Taking Sides - HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?

there's definitely no reason to care about this stuff if you have a regular tv.

no offense.

I hope we'll start seeing some better movies coming out on blu-ray now. It's amazing how shit the blu-ray library is, honestly...

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/what-are-the-lessons-of-the-blu-rayhd-dvd-battle-a-freakonomics-quorum/

seriously the quality of what we consider an expert in this country becomes more depressing by the day.

and once again I would like to ask everyone to do whatever they can not to prop up Sony in any way whatsoever as their notorious hatred of consumers and death grip on a vast content library means only good things for whenever they're forced to relent

(this from a guy who bought the james bond ultimate collection (MGM/UA is all sony) but only on regular DVD and only at a steep discount)

LOL @ TOMBOT

:-P

BOOOOO

recommend me something currently on blu ray that will fascinate me.

planet earth ftw

^

Also, Verhoeven's Black Book

also, verhoeven's planet earth

also, planet book

i think the first blu ray disc I will buy will be A Bug's Life, because that was also the first DVD I bought, and it isn't anamorphic and looks like shit.

i kind of want to buy the neil young archives except I'm not that big a fan and can't imagine actually messing with it.

The thing about blu-ray that has brought me the most joy is seeing older films given a spanking hi-def transfer. Plenty of recent films look great on br, but watching stuff that I've only ever seen on tv or crappy old 4:3 VHS can be a true revelation. Specifically: The Thing, Mad Max 2 - The Road Warrior, all the Kubricks, and Black Narcissus.

I got the restored Godfather box set for my birthday. Haven't put it on yet, but I'm hoping it will be the one to finally make blu-ray seem worth the bother.

oh it's amazing, esp if you're used to the shitty dvds

the thing that should most be on blu-ray - "playtime" by jacques tati

it is!

you know what looks insane on blu-ray? Dr. No.

tracer read this

http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/07/the-blu-sweeties.html

obviously optical media is not actually dead. I still think blu-ray is this decade's laserdisc

― El Tomboto, Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:01 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Laserdiscs were around for almost 2 decades as the best home video format, before DVD came around. So if Bluray is the next laserdisc, you should upgrade immediately, unless you want to wait 20 years for the next format.

Obvious choice but Blade Runner: The Final Cut is one of the best bluray's out there.

they will be streaming HD quality straight to my TV soon enough. I'm with tombot on that. xp

I think they'll cut corners with HD streaming just like cable companies cut corners with their HD channels. Even if your internet connection is good enough to hack it (mine certainly isn't), I don't think a streaming service will be comfortable giving you 1080p streaming at a reasonable price. They'll just cap it at a level they think the consumer is ok with.

s1ocki - holy shit.

ts: dvd vs blu-ray

Can't currently play blu-ray on my laptop.

blu-ray looks better

i own speed racer blu-ray

i do not own a blu-ray device

this is the way i live

i have owned an HDTV for three years. i have never seen an actual HD signal on it (and no, .mkv bluray transcodes don't count).

what do you have hooked up to it?

http://www.gamersover40.com/images/pong_game.jpg

i have a blu-ray player ands till haven't watched a blu ray disc. I did buy 2001 though.

Dear home video advertisers: your unsubtle rearrangement of the wording of all of your ads to read "Now available on Blu-Ray and DVD!" and showing pictures of only Blu-Ray discs is not going to make your 21st Century iteration of the laserdisc any more popular to the people who have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars over the past decade amassing a movie collection in a not-all-that-different-but-perfectly-serviceable format. Retards.

Which is to say that I vote for DVD over Blu-Ray, obvs. Blu-Ray should be treated like a premium format for people who want something a little extra, not like something that is going to necessarily overtake DVDs.

they should be more humble and stop trying to sell their products?

no, what i think they should do is bring BD price down to parity with DVD. then they'll sell them.

Perfectly serviceable? Absolutely. Not all that different? Er . . . the difference between 480p and 1080p is actually really, really significant. If you're not seeing or feeling it, that's cool, but it really is there.

The good thing is that the hardware is all backwards compatible, so when Blu-Ray reaches a certain market penetration (and cheap recorders are available), and manufacturers stop making DVD players and studios stop making DVDs, you'll still be covered.

BD is coming, nothing u can do to stop tht sorry

I just don't understand the public's demand for HD at all. WHY are so many people willing to spend hundreds more just so they can have a slightly clearer picture on the TV?

Exactly. I guarantee most people don't really appreciate it that much from an aesthetic or technical standpoint. It's just some new effing gadget to jizz all over. I can appreciate its existence, I just don't care enough to make the investment in a big switchover.

It's just some new effing gadget to jizz all over.

This jizzing that you speak of drives a whole sector of the consumer market. It's small, yes, and different than the "early adopter," because that consumer may actually have complaints about the product which may be useful to the company producing that product. No, this consumer is the "omnivorous, insatiable adopter." They have too much money to care what they buy, but not enough to know how to value it. If they don't like it, they won't have any insight on it, they'll just buy something else. They're the 20-something kids of rich parents, the nouveau riche who are totally tech-ignorant, and the upper-middle class who are gloriously irresponsible with money. They're not a make-or-break demo, but they do spend a shitload.

The marginal cost of a Blu-Ray player was pretty low if you were in the market for a 5th generation video game console in any case (the PS3 is one of the better players). I have some movies of the Baraka/The Fall class of eyecandy that would undoubtedly benefit, and I can afford it, but won't adopt for a simple reason: at the moment, there are no Blu-Ray players that are also seamless upconverting all-region unlockable DVD players. About a third of my DVD collection are R2, R3, or R4, and I'm not about to clutter my AV stack with another box just to play a handful of movies that would really benefit.

The best thing I've seen for marketing blu-ray is Disney's new approach, doubling up DVD and Blu Ray for the same price. So, the new Snow White release can be purchased in a pack with blu ray discs and a bonus DVD of the film for the same price as just a DVD of the film with some extras. They're doing the same with Up. It's animated movies like that that really interested me (since I have a kid and have to see the things a hundred times and want them to look cool, but also want to be able to send the dvd off with him to grandma who does not have a blu ray player. ok she doesn't have a dvd player right now either for some reason but I did buy her one). If they did this for everything I'd surely buy more stuff on blu ray.

I watched Heat on DVD the other day and the quality was absolutely awful, at least on my laptop screen which is admittedly at a higher resolution than a standard TV

Not to make this a whole big thing, but...do we really need all of this fidelity? Does every representational image have to mirror reality down to the smallest crystal-clear pore on Ryan Reynolds' nose? I was watching some 70s flick on DVD for the first time the other day and was a little bummed at how much character had been scrubbed out by the digital upgrade from grainy film stock. I think there is an extent to which the application of a hi-def sheen is kind of an affront to a filmmaker's original intention.

I know, I know. I sound like a total vinylhead here, maaaaaaan...

Not to make this a whole big thing, but...do we really need all of this fidelity? Does every representational image have to mirror reality down to the smallest crystal-clear pore on Ryan Reynolds' nose? I was watching some 70s flick on DVD for the first time the other day and was a little bummed at how much character had been scrubbed out by the digital upgrade from grainy film stock. I think there is an extent to which the application of a hi-def sheen is kind of an affront to a filmmaker's original intention.

I know, I know. I sound like a total vinylhead here, maaaaaaan...

― I HEART CREEPY MENS (Deric W. Haircare), Sunday, November 1, 2009 6:07 AM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Bluray/HD doesn't "scrub" grainy film stock, it reproduces it. You're just reminiscing on the video noise you had on VHS.

I just don't understand the public's demand for HD at all. WHY are so many people willing to spend hundreds more just so they can have a slightly clearer picture on the TV?

― Mr. Snrub, Sunday, November 1, 2009 2:34 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Because it's not slightly clearer, it's much clearer, sharper, more detailed etc.

500 lines of resolution vs. 1080.

This is like saying you don't see the difference between 16mm and 35mm.

I think there is an extent to which the application of a hi-def sheen is kind of an affront to a filmmaker's original intention.

I kinda feel if this is your attitude then you might as well just buy a projector and rent a theater or something, because viewing a film in any setting less than a darkened theater with a 10 foot high screen is probably not going to cut it. FWIW I'll take a hi-def polished transfer over a VHS pan and scan any day.