how Blu-ray movies are differed?

[hiren43]

i would rather download movies in 1080p than 720p to watch on my Nexus 5. i can see the difference.

what about blu ray technology? does it improve sound a lot?

and i think when movie is filmed, the size would be around 15 GB or something. but people dub them to reduce size. so do i really need to watch movies in original formatted film to get the best quality?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by hiren43

i would rather download movies in 1080p than 720p to watch on my Nexus 5. i can see the difference.

what about blu ray technology? does it improve sound a lot?

and i think when movie is filmed, the size would be around 15 GB or something. but people dub them to reduce size. so do i really need to watch movies in original formatted film to get the best quality?

Are you on the wind up?

[Kirsty_Mc]

Downloads troll!!!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Downloads troll!!!

That's what I was thinking. Why join a bluray site if you don't know the first thing about bluray? I wouldn't join a rolls Royce forum if I was interested in skodas!

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That's what I was thinking. Why join a bluray site if you don't know the first thing about bluray? I wouldn't join a rolls Royce forum if I was interested in skodas!

If the original OP is interested, and wants to learn everything about blu-ray technology, then they've joined the right forum. This is a blu-ray website isn't it? The OP is a new member, so be patient and considerate. How else is a person is going to learn anything new, if they don't ask questions.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That's what I was thinking. Why join a bluray site if you don't know the first thing about bluray? I wouldn't join a rolls Royce forum if I was interested in skodas!

Is that a type of car? Never heard of it.

[hiren43]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That's what I was thinking. Why join a bluray site if you don't know the first thing about bluray? I wouldn't join a rolls Royce forum if I was interested in skodas!

what you guys are talking about huh? i had a doubt about blu-ray thats why i did. And you only join a forum when you want to learn about that. not necessary to be expert for that.

Originally Posted by Kirsty_Mc

Downloads troll!!!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by hiren43

what you guys are talking about huh?

hiren, we have a forum specifically devoted to basic questions about Blu-ray for new membership, 3rd from the bottom…https://forum.blu-ray.com/ , specifically ‘Newbie Discussion’.

Steed and Kirsty may have come off somewhat combative but they’re good fellows and you have to understand that nerves are a bit frazzled here in the Tech forum as there has been a recent, constant *thing* with streaming vs. Blu-ray…an attack, if you will, since May 1st ( https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ft#post9133468 ) on top of the more usual nuisance of some members just using the Tech forum as a vehicle for their *15 min. of fame*.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by hiren43

i would rather download movies in 1080p than 720p to watch on my Nexus 5. i can see the difference.

what about blu ray technology? does it improve sound a lot?

and i think when movie is filmed, the size would be around 15 GB or something. but people dub them to reduce size. so do i really need to watch movies in original formatted film to get the best quality?

The problem is that 1080p downloads or streaming can't touch BD's PQ or AQ with a 10 foot pole. A typical 2 hour movie from a BD usually runs around 20-25 GBs give or take.

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by hiren43

i would rather download movies in 1080p than 720p to watch on my Nexus 5. i can see the difference.

what about blu ray technology? does it improve sound a lot?

and i think when movie is filmed, the size would be around 15 GB or something. but people dub them to reduce size. so do i really need to watch movies in original formatted film to get the best quality?

A little confused by the wording; I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "original formatted film." I can tell you that when a movie is shot, the size is a TON more than 15GB. Professional cameras shoot at ridiculously high bitrates, making for great quality but huge files that aren't practical for home use.

These are made smaller by using digital compression, which, in simple terms, does a ton of complex calculations to adjust the video file so it takes up less space. To do this, though, it will have to change, simplify, or discard some of the data, which reduces the quality. A poorly-compressed video, or one that just has a lot of compression, can look soft, blurry, or have the picture break up into big "blocks" on the screen that can be quite ugly and distracting. Using less and/or better compression helps avoid this to keep the picture looking as good and sharp as it can.

Streaming video, iTunes and Vudu downloads, UltraViolet, "digital copies" and especially YouTube use relatively high compression that typically results in some problems with the video, which is called "artifacting." Blu-rays have a lot of storage space (25 or 50 GB depending on the disc), which still isn't nearly enough to use uncompressed video. However, it is enough to allow much less, better compression. In the vast majority of cases, this means a Blu-ray will look better than a streaming/downloaded version of the same movie as more of the original image information is there, resulting in fewer artifacts and a better picture.

Blu-ray also improves sound the same way; in fact, most Blu-rays have lossless sound that theoretically sounds exactly the same as it did in the studio where the sound was mastered.

So yes, if you want the best quality, you will almost always need a Blu-ray, which almost always looks better than a streamed or downloaded copy. The difference varies a lot from movie to movie though, and some people don't mind the difference and just stick to digital copies. If you're watching movies exclusively on your phone, obviously, Blu-ray isn't an option - and at that tiny screen size, on a device not specifically made for watching video, I doubt the difference would be too huge.

But if you're watching on an HDTV (which you really should be; there's no comparison between sitting back and watching something on a decent-sized screen and holding a little one up to your face), then Blu-ray will make a difference.

[hiren43]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

A little confused by the wording; I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "original formatted film." I can tell you that when a movie is shot, the size is a TON more than 15GB. Professional cameras shoot at ridiculously high bitrates, making for great quality but huge files that aren't practical for home use.

These are made smaller by using digital compression, which, in simple terms, does a ton of complex calculations to adjust the video file so it takes up less space. To do this, though, it will have to change, simplify, or discard some of the data, which reduces the quality. A poorly-compressed video, or one that just has a lot of compression, can look soft, blurry, or have the picture break up into big "blocks" on the screen that can be quite ugly and distracting. Using less and/or better compression helps avoid this to keep the picture looking as good and sharp as it can.

Streaming video, iTunes and Vudu downloads, UltraViolet, "digital copies" and especially YouTube use relatively high compression that typically results in some problems with the video, which is called "artifacting." Blu-rays have a lot of storage space (25 or 50 GB depending on the disc), which still isn't nearly enough to use uncompressed video. However, it is enough to allow much less, better compression. In the vast majority of cases, this means a Blu-ray will look better than a streaming/downloaded version of the same movie as more of the original image information is there, resulting in fewer artifacts and a better picture.

Blu-ray also improves sound the same way; in fact, most Blu-rays have lossless sound that theoretically sounds exactly the same as it did in the studio where the sound was mastered.

So yes, if you want the best quality, you will almost always need a Blu-ray, which almost always looks better than a streamed or downloaded copy. The difference varies a lot from movie to movie though, and some people don't mind the difference and just stick to digital copies. If you're watching movies exclusively on your phone, obviously, Blu-ray isn't an option - and at that tiny screen size, on a device not specifically made for watching video, I doubt the difference would be too huge.

But if you're watching on an HDTV (which you really should be; there's no comparison between sitting back and watching something on a decent-sized screen and holding a little one up to your face), then Blu-ray will make a difference.

thats what an answer i was looking for. by wording 'original formarted' i meant digital copy of those professional cameras they are using.

i thought blu-ray would hold up the original digital copy as it can hold around 25 GB. but movies still are compressed for blu-ray discs. maybe cuz of the TV or blu-ray play which can not support playing such high bitrate videos?

do they use original digital copy to telecast in movie theaters? (i don't think so

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by hiren43

i thought blu-ray would hold up the original digital copy as it can hold around 25 GB. but movies still are compressed for blu-ray discs. maybe cuz of the TV or blu-ray play which can not support playing such high bitrate videos?

a film with uncompressed 1080p video will be around 500Gb/h, so yes BDs are compressed. A BD disk can be either SL 25GB or DL 50GB and today most films come on DL BD and so the film will be 30-40GB on the disk also some longer films ( EE of the LOTR films, Cleopatra, Moses, Ben-Hur....) are split on two BD 50's

do they use original digital copy to telecast in movie theaters? (i don't think so

In a digital theatre the files will be compressed but they could be over 400GB, and at least until recently (don't know if there is now a different delivery method, I know some wanted to move to DL)) the way it worked was that studio would ship a hard drive with the film on it to the theatre.

[hiren43]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

a film with uncompressed 1080p video will be around 500Gb/h, so yes BDs are compressed. A BD disk can be either SL 25GB or DL 50GB and today most films come on DL BD and so the film will be 30-40GB on the disk also some longer films ( EE of the LOTR films, Cleopatra, Moses, Ben-Hur....) are split on two BD 50's


In a digital theatre the files will be compressed but they could be over 400GB, and at least until recently (don't know if there is now a different delivery method, I know some wanted to move to DL)) the way it worked was that studio would ship a hard drive with the film on it to the theatre.

shocked! 500gb/h. i'm only imagining how great the quality oh the movie with that much file size.

[hazelwu]

Originally Posted by hiren43

shocked! 500gb/h. i'm only imagining how great the quality oh the movie with that much file size.

Theater quality i guess

[hazelwu]

Originally Posted by hiren43

shocked! 500gb/h. i'm only imagining how great the quality oh the movie with that much file size.

Theater quality i guess

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

a film with uncompressed 1080p video will be around 500Gb/h

60 min. of uncompressed HD (4:4:4 RGB 10 bit 23.98 fps) requires about 670 GB of storage.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

(don't know if there is now a different delivery method, I know some wanted to move to DL)

Last Sept./Oct. the DCDC starting beaming some motion pictures down by satellite delivery. If memory serves, first one being Runner Runner and the most recent major feature having that delivery option being Transcendence. The thinking is that satellite delivery or terrestrial transmission will be cheaper than sending out hard drives to theaters.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

60 min. of uncompressed HD (4:4:4 RGB 10 bit 23.98 fps) requires about 670 GB of storage.

Yeah, I probably should have said over instead of around. But I could not be bothered to redo any of the math and there will always be a few variables (for example 8 bit video instead of 10 bit video, what do you add for audio.....).

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Last Sept./Oct. the DCDC starting beaming some motion pictures down by satellite delivery. If memory serves, first one being Runner Runner and the most recent major feature having that delivery option being Transcendence. The thinking is that satellite delivery or terrestrial transmission will be cheaper than sending out hard drives to theaters.

DL to theatres is one thing that I believe can work. For two reasons

1) a theatre can have large BW (more easily than a large portion of individuals)

2) it is not time critical (movie theatres plan the showings way in advance so if a film takes a day or two or even a bit more to DL it probably won't be an issue (realistically as long as the time needed would be the same or less as creating the HDDS and sending them you are no worst off)

[hiren43]

and yeah, i got 46' Bravia 3D tv and a ps3. so blu-ray is what i need to get the best out of it but i can't afford too much bucks on buying BRD as here in india they cost a lot. really

[Carlanga]

Originally Posted by hiren43

and yeah, i got 46' Bravia 3D tv and a ps3. so blu-ray is what i need to get the best out of it but i can't afford too much bucks on buying BRD as here in india they cost a lot. really

If you have money for a 3D 46" TV and a PS3 in India, but you don't have money for BDs . Nevertheless, the difference in quality is big enough between "1080" digital vs BD and once you watch them side by side you will want your favorites on BD. I usually get what I really like in BD and the rest on Digital, unless I get them for cheap on BD then I just go the BD route. Keeps my physical collection smaller.