Love & Mercy Blu-Ray/DVD Official thread

[Andrew G. Doe]

Well, now - begin screened in Kingston (where I'll be, more or less) Sunday-Thursday at 1.30pm. That'll do.

[Cliff1000uk]

Well, now - begin screened in Kingston (where I'll be, more or less) Sunday-Thursday at 1.30pm. That'll do.

Good man-I'd give yourself an extra hour just to cross the one way system   

[undercover-m]

Dunno if this has already been mentioned but on amazon it's currently listed for the cheaper price of $13.99 (US, regular-not-blu-ray price).

And also on a somewhat related note, I don't think I've ever seen a movie on Blu-Ray? Is it all that different?

[Misterlou]

Dunno if this has already been mentioned but on amazon it's currently listed for the cheaper price of $13.99 (US, regular-not-blu-ray price).

And also on a somewhat related note, I don't think I've ever seen a movie on Blu-Ray? Is it all that different?

IMO, where Blu-Ray earns its stripes is in the quality of the audio, if not the video (I can't tell much difference between an upconverted DVD vs. a Blu-Ray in terms of video resolution). L&M would definitely be worth getting on Blu-Ray as the audio is such a major and enjoyable part of this film.

[37!ws]

If you have a HDTV, then Blu-ray is absolutely noticeably better, providing it's specifically mastered for HD and not just a standard DVD master that was burned to a Blu-ray disc.

[sea of tunes]

To me the difference between a really good (anamorphic widescreen) DVD presentation and a Blu-ray is sort of the difference between 480i NTSC signal and 720p.  I purposefully didn't say 1080p.  

If the Blu-ray is mastered very well, visually it can make a DVD counterpart of the same title burst into tears.  Generally speaking though, there's a 25%-35% increase in visual data that your eyes can perceive.  That's not based on science, it's based on me trying to apply a metric that's easily understood.

Generally though, if the prices are even remotely close, always go with the Blu-ray, there's really no reason not to.  Only unless playback is an issue for you, then your answer is settled anyway.

As Misterlou mentioned, the sound also greatly benefits from the additional bandwidth Blu-ray provides.  Where as a typical DVD movie release is a Dual Layer with roughly 8.5 GB of space to utilize for all of the video and audio of the main feature and supplemental material.  Blu-ray has up to 50 GB of space to present a higher resolution and clarity.  That goes of course not just for the visual presentations but audio.  It's very common for studios to include a lossless HD master for the audio so you are getting uncompressed audio and typically at 24-bit/48 khz.

For a film like LOVE & MERCY, you would essentially be getting a better than cd aural experience from the soundtrack.  So those bits like the one that opens the film "Black Hole" by Atticus Ross, or any of the others, will sound stunning on even a general home audio set up.  Hell they'll probably sound stunning on just my basic Sony studio monitors!

I digress..

[HeyJude]

If you actually have an HD display, then blu-ray will always look infinitely better, and if you don’t have an HD display, then you won’t be getting much out of a Blu-ray player since you’ll be watching it all down-converted anyway. But Blu-ray will always look better, especially when we’re talking about a Blu-ray versus a DVD struck from the same source and released on the same day, which is what we’d be talking about in the case of “Love & Mercy.”

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Blu-ray look worse than its DVD counterpart. Yes, in some isolated cases usually with older films, the studios have used excessive “DNR” which scrubs all of the grain out of the film, leaving the Blu-ray looking very waxy and unrealistic, etc. But those are relatively rare instances and, frankly, anyone who only has a passing interest in video quality to the point where they’re still unsure about Blu-ray, those are the folks who would probably find those Blu-rays with digitally scrubbed grain to be preferable.

Upconverted DVDs are not comparable to actual HD resolution on Blu-ray. Any HD display upconverts any sub-HD material to its native resolution anyway. On small displays (under maybe 25 inches), Blu-ray may only provide a negligible improvement in video quality I suppose. But frankly, HD even on an old 15 inch laptop monitor always looks better.

I’m actually less enamored with the audio benefits of Blu-ray as compared to the video benefits. Make no mistake, Blu-ray does offer high-resolution, uncompressed audio which can’t be anything but better sounding than DVD. I just don’t think the jump in quality between Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS-MA 5.1 is nearly as huge of a jump in quality as compared to the jump between 480p and 1080p video. Super dynamic, big-explosion sort of movie soundtracks, and concert audio or other music material will benefit most from the high-rez audio, no question. But when people complain because they didn’t get a 7.1 high-rez version of an old mono soundtrack to a 60-year-old movie, I question what that would have offered.

Ironically, the way I’ve usually discovered how sub-part DVD is compared to Blu-ray is when I’ve been watching HD stuff for awhile (Blu-ray or TV), and then go back and watch an old DVD. *That’s* when you notice all of a sudden how much better Blu-ray looks. Similar to watching DVDs for a long time and then going back and firing up an old VHS tape.

So I would say if you have a very small display (or are watching on a small laptop or something), and/or have an older non-HD display, and/or view your movies from a larger distance of, say, 10 or 12 feet or more or something, then you probably won’t notice a ton of difference with Blu-ray. But if you have an HD display, I can’t think of a reason not to jump into Blu-ray once you have funds available to purchase a player (and the players are pretty cheap these days). You can still play all your old DVDs on a Blu-ray player of course. 

I suppose if your main deal in life is the Beach Boys, then Blu-ray is tougher to justify. The only HD BB-related releases we have are the two C50 Blu-rays (“Doin’ it Again” and “Live in Concert”) and the recent “Brian Wilson & Friends” Blu-ray. But even if you have just a passing interest in movies and other music, there are a ton of great Blu-ray releases that breathe new life into newer and older films.

[rab2591]

Agreed with the general consensus here: If you have an HD TV definitely get a blu-ray player. To me, the quality is lightyears better than DVD. I amassed a rather large DVD collection over the last 10 years or so, and I find many of the titles are distracting to watch because the quality is dreadful compared to blu-ray.

Some blu-rays are awful in terms of quality because the movie company half-assed the transfer. But most are pristine. Cool Hand Luke was one that I thought would be terrible quality because of the age of the film (that and I had only seen it from a VHS copy I recorded from cable TV back in the 90s, so I had no idea how high-def the movie could be), but it's one of the most clear pictures I own.

I'm highly anticipating L&M to look stellar on blu-ray. And I'm so flippin eager to listen to the commentary.

[sea of tunes]

Don't get too excited, the video is nothing more than than the official US trailer...but..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkHYBjUZkWw

...there is a nice little surprise, Digital HD release date is 8/25.  That would, I presume, be the iTunes store, Google Play, Amazon, etc. 

Also, in addition to the BD and DVD coming out on 9/15 the film will be available On Demand (I assume that's like TW and Comcast On Demand rental) same day.

[HeyJude]

Studios are often now allowing for sale (not rental) of “Digital Copies” several weeks prior to the physical DVD/Blu-ray release (and streaming rentals). Unfortunately, what they’re trying to do is hasten the death of physical media, as digital-only distribution in the future will be cheaper and allow them more control over what you can see or not see. If anyone out there actually cares about trying to keep physical media alive, and keeping alive the ability to purchase and own a physical copy of something in perpetuity, I would suggest avoiding the “Digital HD” release and support the Blu-ray and/or DVD (and/or rent the film streaming, or at Redbox/Netflix).

[KDS]

Studios are often now allowing for sale (not rental) of “Digital Copies” several weeks prior to the physical DVD/Blu-ray release (and streaming rentals). Unfortunately, what they’re trying to do is hasten the death of physical media, as digital-only distribution in the future will be cheaper and allow them more control over what you can see or not see. If anyone out there actually cares about trying to keep physical media alive, and keeping alive the ability to purchase and own a physical copy of something in perpetuity, I would suggest avoiding the “Digital HD” release and support the Blu-ray and/or DVD (and/or rent the film streaming, or at Redbox/Netflix).

I'm with you.  I will always prefer the tangible product over a digital version. 

[sea of tunes]

I prefer the physical product if for no other reason than it acts as my 'archival backup'.  Also, of course, the quality is superior in almost all cases. 

For movies, BD bandwidth allows for much higher bit-rate than even an HD download would.  And with music, CD offers 16/44 at minimum.  Hi-Rez downloads are nice, especially for material unavailable physically elsewhere.  But again, physical is always preferable to at least have on the shelf.  They I can rip my own.

With LOVE & MERCY, if no soundtrack is released, my plan is to take the BD and use DVD Audio Extractor on my Mac Book to rip the 24/48 audio.  That way, at least I can have in tact tracks of some of Atticus Ross' score.  Specifically, "Black Hole", "Headphones", and "Deep End".   The other parts of the score have dialog interspersed so those wouldn't be ideal.  All the more reason for the score to be released, in tact, separately. 

I think there's only like 15-20 minutes of actual score truthfully, maybe a little more, but not much.  In that case, a Hi-Rez download might be ideal over a physical release, unless they choose to flesh out a "soundtrack" with tracks.  Or, as I have mentioned elsewhere, ideally, there would be an "Isolated Score Track" included on the DVD/BD.  If that were the case, I would be able to use the DAE tool I mentioned to extract the isolated tracks in 24/48 for my own personal enjoyment.

Of course I would be on board with any of the above.  I've seen this film 11 times and may go for a 12th and final time tonight or tomorrow night.  My 12 year old son has a burgeoning interest in BW/BB music probably because of my enthusiasm and I may take him.  The run is finally up in my city I think.  So I'm on board with anything we can get for this film.  Which is why I'm so excited about the "Deleted Scenes" and the "Commentary Track", I'm clearly obsessed.

[Emdeeh]

Another fan of physical media here.

[Shady]

I could cry, that cover is so bad.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Blu-ray look worse than its DVD counterpart. Yes, in some isolated cases usually with older films, the studios have used excessive “DNR” which scrubs all of the grain out of the film, leaving the Blu-ray looking very waxy and unrealistic, etc. But those are relatively rare instances and, frankly, anyone who only has a passing interest in video quality to the point where they’re still unsure about Blu-ray, those are the folks who would probably find those Blu-rays with digitally scrubbed grain to be preferable.

The BluRay of Ernest Goes to Camp looked like a VHS copy...extremely grainy to the point where my daughter said 'something is massively wrong with the tv'. She was 6 at the time

[HeyJude]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Blu-ray look worse than its DVD counterpart. Yes, in some isolated cases usually with older films, the studios have used excessive “DNR” which scrubs all of the grain out of the film, leaving the Blu-ray looking very waxy and unrealistic, etc. But those are relatively rare instances and, frankly, anyone who only has a passing interest in video quality to the point where they’re still unsure about Blu-ray, those are the folks who would probably find those Blu-rays with digitally scrubbed grain to be preferable.

The BluRay of Ernest Goes to Camp looked like a VHS copy...extremely grainy to the point where my daughter said 'something is massively wrong with the tv'. She was 6 at the time

Haven’t seen that Blu-ray, but there are cheap, poor transfers. I think all those Ernest movies were put out one of those cheap budget lables like “Echo Bridge” or “Mill Creek”, and they certainly don’t do any restoration but just take whatever transfer they get from the rights holder. It may have been a really poor transfer (only rarely do they actually literally up-rez an SD master; it’s usually a true HD transfer, just done on the cheap and quick), and/or it may be a case where the film was shot with a grainy look (and/or the transfer is from a dirty negative or print) and the HD resolution is actually revealing *more* of that grain, whereas old VHS or DVD versions actually hid some of that with the limited SD resolution.

In the case of L&M though, as the Blu-ray and DVD are going to come out day-and-date with each other, and because they are both almost surely going to be struck from the same HD master (the DVD then simply down-scales it to 480p), there’s almost zero chance the Blu-ray won’t look significantly better.

[CenturyDeprived]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Blu-ray look worse than its DVD counterpart. Yes, in some isolated cases usually with older films, the studios have used excessive “DNR” which scrubs all of the grain out of the film, leaving the Blu-ray looking very waxy and unrealistic, etc. But those are relatively rare instances and, frankly, anyone who only has a passing interest in video quality to the point where they’re still unsure about Blu-ray, those are the folks who would probably find those Blu-rays with digitally scrubbed grain to be preferable.

The BluRay of Ernest Goes to Camp looked like a VHS copy...extremely grainy to the point where my daughter said 'something is massively wrong with the tv'. She was 6 at the time

I own that DVD That film turned me onto "Happy Together" by The Turtles at a formative age.

[sea of tunes]

I could cry, that cover is so bad.

I feel the same.  But I can get over it because of the contents, specifically the Deleted Scenes and Commentary Track.  

Maybe some very talented SS member can get a copy of the German Blu-ray and make some custom artwork out of it.  

This looks right on:

http://www.amazon.de/Love-Mercy-Blu-ray-John-Cusack/dp/B00ZWB0EXK/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1437606912&sr=8-2&keywords=love+%26+mercy

[DennysDrums83]

I am really hoping that Deleted Scenes bonus feature includes full performances of the songs shown in the montage at the beginning.

[sea of tunes]

FYI, Amazon.com (US) has the Blu-ray listed for $12.96.  That might be a one day price only, I don' t know.  But, I know it's cheaper than the DVD, which is amazing.

http://www.amazon.com/Love-Mercy-Digital-Elizabeth-Banks/dp/B01127XNHQ/ref=sr_1_1_twi_2_blu?ie=UTF8&qid=1437677732&sr=8-1&keywords=love+%26+mercy

[onkster]

I get sooooo sick of decent key art being replaced by a marketing department's demand of "We gotta show big star faces! It's the only way to sell these!" Oh...topic and story still not sexy enough, I guess?

[KDS]

I get sooooo sick of decent key art being replaced by a marketing department's demand of "We gotta show big star faces! It's the only way to sell these!" Oh...topic and story still not sexy enough, I guess?

They also had to put that picture of The Beach Boys and their woody with the text "The Amazing Story of THE BEACH BOYS' BRIAN WILSON" 

Just in case you thought this was the biopic of the former Giants / Dodgers relief pitcher. 

[undercover-m]

I could cry, that cover is so bad.

I know. It looks like Dano and Cusack are in a freaking aquarium.

Also, thank you all for feedback on Blu-ray! Maybe if my roommates next year have a player I'll splurge . I can be a sucker for higher quality music/video.

[rab2591]

T'would almost be funny if it weren't so sad. But that is the worst DVD cover art I have ever seen. Ever. I've seen bootleg copies of movies that had far better artwork.

It looks so odd seeing a giant John Cusack rising out of the ocean towering over these tiny Beach Boy figures on a truck. And as undercover-m said, it looks like Dano and Cusack are in a freakin aquarium. I guess given the highly artistic nature of this film I'd hoped the cover art would somewhat emulate that artistic feel.

/rant

[HeyJude]

The cover is rather "bleh." I've seen far worse. It's not a big mystery why they want the stars on the cover. Nobody shopping at Walmart or Target or Best Buy will recognize what the thing is based on the title or a colorful picture of 1966 Brian. I dig that art, and I would hope they could incorporate it into the package somehow (inner booklet cover maybe?), but they're going to get people to buy this thing because it has John Cusack in it and it has something to do with the BB's.

Three examples of far worse cover art. First, this is conceptually perhaps the worst DVD cover decision ever:



Then, just aesthetically awful:



Even a recent Cusack DVD cover is uglier and more airbrushed/photoshopped than L&M (he looks nearly CGI in this one!):