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

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I really thought Close Encounters on Blu-Ray looked impressive compared to the DVD.

I don't know jack about converting film to digital, but I'm sure there are much better optics, processing and hardware these days to convert them.




posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

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.

Not true. SD just sucks for them, because it’s low-resolution and interlaced. So depending on how the TV handles it, you either something vaguely resembling 240p at 60fps, or an ugly blended 480p at 30fps. Some sets have better electronics than others.



Plus LCD's also have a limited viewing angle.

Right, but that doesn’t really say anything on the subject at hand.



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.

That isn’t sound advice.

Like I alluded to above, some sets just upsample SD better than others. Saying that LCDs suck at SD because of how an LCD you tried out performed is not very fair.



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.

You and everybody else.
Like DVD before them, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are going to get cheaper over the next couple of years.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I dont understand this at all

original film cannot be converted to HD unless it is recorded in HD?

for starters, it is my understanding that pretty much all film since the 70s or 80's has been larger than the screen intended to be viewed from by a long shot. cameras shoot in mosiac, no screen produces mosaic pictures, so it had to be scaled just to go to vhs.

I dont know, but what i am going to do is ask MAX420. If none of you know who that is then you have not researched your HD enough. MovieCentral listens to him, i suggest you do to, because video capturing and encoding is something not to many people know a whole lot about.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

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.

Not only do you not care what you’re paid for your work, but you don’t want to take credit for it either. Hallmarks of a nobility.




You seem to miss the fact that downloaders buy more than people who dont download.

Oh, that’s a fact, is it?

Where did you glean that “fact”?



Theres no negative effect at all.

There are significant negative repurcussions. Let’s start with the industry implementing more and more copy-protection on their media, which hurts innocent people when it renders said media unplayable on their equipment, or worse yet, drives their equipment to an early death.



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

Obviously not, but obviously very often someone may have bought a DVD or CD if they couldn’t find a downloadable copy.


Originally posted by scientist
You are the one trying to morally justify why it's wrong.

Wanting actors to make money from their work is wrong?
Or is it wanting studios to make money from their investment is wrong?



You seemed to imply that artists don't get paid because people download movies and music.

While it isn’t directly true, indirectly it is. The studios don’t have bottomless pockets. Bootlegging hurts them, and it trickles down to the artists.



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

Stuff takes a long time to get from the lab bench to the store shelf.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tom goose
I dont understand this at all

original film cannot be converted to HD unless it is recorded in HD?

for starters, it is my understanding that pretty much all film since the 70s or 80's has been larger than the screen intended to be viewed from by a long shot. cameras shoot in mosiac, no screen produces mosaic pictures, so it had to be scaled just to go to vhs.

That’s not quite it. I don’t know about this “mosaic” business.

Basically, movies’ original recordings are done on celluloid film. VHS copies of said film are limited to 240 lines of vertical resolution, and to whatever horizontal resolution the production companies and the VCRs and the TV sets are capable of handling. So this is where the celluloid has to be scaled down to 240 × some ambiguous analog resolution which is almost certainly lower than that of the original celluloid.

Jedi has a couple of problems. The most immediate one here is not having a definition of what “HD” is.

But HD does have a pretty specific definition. “HD” means a higher resolution than old 480-line CRT TVs.
So as long as a recording wasn’t originally mastered for TV or on TV equipment, you can call it HD almost regardless of its origin.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by MurderSmurf]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tom goose
 


tom, you are correct, correct and correct. Film is shot at a resolution that even surpasses HD... in it's own way. This is like debating digital audio vs analog audio with audiophiles.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MurderSmurf
 



So are you saying that is long as they still have the original film captured by high end studio cameras, (technology probably ranged over the decades) then you can release it in 720 or 1080, but you cant convert an actual vhs tape into a true 720 or 1080?

while i was typing this i talked to a friend who is very informed on this subject. all 35mm is capable of 720 and all the way to 4000 or even better. so anything filmed in 35mm can be scanned to a high enough resolution.

the Op is right that old, old films cannot get the HD scan, but lets be real here, they are going to get a major upgrade from a technology, that anyone who is familiar with will not be here much longer.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Freezer
 


HD-DVD is not better. As a matter of fact blu-ray has more storage capacity, higher resolution and not to mention that it's killing HD-DVD in sales. Blu-ray will become the new standard format IMO.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reviews.cnet.com...

Looks like blu-ray wins.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone

HD-DVD is not better. As a matter of fact blu-ray has more storage capacity, higher resolution and not to mention that it's killing HD-DVD in sales. Blu-ray will become the new standard format IMO.

Specs dont mean a thing, Beta killed VHS in quality but VHS still won over.

Price, availability, DRM, price of DVDs and the support of studios to one type or the other will have a much bigger effect than any minimal differences in quality.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
HD-DVD is not better.

Yes it is.


As a matter of fact blu-ray has more storage capacity, higher resolution and not to mention that it's killing HD-DVD in sales.

While it does have more storage capacity, higher resolution is not correct. In fact, higher resolution makes no sense in your argument because they both can produce the same resolutions. Also, your statement regarding sales is skewed also. Bluray is NOT killing HD-DVD sales. Here is a fact for you: HD DVD players now constitute 60 percent of all standalone high-definition players sold.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
reviews.cnet.com...

Looks like blu-ray wins.


No, it looks like its still undecided and HD-DVD is winning here in the U.S.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Specs dont mean a thing, Beta killed VHS in quality but VHS still won over.

Price, availability, DRM, price of DVDs and the support of studios to one type or the other will have a much bigger effect than any minimal differences in quality.


Excellent points!

It will be a few more years probably before we know who wins this battle.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   
You guys are delusional. Look at the base blu-ray has with the millions upon millions of Ps3 owners out there. I can attest to this as many of my friends use blu-ray because of their ps3.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Oh, that’s a fact, is it?

Where did you glean that “fact”?


From the BBC

news.bbc.co.uk...

Market research company Music Programming Ltd (MPL) said 87% of its respondents who downloaded music admitted they bought albums after hearing tracks through the internet.

Originally posted by MurderSmurf

There are significant negative repurcussions. Let’s start with the industry implementing more and more copy-protection on their media, which hurts innocent people when it renders said media unplayable on their equipment, or worse yet, drives their equipment to an early death.

Thats the industry doing that, not the file sharers, in fact, DRM just drives people to get cracked copies of everything.


Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Obviously not, but obviously very often someone may have bought a DVD or CD if they couldn’t find a downloadable copy.


Quite the opposite, people buy the music after they have sampled it for free


Originally posted by scientist

While it isn’t directly true, indirectly it is. The studios don’t have bottomless pockets. Bootlegging hurts them, and it trickles down to the artists.

Not really, artists make most of their money by touring and hardly get anything from cd sales unless they are Britney or Madonna and they arent hurting for cash.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
No, it looks like its still undecided and HD-DVD is winning here in the U.S.

In terms of quality, no, Blu-Ray seems to blow HD-DVD out of the water.

Now other issues, I didn't say anything about.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
YBluray is NOT killing HD-DVD sales. Here is a fact for you: HD DVD players now constitute 60 percent of all standalone high-definition players sold.



Pfft. Blu-ray outselling HD-DVD

So much for your so called "fact."


Antother more recent report: macdailynews.com...

[edit on 29-12-2007 by thehumbleone]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by scientist

While it isn’t directly true, indirectly it is. The studios don’t have bottomless pockets. Bootlegging hurts them, and it trickles down to the artists.

Not really, artists make most of their money by touring and hardly get anything from cd sales unless they are Britney or Madonna and they arent hurting for cash.


just wanted to point out, I never said that.


perhaps you quoted someone else and used my name by mistake...

[edit on 29-12-2007 by scientist]



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
You guys are delusional. Look at the base blu-ray has with the millions upon millions of Ps3 owners out there. I can attest to this as many of my friends use blu-ray because of their ps3.

Sorry but you must be the delusional one since you forgot about all the X-box consoles which use HD-DVD.



posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
No, it looks like its still undecided and HD-DVD is winning here in the U.S.

In terms of quality, no, Blu-Ray seems to blow HD-DVD out of the water.

Now other issues, I didn't say anything about.


I'm not sure what you mean by quality but most professional reviews say that HD-DVD has slighty better picture quality.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join