As reported by BDA & news from IFA

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Unfortunately your statement is true, but it may only apply in the USA.

The following artical from Washintonpost state that Broadband service im Japan is eight to 30 times as fast as in the United States -- and considerably cheaper. And South Korea and Europe are not too far behind Japan.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082801990.html

Thanks Smokey,

I am aware of the state of internet speeds everywhere else, but my arguements are pretty much confined to here in the US.

The Irony of your information fully supports what I have been saying. The fact that you have such high speeds in Japan would make you think that downloading movies must be big there. Well, interestingly enough, the market for bluray disc is larger than the market for downloading movies in Japan, even with the higher internet speeds.

[PeruvianSkies]

I am not Pixel am I? Just because my perspective is different from yours doesn't mean it is seeing through tunnels. I know more about this industry than you ever will. You don't work in it, and how it operates completely escapes you. Anyone building an argument based on unknowns doesn't have an arguement. You have built your entire argument on unknowns.

Yep. He obviously does work IN the industry because only someone who worked IN the industry could be this big of a pompous a-hole.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yep. He obviously does work IN the industry because only someone who worked IN the industry could be this big of a pompous a-hole.

Gee thanks PS. Please, in your vacuous state realize that there is a fine line between pompous and confident. I am okay with being called an a-hole, that just goes to show that I haven't changed one bit since I left. You have to love that kind of constistancy.

[nightflier]

OK, first of all, I prefaced almost every one of my posts with respect to your tenure here - I certainly never insulted you. I also never said that I could compete with your statistics and figures. I mean for someone who has such a close, cozy relationship with industry insiders, I would have to be sleeping someone to know more - no thanks and more power to you.

What is striking though, and I've also looked at your long-winded prosaic posts, is that you always have to be right. I don't think there is a single one in all those 1900+ posts, where you admit to be wrong. I almost think that your inability to admit to even the possibility that there might be just a slight flaw in your world-view, would bring the whole house of cards down. There's a term in psychology for such rigidity, and I think where I've struck a nerve is in questioning its stability. After all, what I'm questioning is the validity of all this official or insider information. If that is questioned, then there is nothing left for you to stand on.

You obviously don't like the current administration and the direction of the war in Iraq, but aren't they just as exemplary of this type of rigidity? Question just one official statistic, event or factoid, and it could bring down everything - it's the domino theory all over again - it got us real far in Vietnam. The problem with this approach is that it makes for a whole lot of information to control. You almost have to establish a dictatorship. Such systems abhor anything outside of a dogmatic black-white / good-evil world view. Orwellian.

Now regarding the BR & HD-DVD format war, I believe and I maintain with confidence that:

1. The stats could be ever so slightly off
2. It doesn't take much variance to swing the pendulum in the format war

The first point is just a nature of statistics - there are political (yes, even in this industry), economic, mathematical, and procedural reasons for this. This should not be up for debate. If it is, then we have nothing more to talk about because you would be arguing against all of academia. The second point is perhaps where we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there are enough examples in the history of economics to suggest that it really doesn't take more than a tiny percentage to shift things, especially when it's made into a PR mantra by one side.

Well let's see how that plays out...

The books and links you posted deal with statistics and their reliability, but do not focus on what is happening right now and today.

Actually, the books do extrapolate to today. You may want to pick one of them up check out what is being said. It is quite riveting.

This dogged focus on the only thing that is for sure in this war is designed to keep you from interjecting every irrelevant point you can conjure up and muddle up the discussion. Your dogged focus on believing nothing you have no access or knowledge on, keeps you bottled up in your own dogma.

So basically you are reducing every one of my examples and links to "muddle." I've been trying to show that the "official" info isn't the whole picture. For that I have to look outside of the "official" info, don't I? But you dismiss it because it's outside of the "official" story. Well if you only wish to see what is "official" then how is that not tunnel vision? How is that the whole picture?

So lemme get this straight, cause it's a biggy. You establish the boundaries of what we can include, the stuff that only you seem to know well, and then you dismiss everything outside of it. So anything anyone else brings up is outside of those boundaries and thus "muddle." You are essentially pre-screening the topics for "relevance." That sounds more like a presidential press conference to me than anything else. Look, you can go on jabbing at me and getting hot under the collar, but you have to be able to consider what is outside of your boundaries. If you don't, then there can't be a meaningful discussion about this topic, or any topic.

You obviously have some seniority here, and a reputation for thoroughness, maybe even respect. Then show us that you can be magnanimous, that you do have that reputation for a good reason. As it is right now, you're not. And the more you get upset, the more you show of your true colors. " 'Left white & blue somewhere way back and but a tiny red loin cloth to cover up the privates" (forgot what movie that's from, but it does seem to apply here).

I have been reading quite a few of your disagreements with other since I have been back to this forum. Your arguements tend to be unfocused, and replete with topics unrelated to the subject being discussed. You think that if you just throw things out there, something will get traction, and often times it does not.

Really, you mean the discussion about the effect that the movie SuperSize Me has had on the fast food industry? Yes, I noticed you poked your head in there, and what of it? In that discussion I'm having pretty much the same discussion as I'm having here. I'm arguing agains someone who has dismissed everything I've presented as examples (outside of their boundaries - sound familiar?). Maybe it's because I'm arguing the obvious - that the movie had an impact. Anyhow, that's another topic.

Or are you referring to the many discussions about, guess what, this format war? I've disagreed with a few people, Wooch, Pixel, etc., but I must say, that despite the disagreements over BR / HD-DVD, they have been far more respectful and have actually taken the time to read what I've posted. These forums are here to discuss topics. Dismissing everything someone presents without reading them is the opposite of what we are here for. People want to read what others have to say - stifling decent is draconian and counter-productive. You may have seniority here, but that does not give you the right to dictate what is relevant to a discussion.

You seemed to have all the answers as to how I come to a conclusion, but the problem is you really don't. Sales figures is just one part of the picture. Once again studio support, manufacturing support, and infrastucture support all played a roll in how I look at this arguement. That is hardly a pin point specific perspective, it looks rather broad to me.

Yes, but they are still "official" sources and thus represent an interest. Moreover they are statistics and are inherently unreliable to some degree, however small. They do not represent a complete picture - one that nobody, not even you with all your connections - can rely 100% on. While you can say that your sources are from many different areas within the industry, doesn't that weaken their reliability as well? After all, it increases the potential for variability within the "official" pool so that even that is not reliable.

I am not Pixel am I?

You said specifically: no one. Pixel is someone.

Just because my perspective is different from yours doesn't mean it is seeing through tunnels.

Well if my perspective is outside of your boundaries, and yours is inside, and we're talking about a tunnel, then I fail to see your logic.

I know more about this industry than you ever will. You don't work in it, and how it operates completely escapes you.

That does sound Pompous to me. Hey, your words. I'm not claiming to know more than everyone else.

Anyone building an argument based on unknowns doesn't have an arguement. You have built your entire argument on unknowns.

Obviously you don't know a lick about logic. My argument is that the unknowns may be more significant than the knowns. Yes, it may be uncomfortable for you, but you'll have to face it eventually.

Its a stupid wager.

If it's such a stupid wager, what's the fear in a commitment? I'm willing to admit that I was wrong. I guess you just can't do that. Wonder why? Shaky foundation?

There is little or no comparison of this war to the SACD and DVD-A war. That kind of comparison is for people who do not have the capacity to think critically. If you dig below the surface, the wars could not be more different. You have had plenty of time to make this arguement stick, yet you have failed.

If I failed, why are we still here? There are comparisons to be made, I've made them. I admit that my info is not as "official" as yours, but again, let's wait and see what the media says about this if BR & HD-DVD are relegated to niche markets. I'm not saying that it will happen that way, I'm only saying if it will. I can wait. Can you?

The only comparison that could be made is that both wars confused the consumer, and guess what, wars do that to people. Look at the Iraq war now.

No they don't. Wars are based in black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. You can't get your soldiers to fight or the public to go along with such senseless slaughter otherwise. Confusion is what ends wars. You really should pick up a history book sometime instead of those "official" sources.

I know this is difficult for you, but you need to admit that you know not nearly enough information about the movie industry as it relates to downloads and internet capacity.

Not hard at all. I've admitted that I don't have your insight in just about everyone of my posts. And about the internet and its capacity, I wouldn't be so sure about how little I may or may not know. I certainly know enough not to be so absolute as you. Maybe you're sill upset about that Netscape stock you owned?

Your arguements have been weak, and current events show that the picture you are trying to paint is false. VOD has been around a lot longer than both HD DVD and BR, and the market right now is no bigger. As I have stated earlier, both Comcast and Warner have already stated that in 2006 VOD has already flattened out and has essentially become stagnant. That is not the case for either bluray or HD DVD who market is still growing and progressing steadily but slowly.

If you are so "confident" instead of "pompous" then why the fear of a little wager? Put up or shut up.

Argue away, I am just going to turn your points into swiss cheese, they are that flimsy and uninformed.

Well, yes after all, when it comes to determining what we're going to talk about, you are the decider...

[PeruvianSkies]

OK, first of all, I prefaced almost every one of my posts with respect to your tenure here - I certainly never insulted you. I also never said that I could compete with your statistics and figures. I mean for someone who has such a close, cozy relationship with industry insiders, I would have to be sleeping someone to know more - no thanks and more power to you.

What is striking though, and I've also looked at your long-winded prosaic posts, is that you always have to be right. I don't think there is a single one in all those 1900+ posts, where you admit to be wrong. I almost think that your inability to admit to even the possibility that there might be just a slight flaw in your world-view, would bring the whole house of cards down. There's a term in psychology for such rigidity, and I think where I've struck a nerve is in questioning its stability. After all, what I'm questioning is the validity of all this official or insider information. If that is questioned, then there is nothing left for you to stand on.

You obviously don't like the current administration and the direction of the war in Iraq, but aren't they just as exemplary of this type of rigidity? Question just one official statistic, event or factoid, and it could bring down everything - it's the domino theory all over again - it got us real far in Vietnam. The problem with this approach is that it makes for a whole lot of information to control. You almost have to establish a dictatorship. Such systems abhor anything outside of a dogmatic black-white / good-evil world view. Orwellian.

Now regarding the BR & HD-DVD format war, I believe and I maintain with confidence that:

1. The stats could be ever so slightly off
2. It doesn't take much variance to swing the pendulum in the format war

The first point is just a nature of statistics - there are political (yes, even in this industry), economic, mathematical, and procedural reasons for this. This should not be up for debate. If it is, then we have nothing more to talk about because you would be arguing against all of academia. The second point is perhaps where we'll have to agree to disagree. I think there are enough examples in the history of economics to suggest that it really doesn't take more than a tiny percentage to shift things, especially when it's made into a PR mantra by one side.

Well let's see how that plays out...



Actually, the books do extrapolate to today. You may want to pick one of them up check out what is being said. It is quite riveting.



So basically you are reducing every one of my examples and links to "muddle." I've been trying to show that the "official" info isn't the whole picture. For that I have to look outside of the "official" info, don't I? But you dismiss it because it's outside of the "official" story. Well if you only wish to see what is "official" then how is that not tunnel vision? How is that the whole picture?

So lemme get this straight, cause it's a biggy. You establish the boundaries of what we can include, the stuff that only you seem to know well, and then you dismiss everything outside of it. So anything anyone else brings up is outside of those boundaries and thus "muddle." You are essentially pre-screening the topics for "relevance." That sounds more like a presidential press conference to me than anything else. Look, you can go on jabbing at me and getting hot under the collar, but you have to be able to consider what is outside of your boundaries. If you don't, then there can't be a meaningful discussion about this topic, or any topic.

You obviously have some seniority here, and a reputation for thoroughness, maybe even respect. Then show us that you can be magnanimous, that you do have that reputation for a good reason. As it is right now, you're not. And the more you get upset, the more you show of your true colors. " 'Left white & blue somewhere way back and but a tiny red loin cloth to cover up the privates" (forgot what movie that's from, but it does seem to apply here).



Really, you mean the discussion about the effect that the movie SuperSize Me has had on the fast food industry? Yes, I noticed you poked your head in there, and what of it? In that discussion I'm having pretty much the same discussion as I'm having here. I'm arguing agains someone who has dismissed everything I've presented as examples (outside of their boundaries - sound familiar?). Maybe it's because I'm arguing the obvious - that the movie had an impact. Anyhow, that's another topic.

Or are you referring to the many discussions about, guess what, this format war? I've disagreed with a few people, Wooch, Pixel, etc., but I must say, that despite the disagreements over BR / HD-DVD, they have been far more respectful and have actually taken the time to read what I've posted. These forums are here to discuss topics. Dismissing everything someone presents without reading them is the opposite of what we are here for. People want to read what others have to say - stifling decent is draconian and counter-productive. You may have seniority here, but that does not give you the right to dictate what is relevant to a discussion.



Yes, but they are still "official" sources and thus represent an interest. Moreover they are statistics and are inherently unreliable to some degree, however small. They do not represent a complete picture - one that nobody, not even you with all your connections - can rely 100% on. While you can say that your sources are from many different areas within the industry, doesn't that weaken their reliability as well? After all, it increases the potential for variability within the "official" pool so that even that is not reliable.



You said specifically: no one. Pixel is someone.



Well if my perspective is outside of your boundaries, and yours is inside, and we're talking about a tunnel, then I fail to see your logic.



That does sound Pompous to me. Hey, your words. I'm not claiming to know more than everyone else.



Obviously you don't know a lick about logic. My argument is that the unknowns may be more significant than the knowns. Yes, it may be uncomfortable for you, but you'll have to face it eventually.



If it's such a stupid wager, what's the fear in a commitment? I'm willing to admit that I was wrong. I guess you just can't do that. Wonder why? Shaky foundation?



If I failed, why are we still here? There are comparisons to be made, I've made them. I admit that my info is not as "official" as yours, but again, let's wait and see what the media says about this if BR & HD-DVD are relegated to niche markets. I'm not saying that it will happen that way, I'm only saying if it will. I can wait. Can you?



No they don't. Wars are based in black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. You can't get your soldiers to fight or the public to go along with such senseless slaughter otherwise. Confusion is what ends wars. You really should pick up a history book sometime instead of those "official" sources.



Not hard at all. I've admitted that I don't have your insight in just about everyone of my posts. And about the internet and its capacity, I wouldn't be so sure about how little I may or may not know. I certainly know enough not to be so absolute as you. Maybe you're sill upset about that Netscape stock you owned?



If you are so "confident" instead of "pompous" then why the fear of a little wager? Put up or shut up.



Well, yes after all, when it comes to determining what we're going to talk about, you are the decider...

Wow. I knew there was a reason I didn't like those insiders! Looks like we now have 2 people currently posting away on this site that refuse to acknowledge any chinks in their armor.

[L.J.]

Wow. I knew there was a reason I didn't like those insiders! Looks like we now have 2 people currently posting away on this site that refuse to acknowledge any chinks in their armor.

Dude, why don't you stop hatin'.

[Mr Peabody]

PS, and anyone interested, here's the real story on Dracula. I'm surprised our resident insider Terrence didn't know this but he latched on to the internet DSD conspiracy.

News
With only a few days left until the much anticipated Blu-ray release of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula', the title is already causing confusion amongst the few lucky enough to get advanced copies. Early reviews have been mixed, and the web forums have erupted in consumer backlash, claiming Sony has destroyed the transfer. Thankfully, one of our Insiders was able to get the real story: this Blu-ray release reflects the wishes of director Francis Ford Coppola.

The masters used for the Superbit DVD release were not approved by Mr. Coppola, while the Blu-ray masters were
The color correction on the DVD was not done by direction of Mr. Coppola
For the latest master, a representative from Zoetrope was charged with checking the color correction to match the wishes of Mr. Coppola
The Blu-ray release was not accomplished quickly; it was carefully planned with full cooperation of Zoetrope

So when you sit down to watch this Blu-ray on Tuesday, remember that you are watching the absolute best video release of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' ever created, and that it is exactly as the director intended. Any comparisons to previous video releases are invalid, as this release was approved by Mr. Coppola and his team at Zoetrope.

[PeruvianSkies]

PS, and anyone interested, here's the real story on Dracula. I'm surprised our resident insider Terrence didn't know this but he latched on to the internet DSD conspiracy.

News
With only a few days left until the much anticipated Blu-ray release of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula', the title is already causing confusion amongst the few lucky enough to get advanced copies. Early reviews have been mixed, and the web forums have erupted in consumer backlash, claiming Sony has destroyed the transfer. Thankfully, one of our Insiders was able to get the real story: this Blu-ray release reflects the wishes of director Francis Ford Coppola.

The masters used for the Superbit DVD release were not approved by Mr. Coppola, while the Blu-ray masters were
The color correction on the DVD was not done by direction of Mr. Coppola
For the latest master, a representative from Zoetrope was charged with checking the color correction to match the wishes of Mr. Coppola
The Blu-ray release was not accomplished quickly; it was carefully planned with full cooperation of Zoetrope

So when you sit down to watch this Blu-ray on Tuesday, remember that you are watching the absolute best video release of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' ever created, and that it is exactly as the director intended. Any comparisons to previous video releases are invalid, as this release was approved by Mr. Coppola and his team at Zoetrope.

Well, I am curious. Coppola also approved the Criterion LD, so if there are differences between the LD and the BD....than it'll make for an interesting topic.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, I am curious. Coppola also approved the Criterion LD, so if there are differences between the LD and the BD....than it'll make for an interesting topic.

Well, actually it wouldn't. You have to keep in mind the format, and its resolution. Part of the problem between the superbit DVD, previous LD releases, and the bluray release is an issue of what Mr. Coppola wants to be seen, and doesn't want to be seen. Because the resolution of both the superbit and LD disc is so much lower, the studio decided to raise the background levels to increase the perceived detail in the darker scenes. You can do this because as you go from foreground to background on these formats, objects are less distinct and clear. If the same practice was done for bluray, you would see far more detail going into the backgrounds than Mr. Coppola wants the viewer to see, hence the darker background on the bluray disc.

You can have Mr. Coppola approve both the Criterion LD and the Bluray release, and they both be different because each format offers different resolution abilities.

[PeruvianSkies]

Well, actually it wouldn't. You have to keep in mind the format, and its resolution. Part of the problem between the superbit DVD, previous LD releases, and the bluray release is an issue of what Mr. Coppola wants to be seen, and doesn't want to be seen. Because the resolution of both the superbit and LD disc is so much lower, the studio decided to raise the background levels to increase the perceived detail in the darker scenes. You can do this because as you go from foreground to background on these formats, objects are less distinct and clear. If the same practice was done for bluray, you would see far more detail going into the backgrounds than Mr. Coppola wants the viewer to see, hence the darker background on the bluray disc.

You can have Mr. Coppola approve both the Criterion LD and the Bluray release, and they both be different because each format offers different resolution abilities.

I am not talking about RESOLUTION...I am talking about COLOR, mr. insider. Or shall I call is COLOUR for the sake of being cool like Jean Luc Godard.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am not talking about RESOLUTION...I am talking about COLOR, mr. insider. Or shall I call is COLOUR for the sake of being cool like Jean Luc Godard.

The great thing about the english langauge is that those who are proficient in it know how to be specific enough to ask the right question with the right words. It is obvious that you didn't use the right words, or you would have gotten the answer you desire.

Colour is used in Europe, not the United States. So if you REALLY want to be cool, be appropriate and a little less flippant, we are both adults here(or at least I can confirm I am). Save the snideness for Pixelthis

The color space of the LD and bluray is different. Bluray can capture a much wider gamut of colors than LD can. The master was different on the LD from the Bluray disc. So color wise they could still be a little different, and have the approval of Mr Coppola.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

PS, and anyone interested, here's the real story on Dracula. I'm surprised our resident insider Terrence didn't know this but he latched on to the internet DSD conspiracy.

I know far more about this issue than I want to, but since nobody ever mentioned it to me here, I have never discussed it. Had somebody asked me anything regarding this titles, I would have been able to answer quite precisely and with great detail.

News
With only a few days left until the much anticipated Blu-ray release of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula', the title is already causing confusion amongst the few lucky enough to get advanced copies. Early reviews have been mixed, and the web forums have erupted in consumer backlash, claiming Sony has destroyed the transfer. Thankfully, one of our Insiders was able to get the real story: this Blu-ray release reflects the wishes of director Francis Ford Coppola.

The masters used for the Superbit DVD release were not approved by Mr. Coppola, while the Blu-ray masters were
The color correction on the DVD was not done by direction of Mr. Coppola
For the latest master, a representative from Zoetrope was charged with checking the color correction to match the wishes of Mr. Coppola
The Blu-ray release was not accomplished quickly; it was carefully planned with full cooperation of Zoetrope

So when you sit down to watch this Blu-ray on Tuesday, remember that you are watching the absolute best video release of 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' ever created, and that it is exactly as the director intended. Any comparisons to previous video releases are invalid, as this release was approved by Mr. Coppola and his team at Zoetrope.

And to further add to this, and to show just how wrong early reviews have been on this, here are some tidbits;

1. The new transfer was supervised. This means that a representative from Zoetrope was charged we checking the color correction to make sure it met with the intentions of Mr. Coppola.

2. The new transfer and color correction were not done hastily. This title was carefully planned for BD and Sony was given the full cooperation of Zoetrope to get it done right.

3. The masters used for the DVD versions of this title were not endorsed by Mr. Coppola, the BD version is. The color correction on the DVD releases was not what Mr. Coppola wanted, regardless of the fact that the elevated brightness in some scenes on the DVD can reveal something not seen on the BD.

4. The answer print of the film is darker than the Blu-ray (answer prints are the approved color timed result that release prints are supposed to match).

5. Mr. Coppola intentionally shunned digital special effects techniques on this film in order to get a result that had the look of the classic horror films. The optical effects lead to some dirt and softening of the master.

Mr Peabody, never assume that I do not know something just because I don't mention it. I have been in contact and coodinating with the other insiders on bluray.com to counter the negative reviews on this title for the last three weeks. Since all of us studio insiders work together at bluray.com, I am prevy to alot of information that nobody knows about.

[Mr Peabody]

Right after your first post on the Dracula movie, Sir T posted "I agree", referring to the assumption that many made, the movie was a poor transfer from DSD. If he was really involved with Blu-ray.com, Terrence, being what he is, would have jumped at the chance to set things straight right then, and took another opportunity to boast about his supposed affiliation with the biz. But he didn't, because he really had no idea, so he Googled around, and then posted a few lines from the article that apparently didn't get highlighted when I copied it. Then put on his pose to try to save face. If it hasn't been deleted, his stumble is right on this thread. I for one have always doubted Sir T's claims to be in the biz. I believe he is a very insecure person who feels he has to build himself up in order to be accepted and try to be the big fish in a small pond. I have to give him credit I've never seen anyone twist peoples statements around to try to make them say something that was not originally intended. He missed his calling, he should be in politics.

[PeruvianSkies]

Right after your first post on the Dracula movie, Sir T posted "I agree", referring to the assumption that many made, the movie was a poor transfer from DSD. If he was really involved with Blu-ray.com, Terrence, being what he is, would have jumped at the chance to set things straight right then, and took another opportunity to boast about his supposed affiliation with the biz. But he didn't, because he really had no idea, so he Googled around, and then posted a few lines from the article that apparently didn't get highlighted when I copied it. Then put on his pose to try to save face. If it hasn't been deleted, his stumble is right on this thread. I for one have always doubted Sir T's claims to be in the biz. I believe he is a very insecure person who feels he has to build himself up in order to be accepted and try to be the big fish in a small pond. I have to give him credit I've never seen anyone twist peoples statements around to try to make them say something that was not originally intended. He missed his calling, he should be in politics.

I spoke with my friend recently who watched the Blu-ray Disc and also went back and took out his Criterion Ed. Laser of BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA. I also asked him about the documentary on the Blu-ray as it features clips from the film as well. My friend also saw the film when it was released theatrically in 1992 and also has seen, but does not own the Superbit DVD from Columbia Tristar. Our conversation basically talked about color depth, accuracy, detail, and of course the black levels, Video Red, and overall fidelity of the picture. We briefly discussed the sound too. Here is a snapshot of our conversation...

His first impression of the Blu-ray was....ehhh. He actually took the Blu-ray around to a few shops in his area and played them on some high-end projection systems as well as a 50" DLP, Plasma, and a 42" LCD for a true comparison. He said that projected the film actually looked more film-like in quality, while the LCD/Plasma/DLP showed off the resolution a bit more. Color fidelity seemed more accurate and he said it was more like the Laserdisc in nature. Although comparing overall resolution is invalid here. He also commented on just how dark the Blu-ray looks overall. Contrast seems to be the bigger issue as he said that theatrically the film was able to show detail and depth, but also remain dark and that seemed to be the case across the board on all playbacks. I can easily see why too, I mean film is still the winner when it comes to being able to show a films true contrast and formats like DVD and Blu-ray have limitations still. Video Red he said was better, but still veered towards a more orang-ish nature, again this seemed to be true across all playbacks. Now this still might be an approval directors edition of the film, but he said theatrically the film definitely was a true deep red, I also agree...the film was RED RED RED. Skin-tones were definitely more orange in the film and the Blu-ray does seem to get that right, If you notice on the screen captures that I posted and the link to that website you can see how they are more rich in nature and fidelity. This is how I remember the film being in the theater and also on the LD.

We briefly talked about the sound, I remember playing the Superbit a few years ago and being unimpressed. First, the surrounds never seemed that engaging and I remember having to really turn the film up to get a huge soundstage out of it. He commented that the sound on the Blu-ray regains much of the character of the film and the musical score really shines. He described the audio track as being good, but not a reference disc by any stretch of the imagination.

[PeruvianSkies]

First image is the Laserdisc, then the DVD, then the Blu-ray. I know how to use GOOGLE too!!!!

[PeruvianSkies]

Check out some of these images....

[PeruvianSkies]

I don't know if SirTtT works for Blu-ray.com or not, I could really care less, if he does...he does and if not, well then he rips stuff from their forum them. Whatever the case on this whole BRAM STOKER's DRACULA Blu-ray the bottom line is this: majority of fans and people that have seen it are not impressed and whether or not it's approved means very little if it's causing this much of a big deal. Obviously something is out-of-whack. Either a lot of people and fans are wrong and their memory of this film is bogus and they never really saw the film the way it should be or this new Approved Transfer is junk.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Right after your first post on the Dracula movie, Sir T posted "I agree", referring to the assumption that many made, the movie was a poor transfer from DSD. If he was really involved with Blu-ray.com, Terrence, being what he is, would have jumped at the chance to set things straight right then, and took another opportunity to boast about his supposed affiliation with the biz. But he didn't, because he really had no idea, so he Googled around, and then posted a few lines from the article that apparently didn't get highlighted when I copied it. Then put on his pose to try to save face. If it hasn't been deleted, his stumble is right on this thread. I for one have always doubted Sir T's claims to be in the biz. I believe he is a very insecure person who feels he has to build himself up in order to be accepted and try to be the big fish in a small pond. I have to give him credit I've never seen anyone twist peoples statements around to try to make them say something that was not originally intended. He missed his calling, he should be in politics.

Wow Mr Peabody, that's harsh. Well its shouldn't take long to make a lie out of you.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=18622

Look at what is says next to my name. Sound Insider right? So If I am not over at Bluray.com providing inside information(that I am allowed to speak about) why would I have that next to my name. Do you see it next to anyone elses? No, the moderators give it to you when the ask you to be a insider.

Since I am an insider, I talk to other insiders. Check out Paidgeek, Penton man, Maxpower and other on that website. They are all insiders. We talk

All of the information I posted came directly from Paidgeek in a private message, and then the information was posted in the insider thread. No need for google, and no need to copy your stuff. And there is no need to lie about me, or try and disparage my name. If I didn't work in the business, then I could not get a Sound Insider next to my name. The title Insider only goes to those that work at a studio, and since I work at a studio as an audio engineer, hence Sound Insider.

Don't you know how to forget past disagreements? I have moved on from ours, grow up and do the same.

I do not work for Sony, so why would you think its my duty to explain problems with Dracula?

[PeruvianSkies]

Wow Mr Peabody, that's harsh. Well its shouldn't take long to make a lie out of you.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=18622

Look at what is says next to my name. Sound Insider right? So If I am not over at Bluray.com providing inside information(that I am allowed to speak about) why would I have that next to my name. Do you see it next to anyone elses? No, the moderators give it to you when the ask you to be a insider.

Since I am an insider, I talk to other insiders. Check out Paidgeek, Penton man, Maxpower and other on that website. They are all insiders. We talk

All of the information I posted came directly from Paidgeek in a private message, and then the information was posted in the insider thread. No need for google, and no need to copy your stuff. And there is no need to lie about me, or try and disparage my name. If I didn't work in the business, then I could not get a Sound Insider next to my name. The title Insider only goes to those that work at a studio, and since I work at a studio as an audio engineer, hence Sound Insider.

Don't you know how to forget past disagreements? I have moved on from ours, grow up and do the same.

I do not work for Sony, so why would you think its my duty to explain problems with Dracula?

Dude, get a life. It took you like 3 hours to dissect and respond to Nightfliers post. Don't you have anything better to do? It's obvious that neither one of you are going to give in on the dispute, but save us from having to read your novels back and forth!

I am beginning to think that Sir T, despite his long-standing history at this site has evolved into some type of advanced supertroll. He's a bit more evasive than your typical troll, but I am using my Troll-O-Meter and I am picking up some very strong signals within this thread from his direction. It would seem that he uses his cloaking device (read lengthy ramblings compiled from various sources that do in fact make some sense). This cloaking device enables him to be reputable to most people and harmless as well, but at the same time he throws out these hard opinions to which he stands by AND like any ordinary troll, becomes highly defensive when questioned, to which he uses his other advanced troll abilities, which is another attribute of these supertrolls, he has the ability to do certainly psychology and uses word games in order to twist around and tear apart everything that is said and then proceeds to take it out of context, thus making or attempting to make the other person sound less educated and or inferior.

Now let me be clear here...I don't doubt that you are an insider and have connections, or even that you are a "specialist" on this topic, but even "specialists" can be wrong, or using the doctor analogy...it's like this....

Let's say you were a Heart Doctor (a specialist in that field) and you were very good at what you did. Now, do you make mistakes? Maybe. Who is to say? Well, other people within that profession would have first hand knowledge as to whether or not you made a mistake. However, that doesn't mean that someone else could have pointed out your mistake as well, and I am not saying that you made a mistake on this thread or that the information that you provided is 100% false or inaccurate, I am simply making a point on being right, being wrong, and just an opinion. You know it takes a strong person to admit when they are wrong or that they 'could' be wrong. Sometimes there is no way of knowing. Specialists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, anyone can make mistakes, no-one is perfect and just because you might be an authority on a subject doesn't discount other peoples feelings, beliefs, and opinions on that subject, and sometimes....believe it or not....they might be right too.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Dude, get a life. It took you like 3 hours to dissect and respond to Nightfliers post. Don't you have anything better to do? It's obvious that neither one of you are going to give in on the dispute, but save us from having to read your novels back and forth!

PS, it actually took me closer to twenty minutes. I was doing two other things aside from answering this rather useless post.

I am beginning to think that Sir T, despite his long-standing history at this site has evolved into some type of advanced supertroll. He's a bit more evasive than your typical troll, but I am using my Troll-O-Meter and I am picking up some very strong signals within this thread from his direction. It would seem that he uses his cloaking device (read lengthy ramblings compiled from various sources that do in fact make some sense). This cloaking device enables him to be reputable to most people and harmless as well, but at the same time he throws out these hard opinions to which he stands by AND like any ordinary troll, becomes highly defensive when questioned, to which he uses his other advanced troll abilities, which is another attribute of these supertrolls, he has the ability to do certainly psychology and uses word games in order to twist around and tear apart everything that is said and then proceeds to take it out of context, thus making or attempting to make the other person sound less educated and or inferior.

Man, you have been watching far too many movies. Step away from the set, and out into the real world bro.

I have no problems with anyone questioning what I state. I actually invite people to do so by providing links etc. However, when a person challenges what I state, and provides not one shred of information that rebuts or refuts it, then why should I be considered wrong?

Next piece to this. Trolling. You are calling me a supertroll. Here is the definition of a troll.
"is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

1. I have yet to post any topic since I have been back here. I have responded to topics.
2. I have never baited anyone into an argumentive response. I just posted my opinion which is supported by facts. That's quite a difference.
3. I am not the OP of thread. Mr Peabody is. In this particular instance only Mr Peabody can be the troll.

Now that we have delt with that, please realize that calling me names is not an adult approach. Adults do not have to call names when they discuss things. You can agree to disagree, but the name calling just isn't necessary.

Now let me be clear here...I don't doubt that you are an insider and have connections, or even that you are a "specialist" on this topic, but even "specialists" can be wrong, or using the doctor analogy...it's like this...

You are correct, I can be wrong, and have been in the past. However, those who accuse you of being wrong have the burden of PROVING that you are wrong. You can't just call somebody wrong, and hope it sticks.

Let's say you were a Heart Doctor (a specialist in that field) and you were very good at what you did. Now, do you make mistakes? Maybe. Who is to say? Well, other people within that profession would have first hand knowledge as to whether or not you made a mistake. However, that doesn't mean that someone else could have pointed out your mistake as well, and I am not saying that you made a mistake on this thread or that the information that you provided is 100% false or inaccurate, I am simply making a point on being right, being wrong, and just an opinion. You know it takes a strong person to admit when they are wrong or that they 'could' be wrong. Sometimes there is no way of knowing. Specialists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, anyone can make mistakes, no-one is perfect and just because you might be an authority on a subject doesn't discount other peoples feelings, beliefs, and opinions on that subject, and sometimes....believe it or not....they might be right too.

Another audio engineer could point out that I was wrong because he or she knows the job. However, there is no way a Doctor who has never been in a recording studio can tell me that I am wrong while recording. How would he know. In this example we have here, there is a person who does not work in the industry(which may or may not be important depending on their knowledge of the industry), who obviously does not understand how the industry works, is saying that the information the industry uses to gage its sales health is inherently flawed and manipulated. Yet he has offered nothing in the way of direct information to refute said information. He is just making a unsupported claim because he read in a book they can manipulate stat's. If you are going to call someone a crook, you have to have proof they actually stole something. You cannot go to court and tell the judge that based on the fact the person has stolen something in the past, he is guilty of stealing again without evidence. That is called an unsubstantiated claim

[PeruvianSkies]

That was a good one, use the definition of a 'troll' and then re-work it so that it seems that it doesn't apply to you. Nice one. A troll is indeed someone who posts with the intent of causing arguments, but there is NEVER any mention that it has to be the original poster. You could be a troll and post anywhere on the thread that you like, it's called Troll-jacking. Please stop trying to use your reverse wordology and wikipedia to baffle us. We are not impressed.

[projection]

Ok, this is my first post and I was hesitant to post on this site after reading this thread because it would seem that everything that I said would be picked apart by the vultures here. Maybe i'll hang around for a bit and see before I post much.

[PeruvianSkies]

Ok, this is my first post and I was hesitant to post on this site after reading this thread because it would seem that everything that I said would be picked apart by the vultures here. Maybe i'll hang around for a bit and see before I post much.

Well, unfortunately this thread has got a little out of hand, but most of the time you will see that most of us get along fairly well around here. I am guilty of being a feeder to the trolls around here, if you haven't met Pixelthis yet, I am sure you will soon enough.

Hope you stick around!

[PeruvianSkies]

[L.J.]

Ok, this is my first post and I was hesitant to post on this site after reading this thread because it would seem that everything that I said would be picked apart by the vultures here. Maybe i'll hang around for a bit and see before I post much.

Dude you are freakin' nuts.