|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New Blu-Ray prices coming down
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-30-2009 06:55 PM
My Aunt Patricia had a big collection of RCA SelectaVision video discs. They were thrown into the dumpster a few years ago. The players hadn't worked since the early 1990s.
Back in the 1990s I constantly heard how DVD was never going to be as big as VHS tape or even replace the tape format. I heard this sort of thing numerous times from managers of video stores and other retailers that sold movies here in Lawton. Some of those guys used the common excuses to refuse stocking DVD movies early in the format's life. They considered DVD to be "Laserdisc 2.0" and only for home theater snobs, not something average people would ever buy. I also heard, "DVD doesn't record" as an argument to dismiss the format. This is part of what drove me to online merchants like DVD Planet and Amazon.com to buy movies on DVD.
So far, the rate of growth in popularity of Blu-ray is running at a faster pace than it did with DVD. The more rapidly falling prices of hardware and lately software is helping accelerate that trend.
I agree DVD had big advantages over VHS (but not so much compared to Laserdisc). Nevertheless, I bought into the DVD format in 1999 after the players had improved enough and spent a good amount of money supporting the format.
DVD has slowly improved over the years. The first generation of players were expensive crap. DTS Digital Output didn't appear until the 2nd generation of players were released. Progressive scan output wasn't common until the 3rd and 4th generation of players arrived in stores. HDMI output and upconversion is a more recent development.
The Blu-ray format has seen similar incremental improvements made to players, but those improvements have been made at a faster pace. Unfortunately Blu-ray got a lot more bad publicity out of this thing than DVD ever did, thanks largely to the HD-DVD versus Blu-ray format war. OTOH, all the media scrutiny lit a fire under electronics companies to get their BD products to version 2.0 status ASAP.
Comparing numbers, Blu-ray versus DVD is still a bigger leap than VHS to DVD. While 480p DVD has roughly 4 times the pixel count of consumer VHS tape, 1080p Blu-ray has six times the native pixel count of DVD (over 2 million square pixels versus DVD's 345,600 non-square pixels). Blu-ray is also using better video compression formats (AVC, VC1) while DVD is stuck with using MPEG-2.
It's a shame so many Americans seem to have no will or ability to appreciate what Blu-ray can do with audio. We have the scourge of lossy MP3 and AAC files continuing to crap all over quality standards in music production. Not only is Blu-ray delivering uncompressed and lossless compressed multi-channel surround sound, but it can also deliver high bandwidth audio. The BD format could function as a successor to DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD. Sadly, the "stereo system" of today is a freaking iPhone.
DVD was certainly far more convenient than VHS. No more tape to rewind. Instant access to chapters, etc. Blu-ray has leaped farther, allowing viewers to navigate through a disc's contents without leaving the movie. I've become pretty spoiled to that feature.
I don't understand Karl's arguments regarding videotape being superior to disc. In professional circles of use, yes, many TV stations and video production outfits are still using tape formats like DVCAM, DVC-Pro, etc. However, many of those same outfits copy that footage onto data servers so they don't have to deal with a clumsy pile of tapes while working in post production.
In consumer use, videotape had its last hurrah with D-VHS "D-Theater." The format went nowhere despite its strengths in video quality.
"Solid state" delivery is never going to work as a method of distributing movies on physical media. It's always going to be far less expensive to mass produce optical discs than to dub data to flash-based media. The only thing that will replace optical discs for physical media distribution is some other form of optical storage medium that can be more cheaply produced. I'm guessing we'll have little holographic cubes or balls holding many terabytes of data if physical media is still being used at that point to sell movies. I do believe Internet-based delivery of movies will eventually take over when bandwidth improves enough. I think we're still at least several years from seeing that happen.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009
|
posted 11-30-2009 07:27 PM
Bobby, I know VHS was a dinosaur. I knew tape was a dinosaur in 8th grade, but I think the move to optical disks brought in more advantages than disadvantages, albeit with improved PERCEIVED advantages.
What honestly irks the hell out of me is the whole "Newer/DIGITAL is better" thing on this forum; NOT NECESSARILY SO!
Tape was a poor replacement to film when it came out, but CD/DVD was/is a solely consumer format. It could never exist in professional form because of all of the aforementioned drawbacks, archivability, durability, recordability are all totally inferior to just about anything that came prior, except maybe the early Ektachrome films.
When I hear subtitles, incidentally, I've seen interchangable subtitlest as a theatrical feature with a synchronized 1.3K preview projector overlaid on a 35mm print. Bet you could put an audio commentary on there too, not that anyone would want to hear it!
As for chapter skipping, mentioned as another pro of the digital versatile disc format, I think back to last night when I pulled a reel of a movie and played it on a platter, because I had already seen the rest of the movie before! -
Now that is the ultimate in portability. I can pull it out, carry it over my shoulder, splice 33 feet of leader (10m) and plug it in on a down projector to catch the end, then rig up a reel to take up the movie so I don't have to rewind it when I ship it back!
I could do the same thing with tape, though it'd be harder, and I'd have to mark it. Ease of use, sure it should enter into discussion with amateur forums and non-film handlers, but when I hear people touting the ease-of-use of DVDs I am shocked and mystified because almost everyone on here works with 35mm in a theatrical environment, right?
I have gotten so dissatisfied with even the new Blu-ray colors and resolution, working so much up in the booth anymore, that I feel like I am watching a movie with an extra one or two gen's of dupe the colors are so poor on my 40" (1m) TV at home. It's like watchign a colorized cartoon seeing a movie in 35mm then going home to see it in HD 1080p.
I don't care if I have to hand-crank it, if it is analog or digital, if I have to handle carbon arcs, mercury vapors, asbestos, or cellulose nitrate to get it, I care about QUALITY first, everything else second.
Tape had some quirks, but they were more-or-less controllable quirks, user-generated quirks. If you crunched up a tape, it was YOUR FAULT. If your tracking was off, you hadn't adjusted it right.
If you made the mistake of using EP, you never made that mistake again!
DVDs definitely took some of the heartaches away from you, but they took a lot of control and they took the "plug-and-play-ability" away from you too. You can't readily, easily record a DVD. You can get DVDs that WITHOUT CRUMPLED BOXES will skip, stall, or otherwise misread the FIRST PLAY. You drop a DVD or mishandle it and it can get ruined. All at a quality that is only marginally better than VHS. Call it twice the resolution at best. I have seen some TERRIBLE compression codecs, especially with the old B&W classics in my day, and those are some of the dozen titles I unfortunately bought. . .
How can anyone who handles 14,000-foot (4,250m) 35mm movies argue about the hassle of the bulk of a VHS tape?
How does the song go? "There might be a little dust on the bottle. But don't let that fool you, 'bout what's inside. . ."
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-30-2009 07:53 PM
quote: Karl Borowski
I knew tape was a dinosaur in 8th grade
We need a frame of reference as we do not know when you were in 8th grade. What grade are you in now?
quote: Karl Borowski
What honestly irks the hell out of me is the whole "Newer/DIGITAL is better" thing on this forum
THIS forum? This is the last forum on Earth that would have that mentality.
quote: Karl Borowski
When I hear subtitles
Subtitles are meant to be seen, not heard.
quote: Karl Borowski
As for chapter skipping, mentioned as another pro of the digital versatile disc format, I think back to last night when I pulled a reel of a movie and played it on a platter, because I had already seen the rest of the movie before! -
#1 - You pulled a reel off of a movie? That requires a substantial amount of work and time to accomplish.
#2 - What if there is a reel change in the middle of "the good part" that you wanted to see?
quote: Karl Borowski
I can pull it out, carry it over my shoulder, splice 33 feet of leader (10m) and plug it in on a down projector to catch the end, then rig up a reel to take up the movie so I don't have to rewind it when I ship it back!
But you give away the leader!
quote: Karl Borowski
I don't care if I have to hand-crank it, if it is analog or digital, if I have to handle carbon arcs, mercury vapors, asbestos, or cellulose nitrate to get it, I care about QUALITY first, everything else second.
You actually might want to care about the asbestos.
quote: Karl Borowski
Tape had some quirks, but they were more-or-less controllable quirks, user-generated quirks. If you crunched up a tape, it was YOUR FAULT. If your tracking was off, you hadn't adjusted it right.
I don't know where you live, but I live on Earth. Here on Earth, VCRs are automatic machines. Tapes are manufactured by companies who use cheap products and lubes. Time also exists here, and information does not stay on a tape in pristine form forever.
quote: Karl Borowski
If you made the mistake of using EP, you never made that mistake again!
Pffft... there are tons of people who ONLY recorded in EP.
quote: Karl Borowski
You can't readily, easily record a DVD.
Yes you can. Just insert a blank disc into a standalone DVD recorder. Press record. Done.
quote: Karl Borowski
You drop a DVD or mishandle it and it can get ruined.
Same goes for tape and film.
quote: Karl Borowski
How can anyone who handles 14,000-foot (4,250m) 35mm movies argue about the hassle of the bulk of a VHS tape?
First of all, thanks for converting the length to meters for me. I'd be lost without it. If they pay me to handle VHS tapes, then I doubt I would complain about them, especially when I invested no money into it at all.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009
|
posted 11-30-2009 08:15 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
THIS forum? This is the last forum on Earth that would have that mentality.
Yeah, it BOGGLES my mind too, LOL.
I haven't mastered the quote feature here, or I'd respond to more of your posts than this, but no, I didn't ship the leader back, I pulled apart the reel, and pulled it out. I did labe this on the outside of the reel though, and tape the head to the core.
I'd still project film if someone else weren't paying for it. Don't know if there is enough money on this Earth to pay me enough to play tapes to a well-paying audience, unless they are just for audio.
Yes, when I see *talk* on here, or excuse me, text, I can hear [about] subtitles all I want. Sorry, if you want to nit-pick, you need to do a better job than that!
We were getting along so well with our agreements on laserdisk, too!
P.S. Your arguments on dropping a tape or film are pretty fucking weak to compare to dropping a DVD and damaging it.
The act of dropping a tape might not damage the case, but not the tape unless you drop it off a 10-storey building.
The act of dropping a print, even a 20,000 foot (6,100m) one, won't damage it, trying to put "humpty dumpty back together again" will. [As a side note, I am being courteous to an international audience; it's the next step after being courteous to the domestic one. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif) ] Do a better job if you are trying to make a point and be sarcastic at the same time. If just the latter, keep up the good work!
EDIT: Oh, and just FYI Joe, I live on Earth too; time exists for everything here, even human beings. As I have more time than you, probably, I have seen CDs, probably older than you are, develop play errors. It may be popular to believe that "digital is forever," but in truth, stone tablets are several orders of magnitude more permanent than any of this SHitE is, and tape beats out optical media, especailly the recordable type by a handy margin too.
Read up on archival standards before you want to have a go at me again, and in the mean time, keep up the good work burning Blu-ray. I've had CDs that fail less than 3 mos. after burnign them, without any perceivable wear and tear. I'm sure that you will do better with BD though!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chris Slycord
Film God
Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 11-30-2009 08:40 PM
quote: Karl Borowski
When I hear subtitles, incidentally, I've seen interchangable subtitlest as a theatrical feature with a synchronized 1.3K preview projector overlaid on a 35mm print.
I was talking about the comparison of VHS and DVD in terms of consumer playback.
quote:
As for chapter skipping, mentioned as another pro of the digital versatile disc format, I think back to last night when I pulled a reel of a movie and played it on a platter, because I had already seen the rest of the movie before! -
The discussion, again, was about VHS vs DVD. I'm pretty sure that VHS didn't have reel markers to begin with so if a person wants to see only the end obviously they can't pull out part of it and put it in the other tape. Or they could possibly just cut at a random location and go from there, but there's the problem that most people would have no clue how to do that. And why did DVD win over VHS in this respect? Because that whole action is made entirely unneeded and so it is easier to use for the average consumer.
quote: Karl Borowski
when I hear people touting the ease-of-use of DVDs I am shocked and mystified because almost everyone on here works with 35mm in a theatrical environment, right?
Then you don't understand that DVDs are mostly used by regular folk who have never worked with 35mm prints. If we made a format that was hard-to-use for everyday people, it likely wouldn't have been as successful as DVDs have been (or at least no one would argue that they got easier to use for those average folks who can't even figure out how to set the clock).
quote: Karl Borowski
I care about QUALITY first, everything else second.
quote: Karl Borowski
a quality that is only marginally better than VHS. Call it twice the resolution at best.
Did you just argue that DVD is better than VHS? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-30-2009 08:47 PM
quote: Karl Borowski
Tape was a poor replacement to film when it came out, but CD/DVD was/is a solely consumer format. It could never exist in professional form because of all of the aforementioned drawbacks, archivability, durability, recordability are all totally inferior to just about anything that came prior, except maybe the early Ektachrome films.
Just to repeat what others have said (while I was writing this). This thread is not about professional video storage and playback formats, or 35mm film versus video either. The topic is Blu-ray emerging out of high end obscurity and transitioning into the mainstream. Important things have been taking place lately to help that happen at a faster pace.
Comparing professional video storage/playback formats with consumer formats is an act of comparing apples to oranges. They both have very different purposes and very different demands from their base of users. Professional users demand higher levels of quality and are able to deal with the much higher cost and far more complicated and cumbersome equipment. Convenience, ease of use and affordability are much more important to home video consumers.
Honestly, it would be a royal pain in the ass to set up and use something like an HDCAM tape deck for home theater use, despite the quality gains it could potentially provide.
quote:
As for chapter skipping, mentioned as another pro of the digital versatile disc format, I think back to last night when I pulled a reel of a movie and played it on a platter, because I had already seen the rest of the movie before! -
Now that is the ultimate in portability. I can pull it out, carry it over my shoulder, splice 33 feet of leader (10m) and plug it in on a down projector to catch the end, then rig up a reel to take up the movie so I don't have to rewind it when I ship it back!
I know some Blu-ray discs have slow loading times, but how is the process of threading a 35mm film reel supposed to be faster and/or more convenient than using a Blu-ray player?
quote: Karl Borowski
I have gotten so dissatisfied with even the new Blu-ray colors and resolution, working so much up in the booth anymore, that I feel like I am watching a movie with an extra one or two gen's of dupe the colors are so poor on my 40" (1m) TV at home. It's like watchign a colorized cartoon seeing a movie in 35mm then going home to see it in HD 1080p.
The problem with this sort of comparison is the reality of so many Hollywood movies being finished as a 2000 line digital intermediate file. The 35mm prints you're watching are 2 or more generations removed from that digital file. The film print is doing nothing itself to add any extra detail or color quality.
The other problem with that comparison is the nature of the home HDTV setup. Lots of variables are involved there which can make the video image look good or bad. There's more at work than just the Blu-ray player.
quote: Karl Borowski
P.S. Your arguments on dropping a tape or film are pretty fucking weak to compare to dropping a DVD and damaging it.
Tapes can definitely break when dropped. I've seen it happen with VHS and have even seen it happen with Beta and U-Matic tapes at a TV station where I worked.
I've never had a DVD player or Blu-ray player "eat" my disc the way a tape player can. While videotape has been able to record video on the fly much earlier than DVD ever did, tape also that nagging potential of allowing some other dude to record over the precious footage you had on that cassette. There's good and bad with everything.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009
|
posted 11-30-2009 09:08 PM
Mike, I can do individual quotes, but I don't understand how to expediently group them into chunks with the name of the original person quoting appearing in each quote box. This is especially true for quoting multiple different people.
Chris: You are right, I guess I have contradicted myself to some extent. I am arguing more that tape (not VHS) is more appealing to me personally than optical disks, not VHS technology itself.
I guess what I see as people flip-flopping on here is working with 35mm film and then being as enamoured with DVDs as Joe Consumer (no relation).
I personally wish I had access to the same high-end materials at home as I do at work. I guess that makes me an anomaly here, but I find it surprising when people who work with film every day talk about ease-of-use features over improved quality in any application. Maybe that makes me a workaholic of sorts?
I only bring up 35mm as a reason why people should NOT be griping about tape's hassles. 35mm has all of the same but more along the lines of a heavy reel-to-reel tape that is far more prone to damage.
My favorite part of tape technology was the "stop" button, far more useful than pause, that allowed you to resume a movie exactly where you left off. Even the newest DVD players still have trouble at times with this. Honestly, as far as all the accessory bells and whistles, I don't care if they are random access or not, at the end of a tape. Music had a far better reason than movies do on the consumer end. Editing is another story, of course.
Bobby, I just noticed your post: While I agree that 2K makes a lot of the resolution arguments for film academic, and in many cases makes film worse, resolution-wise, I still think that even 2K mastered films (I think 100% of what is out right now is DI anyway in the U.S. first-run full release) have much better color space than digital projection. As for the final films not being 2K by the time they are duped at least once (usually 3 times I think!), all the more reason for 4+K DIs. It honestly makes no sense using the worst of both film and digital processes to get films onto the big screen.
OK, I am going to try to get back on topic: I come home from a hard day (night)'s work, and I hear the talk about this new DVD medium. Gee, I say, I know tape sucks, but I have so much of them. This new stuff is still nowhere close to 35mm. I am going to hold off for something better, and make sure I see as many good movies as I can on the big screen.
Now along comes Blu-ray. "Great!" I say. Although I am personally not happy that movies are almost all finished via 2K DIs, Blu-ray is in some ways especially spatially, BETTER than the $1500 35mm prints I work with.
But I am happy that I can now see, in my home a product comparable to what I used to have to drive across town to see in the second-run screen before the films got shipped back and melted down.
I am still a zealous advocate of some sort of non-optical rental medium (although someone, I think Bobby, mentions this will all become academic as band-widths increase), for rental stores like Blockbuster. I think solid state or tape should still be considered here. . .
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-30-2009 10:20 PM
quote: Karl Borowski
Bobby, I just noticed your post: While I agree that 2K makes a lot of the resolution arguments for film academic, and in many cases makes film worse, resolution-wise, I still think that even 2K mastered films (I think 100% of what is out right now is DI anyway in the U.S. first-run full release) have much better color space than digital projection.
At the risk drifting the thread, I really do not agree with this point. The digital projector is going to reproduce and project that digital-based image much closer to its original appearance than a film projector will be able to do. The JPEG2000 file it is projecting is far closer to that original 2K master file than a mass produced 35mm dupe a couple generations removed from a laser recorded interpositive or internegative.
This reminds me of a syndrome I deal with from time to time at my workplace. A customer brings in a big, glossy print on photo paper and wants me to scan in the image to use on a project. I ask if the photo came from a digital camera. He says yeah, but wants me to scan the print because he thinks that big print is better. I tell him his original digital file has double the level of dynamic color range than the best glossy, reflective paper print. Give me the original RGB file, dude.
Let me stress the point that I am big fan of film projection, particularly large format projection. I know the virtues of analog origination. If you have a film-in film-out production workflow, especially with something like true anamorphic photographed 35mm 'scope or 5-perf 65mm film production, film will beat any digital projection system when the film projection system is used correctly.
The only thing I see as a disadvantage with digital projection is that it just seems a little unnatural. I'm used to seeing a tiny bit of sideweave, a watery layer of natural looking grain and a slightly muted CMY color model. Digital projection doesn't really look like that. It often looks like you're watching a big TV set in a movie theater environment. Digital projection doesn't have any of the imperfections of film projection. It has great color depth (much better than Blu-ray and no inter-frame compression either). Still, you know it's an electronic thing.
Sadly, digital projection has had the unconscious effect of making me more content with just watching movies at home on Blu-ray. I don't like that. I think it is extremely important to the health and future of the entire movie industry for commercial movie theaters to remain viable. If the theaters go, so does the movie industry as we know it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic