Any films where you'd rather have the DVD then Blue-Ray?

[DonIago]

I can think of two specific possible cases-

Amadeus- the original edition hasn't been released on BR, the "director's cut" has. The problem is the additions made to the DC don't necessarily improve the film itself. So the question becomes do you take the better version of the film with worse A/V quality, or the better quality but worse story?

Interview with the Vampire- I was intending to at least wishlist the BR version of this on Amazon until I heard that the special edition DVD cut of the film actually had a better audio track. That was the end of that.

In general I only buy BR at this point unless no BR copy is available. I've got a 50" plasma tv, and while the quality difference between BR and DVD isn't severe, it is noticeable, especially if the source material wasn't necessarily pristine to begin with.

BTW, for those who have issues with double-dipping, I recommend http://camelcamelcamel.com You can set up a wishlist on Amazon and then import it into that website, which will then track pricing on items for you, optionally alert you when items drop below target prices you specify, and let you view pricing histories for items. I regard it as the biggest mixed blessing/curse I've run into this year, as it's great to know when items become more affordable, but it's probably done horrible things to my spending habits.

 

[Harvey]

If you all wanted the originals, then you should have brought the original Special Edition normal DVD's that had the original edits as the second DVD.

The ones that have terrible, non-anamorphic transfers and are now long out of print? Yeah, I'll pass on that.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

What I want to find out is if all this high-def clarity actually takes away form the quality of the film by making everything look too clear, fake, and less dramatic or impactful. That's what I want to know.

 

[AgentCoop]

I'm really hoping that Disney will not carry on with Lucas' completely irrational refusal to give us a high-quality release of the original theatrical editions of the Original Trilogy. I've made my peace with the souped-up edtions, but that doesn't mean I don't want the originals. I want my old-lady-monkey Emperor back!

 

[J.T.B.]

If you all wanted the originals, then you should have brought the original Special Edition normal DVD's that had the original edits as the second DVD.

I have that non-anamorphic laserdisc transfer "bonus" piece of crap. I don't really find it watchable on modern equipment. It's the one on the left:

I'm really hoping that Disney will not carry on with Lucas' completely irrational refusal to give us a high-quality release of the original theatrical editions of the Original Trilogy. I've made my peace with the souped-up edtions, but that doesn't mean I don't want the originals. I want my old-lady-monkey Emperor back!

I hope so too, though I've never made peace with any of it. But it sounds like it's still a long way off at this point. The National Film Registry can't even get an original print.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

But what I'm thinking about is analogous to an audiophile who can detect the difference between an a CD and MP3, and, more to the point, the difference in depth between vinyl and CD. There is more "depth" in Vinyl, some say. If an old band recorded something in one room, you can almost "hear" how far away the drum-kit might be from the equipment, and the guitar player might be further away form the recorder and, if you listen to vinyl, you can actually "hear" that. That's because not everything was processed and re-integrated. It's all right there. For example, Rush's Moving Pictures sounds much better to me on vinyl than on anything else. (I haven't heard that new super remastered yet).

I'm very sorry, but your analogy with reference to CD is flawed scientifically, and has been disproved: The 10 Biggest Lies In Audio

Even better, here's what somebody said about this:

The higher frequency you go with vinyl, the finer the grooves. At which point, when you first play the record, these finer grooves are very quickly degraded even when handled with great care, giving you the same "limited" frequency range a CD gives, in essence. So there really is no frequency range advantage for vinyl after the very first few times you play it. You could record very fine grooves, perhaps giving you a crazy high frequency range extension, but the method of playback for the medium limits the long-term practical frequency range. That, and i believe they have an inherent limitation on how low they can play too, again due to the method of playback. When you add this to the fact that the waveform from a CD with a maximum frequency of 20 kHz, and a sample rate of 44 kHz, you will get a near perfect reproduction of the analog waveform, which actually beats vinyl because of the inherently lower noise floor present in digital audio storage, compared to vinyl which by the laws of physics cannot produce the original waveform 100% perfectly because of the playback method involves friction. This is what you're referring to, in comparison to the CD's "silence." This silence is the CD being able to recreate the original waveform more faithfully than the record.
Digital is a better technology for audio storage, assuming you meet the main criteria of a good enough sample rate. The nuances of the digital to analog conversion have been worked out (aliasing...etc) and what we're left with, is a better storage medium. Some may argue against this, and i welcome that, but most who do don't understand digital themselves (there are no spaces in digital music...etc).
But, i can understand peoples personal preference for coloration and noise. I partially attribute this to nostalgia, but more largely to artist preference. Some music just wouldn't be the same IMO if it sounded sterile, where the original essence of the music was partially the noise and coloration from the medium itself. Hence why today, even with crystal clear music, you still have artist purposely mixing in manufactured noise.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1114557/the-10-biggest-lies-in-audio

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

If you all wanted the originals, then you should have brought the original Special Edition normal DVD's that had the original edits as the second DVD.

I 'backed-up' my widescreen VHS tapes of the OT to DVD, and that's almost the same quality as the low grade transfers that came in those DVD sets.

But what I'm thinking about is analogous to an audiophile who can detect the difference between an a CD and MP3, and, more to the point, the difference in depth between vinyl and CD. There is more "depth" in Vinyl, some say. If an old band recorded something in one room, you can almost "hear" how far away the drum-kit might be from the equipment, and the guitar player might be further away form the recorder and, if you listen to vinyl, you can actually "hear" that. That's because not everything was processed and re-integrated. It's all right there. For example, Rush's Moving Pictures sounds much better to me on vinyl than on anything else. (I haven't heard that new super remastered yet).

I'm very sorry, but your analogy with reference to CD is flawed scientifically, and has been disproved: The 10 Biggest Lies In Audio

Even better, here's what somebody said about this:

The higher frequency you go with vinyl, the finer the grooves. At which point, when you first play the record, these finer grooves are very quickly degraded even when handled with great care, giving you the same "limited" frequency range a CD gives, in essence. So there really is no frequency range advantage for vinyl after the very first few times you play it. You could record very fine grooves, perhaps giving you a crazy high frequency range extension, but the method of playback for the medium limits the long-term practical frequency range. That, and i believe they have an inherent limitation on how low they can play too, again due to the method of playback. When you add this to the fact that the waveform from a CD with a maximum frequency of 20 kHz, and a sample rate of 44 kHz, you will get a near perfect reproduction of the analog waveform, which actually beats vinyl because of the inherently lower noise floor present in digital audio storage, compared to vinyl which by the laws of physics cannot produce the original waveform 100% perfectly because of the playback method involves friction. This is what you're referring to, in comparison to the CD's "silence." This silence is the CD being able to recreate the original waveform more faithfully than the record.
Digital is a better technology for audio storage, assuming you meet the main criteria of a good enough sample rate. The nuances of the digital to analog conversion have been worked out (aliasing...etc) and what we're left with, is a better storage medium. Some may argue against this, and i welcome that, but most who do don't understand digital themselves (there are no spaces in digital music...etc).
But, i can understand peoples personal preference for coloration and noise. I partially attribute this to nostalgia, but more largely to artist preference. Some music just wouldn't be the same IMO if it sounded sterile, where the original essence of the music was partially the noise and coloration from the medium itself. Hence why today, even with crystal clear music, you still have artist purposely mixing in manufactured noise.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1114557/the-10-biggest-lies-in-audio

If you want the best quality playback of vinyl, shell out a few thousand on this sweetie.

No needles, no physical contact with the record, no wear and tear!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

But what I'm thinking about is analogous to an audiophile who can detect the difference between an a CD and MP3, and, more to the point, the difference in depth between vinyl and CD. There is more "depth" in Vinyl, some say. If an old band recorded something in one room, you can almost "hear" how far away the drum-kit might be from the equipment, and the guitar player might be further away form the recorder and, if you listen to vinyl, you can actually "hear" that. That's because not everything was processed and re-integrated. It's all right there. For example, Rush's Moving Pictures sounds much better to me on vinyl than on anything else. (I haven't heard that new super remastered yet).

I'm very sorry, but your analogy with reference to CD is flawed scientifically, and has been disproved: The 10 Biggest Lies In Audio

Even better, here's what somebody said about this:

The higher frequency you go with vinyl, the finer the grooves. At which point, when you first play the record, these finer grooves are very quickly degraded even when handled with great care, giving you the same "limited" frequency range a CD gives, in essence. So there really is no frequency range advantage for vinyl after the very first few times you play it. You could record very fine grooves, perhaps giving you a crazy high frequency range extension, but the method of playback for the medium limits the long-term practical frequency range. That, and i believe they have an inherent limitation on how low they can play too, again due to the method of playback. When you add this to the fact that the waveform from a CD with a maximum frequency of 20 kHz, and a sample rate of 44 kHz, you will get a near perfect reproduction of the analog waveform, which actually beats vinyl because of the inherently lower noise floor present in digital audio storage, compared to vinyl which by the laws of physics cannot produce the original waveform 100% perfectly because of the playback method involves friction. This is what you're referring to, in comparison to the CD's "silence." This silence is the CD being able to recreate the original waveform more faithfully than the record.
Digital is a better technology for audio storage, assuming you meet the main criteria of a good enough sample rate. The nuances of the digital to analog conversion have been worked out (aliasing...etc) and what we're left with, is a better storage medium. Some may argue against this, and i welcome that, but most who do don't understand digital themselves (there are no spaces in digital music...etc).
But, i can understand peoples personal preference for coloration and noise. I partially attribute this to nostalgia, but more largely to artist preference. Some music just wouldn't be the same IMO if it sounded sterile, where the original essence of the music was partially the noise and coloration from the medium itself. Hence why today, even with crystal clear music, you still have artist purposely mixing in manufactured noise.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1114557/the-10-biggest-lies-in-audio

It's called an analogy because I couldn't articulate a more precise way to phrase it. I wasn't trying to comment on it with technical knowledge that I don't actually have.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

If you want the best quality playback of vinyl, shell out a few thousand on this sweetie.

No needles, no physical contact with the record, no wear and tear!

No thanks-I'd rather buy a MP3 turntable (for a few records that aren't on CD, like dance remixes and other really rare things from the 1980's) and just copy my records into MP3's or onto CD. As well, I could buy a car, or anything else I want, for the same amount of money this thing costs.

It's called an analogy because I couldn't articulate a more precise way to phrase it. I wasn't trying to comment on it with technical knowledge that I don't actually have.

Sorry about that.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

^ It's all good. On a message board, it "feels" like everyone is trying to act like an expert. So it is prudent to make corrections. You did noting wrong! But thanks for the apology, it's accepted.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Well, as an example of the DVD being the only choice, I just ordered a copy of Vampirella, which wasn't even available on DVD for a long time.

One more for the "cheesy shelf".

 

[Starbreaker]

The only DVD I'm holding on to for dear life is The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys. One day I'll get to see this in HD (I hope).

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ Same here with Student Bodies (the 1981 horror spoof comedy). It took so long to come out (officially) on DVD, though I still have the VHS release purchased new for around $100 when it was out of print.

It's out on blu-ray with Jekyll & Hyde - Together Again, but hard to tell if it's a good looking release or not.

And it looks like Dark Star is on blu-ray from 2 different companies. Again, I have the DVD and would upgrade if I knew the blu-ray was a good remaster.

 

[Harvey]

It's out on blu-ray with Jekyll & Hyde - Together Again, but hard to tell if it's a good looking release or not.

Looks like a mediocre release, visually -- but not a terrible one (review)

And it looks like Dark Star is on blu-ray from 2 different companies. Again, I have the DVD and would upgrade if I knew the blu-ray was a good remaster.

Also a mediocre transfer, apparently, although the reviewer blames that on the original source elements as much as anything else (review).

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ So no point in replacing the DVD's then.

 

[Harvey]

Dark Star looks like it come with some terrific bonus features, but in terms of the actual transfers, probably not.

 

[Captain Craig]

I'm quite content to have the theatrical version of the LOTR saga on DVD at this time.
I'm not a huge Tolkein-ite but enjoy watching them every so often so as to have them.
I got them for $2 a pop one Black Friday a few years back, I'm good for now.

 

[Starbreaker]

It was a glorious day when I upgraded my LOTR set from the DVDs that literally had falling apart cases.

 

[DonIago]

While I wouldn't quite put it that way, I would say LotR is one I didn't hesitate to upgrade.

 

[JarodRussell]

Recently bought the Extended Edition on blu ray, and was disappointed that it's still separated on two discs. I thought blu rays had enough capacity to fit the entire film in HD on one disc.