|
Is anything as bad as predator?
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Is anything as bad as predator? The original releases of Gladiator and Gangs of New York?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
WickedIcon posted:Eh. It's bad, but it's not as bad as say, Predator. "Eh. It's bad, but it's not as bad as say, the worst blu-ray every released" 
hitze fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Sep 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
Patton's up there, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
hitze posted:"Eh. It's bad, but it's not as bad as say, the worst blu-ray every released"
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
How about Don't Look Now?   
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
The title of that movie makes the blu-ray hack-job pretty funny, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Max Fleischer's Gulliver's Travels is probably the worst Blu-Ray released so far. They not only slathered it in DNR but the cropped it down to 16:9 http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews44/gullivers_travels_blu-ray.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Bit confused over the upcoming Criterion release of Koyaanisqatsi. Despite the R2 MGM DVD and the iMDB listing being 1.85:1, the previous R1 DVD was an unmatted 1.33:1 print that looks far better for composition. Criterion have it listed as a 1.85:1 director approved transfer. Is this definitely right? Also in 'blu-ray fuckups of the week', from what I've read of Portlandia season 2: low res audio and a load of garbage at the beginning of one of the episodes. Whoops!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
The pHo posted:Bit confused over the upcoming Criterion release of Koyaanisqatsi. Despite the R2 MGM DVD and the iMDB listing being 1.85:1, the previous R1 DVD was an unmatted 1.33:1 print that looks far better for composition. Its original aspect ratio apparently is 1.85.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
hitze posted:"Eh. It's bad, but it's not as bad as say, the worst blu-ray every released" This is a little unfair though- The original blu ray looked like complete poo poo as well. I'm all for film grain but it was dirty to the point of not being worth the Blu purchase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Rocco posted:This is a little unfair though- The original blu ray looked like complete poo poo as well. I'm all for film grain but it was dirty to the point of not being worth the Blu purchase. I have that release and, while not great, the grain is in fact the way they shot it and because of the type of film they used. It wasn't artificial, it was exactly how it was shot, which is why that's how I'd want to see it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
Plus, if they just did a new scan of it now with current film scanners, it would look WAY better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:Plus, if they just did a new scan of it now with current film scanners, it would look WAY better. It's been discussed, but just look at Aliens for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Hell, look at Manos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Zardoz is apparently not on BD yet. How can there be no BD version of Zardoz already? No Sorcerer yet, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:No Sorcerer yet, either. It's coming. It's coming 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:It's been discussed, but just look at Aliens for example. Not that great of example. If I remember right, it wasn't the scanner, it was the fact they went through frame by frame to work the picture instead of setting it on auto.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Not that great of example. If I remember right, it wasn't the scanner, it was the fact they went through frame by frame to work the picture instead of setting it on auto. What I mean is, the grain was inherent to the picture because of the way it was shot. A full restoration made it look as good as it did. Predator didn't get such a restoration, but the grain is very much inherent to the movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 00:39
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:I have that release and, while not great, the grain is in fact the way they shot it and because of the type of film they used. It wasn't artificial, it was exactly how it was shot, which is why that's how I'd want to see it. I see where you're coming from, but the thing looked like poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
Rocco posted:I see where you're coming from, but the thing looked like poo poo. Hahaha, fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 11:49
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:See guys, you should have supported HD-DVD back in the day. It was region free Originally, I assumed they'd win the format war. If nothing else, the name seemed safer than the competition (BLUE RAYS?!?!). Not too odd that the format backed by a video game system came out on top.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Red posted:Originally, I assumed they'd win the format war. If nothing else, the name seemed safer than the competition (BLUE RAYS?!?!). Were HD-DVDs actually better in terms of picture and sound? I've never actually watched a movie on one or known someone who had them so I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Were HD-DVDs actually better in terms of picture and sound? I've never actually watched a movie on one or known someone who had them so I have no idea. They were basically the same. The only real difference was the details in the storage medium like how many gigabytes a layer holds, how many layers on a disc, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
And the fact that they were all region free 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
hitze posted:And the fact that they were all region free Just get an Oppo or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:16
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Were HD-DVDs actually better in terms of picture and sound? I've never actually watched a movie on one or known someone who had them so I have no idea. They were the same, but an HD-DVD could hold 30gb whereas a BD could hold 50gb. And while the region free thing was cool, it ended up playing a major role in HD-DVD's demise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
HD DVD hardware was the most miserable garbage I've ever seen. Nothing like trying to show people how cool it is only to have the player crash 4 times during one movie. Went through three different players, all of them were slow and lovely. Bought one blu ray player, still using it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Red posted:Originally, I assumed they'd win the format war. If nothing else, the name seemed safer than the competition (BLUE RAYS?!?!). It's all water under the bridge but Blu-Ray basically won because it had a movie studio backing it. That plus the fact that it was built into every single PS3 (which was coming in as the successor to the number one selling console of all time) plus the strict DRM (Region Locking, BD+, HDCP) got most of the other studios on board. It's actually pretty crazy to think that HD-DVD held on as long as they did with Universal as the only exclusive major studio and Warner Bros/Paramount playing both sides of the fence. CPL593H posted:Were HD-DVDs actually better in terms of picture and sound? I've never actually watched a movie on one or known someone who had them so I have no idea. They weren't better. For the most part, they were on par with the Blu-Ray release (or slightly worse with no lossless audio) A dual-layer disc could hold 30GB while a single layer disc could only hold 15GB. So that normally meant extras were relegated to their own disc. Certain titles received a better release overseas on HD-DVD than certain first-generation Blu-Rays (Terminator 2 is the main one I remember. Lossless audio plus better PQ) The big advantages HD-DVD had was A) it was backed by the DVD Forum B) they were cheaper to produce since they could convert DVD production lines instead of having to build brand new factories C) it was fully baked at launch (Blu-Ray was kind of rushed out and had numerous issues that have thankfully been worked out) Lincoln`s Wax posted:HD DVD hardware was the most miserable garbage I've ever seen. Nothing like trying to show people how cool it is only to have the player crash 4 times during one movie. Went through three different players, all of them were slow and lovely. Bought one blu ray player, still using it. Weird. My Toshiba (can't remember the model number) is a tank and I never ran into an issue even with the Xbox 360 add-on drive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:The big advantages HD-DVD had was B) they were cheaper to produce since they could convert DVD production lines instead of having to build brand new factories This is actually a myth. Yes, HD-DVD could be manufactured using existing DVD lines; however, manufacturing high definition media requires a production line with equipment calibrated to tighter tolerances so a DVD factory wanting to produce HD-DVDs would have to replace the entire line anyway, making the economic argument moot since you're practically rebuilding the entire factory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:C) it was fully baked at launch (Blu-Ray was kind of rushed out and had numerous issues that have thankfully been worked out) It wasn't too bad if you had a PS3, but almost every other player needed a billion firmware updates. HD-DVD just worked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 11:50
|
|
|
kuddles posted:This one is very, very true. I remember back in the early days when you would always google for the Bluray you were going to buy + the model you had, and people on forums were giving advice like "For this Bluray, disconnect your internet first because it will try to look for an update and if the studio's server isn't up it will hard freeze and then never read the disc again". The first gen Bluray players also couldn't do things like PiP, the spec wasn't finished at launch; some players didn't have network ports as it wasn't mandatory. HD-DVD from the start required two simultaneous video and audio decoders to support features like that, as well as network connectivity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:It's all water under the bridge but Blu-Ray basically won because it had a movie studio backing it. That plus the fact that it was built into every single PS3 (which was coming in as the successor to the number one selling console of all time) plus the strict DRM (Region Locking, BD+, HDCP) got most of the other studios on board. It's a great example of an industry getting together and preventing a format war. I know a lot of people were upset because they felt that the consumers should decide, but in reality, when that happens, nobody wins. All you are given is the illusion of choice with the promise that both will struggle to win. And by the time a victor comes out, people fail to get involve, meaning that the interest that could have been there wouldn't have been built up. That's what happened with AM stereo. Basically, if I remember correctly, there were four different formats for AM stereo, and none of them were compatible with each other. Usually, the FCC says "this is the system you will use to broadcast," but the FCC wanted to see which one the market would choose for some unknown reason. The market never chose because nobody wanted to figure out which receiver to buy, and by the time the industry found a winner, any interest in AM stereo was washed up, and now nobody even uses it. AM radio is still in mono.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Workaholics Season 1 & 2 Bundle dropped down to only $12.99 on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004HW7JOM...BNX01FZCYGS4X43 - edit Whoa, this is pretty cool news. Heavyweights is being released on Blu-Ray. Pretty surprising since the current DVD is pan-and-scan only. December 11 - $14.00 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B009IQG5L0...ARASY6M6BZKATDX Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Oct 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Looks like there is a new candidate for worst Blu-Ray ever released. Night Of The Living Dead (1990) from Twilight Time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i6MZnqPnTxU It's hard to believe a title could be botched that badly and it isn't just that scene. The entire movie is suppose to be like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Looks like there is a new candidate for worst Blu-Ray ever released. Night Of The Living Dead (1990) from Twilight Time. Did they a let a bunch of blind people work on the transfer, or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Looks like there is a new candidate for worst Blu-Ray ever released. Night Of The Living Dead (1990) from Twilight Time. I've always thought NOTLD 90 was a little too brightly lit, but drat, they just day-for-nighted the entire movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Looks like there is a new candidate for worst Blu-Ray ever released. Night Of The Living Dead (1990) from Twilight Time. What's funny is reading the blu-ray.com forums and watching people who paid $30 for this piece of poo poo fall all over themselves trying to justify their purchase. "Well, if I turn the Blue setting on my TV all the way down and the Red and Green settings all the way up, this looks pretty good  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
That is unreal. That's a pretty big blow to Twilight Time, isn't it? They only make a limited run and cater to a niche audience, and their blu-rays aren't cheap at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:35 |
|
|
RichterIX posted:What's funny is reading the blu-ray.com forums and watching people who paid $30 for this piece of poo poo fall all over themselves trying to justify their purchase. The funny part is that the Night of the Living Dead bluray thread there has more pages to it than this thread. Those people are sick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2012 00:18
|
|
