So confused... HD-DVD or Blu-ray??
Umm... he did. He used quite a lot of "layman's terms" in that post, in fact. If you still can't understand the advantages of Blu-ray, may I suggest reading the DVD Review article that I posted earlier?memnv wrote:Now say it all in english Deathie
Otherwise... well, if you can do no better than to post glib, single-sentence responses to another person's sincere attempt at education, then I guess you're just gonna... miss out on the opportunity.
To say the least.
It's all very interesting Deathie. I always thought Beta was better than VHS and I have vague memories of Betamax. Anyhow, people always said VHS was terrible for red, with lots of colour bleed which I was always led to understand didn't happen on Beta. Perhaps I just fell for the evil Sony marketing machine! (At least I didn't fall for their so-called 'Emotion Engine' hype on the PS2 ).
Of course the main reason for the format war is that the exiting DVD format rights holders (which includes AOL-Time Warner) don't want to loose their steady income from licence fees. At the moment every DVD player has to pay a licence, as does every disc pressed.
(Well, technically if players are backwards compatible, they will still have to pay a licence fee, but the current DVD forum will loose any new licence income.)
So that explains why Warner Bros/New Line don't want to support Blu-Ray. I can't think of a reason for Paramout's lack of support, unless Viacom are involved in the creation of the current DVD technology some how. I don't really know, but they're unlikely to go down without a fight.
Frankly, I'm amazed, and always have been, that Warner didn't buy MGM. Especially as Warner already own 98+% of MGM's pre-1986 output, and the purchase would give them the biggest film library and a big negotiating block when it came to the new format.
We know why Sony bought MGM - to help push Blu-Ray and UMD, there really was no other reason. It's a shame, because Warner at least seem to have some respect for film, based on their excellent "classic collections" being released now.
Whatever the outcome, I expect take up to be much, much slower than the take-up of DVD. For various reasons.
).Of course the main reason for the format war is that the exiting DVD format rights holders (which includes AOL-Time Warner) don't want to loose their steady income from licence fees. At the moment every DVD player has to pay a licence, as does every disc pressed.
(Well, technically if players are backwards compatible, they will still have to pay a licence fee, but the current DVD forum will loose any new licence income.)
So that explains why Warner Bros/New Line don't want to support Blu-Ray. I can't think of a reason for Paramout's lack of support, unless Viacom are involved in the creation of the current DVD technology some how. I don't really know, but they're unlikely to go down without a fight.
Frankly, I'm amazed, and always have been, that Warner didn't buy MGM. Especially as Warner already own 98+% of MGM's pre-1986 output, and the purchase would give them the biggest film library and a big negotiating block when it came to the new format.
We know why Sony bought MGM - to help push Blu-Ray and UMD, there really was no other reason. It's a shame, because Warner at least seem to have some respect for film, based on their excellent "classic collections" being released now.
Whatever the outcome, I expect take up to be much, much slower than the take-up of DVD. For various reasons.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
TM2-Megatron
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:51 pm
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I don't know the reason for it; but their support of HD-DVD doesn't suprise me. Their DVD releases over the past years have proven to me that Paramount knows absolutely nothing about what consumers want, or how to produce decent DVDs. Their craptacular single-disc feature-less DVDs (not to mention selling Star Trek TV shows at $150 per season) is all outrageous.2099net wrote:I can't think of a reason for Paramout's lack of support, unless Viacom are involved in the creation of the current DVD technology some how. I don't really know, but they're unlikely to go down without a fight.
Personally, the smallest percentage of my DVD collection is from Paramount. All I have are the first 8 Star Trek movies (the ones that've had 2-disc releases so far) and the first season of The Brady Bunch. It took me long enough even to get the Trek movies that I do have, given that Paramount released single-disc editions of all of them except Nemesis and The Motion Picture.
Most of my DVDs are from 20th/30th Century FOX, Disney, Universal, New Line, Criterion and a few other small studios. It's too bad about New Line and Universal; but I guess that just means I'll have to wait on buying Blu-Rays of stuff like Gladiator, Lord of the Rings or the Monty Python movies.
They wanted to; weren't they competing with Sony to buy it? Sony won, obviously.Frankly, I'm amazed, and always have been, that Warner didn't buy MGM. Especially as Warner already own 98+% of MGM's pre-1986 output, and the purchase would give them the biggest film library and a big negotiating block when it came to the new format.
In a way, I'm glad Sony beat out WB. MGM's catalogue will give Blu-Ray another boost; though it likely won't need anymore help. Besides, I'm still trying to forgive WB for sticking with those horrible cardboard DVD cases for so long....It's a shame, because Warner at least seem to have some respect for film, based on their excellent "classic collections" being released now....
-
Hogi Bear
- Special Edition
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:36 am
- Location: New Zealand - Population: 60+ Million Sheep Origin: Unknown
Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread properly, so I may have missed a few things.
One good thing about the MGM buy from Sony is that they said they would not integrate it into their own studio, but leave it as an independant operation, so hopefully it stays that way.
Blu-ray may have a better chance of becoming the main standard, because the Playstation 3 Blu-ray compatibility in 1080p resolution.
Another thing is the fact that a Blu-ray/DVD disc has actually been developed, and it's single sided: what happens is that when the disc is put in a normal DVD player, the blu-ray layers (which are .1 mm from the surface of the disc) are designed to be undetected by the red laser and therefore just the DVD layers are recognised by the DVD player.
There has also been a solution (coating) developed that can be sprayed on the Blu-ray discs to make them more durable, which may also make them more durable than HD-DVD (?).
You may ask what's the point of going to the Cinema now? 4k Digital Projectors would probably be the answer, with a resolution of 2160 x 4096, that's four times the resolution of what you see currently at your local cinema (I think).
One other thing is studios do want to move to a new format, why? DVD sales have peaked and have even slightly dropped, which means a new format equals more money for the future, that's why Sony intially developed the Blu-ray format (and the UMD format) and also due to royalities that they will also get paid.
I actually though Sony had developed an 8 layer (200 GB) blu-ray disc last year (maybe it was in development). They also, from what I understand, own the multi-layer patent used with Blu-ray.
One good thing about the MGM buy from Sony is that they said they would not integrate it into their own studio, but leave it as an independant operation, so hopefully it stays that way.
Blu-ray may have a better chance of becoming the main standard, because the Playstation 3 Blu-ray compatibility in 1080p resolution.
Another thing is the fact that a Blu-ray/DVD disc has actually been developed, and it's single sided: what happens is that when the disc is put in a normal DVD player, the blu-ray layers (which are .1 mm from the surface of the disc) are designed to be undetected by the red laser and therefore just the DVD layers are recognised by the DVD player.
There has also been a solution (coating) developed that can be sprayed on the Blu-ray discs to make them more durable, which may also make them more durable than HD-DVD (?).
You may ask what's the point of going to the Cinema now? 4k Digital Projectors would probably be the answer, with a resolution of 2160 x 4096, that's four times the resolution of what you see currently at your local cinema (I think).
One other thing is studios do want to move to a new format, why? DVD sales have peaked and have even slightly dropped, which means a new format equals more money for the future, that's why Sony intially developed the Blu-ray format (and the UMD format) and also due to royalities that they will also get paid.
I actually though Sony had developed an 8 layer (200 GB) blu-ray disc last year (maybe it was in development). They also, from what I understand, own the multi-layer patent used with Blu-ray.
No signature needed - Kyoto Animation put out some beautiful animation
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
in which dethi uses his film calcusabre with glee yet again
n69n, well yeah one might think that and be paralized. But remember even if high definition discs would be launched today (instead of next spring 
) it will take a lot of time for everything to be re-released if ever, so if you really want something really badly and meritorious you could buy it and enjoy it now, no? Also here's a dethi hint: Things shot or edited on NTSC videotape for which there doesn't exist a film master can be bought relatively safely cus when re-released on high definition it would be just upconverted so there wouldt really be much improvement in those particular cases (480 NTSC lines are always gonna be 480 NTSC lines even if you uprez it), so things like live concerts (those pre-HDTV) or the TV series that were NTSC videotape mastered (i'd think if Buffy first seasons and Star Trek The Next Generation as examples) (unless they bring down the house and redid them on film or HDTV if they still have all the negatives) could be relatively safe purchases
Is dethi buying 50 dvds a week these days? only his hairdresser knows for sure.
Now to Hogi Bear's words and numbers
*rubs hands like dethi fly
I corrected your 4K projector resolution figures cus 22,000 x 44,000 pixels is like UltraVioletSuperDuperTripleIMAX!
I mean numbers were off by 10x which in area is 100 times more detail
2160 x 4096 are the correct numbers
Now what's film resolution you wonder?
Well since film area is measured in mm, using a common rough figure of 70 cycles recorded per every millimeter in a negative.. (1 c/mm is at least 2 pixels/mm),
let's do sizes in rough order of increasing image quality (i'll round them a little for clarity):
2.40 Super-35 neg = 1400 x 3400
1.85 Widescreen neg = 1600 x 3000
1.375 Academy neg = 2160 x 3000
2.40 Cinemascope neg = 2500 x 3000 (or if you want a de-anamorphisized equivalent: 1750 x 4250)
2.20 70mm neg = 3000 x 6600
Now that would be roughly about the maximum recorded in THE negatives..
But we don't watch negatives on theaters, we watch prints made from internegatives made from interpositives made from negatives projected through a lens in a mechanixcal vibrating horse (a Projector) so the actual resolution on a typical average projection, the water flowing out,
is much less:
2.40 Super-35 projection = 800 x 1920*
1.85 Widescreen projection = 900 x 1700
1.375 Academy projection = 1200 x 1700
2.40 Cinemascope projection = 1400 x 1700 (or if you want a de-anamorphisized equivalent: 1000 x 2400)
2.20 70mm projection = 1750 x 3840
Now, there are several other factors that affect image clarity besides resolution (which is detail or frequency).
Like contrast modulation (amplitude of the diference beteween the lines visible: a dark grey/light grey pair of lines (or pixels) is much less visible than a totally contrasty black and white pair, and film resolution limits or boundaries are usually the faint greysh kind while digital pixels tend to be on the hard edged contrasty kind so they tend to look sharper all else being equal).
Also lack of graininess (noise) etc affect quality and clarity.
If you're reading betwen the lines you'll see that 1080 x 1920 if done optimally can rival or surpass many film formats.
2160 x 4096 Projection is probably good enough to represent even 70mm and be archival. (and Hogi Bear's 4x estimate of resolution was right
)
btw dethi kRaZy studies peg the practical limit of the eye at around 2000 pixels per image height so presenting anything better than about 2000 vertical lines would probably be unescesary
I think Beauty and the Beast in 1080 x 1920 Blu-ray will look gorgeu-serrr (Get a cave!)
*due to the way anamorphic prints work, if extra care (i.e. superduper digital intermediates with enough resolution) is used Super-35 films could theoretically look almost like true Scope ones in projection too, but grainier.
) it will take a lot of time for everything to be re-released if ever, so if you really want something really badly and meritorious you could buy it and enjoy it now, no? Also here's a dethi hint: Things shot or edited on NTSC videotape for which there doesn't exist a film master can be bought relatively safely cus when re-released on high definition it would be just upconverted so there wouldt really be much improvement in those particular cases (480 NTSC lines are always gonna be 480 NTSC lines even if you uprez it), so things like live concerts (those pre-HDTV) or the TV series that were NTSC videotape mastered (i'd think if Buffy first seasons and Star Trek The Next Generation as examples) (unless they bring down the house and redid them on film or HDTV if they still have all the negatives) could be relatively safe purchases Is dethi buying 50 dvds a week these days? only his hairdresser knows for sure.
Now to Hogi Bear's words and numbers
*rubs hands like dethi fly
I corrected your 4K projector resolution figures cus 22,000 x 44,000 pixels is like UltraVioletSuperDuperTripleIMAX!
I mean numbers were off by 10x which in area is 100 times more detail 2160 x 4096 are the correct numbers
Now what's film resolution you wonder?
Well since film area is measured in mm, using a common rough figure of 70 cycles recorded per every millimeter in a negative.. (1 c/mm is at least 2 pixels/mm),
let's do sizes in rough order of increasing image quality (i'll round them a little for clarity):
2.40 Super-35 neg = 1400 x 3400
1.85 Widescreen neg = 1600 x 3000
1.375 Academy neg = 2160 x 3000
2.40 Cinemascope neg = 2500 x 3000 (or if you want a de-anamorphisized equivalent: 1750 x 4250)
2.20 70mm neg = 3000 x 6600
Now that would be roughly about the maximum recorded in THE negatives..
But we don't watch negatives on theaters, we watch prints made from internegatives made from interpositives made from negatives projected through a lens in a mechanixcal vibrating horse (a Projector) so the actual resolution on a typical average projection, the water flowing out,
is much less:
2.40 Super-35 projection = 800 x 1920*
1.85 Widescreen projection = 900 x 1700
1.375 Academy projection = 1200 x 1700
2.40 Cinemascope projection = 1400 x 1700 (or if you want a de-anamorphisized equivalent: 1000 x 2400)
2.20 70mm projection = 1750 x 3840
Now, there are several other factors that affect image clarity besides resolution (which is detail or frequency).
Like contrast modulation (amplitude of the diference beteween the lines visible: a dark grey/light grey pair of lines (or pixels) is much less visible than a totally contrasty black and white pair, and film resolution limits or boundaries are usually the faint greysh kind while digital pixels tend to be on the hard edged contrasty kind so they tend to look sharper all else being equal).
Also lack of graininess (noise) etc affect quality and clarity.
If you're reading betwen the lines you'll see that 1080 x 1920 if done optimally can rival or surpass many film formats.
2160 x 4096 Projection is probably good enough to represent even 70mm and be archival. (and Hogi Bear's 4x estimate of resolution was right
)btw dethi kRaZy studies peg the practical limit of the eye at around 2000 pixels per image height so presenting anything better than about 2000 vertical lines would probably be unescesary
I think Beauty and the Beast in 1080 x 1920 Blu-ray will look gorgeu-serrr (Get a cave!)
*due to the way anamorphic prints work, if extra care (i.e. superduper digital intermediates with enough resolution) is used Super-35 films could theoretically look almost like true Scope ones in projection too, but grainier.
-
Hogi Bear
- Special Edition
- Posts: 606
- Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:36 am
- Location: New Zealand - Population: 60+ Million Sheep Origin: Unknown
Thanks for the correction deathie, added one too many zeros and was not quite on the figure with the extra digits taken off either (should've done my research, but got lazy 
). I've been spending too much time in my cave.
). I've been spending too much time in my cave.Oh yeah, just thinking about that, you'd have to double the height and width of the cinema rooms to accommodate for the screens (depending on how much regarding the limit of the human eye).deathie mouse wrote:btw dethi kRaZy studies peg the practical limit of the eye at around 2000 pixels per image height so presenting anything better than about 2000 vertical lines would probably be unescesary
No signature needed - Kyoto Animation put out some beautiful animation
-
Mr. Toad
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4360
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:49 pm
- Location: Victoria, BC
- Contact:
Paramount announced today they will support both formats according to digitalbits.com
Warner and Universal are expected to follow suit. The big hang up is that those that do not go Blu-Ray get locked out ofthe PS3 market.
What do you all think now? Will the war be over before it starts. What chance does HDDVD stand?
Warner and Universal are expected to follow suit. The big hang up is that those that do not go Blu-Ray get locked out ofthe PS3 market.
What do you all think now? Will the war be over before it starts. What chance does HDDVD stand?
-
Mr. Toad
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4360
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:49 pm
- Location: Victoria, BC
- Contact:
According to Business Week, Warner will be supporting Blu-ray as well as HD-DVD. Universal, is now the only hold out for HD-DVD only. Meanwhile, there are several moive houses with Blu-ray only. Me thinks Blu-ray will be the winner, and this is a good thing. The better format has lost the war too many times. eg Beta vs VHS.
-
deathie mouse
- Ultraviolet Edition
- Posts: 1391
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:12 am
- Location: Alea jacta est
what do i think?
yay! yipeee! whahooooo!
thanks for the good news Mr.Toad!
since 9.5 out of 10 releases right now will be on Blu-ray, Universal will surely release in Blu-ray too. They won't be the only ones left releasing exclusively on hd-dud, won't they? Especially after PapaWarner isn't neither
WUP is no more
yay! yipeee! whahooooo!
thanks for the good news Mr.Toad!
since 9.5 out of 10 releases right now will be on Blu-ray, Universal will surely release in Blu-ray too. They won't be the only ones left releasing exclusively on hd-dud, won't they? Especially after PapaWarner isn't neither
WUP is no more
-
Edge
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 5:14 am
- Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
I think its very important to remember that when all is said and done that whichever format wins will be backwards compatible.
While the new formats are fighting, DVD's will still be the medium of choice and once there is a winner it won't matter because it's backwards compatible anyway.
So in other words you'd keep your older videos (unless you really felt like wasting money and double dipping like an idiot consumer) and just get newer movies in the newer format. Think of it as being similar to your Playstation.
While the new formats are fighting, DVD's will still be the medium of choice and once there is a winner it won't matter because it's backwards compatible anyway.
So in other words you'd keep your older videos (unless you really felt like wasting money and double dipping like an idiot consumer) and just get newer movies in the newer format. Think of it as being similar to your Playstation.
-
DarthPrime
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2520
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:55 pm
Blu-Ray to cost the same as DVD in a year?
This is good news for Blu-Ray. Unless HD-DVD has something up their sleeve it looks like Blu-Ray will become the next format.
http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/130Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd (owners of the Panasonic brand) have established a new technology which will lower the production costs of next generation Blu-Ray discs (BD) to almost the same level as current DVD production costs.
The new technique improves the use of resin which is applied to form a protective coating on the disc surface, a step in the manufacturing process responsible for Blu-Ray discs’ high production costs. Matsushita will use trial manufacturing lines in their American labs to accumulate manufacturing knowledge, with the prospect that in only one year from now, Blu-Ray disk mass production will be possible at almost the same costs as current DVD mass production.
This is good news for Blu-Ray. Unless HD-DVD has something up their sleeve it looks like Blu-Ray will become the next format.
-
Roger Rabbit
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 3:40 pm
- Location: Upstate New York, USA
-
anger is pointless
- Special Edition
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: texas
- Contact:
please give me a simple summary be answering these questions.
Will disney go with blu-ray?
Do blu-ray need their own player?(i.e. you can't play them on your regualr dvd.)
thanks
Will disney go with blu-ray?
Do blu-ray need their own player?(i.e. you can't play them on your regualr dvd.)
thanks
Wlecome, foolish mortals, to the Haunted Mansion.
I am your host, your ghost host
Is this haunted room actally stretching or is it just your imagination?
Beware of Hitchiking Ghosts
-The Haunted Mansion(DL and MK)
I am your host, your ghost host
Is this haunted room actally stretching or is it just your imagination?
Beware of Hitchiking Ghosts
-The Haunted Mansion(DL and MK)
1. Yes, Disney announced some time ago that they are supporting Blu-ray exclusively.GhostHost wrote:please give me a simple summary be answering these questions.
Will disney go with blu-ray?
Do blu-ray need their own player?(i.e. you can't play them on your regualr dvd.)
thanks
2. Blu-ray discs, being a new format, will need to have their own player, yes - but, as has been emphasized here before, the Blu-ray players will be "backwards compatible" - meaning you will be able to play your DVDs on them... as well as CDs and SACDs.
Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late."
~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
anger is pointless
- Special Edition
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:38 pm
- Location: texas
- Contact:
-
DarthPrime
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2520
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:55 pm
I agree with that.Roger Rabbit wrote:Whichever format "wins" I don't really care so long as I can still play all my dvds. That's all that will matter.
One thing that makes me step back and take a 2nd look at Blu-Ray is Sony. I'm not bashing Sony, but they often overhype their products. The PS2 hype was insane, and although the PS2 won the console battle between XBox/Gamecube/PS2 it was hyped to be a lot more powerful than it actually was.
If Blu-Ray becomes the main format and they start mass producing them in the next year I still see it taking 3 years or so to completely take over. I know the HD formats are going to be good on a HDTV with the right surround setup, but I hope there is also a benefit to regular analog sets as well. I know both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have all these tech specs of how many times greater it will be than DVD, but I want to see the actual product. All the info they can give us doesn't mean anything to me compared to real world performance.
-
Escapay
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 12562
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
- Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
- Contact:
With Blu-Ray, will we still have the PAL/NTSC and Region confusion? Could it be possible for me to be able to buy a Blu-Ray player here, but import an R2 DVD and play it on the Blu-Ray player? Please say yes, deathie...
I just spent the last 20 minutes reading this thread (which was quite long thanks to deathie's informative posts!), and Blu-Ray definitely is the clear winner before the war starts...
Escapay
I just spent the last 20 minutes reading this thread (which was quite long thanks to deathie's informative posts!), and Blu-Ray definitely is the clear winner before the war starts...
Escapay
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion?
WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?