Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Click Here Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's
Customer Discussions > high definition discussion forum

Whats Going on With Recent Blu Ray Discs


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 77 posts in this discussion
Posted on 8 Jun 2012, 12:53:48 BST
Last edited by the author on 8 Jun 2012, 13:42:06 BST
C. Gould says:
There's no telling you is there? Did you or did you not post this?

"Regarding the surface of the Blu Ray it very much depends on what speed the disc was burned at in the first place, its protective layer comes more into operation the deeper its burned into the surface. The trouble is with mass production of Blu Ray that the disc is not burned at the slowest speed to get the best out of it, because of the size of the information they have to put on it. This is why the DVD is more robust on that score being that the information on it is far less, so therefore they pay more attention to the right speed it should be burned at."

In that post you clearly state that mass-produced Blu-rays are burned. You then do a u-turn and try to claim that you were talking about the master all along (which you clearly weren't). The production of a glass master is a bit more involved than popping a blank BD in a writer and hitting record anyway.

16mm doesn't look any better than VHS? This bloke seems to disagree with you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HVORkpi4_I

So the 5.1 isn't proper 5.1? The original mono *is on the disc*, so why would anyone bother to listen to a 5.1 pseudo remix? If the original track wasn't there you'd have a point, but the 5.1 remix is nothing but an alternative.

Can't be arsed to reply to the Lovefilm bit as I'[d just be repeating myself and you've already ignored it once.

"If you read my statement carefully"

Maybe if you took the time to compose your statements carefully these little misunderstandings wouldn't arise.

Posted on 8 Jun 2012, 15:24:58 BST
Shazzerman says:
Not to derail the - ahem - "discussion": does anyone know what the hell is going on with those new David Lynch blu-rays? The audio on "Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me" has only one option and that's stereo! My DVD version has DTS 5.1... AND the blu-ray audio is faulty in a couple of places (it sounds like a record player with its needle being played with while a record is spinning). The "Lost Highway" is only stereo too. The "Blue Velvet" seems okay... What gives?

Posted on 8 Jun 2012, 16:53:02 BST
Lee Lucas says:
@ C. Gould.

The chap in this review as not got a clue, for starters he only had the VHS version of it before. I have seen all 3 versions of it. VHS/DVD/Blu Ray and believe you me there is no improvement at all apart from the DVD is better than the VHS regarding it's picture and it's most likely from the DVD that the picture came from for the Blu Ray cause there is no difference. It's poor crap and degraded film footage and always was and always will be, it was when they released it on the Cinema's back in the 70's when I first seen it, and regarding the sound quality, there is nothing that beats the quality of of the original triple vinyl album from 1973. It as been put on CD a few times with remasters and now on Blu Ray and they are all poor in comparison to the vinyl album. The review for this one on Amazon outweighs this chaps review and speaks the truth. This crap should never have been put on Blu Ray.

At the end of the day regarding how strong these discs are, they are not stronger than a Video, and are totally useless to use as rentals because you will never get to see the film because of the way the discs are damaged and marked. I never had this problem one bit with Video rentals years ago. And got to see every film I wanted to see. Now because of this inferiority of the so called discs which do scratch, mark, and become unreadable, I cannot rent a film because this system does not work on this format, and all you get are discs that either wont play, or get stuck and have to miss parts of the film. They say give them a wipe, and I always do, but unfortunately this does not always rectify the problem.

You can say what you like about how good the quality of Blu Ray is compared to a Video, but its no good for rental purposes because its nowhere robust or strong enough to take it. I would even suspect that before Blu Ray came out and we had DVD's you would of said they did not put VHS quality onto a DVD either, just like your saying they do not put DVD quality and even VHS quality now on to a Blu Ray. Which has had this treatment and SD as been put onto to it which is no better than the DVD. One particular film on Blu Ray last year I watched from LoveFilm was in SD all the way through. But to be quite honest the film was dreadful anyway lol... That one was called The Town. Get that on Blu Ray and show me where the so called HD is because there is not any on it at all. You may as well get the DVD because there is no difference.

So you can say what you like, and keep supporting this so called supreme format as you so much think it is, but in reality they are still exploiting it by putting crap onto it, which should not have been put on it in the first place. Money talks in this world and they do not give a damn what they shove on it at the end of the day.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jun 2012, 17:01:29 BST
Last edited by the author on 8 Jun 2012, 17:02:00 BST
Lee Lucas says:
Well sometimes it does not pay you at all to replace the DVD with a Blu Ray mate, not in this rip off world. But some peeps just do not listen and think its that superior and perfect it cannot have faults on it lol....

Posted on 8 Jun 2012, 19:17:14 BST
Shazzerman says:
Sorry Lee, but I love my blu-rays - best home video format we have.

Posted on 8 Jun 2012, 21:50:25 BST
Lee Lucas says:
I totally agree but useless for renting, and your not always gonna get everything put on them.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012, 01:35:01 BST
Shazzerman says:
I never rent. I buy.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012, 11:22:12 BST
Mr W says:
@ C Gould
you say that your region B version of the Running Man was grainy but its the same as region A, well it can't be , because Ive seen the reg A version with my own eyes and the picture was clear, funnily enough you also said that Stand by me was a stunning picture when it was the grainiest film in existence , worse than dvd quality. So your opinion counts for nothing, maybe you need to upgrade your TV/ bluray player or just visit specsavers!
as for your list of better region B titles 90% of them are crap films
anyway so that doesnt prove anything, except we get good releases of films nobody wants and what I mean by letterbox is the black bars taking up a quarter of the screen top and bottom - paramount titles are generally this type, despite being labelled as Anamorphic .

Posted on 9 Jun 2012, 14:23:50 BST
Shazzerman says:
You see, you really do not know what you are talking about. "Anamorphic" is a term that doesn't come into play at all when it comes to blu-ray. It just doesn't apply. Google the term and you will see why. You couldn't be a lover of cinema if you want all films to fill your widescreen TV screen completely (which, I suspect, is what you think an "anamorphic" title should be doing). Aspect ratios are chosen often for artistic reasons - if those black bars annoy you, then take it to its logical conclusion: to eradicate the black bars you must also eradicate a big percentage of the image. If this doesn't bother you then...you have no business correcting other people about the quality of home video. Go west and google.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Jun 2012, 14:47:04 BST
Mr. Ts Cooke says:
I'm convinced they're doing that.. And refused to comment when I asked. Ps3 will play any bluray bar 60% what Lovefilm sends. Appalling stuff.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012, 18:23:09 BST
C. Gould says:
@Lee Lucas: This is becoming embarrassing now. In your previous posts you said the Yessongs BD was VHS quality, then you post this:

"The chap in this review as not got a clue, for starters he only had the VHS version of it before. I have seen all 3 versions of it. VHS/DVD/Blu Ray and believe you me there is no improvement at all apart from the DVD is better than the VHS regarding it's picture and it's most likely from the DVD that the picture came from for the Blu Ray cause there is no difference."

So by your own admission, written here for everyone to see, the BD is better than VHS quality because it's the same as the DVD. Yes? Or are you going to dispute that as well? I lost interest in the rest of the post because you're just repeating the same tired arguments.

@deniro77: Ah, the old Specsavers argument! I've been reviewing DVDs/BDs for over ten years. I trust my judgement over yours any day of the week. You have no idea what you're talking about and seemingly post here solely to be contrary. I posted actual screen captures from the discs - any buffoon can see that it was shot on grainy 80s film stock and the BD replicates that.

So Stand By Me was worse than DVD quality, was it?

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/index.php?art=full&image=3&vergleich=stand_by_me&action=1&lossless=0#vergleich

If I were you I'd be bored with making myself look like an ill-informed dullard time and time again. You're obviously very thick... skinned. As for the quality of the films I listed, what does that have to do with the superiority of the transfers?

"anyway so that doesnt prove anything"

Yeah, stupid facts getting in the way again!

There should be some sort of IQ test before people are allowed on the Internet.

Posted on 9 Jun 2012, 18:54:46 BST
Adam Smith says:
Can't say I have every come across any problems with blu ray players not reading discs and have blu ray player, ps3 and small desktop with blu ray drive and all had no issue. Although the PS3 doesn't have all the AV HD sound format it does have netflix and lovefilm on the system which can stream the tv series/movie which is a bonus.

Posted on 10 Jun 2012, 01:25:45 BST
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2012, 02:08:00 BST
Bourne1886 says:
Why is it that a lot of BD are getting poorly treated in the bonus features department?
For example Haywire, Born on the fourth of July,Iron Sky,Walking Tall, The Grey etc. Regardless of anyone's opinions of the actual films, a lot of BD come with little or no features.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2012, 01:33:51 BST
Bourne1886 says:
What's grain got to do with whether a BD has a decent picture. Your probarbly talking about picture noise. Saving Private Ryan is grainy and the picture quality is stunning. A lot of films need the grain kept in so the detail in the picture isn't lost. Clear isn't what BD picture quality is all about. Look at the 2nd release of Predator, clear as a bell but no detail. Both the films I've mentioned are great films, but I think SPR has a superior transfer because they left the grain in. I would say the majority of people who complain about picture grain don't know understand what BD is all about!

Posted on 11 Jun 2012, 11:20:06 BST
C. Gould says:
The sad fact behind the omission of extras on discs is that it's often financially unfeasible, especially on catalogue titles. The reason a lot of studios have scaled back their catalogue output is that people don't value older titles in the same way that they value newer ones, yet expect them to receive equal or better treatment. If you thin about it content producers have a much easier time with new releases. They have access to modern elements (often digital files), whereas older films need to be scanned, cleaned up, restored etc., all of which costs money.

Let's take the film Fright Night as an example. When the remake was announced I assumed it was a dead cert that Sony would release the original to cash in on the free publicity. However, given the relative lack of interest they decided to licence it to a third party. Although it's audio-visually impressive it features little in the way of bonus material, party because of the cost of licencing old material partly because of the cost of producing new material. Sony's production and publicity costs are also much higher than a smaller, independent label, and they would generally do a much larger production run in an effort to recoup those costs.

Because of this they decided to farm it out to Twilight Time who put out a limited edition (3000 copies) release. So far it's the only TT title to sell out, which is perhaps proof that Sony underestimated demand for this particular title, but one has to bear in mind that unlike Twilight Time, Sony would have needed to sell far more than 3000 copies to make a profit. Word has it that large numbers of catalogue discs are often returned to the distributors unsold, which demonstrates that demand is simply not high enough to warrant the expenditure (in their eyes). This is why I expect to see more and more of these niche titles being licensed out to third parties. In fact, both Night of the Living Dead (1990) and Enemy Mine are coming to BD courtesy of TT this year, again as limited runs.

The problem for consumers is that these titles don't come cheap, ostensibly because of the limited production runs, but also because of proximity. Fright Night was $35 and could only be ordered from one retailer, a very small outfit called Screen Archives who operate exclusively in the US. If you live outside of the US you have to pay more for shipping and run the risk of incurring import duty, or worse still, the disc getting lost in the postal system (not to mention a long, anxious wait).

I don't work in the industry per se, but I've worked with them long enough to gain a little insight into how things work and to be honest I can't really blame them. It doesn't make good business sense to spend thousands of dollars properly remastering a catalogue title if you're only going to sell a handful of units and lose a truck load of money. In the pre-recession days maybe, but not now. Of course there are always exceptions to this, such as high-profile classics like Jaws and E.T., but your average catalogue title just isn't going to get the love it deserves unless more people start buying at a price that makes it a profitable endeavour for the studios.

I think if most people are honest they wouldn't want to spend more than £10 on a new catalogue Blu-ray (if that). In fact, many people on these and other forums think BDs are overpriced at *that* level. I'm as guilty as anyone else in this regard - we all love a bargain after all - but I can't complain that my favourite films aren't arriving if I'm not willing to stump up for them. I did pay for Fright Night because it's a real favourite of mine, but there are few films I'd pay £20+ for even if they are limited editions. I'd love to see Krull on BD, remastered with all of the extras, but I can't see Sony releasing it as the film holds limited appeal.

On a related and (semi) interesting note, studios/distributors/label (call them what you will) do research these things, even going so far as to survey people about the most important aspects of releases. If you ask most people what's more important, good A/V or extras, the majority will (hopefully) go with the former. I once participated in one such survey and I did.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012, 13:28:26 BST
J.Yasimoto says:
Thanks for the post. Good A/V is by far the most important element for me. I've only ever watched the extras on about 10 films, and have never listened to a commentary!

I'll watch out for Enemy Mine. Really enjoyed it when it first came out. Wonder if it's still as good or perhaps one for the nostalgia-ain't-what-it-used-to-be bin?

Posted on 11 Jun 2012, 14:24:52 BST
Last edited by the author on 11 Jun 2012, 14:27:12 BST
T says:
When I first got DVD and was in awe of all the bells and whistles I'd splash out on the 2-disk special, watch the extras, the making-of featurettes, etc. Then the novelty wore off and I rarely do more than flick through the menu to see what's been thrown in these days (although I like the feature to watch the original or the director's cut on the one disk - my copy of Salt, for example, has three different versions of the movie on it, one of which has an entirely different ending). On older movies having few extras, I imagine that there wasn't so much enthusiasm for having an intern running around with a Handycam filming the people doing the filming or interviewing the principles on camera as there is now. I can remember thinking it was great when I was a kid to see a making-of of Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark on TV on a Sunday afternoon but, as massive blockbusters, I suppose some budding director-wannabe would put some work into going around and interviewing people and scratching up anything lying about showing a tech rigging up a Millenium Falcon model pre-shoot or something to come up with those rare treats. Now it seems a de riguer part of the promotional package to put out a featurette for broadcast and then put it on the DVD/BD release so there's plenty to chuck on the disk with recent movies and perhaps not so much for older stuff (for those who can be bothered to watch it all).

I imagine it's the same with the picture quality debate; a recent feature shot with all the latest HD kit is going to look far better on BD than something shot thirty years ago on film stock, regardless of how much work is put into cleaning up the BD mastering transfer.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012, 14:35:21 BST
Mr W says:
@C Gould, unusually, you seem to be talking a bit of sense, although its along the same lines that I've been saying for a long time - often to only be accused of talking rubbish.

Basically, Sony - the inventor of blu ray,wont release any catalogue films on their failing format, because its not selling enough . yet its supposed to be the future of film or was billed as such 6 years ago. and anything over 15/20 years old is rarely seen.
Its widely known that some of their back catalogue has been licenced for release by Image entertainment on bluray , the same goes for disney / touchstone , released by mill creek I think, and Fox titles released by Anchor Bay . all these are. USA only and Region A , which is why we dont get so many catalogue releases in the UK , and why the Blu ray format is failing .
it says it all when studios wont release their own films on a new format , or one thats now 6 years old because they know they wont sell so farm them out to these piddling little distributors, so how can blu ray be classed a success when this is happening?

Posted on 11 Jun 2012, 14:50:17 BST
Last edited by the author on 11 Jun 2012, 19:30:19 BST
Lee Lucas says:
The fact that with the older release's not having all the extra's put onto the BD really depends on how much the person is into the extra's. But by not putting them on in the first place will also slump sales. An example would be Lord of the Rings. I have all the extended versions on DVD, the extra content in the bonus features is massive and although some people do not like to watch the features like some do. I happen to love documentaries myself and the extra material on these extended versions I consider as really good material. The BD was released with no extended features and I for one would not buy it. The DVD's I already have to me are more worthy to own on DVD than BD.

I must admit I am more of a music lover than a film watcher, and I certainly have more music stuff on DVD than that of Blu Ray. The music market as not really took off on BD in comparison to DVD, and many major bands are still releasing their concerts on DVD rather than Blu Ray, because of cost to do so. Ok you're going to get the new up to date bands if that's your scene out there making big bucks releasing such material on BD. But that unfortunately is not my personal cup of tea, and does not interest me.

But what I have noticed with older material in the music world that was out on DVD years ago, and they are now putting onto BD they are doing a dreadful job of it, by not including the extra's, and I for one will not buy it. I have the Rolling Stones on DVD which comes with 4 discs and 4 live shows from various concerts of that tour that year. They decided to stick this on BD, and what do we get. 1 disc 1 concert. This is an absolute joke as far as I am concerned, and for anybody to buy this on BD is a complete idiot in my opinion, especially when you can in fact buy the DVD with all 4 discs and 4 concerts cheaper than the BD which only as one of them on there.

This is very poor marketing and certainly does not entice me one bit to subscribe to it, when they do stupid things like this. Replacing your old DVD's with BD just does not work one bit half the time, and is not value for money with how they are going about leaving all these features out. Some of these features are major, especially in the music market.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012, 16:51:34 BST
C. Gould says:
"@C Gould, unusually, you seem to be talking a bit of sense, although its along the same lines that I've been saying for a long time - often to only be accused of talking rubbish."

It's not an accusation, it's a statement of fact. Oh, and we are in no way on the same page; you're merely cherry-picking bits of my post out of context to support your own flawed viewpoint. You've spectacularly failed to understand the point I was making. Well done.

"Basically, Sony - the inventor of blu ray,wont release any catalogue films on their failing format, because its not selling enough . yet its supposed to be the future of film or was billed as such 6 years ago. and anything over 15/20 years old is rarely seen."

'Basically', Sony has (and does) released a load of catalogue titles. I own a bunch of them. CE3K, Boyz in the Hood, Guns of Navarone, American Psycho, Anaconda, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Bad Boys, Crouching Tiger, Dark Crystal, Evil Dead, Fifth Element, Ghostbusters, Gattaca, Hollow Man, The Karate Kid (and part II), The Last Action Hero, Labyrinth... those are just from the first five pages ofr my DVDAF profile.

BD was never billed as the future of film - how could it be, it's a home entertainment product - it's merely an evolution of the existing, dominant home entertainment format. Do you honestly expect companies to release every film on BD in one shot, no matter how obscure? If they did that they would totally oversaturate the market. The demand has to be there and the fact is a lot of people still haven't moved over from DVD or lack the disposable income to buy many titles. For DVD it was relatively easy to slap and old video master on a disc and chuck it out there as we were used to watching SDTV and VHS, but with BD you have to invest serious money to properly restore a film because it's not as forgiving as the lower resolution formats.

As for the rest of your post, it's just more of the same and I can't be bothered to repeat myself again.

I thought my last post was relatively well-reasoned and actually attempted to explain the reasons behind the omission of extras from some releases and the rationale behind licencing some titles out. The next two posts appear to have completely ignored it, so I have to ask myself if there's any point attempting to engage in sensible discussion on these forums.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012, 21:05:45 BST
T says:
"The demand has to be there and the fact is a lot of people still haven't moved over from DVD or lack the disposable income to buy many titles."

It has to be said that I do store a fair few BDs in my "Saved for later" until they drop to £8-£9. I also find it laughable that often a BD will be more expensive (on Amazon, at least) than a BD+DVD+digital. Consequently, I buy the latter and sell the DVD to my mates - for about £8. :-D

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012, 22:34:01 BST
Bourne1886 says:
When I read the posts you write I couldn't agree more. Your posts always make sense and don't include wild unsubstantiated nonsense. De niro77 always talks a load of old twaddle and a lot of it! I think he makes it up as he goes along.

Posted on 12 Jun 2012, 05:32:51 BST
DeeJay says:
Ive over a 300 Blurays and have never had a firmware problem. Since we went to firmware 2.0 as far as I can see bluray releases have become fairly standardised. As long as your player is half decent, not a 1st gen release (in some cases) and you update the thing and play clean discs, you should be okay.

Posted on 12 Jun 2012, 13:07:44 BST
I have owned the Pioneer BDP-LX52 for some time now and have never had any problems with any Blu-ray or DVD discs playback. Also, Pio still keep me informed of any updates due by email and I have downloaded them accordingly.

I may be biased but you can't go wrong with Pioneer, in my opinion, as they were the first company to bring us films on disc. My DVL-909 Laserdisc player is now nearly 15 years old and hasn't missed a beat, either!.

Posted on 9 Jul 2012, 23:00:49 BST
L. S. Walker says:
I have a Samsung blueray player but it wont play the warhorse DVD . Why is this, does anyone no what the problem is. All my other blueray DVDs play fine it's just this one I am having problems with
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the high definition discussion forum

 

This discussion

Participants:  25
Total posts:  77
Initial post:  21 May 2012
Latest post:  10 Jul 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers