Blu-ray prices not coming down — Page 8

Ziz said:

Just to drag this a bit back on topic to the thread title, I've been seeing more and more players in the $199 range.  I'm hoping they'll be down to $150 by the summer.

Vizio is introducing the first Profile 2.0 compatible player for $150 next month.

EDIT: Most of the sub $200 players on the market right now are profile 1.1 compatible, not 2.0.

Mielr said:

Ziz said:  Even TPM, which we know was shot on real film, looked so clear that it like it was shot on video.  

And that's a good thing? :-P

Film still has a higher "resolution" than video methods. TPM will always look better than AOTC or ROTS for that reason.

Ziz said:

That's not what I mean.  "Video" looks different than "film".  It's hard to put into words.

Look at a home family video.  Look at the dimensionality of it.  Look at the way things look.

Now look at a film.  It has a different feel to it.  It almost makes video look fake, as backwards as that sounds.

Film looks "real".  Video looks "live".

______________________________________________

OK, after looking at my sister's TV again today and investigating exactly which make/model she has, I figured out why I noticed this film/video difference - 120Hz.  The 120's make film look "live" because of the doubled frequency rate.  My new Westinghouse 42" is the standard 60Hz and TESB on Spike still looks like film.

Ziz: I think you're going to be hard pressed convincing the casual viewers among us of the differences between video and film.  I know for myself, I don't have a clue what you're talking about and I don't see any difference.

As far as that TV goes, that's quite a set your sister has.  120Hz TV sets are pretty pricey if I'm not mistaken.

It's just that it's hard to put into words.  It's something you have to see to understand, and even at that, you need to be into film/video to care one way or the other.  I majored in film production in college, so my eye is attuned to things like image clarity and film grain.  I was trying to explain the difference to my mom and sister tonight and they couldn't relate to what I was talking about.

As far as the TV's involved, both are 42" LCD, hers is a Vizio and she paid about $900 where mine is Westinghouse and I paid $600.

I still think it's the frame rate more than anything. There have been film systems with higher framerates- and although they were very sharp and clear, there were complaints that they looked too much like video. 

I know a lot of videophiles don't like the 120Hz feature on newer TVs and complain when there's no option to defeat it.

lordjedi said:

I think you're going to be hard pressed convincing the casual viewers among us of the differences between video and film.  I know for myself, I don't have a clue what you're talking about and I don't see any difference.

I remember when I was a kid and first realized there was a difference between film and video- the cast of Growing Pains did a TV promo on film and they said something like "hey look! we're on film!" or whatever (the show itself was shot on videotape).

I understood then that that's why shows shot on tape like Three's Company had such a different look and feel than shows shot on film like Dynasty (aside from the sets and lighting, of course).

Ziz said:

That's not what I mean.  "Video" looks different than "film".  It's hard to put into words.

Look at a home family video.  Look at the dimensionality of it.  Look at the way things look.

Now look at a film.  It has a different feel to it.  It almost makes video look fake, as backwards as that sounds.

Film looks "real".  Video looks "live".

______________________________________________

OK, after looking at my sister's TV again today and investigating exactly which make/model she has, I figured out why I noticed this film/video difference - 120Hz.  The 120's make film look "live" because of the doubled frequency rate.  My new Westinghouse 42" is the standard 60Hz and TESB on Spike still looks like film.

 I think I know what you mean. Though I feel the videos from my family's vhs-c camcorder look more film like than 90% of all digital camcorder videos today which mostly suck.

Fang Zei said:

First we got Close Encounters and Blade Runner, with the original versions included. Now we're getting the original versions of all the Star Trek films. Call me naive, but I'm getting more and more hopeful that GL won't get away with simply pressing out an SE-only Star Wars BD set.

If he trys to only put out a new version for blu-ray, there's only one solution: DON'T BUY IT!

I'm probably preaching to the choir here but I just don't think that can be said enough. I think people are sick of buying the same stuff again and again anyways.

The problem is how Lucas' ego has inflated over the years, to the point where everything he does with SW is an attempt to re-capture past glory of the days of the original film's release - not the film itself, but his feelings of those days.  He wants it to be a "new experience" every time it comes out, no matter how many times people have seen it before.  Restoring the OOT won't be a "new experience", it will be "recreating an old experience".

Keeping the OOT looking as shit as possible makes the SEs look better by default rather than any changes that might truly improve the films.

Fang Zei said:

First we got Close Encounters and Blade Runner, with the original versions included. Now we're getting the original versions of all the Star Trek films. Call me naive, but I'm getting more and more hopeful that GL won't get away with simply pressing out an SE-only Star Wars BD set.

The only ones that can stop him are us and the retailers.  If we don't buy it, they won't stock it.  Remember what happened with all the Jar Jar Binks figures?  That's right, they either ended up on the clearance aisle or in the trash.  If we want a proper release, then we must stop buying each new release.

GL will continue to get away with releasing the ever changing SEs until people simply stop buying the merchandise.  Toys, movies, DVDs, etc, etc, etc.  Until then, he'll just continue to subsidize the release of whatever the latest crap is with whatever else people are buying (books, comics, games, etc).  Unfortunately, so many are still convinced that Lucas can do no wrong that it doesn't matter what he releases, it's viewed as the one true vision each time.