RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,588
Posts: 5,403,920
Members: 24,867
Currently online: 689
Newest member: jack@gerryander

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Gold Key Archives Vol. 2 Comic
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Cumberbatch In War Of Roses Miniseries
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Trek 3 Filming Location Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 11 2010, 03:42 AM   #46
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Sheep wrote: View Post
So how's that SACD player, Apple TV, 3DO and betamax player treating you?
I have an AppleTV and it works just fine. It's still very useful.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 04:17 AM   #47
Small White Car
Rear Admiral
 
Small White Car's Avatar
 
Location: Washington D.C.
View Small White Car's Twitter Profile
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Upconverting does not make the picture better!
Sorry, but you're wrong. (Assuming you're talking about the same DVD and the same HDTV and we're just switching out the player.)

This is a massively simplified example, but it kind of works like this.



Averaging pixels gives you a smoother image than mindlessly duplicating them does.

It's ok to not care about any of these things, but saying there's no difference is just wrong.
Small White Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 04:29 AM   #48
Small White Car
Rear Admiral
 
Small White Car's Avatar
 
Location: Washington D.C.
View Small White Car's Twitter Profile
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

So if the follow up question is "Then why buy Blu-Ray?" it's because that middle pixel is still a guess. It's a good guess, but it's just a guess.

The Blu-Ray may actually look like this:



Oh...look at that! It was supposed to be green! Well, that's some extra detail the Blu-Ray has that the DVD doesn't. So the Blu-Ray is better than the up-converted DVD, no doubt.

But the up-converted DVD is still better than the non-upconverted one. The guess may be wrong, but it's a smoother, nicer-looking "wrong" than the original. So to say that the up-converting process didn't improve it is clearly not an accurate statement.
Small White Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 04:36 AM   #49
Dave Scarpa
Lieutenant Commander
 
Dave Scarpa's Avatar
 
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Warped9 wrote: View Post
Even after a few years I'm still not sold on Blu-Ray yet. Sure the cost of hardware has come way down and the movie discs themselves have also become more reasonably priced. But I'm still not sold.

Except in some applications I still don't see enough of a difference to convince me to leap for it until I absolutely have to. The other criticism I have is that discs seem to take so damned long to load.

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

And now there's 3D. Maybe it's my eyes but while I can see some extra depth I don't notice a huge difference. There's also the fact that you need expensive eye wear to watch it. Until they can do 3D without glasses and not have to be pretty much at right angles to the screen I see it all as just a gimmick.

Of course I feel much the same about expensive home theatre systems. It might well be nice, but every time I've been exposed to it it seems as if it's just an excuse to play everything too damned loud. As far as I can see you won't hear the great clarity for long because you'll make your self deaf.

Maybe I'm just a stick-in-the-mud.
Ok 1st I do see enough of a difference in the movies and the price has come down to the point where I have a Blu Ray Player. And even thou the prices of the disk are often fantastic now I don't buy many disks. Why ? I think its because I burned out on the DVD Format, I bought so many disks there, to build a collection, that many sit unwatched more than once, that I am not interested in doing that again with blu ray. I pick up many disks even at ten bucks and cannot justify buying the title. I purchase now only AAA titles I know I will watch many times. Or TV Sets, but it has amounted to less than 30 or so Blu's.

3D I have zero interest in. I don't like even going to see a movie in 3D and wearing the damn glasses for 2 hours. I just don't see much enjoyment in it, I even think it degrades the image and experience.
Dave Scarpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 05:00 AM   #50
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Lord Garth wrote: View Post
Movies look great on Blu-Ray. TV shows from the '70s, '80s, and '90s look like shit.

TOS looks the same on Blu-Ray as it does on regular DVD.
No. It doesn't. It looks much better on blu-ray.

New shows, shot in high definition, look great.
Old shows were also shot in "high definition" on film, you just never could see it before blu-ray and HD TV. There is, in fact, more detail on the film of old TV shows from the 60s than even modern HDTVs will let you see.

The Twilight Zone is about to be released on blu-ray, and that's a show that premiered in 1959. The DVD versions of the HD remasters have already been released, and the picture is amazing. I can't wait to actually see it in HD.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 05:12 AM   #51
Rainbow Dash
Osmotic Egghead
 
Rainbow Dash's Avatar
 
Location: J. Allen's House
Send a message via ICQ to Rainbow Dash Send a message via AIM to Rainbow Dash Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Rainbow Dash Send a message via Yahoo to Rainbow Dash
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Dane_Whitman wrote: View Post
zakkrusz wrote: View Post
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.
I enjoy Blu-ray and have approximately 20 BD movies, and an inexpensive Magnavox Blu-ray player (no BD Live or anything, it's no frills). The player is excellent. It has gladly chugged away at every new Blu-ray disc placed in the tray, and it doesn't even get network updates.

That aside, the picture quality is crisp and superb. This is the image I was looking for after HDTV started to flood the buyer's market, as television broadcasts and VHS/DVD movies appeared as though through a film, almost like a type of plastic wrap in front of the lens.

However, as you have noted, it's the audio that really wins out here. Watching the Star Trek movie collection on Blu-ray, I started hearing lines of dialogue and background music that I had never noticed before, and it enriches the movie. Star Trek: The Motion Picture in particular, gets my attention in that regard.

As it stands now, I still buy DVDs, however, they are usually the $3 to $5 DVDs that complete a part of my library. When it comes to Blu-ray, I never spend more than $10 per movie title, thanks to websites like Amazon.com, and even Walmart is getting in on the game, offering $7-$10 Blu-ray titles.

In regards to 3D technology, I believe the current form will be a fad, as it is too impractical, and is a problem for many of the people who attempt to view movies through the system. I, for example, cannot watch 3D movies with the glasses, simply because I get painful headaches when I do, so I avoid that technology. That stated, I am quite satisfied with Blu-ray and it's future potential.
__________________
"I'm Star Swirl the Bearded! Father of the amniomorphic spell?
Did you even read that book I gave you about obscure unicorn history?" - Twilight Sparkle
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Brony Kingdom
Rainbow Dash is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 01:10 PM   #52
Yoda
Rear Admiral
 
Yoda's Avatar
 
Location: San Diego
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Small White Car wrote: View Post
Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Upconverting does not make the picture better!
Sorry, but you're wrong. (Assuming you're talking about the same DVD and the same HDTV and we're just switching out the player.)

This is a massively simplified example, but it kind of works like this.



Averaging pixels gives you a smoother image than mindlessly duplicating them does.

It's ok to not care about any of these things, but saying there's no difference is just wrong.
Nonsense. Your non upconverting DVD player example isn't real. If it was, it would be an 'upconverting' DVD player that just so happens to do a horrible job. If it doesn't upconvert, it's not doubling the pixel, it's not interpolating it... it's just sending everything at the native resolution and letting the TV do with it as it pleases.

You know what would look better than an upconverted DVD on an HDTV? A DVD on a screen at its native resolution, like an old CRT computer monitor or something.

The extra resolution of blu-ray is good, but a good portion of the benefit is just the ridiculous bitrate they can throw at encoding stuff. DVD was pretty good for the resolution, but some things could really push it... and not everybody did a good job encoding the video. You could notice an improvement in many cases watching a blu-ray over dvd on a standard definition TV if you have a decent eye.
__________________
Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 02:45 PM   #53
barnaclelapse
Commodore
 
barnaclelapse's Avatar
 
Location: Waverly, VA.
Send a message via AIM to barnaclelapse
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Blu Ray finally won me over late last year. I got a player for Christmas and have found it enjoyable even on my old TV.

With 3D I remain almost completely ambivalent. I don't care, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
barnaclelapse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 04:07 PM   #54
Small White Car
Rear Admiral
 
Small White Car's Avatar
 
Location: Washington D.C.
View Small White Car's Twitter Profile
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Yoda wrote: View Post
Nonsense. Your non upconverting DVD player example isn't real. If it was, it would be an 'upconverting' DVD player that just so happens to do a horrible job. If it doesn't upconvert, it's not doubling the pixel, it's not interpolating it... it's just sending everything at the native resolution and letting the TV do with it as it pleases.
And when the TV "does what it pleases" what do you think it's doing?

Most often it's exactly what I showed.

I suppose I could have been more clear and instead of putting "Regular DVD Player" I could have written "What the HDTV does to the SD signal sent by the non-upconverting DVD player" but I figured that would be tough to fit on the line.

Cramming all that extra text in there makes it more technically correct, I suppose, but it doesn't change the basic example. It would STILL be 'red red blue.'

(And if I am wrong and you think it DOES change the answer, then please tell me what the middle-pixel should be in that example. You said I was wrong but neglected to tell me what the right answer would be. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but you still haven't given an alternative for me to consider.)
Small White Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 04:32 PM   #55
Hyperspace05
Commodore
 
Hyperspace05's Avatar
 
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

There are lots of interpolation schemes... Some are better than others. Some take into account more than the immediate pixels. Some do a really good job at upscaling SD content, some do not.
Hyperspace05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 04:42 PM   #56
LitmusDragon
Commodore
 
LitmusDragon's Avatar
 
Location: The Barmuda Triangle
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

It's important to understand that for Blu-ray, the larger the TV and the higher the resolution, the more obvious a difference.

On a 60" 1080p television I would venture to say that anyone would be able to see a vast improvement in Blu-ray versus a DVD playback.

On a 42" 720p television, the difference is still quite apparent but more subtle.

On a 32" 720p set, you might be hard-pressed to tell the difference in a lot of cases.
__________________
I made an 8-bit style RPG, here it is
I'm getting married on July 19, 2014.
LitmusDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 05:31 PM   #57
Tulin
Vice Admiral
 
Location: With the most wonderful man in the world!
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

I hate how just to watch a tv show these days you have to be a fucking digital video technician or somesuch.

Wanky "my screen/dick is bigger than yours" bullshit.

Tulin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 09:30 PM   #58
Lord Garth
Guest
 
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Lord Garth wrote: View Post
Movies look great on Blu-Ray. TV shows from the '70s, '80s, and '90s look like shit.

TOS looks the same on Blu-Ray as it does on regular DVD.
No. It doesn't. It looks much better on blu-ray.
Fine. I haven't really given it much thought to be honest.

New shows, shot in high definition, look great.
Old shows were also shot in "high definition" on film, you just never could see it before blu-ray and HD TV. There is, in fact, more detail on the film of old TV shows from the 60s than even modern HDTVs will let you see.

The Twilight Zone is about to be released on blu-ray, and that's a show that premiered in 1959. The DVD versions of the HD remasters have already been released, and the picture is amazing. I can't wait to actually see it in HD.
I was talking about shows from the '70s, '80s, and '90s not looking good. The ones shot/edited on video.

So you're telling me things I already know about pre-1970 series.
  Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2010, 09:50 PM   #59
Yoda
Rear Admiral
 
Yoda's Avatar
 
Location: San Diego
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

Small White Car wrote: View Post
Yoda wrote: View Post
Nonsense. Your non upconverting DVD player example isn't real. If it was, it would be an 'upconverting' DVD player that just so happens to do a horrible job. If it doesn't upconvert, it's not doubling the pixel, it's not interpolating it... it's just sending everything at the native resolution and letting the TV do with it as it pleases.
And when the TV "does what it pleases" what do you think it's doing?

Most often it's exactly what I showed.

I suppose I could have been more clear and instead of putting "Regular DVD Player" I could have written "What the HDTV does to the SD signal sent by the non-upconverting DVD player" but I figured that would be tough to fit on the line.

Cramming all that extra text in there makes it more technically correct, I suppose, but it doesn't change the basic example. It would STILL be 'red red blue.'

(And if I am wrong and you think it DOES change the answer, then please tell me what the middle-pixel should be in that example. You said I was wrong but neglected to tell me what the right answer would be. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but you still haven't given an alternative for me to consider.)
Here's why you're wrong. You declared that 'upconverting' improves the picture. It doesn't. Scaling the image is a necessary evil of having fixed resolution displays. By trying to add detail that isn't there, you're diluting the detail that is there. I like how you even used the word 'smoothness' to describe the upconverted picture. Personally I'd have gone with 'bluriness'.

As for what I think the TV is doing when you give it the original resolution... well, unless it's a complete piece of shit, it's not doing the nearest neighbor type nonsense that you're describing. My five year old Sony scales stuff very well, actually, there's no big improvement that an upconverting DVD player could bring. And if you did buy a complete piece of shit, it's a little strange to be so concerned about video quality!

But fundamentally it makes a lot more sense to have your TV scale the source resolution to its native resolution. Let's say 10 years from now you have, oh I don't know, an '1800p' television. You want to watch your DVDs in the best quality so you bust out your awesome 'upconverting' DVD player... which scales the content to 1080p, and then is again scaled by the TV to the final resolution of 1800p. Congratulations, you now have a worse image than if you had a DVD sending 480p to the television because you've introduced an extra resize to the process!

Anyway, if your TV does suck at scaling, there's still not much of a point of buying a standalone upconverting DVD player. Just spend a little more, get a PS3, or a standalone Blu-ray that does a decent job of scaling, and voila! So yeah, Trekker4747's main points are valid. Upconverting DVD players are largely worthless, and the upconverting process does not improve an image.
__________________
Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2010, 12:57 AM   #60
Kaijima
Captain
 
Kaijima's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

I'd add here that there's also a matter of conditioning and experience. The longer you look at native HD content the more you'll see the difference in DVD if you go backwards.

At my house, when we first got a 37in LCD HD panel and a blu-ray player, sure, some of the movies that benefit the very most looked very different. Such as Pixar animated films and their direct digital-master-to-digital transfer. With a lot of films the difference wasn't immediately obvious.

That was a couple of years ago.

Now, if we put on even the cleanest DVD transfer, the difference seems obvious. We notice all the little things we hadn't before because we had not been acclimated to expecting the nuances of a higher resolution original image.

It still doesn't make a world of difference with some older films, unless they've had a very delicate re-scan from original film stock. But the thing is, as we move forward it can be taken for granted that most new films will benefit from it greatly merely because they're being filmed digitally and/or with higher quality film processing when analog film is used on purpose.
Kaijima is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
blu-ray

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.