Rambo 1-3 Boxset - 3 Blue-Ray Discs

[Pardus]

Rambo 1-3 Boxset - 3 Blue-Ray Discs

Price: $24.99. Free ship 25+. Tax where applicable.

# Actors: Sylvester Stallone, Richard Crenna
# Format: AC-3, Box set, Color, Dolby, DTS Surround Sound, Subtitled, Widescreen
# Language: English
# Subtitles: English, Spanish
# Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
# Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1
# Number of discs: 3
# Rating:
# Studio: Lions Gate Home Entertainment
# DVD Release Date: May 27, 2008
# Run Time: 293 minutes

 

[TommyB0y]

Yuk - putting Rambo (at least II and III - First Blood was pretty good) on BR is like putting lipstick on a pig. No matter how red those lips get - it's still a pig.

However, if someone happens to be in to pigs, then that price would be pretty darn good. ;-)

 

[Capitalizt]

Complete collector's set with the NEW Rambo included is the same price: http://www.amazon.com/Rambo-Co...&qid=1228336920&sr=1-4

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Complete collector's set with the NEW Rambo included is the same price: http://www.amazon.com/Rambo-Co...&qid=1228336920&sr=1-4

That set isn't Blu-Ray. Big difference.

 

[evident]

Russian General: Who do you think this man is, God?

Col. Troutman: No, god has mercy... Rambo doesn't!!!!

 

[evident]

ooops

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: evident


Russian General: Who do you think this man is, God?

Col. Troutman: No, god has mercy... Rambo doesn't!!!!

"You may scream. There is no shame."

 

[Spike]

Isn't this a waste, I'm sure these were not filmed in high def so I figure the benefit would be minimal

 

[skywhr]

Screen grabs look pretty decent to me and didnt get bad reviews

 

[Richardito]

I bought this from Amazon earlier in the week for just $17.xx So this is not such a good deal.

 

[skywhr]

Originally posted by: Richardito
I bought this from Amazon earlier in the week for just $17.xx So this is not such a good deal.

Maybe not for you. its still a good deal for anyone else who didnt buy it a week ago for $xx.xx amount

 

[Richardito]

Originally posted by: skywhr

Originally posted by: Richardito
I bought this from Amazon earlier in the week for just $17.xx So this is not such a good deal.

Maybe not for you. its still a good deal for anyone else who didnt buy it a week ago for $xx.xx amount

I'm giving some price history about this item.

 

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: Spike
Isn't this a waste, I'm sure these were not filmed in high def so I figure the benefit would be minimal

Not really. Older movies were shot in film, which scales to pretty much whatever resolution you want, provided the film is in good condition.

 

[Fallengod]

Yeah, thats another great marketing scheme..... Some people dont realize most older movies arnt going to look better just cause they were put onto a blu-ray disc heh.

As a business, its a great way to make money off people who dont know that.

 

[skywhr]

Originally posted by: fatpat268

Originally posted by: Spike
Isn't this a waste, I'm sure these were not filmed in high def so I figure the benefit would be minimal

Not really. Older movies were shot in film, which scales to pretty much whatever resolution you want, provided the film is in good condition.

QFT

 

[marketsons1985]

Originally posted by: Fallengod
Yeah, thats another great marketing scheme..... Some people dont realize most older movies arnt going to look better just cause they were put onto a blu-ray disc heh.

As a business, its a great way to make money off people who dont know that.

Reading Comprehension Fail?

Again as fatpat said, if they're done well and the original film is in good condition, it will look great. Analog film has huge resolution, I think I read somewhere around 4k horizontal.

 

[cheap]

Just like a good regular film photo, you can scan that in at any resolution you want and it will look great.

 

[Fallengod]

Originally posted by: marketsons1985

Originally posted by: Fallengod
Yeah, thats another great marketing scheme..... Some people dont realize most older movies arnt going to look better just cause they were put onto a blu-ray disc heh.

As a business, its a great way to make money off people who dont know that.

Reading Comprehension Fail?

Again as fatpat said, if they're done well and the original film is in good condition, it will look great. Analog film has huge resolution, I think I read somewhere around 4k horizontal.

Huh? You retarded?

It doesnt matter, its not gonna look better than the dvd is, thats my point. Generally the blu-rays cost more than dvds, and them just transferring it onto blu-ray doesnt improve quality. All I was saying was, I know some people who have the like collectors remastered edition of some older movies on dvd, then go out and buy the same blu-ray again thinking its going to be 10x better quality.

 

[alrocky]

DVDTalk rates the Rambo 1-3 Box Set as "Highly Recommended" and First Blood as "Highly Recommended."
High-Def Digest rates the Box Set as "For Fans Only" and First Blood as First Blood as "Recommended."

Both sites discuss the video quality also comparing to the old DVD:

"To put things in perspective, First Blood is still a 25-year old film that was relatively low-budget, so the picture isn't going to look like a modern blockbuster. That being said, what we get here is pretty fantastic. I was surprised at the level of detail apparent in the transfer. Colors are also strong and consistent, and darker scenes are no problem. The final confrontation between Rambo and Trautman has fantastic detail, especially for a scene that is lit almost entirely by street lamps from outside the building. Beyond solid."

---

"It is here where the Blu-ray offers the most marked improvement over the standard-def release, with noticeably improved shadow detail and better depth. I also was surprised that there was no apparent edge enhancement, so while the transfer can look soft at times, at least it's natural.

Overall, I can't say this presentation ever made me go "wow!", but it does have some moments of very impressive video for a twenty-odd year-old film. Given the film's very realistic visual style and the consistent quality of the remaster, I'm going to say this one hits a solid triple."

First Blood is $9.99 and the Box Set is $24.99 at Amazon.

 

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: Fallengod

Originally posted by: marketsons1985

Originally posted by: Fallengod
Yeah, thats another great marketing scheme..... Some people dont realize most older movies arnt going to look better just cause they were put onto a blu-ray disc heh.

As a business, its a great way to make money off people who dont know that.

Reading Comprehension Fail?

Again as fatpat said, if they're done well and the original film is in good condition, it will look great. Analog film has huge resolution, I think I read somewhere around 4k horizontal.

Huh? You retarded?

It doesnt matter, its not gonna look better than the dvd is, thats my point. Generally the blu-rays cost more than dvds, and them just transferring it onto blu-ray doesnt improve quality. All I was saying was, I know some people who have the like collectors remastered edition of some older movies on dvd, then go out and buy the same blu-ray again thinking its going to be 10x better quality.

ermm...

Originally posted by: fatpat268


Not really. Older movies were shot in film, which scales to pretty much whatever resolution you want, provided the film is in good condition.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Fallengod

Originally posted by: marketsons1985

Originally posted by: Fallengod
Yeah, thats another great marketing scheme..... Some people dont realize most older movies arnt going to look better just cause they were put onto a blu-ray disc heh.

As a business, its a great way to make money off people who dont know that.

Reading Comprehension Fail?

Again as fatpat said, if they're done well and the original film is in good condition, it will look great. Analog film has huge resolution, I think I read somewhere around 4k horizontal.

Huh? You retarded?

It doesnt matter, its not gonna look better than the dvd is, thats my point. Generally the blu-rays cost more than dvds, and them just transferring it onto blu-ray doesnt improve quality. All I was saying was, I know some people who have the like collectors remastered edition of some older movies on dvd, then go out and buy the same blu-ray again thinking its going to be 10x better quality.

You ARE retarded. Notice, no question mark. It's a statement. Marketsons1985 and fatpat268 are correct. I love it how people on the internet LOVE to make statements and pretend they are informed. I suggest reading up on the topic before making an uninformed statement and calling others names. It just makes you look like not only a moron, but a retarded moron.

And YES, a well transferred OLD movie can look MUCH better than the DVD and even the original theatrical release. Blu-rays are not GUARANTEED to look better, but more often than not, it will look better and in many cases MUCH better than the DVD. The Rambo movies DO look better than the DVDs and let me tell you, the re-released Bond movies look AMAZING on Blu-ray. They cleaned up the originals and scanned them in at 4K by 3K and the results are AMAZING! One of the movies is the 1962 Dr. No Blu-ray version. I'll say it again, it looks AMAZING on Blu-ray! The reason the end results looked so good was because the original film was in great shape. Doing quality transfers is no trivial task though. It involves VERY high end scanners, a butt load of servers, a butt load of hard drive space and A LOT of time. But you have to have the originals in good shape. And with the Bond movies, they did a fantastic job, and what a Blu-ray movie SHOULD look like. Going back to the Rambo movies, they've remastered them and are supposed to look great on Blu-ray, but I'll reserve my judgment for when I receive them (I got mine for ~$17 @ Amazon ).

The only people that think Blu-ray remastered transfers are a "great marketing scheme" are the people that can't afford a good HDTV with a Blu-ray player and have a bad case of sour grapes.

 

[cheap]

Another point I'd like to make is that if this BR pack is really scanned in from original film at 1080p which everybody says it is, then you'll see a big difference with 50"+ screens. If you have a 42" screen like me with a good upconverting player, then chances are you won't notice much except spots that were remastered and cleaned up for this transfer. But the bigger your screen gets the exponentially better the picture is going to look due to much higher resolution. This should really shine and be crisp on 65" screens while regular DVD res might be a bit blurry.

 

[marketsons1985]

Originally posted by: Fallengod

Originally posted by: marketsons1985

Originally posted by: Fallengod
Yeah, thats another great marketing scheme..... Some people dont realize most older movies arnt going to look better just cause they were put onto a blu-ray disc heh.

As a business, its a great way to make money off people who dont know that.

Reading Comprehension Fail?

Again as fatpat said, if they're done well and the original film is in good condition, it will look great. Analog film has huge resolution, I think I read somewhere around 4k horizontal.

Huh? You retarded?

It doesnt matter, its not gonna look better than the dvd is, thats my point. Generally the blu-rays cost more than dvds, and them just transferring it onto blu-ray doesnt improve quality. All I was saying was, I know some people who have the like collectors remastered edition of some older movies on dvd, then go out and buy the same blu-ray again thinking its going to be 10x better quality.

You fail at life. Please read anything before posting ever again.

Originally posted by: cheap
Another point I'd like to make is that if this BR pack is really scanned in from original film at 1080p which everybody says it is, then you'll see a big difference with 50"+ screens. If you have a 42" screen like me with a good upconverting player, then chances are you won't notice much except spots that were remastered and cleaned up for this transfer. But the bigger your screen gets the exponentially better the picture is going to look due to much higher resolution. This should really shine and be crisp on 65" screens while regular DVD res might be a bit blurry.

Again, another not so true. This vs. a DVD on ANY HDTV will look bounds better. 1080p vs 480p is a huge difference even of 42". I have a 40" Sammy and the difference between Spiderman 2 (Superbit DVD) and Spiderman 2 (Blu-Ray from the 3-pack) is HUGE.

 

[cheap]

Originally posted by: marketsons1985
Again, another not so true. This vs. a DVD on ANY HDTV will look bounds better. 1080p vs 480p is a huge difference even of 42". I have a 40" Sammy and the difference between Spiderman 2 (Superbit DVD) and Spiderman 2 (Blu-Ray from the 3-pack) is HUGE.

How big of a difference it makes on smaller screens depends on how good your TV or your DVD player is at upconverting 480p image to 1080p or 720p which ever one your TV supports. My TV has a really good upconverter built in, but I still bought myself OPPO player which is the best upconverting DVD player upto $300 range. Either way BR is going to look better since even the best upconverters aren't perfect. But one thing for certain, even with a good upconverter the image quality of BR on a 50"+ screen is going to blow away 480p.