Are you a Blu-Ray & 3D skeptic?

[The Wormhole]

I'm not impressed with blu-ray at all. Ever since its release I questioned the necessity of it. DVD already had perfect picture. Why should we try to top perfection?

Regardless, my parents were making subtle hints about blu-ray all year last year, so I caved and bought them a player for Christmas. I've watched a few blu-ray movies, and I'm not impressed. At times, it actually looks fake.

3-D is a gimmick, plain and simple. A gimmick I'm surprised has lasted this long and could potentially be permanent.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

DVD already had perfect picture.

No, it didn't. Not even close.

DVD had *good* picture. Certainly better than VHS or even broadcast TV. But perfect? Hardly.

The only "perfect picture" is actual reality.

 

[The Wormhole]

DVD already had perfect picture.

No, it didn't. Not even close.

DVD had *good* picture. Certainly better than VHS or even broadcast TV. But perfect? Hardly.

The only "perfect picture" is actual reality.

I got to be honest, I consider DVD picture to be better than reality. Add that it's better than VHS, broadcast TV and (IMO) even movie theatres, it truly is the best picture around.

 

[Hyperspace05]

DVD already had perfect picture.

No, it didn't. Not even close.

DVD had *good* picture. Certainly better than VHS or even broadcast TV. But perfect? Hardly.

The only "perfect picture" is actual reality.

I got to be honest, I consider DVD picture to be better than reality. Add that it's better than VHS, broadcast TV and (IMO) even movie theatres, it truly is the best picture around.

Wow... I can only assume that you have some unfortunate severe vision problems, if you really think DVD is the pinnacle of picture quality. Or you are trolling. I'm thinking the latter...

 

[Mr. Adventure]

DVD already had perfect picture.

No, it didn't. Not even close.

DVD had *good* picture. Certainly better than VHS or even broadcast TV. But perfect? Hardly.

The only "perfect picture" is actual reality.

I got to be honest, I consider DVD picture to be better than reality. Add that it's better than VHS, broadcast TV and (IMO) even movie theatres, it truly is the best picture around.

What kind of TV do you watch on? It might be a factor.

I do notice a difference but on my 46" set I am generally quite satisfied with DVD clarity. It's not as night and day for me as it is with some people (re:Blu-Ray). I think DVD beats Comcast HDTV sometimes when there's a scene with a *lot* of color and movement such as in the new Speed Racer and others where there's a lot of break-up.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

DVD already had perfect picture.

No, it didn't. Not even close.

DVD had *good* picture. Certainly better than VHS or even broadcast TV. But perfect? Hardly.

The only "perfect picture" is actual reality.

I got to be honest, I consider DVD picture to be better than reality.

Reality does not consist of compression artifacts, edge enhancement and doesn't suffer from a severe lack of resolution.

 

[The Wormhole]

No, it didn't. Not even close.

DVD had *good* picture. Certainly better than VHS or even broadcast TV. But perfect? Hardly.

The only "perfect picture" is actual reality.

I got to be honest, I consider DVD picture to be better than reality. Add that it's better than VHS, broadcast TV and (IMO) even movie theatres, it truly is the best picture around.

Wow... I can only assume that you have some unfortunate severe vision problems, if you really think DVD is the pinnacle of picture quality. Or you are trolling. I'm thinking the latter...

Just because my opinion is different from yours does not make me a troll.

 

[Irishman]

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.

I'll give you half that, and I'm fast approaching fuddy-duddy myself.

But I've jumped head-first into the home theater thing, Blu-Ray and all.

My entire family (including my 58 year old in-laws) LOVE Blu-ray picture quality over standard DVD. Even my wife, admittedly not a golden eye or ear, can see and hear the improvement in going from DVD to Blu-ray.

I'm not a fan of 3D for myself to go out and buy all new gear (I just invested in a Pioneer Elite Pro111FD KURO and a BDP51FD Blu-ray player, so the idea of starting all over with 3D gear is ridiculous to me), but I just saw my second 3D demo on a new Panasonic VT25, and I gotta say, it does impress, whereas the 55" Samsung LED did not.

I'm like you, though. Once they can do the effect without glasses, I'll jump in. Nevermind the fact that there is a grand total of 1 3D Blu-ray title available, and it looks like they're going to sell for about $50 a pop!

 

[Irishman]

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?

If you want fast load times, get the Playstation 3. Seriously.

 

[Irishman]

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.

I think you're confusing film as a viewing venue (film/theater versus tv/home) with film as a medium. TOS was shot on film. It originally contained much more detail than was revealed on TVs of the day. Even DVD limited to 480p couldn't do that justice.

Blu-ray at 1080p does better. Can we someday do even better? Possibly. Time alone will tell.

 

[Irishman]

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.

If you think people are being strong-armed into buying something they can't afford, maybe it's your own weak resolve to keep your purse-strings tight that's speaking here

 

[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.

If you think people are being strong-armed into buying something they can't afford, maybe it's your own weak resolve to keep your purse-strings tight that's speaking here

Okay, that's two replies, regarding this, and I don't appreciate this second one with the smug smile at the end when you don't know anything about me or my shopping tendencies.

I'm not going to buy 3D or RGBY any time soon, nor do I have any plans to in the future. Okay? All right? I'm not going to buy 3D or RGBY any time soon, or do I have any plans to do so in the future.

Some people will buy whatever because they're always into buying the newest whatever. Have you never heard of techies? Ever in your life? Well, I'm not one of them. I'm not one of them.

Let's also not forget in 2009 when anyone who still had analog television was forced to make the switch to digital. That's strong-arming in my opinion. Not to you or I, but if someone was still sticking with analog at that point, it was likely they'd have stuck with it until their TV broke down and they had to buy a new one.

 

[Irishman]

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.

Scaling has to happen with DVD on an HDTV, or else you'll have a tiny image in the middle of a black sea around it. And not all scaling is done equally.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

And now there's 3D.

Warped9 are you only speaking of home theater or also the stereoscopic 3-D technology in general as you may wish to see this thread:
Sports and Concerts in 3-D at cinema (not TV)

The title of your thread is pretty general even though it is in the Science Fiction & Fantasy forum.'

HD content sold on physical media will be around for 10 or 15 years but will be supplanted by streaming and DLC (downloadable-content) in most cities with fast Internet connections.
In the next 10 years the Internet will delivery more television and feature films than ever before and will change the way people consume films and scripted narrative content than before.
The licensing of Blu-ray physical discs is an old model from VHS, Laserdisc, and DVDs that will be obsolete in 15 years due to the availability of movies in the cloud.
Sure I want to buy my own Blu-ray set of ENT the complete series when it comes out in 2 or 3 years as I know it will be a good handful of years before things really start to change as Hollywood is going to get as much cash from people's conversion from DVD to Blu-ray for now.
3-D in a physical media format for Hollywood feature films will be a niche market as there just isn't very many 3-D movies yet. It is sort of the SACD/DVD-Audio format for now and for the next 5 years just with much better marketing...

 

[davejames]

I love my blueray player, but honestly have been pretty content just watching DVD's on it for the most part. Most new movies (and TV shows like Big Bang or Dexter) already look PLENTY good just from the upconversion.

Only if it's something really special (like Trek or TDK), or if I see great reviews (like for Ghostbusters or Matrix) will I bother buying the blueray version.

 

[Hober Mallow]

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.

Fair enough.

Certainly the shows that were edited on video aren't going to look any better unless they go back to the original film. I think it's only a matter of time before they do that. Unfortunately for some shows, the film wasn't saved. I believe they ended up throwing or losing the original film for the 80s Twilight Zone, which means the crappy video edits are all that exist.

I find DVDs upconverted to be kind of hit or miss. From my experience, the shows that were edited on videotape like TNG and Alien Nation tend to look pretty crappy upconverted, while those that were not edited on videotape tend to look pretty darn good. I'm no videophile so I'm not sure why, but I suspect it has to do with videotape noise screwing with the upconversion process. So even though I love blu-ray, I only watch certain DVDs on a DVD player.

DVD already had perfect picture.

No, it didn't. Not even close.

DVD had *good* picture. Certainly better than VHS or even broadcast TV. But perfect? Hardly.

The only "perfect picture" is actual reality.

I got to be honest, I consider DVD picture to be better than reality. Add that it's better than VHS, broadcast TV and (IMO) even movie theatres, it truly is the best picture around.

I can say it's my opinion Abraham Lincoln is still alive, it doesn't make it fact. Not only is the resolution of blu-ray much better than that of DVD, but in a theater you're getting a much better picture. If you tried to play a standard DVD on movie theater screen, it would look like garbage, far worse than the most degraded VHS you may own.

You're certainly entitled to prefer DVD. My daughter is a staunch VHS fan. Your preference, however, doesn't change the actual resolution.

On my Star Trek blu-rays,. I can pause an image of Kirk's face and see ever pore on his face and every piece of fabric on his uniform. I can't do that with the DVDs.

 

[LitmusDragon]

On the subject of video resolution, which I find very interesting, 35mm film is capable of much more than even high def can provide us at this point. Most would estimate the "pixel" resolution of a 35mm print has at least 1400 lines of video resolution (compared to 1080 on current HD), and some would estimate the number as high as 2400 lines of resolution. So HD is a leap of about twice the lines of resolution over DVD, or about 4x total resolution, but in theory it's possible that film transfers could have much higher resolutions, even 16x or higher than that of a DVD, on some future technology. This is to say nothing of films that are produced in iMax.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

35mm film and digital video formats

On the subject of video resolution, which I find very interesting, 35mm film is capable of much more than even high def can provide us at this point.

LitmusDragon check this post out.

film vs 6k/8k datacine/telecine for Blu-ray
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4002705&postcount=68

and for that matter you may as well checkout:
Super Hi-vision (SHV) & Ultra High Definition Video (UHDV), Ultra High Definition Television (UHDTV)
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3017865&postcount=82
as that will be around in 2020-2025.

 

[Trekker4747]

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.

Well, it was more my point that "upscaling" players aren't adding detail that isn't there. They can't. All they can do is add a "best guess" to make the picture fill the screen rather than filling up half of the picture.

If they ever do make higher resolution TVs any "upscaling" on decades old DVD would make them look a pixilated as a Mario game. Because all the "upscaling" can do it make a guess, take averages, or do something to make the picture bigger. But it doesn't know what was there in the camera to make the picture more detailed.

 

[AviTrek]

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.

If you think people are being strong-armed into buying something they can't afford, maybe it's your own weak resolve to keep your purse-strings tight that's speaking here

Okay, that's two replies, regarding this, and I don't appreciate this second one with the smug smile at the end when you don't know anything about me or my shopping tendencies.

I'm not going to buy 3D or RGBY any time soon, nor do I have any plans to in the future. Okay? All right? I'm not going to buy 3D or RGBY any time soon, or do I have any plans to do so in the future.

Some people will buy whatever because they're always into buying the newest whatever. Have you never heard of techies? Ever in your life? Well, I'm not one of them. I'm not one of them.

Let's also not forget in 2009 when anyone who still had analog television was forced to make the switch to digital. That's strong-arming in my opinion. Not to you or I, but if someone was still sticking with analog at that point, it was likely they'd have stuck with it until their TV broke down and they had to buy a new one.

No one was forced to buy a new TV. If they were cable subscribers their cable boxes still worked. If their cable company went digital, they were given a new box to handle it and convert down to SD. And if they watched OTA, then the government was generous enough to give them a $40 coupon to buy a converter box.