|
Sporadic posted:Says it is region free on HighDefDigest's review and Blu-Ray.com Awesome, thanks, I ordered it. I love that movie, but any bluray that doesn't at the very least give you friggin' subtitles isn't worth buying.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
I just got Fast Five in the mail and popped it in just to check the VQ and holy christ. I just timed how long it takes from starting the disc on a PS3 to actually being able to watch the film. 2:30 without skipping anything and 1:45 with skipping and fast forwarding everything I could. Thanks for punishing me for purchasing your product Universal. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:I just got Fast Five in the mail and popped it in just to check the VQ and holy christ. I just timed how long it takes from starting the disc on a PS3 to actually being able to watch the film. 2:30 without skipping anything and 1:45 with skipping and fast forwarding everything I could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
I really wonder at the mentality of people who order that sort of thing. Who is it making this decision, that you have to make all these things unskippable, and at what point did they acquire a pathological hatred of their own customers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I really wonder at the mentality of people who order that sort of thing. Who is it making this decision, that you have to make all these things unskippable, and at what point did they acquire a pathological hatred of their own customers? "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." - Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA from 1966 to 2004. The movie industry loving hates you, criminal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 05:01
|
|
|
My bluray of Hanna was skipping so I took it out to clean the fingerprint. 7 loving minutes of unskippable bullshit ads when I put it back in. And they wonder why people pirate poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I really wonder at the mentality of people who order that sort of thing. Who is it making this decision, that you have to make all these things unskippable, and at what point did they acquire a pathological hatred of their own customers? They don't see it as punishing anyone. They see it as "capitalizing on untapped market potential allowing their products to synergize directly at point of sale." Or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:I just got Fast Five in the mail and popped it in just to check the VQ and holy christ. I just timed how long it takes from starting the disc on a PS3 to actually being able to watch the film. 2:30 without skipping anything and 1:45 with skipping and fast forwarding everything I could. I literally just put in Fast Five, and just came to post exactly this. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 08:46
|
|
|
Why is the Alien Anthology so much cheaper on Amazon UK? I just ordered it and it was around $25 there, compared to $50 here in America. I'm not complaining but it seems weird since they're pretty much the same thing. At least I think they're the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 09:36
|
|
|
the_Vandal posted:Why is the Alien Anthology so much cheaper on Amazon UK? I just ordered it and it was around $25 there, compared to $50 here in America. I'm not complaining but it seems weird since they're pretty much the same thing. At least I think they're the same. They're the same, except for those big ugly BBFC ratings on the box. But at that price difference, I could care less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 11:02
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:They're the same, except for those big ugly BBFC ratings on the box. But at that price difference, I could care less. Cool. I don't give a gently caress about the case. I still wonder why it cost twice as much for the same thing(with a less ugly case) in America though. I guess it doesn't matter though. Thanks to the people that mentioned it earlier in the thread and reminded me it was cheap on Amazon UK! I'm kind of excited to see the first 3 movies in HD before Prometheus comes out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 12:01
|
|
|
the_Vandal posted:Cool. I don't give a gently caress about the case. I still wonder why it cost twice as much for the same thing(with a less ugly case) in America though. I guess it doesn't matter though. Thanks to the people that mentioned it earlier in the thread and reminded me it was cheap on Amazon UK! I'm kind of excited to see the first 3 movies in HD before Prometheus comes out. For some odd reason Amazon is really aggressive with box sets in the UK. I got the Godfather collection, Alien Anthology, and I think my Life/Planet Earth sets all from them, for way less than I could have bought them in the US at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 13:46
|
|
|
Popping into town after work to buy my first ever Blu ray. Wish me luck in whatever I end up choosing!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 16:08
|
|
|
So I'm sitting here at work trying to avoid doing any actual work and a thought crossed my mind that I feel like blathering about: I love Blu-ray. It's the best, purest home video format that will EVER exist. Here's why: - First the obvious. It's gorgeous. Now that I'm accustomed to viewing films in HD, I realize it's the ONLY proper way to do so. I see film as a visual medium first and foremost, so being able to enjoy a beautiful presentation of a great film is infinitely pleasant to me. Not to mention the amazing sound quality. The experience of watching a movie at home has now grown more appealing to me than that of watching a film in the theater. - Proper aspect ratios all around. True, there's a small handful of rogue releases that modify the film from its OAR, but generally speaking fullscreen/pan&scan/altered releases are a thing of the past, which makes the format a goldmine for film purists like myself. No more dealing with the frustrations of hearing from some Wal-mart frequenter about why fullscreen is the better choice, or of accidentally picking up the wrong version and having to drive back to the store. And here's why I think nothing will ever top Blu-ray: - There is a finite amount of resolution that the human eye can see. While we could theoretically detect and appreciate a resolution higher than 1080, a higher-resolution format is just not sensible from a business perspective. Nobody would care, so nobody would buy it. At least not the majority of consumers. It's hard enough convincing some people that BD looks better than DVD, so imagine trying to compare 1080 to 1560, or whatever it would be. Unless we see a day where the average TV is 10 feet wide (not likely), a higher-res format will never exist. - Physical media is a dying concept anyway. Everything is turning into digital files on our hard drives or in "the cloud." Fewer people collect movies and more people simply attain them to view. And there's a huge difference there. I foresee the next big marketable format being something you download. Blu-ray is probably the last format that I, as a collector, can appreciate for its presentation. Packaging, booklets, the way it looks sitting on my shelf next to all the others; these things will be a thing of the past after Blu-ray. So yeah, Blu-ray is great (by the way, sorry HD-DVD  ). Time for me to get back to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
My only grudge is I dislike the compulsory heavy use of blue color on the boxes. I liked how DVDs were free of any such color-coding; it was just the movie's cover and that's it - no need to advertise the format too. Then again, I even preferred the red highlighting of the HD-DVD, it looked nicer to my eye than the blue. Nitpicking aside, I pretty much agree with everything caiman said. And I've only been collecting blu-rays for the past two months or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 16:39
|
|
|
Zat posted:My only grudge is I dislike the compulsory heavy use of blue color on the boxes. I liked how DVDs were free of any such color-coding; it was just the movie's cover and that's it - no need to advertise the format too. Then again, I even preferred the red highlighting of the HD-DVD, it looked nicer to my eye than the blue. Good point, and I agree completely. The fact that Criterion avoids the blue makes me adore the company that much more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
Yeah, Amazon UK just has some really good pricing on boxed sets. My UK market films are the Alien set, Planet Earth, Life, Matrix trilogy, Bourne trilogy, and the Clint Eastwood set. All were significantly cheaper than the US counterparts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
I also hate how almost all Blu-ray discs will not resume if I shut down the player and then turn it on again later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
caiman posted:Good point, and I agree completely. The fact that Criterion avoids the blue makes me adore the company that much more. It's a shame their blu-ray subtitles are so lovely and hard to read on b&w movies or any large white space on a color movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
caiman posted:- Physical media is a dying concept anyway. Everything is turning into digital files on our hard drives or in "the cloud." Fewer people collect movies and more people simply attain them to view. And there's a huge difference there. I foresee the next big marketable format being something you download. Blu-ray is probably the last format that I, as a collector, can appreciate for its presentation. Packaging, booklets, the way it looks sitting on my shelf next to all the others; these things will be a thing of the past after Blu-ray. Consumer rights will also be a thing of the past. Media moving to the cloud plays right into the hands of the businesses and will pave the way for new and exciting ways to annoy and gently caress with the consumer as people physically own less and less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Consumer rights will also be a thing of the past. Media moving to the cloud plays right into the hands of the businesses and will pave the way for new and exciting ways to annoy and gently caress with the consumer as people physically own less and less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
caiman posted:And here's why I think nothing will ever top Blu-ray: Here's the reasons why you are, most likely, wrong. - As time goes on, (ignoring projectors for now) TVs are only going to get bigger and cheaper. As that happens, it is only a matter of time before they start pushing a higher resolution than 1080p and a new format. Blu-Ray is nice, now, on current sub-65" native 1080p screens, but imagine when 100+" TV are kicking around that can display 2K or 4K. It will look better and it will be a selling point. Everybody always goes "Why do I need that? That's stupid. What I have is perfectly fine!" at first. Remember when Blu-Ray/HD-DVD came out? "Great now I can see an actor's pores.  "- Physical media really isn't a dying concept. Streaming has a ton of hurdles of jump over in the future. 1) The studios themselves. The studios want to herd people into their own individual closed garden. They only want you to access the content the way they want you to and that isn't want that people want. People want to access their content from one area on whatever device they want. 2) The studios do not want you to rely on a third party company. Since they own the content, they can demand outrageous rates for it which will stifle the growth of streaming services. Look at how Netflix has been pushed up against the wall. People want more/better content and studios are starting to demand much more money for the rights. 3) Price. Streaming is convenient. Look at all these new movies at my fingertips. I'm in the mood for a comedy. Friends With Benefits. I bet that is a funny movie. Let's check it out. *click* Rent $3.99, Buy $14.99. Oh...that blows. Let me see how much the DVD is. *click* $9.99 Good but I want to watch it in HD. *click* $19.49 for the Blu-Ray and it comes with an Ultraviolet copy. Well, gently caress that. How about an older movie? Let's see. Almost Famous. That was a good movie. *click* Buy $9.99 - and they don't have a HD version. *click* DVD, $6.49. Blu-Ray, $17.49. The only digital service that has already gotten over this hurdle is Steam. Prices aren't static and they run sales all the time. Amazon tries to do this but most of the time, it is only for rentals. The own it under $5 sales are normally limited to movies already on the Prime service for free or the first part of a trilogy. 4) Let's say that hurdles 1-3 are overcome. The studios pull their heads out of their asses, team up on a service where you can access everything anywhere with no hassles or ease up on third parties and price their content right. Everything should be perfect now, right? The ISPs. They can easily rain all over our parades by putting a cap on how much bandwidth we can use. Look at how they reacted to streaming already. Most have already either capped how much you can use or lowered the caps already in place. Now imagine a time where instead of 23 million people using Netflix, it is 123 million. 5) Quality. This is where discs reign supreme (and will for a long time) for obvious reasons. You can also add extras under this category. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Dec 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
My next tv is going to be one of these new 80" ones coming from LG or other companies, that is a year or two off but man, bigger is better. Might even go HD projection. The thing is, you can always go bigger. I just got a 24" LCD for my computer and at first, WOW, HUGE compared to the 20" but now... I still want bigger. Consumers like me always feel there is more to be gained and we'll just want the bigger sizes. 4k res is going to be fantastic -- soon it will be affordable to have an actual "theater room" in your house.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
I agree with most of what you said Sporadic but the one thing I'm really starting to wonder about is if people would even buy 100+ inch tvs in amounts significant enough to justify another format bump. 32-50 inches seems to be the sweet spot for tv size for most people. I've been to houses where they have 60 inch sets in little tiny rooms and it is just way too imposing. I would be willing to bet most people in the HDTV market don't have rooms to justify going any bigger than that. 100+ inch screens would be for people that have newer/custom built homes and have dedicated theater rooms with gigantic walls. I just can't see screens that size becoming the norm. As far as physical media goes though yeah I 100% agree it will be here to stay at least for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
I agree with ApexAftermath about TVs. There's a point where size becomes a niche thing. Right now a 50" screen fits pretty well in the average home. But 100"? Nope. There will be a cap to the popular sizes of TVs. As for physical media not being a dying thing, sporadic makes some good points, but I still see things heading in that direction. Just look at the music industry. But even if physical media is here to stay, that only bodes better for Blu-ray. If physical media is sticking around, it means Blu-ray is sticking around. Again, the TV/resolution argument. If another format comes along it's going to have to offer something besides higher resolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
I think TVs will either level off in physical size or the viewing space will be virtual somehow. With visors for example there's no reason why the "screen" couldn't be as expansive as the sky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
caiman posted:I agree with ApexAftermath about TVs. There's a point where size becomes a niche thing. Right now a 50" screen fits pretty well in the average home. But 100"? Nope. There will be a cap to the popular sizes of TVs. Yeah I just can't see people going huge with their TV in numbers great enough to justify introducing another format. Don't get me wrong if I had the money I would totally have a huge theater room with a gigantic screen, but I just don't see that happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 20:20
|
|
|
Succeed in life and you will have the money to build such a thing.  Goals man!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 21:44
|
|
|
The preorder for Pearl Jam Twenty dropped down to $11.99 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B005LZYL3G ApexAftermath posted:I agree with most of what you said Sporadic but the one thing I'm really starting to wonder about is if people would even buy 100+ inch tvs in amounts significant enough to justify another format bump. 32-50 inches seems to be the sweet spot for tv size for most people. I've been to houses where they have 60 inch sets in little tiny rooms and it is just way too imposing. I would be willing to bet most people in the HDTV market don't have rooms to justify going any bigger than that. 100+ inch screens would be for people that have newer/custom built homes and have dedicated theater rooms with gigantic walls. I just can't see screens that size becoming the norm. I don't know. I can see a 100+ inch LED-LCD in most living rooms if the price was right. Bedrooms and stuff would be limited to a smaller size but look at how many people choose 1080p sub-32" TVs over 720p models even though the visual difference is tiny at that size and distance. It's possible they would buy a 2K or 4K sub 100 inch TV (if that is even possible) for the bedroom. Think back ten or twenty years. The standard was a larger 32" TV in the living room and a 19" TV in the bedroom. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I think TVs will either level off in physical size or the viewing space will be virtual somehow. With visors for example there's no reason why the "screen" couldn't be as expansive as the sky. Like the Colbert TV Hat? http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/404344/december-14-2011/tv-hat
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
etalian posted:Like the Colbert TV Hat? You didn't instantly think of the exact device he described being used by Marty's daughther in Back to the Future II? For shame!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
I can't see a visor solution being something that would catch on. People don't want to wear a device on their face that only tricks your eyes into thinking they are seeing a big screen. 100 inches of tv in most homes would be obnoxious. Yes it might fit in the room MAYBE, but it would look terrible in a room not made for that size tv. Even 60 inch tvs are really pushing it sometimes depending on the room.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
Nobody's gonna want to watch the Superbowl with a visor on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Nobody's gonna want to watch the Superbowl with a visor on. But then man can watch the cheerleaders without getting beaten by his wife.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:13
|
|
|
That's the keyword, depending on the room. I don't think anyone is wanting to hook up a projection/60"+ tv in their bedroom. If you do not have the means you cannot get this stuff, simple as that. If you live in some tiny apartment you are not going to be getting some giant rear end tv. For those of us who currently/eventually will have the means to afford bigger homes and those which will have big rooms, we have every right to need a giant rear end tv.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:17
|
|
|
The visor was only an example of the concept. Who knows what impossible holo-projection type thing they might make where everyone can watch and not need a HUD strapped to their face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
It's probably old news, but I just picked up the Mission Impossible blu-ray boxset from Best Buy for $25, pretty good price for three movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Yeah I just can't see people going huge with their TV in numbers great enough to justify introducing another format. Don't get me wrong if I had the money I would totally have a huge theater room with a gigantic screen, but I just don't see that happening. I think what we're looking at is a return to a laserdisc-sized niche for whatever physical format follows Blu-ray, and for per-unit costs to be high enough to maybe bring back some form of rental. Studios are already doing a bunch of sublicensing (Shout! Factory, Olive Films), limited releases (Twilight Time) and manufacture-on-demand (Warner Archive, Sony Classics, etc), so as long as the 2% are willing to pay and to bump up their TV sizes, some kind of quad-layer Blu-ray/new player deal really isn't outside the realm of possibility. I think I just want there to be a new format just so I can get a really-high-res 30" monitor, all WQUXGA-style and "last monitor you'll ever need." Unless, of course, we get the nanotech screens painted on walls thing sussed, in which case everybody and their dog are going to want ultra high res and fast. Shadley Puffin fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Dec 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
I'm reminded of the "family" walls in Fahrenheit 451.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I can't see a visor solution being something that would catch on. People don't want to wear a device on their face that only tricks your eyes into thinking they are seeing a big screen. 100 inches of tv in most homes would be obnoxious. Yes it might fit in the room MAYBE, but it would look terrible in a room not made for that size tv. Even 60 inch tvs are really pushing it sometimes depending on the room. This is pretty much the entire reaon those "Virtual Reality" arcade games in the 90s never caught on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 02:53
|
|