Nope. And before you whine about mythical "forever-deleted" scenes I can just have AI recreate it. But, by all means, go ahead and buy the same movie again and again and again because it's the 37th anniversary ultra edition this time
>so sad that you can't enjoy mindless zogslop made for the lowest common denominator. So sad you can't consooom the slop, not ask questions, and be happy.
I'm glad that I'm not entertained by Soi Wars
I own the 3-disc limited edition DVD from Anchor Bay. It came with the movie, an additional disc with behind the scenes, the soundtrack, lobby cards and a production booklet.
I mostly just stream music but last year I ended up buying some music on bandcamp from some small musicians that I'd been listening to days worth of music from at that point, just to give them something and hopefully cause them to make some more music I'll like. What I don't understand is the people who buy digital music from world famous millionaire musicians. Or dead ones, so the record company vultures get all the profit.
Sure, but I was talking about out of print releases by labels that aren't in the business and haven't transferred their back catalogue to digital sources like digital stores or streaming. Unless someone pirated it, the only way to obtain that music is to get that old (used) CD.
I'm into this specific music, it's not just random CDs, it's stuff that I specifically hunted down. At the time when I bought these and took this photo, most of them weren't available or were available as 128 kbps vinyl rips etc. These ones in the photo were like ~$2 a piece or so on average, which is a great deal for getting a no-hassle digital master of the track. There's value in that.
I like having my collection of favorite/niche/hard-to-find/obscure movies. Plus I like showing friends movies so I'll just bring my own copies or let them borrow them
Hey OP I found this really funny link a couple weeks ago I think you'd appreciate.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Faqa0ckr09yoa1.jpg
I have a list of 250-300 movies I’ve been slowly acquiring in either dvd or blueray depending on how important the visual aesthetics are to the story in the film.
I mostly get them used for 1-5 dollars each.
Nope. And before you whine about mythical "forever-deleted" scenes I can just have AI recreate it. But, by all means, go ahead and buy the same movie again and again and again because it's the 37th anniversary ultra edition this time
Yes, but I've been slowing down. There are only a few movies/tv shows I still want, and they are all super overpriced online. I'm also trying to find the best release for the LotR movies and am still not sure what to get.
The LOTR 4Ks suffered from being hit with DNR and colour timing changes. There's no go-to editions of those films unfortunately. I haven't watched the Hobbit movies but I imagine since they're modern digitally shot films they're probably not messed with too much, Peter Jackson seems to hate the look of anything shot on film and feels the need to shit all over it with DNR. 35mm film has much higher resolution than 4K or any digitally shot movie btw.
Is DOA worth watching? I've heard it's bad and I imagine it'd be shit as an adaptation but I get the impression it's kind of like sucker punch in that it's stupid but is satisfying because it has hot chicks and good action but without the convoluted plot and fantasy, sci-fi elements.
Aggressively PG-13 in that super American way where it doesn't even feel like you're watching actual humans interact physically. I'm not saying that it should have guts or explicit sex, but everything about the look and feel of this movie is way way too sterile.
It's produced by Paul W S Anderson and it has a bit of his vibe in broad strokes (even though he didn't direct it), but his style doesn't jive well with this kind of sterility.
No. You're never going to watch that shit and when you die no one will care. They'll just throw it out. Anything you want to watch you can stream for free right now and if not you could torrent it.
>You're never going to watch that shit
Bait or projection, or just moronation? Which one? >and when you die no one will care
Why would this matter? >Dude you gonna die one day so like, stop doing things you enjoy! Nothing heckin' matters, bro!
moron.
I want to expand my 4k collection but I hate how every single 4k release needs to be thoroughly researched first to see >is this an actual 4k scan or just a 2k upscale >is it an actually good scan >are there different versions >is it hdr or dv >does it include extra features >is it actually available retail or was it some stupid limited release
etc.
it's as bad for traditional bluray >is this a revisionist master? >are the subs hardcoded? >what about the special features? >does a superior version exist? if so, where was it produced, how expensive is it to import it, etc.
you just can't win
it's as bad for traditional bluray >is this a revisionist master? >are the subs hardcoded? >what about the special features? >does a superior version exist? if so, where was it produced, how expensive is it to import it, etc.
you just can't win
>Original BD or DVD uses original color timing from theatrical release >Boomer director decides to retroactively blue tint the whole film for the 4K release to make it appear more modern, and lies about "it was always meant to look this way"
Many such cases.
>to make it appear more modern
Friendly reminder that it's got nothing to do with it looking modern and everything to do with those famous boomer directors thinking that blue tint looks natural, because they're all taking heavy doses of viagra to frick groupies and young actresses who think they'll get to be in their next movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanopsia
Man bluray cases are so fricking ugly compared to even the cheapest DVD case. What the frick were they thinking with making them have that big ugly shade of blue bar at the top? At least HDDVDs had a more pleasant dark red tone to their cases. It actively makes me not want to display them on a shelf because it's so ugly and sticks out.
That's unironically why I only buy DVDs. I don't even care about "muh quality", blu ray cases are just too fricking stupid looking. It makes your collection look tacky and gay.
Agreed. I like them being smaller sized, but I don't like the big 'bluray' thing on top. It just looks tacky like you said.
>but I don't like the big 'bluray' thing on top
Not only do they have that blue shit, half the movies also have a giant bluray logo taking up space on the spine right below the one on the top. As if anyone is going to miss the fact that they've got a bluray in their hands unless there's a big B right above the title of the movie. It's like they're trying to make them look as bad as possible.
This makes zero sense. If you see normal regular colors as tinted blue, then you'll see your new blue-tinted version of the movie as EVEN MORE blue than you see the colors of the world. You'll still notice that the color is off.
nta, but directors also go senile. Richard Donner was unaware that someone added new sound effects to the original Superman, then later he forgot that the cut The Goonies to shit and now we are left with a shortened "theatrical" edition. Now he's dead and the interns who work at WB can't be asked to retrieve the footage from the salt mines, so it's never to be seen fully restored again,all because Donner cut the film down to appease theater owners right after its initial release.
>is this an actual 4k scan or just a 2k upscale
I try not to think too much about this, most movies have been finished at 2k for the past 20 years or more. Getting them remastered at 4k is basically a nonstarter since those effects would have to be rerendered. Plus, 2k will give a small bump in resolution over 1080p, but HDR is the real selling point for me, especially for movies shot on film. >is it an actually good scan >are there different versions
Watching the discussion on these help me learn quite a lot more about the movie and industry. Scans are what they are, but different versions have never been super appealing to me. I usually watch the theatrical cut once, and whatever the ultimate edition ends up being after that. >is it hdr or dv
Most 4k TV's are unable to take full advantage of HDR10, let alone Dolby Vision. I've never not bought a 4k because it was only HDR10, evidently there have been some reissues with Dolby Vision. >does it include extra features
I haven't watched extra features in years. I appreciate them, and maybe someday I'll watch them bit I have quite a bit to catch up on before I'll sit down for them. It's shitty that they don't come on the 4k disc, but a lot of special features were shot on tape or shitty digital cameras and will never be worth upgrading 4k anyway. >is it actually available retail or was it some stupid limited release
Yeah limited releases suck, I've bought quite a few, off the idea that I'll be able to flip for more than I bought in a few years. >etc.
Even given all the downsides, I still love the hobby. I love a physical copy that can't be changed once it's been sent out. I like that it doesn't require internet connection to function, and I love that they removed region locking. The one thing that has me concerned is the remaster algorithm they ran Aliens and True Lies through, if they don't bother to improve that then any old movie will start looking like ass.
>Plus, 2k will give a small bump in resolution over 1080p
No. Negligible. 2K of the movie world isn't the "2K"of the techbro world when they talk about monitors. Film 2K is 2048x858 or 1998x1080 depending on aspect ratio. It's resized down to 1920xN with black bars for the home media release, but this difference is miniscule. It is absolutely NOT 2560x1440 that you might be thinking of.
Where do you think the terms 2K and 4K originally came from before marketing departments decided to call 2160p "4K"? Did it occur to you before today that 2K is probably twice as small (linearly) as 4K, not 5/8 of it?
Computer monitor resolutions. Which have never sense.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Computer monitor resolutions.
Dude bro. NO. Absolutely not.
Computer monitor resolutions are letters. 2560x1440 is QHD and all that.
2K from the movie world predates the fullhd 1920x1080 standard by several years, if not a decade. It's how 35 mm film was (and still is) typically scanned, "roughly 2000 pixels" per frame width. When DI process became commonplace and virtually all films started getting edited on computers, it was specifically standardized to be a resolution that would fit inside a 2048x1080 rectangle, being "shorter" or "thinner" depending on the desired aspect ratio.
Similarly, 4K from the film world is 4096x2160 or a specific rectangle that fits snugly into this bounding box.
1920x1080 and 3840x2160 are from the world of TV, not film, where having a metric frickton of divisors for width and height is important for all kinds of compatibility. Also note the 16:9 aspect ratio which is quite alien to theatrical film. Similarly, TV never used the kino 24 fps framerate, it used 50i and 60i, hence all the bullshit with 3:2 pulldowns for NTSC.
These are two very very different worlds on a technical level.
2560x1440 has absolutely zero place in the world of film, but monitors with this resolution do exist. Because around this time the marketing departments decided to market 3840x2160 screens as "4K", some imbeciles also decided to market 2560x1440 as "2K", even though the 2K would be 1920x1080 in this case (same relation to the film / DCI 2K as between the real DCI 4K and the marketing 4K).
I bought DVDs in my teens and had like a hundred. Then the Bluray/HD-DVD war happened and so I waited it out, not wanting to back the wrong horse. By the time Bluray won I'd realised that it'd be folly to rebuy all the movies I had on DVD because they'd just release some new even better format in a decade and I simply couldn't afford to buy all those expensive blurays. So I gave away most of my DVDs and never bought physical media again. I'm thankful for having learnt the lesson so early. The shelves that were covered in cheap plastic cases now have various ornaments and books on them and it's incredible how much better the room looks because of it.
>Nooo you can't just have books and DVDs because....because okay?
They are smaller than DVDs and artwork looks lamer on them, I'll give you that. Still no reason to buy DVDs when you get compressed as frick video quality and most DVDs have shitty or mediocre transfers. There are good looking DVDs out there no doubt but most of them look like garbage when upscaled to 4K on an OLED.
I refuse to re-buy my collection, I'll continue with DVDs. israelite-Ray and 4K can frick off. Plus, I own a good amount of films that are DVD-only, and some of my DVDs (mostly boutique label ones) look almost nearly as good as blu ray.
I watch them on an older TV, and some of the boutique labels literally do look almost as good as blu ray, though I really don't get a shit about quality that much. As long as it is watchable and you can see the details fine.
That's a bit too much homie. How do you even have that many films you enjoy and want to re-watch? It seems like you just bought every film you've ever seen, even the shit you hate.
I've bought two blurays that I found in second hand stores for two bucks each, but I only bought them because they aren't in English nor high-brow and so it might become a hassle to find them with decent quality rips in ten years when I want to have a laugh. I've been stung that way before. I don't even own a bluray player. I'd never buy something as useless as capeshit movies or The Godfather. They'll never be hard to find.
Man bluray cases are so fricking ugly compared to even the cheapest DVD case. What the frick were they thinking with making them have that big ugly shade of blue bar at the top? At least HDDVDs had a more pleasant dark red tone to their cases. It actively makes me not want to display them on a shelf because it's so ugly and sticks out.
That's unironically why I only buy DVDs. I don't even care about "muh quality", blu ray cases are just too fricking stupid looking. It makes your collection look tacky and gay.
That's unironically why I only buy DVDs. I don't even care about "muh quality", blu ray cases are just too fricking stupid looking. It makes your collection look tacky and gay.
You can buy clear cases to replace them. Plus many boutique blu-ray releases like Arrow BDs come in clear cases.
They are smaller than DVDs and artwork looks lamer on them, I'll give you that. Still no reason to buy DVDs when you get compressed as frick video quality and most DVDs have shitty or mediocre transfers. There are good looking DVDs out there no doubt but most of them look like garbage when upscaled to 4K on an OLED.
Anon that also looks like shit. Like you've burnt your own copies and printed out the covers but made them all too small because you're moronic. Just make the case fit the fricking jacket for frick's sake.
Yee. I'm preparing to copy muh discs to an PC server I'm building so my dad (Who lives next door and is on the same network) can stream kinos. But I'll never get rid of physical media.
>No one is judging.
Lying is bad, anon. I moved back home and mannnnnn do my neighbors fricking hate me and judge me for it. They do it so much it gives me power that I can feel.
(except the bottom right one; that one is completely unrelated to this other music and I just found it hilarious that there's some boys band called Code 5 - found this CD in the seller's list while searching for CD releases of this label https://www.discogs.com/label/6742-United-Ravers-Records?page=1 , see the artist names of the releases)
I honestly dont see the point in cluttering up the house with physical media. I think blu rays and dvds look ugly/messy on shelves anyway. I dunno theres just something cheap about your bookshelves being filled with cheap plastic cases of dvds.
Books look much better, especially more expensive hardbacks, and there is actually a benifit of having them in physical form.
I love my e-reader but it really isn't the same thing. I won't hesitate to read sci-fi or cyberpunk novels on it because it lends to the experience, and it's great for reading before bed or when travelling, but for some stories you really want that tactile feel of a well-made book. E-readers are definitely better than buying shitty pocket books that feel and look terrible and fall apart, though. That's where I ended up saving lots of money after buying a kindle, which made me afford to buy really nice copies of the books I love and will reread instead.
I'm currently debating whether I can afford to buy the Folio Society edition of Jonathan Strange And Mr Norrell.
im not saying you cant im just saying it looks like shit. Perhaps its a pet peeve of mine but seeing a bookshelves like this
Yeah
And (part of) my collection
I honestly dont see the point in cluttering up the house with physical media. I think blu rays and dvds look ugly/messy on shelves anyway. I dunno theres just something cheap about your bookshelves being filled with cheap plastic cases of dvds.
Books look much better, especially more expensive hardbacks, and there is actually a benifit of having them in physical form.
in someones house doesnt tell me that they love film, it instead tells me that they're a manchild and have zero idea about actually making their living space look good. It is similar to seeing anime figurines at someone's house or game posters plastered all over the place. I say this as a man (im not a roastie) who loves film as well.
not really when e-ink readers exist
Still not the same as an actual book. A folio edition or equivilent of a book will always be better than an e-reader and is aesthetically pleasing too.
>im not saying you cant im just saying it looks like shit. Perhaps its a pet peeve of mine but seeing a bookshelves like this
It's just your autism, they look fine as long as there isn't too many, and they preferably don't have blue cases >in someones house doesnt tell me that they love film, it instead tells me that they're a manchild and have zero idea about actually making their living space look good.
Movies look fine as long as you don't have a collection as big as
And (part of) my collection
, now that is fricking manchild shit. A normal-sized collection is fine, it does look better if you also have books though >It is similar to seeing anime figurines at someone's house or game posters plastered all over the place
Having posters or figures is very gay, owning video games is also very gay >Still not the same as an actual book. A folio edition or equivilent of a book will always be better than an e-reader and is aesthetically pleasing too.
Agreed
>Having posters or figures is very gay
it depends on the poster. Some posters look great (if they are framed). The french stalker poster or Phenomena poster both look amazing. IMO its about the artwork and design. If some guy has the fast 9 poster on their wall it isnt quite the same thing. I still would prefer a painting up on the wall most of the time but some posters are nearly at that level.
I'm strange in that I like posters, but I don't like hanging anything up on walls. If I did hang a poster up, it'd be one of Noriyoshi's Godzilla posters.
Did you ever notice that every time a physical media thread happens, it will immediately be filled with "le piracy" posts? Every single time, even if somebody just says the word "DVD" or "Blu Ray", you'll instantly see them get smug replies about why "piracy is le better". I'm not even against piracy, I understand why some find torrenting easier then buying shit, and I pirate sometimes too, but I find it odd that other people feel the need to be such smug homosexuals about it, anytime physical media is mentioned. It's almost like some strange way for third-world pajeets to seek validation or some shit. See for instance, what the frick is even the point of posting this, other than seeking validation? You see replies like this every time a thread like this appears, it's odd.
Same for pessimistic posts, like calling everything 'gay' or people idiots. I don't get it. Probably just trolls doing their thing.
It's literally true though, you are the only one coping here. Even if you don't like physical media, you should be able to see that smaller collections look nicer than big ones. Having multiple overflowing shelves of movies looks tacky as frick, having a small shelf of movies looks fine, le buzzwords will not change this. Sorry, but your massive collection looks moronic
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
I don't have any collection, I'm an outsider judging you both. Your smaller collection just makes you look like you're too poor to afford the big collection that you want, because you're obviously into collecting plastic same as the guy who's got a bigger collection of plastic than you.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Your smaller collection just makes you look like you're too poor to afford the big collection that you want
moronic logic, the smaller collection looks more like you actually watch you movies, the bigger collection looks like you have an addiction to buying shit. >collecting plastic same as the guy who's got a bigger collection of plastic than you.
More moron logic. The guy buying more plastic has a much more tacky setup, this is objectively true and you can't prove otherwise.
Movies can be stored on a harddrive and take up no space while changing zero about the experience in actually watching it as long as you're not going full moron and downloading yifi rips or watching them on a laptop, leaving you more space for books where the reading experience is drastically changed if you read it on a computer instead.
Did you ever notice that every time a physical media thread happens, it will immediately be filled with "le piracy" posts? Every single time, even if somebody just says the word "DVD" or "Blu Ray", you'll instantly see them get smug replies about why "piracy is le better". I'm not even against piracy, I understand why some find torrenting easier then buying shit, and I pirate sometimes too, but I find it odd that other people feel the need to be such smug homosexuals about it, anytime physical media is mentioned. It's almost like some strange way for third-world pajeets to seek validation or some shit. See for instance, what the frick is even the point of posting this, other than seeking validation? You see replies like this every time a thread like this appears, it's odd.
Superiority complex due to not spending money (pleb and poorgay cope)
I occasionally torrent shit as well but I don't feel the need to be smug about it.
yeah
This is stealing
Plus you'll never get 4k quality rips
Plus you can't watch it on ur TV without unhooking ur pc and bringing it over to your pc.
Check mate, thief
I download 4k hdr remuxes
I have 22tb of space
And Plex easy
>Can't afford a usb stick
Yo, pass me that director’s commentary bro…
What kind of pedophilic idiot cares about director's commentary.
People who can read
It wasn't a question. Learn to fricking read.
What kind of pedophilic idiot phrases a question as a statement?
People who enjoy films?
>not downloading those too and adding in all the extras that were only released on a DVD version to your high quality rip
Your physical collection should be your top 10 and that's it. Have some self control
no it shouldn't
what about top 100
>The troony lighting
>All those shitty movies, including Star Wars and capeshit
i dont have capeshit, maybe the batman
The Batman is capeshit, and you own shit that's just as bad as capeshit, like Star Wars and The Lion King. The light makes it look even more gay.
so sad you cant enjoy simple things
>so sad that you can't enjoy mindless zogslop made for the lowest common denominator. So sad you can't consooom the slop, not ask questions, and be happy.
I'm glad that I'm not entertained by Soi Wars
I have the Nolan Trilogy in limited Blu-ray ed and Battinson in 4k
I'd say kino.
quite a few good movies in there, don't like the lighting for showing the collection though
Yes
Nice collection. Just swap out the Suspiria remake with the original and it’s perfect
I own the 3-disc limited edition DVD from Anchor Bay. It came with the movie, an additional disc with behind the scenes, the soundtrack, lobby cards and a production booklet.
Some good films there, but lots of garbage. Owning video games is gay as frick too.
Awful collection
Is that the laughing man movie edit of SAC's first season? I used to have it on dvd. Best Ghost in Shell hands down.
I buy music that hasn't been released as digital files or streaming, and hasn't been pirated (or at least in acceptable quality).
I mostly just stream music but last year I ended up buying some music on bandcamp from some small musicians that I'd been listening to days worth of music from at that point, just to give them something and hopefully cause them to make some more music I'll like. What I don't understand is the people who buy digital music from world famous millionaire musicians. Or dead ones, so the record company vultures get all the profit.
Sure, but I was talking about out of print releases by labels that aren't in the business and haven't transferred their back catalogue to digital sources like digital stores or streaming. Unless someone pirated it, the only way to obtain that music is to get that old (used) CD.
a lot of that is on soulseek just search the catalog numbers they are autistic like that
I'm into this specific music, it's not just random CDs, it's stuff that I specifically hunted down. At the time when I bought these and took this photo, most of them weren't available or were available as 128 kbps vinyl rips etc. These ones in the photo were like ~$2 a piece or so on average, which is a great deal for getting a no-hassle digital master of the track. There's value in that.
rip them and put on soulseek
What's the point? I don't really rewatch films
I like having my collection of favorite/niche/hard-to-find/obscure movies. Plus I like showing friends movies so I'll just bring my own copies or let them borrow them
Hey OP I found this really funny link a couple weeks ago I think you'd appreciate.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Faqa0ckr09yoa1.jpg
I have a list of 250-300 movies I’ve been slowly acquiring in either dvd or blueray depending on how important the visual aesthetics are to the story in the film.
I mostly get them used for 1-5 dollars each.
how come they never fixed the slow clunky blu-ray menu system?
Yes and my cut off point is for stuff made past 2010. I prefer movies made before that dreadful decade.
Nope. And before you whine about mythical "forever-deleted" scenes I can just have AI recreate it. But, by all means, go ahead and buy the same movie again and again and again because it's the 37th anniversary ultra edition this time
>Physical Media
Based
>Blu Ray not DVD
Cringe
How is dvd better than bluray?
Yep.
Did you get that image from Reddit? Lmao
This is objectively a good collection and I would love to has those early AS shows on physical media.
*Objectively a homosexual collection
Yes, but I've been slowing down. There are only a few movies/tv shows I still want, and they are all super overpriced online. I'm also trying to find the best release for the LotR movies and am still not sure what to get.
That one is pretty good.
LOTR 4K is kind of disappointing and not much better than the Blu-rays, The Hobbit is phenomenal in 4K though since it was filmed in it natively
The LOTR 4Ks suffered from being hit with DNR and colour timing changes. There's no go-to editions of those films unfortunately. I haven't watched the Hobbit movies but I imagine since they're modern digitally shot films they're probably not messed with too much, Peter Jackson seems to hate the look of anything shot on film and feels the need to shit all over it with DNR. 35mm film has much higher resolution than 4K or any digitally shot movie btw.
Incredible picks that are wasted on such an unaesthetic shelf and layout
This picture made me realize I should get Hey Arnold and Tom & Jerry DVDs. I'm going to listen to Hey Arnold's soundtrack today while I work.
CAN'T YOU HEAR THE HAUNTED TRAIN
>Capeshit
>Slashers
>Cartoons
This has to be bait
Yes obvs, imagine not owning anything and be happy like a streamcuck.
Pic rel is my videagayme movies collection.
Is DOA worth watching? I've heard it's bad and I imagine it'd be shit as an adaptation but I get the impression it's kind of like sucker punch in that it's stupid but is satisfying because it has hot chicks and good action but without the convoluted plot and fantasy, sci-fi elements.
No, it's just "simply" bad.
It's a classic popcorn fun movie. Mostly cool fight scenes and hot chicks but beyond dumb plot/final boss.
Aggressively PG-13 in that super American way where it doesn't even feel like you're watching actual humans interact physically. I'm not saying that it should have guts or explicit sex, but everything about the look and feel of this movie is way way too sterile.
It's produced by Paul W S Anderson and it has a bit of his vibe in broad strokes (even though he didn't direct it), but his style doesn't jive well with this kind of sterility.
No. You're never going to watch that shit and when you die no one will care. They'll just throw it out. Anything you want to watch you can stream for free right now and if not you could torrent it.
>You're never going to watch that shit
Bait or projection, or just moronation? Which one?
>and when you die no one will care
Why would this matter?
>Dude you gonna die one day so like, stop doing things you enjoy! Nothing heckin' matters, bro!
moron.
Glare sucks but meh
>all those essential 4ks
I kneel.
I want to expand my 4k collection but I hate how every single 4k release needs to be thoroughly researched first to see
>is this an actual 4k scan or just a 2k upscale
>is it an actually good scan
>are there different versions
>is it hdr or dv
>does it include extra features
>is it actually available retail or was it some stupid limited release
etc.
it's as bad for traditional bluray
>is this a revisionist master?
>are the subs hardcoded?
>what about the special features?
>does a superior version exist? if so, where was it produced, how expensive is it to import it, etc.
you just can't win
>Original BD or DVD uses original color timing from theatrical release
>Boomer director decides to retroactively blue tint the whole film for the 4K release to make it appear more modern, and lies about "it was always meant to look this way"
Many such cases.
It’s funny because you paid 1500 dollars at least to watch these degraded colors.
>to make it appear more modern
Friendly reminder that it's got nothing to do with it looking modern and everything to do with those famous boomer directors thinking that blue tint looks natural, because they're all taking heavy doses of viagra to frick groupies and young actresses who think they'll get to be in their next movie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanopsia
That makes a lot of sense
Agreed. I like them being smaller sized, but I don't like the big 'bluray' thing on top. It just looks tacky like you said.
>but I don't like the big 'bluray' thing on top
Not only do they have that blue shit, half the movies also have a giant bluray logo taking up space on the spine right below the one on the top. As if anyone is going to miss the fact that they've got a bluray in their hands unless there's a big B right above the title of the movie. It's like they're trying to make them look as bad as possible.
This makes zero sense. If you see normal regular colors as tinted blue, then you'll see your new blue-tinted version of the movie as EVEN MORE blue than you see the colors of the world. You'll still notice that the color is off.
nta, but directors also go senile. Richard Donner was unaware that someone added new sound effects to the original Superman, then later he forgot that the cut The Goonies to shit and now we are left with a shortened "theatrical" edition. Now he's dead and the interns who work at WB can't be asked to retrieve the footage from the salt mines, so it's never to be seen fully restored again,all because Donner cut the film down to appease theater owners right after its initial release.
>is this an actual 4k scan or just a 2k upscale
I try not to think too much about this, most movies have been finished at 2k for the past 20 years or more. Getting them remastered at 4k is basically a nonstarter since those effects would have to be rerendered. Plus, 2k will give a small bump in resolution over 1080p, but HDR is the real selling point for me, especially for movies shot on film.
>is it an actually good scan
>are there different versions
Watching the discussion on these help me learn quite a lot more about the movie and industry. Scans are what they are, but different versions have never been super appealing to me. I usually watch the theatrical cut once, and whatever the ultimate edition ends up being after that.
>is it hdr or dv
Most 4k TV's are unable to take full advantage of HDR10, let alone Dolby Vision. I've never not bought a 4k because it was only HDR10, evidently there have been some reissues with Dolby Vision.
>does it include extra features
I haven't watched extra features in years. I appreciate them, and maybe someday I'll watch them bit I have quite a bit to catch up on before I'll sit down for them. It's shitty that they don't come on the 4k disc, but a lot of special features were shot on tape or shitty digital cameras and will never be worth upgrading 4k anyway.
>is it actually available retail or was it some stupid limited release
Yeah limited releases suck, I've bought quite a few, off the idea that I'll be able to flip for more than I bought in a few years.
>etc.
Even given all the downsides, I still love the hobby. I love a physical copy that can't be changed once it's been sent out. I like that it doesn't require internet connection to function, and I love that they removed region locking. The one thing that has me concerned is the remaster algorithm they ran Aliens and True Lies through, if they don't bother to improve that then any old movie will start looking like ass.
>Plus, 2k will give a small bump in resolution over 1080p
No. Negligible. 2K of the movie world isn't the "2K"of the techbro world when they talk about monitors. Film 2K is 2048x858 or 1998x1080 depending on aspect ratio. It's resized down to 1920xN with black bars for the home media release, but this difference is miniscule. It is absolutely NOT 2560x1440 that you might be thinking of.
Ouch.
Where do you think the terms 2K and 4K originally came from before marketing departments decided to call 2160p "4K"? Did it occur to you before today that 2K is probably twice as small (linearly) as 4K, not 5/8 of it?
Computer monitor resolutions. Which have never sense.
>Computer monitor resolutions.
Dude bro. NO. Absolutely not.
Computer monitor resolutions are letters. 2560x1440 is QHD and all that.
2K from the movie world predates the fullhd 1920x1080 standard by several years, if not a decade. It's how 35 mm film was (and still is) typically scanned, "roughly 2000 pixels" per frame width. When DI process became commonplace and virtually all films started getting edited on computers, it was specifically standardized to be a resolution that would fit inside a 2048x1080 rectangle, being "shorter" or "thinner" depending on the desired aspect ratio.
Similarly, 4K from the film world is 4096x2160 or a specific rectangle that fits snugly into this bounding box.
1920x1080 and 3840x2160 are from the world of TV, not film, where having a metric frickton of divisors for width and height is important for all kinds of compatibility. Also note the 16:9 aspect ratio which is quite alien to theatrical film. Similarly, TV never used the kino 24 fps framerate, it used 50i and 60i, hence all the bullshit with 3:2 pulldowns for NTSC.
These are two very very different worlds on a technical level.
2560x1440 has absolutely zero place in the world of film, but monitors with this resolution do exist. Because around this time the marketing departments decided to market 3840x2160 screens as "4K", some imbeciles also decided to market 2560x1440 as "2K", even though the 2K would be 1920x1080 in this case (same relation to the film / DCI 2K as between the real DCI 4K and the marketing 4K).
4K gays are so moronic, imagine re-buying your entire collection for a higher price because....it's slightly higher quality now.
I'm a zoomer so I never had a collection before my 4Ks
I bought DVDs in my teens and had like a hundred. Then the Bluray/HD-DVD war happened and so I waited it out, not wanting to back the wrong horse. By the time Bluray won I'd realised that it'd be folly to rebuy all the movies I had on DVD because they'd just release some new even better format in a decade and I simply couldn't afford to buy all those expensive blurays. So I gave away most of my DVDs and never bought physical media again. I'm thankful for having learnt the lesson so early. The shelves that were covered in cheap plastic cases now have various ornaments and books on them and it's incredible how much better the room looks because of it.
>Nooo you can't just have books and DVDs because....because okay?
I refuse to re-buy my collection, I'll continue with DVDs. israelite-Ray and 4K can frick off. Plus, I own a good amount of films that are DVD-only, and some of my DVDs (mostly boutique label ones) look almost nearly as good as blu ray.
Absolutely none of them look nearly as good as HD let alone UHD unless you are fricking nearly blind or you are watching them on your phone.
I watch them on an older TV, and some of the boutique labels literally do look almost as good as blu ray, though I really don't get a shit about quality that much. As long as it is watchable and you can see the details fine.
Yes. Books, mostly
I've never bought a movie or a tv show in my entire life.
I do indeed, here's the DVDs I picked up over the weekend
And (part of) my collection
Holy frick anon
That's a bit too much homie. How do you even have that many films you enjoy and want to re-watch? It seems like you just bought every film you've ever seen, even the shit you hate.
I haven't seen them all, if it's cheap and it sounds interesting I'll grab it and get around to watching it eventually
Yeah I like physical media. I'm probably going to get picrel on blu ray soon
>pretentious enough to collect physical media to show off
>has shit taste
Yeah
that is entirely too much wasted space. 4/10. also learn to flip your images
Not him, but actually a sideways image helps in this case because the titles are now easily read.
Ah.
i choke myself with an HDMI cable when i slam my prostate with an old barbie doll
I've bought two blurays that I found in second hand stores for two bucks each, but I only bought them because they aren't in English nor high-brow and so it might become a hassle to find them with decent quality rips in ten years when I want to have a laugh. I've been stung that way before. I don't even own a bluray player. I'd never buy something as useless as capeshit movies or The Godfather. They'll never be hard to find.
Man bluray cases are so fricking ugly compared to even the cheapest DVD case. What the frick were they thinking with making them have that big ugly shade of blue bar at the top? At least HDDVDs had a more pleasant dark red tone to their cases. It actively makes me not want to display them on a shelf because it's so ugly and sticks out.
That's unironically why I only buy DVDs. I don't even care about "muh quality", blu ray cases are just too fricking stupid looking. It makes your collection look tacky and gay.
You can buy clear cases to replace them. Plus many boutique blu-ray releases like Arrow BDs come in clear cases.
Sill looks worse than DVDs
They are smaller than DVDs and artwork looks lamer on them, I'll give you that. Still no reason to buy DVDs when you get compressed as frick video quality and most DVDs have shitty or mediocre transfers. There are good looking DVDs out there no doubt but most of them look like garbage when upscaled to 4K on an OLED.
Laserdisc artwork master race.
Anon that also looks like shit. Like you've burnt your own copies and printed out the covers but made them all too small because you're moronic. Just make the case fit the fricking jacket for frick's sake.
That's not my collection, I just got that off google images.
yes, but those days are over.
Yee. I'm preparing to copy muh discs to an PC server I'm building so my dad (Who lives next door and is on the same network) can stream kinos. But I'll never get rid of physical media.
We know you still live at home. No one is judging.
>No one is judging.
Lying is bad, anon. I moved back home and mannnnnn do my neighbors fricking hate me and judge me for it. They do it so much it gives me power that I can feel.
I don't live at home. My dad lives in a house beside me that I own. He's old and needs his son around.
187 titles in my library.
>187 titles in my library.
Very cool, Mr Tea.
I don't get the reference, but thank you.
[Code] 187 is a police term for murder. Ice T. is a rapper who now does insurance commercials.
Is he still one of the cool cats?
just music
Anon are you chinese?
No
Yeah. Got the Twister DVD a few months back
(except the bottom right one; that one is completely unrelated to this other music and I just found it hilarious that there's some boys band called Code 5 - found this CD in the seller's list while searching for CD releases of this label https://www.discogs.com/label/6742-United-Ravers-Records?page=1 , see the artist names of the releases)
I have 6 DVDs
Tekkonkinkreet, Keeping the Appearances and Darku Wateru
Yep. Got a Fellini collection and Herzog collection and a bunch of shows too but they don't fit on my current bookcase.
Did you get the Shout or BFI Herzog set?
Shout factory. IIRC, BFI isn't region A and I haven't shelled out for a region-free player.
>shelled out for a region-free player.
...
>he doesn't have software that clones and strips copy protection and region bullshit
ngmi
I honestly dont see the point in cluttering up the house with physical media. I think blu rays and dvds look ugly/messy on shelves anyway. I dunno theres just something cheap about your bookshelves being filled with cheap plastic cases of dvds.
Books look much better, especially more expensive hardbacks, and there is actually a benifit of having them in physical form.
not really when e-ink readers exist
I love my e-reader but it really isn't the same thing. I won't hesitate to read sci-fi or cyberpunk novels on it because it lends to the experience, and it's great for reading before bed or when travelling, but for some stories you really want that tactile feel of a well-made book. E-readers are definitely better than buying shitty pocket books that feel and look terrible and fall apart, though. That's where I ended up saving lots of money after buying a kindle, which made me afford to buy really nice copies of the books I love and will reread instead.
I'm currently debating whether I can afford to buy the Folio Society edition of Jonathan Strange And Mr Norrell.
How about this?
homie u gay
Why
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T OWN PHYSICAL BOOKS AND MOVIES AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE.....YOU JUST CANT OR SOMETHING!
im not saying you cant im just saying it looks like shit. Perhaps its a pet peeve of mine but seeing a bookshelves like this
in someones house doesnt tell me that they love film, it instead tells me that they're a manchild and have zero idea about actually making their living space look good. It is similar to seeing anime figurines at someone's house or game posters plastered all over the place. I say this as a man (im not a roastie) who loves film as well.
Still not the same as an actual book. A folio edition or equivilent of a book will always be better than an e-reader and is aesthetically pleasing too.
>im not saying you cant im just saying it looks like shit. Perhaps its a pet peeve of mine but seeing a bookshelves like this
It's just your autism, they look fine as long as there isn't too many, and they preferably don't have blue cases
>in someones house doesnt tell me that they love film, it instead tells me that they're a manchild and have zero idea about actually making their living space look good.
Movies look fine as long as you don't have a collection as big as
, now that is fricking manchild shit. A normal-sized collection is fine, it does look better if you also have books though
>It is similar to seeing anime figurines at someone's house or game posters plastered all over the place
Having posters or figures is very gay, owning video games is also very gay
>Still not the same as an actual book. A folio edition or equivilent of a book will always be better than an e-reader and is aesthetically pleasing too.
Agreed
>Having posters or figures is very gay
What about a 120x180 cm poster of a modern Megan Fox movie?
All posters are gay
>Having posters or figures is very gay
it depends on the poster. Some posters look great (if they are framed). The french stalker poster or Phenomena poster both look amazing. IMO its about the artwork and design. If some guy has the fast 9 poster on their wall it isnt quite the same thing. I still would prefer a painting up on the wall most of the time but some posters are nearly at that level.
I like this poster very much.
if it isnt original hand painted artwork on there i aint putting it up homie
That tryhard shit looks worse than the OG wolfshadow poster.
>tryhard
homie its a poster lol. I think i prefer this one anyway.
Also tryhard. A simple werewolf action movie shouldn't have some overworked painting as a poster.
>overworked painting
>nooo your posters shouldnt be aesthetically pleasing they should look like shit
t. has this on his wall
most posters used to be 'overworked paintings'
The DVD cover is almost the same. Great stuff. Love the movie more than some relatives ashamed to say.
For me, it's the shaggy dog poster.
I'm strange in that I like posters, but I don't like hanging anything up on walls. If I did hang a poster up, it'd be one of Noriyoshi's Godzilla posters.
Same for pessimistic posts, like calling everything 'gay' or people idiots. I don't get it. Probably just trolls doing their thing.
>n-no it looks okay as long as it's the same size as my collection, it's only those who have a bigger collection than me who look bad
holy cope
It's literally true though, you are the only one coping here. Even if you don't like physical media, you should be able to see that smaller collections look nicer than big ones. Having multiple overflowing shelves of movies looks tacky as frick, having a small shelf of movies looks fine, le buzzwords will not change this. Sorry, but your massive collection looks moronic
I don't have any collection, I'm an outsider judging you both. Your smaller collection just makes you look like you're too poor to afford the big collection that you want, because you're obviously into collecting plastic same as the guy who's got a bigger collection of plastic than you.
>Your smaller collection just makes you look like you're too poor to afford the big collection that you want
moronic logic, the smaller collection looks more like you actually watch you movies, the bigger collection looks like you have an addiction to buying shit.
>collecting plastic same as the guy who's got a bigger collection of plastic than you.
More moron logic. The guy buying more plastic has a much more tacky setup, this is objectively true and you can't prove otherwise.
Movies can be stored on a harddrive and take up no space while changing zero about the experience in actually watching it as long as you're not going full moron and downloading yifi rips or watching them on a laptop, leaving you more space for books where the reading experience is drastically changed if you read it on a computer instead.
I agree that shelves full of DVDs look tacky, so I just keep my physical collection sealed up in plastic storage totes mostly.
I only collect soundtracks these days. Most valuable is either an Akira boxset with movie or my Bloodlines ost
>collecting all those dvds
screw that . I just rent all my kino at the library
No I don’t waste my money on plastic garbage that takes up space, why do you ask?
Did you ever notice that every time a physical media thread happens, it will immediately be filled with "le piracy" posts? Every single time, even if somebody just says the word "DVD" or "Blu Ray", you'll instantly see them get smug replies about why "piracy is le better". I'm not even against piracy, I understand why some find torrenting easier then buying shit, and I pirate sometimes too, but I find it odd that other people feel the need to be such smug homosexuals about it, anytime physical media is mentioned. It's almost like some strange way for third-world pajeets to seek validation or some shit. See for instance, what the frick is even the point of posting this, other than seeking validation? You see replies like this every time a thread like this appears, it's odd.
Superiority complex due to not spending money (pleb and poorgay cope)
I occasionally torrent shit as well but I don't feel the need to be smug about it.