Blu-ray is Sony's way of keeping us buying disks forever ?

[KeithTalent]

You must be joking. Many many old movies have been redone for Blu Ray and they look great. 35mm film actually has more data than a 1080p Blu Ray can show. Heck I have a pile of silent film Blu Rays and they look great too.

You can't call yourself a Sci Fi fan until you have seen the Metropolis Blu Ray with the fully restored story. Or a Bugs Bunny fan until you have seen "What's Opera Doc?" in 1080p.

Blu Rays are the first and probably the last format we can buy where we get a quality that is close to the film without being locked to the server of whatever iTunes/Amazon service like when you "buy" a streaming movie.

Long live King Blu!

Yeah I am amazed at all of the remastered black and white stuff from way back and how amazing it can look.

KT

 

[Arkaign]

With the horrendous state of Internet in the US (only getting worse honestly with the mergers, caps, net neutrality bickering, etc) Bluray is going to stay around for a long long time. Hell DVD will be here for years and years as well.

4K Bluray is due this year : http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=12948

What kind of internet speed would be necessary for that kind of stream anyway? It would be ridiculous, even in large cities.

In a tech forum like this, people like to assume everyone has gigabit internet, and that people with lowly 10mbit and less connections don't exist. Sorry, but that's just not the real world. The US average broadband speed (including all of those exotic high speed connections that skew the ratings) is less than 9 mbit. If you take FIOS and other truly high-speed connections out of the equation, the average is probably closer to 5mbit.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2045046/broadband-speed-is-increasing-but-us-is-falling-behind.html

Online streaming probably has 10-20 years before it can really start to put discs away. It's not that many people won't go exclusively streaming, but for so many customers, that's just not an option, or it isn't viable for quality. There's a weird problem in that many of the kinds of people paying the big bucks for the super high speed connections also have 60"+ home theatre systems, and Netflix HD looks like crap at that size (and sounds even worse than it looks).

 

[KeithTalent]

With the horrendous state of Internet in the US (only getting worse honestly with the mergers, caps, net neutrality bickering, etc) Bluray is going to stay around for a long long time. Hell DVD will be here for years and years as well.

4K Bluray is due this year : http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=12948

What kind of internet speed would be necessary for that kind of stream anyway? It would be ridiculous, even in large cities.

In a tech forum like this, people like to assume everyone has gigabit internet, and that people with lowly 10mbit and less connections don't exist. Sorry, but that's just not the real world. The US average broadband speed (including all of those exotic high speed connections that skew the ratings) is less than 9 mbit. If you take FIOS and other truly high-speed connections out of the equation, the average is probably closer to 5mbit.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2045046/broadband-speed-is-increasing-but-us-is-falling-behind.html

Online streaming probably has 10-20 years before it can really start to put discs away. It's not that many people won't go exclusively streaming, but for so many customers, that's just not an option, or it isn't viable for quality. There's a weird problem in that many of the kinds of people paying the big bucks for the super high speed connections also have 60"+ home theatre systems, and Netflix HD looks like crap at that size (and sounds even worse than it looks).

Agree on the internet streaming; it seems to be going backwards unless you are getting Google Fibre.

For the 4K Blu-rays, I am guessing the PS4 should just require an update to play them? That would mean I would have to buy a new projector though.

KT

 

[pontifex]

a movie has to be really good for me to buy it. i usually only watch most movies once.

 

[mikeymikec]

You must be joking.

First movie I searched for:

http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-review/for-a-few-dollars-more-blu-ray/mgm/924

Where the transfer falters is in its grain structure. I have no issue at all with grain and actually prefer it be left intact, but this transfer does not handle it well at all and compression noise becomes a huge problem. It’s always dancing around and gets very heavy. It’s easier to ignore the mess during daytime sequences but during darker moments it’s very apparent. I’m not saying the grain should be wiped out, which would lead to loss of detail, but I’ve seen grainy films on the format that do not look anything like this. It looks like heavy noise and it’s a mess.

I can't remember whether it was "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" or "For a Few Dollars More" that I thought looked like crap on DVD (I have both), but I guess it was this one.

Also, this website compiled a list of worst Blu-ray discs:
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/02/09/top-25-worst-blu-rays?page=1

Admittedly not all of the entries are due to poor transfers, but some big name films in there are on their shit list and for that reason.

While I would like it if every movie was restored and remastered for DVD, I'm willing to accept that money and resources go into each effort, so sometimes I end up with an unrestored version on DVD, and at least I've got a digital copy of it that isn't going to degrade any further. However, BR's sales line is "it's so much better than DVD!". Sorry, no, unless you can guarantee it, then don't try to sell me more expensive discs that don't give me anything more than what I've got on DVD already.

Despite what I've said so far about BR, I might well try to get Aliens on BR because apparently they did quite a bit of work on its restoration, and the DVD version really sucks (due to an unusual film type the used apparently when filming, results in an awful lot of grain).

 

[WHAMPOM]

It may just be my eyes are old and dim, but unless I go watch on a huge display (+40") I can't tell any difference. People with huge screen TVs are picky about video and sound to an extreme.

 

[sdifox]

It may just be my eyes are old and dim, but unless I go watch on a huge display (+40") I can't tell any difference. People with huge screen TVs are picky about video and sound to an extreme.

thy eyes sucheth.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

BluRay's days are numbered; firmware updates won't be able to give us 4K, let alone 48 or 60fps 1080p...and it certainly isn't deterring pirates, which is the real reason we have to put up with firmware updates

The updates are due to Blu-ray's retarded copy protection. They change the keys for new discs.

and it clearly doesn't work

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

It may just be my eyes are old and dim, but unless I go watch on a huge display (+40") I can't tell any difference. People with huge screen TVs are picky about video and sound to an extreme.

40" screen is considered huge? You really must be old.

The internet connection in my apartment building sucks in the evening when everybody else is streaming videos and shit online. That is reason enough to keep the Netflix Blu-ray subscription. Yes, it is more of a hassle, but the picture quality is head and shoulders better than streaming on my projector.

 

[mikeymikec]

BluRay's days are numbered; firmware updates won't be able to give us 4K, let alone 48 or 60fps 1080p...and it certainly isn't deterring pirates, which is the real reason we have to put up with firmware updates

I think what's needed is a concerted effort by the movie labels and the hardware manufacturers to drum up their aims for a new format as well as their future-proofing techniques to ensure that movies can be put onto a higher definition format without any sort of nasty upscaling (ie. they need to decide what blatantly-overkill resolution they're going to use when filming). What fps will be standard, etc.

... and DRM / copy protection discussion should be the lowest priority by far.

 

[poofyhairguy]

First movie I searched for:

http://www.criterionforum.org/DVD-review/for-a-few-dollars-more-blu-ray/mgm/924

Look at the actual images in the review and you will see details no DVD can ever match, even if the Blu Ray isn't optimal.

I am not saying that isn't a bad Blu Ray or there aren't bad Blu Rays. I am saying 25+ GB of video is a MUCH higher ceiling for quality than 8+GB of video. Even the WORST of Blu Rays still manage to be better than the DVD (heck even Farscape is better), and 90%+ of Blu Rays are far better than their DVD counterparts. It is not Blu Ray's fault that some companies won't put in the resources for a decent release.

Nowadays since most videophiles have moved to Blu Ray, the DVD releases are getting WORSE. Companies expect that picky consumers will buy the Blu, so they just put any old crap on the DVD version.

I appreciate DVDs because some things have only been released in that form and might never be released in any other form. But honestly unless I am watching low-budget SD television I can't think of a time when I felt the DVD copy was "sufficient."

 

[Kev]

I really wish "streaming" in its current state would just go die in a fire. It's really annoying dealing with quality changes or buffering or stupid errors because of network hiccups. And that's with a 50mbps connection.

If I want to rent a movie digitally, let me actually download the file, which can be deleted after X number of days once you view it. Rentals work this way on iTunes and it's great if you want to take a rental on a plane or something. Why can't you do that with netflix? It would be great if you could preload 4 or 5 episodes of a tv show before getting on a flight. Or you can pay $25 for the airline's dogshit wifi connection and watch House of Cards in 240p.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

i pause/ff/rw a lot and can't stand doing it on netflix.
trying to get to an approximate time (not even an exact time) is impossible, and then it has to download all the content again and the first few minutes are 360p quality shit.

 

[MarkXIX]

Agree on the internet streaming; it seems to be going backwards unless you are getting Google Fibre.

For the 4K Blu-rays, I am guessing the PS4 should just require an update to play them? That would mean I would have to buy a new projector though.

KT

It's going backwards because the major ISPs are in the media business now more than ever. Used to be they didn't care about physical media cannibalizing digital distribution, but now that they own both business in many cases, they are trying to maximiz profits without regard for customer preference.

 

[sdifox]

I really wish "streaming" in its current state would just go die in a fire. It's really annoying dealing with quality changes or buffering or stupid errors because of network hiccups. And that's with a 50mbps connection.

If I want to rent a movie digitally, let me actually download the file, which can be deleted after X number of days once you view it. Rentals work this way on iTunes and it's great if you want to take a rental on a plane or something. Why can't you do that with netflix? It would be great if you could preload 4 or 5 episodes of a tv show before getting on a flight. Or you can pay $25 for the airline's dogshit wifi connection and watch House of Cards in 240p.

Destruction of Net Neutrality at work.

 

[norseamd]

Other than PC games, I don't think there's a such thing as 120hz content. Theatrical movies are 24hz. TV shows can be 60hz (though many are shot in 24hz and broadcast with 3:2 pull down to be 60hz). 120hz is a multiple of both 60 and 24 so 3:2 pull-down is not necessary and motion looks smoother (no "judder"). 120hz can also display 2x 60hz images to 3D shutter glasses.

this is being used as a monitor for my pc

 

[destrekor]

And just exactly how is this Sony's way? They don't "own" blu ray technology...

They don't necessarily own it, but they have controlling "stock" and are one of the original founders of the technology. I do believe they get a cut of licensing.

Sony is often given much of the hate or respect directed at Blu-ray, as they were the first manufacturer to launch a BD device and, more importantly in this case, have a history of developing their own formats to try and control licensing as opposed to commonly adopting other formats.
And they have a history of falling on their face with that tactic - sometimes having success and sometimes not.

They did (do?) have much responsibility regarding the start of the Blu-ray Disc Association and the technology at the core. They also invested tremendously in the format and were among the leading marketers (more investment) for both their own devices and movies and, ultimately, the format itself.

 

[mikeymikec]

Look at the actual images in the review and you will see details no DVD can ever match, even if the Blu Ray isn't optimal.

Are you saying, "no DVD of any movie can ever match" here? Because I'm pretty damn sure that I can pick out a DVD that is pretty comparable to that screenshot.

I've just been comparing the DVD version to those screenshots, and watching in a VLC window the DVD looks less grainy than the screenshots which is odd. Also the opening sequence doesn't look as bad as I remember, but I guess that's probably the difference in looking at the DVD on a 32" wide screen LCD TV compared to a window on my 22" monitor.

I am not saying that isn't a bad Blu Ray or there aren't bad Blu Rays. I am saying 25+ GB of video is a MUCH higher ceiling for quality than 8+GB of video.

Yeah, that's great and I'd be stupid to argue with you in this respect (disc capacity), but that's not what we're talking about.

Even the WORST of Blu Rays still manage to be better than the DVD (heck even Farscape is better)

You missed out the key word 'if'. If I already have a movie on DVD, why should I buy it on BR, so I can watch the same version as I have on DVD? Putting 'Aliens' on BR would have been utterly pointless if they had just done a little work on actors' faces like they evidently did for 'For a Few Dollars More', it's the rest of the movie (Aliens) that needed the work. I already have most of the Star Trek TNG seasons on DVD, and I would feel absolutely cheated if I shelled out for BR versions to find that there are still obvious artifacts left over from a cheap-and-cheerful digital transfer, even if I could make out some pores on Picard's face!

and 90%+ of Blu Rays are far better than their DVD counterparts. It is not Blu Ray's fault that some companies won't put in the resources for a decent release.

I didn't say it was a fault of the format.

I appreciate DVDs because some things have only been released in that form and might never be released in any other form. But honestly unless I am watching low-budget SD television I can't think of a time when I felt the DVD copy was "sufficient."

I've watched a couple of BRs, modern films as well, on a 32" wide screen LCD TV, and a multitude of DVDs. The only occasions when I consider the DVD copy to be insufficient is when companies don't bother doing the necessary restoration work to take advantage of the format. That's obviously an issue that BR suffers from as well, but considering that BR discs are invariably more expensive than DVD discs, it's a bit of a con when they haven't done sufficient restoration work.

 

[norseamd]

Someone already mentioned ARC and you're right about MHL. DVI ports carry the same signal as HDMI, just without audio. You can use a passive adapter to connect a DVI source to an HDMI display or vice-versa. The "DVI" HDMI port sits next to analog audio inputs so you can run audio separately (when it's not present in the HDMI signal). I have one of these on my TV (a very old Sony KDL-52XBR2).

the manual said that the audio in for the vga can be used with the dvi hdmi and i tried it but if i remember right it did not work. might try it again. my asus dx drivers do not allow me to run audio through the hdmi even though the sound card can on older drivers. also my headphone input on the front of my case does not work either.

 

[norseamd]

They don't necessarily own it, but they have controlling "stock" and are one of the original founders of the technology. I do believe they get a cut of licensing.

right

even toshiba is in the hdmi association if i remember right and they do not have and content if i remember right

 

[norseamd]

considering we are talking about digital distribution why are we talking about streaming? i do not pay much attention to mainstream entertainment companies but is digital distribution that bad? the only movies mentioned here that i megiht watch are the spagetti westerns. most of the films released in the past 10 years are such utter crap that they are no even worth watching for free

 

[spacejamz]

They don't necessarily own it, but they have controlling "stock" and are one of the original founders of the technology. I do believe they get a cut of licensing.

Sony is often given much of the hate or respect directed at Blu-ray, as they were the first manufacturer to launch a BD device and, more importantly in this case, have a history of developing their own formats to try and control licensing as opposed to commonly adopting other formats.
And they have a history of falling on their face with that tactic - sometimes having success and sometimes not.

They did (do?) have much responsibility regarding the start of the Blu-ray Disc Association and the technology at the core. They also invested tremendously in the format and were among the leading marketers (more investment) for both their own devices and movies and, ultimately, the format itself.

That was just the mindset of the HD DVD supporters back the hey-day of the format war. They hated the PS3 because it was the biggest selling and best blu ray player at the time which caused them to direct their hate to Sony.

I don't think many people today equate Sony with the blu ray format (like betamax or memory sticks)...

 

[KeithTalent]

considering we are talking about digital distribution why are we talking about streaming? i do not pay much attention to mainstream entertainment companies but is digital distribution that bad? the only movies mentioned here that i megiht watch are the spagetti westerns. most of the films released in the past 10 years are such utter crap that they are no even worth watching for free

Oh give me a break.

KT

 

[JackBurton]

I've watched a couple of BRs, modern films as well, on a 32" wide screen LCD TV, and a multitude of DVDs. The only occasions when I consider the DVD copy to be insufficient is when companies don't bother doing the necessary restoration work to take advantage of the format. That's obviously an issue that BR suffers from as well, but considering that BR discs are invariably more expensive than DVD discs, it's a bit of a con when they haven't done sufficient restoration work.

I think I've found your problem. And I'm sorry to say, you are not the target audience for BD.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I bought game of thrones season 3 on blu ray. Might never watch it again but it's still worth the$30 I paid for it. Much cheaper than cable and hbo.