Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

While your litmus test might be appropriate for *you*, it's completely unrealistic. It's a bit like my mother telling me that no relationship I have will "count" to her until it runs the length of her marriage. It's an unreachable goal.

The expectation of someone who enjoys Bryan Singer movies and on the whole finds these types of movies to improve upon their predecessors that a second Bryan Singer Superman film will be as good as or better than the first is not unwarranted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's only made one sequel. Right? That's not a pattern; it's a single instance. How does my not imagining a trend to exist within a single event present an unreachable goal?

The unreachable goal is how you get from 'made one better sequel' to 'therefor, his next sequel is likely to also be better'.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he's only made one sequel. Right? That's not a pattern; it's a single instance. How does my not imagining a trend to exist within a single event present an unreachable goal?

The unreachable goal is how you get from 'made one better sequel' to 'therefor, his next sequel is likely to also be better'.

Its that thing called track record. Every film that gets green lighted has the chance to fail no matter who the director is.

But if you have to choose between James Cameron or Sam Mendes directing a film and you want guaranteed box office success who do you go with?

I dont really know how to answer your question other than that.


Sam Raimi does fit the definition actually.

Spiderman 2 > Spiderman
Evil Dead 2 > Evil Dead
Army of Darkness > Evil Dead 2

There you go. He did it 3 times.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

The unreachable goal is how you get from 'made one better sequel' to 'therefor, his next sequel is likely to also be better'.

To be blunt this is a ridiculous and utterly silly way to have an expectation.

Singer has a track record and a familiarity with the material.

Thats all you need.

[SpaceDog]

I think it's reasonable to perceive that Bryan Singer when tasked with a Superhero film will make one that is introductory and lays down the foundation for his universe, then will take off once the groundwork is laid. I also know that a 3rd Bryan Singer X-men film would have been better than the abortion they rushed out.

Expectations aren't about facts and figures. Sometimes they are just about a feeling with a director.

Not everyone thinks that Christopher Nolan films are awesome, but I expect that I'm going to enjoy every single one I sit down to for the foreseeable future.

John Cameron Mitchell has only made 2 films, but I expect to be completely in love with "Rabbit Hole" when it comes out.

My point is that neither may meet with YOUR expectations, but as it's SUBJECTIVE altogether in the first place, another persons expectations can't be OBJECTIVELY wrong.

[MerrickG]

On another note, I felt it was important to pass this quote along in regards to American Beauty.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Regarding American Beauty -

If the motion picture is accurately represented in the upcoming Blu-ray incarnation, then to those with very discerning eyes, the imagery should in fact look a tad soft, as Connie Hall used a light grade softening filter from a popular line of Tiffen products, specifically in order to tone down the sharpness of the images during the principal photography.

So that discussion is OVER.

You dont have to LIKE the look of Hall's cinematography, but you can't say you aren't getting the intended look.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

To be blunt this is a ridiculous and utterly silly way to have an expectation.

Merrick, I'm not the one placing any expectations on anything; I'm arguing against going in with particular expectations. I don't understand how it's "ridiculous and utterly silly" to not base an expectation upon a "series" of one event.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

My point is that neither may meet with YOUR expectations, but as it's SUBJECTIVE altogether in the first place, another persons expectations can't be OBJECTIVELY wrong.

Of course. And I was only ever trying to make a subjective comment. Anybody can create for themselves any expectations they want. In the case of Singer, I just don't see any patterns to suggest those expectations (yet). That's just my opinion, though.

[4K2K]

With the PS3 apparently not being able to do BD-J at the same time as 3D, what will that mean for 3D BD titles?

Does it mean they will all have a working "resume play" feature - or that they will be able to resume a title if it's being output in 3D but possibly not if you're outputting it in 2D? And that you can't have PiP in 3D? Will they use/switch to 2D mode before using a BD-J feature? Apparently existing 3D discs do use BD-J, it could be they just use it in 2D mode?

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by merrick97

On another note, I felt it was important to pass this quote along in regards to American Beauty.




So that discussion is OVER.

You dont have to LIKE the look of Hall's cinematography, but you can't say you aren't getting the intended look.

The discussion isn't over, but I'm glad to hear a perspective on it. The complaint wasn't about softness, if you've read the review.

Originally Posted by Martin Liebman

American Beauty features another flawed transfer; it's not as egregiously bad as Gladiator's first release, but it's not up to par with the wonderfully filmic and nearly perfect Braveheart, either. It's a transfer of pluses and minuses that will leave some viewers satisfied and others once again demanding a superior release. As to the good first, American Beauty's vibrant color palette mostly sparkles in high definition. Though reds -- the most important color throughout the film -- can appear somewhat smeary and slightly over-pumped, the remainder of the palette delivers a stable, honest appearance that lends an eye-catching tint to brighter shades while maintaining a strong neutral look to the less-vibrant hues. Nevertheless, several scenes clearly appear washed out compared to the remainder of the film. Detailing is adequate for a high definition transfer, too; American Beauty certainly doesn't capture the absolute finest textures and nuances of anything within its frame like the finest film-like transfers achieve, but viewers will be pleased with the solid upgrade in clarity and definition that's apparent over the film's standard-definition DVD release.

Unfortunately, there are some other minor-to-moderate issues that drag the transfer down from where it needs to be. Occasional spots and speckles cover what is a rather harsh-looking image with excessively sharp edges and readily-visible edge enhancement through much of the film. Whites occasionally bloom and overpower the frame in several scenes, and black levels fluctuate between appearing a bit too pale in some places and overwhelming foreground details in others. Fortunately, however, both whites and blacks are more often than not steady and honest, with the problem areas appearing only intermittently throughout the film. Noise dots the image on occasion as well, though American Beauty does retain a bit of grain and doesn't appear to have suffered from overzealous noise reduction. Nevertheless, there are several instances where parts of the image -- and faces in particular -- appear overly smooth and pasty, though flesh tones tend to capture a pleasantly neutral shade through most of the runtime. Of the observed issues, only the overly sharp, digital-looking sheen and edge enhancement are major causes for concern; the other problems add up but don't dominate and drastically lessen the transfer in quite the same way.

The problem Penton refutes and the problems represented in the review are not the same. That said, I'm on a wait and see with American Beauty on the advice of a good friend. I will be disappointed if the problems Martin notes are actualized when I give this one a rental. I'm also disappointed that any of my top tier titles require a rental when they ought to be day 1 buys.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

The discussion isn't over, but I'm glad to hear a perspective on it. The complaint wasn't about softness, if you've read the review.



The problem Penton refutes and the problems represented in the review are not the same. That said, I'm on a wait and see with American Beauty on the advice of a good friend. I will be disappointed if the problems Martin notes are actualized when I give this one a rental. I'm also disappointed that any of my top tier titles require a rental when they ought to be day 1 buys.

Unrealistic expectations are what kill more things than anything. The wait and see for yourself is the best advice.

I am not saying that we shouldn't demand the highest quality from bluray but too often assumptions are made about transfers when little to nothing is known about the intentional look of a film. My gut is that is that will be the case with American Beauty.

How many times has something been called DNR when it was intentionally shot soft?

Just things to think about.

[MerrickG]

Jeff,

When is bluray going to become self aware?

[tilapiah6]

Jeff,

I know I'm likely beating a dead horse, but have you recently received any word or even rumors of Twin Peaks getting a release date on Blu-ray?

Thanks for any info you may have.

[Jeff Kleist]

Twin Peaks..reply hazy, ask again next year. Play Alan Wake in the meantime if you need a fix

With the PS3 apparently not being able to do BD-J at the same time as 3D, what will that mean for 3D BD titles?

Does it mean they will all have a working "resume play" feature - or that they will be able to resume a title if it's being output in 3D but possibly not if you're outputting it in 2D? And that you can't have PiP in 3D? Will they use/switch to 2D mode before using a BD-J feature? Apparently existing 3D discs do use BD-J, it could be they just use it in 2D mode?

Secondary audio DOES work, since it does not rely on BD-J to function. I included the relevant text in the piece so that there was no question about it, and I confirmed my interpretation with 3 different people before writing the piece.

3D discs can use BD-J all they want. The current procedure is to write a custom title set specifically for the PS3 that omits the things that cause problems, and default to that when the disc detects that it's running on the console (like standard discs blank out BD-Live or BonusView when those aren't available on the hardware). I can't say whether or not they support HDMV resume, but I would assume so. A huge number of BD-J discs coming out now support resume anyway (Disney and Magnolia titles I've noticed it on specifically)

My advice is that if these features are important to you, buy a dedicated player. Don't forget that while they see it as a selling point, SCE would rather not sell PS3s to HT enthusiasts who aren't going to be plopping games in them as well because consoles are typically sold from a loss(sometimes a BIG loss at launch) to a small profit, and hooking you up costs them money.

Sony has a whole new multimedia front end in their players and their NetBox, if all you want is a media player, then you can get a better piece of hardware from them that will do the same job for less money, and play full range 3D to boot.

[tilapiah6]

Thanks, Jeff. And yes, I have already played and beat Alan Wake. It was superb.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by merrick97

When is bluray going to become self aware?

2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

Thanks, Jeff. And yes, I have already played and beat Alan Wake. It was superb.

Agreed on all counts. Have you played The Signal?

I cant say I cared for it, but it was free.

[MerrickG]

For those of you worried about whether Wreckage and Rage was cut Sir Charles has confirmed that is NOT the case!

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...0#post_3729392

Originally Posted by Charles de Lauzirika

The uncut "Wreckage and Rage" documentary runs, as has been noted, approximately 21 minutes longer than the cutdown version. Additionally, as noted on this very page, there are approximately 73 minutes worth of new Enhancement Pods that are optionally bundled alongside the documentary. If my math is correct, that puts the entire run time of Disc 5's "Alien 3" documentary content at over 250 minutes. I hope that's more than sufficient.

Unless some truly covert shenanigans happened behind my back at the very last minute, the documentary is indeed untampered with. Fredrick Garvin has officially retired

[Mr. Cinema]

Jeff,

According to the review for Robin Hood, the 1 hour documentary is in standard def. If true, why, in 2010, are we still getting brand new extras in SD? I don't understand that at all. On catalogs, if they're porting over DVD content, I completely understand it staying in SD. But on new movies, it just boggles my mind that they still produce content in SD. Universal spent millions on Robin Hood, and on the creation of the BD, but they can't cough up a bit more for that documentary to be in HD? Makes 0 sense to me.

Same thing happened last year with GI Joe. The making-of was in SD.

[Jeff Kleist]

Well, that would be a question for Charlie, but my guess would be that given that the movie barely broke even and isn't expected to be a huge movier, they weren't willing to press a second disc and go to the extra expense of authoring another Blu. I'm sure that it was finished in HD.

[gettodamoofies]

Interestingly here in Australia we are getting a 2-disc version of Robin Hood (the same as the UK). Disc one contains both cuts of the film as well as the Director's Notebook and Art of Nottingham feature whilst disc two has the deleted scenes, Rise and Rise Again and the marketing archive. Being that the material is housed on 2 discs as opposed to the one in the US it will be interesting to see whether the features are then presented in HD. It may also result in the film itself having a different bit rate or the free space being taken up by additional language tracks.