This is a rather mute argument given that there is little or no 1080p content available in the iTunes store to buy anyway. There isn?t even much 720p content either despite the fact that we?ve had HD content for a while now. I assume it?s the studios not wanting to release HD content in iTunes rather than Apple holding it back.
Once there is more content I might consider stopping buying BluRay disks. Until then if you want BluRay quality you have to buy BluRay disks and I can?t see that changing anytime soon. Every week I check the iTunes store to see what new HD films have been added to buy and every week I?m disappointed.
There is no such thing as "True HD". The truest its ever going to be is from its camera of origin. After that its compressed to hell no matter which format its played on.
Sure there is, motion picture is. Infinite resolution because there's no pixels.
Sure there is, motion picture is. Infinite resolution because there's no pixels.
You neglect to take film grain into account.
If I understand properly, IMAX is SOTA, due in large part to the size of the film. If you were correct, Super 8 would be infinite resolution - there are no pixels there either.
I agree WRT digital signals, but WRT analog signals, the cabling can be a factor if the resolution of the rest of the chain is sufficient.
Ditto on the analog since better shield and quality will reduce degradation, but I wouldn't waste my money there either. I think the Monster cables serve more as a status item rather than any sort of technical achievement in the analog realm, which in any case is pretty much irrelevant these days. My opinion of course.
As to Monster themselves, even more astounding is the fact that Monster offers various level of 'speeds' to their Monster HDMI cables when there are only two types of cables in the standard (Category 1/2), yet Monster offers various 'speed' cables for 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz. It's blatant false advertising. Of course they charge you more for each 'bump' in speed for the same damn cable, competing with the same cable for 4 bucks that would deliver exactly the same signal and they dupe people into buying them.
If I understand properly, IMAX is SOTA, due in large part to the size of the film. If you were correct, Super 8 would be infinite resolution - there are no pixels there either.
Ditto on the analog since better shield and quality will reduce degradation, but I wouldn't waste my money there either. I think the Monster cables serve more as a status item rather than any sort of technical achievement in the analog realm, which in any case is pretty much irrelevant these days. My opinion of course.
As to Monster themselves, even more astounding is the fact that Monster offers various level of 'speeds' to their Monster HDMI cables when there are only two types of cables in the standard (Category 1/2), yet Monster offers various 'speed' cables for 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz. It's blatant false advertising. Of course they charge you more for each 'bump' in speed for the same damn cable, competing with the same cable for 4 bucks that would deliver exactly the same signal and they dupe people into buying them.
Disgusting.
I agree that Monster is overpriced and mediocre, relying on hype more than any intrinsic quality.
I completely agree. I hate the banding in Netflix and iTunes movies. It is very noticeable and annoying. It's a great step forward but Blu-Ray is still the best movie experience.
I completely agree. I've seen this headline on multiple sites and it really has my hair on edge.
"Aside from the banding, loss of grain, loss of significant detail, and slight smudging...it looks EXACTLY the same!!" Please. All those reasons where the iTunes compression fails is precisely why Blu-Ray is far superior.
Granted, the iTunes compression does look very good, but anyone with a critical eye can spot the difference immediately. Try doing an A/B comparison of a snow fall or fast-action scene and you will see where the greatly compressed iTunes video really falls apart.
VERY encouraging to hear that an iTunes 1080p download is pretty darn close to the visual quality of a Blu-ray. For movies where I'm not super concerned about bonus features and the best possible presentation, an iTunes download is looking extremely attractive. Especially when you add in the ability to stream the movie and not have to bother with backing up the digital file.
The one last hurdle to me is price. An iTunes download really needs to be cheaper than the Blu-ray.
Especially since we have to pay for the storage where the Blu-ray movie price includes the storage (the disc). Then there is running out of storage space and juggling those external hard drive for downloads.
I agree that Monster is overpriced and mediocre, relying on hype more than any intrinsic quality.
Kind of like Apple products?
Considering every laptop I owned from two Sony's, an HP, a Compaq, and a thinkpad, and only the Thinkpad lasted for more than 2 years without something breaking. Contrast that with 3 Macbook pro's (all in perfect condition with my first now approaching 5 years). I don't think the prices is unusual. The same offerings from the same vendors above cost the same amount. The difference being my Apple gear is still working. Of the other vendors laptops, 2 failed due to a bad screen, one bad power port (cracked motherboard due to lack of support around the plug). The last one became somewhat useless when all of the USB ports stopped working. All of my Apple gear is in perfect condition with no issues.
I can't speak for others, but when I pay the same price from HP, or Sony, or Apple, but the Apple is obviously better quality, then I'll stick with my choice. Considering their quality of service reputation in the industry and the fact that they have been the top vendor for years, I would say I'm not the only one who's experienced this.
Uh oh. People who've wanted Apple to support Blu-ray are not going to like this at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I except a lot of pedagoguing on why on true videophiles use Blu-ray to ensue shortly.
Umm yes. It's Understandable that a pro-apple site would quote an unknown webpage with no credibility (kind of like digitimes). When cnet or a real place reviews it, then we'll talk. The fact they did it on a 23" monitor, and said Dolby digital 5.1 is comparable to dts-hd is really the biggest joke I've ever heard. Insanity.
Here's a quote from that review of the BRD as well:
"This is a first-rate effort from Sony (again) and even though the final score comes just shy of perfection, this one comes close. Well done."
I think you need to get YOUR eyes checked. Learn to do some proper research next time if you're going to try to use it to blast someone else's (very valid) opinion.
That Blu ray is pretty good quality, although in 2012 standards is more like 4 stars I would assume.
Since you linked Blu-ray.com. Quick plug for them- awesome forum and amazing reviewers. They are the best reviewers of movies on the net at least as it relates to me. If they give it 1.5 stars- it sucks to me. If they give it 5- I love it. Great guys over there.
That's pretty damn close to Blu-Ray. Those comparison shots look pretty impressive, and an iTunes file is of course much smaller than a Blu-Ray file.
Whiny people who whine about Blu-Ray not coming to Macs should just put a big fat sock in their mouths, 'cause it aint gonna happen. Who wants or needs physical media anymore? Step out of your caves you clueless prehistoric people, and join the 21st century.
And those whiny people who whine about the movie not being on iTunes should put a sock on it too. You don't want physical media, watch something else. It is the 21st century, other things are available.
I'm all for not owning any physical media...but I think, at this point in time, if you want the best movie watching experience, it's still a 1080P PLASMA large flat screen TV with a Blu-Ray player.
Anybody who thinks a 3.xx GB file can compare to a 50GB Blu-ray needs to get their eyes checked. Not to mention the test used is a joke.
1. Who watches a movie on a Dell monitor?
2. If they truly want to do a comparison they need to choose a reference quality movie. Think Avatar, The Dark Knight, just about any Pixar movie, etc.
3. Do the comparison on two identical ISF calibrated plasmas (Panasonic VT30) in a light controlled room.
Until then, these "comparisons" are ridiculous... and BTW, screw convenience. I want the highest possible picture and sound quality with no compromise and at this moment in time it's Blu-ray (and for the near future as well).
3. Do the comparison on two identical ISF calibrated plasmas (Panasonic VT30) in a light controlled room.
And this setup is common or relevant to those that want the convenience of an internet download, how?
Quote:
Until then, these "comparisons" are ridiculous... and BTW, screw convenience. I want the highest possible picture and sound quality with no compromise and at this moment in time it's Blu-ray (and for the near future as well).
It's good thing the world doesn't think like you or we would have never gotten optical media because CD was more convenient and less quality than vinyl.
Comments
Once there is more content I might consider stopping buying BluRay disks. Until then if you want BluRay quality you have to buy BluRay disks and I can?t see that changing anytime soon. Every week I check the iTunes store to see what new HD films have been added to buy and every week I?m disappointed.
There is no such thing as "True HD". The truest its ever going to be is from its camera of origin. After that its compressed to hell no matter which format its played on.
Sure there is, motion picture is. Infinite resolution because there's no pixels.
Sure there is, motion picture is. Infinite resolution because there's no pixels.
You neglect to take film grain into account.
If I understand properly, IMAX is SOTA, due in large part to the size of the film. If you were correct, Super 8 would be infinite resolution - there are no pixels there either.
I agree WRT digital signals, but WRT analog signals, the cabling can be a factor if the resolution of the rest of the chain is sufficient.
Ditto on the analog since better shield and quality will reduce degradation, but I wouldn't waste my money there either. I think the Monster cables serve more as a status item rather than any sort of technical achievement in the analog realm, which in any case is pretty much irrelevant these days. My opinion of course.
As to Monster themselves, even more astounding is the fact that Monster offers various level of 'speeds' to their Monster HDMI cables when there are only two types of cables in the standard (Category 1/2), yet Monster offers various 'speed' cables for 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz. It's blatant false advertising. Of course they charge you more for each 'bump' in speed for the same damn cable, competing with the same cable for 4 bucks that would deliver exactly the same signal and they dupe people into buying them.
Disgusting.
You neglect to take film grain into account.
If I understand properly, IMAX is SOTA, due in large part to the size of the film. If you were correct, Super 8 would be infinite resolution - there are no pixels there either.
I never said it would look good.
Ditto on the analog since better shield and quality will reduce degradation, but I wouldn't waste my money there either. I think the Monster cables serve more as a status item rather than any sort of technical achievement in the analog realm, which in any case is pretty much irrelevant these days. My opinion of course.
As to Monster themselves, even more astounding is the fact that Monster offers various level of 'speeds' to their Monster HDMI cables when there are only two types of cables in the standard (Category 1/2), yet Monster offers various 'speed' cables for 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz. It's blatant false advertising. Of course they charge you more for each 'bump' in speed for the same damn cable, competing with the same cable for 4 bucks that would deliver exactly the same signal and they dupe people into buying them.
Disgusting.
I agree that Monster is overpriced and mediocre, relying on hype more than any intrinsic quality.
Kind of like Apple products?
I completely agree. I hate the banding in Netflix and iTunes movies. It is very noticeable and annoying. It's a great step forward but Blu-Ray is still the best movie experience.
I completely agree. I've seen this headline on multiple sites and it really has my hair on edge.
"Aside from the banding, loss of grain, loss of significant detail, and slight smudging...it looks EXACTLY the same!!" Please. All those reasons where the iTunes compression fails is precisely why Blu-Ray is far superior.
Granted, the iTunes compression does look very good, but anyone with a critical eye can spot the difference immediately. Try doing an A/B comparison of a snow fall or fast-action scene and you will see where the greatly compressed iTunes video really falls apart.
VERY encouraging to hear that an iTunes 1080p download is pretty darn close to the visual quality of a Blu-ray. For movies where I'm not super concerned about bonus features and the best possible presentation, an iTunes download is looking extremely attractive. Especially when you add in the ability to stream the movie and not have to bother with backing up the digital file.
The one last hurdle to me is price. An iTunes download really needs to be cheaper than the Blu-ray.
Especially since we have to pay for the storage where the Blu-ray movie price includes the storage (the disc). Then there is running out of storage space and juggling those external hard drive for downloads.
I agree that Monster is overpriced and mediocre, relying on hype more than any intrinsic quality.
Kind of like Apple products?
Considering every laptop I owned from two Sony's, an HP, a Compaq, and a thinkpad, and only the Thinkpad lasted for more than 2 years without something breaking. Contrast that with 3 Macbook pro's (all in perfect condition with my first now approaching 5 years). I don't think the prices is unusual. The same offerings from the same vendors above cost the same amount. The difference being my Apple gear is still working. Of the other vendors laptops, 2 failed due to a bad screen, one bad power port (cracked motherboard due to lack of support around the plug). The last one became somewhat useless when all of the USB ports stopped working. All of my Apple gear is in perfect condition with no issues.
I can't speak for others, but when I pay the same price from HP, or Sony, or Apple, but the Apple is obviously better quality, then I'll stick with my choice. Considering their quality of service reputation in the industry and the fact that they have been the top vendor for years, I would say I'm not the only one who's experienced this.
Uh oh. People who've wanted Apple to support Blu-ray are not going to like this at all.
I except a lot of pedagoguing on why on true videophiles use Blu-ray to ensue shortly.
Umm yes. It's Understandable that a pro-apple site would quote an unknown webpage with no credibility (kind of like digitimes). When cnet or a real place reviews it, then we'll talk. The fact they did it on a 23" monitor, and said Dolby digital 5.1 is comparable to dts-hd is really the biggest joke I've ever heard. Insanity.
Except that's NOT the movie they used. That's some straight to DVD movie. The movie they used was the Theatrical release of 30 days of Night:
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/30-Day...t-Blu-ray/646/
Here's a quote from that review of the BRD as well:
"This is a first-rate effort from Sony (again) and even though the final score comes just shy of perfection, this one comes close. Well done."
I think you need to get YOUR eyes checked. Learn to do some proper research next time if you're going to try to use it to blast someone else's (very valid) opinion.
That Blu ray is pretty good quality, although in 2012 standards is more like 4 stars I would assume.
Since you linked Blu-ray.com. Quick plug for them- awesome forum and amazing reviewers. They are the best reviewers of movies on the net at least as it relates to me. If they give it 1.5 stars- it sucks to me. If they give it 5- I love it. Great guys over there.
Plug over.
Let the arguments/debates persist.
Blu ray is way better
That's pretty damn close to Blu-Ray. Those comparison shots look pretty impressive, and an iTunes file is of course much smaller than a Blu-Ray file.
Whiny people who whine about Blu-Ray not coming to Macs should just put a big fat sock in their mouths, 'cause it aint gonna happen. Who wants or needs physical media anymore? Step out of your caves you clueless prehistoric people, and join the 21st century.
And those whiny people who whine about the movie not being on iTunes should put a sock on it too. You don't want physical media, watch something else. It is the 21st century, other things are available.
It is the 21st century, other things are available.
It is the 21st century. Everything should be available digitally, legally. You're making our argument for us.
Remember when people used to claim that MP3s were "near" CD quality?
What a friggin joke.
But it goes to show, again, that convenience trumps quality. Pretty much everywhere, pretty much every time.
Didn't MP3's take off when they were free? Ala, Napster? Yes, that is pretty convenient.
It is the 21st century. Everything should be available digitally, legally. You're making our argument for us.
Yes I agree. Blu-ray is digital and legal.
Yes I agree. Blu-ray is digital and legal.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. I can touch Blu-ray, and I don't want that.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. I can touch Blu-ray, and I don't want that.
But you are ok with touching your TV and AppleTV and iPad? Hmm, interesting perspective.
But you are ok with touching your TV and AppleTV and iPad? Hmm, interesting perspective.
I'm all for not owning any physical media...but I think, at this point in time, if you want the best movie watching experience, it's still a 1080P PLASMA large flat screen TV with a Blu-Ray player.
Anybody who thinks a 3.xx GB file can compare to a 50GB Blu-ray needs to get their eyes checked. Not to mention the test used is a joke.
1. Who watches a movie on a Dell monitor?
2. If they truly want to do a comparison they need to choose a reference quality movie. Think Avatar, The Dark Knight, just about any Pixar movie, etc.
3. Do the comparison on two identical ISF calibrated plasmas (Panasonic VT30) in a light controlled room.
Until then, these "comparisons" are ridiculous... and BTW, screw convenience. I want the highest possible picture and sound quality with no compromise and at this moment in time it's Blu-ray (and for the near future as well).
3. Do the comparison on two identical ISF calibrated plasmas (Panasonic VT30) in a light controlled room.
And this setup is common or relevant to those that want the convenience of an internet download, how?
Until then, these "comparisons" are ridiculous... and BTW, screw convenience. I want the highest possible picture and sound quality with no compromise and at this moment in time it's Blu-ray (and for the near future as well).
It's good thing the world doesn't think like you or we would have never gotten optical media because CD was more convenient and less quality than vinyl.