Have any Blu Rays finally replaced controversial DVDs with problematic video/audio?

[toddly6666]

Have there been any Blu Rays which have finally fixed the very problematic DVD versions of DVD re-releases, awful DVD restorations, or letterboxed DVDs that never got anamorphic treatment?

For example:

Army of Darkness: endless dvd versions of different video quality dvds, as well as different versions of the film with better-or-worse video quality.

The Abyss: endless letterboxed dvd re-releases

The Killer (John Woo): extremely problematic audio with every single DVD re-release

Mad Max 2 The Road Warrior: is the Blu Ray better than the French/Australia DVD versions?

Boys From Brazil: I'm assuming that the Blu Ray kicks ass because there is no anamorphic DVD version of this film?

The Shining: are people happier with the widescreen Blu Ray instead of the Full Screen DVD?


Can anyone think of any other Blu Rays that finally have corrected seriously problematic DVDs over the years?

[steelpotato]

Mad Max 2 definitely fits in here as having replaced any dvd out. Vastly superior to the pal dvds.

[cultshock]

The Blu-ray and HD DVDs of THE ROAD WARRIOR and THE SHINING surely look better than any DVD release of these films (I haven't seen the French or Australian DVDs of the former, but there's is no way they could look better than the hi def releases, which also absolutely bury the original so-so R1 DVD release of the film)

From what I've heard, the HD DVD of ARMY OF DARKNESS still suffers the same problem as the domestic DVDs of the film regarding varying film quality (which is why I'm not buying it). It would be nice if a hi def version was released that made use of the same source as the R3 MGM DVD, but who knows if this will happen. Fingers crossed.

[Mr. Salty]

Have there been any Blu Rays which have finally fixed the very problematic DVD versions of DVD re-releases, awful DVD restorations, or letterboxed DVDs that never got anamorphic treatment?
Why do you care? You've made it clear in your thread in the DVD Talk forum that you don't like Blu-ray. It seems to me at this point that you're trolling.

[toddly6666]

Mr. Salty, no you are mistaken. I'm very interested in Blu Ray and Blu Ray released in other countries. I just don't want to buy it. It's like you telling me that I can't comment on Republicans if I want to talk about politics...I never even said anything negative about Blu Ray. I just prefer the look of DVD over Blu Ray, but as i've learned from other posts, my taste may change if I see just one good Blu Ray set-up nicely in a home theater store....

[mzupeman2]

Well Nightmare Before Christmas, that just came out to blu-ray and was never released in an anamorphic DVD, at least not in the States. And its picture quality is excellent.

[John Wielgosz]

'Die Hard With a Vengeance' had a sad history on home video, from the LD to both DVD releases. Massive edge-enhancement and DNR filtering. The Blu Ray release FINALLY gave us a great looking home version...after twelve years.

[Mr. Salty]

I never even said anything negative about Blu Ray.
A sampling:

The Blu Ray video quality of new movies are just too bright, too crisp.

Blu Ray is also headache-inducing.

CGI seems to be even more fake/obvious on Blu Ray over DVD.

[Drexl]

There aren't many, because the studios will usually release new DVD counterparts at the same time due to the vast market for them. That's not likely to change any time soon. The Kubrick titles and The Nightmare Before Christmas all got new DVDs at the same time.

It does add a bit of extra consideration though, as it makes the BD editions more compelling upgrades since you can skip the new DVD and just get the BD.

[Spooon69]

Leon the Professional. Audio problems and some good character development cut from the movie. Not to mention the multitude of releases it's had.

[Drexl]

Leon the Professional. Audio problems and some good character development cut from the movie. Not to mention the multitude of releases it's had.

Um, I don't think this is available on BD yet. I'll snap it up when it is though. :)

[pro-bassoonist]

1. Black Narcissus

2. Eyes Wide Shut

3. How The West Was Won

4. Bram Stoker's Dracula

5. Boys from Brazil

etc.

Pro-B

[toddly6666]

Mr. Salty,
1. the headache-inducing was explained to me due to the "flame on" brightness set up poorly in electronic stores...

[Jay G.]

1. the headache-inducing was explained to me due to the "flame on" brightness set up poorly in electronic stores...
Saying you were incorrect about some of your negative statements is different than claiming that you "never even said anything negative about Blu Ray."

Do you still think that BD video is "too bright, too crisp," and makes CGI look more fake?

[Mr. Cinema]

Mr. Salty, no you are mistaken. I'm very interested in Blu Ray and Blu Ray released in other countries. I just don't want to buy it. It's like you telling me that I can't comment on Republicans if I want to talk about politics...I never even said anything negative about Blu Ray. I just prefer the look of DVD over Blu Ray, but as i've learned from other posts, my taste may change if I see just one good Blu Ray set-up nicely in a home theater store....
You prefer low quality over high quality? Wow. You definitely don't need to be in this forum if that's the case.

[RichC2]

Man whats with the firing squad? Who cares? This topic is a fair question and should yield a few interesting answer.

If somebody sees Blu setup on a misconfigured TV odds are they will take something negative away from it. Our Best Buy, for a long time, had an HD DVD player hookd up with Million Dollar Baby, it looked absolutely terrible -- washed out color, grainy, and while sharp -- every thing else was way off. Aside from that non-point, you don't need to slam somebody over a legit thread.

As others have mentioned, the constant re-releasing of DVDs sort of makes "Definitive version is on Blu-ray only" a bit moot, though there are certainly many examples. IMO, the original release of Dark City had some issues that the new Blu fixes despite some DNR. While the Directors Cut is now on DVD as well, the original is only available on that original release.

And while not the same per se, Salo was incredibly rare on DVD in the US, but the newly released Region Free edition on Blu fixes that up.

[Brian Shannon]

Man whats with the firing squad? Who cares? This topic is a fair question and should yield a few interesting answer.

If somebody sees Blu setup on a misconfigured TV odds are they will take something negative away from it. Our Best Buy, for a long time, had an HD DVD player hookd up with Million Dollar Baby, it looked absolutely terrible -- washed out color, grainy, and while sharp -- every thing else was way off. Aside from that non-point, you don't need to slam somebody over a legit thread.


SOP for this forum. Part of the reason why I rarely venture in here and most of the reason why I continue to wait out the nonsense.

[mdc3000]

^I think you have DVDtalk confused with AVS ;)

[Giles]

1. Black Narcissus

2. Eyes Wide Shut

3. How The West Was Won

4. Bram Stoker's Dracula

5. Boys from Brazil

etc.

Pro-B



etc. ?

round it up to 15 there Pro-B, I want to know more...

[chanster]

Its true that the bad CGI looks worse because you can see it better. What the hell is wrong stating that. And yeah, even good CGI looks faker because of the clarity. Lame flame.

[Giles]

Its true that the bad CGI looks worse because you can see it better. What the hell is wrong stating that. Lame flame.

I saw some bluray pics from 'The Forbidden Kingdom' and the makeup on Michael Angarro's face is very apparent and annoying - it was also apparent on the DLP theatrical presentation of the film.

[kefrank]

I saw some bluray pics from 'The Forbidden Kingdom' and the makeup on Michael Angarro's face is very apparent and annoying - it was also apparent on the DLP theatrical presentation of the film.
And it was likely apparent on the properly projected 35mm presentation as well. The fault for that kind of thing lies on the filmmakers and not the specific presentation format.

[chanster]

Did this guy claim that Blu Ray caused bad CGI or makeup? No. He said its more fake/obvious. Which is true.

[Giles]

And it was likely apparent on the properly projected 35mm presentation as well. The fault for that kind of thing lies on the filmmakers and not the specific presentation format.

but with the advent of hidef, things like bad makeup become all the more apparent. A friend of mine was recently interviewed for a local news channel (in studio) and because they shot in hidef, they didn't put makeup on, because it become very noticeable with the greater clarity and sharpness.

[bunkaroo]

Leon the Professional. Audio problems and some good character development cut from the movie. Not to mention the multitude of releases it's had.

The international cut has been available here for some time.

Also, the first domestic release had the audio problem and was fixed. The later "Deluxe" edition did not have the problem.

Still this is one of my most anticipated Blu-Ray's. I just hope Sony can find time between releasing National Security and Blue Streak to release it. :rolleyes:

[toddly6666]

People are so sensitive to any negative talk towards their beloved Blu Ray!;) Why are people going back to my old quotes when it was already explained to me after my criticisms why the Blu Ray doesn't always look as great in my eyes (due to poor electronics store set-up)? I'm totally willing to accept now that Blu Ray looks better than DVD once I see a correct set-up. Blu Ray seems great and all, I just have a feeling that the HD clarity may not benefit certain kinds of scenes such as CGI, sets, make-up, etc. (as I said earlier with the opening scene of Raiders of Lost Ark on DVD, it looked like a stage set, which is bad). Even watching the newscasters in HD on an HDTV is a bit creepy now - the make-up artists are either going to have to adapt to the HD clarity change or get rid of all that make-up. I've been watching newscasters on an HDTV for about 3 years now and it still seems like the make-up artists can't adapt to the HD change.

I just want to give another example of the CGI being more fake after doing a comparison of the Transformers Blu Ray (I watched it in the electronics store) versus the Transformers DVD:
1. Blu Ray - When the other autobots are entering the earth's atmosphere as comets, those comets look like CGI animation plopped right onto the background. They didn't really merge nicely into the background or environment.
2. DVD - When the other autobots are entering the earth's atmosphere as comets, those comets look pretty believable and merge nicely into the background and the rest of the environment.

I have nothing against bad CGI or good CGI, I just think that Blu Ray may not benefit CGI scenes, poorly made-up scenes, or certain type of stage sets...

[The Cow]

Blu-ray

[theWitcher]

Theoretically, a blu-ray transfer of a theatrical movie should look exactly like that movie looked in the theater, if shown on a much smaller screen. If you had the equipment to blow the blu-ray up to theater-sized, it would likely look dismal. All this grousing about makeup or CGI looking worse in Blu-ray vs DVD suggests that the makeup or CGI looked just as bad in the theater and that video artifacts are a godsend to filmmakers.

And while not the same per se, Salo was incredibly rare on DVD in the US, but the newly released Region Free edition on Blu fixes that up.

Apparently, the new BFI Blu-ray is region coded B. I would love to hear otherwise, because I would like to be able to play their subsequent 'Red Desert.'

[Giles]

People are so sensitive to any negative talk towards their beloved Blu Ray!;) Why are people going back to my old quotes when it was already explained to me after my criticisms why the Blu Ray doesn't always look as great in my eyes (due to poor electronics store set-up)? I'm totally willing to accept now that Blu Ray looks better than DVD once I see a correct set-up. Blu Ray seems great and all, I just have a feeling that the HD clarity may not benefit certain kinds of scenes such as CGI, sets, make-up, etc. (as I said earlier with the opening scene of Raiders of Lost Ark on DVD, it looked like a stage set, which is bad). Even watching the newscasters in HD on an HDTV is a bit creepy now - the make-up artists are either going to have to adapt to the HD clarity change or get rid of all that make-up. I've been watching newscasters on an HDTV for about 3 years now and it still seems like the make-up artists can't adapt to the HD change.

I just want to give another example of the CGI being more fake after doing a comparison of the Transformers Blu Ray (I watched it in the electronics store) versus the Transformers DVD:
1. Blu Ray - When the other autobots are entering the earth's atmosphere as comets, those comets look like CGI animation plopped right onto the background. They didn't really merge nicely into the background or environment.
2. DVD - When the other autobots are entering the earth's atmosphere as comets, those comets look pretty believable and merge nicely into the background and the rest of the environment.

I have nothing against bad CGI or good CGI, I just think that Blu Ray may not benefit CGI scenes, poorly made-up scenes, or certain type of stage sets...


but that's not bluray's fault - it's the filmmaker's part.

[toddly6666]

Giles, are the filmmakers going to learn? I hope so...The worst kind of filmmaker that doesn't adapt is George Lucas. Those prequels looked like video games with actors pasted on in the theater and on DVD. I can't wait to see how bad those prequels will look on Blu Ray.

So what are the best Blu Rays of a CGI/action-oriented film that have none of the above-listed weaknesses?

[applesandrice]

With few exceptions, the vast majority of Blu-ray titles in current release have offered -- at the very least -- a modest improvement over their DVD counterparts. That is to say, they more closely resemble the original source material -- fake-looking or not. Seriously: if the concern is whether or not you'll see the strings holding up the spaceships, etc., I recommend sticking with VHS.

[Giles]

With few exceptions, the vast majority of Blu-ray titles in current release have offered -- at the very least -- a modest improvement over their DVD counterparts. That is to say, they more closely resemble the original source material -- fake-looking or not. Seriously: if the concern is whether or not you'll see the strings holding up the spaceships, etc., I recommend sticking with VHS.

yet you look at some movies where bloopers have been erased

'Raiders' in particular where the glass separating Indy and the snake was removed but the shadow of the bouncey block letting Marion and Indy out from the Well of Souls isn't optically removed. Given all the tools filmmakers have at their disposal, it's interesting to see how movies are tweaked for video and in most cases not. The overuse of DNR is one of the negatives of film to video hidef transfers - 'Patton' being an excellent example.

[toddly6666]

With few exceptions, the vast majority of Blu-ray titles in current release have offered -- at the very least -- a modest improvement over their DVD counterparts. That is to say, they more closely resemble the original source material -- fake-looking or not. Seriously: if the concern is whether or not you'll see the strings holding up the spaceships, etc., I recommend sticking with VHS.

My concern is not the strings, but the spaceships...(but yeah, that's up to the filmmaker rather than the media format. But that filmmaker needs to realize how it's going to look on that format)

[PerryD]

My concern is not the strings, but the spaceships...(but yeah, that's up to the filmmaker rather than the media format. But that filmmaker needs to realize how it's going to look on that format)

Film has a much higher resolution than Blu-ray, I'm sure that is the filmmakers main concern.

[Josh Z]

Man whats with the firing squad? Who cares? This topic is a fair question and should yield a few interesting answer.

Toddly recently posted in the International forum on this site (Salo BR thread) that he would rather watch movies on VHS than Blu-ray. So it's only natural to assume that he started this thread in the HD forum to troll.

[RichC2]

Toddly recently posted in the International forum on this site (Salo BR thread) that he would rather watch movies on VHS than Blu-ray. So it's only natural to assume that he started this thread in the HD forum to troll.

rotfl

Got it. It makes sense now.

I understand the basic complaint that too much clarity can make some (esp. low budget) things that are passable in low resolution formats look pretty bad, but that's still a fairly goofy comment.

[applesandrice]

You know, in all the years I've been wearing glasses I've been really struck by how many ugly people there are.

Stupid glasses! Why do you make people ugly??

;)

[kefrank]

Giles, are the filmmakers going to learn?
are the filmmakers going to learn what? all of the things you're complaining about have been evident in theatrical presentations since well before Blu-ray was even conceived. they have nothing to do with Blu-ray in particular, except that if they are evident in the theater, they're more evident on Blu-ray than on DVD, which is exactly what most people want out of a home video format: better transparency to the theatrical presentation.

furthermore, of all the Blu-ray's i've watched, only a handful (at best) of the movies have had these kinds of filmmaking flaws that i noticed on Blu-ray, but not on DVD. to denigrate a format because better transparency to the theatrical presentation might expose a few minor flaws that existed in the theater on a few movies seems odd and irrational to me.

[droidguy1119]

I didn't know the Theatrical Cut of Army of Darkness had any problems. I know Anchor Bay's Director's Cut was sourced from a VHS and thusly looked like crap, but I thought the TC was fine.

Additionally, the HD-DVD of the TC was awesome because the combo version had an anamorphic version of the DVD on the flipside. The stand-alone release Universal's had for years is non-anamorphic. Since I never had an HD-DVD player, I bought it for that.

[toddly6666]

Josh Z, I never said I would watch VHS over Blu Ray. I said that some movies or scenes of movies can look better on lesser quality media formats. I can never watch VHS again. I'm a DVD snob, and maybe someday I'll be a Blu Ray snob.

I have no understanding of your troll comments. I have intentionally posted threads on Blu Ray for discussion, debate, and learning. Some people prefer DVD over Blu Ray as you've seen in my other poll thread. So what? There are positives and negatives to every new technology...

Another great thing that I realized about Blu Ray if it totally phases out DVD, is that it will hopefully make Pan&Scan and Full Screen versions of films obsolete, which are still showing up on DVDs.

[RyoHazuki]

Wasn't there some sort of image issue with the Dracula blu ray? I never really looked into it since I don't really care for the movie but I seem to remember people being unhappy with the blu ray.

[Drexl]

Another great thing that I realized about Blu Ray if it totally phases out DVD, is that it will hopefully make Pan&Scan and Full Screen versions of films obsolete, which are still showing up on DVDs.

Not exactly. We're just changing from one fixed ratio to another. While this should alleviate the problem of 1.85:1 transfers being released as 1.33:1, there is still the possibility of cropping other material that doesn't fit. They're already doing it with IMAX films, but there is debate over whether this is acceptable or not.

[Jay G.]

Not exactly. We're just changing from one fixed ratio to another. While this should alleviate the problem of 1.85:1 transfers being released as 1.33:1, there is still the possibility of cropping other material that doesn't fit. They're already doing it with IMAX films, but there is debate over whether this is acceptable or not.
Yep, what Drexl said. There's potential for 2.35:1, 1.66:1, and 1.33:1 film and TV to all be cropped or open-matted (or some combination of the two) to fill out the 16:9 frame. The Lord of the Rings films had all the digital effects rendered in open-matte 16:9 for just such an eventuality.

Fortunately, right now studios are releasing most material in OAR, but there's as much potential for abuse of OAR as there was with DVD.

[Jay G.]

Wasn't there some sort of image issue with the Dracula blu ray?
The new transfer made for the Dracula BD was darker and had different/less saturated colors than the Superbit disc. Those that were disappointed with it were going off the assumption that the Superbit had a correct transfer. However, several prominent film restorationists publicly stated that the new transfer on the BD and DVD CE was closer to how the film was originally intended to be seen.

[Josh Z]

The new transfer made for the Dracula BD was darker and had different/less saturated colors than the Superbit disc. Those that were disappointed with it were going off the assumption that the Superbit had a correct transfer. However, several prominent film restorationists publicly stated that the new transfer on the BD and DVD CE was closer to how the film was originally intended to be seen.

It wasn't "several prominent film restorationists". It was one film restorationist (Robert Harris) and a rep from the studio.

This is not the place to rehash that debate, but there is still plenty of disagreement about "how the film was originally intended to be seen".

[Goldberg74]

sex in real life : sex in porn :: watching a movie on SD : watching a movie in HD

[Mr. Salty]

It wasn't "several prominent film restorationists". It was one film restorationist (Robert Harris) and a rep from the studio.

This is not the place to rehash that debate, but there is still plenty of disagreement about "how the film was originally intended to be seen".

However, since Harris has been working with Copolla for several years on the Godfather restorations, he's in a better position than most of us to have authoritative information.

[chanster]

The new transfer made for the Dracula BD was darker and had different/less saturated colors than the Superbit disc. Those that were disappointed with it were going off the assumption that the Superbit had a correct transfer. However, several prominent film restorationists publicly stated that the new transfer on the BD and DVD CE was closer to how the film was originally intended to be seen.

Wow. How could they have ever gotten that assumption in their poor minds!


How about the fact that is how it looked in the theaters and all those great press releases trumpeting how Superbit was so great!

http://www.dvdfile.com/news/web_wire/press_release/launches/superbit.html

Oh yeah and I wouldn't neccessarily call Mr. Harris very objective when as you mention he probably has a lot of business relationships with Coppola.

[Jay G.]

It wasn't "several prominent film restorationists". It was one film restorationist (Robert Harris) and a rep from the studio.
It wasn't just "a rep from the studio," it was Kim Aubry, who was Technical Director and Vice President for Engineering and Technology at American Zoetrope and was part of the Coppola team since 1986. He was credited as a Technical Supervisor on Dracula. He was also the producer on the 2003 restoration of One From the Heart.

http://www.filmsondisc.com/Features/Aubry/kim_aubry.htm
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0041447/
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/artists/a/Kim-Aubry/index-410670.html

He's also head of ZAP Zoetrope Aubry Productions, which handles DVD productions of the American Zoetrope films, among others.

From
http://www.zap-sf.com/
ZAP creates high quality original content for DVD, and part of that process includes restoration of film sound and image for the digital medium.

From:
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/draculabluray.php
In a brief e-mail conversation with the producer of this DVD (and longtime Coppola collaborator) Kim Aubry, Aubry does confirm that the Superbit transfer was done without either his or Coppola's involvement. He also goes on to say that a new HD transfer was created using an interpositive found in Sony's vault. Said element was compared to a print of the film that Coppola and cinematographer Michael Ballhaus (The Departed) had approved for the initial theatrical release of the film. Quoting Aubry, "this new HD master is much closer to the original final answer print that Coppola and Ballhaus made when the film opened at the end of 1992."

Wow. How could they have ever gotten that assumption in their poor minds! How about the fact that is how it looked in the theaters and all those great press releases trumpeting how Superbit was so great!
http://www.dvdfile.com/news/web_wire/press_release/launches/superbit.html
Nothing in the Superbit press release mentions accuracy of the transfer. All a Superbit did was provide a lager video bitrate for the video. In most cases they were the same transfers as used before.

As for "how it look in the theaters," the film was released over 15 years ago, so the average moviegoer's memory of what the film actually looked like in theaters is suspect.

It's safe to say that the quality of the Dracula transfer is at least debatable. This might not be the best thread to resurrect this debate, so let's just label the Dracula transfer as "controversial" and move on.

[orangerunner]

As for "how it look in the theaters," the film was released over 15 years ago, so the average moviegoer's memory of what the film actually looked like in theaters is suspect.

It's safe to say that the quality of the Dracula transfer is at least debatable. This might not be the best thread to resurrect this debate, so let's just label the Dracula transfer as "controversial" and move on.

The way it was projected originally is also questionable as many theaters turn down the wattage in the projectors to save money.

[Josh Z]

As for "how it look in the theaters," the film was released over 15 years ago, so the average moviegoer's memory of what the film actually looked like in theaters is suspect.

I saw the movie several times in theaters. The scene where Harker explores Dracula's dungeon and text from his diary is overlayed on top of the image stood out to me very vividly at the time. That effect is gone in the Blu-ray. The image has been so over-darkened and the black crush is so severe that all shadow detail in that scene is eradicated.

Kim Aubry may insist that the movie's interpositive was always intended to look that way, but I have a very hard time believing that the film's editor and special effects supervisor would go to the trouble of compositing that effect if they didn't want viewers to ever see it.

It's safe to say that the quality of the Dracula transfer is at least debatable. This might not be the best thread to resurrect this debate, so let's just label the Dracula transfer as "controversial" and move on.

Agreed. There have been plenty of other threads on this subject where this has been hashed out in depth.

[Jay G.]

I saw the movie several times in theaters. The scene where Harker explores Dracula's dungeon and text from his diary is overlayed on top of the image stood out to me very vividly at the time.
There are people that "vividly" remember seeing the "To Be Continued" at the end of Back to the Future in theaters as well. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that one's memory is as reliable as we'd like to think it is, especially if it's been augmented by later home video viewings.

[Josh Z]

There are people that "vividly" remember seeing the "To Be Continued" at the end of Back to the Future in theaters as well. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that one's memory is as reliable as we'd like to think it is, especially if it's been augmented by later home video viewings.

That the new Blu-ray transfer is different than the original theatrical release really isn't in dispute. Even Robert Harris and Kim Aubry admit that. Their argument is that the theatrical release and every previous home video edition were wrong, and only this recently-resurrected interpositive is correct.

Besides, my point still stands -- Why would that effect be composited over the frame if they didn't want anyone to see it?

[SPRBD]

That the new Blu-ray transfer is different than the original theatrical release really isn't in dispute. Even Robert Harris and Kim Aubry admit that. Their argument is that the theatrical release and every previous home video edition were wrong, and only this recently-resurrected interpositive is correct.

Besides, my point still stands -- Why would that effect be composited over the frame if they didn't want anyone to see it?

You're obviously right about everything you've ever said. Now, can we please move on?

:)

[chanster]

That the new Blu-ray transfer is different than the original theatrical release really isn't in dispute. Even Robert Harris and Kim Aubry admit that. Their argument is that the theatrical release and every previous home video edition were wrong, and only this recently-resurrected interpositive is correct.

Besides, my point still stands -- Why would that effect be composited over the frame if they didn't want anyone to see it?

Sounds a lot like George Lucas and "Star Wars"

[Jay G.]

That the new Blu-ray transfer ....
Since it's clear this revived discussion isn't going to go away, I answered your post in a different, more appropriate thread:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?p=8936040#post8936040

[Josh Z]

You're obviously right about everything you've ever said. Now, can we please move on?

:)

Yes. Thank you for acknowledging that. We may move on now. :D

[Suprmallet]

Mod Note: Just because a poster may be critical of Blu-ray does not mean other members have the right to gainsay or attack every post that person makes. This thread was perfectly within the OP's right to post. I thought it was a good question, personally.