Jump to content

What are you watching? a.k.a. Film Thread v 2.0


Recommended Posts

On 10 June 2016 at 1:10 AM, Wagszilla said:

Is that like that Teeth movie?

Not sure I've seen teeth. It's literally Zombie Beavers attacking high school kids in a cabin in the woods. Bill Burr has a small part in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016. 06. 10. at 4:02 AM, Amir said:

Yeah I saw, from Shout Factory. Unfortunately they don't ship to the UK :/

Bit weird that it's only from a 2K scan as well, even non-4K Blu-Rays are often taken from 4K scans. I guess I'll wait for the inevitable 4K release in a few years time.

Those "scans" are just for marketing, because if the original cameras wasn't 2K or 4K cameras (which is the case in 99% of the films) then even a fan made remaster could be good enough (just upconverting the source material)

Not to mention that Blu ray players still doesn't support 4K 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2016 at 4:17 AM, Strange Broue said:

Those "scans" are just for marketing, because if the original cameras wasn't 2K or 4K cameras (which is the case in 99% of the films) then even a fan made remaster could be good enough (just upconverting the source material)

Not to mention that Blu ray players still doesn't support 4K 

 

 

What are you on about? Original cameras shot on film negative... "2K" and "4K" is the resolution for digital conversion (or the native resolution of digital cameras). So if you scan the film negative at 4K of course it's going to give more depth and detail as opposed to 2K. Blu-ray only supports up to 2K so even if you scan at 4K the difference will be minimal. Which is why the additional cost to doing a 4K scan instead of a 2K scan for some movies is just not worth it.

Regarding "fan made" upconverting (sigh); An upconvert by definition can never look better than the original source because it's artifical tampering and you're only going to remove noise digitally (losing detail in the process) and enhance edges artificially (causing halo effect/ghosting to appear).

Edited by Bumblefeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bumblefeet said:

What are you on about? Original cameras shot on film negative... "2K" and "4K" is the resolution for digital conversion (or the native resolution of digital cameras). So if you scan the film negative at 4K of course it's going to give more depth and detail as opposed to 2K. Blu-ray only supports up to 2K so even if you scan at 4K the difference will be minimal. Which is why the additional cost to doing a 4K scan instead of a 2K scan for some movies is just not worth it.

Regarding "fan made" upconverting (sigh); An upconvert by definition can never look better than the original source because it's artifical tampering and you're only going to remove noise digitally (losing detail in the process) and enhance edges artificially (causing halo effect/ghosting to appear).

1. If we talking about older films, yes. Nowadays, (or sadly) the filmmakers doesn't shoot on film negative... My post was worded poorly

2. Yeah, the original source is always be better, but the majority of humans just can't tell a difference between 2K or 4K or it's upconverted or not....

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

At a certain screen size, it doesn't matter, imho, 4K should be the last "big thing" in resolution and even 4K is too much, doesn't make THAT much a difference

What's the point, besides the marketing bullshit?

 

 

The future is 60 plus fps movies anyway

Edited by Strange Broue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

Stopped watching it halfway through, might finish it later but to be honest the characters weren't very engaging.

It's a shit movie in my opinion. It might have a good message or something though. It's basically just gung ho american violence. Pure propaganda. So was Hurt Locker, Zero Dark bollocks and American Sniper. 

I prefer Tony's movies. Unstoppable and Domino are more entertaining. Not to mention Last Boy Scout and True Romance, also a better technician. Ridley has Blade Runner though but that's all Philp K. dick really. Okay he filmed it well. Nice lighting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wasted said:

It's a shit movie in my opinion. It might have a good message or something though. It's basically just gung ho american violence. Pure propaganda. So was Hurt Locker, Zero Dark bollocks and American Sniper. 

I prefer Tony's movies. Unstoppable and Domino are more entertaining. Not to mention Last Boy Scout and True Romance, also a better technician. Ridley has Blade Runner though but that's all Philp K. dick really. Okay he filmed it well. Nice lighting. 

I dont mind American propaganda, i dont mind gung ho violence but if the characters aren't engaging i find it difficult to follow.  I like American Sniper and the Rambo movies so American propaganda is not a problem.  I think i might've seen Hurt Locker too.  

I hate Bladerunner.  Oddly enough I've never seen Last Boy Scout, might check it out tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

I dont mind American propaganda, i dont mind gung ho violence but if the characters aren't engaging i find it difficult to follow.  I like American Sniper and the Rambo movies so American propaganda is not a problem.  I think i might've seen Hurt Locker too.  

I hate Bladerunner.  Oddly enough I've never seen Last Boy Scout, might check it out tonight.

Not really Gung ho actually they are just kind of boring. American sniper is the worst because I think it's meant to be anti war from Clint but in the end the hero gets killed so it's not really. 

I haven't seen Rambo. I like Platoon and Apocalypse Now and transvesites. 

Last Boy Scout is a must. There's defintely one scene worth watching. It's like a Die Hard Spin off movie. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wasted said:

Not really Gung ho actually they are just kind of boring. American sniper is the worst because I think it's meant to be anti war from Clint but in the end the hero gets killed so it's not really. 

I haven't seen Rambo. I like Platoon and Apocalypse Now and transvesites. 

Last Boy Scout is a must. There's defintely one scene worth watching. It's like a Die Hard Spin off movie. 

 

You've not seen Rambo?  What, any of em?!?  Oh you gotta man, they're class!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Strange Broue said:

1. If we talking about older films, yes. Nowadays, (or sadly) the filmmakers doesn't shoot on film negative... My post was worded poorly

2. Yeah, the original source is always be better, but the majority of humans just can't tell a difference between 2K or 4K or it's upconverted or not....

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship

At a certain screen size, it doesn't matter, imho, 4K should be the last "big thing" in resolution and even 4K is too much, doesn't make THAT much a difference

What's the point, besides the marketing bullshit?

 

 

The future is 60 plus fps movies anyway

The majority of humans who watch their movies on a regular size TV screen perhaps, but as one who watches movies projected, the difference is a lot more noticeable. I currently don't have a 4K setup aside from my iMac screen which I don't use to watch film, but once my HD beamer dies I'll probably get it. Will every movie look better in 4K? I doubt that will be the case so I do grant you that it is a marketing ploy to some extent to get people to upgrade their media systems.

However, I used to think the same thing about DVDs and blu-rays in the early stages when I'd be watching them on a 720p "HD ready" TV and subsequently beamer. Then I went full HD and the difference is astonishing, so much so that I dread to put on a DVD because I've gotten so used to the improved detail, clarity and especially color that an excellently mastered blu-ray has to offer. But a lot depends on how well the blu-ray has been prepared. When blu-rays first became available, a lot of studios put out shitty HD interlaced transfers which they'd used for their DVD releases and digital libraries, and just threw them on a blu-ray with marginally better result. Once they went back and did a proper 2K rescan, those movies looked a hell of a lot better. So just because something gets released as blu-ray or 4K doesn't mean it reaches that potential.

4K is still at least 4 or 5 years off before media outlets will stream their content in 4K and mainstream consumers will be able to afford it.

Edited by Bumblefeet
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

 Oddly enough I've never seen Last Boy Scout, might check it out tonight.

You need to watch The Last Boy Scout. It's more or less what you would expect, but worth at least one viewing.

8 hours ago, wasted said:

I haven't seen Rambo.

You need to watch Rambo. All of them.

 

On topic: Coffee and Cigarettes. I don't watch many art house type movies, just every now and then when one catches my eye. This is a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

Oh trust me, they are right up your alley!  

I'm a bit light at the moment. I could have got the Rambo boxset for 50rmb. I could of got the Jim Jar 11 disc box set for 130rmb. When I get paid I'm going in. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...