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.
I disagree. Yes- if it's the same source material, that could be true. But in the majority of cases film is remastered and substantially better. I.e.- wizard of oz on Blu ray will blow anything on DVD out of the water- and the remaster of wizard of oz could not fit on a dual layer DVD. So it's not strictly better for digital, but has substantially higher ceilings with restoration of classic film. Particularly when they do a 4k scan and source from there.
Lawrence of Arabia, gone with the wind, and to kill a mockingbird are some of the best restorations I've ever seen.
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
apple does support BluRay, they just chose not to include the reader/burner hardware, as part of their famous method, trading off between price and desirability. They hit the sweet spot for functionality, I believe it is their forté. You can buy a DVD player/burner for fairly cheap.
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?
'Auntie Mame' is amazing example. Although, I believe they had a super large film frame to work with. In the digital version you can see every pore on the actors' faces and it is a bit much even, as in 'unintended resolution' by the film makers. Lol.
and you get physical music to the list, I preordered the Led Zeppelin I, II, III over two months before the ship date...only III arrived (late) & it was copy 26k something of 30k...clearly Warner is playing hardball. I ended up having to get the other two sets somewhere else with much much better service at the same price. I am over Amazon.
And yes people still buy physical media (cds and vinyl) and you will want to too when your computing devices die.
'Auntie Mame' is amazing example. Although, I believe they had a super large film frame to work with. In the digital version you can see every pore on the actors' faces and it is a bit much even, as in 'unintended resolution' by the film makers. Lol.
I did not mean to imply that re-scans of source material couldn't produce a better disc. Absolutely they can, and with other tricks sometimes there is too much clarity... sets begin to look fake, e.g., with StarTrek TV episodes, because the set designers didn't intend such high detail to be visible.
I disagree. Yes- if it's the same source material, that could be true. But in the majority of cases film is remastered and substantially better. I.e.- wizard of oz on Blu ray will blow anything on DVD out of the water- and the remaster of wizard of oz could not fit on a dual layer DVD. So it's not strictly better for digital, but has substantially higher ceilings with restoration of classic film. Particularly when they do a 4k scan and source from there.
Lawrence of Arabia, gone with the wind, and to kill a mockingbird are some of the best restorations I've ever seen.
Why you little...
I acknowledge your truthful response. I did not mean to refer to re-mastered material.
And yes, I will unequivocally state that Lawrence of Arabia, at 216 minutes, remastered and re-orchestrated and in 70mm film, on a huge screen in 1989, is still unsurpassed in my experience. Better than any I-MAX or 3D film I've seen since. The 4K digitizations of recent years on BluRay are surely fantastic... but could never match seeing the original (restored) projection.
'Auntie Mame' is amazing example. Although, I believe they had a super large film frame to work with. In the digital version you can see every pore on the actors' faces and it is a bit much even, as in 'unintended resolution' by the film makers. Lol.
I did not mean to imply that re-scans of source material couldn't produce a better disc. Absolutely they can, and with other tricks sometimes there is too much clarity... sets begin to look fake, e.g., with StarTrek TV episodes, because the set designers didn't intend such high detail to be visible.
Something for everyone to keep in mind- warner is the head captain of the ultraviolet movement- and was the first studio to stop distributing iTunes movies with their Blu ray purchases- moving exclusively to ultraviolet.
Not taking sides here, but regarding Apple- any hit to WB is ok by me
I actually applaud Warner for getting the Ultraviolet ball rolling. Not good for consumers, for one brand to have a monopoly on digital copies from disc purchases.
Comments
He's right, though, in a sense. Like vinyl is infinitely better than digital because everything is there.
Reality doesn't have an infinite resolution either.
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.
I don't have to prove anything to you because your obviously ignorant to fact or just plain ignorant.
Disprove me then.
That’s funny. Opinion ignored!
I disagree. Yes- if it's the same source material, that could be true. But in the majority of cases film is remastered and substantially better. I.e.- wizard of oz on Blu ray will blow anything on DVD out of the water- and the remaster of wizard of oz could not fit on a dual layer DVD. So it's not strictly better for digital, but has substantially higher ceilings with restoration of classic film. Particularly when they do a 4k scan and source from there.
Lawrence of Arabia, gone with the wind, and to kill a mockingbird are some of the best restorations I've ever seen.
Why you little...
apple does support BluRay, they just chose not to include the reader/burner hardware, as part of their famous method, trading off between price and desirability. They hit the sweet spot for functionality, I believe it is their forté. You can buy a DVD player/burner for fairly cheap.
'Auntie Mame' is amazing example. Although, I believe they had a super large film frame to work with. In the digital version you can see every pore on the actors' faces and it is a bit much even, as in 'unintended resolution' by the film makers. Lol.
And yes people still buy physical media (cds and vinyl) and you will want to too when your computing devices die.
'Auntie Mame' is amazing example. Although, I believe they had a super large film frame to work with. In the digital version you can see every pore on the actors' faces and it is a bit much even, as in 'unintended resolution' by the film makers. Lol.
I did not mean to imply that re-scans of source material couldn't produce a better disc. Absolutely they can, and with other tricks sometimes there is too much clarity... sets begin to look fake, e.g., with StarTrek TV episodes, because the set designers didn't intend such high detail to be visible.
I disagree. Yes- if it's the same source material, that could be true. But in the majority of cases film is remastered and substantially better. I.e.- wizard of oz on Blu ray will blow anything on DVD out of the water- and the remaster of wizard of oz could not fit on a dual layer DVD. So it's not strictly better for digital, but has substantially higher ceilings with restoration of classic film. Particularly when they do a 4k scan and source from there.
Lawrence of Arabia, gone with the wind, and to kill a mockingbird are some of the best restorations I've ever seen.
Why you little...
I acknowledge your truthful response. I did not mean to refer to re-mastered material.
And yes, I will unequivocally state that Lawrence of Arabia, at 216 minutes, remastered and re-orchestrated and in 70mm film, on a huge screen in 1989, is still unsurpassed in my experience. Better than any I-MAX or 3D film I've seen since. The 4K digitizations of recent years on BluRay are surely fantastic... but could never match seeing the original (restored) projection.
Reality doesn't have an infinite resolution either.
Thank you for that. Film, like reality, has its limits of resolution.
An excellent point. One I've never thought of.
Something for everyone to keep in mind- warner is the head captain of the ultraviolet movement- and was the first studio to stop distributing iTunes movies with their Blu ray purchases- moving exclusively to ultraviolet.
Not taking sides here, but regarding Apple- any hit to WB is ok by me