criterionforum.org

Will Criterion sit out this fight or will they dip their toes in the HD mess before the dust settles? Will I mix any more metaphors?

Anyway, I'd love to hear any info on this subject. How early did Criterion embrace DVDs?

Ted

When exactly does this fight start? -- At Xmas? With $1500 machines?

I'd wager it's a good while – after a good number of machines have been sold – before anyone other than the big studios will even bother (and, of course, the big studios will release ROCKY, SAHARA, THE PERFECT STORM, and STAR WARS before they get to anything meaty...)

What's *really* enjoyable about the DVD world at the moment is that folk are unearthing things that have never been released properly before.

I, for one, would not have any interest at all in re-purchasing all my Criterions again in a new format. I'm only interested in which new titles Criterion (and other companies) will get to next... screw starting again!

[To answer your question, didn't DVDs kickoff in 1997, and Criterion entered the fray in 1998?]

I wonder how they are gonna sell the new formats. With no visible enhancements for regular TV owners it's gonna be hard.

Like recent enhanced audio formats such as SACD, HDCD & DVD-Audio, it will be slow to take off at all... There will be a few high profile studio releases in the new formats with lots of a knobs on (but also probably backwards compatible to standard DVD-Video) but, as Nick says, we're not likely to rebuy all our Criterions et al. in new format...

Yeah those audio formats failed completely.

Starting over wouldn't be necessary, theoretically. DVDs will not be obsolete (i.e. they'll play on the new machines). Criterion could keep their current catalog in print and at some point start switch over to the new format as they continue to bring out new releases, re-releasing a few old titles as warranted. I think they'll wait and see whether it looks like one of the new technologies will replace the current DVD format; for now it looks like they won't.

SACD and DVD-audio failed to replace the CD, but they're successful as niches and they are an improvement. I've always thought CDs usually sound rather poor because of technological limitations. But as long as most people are perfectly happy with the way they sound, they probably won't be replaced. Anything that tries won't be anything more than a niche. Same thing will be the case with high definition DVDs, I predict, unless one of the new formats is successfully marketed to the mainstream as a significant improvement.

Gregory wrote:I've always thought CDs usually sound rather poor because of technological limitations.

I'm stupid for even getting into this but people complaining about poor technical quality on CD's don't know what they're talking about. It's amazing that rumors and myths from the 80's still exist.

The whole HIFI "scene" is so riddled with people who can apparently hear the grass grow but have absolutely no technical background.

Sorry for getting off topic.

I'm stupid for even getting into this...

Sorry for getting off topic.

Then why post it? You know next-to-nothing about my background or knowledge. There's a clearly perceptible advantage, for example, to a 24 bit signal over a 16 bit signal if the recording is mastered right and is played back on a proper system. But this is of no concern to most people who listen mostly to rock/pop/etc. that needs less dynamic range and who probably wouldn't notice it anyway (look at all the people who are satisfied with MP3). And most people showed little interest in paying $20-25 for SACD and DVD-audio discs. I was simply making an analogy to show that technical improvement is not enough to make a new format successful.

To get back on topic-ish ... now that Synapse has announced their dip into the world of HD-DVD (late 2005/early 2006, according to web site), it'll be interesting to see how many others follow suit. Synapse has been doing HD transfers for a while, so it should be pretty easy to re-release them ... the question will be at what price point, and that'll be the question for Criterion too.

In the long term, the major difference between SACD and HD-DVD is that we're all more likely to have high-resolution TVs than high-end audio systems in a few years. Also, the major advances in storage on HD-DVD potentially allow for as-yet-unthought of killer app.

DDillaman wrote:In the long term, the major difference between SACD and HD-DVD is that we're all more likely to have high-resolution TVs than high-end audio systems in a few years.

Good point. Still, I think the cost of the hardware (and to a lesser extent the cost of the discs) will also influence what catches on and when. Toshiba is planning to market an HD-DVD player in the 4th quarter of this year for a list price of (if I'm not mistaken) $995, and the prices will probably drop from then on. Blu-Ray players are still looking extremely expensive.

Gregory wrote:Then why post it?

Because as I said I'm stupid.

Gregory wrote:You know next-to-nothing about my background or knowledge.

No, but I seldom guess wrong. People who actually know and understand the theory behind digital signal processing, usually don't go around knocking the technical quality of CD's.

Gregory wrote:There's a clearly perceptible advantage, for example, to a 24 bit signal over a 16 bit signal if the recording is mastered right and is played back on a proper system.

Oh there's a difference alright but I can't hear it and I bet most people wouldn't be able to distinguish between CD and SACD in a blind-test. That is why these new audio formats failed. People can't hear a difference so why should they invest money in new systems.

The Invunche wrote:I bet most people wouldn't be able to distinguish between CD and SACD in a blind-test. That is why these new audio formats failed. People can't hear a difference so why should they invest money in new systems.

That was precisely my point (although I would say that blindfold tests can't tell us everything because not all qualities of improved listening are things people are instantly and consciously aware of). But even if they don't achieve mainstream success the newer technologies can be successfully marketed to those who can appreciate the subtle improvements (with additional sales from consumers who just want to have the latest thing without necessarily understanding the improvements or being able to use their equipment properly to fully realize them).
Criterion was slow to switch to anamorphic transfers and they'll probably take awhile to decide what to do about new formats, but I could easily see Criterion having an interest in eventually marketing to that segment of DVD buyers that would genuinely appreciate the improvements.

I think another factor in the Hi Def war no one talks about is the films themselves. While I would love to see "Lawrence of Arabia" and "The Matrix" in Hi Def, most films don't need such high quality. I mean, if you've seen "Kangaroo Jack" on VHS, your opinion will probably not change even if you see it in IMAX.

Classic films are good examples. While "The Seventh Seal" and "Citizen Kane" looked better on DVD than they ever did on VHS, I doubt Hi Def DVDs will make much of a difference. Also, the DVDs of the above-mentioned titles are already very good. I like the DVD format and, with a few notable exceptions, most of my favorite films on DVD are already great.

pzman84 wrote:Classic films are good examples. While "The Seventh Seal" and "Citizen Kane" looked better on DVD than they ever did on VHS, I doubt Hi Def DVDs will make much of a difference. Also, the DVDs of the above-mentioned titles are already very good. I like the DVD format and, with a few notable exceptions, most of my favorite films on DVD are already great.

While you won't catch me knocking these DVDs, I won't be happy until every crystal of exposed film is replicated in the color and shape the director intended audiences to see in a theater. I know it's impossible to perfectly recreate cinema in the home, but if HD gets us closer to that impossible perfection, then I'm all for it.

Personally, I don't plan to repurchase my DVD collection in the near future for a format that gives you minimal advantages for such a higher price. Still, HD or Blu-Ray is going to establish a niche market and I believe Criterion would be part of the leading technology since this is similar as the time they made the decision to produce laserdiscs in the VHS era and since their mission is to bring the best of cinema to the film audience. Criterion could even benefit if neither format take off as big companies expect to, because this could mean that they begin to reacquire some licenses like they had in their laserdisc days for cult or niche films from directors like Gilliam, Peckipah, Cronengberg, Herzog, etc. Maybe we could even see The Killer and Hard Boiled from Criterion on HD someday.

This is only speculation of mine based of what I read about both HD and Blu-Ray technology. Both innovations seem to expensive for the regular Joe consumer as they would have to buy several pieces of equipment (TV, sound system, films, cables, HD or Blu-Ray player) for them to see the improvement from DVD. People have to see big visual and memory improvements similar to what people saw in the improvements on the gaming system technology ( Atari to Nintendo to Super Nintendo to Nintendo 64 to Playstation ) for them to be convinced to spend big bucks in a new equipment. I just hope that companies don't force on consumers to buy either technology by discontinuing production of DVDs.

The problem is that the war may go on for a long time. Look at DVD-A vs. SACD: the format war killed both formats, and yet it still goes on -- even in their death rattle neither format will give up to give the other any kind of chance of survival.

It's true the the low level HD formats (mostly Blu-ray) will be used: by computer makers for backups, by PlayStation 3 for video games, etc. But whether they will ever take off in the video arena is far less clear.
The problems with HD adoption the way I see them are three fold:
1) The format war.
2) HDTV is a mostly North American phenomenon. Europe, which is the world's biggest (in dollar amounts) market doesn't have it at all. DVD on the other hand is very much a world-wide phenomenon.
3) Region coding/copy protection on DVDs are totally broken. Consumers will be very reluctant to switch to a format where their ability to do things they are accustomed to is taken away from them.

I just hope that companies don't force on consumers to buy either technology by discontinuing production of DVDs.

Not gonna happen. I never underestimate the stupidity of Hollywood/music industry execs, but every child knows that DVD is the goose that layed the golden egg, and even dumb as nails moguls won't kill it.

Related to that, I think that even if Criterion does take the HD plunge, they are going to keep producing DVDs as well and do dual releases.

Ted

We already have a similar thread debating the whole DVD v HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, but I can't believe that on a forum where people are so uptight about aspect ratio, quality of transfers (and begging gary for dvdbeaver comparisons), whether or not releases are anamorphic, etc, that people would seem to be so dismissive about the format upgrade. To me the response here sums it up...

Yes, I not only watched my least favorite Kubrick film on HDNet, I put my Barry Lyndon DVD in the DVD player and timed it to the broadcast so I could do an A/B test for comparative image quality. The difference to me appeared as great or greater than VHS to DVD, IE huge. This was shocking to me, as I had deluded myself into believing the results would not be great on my 36 inch television. I had assumed a projector would illustrate the benefit, but not a smaller screen. Since a high definition DVD could have better resolution better than the 1080i of broadcast, I am now reconsidering my DVD buying habits.

Is the gripe based solely on the consumer screw job of the format war? That is comparable to SACD and DVDA, but I have to imagine visual improvements will be vastly more recognizable than audio, esp to the layman. And really, audiophiles aren't exactly breeding up a storm (go to a record show if you don't believe me). Sure, not everyone will care, but it's not like that many people really care about all DVD has to offer, and plenty are happy to watch the full screen variations, but they still have DVD players because it's a keep up with the Joneses society. Plus, widescreen HD TV's are only going to get more affordable and commonplace.

Of course the initial pricing of the machines, and maybe the discs (although i somewhat doubt the latter will be much higher than DVDs) will be silly, the format war (based solely on both sides wanting to get paid for their concept, but from what this simpleton has read/understands, Blu-Ray appears to be the better of the two, although WB creates substantially better DVDs) is bad for everyone and things will take awhile to settle down, but how are folks here going to rationalize purchasing a lesser quality release?

Ben, I agree with most of your points, however:

Yes, I not only watched my least favorite Kubrick film on HDNet, I put my Barry Lyndon DVD in the DVD player and timed it to the broadcast so I could do an A/B test for comparative image quality.

This is a VERY bad comparison. Barry Lyndon is NOT ANAMORPHIC. All our friend has found out is that non-anamorphic DVDs absolutely suck when A/Bed vs. a full blown 16:9 enhanced image. (Heck, the quote doesn't even specify if he's using the remastered DVD -- he may still have the god-awful original transfer -- I know I do ).

If someone with good upscaling capable equipment does an A/B on a notoriously great transfer, say the superbit Fifth Element, then I will be much more interested, but frankly I suspect that the difference will not exactly be night and day.

My suspicion is that as with CD vs. DVD-A/SACD, DVD vs. HD, the biggest differences will be between a good and bad mastering jobs/transfers, not between the formats.

All that said, I'd love nothing better for the world to switch over tomorrow to Blu-ray, the problem is that given the the three points I made in my above post, I have doubts about when/if it is going to happen.

Ted

In addition to all the pertinent observations about how slow this new format is going to take off ---- not every company is going to turn into Criterion over night. Hardly any of them can master films properly for the current DVD format, let alone making new, restored HD-D5 masters of every film they release.

I wonder who'll have the balls to release an interlaced PAL betacam on Blu-Ray when the time comes? --- New Yorker? Tartan?

peerpee, this is exactly how I feel about this whole debacle. Most DVD companies - and this includes the Big Studios - don't aim to create proverbially great transfers. It helps that Columbia, Paramount and Warner now have excellent film preservtion programs, but all too often, when it comes to films over thirty years old, the best elements are used, or are not given any digital loving care. Warner are the exception, of course.

The situation becomes worse when it comes to the smaller, independant companies. Leaving aside Anchor Bay, Blue Underground, Synapse and of course, Criterion, these companies don't have the resources or money to create great transfers. Yet, they hold or acquire the rights to some of the greatest films ever made. I'm thinking of compaines like Facets in the USA and Artificial Eye here in the UK. These two are reallty hit or miss and their prices are very high - how are they going to handle HD-DVD and Blu-Ray? Have you seen the transfer on Art Eye's DVD of Tarkovsky's, Nostalghia? Fucking awful. Yet their new Week End disc is excellent.

Criterion, I'm not too worried about. Some of the earlier transfers aren't grade-A, but the current standards are awesome.

The bottom line is that unless the film was shot eight months ago or, if it is an 'old' film, a new IP was made from the restored neg and was digitally refurbished, then the HD format isn't going to do a lot of good. If anything, it would reveal the weakness of a poor element, ie. excessive grain, scratches, colour-imbalances, flickering, etc. And how do silent films figure in all of this?

HD formats will be great for the latest DTS 8.1 surround sound glitzy, whiz-bang pseudo-epics, but for films like Pepe le Moko and Secret Honor, it isn't going to make much of difference over standard DVD. And if it means paying $59.98 SRP for a single disc Criterion, you can count me out.

This sucks. Just another way for the big corporations to get you to buy more crap. I don't think it will catch that quick because there hasn't been enough time between the release of dvds and these. One reason that dvds caught on was because VHS( there was laserdisc but it didn't catch on with the general public) was the only format around for a long time, notwithstanding the release of all things digital.

This was an article out of a recent MacWorld Magazine:

Top Sony exec hints at Blu-ray, HD-DVD detente
By Paul Kallender, IDG News Service


After more than a year of touting Blu-ray as the best technology to replace DVD for storing high-definition video and winning proponents including Apple, a top executive at Sony Corp., one of Blu-ray's major backers, has opened the door to the possibility of unifying the format with its arch rival, HD-DVD.


"Listening to the voice of the consumers, having two rival formats is disappointing and we haven't totally given up on the possibility of integration or compromise," Ryoji Chubachi, Sony's president-elect, said at a news conference Thursday in which he discussed the company's performance and future strategy.


The statement may surprise backers of the rival camps, who have assembled consortiums of major electronics companies, disc makers and Hollywood studios to promote the formats in a battle that echoes one fought a quarter of a century ago between Betamax and VHS.


HD-DVD backers, which include NEC Corp. and Toshiba Corp., say HD-DVDs can be produced for about the same price as DVDs and are backward-compatible with DVDs and CDs, making the format more convenient for both consumers and the industry. HD-DVD movie titles, PC drives and players are all due out by the end of the year.


Sony has steadfastly promoted Blu-ray as a technology that has greater capacity, saying this makes the format more useful because more content can be stored on a disc. The technology also has wider support in the technology industry, although release dates for movie titles have not yet been announced.


Chubachi's comments mark the second time that a Sony executive has signalled the possibility of a compromise between the two camps. In January, Ken Kutaragi, executive deputy president of Sony, said a format war was not in the public interest and that Sony had not ruled out the possibility of uniting the formats.


As Sony's future president, Chubachi's remarks Tuesday may carry more weight. Currently head of Sony's electronic components and manufacturing businesses, he will replace Kunitake Ando as Sony president on June 22 following the recent shake-up of Sony's top management. That shake-up saw Kutaragi step down from Sony's board, although he still heads its important gaming business.


Kutaragi also admitted in January that Sony, by supporting its proprietary audio encoding system and not the widely-supported MP3 format, had lost ground to competitors such as Apple Computer Inc. in the portable music player market, which Sony had once dominated with the Walkman.


While Sony's technological and engineering base is sound, the company must ensure that its products are aligned with the wants of consumers, Chubachi said on Tuesday. Sony's engineers have traditionally been regarded within the company as heroes and the creators of new markets, but recently their ideas have not always led to products that matched consumers' needs, he said.

I think the format is doomed to a light-to-moderate adoption (say, 5-15%), and I would be sorry to see Criterion go all-aboard on the new format(s) and end up even more of a niche product than they currently are. That said, I think it would be swell if Criterion did simultaneous releases of all new products on a higher-quality format without spending too much effort going back and filling in the gaps. It would be a shame if Sony led the industry into yet another format war (they seem always to be the clearest culprit, since they always insist on their own format rather than adopting something the industry can agree on), and I think it's too soon for a new format anyhow (40GB is not a significant enough improvement, and they should really spend more effort hammering out a much better UI, a much more flexible encoding format (variable resolution and aspect ratios would be a start--no DVD should waste bits encoding black bars on any portion of the image), and a superior way of integrating the media (a single disc that is designed to be capable of containing a film or set of videos, and a hi-rez music album, with special features that can be played audio-only on an audio player or with video, etc. would be a start)).

Jun-Dai wrote:.....and they should really spend more effort hammering out a much more flexible encoding format (variable resolution and aspect ratios would be a start--no DVD should waste bits encoding black bars on any portion of the image)

That's a very good point but the pessimist in me says it wont happen in the foreseeable future. And it's so silly cause the technological changes would only be in the player. TV sets could stay the same.

From industry rag Video Business re: Jill Hamburger (no relation to Neil), Best Buy's VP of movies, videogames and toys...

For example, she favors the introduction of a new high-definition format: "We need a product featuring new technology to bring price points back up," she says.