Blu-Ray

Tusky

As good as blue rays are, dvd quality is still more than good enough. I'll continue to buy dvds and long may the bargains continue. My only problem (and this is gonna sound really nerdy) is that Blu-Rays and dvds dont really 'fit' together on the shelf...you cant really have the Blue-Rays amongst your dvds, which is annoying. Probably not a problem for most people, but I have about 500 dvds.

rkeane

Blu-ray is incredible compared to DVD....there simply is no comparison. Get yourself a top end 1080P tv, it is simply light years ahead of DVD.
User45701.....I think you made a pretty dumb decision to buy an outdated format....even if it was cheap.

Tusky

rkeane wrote: »

Blu-ray is incredible compared to DVD....there simply is no comparison. Get yourself a top end 1080P tv, it is simply light years ahead of DVD.

I would disagree with this. On a 1080 tv Blu-ray does look fantastic. Really really good...but of course its comparable to dvd.

If I was watching a dvd I wouldnt be thinking "oh I wish I was watching this in on dvd". Howe ever, If I was watching a VHS I would probably be wishing it was a dvd.

Guy:Incognito

User45701 wrote: »

i wouldnt buy bluray its a load of **** because they "won" the hd war by marketing that they had larger disc capacity (it was a lie because a month after bluray anouced 50GB discs tosh anounced 51GB discs)

**** bluway - the 50GB discs cost more than say 15 or 20GB (or whatever they are)
So buying box sets and movies dont expect everyhting on one or two dics.

I bought firefly (my 1st bluray purchase) and 13 episodes on 3 ****ing discs? Even at 1080 they would not be 150GB to download the bluray of firelfy. I must actually check it out to see how big the combined file size is. Still sony lied thorugh their teeth about the size of their discs so dont buy their product.

Either just buy a Toshiba XDE500 http://www.home-entertainment.toshiba.co.uk/DVD-Players-Recorders-Upscaling/Upscaling-DVD-Range/Upscaling-DVD-XD-E500/?showBy=size (its a DVD player that upscales std DVD's to 1080 so why pay the extra for bluray?)

or else just wait a year or so for TV/movie downloads to spread - it will be cheaper because no packaging or retail markup (although i must admit i do like the look of a nice box set)

Ah it's been a while since a user45701 anti blu-ray rant.
You really have an issue with disc size (or is it the last thing left to moan about) and are pretty much the only person with the issue.

Who really cares (besides you) that the series is on more than 1 disc?


I really think it's time you built a bridge.

PS I have yet to have any issue with disc rot on my blu rays.

BlitzKrieg

You really have an issue with disc size (or is it the last thing left to moan about) and are pretty much the only person with the issue.

Actually I must admit I was annoyed when I bought Wall E on bluray to find it was on 2 discs.

It wouldnt be a massive complaint, but I was under the impression that the 2 disc days were over with the rise of blu ray?

I did a thread about it a while back.

edit:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055425061&highlight=wall

Guy:Incognito

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Actually I must admit I was annoyed when I bought Wall E on bluray to find it was on 2 discs.

It wouldnt be a massive complaint, but I was under the impression that the 2 disc days were over with the rise of blu ray?

I did a thread about it a while back.

edit:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055425061&highlight=wall

I remember the thread.

But it's not like the original dvd where you have to flip the disc. The movie itself is only on one disc.

Mossy Monk

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Actually I must admit I was annoyed when I bought Wall E on bluray to find it was on 2 discs.

It wouldnt be a massive complaint, but I was under the impression that the 2 disc days were over with the rise of blu ray?

I did a thread about it a while back.

edit:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055425061&highlight=wall

Two discs sounds better than one for some folks.

BlitzKrieg

But it's not like the original dvd where you have to flip the disc. The movie itself is only on one disc.

ughh?

I dont think you have to flip the disc for Wall E on DVD either.

Its a minor complaint, hence why I said I was annoyed and not outright offended (ala user45701)

I can deduce why its on 2 discs, combination of what monkeyfudge said (it looks like better value to common joe) and some technical aspects that its less worktime and less processing time (urgo cheaper) to go two discs (with 1 practically being a dvd) then to work all the material into 1 disc.

All the same though it really brought home to me that in comparison between the advancement from vhs > DVD was a much bigger step then the DVD > Blu ray advancement. Which must make it very difficult to sell it commercially to the general massess

Dont be at yourself

Frankly, I'd rather two discs of higher quality video and audio, than a lower-quality picture and special features on the same disc.

BlitzKrieg

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Frankly, I'd rather two discs of higher quality video and audio, than a lower-quality picture and special features on the same disc.

but thats the thing, in some cases (lotr and other rather long films) that would probably be the case. But for films like Wall E etc there is no reason for both to not be on the same disc and still be of high quality.

Creamy Goodness

thenewbigguy wrote: »

blu ray are gone so cheap now

Yes they have.

I have a blu-ray player (Playstation 3). I bought it for the games, I have since used it more for watching blu-ray than playing games.

The quality is just unreal. I bought Casino Royale on DVD and got it free on blu-ray with the PS3. Both versions look stunning on my 42" Panasonic plasma TV, it's the way movies are meant to be watched at home, on a superb plasma TV, but the blu-ray version is definitely better for the opening scene alone. You can see sweat pores on that free runners face (seb something is his name) and you can see every bit of grit that's flying in the air. Maybe not everyone wants to see detail like that but it impresses the bloody pants off me metaphorically speaking of course.

Now when it comes to me buying movies, I will always look at the price of the blu-ray first. If there's like €5 in the difference I will pay it if it's actually a movie and not like a comedy show or something like that, I don't feel the need to have blu-ray of a comedy stand up performance.

With blu-ray being more expensive for AAA titles it's going to be hard for the general public to justify it but when you're like me and can find bargains online on blu-ray like Kill bill Vol1 & Vol2 for 18 euro shipped to my door (from www.amazon.ca) it's hard for me to justify not buying blu-ray.

Also since my main way of playing blu-ray is the Playstation 3 I cannot region unlock it to play region 1 dvds etc. with blu-ray I don't have this problem as quite a few are region free, all it takes is a quick google to confirm it and then I can buy from anywhere in the world.

byte

A Wikipedia article on blu-ray states that Pioneer have made a BD that has a 400GB capacity, and will be compatible with current players after a firmware update. And work underway to create a 1TB BD.

Also interesting, is JVC apparently have made a hybrid DVD/BD disc that has DVD and BD on the same side of the disc, maybe this might be a way forward if the discs could be made cheaply due to backwards compatibility with DVD players...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Ongoing_development

BlitzKrieg

lso interesting, is JVC apparently have made a hybrid DVD/BD disc that has DVD and BD on the same side of the disc, maybe this might be a way forward if the discs could be made cheaply due to backwards compatibility with DVD players...

about damn time they got that working on blu ray.

during the hd dvd vs blu ray thing, it had been made possible to have dvd/hd dvd hybrid discs, and i felt that this was one of the strongest merits for the format (at the time they couldnt get it working on blu ray) as it meant that they could flood the rental market with hybrid discs which worked normally under dvd and hd dvd and stick an advert at the start of the dvd version like those old VHS tapes with the DVD adverts on them.

they never did that, rental chains sorta backed blu ray.

end of story.

Now Blu ray have the same oppurtunity to flood rental chains with hybrid blu ray discs to drum up a good campaign that doesnt rely on the playstation selling the format.

Pigman II

byte wrote: »

A Wikipedia article on blu-ray states that Pioneer have made a BD that has a 400GB capacity, and will be compatible with current players after a firmware update. And work underway to create a 1TB BD.

Sooo much porn!

Guy:Incognito

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

ughh?

I dont think you have to flip the disc for Wall E on DVD either.

Sorry meant to say "some original dvds"(from the olden days).:)

iMax

Pigman II wrote: »

Sooo much porn!

Actually, That's something that I'm a little afraid of - porn on BD... some things shouldn't be *that* sharp & clear !

Galvasean

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

Now when it comes to me buying movies, I will always look at the price of the blu-ray first. If there's like €5 in the difference I will pay it if it's actually a movie and not like a comedy show or something like that, I don't feel the need to have blu-ray of a comedy stand up performance.

Having just gotten a blu-ray player I'd tend to agree. We're in a good position at the moment. DVDs are going dirt cheap so i'd generally go for them. However, like you said, sometimes for a really visual film the extra few quid (so long as its not extortionate) can be worth it for the HD experience.
However, one drawback on HD is that the extra clarity really exposes any poor CGI shots (think Ghost Rider looks bad in normal def? Think again!). So, a bit of research is advised. To that end,,,,

iMax wrote: »

Actually, That's something that I'm a little afraid of - porn on BD... some things shouldn't be *that* sharp & clear !

Indeed, sometimes what you don't see in shockingly high def is sexier..

krudler

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

but thats the thing, in some cases (lotr and other rather long films) that would probably be the case. But for films like Wall E etc there is no reason for both to not be on the same disc and still be of high quality.

A lot of BD players have trouble playing Wall-E without a firmware update, my dad bought a new player for christmas and the movie kept stuttering, threw the firmware update onto it and it worked fine, it might be the sheer volume of whats encoded in the picture I dont know the tech details

And if anyone wants to truly show off a new system get The Dark Knight, Wall-E, Planet Earth and, dont laugh, Speed Racer,its easily the best looking blu-ray movie out there at the mo the picture quality on it is stunning since it was never tranfered to film and it shot completely digitally:

Having amassed a decent collection of Blu Ray the one problem I have with it is the pricing. While I understand that new technology is always expensive I fail to see how they can justify the price difference as it is now.

Take Season 3 of Supernatural for example. Most websites have the DVD for 13-15 euro whereas the Blu Ray is 37-40 euro on the same sites.

rednik

For me the difference in picture quality is great but the HD sound is in a different world. I spent a lot of money putting a system together mainly for the sound which is incredible.
Some Blu ray movies are transferred better than others depending on who is tasked with the transfer. I recently bought Escape from New York for less than 15 euro and when I watched it I could see why. The transfer is terrible and is just dvd quality picture with a good hd soundtrack. I also got The Shawshank and its a decent transfer although its such a great film.
Regarding prices they are falling all the time. I recently ordered A history of violence for 11.49,Man on fire for 14.99 these prices I would consider pretty decent. I have been into HMV, Zaavi, Golden Discs, Tower records and in each of these stores the blu ray section is tiny and until these stores take blu ray seriously prices will stay high although I only buy online due to the poor selection and the high prices.

Mackman

i would have to agree that the transition from DVD to Blue Ray, is not the same thing as VHS to DVD. Not the same thing at all. I dont have Blue Ray Player, and i probably wont get one. (well maybe if i ever get a PS3:)) but not for watchin movies.
I can understand watching something like The Dark Knight, Wall-E etc. for the visual thing, but i dont see the appeal for watchin Dodgeball or the Goonies or something on Blue Ray.
I have a 32" Sony Bravia TV, and a sony surround sound system, and i have to say, DVD's are awesome enough for me

Creamy Goodness

Galvasean wrote: »

However, one drawback on HD is that the extra clarity really exposes any poor CGI shots (think Ghost Rider looks bad in normal def? Think again!). So, a bit of research is advised. To that end,,,,

yeh i agree it does show up bad CGI shots, but that's good in my books as now CGI artists will see how shoddy their work looks and have to work harder now so that it doesn't look like that anymore :P

homerun_homer

If Blu Ray DVDs can store way more hours than a DVD then why do the same packages on both formats have 2 disc editions in many cases. Shouldn't Blu Ray all be in one nice little disc?

Basq

homerun_homer wrote: »

If Blu Ray DVDs can store way more hours than a DVD then why do the same packages on both formats have 2 disc editions in many cases. Shouldn't Blu Ray all be in one nice little disc?

We've discussed this already..

Couple of reasons I'd imagine:

a) Marketing - 2 discs sound better than 1 to consumers..
b) Wouldn't you rather one disc dedicated completely to the highest-quality video and highest-quality audio possible? Rather than cramming extras alongside with it.

homerun_homer

basquille wrote: »

We've discussed this already..

Couple of reasons I'd imagine:

a) Marketing - 2 discs sound better than 1 to consumers..
b) Wouldn't you rather one disc dedicated completely to the highest-quality video and highest-quality audio possible? Rather than cramming extras alongside with it.

To be honest, no. If Blu Ray can contain that amount of information then I would prefer one disc for convenience. Look at the Dark Knight, there are damn all fine extras on that, no commentaries, no in depth documentary. The fact that it also gets a 2 disc blu ray treatment is just stupid IMO.

Edit - sorry I hadn't seen the previous discussion on this BTW so will look for it.

FionnMatthew

I wanted to think Blu-Ray is going to be a short-lived phenomenon.

The exponential improvement of storage capacity, download speed and connectivity, coupled with the likelihood of a (real) iTunes-like revolution in non-hard-media based, high definition film distribution inclined me to believe that Blu-Ray would follow the path of Minidiscs - marginal break-through success, followed by an obsolescence that preceded the effective market obsolescence of the DVD format. I thought solid-state players, or even cloud based HD streaming were probably going to surpass it.

Market adoption of Blu-Ray seems to be proving me wrong.

But I'm still not buying one.

I'm generally opposed to closed platforms. I've got an ethical objection to centralized firmware regulation - and any technology that puts more power over digital rights management in the hands of the entertainment industry.

Maybe other people don't find it intrusive or irritating when playback of some new BD requires, because of some silly oversight in design, a laborious download of extra content just so you can get past the loading screen, or when you need a firmware update to get your movie to play properly. I think the primary attraction of hard-media players is the hands-off, insert-and-go logic to it, which was exemplified by the compact disc, until, at least, DRM restrictions made them unsafe for your PC, or for your car stereo.

Maybe people haven't even had these problems. However, I'm not interested in a platform that trades higher picture and sound quality for ease of use and simplicity, or even a platform that, although most users don't experience these issues, because of the way it is designed, is open to either deliberate or inept curtailments of your ease of use, or the simplicity of that use. I prefer that my unmediated enjoyment of the product, even when the experience is flawless, isn't at some company's good will or discretion. I'll never be satisfied with that. It makes me restless.

I guess many consumers won't have this sort of qualm. But I tend to dislike it when the potentials of a format are impeded by the designer's short-sighted, didactic constraints on my use of it. And I tend to want to use stuff I spend money on to the fringes of its capabilities.

My experience, for instance, of Sony formats in the past has not been good, and I don't think they have a good track record with it. They've nearly annoyed me as much as Microsoft.

And Blu-Ray seems to bear all of the hallmarks of the Sony paradigm in media-formats, even if it isn't exclusively Sony-owned (I think?)

I'm easily annoyed by this sort of thing, so I'm saving my blood pressure, and avoiding the format. When someone comes along with a HD format where everything is on my terms, where everything just works, with no strings attached, to the standards exemplified by the open-source movement in operating systems, perhaps then I'll buy into it.

WooPeeA

Cathal01 wrote: »

But will they stop making DVD's, and just make Blu Ray discs in the future?

Thanks

I don't think so. They will rather invite some new, better disc technology before they will stop produce DVDs. Changes goes really quick today.

MooseJam

blu-ray are very blue aren't they - overly blue really

Dont be at yourself

I wanted to think Blu-Ray is going to be a short-lived phenomenon.

The exponential improvement of storage capacity, download speed and connectivity, coupled with the likelihood of a (real) iTunes-like revolution in non-hard-media based, high definition film distribution inclined me to believe that Blu-Ray would follow the path of Minidiscs - marginal break-through success, followed by an obsolescence that preceded the effective market obsolescence of the DVD format. I thought solid-state players, or even cloud based HD streaming were probably going to surpass it.

Market adoption of Blu-Ray seems to be proving me wrong.

But I'm still not buying one.

I'm generally opposed to closed platforms. I've got an ethical objection to centralized firmware regulation - and any technology that puts more power over digital rights management in the hands of the entertainment industry.

Maybe other people don't find it intrusive or irritating when playback of some new BD requires, because of some silly oversight in design, a laborious download of extra content just so you can get past the loading screen, or when you need a firmware update to get your movie to play properly. I think the primary attraction of hard-media players is the hands-off, insert-and-go logic to it, which was exemplified by the compact disc, until, at least, DRM restrictions made them unsafe for your PC, or for your car stereo.

Maybe people haven't even had these problems. However, I'm not interested in a platform that trades higher picture and sound quality for ease of use and simplicity, or even a platform that, although most users don't experience these issues, because of the way it is designed, is open to either deliberate or inept curtailments of your ease of use, or the simplicity of that use. I prefer that my unmediated enjoyment of the product, even when the experience is flawless, isn't at some company's good will or discretion. I'll never be satisfied with that. It makes me restless.

I guess many consumers won't have this sort of qualm. But I tend to dislike it when the potentials of a format are impeded by the designer's short-sighted, didactic constraints on my use of it. And I tend to want to use stuff I spend money on to the fringes of its capabilities.

My experience, for instance, of Sony formats in the past has not been good, and I don't think they have a good track record with it. They've nearly annoyed me as much as Microsoft.

And Blu-Ray seems to bear all of the hallmarks of the Sony paradigm in media-formats, even if it isn't exclusively Sony-owned (I think?)

I'm easily annoyed by this sort of thing, so I'm saving my blood pressure, and avoiding the format. When someone comes along with a HD format where everything is on my terms, where everything just works, with no strings attached, to the standards exemplified by the open-source movement in operating systems, perhaps then I'll buy into it.

That's a hugely cynical view, if I may say so. the DRM employed by blu-ray are designed to be wholly unnoticed by the consumer. If your intention is to simply watch a movie, you're highly unlikely to run into any problems. And you certainly shouldnt need to update your firmware in order to playback a movie.

It's also interesting that while you reject blu-ray, you see promise in an iTunes-like distribution method. Even if HD-over-broadband did approach the audio and visual quality of blu ray, history would indicate it would almost certainly be loaded with restrictive DRM - watching a DRM'ed movie from iTunes on your television is unfortunately not as easy as popping a disk into a blu-ray player.

FionnMatthew

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

It's also interesting that while you reject blu-ray, you see promise in an iTunes-like distribution method. Even if HD-over-broadband did approach the audio and visual quality of blu ray, history would indicate it would almost certainly be loaded with restrictive DRM - watching a DRM'ed movie from iTunes on your television is unfortunately not as easy as popping a disk into a blu-ray player.

I agree, but I didn't say I supported an iTunes style dist. method, at least if it were to adopt the iTunes model wholesale.

I just imagined that it would surpass BluRay, and make the purchase of a BD player a short-lived investment.

I didn't say anything about whether I, personally, would be buying into that either.