Why aren't blu-ray released the same day a movie is hitting theater?

[Draz]

I was wondering. Wouldn't it be much better to go out, purchase a movie for example (TDKR) on blu ray, come home & pop it in with family? Or perhaps even the streamed version of a blu ray. I don't mind going to watch it, but the travel, the travel expenses, the lazyness, etc, etc. Why do they make us wait so long? Is it because they want people to wait a while after they watched it, to make a second purchase for collection? Or is it some type of iMax or whatever it is have the option for theater only until a certain amount of weeks for money?

[franchise#3]

yep and plus piracy. a lot people don't like watching cam rips

[dunksby]

I would love this but it won't happen ever :lol

[RaininTwos]

This question can't be serious. They don't do it because the current model is way more profitable.

[ConanRulesNBC]

The movies probably make more money charging you and your family for tickets than they do if you just buy the DVD/Blu-Ray. You can buy a Blu-Ray movie now for $15-$20 but say you have a family of 4 going to see a movie at the show... you're paying way more for the tickets not to mention popcorn, pop and all other snacks.

[KevinNYC]

Because it would seriously undercut theater revenues.

[GOBB]

Silly topic.

On a more serious note, how good are blu ray movies? Significant difference?

[Draz]

Silly topic.

On a more serious note, how good are blu ray movies? Significant difference?

If you have a surround sound, you're good to go. I have a kick ass blu ray player and set, so I guess this is why I prefer blu ray than going. I don't think the 4.37Gb Blu ray pirated are 100% blu ray quality, but if you want true copies it'll be well over 12gigs or so.. never fhucked with a true 8+ gb movie lol

[ConanRulesNBC]

Silly topic.

On a more serious note, how good are blu ray movies? Significant difference?

I post on a movie forum and just posted about this recently because I'm going to make the switch finally this year. Everyone who has replied said Blu-Ray is 100x's better than DVD.

I have a big DVD collection so I'm not going to replace all of my movies but I will definitely replace my favorites. Most of the comic book movies and Star Wars and the Indiana Jones box set and E.T. is coming out on Blu-Ray soon.

I stopped buying DVDs for the most part (well of new releases anyways) and I know Best Buy has a deal going on once in a while where you can actually bring in your DVDs and they'll give you $5 each towards a purchase of a Blu-Ray movie.

[glidedrxlr22]

Silly topic.

On a more serious note, how good are blu ray movies? Significant difference?

This explains the difference:

What's better about Blu-ray?

Image quality: Superior resolution is a big part of what makes Blu-ray look great. In layman's terms, this means you'll see a more detailed image: more clearly defined strands of hair, wrinkles in clothing, etc. The technical difference is that Blu-ray's maximum resolution is 1,920x1,080 (1080p), while DVD is limited to 720x480 (480p). Beyond resolution, Blu-ray also uses better video-compression methods, resulting in more contrast and richer colors. If you like the way HD from your cable or satellite provider looks, Blu-ray looks even better. It's the highest-quality video format available today, and in some ways it surpasses the picture quality of your local movie theater, especially when shown on a good-performing HDTV or projector.

Audio quality: Audio quality is also improved. New high-resolution soundtrack formats, such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, are essentially identical to the studio master, so you'll be hearing things exactly as the director and audio engineers intended.

[Draz]

I didn't even know DVD's still existed to be honest. Blu ray honestly took a huge edge due to quality and the size the disc can hold, making it less compact and more quality. I believe also that most blu ray players come with speakers like 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound, making it a perfect home theater purchase to kick back.

If you're thinking about switching from DVD to Blu ray (some favorite movies) or in general, be sure to make a commitment on speakers that kick ass. For my family and myself, we don't enjoy movies without it being on full blast.

[dunksby]

If you have a surround sound, you're good to go. I have a kick ass blu ray player and set, so I guess this is why I prefer blu ray than going. I don't think the 4.37Gb Blu ray pirated are 100% blu ray quality, but if you want true copies it'll be well over 12gigs or so.. never fhucked with a true 8+ gb movie lol
I had the 8.7GB version of TDK, that shit was so good I kept it for a couple of years before I could convince myself to delete it :lol

[KevinNYC]

Silly topic.

On a more serious note, how good are blu ray movies? Significant difference?

They are easily and noticeably better. It's 4 times the information contained in the image

http://www.good1productions.com/uploads/2/4/2/4/2424498/967379.jpg

Do you already have an HD TV? If so, you know how much better a good HD channel looks. Even if they are broadcasting HD in 1080, it's 1080i which is interlaced (one half of the frame quickly followed by the other half the frame, so fast your eye sees both. They literally show all the odd number lines followed by all the even numbered lines.) Interlacing is an old technology from the early days of television that allows them to transmit less data, but still see the full image. Blu ray is 1080p. Progresive images show full frame shown for each frame. Small but noticeable difference. Even more noticeable is when you watch via cable the signal is significantly compressed in terms of data per second, Blu Ray can allow for very high data-rates. It's basically the best looking commercially available format.

Older films tend to have less of a visual difference, though some are stunning, but new films shot with the latest lens look amazing. Animated Movies that start out digital and never actually touch film look incredible. Wall-E on Blu-ray is absolutely amazing.

[Draz]

I had the 8.7GB version of TDK, that shit was so good I kept it for a couple of years before I could convince myself to delete it :lol

:roll: I believe I downloaded it once or twice but NEVER fond of it because it takes to long (seed wise) Where do you go for torrents that seed fast for better quality movies? I usually just accept 1GB -4GB, find the best version of it with better ratings.

Edit: Oh & another reason why is because my USB only holds I believe 8 or 16GB's. Sometime, when I try to format it to NTFS to play anything higher than 4.37GB, the movies that happen to be over 4.37GB's don't play on the blu ray I have. I don't know if it's a technical problem or what, I get pissed and watch it on my latpop (which I hate) & give up on larger quality movies.

[KevinNYC]

I had a friend who was very anti-bluray for a long time and had the DVD player that was best at "uprezzing," basically faking HD from and SD source and his TV was only a 720P HD screen. When I showed him a bluray on my 1080p TV (Panasonic plasma from 2009), he noticed the difference immediately. I chose I film he owned and was very familiar with as the test.

[dunksby]

:roll: I believe I downloaded it once or twice but NEVER fond of it because it takes to long (seed wise) Where do you go for torrents that seed fast for better quality movies? I usually just accept 1GB -4GB, find the best version of it with better ratings.
I wish I could help you but I don't have a problem with the big ass size files since I have a 100MB connection.

[Draz]

I had a friend who was very anti-bluray for a long time and had the DVD player that was best at "uprezzing," basically faking HD from and SD source and his TV was only a 720P HD screen. When I showed him a bluray on my 1080p TV (Panasonic plasma from 2009), he noticed the difference immediately. I chose I film he owned and was very familiar with as the test.

Technology improves so much, how long do you think 1080p will last before it is increased to something higher? That would mean the purchasing of new TV's, etc.

[Draz]

I wish I could help you but I don't have a problem with the big ass size files since I have a 100MB connection.

It's cool. Are you doing it through WI-FI or through a cable? I'm thinking about downloading through the Ethernet cable, I feel like my connection is capped considering I have 15/5 for Fios & I only get 1.6MBPS the highest I've been, if anyone knows how or why it'll help :bowdown:

[dunksby]

:roll: I believe I downloaded it once or twice but NEVER fond of it because it takes to long (seed wise) Where do you go for torrents that seed fast for better quality movies? I usually just accept 1GB -4GB, find the best version of it with better ratings.

Edit: Oh & another reason why is because my USB only holds I believe 8 or 16GB's. Sometime, when I try to format it to NTFS to play anything higher than 4.37GB, the movies that happen to be over 4.37GB's don't play on the blu ray I have. I don't know if it's a technical problem or what, I get pissed and watch it on my latpop (which I hate) & give up on larger quality movies.
Could be few reasons, I know that PS3 for instance does not recognize NTFS format. And you don't need a bluray player at all what you need is just a Full HD screen which you prolly have and an HDMI cable to connect your laptop/PC to the screen.

[dunksby]

It's cool. Are you doing it through WI-FI or through a cable? I'm thinking about downloading through the Ethernet cable, I feel like my connection is capped considering I have 15/5 for Fios & I only get 1.6MBPS the highest I've been, if anyone knows how or why it'll help :bowdown:
Well Ethernet is a bit more stable and consequently a bit faster and more reliable but not by much and do you mean you download 1.6 Mega Bytes per second or your connection speed test shows 1.6 Mega Bit per sec? Since 8 bits make up a Byte it means that you have to divide your connection speed which is in Mega Bits by 8 in order to know what is your max download speed.

[Trumpin]

Cause then it would be pirateshared the same day.

[Draz]

Could be few reasons, I know that PS3 for instance does not recognize NTFS format. And you don't need a bluray player at all what you need is just a Full HD screen which you prolly have and an HDMI cable to connect your laptop/PC to the screen.

Yea, I know. But the thing is, I'm using a laptop. The laptop connected to the TV isn't the problem, it's the charger the laptop uses to stay powered. It over heats, I've burned several chargers due to overheat or overused and costed me well over $40 for one.. sucks. That's why I took the USB route and put it in there, hopefully it works. 90% of the time it does, several movies however do reject playing with "invalid file type".

[KevinNYC]

Technology improves so much, how long do you think 1080p will last before it is increased to something higher? That would mean the purchasing of new TV's, etc.

Considering that DVD is still the dominant disc format, I think 1080p probably has another 10 years before it's displaced. The technology will be there, but the infrastructure will not be.

In the shift to HD, you had to buy new cameras, new editing systems and the computers to handle that, etc, etc. The whole video chain was disrupted and folks will not want to go through that again.

On the high-end, movies will be produced at 4K (4,000 pixels compared to HD's 1,920), but home video will take a loooooong time to get 4K. The television business is doing poorly because nobody's making money in it, HD's are so cheap this days, the profit margin is small. Sony almost went out of the TV business last year.

Peter Jackson is causing some waves, by shooting his new film at a frame rate of 48 frames per second, double the usual 24 fps. Some folks don't think it's an improvement. (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/story/2012-07-19/peter-jackson-interview-the-hobbit/56322890/1)

[QUOTE]Though Jackson and fellow filmmaker James Cameron are proponents of the technology, some in Hollywood aren't ready. Jackson presented 10 minutes of Hobbit footage at Cinema-Con in April, and many thought it looked too realistic and akin to a soap opera

[Sarcastic]

They could probably find a way to do it profitably, if they charged like $500 or something for the disc while it was out simultaneously in the theaters.

[KevinNYC]

Some 65% of people now have HD TVs, but only about 25% have blu ray players, so I think the market has a long time to mature.

[Draz]

Well Ethernet is a bit more stable and consequently a bit faster and more reliable but not by much and do you mean you download 1.6 Mega Bytes per second or your connection speed test shows 1.6 Mega Bit per sec? Since 8 bits make up a Byte it means that you have to divide your connection speed which is in Mega Bits by 8 in order to know what is your max download speed.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2075073234.png

Does this make it easier? Lol. When I download a file on torrent it usually says 1.6Mbps as the highest.

[dunksby]

Considering that DVD is still the dominant disc format, I think 1080p probably has another 10 years before it's displaced. The technology will be there, but the infrastructure will not be.

In the shift to HD, you had to buy new cameras, new editing systems and the computers to handle that, etc, etc. The whole video chain was disrupted and folks will not want to go through that again.

On the high-end, movies will be produced at 4K (4,000 pixels compared to HD's 1,920), but home video will take a loooooong time to get 4K. The television business is doing poorly because nobody's making money in it, HD's are so cheap this days, the profit margin is small. Sony almost went out of the TV business last year.

Peter Jackson is causing some waves, by shooting his new film at a frame rate of 48 frames per second, double the usual 24 fps. Some folks don't think it's an improvement. (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/story/2012-07-19/peter-jackson-interview-the-hobbit/56322890/1)



Last year, a milestone occurred with almost no notice. The three big cinema camera companies, stopped making film cameras. They are all digital now.
You should take the technology effect into consideration, yes the conversion to HD was slow and you could almost feel the reluctance and witness the course it took but considering now there a lot of TV channels broadcasting in 3D and cheap blu ray players and full HD monitors I think it's gonna go much smoother this time. The mainstream is now much more involved in high end tech shit and the resistance towards moving on to a new tech is getting weaker and weaker.

[dunksby]

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2075073234.png

Does this make it easier? Lol. When I download a file on torrent it usually says 1.6Mbps as the highest.
So there is no reason for concern now. Your down stream speed is 15.5 Mega Bits, now if you want to get your maximum download speed in Bytes, you just have to divide your down stream speed by 8:
15.5 / 8 = 1.9 Mbps
Your max download speed on paper is 1.9 Mbps, in practice you get 1.6 Mbps which is natural because there are a lot of variables involved.
Conclusion: Don't worry you are getting your money's worth.

[nathanjizzle]

OP is stupid.

[GOBB]

I have an HD TV. Also have comcast HD box and the quality of picture is kickass. And its really enhanced on my bigger HD tv. I got a dvd-blue ray player as a gift that I never got around to hooking up. Probably end up doing it but was curious about blu ray. Thanks for the info fellas, really informative. Guess I've been missing out.

My issue like another poster. I actually do collect DVDs. I dont have a large collection but my favorite movies I own. No Country for Old men, Good Will Hunting, Bourne trilogy even down to Boomerang, School Daze, Napoleon Dynamite. I dont want to replace those with blue ray, I'm thinking blue ray should be for kickass action DVDs right? Like who cares if you watch Good Will Hunting on regular DVD vs bluray. Thoughts?

I know crap like Avatar has to be kickass.

[dunksby]

I have an HD TV. Also have comcast HD box and the quality of picture is kickass. And its really enhanced on my bigger HD tv. I got a dvd-blue ray player as a gift that I never got around to hooking up. Probably end up doing it but was curious about blu ray. Thanks for the info fellas, really informative. Guess I've been missing out.

My issue like another poster. I actually do collect DVDs. I dont have a large collection but my favorite movies I own. No Country for Old men, Good Will Hunting, Bourne trilogy even down to Boomerang, School Daze, Napoleon Dynamite. I dont want to replace those with blue ray, I'm thinking blue ray should be for kickass action DVDs right? Like who cares if you watch Good Will Hunting on regular DVD vs bluray. Thoughts?

I know crap like Avatar has to be kickass.
There is no need to replace them, blu ray is best for movies which have been recorded with full HD cameras.

[Draz]

Think about why your replacing them first. In another 10-15 years technology upgrades, will you upgrade it again and transfer those movies over as well? if its more than good enough quality don't do it, especially if its not filmed in hd cameras. movies like avatar will last a life time in blu ray.

[GOBB]

Gotcha fellas :cheers:


Appreciate this Geek Squad thread for coming to the rescue. j/k

[embersyc]

If the movie is recorded on film an analog source it can mostly always be converted to look good on new technology. Take a look at the movie 2001, still looks great even on blu-ray. However now that movies are filmed digitally new video technology will be a problem. Even if they are recording at 4000 pixel height, one day we will eventually pass that and those movies will never look good again. Therefore it makes sense that the film industry people will want to keep us at 1080 for a long time. In fact most HDTV broadcasts are still 720.

[Rose]

Gotcha fellas :cheers:


Appreciate this Geek Squad thread for coming to the rescue. j/k
Another thing to help you. go to blu-ray.com and read reviews on movies shot before 2002-2003 or so (around then is when the bulk of films started being shot on digital film).

That site will always tell you if a blu-ray is good or not compare it to it's dvd version etc etc. Some blu-ray's can be a disappointment. There's one I have that I was pretty disappointed because the video was ported to HD, but didn't look that good. It looked like somebody trying to upgrade a film, and they had no idea how.:oldlol:

[dunksby]

Gotcha fellas :cheers:


Appreciate this Geek Aquad thread for coming to the rescue. j/k

:milton:

[dunksby]

Another thing to help you. go to blu-ray.com and read reviews on movies shot before 2002-2003 or so (around then is when the bulk of films started being shot on digital film).

That site will always tell you if a blu-ray is good or not compare it to it's dvd version etc etc. Some blu-ray's can be a disappointment. There's one I have that I was pretty disappointed because the video was ported to HD, but didn't look that good. It looked like somebody trying to upgrade a film, and they had no idea how.:oldlol:
I think the first Blu-ray ported movie I watched was Terminator 2 and the improvement was just jaw dropping.

[Rose]

I think the first Blu-ray ported movie I watched was Terminator 2 and the improvement was just jaw dropping.
Yeah sometimes they do it right, and do it amazingly. Sometimes they don't. Like I think the original Star Wars trilogy part of the blu-ray set that came out was kinda disappointing. Or maybe I was expecting too much. :lol

Another older movie that was done right was Blade Runner. That looked.:bowdown: The one for Robocop was a pretty good upgrade too.

[KevinNYC]

I have an HD TV. Also have comcast HD box and the quality of picture is kickass. And its really enhanced on my bigger HD tv. I got a dvd-blue ray player as a gift that I never got around to hooking up. Probably end up doing it but was curious about blu ray. Thanks for the info fellas, really informative. Guess I've been missing out.

My issue like another poster. I actually do collect DVDs. I dont have a large collection but my favorite movies I own. No Country for Old men, Good Will Hunting, Bourne trilogy even down to Boomerang, School Daze, Napoleon Dynamite. I dont want to replace those with blue ray, I'm thinking blue ray should be for kickass action DVDs right? Like who cares if you watch Good Will Hunting on regular DVD vs bluray. Thoughts?

I know crap like Avatar has to be kickass.


I bought the blu-ray of No Country for Old Men several months before I bought a big TV. First one I watched. It's incredible on blu-ray.

I think Blu-Ray is for any movie/tv show that has good cinematography. Downtown Abbey is not an action movie, but it looks awesome in HD, but you're right lots of movies will still be fine on DVD.

What I did was say I was only going to upgrade a few of DVDs to Blu-Ray, mostly rent blu ray through Netflix and buy only Blu Ray if I was buying a movie. It depends how the original film was shot and if they invest in a quality transfer. Goodfellas doesn't look too much better on Blu Ray. Apocalypse now looks fantastic. I saw the Godfather on Blu Ray and noticed something I never saw the other 86,000 times I've seen that movie....during the wedding, when the old man sings, you can see his dentures almost fall out.

Action movies tend to have great sound design and that is definitely enhanced in blu-ray....I just have a single sound bar and my room doesn't work for surround sound, but you notice the difference.

Most new movies today are shot with blu ray in mind and the advances in the camera lens/film stock over the years is very noticeable. Even something like the Hangover is better in blu ray.

[dunksby]

Yeah sometimes they do it right, and do it amazingly. Sometimes they don't. Like I think the original Star Wars trilogy part of the blu-ray set that came out was kinda disappointing. Or maybe I was expecting too much. :lol

Another older movie that was done right was Blade Runner. That looked.:bowdown: The one for Robocop was a pretty good upgrade too.
I guess that shows which of the classics are actually well made movies :lol I hate James Cameron but that guy knows how to produce them movies right.

[KevinNYC]

If the movie is recorded on film an analog source it can mostly always be converted to look good on new technology. Take a look at the movie 2001, still looks great even on blu-ray. However now that movies are filmed digitally new video technology will be a problem. Even if they are recording at 4000 pixel height, one day we will eventually pass that and those movies will never look good again. Therefore it makes sense that the film industry people will want to keep us at 1080 for a long time. In fact most HDTV broadcasts are still 720.

This is correct. It's not a question of film vs HD. 35mm film still has more resolution than HD. It's a question of how suitable the original cinamatography is....something lowbudget is still going to look low budget, for example The Wrestler---and how good a transfer they do. Also film has grain--little flecks of silver in gelatin that react to light--some filmmakers deliberately shot films to be grainy--they shot in low light with slow filmstock..that is it's a deliberate choice. Grain changes all the time....where the flecks of silver landed in the gelatin is different for each foot of film. In HD video, the pixels are always in the same spot. This means it's easier for the compression software to render--less changes the better. There have software to clear up grain and make the transfer easier, but how the transfer is done counts. For the best blu-rays, they make a new 35 MM print from the original negative and transfer from that. You can do a 4K transfer these days. That 4K transfer will have more detail that the 1080p HD on the blu ray. There is still detail in the film, you're not seeing at home.

Anyway, once you have your setup. You owe it to yourself to see Baraka (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/REVIEWS08/810150290/1023)on Bluray. It's the best your TV will ever look.

[GOBB]

I bought the blu-ray of No Country for Old Men several months before I bought a big TV. First one I watched. It's incredible on blu-ray.

I think Blu-Ray is for any movie/tv show that has good cinematography. Downtown Abbey is not an action movie, but it looks awesome in HD, but you're right lots of movies will still be fine on DVD.

What I did was say I was only going to upgrade a few of DVDs to Blu-Ray, mostly rent blu ray through Netflix and buy only Blu Ray if I was buying a movie. It depends how the original film was shot and if they invest in a quality transfer. Goodfellas doesn't look too much better on Blu Ray. Apocalypse now looks fantastic. I saw the Godfather on Blu Ray and noticed something I never saw the other 86,000 times I've seen that movie....during the wedding, when the old man sings, you can see his dentures almost fall out.

Action movies tend to have great sound design and that is definitely enhanced in blu-ray....I just have a single sound bar and my room doesn't work for surround sound, but you notice the difference.

Most new movies today are shot with blu ray in mind and the advances in the camera lens/film stock over the years is very noticeable. Even something like the Hangover is better in blu ray.


Damn I gotta see Apocolypse Now and No Country for old men on blu ray. Those are two of my favorites.

Thanks for the replies. In bold thats what I'm curious about. How do you tell if a movie is captured with the right stuff to make it a good buy for blu ray? Reviews? Trial and error? Or are all new movies recorded with the right equipment.

Pretty sure MIP3 Ghost Protocol is gonna be great for blu ray. Would Ted?

[Meticode]

Silly topic.

On a more serious note, how good are blu ray movies? Significant difference?
I would say if you have a TV at 32" or larger a the Blu-Ray and DVD quality is much noticeable.

If you're downloading movies in HD format, downloading anything 720p or higher is a waste in my opinion. If you're setting 8 feet away watching a HD movie ripped in 720p format or 1080p format the naked eye cannot tell the difference, but if you sit closer than 8 feet or if you're TV is bigger than 42" then 1080p format is recommended.

Thsi is my personal opinion after downloading probably 100+ blu-rays. If you download animate movies in 720p format anything between 3-4.37GB is good quality. Most animated movies will be around that file size, old Disney movies remastered usually will be 2.5-4 GB because of their simple colors. If it's a real life movie around 2 hours long you're going to want the blu-ray file (.mkv) to be at least about 6GB to 8GB. Really long movies might have an exception such as Avatar or Lord of the Rings you can probably depend on them being 9-10GB.

If you want 1080p format animated movies are probably around 6GB and real life movies are 10GB. If it's a long 2.5 to 3 hour movie they're going to be 10-12GB probably.

[Meticode]

Damn I gotta see Apocolypse Now and No Country for old men on blu ray. Those are two of my favorites.

Thanks for the replies. In bold thats what I'm curious about. How do you tell if a movie is captured with the right stuff to make it a good buy for blu ray? Reviews? Trial and error? Or are all new movies recorded with the right equipment.

Pretty sure MIP3 Ghost Protocol is gonna be great for blu ray. Would Ted?
Any recent movies like MIII3 is better in blu-ray. All movies today are shot in HD cameras specifically for this. Older movies usually will get the original film remastered. You can even notice a difference between something like DVD of Terminator or and the remastered blu-ray. Sometimes remastering can be bad though when they take out the natural film artifacts. For example the original Predator movie with Arnold, the remastered version is so clear it makes the actors sweat skin look like wax sculptures. A lot of people were turned off by it, personally I loved the clarity of the movie versus the unmastered DVD copies.

[Meticode]

DVD vs. Blu-Ray Qaulity

http://www.zedzeek.com/OLD/autumn2008/bluray_vs_dvd.jpg

http://www.foolishpassion.org/vidding-tips/images/HD-vs-HD.jpg

http://www.generalforum.com/images/hosted/bluray_vs_dvd_small_01.jpg

http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/bdreviews/graphics/departedcomp01.jpg

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/tmbs/612bfc5b88/fullsize_22.jpg

http://www.originalprop.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/die-hard-blu-ray-v-dvd-inset-detail-comparison-screen-capture.jpg

[jbot]

won't ever happen. they make more money doing it how they do now. i personally despise movie theatres.

[Meticode]

won't ever happen. they make more money doing it how they do now. i personally despise movie theatres.
Why do you despise them exactly?

[jbot]

Why do you despise them exactly?
i can't stand hearing people crunch on popcorn and talking during the movie.

[Meticode]

i can't stand hearing people crunch on popcorn and talking during the movie.
I totally agree. Which is why I don't go to a movie until 2-3 weeks after it's opening night and I only go during the showings in the daytime during a regular weekday. Usually only 5-15 people will be at the movie and you don't get those problems.

I don't go to many movies anyway. Maybe 3-5 a year at most. When I do go it's always what I mentioned above. 2-3 weeks after opening night, during the daytime showings during weekdays.

I went to see The Dark Knight in 2008 1 week on a Friday night after it opened and the theater was packed and I had to sit all the way to the right of the screen. Totally will not do that again.

[Draz]

I totally agree. Which is why I don't go to a movie until 2-3 weeks after it's opening night and I only go during the showings in the daytime during a regular weekday. Usually only 5-15 people will be at the movie and you don't get those problems.

I don't go to many movies anyway. Maybe 3-5 a year at most. When I do go it's always what I mentioned above. 2-3 weeks after opening night, during the daytime showings during weekdays.

I went to see The Dark Knight in 2008 1 week on a Friday night after it opened and the theater was packed and I had to sit all the way to the right of the screen. Totally will not do that again.

Same. I went to see the avengers like the day after and it wasn't populated at all but I only go to see 1-3 movies a year tops.

[LBJMVP]

there is nothing even close to going to see a movie in the theatre. screen is so big, the lighting is perfect, the surround sound is great.

i do remember seeing avatar on a blu-ray player at home and it was amazing!

i dont usually go to the theatre to watch movies anyway, but its obvious movie theatres would all go out of business if the scenario the OP mentioned happened.

as it stand, the theatres make no money of the movie in its first week of release or somthing like that. that is why the food/drink prices are so high. that is where most of the revenue comes.

then after a couple weeks in the theatre starts getting a share of the movie revenue.

so next time your at a theatre considering playing their shitty arcade games games to make them some money :lol

[MeLO MvP 15]

Because $$$$$$$$


And I remember when it used to take a lot longer for a movie to be released on VHS/DVD, now it isn't too bad.

[Ass Dan]

I was wondering. Wouldn't it be much better to go out, purchase a movie for example (TDKR) on blu ray, come home & pop it in with family? Or perhaps even the streamed version of a blu ray. I don't mind going to watch it, but the travel, the travel expenses, the lazyness, etc, etc. Why do they make us wait so long? Is it because they want people to wait a while after they watched it, to make a second purchase for collection? Or is it some type of iMax or whatever it is have the option for theater only until a certain amount of weeks for money?

Yeah man, I mean why don't the actors just set up a stage in your backyard and perform it for you on opening night?

[ukplayer4]

whhoooo....alot of stuff to get into in here, pretty sure im gonna leave the technical stuff about resolutions for another day, but let me comment one thing. pixels are massively overrated and are/should not be the main consideration in digital cinema. blu ray is here to stay, 4k is decades away, partially because nothing is finished in anything more than 2k(just over hd anyway) so no film transfers would even benefit from it, and that is if we could even tell the difference which for me, we cant. i have actually shot 4k and i choose to watch 720 on my plasma 42 inch and tbh i dont see much difference between dvd and blu ray. ive also shot on consumer dslr and had my films shown in cinema screenings and it looks fine. every idiot harping on about essentail 4/5/6k digital cinema is just full of it, from a distribution sense anyway. there are huge advantages to a 2k+ capture but thats a different matter. 35mm film stock is close to 4k but the image is beautiful for a whole number of reasons far more important than its resolution.
1080 and even 720p major international releases made millions in the cinema just last year- monsters/like crazy etc etc etc and that is consumer digital technology with horrible compressed files. many of the major hollywood directors are going away from film which si a shame in one sense but it shows that digital, once its massively processed in post cannot be distinguished from film stock and its safer/cheaper to shoot digital. this is an area that i can really get lost in so i wont even get into this properly.

but i do want to get into the threa title...

i have no idea why people are in here calling the op stupid and saying it can never happen etc etc etc because in my opinion it is 100% factual certainty that it will happen. it is inevitable that release days become the same for home viewing and theatrical opening. the reason is this- why are cam rips so insanely popular despite the fact that they are horrible quality? because everything is about immediacy now, and why shouldnt it be? we are targeted with marketing when the film opens so obviously no one wants to wait 3 months, a week or even an hour to consume what excited us do we? we should be able to click and view, hollywood are not living in the real world with all these law suits and trying to battle the inevitable. the reason is this, wether it is a cam rip or a film that has been released earlier in a different territory most films are watchable immediately for free- dload or torrent. so if i cannot find somewhere to pay a reasonable price for a copy and consume it i'll just do it for free. it doesnt feel like theft does it? and why the **** shouldnt i? i want the option to pay for it, it just hasnt been offered to me becasue hollywood wants to dictate where, when and how i consume their product under their terms. is this day and age this is demented. the film industry needs to wake up, they have lost already, they need to learn from the music industry and stop trying to make us pay huge amounts of money for a screening, if the film we want is even showing at our local cinema(big if), pay huge amounts of money for horrible snacks in badly ushered screenings with idiotic people packed in with us. probably also having to endure revolting 3d that ruins the film. then wait three months and pay another lot of money for hard media...in this day and age?!?!?!!? i ask you, what planet are they living on where they think people will just do this instead of clicking a button and having it almost immediately in beautiful 2d to view in the manner i want to? its :roll: id like to pay for it but if they dont provide me the option ill just say thanks free is fine by me.
i also believe that this idea of lost revenue is total rubbish, i actually think theyd make more money from dual release date. after all as we are always told in the cinema adverts- "its the experience that counts" im a believer in this, i pay for the cinema experience, i think people would still do this almost as much theyd just consume more films period as apose to not paying for them because the option isnt there.
blah ive had a few and i cant be bothered to go into anymore detail about this but its soemthing i feel strongly about....

[macmac]

whhoooo....alot of stuff to get into in here, pretty sure im gonna leave the technical stuff about resolutions for another day, but let me comment one thing. pixels are massively overrated and are/should not be the main consideration in digital cinema. blu ray is here to stay, 4k is decades away, partially because nothing is finished in anything more than 2k(just over hd anyway) so no film transfers would even benefit from it, and that is if we could even tell the difference which for me, we cant. i have actually shot 4k and i choose to watch 720 on my plasma 42 inch and tbh i dont see much difference between dvd and blu ray. ive also shot on consumer dslr and had my films shown in cinema screenings and it looks fine. every idiot harping on about essentail 4/5/6k digital cinema is just full of it, from a distribution sense anyway. there are huge advantages to a 2k+ capture but thats a different matter. 35mm film stock is close to 4k but the image is beautiful for a whole number of reasons far more important than its resolution.
1080 and even 720p major international releases made millions in the cinema just last year- monsters/like crazy etc etc etc and that is consumer digital technology with horrible compressed files. many of the major hollywood directors are going away from film which si a shame in one sense but it shows that digital, once its massively processed in post cannot be distinguished from film stock and its safer/cheaper to shoot digital. this is an area that i can really get lost in so i wont even get into this properly.

but i do want to get into the threa title...

i have no idea why people are in here calling the op stupid and saying it can never happen etc etc etc because in my opinion it is 100% factual certainty that it will happen. it is inevitable that release days become the same for home viewing and theatrical opening. the reason is this- why are cam rips so insanely popular despite the fact that they are horrible quality? because everything is about immediacy now, and why shouldnt it be? we are targeted with marketing when the film opens so obviously no one wants to wait 3 months, a week or even an hour to consume what excited us do we? we should be able to click and view, hollywood are not living in the real world with all these law suits and trying to battle the inevitable. the reason is this, wether it is a cam rip or a film that has been released earlier in a different territory most films are watchable immediately for free- dload or torrent. so if i cannot find somewhere to pay a reasonable price for a copy and consume it i'll just do it for free. it doesnt feel like theft does it? and why the **** shouldnt i? i want the option to pay for it, it just hasnt been offered to me becasue hollywood wants to dictate where, when and how i consume their product under their terms. is this day and age this is demented. the film industry needs to wake up, they have lost already, they need to learn from the music industry and stop trying to make us pay huge amounts of money for a screening, if the film we want is even showing at our local cinema(big if), pay huge amounts of money for horrible snacks in badly ushered screenings with idiotic people packed in with us. probably also having to endure revolting 3d that ruins the film. then wait three months and pay another lot of money for hard media...in this day and age?!?!?!!? i ask you, what planet are they living on where they think people will just do this instead of clicking a button and having it almost immediately in beautiful 2d to view in the manner i want to? its :roll: id like to pay for it but if they dont provide me the option ill just say thanks free is fine by me.
i also believe that this idea of lost revenue is total rubbish, i actually think theyd make more money from dual release date. after all as we are always told in the cinema adverts- "its the experience that counts" im a believer in this, i pay for the cinema experience, i think people would still do this almost as much theyd just consume more films period as apose to not paying for them because the option isnt there.
blah ive had a few and i cant be bothered to go into anymore detail about this but its soemthing i feel strongly about....

You are wrong. Only a very small minority of people would pay 25$ for two tickets when they can buy the blu ray version for the same price and own it forever. Movie theaters would become obsolete. And then you wouldn't have the privilege of choosing, because that business would no longer be a viable source of income.

[SpecialQue]

I'm still debating whether OP was being serious with this question.

[dunksby]

whhoooo....alot of stuff to get into in here, pretty sure im gonna leave the technical stuff about resolutions for another day, but let me comment one thing. pixels are massively overrated and are/should not be the main consideration in digital cinema. blu ray is here to stay, 4k is decades away, partially because nothing is finished in anything more than 2k(just over hd anyway) so no film transfers would even benefit from it, and that is if we could even tell the difference which for me, we cant. i have actually shot 4k and i choose to watch 720 on my plasma 42 inch and tbh i dont see much difference between dvd and blu ray. ive also shot on consumer dslr and had my films shown in cinema screenings and it looks fine. every idiot harping on about essentail 4/5/6k digital cinema is just full of it, from a distribution sense anyway. there are huge advantages to a 2k+ capture but thats a different matter. 35mm film stock is close to 4k but the image is beautiful for a whole number of reasons far more important than its resolution.
1080 and even 720p major international releases made millions in the cinema just last year- monsters/like crazy etc etc etc and that is consumer digital technology with horrible compressed files. many of the major hollywood directors are going away from film which si a shame in one sense but it shows that digital, once its massively processed in post cannot be distinguished from film stock and its safer/cheaper to shoot digital. this is an area that i can really get lost in so i wont even get into this properly.

but i do want to get into the threa title...

i have no idea why people are in here calling the op stupid and saying it can never happen etc etc etc because in my opinion it is 100% factual certainty that it will happen. it is inevitable that release days become the same for home viewing and theatrical opening. the reason is this- why are cam rips so insanely popular despite the fact that they are horrible quality? because everything is about immediacy now, and why shouldnt it be? we are targeted with marketing when the film opens so obviously no one wants to wait 3 months, a week or even an hour to consume what excited us do we? we should be able to click and view, hollywood are not living in the real world with all these law suits and trying to battle the inevitable. the reason is this, wether it is a cam rip or a film that has been released earlier in a different territory most films are watchable immediately for free- dload or torrent. so if i cannot find somewhere to pay a reasonable price for a copy and consume it i'll just do it for free. it doesnt feel like theft does it? and why the **** shouldnt i? i want the option to pay for it, it just hasnt been offered to me becasue hollywood wants to dictate where, when and how i consume their product under their terms. is this day and age this is demented. the film industry needs to wake up, they have lost already, they need to learn from the music industry and stop trying to make us pay huge amounts of money for a screening, if the film we want is even showing at our local cinema(big if), pay huge amounts of money for horrible snacks in badly ushered screenings with idiotic people packed in with us. probably also having to endure revolting 3d that ruins the film. then wait three months and pay another lot of money for hard media...in this day and age?!?!?!!? i ask you, what planet are they living on where they think people will just do this instead of clicking a button and having it almost immediately in beautiful 2d to view in the manner i want to? its :roll: id like to pay for it but if they dont provide me the option ill just say thanks free is fine by me.
i also believe that this idea of lost revenue is total rubbish, i actually think theyd make more money from dual release date. after all as we are always told in the cinema adverts- "its the experience that counts" im a believer in this, i pay for the cinema experience, i think people would still do this almost as much theyd just consume more films period as apose to not paying for them because the option isnt there.
blah ive had a few and i cant be bothered to go into anymore detail about this but its soemthing i feel strongly about....
The only reason cam rips are popular it's because of dumbass color blind Mfers like you who are too aesthetically impaired to notice and appreciate the difference of blu-ray quality versus the cam rips. They are just stupid sheep whose only reason to watch the crappy cam rip is to keep up with what's hot and cool.
Seriously you call yourself a movie producer but have the nerve to patronize us and claim you can't see any difference between 720p and 1080p? You my friend are the jackass here.

[KevinNYC]

All movies today are shot in HD cameras specifically for this.

This is not true. Plenty of movies are still shot on film cameras.
Here's a list from Kodak. (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm) The Dark Knight Rises was shot on film.

When the image converted from analog film to a digital format, they scan the images and you can choose to scan at 2K, 4K, or even 8K. 2K is 2048 horizontal pixels which is similar to the 1920 x 1080 of 1080p HD. 8K scans are used very rarely because it's overkill for a movie shot in 35mm. However, for films shot in 65 or 70mm, like Baraka, it is worth it. This scanning is usually done way before the blu ray is created, since almost all editing is digital these days.

35mm is said to have a resolution somewhere between 3 and 4K.

The Dark Knight mixed both 35mm film and IMAX film, when they scanned the film, they scanned the 35mm sections at 4K and the IMAX sections at 8K.

So plenty of movies are shot on film and 35 mm film can be considered to a higher resolution than 1080p HD. However, even when films are shot digitally, they can be shot at a higher resolution than 1080p HD.

The Arriflex digital camera can output to 3K. Hugo was shot on this camera
The RED digital camera claims to output to 5k. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Prometheus were shot on this camera.


When a film is digitally projected in a theater, it can be projected at 4K (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-digitalcinema/resource.latest.bbsccms-assets-mkt-digicinema-latest-Sony4KDigitalCinemaTitles.shtml#2012)

[Rose]

This is not true. Plenty of movies are still shot on film cameras.
Here's a list from Kodak. (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm) The Dark Knight Rises was shot on film.

When the image converted from analog film to a digital format, they scan the images and you can choose to scan at 2K, 4K, or even 8K. 2K is 2048 horizontal pixels which is similar to the 1920 x 1080 of 1080p HD. 8K scans are used very rarely because it's overkill for a movie shot in 35mm. However, for films shot in 65 or 70mm, like Baraka, it is worth it. This scanning is usually done way before the blu ray is created, since almost all editing is digital these days.

35mm is said to have a resolution somewhere between 3 and 4K.

The Dark Knight mixed both 35mm film and IMAX film, when they scanned the film, they scanned the 35mm sections at 4K and the IMAX sections at 8K.

So plenty of movies are shot on film and 35 mm film can be considered to a higher resolution than 1080p HD. However, even when films are shot digitally, they can be shot at a higher resolution than 1080p HD.

The Arriflex digital camera can output to 3K. Hugo was shot on this camera
The RED digital camera claims to output to 5k. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Prometheus were shot on this camera.


When a film is digitally projected in a theater, it can be projected at 4K (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-digitalcinema/resource.latest.bbsccms-assets-mkt-digicinema-latest-Sony4KDigitalCinemaTitles.shtml#2012)
What a great informative post.:applause:

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

they are starting to offer same day releases on comcast demand for mostly independent movies. prices are like $80-$100 I think. if they released the blu ray same day as it's released in the theater, they'd just price jack. blu-ray's would be like $100.

[dunksby]

This is not true. Plenty of movies are still shot on film cameras.
Here's a list from Kodak. (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm) The Dark Knight Rises was shot on film.

When the image converted from analog film to a digital format, they scan the images and you can choose to scan at 2K, 4K, or even 8K. 2K is 2048 horizontal pixels which is similar to the 1920 x 1080 of 1080p HD. 8K scans are used very rarely because it's overkill for a movie shot in 35mm. However, for films shot in 65 or 70mm, like Baraka, it is worth it. This scanning is usually done way before the blu ray is created, since almost all editing is digital these days.

35mm is said to have a resolution somewhere between 3 and 4K.

The Dark Knight mixed both 35mm film and IMAX film, when they scanned the film, they scanned the 35mm sections at 4K and the IMAX sections at 8K.

So plenty of movies are shot on film and 35 mm film can be considered to a higher resolution than 1080p HD. However, even when films are shot digitally, they can be shot at a higher resolution than 1080p HD.

The Arriflex digital camera can output to 3K. Hugo was shot on this camera
The RED digital camera claims to output to 5k. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Prometheus were shot on this camera.


When a film is digitally projected in a theater, it can be projected at 4K (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/mkt-digitalcinema/resource.latest.bbsccms-assets-mkt-digicinema-latest-Sony4KDigitalCinemaTitles.shtml#2012)
Yea films are great but they cost too much and now that a cheaper alternate is here I believe it's gonna go out of common use. Even the film camera manufacturers are giving up on them.

[dunksby]

they are starting to offer same day releases on comcast demand for mostly independent movies. prices are like $80-$100 I think. if they released the blu ray same day as it's released in the theater, they'd just price jack. blu-ray's would be like $100.
Their biggest concern is piracy.

[NuggetsFan]

Why would they hurt an area where they make alot of money? If you could just get the movie on netflix or buy it etc. than you'd lose alot of money at the boxoffice. There's a reason why you never see huge budget movies go straight to DVD. Current system you have the box office + DVD\blue ray release.

I'm sure some movies would be fine, on average they'd probably lose lots of cash.

[KevinNYC]

Yea films are great but they cost too much and now that a cheaper alternate is here I believe it's gonna go out of common use. Even the film camera manufacturers are giving up on them.

Film camera manufacturers have embraced digital and abandoned film, but plenty of movies will still shoot film for a while.

For the biggest budget Hollywood movies, the cost is not that much of a factor. It's what tool do they want to use to get the look they want.

Check out last year's cinematography Oscar winner, Robert Richardson on which to use (http://movieline.com/2012/02/24/oscar-chat-a-conversation-with-best-cinematography-nominees-jeff-cronenweth-and-robert-richardson/)

[QUOTE]This year, there's a mix of digital and film among the nominees for Best Cinematography. How much does shooting on film vs. digital matter to you?

CRONENWETH: I still like the notion that some formats support certain stories better than others, and I like the idea that we are afforded the luxury of different story telling tools. But having said that I feel the gap between the two has closed for all intents and purposes.
RICHARDSON: Digital capture and film capture both have their advantages and disadvantages. I shot Hugo on digital with the Alexa and am now in the process of shooting Django Unchained on 35mm anamorphic. I feel comfortable with either digital or film

[ukplayer4]

The only reason cam rips are popular it's because of dumbass color blind Mfers like you who are too aesthetically impaired to notice and appreciate the difference of blu-ray quality versus the cam rips. They are just stupid sheep whose only reason to watch the crappy cam rip is to keep up with what's hot and cool.
Seriously you call yourself a movie producer but have the nerve to patronize us and claim you can't see any difference between 720p and 1080p? You my friend are the jackass here.


first question- how would being "aesthetically impaired" have anything to do with noticing the difference between 720 and 1080? did you mean visually impaired but wanted to sound a bit more intelligent by using a word you think makes you sound more informed? ooops. its always best to look up the meaning of words before you try to incorporate them into sentences.

:roll: although i was pretty drunk when i posted my first response the irony here is that im actually qualified to talk about this stuff having done extended studies and essays on it that are backed up with actual statistical data. ive also had lengthy conversations with the former head of distribution for the uk film council, coincidentally he largely shares a similar viewpoint as my own. but if you cant even get your head around this pretty simple notion thats fine. you actually have nothing to base your simple minded opinion on. i could actually point you to studies online that fully support what im suggesting.

you are also making alot of stuff up, i never said there wasnt a difference between bluray and camrip, damn your pretty slow if you read that into my post. i said people are so keen to see a film when they want to see it they are willing to put up with horrible quality cam rips, damn your pretty thick to misinterpret this.

im not a "producer" i wouldnt refer to myself as such, why dont you look up what a producer actually does so that you are aware. i dont even want to get into why pixels are so exaggerated when discussing image quality. but again, ive shot and post produced multiple digital formats and blown them up onto cinema screens before i formed my opinions but dont let someone informed sway your opinion in any way....

[ukplayer4]

Film camera manufacturers have embraced digital and abandoned film, but plenty of movies will still shoot film for a while.

For the biggest budget Hollywood movies, the cost is not that much of a factor. It's what tool do they want to use to get the look they want.

Check out last year's cinematography Oscar winner, Robert Richardson on which to use (http://movieline.com/2012/02/24/oscar-chat-a-conversation-with-best-cinematography-nominees-jeff-cronenweth-and-robert-richardson/)



If you think about Django Unchained being a throw back to old Spaghetti Westerns it makes sense they are shooting on film.

Rose, thanks.




spot on. even deakins is shooting on digital now, you want grain? add grain. digital has come a long way in the last few years the RED image is beautiful, even the red one that fincher/von trier etc shoot on, but something about the alexa is just so filmic, even tho there is alot less resolution, its about 2.5k compared with the modern red mysterium sensor which is 5k.




Originally Posted by dunksby
Yea films are great but they cost too much and now that a cheaper alternate is here I believe it's gonna go out of common use. Even the film camera manufacturers are giving up on them.



it makes perfect sense to still shoot on film for alot of productions, firstly because the film image actually is alot more forgiving and needs less working in post than digital. for a studio production it actually doesnt even save much money. its more about reliability.
film is still a lot harder to get wrong, for a great example of getting digital wrong see public enemies.

im totally skeptical of peter jackson shooting the hobbit in 48fps, ive shot with higher frame rates and unslowed down its horrible and unfilmic, no blur(once again we see less is more) makes for an unpleasing image.

[dunksby]

spot on. even deakins is shooting on digital now, you want grain? add grain. digital has come a long way in the last few years the RED image is beautiful, even the red one that fincher/von trier etc shoot on, but something about the alexa is just so filmic, even tho there is alot less resolution, its about 2.5k compared with the modern red mysterium sensor which is 5k.







it makes perfect sense to still shoot on film for alot of productions, firstly because the film image actually is alot more forgiving and needs less working in post than digital. for a studio production it actually doesnt even save much money. its more about reliability.
film is still a lot harder to get wrong, for a great example of getting digital wrong see public enemies.

im totally skeptical of peter jackson shooting the hobbit in 48fps, ive shot with higher frame rates and unslowed down its horrible and unfilmic, no blur(once again we see less is more) makes for an unpleasing image.
I personally prefer films for all the obvious perks but only as long as the digital method is lacking, if this transition is needed to for the tech to develop into an ideal alternate then I guess we have to bear with a few of these blunders and experiments.
About the 48pfs that Jackson is pushing, I think he is being an idiotic geek on this matter, human eyes observe at 15fps I don't see how excessive fps is gonna make an improvement while it is clear that it will just make shit worse. I mean it's like using those fake ass download managers that claim to increase your download speed by 110% or something theoretically impossible.

[dunksby]

first question- how would being "aesthetically impaired" have anything to do with noticing the difference between 720 and 1080? did you mean visually impaired but wanted to sound a bit more intelligent by using a word you think makes you sound more informed? ooops. its always best to look up the meaning of words before you try to incorporate them into sentences.

:roll: although i was pretty drunk when i posted my first response the irony here is that im actually qualified to talk about this stuff having done extended studies and essays on it that are backed up with actual statistical data. ive also had lengthy conversations with the former head of distribution for the uk film council, coincidentally he largely shares a similar viewpoint as my own. but if you cant even get your head around this pretty simple notion thats fine. you actually have nothing to base your simple minded opinion on. i could actually point you to studies online that fully support what im suggesting.

you are also making alot of stuff up, i never said there wasnt a difference between bluray and camrip, damn your pretty slow if you read that into my post. i said people are so keen to see a film when they want to see it they are willing to put up with horrible quality cam rips, damn your pretty thick to misinterpret this.

im not a "producer" i wouldnt refer to myself as such, why dont you look up what a producer actually does so that you are aware. i dont even want to get into why pixels are so exaggerated when discussing image quality. but again, ive shot and post produced multiple digital formats and blown them up onto cinema screens before i formed my opinions but dont let someone informed sway your opinion in any way....
1- I know the meaning of the word, it's not my problem you don't get the point, a better image quality makes for better aesthetic appreciation.
2- I didn't say you could not differentiate between them, I was talking about the Cam rip whores, but I give you this one since I was too mad myself to word it correctly.
3- I don't care about the studies, people who watch cam rips are slaves of media and hype, they don't watch movies to appreciate the movie itself they watch it so that they don't look like an idiot when the rest are talking about the movie. Now if the studies show that those are real film enthusiasts then I'm happy I'm not aware of them.
4- I thought you produced indie films as in a filmmaker? What's up with your obsession with terminology? Well if you are not then I was mistaken, I just always though you were dunno where that notion came from.