Yesterday I received a complaint that too many digital references were creeping in, and this forum is supposed to be solely real film talk. i hadn't noticed it myself, maybe it was some reference to a box set or concerning the best source for re-recording. Can I ask other than requesting a soundtrack for recording purposes, that members try to refrain from discussing digital recordings. What makes this forum unique is that we are the only one that doesn't discuss other methods of viewing movies.

Yes i agree on this. Vidar did originally request this in the very early days.
Have to say i have been a little guilty on this and sometimes we let it creep in as i have dun on another thread here so from here on
its film for me.

That's fine Robert except to say there will always be times when cross over references are made just as we have been discussing moments ago due to the chain of natural conversation.

We have a fusion of technologies that allow us to record onto our films now, even play 5.1 soundtracks alongside our films now and it is digital technology which is responsible for allowing us to pulse synchronize our machines at times.

There has to be sensible thought out limitations on this one overall now in this day and age.

While I perfectly accept we are not here to wax lyrical about the next Steelbook or New flagship D-ILA Projector, we have to respect those that merge the two technologies with great effect for the benefit of our film collections.

Would this then mean that we couldn't ever discuss a "Pedro" box for example?

Even some of our later projectors were digitally controllable and have digital counters on them etc etc. Can we not discuss those either?

This could open up a whole new discussion. I received a complaint, so I had to act upon it. It might mean that in future certain comments might have to be deleted. On the subject of re-recording, I'm with John Hourigan on this one. it shouldn't be necessary. If you pay good money, and films were never cheap, you expect to get the best quality that is available. I don't have the ability to re-record films in sync, and don't see why I should have to, so would have to put up with whatever I received. Over on the other forum someone was complaining about the poor sound on his Derann feature. If Derek Simmonds was still putting out films, when the recording equipment was on its last legs, then it shows he was more interested in making money than the interest of the customer. We shouldn't forget that he was a businessman, he wasn't running a charitable institution. One day I shall try to video and post my almost transparent copy of the Errol Flynn Robin Hood trailer. It should never have been sold it was so poor.

Re recording is an enjoyable and fascinating part of the hobby to many Robert. It isn't just because the initial recordings were always so poor, it is simply because they can be so much improved upon now in this day and age.
It would be ludicrous to delete any topic of conversation surrounding new technology to work alongside our hobby unless we simply want to place ourselves in a time bubble.

i know not everyone takes advantage of using modern day tech to enjoy their hobby alongside but many do Robert.

I've asked Vidar for his thoughts on this, then we'll know what stand we take in future. i'm not making the rules, just trying to follow them. I just need to know what is acceptable and what isn't.

Well as Vidar has taken advantage of the benefits of recording a soundtrack from a digital source himself, I'd naturally expect him to support any issue that envelopes the two technologies together Robert.

As for all else on this subject matter, same rules applies as always I'd expect

Not sure where the lines should be drawn, but things for our film requirements should perhaps be okay, like Andrew mentioned Pedro box, it is for our recording of film sound. Sure, it is controlled with digital pulses, but should be okay. If my post on help with the DVD, it is also for getting the proper sound on my Super 8 print. My apologies if that was out of line. Film related stuff for me our hobby is for me okay. Wolverine is digital transfer equipment, would you think it is okay, all reading members? I like to hear where you would draw the line

Thanks Vidar, I regard that as sensible decision making there. Personally I do not like Wolverine talk here as it is transferring the image FROM film to present digitally. The same can be said for Kodak's new products if they ever finally came to market.

I still long for the day when technology see's it that I can place a Shiny Disc in a machine and get a Super 8mm sound film out!
Like that'll ever happen!

These however are only my own views on the matter and if the majority here wished to talk about digitally archiving their home movies for example, then we would have to listen, simple as that if we wish the forum to have any longevity.

I have dvd and bluray. Two things I will say about discs I have a lot that would never have seen a 8mm light only 16mm. So I can see films that I would never have a chance before. And the original behind the scenes footage. This has brought the back room boys into the front room.

I think nowadays, there won't be anyone here or out there generally who doesn't have the facility to view movies in the modern manner David.
It is after all now, almost twenty years since film has been regularly in use in industry or that sub standard prints have been generally produced from them.

All that is important to Vidar here, is that we don't descend down the same path as film tech etc where at times there was more talk on New digital kit and media than there was film!

This is a film forum so from his perspective, aside from the digital tech that aids our hobby along, let's keep the chat to just film and film equipment please.

That's how I best understand things here anyhow.

I agree with everything said in these last two posts by David and Andrew. I'm happy to say the confusion has been cleared up; the complaint referred to a mention of Viderama. I haven't yet found that comment, but sure it was meant in all innocence, and not promoting digital over film. I think there will be times when DVDs are mentioned , either someone looking for the best source to improve their soundtrack, or someone looking for some obscure title on film, but maybe only a digital copy is available. Film is a special way of watching a movie to me, though I do have more DVDs than I have films; many are inexpensive, and it gives you the chance to see films that you would never own in any other format. There are an awful lot of movies out there, and I would like to see some of them before my time is up. DVDs compliment my film collection, but film will always be the more important of the two for me.

There was a time when my DVD and Blu Ray collection out numbered my film collection not so far back by around 50:1.
Thankfully that is no longer the case and now I would say they are almost on even parity, albeit not in the home now for the films sadly.

I try to seriously limit what i buy now on Blu Ray. They are so inexpensive comparatively speaking; before you know it, your whole house is swimming with them!
If it is a movie I know I wont want to watch repeatedly, i just stream them nowadays. The quality is almost as good, even on the big screen now in this era.

There aren't a million modern movies I'd even want to keep on Blu ray now. There is an awful lot of mass produced generic crap films made now imho.

It would have been about 1993 before I got a VHS recorder, and my first purchase was Jason and the Argonauts for £6. I had always wanted the Derann print but it was expensive. At £6, how can you not buy it. I have an attic full of VHS tapes I don't watch, a lot of DVDs, also a lot that I have downloaded and burned to disc. I hardly ever watch them though. You have to move with the times; I didn't want to buy CDS, but then vinyl was discontinued, and if you have a favourite artist, it means that your record buying has come to a stop unless you go digital, so that was what I reluctantly did. Eventually, VHS was discontinued; it was never that good in my opinion, and I got Jason and other Harryhausen features on DVD: now i'm glad to say, I finally have a copy on 16mm, which in the first two weeks of ownership, had more outings than the DVD ever did.

I would please request, though, can we still sometimes be able to compare digital to film in threads? Andrew made a fascinating comment about how amazing The Lion King looks on Super 8, even compared to Blu-ray. In the same way that a vinyl forum could not possibly operate in a bubble without acknowledging CD or streamed hi-res music, or a forum about the England cricket team could not possibly ignore the strengths of an Australian side, I hope we won't be castigated for drawing comparisons occasionally. I think those threads are always intriguing, and I love to hear people's views.

VHS was the worse format ever made to watch a movie on. It was cheap but it was awful.

Did you ever see anything on Betamax; it was supposed to be superior; I know the tapes had a longer life than VHS, I think about one third longer before they showed signs of wear.

Martin, in all honesty I could never speak of the Super 8mm film in the same sentence as that of the Blu Ray presentation for any film I have ever seen or owned. However many do compete with the projected DVD using a standard HC HD PJ and as I said at the time, the two are really not inter-comparable from my own perspective as The Lion King or similarly struck prints as this, have a charm and unique beauty all of their own on real film. As I said, they really are a sight to behold!

I have many titles on two or at times sometimes even three different formats and each serves it's very own individual purpose to me.

If my Grandson was bored and he wanted to watch a Disney film just on TV during the daytime, I would put the DVD on for him.
If he wanted a big screen fabulous outdoor special occasion screening of one of his favourites , I'd set the Beaulieu and portable sound system up outdoors on a 12ft or 15ft screen.
If he wanted to watch it at it's perfect, almost sterile and flawless very very best, i would project him the Blu ray disc using the best HC HD digital projector i currently own, through the 5.1 sound system in the house.

Also those LP size discs, laser discs. A work mate use to collect these and they had a bit of a following and still do. As it happens, he kept a couple, one being T2 as this one was totally uncensored, (as the UK film was), when Sarah Conner escapes she beats the living daylights out of the guard, where as, in the UK release, (including the Derann feature we have), the guard gets just two hits, so that makes that laser disc very desirable to some. Also the quality of them was absolutely top notch.

Still well below in quality terms, what superseded them Tom.
Laserdiscs do not look particularly great when projected on a large screen even using excellent kit.

440/ 425 lines is fairly low res now especially when compared to BD let alone UHD.

Like you Andrew, I have some titles in several formats. I find it useful. Sometimes I have a hankering to watch a certain film, but maybe it's not convenient, or I don't feel like setting up the projector, so I watch the disc. Or, you may even feel like watching in an afternoon, so projecting is out. Unlike Tom, I don't have a permanent set up, so it's about 4 journeys carrying everything downstairs, then 4 journeys back after.

In answer to Martin's question, only Vidar could comment on that.

I can fully relate to those four journeys Robert!

To be fair the PJ tends to be out tucked into place in our back room more often than not while ever I am away from work. Much to the wife's complete dissatisfaction!

Laserdisc was amazing at the time because it was so vastly superior to VHS in terms of picture and sound. It became the format of choice for home cinema afficionados until DVD arrived. Laserdisc was also the first format to include AC-3 Dolby Digital 5.1, so it was pretty mind-blowing at the time.

I am fairly sure it will be a lot digital talk, but as I am a bit tired of it all, I let you guys post whatever you like. It probably get bad, but if there is loads of posts on Did you see how remarkable this new Blu-Ray looks, I will just leave

Up to you, choose the paths

It was vastly superior to VHS / Betamax, Martin, agreed. Then again, that wasn't a difficult standard to beat though.
As said, any good film print was far superior to the resolution of VHS and it's popularity was only enormous due to cost.

I cannot see that happening here Vidar btw.