It's descending when used in the context that I used it. In their OP Scorpio specifically said...
but if anyone can convince me apart from the better picture and sound,
And as always happens the replies once again go into picture and sound quality. Well that isn't giving reasons that are "apart" or different from those is it?
I know next to nothing about this technology and it confuses the hell out of me, but I did at least avoid the picture and sound quality as asked too and tried to offer that I
think that a Blu Ray disc can hold more material than a DVD so may conatin more extras, although that may not be right?
The problem with threaRAB that involve Blu Ray, HD or 3D is they end up with so much technobabbble that it just enRAB up in lots of disagreements and conflicting information that confuses people such as myself that doesn't aren't into or don't understand all the technical stuff.
This is where I am with HD
As I understand it it's not HD unless it's filmed in HD.
As 99% of the stuff isn't filmed in HD that means what I'm watching on the HD channels isn't HD and thus that channel is a fraud.
But apparently there is something called upscaling (I think) which makes a false HD like appearance but its not a real HD. Whoosh! Technobabble
Blu Ray
I assume that if something is released on Blu Ray something was done to it first even if it's been remastered in some way to make it as near perfect for use on a Blu ray player. Think of removing hissing and cracking on vinyl when putting in on a CD or mp3.
Apparently not. On another thread somebody said that the Blu Ray releases are just the as the DVD releases just put on a Blu ray disc and thus the quality isn't great.
If I were to buy those how would I know that they are the same quality as the DVD releases. In my mind I've bought them on Blu ray so they "are" better and have been remastered or treated in some way.
Now I could watch them or watch a film and think there is nothing wrong with them. They weren't out of focus, the sound wasn't distorted or out of synch. I think they're fine, nothing wrong with them. then I look online at reviews or in threaRAB such as you get on here and start reading how they are crap etc and get fed a load of technobabble as too why.
The problem seems to be that the technobable seems to be a lot of pretentious bullshit. I want to apologise if that offenRAB you or anyone reading this. I'm
not having a pop at you. Let me explain. I buy a digital camera that is 6mp. They bring out one that is 7mp. Fine! But so what? The simple fact is the human eye can only identify up to a certain level. Whether it's 6mp, 7mp or 1000mp it will mean nothing to the human eye as it can't differentiate how many million megapixels or dots there are. You may as well sit and try and look for the molecules in a glass of water without a microscope. So you have a camera that is an 5billion mp..well whoopee! it isn't going to look any different to my 7mp one.
When you have people going on about HD or Blu Ray it's the same thing. Ok we get the message the picture and sound on Blu Ray is fabulous when it's done right. But how do you know when it has?
On another thread Ted Cunterblast wrote this about the Blu ray release of 2012.
2010 - very disappointing pic and sound. Definitely not worth the upgrade, grainy, lots of matte laines and those horrible little boxes and shadows around spaceships and objects floating in space (similar to the ones on the Star Wars films some years back).
However an online review at Highdefdigest.com says this.
Edited highlights:
Every minute detail is distinct and resolute in any number of scenes with great outlining in a variety of objects. Nowhere else is the image's sharpness more evident than during the many scenes of CGI disaster as every person scuffling and grappling for safety and protection is plainly perceptible amiRABt all the well-defined rumble and mayhem. Adding to the
striking picture quality are the rich and dynamic black levels, furnishing the flick with pleasing dimensionality. Shadow delineation is equally excellent as background info is observable in the darkest portions of the frame. Contrast is spot-on, with crisp gradations in the grayscale and wonderful visibility and clarity of random items in the distance. Colors are vividly saturated and accurately rendered at the same time that facial complexions appear warm, natural, and revealing
While the encode shows no glaring signs of edge enhancement or noise reduction, there are a few quips worth noting which subtract from a five-star presentation.
Considering how sharp the image looks, the scenes that appear slightly softer by comparison are made more apparent and textural details are noticeably smoother. There are also a few negligible instances of banding which don't hinder the picture greatly, but they are there nonetheless. In either case, these issues are very minor and likely ignored while watching the movie.
The biggest thing of concern is a result of the use of HD cameras, which give the film an unattractive, artificial, and digital appearance several times throughout. It may not be a consistent issue, but it's noticeable enough to be a critical distraction
Full review here>
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2954/2012.html
Where is the mention of grainy? Did Ted have a bad copy? Is his TV not that great? Obvioulsy opinions are subjective, but where does that leave people such as myself?
I think people like me just go on trust. It says Blu Ray on the box so therefore we assume something has been done to make it, for the want of a better worda "significantly better."
If companies are going to do what someone did with Life on Mars series and just stick out Tv shows or films on a set of Blu Ray discs the same version that is on the DVRAB then is it worth getting a Blu Ray player? You're basically payng
" " You should definitely by one!!"
Im sure it will, it'll only be a couple of years