|
codyclarke posted:I'm very reluctant to buy any of the Evil Dead movies on blu-ray just yet, being that there were so many DVD releases of each, and I have a feeling the same will happen with blu-ray. The Blu-ray for the first Evil Dead is as good as it gets. I highly recommend it. It's not only a good release for the movie, but a great example of the advatages of the format. There may be future releases but the current Anchor Bay release is definitive. Seriously, go to Blu-ray.com and look at the screen caps.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
CPL593H posted:The Blu-ray for the first Evil Dead is as good as it gets. I highly recommend it. It's not only a good release for the movie, but a great example of the advatages of the format. There may be future releases but the current Anchor Bay release is definitive. Seriously, go to Blu-ray.com and look at the screen caps. I gotta agree with this: The first Evil Dead bluray is amazing. I'm holding off on buying 2 because us Europeans aren't worth bringing the re-release overseas for apparently 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
So I'm going through my LOTR extended blu ray for the first time. I'm on the scene in ROTK when Pippin is doing his song during Faramir's death march and there is this incredibly jarring high pitch buzz at points. Anyone else get this? Sounds like those high frequency things to gently caress with your dog. Also just in general these blu rays have a strange sound mix. I have to turn up the sound louder than usual for the low talking stuff, but then it's so loud I feel like I'm going to blow my speakers out during the louder scenes. I've tried using dynamic range function on my PS3 and also with it turned off and neither is ideal. I end up playing this dancing game with the remote. Anyone else have these issues?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
Have you been waiting with baited breath for the complete series of "Friends" to be remastered into a giant $300 blu-ray box set? ...No? Well it's happening anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Space_Butler posted:Have you been waiting with baited breath for the complete series of "Friends" to be remastered into a giant $300 blu-ray box set? ...No? If they did this for Seinfeld, I'd buy it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Space_Butler posted:Have you been waiting with baited breath for the complete series of "Friends" to be remastered into a giant $300 blu-ray box set? ...No? How are they going to make a widescreen presentation of Friends? Wasn't it filmed for TV over 10 years ago and so probably wasn't filmed widescreen? Are they just cropping the film? If so, I'll be laughing my rear end off if anyone actually pays $300 for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:08
|
|
|
traslin posted:How are they going to make a widescreen presentation of Friends? Wasn't it filmed for TV over 10 years ago and so probably wasn't filmed widescreen? Are they just cropping the film? If so, I'll be laughing my rear end off if anyone actually pays $300 for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
$300 is also the MSRP, so it'll be significantly cheaper at retail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Space_Butler posted:Have you been waiting with baited breath for the complete series of "Friends" to be remastered into a giant $300 blu-ray box set? ...No? That actually doesn't bother me. It's a million times better than their old "let's release a later season by itself and never release another due to poor sales" strategy
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:If they did this for Seinfeld, I'd buy it. Just gonna echo this statement. And maybe have it in a replica of Jerry's fridge too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Space_Butler posted:Have you been waiting with baited breath for the complete series of "Friends" to be remastered into a giant $300 blu-ray box set? ...No? This is awesome. I really hope it's successful and this becomes a trend. I'm not huge on Friends but I'd love to see box sets like this for other shows. It rules that theyre taking the time to go back to the original elements. Those comparison pictures posted awhile back between the broadcast episode and the remastered film version showed quite a difference. As others said, this is much better than releasing individual series over the course of many years. Knock them all out at once with a reasonable price tag that takes up less shelf space. Hell, if you bought ten seasons of Friends are the current MSRP of $29.99 each you'd pay this much. I'm sure it was higher when they first came out too. Besides, just wait for deals. Look at the Battlestar Galactica set. Original MSRP was around $350. It's been as cheap as $95 now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Space_Butler posted:Have you been waiting with baited breath for the complete series of "Friends" to be remastered into a giant $300 blu-ray box set? ...No? I'll probably pick it up if the price is more reasonable than that MSRP, since my sister and her husband bogarted my DVDs. Hope other shows get the Blu Ray treatment down the line too. Would love to see the X-Files on Blu Ray.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:04
|
|
|
Olive Films' Sept. 18 releases: Macbeth (1948, Orson Welles) A Double Life (1947, George Cukor) Cyrano de Bergerac (1950, starring Jose Ferrer) All bare-bones except for a Scorsese intro on A Double Life. Macbeth is the director's cut mastered from an original nitrate fine-grain. The other two films are from 35mm archive prints. Also, first review for Invasion of the Body Snatchers is up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
traslin posted:How are they going to make a widescreen presentation of Friends? Wasn't it filmed for TV over 10 years ago and so probably wasn't filmed widescreen? Are they just cropping the film? If so, I'll be laughing my rear end off if anyone actually pays $300 for it. Well, if I recall, there's some vertical cropping going on, and then there's also some opening up of the frame on the side that occurs, so it's a bit of both. And chances are, a 3-camera sitcom like Friends doesn't have the tightest framing in terms of cinematography, so it wouldn't be a huge loss. And it's possible by the time they got to the late 90s, they were shooting with a 16x9 safety built in, just for wide-screen presentations, but it's really a huge toss-up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
Looks like Paramount did an amazing job with the Barbarella release. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Barbarella-Blu-ray/37010/#Review
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 06:30
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Looks like Paramount did an amazing job with the Barbarella release. Hahaha. Oh man, after seeing the dvd I can't say I could recommend this movie to anyone, but I absolutely can't wait to see this on blu ray. When movies like this come out, it's one of the reasons I love blu ray so much. Oh I want to see that angel scene in hd so badly...
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Macbeth (1948, Orson Welles) Well don't that just beat all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
Sklyansky posted:I'll probably pick it up if the price is more reasonable than that MSRP, since my sister and her husband bogarted my DVDs. Hope other shows get the Blu Ray treatment down the line too. Would love to see the X-Files on Blu Ray. I'm not sure how good the X-Files would look on blu-ray. I'm not 100% on this but I think those were shot on video tape. At least the early seasons. I just picked up seasons 1-3 on DVD and they look pretty rough. They clearly did no remastering for DVD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I'm not sure how good the X-Files would look on blu-ray. I'm not 100% on this but I think those were shot on video tape. At least the early seasons. I just picked up seasons 1-3 on DVD and they look pretty rough. They clearly did no remastering for DVD. The DVDs do look awful but I asked mannnnny pages back about the X-Files and was told it was shot on film. They'd have to do the Star Trek route of redoing any CG, but man it'd be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 09:32
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:The DVDs do look awful but I asked mannnnny pages back about the X-Files and was told it was shot on film. They'd have to do the Star Trek route of redoing any CG, but man it'd be worth it. I did a quick google search after making my post and from what I found they shot it on film but then edited it on tape. So that would mean all the masters are tape. It certainly shows on the DVDs. But what's worse is this probably means that for them to issue them as blu-ray discs with proper mastering instead of upconverting videotape masters (many of which are nearing 20 years old) they'd have to get all the raw footage on film and transfer that over possibly in addition to recutting it. It would be a massive and costly undertaking for sure. And this is for something that is probably only of interest to a niche market. Essentially what I'm saying is don't hold your breath on this one. CPL593H fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I did a quick google search after making my post and from what I found they shot it on film but then edited it on tape. So that would mean all the masters are tape. It certainly shows on the DVDs. But what's worse is this probably means that for them to issue them as blu-ray with proper mastering instead of unconverting videotape masters (many of which are nearing 20 years old) they'd have to get all the raw footage on film and transfer that over possibly in addition to recutting it. Dang
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I did a quick google search after making my post and from what I found they shot it on film but then edited it on tape. So that would mean all the masters are tape. It certainly shows on the DVDs. But what's worse is this probably means that for them to issue them as blu-ray discs with proper mastering instead of upconverting videotape masters (many of which are nearing 20 years old) they'd have to get all the raw footage on film and transfer that over possibly in addition to recutting it. It would be a massive and costly undertaking for sure. And this is for something that is probably only of interest to a niche market. That's pretty much what they had to do with Star Trek. Scanning the film in and reediting isn't that big of a deal as long they've kept the negatives in a safe place. And the cost isn't really an issue when you factor in syndication. Oh, and as far as I can tell, every episode beside X-Cops was shot on film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:That's pretty much what they had to do with Star Trek. Scanning the film in and reediting isn't that big of a deal as long they've kept the negatives in a safe place. And the cost isn't really an issue when you factor in syndication. Star Trek is Star Trek, though. X-Files was huge at one point but its fans aren't nearly as devoted as Star Trek's are, nor does it have any real kind of historical significance. It could be done, but it's certainly not as easy to justify.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 13:50
|
|
|
sethsez posted:Star Trek is Star Trek, though. X-Files was huge at one point but its fans aren't nearly as devoted as Star Trek's are, nor does it have any real kind of historical significance. It could be done, but it's certainly not as easy to justify. Exactly my point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Exactly my point. Except, again, that's ignoring syndication. Networks don't want to show old SD shows anymore and any HD content is a plus. Sony was smart enough to realize that when they went back and recut Seinfeld. Friends is another good example. Same with That 70's Show. To write it off because of costs and lack of prestige is more than a little bit shortsighted. (But, to be completely fair, The X Files is a Fox property and they have to be the cheapest, most shortsighted, assholes in the business. They haven't even put up the money yet to redo Firefly's FX in HD. But if they ever get around to cracking open the old wallet, I would imagine X Files would be near the top of the list) Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Except again, that's ignoring syndication. Networks don't want to show old SD shows anymore and any HD content is a plus. Sony was smart enough to realize that when they went back and recut Seinfeld. Friends is another good example. Same with That 70's Show. But once again you're comparing it to something that practically sells itself. Seinfeld still remains popular despite the fact that it was cancelled 14 years ago. And the general public often regards it as one of the greatest tv shows of all time. I'm not putting down the X-Files, but it clearly doesn't have the same draw as Star Trek or Seinfeld. When a company has to do something like restoring the X-Files, the first thing everyone says is "how much money will we make". Plus the fact that they couldn't even bother remastering it from the video tapes for the DVD release doesn't give me much confidence that they'll bother with the whole big process of going back to the original film elements. And that's assuming they even exist anymore. I love to see it happen, but I doubt it ever will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:But once again you're comparing it to something that practically sells itself. Seinfeld still remains popular despite the fact that it was cancelled 14 years ago. And the general public often regards it as one of the greatest tv shows of all time. I'm not putting down the X-Files, but it clearly doesn't have the same draw as Star Trek or Seinfeld. When a company has to do something like restoring the X-Files, the first thing everyone says is "how much money will we make". Plus the fact that they couldn't even bother remastering it from the video tapes for the DVD release doesn't give me much confidence that they'll both with the whole big process of going back to the original film elements. And that's assuming they even exist anymore. Did you miss the part where they rescanned and recut That 70's Show?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Did you miss the part where they rescanned and recut That 70's Show? Yes. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
People loving love That 70s Show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
That 70s Show was a perfectly fine show, ain't nothing wrong with liking That 70's Show except the last two/three seasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
piratepilates posted:That 70s Show was a perfectly fine show, ain't nothing wrong with liking That 70's Show except the last two/three seasons. I used to like it, but I just didn't know it was that big.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I used to like it, but I just didn't know it was that big. So big they made a british version (no one should ever watch this)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I used to like it, but I just didn't know it was that big. If you think about it, it launched the careers of Ashton Kutcher, Mila Kunis, Topher Grace, and Wilmer Valderama, to various degrees of success. It was also a pretty funny show, or so my rose-tinted glasses tell me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
There was also a spin-off in the US called That 80's Show. It's an abomination, and probably only worth watching it to see Glenn Howerton slumming it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure That 70s Show still makes a killing in syndication, so they may have put the work in just to future-proof it. The market for syndication is a lot higher on a light comedy than a relatively involved (and quickly dated) hourlong drama. Edit: I see I'm repeating a lot that's already been said. Oops. morestuff fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
Jeff Wiiver posted:There was also a spin-off in the US called That 80's Show. It's an abomination, and probably only worth watching it to see Glenn Howerton slumming it. It was also terrible because they couldn't get the rights to show any of the popular culture stuff that made the 1980's the 1980's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:To write it off because of costs and lack of prestige is more than a little bit shortsighted. That's a bummer. So I take it remastered editions of the first six seasons of 24 probably wouldn't be in the cards either, seeing that its also Fox.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Whoa, that's pretty cool that they got a pre-stardom Emma Stone to play Eric.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
The American dropped to $6.96 on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...ASIN=B002ZG9940
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
No offense to the Brits here, but American television seems to be a lot pickier about the attractiveness of the actors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 08:18
|
|
