Criterion fucks up again

This, Laserdisc won the format war.

Attached: 85A4E274-090E-4D8F-B077-4048B4141581.jpg (3264x2448, 3.04M)

Blue Velvet isn't on Laserdisc you fuckin' dumb ass, now shut the fuck up bitch.

HAHAHAHAHA LOL WTF

Yes it is, my little tiny dumbfuck Zoomer child.

Attached: 35672_back.jpg (800x800, 134K)

So?

Attached: image.jpg (1172x1646, 877K)

Just pointing out that you belong on Reddit, not here.

> you're only allowed to post on Yea Forums if you have an encyclopedic knowledge of the Laserdisc catalogue

Attached: image.jpg (628x534, 174K)

Or, y'know, if there were some nearby mechanism of data transmission enabling you to look things up in seconds for free.

*better than VHS blah blah
Then there's all the space vinyl record-sixed LD covers could offer for artwork, compared to the pathetic amount of space of DVDs and BR's.

WHY DID THEY DO THIS???

I just spotted those TOS ST LD's...

Wtf

I'm starting to wonder if they don't want to sell overstock copies of Laserdiscs because that's what usually results in their foolishness. I have the Jaws DVD and it made me angry because they fucked with the best part at the end.

Meh, just more things for the talented people over at HD-Bits and AwesomeHD to fix. They do fine work.

It's honestly been a total nightmare seeing what Disney has done to their blurays. It's terrible and equal to vandalism.

Attached: 1528561537376.jpg (1544x6115, 2M)

>Agreed, plus it has the smoothest fast-forward and backwards functions on the fly than VHS, DVD (by far), and BR. It's like butter.

(for some reason it posted to another poster)

Just buy the French release then. It looks fine.

wtf were they trying to make it look like Tokyo Drift?

Why would anyone think that a BR would reveal more detail in fucking cartoon?

Don't know about the dvd/blurays, but when you watch old Simpsons episodes on tv they're applying a ton of DNR to make them look like the new seasons. But in older episodes there's a few instances where they used real footage (e.g. Bart and Lisa channel hop into a cooking tv show on a halloween special) and the liveaction segment is unwatchable with the amount of dnr they're pumping to make the cartoon look "good". It's disgusting. Leave animation alone

I'm salty that The Terminator BR has an altered soundtrack that completely eliminates the original sounds of the firearms in the entire movie, save for the future weapons. The guns sounds so lame on BR. I'll stick with my VHS.

Who cares. That movie sucks.

Nobody would think that. But also a BR shouldn't have LESS detail than a dvd copy.

Attached: GHTrqVl.jpg (750x500, 240K)

>Nobody would think that
What do you mean? BR's were marketed as the clearest most HD format yet. >But also a BR shouldn't have LESS detail than a dvd copy.
That's what I'm saying, and it's clear that their DRN work is erasing the fine lines in the art.

Why "fix" anything when you can just continue using the superior French BD? It's not like Criterion did a new transfer here.

Attached: edfd5390_dtt1.jpg (1019x679, 250K)

You do..

Attached: 1553442014420.gif (499x499, 44K)

It's still shitty because it's partly erased.

Because the cels were shot on 35 mm film, genius.

>t. only watched the remake and message flew over his head

Attached: Funny_Games.jpg (1996x1080, 382K)

Yep and they're much easier to store in a browse-able way.

It's the complete set, I have all the TNGs and the movies, too.

Laserdiscs are the only way to get an actual competent transfer from 35mm film any more. As you say they even managed to fuck up DVDs and Blu-Rays are a lost cause. Laserdiscs have much better sound as well, technical specs aside they're pre-loudness war and they were made for people with premium grade home theaters.

CDs are the only good digital media format. Even when technical barriers don't limit the quality of a digital format the idiots in charge of the intellectual property will fuck it up, guaranteed.

What kind of stupid question is this? Look at the clock in the third image down, the Blu-ray obviously has more detail. But at the same time they've run the movie through some a blanket smudging/color correction filter, because smoothness is more important than detail to them.

I gotta say, it feels great knowing that the classic VHS Disneys are not only nostalgic, but technically superior as well.

desu i'm out of my depth here. i know that depending on the stock used, film can be scanned to 2k, 4k, or higher and get more detail than with smaller resolution. but would the same apply for drawings?

Attached: IMG_1286.jpg (2500x1734, 468K)

This. Stick to superior DVD

Attached: Swimming.Pool.2003-comparisons.jpg (1920x2211, 745K)

Sad that that's the only "argument" you could come up with since I was obviously talking about mentioned in the OP, the original. But for what it's worth, they're both shit.

>It's the complete set, I have all the TNGs
Not going to lie and say I'm not jealous.

>Laserdiscs are the only way to get an actual competent transfer from 35mm film any more
I fully accept that now.

Keep up the good fight, fren.

>but would the same apply for drawings?
I doubt it. Colors and lines are no match for complex reality.

>argument
You haven't written anything to argue against, just baseless spew. "Sucks" and "shit" isn't valid criticism, back it up.

YO listen up heres a story

I'm a pleb, what is DNR?

Attached: theres_something_about_movies_0101.jpg (900x450, 96K)

>the Blu-ray obviously has more detail.
18+

Digital Noise Reduction. The BR's of SW are full of it and look like crap. The VHS tapes are literally more "there".

Think of it as the video equivalent of dynamic range compression.

Do Not Resucitate

>IT ISN'T ON LASERDISC YOU FUCKING FAGGOT RETARD
>Yes it is
>YEAH WELL IVE GOT THIS WOJACK

The “””message””” actually makes the film worse.

Thanks, I can see it when I zoom in

Attached: images (3).jpg (259x194, 8K)

digital noise reduction. best example so far posted here: left is DNR version, right is original movie

I don't see any difference

It looks like a wax museum sculptor of Arnie

Based and BloatZone pilled

>blurry mess with better saturation
>vs
>imperfect but vibrant and sharp and you can actually see what’s going on during action, and some slight detail funk depending on the scene
I mean I’m still going blu ray

fixed it for you...

Attached: 1558394581879.jpg (1920x2211, 280K)

kek

HAHA

Typical Haneke misanthropy except this time he didn't do anything interesting with it.

>he hasn’t seen the Akira blu-ray

And btw, it's hard not to get the "message" when it's that painfully obvious.

>plebs not knowing what's vlog discussing saturation

i'll stick to superior 35mm prints thank you very much

Not for all of them. And for the ones that do have botched Blu-Ray releases there'll still be a webrip, or failing that, the DVD release.

Based.

>NOTE: It has been reported by another site that the horizontal 'squishing' (vertical stretching) of the Criterion (First Printing) starts at about 22-minutes and continues to the end of the film.
The absolute state of Criterion. They actually released this and saw nothing wrong with it until people complained.

dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews54/dressed_to_kill_blu-ray.htm

Attached: 1557640354547.png (815x1502, 1.4M)

criterion too busy filming closet picks videos with hack directors to give a fuck about this

Your TV has a sharpness filter. If you want to destroy 90% of the picture detail for sharper edges you can do that yourself. As a Blu-Ray fan you don't have any choice though, the studios go ahead and ruin fine detail ahead of time for you.

skin color looks more real but everything else looks flat and less detailed

If I need to single handedly buy and preserve every decent movie released on Laserdisc, I will.

Isn't that film grain they removed?

And I thought my Laserdisc fixation was a form of autism, based and redpilled though.

physical media > 'rips'

I mean neither is ideal. But I’d rather watch a imperfect 35mm than a perfect 8mm at the end of the day. And the examples you showed are the most extreme cases. 95% of shots look good. And even in the frames you picked, detail reduction isn’t uniform. It only effects specific elements and everything else is more detailed in the blu ray

You can't just remove film grain because of the random nature of it. You have to destroy fine detail to remove film grain. Basically you are blurring the whole scene by some pixel radius, then applying a sharpness filter to fix the blurry edges. Each operation destroys information which was in the original frame. Learn 2 information theory.

Are you worried about entropy at all? I bought my first player last year, I really intended to only focus on computer animated shorts but more than half my collection so far is other stuff and I keep looking for more, but at the same time I'm also questioning the sanity of this hobby when all it takes for my library to become unwatchable is for my player to break. It's not like DVD where you can just buy a new one, even VHS decks are dime a dozen. If my player stops working, I'm pretty much fucked since the format was never picked up in my country except as a karaoke machine so any non-karaoke machine that comes up for sale was probably imported by the owner.

Which reminds me, about three months ago I had an opportunity to buy a CLD-99S (a Japanese version of the CLD-3030 I think) from a local seller but I blew it and I'm still fucking salty about it.

Why?

>this amount of cope

also I couldn’t imagine watching the Xerox didn’t films without the pencil removals. Walt hated those and I’m glad they’re gone

I was gonna ask why would they remove film grain, it's generals found to be pleasing to the eye.

I have ten players, six of which work, and four of which are parts spares or machines which I am working on now. I've rejuvenated three LD players.

I'm a homeowner with a nice basement to store my equipment in though. And LD players are cheap here, nobody even knows what they are. I've bought three on the auction site which were listed as "Pioneer CD player."

Isn't it obvious?

I honestly don't know, I never objected to it either.

>found to be pleasing to the eye
It is, they actually add noise to digital films nowadays because some of the digital cameras shoot so sterile. It's disgusting if you ask me, when half of a film is made digitally, with grading, etc, in post like a glorified photoshop instead in-camera.

Attached: 1542288825525.jpg (1920x1888, 613K)

Considering how many discs you have, that doesn't surprise me.

I wish I was in the same situation.

Digital was a revolution because each take no longer cost extra beyond the cast and crew, who are salaried or gigging anyway. Do you know what a reel of 35mm cost to buy and process? It's many thousands of dollars.

I suspect this is part of the reason why movies and actors suck now too, it's cheap to just keep re-shooting so talent isn't needed, you just hope for that magic moment when the actors stub their toe or something to get real emotion into the lens.

wtf is HDTV, that's not a format.

Attached: dvd-Blurays-comparisons3.gif (1344x728, 1.58M)

I'm doing it for all of us user. When I die I'll will it all to a museum. My wife likes the Laserdiscs but I'm sure she doesn't want to deal with all that garbage when I'm gone.

i hate hate HATE this. i love watching older flicks and seeing that classic sheen, why fucking make it look like something a music video director made in 2005? there oughta be laws against this shit.

Information Theory says you're wrong about the level of picture information ("detail") in the images.

You may find the Blu-Rays more pleasing to your eye but if you start actually looking hard at the images you'll see that they have less information.

Attached: E9yWZ.jpg (728x492, 69K)

It's just what played on TV, somewhere. HDTV is a illegitimate capture, usually better quality than an existing DVD because they get the original scan for broadcast but don't encode with mpeg2 and downscale to SD.

>that classic sheen

Attached: MenatWorkclap.gif (362x195, 1.41M)

>why fucking make it look like something a music video director made in 2005?
Because Mann literally did do this himself in 2008.

Attached: 1541980716343.jpg (1920x2118, 740K)

>makes sure to have br frame waaaaaay below actual resolution to compress it to mashed potatoes
>dude there’s no detail
Very sneaky, sis

This has nothing to do with blu-rays and everything to do with Disney digitally "remastering" their films shot-by-shot.

I only have antenna and several channels have serious sync issues with sound when they play classic movies. My wife actually was watching one of those disposable Vincent Price movies and called me in to the living room to see the absolute state of broadcast TV in current day.

>5 second desync between audio and video

The VHS image was blown up actually.

It has to do with the absolute state of current move picture houses. Blu-Ray could be a fine format even though they can revoke any disc at any time, that right there is a deal killer for many anons.

Attached: Remaster Lady Snowblood.jpg (958x1254, 109K)

underrated

Attached: French Cancan.jpg (712x1076, 244K)

>69kb
...you do know how compression works right pal?

Attached: Remaster Dunkirk.jpg (3840x4320, 884K)

What shithole do you live in that still broadcasts in analogue?

Attached: Akira (3).jpg (1024x576, 286K)

Wait what? Thank fuck I have a Laserdisc of that film.

>if you watch TNG on streaming services they don't include the ambient ship noises, the pulse of the warp engine, etc
Just wait, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

That's fucking horrible. Good thing the French Blu Ray exists and seems to be the identical master but without digital "enhancement". Disgusting.

>copefag

I live in the middle of nowhere, in the coastal PNW. My town has 4000 people and it's the largest city in a 100 mile radius. I can see the Pacific Ocean from my house, it's only 500 yards away.

It's pretty nice out here, if I want diversity I have to get it on my TV.

fucking jewish nepotism, can't they hire people with some actual braincells
not only they make absolute shit nowdays, they even ruin the much better things from the past

how would you like your kino served: wildly overblown or pure mud?

literally should be punishable by prison time

Yeah, the 5.1 mix changes several sound effects to ones from the sequel. The European DVD and blu-ray releases all omit the mono track which had the original foley effects. I actually got a Thai special edition DVD (not bootleg) of the movie since the region 1 SE was out of print by the time I wisened to this.

Not as salty as buying the Special Edition DVD only for it to fucking become unplayable due to shitty disc manufacture.

Attached: PowerDVD9 2013-03-23 22-59-30-04.jpg (1680x952, 230K)

disgusting

And I mean ALL blu-ray releases, not just the European ones. MGM in Europe had a lovely practice of dropping the original audio mix, if it were present in the US release, in favour of a bunch of useless dubs on a lot of DVD releases. And by "lot", I mean "probably all of them".

Fuck, what happened?

Dat sucks. (Ahnold voice) Happened to Halloween 4 for me. Pure rot.

Based Laserphile.

Why the fuck do the French get a different transfer to everyone else. It was the same with the Dredd bluray. One region fucks up by selecting the wrong lens for the 2D print, the other fucks up the colours even more, only France gets a decent picture out of it.

>not watching it in theaters without any digital color grading at all
you just got FILTERED you dumb pleb

Yeah, imagine how I felt, but at least I got the rarer red case and not blue, so it looks neat on a shelf, so it has that going for it.

Worst example of DNR I've seen besides Predator was the French blu-ray or Le Samouraï. The Conformist had a really fucked blu-ray too. I hope they got better releases since then.

Always take care of my discs, open it up one day and they're sticky and unplayable. Turns out it's a common issue with the R2 manufacture.

Attached: IMG_20170104_210144.jpg (4864x2736, 2.91M)

The South Park movie Blu Ray has a lot more detail

Nolan's 70mm remaster of 2001 is bottom pic, screened in IMAX

Attached: 1535304183297.png (1280x1260, 1.35M)

Surprising, got an example?

That's fucking Mann's fault. He did that.

i hate to be the one to tell you this user but someone done cum on your dvds

"Here we see the magic SNES gnome in his native habitat under this microscope, and now we see him in that same nicotine-stained console 29 years later."

I don't think I've ever had a DVD gone bad. I've had blu-ray go bad tho. Every single disc in my old Lion's Gate Rambo Trilogy box set developed this weird bronze hue that made the movies unplayable after layer change.

I have actually screened 2001 in 70mm (not Nolans) and it looks fucking nothing like the bottom.

>Why the fuck do the French get a different transfer to everyone else
They don't, Criterion used the same transfer here. Also, the French have fucked up a lot of films, e.g. take a look at their Le Samourai blu-ray compared to Criterion (pic related): caps-a-holic.com/c.php?d1=8304&d2=11090&c=3372

Attached: le_samourai.jpg (1920x2160, 676K)

>the 2007 bluray is the right version!
Ok you fucking retard, I got my red circles out to make it really clear to a brainlet. Look at those bottom two screenshots, they are both from the 2007 Blu-ray. For some reason in every shot of this movie where the hallway is in the background, you can tell that the lighting is warm. It’s only in one single shot (upper left) that the hallway appears like a cool white, and then the room Bowman walks into is blue.
The “Nolan” 2018 70mm version has the hallway lights match with how it looks with the rest of the film, it was timed photochemically. The IMAX digital version is scanned from the negative and digitally timed with approval from Kubrick’s personal assistant.
Films looks more like their theatrical version than they ever have, but you autists screech over how they don’t match the faded VHS colors from the 80s so it must be some new teal or yellow tint applied, rather than the people working at the (proper) remastering workshops actually using celluloid prints for reference in situations like these.

Attached: 1543786915380[1].jpg (1806x901, 335K)

>how do you want your kino?
>aged backwards about 40 years for pseudo-authenticity, please

Then your print was shit. Pic related, left is original BD and it doesn't match other shots (below), which are yellow. Based Nolan got it right

Attached: 1535322490683.jpg (2048x2048, 605K)

Man it must be cool having a Laserdisc collection.

I think we can all agree Peter Jackson is to blame for this piss filter that has infested Cameron, Mann, and Nolan's transfers.

YOU WIN

Attached: rds0yxfd2dy7ah1ynn3f.jpg (680x432, 64K)

What does the water scene look like in criterion?

nah soderbergh is captain piss

Attached: 00406fec.jpg (1920x1034, 211K)

Attached: 2001 best version.jpg (337x445, 28K)

Who did it first? Why an aqua filter?

It's so baffling, I feel completely lost like I missed some global executive decision.

Laserdisc Criterion is better. Better detail from a better transfer, better soundtrack.

>the DVD is the right version!
nice ignorant beyond retarded boomer opinion

This one? Also, all DC versions of that film are blue, not just the Criterion release.

Attached: 1548880376513.jpg (1920x2118, 924K)

They used the same master/transfer as basis, you can see that when you look at the caps-a-holic comparison, it's pixel-perfect the same alignment, you don't really get that with separate scans.
In other words, one did the post-processing correctly, the other one was incompetent and fucked up.

Don't forget Deakins/Coens with O Brother

That actually had a narrative reason to do so, it's not just a filter for the hell of it

Top: DVD
Bottom: WB BD

Attached: 1546474193097.jpg (900x1047, 213K)

And the VHS case is the most aesthetically pleasing one.

Attached: comfy odyssey.jpg (480x640, 40K)

Don't own it, I don't support nu-Cohen brothers even though they literally grew up on the same block that I did. Their last real movie was Raising Arizona.

*sniggers*

Attached: friedkin.jpg (194x259, 7K)

>analyzing a fucking cartoon frame by frame
nnnnoooo, my rotoscoped moving pictures!

holy fuck that's criminal, surprised they didn't digitally add chemtrails too though now that i think about it

Eat me. The movie looks flawless there. My quest for a pefect 2001 viewing was over decades ago.

youtube.com/watch?v=cgiz88ve4p4
To be completely fair, it looks better in motion, but it's still fucking awful.

I blame tv audiences for that shit.

>mousecuck says don't point out how nu-formats are destroying classic Disney pictures
these are a legacy and they've been wrecked by plebs with smoothing filters

>too stupid to even type "blue velvet laserdisc" on google
You don't even belong on reddit. Call your ISPs and shut down any and all access to the internet that you have.

I feel pretty cool, I'm also married to a woman with the same exact body as Christina Hendricks.

Goddamn nintendo emulator filters.

I love piss kino

Attached: exiled.jpg (664x2004, 311K)

^now that's how you correct someone. I always take the word of a fellow LD lover, so I'll check into it, but I'm keeping my DVD regardless since I've got memories associated with it already. Wish I had my dad's VHS pseudo-clamshell of it, user. His bitch third wife probably threw it out.

I don't give a shit what Disney does with their legacy of commercial trash and neither should you

You're an absolute legend user

lol they just zoomed in on the image and told the clouds to fuck off. What else was anyone expecting since it was filmed in open-matte?

kek

95% of people that post in threads like these are absolutely retarded blindly following boomers who just post the same handful of spammed pics over and over again while not even being aware of anything else but the information those spammed pictures have.

That LOTR extended edition color grade comparison is the best example, everyone crying "omggg I hate digital color grading so much why ruin it" while not being aware that the entirety of LOTR has constantly changing extreme digital color grade which Hackson is immensely proud of.

Pic related, the same shot 5 seconds apart with a completely different color grade. Yes it's like this on your precious DVDs too and it was like this in theaters too

Attached: Hackson_2.jpg (1920x1600, 1.25M)

Overstocks are long gone, prices are now reflecting this.

A rare film can easily fetch $500 on LD.

color "correction" subhumans such as yourself should be holocausted

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Attached: The Wire HD SD Comparison.jpg (3840x1080, 531K)

>A rare film can easily fetch $500 on LD.
Thank goodness for piracy.

I like the design on the oldschool "standardized" VHS releases, like that fake gradient WHV used back in the 80's, remember that one?

>they just zoomed in on the image
Pretty sure all WB blurays of Kubrick's films are cropped like this. Criterion really saved Barry Lyndon, hope they do more films

Have you seen the 4K version?

Attached: 1542743785797.png (3840x2160, 2.26M)

NESticle and Genecyst had better scaling and smoothing 20 years ago.

Warner Bros is the worst studio of all time. I seriously hope Disney buys them out and guts them to death

>4K
No, I haven't seen the 2K version.

>thinking you can ever approach the picture quality of a Laserdisc by piracy
Laserdiscs have basically infinite horizontal resolution. A digital transfer will never make it.

>not realizing that the 2007 bluray is actually the wrongly "color corrected" one
The hallway was never white. This is a fact, not an opinion.
Slit your wrists

jesus that detail loss, the cabinet on the right shows the loss of actual gradiation

>like that fake gradient WHV used back in the 80's, remember that one?

WHV? Guess not, user. Please post an example because I eat that stuff up. The 1980s were peak comfy for video art.

Is that why my LD rips that were supposedly done in 480p look like 240p? I always assumed it was just the crappy capture device.

>spammed pics
What are you talking about? The OP pics are new. No LotR pics have been posted, and what you write is irrelevant when they decide to retroactively re-grade after the fact.

Attached: YbR3HaM.jpg (1280x2160, 562K)

know what else has infinite horizontal resolution?

I know this is a laserdisc but they used this style of framing for VHS releases as well

Attached: 10851.jpg (650x650, 124K)

>That LOTR
Opinion discarded.

Attached: i guarantee it.jpg (634x382, 36K)

They scanned the original 65mm negative into 8K you dumb fuck, it's real 4K

I will never feel comfier than the day I experienced the jump from vhs to LD
it was like going from snes to ps1
t. boomer

Attached: x-files-dvd-blu-ray-compare-101-023.jpg (990x1080, 328K)

OH yeah! Got a nice good dose of nostalgia, there, man. Thank you.It reminds of me of some of the other discs out there, like this one I got in pic related. Paid too much for that back in the day and it's STILL the only version with ALL of the original music. I love how proud they were that it was on a disc, that company I mean.

Attached: best rotld.jpg (2848x2132, 897K)

Yeah your eyes see the detail and psychovisually the lines blur together, you can actually see the detail in the horzontal scanlines more than you see the vertical scanlines.

35mm

I never saw it in the old days, I never saw a single LD until I started to build my collection a few years ago. But I could instantly tell it was better than Blu-Ray or DVD.

"Based Nolan" is half-colorblind and should have no input on how other people's films should look.

>young qt innocent looking Gillian with more pixels
I'll allow it

Attached: X-Files HD.jpg (2112x1188, 1.21M)

Why did they make her head so big on the sixth picture?

Prove it with a colormeter measurement of the hallway during filming. You DO have a Minolta Color Meter or Color Meter II don't you user?

>Yeah your eyes see the detail and psychovisually the lines blur together, you can actually see the detail in the horzontal scanlines more than you see the vertical scanlines.
Makes sense, so is there a way to make LD rips look good?

I was going to back you up since I agree that you don't need an encyclopaedic knowledge of Laserdisc in order to post on Yea Forums

But you literally said here - - that some film wasn't on Laserdisc, and you were so adamant about it that you called someone a "dumb ass", and said they should "shut the fuck up bitch".

But you were then proven wrong. That movie was released on Laserdisc. Instead of just saying "alright, my bad, didn't know about that" like a normal person, you said "so?", like a teenager with behavioural problems.

"So?" I'll tell you so what. So you're a fucking idiot is so.

Making mistakes is fine, but if you can't say "alright, my bad, didn't know about that" like a normal person, then you deserve to be ridiculed for acting like a twat.

Attached: brainlet4.jpg (550x543, 30K)

Record them onto SVHS. That is considered to be the only way to properly rip a Laserdisc.

You will never make it with digital.

Attached: wawdvd vs bluray.jpg (961x1080, 262K)

>inside the chamber is white light
>outside is yellow
>this is intended
Are you sure you're not the colorblind one?

>SVHS.
Legend has it those were spotted deep in the Congo, but scientists say that's impossible. Really, aren't those rare? I never see them, but if I get a super-VHS it will look just like LD? Or is it merely close.

Wtf I love vhs now!

Why does the top left pic look like a generic shot of Vancouver?

There's another one from Warner as well that I really liked that I think was used in the early 90's and late 80's, although I don't know how international that one was, where they used this picture of a dark and gloomy ocean view, but I can't find any pictures of that one.

Also wasn't the sequel the one with all the altered music?

I don't know if it's better but it's... warmer. Maybe just a hipster nostalgia thing like vinyls, I don't know.

Nice meme, but what I'm saying is a fact.
If you want proof go read any legitimate article/review that deals with this problem specifically or go read the 500 long page thread about it on forum.blu-ray.com where every single pixel of every version on the planet has been analyzed to death, not just spammimg the same MS paint pics autist do on Yea Forums.

I own the highest end SVHS recorder made for the home market and two professional units, paid less than $100 for all three. I mainly bought them for the S-Video outs and ability to read VHS so when I want to watch The Hobbit (animated) I can in the greatest possible quality.

I used to be a TV producer in the late '90s. It's one of the reasons I eventually got into LDs. However, I was a completely s o y infected digital faggot until 2014.

I don't care about this thread, but I'd like to point out how thoroughly this guy got fucking TOLD.

only correct answer itt

Hello Pamperchu.

Well it's technically better in that it's a higher bandwidth signal.

You have no way of proving it or whatever but that shit is not supposed to be blue-green and neither is any of the other garbage we see on BD that's blue-green either. Faggot tryhard damage control artist.

>Also wasn't the sequel the one with all the altered music?
Yes, the DVD of the underrated, yet nowhere near as good sequel. I bought it and it was weird, dude. It felt like the movie, but my brain said something was wrong. I hadn't "seen" it in a while, but apparently my ears couldn't take it so I gave it to a thrift store.

I don't know what that is however I can imagine but the only pooping I do is over a toilet or, if backpacking, in a hole I dig.

>I used to be a TV producer in the late '90s. It's one of the reasons I eventually got into LDs. However, I was a completely s o y infected digital faggot until 2014.
Impressive. (Vader voice), but you got better. Full recovery, I might add. And are you saying that a SVHS makes regular VHS look better?

best of Yea Forums

The first seasons were shot in Vancouver, it's probably the show that made Vancouver look 'generic'

>superior 35mm prints
I've watched a couple recent films which were shot on 16mm. E.g. Carol, We The Animals, Happy as Lazzaro. What's special about 35mm?

Attached: Carol-end.webm (819x444, 2.99M)

The guy swearing that the 2001 hallway was white probably thinks that the hallways in the original Death Star were what the BR's show.

>What's special about 35mm?
35mm has more definition than 16mm?

A roll of 35mm costs less than 1k from film to processing to digital intermediate. Paying cast and crew for the work hours during which they shoot that reel, plus equipment rental and all other costs adds up to several times as much. The whole thing about cost is an absolute meme when it comes to big productions. Only for small indie productions with budgets under 5-10 million it really makes a difference, and even so not that much.
Productions go with digital to avoid dealing with grain (which makes CGI harder to work on as you have to add grain to it to make it blend in), and to make it easier for the DoP as he can see the lighting in real time on that faggy screen. It never was about the money, it's just about laziness.

Well a SVHS player pro or "prosumer" was always shipped with a better comb filter so yes, it's pretty much guaranteed that any given individual tape will look much better on an SVHS player as long as you have the proper input on your TV.

My home theater display, a plasma television (which I run as little as possible), is a 48" and made right at the apex of the technology, has a Faroujda 3D digital comb filter and if you look that up it's pretty much the tops for inputting an analog mixed signal into your video display. You can buy them as outboard units too. They are the broadcast and professional video standard. But most old TVs had a shitty one so you could benefit from a nice player which would 'clean up' the signal for you before it outputted it. Displays made after 2006 or so lack one entirely, you have to buy an outboard scaler but most are utter trash.

This thread convinced me that no "correct" colors exist for any movie, on any physical or digital media.

Kubrick films look so weird to me when they aren't in 4:3

Yeah, but Carol looks great albeit grainy. No one who cares about analog formats would restrict themselves to 35mm for some reason.

>You have no way of proving it
The proof is right here >that shit is not supposed to be blue-green
Where is it blue or green you absolute mental midget

everybody is gigging or on salary zoomer, and bound for the length of the show

digital is cheaper and easier especially in editing and it's a pure cost decision, even 16mm could beat current digital if put to proper use

>as you have the proper input on your TV.
What are the chances that my 32" CRT from 2000 has that? Not moving that beast any time soon to check myself.

>a digital frame can be recolored
holy fuck you're dense

>No one who cares about analog formats would restrict themselves to 35mm for some reason.
True, true. I turned against VHS briefly, when DVD was new, thank God I didn't trash the tapes like many did.

How is someone like David Fincher lazy?
The literal opposite, he's too autistic about everything being sterile, calculated and perfect.

>theatrical cut
>director's cut

A roll of 35mm costs less than 1k from film to processing to digital intermediate.
>Paying cast and crew for the work hours during which they shoot that reel, plus equipment rental and all other costs adds up to several times as much.
What the fuck are you even trying to say lmao. It's more expensive to shoot on film. End of discussion.

Dear god stop being faggot

He hated widescreen, he was also a weirdo. He agreed to have 2001 and Spartacus released in widescreen and not full screen as exceptions.

He's not, he's a hack. He exploits digital to shoot like a retard over and over again. Kubrick did the same but with film.

i'm not talking about analog formats. i'm talking about 35mm reels. film. as it was meant to be seen. anything else and you're making concessions.

There's literally no way unless you have a high end TV. Like top end. Professional units often came with an outboard converter box but you'd know if you had a pro monitor.

film is all about concessions user

16mm is nice (used masterfully I’m Carol and Runawys) but it’s also a depth of field thing. Have to use wider lenses to get the same perspective. More noise on the same iso. Different selection of lenses. They’re different tools for different looks.

fuck that. i sneak mine in.

>some anonymous fag on the internet knows how to properly shoot a film better than Kubrick and Fincher
Sure, I'll buy that.

I fail to see how one would need a special TV for super VHS. Got a pic? A quick search yielded jack shit.

Pretty sure Kubrick would use digital today.
Kubrick was never a "le purist" when it came to cameras, he always used the best technology possible. I mean he literally built a one of a kind Frankestein hybrid camera for Barry Lyndon utilizing the technology the best he can for the light setting of that film specifically.

Not only would he use digital, he would more than likely revolutionize it.

Based. You paid your movie ticket. Stopping people from eating outside food when it's not a restaurant is asinine in a place like that. Before anyone whines "muh concessions are our only film money" that's a lie. Theaters do get a share of the tickets.

XL popcorn extra butter please and 4 cokes hold the ice (the ice is a ripoff) 3 bags of twizzlers, and 3 bags of M&Ms.. and 4 empty cups for pee and diarrhea (I don't want to miss the movie)

>everybody is gigging or on salary zoomer, and bound for the length of the show
In which case you have a limited timeframe to shoot, so it's not like you can do six gorillion takes anyway

>digital is cheaper
if you weren't completely illiterate you would have noticed I didn't deny that, the question is in the proportion. You can shoot one less week, it'll be cheaper. The results will be worse, too. You can cut back on crew, it'll be cheaper. It'll look worse, too. You can cut back on shooting film, it'll be cheaper. It'll look worse, too.
You're justifying saving like 0.1% of the budget by shooting on digital which looks like ass, as if that would make or break a 50+ million production.

If you don't know shit just stfu and let the adults talk.

Shooting digital doesn't look like ass you fucking numpty. Get GUD.

OH NO NO NO NO

>Isn't it obvious?
No, especially not when the webrip is better quality than every physical release, as is the case with Sword in the Stone.

Did more checking...so it uses the s-video? I thought that was its own thing and not for super VHS. (I've used s-video for playing DVDs on that old CRT.)

And his films would be shit for it. Digital ruins cinema.

>Shooting digital doesn't look like ass

Attached: oh_wait_youre_serious.jpg (479x361, 55K)

Partially probably true, but at the same time he did Barry Lyndon with natural lighting which no director would bother with today.
The thing with digital is, shooting is only half the story, because you have to then grade and edit the raw footage. There's nothing to "revolutionize", it's pseudo-CGI when it's all digital.

Attached: 1541892124663.png (1024x768, 895K)

wtf happen here

Pathetic boomer opinion.
There are a fuckload of narratives that only make sense to shoot in digital specifically.

Pic related would literally be impossible to make with film

Attached: Under The Skin.mkv_snapshot_00.34.47_.jpg (1920x1038, 605K)

>rear projection in fucking '99
M A D M A N
A
D
M
A
N

Well, let's hear it. Tell me why film is better than digital. Be as objective as possible.

>Shooting digital doesn't look like ass

Attached: the_absolute_state_of_digital.jpg (1136x2135, 600K)

>and 4 empty cups for pee and diarrhea (I don't want to miss the movie)

Attached: haha good joke anon.jpg (750x450, 47K)

You shoot VIDEOS on VIDEO.
You shoot FILMS on FILM.
There's no more to it.
If someone wants to make VIDEOS that's fine, just don't pretend they're FILMS.

muh color range
muh comfy film grain
That is all.

It's not about the TV, it's about the comb filter that separates luminence from color. In the NTSC spec they are combined and have to be separated and processed to give you a color picture at all. It's a side effect of making black and white TVs capable of receiving a color broadcast, as a design choice.

S-Video is a spec that carries separate luminence and color information, unlike a standard composite signal which carries them combined, in that case they have to be separated by the monitor or TV with a comb filter.

Look up NTSC on the wiki.

>he hasn't actually viewed the Laserdisc on a proper TV with a real 3D digital comb filter in the signal pathway

>buhhhh if we didn't have digital we couldn't make shitty movies like under the skin
great argument dude

>art
>objective

Attached: retard_alert.gif (493x342, 393K)

I envy you user

>Tell me why oil painting is better than photography. Be as objective as possible.

>with natural lighting which no director would bother with today.
Blind boomer opinion #3
They used actual lights to film Barry Lyndon, it's not literally just candle flames.

Also, what is The Revenant?

The webrip is higher resolution than the Laserdisc and is a better conversion from a better source.

>reduced color range
>artifacts and grain is "nostalgic"
>THEY DON'T MAKE EM LIKE THEY USED TO!
literally you

working with the former requires much more skill than working with the latter

So you only watch reel projected analog films, you never watch them on a digital screen correct?

I mean that's not film.

Those are not my arguments, I'm just imagining what these pretentious faggots can possibly say. I have no issues with digital.

>tfw personally ripped Special Edition DVD for myself

Attached: 2.png (800x800, 676K)

I appreciate the help, user. It sounds like my TV would be compatible with SVHS, but may need a comb filter, but with respect, I doubt it, I mean, I'm pretty sure my TV was ready for Super VHS if it uses the s-video input. I guess it could need a filter, but I've never used them, not even for LD's, though I do own one that I never used. It'll make the red's bleed less, right?

>higher resolution

Attached: download (5).jpg (182x276, 7K)

If digital is superior, why does it try to emulate film?
>variety.com/2018/artisans/production/pawel-pawlikowski-cold-war-1202974518/
>After developing and scanning the Kodak 5219 film stock with colorist Michal Herman, they performed the grading on 35mm and found the look they were going for.

>“Then we decided to find an equivalent on the Alexa and master it to the point that it would be hard to distinguish it [from film],” says Zal. So, along with his team, he perfected a method to re-create the look of the 35mm images, both in terms of contrast and body.

>Once on set, they were able to put their plans into practice. “[We got] dailies and a final cut that were very close to the image we had wanted from the start,” Zal explains. “By reopening the blacks … or by playing on micro-contrast, the final round of color timing resulted in an image that I find very rich, that looks just like film, but that has stronger details in the blacks especially.”
If you want to shoot digital, embrace it for what is is, fine. But don't dress it up as film, as analog, and pretend otherwise. Grain is an inherent deficiency of film, and artificially adding this to digital reduces your image quality on purpose under the guise of aesthetic. Grading digital so heavily is no different than CGI - it's anti-art trash.

No you don't get it. Unless you have an ultra high end TV or a professional monitor, you have a subpar comb filter, they used to cost a lot of money.

Yes it will increase color separation and also therefore ultimate resolution.

Not them, but enjoy your washed-out, crushed black-level abominations.

>The Revenant
Shot on digital.

It's not a deficiency, it's how it works. Grain is the building block of film.

>No you don't get it. Unless you have an ultra high end TV or a professional monitor, you have a subpar comb filter
Oh, well thanks for your patience because NOW I get it. So my TV will need a professional filter just to play Super VHS. Still sounds hard to believe, but it doesn't shock me.

>If digital is superior, why does it try to emulate film?
Nostalgia baiting the boomer audience, mostly.

Doubt away, boomer. The HDTVRIPs are also infinitely better quality than the Laserdisc as well.

Attached: b0vhM7k.png (1920x1080, 2.2M)

The medium is relevant for originating the image, not for reproducing it. When you reproduce it you simply want it to look as much alike as possible, that can be done digitally. When you generate it is when you're creating the image. In fact for reproducing the image digital is actually quite good because it can reproduce it with very high fidelity and without altering the image (assuming high enough resolution).

Mandy, shot on digital, tried to emulate film with grain overlays and filters and it looks like digital trash compared to actual film. If digital is so good, stop trying to look like film.

Attached: 1495488530982.png (1280x536, 716K)

Pawlikowski didn’t have the money to shoot it with film you dumb mental midget, the entire point of him trying to emulate this specific film stocm with digital is because he couldn’t shoot it on film in the first place.

Pretending like this is the case with every digital production is literally dishonest and dumb.

Is that supposed to be bad? Zoomers watch capeshit and BR2049.

Nope, you're wrong. To reproduce the signal on the tape the best, you need to include a good comb filter in the signal chain and a good way to get that picture information to the display.

Keep it up, I will fuck you up hard and your crotch will be sore from it.

it pissed me off so much that cosmatos chose to do digital for mandy since BTBR was shot on 35mm and looked incredible.

>doesn't have money for film so dishonestly tries to emulate film look
>does have money on autistically getting the image to imitate film, and doing six gorillion takes
literally a hack. literally.

Should have saved up instead of shitting out garbage. Many low-budget films are shot on film. Things to Come is a French flick shot on 35mm.

Attached: Things.to.Come.2016.BDRip.720p_01:13:06.935.jpg (1280x694, 266K)

Nice meme headcanon definition, but every single nostalgia boomer that fights for film like Nolan or Tarantino absolutely hate to see their films screened on digital projectors and that's why they always fight for true 70mm analog screenings of their films as much as possible.

Nothing's wrong with BR2049, boomerfag.

>shoot on digital
>don't try to make it look like film
>it looks like shitty home video

Attached: laughing_zelda.png (420x420, 426K)

>Keep it up, I will fuck you up hard and your crotch will be sore from it.
Wtf man. Be nice, I'm a monster. Do not fuck with me.

>the six gorillion autist at it again
lmao user do you know any other buzzword

And with modern emulsions you can just shoot on 16mm with excellent results, and 16mm is dirt cheap.

What is wrong with Boomers anyway? Sometimes they seem ok and then they snap for no reason. This Gen Xer doesn't take shit. Aaron, is it?

I don't fuck with people, I just tell them how it is. I'm sure you understand.

>Nothing's wrong with BR2049
It's film for people not actually into film.

Attached: watch?v=X4c6wAJVMO8 00.03.08-00.03.16.webm (960x540, 1.21M)

jesus

Alan.

>instead of shitting out garbage
yeah such garbage am i rite

Attached: zimna wojna_023.jpg (1437x1080, 466K)

Analogue projection is neat, I love it, but it's a different issue than shooting on film, as it has to do with the theatre experience rather than the image in itself. Ofc boomers gonna boomer. But in this case it is more of a nostalgia thing. Analogue prints can easily be shoddy, or scratched. I remember when cinemas still had analogue projection, and more often than not the prints where completely sub-par.
That said, digital projection is not yet capable of the resolution of 70mm. You'd need at least 8K resolution with a very high bitrate, which isn't viable with any tech that's in common use.

You started it, don't be such a cunt if you don't want to get fucked.

Yeah. So anyway, I need a different monitor and a comb filter to play Super VHS. Thanks. -monster

>the six gorillion mental midget is the literally retarded BR2049 webm tranny
OH NONO HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

>le meme screengrab

Dynamic range of digital is just disastrous. No one should shoot digital if not forced by financial restrictions.

Absolute trash

Attached: L'avventura.1960.Criterion.720p-DON_02:20:34.384.png (1280x692, 361K)

Guessing the same reason we do so in audio. Actually, I never noticed film DNR until this thread, but I do edit audio and it sames like the same concept.
>A professional has grown lazy
>Sticks the digital info into a batch process to remove noise
>Info has warps due to computer removal not having the human ability to tell -exactly- what should and shouldn't be there
>QA lets it pass because fuck it good enough
>Autists notice where regular jackoffs don't
This happens a lot. So much so that I weep whenever a studio asks if I can batch process to get a job done quicker. Done right it's actually fine, you apply a light filter or two that can't touch finer details so that even trained autist ears/eyes can't notice any quality degradation, then you manually edit the rest. This is how I do most jobs, basing a light filter on the range or tone of voice, the same way they should most likely be basing it off the color or brightness would be my guess. It's a matter of being lazy with it.

>you can just shoot on 16mm
that's a specific format, not every narrative fits it

Yeah probably.

I'm real scared.

Attached: 1*opC2d5xLz9mT0qSwVhqvng.jpg (1600x1200, 346K)

if you can't afford 35mm then 16mm is a better choice than digital.

>720p
You complain so much about digital while watching films that are so beyond digitally compressed with a fuckload of digital artefacts everywhere at the same.
Please just slit your wrists.

A properly encoded 720p downscale doesn't introduce any artifacts.

Attached: L'Eclisse.1962.1080p.Criterion.Bluray.DTS.x264-GCJM_01:54:57.681.jpg (1920x1032, 300K)

Again, it's extremely specific, it's not like the aspect ratio of a film doesn’t matter at all

Nightmares then.

You already outted yourself for the dishonest dumb fraud you are, supposedly caring about film so much while not only not having bluray remuxes, but having trash second hand digitally encoded 720p versions instead.
Beyond embarrassing

>720p
i smell a hard drivelet

Attached: 1552348680024.jpg (3264x2448, 3.33M)

The original Dire Straits Brothers In Arms CD release sounds *WAY* better than newer issues of that album and even the SACD doesn't sound much better.

>hard drivelet
Not them, but that's a new one. heh

Is that the original series vs. the reuse from Return? Because I wouldn't be surprised if they only did that so it wouldn't look completely different from the rest of the episode, which would be really distracting.