Why wasn't Dangerous Days or the Special Features in HD?
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:59 pmJust bought the Blu Ray box set and miffed to find that only the movies are in HD and the brilliant Dangerous Days doc is only in standard DVD. How come?
BladeZone's Off World Forums
Discussion Group for the film, books, games and world of Blade Runner
http://www.bladezone.com/bz_forum/
Why wasn't Dangerous Days or the Special Features in HD?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:59 pmPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:33 pmI believe because the footage used did not meet the standard. It wouldn't improve the presentation, being in HD.
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:57 pmWell, sorry to say, it doesn't matter much now. R.I.P., HD-DVD...
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:26 amdmohrUSC wrote:Well, sorry to say, it doesn't matter much now. R.I.P., HD-DVD...
The early adopters, if they hold on to their HD-DVD players and HD-DVD movies and keep them in as good of condition as they can, will have some major collectables in a few years. Cold comfort, to be sure. But some solace for backing the wrong horse in the race.
Re: Why wasn't Dangerous Days or the Special Features in HD?
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:00 pmalucard69 wrote:Just bought the Blu Ray box set and miffed to find that only the movies are in HD and the brilliant Dangerous Days doc is only in standard DVD. How come?
They didn't have time to do HD compression on them.
dmohr, why wouldn't it matter? The same exact content is on the Blu-Ray discs.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:30 pmKipple wrote:I believe because the footage used did not meet the standard. It wouldn't improve the presentation, being in HD.
Not true.
Everything was shot in HD or transferred to HD for the supplements. The problem was, the Warner pipeline required that we deliver HD content a solid month or so ahead of our planned delivery date. I felt it was more important to make the content as great as it could be than to rush it in order to make the HD date. I'm sure some might disagree with me, but I'd rather have great extras in SD than so-so extras in HD.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:05 pmCharles de Lauzirika wrote:Kipple wrote:I believe because the footage used did not meet the standard. It wouldn't improve the presentation, being in HD.
Not true.
Everything was shot in HD or transferred to HD for the supplements. The problem was, the Warner pipeline required that we deliver HD content a solid month or so ahead of our planned delivery date. I felt it was more important to make the content as great as it could be than to rush it in order to make the HD date. I'm sure some might disagree with me, but I'd rather have great extras in SD than so-so extras in HD.
I wouldn't disagree. I think that's why hollywood puts out total crap, in some cases. If the time wasn't taken to make a good quality documentary, who cares what it looked like in HD? It would have been crappy. Garbage in gets garbage out. This would be HD garbage, though. I'm glad you took the time to make a quality documentary instead of rushing it out to meet a deadline.