arf9999
MyBroadband Member
fixed for you
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Do you bet on sports?
Blu-ray: Dead by 2012
- Thread starter doobiwan
- Start date
F
Fudzy
Guest
Firstly blu ray is the chosen next gen format and thats it (thanx to sony's good marketing again) ! Secondly a lot of you guys here seem to forget that blu ray movies are still compressed (if you havent noticed that yet) ! The difference between a downloaded HD movie and a blu ray movie is hardly noticeable (unless you use a microscope) ! Point four is although blu ray discs are 25 and 50 gigs there is not a single blu ray movie out there that uses all that space on the disc (unless someone here has a 50gig bluray movie that uses the whole disc capacity) !
HD DVD was the superior format everyone knew it
for those who think blu ray is not a compressed format
Downloaded movies are also in those formats (for those who argue about quality and compression)
and
Facts are facts
HD DVD was the superior format everyone knew it
but the best dont always win as we know it !
for those who think blu ray is not a compressed format
Downloaded movies are also in those formats (for those who argue about quality and compression)
and
thats why they had to develop blu ray 2.0 because the original compression used initially sucked !
Facts are facts
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
erm.. and your point is?
Compression is scalable. The more you compress the more data you discard. There is no way that an 8GB h.264 file looks anywhere near as good as a 25+GB file. Or to put it more simply... Blu-Ray transfer rate is over 30Mb/s, HDTV is usually around 19Mb/s... An 8GB movie of 90 minutes would mean a transfer rate of around 10Mb/s (similar to DVD). You'd definitely see the difference.
The differences between a downloaded and Blu-ray, well-mastered movie are marked and if you can't see the difference, I suggest that you join doobiwan at the optometrist. The edge artifacts, colour banding and dark area noise are obvious. Not to mention the 7 channels of audio...
er... who knew it? Microsoft? Toshiba? I can't really think of anyone else... and it couldn't be because they owned the licenses for the technology could it?
You're showing your lack of understanding about compression. I suggest that you go read up on it. Just because a particular compression format is used does not make every implementation equal in terms of quality.
er no. AVC-HD, and VC-1 were included in the first version, Version 2.0 was developed to provide online features. Check your facts. The reason that MPEG-2 was used in the first Blu-ray disks was for pragmatic reasons: the authoring and mastering equipment in most of the production houses was able to work with MPEG-2 immediately without upgrading. And, since there was no shortage of capacity on the disks, it was not necessary to use a more efficient codec. HD-DVD HAD to use VC-1 from the start because there wasn't enough space on a 15GB disk for a full MPEG-2 movie. Edit: You understand what "efficient" means, right? It doesn't mean that the quality is better, it just means that the file is smaller. That's it.
Yes they are, you should go find some.
Last edited:
have you seen how dvd's get compressed to xvid with practically no major loss of quality (lower bitrate's and playing it side by side with the original disc there is practically no difference)
not really but here are some companies I can think of ! Hitachi Maxell, LG, Lite On, Onkyo, Meridan, Samsung, and Alpine, or Universal Studios (including subsidiaries Focus Features and Rogue Pictures), Paramount Pictures (including Paramount Vantage, Nickelodeon Movies, MTV Films, DreamWorks Pictures and DreamWorks Animation), The Weinstein Company (including Dimension Films), First Look Studios and Warner Bros. Pictures. They all suppported the format
Reason why sony won is because sony is one of the biggest most influential movie distributors in the world Columbia, tristar ring a bell and they have share's in alot of smaller movie companies !
here's an example ever heard of losless file compression 7zip format is a compression that is alot smaller than rar or standard zip but the file dont lose any quality when compressed or uncompressed ! the same can be said for movies (have you watched a 720p WMV movie yet) the quality is extremely impressive for a movie that is 2 hours long and compressed to a file size of around 6 gigs ! compressing a movie does not mean it loses noticeable quality (e.g. PNG vs BMP comes to mind) ! if compressed downloadable HD movies are so bad then I wonder how online dstributors like netflix stay afloat !
you should get your facts straight ! what part of inferior format do you not understand ? mpeg2 was inferior and still is (that is why most mpeg2 bluray's got critized for their quality) good excuse with the production houses part not wanting to upgrade (they can afford hd cameras but not the better hd software) ! Take of your blinkers for once !
Last edited:
arf9999
MyBroadband Member
riiiight. Except that you're comparing MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 in terms of file size. I'm talking about the same codec. Show me an Xvid file that is 50% of another xvid with the same quality and I may believe you.
Want to check your facts there? Samsung? LG? (LG may have supported both with a dual player, but was not an HD-DVD supporter). Warner supported both. Universal supported neither until they were paid by Toshiba.not really but here are some companies I can think of ! Hitachi Maxell, LG, Lite On, Onkyo, Meridan, Samsung, and Alpine, or Universal Studios (including subsidiaries Focus Features and Rogue Pictures), Paramount Pictures (including Paramount Vantage, Nickelodeon Movies, MTV Films, DreamWorks Pictures and DreamWorks Animation), The Weinstein Company (including Dimension Films), First Look Studios and Warner Bros. Pictures. They all suppported the format
along with the fact that despite a price difference, Blu-ray was able to reach the million player mark faster than HD-DVD. Blu-Ray disk sales were 6 times that of HD-DVD. So it basically made financial sense for Warner and Universal to jump ship.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. This is the same argument that doobiwan uses: it doesn't matter if the high compression causes artefacts because people don't care.here's an example ever heard of losless file compression 7zip format is a compression that is alot smaller than rar or standard zip but the file dont lose any quality when compressed or uncompressed ! the same can be said for movies (have you watched a 720p WMV movie yet) the quality is extremely impressive for a movie that is 2 hours long and compressed to a file size of around 6 gigs ! compressing a movie does not mean it loses noticeable quality (e.g. PNG vs BMP comes to mind) ! if compressed downloadable HD movies are so bad then I wonder how online dstributors like netflix stay afloat !
This must rate as the stupidest part of your post. MPEG-4 is not superior ito quality to MPEG-2. It is more efficient, that's all. Thus a similar quality file is smaller. The problem with MPEG-2 is only file size.
As far as the production/mastering studios are concerned, you obviously know nothing, so rather keep quiet. You do know that most of the software was filmed on film cameras right?
Those are terrible movies!
I am legend was excellent, 10 000 BC was alright nothing special.
Dont tell me you are also one of those people that did not enjoy i am legend, just because of the ending.
The blu -ray version has an alternate ending for those who like love stories/fairytales.
What type of movies do you enjoy?
Anything that doesn't have Will Smith in it, Dude come on! Even if it had the other ending, I am Legend is still a terrible film! It drags so much I fell asleep and took 2 nights to watch it
plus I read that the movie went against the book cause his actually suppose to be a bad guy. I enjoy all types of movies but not that crap I am Legend, think, the only I'll watch with Will Smith in it is Bad Boys further than that his an overacting unfunny second rate actor, waaay overhyped have you seen how dvd's get compressed to xvid with practically no major loss of quality (lower bitrate's and playing it side by side with the original disc there is practically no difference)
True, but thats DVD - xvid , what about blu ray - xvid
(have you watched a 720p WMV movie yet)
Have you watched a full 1080p WMV yet?
if compressed downloadable HD movies are so bad then I wonder how online dstributors like netflix stay afloat !
Because of people who are satisfied with compressed downloadable HD and are not bothered with true 1080p quality.
True, but thats DVD - xvid , what about blu ray - xvid
(have you watched a 720p WMV movie yet)
Have you watched a full 1080p WMV yet?
if compressed downloadable HD movies are so bad then I wonder how online dstributors like netflix stay afloat !
Because of people who are satisfied with compressed downloadable HD and are not bothered with true 1080p quality.
Last edited:
doobiwan
Executive Member
How? Explain it to me. The pictures a bit crisper? Tell me exactly how it enhanced the movie. How did it change your life?
Not? And that's my point. There are a million test cases you can do to show me "how it's better", but it doesn't matter where it counts.
And off topic let me just add before I get going, I've never argued that HD will die. It won't, in fact we'll be moving on to UHD within a year or two, that's progress, and that's also the problem. I just don't believe it's worth upgrading for movies on Blu Ray. HD can work - it's good for gaming, and on BIG Tv's - 50"+ its good for slow things like Planet Earth. Exactly like Laserdisc or SACD, or DVD-Audio - the return is just not worth the investment.
I'd rather you don't try put words in my mouth because I know exactly where your dribble has been. Just as a point, while I may have contested HD-DVD I have always maintained that neither physical optical format had little long term future or advantage. HD-DVD had a better chance being at consumer prices last year already, but by now it's too late for either.
I realise your brain is struggling to process more than a single idea at a time but at least make an effort. Quality, cost, competition are all relevant in an argument and you failure to acknowledge that only serves to highlight your shallow mindedness.
I'm sorry I had to google for you, but you obviously need someone to show you how. You claim to know so much about HD and film quality yet you lack a fundamental understanding of it most basic concepts. From everything I've read that you've posted I can draw only one conclusion, and I'm sorry to burst Feo's bubble: You don't know anything that you haven't been told by some overhyped sales troll.
As for the R35000 TV - that's because that was the cost of the Rig I did the comparison on at the time.
Oh, it's not just attitude - I am smarter than you
A lot of mud slinging going on. Eish.
All I can say is I'm a happy PS3/blu-ray owner who enjoys the better quality discs (no scratching, flexible disc) (tired of DVD's getting cracks and scratched), the better quality image (You have to agree it is better, even if you think it's just slightly better) and I think the sound is better, but I'm not a sound expert so cannot really say if it's that much better.
I've watched a few movies and the quality is better (40" LCD) and I enjoy it. Yes it didn't make my life richer, but did COD4 make your life richer, not really, but you enjoy playing the game.
At the end of the day the masses will decide if they are going to buy blu-ray and at the moment it's still more DVD's in the shop, but I see more and more blu-ray titles arriving. At some point the price will come down for the players and the movies.
You can get HD content via downloads or on blu-ray? Which one you prefer is up to you the customer. And the customer is always right.
All I can say is I'm a happy PS3/blu-ray owner who enjoys the better quality discs (no scratching, flexible disc) (tired of DVD's getting cracks and scratched), the better quality image (You have to agree it is better, even if you think it's just slightly better) and I think the sound is better, but I'm not a sound expert so cannot really say if it's that much better.
I've watched a few movies and the quality is better (40" LCD) and I enjoy it. Yes it didn't make my life richer, but did COD4 make your life richer, not really, but you enjoy playing the game.
At the end of the day the masses will decide if they are going to buy blu-ray and at the moment it's still more DVD's in the shop, but I see more and more blu-ray titles arriving. At some point the price will come down for the players and the movies.
You can get HD content via downloads or on blu-ray? Which one you prefer is up to you the customer. And the customer is always right.
Well thats exactly my point, I mentioned those two movies simlpy as an example of picture quality.
Some movies have great stories and are classics and some are cheap budget B grade movies, either way no matter how good the movie is, watching it in HD is still better then watching it in SD.
Like your other post about staring at a turd (by the way that was funny).
Atleast staring at a turd in HD, there will be no argument on whether or not that is a piece of millie pip or a peanut.
doobiwan
Executive Member
heh heh
And my contention is that if it's a piece of turd, no one cares anyway...
As I have said (I've actually said, not what someone thinks I've said) It's all relative, some people see value in pixel count, but then some people seem to think Jim Carey is funny, so there's really no accounting for taste.
I'd rather watch a week of snowy British comedy in bad 480i than have to sit through 3 hours of 1080p anything with Eddy Murphy in it.
Last edited:
It comes down to taste, but no but ya but no but ya (Little Britain). You must be the only gay in the village.
(Edit: Don't take it personally, just kidding)But seriously, I would rather watch a good Sci-fi movie on HD than a 480i comedy show, but that's just me.
doobiwan
Executive Member
The genre was just an example, try it other way.
Serenity in 480i or Pride and Prejudice in 1080p?
Wow this is quite a thread, lots of strong feelings here.
I watch movies on a 92 inch screen, using a projector, at home. I have watched downloaded movies, the type that is only 8gb but is hd. I also have watched movies off bluray discs. There is a big difference. That's my personal experience.
The question for each person is whether they want to pay for that difference. For some its is worth it, for other not. Its about affordability and priority. If you watch alot, if its important to you, and you have the bucks to do it then I think its well worth it.
Oh and by the way, even if your screen is not as big you can still see the difference, just make sure that if you are going to do spend the bucks that you check the screen to viewing distance charts out to make sure that you will get the benefit.
I watch movies on a 92 inch screen, using a projector, at home. I have watched downloaded movies, the type that is only 8gb but is hd. I also have watched movies off bluray discs. There is a big difference. That's my personal experience.
The question for each person is whether they want to pay for that difference. For some its is worth it, for other not. Its about affordability and priority. If you watch alot, if its important to you, and you have the bucks to do it then I think its well worth it.
Oh and by the way, even if your screen is not as big you can still see the difference, just make sure that if you are going to do spend the bucks that you check the screen to viewing distance charts out to make sure that you will get the benefit.
doobiwan
Executive Member
Thanks, that's pretty much spot on.
Although @ 92" I'd have to say it's pretty hard not notice a difference.
Although @ 92" I'd have to say it's pretty hard not notice a difference.
smokey
Honorary Master
@ Kage
I can get a BDr for 112E NOW. In Serbia (ffs). Next year expect the proce to drop to atleast 60-70E for an entry level model. Just coz we live in the middle of fecking nowhere, the tip of the bloody world and everyhting is more expensive and arrives late (till we invent portals and such trekkie stuff). Again, going by your logic... don;t judge the world by SA standards. Most of the people I know have put up money for BDrs just coz of the space and with each BDr sold, the discs are geting cheaper and cheaper. 12-18 months - mark my words....
I can get a BDr for 112E NOW. In Serbia (ffs). Next year expect the proce to drop to atleast 60-70E for an entry level model. Just coz we live in the middle of fecking nowhere, the tip of the bloody world and everyhting is more expensive and arrives late (till we invent portals and such trekkie stuff). Again, going by your logic... don;t judge the world by SA standards. Most of the people I know have put up money for BDrs just coz of the space and with each BDr sold, the discs are geting cheaper and cheaper. 12-18 months - mark my words....