ichorwhip . Don't sweat it Randy. The same domineering, blabbering
lunatic you speak of is convinced that Kubrick dropped acid constantly and
was a closet Buddhist. Namecalling his stupid ass is a good thing because
he'd certainly do the same thing to you, and then the goodness will come of
being plonked by his insipid chucklehead. I really enjoyed your review, and
it's entirely in line with what I've seen and what I've read about the
Blu-ray format on the proper equipment. And your passion for the subject
shows; you don't have to be a "fanboy" to be excited about what's really
good. This is the kind of stuff this newsgroup ought to be about. Thanks!
"I'm damned if I can find anything wrong with it." i "piop" - Hide quoted
text -- Show quoted text -
More options Oct 23, 8:54 pm
From: ichorwhip <***@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:54:49 -0000
Local: Tues, Oct 23 2007 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: "2001" on Blu-ray - first impressions
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Oct 23, 9:04 pm, Randy Walters <***@worldpeace.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Ichywhip seen on Google groups:
Don't sweat it Randy. The same domineering, blabbering lunatic you
speak of is convinced that Kubrick dropped acid constantly and was a
closet Buddhist. Namecalling his stupid ass is a good thing because
he'd certainly do the same thing to you, and then the goodness will
come of being plonked by his insipid chucklehead.
I really enjoyed your review, and it's entirely in line with what I've
seen and what I've read about the Blu-ray format on the proper
equipment. And your passion for the subject shows; you don't have to
be a "fanboy" to be excited about what's really good. This is the
kind of stuff this newsgroup ought to be about. Thanks!
"I'm damned if I can find anything wrong with it."
You are lying again Ichorwhippy, with the same Bill Riedian, type nonsense.
I never said SK "dropped acid constantly," nor did I ever say I had any
information he continued to practice buddhism beyond 1968, after he returned
to the UK.
I am also not 'convinced' Sk used LSD. it is just a fact, well known to us
at that time in a circle of people. It is not a matter of being
"convinced' as though it is a mere belief.
And although I wasn't in attendence at the exact moment SK recieved his
Mandala from the buddhist sect in question I know for a fact that he did,
because I arrived at that location shortly after he had left and was told
he had just left. As I explained once before it was a particular American
director and his daughter, who had sponsored him and the daughter who had
told me what had happened, in person. I always regretted I had been late
that day to the ceremony, to see SK receive his mandala along with other
people on that day.
There is also the printed interview with ACC where he does finally admit to
have experimented with LSD himself. The other interviews where either of
them attempt to deny it, are just natural. By that time it was illegal. So
try not to be so idiotic. You already know Sk was a very private person and
didn't want other's to know his business. It was quite common for well
known people to deny experiementing with LSD--because there were witchhunts.
And only complete ninnies would imagine that SK did not experiement with
LSD. It was well known at the time where that LSD came from and from who he
got it from. It was also legal at the time and being used by psychiatrists,
pscyhologists, philosophers and all kinds of creative people and brilliant
people. Your derangement in this matter is absurd. I have no idea how many
times he used LSD, but I know he used it at least once.
It's not that you have anything to add to the conversation about HD, it's
just you, interjecting your low grade troll comments. Im sure you are
going to run out and buy all the HD disks you can find. Wasn't that you on
another thread saying how Vinyl Lps are better? Of course they are.
Digital media is still primitve and has numerous drawbacks,
Are we going to buy every edition of SK films dished out by the money
grubbing companies every three years?
I am not trying to rain on Randy's parade, he is loving his new TV and just
watched 2001 on it, but for people with big DVD collections, it is silly to
jump in and repurchase all the HD titles. All that does is encourage the
lackluster formats which will be replaced by new formats in a few years.
I'll be interested in repurchasing my favorite films again, when they are
many times better in 5 years and I am not holding my breath for a decent
film these days.
Post by Kelpzoidzl
Post by Don Stockbauer Post by Kelpzoidzl
It's Tuesday night, October 23, and I just finished watching the Blu-ray
release of "2001" on my 108" Sony 1080p projection system.
What a banquet. What a transfer. What a movie, what a master of cinema.
I know, you're thinking "what a crock", and I deserve it, I guess... I'm
just stunned, which is pretty remarkable for a film I've seen many dozens
Before I go on, I've got to get something out of the way... I just
reviewed the thread "The Stanley Kubrick Collection on HD", and one
person was glibly posting repeatedly as if he was an oracle on the subject
I don't like to get into name calling, and ragging on other posters, but
when I read a statement like
"I'm not saying you can't see a difference, I am saying the difference
does not warrant the hype and expectation and if I want the best picture
of all I can watch a Blueray DVD on my computer with the 27" monitor."
I've just got to cry bullshit. What a load of tripe. This individual
clearly has no experience with a well calibrated high-end system, which
can truly rival the cinema experience - though of course, you still can't
beat that curved Cinerama screen I first experienced the movie on nearly
40 years ago.
To claim that you're going to get "the best picture of all" sitting
hunched in front of your computer monitor is just daft.
Well I'm glad you like it. But apparently you are content with the mediocre
improvement of the picture with HD. So now you can repurchase your entire
movie collection of favorite films again and watch it on your projector.
For me, I will wait till technology has gotten better before I am going to
rave about how wonderful it all is and repurchase my collection of films, so
you can pack them in boxes when the next formats come out. Granted the TV
are better then ever, but the HD/Bluray disc formats are just a way to get
us to waste money on a new Movie collection.
In reality HD and Bluray is already 6 year old technology. Its all about
storage size with only a small improvement in picture quality. The change
from 1080i to 1080p is just a processing effect from interlaced to
progressive. One can do fine, just using using the processing in an
Upconvert player and stick with existing DVD's.
Sure, if I ever buy any new films I will buy them in HD or Blueray, but for
my favorite films in my collection, I am not about to buy a new collection
and fall for the marketing scam. The Bluray vs. HD debate is also a
ridulous fanbois argument.
Here are some links
As since it's really all about processing power--video scaling and how much
can be stored on a disk ---of course the picture is going to look better on
a high end computer, then the CON-sumer chips in the players.
Try hooking up your projector to a high end computer and just watching a reg
def DVD of 2001. You won't be "hunching" over it and you certainly will not
see a much of a difference with a silly HD or Bluray disk and if you use a
Upconvert technology the same is true. These discs are all just interim
technology which some people are falling for.
BTW there are already HD disks that hold 51 gigs of data and new disk
formats that holds more then 150 gigs.
Digitizing film, like digitizing music is still in it's infancy. Same
reason people still like Vinyl Lps over Cd's.
BTW I've seen the Sony Projectors, they are very nice, as projectors go,
but if you are talking about picture quality and not just a wide screen
effect, you are kidding yourself.
All right, sorry for the negativity.
Since I haven't watched the extras yet (I can't wait!) all I can talk
about is the film itself. The transfer is masterful, revealing things I've
never seen in all the times I've watched "2001" in theaters. Great
saturation, tremendous luminosity, and rich, deep blacks - never milky,
and I never saw any traveling mattes like those painfully apparent in
"Star Wars" transfers.
The level of detail is stunning - I repeatedly paused the disc to get up
and read the tiny little bits of text detail I've never been able to make
out before. I found some amazing things, including the occasional sly joke
hidden in plain sight.
Sometimes, the level of detail revealed flaws - I was astonished to find
that I could actually see strokes left from paint rollers spreading
reflective material on the front-projection screen in the "Dawn of Man"
sequence. Again, I paused the disc and checked to make sure I wasn't
seeing dust smears on my own screen!
I had the uncompressed PCM audio cranked, and it was fantastic. The
slit-scan sequence came alive, without a scratch or fleck of dust... the
best I've seen it since that first showing decades ago.
I know I'm sounding uncritical, like a real fanboy... well, guilty as
charged. Those responsible for this transfer really did a fantastic job
with the most challenging of material, and I can't wait to see the other
new releases. I sincerely hope the same artists can soon bring their
talents to "Barry Lyndon".
To SK's family, friends and associates, I offer my sincere
on this milestone release of his work. I believe that while he would
certainly prefer his work be seen in a theater, he would be pleased that
individuals now have the opportunity to study his work at such a high
level of quality in their own homes.
And I'm sorry for blowing off steam earlier. After the experience I had
just enjoyed with HD, the level of misinformation really rubbed me the
Interesting discussion emphasizing form over content.
The "content" is how much money the companies will make by suckers wasting
money on these 'new" repackaged disks and how much less content the
consumers will have in their pocket.
2001 is a mindblowing film on regular def DVD on any good, newer
The form is "misinformation" and consumer brainwashing making people think
that "high definition" is actually "high definition" when in fact it's
actually down-converted and processed.
Warners is using down-conversion on their new releases, so without HDMI
it's really only 1/4 the resolution of true HD and true HD isn't even true
HD, which is theoretically only 50% higher resolution, then standard def
dvds. This of course is to prevent piracy of first generation digital
copies HDMI cables will protect against piracy for a while. So the disks
have Image restraint tokens imbedded.
I am a believer in DRM and HDMI but I am not a believer in HD/Bluray,
because formats could and will be, in the near future, so much better.
The other part of the story is the cable companies.