|
Sporadic posted:If anybody preordered Max Fleischer's Superman back when I posted about it...cancel that poo poo ASAP God damnit.
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
drat, I'm glad I read that, thanks. I've had "Superman Fleischer Blu-Ray October 23" written in my phone for a couple months so that if I'm in a Best Buy I'll be sure not to miss picking it up. As if I didn't already hate Gaiam from working in a store that sells their lovely workout and alt-medicine-quantum-healing-Chopra bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
VoodooXT posted:It was shot on film, but the original camera negative was destroyed so they made the transfer off a print. If you ask me, I think it looks terrible. Having just watched it, I agree with just about every word in that review. They cleaned up the film really nice without cleaning it up TOO much, and the transfer's a little darker than on the DVD but I suspect it's closer to how it looked originally. And they got the sound just right, which is important. The lack of extras (apart from those on the DVD) is odd- if they took the trouble to restore the original ending it shouldn't have been too much trouble to give us a deleted scene or two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:If anybody preordered Max Fleischer's Superman back when I posted about it...cancel that poo poo ASAP The worst part about that is that WB has gorgeous hi-def transfers of the Fleischer Superman cartoons in their vault. In the documentary "Secret Origin: The Story of DC Comics", they show a few brief clips and it looks amazing. (Of course, you can only see the HD footage if you watch that doc On Demand - it's never been released on BD).
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 05:29
|
|
|
So Rashomon looks awesome (a Kurosawa movie looking amazing on blu-ray? No way!): http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Rashomon-Blu-ray/53148/#Overview  
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
That's nice to see, particularly given how crappy the DVD print was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Never change Sonyquote:You may have feared the consumer confusion that would come out of the Consumer Electronics Association's decision to rebrand 4K as Ultra High-Definition, and now Sony is doing very little to allay those concerns. The company has just sent us word that it "lauds the CEA's efforts," but will continue using "4K" for its current products and will brand future devices as "4K Ultra High-Definition (4K UHD)." Do you they will pull the same stunt when the next generation of media is set to release? http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/19/3527162/sony-to-use-4k-uhd-nomenclature
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
Help me out here. I'm having a hard time seeing how 4K will become a mainstream product, at least in the typical time frame. BR will eventually supplant DVD, because on normal TVs in normal sizes, a significant improvement is readily visible (and of course, the drop in cost). But at the normal range of TV sizes, say, up to 65 inches, and normal viewing distances, will 4K make that big a difference? My understanding was that 4K doesn't start to come into its own until you get to really big screens, like over 100 inches. And I've seen 100+ inch projection setups that already look loving incredible at 1080p. Even if 100+ inch displays come down to reasonable prices, there's a legitimate problem with the physical aspect. Lots of people with the space for a 50-60" TV can't find room for a monster set. Also, it took decades to drag content providers, particularly TV networks, to HD, and none of them have even hit 1080p yet. How many people will be willing to shell out for a 4K set if the only content was streaming or on discs? Hell, we're still complaining about gaps in the BR library. I know the tech will get there, it always does. But am I wrong about the lack of a significant quality jump and the probable lack of content?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
I've had arguments with my friends that with a TV smaller than 40" or so, the difference in picture quality between 720p and 1080p is negligible if nonexistent. They say they can see the difference. I can't. Who's right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Hatter106 posted:I've had arguments with my friends that with a TV smaller than 40" or so, the difference in picture quality between 720p and 1080p is negligible if nonexistent. I can tell the difference on my 50" Panny plasma but I think much of the difference depends on the source material and equipment. I would be hard pressed (read: not able) to tell the difference on a <40" set. It also is dependent on how perceptive one is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 00:47
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Help me out here. I'm having a hard time seeing how 4K will become a mainstream product, at least in the typical time frame. BR will eventually supplant DVD, because on normal TVs in normal sizes, a significant improvement is readily visible (and of course, the drop in cost). 4K is basically what some movie theaters are using. So you can screen it on a massive screen and it will look fantastic but you can also play it on a smaller screen and it should still be stunning. With every upgrade, there's always people saying "is that really necessary" and the answer is always "if it's affordable, yeah" We're still probably ten years out before we begin to reach that point with 4K but TV will follow (remember when Fox would make a big deal about showing something in widescreen or 720p [or maybe it was 1080i] in the late 90s?) and the price of hardware will continue to fall. Big LCDs will get cheaper and more widespread. Projectors will start to take the place of big gently caress off box TVs as a status symbol. But I can't wait for 4K to start rolling out. It would basically be like owning your own print of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:4K is basically what some movie theaters are using. So you can screen it on a massive screen and it will look fantastic but you can also play it on a smaller screen and it should still be stunning. Well yeah, it should. Point is, on TVs that normal people have, will it look any different? quote:With every upgrade, there's always people saying "is that really necessary" and the answer is always "if it's affordable, yeah" But with all of the recent jumps (VHS-DVD-BR), there was an easy to see (for most people) improvement in quality. For the sizes and view distances typical in American homes, I don't think too many people will be able to see any difference. And if there's no difference, it's hard for me to see demand. Hell, there are a lot of people out there still buying DVDs to watch on their HDTVs because they don't see a big enough difference to justify the higher price for BRs (despite there being a shitload of great BRs for <$10). And you have to be blind to not see the difference between those two formats. quote:We're still probably ten years out before we begin to reach that point with 4K but TV will follow TV "followed" on HD, but they did it kicking and screaming. Given that they still aren't broadcasting in the top level of HD, and given the questionable market for 4K, I can't see them following any faster for this. quote:and the price of hardware will continue to fall. Big LCDs will get cheaper and more widespread. Projectors will start to take the place of big gently caress off box TVs as a status symbol. This is all true, I mentioned that the tech will get there. But the best tech doesn't always win or succeed. There has to be a market for it. I'm not seeing incentive for the customer or the content providers. And again, a lot of people will not be able to put up 100+ inch screens, even many who have the money. quote:But I can't wait for 4K to start rolling out. It would basically be like owning your own print of the movie. If you have a monstrous screen sure. But I'm not convinced that it will be anything but a hobbyist's device for a long long time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:With every upgrade, there's always people saying "is that really necessary" and the answer is always "if it's affordable, yeah" Honestly, 4K has some applications, like 3D video. But I think it is going to end up being a silent upgrade, basically, you'll get a TV that's 4k ready. Here's a big problem: when it comes to streaming video, we have nothing that can really handle 4k video. Even with an ethernet connection to my PC, streaming 1080p video can be a hairy enterprise, especially depending on the type of compression that's used. And wirelessly, it either stutters like crazy, or I get really bad artifacts all over the place. The other point too is that there is a point where you have diminishing returns. The way that most American homes are set up, you just don't have space for a TV that would really benefit from 4k. But once again, I think it will just be a silent upgrade. You get a TV and it is 4k ready.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Well yeah, it should. Point is, on TVs that normal people have, will it look any different? The real questions are, what will the normal size of TVs when they start rolling this stuff out for real and what type of technology will it ship on? I mean think back to like 2008. The standard cheap screen was 32". Today you can get a 42" for around that price. So, let's skip forward ten years. Think it would be up to 60" by that time? You can say that's too big for a bedroom or something but as things get cheaper, that thought goes out the window. With that being the standard cheap screen, that also means that massive LCD screens and projectors will be within the realm of the home consumer. If they try to cram it on a 3 layer Blu-Ray (100GB - kind of like how the DVD forum was experimenting with HD before HD-DVD/Blu), it should still look better but it will still be compressed to a certain extent. Now, if they come up with some new storage medium that can hold much more than that, imagine getting a 4K transfer that is completely uncompressed with loseless sound. Mr. Funny Pants posted:But with all of the recent jumps (VHS-DVD-BR), there was an easy to see (for most people) improvement in quality. For the sizes and view distances typical in American homes, I don't think too many people will be able to see any difference. And if there's no difference, it's hard for me to see demand. Hell, there are a lot of people out there still buying DVDs to watch on their HDTVs because they don't see a big enough difference to justify the higher price for BRs (despite there being a shitload of great BRs for <$10). And you have to be blind to not see the difference between those two formats. "Same resolution you see in the theaters" Bam, that's the selling point. I can't exactly argue for 4K in a home setting since I've never seen in it person or whether you would really notice it on a not 100+" screen, but the with marketing "a real theater experience" should sell it big to the hardcore market (and like anything, the rest of the people will jump on when the industry throws their full weight behind it and prices come down) Mr. Funny Pants posted:TV "followed" on HD, but they did it kicking and screaming. Given that they still aren't broadcasting in the top level of HD, and given the questionable market for 4K, I can't see them following any faster for this. I wouldn't call it kicking and screaming. It took a long time for them to finally transition over (and it will take an equal amount of time to move over to 4K) but they'll do it (as long as there's no bandwidth issues) Mr. Funny Pants posted:This is all true, I mentioned that the tech will get there. But the best tech doesn't always win or succeed. There has to be a market for it. I'm not seeing incentive for the customer or the content providers. And again, a lot of people will not be able to put up 100+ inch screens, even many who have the money. I absolutely disagree with this. This isn't a case of the best tech or a market having to be there. This is an upcoming industry standard. We are going there regardless. People said the same thing about Blu-Ray being too expensive and why do I need to see Will Smith's pores and the hardware isn't there but the industry dragged everybody along. 3D? That's more of a silent upgrade like CG was talking about but, the industry dragged everybody alone. And 4K doesn't have the issue that 3D had where new content had to be created or where they had to add it after the fact. It's just a matter of scanning the film in at a higher resolution. But yeah, it's going to be a minimum of 10 years before we start to see 4K the way Blu-Ray/HD-DVD started out and it's going to take streaming awhile to catch back up to discs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Now, if they come up with some new storage medium that can hold much more than that, imagine getting a 4K transfer that is completely uncompressed with loseless sound. Uncompressed 4K video would be so hilariously big...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 03:22
|
|
|
hitze posted:Uncompressed 4K video would be so hilariously big... quote:VERTOVEC: People are used to film and videotape, which only runs at 24 fps. If you had to transfer footage from one place to another, it always transferred at real time. With 4K data, and files over 40 megabytes a frame -- that's 800 megabytes a second, and that's the challenge. Few people have technology that runs at 800 megabytes per second. http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/4k-di-on-the-girl-with-the-dragon-tattoo So one - two hour and forty minute - movie would be about 937.5 GB (if I did the math right) Crazy but who knows how far disc technology will go in ten years. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Oct 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:The real questions are, what will the normal size of TVs when they start rolling this stuff out for real and what type of technology will it ship on? There's a problem with this thinking about screen sizes: Up until recently, most TVs were CRTs. When I went to college, back in 2005, nobody had flat screen TVs. They were all CRTs. The thing with CRTs is that there was a smaller limit on the size of a screen you could have because you needed to have space for a cathode ray tube, and so the bigger the TV, the bigger the tube. So that meant that the old 24" or 27" TV we had when I was growing up ended up having a bigger footprint and was also heavier than the 47" TV my parents currently have. So because of weight and cost, you were just thinking about size in a different scale. Now, the reality is more about the physical space and what would look good. In a lot of bedrooms, a huge TV would just be overwhelming, especially when you consider the size of the TV vs. the distance to the TV. Sporadic posted:So one - two hour and forty minute - movie would be about 937.5 GB (if I did the math right) Even if you didn't do the math right, this here is an argument for why we'll have disc formats for a while yet. That's just a huge pipeline that our internet connections can't really provide yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Would flash memory be a viable option for files of that nature? I ask this as a guy who doesn't know how flash memory works, only that a usb thumb drive is very small and can hold quite a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2012 05:55
|
|
|
Hibernator posted:Would flash memory be a viable option for files of that nature? I ask this as a guy who doesn't know how flash memory works, only that a usb thumb drive is very small and can hold quite a lot. Given that current retail price for a 1 TB SSD (which is to say, a really big flash drive, essentially) is around $1200 or so, Sporadic's 937 GB figure would make each 4K full movie uncompressed cost $1200 for the media alone. Of course that same drive was around $2500 this time last year, so when 4K becomes more widely available, who knows?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:There's a problem with this thinking about screen sizes: This is the issue. I don't care how much it costs, I just don't have room for a 60 inch TV in my bedroom, let alone anything bigger. You can make it slimmer and lighter and more power efficient, but all the technology in the world doesn't make 60 inches diagonal take up less than 60 inches diagonal, and for a lot of rooms that's not viable for multiple reasons. At some point you have to remember that buying a TV isn't just about technology, it's also about interior design. I wouldn't buy a pinball table or a five piece leather sofa either, even if they were cheap and amazing, because I don't have anywhere for them to go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
The Omen Collection is only $17.99 on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001ARDBWQ...Q24XM98MJH8PD6Y $4.49 a movie (but I also heard that the packaging is terrible) --------- Also the 3D combo pack of The Nightmare Before Christmas is only $22.02 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00540G3G6...1W2Q0FAB57T9HW3 --------- And crossposting from Coupons just because I haven't seen anybody in here talking about it. Dr. Eldarion posted:Walmart has Lord Of The Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy [Blu-ray] on sale for $12 + shipping. That's the theatrical cut.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 12:36
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:
I (somehow) have never seen the LOTR movies. Are the extended versions any good or is it a load of extra rubbish that was cut for a reason? I don't like the idea of changing discs mid-film. The extended versions don't have the theatrical cut on them do they?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 15:51
|
|
|
Not all of the additions are a net positive, but there's really no reason at this point to watch the non-Extended versions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Spalec posted:I (somehow) have never seen the LOTR movies. Are the extended versions any good or is it a load of extra rubbish that was cut for a reason? I don't like the idea of changing discs mid-film. This is a hard question to answer. I think the extended cuts are better but they do add nearly an hour to each film. Maybe rent the theatrical cut of the first film and if you like it, get the extended versions (the extended version of the first film is good too). But if you're cold buying these for some reason, get the extended cuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:This is a hard question to answer. I think the extended cuts are better but they do add nearly an hour to each film. Maybe rent the theatrical cut of the first film and if you like it, get the extended versions (the extended version of the first film is good too). But if you're cold buying these for some reason, get the extended cuts. I was lucky enough to buy the Limited Edition DVDs that came with both the regular and extended editions when they came out a few years ago. They don't have all the special features of the extended editions, but it's nice having both versions in one package. I ended up buying the extended edition Blu-Rays anyway. I'm such a sucker for great packaging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:If they try to cram it on a 3 layer Blu-Ray (100GB - kind of like how the DVD forum was experimenting with HD before HD-DVD/Blu), it should still look better but it will still be compressed to a certain extent. Now, if they come up with some new storage medium that can hold much more than that, imagine getting a 4K transfer that is completely uncompressed with loseless sound. Sporadic posted:Bam, that's the selling point. I can't exactly argue for 4K in a home setting since I've never seen in it person or whether you would really notice it on a not 100+" screen, but the with marketing "a real theater experience" should sell it big to the hardcore market (and like anything, the rest of the people will jump on when the industry throws their full weight behind it and prices come down) And as others have pointed out, no matter how cheap large screens get, it starts to get difficult to place them. I've got a 42" in my bedroom, and if I desperately wanted to I could probably go up to 50" (and block half of my window) but any larger than that is impossible unless I decide that I just didn't want to use one of my closets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Spalec posted:I (somehow) have never seen the LOTR movies. Are the extended versions any good or is it a load of extra rubbish that was cut for a reason? I don't like the idea of changing discs mid-film. I prefer the extended additions. As noted not all the changes are for the positive, and its actually the first movie that's the longest. I think the final two films add some much needed nuance to some characters and just flesh out some aspects that probably needed it. I've not seen the originals since their original Cinema showings and don't feel like I've missed out by not seeing them again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 10:27
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I prefer the extended additions. As noted not all the changes are for the positive, and its actually the first movie that's the longest. Uh, what? RotK is 251 minutes at its original extended edition (263 for the BD one), while FotR is 208 minutes (228 for BD).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Just a reminder the cinematic editions of LOTRs look like trash compared to the transfer the extended editions got.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
Both the Conan movies dropped down to $7.99 on Amazon. Conan the Barbarian = http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00509KXYO...YBK5A2HW954VJ57 Conan the Destroyer = http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00509KXVC...6ME2XRD3TJXTKFM
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Is the Conan blu-ray worth the upgrade over the collector's DVD for 8 bucks? Bear in mind I love this movie. Kinda feel like I'm answering my own question here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Spalec posted:I (somehow) have never seen the LOTR movies. Are the extended versions any good or is it a load of extra rubbish that was cut for a reason? I don't like the idea of changing discs mid-film. The LOTR movies are "epic" films in the truest sense of the word, where a major part of the experience is just the whole feeling of sitting down, zoning out, and immersing yourself in a fantasy world. Like, half the movies are just helicopter shots of New Zealand while awesome music plays, but it works. They're the type of movies that lend themselves to just being as long as possible. They don't really demand the tight pacing of a normal film. Plus, there's a sort of anthology style to the storytelling -- quite like a book, actually -- where there are a lot of small little subplots that don't necessarily lead up to anything, and they kind of start and end at random. But they're just there to add richness to the setting and characters. All of these things are going on at the same time as the main plot of getting the ring to Mordor, but they don't usually interact with that plot very tightly. It's kind of just like, "Here's all the other stuff that happened while they were doing that". So even in the original theatrical versions, there are scenes that could sort of be cut out or left in without affecting the main plot. The extended versions just have more of that. I'd say the parts that were left in and left out are all of pretty much equal quality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
You really don't get the feel of changing discs in the extended edition, because each disc is still around the same length as a normal movie, and they all continue as one long story in the first place, so the break points are chosen really well. It doesn't have the same feel as "exciting thing is in progress, now get out of your immersion with this abrupt cut and insert disc 2". It's better than that, it essentially turns the series into 6 regular length movies. And the EEs are worth it to me specifically for the inclusion of the angry forest eating the entire orc army after the battle of Helm's Deep. For some reason it was one of the most memorable parts of the book for me, so I was really disappointed when it was left out of the theatrical cut, and ecstatic when it was included in the EE.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
Has there been anymore word on the Hitchcock box set? Did they straighten out those issues people complained about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 09:49
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Has there been anymore word on the Hitchcock box set? Did they straighten out those issues people complained about? It seems most issues were fixed. Robert Harris put reviews up on Home Theater Forum. Most films are at least good or close to great. Family Plot is awful quality and The Man Who Knew Too Much '56 has serious fading issues. It seems worth it now considering neither problem films are that popular.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
About time some real deal were put up by Amazon. Who's ready for November  $4.99 Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 = http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008MU8ZHU...E6PJZW5ZM5GF4ZA Teen Wolf = http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004NDJXOO...0CKD0EWGFYCZXZ5 Carrie = http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001D8W7CW...BPQD2FMEHDY9ZEX Killer Klowns From Outer Space = http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008MU8ZNO...BA8D1SPNYP8SRFF Stir Of Echoes = http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000HIVOIC...SZ0M04G500AVXN6 Jeepers Creepers = http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008MU8ZOI...X7Q3BPC47A6N9ZX $9.99 Rock Of Ages (Movie Only + UltraViolet Digital Copy) http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0091VGAXK...X1WQMXN4NXE674M Or the two disc version is only $5 more. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 28, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:About time some real deal were put up by Amazon. Who's ready for November Speaking of, does this thread go  when Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals start trickling in, or are there other threads for that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
"Usually ships within 1 to 3 months." What?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Fryhtaning posted:Speaking of, does this thread go This thread and Coupons goes completely insane for Black Friday/Cyber Monday. Magic Hate Ball posted:"Usually ships within 1 to 3 months." That happens every once in a while with high demand items. I'd wait on ordering it because you can almost bet they'll get some more in sooner than their current estimate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
Sporadic posted:This thread and Coupons goes completely insane for Black Friday/Cyber Monday. To be specific, you're gonna want to watch this thread (and coupons/deals) all week as obviously for multiple deals, but the big thing is Amazon does lighting sales which last for 2-3 hours or until inventory runs out. The price cuts on these are insane like Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown for 3 bucks or tv shows on bluray like Mad Men season 4 for 10 bucks. And there are some dvds that go for a dollar or two as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 21:40
|
|
