Any kind of software to remove on-screen text during programs? - Page 2

Not true with a transparent logo. I've actually created a mask to remove a transparent logo, using Premiere, in the old analog days. Was it perfect? Nope.

I would have thought that would have been obvious that's what I meant.

Then again, why go through that much bother if the logo is that transparent? We should be so lucky if that's all stations ever did.

That's because most people are still buying season sets on DVD which sadly even includes those with Blu-Ray players. Why? "Because I don't see the need to have this on Blu-Ray" they all say.

It would probably be more accurate to quote them as saying, "I don't see the need to pay 30% more to have this on Blu-ray," instead. When a series or movie costs significantly more on Blu-ray, it's a disincentive for viewers to adopt the format. The content of the series or movie is the same either way, but some Blu-ray editions are priced as though they are completely different material, and if the rapid rise of small-screen devices demonstrates anything, it's that most people don't care much about video quality, just as the rise of lossy music downloads demonstrates that most people don't care much about audio quality.

I don't even try to do it with HD video. These days there are better ways to eliminate the bug and horrible snipes.

You can thank the a-hole that hold the licensing. They want too much and it all adds up. Until those idiots change the pricing structure, BD is going to cost more.

Their greed and the studio's greed (I'm thinking they're thinking it is a premium product) is pricing BD releases out of the hands of the masses.

If the movie or TV show is older than 7 years old it all depends on the remastering job that is done on them. Blu Ray looks best with newer programming. If the remastering job with older programming on Bluray isn't done right it won't look much better than the DVD.

Assuming the original didn't look like crap to begin with, it doesn't matter how old or new something is. It ALWAYS depends on the mastering job and the amount of compression used for the disc as to how good it will look.

There are too many variables, such as special effects techniques, the type of stock used and lighting techniques to say movies from "x" era will look better than those from "y" era. The Wizard of Oz, for example, was made in 1939 and looks fantastic.

On the other hand, the "Avengers" has digital issues that were in the theatrical master - meaning the disc (which is true to the theatrical release) has those same issues. In other words, it looks as good as it did in the theater, but that's not saying much. Likewise, "Kick Ass" has the same oddities on disc that appeared in the theatrical release.

Yeah I can understand people passing up on the Blu release of a TV show when there's a major price difference over the DVD (think say $20 to 40+ difference). But I've seen people who will pass up on the Blu release (and they own a Blu player) when its a few dollars more then the DVD release. That mind you includes recent combo pack releases such as The Office Season 8.

While price is an issue (don't forget, many of these people who now have BD players bought them on the cheap, so they look for cheap media, too), it's likely more than that.

BD discs only play on BD players. DVDs play on BD and DVD players, of which there is a huge number out there - including secondary players, laptops and vehicles. If they buy the DVD version, it will play on every player they own. That it's also cheaper becomes a bonus.

There is also the intended audience. For example, 90210 and Gossip Girl, from two different production companies, do not get the Blu-ray treatment because the audience is teen girls. How many teen girls do you know that will spend money of Blu-ray releases? So, the cheaper DVD releases are the only thing produced.

Sure, there are some that will buy, but not enough.

But, that doesn't explain ABC Studios not releasing Castle on Blu-ray. Or CBS Studios not releasing The Good Wife on Blu-ray. Those two examples hit the 18-49 buying demo, yet they are only released on DVD.

For ABC Studios, the only TV show that I can think of that got the BD treatment from last season was Once Upon a TIme.

20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. are a lot better at releasing BD product, including teen shows. WB releases Vampire Diaries on BD, even though it is kinda the wrong market.

So, wgat is the rhyme or reason for the haphazard releases?

I bought a Blu-Ray Player last year when a player gave out, but the only TV show I've purchased on Blu-Ray is Star Trek - The Original Series and that's because I was able to get it CHEAPER than the DVD Version. For the most part I'm perfectly content with the original format, but if I find a Blu-Ray on the Bargain Bin I'll snatch it up.

BOY! I have to agree with this. I have many friends who think that the whole HD "thing" is nothing more than a gimmick to make them spend more money for the same content. They still have the VHS copies of some movies, and see no reason to get the DVDs, and CERTAINLY no reason to get the BR versions. "The movie is still the same, isn't it?"

My sister and her husband were unhappy that when their TV broke, they had to get an HDTV to replace it because there were no more CRT televisions available. Yhey both dislike the 16:9 format intensly for some reason.

And I especially agree with the lossy music downloads being an indicator of people's indifference regarding quality.

CDs at 44.1 kHz are exactly the best either.

I have a similar story, except I bought Stargate Atlantis on Blu-ray. The DVD set had notoriously poor packaging that was so badly designed it would let the discs fly around during shipping and cause even unopened box sets to have discs so badly scratched that they wouldn't play. The Blu-ray set fixed the packaging and was actually cheaper than the DVD set, so I picked it up instead. The HD was just a welcome bonus.


That's because it is. Never make the mistake of thinking that companies are trying to make your life better; they just want your money, and HD is a way for them to justify charging more for the same content. HD does look better and consequently provides some utility, but it is often not enough of an improvement to justify the extra expense, and many people can't even tell the difference between the two (especially with small screens, and 32" is the most popular TV size at present).


I wasn't terribly happy when my CRT started failing, either, but which aspect ratio works better is mostly determined by what kind of content is in your library. Until recently all TV shows were 4:3, so if you had a massive library of TV on VHS and DVD, using a 16:9 TV meant most of your library would no longer fit your screen. Now that 16:9 has been around for a few years, there's more content in that format.

Some HDTVs are also incredibly incompetent when it comes to aspect ratios. I've used a Sony Bravia that is too stupid to correctly adjust the aspect ratio of its content, especially when HDMI is used between a Blu-ray player and the TV. It stretches 4:3 content to 16:9, and using HDMI disables the manual aspect ratio control, so it isn't even possible to fix it by hand. The only way around the problem is to use component cables instead to stop the BD player from sending metadata to the TV. That was one of the reasons I made a conscious choice to avoid Sony when buying a HDTV for myself, although I would hope they might have fixed those problems by now.


Did you mean "aren't"? If so, 44.1 kHz is enough to represent the entire frequency range of human hearing, and there is little evidence to support any of the "HD" audio formats providing a superior listening experience.

Huh? I'm not sure what you consider "recent," but 16:9 has been around for quite a while.

Yes, "aren't." While 44.1 is just enough, there is the issue of harmonics. Note that everything else digital (consumer) is at least 48 kHz. If 44.1 is so great, then it would have been used for all digital media releases, and it hasn't.

The limitations of 44.1 kHz can be overcome by doing the recording and editing phases at higher sample rates (and 24 or 32 bit depths) to minimise the degradation of each edit, after which the audio can be downsampled for the CD. DVD adopted the 48 kHz rate because it had far more space to work with than the CD format, and it didn't have to worry about backwards compatibility. That doesn't mean anyone could tell the difference between properly mastered 44.1 and 48 kHz music in a double-blind test, so just because newer formats use higher rates doesn't mean that older formats are incapable of producing good results.

Most of these "improvements" are just to get gullible people to buy things with the illusion that they have higher quality than they really do. Some Blu-ray titles have so-called "DTS-HD Master Audio" which clocks in at 96 kHz with 24 bit depth, but unless studios intend for bats to be watching their movies, all they're doing is wasting space on the disc, since the Blu-ray format has ample space available for wasting. Plenty of people are taken in by large numbers and think they're getting something better (even if it's physically impossible for them to perceive the higher quality), which is why the studios continue to publish content with silly sample rates.

I hope you didn't get the impression that I thought that 44.1, or 48 kHz was actually used during the recording process. Besides, 96/192 kHz down converts to 48 kHz a lot cleaner than to 44.1 kHz.

And yes, for 99.9% of home environments, the newer master audio formats on BD releases is overkill.

BTW, we have gotten way off topic in this thread.

Yes we have, but if it wasn't for us, this topic would have died. Don't think of it as going off topic; think of it as being a good samaritan for a lost thread.

ROTFL

Yeah I can understand that but when I've seen people pass up on the combo packs that are a few bucks more that offer both BD and DVD (and sometimes digital)... yeah its mind boggling to say the least.

In my case, I always buy the combo pack if it's only a few dollars more. At that point, $2-$3 more to get a DVD copy too is a good deal to me and means I have the option to play it on other machines than my BD player.

There is but something you can't discuss here.

lol

Networks have really gotten out of hand with their excessive advertising DURING programming, whether it be # for twitter watermarked on screen the entire time, ads for other shows watermarked the entire time, pop up ads and ads with noise that fly across the screen, it's just maddening. Networks have realized that a vast majority of people have DVRs and just FF past the commercials, so now to get our attention we are bombarded with ads during the show as well. 18 minutes of commercials for a hour long show to boot. If it wasn't for itunes providing shows day and date or within hours after air, I don't think I could stand to watch many current running shows these days. 1080p itunes shows are nice and clean, no logos or ads, and the picture quality on the 1080p files are better than cable. No macroblocking, noise, mpeg2 compression artifacts, they are as close as you will get until Blu-ray, and for many shows that never get a Blu-ray release they are the best source available. It's so much more enjoyable to watch a show like you are watching a movie, with nothing to distract you.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Cable used to be that way, too, because the monthly fee was a substitute for having commercials. Eventually they tested straying from that model, and when people didn't protest the introduction of commercials, they made it the standard. Streaming options will become just as spammy as TV eventually, once the content providers decide that it isn't lucrative enough the way it is.

The licensing fee for BD is now just 11 cents a disc. Charging 30% or more for BD over DVD is just the studio ripping us off. I can't think of a reason why mastering a BD would cost anymore than DVD when an HD master already exists for a show. Replication is probably still a bit more than DVD but I doubt its much.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/160247/blu_ray_disc_licensing.html

Oh man...your complete lack of reading comprehension is hilarious...yes, YOU WIN....not a prize I would ever want though

Fox just tried doing this, and Apple refused, so Fox pulled their shows for a couple days before returning. Fox wanted to put their watermark in the episode and Apple told them to take a hike. It seems they compromised and now there is a short 3-4 second "Be Bold, FOX" promo at the beginning of the episode, sort of like what HBO does at the beginning of shows to identify what you are watching, but nothing else.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/13/3328008/fox-fx-itunes-removal-sons-of-anarchy

I hereby grant you permission to PM one of us.