Digipaks or Keepcases?

Message

#51 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:32 pm

Lino wrote:
Mr_sausage wrote:
Lino wrote: Finally we agree on something!
Naturally it would be that the one thing we can agree on is apathy.
You have a sick pleasure in twisting other person's words, don't you?

Actually I just thought it was an amusing irony that the one thing we've agreed on recently is that we both don't care. I would have put a winky smilie in there too if I didn't hate using them. It was all in the interest of joviality.

Sick pleasure? Maybe. I don't know about that twisting words thing, though

Lino · #52 Post by **Lino** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:11 pm

Whatever! Anyway, shall we shake hands and get on with the usual bitching about DVD packaging, then?

BTW, not that I care (as I stated earlier and even voted for it) but digipacks are indeed classier! But I'm a recent apologist of slim cases. Matt, you should have included them on your poll.

#53 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:53 pm

Lino wrote:Anyway, shall we shake hands and get on with the usual bitching about DVD packaging, then?

With pleasure.

#54 Post by **Matt** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:25 pm

Digipaks also suck for libraries.

porquenegar · #55 Post by **porquenegar** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:34 pm

Keepcases, specifically thinpacks. I have a couple of digpaks with a busted spindle which is very annoying.

Galen Young · #56 Post by **Galen Young** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:41 pm

peerpee wrote:...and more importantly, that digipaks are much more environmentally unsound.

That is the second funniest thing I've read on this forum this year. Thanks for the laugh!

Greathinker · #57 Post by **Greathinker** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:01 pm

In addition, I've read that digipaks have been linked to certain kinds of cancer

miless · #58 Post by **miless** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:40 pm

Greathinker wrote:In addition, I've read that digipaks have been linked to certain kinds of cancer

the all too common finger tumor...
scientists have narrowed the cause to either digipaks or masturbation

#59 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:53 pm

miless wrote:
Greathinker wrote:In addition, I've read that digipaks have been linked to certain kinds of cancer
the all too common finger tumor...
scientists have narrowed the cause to either digipaks or masturbation

Christian scientists?

miless · #60 Post by **miless** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:00 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:Christian scientists?

exactly

Cinesimilitude · #61 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:20 pm

I don't know, I heard there slogan reads: "You Fuck yourself by Fucking yourself. (And Stay away from the Special Editions!)"

TheGodfather · #62 Post by **TheGodfather** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:05 pm

Digipacks, no question! Love the fact that that (so far at least) a number of the new releases come in digi`s. Like Seven Samurai and Amarcord. And just saw that The Double Life Of Veronique and Pandora`s box come in digipacks as well so that`s awesome!

Love to see all sets with 2 or more discs in digipacks. They are way more stylish then those stupid keepcases

Matt wrote:Digipaks also suck for libraries.

Well, luckily we don`t live in library`s

Really hate those cases that Warner used for example for the 3 disc Maltese Falcon release. Looks so cheap

Donald Brown · #63 Post by **Donald Brown** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:28 pm

ThinPaks should be the standard for all releases except those with large booklets.

jedgeco · #64 Post by **jedgeco** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:31 am

Matt wrote:Digipaks also suck for libraries.

So do DVDs (and CDs) generally -- I've had to do substantial surgery on both to make them playable in the past.

Digipak all the way. Keepcases are boring and generic.

jt · #65 Post by jt » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:23 am

What do you pick up when you're explaining what the criterion collection is to non-collectors to show them? Seven Samurai, Pandora's Box, Dazed, Ugetsu...etc...

Surely, you've got to be more proud of your digis..?

colinr0380 · #66 Post by **colinr0380** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:27 pm

jt wrote:What do you pick up when you're explaining what the criterion collection is to non-collectors to show them? Seven Samurai, Pandora's Box, Dazed, Ugetsu...etc...

Surely, you've got to be more proud of your digis..?

I most definitely am but I can see why most vote for the keepcases or thinpacks - all you need is for the digipack to get bashed or the plastic disc holders to break etc and the whole package is ruined - you can't just go out and get another case but have to rebuy the whole package again (or you could take the discs out in the first place and keep them separately, but then that defeats the purpose of the digipack as well).

For example, a couple of years ago I accidentally spilt some tea over my Lord of the Flies box (luckily I was playing the DVD at the time so that was spared!). I managed to get the sodden cover out of the box, clean it as best I could, and leave it to dry. Unfortunately the keepcase was ruined (I was more concerned about the cover so by the time I got back to it the tea had dried on!), but all I needed to do was throw it away and get a spare one. It would be a major disaster, not just a minor inconvenience, if that happened to any of the digipacks I have.

So I completely understand why keepcases are preferred especially as Matt says in libraries where boxes are being handled all the time, bashed about and suffering all kinds of wear and tear.

Having said that, I really love the digipacks as well - to me they are some of the best packaging that Criterion has ever done. It just means it would be more of a disaster to accidentally ruin such packaging. I guess I'll have to be much more careful when sitting down with a cup of tea and a biscuit to watch a film in the future!

godardslave · #67 Post by **godardslave** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 9:10 pm

colinr0380 wrote:I most definitely am but I can see why most vote for the keepcases or thinpacks

Er..not sure where you're getting this from? But the current vote in this thread is 43% digipaks, 35% keepcase and the rest don't care.

Paul Moran · #68 Post by **Paul Moran** » Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:00 am

I prefer thinpacks, for the best of both worlds (IMO): compact storage (like digi-packs), and easy to use and replace (like standard keep cases). Safer too: the 2-disc versions have interlocking disc holders, so discs cannot become "rattlers" if they are correctly positioned before case is closed.

Warner Bros seem to agree. My "Film Noir Classic Collection Vol 3" and "Gary Cooper Signature Collection" arrived recently as thinpacks in slip case, instead of the usual shelf-breaking collection of standard keep cases.

I do care, but I haven't voted.

colinr0380 · #69 Post by **colinr0380** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:15 pm

Sorry, that was me getting the words 'most' and 'many' mixed up!

Artois · #70 Post by **Artois** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 11:59 am

Could someone clarify what digipak, keepcase, Amaray are? Also floater and dings, pretty obvious but just to be sure..

Cinesimilitude · #71 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 1:57 pm

Artois wrote:Could someone clarify what digipak, keepcase, Amaray are? Also floater and dings, pretty obvious but just to be sure..

Digi = carboard shell with a plastic disc tray that is stuck to the cardboard, often using a gel like adhesive. They have been known to be excessively pretty.

keepcase is the general name for amarays, thinpaks, etc... they open on one side, and are made of plastic with a clear outer plastic cover, allowing artwork with a front, spine, and back to be inserted beneath it. they come in all sorts of colors, but the only thing that differs in size is the width of the spine depending on whether it is a thin, single, double, or mutli disc case.

a "floater" would be when the disc is dislodged from it's tray during shipment. dings are damage to the packaging (I assume).

shearerchic · #72 Post by **shearerchic** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:23 pm

i definitely prefer keepcases, but i don't mind digipacks since most tv shows come out on them, but i do wish that Warners would re-release those snappers in keepcases (mutiny on the bounty, mrs. miniver, good news, judy garland set, anchors aweigh, cole porter collection, gaslight, take me out to the ball game, designing woman, and the bad and the beautiful.)

skuhn8 · #73 Post by **skuhn8** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:28 pm

Actually quite an important question when you consider how much many of us spend on these damn things. Digipacks are very stylish but impractical due to repercussion of breakage. Amarays are just plain bulky, and all the more ridiculous now that booklets are becoming increasingly infrequent. Nothing sillier than opening the big black case to find a little lonely disc sitting inside there. I think the thinpacks are the best of both worlds.

Greathinker · #74 Post by **Greathinker** » Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:52 pm

I change my vote. I just got into Veronique and viewed it for the first time-- such commendable work on the packaging, it fits the film like a glove and seems to me more of a tribute to the film than a fancy eye-catcher on the store shelf. I also just received A Canterbury Tale, which feels archaic in comparison. Something more slim would still be preferable but I can't complain.

justeleblanc · #75 Post by **justeleblanc** » Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:59 pm

jon wrote:Well that's good to hear. Anyone know what the price difference on doing Six Moral Tales style digis vs. thin-paks?

My assumption was digipaks are more expensive, but they are:

a) harder to bootleg on ebay
b) a way to seperate themselves from other DVD labels
c) environmentally friendly
d) aesthetically -- when looking at the spines -- more novel-like

and

e) juste prefers them