|
ComradeCosmobot posted:And how many displays can actually display anything remotely resembling Rec.2020, anyway? If you get a UHD TV this year, it will likely support at least some version of HDR. Before then, I don't know.
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
It's unlikely that anything you buy now will be obsolete in the near future. There are two HDR standards, and the second one, the Dolby one, is compatible with the first. UHD disc requires the use of the first standard. So I don't see Dolby taking off in the long run just preserve compatibility with the largest amount of TVs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:The Collected Works of Hayao Miyazaki is $142.39 for the next hour in a lightning deal Just a warning, some of the film's have dubtitles (Princess Mononoke and Kiki's Delivery Service if I recall correctly) and Castle of Cagliostro doesn't have any of the bonuses the Diskotec release has. I will say CoC is the best American release I've seen. They even have the subtitles from the 1980 test runs they've done. But if you prefer dubs (and let's be honest, the dubs are professional and decently done, and why watch the Japanese soundtrack when you got Phil Hartman on the English) and don't care about extras, then why not?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Count me as someone who thought Avatar was pretty great and never understood why it became cool to hate it I saw Avatar when it first came out, and I really felt like it was designed to be more of a tech demo for 3D than it was a good movie. I also think people have been hating it since it came out. It's just that you don't also get the other group of people giving it overly enthusiastic reviews. The biggest problem with it was that they didn't really do anything interesting with the characters. Like, the biggest thing I could say about Jake was that he was paralyzed from the waist-down. He just didn't really seem to stand out to me, and it was hard for me to care about his action. When I watched the film, the actions of the characters just seemed so simplistic and it didn't really make any sense. I forget exactly what my big problem with the loving tree was, but I felt like "it seems like they could find a way to let the humans have the unobtanium and not bulldoze the loving tree." Of course, it didn't help that the antagonists were very simplistic. They were almost all cartoons. And then there was naming your mineral unobtanium, which may be a "real name" that people use to describe theoretical elements, but still. It just sounds loving stupid. There's also the fact that at the end of the movie, the Navi expel the humans and basically doom an entire race to death. In fact, when I watched the movie, the writing was so wretched that I was actually rooting for the humans. I was really happy when they blew up that god-damned tree. For some reason, I really disliked the Navi, and I thought that they were kind of dicks. When your movie has me rooting for the evil imperialists, you've done a bad job telling your story. I think it doesn't help that the story is basically an outsider saves a different culture and becomes part of that culture, and it doesn't really add anything interesting to the mix. There's a lot of interesting ideas to you could have done with the concept, such as exploring identity and all that. But throughout the film, it really felt like the entire conflict was external, and there was no internal conflict for Jake. Basically, he just had to convince the Navi that he wasn't a bad guy. Maybe there was, but I didn't pick up on it because by the end, I was just profoundly bored with the whole thing. As I said, the film was really a tech demo for 3D film making, and I think in that regard, it failed as well. 3D film making really hasn't moved forward very far, and honestly, it feels dead. Like, I can't remember the last film that was in 3D where people were saying you had to see it in 3D. In fact, I don't even bother seeing films in 3D anymore, since after 5 minutes, I forget about the effect, so why pay more? Even if you don't like the video, I think this video makes a pretty good point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuGFLXfBwrk From a pop-culture standpoint, Avatar is dead. Nobody makes references to it. Nobody really parodies it. There's no iconic scenes. It's been nearly 20 years since I've last seen Titanic, but yet I still can remember the cultural landmarks. Hell, I've even made recent reference to "Draw me like one of your french girls." But that doesn't happen for Avatar. It's just there. It's something we've seen, but it just didn't do anything interesting beyond be the first quality 3D film in a while. And I think that really speaks to the low-quality of the film. Compare it to the other big James Cameron films, and you realize that they are all really memorable. They all have something that stands out (for some reason, True Lies standout moment for me is the Arabic splash screen for Windows 3.1. I think there's something wrong with me). I'm sure the sequels, if they ever come out, will do well. If you enjoy it, that's fine though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
I don't think characters being broad stereotypes is a problem, if you tell an interesting story and you do something interesting with the characters. In Star Wars, we can identify with Luke because really - he's a kid on the verge of being an adult who wants to get out of his small backwater town and go and do something big. But he's held back by an obligation he doesn't feel he has. It's a human element. It's something we can associate with. I mean, we remember Leonardo in his role as Jack, so maybe Cameron did more. I can't speak to it because it's been forever since I've seen the film. I think the thing we need to remember is that it's not about being new, it's about being interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Spatulater bro! posted:I've always wondered, if film is scanned at 4k for a transfer but then downconverted to 1080 for the Blu-ray, what's the point of scanning it at 4K? A lot of cleanup is also done before it's downconverted. That way, you're working on the best source and have better control.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:It's the 4K master edited to match the theatrical cut. No big deal since there's only added footage. My box set of The Man With No Name trilogy features the original mono soundtrack. Based on my research, they did a silent reissue with the correct mono version. The guns sound different, so I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy. As far as the color, that's the way it is supposed to look as far as I can tell. It's supposed to have a warmer pallet that tends towards the yellow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Look, you haven't seen the Big Lebowski until you've seen it on laserdisc. It's a bigger format, so it should look better, right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:You may in fact be right about the mono remasters. The stereo ones were definitely not. I unfortunately haven't had the opportunity to hear the mono ones. I'm confused. The stereo remasters (with the exception of Help and Rubber Soul which use the 87 remixes) used the original stereo mixes from the 60s. They sound wonky for two reasons: they didn't have the best practices figured out and the technology didn't really support quality stereo mixes. It was like the widescreen version of shows from the late 90s and early 2000s: they weren't the primary concern so a lot of little issues pop up. For the Beatles psychedelic phase, we can finally do decent stereo mixing. Back in those days, they would record onto a 4 track tape and then bounce that down to additional tapes for more tracks. So we can now go back to each individual tape and remix from the source. That means you lose the generation loss, and you have more flexibility with rendering in stereo now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
I organize based on UPC number. I broke up with my last girlfriend because she refused to follow the only sensible system. She wanted them by title. I thought it was madness.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
My first letterbox tape was Ghostbusters 2, which was part of a bizarre experiment where the video was panned and scanned, but at a 1.66:1 ratio. Don't know why. I also remember how some films would zoom in when they left letterbox mode. Now, people think the black bars make things look cinematic. We've won. Except for 4:3 material.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Effects shots were output at 2:1 between it requiring less rendering and source footage being shot in VistaVision (which is approx. 1.55:1 full aperture). I remember HBO running an ad for a special widescreen showing of Titanic and all the examples they used were of effect shots. I thought Avatar 3D was 1.85:1, and the flat versions were 2.40:1. Either way, it was an utterly boring and lovely film, so I didn't care much about the framing. Spatulater bro! posted:Back in my budding cinephile days it was always a challenge for me to convince people (which I saw as my duty to do for some reason) that even if you might see more image in a fullscreen version, it's still not the right image. I think it all goes down to people don't understand how images are composed and how altering those pictures can really change the effect. And often times, most of what was gained was dead space anyway since you were focused on the widescreen version when you composed your shots.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:Was just wondering about that. It's kinda funny though because the earlier albums would benefit way more from a remix. But I guess the white album, like Pepper, has some of those really significant differences between stereo & mono that demand reconciliation. Well, they might benefit more from a remix, but a remix like Sgt. Peppers would be practically impossible. So, with the exception of the first two albums, which were recorded to twin track, so everything I'm going to say applies even more so, everything before Revolver was recorded on one four track tape. So, pretty much, what you got is what you're going to get, at least in terms of stereo placement. So, a typical tape setup would be one track from drums and bass (and maybe rhythm guitar), another track for lead instruments, and then a track for vocals, and then a track for double-tracking or overdubs. Now, all of this is great for mixing in mono, but when it comes to stereo, well, it's hard to create a good stereo image with the way things were tracked. So, if you listen to One (the 2015 version), you can hear how the remixed tracks from before the Revolver period don't really sound much better than the existing stereo tracks. For example, Ticket to Ride has pretty much the same stereo placement as the original 1965 stereo mix (I don't have the 87 remix, but I can't imagine it being much different). There's no real difference in terms of what you're getting. Probably the only album that would benefit would be Rubber Soul, since George Martin mixed the stereo version with mono compatibility in mind, and so literally put nothing in the center (or maybe there's very little, I can't say since it's unlistenable and we have the mono mix). But then again, if you're going to do a remix, why settle for just slightly better bad 60s stereo. I'll be curious to see what they do with the White Album though. At that point, the Beatles actually knew that people were buying both the mono and stereo versions of their albums for the differences, and so intentionally made different mixing decisions between the two. But at that point, stereo was definitely a thing bands had to pay attention to. By the point the White Album was released, a lot of British record companies had stopped issuing mono albums, and in America, barely any mono records were released in 1968 (by that point, Capitol was stereo only). The only exception were singles, which ironically, Apple was a leader in terms of going full stereo, at least for "Get Back" (US only) and on, with the exception of "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)," but that was a loving b-side. Who knows, that might give them a ton of freedom to do what they want.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Does it support HDR? The improved color is the biggest benefit to UHD, at least in terms of what you'll notice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Steen71 posted:Oh yeah. The latest remaster basically looks like it was soaked in urine. http://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=4091&d2=4088&s1=38009&s2=37961&i=2&l=0 But that's the look of the original negative. There's a lot of debate and discussion around it, but I think the current master looks just fine. It's like like a dirty and rough place, and honestly, it stands out only when you look at both images back to back.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Wait, I thought Animeigo was doing SD releases on Blu-ray?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
I'm not sure what the difference is with Warner Archive aside from lower cover art quality.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
david_a posted:I still have that version I don't think it's that bad. I have the last BR, and it looks really good. I think a major part of the cgi stuff is that a lot of it just doesn't age very well, so it stands out because it just doesn't impress any more. But T2 doesn't use cgi to turn people into weightless rag dolls, so it holds up okay.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:I was more just using it as an example of a high-profile indie release. But there's also this kinda stuff: My God, it's like Basil Fawlty running a video company. "If you want customer service, gently caress you. If you want to give me a bunch of money for my product, gently caress you." I'm guessing he has very strong opinions about what you watch it on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Monday_ posted:Wouldn't surprise me if a lot of studios do 2K digital intermediates just to save time. Not long ago I read that it's typical for a sound editor to only get 2 days to do an entire film. I remember back when the Incredibles was being released, and the film prints were struck at a 4k resolution as opposed to 2k which was normal for the time. Movie studios seem to move really loving slowly in terms of technology. Jaws, released in 1975, only had a mono mix made at the time. Even into the mid 80s, a lot of films were still only getting mono mixes. So I'm not surprised to not see them use 4k.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2018 05:32
|
|