ElectricTriangle

Okay, have we actually confirmed that Guardians didn't have a slight greenish tint in 2d theaters? I saw in theaters, but our eyes adjust to blanket tints really quickly, and it's entirely likely that it had this slight bit of greenness which was removed for the 3d showing as part of the brightening they did.

It would be really strange of them to introduce it on the bluray for no reason. I'm guessing it was always there and we didn't notice.

That's really cool. I'm wondering what the point of all the open matte films at the bottom of the list is? There were tons and tons of films (way more than this list) released open matte on DVD home-video, but they were clearly composed for widescreen.

Also, the filmed in (*) doesn't seem to make much sense. For some films (like On the Waterfront) it marks the aspect ratio the film was composed for, but on others (like BTTF and the films at the bottom) is marks the tallest aspect ratio available from the filming format regardless if the film was ever meant to be seen that way.

For the whole Kubrick thing (The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut) I believe the consensus is that he composed for widescreen, but he approved open Matte transfers for CRT home video because he didn't like black bars (he was a strange guy).

It's a very nice list. I had no idea that Star Trek 6 used the Univisium aspect for the DVD.

TheHutt said:

Well, I guess that makes my audio rather redundant. :)

 Not your mondo sync. It's wonderful. Definitely the best way to watch the film. Actually, if the extended scenes are now dubbed differently, it would be neat to see the mondo sync with the new changes.

This is a little bit off topic, but I'm curious. How was the music handled at the end of the film in theaters?

On the MGM disc the music continues after "the end" over the modern extended credits. On the Mondo, the music sort just abruptly fades out after "fine." Was it like this in the theatrical version or did it continue over a blank screen?

Wikipedia says (and my memory somewhat confirms) that George Carlin also redubed series one and two.

That would mean there are three dubs for the first two series: George Carlin and the UK/US Ringo.

TV's Frink said:

Out again all last night.  This morning it was out until I cleared my cache on my phone.  Seems like the cache thing works for a while, until it doesn't work and I have to do it again.

And I haven't been able to get on with my PC in who knows how long.

 Switch your DNS servers to google DNS. ( I can't send the link because I'm on a phone, but search "using google DNS") This should hopefully fix it.

The bluray AND DVD look vastly different from poita's theatrical print.

poita said:

Right click and 'view image' to compare to the Bluray. You can see the colour changes and smoothing that the BD restoration has caused.

 Dang! I see your scanning is coming along quite nicely. That is a beautiful image.

Youtube compression eats up everything, but if you told me that was a new scan, I would believe it. I can't notice any alignment problems; it really looks great!

I would like to see this 480p image that is claimed to be higher resolution than a 1080p, I am not sure I am getting this.   But I said I am no expert, I will trust that it is so.

 The point he's trying to make is that a shitty HD TV will look worse than a good SD one. Resolution is not the most important aspect of your TV set, and 4k is somewhat of a marketing gimmick right now.

It's labeled "4k?"

Clearly official.

There is no official disk based media for 4k yet. The "mastered in 4k" refers to how they were scanned; they are 1080p disks. I  think Netflix offers a tiny bit of content in 4k, but there is no way you can get that on a"somewhat crappy internet connection."

Just don't get a 4k TV.

blaice said:

QUERY 2:
Is there any upside to directly muxing the 17.8gb MKV to BD ISO and putting the resulting directory on a blank BD rather than getting the reduced AVCHD for DVD? The drop in size from 18gb to 8gb seems intense but I have little esoteric knowledge in this area so I thought I'd ask. (Is it similar to the audiophile argument between FLAC and 320kbps when most find no discernible difference etc?)

The bigger encode should look somewhat better, but its not a huge difference. The other difference between the two is lossless audio and foreign dubs. If you want those, burn a BD. If not, the AVCHD is fine (and is ready to burn.)

SilverWook said:

The Ms. Pac Man machine at my local movie theater looks weird with an 16:9 LCD panel mounted in the cabinet.

 Who did that? That's terrible! Those games were expressly designed with CRT display technology in mind.

hairy_hen said:

The Lowry stuff definitely didn't happen until 2004.

The reason that shot in particular looks so bad in the official release is because it is one of those Harmy alluded to earlier: scanned into the computer using outdated 90's film scanning technology, composited into frame along with outdated 90's CGI, printed out to film, then rescanned into the computer again in 2004 and subjected to additional degraining for the Lowry process.  It has been through significantly more generation loss and destructive processing than a typical projection print, as exemplified by the -1 scan.

The whole movie doesn't look that bad, just the parts that have been through all the stages of crappy digital alteration.

Film, to a 2k scan, add cgi, to film, to another 2k scan and then Lowryized. Whew! Then add in poor color grading for good measure.

Wouldn't this type of generational loss include almost every scene that was digitally altered in 97 and then not redone in the 2004 edition?

Lowry didn't come into the picture until the 2004 discs. The 97 edition is Lowery free.

Edit: Actually, the laserdiscs have early DNR just like the GOUT, but the film prints are DNR free.

That was the whole "Lowery process," wasn't it? DNR the whole thing and then regrain it to hide the fact that there is less detail.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

ElectricTriangle said:

At least on my end, your links for Star Wars and Jedi are 1024x685 rather than the 1730x1146 that Empire is.

They're definitely 1730X1146 (I think SW and Jedi are slightly bigger than that actually.) It's your browser settings. When you first open them up your browser won't show them full-size, depending on what browser you use - something like IE will do that. So, after you open them up click on them to make them full-size. The ones you linked will do the exact same thing, because they're identical files. Your browser must be auto-sizing them to fit your screen dimensions.

Figured it out. If i click the link it redirects to "imagizer.imageshack.us" which gives me a low-res preview image (For Star Wars and Jedi, but strangely not not Empire). If I change the domain to "img242.imageshack.us," then it gives me the full-res file. Same in Chrome and Firefox. Imageshack is odd.

At least on my end, your links for Star Wars and Jedi are 1024x685 rather than the 1730x1146 that Empire is.

Stinky-Dinkins said:

Handman said:

Stinky Dinkins, I've got those same covers, but I don't know what that inside art is. What is it?

They're some art I found in another thread on here a while back. I'm more than a little buzzed so I have no clue what thread it was, but I think it was some Japanese manga art or something? Makes for a fucking killer interior cover though.  I saved the images when I found them because I liked the way they looked, here are the links if you want 'em:

http://imageshack.com/a/img537/4052/jT14y6.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img742/2069/EiHovD.jpg

http://imageshack.com/a/img674/2022/Zojzuv.jpg

Those are the full-sized images as I found them, so you just have to crop 'em a little bit if you're going to make them BD cover-sized.

 Here's links to all of them in Hires (Jedi and Star Wars are low res in the above links)

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/1141/japanhvj6.jpg

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9906/japesbil9.jpg

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/6638/japrotjcn4.jpg

davextreme said:

"should I be able to hear the difference from an average mp3 there?"

For a high-quality MP3, probably not. Some can.

There have been tons of tests on this, and the answer is that even with very good equipment most listeners can't tell the difference between a good mp3/AAC file and a higher-quality file in AB and ABX tests (where you listen to multiple clips blind and then have to identify which is which). This infuriates audiophiles who've spent fortunes on good equipment, but the science is there.

You want lossless sources of course so you can manipulate them without without introducing error, but for almost all listeners, compression is fine. (I know I'l have people chime in saying "I can hear it." Maybe you really can, but I'd wager if you took an ABX test under scientific conditions, you'd be surprised.)

 This is very true; the whole idea behind lossy compression that the "lost bits" are parts people wouldn't be hearing anyway.  Decent audio equipment is still a good idea. Even though you can't differentiate between a CD and a mp3, you might as well have them both sound good.

That’s so cool that the LD got a unreleased audio track. H_h, your posts are always so interesting and well informed.

Those test shots of Aliens look promising.

Does anyone have the original French audio track from La Femme Nikita (1990)? The Bluray has only a 5.1 mix.

I just watched this. I just wanted to mention that I really like the new logo at the beginning. Very cool.

nirbateman said:

I don't think that this comparison captures the feel of it in motion.

The German BD is a lot dirtier, in a good way.

 Oh, did they run "auto dirt remove" on the MGM? That stinks. German wins again.