- Time
- Post link
I believe that it was also on the most recent Raiders DVD though I could be wrong about that one...
Where were you in '77?
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!) — Page 304
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
bkev said:
The jump in quality is less significant for dvd to blu than it was vhs to dvd. I know plenty of people, young AND old, who claim they can't see the difference at all. ..
Totally and COMPLETELY FALSE on the resolution jump. Also the people that say that are either watching Blu-ray on an SD TV or they're BLIND.
VHS = 480x333
SVHS = 560x420
DVD = 720x576 or 720x480 (barely a step up from VHS res in comparison)
Blu-Ray = 1920x1080
I know that isn't a fancy technical response, but I find the "Blu-ray isn't great" comments ridiculous.
- Time
- Post link
I wonder how many people have Blu Ray players hooked up via composite cables, like the guy who wrote that newspaper article a few years back? ;)
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Problem is the size of your screen and distance from it.
Blurays are amazing, but to really appreciate the resolution you need a big full HDTV (or, if you have a smaller TV, not to be too far from the screen.)
- Time
- Post link
Yeah, exactly. My dad's got a 30" 1080p Samsung and when you sit on the sofa, you can't tell the difference between a DVD and BD coming from the same master (I tried like yesterday with Harry Potter). Sit like 3ft closer and you'll start seeing a huge difference but from where he's sitting, he unfortunately has no need to buy Blu-Rays.
- www.facebook.com/despecialized
Despecialized Editions MUST NEVER BE BOUGHT OR SOLD!!! You can find all the info you need here
- Time
- Post link
Harmy said:
Yeah, exactly. My dad's got a 30" 1080p Samsung and when you sit on the sofa, you can't tell the difference between a DVD and BD coming from the same master (I tried like yesterday with Harry Potter). Sit like 3ft closer and you'll start seeing a huge difference but from where he's sitting, he unfortunately has no need to buy Blu-Rays.
And how many people who are buying the "BR" actually have a TV of sufficient size and resolution, or sit close enough, to appreciate what the BR has to offer, I wonder.
The blue elephant in the room.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Yeah. Dad came in yesterday and he couldn't get over the fact that I moved a chair right in front of the TV to watch a Blu-Ray. He was like: Are you nuts?
And you just can't explain to him how great it is to see all this detail and see it big. LOL, he even complains about the screen in the cinema in our town being too big and how he has to turn his head (and it's quite a small screen, too)...
- www.facebook.com/despecialized
Despecialized Editions MUST NEVER BE BOUGHT OR SOLD!!! You can find all the info you need here
- Time
- Post link
Mrebo said:
And how many people who are buying the "BR" actually have a TV of sufficient size and resolution, or sit close enough, to appreciate what the BR has to offer, I wonder.
Please note the correct abbreviation for "Blu-ray Disc" is "BD".
If you type "BR" one more time I'm going to come over there and break your fingers.
Thank you.
Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here
Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here
- Time
- Post link
All in all, it had been some exciting news when I first heard that Star Wars would be released on BR..... uhhh.... BD. Well, because, you know, it's Star Wars on Blu-ray. (Oh boy, this one gets never old.)
But nevertheless, it was total let down from the first day to the final release. I love Star Wars and I can live with the Prequels. But these constant changes can mean only one thing.
Invasion...
GL will invade every home video release of Star Wars with yet another change. And I bet that the rock formation R2 is hiding behind is the first change of what we will see in the 3D version of ANH. Makes total sense, cause (I saw some of the scenes on youtube - so the limited quality might prove me wrong) that shot has a clear foreground, middle and background. Perfect for 3D. Jabba's gate is basically the same thing though in a very crude form (which is not to say that we will see a better version of that scene in the 3D version, 'cause every change so far could have been done better by a six year old with a broken C64).
Anyway, the threat by LFL (I am not sure if it is a threat or a blessing) to not release the OT in 3D without the success of the PT is irrelevant. Because, you know what, it' Star Wars in 3D and after that it will be Star Wars in 3D on BD. That has cash cow written all over it. And after that, the people will willingly buy the 4K version. GL has created something that I didn't think was possible: unlimited, unconditional demand (for a lot of 'fans').
The following is off-topic:
Blu-ray in general
Blu-ray hasn't been the revelation I expected it to be. I imagined separate tracks for music, sound effects and voices. Which could be mixed on the fly which would have been awesome (not only for fan edits but for the hard of hearing (I agree that it would be a sacrilege to watch Star Wars without the score but it might prove to be a little more comfortable for anyone who has a hard time understanding the dialogue over the music. I would have really loved this feature.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Actually, I think that the comparison of BD to LD is quite accurate in the sense that BD is to DVD what LD was to VHS (here's hoping that BD will become somewhat more mainstream though).
Just look at it -
- www.facebook.com/despecialized
Despecialized Editions MUST NEVER BE BOUGHT OR SOLD!!! You can find all the info you need here
- Time
- Post link
Harmy said:
Actually, I think that the comparison of BD to LD is quite accurate in the sense that BD is to DVD what LD was to VHS (here's hoping that BD will become somewhat more mainstream though).
I think this is the reason why BD will ultimately fail. There is nothing wrong with BD but there is nothing exceptionally new about it either. It's like a DVD but with higher resolution and while HD-TVs have become more common so have upscaling algorithms. Do I shell out another $20 to get the movie on Blu-ray or do I use my DVD? It's like the Star Trek rule, every movie with an odd number, or every other Bond being terrible (though Timothy Dalton was just mis-cast). It's just that DVD was such a revolution that BD didn't have enough new stuff to offer. Whatever the next home video medium will be, it will rock in terms of sales but BD, while still a good medium, is bound to crash.
- Time
- Post link
Harmy said:
Actually, I think that the comparison of BD to LD is quite accurate in the sense that BD is to DVD what LD was to VHS (here's hoping that BD will become somewhat more mainstream though).
Just look at it -
"loossless" audio?
Even though I'm a dyed in the wool Laserdisc fan, high end VHS and Beta Hi-fi decks could give stereo LD audio a run for it's money. (Something I'm grateful for with the few music video tapes I've preserved.) One department store I used to frequent in the mid 80's always seemed to have a Star Wars VHS Hi-Fi tape running in the tv department on their early home theater demos.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
Serling1979 said:
Harmy said:
Actually, I think that the comparison of BD to LD is quite accurate in the sense that BD is to DVD what LD was to VHS (here's hoping that BD will become somewhat more mainstream though).
I think this is the reason why BD will ultimately fail. There is nothing wrong with BD but there is nothing exceptionally new about it either. It's like a DVD but with higher resolution and while HD-TVs have become more common so have upscaling algorithms. Do I shell out another $20 to get the movie on Blu-ray or do I use my DVD? It's like the Star Trek rule, every movie with an odd number, or every other Bond being terrible (though Timothy Dalton was just mis-cast). It's just that DVD was such a revolution that BD didn't have enough new stuff to offer. Whatever the next home video medium will be, it will rock in terms of sales but BD, while still a good medium, is bound to crash.
Blu Ray is being sold in stores that never carried Laserdiscs. There was a time in the late 80's/early 90's I had to plan a trip to Los Angeles just to buy them.
The players broke the magic $100 barrier last Christmas. The cheapest low end LD player would have set you back four hundred at the very least.
And there's a Blu Ray bargain bin at my local supermarket. I bought The Dark Crystal for ten bucks! I paid nearly a hundred bucks for the Collector's Edition LD back in the day.
How sweet it is now. ;)
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
Ooops on loossless :-)
Anyway, what I'm really trying to say is that it boils down to whether you're a casual viewer who doesn't really care or a film enthusiast who can appreciate high quality film presentation. If you're the latter, in the 80s you would have bought LD over VHS and now you'd buy BD over DVD.
And it would also be good to point out that unlike other formats such as Betamax or CED, the LD format lived happily alongside VHS for over 20yrs. I wouldn't call that a failure.
- www.facebook.com/despecialized
Despecialized Editions MUST NEVER BE BOUGHT OR SOLD!!! You can find all the info you need here
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
shandy706 said:
Totally and COMPLETELY FALSE on the resolution jump. Also the people that say that are either watching Blu-ray on an SD TV or they're BLIND.
I wouldn't call myself blind, but I certainly don't notice the jump unless I wear my glasses and sit uncomfortably close.
Our theatre ran a bunch of 80s/90s movies over the Summer, and being blown up on the big screen, I could definitely notice a difference when very sharp looking Blus like Tron and The Princess Bride were up, compared to some of the late 90s DVDs they showed, like Jaws and Sixteen Candles. But then they showed Wayne's World, and it was shot so soft that you could hardly tell it was BluRay, except that there was no artifacting between letters in the intro credits.
shandy706 said:
VHS = 480x333
DVD = 720x576 or 720x480 (barely a step up from VHS res in comparison)
Keep in mind that anamorphic DVDs are going to be using all 480 rows of that resolution, whereas every widescreen VHS I've ever heard of was letterbox.
Also, just the jump from analogue to digital was a pretty big thing. Bonus features, digital RW/FF, chapter selects, menus, and not having to worry about your tape getting eaten were pretty nice perks.
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
- Time
- Post link
shandy706 said:
VHS = 480x333
SVHS = 560x420
Didn't spot this one before, but just for clarity, both VHS and SVHS have completely separate horizontal lines, so their vertical resolution is a full 480 (576 for PAL), and their horizontal resolutions are only measured in effective pixels (because it's a continuous signal, not broken into pixels). Vertically, they would get blurred a bit to reduce interlace twitter, a practice which is still occuring as far as I'm aware.
DE
- Time
- Post link
SilverWook said:
Blu Ray is being sold in stores that never carried Laserdiscs. There was a time in the late 80's/early 90's I had to plan a trip to Los Angeles just to buy them.
The players broke the magic $100 barrier last Christmas. The cheapest low end LD player would have set you back four hundred at the very least.
And there's a Blu Ray bargain bin at my local supermarket. I bought The Dark Crystal for ten bucks! I paid nearly a hundred bucks for the Collector's Edition LD back in the day.
How sweet it is now. ;)
Harmy said:
And it would also be good to point out that unlike other formats such as Betamax or CED, the LD format lived happily alongside VHS for over 20yrs. I wouldn't call that a failure.
You both got a point there. But these are different times. Most people bought a DVD player when it came out. I can buy one for $40 or less. And I clearly remember the marketing guys talking about the supreme quality that DVD put on the screen. It's an optical marvel. And that is exactly why it sold so well. Blu-ray is a very worthy opponent and while BD will sell well it will never reach what DVD sold. The life cycle of between DVD and BD is much shorter than it was between VHS and DVD. And we are talking about this very big issue of giving up your collection (VHS) in favor of DVD because it was not compatible. If BD players hadn't been able to read DVDs would you really think that the consumer would readily have swallowed the bait.
BD sells well and will do so in the future but it is not that much of an invention. So calling it a failure is very harsh. It has a lot of potential but not as much as the DVD had back in the day.
- Time
- Post link
Harmy said:
Yeah. Dad came in yesterday and he couldn't get over the fact that I moved a chair right in front of the TV to watch a Blu-Ray. He was like: Are you nuts?
And you just can't explain to him how great it is to see all this detail and see it big. LOL, he even complains about the screen in the cinema in our town being too big and how he has to turn his head (and it's quite a small screen, too)...
Sounds like your father and I would get along. I have watched blu-rays on a large HDTV with HDMI etc., etc., etc. and I still have not felt compelled to start spending my hard earned cash replacing my DVD collection. It does not help that most blu-ray transfers seem to look terrible due to shoddy transfers. The Bonds films in particular look awful to me.
The big selling point for me on DVDs was always that they last much longer compared to VHS (the tape gets eaten by a crap VCR etc.) - so they were a wise investment. Blu-ray seems to appeal to, well, either consumer whores or videophiles. I mean, so what that you can now see the sweat on someones face clearer? Jeez, the things people will make out to be so great to justify all the money they just gave to The Man! It is definitely a cultural imperative at work rather than any rational decision making. But it's your money, so spend it as you please.
Now, if anybody needs me I'll be down at the rippers getting a few lap dances from the money I saved from not buying blu-ray tech. I have my priorities in order.
“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord
- Time
- Post link
Moth3r said:
Mrebo said:
And how many people who are buying the "BR" actually have a TV of sufficient size and resolution, or sit close enough, to appreciate what the BR has to offer, I wonder.
Please note the correct abbreviation for "Blu-ray Disc" is "BD".
If you type "BR" one more time I'm going to come over there and break your fingers.
Thank you.
rofl. At least I quoted it this time! And that would be an interesting form of moderation. Duly noted!
The blue elephant in the room.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
BD not going to last as a format? What?
Yes, you truly have to watch them on a large TV. My sister has a small, 720p TV and says that she can't see the difference. On my 40" 1080p it's very noticeable. What's been the best to watch are the movies that either have been restored (The Godfather--yes, it's patchy in spots but some scenes are freaking gorgeous) have a great transfer (CE3K; plus the print was in great condition) or movies that were filmed hi-def in the first place.
Remember, BDs hold more information so less compression...
I A/B'ed Blade Runner and it's definitely noticeable. I'm anxious to check out Taxi Driver esp. with the 4K transfer.
Furthest from the bright center of the universe
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Harmy said:
Actually, I think that the comparison of BD to LD is quite accurate in the sense that BD is to DVD what LD was to VHS (here's hoping that BD will become somewhat more mainstream though).
Just look at it -
Please tell me more about the Lover Resolution. Sounds HAWT.
I think several critical differences are missing:
VHS vs Laserdisc
Fairly Portable vs Cumbersome
Big player vs Even Bigger Player
One kind of storage solution vs A separate kind of storage solution
DVD vs BR BD
More Portable vs Just as Portable
Relatively small player vs You can actually have this be your one and only player
One kind of storage solution vs Can be stored in the same solution, but they're usually even thinner so it's even a little more efficient.
Really the bottom line was this: There were a lot of Pros vs Cons for Laserdisc that weren't just about price. Really, the only con of BD is the price, and it's not nearly as big a gulf as VHS vs LD was.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
- Time
- Post link
Serling1979 said:
Harmy said:
Actually, I think that the comparison of BD to LD is quite accurate in the sense that BD is to DVD what LD was to VHS (here's hoping that BD will become somewhat more mainstream though).
I think this is the reason why BD will ultimately fail. There is nothing wrong with BD but there is nothing exceptionally new about it either. It's like a DVD but with higher resolution and while HD-TVs have become more common so have upscaling algorithms. Do I shell out another $20 to get the movie on Blu-ray or do I use my DVD? It's like the Star Trek rule, every movie with an odd number, or every other Bond being terrible (though Timothy Dalton was just mis-cast). It's just that DVD was such a revolution that BD didn't have enough new stuff to offer. Whatever the next home video medium will be, it will rock in terms of sales but BD, while still a good medium, is bound to crash.
Why it will fail? It's already a proven success. The unfortunate success of the Star Wars BDs is evidence of that. It's a higher-end format that has been embraced by some consumers, not all. It's unfair to compare it to DVD, which is the greatest format success story ever. It's a premium format that was released in harsh economic times, and it isn't the jump in quality as DVD was to VHS.
As for the next home video medium, I think Blu-ray may be the last as far as "hard" formats go. However, on a mass scale, it's still the best as what it does, and it should be around for several more years.
- Time
- Post link
I would say that when you put LD into play, the jumps in quality are pretty much equal. IMO the difference in quality between VHS and LD = diff. between LD and DVD = diff. between DVD and BD.
But yeah, most people (me included) had VHS and then straight DVD, so the jump was pretty big.
But then, at the time DVD started we had a small CRT, so the difference in PQ wasn't that huge either and we had a DVD drive in our PC before we had a player, and on a computer monitor DVD didn't look perfect either (because you normally tend to sit very near to a computer screen), so when I first saw an HD film on my PC (coincidentally it was STAR WARS) I was actually more amazed then when I first saw a DVD.
- www.facebook.com/despecialized
Despecialized Editions MUST NEVER BE BOUGHT OR SOLD!!! You can find all the info you need here
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
About whether or not Blu-Ray will die...
Yoda said:
Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.
We'll wait and see what happens.
The franchises I get nerdy about are so obscure that not even most nerds know about them.
- Time
- Post link
This is the inspirational quote on my calendar this week:
"Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning."
-Bill Gates
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.