
- Time
- Post link
SilverWook said:
Wazzles said:
Where's Team Ollie when you need them?
Just what I was looking for.
SilverWook said:
Wazzles said:
Where's Team Ollie when you need them?
Just what I was looking for.
Wazzles said:
Where's Team Ollie when you need them?
Look over there (at us).
Team Olie
But you're Team Olie, not Team Ollie.
DuracellEnergizer said:
But you're Team Olie, not Team Ollie.
Unless Team Olie is a superset of Team Ollie. I wonder how much overlap there is between our various teams. Could we get a Venn diagram please?
CatBus said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
But you're Team Olie, not Team Ollie.
Unless Team Olie is a superset of Team Ollie. I wonder how much overlap there is between our various teams. Could we get a Venn diagram please?
Venn diagrams are a dead format. We don't see any use for them.
Team Ol/lie
team_negative1 said:
Blu-ray has failed, because it has not replaced DVD's, or become the primary format for most releases. Digital releases have, and will overtake it.Team Negative1
Bluray was never going to replace DVD. Had the HD-DVD format won the war then perhaps it may have, but Bluray couldn't for the simple fact that it requires publishers to use AACS encryption. I have a number of DVDs from small publishers that are not encrypted. This makes it less financially viable for a small publisher to release an obscure title on the format. This was a clear oversight, but one brought about because of the clear influence from the Hollywood stakeholders who only care about their interests and not the interests of the smaller publishers.
Digital releases are not the same quality as Bluray. It's like Laserdisc vs VHS - most consumers were happy with VHS, and those who really wanted the best quality invested in Laserdiscs. Same thing with Bluray vs Digital. Just because most consumers may prefer Digital doesn't mean that Bluray has "failed", it simply means it fits a different purpose. Whether it is fit for that purpose, however, is debatable because it will be faced with lower sales and the mandatory AACS encryption is a barrier to smaller releases.
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
RU.08 said:
team_negative1 said:
Blu-ray has failed, because it has not replaced DVD's, or become the primary format for most releases. Digital releases have, and will overtake it.Team Negative1
Bluray was never going to replace DVD. Had the HD-DVD format won the war then perhaps it may have, but Bluray couldn't for the simple fact that it requires publishers to use AACS encryption. I have a number of DVDs from small publishers that are not encrypted. This makes it less financially viable for a small publisher to release an obscure title on the format. This was a clear oversight, but one brought about because of the clear influence from the Hollywood stakeholders who only care about their interests and not the interests of the smaller publishers.
Digital releases are not the same quality as Bluray. It's like Laserdisc vs VHS - most consumers were happy with VHS, and those who really wanted the best quality invested in Laserdiscs. Same thing with Bluray vs Digital. Just because most consumers may prefer Digital doesn't mean that Bluray has "failed", it simply means it fits a different purpose. Whether it is fit for that purpose, however, is debatable because it will be faced with lower sales and the mandatory AACS encryption is a barrier to smaller releases.
I think that Blu-Ray is a niche format and the market is small. Most people who own Blu-Ray players are Movie Buffs who want the superior picture & sound quality. This reminds me of LaserDisc because most LaserDisc owners were Movie Buffs.
When Blu-Ray won the format war in 2008 I assumed that DVD would stick around for another ten years but now I don't see it going anywhere.
DVD is still the standard, everything is released on DVD whereas not everything is released on Blu-Ray. A friend of mine sells Audio & Video equipment and he told me that the DVD sales are still higher than Blu-Ray. Most people chose to stick with DVD because they think that it is good enough for them.
I personally would only buy the BDs of movies I know are good enough to be worth it, or of TV shows I love enough, like Star Trek. Sitcoms and cruddy movies are fine on DVD.
Might I add that it was incredibly infuriating getting this to post?
The Blu-Ray format is good enough to be shown in a cinema projected onto a 20 foot (or larger) screen. Obviously the quality of the BD itself would determine whether you would show it in a cinema, but many cinemas do show BDs when DCPs are unavailable. DCP has better colorspace, better contrast, etc. But it's still limited - the video is limited to a maximum of 250 Mbit/s. On Bluray the video is limited to 40 Mbit/s. If you have a Dolby Digital TrueHD track than the maximum video bitrate is 29.36Mbit/s. However, it's important to note that Blu-ray can use H.262/MPEG-2 Part 2, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and VC-1 video encoding. DCP cannot use any video encoding - DCP files are made up of thousands of Jpeg2000 images, the images are in a container file but they're still just images. That is to say, they can't use information from other frames to represent information in the present frame the way that video encoding works.
I saw a movie last year in a cinema, and for one scene it was pixelated as if it had been up-scaled from a standard definition source. What was even stranger was the fact that the shot was non-continuous (there were a couple of shots breaking it up) but that entire specific shot, and only that shot was horribly pixelated. Obviously that can't be a result of Jpeg2000 compression, so I thought it must be in the source. Yet when I saw the Blu-Ray there was no pixelation in that scene at all. Somehow the DCP had a problem in it!
Audio is another matter. Blu-ray arguably has better quality audio than is presently possible on DCP. DCP only allows LPCM audio, the maximum sampling rate is 96 kHz. Yet the maximum Blu-ray sampling rate is 192 kHz.
Now with that said, Blu-ray has other limitations. You can have a 24fps, 25fps, 30fps, 48fps, 50fps or even 60fps DCP. Blu-ray only supports interlaced for frame-rates other than 24/23.976fps and full HD. So you have some films like Wallace & Gromit that are available in full HD, but play at the wrong speed. Thankfully all of these issues have been addressed with the Ultra-HD BD specs. It also has a maximum bitrate of 100 Mbit/s, so video quality should at least equal what is possible with current 2k DCPs.
Yes it will be a niche format compared with Digital. But high-end audio/video is always a niche format.
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
Handman said:
Might I add that it was incredibly infuriating getting this to post?
We didn't enjoy reading it either.
Team Olie
;-)
TV's Frink said:
Handman said:
Might I add that it was incredibly infuriating getting this to post?
We didn't enjoy reading it either.
Team Olie
;-)
Speak for yourselves.
team_contrarian
DuracellEnergizer said:
TV's Frink said:
Handman said:
Might I add that it was incredibly infuriating getting this to post?
We didn't enjoy reading it either.
Team Olie
;-)
Speak for yourselves.
team_contrarian
We always speak for ourselves.
Team Olie
Once DVD's came out, they matched Laserdiscs in resolution. And with remastering, at times, better quality.
So there was no high-end at that time.
It's true that Bluray might not have intended to be the replacement for DVD, but it still was a newer consumer format.
Since 3D video has failed to launch also, media and hardware companies are always pushing new formats.
That's why Ultra HD BD, will require new sets, and players.
The beauty of the digital format is that, you can upgrade your monitor, projector, or TV when you wish, and gain benefit from it, accordingly.
The consumer race is over, only content creators care about increasingly high resolutions, and mastering issues.
Team Negative1
team_negative1 said:
Once DVD's came out
Once DVD's what came out?
team_negative1 said:
The beauty of the digital format is that, you can upgrade your monitor, projector, or TV when you wish, and gain benefit from it, accordingly.
Theoretically the back-end resolution could be bumped as new scans are made, but I'm not sure that's really ever happened. Furthermore, that puts you even more at risk of having the media you "bought" replaced with a orange-and-teal revised director's cut monstrosity without notice. If you're just talking about "it's just high res", well, I certainly started buying Blu-rays long before I had an HDTV, so I got the benefit of the hardware upgrade just the same. That's just an effect of upgrading the players before the display.
Frankly for most consumers, if you buy a (good quality) Blu-ray today, there is no upgrade needed for any future display. It's a terminal physical format in the good sense of the term*. It's not perfect, sure, but the imperfections are something nearly every consumer wouldn't notice, let alone care about. The handful of people who want more will keep chasing the AV rainbow no matter what.
* Terminal physical format in the sense that CD was the terminal physical music format. Successor formats existed, but few even knew what they were, let alone bought them.
DuracellEnergizer said:
team_negative1 said:
Once DVD's came out
Once DVD's what came out?
English grammar continues to frustrate and befuddle me.
RU.08 said:
Blu-ray arguably has better quality audio than is presently possible on DCP. DCP only allows LPCM audio, the maximum sampling rate is 96 kHz. Yet the maximum Blu-ray sampling rate is 192 kHz.
Most peoples ears can't tell a difference. 192 is better for *recording* the audio because it captures more details in the recording process, but once it's recorded downsampling it to 96 or even 48 will be virtually lossless.
Recording at 192 kHz is entirely useless, unless for some reason you need to record extreme ultrasonic information, like bat sonar. When it comes to actual audible information within the range of human hearing, there is no detail that lower rates cannot capture. Higher sample rates do not improve anything within this audible range—they just allow gentler anti-alias filters to be used, as well as giving more headroom if further digital processing needs to be applied later on. Even 96 kHz is overkill for many applications, though it may be helpful in some cases.
Really the results depend on the quality of the conversion that is used. Top quality A/D converters will give better results even at 44.1 kHz than any lesser design could do at a higher sample rate. The important considerations to look for are the quality of the anti-alias filter, which aims to prevent high frequency non-harmonic distortion while minimizing time-smearing artifacts, and the signal-to-noise ratio of the converter chip and its surrounding circuitry. If the equipment is designed and implemented well enough, the sample rate will ultimately prove to be mostly irrelevant.
According to Dan Lavry, who designs high-end converters, the theoretical 'ideal' sample rate is right around 60 kHz. This allows for capturing all audible detail while still leaving enough room for successful anti-alias filtering without creating any significant artifacts. However, since this rate was never adopted as a standard, the most practical rates to choose from are either 48 or 88.2, in my estimation.
It is also worth noting that many digital processing plugins will oversample to higher rates to perform their calculations and then downsample back to the original rate again. So in many cases it isn't even necessary to have recorded at a higher rate in the first place, since the oversampling gives the needed mathematical headroom while not wasting hard drive space by recording ultrasonic information without purpose.
team_negative1 said:
Once DVD's came out, they matched Laserdiscs in resolution. And with remastering, at times, better quality.
So there was no high-end at that time.
Once DVDs came out, it beat LDs in resolution off the bat. LDs don't store pixels, they're an analogue format that is horizontally compressed just like VHS. DVD's can produce 100% of the horizontal fidelity (all 720 pixels). That's equal to 540 lines per picture height (TVL). LDs have a resolution reported to be around 425 TVL, meaning that it has 78.7% of the horizontal information that a DVD can hold.
As for how it looks, that's another matter. LDs can look just as good as early DVD releases (or even better if the MPEG2 compression was rubbish), and for releases based on the same master they can look near identical. It's quite hard to tell the difference in horizontal fidelity when it's only a difference of 21%. This page has a good visual representation.
With 4K BDs though, the main advantage won't be pixel resolution. It'll be the wider colour gamut, the higher bitrates, and the HEVC codec.
Possessed said:
Most peoples ears can't tell a difference. 192 is better for *recording* the audio because it captures more details in the recording process, but once it's recorded downsampling it to 96 or even 48 will be virtually lossless.
I agree entirely, I doubt that I could tell the difference. I was simply pointing out that BD already matches and even beats DCP in terms of audio quality. The UHD-BDs should match or beat DCPs in terms of video quality.
[ Scanning stuff since 2015 ]
team_negative1 said:
The beauty of the digital format is that, you can upgrade your monitor, projector, or TV when you wish, and gain benefit from it, accordingly.
The consumer race is over, only content creators care about increasingly high resolutions, and mastering issues.
Team Negative1
I think these statements are not accurate.
In a sense the digital format replaces the video rental market, which traditionally was very much larger than the video sales market. Many consumers don't want to own movies, at least not if these movies are very expensive.
You also seem to treat the consumers as one homogeneous group, which is a gross simplification. Not everyone wants to drive a Volkswagen. Some of us prefer the Mercedes and are willing to pay through the nose for it.
DrDre said:
team_negative1 said:
The beauty of the digital format is that, you can upgrade your monitor, projector, or TV when you wish, and gain benefit from it, accordingly.
The consumer race is over, only content creators care about increasingly high resolutions, and mastering issues.
Team Negative1
I think these statements are not accurate.
In a sense the digital format replaces the video rental market, which traditionally was very much larger than the video sales market. Many consumers don't want to own movies, at least not if these movies are very expensive.
You also seem to treat the consumers as one homogeneous group, which is a gross simplification. Not everyone wants to drive a Volkswagen. Some of us prefer the Mercedes and are willing to pay through the nose for it.
I completely agree. But keep in mind that you're addressing someone("s") that is not allowed to respond in this thread. So it's not quite fair to keep pointing out how wrong (t)he(y) are is.
We think fair ain't got nothin' to do with it.
Team Olie
TV's Frink said:
Ronster said:
What you need to bear in mind is that there really is little or no point having a 32" 4k resolution screen.
It's only when you get to larger screen sizes such as 50" / 65" / 80" / 103" / Edge Blended projection / Large Video walls and LED walls that 4k resolution comes in to play and really does add a noticeable difference.I've just recently (as in the last few weeks) realized that I will be in the market for a new tv soon. Up until now, I hadn't even bothered thinking too much about 4k as a practical thing, but now I'm thinking....hmmmm.
So let's split the difference between the 32" and 50" sizes you mentioned above. Here's a Vizio 43" for $600.
http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-M43-C1-43-Inch-Ultra-Smart/dp/B00T63YUTE/ref=sr_1_1?s=tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1432392483&sr=1-1
A comparable Vizio 42" 1080p set is only $150 less.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JJNA10I/ref=psdc_6459737011_t1_B00T63YUTE
I'm not being my usual snarky self, but asking honestly - wouldn't it make sense at such a small price difference to go with the 4k set?
I hate myself for bumping this thread, but I pulled the trigger on the 43" Vizio 4k today...right now I'm streaming Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in 4k...and it's glorious.
*a single tear falls from my eye*
Ignore me.
Just in case its true...
Preferred Saga:
1,2: Numeraljoker extended
3: L8wrtr
4,6-9: Hal9000
5: Adywan