|
Red posted:I'd like to think Abyss would get a proper treatment, and provide the theatrical and director's cuts. I'd like to think The Abyss will get a proper 3D post-conversion treatment. That movie uses depth very well.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
The problem is that they played it too straight. There is nothing in the movie to imply that in their universe it wasn't really called unobtanium. Been waiting for True Lies for years, hell yeah. Now for Kindergarten Cop to complete my Arnold collection, and Punch Drunk Love to complete my Punch Drunk Love collection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
quote:A substance having the exact high test properties required for a piece of hardware or other item of use, but not obtainable either because it theoretically cannot exist or because technology is insufficiently advanced to produce it. Humorous or ironical. Son of a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Yeah, but other movies don't call their objects "MacGuffins" either, they give it a real name. Same reason the main character wasn't called "Protagonist".
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
IUG posted:Yeah, but other movies don't call their objects "MacGuffins" either, they give it a real name. Same reason the main character wasn't called "Protagonist". Now there needs to be some character with the Professional Taggart Honest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
IUG posted:Yeah, but other movies don't call their objects "MacGuffins" either, they give it a real name. Same reason the main character wasn't called "Protagonist". This is true, too, but at least now I can give Cameron a little credit for not just making up complete horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
IUG posted:Yeah, but other movies don't call their objects "MacGuffins" either, they give it a real name. Same reason the main character wasn't called "Protagonist". I've seen this exact conversation play out a few times, so I regret opening my mouth. It's just weird seeing that one thing singled out when it's like problem No. 152 with that movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Sorry, I don't think I've discussed Avatar on these forums except for the Rifftrax thread. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
IUG posted:Yeah, but other movies don't call their objects "MacGuffins" either, they give it a real name. Same reason the main character wasn't called "Protagonist". Which to me at least is an indication that Cameron was kidding. He sure as hell knows about the concept, so he probably thought it was a funny goof to straight out name the stuff that. James Cameron posted:The studio executives, they read the script and they said "well you never explain what this mineral is used for". I said "I don’t wanna explain it". And I don’t in the movie, its never explained what its used for. (…) Its whatever gets people up out of their cities to get on ships to go someplace and take stuff from other people that doesn’t belong to them, and its been the story of human history forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Flicker Alley's next release is a double feature Blu/DVD combo of Palace of Silents and When You Wore a Tulip and I Wore a Big Red Rose. http://www.flickeralley.com/catalog/item/were-in-the-movies-palace-of-silents-and-itinerant-filmmaking/hardgood Palace of Silents is a new documentary on the Los Angeles Silent Movie Theatre. The other film is a documentary on itinerant filmmakers and the earliest known film shot in Wisconsin, The Lumberjack. Bonus features include several early silent itinerant films, including The Lumberjack, as well as a newly restored version of The Kidnapper's Foil (the Corsicana, Texas version). This is pretty much a film geek only release, but looks really neat. It's worth noting that Flicker Alley also has a lot of stuff available for streaming, including a two hour selection of Georges Melies films in HD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
The price for that Breaking Bad Blu-Ray box set dropped from $208 to $160 on Amazon already haha. Now that's more like it! And the DVD set dropped from $160 to $113.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
My viewing experience just wouldn't be complete without my blu-rays in a big stupid case that takes up way too much room and a bunch of tacky useless poo poo with the words "Heisenberg" and "Yo Bitch" printed all over them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:My viewing experience just wouldn't be complete without my blu-rays in a big stupid case that takes up way too much room and a bunch of tacky useless poo poo with the words "Heisenberg" and "Yo Bitch" printed all over them. I wish every gaudy home release had this as their sole review on Amazon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Looks like Universal is finally getting the idea: DVD Beaver on Touch of Evil and Double Indemnity Both look spectacular and no perceptible noise reduction wrecking. It really shows how overly digital the old Touch of Evil transfer looks. Both of the new Universal editions are from 6K scans of the camera negatives (or at least mostly) with 4K mastering/restoration.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Which to me at least is an indication that Cameron was kidding. He sure as hell knows about the concept, so he probably thought it was a funny goof to straight out name the stuff that. It's kind of a bad joke though if half your audience isn't sure if you are being clever or are just an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
IUG posted:Yeah, but other movies don't call their objects "MacGuffins" either, they give it a real name. Same reason the main character wasn't called "Protagonist". Well...
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Yes, but that was satire.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
July/August Twilight Time releases: Brannigan! (1975) Violent Saturday (1955) Radio Days (1987) Born Yesterday (1950) Save Your Legs! (2012) Follow That Dream (1962) The Secret of Santa Vittoria (1969) Riff Raff (1991)/Raining Stones (1993) [double feature] The Buddy Holly Story (1978)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
My fiancee finally got me to watch Casablanca and I was blown away. Bogart was amazing! Now the problem is, where do I get the best blu ray? I'm more concerned with quality of movie over extras. Amazon shows a 70th anniverary edition but the region is jacked so I'm not sure if it's a proper one or not. The other is this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Irritated Goat posted:My fiancee finally got me to watch Casablanca and I was blown away. Bogart was amazing! I'm pretty sure that it's the same transfer and that they're both region free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
Irritated Goat posted:My fiancee finally got me to watch Casablanca and I was blown away. Bogart was amazing! You want the 70th Anniversary edition, as it has a fresh 4K film transfer and lossless audio. There are two options for that, a standard 1-disc BD here, and a 2 BD and 1 DVD "ultimate collector's edition" here. Both are region free (except for the DVD disc in the collector's edition). The other one, which you linked to, is a prior release from 2009 with an older scan of the film and only lossy audio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
For an unwashed plebeian like me (but one that is willing to learn), what is lossy audio?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Audio that is compressed in some way to keep the file size down and loses some of the original audio information in the process, such as an MP3. There are compression methods that don't lose the information, such as FLAC, but by their very nature they can't compress as much as something that doesn't care about throwing away some of the information. The easiest way to see the effects of lossiness is to re-encode something in a lossy format a few times, like an MP3 file. After a few iterations the difference between the original and the nth generation file is quite clear. You see similar degradation making copies of tapes, or re-compressing jpegs, or taking a photograph of a photograph of a photograph. Until Blu-ray it wasn't feasible to have lossless audio for movies on discs, as there just wasn't enough room. Only picky ears on a good sound system are likely to notice any major difference between lossless and a competently compressed lossy version made from the original in most cases, but it's not some imaginary audiophile thing, and lossless is certainly preferable. Discount Viscount fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Apr 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:For an unwashed plebeian like me (but one that is willing to learn), what is lossy audio? "Lossy" is a term that describes compressed data where some pieces of the original information are discarded during compression and are thus unrecoverable. The opposite is "lossless", where the compressed file contains the full representation of the original data, and can be uncompressed to recreate the original data with 100% accuracy. MP3s are lossy, and frequency ranges that are considered un-hearable, or unimportant, are discarded to save space. A high-bitrate MP3 (320 kbps) is considered functionally identical to the original song, but some data has still been discarded. Lower bitrate MP3s (128 kbps, for example) sound noticeably different as now much larger portions of the original sound data have been discarded. For all DVDs, and some Blu-rays, the audio is only available in a lossy format. Most times the file is of high-bitrate, so its arguable how much actual difference there is, but it is a topic of much contention. Most Blu-rays contain lossless audio, in the form of either Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD Master Audio, or the uncompressed PCM audio, and this has become something people expect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:For an unwashed plebeian like me (but one that is willing to learn), what is lossy audio? Form of audio compression that loses quality compared to the original recording. MP3 is the best example--when it compresses, depending on the bitrate, it throws out high and low audio which is difficult for humans to hear. Contrast this with WAV, FLAC, some forms of HDMI audio, etc. which are lossless and can produce a perfect replica of the source audio with all the highs, lows, etc. intact. In practice lossy vs. lossless doesn't matter that much as long as the lossy compression has a high enough bitrate. For really high end audio you would probably prefer lossless just to get every last bit of sound quality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Thanks for the info, you learn something new every day! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
The biggest problem with DD mono tracks is that they're beyond weak. You have to crank up volume to get a decent audio level. It's always better to either go uncompressed (PCM - what Criterion usually does) or lossless (DTS HD-MA). It's especially stupid when a movie is on a dual layer disc that has tons of room to spare. One problem is that a lot of DD tracks for mono films tend to be dragged and dropped from a prior DVD release rather than newly mastered.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
We're lucky we're at least getting those drag and drops. For a lot of people, they would never even think about choosing mono over surround if it's an option, since surround obviously must be better for film. I was watching Jaws with a friend, and I was doing the set-up, and I chose the mono soundtrack, and he's like "What the gently caress are you doing? Go with surround!" And I told him "The mono version of the soundtrack is the only version worth watching." And then I showed him this Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7MiVghLlQk Sometimes, they just gently caress up the foley work and do a terrible job. In a lot of ways, it's like the remix of Pet Sounds from mono into stereo. Yeah, they made it clearer, but they lost the punch and the bite. Granted, a good surround remix is still perfectly fine. It's just that sometimes, the remixes just aren't that good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Yeah the Beatles mono box set was a huge eye opener for me. There's a ton of stuff you don't hear in the stereo versions. Anything from the 60's/early 70's and earlier really should be listened to in mono.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
I think it's just as important to hear the original sound mix (or as close as possible) as the color timing and aspect ratio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
That's really eye-opening about mono vs stereo audio, I never even considered that. I totally get aspect ratios, but what is color timing? Edit-- so when creating a stereo/surround track from something originally recorded in mono, how do they even do it without re-recording everything? As an analogy, wouldn't it be like colorizing a film originally filmed in black and white? Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Apr 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Colour timing, also known as grading, is the process of finishing the final look of a film's visuals. It can have a profound effect on the impact of those visuals. For example look at this shot from, Do The Right Thing, which is set on the hottest day of summer both in terms of temperature and racial tension on a street in Brooklyn. The properly graded image is balanced to emphasize just how hot it is by warming up all the colours. Every shot in the film is borderline orange.  The terrible Universal blu-ray was graded to "correct" the colour timing to an accurately white balanced image. All the visual impact of the heat is lost. Scroll through the other screenshots in the DVDBeaver review to see more of what I'm talking about
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:That's really eye-opening about mono vs stereo audio, I never even considered that. The final mono mix of a film would generally have separate tracks for dialogue, music, and effects. This would allow a sound mixer to adjust levels throughout the film. Sort of like how the said Beatles albums had a final mix in mono, but recorded with four tracks to allow for adjustments. When they switched to stereo as a primary mix, they also generally switched to 8-track recording since even more flexibility was needed. For the better 5.1 remixes, the original separate tracks are located. Sometimes the original music recordings are found. The upcoming A Hard Day's Night Blu from Criterion has 5.1 and stereo remixes created from a blend of the restored mono mix (taken from a mint 35mm British print since the optical negative did not survive), the isolated music/effects track, and the 4-track masters of the songs and brief bits of music score. While it would have been much better to also have the dialogue and effects-only tracks, it's common for only music/effects tracks to survive so that films can be dubbed in other languages. With proper supervision, this can result in a great remix (which it probably will have - Gilles Martin's work on the Love album is incredible) When there is nothing, it requires a lot of special editing, mixing, and filtering. My opinion is that if there's no separate tracks, it's not worth bothering with since it's all artificial. Sometimes it works, such as the revised 5.1 track for Vertigo. The previous remix had a lot of out of place foley and overdone surround effects. For the Blu-Ray, Universal had it reworked entirely. All the foley sounds organic and matches the original mono track almost exactly. Plus, the music is sourced mostly from 3-track magnetic rather than a mono mix-down. In other cases, such as a 5.1 track Disney put on an older release of Mary Poppins, had really awful effects mixing. It sounds like stock sound effects overlaid an older track. Which was idiotic since it actually had a 4-track stereo mix. One thing that helps is to compare to how contemporary films were mixed for stereo. A great example is the DVD for the 1956 Around the World in 80 Days. The surrounds are almost always ambience and music, with dialogue split across the front speakers. Lots of directional dialogue, which was customary for 1950s stereo films. Not like the weird stereo channeling on Beatles albums, but rather someone on the right side of the screen will be heard from the right speaker. Instead of center.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Soylent Green posted:
And this is a huge point of contention for some film buffs, because a lot of movies being remastered for HD now get screwed up when doing the color timing. The worst example by far is original BD of The French Connection. But there's a lot of subtle changes being done, like the green tint on the LOTR EE BDs, color correcting films shot on older film stock to have more natural colors and even teal/oranging up older movies (It looks like what might have happened to the new The Abyss transfer). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZcxdmCreWY for the French Connection, even though I remeber the transfer looking way worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Trump posted:(It looks like what might have happened to the new The Abyss transfer). By all accounts The Abyss is getting the same treatment that Aliens got and Aliens has a loving incredible BD transfer. They really overcame the terribleness of that film stock Aliens was shot on. If they are doing much the same work to the Abyss I think it will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
A lot of people complain about color timing, but the thing to remember is that most people complaining about the color timing of older films are viewing it from their memories of watching VHS and DVD. A case in point, James Cameron's "Aliens". A lot of people complained about the 'new' color timing on the remastered BD because it looked different from what they remembered but I got a chance to screen an original theatrical print and the new BD color timing is accurate to what James Cameron was going for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Trump posted:And this is a huge point of contention for some film buffs, because a lot of movies being remastered for HD now get screwed up when doing the color timing. The worst example by far is original BD of The French Connection. But there's a lot of subtle changes being done, like the green tint on the LOTR EE BDs, color correcting films shot on older film stock to have more natural colors and even teal/oranging up older movies (It looks like what might have happened to the new The Abyss transfer). You really have to see that nightmare in motion to truly appreciate what an atrocity it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:By all accounts The Abyss is getting the same treatment that Aliens got and Aliens has a loving incredible BD transfer. They really overcame the terribleness of that film stock Aliens was shot on. If they are doing much the same work to the Abyss I think it will be fine. I've seen some scenes from the transfer Cinemax is showing, and it most definitely got a heavier blue tint then the DVD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:By all accounts The Abyss is getting the same treatment that Aliens got and Aliens has a loving incredible BD transfer. They really overcame the terribleness of that film stock Aliens was shot on. If they are doing much the same work to the Abyss I think it will be fine. The Lowry process that Aliens and some other high-profile films have received is, essentially, a de-graining and re-graining. So when you watch the Aliens BD and marvel at the tight grain structure and so on, know that it is a falsified grain structure placed over the actual image harvested from the original film, with a DNR step in between. The results do look appealing, and I imagine they try to avoid detail loss during the DNR process and try to match a shooting-period-appropriate grain style during the re-graining, but it's not some holy grail miracle job of film restoration, and it is quite a different thing from, say, the REAL restoration work done by Sony on Lawrence of Arabia (and done by Sony on a lot of their catalog, actually).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
VoodooXT posted:A lot of people complain about color timing, but the thing to remember is that most people complaining about the color timing of older films are viewing it from their memories of watching VHS and DVD. A case in point, James Cameron's "Aliens". A lot of people complained about the 'new' color timing on the remastered BD because it looked different from what they remembered but I got a chance to screen an original theatrical print and the new BD color timing is accurate to what James Cameron was going for. On the other hand, there's a number of 4K transfers where they make the color timing warmer and/or individually gently caress with certain items/colors to make them pop more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2014 00:16
|
|