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

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
As the poster above stated, why jump / rush into a developing technology? It's the same situation as Betamax vs. VHS. Once the dust settles, THEN I'll upgrade. In the meantime, I'll stick with my Panny XP-30 with the Farouja (sp?) chip. Does the job admirably.

[edit on 12/23/07 by surfinguru]

[edit on 12/23/07 by surfinguru]




posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarskye
This is exactly why I like coming to ATS.

I just learned more about film, dvd's, vhs, HD and blueray technology just from reading this post. I'm all for HD and blueray.

Just one question though.' Which is better? 1080P or 1080I.


1080P is better than 1080i. However, currently its not that critical since nothing being broadcast via cable, satellite or over-the-air is 1080P. The most currently is 1080i.
The dvd format called 'HD-DVD' is better than the dvd format called 'blueray'.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jedimiller
 


I've perused every single word in your post and I've got only a question for you:

Are you serious?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


Thank You 4thDoctorWhoFan.
I know "P" stand for progressive scan and "I" stands for interlaced or not progressive scan. Just didn't know the which one was better?
But now I do!



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I was on the fence about this for 7 months this year without a TV. (when to buy into this / what to buy)

I purchased a 50 inch Panasonic Plasma 1080 w/ pro settings (just released this September) and a stand-alone Panasonic Blu-Ray player (just released in Nov)

All I can say is: There's no going back.... I pretty much only watch Movies. This setup was worth every penny. Old movies look a trillion times better. (Some better than others, of course)

I am a nitpick for quality, and this was a huge jump for me. I value my time behind the screen, because I don't watch much these days anyway .

I personally think after filming and editing live concerts for 15 years that Blue Ray is the way to fly. HD just does not interest me.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Prime Mover
I purchased a 50 inch Panasonic Plasma 1080 w/ pro settings (just released this September) and a stand-alone Panasonic Blu-Ray player (just released in Nov)
All I can say is: There's no going back....

Same here. I just bought a new 50" panasonic except I decided to go with HD-DVD instead of blueray. I must say that the picture is stunningly beautiful.


I personally think after filming and editing live concerts for 15 years that Blue Ray is the way to fly. HD just does not interest me.

I guess you mean HD-DVD. Why does that not interest you?
I have compared the two extensively and HD-DVD IMO has a slight edge in picture quality.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   
There is one very serious draw back to 1080 and that is porn...no one wants to look at porn at 1080 on a 58 inch plasma screen...no one...



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I just peed a lil


Funny mofo



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
Blue ray is another matter, it reads the blue color from the films and makes it look sharper


Originally posted by jedimiller
Well, I don't know too much about how Blue ray works, But I do remember hearing from my teacher that the blue color is the color that makes the movies look sharper, I haven't done the research for this...


It's a good thing the original poster knows what he's talking about!


[edit on 24-12-2007 by Johnmike]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by Solarskye
This is exactly why I like coming to ATS.

I just learned more about film, dvd's, vhs, HD and blueray technology just from reading this post. I'm all for HD and blueray.

Just one question though.' Which is better? 1080P or 1080I.


1080P is better than 1080i. However, currently its not that critical since nothing being broadcast via cable, satellite or over-the-air is 1080P. The most currently is 1080i.
The dvd format called 'HD-DVD' is better than the dvd format called 'blueray'.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]


I don't understand why hd-dvd would be better, blu-ray has a higher capacity. I think if hd-dvd were cheaper than they could be the better deal if the extra storage isn't needed. I wish they had higher than blu-ray I need 2560x1600 resolution output for my monitor. I've even seen 3000+ pixel monitors that are 24" which look unbelievable because the dot pitch.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by HighDefinitionFilms
With all due respect to Mr Jedi,
as a filmmaker,
I must say you could not be more mistaken...



So legalizer get's 15 stars for calling me a fool? And Highdefinition gets another 15 for debating the subject and including nothing but his own beliefs on digital film. Look, I am all for digital film, but it will never replace real film, never. but I take Highdefinitionfilms comments are somewhat bias, with a username like that.

You guys make good points, but most of you validity comes from comparing the DVD bits with the TV resolutions..and that has absolutely nothing to do with what i'm talking about. I am talking about selling a product as HD film. lets make things clearer, So, I wont get personally attacked anymore. Having taken 5 film courses, I think gives my points more valid? I think so. I am not talking about the HDTV's.


1. lets not label the films as HD films. Lets label then as. "This movie was shot using 35mm film, then it was tranferred into a computer and the grains were filled in with computer pixels". This is not an HD film whatsoever.

2. if the film was shot entirely in HD, like Revenge of the Sith. then we can say. "this film was shot in HD and is meant to be seen in HD"


those should be the rules. Now think about this, you take a photograph from 1980 on film. you scan it on your computer and show it to your friends. is the photo now a digital photograph? no. that's my point. you cannot make an old photo print new and show it off as digital. that's what's happening with film.

you are fooling the viewer and the consumer. when you get that 1980 photograph and make it digital and tell people it's an original digital print you are lying to them. I am a purist.

I am not talking about what HD TV you have and how good it looks. of course it's going to look good, the original film has been violated and transformed into something that's not. so please, let the personal attacks end there.

If George Lucas makes the empire strikes back into an HD film, then those purists better be pissed, because filling in those grains is like painting over the original film and you don't do that to art.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
I really don't notice what the big deal is with HD. I watch HD tv at my sister's while babysitting, and honestly, it looks crappier to me. Trust me, they've got the works. I just don't get it, the whole hype about HD. why spend so much money on killing brain cells while being brainwashed by moving lights on a screen, even if they are better moving light pictures than the last idiot box you had previously?



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Thats it... jedimiller is now officially on my ignore-list. I've seen many threads full of pure c*** here on ATS, but for some reason his threads are always pure nonsense, filled with total bullocks that puts every other thread to shame.

Congratulations my friend, you are the first after several years on that list. In my eyes, you are one of those persons that makes the "alternative/hidden world" one that is looked down upon in the general public.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Wow. People take this stuff to heart. I'm just saving people money here, so they don't have to go out and buy their favorite movies all over again..and in two versions. I already have the movie "The thing" in 3 versions. VHS, DVD collectors edition, DVD special edition. And now I have to get the HD and Blue ray editions because the studios are pushing for it. I don't see why people get so irritated with a subject like this..it's just a film choice and what kind of technology you want to use..I for one prefer film and Tube televisions. Sorry, can't get into all the LCD hype.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   
The assertion is correct that you can't add resolution that wasn't there in the first place. Reminds me of the early days of CDs when a lot of albums were re-released on the new medium to boost sales but they only successfully put 'vinyl' quality on the CDs and it was painfully obvious when you played them after parting with excessive amounts of cash.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The assertion is correct that you can't add resolution that wasn't there in the first place. Reminds me of the early days of CDs when a lot of albums were re-released on the new medium to boost sales but they only successfully put 'vinyl' quality on the CDs and it was painfully obvious when you played them after parting with excessive amounts of cash.




Thank you pilgrim...that's what I been trying to say, but the techies don't get where i'm coming from. I gave you a star for that wonderful post.


saying that, I just purchased the depeche mode remastered CD's. lol. they are basically cleaned up and filled in with sound to make them sound better on CD. but of course I know that they never sounded that good to begin with, so it's a fraud. but I got them anyways, because I love depeche mode.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller

Originally posted by HighDefinitionFilms
With all due respect to Mr Jedi,
as a filmmaker,
I must say you could not be more mistaken...
I am not talking about what HD TV you have and how good it looks. of course it's going to look good, the original film has been violated and transformed into something that's not. so please, let the personal attacks end there.


Now that you've shifted your arguments and topic...

What medium do you recommend the consumer to use to view movies?

The digital transfers nowadays are amazing, and the High-def DVD's available to us are amazing in quality, more often capable of of offering a better viewing experience at home than in a commercial theater.

These HD DVD's and Blu-ray discs are in fact "high definition". There is no scam involved. No one is forcing you to switch to the format. No one is forcing you to buy the VHS, DVD, Blu-ray AND/or HDDVD.

Don't think you're an elitist just because you're in film school. And stop believing everything your teacher tells you.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bizone

What medium do you recommend the consumer to use to view movies?



No more digital transfers to make things good. I call that cheating.


1.Movies that are digitally shot using HD cameras-Should be viewed at theaters with HD digital projectors..and at home with HDDVD.


2.Movies that are filmed using traditional film-should be viewed at a movie theater using a conventional film projector..and the same at home. if possible.


3. movies that use DV tapes. Digital video or some other people think they are high definition magnetic tape. bogus really. those movies should be viewed on computers, TV's and other cheaptype media, like GB or other type MP4 media.

But it must be labeled as such.

[edit on 24-12-2007 by jedimiller]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I indeed support that, atleast from a stillphotography point of view. I don't know much about live film.

You could probably interpolate movies like still images? And if you do it right you could make it look nice and ofcourse add to it the better technology nowadays in retouching etc. you can ofcourse make Bladerunner look much nicer and more "HD" like.
But I bet if you compare it up close with a movie shot in HD you could still see the difference couldn't you?

After having said that, who really cares. It's how it looks on the screen, what you are receiving that counts and not how you made it look like that.


All I know about digi in this day and age is that retouchers hate high resolution imagery
the amount of detail in images nowadays are giving them so much more work for absolutely no reason, hehe.
A retoucher I freelance for once and a while says where she could do 5-7 images a day before the dawn of digi, she can now do 2-3 images.
As a photographer I can see her point of view but man I love that you can actually see the little tiny hairs on a model's cheeks



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by flice
you can ofcourse make Bladerunner look much nicer and more "HD" like.
But I bet if you compare it up close with a movie shot in HD you could still see the difference couldn't you?



Good point. you could try to make blade runner look like HD..and trust me they have..they are selling an HD, blue ray version for 100 each. But of course I know it's not really HD. it's all fake. and a rip off if you ask me. because people are ignorant on the subject.

and you could tell the difference..if blade runner was shot entirely with sony hd cams..you could absolutely without a doubt, know it's HD.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join