Warner Home Video must die!

[RandyS]

The native resolution will be the same. But the upscaler is supposed to improve the colorspace, and display the image in the higher resolution of your TV. Basically you should see a pretty obvious improvement. If you don't have an upscaling DVD player, then it's up to your TV to do it, and Vizio sucks at it.

My DVD player does upscale, so it must be my TV that makes no difference picture-wise.

What's so bad about Vizio? I like it.

Vizio is fine. But it's no top of the line TV, thats' why it's good to have other component that do the job for it. (For example, a good upscaling DVD player) How is the DVD player connected? Upscaling only works via HDMI.

It's connected through an HDMI cable. I had it connected through A/V cables, until my stepdad was over at my house one day and was looking at my setup, and recommended an HDMI cable, and gave me one.

Another poster said I was doing something wrong, is this what they were referring too?

 

[Yoda]

A 32 inch TV isn't very big. A DVD should look pretty good at that resolution, not quite blu-ray, but the differences won't be nearly as noticeable as they are on my 50"

Then again some people just don't seem to care that much about resolution, accurate colors, etc... Just look at how many people buy a big HDTV, do some sort of strange 'super-scaling' on a 4:3 source and rave about how good it looks. *sigh*

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If you don't have an upscaling DVD player, then it's up to your TV to do it, and Vizio sucks at it.

Most decent HDTVs will have a better upconverter than any DVD player. Pioneer's, for example, are pretty good.

 

[crookeddy]

If you don't have an upscaling DVD player, then it's up to your TV to do it, and Vizio sucks at it.

Most decent HDTVs will have a better upconverter than any DVD player. Pioneer's, for example, are pretty good.

However, we are talking about a Vizio here. The main difference between expensive HDTVs and cheap HDTVs is their upscaling quality. HD content tends to look great on any normal HDTV.

 

[Brikar99]

Then again some people just don't seem to care that much about resolution, accurate colors, etc... Just look at how many people buy a big HDTV, do some sort of strange 'super-scaling' on a 4:3 source and rave about how good it looks. *sigh*

This sounds like my uncle. He went all out on the HDTV, getting surround sound mounted in the walls and all that. But he doesn't actually have HD cable, and set the damn thing to 'zoom'...

He didn't believe me when I told him what was wrong. Then, of course, when he came to my place and saw not just HD cable, but a blu-ray... He flipped.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If you don't have an upscaling DVD player, then it's up to your TV to do it, and Vizio sucks at it.

Most decent HDTVs will have a better upconverter than any DVD player. Pioneer's, for example, are pretty good.

However, we are talking about a Vizio here. The main difference between expensive HDTVs and cheap HDTVs is their upscaling quality. HD content tends to look great on any normal HDTV.

Quite true. Is Vizio really that bad? What's good about their TVs that would balance that out?

 

[crookeddy]

Most decent HDTVs will have a better upconverter than any DVD player. Pioneer's, for example, are pretty good.

However, we are talking about a Vizio here. The main difference between expensive HDTVs and cheap HDTVs is their upscaling quality. HD content tends to look great on any normal HDTV.

Quite true. Is Vizio really that bad? What's good about their TVs that would balance that out?

No... it's not something that can be called "THAT BAD"... It just isn't great at upscaling. What balances it out is that it's relatively cheap :-) It has the same problem that all lower tier TVs do. One thing I like about Vizios is that they take a 1080p input from their VGA ports - something most HDTVs don't do.

Anyway what this discussion is showing me is that the current TV technology is simply too complicated for many people. They need to come up with a standard and stick with it. Although that will piss off many that don't want the forced upgrade.

 

[nx1701g]

Even Moon Bloodgood's bloody good moons are a disappointment. While she is topless, she keeps her hands over them most of the time. You never get a good look at them. And there's still a very awkward jump cut to the next scene when it has suddenly stopped raining, she's fully dressed, and she's being menaced by some crazy rednecks. The transition isn't quite as bad as it was in the theatrical cut but it's still bad.

It's still cut even in the Director's Cut. The actual scenes are around 2 minutes long and feature her topless and scenes with Marcus looking for firewood. Yes it was filmed.

Actually here's something to irritate you even more: the total time of the film that has been cut is confirmed as being over 45 minutes. Included in the filmed cuts were:

- The entire Hybrid subplot (Skynet is really a collection of human/machine hybrids similar to Marcus).

- John Connor confronts the Resistance about the T-800s and Ashdown taunting him about Kyle Reese. (part of his is restored on the Director's Cut and has the scenes of Ashdown holding the gun to Connor's head telling him he could pull the trigger and change history and there was nothing that could be done about it).

- An expanded Connor Vs. The Terminator (cut due to CGI concerns).

- Marcus' death (done so that they could bring Sam Worthington back in a future film).

- Kyle getting the Sarah Connor Photo.

While I think a lot of these plot points sound terrible, I think it would have at least been interesting to see them as deleted scenes.

The hybrid storyline sounds like crap and tries too hard to give Skynet a deeper motivation. Skynet doesn't need a deeper motivation. That's the beauty of it. A defensive, killer computer program. It's so simple yet it has been sufficient motivation for the last 25 years of the franchise.

Actually - and I've seen some of these scenes - they were somewhat fascinating and brought a new spin to the series. IMO of course.

I suspect John Connor giving Kyle Reese the photo of Sarah Connor is now being saved for a later movie.

Actually the scene was different.

Spoiler: The photo exchange

The jacket that Kyle was given while Connor was on his deathbed was Connor's jacket. Kyle puts his hands in the jacket pocket shortly after burying Marcus and finds the photo. He stares at it for a moment and then the film ended.

Spoiler: the Connor/Terminator fight

For the Connor/Terminator fight, at that point was he fighting a T-800 endoskeleton or Roland Kickinger with Schwarzenegger's face added on?

Spoiler: Scene

Both. They used an actual full size replica of the T-800 for several scenes, but the CGI was used for fast movements that the model couldn't replicate. There were more scenes - you can see part of it in the trailer where the T-800 picks up the minigun that the T-600 drops - that involved the T-800 hunting them. One of the shots involved Connor firing on the endo and its skull was caught in flames and you could see its skull through ripped flesh in a closeup. Then the scenes where Connor blows it with the flame grenades. The scenes were partially cut to get the PG rating because Kickinger was actually naked during filming those scenes.

Spoiler: the ending

What about the ending? What did they do with Marcus' death that allowed him to come back in the future?

And did they ever shoot that alternate ending where John Connor dies and his face is grafted onto Marcus Wright's body?

The alternate ending was not filmed.

Spoiler: The ending

Marcus is never shown as actually being destroyed or 'dead' in the film as was filmed. They cut those scenes if they decided to bring the character back as a good guy in the next film.

There was a SECOND alternate ending.

Spoiler: Second Alternate Ending

The Second Alternate Ending pulled together the Hybrid storyline. Serena emerges from the rubble of the Skynet Central - the makeup prototypes were leaked to the internet - and TerminatorMarcus joins her. Her eyes flash red and the film faded to black.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

TV's are definately complicated nowadays. I have a very tech-savy friend who still isn't able to figure out how to properly watch a 4:3 DVD on his widescreen TV. As a result, whenever I go to his house, I'm stuck with distorted "widescreen" episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

 

[Snaploud]

TV's are definately complicated nowadays. I have a very tech-savy friend who still isn't able to figure out how to properly watch a 4:3 DVD on his widescreen TV. As a result, whenever I go to his house, I'm stuck with distorted "widescreen" episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

I doubt it has to do with the tv settings. Your friend probably just needs to shut off the anamorphic widescreen on the DVD player (under something like "settings" "quick setup" "screen setup" "tv type," choose "4:3 Letter Box" rather than "16:9").

 

[crookeddy]

TV's are definately complicated nowadays. I have a very tech-savy friend who still isn't able to figure out how to properly watch a 4:3 DVD on his widescreen TV. As a result, whenever I go to his house, I'm stuck with distorted "widescreen" episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Hell even I have this problem! My upscaling DVD player seems to go to 16:9 no matter what I do. I've tried changing all the settings already... no cigar. Ugh. The Blu Ray player keeps 4:3 at 4:3 just fine though.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Well, after renting the new Harry Potter and The Hangover DVD's with their barebones menus and unskippable previews (you can fast forward to a point at which they play 1x again and you have to hit fast forward two or three times to get to the menu, chapter skip and menu is disabled) I think this is the future of DVD rentals.

I guess they're out to kill Blockbuster and Netflix with these shitty rental discs but I wonder if this won't come back to haunt them as I often make my purchases based on what I thought of the rental and I'm sure other people do too.

 

[StarshipDefiant]

Well, after renting the new Harry Potter and The Hangover DVD's with their barebones menus and unskippable previews (you can fast forward to a point at which they play 1x again and you have to hit fast forward two or three times to get to the menu, chapter skip and menu is disabled) I think this is the future of DVD rentals.

I guess they're out to kill Blockbuster and Netflix with these shitty rental discs but I wonder if this won't come back to haunt them as I often make my purchases based on what I thought of the rental and I'm sure other people do too.

It's not just rentals that do that, I've brought several DVDs that do that. Often, I'll just have to put the disc in and then go find something else to do for a few minutes.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

However, we are talking about a Vizio here. The main difference between expensive HDTVs and cheap HDTVs is their upscaling quality. HD content tends to look great on any normal HDTV.

Quite true. Is Vizio really that bad? What's good about their TVs that would balance that out?

No... it's not something that can be called "THAT BAD"... It just isn't great at upscaling. What balances it out is that it's relatively cheap :-) It has the same problem that all lower tier TVs do. One thing I like about Vizios is that they take a 1080p input from their VGA ports - something most HDTVs don't do.

Anyway what this discussion is showing me is that the current TV technology is simply too complicated for many people. They need to come up with a standard and stick with it. Although that will piss off many that don't want the forced upgrade.

I didn't want the forced upgrade to Hi Def to begin with. It's all a frakking scam to force people to double dip on equipment and content.

 

[23skidoo]

I didn't want the forced upgrade to Hi Def to begin with. It's all a frakking scam to force people to double dip on equipment and content.

Hey, it worked with the changeover from vinyl to CD, didn't it. And a LOT of people are now regretting their knee-jerk decision to throw out all their vinyl assuming it would all be released to CD, only to find either the mastering sucked (one of the first Chuck Berry CDs was so poorly remastered as to be unlistenable) or that the material was never released to CD at all! People are also discovering that 99% of MP3s sound awful compared to the vinyl or CD originals.

Although fortunately Blu-Ray is - at least until the next upgrade - backwards compatible to DVD, I'm still seeing a similar attitude with people assuming a) everything will be reissued to Blu-Ray and b) that it'll actually look good when it is. There's plenty of material that will not look good on Blu-Ray without either being remade or distorted in some fashion, as was the case with Trek TOS, or undergo other expensive remastering. There are people saying they won't buy Warner's (back to them again) Classic Doctor Who releases because they aren't on Blu-Ray. They're in for a long wait. And I've been less than impressed with the transfer of some items, such as the extras on Resident Evil: Apocalypse, which when it came out on HD-DVD (it's still high-def) was missing several of the features I liked on the DVD, and the extras looked like 30-year-old VHS tapes that had been left in the garage. Unacceptable.

Retailers are a lot to blame for force-feeding us HD. A few weeks ago the Watchmen Ultimate Cut was released. It WAS released in both Blu-Ray and DVD, with the BR having a few extra features (and for the record I often buy movies for the bonus features; people who don't like extras may as well go back to VHS because they are not embracing the technology digital media provides). According to Best Buy here in Canada, and HMV, and Wal-Mart, and two other chains I checked, the DVD does not exist and was never released. I was told "Blu-Ray or nothing". I went on Amazon, found it for C$20 LESS than the Blu-Ray, ordered it, and had it within a week.

This isn't the only example of this happening. And there have been more than a few occasions where ONLY the Blu-Ray version of a particular title has been stocked. One ridiculous example being the new Harry Potter box sets. Best Buy ordered in Blu-Ray and DVD of the second film, but only Blu-Ray of the first.

I want to support local business as much as I can, but I do foresee the day when I'll be ordering the majority of stuff I want (and this includes a growing number of CDs, too) on Amazon or other online retailers. The stores just aren't bothering. And this isn't just me being a Luddite, either - as I just mentioned, there are many titles that will not be released to Blu-Ray either because the original production cannot be upgraded economically (original Doctor Who), or the studios decided not enough people want to Blu-Ray (the 2009 Prisoner remake, announced for DVD release only). If places like Best Buy and Future Shop stop ordering DVDs, they'll be cutting off a major part of the market. There's only so many copies of Avatar BRs they'll be able to sell. They forget they also make money off people buying DVDs of Singin' in the Rain.

Alex

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I didn't want the forced upgrade to Hi Def to begin with. It's all a frakking scam to force people to double dip on equipment and content.

Hey, it worked with the changeover from vinyl to CD, didn't it. And a LOT of people are now regretting their knee-jerk decision to throw out all their vinyl assuming it would all be released to CD, only to find either the mastering sucked (one of the first Chuck Berry CDs was so poorly remastered as to be unlistenable) or that the material was never released to CD at all! People are also discovering that 99% of MP3s sound awful compared to the vinyl or CD originals.

Yep, and it's pretty much too late to reverse course.

Although fortunately Blu-Ray is - at least until the next upgrade - backwards compatible to DVD, I'm still seeing a similar attitude with people assuming a) everything will be reissued to Blu-Ray and b) that it'll actually look good when it is. There's plenty of material that will not look good on Blu-Ray without either being remade or distorted in some fashion, as was the case with Trek TOS, or undergo other expensive remastering. There are people saying they won't buy Warner's (back to them again) Classic Doctor Who releases because they aren't on Blu-Ray. They're in for a long wait. And I've been less than impressed with the transfer of some items, such as the extras on Resident Evil: Apocalypse, which when it came out on HD-DVD (it's still high-def) was missing several of the features I liked on the DVD, and the extras looked like 30-year-old VHS tapes that had been left in the garage. Unacceptable.

But you'll take it or leave it because they've left you no other choice but to do so.

Retailers are a lot to blame for force-feeding us HD. A few weeks ago the Watchmen Ultimate Cut was released. It WAS released in both Blu-Ray and DVD, with the BR having a few extra features (and for the record I often buy movies for the bonus features; people who don't like extras may as well go back to VHS because they are not embracing the technology digital media provides). According to Best Buy here in Canada, and HMV, and Wal-Mart, and two other chains I checked, the DVD does not exist and was never released. I was told "Blu-Ray or nothing". I went on Amazon, found it for C$20 LESS than the Blu-Ray, ordered it, and had it within a week.

This isn't the only example of this happening. And there have been more than a few occasions where ONLY the Blu-Ray version of a particular title has been stocked. One ridiculous example being the new Harry Potter box sets. Best Buy ordered in Blu-Ray and DVD of the second film, but only Blu-Ray of the first.

The real retailers behind HD aren't the content venders, it's the EQUIPMENT vendors. Conventional TVs were so cheap and so plentiful that people weren't buying enough. So the equipment manufacturers had to gin up a way to force people to buy expensive TVs again. It wasn't until after a LOT of people started sqawking that they relented on the converter box issue.

Then there's all the money they made forcing television stations to buy all that upgrade equipment for HD broadcast...

as I just mentioned, there are many titles that will not be released to Blu-Ray either because the original production cannot be upgraded economically (original Doctor Who), or the studios decided not enough people want to Blu-Ray (the 2009 Prisoner remake, announced for DVD release only).

Add TNG, DS9 and Voy to that list.

If places like Best Buy and Future Shop stop ordering DVDs, they'll be cutting off a major part of the market. There's only so many copies of Avatar BRs they'll be able to sell. They forget they also make money off people buying DVDs of Singin' in the Rain.

Typical corp thinking...the next few weeks, not the next few years...

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

^Upgrading Star Trek: The Next Generation, Deep Space 9, & Voyager would be prohibitively expensive but not impossible. They'd simply have to re-edit every single episode from scratch.

Upgrading old Doctor Who is literally impossible. Most of the show was shot on video. In many cases, the remastered video doesn't even tax the boundaries of standard DVDs. There are some cases where I think they could be doing a better job remastering the old film elements within the episode, but that's still less than half of each show most of the time.