It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


High Definition & Blue Ray Technologies are a scam. Don't be fooled.

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:04 PM
4thDoctorWhoFan, read this again. Now kiss my hand and call me daddy.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Do your research, they are behind blu-ray too.

Umm...No, they are not.

Do your research!


i nominate this thread for the most ignorance ever in one single discussion. thehumbleone is correct.

Porn industry supports Blu-ray format

“Pirates”, says director by company founder Joone, will be the largest epic in the history of adult films. About one year ago, it seems, the porn industry had decided to go with HD DVD in the high-definition age. An industry that tends to be always on the forefront of video technology, had selected the Toshiba-developed technology as its favored format, mostly due to the high production cost of Blu-ray movies.

Now it appears that this situation is changing, even if this change may still be in its infancy. The 129-minute long “Pirates” will be the first adult movie to be released on Blu-ray in early January and the reasons for that move may not be surprising, if you have been following the market development surrounding HD. Director Joone told CEPro that consumers asking for adult films that can be played on their Playstation 3 have had a major impact on the studio’s decision.

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by scientist

I agree with you, unfortunately there are some people here who will continue to delude themselves in the face of truth.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by thehumbleone]

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:18 PM

Don't take any of this personally - all of us at one time or another makes a stance about what we know or think we know and get proved wrong. It hurts our ego's a bit, but eventually we move on and we become a little more careful about what we say until we have done a little more research or are a little more experienced.

Here you have lost nothing really because your in a safe world at this site & it will have no effect professionally on you and in fact in the end it will make you a better person & more informed.

(BTW- I'm being easy on you because I think your a young adult under 23 and you are learning - I respect the fact that you are trying to better yourself & I hope for one day you become a success) In no way should you take this as a put down. Clearly some folks here have a grasp on what you thought you knew but you don't & your just making excuses by continuing your empty arguments. Take a deep breath and quit digging - your okay. Nothing lost but short term ego.

Might I suggest you drop hanging on to being right no matter what approach and digging yourself a deeper & deeper hole. Saying things like well I use a VCR cause it's cheaper, from an artistic point of view, or badgering others about their piracy makes you a better consumer does nothing to make your original argument correct or even partially correct.

Nevertheless you are WRONG many times over. While it may be prudent to wait until the new technologies become standard mainstream products become less expensive & save you from picking the wrong winning format. That is a moot point.

I admit not knowing the inns & outs of all the latest technology were discussing here - (I won't make an attempt pretending to be an expert, cause I'm not) I do have a base understanding of what's being discussed here.

A true artist whether a photographer, filmmaker, musician or even a sculptor
wants to get the viewer/listener as close to his vision or feelings that he felt while creating that product. Another words they want you to see & feel a certain way. In order that you may experience as close as possible to those feelings the closer to the original product you can become the more likely you will experience what was intended.

How can that be achieved? In a piece of art such as a picture you would want as many details as were in the original picture no matter if that picture was created in film, digitally or even a painting. Unless you can enter the brain of the artist or see the original object at a museum or have a film projector or music studio in your home the closest you can get is a reproduction. Older technologies only allowed reproductions at the maximum resolution of the available priinters of the day or in television & film the highest resolution of the VCR - & it's display/sound & then DVD's. Believe it or not must VCR's are less than 320 lines of resolution, DVD's came closer at 400-520. Your weakest component is always your maximum resolution & therefore the closest you could become to the artists orginal intent.

One of the problems when we went from vinyl record albums to CD's then MP3's is how much resolution from the original recording was left we quickly learned that early CD's & players had poor sampling - bit rates slower cpu's & therefore they didn't reproduce the original sound very well. Lower resolutions mean your not getting the full sound of what the artist intended.

In the past there was no way to give the public the multi-track that were available at the movie theaters, but couldn't be reproduced at home until DVD's that began using DD & DTS.

Now higher resolution recordings viewers & displays are taking that same jump that we did with sound to get closer to the artists intent in the comfort of your home thus we have Blu-Ray & HD DVD formats.

BTW - I'm not one to argue one over the other, but appears the industry is leaning toward Blu-Ray at this point. Not that it matters they're both closer to what the artist intended

[edit on 9-1-2008 by verylowfrequency]

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:46 PM

Now - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference between these technologies. On a VCR you will see a softer flatter image & with newer tech you can see individual hairs on a head, pores on a face & grass blades on the field. Therefore you can also see more depth and become closer to the art.

I think with the higher resolutions available today, some artist may intentionally take out resolution in order to achieve a certain artistic effect. For the most part though anyone who has seen anything like the super-duper high resolution IMAX - SPACESTATION 3D type product - the more we are immersed the more realistic it becomes. It gives artists the ablility to create feelings or environments that have never before been experienced. Bottom line that's the direction we are going and it will continue until we don't know the difference between the real world & the world we will create. In the past only expensive training simulators had that level of resolution, but now we can all experience it for entertainment as well.

While some older films may not benefit from the new technology because the artist did not intend so much resolution for the most part this is not the case & if the original artist is still alive they may have a say in how the transfer is done, so people can not see something that wasn't intended as more mistakes or flaws may be highlighted in our better technology. Remember we are creating illusions - they don't want you to see the wizard behind the curtain.

There was a time when we did not have color & there were valid arguments about taking an older medium & colorizing it because we can - I think we can all agree that when adding color to a B&W product we have a completely new product and one that is different than the original artist intent, but it doesn't mean we can't live with both.

In the future we will have full 3D holographic displays and we will have the ability for a full sensory experience where we will become part of the product itself as we see on video games today, but at a much higher level.

You can argue about the past technologies all you like, but the fact is we will continue to move forward in this arena unless we experience some kind of world wide disaster and we have to go back to drawing on cow hides & rocks to get our point across.

Now - as I said I'm not an expert but off the cuff I believe 35 mm film is about the equivalent of 20,000 lines of resolution, 70 mm about 40 & IMAX somewhere between 80-120,000 lines of resolution. We still don't have the digital technology to get that level in the average home, but 1024 lines is a hell of an improvement over 240-512 which is what we've been living with since TV's came into existence with the possible exception of PAL which is in between NTSC & HD.

Oh yeah - I've read a few posters talking about the difference between Interlaced Resolution & non-interlaced. Interlaced displays take two passes to paint the display in other words they paint every other line on the screen in the first pass 512 & then go back & paint the other 512 lines in the next pass for a total of 1024 lines- so there is a bit more flicker & lower refresh rates than a 720P display, because the 720P display is all painted in one pass. This is to allow a higer-res display with less expensive hardware. Eventually though as equipment gets faster I would think the 1024I would be a better option over 720P as it is 300 lines higher in resolution and when you can't see the refresh it wouldn't matter what method is used to achieve what you see. BTW old TV's are NTSC or 512I = 2 passes at 256 each.

Jedi- We are all wrong from time to time, but if you don't take the plunge you can never be wrong or right - for that I applaud you. Hanging onto your stance to the bitter end when wrong will do nothing for you, so let it go and move on. You learned something here and in this case we have become your teachers. Learn from it & move on so you can someday teach others

[edit on 9-1-2008 by verylowfrequency]

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch

I agree wholeheartedly he is going on my ignore list too. I cannot fathom how someone could possibly be so incredibly wrong 100% of the time. I have yet to see any post where he even remotely has any clue what he is talking about. I'm just done.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by Osiris1953

Well I don't ever want to discourage anyone from trying, so I don't agree with stomping on him by telling everyone he should be ignored. None of us know it all and as soon as we become set without excepting other possibilities, we too will cease to better ourselves and we become irrelevant eventually.

Clearly Jedi, is excited to be here and is bettering himself even though he's making some common mistakes, I see all the time in gifted people. If he continues his stance he risks becoming irrelevant before his time, but I suspect he has enough ambition to figure it out without going there and that's why I think he needs encouragement to push him in the right direction rather than ridicule, that will push him away.

Two steps forward & one step back. In order to make our world better we have to attempt to pull people up when they need it. That's the way I see it, at least for the young and willing.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by verylowfrequency]

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:34 AM
May I be allowed to send this post in a direction that will be useful? What I mean is, I am a consumer trying to decide whether to go Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.

Sony is backing, is the innovator, of Blu-Ray. Sony innovated BetaMax. That was two decades (or more) ago, of course. JVC won the battle between Beta aand VHS. But, Sony is a formidable opponent today, by comparison.

So, who wins this time?!?

Jedi started the thread on a premise...OK, let's evolve into something else. High Definition is here to stay...will anyone dispute that? Didn't think so.

Question is: Which is going to survive? Beta or VHS? Blu or HD?


posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:34 AM

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
Jedi- We are all wrong from time to time, but if you don't take the plunge you can never be wrong or right - for that I applaud you. Hanging onto your stance to the bitter end when wrong will do nothing for you, so let it go and move on. You learned something here and in this case we have become your teachers. Learn from it & move on so you can someday teach others

Thank you friend. I'm not offended at all, And like you said, yes..I've learned much from this thread. I admit I was wrong in a way, I suppose if Film can be transferred to a digital source and it looks good then why not. there I said it. Can we now move along? this thread has been burning my toes and hurting my head since day one. But understand where I'm coming from. A film class POV.

Here's the problem I see with digitial film/video. Everyone calls themselves A "Filmmaker" in class and in the independent work. Yet, I have to meet anyone who has actually worked with film cameras and knows how to use one correctly. Everyone is using DV cams and they know nothing about film. People got cheap. I yet to meet anyone in class who actually wants to shoot in film. People, specially young people are taking the easy way out. Everyone wants something easy. I'd like to see a young kid try to shoot a movie using celluloid for once, like Lucas did. Everyone claims to be a filmmaker..And they turn their back on the originality of film.

This is where I get pissed. Teachers are no longer even teaching how to use a film camera..not even explaining the film process. Editing is all on a computer, not by hand..I know a guy who was so pathetic, he edited his entire movie on imovie. So people claim that these movies are all in HD, BR or whatever..yet if they go to hollywood or work for a company they will never use that shooting format.

And yes, i'm wrong. I'm old fashioned. trust me, I've been called idiot, ignorant, sputid or whatever else in this thread. Still, I remain with my same belief. And if film is so from the past. why are the most important movies of this year shot in film and not in HD Or BR? Anyways. hope this explains my last stand. get a star!

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 08:40 AM

Originally posted by scientist

i nominate this thread for the most ignorance ever in one single discussion. thehumbleone is correct.

You do realize that was only 1 director from the article you posted and NOT the majority of the porn industry right?

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

incorrect. Check out the awards that single movie won:

AVN Awards: (record of 11 awards)

* Best Video Feature
* Best DVD
* Best Director - Video (Joone)
* Best Actress - Video (Janine)
* Best High-Definition Production
* Best All-Girl Sex Scene - Video (Janine and Jesse Jane)
* Best Special Effects
* Best Actor - Video (Evan Stone)
* Best Music
* Best Supporting Actor - Video (Tommy Gunn)
* Best On-Line Marketing Campaign

XRCO awards:

* Best Release (2005)
* Epic (2005)

Adult DVD Empire Awards:

* 2005 Editor's Choice
* 2005 Best Overall DVD
* 2005 Best DVD Menu Design
* 2005 Best DVD Video Quality
* 2005 Best DVD Audio Quality
* 2005 Viewer's Choice

it is literally the best porno ever made. HIghest budget, best special effects, etc. This wasnt some fly-by-night camcorder production.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:49 PM
Well lets see if I can sum up how this discussion is going:
11 pages of:

"HD is better than Blue Ray!"

"No it's not, Blue Ray is better than HD"

"Beta was better than VHS!"

"No! VHS was better than Beta!"

"Downloading movies is wrong!"

"No it's not!....and so on.........Blah

All I want to know is where I can get a HD or Blue Ray copy of the 3 Stooges. High Def Curly going Whoo, whoo, whooo, whoo, nyuk nyuk nyuk. Can it get any better than that?

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Sparky63]

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Sparky63]

posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:16 PM
I have a PS3 Blu-ray player and its amazing,blows dvd away easy.
It even upscales regular dvd to 1080p

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 01:40 AM
Not that it matters much seeing as how dvd's are only 720x480....

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 10:07 AM
reply to post by jedimiller

I skimmed through a few pages of this thread...

Ok... Well you’re totally wrong. Well like 95% wrong

HD isn’t a Scam. It’s real...

You are right about one thing and one thing only. Buying the Blue ray version of Aliens or say Die Hard 1 isn’t going to be true "HD" when it's displayed on your TV screen.

These films were shot on old non hd movie cameras. When you pop these movies into your high def player I’m sure it will be up scaled to whatever your TV can handle. Some players scale better than others but the actual Picture quality won’t be much improved. I mean to me that’s just pretty common sense.

Take for instance the Planet earth series on blue ray. That’s pretty much the benchmark for PQ in high def right now. Obviously there’s a difference, this and a bunch of newer movies are being shot in HD.

Try to see it as Storage not as some magic blue laser. The more storage you have on a piece of media (disc) the better resolution you can put on it.

Heck I could put a 1080P movie on a DVD disc but I’m sure it will only have a run time of 10 mins? maybe more?

To me the biggest difference is the audio. Dolby digital 5.1 and DTS sound like mono compared to stereo when you hear how clear DTSHD Dolby TrueHD sound, PCM. Lossless audio people... studio masters....

You can’t fit all that on DVD... ever. The PQ is amazing but the audio is also jaw dropping, If you have the equipment of course.

You get 1080P video, Lossless, Audio, and extras all on one disc. Again.... Storage.

It comes down to educated buyers. Old movies won’t have the perks that blue ray or HD-DVD(RIP) bring.

A newer movie however is a different story.
I’m not sure but maybe they may offer lossless audio for old movies. I’m actually going to see if they do.

I guess you also need the proper equipment to get the full benefits which the large majority doesn’t.

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:12 AM
It's been about 2 months since I got my HDTV set and I must say it rules. The HD footage on the news channels is stunning, the nature programs rock. Both BluRay and HD DVD give you same higher-than-usual def... And we all saw demos in stores at least. What't there to argue about.

posted on Feb, 11 2008 @ 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Darkmedic
Ok... Well you’re totally wrong. Well like 95% wrong

HD isn’t a Scam. It’s real...

it's only real because the tv says HD on the top right corner.

let me give you this example of an ignorant comment by one of my co-workers.

he said this. "dude I have empire strikes back in HD". Note the error in this comment.

empire strikes back has never been transferred to an HD format. you see just because a TV station transmits in HD does not mean the original work is in HD. here's the thing, you can transmit anything on television in HD.

next year all channels will start transmitting in HD. digitally. does that mean all the content they show is in HD? No. they could show old I love lucy shows and it's still not entirely true HD.

you see, just because it says HD on your TV doesn't mean it really is. therefore, saying that you have empire strikes back in HD is ignorant. HBO transmits in HD, yes..but all their movies have not been shot on HD cameras. therefore they are not truly HD.

only movies that are shot entirely in HD...should be labeled as such.

your true friend. Jedimiller.

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 06:01 PM
So first of all, next year all broadcasts will NOT be in HD.

All over-the-air broadcasts... in other words, all broadcasts which are received by antenna... will be broadcast with digital signals instead of analog.

Digital and HD are not the same thing. Digital refers to the signal, High Definition refers to the picture. They are apples and oranges.

Second point: Since Star Wars was shot with film, it's entirely possible to convert the movie to high definition. The reason is that film is higher quality than Standard Definition and High Definition. You can always decrease the clarity of an image.

What you can't do is take a VHS or DVD copy of Star Wars and convert it into High Definition. You can upscale it, but this is just a fancy way of saying "fill in the blanks with a reasonable guess of what would be there." It's not a true conversion to HD.

So, if HBO or whoever is broadcasting the movie were to have the studio downconvert the movie from film quality to HD, then they could easily broadcast the movie in High Definition.

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 06:09 PM
This is kinda off topic but maybe one of you guys can answer it. I recently bought a HDTV. I also upgraded my dtv to a hdtv box. I bought a HDMI cable to go from the DTV box to my TV. I have regular coax going from my Sat. antenna to my DTV box. Why is HDMI so much better than regular coax? Wouldn't any improvement in signal be lost before it even gets to the HDMI cable because it went through the coax first??

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 06:31 PM
Toshiba officially discontinues HD-DVD

Looks like I was right this whole time. Remember some of you were saying HD-DVD was gonna win about 1-2 months ago? LMAO

Sweet victory. I swear, being proven correct in the face of scrutiny is almost better than sex.

edit: Na Na Na Na Na Na, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

[edit on 20-2-2008 by thehumbleone]

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in