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

[drfsupercenter]

Yeah, Windows 2000 was awesome. I just need XP for the video editing.
Other than that, Windows 95 was probably THE best Windows ever.

I just think why not run XP regardless of your resources? Why would you NEED more than 4GB of RAM? I have 768MB and I can run XP perfectly fast.
The only reason anyone would need that much RAM is to run Vista, and that's why I'm saying Vista is a resource hog.

Plus, what can Vista do that XP can't? Ooh, it can burn DVDs like XP burns CDs... I'm impressed *not*

[KubrickFan]

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)

You can't create detail that isn't there. Upscaling may look fine on some dvds, but a decent Blu-Ray will always look better. Terminator 2 has a lot of problems that's inherent in the film, so you have to take that into consideration.

[kbehm29]

I just wanted to comment that it's unfair to compare the price of a 1-disc DVD to a Blu-ray. The Blu-ray's usually have the bonus features of a 2-disc DVD and then some.

I buy all my Blu-rays through Amazon.com and never pay more than $2-5 more than Standard DVD and sometimes pay less than the price of DVD Special Editions (the 2-disc releases). It is not a cost issue to me at all, and I live frugally. I didn't buy my BD player until Black Friday 2008, and got one for $175. I paid more than $300 for my first DVD player in 1998 (and it still works! much better than the $35 pieces of crap that they have on the market now). I don't expect a video format to last more than 10 years with today's technology anyhow. AND - I am not replacing my entire DVD collection (only Disney), I'm just not buying any more standard DVDs. Everything newly released gets bought BD.

[The_Iceflash]

I don't expect a video format to last more than 10 years with today's technology anyhow.

I do. Updating formats every decade isn't even right. There's no way to even justify that or wanting to update formats every decade.

[2099net]

I don't expect a video format to last more than 10 years with today's technology anyhow.

I do. Updating formats every decade isn't even right. There's no way to even justify that or wanting to update formats every decade.

I think its perfectly reasonable as long as the new technology is backward compatible. However, I don't expect Blu-ray's successor to be disc based so I think the next upgrade will be more revolution than evolution.

[drfsupercenter]

You can't create detail that isn't there. Upscaling may look fine on some dvds, but a decent Blu-Ray will always look better. Terminator 2 has a lot of problems that's inherent in the film, so you have to take that into consideration.

Right, but it depends how you resize it. I'm sure you've seen the spy movies where the FBI agents can blow up a picture hundreds of times and make it look perfectly clear.
HDTVs just don't because they're cheaply made. And they likely use something like "nearest neighbor" to resize (Ever tried to resize a picture in Paint? Same thing there)... where you could use something like Lanczos to make it look a ton better.

I just wanted to comment that it's unfair to compare the price of a 1-disc DVD to a Blu-ray. The Blu-ray's usually have the bonus features of a 2-disc DVD and then some.

Unless you're talking 20th Century Fox. Their Blu-rays suck. Independence Day is one of my favorite movies of all time... the stupid BD is $25 on Amazon and has like no special features, other than a commentary. Good riddance!

[DarthPrime]

I just wanted to comment that it's unfair to compare the price of a 1-disc DVD to a Blu-ray. The Blu-ray's usually have the bonus features of a 2-disc DVD and then some.

The reason I do this is because most people buy the 1 disc release and don't care if the movie has hours of bonus material. They also tend to buy the cheaper version, and since there is only 1 Blu-ray version released (usually) that's the only thing to compare it to the 1 disc DVD. I think its better to compare the "entry level" prices than match features on the discs... I don't know.

An example would be when someone goes to Best Buy and looks at movies they will see Pineapple Express (just a random movie that came out this week) on DVD for $14.99 and the Blu-ray is next to it for $26.99 it seems like a big difference to them.

In my opinion a lot of them think "Why pay $12 extra for the Blu-ray when I can go pickup another movie on DVD for around the same price.". Once prices drop on Blu-ray discs and more HDTVs are sold this will change. I don't deny that Blu-ray is better than DVD, but I also see the point of a lot of people that don't want to give up DVD right now and move on to something else.

I'm starting to think like this as well, but have full plans to upgrade to Blu-ray this year. Not for bonus features, but better Video and Audio. I usually buy 1 disc releases now, and only get 2 disc sets on certain DVDs. The reason I stopped doing this is I felt like I was wasting money on the 2 disc sets because I rarely watched any of the features unless it was certain movies.

I think DVD and Blu-ray will be around for a long time. I also think that once Blu-ray takes over, DVD will still be around in some form. It want disappear like VHS did. Streaming movies, and digital downloads are a long way away as well. Not everyone can get broadband internet, and if they can it might not be fast enough to stream/download HD content effectively.

[kbehm29]

I just wanted to comment that it's unfair to compare the price of a 1-disc DVD to a Blu-ray. The Blu-ray's usually have the bonus features of a 2-disc DVD and then some.

The reason I do this is because most people buy the 1 disc release and don't care if the movie has hours of bonus material. They also tend to buy the cheaper version, and since there is only 1 Blu-ray version released (usually) that's the only thing to compare it to the 1 disc DVD. I think its better to compare the "entry level" prices than match features on the discs... I don't know.

Yes, but don't you think that early adopters who have already converted to Blu-ray 2+ years ago are the ones that care about bonus material and don't care so much about cost? The trick is getting the balance so that the general public sees the benefit of BD.

An example would be when someone goes to Best Buy and looks at movies they will see Pineapple Express (just a random movie that came out this week) on DVD for $14.99 and the Blu-ray is next to it for $26.99 it seems like a big difference to them.

A good example. But if you wait 6 weeks past the release date, the standard DVD will jump up to $19.99 in stores, and the Blu-ray will dip down to $19.99 on Amazon.com!

I think DVD and Blu-ray will be around for a long time. I also think that once Blu-ray takes over, DVD will still be around in some form. It want disappear like VHS did. Streaming movies, and digital downloads are a long way away as well. Not everyone can get broadband internet, and if they can it might not be fast enough to stream/download HD content effectively.

I think you're right.

[Goliath]

Funny thing about Paul Simon, his original lyrics for that section were: [...]

Hmmm... Strange kind of hostility you show here... I wonder why... Have I insulted you? No, I was objecting to BluRay and now somehow I'm a communist? (And that's supposed to be an insult?) You have some issues...

[Goliath]

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?

Well, I wouldn't call it 'anger'. That's so harsh a word. I would say I resist/reject BluRay. And you ask me why, given your arguments. Well, if BluRay does catch on and I'm forced to upgrade, I indeed can play my dvd's on the new player. However, I will have to buy a BluRay player, don't I? And it doesn't matter if players by then will be very cheap; it is still extra money I have to spend.

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?

Of course I need atelevision to receive information. Can a radio provide me with the images of what is happening on the other side of the world? It can tell me about it, but I can't imagine what it looks like. Take the recent news from Gaza, for example: I could never imagine what was happening without seeing the images. And for some reason, e.g. blood does look a little different in color than in black and white...

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?'

Not those movies, but I have seen other movies under those circumstances, yes. A friend of mine has (against my advice) bought a BluRay player and a 1080p display. No, of course it's clearly not the same as a dvd, exactly. I never said or meant that literally, as I'm sure you would have noticed. I'm saying the difference that is there is neglectable (is that a word?). Dvd provides such a high quality it's not worth the upgrade. The difference is too small to justify the upgrade.

Shall we agree to disagree? Or shall we continue?

[drfsupercenter]

The correct word is "negligible".

Really, the difference of Blu-Ray vs. DVD is only noticeable if you stand right in front of the TV. I've been playing standard DVDs (heck, some were run through DVD Shrink a couple of times too!) on my new 50" plasma TV using the Xbox 360 to upscale... and sitting on my couch a distance away they look perfect.

I admit I hate having to sit far away to make the picture look good (like some REALLY bad DVDs)... but for the time being it's really not something I'm complaining about.

And as I've said, DVD upscaling done RIGHT (Not what your TV does foolishly) looks pretty darn close to Blu-Ray. It's all about filters and such... you know, technophile stuff.

That being said, I continue to stick to my initially stated game plan. I will continue to buy movies on DVD, and if I want to watch a certain movie in high-definition I will use one of my 3 free Blockbuster rentals a week to rent the Blu-Ray.
The issue I have with buying movies on Blu-Ray is that I'm forced to only watch them on one TV. We have 3 settop DVD players in the house, plus my computer, and a couple portable ones... whereas we'll only have one Blu-Ray player. Why pay $20 for one movie in one location? That's more than a freaking movie theater!

So once Blu-Ray players start selling for $30 at Wal-Mart like DVD players do now, then I'll consider buying Blu-Rays like I buy DVDs. Until then, I'll stand by what I've been saying.

(And I do have plans to buy a couple of my all-time favorite titles on Blu-Ray, but I'm talking mainly when a movie first comes out on home video... like how I just bought the 2-DVD set of Eagle Eye.)

[Rudy Matt]

You have some issues...

Yep. I have issues with your comments in this thread. You don't see how you've insulted others, implying they're duped by some corporate "meme" into a herd buying mentality? You don't think its insulting to imply that people who have upgraded their home theaters are somehow morally inferior to the sainted Goliath who suggests the money should have been given to the poor?

You're the one who needs to apologize. I don't care what you spend your money on, but insulting Blu-Ray owners as sheep led to the corporate watering hole, implying we're too selfish to care about "the poor", implying that we're deluded because the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is negligible when in fact the difference is dramatic, telling us how we should spend our money (as if buying an upscaling DVD player that plays Blu-Rays is the equivalent of buying a Hummer); yes, I have issues with that.

You drop these bombs, then fein innocence, i.e. "Hey, don't be mad at what I just said, can't we have a friendly argument?" It's flame bait, and I took your bait, so I'm the idiot here.

[Fflewduur]

The correct word is "negligible".

Really, the difference of Blu-Ray vs. DVD is only noticeable if you stand right in front of the TV. I've been playing standard DVDs (heck, some were run through DVD Shrink a couple of times too!) on my new 50" plasma TV using the Xbox 360 to upscale... and sitting on my couch a distance away they look perfect.

I admit I hate having to sit far away to make the picture look good (like some REALLY bad DVDs)... but for the time being it's really not something I'm complaining about.

And as I've said, DVD upscaling done RIGHT (Not what your TV does foolishly) looks pretty darn close to Blu-Ray. It's all about filters and such... you know, technophile stuff.

Bull, bull, bull.

Having to sit far from your set to get an acceptable picture---that's the way to simulate the theatrical experience at home?

I have a crappy 32" 1080i TV, and my sofa is roughly a quarter mile from it. Well, okay, only twelve feet, but <i>far</i> from the recommended viewing distance, at any rate. And even under those circumstances, of the BDs in my collection for which I've seen the S-DVD counterpart---the first two PoTC movies, the first 4 Harry Potter films, the first Narnia movie, The Nightmare Before Christmas, the available Pixar features, Sleeping Beauty, Sweeney Todd, Memoirs of a Geisha, even The Last Waltz and Blazing Saddles---the upgrade in presentation for each of them is obvious and substantial.

As for the "technophile" stuff: yes, quality upconverting makes watching SD content on an HD display a passably pleasant experience, but the claim that upscaling is "pretty darn close" to BD quality only holds up if you don't much care about watching the actual <i>film</i>:

For simplicity's sake, assume we're talking about a film with a 1.78:1 AR, something "fullscreen" on a 16:9 display.

BD resolution: 1080x1920=2,073,600 pixels.
NTSC DVD resolution: 480x720=345,600 pixels.

When watching a BD, the entire image present is taken from the source material.

In contrast, when watching an upscaled DVD, <b>only 1/6 of the image you see is actually content on the media</b>. The other 5/6 of the image is being <i>fabricated</i> by the upscaling/converting algorithm. If you could eliminate the upscaling, <b>83% of your display would go blank</b>.

All upscaling does is fill in the vast gaping holes; it is incapable of creating detail that's simply not there.

As far as my purchasing habits are concerned, DVD is the new pan-and-scan: I'm paying for as much of the film as I can get, and I'll take actual content over 83% filler every time.

[drfsupercenter]

They make 1080i TVs? As far as I've seen they only have 720p and 1080p...

My TV is a 50" 1080p and I sit about 10 feet from it. Granted, I don't HAVE Blu-Ray yet, but comparing it to HD TV channels such as FOX and NBC... the upscaled DVDs look about the same.

I realize upscaling DVDs on an HDTV doesn't look as good... but that's because, as I've been saying for the past few pages, the methods that TVs and the DVD players use isn't that good.

I can post screenshots of a movie that was taken from a standard DVD (720x480, anamorphic 1.85:1 widescreen) and turned into about " 950p". (It's not quite 1080, but it's closer to 1080 than 720."
And I think you'll see what I'm talking about... you probably wouldn't be able to tell it even came from a DVD if I didn't state it.

And as far as buying movies, I don't see the point of buying new movies on Blu-Ray when it'll only be possible to play them on one player and one TV. As I said, we have 3 DVD players, and a portable one... it's just simply cheaper and more practical to buy DVDs.

[2099net]

HDTV is not Blu-ray. HDTV has by far a lower bandwidth (so more compression). Watching HD on TV Channels is like watching a badly compressed JPEG. Just like PCM on a DVD is not like PCM on a Blu-ray. Blu-ray can do 7.1 lossless sound. A DVD PCM only supports plain stereo.

[drfsupercenter]

Can't a DVD have 5.1 PCM?

Though I don't even care - I use the speakers built in my TV. Surround sound is just one of those things that looks cool but has no use to me.

As far as HDTV goes, sitting 10 feet away, HDTV looks really good. The only thing I have to compare it to is my Xbox 360 which is hooked up via HDMI (And I mean the actual HD games, not upscaled DVDs)

What I'm saying is that I don't have an issue with the actual Blu-Ray itself... I just think it's more money than it's worth... as with my current TV setup I can't tell the difference anyway.

As I said, once Blu-Ray players start selling for under $50 at Wal-mart then maybe I'll start REPLACING my titles. For now I'm just planning on getting a Blu-Ray player (Most likely a PS3) and continue to buy everything on DVD... because it looks fine as it is!

[gregmasciola]

I've kind of gone back and forth with Blu-Ray for awhile now. I was going to wait to buy any LOST seasons until they are all on Blu-Ray, but I caved and bought the first 2 on DVD, but they still look amazing on my HDTV.
I obviously notice the difference in quality between Blu-Ray & DVD, but I just don't feel like I need Blu-Ray right now. The only time I feel like I really want to upgrade now is if the DVD got a bad transfer.
Also, I've pretty much finished replacing my VHS collection on DVD, so I don't really want to start over and begin replacing my DVDs.
But since they are still releasing movies on DVD, I don't feel like i'm being 'forced' into anything.

[2099net]

Can't a DVD have 5.1 PCM?

Technically I think it can... doesn't DVD-Audio? However in practice, I think it consumes too much bandwidth to be used with any high-quality video simultaneously(remember DVD has a limit of just over 10mb per second). 6 channels of 16bit uncompressed data would be a huge drain.

[drfsupercenter]

I obviously notice the difference in quality between Blu-Ray & DVD, but I just don't feel like I need Blu-Ray right now. The only time I feel like I really want to upgrade now is if the DVD got a bad transfer.
Also, I've pretty much finished replacing my VHS collection on DVD, so I don't really want to start over and begin replacing my DVDs.
But since they are still releasing movies on DVD, I don't feel like i'm being 'forced' into anything.

Same here really... I might buy the Blu-Rays if the DVD versions weren't anamorphic, weren't remastered, etc... (If Armageddon ever gets released on Blu-Ray and a new DVD still hasn't come out, please tell me )

And I'm not complaining that Blu-Ray players themselves are a scam... it's the whole "HD" system... from buying the TVs to NEEDING a Blu-Ray player to needing the movies etc.
Once we have a Blu-Ray player I'll just keep sticking to DVDs for a while... except for rentals and my select favorites (Half of my "favorites" are also on HD-DVD and I ordered them for about $7.99 each thanks to Blockbuster )

Technically I think it can... doesn't DVD-Audio? However in practice, I think it consumes too much bandwidth to be used with any high-quality video simultaneously(remember DVD has a limit of just over 10mb per second). 6 channels of 16bit uncompressed data would be a huge drain.

Well, I was simply saying DVD has the potential to be far better than many companies make them. Especially with these new movies that have intentionally bad DVD transfers (as I said, look at The Dark Knight...) to force people into complaining and buying the Blu-Ray.
And just for fun I should GET the Blu-Ray and encode my own 480p DVD version, to prove that WB's isn't that well made.

[Goliath]

Yep. I have issues with your comments in this thread. You don't see how you've insulted others, implying they're duped by some corporate "meme" into a herd buying mentality? You don't think its insulting to imply that people who have upgraded their home theaters are somehow morally inferior to the sainted Goliath who suggests the money should have been given to the poor?

On Monday, December 22, in this thread, I have written:

Now, since many of you own a BlueRay-player and HD tv, let me make it clear that I was not attacking you. Why would I? I was attacking certain marketing mechanisms and the industry as a whole. I did not intend to attack, patronize, insult or in any other way offend you. I just feel very strongly about this.

Is that clear enough for you? Or do you want to continue with your attempt at picking a fight?

You drop these bombs, then fein innocence, i.e. "Hey, don't be mad at what I just said, can't we have a friendly argument?"

These 'bombs' you speak of are not *my* words. They are my words which have gone through *your* filter. You have chosen to misrepresent my words. I did not tell anybody how to spend their money. I told how I would spend my money. I agree with you it's flamebait, but it's not me who is doing the flaming.

However, if I -not intentionally- did insult anyone, of course I apologize. Everybody has other opinions and evrybody should respect that.