AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Blade Runner: 30th Anniversary Edition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blade Runner: 30th Anniversary Edition - Page 3

post #61 of 151
6/28/12 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lolo33 View Post

Not sure, info from:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Blade-Runner-Blu-ray/45541/

Blu-ray.com's specs are user-provided, like a Wiki. The video and audio codec info was added on May 30 by a user who only has 2 posts on their forum.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #62 of 151
6/29/12 at 8:02pm
Oh yeah, and i just bought single disk edition for 5€.rolleyes.gif
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 151
7/17/12 at 6:24am
Thread Starter 
Three disc digibook for the 5 people who didn't already own the old set and are not buying the new gift set


532
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 151
7/17/12 at 8:11am
That Digibook looks very enticing.... Does that have all the cuts of the film and all the extras?
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 151
7/17/12 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Three disc digibook for the 5 people who didn't already own the old set and are not buying the new gift set
532

I only own the full set on HD-DVD. redface.gif D'oh!!!

Cool cover though but I also want to know if it has all the cuts and special features. I don't want to be left with just the Final Cut.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 151
7/17/12 at 11:31am
Bleech, I'd rather have the theatrical artwork than that digibook cover.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 151
7/19/12 at 7:00pm



Edited by lolo33 - 7/19/12 at 7:06pm
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 151
7/20/12 at 6:35am
Looks like the rumoured lossless tracks for the TC/DC are not there. Wouldn't put any hope into there being new encodes now.
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 151
7/20/12 at 7:34am
I don't know why folks were getting their hopes up for new encodes. It's Warners. Why run off a fat new encode to take advantage of Blu-ray's capacity when an old one for a defunct format will do? mad.gif
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 151
7/20/12 at 7:37am
I wasn't getting my hopes up but I thought there would be like a 10% chance of it happening. Now it's more like 0.01%.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 151
7/20/12 at 10:25am
"The only science-fiction film that can be called transcendental"? Owen Gleiberman has apparently not seen 2001. rolleyes.gif
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 151
7/20/12 at 10:25am
Am I reading it wrong or did they drop one of the extras discs in favour of the 1000+ stills?
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 151
7/20/12 at 11:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

I don't know why folks were getting their hopes up for new encodes. It's Warners. Why run off a fat new encode to take advantage of Blu-ray's capacity when an old one for a defunct format will do? mad.gif
Don't blame a defunct format! WB released that encode rate on Blu too!!
Those three blus back-in-the-day were only 25GB; HD DVD was capable of 30!!!
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 151
7/20/12 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by paku View Post

Am I reading it wrong or did they drop one of the extras discs in favour of the 1000+ stills?

No, the stills gallery is additional to all of the previous extras, though the number of discs is indeed reduced. That is to say, all of the content has been re-arranged to fit onto a smaller number of discs.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 151
7/20/12 at 11:09am
Sooooo, after "The Complete Edition" & "The Ultimate Edition" & "The Final Cut" we get an anniversary release... makes cents too me! tongue.gif
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 151
7/20/12 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordAwesome View Post

Looks like the rumoured lossless tracks for the TC/DC are not there. Wouldn't put any hope into there being new encodes now.

Agreed, obviously those weren't so much rumors but wishful thinking on the part of some fans. Seems to be no reason at all to invest in this if you still have the old release.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 151
7/20/12 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

Don't blame a defunct format! WB released that encode rate on Blu too!!
Those three blus back-in-the-day were only 25GB; HD DVD was capable of 30!!!
Nobody forbid them from using dual layer discs.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 151
7/20/12 at 12:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezpekt View Post

Nobody forbid them from using dual layer discs.

Or two encodes, they normally shot for under 18
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 151
7/20/12 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DM2006RI View Post

Agreed, obviously those weren't so much rumors but wishful thinking on the part of some fans.

Although, to be fair to overzealous dreamers, it's the most common-sense brand of wishful thinking there is.

"Oh, a new Blade Runner set? Well, it's 2012 now- they'll use the industry-standard AVC and lossless audio, surely..."

Hard to blame anyone for such an expectation, but also hard for the informed to be surprised by Warner's continued refusal to bring their product up out of the red.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 151
7/20/12 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

Don't blame a defunct format! WB released that encode rate on Blu too!!
Those three blus back-in-the-day were only 25GB; HD DVD was capable of 30!!!
Dude, they capped their encodes to fit on HD DVD to make less work for themselves, simple as that. As was just said, nobody forbade them from using dual layer BDs.

Heck, we should be thankful that Warners went the multi-disc route with Blade Runner, because at least they put the extras and the movies on separate discs, meaning that more bits were devoted to the movies - even if 30GB was the ceiling. There are still encodes floating about from when they squeezed the movie AND the extras on a 30GB platter, meaning that the movie encode is pathetically small (Superman Returns springs to mind).
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 151
7/20/12 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

Although, to be fair to overzealous dreamers, it's the most common-sense brand of wishful thinking there is.
"Oh, a new Blade Runner set? Well, it's 2012 now- they'll use the industry-standard AVC and lossless audio, surely..."
Hard to blame anyone for such an expectation, but also hard for the informed to be surprised by Warner's continued refusal to bring their product up out of the red.

WB's Excalibur BD is AVC and Caddyshack is a new master so while unlikely it is not unheard of. And despite numerous claims otherwise the red supported AVC my Lucky Number Slevin HD DVD disc proves it:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/536/luckynumberslevin.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Dude, they capped their encodes to fit on HD DVD to make less work for themselves, simple as that. As was just said, nobody forbade them from using dual layer BDs.

How does that explain the DC having a higher mbps encode rate?

Why is the format wars being re-fought in this thread?
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 151
7/20/12 at 6:15pm
Thread Starter 
This is not about format this is about warner doing what they did with DVD, going early, cutting costs, getting a foot in the door
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 151
7/20/12 at 7:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

Dude, they capped their encodes to fit on HD DVD to make less work for themselves, simple as that. As was just said, nobody forbade them from using dual layer BDs.
Heck, we should be thankful that Warners went the multi-disc route with Blade Runner, because at least they put the extras and the movies on separate discs, meaning that more bits were devoted to the movies - even if 30GB was the ceiling. There are still encodes floating about from when they squeezed the movie AND the extras on a 30GB platter, meaning that the movie encode is pathetically small (Superman Returns springs to mind).
Dude,
How many 50GB discs were released in '07???
WB's encode was for both formats; that's a fact Jack!
And, as you pointed out B4, WB still uses BD 25GB sized encodes (and forgoes lossless audio way too much as well).
WB didn't start starving encodes w/HDM; WB was starving audio encodes w/DVD.

We should be & are gratefully for the multi disc release for "BR", as the 100 buck auction prices prove!
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 151
7/20/12 at 7:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezpekt View Post

Nobody forbid them from using dual layer discs.
WB "choose" too go w/25GB.
Nobody said anyone "forbid" WB.
Although 50GB disc were not that common early in '07. So, a lot of studio's chose not too go the 50GB route till '08.
Edited by BIG ED - 7/20/12 at 7:23pm
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 151
7/20/12 at 7:21pm
Since it doesn't seem anyone thinks the audio or video will be upgraded for this next re-re-re-release of "BR" from WB on Blu...
does everyone agree we should get one that lOOks & sounds the same?
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 151
7/20/12 at 11:01pm
Quote:
WB's Excalibur BD is AVC and Caddyshack is a new master so while unlikely it is not unheard of.

Warner's new Deliverance is the same VC-1 encoded transfer as before; that release DOES have upgraded DTS MA audio which is superior to the older 5.1 mix....but since we now know this Blade Runner is the same 5.1, I can't imagine we'll be getting new encodes with the same old 5.1 soundtrack. This looks like a repackaging basically and little more.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 151
7/21/12 at 1:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

WB "choose" too go w/25GB.
Nobody said anyone "forbid" WB..
You were trying to show HD DVD as the superior format, whereas it wasn't. At least not in this aspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

Although 50GB disc were not that common early in '07. So, a lot of studio's chose not too go the 50GB route till '08.
Bullshhht! First dual layer discs were released in October 2006 by Sony and Warner, and by the end of 2006, all the major studios who supported Blu-ray format had used BD50s. Blade Runner was released in December 2007. According to Blu-rayStats.com, 60.47% of the Blu-ray releases in 2007 used dual layer discs.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 151
7/21/12 at 2:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

How does that explain the DC having a higher mbps encode rate?
Why is the format wars being re-fought in this thread?

I don't doubt that there were exceptions to that rule, but my point stands. And there is no re-fighting of the format war going on, just the usual misinformed, ah, "enthusiasm" that always pops up whenever big red is mentioned in a negative way.

The irony is, I'm NOT slating HD DVD. I'm slating Warners.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 151
7/21/12 at 4:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

Don't blame a defunct format! WB released that encode rate on Blu too!!
Those three blus back-in-the-day were only 25GB; HD DVD was capable of 30!!!

Actually, during the same conference at which WB announced they'd drop HD-DVD, Toshiba was going to present
their 51 GB disc. (yep, one GB more!) Of course, the WB decision put an end to that and the Toshiba press conference
was cancelled..
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 151
7/21/12 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

That's a good doc. It's interesting to hear the various writers who came and went, on the newer documentary on the current Blu-ray set, lament what might have been if they had been given more time to polish the screenplay.
I tend to side with them that Blade Runner was ultimately cool to look at, but had narrative and quite a few character development problems. It was as if Ridley shot a half-completed story.
Give him a great script and Ridley shines, otherwise, he's a visual auteur only.
Hmmm... reminds me of another little Ridley Scott film called Prometheus. biggrin.gif

I think it's a great thing for this release. I collect the Collectables and I think the movie looked great from the 5-disc version. Maybe I'm alone in this but oh well. And we'll talk Prometheus another day wink.gif
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Blade Runner: 30th Anniversary Edition