Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 13
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
No more digital transfers to make things good. I call that cheating.

The analog thoughts in your head are being transfered to digital format every time you post here. Cheater.




posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Although the OP might have been a little off in the details, the spirit of his post was correct.

The truth is that it all doesn't really matter. HD is a marketing ploy and only gives you marginally better results - not the life-changing difference in picture quality it's always touted. I do enjoy watching sports in HD, but after doing so for a couple of months, my viewing experience isn't any different than when I used to watch sports in SD. I don't go, "Wow, it sure is great to be watching this in HD!" I'm just watching a basketball game. Like always.

I also was an early adopter of HD-DVD (yeah, bad move). What I learned very quickly is that a well-transferred SD DVD actually looked better than a badly transferred HD-DVD. You see what happens is post-houses take whatever the original movie was shot on (film or HD) and transfer it to its new format (HD-DVD, BLU-RAY, DVD). If the studio wants to save some money, they go with the cheap transfer houses. If you've ever watched Ocean's 13 or The Astronaut Farmer on DVD, you'll know what I'm talking about. Terrible terrible transfers - and the picture quality looks horrible! I guess my point is, if a transfer can make a supposedly inferior technology look better than the latest "cutting edge" technology, then how much improved is that new technology in the first place?

Annnnnnnd, not to mention that the average HD adopter does not know how to tweak the settings of their devices to acually take advantage of the tiny increments in which the picture quality is better. I think I heard the number is like 75% of the people with HDTVs are not aware that they aren't watching HD reception. They just press that button that stretches the image out to the full rectangle and assume they're watching HDTV!



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I think it is irrelevant if the movie was shot on film or HD cameras when I purchase one.

Why?

Because I know that DVDs and BDs are digital discs of compressed information that is being processed and sent to my tv.

Since I don't have a film projector, I will never see film in my home.


Therefore, it is more important to know the quality of the picture on the disc. I should know if they just upconverted an old movie, or was it a fresh 1080p scan of clean copy of the film. I don't want a BD of a DVD upconvert, the same as I would never have wanted a VHS quality movie on a DVD (which those $1 deal at Wal-Mart seem to be).



To HDF,

A smaller screen at the same resolution will always look better than a larger screen if the quality of the pixels are the same. Dot pitch means a lot to your eyes, especially the closer you sit. I will take my 34" 1080i over a 70" 1080p at 4 ft any day. At 12 ft the bigger one because you are far enough back that it blends well, and the smaller gets to be too small. A 24" 1080p monitor at 1-2 ft will smoke just about anything at any distance because the pixels are so small.


I also agree with Cap'n, that HD is loses its flare after a month or so. It may be a big leap, but it is still not as big of one as I wish they would have made. I think it was a move of planned obselescence ... to sell us 1080 for about 10 years or so, then make a leap in communications and pixel technology where double or triple the pixel amount will be utilized ... then the picture will really pop, and special effects artists, actors, and actresses will hate it!




to jedi

1) if you don't have an HDtv, then keep buying DVDs and keep a standard cable box.

If you don't have an HDtv, then you probably don't have a BD or HD-DVD player, and therefore wouldn't be buying HD movies and shows. Otherwise, the person is a sadly uneducated consumer and I have rights to the Brooklyn Bridge, land on the Moon, and a piece of Uranus that I can sell them for a great price!



2) It has nothing to do with them being shot in HD. It has to do with Standard Definition of 480i and High Definition of 1080p. A HD movie does not imply at all the movie was shot on an HD camera. That is not relevant to the format.

The argument would be the same as saying they didn't label VHS as being shot on film ... and VHS misrepresents the product because it is a magnetic analog tape. That VHS should have been labeled 'shot on film' or 'shot on cassette'.

Like I said above, they should say whether it is a poor conversion of a SD movie, upscaled version, or it was truly re-scanned from the original film (since most movies are still on film, not shot with HD cameras).

It doesn't matter if it was shot in HD or it was shot on film, it is a digital representation now, and 1080 either way. It is an interesting fact to include for dorks like me who will be interested in random information, especially as more films convert to digital recordings.


3) $24 for a BD isn't bad at all 300 at amazon, new, in fact on par with DVD 8 years ago. In 2000 'Men In Black' retailed for $40 ($24 on Amazon) on DVD and the second season of 'X-Files' retailed for $150. That wasn't too long ago. Source

So, not only are you paying what you would have for DVDs less than a decade ago, but you are getting up to 6x the resolution. That is not a ridiculous price at all considereing Barnes & Nobles is charging $20 for 300 on standard DVD Source

4) Most movies I have bought, besides animated ones (these are the only true 'cell' movies that you speak of, as long as they were hand drawn opposed to designed digitally), were shot on film, regardless if they are on VHS, BetaMax, DVD, VCD, SVHS, HD-DVD, BD.

The film was not artistically violated, it was re-scanned at the newer level of visual standard for home viewing. It violates the product no more than DVD, VHS, or broadcasting it over the air. If anything, it gives more proceeds to the writer, producer, actors, and other staff from further sales.

The only defiling of the product would be to not re-scan the film, and just sell the same version, upscaled version, or some other poor form of making it fill the screen without increasing the quality of the picture.


Without a tv, you aren't watching much but a wall. Without the player, the disc cannot be played. I have NEVER met anyone with the original film in their house, or a projection system to play it on.

We are talking about normal consumers, not owners of movie theaters or the very few, very rich that have an actual theater projection system and room in their house, right?


I will say this, I don't think movies should be shot on 1080 cameras ... television is fine, but movies should be shot at the maximum resolution possible for either film or digital, unless the grainy-ness is intended for part of the feel of the movie.

A digital scan of a movie, in 1080, is the closest 99% of the world is going to get to having a film projector in their house until the next wave of higher definition comes along to replace current HD. Even people who could afford a projection system would find it impractical to buy and properly store and use the film. It just isn't something even most obsessive of videophiles feels like dealing with.



Who is selling computers as films? If you are talking about digital media, then it doesn't matter if that 1080p movie is on a BD, HD-DVD, or a 15 GB file that you download to your hard drive. Digital media is digital media, regardless of which disk it is stored on.



Here is how I see it.

Film has been around for a while, but it is reaching its limitations. 70 mm film has been around nearly 80 years. It has its fair share of win and is still top class.

Digital media is just beginning. Just look at something as unprofessional as phone cameras. The original ones weren't even up to 8 mm film standards, but within a few years, they now have 10 MP camera phones. 10 MP, five times High Definition resolutions, in a phone.

35 mm is equat to about 12.75 MP, so camera phones are approaching 35 mm quality. I believe 70 mm is close to 51 MP, which is far away in the consumer market ... but as another poster said, far surpassed by the military.


The advantage of film though, much harder to fake, pull off hoaxes, etc. though not impossible. Digital is much easier, especially for those who know how to keep the exif data clean.


So I can agree and disagree at the same time



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
well, here's the deal. this scientist says BlueRay is no good. Told you guys, but see no one ever listens man.


www.xbitlabs.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Ah so youve switched from theres no difference between SD and HD to theres no place for HD disks on the market?

I wont buy one because of the DRM but theres more than enough people who will.

Edit- I take it you missed the follow up.

"THX, a Lucasfilm subsidiary, said on Friday that its chief scientist never said that the future of Blu-ray disc format in the movie industry was doomed."


[edit on 1-4-2008 by Flyer]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


I was high-profile in the entertainment industry- you are right on the money. Most people will never know that the new technology is a gradual increase of digital enhancement. And yes, some of the imaging is slightly better- but only in the reduction of pixels and this reduction is very slight. The digital enhancement is about two-way signal capability. These poor suckers are inviting big brother right into their home and don't even know it.

My television hit the curb a while ago. Most big entertainment executives have screening rooms for films and television shows. They remain "smart" enough to not have cable inside their homes...if they need to view a cable or television broadcast they will stroll down to their "guest" house or take a drive to their office or knock on one of their idiot neighbors doors (who are only too happy to welcome such an important person into their home). If it weren't so sad it would be funny.




posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dk3000
 


This is not an argument whether they can do better. This is that SD and HD are not different.

As of now, yes, 1080i is the best that can be put over the airwaves (supposedly) with current cable technology. 1080p is 2 MegaPixels a second. Check your computer, most cannot handle a 1080p downloaded video, even at 24 fps. Mine uses 40-60 CPU for a 720p video in a player that is designed to be 'lite'.



They could have put out double or triple the resolution, for discs, if they wanted to. People would whine their general cable wasn't as good, but movies would be awesome.

They have made 22" WQUXGA screens for a while. 3840x2400 resolution, or 8 MegaPixels. But, in a business model, it doesn't make sense to make the best you can, when you can stagger less quality over an extended period of time.



Riddle me this, how exactly is your television doing two way communication?

I can see a slight argument if you have cable or satellite.

But, what about people with antenna? They can get HD broadcast too.

What about people who have a tv just for movies and games? I know a lot who do just that.

How is it these people are being spied on, through their PS3/Blu-Ray player, when it isn't plugged into the internet?



I think you are being overly paranoid.


But, let me give you one thing. I agree more people need to turn off their tele and read a book. Go outside. Spend quality time with the people they love. Get involved in society. The money they spend on cable every month, they could own every show they watch and still be ahead in the long run.


I can probably find a scientist that says reading is bad. If you paid attention to news in the past decade, scientists don't agree, or go back on their opinions quite often. How many times was milk bad for you, then good, then bad? What about eggs? Meat? Water? Wine?

Technology has also been falsely ridiculed. Hybrid cars were said to not be worth it ... but I can tell you, I put off less pollution than most cars, I didn't pay even 20k for mine, I get 50 mpg, and I save thousands of dollars a year on fuel because instead of 18 cents a mile, I pay 6 cents a mile for fuel, so for 20k miles, I now pay 1200 versus 3600, 2400 in these times is not drop in the bucket, in fact, in 8 years the car will have paid for itself in fuel costs, maybe quicker as fuel prices continue to rise.


So, 1080p HD isn't quite 2400p. Well, it is still a whole lot better than 480i, and that is why it isn't a scam. 480i -> 1080p = 12x the resolution per 1/60 second. Yes, I would have rather had 48x the resolution with the 2400p, but we are not talking about whether this was the best the world had to offer. Would I have rather had a MiniDisc type disc, that is encased so it cannot get scratch instead of another open disc, why certainly. The UMD format was just that, but on a small scale.


Simply put, HD is better than SD = not a scam. BD holds more information than DVD = not a scam. They are by all technical terms, better in stats and more advanced in their tech.


There is not such a deep conspiracy in everything. Nice try though.



P.S. If you are that paranoid about television and disc players ... then how can you even think about coming online?!?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist


P.S. If you are that paranoid about television and disc players ... then how can you even think about coming online?!?


You know, I was wondering that myself. In addition to the fact that computer screens are essentially the same technology as televisions, many of them are actually hooked up through cable.

Plus with a computer, you've got to worry about spyware, phishing scams, hackers, and all that mess. At least with a TV you can take the thing apart and look to see if there's a camera or not. Unless you're a big Linux/Open Source junkie though you can't look at your computer's source codes and see what it's up to...



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
well, here's the deal. this scientist says BlueRay is no good. Told you guys, but see no one ever listens man.


www.xbitlabs.com...


If you click your link again, those 'THX Scientists' retracted their comments.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist

I think you are being overly paranoid.



I think not, Comcast were going to put cameras in cable boxes.

newteevee.com...



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by HighDefinitionFilms
Within 10 years from now (presuming we all survive 2012)... almost ALL OF THE MOVIES you watch will be SHOT on HD... and they will be projected at the theaters on satellite-fed VIDEO PROJECTORS, not reel to reel film projectors.


Hi Patrick! Hold on!! I’ve got news for you!


You say that in 10 years time movies will be projected in theaters on satellite-fed VIDEO PROJECTORS, not reel to reel film projectors. 10 years?? You gotta be joking, right?


Heck, it’s already old hat in India! An Indian company, Real Image, based in Chennai, had launched its ‘‘QUBE Digital Player’’ that uses computer hardware and intelligent software to project cinema, way back in 2005!! In this system, the film producer makes a digital copy of the film through a tele-cine and distributes it to cinema halls through a satellite-dish antenna.

Real Image has helped to set up 40 theatres with Qube equipment in the first year alone in Tamil Nadu, a state of India. As of now, more than 100 cinema theatres across India are in the network.

With this transition, not only has massive equipment and cumbersome boxes of film reels been dumped for good, savings in costs are huge for cinemas across the country.

The company has begun negotiations in the US to equip theatres there with the Qube cinema server. The server will cost about USD 2,000.

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I just hope we don't get movies in memory cards. Because that would suck. that's like going back to old nintendo cartridges. You, carry all of these movies on a little memory card. problem with that, these things break after a while, their connectors get dull and scrathed up. I think that's what the THX scientist is saying it's going to happen. I hate watching movies on a computer..and i'd rather watch a film on film stock or VHS.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
How can "blu-ray" be a scam??

It is simple people:

CD = 700MB of data

DVD = 4GB of data

Blu-Ray = 25GB of data

You do understand that the higher the definition the video, the more memory it takes right? The better the quality the bigger the file size.

If you people want more resolution, it will take more memory, so you need more room on the disk!!

This thread should be closed this is complete nonsense.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
You do understand that the higher the definition the video, the more memory it takes right? The better the quality the bigger the file size.

If you people want more resolution, it will take more memory, so you need more room on the disk!!

This thread should be closed this is complete nonsense.


Firstly, it seems you are confusing the issue of 'data' and 'memory'. Could you elucidate? Then you say that more the resolution, more the memory and therefore more room required on the disc??? What has memory got to do with a data storage device? Or are you contending that Digital Versatile Discs are actually Random Access Memory or Read Only Memory devices?

I think it would be advisable to keep Primary Storage (RAM), Secondary Storage (Hard Disc), Off-line storage (CDs/DVDs/HD DVDs), and Tertiary storage including RAS in separate compartments and not mix them all up.

Secondly, I fail to comprehend why you consider this thread complete nonsense? There are some excellent posts here that have contributed to one's knowledge bank. At least mine. Learn to pick up the nuggets. It will hold you in good stead in the long run.

Cheers!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
I just hope we don't get movies in memory cards. Because that would suck. that's like going back to old nintendo cartridges. You, carry all of these movies on a little memory card. problem with that, these things break after a while, their connectors get dull and scrathed up. I think that's what the THX scientist is saying it's going to happen. I hate watching movies on a computer..and i'd rather watch a film on film stock or VHS.

Does it matter? if someone wants to watch a movie through a memory card and it's of good quality, why not?

[edit on 2-4-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


Wow you are seriously confused about the technology in question, aren't you?



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Damned double-posts. I thought they were just a myth! :-P

[edit on 2/4/08 by dave420]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
mikesingh, I think you need to stop trying so hard, you confuse yourself quite easly.


Originally posted by mikesingh
Firstly, it seems you are confusing the issue of 'data' and 'memory'. Could you elucidate?


Ok lets clear up the proper terms here.

DATA=ALL TYPES OF INFORMATION.

MEMORY=ALL TYPES OF STORAGE THAT CAN HOLD DATA (ram,rom,harddrives,cds,dvds,b-ray)

Just because RAM and ROM are named "memory" doesn't mean "memory" is only those two things. Do you know what memory is?

dictionary.reference.com...



11. Also called computer memory, storage. Computers.
a. the capacity of a computer to store information subject to recall.
b. the components of the computer in which such information is stored.


Yes it doesn't just say "ram" and "rom". Does it? No.

So now reread my post above. Surely you can understand it.


Originally posted by mikesingh
What has memory got to do with a data storage device? Or are you contending that Digital Versatile Discs are actually Random Access Memory or Read Only Memory devices?


I see your lack of technical knowlegde clearly now. A "data storage device" is what you call "memory". RAM, ROM, HARD DRIVES, DVD's ect, are all MEMORY.

B.T.W. Most CD's, and DVD's, that are NOT "re-writable" technicaly ARE "READ ONLY MEMORY" (rom) devices.

Also, DVD's disks, if they were infinitly re-writable, and the writing to them was quick, they CAN be used as "random access memory". But writing to dvd's is not exactly quick, so there is no point.

Even HARD DRIVES can be "random access memory", it is actually called "page file" or "virtual memory".

You see all of these devices are "memory devices". They all hold "data".


CD's hold 700MB of data.

DVD's hold 4GB of data.

Blu-Ray holds 25GB of data.

Hard Drives can be built to unlimited sizes these days.

RAM usualy comes in sticks up to 1GB.



Originally posted by mikesingh
I think it would be advisable to keep Primary Storage (RAM), Secondary Storage (Hard Disc), Off-line storage (CDs/DVDs/HD DVDs), and Tertiary storage including RAS in separate compartments and not mix them all up.


The only one mixing them all up is you... sorry.


Originally posted by mikesingh
Then you say that more the resolution, more the memory and therefore more room required on the disc??? .


Yes. For example, say I have a 11 hours of raw video. Because it is "raw" video, that means it is in its most pure form, and there is no lost data, it is all there.

Pretend this "raw" video is uploaded into a computer and it created a file that is 5GB in size.

If I wanted to put this video on a CD, I couldn't, because CD's only hold 700MB. If I wanted to put this video on a DVD, I couldn't, because they(single layer) only holds up to 4GB. In this case, I would need a Blu-Ray disk to put this video on, which you think is a scam.

So because you think it is a scam, I am forced to COMPRESS my video into a smaller format, just so it will fit in a DVD. We all (technical video/audio experts) know that "to compress" usualy means "to loose some data".

Do know why YouTube has such low quality videos?? Because they have a size limit on file sizes. If they didn't have a flie size limit, I'm sure YouTube would be hosting some very very high resolustion videos.

Each pixel = at least 3bits of data. R.G.B. Red, Green, Blue. So if you want more detail, higher definition, you need more pixels, which means more bits of data, which means MORE STORAGE (memory) is required for that data to be held.



Originally posted by mikesingh
Secondly, I fail to comprehend why you consider this thread complete nonsense?

Because the techincal advantages of being able to store more data on a disk is just so obvious that this thread shouldn't have been contemplated.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Of course next you might argue:

"Well we have FLASH MEMORY that can hold GB's of data, so CD's, DVD's, and B-ray will be obsolete."


That doesn't matter. Who on Earth would buy videos on flash memory?

Flash memory = eraseable chalk board
Blu-Ray = carved in stone

Blu-ray has a lifespan that is much longer than flash memory, because it is simply a physical recording, and not an electrical one.

Imagine if phonograph record disks from the very past that people collect and save all of a sudden lost their information... That won't happen with Blu-ray but it would/could with flash memory.


www.overclockers.com.au...


All flash memory available is subject to wear. Each block on the device is only rated for so many writes/erases, before it wears out and is no longer able to write/erase data from that block.


Only if you scratch or damage the Blu-ray will the information ever be lost. In the case of flash memory, the information can simply be lost due to the fact that they loose life every time they are used.


No matter how dumb you might think blu-ray is... the pure fact that we are PHYSICALY storing MORE information in SMALLER places is a great technological break through. NOT A SCAM.



[edit on 2-4-2008 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
I just hope we don't get movies in memory cards. Because that would suck. that's like going back to old nintendo cartridges. You, carry all of these movies on a little memory card. problem with that, these things break after a while, their connectors get dull and scrathed up. I think that's what the THX scientist is saying it's going to happen. I hate watching movies on a computer..and i'd rather watch a film on film stock or VHS.



But see, the problem with that logic is this. The more a film, or tape (VHS) is used, the more it gets worn out. Eventually, the ribbon will wear to the point of snapping, thus losing continuity of the media, even if you piece it back together, you will most likely lose at least a frame or more.


Apparently, your computer monitor must not be up to snuff. A 24" 1920x1200 screen will have an excellent dot pitch, so thus a very vivid picture displaying 1080p format. In fact, 720p looks better on a 19" (1440x900) monitor un-stretched, than 1080i picture looks on a 34" CRT screen.

Of course, if that isn't good enough for you, you can get the WQUXGA 22" 3840x2200 screen, but it takes 4 DVI-D inputs or 2 dual-link DVI-Ds to display all the data (essentially 4 HDMI cables worth of data).

If you can honestly say that a theater screen is clearer than a 24" with 1080 capability, then you haven't viewed a 24" 1080 screen before with the proper resolution format behind it.



As far as memory cards, I go back to not only does film and VHS wear out over time, but so does your digital discs, though they can last much longer than a film if you play them both constantly. Take a VHS of a movie, and let it auto-replay (I had a VHS that did this), and the same movie on a digital disc, be it DVD or BD, and the same movie played digitally from either an SD card, hard drive, or whatever ... each one has their own wear rate. Your film and tape will wear out much quicker for the simple fact it needs to make physical contact with surfaces.


I wouldn't mind buying movies on memory cards, as long as the were pre-locked, no switch, so they could not be accidentally over-written.



In the whole film thing ... I will watch a film at home before the theatres 99.999% of the time. I don't have to deal with crowds, people talking, cell phones, dirty seats, dirty screens, odd smells, bad seating position, and all the other nonsense that the $10-20 experience will give me. If I wait until the same movie is released, and about a year or so later, I can get the film on a digital format for less than the cost of two people going to the theatre together on any given night.

I also would not pay anything for a VHS copy today. The quality is atrocious. I would also not want to deal with a projector ... loading the film, the noise of the machine, possibility of the film snapping, rewinding, storage of reels, and all that not-so-fun stuff.


Nintendo cartridges ... well, you miss the boat, because before Nintendo was Atari, but I will use the ColecoVision instead. Not only did ColecoVision use cartridges (including Atari 2800's), they also used a cassette tape drive. So, your VHS is just as antiquated as the cartridge technically, but even more funny about your statement, is film itself is much older than any other 'moving picture' media.


So referencing the old-style of memory cards is shot down. The reliability argument is shot down. The hoax of hd being a scam is shot down. The hoax that BD is a scam is shot down (and HD-DVD was the scam, and that is why it has failed, a triple layer DVD would match the standard HD-DVD in storage).


I have no problem with someone preferring reel or tape. Fine. But to put forth an argument it is better in a technical sense is a fallacy.

If you were to say a Pinto is better than a Bugatti, you would be wrong, but if you say you prefer a Pinto over a Bugatti, then that is fine.

That is what the discussion breaks down to. Opinion isn't fact, but preference.






I have had satellite before, I don't think it is stable enough compared to having the movie on a special disc or on a hard drive. Though I guess less worry about theft of the movie. A good reason for me to refrain from theaters in the future.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join