|
Crackbone posted: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. 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.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
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? Anyway, you acknowledge that there are differences, we just care about them to different degrees. That's all there is to it, no need to come out swinging. I've compared BDs to h.264 rips of BDs and there are definite, noticeable differences. If you don't care, that's fine, but please refrain from stomping on others' toes for legitimately disagreeing.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
Crackbone posted: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). I've got both of 'em and Avatar is much better for showing off the capabilities of the set. I'm not saying that a few Mbps average is going to make all the difference in the world, and a lot of it has to do with the difference in the underlying material itself being visually stunning. Just for the sake of discussion I compared a DVD-sized h.264 encode of Zombieland to my BD of Zombieland, and while the DVD-sized one isn't poo poo or anything, probably looks better than most of what's on cable, the BD is just better. Like, way better. And I haven't heard that Zombieland is a particularly amazing transfer (or not), just observation. The idea of what "the average person" (edit: sorry, you said "most people") cares about starts you down a pretty silly rabbit-hole. Does the average person care about 1080p? Is the average person hooking up composite cables to their new 1080p set with Dynamic Contrast processing and Black Enhancement squashing the poo poo out of their colors and Motion+ interpolation making everything look like it was shot on video, thinking it's golden because that's what the salesman told them? Does the average person care about a good transfer versus a bad transfer? What's average in the context of this discussion? Let's just... leave average out, because frankly I don't know what average even means here, and talk about us. Alright? I for one care about good transfers and avoiding compression artifacts to the greatest degree possible and bitrate plays a significant role in that. 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.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:You want to assert that Wall-E isn't a high quality transfer? Nope, just that it'd look even better if they had twice the space. I'm actually surprised that this is controversial or somehow makes me a slave to the media. Higher bitrate can yield higher quality. If the compression sucks or they don't know what they're doing or other mitigating factors come into play, then it doesn't, but it certainly can; and if Wall-E looked good fit into a 22GB container, it'd look even better in 44GB with the same team transferring it. Edit: Seriously, am I catching poo poo because I like one of the biggest benefits of the format this thread is about? What the gently caress? I am not up to arguing something right now, so whatever the disagreement is here, gently caress it, you win. I don't think you're saying you prefer a 4GB or 8GB handbrake rip to an actual BD, so I don't know what it is exactly that we are even arguing over, unless it really is an argument over whether a higher bitrate can allow for superior visual quality. If this is about is getting me to admit that lower bitrate can look fine too, okay, admitted, I still watch DVDs too and I'm not sitting there the whole time going "man I wish this were encoded better and had more space." But that doesn't change that a higher bitrate has the potential to look better than a lower bitrate, potential which is often realized. But maybe that's just what the studios want me to think... 
Agreed fucked around with this message at 20:40 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
bad movie knight posted:If you think it was right for the Avatar disc to be stripped of extras, you have been sorely misled by a company that just wants you to double-dip. Instead of a DVD copy, they could've included a disc of extras, but they didn't. Oh, gently caress, I never said that. I never even implied that. They're blatantly milking the cash cow. I knew that (and said it, in the Avatar thread) before I bought the damned thing, and I acknowledge it now.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:Except it wouldn't, you rube and people are jumping on you because you aren't even comprehending what Crackbone is trying to say. So are we done, then? Single-layer BDs are the height of reproduction, no need for dual layer ones at all? It's remarkable to me that in a thread about the highest fidelity home format available, in a forum ostensibly full of movie buffs, I'm getting insulted because I like the fidelity of the format. I agree that compression sees diminishing returns; I don't think we're there yet, though. I mean, we're going down from terabytes to gigabytes. I don't say this because I am defending the studio's release of barebones Avatar as some kind of artistic statement (bullshit, they just want two sales, this one and an even bigger one later). I understand perfectly what Crackbone is saying. Edit: This all started because I noted that Avatar was one of the most visually amazing films I'd ever seen on my home set. That's just, I mean, that's true. I didn't intend at all for that to somehow balloon into this giant argument about compression and bitrates, and I didn't say word loving one about them being justified in putting out the movie without so much as a commentary track. Relax, I don't even think we're arguing here. Agreed fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:You say that, but keep posting strawman bullshit like this: Wall-E made the most of a single-layer BR. When I commented on it, you 'd about me saying Wall-E was a lovely transfer, which I didn't say; and which I later clarified. Look, Crackbone, we don't even disagree on the facts, we just care about different things. Why are we arguing if we are in agreement? Seriously?Edit to respond to your edit: Crackbone posted: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. I don't remember saying "compression scales linearly." (I don't remember it because I didn't say it) But compression does matter, and bitrate does matter. Good compression can make good use of less space, but lossy compression is by its nature going to discard data, and the less discarded the closer we are to the source material. That's the entirety of my side in this discussion. Literally the whole thing. Do you see anything objectionable in that? Because it seems to me like we aren't even at odds, we're just arguing about nothing and making GBS threads up the thread in the process. Agreed fucked around with this message at 21:27 on May 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
Never knew about that web site at all; funny to see that Avatar is flying off the loving shelves so fast it's outpacing the next 19 movies below it combined. Their review for the movie is hilarious; probably everyone has already heard the many valid criticisms of the movie, but it's particularly funny in the way they're put together. Technical quality is basically unassailable but they do have a lot of fun with the plot. Edit: The Review posted:My notes while watching the film looked something like this: "This is the most vivid, immersive scene I've seen yet on Blu-ray." A few minutes pass. "Wait, no, this is the most vivid, immersive scene I've seen." And so on, with the film constantly one-upping itself. On the technical side of things, the encode is flawless, with no compression-related concerns whatsoever and practically zero noise. My expectations were certainly surpassed. Like it did in the theaters with 3D, Avatar has just raised the bar for home video on Blu-ray. That's what I was talking about 
Agreed fucked around with this message at 17:32 on May 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
How was the Rocky BD collection? I was close to buying it when I saw the local Wal-Mart had it in stock but the price is a bit steep without really knowing much about it (and not being THAT big of a Rocky fan). But if it's especially good, with a high quality transfer and good special features, etc., I may nab it and the Rambo collection just to have Stallone's iconic stuff.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 06:49
|
|
|
smallmouth posted:Yes. 720p is still much better than standard definition. And the PS3 upscales DVDs. I have a 720p set and a PS3 and am very happy. The PS3 is just a kickass scaler in general, I guess it doesn't match the highest quality chipsets as found in Oppo's expensive players, but it passes most of the same really demanding tests, and subjectively it upscales really, really, really, really well, with video processing options to sweeten the deal if you regularly watch content that isn't ideal for HD (e.g. Playon Hulu at 480p on a 1080p set, probably going to benefit from its deblocking and frame noise reduction).
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
The Lucas posted:Anyone know why Netflix takes a bit to get some Blu Rays? Not the WB or Fox discs, I know about that, but I want to get Django and they don't even have a release date. It took them forever to get Vivre Se Vie as well. Edit: Way too late to be reading and posting, your post makes it clear you know about the time limit they signed with a few majors. I dunno, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2010 08:51
|
|
|
FitFortDanga posted:use Waffleimages Waffleimages isn't altogether reliable, I've had better luck with tinypic.com personally.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:
What the hell, are they basically copying the Apatow formula as far as casting goes? What is that movie?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2010 18:05
|
|
|
I told my wife to pick up a few BDs that she wanted to see when she went shopping yesterday, and she got 9 and Public Enemies. I didn't know until recently that Universal apparently has a bit of a notorious reputation for poor BD transfers. We watched 9 tonight, pretty good film, not great, but intriguing and at least a little subversive... It looked great. Excellent detail, extremely crisp visuals but with some softness (the animation and virtual camera technology clearly isn't as sophisticated and deep as the magic behind Wall-E but there's some of the same kind of stuff going on). I don't see any problems with the transfer, though it took an annoyingly long time to load because of the unusual structure of the BD itself, with multiple content accesses and downloads before it got to the menu. Am I missing something? And should I expect bad things from Public Enemies? My wife is a huge Johnny Depp fan and while she can employ a perfectly critical eye, I imagine she's going to be pretty satisfied by the content. I'm more guilty than she is of using movies to watch my gear, silly but it is what it is; I'm kind of curious what I should look for if this is a poor transfer. But if it's not, then awesome 
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 08:08
|
|
|
I've been digging digital since Greenaway showed me it could be beautiful. I look forward to seeing how it plays. (And to seeing the movie, too!) Is Universal's reputation for poor transfers undeserved, or does it relate more to processing done to classic films to remove film grain, over-use of DNR, etc.?
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2010 09:20
|
|
|
Eesh, Public Enemy has some pretty ugly problems. Nothing with the transfer, just mediocre source material. Digital is great at a lot of things but this was a poor usage if I've ever seen one. My wife has even been somewhat offput as the scenes display really widely varying picture quality, levels, saturation, etc., and I figured she'd be too wrapped up in the story to care. But, as promised, it's not the transfer - I get the feeling this looked kind of bad in theaters too. Great movie, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
Definitely give it a watch before you commit, it's not one I'll be "showing off" but the story is great. Depp's Dillinger is eerily on-point. Really captures the whole drive behind the creation of the FBI, the "public enemy" era, Dillinger's strange relationship with the people - what's in a name, everything! But don't expect it to look all that great at home, there are brightness fluctuations in scenes and the recording doesn't seem that great at picking up a lot of the scenic nuance, probably thanks to the usage of those cameras in dark places. Really unfortunate since there was clearly an enormous amount of work put into making it a historically accurate costume drama with fantastic sets and everything. Everybody who is in focus looks great, and lighter scenes are excellent, but even though I am a big fan of digital I just don't think this was a good fit (based on home viewing of the BD). Still glad to own it, glad to have the story in my collection, but technical flaws.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2010 16:04
|
|
|
Planet Earth came out on BD? Edit: And for only around $50 at most places, too! Why did I not know about this? Getting as soon as possible. Now I have to check on The Life of Birds and a bunch of other stuff too. Edit 2: Oh my god they're all on blu-ray, amazon purchasing spree underway. You better MEAN "Like New," merchants 
Agreed fucked around with this message at 16:36 on May 25, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 16:25
|
|
|
Butthole Prince posted:Hopefully you didn't order it yet, but, you can get the "Planet Earth" Blu-Ray from Amazon UK for ridiculously cheap. I grabbed it from a well-reputed seller with tons of feedback claiming "Like New" condition for about half as much money as I could find anywhere, including Amazon UK. Also, my wife and I already bought Disney's "Earth" in blu-ray from the local Movie Gallery when they put everything on clearance before shutting down. The footage on it is great, but to whomever said that it's "extended" from "Planet Earth" I don't think that's accurate. In fact there are only three main things in the Disney version, narrated very well and as mentioned with a lot of humor, but Planet Earth encompasses so much more. We borrowed it on DVD from some friends, so we've already seen it, but the PS3's upscaling can only do so much and given how much we like nature documentaries (and especially ones with David Attenborough, his passion is incredibly infectious) I really, really want to see it (and own it) in blu-ray. I wish we had more money free, I see a ton of great nature documentaries available in BD that I didn't know about and I'd love to pick them up but right now I just got Planet Earth. I was going to get another one that builds on some of the Planet Earth stuff, also a BBC production, also David Attenborough, but Amazon didn't want to ship it for "1-3 weeks" and in that time maybe it'll come up for sale used for a better price. Agreed fucked around with this message at 18:22 on May 25, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 18:19
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:That doesn't make any sense. 25fps would shave minutes off the runtime, not add them. So in fact it's probably the full cut of the film. bmk posted:However, it clocks in at 78 minutes, which is neither IDMb's listed runtime of 83 minutes for the uncut version nor 75 minutes for the censored Blockbuster version. Reading around online a little bit, I have a feeling this 83-minute film in NTSC runs 78 minutes in PAL. Not ideal phrasing on Bambi's part, but he was referring to it taking 3 minutes away from the runtime in the version bad movie knight ended up with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:But the version BMK got is 3 minutes longer than the censored version He's thinking that the 83 minute version NTSC ends up being 78 minutes PAL. I'm not sure if he's right, just trying to help clarify what they said.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
Bambi posted:No, that's not what I said. Doctor thodt is right. I was confused, and wrong. I didn't say that's what you said, I said that's what bad movie knight said. I guess that's my own lack of clarity since I did say "what they said." Sorry. Edit: Re-reading my post, no, I see that I did say that's what you said. So I wasn't even clear about what I was wrong about.  bad movie knight posted:However, it clocks in at 78 minutes, which is neither IDMb's listed runtime of 83 minutes for the uncut version nor 75 minutes for the censored Blockbuster version. Reading around online a little bit, I have a feeling this 83-minute film in NTSC runs 78 minutes in PAL. Anyway - bolded the important part. Would the difference between 24p and 25p turn 83 minutes into 78 minutes? There aren't any other cuts than the two IMDB lists, right? Agreed fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jun 7, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
theradiostillsucks posted:Don't avoid these because they're "stupid Asian bullshit," avoid them because Dragon Dynasty put out terrible, God drat it, really? The cinematography of Chinese formalist films is often really, really amazing; Legend of the Black Scorpion has some of the most amazing use of color I've ever seen on film (plus it's a really good re-imagining of Hamlet, too!) When you say they're "terrible  " releases, what does that entail? I'll put up with a lack of extras or whatever, but the video quality... bad?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, 36 Chambers' WC DVD looks better than the BD. What the hell is wrong with them? Interlaced transfers? Why why why why  Edit: At least Fist of Legend looks like it's worth buying over the DVDs. If that level of quality is what I can expect out of the new crop then there's a good chance I'll pick them up. What's going on with the company, anyway? Are they broke? Agreed fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jun 8, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted: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. I showed both the full screen shoot and the comparison picture to my wife, and she's not blind or anything but she said if she were going to buy one of the two BDs based on that comparison shot she'd pick the processed one. That first one is a really bad transfer, and while going the "holy poo poo that's some DNR" route obviously has some serious impacts on the fidelity to the source, I can see why such an apparently clean appearance appeals to an audience that doesn't really know about the behind-the-scenes stuff with transfers, DNR, etc. That said I think "lowest common denominator" is a little bit harsh, there's obviously some middle ground and if the first transfer is indicative at all of the source quality then I imagine they HAD to do SOME processing to get it up to a level of quality that makes it worth getting on BD at all, though obviously they went overboard and it shows. What stands out to me more than anything is his damned shirt. It's so... uniform, it looks almost cel-shaded. I'd have to see the film in action to make a judgment but if I bought the first BD and got that really bad transfer, I'm not sure if I'd consider it a step down watching the second one, warts and all. Again, not sure, just have to actually see it before making up my mind. On a similar note I picked up the Die Hard 4-pack, and we watched the first one yesterday. I thought it looked great, way better than the DVD, awesome sound (and plus Die Hard is just a fun movie, it has aged really well in most respects, way better than I imagine the most recent one is going to when we're looking back 20 years from now). Then I went online and it's given mostly unremarkable scores as far as the quality of the transfer goes. I don't see it, personally, looks great to me - high fidelity to the source without obnoxious interference to try and make it "pop" any more than it would have in theaters. Someone shed some light on what I'm missing, if anything?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2010 13:26
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:It took me forever to notice DNR, but once you see it...well, you know how it goes. It's sorta like mp3 compression artifacts. Except for really lovely compression jobs, you generally don't notice them except in really stand-out cases. Subtle DNR isn't a bad thing, necessarily, but gently caress, that's not subtle at all, and the state of the technology isn't at a point where they can just say "computer, enhance" and the result is good. He really does look kind of like a wax figurine of himself. And the second screen, gently caress me, it's like they smeared it with Vaseline. Sure did get rid of all that noise  Reminds me of the edge-enhancement treatment some DVDs used to get. Hell, I remember ripping with DVDshrink and doing a "deep analysis" which applies variable edge-based softening or sharpening of its own (user selectable) in an attempt to counterbalance the artifacts generated by compression. In my opinion they still look better than the same amount of compression without any enhancement, provided you go with the more subtle sharpening option, but with BDs we're at a point where a good transfer has the space it needs to look freakin' fantastic without any stupid processing. Maybe that source material was so bad that some DNR would benefit it. I don't think that DNR is the god damned devil all the time, but that example is taking an axe to the source. Is there any reason they had a problematic, really noise transfer the first time, and then this reissue has incredibly over the top DNR to "compensate?" Did they just not want to do another transfer, or is the source unusable now? What's the deal? Agreed fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jun 20, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2010 16:23
|
|
|
Sporadic posted:From what I heard, this is a new transfer. They just slavered it in DNR after they were done. Welp 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2010 20:19
|
|
|
Plus BDs stand up to hell, my DVD collection is starting to get kind of ugly just from sitting in a stationary binder. They pick up scratches way, way too easily. BDs by comparison have the brilliant hard coating as part of the spec, I feel a hell of a lot better buying a BD than I do a DVD because I know that even if I don't baby it, it's still going to look brand new years down the line. Whereas I try to take really good care of my DVD collection and they seem to pick up scratches from ambient movement of air or something. If I have the choice between buying seasons on DVD or on BD, that definitely factors in (especially since, unlike movies, they're probably going to get shuffled around more, since movies are kind of a "thing" that my wife and I do together while we can pop in some TV show whenever). Not that I wouldn't appreciate it if more shows were filmed in HD and all that, of course. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
doctor thodt posted:Bought some new shelves in the hope that they'd free up a ton of space for me to house future acquisitions. Well at least I have about as many PS3 games as you 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 08:37
|
|
|
Moeru posted:Doctor Thodt, making me feel like less of a fan every time I read this thread I just don't have anywhere near that level of disposable income. Blu-Ray doesn't care about poor people  At least Amazon has pretty good used prices a lot of the time, and since BDs hold up so well, you might as well be getting it new  Agreed fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jun 28, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 20:49
|
|
|
Bambi posted:Blu-Ray.com's userbase is full of slobbering loving idiots who think that grain is the devil's dandruff. If you're brave enough to venture into the thread there for this release, you'll find a terrifying number of people singing the praises of the scrubbed, waxy picture. You'll also find a few good points, like the following comparison shot that demonstrates that while some scenes are clearly going to suffer from the overzealous DNR, others will benefit from the higher quality transfer pre-DNR: 2008 release example shot 2010 Ultimate Hunter Edition comparison I read the guy's post and he mentioned her hair, being able to see beads of blood in it - and it is absolutely true that the 2008 release's generally inferior encode and transfer doesn't expose details like that; I happen to really like the extreme level of detail that BD offers, so I'm conflicted. On the one hand, GRAIN IS BAD is just a dumb, film-illiterate position to take, and the level of DNR is really obnoxious in some stills we've had posted here... On the other, there are some things about the new version which stand out above the old one. I completely agree with the reviewer that this movie was not given a proper treatment. Basically digitally whitewashed the film elements out of it, completely inappropriate given that it was, as the reviewer says, filmed in a goddamned jungle. That's not pretty and shiny, nor is the story, and the blatantly artificial cleanliness of the new version definitely detracts from the classic, gritty mise en scène of the whole production. Nonetheless - and here's where my brain kind of breaks down - I'm going to buy it. I don't really like rewarding Fox for loving up the release like this so I'll probably wait for the first decently priced Used copy on Amazon. At least that way I'm not giving Fox the impression, for what little it's worth, that I personally approve of their treatment of the film. But I am willing to accept the deep concessions made to the integrity of the original in order to have some details that weren't available on the original. Agreed fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 07:47
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:So it sounds like the 2008 blu-ray isn't much better, but between the lesser of the two evils, the 2008 one is the one to get? Well... sort of... not really... I don't know. Pick your poison, a mediocre transfer and outdated encoding (plus no extras) for a generally "huh, this isn't really all that HD looking at all" experience; or, basically an airbrushed version that removes all traces that this was actually shot on film in a jungle. The new release definitely pops (kind of starting to hate that word, since the connotation to the consumer leads to demand for this sort of fidelity loss), has better contrast, and doesn't have compression artifacts that the 2008 one did, thanks to the foundation of this new 2010 release being a brand new transfer with a modern encoding process. If they had just done the new HD master and released that on the dual-layer BD with the extras and poo poo, I guarantee you that fans would have loved it. It would have looked awesome. There would definitely be film grain, but that's because it was, I'm kind of sounding like a broken record here, SHOT ON FILM IN THE JUNGLE. It's supposed to look kind of gritty. It would have looked gritty, but really detailed, as you would expect. The 2008 release is, to my eyes, not incredibly better in comparison to the best DVD release of the film. In fact I like the color temperature of the DVD better, frankly, and they both have issues with noticeable compression artifacts and some squashing in their colors, with the 2008 BD having less issues than the DVD because even though it's using a lame old encoder at least it has more space to work with. But, it does feature characteristically superior BD audio, and that makes a substantial difference too. My metric for whether a BD release is purchase-worthy boils down to "does this provide an experience that is better than the DVD?" And while it is flawed, the 2008 release does at least live up to that. So if you have to have Predator on BD, and you really object to the gratuitous DNR and sort of artificiality of the 2010 release, then the 2008 one will give you a better Predator than the DVD, at least. Rocco posted:I'm in full support of grain, but the 2008 blu-ray looks like total poo poo. It's just not as much better than the DVD than we reasonably expect, especially lame since it was 2008 and they should have done a better job on it than they did. Comparison shots between the standard-def DVD and the 2008 BD do show visual improvement (and of course the audio is way better). Again, I actually like the color temperature of the last DVD release better than the 2008 BD, it's warmer overall and using a good upscaling player it still looks good. Still, the '08 BD is more detailed, even if it's hounded by visible compression artifacts that can be almost as annoying as smear from mega-DNR... Agreed fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 13:39
|
|
|
What, you don't like the perfect hi-def LOOK AT THESE TWO DUDES AND THE FILM TITLE
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:Both along with Duke Nukem Forever were infamous for many years for being eternally in "It'll be out when it's out" limbo. HL2's source code was even leaked in 2003, causing another delay. Er, Duke Nukem Forever never did come out. It finally got officially canceled in May of 2009. Here's a giant list of poo poo that happened in the timeframe that Duke Nukem Forever was supposedly in development. Edit: I don't know why, but this one kills me: The List posted:
Agreed fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jul 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2010 14:23
|
|
|
Captain Charisma posted:I was saying HL2 and TF2 came out and that's why I didn't use DNF Ah. Well, your last post gave me the impression that you thought DNF had eventually come out, sorry for the mixup, but at least it will give the non-gamers some more context for comparison. Minor side note then we can get back on BD track - I'm actually pretty ignorant of the history of TF2. I know, vaguely, that it was supposed to come out a hell of a lot sooner than it did, but it's in bold red letters on The List so I'm guessing there's something about it that was sort of  for people at the time?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, you're fast, I edited that post as soon as I posted it because I realized I hadn't quite said what I wanted to say. Well, anyway, thanks for the info, back to BDs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2010 14:48
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I still haven't seen this movie and I really want to. Same here, really glad they're following the "get that poo poo into retailers ASAP" model rather than sitting on it. I heard such good things about it, but the nearest theater is an hour away. gently caress the middle of nowhere. Edit: Also I have recently rediscovered that I really love Disney movies  So I guess I'm about to be out a lot of money, once I make some money, somehow, to afford a bunch of Disney movies on BD.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2010 19:24
|
|
|
El Jackalope posted:MOTHERFFFFFFFUUUCKKKKKKKKKERRRRRRRRRRSSSSSS! For what it's worth, the DVD of this has a transfer that I couldn't see any artifacts or anything in. It's the sort of content that is pretty easy to encode, not a lot of fine detail, broad swathes of the same color, all that. I am sure the BD improves over the DVD, but you can get a DVD of it for whatever region you're in and it looks great. The extra with the snails (which is awesome) probably looks a lot better on the BD, but there's a lot more differentiation and other things that give an encoder more to chew on. Bambi posted:Fuckin lolling at how many people on blu-ray.com refuse to exchange their Gladiator discs because they're pleased as punch with what they have now and refuse to believe it has been improved in any way/shape/form. Well as you know in real life there are typically many artificially created white outlines around things, without them how would you ever see clearly?? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
A Bad Poster posted:The new Speed Racer. I wish I'd bought it earlier, it is spectacular visually. Also it's only $10 at Target. Holy poo poo, I ignored Speed Racer because of the bad reviews and poor box office performance (edit: and more or less complete lack of raison d'être) until I caught the last third of it on cable back in college and it blew my loving mind. It was on rotation on one of the HBOs or something so I DVR'd it, watched it four or five times before I was full. I bet it's fantastic on blu-ray, I need to get a copy of it. I know people gave it all kinds of poo poo for being, well, not a great movie, and kind of confused about what it was trying to do, but in the purity of its soul it was a movie about dangerous cars going dangerously fast through dangerous and psychedelic tracks and blowing poo poo up left and right. The rest just doesn't matter. Also, the theme song rules. Go speed racer, gently caress yeah, go. Agreed fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Aug 1, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 16:36 |
|
|
Yeah, the deal is I know it is a mediocre film w/r/t plot, pacing, coherence, etc., but it is one of the few movies where I am able, without reservation, to disengage completely my critical sensibilities and enjoy a bunch of impossible cars doing impossible stunts and getting blown up and stuff while an acid trip is going on around it all. Physics SHOULD work that way, man. I hardly ever get to do that, but something about Speed Racer manages to push the off-button on my "you should only enjoy GOOD movies  " part of the brain and lets me just go along for the insane ride like a little kid.And I bet it looks awesome as hell on BD. I gotta get that! Semi-related point, I think the siblings are back to being brothers now, by the way. Larry, not Linda. I think. Probably ought to  it first but in the spirit of Speed Racer I'm just going to throw that out there without a care in the world.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 07:44
|
|