Do you think old film classics will be released on HiDef DVDs like they are on DVD?

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

I think the main question is: will everybody buy their movies again for the resolution?
I can understand that some people want LOTR or Star Wars in HD-dvd to have a great resolution on their screen, but will most people buy their usual dvd's back to get more resolution?
I don't want to, I already spent too much money on dvd's ;-)
And I think resolution isn't so very important.

But I do think HD-DVD will sell like DVD, I just don't think everybody will buy the older movies back, exept for the real freaks maybe.
I don't mean that in a hard way, the freak word.
But I know a dvd forum with people who have 8000 dvd's... most of them are around 1000 movies, some at 800... will they all sell it and/or buy those movies again?

[Barry Gribble]

Originally Posted by Mathieu Ghekiere

I think the main question is: will everybody buy their movies again for the resolution?

Good question, and I think the answer is probably not... but I'm sure that they will load the new discs up with new features and extras to try to tip the scales. I know of people who buy a DVD when it comes out, and then buy the "Special Edition" when it comes out also... not very many though.

That's why I think it will roll out like CDs. I knew very few people who bought CDs to replace all their LPs right away. People bought a few to replace their favorites and that was it. Eventually, though, they have replaced them all.

[Christopher C. Murphy]

Yi, I love your "end of story" comment. It's not the end of the story my friend..

You mean to tell me that the 500 MILLION people online can't figure out how to put a shiny disc into a DVD player? Come on dude...

Millions upon millions of people are tech savvy enough to GEEK there way online. I'd have to say that behind the automobile the computer is the second most complicated piece of technology that 90% of the free world has to figure out. Actually, after the initial learning curve on the auto...it's smooth sailing. However, computers and "DVD's" evolve daily...literally daily!

So, you're telling me that the 500 million people - from 2 year olds playing games on computers (my niece plays games at 2 years old) and seniors at 90 emailing and surfing can't figure out how to use something that already exists?? The HD-DVD's won't be any different than DVD's now...more space and better picture. Simple.

You said, "PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO LEARN"? People don't want to learn how to pop a HD-DVD into a player?

Totally short sighted - go tell that to the 500 million people online that had to learn how to do it. You're probably to young to remember, but computer users were consider GEEKS when I was a kid. I'm 33 and remember making fun of computer geeks in school. If you had told me that everyone I knew (and I mean every single solitary person I've met in the past 5 years!) would be a computer GEEK to some extent when I grew up...well, I would have shat myself. Guess what? Practically every single person on the planet with access to a computer knows how to use one now. Everyone is a computer geek and I do believe that a good portion of the computer users know what a gif and jpg are...not technically, but they know the basic idea of what looks good and what doesn't. If they have entered the world of images on the computer and want to mess around with them...they seek out knowledge on why one looks good and another doesn't. I've been teaching since 1996 and I've seen it 1000 times...people do seek to learn when it comes to tech stuff. I'd say 10 out of 100 refuse to learn new things - period. However, 40 out of a 100 might just want to scratch the surface of tech stuff. Then we have the remaining people who like to get under the hood. There are so many people that are geeks now...it's a new world today.

HD-DVD's don't require 1/1000 of the knowledge of using a computer, so I highly doubt that's an issue. It's an issue of people wanting to fork out the cash and that's a completely different topic.

[Meryem Ersoz]

image quality was only one reason for the popularity of the DVD. portability is another--you can throw one in a backpack and play it on an airplane in a portable player, kids can watch in the backseat on long road trips, etc. compact size means they store more uniformly and take up less space.

also, the DVD provided the ability to add additional special features, "making of" featurettes, etc.

there is significant value-added beyond the improved image quality between DVD and VHS.

to make HD-DVD a commercial success would require some sort of similar additional value. i taught university-level film studies for 12 years, and very few students came into the class able to distinguish between film and video, let alone the finer distinction between DVD and HD-DVD. understanding the relationship between various formats and representation (e.g. why does the 13'' TV screen render Citizen Kane un-watchable) generally yielded interesting discussions and brought issues into their awareness which previously did not exist.

the issue isn't one of ignorance but of education. in a broader cultural sense, we are consumers of the images and the stories they tell, not of the formats themselves.

sorry to get all academic and stuff, but it's hard to shake off the effects of all that training....

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Yes it's true there is a much more difference between VHS en DVD then DVD and HD DVD.
The first was menus (interactivity), better picture quality, sound, extra features, chapter selection...

With HD-DVD it's better picture quality (but if we are honest: mainly for people who project with screens or people with giant plasma tv's. For a simple usual tv it won't matter so much) and more space.

[Yi Fong Yu]

jack,

the problem is that pararmount (and most studios releasing TV shows) don't wanna spend more money than is necessary to make money. putting every single episode of X-Files through Lowry Digital, remaster every single episode to get Dolby Digital is insane. it doesn't make business sense for what may amount to very little sales volume.

having said that, i'd like to see better quality a/v from TV shows on disc. i mean, XF season1 was horrible. so were the star trek series (except for TOS&ENT).

that hybrid idea is interesting, but it should conform to regular standards. for example, DVD-Audio MLP on one side and regular CD on the other or DVD-Video/Audio (dolby digital, dts variety, 24/96 variety)/DVD-Audio MLP on the other is already out... but consumers aren't buying fearing incompatibility with their existing players. in short, tehre's already 2many formats messed up right now.

having said taht i think SACD/CD hybrid is absolutley awesome because it conforms with regular CD standards and not everyone knows about it. check out the star trek Nemesis Multichannel SACD, it also has the regular CD layer. why not eliminate the regular CD edition and sell ONLY SACD/CD hybride so people have a SACD in their library without even knowing it. p00r marketing decisions by everyone all over greed.

mathieu, i know someone who had 2,000 VHS titles. when DVD came out, they replaced all 2,000 VHS titles and got close to 3,000 DVDs. i don't think they care, they just like the convenience of the DVD. i asked them about replacing DVDs, they said, no way. i think that bodes bad for HD-DVDs. as for your quality comparison, it kinda doesn't make sense. VHS is roughly 300 lines of resolution, DVD is 480. that's about 180 lines better both interlaced. when a DVD is 480 progressive and HD/Bluray discs will hold 1080p. that's 600 lines better progressive!!!!! HD DVDs will have TWICE the resolution of DVDs, how can THAT not make a huge difference vs. going from VHS to DVDs.

chris, you're too optimistic!!! =). of course people will want to learn about putting HD-DVDs into HD-DVD players... but they won't know the diff between putting HD-DVD into a SD-DVD player nor SD-DVD into HD-DVD (which will play). they also don't want to know that HD-DVD has shorter pits and more focused lasers vs DVDs or how many layers each has vs BluRay. they simply don't care about that even after you explain it to them they'll forget about it. i'm not telling any of the stuff you're assuming i'm telling you because your argument falls on the fallacy of a slippery slope. meaning, one idea does not necessarily cause the other to be true. just because everyone is using computers does not make them computer engineers. the term "geek" and its definition is definitely "remastered". anyway, all of us are speaking too soon. let's wait until both formats debuted by the end of this year and next. then we'll see what happens =P. i think this thread will still be here by then.

meryem, i agree. if they made HD-DVDs half the size it is today, i think it's still very marketable... OR if they wait for HVD (holographic), they CAN squeeze HD movies into HVDs half the size of regular CDs. i think that will make it even MORE compact. that reminds me of sequest (remember that show?) where they used miniDISC size stuff to remember everything or SF shows/movies that used clear holographic crystals sticks like we use flashsticks we have today. i think that's awesome =).

[Jack Zhang]

Originally Posted by Yi Fong Yu

that hybrid idea is interesting, but it should conform to regular standards.

Yi, How about a SD DVD/HD-DVD double sided hybrid disc or a PS3 BD-ROM on one side and a HDV BD-VIDEO on the other side, a video game and a HDV making of movie all on one disc!

[Michael Wisniewski]

Good point about VHS and S-VHS. I think, in the consumer's eyes, that's the type of relationship DVD has with HD-DVD. It's merely higher resolution, but it doesn't enhance their experience beyond that.

Or, another example, if higher resolution was really a major selling point with consumers, every theatre would be using IMAX equipment.

Whatever the next "BIG" trend is, it's going to add something to the consumer experience beyond higher resolution.

The iPod phenomenon is an interesting example of what consumers do want. It gives them options beyond the current technology, which they're willing to pay for, despite the lower resolution of the media.

[Yi Fong Yu]

it's scary to think about lower resolution more portability. although that works with music... i dunno if it'll work with video. for one thing, no1 likes watching movies in the minivan or on the road unless you had kids and you need a babysitter for them in the back or you're on a business trip with nothing to do and you need a laptop to entertain you through DVDs.

[Michael Wisniewski]

Sony's already headed down that road with the portable Playstation and the Universal Mini Disc (click here).

[Meryem Ersoz]

it is very, very hard to predict technological trends. (i've written an entire dissertation on this phenomenon and how it played out in the 19th century, so i know a bit about it.)

the scrap heaps are loaded up on the next new things. why was the newton (anyone remember that boondoggle?) such a miserable failure which nearly bankrupted apple and the ipod the wild success which restored it to glory? there is no accounting for zeitgeist, and it is generally a mistake to equate "best" technology with "most successful" technology. the ipod itself was around for several years before it mattered.

the motion picture, for instance, was invented before edison ever laid his mitts on it--he bought the technology for projected motion pictures from two little guys named fermat and jenkins, re-packaged it as "Edison's Vitascope" (slathering it with his famous name), and the thing took off.

there's no accounting for zeitgest. it is as complicated as we humans.....

the more things change, the more they stay the same. etc.

[Yi Fong Yu]

meryem,

i believe you are referring to Thomas Armat and C. Francis Jenkins's phantascope (or phantoscope depending on diction of publication), which was later marketed as Vitascope (literally, "life viewer").

http://inventors.about.com/library/i...nvitascope.htm

but honestly, i don't think film recording and projection can be attributed to Edison or a few men. it took a numerous attemps and a good 75 years prior to 1900. from Dr. John Ayrton Paris in 1925 (Thaumatrope), Plateau, Horner (Zoetrope, hence Coppola's studio name), von Uchatius, and many many more. it wasn't "invented" by one single person nor a few.

historically, i always felt that Birth of a Nation and Chaplin's "The Kid" were the two films that "kicked off" narrative film and not the shorts prior to these two films.

Birth was made with $110,000 (astronomical @the time) and made $10million initially but upto $18mill through re-releases by 1927ish. if voting with your money counts, then i definitely count Birth as one of the narrative films that kicked off film for good... but it is quite racist (the film) so i always had duplicitous feelings about mentioning it.

Chaplin's The Kid (1921) grossed 2.5million. this one i'm proud of mentioning because it's one of the first popular "blockbuster" films with a heart. i can't quite recall if it is THE FIRST with a heart, but i wouldn't be surprised. there's so much humanity wrapped up in such a short film.

[Meryem Ersoz]

yes, armat, not fermat. i stand corrected.

but for the record, i didn't intend to claim that anyone "invented" motion pictures. the point was that it wasn't until Edison promoted the Vitascope that PROJECTED motion pictures became really commercially viable (in the US, anyway--France, Denmark, and Great Britain, at least, might have an entirely different timetable for the so-called "invention" of motion pictures).

every invention has its impresario, however, and Edison no more "invented" motion pictures than Bill Gates invented the OS. but the man and the machine are inextricably, commercially linked.

yi, i find it odd that you make a case for film's invention as a purely systemic collaboration and then attribute the advent of commercial film to two specific films when all film is built upon the matrix of films which precede it. for instance, we could argue that without mack sennett, there is no tramp, hence no "the kid" either. similarly, without edwin porter, there's no griffith. etc.

if you look at the very earliest films, there's really not much new under the sun. (e.g., the kiss (first porn), the arrival of the train at the station (first thriller, that lumiere film where they knock down a wall and then reverse the film to rebuild it (first special effect), the dancing scotsman promoting dewar's whiskey (first commercial), that garden hose prank film (first narrative).

moreover, if you look at those films, a great deal was swiped from vaudeville, the theater, and other performative models.

and on. from the standpoint of genre and artistry, nothing much is new, all is derivative. all that does change is distribution channels and the formats we generate to re-invent the wheel.

maybe this is a hyperbolic argument, but it seems fitting for this thread.

[Zack Birlew]

Me personally, I would have to say that the concept is still 50-50. I'm the guy that bought quite a few DVD-collections (Monty Python's Flying Circus for example). I also bought all the Lord of the Ring DVD's, standard collector's editions and extended editions. But, here's the thing, many shows and movies still haven't made it to DVD yet. So, I would think that before they start putting out already DVD-made collections on single or double HD-DVD/Bluray discs instead of eight DVD's, they should try to do all the other collections first. For example, if you can buy the entire Matrix collection on DVD with or without the Keanu bust, why would you go out and buy the Matrix collection again on HD-DVD/Bluray? Current pricing is about $80-$150 for the Matrix collection on DVD, you get everything. For those kind of things, I wouldn't buy the new HD-DVD/Bluray editions, especially since the two standards are supposed to be backwards compatible with DVD's.

Now if I were to say buy the entire "Full House" series on DVD, I'd still have to wait until all the seasons came out first, but if I could buy the entire series on HD-DVD/Bluray with only one to four discs opposed to the 16 DVD's, I'd wait and go for that since I didn't put much of a purchase in on the DVDs to begin with. But when you think about it, there isn't going to be much to do with HD-DVD/Bluray technology, some movies don't even have extensive behind-the-scenes documentaries. Plus, how much better can the movies actually look? They've already done a nice job with many of the DVD movies already available, but some like the Charlie Chaplin collections and tons of the cheezy kung fu movies look blurry and unprofessional, but even so, how would these movies benefit anyway if they couldn't even get the DVD's right? Honestly, how many people would actually buy the Charlie Chaplin DVD's except for film buffs/students? Not many. I think the only content that will benefit from HD-DVD/Bluray are the TV show collections and big movie collections like The Lord of the Rings and The Matrix. But that's just my opinion.

[Jack Zhang]

Company consideration for remastering is the big issue, unremastered old TV show footage would look terrible in HD, but it's always a company decision to remaster all the episodes or scrap HD releases of vintage TV shows all together.

P.S The best type of remastering is the scanning of all the original negatives and digitally removing all the dust and scratches.