Joe Taylor Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 And guess what IS NOT seen?!?!?! Very nice transfer by the way. Seeing it for the first in widescreen is almost a revelation. In my opinion it plays much better that 1:33. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Murphy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Joe - is there a commentary track by Garrett Brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Taylor Posted October 24, 2007 Author Share Posted October 24, 2007 Joe - is there a commentary track by Garrett Brown? Yes there is. I haven't listened to it yet, though. I'm still in shock as to how great the treatment WB has finally paid to the Kubrick HD series. I remeber back in '99 when the "Kubrick Collection" came out and how shoddy it all was. They've sure made up for this time. Yesterday was by far my best DVD score ever and can't imagine toping it. 2001. The Shining. Clockwork Orange. And what may be best, "Days of Heaven." It's not HD but Criterion did a fine job indeed. But if they force a HD double-dip it had better made of gold. The Shining has the best Extras. Vivian Kubrick's Making of doc (with commentary) and three other nice docs with more never seen behind the scenes. There is also a great interview with Wendy Carlos who scored Clockwork and the Shining. She's really intense and has great stories about working with Stanley Kubrick. I was a bit nervous shelling out all that money yesterday, but man! These films look absolutley like new. Days of Heaven is SD, but played through my HD player, it's very impressive. I've been watching this stuff all day and will keep on through the night. I'm also surprised that nobody else is flipping out on this forum. Oh, well. Somebody will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 And guess what IS NOT seen?!?!?! The helicopter shadow? I've seen this film in 35mm projected at 1.85:1, and it was still visible for a few frames. But that way it's not nearly as noticiable as it is in 1.33:1. And I agree, this film looks much better in its original theatrical aspect ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 The opening credits of "Shining" don't look sharp but they never did. The rest of the HD transfer looks often striking, especially close ups. Much cleaner than any print I have seen, little grain, quite sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 12, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 12, 2007 So... BluRay or HD-DVD? What type of player are more people investing in? I know the HD-DVD players are much cheaper to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 I dont think its worth investing in either at the moment wait until the battle is over it just like VHS or Betacam being played over again . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 that should be betamax ,sorry . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Murphy Posted November 12, 2007 Share Posted November 12, 2007 David, I went Hd-Dvd but only because i could buy the add on player for my xbox. I wouldnt be comfortable paying out another 400-600 bucks for a player especially given how shaky the whole format war is. Having said all that im really enjoying the Hd dvds i have bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Taylor Posted November 13, 2007 Author Share Posted November 13, 2007 HD DVD players prices have dropped like rocks ovr the past month. There are places selling them for just over a $100. IF Blu-Ray can't compete (and they can't) the war will be over before--- I was going to make an Iraq joke, but it's getting so lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Brawley Posted November 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 13, 2007 Yes there is. I haven't listened to it yet, though. I'm still in shock as to how great the treatment WB has finally paid to the Kubrick HD series. I remeber back in '99 when the "Kubrick Collection" came out and how shoddy it all was. Kubrick himself apparently was the one that insisted the transfers be done 1.33. Why ? Apparently he hated letterboxing and felt that's how most would be watching.....on 4x3 TV's. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 13, 2007 Kubrick supervised those transfers for the laserdisc market in the early 1990's and they weren't shoddy for their day. But as he was busy finishing "Eyes Wide Shut", rather than supervise new transfers for the first DVD box set, he insisted WB use his transfers made for the laserdiscs. Then, of course, he passed away. WB redid the transfers and re-issued the DVD box set under the "remastered" label, and those looked pretty good, but most were still in 4x3 full-frame or 4x3 letterboxed (if the original movie was shot with a camera hard matte, as was "Barry Lyndon"). But I'm not in the mood to buy the new DVD box set all over again, even if they have 16x9 transfers... probably when I get an HD player, I'll buy them in HD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Marc Alucard Posted November 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 13, 2007 Kubrick supervised those transfers for the laserdisc market in the early 1990's and they weren't shoddy for their day. But as he was busy finishing "Eyes Wide Shut", rather than supervise new transfers for the first DVD box set, he insisted WB use his transfers made for the laserdiscs. Then, of course, he passed away. WB redid the transfers and re-issued the DVD box set under the "remastered" label, and those looked pretty good, but most were still in 4x3 full-frame or 4x3 letterboxed (if the original movie was shot with a camera hard matte, as was "Barry Lyndon"). But I'm not in the mood to buy the new DVD box set all over again, even if they have 16x9 transfers... probably when I get an HD player, I'll buy them in HD. The Blu-Ray transfers are in the "correct" theatrical aspect ratios. 2001 is 2.20:1. The others are also in the correct aspect as well. (I haven't seen them yet). I heard the SD box set is also "correct". The HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray debate is so vast I won't touch that one. 1080p/24p and Lossless dts-HD Master Audio is a factor my choices stand.. Cheers, Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted November 13, 2007 Share Posted November 13, 2007 So... BluRay or HD-DVD? What type of player are more people investing in? I know the HD-DVD players are much cheaper to buy. The most sold HD player is the PS3 (several million). It's a game console first but also a very good BR disc player with lots of options during playback, more flexible than the Toshiba HW players which are clumsy to operate in comparison. It offers 24 Hz 1080p output for judder free playback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Marc Alucard Posted November 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 13, 2007 The most sold HD player is the PS3 (several million). It's a game console first but also a very good BR disc player with lots of options during playback, more flexible than the Toshiba HW players which are clumsy to operate in comparison. It offers 24 Hz 1080p output for judder free playback. The PS3 doesn't do all the high end audio tracks. It also may be hardware incapable, (not firmware upgradeable) to handle Blu-Ray Profile 1.1 or 2.0. I'm waiting until after X-mas to see what format the studios end up throwing most of their support to. Right now The lower priced HD-DVD players and the PS3 or Blu-Ray players under $500 with the Kubrick movies are worth spending the money on. Sony is starting to reevaluate the format war. Their stuff keeps ending up in pro gear and the other guys go to the masses. IMHO. If Lossless audio is important to you, a new AV receiver may be part of your purchase. I'm tortured waiting and have tried two of both formats players in my home theater. Cheers, Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Thompson Posted November 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 13, 2007 There is also a great interview with Wendy Carlos who scored Clockwork and the Shining. She's really intense and has great stories about working with Stanley Kubrick........ I'm also surprised that nobody else is flipping out on this forum. Oh, well. Somebody will. She is actually a he! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Taylor Posted November 13, 2007 Author Share Posted November 13, 2007 No. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Marc Alucard Posted November 13, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 13, 2007 No. Really. The High Def and new SD DVD releases have been long overdue for all the Kubrick films. Glad to see I'm not the only one enjoying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 The PS3 doesn't do all the high end audio tracks. It also may be hardware incapable, (not firmware upgradeable) to handle Blu-Ray Profile 1.1 or 2.0. It does not do DTS-HD Master Audio for now, but that's a firmware upgrade issue. And DTS at 1.5 Mbit/s sounds already better than most systems (and rooms!) people have can fully resolve. The profile thing is pure speculation. Given that profile 1.1 titles come in January I find it highly unlikely that Sony can not update the existing PS3s for it. If Lossless audio is important to you, a new AV receiver may be part of your purchase. Yes, HDMI in for audio is required unless you don't mind additional DA AD steps or are happy with optical at max 1.5 Mbit/s or only stereo in uncompressed. I'm tortured waiting and have tried two of both formats players in my home theater. I have both systems too. 2 PS3 and one Toshiba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Marc Alucard Posted November 14, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 14, 2007 It does not do DTS-HD Master Audio for now, but that's a firmware upgrade issue. And DTS at 1.5 Mbit/s sounds already better than most systems (and rooms!) people have can fully resolve. The profile thing is pure speculation. Given that profile 1.1 titles come in January I find it highly unlikely that Sony can not update the existing PS3s for it. Yes, HDMI in for audio is required unless you don't mind additional DA AD steps or are happy with optical at max 1.5 Mbit/s or only stereo in uncompressed. I have both systems too. 2 PS3 and one Toshiba. Hi Michael, Believe or not the Blu-ray 1.1 and 2.0 profiles require an additional video processor that isn't present on any Sony stand alone player. It blows me away they don't have an easy upgrade solution. Profile 2.0 includes an Ethernet port, hopefully Wi-Fi will be included. I have about 2000 Films on SD-DVDs in my collection, so I am probably taking too much time to pick the red pill or the blu pill. Which format do you prefer, how many discs do you have of each format? What are you watching on? Cheers, Marc Correction: Most PS3 consoles will be upgradeable to profile 1.1 at some time in the future, like when the profile 1.1 disks get released hopefully. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Buick Posted November 14, 2007 Share Posted November 14, 2007 (edited) I dont think its worth investing in either at the moment wait until the battle is over it just like VHS or Betacam being played over again . That's why Betcam lost to VHS! £2,000 for the lowest end model. Very funny John. :lol: :lol: :lol: By the way John, how is your search for a HD CRT TV progressing? My Dad is worried about buying an LCD or Plasma (Cat problems, don't ask). I'm buying a Playstation 3, when they don't cost their weight in Gold. So I'm biased to Blu-Ray. Edited November 14, 2007 by Matthew Buick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Which format do you prefer, how many discs do you have of each format? What are you watching on? I prefer Blu Ray because it has more potential (more disk space, more bandwidth) and for now more studios and a player I prefer to the Toshiba players. The region coding is a liability but that alone is not enough for me to prefer HD-DVD. I have maybe 50 HD-DVDs and 150 BDs. I watch with a JVC HD-1 onto a 3.5m wide fixed 16:9 screen in a 'bat cave'. Top HD looks very nice. :D Especially newly transferred immersive 16:9 material like "The Shining". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Marc Alucard Posted November 15, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted November 15, 2007 I prefer Blu Ray because it has more potential (more disk space, more bandwidth) and for now more studios and a player I prefer to the Toshiba players. The region coding is a liability but that alone is not enough for me to prefer HD-DVD. I have maybe 50 HD-DVDs and 150 BDs. I watch with a JVC HD-1 onto a 3.5m wide fixed 16:9 screen in a 'bat cave'. Top HD looks very nice. :D Especially newly transferred immersive 16:9 material like "The Shining". Hello Michael, I prefer Blu-Ray for the same reasons you stated as well. I have about 25 disks in both formats I did an A-B-C test between the to HD formats and the latest Kubrick boxed set upscaled to 1080P on "The Shining", "Full Metal Jacket", And "2001". Both HD formats looked awesome and the SD discs looked really good as well but didn't hold a candle to the HD stuff. Massive respect to anyone else who admits to having a "Bat Cave"! I have a Sony VPL-VW100 projecting on a 3 meter wide permanent screen, and a 4:3 DLP projector hitting a 8' x 10' pulldown screen for the old movies in my"Bat Cave" Cheers, Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I prefer Blu-Ray for the same reasons you stated as well. I have about 25 disks in both formats I did an A-B-C test between the to HD formats and the latest Kubrick boxed set upscaled to 1080P on "The Shining", "Full Metal Jacket", And "2001". Both HD formats looked awesome and the SD discs looked really good as well but didn't hold a candle to the HD stuff. The HD of BD and HD-DVD looks identical for the Kubrick films since Warner makes one VC-1 compression and uses it for both systems for all their titles so far. One could say dumbing down to the lower specs of HD-DVD. But the result looks usually great anyway. The SD stuff I avoid if possible at all since it's almost always plagued by EE and ringing, mosquito noise and sometimes DNR. If all is top notch it's just blurry compared to HD. But who wants blurry when you can have sharp? Massive respect to anyone else who admits to having a "Bat Cave"! I have a Sony VPL-VW100 projecting on a 3 meter wide permanent screen, and a 4:3 DLP projector hitting a 8' x 10' pulldown screen for the old movies in my"Bat Cave" No 'bat cave' no optimal colors and contrast. As simple as that. The Sony is nice too. But I prefer real On-Off to dynamic iris simulated On-Off. On the other hand the Sony's colors are more accurate I think. So you need an external processor with the JVC to get good skin color and spot on HD primaries (e.g. for now the Radiance from Lumagen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 She is actually a he! I think it's cool that there is the nice friends feature in this forum but can't we also have an enemies feature too? Maybe something that puts a little evil ikon next to the name of the poster so you don't forget what kind of a person they are by accident. Personally I think Wendy is incredibly talented and has contirbuted some wonderful and magical things to the world and I'm sure she is just great on the DVD too. Sometimes it seems that those who contribute the most wonderful things are those who most come under fire from those whose contribution is hate. It's like they can't stand to see the bright light and want to put it out. I wish there were more films with Wendy soundtracks. Yay for Wendy! love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now