This is by paidgeek from AVS forum (about Blu-ray and web related features):
"It is still early days for web delivered content that enhances an HD disc. I do not expect the studios to be obligated to keep content up forever, but avoiding dead links on the disc has been discussed internally and we are sensitive to that. The Blu-ray format allows for saving content designed to be associated with a given title on "local storage". Consumers should become accustom to saving the content they want on their own without an expectation that it will be on a server for years waiting for them to download it over again. That said, we can watch the frequency of downloads over time and make some business decisions based on those findings."
I Though the transer of this was great,But the look of the film is pretty bad,Like the look of "Flags of our Fathers" its another low color mess up! I ratter just see B&W ,then this ,Its looks like they filmed it in B&W and then Added color latter,
It´s artistic - and fully intended, choice by the director and DOP. Both "300" and "Flags/Letters" look pretty awesome to my eye. Rough beauty, I like that. It adds realism (in the case of "Flags/Letters", "300" was just entertainment).
This movie was based on Frank Miller's Graphic Novels and is styled in the same manner. Do people complain about the same things with Sin City? Do ALL movies have to look exactly the same?? I guess people don't like creativity and prefer vanilla even though there's lots of other flavours available.
Some people were probably a bit spoiled during the 1990s/early 2000s etc when many Hollywood productions used that ultra-slick commercial style and everything looked perfected and polished. Now I have nothing against that style (if it´s that "artistic/intended, choice"), but we should be happy that we have such a variety of styles in these days and even some of the big Hollywood productions can look rough and rugged (yes, and grainy). I have a feeling that films like "Saving Private Ryan (1998)" (opening scene) and "Gladiator (2000)" (that certain "style" during the fight scenes) helped to add that "roughness", desaturated colors and hand-held look to the huge Hollywood productions.
It´s sad if now (when the HD-formats are here and that added sharpness/detail-level, etc) people complain about issues like grain, lack of colors, etc etc IF they´re meant to be there in the first place. We should look in the mirror: Do we want everything to be "perfect" (just because we have a kick-ass widescreen TV and HD-player) or how they were meant to be seeing? If you choose the "first one", it´s best to wake up to reality. Grain is now your friend, probably more than before. You just didn´t always see it that well in SD DVD..
I don't have any issues regarding film grain, but the fake "grain" that was added to this film looked more like noise and became somewhat annoying after awhile. I watched this at a friend's house and then watched some of it at home. This film really demonstrated how badly my 57HX81 rolls off high frequencies. The " grain" was definitely less distinct;however, I would prefer the look of the degraded image if I didn't know that I have to be losing other high frequency detail along with the softened "grain".
"It´s sad if now (when the HD-formats are here and that added sharpness/detail-level, etc) people complain about issues like grain, lack of colors, etc etc IF they´re meant to be there in the first place"
I not compaining about the few Films that get low color right,Like "The Last Emperor" ,or other Bertollucci films where Storaro and his Lab have a eye for color that these lesser Visual film makers have,Whille I think Eastwood is a fine Director,he no great visual talent , The Makers of "300" problem wasn't the idea ,Its there talent level with Photograpy ,there not too good at designing the frame either.They do have some fine skills with action scenes and editing,I don't care for shooting everything in the studio either,But I don't think they had any choice. I didn't care for the look of "Gladiator either,just my taste Peter
Is the graphic novel "grainy"? Always (well, since seeing the film) want to know that, thanks. Again, funny the stills don't have the grain.
reEDitEDbyED: Did some research, for myself. Well, to me, the movie "looks" nothing like the film. Yes, the shot by shot, is very close. However, the colors, light & graininess of the graphic novel & film are nothing alike (to me). Graphic novel is BRIGHT by comparison. And is not at all "grainy".
So, I can't see at all were people say the "look" (yes, again, the scenes are very close) is alike. I don't see it. (I do like/prefer the general look/style of the film, however)
You do realize that the stills are shot by a separate photographer with a still camera, and are not taken from the frames of 35mm movie film, right? So there's no reason why they should look identical, right?