[dvdmike007]





Like these Disney releases I would expect no extras bar any already on the DVD and maybe a HD trailer, nothing is confirmed yet I will update as needed



September 18th USA

 

[wuther]

I would rather see a Ed Wood film then a Michael Bay flick.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Pull da strings! Pull da strings!!

 

[Dan Hitchman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther  /t/1417488/ed-wood#post_22169483


I would rather see a Ed Wood film then a Michael Bay flick.

A-men!


Now, let us bow our heads...

 

[Partyslammer]

I wonder if this release will include the deleted extras that were only on the recalled 1st edition of the dvd release....

 

[Flexx]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer  /t/1417488/ed-wood#post_22171381


I wonder if this release will include the deleted extras that were only on the recalled 1st edition of the dvd release....

Wasn't the only dropped extra "When Carol Met Larry"?


I have 2 copies of that first pressing (one sealed, never put it on eBay...wonder if it's worth something...)

Here's more info on that subject, of interest...

 

[wuther]

An early look about the greatest director (and hell of a lot nicer) since Uwe Boll:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare2/edwood.htm


Did not have time at work to look at the caps.

 

[dvdmike007]

Do not trust Beaver, but looks clumpy and old

 

[khronikos]

Well, it's 35Mbps at least it cannot be THAT bad can it. Well, it can I guess.

 

[dvdmike007]

MBS and Codec mean nothing when it comes to a good encode.


Garbage in Garbage out

 

[khronikos]

Actually a pristine print at 15Mbps looks like garbage to me. Maybe you should put IMO on the end of your sentence there because that is all it is really. You can't have one without the other.


Decent print plus amazing bitrate I will take any day over great print and awful bitrate.


The bitrate is the film. You can't deny that. Of course if the master is garbage it will be garbage that is obvious. This one shouldn't have been in bad condition and they should have at least taken the time to scan in 2k FFS.


Not saying this is any good or anything but I doubt it's that bad. Beavers caps are not the be all end all though usually pretty decent.

 

[spectator]



Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos  /t/1417488/ed-wood#post_22374213


Maybe you should put IMO on the end of your sentence there because that is all it is really.

And yet, somehow, you managed to figure that out without the "IMO".

 

[wuther]

While I want to see more, the caps are ok, but the beaver caps of the 1947 Olive released b&w flims impress me more even thou Olive has a reputation of low mbps rates.

Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos  /t/1417488/ed-wood#post_22374213


Actually a pristine print at 15Mbps looks like garbage to me. Maybe you should put IMO on the end of your sentence there because that is all it is really. You can't have one without the other.

Oh yeah? If you had to choose which would it be Predator UHE or the 2008 BD?

 

[khronikos]

Oh god. Neither. Predator needs a full scale release. I love that film. Probably my favorite action film ever. It's a damn shame what they have done to those skintones and grain. I guess the first release I would have to take lol. I can see your point there but I was talking in the sense of no DNR and no manipulation just transfers and bitrate. Yeah, DNR changes the whole game.

 

[wuther]



Quote:
Originally Posted by khronikos  /t/1417488/ed-wood#post_22375167


Oh god. Neither. Predator needs a full scale release. I love that film. Probably my favorite action film ever. It's a damn shame what they have done to those skintones and grain. I guess the first release I would have to take lol. I can see your point there but I was talking in the sense of no DNR and no manipulation just transfers and bitrate. Yeah, DNR changes the whole game.

I imagine everyone wants new 4K/8K scans (for everything) but you cannot always get what you want and have to comprise, sometimes for ok as opposed to awful pq or high mbps and low.


Even if Predator UHE had no dnr I would hate it because it was brightened too much. I saw it in theater and you could barely see the 'monster', in the BD the clear as day creature looks clownish rather then scary.

 

[dvdmike007]

Nope, a brand new 2k or "super 2k" would be fine for BD

 

[spectator]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007  /t/1417488/ed-wood#post_22375256


Nope, a brand new 2k or "super 2k" would be fine for BD

Ok, I'll bite... "super 2k"?

 

[dvdmike007]



Quote:
Super 2K


Something I have heard banded around for a few years now is Super 2K and inherently, obviously because of the name and cost, it is better than 2K? Technically, yes I guess it is slightly better than standard 2K but it still is 2K? The point is Super 2K tends to be an over scan, such as at 4K or 6K, then clever algorithms scale the image back down to 2K - the companies offering 'Super 2K', their algorithms have as much myth and legend as the secret ingredients in the spicy covering of a KFC piece of chicken!


I would say that a lot of the sampling is Nyquist? If you really would like to understand the mathematics behind Nyquist Sampling then simply take a look, good luck. If not, it is a very clever way of interpolating or rounding excessive data, such as 3 pixels into one.

 

[spectator]



Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007  /t/1417488/ed-wood#post_22376338


I would say that a lot of the sampling is Nyquist?

It must be, because oversampling a (relatively) low scanning rate makes no sense. A 4k scan is a 4k scan, whether you later downconvert to 2k or not.

 

[dvdmike007]

A lot of companies are using the term so that is where the "" came from