|
Is anybody interested in setting up some kind of Blu-Ray/DVD exchange? I have so many goddamn discs that I have absolutely no use for, and rather than going through the hassle of trying to sell them I figure I could just trade them for stuff I want instead. Is this kind of thing permissible in SA-Mart?
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
doctor thodt posted:Is anybody interested in setting up some kind of Blu-Ray/DVD exchange? I have so many goddamn discs that I have absolutely no use for, and rather than going through the hassle of trying to sell them I figure I could just trade them for stuff I want instead. Is this kind of thing permissible in SA-Mart? We have it for Xbox 360 and PS3 games, so I don't see why not.  I would love to get in on this, I don't have enough blu-rays though. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 14:39
|
|
|
Alright well I set it up if anyone's interested: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3304220
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 15:03
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:Alright well I set it up if anyone's interested:
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 15:12
|
|
|
Damnit 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 15:57
|
|
|
This is why you don't get a VAIO. I'm sorry, but I repair computers, and VAIO could be defined as, "Same lovely components as a Dell, with an inflated price and even less driver support." Not trying to induce buyer's remorse, and your VAIO may work great, but in my experience, they break just as quickly and have the most oddball random hardware without drivers on their web site (S3 button on a laptop, for instance).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
They really need to remaster Rushmore for bd release. The version I have is non-anamorphic. edit for technicality fenix down fucked around with this message at 16:38 on May 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 16:12
|
|
|
The Criterion DVD is anamorphic, if you're itching to watch it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
I gave up hope of Apocalypse Now at 2.35:1 on home video a while ago, I'm just happy that the blu-ray may be around the corner. 
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
From https://www.in70mm.com ""Lawrence of Arabia" is being scanned at 8k toward the creation of a new preservation negative." 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
Not sure where else to ask this question... I bought Edge of Darkness, put it in my dinosaur Sony BDP-S300 player and it wouldn't load the movie. Not a big deal, I have a PS3 Slim as well, and it instantly loaded on that console. However, the movie, and pretty much any Blu-ray I've watched using the PS3 is impossibly bright and artificial looking vs. my regular Blu-ray player. Are there any changes I should make to my console so that Bu-rays will look natural and film-like like it does on the standalone player? Both the standalone player and the PS3 are connected using HDMI. Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
ultraviolence123 posted:Not sure where else to ask this question... I bought Edge of Darkness, put it in my dinosaur Sony BDP-S300 player and it wouldn't load the movie. Not a big deal, I have a PS3 Slim as well, and it instantly loaded on that console. However, the movie, and pretty much any Blu-ray I've watched using the PS3 is impossibly bright and artificial looking vs. my regular Blu-ray player. Are there any changes I should make to my console so that Bu-rays will look natural and film-like like it does on the standalone player? Both the standalone player and the PS3 are connected using HDMI. Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 07:39
|
|
|
There is a .mkv of Saving Priate Ryan floating around with the grain completely removed (this is fan made its files, you wouldnt want to go looking for it anyways and im gonna explain why) from the movie. Holy hell it looks terrible, but people actually like it a lot. I don't understand how anyone could think it looks better then the original blu-ray, but these opinions are why we have so many bad blu-ray transfers. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 12:40
|
|
|
qbert posted:Wow, that's incredibly bizarre. Is there even anything else out there, dvd, blu-ray, whatever, that has an aspect ratio of 2:1? There are a few others out there. It's not as random and weird as you think. For instance, I know Austin Powers and Star Trek VI (before the last issue) were shown in 2:1. In both cases, those films were shot on Super 35. Honestly, this and the French Connection remaster are reasons why content creators aren't king and shouldn't always be listened to. They are just as capable as the rest of us of having utterly stupid ideas, and just because they created the work 30 years ago doesn't give them the right to do as they please with it. Once you release a work, I believe you've given up creative control of it because it now belongs to a populous. Anyway, what would be so hard about providing both versions? I'm sure someone could create a bit of software that could crop the movie to a 2:1 version or display it in it's full ratio?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 13:02
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:There is a .mkv of Saving Priate Ryan floating around with the grain completely removed (this is fan made its files, you wouldnt want to go looking for it anyways and im gonna explain why) from the movie. Holy hell it looks terrible, but people actually like it a lot. I don't understand how anyone could think it looks better then the original blu-ray, but these opinions are why we have so many bad blu-ray transfers.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 13:28
|
|
|
Max22 posted:This is hilarious, any screencaps? Yes, there were some screencaps posted on a private forum that I visit. Can I post these? Don't wanna get in trouble. :O I haven't watched it like this, no intention too, but the screencaps make the movie look really clean. Think the Patton blu-ray basically. It's really obvious in a cap of all of the bodies on the beach after the d-day invasion battle ends. The lack of grain really ruins the scene in my opinion. Normally I wouldnt bother to mention something like this, but it goes back to the discussions we've had about why studio's are doing bad blu-ray transfers and some of the reasons why classic movies end up looking so horrible and changed from how the director originally wanted the movie to look. They just want to appeal to a wider audience which tends to be very misinformed and have a lack of appreciation for film. I said come in! fucked around with this message at 13:37 on May 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 13:33
|
|
|
If posting screencaps of a movie is against the forum rules, that "guess the film" thread is in deep trouble.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 13:42
|
|
|
it looks like Call of Duty; and the blood on this screencap https://wi.somethingawful.com/96/9623a69d4093d64ed854c41eb38e05d7b319be2b.jpg looks almost like a cloth, like it had texture I'm almost curious enough to see all of it
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 14:41
|
|
|
Saving Private Ryan's transfer is fantastic, and I don't know why the hell people want to see it "Pattonized". It's supposed to look a little grainy, dammit, and it's just enough to make the movie look filmlike - it doesn't look like Public Enemies or something. The only thing I don't like is that all that detail makes it really obvious there was a dummy involved in that scene with the 40mm cannon shooting guys off that Tiger, ha ha.
nuncle jimbo fucked around with this message at 15:14 on May 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 15:11
|
|
|
The second link looks like the actors were shot against a green screen, Jesus.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 15:19
|
|
|
Darth Dukakis posted:The second link looks like the actors were shot against a green screen, Jesus. I know right? I try to point this out on this private forum where people are defending the release and I get comments like this back; quote:personally i prefer without the grain for me the grain ruins bluray releases wish all wouldnt have it 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
That's ok, we can all take solace in the fact that Paramount doesn't give a poo poo what any of these idiots think and will continue to release grainy-as-hell Spielberg BD's. Looking forward to War of the Worlds next month, probably as much so for the lossless audio track as for the video transfer. That tripod horn is going to level my house.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:That tripod horn is going to level my house. The first time you hear that horn is seriously my favorite part of the movie.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 15:33
|
|
|
I thought I was the only one who didn't hate that movie, Speilbergy ending aside. More Tom Cruise backlash?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 15:36
|
|
|
Actually overall I really didn't like the movie, but there are a few scenes here and there that are absolutely brilliant.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 15:39
|
|
|
Humanoids from the Deep 8/3 Evil Dead 8/31 Bambi fucked around with this message at 16:06 on May 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
uncle jimbo posted:I thought I was the only one who didn't hate that movie, Speilbergy ending aside. More Tom Cruise backlash? The Tom Cruise backlash is stupid as gently caress. War of the Worlds owns, Minority Report owns.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 00:52
|
|
|
I hated WotW because it was boring and the ending was retarded.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
Everyone just hates Tom Cruises personal life. It is insane and he is a scientologist. His acting career though is great.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 00:54
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:I hated WotW because it was boring and the ending was retarded. Nothin wrong with that. But not liking a movie just because one of the actors is insane is stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
The only thing I didn't like about WotW was his whiny children.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
Tom Gun will always be his best movie.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 01:17
|
|
|
War of the Worlds was exciting. The less-than-great ending wasn't enough to defile the rest of a fun movie there.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
I don't think Cruise is a particularly great actor, but he's really not that bad. It's just that he's Tom Cruise, and any character he plays will inevitably be Tom Cruise in different clothes. Even in Eyes Wide Shut he was just Dr. Cruise (not to mention he spends almost the entire film looking either suspicious, confused, or horny).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I don't think Cruise is a particularly great actor, but he's really not that bad. It's just that he's Tom Cruise, and any character he plays will inevitably be Tom Cruise in different clothes. Even in Eyes Wide Shut he was just Dr. Cruise (not to mention he spends almost the entire film looking either suspicious, confused, or horny). I agree, for the most part. However I think his role in Collateral was very un-Tom and he was really, really good as Vincent.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 03:13
|
|
|
Oooh you know what movie with him was awful? Valkyrie. But not because of Cruise, no one could save that movie.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
What's wrong with Valkyrie? It's nothing special, but quite engaging for having such an obvious ending (Hitler isn't blown up  ).
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:What's wrong with Valkyrie? It's nothing special, but quite engaging for having such an obvious ending (Hitler isn't blown up Inglourious Basterds being released in the wake of Valkyrie was a huge kick in the pants to Bryan Singer, even though it was obviously unintentional.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:33 |
|
|
War of the Worlds is terrible. The story is terrible. The Spielberg Precocious Kid (tm) is terrible. The subplots are terrible. The ending is unbelievably, shockingly terrible. But yeah, the tripod horn is like 800,000 kinds of awesome. There's like 3 minutes of that movie where it's the best movie ever (the cruise ship). Everything else is just so loving horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2010 05:06
|
|
