Yeah! The VHS revival starts here. I want Edison cylinders too...

Sigh....I was in Amoeba Hollywood and during checkout, if memory serves, the sales guy explained to me that he vastly preferred the look of VHS to the "inferior" Blu-Ray format.....something about "warmth", or analog tape mojo digital bit sample quality data loss mumbo jumbo......

I'm still adjusting my eyes to 4K HDR, so I have a modicum of sympathy. I think 60fps 4K HDR, as seen on Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk would be an absolutely incredible medium for capturing live events like concerts, theatre and opera, but I'm far from the only one to think that it just looks weird when applied to film. Mainly because I've been acculturated to expect some kind of "surface", be it film grain or tape smears.

Don't agree (Edit: agree with your point about 60fps but not generally.). With both upsampling and 4K/HDR disc playback I think the kick in quality and resolution from Rec.2020 color spacing and the incredible HDR range are the best new tools imaginable for remastering. I have just come back from the 2017 Bologna Ritrovata and I put the question to a number of people including Tony Rayns, "can you actually tell whether you are watching a 4K DCP or 35mm in some of these screenings?" (Scarface was the earliest.) They and he couldn't. Neil McGlone and I both though Universal's new Scarface was a 35mm. It was a DCP. But the Arlecchino cinema there can use carbon arc lamps (as they did for Tech IB print screenings.) which helps things along. I just want this tiresome old argument about evil digital vs perfect and wonderful3 55mm to go away. We have the film references which we have to keep and we also now have another medium which can very closely replicate and in some ways improve on 35mm emulsion image at its most pristine.

i agree. The folks being super reverential of 35mm all of sudden seem to have very little experience of 35mm first run or 35mm repertory as it existed for decades prior to the recent developments . 35mm today can be such a good experience because there is so little circulating that prints don't get nearly as much use leaving them in much better condition. Bulbs for rarely used 35mm projectors are set to their proper levels, not bulb maximizing life settings etc etc.

And of course because a 35mm screening is now a scarce commodity people all of sudden value it more :-/

Just to clarify, when I said "applied to film", I actually meant "applied to a dramatic feature". I feel very differently about 4K HDR applied to something shot on 35mm (or any gauge of film), and entirely agree with David about the potential.

Apologies: that was entirely my fault. I couldn't have phrased that more confusingly if I'd tried!

And yes, give me a well-authored Blu-ray over the vast majority of 35mm prints that I grew up with in assorted London rep cinemas.

All the 2K restorations I saw on DCP were vastly digital looking.

I believe the only 4K restoration I saw on DCP was a 2K projection of Sunset Blvd and it was also digital looking. The worst offended I saw was Heaven's Gate, which surprised me all the more because I saw the Criterion BD a few months earlier and found it extremely nice looking, but on a bigger screen, it had a definitely digital aspect, especially in terms of grain and texture. It looked nothing like 35mm.

I also saw 2 years ago Doctor Zhivago at Lyon and man did that restoration did not aged well...

I saw An Autumn Afternoon and Equinox Flower later on DCP (2K projections), from the 4K restorations, and it looked much more natural, but it still isn't 35mm in its details : the small frame instability (especially around roll changes), the random specks, the cigarette burns...

I still have to see a 4K restoration on a 4K projection though.


However, I never saw many battered 35mm copies though, and even the battered couple I saw at Lyon were actually transfered on digital because they had issues with the reels that kept breaking down.

I've seen loads! We used to mark the prints we were sent out of 10, and they'd have to drop to about 3 or below before we'd judge them unusable - not because we were particularly lackadaisical but because we knew that if we complained, the prints would be junked and most likely not replaced, and by that stage the chances are that there'd just be one in commercial circulation. Of course, at the time there was no real alternative to what we were offering, besides extremely occasional TV screenings or video releases that were most likely panned-and-scanned, dubbed or similarly compromised.

In fact, it was quite startling to see the restoration of Horse Feathers, because I'd always mentally assumed that the glaring jump-cuts were down to a single lousy print (there was just one available to UK cinema bookers) instead of being inherent in surviving materials across the board.

Movie encoded into the DNA of bacteria!
Not sure of the reason - and it isn't quite up to 4K standard yet - but maybe one day we'll each be immunised with our favourite movie... or films will be preserved via bacteria?

Pirating would be as easy as contracting syphilis!

Yesterday, I went into the B&N in Union Square. They had changed the movie and music section around. The Criterion discs were moved to the biggest aisle, but where the CC discs used to live they have moved their vinyl there. I started talking to the worker who said their vinyl sales have increased enough for them to expand their inventory. I asked him if DVD still sells better than bluray and he said not really. Which I guess shouldn't surprise me as bluray is more a collectors' format and streaming has probably hurt DVD more so. But the vinyl upsurge has me really perplexed as it does the gentleman from B&N. It's younger people (millennials) who are driving the vinyl popularity. The millennials are known for being the generation that wants to streamline their lives. No clutter, simplify everything, but they pick the format that it the bulkiest so to speak. Any thoughts?

If we're going to buy physical media- which still has its appeal, for a favorite album or a particularly beautiful cover or something- it makes sense to want to but the version with the most aura in the Benjamin sense (which I realize is ironic in the context of mass produced items but still) the most sense of physical connection to the work. CDs have no real value- jewel cases are annoying and uncollectable, and one can get precisely the same content with a digital download. LPs not only sound different- how different is a matter of debate, but surely not exactly the same- but one can literally see the music encoded on them, one could play them by hand with the right tools, and they have a heft and weight while also no taking up that much space in bulk. If you think of vinyl not as a big new format, but as literally the only physical format millenials ever buy, I think it makes some sense.

(Also, this doesn't apply to Barnes and Noble, but vinyl allows one to go crate searching and tag sale buying and digging through the past in all sorts of ways that have a real appeal in a world in which most purchasing is mindlessly easy.)

Some of the most ignorant statements I've seen for awhile on this site. CDs allow you to collect your favorite albums without them taking up a lot of space, unlike vinyl, and the hassle of taking care of vinyl is too troublesome for me. And saying CDs have no real value is very perplexing considering there are audiophile companies still making stellar editions of albums on CD worth a lot of money. Even cassettes have made a resurgence and cassettes were never known for good sound quality. And saying you get the same content of a CD as on a digital download is so bizarre as well. Yes, CDs are digital, but downloads don't give you the physical sensations like the nice size of a CD, whereas I think vinyl packaging is too big and bulky. And most people honestly can't tell the difference when listening to vinyl or CD. And so much vinyl is mastered from CD sources anyway, which kinda defeats the purpose of being analog purists. However, one thing vinyl can have over CDs is dynamic range, but that's for another day.

I think his point is that for physical media consumers looking for a fetish object for music, LPs are it. Few if any of the new wave of LP converts have the proper equipment to really get much in the way of differentiation from CDs, but it's undeniable that for a large subsection of (younger) physical media buyers, LPs now have a collectible lure that CDs no longer possess. This isn't denigrating the quality or usefulness of CDs, it's just the way it is right now

Your post was almost entirely nonsensical, but this statement in particular should be highlighted for its incredibly false information.

I still own virtually every LP I ever bought (thousands of them, some now older than 50 years old). A lot of them now seem to be degrading. I can't afford to replace them, but I definitely appreciate the lack of scratch noises, dirt, warping, etc on more modern music media...

Please explain to me the "nonsense" of my post. Dynamic range is great on a lot of CDs, but you would have to be clueless to not see how the mastering on CD is butchered compared to vinyl counterparts on a lot of modern day releases. You can even go to the Dynamic Range Database online to see my point.

There are great sounding CDs, and great sounding vinyl. From audiophile quality to $5 CDs from the 1980s with great mastering, and everything in between. People are buying vinyl because it looks great and is seen as more legitimate. Dom is right, vinyl is cool and more fun than CDs. Now does that mean the pressings available at B&N sound great? Not necessarily. But they are fun to buy for first time music buyers, which probably describes a lot of people who were raised on MP3s driving the sales.

If you take a modern, heavily compressed/brickwalled CD and stick it on a record without any changes, it will (quantitatively) appear to have more dynamic range than it actually does. You can get the same inflated DR by applying a high- and low-pass filter to the compressed files; the resultant waveform will look and measure more dynamic, despite having only lost information.

There are modern vinyl reissues that sound better than their digital counterparts, but they are few and far between. Most people posting to the DR database and the SteveHoffman forums fail to realise this.

Interesting conversation about vinyl. I've gotten into collecting vinyl over the past few years, because a) I have the space, and b) I like album artwork, and c) I don't have a stereo system that's going to matter much either way in terms of format. I don't buy a huge number, mostly only things I plan to listen to with some regularity, and albums that I like to listen to all the way through. It's just a very collectible format - what domino calls "fetish objects" I tend to think of as essentially an art collection that also has music I like on it.

I'm going to show my age here and ask why the heck you guys want to add more clutter to your homes with vinyl? I don't know specifics (Excatly just HOW good it sounds) but I'd much rather have all my media in a digital format (MP4, FLAC, Etc.) because I simply don't have enough room in my pathetic excuse for a bachelor pad (Laugh if you must). I have the same problem with physical media such as DVDs and Blu-Rays. I'd post a picture of everything but I know I'd be roasted into high heaven. My pad is a Kafkaesque disaster of unparalleled proportions.

How do you all cope with this?

Vinyl really isn't a huge clutter item since most albums are so thin. I have, I dunno, maybe 80-90? And they all fit on a section of shelving that's perhaps 2.5 feet across?

I have a reasonably sized apartment though. It's still a pathetic bachelor pad but there's enough room for physical media storage, although my movie collection is nothing compared to some of the folks on this board, probably between 200-300, mostly Blu-ray these days. They all fit on one Ikea Billy bookcase, at any rate.

So I guess I cope by being relatively modest in my collecting habits. Also I have very few actual books - those fuckers are what really take up space.

Answer to Big Ben's question that sounds even more obnoxious than it actually is: I built a house with dedicated rooms for music and movies. (Though if we were selling the house, they'd suddenly become fourth and fifth bedrooms.)

On the music front: Vinyl is a great format. CD is also a great format. They have their individual strengths and weaknesses and shitty or excellent sounding releases are independent of the format (and some of my favourite music always has and always will sound like shit - delicious, life-changing shit). I have a lot of both vinyl and CD, and my purchases are wholly driven by the music: if something I want to hear is only available in one format (nowadays that's more likely vinyl), that's how I'll buy it. And I'll always prefer physical media over ephemeral downloads, but if the music I want is only available digitally, I'll buy it off iTunes (or, preferably, directly off the artist or their label).