|
The Blu-Ray Megathread: Nobody's gonna want to watch the Superbowl with a visor on
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Thanks for the Alien(s) replies. Now I'm fiending to get these sooner rather than later. Sat down and watched all three Lord of the Rings straight through on BR the other day. God drat they look so good. The colors are so vibrant. I am tempted to do it again already, the pacing is just perfect. caiman posted:The near unanimous hate for alien 3 has always made me tremendously sad. They wrote Alien3 off as a "myth" in the graphic novels. Watching it with that in mind made it entirely enjoyable for me. I finished the Alien Vault book, and there is a little blurb: quote:Weaver recalls a subsequent dinner in Los Angeles with both Cameron and Fincher. They had barely ordered drinks when Aliens director turned to the Alien3 director, incredulous: "You killed Newt?" At least Fincher got some much deserved poo poo for that from Cameron. Philthy fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Dec 31, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted: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. I think you're confused. No one is saying you shouldn't have the right to have a big rear end tv. The point I was making is that for a new format to be viable it has to be able to eventually go from niche to the main thing. I would argue this has already happened/is happening with blu rays as they already have a ton of blu ray bargains. I just don't see enough people out there able to afford/have the space for a tv screen big enough that the industry would need to come out with something better than blu ray.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
Philthy posted:At least Fincher got some much deserved poo poo for that from Cameron. Was that really his decision? From what I've heard he basically had no creative control and that script was a complete clusterfuck. It was supposed to be set in a space cathedral at one point and feature an alien that had incubated inside of an Oxen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I think you're confused. No one is saying you shouldn't have the right to have a big rear end tv. The point I was making is that for a new format to be viable it has to be able to eventually go from niche to the main thing. I would argue this has already happened/is happening with blu rays as they already have a ton of blu ray bargains. I just don't see enough people out there able to afford/have the space for a tv screen big enough that the industry would need to come out with something better than blu ray. No offense but you are thinking way too small. Three years ago people were predicting that Blu-Ray would be a niche format like laserdisc due to people not caring about HD and the expense of upgrading. Right this moment, yes, a new format and higher resolution isn't viable now but think ten years from now. You don't think TVs are going to get larger and cheaper? You don't think the industry will push a higher bump in resolution to go along with them? You don't think that people will jump on board if the industry stands together and pushes it? Even if they don't at first, you don't think it will surge forward as prices drop? The TV manufacturers are already putting together 4K 80+" prototypes. http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/28/lg-unveils-84-inch-ultra-definition-4k-tv-its-bringing-to-ces/
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:Was that really his decision? From what I've heard he basically had no creative control and that script was a complete clusterfuck. It was supposed to be set in a space cathedral at one point and feature an alien that had incubated inside of an Oxen. I really don't know. The book I pulled that from only had two paragraphs on Alien3 and the other movie that should not be named. It mentions they went through two directors before Fincher, and a pile of scripts. It reads like they were filming the movie and writing the script as they went along.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:No offense but you are thinking way too small. Three years ago people were predicting that Blu-Ray would be a niche format like laserdisc due to people not caring about HD and the expense of upgrading. Well I was never in the "blu ray won't take over" crowd. I don't really see the arguments as similar. It would require more people in the middle class to have homes with dedicated theater rooms with large walls. That's more of an obstacle to overcome. Maybe 80 inches I could see but jeez you would still need a pretty big room for it to not overtake the flow of the room. Practicality is still a matter. Just curious if anyone knows but at what size tv would blu ray go from looking amazing to starting to break down?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Just curious if anyone knows but at what size tv would blu ray go from looking amazing to starting to break down? I could be wrong and talking out of my rear end, but isn't Blu-Ray near 2K resolution, which is considered good enough to be archival in some instances? So I suppose you could project it at theatrical size with little notice of issue (I think Star Wars: Episode 2 was shot at or near 1080p) Again, I could be wrong and misremembering poo poo I've read across the net over the years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
4K is considered the standard now for regular 35mm, but 2K is fine for 16mm and 35mm sourced films with lower resolution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
The Ghostbusters I saw on the big screen this Halloween was the Blu-Ray and it looked great. Not Imax Avatar great but a drat fine looking movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
The Digital Bits confirms West Side Story replacement discs are available. The initial run had a fade-out/fade-in placed between the first two chapters in error.quote:To request a replacement copy of MGM's West Side Story Blu-ray, please call 877-369-7867 (M-F, 8 AM-5 PM PST) or email support@foxcustomercare.com. They'll arrange a way to make the swap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:It was supposed to be set in a space cathedral at one point and feature an alien that had incubated inside of an Oxen. The latter still happened in the Workprint Edition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 09:36
|
|
|
OGB posted:I could be wrong and talking out of my rear end, but isn't Blu-Ray near 2K resolution, which is considered good enough to be archival in some instances? Yes, I think the poster who keeps bringing up 2K is doing so because they're unaware that unlike 1080p, the measurement is done horizontally. It's literally 80 pixels wider than 1920x1080 and is essentially the same thing. There's zero likelihood we'll see 2K in the home for media playback.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
caiman posted:- 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. Is aspect ratio still a big deal in the States? In Europe we had mixes of flipper discs (16:9 one side, 4:3 the other) and different editions back when DVD first became popularised, but I don't think I've seen a 4:3 disc in years now. Then again, we adopted 16:9 SDTV in the late 90s which meant a lot more people had the sets. A bigger difference, which is due to the HDTV spec in general, is no more anamorphic requirement or different PAR (Pixel Aspect Ratio). I could sperg on for ages, but before HDTV, you had to deal with 3 separate aspect ratios - the screen, the movie and the pixels. HDTV is designed foremost for a 16:9 screen so 4:3 is easily dealt with and the pixels remain at 1.00 regardless of output. If you dealt with PAL/NTSC a lot, this is a big step up. Now that 99.9% of movies are 1080p/24hz regardless of whether you buy it in the UK or US, joy. No more buying PAL discs and dealing with audio speedups. Now if we could only get rid of 50hz from broadcast...
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
Mister Chief posted:Was that really his decision? From what I've heard he basically had no creative control and that script was a complete clusterfuck. It was supposed to be set in a space cathedral at one point and feature an alien that had incubated inside of an Oxen. Well the revisionist history that goes around is that Fincher was hosed every step of the way, and that's largely true. But he also took to rewriting that script himself (Which is worrying since he's not a writer) in order to sort out some issues. He could've easily got rid of Newt/Hicks another way. To be honest though I don't think he was really considering the implications of that when he was writing/filming. It was just another problem. How do we solve this issue? I dunno lets just bump them off!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
The pHo posted:Is aspect ratio still a big deal in the States? In Europe we had mixes of flipper discs (16:9 one side, 4:3 the other) and different editions back when DVD first became popularised, but I don't think I've seen a 4:3 disc in years now. Then again, we adopted 16:9 SDTV in the late 90s which meant a lot more people had the sets. Here in the states there will still 4x3 versions of DVDs made, especially for big-sellers at the behest of Wal-Mart, but I can't think of a single movie where the widescreen version wasn't the "lead" SKU. We had flippers, too, in a lot of cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
The pHo posted:Is aspect ratio still a big deal in the States? In Europe we had mixes of flipper discs (16:9 one side, 4:3 the other) and different editions back when DVD first became popularised, but I don't think I've seen a 4:3 disc in years now. Then again, we adopted 16:9 SDTV in the late 90s which meant a lot more people had the sets. Very good point. There's no such thing as a non-anamorphic Blu-ray. As for aspect ratios being an issue here, yes, they are (were). Nearly every major new release saw both widescreen and fullscreen versions. Sometimes they were on the same disc, sometimes they were separate releases. And in the most frustrating situations, you actually had to turn the package over and read the small print to know which version you were buying. It sucked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 17:06
|
|
|
Lobok posted: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. The issue isn't size, though, it's viewing distance. Proper viewing distance/angle is a linear relationship between the size of the screen and your distance from it. If you sit 8 feet away from a 60" screen and then 80 feet away from a 600" screen, you'll see the same thing. There's no point in increasing screen size when you can't physically sit farther away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Aorist posted:The issue isn't size, though, it's viewing distance. Proper viewing distance/angle is a linear relationship between the size of the screen and your distance from it. If you sit 8 feet away from a 60" screen and then 80 feet away from a 600" screen, you'll see the same thing. There's no point in increasing screen size when you can't physically sit farther away. I'm not sure if you're taking issue with the visor or the impossible projection tech because the latter is literally something I can't conceive of to be invented in the future that gets around the limitation you're talking about. But does the visor not solve that problem? With a virtual screen the perceived distance and size of the image can be controlled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
Lobok posted:I'm not sure if you're taking issue with the visor or the impossible projection tech because the latter is literally something I can't conceive of to be invented in the future that gets around the limitation you're talking about. But does the visor not solve that problem? With a virtual screen the perceived distance and size of the image can be controlled. I probably didn't word that as clearly as I could have: if it's a linear relationship, and increasing screen size and distance in proportion has no effect on the perceived image, then what exactly makes a giant virtual screen preferable to a large TV? When you watch a movie in a theater, it's the sense of being in a big room with strangers that makes it different, not the screen. (And not just the visual space of it, but the vibrations from the sound system, the micro-movements in the air, the murmuring of the people behind you, etc.) Basically, without the ambient sense of place for scale, a virtual screen of any size is just going to look like a large TV floating at the other end of the room.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Viewing a larger screen further away also changes the convergence and focus of your eyes, so even ignoring the factors unique to being in a theater with a bunch of strangers, it's not comparable just because your field of view is filled to the same degree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
Aorist posted:I probably didn't word that as clearly as I could have: if it's a linear relationship, and increasing screen size and distance in proportion has no effect on the perceived image, then what exactly makes a giant virtual screen preferable to a large TV? When you watch a movie in a theater, it's the sense of being in a big room with strangers that makes it different, not the screen. (And not just the visual space of it, but the vibrations from the sound system, the micro-movements in the air, the murmuring of the people behind you, etc.) Basically, without the ambient sense of place for scale, a virtual screen of any size is just going to look like a large TV floating at the other end of the room. A larger TV was all I was talking about. Replicating the theatre experience is something else entirely, yes, just like getting a sweet pair of headphones doesn't make you feel like you're at a club.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
Twilight Zone Season 1-5 is the Deal Of The Day at Amazon. $152.99 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B005PTNVMU And a new batch of Criterion titles are the Deal Of The Week. $21.49 each besides Fanny & Alexander which is $32.49 Dazed & Confused = http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B005D0RDVG Island Of Lost Souls = http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B005D0RDNY The Four Feathers = http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B005DI994W Fanny & Alexander = http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B005HK13PO Rushmore = http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B005HK13SG Inland Of Lost Souls is a great release if you dig horror. Looks fantastic and still holds up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
Has the Dirty Harry boxset always been this cheap on Amazon.co.uk? Because 14gbp for 5 movies is quite a good deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Has the Dirty Harry boxset always been this cheap on Amazon.co.uk? CamelCamelCamel has a UK section. http://uk.camelcamelcamel.com/Boxset-Magnum-Enforcer-Sudden-Blu-ray/product/B002MZ1UQE Looks like it normally hangs around £18 with random day drops down to £14
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:CamelCamelCamel has a UK section. Thanks, I didn't even know about CCC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I hadn't heard about this. loving awesome, I don't think the DVD is even anamorphic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Think back ten or twenty years. The standard was a larger 32" TV in the living room and a 19" TV in the bedroom. Think back then, and every TV was a CRT, and those suckers were heavy and big. A 60 inch CRT TV would weigh more than your couch, would have to be huge to include the components, and wouldn't fit in your average TV stand (or even be supported by it). Nowadays, we've reached the point where LCDs are incredibly thin, relatively light, and can be even hung on a wall like a painting. It's so much easier to have a big screen TV now, thus, it's no longer going to be about how much bigger can it get, but rather, what looks good in the room I have. Simply put, I think it's not unreasonable to say that we've reached a point where differences in resolutions will not produce a noticeable change in image quality for consumer electronics. It can't always get better. At some point, we will have reached our biological and physical limits. Until we evolve better eyesight, I think we've peaked on resolution. I've seen articles that are saying that on 32" TVs, 720 and 1080 isn't noticeable. I really doubt that 4K is going to take off in any reasonable measure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Rushmore = http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B005HK13SG 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
If I had a huge TV I'd probably sit about as far away from it as I do my current TV, which is already pretty close.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Twilight Zone Season 1-5 is the Deal Of The Day at Amazon. $152.99 I just wish my $100 amazon.ca giftcard could work on their US site! Thanks for the heads up as always Sporadic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
I wouldn't normally get the word out about anything involving Best Buy, because gently caress them. However I spotted a really good deal in their sunday flyer. They're selling Louie season 1 for $9.99. It's marked as a DVD, but all copies of this are DVD/Blu-ray combo discs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I wouldn't normally get the word out about anything involving Best Buy, because gently caress them. However I spotted a really good deal in their sunday flyer. They're selling Louie season 1 for $9.99. It's marked as a DVD, but all copies of this are DVD/Blu-ray combo discs. Amazing deal. I hope Amazon matches that. My nearest Best Buy is almost a hour away. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jan 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Amazing deal. I hope Amazon matches that. My nearest Best Buy is almost a hour away. I know, I paid 30 bucks for that a few weeks back and thought that was a deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
caiman posted:Very good point. There's no such thing as a non-anamorphic Blu-ray. Actually it's the other way around - Blu-ray negates the requirement to use the anamorphic process. In DVD terms, 'anamorphic 16:9' is essentially a flag on the disc that tells the player 'hey, the screen hooked up isn't 4:3 so you need to interpret each pixel to be a bit wider than the storage ratio says it is'. The only reason you'd need to bring this into play now would be if super wide aspect TVs started taking off to such an extent, that disc publishers wanted to give them properly formatted media. Again, this isn't going to happen so it makes life a lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted: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. I've got a projector in my room showing at a little over 100", surround sound and a PS3. Granted, it's a big bedroom but I'm using my black out blinds on my window as a screen and everyone in my house loves it, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
The thing about "improving" on Blu-ray is that it isn't enough to bump resolution on pre-recorded media. Content has to be ubiquitous. Look how long it took to get the networks to go HD. They fought for years and years and to this day still don't broadcast in 1080p. Obviously disk/card/brain implant tech will get to where it will hold a 4k movie and there will be tech on which to display it. But given the long long fight to get to plain old HD, I think BR is going to be around for a very very long time (relative to other tech that is). I think TVs will just keep getting bigger (until they hit some unknown limit where the public won't want to go any higher), lighter, cheaper, consume less and less power, integrate better with online services and home networks, etc. 4k movies will be an esoteric hobbyist market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
The Women in Cages Collection (The Big Bird Cage/Big Doll House/Women in Cages) finally dropped in price. It's down to $23.99 on Amazon. This is the first time it has gone below $28 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B004ZKKL0A Mr. Funny Pants posted:The thing about "improving" on Blu-ray is that it isn't enough to bump resolution on pre-recorded media. Content has to be ubiquitous. Look how long it took to get the networks to go HD. They fought for years and years and to this day still don't broadcast in 1080p. Obviously disk/card/brain implant tech will get to where it will hold a 4k movie and there will be tech on which to display it. But given the long long fight to get to plain old HD, I think BR is going to be around for a very very long time (relative to other tech that is). Of course it will take the TV industry awhile to adjust and video cameras are going to have to catch up (RED is already moving that way) but this is going to be a whole different ballgame than what is going on with 3D or what happened with HD. The movie studios see it on the horizon, they are working on it and anything on film can be scanned in at 4K and benefit. They don't have to create new content for it. They are already starting to futureproof their transfers by doing them in 4K. With the speed technology is moving, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new format pushed out within the next ten years. It will probably take another five for it to make a foothold in the market. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Jan 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
This is a pretty good, but often repeated, deal: The Pre-Nolan Batman Anthology for 10.99 GBP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
"Pre-Nolan."
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 11:50
|
|
