Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New Blu-Ray prices coming down

This is topic New Blu-Ray prices coming down in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000793

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-22-2009, 01:20 PM:

New Blu-Ray prices have always been high and averaged at about $25.00 when they were on sale but I am very grateful to Walmart for making two other retailers reduce their prices. It has almost been about a month when Walmart started to charge $19.96 for their new releases. I first noticed it with the 2nd TRANSFORMERS movie followed by SNOW WHITE, UP, GI JOE, and STARTRACK. Although Best Buy was asking about $25.00 for these movies, I got Best Buy to mach Walmart prices when I bought some of there. I can see with this mornings Sunday newspaper tabloid sale flyer, both Best Buy and Target are advertising ANGELS & DEMONS for $19.96. Best Buy is still charging about $25.00 for FOUR CHRISTMAS, another new release but Target is asking $19.96 for that too and Best Buy will have to match that too if asked. This is great new for new releases but if all retailers can also decrease Blu-Ray catalogue prices,I think more people who have a HDTV and still watching DVDS will probably upgrade to Blu-Ray.

-Claude

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-22-2009, 02:25 PM:

Yep, the newness is beginning to wear off some .. pretty soon, you'll see BR's in the $5.00 bin at "Wally's World"

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-22-2009, 03:27 PM:

These comments should probably be in the "sticky" thread about low Blu-ray disc prices at the top of the Afterlife topics page.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-22-2009, 04:11 PM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
STARTRACK

Come on Claude! You can do better than that! [Razz]

In any case that is good to know. I probably need to get a Blu-Ray player after the holiday season is over.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 11-22-2009, 05:38 PM:

Check the "black friday" ads for the best prices on BR players.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-25-2009, 07:07 PM:

I was just over at my Blockbuster store and my friend Sherry who is the manager told me they will also be charging $19.95 for new release Blu-Ray titles beginnIng next week. I guess the $25.00 new BD prices is history. Now that some stores will be selling BD player for about a hundred dollars on Black Friday, I think prices will come down some more when Blu-Ray become more mainstream. I can't wait for that to happen.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-25-2009, 08:02 PM:

Once again, the electronics industry takes what could have been a great way to make some money and destroys it. No surprise, I guess.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-26-2009, 12:14 AM:

That all depends on what it actually costs to make a mass-produced Blu-ray title. I think it's safe to guess replication costs for Blu-ray have decreased. At the same time the customer base for Blu-ray has grown much larger over the past couple years.

When I bought my PS3 nearly 2 years ago it was common for any Blu-ray release to register well under 10% of overall disc sales for any title. Now we're seeing Blu-ray regularly pass the 20% mark and sometimes go well beyond that. For example, the BD version of Up has represented nearly 25% of all disc sales for that title. That's very impressive considering Blu-ray has nowhere near 1/4 the overall installed base of optical disc movie players. The people who own Blu-ray players are buying a lot more movies than folks who merely own a DVD player.

Also worthy of note, Blu-ray is doing particularly well in catalog sales and sales of new titles that have been available for more than a few weeks. More than 50% of the discs currently being sold of Pixar's movie Cars is coming from Blu-ray. Watchmen: The Ultimate Cut has boasted better than 50% Blu-ray share since it was released a couple weeks ago.

I think the movie studios have a little more wiggle room in how they price Blu-ray discs. Getting new release titles priced just under $20 hits a certain psychological sweet spot. We saw this with DVD several years ago. They take a few bucks off the list price, but more than make up for that discount by radically growing the customer base. Nothing new. Blu-ray is following a template already well established by the history of the DVD format. I just hope the format doesn't get to the $5 Wal-Mart bargain bin thing too fast. With online merchants offering quite a few catalog titles on BD for just under $10 I have to wonder about that.

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 11-26-2009, 12:25 AM:

I haven't bought a BR player either nor a flat screen tv (although I do have my eye on one). I've held off on the BR player waiting for all the bugs to be worked out after several posts on here and elsewhere.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-26-2009, 12:40 AM:

The "bugs" have been worked out of Blu-ray for quite some time now. Just beware of what you might be getting or not getting in a low cost Blu-ray player. I'm still recommending the Playstation 3 for Blu-ray use, although some other higher quality standalone Blu-ray players are also very good.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-26-2009, 10:31 PM:

Just to add another positive statistic for Blu-ray, the new release of Star Trek set a new record for market share in Blu-ray sales. According to Nielsen Videoscan Star Trek during its first week of release on home video saw 38% of disc sales go to Blu-ray.

That beats the previous record set by the original release of Watchmen (the new "ultimate edition" issued just recently is seeing more than half its sales go to Blu-ray, but it is a second "double dipped" release).

Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 11-26-2009, 11:08 PM:

I bought Star Trek 2 disk digital copy on blue ray for 19.95 at wal-mart. Cheaper than the 2disk DVD version (21.95)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-26-2009, 11:16 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The people who own Blu-ray players are buying a lot more movies than folks who merely own a DVD player.

Also worthy of note, Blu-ray is doing particularly well in catalog sales and sales of new titles that have been available for more than a few weeks.

The second sentence quoted here explains the first one. Lots of people buying the Blu-Ray machines are buying their first video player, so they're building their libraries. Whereas older guys like myself, even when I do buy a BR player, I'm not exactly planning to go spend thousands of dollars to replace the couple hundred movies I own on DVD (even if they were all available). Maybe a few, but certainly not all.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 11-27-2009, 11:00 AM:

New blu-rays are coming out with added features to accomodate higher-quality formats (more specifically, FHD stereoscopic 3-D) and recently introduced HDMI 1.4 outputs.

http://www.panasonic.com/3d/media/pdf/panasonic_hd3d_qanda.pdf
[Link is to Q&A with Panasonic on 3D-at-home, answers include stuff like they are trying to standarize 3D blu-rays specs by year's end and how current blu-rays players won't be able to play 3D titles but in 2D]

http://3dathome.org/report-detail.aspx?item=1887&code=about-consortium-news§ion=about

quote:
San Jose, Calif. - November 9, 2009 – The 3D@Home Consortium announced today the completion and transmittal of key documents to be used in the creation of digital 3D standards by the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) working groups. The document ST2-01 3D Digital Interface Requirements enables the standards committees to have input from the wide cross-section of the industry which 3D@Home represents. The documents ST4-03 3D Active Shutter Glasses Database” and ST4-04 3D Passive Glasses Database assist the standards committees in understanding the range of products that will be interacting with the 3D systems. Both documents were requested by CEA working groups as part of their discovery process before working on the technical details of the standards.

If you are interested in 3D playback at home, you may want to hold on the purchase of a blu-ray player 'til next Christmas, when the 3D models are expected.

And, BTW, since "new players" and "new TV's" are "needed" anyway for 3D, the "new" format may include "surprises" such as support for higher-quality blu-ray content [i.e. 10-bits, more frame rates, etc]

We'll see if/what they agree to include in the "new" standard. So far, they have already agreed to full-HD-per-eye. That, of course, means twice the resolution/bandwidth/call-it-what-you-want as current players.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-27-2009, 01:19 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Lots of people buying the Blu-Ray machines are buying their first video player, so they're building their libraries.

I kind of doubt that's the case considering well over 130 million standalone DVD players were sold in North America between 1997 and 2005. I certainly don't know anyone personally who has a Blu-ray player but has never owned a DVD player.

OTOH, I do know quite a few people who simply never got into buying movies on DVD even with the movies being available at dirt cheap prices. There's a decent chance some of the people in that category see more value in collecting movies with high definition quality.

I think the big shift from standard definition television to high definition is helping Blu-ray movie sales. High definition still seems like a new, novel thing to many people. Once a customer understands the difference and especially if he has bought a large HDTV set he is going to want a lot of HD quality content to play on the new toy. Catalog titles on Blu-ray, particularly if they're well produced, are going to generate some sales.

Price is also a big, big thing. That's making a difference on whether I buy certain catalog titles or not. I ordered Blazing Saddles, The Good The Bad & The Ugly and Monsters vs. Aliens because they were priced really low at Amazon. I probably would have passed if they had $20 or higher price tags.

I think another thing that is taking place is Blu-ray player owners are buying some different catalog titles they may have never owned on DVD. I have a lot of DVDs in my collection that I don't plan on updating to Blu-ray. But there's other catalog titles I've thought about buying in the past and now am considering for Blu-ray. For example, I never owned a copy of Leon: The Professional, but I bought a copy on Blu-ray because it had very good video quality, both US and Int'l cuts of the film and a $15 price.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 11-27-2009, 03:17 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
So far, they have already agreed to full-HD-per-eye.

Thank goodness for small miracles.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 11-27-2009, 06:02 PM:

I had some free time after lunch today and went to Target and Costco check on their Black Friday sale and see if there were some great discounted BD titles still available and found two at Target and one at Costco. I bought Stanley Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET and Martin Scorsese's GOODFELLAS for $8.95 each. Being a fan of the governor of California movies, I picked up his RED HEAT which was just released for also $8.95. I guess at these prices, Blu Ray disc are just about ready to start showing up in the bargain basement sooner than expected and a welcome relief. [Smile]

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-28-2009, 09:26 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
well over 130 million standalone DVD players were sold in North America between 1997 and 2005. I certainly don't know anyone personally who has a Blu-ray player but has never owned a DVD player.

Well...every year there is a new crowd of people who are becoming adults, moving into their first home, buying their first home entertainment gear, etc. I know quite a few people in this town who have never had a DVD player but have bought Blu-Ray machines in the last year or so.

I just don't think you'll ever see the kind of huge sales growth with Blu-Ray that you did with DVD. There are a few factors on this:

- Many people have the movies they want on DVD and won't see the need to upgrade.
- Netflix is killing DVD sales and will have the same effect slowing the growth of Blu-Ray (Yes, studios...it's Netflix, not piracy).
- The economy will move people from buying to renting to save money.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-28-2009, 03:24 PM:

I remember all the same negative arguments being pushed against DVD when it came to people holding onto their VHS tape collections. To date, Blu-ray is progressing faster into the mainstream both in terms of hardware and software sales than DVD did at the same stage in its life.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-28-2009, 09:02 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I remember all the same negative arguments being pushed against DVD when it came to people holding onto their VHS tape collections.

Yeah - those were stupid arguments then. The list of improvements from VHS to DVD was so huge that it was a no-brainer that everyone would switch.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-28-2009, 11:10 PM:

The switch from standard definition TV to high definition is a pretty big change. I think it's bigger than going from SD VHS to SD DVD. Blu-ray is delivering the highest quality of high definition video consumers can watch in their homes.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-29-2009, 03:11 AM:

I tend to agree with Mike on this one.

VHS was notably inferior on any screen and it was a MUCH more bulky format to store (and even more finicky to play...with tracking, flagging and such). DVD brought about a much better sound quality too.

Until you start hitting the 50" and up screens, BluRay does not have that big an impact on the image quality and even less on the sound quality front. Sure, some will claim that the high-end lossless formats of BluRay are substantially better but they would also be hard pressed to show that more than 1% of the population knows the difference either though the rest of their audio chain or their hearing discipline.

Over about 50", BluRay becomes progressively a vastly superior format.

What will force the changed to BluRay is that it will become the ONLY format that will be pressed. Since all of the BluRay players will play DVDs (unlike when DVD players came out...they didn't play VHS) so those with existing collections are not excluded. As the price of the media comes down, there will be little to no economic advantage to buying DVDs.

There will shortly be a generation that only has BluRay players/collections and that will give the studios incentives to only press BluRays. While it does put an HD version in the hands of the potential pirates, at least BluRay has always had the potential for making copying more difficult for the amature...something that VHS and DVDs failed at, miserably.

Storage and rental wise, BluRays don't present any more difficulty than DVDs.

My prediction is that DVDs will be phased out through attrition.

Steve

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-29-2009, 03:29 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I certainly don't know anyone personally who has a Blu-ray player but has never owned a DVD player.

I do. My parents.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-29-2009, 03:59 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Sure, some will claim that the high-end lossless formats of BluRay are substantially better but they would also be hard pressed to show that more than 1% of the population knows the difference either though the rest of their audio chain or their hearing discipline.

Are you in that 1%, Steve?

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 07:23 AM:

While I have a DVD player, I thought DVD was a marginal improvement over VHS.

If they would have introduced the format in the early '90s, or even late '80s (even 4CDs are a lot less bulky than VHS), it would have been a good investment, but what was the point of going out and buying everything you already owned on VHS on DVD circa 2002? I clearly remember reading an article in the paper about how DVDs were already obsolete at that point in time.

So now here we are with affordable Blu-ray discs and players, just 6-1/2 years later, and it's NOT WORTH IT to buy Blu-rays?

If you made a mistake and over-invested in DVDs, sorry for your predicament, but HD is the first step FORWARD in quality since 16mm film, in my opinion.

In any case, it is funny how the tables have turned. I got laughed at for holding onto VHS and not jumping on the DVD bandwagon. Now I am the one going out and getting movies on Blu-ray with the money I saved only buying a dozen DVDs these past six years.

As a side-note, I still like tape over optical discs due to tape's better durability. There could have very-easily been a consumer format like maybe a DAT tape-sized device for home movies; then there should've been some sort of solid-state replacement. Now we are stuck with read-only optical devices with only very finicky writing options and no solid state content unless we want to pirate it or get it at standard definition. I have had DVDs that were damaged right out of the box. I am sure that this is going to be as bad of a problem best-case with Blu-ray with its much smaller data size.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-30-2009, 08:30 AM:

I don't know if I'm in the 1% or not...I haven't given both formats enough of a listen on suitable equipment.

Why, are you? You have the THX-WOW-DTS-SPL-JBL system that is bound to get every bit out of the new HD audio formats. [Smile]

Joe's certification

Steve

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2009, 11:59 AM:

quote: Karl Borowski
While I have a DVD player, I thought DVD was a marginal improvement over VHS.

Hmm, picture quality improved at least 4x; easier search and skip functions; capacity for hours of special features; multi-angle capability; built-in multi-language subtitles; ability to pause the video for a long time without ruining it; easier storage; greater durability and reliability, ability to upconvert for HDTV...etc. How is that "marginal?" DVD was a MAJOR improvement over VHS and anyone who thought it wouldn't take over the market in a big hurry was smoking dope. The only barrier, at the beginning, was price; as soon as DVD players got below $200 it was all over.

quote:
If they would have introduced the format in the early '90s,

How can you introduce what hasn't been invented yet? DVD was invented in around '94-'95, introduced in the marketplace around 1997 or '98.

quote: Karl Borowski
what was the point of going out and buying everything you already owned on VHS on DVD circa 2002? I clearly remember reading an article in the paper about how DVDs were already obsolete at that point in time.

HD-TV was around by then, but at that time consumer-grade hi-def video disks were still being developed and very, very expensive. If nobody bought DVD due to waiting for the "next development" to happen, the technology would have stopped in its tracks. Where do you think the money for new developments comes from?

DVD was -- and still is -- a viable consumer format. Of course Blu-Ray will take over eventually, but like Steve says, it will mainly take over because it'll be the only thing available. Meantime, people who have a lot of DVDs will still be able to watch them "upconverted" and 99% of the people will think they look just fine. You won't see the mass audience replacing their DVDs with Blu-Rays, the way you did with the VHS > DVD conversion. The folks just won't find it necessary.

quote: Karl Borowski
If you made a mistake and over-invested in DVDs, sorry for your predicament, but HD is the first step FORWARD in quality since 16mm film, in my opinion.

What "mistake?" What "predicament?" I consider myself an average TV watcher and I have quite a few DVDS. There are probably maybe 10 or so that I love enough, and watch frequently enough, that I'd want to upgrade them to Blu-Ray. Trouble is? Most of those aren't available on Blu-Ray...and who knows if they ever will be? A LOT of movies will get lost in the conversion, just like there are plenty of movies and TV shows that came out on VHS, but have never even made it to DVD...what are the odds they'll get to Blu-Ray?

quote: Karl Borowski
As a side-note, I still like tape over optical discs due to tape's better durability.

I can state with certainty that I have never had a DVD tangle in the player; never had a random kid pull one off the shelf and string it across the room; never had the oxide coating of a DVD flake off; and have never had a machine refuse to play a DVD.

quote: Karl Borowski
I have had DVDs that were damaged right out of the box.

While I suppose this could happen, I own about maybe 2500 optical disks (CDs or DVDs) myself, and have sold tens of thousands of them in my store over the years. I don't think I've EVER had a CD or a DVD be damaged out of the box, unless the box itself was smashed also.

In the end, this whole argument will be pointless anyway, since eventually there won't BE any disks or whatever to buy. Disks, players and DVRs, etc will be so old-fashioned. Once bandwidth is sufficient in enough places, you'll buy all your content off the Internet and stream whatever you want to watch, and pay as you go (or maybe subscribe for a monthly fee). So Karl, I would advise you to be patient just a little longer. Think of all the money you'll save, not just on Blu-Rays, but on shelves!

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 03:04 PM:

"I own about 2500 optical disks"

Sorry that you were one of the ones that over-invested in DVDs Mike. . .

Tape is still a far better choice for professionals. I have never had a tape of any kind that wouldn't play right out of the box. . . Solid state is far better than either optical disks or tape, but that is another story, for another time.

I've damaged one VHS tape in a VCR. I repaired it, losing one second due to splicing, and that tape has played fine ever since.

As for 4x the resolution of VHS, you are smoking crack if you really believe that. VHS was ~250 lines, DVD (after you accounted for digital compression) was less than 350. Hardly 2x, let alone 4.

Upconversion? If you take something 480i and "upconvert" it to 1080p, do you REALLY think the quality is going to match a 1080p native file?

And if you have ever rented a DVD, where half of the disc didn't play because the A-hole before you damaged it, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this very common-sense arguement; DVDs are much more prone to damage than tapes of any kind PERIOD

IDK, though, maybe you are too busy reading here or shelling out thousands of dollars on DVDs of your own to rent any. Anyway, I am thrilled about Blu-rays for my sub-4-1/6' television set. What do I know though. . . Probably won't notice the difference between Blu-rays and DVDs, let alone the difference between VHS and 35mm film. . .

[Eek!]

And P.S. DVDs became commercially available in late 1997, early 1998, depending on your geographic location. If you had access any earlier than that to them you were working in a lab somewhere in Japan.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-30-2009, 03:34 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
Upconversion? If you take something 480i and "upconvert" it to 1080p, do you REALLY think the quality is going to match a 1080p native file?

That's a non-sequitur. He said that most will watch upconverted DVDs and be satisfied with it and in turn not buy blu-rays of the same title. That's not at all saying that the people will say "This upconverted DVD is equivalent to a blu-ray disk."

Oh and, why is DVD a worse choice for professionals if you fully admit that it is approximately twice as good quality in image?

And DVDs definitely have tape beat, as he pointed out, in terms of chapter selection, multiple sound formats, adding subtitles/dubbing on-the-fly, etc.

quote: Karl Borowski
What do I know though. . . Probably won't notice the difference between Blu-rays and DVDs, let alone the difference between VHS and 35mm film. . .

Saying crap like this is why a lot of us don't appear to like you, btw.

Mike says "A lot of people will think that upconverted DVDs will be good enough" and you respond saying "I guess you think I can't tell the difference between VHS and 35mm." [uhoh]

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 03:36 PM:

I was talking about pro tape formats Chris. Not surprising you'd miss that, though.

BTW, editing posts after I reply to them are why you piss me off practically every time you post.

Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn if some people on here don't like me. I really really hate when people use their comments to support their own personal predicaments rather than common sense.

DVDs were a way to milk money out of the market. HD is a thorough improvement over any non-film format that existed before it.

Arguing that, at a certain size, DVD is good enough, and not something the average person is going to improve is a clear case of someone who spent a fortune on DVDs arguing for their continued support/existence.

Can anyone here seriously argue that DVD was a bigger improvement over VHS than Blu-ray is over the former, really?

Does DVD get kudos or bonus points because it is digital, or something?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-30-2009, 03:41 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
Saying crap like this is why a lot of us don't appear to like you, btw.

In other words: The "Not surprising you'd miss that, though." was unnecessary.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 03:45 PM:

Pretty arrogant to assume that VHS is the only tape format ever invented along with beta and reel-to-reel. Pros don't have access to anything better than that, right?

If you never dealt with Betacam, Digibeta, et al, you never should've responded to my post.

I specifically said tape was a better choice over optical disks for PROFESSIONALS. I pity professionals that used VHS.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 11-30-2009, 03:52 PM:

quote: Julio Roberto
If you are interested in 3D playback at home, you may want to hold on the purchase of a blu-ray player 'til next Christmas, when the 3D models are expected.

With prices of basic decent players reaching the $130 mark, I don't think holding off on a purchase just because 3D might be around the corner is a wise choice.

Even if I bought into the idea that 3D is going to be huge (I don't), the low price of admission right now means that there isn't much of a reason to hold off for the "next upcoming thing."

Buy an LG or Panasonic player for $130, get a Netflix membership, and start enjoying HD movies now! Even if 3D does become a huge phenomenon on Blu-ray in the next year so, how many movies will actually be available in 3D?

If every mainstream 3D movie ever made was released immediately, that would total up to, what, a 100 or so movies? I fail to see why people would spend any extra on the display or the player to gain the ability to play so few 3D movies. It would have to be a no-cost add-on to gain a reasonable market share that would justify the release of catalog 3D titles, and even then, I have a hard time imagining it.

Maybe it's my limited imagination getting in the way, but I've never been accused of having a limited imagination... [Smile]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-30-2009, 03:53 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
BTW, editing posts after I reply to them are why you piss me off practically every time you post.

I didn't do that at all. I was editing it while you were making your reply. If I had edited it afterward, there'd be a message saying that I edited it.

And again, it's arguable that DVD vs VHS is a bigger overall improvement than Blu-Ray vs DVD in that most of the improvements that happened just by virtue of being digital already happened with DVD. I'm referring to being able to switch chapters quickly, change sound formats on-the-fly, adding subtitles easily, easy use of extra-features, and similar. Arguably the only improvement on DVD to Blu-Ray is the picture with a slight improvement in sound.

edit:

quote: Karl Borowski
Pretty arrogant to assume that VHS is the only tape format ever invented along with beta and reel-to-reel.

Even if I were assuming that (which I wasn't), how would that make me arrogant? I simply misread your post. It was a combination of me glancing through the post too quickly and you talking one moment about professional stuff and another talking about VHS. My mistake.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 04:03 PM:

So, because you can jog around in a medium that is, by its very nature, linear, that makes it better?

I think *you* just argued that DVDs are better than 35mm.

There was a commercial here for an OnDemand service for a local cable provider here that had the line:

"Dude, you have gotta rewind that chase scene,"

to the projectionist up in the booth of a movie theatre, as a reason that movies on demand were better than their theatrical counterparts. . .

Edit @ Chris: I've had my back against the wall ever since I joined here. IDK if you guys were hazing me or what, but yeah, I am much more likely to be overly judgemental against a group of people that was instantly biased and judgemental against me than a group of people that were welcoming and friendly from the get-go.

If you made an honest mistake and mis-read my post i am sorry that I jumped all over you; I never did learn to develop that "thick skin" that others in this industry seem to have been born with.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-30-2009, 04:04 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
I don't know if I'm in the 1% or not...I haven't given both formats enough of a listen on suitable equipment.

I just ask because of previous comments by you that say you could probably tell the difference between a high quality source recorded to high-resolution digital audio (say, 24-bit 96khz) and magnetic 70mm played for the first time, both on the same system and how dry an dull digital audio is compared to the wonderful warmth of magnetic sound. Magnetic audio is so warm that you'll never need a coat again.

If you can tell the difference between that and not the difference between lossy DVD audio and lossless Blu-ray audio (usually at a higher resolution), then something is wrong somewhere.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-30-2009, 04:17 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
So, because you can jog around in a medium that is, by its very nature, linear, that makes it better?

I think *you* just argued that DVDs are better than 35mm.

1) I didn't say that jogging around the movie alone made it better than VHS. VHS tapes don't have 5.1 sound, ability to add subtitles for my hard-of-hearing dad automatically, quickly go to extra features, etc.

2) Bringing up 35mm in this discussion ignores that we're talking about formats used for consumers. And saying that I think DVDs are better than 35mm ignores what I consider to be good enough quality for a big-screen (which DVDs definitely don't provide imo).

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2009, 05:02 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
I really really hate when people use their comments to support their own personal predicaments rather than common sense.

Karl: You're just being stupid, or a troll...I'm not sure which. Chris already replied to you with much of what I would say, but in additon:

You don't know me and you don't know my lifestyle. For your information, I've never rented a DVD in my life, or a VHS either for that matter.

I was late jumping onto the DVD bandwagon because I have never been a big movie collector and didn't really feel the need to own too many. Nowadays I probably have around 100 movies because I've bought my favorites. The rest of my DVDs are TV shows, which I happen to like to collect. I'm not a renter, I'm a buyer. I don't have an ounce of regret over what I have bought, because I see no need to "upgrade" 95% of it, so I don't know where you come off saying I'm justifying my purchases with my comments here.

As for common sense, when it comes to video, a lot of my comments here are from a business standpoint because I work in a store where we sell CDs, DVDs and some stereo equipment. When I predict that Blu-Ray is never going to be the blockbuster that DVD was, I'm sorry you disagree with me but I'll pretty much guarantee that I'm right on this issue and I'll back that up with about 40 years of experience in the audio/video software retail marketplace.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-30-2009, 05:49 PM:

The ONLY things DVD offered were compact size, longer running times per side (eventually) and (also eventually) a lower price. All of the other features already existed on LaserDisc, which most people ignored. Well, I guess there is the menu, but I never really considered that a plus.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-30-2009, 06:10 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
DVDs became commercially available in late 1997, early 1998, depending on your geographic location.

Actually early to late '97. I purchased DVDs at Ken Crane's store on Beach Blvd (?) in Ocean County in mid-March of 1997 while out there on a business trip to Paramount. We had a pre-release screening of "The Saint" with Val Kilmer in a screening room which is how I remember the date. Howard Stern's movie was just about to open as well. Warner DVD titles were just about to be released to the "selected markets".

quote: Karl Borowski
HD is the first step FORWARD in quality since 16mm film

Really? I would have thought maybe Techinicolor or VistaVision or 70mm or Cinerama... or something... might have competed!

Karl - lighten up. You are comparing "pro" formats with consumer formats and that's not relevant to the discussion. We all understand it's your opinion that the leap from DVD to HD/Blu-ray is a more significant improvement than VHS to DVD. I go in the column that disagrees with you...I will still watch DVD when BR is not available (can't upconvert to my TV either) but it pains me to put in a VHS tape.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2009, 06:11 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
All of the other features already existed on LaserDisc, which most people ignored.

I think with Laserdisc, the timing was just bad. I remember we had a couple of those in the store, and the first thing people would ask was "Can it record?" because they were still all fascinated with the VHS recording capability and timeshifting, etc. This was before renting movies became such a big deal. When they found out they could only BUY movies, they turned their attention right back to the tape machines.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-30-2009, 06:16 PM:

Mike -

I bought my first LD player in the summer of 1981 - a Pioneer VP1000. Many factors worked against the format including the running time limitation, size of the disc, manufacturing defects, the helicopter sound that the CLV disc inevitably made while trying desperately (and as often as not unsuccessfully) to correct for disc warpage, etc. After a few years they worked out a lot of the bugs just in time for laser rot to start showing up.

Anyone remember "dead sides"?

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-30-2009, 06:34 PM:

Joe and I are in complete agreement on something for once.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2009, 06:40 PM:

Joe and Joe - remember Pioneer's name for Laserdisk? They called it "DiscOVision." I had a feeling that format would be a goner based on that name alone, considering the "disco era" had such a bad name by the early '80s!

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-30-2009, 06:48 PM:

Mike:

Actually that was Magnavox and Universal's idea...MCA DiscoVision - and the "dead sides" I was referring to were unique to the MCA product. Here's what they were:

The original "DiscoVision" discs only ran up to 30 minutes per side. In those days, based on the length of a movie, you might end up with an odd number of sides. This also occurred though with less frequency after the introduction of one-hour CLV discs. Since the disc had to be a certain thickness to meet the specs the solution was to sandwich the odd side with a random side of whatever was available - and then shellac over it to make it unreadable. With very little glass cleaner and even less patience you could remove the covering and see what treasure might be hidden there.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 11-30-2009, 07:13 PM:

Bob:

I had RCA Selectavision too. I almost forgot!

DVD had other advantages over VHS. A big plus was the way it reproduced color with barely a hint of the chromatic mess of VHS. Though an indirect benefit the reproductive quality of DVD was of sufficient improvement that the studios starting paying closer attention to the transfer and mastering processes which resulted in a much better product. Of course now Blu-ray is showing the limitations of some of those transfers!

You are right about store owners. They were reluctant to accept DVD. I had a few smart ones though.

I starting writing how I didn't think physical media would ever go completely away but then thought if I could "rent" any movie I wanted for $2 immediately and get comparable quality I would probably never buy another disc. Still it's many years before there is enough bandwidth for that. Even then is it likely the entire Hammer horror film catalog will be available at all times? You never know when you'll need a good Peter Cushing film!

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 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. . ."

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 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.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 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]

] 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!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-30-2009, 08:24 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
Yeah, it BOGGLES my mind too, LOL.

Mark Gulbrandsen is the only one here who thinks digital is better than film, and I'm not even sure if he really, truly believes that or not.

quote: Karl Borowski
Read up on archival standards before you want to have a go at me again

I should definitely do that... you sure schooled me!

quote:
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!

I do better than that with CD! I have CDs that have no perceivable errors in them more than 8 years after I have burned them. Silly me.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 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]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-30-2009, 08:45 PM:

Karl, if you're trying to beat Joe R. in the sarcasm department, you might as well just leave now. You have NO IDEA what you're up against. He wasn't even trying hard with that last post of his.

Next, you seem to think that everyone here is pro-digital everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. Try reading around the forum for a while and you'll see the (non-digital) light.

Finally, THIS particular discussion is about Blu-Ray, DVD, VHS and such; it has nothing to do with 35mm film or even digital cinema. So to draw comparisons between those different platforms and try to infer that us film people don't know (or appreciate) the differences is pointless for the purposes of this discussion.

By the way -- if you want to "master" the quote feature, here's how it works: Click the Quote button. Paste the text you want to quote between the two tags that appear. (It took me longer to type that than it did to master it.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 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. . .

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-30-2009, 09:18 PM:

quote: Karl Borowski
I only bring up 35mm as a reason why people should NOT be griping about tape's hassles.

And I would like to point out that saying "DVD has less hassles for the average consumer" isn't to be construed as griping. And arguing on things that DVD has that VHS never had (like 5.1 sound) isn't griping. It's comparing them.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-30-2009, 09:25 PM:

I've just been casually perusing this thread....you people are all crazy.

Well, Karl mostly, but he seems to have everyone else hypnotized. I was getting a migraine myself.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-01-2009, 12:06 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Click the Quote button. Paste the text you want to quote between the two tags that appear. (It took me longer to type that than it did to master it.)

I wondered how to do this myself...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-01-2009, 01:16 AM:

I always just type the [quote] tags myself, pasting relevant info in between them. The forum will parse the name itself most of the time, but sometimes you may need to do it yourself. You can simply type [quote=Bill Murray] or whatever and it will come up as being a quote from Bill Murray. Using the buttons is quicker than typing in theory, but it requires me to move my hand from the keyboard to the mouse which takes me longer.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 12-01-2009, 04:56 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
I've just been casually perusing this thread....you people are all crazy.

This is quite fun, actually. I could quote all day. Thanks for the shortcut info, Joe.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 12-01-2009, 10:46 AM:

quote:
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!

Really? At home? You do realize this is "The Afterlife" forum, don't you?

quote: Karl Borowski
If you crunched up a tape, it was YOUR FAULT

...or the idler arm assembly. Those things were always wearing out!

quote: Karl Borowski
You drop a DVD or mishandle it and it can get ruined.

Yeah, but more likely you can pick it up and be watching it in 30 seconds. Try THAT with a dropped film.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 12-01-2009, 01:35 PM:

I do not know how my original topic got so sidetracked but I would like to return to it by saying Costco is now discounting their discs. I originally purchased BATMAN, THE DARK KNIGHT on DVD the day it was released and wanted to double dip and buy the Blu Ray version when I got my player and a HDTV but the $29.95 price tag prevented me from doing that. I almost came close to paying that amount for it but my better sense prevailed and I bought something else. I finally bought it when the price dropped down to $19.95 at Walmart but wanted to kick myself when I saw it at Costco last night for $12.95. I saw all of the Harry Potter movies at the same price. My Costco store now has a special display of Warner Brothers BD titles and there are a lot of movies that has been priced less than $10.00 in addition to the slightly higher priced titles. Even Costco got on the $19.95 bandwagon for new releases. The nice thing I like about Costco about their pricing is there is no time limit. New releases are now $19.95 and will always stay that way and not like Target, Best Buy & Walmart who always raise their prices after a week.

-Claude

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-01-2009, 03:03 PM:

Joe T.: Forget it, I think Karl's been banned.

(By the way, I do remember that DiscoVision was an MCA trademark, not a Pioneer...thanks for straightening me out on that. Maybe I saw an ad for a Pioneer unit that had MCA disks featured in it, or something.)

Posted by Geena Phillips (Member # 3726) on 12-01-2009, 07:56 PM:

quote: Jake Spell
I bought Star Trek 2 disk digital copy on blue ray for 19.95 at wal-mart. Cheaper than the 2disk DVD version (21.95)

I found it for $16.77. Score!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-01-2009, 08:55 PM:

Amazon had Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (as well as a few other Trek movies) available for $7.99 for the better part of last week and over the weekend.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-01-2009, 10:03 PM:

I nabbed Full Metal Jacket for $7.99 from Amazon.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-01-2009, 10:29 PM:

Very nice. Hopefully you got the newer 50GB version with LPCM 5.1 audio. I paid $19.88 for my copy at Sam's Club in Feb. of 2008 (I had the receipt in the case). $7.99 is a great deal.

I'm waiting on Amazon to deliver low priced copies of Blazing Saddles, The Good The Bad & The Ugly and Monsters versus Aliens.

The Star Trek: Khan loves Corinthian Leather movie now costs over $20 at Amazon. Nice 300% jump from the Black Friday deals. Not to worry, the movie will be back down in the teens or even single digit price range before long.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-01-2009, 10:35 PM:

Yes, it is the green cover version. I avoided the white cover version as it is said that one is more like an upscaled DVD. I doubt that one is even offered any more.