Blu-rays are 8 years old and DVDs still cling to them like a cancerous tumor. Why?

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by singhcr

For analog sourced soundtracks, you can get a great improvement going from 48 KHz to 192 KHz, but you are right when you say that almost every current release is stuck at 48 KHz. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to upsample it, though.

If they wanted to, they could go to 32-bit sampling or use DSD or something like that, but in reality I don't see any improvement on the audio end for 4KBD. Maybe at the least they could mandate 24-bit sample rates as a minimum standard?

To be honest, even on HiFi rigs dedicated to music, 192 KHz is not even agreed upon (not saying it's not better). But in a movie soundtrack blasted, many can't tell the difference between core DTS and DTS-HD MA.

24 bits though would be great, smooth out the whole frequency range some.
But unless a new process comes out (previous post, or Atmos for home), I am more than satisfied with lossless now and would still upgrade to UHD when they add better specs.

[coljohnmatrix]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

DVD has other advantages as well. Loading times are quicker and far more movies are viable to release on the format (which is why DVD still releases five times as many titles per year). Plus you have the back library of over 100k releases.

DVD is also able to release on DVD-r, making virtually any release viable. Warner Fox and Universal DVD archive programs release hundreds of new-to-DVD every year, that otherwise would not be possible with pressed discs. They can't do it on Blu-ray because there are too many incompatible players out there. So that limitation really throttles what's viable, not to mention that the more exacting standards of Blu-ray means that they need to be remastered and cleaned up more as 1080p brings out the flaws more.

Loading times are pretty much a non-issue unless you have a super cheap player with dated technology, and even then, not having to wait an extra 10 seconds is hardly an advantage considering the vastly improved presentation you're getting. VHS didn't have any load times at all...does that make it better? I'll gladly wait a few extra seconds and get a 1080p presentation with lossless sound. I have a 5 year old PS3 and rarely experience any noticeable load times.

Are you arguing that it is cheaper or easier for studios to press films to DVD-Rs than it is for them to press to blu-ray discs? That may be true, but I haven't seen any information from the studios to verify that. Plus, is "studios can churn out standard-def unremastered copies of film on a dated technology for cheaper" really an advantage? It's an advantage for studios, not the consumer.

"They can't do it on Blu-ray because there are too many incompatible players out there." This is false. All blu-ray discs in a corresponding region are compatible with all blu-ray players for that region. 99% of compatibility issues were ironed out years ago. Plus, all blu-ray players read DVDs, so whats the problem?

"The more exacting standards of Blu-ray means that they need to be remastered and cleaned up more as 1080p brings out the flaws more."

If you prefer your films muddy and blurry, that's your choice. I think the fact that the clarity and resolution of DVDs isn't good enough to reveal flaws in the production or makeup is a huge disadvantage, not a benefit. I want my films as true to the original presentation as possible, which is a high-resolution film print, not a heavily compressed DVD. Any film that's going to be released to a new format, especially HD, requires a good cleanup - this is beneficial to the consumer and beneficial for films. Discouraging that process stymies film preservation and the advancement of home media formats. Why wouldn't you want the best possible copy of a film? Studios will gladly spend money on proper restorations if there is a market for them.

Also, the fact that there is a backlog of DVD titles that haven't been released on blu-ray still isn't a reason not to upgrade to blu-ray. In fact, none of these are, when you consider that blu-ray players read DVDs. More and more catalog titles get released in HD every year, just as it was when DVD replaced VHS. Any film fan should rejoice on the day that DVD is phased out for good and permanently replaced by blu-ray, it's vastly superior successor.

[Naiera]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

And since DVD players don't typically have HDMI connections, you can understand why I said what I said in choice of cables.

DVD players do very typically have HDMI output.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Naiera

DVD players do very typically have HDMI output.

Only in recent years, about two or three years AFTER the introduction of Blu-ray Disc players. How many people are going to buy a new DVD player when they could just buy a BD player? No DVD players sold before the introduction of BD players had HDMI. Plus they are usually marketed as "upconverted DVD players" NOT "DVD players" so what I said is 100% true from a certain point of view.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

Only in recent years, about two or three years AFTER the introduction of Blu-ray Disc players. How many people are going to buy a new DVD player when they could just buy a BD player? No DVD players sold before the introduction of BD players had HDMI. Plus they are usually marketed as "unconverted Advd players" NOT "DVD players" so what I said is 100% true from a certain point of view.

Actually you did have DVD players with HDMI as early as 2005. They were higher end players but they did exist.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Actually you did have DVD players with HDMI as early as 2005. They were higher end players but they did exist.

I've never seen any on store shelves. Not until years layer. But I'll take your word for it, and withdraw my protest.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

I've never seen any on store shelves. Not until years layer. But I'll take your word for it, and withdraw my protest.

It did take a bit for the HDMI upconverter players to reach mainstream, but Oppo, Denon, Marantz and H/K had them in 2005-2006. I still own 3 of those. It was also not unique to offer both HDMI and DVI on those. Some of the 1st ones only did video through HDMI though, but very few.

Also, and I am nore sure when it relates to DVD but a few years ago, the possibility of upscaling to 1080 through component has been removed (BD I'm sure, DVD I also believe) so you def need HDMI if you are to upconvert now.

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Gotta say, you are the 1st I ever heard say that the best improvement with BD is sound, video being a small plus for you. In no way can even the best and expensive upconverters dish out anything close to BD. As for the sound, while not trivial, many do play their BDs over their TV or a little sound bar, etc.

And, to answer your comment on audio, better is on its way. Nothing clear yet but real time object-based sound is in the works. If your curious about it just Google it, but the way the sound is mixed and processed will adapt to your specific setup as the aim is to place the "objects" in the sound field. If you have 5.1 it will use that to situate that sound. Go to 11.4 and it will just be more precise.

I do have to say, you are very affirmative for someone who seems to not know that much. I really don't mean to be rude, really, but do some more research and reading before you claim things, it's a great world to navigate through.

I can see your point, but you have come across as VERY rude. I'm sure your system is far superior to mine, but hey, to each his own. I prefer better audio than video.....so that's a preference not a fact.

I have to say, I've never been attacked like that for voicing my opinion. I'll never do it again. Since I am disabled I can't possibly take this continued abuse....my folks have less than 1 year to live and I need to hear your comments????????

What the heck are you people doing to me???.

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

It did take a bit for the HDMI upconverter players to reach mainstream, but Oppo, Denon, Marantz and H/K had them in 2005-2006. I still own 3 of those. It was also not unique to offer both HDMI and DVI on those. Some of the 1st ones only did video through HDMI though, but very few.

Also, and I am nore sure when it relates to DVD but a few years ago, the possibility of upscaling to 1080 through component has been removed (BD I'm sure, DVD I also believe) so you def need HDMI if you are to upconvert now.

GO **** YOURSELF - make another 7000 posts and feel smart.

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Actually you did have DVD players with HDMI as early as 2005. They were higher end players but they did exist.

your just a little know it all aren't you??

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

To be honest, even on HiFi rigs dedicated to music, 192 KHz is not even agreed upon (not saying it's not better). But in a movie soundtrack blasted, many can't tell the difference between core DTS and DTS-HD MA.

24 bits though would be great, smooth out the whole frequency range some.
But unless a new process comes out (previous post, or Atmos for home), I am more than satisfied with lossless now and would still upgrade to UHD when they add better specs.

if you can't tell the difference between DTS and DTS MA then your ****ing deaf or have inferior gear. Get a real system first- then make your claims and experiences.

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Gotta say, you are the 1st I ever heard say that the best improvement with BD is sound, video being a small plus for you. In no way can even the best and expensive upconverters dish out anything close to BD. As for the sound, while not trivial, many do play their BDs over their TV or a little sound bar, etc.

And, to answer your comment on audio, better is on its way. Nothing clear yet but real time object-based sound is in the works. If your curious about it just Google it, but the way the sound is mixed and processed will adapt to your specific setup as the aim is to place the "objects" in the sound field. If you have 5.1 it will use that to situate that sound. Go to 11.4 and it will just be more precise.

I do have to say, you are very affirmative for someone who seems to not know that much. I really don't mean to be rude, really, but do some more research and reading before you claim things, it's a great world to navigate through.

You are clearly not an audiophile. Stick to your HTIB or soundbar. Its NOT a great world to navigate through, trust me, when you get ill you'll realize that.

WHERES THE PICS OF YOUR GALLERY??? BIG TALKER

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by coljohnmatrix

Loading times are pretty much a non-issue unless you have a super cheap player with dated technology, and even then, not having to wait an extra 10 seconds is hardly an advantage considering the vastly improved presentation you're getting. VHS didn't have any load times at all...does that make it better? I'll gladly wait a few extra seconds and get a 1080p presentation with lossless sound. I have a 5 year old PS3 and rarely experience any noticeable load times.

Are you arguing that it is cheaper or easier for studios to press films to DVD-Rs than it is for them to press to blu-ray discs? That may be true, but I haven't seen any information from the studios to verify that. Plus, is "studios can churn out standard-def unremastered copies of film on a dated technology for cheaper" really an advantage? It's an advantage for studios, not the consumer.

"They can't do it on Blu-ray because there are too many incompatible players out there." This is false. All blu-ray discs in a corresponding region are compatible with all blu-ray players for that region. 99% of compatibility issues were ironed out years ago. Plus, all blu-ray players read DVDs, so whats the problem?

"The more exacting standards of Blu-ray means that they need to be remastered and cleaned up more as 1080p brings out the flaws more."

If you prefer your films muddy and blurry, that's your choice. I think the fact that the clarity and resolution of DVDs isn't good enough to reveal flaws in the production or makeup is a huge disadvantage, not a benefit. I want my films as true to the original presentation as possible, which is a high-resolution film print, not a heavily compressed DVD. Any film that's going to be released to a new format, especially HD, requires a good cleanup - this is beneficial to the consumer and beneficial for films. Discouraging that process stymies film preservation and the advancement of home media formats. Why wouldn't you want the best possible copy of a film? Studios will gladly spend money on proper restorations if there is a market for them.

Also, the fact that there is a backlog of DVD titles that haven't been released on blu-ray still isn't a reason not to upgrade to blu-ray. In fact, none of these are, when you consider that blu-ray players read DVDs. More and more catalog titles get released in HD every year, just as it was when DVD replaced VHS. Any film fan should rejoice on the day that DVD is phased out for good and permanently replaced by blu-ray, it's vastly superior successor.

I appreciate the improved PQ/AQ of Blu-ray just as much as you do. However Blu-ray is still limited in how much it can get out and what's feasible to release on the format, as I explained above. Whether you agree with it or not is your choice. The fact is though that the major studios will not release on BD-r but only pressed discs (too many incompatible players out there, such as the PS4 and Xb1). DVD-r has revived the DVD catalog output the last few years by the major studios, releasing thousands of titles that otherwise would not have been viable using pressed discs. Of course all these movies are fairly obscure and older, so you may not care about them. But the bottom line is that DVD still has, and will probably always have, a deeper library.

I don't watch DVD that much anymore, but when I do, it's only because a certain movie is not available on Blu-ray, and probably never likely to be (if I felt that it had a chance of being released soon I'd probably wait and watch something else).

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Krelldog1977

You are clearly not an audiophile. Stick to your HTIB or soundbar. Its NOT a great world to navigate through, trust me, when you get ill you'll realize that.

WHERES THE PICS OF YOUR GALLERY??? BIG TALKER

Just curious, how young are you, really?

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

To be honest, even on HiFi rigs dedicated to music, 192 KHz is not even agreed upon (not saying it's not better). But in a movie soundtrack blasted, many can't tell the difference between core DTS and DTS-HD MA.

24 bits though would be great, smooth out the whole frequency range some.
But unless a new process comes out (previous post, or Atmos for home), I am more than satisfied with lossless now and would still upgrade to UHD when they add better specs.

gee whiz....you are like a GOD on this site...to be honest. Do you even own a system?

[Cevolution]

^ You don't really seem to have an issue sharing your life problems, so what's the difference if you share your age

Honestly, I think you should consider distancing yourself from the site for a while (perhaps it's not the best place for you right now), and once you have sorted yourself out and are in a better head space, then return to the community. Also, you need to keep in mind that you're not the only one who has problems, I'm sure every member here has there fair share, that none of us are aware of.

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

^ You don't really seem to have an issue sharing your life problems, so what's the difference if you share your age

Honestly, I think you should consider distancing yourself from the site for a while (perhaps it's not the best place for you right now), and once you have sorted yourself out and are in a better head space, then return to the community. Also, you need to keep in mind that you're not the only one who has problems, I'm sure every member here has there fair share, that none of us are aware of.

That's true. I would like to return but this site is meant for just movie lovers, not audiophiles. So I will take your advice and certainly move on.

I'm not scared to post pics of my theater, but it seems that some people here are. If your gonna talk the talk....you should show your own stuff. that's my opinion.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Krelldog1977

Does Fuk off mean something different in Montreal? I'm sure you are much wiser than most on this site. So my age is none of your fuking business.

AGAIN....where's your awesome system????...looking forward to it. Maybe you can educate me on what speakers to get next...

You don't wanna come across as rude....then why did you??????????????????????

I just wanted a perspective on how long you've been into HiFi is all, nothing rude there?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

^ You don't really seem to have an issue sharing your life problems, so what's the difference if you share your age

Honestly, I think you should consider distancing yourself from the site for a while (perhaps it's not the best place for you right now), and once you have sorted yourself out and are in a better head space, then return to the community. Also, you need to keep in mind that you're not the only one who has problems, I'm sure every member here has there fair share, that none of us are aware of.

I agree. Reading this page of posts, I'm sorry to hear about your personal problems, Krelldog1977. But this message board is first and foremost about Blu-Ray and things related to it (i.e. home theater equipment), and to a lesser extent other entertainment mediums (i.e. video games, DVD, digital downloads, etc.). Conversations about these topics will happen, including responses both in agreement and disagreement to those of others. For you to lash out at someone for disagreeing with your post based on other more important stresses in your life is, with all due respect, inappropriate.

I'm sorry that you are going through those things (I've been down similar roads in the past, myself and can relate), and as suggested above, perhaps you should take a break from forums such as this if those stresses are making it difficult for you to participate in such conversations in a level-headed manner.

People are not going to just randomly assume that others are currently going through great personal tragedies and therefore respond in an extra careful manner because of it. To expect that is not realistic. And even now, upon revealing your situation the best thing to do is for you to take a break if you cannot separate your personal stresses from the conversation at hand. To expect someone to not post their statement of disagreement, or to extra-sugar-coat it because of those stresses is, with all due respect, rather silly. Just don't participate if you cannot handle it currently. No one will blame you for that.

[coljohnmatrix]

Originally Posted by bruceames.

I appreciate the improved PQ/AQ of Blu-ray just as much as you do. However Blu-ray is still limited in how much it can get out and what's feasible to release on the format, as I explained above. Whether you agree with it or not is your choice. The fact is though that the major studios will not release on BD-r but only pressed discs (too many incompatible players out there, such as the PS4 and Xb1). DVD-r has revived the DVD catalog output the last few years by the major studios, releasing thousands of titles that otherwise would not have been viable using pressed discs. Of course all these movies are fairly obscure and older, so you may not care about them. But the bottom line is that DVD still has, and will probably always have, a deeper library.

I don't watch DVD that much anymore, but when I do, it's only because a certain movie is not available on Blu-ray, and probably never likely to be (if I felt that it had a chance of being released soon I'd probably wait and watch something else).

I understand your points, but help me understand your argument about compatibility. What do you mean by "pressed" discs? The PS4 and Xbox one will both play any Region 1 blu-ray or DVD. Are you suggesting otherwise? By "pressed" do you mean "burned" discs? Because as far as I know, they both play those, too.

Studios can release any film they want on blu-ray. It's not any harder than pressing to DVD. In fact, they could conceivably fit a multitude of older catalog titles onto a single blu-ray, if they wanted to. Or, like Mill Creek or Echo Bridge, they can release barebones blu-ray releases with a $9.99 MSRP with a mediocre but still better than DVD transfer.

Seems like you are saying that obscure catalog releases have a limited following, which makes studios not want to spend the money to press them to blu-ray. However, again, any "advantages" discussed have nothing to do with DVD as a technology - just how it makes it easier for studios to release catalog titles on the cheap, with little or no effort regarding restoration. This is a huge, huge negative, not an advantage, in my opinion. It's a dated process that's needs to be seriously updated with newer technology.