# Cloverfield Blu-Ray



## NerdyMunk (Jun 7, 2008)

After a couple days this week, I finally earned the 1080p-mastered movie and I gotta say my wait was worth while. It never looked better in HD.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jun 7, 2008)

It was supposed to be filmed on a freaking camcorder. I doubt they would bring and HD camcorder to a monster apocalypse.

I just think it defeats the original purpose.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 7, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> It was supposed to be filmed on a freaking camcorder. I doubt they would bring and HD camcorder to a monster apocalypse.
> 
> I just think it defeats the original purpose.



They filmed the entire movie on HD cameras, read the wiki.


----------



## lilEmber (Jun 7, 2008)

No no no...what he means is that this was suppose to be like a REAL LIFE situation and HD cameras are like, $30,000 plus, AND they are huge, a HD handheld camera would be a insane price like over $100,000 easily morel ike for 1080p 200,000 so how would this random guy have one of these and be able to record it all, I like it non HD it gives a much better experience.


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jun 7, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> No no no...what he means is that this was suppose to be like a REAL LIFE situation and HD cameras are like, $30,000 plus, AND they are huge, a HD handheld camera would be a insane price like over $100,000 easily morel ike for 1080p 200,000 so how would this random guy have one of these and be able to record it all, I like it non HD it gives a much better experience.


That's basically what I'm trying to say.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 7, 2008)

Wiki says that a _digital_ handheld camcorder was retrieved from Central Park, just to state. Seeing it in HD does not destroy anything about the movie. It still has the handheld style, it just has been modified so you can pick up things maybe you couldn't see in regular resolution. So I don't know why anyone is complaining.


----------



## Tudd (Jun 7, 2008)

Its like watching The Grindhouse on BD after it has been "Digitally Remastered" to remove all of those "annoying" film-related issues.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 7, 2008)

Tudd said:


> Its like watching The Grindhouse on BD after it has been "Digitally Remastered" to remove all of those "annoying" film-related issues.



No, it is like watching your home movies in higher resolution, if I could give an example.


----------



## DragonRift (Jun 7, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> No no no...what he means is that this was suppose to be like a REAL LIFE situation and HD cameras are like, $30,000 plus, AND they are huge, a HD handheld camera would be a insane price like over $100,000 easily morel ike for 1080p 200,000 so how would this random guy have one of these and be able to record it all, I like it non HD it gives a much better experience.



You can buy HD camcorders that record 1080p video for less than $1500 from places like Best Buy and Circuit City.  $30,000-plus?  Exaggerate much?  Is it that hard to comprehend that they just may have had one of those?

This has got to be one of the most retarded movie nitpicks I have ever read.  "OMG!  How can it be in 1080p?!  It was all a home-video!"


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 7, 2008)

DragonRift said:


> You can buy HD camcorders that record 1080p video for less than $1500 from places like Best Buy and Circuit City.  $30,000-plus?  Exaggerate much?  Is it that hard to comprehend that they just may have had one of those?
> 
> This has got to be one of the most retarded movie nitpicks I have ever read.  "OMG!  How can it be in 1080p?!  It was all a home-video!"



It wasn't. It's called movie production. It happens to all the the movies you see. :shock:


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 7, 2008)

And obviously you don't know what 1080p is.


----------



## yak (Jun 7, 2008)

I have yet to see a camcorder that can do 1920x1080.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 7, 2008)

It was digital. 1080p enhances the experience for any movie, that's why it is enjoyable to watch these movies in that resolution, compared to 480p which is blurry/pixelly.


----------



## DragonRift (Jun 7, 2008)

brownsquirrel said:


> And obviously you don't know what 1080p is.



I think you're arguing with the wrong person.  I wasn't disagreeing with you.  However, I'm not "obviously" unaware what 1080 progressive is compared to other resolutions, even though my original comment says nothing of the sort to hint otherwise to begin with.  There are camcorders that record at a resolution of 1920x1080 available for less than $1500, and I was countering an individual who made the claim that such a camera would be $30,000+.

How about reading who my original comment was intended for instead of getting all defensive?


----------



## Tudd (Jun 7, 2008)

brownsquirrel said:


> No, it is like watching your home movies in higher resolution, if I could give an example.


 
Have you even seen The Grindhouse? The move is laced with intentional film artifacts. At one part, the colour is removed and re-appears just as suddenly as it was removed. Very close to the begining a couple frames have been intentionaly removed to replicate a splice of film.

Consumer cameras typically record in 1080i, which is 1920x540. Not 1080P, 1920x1080. Also, does anyone remember the last time they looked at the quality of the video coming out of their consumer camera compared to professional cameras? The professional quality digital gear can appear perfectly clean yet the consumer level products usually have digital artifacts in the video. Note: I do not have any experience with any of the HD cameras in question, this is all from previous experience.

Also... if you are not watching BD's on an HDTV, please cease and desist. Thank you.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 7, 2008)

DragonRift said:


> I think you're arguing with the wrong person.  I wasn't disagreeing with you.  However, I'm not "obviously" unaware what 1080 progressive is compared to other resolutions, even though my original comment says nothing of the sort to hint otherwise to begin with.  There are camcorders that record at a resolution of 1920x1080 available for less than $1500, and I was countering an individual who made the claim that such a camera would be $30,000+.
> 
> How about reading who my original comment was intended for instead of getting all defensive?



Yet, Hollywood over-exaggerates a lot is what I am trying to state. The film was not filmed was not at all filmed with a handheld camera. The film was shot with many different special cameras and it just comes down to editing and enhancing the film to make it look like someone just picked up a camera and shot this. The thing is that 1080 is like a whole different era of resolution and sometimes it is fun to pick out things that you wouldn't see in regular resolution. That's all.


----------



## Tudd (Jun 7, 2008)

brownsquirrel said:


> Yet, Hollywood over-exaggerates a lot is what I am trying to state. The film was not filmed was not at all filmed with a handheld camera. The film was shot with many different special cameras and it just comes down to editing and enhancing the film to make it look like someone just picked up a camera and shot this. The thing is that 1080 is like a whole different era of resolution and sometimes it is fun to pick out things that you wouldn't see in regular resolution. That's all.


 
Personally I cannot stand when directors choose hand/shoulder cam over tripod or a track. It litterally makes it impossible to see clearly whats happening. Also knowing the large number of LCD owners (I have a bone to pick with you guys. You killed the plasma which is a clearly better technology picture quality wise.) they should understand most what I'm trying to communicate here. Mostly because LCD's have blurring issues due to their response times.


----------



## Railyn (Jun 7, 2008)

HD doesn't stop it from being a motion-sickness inducing mess of a movie, in my homo opinion.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 7, 2008)

Railyn said:


> HD doesn't stop it from being a motion-sickness inducing mess of a movie, in my homo opinion.



If you know it is handheld, don't complain! I don't think there really would be a difference really if you shot this movie by yourself.


----------



## Tudd (Jun 7, 2008)

Railyn said:


> HD doesn't stop it from being a motion-sickness inducing mess of a movie, in my homo opinion.


 
Theres one person already agreeing with me. 

I MIGHT watch this tonight on DVD (friend picked up the wrong one) but theres a much greater chance we'll be watching the newest Rambo on Blu-Ray at reference levels at 4 in the morning.  In other news Burma is in trouble yet again.

Edit: Guess what?! Rambo was watching, and death t'was epic. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Bonzzai (Jun 13, 2008)

I would definitely love watching the movie in HD... Too bad my TV is chet.
So regular quality I get 
Which isn't bad, I love the way this movie was directed. I thought Blair Witch Project destroyed my faith in a movie filmed in this perspective.


----------



## webwiz23 (Jun 14, 2008)

NewfDraggie said:


> No no no...what he means is that this was suppose to be like a REAL LIFE situation and HD cameras are like, $30,000 plus, AND they are huge, a HD handheld camera would be a insane price like over $100,000 easily morel ike for 1080p 200,000 so how would this random guy have one of these and be able to record it all, I like it non HD it gives a much better experience.



Ah but thats not true, Sony sells a perfectly good HD handheld camcorder at 1080i for just over $1000. Yep thats it, you want proof Click Here then.


----------



## lilEmber (Jun 14, 2008)

webwiz23 said:


> Ah but thats not true, Sony sells a perfectly good HD handheld camcorder at 1080i for just over $1000. Yep thats it, you want proof Click Here then.



Ah so I see now they filmed this massive movie with that exact camera, not the $100,000 dollar ones that do true HD, a cheep camera that takes images at that resolution but not at that same quality....


----------



## Aden (Jun 14, 2008)

Look.

Cheaper HD cameras do not actually shoot in HD, _especially_ 1080p resolution. Most shoot in a slightly higher resolution than SD and then use upconverting tricks to give you a bigger image. Also, unless your camera is attached to a bank of cooled hard drives, the footage that it spits out is extremely compressed. You're going to need to shill out around $100,000 for an average, fully-functional HD camera. Even our school's $30,000 HD cameras still use an upconverting trick to get their desired resolution.

That being said, fuck yes I want to see Cloverfield in HD. That's a very good movie, and it won't be "ruined" when you can see more details. Suspension of disbelief, people. That's what the movies are all about.

/Film student.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 14, 2008)

Aden said:


> Look.
> 
> Cheaper HD cameras do not actually shoot in HD, _especially_ 1080p resolution. Most shoot in a slightly higher resolution than SD and then use upconverting tricks to give you a bigger image. Also, unless your camera is attached to a bank of cooled hard drives, the footage that it spits out is extremely compressed. You're going to need to shill out around $100,000 for an average, fully-functional HD camera. Even our school's $30,000 HD cameras still use an upconverting trick to get their desired resolution.
> 
> ...



At least someone agrees with me.


----------



## Tudd (Jun 18, 2008)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1039606

Thanks but no thanks. I don't exactly see how this is worth that extra $10 for the BD version.


----------



## Aden (Jun 18, 2008)

Tudd said:


> Thanks but no thanks. I don't exactly see how this is worth that extra $10 for the BD version.



I thought it had the extra "discovery mode" or some such.


----------



## Tudd (Jun 18, 2008)

Aden said:


> I thought it had the extra "discovery mode" or some such.


 
There is not a single special feature that could convince me to spend more on a movie. When I buy a movie on disc, I am only intersted in the movie. 

However, there are some movies which those special features are "interesting" but not enough to influence which version I buy. Despite this, for audio/video quality, I will spend the extra money.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 18, 2008)

Tudd said:


> There is not a single special feature that could convince me to spend more on a movie. When I buy a movie on disc, I am only intersted in the movie.
> 
> However, there are some movies which those special features are "interesting" but not enough to influence which version I buy. Despite this, for audio/video quality, I will spend the extra money.



It has a special mode where it tracks our heros and where in New York they are going. It's  kind of fun to actually see where they are going through.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Jun 19, 2008)

Tudd said:


> There is not a single special feature that could convince me to spend more on a movie. When I buy a movie on disc, I am only intersted in the movie.
> 
> However, there are some movies which those special features are "interesting" but not enough to influence which version I buy. Despite this, for audio/video quality, I will spend the extra money.



They do have an examination mode. It has a few windows in it and one window is similar to a map, which shows us where our heroes are actually going through in New York.


----------



## desiring_change (Jun 25, 2008)

Finally caught it last night -- on regular DVD. To be honest I see no immediate need to upgrade to Blu-ray when 1) you can get players that upscale to 1080p, and 2) the next generation of DVDs in 5 or 10 years' time will display at _4000p_ anyway.

Certainly I preferred _Cloverfield_ to that Korean monster movie _The Host_, plus the subjective shakey-cam technique worked as well as it could -- but still I felt there just weren't enough scenes of the creature (whose design I liked) stomping the city.

Come to think of it, we could've done with more shots of Manhattan (and its inhabitants), period. I mean, the characters go from Columbus Circle (59th Street) to 40th and Park -- hey, that's right next to the hotel I stayed at, my first ever time in NY! -- and yet we don't get to see them run through Times Square? The director missed an opportunity there. Also, the mid-town section of the movie felt strangely deserted, and no Empire State -- legal reasons, maybe? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the owners have to give permission for any depictions?)

I might also mention a few contrivances -- a bunch of civilians being allowed to overhear the army's plans, or the ridiculous idea that a screaming, 300-ft monster could somehow sneak up behind the heroes _in the middle of Central Park_?!

Speaking of which, take a close look when Clover towers over Grand Central Station. As it turns toward the Chrysler Building, trashing another tower en route, I couldn't help noticing that it (he? she?) ends up mooning the camera... ;-)

All in all, a good DVD with thorough special features -- worth it just for the 'bullet-time' shot of Clover shattering the skyscraper (which we barely see it the film itself). Also, I was astonished at how much of the 'location footage' is actually greenscreen and sets.

Not however a 'keeper' for my collection. Maybe just as well, given how stuffed my new shelves already are..!


----------



## Tudd (Jun 25, 2008)

desiring_change said:


> Finally caught it last night -- on regular DVD. To be honest I see no immediate need to upgrade to Blu-ray when 1) you can get players that upscale to 1080p, and 2) the next generation of DVDs in 5 or 10 years' time will display at _4000p_ anyway.


 
And in 20 years BD will be upscaled to over 9000p.


----------

