Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
heh, i see jedi came back into this thread do drop even more nonsense. oh joy.


Originally posted by macgyver
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?


its not the cable thats actually giving a better signal, its just that the signal you are getting needs HDMI or component cables instead of coax. They were made for different purposes, but you can certainly stream HD over coax (essentially the same as downloading an HD film over coax).




posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by macgyver
 


If you had a digital tuner in your tv and used a cable card, your picture would be just as good. HD can be transferred over analog cables.

In fact, component cables are analog, and have the ability of transmitting 1080p, but it is rare that sets accept this input, or devices to output in it. Most only accept up to 1080i with an analog input, some only 720p.

HDMI is a digital cable, so it transmits pure. If there is a signal dropout, it doesn't get fuzzy, it goes blank, as opposed to an analog signal. Digital is basically 1s and 0s, and analog is voltage.


Blu-Ray is technically better because of large storage capabilities. Sort of like the difference between CDs and DVDs. HD-DVD it DVD9 is like comparing a DVD to a DL-DVD(9).

A CD typically holds up to 700 MB. A standard DVD holds 4.7 GB. A DL-DVD (double layer) holds 8.54 GB. A HD-DVD holds 15 GB, dual layer 30 GB. A BD (Blu-Ray Disc) holds 25 GB, 50 GB dual layer.

In 2006 an experimental BD was created and operational at 200 GB using six 33 GB layers. At CES 2007 closed door meeting, there was a 10 layer disc, putting 250 GB for the BD and only 150 GB for the HD-DVD.

Jan 07 a company released a 100 GB disc workable with current players, only requiring a firmware update.


Now, if you are a studio, logically which one would you choose? One that you will need to manufacture possible several discs, or one you can put your seasons out on one disc, but still charge the same amount? If not sitcoms, what about movies, if you can put all your special features and bonus material on the same disc, thus saving production money, but still charge the same for the extra content, which one makes better business sense?


Saying that High Definition is a scam is only half correct. The scam is, we could be producing things much better than current HD technology. Monitors have been capable of surpassing this HD technology for many years. But, again, the truth of the matter is, the only advantage currently to use anything above 1080p would require redoing our current broadcast infrastructure. 1080p itself is not really capable over our cable lines, so this is why most broadcasts have gone with 1080i. Your BDs of movies, shows, and sports, plus future games to come out (those in native 1080p, not the 'upscaled' 1080p that 360 mostly claims) are the only things that logistically can take full advantage of your HDTV.



The argument that scanning film to HD is flawed, because most people don't have film projectors (reels, not front or rear projection screens) in their homes. Thus, any scan that is higher resolution than tape or dvd is then much more true to the original film format.

BUT, the digital format cannot improve quality over the original product. If the film is in poor condition, or wasn't that great to begin with, you will see it. If they use a poor scanning process, it will show. If they only upscale the dvd coding, it will also show.

But, a scan of a good quality film, using a quality process and scanner, will net you the best picture you can get in your home without owning a copy of the original film itself.

To say anything different is being intentionally misleading and dishonest. To say HD-DVD is better than BD shows some form of bias either against the group that created and support BD, or for the group who created and support HD-DVD.


In the end, it doesn't matter which is better, the consumer decides which succeeds. It doesn't matter if we have better technology, if they sit on it and tell us it can't be done yet (there is a company that has made tv sets with 2160 resolution ... and recently a company that made a 7" 1080p screen, though try to find one under about 30", there might be one unless you buy a monitor).


study a bit and make an informed decision on your own.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
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.



The problem? the studio has not made an HD print yet. So how can HBO be broadcasting an HD star wars film? last I heard, Lucasfilm has not converted it to HD or blueray..hence when you watch star wars on HBO on HD means absolutely nothing. deny ignorance friends. Likes I said, anyone can broadcast on HD...But the original content needs not to be in HD.

At last, my original post has been proven 100% factual.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
No, your statement about HD, BD, HD-DVD being a sham was proven false ... and your theory tht HD-DVD was better than BD and would win out as well.


The point that non HD is not HD is redundant, no? Of course if you watch old shows on a 'HD' channel, they are either stretched or zoomed to fill the screen if they don't letterbox. DVD and SD is not really the issue.


You also argued that you ruin a film by re-scanning it with a higher resolution. This of course is also false, proved by those who went into great detail about how film is also nothing but a different kind of 'pixel', and that HD comes quite close to the amount of MP that film has. Even one person spoke of a military camera that is far above and beyond film level.


I will agree with a prior poster than a smaller screen at the same resolution really 'pops', since the dot pitch is so small, the picture is absolutely amazing. I personally prefer a 19" 900p screen over a 34" 1080i screen for the dot pitch.



So, which premise of yours was correct? That HD is a sham? That BD is a sham? That film copied in a higher resolution format is no different than the lower resolution?


No HD Star Wars?

Well, for a Star Wars buff, I suppose you need much more study.

Star Wars HD vs DVD Comparison

Looks like the Dark Side has gotten you.

The Force is with me to expose the deceptions!



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
So, which premise of yours was correct? That HD is a sham? That BD is a sham? That film copied in a higher resolution format is no different than the lower resolution?


No HD Star Wars?



And the discussion goes on. Oh well..freethinker, there is no star wars on HD ok? just because you got the DVD and downloaded it to a computer program and cleaned it up..does not make it HD or BR. that website link makes no clear comparison..all the screen shots looked the same to me. but if you read that link you gave me they do say HBO is garbage.

Clearly, blue ray won, I read the walmart article. that's a shame. Because HD is better, as a form to view the film in better detail, but still not 100% in HD.


In the end, no film in 70mm will ever be in HD or BR or whatever you make of it. computers cannot make film..and that's how I won the argument.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Are you kidding me? You can't tell the difference between the pictures?

The High Definition versions of those images let you view individual facial hairs. Or just look at the difference in the detail of the one guy's blaster in the very first picture....

You literally need an eye exam if you can't see the difference.

As for "computers can't make film..." They have equipment that can read the film and convert it to a digital signal that can be formatted in High Definition. What do you think, that movies are made on regular home PC's?

Your original statement has not only not been proven true, it's been flushed even further down the toilet. As usual though, you've managed not to comprehensively grasp a single word that was said to you.



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
You obviously have NO idea what you are on about and during the course of this thread you've really made yourself look a bit silly havn't you.
The diffrence is really really quite simple,
Say we had a scene that was coverted into 3x3 pixels
[bl][y][r]
[bl][y][r]
[bl][y][r]
We call this, standard definition..it uses three colours, Blue, Yellow and Red.
Now, in the future, we get to add more pixels and thus increase the resolution.
[bl][lbl][y][y][dr][r]
[bl][lbl][y][y][dr][r]
[bl][lbl][y][y][dr][r]
[bl][lbl][y][y][dr][r]
[bl][lbl][y][y][dr][r]
Now, we'd see the same image but much clear and more detail because we can see the "Light blue" in contrast to the blue and "Dark Red" in contrast to the red.

When they did Starwars HD, they didn't "touch" anything up (as they did for the remastered edition), they simply allowed for more pixels,hence more detail to be seen.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by Vowles]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vowles
You obviously have NO idea what you are on about and during the course of this thread you've really made yourself look a bit silly havn't you.
The diffrence is really really quite simple,
Say we had a scene that was coverted into 3x3 pixels



Film doesn't have pixels. You wasted all of that time trying to explain film as if it was a digital form. it's celluloid.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:54 AM
link   
I have to say, I saw my friends 8ft x 5ft projection screen and was greatly underwhelmed, yes I could tell the difference but after watching a couple of mins of a film, HD made zero difference to my enjoyment compared to an upconverted SD DVD.

I wont be switching to HD until my current TV expires.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
I have to say, I saw my friends 8ft x 5ft projection screen and was greatly underwhelmed, yes I could tell the difference but after watching a couple of mins of a film, HD made zero difference to my enjoyment compared to an upconverted SD DVD.

I wont be switching to HD until my current TV expires.



that's good news. all of these companies are trying to get rich. using fake advertising and taking advantage of the ignorance. I suggest you all keep your TV and not switch to the digital converters next year. it's a scam. who needs tv anyway? right!



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
In the end, no film in 70mm will ever be in HD or BR or whatever you make of it. computers cannot make film..and that's how I won the argument.

In your own head maybe, everyone else knows you are wrong. HD is clearly better, even with old films as long as the conversion is done correctly and the source is a good quality..

In reality, it makes no difference to my enjoyment of the film but that doesnt change the fact that you have been 100% wrong through out this whole thread.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller

that's good news. all of these companies are trying to get rich. using fake advertising and taking advantage of the ignorance. I suggest you all keep your TV and not switch to the digital converters next year. it's a scam. who needs tv anyway? right!


Its not a scam, its technically better but I dont need it, going from a 4x3 tv to a 19x9 tv made my viewing much more enjoyable than switching to HD.

This is my last post on the subject because you clearly cant see properly if you think those Star Wars picture are the same in SD and HD. No wonder you think its a scam.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
In reality, it makes no difference to my enjoyment of the film but that doesnt change the fact that you have been 100% wrong through out this whole thread.





You realize i'm not wrong right? films like star wars will never be in HD, BD, DP or whatever else. They were not originally shot in a digital format.

Look, i'm just asking for the studios to label their dvd's correctly.


1. Shot on film: shot on fim label-tranferred digitally.
2. Shot on digital tape- Originally shot in digital format.

that's all I ever wanted. so how is that wrong?

So far attack and the clones were shot digitally using a SONY HD cam. and those are the only movies out there that are REALLY in High definition. Lucas is screwed, because those movies are supposed to be seen in HD and walmart won't sell HD. I was looking forward to watching those movies in it's original format.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


You will never 'get it', if you haven't by now with 12 pages of people showing you the light. If I was a mod, SkunkWorks would be too good for it, since that name implies truth, open-mindedness, and pursuit of technological advances, such as LockheedMartin SkunkWorks ... not transporting hot dogs to alternate universes through the use of on the job microwaves. And to the poster that excused the OP for the age, thinking they are in their 20s, nope, admitted in another thread on BTS they are 35.

It is not a personal attack, I do agree with some of your postings in other threads, but this reeks of an agenda of some sort.

Your title of the thread is a lie. Plain and simple. If you believed it at first, that is ok, but you have had factoids given time and again, and to continue to dispute fact reeks of something foul in your intentions. People have given sources, you just give opinions with nothing to back it up at all.


Here is your chance, to once again state all your beliefs, but this time back it up with sources and examples ... saying an instructor said it does not compete with the variety of sources and examples given. Using false examples of 1080 is not an argument, so a stretched or upscaled showing of a movie or series on an HD channel is not an argument, you must use a real HD video, scanned from film such as the Star Wars original trilogy link I gave that shows the difference.

You do have the right to feel the increase in resolution is not worth it to you, and stick with your SD tv. That is opinion. Though, stock up on SD tvs, since soon you won't be able to find them in the stores. I still watch my DVDs on a SDtv, but HD is on the HDtv.

What is not opinion is saying it is a sham and BD is no different than DVD ... the increased storage amount allows for more stored information, allowing 2 MP per frame to be stored. That would be like saying the 360 isn't any better than the original XBox, or the PS3 isn't any better than the PS2. That is outright false. An opinion would be the PS3 is better than the 360 ... until at least each system has had a game developed that utilizes near 100% of its capabilities.



HD contains 6x the pixel count of SD, actually 1080p contains 12x the pixel count per frame vs 480i. Therefore, the picture is 6x clearer on a HD than a SD screen of the same size. BDs are the format that stores much larger amounts of data required to store 6-12x the data of a standard DVD, allowing either less compression, or similar compression and more storage than HD-DVD.

The Discovery HD channels look really great, and that is broadcast at 1080i, flipping between their SD and HD broadcasts really shows. Sports fans (like NASCAR and NFL) really notice the difference as well.




Film is 'pixels' of sorts ... it is silver halide crystals ... that is right individual dots that record a point of color. Sounds a lot like a pixel, doesn't it?


Modern color film is made up of many different layers all working together to create the color image. In color negative films there are three main color layers: the blue record, green record and red record; each made up of two separate layers containing silver halide crystals and dye-couplers.
Color motion picture film - Wiki - How modern color film works (subsection)



So, not only have you been proved wrong about High Definition video being more than a sham, but your argument that film is celluloid, therefore it is pixel-less ... since film has always been some form of pixels, whether silver halide, metallic salts, or otherwise.


You argument that Blu-Ray was just enhancing the blue color was so far off it isn't even funny.



Basically, nearly every thing you have postulated has been countered.


I will argue that a 1080p film in your home on an appropriate size screen for your seating distance will look better than theater quality, because the film gets spread so thin. 1080p on a movie screen will not look as good yet, but our ability to encode and display higher resolutions in the home is increasing (though arguably untrue since I have seen DLP movies that looked fine from far enough back to not see the huge pixels). In fact, I argue that the military grade digital film surpasses 70 mm film by quite a bit.

Since film is technically pixels, it really comes to light that film is nothing more than a 3-layer digital image, combining three translucent photos cast on silver halide specs (pixels) with one of the 3 appropriate dye-couplers used for each layer.




I really think you just enjoy inciting comments, or are trying to up the thread for more points (even though the essentially don't matter at all). I cannot believe you actually believe what you are saying anymore.

It is just fine, because for truth, some of us will argue with a proverbial brick wall. Oh well, it will be a fun thread when I am tired of the more serious ones



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
freethinker. I know what you mean, and i didn't want to continue the debate, but was forced by some ignorant comments in the thread.


But see, in my field (film school) we know the difference between film and Digital film. And the difference is grand. It can't be anymore simpler.

it should be the same when selling a DVD. film or digital.

If that doesn't make sense. then, I guess we can agree to disagree and move on to other topics.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


Ok, let me try to understand ...


are you saying that ... if you could have a digital exposure to have the same number of pixels as there are silver halide specs ... that the three layers of silver halide will be better at reproducing natural color than the digital pixel representation of the same color?

Or that the compression takes away some of the 'natural-ness' of it when put onto a digital disc?


And if so, do you then concede that at some point, digital color recognition and pixel size and amount will be able to exceed even the best current film technology (though this does allow for advances in film technology to get better)?

What if digital cameras used a similar 3 to 1 color combination (or more) such as the Mars rover using various cameras that sense different ranges of light very accurately, then combine them?


You last post seems very prone to having great discussion. I appreciate the change in tone
It makes it easier to ask the right questions to understand where you are coming from. I like to debate, but I also like to understand other people's perspectives as best I can.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller

Originally posted by Vowles
You obviously have NO idea what you are on about and during the course of this thread you've really made yourself look a bit silly havn't you.
The diffrence is really really quite simple,
Say we had a scene that was coverted into 3x3 pixels



Film doesn't have pixels. You wasted all of that time trying to explain film as if it was a digital form. it's celluloid.

......
Wow!You may of missed "Coverted in 3x3 pixels". HD/Blyeray DVDs show more detail because they contain more infomation than VHS or standard DVD. A normal DVD is 2-3 gigabytes at most, a HD DVD is upto 17 gigs.

What a waste of bandwidth this site is.



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Hence my ATS name,
I have written about this subject in the early thread...

First, clearly HD-DVD is dead... who couldn't see that coming?

But as to the ongoing issue about whether it is a "scam"...
I mean, what are you people talking about?

First of all, anyone with eyes can tell a properly configured HD broadcast
looks better than SD. The funny thing, I think, is that some people get their new HDTV's.... big ones, thin ones, expensive ones... and some of these people (like my own father all the time) put on the NON-HD channel, say, of the Super Bowl... because ABC to him is 6, not 204 (the HD version here)

That may have been the case with the person above who said they were underwhelmed by a large HDTV... maybe it was on a non-HD channel, cause if it is, it can REALLY look bad- worse actually than regular TV SD.

Finally- there is no "scam" from a consumer point of view--- the freakin government is willing to send you 2 debit cards worth almost 100 bucks to get the conversion boxes for those unwilling or unable to buy a real HDTV.

So where is the scam? Where is the conspiracy?

Better TV for the masses. Paid for by the government (at the minimum level)

Sounds like the government finally did something right-
except they are, like 9 years late on the transition.

I'll forgive them for that...


T Patrick



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by HighDefinitionFilms
So where is the scam? Where is the conspiracy?



Hi HDF, nice to hear from you. here's where the scam becomes clear.

1. you need an HDTV type to actually see the dvd's their selling on HD-DVD. Otherwise buying the DVD for the hiked price is pointless.

2. They are selling old movies and labeling them HD. yet, we know old films were never shot on HD.

3. You are paying ridiculous prices for the disk.

4. You are buying a movie that was shot on film and was artistically violated and converted so it can sell again for more money.


So without the TV, without the player and without the original film you are watching something different and not intended to be viewed in that format.

Still, I keep repeating myself, yet no one wants to challenge my statement when I say that You can never have film and digital be the same. and that they should label the dvd's as such. 1. labeled-shot on film. 2. shot digitally.

does that make sense? or do we need another 100 pages to prove my point? I know you guys are gunho about digital medium. But still, 70mm film beats that format. can we also keep computers away from real films? and stop selling them as such?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join