toddly6666

I've seen full movies on HD On Demand. Whatever they are using, it's just too much for me. Someone already explained to me that the HD On Demand is just 720p. If my eyes can barely take 720p, how can i take 1080p? I ain't arguing! and I'm not trying to be taken seriously! I'm just explaining how it hurts my eyes...I'm not saying it looks bad...Invite me to your house for the real deal demo! haha

Nick Martin

Don't sit so close to the screen?

Sweet Baby James

I know that you're joking, but they actually did include a scratch free version of Planet Terror on Blu-ray.

dino88

LOL...that's terrible news.

tylergfoster

Technically, Blu-Ray is superior on three of these five factors, with a fourth being not yet quantifiable. BD cases are smaller, the films are ALWAYS in OAR -- no fullscreen transfers on BD -- and the quality is higher. Permanence can't be argued yet, nor could it have been argued at this point in the life of DVD. To this I would add durability. A DVD is pretty durable, but Blu-Rays have also increased that with the hard coat on the bottom of the disc. You can also add portability to the list, which as we've noted, Blu-Ray would lose. If you added library size, the best thing to do would be to compare it to the amount of titles DVD had at a similar point in its adoption, since until DVD dies and the number stops increasing, the disadvantage would be perpetual.

Adam Tyner

It's an extra, though. You can still check out the digitally mangled version as it was originally intended too.

Carcosa

Its not so bad...you also get the scratched up version too

Carcosa

Yikes!...we posted at the same time...

beebs

I like that both IGN articles (pro-Blu and pro-DVD) put upconversion on their list of things great about the format/players. It's like some actress getting on the worst and best dressed lists in People...

Travis McClain

I never called the studios "tyrannical," nor would I have agreed with that characterization of them. My initial point was simply that the pro-DVD crowd should be conscious of the day when their format is no longer, in your own words, considered viable. I might have majored in history, but I took some economics classes, too! (For the record, I agree with your take on this aspect of the DVD/BD debate entirely and I take full responsibility for us having already used up several posts on it. Clearly, I failed in my original objective.)

Sometimes, I find myself alienated from something by its supporters before I ever get a chance to make up my own mind about it. Twilight is a recent example--I had little interest one way or another when the trailers started circulating, but long before the film was released there was such hysteria about it that I decided I wanted no part in it. Maybe later, when the hype dies off, I'll check it out, but for now...a bunch of tween girls (and their equally obnoxious critics) have put me off on it.

With Blu-ray, I'm tech-geek enough to be interested, but there's something about the pro-Blu crowd's way of characterizing its superiority that bugs me. Even when it's not there, I just get the sense that everyone who extols its virtues is thisclose to following up everything they say with, "I'm better than you and you won't be my equal until you go Blu."

Is this a good enough reason to not go Blu? No, and I readily concede that; but nor is trying to get the pro-Blu crowd off my back a good enough reason to take the plunge.

Again, though, the entire argument in favor of Blu-ray is its superiority--which I for one do not question or debate. It is the better format. But, in accepting its superiority, one also acknowledges the inferiority of his own DVD library. How can anyone go Blu and continue to justify upconverting...when the whole reason to go Blu is that upconverting isn't good enough?

I sincerely apologize if anything I've said on this subject has come across as "open hostility," to you or anyone else. I'm not one of those "Upconvert is better than Blu-ray" people; I see myself mostly in the middle, but on the DVD side of the spectrum. I've kicked around these arguments back and forth outside this forum for myself for at least a year now, struggling to decide if I think it will be worth it to get a Blu-ray player. Every time I've ultimately decided that the argument comes down to, "Upconvert either is, or isn't, good enough." Aside from the cost issue, there's the fact that so far, I haven't heard of very many BD-exclusive bonus features that I find so compelling I would want.

Can you see how I keep hearing the taunts of superiority, in your closing remarks? I don't mean to say that I believe you are arrogantly taunting those of us who have not gone Blu. But knowing now that this is part of how I (and, I'm sure, many others) perceive that part of this debate, is it clearer why we find ourselves frequently defensive?

Thank you, by the way, for these thoughtful replies so far; we've disagreed in several posts already and neither has resorted to any name-calling. I think we should get a star by our names or something.

pro-bassoonist

As far as I am concerned, aside from pricing - which was also a very serious issue for DVD well into 2000/2001 - Blu-ray's advantages in every other category you've listed are also apparent. Even those who have come forward to claim that some of them may not be as appealing to "regular" folks have agreed.

I agree. But Blu-ray is a heck of a lot more durable than DVD - and as someone who has imported hundreds of DVDs, I know exactly what I am talking about. I am yet to experience a single issue with imported BDs. You know why.

I personally would never store my films in binders. I like having cases for the films that I own, I like having covers with booklets that I could see and read such as the ones BFI introduced (especially on 40s, 50s, and 60s films) and Blu-ray allows for some adjustments in this department. So, it seems like everything that once worked for you is working well for me. But, given the current market division, some address these advantages when they are mentioned as "chest thumping".

Perhaps there are other forums where you post and you've had some serious issues with people who support the format, but I personally have not seen a single incident on this forum where people have been on your back, forcing you to upgrade - it is very simple, if you don't like the advantages BD offer over DVD don't upgrade.

Pro-B

Jay G.

Mini-DVDs, like Mini-CDs, aren't as common, and thus it costs more to make a mini-DVD than to just use a full-sized DVD, even if the data you have could fit on a Mini-DVD.

Also, capacity increases geometrically with diameter, so a regular-sized 12cm DL DVD holds about 7.95GB, while a 8cm DL Mini-DVD holds about 2.72GB, or only about a 1/3 of what the regular-sized DVD holds. So a Mini-DVD set would need 3 discs to hold about the same amount as a regular DVD, which means many more movies would need to be split over 2 or more discs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD#DVD_capacity

Nick Martin

I love Blu-ray.

Does that mean that DVD is irrelevant to me?

Never.

There are plenty of titles I'll likely never upgrade, simply because I don't feel the need to.

I love both, and they co-exist nicely...not really favoring one over the other in a superior/inferior sort of way. That implies having to look down on one of them, and I don't.

It's a shame it's not as simple as that, but if it were then this thread wouldn't be 13 pages and counting, because it wouldn't be as remotely as interesting to talk about.

Jay G.

I know you're convinced it's the format, or HD itself, that's causing your issues. However, think of this: there's infinitely more detail in what you see every moment everyday than what can be represented in HDTV. Do you think reality looks "too sharp" to you? How about movie theaters, where the 35mm film has more detail than what HD can approximate? How about digital cinema?

The symptoms you describe seem a lot more synonymous with badly calibrated TVs than the HD format being the problem. It could be that the brightness/contrast on the TV is turned up too much. There could also be issues with "HDTV Blur" (really more a LCD/Plasma Blur), or issue with one or more of the methods TV manufacturers have come up with to try and minimize it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV_blur

There are probably a few other technical issues that may be causing your eye strain.

Finally, although it's a bit of a cliche when arguing about HDTV, you may actually want to get your eyes checked. Not noticing a difference between HD and DVD is one thing, but HDTV actually hurting your eyes represents something being wrong, either with your eyes or the hardware (or possibly a combination therein).

Jay G.

This isn't true. There are a number of titles that have been cropped from OAR 4:3 to WS for presentation on BD. A number of IMAX films have been cropped from 1.44:1 to 1.78:1.
http://www.highdefforum.com/high-def...d-blu-ray.html

Dragon's Lair was also cropped from its original 4:3 animation to 16:9 for the BD.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/27489/dragons-lair/

I think a few music concert films have also been cropped, including Roy Orbison and Friends: A Black and White Night.

The situation overall may be better than DVD was at 2-years old, but BD is not immune from altered aspect ratios, and if it catches on 16:9 may become the new "Full Screen."

Trevor

If I ever need to try to convince someone that the earth is flat, I'm going to pay you to help me write the case Pro-B. I'm convinced you could make it sound like you actually believe it.

While you may see the advantages of blu over DVD as apparent in those cases, it can't possibly be more than "slightly" apparent.

The jump from VHS to DVD was truly groundbreaking in many areas.

The jump from DVD to Blu may be thought to be groundbreaking for those that need improved A/V quality to be fully immersed in a film, but in all those other areas the "advantages" are minimal at best.

In my opinion of course, and everyone I've ever physically talked to about it, but I'm sure you disagree.

pro-bassoonist

Terrific

And seeing that you moved from here:

..to here:

...really puts things in perspective.

Pro-B

Trevor

How am I changing? Did you not notice my use of quotes on advantages, and words like "slightly" or "at best"?

tylergfoster

Well, it depends. They would of course, still be cropped, but there are cases where studios like Lionsgate have altered the aspect ratios from 2.35:1 to something else for home video, which is more a choice by the studio and less a decision incidentally made by consumers who don't understand (also, aren't most IMAX films altered for home video?). Also, at least for the most part, it would be harder to say with the documentaries that artistic intent has been damaged by reframing the transfers for widescreen televisions.

Chas Speed

I haven't read through this entire thread, but my reason for avoiding BD is I think it's going to be replaced a hell of a lot faster then the regular DVD. I have no plans on upgrading to BD and then upgrading again to Ultra HD. It might get like video game systems where you're supposed to throw away your old unit every couple of years for a new format.

Jay G.

I hope I'm not coming of as elitist in that sense. Maybe someday you'll be able to judge BD on its merits instead of what you feel about how other people feel about it.

I remember when I got DVD, it was the clearly superior video format to VHS. However, it took a while for many things I wanted to be released on DVD. So I continued to watch the few VHS I owned, I still rented VHS tapes of movies I wanted to watch, still watched VHS tapes at friends' houses, etc.

The superior technology is just one factor in determining what to watch. If I really cared about presentation over everything else, I'd see every new release I'm interested in at the movie theater (assuming it's a good theater), but I can't afford that, so I make do with the inferior experience of DVD, and I'll eventually make do with the inferior-to-movie-theaters experience of BD.

How can I be taunting people who have not gone BD when I don't have a BD player myself? My remark about people "who simply don't care about having the best video and audio quality," wasn't a judgment for or against that position at all. It was meant to be simply an observation that there are people out there who don't always need the "best" of something, and may find DVD adequate to their needs.

If most of the other BD bashers are taking its existence, and people's confirmation of its superiority in video and audio, as a personal affront, then yes, I can see why this debate has continued for so long.

Jay G.

I don't get this: all altered aspect ratio releases are decisions made by the studio. If the studio released in only OAR, the consumer would have no choice besides whether or not to buy the OAR releases.

Also, not all films released in 2.35:1 in theaters would need to be cropped to fill a 16:9 film. Many films are shot in Super35 now, which allows opening up the mattes to show more info to fit a 16:9 frame. This happened with Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and the LOTR films (for TV broadcast).

I believe that on DVD, IMAX was often cropped from 1.44:1 to 1.33:1. It still doesn't change the fact that the BD is not OAR either.

The artistic intent was for a 4:3 frame. You seem to be suggesting that documentarians don't now and don't care about framing.

Anyway, I'm not sure of your point. You initially said that BD was always OAR, which simply isn't true. If you don't mind the altered aspect ratios on certain BD release, then I don't see why you were touting OAR in the first place.

Jay G.

If you had read the entire thread, You'd know that I have already pointed out that Ultra HD is decades away from being a viable consumer format. Think about it this way: 720p and 1080i were absolute certainties as the next broadcast resolutions when DVD was release. Today, the broadcast switch to those resolutions is just nearing completion, and there's currently no plans for another resolution switch. If the FCC decides to change broadcast standards again, it probably won't happen for at least 10 years, at which point it will take them another 10 years to implement the change.

The PS2 played nearly every PS1 game. The Xbox 360 and PS3 have more limited compatibility with their immediate predecessors. The Wii plays Gamecube games.

However, video game systems also improve their graphics and gameplay while not affecting video resolution. From Pong up through the Wii, the maximum resolution stayed the same at 480 lines of resolution. The original Xbox was capable of outputting up to 1080i. The next generation of video consoles will likely not exceed either the Xbox 360 or PS3 in terms of resolution.

So for video game systems, improvements in graphics are made without changes in resolution because the images are mostly generated on the fly. With movies, all the images are pre-generated, so the resolution is one of the main ways to improve image quality, and that isn't going to go higher any time soon.

nmr1723

I know this was posted a while back...but I like this topic...

I think upconverting (upscaling) players came out for the same reason as Blu-ray...so we would replace our current players (discs for BD) with new ones....therefore....throwing some more money to our favorite CE companies (studios)

DVD players came out and were awesome...we bought them up like hotcakes...then came HDTV's (I think that was the order) and the CE companies released progressive scan players to "take advantage" of our new HDTV's...and then came the upscaling players that are supposed to give you a "near HiDef image".

How many of us replaced our old DVD players because we thought that progressive scan or upscaling was the next big improvement? I'm willing a great lot of us did...I know I'm guilty going from progressive scan to an upscaling player....and I found out my HD display does just as good of a job scaling the image as my new player.

In my opinion, many TV's can do just as good of a job scaling a DVD image as many (not all) of the upscaling players out there today....to most eyes out there...

Why are CE companies selling "upscaling" players as high end and progressive scan plays as the opening price point? Because that is where the market is. You could probably find a decent number of older progressive scan players that put out just as good, if not better image than many of the new fancy upscaling players sold at your nearest big box electronics department. Not everyone knows about Oppo, Denon, or some of the other guys that are actually putting something behind their players. Most people are buying their new upscaling player from Sony, Panny, Samsung, Philips at BestBuy or Walmart.

To me...most of upscaling is marketing...the majority of people will get just good an image from their old progressive scan players...There are some players that definitely prove this theory wrong though.

BD is not for everyone. I have about 30 BD's and 30 HD-DVD's (thank you recent sales at Amazon, Inet, and Kroger)...and I do notice the difference on my 3 year old 720p set at 10 feet away. However, I will still buy DVD's if they hit a certain price point (under $5) but anything new I would like to buy BD (when the disc drops below $20).

Like someone said earlier...I watch movies for the story. The added increase in PQ and AQ is a bonus...but it is a bonus that I like very much.

As Gizmo stated...BD probably will not replace DVD. They will coexist and each have a place in the market...and I hope it stays that way for a while. DVD's are at rental prices right now (and sometimes below)...I love picking up a DVD for $3 that I've never seen (and want to see). I can then re-watch it, lend it out to friends and family, etc...

At $20+ BD loses that impulse buy for me...and I would think...many others as well.

orangerunner

I have to agree with this as well. A good movie seen on DVD (or even VHS for that matter) is still a good movie. "Ishtar" in Blu-Ray on a 65" screen in 7.1 surround is still a crappy movie. My apologies if I offended any Ishtar fans.

The only real distraction, for me, is watching pan & scan especially for films shot in 2.35:1.