Blu-Malaise

[mcnooj82]

From what TimQ's saying is that the 120Hz isn't what's the problem. It's just a fancy setting that manufacturers include as a feature that's usually turned on at store displays.

But I would like to know how much better a TV with a 240Hz refresh rate is in practical terms.

[Timothy Q]

Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm

I have seen sets listed with 240Hz, are they eliminating the problems with what you guys are talking about?

No, the problem was eliminated with 120Hz... and then they created a "problem" with that silly "smooth motion" nonsense but that is easily turned off. While 24fps will still be reproduced properly on a 240Hz TV I really can't figure out why it's necessary. Some speculate it is just a marketing thing (like the contrast ratio game they're playing with numbers) but I have no idea.

[TzuDohNihm]

If you had to choose?

[joeypants]

240Hz has an ever so slightly smoother action (though a different, more pleasing kind of "smooth" than the "smooth motion" shithole feature).

I've compared them side by side (120Hz HDTV vs. 240Hz, same make) and the difference is very negligible.

[Timothy Q]

Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm

If you had to choose?

Its very hard to decide simply from stats. I can say, I have a Vizio and I'm very happy with it. It looks good, it was affordable and the company is based 20 minutes from where I live (They are in Irvine Ca.) so if I was to have any issues with it, I liked knowing I could go right to their headquarters. I have heard great things about the Sony Bravia televisions though so I wouldn't steer you away from that. If you don't have a surround sound system you may want to go with the Sony, I have heard the Vizio TV's are "tinny" sounding but I don't use the TV speakers anyway. But if you're all about "bigger" you're not getting a cheap TV going with Vizio. They're competitive in quality these days. People get nervous about buying a Vizio because they are less money but this isn't the same as buying a "Sorny" or some knockoff brand.

When I was doing my shopping it was after having a terrible time dealing with Philips customer service for my old LCD. I did my due diligence, got a month subscription to Consumer Reports online, checked out a ton of reviews on CNET and so on. You're spending a chunk of change so treat yourself right and be picky. Be that guy that goes into best buy and bugs the shit out of the guys and adjusts settings then leaves and looks for the TV you like online for a cheaper price.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by Lucidz

If any thing shipped with anything better than 5.1 I'd care.

I have a dolby 7.2 system and not one disc I've seen takes advantage.

They wouldn't. No one mixes in 7.2. Very few movies even mix in 7.1.

I always find it amazing when people talk about widescreen being such a great thing because it shows the movie in the format that the director intended but are perfectly okay listening to movies in stereo when they were mixed for 5.1.

[Timothy Q]

Originally Posted by Ryan S~

I always find it amazing when people talk about widescreen being such a great thing because it shows the movie in the format that the director intended but are perfectly okay listening to movies in stereo when they were mixed for 5.1.

"We park our cars in the same garage."

[Phil]

There are probably fewer people watching movies through cataracts than there are listening to them through tinnitus and other forms of hearing loss. When there's a persistent ringing in your ears, 5.1 isn't a priority.

Additionally, turning stereo mixes into surround sound kind of rubs me the wrong way, the way colorizing used to piss people off. I know that's not a popular opinion, but someone, often someone not connected with the original film, is reinventing the soundscape of the film, and I'm not sure that's such a hot idea.

[BobClark]

Who gives a shit about sound but nerds?

[Pop Zeus]

Originally Posted by BobClark

Who gives a shit about sound but nerds?

Me! Oh wait, nevermind...

[Timothy Q]

Originally Posted by Phil

*There are probably fewer people watching movies through cataracts than there are listening to them through tinnitus and other forms of hearing loss. When there's a persistent ringing in your ears, 5.1 isn't a priority.

Additionally, turning stereo mixes into surround sound kind of rubs me the wrong way, the way colorizing used** to piss people off. I know that's not a popular opinion, but someone, often someone not connected with the original film, is reinventing the soundscape*** of the film, and I'm not sure that's such a hot idea.

*Good point about people's ability to discern the difference between good and average sounds as opposed to visuals.

**Used to? You're okay with colorizing now?

*** Its hard for me to argue why this is more acceptable than colorizing but I just feel the original stereo mixes aren't really great soundscapes at all. They work, I can deal with them but overall I've never listened to a 5.1 remix and felt like it did anything but improve the experience.

Originally Posted by BobClark

Who gives a shit about sound but nerds?

You're not alone on this one and honestly... it falls on... you ready for it?... it falls on... come on... you know what's coming... it falls onnnnnn...

... Deaf ears. ::Rimshot!::

[Phil]

Originally Posted by Timothy Q

**Used to? You're okay with colorizing now?

No, I just mean I haven't seen a colorized movie on tv or home video in years. It got some attention for a while in the 80s, but I think the archival, "restorative" nature of digital has knocked it out of fashion for good.

*** Its hard for me to argue why this is more acceptable than colorizing but I just feel the original stereo mixes aren't really great soundscapes at all.

I'm not even arguing whether they're "great" or anything, and I wouldn't begrudge anyone a 5.1 remix, but I myself would rather experience the original work as accurately as possible - not "what the filmmaker would have done if only they had the cash or the technology" or whatever; I want the original dealie archived as it was originally released.

There are plenty of films where it won't matter, and I'd likely exempt musicals, but I think stuff like Night of the Living Dead or Faces should probably be left alone in that regard.

[Gabe Powers]

Originally Posted by Phil

Additionally, turning stereo mixes into surround sound kind of rubs me the wrong way, the way colorizing used to piss people off. I know that's not a popular opinion, but someone, often someone not connected with the original film, is reinventing the soundscape of the film, and I'm not sure that's such a hot idea.

I hate it 90% of the time. The Disney people usually do it right, and some of those Anchor Bay remixes have worked (the Argento films being the best example), but it's usually a mistake. Mono to surround is the worst. I'm still angry about the shit they added to The Good The Bad and The Ugly, but they do offer the original mono with the disc.

[devincf]

Agreed. Anyone who wants mono soundtracks turned surround is just a noise fetishist, not someone interested in the best presentation of the film as it was intended.

[alexc.]

Too bad the Good Bad Ugly blu-ray only has that longer version with 75 year old Clint and a Lee Van Cleef impersonator. That is one of my big gripes with a lot of blu-rays, they want me to re-buy these movies without even including the actual fricking thing that was in theaters? (even a new movie like Miami Vice that doesn't need any restoration or anything). I actually thought Blade Runner and Close Encounters were going to pave the way for an "all-versions included" policy. The whole thing really does feel very niche-y when I go to my Target and see mostly the exact same shelves of movies gathering dust since March. (I've bought a few blu-rays there, they keep the discs in those plastic anti-theft cases, and every time it's like I handed the cashier a rubik's cube to solve, they have no idea how to open it and have to find someone who can.)

[Bluelouboyle]

Was ancient Clint re-recording some dialogue? Why, was the original that shitty?

[Waaaaaaaalt]

Originally Posted by BankytheHack

I can't imagine not having a decent surround set-up for my blu-ray player. My Sony system does well enough even though I can't get the full effect of TrueHD or DTS-MA. Then again...I'm not an apartment dweller so I can crank it as loud as I'd like until the wife starts screaming and the pets start hiding.

Yeah I have a 7.1 system that does get DTS-MA and TrueHD but my speakers could be better. Plus very few blu-rays have 7.1 setups mixes. Plus im not one of those people who tries to mix the surround into the back 2 speakers, I like to hear it how it was mixed.

But I have always wondered how people in apartments can have systems. I know in the place I used to live it would be impossible. Plus theres the subwoofer and the people that live underneath you. I always dreamed of having some kind of surround set up so the first thing I did when I got out of that hellhole apartment was get one.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle

Was ancient Clint re-recording some dialogue? Why, was the original that shitty?

The whole movie was dubbed when it was made, and the restored version added scenes for which they never recorded the dialogue in the first place.

[11thIndian]

Agreed about mono mixes. There was much ado about this on the release of the JAWS DVD. The film was remixed, but some of the original sound elements weren't able to be found- so they had to recreate them- and they ain't the same! This culls the fringes the whole SW: SPECIAL EDITION thing. These were Academy award winning parts of the film. They need to be preserved- at least as an option.

[Timothy Q]

I can't argue with the archiving aspect and wanting to keep the films true to their original form. I'm always a supporter of preserving some history and being able to have it for yourself. For me having a flick mixed in 5.1 is not a make or break situation. Admittedly I wasn't really even thinking of mono to surround mixes. I was thinking about the stereo to 5.1 mixes I've heard and enjoyed quite a bit. I'll say this though, that Jaws situation is disappointing.

[joeypants]

So far, the only older film with a 5.1 "remix" that I've actually enjoyed is The Exorcist.

I still like the original sound mix for it, but the 5.1 remix is too fun. It's scarier to hear shit creaking all around you. But as a purist most times, it's important to have the soundtrack that was originally displayed with the film. I'm always open to checking out a remix or whatever, but the important thing is to have the "proper" options available.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by Phil

There are probably fewer people watching movies through cataracts than there are listening to them through tinnitus and other forms of hearing loss. When there's a persistent ringing in your ears, 5.1 isn't a priority.

Additionally, turning stereo mixes into surround sound kind of rubs me the wrong way, the way colorizing used to piss people off. I know that's not a popular opinion, but someone, often someone not connected with the original film, is reinventing the soundscape of the film, and I'm not sure that's such a hot idea.

It's a horrible idea. It's like replacing Van Gogh's masterpiece with a photo of sunflowers because the technology is newer and better. Makes no sense. Films should be seen in their true aspect and with the soundscape done as the director (and mixer) intended.

[Ryan S~]

Originally Posted by BobClark

Who gives a shit about sound but nerds?

Who gives a shit about VFX but nerds?

[alexc.]

The newer Jaws dvd (with the black cover and the booklet) has the original mono as an option. Hopefully the Blu-ray will have it the first time. It seems like Spielberg actually listens if you complain loud enough about stuff (or make a South Park: the old version of E.T. is totally back in circulation on tv, even in HD)

[Timothy Q]

Well I enjoy the 5.1 mixes of The Terminator and First Blood on Blu-Ray. I'm not a hard liner. There are changes that I'm fine with and changes I'm not fine with. The black box (1995?) Star Wars Trilogy VHS tapes had cleaned up SFX and THX surround and I think those were the best versions of the films. Start adding CGI, other scenes or changing the music and I can't deal. Either way, I like the original versions of films to exist but I waver. Some changes work for me, some don't.

[Alex B]

Originally Posted by Ryan S~

Who gives a shit about VFX but nerds?

Have you seen Transformers 2's box office?

[Bluelouboyle]

Interesting stats from the digital bits:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

Blu-ray seems to be matching DVD's first 4-year sales growth. Impressive, considering the economy.