Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Atreyu]

IMO, if the studios keep on releasing messed up blus such as Chaplin and Uncle Buck, blu ray will always suffer an uphill battle. On both, if I wasn't told they were blus I never would have guessed. The studios want us to embrace blu ray, but how can we effectively do that will piss poor transfers. I'm sure I am not the only one who likes these older catalogue titles. Now I am not talking a Gone With The Wind restoration, but some thought and consideration on picture quality would be nice. I'd even be willing to pay a few more dollars to have these older titles look like blu rays. I was even surprised by this site's review of Rain Man.
With poor quality discs, some standard dvd owners still ask, "Why should I upgrade, there isn't a difference?" I understand their points of view. I feel sorry for any new blu ray owner whose first disc is either Chaplin or Uncle Buck, boy oh boy will they be disappointed.
If the studios want us to rebuy older titles when they hit blu, make them better quality, plain and simple.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Atreyu

IMO, if the studios keep on releasing messed up blus such as Chaplin and Uncle Buck, blu ray will always suffer an uphill battle. On both, if I wasn't told they were blus I never would have guessed. The studios want us to embrace blu ray, but how can we effectively do that will piss poor transfers. I'm sure I am not the only one who likes these older catalogue titles. Now I am not talking a Gone With The Wind restoration, but some thought and consideration on picture quality would be nice. I'd even be willing to pay a few more dollars to have these older titles look like blu rays. I was even surprised by this site's review of Rain Man.
With poor quality discs, some standard dvd owners still ask, "Why should I upgrade, there isn't a difference?" I understand their points of view. I feel sorry for any new blu ray owner whose first disc is either Chaplin or Uncle Buck, boy oh boy will they be disappointed.
If the studios want us to rebuy older titles when they hit blu, make them better quality, plain and simple.

It is a mess ,isn't it. The thing is studios are not going spends all kinds of money on making every title look good, at least catalog titles ,that is. I agree it shoundn't be that way, but it is. I don't follow you on Uncle Buck, it looks good, the issue with folks was the lack of a lossless track, not the PQ. The real issue is you have to know what went in to making this film, any film! Some catalog titles are true to source, some theres noting that can be done. Some studios ,in the case of Rainman,an old master was used. I think if studios can't do it right, wait till you can. I also think that some older titles like Rainman, just isn't important like it use to be. Maybe to us they are , but the bigger picture is ,i don't think people care, as will be the case of new titles now. Theres always movies that every new generation will want, and the studios will do there spending to make it look right, the fact is, what you want to happen ,isn't going too. Also Hollywood has never preserved film well. Some yes , but were losing great films everyday because of poor preservation. Who ever thought back in the 50's that in the 1980's people would want to watch movies on there tv's at home. The home video market was a shot in the dark back then. To everybody's surprise, it took off.

[Sponge-worthy]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

3. Dvd tech didn't introduce anything new in regards to physical appearance, it just copied the same disc diameter that cd's and vcd's used already, so how can and why should dvd tech take the credit for the convenience factor when it didn't come up with the idea. Discs with the same physical size had already be available for 20 years before dvd, dvd's weren't even the 1st to use discs for home video either.

Had home video distributors in the U.S. actually pushed such earlier technologies (for instance, VCD) to the extent of DVD--say, had Sony included VCD capability in the PSX--consumers may have adopted them.

Originally Posted by Cevolution

I've got no problem with people valuing the convenience factor that dvd's offered over vhs, what I have a problem with is when someones uses it as a reason (or excuse) why they don't really like blu-ray and why they think dvd is better, but the truth is vhs has no baring whatsoever on the important factors of comparing dvd's to blu-rays, especially since vhs is no longer a supported format.

I don't think anyone in this blu-ray.com forum dislikes Blu-ray or feels that DVD is a better product. The question of which is a more significant stride forward for consumers--DVD over VHS, or Blu-ray over DVD--within the home video market as a whole is an entirely separate issue.

[Atreyu]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

It is a mess ,isn't it. The thing is studios are not going spends all kinds of money on making every title look good, at least catalog titles ,that is. I agree it shoundn't be that way, but it is. I don't follow you on Uncle Buck, it looks good, the issue with folks was the lack of a lossless track, not the PQ. The real issue is you have to know what went in to making this film, any film! Some catalog titles are true to source, some theres noting that can be done. Some studios ,in the case of Rainman,an old master was used. I think if studios can't do it right, wait till you can. I also think that some older titles like Rainman, just isn't important like it use to be. Maybe to us they are , but the bigger picture is ,i don't think people care, as will be the case of new titles now. Theres always movies that every new generation will want, and the studios will do there spending to make it look right, the fact is, what you want to happen ,isn't going too. Also Hollywood has never preserved film well. Some yes , but were losing great films everyday because of poor preservation. Who ever thought back in the 50's that in the 1980's people would want to watch movies on there tv's at home. The home video market was a shot in the dark back then. To everybody's surprise, it took off.

I will agree with you on the fact that not all movies were shot with great attention. And Hollywood should take more care about preserving their product. You mention Rain Man is not as relavent today, maybe, maybe not but that is no excuse for not having properly remastered it like the mess with Uncle Buck and Chaplin. Just put a little effort into these older titles and dvd owners will see the value in upgrading to blu.
I also disagree when you say people do not care, if there was no care at all, we wouldn't have all these older films on home video to begin with. People buy blu ray for awesome picture and audio quality. Many people know that older films will never look as good as ones made today, but with a minimum of effort they can make them look fresher than ever before. Example: Warner did a minimum remastering of '10' with Dudley Moore and it looked great for it's age. A significant improvement over the standard dvd.
Don't just slap any old non remastered film onto blu ray and rave about how it gives us the purest and truest picture and sound.

[technique]

i don't see this format dying out for a long, long time well at least i hope it doesn't since i'm building a good collection now!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Teazle

I've always thought the move from analogue SD to digital SD was subtle,...

Fair enough. I think two of DVDs more apparent advantages were stability and clarity. It was similar to going from analog OTA to analog cable. Theoretically an analog cable signal wasn't all that different from an analog OTA signal but analog cable delivered a higher percentage of that theoretical maximum a higher percentage of the time (well, until providers got complacent, anyway).

Originally Posted by Teazle

...the jump from SD to HD enormous.

I agree but that's not exactly the jump we're talking about here. When I said the differences between DVD and BD can be pretty subtle and a case can be made that the jump from DVD to BD doesn't always have a wow factor I wasn't comparing a DVD played on a 21" CRT to a BD played on a 55" HDTV.

A lot of people are buying HD sets but not buying BD players and a lot of people with BD players are reluctant to upgrade titles they currently own on DVD and one of the reasons for that is DVDs can look awfully good on an HDTV.

Do they look as good as BDs? Again, no. Even in the closest calls BD has a significant edge. The Maltese Falcon BD is a definite step up from the DVD but a lot of the improvements are very subtle. It is nowhere near an enormous jump.

And there's no shortage of titles where that's the case.

[john_1958]

of course blu-ray will survive
nothing comes close to blu-rays quality

[mredman]

Originally Posted by john_1958

of course blu-ray will survive
nothing comes close to blu-rays quality

yep and with 3D blu rays now coming out. it will only make blu ray as a format that much stronger

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by octagon

Fair enough. I think two of DVDs more apparent advantages were stability and clarity. It was similar to going from analog OTA to analog cable. Theoretically an analog cable signal wasn't all that different from an analog OTA signal but analog cable delivered a higher percentage of that theoretical maximum a higher percentage of the time (well, until providers got complacent, anyway).



I agree but that's not exactly the jump we're talking about here. When I said the differences between DVD and BD can be pretty subtle and a case can be made that the jump from DVD to BD doesn't always have a wow factor I wasn't comparing a DVD played on a 21" CRT to a BD played on a 55" HDTV.

A lot of people are buying HD sets but not buying BD players and a lot of people with BD players are reluctant to upgrade titles they currently own on DVD and one of the reasons for that is DVDs can look awfully good on an HDTV.

Do they look as good as BDs? Again, no. Even in the closest calls BD has a significant edge. The Maltese Falcon BD is a definite step up from the DVD but a lot of the improvements are very subtle. It is nowhere near an enormous jump.

And there's no shortage of titles where that's the case.

Yes but those people in a lot of cases aren't buying a new tv for HD either, they mainly want an hdtv because they are more stylish and a nice edition to their home to make it look more modern, plus hdtv's can be put in more places because they are light weight and don't have a huge back behind the screen like crt tv's do.

[Canada]

Yes a lot of major films or fan favorites aren't even out yet

Star Wars, Titanic, Das Boot (personal favorite) isn't out in Region A, Jurassic Park Trilogy, Scarface, Deer Hunter (I know it's out) , Platoon, Indiana Jones Trilogy.

[thedarkangel1975]

there is always maysayers and doubters in everything. From politics, religon, to technology. The same arguements I hear here, I heard when DvD came out.

[KarstenSch]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

If this was true then why does a downscale BD to SD only on available BW look better then DVD?

Simple. The target environment was changed from DVD to BD. DVD was always targeted to a 50/60Hz CRT, BDs with a LCD, that have a higher internal color temperature and a different native color distribution.
CRTs and LCDs have totally different strengths and weaknesses. Resolution is only one of many factors. Only their combination is what we describe as Picture Quallity.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

We are discussing VHS vs DVD and how much better the image was.

That's the point. Even a TV from the 80s, when VHS was released, showed at once the dramatic difference with the DVD (Euro-AV or Scart connectors were already mandatory at that time for bigger TVs). Don't forget VHS had the worst image quality of the three competing video formats that were released at that time. Its capabilities were far below the capabilities of a PAL or NTSC Display.VHS was more targeted to the composite connectors at that time. All TVs with an Euro-AV connector already had the RGB capability on board, that was finally used by DVDs.The VHS capabilities were far below the capabilites of their SD Displays.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

where does the 4x and 2x come from? DVD is 480x720 and BD is 1080x1920 that makes 6x. Even if one uses PAL then it is 576x720 it is still 5x.

You count the amount of Data, that's not how we feel or interpret an image.
We don't see an image with four times more data as four times as good.
If you want to talk about the image quality it is often simplified by a different resolution context. In this context an increase of the resolution by 2 means, that a 1000x500 image becomes a 2000x1000 image. We don't really recognize a smaller increase. The next step always has to double resolution of its predecessor. So DVD was the next step after VHS, while HD was the next step after DVD, followed by 2k and 4k. There is simply no room between them.

But you have the problem that most people don't have rooms where you can place a 2k or 4k display.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by KarstenSch

But you have the problem that most people don't have rooms where you can place a 2k or 4k display.

Or not to mention the money to buy them

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by KarstenSch

Simple. The target environment was changed from DVD to BD. DVD was always targeted to a 50/60Hz CRT, BDs with a LCD, that have a higher internal color temperature and a different native color distribution.
CRTs and LCDs have totally different strengths and weaknesses. Resolution is only one of many factors. Only their combination is what we describe as Picture Quallity.

color temparature is imaterial, TV, LCD, Plasma, a corectly calibrated set should be the same and an incorectly calibrated set does not matter. I realy don't understand the point you are trying to make

That's the point. Even a TV from the 80s, when VHS was released, showed at once the dramatic difference with the DVD (Euro-AV or Scart connectors were already mandatory at that time for bigger TVs). Don't forget VHS had the worst image quality of the three competing video formats that were released at that time. Its capabilities were far below the capabilities of a PAL or NTSC Display.VHS was more targeted to the composite connectors at that time. All TVs with an Euro-AV connector already had the RGB capability on board, that was finally used by DVDs.The VHS capabilities were far below the capabilites of their SD Displays.

agree, except for the dramatic difference with DVD. Also even if one uses one of those TVs today one can see an improvement with BD over DVD

In this context an increase of the resolution by 2 means, that a 1000x500 image becomes a 2000x1000 image.

no, you can't even do basic math, the resolution of 1000x500 to 1000x1000 is a doubeling aor 2000x500 but 1000x500 to 2000x1000 is 4x and 480x720->1080x1920 is 6x and 576x720->1080x1920 is 5x

But you have the problem that most people don't have rooms where you can place a 2k or 4k display.

I don't understand your relation of resolution to room space, if someone buys a 42" 1080p set or a 42" 720p set (or 2k or 4k for that matter) how does it need more room?
Do you mean size of the display? well then I also don't get what you mean. Most people have a display that is way too small for the room. A 42" TV will be too small for pretty much any real room the min angle for SMPTE is 30 degrees and THX is 26 and they recommend 36 degree to be the min. That means that the furthest for THX allowable distance is 6.6' (2m) , SMPTE is 5.7' (1.7m) and THX recommended furthest distance is 4.7' (1.4m). Do people really have rooms that are that small even in Europe? Canada (poster just above) is a bit more on the ball with money being a factor, especially for 4k displays, but the reality is most people could afford to have bigger displays but they don't know about projection. (what I mean is that a 60" or 70" flat panel 1080p/720p set is expensive, but a projector t with the same resolution could be had near or even lower then a 42" flat panel of that resolution)

[Anthony P]

Talking about SMPTE and THX and since I needed to do some computations for the last post I decided to add a file that can help people calculate these stuff

size/distance is calculated using degrees, what that means is that if we make a triangle using the two edges (left and right) of the screen and a person sitting head on that the angle at the person should be X degrees. The narrower the angle the further the person is or the smaller the screen.

SMPTE is the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers: they recommend that the farthest seat be at no more then 30 degrees

THX probably does not need much explanation I am sure we have all seen the THX demo when seeing a movie, it is a certification that the theatre room has minimum standard in sound (obviously) but also in image, in order to pass THX certification the farthest viewer must be at 26 degrees and they recommend that it be 36 degrees.

Now obviously these are for theatres and at home anyone can do what they want, but if anyone is interested how they compare to these standards or is curious what they need to do to comply I attached an excel spread sheet.

You can either add the screen size or the distance to the screen and the file will do the rest for each of those three "standards". Also to make it easier the screen size can be width, diagonal 4:3 and diagonal 16:9. It also uses the same measuring unit all over the place, so if you enter a value in feet the corresponding values will be feet, if inches then inches and if meters then meters. (i.e. if you enter 42" 16:9 TV then it tells you that THX recommends you sit closer then 56.33" and if you enter you sit 10' away it will say that the image needs to be 6.5' or wider

[Leshita]

Part of me wants Blu-ray to be the last physical format as I have never invested as much money into any other video format before Blu-ray. However, I would not mind having 'one last format' to offer true archival quality for any film 4k resolution or lower. I just need to be sure that that format is the final physical format and that it gets as widely adopted as Blu-ray. I will then purchase all the films I really like and adore on the 4k format and leave the rest for digital distribution subscription like Netflix.

I would like Blu-ray to be stay relevant for as long as possible though.

[FlipperWasIrish]

IMO, Blu-ray will be around for at least 15-20 years. I doubt it will be the last physical format. But I don't expect to see the next one until 2020 (give or take 2-3 years).

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by Leshita

Part of me wants Blu-ray to be the last physical format as I have never invested as much money into any other video format before Blu-ray. However, I would not mind having 'one last format' to offer true archival quality for any film 4k resolution or lower. I just need to be sure that that format is the final physical format and that it gets as widely adopted as Blu-ray. I will then purchase all the films I really like and adore on the 4k format and leave the rest for digital distribution subscription like Netflix.

I would like Blu-ray to be stay relevant for as long as possible though.

The problem there is that all the films I really like and adore won't be available to purchase. This is where reality finally comes into play -- the studios will never place their libraries in the hands of the consumer (which is what a fictional mass 4K format would be responsible for). You are basically speculating that they would be willing to sell the public their masters for pennies. There is no business logic there, which is why such a mass 4K format will never exist.

My advice to you is this: Buy the films you adore on Blu-ray. Build your library now. The quality and variety of content Blu-ray offers (and will continue to offer as it keeps growing) will never be replicated by another mass commercial physical format. If you wish to own, Blu-ray is the format for you.

Pro-B

[Bk_Tan]

Blu-Ray cannot hope to achieve DVD-like sales because DVD is/was the catalogue king.

It was the most efficient use of space and time for home video, not to mention quality, and as it is/was the most successful commercial product ever, people who wanted to buy the movies of their past/childhood were satisfied. Think about it.

Evidently, when the jump to Blu is not as big as the VHS-to-DVD jump, people or the mainstream are satisfied with their DVD. Do remember that every title pre-1997 has already been mined and is now already nearly more than 15 years old. People bought it during the DVD boom and the popular titles, more than once, so there is no real need to upgrade once again, especially when the upconverted DVD looks good and the studio puts out half-arsed efforts.

Sure, they cannot and do not have the cash to remaster everything under the sun, but then why not concentrate on movies of a higher profile? Paramount mess up their premium titles, so why have any hope for them at all?

In my opinion the entire industry needs to be revamped. Film preservation has always been shoddy, and, as we all know, 50% of pre-1950 movies are lost and the number will continue to grow each year as movies not worth the archival time and which no one remembers/cares about rot away. Blu-Ray is a blessing as it ensures that 99% of movies from its inception will be preserved in HD and many more have now also been converted, Criterion are also an excellent example of preservation and value in catalogue. Unfortunately, they aren't a studio and so the problems in the industry still remain.

Even in the beginning, anyone with half a brain should've realized that in the long term, sales would have to rely on the new releases. This means that sales will or would be directly proportionate to box office and thus quality of movies. Sure, back when there was no home video and studios destroyed their own movies knowingly, they might not have forseen it, but with the technology boom from the 80s you'd know that the global direction was toward efficiency and thus there would be a time where their movies would be spent and greater efforts are needed to promote quality to younger generations.

As the box office is currently in the toilet, sales will continue to drop overall, and even if ticket sales are up, the overall market will continue to fall until it reaches a sustainable year-on-year level. This means that, now more than ever, studios need to release movies that people will want to see and therefore may buy later on. The same crappy releases of a few years prior, may finally no longer be enough as it is compounded by the growing piracy and numerous ways to obtain a movie. When value for money drops, evidently it will be harder to make profit on the same schtick. Yes, the audience may be different, and they might have not seen the crap on offer before which might make the crap on offer now a success, but, they also have grown up in a generation or climate where the line between legal and illegal is blurred in terms of downloads so it will be hard to get them into the theatre and shop if quality continues to be dubious.

[Dwayne]

This outstanding format will die if you people dont stop complaining about the catalog titles dont look like Avatar!!!!!! Lets be happy that they are even transfering what they are onto Blu-ray. These older titles are never going to look like the newer releases and even some of them dont look all that great. I will agree that there is some problems with a few areas of the Blu-ray format but lets not forget that this is still a NEW FORMAT. Ask yourself one question : WHY DID YOU CONVERT OVER TO THIS BLU-RAY FORMAT IN THE FIRST PLACE. The number one answer should be the Outstanding picture quality and the Bomb-Bastic Audio. For whatever reason that made you convert one thing is for sure and that is IT WILL GO AWAY IF WE STOP SUPPORTING IT. Stop complaining about the comparisons of BD disc over DVDs. The two formats are completely different and at this time and maybe forever WE NEED BOTH FORMATS. Hell the price of this format when it first came out was only for people with money, NOW LOOK AT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets stop all the crap and enjoy what they have created for us and SUPPORT IT because you will never get the format to re-design itself for your taste. I myself have invested alot of time and money into this technology and it would piss me off if it went away. DEAL WITH IT, BE HAPPY AND SUPPORT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!