|
FancyMike posted:I hope Videodrome keeps the awesome packaging they used for the dvd. I don't know if that'll be possible unless they manage to make some custom Blu-ray cases roughly the size of a VHS tape (assuming they'll even need to spread the film and features across more than one BD).
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
I'm happy that Hausu is coming so soon, but it would have been even cooler if they had waited until late October and released it concurrently with Kwaidan and Cronos. If August sees releases from Kurosawa, Cronenberg, Malick, von Trier AND Anderson I will probably piss my pants.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Zombieland The point is, Zombieland is an excellent-looking film, and probably because they processed it for extensive CGI.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 19:30
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Please don't accuse me of "eating up their studio PR" like I'm some dumbfuck who is ignorant of the technologies involved. Agreed posted:But the amount of detail in every single shot is loving ludicrous, brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "reference quality" in the home theater context. At the moment, nothing else compares, and given the level of detail I do think that it had a lot to do with the enormous bitrate. Agreed posted:I for one care about good transfers and avoiding compression artifacts to the greatest degree possible and bitrate plays a significant role in that. So, you aren't a sucker who is eating up studio PR...but you do think that higher bitrate = higher quality? Riiiiiiiight.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:So, you aren't a sucker who is eating up studio PR...but you do think that higher bitrate = higher quality?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
Neo_Reloaded posted:Simpsons season 13 announced on both DVD and Blu-ray. Kinda surprised about the BD announcement - Season 20 made sense as that's when they switched to widescreen and HD, but Season 13 would just be an upscale to 1080p unless they went back to the animation cells and rescanned or something (assuming that's even possible, I don't know exactly how farmed-out-to-Korea animated shows are produced, and what material is archived after an episode is produced). Most likely, it will just be upscaled - considering that the first half of season 20 (before the HD switch) was clearly upscaled. It's possible that they have some sort of higher quality master and the scaled it down for television, but who knows. It's likely just an upscale though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I'm not saying that a few Mbps average is going to make all the difference in the world But you are, because you're claiming that slicing off 4-5 gigs to make space for whatever is going to make a noticeable difference. quote:The idea of what "the average person" (edit: sorry, you said "most people") cares about starts you down a pretty silly rabbit-hole. You keep harping on this as though it's my argument that losing visual quality is okay to the "average guy". It's not. It's that cutting the size from 45 to 40 Gigs is unlikely to deteriorate the picture. My 40G vs 8G was to use as a point of comparison (ie if 32G isn't a huge drop in quality, 5-10 should be even less or maybe none at all). quote:Wall-E still looks a lot better on BD than on DVD, no doubt about it, but that doesn't mean it's on the same level as dual-layer high quality transfers. Whether you care about that distinction or not is up to you. You want to assert that Wall-E isn't a high quality transfer? 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 19:35
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:Zombieland The only part that sticks out to me is the Capitol Building (or was it White House?) at the beginning that's on fire looks really fake. I'll agree the rest looks really nice and you don't even really recognize it's CG.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 19:54
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Would it be wise to assume that the re-release will contain the current disc as-is or will they sacrifice the A/V quality for special features (it's bound to have a commentary at least)? Wondering how much I need to buy it or not. I haven't actually seen any stores demoing it for some reason. Not sure if you saw this but Agreed answered your question at the start of his debate, but yes the re-release will most likely be multiple disk. So most likely the fist disk will just be the current one that is out now, and all of the other bonus whatnot on two disk and probably a 4th disk for digital copy. I can't remember off the top of my head but I believe that I have another bluray that has all of the special features on another disk. If not on any of my blus I know a few of my dvds are that way. Not sure if anyone is really interested but Bluray.com has the complete collection for LOST listed with a August 24th release. List price is 279.99 but Amazon has it for 194.99. Volcasarus ReX fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:You want to assert that Wall-E isn't a high quality transfer? Nope, just that it'd look even better if they had twice the space. I'm actually surprised that this is controversial or somehow makes me a slave to the media. Higher bitrate can yield higher quality. If the compression sucks or they don't know what they're doing or other mitigating factors come into play, then it doesn't, but it certainly can; and if Wall-E looked good fit into a 22GB container, it'd look even better in 44GB with the same team transferring it. Edit: Seriously, am I catching poo poo because I like one of the biggest benefits of the format this thread is about? What the gently caress? I am not up to arguing something right now, so whatever the disagreement is here, gently caress it, you win. I don't think you're saying you prefer a 4GB or 8GB handbrake rip to an actual BD, so I don't know what it is exactly that we are even arguing over, unless it really is an argument over whether a higher bitrate can allow for superior visual quality. If this is about is getting me to admit that lower bitrate can look fine too, okay, admitted, I still watch DVDs too and I'm not sitting there the whole time going "man I wish this were encoded better and had more space." But that doesn't change that a higher bitrate has the potential to look better than a lower bitrate, potential which is often realized. But maybe that's just what the studios want me to think...
Agreed fucked around with this message at 20:40 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Nope, just that it'd look even better if they had twice the space. I'm actually surprised that this is controversial or somehow makes me a slave to the media. Higher bitrate can yield higher quality. If you think it was right for the Avatar disc to be stripped of extras, you have been sorely misled by a company that just wants you to double-dip. Instead of a DVD copy, they could've included a disc of extras, but they didn't. Keanu Grieves fucked around with this message at 21:25 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:If you think it was right for the Avatar disc to be stripped of extras, you have been sorely misled by a company that just wants you to double-dip. Instead of a DVD copy, they could've included a disc of extras, but they didn't. Oh, gently caress, I never said that. I never even implied that. They're blatantly milking the cash cow. I knew that (and said it, in the Avatar thread) before I bought the damned thing, and I acknowledge it now.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
Doctor Thodt/Everyone, Is there somewhere that I can get the paper sleeves that go over some of the bluray cases. Like the ones that come on Avatar, Star Trek, The Hurt Locker, and many more. I think I saw a forum on bluray.com where people were trading them but I don't want to give up the ones I have now. I'll look some more on there, but if anyone knows of a site where I can get them I would appreciate it. Thanks
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Nope, just that it'd look even better if they had twice the space. I'm actually surprised that this is controversial or somehow makes me a slave to the media. Higher bitrate can yield higher quality. If the compression sucks or they don't know what they're doing or other mitigating factors come into play, then it doesn't, but it certainly can; and if Wall-E looked good fit into a 22GB container, it'd look even better in 44GB with the same team transferring it. Except it wouldn't, you rube and people are jumping on you because you aren't even comprehending what Crackbone is trying to say. Let me break it down for you. Crackbone posted:While too little bitrate obviously will make a movie look worse, higher bitrates can quickly get to a point of diminishing or no returns. Avatar could have easily been a smaller size with no perceivable quality difference. Crackbone posted:Except there are numerous other movies that are described as reference grade, at that length, that come in at 40GB or maybe even less. Crackbone posted:It's that cutting the size from 45 to 40 Gigs is unlikely to deteriorate the picture. My 40G vs 8G was to use as a point of comparison (ie if 32G isn't a huge drop in quality, 5-10 should be even less or maybe none at all).
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
Volcasarus ReX posted:Doctor Thodt/Everyone, Slipcovers? There's no website that sells them individually - you'd have to purchase them from private sellers, if there are any - and indeed there are - I've seen plenty for sale on the blu-ray.com trading forum. They're not only for trade, so you might want to dig a little deeper there - I'm sure you'll find a few for sale. Personally I find them to be pretty pointless and wasteful. Furthermore, out of the ~400 Blu-Rays I have, maybe 1 in 8 came with a slipcover. If only every 8th title on my shelf had a slipcover, it'd look rather stupid. The degree to which some people obsess over slipcovers is absolutely insane. People will refuse to buy certain titles without them, or buy others on the sole basis that they come with a slipcover. I've seen more than my fair share of posts where people explain how they go into a store and beg employees to just let them "have" the slipcovers off certain movies.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Except it wouldn't, you rube and people are jumping on you because you aren't even comprehending what Crackbone is trying to say. So are we done, then? Single-layer BDs are the height of reproduction, no need for dual layer ones at all? It's remarkable to me that in a thread about the highest fidelity home format available, in a forum ostensibly full of movie buffs, I'm getting insulted because I like the fidelity of the format. I agree that compression sees diminishing returns; I don't think we're there yet, though. I mean, we're going down from terabytes to gigabytes. I don't say this because I am defending the studio's release of barebones Avatar as some kind of artistic statement (bullshit, they just want two sales, this one and an even bigger one later). I understand perfectly what Crackbone is saying. Edit: This all started because I noted that Avatar was one of the most visually amazing films I'd ever seen on my home set. That's just, I mean, that's true. I didn't intend at all for that to somehow balloon into this giant argument about compression and bitrates, and I didn't say word loving one about them being justified in putting out the movie without so much as a commentary track. Relax, I don't even think we're arguing here. Agreed fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
Agreed posted:I understand perfectly what Crackbone is saying. You say that, but keep posting strawman bullshit like this: quote:Single-layer BDs are the height of reproduction, no need for dual layer ones at all? Nobody's insulting you for liking the fidelity of the format, you're being challenged on your die-hard notion that compression scales linearly. You claimed that Wall-E would look even better at twice the video size. You're being stubborn, for what reason I have no idea. Agreed posted:Relax, I don't even think we're arguing here. Quit telling me to relax when you're the one spazzing out every time I explain my position to you. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
Tony Danza Claus posted:As far as DO NOT BUY list, a lot of stuff is really subjective and all those nice words meaning "people are wrong", but there's pretty much a universal hatred for three movies: 28 Days Later, Patton, and the original release of Full Metal Jacket (the white cover with the helmet on it). Also House of Flying Daggers. Did they just copy the DVD to a Bluray disc and shoved it out the door? It looks absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:You say that, but keep posting strawman bullshit like this: Wall-E made the most of a single-layer BR. When I commented on it, you 'd about me saying Wall-E was a lovely transfer, which I didn't say; and which I later clarified. Look, Crackbone, we don't even disagree on the facts, we just care about different things. Why are we arguing if we are in agreement? Seriously?Edit to respond to your edit: Crackbone posted:Nobody's insulting you for liking the fidelity of the format, you're being challenged on your die-hard notion that compression scales linearly. You claimed that Wall-E would look even better at twice the video size. You're being stubborn, for what reason I have no idea. I don't remember saying "compression scales linearly." (I don't remember it because I didn't say it) But compression does matter, and bitrate does matter. Good compression can make good use of less space, but lossy compression is by its nature going to discard data, and the less discarded the closer we are to the source material. That's the entirety of my side in this discussion. Literally the whole thing. Do you see anything objectionable in that? Because it seems to me like we aren't even at odds, we're just arguing about nothing and making GBS threads up the thread in the process. Agreed fucked around with this message at 21:27 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
Bambi posted:Slipcovers? There's no website that sells them individually - you'd have to purchase them from private sellers, if there are any - and indeed there are - I've seen plenty for sale on the blu-ray.com trading forum. They're not only for trade, so you might want to dig a little deeper there - I'm sure you'll find a few for sale. Yeah I'm actually in the opposite of your collection. Since I haven't hit 50 yet I would say a third of my blus have the slipcovers. I agree that it looks weird having some movies with them and some without. I was hoping there was a site where I could buy them for a buck or two, but most of the one's I saw on bluray.com were asking for 5$ and up. I'm not going to spend fifty dollars just for slipcovers. I guess I might have to put the ones I have for sale on there. I'm not really picky about if the movie has a slipcover when I buy it, but my ODC does prefer to have a more uniform looking shelf when it comes to my games/movies. I'm not going to let a slipcover decide if I buy a movie or not, I'm not that crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:32
|
|
|
Lionsgate is re-releasing Rambo on July 27 with an extra 9 minutes of footage and an hour-long production diary. Stallone personally pushed for the extended cut of the film, so that's pretty sweet. Here's confirmation that all the aforementioned Criterion titles will be out in the coming months, plus an announcement that they will also be releasing Charade around the same time.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:33
|
|
|
Agreed posted:Edit: This all started because I noted that Avatar was one of the most visually amazing films I'd ever seen on my home set. That's just, I mean, that's true. I didn't intend at all for that to somehow balloon into this giant argument about compression and bitrates, and I didn't say word loving one about them being justified in putting out the movie without so much as a commentary track. Relax, I don't even think we're arguing here. Except that you attributed Avatar being the most visually amazing films you've ever seen on your home set to the "enormous bitrate"...which was just a bullshit PR tactic to explain away why there was nothing else on the disc. You also said that Wall-E would look better if they would have double the size from 22GB to 44GB...which it wouldn't and that it isn't on par with other higher bitrate releases...which is bullshit. Also to correct both of you, the actual movie file on the disc of Wall-E is only 22GB but the full disc is 30GB. Bambi posted:Here's confirmation that all the aforementioned Criterion titles will be out in the coming months, plus an announcement that they will also be releasing Charade around the same time. Fantastic news. Guess I'll delete Videodrome off my DVR and wait for the Blu-Ray. 
Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 21:36 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:34
|
|
|
Bambi posted:they will also be releasing Charade around the same time. Hot drat. Criterion is raping my wallet even more than usual this year.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Except that you attributed Avatar being the most visually amazing films you've ever seen on your home set to the "enormous bitrate"...which was just a bullshit PR tactic to explain away why there was nothing else on the disc. I meant the size of the movie, not total disc size + extras. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:36
|
|
|
Goddamn Videodronme! I watched it for the first time a couple months ago and it instantly became one of my favorite films. I was so surprised to learn it was filmed in Canada, we do drat good up here.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2010 21:44
|
|
|
I picked up the Zulu blu-ray from Amazon UK a few weeks ago. It came to my doorstep 5 days after ordering it, which is pretty good for coming across an ocean during the Iceland Volcano Apocalypse. I was unbelievably impressed with the transfer. The DNR debate on it aside, I found it to be leaps and bounds better than any version I have ever seen (and I've owned a lot of different versions of it). Worth the $18.00 by a mile.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 00:14
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Also House of Flying Daggers. Did they just copy the DVD to a Bluray disc and shoved it out the door? It looks absolutely terrible. It's not exactly the most hated, but a lot of the contemporary kung fu flicks (Daggers, Hero, Iron Monkey, Forbidden Kingdom, Golden Flower, Crouching Tiger) all had far-less-than-stellar transfers, usually scoring maybe a 2 or 2.5 on highdefdigest. And I've seen most of those (netflix) and yeah, they don't exactly warrant being called blu-rays. And after careful consideration, Tony's Must Owns: (ranked by best HD picture quality, not film quality) Avatar 2001: A Space Odyssey (EVERY Pixar movie, especially Wall-E) Blade Runner Hulk Speed Racer Black Snake Moan Yojimbo/Sanjuro The Dark Knight Band of Brothers Doomsday Drag Me to Hell The Pirates trilogy
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 02:31
|
|
|
Zuh? There is absolutely nothing wrong with Crouching Tiger or Curse of the Golden Flower or The forbidden Kingdom.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 02:49
|
|
|
John Dough posted:Also House of Flying Daggers. Did they just copy the DVD to a Bluray disc and shoved it out the door? It looks absolutely terrible. Dumb and Dumber is the same way as well. Horrible dust in the print and it's incredibly grainy. Not the good kind of grainy either. I absolutely love the movie but really regret buying the bluray.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 03:08
|
|
|
Bambi posted:Zuh? There is absolutely nothing wrong with Crouching Tiger or Curse of the Golden Flower or The forbidden Kingdom.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Crouching Tiger is a bit blown out and The Forbidden Kingdom has a huge problem: the movie sucks dick 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 03:47
|
|
|
BajaBurrito posted:Yeah, what the hell - didn't we have this exact same conversation in the last thread? Yep. I do this every time.  Forbidden Kingdom and Golden Flower are totally fine. Replace them with Iron Monkey. And despite the positive reviews, Crouching Tiger looks like you're watching it through an X-ray film backlight. Everything is so whitened and kinda hazy.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 04:19
|
|
|
^^ Fair enough, since I haven't actually seen Crouching Tiger on BD. I thought The Forbidden Kingdom looked rather nice, but as Captain Charisma said, the movie itself has some deficits. The Curse of the Golden Flower was one of the first Blu-rays I saw on my home system back in summer 2007 and it quite frankly blew me away with its amazing colors and detail. However, I haven't seen it since and my bar of "highest quality" is perhaps a bit higher now, but I imagine I'd still consider it to be fairly solid.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 06:24
|
|
|
It's been pretty much knocked down from the list since it was first released, but the first Blu-Ray to truly blow me away was No Country For Old Men. The colors and detail were ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 06:52
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:It's been pretty much knocked down from the list since it was first released, but the first Blu-Ray to truly blow me away was No Country For Old Men. The colors and detail were ridiculous. It's still a perfect example of a gorgeous bluray. It's just, you know, the whole movie is shots of the sandblasted Texas hellscape. Compared to how colorful Avatar or the Pixar movies are, or how shockingly beautiful some of the movies from the 1930-60's have been, it takes a backseat to them.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 08:40
|
|
|
This cannot come soon enough.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 09:18
|
|
|
BajaBurrito posted:^^ Fair enough, since I haven't actually seen Crouching Tiger on BD. I think it looks pretty good, definitely better than House of Flying Daggers (which looks like crap), what impresses me more about Crouching Tiger is that it sounds absolutely phenomenal.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 13:51
|
|
|
Tony Danza Claus posted:And despite the positive reviews, Crouching Tiger looks like you're watching it through an X-ray film backlight. Everything is so whitened and kinda hazy. I was under the impression that that's how the movie is supposed to look, to give it a sort of dreamlike/fantasy aspect, but I could be wrong. http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4573 quote:[Avatar] moved nearly three times as many units as the rest of the top 20 put together Haha.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 14:15
|
|
|
Bambi posted:I was under the impression that that's how the movie is supposed to look, to give it a sort of dreamlike/fantasy aspect, but I could be wrong. You'd think so for the dessert scenes and the teahouse fights and such where there's lots of white backgrounds, clouds, or brightly lit windows. But the night scenes and especially the bamboo forest look really out of whack compared to the DVD (which I must have seen 20 times by now for comparison). It doesn't really ruin it, and it's probably still worth owning, it's just kind of a strange effect, like the backlight on your laptop being set way too high.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 14:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Never knew about that web site at all; funny to see that Avatar is flying off the loving shelves so fast it's outpacing the next 19 movies below it combined. Their review for the movie is hilarious; probably everyone has already heard the many valid criticisms of the movie, but it's particularly funny in the way they're put together. Technical quality is basically unassailable but they do have a lot of fun with the plot. Edit: The Review posted:My notes while watching the film looked something like this: "This is the most vivid, immersive scene I've seen yet on Blu-ray." A few minutes pass. "Wait, no, this is the most vivid, immersive scene I've seen." And so on, with the film constantly one-upping itself. On the technical side of things, the encode is flawless, with no compression-related concerns whatsoever and practically zero noise. My expectations were certainly surpassed. Like it did in the theaters with 3D, Avatar has just raised the bar for home video on Blu-ray. That's what I was talking about 
Agreed fucked around with this message at 17:32 on May 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2010 17:29
|
|