Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic? - Page 3

RAMA · May 10 2010, 06:50 AM

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

^ I know what HDMI is. As I said, I'm concerned with the TVs themselves. Will any 3D television, regardless of its specific method of displaying 3D, be able to display any 3D blu-ray or cable/satellite channel *IN 3D*, regardless of how that blu-ray or channel is encoded? Aren't blu-rays and TV channels encoded with a specific method of 3D, which may or may not be compatible with the actual TVs?

The link does answer that question...

Dane_Whitman · May 10 2010, 02:07 PM

On the contrary, I'm in love with blu-ray. I have acquired about 200 blu-ray discs ever since I got myself a player, which was about a year ago. I used to be into dvd collecting, but high definition has added a whole new dimension tot the experience of watching films. I think I've watched as little as five dvds this past year.

People who see little difference between dvd and blu-ray need to have their eyes examined. It's true that there are some sub-standard bluray transfers on the market, but the vast majority of titles offer an impressive video and audio upgrade over its dvd counterpart. As a fan of the entirety of motion picture history, I am thrilled to see titles from all eras such as F.W. Murnau's Sunrise (1927), John Ford's The Searchers (1956), and Bernando Bertolucci The Last Emperor look absolutely stunning in high definition.

I recently got the classic British tv series The Prisoner on blu-ray and I was floored by the pristine picture quality.

After the dark years of VHS, DVD was a groundbreaking format that offered original aspect ratio, lots of bonus material and superior video & audio. While the improvement upon dvd may not be as radical, blu-ray is the format I've been waiting for my whole life. In the face of digital downloads and streaming, this will most likely be the last physical format. Nevertheless I hope it will be around for a long while.

AviTrek · May 10 2010, 02:09 PM

Warped9 wrote:

Kelso wrote:

Warped9 wrote:

Maybe it has partly to do with growing up with B&W CRT television, then colour, VHS and then finally DVD.

I don't think that has much to do with it, beyond personal preference.

I'll happily upgrade to an ipod and a Bluray player when I can afford to, but I'll still collect vinyl records and super 8 reels (and 16mm reels when I can afford another working projector) because I like them.

What I mean is that while I can appreciate a good picture--and, yes, our idea of good changes over time and experience--it's still television. Or maybe it's just an idea I have in my head.

Film is one thing, but television is another. For example I'm not crazy about TOS on Blu-Ray. Never mind the TOS-R issue. I feel the Blu-Ray resolution hurts TOS' live-action footage because you see more things that were never meant to be seen in terms of production limitations. DVD was a happy compromise of having restored picture, detail and colour without revealing too much.

There is a difference between old shows and new shows. Sure TOS-R you end up seeing what the director never intended. Personally I'm ok with that, but if you're not I respect that and stick with DVD. But for new shows produced to be seen in HD from the start I'm not interested in buying it on DVD. My first Blu Ray TV purchase was BSG, and I haven't regretted the purchase once.

Starbreaker · May 10 2010, 02:11 PM

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

^ I know what HDMI is. As I said, I'm concerned with the TVs themselves. Will any 3D television, regardless of its specific method of displaying 3D, be able to display any 3D blu-ray or cable/satellite channel *IN 3D*, regardless of how that blu-ray or channel is encoded? Aren't blu-rays and TV channels encoded with a specific method of 3D, which may or may not be compatible with the actual TVs?

Hell... there's no standard for HDTV. You've got Plasma, LCD, LED, 720p, 1080p, 1080i....

Geckothan · May 10 2010, 02:28 PM

I've got no problem with Blu-Ray as it is a direct upgrade over DVD. I can't stand people who go on about how everything should be in "HD" and how "HD" is some amazing technology; guess what, it isn't. Good computer monitors have been doing the same resolutions since forever, the only reason that "HD" resolutions are being put into widespread use now is that there is now affordable, compact, idiot-proof media with enough capacity to store decent amounts of video at that resolution, and that's prompted TV manufacturers to bring television displays into the 21st century which has in turn prompted cable/satellite providers to introduce "HD" services to take advantage of people with these "new" TVs. Higher resolution is almost universally an improvement, but the "HD" enthusiasts acting like it's the most amazing thing since sliced bread who probably run their computer monitors at 1024x768 still just irritate me to hell.

3D on the other hand is an entirely subjective thing, and I personally think it's a pointless gimmick. Movies aren't supposed to be like theme park attractions.

Trekker4747 · May 10 2010, 03:24 PM

Re: The "standard" thing, MLB is talking about.

I think he's talking about the fact that there's no programing/software/hardware standard yet to the extent that one has to have glasses made specifically for the TV. You can't, for example, take your glasses to a friend's different TV and have it work.

This, I believe, is related to there being no programing/software-to-hardware standard.

Think of it this way: Imagine if every maker of a DVD player had their own "standard" when it came to the media. Whenever you bought a DVD you had to make sure you bought the correct maker's DVD and that DVD could only be played on your machine (or that maker's machine.)

A bit of an extreme example, sure, but it's pretty much the problem. Some-what similar to the whole DVD-R/DVD+R BS when recordable DVDs first came out. There was no standard and you had to ensure your machine recording the DVDs was correct and the machine playing the DVDs had to be the same format and the discs themselves had to be the same format.

Hell, an even better example is from the earlier days of computer software where, setting aside Apple, there were several OS formats and your software had to match. Then Windows came along and standarized/took it all over. No longer did you have to worry about whether your software could run on DOS, Amiga, whatever because everything ran on Windows. This needs to happen with 3D TVs. It needs to made so that any pair of glasses you buy works on any and every TV.

LitmusDragon · May 10 2010, 04:07 PM

Blu-ray is great.

The 3D thing is pretty silly- what is it, the 1950s again? (or, 80s, or 70s, it's been revived a few times).

I ignore 3D because I wear glasses anyway and wearing a pair of glasses over my other glasses just enters over into a level of absurdity I am not willing to cross.

I don't see the 3D thing as much of an issue since any 3D feature is also available in 2D and I will just continue to watch it that way.

TheBrew · May 10 2010, 04:31 PM

Bluray is cool. I think for some films like comedies, unless the price difference is negligible, I will get on DVD since the visual fidelity isn't a major reason why I will enjoy the movie. For stuff like The Dark Knight? Hells yes. Just watch the opening scene on DVD and then switch to Bluray.

You will be converted.

C.E. Evans · May 10 2010, 06:14 PM

I'm not a skeptic toward blu-ray or 3D at all--I have nothing against new (or newly refined) technologies at all--but I have never been one to hurry and get the latest things. They'll either still be there when I get to them (and usually cheap by then) or they will have already been replaced by something newer. I don't mind being the last one on the block to convert to stuff or not keeping up with the Joneses.

Heck, even though I've got multiple DVD players in my house, I still love my VCRs and enjoy looking at shows I recorded years ago on videotape.

zakkrusz · May 10 2010, 06:32 PM

I'm not sold on BD no, as my vision is unable to tell the difference between something that's HD and regular D, so buying into a more expensive technology would be a waste of money which I can't justify. Especially given how many DVDs I already have and the rate I collect them. I do have an HDTV though due to the forced cable upgrade a while ago, however.

3D glasses don't work on me either, they just make everything look blurry and give me a headache.

Dane_Whitman · May 10 2010, 08:40 PM

zakkrusz wrote:

I'm not sold on BD no, as my vision is unable to tell the difference between something that's HD and regular D, so buying into a more expensive technology would be a waste of money which I can't justify. Especially given how many DVDs I already have and the rate I collect them. I do have an HDTV though due to the forced cable upgrade a while ago, however.

It's not just video that gets an upgrade though. The audio of most blu-ray discs is quite superior to dvd. A lot of films are granted a lossless audio track on BD.

Nowhere Man · May 10 2010, 11:49 PM

I'm pretty much sold on Blu Ray. I bought a PS3 in November and I was only buying BD's with title like Star Trek, but now they are converting a lot of movie in that format which costs just as much as the DVD. They usually have the same content or better, so I have given up on DVD for now . 3-D I am not sold on and it will be quite a few years before I am. It took about 3 or 4 years to really get into blue Ray and it will take even longer for 3- D considering I just baought my HDTV not long ago.

stonester1 · May 11 2010, 12:05 AM

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

Hyperspace05 wrote:

Yawn, another "Oh what's the point of better technology" thread... On a SciFi forum???? Are you for real?

Or is this the luddite forum?

Like I said, there is no standard for 3D television. I would be far more likely to buy into it if there was. As it stands, you could buy a 3D TV right now and whatever standard eventually DOES come up, might not be compatible. Why take that risk?

Exactly, cult of the new. Being "new technology" doesn't make it better technology. We aren't obligated to adopt the new just because it's new.

AviTrek · May 11 2010, 02:41 AM

zakkrusz wrote:

I'm not sold on BD no, as my vision is unable to tell the difference between something that's HD and regular D, so buying into a more expensive technology would be a waste of money which I can't justify. Especially given how many DVDs I already have and the rate I collect them. I do have an HDTV though due to the forced cable upgrade a while ago, however.

There was never a forced upgrade. The cable company may have forced you to upgrade to a digital box, but your old TV would have worked just fine.

Dane_Whitman wrote:

It's not just video that gets an upgrade though. The audio of most blu-ray discs is quite superior to dvd. A lot of films are granted a lossless audio track on BD.

The audio upgrade is an even smaller upgrade though. Dolby Digital/DTS has been trying to convince people for years that the only audio loss was information we can't hear anyway. They can't turn around now and claim we can hear the difference.

Now, don't get me wrong, I use lossless audio whenever it's available, and I probably have a better speaker system than most Blu Ray owners, but I wouldn't buy Blu Rays just because of the audio. And if you only listen to Blu Rays through your TV speakers, then you won't hear the difference at all.

Sheep · May 11 2010, 03:10 AM

Hyperspace05 wrote:

Yawn, another "Oh what's the point of better technology" thread... On a SciFi forum???? Are you for real?

Or is this the luddite forum?

So how's that SACD player, Apple TV, 3DO and betamax player treating you?

Blu-Ray, sold.

3D movies that require a HUGE investment in the form of a new TV (when a large majority have just adopted plain-old HDTV), expensive incompatible headache-inducing glasses for each viewer and a new BD player, epic fail.

May 10 2010, 02:07 PM	#32
Dane_Whitman Captain Location: Dinner to bug.	Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic? On the contrary, I'm in love with blu-ray. I have acquired about 200 blu-ray discs ever since I got myself a player, which was about a year ago. I used to be into dvd collecting, but high definition has added a whole new dimension tot the experience of watching films. I think I've watched as little as five dvds this past year. People who see little difference between dvd and blu-ray need to have their eyes examined. It's true that there are some sub-standard bluray transfers on the market, but the vast majority of titles offer an impressive video and audio upgrade over its dvd counterpart. As a fan of the entirety of motion picture history, I am thrilled to see titles from all eras such as F.W. Murnau's Sunrise (1927), John Ford's The Searchers (1956), and Bernando Bertolucci The Last Emperor look absolutely stunning in high definition. I recently got the classic British tv series The Prisoner on blu-ray and I was floored by the pristine picture quality. After the dark years of VHS, DVD was a groundbreaking format that offered original aspect ratio, lots of bonus material and superior video & audio. While the improvement upon dvd may not be as radical, blu-ray is the format I've been waiting for my whole life. In the face of digital downloads and streaming, this will most likely be the last physical format. Nevertheless I hope it will be around for a long while. __________________ "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

May 10 2010, 02:28 PM	#35
Geckothan Fleet Captain Location: People's Republic of Britainistan	Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic? I've got no problem with Blu-Ray as it is a direct upgrade over DVD. I can't stand people who go on about how everything should be in "HD" and how "HD" is some amazing technology; guess what, it isn't. Good computer monitors have been doing the same resolutions since forever, the only reason that "HD" resolutions are being put into widespread use now is that there is now affordable, compact, idiot-proof media with enough capacity to store decent amounts of video at that resolution, and that's prompted TV manufacturers to bring television displays into the 21st century which has in turn prompted cable/satellite providers to introduce "HD" services to take advantage of people with these "new" TVs. Higher resolution is almost universally an improvement, but the "HD" enthusiasts acting like it's the most amazing thing since sliced bread who probably run their computer monitors at 1024x768 still just irritate me to hell. 3D on the other hand is an entirely subjective thing, and I personally think it's a pointless gimmick. Movies aren't supposed to be like theme park attractions. __________________ You're a classic example of the inverse ratio between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain. RIP Star Trek 1964-1999

May 10 2010, 03:24 PM	#36
Trekker4747 To boldly go... Location: Kansas City	Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic? Re: The "standard" thing, MLB is talking about. I think he's talking about the fact that there's no programing/software/hardware standard yet to the extent that one has to have glasses made specifically for the TV. You can't, for example, take your glasses to a friend's different TV and have it work. This, I believe, is related to there being no programing/software-to-hardware standard. Think of it this way: Imagine if every maker of a DVD player had their own "standard" when it came to the media. Whenever you bought a DVD you had to make sure you bought the correct maker's DVD and that DVD could only be played on your machine (or that maker's machine.) A bit of an extreme example, sure, but it's pretty much the problem. Some-what similar to the whole DVD-R/DVD+R BS when recordable DVDs first came out. There was no standard and you had to ensure your machine recording the DVDs was correct and the machine playing the DVDs had to be the same format and the discs themselves had to be the same format. Hell, an even better example is from the earlier days of computer software where, setting aside Apple, there were several OS formats and your software had to match. Then Windows came along and standarized/took it all over. No longer did you have to worry about whether your software could run on DOS, Amiga, whatever because everything ran on Windows. This needs to happen with 3D TVs. It needs to made so that any pair of glasses you buy works on any and every TV. __________________ Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical.

May 10 2010, 04:07 PM	#37
LitmusDragon Commodore Location: The Barmuda Triangle	Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic? Blu-ray is great. The 3D thing is pretty silly- what is it, the 1950s again? (or, 80s, or 70s, it's been revived a few times). I ignore 3D because I wear glasses anyway and wearing a pair of glasses over my other glasses just enters over into a level of absurdity I am not willing to cross. I don't see the 3D thing as much of an issue since any 3D feature is also available in 2D and I will just continue to watch it that way. __________________ Check out my photos of Oregon on Facebook Linguiphiles, unite!

May 10 2010, 04:31 PM	#38
TheBrew Vice Admiral Location: Fox Lady	Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic? Bluray is cool. I think for some films like comedies, unless the price difference is negligible, I will get on DVD since the visual fidelity isn't a major reason why I will enjoy the movie. For stuff like The Dark Knight? Hells yes. Just watch the opening scene on DVD and then switch to Bluray. You will be converted. __________________ Sing glorious, victorious, One keg of beer for the four of us. Sing glory be to God that there are no more of us, For one of us could drink it all alone. Damn near.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

May 10 2010, 06:14 PM	#39
C.E. Evans Vice Admiral Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)	Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic? I'm not a skeptic toward blu-ray or 3D at all--I have nothing against new (or newly refined) technologies at all--but I have never been one to hurry and get the latest things. They'll either still be there when I get to them (and usually cheap by then) or they will have already been replaced by something newer. I don't mind being the last one on the block to convert to stuff or not keeping up with the Joneses. Heck, even though I've got multiple DVD players in my house, I still love my VCRs and enjoy looking at shows I recorded years ago on videotape. __________________ "Shout, shout, let it all out..."

May 10 2010, 06:32 PM	#40
zakkrusz Rear Admiral Location: The Wired	Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic? I'm not sold on BD no, as my vision is unable to tell the difference between something that's HD and regular D, so buying into a more expensive technology would be a waste of money which I can't justify. Especially given how many DVDs I already have and the rate I collect them. I do have an HDTV though due to the forced cable upgrade a while ago, however. 3D glasses don't work on me either, they just make everything look blurry and give me a headache. __________________ "Formidable, are the World Delicacy Noodles." Chachamaru-Negima!?

May 10 2010, 11:49 PM	#42
Nowhere Man Commodore Location: Nowhere Land	Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic? I'm pretty much sold on Blu Ray. I bought a PS3 in November and I was only buying BD's with title like Star Trek, but now they are converting a lot of movie in that format which costs just as much as the DVD. They usually have the same content or better, so I have given up on DVD for now . 3-D I am not sold on and it will be quite a few years before I am. It took about 3 or 4 years to really get into blue Ray and it will take even longer for 3- D considering I just baought my HDTV not long ago.