Films (Almost Entirely Surround)

Advertise with us
Amazon
Find deals on ebay
QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
atrocity said:
I think part of the problem for a lot of people--certainly for me--is that anything from DVD onward is generally good enough.

[snip]

I'm far more interested in 3D than 4k and remain sad that it's no longer possible to get 3D without going the projector route, which simply won't work for me.
Click to expand...
I really appreciate you expressing your thoughts here. I am not in full alignment with you about DVD being good enough, and 3D never really worked for me. However, your articulate post makes it easier for me to honor these personal preferences many people have.
 
MarkerB said:
I really appreciate you expressing your thoughts here. I am not in full alignment with you about DVD being good enough, and 3D never really worked for me. However, your articulate post makes it easier for me to honor these personal preferences many people have.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, if I'm presented with a format choice, I'll get the highest-rez one there is. But I own hundreds of titles on DVD that I'll happily watch again but probably will never bother to upgrade.

It's not that I can't see the difference between DVD and better, it's just that DVD isn't (to me) actively, annoyingly bad. And I think I'm just really, really happy that I no longer have to worry about how many times I'm going to have to exchange the Laserdisc to finally get one without crosstalk or hiss pumping or helicoptering.

I have so many titles from the 1980s and 1990s on CED or Laserdisc that I really shouldn't have accepted or kept, but I just knew the odds of getting something better were slim. Certainly not all DVDs are well-mastered, but at least I almost never have to worry about the kind of manufacturing defects that get in the way while I'm watching.

At some point before US TV went to stereo, a local station ran 2001: A Space Odyssey as their evening movie. They made a big deal for weeks in advance about how they were going to simulcast it on an FM station in stereo and oh boy it's gonna be so awesome, etc. The night finally came and it was a sonic disaster. They were running it from one of the old analog-only Laserdiscs and it was just a constant sea of noise. Sure, it was in stereo, but it sounded horrible, which sadly was the case with a lot of analog Laserdiscs. (And they also cut Leonard Rossiter's scene for time, the bastards!)

Some time later they ran Saturn 3 and, thanks to the "barber pole", that was also really obviously from a Laserdisc.

I guess I just spent so much time putting up with actual defects on top of the inherently less than great old formats that I can be happy now with something that's at least reliable, if arguably mediocre.
 
atrocity said:
Just to be clear, if I'm presented with a format choice, I'll get the highest-rez one there is. But I own hundreds of titles on DVD that I'll happily watch again but probably will never bother to upgrade.

It's not that I can't see the difference between DVD and better, it's just that DVD isn't (to me) actively, annoyingly bad. And I think I'm just really, really happy that I no longer have to worry about how many times I'm going to have to exchange the Laserdisc to finally get one without crosstalk or hiss pumping or helicoptering.

I have so many titles from the 1980s and 1990s on CED or Laserdisc that I really shouldn't have accepted or kept, but I just knew the odds of getting something better were slim. Certainly not all DVDs are well-mastered, but at least I almost never have to worry about the kind of manufacturing defects that get in the way while I'm watching.

At some point before US TV went to stereo, a local station ran 2001: A Space Odyssey as their evening movie. They made a big deal for weeks in advance about how they were going to simulcast it on an FM station in stereo and oh boy it's gonna be so awesome, etc. The night finally came and it was a sonic disaster. They were running it from one of the old analog-only Laserdiscs and it was just a constant sea of noise. Sure, it was in stereo, but it sounded horrible, which sadly was the case with a lot of analog Laserdiscs. (And they also cut Leonard Rossiter's scene for time, the bastards!)

Some time later they ran Saturn 3 and, thanks to the "barber pole", that was also really obviously from a Laserdisc.

I guess I just spent so much time putting up with actual defects on top of the inherently less than great old formats that I can be happy now with something that's at least reliable, if arguably mediocre.
Click to expand...
Wow, I remember the old days of “stereo simulcasts”, lol... a couple favorites growing up were “Earthquake” and “Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band” (with The Bee Gees)... fun stuff!
 
atrocity said:
Just to be clear, if I'm presented with a format choice, I'll get the highest-rez one there is.
Click to expand...
Oh, whoops. I think I already understood what you meant. Sorry if I made it sound like you couldn't tell the difference!

Thanks for the walk down memory lane; I had totally forgot about simulcasts. I grew up in the sticks (and still am in the sticks... and still growing up), so simulcasts were rarely available. The FM stations choices are more limited.

Most of what I remember was that simulcasts were unacceptably out of sync, but at least the prospects made me very excited.
 
atrocity said:
I think part of the problem for a lot of people--certainly for me--is that anything from DVD onward is generally good enough. It's not that I can't see the difference between DVD and Blu-ray and 4k, it's that when I sit and watch a DVD I don't spend the whole time thinking "This isn't good enough and could have been so much better!" I certainly did that with VHS and CED and Laserdisc, but the shortcomings that bothered me most about the analog formats (low resolution, crosstalk, noise, skipping [with CED]) generally don't exist with DVD.

Having said that, there are certain titles I'm a complete sucker for and have multiple-dipped over and over and over and over for, all the way up to 4k. But there are others where I'll probably always be happy with the DVD.

It's probably relevant that I don't have an enormous TV. I'm not even exactly sure how big it is, I think somewhere in the low 50s.

I'm far more interested in 3D than 4k and remain sad that it's no longer possible to get 3D without going the projector route, which simply won't work for me.
Click to expand...

I, too, am a HUGE fan of 3D especially since I've had my LG 3D Curved Flatscreen and added a OPPO 205 plugged DIRECTLY into the TV Monitor with a Sunyata Research HDMI cable. It really looks stunning and REAL 3D especially looks phenomenol although there are some exceptional 3D conversions like Jurassic Park and Titanic. And I will say that well done 3D competes favorably with a lot of 'UPSCALED' 4K releases.

ZAVVI in the UK does release a few on occasion but as time goes by without LG, Samsung and SONY supporting the format, there's really NO incentive for the major studios to continue releasing them.

I do have a new SONY 3D Laser Projector on order and am installing a 120" Stewart filmscreen but because of Covid 19 everything's on hold at present.
 
First Blood (1982) 4K:
1. Not much going on in the surrounds unfortunately. Even the opportunity to do some reverb when there's yelling up in the canyon was missed.
2. Picture detail/colour isn't as pronounced as other 4K's but I'm guessing that's mostly down to the overcast weather throughout most of the movie. Fire is nice and bright though. Weirdly, once Trautman arrives at the police station at the end, image detail improves. Could have just been police lights reflecting off their faces though.
3. Still a fun movie. I forgot how damaged Rambo was in this one. He isn't the unflappable machine from the sequels (still haven't seen Last Blood yet though). Sly's performance at the end is excellent.
 
timothyemerson said:
First Blood (1982) 4K:
1. Not much going on in the surrounds unfortunately. Even the opportunity to do some reverb when there's yelling up in the canyon was missed.
2. Picture detail/colour isn't as pronounced as other 4K's but I'm guessing that's mostly down to the overcast weather throughout most of the movie. Fire is nice and bright though. Weirdly, once Trautman arrives at the police station at the end, image detail improves. Could have just been police lights reflecting off their faces though.
3. Still a fun movie. I forgot how damaged Rambo was in this one. He isn't the unflappable machine from the sequels (still haven't seen Last Blood yet though). Sly's performance at the end is excellent.
Click to expand...

I actually saw this in High-Def (1080i) on TV a couple of months ago and was surprised at how good it looked. I was also surprised how good the movie was after not having seen it for like 30 years.
 
enjoying the look + sound of Baz Luhrmann's modern adaptation
1592022683440.png

https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/46011/william-shakespeares-romeo-juliet/
 
atrocity said:
It's not that I can't see the difference between DVD and better, it's just that DVD isn't (to me) actively, annoyingly bad. And I think I'm just really, really happy that I no longer have to worry about how many times I'm going to have to exchange the Laserdisc to finally get one without crosstalk or hiss pumping or helicoptering.
Click to expand...
Well mastered DVDs can look quite good - for example if a high (for DVD) bitrate is used. I see blu ray's two biggest strengths (for picture quality) are 1. Higher resolution (the obvious advantage) and 2. Much higher bitrate than DVD.
 
4-earredwonder said:
Criterion has released over 1000 DVD/BD~Vs over their illustrious career and for the past few years, a majority have been 'remastered in 4K from the original camera negatives.'

But Criterion has never released a Native UHD 4K disc. And from reading a lot of the threads from posters on various movie forums, this has deterred a lot of them from supporting Criterion.
Click to expand...

Lame.

Criterion, to me, has always been more of a cult (as with Mobile Fidelity for audio) than a genuine standard-bearer of quality. They’ve never shown much interest in the latest technology. I remember them still hawking their $100 LaserDisc of 2001 which wasn’t even transferred from the original 70mm negative like the studio release.
 
Eggplant said:
Criterion, to me, has always been more of a cult (as with Mobile Fidelity for audio) than a genuine standard-bearer of quality. They’ve never shown much interest in the latest technology. I remember them still hawking their $100 LaserDisc of 2001 which wasn’t even transferred from the original 70mm negative like the studio release.
Click to expand...

It also didn't show the entire width, but I think that was at Kubrick's request. Doesn't matter now since the discs were pressed by 3M and rotted long ago.

I'm pretty sure that the MGM Laserdisc from 65/70mm didn't come out until later. I remember it being a big deal when West Side Story came to video from >35mm because it allegedly had never been done before.

Also, the MGM 2001 disc required a side flip to see the end credits!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BillTubes
Inconsistency in Atmos playback on 5.1 systems
Replies
12
Views
578
AYanguas
AYanguas
Mr. Afternoon
The "Surround in Video Games" Thread
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
fredblue
fredblue
Goldhamster916
How do I make a 7.1.4 system work in a very small room?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Starkenstein
S
Jim VeNard
Tower of Power "Ain't Nothing Stopping Us Now" SACD Quad (Vocalion – CDSML 8523)
Replies
2
Views
418
par4ken
par4ken
Charlie 5.1Test
Hello, a real surround fan here!
Replies
11
Views
574
bluelightning
B

Latest posts

Back
Top