TheLonelySquire
Vice Admiral
It's really good! I'm going to run Star Trek (2009) on my 50" Panansonic plasma tonight and I expect it to look fabulous in blu-ray! Good luck!
So, is Blu-Ray worth it, yet?
- Thread starter OdoWanKenobi
- Start date
It's really good! I'm going to run Star Trek (2009) on my 50" Panansonic plasma tonight and I expect it to look fabulous in blu-ray! Good luck!
I've had a PS3 since the summer price drop but only bought my first BluRay this past week. I obviously bought Star Trek, it seemed like a great value but I think I will still only pick up BluRays loaded with special features and a 5-star picture transfer.
Spaceballs is actually cheaper in Blu-ray right now on Amazon ($8.99)
http://www.amazon.com/Spaceballs-Bl...ef=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1258877289&sr=8-2
...than the regular DVD ($9.99).
http://www.amazon.com/Spaceballs-Me...ef=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1258877289&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Spaceballs-Bl...ef=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1258877289&sr=8-2
...than the regular DVD ($9.99).
http://www.amazon.com/Spaceballs-Me...ef=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1258877289&sr=8-1
Yes, some classic do benefit from it...
Like the 5 i have:
And they all look and sound sweet...
Like the 5 i have:
And they all look and sound sweet...
video bitrate & other downloadable video options
the iTunes "Star Trek" (2009) is only 720p resolution.
and the video downloads from the XBOX Live Marketplace for XBOX 360 have
It's been mentioned before that on-demand video streaming services (Netflix Instant, Vudu, Amazon on demand, Blockbuster ONDEMAND, etc.) are bandwidth starved and have much lower bitrates than Blu-ray's spec of Maximum Video Bitrate: 40Mbps
as well as the audio possibility of uncompressed Linear PCM and the just as good but bitrate saving lossless audio codecs of Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio (MA)
the iTunes "Star Trek" (2009) is only 720p resolution.
and the video downloads from the XBOX Live Marketplace for XBOX 360 have
SOURCE1 SOURCE2
It's been mentioned before that on-demand video streaming services (Netflix Instant, Vudu, Amazon on demand, Blockbuster ONDEMAND, etc.) are bandwidth starved and have much lower bitrates than Blu-ray's spec of Maximum Video Bitrate: 40Mbps
as well as the audio possibility of uncompressed Linear PCM and the just as good but bitrate saving lossless audio codecs of Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio (MA)
A
Amaris
Guest
Considering the lowering cost of Blu-ray, your setup would definitely look better with it.
J.
Without a doubt Blu-ray is the superior format but to answer the the original post I can see it going the way of the laser disc. Or more accurately BR is probably this generation's 8-track.
8-tracks were far superior to records but they were quickly replaced by cassette tapes. Were the tapes better? No some would argue the sound quality was inferior, but they were reliable and more importantly they took up less space.
Blue-Ray is already an outdated technology. SDHC cards are now up to 32GB which equals 3.23 hours of full 1080 P HD. This will obviously double within the year. SDHC cards are solid state memory, making them far more reliable and durable than a spinning BR disc. They are slightly larger than a postage stamp. Imagine taking a DVD collection that occupies an entire wall and converting it to a format that will fit into a single drawer, and still have superior picture and sound. That alone will make me jump on the format once it is adopted.
If you are starting out, go Blu-Ray. If you are happy with your DVD's, I'd wait for the better format, which if nit SDHC cards it will be some form of solid state.
Apple is converting their computers to solid state hard drives. I'm sure the other guys are too if they haven't already done it.
I make DVD's for a living using Apple's professional software (Final Cut Pro Studio), as far as I'm concerned it is the best in the world but for some reason it does not support Blu-ray authoring. Is it that Apple is too lazy or cheap to upgrade their software or do they know something we don't.
8-tracks were far superior to records but they were quickly replaced by cassette tapes. Were the tapes better? No some would argue the sound quality was inferior, but they were reliable and more importantly they took up less space.
Blue-Ray is already an outdated technology. SDHC cards are now up to 32GB which equals 3.23 hours of full 1080 P HD. This will obviously double within the year. SDHC cards are solid state memory, making them far more reliable and durable than a spinning BR disc. They are slightly larger than a postage stamp. Imagine taking a DVD collection that occupies an entire wall and converting it to a format that will fit into a single drawer, and still have superior picture and sound. That alone will make me jump on the format once it is adopted.
If you are starting out, go Blu-Ray. If you are happy with your DVD's, I'd wait for the better format, which if nit SDHC cards it will be some form of solid state.
Apple is converting their computers to solid state hard drives. I'm sure the other guys are too if they haven't already done it.
I make DVD's for a living using Apple's professional software (Final Cut Pro Studio), as far as I'm concerned it is the best in the world but for some reason it does not support Blu-ray authoring. Is it that Apple is too lazy or cheap to upgrade their software or do they know something we don't.
^ score one for being cheap
2010 Q1-Q4 plans
I wasn't really sure where to put this but it is a major change in consumer price tiers.
the same source site mentions:
I was going to put it in the Can't Stomach Blu-Ray thread but it is probably better here as it will be much cheaper than a PS3 player to purchase a player for Blu-ray discs soon.
Keep in mind you really want to get a player with BD-Live profile 2.0 so you will have Internet access with it so you can download content in the future and it will cost a little more.
I wasn't really sure where to put this but it is a major change in consumer price tiers.
Blu-ray Disc player production cost to fall to US$50 in 2010, say Taiwan makers
the same source site mentions:
So tommulligan that is much cheaper for BD replication than SDHC & SDXC cards to store data for consumer video.
I was going to put it in the Can't Stomach Blu-Ray thread but it is probably better here as it will be much cheaper than a PS3 player to purchase a player for Blu-ray discs soon.
Keep in mind you really want to get a player with BD-Live profile 2.0 so you will have Internet access with it so you can download content in the future and it will cost a little more.
Last edited:
Okay, thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.
I can vouch and say the Up looks pretty amazing on Blu-Ray as well. I did a comparison between the Blu-ray and standard DVD, and there really was no comparison.
Okay, so I made it Up after all. But Mom also bought me WALL-E, and Ratatouille for herself, so it’s all good. 
My impression of the Blu-ray presentation is undoubtedly skewed by the fact that I haven’t seen a true standard definition display in more than a year; we bought an HDTV last Christmas and have been using the DVD player on it until now. We could get away with it on a 32” screen, although you could still sometimes see a fuzziness to the picture. But this week we won a 42” in an in-store promotion (!) and we quickly realized the difference a bigger screen can make with that issue. So we picked up a Blu-ray player. Which means that now we can actually see a clear picture as opposed to a fuzzy one, which is what I think is affecting my perspective on HD.
The upshot is…I’m not as blown away by it as other people are (including Mom). That also probably has something to do with my temperament as a viewer: I’m always more interested in the actual quality of the film than merely the picture quality. As long as I can see things relatively clearly, I’m satisfied. And that’s been one of my problems with the way high definition is spoken of and marketed--I still fail to see what was wrong with standard. For me, progress in the art of filmmaking is more akin to putting in synchronized sound; adding colour; building a camera that doesn’t need to be handcranked and can be panned, tilted, dollied, put on a crane, held by the operator; making it possible to create special effects that aren’t limited by how big you can build the model. I just don’t see how being able to count Brad Pitt’s nosehairs fits into the picture. (In a Pixar movie, though, I can understand how you’d want to see all the detail that was deliberately put in there.)
I actually once read a comment about how high definition was the ultimate viewing experience of our lifetime, and how nothing else would possibly come along in fifty years to compete. I had to shake my head sadly at the person. When Blu-ray becomes ordinary (which is predicted to happen sooner rather than later), they’ll find something else to “improve”. They always do.
I hate to sound like such a sour-puss.
Call me mentally and visually disabled if you want, but that’s my two cents.
My impression of the Blu-ray presentation is undoubtedly skewed by the fact that I haven’t seen a true standard definition display in more than a year; we bought an HDTV last Christmas and have been using the DVD player on it until now. We could get away with it on a 32” screen, although you could still sometimes see a fuzziness to the picture. But this week we won a 42” in an in-store promotion (!) and we quickly realized the difference a bigger screen can make with that issue. So we picked up a Blu-ray player. Which means that now we can actually see a clear picture as opposed to a fuzzy one, which is what I think is affecting my perspective on HD.
The upshot is…I’m not as blown away by it as other people are (including Mom). That also probably has something to do with my temperament as a viewer: I’m always more interested in the actual quality of the film than merely the picture quality. As long as I can see things relatively clearly, I’m satisfied. And that’s been one of my problems with the way high definition is spoken of and marketed--I still fail to see what was wrong with standard. For me, progress in the art of filmmaking is more akin to putting in synchronized sound; adding colour; building a camera that doesn’t need to be handcranked and can be panned, tilted, dollied, put on a crane, held by the operator; making it possible to create special effects that aren’t limited by how big you can build the model. I just don’t see how being able to count Brad Pitt’s nosehairs fits into the picture. (In a Pixar movie, though, I can understand how you’d want to see all the detail that was deliberately put in there.)
I actually once read a comment about how high definition was the ultimate viewing experience of our lifetime, and how nothing else would possibly come along in fifty years to compete. I had to shake my head sadly at the person. When Blu-ray becomes ordinary (which is predicted to happen sooner rather than later), they’ll find something else to “improve”. They always do.
I hate to sound like such a sour-puss.
Call me mentally and visually disabled if you want, but that’s my two cents.
There's no doubt in my mind that Blu-Ray/HD will be superceded by another, even more detailed video format sometime in the future, although I suspect it will be a while. 35mm film has a lot more information than you can see on video--even high definition video--and 70mm or IMAX has detail leaps and bounds beyond that.
Blu-ray will likely be the last widespread physical home entertainment format. SD cards will not replace Blu-ray anytime soon as there is no backing or hardware from within those responsible for the production of content and players. The next generation (excluding 3D Blu-ray) will almost certainly be downloadable content from the internet.
They're working on Super Hi-Vision Maybe we'll see this in the next couple of decades.
Similar threads
