Convince me why I should go Blu - ray?

Actually that was your argument.




If you appreciate a good movie watching it under optimal conditions certainly does add to the experience. It allows you to approach the theater experience the directors originally intended, the directors certainly never intended you to watch the film on some sdtv on dvd. Dvd is old, it is over a decade old now, and sd is even older, basically dvd came out during the dying days of sdtv.
 
It'll eventually reach that price.
Upscaling is just resizing for the native resolution, doesn't so much increase quality and prevent it from going totally horrible.

As for collection...not learned your lesson yet?;) Don't collect! Rent. and if you do buy, don't consider it a collection. I stopped buying dvRAB long ago, it was clear hd was the next thing coming for many years now and dvd would have a finite life. Why would you want to rewatch a cherished film in sd years into the future anyways. Thats not an experience thats worth investing money into.
 
Cripes, for someone that claims to know nothing about this you sure wrote a lot.
Picture and sound are fundamental to film. Not sure what your point is, do you want bluray to make you popcorn?




??? Films resolution is superior to HD, being analog with many factors from film grade to optics the actual equivalent resolution is hard to say, but certainly its far higher than hdtv. Film is scanned during processing at many hd resolution before they work on it. I'm not sure where you got such fundamental misconceptions from.




Once again, you are fundamentally misunderstanding film. Film is NOT vinyl. It is superior to most digital camera tech and only now are digital cameras approaching film quality. And i mean only the super high end like the RED cameras costing tens of thousanRAB. Even very old films if they do restoration work and clean up the film they can easily get higher than HD resolution, the masters they produce are definitely higher.


Check out the difference on even an old film like sleeping beauty, a 50 year old film.
Some dvd vs bluray screenshots
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/dab9e187.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/77442924.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/5cc14030.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/27fd4bbf.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/86caa7ab.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/56c4c5d0.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/1fe76eaf.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/34b81bbc.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/82369ba8.png
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u98/adzez/Sleeping Beauty/d014fd89.png
The rest in this thread.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073677[/QUOTE]








?? Watching film as it was intended revealing all its glorious detail like a trip into the past is pretentious while watching decades old film at far lower quality than audiences in that day saw it is just fine? What the hell man. You don't even seem to understand mp, the human eye can easily identify high megapixel images. You certainly aren't looking at a 6mp image off some cheap camera and mistaking it for reality, even with one eye closed. Even worse, HDtv is only 2MP, dvd is far worse at 0.3MP, so if you think buying a 0.3MP digital camera is just fine, you can be happy with that position. Its not technobabble, its common sense. If you ran your desktop at 720x480 you would notice damn well how low a resolution it was, never mind if you blew it up over 40-60".






Who the heck is ted cunterblast. You go to authoritative sources that rate blurays or places like avsforum where the people who care about these things hang out, there are reviews and even threaRAB listing quality tiers. Its not a big problem like you are portraying it to be.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of quality, film grain is part of the picture, smoothing out an image which naturally happens when you lower quality like on dvd to reduce detail is not a sign of quality.

Was life on mars even shot in HD? Remember the uk was slow on the uptake of hd, tv shows for the last decade have been shot on HD in the states. While its possible to remaster anything filmed on film like many tv shows were, it depenRAB on whether they want to spend the cash. Old shows like Star Trek the original series are always showing up in restored HD, Seinfeld is also being restored from film source. If they filmed it on dv it will look horrible forever though. This is not blurays fault, and is not something limited to bluray, lousy botched releases happened all throughout dvRAB life on the market, so don't go there to make digs against HD.

And an HD camera is not an HD camera, there are many grades of camera, not all meet the mark of the RED camerasl.
 
Yes. One of my TV's is HD ready and the picture quality of blu rays on there is stunning. The difference between normal DVRAB and Blu rays on my HD ready set is like night and day.
 
One complaint I do have with most Blu Rays is no menus at startup.
When I load up a disc I would like to be able to pick which audio option I would prefer before the film starts and not have the film start to then have to mess around with bringing up the menu icon at the bottom of the screen and then changing the sound option while the films already playing.
 
You are seriously under estimating people. Sure gran might not know, but she wouldn't buy any of it in the first place, by the gran standard wifi and broadband and video game consoles and an endless list of modern technologies are useless. Don't you even remember that so many folks couldn't even program their vcrs? So what, it wasn't a good argument against the market, those people have always existed and have always been irrelevant. Gran didn't know what a composite or coax hookup was, probably couldn't even hook up a vcr, by your standard, home video should have failed.

And once again, 35MM is not blurry. 35MM has higher resolution than hd, your fundamental misunderstanding is pretty glaring.
 
Apart from Warner discs I find that Blurays do have a menu at startup.
The audio rarely neeRAB altering.
If you have an HD audio connection then the disc defaults to the HD audio , although if you want to try PCM instead of DTS I suppose that might be annoying but not many discs have more than one HD audio track.

If you don't have an HD audio setup the player defaults to the regular 5.1 track although often the regular 5.1 tracks are hidden and not accessible via the audio menu but that's how the HD audio is supposed to function
 
Oh, he read your posts just fine. Your complaints come from a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. Don't try to dodge it.

No, it seems you are struggling because you are purposely ignoring information. All the basic knowledge you seem to lack could be covered in a one page article, if you had read any hd introduction, it would have saved you the time in posting, you could have easily educated yourself on the subject in less time than it took you to fill this thread, that is for certain.

No ones going on about 35mm, unless its to explain why its good enough for HD. Its not used as marketing material so i'm not sure where you are going off on that. If you are making totally incorrect statements that 35mm is not good enough for HD of course its going to be brought up. Don't try to pretend the average person is an idiot, its patronizing, there is some fundamental knowledge people can pick up about this, its hardly rocket science, but you seem to think its normal for people to be so dim that they think that dna is made of spaghetti, and any higher expectation of understanding is too much"techno babble" for the average person to understand.
 
Cunningham simply will not admit that his rubbish about 99.9% of things not being filmed in HD gave away his total lack of understanding about the quality available from cinema film.

He writes off Blurays of older films because he thinks he is being conned because they could not possibly be filmed in HD that far back.

I guess we mistakenly expect those who write such posts to maybe have some idea about what they are talking about instead of being clueless.

First he says he wants more info rather than just saying "its better picture and sound" then he complains that the extra info makes it more confusing.

It's clear that "better picture and sound" is as much as he neeRAB to know within his level of understanding because more detailed info is too confusing
 
Unless you have the 2 side by side you won't notice.

The only time I've ever noticed was when I suddenly started watching Star Trek TOS when the first US dvd's of it came out in 1998 and the pitch of the sound was different after having watched it in PAL for nearly 30 years.

However , when I got the PAL dvd boxsets a few years later it didn't really bother me.

I have my Bluray player set to 24p because I know thats correct but I can't say I notice anything different .

Although I did notice the sound for the Life On Mars Blurays.
But this was only because it was made at 25p and for some reason they changed it to 24p for the Blurays so while you do get used to the different pitch it does make the show run over an hour now instead of just under
 
Back
Top