Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Old 08-17-09, 02:04 PM
  #76  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: STL
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by chris_sc77 View Post
Bitter, Angry and scared folks. Thats what that sure sounds like.
How many times must I remind you that DVD STILL outsells Blu-ray AT LEAST 9 to 1. Come back and say this when the numbers are a little more level.
Of course it outsells it, HDTV penetration level is at what, 25%?


It took how long for DVD to "fully" take over? 9 years?

Of course DVDs are still going to be outselling when most people don't have a HDTV yet, and even then, longer for Blu-ray sales to overtake DVD.


Not to mention, I never said anything about sales, so why was it brought up?

Now, I'm going to go cry that my First Generation Ipod & Betamax player obsolete, I'll be back later.

Last edited by anomynous; 08-17-09 at 02:06 PM.
Old 08-17-09, 02:29 PM
  #77  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 43,555
Received 387 Likes on 274 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by chris_sc77 View Post
Bitter, Angry and scared folks. Thats what that sure sounds like.
Sorry bro, you're the only one who sounds bitter and angry here. I'm not bitter and angry at all, because I'm enjoying my blu-ray discs more than ever with my nice new 50" plasma.

A question for blu-ray "haters":
What kind of TV do you have and how big is it?
Old 08-17-09, 02:43 PM
  #78  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by slop101 View Post
Sorry bro, you're the only one who sounds bitter and angry here. I'm not bitter and angry at all, because I'm enjoying my blu-ray discs more than ever with my nice new 50" plasma.

A question for blu-ray "haters":
What kind of TV do you have and how big is it?
I'm not a Blu-ray hater, the quality of the picture and sound is better. I just feel it's overpriced and a stop-gap for compact hard-drives that can store hundreds of HD movies.

Currently I have a 36" Sony Wega CRT and I sit 7 feet away. Is Blu-ray going to be any reasonable advantage for me over DVD? No.
Old 08-17-09, 02:50 PM
  #79  
DVD Talk Hero
 
slop101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: So. Cal.
Posts: 43,555
Received 387 Likes on 274 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
Currently I have a 36" Sony Wega CRT and I sit 7 feet away. Is Blu-ray going to be any reasonable advantage for me over DVD? No.
For you, hardly, if at all. My point is if/when you do get a bigger, nicer TV (>50"), you won't be nearly as ambivalent about blu-ray discs as you are now. And as far as prices, they're coming way down. I haven't paid more than $15 for a catalog title in a long while - and they're getting even cheaper by the week.
Old 08-17-09, 07:23 PM
  #80  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by kefrank View Post
This thread is just a joke, right?
+1

The sue-first, think-later mentality penetrating everything lately is downright silly. The studio has the right to release whatever they want at whatever price they want, the consumer has the right to buy it or not buy it. It's a fairly simple agreement.
Old 08-17-09, 07:24 PM
  #81  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
My question back to you is why are we being told to purchase $6.00 Blu-ray 25G blank discs when the you can achieve the same 1080p Full HD quality with a $1.00 dual-layer DVD-R?
Nobody told me I have to buy anything, so I can't answer your question. Maybe you're too easily swayed by marketing.

Burnable Blu-ray has other uses than just home video. I don't know what they are, because for the foreseeable future I feel no need to buy a Blu-ray burner.
Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
I guess it depends on your age. If you're 35+ you're probably getting tired after collecting VHS, then Laser Disc, then DVD and now Blu-ray is the next "gotta-have" format.
I'm 45, so that isn't the case for me. I also feel no need to run out and replace everything I own with Blu-rays. I replace a few things as I find them for good prices on sale (like "2001" for $8.99), but I mostly buy new releases or I rent.
Old 08-17-09, 10:14 PM
  #82  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
speedy1961's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: In a small pocket universe hoping to someday become a Moderator Emeritus at DVDTalk.com!
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by hindolio View Post
i apologize if i am not in the loop on this, but why are some new sd dvd releases so poor in quality compared to their blu counterparts? ive seen numerous threads lately about how bad the sd dvd release is while the blu is near perfect. i recall comments about this on the dark knight.

if this is accurate, as a few posters in the past have suggested, are studios intentionally releasing subpar sd dvds in order to widen the difference when compared to blu? of course, this is not illegal or discriminatory in the sense of each word. but i'll argue it is pretty sucky.
Of course this is true. This really stems from the belief that parent corporations really"know" what the masses are willing to buy / consume.

I myself will hold off on converting to Blu-Ray until I absolutely have to.

Last edited by speedy1961; 08-17-09 at 10:16 PM.
Old 08-17-09, 10:23 PM
  #83  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Mr. Salty View Post
Nobody told me I have to buy anything, so I can't answer your question. Maybe you're too easily swayed by marketing.

Burnable Blu-ray has other uses than just home video. I don't know what they are, because for the foreseeable future I feel no need to buy a Blu-ray burner.

I'm 45, so that isn't the case for me. I also feel no need to run out and replace everything I own with Blu-rays. I replace a few things as I find them for good prices on sale (like "2001" for $8.99), but I mostly buy new releases or I rent.
I don't own anything Blu-ray!

The fact you can put two hours of 1080p full HD content on a dual layer DVD-R and play it back in full 1080p HD on a Blu-ray player is hardly a measure of my (or anyone else's) gullibility by the Sony marketers.

If what you say is accurate, Sony has done superior job of pulling wool over the eyes of 10% of the whole home video market.

Maybe I'll check if my DVDs will play in my VHS machine...

Last edited by orangerunner; 08-17-09 at 10:33 PM.
Old 08-17-09, 11:01 PM
  #84  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,990
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Willo007 View Post
I know this question has been brought in not so many words on this board numerous times, but I still feel there hasn't been a resolution to it that has put me at ease.

I understand studios want to push the Blu Ray format, and It is very understandable that they would promote it very heavily, but what I don't understand is why would they insult and discriminate on the DVD consumers, since we are their bread and butter.
I'd like to add that DVD revenues are dropping while Blu-ray revenues are rising. Blu-ray margins are several times those of DVD, just like DVD margins were once several times those of VHS. Naturally the studios want to encourage consumers to buy the more expensive format, whether it's through exclusive features, rental windows, or anything else they choose.

Legally and ethically, this is not only perfectly acceptable, it's the duty of the studios to their shareholders (to maximize their revenue).
Old 08-18-09, 12:27 AM
  #85  
DVD Talk Legend
 
calhoun07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,402
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by DivxGuy View Post
And DVD collectors were already dreaming of hi-def in 1998, when the nascent format was barely a year old.
I had a friend in the early days of my DVD collecting back around that time who told me the next format would be a player with a blue laser. I have no idea how he knew about it then...must have been in the works at the time, obviously...but that's actually correct. However, aside from a few tech geeks, who knew that? They certainly didn't advertise that when people were shelling out good money for DVDs back in the day.
Old 08-18-09, 12:38 AM
  #86  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by calhoun07 View Post
I had a friend in the early days of my DVD collecting back around that time who told me the next format would be a player with a blue laser. I have no idea how he knew about it then...must have been in the works at the time, obviously...but that's actually correct. However, aside from a few tech geeks, who knew that? They certainly didn't advertise that when people were shelling out good money for DVDs back in the day.
I still remember seeing professional HDCAM tape for the first time in 2000 at a video post production house. The had a player deck, recorder deck and a monitor. The three components cost over $500,000 at the time.

A few companies invested in HD at that time & I think it bankrupted all of them within a year or so. It was too expensive and there was so little demand for HD.
Old 08-18-09, 02:06 AM
  #87  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
If what you say is accurate, Sony has done superior job of pulling wool over the eyes of 10% of the whole home video market.

Maybe I'll check if my DVDs will play in my VHS machine...
Sony is not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes.

Your problem remains your lack of comprehension that just because a DVD-R is the medium, the resulting disc is nothing like a standard DVD that is capable of HD. It's a data disc that is not playable on a standard DVD player.

DVD uses the MPEG-2 video codec, with a maximum NTSC resolution of 720x480, with a maximum video bit rate of about 10 mbps. This is insufficient for HD content.

Blu-ray players support many more video codecs. In addition to MPEG-2, they support AVC, AVCHD, VC-1 and MPEG-4. All have higher video bit rates than MPEG-2.

My camcorder, for example, records in AVCHD, which is not supported by DVD players, with a maximum video bit rate of 17 mbps.

These files simply aren't playable on DVD players, and never will be. They can be converted to standard definition MPEG-2 so a standard DVD can be made, but to see them in HD, they must be preserved in the video codec that was designed for Blu-ray (AVCHD is a slight variation of Blu-ray's AVC codec).
Old 08-18-09, 07:25 AM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
Hank1215's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Mr. Salty,

You keep talking about using your HD camcorder to record HD on to regular DVD, but you are not saying you could burn a two hour BD movie to a DVD and have it play at 1080i/p?
Old 08-18-09, 07:35 AM
  #89  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
The Bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 54,914
Received 19 Likes on 14 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Vote with your wallet. It's the only way they will understand.
Old 08-18-09, 09:39 AM
  #90  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,990
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by calhoun07 View Post
I had a friend in the early days of my DVD collecting back around that time who told me the next format would be a player with a blue laser. I have no idea how he knew about it then...must have been in the works at the time, obviously...but that's actually correct. However, aside from a few tech geeks, who knew that? They certainly didn't advertise that when people were shelling out good money for DVDs back in the day.
I read that blue lasers could hold the key to HD optical discs about 2000 on The Digital Bits. By 2003 there were already two competing HD optical formats and it was common knowledge to anyone in the home theater hobby that HD discs were coming. A furore then broke out when it was revealed that the MPAA had kept secret plans to block the new format from working over analog inputs so as not to implode the burgeoning market for 1080i analog sets. Those of us who paid boutique prices for early HDs sets were very unhappy, as we thought we'd been cheated out of being able to use them for HD.

It's been common knowledge for most of the decade that HD discs would supplant SDVD. Since the players are backwardly compatible, I don't see why collectors are so upset. Their existing discs will continue to play. And they should be pleased that the premier format gets promoted over the lesser ones, a stark reversal of the days when DVD releases had to wait for months or years while laserdisc was day and date with rental VHS.
Old 08-18-09, 11:37 AM
  #91  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Mr. Salty View Post
Sony is not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes.

Your problem remains your lack of comprehension that just because a DVD-R is the medium, the resulting disc is nothing like a standard DVD that is capable of HD. It's a data disc that is not playable on a standard DVD player.

DVD uses the MPEG-2 video codec, with a maximum NTSC resolution of 720x480, with a maximum video bit rate of about 10 mbps. This is insufficient for HD content.

Blu-ray players support many more video codecs. In addition to MPEG-2, they support AVC, AVCHD, VC-1 and MPEG-4. All have higher video bit rates than MPEG-2.

My camcorder, for example, records in AVCHD, which is not supported by DVD players, with a maximum video bit rate of 17 mbps.

These files simply aren't playable on DVD players, and never will be. They can be converted to standard definition MPEG-2 so a standard DVD can be made, but to see them in HD, they must be preserved in the video codec that was designed for Blu-ray (AVCHD is a slight variation of Blu-ray's AVC codec).
That's a fine list of technical specs but you haven't really addressed my question.

I realize you won't be able to play the HD content burned onto a DVD-R disc on a DVD player. DVD players do not play HD 1080i/p content or data.

You claim two hours of HD 1080i/p video content burned onto a dual layer DVD-R will play on a Blu-ray player.

If I understand this correctly, it would make the expensive Blu-ray discs an unnecessary extra expense to get two hours of 1080i/p content to play from your Blu-ray player? No?
Old 08-18-09, 11:40 AM
  #92  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Hank1215 View Post
Mr. Salty,

You keep talking about using your HD camcorder to record HD on to regular DVD, but you are not saying you could burn a two hour BD movie to a DVD and have it play at 1080i/p?
No, I am not.

I have quite clearly explained the various video codecs. The camcorder is AVCHD and does not have the file structure typical of Blu-ray discs. A store-bought Blu-ray is not AVCHD, has a higher video bit rate as well as a higher bit-rate audio track (Dolby Digital True HD, etc.), a more complicated file structure (with menus, etc.) and so forth. And the dual-layer DVD-Rs that orange is talking about are twitchy enough on regular DVD players. I'm not sure they'd play on a BD player, although I haven't tried.
Old 08-18-09, 11:55 AM
  #93  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
You claim two hours of HD 1080i/p video content burned onto a dual layer DVD-R will play on a Blu-ray player.
No, I did not. That was your tangent. Dual-layer DVD-Rs are unreliable, so I have not tried them. I'm not sure either of my BD players will even play them. Also, remember that my time estimate was just a guess. I've never maxed out a disc. I think I reliably get 45 minutes to an hour on a DVD-R. That's all I've said.

If I understand this correctly, it would make the expensive Blu-ray discs an unnecessary extra expense to get two hours of 1080i/p content to play from your Blu-ray player? No?
You have understand very little correctly in this thread so far.

Blu-ray discs were created to give a comfortably high storage capacity so we could have a lengthy movie with the highest possible video bit rate, plus uncompressed audio tracks and plenty of extras.

While consumer-grade camcorders produce great results compared with their SD counterparts, they are still lower bit-rate than commercial BD releases, and they have compressed two-channel Dolby Digital audio at a relatively low audio bit-rate.

The point of my original post was to refute your idea that you need a Blu-ray burner in order to enjoy HD home video. You don't. But that doesn't mean a data DVD is sufficient for a typical two-hour movie in HD.
Old 08-18-09, 12:18 PM
  #94  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Mr. Salty View Post
No, I did not. That was your tangent. Dual-layer DVD-Rs are unreliable, so I have not tried them. I'm not sure either of my BD players will even play them. Also, remember that my time estimate was just a guess. I've never maxed out a disc. I think I reliably get 45 minutes to an hour on a DVD-R. That's all I've said.


You have understand very little correctly in this thread so far.

Blu-ray discs were created to give a comfortably high storage capacity so we could have a lengthy movie with the highest possible video bit rate, plus uncompressed audio tracks and plenty of extras.

While consumer-grade camcorders produce great results compared with their SD counterparts, they are still lower bit-rate than commercial BD releases, and they have compressed two-channel Dolby Digital audio at a relatively low audio bit-rate.



The point of my original post was to refute your idea that you need a Blu-ray burner in order to enjoy HD home video. You don't. But that doesn't mean a data DVD is sufficient for a typical two-hour movie in HD.

Sorry Mr. Salty, this was the initial info you provided:

Originally Posted by Mr. Salty View Post
Speaking as someone who has an HD camcorder, I can tell you that you don't need a Blu-ray burner or expensive blank Blu-ray discs. Most Blu-ray players play HD video burned onto regular DVD-R and DVD+R. And I'm doing so with a seven-year-old PC.
To me it sounded like you can achieve full HD 1080i/p quality burned onto a regular DVD-R (1 hour for single layer or 2 hours on twitchy dual layer) and play it back in your Blu-ray player and enjoy a full HD picture.

I see what you mean about placing a compressed HD file on a DVD-R as data & it would still be considered "HD".

Last edited by orangerunner; 08-18-09 at 03:51 PM.
Old 08-18-09, 03:55 PM
  #95  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
Sorry Mr. Salty, this was the initial info you provided:
And then I made several subsequent posts.

There very well may be no reason why you couldn't make a high-def disc on a regular commercially-pressed dual-layer DVD (I don't know for sure). But you would likely be quite limited in how long the running time could be.

To your point about cost, yes the studios are charging more for Blu-rays. Part of this is because they're seen as a "premium" product, but it's also because they're selling fewer copies, and therefore the per-unit cost is going to be higher. We're already seeing prices come down as sales are increasing.

Whether the extra cost is worth it is up to the individual. In my case, I have a 50-inch HDTV. I don't mind spending $5 or so more for a disc that I'm going to own and enjoy for years to come.
Old 08-18-09, 04:55 PM
  #96  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auburn University
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

I don't see why anyone would hate Blu-Ray. I think it's great, and as soon as the prices drop I am going to convert. That could be years from now. So it's DVD till then. I never buy day and date, and usually pick up titles on sale. I buy about 10 DVDs a year now, and it pisses me off when I can't watch something that I should be able to.

I've made up my mind. I will upgrade down the road, just don't make the material unavaible to me. I've wanted to watch the extra features on The Dark Knight blu for awhile now, but alas, I can't.

The argument of VHS vs. DVD isn't fair, because though in some RARE cases, VHS have always been produced without special features. and they just plain suck.

It also pisses me off when they withold the features from the Blu that were on the DVD. I mean, come on...
Old 08-18-09, 05:30 PM
  #97  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Chrisedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Part of the Left-Wing Conspiracy
Posts: 7,474
Received 179 Likes on 100 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
I don't own anything Blu-ray!

The fact you can put two hours of 1080p full HD content on a dual layer DVD-R and play it back in full 1080p HD on a Blu-ray player is hardly a measure of my (or anyone else's) gullibility by the Sony marketers.

If what you say is accurate, Sony has done superior job of pulling wool over the eyes of 10% of the whole home video market.

Maybe I'll check if my DVDs will play in my VHS machine...
The quality (bitrate) is less on a DL-DVD, than it would be on 25GB or 50GB BD disc. Read up on encoding and you will see.

I have plenty of HD recordings on SL DVD and DL DVDs and on a external HD. Not too difficult to record them from your cable box, and maintain HD quality. The size (1080P vs 1080i vs 720p) and the bit rate determine how big the final file will be.
Old 08-19-09, 12:23 AM
  #98  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Mr. Salty View Post
And then I made several subsequent posts.

There very well may be no reason why you couldn't make a high-def disc on a regular commercially-pressed dual-layer DVD (I don't know for sure). But you would likely be quite limited in how long the running time could be.

To your point about cost, yes the studios are charging more for Blu-rays. Part of this is because they're seen as a "premium" product, but it's also because they're selling fewer copies, and therefore the per-unit cost is going to be higher. We're already seeing prices come down as sales are increasing.

Whether the extra cost is worth it is up to the individual. In my case, I have a 50-inch HDTV. I don't mind spending $5 or so more for a disc that I'm going to own and enjoy for years to come.
So it would be fair to describe it is a lower quality, compressed version of HD that is still higher quality than if you down-converted to SD?

I think the confusion comes from the fact that the term HD is used very loosely for a very broad range of quality. You see everything from YouTube videos claiming to be HD to professional quality HDCAM.
Old 08-19-09, 01:27 AM
  #99  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
TheKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 8,135
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 8 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by AnonomusBob15 View Post
I don't see why anyone would hate Blu-Ray. I think it's great, and as soon as the prices drop I am going to convert. That could be years from now. So it's DVD till then. I never buy day and date, and usually pick up titles on sale. I buy about 10 DVDs a year now, and it pisses me off when I can't watch something that I should be able to.

I've made up my mind. I will upgrade down the road, just don't make the material unavaible to me. I've wanted to watch the extra features on The Dark Knight blu for awhile now, but alas, I can't.

The argument of VHS vs. DVD isn't fair, because though in some RARE cases, VHS have always been produced without special features. and they just plain suck.

It also pisses me off when they withold the features from the Blu that were on the DVD. I mean, come on...
Anyone that bought into HD DVD has a pretty compelling reason to dislike Blu-ray. Maybe not the technology itself, but most definitely the forces behind it.

The format war left a bad taste in the mouth of many consumers, and not just those that picked Red over Blu.
Old 08-19-09, 02:34 AM
  #100  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
So it would be fair to describe it is a lower quality, compressed version of HD that is still higher quality than if you down-converted to SD?

I think the confusion comes from the fact that the term HD is used very loosely for a very broad range of quality. You see everything from YouTube videos claiming to be HD to professional quality HDCAM.
That would probably be a fair assessment, although the quality is pretty darned good. It's either 1440x1080 or 1920x1080, but at a slightly lower bit rate than what Blu-ray is capable of. But that's because I bought a camcorder last year. The new version is capable of a higher bit rate.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.