DVD or Blu Ray?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=67219
Printed Date: December 02 2024 at 02:44
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: DVD or Blu Ray?
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Subject: DVD or Blu Ray?
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 09:23
|
Which do you prefer?
DVD or blu ray?
------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:21
|
This is an odd poll... Blu Ray is the next gen of home video, like DVD was to video tape. DVDs display at a maximum of 480x720 res while Blu Ray displays "full HD" 1080x1920. Some blue ray transfers haven't been the best and sometimes they decide to not transfer the special features, but they will eventually. This is a poll where one contestant is literally better in every way than the other because it was designed to be. |
Posted By: rpe9p
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:25
| Maybe he meant do you buy DVD or Blu Ray, or do you think the slight increase in quality is worth it |
Posted By: Tursake
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:25
You're right but you can still prefer dvd's over blu rays, just like some people prefer vinyls over cd's. Atleast I like dvd's way more than blu rays, which might be because I don't have a tv good enough to get advantages from using a blu ray disc  ------------- 
Last.fm: TursakeX RYM: Tursake |
King By-Tor wrote:Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:28
|
Just another scheme to get you to buy the same old movies, except you naturally have to upgrade your hardware too. I'll stick with DVDs. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:32
|
I don't have the money to go out and buy everything to be able to fully enjoy Blu Ray, so DVD is fine by me. Besides, I hardly watch movies, I'd rather invest in music. |
Posted By: seventhsojourn
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:34
Likewise!
|
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:34
Slight increase? There's almost 3 time the pixels! Maybe I just prefer it because I'm the visual equivalent to an audiophile. In a few years you'll all have blu ray players anyways, maybe you'll just be watching your crappy old DVDs on them   |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:47
|
Blu Ray if you have enough money to burn.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:50
|
I got a Blu Ray player for Christmas. I've bought a few Blu-Rays when I find them on sale, but they are pretty expensive in comparison to DVDs. I like that it has brought down the price of DVDs. For the most part I have been just renting Blu Rays from the local store. I think with the newer movies that were made for Blu Ray the Blu Ray is better. For older movies that are just being re-released on Blu Ray, I don't think that it really makes much of a difference. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 13:54
|
8-track tape...krapp I mean VHS...krapp again!! I mean VHS HQ...
Yea baby!! -------------   
|
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 14:01
|
The bad part is that I think that Blu Ray came into this world already on life support. Of course digital download already exists and will eventually eliminate physical copies, just like with music. -------------
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 14:06
Betamax is very hurt that you left it out. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: May 07 2010 at 17:33
YES TO VHS! |
Posted By: NotAProghead
Date Posted: May 08 2010 at 05:36
I often see the opposite: the same material published on double DVD and Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray is cheaper.  I wanted to vote for Blu-Ray but clicked DVD  ------------- Who are you and who am I to say we know the reason why... (D. Gilmour) |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 08 2010 at 05:40
| RE image quality and that only, the DVD can't hold a candle to BluRay. Even if you rip a film from BluRay to a 2GB mkv file (for archiving purposes of course), the quality is still much better than on double-layer DVD. |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: May 08 2010 at 07:16
|
DVD cos I dont wanna buy everything again
I bought 'Avatar' today and watching it its as good as it gets. We are spoilt for luxury. -------------
|
Posted By: paganinio
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 10:31
|
DVD, because there's no Blu-ray players in my neighborhood, while
everyone here owns a DVD player. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 11:34
I'm not sure here, but is every Blu Ray (stupid name by the way, it should have been named Blue if you ask me) in this resolution, or are some in lower ? Second thing - I can convert 100x100 video to 1900x1000 px big monster too, but result quality will be terrible. What I'm trying to say that with many DVD's, you have quality as good as possible (and you know how let's say pre 70's films can be terrible in quality), but it is still bad. I remember having one old cartoon on dvd - it was almost flashing with brightness, like in waves of dark and bright picture quality. It was corny, but it was the best it could be. But many people bought it because they saw it was on DVD and expected quality. Yeah, paper cover for DVD was nicely done, but what was inside was good old cartoon, not good in quality of picture. Now let's apply this on Blu Ray ------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu  Even my |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 13:22
|
Blu-Ray is definitely worth the effort of upgrading your gear. I'm about to watch the Sopranos on blu-ray, and the difference to DVD is striking. I've also watched many older movies (from the 60s or 70s) on blu-ray which had greatly improved resolution. Obviously it simply depends on the quality of the film material and cameras - there are also some movies from the 90s and onward that don't look great on blu-ray because they were filmed on poor material. Examples of great movies and tv series on blu-ray: - Sopranos - Prison Break - Godfather 1&2 - Patton - Kill Bill 1&2 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0393597/ - Earth (AMAZING - but please only watch on a truly 1080p capable set) And last, but not least: - Batman Begins ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 13:29
|
Man, I'm still on VHS. I have, of course, a DVD drive on my computer, but I'm not to keen on watching movies on tiny monitor. I bought a DVD player for my gf this Christmas so we're watching movies at her place these days. Lovely experience, but I'm not too crazy about movies. I prefer cinema, on those rare occasions when I want to watch something. Speaking of quality, I'm sure BluRay is better, but I just don't care - DVD's are good enough for me, so I guess I won't be upgrading my gadgetry any time soon, I don't think it's worth it. ------------- |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:00
Krapp...I mean betamax (holy options of media Batman!!) -------------
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:05
|
I'm going to be holding out the vhsblueraycharlesbetamxdvd8trackcdcassette. Boy will all you guys be so disappointed when that format comes out and you have to rebuy everything you already got...
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:31
^ that's why I'm renting most of my movies. Through Lovefilm (a company that allows you to rent dvds and blu-rays by mail) I only pay 1-2 EUR per disk. 
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:40
|
Blu Ray by far (6 times the resolution). But i have to watch some DVD also, because there's not enough music in Blu Ray. Porcupine Tree have decided to put their next one in a package with both of them. I know it's more expensive, but if it will be cheaper in a few years to come.
------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 14:42
Umm...you left out 8mm, VHS-C  ..just sayin....-------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 16:45
|
There's no comparison in quality. None can really PREFER DVD over bluray. One can decide not to upgrade and that's valid. But preferring Dvd over bluray is like preferring an 8-track cassette to a CD for audio, the former doesn't do absolutely anything better than the latter, nothing at all. Besides, bluray plays dvds and upscales them... They DO look much better (if you have the proper tv and cable of course). ------------- 
|
Posted By: UndercoverBoy
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 21:43
Sounds like our Netflix (I don't know if you can rent Blu-Rays, though), except that you pay monthly. As for the question, I prefer DVD. I'm not much a videophile, if there is such a thing.
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 21:54
|
There's no way I'm going to upgrade my DVDs and buy a new player just for a marginal improvement in quality. I know I have bad vision, but DVDs look good enough for me. Anyway, I haven't actually bought a DVD since I got Netflix and I don't intend to start unless it's something really special.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 22:28
|
I'm surprised DVD is winning handily (though I don't plan an upgrade anytime soon).. just watched Holst's The Planets, a collection of images taken of each planet [except Pluto] to Holst's magnificent music. It was beautiful but though I do see the difference in clarity, it didn't move me to switch over to Bluray. Another thing is sound: the person whose machine I watched had not hooked up their stereo speakers to the TV, and I think that's a really big part of the modern home film experience. Anyone know if bluray improves audio? It would make a huge difference in switching people over, IMO. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 10 2010 at 23:23
|
Of course it improves audio but unless you have good equipment, only marginally. Dvd can go only up to 5.1 surround. Bluray can do 7.1 in dolby trueHD and dts-HD, two lossless audio formats where you won't be losing any detail in the transfer from master recording to home media.
You have to have a decent receiver and speakers for this. For the big increase in picture quality, you just need and hdtv and an hdmi cable. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 01:27
|
Well, actually it's not surprising that DVD is winning here ... after all this is a prog forum, and prog fans are usually nostalgic. "The grass was greener" ... applied to every technology.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 01:29
That or people see little point in buying new hardware to play movies they've been forced to re-purchase. |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 01:33
|
wow, you people are backwards. I say streaming.
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 01:48
| DVD. Although there seems to be a lot more faulty DVD discs than there ever were faulty VHS tapes, and the recordable DVDs are a joke. |
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 02:45
|
I disagree. I'm sure it's very nice, but a HDTV that is large enough to actually make a difference is $500-1000 dollars, and then the Blu Ray player is another $200, plus the extra cost of the Blu Ray discs. And the only thing I actually want to watch in Blu Ray is David Attenborough documentaries, but that's a lot of money for one thing.
That's lame, either I listen to David Attenborough over Planet Earth footage or I don't watch it at all. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 12:55
|
^ have you seen the movie in HD? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeacjOkLjZ0 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeacjOkLjZ0 The techniques they used for shooting the movie are nothing short of amazing ... not just the resolution but also super slow motion filming and some pretty innovative ideas. BTW: This clip is only 720p and low bitrate, but early on in the shot with the flying birds you get an idea of how amazing this looks in HD. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 13:10
With Lovefilm you also pay monthly ... I pay about 25 EUR for a 3 disk flatrate, and I usually rent more than ten disks per month. Ok, I pay more like 2-3 EUR per disk now (they increased the fee a few months ago). I still think it's much better than buying the disks. Why watch the same set of disks over and over again, when you can watch new movies and series every month. In that regard movies are totally different from music albums IMO. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 16:29
Exactly. I'm not anti-BluRay, I just don't care enough to run out and buy the newest thing. DVDs and CDs look and sound good enough IMO. Are they *as* good? No. Do I care? No |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 16:32
Absolutely right Jim. How clear can a picture be?  Who wants to see each bead of sweat on Chris Squire's face anyway?  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 16:40
Unless we're talking about erotic films, then I suppose I see the BluRay case |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 16:55
For every music fan who wants to listen to 20 minute songs about purple clouds there is another one with a passion for the best possible picture in their movies... I guess the existence of both makes the same sense... -------------
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 17:00
And for every one of those there's a few million people who could care less about blowing cash on something with more pixels. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 17:09
You're probably still with a betamax since you are stuck in 1989 so of course this doesn't make sense to you... -------------
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 21:48
Yeah, I know what Planet Earth looks like, I have the series on DVD. I love it, and I'm sure it would look fantastic in HD...but not fantastic enough for me to drop $1500 dollars. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 21:54
Wasting money never makes sense. |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: May 11 2010 at 23:44
 -------------
|
Posted By: Queen By-Tor
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 02:22
So many things wrong with this. A good blu ray transfer sees someone going back to the 35 or 16mm master reels and reproducing it from there. 35mm film is far superior to HD 1080x1920, it just can't be shown on a digital medium uncompressed. even 16mm is "bigger" than HD. The Hurt Locker was shot on 16mm for god's sake and it looks fantastic on blu ray! You can't say that "movies from the 70s" look crappy because last time I checked Bladerunner (yes, 80s, I know) and Star Wars or The Shining or Full Metal Jacket look a f**kload better in HD. The only difference between DVD and HD when it comes to film is how much you're compressing it. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 04:07
A nice example of how people make up reasons to confirm their bias or rationalize their behavior. Of course blu-ray is much better than DVD, and the difference compared to DVD is striking. And of course that neither means that you need to upgrade your system nor that you can't enjoy DVD anymore. But if you start pretending that it's not really that much better, or that the improvements in picture quality are basically just a hype, know that you're leaving the realm of reality. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 06:25
| Mike, two issues here. Everyone agrees with you that BR is clearer. Whether its worth the hassle and money to upgrade is more personal, and there is nothing wrong with people who are content with what they have. There's lots of cars out there better than my Civic, doesn't mean I'm "leaving reality" if I don't feel driven to upgrade to one of them. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 07:08
I never once implied that Blu-Ray was not technologically superior to DVD. What I did imply was that DVD is clear enough, and I refuse to involve myself in the commercial pissing match that wants me to open my wallet in exchange for something I almost already have. In sum, a clearer picture- no matter how much clearer- is not good enough for me to spend the money. Therefore I am delusional? That line is really getting old. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Marty McFly
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 07:08
God, I wanted just to explain how this works, not to start World Post War III. I don't understand much how "classic" films works, but when I buy a DVD and want to convert it to lower quality (and size), I rip it with certain programs. I can choose bitrate of both video and audio and the result file, be it .avi or .mkv or .mp4, whatever, looks good or bad. It depends on quality selected. This is theory and I was talking about this. I didn't experience VHS much, when I was watching VHS I was too young and was just consuming films / movies / cartoons, not thinking about them. But I know that some of them (we still have VHS from late 80's) are in crappy quality. In my thinking, it depends on few factors. Original quality, when it was shot, edited, cut, how it was stored. Please, try not to concentrate on thing in my post that irritates you the most and try to see reasoning in it. Main purpose why I have posted it. I'm not saying that 70's films looks crappy and nowadays films looks perfect. I am not. All I am saying is that today, technique used is better, therefore, resulting quality MAY be better. Or may not, it depends on director. Few questions: 1)Let's move backwards then. Films from 1920's looks worse than films 00's. Why ? Because of what I've just said - they didn't have technology to make picture quality better. Do I take these films as bad ? Nope. 2)Take for example videos you could record on crappy mobile phones let's say 5 years ago. 176x133 px resulting video, something like that, right ? So I can use some program and transform it to 1900x1000. It will be stretched, it will be terrible to look at, but I can do that, right ? See what I'm trying to tell ? 3)I won't repeat it. This thing about this old cartoon, this happened. DVD we bought for my little sister was in terrible quality, but it's probably because it never was in good quality. It was 720x480, but the quality itself was terrible. On archive.org I downloaded some black'n'white movies from 1910's, 1920's. Their resolution (measured in pixels) wasn't bad. But quality of picture was. So, the question is, you can get poor quality picture with 1900x1000 pixels movie. Second question - Are pixels guarantee of quality or are they not ? By the way, I know about Blade Runner (it was close to my 70's, nevermind it), I like the book, I like original book "Does Androids...", I like Philip K. Dick's work at all (I've read most of them), I saw few different endings of this movie and was stunned in each case, be it book or movie. Also consider remastering ------------- There's a point where "avant-garde" and "experimental" becomes "terrible" and "pointless," -Andyman1125 on Lulu Even my |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 07:09
|
When they will no new DVD available in stores, you'll see how much people will change their preferences to Blu Ray. It could take a lot of years, but it will be a new reality, like it or not. They're will be a new kind of Blu Ray, can't stop the technology...
------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 07:16
I don't know- throughout the years several superior technologies have been marketed to the public and have failed to catch on sufficiently enough to become the new standard media. In fact, I only know one household that has upgraded to Blu-Ray. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 07:27
That's an interesting point. Several new technologies did become the "standard" but all those I can think of (the cassette, the CD, digital radio/video/audio/photo etc.) came with the advantage of a more efficient production and a lower (or at least not higher) price for the end consumer. Not the case with Blu-Ray... |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 07:47
The price of the Blu Ray will go down when people are going to buy more of it and when the manufacturer going to do more of them. ------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 07:57
| ^ I'm not so optimistic - the most common strategy is to let the customer get used to the higher price, in time... |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 07:58
I disagree. Stores changed their offer, gradually, from VHS tapes to DVDs. From Vinyl albums and cassettes to CDs. But the new technology offered back then was radical, different, new. VHS tapes were slow, heavy, bulky, analog, tapes were prone to breakage. DVD offered digital reliability. Blue-ray is nearly that revolutionary. It's digital media on steroids. Is it worth it? Surely, if you appreciate high-end performance. But in the war of formats, BluRay won over HD-DVD...by a hairline. I'm afraid it will be obsolete in a decade or so, going in history like one of those 'in-between' formats. Everyone of my age (or older) remember diskettes (floppy disks of 3.5 inch size). They were ubiquitous. But what about the 'new, bigger, better, faster, more reliable' formats that came later and falled through the cracks of history? Mini disc, zip drive, jazz drive, digital cassette, where are they now?!? UMD, for God's sake! (And they were better, at least some of them, actually.) Technically, there's no difference in storing the file that contains HD movies on BluRay or on a bunch of (thousands) floppy drives, providing you have a retrofit equipment for the practical use. (You can even store digital media on analog tape, but that's beside the point.) Where's the catch? In blue laser light? Is it really worth it? In our (near) future, USB stick is the physical format that will prevail (or should). The next step will be, most likely, the complete absence of physical media - on-demand data online. Further on, we will reach quantum computers, and/or non-binary digital devices. I'm not saying BluRay disk is no good, or not technically better than DVD, that's stupid. A new Ferrari is certainly better car than my old little Ford, no doubt about it: it's faster, stronger, better in overtaking, more stable on a winding road. But, price and availability aside, do I need it? No. I need a car with a reasonably high level of reliability that will transport me from A to B, while I'm able to appreciate the countryside. I'm not interested in driving 300 km/h. Surely, if driving 300 km/h is your thing, go for Ferrari. If watching high-definition movies with stereo surround is your thing, go for it. But I tell you one thing: my favourite music genre is progressive rock. I can tell you my favourite actors, directors and movie genres. I experienced them all through various media. Would be my opinion different if watched on different, better media? I don't think so. ------------- |
Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 09:02
|
I don't think that Blu Ray is the ultimate media, sure they will be smaller media, another media soon that will allow you to have a good picture resolution and don't forget to have more information. Who doesn't want to have more information in less space and better quality sound and picture. You can still appreciate your favorite artist for the real content of the music by using the new technology. One doesn't exclude the other.
------------- Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness. Emile M. Cioran |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 09:26
i dont get why technology has to consume our lives.
i dont get when good enough is never good enough.
i dont get when we always need to have better when what we have does not need to be bettered.
Sure VHS had to go - too frail, deteriorating and prone to breakage, but DVDs are resilient enough. I hate how you walk into shops now and they push the DVDs to the back and in front are all the Blu rays, the catalogues are all Blu ray with only a few DVDs at the back - it is craSS marketing forcing us to make decisions that we really do not need to make, yet we think we need it. i guarantee you that many will be persuaded, no manipulated, into switching to Blu ray simply because the marketing tells us we need it.
WE DO NOT NEED A NEW SYSTEM!
We are only lining the pockets of the rich companies making them more richer, buying thins we would never even consider if not advertised in such a manipulative way. Advertising is all about tellin us we need something we do not have. If the advertisers succeed in persuading us we must have a product, they are doing their job. That is their function. That is their motto. Tell the customer they must have a product even though they do not need it.
Rant over! -------------
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 09:29
I was going to basically say this, but you beat me to it and did a better job of articulating it than I could. -------------
|
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 09:37
|
If we were to follow the Ferrari analogy, then both formats would share the same market (with different marketshares of course) because, as with the Ferrari, there will be people who want/need/afford the Blu-Ray. I don't understand why people perceive this as a war between the two.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 11:18
The statement "How much clearer can a picture be?" IMO implies a doubt that blu-ray is superior - or at least that the difference doesn't really matter. I would say that there is a striking difference. It's not like with audiophile discussions where people claim that there's a huge difference between analog and digital but then can't tell one from the other in double blind tests. I wager that in a double blind test between dvd and blu-ray (good sources/equipment, people with normal eyesight) a whopping 100% could tell them apart. BTW: I never said that you were delusional. "Biased" would IMO be a better description. Now if you say that the difference is not sufficient cause to upgrade for you, that's a totally different issue. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 11:33
|
Before even looking at the poll results, I expected ignorance to win out. I wasn't disappointed.
|
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 11:49
Add three more, then. 'Cause you know me. Myself, my father and my uncle have all upgraded to Blu-Ray.
|
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 11:53
You guys are gold.
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:01
That is actually quite true, though that stupid "sell new stuff you don't need" thing helps drive the economy. It's even worse when you have to be the one telling people how much they need this stuff when, deep down inside, you know they DON'T. (my case, my job deals with Home Theater products to be specific). Having said that, is impossible to deny the superiority of bluray. I don't think people NEED it. But it's impossible to say it's not BETTER. Yes, a person with a ford focus doesn't NEED a ferrari. But that person can't say the ford car beats the crap out of the Italian horse, can he? Anyway, I can tell you, bluray DOES sell. It's slowly gaining ground. Bluray players outsell dvd players. Let's see what happens. That's why it's better to buy a PS3 that keeps you covered but that you can use for other purposes.. -------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:06
|
I buy my players from a specialty place that modifies them so they will play ANY disc from any country or region, whatever....it plays it.
When I buy the next player, which will be BR if it really does kill DVD, does BR have the same issue with region coding? Does a Euro BR play on an USA BR machine?
If available I want a player that will play USA BR and DVD, plus foreign BR/DVD. Possible?
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:09
So anyone who is content with the already great picture quality of DVDs and would rather spend their money on other things besides re-purchasing a bunch of movies they already have is ignorant? I could upgrade almost every product in my home and get better quality, but at some point you have to say "good enough!" and let it go. Not all of us are made of money. -------------
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:12
DVD, for example, subdivides the american continent in two, north america (Zone 1) and south america (zone 4). With bluray, all the entire continent is region A. That's a good and reasonable change. But for European and asian and else releases, some modification you will still need. -------------
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:14
Cool, Thanks Teo!! 
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:16
An insignificant change, since US consumers aren't exactly known for purchasing loads of Latin American films. However, there's a larger supply of material from Europe and Asia that does have demand in the States yet Blu-Ray failed to do anything. They could've gotten rid of the regional nonsense once and for all, but they didn't. Even less of a reason to switch... |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:20
It makes a lot of sense for people who have to modify their players in south america to watch movies available in north america. Which, as you probably can guess, is the most likely scenario. Most movies are made in the US after all, whether they're mostly good or bad is another matter. Regarding the "selling stuff you don't need" idea, I think, more so than bluray, the new 3D-TV thing is a waste of time and money. Again, I have to sell that sh*t but usually I only offer it when people ask me. I can't see any benefit in turning people into idiotic zombies with electronic glasses at home to see a hand reach out closer to their faces... Bluray was a leap in quality, 3D is a leap in zombiefication. -------------
|
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:27
Most movies sold in Latin America are pirated DVDs that sell for a dollar. 3D-TV? Never heard of it, though it sounds extremely naff. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:30
I know that. I lived in South America until 2005 after all. And in my country that piracy has pretty much been but legalized. 3D-TV is the "new" thing around here... And yes, it's sh*t. It looks amazing, but it's useless sh*t. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 12:56
In my case it was particularly easy ... 80 EUR for the new computer drive and another 90 EUR for the software. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 13:17
|
A few years ago I was happy with my Sony VHS and Sony Trinitron TV, I even used the same remote control for the two....It was the Paradise Then somebody came with the lasser disk, which I never bought, and as I thought (due to the size) it failed After soe years came the DVD which due to it's small size and cheap price, I bought and I'm happy with it, after a couple months I bought a 5.1 Home Theater and it's paradise.. After that came the plasma TV which I bought (very expensive), for my luck it had a designing problem that the warranty covered it, but when I went to the store they told me that Plasma was crap and LCD was great plus cheaper, so I put a little bit of money and they gave two LCD for almost the prize of the Plasma (34 Inches each one). Now they say that if you don't have a LED TV and a Blue Ray you're in the Stone Age, but already the newspaper talks about a 3D Led. I have a close friend that buys this new gadgets when they appear, he bought a DVD in US$ 600.00 (I bought mine in US$ 75.00 six months later), he bought a Plasma in S/. 14,000.00 (US$ 5,000), I bought mine in S/. 6,000.00 (US$ 2.000) he already has a Led.and talks about the wonders of the Blue Ray in his led, wonders that I can't find to be honest. This guys also talks me of 50 incredible features that I don't understand or care about, he has reached the point where he has a PC in his living room, attached to the TV, I believe the guy is crazy.
Please guys, I'm not a millionaire, I will stay with my DVD and LCD TV until they burn, I'm tired of supporting big companies who will change a chip in a TV and sell it as the best thing since slice bread.
Thefunny thing is that I was already happy with my VHS and Trinitron TV with a remote control that worked for both.
Iván
------------- 
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 13:54
Because there is: Blu-Ray's (and HDDVD's) ultimate goal is to replace DVDs and standard TVs in every house, just as DVD has replaced VHS. They don't even manufacture VHSs anymore, and they eventually want HDTV to be so cheap and omnipresent that buying a standard TV is like buying a black and white today. Of course, 3D TV has interrupted this scheme, but the executives I've read about have said that they realize it's not something people will want to do every day, so it's not quite the same drive to get everybody to pay to upgrade to the new technology. Also 3D TV is ludicrously expensive, while HDTVs are getting cheaper every day (if I cared about watching things on TV, I would say that $500 for a 22 inch HDTV is not unreasonable). I've made a personal commitment to never buy a 3DTV. ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 15:47
 |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: May 12 2010 at 23:28
It's one thing to admit you cannot afford a superior product. It is quite another to downplay it and behave as if it's nothing more than a scam. I still remember when people around me were bitching about DVD players, and saying that VHS was 'good enough', and how DVD was just a fad and would die like LaserDisc. Well now those very same people consider DVD the norm and are once again dumbing down the significance of this new technology simply because they can't afford it yet. I'm not saying you are one of those people. I'm speaking generally, here. If you recognize the superiority of hi-definition, yet admit that (at least for now) you are not willing to spend the money for it, then I have no problem with that. It's when certain people begin to trash talk the quality products that I get little annoyed. Some people will always hate Apple products unjustly, and some folks will always swear that Vinyl sounds better than CD. It's all absurd, but there it is. Saying you prefer something is very different from putting down anything else that you don't happen to utilize.
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 02:05
Same here ... I like the setup, and it's very affordable, too: - 40" LCD TV: 900 EUR - Computer with DVD/blu-ray drive, TV receiver and software: 1000 EUR - Logitech 5.1 system: 90 EUR - Studio grade sound card: 120 EUR There you go ... a wonderful setup for: - Watching DVD/blu-ray - Listening to music - Internet - Making music ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 03:34
|
2110 x 1.2699 = 2679.48 dollars 2680 dollars is affordable? |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 03:39
|
^ well, keep in mind that you don't need a separate computer anymore, and that you probably would have gotten a LCD TV either way. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 03:58
Why not just pop a used six dollar DVD into the 500 dollar laptop and listen to it on my 30 dollar stereo speakers? Seems to leave me with 2100 dollars for other things. |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 04:04
|
^ well, if you think that would be the same bang for your buck, go ahead. *Sigh* these Logitech speakers (X-530) seem to be the most underrated piece of gear on the planet. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: AtomicCrimsonRush
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 09:22
 -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 09:56
|
3D is a great concept for computer games ... and maybe even for movies, *if* they're shot in 3D. Since most movies happen to have been shot in 2D, I would say that going for a 3D capable blu-ray player is silly if you're just going to watch movies. But on the other hand, if you're a big fan of Avatar, maybe it would make sense.
------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 10:12
|
Apparently, this months Playboy Centerfold will be in 3-D too. Be careful or you might poke an eye out. -------------
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 10:18
I'd be more afraid of a Playgirl 3D centerfold. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 10:21
In first place, I can afford it (Even whenI admit it's expensive), but I must be honest, I seen Blu Ray with LCD and the difference is not worth changing everything, at least for me.
I don't consider myself an ignorant, but an LCD with a DVD and 5.1 Home Theater is more than enough for me, as somebody said before Enough is enough.
I won't change every item in my house each 2 months a new product hits the market, to make the owners of big companies richer, because thie doesn't end here, next month the LED would be obsolete and something better than the Blu Ray will be for us all to buy it.
As I did alwsys before this crazy race for technology, will let my TV's and DVD's get useless because the pass of time and change them for soimething better when I have to do it, not when Sony, Samsung or Toshiba tell me to do it.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 12:59
|
^ I still see a definite pattern here of downplaying the advantages of the new system and at the same time exaggerating the criticism (clearly video standards don't change every two months). Of course you don't *have* to change your equipment, and as a matter of fact I'm not a so called early adopter myself. But the difference is striking. Isn't it odd that many of those who downplay the difference also happen to have a DVD system and probably a huge collection of DVDs, and simply maneuvered themselves into a position where they can't easily upgrade without losing much of their investment? But hey, even if you decide to upgrade your DVDs won't become useless. I still watch DVDs ... I simply now have a choice of watching films in HD when I want to (and/or when they're available). My advice: Upgrade strategically. If you ever wanted to upgrade to blu-ray, now is the time ... full HD (1080p) displays are affordable, as are blu-ray players. Or if you have a computer, get yourself a cheap full HD computer display and a blu-ray drive - or combine your computer and TV and save some money from this synergy. Rent your discs rather than buying them, and you'll never have a problem - by the time we get another standard (probably more than 5 years from now, and more than likely it won't be physical discs anymore) your current gear will be sufficiently old to warrant an upgrade anyway. If you're not an early adopter, stay away from expensive 3D equipment until it's clear that it's not a fad. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 13:04
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 13:07
|
Have a look at this comparison: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3570/3783031804_3760f32e53_o.jpg - http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3570/3783031804_3760f32e53_o.jpg (use the magnifying function of your browser to make sure that you're actually looking at the image in its native resolution - users without full HD displays will have to scroll) Please, does anyone of the "blu-ray is not that much of an improvement" agree that there is a striking difference? ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 13:10
They're just going to say that the bottom image is over-manipulated, or something. You can't convince people who have already made up their minds. All the time you've spent in the christian thread should have taught you that by now. EDIT: Wow, we have the same exact post count as of this message.
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 13:21
Yeah, it's a little better. And if the difference is important to you, then great. It's not important to me. If I was given the option to upgrade my player and all my movies to blu-ray for free, I would take it. But what I percieve to be a small difference is not worth the effort to upgrade. -------------
|
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 13:24
|
^ nice! Well, this reminds me of a nice TED presentation that I watched earlier today: http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html - http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html I agree with him. Presenting facts about the superiority of blu-ray will convince few people ... ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: WalterDigsTunes
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 13:25
Smaller pixels! Wowie zowie, allow me to bring out my fat wallet to buy the Blu-ray player, Blu-ray discs and HD TV! |
Posted By: Mr ProgFreak
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 13:44
|
Case in point. EDIT: And another one with thellama. ------------- https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike" rel="nofollow - https://tagyourmusic.org/users/Mike |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 13:50
| I would never say it's not better, but until I'm filthy rich or the hardware is dirt cheap, it's not happening. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: May 13 2010 at 13:51
1989 again. Nobody's asking for your money. But if people say a clearly inferior format is better than a clearly superior one, it's quite ridiculous. There's no subjectivity here. Bluray IS better than dvd. Not everybody needs it of course. I bought mine when I bought an HDTV, not before. -------------
|