|
|
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals
|
Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals » |
Top deals |
New deals
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() $24.96 4 hrs ago
| ![]() $44.99 | ![]() $31.13 | ![]() $54.49 | ![]() $29.96 | ![]() $70.00 | ![]() $29.95 | ![]() $34.99 | ![]() $34.99 1 day ago
| ![]() $26.95 | ![]() $30.52 | ![]() $29.95 |
![]() |
#1 |
Banned
Jun 2011
|
![]() from the 3 released on blu ray which looks the best |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Blu-ray Guru
|
![]()
Part 2 is the clear winner. Part 1 was not shot with enough light, and Part 3 used a new 3-D system which gave it the low resolution of Techniscope coupled with very poor lenses. Part 2 looks like competently lit and shot 35mm, which it is.
All three blu-rays faithfully reproduce the look of their source materials, so from that point of view all three are winners. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Power Member
|
![]()
I think the original has the best consistency. 1 and 2 were shot extremely similar, so there is not much difference at all, but part 2's campfire scene stands out as looker weaker than the rest (it's inherent in the film itself, can't be helped). The main differences between 1 and 2 are that 2 has brighter daytime scenes, more colored blue lighting at night, and a bit more lighting in general at night while still keeping things dark, so it's a stylistic difference more than a technical one.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Junior Member
Aug 2011
Warner Robins
|
![]()
I have to agree all 3 are pretty damned close to the original source. I also agree 2 looks the best.
The real question is where the deuce is the uncut Part VII BD? |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Banned
Jun 2011
|
![]()
why does does part 3 loos so bad
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Power Member
|
![]()
2 by far. On part 1 the picture has been zoomed in to far. Cutting off information, more than any previous version. 3 is grainy, but from what I have been told it has to do with how the 3d was shot. The 3D Bluray was also taken from the "other" of the two lens that was used for the 3D process so it has a slightly different angle and different print damage than other sources.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Active Member
Aug 2009
|
![]()
Part 1 is by far the best, the zoomed stuff only makes it look better I mean if you want to see an extra piece of a tree then go with number 2.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Blu-ray Samurai
Feb 2011
|
![]()
You can't really go wrong with the first two. In fact, I'll go further: The first two blus are two of my favourite blus, framing issues aside. Part 3 is problematic, whether you watch it in 3D or not, but as others have noted, it seems faithful to the source.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Banned
Jun 2011
|
![]()
i heard part 2 has 3d like depth on blu
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Banned
Jun 2011
|
![]()
2
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Banned
Jun 2011
|
![]()
lol yeah sure, are ou trying to put me off blu ray
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Blu-ray Samurai
Feb 2011
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Banned
Jun 2011
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|