Is Disney Done with DVD? (The Never Ending Blu-Ray Debate)

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
drfsupercenter
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:59 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by drfsupercenter »

DVD is far from dead, and depending on the transfer can look pretty good on a upconverting DVD player. Take a Oppo DVD player for example. They produce amazing picture quality, and have a ton of features. Although for the price one could argue that it isn't worth it and pickup a entry level Blu-ray player.
Yeah, it does look really good.

I've tried my Xbox 360 via HDMI and it looks simply amazing. To the point that I ask myself what the benefit of Blu-Ray is. Some DVDs (Terminator 2: Ultimate Edition, for example) are already high-bitrate and 480p, it's just a resizing issue.

That being said... we finally bought an HDTV. We got a 50" Panasonic plasma. And that TV has some darn good internal upscaling. Better than any I've seen. (We don't have HD cable yet) I can watch channels like Nickelodeon, and as long as I'm not within a foot of it, it looks really good.
We will be getting a Blu-Ray player... eventually. :lol:

For now I'm fine with my Xbox 360, I'll have an HD-DVD addon coming soon and I heard that does an even BETTER job at upscaling.
Image

Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!
User avatar
ZOOMBOOM0688
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:09 pm
Location: Burbank

Post by ZOOMBOOM0688 »

Goliath wrote:
2099net wrote:Generally people are happy with what they have, until an alternative is shown. Did your father ever complain about the lack of a GPS system in his car in the 1970s or 1980s?
Nobody needs GPS either. You have a map? You can read signs? Yes? Go ahead and start driving!
So, I guess we should dump EVERYTHING and live like cavemen? :roll:


I will never apologize for LOVING my modern conveniences, and I roll my eyes every time I see an article about "The family that lived a year without buying anything" or whatever to show how our lives are too complicated...
Image
User avatar
Escapay
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 12562
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by Escapay »

Goliath wrote:
2099net wrote:Generally people are happy with what they have, until an alternative is shown. Did your father ever complain about the lack of a GPS system in his car in the 1970s or 1980s?
Nobody needs GPS either. You have a map? You can read signs? Yes? Go ahead and start driving!
Why bother with a car! We've got feet, we can walk!

:P

albert (who'll wisely stay out of this particular debate because I want Blu-Ray for the special features, not for the a/v upgrade)
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion? :p

WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
User avatar
2099net
Signature Collection
Posts: 9421
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by 2099net »

Goliath wrote:The important thing is ITS THEIR CHOICE to repurchase. YOU don't have to do anything. They don't have to repurchase... but they want to.
Well, and here is where we disagree. Yes, nobody is pointing a gun to your head and is actually forcing you to buy. The forcing is being done psychologically, through advertisement and marketing...[/quote]

Along with 1,000s of other products. As I said its capitalism in action. Why pick on Blu-ray?
2099net wrote:If you're moaning about peer pressure, then you may as well complain about the whole of the capitalist economic system (ever see The Story of Stuff)] on the web?)
Again: who said I don't? No system is without flaws.
But I don't understand why you find Blu-ray particularly offensive. There's literally 1000s of othher thing which people are pressured into buying which have greater human or environmental costs... nobody "need" bottled water. Why not complain about that... that costs thbe world - litterally - in it's carbon footprint for transport, and also the majority of waters create environmental issues at the source too.
2099net wrote:Granted in say, five or more likely ten years time the marketplace may be different and you'll probably have to buy Blu-ray players and discs.
"You'll have to" is forcing.
Indeed. But you were "forced" to buy DVD in the same way. Except this is different. By then Blu-ray players will most likely be as cheap or cheaper than normal DVDs players now, discs will be cheaper than now - espcially catalogue titles and finally YOU CAN STILL PLAY YOUR DVDS YOU HAVE NOW so even being forced to buy a Blu-ray player will not force you to upgrade your movies (unlike VHS).

Nobody "needed" DVD after all did they? They had VHS.
2099net wrote:But even then, you'll still be able to play all your DVDs and not have to replace a single one if you don't want to.
Which renders all the begging and pleading for Disney to release the same movies on BluRay discs obsolete.
No it doesn't because some people wouold prefer their Disney movies to be in high-definition, with high-definition lossless audio. Again, its choice. Because you think its a waste of money doesn't mean that they do. Stop being so selfish - everyone is different and has different priorities.

You know, most DVD players today can play VCDs... but they're lower quality. You don't "need" DVDs to make use of a DVD player - but people choose to.
2099net wrote:Because people didn't have anything better as a frame of reference. You know how there's strong opinions on MAC and Microsoft operating systems? Remember how at the time MAC OS 9 was often stated by MAC users as being excellent and so much better than Windows and a technological marvel? Soon changed their minds when OS X for the MAC came out didn't they.
With regard to BluRay, a better comparison would be the different versions of Windows that come out every 4 or 5 years. Windows XP works perfectly. It has everything anyone could wish for. Still, now Windows Vista is released. What does it has that Windows XP doesn't have? A few more irritating faults. And lots of Windows-geeks rush out to buy it. Not because they need it, but because they "want to have the latest version". And in 3 years, there will be another new version. While in 3 years, I'm still working on Windows XP because it already has everything!
No, its not the same at all, because most people who have Vista hate it (including me). Most people who have blu-ray are happy with it. It's more like going from Windows NT to Windows XP. Everyone was happy with Windows NT - so why did you get Windows XP. You didn't "need" it, and indeed Microsoft withdrawls support for its old opertaing systems so you are "forced" to upgrade.
2099net wrote:Generally people are happy with what they have, until an alternative is shown. Did your father ever complain about the lack of a GPS system in his car in the 1970s or 1980s?
Nobody needs GPS either. You have a map? You can read signs? Yes? Go ahead and start driving!
You didn't need DVD, but you seem pretty keen on it. You don't need a television - want to be entertained or informed? Listen to the radio or read the internet. You don't need the internet. When it comes down to it, all we need is food, warmth and shelter. We don't "need" anything else.

I don't understand why you are so negative about Blu-ray which has a much easier and accessable upgrade path then VHS to DVD ever had. I also don't understand why you don't seem to be screaming and shouting everytime a DVD double-dip is released. Nobody "needs" another version of the same film on DVD. Yet it happens. Surely that's more offensive than a studio actually remastering and releasing a movie on Blu-ray with noticably and proven increases in audio/video quality. Have you even seen the Blu-ray Sleeping Beauty on an 1080p display? Surely its worth paying 20%-25% more for that (improved picture, 7.1 lossless sound, PiP commentary, all the 2 disc special features - many in HD video), than a re-release of the DVD (which tellingly has some new special features than the previous 2 disc release, just to entice some existing DVD owners to "upgrade" to the new DVD).
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
Rudy Matt
Special Edition
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:45 pm

Post by Rudy Matt »

Bravo, 2099.
User avatar
DarthPrime
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:55 pm

Post by DarthPrime »

No, its not the same at all, because most people who have Vista hate it (including me). Most people who have blu-ray are happy with it. It's more like going from Windows NT to Windows XP. Everyone was happy with Windows NT - so why did you get Windows XP. You didn't "need" it, and indeed Microsoft withdrawls support for its old opertaing systems so you are "forced" to upgrade.
A little off topic, but count me in as a minority. I'm very happy with Vista 64 bit and wouldn't go back to XP. Can't wait until the public beta for Windows 7.

It is nice that Microsoft is continuing to support XP for awhile. I think sometime in 2014 is the official cut off for updates, and after this year it want be available to buy anymore. They still support 2000 as well, but that ends in June 2010.
User avatar
ZOOMBOOM0688
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:09 pm
Location: Burbank

Post by ZOOMBOOM0688 »

DarthPrime wrote: A little off topic, but count me in as a minority. I'm very happy with Vista 64 bit and wouldn't go back to XP. Can't wait until the public beta for Windows 7.
I LOVE VISTA TOO! Seriously, at first it annoyed the heck out of me, BUT now I can't see myself going back to XP... NOT EVERYONE, but some people feel they should hate VISA because everyone else does too...

And GO 2099net!!!:pink: :party: :pink: :clap: :wave:

You are 1000% right, I don't know why he isn't complaining about the RE-RELEASING of DVDs! And this IS a much easier transition than VHS to DVD... :angry:
Image
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

ZOOMBOOM0688 wrote:So, I guess we should dump EVERYTHING and live like cavemen? :roll:
How many times will you continue to repeat that strawman? Like another member said: there's a difference between functionailty and luxury. Having a car is functional, having GPS is a luxury.
ZOOMBOOM0688 wrote:I will never apologize for LOVING my modern conveniences, and I roll my eyes every time I see an article about "The family that lived a year without buying anything" or whatever to show how our lives are too complicated...
Well, you can roll all you want, but I'm sure those families will be pretty happy having saved their money in case they will *really* need to do a big purchase, or having given their saved money to the poor and needy or any other good cause, instead of bowing to the demands of the corporations you'll buy, buy, buy...

"And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made"
(Which song?)
2099net wrote:Along with 1,000s of other products. As I said its capitalism in action. Why pick on Blu-ray? [...]

But I don't understand why you find Blu-ray particularly offensive. There's literally 1000s of othher thing which people are pressured into buying which have greater human or environmental costs...
For the third time: who said I don't? Why are you still repeating this when it's a false dichotomy? I can't complain about BluRay before I've complained about bottled water? Well, I will complain about bottled water on a forum that is about water. This forum is about dvd's, so I'm complaining about BluRay here. I didn't say it was the only thing I complain about, you are the one who keeps dragging out that strawman.
2099net wrote:Indeed. But you were "forced" to buy DVD in the same way.
That's right. The only difference is dvd had added value. It is easier in storage, it contains lots of features I care for as a fim student, and you can play it 82684 times and it still looks good --whereas a vhs takes in much more space, it has no extra feautures for me as a student, and after 10 viewings the image gets blurry. These kinds of enormous improvements that justify the transfer from vhs to dvd (like from LP to CD) are simply not there when it comes to BluRay.
2099net wrote:Except this is different. By then Blu-ray players will most likely be as cheap or cheaper than normal DVDs players now, discs will be cheaper than now - espcially catalogue titles
How do you know? You presume BluRay will catch on. I say it won't.
2099net wrote:and finally YOU CAN STILL PLAY YOUR DVDS YOU HAVE NOW so even being forced to buy a Blu-ray player will not force you to upgrade your movies (unlike VHS).
Which makes pleading for certain movies you already have to come out on BluRay so you can buy them again obsolete.
2099net wrote:Nobody "needed" DVD after all did they? They had VHS.
See my points above.
2099net wrote:No it doesn't because some people wouold prefer their Disney movies to be in high-definition, with high-definition lossless audio.
But... you said you could play your dvds on a BluRay player. So there's no need for a special BluRay disc.
2099net wrote:Again, its choice. Because you think its a waste of money doesn't mean that they do.
Again: we have very different opinions about how much 'choice' we really have.
2099net wrote:Stop being so selfish - everyone is different and has different priorities.
Since when has it become selfish to voice an opinion?
2099net wrote:No, its not the same at all, because most people who have Vista hate it (including me). Most people who have blu-ray are happy with it.
It's not a question of wheter or not you're happy with it. It's a question ofwhether the product actually contributes something meaningful which justifies the higher pricings.
2099net wrote:It's more like going from Windows NT to Windows XP. Everyone was happy with Windows NT - so why did you get Windows XP. You didn't "need" it, and indeed Microsoft withdrawls support for its old opertaing systems so you are "forced" to upgrade.
That's true, you didn't need it. And Microsoft forces us to upgrade. However, I compare BluRay freaks with Windows freaks who rush out to buy it, not because it's an actual improvement, but because they want the latest version/ it's cool/ keeping up with the neighbours/ heavy marketing/ etc.
2099net wrote:You didn't need DVD, but you seem pretty keen on it.
I didn't need DVD, but the industry forced me to upgrade by discontinuing vhs.
2099net wrote:You don't need a television - want to be entertained or informed? Listen to the radio or read the internet. You don't need the internet. When it comes down to it, all we need is food, warmth and shelter. We don't "need" anything else.
Well, that's not true. We also need information. That's where a tv comes in handy. Not to use it to watch American Idol, but to see what's going on around the world. The internet comes in handy to communicate with others. You could use a telephone or letters, but the Internet is cheaper and more functional. There's the difference again between functionality and luxury.

I never said we should swear of all modern inventions and be cavemen. That's a strawman you keep dragging into the argument (and you're not the only one). You shouldn't be painting me as someone I'm not, or engage in false dichotomies. Please just stay with the subject at hand and we'll discuss that on its merits, okay? We don't have to agree to have a discussion, right? :)
2099net wrote:I also don't understand why you don't seem to be screaming and shouting everytime a DVD double-dip is released. Nobody "needs" another version of the same film on DVD. Yet it happens.
I never 'double dip'. Frankly, I hate the term 'double dip', but I understand it has become part of the language on this forum, so I'll adjust. :P
User avatar
ZOOMBOOM0688
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:09 pm
Location: Burbank

Post by ZOOMBOOM0688 »

Goliath wrote:
2099net wrote:No it doesn't because some people would prefer their Disney movies to be in high-definition, with high-definition lossless audio.
But... you said you could play your dvds on a BluRay player. So there's no need for a special BluRay disc.
Like 2099net said WE WANT HIGH DEF PICTURE AND AUDIO... DVD is not HD and you CANNOT change that....

So we are telling Disney to give us a BLU-RAY version of the movie.

and like I said about LILO & STITCH, some, like myself, NEVER bought it on DVD, WHAT IS THE POINT to buy it on DVD if we can just spend that money on the BLU-RAY version we ACTUALLY WANT????
Image
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

You don't have to 'YELL'. :wink:

We just don't agree. That's all. And I think all arguments have been exchanged by now. Shall we agree to disagree?
User avatar
ZOOMBOOM0688
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:09 pm
Location: Burbank

Post by ZOOMBOOM0688 »

Goliath wrote:You don't have to 'YELL'. :wink:

We just don't agree. That's all. And I think all arguments have been exchanged by now. Shall we agree to disagree?
LOL I wasn't yelling...I know ppl always thing i'm yelling when I use caps, just a habit... :(

And yes I have said all I have to say, that was it. I'm DONE!

We have agreed to disagree... :D
Image
Rudy Matt
Special Edition
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:45 pm

Post by Rudy Matt »

Well, you can roll all you want, but I'm sure those families will be pretty happy having saved their money in case they will *really* need to do a big purchase, or having given their saved money to the poor and needy or any other good cause, instead of bowing to the demands of the corporations you'll buy, buy, buy...

"And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made"
(Which song?)
Funny thing about Paul Simon, his original lyrics for that section were:

"I love those commie hippies
they've got big yaps, those libbies
but sometimes so annoying
smug and condescending"

But then Dennis Hopper heard the demo and launched into a drug-fueled tirade on the benefits of centralized economies and the evils of "the corporations" and how we'd all be better off if we went back to nature and gave up flushing toilets and indoor plumbing, and so Paul changed the song just to shut him up.
User avatar
2099net
Signature Collection
Posts: 9421
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by 2099net »

Goliath, a few points:

You say Blu-ray prices won't go down because you don't expect Blu-ray to catch on. Fine, that means you won't be "forced" to upgrade then will you. And if you are "forced" to upgrade to Blu-ray, you can be sure prices will have come down. So for you, its a win-win situation. Either Blu-ray doesn't catch on and the majority stick with DVD or you're forced into in effect a "free" upgrade which you can ignore by only playing your DVDs on the new players. So why the anger?

Secondly, sorry, but you don't need a television for information. Like I said, you have the radio. And even if you accept you need a television, did you need a colour television? Or was that "forced" on you? You know, it got to a point in Britain where B/W televisions were more expensive than Colour televisions simply because more colour televisions were being made?

I also notice you never answered my question about having seen Sleeping Beauty, so I ask again:

Have you even seen/heard Sleeping Beauty (or Wall-E, or Cars, or even Prince Caspian) running on a Blu-ray player, on a full 1080p display (properly calibrated... not just in an electrical shop display) with the full uncompressed 7.1 soundtrack?

To say is the same as the DVD as a matter of fact is clearly wrong. To claim the difference isn't important to you is correct. To say it isn't important to others is not. You have no idea of thier viewing and spending preferences. So to say being able to play DVDs on a Blu-ray player renders Blu-rays obsolete is so narrow minded it boggles my mind.

I paid £15.99 for my Sleeping Beauty disc. The DVD is £12.99 from the same store (or £17.99 if you want the book included). So I paid £3 more for (IMO) a vastly superior product. That's about 20-25% more. Sleeping Beauty Blu-ray is in several 3-for-2 promotions in the UK too, so if you can take advantage of that, the price will probably drop even closer to the £12.99 price of the DVD. Blu-ray doesn't have to cost substantially more even now this early in it's life if you shop around.

For that not only have Disney offered me a superior product which I am overjoyed with, but the fact that they have done so has arguably benefited your DVD purchase.

Would Grand Canyon or The Peter Trikovsky segment have been remastered by Disney if then didn't want to provide Blu-ray owners with HD copies? Would they have filmed an all-new making of featurette unless they wanted it in HD for Blu-ray owners? Would they have made a new commentary track unless they wanted to film some PiP sequences for Blu-ray?

We can't tell for sure, but given Disney's last few lazy Platinum releases - including Peter Pan - I think its unlikely they would have done all of the above together without wanting to hit Blu-ray with a huge splash.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
MK Sharp
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:49 am
Location: Australia

Post by MK Sharp »

2099net wrote:Have you even seen the Blu-ray Sleeping Beauty on an 1080p display?
No. Does it make the plot less tedious? (I know this is a cheap shot, but it's true: recently I sat down to watch Sleeping Beauty for the first time and I was asleep before Aurora was). :D
Surely its worth paying 20%-25% more for:
improved picture - well yes, probably. If I had an HD display I could likely even see the improvement. But it looks good enough on DVD. I'm coping.

7.1 lossless sound - nah.

PiP commentary - I genuinely can't see the point of that.

all the 2 disc special features - half of them I begrudge paying for on the DVD!

Netty, as a fellow non-American, perhaps you know the answers to some specifically non-American Bluray questions: how's the support for 25p / 50i material these days; and has there been any progress on region-free players to enable importation of Region A discs into Region B? Frankly those are the two issues I'd want to see resolved before leaping into Bluray body and soul.
"I hope we never lose sight of one thing - that this was all started by a little girl and a cat. And a rabbit."
User avatar
2099net
Signature Collection
Posts: 9421
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by 2099net »

Hi MK (I always think of you as Milton Keynes - are you all roundabouts?)

While you may not want 7.1 uncompressed sound on Sleeping Beauty (the soundtrack is, after all, altered) would you not want it on a newer Disney movies, such as (don't hate me for even suggesting this) High School Musical 3. After all, it is a musical. Isn't the sound as important as the image?

As for your questions:

50hz support - I may be wrong about this, but most Blu-rays, even European ones with PAL SD extras which don't play on 60hz only machines have their main feature in 60hz.

There are however a few 50hz discs in the wild - check out this thread on Blu-ray.com http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php ... ost1216133

Of course, if you have a compatible display, you can view filmed footage in its natural 24fps - rendering this difference irrelevant.

As for the BBC (which is I suspect where you interest lies) last I saw on TheDoctorWhoForum was that they will continue to release in 60hz because of potential player incompatability (even though all PAL-land Blu-ray players should display 50hz images). This is where my knowledge falls down, but I suspect/think some players gained this ability through firmware updates... and the BBC is worried some players haven't been updated. But who knows, but as far as I know, don't expect any 50hz BBC discs soon.

Multi-region There are reportedly some multi-region players (see http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/31/firs ... appearing/) but given the frequency of firmware updates, the need for such updates, and the power of BDJ to interrogate the player, I don't actually expect any hacked firmware to be an absolute.

While I supported HD DVD for its lack of region encoding, Blu-ray isn't so bad - apart from FOX! :x Disney codes lots of its releases, but as least as long as Disney owes the rights, you know it will be out worldwide. Not so with Fox, which has loads of catalogue titles unavailable outside the US, and region locked inside the US. I want my Daredevil damn it!
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
User avatar
drfsupercenter
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:59 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by drfsupercenter »

I LOVE VISTA TOO! Seriously, at first it annoyed the heck out of me, BUT now I can't see myself going back to XP... NOT EVERYONE, but some people feel they should hate VISA because everyone else does too...
EWWWW Vistrash! I hate to change the topic here, but all Vista has is 3 times the bugs XP had and about 3x the RAM and CPU consumption. Oh look, it has a snazzy new GUI! That's about it!!!
Functionality it's 99.9% the same as XP... so go ahead and use Vista if you want but think how much FASTER your computer would be if you "upgrade" to XP.

As for DVD not being high definition... that's why I hate the term "high definition." How do you get "high" out of 1080 vertical lines?
You can have DVDs that are just brilliant quality... a lot aren't because they're cheaply made. Look at the newest release of Terminator 2, it looks amazing on any TV. To the point that the Blu-Ray is almost not a significant enough improvement to even buy it.
While I supported HD DVD for its lack of region encoding, Blu-ray isn't so bad - apart from FOX!
Yeah I know... and the problem is most of my favorite movies are made by FOX. What's with having virtually NO special features and taking up 50GB for the movie? Shame on them... At least give us another disc...

I liked HD-DVD simply because it wasn't pure evil :lol:

As far as uncompressed sound goes... DVD can also have it... it's called linear PCM. I've seen several music DVDs that offer it. (Such as one I have with all of Weird Al's music videos.) So really, the sound on Blu-Ray is only better if you compare it to a DVD with crappy compression.
Image

Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!
User avatar
Kyle
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3550
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:47 pm

Post by Kyle »

drfsupercenter wrote: As for DVD not being high definition... that's why I hate the term "high definition." How do you get "high" out of 1080 vertical lines?
You can have DVDs that are just brilliant quality... a lot aren't because they're cheaply made. Look at the newest release of Terminator 2, it looks amazing on any TV. To the point that the Blu-Ray is almost not a significant enough improvement to even buy it.

How can 1080 Not be high def? its all realitive anyway, and 1080p is industry standard for HD.

As for Terminator, I wish people would stop using that as an example of why blu-ray isn't what its cracked up to be. it was never considered the best out there anyway. the movie was filmed in a controversial Super35 process film format. basically they sacrificed picture quality for its ease of re composing. the movie has tons of grain and is lower resolution than most movies. your not going to see the benefits of blu ray by using this movie as reference.
User avatar
KubrickFan
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:22 am

Post by KubrickFan »

Well, it's a bit of both. The current Blu-Ray doesn't have a decent transfer, so you can't compare it with a recent film that's just been put out on BD. And only the early Super35 films had a lower picture quality. There have been several improvements (grain reduced film stocks as well) and now it looks good. A lot of films are shot in this format (LOTR, Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potter, the list is endless) and most of them look amazing on Blu-Ray or dvd.
Image
User avatar
drfsupercenter
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1279
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:59 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by drfsupercenter »

What I'm saying is that the most recent DVD of Terminator 2 looks almost as good (pretty must just as good if you're standing at least a foot or two from the TV) as a Blu-Ray would.

You can make DVDs in very high bitrate 480p that look plenty good on HDTVs.


And really, sitting 10 feet from our new 50" plasma, I was watching The Fugitive on DVD via my Xbox and it looked just like an HD TV channel. It was a bit fuzzy at parts, but that's the DVD's fault, and not the upscaling (The DVD was pretty old, not really cleaned up... it looks like that on any TV)

When we finally get a Blu-Ray player (most likely the PS3), I'll compare them... but I see no problem in upscaling DVDs... who sits 4 inches from a TV that size anyway?
(Though to be fair I do hate how some things... even HD programs... are really pixelated up close... EVERYTHING looks good sitting far back, and it's not hard to see that first-hand)
Image

Howard Ashman:
He gave a mermaid her voice, a beast his soul, and Arabs something to complain about
Arabian Nights (Unedited)
Savages (Uncensored)
If it ain't OTV, it ain't worth anything!
User avatar
DarthPrime
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:55 pm

Post by DarthPrime »

With a 1080p Blu-ray you can sit closer than 10 feet from a 50 inch screen. It will look even better if you can move closer. What HD programming are you watching? If its from cable/satellite remember that they compress HD programming so its not going to look as good as HD DVD or Blu-ray. If you have a antenna you can hook up and get your locals in HD for free. The over the air signals usually look better than the same channel you get over cable/satellite because they are not compressed before you get them.

Here is a pretty good chart on viewing distance.

Image
EWWWW Vistrash! I hate to change the topic here, but all Vista has is 3 times the bugs XP had and about 3x the RAM and CPU consumption. Oh look, it has a snazzy new GUI! That's about it!!!
Functionality it's 99.9% the same as XP... so go ahead and use Vista if you want but think how much FASTER your computer would be if you "upgrade" to XP.
I could throw Windows 2000 on my computer and it would probably be faster than XP. 2000 was the best Microsoft OS in my opinion. XP is 8 years old now. Older than that if you count the betas when it was known as Whistler. On any recent computer its going to be fast. It only required a 300 Mhz processor, and 32 or 64 MB (can't remember) of RAM to run when it came out. Vista requires a 1.5 Ghz processor and 1 GB of RAM...

My problem with XP right now is the 32 bit version and the amount of RAM it supports. XP 64 bit was never that great or supported well, but Vista 64 bit is fine. I'm using 4 GB of RAM right now and XP 32 bit will not see or use that at all. It cuts off at 3 GB (So does the 32 bit version of Vista, but I've found on the 64 bit side Vista is better supported compared to XP.)

If you have the system resources to use Vista there is no reason not to upgrade in my opinion, unless you want to wait a few months for Windows 7. Windows 7 should bring a little balance to all the Vista hate. Its based off Vista (Vista is NT 6.0, 7 is NT 6.1... Similar to how 2000 was NT 5.0 and XP was NT 5.1). However if you have the system resources to use Windows 7 the beta is performing better/faster than Vista and XP right now. All the reviews from the beta are from the 32 bit version. I'm curious about the 64 bit version and if it will have the same improvements.
Last edited by DarthPrime on Sun Jan 04, 2009 9:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Post Reply