|
Best Buy dedicates a pretty large portion of their physical movie space to 4K. The target audience for the format is not the people who are going to go for streaming. If anything, it will be like laserdisc - a niche product that's the best quality around.
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Nihonniboku posted:Maybe your local Best Buy. The one near me has a total of one aisle dedicated to movies (which includes DVDs, Blu-ray and 4k), down from 10 or so aisles a decade ago. Well, my local one has maybe 5 or 6 aisles dedicated to movies. It's a pretty small selection. But what I'm saying is that it sells well enough for Best Buy to still dedicate a portion of their limited shelf-space to it. If UHD wasn't doing well, you wouldn't see it in Target or Best Buy this long after the format came out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:i hope we get some of the other Criterion-worthy Netflix movies that have come out over the last couple years. Okja, The Meyerowitz Stories, High Flying Bird, Shirkers, Mudbound, Apostle, First They Killed My Father, Beasts of No Nation, I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore, Velvet Buzzsaw... What, and no Ridiculous 6?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
I love how it looks like there's flames shooting out of his head, as if he's a rocketship.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Did you try turning it off and on again? Sometimes, HDMI handshakes go a little wrong and the colors are off.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:A View to A Kill is the worst. Imagine Walker and Grace Jones so boring it makes you scream. But A View to a Kill has the best theme song. Yeah, you heard me. That song rocks hard and I will fight you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:The best Bond theme is Goldfinger. But the best version, the one done by Magazine, came 15 years too late.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
My favorite was This is Spinal Tap. They narrated the menus, and it was hilarious. I remember the scene selection - "what if I want to watch a scene from a different movie?"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Monday_ posted:What's the deal with a DTS soundtrack being worth paying extra for? Was the quality noticeably better than DD 5.1? Or did a lot of receivers back then only support one or the other? I'm guessing also licensing. Since you needed the right hardware, it might not have been worth it. I also read that some people preferred laserdisc since DTS had a higher bitrate on the discs that had it. Which were almost always separate releases.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2019 05:31
|
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:Moon coming on UHD. That’s gonna be interesting. P sure it’s digital and not film, right? So a 2K upscale w HDR? According to IMDB, it's film. But it has a 2k digital intermediate.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:That's Kubrick's intended aspect ratio. https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/mayorgrubert/media/bWVkaWFJZDo2MTk1NDU5NQ==/?ref= Nope, 1.85:1 was Kubrick's ratio for this film. For whatever reason, there's a ton on conflicting information when it comes to Stanley Kubrick and the aspect ratios of his later films, with the exception of 2001, which is 2.20:1 as God intended. There's a lot of claims that people make without citation, but every citation I can find supports the idea that Kubrick shot for 1.85:1, but like a lot of directors, had his eye on the full 1.37:1 frame. http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/shining.htm If you look at the screencaps, you can see how the 1.33:1 version has a lot of headroom all over the place. The compositions aren't bad, but the 1.85:1 version is clearly tighter. Now, Vitali has stated some different things, but it's possible that he was wrong, or misremembering. Or getting things backwards. There's plenty of scenes in Full Metal Jacket where the 1.33:1 isn't bad, but the widescreen clearly looks better composed. For example, he stated that Barry Lyndon should be 1.77:1, but Mr. Kubrick on the other hand has this to say: https://somecamerunning.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5523026f58834015433160327970c-pi YES! DURING THE INTERMISSION, PLAY SIDE 2 OF THE RECORD STARTING WITH BAND 2 FOR AS LONG AS YOU WANT UNTIL THE END OF THE RECORD! There you have it! Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 01:03 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:What's gotten muddled is what Kubrick actually approved vs. what was intended in theaters. True. But I think people have to be careful of saying "he approved this" to mean "he preferred this" or "he thought his films should have been shown in this manner." And I think that's where a lot of conversations online get confused. We don't always have a clear record as to what Stanley Kubrick meant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEPAgNrvZaw Here's Syndey Pollack talking about how he chose his aspect ratios for his films - basically, he stopped shooting in scope because he didn't want his films butchered for television anymore. There's plenty of examples of directors taking the fullscreen version into account when shooting flat (1.85:1). They know that's how people will see the films, so they don't want things like boom mics creeping into the set. By the time Kubrick shot Full Metal Jacket and the Shining, home video was a big part of the industry. It's not unreasonable that he may have shot his films for 1.85:1 but ensured they'd look good in 1.33:1. After all, Full Metal Jacket was mixed in mono back in 1987 because he wanted to make sure that people got a good sound experience no matter which theater they went to (according to Vitalli). So, we have some examples of where he would make a compromise to ensure an overall better quality. And if we're being honest, television requires some compromise of the home video image as well. After all, letterboxing is still manipulating the image, since the movie wasn't initially framed with black bars on the bottom and the top of the screen... usually. Also, Kubrick died before widescreen televisions and HD became a thing. So we have no idea how he would have wanted his films presented in HD. But a lot of people have started taking this idea that Kubrick should be seen in 1.33:1 as gospel without really doing much research. Most of what I see online is people repeating something they heard from someone else, and not much in the way of original sources. Cemetry Gator fucked around with this message at 05:07 on May 17, 2019 |
|
#
¿
May 17, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:What's your beef with Grave of the Fireflies? Yeah, like it's a fantastic work of art. That I never, ever want to see again because it just breaks me in a way I never thought I could be broken. It's so unyeilding that it has shaped my soul. And to think it was a double feature with my neighbor Totoro
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:It digs to the depths of human misery, pettiness and strikes at our notion that there is justice and kindness in the world. I don't understand the last part. I mean, it's been a while since I watched the film... But I thought that the film took a critical view to war in general. After all, when the brother speaks about his father in the navy, there's a bit of dramatic irony, since we know he's very likely killed in action.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:True, but there's never any doubt that the brother idolises his father above all. To him, the image of the stout navy admiral represents a true hero, fighting on behalf of Japan against evil foreign forces. The film never dwells on it, but it's absolutely written from the perspective of characters who were brought up on and consequently internalised a facist mindset. Had he been born ten years earlier, the brother would quite happily have marched off into war. That's part of the tragedy of the film, though. His father is portrayed to us through this boy's vision, and he is this heroic figure. But he's a hero who never comes, and is unable to help his children, most likely because he's dead too. God drat it, you're going to make me watch this film again so I can better discuss it. Aren't you? Also, what you just said reminded me of Patlabor 2: the Movie. One of the themes in the film is the idea of an unjustified peace. And one of the characters basically says it's better thana justified war. I totally recommend watching it. It's made by the same guy who did Ghost in the Shell.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:I caught a bit of it on TV a while back and the cinematography looked lovely. Maybe that was just because it was on a lovely TV in my mom's kitchen. II does have stronger horror elements. Vigo for one, and Oscar getting stolen off the ledge is still creepy as hell as an adult. Also, if it was pan and scan, that's going to destroy Ghostbusters. Those films really used the widescreen frame effectively, and in pan and scan, it just looks horrible. They even mention it on the commentary.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Unmature posted:I always want to pick up a laserdisc player. Is there any real reason other than it's cool? Like are laserdiscs secretly as good as blu rays or something? Or is it just for completionists and weirdos like us? Laserdisc, at its peak, is comparable to DVD. Keep in mind, it was around for 22 years, so earlier releases are going to look pretty bad. And if there's any degradation in the disc (like disc rot), the picture will suffer. There are some LDs that are better in picture quality than the DVD release. But for the most part, you're better off with the later formats. Remember, I said at its peak. Although, before Blu-ray, I believe laserdisc DTS tracks were some of the best you could get at home - they apparently had a higher bit-rate than DVD's DTS tracks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Are there any releases that slow down 25 fps to 24? I'm just curious what examples would be since it sounds terrible. And no, those portions of Hard Days Night doesn't count since that's how it was originally released.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Teenage Fansub posted:Silence was a very good movie. Silence was one of the few movies where I saw people walk out of. It was during the early part, where there was a lot of preaching and talk of God. I like to imagine that these people were upset that a movie about priests had religious content in it. But they missed out on something that's fantastic that I honestly need to get around to seeing again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
SomeJazzyRat posted:I think you mean 23:18? Unless somehow a Pontiac is somehow relevant to this thread, in which case I'm the one looking a fool. But the Jolson story! A movie I never knew existed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:I would like a cut of Leon the Professional without the (luckily one sided) romance subplot. Like I think it's basically just that one scene but yikes Luc Besson. One thing I will say is Jean Reno recognized how creepy the thing was, and decided to play Leon as kind of slow and childish to try and alleviate the situation. Basically, Leon wouldn't recognize the overtures nor react to them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2019 13:05
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:The thing about HD Zim is, it really depends on how the show was animated If it was done on cel, all you would need is the original film, since you wouldn't do animation on video. Invader Zim would almost definitely be done using digital ink and paint. It came out in 2001, and that was really around the time cel animation was dying. Old series might have stayed on cel, but anything new almost certainly wouldn't. I know SpongeBob switched from cel to digital ink and paint for its second season, which would have been around 2000. Even so, Zim still would have been done at 24 fps since animating 12 frames a second is a lot cheaper than 15. So if they still have the original digital masters, you could get something that was at least progressive, assuming that the work wasn't done in HD. You might run into issues with editing or special effects, but I'm assuming that still would be done before telecine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:I mean, yeah, it's not done on video, but I have a feeling they would have kept master tapes rather than film (hence the current problem). Dragon Ball Z had a similar situation and it's made that show's remasters jank as gently caress. What's the deal with the Dragon Ball Z remasters? I can't find any information. But for Invader Zim, it doesn't really matter because the show would never have been done on film, since it's all digital. Now, whether or not they still have the original masters is not a question I can answer, but nothing is surprising in this regard, since pretty much every scenario has happened - they don't have the original masters, they have the original masters, they have partial masters, they have the original masters but nothing that can read them, they have the original masters but they are unreadable, or they have the original master but somebody ruined them. Now, as far as what they keep, if they used film to make a show, it's pretty common to keep the negatives around. That's why we have all these TV shows that have been remastered in HD because they can just use the original negatives. It's the highest quality that you can have, if you ever need to go back it's good to have them so you're working from the best source possible, it prevents these things from getting out into the wild (I'm told to trash a negative and I instead take it home with me), and actively junking stuff like that was out of vogue by the 90s since there were plenty of examples where it came back to bite them in the rear end. Granted, just because they kept it doesn't mean they have it. Stuff gets lost, internal organization can be really lovely, things may not have been preserved properly, stuff was misplaced, or you know, occasionally your archives just happen to catch on fire. If you got 35 mm film, it's relatively easy. If you got light, you can project it. Digital assets are even more fun - since you need to be able to read the storage medium, you need to be able to interpret the data, and even if you can do all of that, you still may not have everything you once did. I know there's a few cases for audio where they've had to work hard to recreate the sound of a reverb plug-in that they used that isn't compatible with modern computers. Remember - I said actively junking stuff like that. Actually taking care of your archives - that poo poo is not in vogue. Batman Beyond is a good example - they're releasing an HD remaster, and a few of the episodes are upscales from a digital source that was made at the time because the 35 mm negatives were unusable. It's not uncommon for shows to have stuff that's flown in from the old broadcast masters, like Star Trek: TNG, where they can't find the footage that they need.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Ineffiable posted:Isn't it common for media from the 90s to early 2000s to have archival issues just because either storage was pretty expensive back then, or it wasn't properly stored at archival quality format and of course digital was new for a lot of things. It's common for media from all time periods, and it's not a solved problem. Obviously, we're not talking about the silent film era where a ton of movies are literally lost forever, never to be seen again. Even a film negative that has undergone serious damage (like DBZ), can still be restored with a lot of work, but if you don't have the negative, there's literally nothing you can do. The problems you see will vary among the media types. So let's consider all the things that can go wrong. So, first, how was your show finished? Was it finished on film or was it finished to video. Chances are, if it's a TV show made after the early 1980s, it may have been finished to tape. Before then, it was likely finished to film. So, for a show like Star Trek: The Original Series, bringing it to HD was easy - just scan the final prints. You don't need to worry about anything else. Oh, but hold on a second, even if a show was finished to film, you have to make sure that the episode negative actually matches the broadcast master. Take NYPD Blue. Now, before you can see Dennis Franz's rear end in the highest quality that technology can allow, you run into a problem. Based on an article I read, the show was finished to film. HOWEVER, they would make changes after the fact, using different takes and the like, and so the final negative didn't always matched what was broadcasted. Meaning, you now have to go through the archives and find all the various negatives for the scenes that were used. And hopefully, the masters were stored properly. Which will lead us to what happens if the show was finished to tape. This applies to shows like Seinfeld, Star Trek: The Next Generation, the last 9 seasons of Cheers (if I remember correctly). Basically, you have to track down all the film bits. Now, here comes the fun part - you have to hope that your archives are well-organized. I know for TNG, they were not. It took a lot of work to actually organized everything they had. A good example is Sins of the Father. In the teaser disc they produced, there was one section that had to be flown in from the broadcast master and upscaled. Between when they did the teaser and when they released Season 3 on blu-ray, they found the missing bit and was able to restore it back to the episode. And for the bits and bobs you can't find? Well, you're going to have to upscale and color correct the broadcast master. Depending on the show, this can range from just a little fuzzier (the X-Files) to looking completely different (Cheers). You're going to have re-edit the show. Now, you probably have notes, and even if you don't, you just have to match with the final broadcast master. But here's where life gets fun. What if your show uses special effects. Now, if you're lucky, like on TNG, almost all of the effects were done by shooting everything on film and then compositing the video. Provided you have all the elements, you "just" have to recomposite everything and you have the special effects in HD! But if you're not, you may be dealing with a show like Buffy or the X-Files, were the effects may have been done on computers. It is almost a promise that at this point, you only have renders that were done at standard definition because god knows you're not going to render in HD when the show is going to be presented in standard def. So, you got two choices - try to redo the special effects, or simply just unconvert the special effects shots to HD, do some color regrading, and hope it matches (which it won't because it will look really fuzzy). And chances are, if you go with option #1, you'll still have to use option #2. If I remember correctly, that's the direction that the X-Files went. I might be wrong. Of course, life is easier if you have the original files that they used to do the renders. You probably don't. BUT if you do... you still need to have a program that can read them, and you still may need to do significant rework to make them acceptable for HD. Soundtracks? What's wrong with the original mono soundtrack? Kids these days, needing their Dolby Atmos sound. We were happy to even have sound, I tell you what. Provided you have the original stems and elements, you can remaster that. And you get to deal with all the fun things that can happen to audio (do you need to bake the tapes, are the tapes a proprietary digital format that only a handful of machines can still play). I talked a lot about 35 mm film, because for the time being, that's what we've been working with. For digital, there's a different set of problems. Corrupted drives, files that weren't backed up, stuff like that can happen. But you know what's truly fun - making sure things are named in a logical and consistent way. And hopefully not just file1 and file2 (I recall there being something where this is literally what they had to deal with, and they had to go through every file to get the proper name). And add in software issues and other things like that. Or you can be the Dumont Network and just dump all of your masters in the Hudson River. It makes things a lot simpler. The point? There's a lot of failure points when it comes to archiving and restoring things. Especially when we're talking about TV shows where you have a lot of different formats to take into consideration. Assuming you shot on film - you have the negative. You have the broadcast master. You may have international masters depending on the show (for example, some HBO shows have retakes done for overseas markets so they can air there). You may have syndication masters. Then you have the things that go into making all of these things possible. Let's talk about Smash Mouth for a second. Did you know that the multi-track masters to "All Stars" is either incomplete or missing? Huge hit song. Cultural milestone. And all we're left with is the final mixes that were done. The song was done digitally. Archiving is still something we're struggling with, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is at least one film where all we can track down is a Netflix/Blu-ray master.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Doesn't a lot of stuff also just fall prey to carelessness because they don't think anyone is going to give a poo poo about it in 20 years or so? Zim was early in the DVD era too so if I recall correctly complete shows on DVD weren't really a big thing yet. Certainly, that's a reason too. Definitely, earlier on, there was just a lot of times where people didn't think stuff was valuable, so they'd junk their archives. For example, ABC Records got rid of a lot of their mono mixes in the 70s because who would want to hear the Mamas and the Papas in mono? In fact, EMI actually insisted that no tapes from the Beatles, the Hollies, or Cliff Richard ever to be junked, so even in the 1960s, they recognized that some tapes might actually have value. BBC wiped their masters on a regular basis because they legally couldn't show the shows more than a certain number of times, and before the home video market in the 1980s, why would you ever need these shows you can't legally show. Fun fact - the only reason we have color copies of the first series of Monty Python's Flying Circus was because they stole the tapes and made copies of them when they found out the tapes were due to be wiped. https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/06/the-unknown-hero-who-saved-monthy-pythons-flying-c.html Another factor is cost. So, when Andy Partridge was looking for the multitracks for the XTC albums, Virgin records charged him a fee for them to search the archive. That was on top of the charge to store the materials. Oh, and they couldn't find the materials. That they were being paid to store. For Invader Zim, it's tough to say. By the time the show came out, DVD boxsets of shows were starting to take off (the Simpsons S1 was released around 2001) - but Zim was still a cult show with only 26 episodes. So who can say what anyone was thinking or what they have?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I always thought it was weird Beavis and Butt-Head never got a proper physical release, just a 'greatest hits' compilation. It was a very successful show that ran for like 7 years. I thought a part of it is Mike Judge also isn't happy with some of the episodes, so he'd rather not release those on home video. But I could be wrong on that. And as others said, the music videos
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2019 12:57
|
|
|
Look, all I want is for Disney to buy everything so we can get the uncut Muppet show. Okay. Is that too much to ask?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
I buy all my movies on 8mm. That way, I get the best quality, no digital compression, and I only have a minimal fire hazard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
Don't we talk about vinegar syndrome? Surely, they must have released some of these movies on Blu-ray, right? Also, the signal that cable companies sent out was called an electric bullet. I would like to learn more about how it works, since I'm just curious about the specifics.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:As an adult I'm pretty sure that was a myth, because it seems like something that would magically kill a cable stealing box, would also kill a legitimate cable box. I read about it in the New York Times. That's why I'm curious how it works, if they did something where the chip could easily be shorted out without impacting the rest of the electronics or what have you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Warner Archive October slate: Mr. Nice Guy and the original cut. This is a banner year for Jackie Chan home video releases.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:Meanwhile, Twilight Time apparently doesn't have any new releases for the rest of the year (normally they have at least 3-4 titles) and Olive Films has only released three films this year. Not to be alarmist, but if there's any films you've wanted on physical media, might not be a bad idea to grab it now. I think we're going to still have plenty of physical media, but I don't think I'll be surprised if the industry switches to a "one print run and done" model. I think there's going to be a culling of the boutique labels soon. Like, I look at Twilight Time, and most of their recent releases look like the kind of thing you used to find on Netflix - an old forgotten film that was in somebody's content library that they probably got as a package deal that included a few hit movies. Like, the President's Lady - I've never heard anyone ever mention this film, and it's not like they're doing a lot to sell me on it. I feel like part of it is that Criterion, Shout, and Kino have really upped their game significantly. Each month, there's at least one Criterion release I want to get, and they do stuff like that big Godzilla boxset. It also helps that with studios pulling away from physical media, that they are able to get those bigger and more notable releases. Here's my prediction - physical media will take the form of laserdisc. It's not something for people who just want to watch something with their friends or significant other. It's going to be for people who want to pay the premium for a better experience. And the market is going to change - there is a market, but it's not a huge one.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
I think you're missing Pierre Le Fou from that list. And I trusted you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Really what I want to know is if there's going to be a mad dash to get a lot of titles on blu-ray as Disney starts putting them out of print. I'd be real surprised if they ever allowed boutique labels to license a Fox title ever again. This whole thing is just miserable. Why would you think that? Disney bought Fox for Star Wars and some Marvel. Disney has licensed their games to GOG. If they do that, I'm sure they're going to let Criterion keep Kagemusha. I thought Disney was involved with Criterion for a while (stuff like the Royal Tennebaums).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Because they're pricks and their recent decision to just about destroy repertory cinema says they either don't care about people seeing the back catalog or are otherwise doing this to make more of their content on the upcoming streaming app exclusive to them. Their whole back catalog thing with theaters is weird. I'm guessing you have uncaring corporation applying rules in a weird way that doesn't benefit anybody. I don't see preventing people from going to a theater as competing with their platform, and I can't see how any reasonable person would. Key word - reasonable. That doesn't describe Disney's actions. But I can't see someone ever saying "well, I was going to go to Hulu to watch Alien, but since it's playing at my local theater, I guess I'll just give up on streaming entirely!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:Keep in mind that this is the same company that threatened to sue a small daycare because they had Mickey Mouse painted on the wall. I'm not saying that is not their thinking, I'm saying that if that were their thinking, it's galaxy brained stupid. My honest guess, based on what I read is that Disney doesn't want a paid screening of old films because that means one less theater showing the new stuff. It's still stupid, since honestly, the availability of theaters is not the thing keeping me from seeing the latest Avengers film. But I'm guessing that's how they're playing. Which is bad and dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
CPL593H posted:That was just one guess I was throwing out there but whatever the reason I think it's something they're doing to gain more control of the market be it theatrical and/or home exhibition. What Lord Of Booty said about them trying to disrupt indie theaters is a more likely scenario. In any case it's utter garbage. Your guess was also mentioned in a Variety story. I don't think it's completely unreasonable that some corporate stooge would think that way. The thing that's really bad is that they broke arrangements that some theaters have made, and they've left everyone in the dark as to what they are doing and why.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Cross-Section posted:So those rumored 4K transfers of the Star Wars OT? Well, they're real, and just got stealth-dropped via the Disney+ launch. The prequel trilogy was shot in 35mm for the Phantom Menace, and the next two were 1080p 24fps. However, the Phantom Menace has so many special effects. So your imagination is correct!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Yet another reason why Disney should have shelved the prequels with the rest of the EU. They look like absolute poo poo on modern displays. They probably look bad not because of the resolution, but probably because they were the product of a guy who wanted to produce tech demos more than he did movies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
I think you're going to see a streaming crash in the next few years. Mind you, it will be like the videogame crash of 83, in which it changes the landscape, but it won't lead to the end of streaming. Like, Disney makes sense since they are a brand. But Universal? CBS? People want to go to one place. They're not going to keep track, and that's either going to push people back to disc or piracy. Netflix was easy. Netflix and Hulu is easy. But if you have 20 different services? That's hard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2019 18:28
|
|