So Summit Entertainment is now releasing their rental titles in Dolby Digital?

[davcole]

I thought RED might be an exception, now I find Breaking Dawn is in DD?

Is this their standard policy?

[The Duke]

Originally Posted by davcole

I thought RED might be an exception, now I find Breaking Dawn is in DD?

Is this their standard policy?

Depends on the release. Summit puts the retail version version on a BD50 with lossless audio & extras, and then crams it on a BD25 special rental version that often doesn't leave enough room for lossless audio or any extra features. But they were recently bought out by Lionsgate which doesn't do this nonsense of giving 'low lives' who dare to only rent a crapped down version, so hopefully they'll stop this BS.

[davcole]

Then I rented THE THREE MUSKATEERS (big mistake by the way) and it was in DTSMA 5.1?

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by davcole

Then I rented THE THREE MUSKATEERS (big mistake by the way) and it was in DTSMA 5.1?

I think Lionsgate is keeping the Summit label, but I could be wrong.

[scorpiontail60]

I hope they continue this policy. And even gimp their rental versions even more. Give 'em lower bitrates, I say. Cut out 5 minutes of the movie.

People who only rent ARE low lifes and are not helping this format at all.

[GenPion]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

I hope they continue this policy. And even gimp their rental versions even more. Give 'em lower bitrates, I say. Cut out 5 minutes of the movie.

People who only rent ARE low lifes and are not helping this format at all.

Yes, they are. Every time someone chooses to rent a Blu-ray over a DVD this is something that says that they prefer the higher quality format. It speaks loudly to the studios.

Not everyone has to be a massive movie collector. It's not for everyone. There are people who simply never want to re-watch films. Also, it's a bit much to call people names likes that over something silly like renting. I don't agree.

[scorpiontail60]

Renting Blu-rays or DVDs doesn't make studios shit.

Home video would not exist if there were only renters. Renters are leeches. Buyers are the reason Blu-ray exists.

[svenge]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Renting Blu-rays or DVDs doesn't make studios shit.

Home video would not exist if there were only renters. Renters are leeches. Buyers are the reason Blu-ray exists.

You have a seriously myopic view of the past. The entire first half of the history of home video was based on a rental-centric business model. Only in the mid-90s did sell-through revenues exceed rental revenue for the studios. But then again, since you presumably weren't born by that point in history, it wouldn't matter to you anyhow.

The reason that Blu-ray exists is because the underlying technology had advanced far enough to create a format in HD, which would give consumers a reason to repurchase old content, albeit in a much higher quality. That, and the patents for DVD were eventually going to expire and the hardware for it was essentially a minimally-profitable commodity by the mid-00s.

One last thing: Where do rental shops and kiosks get their product from? Do they conjure it up by some kind of magic? No, they buy it from the studios (or at retail in the case of some kiosks). The studios get their cut at that point, and due to the First Sale Doctrine the studios have no further rights or expectations towards said rentals.

[The Duke]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Renting Blu-rays or DVDs doesn't make studios shit.

Home video would not exist if there were only renters. Renters are leeches. Buyers are the reason Blu-ray exists.

Blu-ray is the best format yet for rental with the scratch proof coating. I like to think I have a decent collection, but the vast majority of films - especially newer releases - are watch once and thank thank you, once was more than enough. For example, I rented Red from Summit through Netflix instead of buying, thankfully - as I have zero interest in ever seeing it again.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

I hope they continue this policy. And even gimp their rental versions even more. Give 'em lower bitrates, I say. Cut out 5 minutes of the movie.

People who only rent ARE low lifes and are not helping this format at all.

Please, keep up the wisdom.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

I hope they continue this policy. And even gimp their rental versions even more. Give 'em lower bitrates, I say. Cut out 5 minutes of the movie.

People who only rent ARE low lifes and are not helping this format at all.

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Renting Blu-rays or DVDs doesn't make studios shit.

Home video would not exist if there were only renters. Renters are leeches. Buyers are the reason Blu-ray exists.

It could be worse: just imagine a world were so-called music lovers were all Taylor Swift fans. THAT would destroy real music, no doubt.

[davcole]

I have close to 100 Blurays in my collection. I don't apologize for the occasional rental.

[scorpiontail60]

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

It could be worse: just imagine a world were so-called music lovers were all Taylor Swift fans. THAT would destroy real music, no doubt.

Imagine a world like that? I don't have to. I already live in that world, and it is glorious.

Taylor Swift was the highest earning music artist last year after topping every possible music chart and winning so many different awards she requires a separate Wikipedia article just to list them all.

Maybe one day you'll grow up and join the rest of us in reality when you realize there's a reason why Taylor Swift is the top artist and whatever generic metal band you listen to remains in the niche. There's a reason why shouting generic violent lyrics and thrashing instruments together so loudly they drown out the vocalist's shouting (because it sure as hell isn't singing) isn't considered "real music."

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by The Duke

Blu-ray is the best format yet for rental with the scratch proof coating. I like to think I have a decent collection, but the vast majority of films - especially newer releases - are watch once and thank thank you, once was more than enough. For example, I rented Red from Summit through Netflix instead of buying, thankfully - as I have zero interest in ever seeing it again.

I felt the same way until I found it new at Blockbuster with slipcover and lossless audio for $9.99 several months ago.

[Benchman]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Imagine a world like that? I don't have to. I already live in that world, and it is glorious.

Taylor Swift was the highest earning music artist last year after topping every possible music chart and winning so many different awards she requires a separate Wikipedia article just to list them all.

Maybe one day you'll grow up and join the rest of us in reality when you realize there's a reason why Taylor Swift is the top artist and whatever generic metal band you listen to remains in the niche. There's a reason why shouting generic violent lyrics and thrashing instruments together so loudly they drown out the vocalist's shouting (because it sure as hell isn't singing) isn't considered "real music."

Are you a 13 year old girl? She is talented, but it sounds like you're exaggerating.

[scorpiontail60]

Do you live under a rock? Taylor Swift's success is so high it requires no exaggeration.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Imagine a world like that? I don't have to. I already live in that world, and it is glorious.

Taylor Swift was the highest earning music artist last year after topping every possible music chart and winning so many different awards she requires a separate Wikipedia article just to list them all.

Maybe one day you'll grow up and join the rest of us in reality when you realize there's a reason why Taylor Swift is the top artist and whatever generic metal band you listen to remains in the niche. There's a reason why shouting generic violent lyrics and thrashing instruments together so loudly they drown out the vocalist's shouting (because it sure as hell isn't singing) isn't considered "real music."

the mere fact that she's insanely popular means she's mediocre at best. the masses DON'T like quality. that's pretty much a guarantee. most of the real talent and skill lies in Indie stuff

[scorpiontail60]

Originally Posted by wormraper

the mere fact that she's insanely popular means she's mediocre at best. the masses DON'T like quality. that's pretty much a guarantee. most of the real talent and skill lies in Indie stuff

Spoken like a true hipster.

[Roy Batty]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Imagine a world like that? I don't have to. I already live in that world, and it is glorious.

Taylor Swift was the highest earning music artist last year after topping every possible music chart and winning so many different awards she requires a separate Wikipedia article just to list them all.

Maybe one day you'll grow up and join the rest of us in reality when you realize there's a reason why Taylor Swift is the top artist and whatever generic metal band you listen to remains in the niche. There's a reason why shouting generic violent lyrics and thrashing instruments together so loudly they drown out the vocalist's shouting (because it sure as hell isn't singing) isn't considered "real music."

Sorry, I was talking about MUSIC lovers, not about "success".

I am pretty sure "music" and "success" also have separate entries on the Wiki.

Anyway, I was just teasing. Funny to see how touchy you are on the subject!

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Taylor Swift's success is so high it requires no exaggeration.

Now THAT'S a gem.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Spoken like a true hipster.

he does look pretty hip