-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Blade Runner 30th Anniversary Edition Blu-ray available for preorder


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#21 of 40 ijthompson

ijthompson

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 146 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 12 2011

Posted May 31 2012 - 10:40 AM

It's looking like no one (including myself) wants to buy this! Like many of you, I've got the blu-ray 5-disc set, and the dvd briefcase... that'll do for me! I'd like to have the image gallery and the booklet, but not for that price (and who cares about the toys). Without the extras in HD, I'll not be buying this unless WB can get me a date with Sean Young! :D

#22 of 40 Scott Calvert

Scott Calvert

    Supporting Actor

  • 885 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted May 31 2012 - 01:01 PM

Higher bit rates wouldn't do much for this or almost any other film. When it needs it, the bit rate jumps up around 28mbps. Also almost a1/3 of the image area is taken up by the black bars, and large areas of the film frame are actually black with no detail through out much of the film. Add to that it was encoded in the VC-1 codec which is somewhat more efficient than AVC. For the vast majority of visual material, an average bit rate above 20mbps is over kill and a waste of space. Doug

Ahh, Doug Monce, HTF's perennial advocate for compromised quality. I'll never understand it. Blade Runner can definitely benefit from utilizing the space that is available on BD and the higher average bitrate that would follow. Especially in reproducing the grain structure and reducing compression artifacts in some of the darker scenes. Not just Blade Runner either, but any number of Warner titles, especially those that use the same encodes of their HD-DVD counterparts. The original BD's of the Superman movies have plenty of compression artifacts. So does The Exorcist. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean others can't. Do you have something against utilizing available space or something?

#23 of 40 Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer

  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted May 31 2012 - 07:42 PM

Ahh, Doug Monce, HTF's perennial advocate for compromised quality. I'll never understand it. Blade Runner can definitely benefit from utilizing the space that is available on BD and the higher average bitrate that would follow. Especially in reproducing the grain structure and reducing compression artifacts in some of the darker scenes. Not just Blade Runner either, but any number of Warner titles, especially those that use the same encodes of their HD-DVD counterparts. The original BD's of the Superman movies have plenty of compression artifacts. So does The Exorcist. Just because you don't see them doesn't mean others can't. Do you have something against utilizing available space or something?

Quality isn't compromised when bumping up the bit rate will do nothing to improve the image. Of course there are some moments in a film when the images will need higher bit rates, hence the variable bit rate used on blu-ray. The vast majority of visual material will see no significant improvement by increasing the bit rate above about 20 to 25 mbps. Yes I have seen some films on blu-ray that were badly encoded and artifacts are visible. Blade Runner isn't one of them. If you are seeing compression artifacts in the black areas of the image, then you need to have your TV properly calibrated. I have nothing against utilizing the space, if its needed. Most movies 2 hours and under don't need it, and shouldn't need a second disc for extras because the bit rate has been needlessly cranked up to satisfy meter watchers. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#24 of 40 MattAlbie60

MattAlbie60

    I Work for Mr. E. H. Harriman of the Union Pacific Railroad.

  • 561 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2010
  • Real Name:Stephen Lilley
  • LocationBaltimore, Maryland

Posted May 31 2012 - 11:04 PM

As much as I want to buy this for completionist's sake, I'll probably end up passing. Besides - let's not pretend this won't get rereleased again when Scott's BLADE RUNNER sequel hits theaters/home video in a few years :)

#25 of 40 Scott Merryfield

Scott Merryfield

    Executive Producer

  • 10,436 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 16 1998
  • LocationMichigan

Posted May 31 2012 - 11:42 PM

I am quite satisfied with the current BD release, so put me in the camp of those who will not be double-dipping on this one.

#26 of 40 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted June 01 2012 - 01:03 AM

Blade Runner is my favorite film and I've dreamed of a revision of the five-disc set that would correct its mistakes and make technical improvements where possible. Sadly, from everything I've been reading, this does not appear to be it. I'm going to keep an eye on it and find out if the encodes are the same, etc. I'll snap it up if they even give me a quarter of a reason, but I'm losing hope.

#27 of 40 Adam Gregorich

Adam Gregorich

    Executive Producer

  • 14,751 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999
  • LocationThe Other Washington

Posted June 01 2012 - 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by Doctorossi 

Blade Runner is my favorite film and I've dreamed of a revision of the five-disc set that would correct its mistakes and make technical improvements where possible. Sadly, from everything I've been reading, this does not appear to be it. I'm going to keep an eye on it and find out if the encodes are the same, etc. I'll snap it up if they even give me a quarter of a reason, but I'm losing hope.

Dr.-

What are some of the mistakes you feel they maid on the five disc set, and what technical improvements would you like to see?


#28 of 40 Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • 9,765 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted June 01 2012 - 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by Adam Gregorich 

Dr.-

What are some of the mistakes you feel they maid on the five disc set, and what technical improvements would you like to see?


I'm wondering the same thing. I haven't looked it up, but I seem to recall the previous blu getting universal praise as a reference disc and representative of how the film should look. I'm not sure how it became such a flawed pressing full of artifacts and what not since. Do they age badly when sat on a a shelf for a few years or something?



#29 of 40 Vincent_P

Vincent_P

    Screenwriter

  • 1,722 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 13 2003

Posted June 01 2012 - 04:56 AM

I had heard that the soundtrack for the 1992 "Director's Cut" has some errors, but can't recall exactly what they are, and since I have no interest in watching that cut of the film it never bothered me but I can understand why completists would want it corrected. Also to Doug- I thought it was pretty well established that at the time, WB was doing some pre-filtering of high-frequency detail on their HD titles to make them more compression-friendly. The newer CASABLANCA Blu-ray compared to the original release seems to bear this out. An unfiltered BLADE RUNNER with a new encode would entice me to buy this, but not if it's the same old encodes dumped onto new discs. So, this isn't just about me watching my bit-rate meter as you suggest. Vincent

#30 of 40 Michel_Hafner

Michel_Hafner

    Supporting Actor

  • 741 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 28 2002

Posted June 01 2012 - 06:27 AM

Higher bit rates wouldn't do much for this or almost any other film. When it needs it, the bit rate jumps up around 28mbps. Also almost a1/3 of the image area is taken up by the black bars, and large areas of the film frame are actually black with no detail through out much of the film. Add to that it was encoded in the VC-1 codec which is somewhat more efficient than AVC. For the vast majority of visual material, an average bit rate above 20mbps is over kill and a waste of space. Doug

Pretty much any 35mm film profits from bit rates into the 30s. An average bit rate below 20 Mbit/s is nowhere near visually lossless or optimal for Blade Runner. When peaks go up to 28 valleys go down to below 15 or even 10. There is no going around the average which is insufficient in this case. And VC-1 is not more efficient than AVC is now. Blade Runner looks overcompressed, smoothed and lacks fine HF detail.

#31 of 40 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted June 01 2012 - 06:39 AM

I'm wondering the same thing. I haven't looked it up, but I seem to recall the previous blu getting universal praise as a reference disc and representative of how the film should look. I'm not sure how it became such a flawed pressing full of artifacts and what not since. Do they age badly when sat on a a shelf for a few years or something?

If you go look at some of the early praised DVD releases and see how they hold up to later ones, you'll see the same thing. Blade Runner was great in its day, and no one is saying it looks awful now. But the technology has gotten better over the years, and that makes Blade Runner's flaws more apparent. It's just like any other technology. You can't be top tier forever.
"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#32 of 40 PhilipG

PhilipG

    Screenwriter

  • 2,003 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 13 2000

Posted June 01 2012 - 06:43 AM

Well, I am looking forward to buying this... if there's a Region Free/B version. ;) I got into Blu-Ray late and the only Blade Runner that seems available to me here in Europe is the 'Final' cut. I personally prefer the 1992 cut and that's the one I want to see in HD. :)

#33 of 40 Chuck Anstey

Chuck Anstey

    Screenwriter

  • 1,553 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 1998
  • Real Name:Chuck Anstey

Posted June 01 2012 - 06:51 AM

I didn't realize that the 5 disc BD was out of print.  I was eventually planning on doing the red2blu and trade in my HD DVD for the BD.  So much for that idea.

Is the red2blu program still available? I did not take advantage of it but I might reconsider on a the Harry Potter movies and maybe a few others.

#34 of 40 rayman1701

rayman1701

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 224 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 17 2008
  • Real Name:Ray Miller
  • LocationOutside Chicago

Posted June 01 2012 - 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey 


Is the red2blu program still available? I did not take advantage of it but I might reconsider on a the Harry Potter movies and maybe a few others.


I don't think so, when I use the link now (just tried again to see) it goes to the DVD2BLU page, so I think that ship has finally sailed.  Here's the link in case anyone wants it:  Red2Blu - Upgrade Your Warner Bros. HD-DVDs for New Blu-Ray Discs - Product Listing


\m/︶︿︶)\m/


#35 of 40 Doctorossi

Doctorossi

    Supporting Actor

  • 833 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 2012

Posted June 01 2012 - 10:03 AM

Adam, In "completely-reasonable-but-I've-learned-not-to-hold-my-breath-land", I'd like a new encode of the final cut, the supplements (Dangerous Days, in particular) that were intended for HD to be in HD, lossless audio on the additional cuts and consolidation onto fewer discs. In "utter-pie-in-the-sky-land", I'd like new, cleaned-up transfers of the additional cuts. Also, I'm not excited about this set being another trinket-fest. Digibook? Yes. Toy car? No, thanks.

#36 of 40 Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer

  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted June 01 2012 - 08:17 PM

. Also to Doug- I thought it was pretty well established that at the time, WB was doing some pre-filtering of high-frequency detail on their HD titles to make them more compression-friendly. The newer CASABLANCA Blu-ray compared to the original release seems to bear this out. An unfiltered BLADE RUNNER with a new encode would entice me to buy this, but not if it's the same old encodes dumped onto new discs. So, this isn't just about me watching my bit-rate meter as you suggest. Vincent

Quite possibly true, but boosting the bit rate would have no effect on this. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#37 of 40 Douglas Monce

Douglas Monce

    Producer

  • 5,514 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 16 2006

Posted June 01 2012 - 08:18 PM

Pretty much any 35mm film profits from bit rates into the 30s. An average bit rate below 20 Mbit/s is nowhere near visually lossless or optimal for Blade Runner. When peaks go up to 28 valleys go down to below 15 or even 10. There is no going around the average which is insufficient in this case. And VC-1 is not more efficient than AVC is now. Blade Runner looks overcompressed, smoothed and lacks fine HF detail.

A highly debatable point with which I don't agree. Doug
"I'm in great shape, for the shape I'm in."
Bob Hope in The Ghostbreakers

#38 of 40 Adam Gregorich

Adam Gregorich

    Executive Producer

  • 14,751 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 20 1999
  • LocationThe Other Washington

Posted June 02 2012 - 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by rayman1701 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey 


Is the red2blu program still available? I did not take advantage of it but I might reconsider on a the Harry Potter movies and maybe a few others.


I don't think so, when I use the link now (just tried again to see) it goes to the DVD2BLU page, so I think that ship has finally sailed.  Here's the link in case anyone wants it:  Red2Blu - Upgrade Your Warner Bros. HD-DVDs for New Blu-Ray Discs - Product Listing

I guess that ship has sailed.  Oh well.  procrastination strikes again.  I have enough older DVDs were I could trade in for some of the Blu-rays.  Ultimately I would like to have one format.  I have been focusing more on upgrading DVDs, but if I see a great price on a BD I'll take the plunge.  Especially on some of the new triple packs.



#39 of 40 Scott Calvert

Scott Calvert

    Supporting Actor

  • 885 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 02 1998

Posted September 14 2012 - 11:46 AM

Quite possibly true, but boosting the bit rate would have no effect on this. Doug

Did you actually have a straight face when you typed this? Because I can't imagine how. What exactly is your point? That boosting the bitrate on a pre-filtered title won't bring about more detail? Well, duh. The point is, filtering to make compression easier becomes less of an issue the more space you have to work with. So why limit yourself when the space is there? I'll ask again, do you like compression artifacts or something? Or is it a case of "I can't see them, so the complainers can go to hell?"

#40 of 40 Dave H

Dave H

    Producer

  • 5,271 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 13 2000

Posted September 14 2012 - 04:14 PM

I do think a less filtered, higher bit rate re-encode would lead to a slight, but noticeable improvement. We've seen this proven with some of Universal's titles (Miami Vice, The Breakfast Club, and a few others) when comparing the HD DVD to the BD. In addition, today's abilities are just more advanced compared to 2007 in terms of authoring and compressing.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow