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

for example, 99% of Charlie Chaplin's work is out on DVD right now. having seen all of it, i still want the higher resolution of The Kid for my big screen front projector @home. DVD is still blurry from the compression on big screen but i hope the HiDef DVDs will remedy that and we will finally have a master that is pretty damn close to the original film negatives (1k). i seriously doubt that a 2k or 4k Ultra Definition optical disc will be a viable market after HiDef DVDs. i mean 1k front projectors are already so expensive, i can't imagine 2k or 4k ones.

having that knowledge, i'd like to start my movie collection with HiDef DVDs. back in the early 90s i knew that HiDef was making its way to the consumer domain and never bought a ton of VHS or SD-DVDs cause i knew one day HiDef DVDs will arrive. now that it'll be out in droves next year or two years from now i can finally start my film collection i've always dreamed of... the problem is i wanna start collecting chronologically from 1900 onward =(.

Hey fellow Boston'er Yi, how's it going?

I think they'll mine the gold until we're dead and gone just like Chaplin! After all, going to VHS was the first mining...then DVD's and next HD-DVD. They are making profits off something that's already been produced. The studios love that more than anything else they do.

I'd be willing to bet that the general cycle of 7-8 years will continue. They were blown away by VHS's popularity and then even more blown away by DVD. It's a given that HD-DVD will succeed based on the growth of HDTV sets and projectors. If the numbers do what they continue to do...the world will be HD from the media, to HD-DVD to HDTV's and your cell phone will be HD in about 2 years too. Imagine watching an HD movie on a train on the way to work on your cell phone? It's coming..

I can see it now..."Coming soon to HD-DVD, Charlie Chaplin's The Kid"!

Not just yes, but heck yes. I know a guy who has a writing credit on one of the old blockbusters and when DVDs first came out he said "hurrah, a new format, I can send my kids to college!" He and many others are eagerly waiting for the next format to come out. (and the studios make a lot more than they do)

I've actually stopped buying DVDs until the HD ones roll out... It's just tough to justify as a lfietime investment when I know a few years from now I will be sorely dissapointed with the format. (and when I can Netflix anything i need until then).

If they can find a way to get you to buy the same thing twice, or even better, three and four times, you know they will. Watch out for HD-DVDs that have just been uprezzed from regular NTSC resolutions. That's going to be rampant, I guarantee it. I wonder what happens to all those old television shows that were shot 4:3. I'll bet we get vertical pan and scan.

i know you guys are skeptical but i honestly believe the HD-DVD/BluRay won't be as big a hit as DVDs. most consumers are stupid and they won't care about hi-def DVDs.

it might become like DVD-Audio MLP, SACD and LaserDisc. niche product.

even if 2k DVDs or 4k DVDs come out AFTER HD-DVD/BluRay comes out, i don't think it'll be as popular as SD DVDs. that's just my opinion.

in my mind, HD-DVD/BluRay is it.

Hey Yi,

The success of the DVD player and DVD's is a phenomenon. It's unrivaled in consumer electronics (sold more than anything else in history!), entertainment (the studios are making LOADS of dough right now) and also producing (producers are loving DVD's because of the quality and interactive nature).

It looks to me that it's a sure thing. I'd be willing to bet it all on continued growth of DVD/HD-DVD/HD Games and anything else that comes along. You just can't go wrong with this stuff...people eat DVD's up like candy. HD-DVD's will sell huge...probably close to or the same as DVD's.

people will buy the HiDef DVDs and try to play it on their SD DVD player. they will take those HiDef DVDs and return them saying, HEY MAN THIS DOESN'T WORK! then they'll proceed to exchange them for SD DVDs. that's what will happen.

they should have never brought DVDs online in the first place but HD-DVDs.

Yes, people are stupid about a lot of things, but anyone using DVD's in the first place already lives in the "digital" DVD world. It takes no more effort to understand HD-DVD than DVD - it's a better picture and more space than SD DVD's. I'd say 90% of the people who are told what it is will get it. It's the computer age and people are tech savvy on the basics. People have already been through the "why does a gif image look like crap and a jpg looks better?" education online. Understanding HD-DVD isn't going to be a big deal. It's less of a stretch that it was from VHS to DVD - two completely different technologies. That took lots of time to educate people. But, DVD's are in 90% of the households in the US. That speaks volumes since DVD's didn't exist in the public mind until about 7 short years ago.

Yi, I don't think you realize that DVD's are the biggest thing in entertainment the past 25 years! People spend 60% more time watching DVD's than they did just 2 years ago.

Watch "Shootout" on AMC - that's where I'm getting my facts and figures.

While I think HD-DVDs will be successful, I agree with Yi, I don't think HD-DVDs will be that big of a hit. I don't think the main public will see the same jump in performance & quality that they got going from VHS to DVD.

DVDs are more convenient than VHS and have a noticeably better image on current equipment.

HD-DVDs aren't anymore convenient than DVDs but do require an upgrade of current equipment to get a noticeably better image, and even then, many of the new HD TVs give you a worse SD image.

Plus the largest part of the population: baby boomers and the following generation are getting past that age where they care about acquiring such things.

I agree. Most are baffled by letterboxing...

I am dumfounded that you rate the majority of the world as stupid becuase they value things differently than you do. The arrogance is blinding. They may not care, they may be fine with SD, that may even be smart, who knows.

I really don't hear a difference between 12-bit and 16-bt audio... does that make me stupid also?

Personally I think that the HD will come in with the pace of CD's, not of DVDs. The quality bump will eventually draw people in, but not until the prices come down.

Right at the peak of the VHS/Beta buy/rent movie craze, they introduced S-VHS. Most of you know how much better S-VHS looks onscreen. However, the few feeble attempts to put pre-recorded movies on S-VHS fizzled. There was one mailorder outfit in Frisco that had several dozen S-VHS titles available, but there wasn't much else. I never saw a rental S-VHS cassette in any local video store. One of the main reasons was because so few people ever bought S-VHS recorders. This is understandable, because until a few years ago, they were prohibitively expensive for most people. Unless players or recorders for HD-compatible DVDs are sold at prices that are feasible for large numbers of people, this format may languish in the same way as S-VHS.
Of course, the introduction of laserdisc players, that had 420 lines of res, digital audio and added feature segments, helped subdue the popularity of
S-VHS pre-recorded movies.

Right now, there's a very small number of people who own JVC D-VHS VCRs, that can play great-looking D-Theatre movies in HD. They give a 28mbps playback that excels even the best broadcast HD programming. But, at least as far as pre-recorded movies are concerned, D-VHS will likely end up just like S-VHS and for the same reasons.

It might be smart for the purveyors of pre-recorded HD movies to subsidize the production of affordable players. Another question is, might too many HD formats becoming available, spoil the chances for success of any one of them?

There seems to be a magical and often unpredictable combination of factors that make a format successful for commercially pre-recorded music or video.
Often, the main players involved are their own worst enemies. Remember how the movie studios fought against VHS/Beta home VCRs? They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming through the courts, to be forced into those dreaded circumstances, that eventually made billions of dollars for them (and saved some studios from extinction). The way things are looking, the introduction of newer movies on DVD-HD media may be delayed or even blocked by the major studios. The same blind greed of the past, may compromise our getting the HD movies we want and keep the studios from making untold profits.

One thing that doesn't seem to get mentioned often enough, is that television looks so bad not because NTSC resolutions aren't high enough, but because regular 4:3 tube televisions suck. An HD TV showing full NTSC resolution looks pretty good. Most people, unless they looked close, wouldn't appreciate the difference between true 480i and HD. I can see that holding back the appeal of HD-DVDs. Still, I think that everyone who buys an HDTV is going to insist on a hi-rez medium, whether they can see the difference or not. I think the format is going to take off not because of performance, but because of hype. Odd as it is, that's better for everybody. HD-DVDs are going to be huge.

chris m.,

unfortunately, people still do not know what jpeg and gif is in the real world. all they want to know is, how can i email the pic and how can my friends/relatives see it. end of story. they DON'T WANT TO LEARN about the format! even if they have been taught, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO REMEMBER IT. and it's not the people that i deal with, it's empirical fact. boston globe, nytimes have statistics all the time on people who want something to work but they don't wanna know all the of tech stuff. the "tech saaviness" you are referring to is people using tech devices, but not necessarily knowing every little technical detail about it. using doesn't mean knowing. secretaries know how to type in word and print a page out, but they may not know how MS programmed word or how a laserjet burns text on page. from the evidence in newsmedia statistics and also teleological arguments, people just don't care about how a DVD works... only that it's convenient and it works. so the day taht HD/BluRay DVDs players cost $20 and anyone and everyone can pick it up at the local walmart is the day that HD wins. i seriously doubt taht will happen until a decade or two from now. plus less than a third of the US populus own HDTV that can take some advantage of the full res of HD media. plus, most of those HDTV can only display 1280x720 and NOT 1920x1080p. like i said, i'll give it a decade or two before HD takes on some sort of importance similar to DVD, but i don't think any mediums will EVER be as popular as that until we perfect online delivery of media content =).

barry, so michael and doug are ignorant, too? i'm dumfounded that you would dare to label me arrogant when you are not looking at empircal evidence as i've stated above nor provided any logical arguments (complete with a premise that leads to a conclusion). please do not resort to ad hominem attacks. i don't do that to other people and neither should you.

mcdonald, i agree. that was that killed SACD, DVD-Audio in the most recent memory.

marco, as i said, going from 480i to 480p or 720 isn't going to instantly convert people. the problem is that both HDTV displays itself and the medium from which to play HD content has missed the boat already. first, HDTVs don't have native 1920x1080p yet. second, HD-DVD/BluRay is already late. going from 480i to 1080p is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE and a MAJOR shock. plus, the politcal subterfuge that made HDTV more lenient toward less resolution but more channel created problems with intermediatery steps and different resolution both progressive and interlaced. why both with including 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i when you can UNIFY HDTV into ONE singular resolution: 1920x1080 progressive. keep HDTV cable/TV content as 1080p only, HDTVs taht come out will ONLY display 1080p (even if it comes out later than when it first appeared) and HD storage mediums to display the latest action hollywood movie in 1080p gloary. i think that creates a HUGE winner for everyone.

If Lucasfilms or any other re-mastering company could re-scan and re-master all the episodes of the original Star Trek, Star Trek TNG, and Star Trek Voyager into HD-DVD or Blu-ray, fans would go absolutly CRAZY!!! UHDV-Holographic discs with direct scans of all famous IMAX films or feature films made in UHDV would be the next step in giant screen home theatre (over 100" screen). I definitly agree with you, HD and UHDV is the future!

What if studios decide to make hybrid SD and HD-DVDs, will they even exist?

How about: "Buy it now on HD-DVD! Star Trek Voyager, The Complete Series! Experience the Delta Quadrant in a new way, in High-Definition! ([Janeway]: FIRE!) Remastered digital effects, all supervised by THX! Commentary for every episode! It just doesn't get better than this!"

I just made up a whole commercial!

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?

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.

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.

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....

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.

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 =).

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

meryem,

i didn't mean to turn it into a pissing contest of film history knowledge. i'm the first to volunteer that i know the least =).

however, it's not so odd that i would make technical and artistic merits separately. first, technology has always been one item built on top of another (mac os's use of mouse before windows, etc.). second, artistic merit can be pretty subjective while technology is a bit closer to objective. so while we can agree to disagree on what's first or middle or last, what's good better or best, i still hold my opinion by trying to back it up.

re: timeframe, it's interesting that technologically the development of film recording and projecting all came out internationally around the same time. who said there wasn't globalization back then =). i do think the two world wars set European films back by quite a ways.

re: without mack sennett, there would probably still be the tramp. after all harrold lloyd, harry langdom and not to mention buster keaton could all take chaplin's crown... but probably not with the same sentiments chaplin's tramp enthused.

re: earliest films. first, depending on what you consider porn (nudity or hardcore sex), nudity began in the late 1800s.(1894-1896) with edison's kinetiscope shots of nude women. as for hardcore sexi'm no expert on that, but i'm sure it was pretty early. i wouldn't be surprised. a lot of what you mentioned are catalogued in Landmarks of Early Film Vol. I. Vol II is more about Melies. as for your list of films leading up to The Kid, while i agree one thing builds ontop of another, you don't get emotional nor humanistic empathy from watching 15 seconds clips of kissing, trains arriving, stepping on garden hoses, and so forth. not even the Griffith shorts that have short stories (like those long civil war shorts) has the resonance with teh human spirit that Chaplin's The Kid embodies. i mean, that's why i said that it's truly "the first" emotionally connecting film ever made that packs a punch intellectually, physically (laughing reactions).

as for vaudeville, of course, but vaudeville as entertainment never made audiences wept... unless of course they laughed so hard. but what i meant was wept emotionally for the characters. again, The Kid remains a tower as a true "first" of many kinds.

as for nothing is new, yeah, there's that campbellistic fatalism that you can take with viewing art. ya know, how there's only 7 stories people are retelling, etc. the problem is those people fail to see that Charlie Chaplain IS original. while the things he is doing, stories he is telling is not, HE is. it is the way in which a human soul tells his own story, in any medium that we are responding to, not the story itself. for example, in The Kid, by the time industrial revolution kicked around, the orphange growing up in a poor neighbor (especially in London) could probably be classified as a cliche... but it was the way in which Charlie Chaplin told it infusing his own soul into the film, that made it "original" in every sense of the word. what could be more reinventing than reinventing the human story by spinning it on film instead of oral presentation or theater?

what can be more original than a human soul, if he puts that side of himself to show. think of the best classic films, they always have humanity (even anthropomorphized).

jack f, that's pretty interesting because your points are what movie studios are going to have think through for HD-DVD/BluRay. but remember, what i said, with 1080p, you're literally more than doubling the NTSC progressive resolution (480p). twice as good. that's never happened before on the video format.

jack z, one bad thing i can think of from that is HD will expose the poor budget these shows have. for example. even on DVD, i can see the cheap fx Star Trek The Next Generation, DS9 or The X-Files employed compared to feature films. i don't think the tv producers had DVD or high resolution mediums to review the fx in mind when they first produced the shows.

yi, i had no intention of starting a pissing contest, as you put it, just thought it curious that you were simultaneously making a case against "firsts" in one instance while making a case for "firsts" in another and wondering how to fit the two together.

apologies if it came across as snotty in any way.

just as an aside note, i would add that our cultural conditioning makes it nearly impossible for us to put ourselves in the shoes of an early spectator--by that i mean, it is hard for us to experience the kiss scene as pornographic, as early reviewers did, or the train arriving at the station as any sort of big whup. the excitement of first contact with any sort of novel representation tends to fade rather quickly, but for the early consumer, it still existed. The Great Train Robbery was probably as thrilling as Independence Day once was (and now isn't). shock and thrill are experiences which are quickly supplanted by greater shocks and thrills.

artistically, chaplin is different because his work transcends the medium altogether, as you poetically describe, whereas griffith is pretty much locked into American history, almost unbearably so. most viewers who can squeeze a bit of pleasure out of viewing griffith do so on a primarily cerebral level, on the technical and historical merits of the film.

chaplin explored the sacred nature of the frailty and resilience of the human spirit and managed to do so in an unusually sustained way.

taste being a highly subjective entity, i would submit that my own favorite exploration of the sacred in early film would be dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc.

and, to bring this screed back around to the original topic, i would say you could transfer Joan to DVD, HD-DVD, or whatever, and it would be difficult to re-create the experience of seeing a projected film print. the transcendant quality of the film simply cannot be transferred. i have puzzled over this phenomenon for many years and still cannot explain it. on film, it is utterly mesmeric, on any other format, flat.

so many early films have truly benefited from DVD restoration, and yet there are a very few films with that undefinable, un-restorable quality which defy our best efforts to improve upon them. it's all part of the great mystery, i suppose.

i didn't enjoy joan of arc the way you did. i thought it was OK, but certainly not as consistent as chaplin nor Fritz Lang's French outing, "Lilliom". why? i couldn't feet the humanity. yeah, she was crying.. but the long tracking shots across the court muted that impact. good acting... but still not a big impact for me. even lilliom had bigger impact. but wait... that's not a silent... ah well =).

actually, my fav director of the silent film era is definitely F.W. Murnau, talk about consistency. imho, every single film he made (that i've seen on DVD) is worthy of the title "masterpiece". my fav is Der Letzte Mann (the last laugh). no dialogue. just purely visual, like a moving painting, but every frame full of humanity!

and yesh, back to topic.

having seen nearly all of the silent films on DVD, i can attest to the fact that bringing it to the higher resolution (TWICE!) can definitely benefit any film. the reason is simple. older films are already damaged and digital cleaning can only achieve so much. plus you are still left with the fact that the DVD format is limited. 720x480 is NOT good enough for a truly pleasant film-like movie presentation. i mean, you already have problems with scratches and missing film frames, sometimes entire scenes! add to that mpeg2 compression issues? i find mpeg2 blocky and jagged. i also see problems with jump motion. the biggest flaw is that i can see compression artifacts on my front projector. any DVD i put in, even pixar movies to star wars (episode 2 filmed digitally) to once upon a time (also filmed digitally). mpeg2=no good. it's time for us to move forward. i sincerely believe that once we overcome these little deformations, i can enjoy a movie to its fullest. beyond 1k resolution for the home format, i don't think it's feasible to goto 2k or 4k because that would mean literally building a cinema right next to the house to see the quality differentiation. for smaller displays (under 50"?) it will be harder to tell the difference between 480p and 1080p, but on a 70"+ screen, the problems are hard to ignore.

in the future i envision a $1,000 front projector (maybe DLP maybe LCOS, who knows) that can project 1920x1080p. then i hook up a universal HD-DVD/BluRay player via HDMI to it. i don't think we need anything beyond that unless all of us can afford to build a cinema!