The Criterion Collection

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Reddington

...Also, I like smaller screens (40" is the sweet spot for me), which probably negate any perceived improvement in PQ.

I'm surprised you say that about 40" screens. Why?

Screen size was less than important for me until my SO and I determined we needed a "date night" setup for us adults because small kid(s) made going out difficult. So we bought a 63" plasma and a Blu-ray player.

I now find that I don't like small 40" screens. I find the larger screens to be more immersive, show more detail, and let the picture "breath".

What's the insight on your preference?

p.s. I'm 61.

[Snicket]

I just imported the blu ray of Wildlife. Criterion is now free to announce it, you are all welcome.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Not gonna bother selling my OOP Fallen Angels, Happy Together, Chungking, etc. It ain't a sure thing til I have the new disc in my hands and can confirm it bests the old disc.

(Plus what happens if I want to watch one of those between now and then? Stream it? Nah?)

True, but for investment purposes (not that I collect these strictly for their value), by the time you have the disc in your hand, the old blu-ray edition has lost most of its value. But yeah, I could see myself watching Chungking Express again sometime soon.

(also, a digital copy on your hard drive can help keep you satiated between each physical release too)

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

I'm surprised you say that about 40" screens. Why?

Screen size was less than important for me until my SO and I determined we needed a "date night" setup for us adults because small kid(s) made going out difficult. So we bought a 63" plasma and a Blu-ray player.

I now find that I don't like small 40" screens. I find the larger screens to be more immersive, show more detail, and let the picture "breath".

What's the insight on your preference?

p.s. I'm 61.

As much as I enjoy going to the cinema, when I watch films at home I want a more intimate experience. With a relatively small living room, I sit about eight feet away from the screen. I've had experience of larger screens from about the same distance at relatives/friends, but found that intimacy lacking. I like to have the entire screen within my field of vision at all times. I am particularly interested in cinematography and production design, and a 40" screen just seems to be the optimum size for my eyes/brain to fully absorb and enjoy what I am seeing as a whole.

[VideoHaze]

I just want Elephant to get a damn release by Criterion.
Most likely to never happen - but it would be so beautiful.

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

I'm surprised you say that about 40" screens. Why?

Screen size was less than important for me until my SO and I determined we needed a "date night" setup for us adults because small kid(s) made going out difficult. So we bought a 63" plasma and a Blu-ray player.

I now find that I don't like small 40" screens. I find the larger screens to be more immersive, show more detail, and let the picture "breath".

What's the insight on your preference?

p.s. I'm 61.

Originally Posted by Reddington

As much as I enjoy going to the cinema, when I watch films at home I want a more intimate experience. With a relatively small living room, I sit about eight feet away from the screen. I've had experience of larger screens from about the same distance at relatives/friends, but found that intimacy lacking. I like to have the entire screen within my field of vision at all times. I am particularly interested in cinematography and production design, and a 40" screen just seems to be the optimum size for my eyes/brain to fully absorb and enjoy what I am seeing as a whole.

To each his own. Me? I sit 6.5' from my 58" plasma. I wouldn't have it any other way. And I plan to replace it with a 65" 4K, keeping the same seating distance. I like to feel like I'm at the theater.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by regeyer

I sit 6.5' from my 58" plasma. I wouldn't have it any other way. And I plan to replace it with a 65" 4K, keeping the same seating distance.

So, you wouldn't have it any other way, but you plan to have it another way... ?

[bonehica]

Originally Posted by regeyer

To each his own. Me? I sit 6.5' from my 58" plasma. I wouldn't have it any other way. And I plan to replace it with a 65" 4K, keeping the same seating distance. I like to feel like I'm at the theater.

A little less than 7' for me with my 65" 4K as well. Love it!

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

So, you wouldn't have it any other way, but you plan to have it another way... ?

LOL. Nice point. The only reason I plan to go larger is to take advantage of the 4K resolution. PLus, most screens seem to go from 55" to 65", which means if I don't get a 65" screen I'd have to go smaller than what I have now.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by regeyer

LOL. Nice point. The only reason I plan to go larger is to take advantage of the 4K resolution. PLus, most screens seem to go from 55" to 65", which means if I don't get a 65" screen I'd have to go smaller than what I have now.

Fully understood. I was just razzing.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jw007

True, but for investment purposes (not that I collect these strictly for their value), by the time you have the disc in your hand, the old blu-ray edition has lost most of its value. But yeah, I could see myself watching Chungking Express again sometime soon.

(also, a digital copy on your hard drive can help keep you satiated between each physical release too)

If the WKW set happens, it could be another case like the Tati set where it's debatable which of the two transfers is superior. In most cases, yeah, I'd rather have the extra $$ in my pocket from selling the OOP. But I don't like to take chances with blu-ray's of my favorite films.

I've only sold one OOP that i can think of and it was only because I accidentally bought it twice anyway. I'm way too lazy to sell things, even slipcovers which I have zero use for.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

If the WKW set happens, it could be another case like the Tati set where it's debatable which of the two transfers is superior. In most cases, yeah, I'd rather have the extra $$ in my pocket from selling the OOP. But I don't like to take chances with blu-ray's of my favorite films.

I've only sold one OOP that i can think of and it was only because I accidentally bought it twice anyway. I'm way too lazy to sell things, even slipcovers which I have zero use for.

A few years back I was on a "mission" to buy every single Criterion that was out of print. I succeeded, with The Third Man being my final acquisition (I paid a pretty penny for that). I don't know what it is, but the words "limited" or "limited edition" always gets my blood pumping. I did the same thing a long time ago with collecting baseball and hockey cards. My "diehard completist" days are probably in the past, because its an expensive hobby (and I can't handle the clutter anymore), but man, its a real "high" whenever you stumble upon an out of print Criterion blu-ray tucked away in a dusty old Barnes & Noble (or some rare vinyl record you discover in a record store - though that's very uncommon now as most record shops always determine the price by researching online beforehand).

Anyway, that was a tangent... and glad you mentioned Jacque Tati, because I really like some of his films.

[SuperFlyHighGuy]

My late-to-the-party responses;

Criterion release of 2046 would be very welcome, been on my wish-list for ages it seems. Sublime film.

I watched Ugetsu for the first time last year and was hooked, it's really hung on my memory like a dark vision. Can't wait to revisit it.

I'm watching Valley of the Dolls for the second time tonight, a dream world to drift into, the camera works put me in the spirit role, an eye being turned to see former versions of myself if I'd lived in other bodies and cities and time, flung far and back.

[Bronson13]

Do you guys think that Criterion will just distribute A House that Jack Built on Blu-Ray considering all the controversy surrounding its release?

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by sc1957

For me (also age 61), a 40-inch screen fits the room where I have my TV. It fits nicely in a corner. Anything larger would require a major change in the way I have my house set up. I'd have to move a bunch of stuff around, and might have to move the TV to another room, which I won't do.

40 inches is fine... after all, I grew up watching a much smaller tube TV... 18 inches or less.

This really hits the nail on the head. I don't think you are alone. There are many houses that simply can't easily accommodate a large screen TV. That's why many people end up putting the TV over the fireplace. No offense to those who do, but that has to be the worst idea ever.

My parents have a small TV, probably 40" or thereabouts. They're fine with it. They don't need anything bigger. Most of the TV's in my house are 42" or smaller. That's because that's the largest that will conveniently fit. But, I have a 58" plasma in the basement Man Cave. And that's where I watch all my movies, and pretty much everything else.

[edmoney]

Originally Posted by regeyer

That's why many people end up putting the TV over the fireplace. No offense to those who do, but that has to be the worst idea ever.

Just curious ... why is that such a bad idea?

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Just curious ... why is that such a bad idea?

I can't imagine that the heat generated from the fire would be good for the TV.

[MifuneFan]

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Paris is Burning (1990) is now featured on Janus' main page

http://www.janusfilms.com/films/1913

[jordan-r]

https://twitter.com/janusfilms/statu...53132113825795

[regeyer]

Originally Posted by edmoney

Just curious ... why is that such a bad idea?

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I can't imagine that the heat generated from the fire would be good for the TV.

There is the issue of the heat of the fire, as well as smoke, but more importantly it's the viewing angle. Even with a mount that tilts you need to look up. That's not the ideal viewing angle. Not even close.