|
Sporadic posted:Haha, please tell me that dumbass was posting screens from scene, compressed MKV, rips. Looks like he was. The full disc leaked out today and the screenshots from it look great.    
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Warner is releasing a 4-movie set of gangster films on May 21st. It'll include The Public Enemy, Little Caesar, The Petrified Forest, and White Heat.Sporadic posted:Looks like he was. That's a relief. Putting in my pre-order!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Will the The Hobbit Blu-ray be 48 fps? Considering 100% of TVs can handle it while like 1% of TVs can handle 3D it would seem pretty drat stupid not to include it. Also gently caress 3D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Will the The Hobbit Blu-ray be 48 fps? Considering 100% of TVs can handle it while like 1% of TVs can handle 3D it would seem pretty drat stupid not to include it. Also gently caress 3D. The Blu-ray spec has it for 1080p at 30fps or 1080i at 60fps.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
So it'll probably be 1080i 60fps. Great.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
WickedIcon posted:So it'll probably be 1080i 60fps. Great. Well, no, I would be pretty surprised if the 2D version's disc was anything other than the usual 24 FPS, since the high framerate was only featured in the 3D version in theaters. I don't know if they have something planned for the 3D HFR version but it's a fact that the blu-ray standard doesn't really have anything close to an acceptable match, at the moment anyway. edit: Oh, and for reference, here are the video specifications that blu-ray supports: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Video Zat fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Zat posted:Well, no, I would be pretty surprised if the 2D version's disc was anything other than the usual 24 FPS, since the high framerate was only featured in the 3D version in theaters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:But a normal 24fps movie in stereoscopic 3D shows 48 frames per second. Maybe they just really want people to buy the 3D TVs so giving people 48fps 2D content is a no-no. I'd rather have The Hobbit downgraded to 720p than 24fps, since that difference is way less pronounced. Technically the video on disc is frame-packed, which means it is 24fps but each frame is twice as tall (a nifty consequence of this is that technically, a player could decode only the first 1920x1080 pixels and come out with a 2d movie). That it is 48 images per second doesn't mean it is also 48 frames per second. Additionally, TVs probably cannot actually display 48fps correctly (unless they were 3d with active shutter already, maybe), though a monitor might be able to. parasyte fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
parasyte posted:Technically the video on disc is frame-packed, which means it is 24fps but each frame is twice as tall (a nifty consequence of this is that technically, a player could decode only the first 1920x1080 pixels and come out with a 2d movie). That it is 48 images per second doesn't mean it is also 48 frames per second. parasyte posted:Additionally, TVs probably cannot actually display 48fps correctly, though a monitor might be able to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:So a 3D movie just takes the top half and delays it until the next frame on a 120hz TV. Why wouldn't it be able to delay it to the next frame on a 60hz TV to achieve a higher framerate? The first is that they simply don't - the HDMI format isn't necessarily the same as the bluray video stream, though it is very similar in this case, but even then a non-3D TV isn't equipped with the image processor to do so. On the second point, it's more that nothing does 2:1:1:1 pulldown. 60p displays are fed 60p inputs but they have had 3:2 pulldown done on the input so that the framerate matches (but you can see motion judder as a result). Lastly the entire supposed point of 48fps was to smoothen 3D; there were no 2D 48fps showings of the film. Edit: Almost everything the man below me says is wrong. parasyte fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Will the The Hobbit Blu-ray be 48 fps? - All Bluray players output 1080p at 30fps, regardless of source. That is the standard that was set a long time ago. 3D gets around it by outputting at the lower standard of 720p60. So technically a 48fps movie would have to use that. - Televisions take the 30fps signal from Bluray players (or pretty much anything else, like regular television signals) and then converts it into a 60hz signal. So technically, many modern televisions actually aren't designed to display video content at 60fps. - Furthermore, modern TV's only output in 60hz (or 120), and just convert the content over. As a result, a 48fps Bluray would look like garbage. It's not turning 24 or 30 frames into 60, it's turning 48 frames into 60, which means it will look like a juddery mess. - Twice the frames means twice the space required. So in essence, to include the 48 FPS version, the studio would have to spread the movie across two Bluray discs, available only in 720p, you would need a totally seperate Bluray disc to watch it in 24 FPS, and most televisions and Bluray players would probably require a firmware update, and in the end it won't do the format justice due to extreme judder. It's unlikely we will see 48 FPS until the successor to Bluray is released. kuddles fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
parasyte posted:The first is that they simply don't - the HDMI format isn't necessarily the same as the bluray video stream, though it is very similar in this case, but even then a non-3D TV isn't equipped with the image processor to do so. parasyte posted:On the second point, it's more that nothing does 2:1:1:1 pulldown. 60p displays are fed 60p inputs but they have had 3:2 pulldown done on the input so that the framerate matches (but you can see motion judder as a result). I saw The Hobbit in 48fps. I just want to see it again at that framerate without the loving glasses and the severe light loss. When the lamp in my projector is near the end of it's lifetime, and set at low light mode, it's still way brighter than 3D movies at the cinema. It can also handle 1080p at 60/50/24hz just fine. parasyte posted:Edit:
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:I'm having trouble following. Is what you mean that Blu-ray players, even advanced 3D models, just don't have the hardware or the firmware to do it? My thoughts were a bit jumbled and the bit I wrote about pulldown sort of solves one side of the issue if the studios were willing to work with player manufacturers to get it working. But the TVs aren't going to just start taking frame-packed video and displaying frames sequentially from that, and a non-3D TV won't know to unpack the frame in the first place. A player could be made to unpack this bizarre 3D-formatted-but-not-3D stream, pull it down to display at 60fps, and then have the TV display that. Given that there is a single 48fps movie for wide release right now I don't see a firmware update happening to enable this. Particularly when the original intention was to have 48fps enhance the 3D, and not to film a 2D 48fps movie. Motion judder is smooth movement and pans looking jerky. On a display that doesn't support 24p input, to convert to 60fps half the frames are displayed 3 times and half are displayed twice, which is where 3:2 comes from. It's not screen tearing, it's more that half the film is at 20fps and half is at 30 (this is technically wrong and it doesn't look that way visually, but in a way it is correct). To do a pulldown from 48p to 60p one in four frames would be displayed twice. I can't test it out right now but I have a feeling it would be somewhat more obvious than 3:2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
You need a 120 Hz TV with 24 fps support to display the 24 fps-formatted Blu-rays without 3:2 pulldown (120 being an even multiple of 24, whereas 60 is not). For a hypothetical future firmware update or HDMI/Blu-ray spec upgrade that allowed for 48 fps-formatted Blu-rays, you'd need a 240 Hz TV (to both support 48 fps without pulldown, and not break compatibility with standard 24, 30, and 60 fps content) to avoid pulldown. A 120 Hz TV could do it with 3:2 pulldown, so hypothetically no worse judder effect than watching 24 fps content on a 60 Hz TV - but watching 48 fps on a 60 Hz TV with the necessary 1-in-4 frame doubling might be considerably more noticeable and disconcerting.
Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Apparently the new h.265 codec that was shown off at the last CES will easily support higher framerates at 1080p+, it's just a matter of when they'll start making BD players with it onboard. It might only be when Avatar 2 hits that we see the push for HFR support on media players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
I was looking to buy Videodrome on Blu-Ray and it appears that there are two versions of the film available, a cut UK version and an uncut Criterion Collection release. From what I've seen, it looks like the Criterion version has superior picture quality, but since I'm in the UK I'd have to pay a lot of money for it compared to our version and also invest in a region free Blu-Ray player (although I've been considering this anyways since I'd also like to pick up American Psycho and a few other movies that don't have UK Blu-Ray releases either). What I was wondering though, is what the actual differences are between the cut UK version and the Criterion release in terms of content. Does anybody know? I haven't been able to find anything other than comparisons of image quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
MUFFlNS posted:I was looking to buy Videodrome on Blu-Ray and it appears that there are two versions of the film available, a cut UK version and an uncut Criterion Collection release. From what I've seen, it looks like the Criterion version has superior picture quality, but since I'm in the UK I'd have to pay a lot of money for it compared to our version and also invest in a region free Blu-Ray player (although I've been considering this anyways since I'd also like to pick up American Psycho and a few other movies that don't have UK Blu-Ray releases either). Regarding American Psycho, the Australian release has the best picture quality, the director's preferred aspect ratio and English subtitles. It's region B and will work on your UK player.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
MUFFlNS posted:I was looking to buy Videodrome on Blu-Ray and it appears that there are two versions of the film available, a cut UK version and an uncut Criterion Collection release. From what I've seen, it looks like the Criterion version has superior picture quality, but since I'm in the UK I'd have to pay a lot of money for it compared to our version and also invest in a region free Blu-Ray player (although I've been considering this anyways since I'd also like to pick up American Psycho and a few other movies that don't have UK Blu-Ray releases either). According to imdb this is what the uncut version contains: The director's cut (available in the US on VHS and DVD) contains the following additional footage: During the "Samurai Dreams" scene, a dildo, only partly shown in the "R" rated version, is fully visible. The first shot of videodrome in Harlan's workroom runs longer. The next scene in Harlan's workroom shows a different, and more graphic take of videodrome broadcast. The scene in which Max pierces Nicki's ear has been extended. The shot of Max shooting his second partner is slightly longer. Barry Convex's death goes another shot. If the information on there is correct about the UK cuts, that amounts to about 3 minutes of footage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Regarding American Psycho, the Australian release has the best picture quality, the director's preferred aspect ratio
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:34
|
|
|
caligulamprey posted:Wait, was there a weird aspect ratio thing for American Psycho? Is this like some weird-rear end Tideland/Apocalypse Now situation? Nah, the American release opened up the frame a bit, so you saw some things the director didn't intend the audience to see. Like Bale's shriveled member.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Nah, the American release opened up the frame a bit, so you saw some things the director didn't intend the audience to see. Turns out the movie wasn't the only thing that was uncut.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
If you're looking for cheap Blu-Rays, you may want to check Dollar General. I was surprised to run into a display with Blu-Rays packaged in cardboard sleeves for $4.95 each. They had some good ones. The Fighter, Up In The Air, Ponyo. ---- $7.99 at Amazon Night Of The Creeps http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002KPUN0K...RV2G8EQKNAHH56S The Stranger/Hunt To Kill http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0085Z3A9A...J15E129QAPH2MQN Righteous Kill/Traitor http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002PM8PZS...N7Y5N0W5ZV1SPF3 Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Mar 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:If you're looking for cheap Blu-Rays, you may want to check Dollar General. I was surprised to run into a display with Blu-Rays packaged in cardboard sleeves for $4.95 each. They had some good ones. The Fighter, Up In The Air, Ponyo. No. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:If you're looking for cheap Blu-Rays, you may want to check Dollar General. I was surprised to run into a display with Blu-Rays packaged in cardboard sleeves for $4.95 each. They had some good ones. The Fighter, Up In The Air, Ponyo. Like... the old cardboard snap cases for DVDs, like WB and New Line used to make?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
Red posted:Like... the old cardboard snap cases for DVDs, like WB and New Line used to make? No. Like...cardboard "wait, is Dollar General selling bootlegs?" sleeves. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Essentially you're buying the poo poo that isn't being rented on Netflix or Redbox anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:No. Like...cardboard "wait, is Dollar General selling bootlegs?" sleeves. ... 'Treasure Hunt'? Is that euphemism?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Regarding the next round of Star Trek: TNG Blu-rays coming in April: For any of you still sore about having to purchase 'The Best of Both Worlds' as a separate Blu-ray disc, I'm hearing that in while the main S3 set will have both 90 minutes of documentaries AND a 70-minute writers room feature, the BOBW disc will have 30 MORE minutes of documentary footage as part of that disc, along with the new gag reel and that full-length episode edit with the new 90-minute commentary track. It's becoming a bit more apparent now that it's not just the "cash grab" some detractors have been complaining about - they literally couldn't fit all that extra content into the regular six-disc package. I think the additional $15 purchase will be well worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:No. Like...cardboard "wait, is Dollar General selling bootlegs?" sleeves. What the hell? I'm tempted to buy Ponyo at $5, and just print my own label, but goddamn, that's tacky.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Back during the holidays, I saw Wal-Mart start doing that with DVDs for 99 cents. Just the disc in a paper sleeve. It seems barbaric, but yeah if it's a movie I was really interested in, I might spring for that and make my own case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Road Warrior blu-ray is a huge improvement over the terrible audio and totally incomprehensible night footage of the old DVD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Red posted:What the hell? Considering I've seen Blus in proper cases for $5 at Dollar General, that's a ripoff. And they're used.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
If they want to make it a real Treasure Hunt, don't show the discs. Have them be Mystery Boxes. Will it be Australia or Die Hard 4? Will it be The Fighter or softcore pornography?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:If they want to make it a real Treasure Hunt, don't show the discs. Have them be Mystery Boxes. Will it be Australia or Die Hard 4? Will it be The Fighter or softcore pornography?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Fox has nine classics slated for Blu-Ray on Dec. 3 (except one) from a poll on Home Theater Forum: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=10630 Jesse James (1939) Call of the Wild (1936) The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947) The Black Swan (1942) Carmen Jones (1954) Desk Set (1957) North to Alaska (1960) Undefeated (1969) Cavalcade (1933) - August 6th The poll was based on decades from 1930-1969. Kind of surprised they didn't do the 1920s since there's a bunch of Murnau, Borzage, and Ford silents with HD masters ready to go for Blu-Ray such as Sunrise, The Iron Horse, City Girl, and Seventh Heaven. Several are on Blu in France and England.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Have you ever tried writing Criterion to suggest a title? Ever gotten a a response? What did you ask for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Yeah, I used to, before I really understood how they go about acquiring their titles. I almost always got a response from Jon Mulvaney. Just want to note that a few suggestions I made were Days of Heaven and Badlands, so you're welcome. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
I'd write and suggest Freddy Got Fingered, but I don't think they'd take me seriously. However, I would be dead, dead serious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
The pHo posted:I'd write and suggest Freddy Got Fingered, but I don't think they'd take me seriously. However, I would be dead, dead serious. One of the Criterion execs is gonna wake up next to a dead deer soon, aren't they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
kaujot posted:Yeah, I used to, before I really understood how they go about acquiring their titles. I almost always got a response from Jon Mulvaney. I actually wrote and requested 2009's The Road. I might be alone in that request, but I think they could do a hell of a job with it. (And hopefully, get McCarthy on commentary while he's still around.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 16:03
|
|