Again, they might not be able to tell the difference between an upconverted image and a native HD signal, but the fact that their new upconverter isn't producing a native HD image will always be on their mind.


I think this describes early adoptors very well. We are always freezing frames and scouring the pictures to find any difference we can.

For the average consumer who just wants to watch a movie, sits 10+ feet away from their 42-50 inch big screen TV, and just uses stereo TV speakers, I don't think it is a big deal.

...but for us early adptors, it doesn't matter if there is a difference in the picture/audio, it will just bug the heck out of us knowing the source is not true HD!:D

But there is a huge difference.

The difference in the picture is remarkable. I have set up A/B demos for folks who are blown away by what they see.

I have been surprised by the differences I am hearing in the soundtracks. I hadn't expected that but it is there.

For the average consumer who just wants to watch a movie, sits 10+ feet away from their 42-50 inch big screen TV, and just uses stereo TV speakers, I don't think it is a big deal.


The bigger the picture/TV, the more noticiable it becomes that upconvert is not HD.
You also need to consider that if J6P buys one of those $50 upconvert players, it's not going to be no where near the same as an OPPO or other high end upconvert players PQ.

Wow it is amazing that this argument has never happened before on AVS.:rolleyes:

Wow it is amazing that this argument has never happened before on AVS.:rolleyes:

I know, upscaled DVD's look just almost as good as HD DVD's is so 2006 :p

:pI know, upscaled DVD's look just almost as good as HD DVD's is so 2006 :p

Which still look much much better than the earlly BR titles! :):confused::eek::rolleyes::mad:;)

:p

Which still look much much better than the earlly BR titles! :):confused::eek::rolleyes::mad:;)

Agreed on the early 2006 titles, Hitch, Punisher, 50 First Dates :eek:

I think this describes early adoptors very well.I can easily see the difference between good examples of SD and HD.


For the average consumer who just wants to watch a movie, sits 10+ feet away from their 42-50 inch big screen TV, and just uses stereo TV speakers, I don't think it is a big deal.That is a lot of conditional statements and speculation.

I can easily see the difference between good examples of SD and HD.

You being on avs easily takes you out of the "mass consumer" group. Chances are you also know what edge enchancement means, know which cables are capable of delivering what spec, how to connect and what those weird settings on the TV actually do to the picture.

The people in discussion are the ones who believe that having a HDTV means everything they see is HD. No adjustments no nothing.

Frankly, some DVD's are quite good when upscaled and let's not forget that not all HD media is reference.

Let Joe Sixpack(a term which I detest) watch Blu-rays consistently for a month and then try to switch back to dvd. That is when even untrained viewers notice the huge drop in resolution and clarity.

How many times are we going to have this argument. It really depends on the source transfer and type of film. HD is almost always better. And there is a difference regardless of resolution.

Lets put resolution aside. Most DVD main features are 6.5-8GB. And they still try to squeeze features in there. HD takes 15-30gb depending on the format used and does not have the restrictions that DVD has in size. Furthermore it is able to fit more detail in the same equivalent bandwidth depending on what codec is used. The results that I have noticed most have to do with Color and far less artifacts.

A good example is to watch the HD version of the Mummy II versus SD version. Upconverted, the SD version has artifacts galore and I am using good systems (HD805 with the reon chip and an HD HTPC with the FFDShow filters at 94" => much better than what most folks get for sub $100)

But it is all relevant to the source. BSG galactic looks very good upscaled as does Lost. Same with the Fifth Element.

Sorry, I was at Cedar Point with my kids all day, but everyone is missing my point.

YES, HD is better than SD.

My point is that even if SD could be scaled to match HD/1080p (and that may never be possible), it wouldn't matter for us early adoptors. Just the thought of watching SD and knowing its not true HD would drive us crazy!

Now I have mentioned before that my wife is the opposite. She watches SD broadcast TV when the HD version is available, and does not care. That drives me crazy too. I think SD from our cable service on a TV 50 inches and bigger not look too good at all.

Let Joe Sixpack(a term which I detest) watch Blu-rays consistently for a month and then try to switch back to dvd. That is when even untrained viewers notice the huge drop in resolution and clarity.

Naw. Joe Six and his obese wife eat at the feedbag buffets every week and they think it is fine food.

Let Joe Sixpack(a term which I detest) watch Blu-rays consistently for a month and then try to switch back to dvd. That is when even untrained viewers notice the huge drop in resolution and clarity.

I agree. My wife can now easily differentiate between Blu-ray and DVD even from a distance of 9~10 feet.:eek:;)

I agree. My wife can now easily differentiate between Blu-ray and DVD even from a distance of 9~10 feet.:eek:;)

My wife and children went from : "Can't tell the difference" to "So that's why you spent all that money".

It didn't take long, about 30 or so BD movies over less than 3 months and they never noticed the BD quality was better.

What they did notice was that the first DVD they played back after that looked very different to the BDs (and a few HD DVDs) they're used to.

By now, on a reasonable size TV, they can pick out the DVD with good consistency. Sometimes they think a BD is a DVD, but that's only on a few overly filtered movies.

My point is that even if SD could be scaled to match HD/1080p (and that may never be possible), it wouldn't matter for us early adoptors. Just the thought of watching SD and knowing its not true HD would drive us crazy!

So if it were possible to make SD look as good as HD, not only would early adoptors pay extra for HD, they would also still freeze frames, look for any imperfections they could, and discuss why they are right (there is no 'rightht' here) and think the average consumer will do the same thing too.

..then when they learn that many consumers could care less about HD some early adoptors will say stuff about them like...
Joe Six and his obese wife eat at the feedbag buffets every week and they think it is fine food..which I think translates into "we are better than them".

I am not sure why, but I have found that some people get a little upset when they find that others do not share the same opinions.

We already know that less than 50% of HDTV owners are watching HD programming content.

So when this is the case - it just adds fuel to the argument that not everyone wants to pay extra for increased PQ.

Everyone have a crappy theater in their area? No surround sound - very dim image - yet people still go to that theater . . .

Which proves that some people will want to see the content - and really don't care how it is presented.

We already know that less than 50% of HDTV owners are watching HD programming content.

So when this is the case - it just adds fuel to the argument that not everyone wants to pay extra for increased PQ.

Everyone have a crappy theater in their area? No surround sound - very dim image - yet people still go to that theater . . .

Which proves that some people will want to see the content - and really don't care how it is presented.

Good points. I have people leave my house amazed....about the surround sound. Never have I heard "This is a great picture." The only time the jaws drop is on something like Discovery HD.

Which proves that some people will want to see the content - and really don't care how it is presented.

Exactly. And those consumers really confuse the people who are the opposite...care about presentation and not about content. There are some very, very bad movies that people buy only because they are "reference" material.

..which I think translates into "we are better than them".

I am not sure why, but I have found that some people get a little upset when they find that others do not share the same opinions.
+1

THis forum is so elitist its ridiculous. The fact that someone does not share the same love for home theater as us does not mean they are a fat lowlife slob.


My Dad IS Joe Six pack. Hes a machinist, owns a million power tools, mows the lawn, drives a 92 camry, etc. He just bought a 46" $1500 or so Samsung LCD.

I brought my PS3 over and popped in a couple of movies on BD. His response was "holy crap". He has a hard time telling the difference between HD Cable and upconverted DVD, but thats because comcast compresses the living crap out of everything in his area.

We already know that less than 50% of HDTV owners are watching HD programming content.

So when this is the case - it just adds fuel to the argument that not everyone wants to pay extra for increased PQ.

I don't think that conclusion can be made from those pieces of information. If J6P didn't want a better picture, he wouldn't have bought the 50" LCD.


The problem is that in a lot of cases, what J6P is being given as "HD" is simply SD content on an HD channel. IE, its just scaled, poor quality content. J6P says "oh, so this is what HD looks like...bleh". I've shown bluray to my parents, my friends, etc, most of whom are J6P, and all of them have noticed a drastic difference in picture quality.

+1

THis forum is so elitist its ridiculous. The fact that someone does not share the same love for home theater as us does not mean they are a fat lowlife slob.


My Dad IS Joe Six pack. Hes a machinist, owns a million power tools, mows the lawn, drives a 92 camry, etc. He just bought a 46" $1500 or so Samsung LCD.

I brought my PS3 over and popped in a couple of movies on BD. His response was "holy crap". He has a hard time telling the difference between HD Cable and upconverted DVD, but thats because comcast compresses the living crap out of everything in his area.

You did a good service for you dad :D My parents were sold on blu-ray in a similar fashion, we bought them a 46" LCD for Christmas and I brought my PS3 over. They were already amazed at seeing Planet Earth, but having watched a few blu-ray's over the holidays when I lent them my PS3 convinced them for good. I bought my dad Patton on blu-ray for Father's day and my mom said he couldn't stop talking about it, lol

Naw. Joe Six and his obese wife eat at the feedbag buffets every week and they think it is fine food.

I think this was said in jest, but it's a sad fact that some people actually think like this. If you don't share my interests and ideas, you must be a lesser person. It's OK though. The people that are looked down upon think the same thing about us. What kind of idiot would spend hour and hours tweaking his display to get a barely noticeable improvement for a dang movie. Just watch the damn thing already. :D

And some of the best food I've had is from a buffet...Don't get me started about a pig pickin. Mmmm. I'm getting hungry.

John

+I brought my PS3 over and popped in a couple of movies on BD. His response was "holy crap". He has a hard time telling the difference between HD Cable and upconverted DVD, but thats because comcast compresses the living crap out of everything in his area.

So is he gonna run out and buy a $300 player and pay a $5 premium on every new movie he buys now?:D

"Naw. Joe Six and his obese wife eat at the feedbag buffets every week and they think it is fine food."

I've tried to tell my parents that Hungry Heffer (aka Hungry Hunter) and Black Angus isn't fine food but they love the coupons and early bird specials ;)

Reminds me of a quote from a favorite movie of mine "We were out at the Olive Garden for dinner, which was lovely"

Let Joe Sixpack(a term which I detest) watch Blu-rays consistently for a month and then try to switch back to dvd. That is when even untrained viewers notice the huge drop in resolution and clarity.

I resemble that remark. ;->

Seriously, "Joe" won't even get the chance to get that experience until BD players and discs prices drop down to DVD levels. It will happen, of course (prices are already starting to drop), but not tomorrow. And even when it does, what is going to compel Joe to buy a new BD player if his current DVD player ain't broke?

!

Now I have mentioned before that my wife is the opposite. She watches SD broadcast TV when the HD version is available, and does not care. That drives me crazy too. I think SD from our cable service on a TV 50 inches and bigger not look too good at all.
Not sure about your setup but my TV/cable setup makes HD content 16:9 if available and SD 4:3.
Unless you are stretching SD to fit the screen, then maybe your wife just likes the 4:3 frame over full screen 16:9 ?

So is he gonna run out and buy a $300 player and pay a $5 premium on every new movie he buys now?:D




Has he yet? No. Will he? I bet he has one by christmas.

And even when it does, what is going to compel Joe to buy a new BD player if his current DVD player ain't broke?

The same things that is compelling J6P to buy that 50" LCD when his 27" CRT aint broke: A better picture.

The same things that is compelling J6P to buy that 50" LCD when his 27" CRT aint broke: A better picture.

Is that why he runs his digital cable to that box with a coaxial cable?
People buy that 50" because it is bigger than the 27". I bet if they sold SD 50 inch TV's at a lower price than HDTV versions they would sell like hotcakes.

Not sure about your setup but my TV/cable setup makes HD content 16:9 if available and SD 4:3.
Unless you are stretching SD to fit the screen, then maybe your wife just likes the 4:3 frame over full screen 16:9 ?

I'll walk by and be 20+ feet away and notice that everything is stretched, and then shake my head. On that TV, everything is stretched to 16x9. Part of the problem is that most programming is still SD, and peolple are just use to it.
As Lee said less than 1/2 of HDTV owners are watch HD content. The rest are happy with watching SD. Content matters more than resolution to them.

..and my point here has been that for us resolution trumps content, we love to come to AVS and post about it, and we push these new HD formats on on friends and families.

Exactly. And those consumers really confuse the people who are the opposite...care about presentation and not about content. There are some very, very bad movies that people buy only because they are "reference" material.

:D - I wonder how many times they will actually watch one of those type discs.

+1

THis forum is so elitist its ridiculous. The fact that someone does not share the same love for home theater as us does not mean they are a fat lowlife slob.


My Dad IS Joe Six pack. Hes a machinist, owns a million power tools, mows the lawn, drives a 92 camry, etc. He just bought a 46" $1500 or so Samsung LCD.

I brought my PS3 over and popped in a couple of movies on BD. His response was "holy crap". He has a hard time telling the difference between HD Cable and upconverted DVD, but thats because comcast compresses the living crap out of everything in his area.

Its not that people can't tell the difference. I can tell the difference on my 17" computer monitor.

It is what they are programmed to think by the media. I would bet most people don't know the difference between 720p / 1080i and 1080p spec wise, but they will when they see it.

My parents had a 1080i RP TV (50") and upgraded to a 720p (62"). I was looking over it they were insulted when I told them that it was in fact a 720p which is a good thing for they watch it mainly for sports. They just didn't understand that 720p was better in their situation. They insisted it was a 1080i because that was what they had their comcast box set on.

Their TV, forget the model, has a very good built in upscaler. It did cost them about $3K last year which is alot for that model which I guess accounts for that. The have been watching DVDs through the component at 480p upscaled to TV and had compared that to the on demand HD streams. The one they showed me was Blood Diamond back and forth. They didn't feel that HD offered enough to bother getting a BD player. Furthermore like many, they bought it for football games and the occasional movie at best.

Unless they are introduced to HDM which is pretty expensive, most folks will most likely asssume that all HD is the same. Heck, there are even people on here that will say that there is not much of a difference.

But of course there is. I liken it to DVD. I didn't think DVD was all that much better in PQ on my 27" TV in 99 until about 6 months later when I went back and watch one of my old VHS favorites. The same for me now. After about 3-4 months, SD just started looking fuzzy which is why I picked up an Onkyo 805 with the reon chip and my HTPC with FFDshow filters. Even with that, it looks passable at best. But in the first month or two, I thought SD upscaled on my HD-A3 and HTPC looked pretty close with the right movies. I thought The Mummy looks just fine in SD.... until I watched the HD DVD version. Same with the BD version of Underworld (Kate Beckensale definitely looks better in HD).

:D - I wonder how many times they will actually watch one of those type discs.

Yeah, come on guys, let's see a raise of hands...how many of you ran out and bought TMNT and Happy Feet when you read that ithey were tier 0 quality? :D

I am sure there are better examples too.

Yeah, come on guys, let's see a raise of hands...how many of you ran out and bought TMNT and Happy Feet when you read that ithey were tier 0 quality? :D

I am sure there are better examples too.

I have TMNT HD DVD? :(

It is actually a pretty ok movie. PQ is really good.

I have to admit, I really like Happy Feet. TMNT didn't live up to the hype for me.
I owned them both on a pre-order, so no tier reviews were invloved.

I bought Happy Feet as I read it was a good movie.. Movie sucks. I read TMNT is pretty good as well but haven't got around to watching the entire movie yet.

In short, I buy movies I actually want to watch. If they released The Big Labowski for example and people said it was the best transfer ever, you still couldn't tempt me to buy it as it is such a horrible movie.

The movies I end up regretting buying are usually blind buys that were were giving good reviews by others. No Country for Old Men for example I bought on a whim as I read all the praise. Well halfway through the movie I was really enjoying it, too bad the second half sucked and killed any interest to watch it again. Luckily I blind bought it at under $15 so really I was able to sell it for pretty close to what I paid (Still less than what it would have costed to rent it at Blockbuster).

Yeah, come on guys, let's see a raise of hands...how many of you ran out and bought TMNT and Happy Feet when you read that ithey were tier 0 quality? :D

I bought TMNT because it was a combo disk (important for kids movies). Movie was pretty good too.

I understand your point, I'm just not one us "those" people. I buy a movie because of the content, not because of the PQ or AQ.

John

I bought TMNT because it was a combo disk (important for kids movies). Movie was pretty good too.

I understand your point, I'm just not one us "those" people. I buy a movie because of the content, not because of the PQ or AQ.

John

+1

I think this describes early adoptors very well. We are always freezing frames and scouring the pictures to find any difference we can.

For the average consumer who just wants to watch a movie, sits 10+ feet away from their 42-50 inch big screen TV, and just uses stereo TV speakers, I don't think it is a big deal.

...but for us early adptors, it doesn't matter if there is a difference in the picture/audio, it will just bug the heck out of us knowing the source is not true HD!:D

Never have the urge to freeze frames and study but can spot hd source very easily over sd. I do however get a kick out of those who do (see Patton hd discussion).

That joe is content to eat spam for the rest of his life and call it prime rib doesn't bother me either.
If we all waited for joe, we would still be waiting for the movie of the week on ABC 3 years after it hit the big screen on our 13" b & w tvs.

Just like the guy who doesn't mind spending a quarter more for a larger drink I don't mind spending more for a better product.

Just like the guy who doesn't mind spending a quarter more for a larger drink I don't mind spending more for a better product.

I think a better analogy, especially with this economy, would be this:
Do you work on a car as a hobby? If yes, then buy top of the line torque wrenches.
Dou you collect and re-read books a lot? Then hardbacks are the way to go.
Are you an audiophile? Then buy a good receiver and high-end speakers.
Do you watch DVDs a lot? Then Blu-ray is the way to go.

If you answer no to any of those questions, then you might feel that buying those things are a waste of money. My dad is a bookwork and only watches sports on TV. Blu-ray would be a waste of money for him.

If they released The Big Labowski for example and people said it was the best transfer ever, you still couldn't tempt me to buy it as it is such a horrible movie.


Oooooh, them's fightin' words! ;)

Oooooh, them's fightin' words! ;)

Dude, lol

Speaking of articles from the front page, can the latest one be right? 6 billion spent on DVD and BD throught the mid-year. 200 Mil. on BD alone this year. 200 mil. divided by 6 billion = 3.3%.

Is that correct?

Speaking of articles from the front page, can the latest one be right? 6 billion spent on DVD and BD throught the mid-year. 200 Mil. on BD alone this year. 200 mil. divided by 6 billion = 3.3%.

Is that correct?

If we talking money, then yes, but not in units.

If we talking money, then yes, but not in units.

That is a little disappointing. Units would be a lower percentage because price of a BD is higher.

I still think that next year wll be Blu-ray's year to grow once all of the Chinese players hit the market, but I really thought that they were well over 5% of sales.

Yeah, come on guys, let's see a raise of hands...how many of you ran out and bought TMNT and Happy Feet when you read that ithey were tier 0 quality? :D

I am sure there are better examples too.

Yeah, I don't think those make for good examples. I realize there are adults that buy and enjoy children's movies, and not all animated movies are aimed at children. However, those two are definitely children's movies and while many kids enjoy them they are definitely lame by adult standards. I can personally vouch for this as my six year old loves those two and I can't stand either one.

Others I'd throw into this category are Bee Movie, anything Barney or Elmo related, and Surf's Up. As a parent I have to tolerate being subjected to all of these, but I obviously prefer something that appeals to people of all ages. Thankfully, many animated films at least sneak in a little adult humor. This is not so with Happy Feet or TMNT.

If someone buys TMNT or Happy Feet just for the high PQ, and not for their kids to enjoy (or especially if they have no kids) that's pretty hard core. I'd put it up there with someone that only understands English buying a foreign film that is in another language and with no English subtitles. In both cases the movie is definitely not intended for the purchaser.

I think a better analogy, especially with this economy, would be this:
Do you work on a car as a hobby? If yes, then buy top of the line torque wrenches.
Dou you collect and re-read books a lot? Then hardbacks are the way to go.
Are you an audiophile? Then buy a good receiver and high-end speakers.
Do you watch DVDs a lot? Then Blu-ray is the way to go.

If you answer no to any of those questions, then you might feel that buying those things are a waste of money. My dad is a bookwork and only watches sports on TV. Blu-ray would be a waste of money for him.

I love these analogies, they're perfect. As a videophile, it wasn't hard to talk myself into buying HDM. Yes, many of my purchases have been more expensive than if I had bought the DVD... but it's something I care about and am willing to spend more for. In the same way a mechanic is going to spend the money for a complete Snap-on (or whatever brand) set of tools. If I don't work on cars much then I'm going to buy a basic set of inexpensive "made in China" tools and be fine with it.

That's the challenge blu-ray faces. Sure, it is going to win over the videophile market... that was never in question. It's the broader market opinion that it must win over if it is to grow beyond niche status.

An EH writer says what :eek::eek:

"... Blu-ray is gaining ground and many consumers are obviously comfortable with the current pricing, players included."

:D:D:D

Players too !?!
:D:D:D

...That's the challenge blu-ray faces. Sure, it is going to win over the videophile market... that was never in question. It's the broader market opinion that it must win over if it is to grow beyond niche status.

I would be quite happy if it stayed as a niche market that had a steady stream of new and catalog titles that were not edge-enhanced, or re-processed to "fill the screen" artificially.

Yeah, I don't think those make for good examples. I realize there are adults that buy and enjoy children's movies, and not all animated movies are aimed at children. However, those two are definitely children's movies and while many kids enjoy them they are definitely lame by adult standards. I can personally vouch for this as my six year old loves those two and I can't stand either one.

Others I'd throw into this category are Bee Movie, anything Barney or Elmo related, and Surf's Up. As a parent I have to tolerate being subjected to all of these, but I obviously prefer something that appeals to people of all ages. Thankfully, many animated films at least sneak in a little adult humor. This is not so with Happy Feet or TMNT.

If someone buys TMNT or Happy Feet just for the high PQ, and not for their kids to enjoy (or especially if they have no kids) that's pretty hard core. I'd put it up there with someone that only understands English buying a foreign film that is in another language and with no English subtitles. In both cases the movie is definitely not intended for the purchaser.



I love these analogies, they're perfect. As a videophile, it wasn't hard to talk myself into buying HDM. Yes, many of my purchases have been more expensive than if I had bought the DVD... but it's something I care about and am willing to spend more for. In the same way a mechanic is going to spend the money for a complete Snap-on (or whatever brand) set of tools. If I don't work on cars much then I'm going to buy a basic set of inexpensive "made in China" tools and be fine with it.

That's the challenge blu-ray faces. Sure, it is going to win over the videophile market... that was never in question. It's the broader market opinion that it must win over if it is to grow beyond niche status.


Why is everyone bashing the Turtles. The turtles is a BAD example. You are obviously not a fan. They are not kids only. There is a huge adult following. In case you didn't know, the turtles started out as a comic book.

And this was an animated version for adults as well as kids. It isn't mindless none-sense like many of the others that I had to endure.


Highdefdigest (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/902/tmnt.html)

It all started as a joke. Comic artist Kevin Eastman wanted to parody industry favorites like "Daredevil," "The New Mutants," "Cerebus," and "Ronin," so he drummed up some money and self-published a single issue release of the tongue-in-cheek "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" in 1984. Almost overnight, his creation gave birth to an animated television series, a line of toys and a comic series. By the time the television series had run its course in the early '90s, an entire generation of kids had taken Eastman's joke very seriously.

And even twenty years after the fact, the turtles have yet to fall by the way side. In the years since their debut, there have been a successful series of live action films, new action figures released on a regular basis, and even a recent TV reboot. The latest offshoot of this profitable juggernaut came in the form of 'TMNT,' a feature length CG animated film helmed by rookie writer/director Kevin Munroe.



I, at 34 am part of the gen that grew up with this. It is the same with Transformers.

So stop insulting my Turtles!!!! :mad: :D

You are probably the same type of person that doesn't get Wall-e either.

Good points. I have people leave my house amazed....about the surround sound. Never have I heard "This is a great picture." The only time the jaws drop is on something like Discovery HD.

This is interesting. Your experience is the exact opposite from mine. I'm wondering, was this the first time that your friends came over to your place to experience your home theater set-up? If so, it could just be that the audio system provided the most obvious common frame of reference for them. Since the advent of DVD, a lot of people have modest surround sound systems (which they often consider high-end just because it has more than two speakers) which they can directly compare to your system. On the other hand, if they are watching their DVDs on a much smaller, cheaper display, they will automatically EXPECT your 50-inch plasma to look better. If this is the case, it's not surprising that they wouldn't comment on the picture. After all, if you saw a Ferrari outrun a Toyota, would you even bother mentioning the fact to someone else? "Wow, did you see that F40 blow that doors off that Camry? Amazing!"

In my case, my friends have been coming over to watch movies on my HD front projection system home theater system for years, before Blu-ray or HD-DVD were even available. So they were already used to hearing high-quality surround when they saw movies at my place. The first time I put a Blu-ray disc in my PS3 in 2006, everyone commented on how clear the picture was. Nobody said anything about the sound because they already expected it to sound good based on prior experience.

I have to agree the diff in sound is not as dramatic as the diff in picture. And people notice it when they see it for the first time who have been over for movies before. I even have to say when I do a reference sound example I have a couple of DVD's that I use in addition to HD (I like good sound but I wont over use supperlatives like it blows the doors off of DVD its just not that much of a step up). The PS3 is still the driving force in the Blu-ray market place because it offers the biggest bang for your buck. It will be interesting to see how things play out when prices start droping below 300 in brick and mortar stores. In any advent there is growth in this market segment so no one should worry. Between this and HD downloads it nice to have so much content at my fingertips.

Yeah, come on guys, let's see a raise of hands...how many of you ran out and bought TMNT and Happy Feet when you read that ithey were tier 0 quality? :D



If the movies I like happen to be tier 0, then it's a big plus and I'm willing to spend whatever they cost to own them. But that won't stop me from buying the others either... Content first... That's why I can't wait for Dark City next week...

Oh, and yes, I have Happy Feet. My daughter wanted it, but I like it too!:)

Why is everyone bashing the Turtles. The turtles is a BAD example. You are obviously not a fan. They are not kids only. There is a huge adult following. In case you didn't know, the turtles started out as a comic book.

And this was an animated version for adults as well as kids. It isn't mindless none-sense like many of the others that I had to endure.



I, at 34 am part of the gen that grew up with this. It is the same with Transformers.

So stop insulting my Turtles!!!! :mad: :D

You are probably the same type of person that doesn't get Wall-e either.


Wait a second, I am 34 and remeber the cartoon turtles being for little kids. Transformers was earlier, and it was for a kid that was 'my age' at the time.

The comic book (which I didn't read) may have not been as kid centric as the cartoon I remember.

FWIW I thought the movie was pretty good, a lot better than I thought it would be. My kids are 4 and 6 and we all liked it.

edit: Also, I am pretty far left and I drive a prius, but I am not a fan of Happy Feet, chop off the last 1/3 of the movie and I might try to sit through it again.

Wait a second, I am 34 and remeber the cartoon turtles being for little kids. Transformers was earlier, and it was for a kid that was 'my age' at the time.

The comic book (which I didn't read) may have not been as kid centric as the cartoon I remember.

FWIW I thought the movie was pretty good, a lot better than I thought it would be. My kids are 4 and 6 and we all liked it.

edit: Also, I am pretty far left and I drive a prius, but I am not a fan of Happy Feet, chop off the last 1/3 of the movie and I might try to sit through it again.

Exactly. I'm in my mid 30's as well and I used to watch the turtles. Then I grew up :D

Seriously, I'm not going to insult adults that choose to watch TMNT and enjoy it. But I know for a fact that it is aimed at a very young audience and there's nothing in it to take seriously... it's bad cinema. It is nothing like anime for example that is clearly aimed at adults.

I, at 34 am part of the gen that grew up with this. It is the same with Transformers.

So stop insulting my Turtles!!!! :mad: :D

I'm 36 and have always loved TMNT. I still have the first prints of all the comics. Brought them out and read them to my son (5) because he's into them now.

John

I think there is often more "content" in "kid films" than many adult films.

And the same for comic movies whether anime, cartoon, CGI or real life.

There is alot behind what happens in turtles if you pay attention. The same for transformers.

Won of the best animated movies that I own and still watch from time to time is The Prince of Egypt. I am not some religious freak... far from it and am very left, but it was really amazingly put together. Alladin was great. Snow White...... Even Tarzan was pretty good.

I think it is insulting to compare something like Barney or Teletubbies or even just mindless cartoon movies to ones that do have more depth.

Just as in there are junk films like Gigli and great films like the Pianist.

And in many ways, the Animated films need it even more. Artifacts can get lost in real life movies. They stand out like a sore thum in CGI and Animated films.

Anyone who has ever reencoded an animated flick will tell you that.

And while I am not saying that TMNTs is a great like the ones that I mentioned, it is nowhere near a Barney film either. And actually, the original Transformers movie is actually pretty good. I watched it the other day with the kids.

When you have kids and watch these films with them that you grow up with, you see a whole other part of the film that you didn't get when you were young. A great example is the Fox and the Hound. Its about racism, classism and how wrong they really are.

I, at 34 am part of the gen that grew up with this. It is the same with Transformers.

So stop insulting my Turtles!!!! :mad: :D

You are probably the same type of person that doesn't get Wall-e either.

Okay Mister. I'm 35 and I've always hated your turtles. I wasn't a fan of Transformers either but I like the movie. But I get, and like very much, Wall-e.:) In fact I have yet to be disappointed by a film coming from Pixar...

And for the record, as long as they never, and I mean n-e-v-er, make a blu-ray version of Howard The Duck, I'm fine with HD turtles!

Okay Mister. I'm 35 and I've always hated your turtles. I wasn't a fan of Transformers either but I like the movie. But I get, and like very much, Wall-e.:) In fact I have yet to be disappointed by a film coming from Pixar...

And for the record, as long as they never, and I mean n-e-v-er, make a blu-ray version of Howard The Duck, I'm fine with HD turtles!

Oh know... now you are starting on my Howard the Duck.... I loved that movie!!! :D:D:D

This is interesting. Your experience is the exact opposite from mine. I'm wondering, was this the first time that your friends came over to your place to experience your home theater set-up? If so, it could just be that the audio system provided the most obvious common frame of reference for them. Since the advent of DVD, a lot of people have modest surround sound systems (which they often consider high-end just because it has more than two speakers) which they can directly compare to your system. On the other hand, if they are watching their DVDs on a much smaller, cheaper display, they will automatically EXPECT your 50-inch plasma to look better. If this is the case, it's not surprising that they wouldn't comment on the picture. After all, if you saw a Ferrari outrun a Toyota, would you even bother mentioning the fact to someone else? "Wow, did you see that F40 blow that doors off that Camry? Amazing!"

In my case, my friends have been coming over to watch movies on my HD front projection system home theater system for years, before Blu-ray or HD-DVD were even available. So they were already used to hearing high-quality surround when they saw movies at my place. The first time I put a Blu-ray disc in my PS3 in 2006, everyone commented on how clear the picture was. Nobody said anything about the sound because they already expected it to sound good based on prior experience.

Let me clear this up. They do comment on how nice the picture is, but never as much as the surround sound. They notice how good movies look...and say so. But...they are more amazed watching Planet Earth (HD DVD) than they are Transformers. As far as the sound goes, I could never fully demonstrate the capabilities of my surround because I lived in an apartment. Now that I have my own place, different scenario all together:D.

What I noticed was the difference in the background.

I watched Charlie Wilson's War on upscaled via my BH200 as well as the Blu-Ray of The Eye. (We already know which one was the better movie.) From 12 feet away on a 57" screen I noticed that the background objects were razor sharp on the Blu-Ray whereas the the background objects were blurry on the SD DVD. I know it's not the same movie. (I am not watching The Eye a second time.) However, it was quite interesting to note the differences in my experience.

And that is I think what most experience when viewing up scaled DVD. Scenes showing up close shots in good lighting look great almost HD if you will. The things just out of the main frame look much much less sharp. I find after watching a bit of hi def content that watching SD it just seems like someone threw my projector out of focus. I will say that new SD DVD movies suffer much less from this than say movies from just a few years ago.

More information in the source = better picture detail.
Simply duplicating a pixel from an adjacent pixel (upconverter function) does not give a superior picture. It does make for a better picture but not a superior picture.
One of the main benefits of BD (or the defunct format) is excellent resolution in the entire screen, not just on the close up of the face.
Throw in better color and sound...what's not to like?

Exactly. I'm in my mid 30's as well and I used to watch the turtles. Then I grew up :D

Seriously, I'm not going to insult adults that choose to watch TMNT and enjoy it. But I know for a fact that it is aimed at a very young audience and there's nothing in it to take seriously... it's bad cinema. It is nothing like anime for example that is clearly aimed at adults.

Have you seen the new TMNT? I wouldn't call it bad cinema at all. The rooftop fight scene in the rain between Leo and Ralph is particularly great. It's not mandatory to become a cynical old fogey you know? :D As for the original Transformers movie, that's not "kiddy" either (and technically it is in fact an "anime" with some excellent animation) and is a lot better than the new live-action movie.

Is that why he runs his digital cable to that box with a coaxial cable?

Again, thats a perfect example of what the problem is. Thanks for making my point.


J6P goes out and buys this fancy new Tv. Calls up comcast, tells them to upgrade him to HD. They come out and hook the TV up like this. Hes being told its HD, when its not...no wonder he doesn't see much of a difference.


I had to have my DVR replaced a couple of weeks ago...was hooked up via component video, and digital coax spdif. When I got home, the cable guy had changed it from that to Coax video to the Tv, there was no audio, and he had plugged one of the RCA cables from the Yb out on the box, to the Left stereo channel in on the Tv. Seriously.

Then hes trying to tell me that everything is working great, and its great looking HD, so I kicked the guy out, called and yelled at comcast, and hooked everything up properly.


J6P on the other hand, assumes that the cable Tech, knows how to do what hes getting paid to do. They assume the HD picture isnt a big improvement, rather than that the expensive cable guy is incompetent. J6P hasn't seen anything better, so hes got no reason to think otherwise.


Incompetent cable installers are probably 90% of the reason for "I don't see much of a difference"

Again, thats a perfect example of what the problem is. Thanks for making my point.


J6P goes out and buys this fancy new Tv. Calls up comcast, tells them to upgrade him to HD. They come out and hook the TV up like this. Hes being told its HD, when its not...no wonder he doesn't see much of a difference.


I had to have my DVR replaced a couple of weeks ago...was hooked up via component video, and digital coax spdif. When I got home, the cable guy had changed it from that to Coax video to the Tv, there was no audio, and he had plugged one of the RCA cables from the Yb out on the box, to the Left stereo channel in on the Tv. Seriously.

Then hes trying to tell me that everything is working great, and its great looking HD, so I kicked the guy out, called and yelled at comcast, and hooked everything up properly.


J6P on the other hand, assumes that the cable Tech, knows how to do what hes getting paid to do. They assume the HD picture isnt a big improvement, rather than that the expensive cable guy is incompetent. J6P hasn't seen anything better, so hes got no reason to think otherwise.


Incompetent cable installers are probably 90% of the reason for "I don't see much of a difference"

What about the guy who is told he needs to buy a $90 Monster brand HDMI cable, so instead uses his current s-video or rca cable? Hey, s-video is better than the yellow rca jack right?:D Once he sees it works, he's done.

What am I buying? Several Blu Ray concert disks, a few Blu Ray movies (may be 20 or so since March) mainly because there isn't that much content I'd like to buy right now. Renting one Apple HD movie every other night. No DVDs.

No doubt Blu Ray is the benchmark, but unless the title has tremendous repeat viewing opportunity it isn't worth it. I'd rather rent from Apple TV HD since I can rent 6 movies for the price of 1 Blu Ray. Plus, I can pretend that Apple is cataloging my movies for me on their server. The always on, instant access feature of Apple is just great! :)

When is Battlestar Gallactica coming out on Blu Ray? That will be a must buy.

What about the guy who is told he needs to buy a $90 Monster brand HDMI cable, so instead uses his current s-video or rca cable? Hey, s-video is better than the yellow rca jack right?:D Once he sees it works, he's done.

Same issue though: Theres no point of reference. Comcast guy will hook it up with SVideo and say its still HD. J6P is going to assume the comcast guy knows what hes talking about, because the Comcast guy is supposed to be an expert.

Well I guess I'm late to the ahh... "party." I've been away for awhile... buried in work. I was hoping I was missing something new. Guess I'll be checking back in another few months with my fingers crossed.

Hey Everdog... this might be hard for you to fathom, but I'm still an HD DVD only cat (2-dozen discs) and the difference is night and day on my old 36" Hitachi, tube HDTV (my optoma died and I'm broke :() from 12' away!!! Granted at that viewing angle it's not resolution that I'm discerning, but the color difference is all I need, to know what my source is.

As to your original point... I'm sure plenty of JSPs couldn't tell the difference... right away. But I bet many will learn. ;)

Keep fighting the ah... good fight. :rolleyes:

As to your original point... I'm sure plenty of JSPs couldn't tell the difference... right away. But I bet many will learn. ;)

Keep fighting the ah... good fight. :rolleyes:

Just like he did with DVD-A and SACD. Sure you and I could tell the difference, but he for some reason preffers 128-bit mp3 encodes.:D

Just like he did with DVD-A and SACD. Sure you and I could tell the difference, but he for some reason preffers 128-bit mp3 encodes.:D
Fortunately it appears that blu-ray is a little easier to market. How many "Available on CD, DVD-A and SACD!" commercials do you recall hearing?

;)

Go blu!!!

Fortunately it appears that blu-ray is a little easier to market. How many "Available on CD, DVD-A and SACD!" commercials do you recall hearing?

;)

Go blu!!!

Do they still have "Available on CD" commercials? I only see the ones for iTunes.:D

Well I can understand them noticing the sound more than the picture in the following scenario quite easily.

My BR pictuer vs their upscaled picture (nice picture)
My 7.1 callibrated setup versus their TV speakers (lol, huge difference). Even over an entry level 5.1 system or a HTIB setup.

Cheers,

Richard

Well I can understand them noticing the sound more than the picture in the following scenario quite easily.

My BR pictuer vs their upscaled picture (nice picture)
My 7.1 callibrated setup versus their TV speakers (lol, huge difference). Even over an entry level 5.1 system or a HTIB setup.

Cheers,

Richard
Yes, but blu-ray is not a requirement for 7.1.