Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

[Warped9]

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.

 

[stonester1]

Blu Ray, no, as it posesses backwards compatibility and doesn't render your DVD library obsolete, and improves the video quality of most of your DVDs.

3 D? Until they come out with a system that doesn't require glasses AND doesn't render your library obsolete...I'm not caring.

 

[Trekker4747]

Blu-Ray, no. I've, more or less, officially adopted it. Any meaningful movie I buy from now on I'll buy on BD, I'll finish my TV seasons with DVDs though for the sake of consistancy.

BD is backwards compatable with DVDs and the quality is hugely noticable. So like the step-up from DVD Blu-Ray I'm sold on.

3D? Not yet, not so much. Right now the equipment is prhobitively expensive, it's not standardized to the point where you couldn't use your glasses on a friend's TV (unless he had the same TV as you) and the media is non-exsistant. (Monsters v. Aliens. Whoop-dee-doo.) Plus it'd be just annoying to have to wear glasses to enjoy it as I rarely will just sit down to watch a movie in that manner. So the 3D thing isn't there yet. Someday, maybe when the cost comes down and they're able to do it without the need for glasses.

Blue-Ray? Sold on it and it is worth it.

 

[Harvey]

I'm skeptical of studios pumping out Blu-Rays that can't even match the quality of the same titles on DVDs, but as long as you read a few reviews before making a purchase, it's a great format and the only one I'll be buying from now on.

3D I couldn't care less about. It's just too much of a hassle at home, and still a gimmick more often than not at the theatre.

 

[Warped9]

Yes, BD machines are backwards compatible. But does it take as long to load regular DVD on them? And do the regular DVDs look better than even on an upconverting DVD player?

 

[AviTrek]

A DVD will load just as quickly as on a DVD player. In fact even Blu Rays load fast enough as long as you don't get a cheap/slow player. In terms of image quality, it all depends on the quality of the player. A good Blu Ray player will look better than a cheap DVD player and good DVD player will look better than a cheap Blu Ray player.

 

[Trekker4747]

"Upconverting" is the biggest bullshit "marketing term" ever come up with, or at the very least most misunderstood.

A DVD only contains so much infromation and that information is only enough to creat the (420?) resolution the format is capable of. If the DVD contained enough information to "upconvert" that resolution to the 1080 of Blu-Ray why wouldn't the DVD simply be that?!

All "upconverting" means is that the player can take that, compatative small, resolution and blow it up, as flawlessly as possible, to fill your screen. Without "upconverting" your DVDs playing on your TV through your BD player would be a box far smaller than your TV.

Upconverting does not make the picture better!

As for the time issue, the DVDs and BDs I play on my PS3 have no notable lag to hem when loading, chapter selecting or menu selecting.

The BD format has the advantage of being able to play the previous format. This is a plus. It's like when people in the early part of this decade had to buy those VHS/DVD combo units to still play their tapes. Only a BD player is less bulky and cumbersome to take advanatage of in this respect. Any BD player, ever,will play DVDs. So buying a BD player doesn't "force" you to have to upgrade the movie collection too, like DVD did, unless you simply want the better qaulity.

 

[firehawk12]

SD is 480i... and upconverting can make pictures look better, but if your TV is small, it's not going to make that much a difference anyway.

I'm fine with Blu-Ray, but I have to wonder if we're not going to move to a new HD spec in 5 years. I just wonder how much resolution will be enough for home theater purposes.

 

[Trekker4747]

Well, in theory, film infinte resolution, so...

 

[Kelso]

No, I just haven't had the money to upgrade yet.

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.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

3D is not, as yet, standardized. So I don't see why anyone would buy into it now. When there does come a standard, it may not be compatible with what we have now...

Blu-ray, on the other hand, IS a standard. That's all the proof I need...

 

[Warped9]

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.

 

[Lord Garth]

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. New shows, shot in high definition, look great.

I won't even go into 3-D or RGBY. Not now. I think it's stupid to introduce these new luxury items during the Second Great Depression. And, yes, that's what it is even though people won't bring themselves to admit it. They shouldn't strong-arm people into making these types of purchases during times like these.

 

[Hyperspace05]

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?

 

[firehawk12]

Well, in theory, film infinte resolution, so...

Well, it's like digital cameras. At some point, having a 100 megapixel camera doesn't actually get you anything other than winning the metaphorical size contest.

Films show at 4k resolution (about 4 times standard HD) was the new hotness last year and from all reports, that seems to be amazing... but if you don't have a home theater with a projector in your home, it's almost wasted.

Of course, most high end monitors now "1600p" or thereabouts - but there's a difference between needing more resolution for working on a computer where you are setting next to the screen and television where most people have giant TVs and are sitting several meters away.

Oh well... short of something amazing, I can't imagine upgrading everything again just to accommodate a new standard. I'm sort of hoping that the slow adoption of Blu-Ray/HD means no one is going to rush to push a new standard any time soon.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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?

 

[Starbreaker]

No interest in 3D TV, but I set up the DVD and Blu-Ray of Avatar side by side the other day... and you'd have to be a complete moron not to be able to tell a HUGE difference.

 

[Trekker4747]

The BD of Avatar is cum-worthy.

 

[Starbreaker]

Yeah, I showed a friend the film for the first time, but I showed her the DVD version for a minute or so first. It was a "holy crap, I'm sold" moment.

 

[mswood]

Right now I couldn't care a rats ass about 3-D.

But for Blu-Ray hell to the Yes.

With a few points.

If all you are watching is a vast library of old tv titles, then I can understand not wanting to.

But even with TV broadcasts and the newer tv shows, you can easily, easily tell a vast difference. Heck even 780 is a big improvement let alone 1080. And for film (again certain films are shoot on very poor grain, and thus less noticable improvement), but for most films and certainly most any blockbuster there is a huge, huge difference. Of course, another issue is what are you displaying your media on. The higher the quality of your tv the more you will be able to notice.