Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Insomniac01

I'm sorry the government isn't the one responsible, if this is indeed the case the teachers are responsible as they are failing at there job. Anyway lets get this way back on topic.

Looks like your teacher failed you.

[RyanPom]

Lol.

[Insomniac01]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

Looks like your teacher failed you.

Boo hiss. Do you care to add to the actual topic or is pointing out grammar and spelling mistakes what you fell constitutes a clever retort?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Red Dragon

I own over 1,800 DVDs...

My blu count is 1,200, but most of those are new films and television shows. In other words, I only 'upgraded' (repurchased titles on blu-ray that I already owned on DVD), about 20% (or roughly 350 to 360 titles). If 4K comes out, takes the world by storm and literally is the next big thing in the marketplace, I'll probably 'upgrade' about 10% of my blu-rays (if the quality and content warrant such action). So I figure I'll repurchase only about 150 films, at most. Newer additions will either be 4K, blu-ray or DVD depending on the circumstances surrounding each film. The rest of my original film library will remain either on DVD or blu-ray.

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my situation being a cinephile sometimes requires and certainly invites double and even triple dips with regard to film.

And just because i'm that much of an obsessive-compulsive zany cinephile ...here's a quick list of the first 106 films I'd most probably get in glorious 4K...

1.) "Blade Runner"

2.) "Apocalypse Now"

3.) "2001: A Space Odyssey"

4.) "A Clockwork Orange"

5.) "Full Metal Jacket"

6.) "The Godfather"

7.) "The Godfather: Part II"

8.) "Pulp Fiction"

9.) "Kill Bill Vol. I"

10.) "Kill Bill Vol. II"

11.) "Inglorious Basterds"

12.) "Django Unchained"

13.) "Sin City"

14.) "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring"

15.) "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"

16.) "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King"

17.) "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

18.) "Jaws"

19.) "Schindler's List"

20.) "Saving Private Ryan"

21.) "Psycho"

22.) "Ghost in the Shell"

23.) "Grave of the Fireflies"

24.) "Akira"

25.) "Battle Royale"

26.) "Batman Begins"

27.) "The Dark Knight"

28.) "The Dark Knight Rises"

29.) "Watchmen"

30.) "Avalon"

31.) "Alien"

32.) "Aliens"

32.) "Alien 3"

33.) "Blackhawk Down"

34.) "Fight Club"

35.) "SE7EN"

36.) "Do the Right Thing"

37.) "Citizen Kane"

38.) "Face/Off"

39.) "Donnie Darko"

40.) "Gladiator"

41.) "Goodfellas"

42.) "Inception"

43.) "12 Monkeys"

42.) "Seven Samurai"

43.) "The Matrix"

44.) "The Matrix Reloaded"

45.) "The Matrix Revolutions"

46.) "The Terminator"

47.) "Terminator 2: Judgement Day"

48.) "Titanic"

49.) "13 Assassins"

50.) "To Live and Die in L.A."

51.) "Three Kings"

52.) "A Fist Full of Dollars"

53.) "For a Few Dollars More"

54.) "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly"

55.) "Moulin Rouge!"

56.) "Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance"

57.) "Oldboy"

58.) "Sympathy For Lady Vengeance"

59.) "Rashomon"

60.) "Sanjuro"

61.) "Unbreakable"

62.) "Versus"

63.) "The White Ribbon"

64.) "Funny Games" (Original)

65.) "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me"

66.) "The Exorcist"

67.) "The Ninth Configuration"

68.) "Red Cliff: Part I"

69.) "Red Cliff: Part II"

70.) "Eraserhead"

71.) "The Shining"

72.) "Eyes Wide Shut"

73.) "Taxi Driver"

74.) "Lost Highway"

74.) "Mulhulland Dr."

75.) "Blue Velvet"

76.) "Reservoir Dogs"

77.) "Revolver"

78.) "A Scanner Darkly"

79.) "Salo -or- The 120 Days of Sodom"

80.) "Brotherhood of the Wolf"

81.) "The Killer"

82.) "Strange Days"

83.) "City of God"

84.) "Antichrist"

85.) "Melancholia"

86.) "Metropolis"

87.) "M"

88.) "Triumph of the Will"

89.) "Martyrs"

90.) "American Beauty"

91.) "Lawrence of Arabia"

92.) "Frankenstein"

93.) "Bride of Frankenstein"

94.) "King Kong" (original)

95.) "King Kong" (Peter Jackson)

96.) "Thirst"

97.) "Midnight Cowboy"

98.) "The Thing" (John Carpenter)

99.) "The Fly" (David Cronenberg)

100.) "Harold and Maude"

101.) "The Gold Rush"

102.) "City Lights"

103.) "The Great Dictator"

104.) "Chungking Express"

105.) "Godzilla/Gojira" (original)

106.) "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"

Originally Posted by Insomniac01

Such amazing presumptions you are able to make. Sadly for you they are nothing more then presumptions.




This is the same thing countless people said about dvd. I will be with the best quality format that is consumer friendly. For now that is blu-ray, but that will change.

He is right. Can't remember the last time I saw a teenager just sit and read a book or engage in dialogue. They have become slaves to their mobiles. They even sleep with them. They also can't just do one thing. Some would say they are good multitaskers, I would say that they are the first indication that our future youths are going to be twitchy, nervous people who are constantly under pressure due to their (correct use of word, are you impressed guys?) self-imposed social prison.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Canada

I can see myself going for downloads maybe the generation after the next on but our internet in North America is pitiful next to practically every other place in the world.

When one looks at REAL WORLD averages (third column) here there is no one place that stands out. My plan is "Up to 10 Mbps" and that is what most speed test show but my real world speeds are in the 2 - 4 Mbps range.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

When one looks at REAL WORLD averages (third column) here there is no one place that stands out. My plan is "Up to 10 Mbps" and that is what most speed test show but my real world speeds are in the 2 - 4 Mbps range.

I believe I read some where that Korea has higher internet speeds North America.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Insomniac01

Such amazing presumptions you are able to make. Sadly for you they are nothing more then presumptions.


This is the same thing countless people said about dvd. I will be with the best quality format that is consumer friendly. For now that is blu-ray, but that will change.

And what exactly is your counterpoint to my presumptions?

I'm not saying that it can't/won't get better than what Blu-Ray currently has to offer. But once we do get to 4k or 8k, how much better can it get beyond that without requiring everybody to have 100+ inch screens in their homes? Heck, how much better can it really get even with screens that big? At some point things will look so realistic and life-like that there won't be any further to go.

Additionally the other part of the issue is people's willingness to buy into another format. I am on the fence about it myself. My knee-jerk reaction is that I really don't want to start all over again, but that's how I felt about Blu-Ray and (when it was still around) HD-DVD at one point, and here I am now with a collection of almost 600 Blu-Rays, so I may change my tune if the quality is enough of an improvement and if there is a physical media option.

But that being said, while Blu-Ray as a format is doing well enough overall, continues to grow, and is relatively mainstream, it has not had the same level of success as DVD. By the time DVD was as old as Blu-Ray is now, VHS was pretty much extinct. By contrast, DVD is still around going relatively strong overall. There is still a lot of content (mainly older TV show content) that only comes out on DVD and not Blu-Ray. And Blu-Ray has had to "lean on" DVD by way of combo packs to convince people to buy into it.

Also, while Blu-Ray is doing well, look at what is happening with a lot of catalog titles. Big studios are licensing them out in bulk to the likes of Mill Creek and Echo Bridge to sell at rock bottom prices that in many cases were sold at $20 each when first released on DVD. The problem is repurchase fatigue. While enthusiasts are more likely to double, triple and quadruple dip and beyond, the general public is only willing to rebuy the same movie on a new format so many times.

Some people assume that downloading and streaming is why Blu-Ray hasn't had the same level of saturation that DVD had at it's height, but the real competition are the DVDs already sitting on people's shelves. People might be willing to rebuy big blockbuster films and a few of their personal favorites, but you aren't going to get large volumes of people rushing to buy "Straight Talk" starring Dolly Parton for the 4th or 5th time for better picture and sound.

Whether a new format is physical or digitally distributed, the issue is getting people to buy again what they already have in some form.

The problem with technology lately, particularly home theater/entertainment technology is the need to not only upgrade the movie format, but your TV and everything as well.

When DVD first came out, while there were some TVs that could take better advantage of it than others, for the most part the advantages of the format compared to VHS could be very much enjoyed without having to upgrade everything else. With Blu-Ray, the need to have an HD TV and a better sound system was much, much greater. Then they came out with 3D, requiring a futher TV upgrade. Now we are looking at 4k and possibly 8k. Expecting people to upgrade every piece of equipment and all of their media (or as much of it as is released in a new format) every few years is crazy! And I expect the drop off from format to format to continue. People would be more likely to buy into a new format in a big way if there was a much larger gap of time between them.

And they are moving so quickly that I think the are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Once they get people to buy a new TV, they are immediately thinking about how to get people to buy another one as soon as possible. So they keep upgrading things faster and faster, but going back to my earlier point, one we get to 4k and 8k, how much better can it really get? How much farther can it go before we max things out or where any further "improvement" is negligible?

[mredman]

i don't see that there will ever be only downloading because studios will lose millions of dollars on the homevideo market. Because if there is only downloads you can bet your ass that MOST people will obtain the copies of the movies illegally. Not many is gonna download them legally.

Blu Ray is here to stay because studios makes millions of dollars on them

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by mredman

i don't see that there will ever be only downloading because studios will lose millions of dollars on the homevideo market. Because if there is only downloads you can bet your ass that MOST people will obtain the copies of the movies illegally. Not many is gonna download them legally.

Blu Ray is here to stay because studios makes millions of dollars on them

I can see a time when things get so bad that there will be spotify style service where we have access to movies at bog standard HD (more like dvd) for say £14.99 per month. Never own, just stream. If Internet is down, no film night. Film will be lost as an art form and become a cheap and nasty commodity.

[Geoff D]

For all of my moaning in the 4K release thread about Sony not bringing their 4K download service to Europe, I think I'll skip it altogether when it finally does arrive because I'm in for 4K BD, no question, and I don't want to be spending loadsamoney on two bits of hardware that will be ultimately be doing the same thing.

That said, hopefully they'll posit 4K discs as an extension to BD instead of a brand new system, so they won't be able to get away with resetting the price of the hardware to several hundred pounds/dollars/quatloos/whatever.

[laie_techie]

I will follow the same strategy for UHD as I did for BD. As equipment wears out, I will purchase the best I can afford without going to the cutting or bleeding edge. I will wait for any potential bugs to work themselves out first. I have replaced very few DVDs with BDs, and doubt I'll replace more than 25% of my BDs with newer physical media. I am excited for 4K and 8K for theaters. If they get affordable enough, I may even invite them into my home.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by macfan

+1

As a retired teacher I can tell you I saw this all the time among my students. Now that education in the US has become nothing more than teaching to the test students don't know how to think for them selves. They can parrot back memorized answers to a standardized test but have no idea how to apply any of what passes today for knowledge. Our government is educating today's students to become following sheep. Trust me big business is just salivating at this as are political parties. This is also why today's young people go crazy if they aren't fiddling with their cell phone or have ear buds jammed in their ears. They have to be stimulated. They can't sit still for 5 minutes. Reading a good book would kill them.

I hope you didn't teach English or writing because your paragraph needs a lot of copy editing.

Your implication is that the Federal government is responsible for educating students. But aside from setting some standards and doing some funding, the Federal government has nothing to do with it - schools are run locally. That's how schools in the south can get away with teaching Creationism as science.

While I agree that there's too much "teaching to the test" in order to pass the flood of standardized tests, I believe it's possible to do both in the classroom: teach to the test AND teach students how to think. There are plenty of great schools in this country. In New York City, there's Brooklyn Tech, Stuyvesant and the Bronx High School of Science, all of which are public high schools that do a great job, but there are also great schools throughout the country. There's a site that rates high schools, but I don't remember the URL.

Having said that, there are also plenty of lousy schools and many of those lousy schools are expensive private schools.

If you demand more of kids, they'll accomplish more. One of the problems is that parents just want their kids to be happy and teachers are completely frustrated with the generally poor pay and disrespect for the profession in this country.

Another problem is that we're essentially still teaching kids the same way we did a hundred years ago: a classroom with desks with up to 40 kids staring at a teacher giving a lecture. And rather than teaching how different subject matter interacts, we still teach each subject separately as if they have no relationship to each other.

It seems to me that a teacher has to make the case to students that they have a choice: they can do the minimal work they can get away with and have a life working in WalMart or McDonald's (if even those jobs are available) or they can work their butts off in order to get a scholarship to a decent college (since no one who isn't rich can afford college anymore, especially a private college) which is the only path to a decent life in the U.S. and even that's difficult unless one majors in a field in which there are still plenty of jobs available (like engineering).

As for big business, they most certainly do not want sheep. They want creative, dynamic, aggressive people who contribute to "shareholder value". I've been an executive at three major conglomerates and I've consulted at many others. The only people who get hired these days are people who have the potential to add to the bottom line. And the government wants people to be smart enough to create new businesses and be job creators because GNP is not going to increase without that and because most new jobs are coming from smaller companies.

[mvfragnito]

I wouldn't mind the death of optical disc but as it is now (itunes, vudu, amazon, etc.) you just lose some things by going digital. Special features and AV quality not quite there are probably the biggest ones, but i think the not much talked about problem with streaming is...

You are purchasing NOT the movie, but the DIGITAL RIGHTS to watch it. and that can be taken away without warning. which has happened to me with Apple numerous times. if the studio takes it down you can't watch it unless you have downloaded it onto your computer's hard drive. Which sucks when the biggest advantage of streaming is storing your movies in the cloud. Hard drive space becomes an issue as I have purchased over 100 movies on itunes. Recently I have lost Annie Hall and Carrie only weeks after purchasing and now they are only available to rent. Apple said that I need to back up my purchases and if i want to watch those 2 movies I needed to pay AGAIN to rent... this is ridiculous... Their movies take seconds to play from the cloud but sometimes multiple hours to download and take up too much space. I have noticed too when a sequel or another movie with the same actor or new blu-ray comes out, the movie you purchased will go to rent only for a few months and you can't watch a movie you purchased (Happened with Jurassic Park, and when a new will farrell movie came out my Talledega NIghts purchase disappeared for 2 months) and then they will magically appear back into your purchased cloud on apple tv without notice

and then special features... itunes extras still can't play on apple tv... and you have to download them and can only watch on a computer. and only prometheus I've purchased has had a commentary track and I had to listen to it on my computer. wtf...

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by mvfragnito

I wouldn't mind the death of optical disc but as it is now (itunes, vudu, amazon, etc.) you just lose some things by going digital. Special features and AV quality not quite there are probably the biggest ones, but i think the not much talked about problem with streaming is...

You are purchasing NOT the movie, but the DIGITAL RIGHTS to watch it. and that can be taken away without warning. which has happened to me with Apple numerous times. if the studio takes it down you can't watch it unless you have downloaded it onto your computer's hard drive. Which sucks when the biggest advantage of streaming is storing your movies in the cloud. Hard drive space becomes an issue as I have purchased over 100 movies on itunes. Recently I have lost Annie Hall and Carrie only weeks after purchasing and now they are only available to rent. Apple said that I need to back up my purchases and if i want to watch those 2 movies I needed to pay AGAIN to rent... this is ridiculous... Their movies take seconds to play from the cloud but sometimes multiple hours to download and take up too much space. I have noticed too when a sequel or another movie with the same actor or new blu-ray comes out, the movie you purchased will go to rent only for a few months and you can't watch a movie you purchased (Happened with Jurassic Park, and when a new will farrell movie came out my Talledega NIghts purchase disappeared for 2 months) and then they will magically appear back into your purchased cloud on apple tv without notice

and then special features... itunes extras still can't play on apple tv... and you have to download them and can only watch on a computer. and only prometheus I've purchased has had a commentary track and I had to listen to it on my computer. wtf...

Yup, that is all a big problem with digital. Particularly the incompatibility of movies bought from different services even once downloaded. In a round-about way it's like having several formats ala Blu-Ray and HD-DVD or VHS and Beta. And as far as I know, not all services necessarily get all movies, so you are almost forced to go between multiple sources. It would be once thing if all movies from all services were equally compatible and the difference between buying from one or the other would be no different than buying a Blu-Ray from Amazon, Best Buy, or Walmart (either way you are getting the same Blu-Ray), but it's not that simple.

And still hard drive space would be an issue. Since digital music files are so small, it is a lot easier to back them up. But for movies it is much more difficult.

This is just a few of the issues with digital distribution.

Others include obtaining out of print movies. If a movie on DVD or Blu-Ray goes out of print, you could always go to ebay and the like. You may pay a lot for it depending on how rare it is, but at least you have an option to obtain it. If a movie is removed from a download service, people who already bought it will still have it, but there will be little to no options for those who want to get it later on.

[fredreed]

I don't think that many of us will be getting I to 4K anytime soon since its so expensive right now and 4K TVs are really expensive right now. Since this technology is relatively new I think that it will be a few years before we even to use this technology. I still buy certain movies on DVD only because they are only available on the format. But if they are only on blu ray then I will buy only that format.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

This is just a few of the issues with digital distribution.

You are to kind

IIRC, the following has been on the UV site for a year or more:

UltraViolet Players are new, launching as “beta” so UltraViolet services can test and improve them in real-world conditions. During the UltraViolet Players beta, not all UltraViolet movies and TV shows will have UltraViolet Files available. Note that your service provider may offer other download formats for players that don’t support UltraViolet Files, but these proprietary downloads won’t work on UltraViolet Players and can’t be copied from player to player

Does anyone know of a UV hardware player that will play UV downloaded files (PCs with UV software players don't count)? Have the UV boys released the CFF yet?

And no, I really don't care even tho I have about 35 UV titles. IMO, UV is dead at the gate

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

You are to kind

IIRC, the following has been on the UV site for a year or more:



Does anyone know of a UV hardware player that will play UV downloaded files (PCs with UV software players don't count)? Have the UV boys released the CFF yet?

And no, I really don't care even tho I have about 35 UV titles. IMO, UV is dead at the gate

They do not yet exist.

[Space Ace]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I hope you didn't teach English or writing because your paragraph needs a lot of copy editing.

Your implication is that the Federal government is responsible for educating students. But aside from setting some standards and doing some funding, the Federal government has nothing to do with it - schools are run locally. That's how schools in the south can get away with teaching Creationism as science.

While I agree that there's too much "teaching to the test" in order to pass the flood of standardized tests, I believe it's possible to do both in the classroom: teach to the test AND teach students how to think. There are plenty of great schools in this country. In New York City, there's Brooklyn Tech, Stuyvesant and the Bronx High School of Science, all of which are public high schools that do a great job, but there are also great schools throughout the country. There's a site that rates high schools, but I don't remember the URL.

Having said that, there are also plenty of lousy schools and many of those lousy schools are expensive private schools.

If you demand more of kids, they'll accomplish more. One of the problems is that parents just want their kids to be happy and teachers are completely frustrated with the generally poor pay and disrespect for the profession in this country.

Another problem is that we're essentially still teaching kids the same way we did a hundred years ago: a classroom with desks with up to 40 kids staring at a teacher giving a lecture. And rather than teaching how different subject matter interacts, we still teach each subject separately as if they have no relationship to each other.

It seems to me that a teacher has to make the case to students that they have a choice: they can do the minimal work they can get away with and have a life working in WalMart or McDonald's (if even those jobs are available) or they can work their butts off in order to get a scholarship to a decent college (since no one who isn't rich can afford college anymore, especially a private college) which is the only path to a decent life in the U.S. and even that's difficult unless one majors in a field in which there are still plenty of jobs available (like engineering).

As for big business, they most certainly do not want sheep. They want creative, dynamic, aggressive people who contribute to "shareholder value". I've been an executive at three major conglomerates and I've consulted at many others. The only people who get hired these days are people who have the potential to add to the bottom line. And the government wants people to be smart enough to create new businesses and be job creators because GNP is not going to increase without that and because most new jobs are coming from smaller companies.

Nerd.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by TCsabres006

REALLY?!!? We're not even at 4k yet and theyre already going to be filing in 8k? That means 4k will be obsolete when that comes out. This is nuts!

Technically not. 35mm maxes out at around 4-5K resolution (with the exception of IMAX and 70mm), so the only films that will benefit form 8K are new films and ones mentioned above. There could be technology, however, that will up-res 35mm or 1080p-shot films to give them more pixels so they will benefit form higher resolutions.

[Buffalo66]

I think 8K will be in the far future. 4K BD's should be a dream come true for cinephiles who wants their home cinema to match going to the movies.

Skickat från min GT-I9505 med Tapatalk 4