Discussion in 'Audio Hardware' started by darkmatter, Jul 5, 2012.
Continued from here
But sometimes, the slightly-jerky quality of 24fps is what gives it a certain character. I would argue that higher frame-rates (and smoother motion) detract from makes a movie look like a movie. In particular, the 240Hz "motion-smoothing" modes in all current TVs make the image too smooth and wind up with a picture that looks very digital and artificial to me. Plastic soul, man... plastic soul.
was there really much more to be said on the topic?
For the fanboys, there is no acceptable reason not to have blu-ray.
They should write McCartney's management an ask them why none of the new deluxe releases have blu-ray discs in them....only DVD?
A format that will be dead (according to them in a few years)
I can understand why some will pass on Bluray and are happy with DVD. I prefer the PQ of Bluray to DVD on my 50" 720p plasma. What I think some who are passing on Bluray are really missing out on is some of the recent audio only Blurays. I just bought Patricia Barber's Modern Cool Bluray and the SQ is outstanding in 2.0 and 5.1 .
I like film look, but it breaks down (for me) when there's a lot of motion on screen, and the bigger the screen the more nauseating it becomes. I'm curious to see the new 48fps and 60fps movies coming down the pike. Each individual frame looks like film, but in motion it's bound to remind people of video. It's a whole new look and it'll probably take some getting used to.
Doug Trumbull's plans for Digital Showscan include different rates in the same film depending on content. He even has the ability to combine 24fps and 60fps (or higher) in the same frame. Could get interesting.
I agree that the motion smoothing on TV's looks bad, real bad. Stuff shot natively at a high frame rate is what it is. Converting the motion of a 24fps film is like colorizing. Wrong.
Why I do not like Blu Ray synopsis of my posts
Hey. Why make interested parties read all 1,000 of part one:
So for my contribution: here it is:
I first said i do not like BluRay because it really is not much better.
A lot of (early) Blu Ray discs were just DVD transfers with a bit of upsampling (someone said the word is not upsampling, but who cares what it is called, they still just sucked)
Then I even posted a link to the info, and was insulted as if the info did not really exist.
Then i was called blind, and misinformed, and a Troll. (though if the original poster, was really deliberatly asking the reverse of what they believed, hoping for some to 'take the bait' then they would be way more trollish than I.)
Anyway, hunderds of post supporting and raving for BluRay. So Blu Ray supporters chimed in on how wonderful Blu Ray is and any of us who do not think it was the greatest thing since sex are blind idiot trolls. (My perception and interpretation of the posts )
Then I mentioned WHY I am not interested in BluRay personally: I have an early but very good Sony 720p Plasma TV, with only one HDMI input.
I have a Denon DVD5910 DVD player and am really happy with it. being able to see every hair on a guys face, and hiars on peoples heads, being able to read the spines of books on a shelf on the pic is plenty good enough for me. And I own thousands of DVDs.
Still called troll, semi troll, and I still stand up and say BluRay is not that much better than DVD. Though IF I bought a 60" or 65" screen I might, is I had money to burn, buy a BluRay player at that time. (Mostly for the few movies with tons of detailed background stuff which is cool, Though I am able and happy to say it still looks cool with my current system.
This is where i got the semi troll comment. and told I was "Backtracking" (thus I wanted to reiterate I have no use for BluRay, and think it is not much better than DVD. Yup, in the grand scheme of things, it is maybe a little better, but not worth the bother IMO. Got that straight now???, and ONLY MAYBE, in the years to come, I might think about gettin a BluRay player, maybe..)
Plenty of raves for Blu Ray, a few raves for DVD.
So far it seems Blu Ray has PLENTY of Fan Service in these pages...
A few folks seem to not need BluRay so far.. Including me.
Oh yeah, then some discussion on data and 1080p frame rates and all that..
So for all those who do not want to read the first 1,000 posts, here it was in a nutshell.
Feel free to fill in the gaps folks, To educate those too bored to read through all that drivel which went before.
I felt the same way when blurays hit the market, why bother? I was so happy with dvd, the upgrade from vhs to dvd was truly amazing. I did not think the upgrade from dvd to blu was significant enough to warrant trading in my collection of movies once again.
But of course now I have a Playstation 3, so I've started a small collection of blu-rays too. I'm still very happy about my dvd's, so I'm upgrading only my absolute favourites/classics like Blade Runner, Taxi Driver etc. There really is a difference in quality between the formats, like it should be since a blu often has 10 times the information as the dvd equivalent. Even on my "little" 40" LED screen (I have a small apartment) I can see it, the bigger the tv the more you love blu I imagine
...and of course when it comes to new releases I usually go for blu, why wouldn't I want the best quality.
So I've changed my mind
If you're into home theater, I'll assume that fidelity matters. With Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, then blu-ray is the way to go. Not to mention the stereo PCM tracks for concerts is usually superlative. Lossy audio on DVD is no comparison to this. This is one area where DVD comes up short big time imo.
I also use Bluray for BD-Audio. I have a bunch of real treats and more to come. Actually I ordered Modern Cool some days ago. Glad you have positive vibes for that one. I'm also waiting for the Bluray-Audio version of Americana. Picture on Bluray flims are excellent most ofthe times.......
This is my main reason for buying blu. The PQ is an added bonus.
I can understand why you personally don't want Blu Ray. You are not a troll for not wanting to adopt it. You acknowledged that it was better but for your given equipment, you don't find a big improvement. That's fair as your equipment won't be able to take benefit from 1080p. I'm staying away from the 3D stuff in BluRay. Every 3D film I ever has less resolution in it than its 2D counterpart. Wearing 2pairs of glasses at the same time doesn't appeal to me.
I think DVD will go away but not nearly as quick as VHS did when DVD was first introduced into the market. I think that more people own dvds/players than VHS so its going to be more than 2 years before you see its demise. I do think that in a couple of years that you will see far less selection available in the DVD format then what is currently available. A could indicator would be when new movie are only released on BluRay eliminate the combi packs.
It's not true, not in my experience. Just because you have a link doesn't make it true.
I know of some TV episodes that were (and are) up-rezzed SD, but they're in the minority. The vast number of feature films on Blu-ray from the major studios are actual HD transfers -- and in many cases today, they're 4K transfers down-rezzed to HD. Meaning: the mastering is done at four times HD resolution for future archival use. (One can argue that the mastering is questionable, but that's another argument.)
Misinformation and blind criticism helps no one. Especially when you're trying to judge material on a 10-year-old analog 720P set, and we don't know how you set it up. You're starting off with an agenda, and then using false information to justify it. It's a straw man argument.
Yeah, that was the problem with the argument. It came with opinions portrayed as facts and a blanket "Blu-ray isn't better than DVD" attitude - of course BD fans reacted negatively.
Most of us have said all along that if you personally don't care about BD, that's great - no one's said BD must be adopted by everyone regardless of circumstance.
But when someone claims most BDs are just "upscaled DVDs" and they're not an improvement, that's just wrong - and that's what inspires "troll" reactions...
I would agree but we're not just talking about films. Watching sports (or most other TV really) at 24/25/30p is annoying and doesn't look very good.
I also, like you, don't generally like frame interpolation (e.g. 600 Hz modes or whatever).
What will happen to the Beatles Anthology on DVD and thousands of other releases?
I'm told the Beatles Anthology will probably never make blu-ray because the entire series would have to be redone/made?
Also if you really don't collect movies(with a few exceptions) I get all my hi-def on cable HBO,Showtime, Movie Channel.
Why do you need blu-ray?
This was/is my feeling as well. Since BD players are backwards compatible with DVD's and they even upconvert DVD's, there's no need for me to rush out and replace everything like I did with VHS tapes. But as I wrote in the previous thread, I see no reason NOT to get a Bluray release today over a DVD release, especially if the price is similar.
I can definitely tell a difference between 480p and 720p+ on not only my TV, but also on my PC screen. On my PC screen it's actually more noticable given the size/distance ratio.
The Beatles Anthology will most likely be transferred to BluRay with standard DVD resolution.
I do collect movies and I dictate the time when I feel like watching a movie. Its just more convenient for me. The resolution is better on bluray with new releases than what's coming through the channels.
I'm not abdicating you abandon or change your current collection. That's for you to decide. I'm just giving you reasons why I go for Blu Ray. I'm not replacing any of my DVDs with BluRay either. However, since I got a BluRay player, all my subsequent purchases have been Blu Ray.
You don't need blu-ray. No one needs any of this, and I'm not sure anyone has actually said people need blu-ray (or any media format for that matter). Why this point always creeps back in, I haven't the faintest clue. We're just comparing formats, that's all. Blu-ray is better than DVD in every discernible area of measurement. Now, a person does not have to indulge, that's their prerogative and right. Maybe they just don't care to at the moment like Elizabeth, or in your case, there is not enough compelling media on the format to keep you interested. This is all fine. The big objection is when instead of people having their reasons for not going with blu-ray and just leaving it at that, they start saying things that just aren't true. Like most blu-ray is upscaled DVD and that the difference is minor. It isn't. Not even taking into account the visual differences, the fidelity difference is massive. It's lossless vs lossy, and once you've heard them side by side, it's pretty startling. Which is why it's a pretty embarrassing statement to say the differences are minor (I know you didn't). It's like debating whether Yao Ming is over 7ft tall, like it's a matter of opinion, when it isn't.
Possibly. The only real advantage is that it'd all fit on one disc - that might not be enough for enough people to buy it in order to justify the release.
I wouldn't rebuy that even if it got a full restoration, both audio, and video. It's a documentary. A great documentary, but a documentary nonetheless, and since I won't watch it but once every two years or so, it's totally unnecessary. Actual concerts get rewatchability in my home.
Typically, these type of release cost as much as if it were on standard DVD
No it wouldn't fit on 1 disc and a real advantage would be to have the music up-rezzed to DTHD or DTSMA.
Blu-ray is more of an upgrade from DVD than DVD was from VHS.
It makes a huge difference IF you have at least a 50" screen AND you sit the proper distance from the screen. Screen size doesn't matter if you sit too far away as the human eye cannot resolve the higher resolutions beyond a certain distance. This is not my opinion but fact. Unlike Audio where just about anything goes, Video is thoroughly quantified.
In my experience, the reason people don't go with hi-rez video isn't that they don't see the difference, they just don't care enough to make the investment.
Separate names with a comma.