Page 2 of 25
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 00:09
by saltysam
when HD discs started coming out Amazon offered a 10% discount on future purchases if you ordered 3 discs. i thought it had stopped. From that list i have the ones i want except Robocop & The Fly but i hear both transfers are less than stellar so i'll probably leave it. but thanks.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 02:10
by bradavon
Thanks Salty. I didn't know it was a program and just thought it was a 10% deal. Oh well. I'll still go for Die Hard and The Shining.
Info on the HD deal:
genesis wrote:It's too late. Last year, Amazon had a program if you buy 3 or more High Def (Blu-Ray or HD-DVD) movies, then you automatically get a 10% discount on all High Def products (including players and movies) for a full year. It's supposed to end 12/31/07, but it's still active.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 11:19
by Markgway
Might go for THE ROAD WARRIOR (my Dad wants RIO BRAVO); The DIE HARDs are Region-Coded, so is ROBOCOP, and THE TERMINATOR is missing the original mono.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 16:57
by dvdvision
Road Warrior is awful, not one shot is correctly color timed, it looks like they went back to the faded negative, and barely color corrected the whole faded color scheme. It's sad because the image is some times 3-D like in a few shots. So get it for the commentary, but be warned ! It's unlike every copy you have seen so far, it looks like an amateur directed movie.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 17:52
by Markgway
Oh shit!!!
Pity as it's the first time it's been uncut in widescreen (apart from the OOP letterboxed JP DVD)
It's unlike Warners to make a mess of an HD image.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 17:58
by Markgway
From the Home Theater Forum:
"To say this is one inconsistent picture is being polite. Detail and sharpness fluctuate from scene to scene, looking quite good in close-ups, but smearing and blurring in medium and long shots. Color reproduction is good for this aged a print and I would tend to think the source elements were somewhat limited originally. The colors in the print are a little washed out and dull, but, again, that may have been a limitation of the shoot. When the picture transitions into the night scenes, we are presented with a blurry, noisy mess: there is one scene where Max is taking his gas from the camp and the feral kid is following him and you can barely make out what is going on. It becomes a murky mix of video noise and grain. Most of the darker scenes in this picture exhibit the same problems. I noticed a couple instances of picture judder, specifically in some of the overhead chase scenes where the camera was following the gyrocopter. Surprisingly, edge enhancement was not noticed, and there were only minor amounts of film dirt and debris."
From A/V Forums:
Well, the good news is that this 2.40:1 1080p transfer is simply amazing in terms of the newfound detail that the high-resolution provides. With a particularly scrubbed-up, re-mastered print, virtually every speck and scratch has been removed, leaving a gloriously clean frame, with only a thin smattering of grain that can be seen against some blue skies. But take note that several sequences – some of the night-time scenes, primarily – still look softer and less-distinct and suffer from the poor contrast that has been prevalent on every version that I have seen (and I’ve seen a few on tape, TV, laserdisc, DVD and cinema screen). Another notable shot that loses definition considerably is the one featuring the marauders looking down the highway at the overturned tanker, but again, this has always looked soft and ill-defined and, if you listen to the chat track with Miller and DOP Dean Semler, the reasons behind it looking this way are explained – basically to enhance the distance view of the wreckage. But there are other shots that seem to drift back to little better than standard-style clarity throughout the movie, though these are definitely in the minority.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 18:24
by saltysam
Road Warrior is a revelation compared to the old dvd.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 18:26
by bradavon
@ Mark: Why am I a fascist? Even then, isn't it petty to put it in your signature of all things? I thought you were a bigger person than that. Let's keep the debate in the thread. 
Markgway wrote:and THE TERMINATOR is missing the original mono.
That's the least of it's problems. It's basically an expensive DVD.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 18:38
by romerojpg
bradavon wrote:
Markgway wrote:and THE TERMINATOR is missing the original mono.
That's the least of it's problems. It's basically an expensive DVD.
Becuase you own it and have seen it 
I am sure.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 19:04
by bradavon
The reviews are unanimous. Don't take my word for it, even Salty said so too.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 20:11
by Markgway
If the BD of The Terminator was at least as good as the R1 DVD (in terms of A/V) I would get it for a cheap price - but no mono equals no sale.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 20:14
by Markgway
bradavon wrote:@ Mark: Why am I a fascist? Even then, isn't it petty to put it in your signature of all things? I thought you were a bigger person than that. Let's keep the debate in the thread.
Yes, because locking a thread simply because you don't like what it reveals is soooooo mature. Unlock the thread and my sig will disappear.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 21:33
by bradavon
Threatening a moderator who "could" remove it himself, classic
You only started the thread to start a petty argument. It was a given which film would win, you knew that before you started it. Why would I care what it reveals? It's not as if it unlocked a massive secret. So most Bullets prefer LW2 to BHC, who gives a shit? I don't.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 21:48
by Markgway
bradavon wrote:Threatening a moderator who "could" remove it himself, classic
A mod who doesn't realise he could be demoted for abusing his powers. Classic.
You only started the thread to start a petty argument.
Petty argument? Maybe on your side. I just wanted to see which film was most popular. I didn't see any arguing from me in that thread. Your vote would've been as valid as anyone else's.
It was a given which film would win, you knew that before you started it.
Why would it be a given if Beverly Hills Cop is so much better than Lethal Weapon series? Afraid of a little democracy?
Why would I care what it reveals?
Because you're a child and rather than have me proved right (that more people prefer Lethal) you locked the thread. You know it. I know it. Everyone else knows it. Lie all you want to.
It's not as if it unlocked a massive secret. So most Bullets prefer LW2 to BHC, who gives a shit? I don't.
You obviously do as otherwise you wouldn't have locked the thread.
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 22:04
by bradavon
Back on topic: So are you going for Mad Max 2 then?
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 23:32
by saltysam
i think Mark's already gone for MM2. If you have Mark you won't be disappointed as it represents a HUGE upgrade on the dvd. no offence to dvdvision but he appears to find fault with every transfer he sees
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 23:48
by bradavon
He does work in DVD Production
It sounds like one of those "not perfect but still great" releases.
I wish MGM, Warner or whoever would release Part 1 on HD. I've been considering picking up the DVD but would prefer it on HD. It's been so long since I saw it I can only remember bits. The R4 is expensive too (which is the DVD that interests me most).
Posted: 02 Jan 2008, 23:53
by saltysam
i have the region 1 SE,doesn't help squeezing widescreen and p&s on one side of the disc.
Posted: 03 Jan 2008, 00:12
by bradavon
The R4 doesn't have that infliction. It's a pity even cheap R4 discs are still pricey.
Posted: 24 Jan 2008, 21:26
by bradavon
Royal Mail have charged me £12.96 in customs fees for my two BOGOF BDs. I don't know for sure it's them but it's likely to be.
I'm going down tomorrow and will show them a bank statement and e-mail receipt. I doubt it will work but I've illustrated based on the HM & Revenues Customs website I've paid £13.96 after postage. So nowhere near the £18 limit.
If that doesn't work I'll be telling Amazon how bloody stupid they are and I want a refund.
Posted: 25 Jan 2008, 01:24
by Markgway
Ask Customs if Amazon are breaking the law - I'm sure they are by declaring false taxable values.
Posted: 25 Jan 2008, 02:12
by bradavon
Will do if I have to go down that route. I doubt Amazon have actually checked it out.
Posted: 25 Jan 2008, 11:31
by Markgway
Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.
Posted: 25 Jan 2008, 13:40
by bradavon
I know that Mark. It doesn't mean I'm going to argue it if I get a refund.
Unsurprisingly Royal Mail didn't want to know. To be fair to them they don't have the authority. I've just sent Amazon a snotty e-mail. If they don't refund me I'll try Customs.
Posted: 25 Jan 2008, 16:14
by Markgway
Why is it surprising?
Royal Mail are a bunch of bandits who don't even trust their own staff.
The charge you a handling fee between £4-7 for the privilage of collecting your own mail.
Cocksuckers at least used to have the decency to bring it to your door.