|
They are NOT standard def on the BD discs. The source is natively standard def, yes, but they are upscaled to 1080p24 before being authored and they include lossless DTS-HD MA, and that would be bitstarved to hell and back if it was all on one disc. With two discs, they are both probably BD50s. Do you people really think they're in 480p on the discs? Because that's the only way the last 2 or 3 posts make any loving sense. For a slight price increase ($10 now, wouldn't be surprised if you can get the BDs below $35 by release date or soon after), you get: - slight convenience of one less disc - both discs are scratchproof - lossless DTS-HD MA audio - pre-upscaled to 1080p24, arguably at slightly better quality than most TVs / players will do on the fly Are those BIG benefits? No, absolutely not. Are they nonexistent though? Also no. If it's worth it to you, buy it. If it's not - if you feel it's a ripoff, if you only feel right buying a BD if it's in native 1080p, if you have some crazy idea for putting SD shows on one BD disc because you're super lazy and should instead just rip them to your computer because studios are never going to cater to you as it would ruin their BD marketing - then just don't loving buy it.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
I can't buy a series in two different formats, I started buying IASIP on DVD and that's how it's gonna be unless they re-release the other 4 seasons 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 21:32
|
|
|
ONE YEAR LATER posted:I can't buy a series in two different formats, I started buying IASIP on DVD and that's how it's gonna be unless they re-release the other 4 seasons Oh god I'm the same way. And how am I supposed to watch it at a friend's house if they don't have a PS3? I CAN'T TAKE THAT CHANCE
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
Neo_Reloaded posted:They are NOT standard def on the BD discs. The source is natively standard def, yes, but they are upscaled to 1080p24 before being authored and they include lossless DTS-HD MA, and that would be bitstarved to hell and back if it was all on one disc. With two discs, they are both probably BD50s. Do you people really think they're in 480p on the discs? Because that's the only way the last 2 or 3 posts make any loving sense. 1) Who cares if they upconverted them to 1080p? It won't do anything since the source is still SD. 2) I would bet you drat near anything that these will be single layer discs. Dual layer discs are more expensive and there is no reason why 6, 21 minute, upconverts with loseless sound would take up more than 25GBs. 3) Think I'm assuming alot? May I direct you to the IASIP Christmas special they already released. blu-ray.com posted:It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia makes a truly disappointing first appearance on Blu-ray, with an AVC-encoded transfer that's 1080p in name only. In reality, the standard definition video source material has been upscaled, and actually looks a lot worse than many of my DVDs when I allow my PS3 to do the up-converting for me. I wish I had the DVD of A Very Sunny Christmas on hand to do a side-by-side comparison, but I can't imagine that this Blu-ray iteration looks much better. The image is incredibly soft. Lines are indistinct and unresolved, textures are muddled, and fine detail is non-existent. While there are a few bright, Christmas-y colors, the image is drab, lacks depth, and is prone to a bland haziness. Black levels are soupy and grayish, white highlights are frequently blown out, and contrast is flat and lifeless. Worse yet, artifacts and noise clutter the frame throughout, shadows are susceptible to macroblocking, and both aliasing and ringing are readily apparent. Even for DVD-quality material, this looks quite bad. HDD posted:'It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: A Very Sunny Christmas' debuts on Blu-ray only to show that it's certainly not always sunny on this format. This glorified upconvert (and not even a good one at that...it looks terrible) is presented in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio with an AVC MPEG-4 encode at...ahem..."1080p." 4) How would putting a whole season of a show filmed on SD on one disc ruin their BR marketing? Wouldn't Fox releasing this poo poo and trying to pass it off as 1080p HD would harm their marketing more?  Click here for the full 1920x1080 image. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jun 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:1) Who cares if they upconverted them to 1080p? It won't do anything since the source is still SD. Sunny's source is SD and looks like poo poo even for SD, so I don't really know what your quoted reviews are supposed to mean to me. It looks like poo poo? Um, okay, I could have told you that. In my experience, player upscaling on-the-fly introduces a lot of random artifacts that pre-processed upscaling doesn't, but it's certainly an open debate and I'm not trying to say "OMG the pre-upscaled ones look soooo goooood." Though the picture you linked, while pretty lovely from a detail standpoint, is actually pretty free of macroblocking, random lines, and other artifacts that I've seen on a number of on-the-fly upscaling presentations. quote:4) How would putting a whole season of a show filmed on SD on one disc ruin their BR marketing? Wouldn't Fox releasing this poo poo and trying to pass it off as 1080p H would harm their marketing more? To get it on one disc, either they a), leave it in 480p in which case you get people going "DURRRR, my TV says this isn't HD, I want a refund.", or b) they upscale it to 1080p and cram it on one disc and the bitrates are terrible. The fact that it's originally SD means poo poo once it is upscaled - you still need reasonable bitrates so there isn't macroblocking all over the place. 13 episodes + special features is a lot for one BD50. They're also hesitant to put a full season on only one disc as, yes, the perception is that the worth of the set is lowered. And again, just don't loving buy it. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 22:47
|
|
|
Neo_Reloaded posted:Sunny's source is SD and looks like poo poo even for SD, so I don't really know what your quoted reviews are supposed to mean to me. It looks like poo poo? Um, okay, I could have told you that. In my experience, player upscaling on-the-fly introduces a lot of random artifacts that pre-processed upscaling doesn't, but it's certainly an open debate and I'm not trying to say "OMG the pre-upscaled ones look soooo goooood." Though the picture you linked, while pretty lovely from a detail standpoint, is actually pretty free of macroblocking, random lines, and other artifacts that I've seen on a number of on-the-fly upscaling presentations. What are we arguing about? In one sentence you call it a lovely looking show and in the next you say that it needs "reasonable" bitrates so it doesn't look even more lovely? That they have to upconvert it to 1080p because people will go "DURRR, my TV says this isn't HD, I want a refund" instead of the really obvious "DURRR, this looks like complete poo poo, I want a refund" route. I don't think that fitting four hours and 20 minutes of SD sourced content with your standard commentaries/SD special features onto a single 50GB Blu-Ray is asking for too much. How much breathing room do you have to give them when 1 50GB Blu-Ray is double the space the whole 3 disc DVD set has? I don't plan on buying it. Why is it such a big deal to point out how much of a blatant cashgrab/ripoff this is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 00:11
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:What are we arguing about? In one sentence you call it a lovely looking show and in the next you say that it needs "reasonable" bitrates so it doesn't look even more lovely? That they have to upconvert it to 1080p because people will go "DURRR, my TV says this isn't HD, I want a refund" instead of the really obvious "DURRR, this looks like complete poo poo, I want a refund" route. There's a difference between lovely amounts of detail, and lovely macroblocking/artifacts all over the place. The amount of detail is limited to what's in the source, but the amount of artifacting is controllable by how proficient the upscale is (people purchase particular DVD players over others because they use different, higher quality, scaling chips, for instance), and if a reasonable bitrate is used. If I'm going to watch something in SD on an HD set, I'd certainly prefer quality upscaling. But again, I'm not saying this is some magical process that makes everything look great - I acknowledge it will still look poor. All I'm saying is that SOME benefit is possible. quote:I don't think that fitting four hours and 20 minutes of SD sourced content with your standard commentaries/SD special features onto a single 50GB Blu-Ray is asking for too much. How much breathing room do you have to give them when 1 50GB Blu-Ray is double the space the whole 3 disc DVD set has? This was my point. A BD50 is double the space, but 1080p24 files are 6x the resolution. They don't scale at the same rate. Continuing to remind me that they're SD sourced is irrelevant once you upscale them - a poor encode will still look worse than a proficient encode. It's like you're arguing "They're lovely, might as well make them SUPER lovely so I don't have to get off the couch that one time after 3 hours!" The goal of upscaling is not to make SD content look HD - it is to make SD content look as good on an HD set as it does on an SD set, without terrible artifacting introduced. And this whole conversation is completely ignoring the fact that even DVDs are frequently encoded super lovely for the paltry 480p they present. And besides any discussion of quality, there's still the fact that more discs = more worth in at least the studios' eyes. quote:I don't plan on buying it. Why is it such a big deal to point out how much of a blatant cashgrab/ripoff this is? I feel it has (some, small) value, and I'd rather see the TV-on-BD market grow rather than shrink, so all the raging seems unnecessary to me. But whatever, I'm not going to continue arguing. Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jun 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
You keep insisting that they have to be 1080p24fps. Uhhhh...why, exactly? When discussing smashing an entire season on one disc, I don't think anyone except maybe you expects that they'll be 1080p. It is a lovely cashgrab. That's it. That's all it is. It's not worth continuing to argue about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:You keep insisting that they have to be 1080p24fps. Uhhhh...why, exactly? When discussing smashing an entire season on one disc, I don't think anyone except maybe you expects that they'll be 1080p. Because, a) that is the precedent - the Christmas special was in 1080p, and there has not been a single 480p release, to my knowledge, in any territory. And b), otherwise there is literally no point. They dilute the Blu-ray marketing angle by presenting something that is identical in quality to DVD, differing only in the ability for lazy couch potatoes to not have to perform the dreaded act of changing a disc. As for whether an upscaled BD offers any quality gains over a DVD, well that was what the last page was arguing about. I will not rehash it. Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Jun 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
I personally don't think that they should be upscaling anything before putting it out on BD, but it seems to me there will probably be a giant shitstorm the first time someone dares to put out an all-SD Blu-ray. With that being said, the higher capacity of Blu-ray doesn't really give it magic disc-count reduction abilities for HD TV series content. Actually the effective capacity seems quite similar to DVD, since no one has any business putting too much more than 90 minutes of HD content on a BD-25 or much more than 180 minutes on a BD-50 if they want to maintain the best quality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
Is there any reason at all to have lossless audio for Always Sunny? The first season of Weeds is all on one disc in 1080p but with a regular DTS track (if I remember correctly) and it looks okay, certainly not great, but better than the Always Sunny Christmas BD at least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 14:39
|
|
|
Hahaha, those fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 14:40
|
|
|
Yeah I think we can officially say "Wait a few months if you want a Warner release with wacky packaging in a standard one"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
That doesn't make the blu-ray suck any less though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 15:00
|
|
|
Why would anyone want the films individually?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
I like the larger cases compared to slim, and while I plan to buy all three, it'll still let me pick them up as I want to watch them, instead of grabbing them all at once. I'm trying to break my habit of buying blu-ray's that I know I'm not going to get around to watching for a long while. This will either help break me of that, or force me to watch stuff quicker once I get it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
I've never seen the Donner cut of Superman II. It's on sale at Amazon right now for $14 - worth it, or no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Why would anyone want the films individually? I can imagine someone wanting only The Fellowship of the Ring, as it stands reasonably well on its own, but otherwise I was thinking the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
Bambi posted:I've never seen the Donner cut of Superman II. It's on sale at Amazon right now for $14 - worth it, or no? It's a pretty badly cobbled-together approximation of what Richard Donner's cut would be like; you'll basically be paying 14 dollars for a special feature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
Bambi posted:I've never seen the Donner cut of Superman II. It's on sale at Amazon right now for $14 - worth it, or no? Kind of depends. It fixes a few things (Jor-El becomes the figure that removes Superman's powers, the "discovering who Superman is" scene is Donner's original version), but because Donner never actually shot like 90% of it, it's really huge chunks of Lester's version with a couple changes at certain key points and a re-use of Superman I's ending since Donner was fired before he came up with a replacement for II's. It's interesting to see how little changes in editing can make entire scenes play differently, but for the most part, I wouldn't have gotten the DVD when it came out if it hadn't come with the Complete Collection. So, uh, I guess my answer is... maybe?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
I'm thinking of picking up Saving Private Ryan soon, have they fixed the sound issues and is there any way to identify the fixed copies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Muppetjedi posted:I'm thinking of picking up Saving Private Ryan soon, have they fixed the sound issues and is there any way to identify the fixed copies? Yes, its been a few weeks now as far as I know. It was just a minor out of sync issue I believe? The blu-ray otherwise is wonderful. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
Muppetjedi posted:I'm thinking of picking up Saving Private Ryan soon, have they fixed the sound issues and is there any way to identify the fixed copies? doctor thodt posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
Senso coming soon from Criterion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
How's are Criterions chosen? I get that a lot of them are the finest in Cinema, but some of them (Chasing Amy, Armageddon) don't seem up to par with the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 01:53
|
|
|
Robert Analog posted:How's are Criterions chosen? I get that a lot of them are the finest in Cinema, but some of them (Chasing Amy, Armageddon) don't seem up to par with the rest. Chasing Amy and Armageddon are considerably older Criterion releases. When Criterion first started, the concept of "special features" and "collector's editions" did not exist the way it does today. So studios were willing to license more popular, mainstream movies to Criterion as they themselves did not have plans for such things. Look at Criterion's laserdisc output - many incredibly mainstream releases. This continued to an extent in the early years of DVD as well. As time went on, the home video market grew larger and major studios began doing loaded DVDs themselves and were no longer interested in licensing such titles to Criterion - so Criterion's releases became more and more niche. And honestly, Chasing Amy isn't THAT odd to be in the collection. Kevin Smith is a big name now, but that was his third film and was a big success after the flop of Mallrats, and is to this day considered an influential film. It seems more odd now in the context of his more recent output, but meh. I think it's a better addition than Benjamin Button.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
Seven, Fight Club, or even Zodiac feel like they'd be better fits for the Criterion collection. Not that there respective DVD/Blu releases are bad, but as far as influential Fincher films go, I'd put all of those above Benjamin Button. Why exactly was Benjamin Button chosen anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
Beaver Patrol posted:Seven, Fight Club, or even Zodiac feel like they'd be better fits for the Criterion collection. Not that there respective DVD/Blu releases are bad, but as far as influential Fincher films go, I'd put all of those above Benjamin Button. Why exactly was Benjamin Button chosen anyway? Fincher gets prestige, Criterion gets $$$$$$$ I dislike Senso. Oh well, as long as they're still bringing Hausu, I'm happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
Max22 posted:It's a pretty badly cobbled-together approximation of what Richard Donner's cut would be like; you'll basically be paying 14 dollars for a special feature. Yeah, it would have been more effective to make a feature-length documentary worked around the deleted and alternate scenes. As a whole, it works surprisingly well until the lame ending that's a rehash of the first movie - worse, it's largely constructed of reused takes and out of place stock footage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Yeah, it would have been more effective to make a feature-length documentary worked around the deleted and alternate scenes. As a whole, it works surprisingly well until the lame ending that's a rehash of the first movie - worse, it's largely constructed of reused takes and out of place stock footage. Seeing as that was originally the end of the second one and Donner was fired from the project before he and Tom Mankiewicz could come up with a suitable replacement after it was shifted to the first one, I can't really hate it that much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:Robin Hood will have an additional 26 minutes of footage cut back into the film for the home video release. That's only about half as much as the Kingdom of Heaven DC restored, but it's still a substantial amount of film and could go a long way toward ameliorating some of the movie's bigger problems. Dunno about that- spoke to one of the editorial crew (won't say which) at a party this weekend and he told me they only did an "extended" cut because they were contractually obligated to. I haven't seen the film, and have no interest in it, so I can't comment on what the flaws might be- more to the point, I didn't talk to him about the film much at all because I had not seen it and wasn't really even curious, but it came up because I asked him when he had finished up and he said he had been working until very recently on putting together the unrated cut. I asked him if it was a Kingdom of Heaven type deal and he said pretty flatly that the studio insisted on it. Sounds like Ridley's preferred cut is the one you saw in the theater, then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Dunno about that- spoke to one of the editorial crew (won't say which) at a party this weekend and he told me they only did an "extended" cut because they were contractually obligated to. I haven't seen the film, and have no interest in it, so I can't comment on what the flaws might be- more to the point, I didn't talk to him about the film much at all because I had not seen it and wasn't really even curious, but it came up because I asked him when he had finished up and he said he had been working until very recently on putting together the unrated cut. I asked him if it was a Kingdom of Heaven type deal and he said pretty flatly that the studio insisted on it. Sounds like Ridley's preferred cut is the one you saw in the theater, then. Sounds like the same thing that happened with American Gangster. The theatrical cut was Ridley's preferred cut but he was obligated to add more for the extended cut (which was about 20 minutes longer)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 05:04
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Sounds like the same thing that happened with American Gangster. The theatrical cut was Ridley's preferred cut but he was obligated to add more for the extended cut (which was about 20 minutes longer) Funny you say that- the person I was hanging out with worked on American Gangster and after he told me what they were doing for the Robin Hood DVD/Blu, he said "We did the same exact thing for American Gangster."
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
That's kinda funny, because (I don't know if I'm alone in this) I thought the American Gangster extended cut actually did enhance the story (the ending was MUCH better), save a few scenes that were unecessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 05:58
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Dunno about that- spoke to one of the editorial crew (won't say which) at a party this weekend and he told me they only did an "extended" cut because they were contractually obligated to. I haven't seen the film, and have no interest in it, so I can't comment on what the flaws might be- more to the point, I didn't talk to him about the film much at all because I had not seen it and wasn't really even curious, but it came up because I asked him when he had finished up and he said he had been working until very recently on putting together the unrated cut. I asked him if it was a Kingdom of Heaven type deal and he said pretty flatly that the studio insisted on it. Sounds like Ridley's preferred cut is the one you saw in the theater, then. Oh well. Wasn't expecting much anyway. How to Train Your Dragon pre-order is up at Amazon. No date is given yet, but it's priced pretty well at $18.99. The Alien Anthology has an October 6 release date in France, which should give us some idea of when we'll see it here. Special features ("unofficial until formally listed by the studio" says blu-ray.com): code:doctor thodt fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jun 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:How to Train Your Dragon pre-order is up at Amazon. No date is given yet, but it's priced pretty well at $18.99. And....pre-ordered! Thanks for the heads up, man!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
You can now pre-order the crazy collectible packaging for the Alien Anthology from Amazon France for about $160. It's unknown as of yet whether it'll be available anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 17:03
|
|
|
The movies themselves better be amazing on blu-ray to justify that. :O I mean I know they are good, but I hope Fox didn't screw up on the picture and sound quality. Not sure what their track record has been like lately. They were the ones that royally hosed the Predator release up though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Is the original Ghost in The Shell avaiable in blu-ray, and how does it look? There is a redux version, but sounds similar to what Lucas did with the original trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 17:55
|
|