OMFG BLU-RAY IS AMAZING!!!

[ViviTheMage]

same thing happened when I went from 480i TV to 1080p......wow, HD is oh so much better looking...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: 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.

but the Batman BD are still superior to the DVD, despite how disappointing they may be. It's not some ridiculous conspiracy, either--TDK print is flawed due to the scaling used to compensate for the switch from 35mm to 70mm and back, so there's no getting around it.

He argued that grain = bad, which is far from the truth, and the exact opposite of my point....

he also seems to claim that DVDs released years before BD hit the market were deliberately borked to make the BD look better....WTF? that doesn't happen in current releases either. some DVDs have always been terrible, some are actually incredibly good.

 

[CZroe]

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.

Absolutely correct.

I have both the 480p/1080i XBR910 CRT with SFP tube and the "overpriced 52" Bravia" 1080p 52XBR2 LCD. The XBR910 wipes the floor with the 52" in terms of picture quality (not to mention, best integrated audio of any TV ever made), despite the LCD being more than twice the price ($5,000 compared to $2,300). Comparing black levels and SD content make it particularly obvious. In fact, when I first got the XBR910, the SFP tube (also used in the XS and the XBR960) was the absolute best tube in the industry and remained so until Sony left the CRT business a couple years later. AFAIK, it remains so even today. Not only that, but it was rated the absolute best picture quality of any HDTV PERIOD, despite having all the shortcomings of a typical true-flat CRT (overscan, imperfect geometry, etc). Not just "the best of any CRT" mind you, but the best of any HDTV that existed.

Watch the Digital Video Essentials calibration BD and you'll see that HD specs were designed for CRT and LCDs simply cannot replicate the picture to match production equipment standards.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: 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.

but the Batman BD are still superior to the DVD, despite how disappointing they may be. It's not some ridiculous conspiracy, either--TDK print is flawed due to the scaling used to compensate for the switch from 35mm to 70mm and back, so there's no getting around it.

He argued that grain = bad, which is far from the truth, and the exact opposite of my point....

he also seems to claim that DVDs released years before BD hit the market were deliberately borked to make the BD look better....WTF? that doesn't happen in current releases either. some DVDs have always been terrible, some are actually incredibly good.

Well, I'm a novice myself when it comes to filmatography or digital encoding, so I too catch myself making yoo many rhetorical arguments.

 

[pontifex]

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

yeah. right now the entry point is too expensive for me. i haven't actually sat down in front of a blu-ray player and watched anything yet, but my DVDs look pretty damn good to me on my DVD player and TV (i don't even have top of the line stuff). i have a Philips upconverting DVD player and 30" 1080i CRT HDTV.

I might switch if they get good Blu-ray players for $100 or less.

 

[0roo0roo]

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

woah self pwnage to the max....

bluray is 6 times the resolution of dvd. there is no reason to nerf the dvd. theres no need. resolution is a very important factor in image quality, if you don't admit this you are just bonkers to be frank. even the color resolution is higher with bluray. your post makes no sense at all. the only thing thats not garranteed is the output device, and many hdtv's do not resolve full hd. especially many of the cheap crt "hdtv's" which were sold in the last days of crt. if you are trying to say that bluray is going beyond the resolution of the film so all you get is dirt you are still wrong. film resolution is higher than hd. yes there are a few bad transfers just as in the early days of dvd there were some bad dvd transfers of film that didn't look that great, but that is the minority and no reason to slam an entire format.

the only crt made that even approached the ability of being able to resolve real hd resolution were the sony super fine pitch tvs. even then it was only better than what the other cr@ppy crts could do, not the full amount possible. most crt tvs sold as hd could be best described as edtv's. 540p would be a generous rating. i get the feeling you are something lousy

 

[Rudee]

Originally posted by: 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

Exactly. Those titles aren't the best quality of Bluray available.

 

[Bill Brasky]

The detail in WALL-E is just insane, and it's a good story too. I'd highly recommend it.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
While they don't make CRT's as big as your 52" LCD TV, the picture quality on the XBR CRT is probably better.

The PQ of XBR CRT kills even Pioneer Kuros. If only they didn't weigh 1000lbs and were size limited. :heart: CRT.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: 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.

he lost credibility with me when he said king kong was used to push blu-ray.
that was hd-dvd, not bd.

 

[tk149]

Some will disagree with me, but there are some scenes in Planet Earth which are just jaw-droppingly amazing.

Curse of the Golden Flower is on AVS's Tier 1.75 - Zhang Yimou (the director) loves using colors, and this flick is no exception.

 

[Duddy]

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.

I have crap eyes. CRT's cause way too much strain on mine and it's probably the reason I'm wearing glasses today.

Got my 1st computer, and a year later I had to get glasses.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Duddy

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.

I have crap eyes. CRT's cause way too much strain on mine and it's probably the reason I'm wearing glasses today.

Got my 1st computer, and a year later I had to get glasses.

Just curious. Did you try different CRT's with higher refresh rates? I've heard some people can't stand lower refresh rates.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
While they don't make CRT's as big as your 52" LCD TV, the picture quality on the XBR CRT is probably better.

The PQ of XBR CRT kills even Pioneer Kuros. If only they didn't weigh 1000lbs and were size limited. :heart: CRT.

...you're going to have to qualify that. not that I've compared these CRTs, but after having seen a calibrated Pro-151FD, I find this statement extremely humorous and ill-informed. again, I'm not saying I've seen one of these glorious ...36"? CRTs, but to not consider that the capability of the Kuro outstrips any CRT in every category, except blacks. Can they even provide comparable color depth?

...and to even compare a small screen that doesn't even benefit from a lot of HD is laughable. Of Course it looks sharp when it's tiny in comparison.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: tk149
Some will disagree with me, but there are some scenes in Planet Earth which are just jaw-droppingly amazing.

Curse of the Golden Flower is on AVS's Tier 1.75 - Zhang Yimou (the director) loves using colors, and this flick is no exception.

This is the first BD I saw--picked it up blind with 300 the day I bought my PS3. First impressions are always big, of course, but it's still a good impression. the colors are ridiculous.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: tk149
Some will disagree with me, but there are some scenes in Planet Earth which are just jaw-droppingly amazing.

Curse of the Golden Flower is on AVS's Tier 1.75 - Zhang Yimou (the director) loves using colors, and this flick is no exception.

This is the first BD I saw--picked it up blind with 300 the day I bought my PS3. First impressions are always big, of course, but it's still a good impression. the colors are ridiculous.

300 is not a good movie for a first impression on Blu-Ray. It was filmed grainy on purpose.

 

[DVad3r]

I've been considering getting one for my PC too. I used to be up to date with PC hardware and stuff but now I must admit I'm a bit of a noob, so my question is:

Do I need a monitor that supports BLU-RAY to get the full experience and video card? Right now I've got a 4870 Radeon and a 20 inch Dell widescreen LCD, forget which one it is but it was one of the "bad ass" ones that everyone wanted when it came out.

 

[Corbett]

I've had a Bluray player for about a year now and I actually think compared to DVD its overrated. The media is waaaaay too expensive when comparing cost/quality ratio with DVD.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: DVad3r
I've been considering getting one for my PC too. I used to be up to date with PC hardware and stuff but now I must admit I'm a bit of a noob, so my question is:

Do I need a monitor that supports BLU-RAY to get the full experience and video card? Right now I've got a 4870 Radeon and a 20 inch Dell widescreen LCD, forget which one it is but it was one of the "bad ass" ones that everyone wanted when it came out.

Download cyberlink blue ray advisor and it will tell you if your PC/Monitor combination is HD capable. If that fails, buy Any DVD HD from slysoft.

 

[DVad3r]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: DVad3r
I've been considering getting one for my PC too. I used to be up to date with PC hardware and stuff but now I must admit I'm a bit of a noob, so my question is:

Do I need a monitor that supports BLU-RAY to get the full experience and video card? Right now I've got a 4870 Radeon and a 20 inch Dell widescreen LCD, forget which one it is but it was one of the "bad ass" ones that everyone wanted when it came out.

Download cyberlink blue ray advisor and it will tell you if your PC/Monitor combination is HD capable. If that fails, buy Any DVD HD from slysoft.

This is what I got, good?

Check Item BD Ready? Info
CPU : AMD Phenom(tm) 8400 Triple-Core Processor Yes
__dwItemID=1001__ : szLibCPUName = AMD Phenom(tm) 8400 Triple-Core Processor
__dwItemID=1002__ : dwLibClockRate = 2109
__dwItemID=1003__ : dwLibFamily = 15, dwLibModel=2, dwLibStepping=2
__dwItemID=1004__ : dwLibNumPhysicalProc = 3, dwLibNumCorePerPackage=1, dwLibNumLogicalPerCore=1
__dwItemID=1005__ : dwLibCorePerPackage = 3, dwLibTotalLogicals=3
__dwItemID=1006__ : szWMIName=AMD Phenom(tm) 8400 Triple-Core Processor
__dwItemID=1007__ : szWMIManufacturer=AuthenticAMD
__dwItemID=1008__ : dwWMIMaxClockSpeed=2109
__dwItemID=1009__ : bBatteryExist=0
__dwItemID=1010__ : szGuess=
CPU (Hardware acceleration) : ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Yes
System Memory : 3072 MB Yes
Operating System : Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Yes
Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Yes
__dwItemID=1301__ : Adapter Compatibility: ATI Technologies Inc.
__dwItemID=1302__ : VideoProcessor: ATI Radeon Graphics Processor (0x9440)
Graphics card video memory : 512 MB
Graphics Card Driver : 8.541.0.0 Yes
__dwItemID=1501__ : 2D Driver=7.01.01.830
__dwItemID=1502__ : COPP=Yes
__dwItemID=1503__ : RGBOverlay=Yes
__dwItemID=1504__ : DEVICE=N/A
__dwItemID=1601__ : Driver 0:
__dwItemID=1602__ : [E:] Optiarc DVD RW AD-7203A
__dwItemID=1603__ : eHCMDrvType=0x00006fc7
__dwItemID=1604__ : CDRom=1 DVDRom=1 BDRom=0 HDDVDRom=0
Blu-ray Disc Drive : Not found No More Info
Software Player : Not found No More Info
Video Connection Type : Digital (without HDCP) No More Info
Program version : 2.0.1001.0
System language : 0409 ENU English English
Time : Sun Apr 19 22:05:50 2009
Computer : Desktop
System Name : ADMIRAL-PC


My monitor is DVI, but what is HDCP? I guess I need a new monitor?

 

[DVad3r]

Dell 2005 FPW is my monitor...

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: DVad3r

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: DVad3r
I've been considering getting one for my PC too. I used to be up to date with PC hardware and stuff but now I must admit I'm a bit of a noob, so my question is:

Do I need a monitor that supports BLU-RAY to get the full experience and video card? Right now I've got a 4870 Radeon and a 20 inch Dell widescreen LCD, forget which one it is but it was one of the "bad ass" ones that everyone wanted when it came out.

Download cyberlink blue ray advisor and it will tell you if your PC/Monitor combination is HD capable. If that fails, buy Any DVD HD from slysoft.

This is what I got, good?

Check Item BD Ready? Info
CPU : AMD Phenom(tm) 8400 Triple-Core Processor Yes
__dwItemID=1001__ : szLibCPUName = AMD Phenom(tm) 8400 Triple-Core Processor
__dwItemID=1002__ : dwLibClockRate = 2109
__dwItemID=1003__ : dwLibFamily = 15, dwLibModel=2, dwLibStepping=2
__dwItemID=1004__ : dwLibNumPhysicalProc = 3, dwLibNumCorePerPackage=1, dwLibNumLogicalPerCore=1
__dwItemID=1005__ : dwLibCorePerPackage = 3, dwLibTotalLogicals=3
__dwItemID=1006__ : szWMIName=AMD Phenom(tm) 8400 Triple-Core Processor
__dwItemID=1007__ : szWMIManufacturer=AuthenticAMD
__dwItemID=1008__ : dwWMIMaxClockSpeed=2109
__dwItemID=1009__ : bBatteryExist=0
__dwItemID=1010__ : szGuess=
CPU (Hardware acceleration) : ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Yes
System Memory : 3072 MB Yes
Operating System : Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Yes
Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Yes
__dwItemID=1301__ : Adapter Compatibility: ATI Technologies Inc.
__dwItemID=1302__ : VideoProcessor: ATI Radeon Graphics Processor (0x9440)
Graphics card video memory : 512 MB
Graphics Card Driver : 8.541.0.0 Yes
__dwItemID=1501__ : 2D Driver=7.01.01.830
__dwItemID=1502__ : COPP=Yes
__dwItemID=1503__ : RGBOverlay=Yes
__dwItemID=1504__ : DEVICE=N/A
__dwItemID=1601__ : Driver 0:
__dwItemID=1602__ : [E:] Optiarc DVD RW AD-7203A
__dwItemID=1603__ : eHCMDrvType=0x00006fc7
__dwItemID=1604__ : CDRom=1 DVDRom=1 BDRom=0 HDDVDRom=0
Blu-ray Disc Drive : Not found No More Info
Software Player : Not found No More Info
Video Connection Type : Digital (without HDCP) No More Info
Program version : 2.0.1001.0
System language : 0409 ENU English English
Time : Sun Apr 19 22:05:50 2009
Computer : Desktop
System Name : ADMIRAL-PC


My monitor is DVI, but what is HDCP? I guess I need a new monitor?

High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection

No need for a new monitor if you use Slysoft Any DVD HD. The software removes the content protection on the fly.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: 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.

The only movies I've paid $17 for this decade have been the Futurama movies, and that was release week.

 

[theblackbox]

i picked up a lg blu ray burner that burns bd and can play both hddvd and bd when circuit city was closing, it was in an external buffalo box for 123 bucks. tore it open and stuck it in my mac.

i think watching blu-ray n a pc is kind of silly unless the pc is connected to a 42"+ monitor. i think blu ray starts to show its quality on big screens, on a 24 inch screen not so much.

i use mine for recording footage. i normally record full hd on dvd, but if i need more then 40 minutes, i'll go to a blu-ray disk.

tomorrow i have the planet of the apes collector set that amazon had for 60 bucks, i can't wait.


the movie that sold me on blu-ray on the bigger screen with incredible sound was cloverfield. that has to be one of the best audio and video transfers to date.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 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.

The only movies I've paid $17 for this decade have been the Futurama movies, and that was release week.

Then you were a late adopter of DVD too. Even though DVD was technically "available" since '96, I paid damn-near $40 after tax for The Prince of Egypt and A Bug's Life back in '99. At least The Matrix was cheaper, but it was an exception to the $35 "rule" back then. FWIW, all three were AMAZING experiences on DVD (I had a kick-ass Sigma Designs RealMagic Hollywood+ decoder card outputting to VGA/TV).