Quote:
Originally Posted by wildphantom
You might be right that they're inferior to the HDTV broadcasts you've seen. I'm assuming you have seen those right? Or is this another 'based on screenshots' argument?
At the end of the day if qualified critics in the industry say LOTR looks really good on blu-ray then that's good enough for me. Early days yet, I'll wait for a few more reviews. But I'm encouraged with what I've read.
I live in the UK and we've only ever had the third film broadcast in HD without ad breaks. So I will happily take the other movies on blu-ray without ad breaks and deem them better versions than the ones I have on my Sky HD box.
I loosely used the term fanboy when perhaps I shouldn't have. I class myself as one for sure. However, I would rather wait and see the thing for myself, or read reviews from respected critics whose job it is to critique these things before making my mind up.
|
What do you mean "Based on screenshots" argument? The old HDTV version is from a progressive Dish broadcast. If its frames look better than the Blu Ray version then it looks better in motion as well, it's as simple as that. Do you think there's some magic spell involved here?
The mere fact that it looks inferior to the old HDTV broadcast version is very disappointing. If you don't see a problem with this I don't know what to tell you man. People here seem to think that if it's better than the DVD it's "Good enough," and if it's "Good enough" it's legitimately good. I think that's a ridiculous argument.
Personally I was hoping, I dunno, that they'd remaster it. Guess that's too much to ask.
Do you remember how many "respected" critics praised Gladiator to no end? What exactly is that supposed to prove? Somehow comparing the actual frames of each presentation is a faulty argument but taking the word of a jackass with no proof whatsoever is a better way to go?!? Ok, makes perfect sense.