Geez... Doubt too many people picked this up. I can't say this was a crappy job, but Replica is sure inconsistent.

4600 or 4700 kbit/sec video it does have (mathematically is correct that is). But they say, all but one sound track (2.0) kept. All that remained was 500 megs of useless trailers which they kept. I dunno why anyone would keep trailers to Guess Who, Vera Drake, Upside of Anger, Monster in Law, The New World, Bright Young Things and Birth. Seven trailers... Man... I know they had the bitrate high enough, but no need to waste the rest.

7/10 Video - The video looks crappy, but that is probably the prints fault and not the DVD (or the DVD-R). But the bitrate being higher could have made it better (probably not by too much though).

6/10 DVD-R - Why so many trailers. Such a waste. Elektra, they kept DTS, good move. Here, 7 trailers? Make no sense. But I am picky. Yet another movie to rip myself.

:: NOTE - I am picky... 90% of you won't give a shit as long as it's not a telesync... So for you, this release is a 10/10/7 ::

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Well statisticly (on this site im on), shows more people downloading the internals with extras than the stripped ones with high bitrates, by a large margin, almost doubles it actually.

So reasons to rls with extras would be: See no internals following your release and be the only release for that movie.

I for one enjoy extras. But here the movie kinda sucks and trailers suck too, but I did enjoy the extras. So it's a give and take I suppose. Bitrate well over par for a non-action flick. So I say why not.

At least its a CCE release, seems 1/3 of the crap I selectively download are one-clickers. I'm happy to download this.

my .02

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshNya
Well statisticly (on this site im on), shows more people downloading the internals with extras than the stripped ones with high bitrates, by a large margin, almost doubles it actually.

So reasons to rls with extras would be: See no internals following your release and be the only release for that movie.

I for one enjoy extras. But here the movie kinda sucks and trailers suck too, but I did enjoy the extras. So it's a give and take I suppose. Bitrate well over par for a non-action flick. So I say why not.

At least its a CCE release, seems 1/3 of the crap I selectively download are one-clickers. I'm happy to download this.

my .02

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshNya
I for one enjoy extras. But here the movie kinda sucks and trailers suck too, but I did enjoy the extras. So it's a give and take I suppose. Bitrate well over par for a non-action flick. So I say why not.

---

The only extras on this disc are the trailers, nothing else. What exactly did you enjoy?

I do agree that extras, in general aren't bad, as long as it doesn't impact video too much (although I never watch them, people I know seem to). My personal crusade is "you like it? Buy it" Extras I consider are for people that enjoy the movie to the point where they actually are willing to at least rent it to see the "behind the scenes".

Ironic part is this is an Infifilm release. Man are they going down hill. They used to have so many extras on retail discs, now they've resorted to just trailers.

Last edited by porco556 on 04-08-2005 at 05:08 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I just ment in general I like the extras. On this film keeping the trailers I wouldnt have though.
Theres only a handfull of groups I trust, so no matter what they do, I'll d/l it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

A Bit late to getting round to posting about this, but its been a busy weekend

Video quality isnt great at all, grainy, and kinda washed out, but i have no idea if the original was the same, but you can see the drop in quality the minute the New Line logo changes from the DVD one, to the one at the beginning of the film, also the trailers are all fantastic quality, putting the film to shame, which shouldnt happen.

Audio is fine, and is as good as it will probably get on this.

Another small niggle is they forgot to take out the link to the 2.0 track, not a biggie, but it irritates me a bit

8/9/?

edit: Just had a gander through the disc again, and the quality on the trailer for Birth is well below the quality on the other trailers, it has that same constant grain, looks like 16mm film blown up to 35mm, so i dont think its al Replica's fault.

Last edited by Redemption198 on 04-11-2005 at 07:47 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redemption1980
edit: Just had a gander through the disc again, and the quality on the trailer for Birth is well below the quality on the other trailers, it has that same constant grain, looks like 16mm film blown up to 35mm, so i dont think its al Replica's fault.

---

This was definitely the fault of the original movie reel. I haven't found an encoder which inserts grain yet hehe They used cheap film and now we have to suffer for it

Side Note:
Grain is actually very hard on bitrate because it's constant moving patterns. With lower bitrates, this impacts really hard on movies like this. Video compression carries as much information from one frame to another, with grain it leaves very little useable information for the next frames. So I wonder what the retail actually looks like. I know the last movie with heavy grain I encoded (21 Grams), the orig looked MUCH better. My copy, the grain started blurring. But that grain was for "effect"...

Down with grain!!! Digital is not ready yet either (IMO) to take over the film industry. Personally, I found Episode II looked really artificial. Same thing with digital cameras, digital pictures just don't look as natural as 35mm. BUT THIS is a whole different can of worms for a different forum

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Yeah i definetly think the source is at fault, maybe it was added for effect, alot of director do that to give the film a more gritty realistic look, i personally think it looks shit, and wish all films were a nice Anamorphic print, but that seems to becoming rarer recently.

I recently watched a Low Budget horror flick called Session 9, good film but that was filmed Digitally i think, and it shows, everything is very sharp and clear, but it just doesnt look right and the colours dont look as good as they would do on Film, Mission Impossible 2 being one of my favourites quality wise, which strangely was the first DVD i ever bought.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Redemption1980
Yeah i definetly think the source is at fault, maybe it was added for effect, alot of director do that to give the film a more gritty realistic look, i personally think it looks shit, and wish all films were a nice Anamorphic print, but that seems to becoming rarer recently.

I recently watched a Low Budget horror flick called Session 9, good film but that was filmed Digitally i think, and it shows, everything is very sharp and clear, but it just doesnt look right and the colours dont look as good as they would do on Film, Mission Impossible 2 being one of my favourites quality wise, which strangely was the first DVD i ever bought.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged