|
|
Post by Xч on May 30, 2011 18:01:22 GMT -5
Bluray is absolutely necessary and a much needed improvement! Why are you saying this Leatherface? The only reason they were made is because the discs used for DVDs were inferior. They really didnt have any space on them. The compression they needed just to fit a mere 90 minute movie was ridiculous. The audio and visual were so compressed onto hat one little disc, that there was no true clarity in the picture. Bluray opens everything up. The sound of a movie is much richer and authentic to the recordings of it in the recording studio. The picture is basically as is was shot. The director wanted us to view it this way. They are thrilled about this new viewing experience really bringing their hard work to life.
The only thing DVDs had over Bluray is that 99% of the transfers had no issues. Especially played on a standard round back TV. All the transfers were just as they were on VHS but better. The downside of Bluray is that some transfers are amazing and some are a train wreck... you never know what youre gonna get.
As far as saying they are all bad because they are too perfect and take away the feel of the movie, that is BS. The only thing that does that is the cameras used to shoot the movies of today. When you dont use real film but instead digital cameras, you loose that filter that film provided to make it look like a movie. When things are like that they are too clear and you feel like youre really there and its just people acting. One perfect example of this is the movie Crazies remake. Even on DVD that movie looked too clear and fake. Same goes for the new Alice in Wonderland.
So it has nothing to do with Bluray. Seeing something in a clear focus and not compressed does nothing but enhance the movie experience. A perfect example is Friday the 13th Part 2. That movie looks exactly as the DVD but with more clarity and richer tones. The total feel of the 80's is intact.
The reason you NEED a Bluray player is because flatscreen TVs really show the poor quality of a DVD in general. Especially for older movies. They dont sell round back TVs anymore or at least they dont make them anymore. You will eventually have to upgrade. This is a strange debate because its like saying cassette tapes are better than CD's |
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on May 30, 2011 18:27:45 GMT -5
I love watching sports in full HD. It isn't just for movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on May 30, 2011 18:37:59 GMT -5
I am surprised that Anchor Bay/Starz isn't all over that for H4 and H5. That said, both films look flat and likely wouldn't be improved upon. |
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on May 30, 2011 18:40:17 GMT -5
I am curious to see 4 in HD.
|
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on May 30, 2011 18:45:12 GMT -5
That's what it was an LED tv, when I saw a blu ray film on LED it looked awful.
Im all for advancing technology but when you take away the charm and feel of a movie experience... youre going too far. Thank God Blurays on LCD TVs dont do that.
Id hate to watch everything in shitty 480p all my life  |
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on May 30, 2011 19:03:05 GMT -5
I am surprised that Anchor Bay/Starz isn't all over that for H4 and H5. That said, both films look flat and likely wouldn't be improved upon. I also doubt that H5 can be improved on, as it looks like a TV movie. The middle trilogy was shot in flat instead of scope though, so they can likely only do so much to improve the picture quality. However, I am still curious to see how it turns out. |
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on May 30, 2011 19:04:08 GMT -5
4 did have that look too but if you ask me it worked well for 4 but I agree with you on 5. The quality on 5 would look weird. But wasn't 3 filmed the same way as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on May 30, 2011 19:19:35 GMT -5
Nope, the first three are in scope, as well as H20 and Resurrection. Zombie's movies were filmed in 16mm, but RZH was altered for release against his wishes. The visual style of RZH2 is amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on May 30, 2011 19:21:19 GMT -5
How was RZH1 altered and taht is a positive thing i can say about RZH2, Zombie is a great director and has an eye for great visuals. It definitelyshows in RZH2
|
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on May 30, 2011 20:06:52 GMT -5
It was shot in 1:85:1, but the studio blew it up to 2:35:1 against Zombie's wishes. Typical Weinstein's......
|
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on May 30, 2011 20:28:39 GMT -5
Why would they do that for 1 but not 2?
|
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on May 31, 2011 5:29:14 GMT -5
I still use DVDs when I transfer over VHS tapes. They are cool. But I would rather have BluRay with bought movies. I dont mind transfers from VHS because you cant turn 360p into 720p anyway. So it still has its purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on May 31, 2011 8:06:47 GMT -5
there are some films ( well a lot actually) that are only on VHS and are pretty rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on May 31, 2011 13:50:56 GMT -5
For instance, a little known film called Class Of '44 that my parents were extras in because it was filmed at their high school. I had to go on eBay to get a copy of it for them, and there was only a few copies for sale.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leatherface on Jun 1, 2011 7:39:17 GMT -5
Ya I understand what you mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zombified Jeremy on Jun 30, 2011 18:34:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jlaw on Jul 1, 2011 7:07:55 GMT -5
Sounds good, I preordered on Amazon after your link Jeremy. God, the cover is rubbish though. It has a Rob Zombie Halloween feel to it. I wish they'd do reversible covers. Have these new shitty ones to market to people of today and on the flip side, have the original cover art for the die hards.
$13.99 on Amazon.
|
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on Jul 1, 2011 7:08:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jlaw on Jul 1, 2011 7:10:52 GMT -5
I know man. That was the mock up for it and I really hoped it would be the final cover. Oh well, seeing this film in HD with actual extras is what I'm pumped about it, but it would have been nice to have that little extra something to make this a perfect release.
Type in Halloween II Blu-ray and it'll be #13 at the moment on Amazon.
|
|
|
|
Post by d3M0n on Sept 16, 2011 17:48:45 GMT -5
Video review: When it comes to catalog releases, Universal has a reputation for repurposing outdated masters plagued by texture-damning noise reduction and egregious edge enhancement. Fortunately, Halloween II seems to have escaped (largely) unscathed. I didn't notice any signs of substantial smearing, ringing or other symptoms of overzealous DNR and EE, and haphazard digital manipulation and unsightly encoding anomalies aren't an issue. It's still wise to approach the sequel's 1080p/AVC-encoded video transfer with appropriate expectations -- only so much can be done with Dean Cundey's intermittently soft, shadow-slathered photography -- but the presentation's highs outnumber its lows, and then some. Colors and skintones are pleasing and well-saturated, the ol' red sticky stuff packs particular punch, black levels are satisfying throughout, and fine detail is, by and large, surprisingly crisp, clean and precisely resolved. Again, there are a variety of shots and less-exacting scenes that will no doubt disappoint those hoping for a razor-sharp image, but those who understand the inherent limitations of the film's source won't criticize Universal's efforts. (Much.) Moreover, artifacting and banding are nowhere to be found, grain is intact and unobtrusive, and aberrant noise and troubling crush are kept to a bare minimum. The only issue of note? White specks, dark pocks, tiny burns, split-second squiggles (for lack of a better term), faint horizontal blue splotches and other minor nicks and scratches pepper the original print material, surging and relenting time and time again. To be fair, a complete overhaul by way of a frame-by-frame restoration would be required to properly eliminate all the pesky print damage, the cost of which I would imagine is extremely prohibitive. (Especially for a critically panned '80s horror-franchise sequel.) As such, this is probably the best Halloween II will ever look. Still, if comparisons to the Blu-ray edition's standard DVD counterpart are any indication, that isn't nearly as bad as it might sound.
Audio review: Halloween II hobbles onto Blu-ray without a single lossless audio mix. Instead, it offers two lossy options: a hit-or-miss 768kbps DTS Processed 5.1 surround track (that never quite capitalizes on the soundscape's potential) and a flat but reasonably faithful DTS 2.0 track. Dialogue is clear and intelligible in each one, but voices sometimes sound tinny, muffled or, in the worst of cases, both. Even so, the stereo track is the way to go, especially for purists; the processed 5.1 mix is too uneven to provide a very nuanced or immersive experience. Rear speaker activity is decent but unreliable, scrambling to snatch up obvious effects and music cues while leaving others languishing at the front of the soundfield. Low-end output is a tad disappointing as well. While the LFE channel certainly lumbers in for many a kill, it lacks finesse and power, and ultimately leaves something to be desired. It's serviceable; I'll give it that, but I wouldn't give it much more. I recommend sticking with the stereo mix. Unless lossy audio is a deal breaker, of course...LINK
|
|
