take that Blu-Ray

Discussion in 'AnyDVD HD (Blu-ray issues)' started by Rusty257, May 1, 2008.

  1. Rusty257

    Rusty257 Well-Known Member

  2. mike20021969

    mike20021969 Well-Known Member

    maybe everyone who wants a blu-ray player has bought one?
    many people may not want to upgrade just yet (if at all).
    i aint getting one yet.i'm sticking with regular dvd for the forseeable.
    if my dvd player(s) broke right now,i'd buy....just a regular dvd player.

    i'm more interested in the quality of what the movie is about,rather than the quality visuals.
  3. damnskippy

    damnskippy Well-Known Member

    Upconverted is not good enough in my personal opinion that is why I have the ability to play them on my TV and PC's. I can see that many people would not agree though. With the prive of SA players and BD disks it is not going to get much better either.

    Interesting that the PC drive sales are not slumping though. Must be because we are using AnyDVD to be able to play them on HTPC's :)
  4. windsorr

    windsorr Well-Known Member

    This is about the economy..it has nothing to do with technology...Sales of many consumer items have gone through the floor especially in the US as consumer confidence has tanked following the collapse in the real esate and mortgage markets....
  5. hlkc

    hlkc Well-Known Member

    I am not surprise. IMO, there are few things contribute that today. I think it has to do with economy, rising gas price but more to do with this is a luxury item and it is not a "must have" item for most consumer today.

    Also, we still have DVD coming out with BD today. Do we have any title exclusive for BD but not DVD? There is no big hurry to buy one today/soon. But once they stop and decrease the DVD production and shift to BD production then I guarantee it will increase. Similar like few years ago, HDTV vs tube TV. Once gov announces stop the analog signal on 2/17/09, then most of the consumer will want one and with the HDTV price drop then HDTV will success. What if regular TV still in production and no end to deliver analog, HDTV won't be as successful as today, right?
  6. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    SIGH....this is the most misunderstood issue I've ever seen in my life. *NO ONE* seems to understand what it means, let alone that an HDTV is not needed nor will it affect 90% of the people out there. Oh well.
  7. captain_video

    captain_video Well-Known Member

    I couldn't agree more. The loss of analog TV only affects the small percentage of households that still receive their standard definition signals via an OTA antenna. The decoder box required to receive the new digital broadcasts works fine with analog TVs, as does your existing satellite receivers and cable boxes.

    Analog TVs will still exist and continue to be sold. It's just that any new models will have to have a built-in digital tuner. CRT TVs are still cheaper to produce than flat screen digital TVs and will have a niche in the marketplace for many years to come. That is, they'll still be available until such time as the cost to produce flat screen TVs gets low enough to make the price differential insignificant, at which time the manufacturers will no doubt dump CRTs in favor of LCDs and plasmas exclusively.

    Slacking sales of BD players is not good news for anyone that has taken the BD plunge. If players don't sell then the demand for BD programs will also not see an increase. If more consumers don't demand BD movies then the costs to produce them won't decrease. More volume sales = less cost per disc to produce. Higher prices will keep the demand low for any new adopters to the format since a lot of consumers wait until the price drops significantly before taking the plunge. Lower cost BD players will hopefully stimulate sales but, like someone already indicated, there's a good chance that the majority of consumers interested in Blu-Ray have already made the investment. It may take much longer for the rest of the marketplace to catch up. I think that when more people start getting into HDTV you'll see sales start to slowly begin climbing.

    The sad fact is that most consumers think DVDs are simply good enough and don't think the increase in picture quality with Blu-Ray justifies the added cost. Just look at how many low-res movies and TV shows are downloaded from the internet and you'll get an idea of the mainstream mentality when it comes to quality media. If it's free, or at least cheap, and convenient, the masses will flock to it. I've tried downloading TV shows using bittorrent as a last resort if my DVR missed an episode of a favorite show but I cringe when I have to watch it because the picture quality is crap, pure and simple. Just try and badmouth unBox movies at the Tivo Community Forum and see how badly you get flamed for speaking such blasphemy.
    Last edited: May 1, 2008
  8. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    :clap: Exactly. To top it off, my son and daughter don't have a cable box attached to their tv's, and guess what, on Feb 09 they still won't. :eek: It's completely unnecessary as the cable system is not affected by this change in the least. It's ONLY for OTA broadcasts. Yet, retailers are duping consumers into thinking they need high priced HDTV's or risk having their existing tv's go dark. What an absolute disgrace.
  9. Datus

    Datus Well-Known Member

    Yes HDDVD was the way to go and perhaps uptake would have been better as paramount and warners (who lets face are the main disc releasers) could have both gone in full swing.

    The delay of paramount going back to blu-ray is a factor.
    The price of players is another.
    The price of discs is a shocking other (they do like to overcharge dont they).
    The lack of decent new release films but will get better end of this year.
    The delay in standard profile is another.

    Still too early for HD to make any real comments.
    This christmas will see make or break I think.
  10. hlkc

    hlkc Well-Known Member

    I don't know all these details until I start myself in HD, OTA and BD gears few years ago. I don't have any number but I think it will be easily 80%+ the people out there would think their TV will go dark Feb 09 next year if they don't have a flat TV on the wall by that time. Is this a deliberate lie? I don't think so. I think it is to do with knowledge/education and when average Joe tell another story to soccer mom that is what happens...

    Back to the topic, I truly think that until DVD slow down or stop production and make it BD as the standard movie format in the media of the future until then I don't think BD or any other hi-def format will able to replace DVD. The good side is I think it will be difficult to replace BD after HDDVD die not to mention it will cost tons to develop and bring another new format to market.
  11. sondeterra

    sondeterra Well-Known Member

    As an Aside

    Don't know if you all aware that a few Name Big Box retailers have had fines imposed for not labeling their analog tuner flat screens as not being atscdtv compliant. As for BD sales I figure a BR-HD DVD reader because of the tighter tolerances make them better SD readers for our backup applications.:)
  12. Jong

    Jong Well-Known Member

    It will not surprise me at all if it is hard to get mass adoption of Blu-ray. The only way it will happen in my opinion is price equivalence and/or an aggressive policy by studios to discontinue DVD. I don't see it happening any time soon.

    Frankly, even I am a bit disappointed by Blu-ray, compared with a state-of-the-art upscaled DVD. It is not the VHS vs. DVD, let alone B&W vs. Color difference that some commentators/industry advocates were promising.

    I still choose to get DVD for movies where the cinematography is not a major factor in it's appeal. They are cheaper and take up less space in my media server. And I have a 46" top of the line set, well calibrated.

    I can absolutely see that if I am an average punter with a 32" TV using default, ghastly, settings and movies are not a major love of my life that DVD is just fine.

    ps. not that I'm advocating of course, but you know you can get damn fine 720p TV show rips via P2P, when you miss that important episode (no other situation of course), they do not need to be crap!
  13. Tyrod01

    Tyrod01 Well-Known Member

    Hmmm, I wonder what the sales figures would be if they included the PS3.

    Anyway, I've had HD-DVD for a year and a half and a BD player for 6 months and I like BluRay better. It may just be the studios choice but I find there are more BD movies with lossless audio and dirty discs are a nonfactor with BD. Furthermore my PS3 is a much more robust player than either of the HD-DVD players I have.

    One of the promises of HD-DVD was that the discs could be made on current DVD manufacturing equipment. That should have resulted in lower costs for HD-DVD movies versus BD, but that never materialised.

    Blue Movies 22
    Red Movies 37
  14. peterbus

    peterbus Well-Known Member

    Of course your right,the problem lies with the retailers as much as the gov.
    shops like currys,etc fail to tell the consumer the truth about our lcd and plasma tvs,that they are indeed as you say,"not needed" for digital switch over.your average 32" tv is as good (if not better in some cases )as many so called digital tvs out at the moment.
    All you need is a freeview box or pvr,and vola digital tv.(unless your trying to convence her indoors to change the tv,if so, lie through your teeth!:rock:
  15. ocgw

    ocgw Well-Known Member

    Ummmm.....don't they have 2 different heads (lasers) for reading the different discs @ different wave lengths, so the tighter tolerance of BD might not actually make a diffference w/ SD reading?


  16. SamuriHL

    SamuriHL Retired Moderator

    ROFLMAO! I don't care if individuals in a family want to..."extend the truth" a little in order to justify some new hardware. I get irritated when the box stores outright lie to customers about the issue. And I've seen it happen with my own eyes at one of our local chains. I'm not against HD at all (far from it) but I want consumers to know their options and make the choice themselves, not be forced into it with slimeball tactics. That's only going to leave a bad taste in their mouth about the technology.
  17. andy o

    andy o Well-Known Member

    The way I see the "upscaled DVD is good enough" problem is this. The people who say it:

    1) Really don't care. Good for them, no one is demanding they do.

    2) Have never seen a movie like Corpse Bride or Ratatouille on a 1080p display. Only seen live-action movies of which only a VERY few like Zodiac seem to actually reach the highest possible resolution (i.e. limited by the 1080p format). Not even the ubiquitous demo Spiderman 3 looks as sharp as those.

    3) Had much higher expectations due to unreasonable marketing hype ("Up to 6x Resolution!" of DVD, which is pure unadulterated cr@p. It's only up to a bit more than 2x -- or less than 2x, if it's a PAL DVD). So people saw it, and then thought, that's it?

    I think 2 is the most common and then probably 3, seeing that people I know seem to think that upconverted DVD looks so much better than regular DVD on a 480p screen, (so that excludes 1 for those people). It might be edge enhancement, but it will never be higher resolution. It's just a trick, it may please many, but not some of us that have seen "the light" of HD. Also, many people don't even realize their "HDTVs" are not 1080p (of course not talking about anyone here), or they have just seen a "1080p" demo at a store.

    About reason #2, the vast majority of available movies' resolution is limited not by the 1080p final format, but by something else in the chain, like the film it was filmed on, the master, even the camera or lenses. Live-action movies especially suffer from this, since most of them are filmed still with film, and mm-for-mm, modern digital sensors are more efficient. In dark scenes, high-sensitivity film does horrible things for resolution, and in many of these cases a digital sensor will shine. Most of the time the very visible grain is not intended, like some people seem to think (especially snooty film reviewers). It is just a limitation of the format it was filmed in.

    Movies like the Pixar ones and Corpse Bride ("filmed" with 8.2 MP Canon 1D Mark II cameras) do have the advantage of their recording formats being far superior to what 1080p offers. Otherwise, 1080p is already high enough that most movies will have a hard time matching its potential. With 480p DVDs, this was not a problem with most movies. That said, I have seen DVDs that are so bad that they're on a par with VHS, but they still have the digital/convenience advantage. Bluray has pretty much the same resolution advantage on DVD as DVD had on VHS, but it doesn't have the convenience one (actually, DVD has the advantage there!).

    It is often argued that 35mm film has much higher potential than 1080p, and it may be the case, but somewhere along the line it seems most 35mm movies fail to deliver maximum res at 1080p. It may be the cropping, the grain, or the lenses, but "digital" movies (CGI especially), seem to fare much better. For instance even in modern movies like The Assassination of Jesse James, lens aberrations are abundant (granted in that movie it's probably intentional), but in 1080p movies I can see lens aberrations where in the DVD there were none. If you can see the aberrations, then resolution is already limited by the lens.
  18. starz

    starz Well-Known Member

    I wounder how many people have watched a movie on Blu or HD-dvd and then watched it on DVD right afterward, on the same equipment, try doing that then you will see the difference, if you can't well then..... most that say SD is good enough have not even tried HD media, so there point of view is based on something they never had and when you have never had something you don't know what your missing and it don't bother you.

    and as far as high end equipment goes high end can have many different meanings and one of them is it is not always better. mine would be some place in the middle range and I notice a big difference in quality from BD back to DVD, is it worth the cost difference that depends on how into buying and collecting and watching and re watching movies you are.
  19. starz

    starz Well-Known Member

    very well said, :D I have never seen what I'd imagine 6 X resolution to look like myself, but I would give it at least a 3-4 on some like Cars witch I think stood out best in all CGI and or movies on BD period. witch for me maybe the closest to 5 or 6 in what I'd imagine (expect) 6 X to look like, over the DVD version, up conversion, I see a 0 difference between Up converted DVD and no Up-conversion, The quality difference I saw was between the old analog RCA cables and the HDMI cable, wouldn't say it's even worth talking about, you can't have more quality then you start out with from the disc,
  20. andy o

    andy o Well-Known Member

    First off, thank for understanding, I know what you mean. Ratatouille and Corpse Bride are my personal favorites. I would mention Cars too, but while I love all Pixar movies (and hate all others like Shrek), Cars to me was the weakest, so I haven't bothered to see it on bluray. Corpse Bride is especially good, since it uses the whole 16:9 aspect ratio, and so the screen is full of HD goodness. But, you just can't go much higher than 2x.

    Actually, the resolution difference for each format (not individual movies I presume) is pretty much quantifiable. You can just measure line pairs per picture height (LP/PH) of each format, and 1080p will only be able to just come ahead at a bit more than 2x, since 480x2=960. So 1080p is 540 LP/PH in theory. You can digitally produce a still "picture" with 540 black lines interlaced with 540 white lines and you'll be able to see them all. For 480p it would be 240 and 240. In reality, it should be less because of AA filters. So, up to 2.25x resolution it is. 540/240=2.25. Add to that the difficulty of fulfilling 1080p's full potential and the difference is less.

    The "up to 6x resolution" claim I alluded to is totally dishonest because what they're doing is just multiplying the number of pixels. 1920x1080=2073600, vs 720x480=345600. Apparently the difference is HUGE (6x), but besides that resolution is not measured in individual pixels, they're not counting the widescreen aspect ratio of 1080p, which lets you see more to the sides, but any given object's resolution onscreen will still only have a max resolution difference of about 2.25x. Resolution is measured in lines. A 400x400 picture will only have 2x resolution of a 200x200 picture. You need to quadruple pixels AND keep aspect ratio to double resolution.

    There are other nuances like we are supposed to be more sensitive to vertical resolution than horizontal, but I am not very familiar with those subjects.