Author |
Message |
|
shannon |
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:55 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1628
Location: NC
|
Marc wrote: Quote: Give it maybe two years, DVD's won't around anymore.
Like out-of-print vinyl, there will be a market for DVDs that aren't available on Blu-Ray or via streaming. The same is true of certain titles on VHS. I own a copy of Jean Eustache's masterpiece The Mother And The Whore on VHS. It's never been released on DVD and is not available as a stream from any source. Used video copies sell for around $100.
To further my point: the site I linked above has The Mother And The Whore available for download, sourced from the VHS. For free. No need to pay $100 for something that I'm only going to be able to use for a finite amount of time. (Even providing your VHS player never breaks, VHS tapes still degrade over time.) And given most machines' upscaling capabilities, the download will arguably look better. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
bartist |
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:00 am |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
Shannon, I wasn't disputing that some formats, like HD-DVD, are discontinued. Just wouldn't equate that with "dead." Vinyl records stopped being pressed, people kept liking them, and now even my local Best Buy has an aisle, about 25 feet long, with nothing but newly pressed vinyl. Each medium has its special charms, sometimes related to its physicality.
Not having your obvious knowledge of HD, I have only my experience of owning a DVD player, which seems to be able to play HD, and which seems to give a better pic when I run it thru a HDMI cable rather than the standard RYW video cable. |
_________________ He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
Back to top |
|
bartist |
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:07 am |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
I do agree that the whole "monster" cable thing is kind of a scam....a similar one are the really pricey "shielded" coaxial cables -- generally, the impedance of a coaxial cable is such that RF interference along the cable is fairly rare. |
_________________ He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
Back to top |
|
knox |
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:25 am |
|
|
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1246
Location: St. Louis
|
A couple years ago, when broadcast tv went digital, the clerk at BB told me I needed shielded coaxial cable and my jaw dropped at the price. I went home, tore off a sheet of aluminum foil, wrapped it around the cable where it was close to the tv, and the interference vanished. I think tv interferes with itself. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:41 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
shannon wrote: Joe Vitus wrote: shannon wrote: If they've ever been available, they always will be available. It doesn't matter if someone decides it's worth streaming to you or not. You can still have it. You may not be able to hold it in your hand, but it's still there.
What does this mean, exactly? If someone doesn't deem it worthy of putting online or in a home viewing format, how is it always available? Your logic is kinda escaping me here.
Meaning that you don't have to wait on some company like Netflix or Hulu to deem it profitable enough to be placed online. There will always be someone in Internet Land who's willing to just give it to you for free if you're interested. I know of several torrent sites where members share obscure, esoteric crap that you can have for nothing. (for example: http://karagarga.net/) And using them really requires very little technical know-how.
bartist wrote: ...there are, as well as Blu-Ray, also HD DVDs that give excellent resolution and are cheaper than Blu-Ray. Many current DVD will play as either standard or high-def. and the purchase of a $10 HDMI cable means you can watch them on most DVD players in HD.
HD DVDs have been discontinued. And they wouldn't play on a standard DVD player.
Also, the necessity of HDMI is a fallacy being perpetuated by stores like Best Buy who are selling these cables at ridiculously high markups. (You can find them on Amazon and other sites for less than $5 apiece, but Target or whatever won't sell you one for less than $50. And there's no such thing as a better cable in this circumstance, so don't get suckered into a super-expensive "Monster Cable" or whatever it's called. It's digital; it's either sent or not sent, there's no good or bad to it.) They're unnecessary, although undeniably convenient. Those normal red/white/yellow component cables that come with every piece of electronics you've ever purchased are perfectly capable of transmitting HD.
All right, another dumb question. I can't figure out how to register. There's a Log In, but no way to register as a new user. If I register as a new user on the forums, will that get me on?
And another dumb question. I've seen sites similar to this, offering free movies to watch or download, but I've never registered for them because I don't know which sites are trustworthy and which not. In terms of downloading viruses, spam, etc. Is there a good rule of thumb to follow (other than, I know someone who uses X site, like you apparently do karagarga)? |
_________________ You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
Back to top |
|
shannon |
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:47 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1628
Location: NC
|
Joe Vitus wrote: And another dumb question. I've seen sites similar to this, offering free movies to watch or download, but I've never registered for them because I don't know which sites are trustworthy and which not. In terms of downloading viruses, spam, etc. Is there a good rule of thumb to follow (other than, I know someone who uses X site, like you apparently do karagarga)?
Karagarga is invite-only membership, which is how they keep the viruses and spam out. I think I have invites, but I can't promise. If so, I'll be glad to invite you. I'll check later on today when I'm not at work. If not, just become a member of the forums. They're a nice group, I've no doubt an invite will be easy to acquire. It's also worthwhile reading, though I've never felt the need to post there myself. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:02 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Thank you, even if you can't get me an invite, I appreciate the effort and will register for the forums. |
_________________ You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
Back to top |
|
Joe Vitus |
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:15 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Won't let me register. Says my email's not "on the tracker," whatever that means. Oh, well... |
_________________ You've got a great brain. You should keep it in your head.
-Topher |
|
Back to top |
|
bartist |
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:12 am |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
Well, The Beaver was both funnier, and then went to a much darker place, than I had expected. Gibson seemed to draw aspects of his character, struggling with depression (and eventually, deeper mental illness), from his own life experiences and does a fine job -- I'm not sure he's ever been better, in anything else I've seen. Nearly stealing the show is Anton Yelchin, as his troubled son, and Jennifer Lawrence (of Winter's Bone) as his romantic interest and someone with her own troubles. |
_________________ He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
Back to top |
|
gromit |
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:13 am |
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
The Kremlin Letter (1970) a spy thriller directed by John Huston, with Bibi Anderson, and Orson Welles and Max Von Sydow in small parts as Russkie spy chiefs. Bibi's role reminded me constantly of Eva Marie Saint, while Richard Boone is a much blander Cary Grant (though he's an agent). A good deal of plodding plot twists. Too much movie hokum, such as one-touch knockouts, photographic memories (which turns into remembering perfectly everything said as well, and improbable plot turns. Too clunky. I got bored and started losing track of the characters. I can see why I'd never heard of this before.
At least I also picked up Went the Day Well? which I've been dying to see for years. |
_________________ Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:35 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
I've been dying to see The Leopard for years. And it's been on my queue for a long time, but it was on TCM last night, and I couldn't stay with it. Between the dubbing of Burt Lancaster, and its pacing, it was just too much.
Well at least I can remove it from my queue. That is unless someone can argue it's value for giving it another go. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
carrobin |
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:53 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 7795
Location: NYC
|
I started watching "The Leopard" too, never having seen it, but my TV isn't the best and trying to read subtitles for three hours wasn't gong to work. So I ended up watching "Spy Kids" on the Disney Channel. Loved it. I have a new respect for Alan Cumming. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
yambu |
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:40 pm |
|
|
Joined: 23 May 2004
Posts: 6441
Location: SF Bay Area
|
The Leopard was Lancaster at his very best. The summer-fall romance was affecting, and the camera work was awesome.
The film gives just a taste of DiLampedusa's lush 1958 novel. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
marantzo |
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:30 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
The Leopard came out when I was a Parisian and the reviews were positive but made it sound like a pretty long slog. The comments on Lancaster were all raves. I gave it a pass.
Didn't he get an Oscar nomination for it? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
bartist |
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:22 pm |
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6961
Location: Black Hills
|
I think two people here have seen, and briefly reviewed, The Beaver. Both times, everyone else steps around the posting like a fresh turd on the sidewalk. People, give this film a chance! |
_________________ He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
Back to top |
|
|