I've had bluray now for a few months and I gotta say it's overrated. The read speeds are so slow, discs still get scratched and can't be read, it's basically a slower slightly better image/sound quality than a regular dvd.
It probably depends on the TV and the eyes watching it. I find regular DVD by comparison to look soft and the colors aren't as acurate. Crisp is what I'd call it by comparison. Even on old films like " Forbidden Planet " it really shows the difference. I find it more film like. Like going to see it in a theater ( which is really what watching home video is all about. Making it as close to that experience as possible ).
The sound is better also. This is mostly noticible on newer movies with Dolby digital or DTS sound tracks. Once again it probably would depend on the amp and speakers you're running it through.
I have yet to have any scratch problems. But then again I'm careful how I handle my discs.
Because you're loading alot more information I can put up with the extra few seconds it takes to load. I don't have the money to replace my entire collection of DVDs with BD but if I could I would.
It probably depends on the TV and the eyes watching it. I find regular DVD by comparison to look soft and the colors aren't as acurate. Crisp is what I'd call it by comparison. Even on old films like " Forbidden Planet " it really shows the difference. I find it more film like. Like going to see it in a theater ( which is really what watching home video is all about. Making it as close to that experience as possible ).
The sound is better also. This is mostly noticible on newer movies with Dolby digital or DTS sound tracks. Once again it probably would depend on the amp and speakers you're running it through.
I have yet to have any scratch problems. But then again I'm careful how I handle my discs.
Because you're loading alot more information I can put up with the extra few seconds it takes to load. I don't have the money to replace my entire collection of DVDs with BD but if I could I would.
Right, but i'm finding the quality boost+ hassle of bluray to not be worth the price so far.
Right, but i'm finding the quality boost+ hassle of bluray to not be worth the price so far.
This definitely is something where everyone's mileage varies. For me the increase in sound and picture quality is definitely worth the extra minute or so of loading time.
This definitely is something where everyone's mileage varies. For me the increase in sound and picture quality is definitely worth the extra minute or so of loading time.
To each his own.
I agree, YMMV. For the mass public, having 50"+ TV with nice home theater audio system may not be norm.
I am not too distracted by most upconverted SD-DVD on my calibrated 67" TV. Of course, HD contents are better, but the SD contents are quite good when you have a decent upconverting player. I guess, YMMV here too.
I would definitely not mind the extra load time, but would the mass public feel the same on 30" TV with TV speakers playing the movie?
I agree, YMMV. For the mass public, having 50"+ TV with nice home theater audio system may not be norm.
I am not too distracted by most upconverted SD-DVD on my calibrated 67" TV. Of course, HD contents are better, but the SD contents are quite good when you have a decent upconverting player. I guess, YMMV here too.
I would definitely not mind the extra load time, but would the mass public feel the same on 30" TV with TV speakers playing the movie?
Except the area of most growth I believe is for bigger screens and better sound ( and thank god cheaper prices ).
I'm finding it difficult to go back and what hassle are you refering to?
Oh I see. I read OC's remark about loading time. I guess I'm not in that big of hurry to wait a few extra seconds for a superior viewing experience.
At the moment, I am using Sapphire (an AppleTV plug-in) to stream 720p movies, over the wireless network, direct from a file server.
The visual quality is dramatically better than standard-def DVDs. It is not quite as good as BluRay, but to tell the difference you really need to be within 4 or 5 feet from the screen to tell.
So while I lose a small amount of visual quality, what I gain, is the ability to pause any movie, play something else, and return to the same playpoint. The movies are in a juke box, not a turn-table. It is immediate and it is hassle free.
So I don't miss the need to eject a disk. I don't have to find and insert another. I don't have to carefully handle disks to avoid scratches. I don't have so endure anti-piracy warnings. I don't have to be an unwilling victim of advertising.
That's my problem with BluRay - the image quality is awesome - 21st century pictures. But the disk-handling issue is the same tedious experience from a 1950's gramophone. With the added annoyance of unskippable nagware. It's got worse and not better.
At the moment, I am using Sapphire (an AppleTV plug-in) to stream 720p movies, over the wireless network, direct from a file server.
The visual quality is dramatically better than standard-def DVDs. It is not quite as good as BluRay, but to tell the difference you really need to be within 4 or 5 feet from the screen to tell.
So while I lose a small amount of visual quality, what I gain, is the ability to pause any movie, play something else, and return to the same playpoint. The movies are in a juke box, not a turn-table. It is immediate and it is hassle free.
So I don't miss the need to eject a disk. I don't have to find and insert another. I don't have to carefully handle disks to avoid scratches. I don't have so endure anti-piracy warnings. I don't have to be an unwilling victim of advertising.
That's my problem with BluRay - the image quality is awesome - 21st century pictures. But the disk-handling issue is the same tedious experience from a 1950's gramophone. With the added annoyance of unskippable nagware. It's got worse and not better.
C.
Well we've been all over downloadings current short comings. Maybe that will be the future but until then putting in a disc and waiting the few seconds it takes to load for a superior experience ( it's the audio and special features also ) isn't a bother for me.
The AACS licensing authority has finalized specs that would let consumers make legit copies of Blu-ray content...but it'll require all-new hardware.
The Advanced Access Content System License Authority?AACSLA?has posted finalized specifications for the digital rights management system to be used on Blu-ray discs?and the final spec allows for so-called "managed copies," whereby consumers will be able to make a pre-determined number of copies of content on Blu-ray media for personal use?although the number of copies is determined by the studios, and the copy is still protected with AACS or Microsoft DRM.
Releasing final specifications for Blu-ray might seem a little counter-intuitive: after all, Blu-ray technology has been baked and on the market for over three years. However, all Blu-ray manufacturers have been operating ofter provisional, interim licensing agreement from AACS. If they want to continue producing Blu-ray releases, studios and content providers will need to agree to the new licenses by December 4, 2009. Hardware manufacturers aren't required to support managed copy, although many will obviously choose to support the feature in order to meet consumer expectations.
Managed copy will require new Blu-ray hardware: existing Blu-ray players (like the PlayStation 3) will not be able to leverage the feature. For managed copy to work, Blu-ray hardware will have to authorize the copy via an online confirmation with an AACSLA server: that's right, unless a Blu-ray device has Internet access, users won't be able to exercise their right to make a personal copy of Blu-ray content. There is also a provision that could enable a studio to charge consumers to make copies.
Once the technology has rolled out, consumers will be able to make copies to either Blu-ray or standard DVD media (protected with AACS DRM) or to Windows Media DRM-compatible files for use on a computer or portable media place. Noticeably left out of the equation is Apple hardware like iPhones and iPods. Apple CEO Steve Jobs has previously described Blu-ray licensing as "a bag of hurt," AACSLA has noted that Apple could choose at any time to become a signatory.
Well, it's about time. We'll see how studios decide to implement it.
Well we've been all over downloadings current short comings. Maybe that will be the future but until then putting in a disc and waiting the few seconds it takes to load for a superior experience ( it's the audio and special features also ) isn't a bother for me.
You call it superior, but the 1950's gramophone-like disk-loading experience is not a winner with audiences. Once audiences figure out the convenience of a jukebox, they don't look back.
Think about the iPod versus the CD. The CD had superior audio. -but the convenience of immediate and instant access to a full media library won the battle in a heartbeat.
Right now, the difference in video quality difference is marginal, and technology means that quality gap is reducing with each passing week. The convenience and usability issue has been won already.
Blu Ray is a good collector format. But even if player sales pick up - Sony will want to migrate consumers to direct download. Not because of quality or convenience, but because the profits are higher and content producers no longer want to share revenues with retailers.
I've had bluray now for a few months and I gotta say it's overrated. The read speeds are so slow, discs still get scratched and can't be read, it's basically a slower slightly better image/sound quality than a regular dvd.
Blu Ray is awesome and I don't see why I need to buy a DVD/download to watch a film on my Macbook when I've already bought the Bluray to watch on my 42" plasma (using PS3 as bluray drive).
I just want to be able to play my Bluray discs on the move.
DVDs look poor on large screens. If I only bought to watch on my laptop they would be fine.
On small or single definition screens DVDs look perfectly good. However it doesn't make sense to buy a SD copy and a 1080p copy of a film. I just want 1080p.
Blu Ray is awesome and I don't see why I need to buy a DVD/download to watch a film on my Macbook when I've already bought the Bluray to watch on my 42" plasma (using PS3 as bluray drive).
I just want to be able to play my Bluray discs on the move.
DVDs look poor on large screens. If I only bought to watch on my laptop they would be fine.
On small or single definition screens DVDs look perfectly good. However it doesn't make sense to buy a SD copy and a 1080p copy of a film. I just want 1080p.
Downloads provide the opportunity for a business model in which you could purchase the right to stream video at a quality always best suited to your current viewing conditions.
So yeah, needing to buy an copy in addition to your blu-ray version would be bad. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Downloads provide the opportunity for a business model in which you could purchase the right to stream video at a quality always best suited to your current viewing conditions.
If you buy an HD version of a TV show in iTunes. You also get a standard-def version for free to use on your iPhone.
I've had bluray now for a few months and I gotta say it's overrated. The read speeds are so slow, discs still get scratched and can't be read, it's basically a slower slightly better image/sound quality than a regular dvd.
If you think all that then you're doing it wrong. Except the part about the slow read times; that part is true. But here's the solution: put the disc in the player before you go get your beverage and take a tinkle. Problem solved.
If you buy an HD version of a TV show in iTunes. You also get a standard-def version for free to use on your iPhone.
C.
My broadband out here in the wilderness of Scotland couldn't handle a 20GB download for a full quality 1080p and if there is one area of my life where quality counts it's films.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldCodger73
This definitely is something where everyone's mileage varies. For me the increase in sound and picture quality is definitely worth the extra minute or so of loading time.
I quoted you but it could have been anyone. I hadn't noticed any load time issues with my blu ray disks. Is this a player issue or do some disks have loads of trailers (mine don't)?
I quoted you but it could have been anyone. I hadn't noticed any load time issues with my blu ray disks. Is this a player issue or do some disks have loads of trailers (mine don't)?
Here's the test...
Decide to watch a movie. I have several hundred physical disks, so they are in a cupboard.
Go there. Find movie, extract disk. Go to player. Insert disk, advance disk to the point the actual movie plays. On finishing the movie, eject the disk. Return disk to sleeve. Put it back in collection.
Work out the time taken.
In my experience, in some cases it is minutes. Non-skippable content makes this worse. Mandatory anti piracy warnings make this worse.
The comparison with an all-digital model is very stark. A few seconds to scroll through a list of more than a hundred files. Press play.
It probably depends on the TV and the eyes watching it. I find regular DVD by comparison to look soft and the colors aren't as acurate. Crisp is what I'd call it by comparison. Even on old films like " Forbidden Planet " it really shows the difference. I find it more film like. Like going to see it in a theater ( which is really what watching home video is all about. Making it as close to that experience as possible ).
I'd be pissed if my Blu-rays looked and sounded like they did in the theater. Our local theater sucks. No digital sound or video, crappy chairs, marginal acoustics.
With BD I want a better experience than the theater. And in most cases thats exactly what I get. Using Wall-E as an example, the pic and sound quality of the BD in my theater (which is properly calibrated and has a pretty good 5.1 system) blows away our local cinema. And I can imagine that in a home theater with proper acoustical design, great projector and a fully dark room, there would be no comparison whatsoever.
On Blu-ray.com, the Godfather Restoration thread had a great bit of discussion on whether the goal was to recreate the theater experience, or create a new (and possibly better) experience. I go for the latter in most cases, but of course it depends on the movie. With Star Wars original trilogy, please recreate the theater experience (including getting rid of the shitty additions). With Pixar and Casino Royale, give me the best that Blu can offer!
I'd be pissed if my Blu-rays looked and sounded like they did in the theater. Our local theater sucks. No digital sound or video, crappy chairs, marginal acoustics.
With BD I want a better experience than the theater. And in most cases thats exactly what I get. Using Wall-E as an example, the pic and sound quality of the BD in my theater (which is properly calibrated and has a pretty good 5.1 system) blows away our local cinema. And I can imagine that in a home theater with proper acoustical design, great projector and a fully dark room, there would be no comparison whatsoever.
On Blu-ray.com, the Godfather Restoration thread had a great bit of discussion on whether the goal was to recreate the theater experience, or create a new (and possibly better) experience. I go for the latter in most cases, but of course it depends on the movie. With Star Wars original trilogy, please recreate the theater experience (including getting rid of the shitty additions). With Pixar and Casino Royale, give me the best that Blu can offer!
Comments
I've had bluray now for a few months and I gotta say it's overrated. The read speeds are so slow, discs still get scratched and can't be read, it's basically a slower slightly better image/sound quality than a regular dvd.
It probably depends on the TV and the eyes watching it. I find regular DVD by comparison to look soft and the colors aren't as acurate. Crisp is what I'd call it by comparison. Even on old films like " Forbidden Planet " it really shows the difference. I find it more film like. Like going to see it in a theater ( which is really what watching home video is all about. Making it as close to that experience as possible ).
The sound is better also. This is mostly noticible on newer movies with Dolby digital or DTS sound tracks. Once again it probably would depend on the amp and speakers you're running it through.
I have yet to have any scratch problems. But then again I'm careful how I handle my discs.
Because you're loading alot more information I can put up with the extra few seconds it takes to load. I don't have the money to replace my entire collection of DVDs with BD but if I could I would.
Even on old films like " Forbidden Planet " it really shows the difference.
There's a Blu-Ray 1080p version of 28 Days Later.
Which is funny, because the movie was shot with a standard-def video camera.
C.
It probably depends on the TV and the eyes watching it. I find regular DVD by comparison to look soft and the colors aren't as acurate. Crisp is what I'd call it by comparison. Even on old films like " Forbidden Planet " it really shows the difference. I find it more film like. Like going to see it in a theater ( which is really what watching home video is all about. Making it as close to that experience as possible ).
The sound is better also. This is mostly noticible on newer movies with Dolby digital or DTS sound tracks. Once again it probably would depend on the amp and speakers you're running it through.
I have yet to have any scratch problems. But then again I'm careful how I handle my discs.
Because you're loading alot more information I can put up with the extra few seconds it takes to load. I don't have the money to replace my entire collection of DVDs with BD but if I could I would.
Right, but i'm finding the quality boost+ hassle of bluray to not be worth the price so far.
Right, but i'm finding the quality boost+ hassle of bluray to not be worth the price so far.
This definitely is something where everyone's mileage varies. For me the increase in sound and picture quality is definitely worth the extra minute or so of loading time.
To each his own.
This definitely is something where everyone's mileage varies. For me the increase in sound and picture quality is definitely worth the extra minute or so of loading time.
To each his own.
I agree, YMMV. For the mass public, having 50"+ TV with nice home theater audio system may not be norm.
I am not too distracted by most upconverted SD-DVD on my calibrated 67" TV. Of course, HD contents are better, but the SD contents are quite good when you have a decent upconverting player. I guess, YMMV here too.
I would definitely not mind the extra load time, but would the mass public feel the same on 30" TV with TV speakers playing the movie?
Right, but i'm finding the quality boost+ hassle of bluray to not be worth the price so far.
I'm finding it difficult to go back and what hassle are you refering to?
Oh I see. I read OC's remark about loading time. I guess I'm not in that big of hurry to wait a few extra seconds for a superior viewing experience.
I agree, YMMV. For the mass public, having 50"+ TV with nice home theater audio system may not be norm.
I am not too distracted by most upconverted SD-DVD on my calibrated 67" TV. Of course, HD contents are better, but the SD contents are quite good when you have a decent upconverting player. I guess, YMMV here too.
I would definitely not mind the extra load time, but would the mass public feel the same on 30" TV with TV speakers playing the movie?
Except the area of most growth I believe is for bigger screens and better sound ( and thank god cheaper prices ).
I'm finding it difficult to go back and what hassle are you refering to?
Oh I see. I read OC's remark about loading time. I guess I'm not in that big of hurry to wait a few extra seconds for a superior viewing experience.
At the moment, I am using Sapphire (an AppleTV plug-in) to stream 720p movies, over the wireless network, direct from a file server.
The visual quality is dramatically better than standard-def DVDs. It is not quite as good as BluRay, but to tell the difference you really need to be within 4 or 5 feet from the screen to tell.
So while I lose a small amount of visual quality, what I gain, is the ability to pause any movie, play something else, and return to the same playpoint. The movies are in a juke box, not a turn-table. It is immediate and it is hassle free.
So I don't miss the need to eject a disk. I don't have to find and insert another. I don't have to carefully handle disks to avoid scratches. I don't have so endure anti-piracy warnings. I don't have to be an unwilling victim of advertising.
That's my problem with BluRay - the image quality is awesome - 21st century pictures. But the disk-handling issue is the same tedious experience from a 1950's gramophone. With the added annoyance of unskippable nagware. It's got worse and not better.
C.
At the moment, I am using Sapphire (an AppleTV plug-in) to stream 720p movies, over the wireless network, direct from a file server.
The visual quality is dramatically better than standard-def DVDs. It is not quite as good as BluRay, but to tell the difference you really need to be within 4 or 5 feet from the screen to tell.
So while I lose a small amount of visual quality, what I gain, is the ability to pause any movie, play something else, and return to the same playpoint. The movies are in a juke box, not a turn-table. It is immediate and it is hassle free.
So I don't miss the need to eject a disk. I don't have to find and insert another. I don't have to carefully handle disks to avoid scratches. I don't have so endure anti-piracy warnings. I don't have to be an unwilling victim of advertising.
That's my problem with BluRay - the image quality is awesome - 21st century pictures. But the disk-handling issue is the same tedious experience from a 1950's gramophone. With the added annoyance of unskippable nagware. It's got worse and not better.
C.
Well we've been all over downloadings current short comings. Maybe that will be the future but until then putting in a disc and waiting the few seconds it takes to load for a superior experience ( it's the audio and special features also ) isn't a bother for me.
http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-a...-blu-ray-discs
The AACS licensing authority has finalized specs that would let consumers make legit copies of Blu-ray content...but it'll require all-new hardware.
The Advanced Access Content System License Authority?AACSLA?has posted finalized specifications for the digital rights management system to be used on Blu-ray discs?and the final spec allows for so-called "managed copies," whereby consumers will be able to make a pre-determined number of copies of content on Blu-ray media for personal use?although the number of copies is determined by the studios, and the copy is still protected with AACS or Microsoft DRM.
Releasing final specifications for Blu-ray might seem a little counter-intuitive: after all, Blu-ray technology has been baked and on the market for over three years. However, all Blu-ray manufacturers have been operating ofter provisional, interim licensing agreement from AACS. If they want to continue producing Blu-ray releases, studios and content providers will need to agree to the new licenses by December 4, 2009. Hardware manufacturers aren't required to support managed copy, although many will obviously choose to support the feature in order to meet consumer expectations.
Managed copy will require new Blu-ray hardware: existing Blu-ray players (like the PlayStation 3) will not be able to leverage the feature. For managed copy to work, Blu-ray hardware will have to authorize the copy via an online confirmation with an AACSLA server: that's right, unless a Blu-ray device has Internet access, users won't be able to exercise their right to make a personal copy of Blu-ray content. There is also a provision that could enable a studio to charge consumers to make copies.
Once the technology has rolled out, consumers will be able to make copies to either Blu-ray or standard DVD media (protected with AACS DRM) or to Windows Media DRM-compatible files for use on a computer or portable media place. Noticeably left out of the equation is Apple hardware like iPhones and iPods. Apple CEO Steve Jobs has previously described Blu-ray licensing as "a bag of hurt," AACSLA has noted that Apple could choose at any time to become a signatory.
Well, it's about time. We'll see how studios decide to implement it.
New hardware?
Proprietary DRM
Blu-ray is not coming to Macs. I seriously think Apple's going to simply ignore it and move on.
Well we've been all over downloadings current short comings. Maybe that will be the future but until then putting in a disc and waiting the few seconds it takes to load for a superior experience ( it's the audio and special features also ) isn't a bother for me.
You call it superior, but the 1950's gramophone-like disk-loading experience is not a winner with audiences. Once audiences figure out the convenience of a jukebox, they don't look back.
Think about the iPod versus the CD. The CD had superior audio. -but the convenience of immediate and instant access to a full media library won the battle in a heartbeat.
Right now, the difference in video quality difference is marginal, and technology means that quality gap is reducing with each passing week. The convenience and usability issue has been won already.
Blu Ray is a good collector format. But even if player sales pick up - Sony will want to migrate consumers to direct download. Not because of quality or convenience, but because the profits are higher and content producers no longer want to share revenues with retailers.
C.
I've had bluray now for a few months and I gotta say it's overrated. The read speeds are so slow, discs still get scratched and can't be read, it's basically a slower slightly better image/sound quality than a regular dvd.
Blu Ray is awesome and I don't see why I need to buy a DVD/download to watch a film on my Macbook when I've already bought the Bluray to watch on my 42" plasma (using PS3 as bluray drive).
I just want to be able to play my Bluray discs on the move.
DVDs look poor on large screens. If I only bought to watch on my laptop they would be fine.
On small or single definition screens DVDs look perfectly good. However it doesn't make sense to buy a SD copy and a 1080p copy of a film. I just want 1080p.
Blu Ray is awesome and I don't see why I need to buy a DVD/download to watch a film on my Macbook when I've already bought the Bluray to watch on my 42" plasma (using PS3 as bluray drive).
I just want to be able to play my Bluray discs on the move.
DVDs look poor on large screens. If I only bought to watch on my laptop they would be fine.
On small or single definition screens DVDs look perfectly good. However it doesn't make sense to buy a SD copy and a 1080p copy of a film. I just want 1080p.
Downloads provide the opportunity for a business model in which you could purchase the right to stream video at a quality always best suited to your current viewing conditions.
So yeah, needing to buy an copy in addition to your blu-ray version would be bad. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that.
Downloads provide the opportunity for a business model in which you could purchase the right to stream video at a quality always best suited to your current viewing conditions.
If you buy an HD version of a TV show in iTunes. You also get a standard-def version for free to use on your iPhone.
C.
I've had bluray now for a few months and I gotta say it's overrated. The read speeds are so slow, discs still get scratched and can't be read, it's basically a slower slightly better image/sound quality than a regular dvd.
If you think all that then you're doing it wrong. Except the part about the slow read times; that part is true. But here's the solution: put the disc in the player before you go get your beverage and take a tinkle. Problem solved.
If you buy an HD version of a TV show in iTunes. You also get a standard-def version for free to use on your iPhone.
C.
My broadband out here in the wilderness of Scotland couldn't handle a 20GB download for a full quality 1080p and if there is one area of my life where quality counts it's films.
This definitely is something where everyone's mileage varies. For me the increase in sound and picture quality is definitely worth the extra minute or so of loading time.
I quoted you but it could have been anyone. I hadn't noticed any load time issues with my blu ray disks. Is this a player issue or do some disks have loads of trailers (mine don't)?
I quoted you but it could have been anyone. I hadn't noticed any load time issues with my blu ray disks. Is this a player issue or do some disks have loads of trailers (mine don't)?
Here's the test...
Decide to watch a movie. I have several hundred physical disks, so they are in a cupboard.
Go there. Find movie, extract disk. Go to player. Insert disk, advance disk to the point the actual movie plays. On finishing the movie, eject the disk. Return disk to sleeve. Put it back in collection.
Work out the time taken.
In my experience, in some cases it is minutes. Non-skippable content makes this worse. Mandatory anti piracy warnings make this worse.
The comparison with an all-digital model is very stark. A few seconds to scroll through a list of more than a hundred files. Press play.
C.
It probably depends on the TV and the eyes watching it. I find regular DVD by comparison to look soft and the colors aren't as acurate. Crisp is what I'd call it by comparison. Even on old films like " Forbidden Planet " it really shows the difference. I find it more film like. Like going to see it in a theater ( which is really what watching home video is all about. Making it as close to that experience as possible ).
I'd be pissed if my Blu-rays looked and sounded like they did in the theater. Our local theater sucks. No digital sound or video, crappy chairs, marginal acoustics.
With BD I want a better experience than the theater. And in most cases thats exactly what I get. Using Wall-E as an example, the pic and sound quality of the BD in my theater (which is properly calibrated and has a pretty good 5.1 system) blows away our local cinema. And I can imagine that in a home theater with proper acoustical design, great projector and a fully dark room, there would be no comparison whatsoever.
On Blu-ray.com, the Godfather Restoration thread had a great bit of discussion on whether the goal was to recreate the theater experience, or create a new (and possibly better) experience. I go for the latter in most cases, but of course it depends on the movie. With Star Wars original trilogy, please recreate the theater experience (including getting rid of the shitty additions). With Pixar and Casino Royale, give me the best that Blu can offer!
I'd be pissed if my Blu-rays looked and sounded like they did in the theater. Our local theater sucks. No digital sound or video, crappy chairs, marginal acoustics.
With BD I want a better experience than the theater. And in most cases thats exactly what I get. Using Wall-E as an example, the pic and sound quality of the BD in my theater (which is properly calibrated and has a pretty good 5.1 system) blows away our local cinema. And I can imagine that in a home theater with proper acoustical design, great projector and a fully dark room, there would be no comparison whatsoever.
On Blu-ray.com, the Godfather Restoration thread had a great bit of discussion on whether the goal was to recreate the theater experience, or create a new (and possibly better) experience. I go for the latter in most cases, but of course it depends on the movie. With Star Wars original trilogy, please recreate the theater experience (including getting rid of the shitty additions). With Pixar and Casino Royale, give me the best that Blu can offer!
Maybe I should have said " Really good theater ".