The New and Improved Blu-Ray Megathread

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The New and Improved Blu-Ray Megathread

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

A section on Blu-Ray drives, software players and AnyDVD HD would be good for the OP. Drives are getting pretty cheap, software players (Arcsoft/WinDVD/PowerDVD) aren't total poo poo anymore and with AnyDVDHD, goodbye region coding/unskipable trailers. It would be a decent solution for somebody with a computer already hooked up to their TV.

And bad movie knight's idea

bad movie knight posted:

I think it would be interesting to democratically compile a Top 10 list of the best-looking Blu-Rays, the ones with the best supplements, etc. Kind of like a newbie guide to Blu-Ray, or like a readymade CineD Blu-Ray Library�.

---------

Warner has been doing a terrific job with their classics lately but it is a tragedy they skipped over Barry Lyndon. That needs a Blu-Ray release so bad

# ¿ May 4, 2010 06:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:31

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Topper Harley posted:

This "House" blu-ray that Criterion is releasing, is it the 80s horror movie, the crappier more recent horror movie, the show about the doctor, or what? I'm intrigued.

Hausu

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076162/

# ¿ May 5, 2010 17:29

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

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.

Agreed posted:

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. 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.

Agreed posted:

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.

So, you aren't a sucker who is eating up studio PR...but you do think that higher bitrate = higher quality?

Riiiiiiiight.

# ¿ May 5, 2010 19:31

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Agreed posted:

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.

Except it wouldn't, you rube and people are jumping on you because you aren't even comprehending what Crackbone is trying to say.

Let me break it down for you.

Crackbone posted:

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.

Crackbone posted:

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.

Crackbone posted:

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).

# ¿ May 5, 2010 21:05

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Agreed posted:

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.

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.

You also said that Wall-E would look better if they would have double the size from 22GB to 44GB...which it wouldn't and that it isn't on par with other higher bitrate releases...which is bullshit.

Also to correct both of you, the actual movie file on the disc of Wall-E is only 22GB but the full disc is 30GB.

Bambi posted:

Here's confirmation that all the aforementioned Criterion titles will be out in the coming months, plus an announcement that they will also be releasing Charade around the same time.

Fantastic news. Guess I'll delete Videodrome off my DVR and wait for the Blu-Ray.

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 21:36 on May 5, 2010

# ¿ May 5, 2010 21:34

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

SwissDonkey posted:

Pulp Fiction
Utter poo poo. The screen is shaky as hell, and the sound is pretty poo poo too. A step down from the DVD.

What the gently caress? The dutch import I seen was actually a big step up from the DVD and the screen wasn't shaky as hell. Where did you import it from?

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 18:49 on May 8, 2010

# ¿ May 8, 2010 18:45

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Egbert Souse posted:

Well, I guess I'm going to cancel Spartacus until it goes to to under $10. It looks exactly like the HD-DVD captures.

What the hell is going on at Universal?

They are doing the same thing they were doing during HD-DVD, releasing whatever transfer they have on hand regardless of how it looks. Only they aren't getting any leeway now since they aren't releasing 5+ titles a month to singlehandedly keeping a format alive and the standards people expect out of a catalog release have gone up since 2 years ago.

# ¿ May 11, 2010 18:31

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Egbert Souse posted:

Wow, my new Vaio displays BluRay beautifully. It's almost too bright... probably need to mess with the settings. It was delivered to my office (UPS usually doesn't come near my place regularly) and my coworkers were impressed with how nice The General looked. And it's only a 1600x900 res screen.

But it's preinstalled with WinDVD, which happens to not have any new updates that allow for Avatar to play. The only option is to buy a $40 upgrade.

Are there any free BluRay programs or am I stuck with buying software to play one title? VLC doesn't seem to have codecs yet.

strwrsxprt was right on the money. I would suggest Arcsoft (the trial first) even though they basically told me to go gently caress myself when I told them that my import HD-DVDs crashed their player.

http://www.arcsoft.com/estore/software_title.asp?ProductCode=TMT3P

ARC404P20 will take 20% off.

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 05:33 on May 13, 2010

# ¿ May 13, 2010 05:29

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

FitFortDanga posted:

As everyone feared, Storaro got his greasy mitts on Apocalypse Now for the new HD remaster, loving with the aspect ratio because clearly "The Last Supper" should be the guideline for all movies or something.

Storaro is a loving tool. You can read his manifesto on Univision here.

http://www.cinematography.net/Files/univision.pdf

quote:

Recently, any movie - no matter how big or small, successfull or not - will, after a very short life on the big screen, have a much longer life on an electronic screen. Today, the Answer Print is made for both of these two different media. The Cinematographer's work ends after having released an Interpositive for theatrical distribution, and a Digital Master for video distribution.

Having these two different media, with essentially two different aspect ratios, each of us (Directors, Production Designers, Cinematographers, Camera Operators, etc.) shares the nightmare of compromising the Composition of the Image. Looking trough a viewfinder, a camera, or a monitor, we are always faced with at least two images of the same subject.
Since the Cinema is a language of Images, by changing the original composition of the Cinematographic picture we are altering the linguistic expression, the style and indeed the Film itself.

It is like altering the size of an artist's painting to suit the wall where the painting is supposed to be shown. A film in any video transfer, when recorded in Letterbox and in Full screen versions, is without a doubt actually TWO different movies.
In the jungle of different aspect ratios in today's Cinema and Television, the upcoming advanced HIGH DEFINITION VIDEO SYSTEM will introduce yet another one, an aspect ratio of about 1:1,79. For a while, we will have three different Visual proportions, and therefore three different Compositions, of the same movie.

I don't know who made this decision for a new aspect ratio,since it doesn't resolve any past, present or future problems for a common composition between different media. I am not aware of any Directors or Cinematographers who have been asked for their opinions about the possible new Area or new Composition for future Audio-visual systems.

Some day in the future, any small screen film projector, in any Cineplex, will be replaced by an electronic High Definition Video projector. Consequently any movie made for these small screening rooms, particularly if they are intimate or psychological stories, will be directly recorded in High Definition instead of in 35mm negative. This is a process that we can slow down or speed up, but it cannot be stopped. But I also believe that audiences around the world will always have the need to get together in a large "Amniotic Sac", so to speak, such a big Film Theatre, in order to participate in the Collective Uncounscious of a big audience, watching on a large screen any epic-spectacular-big romance story. This part of the world of cinema, in my opinion, will need to be filmed in 65 mm.
If all of this happens, then the future Audio-visuals recorded in these two different ways will depend on the specific need of the story. Considering High Definition and 65mm, I think it would therefore be sensible to propose a new standard for both.A new aspect ratio that will fit Future, Present, and Past compositional needs. Currently 65mm is set at an aspect ratio of 1: 2,21 and High Definition at about 1:1,79, so, if we remove the 0,21 from the 65mm, and if we add the same number on top of High Definition TV, we will have a perfect balance between the two: that is, 1:2.

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 20:46 on May 13, 2010

# ¿ May 13, 2010 20:40

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

doctor thodt posted:

Digibook

More like

DIGIIIIIBOOOOOOK :argh:

# ¿ May 17, 2010 20:20

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

doctor thodt posted:

Number of digibooks: 25 (not including 4 announced)

Number of digibooks re-released in regular cases: 5 (including 1 announced)

Number of digibooks re-released in regular cases as a different version of the film: 1

Number of regular releases re-released as digibooks: 2

Number of digibooks that contain anything of substance in the book section: 0

:smug:

# ¿ May 17, 2010 22:49

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Bambi posted:

Pretty sure nobody at Oscilloscope has ever actually seen a Blu-Ray before. I mean really, is all of this necessary? A regular blue case will do just fine.

It's like they decided "how much useless poo poo can we throw in while offering 0 protection for the discs"

# ¿ May 18, 2010 19:12

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Tony Danza Claus posted:

God I wish I were you and didn't see the trailer for this turd 380 times a day while it was out.

Underwear would be fine...if I was wearing any! :laffo:

# ¿ May 21, 2010 21:59

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Agreed posted:

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

Go buy Baraka ASAP and prepare for the real :aaaaa:

# ¿ May 25, 2010 17:16

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Firefly is $28 at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Firefly-Complete-Blu-ray-Nathan-Fillion/dp/B001EN71CW

# ¿ May 25, 2010 17:54

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

FitFortDanga did you get By Brakhage yet?

# ¿ May 27, 2010 05:19

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

The Lucas posted:

Netflix doesn't even have the date.

Blockbuster Online has all three discs as available :smug:

FitFortDanga posted:

No, I got the shipping notice yesterday. If I'm lucky it'll get here by the weekend.

Be sure to post your impressions when you get it. I won't be able to get mine until some time late next week.

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 20:57 on May 27, 2010

# ¿ May 27, 2010 20:52

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

That Werner Herzog Boxset (includes Encounters at the End of the World, Grizzly Man, White Diamond, La Soufriere & Flying Doctors of East Africa) is only �14.99 at amazon.co.uk

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00288W2FI

After VAT is removed and shipping is added, that's only $23.02

# ¿ May 31, 2010 22:17

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Guess what Ben Stiller just posted on Twitter?

TCG Blu Ray transfer in progress.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2010 22:03

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

FitFortDanga posted:

Neither Ben Stiller nor "TCG" nor that picture tells me what movie that is. The Crimson Guy? Texas Chainsaw Gassacre? I feel like this should be obvious but I'm drawing a blank.

The Cable Guy

Jim Carrey is the guy in the photo and Ben Stiller was the director. It's good news for fans since the current DVD is complete poo poo (released in 1997, flipper, non-anamorphic)

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Jun 1, 2010

# ¿ Jun 1, 2010 22:06

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

The Lucas posted:

Is this guy joking?

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/06/burned_by_stage.php

quote:

Nobody is more queer for Blu-ray monochrome than myself. The principal cause of this mania is the recent Casablanca Blu-ray, which made Michael Curtiz's classic film look 15% to 20% better than it ever had before. I'm so consumed by this hunger that I didn't let my disappointment with Criterion's Third Man Blu-ray get in the way. I felt burned and angered by that disc. It's fine by regular DVD standards, but my God...the grain! A sandstorm! Grain purists are like mad monks living in a secluded abbey in the French mountains.

Click here for the full 1920x1080 image.

DVD Beaver frame-capture of grain-swamped Criterion Blu-ray image of Joseph Cotten in Sir Carol Reed's The Third Man.

------------

You grain purists....honestly! Either it's a mucky-muck grain experience, grain the size of crushed gravel and glory-be-to-God for that raw Iraqi sandstorm effect, or it's the arid video-game hell of the Patton Blu-ray. No in-between -- it's "give me librium or give me meth." Well, there is an in-between and it can look beautiful. It can look sublime. If Lowry Digital's John Lowry had been allowed to allowed to moderately de-granulate The Third Man, it would have made for a very significant difference. But no...the brown-robed Criterion monks in the Abbey St. Martin won't have it! Purity! Purity above all!

No, he's just a loving tool.

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jun 2, 2010

# ¿ Jun 2, 2010 21:34

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

bad movie knight posted:

For those of you in the know, what the gently caress is up with All the Boys Love Mandy Lane? Available everywhere but the U.S. What gives?

From what I read, Weinstein Company sold the theatrical US rights to Senator Entertainment (after Grindhouse bombed) while retaining the right to release it on home video in the US. Senator goes broke before being able to release it in theaters in America. I would guess it is in some type of legal hell where Weinstein Company can't release it until Senator does a theatrical release.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i89e4f40c1678880cb823a6a32a19f4c0

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i6fda8a789c0468ebccb3d19ff7034eeb

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jun 2, 2010

# ¿ Jun 2, 2010 22:01

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Neo_Reloaded posted:

Getting the region free hardware mod for my BDP-83 was the best BD-related decision I ever made. PAL extras, 1080i50 movies, region B locked titles, etc. - all perfectly enjoyable. It also opened me up to the world of DVD importing that I previously had ignored. Hello Japanese 6-disc theatrical Grindhouse, and hello banned-in-the-US Enzo Castellari Jaws-ripoff 'Great White.'

That is one of the reason I'm so glad I decided to go the HTPC route rather than a standalone or PS3. The sky is the limit and things can always been upgraded or added or streamed to other places in my house.

I fell out of importing though once some titles I never thought would hit American shores any time soon did (9 Songs, The Seventh Seal, Black Narcissus)

# ¿ Jun 3, 2010 01:34

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

doctor thodt posted:

Someone over at CriterionForum is claiming they're going to release something called The New Hollywood Box Set on Blu-Ray in November that will consist of the following films:

Five Easy Pieces
The Last Picture Show
Easy Rider
Head
King of Marvin Gardens
A Safe Place
Drive, He Said

This is totally unverified, but would be pretty amazing if true.

I find that pretty hard to believe since Sony already released Easy Rider on Blu. It doesn't make much sense for them to license it out and cut the legs out from their own release.

# ¿ Jun 5, 2010 23:35

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Ugh, the cover art for Twilight Zone Season 1 is horrid.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2010 23:22

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Agreed posted:

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?

Bad is an understatement. It ranges from complete gently caress-up to :effort:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/killer4.htm

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/36thchamber.htm

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare2/fistoflegend/zoom/fistoflegend.htm

# ¿ Jun 8, 2010 18:53

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Bambi posted:

Richard Kelly tweeted this a few days ago:

Guess it's time to sell my import while I still can.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2010 23:59

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

I decided to sell some of my HD-DVD imports and found out that Les Triplettes De Belleville is apparently super rare and going for over $100.

The dead format that keeps on giving

# ¿ Jun 13, 2010 22:29

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

theradiostillsucks posted:

To be honest, I'm not expecting comedy gold from it, but in my experience the deleted scenes from comedies are often as funny as if not funnier than the movies themselves (see: Step Brothers, the first Harold & Kumar, etc.), and with the disc space Blu-ray provides, it would seem a natural fit as a bonus feature, though I'm sure Universal will do what they do best and port the existing transfer and bonus features from the HD DVD with no extra effort spent.

Anchorman was Paramount...so expect the same exact thing you would have from Universal.

# ¿ Jun 14, 2010 05:53

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

doctor thodt posted:

So the new Predator Blu-Ray sure is, uh, interesting...

http://www.imagebam.com/image/606b8b84038010

That is the greatest.

- edit

Click here for the full 1094x724 image.

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jun 16, 2010

# ¿ Jun 16, 2010 00:50

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Delzuma posted:

Just saw this on AICN:

I just don't think I can get anything less than a complete set (I 'm certain the release schedule will screw me somehow later). But this looks like a pretty drat good deal.

That was actually $69.99 this morning. Amazon raised the price after people started hammering it.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2010 02:31

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

FitFortDanga posted:

Some cover art:

I'm so glad they didn't go the digibook route. Both of these should be first day buys for me.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2010 00:20

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Honest Thief posted:

any word on Friedkin changing the colours around like in the French Connection?

All signs point to yes.

quote:

I want to know what your reaction is when Warner Bros. comes to you and says, "We want the Exorcist to be in 3D"? Are you going to sit there and go through that whole process yourself? Or are you going to turn it over to someone else?

William Friedkin: No. Never. Providing I'm still alive. Warner Bros. is obligated to come to me. And they do. The point is, it's a totally different medium. I currently have control over every single frame of film when converting it to Blu-ray. If I want a scene bluer, I get that scene bluer. Originally, there was some fluctuation with the prints. If you made a thousand, or a few thousand prints, there is no control over any of that. But now I can make a master using the digital process. That gives me total control over how I want the film to look in this new process. The films now look like they did when I was first looking through the viewfinder. Every time you run a 35mm print, it picks up scratches. It picks up dirt. Sometimes it breaks, and you have to re-splice it. You lose frames. This doesn't happen with digital, or God knows, Blu-ray. Yes, there has been talk about expanding The Exorcist into various other mediums. The Exorcist Blu-ray is coming out this fall. But we talked about going to IMAX with it. Nothing is certain yet. They've tried to exploit The Exorcist in all sorts of media. I think that's great. Because I love the new media.

http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEhkemlm34Uqjq

ProfessorClumsy posted:

Tell me more about this... and capitalise your posts.

William Friedkin went crazy, decided that The French Connection should feel more like a documentary and completely hosed with the color timing to achieve that.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2010 22:55

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Agreed posted:

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?

From what I heard, this is a new transfer. They just slavered it in DNR after they were done.

# ¿ Jun 20, 2010 17:40

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Asnorban posted:

Yeah. I like how many people in here say they will buy older SD shows on Bluray so they can have less discs and then bitch / will bitch about this. If there are fewer discs, I will be all about the Bluray so I don't have to switch discs as often.

Problem with this is that the MSRP on the Blu-Ray is $10 more and that it is still a two-disc release (meaning Fox is cheaping out and using single-layer discs) while the DVD is three.

If it was all of season 5 on one Blu-Ray for the same price as the DVD, I doubt there would be any bitching.

doctor thodt posted:

Jacob's Ladder 9/14

The region B looked very good for an Optimum release. Fingers crossed that the American version isn't screwed up.

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jun 22, 2010

# ¿ Jun 22, 2010 17:54

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Asnorban posted:

I don't see how a lowered price is too reasonable. It is from a consumers '1 disc costs less than 5 discs' but for the company they likely see it as a benefit to the consumer to have on one disc. When I made my first comment I didn't know the price was +$10 over the DVD, so my comments don't really stand up with that knowledge. I would gladly pay the same price as the DVDs to get the seasons on one disc if possible.

If they can sell a movie burned on a dual layer disc for $20-25, it isn't that crazy to expect a season of a TV show shot in SD to cost the same...all on one disc.

I mean, seriously, look at this.

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: Season Five on 3 DVD - $25.99

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: Season Five on 2 BR - $34.99

gently caress them. That is not only cheap/lazy using single layer discs but a clear cash grab to rip off Blu-Ray fans.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2010 20:14

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Neo_Reloaded posted:

They are NOT standard def on the BD discs. The source is natively standard def, yes, but they are upscaled to 1080p24 before being authored and they include lossless DTS-HD MA, and that would be bitstarved to hell and back if it was all on one disc. With two discs, they are both probably BD50s. Do you people really think they're in 480p on the discs? Because that's the only way the last 2 or 3 posts make any loving sense.

For a slight price increase ($10 now, wouldn't be surprised if you can get the BDs below $35 by release date or soon after), you get:
- slight convenience of one less disc
- both discs are scratchproof
- lossless DTS-HD MA audio
- pre-upscaled to 1080p24, arguably at slightly better quality than most TVs / players will do on the fly

Are those BIG benefits? No, absolutely not. Are they nonexistent though? Also no. If it's worth it to you, buy it. If it's not - if you feel it's a ripoff, if you only feel right buying a BD if it's in native 1080p, if you have some crazy idea for putting SD shows on one BD disc because you're super lazy and should instead just rip them to your computer because studios are never going to cater to you as it would ruin their BD marketing - then just don't loving buy it.

1) Who cares if they upconverted them to 1080p? It won't do anything since the source is still SD.
2) I would bet you drat near anything that these will be single layer discs. Dual layer discs are more expensive and there is no reason why 6, 21 minute, upconverts with loseless sound would take up more than 25GBs.
3) Think I'm assuming alot? May I direct you to the IASIP Christmas special they already released.

blu-ray.com posted:

It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia makes a truly disappointing first appearance on Blu-ray, with an AVC-encoded transfer that's 1080p in name only. In reality, the standard definition video source material has been upscaled, and actually looks a lot worse than many of my DVDs when I allow my PS3 to do the up-converting for me. I wish I had the DVD of A Very Sunny Christmas on hand to do a side-by-side comparison, but I can't imagine that this Blu-ray iteration looks much better. The image is incredibly soft. Lines are indistinct and unresolved, textures are muddled, and fine detail is non-existent. While there are a few bright, Christmas-y colors, the image is drab, lacks depth, and is prone to a bland haziness. Black levels are soupy and grayish, white highlights are frequently blown out, and contrast is flat and lifeless. Worse yet, artifacts and noise clutter the frame throughout, shadows are susceptible to macroblocking, and both aliasing and ringing are readily apparent. Even for DVD-quality material, this looks quite bad.

HDD posted:

'It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia: A Very Sunny Christmas' debuts on Blu-ray only to show that it's certainly not always sunny on this format. This glorified upconvert (and not even a good one at that...it looks terrible) is presented in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio with an AVC MPEG-4 encode at...ahem..."1080p."

I really wouldn't mind a video looking this ugly if it were, say, an entire season of a standard definition television program jammed onto a single disc (or two if there were extras like commentaries), but when an entire BD25 is wasted on an upconvert and a measly pile of extras, this means war, Fox.

How's it look? Like someone force fed a VHS tape in my Playstation 3. The introduction stated there was a "special" upconvert. Does special now mean ugly as sin, or half-assed and lazy? To put it politely: there are artifacts everywhere. If this were a game of Pacman, where artifacts represented ghosts, you'd be dead before you could gobble a single pellet. Skin tones are unnatural, orangey, and red, there's banding all over the place, and to top it off, there's a barrage of awfully soft shots (especially establishing shots, that are so bad that light-up block letters naming a hospital are illegible) and an all around flat, two dimensional feel.

Whites are poor. Blacks lack any depth. Colors are splotchy. Dark shots (the graveyard sequence) is an utterly dreary abomination that is enough to induce tears. There's no fine object detail as there are no fine objects or detail here. The entire program has a gauze looking grain, much like a checkerboard pattern. This effect doesn't make the fact that there are vertical lines of varying brightness in the picture at random intervals (and by random, I mean frequent).

The video is much like Frank's Christmas gift giving...you are warned upfront it's going to be bad, and then, pow, out of nowhere, it's even worse.

4) How would putting a whole season of a show filmed on SD on one disc ruin their BR marketing? Wouldn't Fox releasing this poo poo and trying to pass it off as 1080p HD would harm their marketing more?

Click here for the full 1920x1080 image.

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jun 22, 2010

# ¿ Jun 22, 2010 22:25

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Neo_Reloaded posted:

Sunny's source is SD and looks like poo poo even for SD, so I don't really know what your quoted reviews are supposed to mean to me. It looks like poo poo? Um, okay, I could have told you that. In my experience, player upscaling on-the-fly introduces a lot of random artifacts that pre-processed upscaling doesn't, but it's certainly an open debate and I'm not trying to say "OMG the pre-upscaled ones look soooo goooood." Though the picture you linked, while pretty lovely from a detail standpoint, is actually pretty free of macroblocking, random lines, and other artifacts that I've seen on a number of on-the-fly upscaling presentations.

To get it on one disc, either they a), leave it in 480p in which case you get people going "DURRRR, my TV says this isn't HD, I want a refund.", or b) they upscale it to 1080p and cram it on one disc and the bitrates are terrible. The fact that it's originally SD means poo poo once it is upscaled - you still need reasonable bitrates so there isn't macroblocking all over the place. 13 episodes + special features is a lot for one BD50. They're also hesitant to put a full season on only one disc as, yes, the perception is that the worth of the set is lowered.

And again, just don't loving buy it. Christ.

What are we arguing about? In one sentence you call it a lovely looking show and in the next you say that it needs "reasonable" bitrates so it doesn't look even more lovely? That they have to upconvert it to 1080p because people will go "DURRR, my TV says this isn't HD, I want a refund" instead of the really obvious "DURRR, this looks like complete poo poo, I want a refund" route.

I don't think that fitting four hours and 20 minutes of SD sourced content with your standard commentaries/SD special features onto a single 50GB Blu-Ray is asking for too much. How much breathing room do you have to give them when 1 50GB Blu-Ray is double the space the whole 3 disc DVD set has?

I don't plan on buying it. Why is it such a big deal to point out how much of a blatant cashgrab/ripoff this is?

# ¿ Jun 23, 2010 00:11

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

Five Cent Deposit posted:

Dunno about that- spoke to one of the editorial crew (won't say which) at a party this weekend and he told me they only did an "extended" cut because they were contractually obligated to. I haven't seen the film, and have no interest in it, so I can't comment on what the flaws might be- more to the point, I didn't talk to him about the film much at all because I had not seen it and wasn't really even curious, but it came up because I asked him when he had finished up and he said he had been working until very recently on putting together the unrated cut. I asked him if it was a Kingdom of Heaven type deal and he said pretty flatly that the studio insisted on it. Sounds like Ridley's preferred cut is the one you saw in the theater, then.

Sounds like the same thing that happened with American Gangster. The theatrical cut was Ridley's preferred cut but he was obligated to add more for the extended cut (which was about 20 minutes longer)

# ¿ Jun 24, 2010 05:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:31

Call Me Charlie: Dec 3, 2005; by Smythe

doctor thodt posted:

The Twilight Zone Season 1 will carry over all of the extras from the DVD set and also include the following brand new special features:

Sounds like a drat good set. Shame about that $100 MSRP.

As soon as that set hits $50, it's mine.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2010 15:07

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The New and Improved Blu-Ray Megathread

«‹›37 »