Blue Ray & HD, is it that Bad..?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by zipdisk@clearme.org.nz, Oct 15, 2006.

  1. Guest

    The next clip happened to be a DVD vs Blu-ray comparison of the live action movie "A Knight's Tale".
    First, let me say that the "DVD" quality, or lack there of, was definitely exaggerated a bit, though
    I guess that is to be expected in any kind of demonstration like this. The Blu-ray image, though,
    also didn't seem to fair well. I'm not sure if it was the player or the movie itself, but background
    details, such as a stone wall, were cluttered with image noise and the clip, as a whole, seemed to
    lack clarity and visual depth.



    http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=35592
     
    , Oct 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. E. Scrooge Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > The next clip happened to be a DVD vs Blu-ray comparison of the live
    > action movie "A Knight's Tale".
    > First, let me say that the "DVD" quality, or lack there of, was definitely
    > exaggerated a bit, though
    > I guess that is to be expected in any kind of demonstration like this. The
    > Blu-ray image, though,
    > also didn't seem to fair well. I'm not sure if it was the player or the
    > movie itself, but background
    > details, such as a stone wall, were cluttered with image noise and the
    > clip, as a whole, seemed to
    > lack clarity and visual depth.


    How the Hell can one watch a decent Blu-Ray demo without a Blu-Ray player?

    Just what is the bit rate?

    Better be well over 15MB per second. Since the best quality recordings I
    can do is at 15MB per second.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mutley Guest

    "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> The next clip happened to be a DVD vs Blu-ray comparison of the live
    >> action movie "A Knight's Tale".
    >> First, let me say that the "DVD" quality, or lack there of, was definitely
    >> exaggerated a bit, though
    >> I guess that is to be expected in any kind of demonstration like this. The
    >> Blu-ray image, though,
    >> also didn't seem to fair well. I'm not sure if it was the player or the
    >> movie itself, but background
    >> details, such as a stone wall, were cluttered with image noise and the
    >> clip, as a whole, seemed to
    >> lack clarity and visual depth.

    >
    >How the Hell can one watch a decent Blu-Ray demo without a Blu-Ray player?
    >
    >Just what is the bit rate?
    >
    >Better be well over 15MB per second. Since the best quality recordings I
    >can do is at 15MB per second.
    >
    >E. Scrooge
    >

    You can buy one for $3995 in NZ if you want one.. Saw them
    advertised in Saturdays NZ Herald..
     
    Mutley, Oct 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Who Me Guest

    Mutley wrote:
    > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:
    >
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> The next clip happened to be a DVD vs Blu-ray comparison of the live
    >>> action movie "A Knight's Tale".
    >>> First, let me say that the "DVD" quality, or lack there of, was definitely
    >>> exaggerated a bit, though
    >>> I guess that is to be expected in any kind of demonstration like this. The
    >>> Blu-ray image, though,
    >>> also didn't seem to fair well. I'm not sure if it was the player or the
    >>> movie itself, but background
    >>> details, such as a stone wall, were cluttered with image noise and the
    >>> clip, as a whole, seemed to
    >>> lack clarity and visual depth.

    >> How the Hell can one watch a decent Blu-Ray demo without a Blu-Ray player?
    >>
    >> Just what is the bit rate?
    >>
    >> Better be well over 15MB per second. Since the best quality recordings I
    >> can do is at 15MB per second.
    >>
    >> E. Scrooge
    >>

    > You can buy one for $3995 in NZ if you want one.. Saw them
    > advertised in Saturdays NZ Herald..



    Think I'll just wait a few years till the're selling them at Countdown
    for $70


    Who Me
     
    Who Me, Oct 15, 2006
    #4
  5. steve Guest

    Who Me wrote:

    > Think I'll just wait a few years till the're selling them at Countdown
    > for $70
    >
    > Who Me


    ....and the DRM can be turned off at will.

    Or why bother at all?

    Present technologies are more than good enough....and aren't crippled.
     
    steve, Oct 15, 2006
    #5
  6. E. Scrooge Guest

    "steve" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Who Me wrote:
    >
    >> Think I'll just wait a few years till the're selling them at Countdown
    >> for $70
    >>
    >> Who Me

    >
    > ...and the DRM can be turned off at will.
    >
    > Or why bother at all?
    >
    > Present technologies are more than good enough....and aren't crippled.


    Present technology has huge market support.

    SVHS was slightly better than VHS, yet it SVHS never took off like VHS did.
    Seems my E70 SVHS isn't worth any more than the average lousy VHS recorder
    these days.

    By the time anyone looks at Blu-Ray in a few years time, an even better
    format will be out.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 15, 2006
    #6
  7. In message <1160889544.751939@ftpsrv1>, *sling wrote:

    > By the time anyone looks at Blu-Ray in a few years time, an even better
    > format will be out.


    Maybe. Or maybe not. Everything could be hard-drive-based by then.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 15, 2006
    #7
  8. Mutley Guest

    "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:

    >
    >"steve" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Who Me wrote:
    >>
    >>> Think I'll just wait a few years till the're selling them at Countdown
    >>> for $70
    >>>
    >>> Who Me

    >>
    >> ...and the DRM can be turned off at will.
    >>
    >> Or why bother at all?
    >>
    >> Present technologies are more than good enough....and aren't crippled.

    >
    >Present technology has huge market support.
    >
    >SVHS was slightly better than VHS, yet it SVHS never took off like VHS did.
    >Seems my E70 SVHS isn't worth any more than the average lousy VHS recorder
    >these days.
    >
    >By the time anyone looks at Blu-Ray in a few years time, an even better
    >format will be out.
    >
    >E. Scrooge
    >

    Yep. Agree with you there. I don't plan to go to any Hi Def DVD
    format any time soon. Regular DVD will be fine even if I get a HD
    capable TV in the next year or two
     
    Mutley, Oct 15, 2006
    #8
  9. El Penguino Guest

    On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:18:22 +1300, steve <>
    wrote:

    >Who Me wrote:
    >
    >> Think I'll just wait a few years till the're selling them at Countdown
    >> for $70
    >>
    >> Who Me

    >
    >...and the DRM can be turned off at will.
    >
    >Or why bother at all?
    >
    >Present technologies are more than good enough....and aren't crippled.


    Content providers will give us 'incentives' to move over, such as
    releasing movies in the new formats and not the old DVD format.

    I am sure they will apply all their marketing cunning to the issue of
    making us abandon DVD format.

    Personally I am looking forward to how many divx movies I can fit on a
    blu ray ROM :)
     
    El Penguino, Oct 15, 2006
    #9
  10. E. Scrooge Guest

    "Mutley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"steve" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> Who Me wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Think I'll just wait a few years till the're selling them at
    >>>> Countdown
    >>>> for $70
    >>>>
    >>>> Who Me
    >>>
    >>> ...and the DRM can be turned off at will.
    >>>
    >>> Or why bother at all?
    >>>
    >>> Present technologies are more than good enough....and aren't crippled.

    >>
    >>Present technology has huge market support.
    >>
    >>SVHS was slightly better than VHS, yet it SVHS never took off like VHS
    >>did.
    >>Seems my E70 SVHS isn't worth any more than the average lousy VHS recorder
    >>these days.
    >>
    >>By the time anyone looks at Blu-Ray in a few years time, an even better
    >>format will be out.
    >>
    >>E. Scrooge
    >>

    > Yep. Agree with you there. I don't plan to go to any Hi Def DVD
    > format any time soon. Regular DVD will be fine even if I get a HD
    > capable TV in the next year or two


    The present DVD format should last for several years given the amount of
    people who own DVD players.
    With VCRs there wasn't any VHS only players, and VHS movies for sale were
    hardly fast sellers due to lousy quality tapes that deteriorated and were
    easily damaged.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 15, 2006
    #10
  11. In message <>, El Penguino wrote:

    > Content providers will give us 'incentives' to move over, such as
    > releasing movies in the new formats and not the old DVD format.


    They didn't quite do that in the move to DVD. Instead, they continued
    selling VHS tapes for as long as people wanted them, which was a few years
    after the introduction of DVDs. After all, they'd rather sell something
    than not sell something.

    What sold people on the switch to DVD was 1) higher picture quality, 2)
    extra features, and 3) greater availability of content (smaller packaging
    meant retailers could put more different titles on the shelves).
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 15, 2006
    #11
  12. E. Scrooge Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:egsthg$nl1$...
    > In message <>, El Penguino
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Content providers will give us 'incentives' to move over, such as
    >> releasing movies in the new formats and not the old DVD format.

    >
    > They didn't quite do that in the move to DVD. Instead, they continued
    > selling VHS tapes for as long as people wanted them, which was a few years
    > after the introduction of DVDs. After all, they'd rather sell something
    > than not sell something.
    >
    > What sold people on the switch to DVD was 1) higher picture quality, 2)
    > extra features, and 3) greater availability of content (smaller packaging
    > meant retailers could put more different titles on the shelves).


    More reliable media more than anything else.
    A brand new VHS movie didn't give a bad picture. Different story after
    plenty of use and a few years later.
    More people would be buying DVDs than they ever bothered to buy VHS tapes.
    DVD sales will be hurting the video stores.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 15, 2006
    #12
  13. Mutlley Guest

    "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:

    >


    >>>

    >> Yep. Agree with you there. I don't plan to go to any Hi Def DVD
    >> format any time soon. Regular DVD will be fine even if I get a HD
    >> capable TV in the next year or two

    >
    >The present DVD format should last for several years given the amount of
    >people who own DVD players.
    >With VCRs there wasn't any VHS only players, and VHS movies for sale were
    >hardly fast sellers due to lousy quality tapes that deteriorated and were
    >easily damaged.
    >
    >E. Scrooge
    >

    There were actually VHS only players. These were available up to
    about 1990 and quite comment in businesses who did not want to record
    and were also touted as a cheap option for those who wanted to play
    rented movies but couldn't afford a full recorder..
     
    Mutlley, Oct 15, 2006
    #13
  14. steve Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <1160889544.751939@ftpsrv1>, *sling wrote:
    >
    >> By the time anyone looks at Blu-Ray in a few years time, an even better
    >> format will be out.

    >
    > Maybe. Or maybe not. Everything could be hard-drive-based by then.


    The whole point of technologies like DVD is that they are portable.

    The problem with them is that they are not as durable as originally thought.

    So you pay $39 for something that won't last. Old vinyl records would
    degrade and become scratchy but at least could be played for decades.

    Plastic digital media can become unplayable with only a few errors.

    If you can't copy what you buy in order to preserve it, I wouldn't bother
    buying it. I don't need the culture they claim absolute ownership of.
     
    steve, Oct 15, 2006
    #14
  15. JohnO Guest

    Mutley wrote:
    > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > ><> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> The next clip happened to be a DVD vs Blu-ray comparison of the live
    > >> action movie "A Knight's Tale".
    > >> First, let me say that the "DVD" quality, or lack there of, was definitely
    > >> exaggerated a bit, though
    > >> I guess that is to be expected in any kind of demonstration like this. The
    > >> Blu-ray image, though,
    > >> also didn't seem to fair well. I'm not sure if it was the player or the
    > >> movie itself, but background
    > >> details, such as a stone wall, were cluttered with image noise and the
    > >> clip, as a whole, seemed to
    > >> lack clarity and visual depth.

    > >
    > >How the Hell can one watch a decent Blu-Ray demo without a Blu-Ray player?
    > >
    > >Just what is the bit rate?
    > >
    > >Better be well over 15MB per second. Since the best quality recordings I
    > >can do is at 15MB per second.
    > >
    > >E. Scrooge
    > >

    > You can buy one for $3995 in NZ if you want one.. Saw them
    > advertised in Saturdays NZ Herald..


    Under $3k according to the Magness Benrow ad on the radio this morning
     
    JohnO, Oct 16, 2006
    #15
  16. In message <1160906083.369347@ftpsrv1>, *sling wrote:

    >
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    > news:egsthg$nl1$...
    >> In message <>, El Penguino
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Content providers will give us 'incentives' to move over, such as
    >>> releasing movies in the new formats and not the old DVD format.

    >>
    >> They didn't quite do that in the move to DVD. Instead, they continued
    >> selling VHS tapes for as long as people wanted them, which was a few
    >> years after the introduction of DVDs. After all, they'd rather sell
    >> something than not sell something.
    >>
    >> What sold people on the switch to DVD was 1) higher picture quality, 2)
    >> extra features, and 3) greater availability of content (smaller packaging
    >> meant retailers could put more different titles on the shelves).

    >
    > More reliable media more than anything else.
    > A brand new VHS movie didn't give a bad picture.


    It gave a mediocre picture. The whole VHS format was full of compromises on
    s/n, bandwidth, y/c separation, timebase stability, you name it.

    > More people would be buying DVDs than they ever bothered to buy VHS tapes.
    > DVD sales will be hurting the video stores.


    Guess what the video stores are selling now?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2006
    #16
  17. E. Scrooge Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:egug4o$iec$...
    > In message <1160906083.369347@ftpsrv1>, *sling wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >> news:egsthg$nl1$...
    >>> In message <>, El Penguino
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Content providers will give us 'incentives' to move over, such as
    >>>> releasing movies in the new formats and not the old DVD format.
    >>>
    >>> They didn't quite do that in the move to DVD. Instead, they continued
    >>> selling VHS tapes for as long as people wanted them, which was a few
    >>> years after the introduction of DVDs. After all, they'd rather sell
    >>> something than not sell something.
    >>>
    >>> What sold people on the switch to DVD was 1) higher picture quality, 2)
    >>> extra features, and 3) greater availability of content (smaller
    >>> packaging
    >>> meant retailers could put more different titles on the shelves).

    >>
    >> More reliable media more than anything else.
    >> A brand new VHS movie didn't give a bad picture.

    >
    > It gave a mediocre picture. The whole VHS format was full of compromises
    > on
    > s/n, bandwidth, y/c separation, timebase stability, you name it.
    >
    >> More people would be buying DVDs than they ever bothered to buy VHS
    >> tapes.
    >> DVD sales will be hurting the video stores.

    >
    > Guess what the video stores are selling now?


    Yes they need to sell new DVDs.
    Rental DVDs get worse treatment than VHS tapes. Someone that returns a
    brand new release rental DVD all scratched up should be ticked off. I'd be
    on the phone to them warning of cancelling their membership if they can't
    look after the rentals better than that.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 16, 2006
    #17
  18. E. Scrooge Guest

    "JohnO" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Mutley wrote:
    >> "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> ><> wrote in message
    >> >news:...
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> The next clip happened to be a DVD vs Blu-ray comparison of the live
    >> >> action movie "A Knight's Tale".
    >> >> First, let me say that the "DVD" quality, or lack there of, was
    >> >> definitely
    >> >> exaggerated a bit, though
    >> >> I guess that is to be expected in any kind of demonstration like this.
    >> >> The
    >> >> Blu-ray image, though,
    >> >> also didn't seem to fair well. I'm not sure if it was the player or
    >> >> the
    >> >> movie itself, but background
    >> >> details, such as a stone wall, were cluttered with image noise and the
    >> >> clip, as a whole, seemed to
    >> >> lack clarity and visual depth.
    >> >
    >> >How the Hell can one watch a decent Blu-Ray demo without a Blu-Ray
    >> >player?
    >> >
    >> >Just what is the bit rate?
    >> >
    >> >Better be well over 15MB per second. Since the best quality recordings
    >> >I
    >> >can do is at 15MB per second.
    >> >
    >> >E. Scrooge
    >> >

    >> You can buy one for $3995 in NZ if you want one.. Saw them
    >> advertised in Saturdays NZ Herald..

    >
    > Under $3k according to the Magness Benrow ad on the radio this morning


    They should sell like hot cakes at that price, and thanks to the large
    variarty of movies that are out on Blu - Ray DVDs for only $149.99 each.
    One only needs the real High Definition telly to go with it for about
    another $20,000.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 17, 2006
    #18
  19. E. Scrooge Guest

    "JohnO" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Mutley wrote:
    >> "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> ><> wrote in message
    >> >news:...
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> The next clip happened to be a DVD vs Blu-ray comparison of the live
    >> >> action movie "A Knight's Tale".
    >> >> First, let me say that the "DVD" quality, or lack there of, was
    >> >> definitely
    >> >> exaggerated a bit, though
    >> >> I guess that is to be expected in any kind of demonstration like this.
    >> >> The
    >> >> Blu-ray image, though,
    >> >> also didn't seem to fair well. I'm not sure if it was the player or
    >> >> the
    >> >> movie itself, but background
    >> >> details, such as a stone wall, were cluttered with image noise and the
    >> >> clip, as a whole, seemed to
    >> >> lack clarity and visual depth.
    >> >
    >> >How the Hell can one watch a decent Blu-Ray demo without a Blu-Ray
    >> >player?
    >> >
    >> >Just what is the bit rate?
    >> >
    >> >Better be well over 15MB per second. Since the best quality recordings
    >> >I
    >> >can do is at 15MB per second.
    >> >
    >> >E. Scrooge
    >> >

    >> You can buy one for $3995 in NZ if you want one.. Saw them
    >> advertised in Saturdays NZ Herald..

    >
    > Under $3k according to the Magness Benrow ad on the radio this morning


    I'm sure that single layer 4.7GB DVDRs out sell dual layer DVDRs despite the
    fact that one can get better quality 3 hours of video onto a dual layer
    DVDR. Which is not a good sign for the better quality more expensive again
    Blu - Ray DVD format.
    Blu - Ray higher capacity DVDRs are bound to be at least $20 each.

    Basic DVD players weren't cheap when they first came out, only difference is
    that there wasn't another decent video option around at the time. The
    closest was SVCDs.

    E. Scrooge
     
    E. Scrooge, Oct 17, 2006
    #19
  20. Murray Symon Guest

    On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:04:47 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <>, El Penguino
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Content providers will give us 'incentives' to move over, such as
    >> releasing movies in the new formats and not the old DVD format.

    >
    > They didn't quite do that in the move to DVD. Instead, they continued
    > selling VHS tapes for as long as people wanted them, which was a few years
    > after the introduction of DVDs. After all, they'd rather sell something
    > than not sell something.
    >
    > What sold people on the switch to DVD was 1) higher picture quality, 2)
    > extra features, and 3) greater availability of content (smaller packaging
    > meant retailers could put more different titles on the shelves).


    (4) no rewinding required
     
    Murray Symon, Oct 19, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,126
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    556
  3. Luke Duke
    Replies:
    63
    Views:
    1,962
    POD {Ò¿Ó}
    Jan 11, 2008
  4. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,311
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
  5. Blig Merk
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,956
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
    Apr 27, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page