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

while I disagree with OP and highly doubt that 95% of film and tv is shot with film (there are digital recorders), I will agree that blueray and HD are scams, but because of price. Both are just a new form of compression, encryption, and equipment. There is no reason why you should have to pay double the cost for the movies when, to my knowledge, no significant increase in labor or part cost is required to produce blueray or HD movies or their packaging.

Originally posted by avingard
There is no reason why you should have to pay double the cost for the movies when, to my knowledge, no significant increase in labor or part cost is required to produce blueray or HD movies or their packaging.

Well, thats not entirely correct.
The initial production costs for making blueray disks is extemely expensive because in order to make them the manufacturer must re-tool and buy all new equipment. The current tooling will not work regarding making blueray disks. However, another advantage to HD-DVD is that manufacturers can use their existing tooling & machinery to produce a HD-DVD.

Besides, new technology is always more expensive. This is how they make their money plus don't forget all the R&D costs that were involved. Every year the costs will decrease.

Even beyond HD, some films are being shot passed HD resolutions. As well as being presented in Sony theaters so far, with the 4k projectors....

4520 X 2540 pixels

Record 2540 progressive at up to 60 fps RAW. With 4520 X 2540 pixels, Mysterium™ puts pure digital Ultra-High Def in the palm of your hand.

RED ONE™ and REDCINE™ also support down-sampling to 1080p and 720p for in-field monitoring and compatibility with non-linear editors.

You get the same breathtaking field of view and selective focus found on film cameras. Mysterium™ boasts a greater than 66db Signal to Noise Ratio thanks to its large 29 sq. micron pixels. And 12,065,000 pixels deliver resolution that can only be called Ultra High Definition.

www.Red.com

Off topic but I actually read something that there really is no more format war, In Japan BlueRay has already been accepted over HD-DVD, it just hasn't hit the states yet. Which is fine by me the size capability difference between BlueRay and HD-DVD are vastly different. BlueRay wins in my vote.

Blu-ray offers storage up to 50GB capacity, or up to nine hours of high-definition content. In contrast, HD-DVD has 30GB capacity and is supported by ...

Sony is developing 200GB Blu-ray storage

So in the future of DVD's and movies, they no longer have to be compressed to fit on a dual layer DVD and the audio is a much higher bitrate as well.

Things are just getting better and better.



[edit on 27-12-2007 by porschedrifter]

Originally posted by avingard
while I disagree with OP and highly doubt that 95% of film and tv is shot with film (there are digital recorders), I will agree that blueray and HD are scams, but because of price. Both are just a new form of compression, encryption, and equipment. There is no reason why you should have to pay double the cost for the movies when, to my knowledge, no significant increase in labor or part cost is required to produce blueray or HD movies or their packaging.

Except that it costs money to develop...

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
What do you do for a living?

Would you appreciate not being paid for it?

I rest my case.

I know this question isn't directed at me, but I'll chime in. I work in music, tv and movies. Anything from music you hear in cartoons, documentaries, video games, etc. Shows on VH1, MTV, etc. Movies with various studios I won't mention for obvious reasons.

I get paid for everything. In fact, I don't know of a single person involved in the entire process of making a final product that doesn't get paid first, other than the investors.

The writers get paid when they sell the script to the studio (or when they sell rights to lyrics for a recording). Actors get paid to be in the movie, not after it's made. I'll just restate that - everyone involved, other than investors - gets paid first, then goes to work. This is just how it is done in the business.

As for musicians, they get paid from live shows and merchandising, not album sales. In fact, Radiohead is the only group that has any sense of direction these days, offering their album for sale direct via download. Inspectah Deck of the Wu-Tang clan announced similar plans. Hopefully more artists follow suit. In that case, I would be confident my purchase is going to the artist.

What he meant is that bootleggers should be punished. And they should be.

Heh, such a ridiculous comment. There are real crimes out there people could be punished for. Unfortunately, that's the kind of stuff we deal with in this day and age.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by scientist]

Originally posted by jedimiller

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks

Blue ray is just a storage method, and is called as such because there is a blue laser involved. And if you were going to make any colour look sharper, it would be green, because the human eye is most sensitive to that colour.

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, but you could be right. However, if you have a blue ray, why would it read green color? I think the idea of BR is to capture the blue tones and make them sharper..

How on earth can you make any comment about a technology being valid or not if you don't know how it works?!?!

The blue laser has a shorter wavelength than a red laser. This allows more data to be stored on a disk. The "sharpness" of the image has as much to do with the colour of the laser as petrol does to the grip of a car tyre!

Hi def as all about pixels per frame, Now this DOES have something to do with sharpness. The more pixels the potentially sharper image. I say potentially since if the original image (however its recorded) has a lower resolution than HD than you don't gain anything.

However, film has a far higher resolution than digital. For example at the moment you would need a 20Mb digital frame to reproduce a 35mm celluloid frame. A HD "digitial frame" is about a tenth of that!!!!! This means that HD does indeed provide a clearer picture but is falls way way short of what is possible from the original celluloid.

What this means is that we still have room for HD+, HD++, Super High HD etc etc before we get close to the resolution recorded on film.

reply to post by scientist

Oh no, of course, God forbid we should punish people for theft.

You make a fine argument to morally justify what you do, but that’s all it is; moral justification. It is still theft, and it is still hurting someone, and it is still wrong.

reply to post by malcr

Yeah. How easily we forget that film is made to look good on a 30-foot-wide screen. Consumer media only has to look good on a 60-INCH-wide screen.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by MurderSmurf]

One of the reasons they are promoting HD is simply because TFT LCD tv's are all the rage and frankly they suck at SD. You need HD just to get a decent picture on them. Plus LCD's also have a limited viewing angle. I got a 19" TFT LCD for xmas as my old 14" Sony Wega CRT TV portable which I've had for 10 years is on it's way out. It's supposed to be a good TFT in regards to all the good reviews it got. Anyway, after setting up my TFT, all I can say is that CRT's rule. LCD picture Quality is laughable in comparison. I tried analogue tv first and the picture quality was horrendous. I then tried freeview digital and the picture was still blurry and pixelated. I also tried a dvd and that wasn't any better either. My Sony Wega CRT excels at all three. There's no competition. This TFT LCD TV is going back to the shop and I'll shall shop around for a new CRT TV instead. LCD TV'S seem more like a step backwards in terms of picture quality. Anyone thinking of buying a new TV is better off buying a CRT TV or a plasma TV if you have deep pockets.

As for blu-ray, the price is a complete rip off and doesn't justify the slightly better picture and storage space. No way am I splashing out £500. I'll wait until there around £50 before I consider buying one.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.lcdtvbuyingguide.com...




[edit on 27-12-2007 by kindred]

I havent got an LCD Tv but my LCD computer monitor is light years ahead of my old CRT one.

Id never but another CRT TV or monitor again.

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Oh no, of course, God forbid we should punish people for theft.

You make a fine argument to morally justify what you do, but that’s all it is; moral justification. It is still theft, and it is still hurting someone, and it is still wrong.

Its not theft, copying something is not stealing, despite what the corps try to brainwash people into thinking.

Ironically the laws in the US are so screwed that a person is better off getting caught stealing a DVD from a shop (taking away someones property) than downloading the same film (affecting no one).

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
What do you do for a living?

Would you appreciate not being paid for it?

I rest my case.

Its none of you business what I do for a living.

You seem to miss the fact that downloaders buy more than people who dont download. Theres no negative effect at all.

Let me guess, you probably think 1 download = 1 lost sale too?

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
reply to post by scientist

 

Oh no, of course, God forbid we should punish people for theft.

You make a fine argument to morally justify what you do, but that’s all it is; moral justification. It is still theft, and it is still hurting someone, and it is still wrong.

ironically, no. You are the one trying to morally justify why it's wrong. I'm not justifying anything. I am telling you how the business works. You seemed to imply that artists don't get paid because people download movies and music. It couldn't be farther from the truth.

Originally posted by Flyer
Ironically the laws in the US are so screwed that a person is better off getting caught stealing a DVD from a shop (taking away someones property) than downloading the same film (affecting no one).

actually, to be more accurate - it's only risky to use P2P methods which require you to upload files, in order to download. (e.g. torrents). Using methods where you only download, and never upload or give out the files to anyone else are extremely safe. (such as newsgroups, rapidshare, ftp, etc.)

[edit on 27-12-2007 by scientist]

I dont know how any of it works and frankly most consumers dont care at all. We want what looks and sounds the best.

Blueray > DVD
HD DvD > DVD

So based upon that, My blueray movies are way better than watching dvd. I paid extra for it to look better. So yep thats why.

Its not a scam at all. The prices may be expensive but hey thats life.

lol @ trying to start an argument

Originally posted by j stuff
I dont know how any of it works and frankly most consumers dont care at all. We want what looks and sounds the best.

Blueray > DVD
HD DvD > DVD

lol @ trying to start an argument

Except if your criteria is really what looks and sounds the best then:

HD-DVD > Blueray

Originally posted by kindred
One of the reasons they are promoting HD is simply because TFT LCD tv's are all the rage and frankly they suck at SD. You need HD just to get a decent picture on them.

The fact that LCDs have more effective pixels on them than CRTs cannot possibly mean that the LCD pic is bound to be worse in SD. It clearly depends on the hardware and software that's interpolating pixels to build a frame. It's an art. Oftentimes, I get a very good result displaying native NTCS on my 1080p LCD screen, and the 480i digital one is always quite decent. HD, of course, looks even better but it's beside the point. I think your point is moot.

Anyway, after setting up my TFT, all I can say is that CRT's rule. LCD picture Quality is laughable in comparison. I tried analogue tv first and the picture quality was horrendous. I then tried freeview digital and the picture was still blurry and pixelated.

It depends on the product. My experience, fortunately, was very different from yours. By the way, some TVs have different settings for the on-air programs and cable, so you my try to do that.

LCD TV'S seem more like a step backwards in terms of picture quality.

????????

Try Sony Bravia and call me in the morning.

No matter what you buy it's outdated by the time you get it home.

What happened to those holographic discs that were mentioned at the end of 2006. Still no sign of them.

Holographic Rival to Blu-ray, HD-DVD
www.techtree.com...
www.inphase-technologies.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Well I haven't seen what a Sony Bravia is like, but I have two TFT LCD's. A Benq computer monitor and a Tenco TV. My Benq definitely has the better picture between the two, but neither are as good as my Sony Wega CRT.

[edit on 27-12-2007 by kindred]

Originally posted by kindred
No matter what you buy it's outdated by the time you get it home.

Oh come on, all previous technologies had pretty good runs, from the infamous compact cassette to VHS to CDs to DVDs. The cycle is pretty decent. It's partially defined by the price point: people started to buy DVD players en masse only when the price went below $700, and same applies to the new formats. The 1080p is a qualitative jump as compared to perious pixel densities, and it'll last me a while. I still have my 10-year old Trinitron which is still a very good TV, just not as good as my 1080p Bravia.

Originally posted by kindred
I have two TFT LCD's. A Benq computer monitor and a Tenco TV.

There is your problem right there....Tenco?? Never heard of Tenco. You know the old saying, "you get what you pay for".

reply to post by jedimiller


5 film classes huh?

Please let me know when you make it to LA, 'cause you're gonna be an absolute BLAST to be around on set.

Here's some advice; Listen more and talk less.
If this is your planned profession please be aware that the people you will eventually
work for/with have forgotten more film knowledge than you (or I) will ever know.
Humility will get you much further than ranting about what you learned in film school.