PDA

View Full Version : blu-ray v. HDDVD


Jeff
03-27-2007, 07:45 PM
Which next-gen video format do you think will succeed?

Davinq
03-27-2007, 08:03 PM
I'm happy with normal DVDs thanks. ;)

Thrik
03-27-2007, 09:04 PM
I don't really support any per se, but I'm putting my money on Blu-Ray coming out on top due to its backers, its relatively intriguing name, and also its superior storage capacity.

Commander Obi-Wan
03-27-2007, 09:21 PM
I like just the plain ol' DVDs, but I'm kinda of leaning towards HD-DVDs, but Blu-Ray is also looking quite strong.

swphreak
03-27-2007, 09:54 PM
I like my DVDs. They're starting to get cheaper, and I already have DVD Players ;)

I'm waiting til one or the other croaks before I even pick a side, and even then, it'll be awhile before the price drops. Besides, I don't even have a HDTV, so the new formats would be pointless. Am I the only one who doesn't notice a difference between HD and standard def?

Jeff
03-27-2007, 11:31 PM
I'm waiting til one or the other croaks before I even pick a side, and even then, it'll be awhile before the price drops. Besides, I don't even have a HDTV, so the new formats would be pointless. Am I the only one who doesn't notice a difference between HD and standard def?I saw a comparison video that had half the screen showing dvd quality and the other half showing blu-ray quality on a HD-tv at circuit city once. There was a very noticeable difference in the sharpness of the picture.

Joshi
03-28-2007, 05:01 AM
Blu-ray has a greater potential capacity, which is basically what these things are going for anyway, so I'm hoping that one will win out (despite HD-DVD being cheaper), but it's really all about who has the better marketing team.

EDIT

I should probably just point out to all you "I prefer DVD's anyway" people, unfortunately, because of the introduction of these new high capacity formats, in a few years time DVD's are going to go the way of the VHS. It sucks really, especially for those of us with fairly large DVD collections (I'm pushing on 500 myself and God knows, I won't be attempting to replace any of them any time soon), but it'll happen.

Thrik
03-28-2007, 07:05 AM
Yeah, I don't think the "I like DVDs" comments are really valid as they are inevitably going to just stop being circulated within years as Joshi said. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD offer pretty much the same leap forward that VHS to CDs offered, and CDs to DVDs; with them holding over 30GB each, that's a lot of data capacity.

As for standard definition and high definition, if you can't see the difference then you absolutely must be using a non-HD television or perhaps just a small television. Imagine opening a video file on your computer that fills about a quarter of the screen, then imagine opening one that's the size of the whole screen; clearly, the larger one is going to look infinitely better in full-screen on larger monitors than the smaller one. However, if you were to play them both on a small monitor you'd likely notice little difference.

There's also the fact that LCD and Plasma televisions have much sharper images than unavoidably blurry CRTs, which means that suddenly any flaws in the standard-definition quality are suddenly really obvious. For a quick example, try opening a small video file on your computer and then making it full-screen; that's pretty much what happens to a standard-definition video when displayed on a HD screen, due to its much higher resolution than a traditional TV.

Despite all the marketing bullpoo, all HD content is is a less-shrunken video file -- the quality improvement speaks for itself. What confuses people is needing different TVs and stuff, and them only supporting certain resolutions ("780i, 780p, 1080i, 1080p?!"), etc.

Joshi
03-28-2007, 07:24 AM
I believe there are players on the market at the moment that can play DVD, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, (all of which use different lasers, which is why such integration is hard to do and thus it will be more expensive), so your old DVD's won't be obsolete, but as Thrik said, in a few years, distributors will stop making them (much like many media shops such as HMV, Virgin or the media shop of your choice in your area who no longer sell VHS) and shops will stop selling them so you'll be forced to upgrade.

The nice thing about BluRay is that 30Gb's is the standard size, but with dual layer, as well as double sided discs, I think it's been theorized to be able to reach something like 80GB's or more. HD-DVD can do similar, but not quite as high capacity, but then the Discs and Players (and recorders) will be cheaper.

This links in to what Thrik said about high-def. Basically, even with the current capacity of a standard DVD, the movie needs a basic form of compression (and a very decent CPU). But with a higher capacity on the disc, you have more room to have higher resolution picture (and with 30 frames a second, that will take up a lot of room for a decent 2 hour movie) and much better clearer sound, with the possibility of extra channels if you were so inclined to have any more than 7 speakers in your room, (what better reason to never visit the cinema again when movie execs are in talks about Movies coming out in the cinema and on DVD/Blu-ray/HD-DVD simultaneously)

Even still, at the moment, they're way too expensive for most people to be thinking about on a large scale, only very well off mediaphiles will be interested (or someone who's stupid with money, one might argue there's no difference, I can certainly see a venn diagram emerging), but likely, in a few years the price will plummet as it did with the DVD player, the first one I ever bought being around 160 (mind you, it was a pretty decent player, but a player it was only) and the latest one I've bought running in around 30 (and that was over two years ago). HD-DVD players and Blu-Ray players will be sure to follow suite.

Thrik
03-28-2007, 07:38 AM
Of course if you are going to buy a Blu-Ray player at this point, you'd probably be best off going with a PlayStation 3 as you get quite a lot extra for about two-thirds of the price. ;) Not sure how it technically compares with a dedicated Blu-Ray player, but it can't be far off.

Joshi
03-28-2007, 07:44 AM
Heh, very true. not only will you be getting a Blu-Ray player, you'll be getting a whole new generation of computer chips and (if some decent developer sees fit) some really nice looking games to keep the processors busy.

Buy a Hi-Def TV, a decent speaker set up, nice relaxing chair, your choice of food and drink, a mini fridge... oh dear, my movie obsession is kicking in again.

Negative Sun
03-28-2007, 10:44 AM
I just hope they get rid of that ridiculous region format, the PS2 was really bad when it came to that, mine would only accept region 2 DVDs and not even all of them...I'm leaning more towards HD-DVDs now (Even though Blu-Ray sounds cooler), so that's where my vote went to, whether it's gonna win the HD format battle, I'm not too sure...I think a lot of it depends on how well the PS3 will do, so we'll have to wait and see.

On the other hand, buying either right now might give you an edge, because if you have items of the losing format, it might be worth a lot of money after a few decades in you attic ;)

Joshi
03-28-2007, 11:00 AM
I doubt it, Beta-max videos aren't exactly worth a lot these days, and they were superior to VHS. I don't see the losing format here being any different.

As for region codes, those were put in place so the movie industry could release DVD's at different times in different regions and it'd be more difficult for someone to, say, import a DVD from The States and watch it on their DVD player at home, before it was officially released there (if you're watching a movie at home while it's out in the cinema, they're losing vast amounts of money). They had almost the exact same process in place for Videos (PAL and NTSC).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this stayed in place for Blu-ray/HD-DVD, even though more DVD's these days are being released around the world simultaneously (due to simultaneous cinema releases) getting them shipped from the States is actually cheaper than buying them in, say, the UK (UK DVD's tend to retail at roughly twice the value of US DVD's, largely because of currency conversion, and largely because we have a stupidly expensive economy, but that's all politics, fact is, even with shipping you're making a saving).

I'd say region codes are here to stay.

swphreak
03-28-2007, 11:08 AM
The DVDs may go away, but seeing as how many there are out there, I don't expect them to disappear within a year or two. Amazon lists HD-DVD/Blu-Ray discs at $35 and up, while I can get DVDs for about $20 or less. The main selling point for me is obviously price. Maybe in a few years, when one of the formats go the way of the LaserDisc, and reigns supreme, I'll start buying. Til then, I'll stick with DVDs. The first DVD player I bought cost me about 70 bucks, and it plays everything (DVD, VCD, MP3, ect).

Joshi
03-28-2007, 11:14 AM
No, a year or two is way too short a time, both hi-def formats have only really been available for a few months at the moment, but think of how long it took for DVD's to replace VHS and you'll have yourself a decent time frame ($35 for a DVD was pretty much a standard price back when they were first introduced).

Like I said, I'm not looking to buy any until both the movies and the players come way down in price. At the moment I'm personally backing Blu-Ray for the reasons I stated above as well as the fact that it's been developed by Sony, and frankly, they need a win after the whole Betamax fiasco.

EDIT
Oh ello? Blu ray has new Region Codes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu_ray#Region_codes) if anyones interested. HD DVD has no such region coding at the moment. ;)

Negative Sun
03-28-2007, 12:16 PM
I doubt it, Beta-max videos aren't exactly worth a lot these days, and they were superior to VHS. I don't see the losing format here being any different.

As for region codes, those were put in place so the movie industry could release DVD's at different times in different regions and it'd be more difficult for someone to, say, import a DVD from The States and watch it on their DVD player at home, before it was officially released there (if you're watching a movie at home while it's out in the cinema, they're losing vast amounts of money). They had almost the exact same process in place for Videos (PAL and NTSC).

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this stayed in place for Blu-ray/HD-DVD, even though more DVD's these days are being released around the world simultaneously (due to simultaneous cinema releases) getting them shipped from the States is actually cheaper than buying them in, say, the UK (UK DVD's tend to retail at roughly twice the value of US DVD's, largely because of currency conversion, and largely because we have a stupidly expensive economy, but that's all politics, fact is, even with shipping you're making a saving).

I'd say region codes are here to stay.
I know why region codes are around, I just don't like them...

Joshi
03-28-2007, 12:24 PM
You said you hoped they'd get rid of region codes. I was just explaining why they wouldn't. :)

Negative Sun
03-28-2007, 12:25 PM
I also hope I'm gonna get rich soon, I can explain why that ain't gonna happen either ;)

Joshi
03-28-2007, 12:29 PM
That's not a hope, that's a wish. Hope suggests it might happen, like "I hope it doesn't rain tomorrow" whereas a wish would be something like "I wish i won the lottery."

I simply mistook your claim for the former. ;)

Titanius Anglesmith
03-28-2007, 12:38 PM
As of now, I like my DVDs just the way they are. Once they all finally die, I'll probably start looking in to Blu-ray. I doubt I'll be replacing every one of them, but I'll give it a whirl.

And Blu-ray sounds cooler and is much easier to say than HD-DVD. ;)

Negative Sun
03-28-2007, 12:42 PM
That's not a hope, that's a wish. Hope suggests it might happen, like "I hope it doesn't rain tomorrow" whereas a wish would be something like "I wish i won the lottery."

I simply mistook your claim for the former. ;)
It's ok, I just didn't want you to think I was some dumb*** who didn't know what region formats were for ;)

Thrik
03-28-2007, 12:49 PM
It's worth bearing in mind that your older films and such aren't particularly relevant; you can make your own call about whether or not you'll replace your favourites for the new high-definition versions (which I'm sure will eventually be replaced by even higher definition versions).

The real relevance of this discussion is of course about the future. They're not going to keep making games on DVDs indefinitely; I don't about the US, but here in the UK it's almost impossible to find a new game that's on CDs rather than a DVD, and it's been like this for at least two years.

The same will eventually become true of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, at which point you need to decide: do you pay a load for both players so you can enjoy all games/films on the market, or do you stick with one and miss out? And since the prices of the players (and discs) are dictated by supply and demand, the early adopters of the technology that ultimately loses (and paid a load for it) will get burnt.

It's a ****ty situation, but it happened before with the whole VHS/Betamax thing. Whatever the case, some technology is going to become dominant and unless an affordable player that can read them all comes out (since a Blu-Ray player is 600+, unlikely) we're going to have the make the choice at some point whether we care about the quality/capacity or not.

That or just go without new films and games. :(

Negative Sun
03-28-2007, 01:06 PM
It's worth bearing in mind that your older films and such aren't particularly relevant; you can make your own call about whether or not you'll replace your favourites for the new high-definition versions (which I'm sure will eventually be replaced by even higher definition versions).

The real relevance of this discussion is of course about the future. They're not going to keep making games on DVDs indefinitely; I don't about the US, but here in the UK it's almost impossible to find a new game that's on CDs rather than a DVD, and it's been like this for at least two years.

The same will eventually become true of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, at which point you need to decide: do you pay a load for both players so you can enjoy all games/films on the market, or do you stick with one and miss out? And since the prices of the players (and discs) are dictated by supply and demand, the early adopters of the technology that ultimately loses (and paid a load for it) will get burnt.

It's a ****ty situation, but it happened before with the whole VHS/Betamax thing. Whatever the case, some technology is going to become dominant and unless an affordable player that can read them all comes out (since a Blu-Ray player is 600+, unlikely) we're going to have the make the choice at some point whether we care about the quality/capacity or not.

That or just go without new films and games. :(
Surely the industry will realize that having two such formats battling it out for a long time is just gonna drive customers away...hopefully, one of two things will happpen: the two will compromise and just put both formats together, which would be beneficial to all, or one will die a gruesome death, because no one is going to want two HD versions of the same movie lying around...

Commander Obi-Wan
03-28-2007, 02:11 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't notice a difference between HD and standard def?

I have a High-def TV with standard cable. It's kinda of fuzzy. So, when I played my Wii on it, it was fuzzy, too. Once I bought the HD component cable for it, the picture cleared up a bit. But, when I purchased the TV they showed what it would look like with HD and without. It's much more clearer and sharper with the HD.

Though, I might just get an HDMI cable for the time being.

Joshi
03-29-2007, 04:51 AM
A company (Warner Home Video) has actually come up with a hybrid of both (for just such an occasion as when a distributor wants to cater to both markets without coming up with seperate discs). Click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats #Total_HD_and_multiple_format_.22super_discs.22)

It works because the data layer for a blu-ray disc is closer to the surface of the disc then the data of a HD-DVD disc (0.1mm and 0.6mm respectively). I can't remember the name of the company, but what they've done is basically put the blu-ray data onto a layer that works like a two way mirror. It's reflective enough that the laser of a blu-ray player can access such data, but transparent enough that the different laser of a HD-DVD player can access the data beneath that, which will be the same information, but encoded to work with a HD-DVD player.

If more distributors dealt with their products like this (currently only Warner Home Video and Paramount support both formats) it would make things a lot easier for those of us that don't want to choose, and the format war would be won by whoever sold the most players instead of whoever sold the most discs.

Negative Sun
03-29-2007, 08:20 AM
Thanks for the info Joshi, it does seem like a good solution to me, whether it will succeed is another thing...

Joshi
03-29-2007, 08:37 AM
The only small problem distributors would of course have is that they'd have to record their data twice on the same disc, using two different codecs. A lot of them may find it to be a waste of time.

Negative Sun
03-29-2007, 10:21 AM
The only small problem distributors would of course have is that they'd have to record their data twice on the same disc, using two different codecs. A lot of them may find it to be a waste of time.
But then again, if the price is attractive, they will definitely sell I think...

Joshi
03-29-2007, 10:27 AM
If The price is attractive. With the extra amount of work needed to record the disc, it'd probably be cheaper to just make it format specific and let the customers choose. Remember, if it costs more money to make, it'll sell at a higher price.

Negative Sun
03-29-2007, 11:01 AM
If The price is attractive. With the extra amount of work needed to record the disc, it'd probably be cheaper to just make it format specific and let the customers choose. Remember, if it costs more money to make, it'll sell at a higher price.
With good marketing, they might be able to pull it off though.

Joshi
03-29-2007, 11:21 AM
It'll be the distributors choice long before it's ours, marketing won't make much difference. I guess we'll just have to wait and see on what happens.

Joshi
04-02-2007, 05:03 AM
The question was which you thought will succeed/which you support.

urluckyday
04-02-2007, 06:18 PM
If I had to choose between the two...HD-DVD...now that it is on the 360...it's getting easier and easier to start watching movies in true HD...and plus, the PS3 will flop (in my opinion...besides...I'm a Wii kinda person myself)...so yea...but right now...I'll stay with regular DVD...those "upconvert" players are looking nice right now too.

narfblat
04-06-2007, 03:49 AM
I'm going to wait until the next advancement in storage technology wipes the walls with these snooty HD-DVD and Blue-Ray technologies. :)

I think regular DVD's are going to stick around for quite a while. VHS to DVD was a really exciting change, offering a smaller, better, and cooler looking storage medium for videos. The change from DVD to the new formats is better image on high-definition TV's. Also, the short time between DVD and the new formats leaves us wondering how soon the next improvement is going to be, so we wonder if we should upgrade yet.

Joshi
04-06-2007, 10:10 AM
The problem comes when the next gen format comes along and people start saying "Well, that's very nice, but I wonder what'll come along in a couple of years and whether that would be better, I think I'll just stick with what I have now and wait" and before you know it, technology's left you in the dust.

Samurai DD
04-09-2007, 06:56 PM
Neither. In this day and age, both will survive and everything will eventually run both.

Hopeully.

If not, I'm a bit bent to the HD-DVD.

urluckyday
04-09-2007, 11:15 PM
I just hope that certain companies won't be supporting ONLY HD-DVD or ONLY Blu-Ray...b/c then it's just like deciding what console to buy...not to mention...splitting the market is a bad thing to do.

Joshi
04-10-2007, 04:58 AM
I just hope that certain companies won't be supporting ONLY HD-DVD or ONLY Blu-Ray...b/c then it's just like deciding what console to buy...not to mention...splitting the market is a bad thing to do.

They already have, most of the major distribution companies are split either backing one or the other with only a handful backing both. Which is why, until one wins out (or you have enough money to buy both players) it's best, for the time being, to stick with DVD's.

urluckyday
04-13-2007, 07:50 PM
I just think that the movie industry gets further down the drain every day...stupid choices made by stupid people.

reven0123
04-14-2007, 04:37 PM
I'm happy with normal DVDs thanks. ;)
QFE

Achrono
04-15-2007, 12:01 PM
I don't support either although if I had to choose, I'd get HD-DVD. Blu-ray just seems like another format thats going to fail... (ie UMD)

And really, whats the big difference between either of them?

Joshi
04-16-2007, 04:57 AM
Blu-Ray has a higher capacity then HD-DVD and thus, can hold higher resolution images and better sound quality for better High Definition picture and sound. ;)

Ray Jones
04-16-2007, 05:14 AM
That is not true, Neil. It can hold more high-res thingers due to it's higher capacity. Not higher resolutions. :xp:


Also, since both techniques are based on the same principles, like CDs and DVDs, and basically it's still nothing else than a suped up CD, the market will most probably end up with "omnipotent" players/writers, just like we see nowadays with combined CD/DVD drives.

Joshi
04-16-2007, 05:22 AM
Technically, if it wanted to it, could holder higher resolution images or more images. The only difference being one would hold more data (more movie, more special features and so on) and one would hold better data.

Thrik
04-16-2007, 05:35 AM
Well actually he's right. At the end of the day, data is data. If you've got more capacity, then that can be used for either higher resolution images or longer movies. Of course, whether or not any televisions would be able to display the higher resolution images is another matter, but the discs could certainly hold them.

Joshi
04-16-2007, 05:42 AM
HD images have been around a lot longer than there were TV's that could display them (by very definition, CAD artists tend to work in extremely high resolution and then compress down for viewing, movies are made in the same way these days and have been for a few years now). All it would really take is for the TV manufacturers to catch up (or the people who make projectors as these seem to be a common Home Theatre item these days).

Even still, before the release of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's, there were Superbit DVD's, which were essentially normal DVD's, but the entire space of the DVD taken up with just the movie, at a very high resolution (higher than most TV's could display at the time) and better sound.

Ray Jones
04-16-2007, 06:43 AM
HD-DVDs are normal DVDs, too. The whole thing is a stupid hype over a small advance in commonly available technique, nothing more. Also, I don't think it's too useful to increase resolutions and sound-quality up to what ever, because in the end it's something that is not needed for the common or even more advanced screen experience. Okay, it is useful this time, because it's a noticeable difference for the TV sector. But we all know high resolution graphics from what we have on our computer screens, and that is also why HD tech becomes "necessary", because seriously, if you gonna watch a normal DVD via PC it visually sucks to no extend on a crystal clear TFT display due to data reduction and possible de-compression losses. But high-res is nothing new, DVD isn't either. And HDTV was introduced like over ten years ago.

The only difference being one would hold more data (more movie, more special features and so on) and one would hold better data.You can put full HD-DVD data onto a floppy disk, if you want. That may mean you need 10 floppy disks for one pixel, and another 10 for the audio data, you still have full HD data on floppy.

Joshi
04-16-2007, 06:52 AM
Never said that wasn't possible, but now it's possible for it all to be on one Disc.

And as for who'd want better resolution, you'd be surprised at the kind of people out there that strive for perfection with this type of thing.

Ray Jones
04-16-2007, 08:43 AM
And as for who'd want better resolution, you'd be surprised at the kind of people out there that strive for perfection with this type of thing.
No, I wouldn't, because I'm one of them. Though I think there is a point where "perfection" is not more than a substitute for "small-penis-compensation", if you get my meaning. :dozey:

Joshi
04-16-2007, 08:47 AM
True, but tell someone who loves this stuff that they can get really good picture with one thing, and then slightly better picture with something else and what are they going to choose?

Ray Jones
04-16-2007, 09:41 AM
Well, I guess that'd be "equipped small", then. On the other hand, often there is simply no possibility for a direct comparison of two pictures produced by two separate systems, so what's "producing a slightly better image" anyway? And those "with/without THX"-split-screen type of presentation medias would show a difference even on a solar driven calculator so these render themselves pretty pointless.

Joshi
04-16-2007, 09:43 AM
Yeah, but it's still on principal. People do stupid things for something they know to be slightly better than another despite there being practically no difference. That's why there's a format war at all.

Thrik
04-16-2007, 10:12 AM
I think the psychological need to have the best possible experience is an element of most enthusiasts' areas of choice, and this results in small or even imperceptible improvements being perceived as worth the substantially extra cost.

A classic example is audiophiles, many of whom can't actually tell the difference between lossless and and a super-high-quality lossy format, yet are addicted to checking the bitrate or whatever and aren't satisfied until they know it isn't flawed, regardless of whether or not they can pick out the flaws; this can lead to buying incredibly expensive headphones and lord knows what else. I have to admit I've fallen victim to the whole bitrate thing and feel a bit down if my mp3 isn't 320kbps.

Gaming is another area where people spend huge amounts of money on minimal performance increases so they can run the absolute latest games on full settings, which of course moves on every few months and becomes very expensive. But for someone who cannot bear to play with a poor frame rate or turn the graphics down, doing so makes them deeply unhappy.

So, like any other medium, television and film is an area where people will always shell out for minimal quality improvements regardless of whether or not you personally think it's worth it. And more often than not, even they can't really see the difference. Or if they can, it doesn't make as much of a difference to their experience as they think it does -- it's simply having that cutting edge of technology that they desire.

But hey, if you have the money. ::

Joshi
04-16-2007, 10:20 AM
I know once I get a decent job and the money to...splurge, I'll be that kind of person. ::

But it's true, it's like the people who claim to be able to tell the difference between a decent MP3 and the original CD it came from. I know there are people out there who can do that, but for the most part, there's little difference (and don't get me started on the "LP's sounded better" lot).

Ray Jones
04-16-2007, 11:13 AM
Hey, LPs sound better. :P No, really, there *is* a difference. On the other hand, I'm perfectly fine if it's an LP recorded onto CD XD

As for the bitrate thing, I'm pretty sure when I'm in a silent room with supa dupa fly headphones I'm able to hear a difference between 320kbps MP3s and CD and whatnot. But the difference does not mean it sounds better/worse. As long as there are no audio artefacts, I'm fine with 192kbps and below. Also a 128kb/s OGG file easily pees over any MP3 bitrate, size- and qualitywise. Even more, usually the lowest OGG quality (-1) produces a 40-80kb/s file which is perfectly usable for "street purposes", while a MP3 at lowest vbr rapes your ears with artefacts and such.

Joshi
04-16-2007, 11:28 AM
Yes, under the perfect circumstances, when you're in a soundproof room with an amazing speaker setup and sound system, you can tell the difference between a 320kbps MP3 and a CD, but then hardly anyone is in that situation when listening to music. More often than not their either lounging about in their living room, on the street listening to the mp3 player or in their car driving down a motorway. Perfect conditions are hardly ever available, low quality mp3's are fine for me as long as, like you say, there are no artefacts.

But we're getting off topic here. With movies, visual artefacts are easier to see, a low bitrate for encoding a movie will show up as such in things like big action sequences or any time something is fast movie/fast changing. With a higher density in the Disc (which is really the defining factor between CD's/DVD's/Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) it's easier for there to be a higher bitrate with the encoding. Basically it'll get to such a point that we'll "Home Cinema" might actually mean something.

Like I said before, a lot of distribution companies are in talks about releasing DVD's at roughly the same time, if not the same time as cinema releases. With technology being what it is, why have a giant screen TV when a projector can do the work for you (at the moment they're expensive, even with upkeep because the bulbs cost so much and don't last very long). Get a decent sound system and you'll never have to visit the cinema again (and really, apart from the good picture and sound, what reason do we have to go to begin with?)

Personally, I'm holding out for this (http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/star-wars-projector-shaped-like-r2d2-does-not-project-leia-holos-226868.php), just to quench the thirst of my inner Geek.

Ray Jones
04-16-2007, 12:04 PM
But we're getting off topic here.Nah. You can store those onto BR/HD, eh!

With movies, visual artefacts are easier to see, a low bitrate for encoding a movie will show up as such in things like big action sequences or any time something is fast movie/fast changing. With a higher density in the Disc (which is really the defining factor between CD's/DVD's/Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) it's easier for there to be a higher bit-rate with the encoding.The optimum for them perfectionists would be lossless encoding, what of course will almost never be the optimum for the distributors. And it's not only higher data density for higher bit-rates, you'll need also hardware that is capable to do the decoding fast enough and transfer rates high enough to get the information where it belongs fast enough, because if you cannot decode the high-res pictures, or fully display them as needed, the whole thing becomes a pile of mammoth barf: undefinable crap which is uneasy on the eyes.


Get a decent sound system and you'll never have to visit the cinema again (and really, apart from the good picture and sound, what reason do we have to go to begin with?)You know what I have to say now, why do you make me say that? You are soo ARRRGHGHHHH!!!

*holds breath* mmmmmhmhmhhnmmhhmhmmhmmhmmh

:dozey:

*sigh*





To make out with the opposite gender, spoothead!!

Joshi
04-16-2007, 12:09 PM
Yeah, because doing that in the privacy of your own home (where there's more chance of... more happening) is a stupid idea :eyes:

And yes, obviously the hardware needs to be good enough to decode the pictures faster so that we don't simply get choppy pictures (hence why old computers with a low CPU have worse DVD playback than newer computers) but that's basically the way technology is moving these days.

Ray Jones
04-16-2007, 12:34 PM
Yeah, because doing that in the privacy of your own home (where there's more chance of... more happening) is a stupid idea:dozey: Neil. Neil. Neil. It shouldn't be that hard. Go to the cinema, make out, go home, make out some more, bring her home, make out, make out, make out, make out.

You asked for a reason *aside* from sound and screen-size, I gave you one. P-E-A-R-E-E-O-U-T!

And yes, obviously the hardware needs to be good enough to decode the pictures faster so that we don't simply get choppy picturesNot necessarily choppy, but the pictures are drawn when not fully decoded, which means artefacts, "motion blurs", etc. Choppiness comes last, when whole pictures are left out due to really, really lame hardware or media errors.

Joshi
04-16-2007, 12:38 PM
Yeah, but why go to the cinema when you're just gonna end up back home anyway? May as well just stay home and slip a DVD into your R2D2 Unit.

Ray Jones
04-16-2007, 12:44 PM
Maybe because you usually don't meet girls at home, while sitting on the couch. Or maybe it's 6pm and you still live with your parents and two younger siblings (which appears to be quite often the case when you're under 18).

Hey, or imagine that: you do that for the sheer fun of it.

Joshi
04-17-2007, 05:03 AM
Honestly, I say one thing and you manage to move off onto an entire tangent. It's expected on the MI boards, but I was hoping for a more focussed discussion here (oh who am I kidding). But really, I don't expect 18 year olds or younger who still live with their parents to have an overly elaborate Home Theatre setup. And whilst I don't generally meet girls at my home, I sure as hell don't pick them up at the nearest cinema...

Back on to topic.

Question to you all:

Where do you think technology will move to in this area? Specifically with how movies are distributed. You can already download fairly high quality (and I think HD) movies from places like iTunes and so on and with faster and faster connections becoming cheaper and cheaper for the home user, do you think it might be possible that once a nice balance has been made between a distributors standpoint and a consumers standpoint things like DVD's/HD-DVD or whatever will become obsolete? Or will there always be those (like myself) who prefer to have a physical representation of what they've bought?

And if it is the latter, where do you think technology will move to in terms of things like disk space, size, what they look like and so on. Do you think technology could move so far that we could get full High Definition movies with special feature and all on something the size of, say an SD card? Would we want to? And what about the players themselves? Exactly how big/small would they have to be and what new features could they have?

Discuss.

Ray Jones
04-17-2007, 07:02 AM
Honestly, I say one thing and you manage to move off onto an entire tangent. It's expected on the MI boards, but I was hoping for a more focussed discussion here (oh who am I kidding). I was just answering to your question, so don't blame me! XP

But really, I don't expect 18 year olds or younger who still live with their parents to have an overly elaborate Home Theatre setup.Oh, what a pity, I know a couple, and was one of them, too.

And whilst I don't generally meet girls at my home, I sure as hell don't pick them up at the nearest cinema...Would you please stop that already? Else I'm afraid I'll have to report your behaviour, Neil, and I mean it!!!

Back on to topic.Which topic?

Question to you all:Ah.

Where do you think technology will move to in this area? Specifically with how movies are distributed. You can already download fairly high quality (and I think HD) movies from places like iTunes and so on and with faster and faster connections becoming cheaper and cheaper for the home user, do you think it might be possible that once a nice balance has been made between a distributors standpoint and a consumers standpoint things like DVD's/HD-DVD or whatever will become obsolete? Or will there always be those (like myself) who prefer to have a physical representation of what they've bought?I think, basically, there will always be some kind of media available to store and transport data (what kind of data that ever may be). But the way those data, regardless if communications, multimedia or whatever, will be made available or commonly distributed will be network-like, possibly based upon what we currently know as the TUM!! TUUMM! TUUUUMMM!! internet.

And if it is the latter, where do you think technology will move to in terms of things like disk space, size, what they look like and so on. Do you think technology could move so far that we could get full High Definition movies with special feature and all on something the size of, say an SD card? Would we want to?Oh, yes. And even further.

And what about the players themselves? Exactly how big/small would they have to be and what new features could they have?You know, things will be pretty much Star-Trek-ish or the like. You'll have some small box which will "beam" the screen where you want to in the size you want to. Audio is delivered through some new kind of speaker, which needs no speaker as we know it now. The sonic waves will be produced by direct stimulation of the air molecules via MASER, LASER or whatever. Enhanced physics ATW and FTW, yeah.

Oh, and another feature would be, that those boxes can create some kind of visual barrier, so you can, while watching a movie in the bus on your way to your over-paid job on Pluto, easily make out with the opposite gender within an ramontish atmosphere. Eh.

Joshi
04-17-2007, 07:34 AM
How about something like this (http://www.dmxp.co.uk/DVD-Gaming-Multimedia-Glasses-40-Virtual-Display/)?

Now to be honest, this, and it's various incarnations and similar products from other companies, is kinda ugly. I'm fairly sure an external power supply would be needed for any decent viewing time and the actual picture would just be so awkward that at the moment, they're not the most essential thing in the world...

But how about the future. For years Fighter pilots have had jet readouts and so on almost projected onto their visor. This means they can still see everything around them, their peripheral vision isn't affected, but things like altitude, and other important things are shown on their visors in such a way that it looks like it's being projected a few feet in from of them. Very recent Cars have had the same thing so that readouts of speed and fuel and so on look like they're being projected a few feet in front of the car. It's really just an optical illusion, but do you think that in the future, a stylish pair of glasses could be produced to do the same thing with movies?

Ray Jones
04-17-2007, 07:50 AM
What you talk about here are 'head up displays' (HUDs), one of the first things you get to know when playing fighter jet simulations. But concerning picture quality, HUD technology will never ever reach a level worth watching a whole movie with it, if used with glasses or not, because the plane where the picture is created is has to be see-through, because that's the core thought of HUDs. Video telephony perhabs, or something like that, but not "home cinema" a la THX.

No, really, I think future display technology will be able to throw their stuff right into the air, in amazing quality and size.

Joshi
04-17-2007, 08:00 AM
Oh okay, well I guess you know more about it than I do, I've only heard stuff

As for what you're suggesting, that would require a huge leap forward in hologram technology, something that's only in it's baby stages at the moment, but it should be viable.

Ray Jones
04-17-2007, 09:52 AM
Yeah, a huge leap, like, from the equipment needed for the first photographic picture to photo-sensor-chips as large as your pinky-toe-nail taking hi-res pictures and movies through a hole one millimetre and less in diameter, in all possible ranges of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Fast enough to take a shot of the ending of a LASER beam. :)


Oh, and you can make a HUD on your own, just face your (active) mobile phone display towards a window (closed, with glass, just in case XD) and you should see the reflection of the display on the pane.

Et violina, H-U-D in yo' face mon. :P

Echo-7
04-24-2007, 04:29 PM
I'm happy with normal DVDs thanks. ;)

same here.

Darth_Xasthur
01-21-2008, 01:46 PM
its all about regular old DVD....

littleman794
04-28-2008, 06:50 PM
its all about regular old DVD....

very true....why even bother getting something newer if old DVD's work?

Joshi
04-29-2008, 09:46 AM
Blu-Ray's sitting on very thin ice at the moment. While it has won the war, it's battle costs were huge, giving it an unfair runout. At this point one of two things will happen, either Blu-ray players and discs become cheap enough that everyone buys one (along with a HD-TV), which will send regular old DVD's the way of the vhs tape, or Blu-ray won't be able to keep it's head above water with manufacturing costs and die an slow death leaving us with DVD until we get something better.

The latter version isn't all that likely, but there's still a chance it'll happen if Blu-ray doesn't make some drastic changes to it's pricing sooner than what's estimated.

Thrik
04-29-2008, 09:53 AM
very true....why even bother getting something newer if old DVD's work?
While I won't comment on the HD format battle as a whole like Neil has (very adequately) done, I will say this: DVD quality looks like absolute crap on a large high-definition television. That's why these high-definition formats were created big televisions simply need the larger image to avoid a blurry look.

If you look at life from a purely functional perspective then maybe the significantly worse quality isn't an issue. If you strive for the most luxurious home cinema experience like I do, there's no other option. :D

Joshi
04-29-2008, 10:10 AM
Very true. The very basis of it works like this:

Right now, your average DVD's run at about 720x480 resolution (roughly, it'll change depending if you're using PAL or NTSC, people in America will be using NTSC). This is because, this is the highest resolution a normal TV can handle (no matter the size, from 14 inch to 19 and above, if the TV isn't HD ready it will be this resolution and on very large TV's, it won't look nearly as good).

HD TV's, though, require a lot more information for movies and so on to be HD, they run between 1280720 and 19201080 (although higher is expected in about 2015). They also have a higher framerate (i.e, how many times a second the screen refreshes) to acommodate a larger picture. With all this considered, on such a TV, you'll see a large drop in quality when viewing a normal TV, when compared to Blu-Ray or just HD TV.

Again, as Thrik says, if this kind of thing really doesn't bother you, then wait it out (eventually everyone will be using HD, but that won't be for many years), but for those of us whom enjoy a good experience out of our home cinemas, it has come to be fairly important to us.

littleman794
05-07-2008, 08:06 PM
Still....Original DVD players is where it is at....:xp:

Joshi
05-08-2008, 08:30 AM
For the time being. ;)