Romero's movies in Blu-ray

[Palanthian]

Didn't see where anyone had mentioned it, but today George Romero's Dawn of the Dead and Day of the Dead came out in Blu-ray. I haven't picked it up yet, but I can't wait to see Dawn/Day in full 1080p glory :D


(Been forever since I was a member of this forum. lol Last time I was here was when we were trying desperately to find the live action commercials for Resident Evil 2. lol)

[DubiousComforts]

sorry, double post

[capncnut]

Indeed, I am dying to see Dawn in high-def but the package has some very underwhelming extras.

[DubiousComforts]

Some good reviews posted here:

Blu-Ray.com (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=518&show=comments)
DVD Review.com (http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/2685.shtml)

I think it's worth the $20 if you have a hi-def set-up, even without the extensive extras of the Ultimate box set. A majority of the disc space is probably being allocated to the movie.

[Palanthian]

As I did with the dvd...I'll undoubtedly double-dip this version with the uber-ultimate edition later. lol

[axlish]

I'm going to buy this, and I don't have a player yet. Completionist's Rationale.

[Griff]

DAWN OF THE DEAD was the first movie I ever bought on DVD.

...in 1997, two years before I got a DVD player. Imported it and everything.

Go figure.

[DubiousComforts]

DAWN OF THE DEAD was the first movie I ever bought on DVD.
...in 1997, two years before I got a DVD player. Imported it and everything.
Go figure.
Haha, I've got you beat by a long shot.

DAWN was the first movie that I bought on DVD when I got a DVD player sometime around 1997. Since then, I'd bought four different versions on DVD--two of them imports, one of which I couldn't even watch because it was PAL and that first DVD player wasn't multi-format.

Prior to DVD, I had three versions of DAWN on VHS and one version on LD... without ever owning a laserdisc player.

Being that I don't have an HD set-up yet, so I suppose I'm a little late buying that new Blu-Ray release. :lol:

[Palanthian]

Oh sweet. Just read of fan review that said that it includes the extended and european versions too :D

[Danny]

ive allready got it on dvd so i dont see the point in buying it again.

-though the UMD version for bus trips is damn tempting;)

[Palanthian]

ive allready got it on dvd so i dont see the point in buying it again.

-though the UMD version for bus trips is damn tempting;)

hehe, Before I had a blu-ray player, I said I wouldn't rebuy movies either....then I saw how the blu-ray's looked.....and had to...:P

[DubiousComforts]

ive allready got it on dvd so i dont see the point in buying it again.
"The Blu-Ray version comes also with an uncompressed 5.1 channel PCM audio track, offering you the best possible presentation ever..."

This new 5.1 mix probably sounds unbelievable. And that's only the audio. This is how you beat the "public domain" hucksters to the punch: release NOLD '68 in state-of-the-art high def and you'll have to board up the windows and doors to keep the consumers away. :D

[UndeadGuyX]

Oh sweet. Just read of fan review that said that it includes the extended and european versions too :D

Negative. Dawn of the Dead for Blu-ray only includes the theatrical version of DotD. I would know, I own both Dawn and Day of the Dead on Blu-ray.

If anyone has any questions, just let me know.

[DubiousComforts]

If anyone has any questions, just let me know.
So how does it look?

[Griff]

From what I've been reading, the audio mix ups in DAY OF THE DEAD have not been fixed for the surround sound track but they have included the original, un-botched, mono mix for the purists.

[UndeadGuyX]

So how does it look?

Great. Day of the Dead's master may not be in the best shape but it's much more film like on Blu-ray. DNR is a bit of a problem but thats the same for the DVD's. Can't recommend them enough.

[zombiehog64]

I just watched Dawn of the Dead on Blue Ray, and I must say that I am blown away. Anchor Bay has once again gone above and beyond the call of duty. The colors and shadows are so much more vivid now than ever before. I even noticed little details that I had never seen before, and this is coming from a guy that has watched this movie at least 40 times. The one scene that really stood out for me was before and after Roger turned. Before he turned, you could notice more details in his eyes such as swelling and pooling of blood. In previous DVD releases of Dawn, his eyes appeared to be simply caked with make up. After turning, the details in Roger's face are simply breath taking. The only drawback to the Blue Ray are the special effects. When I first watched Dawn on VHS, the special effects were brutal. Now, they stick out like a sore thumb.The Zombie lady attacking Roger in the truck really looked bad. When the front of her head came flying out, it looked very, very cheesy. I remember watching the VHS version and being shocked by this same scene. All in all, if you have a Blue Ray player and a big Dawn fan, then go pick it up right now. I still think the Ultimate Edition is the best.

[Danny]

a little on topic thing id point out.

I started my degree in moving image production yesterday adn were only using blu-ray, make of that what you will.

[vito]

So how does it look?

yes dude u got to tell us:D

[Griff]

Check this out, I've never noticed the zombie on crutches in this shot before.

http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.85088355f7.jpg (http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?85088355f7.jpg)

Bare in mind that this screenshot has been downsized and heavily recompressed from the Blu Ray original.

[UndeadGuyX]

yes dude u got to tell us:D

I already told you how it looked on the top of this page. ;)

[DjfunkmasterG]

When they do HD-DVD cuts I will buy it. I can't see double dipping for a watered down Blu-ray cut, not too mention an inferior format (HD-DVD rules) My DAWN ultimate edition played through my HD_DVD player up-res'd to 1080P is fine for me... Also lets not forget it truly isn't a high def cut of the movie by any means as HD technology was even around in the 70's. The transfer on the Ultimate Edition is probably the best edition for Dawn of the Dead and aside from being an owener of every cut of Dawn on DVD... this I will pass on.

[UndeadGuyX]

Also lets not forget it truly isn't a high def cut of the movie by any means as HD technology was even around in the 70's.

You do realize that the resolution of film itself is higher than the resolution of 1080p high-definition right? This is why older movies (not just newer ones) are released in both high-definition movie formats. Any movie that was filmed with actual film (as opposed to digital video) can benefit from a transfer to high-definition. It allows us to view our movies in a way that is just that much closer to the original film negative. The way it was intended.

It is worth mentioning that Warner's re-release of Blade Runner (1982) is being ported over to both Blu-ray and HD DVD using an 8k resolution scan of the master. Think of it as 8000 lines of resolution compared to the 1080 lines that Blu-ray and HD DVD support (or the measly 480 lines that DVD can support).


I can't see double dipping for a watered down Blu-ray cut, not too mention an inferior format (HD-DVD rules)

Both formats have their strengths and weaknesses. Please explain to me why you consider Blu-ray an inferior format to HD DVD.


The transfer on the Ultimate Edition is probably the best edition for Dawn of the Dead

Unfortunately, Anchor Bay went with the Divimax treatment for the Ultimate Edition of Dawn of the Dead. A type of DNR (Digital Noise Reduction) process that attempts to remove film grain from the picture. This in turn removes all high frequency details and blurs the image slightly. Although not bad by any stretch of the imagination, Dawn of the Dead could look better if the transfer wasn't tampered with like it is using the Divimax process.

[LivingDeadBeat]

I already own 3 versions of Dawn (well, 2 are the same 'Director's cut' but you know,) is it worth getting the Blu-Ray version? I do have a PS3 but is it worth getting it really?

Edit: 127 mins - I don't think I'll bother just yet.

[UndeadGuyX]

I already own 3 versions of Dawn (well, 2 are the same 'Director's cut' but you know,) is it worth getting the Blu-Ray version? I do have a PS3 but is it worth getting it really?

Edit: 127 mins - I don't think I'll bother just yet.

If you want the best version available, then yes.

[acealive1]

not doggin HD or blu ray,but if they stretch or distort the picture anymore for a higher picture quality on a new format,the transfer will be useless.

[DubiousComforts]

not doggin HD or blu ray,but if they stretch or distort the picture anymore for a higher picture quality on a new format,the transfer will be useless.
How are they stretching or distorting the image quality in making Blu-Ray or HD transfers?

The improvements in resolution is very easy to understand:

330x480 VHS
560x480 Super-VHS
720x480 DVD
1920x1080 Blu-Ray

You're obviously going to see a superior image with the HD or Blu-Ray format where the resolution of 35mm film is greater than 1920x1080.

[acealive1]

i saw an interview with the director of bladerunner and he said to up it to hi def,they had to do the usual that they do to films and they distorted it a few times to the point there was no picture to try to raise it to 1080. so effectively they killed a copy of the movie a few times LOL


i still say superbit coulda made it as a format if the prices woulda dropped

[DubiousComforts]

i saw an interview with the director of bladerunner and he said to up it to hi def,they had to do the usual that they do to films and they distorted it a few times to the point there was no picture to try to raise it to 1080. so effectively they killed a copy of the movie a few times LOL
That makes no sense because you don't have to up film resolution to meet Hi-Def specs. It sounds like they were working from an existing transfer. Is the interview online? I'd like to know exactly what he was talking about.

I have multiple copies of DAY on VHS, DVD, plus x264 conversions from Blu-Ray and HDTV (which are still better resolution than DVD given the compression). I'll post an image comparison later so that you can see the difference in quality.

[acealive1]

That makes no sense because you don't have to up film resolution to meet Hi-Def specs. It sounds like they were working from an existing transfer. Is the interview online? I'd like to know exactly what he was talking about.

I have multiple copies of DAY on VHS, DVD, plus x264 conversions from Blu-Ray and HDTV (which are still better resolution than DVD given the compression). I'll post an image comparison later so that you can see the difference in quality.


im trying to dig it up now,it was for the bladerunner box set.

[UndeadGuyX]

i saw an interview with the director of bladerunner and he said to up it to hi def,they had to do the usual that they do to films and they distorted it a few times to the point there was no picture to try to raise it to 1080. so effectively they killed a copy of the movie a few times LOL


i still say superbit coulda made it as a format if the prices woulda dropped

That doesn't make sense. Film resolution is higher than that of 1080p high-def anyways.

What the high-def versions are doing is bringing you closer to seeing what is already there.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Both formats have their strengths and weaknesses. Please explain to me why you consider Blu-ray an inferior format to HD DVD.



A. Blu-Ray requires a completely different transfer process that uses the old mpeg 2 codec, which is pointless when VC-1 has proven to be the better lossless format. It required the manufacturing of new equipment ot make Blu-Rays discs when HD_DVD equipment is just DVD equipment modified to do HD_DVD (Cost saving).

Blu-Ray transfers are grainier and darker for some reason whereas HD-DVD doesn't seem to have this issue, and on a final note, the surround sound on HD-DVD is uncompressed whereas Blu-ray was still using the compressed DD sound format.

[UndeadGuyX]

A. Blu-Ray requires a completely different transfer process that uses the old mpeg 2 codec, which is pointless when VC-1 has proven to be the better lossless format.

Actually, Blu-ray supports all three major codecs, MPEG-2, AVC MPEG-4, and of course VC-1.

You don't even have to take my word for it. You can see for yourself just how many movies are encoded in something other than MPEG-2.

http://blu-raystats.com/


Blu-Ray transfers are grainier and darker for some reason whereas HD-DVD doesn't seem to have this issue

Really? Where exactly did you hear this?

One thing I can tell you is this. If your Blu-ray movies are darker than your HD DVD's then check your cables and connections. If it's "grainier" it could be the particular movie. Film grain is more apparent in some movies than others.


the surround sound on HD-DVD is uncompressed whereas Blu-ray was still using the compressed DD sound format.

Actually there are more Blu-ray movies with an uncompressed/lossless soundtrack than HD DVD. Remember, PCM, DTS-HD Master Audio, and Dolby TrueHD are all lossless.

Again, refer to the website I linked to earlier in this post.

The majority of HD DVD's use Dolby Digital Plus (DD+) encoding. AKA: A lossy sound format - same as standard Dolby Digital (DD).

The reason why DD+ was implemented into HD DVD in the first place (in comparison to DD) was due to the way HD DVD structures audio data in packets. The only way to offer advanced capabilities (higher quality sound and option for more channels) was to adopt a different codec than DD, which was locked at 5.1 and 448 kbps, same as DVD.

DD+ was specifically designed to address HD DVD's structure -- the DD+ coding frames become progressively shorter (from 6 to 3 or 2) to allow more of them to pass thru the framing structure in a given time, thereby raising the data thruput.

Blu-ray, on the other hand, has no such packet constraint. That allows DD to be used in its full 6-block frame for maximum coding efficiency (efficiency drops slightly as the frame size is reduced), and to use its full 640 kbps capability for the very first time on optical media, thereby bringing higher quality.

Given distinctly different circumstances, Dolby was able to adapt its coding technologies to bring improved quality and more channels to both formats. The goal was not to make the end results different, but the same in spite of the situation.

[acealive1]

That doesn't make sense. Film resolution is higher than that of 1080p high-def anyways.

What the high-def versions are doing is bringing you closer to seeing what is already there.

ok listen one more time....


they were trying to get a HD print from the original 35mm negative of blade runner. they had to digitally fix the picture as the movie is a quarter century old. they can only upgrade the picture so much before they destroy it

[DjfunkmasterG]

Actually, Blu-ray supports all three major codecs, MPEG-2, AVC MPEG-4, and of course VC-1.

You don't even have to take my word for it. You can see for yourself just how many movies are encoded in something other than MPEG-2.

http://blu-raystats.com/



Really? Where exactly did you hear this?

One thing I can tell you is this. If your Blu-ray movies are darker than your HD DVD's then check your cables and connections. If it's "grainier" it could be the particular movie. Film grain is more apparent in some movies than others.



Actually there are more Blu-ray movies with an uncompressed/lossless soundtrack than HD DVD. Remember, PCM, DTS-HD Master Audio, and Dolby TrueHD are all lossless.

Again, refer to the website I linked to earlier in this post.

The majority of HD DVD's use Dolby Digital Plus (DD+) encoding. AKA: A lossy sound format - same as standard Dolby Digital (DD).

The reason why DD+ was implemented into HD DVD in the first place (in comparison to DD) was due to the way HD DVD structures audio data in packets. The only way to offer advanced capabilities (higher quality sound and option for more channels) was to adopt a different codec than DD, which was locked at 5.1 and 448 kbps, same as DVD.

DD+ was specifically designed to address HD DVD's structure -- the DD+ coding frames become progressively shorter (from 6 to 3 or 2) to allow more of them to pass thru the framing structure in a given time, thereby raising the data thruput.

Blu-ray, on the other hand, has no such packet constraint. That allows DD to be used in its full 6-block frame for maximum coding efficiency (efficiency drops slightly as the frame size is reduced), and to use its full 640 kbps capability for the very first time on optical media, thereby bringing higher quality.

Given distinctly different circumstances, Dolby was able to adapt its coding technologies to bring improved quality and more channels to both formats. The goal was not to make the end results different, but the same in spite of the situation.

Actually Blu-Ray does not offer the lossless codec or descrambler in their low rent player. In order to get DTS-HD or uncompressed Dolby Digital in the blu-ray player you have spend $800-$1000 for the player, whereas Toshiba offers it in their $300 player. I have an HD-A20 and my Neighbor has the HD-A2 both players offer the lossless sound of Dolby Digital and DTS-HD if the DVD's are so equipped.

Another reason why Blu-Ray will lose.... They refused to do porn. WHich was Sony's downfall with the Beta format. Instead of embracing an industry that does $5 billion a year in business, they chose to shun it once again. Lets also talk about blu-Rays 50gb DVD that won't play on first gen players, not too mention the fact Sony refused to equip their players with an ethernet port so the players could be connected to the internet to allow downloading of updated firmware... Toshiba embraced this technology and has equipped every player from 2nd gen forward.

[UndeadGuyX]

Actually Blu-Ray does not offer the lossless codec or descrambler in their low rent player. In order to get DTS-HD or uncompressed Dolby Digital in the blu-ray player you have spend $800-$1000 for the player, whereas Toshiba offers it in their $300 player. I have an HD-A20 and my Neighbor has the HD-A2 both players offer the lossless sound of Dolby Digital and DTS-HD if the DVD's are so equipped.

Uncompressed PCM audio (which the vast majority of Blu-ray movies utilize) does not require decoding as it is raw, unencoded, audio data.

It is also worth mentioning that the PS3 and standalone Blu-ray players have the ability to decode Dolby TrueHD audio and convert it to PCM anyway.


Another reason why Blu-Ray will lose.... They refused to do porn. WHich was Sony's downfall with the Beta format. Instead of embracing an industry that does $5 billion a year in business, they chose to shun it once again.

Your going on old info and rumors. Blu-ray does indeed do porn.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news/show/437

You can actually get porn on Blu-ray *right now* by going to such websites as Adult DVD Empire.


Lets also talk about blu-Rays 50gb DVD that won't play on first gen players,

Actually, 50gb dual layer discs do play on first-gen players. They are reliable enough that about 50% of all Blu-ray movies are 50gb discs. (again, refer to Blu-rayStats.com) All that was needed was a firmware update for certain players.

Which brings me to...


Sony refused to equip their players with an ethernet port so the players could be connected to the internet to allow downloading of updated firmware

Yes, but having an ethernet port is not the only way of updating the firmware on a player. You can also download it and burn it to a CD.

http://www.blu-ray.com/software/software.php

BTW, the Samsung BD-P1200 Blu-ray player includes an ethernet port.


ok listen one more time....


they were trying to get a HD print from the original 35mm negative of blade runner. they had to digitally fix the picture as the movie is a quarter century old. they can only upgrade the picture so much before they destroy it

I don't think you understand the whole concept of making a new master for a film. Think of it as a scanner that you may have sitting next to your desktop computer. When you make a master your basically scanning the film negative and making a copy. There is no alteration to the original negative.

Also keep in mind that the Blade Runner Blu-ray and HD DVD boxsets will not only include the "Final Cut" with the cleaned-up effects but also the Theatrical Cut, Director's Cut, and Workprint copy.

[Andy]

To be honest DJ from what ive heard, blu-ray is walking all over HD-DVD :p

[UndeadGuyX]

To be honest DJ from what ive heard, blu-ray is walking all over HD-DVD :p

Both sides like to tout sales figures in their own ways. Make it seem like their format is the one that is winning.

Now don't get me wrong. I own both formats and enjoy them very much. It's just that the info DJ is giving out is mostly wrong. Not that he's not entitled to enjoy HD DVD or anything.

[DubiousComforts]

Here are some screencaps comparing the resolution of VHS, DVD, and HD. I did these quickly with Power DVD, which isn't the best method for taking screencaps, but you get the idea. I kept the file sizes reasonable so that the page wouldn't take too long to load.

The 16:9 widescreen cap is from the Anchor Bay Divimax DVD. The difference in quality between anamorphic (16:9) and letterboxed video should immediately become apparent.

VHS (letterboxed)
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/6921/openingtitlevhsda2.jpg

DVD (letterboxed)
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9306/openingtitlelbxiz1.jpg

DVD (16:9 widescreen)
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/6024/openingtitle169dp5.jpg

HDTV
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4623/openingtitlehdxk0.jpg

The HD cap has been resized from 1920x1088 to less than 50% of its original size for side-by-side comparison with the 16:9 widescreen DVD, and also because it's way to big to post in a forum. The actual image is linked below.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8360/openingtitlehdfullie5.th.jpg (http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=openingtitlehdfullie5.jpg)

Although the Divimax DVD has better colors than the previous letterboxed DVD, the contrast is off when compared to the HD example. The HD cap may look a little washed out in comparison, but it's more accurate and has better detail. You can more clearly see the button on Dr. Tongue's shirt just below the title.

[DjfunkmasterG]

To be honest DJ from what ive heard, blu-ray is walking all over HD-DVD :p



Yes, but Blu_ray has more exclusive content. At the moment they have:

Fox
Disney
Sony Pictures
Columbia

So when you have Pixar and Pirates films, Casino Royale, and the other big franchise films set to one format, Blu-Ray, it is easy to see why they would outsell HD-DVD... they aren't available on HD-DVD. Wanna see how well they would do? Offer them in both formats, otherwise Blu_ray cannot claim to be the better format based on sales... they just have a bigger catalog. Of course BR did get screwed with Transformers, as I understand it, that is HD-DVD exclusive.

Like I said to Undead dude in PM... It matters not to me who wins because who ever is the perm format we all will buy it because it isn't blu-ray vs. HD_DVD to many... it is who has the more kick ass DVD collection and home theater layout. :elol:

[C5NOTLD]

It is just ridiculous though that history has to repeat itself over and over: vhs vs beta, laser vs dvd, HD vs blu-ray. The studios should have settled on one format and they all could have won big right away rather than splitting the market.

I'm waiting until next year for the combo player. What I really want is a combo player that is also a recorder.

In the meantime I picked up a xbox360 hd player today at best buy in a pretty good deal ($179 including King Kong, $79 Heroes dvd set free which I'll probably sell on ebay and add some other hd dvds to collection, and 5 mail in hd dvds). Among the hd dvds I also bought today: Land of the Dead.

[Danny]

dude, heroes came free?, swish, over ehre its 99 for a player and nothing more at gamestation, dont go in game myself, the clerks are ****ing vampires.

allways friggin' sweeping down on you all "ex-cuuse moy, iz zer anyzing i can elp you wiz?"*continues grumbling*.....

[C5NOTLD]

QUOTE=hellsing;117089]dude, heroes came free?, .....[/QUOTE]

Yeah - Heroes was free as was King Kong and 5 mail in dvds plus the player for $179. Then I noticed in the back of the Best Buy ad they said 2 free HD dvds with the purchase of "any" HD player. So I took my receipt back in and the 360 player qualifies so I picked up two more HD dvds free. :cool: