Blu-ray Disc (2006) is a consumer variation of Sony's previouly developed Professional Disc (2003) that was used both for data storage and, more commonly, for pro recording in XDCam camcorders & VTRs (VDRs?). The lineage is pretty undeniable.
And, re: appeal - the consumers already decided the format wars of 06, 07, 08. HD-DVD lost and Blu-ray won. It's no surprise that neither eclipsed DVD, though. Dvd was a game changer tech compared to vhs, BD and UHD BD are just incremental qualitative changes on (and deluxe/premium variations of ) dvd. Especially since there is forward compatibility, that wouldn't overturn the market, just expand or fractionalize it.
Btw, I also continue to be a collector of dvd, bd & 3dbd disc (haven't moved on to uhdbd, as i don't yet have an hdr tv to take advantage of it).
+ Reply to Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 66
The consumer didn't decide the outcome of the format war.
Bluray won over HD-DVD because it secured more major releases from the studios (including exclusives from Sony Pictures) and had a larger install base with the help of Playstation3.
- HD-DVD tried the "kumabaya", "let's all come together" approach.
- BD said "here's some money". The Blu-ray consortium (mostly Sony) bribed studios. It was that easy.
The PS3 had a limited effect on the HD optical format war. In fact, PS3 was a massive financial loss to Sony, somewhere along the lines of $5B. Five billion! Few people watched movies on video game systems. PS3 had many issues with playback, and only got worse over time. Most people that wanted to watch BD got a BD player.
Sony was all-in with Bluray. They were more aggressive and eventually HD-DVD had to throw in the towel. Unrelated to Bluray, PS3 eventually outsold Xbox360.
The drives were initially expensive and most consumers just sat out the format war. At that time (2006-2007), 8.5GB dual-layer DVD with updated codecs would have been preferable to Bluray in my opinion. But market positionning for Bluray was as a premium product vs existing DVD, and the studios dreamt of strong DRM. These considerations matter at least as much as technical ones.
Anyway, looking forward, if streaming decides to put the squeeze (they do produce a lot of movies) and makes bluray (and even cinemas) irrelevant, I doubt it will be entirely down to "consumer choice".
I would imagine that there's very little money to be saved by producing BDs that are either physically smaller with a lower capacity or physically the same size as DVDs but with a lower data capacity. Anyway, as they're also used for data storage/backup, the larger capacity discs are definitely a plus there.
As for the difference between SD and HD video material, well, the picture quality doesn't affect the quality of the story, the script, the acting, the direction, the score, set design, props, costumes, etc. etc. etc. Nor, to a large extent - assuming the SD version hasn't been starved of bitrate, or degraded in some other way - the cinematography. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Blade Runner, Lord of the Rings, Apollo 13 etc. all look stunning whether on DVD or Bluray. Granted, most of them look a little more stunning in HD and, given the choice, I would generally rather watch in HD, but if I'm watching the DVD version, for whatever reasons, it doesn't really affect my overall viewing experience all that much. If I was watching on a 50"+ screen then it might be a different story, just because of the limitations of DVD compliant MPeg2 video. As the screens keep on getting bigger and bigger then I'm sure we'll see UHD video become the preferred norm."Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
I have viewed *other peoples* BD's & cannot tell the difference between DVD & BD. Never had a BD reader/writer in my computer. If a BD is @50 gigs, how long does it take to rip one?
Interesting site here shows *miles* of length of 'tracks' on various disks, (not BD's tho)
(DVD 5 4.7 G = (DVD-5 Track Length = 7.8434 Miles!)
Does the track lengthen on BDs? (by ≈ 10x?)
Last edited by cornemuse; 29th Sep 2020 at 08:32. Reason: didnt finish 1st time!Cranky Old Man
I have the Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack for Christopher Robin and even on my PC monitor (an old Dell 2007FP because I prefer 4:3 for my monitors), I can see the difference.
The difference between SD and 1080p resolution is painfully obvious to me on a full HD LCD monitor.
To some extent it does depend on the size and resolution of the display, the quality of the upscaling, the viewing distance, and the viewer. A number of years back I can remember someone claiming his VCD resolution rips looked great on his plasma TV.
One man's hamburger is another man's steak.
*Edit: In case anyone is curious (however unlikely), the concert is MAX: JPop Gig from 1996. The DVD didn't come until much later, so Laserdisc was the highest quality available at the time, though hard to find, which I why I got the VHS and VCD first.
Last edited by lingyi; 29th Sep 2020 at 15:22.
I asked my wife if bigger is better and she said only if you know how to efficiently use it.
and many people will upgrade to 4K HDR monitors in the next few years...
most people are effectively blind. couldn't tell a quality video from a poor one with a gun at their temple. it's sad.--
"a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303
Without my glasses, I couldn't tell the difference on a TV screen at a distance. Not everybody is young and has perfect vision.
Also not everybody has the latest state of the art audio-video setup.
Lucky those who can enjoy a movie without being disturbed by every minor technical defect.
For those who can't see or appreciate the higher quality and possible level of enjoyment, stick to whatever satisfies you. Ask, but don't tell others what's "good enough". For whatever percentage of people like me who do enjoy the higher quality of Blu-Ray and beyond and are willing to pay the premium, in release prices and hard drive space, we do so knowingly and willingly. If you don't agree, you're welcome to make your opinion known, but the genie of bigger disc sizes and higher quality has been unbottled and won't be put back in for the foreseeable future.
The public would be unhappy with a 10GB movie on a 25GB disc no matter the comparable quality. The perception is the larger the file size, the greater the quality and they're right to the extent that Length X Bitrate = Size. With more Bitrate and larger Size, no matter the codec equaling higher quality.
I don't know if this a good analogy or not, but going back to the earliest days of video gaming, leaving unused space on a game ROM, tape or disk was considered a lack of value and poor programming. Every bit (literally and figuratively) was expected to the used for enhanced game play and quality. Agree with it or not, the public perceives the greatest use of the available capacity in whatever medium to be the standard.
I remember there being outcries when Blu-Rays first came out of movies "only" being 15-20GB and not filling the disc. Or trailers and extras taking space that could be used for the movie. I don't remember the early days of SL DVD movies, but do remember the same complaints about DL disc movies barely being larger than SL. If the space is there, the general public expects, perhaps demands it be used.
BTW, at some level, both Blu-Ray and UHD were developed as a way to prevent copying. DVD's protection was long defeated, so the the industry needed a new scheme to keep people buying new and old releases. A big part of the Blu-Ray Associations spec was a new "undefeatable" protection scheme. IMO, the increased size and quality of Blu-Ray was incidental, but a good way to drive sales. When the Blu-Ray protection was defeated, a new "unbeatable" protection scheme was needed. Enter UHD with a new "unbeatable" protection scheme and that was broken with larger, higher quality releases.
With current techonolgy optical disc sizes reaching or having reached their limit and studios pushing streaming with DRM and controlling size and quality, the era of larger physical releases may be at an end.
But I'm still waiting for a Full Gamut 2TB+ cinema [graded] 'master' of Seven Samurai!
An interesting, but ultiimately pointless thread. Okay, I'll shut up now!
Last edited by lingyi; 30th Sep 2020 at 18:51.
stupid troll, **** off!
The OP was likely trolling to some degree with his poll, but he was correct IMO when he pointed out that some posters on this forum could do with showing a little more humility and strive to avoid being techno-snobs.
Not all troll posts are bad.
PS: I would never have posted at a forum called vcdhelp.
Were you around in the mid-90's, pre-DVD and the only choices were VHS, Laserdisc and VCD?
Were you playing with home video capture in 1996 like I was with a Video Spigot and capturing glorious 160x240@15fps? Were you a video professional like some of the earliest members at VCDHelp who were offering advice to novices like me?
Were you a collector of Asian movies when Hong Kong Laserdisc releases were purposely split into two discs so they could charge $200, instead of the usual $100 for a movie that could fit on a single disc? Were you around when even if you could afford to buy the $200 Laserdiscs, no one, online or in a brick and mortar store would help you buy one? Were you around when VCDs were often the only possible way you could get Hong Kong movies in the U.S., since many VHS tapes and Laserdiscs were out of print.
Were you around when VCDHelp was one of the few sites to discuss digital video which was in its consumer level infancy? I don't remember exactly when, but I was a happy member of VCDHelp a few years prior to my join date under lingyi (I changed my username because it potentially revealed too much about my identity). And left for a couple of years before I returned.
Seems you're being a bit a "techno-snob" for scoffing at he roots of the website of which you're a member. If you ..."would never have posted at a forum called vcdhelp." Is is because you were already a "techno-snob" at that time or is because you didn't even know what digital video was like at the time?
Sorry to the others, but this post hit a nerve. There's a reason I'm a "techno-snob". I've been there during the early days of digital video and have seen and appreciate the advances that have occurred. VCDHelp was an oasis in a desert and I'm proud to say I was a member of it!
Though I think the question could have been worded better, I find this poll and its results interesting.
Video Technology has changed a lot in the past 20 years. Not everybody has felt the need to keep up with the latest trends, buying the latest products, and neither should they have to.
There is certainly nothing wrong with being a movie / video tech enthusiast, but that doesn't give anybody the right to be dismissive of others, just because they have a different experience/opinion/equipment.
Suggesting someone is blind for not seeing the difference is a poor argument. Some readers of this forum will indeed have impaired vision, it's not an insult, it's a fact of life.
Of course, as in other places and for various reasons, some people consistently post nonsense, my suggestion would be to learn not to feed the troll and just ignore them.
I hate to come back again, but as I see it, there are two issues here.
The OP was borderline trolling and I took the bait.
I firmly believe that limited quality should never be acceptable, especially when higher quality alternatives, regardless of cost or viewing audience are available. I owned a PVM-2530 professional presentation monitor in the late 80's and as great as it was with "moving photos" as my then girlfriend said because of the clarity, I still yearned for a BVM broadcast monitor!
The bigger issue is as jagabo facetiously posted, good enough should never be the standard by which video quality should be measured. Decades ago I went through an audiophile stage with a rather finely assembled stereo setup. However, by my late 20's I was diagnosed with a significant hearing loss in one ear. At that point, even though I'd worn glasses for over a decade, I decided to switch my hobby focus to video, since with glasses my eyesight could be corrected to 20/20.
The point is, while the move to higher quality releases is in large part motivated by money, "good enough" shouldn't be the stopping point. Even we Rec 2020 and 4K+, we're still far from what the producers of high quality videos are seeing in their specialized and expensive equipment. Even if it's available only to the fraction of a percent of those who can afford the equipment and have the eyes to see the quality difference, I believe it should be made available.
I don't want anyone to ever say what we have at the consumer level is "good enough" and stop development of new and better codecs, techniques and equipment. Even if I were allowed to see Seven Samurai projected from an original remastered 35MM print, I'd still applaud any effort to go beyond that.
Last edited by lingyi; 2nd Oct 2020 at 17:22.
maybe if someone ever finds the original film masters of 7 s we'll get a glorious masterpiece in hd.--
"a lot of people are better dead" - prisoner KSC2-303