|
My Samsung back home seemed to have '20' (out of 100) as neutral/no sharpening, and anything below that as 'soften' instead. My Toshiba is set to 0. A good way to determine what the setting to be is to turn overscan off and hook up a laptop and load a Word document or something.
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Cwapface posted:I'm Australian too, and Pulp Fiction is one of the better BDs I own out of 20 or so. Sure beats the poo poo out of The Dark Knight.  Sadly the HK/French and Polish discs still have PAL pitch at 1080p speed, which only leaves the Danish release which doesn't look quite as good due to some weird postprocessing/scratch filtering (which isn't as visible in motion, but is still there.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2010 15:53
|
|
|
qbert posted:Just popped in Kick-rear end and was watching their "Kick-rear end View Mode" or whatever. What's hilarious is that in the interviews they show, the actors are allowed to say "gently caress" uncensored but they bleeped "oval office". I just heard one of the actors say "loving *bleep*" and I laughed out loud wondering what was so much worse than "gently caress" as to get bleeped.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
ProfessorClumsy posted:Cut by 4 minutes, 11 seconds. Even worse than the Australian censors! http://refused-classification.com/news/2010/12-07-a-serbian-film-behind-the-rc-rating.html quote:In the UK, the BBFC demanded 49 cuts to A SERBIAN FILM. The first scene that the Australian Classification Board list as being a problem takes place at 55 minutes. By this time, the BBFC had already made nineteen cuts. The rest of the censorship was to scenes that the Classification Board also had concerns with.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Better than the DVD at least. It'd be nice if they didn't have all those dubs taking up valuable space and could have pushed the bitrate to 20Mbps, but it looks like an old transfer anyway.
frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
fenix down posted:"highest possible video and audio" sounds like utter bullshit. Lucas is probably going to spend the entire budget adding more poo poo into the original trilogy and there will be no money left for remastering. The original films were scanned directly at 1080p for the 2004 SEs (rather than 2K for the 1997 SEs) and you know they'll use those exact same scans for the Blu-Ray. It's sad that now my 'great hope' for the BDs is actual film grain and non-pink light sabers rather than the original cuts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
No, his wife does not own the 'rights' to the Original Trilogy, and if she did, the SE would certainly still count as being the same film. This article covers the state of the original Star Wars negative, how the SE came about and evolved from George wanting to replace the Mos Eisley sequence, and technical details on the 1997 and 2004 releases. Also covers the fact that Lucasfilm can confiscate non-SE prints from theatres. Regardless of whether or not the negative now exists in some bastardised SE-only version, the sections removed as well as the individual elements are all in the Lucas vault. Also, the non-fading Technicolor dye print in George Lucas's basement used to colour time the original version back in the 90s? A similar print was 'illegally' screened theatrically last year and looks absolutely fantastic. When George dies maybe... frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Dances with Wolves (US) at DVDBeaver.Butthole Prince posted:I didn't say she owned the rights, but a portion. It just boggles the mind that anyone could think that Marcia Lucas could get such a loving awesome settlement with not only $35-50 million in cash, but a percentage of SW royalties (which in itself is loving ridiculous, yes she goes uncredited but she didn't write the film), or that it would run out after x number of years (why?), or that such an awesome settlement deal would somehow be invalidated by George throwing in 2 minutes of CG to a 120 minute film or the film appearing on Disc 2. And in fact, if she got say, a percentage of George's profits, they would have gone up exponentially after Lucasfilm bought the original Star Wars off Fox in '99. Enough offtopic from me. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Jan 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I think Gary Tooze lost his mind To be honest I'm surprised she kept her top on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
Blodskur posted:It would've been shot in 1080i, because the UK broadcasting standard is 25 frames per second, which the HD spec can only do 1080i/25 and not 1080p/25, so you're getting the best the format can do. It's a 1080p25 encode flagged as 1080i50. It wouldn't look any different/better if the BluRay spec did 1080p25, the two fields get weaved together by the TV (2:2 pulldown). frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Feb 2, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2011 07:00
|
|
|
If you don't need Wifi you might as well pick up a Sony S370 or S470(3D). That said, if you plan on watching Region-B discs, look elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:I'll never understand this. Double the price (or more than that depending on what is important to him) isn't a small increase when the price is already into the hundred(s). Agreed and I say this as a PS3 owner. You can get a $99 Sony that'll do MKV/work with PS3 Media Server as well as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc, or the 3D capable version for 20 bucks more. Go up to $150 and there's a bunch of options. And the OP said he doesn't even need that, just Blu-Ray. Maybe the interface isn't as good, maybe it sucks at DVD upscaling, but for someone who wants a basic player and has no interest in gaming, continuing to recommend a device that is two or even three times more expensive (more if he wants an actual remote) is just senseless. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I guess in my honest opinion the performance decrease with a cheaper player is unacceptable. Blu Rays take long enough to load on a PS3 as is, and the load times are just ridiculous on low end players. Again, the Sony S370 is $99. It's not offbrand. It's well reviewed. It has an XMB interface. It has timely firmware updates. It does Netflix, Hulu, Youtube etc. You can stream MKVs and DivX etc. to it. It apparently loads discs about the same as a PS3. It's no PS3 but at 1/3rd the price I'd be wanting more than 'It just feels more polished' to recommend it to a basic user who just wants to watch a few Blu-Rays. The PS3 is my primary player, extremely well supported, high quality and great value but the state of the low-end market is a little different to what it was even a year or two ago. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Feb 10, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Lionsgate's Memento reviewed
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
It's been covered a few times in this thread. You need to contact Fox on 888-223-4369 for a replacement disc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
Nihonniboku posted:Well, I got the Bootleg cut of Almost Famous from Blu-ray, and I'm not really sure how I feel about it. Maybe because I've seen the theatrical cut so many times, but the pacing in this version just seems really off, and a lot of the new scenes just feel off. I feel the exact opposite way. Maybe it's because I've seen the theatrical twice and the Bootleg cut a hundred times, but I was sure the general consensus is that the DC is the better version.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
Not really. It's supposed to only be for titles where DTS-HD MA can't really fit on the disc. I'd imagine that refers to peak bitrate rather than average, because most lossless soundtracks aren't *that* large on average, usually in the realm of 3 or 4Mbps.
frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Feb 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Arcsoft is $69 until the end of today and you can get a BD-ROM for $50. If you're fine to use a PC rather than a dedicated unit it's not a bad option, as there are some neat things you can do with a PC (like ripping Blu-Rays to ISO and mounting them inside Media Center using My Movies), and a copy of AnyDVD will take care of any region hassles if you want to do that. Keeping your DVD software updated really isn't more of a headache than updating firmware. But if you just want to watch a few discs, a standalone player is convenient and cheap. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Mar 1, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Raffles posted:Has there been any word on a Pulp Fiction Blu-Ray getting released? I can't find a PAL version anywhere Hong Kong Blu-Ray (Region Free, 1080p, Identical to French transfer) Danish Blu-Ray (Region Free, 1080p) French Blu-Ray (Avoid, Region B, Mandatory french Subs) Australian Blu-Ray (Avoid, Region B, 1080i) frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Mar 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
No seriously, they're loving with us right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
I hope they start using this remastering technique on other Blu-Rays. ENHANCE! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:Most important question - will the LotR EEs be on 1 disc each, or split between 2? The image above and the Amazon listing says 15 discs. Given the list of Special Features, it looks like the EEs are spread across 2 Blu-Rays and then there are 3 DVDs for the features. Costa Botes Documentary: The Fellowship of the Ring: Behind the Scenes (DVD) The Appendices, Part 1: From Book to Vision (DVD) The Appendices, Part 2: From Vision to Reality (DVD) Costas Botes documentary: The Two Towers--Behind the Scenes (DVD) The Appendices, Part 3: The Journey Continues (DVD) The Appendices, Part 4: The Battle for Middle Earth (DVD) Costas Botes documentary: The Return of the King: Behind the Scenes (DVD) The Appendices, Part 5: The War of the Ring (DVD) The Appendices, Part 6: The Passing of an Age (DVD)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
DVDCompare.net says theatrical. (A good thing IMO.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 22:35
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:If Avatar extended edition can come out and still have a "perfect" image according to reviewers there's little reason the EE's couldn't look great on one disc. Avatar Extended Edition has a lot more (easily-compressible) pure CG shots, and is from 45min (LOTR) to 91min (ROTK) shorter. I really don't see the problem. They were spread over two discs on the original Extended DVDs. Maybe 2-discs isn't required for Fellowship, but if they're going to for ROTK (and they should), why not for all of them? It's 30 seconds to swap discs in some 15,000 seconds of film. The disc change points on the DVDs always seemed well placed (and started up immediately with a 'Continue film' option rather than a bunch of menus and logos) and I can assure you I'm having at least two bathroom breaks through each film. If I get a (minor) picture improvement then I'm all for it. And let's be honest, Warner rarely put that much effort into their transfers. I can't see them tinkering with the encode to produce the best image the way Cameron did with Avatar when they can't even be bothered using seamless branching when making Blu-Rays with multiple cuts. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Apr 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
It's better than MGM's last attempt, in which a miniature wolf perches on a basketballer's shoulder.
frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Apr 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:My friend brought the Beauty Blu-Ray over to watch on my 100"+ projector. Needless to say, it was stunning and converted me to BluRay. Did your friend bring the player as well then? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
The regular UK edition of Planet Earth is not 50Hz (the feature is 1080p24 and the bonus disc 5 is 1080i60). But Planet Earth Special Edition and Life are 1080i50. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Apr 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
Woad9 posted:Oh the other hand, I'm really excited they got Carrie Fisher on the commentaries. They're recycled from the 2004 DVD.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
It was also a particularly thin negative because Willis shot it underexposed so that no one could alter the film and make it brighter later.idoliside posted:Got the Godfather collection through today. Quite a large box considering it's only four discs, but each disc gets its own Blu-ray sized box which seems like a waste of space seeing as the Alien Anthology has 6 discs in about a third of the space. My copy (and the customer images on Amazon) all seem to have the 4 discs in one case.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Still, it is possible. It also paired them with a single lossy sound track, didn't look particularly amazing, and varied wildly in video quality due to the source nature of each film. (Super 16, 35mm, and Digital). I don't particularly want LOTR to look like this. Of course it's *possible*. You could store 24 hours or more of content if you wanted everything to look like Youtube HD. Fiendish Dr. Wu posted:It does seem kind of odd that I can have both the original theatrical version and the extended director's cut on 1 blu ray for Alien (actually all 4 movies in the set) but they can't fit the whole extended lotr on one disk. Seamless branching is used to only store the scenes that are different. Each cut of the film is essentially a playlist of different MPEG-4 AVC video files. Aliens Theatrical (2:17:14) takes up 38.9GB. Aliens Director's Cut (2:34:26) takes up 43.7GB. Obviously most of that is shared. If Aliens only took up 20GB of a Blu-Ray there'd be an outcry among nerds that Fox weren't bothering to encode their films properly. Yet as soon as those nerds have to get up off the couch after two hours to change a disc... frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 15:47 on May 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
I never said they'd look horrible on one disc. I don't think they would necessarily, bitrate certainly isn't everything. Blade Runner looks great and that doesn't even hit 24GB in size. The theatrical Blu-Ray of FOTR is clearly the worst looking despite being the shortest, and none of the 3 transfers are exactly reference material. Who can claim to know exactly how much effort New Line would put in to tweaking the encode to make it look good? This isn't an argument that the extra bitrate is absolutely necessary, more that it's certainly not a hindrance and despite going out of their way to make the films look good and encode them at comparable bitrates to shorter films, they get complaints because people are too lazy to spend fifteen seconds changing a disc. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 21:20 on May 11, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
The pHo posted:Now now, if it wasn't or b-r.com I wouldn't have anywhere to sperg about BBFC logos
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Oh also regarding Alien3, does the BluRay still have the same audio problems as the Quadrilogy box set version? They re-ADRed and polished up the audio track. It's not perfect, but it's better than the Quadrilogy DVD.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 01:42
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:I'm surprised to be the first to post this. The Man with No Name Trilogy on Blu Ray for $23.99 as Amazon's Deal of the Day. frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 20:35 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:Person on HTF bitching about the STUDIO LOGO on Barry Lyndon: I was going to laugh, but then I remembered I got pretty annoyed when they changed the logos on the Toy Story BD and ruined the segue from the Disney fanfare into the film. Now the sound and picture just abruptly cuts in and it's jarring and just...weird. 
frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 20:47 on May 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
I'll just leave these main feature vs. documentary screenshots here.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
"Turning Like Clockwork", it's a featurette on the very same disc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
gently caress it, why not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:This is why there are such things as (shudder) full screen dvds. People seriously with 4:3 tvs seriously thought they were losing part of the movie and were complaining about it. This is a common problem that's hard as gently caress getting people to realize they're idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
The pHo posted:Yeah I have the first Harry Potter UK DVD in full screen and we had a lot of flipper discs with different crops on either side. Regardless, it seems odd that half a decade later, Disney still felt it *had* to release fullscreen versions in the US. (It was kinda funny buying 'The Incredibles' and having Brad Bird thank me for 'choosing the widescreen version'. What did he say on the fullscreen disc?) frumpsnake fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jun 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2011 15:51
|
|