The Answer Is...Blu-ray! (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

 

Originally Posted by bigshot

 

Do the recent announcements and/or releases of films by Chaplin, Fritz Lang, Buster Keaton not interest you either? If they interest you, then you should probably have something to look forward to -- I'd think there will be more coming as long as we actually buy them. Not saying there's a lot coming of course, but they're not nothing either though.

 

I don't know if importing from the UK would help you, but you might want to check that route too. For instance, one coulda gotten Black Narcissus on BD from the UK well before Criterion released it here in the USA -- and in that case, it was also region-free. Not saying there's a lot there from the UK either, but since the pickin' in slim, you don't wanna close the doors before even checking...

 

_Man_

 

[SergeiShadow]

Потому что в России, Blu-ray уже вершине рынка здесь. Быть миллионером помогает справиться с расходами по их импорта. После фабрика, которая может AVCHDs печать на DVD которая с HDTV, что не на Blu-ray еще не полезно для терпение.

 

[Robin9]

Originally Posted by SergeiShadow

Потому что в России, Blu-ray уже вершине рынка здесь. Быть миллионером помогает справиться с расходами по их импорта. После фабрика, которая может AVCHDs печать на DVD которая с HDTV, что не на Blu-ray еще не полезно для терпение.

Is this a joke or a genuine mistake?

 

[John Hodson]

Originally Posted by Robin9 /forum/thread/303612/why-blu-ray/90#post_3728532

 

[FoxyMulder]

 

Originally Posted by Robin9

Quote:



Is this a joke or a genuine mistake?

Translation Below.

 

Because in Russia, Blu-ray is already top of the market here. Being a millionaire helps to cope with the cost of their imports. After the factory, which can AVCHDs print on the DVD is a HDTV, that is not on Blu-ray is not useful for your patience.

 

Ok i was beat to it. Not sure why the listen. read phonetically is below my post.

Listen
Read phonetically

 

[SergeiShadow]

 

Originally Posted by John Hodson

Благодарю Вас за теплые ответ Джон.

Blu-ray имеет большие возможности для многих фильмов, снятых в кино, чтобы привести свои себя ближе к оригиналу ясность фильма печати. Хотя это только 1080p, много действительно великих переводами с использованием источника фильма были включены в очень высоким разрешением, сохраняя при этом фильм зерна, expecially на очень высоком конце проектор, выглядит почти как печать.Будучи довольно Господь вентилятора Кольца, я очень рад, что Театральный Трилогия на Blu-ray уже. На моем заводе я нажали 25 Гб, что вы могли бы назвать временным нетерпеливый для самостоятельного использования дисков расширенного издания. Моя любовь к очень старых фильмов, основ на мое желание увидеть как можно больше старых фильмов, которые будут освобождены на Blu-Ray. Импорт никогда не было легче, так как будучи миллионером дает преимущества несколько вариантов с веб-сайтов, а также владеющие региональной свободной Blu-Ray плеер позволяет мне импорта из любой страны мира.

Хотя я миллионер, поиск наиболее кинематографическому освобождения название с большой битрейт, дополнительные функции и содержание, конечно, приоритетом. Я, конечно, знаю английский, но я упорно лень продолжить ввод на русском языке. Наличие устройств цифровой съемки для фильмов транслируются в High Definition позволяет ждать много титулов, чтобы быть официально выпущена на диске Blu-Ray.

Очень хороший форум здесь.

 

[drobbins]

I will answer the reverse - Why Not Bluray?

I agree that it is the best format out currently, but

The only reason I have bluray is the XBox red-ringed and we replaced it with a PS3

My projector is still 720.

I still have 5 speakers.

Our new 60" (1080) living room tv does not have a bluray player (yet) and there are times we like to watch movies while we are doing other things like cooking or the wash, etc...

My eyes are not that bad, so I usually don't wear my glasses.

I don't have the money to replace my collection.

I usually buy from the BB $5 = $10 collection.

When I do watch a bluray movie with my glasses on in the theater, I get into the movie so much that I am watching the story, not the picture.

 

In summary - While I do like blueray better, it is not so much better that is it worth the extra cost. (IMHO) Maybe if we get another blueray player for the living room, it would change things.

 

[John Hodson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SergeiShadow /forum/thread/303612/why-blu-ray/90#post_3728548

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Sergei,

 

Moving forward, so we don't need to translate
everything, can you please respond in English.

 

Thanks

 

[Mike Frezon]

If it's not one thing, it's another! [/url]

 

[Steve Christou]

The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

 

When's that out on blu-ray?

 

My personal Blu-ray hate is not "waiting forever for it to load" but stopping the film to make a cuppa and than finding that I can't resume like I could with my DVDs, and than having to start all over again, it's a pain. I hate leaving the film on pause.

 

[Adam_S]

Why Bluray?

 

for one, 1080p is beyond what I get from cable or satellite and it definitely looks better, my bluray of Monsters Inc looks better than the Starz HD 1080i broadcast of Monsters Inc.

 

two, it's presented at 24hz or 24fps so there is no 3/2 pulldown it looks like film, not video

 

three it's the closest thing I can get at home viewing to watching playback from an HDCAMSR master tape (and I've seen a few), bluray isn't as good, but it's damn good. Better than a 16mm print and better than a 35mm print with average los angeles projection.

 

four Bluray offers a medium that can hold an immense amount of data on a single disc. Criterion is an excellent example of this, but there's rarely a reason, anymore, for more than one disc, so special features don't require changing a disc. This is not to say that special features should compromise image quality of a BD50, naturally balance needs to be maintained and a call made on when the special features start crowding the video bit rate, and again, criterion is a good example with the hours and hours of HD special features on Benjamin Button, Night of the Hunter and Seven Samurai blurays consigned to a second disc. But note that a disc such a Stagecoach, which features an entire film as a 'special feature' still manages to be a single disc without compromising quality.
 

And another aspect of space is this, when I buy a bluray I don't have to ever think about harddrive space because everything is on the disc, rather than having to share space on a harddrive. What's more, I like the quality of a feature film that is 35-50GB in size, I do not want to have to purchase harddrive space to support 50GB movies and I do not want to go back to movies that take up less than 35-50GB.

 

five Discs are inherently a collectible medium, I have hundreds of books, more in hardcover than softcover, and I like having a library. I also have hundreds of dvds and pushing 100 blurays. I view Blurays much the way I view hardcovers, they're the permanent edition I want to own. I may not need to own the most deluxe version, but owning a bluray is a version I'll be happy to own for decades, hopefully. DVDs are more like paperbacks, cheap, more disposable, maybe to be upgraded (but probably not) but very glad to own none the less.

 

six, no buffering. Downloads and streaming are IMMENSELY problematic and I have a good internet connection, netflix instantly is sporadic and crappy at my house whether or not you use the new PS3 disc, hook up the computer via VGA, use a wired internet connection or wireless. I've tried every combination to try and make it palatable and it's never been a pleasant or easy experience. At a minimum, I've found I have to add 20% to the runtime of a film or television show to get an accurate estimate of how long it will take to watch it, a 55 minute episode of Dexter takes an hour and twenty minutes to watch, for example. I've tried to watch Netflix instantly at my parents house before and it was nearly unwatchable, a 95 minute movie took two and a half hours to watch because of all the freezing and buffering. Watching movies this way is HIDEOUS, it is worse than watching pan and scan and censored versions on broadcast television with hours of commercials cut in. The experience is so bad and so problematic I doubt I will ever try it again even if it improves, what's more the quality is often only a notch above youtube quality, and watching movies at that level of quality is ACTIVELY UNPLEASANT because I can accept Youtube quality for something that's only a minute or two long, but not for something that's TWO HOURS long. It's visually exhausting to watch a movie with so much video artifacting for that length of time.

 

seven, I no longer consider cds or music worth collecting. Itunes has exposed the fact that most cuts on an album are worthless and not really worth bothering about, I am happy to buy a single song at a time but not happy to buy a physical album anymore. This makes bluray more attractive because you cannot do that with film, if CDs are less attractive to assemble a library of them, it is more attractive to assemble a library of films, and more of my discretionary spending goes towards blurays as a result. Because fundamentally film's are not little individual bite size units of one or two minutes, a film represents a complete evenings entertainment, a track on itunes represents background music for the car or working out. Youtube and the myriad of short two and three minutes videos on youtube represent a closer analog to music and itunes than films do. Who bothers going to the page of the person who uploaded a video you liked and watching 10 or 12 videos worth of material from that person (an album)? no one does. But many people do bother to assemble the works of an artist like Kubrick or Lean or Bergman or Ford because any individual film is a more complete entertainment experience and exploring an artist is a rich experience in an of itself, bluray offers a tremendous opportunity for that, you have a trust built up that if one work from an artist was worthwhile and satisfying, that you should try another. Like going back to a fine restaurant because the meals you've had have been consistently stellar.

 

eight. it is very satisfying to have a collection of films in your house. You can't really "Show" your itunes collection of downloads to visitors and company. Blurays are part of my home in a way that music and digital files are definitely not a part of it--that gives me more of a sense of investment and value in the titles that I own. I have no investment in the hundreds of songs I've downloaded on itunes. And note, although songs are cheaper than dvds and blurays, I have downloaded fewer songs than I have purchased blurays and dvds, that's because there is no sense of ownership, no sense that a digital song belongs a part of your house the way that a book or bluray become part of your home. Understand that a big part of the value of a bluray is the sense of ownership by having it be a part of your home, and that if everything goes all streaming in place of physical media the value of movies plummets to almost nothing.
 

And if the value plummets, then I'm going to buy a whole lot less. Before itunes, even in the days of napster, I bought tons of CDs, now that all value has been removed from music due to it being all downloads I spend almost nothing on music, less than $30 a year on downloaded music where before itunes I spent more than $500 a year on CD based music. Now, that is true of movies, I spend more than $500 a year on buying blurays, but if movies go all download or all streaming I will probably spend less than $30 a year on buying downloads because downloading removes the illusion of ownership and the illusion of ownership that accompanies physical media is one of the primary incentives to purchase a bluray.

 

[Pete York]

Originally Posted by Adam_S

 

...Understand that a big part of the value of a bluray is the sense of ownership by having it be a part of your home, and that if everything goes all streaming in place of physical media the value of movies plummets to almost nothing.
 

And if the value plummets, then I'm going to buy a whole lot less....

This is an excellent point. If the producers of content treat the product as if it is disposable, ephemeral, then it will become disposable and ephemeral in the eyes of the consumer. Now, an accountant doesn't care, a sale is a sale. But they should. It will devalue the asset over time.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Adam,

 

Interesting point to bring up music downloads (and how we value content because of concepts like cheap downloads vs something tangibly collectible).

 

I still buy CDs (and SACDs) on occasion and never bother w/ downloads for music, but then again, the kinds of music I usually buy (eg. classical, maybe a little jazz, etc) do not fit the kind of one-hit/track mold that you describe *PLUS* I hate the idea of spending any $ at all on a lossy audio format for music (even though I don't often get around to sitting down and doing some serious listening on my system anymore) -- if I want the convenience and such for low fidelity usage/situations, I'd rather just rip my CDs to MP3s for that, but would want to own the high fidelity version for my collection.

 

Still, yeah, I spend a lot less $$$ on music since I started collecting films on DVD years ago and BD now. But for me, it's largely because I've exhausted much of what would interest me from the music recording world (at this point in my life anyway) while the film world still holds a lot more for me to explore and/or own on a truly high fidelity medium, ie. BD, which has driven me to upgrade very many of my DVD titles. To me, DVD is basically comparable to MP3 (in quality), including the fact that quality can vary wildly though it never really reaches high fidelity levels like BD and CD (and the hirez audio formats) can. So just as I hate the idea of buying lossy downloads for music, I also find myself hating to buy a DVD (to some extent) now too and want to upgrade as many (worthy) titles as I can. Of course, that's not to say I would never buy or (more likely) rent a DVD going forward because sometimes you just don't have a (good) choice for a BD version, but that's my general outlook on film collecting now, which basically aligns w/ my outlook for other types of collecting as well, eg. music recordings.

 

To me, the main point of collecting at all is to own a readily accessible library of (high) quality content in a very tangible, material way so that I (and those w/ whom I wish to share) can enjoy it (and maybe even be edified by it) to the fullest degree feasible. Of course, most of that statement involves subjectivity in the various specifics, but it's basically the overriding principle that I operate on (and I imagine most other collectors also subscribe to more or less whether consciously or subconsciously).

 

But yeah, I agree that download/streaming (at least for the forseeable future) would also be very much contrary to my stated point of collecting on multiple levels, ie. lack of quality, lack of tangible ownership, not as readily accessible, etc.

 

_Man_

 

[bigshot]

For me it used to be tangible... Big time. I have thousands and thousands of LPs and thousands and thousands of 78s, and thousands of movies on laserdisc and DVD. But I've recently gone through a huge change. Being able to digitize and archive non physical copies on hard drives has opened up my collection in a way that physical media could never do. I have an iTunes library of over 60,000 songs on random shuffle 24/7. It's piped to the whole house with airport expresses. My library is instantly accessible for the first time. The second that I'll be able to do the same with movies and tv shows, I'll abandon little shiny disks forever. I want to have my own random shuffle closed circuit tv station. I don't want shelves and plastic cases to scan through to find what I want to watch. I want to summon it up with a simple keyword search.

 

[Bryan^H]

I just watched Labyrinth(1986) and it looked, and sounded phenomenal.

That's why I choose Blu-Ray.

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong

Adam,

 

Interesting point to bring up music downloads (and how we value content because of concepts like cheap downloads vs something tangibly collectible).

 

I still buy CDs (and SACDs) on occasion and never bother w/ downloads for music, but then again, the kinds of music I usually buy (eg. classical, maybe a little jazz, etc) do not fit the kind of one-hit/track mold that you describe *PLUS* I hate the idea of spending any $ at all on a lossy audio format for music (even though I don't often get around to sitting down and doing some serious listening on my system anymore) -- if I want the convenience and such for low fidelity usage/situations, I'd rather just rip my CDs to MP3s for that, but would want to own the high fidelity version for my collection.

The problem I'm running into is that with some soundtrack albums (the actual score, mind you, not the songs that have nothing to do with the movie, most of the time) that studios make those albums download only. A physical copy can't be bought, even if you want to. I really hope that's a trend that won't continue, since I really hate it.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Originally Posted by Pete York

 

Paul

 

[FoxyMulder]

 

Originally Posted by drobbins


When I do watch a bluray movie with my glasses on in the theater, I get into the movie so much that I am watching the story, not the picture.

 

In summary - While I do like blueray better, it is not so much better that is it worth the extra cost. (IMHO) Maybe if we get another blueray player for the living room, it would change things.

Picture and story go hand in hand, if i am watching a dvd at 104inches and edge enhancement is prevailant or compression issues pop up all the time then no matter how good the story that will take me out of the film, therefore it's the reverse with me as a good blu ray will keep me more involved in the story. If picture wasn't important then directors would shoot everything cheaply on SD standard camera's and we'd all be happy watching mushy standard definition satellite broadcasts rather than buying and renting blu ray.

 

It really is that much better, here's some examples from the upcoming Aliens and Tomb Raider: The Cradle Of Life and Avatar which you can mouseover, look how mushy and undetailed the dvd versions are with compression issues on Aliens everywhere and blurriness on Cradle Of Life.

 

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/comparisons/alienscomparisonexample.html

 

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/comparisons/tombraidercomparison1.html

 

http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/comparisons/avatarcomparison.html

 

Even the better DVD releases such as Avatar cannot begin to give you the film experience that a good blu ray can. Of course viewing distance plays it's part here.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Well I have a Back At Cha Fin From Fox... Why Not Blu Ray for "Lie For Me"..Damages...Prison Break and many more that you dabbled in for the 1st season releases but then backpeddled releasing only DVD Versions... now that's a good Question.