 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.241.13.114
In Reply to: RE: DVD is based on 60 yr old NTSC technology and lossy DD/DTS sound posted by Tom Brennan on February 02, 2009 at 08:41:08
to buy titles? How many films are you going to watch so often that you feel the need to own it? Who has the time? My wife buys lots of titles and never watches them. I rent something when I want to see it. I've owned DVD players since the Sony 7000 and don't own any.
-Wendell
Follow Ups:
And I get your point. I rent a movie about once per week. I own around 20-30 (?) movies, ones I like to plug in when there's nothing to rent (OFTEN!), and/or half the movies I own are because they were in the "same price (or close) as rental" bin at the local grocery superstore. The rest are movies that I like enough to actually buy.
The thing is for me, once I've seen a movie I rarely want to see it again. There are of course exceptions, but for the most part I'm done. And if I really want to see it again, well, I can always rent it again. :)
I know plenty of people though who:
1 - Are retired so have plenty of time to watch plenty of movies
2 - Like watching movies over and over again
I enjoy listening to great music more than once, seeing Shakespeare plays or Mozart operas more than once, reading great books more than once, so I watch great films more than once - and sometimes they aren't even great films, but ones I simply enjoy very much. I like having them on hand to view any time, or access the bonus material when I want.
I'd never buy a movie just to watch it. I only buy what I've seen before.
Movies I just want to check out, or that I want to see only occassionally, those I rent, or use cable on-demand. Most movies released fall into that category.
I still prefer to see first run movies in a theatrical setting, up on the big screen in the dark with a crowd of stranegrs. Nothing compares to that communal ritual for me, when the movies are well presented.
Some of the films I own on DVD/BD are rare, imports etc. by favorite filmmakers or with favorite actors.
I don't buy movies cuz they're bargains, only because I love them and would watch them more than once. If you look at movies as product and diversions, not as essential or as art in themselves, then it makes perfect sense not to own many - or any, for that matter.
Soon enough I imagine few of us will have the storage media in our possession anyway. We'll be downloading movies from a central source, as many are downloading from Netflix now.
It has to do with being able to watch what I want when I feel like it. Nothing more. If I had to justify it based on cost...don't think I could. But I do try to shop carefully, and I doubt any disc (except Criterions) has cost more than a couple tickets to a movie, most less...if you want to look at it that way.As to the main topic: wow, most people have been much luckier than me. I have noticed tons of BDs with lousy transfers. It is only a medium after all, they can (and do) put anything on it, the medium itself does not guarantee quality. That HTF thread is about problem discs, not really about subpar transfers. Unfortunately there is no "lousy transfer" thread. I suggest being wary of many Fox back catalog BDs. Many of the recent built-in upscalers can do just about as well with the DVD. To be fair, many of these were not that great transfers on DVD either, so the bar is low. I am being more careful about what BD titles I upgrade from the DVD now.
Edits: 02/03/09
Here is a list of discs with Edge enhancement and/or DNR, along with descriptions and links to screen grabs etc. when available. I'm not sure how up to date it is.
...I have to tell you it sometimes a subjective call on cetain titles - just see the debate on Zulu. I don't like removal of film grain to satisfy modern tastes, but the current BD of Zulu is by far the best version of the film I've seen - I think it looks very good, despite the nay-sayers.
Also, I think tolerance for certain discs depends on the display size. I'm watching BDs on a 50" display - if you have a FP and 110" screen your preception may be different from mine. I admit the edge enhancement is something I can easily detect, but on the whole, most BDs are superior to their DVD editions, on the movies I have seen.
I can tolerate a very light touch of of DNR once in a while, but more often than not they are rather heavy handed with it. Its not just film grain that goes, but fine detail-skin textures. I honestly don't see the point except to make it more palatable to the video game crowd. This is a sad trend.
I guess you heard that Max Fliesher's Gulliver's travels will be altered when it comes out on BD so it will be 16X9 instead of the 1.33:1 it was made in.
Bothersome trends for the kiddies.
Jack
...having fought against full screen butchery of widescreen movies to fit 4:3 TVs, we now must fight against clipping academy ratio films to make them faux wide-screen. Butchery is butchery.
Original aspect ratio please!! This is nuts!
I just don't see what the problem is with films grain. If the best source is flawed, so be it. I don't care for the plastic looking skin that results. However, as I said above, some films folks have criticized, like Zulu, I think look pretty darned good, especially compared to the poor DVD transfers.
"How many films are you going to watch so often that you feel the need to own it?"
A great many.
"Who has the time?"
I do.
"I rent something when I want to see it"
That's swell.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
