Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site Polls' started by rhett, Nov 8, 2008.
parts 4, 5 & 6 for me!
Totally disagree. Uncompressed, hi-def video and audio is indeed superior in movie viewing.
Laserdisc had everything wrong with it. Compressed, non-anamorphic video (which caused a lot of video noise); uncompressed analog stereo audio; movies being split (30-60 minutes max per side); freeze-frame only for CAV format LDs...I mean, come on, it was only a matter of time before another format perfected what was always a faulty format.
I enjoy(ed) laserdiscs because simply, they were cool and the only source (at that time) of watching movies in their proper aspect ratio. I like the look of them, the 12" sleeve art. Cool, in my opinion. And there is a significant number of movies that still haven't reached DVD yet, as well as exclusive extras that did not crossover to the DVD release of a particular title (ex: Jack Lemmon's audio commentary on Glengarry Glen Ross, not on the DVD).
Blu-ray does not have a number of blatant, significant faults like the laserdisc did.
Blu-ray ain't going nowhere but to the top!
A more accurate answer for me would be "None (I don't like the series enough to want to own it)".
Now that I think about it though, I did like "Part 2" a lot so maybe I would pick that one up. Not until it's down to around $10 though. Although I have a blu ray player in my PS3 I'm not going crazy buying discs until the prices come down. I only remember too well spending $25-$30 for DVDs back in the late 90's that you can get for under 10 bucks now.
I would vote for all of them, but they would have to all be uncut. That will probably never happen.
I couldn't agree more. Blu-ray's not going anywhere. I mean, the future is high definition. People are replacing their old tube TVs for HDTVs, there's HD sports channels, HD movie channels, videogame consoles that support HD...I mean, there's something in HD for everyone. Movies are coming out left right and centre on blu-ray. It's certainly kicking off faster than DVD did, that's for sure. Look at what's been slated for 2009:
- Taxi Driver
- Friday the 13th (uncut and with HD special features. Damn sounds like Paramount's gonna be good to us with this release!)
- Gone With the Wind
- The Wizard of Oz
- An American in Paris
- A Star is Born
- Ghostbusters I and II
- The Bird With the Crystal Plumage
- Dead & Buried
- Spinal Tap
Fox announced (these titles are all set for release in 2009):
- The French Connection I and II
- Passion of the Christ
- The Seven-Year Itch
- Donnie Darko
- Raging Bull
Paramount has also hinted at:
- Star Trek feature films
- Deep Impact
- The Ten Commandments
- Sunset Boulevard
- Apocalypse Now
- Breakfast at Tiffany's
- Saturday Night Fever
- The Elephant Man
I know Paramount recently remastered Chinatown and Flashdance as special editions c ouple years ago. They look bloody fantastic. And Breakfast at Tiffany's and Sunsent Boulevard were just recently remastered this year (and look amazing in standard def), so a blu-ray release of these films doesn't seem too far off.
Yeah, blu-ray's not gonna go anywhere but up. I can't think of a single flaw this format has. I mean, uncompressed audio, uncompressed video...longer movies can be put on ONE disc (even DVD had flippers or double-discs for overly-long films).
And wow, hurry up and pre-order the Friday the 13th blu-ray on amazon. $21.95!
Hate to break it to you, man, but Blu-Ray is compressed. It's just a better codec on a bigger disc.
Okay, sure it's somewhat compressed. However, the image is smooth, it has the flowing characteristics that film has, it has a resolution MUCH MUCH closer to film stock (probably has about the same resolution as 16mm film, anyway). But that better codec on a bigger disc allows for MUCH MUCH less compression than DVD. (Hence, on a good proper blu-ray transfer, you do not get digital artifacts, an aspect of compression.) Sure, they're compressed but seriously not by much.
(And this isn't directed at you personally, this is more of an observation):
I just don't get why people seem to knock blu-ray so much. Jesus Christ, do people not like quality? They'll bitch and moan about the lack of special features that they've already seen for movies they already know everything about. I mean, if your memory is THAT bad, okay I guess you'll need a documentary to refresh your memory. But it's the pointless shit like photo galleries, talent bios and dumb shit like that, that get dropped from blu-ray releases because people generally don't give a shit about stuff like that. I mean, what would be your main reason to upgrade a film on blu-ray? It'd be a sad fact that the only reason a person would upgrade to high definition would be only for the special features. I mean, would someone take a feature-laden DVD with shoddy image quality over an edition with few special features but outstanding image quality? The whole concept makes absolutely no sense to me. People seem to rank special features over the film itself.
Someone on another forum (when they heard that Friday part 1 was coming out on blu-ray) said that blu ray sucks and fuck Paramount for putting it out on blu-ray, that they should only put it out on DVD etc etc..I seriously couldn't wrap my head around this guy's logic. It boggles the fucking mind.
Then people will have the nerve to bitch about Paramount not releasing all the Friday films at once. I mean, shit would you rather them push all the releases out and not take the time to give us 5.1 tracks, newly remastered transfers, better docs? Let them take their course. Be happy we're at least getting PART 1 on blu-ray for Christ's sake. And uncut! Part 2 and 3 (and the others) will most likely eventually follow. Blu-ray's really starting to catch on, maybe Paramount will release the other titles later next year, closer to Halloween. Sure we'll have to wait, but the wait will be worth it if Paramount's remastering the films. (And if they're coming out on blu-ray, they'll most certainly be new transfers.) Because seriously, what horror franchise does Paramount own that's more popular than Friday the 13th? Nothing. In terms of horror sales, Friday the 13th is quite profitable for Paramount and if they're gonna release any horror series on blu-ray it'll be Friday the 13th. Just be patient. People are so quick to criticize.
Paramount's Friday series took four years to fully make it onto DVD, so I'm at least used to the wait. Matt was right on with his observation that virtually all home formats (television, video games, etc.) have converted to HD, and just the term itself is a catch phrase that is really pushing television sales and media sales in general. Even if most people don't really care about that extra bit of quality, it's basically being force fed to everyone, so it's only a matter of time. You can't resist the current forever. At my Best Buy, front and center when you walk through the door is the Blu-ray rack, and it's already about a quarter of the size of the DVD rack. By comparison, I'd never even seen a LaserDisc in store growing up. The fact that Blu-ray is backwards compatible with DVD ensures it won't be like LaserDisc either, since it'll just be a companion format that won't demand you upgrade everything if you want to stick to one player.
Longevity will be insured by the fact that the discs themselves are beneficial upgrades to those not in the movie business. The discs hold five times more than DVDs. Burners are already sub-$200. It's a no brainer that the format will be embraced for archival purposes. The prices of discs are dropping all the time, and really, it's going to take a large chunk out of the portable hard drive market. For LaserDisc, there was no pracitcal way to make the format of use as anything other than a video disc. Imagine having an LD burner in your computer tower. Blu-rays will be very important for the computer market as well, so the pressure isn't 100% on the film industry to make the format succeed. In many eyes it already has.
Sony's putting millions of dollars into pumping these things as the big Christmas toy this year, and coupled with all the hype behind the biggest film since Titanic, The Dark Knight, flaunting the format, I'd say Blu-ray's future is looking pretty rosy. Me? I'm fine to keep most of my collection on DVD, but it's nice knowing that Blu-ray will be around to upgrade all my favorites like Halloween, Friday the 13th, Red Desert, etc. for a long time to come.
Disc media will probably be dead the next time a new format rolls around, so if you're waiting for that you might never see it. Looking at the way solid state technology is always growing in size and dropping in price, surely that has to be the future.
Hehe, Red Desert.
Sadly I'm region-crippled when it comes to blu-ray...
I probably wouldn't spring for a Blu-ray box set. If released separately though, I'd buy the first four without hesitation!
Compression is compression, man. Film has a resolution of about 6000 to 8000 lines of resolution, Blu-Ray has a little over 1000. You would need a few TB HDD arrays to watch a fully uncompressed film.
I'm not arguing with Blu-Ray at all. I'm just trying to make sure everyone is on the same page with their terminology.
Parts 2, 3, and Jason X have always been my favorites.
I would be happy to have them released in Superbit (that goes for all dvds). That will improve the quality for all dvds. Without having the expense of replacing everything!
Meh, Superbit is in the past. Bring on the blu-rays!
Exactly, Blu-ray is great but I've been to digital intermediate sessions and it's then that you realize that there is a difference when something gets compressed, Blu-ray is still awesome, but it is still very compressed.
Right, and in reality, even if there were an uncompressed way to view films, you're still taking something on one medium and transferring it to another. The highest commercial (that I know of) way to transfer film to digital only scans in a 4k resolution, costs a lot of money, and takes up a shitload of space. So going by my earlier numbers, you're losing 2-4k lines of resolution going from film to tape. At some point in the near future, we will be looking at uncompressed movies, most likely shot digitally on direct-to-drive solid-state technology and resolutions that far exceed that of film.
The only way you really notice the difference between HD and a reel of 35mm film is when it's projected on larger screens, like a theatre. For the size of a television in a person's home, the difference is minimal to non-existent.
I will agree though that when projecting a film in say, a theatre, there's no comparison between HD and 35mm film. 35mm wins hands down. But on a small screen, you're not going to notice a difference because the lines are so close together anyways that you really don't lose out on resolution. (Like when you transfer a DVD to your iPod. The screen is so small anyways, the films look razor sharp.)
What I meant was that by going from something like 480p to 1080p, we've jumped much closer to the resolution of film. Sure we're still far off, but it was a huge jump.
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
I'm going to disagree with you and say that yes, you won't notice the difference unless you know what you're missing. I'm forgetting my numbers now, but the contrast ratio of DVD and Blu-ray is a fraction that of film.