|
I'm going through the Beatles 1+ set and it's fantastic. They totally nailed the remixes. On the pre-White Album songs, the new stereo mixes are light years ahead of the unbalanced "quickie" stereo mixes from the 1960s. CPL593H posted: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. Partially, but he had a major vault fire (on his estate) back in the early 1940s. Pretty much wiped out everything. However, he deposited a lot of materials with UCLA and MoMA, plus some of the export versions of his films survive with at least partial camera negatives. Safety Last! was restored from Lloyd's personal 35mm nitrate print, while The Freshman and Speedy used UCLA's restoration, which were from export negatives and original prints. I had an opportunity to see Safety Last! prior to the digital restoration and the 35mm print looked fantastic. You'd never think it was sourced from a print besides the increased damage at reel changes. One bit of amusing information... When Disney released The Waterboy, Suzanne Lloyd (Harold Lloyd's granddaughter and estate holder) sued for plagiarism over The Freshman. And won. Mysteriously, UCLA restored Lloyd's entire surviving filmography over the next 5-6 years. Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Dec 27, 2015 |
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I'm going through the Beatles 1+ set and it's fantastic. They totally nailed the remixes. On the pre-White Album songs, the new stereo mixes are light years ahead of the unbalanced "quickie" stereo mixes from the 1960s. I talked about this here when I bought 1+ about a month ago. It is an essential purchase for anyone who likes the Beatles. Having seen a lot of the footage and clips featured in varying quality I can say that watching them on this blu-ray is an absolute revelation. quote:Partially, but he had a major vault fire (on his estate) back in the early 1940s. Pretty much wiped out everything. However, he deposited a lot of materials with UCLA and MoMA, plus some of the export versions of his films survive with at least partial camera negatives. Safety Last! was restored from Lloyd's personal 35mm nitrate print, while The Freshman and Speedy used UCLA's restoration, which were from export negatives and original prints. I had an opportunity to see Safety Last! prior to the digital restoration and the 35mm print looked fantastic. You'd never think it was sourced from a print besides the increased damage at reel changes. I didn't know all this stuff. At least we have what we have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Rocky: The Undisputed Collection (Rocky 1-6) - $17.99 edit: Oops, didn't double-check - this is the older release without the 4k remaster (thanks flickmaker). Neo_Reloaded fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Neo_Reloaded posted:Rocky: The Undisputed Collection (Rocky 1-6, with 4k remaster of Rocky 1) - $17.99 Actually that's the old release with the original Rocky bluray transfer. It's the Heavyweight Collection that has the new transfer. (more $$ too) EDIT: Looks like best buy has the new one for the low price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
OK, Sony's announcement of their first UHD Blu-Ray titles was a pretty bad stumble, but Warner Brothers has announced that 35 titles will be released in 2016 and these will be the first 4: Mad Max: Fury Road San Andreas The Lego Movie Pan (2015) Of the remaining 31, only Man of Steel and Pacific Rim have been named so far.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
HDR Blu-Rays? Are the colors gonna be oversaturated as gently caress to the point of looking like total garbage like in HDR photography?  
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
So far, all the titles were finished at 2K resolution. I highly doubt they re-rendered these at 4K. If anyone is interested, Blu-Ray.com has comprehensive threads on films confirmed to have 4K masters: Shot on digital Shot on film
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:HDR Blu-Rays? Are the colors gonna be oversaturated as gently caress to the point of looking like total garbage like in HDR photography? ...no? The movies will just be in 4K and probably look marginally prettier on huge TVs. (Honestly, UHD seems like a better deal for repertory theaters than for consumers- suddenly a DCP or film print won't be necessary anymore to make the movie look Theater Good.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:HDR Blu-Rays? Are the colors gonna be oversaturated as gently caress to the point of looking like total garbage like in HDR photography?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Well that looks good. It's just the connotation I typically associate with HDR is that incredibly fake-looking blown-out garbage that some photographers do in editing. But I'm sure that's just an extreme and that it can actually look good when done correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Rageaholic Monkey posted:Well that looks good. It's just the connotation I typically associate with HDR is that incredibly fake-looking blown-out garbage that some photographers do in editing. But I'm sure that's just an extreme and that it can actually look good when done correctly. UHD =/= HDR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Timby posted:UHD =/= HDR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Aw yeah, a fresh new format for me to drool over and then walk home sadly kicking a tin can & mumbling stuff to myself about how my current 1080p setup is fine, who even NEEDS 4k in their HOME and then overeating a huge pile of comfort pasta
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Rusty Staub posted:Aw yeah, a fresh new format for me to drool over and then walk home sadly kicking a tin can & mumbling stuff to myself about how my current 1080p setup is fine, who even NEEDS 4k in their HOME and then overeating a huge pile of comfort pasta To be fair, the question of who needs 4K in their home is a pretty good one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
I'm thinking the difference on most TVs won't even be noticeable, and really, you can get similar benefit from adjusting your TV's settings. Or maybe it's more appropriate to think of it like: - Transition from VHS to DVD was a jump in quality of 2 to 6. - Transition from DVD to Blu-Ray/HD was a jump in quality of 6 to 8.5. - Transition to Blu-Ray/HD to 4k is 8.5 to 8.6~8.9, depending on your TV and source material of the media.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Red posted:I'm thinking the difference on most TVs won't even be noticeable, and really, you can get similar benefit from adjusting your TV's settings. "Depending on your TV" is going to be the key (and lovely) thing about UHD Blu-Ray. 1080p TVs get basically no benefit and many (most?) current 4K TVs can't produce the color range the spec calls for. From what I've heard many 4K TVs don't even support the combination of HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 that will be required to use the format. When DVD came out it didn't matter what TV you hooked it to, it looked better than VHS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Red posted:I'm thinking the difference on most TVs won't even be noticeable, and really, you can get similar benefit from adjusting your TV's settings. If you're not someone who cares or notices this, it's not going to matter at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
4K has been discussed quite a bit in the HDTV thread recently, and there was a good post breaking down how much work has to be done to the current/recent crop of movies. Essentially, virtually everything that has CG work on it has to be completely redone to release in 4K, and most of the scans are at 2K. Think I'll be of the case "if the TV I want has 4K on it, I'll take it... if not, I won't lose any tears". It makes sense from a giant screen POV and a shooting POV (for football etc where they can do big digital zooms without losing end quality), but it's not going to be a living room revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Right now I wouldn't want to be in the market for a new T.V. because I wouldn't know yet which way to go on this. Its going to be much easier in a year or two to evaluate how important 4K is going to be moving forward, and its not like you'd be missing out on a ton of 4K content in that time. But if for some reason I had to buy a new TV now, I'd be worried about not taking 4K into account and then regretting it a year from now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
4K is great, but the industry has shot itself in the foot with years of low-res 2K masters and sub-4K digital cameras. Technically, 4K will offer more resolution for 1.33:1 and 2.35:1 films with 2K masters, but virtually no difference for 1.85:1. It also means more for projection. There is not much of a difference on a 40" screen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Right now I wouldn't want to be in the market for a new T.V. because I wouldn't know yet which way to go on this. Its going to be much easier in a year or two to evaluate how important 4K is going to be moving forward, and its not like you'd be missing out on a ton of 4K content in that time. But if for some reason I had to buy a new TV now, I'd be worried about not taking 4K into account and then regretting it a year from now. Nobody will be regretting not buying 4K in a years time. Not a chance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Here's the TV buying advice I got. Get the TV with the features you want, and if it happens to be 4K, so be it. I've seen comparison shots, and basically, they had to zoom in on a really small party of a screen to show a minor difference. There was a difference, but you wouldn't see it while actually watching the movie. 4K won't go anywhere. Over time, you'll see more support for it naturally, so it won't be like 3D, but it won't be like HD where it was a game changer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
In the TVThread theres a great photo of distance from the television and how observable the differences between 720p, 1080p, and 4k are that I found pretty helpful in realizing how much gimmick there is to the 4k home theater experience! I have a massive TV (72in) and can barely notice the difference between the formats sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Technically, 4K will offer more resolution for 1.33:1 and 2.35:1 films with 2K masters, but virtually no difference for 1.85:1
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Amazon deal of the day: Alien Anthology + Prometheus - $20.99
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:4K has been discussed quite a bit in the HDTV thread recently, and there was a good post breaking down how much work has to be done to the current/recent crop of movies. Essentially, virtually everything that has CG work on it has to be completely redone to release in 4K, and most of the scans are at 2K. Technically, they don't have to. Firefly had it's CGI work rendered at 480 but they still released it on Blu-Ray without remastering anything. Depending on the movie, I doubt most people will notice 2K being upscaled to 4K.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
In fairness, firefly fans will buy anything related to that show in order to somehow keep the dream alive 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:In fairness, firefly fans will buy anything related to that show in order to somehow keep the dream alive Legend has it that if you praise Nathan Fillion enough on Twitter, he'll invite you to his house on Friday nights, where he and the original cast re-enact entire Firefly episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
I wonder how fat Fillion is these days and exactly how fat he'd have to get before Firefly fans acknowledged that he can't possibly play the role anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
I think at this point the path for Firefly is the one laid out by Star Wars: wait close to 40 years and then reboot, with a few guest appearances by the previous cast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I wonder how fat Fillion is these days and exactly how fat he'd have to get before Firefly fans acknowledged that he can't possibly play the role anymore. He's closer to Jabba than Han Solo, if that's what you're asking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Red posted:He's closer to Jabba than Han Solo, if that's what you're asking. Firefly fans seem to be completely oblivious to his neck fat though, it seems like he's going to have be become literally immobile ala Jabba before they accept reality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Rastor posted:I think at this point the path for Firefly is the one laid out by Star Wars: wait close to 40 years and then reboot, with a few guest appearances by the previous cast. More likely they'll do the full reboot ala Battlestar Galactica since the few people that really care about Firefly don't really give a poo poo about the storyline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:More likely they'll do the full reboot ala Battlestar Galactica since the few people that really care about Firefly don't really give a poo poo about the storyline. Most likely we'll never see another frame of Firefly on television or in theatres ever again. Battlestar Galactica was a lot closer to a mainstream hit in the 70s than Firefly ever was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Most likely we'll never see another frame of Firefly on television or in theatres ever again. Battlestar Galactica was a lot closer to a mainstream hit in the 70s than Firefly ever was. You underestimate the lack of original content that "creative' types in Hollywood can come up with, and the need for reboots and remakes for (relatively) safe investments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Red posted:You underestimate the lack of original content that "creative' types in Hollywood can come up with, and the need for reboots and remakes for (relatively) safe investments. Well it would be hilarious to see them try, because the idea that a Firefly reboot is a safe investment is ridiculous. Maybe if it were in production as we speak and would be out this year, maybe. But if they wait another 5-10 years then I don't think there will be much of an audience there waiting for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Neo_Reloaded posted:Amazon deal of the day: Alien Anthology + Prometheus - $20.99 Picked this up, thanks for posting it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
does Prometheus come in a separate case like it implies? if so that'd be rad, I could grab the anthology for cheaper than it is on its own and just sell Prometheus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:does Prometheus come in a separate case like it implies? if so that'd be rad, I could grab the anthology for cheaper than it is on its own and just sell Prometheus. I don't think there's any all-inclusive set, so probably
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:47 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Well it would be hilarious to see them try, because the idea that a Firefly reboot is a safe investment is ridiculous. Maybe if it were in production as we speak and would be out this year, maybe. But if they wait another 5-10 years then I don't think there will be much of an audience there waiting for them. It's safe in the fact that it's a known property, but honestly it feels like all interest in the series died with Serenity. Maybe the resurgence of Star Wars and Guardians of the Galaxy might pique some curiosity, but even there it feels unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 22:41
|
|