Sony's Summer slate unveiled - Page 2

Andy_MT · 06-01-2007, 09:18 PM

i hope sony have got something else up their sleeve. frankly, the HD-DVD schedule is looking pretty sweet in comparison. too bad most of those exclusive titles are from universal ... who just seem to be dumping out these catalog titles with little regard to whether they are good enough (regarding PQ) for these new formats.

at least i feel more confident in buying sony back catalog titles than universal ones (regarding PQ).

TwoKings · 06-01-2007, 10:38 PM

Denise Richards when she was hot and naked... nowin HD? I'm there.

Brent M · 06-01-2007, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoKings

Denise Richards when she was hot and naked... now in HD? I'm there.

Yeah, nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, is there anything better than "Are We Done Yet?" in HD?

MatthewA · 06-02-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent M

On the other hand, is there anything better than "Are We Done Yet?" in HD?

You mean besides Ishtar?

ppltd · 06-03-2007, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy_MT

too bad most of those exclusive titles are from universal ... who just seem to be dumping out these catalog titles with little regard to whether they are good enough (regarding PQ) for these new formats.

at least i feel more confident in buying sony back catalog titles than universal ones (regarding PQ).

Spoken like someone who has not watched any of the fine titles Universal has released.

Douglas Monce · 06-03-2007, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppltd

Spoken like someone who has not watched any of the fine titles Universal has released.

Lets see...

The Sting, Apollo 13, Backdraft, Red Dragon, The Thing, The Bourne movies, The Mummy, King Kong, Spartacus, Serenity, Lost in Translation, Midnight Run, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, Sneakers, The Big Lebowski, The Jerk.....

Yeah I'll take those catalog titles.

Doug

Edit: Okay I should have left Spartacus off of that list.

Andy_MT · 06-03-2007, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Spoken like someone who has not watched any of the fine titles Universal has released

spoken by someone who has seen many fine universal titles ... but who has also seen many titles that are not fine and that needed a bit more TLC before they got released. just saw frightners .. not bad, but certainly not as good as it could have been (excessive EE, poor background definition ... hardly perfect as they claim).

my point being that they "sometimes more often than not" are using older masters that are not producing results as good HD can achieve. maybe i'm being unrealistic ($$$ wise), but i'm just saying what i feel. i wish i could buy from universal in confidence, but i don't feel i can. it's too much of a gamble. look what they did with traffic ? how can any studio that's paying any attention to quality release something like that (480 upconvert) ? if you can explain that one, i'd certainly be interested ...

now don't get me wrong, i know that most catalog titles are not likely to rival new releases, and that's fine, but i expect a bit more than what universal delivers [sometimes]. other studios aren't perfect either, but overall i feel the most disappointment with unviersal, especially because i like their release schedule for the next few months ... but the bite is taken off because the quality is likely to be erratic.

Edwin-S · 06-03-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy_MT

now don't get me wrong, i know that most catalog titles are not likely to rival new releases, and that's fine, but i expect a bit more than what universal delivers [sometimes]. other studios aren't perfect either, but overall i feel the most disappointment with unviersal, especially because i like their release schedule for the next few months ... but the bite is taken off because the quality is likely to be erratic.

Warner has shown that catalog titles can look almost as good as new releases. Casablanca and Robin Hood are two examples of old films that look pretty good, because they took the time and money to make them look as good as possible. Those two films are proof that the image quality of older films can be almost as good as new material. If a catalog title looks subpar on HD then it proves one of two things: the releasing studio was being lazy or the return on investment was determined to be too low to warrant a proper restoration.

The low sales on a lot of catalog titles worries me, because they could result in the second reason becoming the studios excuse for more and more subpar releases on HD: assuming, of course, that they continue to release titles in HD at all.

Dave Mack · 06-03-2007, 04:01 PM

I actually liked "Flatliners"...

ppltd · 06-03-2007, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy_MT

spoken by someone who has seen many fine universal titles ... but who has also seen many titles that are not fine and that needed a bit more TLC before they got released. just saw frightners .. not bad, but certainly not as good as it could have been (excessive EE, poor background definition ... hardly perfect as they claim).

Frighteners was a very well done HD release, with very good PQ and AQ. I also watched it and the detail in the deepest blacks was very finely resolved. A very fine step up to the last release in SD.

As far as your original comment, it amazes me that you would dump PQ issues on Universal when Sony has had a pretty dismal record on quality releases. The fact is both studios have release stellar releases and both have some that should never have seen the light of day. Dumping on one of these two studios is inacurate.