Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Dvd versus video

16:35 / 07.10.02

I am doing a film theory course this year and have to buy a big stack of films. I know there are a few film students here. So do you recommend DVD or VHS format?

Video seems to be much cheaper and I would normally go for that. DVDs seem to have lots of extra, commentaries, etc which might be useful for essays. If I have to study a scene in detail will the improvement in picture quality be worth it? I'm not really that bothered about paying extra for a DVD but obviously I would rather avoid it if there is little real benefit.

So that is all really. Very general question. DVD or video for study purposes?

Matthew Fluxington

16:41 / 07.10.02

Well, if you don't have much money, video is a lot cheaper. And it's getting cheaper all the time, as stores and regular folks liquidate their video collections, replacing everything with DVD.

Some DVD commentaries may be helpful, but most aren't that great. Use discretion, read detailed reviews. Most extras seem to be a lot of fluff for the hardcore fans, and won't be very helpful in writing good papers.

Also, remember that more titles exist on video than on DVD...

16:55 / 07.10.02

If you can get both versions of a film so much the better. If that’s not possible/financially viable then I would have said DVDs would probably suit you better, and not for reasons of picture quality. As you've quite rightly said yourself, DVDs generally - unless they're older re-released films - come with a host of extras which are a film-theorist's dream. For example:

Commentaries Nearly all new films of DVD have a commentary by the director, which provides a nice basis of comparison when studying the film. Flux is right in saying that a lot of these commentaries are a puerile waste of time, but even those can by useful inasmuch as they give you an idea of the director’s ideas, even if you don’t agree with them.

Deleted Scenes I've often found that scenes deleted in the official release (both cinema and subsequent VHS) often help to put back the all too often glaringly obvious continuity errors that crop up in films. They also help to give you an idea of the director's vision, and not that of the producer(s).

Biographies More a reference tool I guess, but having a list of previous works by the director and/or actors can help to draw comparisons to, or parallels with, other films; particularly handy if you're studying a particular director's obsession with a certain theme.

On the subject of cost however, I am completely in agreement with Flux. VHS is being sold off as quickly and cheaply as possible just about everywhere, so it may be more viable to purchase VHS and then – if you do want to check some of the extras available on DVD – simply rent the ones you want.

17:09 / 07.10.02

DVD. Dvd. dvd.

One reason: Original Aspect Ratio

While there are films available in OAR on video, they're few and far between. Not everything on DVD is OAR, but you're far more likely to find something in the proper aspect ratio on DVD. If you're trying to do a critical assessment of something that was framed in the 1:2.35 aspect ratio, how can you possibly approach it when your video presentation is cropped down to 1:33? It's impossible to write about a film when half the image is gone.

The IMDB is good about listing the aspect ratio in which a film was originally projected. In some cases, you'll never find this on video as with Kubrick, who projected some films at 1:85 but shot them open-matte and preferred a video release along those lines. And sometimes it's not going to matter - anything in academy ration (1:1.37) will essentially be fine presented in 1:33, but if you've got to write about Lawrence of Arabia...

The only real way to look at something for study is on film. Since that's becoming next to impossible if you're without a hugely endowed film department, DVd is the next best thing.

Besides OAR, the next big benefit is script access, which is provided on more and more discs. I'd say to stay away from commentaries and deleted scenes until you're familiar with the film, and preferably until after you've written what you have to do. Then look at that stuff, but take the film on its own, as originally presented.

17:17 / 07.10.02

The other thing to keep in mind, to contradict a couple of posts above, is that while the auteurist notions of a lot of criticism are well and good, there are times when it just doesn't apply. And then there's times where it does apply, but not necessarily to the director. With the original version of Cat People, for instance, keep in mind that while Jacques Tourneur, the director, certainly had ideas of his own, the definite author of the film according to the auteurist take would be producer Val Lewton. Don't be so quick to write off the input of the producer, especially in films made before 1960.

17:21 / 07.10.02

I got by with videos, tracing down widescreen copies where available (an often underlooked aspect of commercial film translation the dreaded Pan & Scanned).
There are some great features on DVDs but I have yet to see them being fully utilised, other than some token addition. A flakey area in my experience, nothing that you couldn't track down with some book research. Don't let your self get too reliant of additional info on the disc, reading a book will always contain much more information, at present. A lazy boy attitude can threaten a great essay.

18:14 / 07.10.02

I'm also a champion of DVD. On a purely practical level, if you're studying a film and writing essays on it, the ability to instantly access any scene would be a huge boon, rather than having to sit there pressing fast forward, stop, play, stop, fast forward, stop play, stop, fast forward, stop, play - fuck! you went too far ahead - stop, rewind, stop, play, stop, fast forward etc etc etc.

Not all commentary tracks are useless - I'm sure Brett Ratner has shit-all to say that's of any use about Rush Hour 2, but the Criterion Collection usually has very interesting and insightful commentary tracks. It all comes down to what films you'll be studying.

Death to VHS.

19:27 / 07.10.02

DVD, although ratio's are still a bit fucky (thinking of The Sixth Sense, the DVD of which I just watched in class) where the screen is a bit taller then on original cinimatic relelase (say my anal film buddies / teacher- I wouldn't know, having never seen a cinimatic release of it). But still, I'm super pissed that all I have for my coursework are TV screen sized video copies of old film noirs (tho my video of Blade Runner Director's Cut is widescreen), so it's gonna have to be more of a thematic then cinematographic comparison.

I hate being limited by that...

That wasn't very helpful, was it?

21:21 / 07.10.02

But still, I'm super pissed that all I have for my coursework are TV screen sized video copies of old film noirs

This is where the whole 'everything should be widescreen' argument runs into trouble. A lot of those old film noirs were shot in academy ratio, so they shouldn't be widescreen. Widescreen is nothing but a means to achieve presentation in the original aspect ratio. If the OAR is 1.37, then matting it to widescreen masks part of the image. Films pre-1955 or so are not going to be widescreen, because it didn't exist. Again, check the IMDB to see what the OAR of a film was.

For a good description of various aspect ratios, go here.

08:52 / 08.10.02

Can someone tell me what the AR for television is? I think that would help me...

14:40 / 08.10.02

Thanks everyone. After looking into the whole price thing is looming large. The difference could be 15 punds per copy. Might go for vhs first then DVD in special circumstances. Thanks Videodrome for the info on aspect ratios. Tres interessant.