BLU RAY Movie List

[recoveryone]

I guess worfs' upgrading bug flew west and stung me too, but I didn't have the balls to buy a OPPO ( I would had to move to Troy, NY..:o ) cause my wife when have been on defcon 5. I went ahead and stayed with my beloved Pioneer peeps and ordered a entry level BDP 120 to team up with the new Vizio VF550M LCD I have coming in next week( the Mits died during the NBA playoffs and I had to wait until the summer Electric bills went by). So for some of us that need to justify these new toys to our wife's. I'm looking for some top notch movies to show off to her. Anything made by Tyler Perry would be a 10 plus. :ihih:

[pixelthis]

You want "top notch" movies and then mention tyler perry.
HOPELESS.
I dont think hes quite into the Blu ray just yet, but be patient.
Until then, just about everything looks better on Blu, and there are several good titles at walfart for ten to thirty bucks.
The new BATMAN movies, THE MATRIX, Dark City, any terminator movie.
The Shining came out real good, a real surprize considering how they botched the DVD
version, but the Blu version is a "demo disc".
Superman returns, just about ant concert disc, you cant go wrong, really with Blu.
If the picture doesnt getcha the sound will, so make sure its a proper hookup.:1:

[recoveryone]

You want "top notch" movies and then mention tyler perry.
HOPELESS.:1:

The Tyler Perry references was made for my wifes' taste in movies, I have had to sit through all of the plays on DVD and the movies, so a smart sales man would present his new product with what his audience likes. So if I can make Medea look brighter, deeper color, to the point of looking 3D then I'm sure the wife will let this new upgrade die off quickly, and not let me hear about it for the next 5 years. :nonod: :crazy:

Maybe I was not clear on top notch, I have been reading that some transfer have not been what they should be on Blu Ray (Gladiator) so I should have ask for visually stunning movies and not the critic content of them.

[L.J.]

Lot's to choose from. Take a look at this thread for some ideas on what's considered reference and what not.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Whoever this guy is on AVS, he has got some very wrong ideas in how to present 1080p video. You certainly do NOT want to present 1080p video on any screen larger than 100". That is about the maximum range your screen should be before you see artifacts that wouldn't show up during encoding and compression at the studio.

I never do Blu-ray reviews on a screen any larger than 100". Most of the time it is on my new Sony 55" XBRpro, or my 100" Cineweave procurve by SmX. I do this so as not to contaminate my reviews with artifacts that most viewers would never see on their displays.

[recoveryone]

Thanks L.J. nice link, as usual I see that animation dominate the top slots just as with all other new formats since S-video came out (wife not into animation AT ALL). I was surprised at that many of the other titles did not include DTS and True HD sound on them. But I did see one of my old reference DVD listed with DTS, U-571. I never tire of that opening scene. On another note, you know your addicted to this stuff when you look at a list as this and see that you have most of the titles on your shelf, in the closet and up stairs cabinet. lol

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The Tyler Perry references was made for my wifes' taste in movies, I have had to sit through all of the plays on DVD and the movies, so a smart sales man would present his new product with what his audience likes. So if I can make Medea look brighter, deeper color, to the point of looking 3D then I'm sure the wife will let this new upgrade die off quickly, and not let me hear about it for the next 5 years. :nonod: :crazy:

Maybe I was not clear on top notch, I have been reading that some transfer have not been what they should be on Blu Ray (Gladiator) so I should have ask for visually stunning movies and not the critic content of them.

Personally, I love the Madea movies.

The Gladiator release on Blu-ray has some real visual issues. There is de-graining apparent, which is then followed by edge enhancement, banding, and it lacks that film quality you expect from a film. I would look for Paramount to re-release this, as the master they used to encode really has some issues.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks L.J. nice link, as usual I see that animation dominate the top slots just as with all other new formats since S-video came out (wife not into animation AT ALL). I was surprised at that many of the other titles did not include DTS and True HD sound on them. But I did see one of my old reference DVD listed with DTS, U-571. I never tire of that opening scene.

Now U-571 on Blu-ray is stunning to these eyes. But it's the Dts-HD Master audio soundtrack really kicks butt over the reference legacy Dts track on the DVD.

[recoveryone]

Since many of us are joining this latest form of HT, I feel it may be helpful to pass on info about poor transfer releases. I'm sure we have suffered through this lack of professional quality on some of our DVD's in the past. I for one don't need to spend hard earn cash on less than ideal Blu Rays. I have waited out the format wars, and now its time to make sure we get what we want (Keys to Sir TT house..:lol: ).

I been doing some recon on other sites to get a general feel on BD releases and you will get a range of opinions on some releases but the list I have compiled so far is a list of titles that have been repeated as poor PQ or not up to Blu Ray standards:

Gladiator
March of the Penguins
Stargate
Total Recall
Robocop
Gangs of New York
Eyes wide shut
American Phsycho (added by Bobsticks)

There were other titles, but you have to take in account the age of the film when originally released. One older title that kept coming up as real eye candy was Blade Runner .

I'm sure many of us here are not looking to replace our DVD collection, so continuing a list like this will help us from making poor decision on BD releases


Sources:Blu Ray.com
Amazon.com
Highdefdigest.com

[Worf101]

I guess worfs' upgrading bug flew west and stung me too, but I didn't have the balls to buy a OPPO ( I would had to move to Troy, NY..:o ) cause my wife when have been on defcon 5. I went ahead and stayed with my beloved Pioneer peeps and ordered a entry level BDP 120 to team up with the new Vizio VF550M LCD I have coming in next week( the Mits died during the NBA playoffs and I had to wait until the summer Electric bills went by). So for some of us that need to justify these new toys to our wife's. I'm looking for some top notch movies to show off to her. Anything made by Tyler Perry would be a 10 plus. :ihih:
As if Troy would have ya!!!!!

LOL, actually you're welcome any time!!!!! I don't have any of the Medea movies, but I too had to sit through a play or two. Who knew that over 100 years later Mr. Perry would revive Vaudeville?

Good luck with the upgrades. I've not seen enough BluRay's to make any recommendations.

Da Worfster

[captjamo]

I too have sat through at least a few T. Perry plays on DVD. Pretty funny actually. But, for Blu pretty much any Disney releases will impress. The Dark Knight was awsome to my eyes and ears.

[captjamo]

Haven't actually gotten around to any Tyler Perry movies yet, but the previews always make me laugh

[recoveryone]

Tyler Perry, personal story is a major source for his work, but I think those who can Identify with some of the characters in his plays/movies enjoy them the most.

It took me a while to catch on, but my wife was hooked from the first play she saw on video. Mainly she had seen/grew up with people that had lives that are portrayed in his work. But who would not want a Mr. Brown living on your block or heard of a family torn apart by drug abuse, spouse abuse or adultery.

The last movie "Madea Goes to Jail" hit me between the eyes along the story line of the Lawyer and the prostitute. I see a few people I grew up with in my daily rounds in the city I live in and I have ask what happen (to myself). Some of these people were smarter than me in class. I grew up in a small town 20K pop back then, now over 180K pop, everybody knew everyone or was related to them. And some were close friends, team mates, old girlfriends and you just have to ask was it something that you did or didn't do that could have made a difference in their lives. I know many will say that they made their own choices and have to live with it, but my faith tells me that people come into our lives for a reason and how we treat others can effect them.

Now for a flip side of this I can say that same thought process can come back to you. My oldest son took my grandaughter to the doctor a few years ago and while seeing the doctor, the doctor notice my sons name (very rare) and ask if he was my son. The doctor told my son that I had broken his leg during highschool football practice, but remember that I always treated him good/fair. Even tho I was starter and Big Man On Campus (BMOC) I always took time to speak to everyone, the doctor told my son. I didn't even remember a bit of what my son told me, but it made me feel good that I never thought of myself as better than anyone and treat others as I would like to be treated. :yesnod:

[bobsticks]

American Psycho

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Since many of us are joining this latest form of HT, I feel it may be helpful to pass on info about poor transfer releases. I'm sure we have suffered through this lack of professional quality on some of our DVD's in the past. I for one don't need to spend hard earn cash on less than ideal Blu Rays. I have waited out the format wars, and now its time to make sure we get what we want (Keys to Sir TT house..:lol: ).

I been doing some recon on other sites to get a general feel on BD releases and you will get a range of opinions on some releases but the list I have compiled so far is a list of titles that have been repeated as poor PQ or not up to Blu Ray standards:

Gladiator
March of the Penguins
Stargate
Total Recall
Robocop
Gangs of New York
Eyes wide shut

There were other titles, but you have to take in account the age of the film when originally released. One older title that kept coming up as real eye candy was Blade Runner .

I'm sure many of us here are not looking to replace our DVD collection, so continuing a list like this will help us from making poor decision on BD releases


Sources:Blu Ray.com
Amazon.com
Highdefdigest.com

Stargate, Total Recall, and Robocop I reviewed for Blu-ray.com. Stargate is not that bad. A bit inconsistant with some scenes with the grain controlled, and others with a lot of grain showing up. Some scenes crystal clear, others kind of muddy and indistinct. Overall not that bad, but at least it looks like film and not de-grained video.

Robocop was a mess starting from the original master. Dirty print, too much grain to the point the encoder turns it into nasty digital hash, and a lot of scenes that look no better than DVD resolution. Total Recall is much like Stargate. Not totally bad, but not great HD either.

[pixelthis]

The Tyler Perry references was made for my wifes' taste in movies, I have had to sit through all of the plays on DVD and the movies, so a smart sales man would present his new product with what his audience likes. So if I can make Medea look brighter, deeper color, to the point of looking 3D then I'm sure the wife will let this new upgrade die off quickly, and not let me hear about it for the next 5 years. :nonod: :crazy:

Maybe I was not clear on top notch, I have been reading that some transfer have not been what they should be on Blu Ray (Gladiator) so I should have ask for visually stunning movies and not the critic content of them.

Thats what I was aiming towards when I mentioned my picks.
Everything justabout has been done in "HD" FOR DECADES, including television,
but thats a relative term, and a few have cut some corners in getting out a BLU
edition of certain movies.
All of the Terminator movies I have seen look great, but Total recall was a big disapointment.
And, oddly, a movie I expected to hate...DOOMSDAY was stellar in picture and sound, and the flick was quite decent too.
But L.A CONFIDENTIAL was rather flat and lifeless.
Its a crapshoot, basically.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thats what I was aiming towards when I mentioned my picks.
Everything justabout has been done in "HD" FOR DECADES, including television,
but thats a relative term, and a few have cut some corners in getting out a BLU
edition of certain movies.

No, everything has not been done in HD for decades. Nobody has been doing HD for a decade except Sony. They have been scanning their entire catalog to digital since 1998. HD for movies has only occured since 1999, and The Phantom Menace was the first. In the grand scheme of things FILM still rules, and digital shooting is still niche in the industry. Most of the studios are only now getting around to archiving their catalogs to digital. Television has been shot for decades on standard definition tape, not HD.

Once again, get your facts straight, then post.

[pixelthis]

No, everything has not been done in HD for decades. Nobody has been doing HD for a decade except Sony. They have been scanning their entire catalog to digital since 1998. HD for movies has only occured since 1999, and The Phantom Menace was the first. In the grand scheme of things FILM still rules, and digital shooting is still niche in the industry. Most of the studios are only now getting around to archiving their catalogs to digital. Television has been shot for decades on standard definition tape, not HD.

Once again, get your facts straight, then post.

As usual you have no clue.
Television has been shot with film for decades, which is essentialy hi-def, in other words
you can transfer it to a digital medium with full resolution.
Some of it might be 4:3 but its still high res.
This is why old TV shows look so good on HD channels with little effort.
And of course film has been shot with...film.
Even the best HD will never surpass even mediorce film in detail and resolution.
BAISCALLY HD TV is just catching up to what the production end has been doing for decades.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As usual you have no clue.
Television has been shot with film for decades, which is essentialy hi-def, in other words
you can transfer it to a digital medium with full resolution.

Sorry ole chum but you are wrong. 35mm film has more resolution than 1080p. Film is NOT (whether shot for television or feature length film) HD, and it is not even digital. If you got roughly the same resolution from film and HD, then why does it have to be compressed for bluray? Why need VC-1 or AVC? If it were roughly 1:1, it could just be MPEG decoding in real time through the player without any compression.


Some of it might be 4:3 but its still high res.

Sorry, but the specification for HDTV requires 720p or 1080i 16x9 or 1:78:1 aspect ratio. So its not HD. For Bluray it is 1080p with a 16x9 screen. 4:3 can be digital, but it cannot be HD


This is why old TV shows look so good on HD channels with little effort.

Sigh... They have been prefiltered fool! Older television shows were shot on film. Grain would usually be quite prevelent. It wasn't till 1956 when the video recorder hit the market, and it took well into the sixties before used for television production. Not only has the video been pre-filtered, it has also been heavily compressed. The perceptual resolution from HD channels is way less than full HD 1080p, less than 1080i, and even less than 720p at the bit rates they are hitting the buffer. Slightly better than DVD.


And of course film has been shot with...film.
Even the best HD will never surpass even mediorce film in detail and resolution.
BAISCALLY HD TV is just catching up to what the production end has been doing for decades.:1:

How can you say this:

[/quote]Television has been shot with film for decades, which is essentialy hi-def, in other words
you can transfer it to a digital medium with full resolution.[/quote]

You are contridicting yourself. How can one thing not even be close in resolution, and then be lossless at the same time?

Unfortunately "production end" has not been able to deliver anything more than 480i to the end user until HDTV and HD on disc hit the market. Broadcast television previously was not HD. Vhs, DVD, Laserdisc, or any other analog video format is not HD.

[pixelthis]

Sorry ole chum but you are wrong. 35mm film has more resolution than 1080p. Film is NOT (whether shot for television or feature length film) HD, and it is not even digital. If you got roughly the same resolution from film and HD, then why does it have to be compressed for bluray? Why need VC-1 or AVC? If it were roughly 1:1, it could just be MPEG decoding in real time through the player without any compression.

No, film isnt "HD", its better than HD, and by a wide margin.
No HD format had beat film yet, and wont for some time





Sorry, but the specification for HDTV requires 720p or 1080i 16x9 or 1:78:1 aspect ratio. So its not HD. For Bluray it is 1080p with a 16x9 screen. 4:3 can be digital, but it cannot be HD

Now you're just lawyering.
When I say film is "HD" I mean in PQ, not some arbritary standard.
You can say a Bluebird isnt "blue" because it doesnt meat a standard, doesnt mean it isnt BLUE.
Besides, we're talking picture resolution, not aspect ratio



Sigh... They have been prefiltered fool! Older television shows were shot on film. Grain would usually be quite prevelent. It wasn't till 1956 when the video recorder hit the market, and it took well into the sixties before used for television production. Not only has the video been pre-filtered, it has also been heavily compressed. The perceptual resolution from HD channels is way less than full HD 1080p, less than 1080i, and even less than 720p at the bit rates they are hitting the buffer. Slightly better than DVD.

Truth again that you are all talk and no listen.
Most TV shows have been shot on film and the originals film.
In the early days of video you lost quite a bit using video, coouldnt get the res of filmed material.
Alfred Hitchcock made Pyscho on video precisely for this reason, to make it look like a cheap slasher flick.



How can you say this:

[/quote]Television has been shot with film for decades, which is essentialy hi-def, in other words
you can transfer it to a digital medium with full resolution.[/quote]


You are contridicting yourself. How can one thing not even be close in resolution, and then be lossless at the same time?

Again, film is not close to HD, it surpasses it.
It delivers a "lossless" picture with a resolution so high that its hard to measure, and HD is
"lossly" because theres no way you could fit all of the info from film on even a wideband
TV channel.
The Japanese had a lossless HD system in the 70's/80's, it took two regular TV channels
to carry one HD channel.
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF "LOSSLY" codecs in HD is to throw away redundant information, culled from the massive amount of information stored on film,
in order to fit it on one UHF channel


Unfortunately "production end" has not been able to deliver anything more than 480i to the end user until HDTV and HD on disc hit the market. Broadcast television previously was not HD. Vhs, DVD, Laserdisc, or any other analog video format is not HD.

LIKE I SAID.
Do you ever read a post before replying?
In 75 when I WAS IN ELECTRONICS class my instructor said that if you could get 250 lines out of NTSC you were having a good day.
In other words it has taken decades for the consumer end of things to catch up
with what the industry can provide, indeed it hasn't quite caught up yet.
LIKE I SAID.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No, film isnt "HD", its better than HD, and by a wide margin.
No HD format had beat film yet, and wont for some time

Wrong again. 70mm film scanned at 4K resolution exceeds the resolution of 35mm film. Once again your lame amateurish overly simplistic approach yields a wrong answer.


Now you're just lawyering.
When I say film is "HD" I mean in PQ, not some arbritary standard.
You can say a Bluebird isnt "blue" because it doesnt meat a standard, doesnt mean it isnt BLUE.
Besides, we're talking picture resolution, not aspect ratio

Sorry simplistic sammy, but you are talking just plain crap here. Standards are necessary in the film industry, if you didn't have them nothing would play right in anything. What defines HD is not just resolution, it aspect ratio, color, contrast, greyscale and several other parimeters. Anything destined for the 4:3 aspect ratio will not fire up enough pixels to be considered HD, even if shot entirely in digital. SMPTE defines the resolution of HD within a 16x9 window, and because you personally don't like standards, it does not negate that fact.


Truth again that you are all talk and no listen.

This is something you should look in the mirror and say one million times.


Most TV shows have been shot on film and the originals film.
In the early days of video you lost quite a bit using video, coouldnt get the res of filmed material.
Alfred Hitchcock made Pyscho on video precisely for this reason, to make it look like a cheap slasher flick.

Just because something was made on video does not make it cheap looking. It is all about the camera's resolution.


How can you say this:

Television has been shot with film for decades, which is essentialy hi-def, in other words
you can transfer it to a digital medium with full resolution.

480i is not HD, and it will never be. Television shot on film was shot with 480i camera's, not 720p or 1080i cameras. Just because it is on film does not mean it automatically has more resolution than video. 480i shot on 35mm film will have less resolution than 720p or 1080i shot on video camera's. You are focusing on film itself, and not the film camera's actual resolution. Camera's used to film television programs are quite different than 70mm or 35mm camera's shooting movies.


Again, film is not close to HD, it surpasses it.

Not in all cases. You say this because you don't really understand film, video, film camera's, video camera's, or the entire process of shooting film.


It delivers a "lossless" picture with a resolution so high that its hard to measure, and HD is
"lossly" because theres no way you could fit all of the info from film on even a wideband
TV channel.

If I shot a movie with a video camera that was 1920x1080 it would also be lossless. The stupidity of your argument is that you are trying to paint film as DTS-HD Master audio, and video as DTS surround. It does not work that way, and is much more complicated and complex than that. This is the stupidity of simplicity when trying to define film this way.


The Japanese had a lossless HD system in the 70's/80's, it took two regular TV channels
to carry one HD channel.
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF "LOSSLY" codecs in HD is to throw away redundant information, culled from the massive amount of information stored on film,
in order to fit it on one UHF channel

Yes, the Japanese system was called MUSE. It was a high definition system based on the....guess what? The 16x9 aspect ratio. It was also a standard, information you like to gloss over. It was based on an inefficient analog system that required more bandwidth than our current ATSC system. It also was a 1035i system as opposed to our 1080i system.


LIKE I SAID.
Do you ever read a post before replying?
In 75 when I WAS IN ELECTRONICS class my instructor said that if you could get 250 lines out of NTSC you were having a good day.

Well it must have been one hell of a good day when Laserdisc, super beta cam, DVD, ED beta cam and SVHS came to the market. All were built on the NTSC system, and all achieve more than 250 lines of resolution. Even broadcast television had 330 lines of resolution. Your instructor was nutz, and that explains why you are as well.


In other words it has taken decades for the consumer end of things to catch up
with what the industry can provide, indeed it hasn't quite caught up yet.
LIKE I SAID.:1:

This has always been the case, so what is new?