
how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic  |
 |
|
|
 MCheu join:2002-06-10 Toronto, ON | reply to karlmarx
Re: NOPE Not to mention that the BluRay and HD-DVD offerings have been largely half-assed compared to the DVD versions. They tend to be very light on the extras that people love so much on DVDs, and on some of them, the transfers are so craptastic that the Hi-Def only manages to highlight the artifacts and grain in the film transfer. Why would anyone pay double for even less than you'd get on DVD with no guarantee that the image quality would be better? | | |
|  DeathKPremium join:2002-06-16 Cincinnati, OH | said by MCheu:Not to mention that the BluRay and HD-DVD offerings have been largely half-assed compared to the DVD versions. They tend to be very light on the extras that people love so much on DVDs, and on some of them, the transfers are so craptastic that the Hi-Def only manages to highlight the artifacts and grain in the film transfer. Why would anyone pay double for even less than you'd get on DVD with no guarantee that the image quality would be better? Are you speaking from experience, or are you just pulling a lot of this out of your ass? The majority of Blu-Ray releases have been subpar thus far (mainly due to the prevalence of MPEG2 being used instead of VC-1 or MPEG4/AVC... afterall the Blu-Ray 50GB spec was designed around the usage of MPEG2 but they're even using it with 25GB discs). However, the majority of HD-DVD releases have been perfect or near-perfect transfers from the film or digital master (mostly due to the usage of the VC-1 codec, whose tools and encoder have matured rather nicely... the codec is allowing picture perfect 1080p transfers at bitrates around 10-12mbps).
The picture quality is absolutely amazing compared to standard DVD's (even upscaled). If you're using an HDTV it's no contest at all. HD-DVD releases and a good handful of Blu-Ray releases (list is increasing) absolutely smoke their DVD counterparts in picture quality (as well as sound if you have the proper equipment). Most all the highdef releases have the same extra content as their DVD counterparts and some have exclusive HD extras. Not to mention both formats' special interactivity capabilities while watching the movies (HD-DVD has some really neat U-Control releases including Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift which has PIP commentary and on-screen images and info.. MI:3 and King Kong also have PIP commentary).
Going back from HD-DVD to DVD is like going back from DVD to VHS. I have the Xbox 360 HD-DVD add-on (which comes with King Kong.. I also have five other HD-DVD releases) and it's absolutely awesome. If anyone has a 360 and an HDTV they should seriously consider the HD-DVD add-on. Once you see HD movies on an HDTV you'll be hooked. | |  PDXPLT join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR | I disk-based content will be around for awhile. The primary reason is picture quality. For digital content delivered by cable, satellite, broadcast, streaming IP, etc., the content distributor has their hand on the (figurative) knob of the encoder. Business conditions drive them reduce the cost of delivery as much as possible by turning the knob on the compressor as high as the "average" customer will tolerate. As a result, most "digital video" content looks awful on anything but a tiny screen (e.g., just compare a typical digital cable or DBS satellite channel to the C-Band original, or a local broadcast station on one of these systems, compared to what you can receive with a good rooftop antenna in a City Grade reception area). Providers are even doing that now with HDTV: most Over The Air broadcasters take part of the 19 Mbps and use it for a second (or even third) channel, and cable and DBS channels are being down-rez'd to 1440 or even 1280 lines of horizontal resolution. Even for streaming content, the more it's compressed, the less server resources and bandwidth resources it consumes.
This isn't the case with DVD's. If it fits on a disk, there is no cost incentive to compress it further. Content creators, who have a key interest in maintaining the picture quality as high as possible (if even only for their own satisfaction), are the ones that control the compression level. Plus, they influenced the specification of the physical medium, so they could ensure it had sufficient capacity to deliver the quality they sought to deliver. This is analogous to the situation in theaters; e.g., the first-generation film prints shown in West Los Angeles, where the film industry goes to the movies, look far better than the prints at the average suburban multiplex in most of the country. | |  swhx7Premium join:2006-07-23 Elbonia | I basically agree with you all, but I think there's a better way to sum up the HD-DVD and Blu Ray prospects: cost-benefit ratio.
The quality improvement over DVD really is impressive when you look at a well-mastered, true-HD source (not just upscaled DVD resolution) on a true HD monitor (not just widescreen).
But there are two other factors: DVD is "good enough" for many people even though true HD is dazzling; and the cost factor.
Most people will upgrade to better displays, either in the next few years or at least when their old TVs die. But this is not the only cost factor. It will take a while for player prices to come down; and for those who collect disks instead of renting they're going to be very resistant to replacing collections.
So migrations will take years - but the hardware makers don't have that long with HD-DVD or Blu Ray. Both are going to fail unless the format war gets decided, and that's not going to happen until people start buying. Thus, I am very skeptical about either HD-DVD or Blu Ray succeeding. | |  MCheu join:2002-06-10 Toronto, ON | reply to DeathK Just like you, I guess a bit of both. The local video shop allows rentals of the players and movies in all 3 formats, so I don't own a highdef player in either format, but I've been able to play around with maybe about 10 titles in each format in the last year or so to a limited degree. Thus, I admit I haven't experienced a great selection of movies nor have I had time to play around with them for any length of time.
Only the most recent big deal releases have been even remotely worthwhile. I still believe that the majority of HD-DVD and BluRay releases are not as good as they should be if the studios expect people to upgrade and rebuy these movies. Admittedly, I haven't tried the discs on a true HDTV yet (a widescreen flatscreen TV yes, but it's not big enough to display at full resolution). The artifact blotches and grain are quite a bit more noticeable on that same TV compared to the DVD version. I purposely rented the hidef versions of some movies I already own on DVD as I was curious what the big deal was. I continued renting a few new releases and the players to see if the releases were getting better. They are, but not enough to make me want to bother with the expense.
If you believe the formats are so much better (I'm guessing you're leaning towards HD-DVD), please recommend some HD-DVD or BluRay movies to check out. Perhaps I've just made some bad choices in my rentals, and I really do want to find out what the big deal is, because so far, I just don't see it. | |  RCaugh join:2001-03-03 San Francisco, CA | reply to PDXPLT said by PDXPLT:Content creators, who have a key interest in maintaining the picture quality as high as possible (if even only for their own satisfaction), are the ones that control the compression level. Netflix rules. | |
|