|
Post by A Dubya (El Hombre Muerto) on Dec 28, 2010 0:44:10 GMT -5
Porn. Who wants to see all the pimples, leg hairs, razor burn, surgical scars, stretch marks and such. I would
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,710
|
Post by Legion on Dec 28, 2010 19:18:24 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. My point was more that unless a film has effects that warrent seeing something in HD, what is the point shelling out the extra cash? So it looks a bit clearer? Sorry, I dont sit close enough to the TV to notice that much and dont have the money to go upgrading when I have so many DVDs. I have started getting some films in duel release if they come in fancy boxes, but I retain that there isn't a need for HD unless the film is 'big enough' to warrent proper HD.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Dec 28, 2010 19:46:40 GMT -5
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. My point was more that unless a film has effects that warrent seeing something in HD, what is the point shelling out the extra cash? So it looks a bit clearer? Sorry, I dont sit close enough to the TV to notice that much and dont have the money to go upgrading when I have so many DVDs. I have started getting some films in duel release if they come in fancy boxes, but I retain that there isn't a need for HD unless the film is 'big enough' to warrent proper HD. My thought is why not have the best possible representation for everything? Especially as even 1080p is still a compromised representation of most feature films, to say nothing of how audio on DVD is routinely handicapped by low bitrates. And speaking of which films benefit most, large format (eg. 70mm) films from the 1950s-1960s receive far more benefit from the added resolution than today's digital product.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Dec 28, 2010 19:46:49 GMT -5
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. My point was more that unless a film has effects that warrent seeing something in HD, what is the point shelling out the extra cash? So it looks a bit clearer? Sorry, I dont sit close enough to the TV to notice that much and dont have the money to go upgrading when I have so many DVDs. I have started getting some films in duel release if they come in fancy boxes, but I retain that there isn't a need for HD unless the film is 'big enough' to warrent proper HD. clarity is just part of it(along with color saturation, etc). Another big thing for me, but then again, I'm a film freak, is that *most* blu-rays are presented in their original aspect ratio, whereas a lot of DVDs(especially classic & foreign releases) change the aspect ratio, cutting and stretching the film all up. Blu-Rays have been, so far, pretty much the definitive releases for many films, save for the actual cinema experience.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,710
|
Post by Legion on Dec 29, 2010 16:19:05 GMT -5
Well, it's fair enough, but I stand by my point that unless a film warrents HD, I have no interest in paying extra to get it in HD.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Dec 29, 2010 16:21:40 GMT -5
Well, it's fair enough, but I stand by my point that unless a film warrents HD, I have no interest in paying extra to get it in HD. Oh for sure. A lot depends on it's DVD history, and the quality of the BD transfer. Sometimes it's a pretty significant upgrade, while otherwise it's minimal.
|
|
Jay Peas 42
El Dandy
Totally flips out ALL the time.
Is looking forward to a Nation of Domination Kwannza Special.
Posts: 8,329
|
Post by Jay Peas 42 on Dec 29, 2010 22:03:24 GMT -5
I've become very cheap on Video Media in recent years. Most Blu Rays will drop $10-15 in price in about 3 to 6 months after release. If I still care enough, I'll buy it then.
|
|