Blu-ray Technology: People love pretending they understand it

[UFAlien]

Now, there's a lot of people who simply don't want to use Blu-ray because they don't have any interest in the enhancements. Then there are people like this guy:

Patwell, I hate to break it to you but your above mentioned "special features" can and have been done on DVD and other medias (DIVX). All Blu-Ray is, is a DVD with more storage (more layers), everything that's possible on Blu-Ray is possible on DVD. To accommodate whats on Blu-Ray and transfer to DVD would maybe add one more disc to your movie.

It's both frustrating and hilarious to note how he seems SO CONVINCED that Blu-ray is "a DVD with more layers", and that he thinks, apparently, he's an expert on the format even though he's clearly read nothing about it. If he doesn't want to use BD, great. But he, and a lot of people like him, ignore whatever information is "accurate" or "makes sense" in order to try and justify it to others.

Thus, what was once a civilized discussion becomes a "Look how smart I can pretend to be while using my amazing powers of mouth diarrhea" case.

Maybe a few of these people are really uninformed, or don't know better. It's the way they present their ideas about these topics they have no knowledge of (other than, of course, a strong opinion) as fact that really upsets me.

I mean, at the Blockbuster up the hill they give out free pamphlets explaining exactly what Blu-ray is and what the advantages are. People just don't want to bother knowing.

[X-Ninja]

Wait, what? xD Source?

[neos_peace]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Thus, what was once a civilized discussion becomes a "Look how smart I can pretend to be while using my amazing powers of mouth diarrhea" case.

Funy you should say that i heard the same thing today at work and it had nothing to do wiht this. . Sorry to get off topic but I just had to share that.

[UFAlien]

Okay folks, he's back with more!

After I described how many of BD's features are, in fact, not possible with the DVD-Video format, he had this to say:

The only difference is the laser and the way the data is put on the disc, not the disc.

And you're trying to tell me they cant make a dvd player that hooks up to the internet and make chatting possible, they can't make the software to do all that silly shit, Then Blu-Ray has acheived their goal with you. Its all digital media and you can make a program or software to do ANYTHING you want it to do. If you have software that takes a Blu-Ray movie file and puts it on a regular DVD to play in a regular DVD player, and there is cause Ive done it, then you can do anything with these formats.

This, by the way, is a Super Moderator on another forum I frequent.

[red_5ive]

He's probably talking about AVCHD (AVC/H264 mpeg 4) 720p/1080p rips to DVD. These rips generally look better than standard DVD video. However, in reality they're usually less than 1/2 the bitrate and as a result just don't have the same detail and color depth, but to someone who cares jack about blu-ray - or is sore about the fate of their HD DVD collection - they would think/argue that it looks just as good. Also, I don't think lossless codecs are supported, and since there'd be no way to fit a lossless movie track on a single DVD9 anyway, these rips only include vanilla 5.1 audio. It cracks me up that these folks continue to make the HD argument purely from a video-only standpoint, when a good number of hi-def adopters are HT enthusiasts also seeking improved audio performance. Of course, these guys probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference in that department, either.

[UFAlien]

He never owned an HD-DVD, he's firmly SDVD all the way. Anyway, after I told him about several more of his errors and pointed out BD is being picked up faster than DVD was, he gave up and just gave a parting shot at firmware updates.

It's a shame - normally he's a really nice guy.

[Rob J in WNY]

Ahhh......these are the good ol' days...

[blueshadow | Kosty]

Thats gloriously ignorant.

How about a link or a site to where that conversation can be found in its entirety?

[UFAlien]

I can post both sides here, but I won't give a link - it's over and done with, and I don't want anyone getting crazy on him.

This is nothing, BTW - there was one forum where we weren't allowed to SAY Blu-ray, because this ONE dude would FLIP OUT and start a huge flame war whenever he read it. That forum, thankfully, has since closed.

I had to say "I bought it on home video". NO JOKE.

[Batman1980]

My father thinks CDs and DVDs and blu-rays are all the same technology. I win.

[syncguy]

Anyone with 20x20 vision can see the difference straightaway on a correctly configured HD display if the seating position is correct.

They don't need to pretend, they can just feel the difference once they see it.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by syncguy

Anyone with 20x20 vision can see the difference straightaway on a correctly configured HD display if the seating position is correct.

They don't need to pretend, they can just feel the difference once they see it.

Actually neither of my parents can see the difference, which is particularly odd for my mother, whose senses are usually so much more acute than most people's.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I had to say "I bought it on home video". NO JOKE.

I usually say this myself just because I got such a name on another forum for being a heavy Blu-ray dude that it started to become a joke. Easier to say "I'm going to skip seeing this in the theatre and wait for home video" than to name Blu-ray and de-rail the thread into joking and fooling around.

And yeah, DVDs can technically be burned with BD standards, but the standard for DVDs (as in, for standard DVD players) is FAR weaker than Blu-rays. I am honestly impressed at how robust it is, and simply put, how DVD was able to be pushed to full market penetration when the software design is so weak. Even HD-DVD used a new, more robust software design. DVD's software design is garbage. Furthermore, people might think of firmware updates, but that sort of thing actually makes the robustness of Blu-ray's software design fluid and even more robust. For example, before long, we will have Blu-ray's with full-stereoscopic 3-D encoded on the disc. This will be available thanks to updates to the standard. DVD is set in it's ways, it cannot grow like that.

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Actually neither of my parents can see the difference, which is particularly odd for my mother, whose senses are usually so much more acute than most people's.

Make them watch Blu-rays for a long time, then switch back to DVD. People often don't notice how good BD is because it just looks right, but when they see something right for so long and get used to it, it makes them able to recognize when things aren't right. If you want to really make it apparent, choose a DVD with especially noticeable artifacts, one with especially poor color, one with especially low bitrate.

[blueshadow | Kosty]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Make them watch Blu-rays for a long time, then switch back to DVD. People often don't notice how good BD is because it just looks right, but when they see something right for so long and get used to it, it makes them able to recognize when things aren't right. If you want to really make it apparent, choose a DVD with especially noticeable artifacts, one with especially poor color, one with especially low bitrate.

That is excellent advice. That is what I do too.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

He never owned an HD-DVD, he's firmly SDVD all the way. Anyway, after I told him about several more of his errors and pointed out BD is being picked up faster than DVD was, he gave up and just gave a parting shot at firmware updates.

It's a shame - normally he's a really nice guy.

The guy is just using different stuff to BS everyone. He might have never had HD DVD but it is the same BS. Hell many of the worst HD DVD fan boys never had HD DVD, it was just by supporting HD DVD that, like this nut, BD might fail. The guy is right in that there are two different things disks and movies. The difference between disks is only capacity. That is why you also have BD-9s in the BD (movie) specs that has BD content on DVD disks. The issue is that no one will update DVD specs to make them have all of the BD features, so yes the guy could (assuming content is short enough) take a BD and put on a DVD and use much higher bitrates then DVD, have HD video, have BD-live.... but then it is not a DVD and won't play back on a DVD player. It is a BD and will play back on a BD player.

[Rhygar]

Oh God, another pathetic film critic that knows nothing about film resolution and should not be commenting on the merits of HD.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmb...ion-television

Films in high-definition TV? It's an idea as barmy as Sky's billboards

There's really no need to subscribe to high-definition TV to enjoy classic films. To get a fantastic movie experience at home, there's no beating a digital projector

Reluctant though I obviously am to inflate Rupert Murdoch's publicity oxygen-tent any further, here is a photo I took yesterday on my phone, of a billboard advertising Sky TV's new high-definition campaign. It's a poster which rooted me to the pavement by virtue of being simultaneously irritating, conceited and fantastically barmy:
Sky high-def pic Huh? … the perplexing billboard.

Sir Anthony Hopkins's huge face appears, next to the quote: "Heroes, like Bogart. They deserve high definition." Huh? What? What is that full stop doing after "Bogart"? I suppose the quote could be part of an extended conversation, a reply to the question: "Sorry to bother you while you're busy staring off into space, Sir Anthony, but who do you think deserves high definition?"

Hopkins himself has that dreamy I'm-so-iconic expression on his face, clearly indicating that as far as the consumers of films on satellite TV are concerned, he is almost equal in status to "Bogart". Thus, high definition is marketing itself as not just new'n'trendy but old'n'classy, the kind of souped-up televisual medium in which you can properly appreciate a legendary craggy face from cinema, like Sir Anthony's – although Hopkins is obviously lit for this photo flatteringly, in such a way as to suggest his own mature lines without emphasising them too tactlessly.

But high definition? I don't think Humphrey Bogart would have considered himself deserving of high definition. On the contrary. Like all movie idols of the time, he would have appreciated a cinematographer who lit his face gently and respectfully, without making him look his age. Any lighting cameraman who approximated a "high-definition" effect would have been thrown off the set.

Hopkins is part of a larger ad campaign which includes the former Chelsea manager José Mourinho and on the Sky site, you can see both men wittering away about the lovely, timeless moments that have meant a lot to them in their respective professions.

Clearly, they both have contractual agreements which mean they need not soil their lips by mentioning "Sky" or even "high definition". So without any formal confirmation of why they are saying these things, there is an Alzheimer's quality to their ramblings. I suspect even football connoisseurs would detect a strong strain of near-gibberish in what Mourinho is saying. You expect a nurse to appear at the end of each clip and lead Hopkins and Mourinho gently away.

Sir Anthony witters on about Sunset Boulevard starring Gloria Swanson – no mention of "Bogart" – yet this film is very much not on the site's demonstration clips of how films look clearer on their new high-def technology. And this, I suspect, is because with old black-and-white movies of this era there really is no appreciable difference. It's not like sports coverage.

So take my advice. Forget about high-definition TV. If you want a fantastic and genuinely high-definition experience with old films, do what I did. Get a digital projector. Fix it to the wall and get a long extension lead which can be invisibly trailed round the room like a telephone cord and plugged in to your laptop, when needed, on which you can play DVDs; these can be projected at gasp-inducing size and pin-sharp clarity on to a blank wall, which should be entirely denuded of pictures, posters etc. It is brilliant: like having your own private screening theatre. And interestingly, I think it is the classic monochrome films which look most beautiful.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to draw the curtains, fire up the digital projector and watch Gentleman's Agreement with Gregory Peck.

[Snowman851]

Blu-Ray has 5x the pixels than DVD, plus it has lossless audio..How do people not notice those?

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Snowman851

Blu-Ray has 5x the pixels than DVD, plus it has lossless audio..How do people not notice those?

People will not see any difference if they do not have a good setup. Also, PQ cannot be appreciated if the seating distance is not right...

When PS3 is connected to our 22" LCD via a composite video cable, cannot tell any difference between blu and DVD.

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

My father thinks CDs and DVDs and blu-rays are all the same technology. I win.

If cds were the same technology as Blu-ray then why isn't there any soundtracks or using Blu-ray discs? Actually that sounds pretty good having 50GB of music on 1 disc.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Snowman851

Blu-Ray has 5x the pixels than DVD, plus it has lossless audio..How do people not notice those?

Methinks you mean 6x.

And as I always say, Blu-ray just looks right. It's only once a person has grown accustomed to a picture looking right on a decent size screen that they become aware of how bad the technical performance from DVD is, at least as far as picture goes.

And especially to indicate that B&W has nothing to gain by being viewed at a higher native resolution... that's just laughable. HD is about resolvedness, not color, but even just considering color, Blu-ray has all others beat as well. HD might not be "worth it" for many folks, but to suggest that it is not fundamentally better is just stupid.

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

If cds were the same technology as Blu-ray then why isn't there any soundtracks or using Blu-ray discs? Actually that sounds pretty good having 50GB of music on 1 disc.

They're actually considering doing a audio-only profile for Blu-ray last I heard. But even so, there are already plenty of music-centric Blu-rays available, many even that are more than simple high resolution presentations of concert recordings. Not exactly my sort of music, but have a look at the Neil Young archives. I just hope we can get some more stuff like this, but following across to genres and bands/artists I'm actually interested in.