Dunkirk 4K UHD (2017) - Page 49 - Blu-ray Forum

Geoff D · 11-21-2017, 12:18 AM

Es muy bien!

Pgcmoore · 11-21-2017, 12:26 AM

interesting, don't care for the upper text at all, kinda ruins the image

Brightstar · 11-21-2017, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbs2034

While the Wal-Mart exclusive of Revenge of the Fallen was available as a DVD, I believe this might be the first wide DVD release to include IMAX exclusive switching aspect ratios.

why would people buy a dvd for a movie shot in IMAX ?

Doctorossi · 11-21-2017, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brightstar

why would people buy a dvd for a movie shot in IMAX ?

Ooh! I know this one, Chuck!

"Because they don't have a Blu-ray player."

Did I win?

BrownianMotion · 11-21-2017, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Ooh! I know this one, Chuck!

"Because they don't have a Blu-ray player."

Did I win?

Who owns a DVD player in 2017 but not a blu ray player?

Aza_UK · 11-21-2017, 08:15 PM

Most people

Doctorossi · 11-21-2017, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

Who owns a DVD player in 2017 but not a blu ray player?

My neighbors. There is a reason they're continuing to manufacture DVDs.

NegaScott128 · 11-21-2017, 08:31 PM

When DVD came along, you didn't have to buy a new TV to see the difference in quality from VHS. By the time HDTVs were widespread enough for most people to see an actual upgrade in A/V quality with Blu-Ray, streaming services started popping up and a lot of people found it more convenient to stream movies to their phones, computers, or TVs rather than purchasing physical discs. Thus, Blu-Ray became a pseudo-collector's format, not to the extent that LaserDisc was back in the day, but it doesn't have the market penetration that VHS or even DVD have. Time will tell if UHD changes that trend, but I personally doubt it.

wxman2003 · 11-22-2017, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brightstar

why would people buy a dvd for a movie shot in IMAX ?

Because they don't care about quality, or are clueless or both.

Cremildo · 11-22-2017, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

Who owns a DVD player in 2017 but not a blu ray player?

Most people, at least in my country. DVD is still the norm; Blu-ray is a format that didn't take off here.

bud_brigman · 11-22-2017, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownianMotion

Who owns a DVD player in 2017 but not a blu ray player?

The majority of people are not video-philes, and they don't upgrade to the latest tech. 4K TVs have gotten so inexpensive that people looking to buy new displays will get that by default.

Doctorossi · 11-22-2017, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bud_brigman

4K TVs have gotten so inexpensive that people looking to buy new displays will get that by default.

... and plug a DVD player into it.

gkolb · 11-22-2017, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

... and plug a DVD player into it.

Are there any DVD players that upscale to 4K?
Doesn't seem likely, but it's possible I suppose.

Kris Deering · 11-22-2017, 08:10 PM

Wouldn't matter really, the TV will upscale it and probably do a better job.

Bubdylan · 11-23-2017, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeatEquation

Literally not one single person on the planet purchases the UHD for the blu ray that comes with it.

/waves at you from the planet.

I do. My UHD purchases are future-proofing only for now. I want the blu-ray to be as great as possible.

Bubdylan · 11-23-2017, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBMe

Interesting that it lists 1:78 second. If I recall from my (real) IMAX screening almost all of it was in IMAX format (quick search suggests ~75%). Hopefully the scene formatting stays the same as it was in the theaters (with the IMAX scenes being cropped to 1:78 of course).

Yeah, it's a troubling notion, but they would have to cut half the IMAX scenes to get to where the 1:78 became the minority. There is absolutely no way they did that.

It is odd, though. I think the opening scene is IMAX, too, right? So it's not listed second because of chronological order, either.

Bubdylan · 11-23-2017, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyry

Bill Hunt said this was a jaw dropping disc. But this also came as he spelled Nolan's first name as "Christipher" and misspelled attendance.

His jaw was in the way of his keyboard.

Merkur · 11-23-2017, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubdylan

Yeah, it's a troubling notion, but they would have to cut half the IMAX scenes to get to where the 1:78 became the minority. There is absolutely no way they did that.

It is odd, though. I think the opening scene is IMAX, too, right? So it's not listed second because of chronological order, either.

I think you guys are just looking for something that isn't there. The sequences will be identical to what you saw in IMAX (1.90:1 at least). Plus the logos are in 2.20:1 so that might be it.

Geoff D · 11-23-2017, 06:45 PM

Of course they're looking for something that isn't there, the order of the ratios on the cover has no bearing on the balance of the content whatsoever. Warners are simply following the cover specs layout they've done for his previous IMAX shows. Come on guys, I know this is the internet and everything but still...

Merkur · 11-23-2017, 08:41 PM

Yup. I mean you shouldn't think too much about these things. I checked my Interstellar copy (UK) and it says: 1080p High Definition 16x9 2.4:1. That gives you no clue whether it has a varying aspect ratio or not but it certainly does.

11-21-2017, 12:18 AM	#961
Geoff D Blu-ray Emperor Top contributor Member since:Feb 2009 Location:Swanage, Engerland 4K collection:1348 Blu-ray collection:2525 Blu-ray reviews: 6 Trading Score:33	Es muy bien!

11-21-2017, 12:26 AM	#962
Pgcmoore Expert Member Member since:Nov 2010 Location:Tampa	interesting, don't care for the upper text at all, kinda ruins the image

11-21-2017, 08:15 PM	#966
Aza_UK Active Member Member since:Apr 2017 Location:UK 4K collection:23 Blu-ray collection:169	Most people

11-21-2017, 08:31 PM	#968
NegaScott128 Banned Member since:Feb 2015	When DVD came along, you didn't have to buy a new TV to see the difference in quality from VHS. By the time HDTVs were widespread enough for most people to see an actual upgrade in A/V quality with Blu-Ray, streaming services started popping up and a lot of people found it more convenient to stream movies to their phones, computers, or TVs rather than purchasing physical discs. Thus, Blu-Ray became a pseudo-collector's format, not to the extent that LaserDisc was back in the day, but it doesn't have the market penetration that VHS or even DVD have. Time will tell if UHD changes that trend, but I personally doubt it.

11-22-2017, 08:10 PM	#974
Kris Deering Power Member Member since:Nov 2006 Location:Pacific Northwest Blu-ray collection:400 Trading Score:131	Wouldn't matter really, the TV will upscale it and probably do a better job.

11-23-2017, 06:45 PM	#979
Geoff D Blu-ray Emperor Top contributor Member since:Feb 2009 Location:Swanage, Engerland 4K collection:1348 Blu-ray collection:2525 Blu-ray reviews: 6 Trading Score:33	Of course they're looking for something that isn't there, the order of the ratios on the cover has no bearing on the balance of the content whatsoever. Warners are simply following the cover specs layout they've done for his previous IMAX shows. Come on guys, I know this is the internet and everything but still...

11-23-2017, 08:41 PM	#980
Merkur Senior Member Member since:Mar 2015 4K collection:7 Blu-ray collection:33	Yup. I mean you shouldn't think too much about these things. I checked my Interstellar copy (UK) and it says: 1080p High Definition 16x9 2.4:1. That gives you no clue whether it has a varying aspect ratio or not but it certainly does.

Best 4K Blu-ray Deals