PDA

View Full Version : Blue Ray DvDs?



doliest
2008-06-03, 07:44 AM
Okay, I do not understand this blue-ray stuff at all! I watch DvDs often and enjoy watching seasons of shows as opposed to, you know, HOPING that show will be on, but from what I've seen of blue-ray it's a little shinier, a little clearer, and much more expensive...so what's the point of this new Blue-ray thing?

valadil
2008-06-03, 08:36 AM
A Blue Ray isn't actually a DVD. It's just shaped like one. They hold roughly 10 times the data of a DVD, and as a result can hold high definition content.

HD is only worthwhile on a properly set up TV. A blue ray on a standard def TV will look no better than a DVD on the same TV. Furthermore, not all movies are worth getting in high def. It's only really worth bothering for new movies that were filmed with high def in mind. Watch Lord of the Rings on an HD TV from a blue ray player and you'll see the difference.

Khalle
2008-06-03, 09:26 AM
My opinion is that there is not enough difference between standard DVD and blu ray to make upgrading worthwhile. There were clear and compelling reasons to upgrade from VHS to DVD; for blu ray not so much. I don't think the average consumer is going to see the point in spending extra money for little gain, which is why blu ray won't really succeed.

Also, the DRM/anti-piracy stuff on blu ray is supposed to be pretty scary, but it has been a while since I bothered to keep up with it so I don't remember to many specifics.

Bottom line is, to most people there is not enough of a difference to bother with it, even on a properly set up TV.

Rare Pink Leech
2008-06-03, 10:12 AM
I don't think the average consumer is going to see the point in spending extra money for little gain, which is why blu ray won't really succeed.

Until they stop making DVDs and force everyone to buy Blu Ray, that is :smalltongue:

Anyway, I don't know much about Blu Ray other than what I've read since I've never actually watched one, but I do know they're only utilizing half of it's potential. So far we've only seen them use the extra space to show higher-quality movies, even though they could be putting more regular definition content on a single disc. Imagine watching an entire season of television and never having to get up to change the disc :smallwink:

Destro_Yersul
2008-06-03, 10:18 AM
Until they stop making DVDs and force everyone to buy Blu Ray, that is :smalltongue:

And that is the point at which I will stop paying for their product.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-03, 10:41 AM
Also, the DRM/anti-piracy stuff on blu ray is supposed to be pretty scary, but it has been a while since I bothered to keep up with it so I don't remember to many specifics.
It's already been cracked. So basically it just annoys the people who have legitimately purchased the product.

---
Blue Ray isn't really worth it imo. Storage space is cheap. A 1 TB external hardrive can be had for about $200. 1 TB of blue ray disks (40 signal layer disks) runs between $280 and $400.

valadil
2008-06-03, 11:03 AM
Blue Ray isn't really worth it imo. Storage space is cheap. A 1 TB external hardrive can be had for about $200. 1 TB of blue ray disks (40 signal layer disks) runs between $280 and $400.

I think Blue Ray is so expensive now just because it's so new and shiny. I bought a CD burner fairly early on and it was about $200. Now you can find them for less than $40. It's probably not worth getting a Blue Ray player just yet (unless you really want to show off that 1080i HD TV), but 2-3 years down the road it may be worthwhile.

I have no plans to replace the DVDs I already own with Blue Ray discs, but I'll consider Blue Ray for future purchases.

Joran
2008-06-03, 11:14 AM
I find I couldn't really tell that much of a difference between an upscaled DVD and a Blu-Ray DVD on my HDTV.

I'll pass on spending $30 for a movie, thanks.

LBO
2008-06-03, 02:03 PM
To my mind HD and everything related to it is basically a scam, or at the very least, a redundant product. Even when it's running perfectly, you get a minor increase in image quality for a (at the moment) massively increased hardware cost. DVD was comprehensively superior to VHS in a way that blu-ray and HD-DVD just aren't.

Joran
2008-06-03, 03:24 PM
To my mind HD and everything related to it is basically a scam, or at the very least, a redundant product. Even when it's running perfectly, you get a minor increase in image quality for a (at the moment) massively increased hardware cost

You can rip my 61", 1080 p TV from my cold dead hands. I can definitely tell the difference when watching something like sports in HD. Trying to play my PS2 on the bigscreen also doesn't work too well, so I can definitely tell the difference there too.

P.S. It's so pretty... @_@

WalkingTarget
2008-06-03, 03:31 PM
You can rip my 61", 1080 p TV from my cold dead hands. I can definitely tell the difference when watching something like sports in HD. Trying to play my PS2 on the bigscreen also doesn't work too well, so I can definitely tell the difference there too.

P.S. It's so pretty... @_@

Yeah, I'd imagine that it's a matter of scale and below a certain threshold it's not worth it.

Then again, I'm still using the same 20" CRT television that I've had for something like 12 years now.

doliest
2008-06-03, 03:36 PM
My biggest complaint is that it, possibly being redundent here, that I don't notice much difference except that I think it's brighter...it actually hurts my eyes sometimes, and it cost almost twice as much.

tyckspoon
2008-06-03, 03:39 PM
To my mind HD and everything related to it is basically a scam, or at the very least, a redundant product. Even when it's running perfectly, you get a minor increase in image quality for a (at the moment) massively increased hardware cost. DVD was comprehensively superior to VHS in a way that blu-ray and HD-DVD just aren't.

The right equipment makes for a visible difference between 480p (high-quality DVD) and 720, although a 480 source upscaled through a good conversion routine can look nearly as good. There isn't all that much difference between 720 and 1080 resolutions, however, especially at typical viewing distances- IIRC you'd have to back off dozens of feet before a 720 display started looking much worse than a 1080. It's a personal decision as to whether or not it's *enough* of an improvement to invest in it, of course, but it is there.

Edit: And of course you need high-definition sources of media to watch as well. If you're just watching a lot of standard-definition broadcast TV or playing games drawn for standard definition, you're not gonna see a lot of improvement no matter how fancy your screen is. They might even look worse if the TV's scaling mechanisms aren't very good.

pendell
2008-06-04, 06:47 AM
So my question is this: Is Blue-ray the next DVD, or the next Betamax?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Arang
2008-06-04, 06:53 AM
So my question is this: Is Blue-ray the next DVD, or the next Betamax?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Blu-ray has won. Honestly I was rooting for HD-DVD, but as it is pretty much every large publisher has gone for Blu-ray exclusivity.

Khalle
2008-06-04, 08:16 AM
I don't know that I'd call blu-ray the next Betamax, since it already easily beat HD-DVD. That being said, I don't think blu-ray will have any kind of long term success. I expect it to maitain some moderate sales due to people that absolutely have to be able to say that they have "the best" while the main public viewing audience pretty much sticks to DVD. By the time DVD really starts to die out we will already have better options than blu-ray, so people will skip it.

Honestly, I don't think any new non hard drive or streaming/on-demand type product will achieve broad success any more.

Darken Rahl
2008-06-04, 09:24 AM
Seriously guys? You can't tell the difference?

http://csel.cs.colorado.edu/~pmjohnso/swhighdef/

And that's BROADCAST HD on a movie filmed ages ago.

Blu Ray HD is able to get even better, clearer quality and newer films recorded in HD are as clear as real life.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-04, 11:38 AM
Seriously guys? You can't tell the difference?

http://csel.cs.colorado.edu/~pmjohnso/swhighdef/

And that's BROADCAST HD on a movie filmed ages ago.
Yeah, except that the HD isn't that big an improvement. Slightly sharper picture but it messes up the colors.


Blu Ray HD is able to get even better, clearer quality and newer films recorded in HD are as clear as real life.
Yes, if something is filmed in HD it is of significantly better quality in most cases. But I prefer 720 for most TV shows and movies, especially upconverted movies (like starwars). HD really only comes into it's own in sports and nature shows/movies.

Darken Rahl
2008-06-04, 11:55 AM
Yeah, except that the HD isn't that big an improvement. Slightly sharper picture but it messes up the colors.

The colors being 'messed up' is likely the fault of the display not being calibrated, not due to the source, as the same source (the film negative) is used for both versions.



Yes, if something is filmed in HD it is of significantly better quality in most cases. But I prefer 720 for most TV shows and movies, especially upconverted movies (like starwars). HD really only comes into it's own in sports and nature shows/movies.

I'm at a loss as to understanding why you prefer a lower quality picture, unless you're specifically talking about sources that are lower than 1080p and upconverted, which may make the obvious quality defects less noticeable if only upscaled to 720.

This, however, only strengthens the argument that 1080p sources are noticeably better than lower quality sources. If 480 and 720 were all that and a bag of chips, then you'd have no problems viewing them at 1080p because they would look great. Instead they look like upscaled garbage, reinforcing my opinion that 1080p is a drastic improvement.

Also, in regards to your upconverted Star Wars observation, the Cinemax and HBO HD broadcasts were 1080 signals (i, not p, but still) which means they went back to the source and reencoded them at a higher quality, instead of simply upconverting a DVD.

I think you might be misunderstanding the importance of HD displays. Old movies were recorded on film, much like an old camera. When you take a negative from those films and scan it in, you choose the resolution at which to scan it. A DVD can only hold a limited amount of data, therefore you need to compress the image. The equivalent would be scanning photos and placing them on a CD. At one point, you'll run out of space so you can either compress the images or scan them at a lower quality to fit more on the disc. So even with old movies, you're not getting the best quality due to compression issues. Going back to the original film negative and rescanning at a higher res with less or no compression makes for a massive difference in quality.

If you need a good example, find the new Blade Runner HD release and watch it in full 1080p HD. You'll be hard pressed to argue that it didn't benefit mightily from HD technology.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-04, 12:49 PM
The colors being 'messed up' is likely the fault of the display not being calibrated, not due to the source, as the same source (the film negative) is used for both versions.
I was just going by your link.


I'm at a loss as to understanding why you prefer a lower quality picture, unless you're specifically talking about sources that are lower than 1080p and upconverted, which may make the obvious quality defects less noticeable if only upscaled to 720.
Kinda. And it has to do with most people filming in HD (especially for TV) not doing makeup right and the size increase of the file.


This, however, only strengthens the argument that 1080p sources are noticeably better than lower quality sources. If 480 and 720 were all that and a bag of chips, then you'd have no problems viewing them at 1080p because they would look great. Instead they look like upscaled garbage, reinforcing my opinion that 1080p is a drastic improvement.
It's not that drastic, and I'm sorry but there are movies where you don't want it that good (I don't need to see the actors pores). If it's in 1080p and both the studio and actors know what they are doing it can come out great. If they just film in HD it can easily come out looking like crap. That applies to most upcoversions as well. 720 is a sharper, clearer picture than 480 while not being so good that you can see the pores on the actors face, or all the other flaws that get in.

This doesn't apply as much to movies filmed in HD, but it does apply to most TV shows filmed that way.


Also, in regards to your upconverted Star Wars observation, the Cinemax and HBO HD broadcasts were 1080 signals (i, not p, but still) which means they went back to the source and reencoded them at a higher quality, instead of simply upconverting a DVD.
I know that.


I think you might be misunderstanding the importance of HD displays. Old movies were recorded on film, much like an old camera. When you take a negative from those films and scan it in, you choose the resolution at which to scan it. A DVD can only hold a limited amount of data, therefore you need to compress the image. The equivalent would be scanning photos and placing them on a CD. At one point, you'll run out of space so you can either compress the images or scan them at a lower quality to fit more on the disc. So even with old movies, you're not getting the best quality due to compression issues. Going back to the original film negative and rescanning at a higher res with less or no compression makes for a massive difference in quality.
Again, I know all of that. I know how HD works, I know how important the display is, and that isn't my problem with it.


If you need a good example, find the new Blade Runner HD release and watch it in full 1080p HD. You'll be hard pressed to argue that it didn't benefit mightily from HD technology.
Again, I never said it didn't.

And whether or not you prefer HD or not, that doesn't make BlueRay worth the money. HD's are cheaper storage mediums and can hold more content.

RTGoodman
2008-06-04, 01:03 PM
Blu-ray has won. Honestly I was rooting for HD-DVD, but as it is pretty much every large publisher has gone for Blu-ray exclusivity.

Yep, I was hoping for the HD-DVD too. Of course, that could be because my XBOX 360 is designed to play them, while my brother's PS3 is designed to play Blu-Rays.

I, too, don't honestly see the point. I mean, yeah the picture is better, but I'm not willing to pay two or three times the price for something just so it'll look a little better. I can't think of more than two or three times in my LIFE that I've had more than like three people watching something at the same time as me in my house, so I don't really think it's worth it if no one else really cares either.

Darken Rahl
2008-06-04, 01:32 PM
ET, just so it's clear, I wasn't patronizing you, I was simply adding to the discussion for the sake of all involved, and the initial post was asking for more general info. Hope I didn't offend.

Jack Squat
2008-06-04, 08:22 PM
I don't see the point of upgrading; now, this is because the two tvs in my house that I use the most are 20+ year old CRTs. We've only got one HDTV in the house (in the family room), and that's hooked up to a DVD player that we're not going to replace until it breaks, or DVDs stop being produced.

Then again, I also still have plenty of VHS tapes that I'm not planning on upgrading until they fail...so I may not be the best person to talk about keeping up with technology :smalltongue:

F.H. Zebedee
2008-06-04, 09:07 PM
Yeah, I'm in the "Not worth it" camp. Seeing people's pores seems to detract from the event for me.

doliest
2008-06-05, 01:16 AM
Seriously guys? You can't tell the difference?

http://csel.cs.colorado.edu/~pmjohnso/swhighdef/

And that's BROADCAST HD on a movie filmed ages ago.

Blu Ray HD is able to get even better, clearer quality and newer films recorded in HD are as clear as real life.

I couldn't care less if it's brighter or clearer it cost TWICE AS MUCH! If I have to shell out $100 for a season of house, then it isn't worth it, besides the new tech doesn't look that good...definitely not worth 2x the price.

valadil
2008-06-05, 08:29 AM
Like I said before, it's not gonna cost twice as much forever. DVDs weren't always dirt cheap. I remember when a season of Farscape on DVD cost $150 and several of my friends laid out $600 for the whole season. Let the techies and obsessive fans buy their overpriced media now. In 2 or 3 years Blu-Ray will either be dead or comparable in price to DVD.

I bought a PS3 for gaming. I intend to buy an HD TV (probably a 32" Sharp Aquos at 1080p) for gaming. Since the PS3 is also a Blu-Ray player I'll probably get a few BR movies too. Or maybe I'll just Netflix them. It's not like it costs any more to get a BR disc from Netflix than a DVD. If I've already got the PS3, then why not go for higher quality media?

Destro_Yersul
2008-06-05, 09:15 AM
I hope it dies. I can't kill it by myself, but I hope it dies. In the meantime, I can take advantage of massive sales going on for DVDs. Suckers... my 7 inch portable player laughs at the pathetic and minimal quality increase of a Blu-Ray 'upgrade'.

Thiel
2008-06-05, 09:39 AM
Is it just me or are you people beating on the HD format and not Blu Ray disks?
Anyway, I predict that it's here to stay. Especially now that Toshiba has stopped producing HD DVDs.

Indon
2008-06-05, 11:05 AM
Blue Ray isn't really worth it imo. Storage space is cheap. A 1 TB external hardrive can be had for about $200. 1 TB of blue ray disks (40 signal layer disks) runs between $280 and $400.

Well, I would get a Blu-ray for long-term storage purposes, myself (i.e. backups for things). So what's the expected life of a Blu-ray disk?


Blu-ray has won. Honestly I was rooting for HD-DVD, but as it is pretty much every large publisher has gone for Blu-ray exclusivity.

Which makes it, more than likely, the next laserdisc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc).

Erloas
2008-06-05, 02:11 PM
One of the biggest difference is that Blue Ray outputs at 16:9 resolution ratio, the same as an HDTV. Where as DVD is designed to output at the old 4:3 ratio used in old TVs.

Even upscaling a DVD will not change that, and playing a wide-screen version of a DVD really just means the image is compressed and expanded more.

Personally I can see a huge difference in the looks on an HDTV when something is in its native resolution vs the "streteched" display that is used going from old outputs to new HDTVs. Some people don't seem to notice or care much but to me it is kind of painful to watch something when everything is stretched like that.

You can run most HDTVs in a 1:1 setup so that it shows a 4:3 ratio signal at the correct ratio, it just means you loose about 20% of your screen to do so.

Digital distrubution isn't going to take the place of physical media for quite a while still. There are too many people that don't have any way of hooking up a computer to a TV, and the use of the computer is completely seperate from that of the TV. Its going to be a long while before your average person has a PC dedicated to TV tasks, and the normal household already has people in conflict over the use of the TV and computer and when you force the two together that is just going to get worse.

Most people also don't have the bandwidth to download and watch HD content in any reasonable amount of time. The average person would have to dedicate their entire bandwidth to downloading a movie for times greatly in excess of the time it would take to watch the movie. Its not going to happen. Granted in some parts of the world the average bandwidth would support HD content, but that is by far the minority.

I don't think Blue-Ray has yet reached the point where it is finacially practical but I think that will be changing in the not to distant future. It was speculated at Compuex this week that a sub $100 blue-ray player is fast approaching. Media and players will be dropping in price, they just aren't quite there yet. If you watch a lot of movies and are even kind of interested in the PS3 then that would be the way to go for the time being.

turkishproverb
2008-06-05, 02:36 PM
Well, I would get a Blu-ray for long-term storage purposes, myself (i.e. backups for things). So what's the expected life of a Blu-ray disk?



Which makes it, more than likely, the next laserdisc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc).

Only if some movies don't get a blue ray release.

More likely it will be closer to the next VCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/vcd) in that people will move on and forget thier old HDDVD disks as soon as they can get a blue ray player.