Blu-ray: Dead by 2012

[doobiwan]

Staring at a turd for weeks on end doesn't make it chocolate cake.

Staring at a turd for weeks on end can make you believe you're staring at chocolate cake ...

 

[smokey]

agree and disagree. its easier to archive with bds and that is where it will go. remember, corporates and dodgy club owners need to write all their data (bathroom porn) to a physical media. not really sure if tapes are still being used. the fact is that you will have a bdr in your pc very soon (lets say in a year or so). for the consumer however, if storage on flash disks keeps increasing by 2x every year, then you really wont need any type of rom (bd, cd or dvd) because itll be cheaper and easier to just buy another disk. by this time next year - 16 gig drives will be around 400 bucks.

R0.02

 

[smokey]

Staring at a turd for weeks on end doesn't make it chocolate cake.

Staring at a turd for weeks on end can make you believe you're staring at chocolate cake ...

if youre staring at a turd for weeks on end - youl end up thinking its vanilla...

 

[arf9999]

Well considering that movies are filmed at 24p and that most modern LCDs and blu-ray players support 24p as a standard, I doubt that you'll see motion blur In fact 24p is one of the advantages that blu-ray has over DVD which adjusts 24p to 25p or 30p using pull-down.

You may see some Frame flicker perhaps, but hey, you'll see that at a cinema. It has nothing to do with Blu-ray and everything to do with the way films are made. Even your 8GB version will show the same thing.

I think you should go and see your optometrist about your prescription
It's great that you're a fanboy and all, but at least know what you're talking about when trolling in future..

 

[doobiwan]

Gummy berry .. Gummi berry juice . . .

I'm seriously trying to be nice here, but if you want a noddy badge that badly you can have one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur

Framerate & latency have got **** all to do with motion blur, it's a static phenomenon inherent in each frame, you can see it by pausing the movie. It's in pretty much all live action footage.

Here's a neato experiment: Wave your finger in front of your nose really fast.

"Hello Blur, where'd you come from?"

 

[DarkWater]

I personally don't like the idea of having my games, music and movies via DL content....I just prefer having the original disks with their snazzy covers and bookies

What the point of a stamp collection if they're all jpegs?

 

[BinaryJack]

agree and disagree. its easier to archive with bds and that is where it will go. remember, corporates and dodgy club owners need to write all their data (bathroom porn) to a physical media. not really sure if tapes are still being used. the fact is that you will have a bdr in your pc very soon (lets say in a year or so). for the consumer however, if storage on flash disks keeps increasing by 2x every year, then you really wont need any type of rom (bd, cd or dvd) because itll be cheaper and easier to just buy another disk. by this time next year - 16 gig drives will be around 400 bucks.

R0.02

When that happens and it is R2000, then it will become mainstream.
Until then...make mine DVD.

 

[BinaryJack]

Well considering that movies are filmed at 24p and that most modern LCDs and blu-ray players support 24p as a standard, I doubt that you'll see motion blur In fact 24p is one of the advantages that blu-ray has over DVD adjusts 24p to 25p or 30p using pull-down.

You may see some Frame flicker perhaps, but hey, you'll see that at a cinema. It has nothing to do with Blu-ray and everything to do with the way films are made. Even your 8GB version will show the same thing.

I think you should go and see your optometrist about your prescription
It's great that you're a fanboy and all, but at least know what you're talking about when trolling in future..

I'm seriously trying to be nice here, but if you want a noddy badge that badly you can have one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur

Framerate & latency have got **** all to do with motion blur, it's a static phenomenon inherent in each frame, you can see it by pausing the movie. It's in pretty much all live action footage.

Here's a neato experiment: Wave your finger in front of your nose really fast.

"Hello Blur, where'd you come from?"

*Sigh* I know I shouldn't respond to this kind of trolling... but here goes:

Bullshit. There is no motion blur due to Blu-Ray, it is due to the LCD screen itself. If what you're saying is true, then your X-box games running at 720p look no better than a PS2 version of the same game.

If that is your contention you are:
1. Visually impaired
2. Trolling
3. Deluded
4. Stupid.

You choose . Because I like to see the best in people, I'm guessing 2 or 3.

... Oh yes, if you want to compress a 1080p movie to 8GB, no wonder you can't see the benefit.

Now that's just not nice is it.

While I'll freely admit that the comparisons I've done have been in store, they were correctly set at 1080p over HDMI BD to Plasma and LCD. The very purpose of which was to decide whether it was worth it to drop 15-25k on a telly so I was damn sure to be thorough. For reference it was the range of LG's at Audio Vision in Canal Walk, but it was about 6-12 months ago.

Arf, I know LCD latency when I see it, and that ain't it. As I said, the blurring is not inherent in BD it's an artifact of the filming process. As for it occuring in games, when was the last time you check the specs on your gfx card? It's not naturally present in a series of rendered images because there's no motion, which is why cards perform motion blur as a rendering post process. If you want to see it in action, the most blatant use of it is in GTAIV, it's used around the edges of the screen.

This is so much fun!!!

Popcorn anyone?

 

[doobiwan]

No thanks it'll clash with my Cheese and Onion Sev.

 

[CHURCHILL]

@Doobi, I dont get your point, are you saying that everything suffers from motion blur, if so, then why use it as a negative towards blu ray/HD content.

I'm pretty sure full HDBlur looks better than compressed HDBlur / SDBlur.

 

[doobiwan]

lol.

Yes that is what I'm saying, motion blur is in practically everything. The point is not that it's a specific failing of BD, it's a case that once your HD picture blurs ever so slightly you lose the value of it being in HD in the first place. That's any HD video source not just BD. The degree of blur is not dictated by the viewing media, it's by the recording media.

Throw in a good upscaling DVD player and the difference between DVD and BD is pretty much irrelevant on anything less than 50".

The bigger issue though is that if you have the time to appreciate the minute increase in clarity for a BD, I have to ask ... what the hell are you watching and why are you bothering if the movie itself is so boring it's more entertaining to count pixels

 

[Fudzy]

Fanboism aside, both the Xbox 360 and PS3 will both seem quite historic by 2012. How much of more of a lifespan does the normal DVD have?

 

[arf9999]

lol.

Yes that is what I'm saying, motion blur is in practically everything. The point is not that it's a specific failing of BD, it's a case that once your HD picture blurs ever so slightly you lose the value of it being in HD in the first place.

OK,

So let me get this straight. BD is crap because it is possible that fast action will create motion blur in each frame of a movie. In fact all HD is crap because motion blur means that you may as well watch it in SD. In fact your argument has absolutely nothing to do with HD but has to do with the physical capabilities of film and video cameras.

What utter codswallop. You're just exposing your complete lack of understanding of how film and video are captured. I'm not sure if I should even bother to explain the concept of high shutter speeds to you.

 

[feo]

Eish. Nine times out of ten I would back doobiwan in an argument but when it comes to the technical details of HD and how it's captured, I think arf9999 and TivoZA are the main guys.

 

[doobiwan]

Thanks feo Although I'm trying to figure where you see that ...

@Arf, Good idea, better to keep it to yourself. I wouldn't really listen anyway considering you didn't know what Motion Blur was, nor do you understand the first thing about a 3D framebuffer.

I would suggest you stop cherry picking for an argument and try to actually engage. I don't really want to have to type the same thing out a gazillion times because I've already spent at least 2 years sinking your same flipping argument.

My contention has never been that SD and HD are the same, I've always maintained that the advantages of HD are so minor and have no impact on the quality of the content of a film. You know the important part? The fact that technically HD movies deliver even less than the hype promises and FAR less than the price tag suggests is a final nail it it's coffin for me.

Just think about it for a second, you can sit and count pixels all you want, but you're talking about a "fuzziness" difference of less than .5 of a millimetre at 6" Woohoo!!! That's definitely worth investing R35000 worth in a player and TV.

Hell No.

Or another way of looking at it. If you watch a movie in HD, and I watch it in SD, there's is absolutely nothing more that you take away from that experience than I do, you memories are not of the pixel density, it's of the humour and drama.

 

[Solidus]

I personally don't like the idea of having my games, music and movies via DL content....I just prefer having the original disks with their snazzy covers and bookies

What the point of a stamp collection if they're all jpegs?

Thats exactly my point! There is no substitute for that booklet with the artwork.

 

[Dohc-WP]

This was the Best Fanboi Monday Ever

 

[arf9999]

@Arf, Good idea, better to keep it to yourself. I wouldn't really listen anyway considering you didn't know what Motion Blur was, nor do you understand the first thing about a 3D framebuffer.

Hows things going at school there. LCD TVs are generally derided for "motion blur" which as you point out is due to latency... you obviously decided to do a bit of googling to make a point... I'm not sure about what tho'.

I would suggest you stop cherry picking for an argument and try to actually engage. I don't really want to have to type the same thing out a gazillion times because I've already spent at least 2 years sinking your same flipping argument.

Oh get over yourself you self important little twit. How can I cherry pick an argument with you? You never say the same thing twice. It's really hard to hit a moving target. "BD is crap ->because I can download stuff --> people will get used to compression issues, so HD isn't important -->because of the motion blur that you see on LCD screens -> actually it's in the frame -->SD looks the same -->oh yeah all movie content has it --> actually it's because the movie content is **** --> just believe me because I'm uber l33t."

My contention has never been that SD and HD are the same, I've always maintained that the advantages of HD are so minor and have no impact on the quality of the content of a film.

go read the thread... your posts may be interesting (to you anyhow).

You know the important part? The fact that technically HD movies deliver even less than the hype promises and FAR less than the price tag suggests is a final nail it it's coffin for me.

So can I add that to the list of arguments? "It's too expensive for me... I don't like the hype..."

Just think about it for a second, you can sit and count pixels all you want, but you're talking about a "fuzziness" difference of less than .5 of a millimetre at 6" Woohoo!!! That's definitely worth investing R35000 worth in a player and TV.

R35K? I thought you were soooo connected to these things. Been out of your basement in the last 6 months? BD Player less than R4000, Full HD 40" TV R10K. Total 14K. That'll leave you with R21K to spend on action figures and lava lamps.

Or another way of looking at it. If you watch a movie in HD, and I watch it in SD, there's is absolutely nothing more that you take away from that experience than I do, you memories are not of the pixel density, it's of the humour and drama.

Oh we're back on this one. So you're happy to watch your movies in Youtube quality? Same argument... content is identical.


edit: Sorry, forgot something:

. I don't really want to have to type the same thing out a gazillion times because I've already spent at least 2 years sinking your same flipping argument.

Gee I thought you spent 12 months of that saying how HD-DVD was a great format and was going to whup Blu-ray's ass... You didn't seem to have such a problem with disk media until Sony's format won.... Oh yes, I forgot, you're a fanboy.

 

[arf9999]

16GB SD costs R500 in '08
32GB should cost the same in '09
64GB "" '10
128GB "" '11
256GB "" '12
512GB '' '13
1TeraByte should cost R500 in 2014, and while BluRay only holds 25GB per R100 for a blank, which is R4 per GG, SD cards will cost an eighth that by 2014. half that by 2012. 2012 to 2015, if the 400GB blurays work, bluray does not have long, DVD is already byebye

True. but you're not factoring in the reduction in price of the Blu-ray blank. DVD-Rs used to cost R50 ea, now you can get them for less than a rand.

 

[CHURCHILL]

@Doobiwan, I wish some time soon you will get an oppertunity to watch, I am legend and 10 000 BC on Blu-ray, hopefully you will change the way you think of blu-ray/HD content.

It really is amazing.