| Generalised Topics on CL Topics on CL which do not fit any other category. |
18th November 2002, 07:24 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,549
Rep Power: 59 |
With a film like SW, then yes DVD is the best home format.
When it comes to classical films, VHS IMO is much better. The menus are handy, the extras are nice but the picture restoration takes away all the atmosphere from the film.
I watched HOD on DVD yesterday and to be honest, I don't know what the fuss was all about. The picture is clear, the sound is excellent but the atmosphere isn't there. Doesn't look like a classical film anymore, there is no feel to it, nothing. When it comes to darker films like The Whip and the Body, this is even more noticeable. You simply cannot compare watching an original Italian VHS release with all its faults with the DVD.
It would be nice is they just made a straight transfer leaving out all the improvements. There are times when technology is a step backwards.
|
| |
18th November 2002, 07:37 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Chicago, USA Age: 44
Posts: 1,821
Rep Power: 0 |
Hmmm. . . you raise a point worth considering re atmosphere.
There was a time when I bought everything that came out on DVD. Now, I've come to realize that that could just be a waste of money, if one already has the film on video. All things being equal, now if a film I already have comes out on DVD, I'll stick to my video.
An exception would be interesting extras or a VASTLY improved quality over the standard video release. Case in point, I probably won't end up getting the HoD DVD as there doesn't seem to be enough improvement (and no worthwhile extras) to merit the cost. However, I WILL get the CoF DVD as the standard Warner VHS here in the States was notoriously poor in quality.
__________________ "He's got the power and you're so weak; and your frustration will not let you speak. La-la, la-la, la, la." -- After the Fire, Der Kommissar. |
| |
18th November 2002, 08:02 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Scotland Age: 44
Posts: 1,022
Rep Power: 0 |
I can see where you're coming from on this one Juan but I do'nt agree . DVD is superior in every way . Now we can finally see films as they were originally intended ( sometimes even better )
I know what you mean regarding the atmosphere but , remember , the picture was not meant to be fuzzy or dark in the first place .
I used to have a fondness for the old flea pit style of cinemas I grew up in but now realise that the modern multi plexis are a better way of viewing films ( with the exception of the tiny screens )
Personally I'm delighted with the recent releases and can't wait for more and , hey , the plus side for vhs lovers is that the prices have crashed so low you can almost buy them with loose change .
If someone had told me that 20 years ago I would have thought them mad .
|
| |
18th November 2002, 08:41 PM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,549
Rep Power: 59 |
Matt,
Of course DVD is superior in every way but for me I prefer to see classical films in their original state without any digital improvements.
If someone was to watch HOD for the very first time on DVD, they probably dismiss it as junk. However, seing it on VHS they can appreciate the classical feel. Any way, that's just my opinion as I don't care too much for Hammer films in the first place. But at least with The Whip and the Body, I can tell you that the VHS copy I have is better than the DVD. It's like watching two completely different films.
Would you rather listen to Mozart play a piano or a keyboard?
|
| |
18th November 2002, 09:55 PM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Scotland Age: 44
Posts: 1,022
Rep Power: 0 |
Juan
Like I said , I understand your point of view . It's very much like the vinyl vs cd debate . Personally I go for the cd but that's just me . It does remind me of something Tobe Hooper said when he saw the dvd of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre . " The last time I saw the film look this good was through the viewfinder."
Maybe you're right and the older movies were,nt supposed to look this good , it's something I would like to ask the filmmakers and actors .
I can't remember who the artist was but I recall a story of a famous painter who , on seeing one of his works at a gallery ,was unhappy with it and went to make some changes . The security gaurd stopped him and when he protested stating he was the artist , he was told . Leave it , it belongs to the people now .. . . . . . interesting .
|
| |
18th November 2002, 10:28 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,549
Rep Power: 59 | Quote: |
Maybe you're right and the older movies were,nt supposed to look this good , it's something I would like to ask the filmmakers and actors
| Well, look at Portabella. He shot "El Umbracle" and "Cuadecuc" in black and white with an antique camera on purpose. Now, those are classics. Doesn't mean they don't look good because visually they are as satisfying as watching AOTC. Film is a form of art, just like any other. That is why actors are called artists.
|
| |
19th November 2002, 01:51 AM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: The Highlands, Louisville, KY Age: 30
Posts: 451
Rep Power: 0 |
I no longer buy movies on VHS for three reasons: often they aren't cheaper than the DVD, the DVD will last much longer (rather than getting eaten by my VCR), and often DVDs have bonus materials that are interesting (like The Wicker Man).
That being said, I see where our Admin is coming from. I own several Charlie Chaplin films on DVD (yes, there are extras) and I was delighted that the movies themselves were not "restored" but were taken from the best copies of the existing films. That is part of the fun of watching a classic film - seeing its age. I have a feeling that they might lose a little bit of their charm if they had been wholly digitally remastered.
|
| |
20th November 2002, 10:13 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 214
Rep Power: 0 | Quote: |
... but now realise that the modern multi plexis are a better way of viewing films ( with the exception of the tiny screens )...
| Sorry to get off topic, but I found the above statement very interesting, Matt. Please don't think I'm asking you to defend your position, but I'm very curious why you think the new multi plex theatres are better?
The theatre in the small town I grew up in now features nine screens in the same building that once held a single large screen. I saw Star Wars in 1977 with a packed audience of over 600 people. Personally, it saddens me that it was an experience my children will never know.
Doug
|
| |
21st November 2002, 12:32 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Stockholm. Sweden Age: 26
Posts: 804
Rep Power: 0 | Quote: |
Well, look at Portabella. He shot "El Umbracle" and "Cuadecuc" in black and white with an antique camera on purpose. Now, those are classics. Doesn't mean they don't look good because visually they are as satisfying as watching AOTC. Film is a form of art, just like any other. That is why actors are called artists.
| That is so true. A wish I have and something I hope will be reality some day is that we can go back to using handwaved cameras when shooting a picture. You know those kind of cameras that where used by Murnau, Sjöström, Stiller etc. I like VHS but there is nothing like watching a good old classic film that has been restored released on DVD with the same quality as it was when released. The problem sometimes with buying films is that the quality on the picture can be awful. If you buy a DVD from anchorbay or MGM DVD you are assured to have a good quality on the copy.
__________________
-I would never belong to any club who would have someone like me for a member- Groucho Marx
|
| |
21st November 2002, 03:56 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Francisco, CA, USA Age: 46
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 0 |
I'm with Matt on this one, all the way.
As a video retailer, I hear this argument every single day, and I have to say I'm astounded that there's anyone out there still defending/in preference of the VHS format.
If a fuzzy, dark, grainy image is preferrable, then I suppose VHS is the one to stick with. I personally prefer digital clarity, allowing me to view films as they were intended to be seen. I also can't watch movies if they're not in their theatrical widescreen. Knowing I'm seeing only slightly better than half of the movie is abhorrent to me.
Extras, for me, are actually the least significant aspect of DVD's superiority. I rarely get around to watching them.
Anyway, this argument is entirely moot. VHS's days are numbered, and I'm counting. :)
__________________ Dave |
| |
21st November 2002, 06:11 AM
|
#11 (permalink)
| | Ultimate Member
Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Chicago, USA Age: 44
Posts: 1,821
Rep Power: 0 | Quote: |
VHS's days are numbered, and I'm counting. :)
| You're quite right. But, on the other hand, to quote Jay Leno when CDs first came out: "Exactly how many times am I going to have to buy Meet the Beatles?" ;)
__________________ "He's got the power and you're so weak; and your frustration will not let you speak. La-la, la-la, la, la." -- After the Fire, Der Kommissar. |
| |
21st November 2002, 06:22 AM
|
#12 (permalink)
| | Guest |
I get Juan's point but you can't argue that DVD has in a way revolutionased how we see films. Yet it's not 100% digital. It all depends on your television as even though the dvd is digital if you got an analogue tv set then it's not! Not that the difference is majorly reduced to the untrained eye but I just thought I would point it out.
Now if you got yourself one of those nice flatscreen plasma screens your laughing because then you will know what digital really is.
| |
| |
23rd November 2002, 04:36 PM
|
#13 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Downers Grove, Illinois USA Age: 49
Posts: 88
Rep Power: 0 |
I buy DVD over VHS anytime. Quality, clarity, the extras. I also prefer the widescreen format. Besides these reasons, I get upset when the VCR decides it's hungry and there goes my money. Another nice thing is they take up less space on the shelf.
I can remember buying Horror Hotel on VHS and the copy was so bad I could hardly view it. The DVD is clean and crisp. I bought a movie on VHS when it first came out. A few weeks later it came out on widescreen tape. Now this was just around the time DVD players were coming out but I hadn't gotten one yet. Now I have the movie on DVD and have sold my VHS versions on Ebay. I do agree that we don't need 4 versions of a DVD. I like widescreen personally.
Nothing takes the place of seeing a film on the big screen, especially one as nice as the town I live in. 74 years old, restored with 1050 seats, Dolby Digital Surround Sound THX... they even have a guy playing a pipe organ on weekends. It's beautiful... but I do digress.
I don't have a problem watching a film with graininess or atmosphere especially if the directors intent was such. I just don't like it because of bad film quality or age.
Long live DVD! Now I just need one of those big 'ol plasma bad boy flat thangs to watch the talkies on.
|
| |
23rd November 2002, 09:16 PM
|
#14 (permalink)
| | Guest |
I think you are all right, I buy both, silly I know, but then I get the best of both worlds.
star38
| |
| |
27th November 2002, 08:31 PM
|
#15 (permalink)
| | Member
Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Georgia-USA
Posts: 165
Rep Power: 0 |
I love DVD for the special features and storage capacity. However, I often stick with my VHS copy if a DVD has nothing much beyond what is on the VHS version. I intially bought a DVD player because of Mr. Lee. Two of his films had commentaries by him at the time. I had to hear those commetaries! He was wondeful and I love to hear them over and over to this day! :)
__________________
"Tomorrow is another day." -----Scarlett O'Hara
|
| |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is On | | | |