Stargate 15th Anniversary Edition

[Syber]

Did this not ship in Canada today? I snuck out of work to pick it up from the local Futureshop, they said it never came in. Now when I browse Amazon.ca it says "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock."

[jceperley]

Bad news: Stargate is a Lionsgate and here in Canada, Lionsgate titles are released by another company called Maple Films. Unfortunately, in recent weeks I've noticed that they're a bit slow at releasing titles, and then restricting the number of stores where they can be found. Actually, quite a terrible situation. Now, none of this is confirmed for Stargate, but I would be surprised if it wasn't the case.

Take the Wallace & Gromit set they released a few weeks ago, Lionsgate released it in the US at the end of September, here in Canada the date from Maple was mid October, and it still hasn't appeared in physical store, all I've been able to find was the most recent short film on DVD at the local Wally World.

So, for Stargate we might have to wait, hopefully finding a copy, or might just have to import it.

[NL197]

The Skynet version of Terminator 2 came out on time, and has been at $19.99 since it came out. I didn't ever get around to picking it up. Hopefully this won't be delayed for too long if it is delayed.

[Syber]

yeah thats a bummer. I did go back to Futureshop after work and the guy told me they had a printout that stated the release date is pushed back till sometime in November for Canada.

[CIBartowski]

Why do we always seem to get the dirty end of the stick here in Canada???



I always thought that Lionsgate was a Canadian company out of BC. But I was wrong once before.

[Rhylliam]

Originally Posted by CIBartowski

I always thought that Lionsgate was a Canadian company out of BC. But I was wrong once before.

Well it was a Canadian company... Once Saw & Crash came out & made a few $$$, they relocated to the US, changed the name from Lions Gate Films, to Lionsgate & created Maple Pictures to be the new Canadian distributor.

Anyways, looks like there has been a delay for Stargate. I'm certain we'll see it very soon however.

[JimShaw]

I use to get mad at myself for double dipping a DVD for a Blu. Now it looks like I will double dip a Blu for a Blu. I think I have a habit?????

[Rhylliam]

Originally Posted by JimShaw

I use to get mad at myself for double dipping a DVD for a Blu. Now it looks like I will double dip a Blu for a Blu. I think I have a habit?????

Today was my 1st blu upgrade/double dip. Bought the Dir. Cut for Natural Born Killers... I like having both, but it also kinda sucks.

[Syber]

amazon.ca is listing Stargate as in stock now, so it should hit store shelves any day I would expect.

[thecardman23]

anybody know if they upgraded the video transfer on this new stargate or if it was only the audio that got a re-do?

[Rik1138]

A brand new HD master was created earlier this year, and look absolutely stunning... You've never seen Stargate look this good!

When someone in Canada gets this, post what codec the feature was encoded in, please. Apparently there is two different versions of this disc for some reason. One is encoded VC-1, and the other is AVC... I'm still trying to figure out why...

[NL197]

I've been following that over on HTF and this is just plain weird that such a thing would happen.

To me, the only thing I can compare the video quality on the original Blu-ray release to is an average theatrical trailer. Most trailers have a much lighter, grittier look to them and in this case the film looked like that.

Seeing this new version should be very interesting indeed...is it true that the hard cut of Ra's mask in the extended version's opening credits / African desert scene was smoothed out to resemble the theatrical version?

[risingstar]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

A brand new HD master was created earlier this year, and look absolutely stunning... You've never seen Stargate look this good!

When someone in Canada gets this, post what codec the feature was encoded in, please. Apparently there is two different versions of this disc for some reason. One is encoded VC-1, and the other is AVC... I'm still trying to figure out why...

What does that mean? I never even look for that when buying a bluray...
Should I?

[NL197]

Originally Posted by risingstar

What does that mean? I never even look for that when buying a bluray...
Should I?

The majority of studios prefer AVC over VC-1, though Warner Bros. only uses VC-1. Each codec has its advantages and disadvantages that can be explained in much more detail (if you really wanted to know) but I think the consensus seems to be that VC-1 produces a softer image compared to AVC which produces an image truer to its source material, and is more efficient with its compression.

VC-1, according to some of the experts who are part of this forum isn't even developed anymore, whereas AVC is being improved all the time since it is the preferred codec for Blu-ray.


In other words, an AVC version of Stargate should theoretically look better than a VC-1 version, but that's based entirely on what people claim.

The only time one film would be released in both codecs is if a double-dip happens with a newer version of the film coming out later, so that this has happened with one release at the same time is probably unprecedented, but who knows...

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by NL197

The majority of studios prefer AVC over VC-1, though Warner Bros. only uses VC-1. Each codec has its advantages and disadvantages that can be explained in much more detail (if you really wanted to know) but I think the consensus seems to be that VC-1 produces a softer image compared to AVC which produces an image truer to its source material, and is more efficient with its compression.

That's not entirely true... For the most part, the codec has little to do with it when compared to the skill of the compressionist. I guarantee I can make a movie look like crap in any codec (because I have no idea how to use the compression software ). The person that did the VC-1 encode of Stargate is one of the best compressionists in Hollywood who has won awards for his work on very well known titles from studios such as Disney/Pixar.

A friend of mine knows what kind of artifacting to look for when examining a VC-1 encode, and even he couldn't believe it looked as good as it does. when you know what you are doing, you can get either codec to look perfect.

Problem is, a surprisingly large amount of people just go with default settings with a little tweak here and there just to get the work done. Maybe AVCs default settings produce a better picture than VC-1s default settings, but you should be using the defaults anyway...

It's also quite possible that using VC-1 is much more difficult than using AVC, thus people that don't know how to use it are somewhat scared of it...

Originally Posted by NL197

VC-1, according to some of the experts who are part of this forum isn't even developed anymore, whereas AVC is being improved all the time since it is the preferred codec for Blu-ray.

It's still being developed to some degree, but it might have reached the point where it's as good as it's going to get, and now it's down to the compressionist to make it work good.

I do want to see the AVC version though, to see how the picture looks compared to the other. I think the bitrate is high enough that the AVC I'm sure looks fine. Usually, you can't make a choice of which one to get though, there's just one made, and that's what you are stuck with... This is a weird situation.

Personally, knowing who did the VC-1 (and never having heard of the facility that I believe did the AVC work), I'll stick with the VC-1 version.

[NL197]

I'm just going by what I read here, mostly in the "insider discussion" sub-forum. That and people having polls about which is better (similar to the DTS versus Dolby lossless comparisons here) that people get wrapped up in to the point of saying things like 'too bad it wasn't AVC' for a particular movie's release. At least with this film there's a true comparison to be made but not so with just about anything else. This film could be a really good point to be made about which codec is truly "better".

[risingstar]

I learn something new every time I pop in this forum...
Thanks guys!

[Syber]

I hope you are right Rik1138, IGN did a less than glowing review on the transfer even comparing it to the 2006 Blu release.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by NL197

I'm just going by what I read here, mostly in the "insider discussion" sub-forum. That and people having polls about which is better (similar to the DTS versus Dolby lossless comparisons here) that people get wrapped up in to the point of saying things like 'too bad it wasn't AVC' for a particular movie's release. At least with this film there's a true comparison to be made but not so with just about anything else. This film could be a really good point to be made about which codec is truly "better".

The only way that last statement would be true is if the same _PERSON_ encoded both films.

Polls and discussions like these are for idiots. Anyone that actually knows anything about video/audio knows that the codecs have _NOTHING_ to do with the quality of the picture in the end. Any of the 3 video codecs can look better than the other two in the right hands (and with enough disc space). It's all in the skill of the compressionist. Compressionists that do high-end work for studios actually prefer VC-1 over AVC since AVC is know to soften the image a little to get better compression. VC-1 looks sharper, but is much more difficult to use (thus, if you don't know what you are doing, you will get a worse-looking encode from VC-1). (And, I can assure you, the compressionist that did the VC-1 encode of Stargate knows what he's doing...)

Simply put, there is _NO_ debate about what video codec looks better. A 'codec' is simply a program/algorithm for compressing video with, literally, hundreds of settings. It's the skill of the person operating the software that makes the difference. If you want to argue about picture quality, find out the names of the people that encoded the films you want to complain about (or praise), and talk about them. It's _THEIR_ fault the picture looks good or bad, not the codec.

And whining about 'Gee, I wished they had used x codec, then it would look better' is just stupid. That's like whining about being forced to live on Earth... You don't have a choice, so just get over it... (Although, I guess this one case might be the exception...)

Originally Posted by Syber

I hope you are right Rik1138, IGN did a less than glowing review on the transfer even comparing it to the 2006 Blu release.

Yeah, I've already shot that idiot down... See for yourself the screen comparisons I did on page three of this thread:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=109128

Please, for your own sake, don't go to a gaming site for Blu-ray reviews. They don't know a damn thing about video/audio, and that is proved quite clearly by the comparison of the old and new Blu-ray of this film. That fact they state they can't see a difference between the old and the new Blu-ray should guarantee that no one ever goes to that site again...

[Syber]

All I did was search Stargate 15th review and IGN was first up. thanks for the pics Rik1138....my faith has been restored