Recently purchased movies / tv series

[filmmusic 1,838]

here's a sample:

[gkgyver 1,645]

I caved a few days ago and bought the BluRay of An Unexpected Journey.

Also, I got the first two seasons of The Big Bang Theory. Bazinga!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

season six comes out next month on dvd or blu, I'll wait till black friday, Walmart will have it for under 10 bucks.

[gkgyver 1,645]

I only got it because it was at a reduced price.

The series is running on TV here with 6 episodes per day, 9 on Monday. Together with 2 episodes of Two and a Half Men, it's the perfect evening wind-down at 10 o'clock every night.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

here's a sample:

WTF!?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Looks like shit!

[Ollie 1,059]

Yeah I saw those images at another message board I visit.

Needless to say I was befuddled.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Flabbergasted even?

[publicist 4,643]

Ye olde memories. I saw SWORD IN THE STONE when i was 6 and it seemed awfully important because it was aired 8pm. To pay 10€ for the Vaseline Edition would be a bit steep, though.

[Quintus 5,399]

Never seen it. What's wrong with the restoration?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Check the pics above!

[Quintus 5,399]

No way! Is that real?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Apparently

[filmmusic 1,838]

No way! Is that real?

I'm afraid it is.

It looks like they let a 12 year old play with the computer to make the """restoration"""".

People keep sending complaints to DIsney, and also they write to the specific release's facebook page, but the negative comments are removed!!

Also the itunes HD release (which was very good as you see in the comparison), was substituted with the new one!

[indy4 155]

Reminds me of this beautiful restoration:

[Quintus 5,399]

Apparently the church where that happened has made a small fortune in the aftermath. It was a blessing in disguise...

[publicist 4,643]

That is all what it takes: thousands of classic animated treasures sent to the pits because the restoration intern fucked with the sharpness control and people liked it.

[filmmusic 1,838]

That is all what it takes: thousands of classic animated treasures sent to the pits because the restoration intern fucked with the sharpness control and people liked it.

as far as I'm concerned, Disney is perhaps the worst company in restoring animation classics!

Even if some have good reviews and impress people, they have

1) altered colors,

2) heavy DNR removing any grain because we're supposed to see the film as moving cells (as they were drawn that is) and not as film, and

3) don't offer both aspect ratios (here for example they have offered only the widescreen ratio that cuts lots of information on top and below. There is a huge discussion about this in another forum, with people like me who think the right thing is to offer BOTH aspect ratios so that EVERYONE will be pleased (especially since the full screen offers much more picture and doesn't feature cut off heads and legs), and those who oppose this because the widescreen is the original intented ratio by the creators.

Anyway, some years ago I thought I would buy all these animation classics in Blu-ray because I love them, but now I don't support such moves, which means I even have to sacrifice not having in HD some of my favourite films of all time.

[publicist 4,643]

There is a german term, 'verschlimmbesserung', that is a flippant way of saying that the whole supposed improvement is basically just shit. That goes for a lot of dvd/blu restorations that see it as primary goal to remove every teensy bit of grain. Every dedicated filmmaker will tell you that grain is an inherent part of the film stock and removing it at all costs not only robs the film of its character, it also takes away picture information - only marketing tells people that this is a good thing.

[filmmusic 1,838]

well, the argument is that in animation, the pictures weren't drawn with grain! the grain came afterwards with the transfer to film.

So, we are supposed to experience the true "virgin" animation ..

However this is still a film, and the grain gives much depth to the colors. Every attempt at removing it, makes a cheap look to me.

here's another recent example:

I guess most people may like the 2nd picture better, but I like the first.

Robin Hood is even worse.

[Wojo 2,453]

These photos don't show me a thing. Oh wait, I'm on a mobile.

[Ollie 1,059]

Flabbergasted even?

Even a tinge of unmitigated gall.

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

I guess most people may like the 2nd picture better, but I like the first.

Not a big problem for me in this case. I'm fine with having film grain removed as long as the overall picture isn't harmed and the grain isn't an important part of the film's "character". With grain basically a post production byproduct of animated movies, I can accept its total removal here as long as the picture is fine - which it definitely isn't for Sword.

Robin Hood is even worse.

Worse than what?

[filmmusic 1,838]

Robin Hood is even worse.

Worse than what?

worse than Oliver, regarding the grain. The original had beautiful grain that gave it life!

But since you're not a fan of grain, you'll be OK with the release! Don't worry! ;-)

here's a comparison between DVDs and Bluray: (notice again the cropped picture)

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=7866819#post7866819

and the loss of grain. This looks ugly to me (see also the last comparison in the night scene - open 2nd and 5th picture)

The grainy one seems alive, and the non-grainy one seems like a photo from a comic book or something:

[Marian Schedenig 8,207]

Doesn't look too good, but it's not the grain I miss but the reduced detail/resolution level. Regarding the AR, I don't mind as long as the extra image on 4:3 was just padding for safety (if the intended projection AR was wider than 4:3). But in thoses pictures, it also looks like the Blu image is slightly pinched vertically.

[filmmusic 1,838]

Doesn't look too good, but it's not the grain I miss but the reduced detail/resolution level.

I don't think it has reduced detail/resolution.

i think you have this impression because the grain is lost.

Otherwise, the detail is all there. No smudges, or blurs or anything.

[Jay 37,372]

Wow this thread took an interesting turn while I was gone.

[filmmusic 1,838]

Preorderd the Dick Tracy steelbook Zavvi exclusive limited edition!

I thought i had missed it (it was OOP at their site), but it reappeared a few days ago!

I'm so happy when i purchase Blurays of movies that i had seen at the cinema in my childhood and loved them!

And this surely deserved a steelbook!

(too bad i missed Who Framed Roger Rabbit steelbook)

[Naïve Old Fart 9,551]

well, the argument is that in animation, the pictures weren't drawn with grain! the grain came afterwards with the transfer to film.

So, we are supposed to experience the true "virgin" animation ..

However this is still a film, and the grain gives much depth to the colors. Every attempt at removing it, makes a cheap look to me.

here's another recent example:

I guess most people may like the 2nd picture better, but I like the first.

Robin Hood is even worse.

What was the director's original intent? That is what should be honoured, not tarting-up the picture to make it buyer-friendly.

I remember when "2010" came out: "Too dark" MGM said, But Hyams stuck to his guns.

The director's vision should be adhered to: how, when, and where the film was shot, and even on what film stock.

The moment you start altering a flim under the guise of remastering, you take away its integrity.

[Jay 37,372]

Got the Die Hard movies on Blu for $14

[A24 4,345]

well, the argument is that in animation, the pictures weren't drawn with grain! the grain came afterwards with the transfer to film.

So, we are supposed to experience the true "virgin" animation ..

However this is still a film, and the grain gives much depth to the colors. Every attempt at removing it, makes a cheap look to me.

here's another recent example:

I guess most people may like the 2nd picture better, but I like the first.

Robin Hood is even worse.

What was the director's original intent? That is what should be honoured, not tarting-up the picture to make it buyer-friendly.

I remember when "2010" came out: "Too dark" MGM said, But Hyams stuck to his guns.

The director's vision should be adhered to: how, when, and where the film was shot, and even on what film stock.

The moment you start altering a flim under the guise of remastering, you take away its integrity.

In the first pic, the dog has something strange between his ears. In the second pic, it's a banana peel.

Alex

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[A24 4,345]

It's Disney, not Lynch.

[filmmusic 1,838]

well, the argument is that in animation, the pictures weren't drawn with grain! the grain came afterwards with the transfer to film.

So, we are supposed to experience the true "virgin" animation ..

However this is still a film, and the grain gives much depth to the colors. Every attempt at removing it, makes a cheap look to me.

here's another recent example:

I guess most people may like the 2nd picture better, but I like the first.

Robin Hood is even worse.

What was the director's original intent? That is what should be honoured, not tarting-up the picture to make it buyer-friendly.

I remember when "2010" came out: "Too dark" MGM said, But Hyams stuck to his guns.

The director's vision should be adhered to: how, when, and where the film was shot, and even on what film stock.

The moment you start altering a flim under the guise of remastering, you take away its integrity.

In the first pic, the dog has something strange between his ears. In the second pic, it's a banana peel.

Alex

Of course you realize that the screenshots are captured from different timecodes, right?

What you see in the first picture should be a second before or after the 2nd screenshot. (it's not an error!)

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Looks like the image's been cropped to fit the 16:9 aspect ratio, too. Lame.

[filmmusic 1,838]

Looks like the image's been cropped to fit the 16:9 aspect ratio, too. Lame.

yes, that' a regular thing in Disney's Blurays.

imagine how it looks when a 4:3 image is cropped to 16:9!!

But those who support this, say that the 16:9 is the intended ratio so it's OK.

I would be Ok if they offered both ratios.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Looks like the image's been cropped to fit the 16:9 aspect ratio, too. Lame.

yes, that' a regular thing in Disney's Blurays.

imagine how it looks when a 4:3 image is cropped to 16:9!!

But those who support this, say that the 16:9 is the intended ratio so it's OK.

I would be Ok if they offered both ratios.

I haven't heard of Disney cropping 4:3 films to 16:9. I know 1.66:1 to 1.78:1 is a small difference, but it also seems quite unnecessary. I'd prefer it to be 1.66:1 with some tiny black bars at the side.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Noooo!

Not the black bars of death!

[filmmusic 1,838]

Looks like the image's been cropped to fit the 16:9 aspect ratio, too. Lame.

yes, that' a regular thing in Disney's Blurays.

imagine how it looks when a 4:3 image is cropped to 16:9!!

But those who support this, say that the 16:9 is the intended ratio so it's OK.

I would be Ok if they offered both ratios.

I haven't heard of Disney cropping 4:3 films to 16:9. I know 1.66:1 to 1.78:1 is a small difference, but it also seems quite unnecessary. I'd prefer it to be 1.66:1 with some tiny black bars at the side.

Check here (2nd post) http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=204278 for links to screenshot comparisons of:

Robin Hood

The Aristocats

The Many Adventures of Winnie the pooh

The Sword in the Stone

also the Jungle Book is cropped.

Many are fine with it, because as I said, they say it's the intended ratio for theaters, but I believe that since the animators went to all that trouble to paint much more picture for the 4:3, the right thing to do would be to offer both ratios to the public (especially since the widescreen is hideous many times cropping heads, legs etc.)

I mean, why paint a 4:3, if you wanted from the start to show a 16:9?

I refuse to buy any of those Blurays (well, they're bad anyway since they have a lot of DNR, and no grain, to present the animation as moving cells (!!)), so I'm sticking to my DVDs.

[filmmusic 1,838]

Just received the DIck Tracy steelbook!

So excited!!

I wish it included the Roger Rabbit Short "Roller Coaster Rabbit", so that i could replicate the complete experience when I first saw it at the cinema at 10 years old!

[A24 4,345]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

LOL 3D...

Et tu, Alexandre?

[A24 4,345]

That's how you buy it. Of course, it's also in 2D.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It doesnt have a 2D only release?

[filmmusic 1,838]

Just wanted to say I love JUDGE DREDD with Stallone! It's a guilty pleasure and a wonderful teen memory from the cinema back then.

(of course i understand this is the new one)

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That one is not a very good film. It has Rob Schneider...

[A24 4,345]

It doesnt have a 2D only release?

Nope!

[filmmusic 1,838]

That one is not a very good film. It has Rob Schneider...

well, yes, this is a con.

But it has a very good score!

[A24 4,345]

That one is not a very good film. It has Rob Schneider...

Indeed, the Stallone one isn't good.

Filmmusic's love for everything '80s makes him an unreliable source.

[filmmusic 1,838]

That one is not a very good film. It has Rob Schneider...

Indeed, the Stallone one isn't good.

Filmmusic's love for everything '80s makes him an unreliable source.

This is a 1995 film!

and yes, I understand it's not considered a good film.

That's why i said "guilty pleasure".