4250 replies to this topic

[Koray Savas]

Why would you rebuy an entire DVD collection in Blu? I'm not, maybe over the course of many many many years. Just buy them from now on, which is what I do, but Amazon does have great buy 2 get 1 free deals. I've re-bough a few, but only ones that would be great on blu-ray.

[hanser]

I bought a Blu-ray Player last November, together with my Panasonic AE2000 projector. On my 2,55m wide screen, watched at a distance of 3-3,5m to recreate the cinema experience, blu-ray are vastly superior to DVD in picture quality. AND most blu-ray offer lossless sound, which should be a great boon for soundtrack lovers.

In fact, I almost can´t stand to watch DVD any more. What is worse than the lower resolution, is the amount of digital data reduction related artefacts like mosquito noise and double contours. Even for older films, blu-ray is so much better, that it is no contest.

I compared "Close Encounters of the 3rd kind" on Laserdisc, DVD and Blu-ray. Laserdisc was just blurry, DVD offered a bit more details, but introduced sharpening artefacts (edge enhancement). The leap in picture quality from DVD to BLu-ray was vastly higher than the step from Laserdisc to DVD.

And that is for a film with problematic film element source. Look at "the searchers" or "How the west was won" or "Sleeping Beauty": 50 year old movies looking like made yesterday.

Sorry for the long post, but I was VERY astonished to read almost exclusively negative posts about a medium, that for the first time allow to recreate the cinema experience at home, as if you had an exact replica of a 35mm film at your fingertips. For every true film lover there simply should be no hesitation. And it is very simple to buy the films for not much more money than the corresponding DVDs, you just need to look for special offers and shop a bit around

Of course if you are looking for 3-5$ per movie and 30-50 $ for a player, than BD is not for you. But I think, movies should be worth to oneself a bit more.

[Quint]

For every true film lover there simply should be no hesitation.

I'm a 'true' lover of film, yet I see no need to upgrade just yet. Does that make me a lesser fan? I have a very good cinema suite already and movies play wonderfully when the lights are dimmed. I don't need Blu-ray to enhance the experience. I think the early adopters of the new tech are merely the true technophiles out there, indeed any enthusiasm one may have for film has no baring whatsoever on whether or not one should purchase the shiny new way of playing it.

There is no way dvd as a medium can be criticised in terms of visual and audio quailty, since it is so clearly excellent in every respect. I suggest that only the most anal of technophiles will find things to nit-pick about. The rest of the world couldn't care less.

Oh and there is no need to apologise for taking your time to say things

[Vaderbait1]

And those complaining about the price, I don't know how many times I have to say this, a lot of blu-rays are cheaper than DVD's on Amazon. Terminator 2 is like $11 on blu. I got my CE3K on blu-ray for $20, while the DVD was like $30.

It's not the price of the discs that is the problem. The cheapest blu-ray player you can get is about $100. (And, from the reviews I've read, "cheap" applies to the quality too.)

Also, rebuying an entire collection of DVDs on Blu Ray would cost a lot.

But it'd be fun. If you're like me, you already own all the movies you like, but I still like buying DVDs, so I'll dish out cash for new versions.

I want a Blu-Ray, but I don't have a TV good enough, so it'll be at least another year before I can afford to get the TV, let alone the Blu-Ray player. I also want to hook up a killer sound system when I get around to it. I can definitely see why some people would wait. If I could afford it right now I might still wait for more DVDs.

[Wojo]

I'm still using a POS TV that's gotta be 20 years old. I am too poor to buy a new one, so a Blu-Ray player makes no sense. I also don't want to re-buy so many movies, after recently buying them on DVD to replace or upgrade from VHS copies.

[hanser]

For every true film lover there simply should be no hesitation.

I'm a 'true' lover of film, yet I see no need to upgrade just yet. Does that make me a lesser fan? I have a very good cinema suite already and movies play wonderfully when the lights are dimmed. I don't need Blu-ray to enhance the experience. I think the early adopters of the new tech are merely the true technophiles out there, indeed any enthusiasm one may have for film has no baring whatsoever on whether or not one should purchase the shiny new way of playing it.

There is no way dvd as a medium can be criticised in terms of visual and audio quailty, since it is so clearly excellent in every respect.

DVD is far from excellent visual quality, I just described the artefacts that annoy extremely when watching larger screens. Of course you don´t NEED blu-ray, but once you are used to it, there is no way back. DVD is video with a lot of compression artefacts, blu-ray is like film (except a few misguided transfers).

I am not a technophile: I have no cell phone, no fast internet account, no great car. I love films and want to see them like meant by the filmmakers. The technology is just a means to achieve this. I do not buy BD for movies like XXX or Stealth, I buy it for "The Godfather" and "Blade Runner".

Of course I do not want to say by this that you are a lesser fan. What I want to say is: I am sure that a true film lover will want to switch to BD, once he/she has experienced BD under cinema-approaching conditions (not some 37`plasma). If he does switch, will depend on things like his screen size and disposable income, of course.

[Maglorfin]

I'm waiting to see if the format will really and truly replace DVD.

[Marian Schedenig]

For every true film lover there simply should be no hesitation.

Unless said film lover is also a lover of privacy.

I'll upgrade when there's a way around this:

[hanser]

For every true film lover there simply should be no hesitation.

Unless said film lover is also a lover of privacy.

I'll upgrade when there's a way around this:

I don´t see where I endanger my privacy with Blu-ray. Nobody forces you to use BD-Live via Internet, which would be the only aspect where privacy might be a problem. Just keep the player away from the internet, then you have the same situation with DVD: a player, a cable, a screen.

Unless said film lover is also a lover of PIRACY. Then of course BD+ might be a nuisance.

[Marian Schedenig]

I'm a lover of playing movies on the system of my choice, i.e. my home theatre PC. I don't see why I should buy:

1) Windows
2) A new video card
3) A new cable
4) Potentially a new projector?

Just because some idiots think they have to control what I do with the movies I buy.

And from what I know, the specification has an option (!) to reduce the quality to DVD resolution if you restrict internet access. Current movies don't use it yet, but we all know the industry.

In short: I refuse to buy anything with heavy DRM unless said DRM is cracked. I'd still be using crappy Windows to jerkily play my DVDs on the projector if CSS hadn't long ago been unlocked.

[Trent Bennett]

Typical of you Marian.

Always too afraid to try something new.

No more comments from the peanut gallery please.

[Marian Schedenig]

I'm not afraid of the newness. I'd like nothing more than get movies in a really good resolution for projection. But I know enough about DRM, the history of copyright and the state of the content industry (not overly much, but enough) to know that DRM is *always* a Bad Thing.

[Trent Bennett]

Enough with the DRM crap....no one really cares (except for you) that much about it.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall...you make my head hurt.

[Red Rabbit]

Enough with the DRM crap....no one really cares (except for you) that much about it.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall...you make my head hurt.

Are you having a bad day or something?

[Quint]

He has them, I've noticed.

[Marian Schedenig]

Enough with the DRM crap....no one really cares (except for you) that much about it.

Yes. Which is why I won't stop bringing it up. It's too important to just let everyone not care. And I suggest reading 1984 while we're at it.

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall...you make my head hurt.

I know that feeling.

[Koray Savas]

No one needs blu-ray, I don't necessarily agree with everything hanser said, but I do agree that once you go Blu it's hard to watch anything again in DVD. Of course, for this effect to happen you really need the best of the best. Plasma and LCD are just not that great. DLP is the top of the line, with 1080p, not 1080i or anything less, but 1080p Full HD. Get that with a nifty 5.1 surround sound system, pop in a blu-ray and get blown away.

[Joey]

Typical of you Marian.

Always too afraid to try something new.

No more comments from the peanut gallery please.

I can't wait for some of you to get out in the real world, pay for your home, car, utilities, buy food, etc, then you can put the purchase of all these goodies in perspective, and you can find out just where your money really needs to go.

[FattyMcButterpants]

I'm not afraid of the newness. I'd like nothing more than get movies in a really good resolution for projection. But I know enough about DRM, the history of copyright and the state of the content industry (not overly much, but enough) to know that DRM is *always* a Bad Thing.

Could you please elaborate on that and the 1984 comment?
Even if no one else is, I'm really curious, that sounds interesting.

[hanser]

I'm a lover of playing movies on the system of my choice, i.e. my home theatre PC. I don't see why I should buy:

1) Windows
2) A new video card
3) A new cable
4) Potentially a new projector?

Just because some idiots think they have to control what I do with the movies I buy.

And from what I know, the specification has an option (!) to reduce the quality to DVD resolution if you restrict internet access. Current movies don't use it yet, but we all know the industry.

In short: I refuse to buy anything with heavy DRM unless said DRM is cracked. I'd still be using crappy Windows to jerkily play my DVDs on the projector if CSS hadn't long ago been unlocked.

In your very special situation, blu-ray may be problematic. I don´t know, since I don´t want to have a PC in my living room and thereform have no use for HTPC.

But the notion, that the quality can be reduced to DVD without internet is absolutely incorrect. Never heard of it and don´t know where this comes from; possibly some remaining FUD from the format war? What is possible, that one day the COMPONENT Video output may be reduced in resolution, but for the moment component still has 1080 full HD. Except with a few HDDVDs, that by mistake had this restriction put on.

Typical of you Marian.

Always too afraid to try something new.

No more comments from the peanut gallery please.

I can't wait for some of you to get out in the real world, pay for your home, car, utilities, buy food, etc, then you can put the purchase of all these goodies in perspective, and you can find out just where your money really needs to go.

It is a matter of setting priorities. I have a family (2 kids), a house, a (old) car, and all this cost money, of course. But I prefer spending money on my home theater instead of buying a new flashy car or computer or instead of going out to dinner all the time and so on. And I don´t always buy the best and newest and expensive gear. My Processor is 6 years old, my amp was bought used, with bluray I waited until a player was available for less then 400 Euros, I buy selective movies and use special offers (always unter 20 Euros). But of course I agree, there must be SOME disposible income to entertain such a hobby (or any hobby).

But I am writing this in a board where people don´t hesitate to spent 125 $ for a Superman box set and 50$ for an Indiana Jones set. As I said, it is mostly a matter of priorities.

[Quint]

I am writing this in a board where people don´t hesitate to spent 125 $ for a Superman box set and 50$ for an Indiana Jones set. As I said, it is mostly a matter of priorities.

Indeed. Point made, I think.

[Joey]

Typical of you Marian.

Always too afraid to try something new.

No more comments from the peanut gallery please.

I can't wait for some of you to get out in the real world, pay for your home, car, utilities, buy food, etc, then you can put the purchase of all these goodies in perspective, and you can find out just where your money really needs to go.

It is a matter of setting priorities. I have a family (2 kids), a house, a (old) car, and all this cost money, of course. But I prefer spending money on my home theater instead of buying a new flashy car or computer or instead of going out to dinner all the time and so on. And I don´t always buy the best and newest and expensive gear. My Processor is 6 years old, my amp was bought used, with bluray I waited until a player was available for less then 400 Euros, I buy selective movies and use special offers (always unter 20 Euros). But of course I agree, there must be SOME disposible income to entertain such a hobby (or any hobby).

But I am writing this in a board where people don´t hesitate to spent 125 $ for a Superman box set and 50$ for an Indiana Jones set. As I said, it is mostly a matter of priorities.

still you understand the priorities, many here don't. many have no understanding of the cost to actually have a life. Mommy and Daddy won't always be around to buy everything.
Yes we have to have our hobbies.
Blu Ray doesn't appeal to me, for one thing Im seriously into black and white old movies and blu ray offers no advantage.
I discovered that nearly 1/3 of all my several hundred dvd's are B&W films. I had not realized I had that many.

[Drax]

BluRay is a luxury that I will adopt eventually since I wish to help keep the physical media format alive. I want my career to progress a bit further before I invest in anything long term.

[Marian Schedenig]

Could you please elaborate on that and the 1984 comment?
Even if no one else is, I'm really curious, that sounds interesting.

Any kind of DRM is about monitoring you in some way or another. Forcing your player to be connected to the internet to take full advantage of the content already on your disc has rather obvious implications.

Just look at Google. And they still seem to be more or less "the good guys" - and yet there was the recent Chrome disaster.

In your very special situation, blu-ray may be problematic. I don´t know, since I don´t want to have a PC in my living room and thereform have no use for HTPC.

A very special situation like people not being able to play CDs in their car or computer because of copy protection DRM. It's always about what some content control freak labels a "special situation". The point is, I see no reason why someone should control how and where I watch my movies. Would you buy a book that automatically blanks its pages the instant you leave your couch?

But the notion, that the quality can be reduced to DVD without internet is absolutely incorrect. Never heard of it and don´t know where this comes from; possibly some remaining FUD from the format war? What is possible, that one day the COMPONENT Video output may be reduced in resolution, but for the moment component still has 1080 full HD. Except with a few HDDVDs, that by mistake had this restriction put on.

I don't know the exact specification, but according to what I've read (which may be wrong, it still doesn't improve the overall situation much) BluRay, or BluRay+ has a flag which forces the player to output reduced resolution digitally. It's obviously mandatory to restrict playback over "non-approved" connections (e.g. regular TVs supporting HD resolution but not implementing the mandatory DRM), and I believe I've read it might be able to control this flag over the net, i.e. only clear it when an active internet connection is available.

Mind you, we're already talking "advanced" DRM here, when simple cases of DRM are already bad enough. Region codes, anyone? Downloaded music which stops working because the server is shut down? Etc. My overall point is, regardless of whether the current state of DRM has significant implications on *your* use of content (many people apparently think it wouldn't and then were left with useless MSN audio files after the service was stopped), the fact that these things become more and more limited by the day should be worrisome enough. Because they won't stop imposing ever tighter restrictions if people keep happily supporting them.

(On a related note, I don't quite see why people will only buy BluRay if it's certain that it's going to replace DVD as the standard. DRM and higher prices aside, if you want better quality, BluRay does the job, and there's currently no rivalling format. In that regard, buying a BluRay disc can hardly be a worse investment than buying a DVD - again, prices not taken into consideration).

[hanser]

Blu Ray doesn't appeal to me, for one thing Im seriously into black and white old movies and blu ray offers no advantage.
I discovered that nearly 1/3 of all my several hundred dvd's are B&W films. I had not realized I had that many.

Blu-ray offers the same advantage for old B/W movies, since those are filmed on 35mm film with a potentially even higher resolution than Blu-ray. For the moment, only a few B/W movies are available, but old color movies like "How the west was won" and "The Searchers" show how good old movies can look like. "Casablance" on HDDVD seemed to look excellent; in December it will be published on BLu-ray, too.

[Richard Penna]

Any kind of DRM is about monitoring you in some way or another. Forcing your player to be connected to the internet to take full advantage of the content already on your disc has rather obvious implications.

My opinion on DRM has always been that it's one of the worst inventions of the digital age. I think it's symptomatic of an industry that simply doesn't trust its customers. Now I've seen a couple of different types; one less evil than the other. A Blu-ray player that phones home every time you play a disc (and degrades the quality if you don't let it) is different to a piece of software coming with a hardware 'dongle' that must be plugged in for you to be able to install the software.

The former is not allowing you to use the product you've paid for to its full potential unless you let the MPAA spy on you. The latter (which I've heard applies to some products from Steinberg, who produce excellent music software) is just wanting you to pay for software you use - fair play to them.

Therefore, I never buy a something if I'm aware of some limitation applied to it if you don't use it exactly how the seller wants you to - unless that limitation was safety related or for some genuinely legit reason.


Going back to Blu-ray - There's no question that the quality is better, but from the standpoint of the equipment and expense needed, I agree that the average moviegoer out there isn't going to adopt it for a long time, especially not with the economy the way it is at the moment.

And my brother keeps reminding me that the period a film was made is largely irrelevant to its high definition potential, as long as it was shot on the appropriate film stock.

[hanser]

Forcing your player to be connected to the internet to take full advantage of the content already on your disc has rather obvious implications.


I don't know the exact specification, but according to what I've read (which may be wrong, it still doesn't improve the overall situation much) BluRay, or BluRay+ has a flag which forces the player to output reduced resolution digitally. It's obviously mandatory to restrict playback over "non-approved" connections (e.g. regular TVs supporting HD resolution but not implementing the mandatory DRM), and I believe I've read it might be able to control this flag over the net, i.e. only clear it when an active internet connection is available.

1) No blu-ray disc forces you to connect the player to the internet to see its content. This is just plain wrong.

2) As I said, you confuse the optional restriction over component video output (this is where the flag comes into play) with mandatory internet connection. I repeat: You can watch the full content of every blu-ray in full HD without even having internet connection in the house. The BD-Live standard offers additional functions (that I don´t care about).

You have every right to be paranoid and entertain conspiracy theories, but please do not confuse other people with obvious misinformation.

By the way I fully agree with your criticism of downloadable media. Since Downloads are offered as an alternative to DVD and BLu-ray this is one reason more for me to support physical media.

A Blu-ray player that phones home every time you play a disc (and degrades the quality if you don't let it) is different

This is a perfect example how quickly a totally absurd concept spreads through the internet and gets a life of its own (see my post above). Again: There is no such thing as a blu-ray player that has to be connected to the internet to play everything on the disc without degradation. Really!

[Mark Olivarez]

But I am writing this in a board where people don´t hesitate to spent 125 $ for a Superman box set and 50$ for an Indiana Jones set. As I said, it is mostly a matter of priorities.

While I'm not rich I'm at a point in my life where I can afford it. So I'd rather spend my money on film music since the quality of standard DVDs are excellent as far as I'm concerned.

[Marian Schedenig]

You have every right to be paranoid and entertain conspiracy theories, but please do not confuse other people with obvious misinformation.

You are right in that I didn't remember the specifics and may have said some incorrect things. As I mentioned, even without those "features" the situation would be bad enough.

But after reading up a bit about BD+ on Wikipedia (I welcome any corrections, as Wikipedia articles obviously can be seriously incorrect at times; however, these seems to cite plenty of sources), it's even worse.

If I read this right, players may contain software that upgrades the player's operating system if it "decides" that the devices has been "tampered with". From a software point of view, I'd say this means a player may simply decide not to play some or all discs at all if it believe you're doing anything wrong.

By the way I fully agree with your criticism of downloadable media. Since Downloads are offered as an alternative to DVD and BLu-ray this is one reason more for me to support physical media.

I like physical storage (CDs and DVDs) because I can put them in my shelf and "see" my collection (although I'm becoming more and more aware of the environmental benefit of not having to produce tons of plastic and other materials just to distribute a few gigabytes of data). But I'd happily buy downloadable movies in similar quality if they were DRM-free.

[FattyMcButterpants]

You have every right to be paranoid and entertain conspiracy theories, but please do not confuse other people with obvious misinformation.

And you have every right to look away, but please don't confuse others with your misplaced trust.

Compared to other facts and happenings, this Blu-Ray DRM discussion is rather harmless.

For the record, I don't plan on switching to Blu-ray any time soon, since I find a real movie lover can enjoy films on any medium.

[Richard Penna]

Indeed. I watched Donnie Darko the other week on a DVD-rip (we appear to have lost the DVD my brother had so I just downloaded it. Perfect example of the film industry's lies) and only a few times did I notice the substandard quality. The movie was too engrossing.

[Marian Schedenig]

I just remembered this:

[FattyMcButterpants]

Where do these funny little sketches always come from anyway?

[QuestionMarkMan]

xkcd.com

He's good people

[Trent Bennett]

still you understand the priorities, many here don't. many have no understanding of the cost to actually have a life. Mommy and Daddy won't always be around to buy everything.

For the record, I know my priorities as well. My parents haven't paid for anything for me for years, well maybe a few things here and there but they're small things (like food or what ever). I pay my parents rent ($300 a month) and I always pay my bills first before I even think about ordering CD's or what ever else.

[Joey]

most of my b&w dvds look glorious just as they are. I do not plan to reinvest them again.

[Quint]

That is my sentiment exactly.

[Jacob]

Here's a clip for Marian: http://au.youtube.co...h?v=NV6ud8oRP6A

[Marian Schedenig]

LOL

[Hitch]

I'll only get the following discs in blu-ray

The Hitchcock Collection
The Spielberg Collection
The Lean Collection
The Fincher Collection
The Star Trek Collection
The Alien Collection
The James Bond Collection

That is it. The rest I'll keep on DVD.