day on HD-DVD for years.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

After HD-DVD there will be another format like SUPER-DUPER-DVD or something, so then HD will look obsolete. That's why I've begun enjoying the movies as I get older, instead of always looking to upgrade quality. Especially when, as has been stated by others, we don't really watch all our S-DVD discs as it is now.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Joe,

Of course! Of course! We all know the drill, and I certainly
understand your concern.

For the rest of our lives we will be faced with upgrading our
video formats.

However, it took approx. 10 years to go from VHS to Laserdisc
and another 8 years to go from Laserdisc to DVD.

We are within the normal timeframe of format upgrade. HD-DVD
and Blu-Ray are the next formats in trhe cycle and the studios
have already commited to both. I don't see either format going
away that soon, though there is the possibility one may become
dominant.

After that? Who knows! However, it's a good guess that in
another 8-10 years we will be looking at a new format that
comes in a smaller size with increased storage capacity.

 

[Ted Todorov]

But Gordon,

Don't you think that "size-of-my-collection" X 2 == addiction is a little too convenient?

Unless you are opposed to collecting (period), you have to acknowledge that having a bigger collection is not somehow worse then having a smaller one. To go to the earlier analogy of stamp collecting (acknowledging that DVDs give you so much more) -- you don't look at someone with a very, very large stamp collection as a less successful or less happy stamp collector then one with a smaller collection. Libraries compete on the basis of how many million volumes (and how many rare books) they have. Why should DVD collectors be different?

True we all have our one views of what is/isn't acceptable -- I question those who seem to get most new releases regardless of quality. In my case I have certain directors who I wish to collect:
I'd like to have every film that Rohmer/Rivette/Truffaut/Hitchcock/Tavernier/Chaplin/Sturges/Lubitch/Eustache/Kurusawa etc. ever made -- (so long as the DVD transfer is decent). I may not plan to watch some of these any time soon after getting them (or to prefer to see them on 35mm), but I do wish to own them, in much the same way that I think I would be mad not own the complete works of Shakespeare even if I'm not planning on reading Titus Andronicus tomorrow.

Ted

 

[Ted Todorov]

Ron -- it sounds to me like you are comparing Apples to Oranges. If you had gotten your HDMI equipped TV along with a top shelf up-scalling over HDMI DVD Player a little while ago, and now were blown away by the HD-DVD vs. upscalled DVD picture, I would be more convinced.

Unfortunately I believe that if you compare the difference between a bad DVD transfer (say early Fox-Lorber DVDs which look like the source was a bad quality P&S VHS tape with awful bleeding subtitles) vs. something good like say HBO's Deadwood, to upscalled DVD Deadwood vs. HD-DVD Deadwood, I think that you will find the difference in the first case colossal, and minimal in the second.

Thus I am waiting for the format war to be over before I will touch HD media with a barge pole. And avoiding any Fox-Lorber titles

Ted

 

[Reagan]

I'm down to 1 or 2 a year. And not because of HD anything. It's because there aren't many movies out there that I don't have but want to own.

When I do make the move to HD-whatever, I'll rebuy 30 titles at the most. And that will take years since it will be years before most of them are out.

-Reagan

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Ted,

You do bring up a valid point, and you aren't wrong.

An upscaled DVD looks better than standard DVD, no doubt.
This is especially true with animation, but unfortunately from
what I found, less true with live-action. I watched pieces of
The Fifth Element upscaled a few days back and was
not that impressed. To be honest, I really haven't been watching
too much standard material since then to make an honest
comparison.

I would also estimate that most people on this forum still
aren't upscaling their DVDs or have the proper displays to
accept HDMI. In that case, as was my case, the transition
to HD-DVD is somewhat colossal. I am very impressed by this
new format.

 

[Jeff_HR]

I haven't rented a Video of ANY format since 1989. I buy because I want the video I want to watch available to watch the very microsecond I make the decision to watch it. To me renting is a MAJOR waste of $$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ricardo C]

HD's replacement is quite possibly decades away. Except for the digital cinema formats, every post-HDTV video format is in the experimental stages.

The reason I think the HD formats are a worthwhile investment is because they represent a leap in quality that surpasses even DVD's over VHS. It's a format that affords us the opportunity to collect films in a format that is virtually indistinguishable from film. I'm not exaggerating. No more of the compromising I was used to with DVD: "it looks like film from a 'reasonable' sitting distance", or "it looks quite acceptable on a moderately-sized screen".

Now, I sit as close as I sit in commercial theaters (1x the screen width), and still enjoy a rock-solid, artifact-free picture. Now, I can go see a movie I love, and rest assured that when I acquire it in HD, it will look JUST AS GOOD as it did in theaters. For those reasons, HD is worth the upgrade. Sure, other formats will come along eventually. And we'll never get IMAX-level resolution in the home (at least, not in our lifetimes), but HD is an excellent plateau, even with the promise of "bigger and better" on the horizon. From my point of view, there's not a single negative in this equation.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

But renting does have it's place. How else is one supposed to watch a dvd of a film they haven't seen yet, buy it blind and then get burned if the movie ends up sucking? I rent to see if I like the movie, than I buy it if I enjoy it.

Waste of money? On the contrary, renting SAVES me money, and it saves me from beating myself up for buying a movie that I wound up not liking. The last straw for me was when I bought The Village without seeing it, I paid $19.99 for it and when I watched it I HATED it and spent the rest of the night pissed off at myself.

I swore to myself that I would never do that again and I haven't.

As for the upscaling issue, I own a modest upscaling player connected via an M1 adapter to the DVI input on my projector and am very impressed with the results.

 

[TheLongshot]

That is partially because it may take decades for the average consumer to appriciate HD-DVD.

Personally, I think HD is going to have an interesting time of it, since DVDs are basically the CDs of video right now: They are relatively cheap and the quality is good enough for most people. Some people just don't have the large screens where the benefits of HD-DVD would really shine, and for most people, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

The fact that HD-DVD is backwards compatible with DVDs and that the costs aren't too outrageous right now is helpful, but people don't like rebuying unless they have a compelling reason. I have a feeling short of discontinuing DVDs and forcing people to buy into HD-DVD, I don't see it.

Anyways, that is off topic. Like others, if HD-DVD or Blu-Ray takes off, and if there is an acceptable HTPC way of doing things (I love my HTPC, and would rather not go another direction), I could only see maybe rebuying a few of the titles I have. Mostly because DVD is "good enough" for most of what I own. I also think having a good 'core' of DVDs is a good thing, because there are some I pull out for reference, or to watch a certain scene (Like I did with "An Evening With Kevin Smith" the other day to replay his remarks about Superman.) Suppliment it with rentals, and you can keep a reasonable collection. I still need to clean house a bit, since I bought a few early on that I probably shouldn't have, but I like my collection.

Jason

 

[TheLongshot]

For me, it saves space, since movies that I bought and don't like take up space. When you live in a townhouse, space can turn into a premium. I got enough clutter as is, even thinpacking some of my DVDs.

Jason

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I do see the logic here, but that depends on whether you really get your money's worth by buying. Apart from being decorations, DVDs are not really providing a service except while they are being viewed. If you actively watch your entire collection repeatedly, then you are likely making good use of your investment. If, on the other hand, you watch each disc once and store it, you are effectively paying $20-30 for a rental. As i have discovered, paying for a new DVD does not mean it will still play when you go to watch it again - last night ANOTHER randomly chosen title (that I paid over $45 for and have viewed once since owning it) wouldn't play at all.

As for buying new releases or rereleases, it is clear that most of the material being issued these days is coming from new hi def transfers, which you can bet will make it to a hi def format at some point. It makes more sense to me to rent the SDDVD now and if I still want the film, buy the HD version later. I'll keep copies of my most watched films, but for the rest, I'm sure I can live without them.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I really hate to bring this up, but i'm still worried about studios using HD masters that were created for over the air HD that are cropped and/or zoomed.

It would be very tempting for them to use an existing 1.78:1 master of, say, Moulin Rouge(just an example) for the HD DVD or Blu-Ray release rather than spend the money to create a brand new 2.35:1 one.

In short, i'm concerned about the emergeance of a whole new generation of non-OAR releases with HD DVD and Blu-Ray.

 

[Sten F]

Pure speculation, mate. They´re already hard at work on an even better and improved format with resolution twice better than HD-DVD. Even on test benching on resolution 4 times better than HD-DVD. The tech world works much faster today than you think. HD-DVD better catch on quick or it´s going to end up like LaserDiscs - a niche product. Remember, it´s not the Early Adopters the studios make their money from it´s the majority.

 

[Ricardo C]

Of course it's speculation. I don't recall claiming otherwise.

 

[Jeff_HR]

Before making a truly blind buy DO RESEARCH! I've made maybe a dozen true blind buys & I researched each of them prior to the purchase. ONLY one blind buy title IMO turned out to be a title I really disliked after watching it. That title was "28 Days Later". It is a BAD film IMO & a ripoff of another Director's film.