I discovered something while watching House of Cards. Even though it is available in 4k, I was only getting it in 1080. It turns out it is because while I have a Ultra High Def tv, my blu-ray player - even though it upconverts to 4k - does not do 4k itself. So I have to shut off my disc player and watch Netflix straight from the tv. Thankfully it has wireless like the player, so it was easy enough to put on my network. Now I receive it in 4k.

So lesson learned for anyone else out there with a 4k tv trying to watch Ultra High content from Netflix, or any other streaming service. You will probably have to turn off your disc player and go to your content provider straight from your tv. At least until true 4k disc players come out.

I believe there is one true 4k blu-ray player out now, a Samsung. Price isn't terribly bad, but it's definitely not cheap. As for quality and features, I've no idea. (If you have the funds and want what is likely to be one of the best 4k players on the market, wait and see what OPPO has to offer.)

Heck, I don't own a non-4k player . . . yet. I've given blu-ray serious thought only recently, as I find myself getting back into movie watching to substitute for the classical music listening sessions my decrepit hearing now, to a considerable degree, prevents me from fully enjoying.

Truth to tell, upscaled DVDs, and to a lesser extend laserdiscs, look satisfactory on my 47" Samsung viewed from 12'. I'm sure I would notice and appreciate the improved image blu-ray provides, but don't know that the difference would justify the expense. Then again, there are films on my want list either not available on DVD or available only as inferior editions.

4k adds another layer of complexity. It makes sense that, having waited this long, I hold out and go 4k. But . . . I don't plan to replace my TV unless it wears out. At my age, that likely equates to never. Likewise my non 4k A/V receiver is unlikely to be replaced. Thankfully it's not something I need rush in to, assuming I take the plunge at all.

This post has been edited by Decrepit: Mar 8 2016, 07:40 PM

I know the Samsung 4k player you mean. My local Best Buy is supposed to call me when they get another one in. They said I can return the upscaling player I have now when I buy that one. TBH, I think it looks really good with just a standard blu-ray player. Much better than with a "regular" high def tv. But I do like the upscaling player better. It has a few nicer features than my old blu-ray player. I have looked at the Oppos out there. But some of them are over twice I paid for my new tv, and it wasn't cheap!

I remember back when blu-ray was new I was thinking that dvds look really good on a blu-ray player and HD tv. My friend Jaelyn and I did a comparison with the first Harry Potter movie, which I had originally bought on dvd. When it came out on blu-ray I bought it on that format too, and we compared the two. I played the scene where the characters see Hogwarts for the first time. There is a beauty shot of the castle, and where you can see lights on in the tower windows, etc... In the blu-ray version you can see the tiny silhouettes of people moving back and forth in the windows. In the dvd version you cannot. So that is one example of the difference in fidelity. Another example is that when you pause a blu-ray the still image you see is usually much crisper and clearer than if you pause with a dvd, which tends to have some motion blur in the frozen image.

My Amazon package arrived just as I was about to eat lunch. Here's what I got:

Battleship Potemkin, Kino Special 2-disc Edition. This is my one duplicate, bought to replace what I consider an unacceptably inferior early DVD. The Kino features a new restoration of the film elements, restoration of the original music score performed by orchestra in 5.1 sound, on-disk special features, and a new printed essay centered on the film's post release history.

Buster Keaton's The General, Kino Ultimate 2-disc Edition. I saw this movie decades ago, either over the air or via Laserdisc rental. It includes a specially composed music score by Carl Davis performed by orchestra in 5.1 sound and numerous special features on disc 2.

The Big Parade, Turner/Warner Brothers. I've known of this film for a long time, but not seen it other than a few brief excerpt. It includes a specially composed music track by Carl Davis performed by orchestra, audio channels not mentioned on the case jacket. Also provided is an audio commentary track.

Douglas Fairbanks' Thief of Bagdad, Cohen Film Collection. As with Big Parade, I've not seen this. It's a bit of a gamble for me. Much as I enjoy Fairbanks' Mark of Zorro and The Iron Mask I was greatly disappointed by his Robin Hood. Be that as it may, the disc includes visual restoration, a specially composed music score by Carl Davis performed by orchestra in 5.1 sound, an audio commentary track, and a nice printed essay on the film's production and history.

I'm happy to see more care taken with silent film home video releases. Back when most of my silents were purchased, the majority of releases were a crap shot, inferior edits, substandard visual element, tacked on music that often didn't fit action or mood, mono or at best 2-channel sound. That sort of release can still be bought, but if one is careful we can now hope to see these old films in editions that do them justice.

I'm also pleased that Carl Davis contributes music to the three films that seem to have lost their original scores. I tend to enjoy Davis's silent film compositions/arrangements quite a lot. I'm even more pleased that one of the films is accompanied by its original music score.

I have not yet watched any of these. Gonna rectify that pronto.

I've now watched three of my four new acquisitions, one twice.

I first watched Battleship Potemkin. The Kino Special 2-disc Edition is a marked improvement in every way over my old Potemkin DVD. Restoration of the film's original music score really drives home how crucial music is to the success of silent film presentation. The movie's final minutes, during which Potemkin prepares for battle while advancing on the approaching fleet, not knowing if they be friend or foe, is incredibly suspenseful with the original score in place. With a tacked-on generic music track that scene is rather blase and insignificant. On a slightly negative note, even heard in 5.1 surround, sound 'quality' isn't the best. It's not bad mind you, but could stand most presence and dynamic contrast. Then again, my hearing is shot. It's prolly more than adequate for those with better ears. Also, I wish there were gunfire sounds added during the famous Odessa Steps scene, via either orchestra or, as with Wings, actual gunfire samples. There 'are' sound effects (via orchestra) throughout the film, but not many. Image quality is very nice, far better than my old Potemkin DVD. Red coloration has been restored to the Potemkin's post-mutiny flag.

As for the movie itself, it's easy to see why Potemkin is considered a both classic and highly influential. I find it a bit hard to get in to, which is why I watched it twice. That second viewing was far more enjoyable. I don't know that I'd recommend Potemkin as a first acquisition for someone wanting to get their feet wet with silents, but definitely recommend it (in the Kino edition) to those who enjoy silents and want to expand their collections.

Next up, Buster Keaton's The General. This was an out and out joy from start to finish. Fine image, fine music by Carl Davis that matches the film's mood and actions as needed, occasional sound effects as appropriate. Subtle tinting. As a movie it's a sheer delight. It helps that it centers around railroads and old-style steam locomotives. Who doesn't love those? I had a smile on my face the whole way through. This, in the Kino edition I own, is a solid recommendation for anyone who thinks they might enjoy silent films.

Lastly, I watched The Big Parade. It too sports a fine music score by Carl Davis, heard in well recorded 2-channel sound. Fine image. As a movie, it might be considered your typical big-budget feature film of the late silent era. It's okay, but for my money Wings, in the edition I mention in an earlier post, handily bests it in every regard.

I finished rewatching season three of Vikings today, in preparation for season four. I have to say I am really liking Alexander Ludwig. I liked his performance as Cato in the first Hungry Games movie, and he really shines here. I would not call him a great actor, but I really enjoy watching him on screen. I would not mind at all if they killed off Ragnar in the show and moved on to show the adventures of Beorn (culminating in his partial circumnavigation of the Mediterranean of course).

This post has been edited by SubRosa: Mar 13 2016, 04:24 AM

Your comment is well timed. It reminds me of something I forgot to mention in my last several posts. Some days ago I came across a YouTube channel devoted to reviewing/discussing films and TV shows with historical pretensions, with emphasis on how accurately they represent the events they depict. The narrator knows his business and is a fine commentator. I certainly don't mind that he and I tend to see eye to eye about those films we've both seen. Here's his review of the 1970 Waterloo, a movie both he and are are quite taken with. Go to the channel proper and you'll find several videos on Vikings. In one we learn that the show's producers (?) watched his earlier Vikings video and liked it so well they invited him to visit the set!

I watched the 1970 Waterloo last year or so. It was amazing, especially those big shots of French cavalry charging the British squares.

Vikings is interesting, and odd. On one hand its main character - Ragnar Lothbrok - is a only at best semi-historical. In that he is more a mythical character than one we have much verifiable, hard evidence about. So that gives the show a lot of leeway with him.

OTOH, the larger events, places, and cultures are real. It starts with Ragnar making the first famous viking raid at Lindisfarne. Season Three ends with the sack of Paris, which happened roughly 50 years later. But the characters have only aged 5 - 10 years in the that time span! Apparently Ragnar also invented the Tardis.

Likewise the West Saxons (of Wessex) are called English, even though that term would not be used for another century. They are also shown as wearing these coats of plates armor, and apparently clueless about using the shield wall. Yet in reality the Anglo-Saxons were hardly different from the vikings. An Anglo-Saxon Thegn from the 800s would not have looked much different from a viking Hersir of the same period. They all used the same weapons, same shields, same tactics, and so on. I am sure the show just wants it it to be plain who is who so the audience is not confused. But not really accurate.

It's still a very good show though. So don't get me wrong. It's not technically accurate, but I think it really captures the spirit of the vikings and their era. I'm about half way the History Buff guy's video on it, and he is spot on.

This post has been edited by SubRosa: Mar 13 2016, 12:17 AM

Eh, Vikings has inaccuracies all over the place, but it's still a damn good show. I think I'm gonna have to go back and watch it again

Apparently we English are slow learners when it comes to tv shows. Not only did we not have the shieldwall in the eighth century, but in Bernard Cornwell's The Last Kingdom, set nearly a century later, we still didn't have it


Anyway, just finished watching Riddick.

I liked it. No more messing about trying to make him a good guy, or a bad guy doing the right thing. He's back to Pitch Black Riddick now, more or less. I'm not too keen on how Riddick ended up on that planet, not really buying the notion that he wanted to see his homeworld. But aside from that, it was pretty solid.

Found a clip of the great Odessa Steps scene from Battleship Potemkin at YouTube. It looks to use the same image restoration as my DVD, along with the restored original music score and a brief glimpse of the colored flag. Sound quality is better than what I hear on disk, more immediate and impactful. I hear sound effects (from the orchestra) I don't notice on the DVD, though they are likely there). It's a excellent (brief) clip to demonstrate the importance of well crafted music in silent film. Alas, no English subtitles. The clip opens with Odessa's citizens delivering fresh food to the Potemkin. (Rancid rations and the officers reaction to complaints about it are what touched off the mutiny.) The army and police attack the crowd. The clip ends with the Potemkin retaliating by bombarding government facilities.


Odd, that. I've not seen The Last Kingdom on TV, but read the book either last year of the year before. I'm fairly positive that, in the book, both sides utilize shield wall formations. They certainly do so in Cornwell's Arthurian trilogy, set several hundred years prior to Vikings. Cornwell's descriptions of shield wall combat are amongst the books more praiseworthy features.

This post has been edited by Decrepit: Mar 13 2016, 03:43 AM

I swear that woman in white at :40 is a zombie, lich, or some kind of undead!


The shield wall is thousands of years old. There are examples of it going as far back as the Sumerians. Just about every culture that developed the shield also came up with the shield wall. It isn't rocket science after all. Just everyone with a shield stands next to one another, and stays there. Though apparently to filmmakers, it is rocket science...

This post has been edited by SubRosa: Mar 13 2016, 04:23 AM

TV shows these days apparently prefer to cater to the modern audience's desire for more sex and/or violence rather than historical accuracy. A pity really, but they wouldn't get the budget they need otherwise.

That said, I am loving season 4 of Vikings so far.

I watched the series(which I was rather disappointed with in all honesty, for a host of reasons) and in one episode Uhtred was teaching Alfred's men all about the shieldwall. Presumably it was to make the main character even more central and important. Or maybe they figured a lot of viewers would have seen Vikings and would think of the shieldwall as a Viking thing.

This post has been edited by Callidus Thorn: Mar 13 2016, 07:53 PM

Watched Goldeneye earlier, haven't see it in years. In my opinion, Pierce Brosnan is second only to Sean Connery(though admittedly, by a sizable margin) as James Bond. Damn good films, which I picked up cheap the other day

Well, except for Die Another Day, that one was pretty cringeworthy, so I didn't buy it.

The only problem with Goldeneye is that it makes me miss the old N64 game...

This post has been edited by Callidus Thorn: Mar 14 2016, 11:08 PM

I finished up Season 3 of Vikings and the first four episodes of Season 4. So I am all caught up. I am still disappointed that Lagertha did not kill Kalf in Season 3. Hopefully she will do it in Season 4.

This time around I caught a few words that people were saying in Old Norse and Old English. In the scene where Thorstein goes to his death after losing his arm, the Saxons shooting him with arrows are speaking in Old English, and the subtitles go something like "See, he's no shaman." But the word they say for shaman is pronounced 'Witcha' (which is written as 'Wicca", and is the earliest form of the word 'Witch'). I thought that was a really good touch. Although I don't know why they didn't use the word Witch in the subtitles...

Then later during one of the battles for Paris one of the Vikings shouts "Skjaldborg". Which is the Old Norse word for 'Shieldwall'. But the word 'shieldwall' did not appear in the subtitles. So points added for using the word in the spoken dialogue, but taken away for it not being in the text.

This post has been edited by SubRosa: Mar 15 2016, 01:02 AM

It dawns on me that I forgot to mention having watched the last of my four recent silent film purchases, Thief of Bagdad. This is the one I was worried I might not like. My fears proved groundless. At first it did little for me. Some minutes in it began to grow on me. Before too long it became suitably entertaining. It had me smiling by the end. That said, as a movie this is prolly the weakest of the four. It's not a filmed, nice as it is, I'd recommend as an early purchase/watch for anyone new to silents. Fine video and audio quality, and yet another excellent Carl Davis music score.

Otherwise my video watching has been confined to YouTube. I chanced on yet another British series on the beginnings of American cinema. Its first episode often rubbed me the wrong way, due largely to the presenter. I almost didn't continue on, but am glad I did. Episode two, focused on the Fatty Arbuckle murder case, was far better. I quite enjoyed it. Sadly, episode three (and any further episodes) can not be found. Leastwise I couldn't find them.

This post has been edited by Decrepit: Mar 15 2016, 11:30 PM

Just finished season two and almost all of season 3 of vikings...also was forced to watch 3 hours of MLP with my little sisters when I was babysitting them...it's a guilty pleasure of mine *grins*

Between yesterday evening and this this morning I watched the final two sides/hours of my laserdisc of the Francis Ford Coppola version of Abel Gance's 1927 silent Napoleon. Image quality wasn't always the best. The source material would definitely benefit from extensive restoration. Still, when the source permits it, the image can look surprisingly sharp and detailed, considering we're dealing with a long obsolete video format, upscaled to 1080p via my A/V receiver. Audio quality ain't all that great.

As to the movie itself, I am decidedly undecided. I greatly admire its innovative camera work and editing, but sometimes have trouble staying focused on the storyline. I suspect this might be due in part to Carmine Coppola's music score. I am less and less convinced his music does the film justice, though it has its moments. Also, Coppola 'shortened' the film to four hours for commercial/economic considerations. It's possible that if restored to its proper length (so far as is possible) the story would be easier to grasp. Or maybe I'm just a doofus.

I'd love to reassess the film in its 5 1/2hr version with the Carl Davis music score. That edition will supposedly be released on DVD and blu-ray later this year or next. l hoped to buy it then. It's now pretty much confirmed that Coppola will not allow any US commercial release of Napoleon that does not include his father's music. Had I a region-free DVD or blu-ray player I could order a copy from Amazon.uk, but that's not likely to happen.

I almost forgot to mention that famous three-screen ending, even with less than stellar image quality, remains darn impressive!

This post has been edited by Decrepit: Mar 16 2016, 03:52 PM

Shortening the movie might well be what is making it harder to follow the storyline. Some stories are so big, they just cannot be told in the standard 2 hour running time film studios want. Or even 4 hours! The most recent attempt to do Pride and Prejudice in just 2 hours fell flat for me, because it tried to squeeze too much into too small a space. Such a big story like that needs the 6 hours that the 1995 BBC mini-series gave it.

So now that I have my 4k player for my 4k tv, what am I watching? Pi. A movie deliberately shot in grainy black and white. Still love this film!