James Bond on Blu-ray/4K

15455575960105

Comments

  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Ed83 wrote: »
    4k will be even more amazing when they release the films in that format.

    Which they will, and us Bond suckers will snap them right up and give them more money! CURSE YOU EON!!!!!!!!
  • Posts: 1,181
    It would be nice if they had some way to verify past purchases and provide some sort of loyalty discount, but I don't think they would do that even if they could track it. I'm looking for more special features on the next upgrade. Also, no previews, and no bs when loading the disc up. Just boot straight to the menu for easy launch.

    The quality of 4k will be worth it for me to repurchase, but it will be awhile, because I'll still have to get a new 4k tv.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    I wonder when they'll become common.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Ed83 wrote: »
    Also, no previews, and no bs when loading the disc up. Just boot straight to the menu for easy launch.
    Oh yes, please!

  • Do you think Fox is going to release a Craig-Bond Deluxe BD edition this year? We have a CR deluxe edition, but QoS and SF editions are quite poor in a lot of aspects and we know there are several never seen deleted/alternative scenes.
    And what about UHD Blu Rays? I have an "useless" 49 " 4k TV. UHD discs and players are going to be released this Christmas, but without Bond movies I think I am not going to spend 400 €+ in a new BD player.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I have no respect for the dvd/blu ray releases of the Bond movies because the content is overwhelming poor. There's so much that goes into the production process and we get less than barebones. Just look at the standard single disc harry potter dvds. There are hours of extra content with so much to offer never mind the deluxe special dvd/blu ray editions. It's an outrage.
  • Posts: 553
    Right through Majesty's they are extraordinarily beautiful

    What about after?

    There is a drop off due to a mixture of cheaper film stock and the later films being remastered rather than restored. None look bad, as such, but the 60s and Last 3 films are in a different class.

  • Posts: 553
    Ed83 wrote: »
    4k will be even more amazing when they release the films in that format.

    Which they will, and us Bond suckers will snap them right up and give them more money! CURSE YOU EON!!!!!!!!

    I'd be wary of that, as I'm not convinced we'd be able to tell the difference on home sets.

  • edited July 2015 Posts: 389
    I think that the ultimate edition (DN-DAD) was excellent, especially until LTK ( I love John Cork documentaries with Peter McNee as the narrator) . About the last three movies, I believe EON/MGM have long hours of extra content in a lost drawer. I would pay 20-25 € per movie again to watch CR screen tests for the Bond role, QoS alternative ending or SF deleted scenes with some interesting documentaries about production and pre-production process.
  • Posts: 5,767
    doubleoego wrote: »
    I have no respect for the dvd/blu ray releases of the Bond movies because the content is overwhelming poor. There's so much that goes into the production process and we get less than barebones. Just look at the standard single disc harry potter dvds. There are hours of extra content with so much to offer never mind the deluxe special dvd/blu ray editions. It's an outrage.
    I think that the ultimate edition (DN-DAD) was excellent, especially until LTK ( I love John Cork documentaries with Peter McNee as the narrator).
    The John Cork docs(which are also on the SE, not only the UE, contain more interesting info in 50min than any other making of I have ever seen, long or short. I anyhow prefer short docs that are loaded to the common bloated stuff with little things of interest.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,368
    Blu-ray is about as far as I'll go. It impresses me like crazy, but there's no way I'll ever have the money to shell out again and repurchase my entire collection in 4K, on top of getting a 4K blu-ray player, a 4K TV, etc. It's just too much. Besides, blu-ray really isn't as popular a format as it should be - really evidenced in most of the stores I frequent - so I hope 4K isn't trying to be the next big thing.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Ed83 wrote: »
    4k will be even more amazing when they release the films in that format.

    Which they will, and us Bond suckers will snap them right up and give them more money! CURSE YOU EON!!!!!!!!

    I'd be wary of that, as I'm not convinced we'd be able to tell the difference on home sets.

    Agree with @ThePastyKid on that. Saw a 4K presentation in a Sony (I'm a Panasonic man myself) and I can't say I really was impressed. As with HD, anything below a 37inch screen you don't really see the benefit so I'm assuming that pro-rata anything below, say, a 50inch screen you'll not see the benefit from 4K. Plus longer load times and what is there available? Are there any tv stations broadcasting in 4K? I'm pretty made up with blu-ray.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,675
    Yeah, Blu I think is fine for a while
  • Ed83 wrote: »
    4k will be even more amazing when they release the films in that format.

    Which they will, and us Bond suckers will snap them right up and give them more money! CURSE YOU EON!!!!!!!!

    I'd be wary of that, as I'm not convinced we'd be able to tell the difference on home sets.

    Agree with @ThePastyKid on that. Saw a 4K presentation in a Sony (I'm a Panasonic man myself) and I can't say I really was impressed. As with HD, anything below a 37inch screen you don't really see the benefit so I'm assuming that pro-rata anything below, say, a 50inch screen you'll not see the benefit from 4K. Plus longer load times and what is there available? Are there any tv stations broadcasting in 4K? I'm pretty made up with blu-ray.
    But now, most of the people who is buying a new TV for the living room is buying a 4k TV. The problem is that there are no 4k discs, there aren´t real 4k TV networks and there are very few 4k on line/streaming videos. So it is time to release some things in 4k. Of course you can´t release the whole MGM cataloge in UHD BD again, in fact, I wouldn´t release all the Bond movies in 4k , but Daniel Craig films should be available in 4k in one year.
  • eddychaputeddychaput Montreal, Canada
    Posts: 364
    There have been some movie theatre screenings of the early Bond films. I listened to a podcast some time ago and one of the hosts had been allowed to watch DN. Granted, it was on a large movie screen, not a 50 inch Tv, but apparently it was amazing.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    GE is the worst looking Bond on Blu Ray. That said, it looks pretty great. :)>-
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    eddychaput wrote: »
    There have been some movie theatre screenings of the early Bond films. I listened to a podcast some time ago and one of the hosts had been allowed to watch DN. Granted, it was on a large movie screen, not a 50 inch Tv, but apparently it was amazing.

    The recent Best of Bond showings in the cinema (here in Blighty that is) were 4K presentations, I went to the first one - Dr No and Goldfinger - and they did look good, but they were on a cinema screen. Just don't think it would be noticeable on a home screen. But if one of the TV giants would like to give me a 4K telly and something to watch on it I'd gladly do a comparison test!
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    Posts: 260
    4K is fine, more pixels dont hurt, but despite the hype its not the next big thing. HDR, or High Dynamic Range, will be. Here's an article my colleges recently wrote.

  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,630
    Maybe one day we get this steelbook release...

    MzIZaR2.jpg
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 11,119
    Recently I've updated my James Bond steelbook collection with the very rare MediaMarkt Exclusive steelbook from "Casino Royale". I had to pay quite a bit for it, but I think my collection looks much better now. What do you guys think?

    eQKutA.jpg
    WHjnKN.jpg
    FvrSDG.jpg
    0ZFH99.jpg
    hE6P8i.jpg

    Maybe one day we get this steelbook release...

    MzIZaR2.jpg

    I fully agree @AgentJamesBond007 . That teaser poster deserves a full-blown steelbook treatment. Just have a look at my James Bond-steelbook collection at the moment. They are so lovely.

    BUT, I have to agree with some people in here. The "Casino Royale-DeLuxe" BluRay at the moment is the only Bond BluRay which has TWO discs. It's loaded with so many extra's. And all other 22 Bond films don't have that! Just look to The Dark Knight Trilogy steelbook releases. They all have two discs, period!:
    fBueDQ.jpg
  • Posts: 5,767
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    4K is fine, more pixels dont hurt, but despite the hype its not the next big thing. HDR, or High Dynamic Range, will be. Here's an article my colleges recently wrote.
    Filmmakers will get heart attacks if the presentation format changes every few years.


    The "Casino Royale-DeLuxe" BluRay at the moment is the only Bond BluRay which has TWO discs. It's loaded with so many extra's. And all other 22 Bond films don't have that! Just look to The Dark Knight Trilogy steelbook releases. They all have two discs, period!:
    There is no extra content on any film ever that´s more bloated than the CR deluxe version.
    The John Cork docs are the real thing. Sure there are more tidbits that could be included, but those docs are a prime example of how extra features should be presented, lean, to the point, and exciting. There are too many extra features on too many films that are a waste of time.

  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 260
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Filmmakers will get heart attacks if the presentation format changes every few years.

    It wont. HDR is about camera and display performance, nothing to do with the format itself. Any director or DP with any sensibility will welcome with open arms increased dynamic range.

    In terms of "format", filmakers want....no, need 8K at the capture side of things and they need it now, but that's a whole other topic. :)



  • edited July 2015 Posts: 5,767
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    Filmmakers will get heart attacks if the presentation format changes every few years.

    It wont. HDR is about camera and display performance, nothing to do with the format itself. Any director or DP with any sensibility will welcome with open arms increased dynamic range.

    In terms of "format", filmakers want....no, need 8K at the capture side of things and they need it now, but that's a whole other topic. :)


    What I meant is that things that weren´t noticeable in cinemas or on DVD sometimes are noticeable on BR (for instance the Terminator´s sunglasses being a bit translucent, thus revealing two real eyes instead of one eye being the cyborg eye, or in many films the makeup the actors are wearing), which means BRs of old films have to be prepared differently than DVDs, and things like makeup have to be handled differently during shooting of new films.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 260
    boldfinger wrote: »
    What I meant is that things that weren´t noticeable in cinemas or on DVD sometimes are noticeable on BR (for instance the Terminator´s sunglasses being a bit translucent, thus revealing two real eyes instead of one eye being the cyborg eye, or in many films the makeup the actors are wearing), which means BRs of old films have to be prepared differently than DVDs, and things like makeup have to be handled differently during shooting of new films.

    Personally I dont subscribe to that notion. Factually speaking, BD falls short of 35mm film (flat or scope) in both resolution and color rendition as well as perceived contrast. These notions of seeing things you didn't in the cinema generally stem from the fact that we tend to see a film at the theater once (usually many years ago in this context) compared to many times at home (usually much more recently) where we can pause it, lean in so that your nose is almost touching the screen, and moreover tend to have someone sitting next to you telling you to watch for the artifact they read about online. :) Now if that means that filmakers are under greater scrutiny at home than in the cinema, well, thats not the medium's fault.

    PS the real eyes goof was documented well before BD and thus not unique to it.
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 260
    (...)I wouldn´t release all the Bond movies in 4k , but Daniel Craig films should be available in 4k in one year.

    Never happen for Skyfall. NEVER. It was shot (in my opinion short shortsightedly) at 1080 line. It has, literally, less resolution to work from than Dr. No.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,965
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    (...)I wouldn´t release all the Bond movies in 4k , but Daniel Craig films should be available in 4k in one year.

    Never happen for Skyfall. NEVER. It was shot (in my opinion short shortsightedly) at 1080 line. It has, literally, less resolution to work from than Dr. No.

    Hold the phone. Are you telling me that Skyfall is a lower resolution than Dr No? I am aghast!
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 260
    Hold the phone. Are you telling me that Skyfall is a lower resolution than Dr No? I am aghast!

    Basically...yes. Skyfall was shot on the Ari, sensor cropped to 1:78:1 (resulting in a raw 2880x1620), and then assembled at 1920x1080 so that's as good as it will ever get. Any claim of a 4K presentation, now or in the future, would be an up-sample (and misleading).

    In contrast, Dr. No (et all) were shot on film and while the condition of the negative and the requisite cleanup are a separate topic, the bottom line is that 35mm can (and now frequently is) scanned in at 4K and you are getting 4k worth of detail.

    This is why many of us in the biz are pushing not just for 4k, but 8k on the production side of things (NOT consumer side), so that 10, 20, 50 years from now we dont look back on films like Skyfall and lament how they are inferior to movies shot on film decades earlier. The RED 8K sensor is nice because its exactly a 2x multiple of 4K which means you can either shoot 8K (STILL doesn't replace the now defunct IMAX 70mm/15perf) OR shoot 4K and actually get 4K worth of RGB (as oppose to subsampled chroma).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 7,965
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    Hold the phone. Are you telling me that Skyfall is a lower resolution than Dr No? I am aghast!

    Basically...yes. Skyfall was shot on the Ari, sensor cropped to 1:78:1 (resulting in a raw 2880x1620), and then assembled at 1920x1080 so that's as good as it will ever get. Any claim of a 4K presentation would be an up-sample (and misleading).

    In contrast, Dr. No (et all) were shot on film and while the condition of the negative and the requisite cleanup are a separate topic, the bottom line is that 35mm can (and now frequently is) scanned in at 4K and you are getting 4k worth of detail.

    This is why many of us in the biz are pushing not just for 4k, but 8k on the production side of things (NOT consumer side), so that 10, 20, 50 years from now we dont look back on films like Skyfall and lament how they are inferior to movies shot on film decades earlier. The RED 8K sensor is nice because its exactly a 2x multiple of 4K which means you can either shoot 8K (STILL doesn't replace the now defunct IMAX 70mm/15perf) OR shoot 4K and actually get 4K worth of RGB (as oppose to subsampled chroma).

    Well I'll be. Dr No is in my top three along with From Russia and OHMSS. I can't wait to upgrade to Bluray for my birthday because I am told that these see the most improvement. This excites me greatly, thanks! :D
  • sunsanvilsunsanvil Somewhere in Canada....somewhere.
    edited July 2015 Posts: 260
    IMO Lowery did such a good job on the early ones they look like they came off of prints struck yesterday.

    To clarify though, all the BDs, from Dr.No to Skyfall, are of course the same 1080 line resolution. The limitation is that Skyfall can never be released or screened any better than that, while Dr. No (etc) may in future be screened at 4K, either in some future UHD format or, perhaps more appropriately, a true 4K cinema presentation.
  • edited July 2015 Posts: 5,767
    sunsanvil wrote: »
    boldfinger wrote: »
    What I meant is that things that weren´t noticeable in cinemas or on DVD sometimes are noticeable on BR (for instance the Terminator´s sunglasses being a bit translucent, thus revealing two real eyes instead of one eye being the cyborg eye, or in many films the makeup the actors are wearing), which means BRs of old films have to be prepared differently than DVDs, and things like makeup have to be handled differently during shooting of new films.

    Personally I dont subscribe to that notion. Factually speaking, BD falls short of 35mm film (flat or scope) in both resolution and color rendition as well as perceived contrast. These notions of seeing things you didn't in the cinema generally stem from the fact that we tend to see a film at the theater once (usually many years ago in this context) compared to many times at home (usually much more recently) where we can pause it, lean in so that your nose is almost touching the screen, and moreover tend to have someone sitting next to you telling you to watch for the artifact they read about online. :) Now if that means that filmakers are under greater scrutiny at home than in the cinema, well, thats not the medium's fault.

    PS the real eyes goof was documented well before BD and thus not unique to it.
    I usually watch a film several times at the cinema when I like it, and the things I mentioned are things I noticed the first time I watched the repective films on BR (2-3m distance from my 32" tv). It´s possible that of the nearly twenty cinemas in my town none has a really decent projection, but recently I found some films sharper, and many details easier to spot, on BR.



    sunsanvil wrote: »
    (...)I wouldn´t release all the Bond movies in 4k , but Daniel Craig films should be available in 4k in one year.

    Never happen for Skyfall. NEVER. It was shot (in my opinion short shortsightedly) at 1080 line. It has, literally, less resolution to work from than Dr. No.
    Hasn´t every film shot in digital less resolution than Dr. No? Because films shot on film don´t have pixels? So naturally, any film shot in the 60s on good film stock will increase details any time the transformation resolution increases, as long as some functioning film roll still exists.

Sign In or Register to comment.