|
What the hell is this DNR stuff and why is everyone so angry about it Digital Noise Reduction or DNR is a tool used to remove analog artifacts from a digital hi-def master, such as film grain. Usage can run from making heavily grainy images look a little clearer and better, since heavy grain can look bad and be considered distracting to eradicating any trace of film grain in an image. However, DNR will also distort finer details, and too much will make them disappear. For instance, clothes will lose individual fibers and look like clay. Faces will become waxy. Eyebrows will become mats of hair. In some ways, DNR is hi-def's Loudness War - a legitimate complaint that does ruin certain releases but often it is just something people make too big of a deal about. You will see many people looking at screen shot comparing the graniness and complaining if an image is slightly less grainy than the other, saying that it is waxy and lacking in fine detail. In other words, anyone bitching about Band of Brothers.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Robert Analog posted:Pretty excited about that one. Can't wait to own that movie 4 times over. This'll take me back to college, when we watched the dubbed version because apparently it was even more awesome. To say the least, we were all on our A-games that night with the riffing. So many great things, like the hand claps not matching up, and just the general insanity. Then I purchased Battlefield Baseball as penance for something small, and once again, we all laughed our asses off. I might have to see if we can get the old crew back together for this one.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 03:34
|
|
|
I found Pierre La Fou from Criterion a few months back, so I purchased it because I figured I'll get my money back if it's bad and it's an important film so I should see it. Honestly, it's one of the few films that I had to turn off in the middle. It was horrendous! It was just so boring, it had no plot, it had nothing that made me want to watch the movie, it's just cinematic masturbation! And everything I know about the making of the film just shows that it had no potential for being good. So I'm just wondering if anybody has anything to say to me that could help me possibly enjoy this film, or should I just hang onto it until it's worth a little more than 40 and sell it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 13:11
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:- edit Look at the shadow in his shirt. Look at it! It's just black. It's like there's a black-hole in Arnold's chest that no light can escape from. It pains me when this is what happens because you want to appeal to the lowest common denominator. If you make it look wrong, people who don't know better will just assume there's something bad with your disc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2010 13:22
|
|
|
Max22 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gl9Hpv_kkI You know what's bullshit? Compact disc! So first, you buy your album on vinyl, then you buy it on cassette, but no, now you need to buy it on this compact disc! It's just an obvious ploy to get people to buy all their albums again. And look at this! Some records suck compared to their CD counterpart. Look at London Calling! It's on TWO DISCS! AND they don't even list "Train in Vain" on it! What if I want to listen to that song? Oh, it looks like side 4 ends with Revolution Rock! Well, I want to listen to their hit song! And then get this, on Dire Strait's "Brothers in Arms," the record has less music! Half the songs are edited! What is this poo poo! They're just putting more music on them so you buy the CD version over the cheaper LP version! Seriously, CDs are a rip off.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 13:53
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:To bad they are going to drive it into the ground now. :/ Dreamwork movies always start off pretty good and then the sequels start rolling out then they get more and more stupid and just turn into a movie to keep the kids interested only. I really hope it doesn't turn into a franchise. It was a good one-off movie that featured Craig Ferguson by trying to cheer a kid up by explaining that his father doesn't hate the way he looks, but rather, his father hates the kind of person he is. And Last of the Mohicans was a very good Bluray. The movie's aged very well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:The BttF packaging kinda sucks. I hate those disc over disc things. It just makes me feel as if I'm damaging the discs whenever I use them, and they are either too loose or they hold on too tightly. And it's ugly. I mean, I know with bluray's scratch protection that it won't really be an issue, but it just doesn't sit right with me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:That box is really stupid, though. It looks like a PC game box, with the fold-out flap to make up for the lack of space on the back to put anything useful. It just looks cheap, and feel chintzy. I mean, especially for the BTTF series. They are consistently loved films. They could have done something a little classier. Now, I'm nostalgic for those old-school PC game boxes, when they were loving huge.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 21:53
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:
- How about they release 2 versions! One version for all the idiots who don't want the racism and like DNR, and how about a non-edited version without any digital enhancements. And I expect them to not only make two masters, but ensure both are equally available for me!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
hitze posted:Apollo 13 Blu-ray is a perfect fit to buy with the BTTF blu-rays. It's DNR'd, EE'd, and contrast boosted. It got the works. I'm looking at the comparisons, and I don't get it. The HD-DVD one looks a lot worse than the Blu-ray. It looks very grainy and rather soft, where the bluray appears to have more detail and doesn't looked DNR to death. It reminds me of Band of Brothers where everyone was throwing a hissy-fit because the bluray was slightly less grainy than the HD-DVD, so obviously it was a wreck and a mess and not true to the director's original intention. Honestly, it's like the loving loudness war all over again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Older shows may not have HD sources readily available anymore, and for primetime animation even in HD the resulting size is lower than live action. I haven't heard anything recently, but I know they were talking about reediting TNG for HD. They said it wouldn't be that hard, they would simply have to recomposite all the shots since everything was shot on film, and the way that they did it makes it very easy for them to do the whole thing over again. I don't know what the status on that project is, if there's anything holding it up. I know there is one episode mastered in HD, but as of yet, I haven't heard anything (I'm guessing if it is going to be done in near future, it will either be released in time for the 25th Anniversary of the show or the next Star Trek Movie).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
idoliside posted:It's not that they couldn't its more that they wouldn't. Plus I wasn't aware that the earlier seasons were broadcast in HD. Well, TNG was one of the most successful sci-fi shows out there, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are planning on getting around to it, especially for the 25th Anniversary of the show next year, or maybe when the next Trek film comes out. They were talking about how easy it would be for them to do the show in HD since it was: A) All shot on film requiring no new CGI effects like the HD Trek remaster B) All really easy to recompile and re-edit and recomposite. In this case, an HD remaster would be really cheap since most of the hard work is done. It's the same process they've used for Seinfeld. The only things I think that could be putting this project on hold was when they did the original series, not a lot of stations picking it up on syndication knew that it was anything different or that it was going to be in HD, so a lot of them put it in their late-night slots. So if CBS were to do something like this, they'd probably want to ensure that it is going to get decent treatment by some network.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 13:40
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Actually, that isn't true. It would be more difficult than the original Star Trek remaster. Well thank you for that. For a while, all the information I could find was from 2007, when they wrapped up TOS in HD. There was a posting detailing the work that would go into it, and they had said that since everything was shot on film, a lot of the basic work was done. But hey, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. For the record: here's a copy of what I was going on for information before: http://www.dvdtown.com/messageboard/topic/8274/3/0. I still have hopes though. TNG is considered one of the biggest sci-fi shows, and if it could help keep the show in syndication for years to come and make them profit, I don't see why they wouldn't do it. Edit: Of course, who knows. Maybe my source was also just a bad source (that is not the website I originally got it from, by the way). Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 22, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:Correct me if I am wrong, but lets assume they do TNG on blu ray and redo the effects like it sounds like they will have to do. Wouldn't this mean they would be charging ridiculous amounts(even more ridiculous than the prices the sets were when they originally came out on dvd)? Well, TOS was only about 100 dollars for a season on the highend. Remember, they won't just do a full-scale HD remaster just for Blu-ray. It's too limited a market to justify spending the kind of money it would take to redo all of the show's effects. Part of that cost would also have to be supported by syndication and streaming rights. I can't imagine them being able to charge more than 100 dollars for the set anyway, just because if you look at the prices of other season sets, too many people wouldn't justify spending that kind of money on TNG to recoup the costs. Hopefully, we'll hear some details about a remaster soon. I imagine with the new film coming out next year, they'll want to have something for us to look forward to. It would be the perfect time to release a product like this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
You know, I'm tempted to go back to the 80s, and find out what the response was when albums like the Wall or The White Album were released and they took up two discs. "What, you mean I have to get up in the middle of the album and change discs! That's why I didn't stick with records in the first place!"
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 13:28
|
|
|
I can understand criticizing the release over it, since it isn't a big deal to show 1.66:1 on a widescreen TV, but to get up in arms? It's a minor issue at best, and at worse, you just don't buy the movie. Folks will get up in arms about nearly everything. I remember back when The Name of This Band Was Talking Heads was finally issued on CD, and some people were complaining that Rhino chopped off the intro to "Cross Eyed and Dangerous," even though they expanded the album by 50%, and the intro was chopped off so other songs could fit on the disc. What's worse is when they are wrong about it.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2011 13:28
|
|
|
Fiendish Dr. Wu posted:Funny side note: it took me way too long to convince my mom that the black bars were, in fact, not covering up the top and bottom of the video. I know someone made a Kubrick comment before, and I'll just throw this out there: You actually are covering up the top and bottom with a lot of movies. The only thing is, the top and the bottom are supposed to be covered up. Aspect ratios, by and large, is a terrible conversation to ever have with people. It's incredibly complex for such a simple subject, and it is very hard to explain verbally. For the time being, let's just assume that this is 1999 and you are shooting with 35mm film. Really, the sides chopped off holds true 100% of the time only for anamorphically shot features, and those are typically 2.35:1. That's because with anamorphic lenses, the full frame of the film is used, the light is just compressed horizontally. Another name for these films is scope. Then you got 1.85:1 films. These are often shot with the full 4x3 frame exposed, but then in the theater it will be matted. When you release it for home video, you can open up the tops and the bottoms. Of course, it gets a little more complicated than that. Obviously, there is going to be dead space on the top and the bottom where nothing much of importance will happen because the director can't really use that space. Then you run into issues where you can't open up the tops or bottoms because it would expose a boom mic or other film magic that would be covered up by the mattes. Or shots with CGI: often they only do the CGI for what you can see theatrically, so those shots can't be opened up since the CGI would just stop in the middle of the screen. So those shots have to be cropped. And of course, all of this is assuming you apply the mattes during the presentation of a film; some films are shot with the mattes on the camera (I think Monty Python's Holy Grail was done this way). Now of course, that's before we throw into the mix Super 35, which has a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but depending on the shot and all the specifics, can be opened up greatly exposing a ton more picture on the home video version, or have to be cropped significantly due to the reasons I listed before. And then there's digital video and oh god this is incredibly hard to explain. So yes, the widescreen version is usually the director approved version.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
My favorite thing about that list is the part where the one guy seriously thinks that Criterion handling Don Bluth's films would be a good thing. Yes, because marginal animated films from the 80s are the kind of films that Criterion needs to spend their time and money on! Quickly, let's get all the essays we can written on "All Dogs Go to Heaven!" Let's get a commentary track from Burt Reynolds. Let's get the storyboards people!" Edit: Well, I found out what happened to the voice actress from the film on Wikipedia. That's really a terrible thing to happen. Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jul 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:But can we all agree that 3D has failed miserably? I know literally no-one with any sort of 3D capability, Blu-Ray owner or otherwise. Nobody I know cares. There's a few problems with 3D, but the biggest one is that it does not allow for passive viewing. If you are watching something in 3D, it literally demands your attention. You have to put on glasses. You have to watch the screen intently. Take sports. Most people think "Oh, Sports in 3D would be a huge thing." But think about it. Most people I know who watch sports rarely just watch it. They are usually doing something else, and have it on as background noise, or are hanging out with a bunch of friends. Well, in order for 3D to work, you have to have the glasses. And they work best in a small environment. And for what? A marginal difference. I know for myself, when I watch a 3D feature, I tend to "forget" that it is in 3D and stop noticing the 3D effects, unless it is either a really badly done feature, or it is less than 5 minutes long. I have yet to see a 3D film that added anything to the experience (and I am not hinting that this won't happen). It's funny, I said that 3D wouldn't light up like people said it would after "Avatar." And all my friends laughed at me and said "They said the same thing about color and sound," and I just shrugged.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2011 00:49
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Color and sound were easy to introduce because they had been part of film since the beginning. Silents were almost always given live music scores. Even the earliest films had hand tinting on prints. Here's the other thing: the 3D we are talking about is an optical illusion. We're not tricked into believing there is color on the screen, and sound and vision do naturally go together. There's a reason why most of what you say is your pose and how you say it. In a sense, every film already has a 3rd dimension capability. Nobody watches Star Wars and says "OH MY GOD, THAT REBEL SHIP IS SHRINKING!" Nope, we all know that it's moving away from the screen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2011 02:15
|
|
|
Payndz posted:The footage looked great, but that Flash player was horrible. Honestly, I think the taster isn't so much a way to see if there's interest, but rather, a way to drum up interest by putting three popular episodes out on Bluray for a casual market to buy. Remember, TNG is the most popular Star Trek, and probably the most popular science fiction show ever. Remastering it in HD wasn't so they could sell blu-rays, rather, it is so they can keep the show running in syndication since networks want more HD material. Also, I think when it comes to remastering, you pretty much have committed to the entire show. You can't just have one season remastered in HD. In fact, for most shows, remastering is so easy. It'll be interesting to see how exactly they handled the FX for TNG since they said they couldn't just recomposite it, but I'd be surprise if it was an incredibly expensive endeavor.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Think back ten or twenty years. The standard was a larger 32" TV in the living room and a 19" TV in the bedroom. Think back then, and every TV was a CRT, and those suckers were heavy and big. A 60 inch CRT TV would weigh more than your couch, would have to be huge to include the components, and wouldn't fit in your average TV stand (or even be supported by it). Nowadays, we've reached the point where LCDs are incredibly thin, relatively light, and can be even hung on a wall like a painting. It's so much easier to have a big screen TV now, thus, it's no longer going to be about how much bigger can it get, but rather, what looks good in the room I have. Simply put, I think it's not unreasonable to say that we've reached a point where differences in resolutions will not produce a noticeable change in image quality for consumer electronics. It can't always get better. At some point, we will have reached our biological and physical limits. Until we evolve better eyesight, I think we've peaked on resolution. I've seen articles that are saying that on 32" TVs, 720 and 1080 isn't noticeable. I really doubt that 4K is going to take off in any reasonable measure.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
traslin posted:How are they going to make a widescreen presentation of Friends? Wasn't it filmed for TV over 10 years ago and so probably wasn't filmed widescreen? Are they just cropping the film? If so, I'll be laughing my rear end off if anyone actually pays $300 for it. Well, if I recall, there's some vertical cropping going on, and then there's also some opening up of the frame on the side that occurs, so it's a bit of both. And chances are, a 3-camera sitcom like Friends doesn't have the tightest framing in terms of cinematography, so it wouldn't be a huge loss. And it's possible by the time they got to the late 90s, they were shooting with a 16x9 safety built in, just for wide-screen presentations, but it's really a huge toss-up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
Holy crap: that was written by the same people who did Peep Show! Wow, it just shows how great writers can make terrible things.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:How was that filmed/broadcast? drat these shows that came out in the limbo of when HD was just catching on so it wasn't really a priority. I'm trying to find out when HDTV broadcasting began, but as far as I can find, it was definitely starting up by the late 90s/early 2000s. I would bet that any big-ticket shows that were starting up would have had an HD master prepared just so that way they would have something to air. For instance, Malcolm in the Middle was shot in a 16x9 frame, but they only cared about the 4x3 frame. In fact, there's a special feature on the DVD where they showcase some of the errors that occurred in the 16x9 version that they let slide since they didn't really care about the widescreen broadcast. If MITM, which started in 2000, was produced in HD, then 21, which started a year later, definitely has one for the early seasons.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 13:57
|
|
|
The last night I spent with my girlfriend before I broke up with her, I fixed the settings on her TV for her. It was an HDTV that was stretching things out and also cropping them like it was trying to fill the screen from a letterboxed 4:3 picture. That last movie we watched together was the best her TV ever looked. I like to think that was one of my better breakups. Sure, her heart was broken, but she had a properly calibrated TV to soothe her soul.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:That is such a dumb release plan, though I guess I only really need to hit up Best Buy, since those three are the best by a decent margin. (maybe The Living Daylights as well) Hey, isn't a View to a Kill worth it just for the Duran Duran track? I'd gladly pay 30 bucks to have that song in HD quality. It's also the one with Christopher Walken, so it's actually a fair amount of fun.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
Fag Boy Jim posted:Nah, see, that's the rationale I used when I saw it on DVD a while back. "Hey, it has the Duran Duran song, and Christopher Walken, and Grace Jones! How bad can this be?", and it ends up being a completely miserable waste of time. But we're talking Master Quality Duran Duran! Yeah, it's not working for me either. There are quite a few Bond movies that are only worth it for the theme song. And then there's Die Another Day, which doesn't even have a good theme song.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2012 13:40
|
|
|
Zat posted:Same here, and while I'm happy that I'm usually able to compensate for the issue on my PC (I watch my Blu-rays on it using PowerDVD, with a 2.0 speaker setup or headphones), I nonetheless miss the 2.0 track most(?) DVDs used to have. If they mix 5.1 correctly, it should condense nicely down into stereo, or even mono, without any significant issues. And since these guys know that their movie will be heard in stereo, they are going to make sure the surround mix works in stereo. Of course, I don't know why action scenes are so loud and dialog scenes are so quiet, but that's the way it goes. But can you say which movies are causing the problem?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 13:55
|
|
|
QVT posted:Pretty much every movie I've ever watched made after like... 1980? in Blu-Ray has had this problem. The music/action/sound effects are insanely loud and people barely whisper. Sometimes I have to watch with subtitles on because the TV volume can be at 100 and they're still way too quiet to hear, but god help me if there's a single sound effect. Then it's got to be you. I used to watch movies in stereo until last October, and I never really had that problem, especially if it is so widespread. Now, I looked on the PS3, and there doesn't appear to be a Dynamic Range Control in general (just for music playback). But that makes sense, since music is mastered at widely different volumes, and when playing between two different albums, you can have huge swings in volume. But in general, you either have a sound-system or a TV doing that, so it's one less piece in the puzzle. So you would have to check your TV. It could be the speakers, they might not be that good, so please let us know what kind of TV you are using. And you should check the settings. Maybe your TV has a really bad dynamic range limiter. It's tough with movies. They tend to have a wide dynamic range because it helps makes the action scenes much more interesting and attention grabbing. So you have quiet dialog, and then you have "BOOM BOOM BOOM" action scenes. In a theater, it works brilliantly. In a home environment, it can sometimes be difficult to get the right levels.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:You see, for me, the problem is the opposite. I rarely have trouble hearing dialogue, but big action sequences will be kinda quiet. Noticed it with the Star Wars blu-ray- it didn't quite sound right with either the default setting or the "movie" setting. Then again, that was on the TV- I haven't looked at the BR player's sound stuff. Yeah, that's a compressor kicking in and over-compensating. Basically, that dynamic range stuff is acting sort of like an automatic volume knob that adjusts the output based on how loud the soundtrack is. When it is set too heavily, it will make things seem too quiet rather than in line with everything else.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
QVT posted:Are there other (non-criterion) blu-rays like this? Where they have just an absolute wealth of special features and a great transfer? That Taxi Driver disc has so much stuff that it's worth owning even if you don't love the film. Nobody mentioned the Godfather Trilogy yet. The first two films (okay, the only films you are probably going to watch) look amazing. In fact, the scenes on the lake in the Godfarter part II are reference quality shots. They look amazing. And you get a whole disc dedicated to special features. Plus, there's nothing like watching this film in HD with a mono soundtrack.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
bowmore posted:Why a mono soundtrack? It was a bit of a joke. The films have a 5.1 remix, but they're not amazing. I don't recall any moments that were made for 5.1.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 17:50
|
|
|
Dissapointed Owl posted:Goddammit Universal. Some of their older stuff is really good, and then... I mean, I have "All Quiet on the Western Front," and it's amazing how great an 80 year old film can look. And they talked about DNR, and they said "We don't want to get rid of the grain completely because it's part of the look, and you lose detail."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2012 17:28
|
|
|
Also, I think a lot is just dramatics. I can understand how you might not prefer it, but some of the comments I've seen online have been pretty extreme. Everything is pushed towards yellow and orange, but it's not like "Do the Right Thing" where it looks like a completely different movie. Of course, some might argue that this has the opposite problem of "Do the Right Thing."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Mustach posted:I'm 73% sure that isn't on the DVDs, either. Back when the DVDs were released, that was the only change that Spielberg mentioned. Also, we have to accept that films will always look different in different masterings. Mastering is an art, not a science, and you'd be surprised at all the different decisions people make. I wouldn't be surprised if they did some work to make Indy look the way it did in the old DVD, just like they probably did some work to make Indy look the way it does on Blu-ray. Anything different will always be a bit of a shock.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 13:56
|
|
|
bowmore posted:I have no idea why companies don't ship outside their countries in this day and age. It seems stupid. Dissapointed Owl posted:My money is as good as anyone's. Their loss. Guys, it's not region locking or Criterion simply saying "We don't want to ship overseas." Rather, it probably has something to do with licensing. Criterion licenses only for the US/Canada, which means that they cannot legally distribute their product overseas. That means on the internet, they cannot ship to an overseas address or else they would be in violation with their distribution order. And while I'm sure they like your money, they don't like it enough to get sued for a hell of a lot more than your sale. In the age of the internet, we do forget that their are still territorial things like this. As for why you can order it through Barnes and Nobles or Amazon, it probably has to do with the fact that at that point the disc has already been distributed, and now it is being resold. Or something like that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:It's all water under the bridge but Blu-Ray basically won because it had a movie studio backing it. That plus the fact that it was built into every single PS3 (which was coming in as the successor to the number one selling console of all time) plus the strict DRM (Region Locking, BD+, HDCP) got most of the other studios on board. It's a great example of an industry getting together and preventing a format war. I know a lot of people were upset because they felt that the consumers should decide, but in reality, when that happens, nobody wins. All you are given is the illusion of choice with the promise that both will struggle to win. And by the time a victor comes out, people fail to get involve, meaning that the interest that could have been there wouldn't have been built up. That's what happened with AM stereo. Basically, if I remember correctly, there were four different formats for AM stereo, and none of them were compatible with each other. Usually, the FCC says "this is the system you will use to broadcast," but the FCC wanted to see which one the market would choose for some unknown reason. The market never chose because nobody wanted to figure out which receiver to buy, and by the time the industry found a winner, any interest in AM stereo was washed up, and now nobody even uses it. AM radio is still in mono.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:05 |
|
|
CrushedWill posted:I apologize if this has already been covered, but is the new ST:TNG blu-rays as good as they sound? I heard a bit of the restoration process on NPR this weekend, but since cash is tight, I want to make sure they are as good as they sound. Aside from the 7.1 mistakes (and they really were only a big problem for me on one episode, so you're mileage may vary), the picture is really good. They didn't DNR the film to hell, and the show looks better than half of the stuff on TV today.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2012 01:37
|
|