PDA

View Full Version : Blu-ray, HD-DVD, High Definition free for all.


El Sitherino
11-03-2005, 04:46 PM
The jump from DVD to HD is less noticable for the average consumer, and the price is a huge difference.

Couldn't be further from the truth. The difference between DVD quality and HD quality is like that of piss to orange juice.

edlib
11-03-2005, 07:14 PM
Except that most people don't even have the equipment capable of reproducing standard DVDs properly today... even less will have the gear to get every bit out of Hi-Def formats.

But I, for one look forward to the new formats. I hope Blue-Ray wins out, since it is clearly the technically superior format.

Bet then, so was Betamax...

Kurgan
11-03-2005, 07:44 PM
Couldn't be further from the truth. The difference between DVD quality and HD quality is like that of piss to orange juice.

I said to the average consumer, not the savvy technophiles like us.

Perhaps you gentlemen would care to step outside (to the Senate)? We're getting way off topic...

El Sitherino
11-03-2005, 07:46 PM
The problem with Blu-ray is the integrated DRM crap Sony is loading up on.

HD-DVD is more practical and less restrictive.

I said to the average consumer, not the savvy technophiles like us.
You don't have to be a technophile to see the difference of quality, if you've seen AoTC:HD, you'd see just how different HD and DVD quality are, it's like going from Vinyl to Super Audio CD's.

shukrallah
11-03-2005, 09:33 PM
PS3 is using blueray I think...

Kurgan
11-03-2005, 11:05 PM
The media giants have all taken their sides, though a few companies (sorry the names escape me) have claimed they will support both.

I just don't see it being the miracle replacement tech that some people are purporting it to be. There's too much customer confusion and lack of information to get it going properly.

Typically when somebody see's an HD-TV they are seeing it in the store on a plasma screen, or it's showing a DVD or regular broadcast TV. They're not even seeing actual High Def content in many cases...

The extra costs of High Def service (with a fraction of the channels and movie titles available) and a reciever (or having one built in, raising the cost of the set) all make it less palatable to the customer who isn't already a home-theater enthusiast.

And as for recordable equipment, most consumer PC's these days come with a dvd burner and basic burning software. Recordable media is cheap. While CD's are 1/3rd of the cost per disc typically, DVD's have 6x the storage capacity. And since burner speeds have improved so much in recent years, they're really quite handy. You can even buy (more expensive) DVD players with built in recorders.

toms
11-04-2005, 08:05 AM
Of the two I think Blue Ray is currently looking like the most likely to win. It has the most support and momentum at the moment.

Frankly at the moment I have no time for either. The DRM on both is going to be horrendous. They will only play watermarked discs, will output lower quality to analogue devices on purpose, will dial up for updates and licenses and may even shut you out if you use them for anything unauthorised.
I'm sure like everything the unsuspecting consumers will embrace them with open arms, then I will have no choice...

-

We don't actually have any High Def broadcasts in the UK at the moment, so I can't speak from experience... but it seems to me that (unless you have a HUGE TV) its unlikely it can make a significant improvement over DVDs.
That said, we have been on PAL for years which already had a higher resolutin than NTSC, so maybe the effect would be more dramatic for those on NTSC?

I recently got to see a LCD widescreen TV that was recieving digital widescreen, and the picture WAS pretty darn impressive. Far sharper and clearer than analogue, plus in widescreen. It looked pretty much like DVD quality... so the jump was a bit smaller than the jump from VHS(worse than tv) to DVD.

But the government is currently inthe middle of getting everyone to switch to Digital, which brings with it almost DVD quality TV. I think they are going to have trouble getting people to switch again in a few years from digital to High Def. Especially as I can't see the benefits of that switch being as noticable.
The change from analogue to digital is relatively cheap, benefits both small and large tvs and is fairly noticable. The change from digital to high-def will be relatively expensive, will really only benefit those with huge tvs.

I've seen a number of old films on DVD that I realy can't imagine looking any better (on normal equipment) on HD. New films might, but again I can't see it being a huge jump.

-

Considering its possible to rip a 9gb dvd and compress it into a much more portable 1.5gb file that has only a slight drop in quality I would probably rather have them at that quality than at a 40gb HD quality. That way I can have a media centre with a 500gb hard drive and all my films, tv series, music and photos on it. All at about the size of a DVD boxset and easily portable.
After all, the music industry was thinking the next big thing after CDs would be SACDs or even Music DVDs which would offer much higher quality... but it turns out consumers were happier with a reduction in quality from CDs to MP3s and with the added convienience and portability of having all their music in one handy device.

If I had my way then Video would go the same way... but the fact that DVDs are harder to rip than CDs might mean that the industry gets its way and manages to drive people towards HD formats instead.

El Sitherino
11-04-2005, 09:18 AM
I guess you'll have to experience High Definition to realize how different the quality is.
And you don't need a huge TV, just an HDtv.

edlib
11-04-2005, 09:38 AM
Of the 2 formats, my gut feeling is that HD-DVD is going to win, although I personally wish it to be Blue-Ray.

In a couple of years, when you go to buy your next TV, your only options are going to be Hi-Def. The only options for DVD players will be Hi-Def as well. Eventually, everyone will be forced to make the switch.

Will all the content on the new, bigger disks be Hi-Def though? Not necessarily... older movies and TV shows shot on film or in other low-def formats will only be able to be processed and up-sampled so far. So, instead, you keep the content low-def, and just put more on a single disc. An entire season (or perhaps the entire series) of your favorite TV show on a single disc or two, with all the extras included. Suddenly, I've gained a lot more space on my DVD shelf. I think we will start to see a lot more of that.


I just thought of something else:

Another deciding factor into which format will win out is not which MAJOR studios get behind which format, but which MINOR studios do. Specifically, which format the (ahem...) Adult Entertainment Industry gets behind. That was a major, if largely uncredited, deciding factor in the VHS/ Beta wars, and I've no reason to doubt it will be again this time. If more porn starts getting released on HD-DVD, then more of those machines will be sold.

El Sitherino
11-04-2005, 10:22 AM
That's also why LaserDiscs never hit big.

I would like Blu-ray to win, but the DRM crap Sony is loading up in it makes it very inefficient and not very practical, especially when compared to HD-DVD's protective measures. While I think a lot of the large movie industries would like Blu-ray for it's space, HD-DVD will most likely win due to it's relative low cost to produce.

TiE23
11-04-2005, 10:34 AM
Yah, HD-DVD would probably win, Bluray is cooler and can hold more, but damn it must be expensive.

The only time when I ever see HDtv is at Costco :p and when ever I see it, I get teary eyed. :xp:

MTV2
11-04-2005, 11:00 AM
man, im going w/ Blu-Ray, over 50gigs on 1 disk! theyre also using it for the PS3...

El Sitherino
11-04-2005, 11:03 AM
theyre also using it for the PS3...
That'd be rather stupid, especially if it loses to HD-DVD which it most likely will. Even then it's far from final stages, so doing so for the PS3 would be kinda silly, what with it being in public release prototype stage. And it'd push games to costing near or above $100.

Anyway, I just remember HD resolutions. 1920x1080 and the lower 1280x720, so yeah that's still much higher than your average broadcast resolution. 640x480(NTSC)/768x576(PAL) vs. 1280x720/1920x1080.

HD wins out, and there is a very obvious difference.

toms
11-04-2005, 12:43 PM
Anyway, I just remember HD resolutions. 1920x1080 and the lower 1280x720, so yeah that's still much higher than your average broadcast resolution. 640x480(NTSC)/768x576(PAL) vs. 1280x720/1920x1080.

But the 1920 by 1080 is interlaced, so its effectively the same quality as the 1280 by 720.

SO basically for the US its
1280 / 720
640 // 480
which is a reasonable improvement.

but for the UK its
1280 / 720
768 // 576

which is not quite as noticable. Especially as are expected to all have digital receivers in the next year or two, which means true DVD quality 768 by 576 not crummy analogue 576 lines.

Still, as you say, we haven't had the chance to actually see it in action in the UK yet, so maybe i'll be blown away when i do see it. Whether I will want to repurchase all the dvds I just bought 4 years earlier in HD formats at $40 a go is another matter...

El Sitherino
11-04-2005, 01:10 PM
But the 1920 by 1080 is interlaced, so its effectively the same quality as the 1280 by 720.
Not exactly, it all depends on data transmission and picture movement. The progressive scan resolution (1280x720) will present a clearer picture for active video such as sports, but the interlaced (1920x1080) will allow for more detail to be given, but may contain some artifacting due to the interlacing.

but for the UK its
1280 / 720
768 // 576

which is not quite as noticable.

Depends on if the UK applies PAL standards to HDtv. Your resolution could be larger than that, allowing for you to get double the detail as we do.

Especially as are expected to all have digital receivers in the next year or two, which means true DVD quality 768 by 576 not crummy analogue 576 lines.

Indeed, but only as long as the video itself is capable of producing digital standards, otherwise it'd just be like going from a year old VHS to a brand new VHS. Still a not so great look, but a very slight improvement.

Still, as you say, we haven't had the chance to actually see it in action in the UK yet, so maybe i'll be blown away when i do see it.
Maybe, but the problem with a lot of HD displays at stores is they don't actually use HD feed, they just turn on some digital feed, which are crap on HDtv (when compared to real HD presentations).

swphreak
11-04-2005, 03:03 PM
In regards to the HD stuff... my dad claims there's a difference, but frankly, I don't see it. It'll look a little clearer to me, but that's it. Not worth the extra bucks for that. (Talking about HDTV... dunno if it applies)

And since I haven't been keeping up with the new stuff, no opinion.

MTV2
11-04-2005, 06:31 PM
That'd be rather stupid, especially if it loses to HD-DVD which it most likely will. Even then it's far from final stages, so doing so for the PS3 would be kinda silly, what with it being in public release prototype stage. And it'd push games to costing near or above $100.

Anyway, I just remember HD resolutions. 1920x1080 and the lower 1280x720, so yeah that's still much higher than your average broadcast resolution. 640x480(NTSC)/768x576(PAL) vs. 1280x720/1920x1080.

HD wins out, and there is a very obvious difference.
(dont quote me on this) i think the games are just going to be the same or like $10-$20 more, but, thats just me

http://www.gamestop.com/search.asp?sortby=default&searchtype=quicksearch&searchcount=12&keyword=PS3&platform=0&find.x=10&find.y=12&find=Search

CapNColostomy
11-04-2005, 07:29 PM
I for one am sick to death of format changes. I haven't even finished replacing all of my vhs tapes with dvd's, but now that I have shelves and more shelves and hundreds upon hundreds of dollars worth of dvd's, it's time to switch to something else? Screw that. Dvd's plenty good enough for me.

shukrallah
11-04-2005, 09:39 PM
for one am sick to death of format changes. I haven't even finished replacing all of my vhs tapes with dvd's, but now that I have shelves and more shelves and hundreds upon hundreds of dollars worth of dvd's, it's time to switch to something else? Screw that. Dvd's plenty good enough for me.

Its never been worth wasting the time converting everything to DVD, or worth the money rebuying the movies. If its on VHS, its going to stay on VHS for me. Unless my tape breaks or my VCR goes out... the only thing is I am buying most things on DVD now (VHS sucks... but im not wasting my money on movies I already have.)

CapNColostomy
11-05-2005, 01:23 AM
Its never been worth wasting the time converting everything to DVD, or worth the money rebuying the movies. If its on VHS, its going to stay on VHS for me. Unless my tape breaks or my VCR goes out... the only thing is I am buying most things on DVD now (VHS sucks... but im not wasting my money on movies I already have.)

Yeah, I can see that point of view. I just got to the point where vhs quality made me want to vomit after seeing some of the stuff I had on dvd. So I began replacing some stuff. That and some of the tapes had deteriorated, wrinkled, snapped, etc...It's not like I woke up one day, drooled, ate a pile of my own ****, and said "GEE-****ING-WHIZ, I WANT TO WASTE SOME MONEY!!!"

Mike Windu
11-05-2005, 02:48 AM
LOL

I still use VHS for a ton of movies.

DVD is ok. I'm not bothering with HD DVD or Blu-Ray etc.

Maybe later.

MTV2
11-05-2005, 01:07 PM
wuts wrong w/ converting everything to a blu-ray disc? u can just keep one disc in, so u dont have to keep changing discs...thats y i dont get dvds thaty much, i just rent movies...i just buy the lotr trilogy and all the starwars dvds...

w/e

TiE23
11-05-2005, 01:25 PM
wuts wrong w/ converting everything to a blu-ray disc? u can just keep one disc in, so u dont have to keep changing discs...thats y i dont get dvds thaty much, i just rent movies...i just buy the lotr trilogy and all the starwars dvds...

w/e
Ohh, the you should get Netflix, its awesome. I've got it. Should be getting Firefly in the mail today.

Kurgan
11-05-2005, 01:42 PM
All I'm concerned about is preserving my movie collection on a long-lasting format that doesn't degrade with use. That's why I'm putting al my VHS and home movies on DVD as soon as I get the time. But the new format won't be of much use for me in that area. The only thing that would break it for me is if DVD level alternatives are not available for movies I really want to own.

Darth Groovy
11-05-2005, 06:54 PM
Surprised nobody mentioned UMDs. Sony claims this is the "wave of the future". Those crazy Russians...:p

shukrallah
11-05-2005, 09:45 PM
UMDs.... are not the wave of the future.

Darth Groovy
11-05-2005, 09:50 PM
UMDs.... are not the wave of the future.


Yeah right, next thing you'll tell me is that the PSP is not also a time machine...

toms
11-07-2005, 08:24 AM
The "non degrading" nature of DVDs is a big advantage... I had a few thousand pounds worth of vhs, but they were all degrading pretty bad.. the fact that I should be able to (in theory) keep the movies on my DVDs without degredation forever is a big advantage.

And to be honest, although the video is a lot better with dvds over VHS, the major jump for me was going to full on surround sound that made it worth getting a decent sound system for. That and the fact they were in widescreen... widescreen VHS tapes were effectively at far lower resolutions because they were still 576 lines high, but half that was taken up with black bars.

I'm a bit of a horder at heart, but I think that this generation is coming too soon after DVDs for me.. it was a shame to basically just bin several hundred VHS tapes (well, actually donate them all to the charity shop) but doing the same to several hundred DVDs after only 5 years would be a complete waste..

I think I'll end up backing them all up onto a hard drive/media centre/HD-DVD or Blueray (but then of course that is slow to do and illegal) and then for the next generation I'm going to go with either digital downloads or something like netflix.

Its just too expensive to keep replacing film collections every few years..