Shingster wrote:You know which ones I disagree with, I have told you about them more than once before & clearly stated why they are not the "best" releases
Pretend I missed it for a second (because I honestly don't know) and tell me again?
Shingster wrote:you just choose to ignore anything anyone tells you about Madman's DVDs for some really bizarre reason
You're mistaken Musa mentions it's NTSC-PAL because someone on Bullets told me, as did Seven Samurai (before I removed it completely).
Shingster wrote:But seriously, you're the one who decides what titles get included, so basically this thread is "Which DVDs does Bradavon think are the best
Fair point and let me tell you why:
1. Because I'm the one updating it
2. Because being frank Eva is basically the ONLY person who assists with updating it
Have you even read the first post? I specifically say "it's NOT a definitive list".
I'm not going to remove Kwaidan (or any other) completely because another DVD happens to also be good or one person thinks it's a mess. I will however add that another DVD is also worth considering, which I've done. If I were to remove every title because it has X or Y flaw there wouldn't be any DVDs left.
Shingster wrote:As I implied earlier your opinions are usualy determined by how much the DVDs cost.
Are you telling me you pay zero attention to how much a DVD costs? Because sorry every else does. If two DVDs are virtually the same but one costs twice the price it's worth mentioning. I never mention it as the sole reason though, that's bollocks.
Shingster wrote:but I can speak in my capacity as a DVD reviewer for DVDtimes & for my fellow reviewers.
I'm well aware there are a couple of DVD Times reviewers who like picking childish jabs (a couple of bad eggs in another nice bunch of people), at me I guess you're one of them, to use your words "case in point":
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=62896
Shingster wrote:but I can speak in my capacity as a DVD reviewer for DVDtimes & for my fellow reviewers who have had the misfortune to have their opinions on DVDs totally contradicted by your comments
Why provide a comments section if you don't want users to comment?
Anyone with common sense isn't going to take a few words from a commentator as gospel vs. a full review but people do want to know the alternatives so they can make an informed decision. At the end of the day all my comments are just that my comments, no one is forcing you to read or believe them.
So in other words DVD Times reviews are there to A: Make money not B: Inform the reader what DVD to buy? Glad I know. Also like Tom said DVD Times/DVD Forums running costs are no concern of myself or Bullets. Get an affiliate with Madman if it bothers you that much.
Shingster wrote:For the people, such as myself, who have bothered to read everything they can find on the technical process of creating a DVD transfer, what are common video artifacts, what can DNR do to image detail, or what colour remastering can do to the intended look of the film, etc, so they can provide an informed opinion to their readership, it really takes the piss to have someone as clueless as you talking back like you're an authority on the subject.
Woopy doo for you. I have eyes and ears too you know and therefore am allowed as much you to air my opinion on which "I" think looks better.
Shingster wrote:Now, this is not the first time I have stated this to you Brad
And I'm sure you'll continue to do so.
Shingster wrote: the last time was when you had the nerve to post after Noel Megahy's DVDTimes review trying to persuade readers to buy the R4 DVD because "it's just as good"
If you actually bothered to read my comments instead of picking holes where it suites you you would've seen seen I also said: "Agreed the UK R2 is better but vastly I don't think so. Both have very good transfers, the UK R2 is just better."
Shingster wrote:Case in point:
DVDBeaver Kwaidan Comparison. Anyone who has a fucking clue about DVD transfers can see that the UK & AUS DVDs have almost certainly been struck from the same masters, but the UK exhibits far, far richer colours.
So let me get this straight because "you" believe the UK DVD is sooo much better then it has to be? Right O-Kay. The fact you're using DVD Beaver in a way to say it's accurate contradicts what you said about "knowing so much about the DVD process".
I happen to disagree that while yes the UK R2 is sharper, it's also too red (added by Eureka), it's also and the is an important: You're talking in absolutes, I have a real problem with people saying DVD X is shit because it has this fault or that fault.
Yes the Eureka is better but "that" much better I think not. The R4 (which incidentally ordinarily is more expensive than the UK R2, blowing your cost vs. quality argument right out of the water) is uncut, anamorphic, comes from a new master, progressive, native-pal, not cropped, has decent subs. I'm willing to bet those are high on people's wants lists before your perceived massive improvement in picture quality.
My comments are solely based on what I consider acceptable, you maybe surprised to hear this but a lot of DVD collectors aren't half as finicky as others are.
Because a DVD isn't "perfect" (something I don't think is possible and only leads to very finicky people never being happy) it doesn't make it immediately shit. If you really wanted to you could pick holes with 95% of DVDs for some reason or another. The problem is your collection would then amount to a dozen DVDs.
For example I consider some of the Tartan NTSC-PAL DVDs acceptable. I'm not going to not buy one because you may have an issue with it. You've also not done your homework if you had you would find I commented lots on Madman's treatment of Volcano High, a complete mess of a DVD.
At the end of the day I'm allowed my opinion just as much as you are, sorry if you don't like it but deal with it.
Now back on topic I'd still like to add any anime, old school titles etc... that aren't on the first post.