|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Dec 26, 2010 0:10:18 GMT -5
Porn. Who wants to see all the pimples, leg hairs, razor burn, surgical scars, stretch marks and such. Without porn, Blu Ray would had die faster then betamax and laserdisc combine  . HD and Blu Ray kinda was the media trend that bucked the needed porn support to thrive. Hell porn needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to be in HD. Also I need to be convinced that DVD needed porn as the PS2 was what helped DVD to be mainstream. |
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 26, 2010 0:46:50 GMT -5
Porn. Who wants to see all the pimples, leg hairs, razor burn, surgical scars, stretch marks and such. Without porn, Blu Ray would had die faster then betamax and laserdisc combine . For the fourth or fifth time, Laserdisc led an innovative and prolific, if occasionally turbulent, life of over twenty years as a viable format. Blu Ray has some time to go before meeting it in longevity. And for the topic, the only content that shouldn't be on Blu Ray is content that has a resolution of less than or equal to 720x480 (basically material shot on SD video). An example of an unnecessary release is the Blu Ray of the Rock/Stone Cold feud that I read about in WWE Current. There's no justification at all for a Blu-Ray release of exclusively-SD content, even if the documentary interviews are in HD the footage of Rock/Stone Cold is all be SD, so the Blu-Ray is essentially empty marketing. |
|
ToyfareMark
Vegeta
A WINNER IS YOU!
In Hutch I trust!
Posts: 9,589 
|
Post by ToyfareMark on Dec 26, 2010 15:13:38 GMT -5
With all the free porn you can find online, I don't see how the Blu Ray format needs it. I remember a few years back the porn industry chose HD-DVD and people thought that meant HD-DVD was gonna win the war.
As for the topic title, I would say there is a ton of movies from the 70's, and 80's, and even 90's that simply don't need to be on Blu. Like I have Ghostbusters on Blu and it really doesn't look very good. Batman 89 looks alright, but then there will be a wide shot of something and the clarity of the picture gives away thats its a bunch of miniatures and such.
But then I'll see an old movie like Patton on BD, and it looks so good that you'd think it was filmed yesterday. I got my mom a 3 disc version of Gone With The Wind on Blu for Xmas, and I can't wait to see how good that looks.
The big exception so far to the 80's movies looking average so far is Back to the Future. They did an amazing job on that, and hopefully Star Wars next year looks awesome as well. But with most 70's/80's movies I would say it would be best to just keep the DVD's and let the Blu player upconvert them.
Just my opinion though, but I really LOVE the Blu Ray format.
|
|
ToyfareMark
Vegeta
A WINNER IS YOU!
In Hutch I trust!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by ToyfareMark on Dec 26, 2010 15:16:56 GMT -5
Without porn, Blu Ray would had die faster then betamax and laserdisc combine . For the fourth or fifth time, Laserdisc led an innovative and prolific, if occasionally turbulent, life of over twenty years as a viable format. Blu Ray has some time to go before meeting it in longevity. And for the topic, the only content that shouldn't be on Blu Ray is content that has a resolution of less than or equal to 720x480 (basically material shot on SD video). An example of an unnecessary release is the Blu Ray of the Rock/Stone Cold feud that I read about in WWE Current. There's no justification at all for a Blu-Ray release of exclusively-SD content, even if the documentary interviews are in HD the footage of Rock/Stone Cold is all be SD, so the Blu-Ray is essentially empty marketing. I think its ok to release old WWF/E stuff on Blu in SD if only to fit a ton of stuff onto a single disc. Many people may not know this, but the capacity for Blu's are gonna increase as time goes by. Eventually we'll get 500 gig Blu's and the like, and all we'll need to do to view them is simply a firmware update. We'll see what happens. |
|
|
|
Post by GuyOfOwnage on Dec 26, 2010 15:31:37 GMT -5
Eventually we'll get 500 gig Blu's and the like, and all we'll need to do to view them is simply a firmware update. We'll see what happens. Not true. All current hardware is incompatible with any Blu-ray disc over 50GB, and no firmware update can fix that. You'd need entirely new players and disc drives to play them. Oh, and as for the original question, I'm almost certain it begins and ends with this recent release:  |
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,700
|
Post by Legion on Dec 26, 2010 15:56:13 GMT -5
Frankly any film that wasnt designed specifically for HD.
I don't see the point of buying a Blu Ray of a film that isnt something actually designed to see in HD, unlike Avatar or Prince of Persia, or Inception, where there are so many big effects and stuff, and the HD is worth it.
Watching something with little to no effects in HD, at the cost of Blu Rays currently, is totally pointless.
Plus they made the damn boxes smaller, so they dont fit on the shelf properly!
|
|
MCMGM
Vegeta
WC's Official Jeff Buckley Stalkeress.
Red Sonic My Ass
Posts: 9,184
|
Post by MCMGM on Dec 26, 2010 16:02:28 GMT -5
Troll 2. Just, why?
|
|
Phosphor Glow
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Is a real girl!
Posts: 19,870 
|
Post by Phosphor Glow on Dec 26, 2010 16:18:15 GMT -5
I'm going to say that the only films that don't really need a BR release are ones mentioned above -- Blair Witch, etc. Any other movie, regardless of how mundane or silly, could always benefit from the HD upgrade. As a fellow Blu Ray enthusiast, nothing irks me more than getting so used to watching a movie or two in nice, solid HD, and then having to jump back to SD to watch something else. They look so blurry and stupid. Even a movie like Major League, which I just got on BR a week ago, looks immaculately better on the format than the old DVD. Not to mention Blu Ray gives more room for special features, more bonus documentaries and such. I live for that stuff. As well as the easier-to-use BR menus, which can be accessed mid-movie rather than having to stop. Blu-Ray Live features are always fun too. BR is just so much more of an experience, vs. "watching a movie" on DVD. I agree with this completely. Obviously you can't improve the old picture that much, but upping the resolution makes everything look SO much better on an HDTV. SD stuff on an HDTV looks like you're watching a jpeg with sound. |
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Dec 26, 2010 20:54:57 GMT -5
|
|
ToyfareMark
Vegeta
A WINNER IS YOU!
In Hutch I trust!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by ToyfareMark on Dec 27, 2010 4:24:25 GMT -5
Eventually we'll get 500 gig Blu's and the like, and all we'll need to do to view them is simply a firmware update. We'll see what happens. Not true. All current hardware is incompatible with any Blu-ray disc over 50GB, and no firmware update can fix that. You'd need entirely new players and disc drives to play them. Oh, and as for the original question, I'm almost certain it begins and ends with this recent release: Pioneer says screw the rules! digitimes.com/news/a20081201PD212.htmlScroll down a little. They made a 400 gig Blu Ray disc that CAN be played on current players. |
|
|
|
Post by SenorCrest on Dec 27, 2010 13:54:21 GMT -5
Not true. All current hardware is incompatible with any Blu-ray disc over 50GB, and no firmware update can fix that. You'd need entirely new players and disc drives to play them. Oh, and as for the original question, I'm almost certain it begins and ends with this recent release: Pioneer says screw the rules! digitimes.com/news/a20081201PD212.htmlScroll down a little. They made a 400 gig Blu Ray disc that CAN be played on current players. That's insane. What are they going to put in there? box sets? |
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Dec 27, 2010 17:07:06 GMT -5
Frankly any film that wasnt designed specifically for HD. I don't see the point of buying a Blu Ray of a film that isnt something actually designed to see in HD, unlike Avatar or Prince of Persia, or Inception, where there are so many big effects and stuff, and the HD is worth it. An extremely popular misconception. Anything filmed on real cinema quality film (eg 35mm, 70mm) is by default at a much higher resolution than even 1080p, and, as long as the original negatives are in good shape and the transfer is handled well, then classic films are capable of receiving surprisingly significant upgrades. What is pointless for Blu-ray, however, at least from a PQ stand-point is anything filmed in SD via digital format (so a lot of television and some movies from the 90's and the early part of this decade). Those can't receive an upgrade much more significant than an upscaled DVD. |
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Dec 27, 2010 17:12:18 GMT -5
The ONLY type of film I use Blu Ray for are Big extravagant movies like Batman, Spiderman, Expendibles, Stuff that benefits the Visual/Audio upgrade.
I just get the rest of regular DVD
|
|
The QC Loser
Hank Scorpio
Come on follow my Twitter I'm cool!
Posts: 6,241
|
Post by The QC Loser on Dec 27, 2010 18:27:15 GMT -5
With Blu Rays becoming cheaper and cheaper I usually end up just buying them anyways regardless.
|
|
AFN: Judge Shred
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wanted to change his doohicky.
Member of The Bluetista Buyers Club
Posts: 18,221
|
Post by AFN: Judge Shred on Dec 27, 2010 23:39:53 GMT -5
The U2 film, Rattle and Hum. Most of it is black and white which isn't really enhanced by the higher format. Actually, black and white stuff looks freaking fantastic on blu-ray. |
|
TheDieselTrain
Fry's dog Seymour
Chicks Dig Hootie.
Is Stone Cold gonna have to smack a bitch?? WHAT!!!?????
Posts: 23,724
|
Post by TheDieselTrain on Dec 27, 2010 23:49:28 GMT -5
I've been thinking about getting the Rocky Collection on blu ray since its $39. Should I bother?
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 27, 2010 23:52:37 GMT -5
Eventually we'll get 500 gig Blu's and the like, and all we'll need to do to view them is simply a firmware update. We'll see what happens. Not true. All current hardware is incompatible with any Blu-ray disc over 50GB, and no firmware update can fix that. You'd need entirely new players and disc drives to play them. Oh, and as for the original question, I'm almost certain it begins and ends with this recent release: I think that the screenshots for Troll 2 look amazing. I'll pick it up when it dips below $5. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Dec 27, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
I've been thinking about getting the Rocky Collection on blu ray since its $39. Should I bother? I would. |
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,149
|
Post by agent817 on Dec 28, 2010 0:13:09 GMT -5
You know, in some ways, I feel that for some, I would rather buy a DVD on the side in case I were to want to share a movie with some people. Not everybody these days has a Blu-Ray player. I remember months ago, I got The Losers on DVD for my birthday. I ended up selling it and buying the Blu-Ray version (Which has a DVD/Digital Copy with it). I guess I like getting the Blu-Ray/DVD combo packs because there are also times when I would like to share with people or if I were to take it on a trip. But I don't know. It was kind of the same thing early this past decade when DVD was taking over and VHS was still prevalent. Feels like history is repeating itself with getting a DVD version over a Blu-Ray version.
|
|
TheDieselTrain
Fry's dog Seymour
Chicks Dig Hootie.
Is Stone Cold gonna have to smack a bitch?? WHAT!!!?????
Posts: 23,724
|
Post by TheDieselTrain on Dec 28, 2010 0:26:22 GMT -5
I've been thinking about getting the Rocky Collection on blu ray since its $39. Should I bother? I would. I've been fighting it for a while but I guess I can give my dvds to my bro since im probably gonna get squat if I sell it back to movie stop or something. |
|
.
