Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 121
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chuxter View Post
    Good frickin' lord, I don't want to get into this g***** debate again. I merely stated that for those people who can't afford or can't use blu-ray, for those who think it's wasteful to get and throw away electronics every couple of years, or for those who don't plan to re-buy their entire collection and don't see the need to get a new player for just one movie or a small handful of movies, I would hope this is released on DVD. If not, eff Lucas; he doesn't need the money too badly.

    There are people who just don't care, or who don't see enough of a picture improvement to justify even $88 for a new player. It's foolish for the movie companies to be so set on ramming blu-ray down everyone's throats less than a decade after the wide adoption of DVD that they ignore this.

    I've said my point. Continue ridiculing me over some perceived mental defect.
    Wow Chux, breath, I was just messing with you.

    FTR, I will probably not buy these without the theatrical release. Besides, I can just rent 'em from Netflix.

    Chux, honestly if you want the bonus stuff it will likely be available for download from a few nefarious websites, so I wouldn't worry too much about that, we live in the information super duper age.
    May the force be with you.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chuxter View Post
    Good frickin' lord, I don't want to get into this g***** debate again. I merely stated that for those people who can't afford or can't use blu-ray, for those who think it's wasteful to get and throw away electronics every couple of years, or for those who don't plan to re-buy their entire collection and don't see the need to get a new player for just one movie or a small handful of movies, I would hope this is released on DVD. If not, eff Lucas; he doesn't need the money too badly.

    There are people who just don't care, or who don't see enough of a picture improvement to justify even $88 for a new player. It's foolish for the movie companies to be so set on ramming blu-ray down everyone's throats less than a decade after the wide adoption of DVD that they ignore this.

    That said, the original trilogy is one of the very, very few movies that could make me upgrade. However, if it's only sold as a set of all six movies, screw that. The prequels aren't good enough movies for a double-dip.

    I've said my point. Continue ridiculing me over some perceived mental defect.
    Once you actually experience Blu-Ray, you'll find that it's as huge an improvement as it was when we traded up from VHS to DVD. Avatar is especially stunning on Blu-Ray. Plus it's not like one has to throw out or upgrade their entire collection. The format is backwards compatible. The age of DVD is fading, much like VHS did. Especially when you have major releases like the Alien films, Back to the Future films, and now Star Wars Saga to push sales.

    If we followed your line of thought, we'd still be using Dial-Up, 8-Track Tapes, and Cartridge Video Games.
    THE SPY. THE SPACEMAN. THE GODDESS. THE ROBOT. THE GORILLA.

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

  3. #13
    I would have bought this Bluray set anway but seeing that ROTJ deleted scene will have me buying this set asap! I wonder how much more will be on these sets?

    The picture quality is going to rock on these as well. When I saw the SW in Concert, I oticed the high quality video on the screens behind the orchestra and kept thinking that these will be incredible on Bluray. Its cool that the ep 1 Yoda is now the better looking cg Yoda.

    Time to go watch the deleted scene again!

  4. #14
    Well... known Star Wars deleted scenes:

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Scene...from_Star_Wars

    Just as long as Luke's ANH Intro, Camie/Fixer/Biggs/Luke, The Wampa Room, and The Sandstorm Squence are all included, I'll be giddy. Hopefully all of them they can find are. But those especially are pretty major.
    THE SPY. THE SPACEMAN. THE GODDESS. THE ROBOT. THE GORILLA.

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Beast View Post
    The original ones that are on the 2006 DVD's are non-anamorophic ports from the old Laserdisc versions. When he made the SE's, they did restore the original prints, but then it was sliced up for to be used to make the SE cuts. So it probably would require quite a lot of money to do a full-blown restoration on each one of the film's remaining original cut prints and then have it converted to digital. Plus I fully support his artistic choice of not releasing those cuts.
    I understand, it's his property and he can do as he sees fit. Just as my money is my property and I will spend it as I see fit (unless required by law to spend it otherwise). I will just choose not to buy the Blu-Rays, no big deal with my Netflix account. In fact I skipped the LOTR Blu-Ray release because they didn't offer up the extended versions.

    It seems I find myself more and more skipping Blu-Ray and DVD purchases in favor of my Netflix account.
    May the force be with you.

  6. #16
    A'ight... I went a bit overboard. I get sick of the whole shebang with blu-ray and everyone (most a bit more seriously) telling me I've got something wrong with me because I don't think it's a good idea to throw away millions of DVD players for a technology that's already obsolete itself, and that offers a "fake" (for lack of a better term) HD experience with any movie more than a couple of years old. And I'm having a supremely bad day so far.

    Beast, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Honestly, aside from Pixar movies (which do look stunning), every film I've seen on blu-ray winds up looking like it was filmed using one of those crappy cameras they use for soap operas, actually a step backwards, in my opinion. I know I'm a minority, but the blu-rays I've seen (and, yes, they were properly configured on an HD TV) made movies that otherwise look great--Spider-Man and Pirates of the Carribean, most noticeably--appear to be cheap TV shows. (Avatar looked like a bad video game cut scene on both formats. Sorry, the thirty minutes or so I've seen of that movie didn't impress me one bit, visually or story-wise.)

    And a more accurate comparison would be comparing 5.25" floppies to 3.75" floppies--DVD vs blu-ray isn't an actual technology change, but a way of packing more info on the same technology. Though I did switch from VHS to DVD more on the durability of the format than the improved picture and sound; VHS tapes tended to last about three viewings before noticeably degrading.

    Anyhow, now trying to derail this. If I can get a player and the OT for less than $100, I probably will. If they replace Yoda with CG in TPM and clean up some of the shoddy CG in AOTC, I might possibly consider re-getting the prequels. I've already gotten more versions of Star Wars on home video than I can count; at some point, the re-buying just gets old.

    I take that back--if they get rid of the awful new Emperor dialogue in ESB and switch Boba Fett's voice back, keeping the rest of the 1997/2004 changes, I'd buy the set in a heartbeat. Especially if they also give you the option of watching the 2004 version of ROTJ with Hayden removed.
    Last edited by El Chuxter; 08-14-2010 at 05:16 PM.
    Tommy, close your eyes.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chuxter View Post
    A'ight... I went a bit overboard. I get sick of the whole shebang with blu-ray and everyone (most a bit more seriously) telling me I've got something wrong with me because I don't think it's a good idea to throw away millions of DVD players for a technology that's already obsolete itself, and that offers a "fake" (for lack of a better term) HD experience with any movie more than a couple of years old. And I'm having a supremely bad day so far.
    How do you figure that it's a "fake" HD experience?

    You realize that film has a much higher resolution than even Blu-Ray is capable of replicating.

    That goes for old movies as much as it does new movies. Movie film resolution is 24852970 or 14203390. And Blu-Ray, while being close to replicating the original theatrical experience is still only 19201080 on a 1080p TV.
    And a more accurate comparison would be comparing 5.25" floppies to 3.75" floppies--DVD vs blu-ray isn't an actual technology change, but a way of packing more info on the same technology.
    Once again incorrect. It's not about packing more info on the disc.

    It's about being able to capture and present the most accurate theatrical representation.

    VHS - 352576/480 (250 Scan Lines)
    DVD - 720576/480 (500 Scan Lines)
    BLU - 19201080 (1080 Scan Lines)

    So as you can see, it's as much of a leap forward image wise as VHS was to DVD.
    THE SPY. THE SPACEMAN. THE GODDESS. THE ROBOT. THE GORILLA.

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

  8. #18
    Obi-Wan Kenobi: "The Special Edition Versions Are Our Last Hope."

    Yoda: "No. There Is Another."

    “We’ve been working on them for quite a while,” Mr. Lucas said, “but still, there are pipelines. Unfortunately, the recent releases get priority over what we call the classic versions of things.”
    So he's not ruling out releasing the original versions on Blu-Ray. Just not anytiime soon.
    THE SPY. THE SPACEMAN. THE GODDESS. THE ROBOT. THE GORILLA.

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Beast View Post
    How do you figure that it's a "fake" HD experience?

    You realize that film has a much higher resolution than even Blu-Ray is capable of replicating.
    Yes. That's mainly because film is an analog format and thus, in theory, the potential resolution is infinite. The limitations (if you can really use that word) of the resolutions are based upon the devices that are capturing and transmitting the images. However, older movies were filmed using equipment that was unable to use even the resolution possible on film today. To release any such movie in HD means either that A) no alteration has been done, and all the flaws will be painfully obvious, or B) someone has to re-create part of the image digitally. The short of it is that if you're watching, say, The Ed Sullivan Show in HD (to use an example that'd be particularly hyperbolic, and one that you can probably find on your local PBS station if they transmit in HD), it's either going to look horrible, or it's not actually The Ed Sullivan Show that aired 50 years ago. You can't clean it up for HD, you have to basically re-create it.

    Once again incorrect. It's not about packing more info on the disc.

    It's about being able to capture and present the most accurate theatrical representation.

    VHS - 352576/480 (250 Scan Lines)
    DVD - 720576/480 (500 Scan Lines)
    BLU - 19201080 (1080 Scan Lines)
    And how is it able to display so many scan lines, when DVD cannot, and both are discs of the same size that are "played" using a laser beam (regardless of color)? It's the amount of space available. A DVD cannot hold enough data to convey the same number of scan lines that a blu-ray can. The advantage that a blu-ray has is that the data can be stored more densely (IIRC, due to the shorter wavelength of the blue laser) on a blu-ray than on a DVD, thus allowing it to store the same movie in more detail.

    The resulting quality difference is somewhat similar to saving an image as a JPG for the web vs a TIF or PSD for print--for the web, the image has to be saved in a smaller form for quick transmission and display on a wide range of monitors and, thus, has to be compressed in a manner that will result in loss of quality; the print version is usually at 300 or 600 dpi (or, in some cases, higher) and is designed for reproduction in a form that allows far more possible colors than a monitor (theoretically infinite vs millions), and has to be much, much bigger. So you can e-mail a web image easily, but the IT Department at your job might get upset if you try to e-mail an image intended for print without finding some way to compress it first.

    There's also the issue of the actual display. The 72 dpi JPG might look fine if it's printed in a very small size, but is going to look like crap if it's the entire cover of a magazine. And the 300 dpi TIF has to be converted to 72 dpi for most monitors to display it, so there's no advantage to saving all the information on the other 228 dpi if the image is just going to be seen onscreen. (Vector graphics are a totally different animal, but I don't think they've got a counterpart in home video that I'm aware of.)

    So, it is a matter of file size and the available space for the files. (And, also, an issue of TV size--it's going to vary depending on personal tastes, but there's a point where the TV is large enough that blu-ray is definitely the way to go. My TV isn't that big, and I've not got plans or space for a larger one.)

    So as you can see, it's as much of a leap forward image wise as VHS was to DVD.
    Yeah--in fact, more, depending on how you look at it, since you're essentially doubling the quality each time--but it's still an increase in the effectiveness of the same technology. The laser is a different color and therefore a different wavelength, but it's still an optical disc and a laser.
    Tommy, close your eyes.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by El Chuxter View Post
    Yes. That's mainly because film is an analog format and thus, in theory, the potential resolution is infinite. The limitations (if you can really use that word) of the resolutions are based upon the devices that are capturing and transmitting the images. However, older movies were filmed using equipment that was unable to use even the resolution possible on film today. To release any such movie in HD means either that A) no alteration has been done, and all the flaws will be painfully obvious, or B) someone has to re-create part of the image digitally. The short of it is that if you're watching, say, The Ed Sullivan Show in HD (to use an example that'd be particularly hyperbolic, and one that you can probably find on your local PBS station if they transmit in HD), it's either going to look horrible, or it's not actually The Ed Sullivan Show that aired 50 years ago. You can't clean it up for HD, you have to basically re-create it.
    That's not how it works. All one has to do is look at films like the Wizard of Oz.

    It doesn't matter how old the film is, as long as it uses actual movie film stock.

    And regardless of the film stock that was used, it's still going to look better when presented in HD on BLU.

    Because it's going to look more accurately like the true film, and less like video.
    THE SPY. THE SPACEMAN. THE GODDESS. THE ROBOT. THE GORILLA.

    AGENTS OF ATLAS - Returns in Early 2009.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO