This is why people think you troll sometimes- you make a response specifically to get a reaction and bait.
He didn't say Blu-ray was better, worse, Less expensive, more expensive, more convenient, less convenient, etc.
He simply said optimum quality for sound and video- which can't be disputed. Regardless of if someone can or can't tell the difference is unconsequential- but what he said is still true. And I def. Prefer it for certain movies (not all)
I agree. When I want the ultimate in quality (not that Blu-ray is perfect) for a film I'm going to watch more than once, I buy Blu-ray. I'm realistic enough to understand that physical formats will eventually disappear, but that doesn't mean they're not better. There are only a few cases where consumers chose quality over convenience. Just because Apple chose not to support it doesn't mean it's not a technically superior format. Of course if you're watching on an iPhone, iPad or even a computer screen, it probably doesn't make much difference. At small sizes, even SD looks acceptable.
As for Amazon, it doesn't really bother me that you can't pre-order titles from the companies they're in dispute with. What counts is whether they'll make the titles available at the time they're released. If they don't, then I agree that they're abusing their power and I also agree with those who feel that the publishers and distributors should take a strong stand and pull ALL their titles from Amazon. There'd be some short-term hurt, but they'd be much better off in the long term as consumers would have to go to other sites or (gasp!) an actual physical retail store. It would help to kill Amazon's arrogance and if people got in the habit of ordering elsewhere, it would reduce their dominance. But the publishers are probably too chicken to pull this off.
A Blu-ray is the media where you get optimum quality in image and sound.
It is my understanding that Blu-ray can allow for greater data storage, and can play 1080p resolution at up to 60 fps, whereas DVD was limited to 480p and 25 fps. I presume these limits are the result of the specification speed of rotation and the wavelength of light (blue allowing for a tighter arrangement of pits in the disc.) That said, I see no reason to expect a guarantee that the source data will be better compressed on a Blu-ray compatible disc, vs. a standard DVD. In other words, the compressed data could be ripped from a DVD and burned to a Blu-Ray. And there will be absolutely no improvement in picture quality or sound. Similarly, I see no reason to expect that a 1080p Blu-ray disc of "I Love Lucy" would be at all superior to a 480p DVD of the same program--because the source material is of still lesser quality. Heck, even a Betamax videotape is capable of higher quality than that source material.
So I dispute your statement on two counts: first, you do not necessarily get a better image or sound, even though it is possible with modern digital transfers, and second, I don't believe you get anything that is "optimum". It is potentially better, yes. But "optimum" leaves no further room for improvement. And I think forthcoming 4k video will quickly demonstrate that.
This is why people think you troll sometimes- you make a response specifically to get a reaction and bait.
He didn't say Blu-ray was better, worse, Less expensive, more expensive, more convenient, less convenient, etc.
He simply said optimum quality for sound and video- which can't be disputed. Regardless of if someone can or can't tell the difference is unconsequential- but what he said is still true. And I def. Prefer it for certain movies (not all)
The correct response is immediately below these words.
So Apple gets slapped around for trying to break open Amazon's monopoly. Now Amazon is using that monopoly to control market pricing and availability and the government looks the other way. Have I got it right?
Last I checked Apple doesn't sell DVDs, so what monopoly were they trying to break?
It is my understanding that Blu-ray can allow for greater data storage, and can play 1080p resolution at up to 60 fps, whereas DVD was limited to 480p and 25 fps. I presume these limits are the result of the specification speed of rotation and the wavelength of light (blue allowing for a tighter arrangement of pits in the disc.) That said, I see no reason to expect a guarantee that the source data will be better compressed on a Blu-ray compatible disc, vs. a standard DVD. In other words, the compressed data could be ripped from a DVD and burned to a Blu-Ray. And there will be absolutely no improvement in picture quality or sound. Similarly, I see no reason to expect that a 1080p Blu-ray disc of "I Love Lucy" would be at all superior to a 480p DVD of the same program--because the source material is of still lesser quality. Heck, even a Betamax videotape is capable of higher quality than that source material.
So I dispute your statement on two counts: first, you do not necessarily get a better image or sound, even though it is possible with modern digital transfers, and second, I don't believe you get anything that is "optimum". It is potentially better, yes. But "optimum" leaves no further room for improvement. And I think forthcoming 4k video will quickly demonstrate that.
On a old show the source material might be film which has infinite resolution because it's pixel-less.
This is why people think you troll sometimes- you make a response specifically to get a reaction and bait.
He didn't say Blu-ray was better, worse, Less expensive, more expensive, more convenient, less convenient, etc.
He simply said optimum quality for sound and video- which can't be disputed. Regardless of if someone can or can't tell the difference is unconsequential- but what he said is still true. And I def. Prefer it for certain movies (not all)
The correct response is immediately below these words.
Admit defeat and accept that Tallest Skil was right.
On a old show the source material might be film which has infinite resolution because it's pixel-less.
Oh you did not just go there. Are you prepared to face what you've unleashed? Better check the definition of infinite before answering in the affirmative... (Now is your chance to backpedal and save face)
On a old show the source material might be film which has infinite resolution because it's pixel-less.
Oh you did not just go there. Are you prepared to face what you've unleashed? Better check the definition of infinite before answering in the affirmative... (Now is your chance to backpedal and save face)
He's right, though, in a sense. Like vinyl is infinitely better than digital because everything is there.
Oh you did not just go there. Are you prepared to face what you've unleashed? Better check the definition of infinite before answering in the affirmative... (Now is your chance to backpedal and save face)
I wrote that for the lack of a better term. Film wasn't without its drawbacks. Cheap film caused a picture to look 'grainy', but digital scan in a 1080 P conversion can fix that. Have you not seen a 'remastered' old movie look surprisingly good?
How about “a response specifically to get someone to try to prove their point” instead?
So proof, then? HE doesn’t have any. Maybe you do. Saying it can’t be disputed doesn’t make it true.
Go watch a blue ray movie on a panny plasma and you'll have your proof. I doubt you'd believe what anyone writes here, so if figure it out for yourself
So I dispute your statement on two counts: first, you do not necessarily get a better image or sound, even though it is possible with modern digital transfers, and second, I don't believe you get anything that is "optimum". It is potentially better, yes. But "optimum" leaves no further room for improvement. And I think forthcoming 4k video will quickly demonstrate that.
You are correct. Encoding is independent of storage format. The BDMV spec gives no guarantee on quality whatsoever. Anyone who reads Blu-Ray movie reviews on Amazon, will see plenty of disappointing studio releases on Blu-Ray. I expect anyone who professes to care about "optimum video and sound quality" would know that. Now Sony is marketing "Mastered in 4K" Blu-Ray discs that are nothing more than regular HD, which begs the question: if Blu-Ray was already "optimum" why does Sony need a "Mastered in 4K" version? Is it more than optimum? (Of course, it's all just marketing drivel. As is the whole "optimum" hooey.)
Dude I usually appreciate your level of knowledge, but you're wrong here. Blue Ray blows HD streaming out of the water.
I never said otherwise. In fact, off the top of my head, I’ll agree with you!
Originally Posted by rgh71
Go watch a blue ray movie on a panny plasma and you'll have your proof. I doubt you'd believe what anyone writes here, so if figure it out for yourself
That’s not really the statement being made, though.
Comments
This is why people think you troll sometimes- you make a response specifically to get a reaction and bait.
He didn't say Blu-ray was better, worse, Less expensive, more expensive, more convenient, less convenient, etc.
He simply said optimum quality for sound and video- which can't be disputed. Regardless of if someone can or can't tell the difference is unconsequential- but what he said is still true. And I def. Prefer it for certain movies (not all)
I agree. When I want the ultimate in quality (not that Blu-ray is perfect) for a film I'm going to watch more than once, I buy Blu-ray. I'm realistic enough to understand that physical formats will eventually disappear, but that doesn't mean they're not better. There are only a few cases where consumers chose quality over convenience. Just because Apple chose not to support it doesn't mean it's not a technically superior format. Of course if you're watching on an iPhone, iPad or even a computer screen, it probably doesn't make much difference. At small sizes, even SD looks acceptable.
As for Amazon, it doesn't really bother me that you can't pre-order titles from the companies they're in dispute with. What counts is whether they'll make the titles available at the time they're released. If they don't, then I agree that they're abusing their power and I also agree with those who feel that the publishers and distributors should take a strong stand and pull ALL their titles from Amazon. There'd be some short-term hurt, but they'd be much better off in the long term as consumers would have to go to other sites or (gasp!) an actual physical retail store. It would help to kill Amazon's arrogance and if people got in the habit of ordering elsewhere, it would reduce their dominance. But the publishers are probably too chicken to pull this off.
How about “a response specifically to get someone to try to prove their point” instead?
So proof, then? HE doesn’t have any. Maybe you do. Saying it can’t be disputed doesn’t make it true.
A Blu-ray is the media where you get optimum quality in image and sound.
It is my understanding that Blu-ray can allow for greater data storage, and can play 1080p resolution at up to 60 fps, whereas DVD was limited to 480p and 25 fps. I presume these limits are the result of the specification speed of rotation and the wavelength of light (blue allowing for a tighter arrangement of pits in the disc.) That said, I see no reason to expect a guarantee that the source data will be better compressed on a Blu-ray compatible disc, vs. a standard DVD. In other words, the compressed data could be ripped from a DVD and burned to a Blu-Ray. And there will be absolutely no improvement in picture quality or sound. Similarly, I see no reason to expect that a 1080p Blu-ray disc of "I Love Lucy" would be at all superior to a 480p DVD of the same program--because the source material is of still lesser quality. Heck, even a Betamax videotape is capable of higher quality than that source material.
So I dispute your statement on two counts: first, you do not necessarily get a better image or sound, even though it is possible with modern digital transfers, and second, I don't believe you get anything that is "optimum". It is potentially better, yes. But "optimum" leaves no further room for improvement. And I think forthcoming 4k video will quickly demonstrate that.
This is why people think you troll sometimes- you make a response specifically to get a reaction and bait.
He didn't say Blu-ray was better, worse, Less expensive, more expensive, more convenient, less convenient, etc.
He simply said optimum quality for sound and video- which can't be disputed. Regardless of if someone can or can't tell the difference is unconsequential- but what he said is still true. And I def. Prefer it for certain movies (not all)
The correct response is immediately below these words.
Good thing the DoJ is protecting consumers and Amazon from Apple.
/s
Last I checked Apple doesn't sell DVDs, so what monopoly were they trying to break?
On a old show the source material might be film which has infinite resolution because it's pixel-less.
On a old show the source material might be film which has infinite resolution because it's pixel-less.
*cough*
grain size
*cough*
This is why people think you troll sometimes- you make a response specifically to get a reaction and bait.
He didn't say Blu-ray was better, worse, Less expensive, more expensive, more convenient, less convenient, etc.
He simply said optimum quality for sound and video- which can't be disputed. Regardless of if someone can or can't tell the difference is unconsequential- but what he said is still true. And I def. Prefer it for certain movies (not all)
The correct response is immediately below these words.
Admit defeat and accept that Tallest Skil was right.
Admit defeat and accept that Tallest Skil was right.
I don’t recall saying anything that could be considered right or wrong. Just that what someone else did call ‘right’ may not be.
there's nothing stopping you ordering it once it has been released. Just no ability to pre - order.
It costs more. Pre-orders are discounted.
That can be removed during the digital scan.
Oh you did not just go there. Are you prepared to face what you've unleashed? Better check the definition of infinite before answering in the affirmative... (Now is your chance to backpedal and save face)
Sure. I just couldn't resist the gift that the other poster presented.
He's right, though, in a sense. Like vinyl is infinitely better than digital because everything is there.
I wrote that for the lack of a better term. Film wasn't without its drawbacks. Cheap film caused a picture to look 'grainy', but digital scan in a 1080 P conversion can fix that. Have you not seen a 'remastered' old movie look surprisingly good?
So I dispute your statement on two counts: first, you do not necessarily get a better image or sound, even though it is possible with modern digital transfers, and second, I don't believe you get anything that is "optimum". It is potentially better, yes. But "optimum" leaves no further room for improvement. And I think forthcoming 4k video will quickly demonstrate that.
You are correct. Encoding is independent of storage format. The BDMV spec gives no guarantee on quality whatsoever. Anyone who reads Blu-Ray movie reviews on Amazon, will see plenty of disappointing studio releases on Blu-Ray. I expect anyone who professes to care about "optimum video and sound quality" would know that. Now Sony is marketing "Mastered in 4K" Blu-Ray discs that are nothing more than regular HD, which begs the question: if Blu-Ray was already "optimum" why does Sony need a "Mastered in 4K" version? Is it more than optimum? (Of course, it's all just marketing drivel. As is the whole "optimum" hooey.)
I never said otherwise. In fact, off the top of my head, I’ll agree with you!
That’s not really the statement being made, though.