|
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. They're won't be any "sacrifice" of quality. Bitrate in movies is like Ghz on computers - people fixate on those numbers but they aren't automatic indicators of quality. 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.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Agreed posted:Going to have to disagree slightly here. But before I do, the Avatar special edition is supposed to come with like 4 BDs, so I'm guessing it's going to be alright (and that they will then have me buying two copies of exactly the same thing because I am a sucker). That said, obviously we don't have a 25GB capacity copy to compare it to, and I'm not going to go pirate the damned movie that I own just to see how it looks encoded down to DVD size with H.264... 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. I mean, granted also that we're talking about a compression from many terabytes down to measly gigabytes in the first place. But I've never seen anything like Avatar on my set, and I've got other BDs that wowed me before (especially liked the visuals on Wall-E, such a lovingly animated film). 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. Except there are numerous other movies that are described as reference grade, at that length, that come in at 40GB or maybe even less. Beside that, you're basically eating up the studio PR. The studio obviously wanted to do a blatant double dip, and put out the BR as quickly as possible. Claiming the film needed the whole disc spins their greed into a marketing positive. And I have seen 40G discs vs their 8G rips before. There is a difference but I'd wager most people would be hard pressed to see it. Not that there isn't a difference, but if you can get a great-looking picture out of poo poo like 8G handbrake re-encodes, it's ludicrous to think that aggressive manipulation of bitrates by a studio encode couldn't get smaller sizes. It's just that with 50G discs there's no reason to do so.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
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. That's just offensive. I even acknowledged that buying it twice was a sucker move, what in the world makes you think that I am a tool for the studios? Fair enough, but you're using phrases like "brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'reference quality'" hopefully you can see why I might think you're drinking the kool-aid a bit. I mean, at the end of the day the detail looks fantastic because it's both digitally shot live action (so no grain) and when you CG something you can make it look crystal clear (no worrying about focal points, proper lighting, etc). And my point about 40G vs 8G is with a 32G difference, the difference is still not that big. I mean, would you throw your hands up in disgust and say it was unwatchable/looked like a DVD? I assume not, in which case I hope you would agree that the difference between 42G and 49G is probably unnoticeable. Non edit EDIT: I just looked it up and funnily enough, apparently the movie is still only 45GB on disc. Is that the practical limit on a bluray? Also, Wall-E was only 22G! Actual edit EDIT: Star Trek 09, which is considered a fantastic transfer, has a higher average bitrate (~32Mbps) than Avatar (~28Mbps), which you claim is a new level of reference grade. So obviously bitrate isn't everything. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 18:26 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 18:09
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:Why is it it's so common in bluray releases to change some of the scenes colour tone? I would guess that the technology to do digital color timing matured/got cheap right about the same time blurays came onto the scene. So when these are all being prepped for bluray it's one of those "we might as well fix this now" things.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2010 14:27
|
|
|
fidel sarcastro posted:Quick question: No, it's not true. Technically, if you were to write on a DVD with something that wasn't felt tipped you could potentially scratch through the top layer of the disc and damage the foil data layer, but that doesn't apply to blurays at all, as they are constructed to be far more resilient.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
Ein Bear posted:I kind of want to see the prequels in HD... I'm morbidly curious to see how lovely all that CGI will look. I've seen them in HD (I think HBO did HD broadcasts of them), and it's "meh". If you're not looking for it most of the problems aren't going to jump out at you but there's quite a few places where the soft outlines of the actors are very visible against the cgi backgrounds. And the Phantom Menace looked like total poo poo. It's soft and blurry to the point you'd almost think it was a DVD upscale. I have no idea if that's an accident with the broadcast, or if the master is just that loving soft.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2010 16:08
|
|
|
ControlledBurn posted:Also the possibility that it was just a DVD upscale since it was a TV broadcast. It was better than a DVD upscale, but not by much. Also, TPM was not shot digitally while the other two were - it matches up with the visual quality difference I saw. It certainly wouldn't make much sense for Lucasfilm to give the movie channels 2 of the three in HD and the other in a DVD resolution. Not that I'm all the concerned about it - all three are pretty worthless films and buying the blurays is not in my future.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
Death's Head posted:Its a real shame that the person who created that doesn't allow downloads because some of his custom covers are excellent. Hah, that's the crazed rear end in a top hat who redid all of his cases so the spines would all match and the text would line up.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
qbert posted:I've never seen Metropolis. I take it the film is probably worth risking a blind buy? I know I'll probably get poo poo for this but I don't think so. Metropolis is considered a classic, but I think it excites film nerds because of lot of things other than the actual movie. There's some good stuff to be sure (the visuals are pretty incredible), but remember we're talking about a silent film from 1927 that's been hacked to death in the editing room and people have been trying to restore back to it's "original" version since its release. It's a film that typical moviegoers are probably not going to find interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:True. Kind of funny how the only way I can watch my own discs now is to convert them to MKV Not to be nitpicky, but do you have AnyDVD or AnyDVDHD? Because only the HD version fixes HDCP errors. And yes, cloning displays/dual monitor setups often make bluray playback on a PC poo poo itself. Just get a player.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 13:38
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:The main feature takes up 37GB of the disc. Remember the days of HD-DVD when many people would argue 30GB was plenty? Because it can be? The war is over, but just because studios are using all the space doesn't mean it's automatically a better image - there's a point of diminishing returns at which the quality difference becomes imperceptible. There's bad transfers that use 35GB+ too. (Before anybody starts going crazy, BR won, I like BR, take a deep breath.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
Space_Butler posted:Man, people on blu-ray.com are losing their goddamn minds because the upcoming Grindhouse release has lossy audio. Even those who locked in at $13.99 are cancelling their pre-orders over this. I don't know what these people cancelling expect to get in the way of a solution, though. I can't see them doing a double dip (triple, if you count the initial, separate releases) just to release it with lossless. I mean, nobody has to really justify why they are or aren't spending money on something, but the forums there are simply going apeshit over this, like how people faced with a REAL injustice act. Video/Audiophiles are giant loving babies, much like every other hobby's obsessive sperglords.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
I don't see the hubbub either. The "pores" on Fox's face in screen 7 look like film grain/noise. Obviously something's been done to the picture but neither one looks horrible to me - the fine detail that gets erased from too much noise reduction doesn't look present here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2010 00:05
|
|
|
cb rocks posted:This flyer was in my copy, can't loving wait. Wait, what am I missing? I thought TS3 was Nov. 2nd?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2010 00:27
|
|
|
Mustach posted:Hahahaha, come on, that's not very old for a movie! Yeah, I don't get how that matters. I thought the biggest issue with older movies was the quality of the original stock, and how badly the negatives have degraded over the years. I've seen plenty of 20+ year old BR transfers that looked amazing. Usually it's the clothing/direction/pacing of a movie that dates it more than anything.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2010 14:54
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:Here's a nice deal: you can get a Sony BDP-S470 Blu-Ray player (3D capable) for $59.99 through Disney Movie Rewards if you buy 5 eligible titles. Anybody happen to have 1 qualifying code? I'm short by one, (threw away three of those drat codes that would have worked).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2010 02:16
|
|
|
Connellingus posted:Also of interest to anyone looking to get into 3D or who would just like to get a new player for cheap: Disney is offering a 3D-capable Sony Blu-ray player for $59.99 (70 percent off) with the purchase of five movies. These include titles like Fantasia, Beauty & the Beast and several Pixar titles. Just redeemed my codes for this. FYI for anybody who's interested, 6-8 week estimated delivery and S&H for me was $15. Neither of which were listed in the offer details.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2010 15:41
|
|
|
Darth Freddy posted:Any one know of a good free or cheap blu ray play program for a laptop? Got my mother the New avatar for a early Christmas present and powerdvd 8 will not play it what so ever despite updating it several times. Google seems to be telling me this is a problem with a ton of players both programs and stand alone. You more than likely need a new update on the software (I've never heard of the drives themselves needing a firmware upgrade). Since the disc is so new, I doubt any of the players have released updates yet. There are no free BR playback software, and the cheapest I've ever seen is ~$60 (Arcsoft TMT on a big sale). Bluray playback on the PC sucks rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 03:51
|
|
|
Heads up for anybody looking at that Disney Magic Rewards Bluray offer - I submitted on Friday and they sent me an email saying it shipped yesterday! 6-8 weeks my rear end!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
zenintrude posted:You guys like Twilight, right? Get Eclipse for $2 + shipping when you use code TGTWGT08 at checkout: Where the gently caress do you put in that code?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2011 00:34
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted: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. And to add to that, it has an IR-sensor. Which doesn't seem like a big deal until you realize you can't fully control a PS3 with a universal remote unless you want to pony up for a bluetooth adapter (which retails for ~$70 or so). And that's assuming you're running a high-end universal remote like a harmony as well. Not a huge deal, but just another reason the PS3 shouldn't be the defacto choice anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2011 16:09
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbV8vf7nuMA S570 vs. PS3 load times. And unless I'm mistaken, the 370 and 470 should perform the same, as the differences are 3-d and built-in wireless between the models.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2011 16:35
|
|
|
Most important question - will the LotR EEs be on 1 disc each, or split between 2?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted:it looks like the EEs are spread across 2 Blu-Rays and then there are 3 DVDs for the features. Not cool. I don't want to have to remux these suckers together manually. Sir Lemming posted:I really hope they're not split onto 2 Blu-rays each. Even if RotK is pushing it, doesn't multi-layer technology give them a pretty huge safety net? Kull the Conqueror posted:I may be wrong about this, but I think Once Upon a Time in America suffered a dip in quality because they put it on one disc. If they can make it look and sound better, I wouldn't really mind the LOTR extended editions being split up. They could do it. Avatar extended was just a hair under 3 hours and every reviewer jizzed themselves over the quality. It's a question of somebody doing a meticulous encode on it. I'm sure Cameron probably demanded it where Jackson probably doesn't care/have the pull to do the same. OUaTiA quality was probably due to time/resources for a low-demand flick more than anything else. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
Ineffiable posted:How many of you will really watch the whole extended edition (of any of the films) in one sitting, without pausing or taking a break? It's the principle of it, man. ApexAftermath posted:I just roll my eyes when people ask me why tv shows are still on several discs. "Why can't they fit all episodes on that 50 gig space???". Yeah they could do that and then they would look terribly compressed. For SD shows or animation though, it's a valid question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
ApexAftermath posted:What do you mean? Wouldn't most shows be shot on film or some comparable digital format? Even if it is broadcast in crappy SD wouldn't the original elements be suited for HD? And if they are not suited for HD then why put them on blu ray at all? Seems like a worthless exercise. 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. Star Trek TNG, for example - all the effects were all rendered onto SD quality video, so there's no HD versions available.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:If it's actual film/cels they can do it, if it's '90s era digital/video they're often stuck with SD. I think triple layer was mostly dick-swinging when HD-DVD announced it could do dual layer discs. The headaches of production/firmware updates for all players just doesn't make sense vs. just sticking another disc in the box.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:A year or two ago I think someone on AVS or HDD something did the math and said unless you want something to be compressed (since the Extended requires an additional audio track), it needs to be on two discs. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Scorsese. Ah, the Spergy Decimal System.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 13:54
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:$10 coupon for The Incredibles Where's the target coupon?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
Volcasarus ReX posted:I know the simple solution is to buy from Amazon, but sometimes I don't like to wait. Annnnd that's why their back catalog stays high. Well, that and they have to maintain sales staff and retail space so their margins have to be bigger vs. an electronic retailer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
frumpsnake posted: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... Let's be fair here, though - higher bitrate does not automatically equal better picture. There's a point of diminishing returns on everything, but there's no penalty for using more bitrate than you really need. Sure, if the space is there set the encode "MAXX Quality" and walk away. But hell, I've seen BR rips at 10G that look pretty loving good. I can't imagine you couldn't get some great picture quality at a lower bitrate than studios use now. It's not a big deal at the end of the day, but I think the idea that the EEs would look horrible on one disc is misguided.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Ingram posted:What's better is that these screens are from a compressed 720P version. Wait for true 1080P shots to jizz your pants :P It says the resolution is 1920x800 (ie 1080p but letterboxed).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
Why do people still insist on recommending a PS3 for people who just want to play blurays? It's not even the best player on the market anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 14:47
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Why not combine though? Even though in this case he has one already, but you get a premium gaming system along with a bluray player. It's an insane deal. Let's see: - Costs $100-150 more than current players with comperable features - Not everybody wants a gaming machine - It's bigger than most standalone players - Remote costs extra - Universal remote control costs a shitload - No longer the fastest loading player - Has horrific Cinavia copy protection on it - Wireless G instead of N - Using netflix requires a separate PSN account - Region locked Crackbone fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Aug 19, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:It does DVD upscaling and is a option in the menu, no need to buy a remote since the controller does everything you need it to do and is actually easier than the controller. Cinavia is only a problem if you pirate movies. Everything else is valid of course. Not everybody wants to use a PS3 controller, especially if they have guests/tech illiterates/people used to standard remote layout for 30 years who want to use it. Cinavia does not just affect pirates. If I want to create a stream-able version of my media I can't do it with a PS3. Hell, if I take a home video with cinavai protected media playing in the background, the PS3 won't let me play it. It's a minor issue but it's there. And the point is as of today, there's nothing the PS3 provides that you can't get cheaper and/or better in another player. And there's really nothing new left for the format. - HDMI - Deep Color - 3D - Wireless - Netflix/Amazon/Vudu/etc I can get all of that in a $120 device.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:46 |
|
|
Trump posted:A slight derail, but ever since I heard about this I've been wondering, is this something the industry is considering adopting on a large scale basis? It seems like it could be built into pretty much any kind of device and it really loving sucks. Seems very Sony-centric right now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2011 12:47
|
|