|
Nate RFB posted:So the disk itself will have a telltale sign that it has a mono track? Or maybe the audio menu itself during playback? My receiver also has a thing where it displays which type of Audio is coming in (DTS, DD, 5.1, 2.0, etc.) so maybe that will also be a lie detector test of sorts. Ha, if only it were that easy. I think both discs have a mono track, so the menu is the same and the type of audio track as far as the receiver can see is the same. It's just the content of the track is different - the original sound effects, instead of the newer ones made for the 5.1 soundtrack. So, short of having a BD-ROM computer drive that allows you to see the date the disc was actually authored (before June 2014 for the old one, between June and October 2014 for the new corrected one), you have to actually listen to the soundtrack to verify that the mono is correct. Or just buy the standalone one, which definitely has the correct disc.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
I have a BD-ROM and PowerDVD 15 Pro so if it's possible there then I have that at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Deal of the Day $39.99 - Stargate Atlantis: The Complete Serieshttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...V64IJ7I6M2O3IFH Which is honestly a goddamn steal for 100 episodes of kinda bad sci-fi in glorious HD with a ton of extras Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
$89.99 - Best Of Warner Bros 50 Film Collection (+ UV codes) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...R37QMHXI4V4PBXN $1.80 a movie along with UV copies. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
The Polar Express (Blu-ray 3D/2D) - $12.99 Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation - $14.99 The Leftovers: Season 1 - $20.49
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:$89.99 - Best Of Warner Bros 50 Film Collection (+ UV codes) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...R37QMHXI4V4PBXN I'd throw someone $30 for the UV copies out of this thing if anyone wants a $60 bluray collection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:I'd throw someone $30 for the UV copies out of this thing if anyone wants a $60 bluray collection. quote:US ONLY: Includes UltraVioletTM so you can enjoy the film on many different compatible devices. MUST ENTER REDEMPTION CODE BY 1/29/2015 TO REDEEM ULTRAVIOLET OFFER. DOES NOT INCLUDE iTUNES FILE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Well ain't that some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:$89.99 - Best Of Warner Bros 50 Film Collection (+ UV codes) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...R37QMHXI4V4PBXN I like that when you get to the last dozen or so movies in this set it just completely shits the bed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Well ain't that some poo poo. That doesn't mean a thing - any time I've wanted to redeem an expired code, I just email the company to get a new code. I've had zero problems doing this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I like that when you get to the last dozen or so movies in this set it just completely shits the bed. I've perused that set a few times and never noticed that, but you're right. Its like, here's a whole laundry list of great classic movies that will give you a very nice cross-section of American film over seven decades, and oh by the way here's Lord of the Rings, the first Harry Potter, The Blind Side, The Hangover, a few random Nolan movies and Sherlock Holmes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I've perused that set a few times and never noticed that, but you're right. Its like, here's a whole laundry list of great classic movies that will give you a very nice cross-section of American film over seven decades, and oh by the way here's Lord of the Rings, the first Harry Potter, The Blind Side, The Hangover, a few random Nolan movies and Sherlock Holmes. I'm pretty sure Lord of the Rings is going to be remembered in 30 years, at least as much as Superman the Movie is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm pretty sure Lord of the Rings is going to be remembered in 30 years, at least as much as Superman the Movie is. Absolutely but its so haphazard and a waste of a few slots. Like, you get Dark Knight but none of the other Nolan Batman films, one Harry Potter film but for some reason all three LoTR? Take out one of the Nolan films and only include Fellowship of the Ring, and you've freed up three slots to include stuff like A.I: Artificial Intelligence, Training Day, Oceans Eleven, Mystic River, Zodiac, The Aviator, The Town, Cloud Atlas, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm pretty sure Lord of the Rings is going to be remembered in 30 years, at least as much as Superman the Movie is. however, unlike Lord of the Rings, Superman: The Movie is good
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
The first Harry Potter is kind of an odd choice just within that franchise, too. Quality-wise it was kind of a rocky start. Prisoner of Azkaban is probably a better choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:The first Harry Potter is kind of an odd choice just within that franchise, too. Quality-wise it was kind of a rocky start. Prisoner of Azkaban is probably a better choice. I can imagine what the thought process was, it just doesn't result in a very good selection of movies for a box set. They probably wanted a Harry Potter that could stand on its own, which only really applies to the first few, after that you really have to have seen what comes before to fully enjoy them. I'm assuming that's also why they included all three LotR, because they're considered one complete story and shouldn't be separated from each other. But then they said "Ahh gently caress it" and threw in Dark Knight probably because its regarded so highly compared to the other two in the trilogy. I'm fine with including a Harry Potter because of how significant the series is, but Nolan isn't important enough in my opinion to justify two slots, and wasting three on LotR sucks. People who like LotR already have a box set, and those that don't like LotR are going to be annoyed its filling three slots in this one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
TDK actually works fine on its own, at least if you get the basic idea of Batman. Obviously Begins works better as a standalone, but Rises is really the only one that depends heavily on previous films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
I utterly adore the LotR films but it does seem like they'd be better served putting something else there. (And honestly you could probably just put Fellowship there- it's not "complete" but it's like "If you liked it you should watch the others, if not then here's some other stuff.")
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I have the "bad" versions of Jurassic Park You must see the differences here right? Skip to 40 seconds and it becomes very clear I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8nBo4yJUxA
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:however, unlike Lord of the Rings, Superman: The Movie is good This guy knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:You must see the differences here right? Skip to 40 seconds and it becomes very clear I think. God help us, we're in the hands of modern color graders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Neither of those grades look ideal. The "good" grade is too blue and lacking in contrast, resulting in a flat image and unnatural colors. Too bad the colorists overcompensated when the "bad" version was created, they were headed in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:You must see the differences here right? Skip to 40 seconds and it becomes very clear I think. I can see a difference but I don't see one as really clearly superior, and if I were watching either of them it wouldn't ever enter my mind that it should look any different. I just don't have the eyes for that kind of stuff I guess, enough people have complained about the Jurassic Park transfer that there's obviously something to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
I thought the problem with the "bad" JP transfer was them going too crazy with the DNR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Neither of those grades look ideal. The "good" grade is too blue and lacking in contrast, resulting in a flat image and unnatural colors. Too bad the colorists overcompensated when the "bad" version was created, they were headed in the right direction. Could that possibly be explained by the fact that it's just one of the eyes off the 3D blu ray? I would imagine a proper 2D blu ray of that transfer would look even better. My biggest problem with the current 2D blu ray transfer is everything just looks bland. I very much prefer the warmer colors on the other transfer. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
I always thought the 3D blu-ray was supposed to be the good transfer, but those flesh tones look like garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I always thought the 3D blu-ray was supposed to be the good transfer, but those flesh tones look like garbage. From what I've read in the past it is the closest they've gotten to how the film looked theatrically, but yes it is a fact in some scenes the flesh tones get too hot. It's absolutely not perfect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
When I viewed that video on a fairly crappy laptop monitor (aka, washed out by the blue backlight), I felt the one on the right was better in almost all cases because of the enhanced contrast. But on a better monitor, it did get too orange at times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Universal is releasing Howard the Duck, *batteries not included, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, and Xanadu on March 8. Cohen Media is releasing Godard's A Married Woman on March 15. Warner Archive is releasing Hitchcock's The Wrong Man on Jan. 26 and A Mighty Wind on Feb. 9. Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Dec 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Universal is releasing Howard the Duck, *batteries not included, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, and Xanadu on March 8. ...I'd probably buy it
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
caligulamprey posted:Wow, they should just put all of those into a single box set and call it gently caress You. Hey, *batteries not included is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Hey, *batteries not included is pretty good. It was my introduction, at age 9, to the issue of gentrification, which is now highly relevant in my life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
caligulamprey posted:Wow, they should just put all of those into a single box set and call it gently caress You. I probably shouldn't find this as find as I do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
I got the Lawrence of Arabia Blu-Ray and everything people say about the picture quality is spot on. It's also a really good movie, the first hour went by like it's nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:I probably shouldn't find this as find as I do. Deep...
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Deep... I meant to say "I shouldn't find this as funny as I do." but my brain is broken.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I got the Lawrence of Arabia Blu-Ray and everything people say about the picture quality is spot on. It's also a really good movie, the first hour went by like it's nothing. I honestly believe A+ presentations of already great, but older movies help make the production time difference seem inconsequential to modern viewers. Of course, 65mm helps. The most recent example for me was the '31 Dracula. I'm so used to it being a creaky "old" movie because of the shabby quality of previous DVDs. Then I saw it on Blu-Ray and it was like seeing it for the first time. Without the dirt, scratches, dupey look, it's possible to enjoy the film rather than be distracted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I honestly believe A+ presentations of already great, but older movies help make the production time difference seem inconsequential to modern viewers. Of course, 65mm helps. Metropolis and Safety Last! were my big revelations in this regard. Time just collapses to a point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Discount Viscount posted:Metropolis and Safety Last! were my big revelations in this regard. Time just collapses to a point. It helps that the silents on Blu-Ray are generally top quality. Criterion's restoration of the silent cut of The Gold Rush totally re-established my opinion on the film. I had wrote it off as a lesser Chaplin film based on the 1940s version. Even a silent that survives only in rough condition like Sunrise thrives on Blu-Ray because the format allows much more breathing room than DVD. On DVD, it looked alright, but it simply couldn't handle 6th generation 35mm with damage and increased grain without looking soft or having compression artifacts. The Blu-Ray looks completely organic, as if you were watching a print instead of a video source.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:It helps that the silents on Blu-Ray are generally top quality. Criterion's restoration of the silent cut of The Gold Rush totally re-established my opinion on the film. I had wrote it off as a lesser Chaplin film based on the 1940s version. Even a silent that survives only in rough condition like Sunrise thrives on Blu-Ray because the format allows much more breathing room than DVD. On DVD, it looked alright, but it simply couldn't handle 6th generation 35mm with damage and increased grain without looking soft or having compression artifacts. The Blu-Ray looks completely organic, as if you were watching a print instead of a video source. Harold Lloyd happened to be an obsessive archivist, so that's also why we're fortunate to still be able to see his work in such high quality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 19:58
|
|