|
Author
|
Topic: Great Piece about the Illusion of Preservation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Thompson Scott
Film God
Posts: 3063
From: Gt. Clifton,Cumbria,England
Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted March 06, 2012 03:38 AM
well, I don't think the public at large think so,Blu-Ray isn't selling
as they thought it would or they woulndn,t be "pairing up"
releases where you buy both dvd & blu ray,if that isn't kiddologr
I don't know what is.Remember this is the public that watch
films on mobile 'phones,so they ain't falling for the blu-ray hype
big tme.As for better quality,whats the point if it doesn't last,
which was the point of the article.All these boffins have sat down and given you a medium that is dubious at best as regards longevity.I personally watch normal dvd on a 42"
HD TV and picture and sound seem ok to me,if I require better
definition I can always sit further back from the screen at no
extra cost.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted March 06, 2012 01:24 PM
I don't have a problem with digital restoration ...
as long as, once the film has been digitally restored, to have a master 35MM or 70MM, (depending on the original film guage) print made of the film in question, and at least a few prints, to store in various locations around the world.
For instance, if they make only one 35MM master of "Gone With The Wind" and store in down in L.A. Hollywood, and the long expected "earthquake" happens, sliding Hollywood into the ocean ... BING! There goes that one of a kind master on 35MM!
One thing is for certain ...
If stored properly, film will exist long after you and I are a compost heap. The very fact that actual film prints exist fromj over a hundred years ago to the very beginnings of motion picture film, proves that, and with the extra care that we now take with our films, the lifespan of film can be much longer ...
while digital storage can be as short a time as a few years, and there are so many variables that the article didn't even mention. For instance ... say you store your master on a good hard drive, lets say a powerful magnet is left too close to that hard drive for too long. BOING! Hey! Where did that master material go? There are too many other possible corruptions of digital materail to mention.
Film, on the other hand, is a far more permanent storage "device", and while it can be affected as well, it is not so easily defiled by time or circumstance!
Heck, our own collections can speak to that! I have color prints of films from over 60 years ago, and yet, they still look as colorful abd beautiful as they did upon being printed! I'm sure that many of you could say the same!
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted March 06, 2012 03:40 PM
For goodness sake, blu-ray isn't some kind of marketing con.
I accept that maybe you do need bigger screen sizes to fully appreciate it (even that is debatable), but when done properly, in my view, it is the closest thing to watching a prisitine 16mm print at home, plus you have the "bonus" of exceptional sound quality.
True it costs a bit to achieve this, but when you add up the cost of many 16mm prints (or even 8mm prints), the value soon becomes comparable.
Don't get me wrong, I love film and the "look" of film and am a total die-hard film nut, but blu-ray is simply one of the best formats yet with which to watch movies at home. It leaves DVD in the dust. Fact.
Downloading will be the death of blu-ray. It is convenient and the masses will be happy with it. It is HD ( ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ), so why bother with discs anymore.
Except Claus is right...compression.
Blu-ray quality is far superior to anything the internet can yet provide in an instant, or semi-instant form. But that won't deter anyone. MP3 is the worst form of "music" compression available; and I use "music" loosely as MP3 is barely even music anymore.
But MP3 downloads rule. They saw off DVD-Audio before it even started (the closest quality we ever got to vinyl). And of course everyone knows CD was better than vinyl... ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Now that WAS a marketing con!
True, other high quality music downloads are available (CD quality and "studio quality", which is up there with DVD-Audio), but they are hard to find and expensive. Don't get me wrong, if movie downloads become available at true blu-ray quality then I don't mind, in-fact I like the idea.
Sadly though, I think the market will be dominated by HD streaming / compressed HD movies which will satisfy the masses but have quality aficionados tearing their hair out.
As essentially home theatre buffs (c'mon guys, we invented home theatre BEFORE it became popular!) we should be embracing blu-ray, because if we don't, we'll lose a thouroughly decent format before it has a chance...and be left with compressed en-masse rubbish.
As for digital storage, well, things move very fast. The beauty of digital storage is that it is increasing cheap, so you can make and store multiple copies...and re-make copies every few years to preserve and at reasonable cost.
Digital isn't all bad...not yet anyway.
It's a dangerous thing to form opinions about stuff before you've actually seen it in action...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006
|
posted March 07, 2012 11:18 AM
Rob,
I couldn't agree more.
I am already thinking ahead to which classic films (from Criterion and such) to get on BR while they are still available.
I am getting tired of always being in a "footrace" with technologies that I like, and that, seemingly inevitably, never hang on. SACD, now BR....it's always the best-quality stuff that is sacrificed in favor of mass distribution.
If we could have both, that would be fine, but to kill the "top end" formats every time just because "not enough people care" isn't doing quality-conscious people any favors.
I know, I know, it's all about money....
Claus.
--------------------
"Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
