Reviewers recommend buying non-eye-candy films on DVD even if you have BD

[Grubert]

I've always appreciated dvdbeaver, because they reviewed a lot of arthouse and non-mainstream titles. But really, what they said on a recent BD review (King of California) was really

I made a comments in my article about the new formats that I would only consider re-purchasing films I own on SD that would benefit the most from a hi-def upgrade (or new stuff to review). Since I liked this film quite a lot but don't feel it deserves a hi-def transfer, then I strongly recommend the SD version . [...]

NOTE: We realize the Blu-ray and HD are only a few dollars more, so that may influence your decision to 'upgrade'.

I can understand not rebuying on HDM a title you already have, but passing up the hidef version of a title you don't have yet?

Look at it this way: if you went to the movies and you have the option of paying watching the movie for $7 on a film print or $5 on a projected DVD, what would you choose? Even if it was a low-budget indie film, it makes no sense.

[docjan_uk]

That's the reviewers opinion.

[Maxell]

I enjoy drama and comedy on blu-ray as much as the popcorn flicks.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by docjan_uk

That's the reviewers opinion.

The reviewer is Gary Tooze, the owner of dvdbeaver.

[Fozziwig]

This is what he said about the video quality:

Video:

I don't *think* I've seen a First Look Pictures high-definition transfer before. Firstly, I'll say that I am not over-the-moon about it. It looks acceptable but for such a modern film I was expecting more in terms of image quality. Now the cinematography doesn't really support the 1080p resolution - there are no awe-inspiring vistas or intricate details presented - to give reason for a VC-1 encode transfer. Colors seem quite strong but the film has a darkness to it making the final presentation look kind of thick on hi-def DVD. It does look better than SD but not immensely so in my opinion.

So the BD looks better, yet he doesn't recommend buying the best transfer.

I thought DVD Beaver was about recommending the best available transfer. I don't remember price being an issue before. New versions of DVD titles are often double the cost of the previous release, so is he saying buy the cheap version unless the upgrade is 'immensely' better?

I hope the studios do not consult Gary Tooze before making a decision on a Blu-ray release.

Edit: Seems Gary may be a teensy bit of a HD DVD fan:

I have a soft spot for HD as they seem to be the underdog in many people’s eyes - it is region free as well that I expect more arthouse and foreign film titles will be released if HD ends up ‘winning’....

But he's no RDjam!

As a film fan my goal is to experience as close to theatrical viewing as possible and both formats give us vast superiority over SD in that area. I wouldn’t be totally unhappy if Blu-ray started to flourish as long as it remained at a sensible price point, for sales and production, and many titles continued to be offered (not just mainstream blockbusters and an occasional errant foreign/classic film). These really are my only two issues.


Finally, throw your hatred for Sony and/or Microsoft out the window and be a mercenary for your own pleasure and entertainment potential. The new formats are great folks and I think Hi-Def is here to stay – I love spending your money so embrace the future and ‘drink deep from the digital disc pool… or not at all.’ Right now either format will give you some jaw-dropping home theatre experiences and owning both will give you an unfettered choice of what is available in Hi-Def DVD.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/articl...ray-hd-dvd.htm

So he does like HiDef after all. Huzah!

[Cruyff14]

Originally Posted by Grubert

The reviewer is Gary Tooze, the owner of dvdbeaver.

So putting screencaps on a site is considered "reviewing" these days?

I remember Tooze from Usenet. He was an idiot then ...

[Blaumann]

Somehow this guy misses the point of movies on HiDef. If the movie was supposed to look like that in the theater, then it is also supposed to look like that on blu. What does he expect, that it suddenly, magically looks like a videogame or something?

Some reviewer, huh....

[TheTenth]

I thought that when I was a blu noob : hey, I'm only get those movies with lots of action, explosions, special effects, and not drama, comedies, old movies because it win't be worth it! but now I'm blu older and I know every emotion and film genre will allow you on blu to live it more completely

[mystiksuicide]

I disagree with him but at least he wasn't spewing hd dvd propaganda either.

[tvted]

In the times that I've been reading dvdbeaver throughout the "format war", like Fozziwig (and I recall that quote) I believe I sensed somewhat of a lean in the HD DVD direction. Mostly an impression - tone primarily - nothing concrete.

To me it makes little sense to buy the DVD version when there is an arguably better version available if you have the means and the equipment.

ted

[kiskiboy97]

the advanced audio (like the video) presentation is wasted on this fine, simple comedy.

He talks like there are limited supplies of high def transfers and Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks, like there might not be any more remaining by the time something he deems "worthy" is released. I've never read DVDBeaver, and I never will after this review.

[SpaceDog]

I'm way too much of a movie snob. Even if people find it difficult to discern BD quality when watching, surely they notice when they swap out for a DVD. It's not as bad as when I upgraded to DVD from VHS, but it's very noticeable.

I only rent SD-DVD. It's not worth owning anymore for new releases. I'll keep my library, at least until I replace some titles on BD.

[Sporty]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

I'm way too much of a movie snob. Even if people find it difficult to discern BD quality when watching, surely they notice when they swap out for a DVD. It's not as bad as when I upgraded to DVD from VHS, but it's very noticeable.

I only rent SD-DVD. It's not worth owning anymore for new releases. I'll keep my library, at least until I replace some titles on BD.

I agree with you. Hell, I can tell the difference between Comcast's HD movies and my BD collection. So I stopped buying DVDs last year and only get BDs now. I can't see how people don't notice the difference as that much better. Unless they use Composite connectors or something.

[haushausman]

I thought that way when BD first came out. Comedies don't really need to be HD... but then you go back to watching standard def. and I swear it hurts my eyes a little. You get used to seeing things clearly and want to keep it that way. I wouldn't rebuy a movie like Anchorman, but I'd never pass up the BD version.

On another but similar note: After being told by my father I'm wasting my money buying all these Blu-rays, and quote, "Just rent them.", I began to think and try to justify my crack-like addiction.

Here's what I came up with. To rent a Blu-ray from Blockbuster costs close to $7 nowadays. Buying Blu-rays through websites like Amazon I'm able to save money off the MSRP and pick up BDs on average for about $20. So to buy verse rent will cost you on the average $13 more. Well, BDs seem to keep their value very well and the average used BD on Ebay goes for around $12 or $13 bucks. Sell it and you break even verse renting.

I should of told him it is renting that is a waste of money. Sorry, had to get that off my chest and didn't think it deserved it's own thread.

[AllenA]

I must admit that I have plans on still buying DVD's. The blu-ray player was something that I didn't plan to get for another year or so (I'm a student living off of loans) however when the Sony BDP S300 fell to under $300 during Christmas I couldn't resist. I just don't have the money to spend $30 per movie. With that being said, I should also bring up the point that in the month I've had the Blu-Ray player, I've purchased 5 blu movies and not a single DVD. So we'll see if I actually do start buying DVD again.

[Rustmonsteru]

Hidef transfers provide so much more than a little a/v tweek. Youl'd think that someone who watches so much foreign cinema would relish the fantastic quality increase of subtitle visuals at least. Hey, it's opinion. No biggie.

[Grubert]

Spanish site zonadvd has put up a comparison page of Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. As you will know, this is as far from eye-candy as it gets: soft, grainy and low-contrast. Well, it is no contest, even with a lowly 1024x576 scaling.

Look at the shop signs, the strands of hair on Nicole Kidman's head, the frills on Sydney Pollack's shirt.

Of course, the low-light interior shots (NSFW) look flat, low-contrast and grainy.

[reiella]

He doesn't recommend spending the 6$ extra for an improvement to the picture quality that, in his opinion, doesn't add the 6$ or so worth of value.

[ add / edit ]
And I can understand that point of view, not one I follow personally.

If it's out on BD and I want it, I get it on BD. I personally would rather have them on BD.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by haushausman

Here's what I came up with. To rent a Blu-ray from Blockbuster costs close to $7 nowadays. Buying Blu-rays through websites like Amazon I'm able to save money off the MSRP and pick up BDs on average for about $20. So to buy verse rent will cost you on the average $13 more. Well, BDs seem to keep their value very well and the average used BD on Ebay goes for around $12 or $13 bucks. Sell it and you break even verse renting.

I should of told him it is renting that is a waste of money. Sorry, had to get that off my chest and didn't think it deserved it's own thread.

That's how I think about it..the hard coating on Blu-ray increases both the value and confidence of buying "used". Blu-ray discs will hold their value in the long term much better than DVD. For the few bucks difference on day and date releases it's a no brainer to get Blu. Catalogue titles I really want or in particular kids movies .. the durability pays back over time..

.. and of course you get better PQ and AQ the whole time as well.

[Thegide]

There are a lot of movies I buy because they are cheap. That is, titles that really wouldn't sell on me for $25-30 I'll pick up because they are $10 and I'm still a poor student.

While I love the crap out of BD, I'm not going to spend every last dollar I have just so I can have the HD version of movies I'll watch once or twice. I buy my must-haves on blu-ray. I'll splurge for the runners-up when Amazon is having a sale for these kinds of HD titles. Otherwise, there's a good chance I'll buy the DVD if its $10.