OMFG BLU-RAY IS AMAZING!!!

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'll stick to my DvD. Too much detail is sometimes bad. You'll regret it when you start to notice moles and other unsightly smudges from otherwise beautiful actors.

we talking legitimate actresses or pr0n?

It would kinda take away from the hotness when you see butt pimples on some hot chick.

there are some pretty good looking porn actresses these days.

most porn isn't soft focus these days anyways, the idea that people want playboy soft focus doesn't jive with reality.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I'm sure it is. Still, I'm in no hurry to get it. Movies watch pretty good in SD.

naw

even very old animated films benifit.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073677

good ol comparison thread
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: AndroidVageta
Just got me a LG BD-ROM/HD-DVD drive for my PC today...and my breathe is being taken away.

Just got done watching Jet-Li's FEARLESS...and it almost made me piss my pants. I know a lot here probably own Blu-ray and have gotten over the "wow" factor...but I had no idea it was THIS good.

Watching these movies on my Sony 34XBR960 (flagship CRT...best in the business) is just jaw dropping.

For those who care I got some pretty good movies that are favorites and I think are good choices for Blu-ray experience:

FEARLESS
300
The Matrix
The Chronicles of Riddick
Serenity

Anyone have any other good Blu-ray movie recommendations?

You're blown away by some movies that are a Tier 1/2. Get some top tier ones:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'll stick to my DvD. Too much detail is sometimes bad. You'll regret it when you start to notice moles and other unsightly smudges from otherwise beautiful actors.

Amen my brother. I won't even watch a movie in the movie theater because I don't want to see the detail. I prefer to watch movies on VHS (my buddy dubs them from a friend who dubs them from a friend).

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

When they see a movie specially designed for blu-ray they think its the higher resolution that makes it look better. They dont know that the image quality of the DVD version was deliberately lowered just to make the blu-ray seem better.
/rant

You're out of touch with reality.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Chris
Blu-ray on a good HD CRT must be amazing. Most of the people who complain that they don't need Blu-ray are playing on shitty 34" LCDs. lol

I'm using a CRT.

 

[mrrman]

HD was better

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: mrrman
HD was better

not sure what is worse, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist still trying to get others to believe explosives brought down the towers or an HD DVD fan boy who can't just let it go...

 

[Duddy]

CRT and... Blu-Ray?

...

CRT?

No thanks, happy with my overpriced 52" 1080p Bravia.

 

[CFster]

Originally posted by: mrrman
HD was better

Why exactly is that?

Is it HDs 30GB max disc size vs. BRs 50GB?

Is it HDs 36.55 Mbit/s max raw bitrate vs. BRs 53.95 Mbit/s?

Is it HDs 29.4 Mbit/s max video bitrate vs. BRs 40.0 Mbit/s?

Is it HDs 504 kbit/s max AC-3 audio bitrate vs. BRs 640 kbit/s?

Is it HDs 25p frame rate compatibility vs. BRs 24p (which is what most films are shot at)

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'll stick to my DvD. Too much detail is sometimes bad. You'll regret it when you start to notice moles and other unsightly smudges from otherwise beautiful actors.

Amen my brother. I won't even watch a movie in the movie theater because I don't want to see the detail. I prefer to watch movies on VHS (my buddy dubs them from a friend who dubs them from a friend).

true dat

I stare at the sun a few hours a day because I can still see moles on people when I am walking around and I find that offensive.

For the OP

Buy WALL - E

by far the best Blu-Ray ever imo

 

[AndroidVageta]

Did you actually look at the site you posted? All the movies I have are Tier 1.25-2.5...they all look amazing.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: AndroidVageta
Did you actually look at the site you posted? All the movies I have are Tier 1.25-2.5...they all look amazing.

They look good but they are blown away by Tier 0

 

[Reckoner]

Best blu-ray is kingdom of heaven

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Duddy
CRT and... Blu-Ray?

...

CRT?

No thanks, happy with my overpriced 52" 1080p Bravia.

Yes, CRT.

While they don't make CRT's as big as your 52" LCD TV, the picture quality on the XBR CRT is probably better.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Duddy
CRT and... Blu-Ray?

...

CRT?

No thanks, happy with my overpriced 52" 1080p Bravia.

Yes, CRT.

While they don't make CRT's as big as your 52" LCD TV, the picture quality on the XBR CRT is probably better.

true but when you are talking about 12 to 16 feet viewing distance the difference in size is too big to not consider

I'd only consider a screen that small at ~8 feet or less

 

[Strk]

Meh... I haven't even bought myself an HDTV yet. The Samsung Luxia line looks incredible though. I was staring at one the other day at Best Buy. $2k for the 40"

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: cpmer

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'll stick to my DvD. Too much detail is sometimes bad. You'll regret it when you start to notice moles and other unsightly smudges from otherwise beautiful actors.

Honestly comments like these are retarded. Every blu ray i've watched so doesn't have some super close up of a mole or something lol. Its about having a clear picture and vibrant colors. I've never seen a blu ray yet where I thought their was to much detail.

HINT: he only watches porn.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: So
I'm waiting for blu-ray movies to retail at $10 or less before I even consider a blu-ray.

considering that really hasn't even happened with DVD, unless you only buy shitty Full screen transfers at Wally World, you'll be waiting a long time. sales are consistent enough, and several can indeed be had below 10 bucks.

the ave. price I've paid is ~$17 per disc

here, check this out

how do those prices compare to general new releases on DVD over the previous 10 years? and just so you know, amazon's reported 30% savings on the standard price is bunk. Just shop around and you'll see that everything you've ever believed about BD pricing has been FUD.

 

[Regs]

I've gotten used to it. Though after watching 480i for a few hours, I find myself clinging back to 1080i or 1080p. Yes, the wow factor goes away after a few weeks, maybe a few short months.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I got it last week for 85 bucks.
Am totally unimpressed. But I knew I would be. Already saw it in Best Buy and some other places. I knew it would only make a difference if they deliberately put extra effort into the Blu-Ray version and gimped the DVD version.
They did exactly that with King Kong, so they could use it as a demo to push blu-ray.

I've already made this rant before and it pisses off the fanboys, so I'll keep it simple:
Resolution is NOT the same thing as image quality, and most people dont know the difference. When they see a movie specially designed for blu-ray they think its the higher resolution that makes it look better. They dont know that the image quality of the DVD version was deliberately lowered just to make the blu-ray seem better.
Blu-ray only guarantees higher resolution, NOT image quality. Image quality is pretty much hit or miss with most movies. They want you to assume you will get both and thats why you should buy all Blu-ray stuff.
I bought Princess Bride and Resovior Dogs (both the super-duper special Blu-ray editions) from walmart for dirt cheap. They are not superior quality and the higher resolution is pretty much wasted. Also, you can see an aweful lot of grain & speckles that dont exist on DVD movies. I was able to compare both to the DVD versions at the exact same time and its really nothing special, even with HDMI.
For reference, my DVD is connected by component, running at 480p.

/rant

because no one believes this anyway. you're making up a baseless accusation to support a worthless argument.

The real quality in HD media, your HD TV really isn't the resolution, but the color depth and contrast. Resolution is ~4th on the scale of what determines PQ.

If you're going to go after something, learn what the real argument is. Frankly, I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here, though.

honestly, all you have to do is compare the DVD of Ratatoullie with the BD. If you don't see the real difference in PQ, then you must have 1" cataracts on your eyes.

also, grain exists in film, that's a natural quality of the medium. Grain adds detail; that is completely lost in digital processing, which you see more often in overwrought, poorly-transferred DVDs. there are some BDs of course, that are also guilty of this travesty: Patton is probably the biggest example.

The best possible transfers, representing the highest PQ, preserve the natural grain of film.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Hacp
I'll stick to my DvD. Too much detail is sometimes bad. You'll regret it when you start to notice moles and other unsightly smudges from otherwise beautiful actors.

Amen my brother. I won't even watch a movie in the movie theater because I don't want to see the detail. I prefer to watch movies on VHS (my buddy dubs them from a friend who dubs them from a friend).

lol. recorded in EP, I hope. 4 movies on one tape! :laugh:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Reckoner
Best blu-ray is kingdom of heaven

it is quite good for a "lowly" MPEG-2, 24mpgs transfer.

audio is phenomenal.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: CFster

Originally posted by: mrrman
HD was better

Why exactly is that?

Is it HDs 30GB max disc size vs. BRs 50GB?

Is it HDs 36.55 Mbit/s max raw bitrate vs. BRs 53.95 Mbit/s?

Is it HDs 29.4 Mbit/s max video bitrate vs. BRs 40.0 Mbit/s?

Is it HDs 504 kbit/s max AC-3 audio bitrate vs. BRs 640 kbit/s?

Is it HDs 25p frame rate compatibility vs. BRs 24p (which is what most films are shot at)

Get your facts straight, HD DVD was perfectly compatible with 24p.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

because no one believes this anyway. you're making up a baseless accusation to support a worthless argument.

The real quality in HD media, your HD TV really isn't the resolution, but the color depth and contrast. Resolution is ~4th on the scale of what determines PQ.

If you're going to go after something, learn what the real argument is. Frankly, I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here, though.

honestly, all you have to do is compare the DVD of Ratatoullie with the BD. If you don't see the real difference in PQ, then you must have 1" cataracts on your eyes.

also, grain exists in film, that's a natural quality of the medium. Grain adds detail; that is completely lost in digital processing, which you see more often in overwrought, poorly-transferred DVDs. there are some BDs of course, that are also guilty of this travesty: Patton is probably the biggest example.

The best possible transfers, representing the highest PQ, preserve the natural grain of film.

I think he's expressing your idea but in different wording. Like me, I see a huge difference between Pirates of the Car. or Black Hawk down, compared to any new Batman movie which I think were disappointing transfers.