|
I picked up the Robocop trilogy the other day and man, people weren't kidding, the first film has probably the lowest quality transfer I've ever seen, I felt like I was watching a dvd. Is the source really that bad or has no one done a proper clean-up of it yet?
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
Aatrek posted:The TNG Season 5 trailer dropped today. I love the Denise Crosby enthusiastically talking about the elevator pitch for Sela, followed by Michael Dorn being like "Yeah, I didn't get the Sela thing."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Oh, and because I didn't post it, here's trailer for the Klingon-heavy Redemption standalone release. Check out that goddamned burning city. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzO_2C-jgfI&hd=1
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Has there been any recent news about the Abyss? The latest info I can find was a BR forums post about it and True Lies possibly releasing in 2014. I'm watching the DVD copy I have and the aspect ratio is just so awful. It takes up like, 30% of my screen 
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Kingtheninja posted:Has there been any recent news about the Abyss? The latest info I can find was a BR forums post about it and True Lies possibly releasing in 2014. I'm watching the DVD copy I have and the aspect ratio is just so awful. It takes up like, 30% of my screen This right here is what I am always crossing my fingers hoping to read new news on each time I see new posts in this thread for like the last year. The dvd release is absolute garbage and I still don't understand why it never got an anamorphic release. The Abyss is probably my most anticipated release ever at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
There's a HDTV rip from somewhere that doesn't have any hardcoded subs. Not great but better than the DVD and enough to hold over until the Blu-Ray release. All I want is True Lies. It's been special to me ever since my parents took 7 year old me to see it opening weekend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:All I want is True Lies. It's been special to me ever since my parents took 7 year old me to see it opening weekend. It's at the top of my list too. One of the best action/comedy movies ever. I remember getting all excited because the only thing available was the lovely non-anamorphic dvd and around 2001 there was talk about a sequel and a special edition dvd. 9/11 happened and I think it was Cameron that said "Terrorists aren't funny anymore." and everything related to it died. I'm still hoping that he's working on a new transfer and it'll come out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Has there been any word on the X-Files since the upscaled stock footage announcement? I read somewhere that the digital effect shots are being upscaled too rather than redone, is Fox the worst or what? I understand the issue with the stock footage, but not doing the effects properly is just low. Obviously they didn't give a crap about Firefly, so that got a lazy release, but the X-Files was their flagship show for a decade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:46
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Has there been any word on the X-Files since the upscaled stock footage announcement? I read somewhere that the digital effect shots are being upscaled too rather than redone, is Fox the worst or what? I'm kind of alright with them keeping the old lovely CGI because it just preserves the show as a product of its time. Plus I think they have like one or two episodes where this is even a relevant issue. A so-so blu-ray release would be better than what we have now because the DVDs look like absolute poo poo. The show was shot on film, but edited on tape. So all the masters were on tape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I'm kind of alright with them keeping the old lovely CGI because it just preserves the show as a product of its time. Plus I think they have like one or two episodes where this is even a relevant issue. A so-so blu-ray release would be better than what we have now because the DVDs look like absolute poo poo. The show was shot on film, but edited on tape. So all the masters were on tape. I'm not saying go Lucas on them, but the TNG blu-rays do it perfectly with faithful recreations. There's actually a surprising amount of CGI in the X-Files. The DVDs are trash, so I'm still crazy excited for the Blu-Rays. Apparently the company that did TNG season 2 are handling it and while that was probably the weakest of the releases, it still looked drat good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
Random question is there a reason why some movies that were pretty big hits like True Lies or Disney's Hercules never got a special edition and still using the same DVD from 1998?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
I'm goon graduating (i.e.: moving out of my parents' house  ) and taking my PS3 with me. Which leaves my parents down one Blu-Ray and Netflix player. I'll likely tell them to get another PS3, but this could be an opportunity to get them rid of an extra machine: they've been keeping an old Oppo DVD player for watching the occasional region locked DVD. I'm sure they'd enjoy a Blu-Ray player that's not region locked (for DVDs or Blu-Rays) and also streams Netflix... Not to mention that an Oppo could be programmed on their universal remote, unlike the PS3's Bluetooth remote. So I was thinking to also suggest the more recent Oppo BDP-103. Unless I'm mistaken supports everything mentioned above, although by the looks of it region free DVD requires a firmware mod, and switching Blu-Ray regions requires a hardware mod. Apart from that and the prohibitive cost, is anyone aware of anything else I should mention when I suggest it as an alternative?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Rirse posted:Random question is there a reason why some movies that were pretty big hits like True Lies or Disney's Hercules never got a special edition and still using the same DVD from 1998? It's a mixture of things. There can be contractual reasons that can make it difficult if you can't get everyone to play along, or you might need to get approval from people. Also, they might not want to put the money into it, saying "Yeah, this is fine" and leave it as is, because they don't think a new disc will sell enough. And they don't really care too much about quality, especially for a film like Hercules, which in the Disney pantheon, isn't that big of a film. Lizard Combatant posted:Has there been any word on the X-Files since the upscaled stock footage announcement? I read somewhere that the digital effect shots are being upscaled too rather than redone, is Fox the worst or what? I did a Google search and didn't see anything, so it could just be someone making poo poo up. I understand what you're saying. If you're going to go back and spend the time to track down the original film elements and remaster the show, then just going with an upscale for the special effects defeats the purposes. Those scenes would be a great way to show off. It's been a while since I've seen X-Files, so I don't recall how often CGI shows up. But before you get a bee in your bonnet, remember back when the rumor mill was talking about TNG in HD? I recall at one point someone who said they were a source close to the project saying that they were probably just going to upscale any footage with special effects in it. People make things up all the time. I should know. I have an uncle who works at Nintendo... and his uncle works at Fox!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Amazon Warehouse has new copies of The Twilight Zone: The Complete Season for $142.50 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007I8KXQ8...VHAEGXV4ZHHA4WK Cemetry Gator posted:I did a Google search and didn't see anything, so it could just be someone making poo poo up. I understand what you're saying. If you're going to go back and spend the time to track down the original film elements and remaster the show, then just going with an upscale for the special effects defeats the purposes. Those scenes would be a great way to show off. It's been a while since I've seen X-Files, so I don't recall how often CGI shows up. Fox is notorious for being gigantic cheapskates when it comes to home releases. (also see predator getting a dnr bath for the re-release and patton getting re-released like four time before finally getting a proper transfer) If they cheaped out on Firefly, there's a really good chance they'll do the same to X-Files. quote:Speaking of Fox, we’ve also learned that the post facility HTV is involved in the effort to bring The X-Files TV series to Blu-ray Disc. Which is good in that it’s further confirmation that The X-Files is coming to Blu-ray (something we first revealed here in The Rumor Mill back in November)… but it’s bad because we’ve also heard there’s some up-conversion going on of original footage (rather than a full HD upgrade and restoration). As it happens, HTV was the company that did the remastering work on CBS’ Star Trek: The Next Generation – Season Two (which really wasn’t up to the quality standard set by CBS Digital’s in-house team on Seasons One or Three). So draw your own conclusions. Let’s hope that all the series’ dark, gritty goodness isn’t just digitally scrubbed away. [Editor's Note: I should be clear, it's not a complete upconversion. Like Star Trek, all the original camera negative is being rescanned in high resolution. However the original VFX work was done in low resolution and much of this is simply being upconverted rather than being re-rendered. And any stock footage used – shots of the Hoover Building for example – is being upconverted.] Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jun 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:If they cheaped out on Firefly, there's a really good chance they'll do the same to X-Files. Well, Firefly was a cult show that ran for less than a season. X-Files ran for 10 years. Also, with Firefly, it probably wasn't a case of "we're going the cheap route." They just used the HD masters which were readily available. When Firefly was made, it was mastered in HD, but the special effects shots were rendered only in standard def. Given how bad companies are in general about knowing what's really going on with their catalog, I wouldn't be surprised if someone saw that they had an HD master and just issued that with little regard for what was actually going on. I'm not saying it's impossible that Fox wouldn't rerender the FX shots. I'm just not going to go and put all of my faith into a rumor posting, since there really isn't enough detail to show anything. But who knows? It wouldn't be the first time some company made a pretty stupid decision. I mean, if you're going to pay to reconstruct the show, you might as well do it right the first time. So we'll see. I'm not willing to say it's impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:It's a mixture of things. There can be contractual reasons that can make it difficult if you can't get everyone to play along, or you might need to get approval from people. Also, they might not want to put the money into it, saying "Yeah, this is fine" and leave it as is, because they don't think a new disc will sell enough. And they don't really care too much about quality, especially for a film like Hercules, which in the Disney pantheon, isn't that big of a film. The thing that is weird, Black Cauldron got a special edition only a few years ago and that was one of Disney's biggest flops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Well, Firefly was a cult show that ran for less than a season. X-Files ran for 10 years. Also, with Firefly, it probably wasn't a case of "we're going the cheap route." They just used the HD masters which were readily available. When Firefly was made, it was mastered in HD, but the special effects shots were rendered only in standard def. Given how bad companies are in general about knowing what's really going on with their catalog, I wouldn't be surprised if someone saw that they had an HD master and just issued that with little regard for what was actually going on. Yeah, that's kind of the point. Firefly has a cult-like following that will rally and buy anything they can from the franchise. If Fox couldn't be bothered to redo the special effects on 14 episodes, chances aren't good for a series with 202 episodes. The price of redoing special effects is much higher than the necessary evils of scanning and re-editing. And it looks like Firefly was given a remaster from Fox. 2006 posted:The fan base for Joss Whedon's space-Western TV series "Firefly" has grown exponentially since its short-lived 2002 run on Fox. Canceled after 11 episodes due to low ratings, published reports said the series went on to sell more than 300,000 copies when released on DVD the next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Amazon Warehouse has new copies of The Twilight Zone: The Complete Season for $142.50 If you go to UK's amazon, the individual seasons of The Twilight Zone are on sale and region free. This works for me as I already own seasons 1-3.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:57
|
|
|
Rirse posted:The thing that is weird, Black Cauldron got a special edition only a few years ago and that was one of Disney's biggest flops. Hindsight has benefited The Black Cauldron more than any other Disney movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
The Prowler is $7.99 on Amazon. Temp out of stock so you may have to look under "more buying choices" to see the Amazon price. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003JFCG82...FZ0EX99BB0WVC5D
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Hindsight has benefited The Black Cauldron more than any other Disney movie. Who was it that made an amazing thread/post about 'The Three Caballeros', and how it saved Disney? I'd love to see a similar write-up about The Black Cauldron.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
ahahaha bring on the 4Kquote:Sony announced its FMP-X1 4K Ultra HD Media Player a few months ago, and today confirmed it's arriving in homes and on store shelves by July 15th. The $699 box only works with Sony's own 4K TVs, and early adopting owners of "qualifying" X900A sets can expect a $200 introductory discount. Also available is in-home setup and activations free of charge, set up through the 4KActivation.com site once it's available July 8th. Sony's also named the online 4K movie distribution network it's launching this fall -- Video Unlimited 4K -- which will offer films, TV episodes and short-form content for download. For feature films, it will cost $7.99 for a 24-hour rental or $29.99 to purchase. The 4K Player (and its 10 pack-in movies) is available for pre-order now on the US Sony store, expect it to hit other retailers soon. http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/01/sonys-4k-player-discounted-200-for-x900a-owners-video-unlimit/ Only works on Sony's 4K TVs? $8 to rent? $30 to purchase? What a bargain!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Only works on Sony's 4K TVs? $8 to rent? $30 to purchase? What a bargain! Sounds about right for the price point given the cost of Blu-Ray players and the disks in the past. Also, compare that with $14.99 to buy digital copies on Amazon. I mean, if you already bought a $5,000 TV I don't really think that the cost of 4K content is really going to stop you from buying it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
They're really rushing this forward, aren't they? I remember HDTV being talked about in vague terms as far back as the early 90s, and it wasn't until the 2000s that shows started to air in it and they brought out HD video formats. Is anyone BROADCASTING in this? Will they in the near future?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 02:50
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Is anyone BROADCASTING in this? Will they in the near future? Nope. Rumors are that ESPN is considering it, and NBC may start filming SNL in 4k, but none of the cable providers or OTA stations are ready to broadcast this way. Heck, most networks still broadcast 720p/1080i at best. Look for this to go as well as 3DTV has.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
OGB posted:Nope. Rumors are that ESPN is considering it, and NBC may start filming SNL in 4k, When I think of a showcase for 4k, I think, "Saturday Night Live." quote:but none of the cable providers or OTA stations are ready to broadcast this way. Heck, most networks still broadcast 720p/1080i at best. WARNING: Long rear end rant probably loaded with incorrect assumptions coming. I've had arguments about this before and come across as some kind of semi-luddite naysayer. There are some fundamental differences between this advance and the analogous ones before it. VHS/DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray never had questions about how they would get to consumers. If you had the money to get them, they would be available because they were on physical media. Got shelves? Then you can sell them. There currently isn't a practical physical medium for 4k. Entire hard drives don't count as "practical". Tech always comes up with ways to squeeze more ones and zeroes onto a piece of plastic, but they are going forward with 4k before they have one this time. Which leads to streaming. No doubt that streaming has matured dramatically. But big chunks of the population do not have fat internet pipes able to handle this kind of material. Hell, big chunks of the population don't have broadband of any flavor. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's going to take one hell of a compression scheme to make up the difference here. No way the broadcast networks are ready and they'd go ballistic if they were forced to do it so soon after HD supplanted the original format that had been in place for the better part of a century. I don't think the dish companies could handle it either. By most accounts, 4k needs larger displays to really shine (some say no difference can be seen on displays smaller than 80 or 100 inches, some have disputed that). But one thing is certain: if you've got the typical 40-50 inch screen, if there is any difference, it will be really small. Anecdote alert: I happened to overhear a Target employee showing the ropes to a new hire tonight and they were talking TVs. The guy doing the training said that almost all of their sales top out at 40 inch displays. Console gamers won't benefit, the upcoming generation just caught up with 1080p. PC's capable of playing games at 4k cost as much as a lovely used car and that won't change for a while. A lot of people literally can't have the huge screens that make 4k worthwhile; they're too loving big. Physical space is at a premium even for people with decent incomes. We have a good income and live in a nice sized house, not a shack but not a mansion by any stretch, and there is nowhere I could put a 100 inch display without making ridiculous (and non-wife-approved) changes. Most of our social circle make enough money to buy huge TVs yet I can't think of one that has a set of even 70 inches, never mind 80, 100, or 120. Where does that leave people with lower incomes and smaller homes/apartments? I really think they are jumping the gun on this. Let's get every cable/network/content provider to take advantage of the tech we already have. It would be nice if I had more 1080p content than BRs and PC games. Let's let DVD die it's natural death so BRs come down enough in price enough that mass consumers make the plunge. For Christ's sake, put some R&D into HDMI that doesn't make the screen go black every loving time I change a source.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
4K will be perfect for all the films shot in 1080p over the last ten years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:4K will be perfect for all the films shot in 1080p over the last ten years. Have there really been that many (if any)? Film is still in common use and when I hear about movies shot on digital, I was under the impression most were shooting on 4k.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Have there really been that many (if any)? Film is still in common use and when I hear about movies shot on digital, I was under the impression most were shooting on 4k. They're phasing out film stock pretty rapidly. I'm pretty sure that the major studios have announced that in 2013 they're going to stop sending film prints to movie theaters. I know that obviously that doesn't mean that they've stopped shooting on film all together, but I'm sure that day isn't too far ahead of us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:They're phasing out film stock pretty rapidly. I'm pretty sure that the major studios have announced that in 2013 they're going to stop sending film prints to movie theaters. I know that obviously that doesn't mean that they've stopped shooting on film all together, but I'm sure that day isn't too far ahead of us. I don't think you'll see film die just yet. Well, obviously as a distribution media, I could see them meeting that 2013 goal. At this point, a lot of US theaters have digital projectors. Honestly, I can't remember the last time I saw a film that wasn't projected digitally, aside from an arthouse presentation, like this series on Miyazaki's film that was happening earlier this year. And I know a lot of the companies that make the film stock used for projection have retired a lot of their lines. Basically, we could be getting to that point where the cost of making prints for the theaters who haven't upgraded is not enough to offset the loss of business they'd experience. In terms of shooting on film though, that day's probably a while away. First off, a lot of major films are still shot on film. Star Trek Into Darkness (why the gently caress can't we have numbered sequels anymore?) was shot on film, according to IMDB. I read that the new Spiderman sequel is being shot on film, as well. I think there are a lot of directors who like film and still want to use it, and you have some directors, like Christopher Nolan, who say you can't really do Imax on anything but film. Honestly, you have too much still being done on film for it to really disappear any time soon. And in a sense, there won't be any real reason to either. One article I read about Fuji's discontinuing their film stock specifically said that they were still making their archival film stock. When they remastered Jaws, they made a new 35mm negative. From an archival standpoint, digital is pretty unproven. If I had to guess, it could be a while before we see the end of film. It doesn't help, once again if IMDB is to be trusted, that a lot of films are scanned at 2K for their digital intermediate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:They're phasing out film stock pretty rapidly. I'm pretty sure that the major studios have announced that in 2013 they're going to stop sending film prints to movie theaters. I know that obviously that doesn't mean that they've stopped shooting on film all together, but I'm sure that day isn't too far ahead of us. Oh no doubt that digital is well on its way. But as Cemetry Gator said, film is still preferred by a lot of big directors. What I want to know is how often the digitally shot movies are done at less than 4k? And I'm not talking about little micro-budget movies, I'm talking about mass market stuff. I wonder how much money is saved on media using digital? I picture Stanley Kubrick doing fifty takes on every shot and can't imagine how much that had to cost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Oh no doubt that digital is well on its way. But as Cemetry Gator said, film is still preferred by a lot of big directors. What I want to know is how often the digitally shot movies are done at less than 4k? And I'm not talking about little micro-budget movies, I'm talking about mass market stuff. It wasn't that long ago that CGI was all mastered at 2K or less. I don't know that too many films were shot in 2K but a ton have existing prints as 2K and they'd need a remaster to get a 4K copy. According to Five Cent Deposit a bunch of 4K remasters had cleanup work done at 2K before an upsample back to 4K from a 4K initial scan. I don't know that shooting digital is actually much cheaper than shooting film, depending on the production. I mean you can throw away the footage you are sure you won't use and all it costs is time, but you still need to look through all that and keep several takes. Storing all that data does take money, long-term data storage is absolutely not cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
I wish TV manufacturers would stop dicking around with 4K and start focusing their R&D on the technology that will actually make movie watching better for everyone: OLED.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
caiman posted:I wish TV manufacturers would stop dicking around with 4K and start focusing their R&D on the technology that will actually make movie watching better for everyone: OLED. How will that help specifically?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:How will that help specifically? By providing markedly improved picture quality. In particular, black levels that are essentially infinite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Have there really been that many (if any)? Film is still in common use and when I hear about movies shot on digital, I was under the impression most were shooting on 4k. Really only in the last few years have better cameras been developed with higher resolutions like the Red (4K-5K) and Arri Alexa (2.8K). A lot of it has to do with post production. Both Skyfall and Life of Pi were shot on the Alexa. Skyfall looked exactly like a Super-35 film, but Pi looked very video-based in parts with rapid motion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Yeah I see 4k like 96 kHz audio. Only people who really really really care are going to spend the money on it, everyone else is going to be happy with 1080p. The mainstream even took a step down from regular audio CD quality as the MP3 revolution took over, and the honest truth is that most of the population can't tell the difference. I can hear upwards of 18 kHz but my high bitrate mp3s sound just as good as the CD to me. The actual weaknesses are in a frequency range I can't hear. It's been said over and over here, the jump from SD to HD was huge and obvious to most people, but this one won't be. And most people won't pay anything, let alone a premium, for a difference they can't obviously see. You can tell them it's better, and be correct, but if it's not an obvious gain it won't go anywhere. Hell, I had a friend question whether or not we were watching a Blu-ray the other day just because I don't turn on the frame interpolation on my TV. She thinks motion smoothing makes it look more high deffy. If that's the marketplace, 4k is going nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Network - $6.99 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0063FGEFG...08SRHJCRCNH8TF2 The Illusionist - $9.99 http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003UESJII...MP0730PJMPDEN5R LloydDobler posted:It's been said over and over here, the jump from SD to HD was huge and obvious to most people, but this one won't be. And most people won't pay anything, let alone a premium, for a difference they can't obviously see. You can tell them it's better, and be correct, but if it's not an obvious gain it won't go anywhere. They really could if they marketed it as "SAME THING THEY USE IN THEATERS!" but the backlash from theater owners would be massive. I think people would support 4K, even if they couldn't really notice the difference, if they thought it was the endgame. But Sony is already on the path of loving everything up and it's getting pushed out way too early. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jul 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Does anyone know if that Network bluray comes in a slipcover? I really hate that kind of marketing cover. Surrounding a small version of the regular cover art in an obnoxious gold background is not a good look.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 07:00 |
|
|
kaujot posted:Does anyone know if that Network bluray comes in a slipcover? I really hate that kind of marketing cover. Surrounding a small version of the regular cover art in an obnoxious gold background is not a good look. Yeah, it's a slipcover.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 21:06
|
|