
Here's the original photo on Timothy Treadwell's Instagram account: https://www.instagram.com/p/mob-RmC3zk/?hl=en

I mean, sure, but considering that they've now been leading with this one on multiple Grizzly Man-related releases, one has to assume it's the one that Herzog specifically wants.Mr.DarjeelingLimited wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2026 4:59 am There’s so many great shots of the bears taken by Treadwell that could’ve been used here.
His youth wasn't the first difference that I noticed.
The sleeves he uses are also not ideal because they don't prevent contact to the disc surface. Those sleeves touch the disc constantly, which is disconcerting and just as bad as Criterion's sleeves. The only ways to store discs safely are (1) storing them in cases that have hubs that prevent contact, and (2) stacking discs on a spindle, which also prevents contact. Discs have "ridges" at the center of the ring that prevent contact when discs are stacked. That's why stacks of blank discs are sold that way. (When you spin the first disc on a stack, it can spin freely because it doesn't rub against the disc below it, because it doesn't touch it. The downside of a stack is, of course, it's inconvenient to retrieve the discs near the bottom.)Finch wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2026 11:16 pm Jason Gorber had the same trouble with retrieving the discs and he was also not going to put them back.
Interesting. I can’t believe I didn’t know this! Still never going to be okay with the Sony chocolate box thing they did with the NewsRadio complete series thoughCriterionPhreak wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2026 1:03 am Discs have "ridges" at the center of the ring that prevent contact when discs are stacked. That's why stacks of blank discs are sold that way. (When you spin the first disc on a stack, it can spin freely because it doesn't rub against the disc below it, because it doesn't touch it. The downside of a stack is, of course, it's inconvenient to retrieve the discs near the bottom.)
The "ridge" is very tiny and barely noticeable even when seen up close. But it is just enough to put some distance between two adjacent discs -- a distance that is not too big to allow debris to come in, but still big enough to prevent contact. The spindle holds the discs in place and keeps them horizontal to make sure they don't "tilt" and touch each other.domino harvey wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2026 1:06 amInteresting. I can’t believe I didn’t know this! Still never going to be okay with the Sony chocolate box thing they did with the NewsRadio complete series thoughCriterionPhreak wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2026 1:03 am Discs have "ridges" at the center of the ring that prevent contact when discs are stacked. That's why stacks of blank discs are sold that way. (When you spin the first disc on a stack, it can spin freely because it doesn't rub against the disc below it, because it doesn't touch it. The downside of a stack is, of course, it's inconvenient to retrieve the discs near the bottom.)
Count me among those that didn't realize that stacked discs on a spindle don't touch the information areas. Still this really only works with a level spindle, because as soon as I try to get it them out, I no doubt tilt and bend them and make them rub. Still if it puts anyone at ease, I have been handling optical media for at least 35 years now, and I have never rendered ANY disc less playable due to handling or storage, that isn't remedied by a quick wipe. I do understand UHD discs might be more sensitive however.CriterionPhreak wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2026 5:06 amThe "ridge" is very tiny and barely noticeable even when seen up close. But it is just enough to put some distance between two adjacent discs -- a distance that is not too big to allow debris to come in, but still big enough to prevent contact. The spindle holds the discs in place and keeps them horizontal to make sure they don't "tilt" and touch each other.domino harvey wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2026 1:06 amInteresting. I can’t believe I didn’t know this! Still never going to be okay with the Sony chocolate box thing they did with the NewsRadio complete series thoughCriterionPhreak wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2026 1:03 am Discs have "ridges" at the center of the ring that prevent contact when discs are stacked. That's why stacks of blank discs are sold that way. (When you spin the first disc on a stack, it can spin freely because it doesn't rub against the disc below it, because it doesn't touch it. The downside of a stack is, of course, it's inconvenient to retrieve the discs near the bottom.)
Optical discs require *microscopic* precision that needs much less than "scratches" to damage. As an analogy, does your computer hard drive or USB thumb drive need "scratches" to be damaged? These things operate at a completely different level and can be damaged without your eyes noticing it. Jewel cases and standard DVD/Blu-ray cases have been around since beginning of time, and they are all designed to store the discs without touching them. Ask yourself why optical discs have "ridges" and vinyls and laserdiscs don't. It is this newly formed opinion that sleeves are safe (or touching the discs is safe with "smooth sleeves") that is truly silly. This is all born out of people having too big a disc collection and having to store discs in sleeves to save space. Don't do it.mfunk9786 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2026 11:19 am It’s the players that are sensitive - I think the idea that some laminated paper stock is going to “scratch” a disc in any meaningful way is one of the silliest ongoing discussion points in physical media. Now, if it’s super rough cardboard stock with a rough finish, maybe? But discs are far more resilient (post-DVD) than those vocal fretters think they are. We all have our packaging preferences though, and it sounds like in this case they’re just really annoying to pull out, which is another thing altogether.