Ask questions to Sony Pictures Entertainment insider "paidgeek"

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Does 2.0 mean that your player will bitstream DTS-HD MA? Nope. and the fact that a 1.1 profile player could have features like this that aren't required in the 2.0 spec just makes it more confusing.

How come that is confusing, but making sure you have a receiver than can decode it, is not?

The problem is not the inclusion/exclusion. It's the lack of general understanding about what the heck all this stuff means.

xvYCC != deep colour
HDMI 1.3 != HDMI 1.3a
Local decoding to LPCM != Bitstream
24p != 2:3 pulldown

Exactly where do you draw the line? And don't you risk stifling innovation if the cry is "stop confusing us with features we aren't sure about"?

If you really want bitstream DTS-HD MA, why can't you check for it on the player AND receiver?

Gary

[Azumi]

Originally Posted by LFletcher

Hi Paidgeek,
Can you comment on the recent Sony release of Welcome To The Jungle in the UK (aka The Rundown in the US) which was the cut version of the film (I believe this was the rated 12 version shown in UK cinemas) rather than uncut rated 15 version that Sony released on DVD in the UK?

Do you know if the other global releases of this film (Germany, France, Australia, etc) will be uncut?

Thanks

Unless things go terribly wrong, videos are never censored in France.

Germany has a legislation preventing films deemed insuitable to minors from being displayed or advertised in stores. The law allows them to be legally sold behind the counter -- although I'm not sure if all video companies make separate versions. This means that publishers can voluntarily trim movies and make specific versions that will be displayed in stores. UK and Germany may sometimes share the same SKUs for this very reason.

France has no such limitations. Stores are free to display titles with 12, 16 or even 18 ratings -- as long as it's not porn. Video ratings are usually identical to the theatrical ratings (where films aren't being cut), and so there's no need for video companies to trim or make specific versions. Occasionally, a store may refuse to carry a Saw movie, but it's a company policy and consumers can easily buy it elsewhere.

Ratings may be given differently than in other parts of the world. Horror and sexy movies usually have quite liberal ratings, while films dealing with drugs, religion and social unrest can easily be hit with a 16.

Long story short, as long as the video company didn't make a TERRIBLE mistake, France is the country where everything is uncut.

I have no idea about Australia. They had their own video nasties in the old days, but things have certainly changed since then.

[depooter]

Originally Posted by paidgeek

We will release almost everything that comes out new on DVD on Blu-ray.

I wish that included Southland Tales

[TwisTz]

Originally Posted by depooter

I wish that included Southland Tales

Agreed. Although I didn't understand it at all...

[milou6]

Finding the balance between options and general understanding is not easy. The fact that you are using sql in your post means you are certainly not the average consumer
My good friend didn't understand how to get DTS to play back on his high-end system years ago -- he just kept pressing "dts" on his receiver's remote. Now we have a wholesale change to HD in both audio and video, PLUS networking.

PAIDGEEK: I like the brochure A Simple Guide to the World of High Definition Home Theater and Blu-Ray Disc that came with my free 3-pack of BDs (recent promotion at Best Buy when you buy an HDTV). I think it does a very good job of explaining HD to average users. Is this an example of what's to come in terms of consumer education? Was this a joint effort by the studios and Sony?

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

How come that is confusing, but making sure you have a receiver than can decode it, is not?

The problem is not the inclusion/exclusion. It's the lack of general understanding about what the heck all this stuff means.

xvYCC != deep colour
HDMI 1.3 != HDMI 1.3a
Local decoding to LPCM != Bitstream
24p != 2:3 pulldown

Exactly where do you draw the line? And don't you risk stifling innovation if the cry is "stop confusing us with features we aren't sure about"?

If you really want bitstream DTS-HD MA, why can't you check for it on the player AND receiver?

Gary

[DaViD Boulet]

How come that is confusing, but making sure you have a receiver than can decode it, is not?

The problem is not the inclusion/exclusion. It's the lack of general understanding about what the heck all this stuff means.

xvYCC != deep colour
HDMI 1.3 != HDMI 1.3a
Local decoding to LPCM != Bitstream
24p != 2:3 pulldown

Exactly where do you draw the line? And don't you risk stifling innovation if the cry is "stop confusing us with features we aren't sure about"?

If you really want bitstream DTS-HD MA, why can't you check for it on the player AND receiver?

Gary

Gary,

Honestly now. Nothing I've said has anything to do with holding back innovation. Please stop playing that debate card as though it has any connection with my discussion, because it doesn't.

I'm just staying that all BD players should be required to perform to the full BD specification and provide the full featurset of BD spec-software (profile 1.1 and 2.0) so that consumers can buy any BD player safely without having to get out a white-paper on the BD format and spend hours in threads like this to figure out if the player that they're buying has the features that they ultimately will want. Most average folks don't have a clue what "profile 2.0" is... but the minute they buy that AVP Fox Blu-ray Disc with the BD-Live game and they try to access and can't because their player wan't BD-Live capable, they'll learn the hard way that BD hardware is all over the map in terms of spec-compliance despite the hundreds of dollars that they paid in good faith to get a player that they assumed was capable of doing everything that BD does.

That's not about holding back innovation. It's simply about selling hardware that atually does everything that the BD spec *already has* so that consumers won't have to learn the hard way. If content providers and hardware manufacturers want to go above and beyond the BD 2.0 spec and provide new features (like 3-D encoding) that's fantastic. But I fail to see how the logic of mandating that the minimum level of profile 2.0 be required is anti-innovation versus letting hardware be sold that provides a reduced level of spec compliance.

No consumer should be required to take on the task of format-education necessary that the BDA seems to require if you don't want to waste your money. Consumers learn about features like PIP and web-access AFTER they get the player home and start to play with the software: expecting consumers to learn these details before-hand is unrealistic and a shortcoming of the BDA's approach. All HD DVD players provided PIP and web-access out of the box. So should Blu-ray Disc players. PERIOD.

As to your point about the added confusion of features and specs in audio receivers: of course that's confusing. But that's because a receiver is a *** FORMAT INDEPENDENT *** device that is designed to handle a wide-range of audio signals from a wide range of sources and media types. That may be a source of confusion and it may be worth discussing, but it has no bearing on whether FORMAT HARDWARE like BD players (which is what we're specifically talking about) should or shouldn't be designed to perform to the full format-specification. It's Blu-ray Disc hardware that we're talking about folks spending cash on and *adopting*, not receiver hardware. That's also an important conversation, but it's a different conversation.

[djOS]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Gary,

Honestly now. Nothing I've said has anything to do with holding back innovation. Please stop playing that debate card as though it has any connection with my discussion, because it doesn't.

I'm just staying that all BD players should be required to perform to the full BD specification and provide the full featurset of BD spec-software (profile 1.1 and 2.0) so that consumers can buy any BD player safely without having to get out a white-paper on the BD format and spend hours in threads like this to figure out if the player that they're buying has the features that they ultimately will want. Most average folks don't have a clue what "profile 2.0" is... but the minute they buy that AVP Fox Blu-ray Disc with the BD-Live game and they try to access and can't because their player wan't BD-Live capable, they'll learn the hard way that BD hardware is all over the map in terms of spec-compliance despite the hundreds of dollars that they paid in good faith to get a player that they assumed was capable of doing everything that BD does.

That's not about holding back innovation. It's simply about selling hardware that atually does everything that the BD spec *already has* so that consumers won't have to learn the hard way. If content providers and hardware manufacturers want to go above and beyond the BD 2.0 spec and provide new features (like 3-D encoding) that's fantastic. But I fail to see how the logic of mandating that the minimum level of profile 2.0 be required is anti-innovation versus letting hardware be sold that provides a reduced level of spec compliance.

No consumer should be required to take on the task of format-education necessary that the BDA seems to require if you don't want to waste your money. Consumers learn about features like PIP and web-access AFTER they get the player home and start to play with the software: expecting consumers to learn these details before-hand is unrealistic and a shortcoming of the BDA's approach. All HD DVD players provided PIP and web-access out of the box. So should Blu-ray Disc players. PERIOD.

As to your point about the added confusion of features and specs in audio receivers: of course that's confusing. But that's because a receiver is a *** FORMAT INDEPENDENT *** device that is designed to handle a wide-range of audio signals from a wide range of sources and media types. That may be a source of confusion and it may be worth discussing, but it has no bearing on whether FORMAT HARDWARE like BD players (which is what we're specifically talking about) should or shouldn't be designed to perform to the full format-specification. It's Blu-ray Disc hardware that we're talking about folks spending cash on and *adopting*, not receiver hardware. That's also an important conversation, but it's a different conversation.

I Agree 100%!!!

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

No, the manufacturer should always reserve the right to build and sell players with the features they deem worthy of certain pricepoints they want to achieve or, levels of value they want to attain.

I agree 100%. People need to start looking at profiles as features. The higher you go the more features you get. Any piece of electronics (or just about anything consumable) does exactly this.

[Highjinx]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

I agree 100%. People need to start looking at profiles as features. The higher you go the more features you get. Any piece of electronics (or just about anything consumable) does exactly this.

Absolutely.......simply buy a player with the features you need for your specific purpose. If one wishes fully featured one for your main viewing area and a basic one for movie watching only, say like a bed room, at a cheaper price.

[eChopper]

Paidgeek

phenomenal transfer on Seven Years In Tibet

if only they all could be that good

cheers

[WriteSimply]

Let's move away hardware discussion from this thread as paidgeek is an SPHE employee. I blame newbies for this.

Discuss it in Penton's thread. I think he's got enough clout to get your voices heard via a Post-It note.


fuad

[4K2K]

Would it be possible for all movie studios to NOT put trailers before movie discs that people buy (instead of rent)?

Would it be possible you to be able to select which trailer you want to view instead, and for standard definition titles on anamorphic discs, would it be possible for all the trailers on there to also be anamorphic (instead of some which are cropped 4:3 widescreen and that appear postage stamp size in the middle of the screen).

[FourToedStatue]

HI paidgeek,

There are rumors that the studios may double dip previous release to include BD-Live extras. If Sony were to do this would it be introduced like Fifth Element where the previous was discontinued or would it be a double dip proper and have both versions on sale?

[onyxx]

Paidgeek,

In the old insiders thread we had a little discussion regarding the Seinfeld collection on BD. You said that it was being under consideration and that you would give us more info in due time. Myself and others have held back on purchasing the DVD collection in hope that a BD collection might be on the horizon, could you give us any updates on the matter? Should we wait a little longer or should we give it up and get the DVD?

Thanks for looking out...

[Icemage]

Just a friendly reminder that the insider threads aren't the place to be asking about unannounced titles.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by depooter

I wish that included Southland Tales

Southland Tales
Goya's Ghosts
Angel-A
Revolver
Tootsie SE
Groundhog Day SE
Gabriel

Just a few that have been passed up by Sony lately for some reason. Goya's Ghosts is surprising given the director (Milos Forman) and the actors involved. Angel-A is Luc Besson's, Revolver is Guy Ritchie.

But on the flipside Sony is not even in the same universe as Fox when it comes to disappointing with lack of releases. The list goes on and on when it comes to the day-and-date titles they've passed over in the last year. I hope we see a better effort on this going forward.

[Ian_S]

Well I finally got round to seeing CE3K yesterday. I think SPE have done a fine job with it. From a Blu-ray point of view I thought there was nothing much to criticise. Colours looked excellent in general and even the special effects held up well. The final part with the larger spaceship looked quite impressive even when compared to todays effects IMO.

The only issues I could see looked like ones inherent in the film itself. Odd focus in places where some parts of a scene looked very sharp and others sometimes near the edges weren't. The worst part for me was when they were in that truck figuring out that the numbers were infact longitudes...

Sound was excellent too, not the flat lifeless presentation you can get with some older films. OK it will never have the same kick as a brand new track, but the best compliment you can pay is that to me I didn't feel as though I was watching a 30 year old film.

On the whole I thought it was an excellent effort and it's great to see some of these films in such good condition.

I don't know about others but I think stuff like this will become slow burners if you like. HD introduces new ways to enjoy old classics and I think once people get past the initial desire for perfect modern discs, interest in older films will grow.

[cjamescook]

Originally Posted by Ian_S

Well I finally got round to seeing CE3K yesterday. I think SPE have done a fine job with it. ...

...

I don't know about others but I think stuff like this will become slow burners if you like. HD introduces new ways to enjoy old classics and I think once people get past the initial desire for perfect modern discs, interest in older films will grow.

Paidgeek-

Is there anything that (talented?) individuals can do to get restored old catalog title released on blu-ray? I don't mean just requesting, advocating, or buying. I mean actively assisting with restoration, compute cycles, etc.

My understanding is that to restore a film means it must be re-scanned. Big budget restorations would probably make a new print from the negative if the first digital interpositive is not adquate (or do you just scan the negative?). But isn't the next step some serious compute time to apply various correction algorithms, frame-by-frame, or manpower-intensive frame-by-frame interactive (human required) dust, dirt, and scratch removal?

Restoration of some films will never make economic sense. But for some fans, the labor of love will far outweigh the time they spend.

Thanks,
-Jim

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by onyxx

Paidgeek,

In the old insiders thread we had a little discussion regarding the Seinfeld collection on BD. You said that it was being under consideration and that you would give us more info in due time. Myself and others have held back on purchasing the DVD collection in hope that a BD collection might be on the horizon, could you give us any updates on the matter? Should we wait a little longer or should we give it up and get the DVD?

Thanks for looking out...

I couldn't hold back

However, I'm sure I'd go ahead and double dip for a BD release.
Just get rid of the canned laughter Paidgeek!!! Make it so.
(surely it can't be that difficult to at least make it an audio option to not listen to the canned laughter)

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

But on the flipside Sony is not even in the same universe as Fox when it comes to disappointing with lack of releases. The list goes on and on when it comes to the day-and-date titles they've passed over in the last year. I hope we see a better effort on this going forward.

How is this any different from DVD?

Gary