divakar wrote:
I feel differently. The publishers have right to protect their assets from future misuse.
Oh! please stop with the publisher's rights nonsense. First of all, watermarks do nothing to deter from misuse. For if they did, then piracy would not be as rampant as it is with Indian VCDs/DVDs, especially considering the widespread use of 'watermarks' in Indian VCDs/DVDs. Based on your skewed logic, the producers should also put huge logo watermarks during the screening in theaters too. After all, the first and most common source of piracy are theatrical screenings. Also, as an extention of your skewed logic, the producer also has the right to put advertisements before and during the movie. Why not? After all the producer also has the right to make profit from his "assets". I am actually surprised that bollywood has not yet started to insert voiceovers on audio releases. After all, audio piracy is even more rampant than video piracy. Imagine how much more fun listening to your favorite songs will be, with the voiceover uttering 'Shemaroo' after every line, or better yet, like the 'watermarks' on these blu-rays, with Shemaroo being uttered throughout the song.
Ofcourse, in all of this, who cares about the paying consumer. Consumers should have no rights and companies ought to be allowed to fleece their customers, right? It is absolutely shocking as to how gullible and absolutely ignorant some, or should I say, most Indian consumers are.
divakar wrote:
Even Sunny Audit supported his publisher for water mark. No one objected that time.
First of all, I highly doubt that a mature and intelligent person such as Sunny would advocate the use of
visible 'watermarks'. In fact, although I could be wrong, but I don't know of any blu-rays that Sunny has worked on that have 'visible' watermarks during the movie. Secondly and more importantly, even if he does support
visible 'watermarks', and I say this with absolutely no disrespect to Sunny, it would still not justify or make the practise right. It's not like he, or anyone else including myself, is above all, to determine what is right or wrong.
VISIBLE 'watermarks' are not just an obnoxious afront to consumer rights, but they are also a complete disrespect to the director and all other creative artists involved with the movie.
divakar wrote:
Though PQ and AQ is not of reference quality but it is acceptable
That is the really sad part about these two blu-rays. Other than a few small issues here and there, Shemaroo, based on the screenshots, seem to have delivered pretty good video quality. The picture actually is better than most of the recent BHV/T-Series/Moser Baer releases. But, sorry to say, Shemaroo has totally nullified their good work by putting the obnoxious 'watermarks'. I would anyday, prefer a slightly inferior picture quality without 'watermarks' over a better picture quality that has been marred by 'watermarks'.
PS: I am still trying to figure out how you have assessed the Audio quality of this blu-ray from just the screenshots.
Do you have any affliation to SHAME-aroo or the video industry in general? Just wondering.