HD DVD Version of Land of the Dead Announced [Archive]

DjfunkmasterG

26-Jun-2006, 12:28 PM

Wait about a year or so... Plus most of the releases they are coming out with a suck films anyway.

End of Days (BLAH)
Land of the Dead (Blah)
Backdraft (So-So)
Red Dragon (just ok)

Traffic (decent)
Seabiscuit(good flick)
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (This is cult movie, not considered mainstream)
Dazed and Confused (another cult film, but good)

So on Universal's end they are not off to a very good start with HD DVD releases. So I am all for waiting until the catalogue gets much bigger. Although I dread the fact of replacing all my DVD's with a format that isn't going to take off for at least 3 years. Most people don't even own Hi-def TV's yet... so without the TV and the DVD player what is the use of the HD-DVD format?

bassman

26-Jun-2006, 02:13 PM

"Fear and Loathing" in Hi Definition? I may buy a player just for that......

erisi236

26-Jun-2006, 07:57 PM

as soon as my DVDs loose their quality I'll upgrade to HD :rolleyes:

DjfunkmasterG

26-Jun-2006, 08:16 PM

I with Erisi on this one. When MY DVD's become un-playable I will upgrade. I was originally excited about HD and Bluray because of storage capacity, but now I am just shaking my head because of the lack of afforable equipment in order to exploit this new technology.

UndeadGuyX

26-Jun-2006, 08:38 PM

Now all you have to do is go buy the expensive player to play the non-hybrid discs.

Since the release of LOTD is the same as the already released version, and contains no additional material., why go out and waste $35.00 on the film? I mean honestly, why bother? If you already have the standard release I can't see plopping down $35 for the exact same release.

High-def is the reason why we go out and by it.

Not to mention the fact that most HD DVD's can be bought for around $20 at or around release by various sources (online retailers, sales at BB, etc).

It's very much worth it for the PQ increase.

I with Erisi on this one. When MY DVD's become un-playable I will upgrade. I was originally excited about HD and Bluray because of storage capacity, but now I am just shaking my head because of the lack of afforable equipment in order to exploit this new technology.

DVD's can last for hundreds of years if taken care of right. Then again it was the same for LaserDisc. You still play those?

You gotta remember though, with ALL new technologies the prices are very high. It was the same with DVD players when they were first released ($1000) so HD DVD and Blu-ray are no different. Not to mention the fact that HD DVD players are suprisingly affordable ($500) seeing compared to other brand new technologies.

Wait about a year or so... Plus most of the releases they are coming out with a suck films anyway.

End of Days (BLAH)
Land of the Dead (Blah)
Backdraft (So-So)
Red Dragon (just ok)

Traffic (decent)
Seabiscuit(good flick)
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (This is cult movie, not considered mainstream)
Dazed and Confused (another cult film, but good)

So on Universal's end they are not off to a very good start with HD DVD releases. So I am all for waiting until the catalogue gets much bigger. Although I dread the fact of replacing all my DVD's with a format that isn't going to take off for at least 3 years. Most people don't even own Hi-def TV's yet... so without the TV and the DVD player what is the use of the HD-DVD format?

That's your opinion on the films remember that. Not everybody thinks the same about those movies.

OddDNA

26-Jun-2006, 09:14 PM

To be in true HD they need to be filmed with HD cameras which were not around for some of the movies you named.

Frame rate is alot higher with HD cameras.

erisi236

26-Jun-2006, 09:21 PM

DVD's can last for hundreds of years if taken care of right. Then again it was the same for LaserDisc. You still play those?

were there over 20,000 or so LaserDisks available of EVERY Movie and TV show ever made and were also very easy to store and use? :rockbrow:

I just don't see the huge jump from DVD to HD DVD as there was between VHS and DVD to warent running out and replaceing mystuff just yet

OddDNA

26-Jun-2006, 09:24 PM

but I am going to supplement

MinionZombie

26-Jun-2006, 09:55 PM

I agree, DVD is still a young buck, besides, most if not all DVDs will play sweet on a HD TV, there's too much of a rush for this amazingly perfect picture quality - but really, unless you're going to have a home cinema with all the trimmings, what the hell is the point?

Who on earth wants to watch "Eastenders" in HD? As if it wasn't miserable enough to look at already, now we're being encouraged to see the grime and depression in ultra-real, high definition, "you don't need a savings account - buy our really expensive penis-extension/boob enlarging, fashion accessorising television!" ... *ahem*

It's bad enough I'll have to get a new DVD player - and my computer won't be able to run them, so that'll be another new drive, f*ck sake, are we made of money? No we bloody aren't, especially in the UK because apparently it all MUST be siphoned off by Darth "I'm An Epic C*nt" Brown ...

I'll shut up before I get ranty ... time to soften the brain with some Big Brother...ahhhh.....voyeurism.

UndeadGuyX

26-Jun-2006, 10:01 PM

To be in true HD they need to be filmed with HD cameras which were not around for some of the movies you named.

Frame rate is alot higher with HD cameras.

Not true at all.

The resolution of film is higher than that of high-def. In other words, ALL movies can be in high-def.

An example of an older movie in true high-def is Blazing Saddles. An HD DVD version was released about a month ago on HD DVD: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000E5KJFW/002-1874264-3656018?v=glance&n=130

The movie is native 1080p on HD DVD.

I agree, DVD is still a young buck, besides, most if not all DVDs will play sweet on a HD TV

Yes but not as sweet as native high-def material on an HDTV. Its something that you really have to see in person to believe. The jump really is as big as VHS - DVD was. The only caveat is that you have to have an HDTV to realize this.

OddDNA

27-Jun-2006, 04:16 AM

I think I am right, but I am in no means an expert on home film. But I know that with shows that are shown on HD that were not filmed in HD do not look as good.

I have an HDTV and an HDDVD player and the HDDVDs do look better than reg DVDs but you can def tell the difference in things shot with HD cameras as opposed to not.

I think HD cameras do an even better job of motion capture than conventional film cameras and motion capture relates to picture quality.

So yes all HDDVDs will be show in 1080 the camera has to do with whats being shown that fast.

UndeadGuyX

27-Jun-2006, 04:19 AM

I think I am right, but I am in no means an expert on home film.

Actually you are wrong. To prepare myself for your response I created a thread on the AVS forum with your comments.

Check it out here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=692715

Members of the AVS forum ARE experts on all forms of Home Theater. Many of them are in the industry mind you.

EDIT: Some highlights are:

So "this person" has no idea what they are talking about.

Both 35 and Super16mm film have enough resolution for hi-definition (professional motion-picture film comes HD-ready, it just needs to be transferred over after processing like hawkeye3.1 mentioned).

I haven't seen it, but I understand The Wizard of Oz looks great in HD, and its something like sixty years old.

The day that Singing In The Rain comes out on HD-DVD, show that to your friend. That will end any idea he has that film has to be shot in HD to be shown on HD.

The 35mm film elements themselves have plenty more resolution than the HD master copies.

DjfunkmasterG

27-Jun-2006, 11:39 AM

That's your opinion on the films remember that. Not everybody thinks the same about those movies.

True, but they (Hollyweird) want me to layout cash for a new format. Well in order to justify laying out $35 for a DVD it better be a movie worth laying out money for, like The Godfather, Apollo 13, or Heat, or Apocalypse Now. Something worth viewing in Hi-Def.

I don't consider most of the films I listed to be worth a damn. In all honesty I would probably buy 2 of the film listed.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Dazed and Confused

The rest are a waste of money. Especially the hybrids WTF bother?

OddDNA

27-Jun-2006, 05:31 PM

If that is the case Undead. They cost a boatload more money and the picture is not as good?

You seem pretty uptight about this, like I said before I am not an expert or else I wouldnt be talking about this on a "living dead/ zombie sit" I would be with your friends in the AVS forums or whatever it is called.

This I do know 100% on ESPNHD you can tell the difference between games that use the HD cameras and game where they dont. Same for HBOHD if you watch an older movie it doesnt look much better than regular HBO.

UndeadGuyX

27-Jun-2006, 05:55 PM

Well in order to justify laying out $35 for a DVD it better be a movie worth laying out money for

I already told you that all HD DVD's can be had for $20.

The rest are a waste of money. Especially the hybrids WTF bother?

The hybrid discs have both a DVD and HD DVD side. The movie can be viewed in high-def on HD DVD players or standard def on standard DVD players. This also adds an extra layer of flexibility to those people that want the best version of a movie but don't have the money to buy into HD DVD yet.

The rest are a waste of money.

One could also argue that you have no taste in movies.

If that is the case Undead. They cost a boatload more money and the picture is not as good?

Not as good as what?

I already explained to you that HD DVD's do not have to be shot with some magical HD camera to look great in high-definition. This is because film itself is of a higher native resolution than that of 1080p.

The only real benefit of HD cameras is the fact that there is no film grain. Other than that film has a higher native resolution than HD cameras can provide.

You seem pretty uptight about this, like I said before I am not an expert or else I wouldnt be talking about this on a "living dead/ zombie sit" I would be with your friends in the AVS forums or whatever it is called.

I mearly posted this thread to inform the people on this forum that a better, higher res, all-around better version of one of your favorite movies is coming out soon.

I would of only posted once but because of all the mis-information going around here about high-def I had no choice but to continue to post and will rightfully so.

This I do know 100% on ESPNHD you can tell the difference between games that use the HD cameras and game where they dont.

That's because most sports game switch between HD and SD cameras. So of course HD cameras are going to look better.

You didn't honestly expect these games to be shot with movie film did you?

Same for HBOHD if you watch an older movie it doesnt look much better than regular HBO.

This is because stations like HBO are notorious for compressing the hell out of movies. Hence the reason why we have HD DVD and Blu-ray.

OddDNA

27-Jun-2006, 05:58 PM

It is personal pref.

If you dont care, dont buy it. Standard DVDs arent going anywhere for a long time. But if you already bought the TV and Player Ill put out the extra $10 to get the HD version of most movies though others I dont care if I have the standard (dumb movies like Land of the Dead) lol.

DjfunkmasterG

27-Jun-2006, 06:16 PM

One could also argue that you have no taste in movies.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

HA HA HA! HA HA HA! That makes me laugh! :lol: The simple fact I loathe LAND is a perfect example of my good taste in film. The fact i love DAWN 78, and films like the Godfather series, American Beauty, Sideways and god knows how many other ACADEMY AWARDED films lets me know I have a superb taste in cinema.

When I looked at the list of release by Universal I was un-impressed considering they have one the best library's on the planet. Yet they choose to release a bunch of sh*t to the public in hopes of selling the HD format.

You need to go back to your AVS website homey. You might be able to tell someone there they have no taste in movies... but telling me I have no taste in film is like calling George W. Bush the most intelligent man on the planet. :lol:

MinionZombie

27-Jun-2006, 06:19 PM

HD cameras are wicked quality, just look at Once Upon A Time In Mexico. Now, apart from a few shots which do look like video (rather than film - something to do with the lighting/shutter speed or something similar? - same can be seen in Sin City), it looks the same and even better than regular 35mm.

HD is indeed high definition and the crispness of a flick like Mexico just goes to show than 35mm is generally more hazy and nowhere near as pin sharp. HD cameras are also coming down in price and of course a place where you save time and money is with tape stock. Rather than using film - and then getting it developed and all that bollocks, you just whack in a tape, that you can run and run for a full hour (rather than just 10 or 15 minutes) and you can review your newly shot footage on a HD monitor and see what it's going to look like exactly, straight away, rather than those fudgy as hell monitors you find on 35mm shoots.

Aye, I've been watching the extras on Mexico a bit too much...:D

Once they can fix those odd moments where it really does look like video, then it'll be sorted. Hell, even Average Joe budgetted cameras are bringing out modes to give you a more "film look" and it's just plain old miniDV - Dj often goes on about those as he's got one himself.

I'll shut up now...

They're probably doing a 'first run' of HD DVD with those titles because they're probably a lot cheaper to clear/reproduce or whatever than newer flicks. And/or, mostly being older flicks, if people have them on DVD chances are they got them a while ago. If you bring out a HD DVD of something someone has just bought the other week on normal DVD then you're not going to maximise your sales.

panic

28-Jun-2006, 06:05 AM

I agree that, as yet, HD-DVD and Blueray technology remains out of reach for me in terms of cost. As mentioned by others above, I also don't find much in the titles yet available which makes me feel the need to RUSH out and by a new format player.

Here's what I am doing, however:

I'm slowing WAY down on my purchasing of conventional DVDs. I was averaging a few DVDs a month 12 months ago. All I'm buying now is the occasional season of a TV show I want to watch (I hate watching commercials and I don't watch enough TV to warrant TIVO). My aim is to not have to replace a whole bunch of DVDs with higher def media 5-10 years from now. Its kind of painful, but I'm willing to rent what I really want to watch again, and hold off on building a lasting collection.

Griff

28-Jun-2006, 10:40 AM

HD is indeed high definition and the crispness of a flick like Mexico just goes to show than 35mm is generally more hazy and nowhere near as pin sharp.

That's an absurd statement since current HD cameras don't even approach the sharpness of film.

OddDNA

28-Jun-2006, 06:33 PM

There is a difference between clarity of an image, everyone seems to agree that film is the best. Than there is frame rate. Does HD cameras have a higher frame rate than traditional cameras?

bassman

28-Jun-2006, 06:47 PM

I'm slowing WAY down on my purchasing of conventional DVDs. I was averaging a few DVDs a month 12 months ago.

A few a month? Wow....I must have an addiction, then...

panic

28-Jun-2006, 06:55 PM

Film is an analog medium and digital is, well, digital. One of things to consider about how a movie shot on film looks in HD is the quality of the transfer (the process of converting the analog information on the film to digital information on the Laserdisc, DVD, HD-DVD, Blueray, whatever). Because the digital medium has a finite (albeit large) number of choices for color, this process of digitization forces color choices to be made for each and every "pixel" of the film. There are a lot of other technical issues involved in analog to video transfer. All can have a tremendous impact on the quality of the final digital product.

The advantage of films that were shot in digital format is that NO information is lost, EVER (unless the info is tranferred to a digital medium with less storage space or intentional compression such as xvid, divx, etc). The film-maker makes choices about digitization on the "front-end," and the final product remains the same.

So film captures more information on the front-end, but back-end transfer choices can have a dramatic impact on the quality of the final viewing experience. Digital format puts control of the final product in the hands of the moviemakers. Obviously, its possible to screw either up.

DjfunkmasterG

29-Jun-2006, 11:46 AM

That's an absurd statement since current HD cameras don't even approach the sharpness of film.

Griff is right...

HD-Cameras have yet to mimic the qualities of film. Not too mention it requires more work to get the film look. Even the $150,000 Sony Cinealta is a long way off from being the be all end all replacement for 35mm film cameras.

The only reason studios are swaying more towards HD Cams is because of processing costs. A regular 35MM Panavision film camera film mag holds 11 minutes of film, but an HD cam can go one hour +. So right off the bat you can take your time working and not worrying about using to much stock. Plus you save on processing fees because the tape can be immediately uploaded to the NLE to begin cutting the project.

HD still needs work. It still looks like Video. My DVX-100 in 24P mode raw footage looks more like film than the $150,000 Sony Cinealta system raw footage. Not too mention the new HXV-200 HD 24P cam from Panasonic is making a smashing debut on the market as well.

I don't like HD all that much, and like my DP I still prefer Standard definition, and until something smashing comes across my eye balls I will stay with Standard Def MiniDV, and if given the money Would shoot a feature on 35mm.

MinionZombie

29-Jun-2006, 04:44 PM

Speaking of film stocks, I'm in the "I love 16mm" camp, I just love the grit and grain, so a flick like The Devil's Rejects (shot on 16mm) is right up my gritty alley. :cool:

OddDNA

29-Jun-2006, 06:30 PM

I guess he wanted that 70s horror feel.

Nice info MZ

(By the way I met Rob Zombie back in '91)

MinionZombie

29-Jun-2006, 09:27 PM

Aye, I think it was a matter of budget as well as time, 16mm is so much quicker to shoot with than bulky old 35. However, one of the major reasons will indeed be a stylistic choice - I must refer to "30 Days In Hell" (the exhaustive, yet excellent 'making of' on the TDR unrated DVD) - the grit and grain and dust of the desert would be quickly lost on 35, or just not feel as real anyway. With 16mm you really feel the violence, the intense atmosphere and the sweltering heat of the desert in the movie - rock on the next Rob Zombie flick says I!

DjfunkmasterG

30-Jun-2006, 02:54 PM

TDR made me give RZ a lot of respect. At first I thought he was just going to be some musician playing director, but the guy has his act together now, and he has one more dedicated fan to add to his growing list.

I enjoy his music, and now I enjoy his film. (TDR) I am not too keen on HOTC.

axlish

30-Jun-2006, 03:29 PM

In the case of The Devil's Rejects, 16mm (or more appropriate, Super16) was used to capture the grit and to give it that late 70's feel. It was in no way a budgetary decision. In House, he used 8mm for the Dr. Satan dream sequence.

As for HD, it isn't quite up to snuff when compared to 35mm or 70mm. It is however a decent enough standard for conversions and storing, etc. For instance, Crispin Glover shot his film "What Is It?" on Super16, mastered it to HD, and then scored 35mm prints off of it. HD in its current standard is useful.

As far as the format war goes, HD-DVD or BluRay's potential cannot be fully utilized on less than a 42" 16X9 television. If you aren't that hardcore, then don't bother. Me? I'll be waiting for a hybrid player that plays both formats, if anything.

bassman

30-Jun-2006, 05:35 PM

I enjoy his music, and now I enjoy his film. (TDR) I am not too keen on HOTC.

I agree....but only his music when he was in White Zombie.

His solo stuff...ehhh....not so much:bored:

MinionZombie

30-Jun-2006, 06:11 PM

I'm into both White Zombie and Rob Zombie, although WZ was better of the two, I still enjoy a splash of RZ when I'm feeling the vibe for it, as for his films, I loved House of 1000 Corpses and I really f*ckin' loved Devil's Rejects.

As for these new formats of DVDs, like axlish was saying, unless you've essentially got a mega expensive home cinema system there's no friggin' point and the average punter won't notice the difference by far, it's completely pointless at the moment for public use - it's best use would be in cinemas, but then again, I don't want to pay a fiver to go to the cinema to see a DVD just on a big screen with a bunch of smelly morons surrounding me - keep it on film projectors people, I wanna see the change over ... single frame of a massive cock and all! :D