Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think most (including myself) are just waiting it out for lower prices, which I'm sure will come.
It was the same deal with cassettes to CDs, and VHS to DVD.
Yes but that it's just a really large 720X480. Here's a simple example, let's suppose this our source video and represents full HD, note we have some fine detail with the dots:
When this is scaled down to DVD or if the video was originally shot at DVd resolution that fine detail is not possible and it's lost:
Now you can scale that image back up but if you do it by simply increasing the pixel count you'll get something like this:
Another method called bicubic produces slightly better quality but the edges are blurred
:
A good upscaler will look for contrasting edges and keep them nice and sharp. This requires a lot of CPU though, the upconverting DVD players are probably somehwere between this and the bicubic method. The major difference of course when scled up is the dots in the original image cabnnot be recreated since they are not present in the source we are scaling:
Nothing wrong with DVD if you're happy with it, it's still a very good format especially with the new tech to make them look good on larger TV's.
Last edited by thecoalman; 08-01-2020 at 05:30 PM..
This may sound a little wacky, but I just discovered a little pluggin that works with Photoshop. After reading this thread, I got to wondering if this technology could eventually work to improve an dynamic picture, as in a movie or TV show. I'm just thinking about a large screen versus a more modest sized screen.
Possibly in the future, but I don't think fractal compression is going to be practical in realtime at the moment (that's just my feeling since it's not consistent timewise (i.e. decompression will vary depending on image)).
I saw the Sony demo of Blu-Ray on their projector with an image ~10 feet in size. It was very good, and I felt there was no need to go to the movie theater after seeing this (assuming one could afford this set up). The movie industry already uses much higher res than this.
I have a Blu-Ray player, it's amazing. It upconverts regular DVDs and the picture quality on Blu-Ray discs is incredible.
The best ones are the animations, because the computer generates perfect images, while film conversions have the fuzziness of film. Watch Bolt, that's amazing. Narnia Prince Caspian too.
I watched segments of Lord of the Rings, and the upconverting for the scenic frames is not so good, because it can't make the grass and trees clear.
As most people have said, things like a PS3 have been worth it because, at the time, they were CHEAPER than a stand-alone player, they PLAYED the disks AND they played games!
As for me? I just put together a multimedia machine and put a blue ray player (dvd burner) in it. Haven't used it as such yet, but seeing how the difference between one and the other was only about $120, it looked like a worthwhile investment into a machine hat might be sitting there for a while!
As other people have mentioned, it all depends on use. You get a good sci-fi flik, or one with some decent scenery and it is worth seeing it in high def, but "mall cop" isn't worth RENTING, let alone buying (let alone buying on BR!!!!).
It always confused me going into the mall stores and seeing the first disks that were being offered on HD and Blu Ray being thnigs likeKing of Queens or Seinfeld. Of all the things that would DEFINITELY not be worth it, a series that was originally shot for standard NTSC 420i tops the list.
Blue ray sales will go up if and only if prices come down AND selection gets better. I would imagine a direct transcription of Casablanca might be more of what some people are looking for than Robocop 3.
of Queens or Seinfeld. Of all the things that would DEFINITELY not be worth it, a series that was originally shot for standard NTSC 420i tops the list.
I may be wrong but I believe I remember hearing something on TV where Seinfeld was shot in 16:9 which was cropped and scaled down for broadcast so it may very well be hidef.
Blue ray sales will go up if and only if prices come down AND selection gets better. I would imagine a direct transcription of Casablanca might be more of what some people are looking for than Robocop 3.
Yes, most of the reason is price, but I just read that by next year they expect the cost to make a entry level unit is going to reach $50. So in the store it could be sold for under $100.
I may be wrong but I believe I remember hearing something on TV where Seinfeld was shot in 16:9 which was cropped and scaled down for broadcast so it may very well be hidef.
I really could not say about that. Maybe they were "filmed" rather than videotaped (the video looks a bit different than some of the more modern sitcoms), but it is definitely too old to be deliberately filmed in 16:9 for wide-screens that really did not exist yet (look at the screen layout. Most things that were meant for 16:9 seem clipped, or pan a lot when seen in 4:3)
F_M, sounds good, but it all depends then on the price, availability and selection of media.
I don't think the movie watching public will be as forgiving as the gamers out there willing to pay $10 more per game for somethingon the latest system as compared to the older ones.
They seem to think that people are interchangable that way somehow.....
As most people have said, things like a PS3 have been worth it because, at the time, they were CHEAPER than a stand-alone player, they PLAYED the disks AND they played games!
Absolutely correct. At one point, the PS3 was the best priced Blu-Ray player on the market, even if you completely ignored the gaming aspect of the console. Today, you can pick up a new PS3 for $399+ at local stores, or perhaps a little lower on eBay. You can get a (cheap) Blu-Ray player for about $150 or so.
I've said it once, but I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - the quality of Blu-Ray is amazing for movies that are made for it. However, the quality difference (for some/most people) just does not justify the high expense of the player and the videos.
* If it wasn't for Netflix access to Blu-Ray, I would not watch as many Blu-Ray as I have.
* If it wasn't for price drops (and good prices on used copies), I would not own the Blu-Ray that I own.
* If it wasn't for the PS3, I would not even have a Blu-Ray player.
But luckily, these conditions exist, so I do indeed enjoy Blu-Ray movies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
