Before I got my PS3, I played DVDs on a Samsung player that upscaled the DVD quality to something better than a DVD's native resolution. I have a Samsung DLP 1080i 43" HDTV. Now I get blueray movies from Netflix, and I really don't see the difference from what I saw with a regular DVD and my upscaling Samsung player. Am I missing something or is the difference so minor that my aging eyes can't see the difference? Also, on a side note, if you use Netflix, think twice about changing your settings to Blueray; every Blueray movie in my queue is on a long or very long wait, and it's been that way for some time. According to Netflix, it takes them 30 days to get new copies of movies from the studios and clearly they didn't order enough. It's ridiculous. Anyway, thanks for the input.

Lucky for me, my wife notices a difference otherwise she would give me crap for spending more on a BD disk.

There's a definite difference on my 47 inch 1080p lcd set. It's a real improvement, even from upscaled DVD's, but not as big a jump as VHS to DVD. Also, I've noticed there are significant differences in picture quality even among various Blu-ray movies...

some people are more into the details, if your not one to care...cop dvds..

Before I got my PS3, I played DVDs on a Samsung player that upscaled the DVD quality to something better than a DVD's native resolution. I have a Samsung DLP 1080i 43" HDTV. Now I get blueray movies from Netflix, and I really don't see the difference from what I saw with a regular DVD and my upscaling Samsung player. Am I missing something or is the difference so minor that my aging eyes can't see the difference? Also, on a side note, if you use Netflix, think twice about changing your settings to Blueray; every Blueray movie in my queue is on a long or very long wait, and it's been that way for some time. According to Netflix, it takes them 30 days to get new copies of movies from the studios and clearly they didn't order enough. It's ridiculous. Anyway, thanks for the input.

Rent one of the movies from the PQ Tier 0 list (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316) and if you still don't see a difference, then there might be something else with your setup. Problem is that not all blu-ray movies are encoded the same way. Some have the wow factor and others are only noticeable when you really look.

I've watched movies that were just ok and others that are superior to any standard def I've seen. Truth is that both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have some eye candy movies and some plain okay movies.

Also, let's not forget about the other end of the format (HD audio). They might mean nothing to you if you don't have a receiver to enjoy PCM, TrueHD, etc but they sure do sound incredible...

-which movies are you using as examples?
-is it possible your ps3 settings are wrong (there have been issues for 1080i only tvs)?
-do you need glasses? (i'm a wiseass).

Please make sure to calibrate that input you use for blu-ray playback.

The larger you go, the more noticeable the difference in picture quality. With a 43 inch, you'll see slight improvement because the size of the screen doesn't lend itself seeing the overall improvement.

I have a 136 inch 2.35:1 screen, a regular upscaled DVD looks decent, but the colors and detail and depth of a blu ray is incredible.

Mine is also not that great. What settings should I have?

I have a 56" Samsung DLP HLR5667W. 720p, but displays 1080i.

Whats the big deal? Well, only about 1,728,000 pixels really, I can see why you can't see any difference:confused: Any HDTV with decent settings should show a very noticeable difference with any HD movie vs. a DVD.

43" is worthless for HD

43" is worthless for HD

Most foolish statement of the day. The difference between 480p and 1080i on even a 34" tube is noticeable from 6-7 feet away if you're not 60.

43" is worthless for HD

Dumbest thing I've heard in a while. I can see a noticeable difference between DVD and Blu-Ray on my 32" LCD. Granted it's MUCH more noticeable when I'm sitting really close (typically only do this for games as it's not comfortable to sit in my office chair while I watch a movie) and I know I'd see a huge difference if I had a bigger screen but you don't need a gargantuan screen to notice the benefits of HD.

As for the original poster all I can really do is parrot what everyone else has said, make sure the input your PS3 is connected to is calibrated properly it makes an enormous difference. Also start off with some Tier 0 discs, I bought Casino Royale for demo material and it's absolutely stunning. And make sure you're sending it the proper resolution.

Are you sure your TV displays 1080i? I've never heard of a DLP that displays 1080i, most non-CRT TVs only accept 1080i and the actual native resolution is 720p or 1080p.

To the OP: I was in the same boat....I was relatively unimpressed with HD. Its nice, its an improvement, but its not night and day better than a good DVD. That is, until you see the right movie in HD. I watched a few movies the first day I got HBO in HD and was....underwhelmed. "I expected more" I said. Then, that night, I watched SCOOBY DOO in HD...and THAT really stood out, I could see the texture of the fake rocks......I could see smudges and fingerprints on glasses. Star Trek Nemesis was another one that made me go "Damn that looks sharp"......one scene has Riker walking around with a chromed Phaser Rifle, and you could easily see fingerprints and smudges on the chrome....impressive.

Thing is, don't use FILM as your source for judgement. Watch a live sporting event, or watch a Concert filmed in HD. Thats where you'll really see an improvement in clarity and color definition. You wont just see a persons coat, you'll be able to see details that will actually show you the texture. You'll see the weaves of fabric, stray hairs sticking out, dandruff...bad makeup, etc :D

IF its a movie you're using, you'll want to go for a recent one, or one that has a A+ transfer. Remember, movies are shot with different lenses for different scenes..some of those lenses are designed to make backgrounds look blurry, some are designed to make things look excessively soft (lots of films in the 70's use this technique)......there is also FILM GRAIN to contend with..sometimes if you see the film grain you lose that sense of razor sharpness.

So don't feel your crazy...I remember listening to fanboys crying about how "ITS 3D! ITS LIKE LOOKING OUT A WINDOW!" and, sometimes it is, most times its not....its somewhere in between. If you have a 32 or 42" set its one thing, I have a 110" Projection screen (720p), a 37" 1080p set and a 65" 1080i set.....and it simply all depends on how far away I am and the quality of the transfer.

I think alot of it has to do with the movie itself. Bought Full Metal Jacket expecting to be wow'd and man was I dissapointed. Put Crank in, and all I can say is holy sh#@ :eek:.

HD will evolve just as DVD did. if you compare earlier DVD releases to some of the more recent releases, you will even see a difference there. and just as DVD, some transfers are better than others. sometimes the BD version will look way better than the DVD version, but other times you will barely see a difference.

Thanks for the comments. My DLP is definitely 1080i. Every time Comcast would plug in a new DVR, I'd always have to change it to 1080i to get it to work with my TV. Also, I'm well aware of the benefits of high def as I've been watching hi-def tv content for years. With hi-def tv content the difference is always night and day from regular tv. I just expected the same when comparing HD DVD to regular or upconverted DVD source material. I've only seen one Blueray movie (see my original comment re: Netflix). Given the comments, obviously this isn't a large enough sample to judge. I figured it was like HDTV; always glorious. Anyway, I'll reserve judgment. How do I know which Blueray movies are worth buying? Is there a rule of thumb? Obviously, remastered movies from the 1970s probably wouldn't show off BR's capabilities. Also, I also assumed that I just plug the PS3 into the component 1080i inputs on my TV. Is there anywhere that I should be adjusting settings? Where would I do that? Thanks.

43" is worthless for HDYou, sir, are a pretentious boob. Let's not be silly. Just because you've got some crazy 75" display in every room doesn't give you the right to go around pissing on everyone else.

To the OP, if you can't tell the difference, then stick with standard def DVDs. They're cheaper and easier to find.

I watch Blu-ray on a 30" HDTV and I can tell the diff. I plan on getting a larger TV prehapps a 42" to 50" but until then it works

43" is worthless for HD
Horrible ass comment. I noticed a difference on my 26 inch.

I have a 56" Samsung DLP HLR5667W. 720p, but displays 1080i.\

It is native 720p it supports 1080i signals along with 480p and 720p.

Regardless any of those signals you send you are watching it at 720p

\

It is native 720p it supports 1080i signals along with 480p and 720p.

Regardless any of those signals you send you are watching it at 720p
… and depending on the quality of the built-in scaler, those non-native resolutions may actually wind up looking worse than a 720p source.

… and depending on the quality of the built-in scaler, those non-native resolutions may actually wind up looking worse than a 720p source.

Especially with the 05 models at the time.

Sounds like what I'm hearing is that my DLP only displays in 720p and to get true HD on broadcast and DVD sources I need to drop another $3500 on a 1080p XBR4 or similar set, is that right?

Sounds like what I'm hearing is that my DLP only displays in 720p and to get true HD on broadcast and DVD sources I need to drop another $3500 on a 1080p XBR4 or similar set, is that right?

NO lol.

Display
Source
Cables
Surge
Determine the end result of your picture.


Are you aware that some channels actually broadcast at 720p and others at 1080i?

Also, on a side note, if you use Netflix, think twice about changing your settings to Blueray; every Blueray movie in my queue is on a long or very long wait, and it's been that way for some time. According to Netflix, it takes them 30 days to get new copies of movies from the studios and clearly they didn't order enough. It's ridiculous. Anyway, thanks for the input.
That has not been my experience. I regularly get Blu-ray movies from Netflix with no wait.

Another can't tell the difference? I can.

Another person who can't tell the difference, and can't spell the technology either.

Mine is also not that great. What settings should I have?

I have a 56" Samsung DLP HLR5667W. 720p, but displays 1080i.I had this TV before my current one. Go into your PS3 video settings and uncheck the 1080i box. You want it set to 720p as the highest setting- that will give you native 720p output for everything, which is what this TV supports- this should make a fairly big difference.

How much of a difference is there between 720p and 1080p?

How much of a difference is there between 720p and 1080p?

That is up to your eyes to determine. It has been said many times it factors on the size, display, source, and distance in what you will see.

How much of a difference is there between 720p and 1080p?:D

Check out this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=768167

Sounds like what I'm hearing is that my DLP only displays in 720p and to get true HD on broadcast and DVD sources I need to drop another $3500 on a 1080p XBR4 or similar set, is that right?

Most definitely your set is 720p. Samsung has never made a 1080i DLP.

As suggested, try setting the player to 720p and see if it looks better. If you send 1080i, the player will have to interlace the 1080p source, then your display will have to deinterlace and downscale it to 720p. If the player does it it won't have to interlace, just downscale, and it most likely has a better quality scaling function than the set does.

Have you tried calibrating the set? The THX setup found on a lot of Disney and Pixar DVDs is a good starting point.

You should see a noticeable difference on a good quality Blu-ray disk over DVD. If your set isn't calibrated, you're looking at one of the more ahem average Blu-ray disks, and you sit more than 8 feet away, you'll see little or no difference.

I think alot of it has to do with the movie itself. Bought Full Metal Jacket expecting to be wow'd and man was I dissapointed. Put Crank in, and all I can say is holy sh#@ :eek:.


I was wowed at full metal on a 37" Toshiba. I have seen that movie on TV, VHS, and DVD. The way it looks on Blu Ray amazed me.

FWIW on my friend's 42" 720p sony set, neither one of us can see a very big difference between upscaled DVDs (using ps3) or bluray (using ps3). There IS a difference, but it isn't all that noticeable - not like you might expect from all the hype.

On my 60" 1080p set I see a MUCH bigger difference between the two. I always thought it was more because it is a bigger tv, not as much because of the increased resolution. But I'm no HD guru either :p

Thanks for the comments. My DLP is definitely 1080i. Every time Comcast would plug in a new DVR, I'd always have to change it to 1080i to get it to work with my TV. Also, I'm well aware of the benefits of high def as I've been watching hi-def tv content for years. With hi-def tv content the difference is always night and day from regular tv. I just expected the same when comparing HD DVD to regular or upconverted DVD source material. I've only seen one Blueray movie (see my original comment re: Netflix). Given the comments, obviously this isn't a large enough sample to judge. I figured it was like HDTV; always glorious. Anyway, I'll reserve judgment. How do I know which Blueray movies are worth buying? Is there a rule of thumb? Obviously, remastered movies from the 1970s probably wouldn't show off BR's capabilities. Also, I also assumed that I just plug the PS3 into the component 1080i inputs on my TV. Is there anywhere that I should be adjusting settings? Where would I do that? Thanks.

Here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316) is a list of movies that look the best from Blu-ray. The higher they are ranked the better. Enjoy :D

I think HD is great. The difference between upscaled dvd and bluray isn't huge but there is a difference. I've had great luck with Bluray from netflix. Many times there is a long wait for new dvd titles and we can get it right away or short wait on bluray.

Most definitely your set is 720p. Samsung has never made a 1080i DLP.

I just got off the phone with Samsung support (I called twice and talked to two different reps to be sure - one tier 1 and one tier 2) and they confirmed that my TV does indeed display in a native resolution of 1080i. It's the HLN437WX/XAA TV. On the back I have my PS3 connected to the DVI input, my FIOS DVR connected to the 480p/720p/1080i component input and my Xbox 360 Elite connected to the second 480p/720p/1080i component input. My PS3and Xbox are configured for 1080i resolution. This would seem correct given that according to Samsung the native resolution for this set is 1080i, however it counters what people are saying in this thread. Interestingly enough, the manual doesn't even address it. You'd think it would given that it's quite relevant to the quality of the picture.

BTW, the FIOS guy who was here today replacing my DVR told me that SD signals come in at 480i and the HD channels come in at either 720p or 1080i; problem is that 480i is a different input than 720p/1080i, so I have to think that bringing in a 480i Sci-Fi channel signal on a 480p/720/1080i input probably degrades the picture, right? We also tried both 720p and 1080i and 1080i looked better; less grain in the sky for example. My viewing range is 8 feet on this 43" set. So is there anything that I should be doing any differently to improved my picture quality or am I all set? Thanks.

I recently got my PS3 (mainly for the BluRay), and have to say that I have not been that 'wowed' either. Don't get me wrong. It is not a matter of being underwhelmed. Rather just not as impressed as my expectations.

I have a Sharp Aquos 52" (D92 series) and have been watching SD-DVDs via my 1080i upscaling Oppo for the past year. Overall, a pretty nice viewing combination.

My first BluRay movies were 'The Polar Express' and 'Bridge To Terabithia'. Granted, there is a definite difference with the BluRay. Much more clarity in the details. But I was hoping more for that 'floor me' type reaction. Kind of like when one goes from 2-channel stereo audio to discrete 5.1 audio in their movie watching the first time.

Since then I have watched 'The Invisible' and the latest Pirates of the Carribean. In all cases, I most definitely like it. Much better than SD-DVD. But as I have been viewing a decent picture all along, the next step up wasn't as impressive perhaps as compared to someone who has been viewing via a non-upconverting SD-DVD player.

And, it might just be that I have not yet seen that one movie that is really going to shine for me in BluRay.

I just got off the phone with Samsung support (I called twice and talked to two different reps to be sure - one tier 1 and one tier 2) and they confirmed that my TV does indeed display in a native resolution of 1080i. It's the HLN437WX/XAA TV. On the back I have my PS3 connected to the DVI input, my FIOS DVR connected to the 480p/720p/1080i component input and my Xbox 360 Elite connected to the second 480p/720p/1080i component input. My PS3and Xbox are configured for 1080i resolution. This would seem correct given that according to Samsung the native resolution for this set is 1080i, however it counters what people are saying in this thread. Interestingly enough, the manual doesn't even address it. You'd think it would given that it's quite relevant to the quality of the picture.

BTW, the FIOS guy who was here today replacing my DVR told me that SD signals come in at 480i and the HD channels come in at either 720p or 1080i; problem is that 480i is a different input than 720p/1080i, so I have to think that bringing in a 480i Sci-Fi channel signal on a 480p/720/1080i input probably degrades the picture, right? We also tried both 720p and 1080i and 1080i looked better; less grain in the sky for example. My viewing range is 8 feet on this 43" set. So is there anything that I should be doing any differently to improved my picture quality or am I all set? Thanks.

Are you sure that is the model number of the display? It looked weird at first but that brings up the model of lamp replacements for the display.

I just got off the phone with Samsung support (I called twice and talked to two different reps to be sure - one tier 1 and one tier 2) and they confirmed that my TV does indeed display in a native resolution of 1080i. It's the HLN437WX/XAA TV.

They are wrong. The native resolution of that set is 720p.

Are you sure that is the model number of the display? It looked weird at first but that brings up the model of lamp replacements for the display.

That's the code under Model that is on the sticker on the side of the unit above the serial number.

DVDs are almost unwatchable now for me with BD discs like Ratatouille, Pirates, and Dave Mathew's setting a whole new bar. Sound is FAR better too.

That's the code under Model that is on the sticker on the side of the unit above the serial number.

I don't know what to tell you. As far as DLP rear projections have came onto the market they started as 720p displays. Some DLP front projectors have been set up for 1080i. Samsung was the first company on the market using Texas Instruments chip(I am not about to try and spell the name of the chip :D) which was 720p

I think some of the comments are down right hilarious.. the one about the a night and day difference.. or how you need to pick the **RIGHT** BR title to watch.. or that your TV is too small or my new favourite how DVD's are now somehow unwatchable..

Maybe Im just not picky enough about resolution.. or maybe I watch the movie more than I watch the pixels on the screen. But I still havent been impressed enough with BR/HDDVD titles to warrant the permanent upgrade.

Upscaled DVD still looks geniunely good enough on my 720p 50" plasma that I simply havent felt the urge. And thats after viewing HD discs. The picture is still extremely clear at any viewing distance and the digital 5.1 sound still makes me smile.

After trying HD disc.. I basically summed up the following:

Did I see a difference.. yes.

Was it the jawdropping, OMG, VHS to DVD difference. Absolutely NOT.



I think those with 60" or larger 1080P displays (or 7.1 lossless recievers).. will enjoy BR/HDDVD the most. But for the rest of us the I really believe the percieved difference has alot more to do with having new toys to play with.. than it does DVD not being able to deliver a quality picture.

Tell us more about your 1080i DLP set...

Tell us more about your 1080i DLP set...

Well it enjoys long walks on the beach ...

Leave it to Beaver marathons ...

Soap operas ...

Well it enjoys long walks on the beach ...

Leave it to Beaver marathons ...

Soap operas ...

There's always a smart a$$. :D:D

I agree that it didn't blow me away like I thought it would but it is better. I have a 42' 1080p and when I sit so far away yes 1080p is probably rendered useless. But sometimes I watch only 4-5 ft away and that's when I see the difference. If I was in the same spot with an upconverted DVD I would see some of the pixelation.

I do agree that certain transfers of movies are much better than others. Someone mentioned Crank earlier and I have to agree that movie looks great. I don't know why but I always perceive a move to look better when it does not have black bars.

Well it enjoys long walks on the beach ...

Leave it to Beaver marathons ...

Soap operas ...

No..

Tell us how you really feel..

To those who think the difference isn't that great....

It's like air conditioning. You don't know what your missing untill you have it all the time and then are suddenly without.

Same with SD and HD

It's more noticeable when you go BACK to old technology.

Once get used to watching Blu-Ray, or HD on a regular basis, going back to SD is much more difficult.

It's at that point when you see how big the difference really is.

Horrible ass comment. I noticed a difference on my 26 inch.

Maybe if you sit 2 feet from it.

Most people I know think that you truly start seeing the advantages of HD at 40" or larger sitting at the proper 1.5 X seating distance.

Simple fact is there is a 1 to 1 correlation with TV size and the benefit of HD. On my 10 foot wide screen with a DVD upscaled on my Toshiba A30 vs a blue ray (or HD-DVD) the difference is on the terms of massively different. Hell, SD media gives me a headache just watching it now.

On my Sony 60" SXBR (1080i) you can still clearly tell the difference but its not as extreem.


And this is just media. We havent even talked TV. I dont even venture out of the HD channels on cable now because I absolutly cannot stand SD TV.

I think some of the comments are down right hilarious.. the one about the a night and day difference.. or how you need to pick the **RIGHT** BR title to watch.. or that your TV is too small or my new favourite how DVD's are now somehow unwatchable..

Maybe Im just not picky enough about resolution.. or maybe I watch the movie more than I watch the pixels on the screen. But I still havent been impressed enough with BR/HDDVD titles to warrant the permanent upgrade.

Upscaled DVD still looks geniunely good enough on my 720p 50" plasma that I simply havent felt the urge. And thats after viewing HD discs. The picture is still extremely clear at any viewing distance and the digital 5.1 sound still makes me smile.

After trying HD disc.. I basically summed up the following:

Did I see a difference.. yes.

Was it the jawdropping, OMG, VHS to DVD difference. Absolutely NOT.



I think those with 60" or larger 1080P displays (or 7.1 lossless recievers).. will enjoy BR/HDDVD the most. But for the rest of us the I really believe the percieved difference has alot more to do with having new toys to play with.. than it does DVD not being able to deliver a quality picture.


All of the supposedly absurd statements you began with are true in my opinion. Night and Day is a bit far...I mean how much further apart can you really get? But...if you watch Crank SD then Crank BR its enough to make you think you're watching a new movie. Some movies, not suprisingly arent that great of an upgrade. House of Flying Daggers is one I can think of that looked almost identical to me as its SD counterpart. BHD and Ratatoullie are again huge differences. The display also has a huge effect...I watched Pirates 3 at my house on a 50" toshiba DLP then saw it playing on a 50" xbr4 at BB and the picture quality of the xbr4 made my DLP look like SD. The Sony was atleast 4x more detailed, it made me sick to watch because it felt like I was on the boat with teh actors...

To those who think the difference isn't that great....

It's like air conditioning. You don't know what your missing untill you have it all the time and then are suddenly without.

Same with SD and HD

It's more noticeable when you go BACK to old technology.

Once get used to watching Blu-Ray, or HD on a regular basis, going back to SD is much more difficult.

It's at that point when you see how big the difference really is.

Couldn't say it any better myself. :)

Before I got my PS3, I played DVDs on a Samsung player that upscaled the DVD quality to something better than a DVD's native resolution.

You can't increase the resolution on a DVD, you can only interpolate the pixels to fit the screen. The differences in the upscalers are just a matter of how this is done. Some just make the pixels bigger, leaving a blocky picture. Some actually average the pixels properly. The final resolution is going to be equal or less than the DVD.


I have a Samsung DLP 1080i 43" HDTV. Now I get blueray movies from Netflix, and I really don't see the difference from what I saw with a regular DVD and my upscaling Samsung player.

The difference depends on the Blue-ray movie. There's whole sites devote to this problem, where users rate the Blue-rays from DVD quality to OMG THIS IS AMAZING. Most fall in the slightly better than DVD. Companies are just being lazy right now and using the original scans from film in the transfer to DVD (which should be higher res than DVD if it was done correctly) and down scaling (or upscaling) to 1080p after pre-processing. The basic rule of thumb, if you're going to pre-process you do it at 2-3 times the resolution of the final product, so that any artifacts are moved into the higher frequencies and disappear in the final ouptut. They just aren't doing that yet for all movies.

Another problem is the human eye really isn't that high of quality. For your TV, assuming it's actually got 1920x1080 pixels on it, that's not going to be too much of a problem. There is a chart I saw a month ago, where someone calculated if the human eye could see a difference in resolutions at specific distances with different size TVs. Sometimes, (depending on those factors) when you're sitting 6 feet away 720p is going to look identical to 1080p and 720p is going to look the same as a DVD. In a lot of consumer minds, HD is some kind of magic that MUST look better. It may or may not, depending on your set up.

My HD "TV" is a gaming monitor. It's got a tuner, HDMI, component, composite, VGA, S-Video, optical in/out. I have a Mac, PS3, Wii and an 360 (though, it's getting sold soon) all hooked at the same time. It's why I bought it. At the distance I sit from the thing, it's looks great. From 5 feet away, DVDs and Blue-ray look the same to me. The TV in the living room is still our old 42 inch EDTV.

Well put in spiderman 3 on BD and if you people can't tell there is a big difference? pull out the black and white t.v. and the 8 track player and kick it old school!
Even my grandma can see the difference between the sd and hd versions on my hitachi plasma AND my 51inch hitachi s500 crt and she's 89 and has the old hubble telescope mirrors for glasses!
Has anyone bothered to watch planet earth on BD? compaire it to sd and if you still think theres no difference? you will go and die in SD land where my inlaws live muhahahahaha!

Well put in spiderman 3 on BD and if you people can't tell there is a big difference? pull out the black and white t.v. and the 8 track player and kick it old school!
Even my grandma can see the difference between the sd and hd versions on my hitachi plasma AND my 51inch hitachi s500 crt and she's 89 and has the old hubble telescope mirrors for glasses!
Has anyone bothered to watch planet earth on BD? compaire it to sd and if you still think theres no difference? you will go and die in SD land where my inlaws live muhahahahaha!


Plasma. Lets see, you spent, what $1500+ for that thing, right. You get what you pay for, I guess. Some of us have better things to spend our money on. On a 32 inch 1080p HDTV, some Blue-rays just don't look up to par.

Personally, I just don't think it's worth a $2000 TV just to watch old spidey in all his glory at home. Some do. It is worth $350 for a TV that can hook up to all my consoles and my computer at the same time. So, yeah, Spiderman does look "better" but not enough for my jaw to drop and go OMG!. It's so minor, I have to be thinking about it. I've done that comparison already.

Lets put it this way, there is no guarantee that Blue-Ray will beat out DVD. I own a HDTV, I own a PS3, I got my 5 free Blue-rays. Whoopie. I'm personally, not impressed. I wish I were. I wish I just had over $2000 to blow on a disposable item (which is exactly how I see TVs), I'd rather invest my money else where. There's a reason why when you have gone into an American home in the past 20 years, most TVs are in the 36 in range.

the original poster's (mis)spelling of 'bluray' petty much was the most intelligent thing said in this thread so far.

Plasma. Lets see, you spent, what $1500+ for that thing, right. You get what you pay for, I guess. Some of us have better things to spend our money on. On a 32 inch 1080p HDTV, some Blue-rays just don't look up to par.

Personally, I just don't think it's worth a $2000 TV just to watch old spidey in all his glory at home. Some do. It is worth $350 for a TV that can hook up to all my consoles and my computer at the same time. So, yeah, Spiderman does look "better" but not enough for my jaw to drop and go OMG!. It's so minor, I have to be thinking about it. I've done that comparison already.

Lets put it this way, there is no guarantee that Blue-Ray will beat out DVD. I own a HDTV, I own a PS3, I got my 5 free Blue-rays. Whoopie. I'm personally, not impressed. I wish I were. I wish I just had over $2000 to blow on a disposable item (which is exactly how I see TVs), I'd rather invest my money else where. There's a reason why when you have gone into an American home in the past 20 years, most TVs are in the 36 in range.

Ya, if you don't want to put in a little money, its not exactly worth it for you yet. It will be worth it for you when the prices of all the newest gear is pretty close to the price of the older gear. This is what happened when people moved from VHS to DVD. When it came time to buy a new player they said, "hey, this is barely more expensive, might as well upgrade".

The upgrade will be even more seamless for bluray because bluray players upconvert DVDs too. So, when they lower in price to near DVD player prices, there will be almost no reason to buy a DVD player over a bluray player.

The upgrade will be even more seamless for bluray because bluray players upconvert DVDs too. So, when they lower in price to near DVD player prices, there will be almost no reason to buy a DVD player over a bluray player.

Perhaps, but not anytime soon. The problem is that LCDs are a little too technical to manufacture (dead pixels anyone?). LCDs are not the future. I suspect something easier and more "disposable" has to come along first. Say a hypothetical LED display (which would be silly, but you get the point). 60 inch HDTVs are definitely not going to be the norm. For the same reasons that extremely large TVs have never been the norm (space, cost, weight, hard to move, when it dies you're seriously pissed). 32-44 is going to be the norm.

I seriously suspect by time the point that Blue-ray players costs less than $100, people will be hooking them up to SDTVs. They'll buy a Blue-Ray disk, not notice any difference at all, then buy the cheaper DVDs. Those that have standard sized HDTVs will do the same thing.

Perhaps, but not anytime soon. The problem is that LCDs are a little too technical to manufacture (dead pixels anyone?). LCDs are not the future. I suspect something easier and more "disposable" has to come along first. Say a hypothetical LED display (which would be silly, but you get the point). 60 inch HDTVs are definitely not going to be the norm. For the same reasons that extremely large TVs have never been the norm (space, cost, weight, hard to move, when it dies you're seriously pissed). 32-44 is going to be the norm.

I seriously suspect by time the point that Blue-ray players costs less than $100, people will be hooking them up to SDTVs. They'll buy a Blue-Ray disk, not notice any difference at all, then buy the cheaper DVDs. Those that have standard sized HDTVs will do the same thing.

Have you been to a BB or CC lately? Or any place that sells TVs? SDTVs are few and far between and HDTVs are selling like hotcakes. Hotcakes covered in crack with the promise of a special visit from the adult film star of your choice to be more precise. America's going HD, dunno about the rest of the world but by 2010 I don't think it will be that hard to imagine an HDTV in the majority of American homes and $100 Blu-Ray players. I agree 60 inch TVs aren't going to be the norm as well but I think the average will be around 42 which is plenty big enough to notice the HD difference, people who are upgrading to a flat-panel wanna go as big as they can and a lot of people can or will find the room for even the smallest of big TVs. O and who said it had to be LCD?

Perhaps, but not anytime soon. The problem is that LCDs are a little too technical to manufacture (dead pixels anyone?). LCDs are not the future. I suspect something easier and more "disposable" has to come along first. Say a hypothetical LED display (which would be silly, but you get the point). 60 inch HDTVs are definitely not going to be the norm. For the same reasons that extremely large TVs have never been the norm (space, cost, weight, hard to move, when it dies you're seriously pissed). 32-44 is going to be the norm.

I seriously suspect by time the point that Blue-ray players costs less than $100, people will be hooking them up to SDTVs. They'll buy a Blue-Ray disk, not notice any difference at all, then buy the cheaper DVDs. Those that have standard sized HDTVs will do the same thing.

Sorry man but you are way off. The country is moving to HDTV and its moving to HDTV fast:

http://broadcastengineering.com/infrastructure/yankee-group-hdtv-20040811/

By the time blurays cost less than 100 dollars there is every reason to believe the vast majority of homes will have an HDTV. Particularly those homes where people spend money on discs.

Sorry man but you are way off. The country is moving to HDTV and its moving to HDTV fast:

http://broadcastengineering.com/infrastructure/yankee-group-hdtv-20040811/

By the time blurays cost less than 100 dollars there is every reason to believe the vast majority of homes will have an HDTV. Particularly those homes where people spend money on discs.


I fail to see how that refutes anything I said.

I just got off the phone with Samsung support (I called twice and talked to two different reps to be sure - one tier 1 and one tier 2) and they confirmed that my TV does indeed display in a native resolution of 1080i. It's the HLN437WX/XAA TV. On the back I have my PS3 connected to the DVI input, my FIOS DVR connected to the 480p/720p/1080i component input and my Xbox 360 Elite connected to the second 480p/720p/1080i component input. My PS3and Xbox are configured for 1080i resolution. This would seem correct given that according to Samsung the native resolution for this set is 1080i, however it counters what people are saying in this thread. Interestingly enough, the manual doesn't even address it. You'd think it would given that it's quite relevant to the quality of the picture.

BTW, the FIOS guy who was here today replacing my DVR told me that SD signals come in at 480i and the HD channels come in at either 720p or 1080i; problem is that 480i is a different input than 720p/1080i, so I have to think that bringing in a 480i Sci-Fi channel signal on a 480p/720/1080i input probably degrades the picture, right? We also tried both 720p and 1080i and 1080i looked better; less grain in the sky for example. My viewing range is 8 feet on this 43" set. So is there anything that I should be doing any differently to improved my picture quality or am I all set? Thanks.

Sorry, but both people you talked to are idiots. Check the spec sheet on the TV. It says the resolution is 1280x720, which is 720p. By definition, a digital display like a DLP can't display an interlaced image, it MUST convert it to progressive.

The whole thing about 480i needing a different input doesn't make any sense either. Just hook the DVR up to the DVI or component input (plus the audio connection) and you are done.

I've got to agree with dpe8598 and just wanted to add that I'm amazed at the interest in HDTV. Everyone I talk to at work has purchased, or is in the market to purchase one. Even my mother and stepfather who are in their mid-sixties called to ask me advise on their purchase. My brother and dad both purchased a Sony 52" XBR4.
Some of my neighbors whom I never suspected of having the interest, have HDTV’s with surround sound to watch movies and sports. It really has become the main item that most households aspire to obtain with 40" being the smallest on average. It shouldn't be too long before Blu-Ray is a common term and a consideration for those who want to take advantage of their new TV's.

I watch Blu-ray on a 65" HDTV and I can tell the diff. I plan on getting a larger TV prehapps a 73" but until then it works

I thought this same way as well, I enjoy watching movies & TV in HD on cable and eventually bought an HD DVD player and then a PS3 for Blue-ray. As you are coming from an upscallig DVD player as I did you start to wonder what the big deal is, but this is attributed to two things, 1. DVD's vs HD DVD's are not THAT big of a jump and 2. the jump was lessened by the upscaller in between.

The other thing is that your seeing quality, and for the most party people won't question something that looks good. I LOVE watching anything now in HD and for the most part thats all I watch. So much so that I just expect things to look really nice now. Sure I can watch a regular DVD and not think it sucks but thats ok and actually preferred by me, I still have alot of DVD's. When I transistioned to DVD I couldnt get rid or my VHS Fast enough.

The difference is there, you'll see it sometimes more than others but its there. just enjoy it.

Although I really don't agree with the 43" is worthless for HD if you're looking for an excuse or a rational to buy a bigger TV go ahead and use it. of course I watch on a 42" HDTV, good thing I didnt get the 43"! LOL!

Perhaps, but not anytime soon. The problem is that LCDs are a little too technical to manufacture (dead pixels anyone?). LCDs are not the future. I suspect something easier and more "disposable" has to come along first. Say a hypothetical LED display (which would be silly, but you get the point). 60 inch HDTVs are definitely not going to be the norm. For the same reasons that extremely large TVs have never been the norm (space, cost, weight, hard to move, when it dies you're seriously pissed). 32-44 is going to be the norm.

I seriously suspect by time the point that Blue-ray players costs less than $100, people will be hooking them up to SDTVs. They'll buy a Blue-Ray disk, not notice any difference at all, then buy the cheaper DVDs. Those that have standard sized HDTVs will do the same thing.

First of all, the dominant display technology for the past x number of years has been CRT (where x denotes the number of years that TVs have existed). The reason that the majority of TV sets in homes was limited to about 35" is primarily due to the fact that CRT TVs were limited to about 35". The technology didn't go much past that size point. Furthermore, weight and size definitely became a huge concern (ever pick up one of the sony XBR HD CRTs?). In contrast, my 40" LCD weighs ~50lbs and is quite easy to move around (from the perspective of a full grown adult male). One of the other limiting factors in previous years was resolution. You simply don't want to stretch out a 480i signal all that much. With HD resolutions you can afford to use a bigger screen and the same viewing distances. A 50-60" 1080p display will be perfectly fine in place of a 35" SD-CRT. 10 years ago, a good 35" CRT SD TV cost about the same amount as a good 40-46" 1080p LCD costs now. I remember my parents paying a bit over a grand for the RCA 35" tube that was in their living room until this past thanksgiving when they replaced it with the same TV that I currently have (the 4065F). That RCA TV was hardly top end. They would have gone a bit bigger, but were limited by the size of their entertainment center (which was significantly more expensive than the TV in it). The 16:9 aspect ratio also lends itself to bigger formats a bit better than 4:3.

Combine this with the fact that the industry is pushing HD like none other. The selection of current SD-TVs is very limited in most stores. Many stores have done away with SD sets all together. Prices will continue to drop and more people will enter the market when they need to replace their current TVs. I don't expect that EVERY TV will be replaced by an HD set in the near future, but it's a safe bet that we will see a great increase in the number of households that have at least a single HD set.

I'm not sure how "disposable" you think a TV is. I realize that this varies from person to person based on budget and preferences. However, you'd have a hard time arguing that a TV is any more "disposable" than the car you drive, or the devices that you have hooked up to it (IE: your PS3 and 360). It's not an investment, it isn't going to yield you any return; however, it is a durable good. Most people don't replace their TVs all that often.

As far as the effectiveness of resolution, that totally depends on how far you are sitting away from the set and how big it is. 1080p vs 720p vs SD can all be realized on pretty much any size display if you are sitting a proper distance. If you are going to buy a 32" display and sit 12 feet from it, don't expect to notice a huge difference. One of the huge benefits of extra resolution is that you can sit closer to a larger set, giving you a more immersive atmosphere. If that's not your cup of tea, fine.

I had this TV before my current one. Go into your PS3 video settings and uncheck the 1080i box. You want it set to 720p as the highest setting- that will give you native 720p output for everything, which is what this TV supports- this should make a fairly big difference.

Thanks for answering my question. Some other board told me to set it to 1080i because disc was 1080p and it would look better. Your explanation sounds better as there is one less conversion to be made.

Plasma. Lets see, you spent, what $1500+ for that thing, right. You get what you pay for, I guess. Some of us have better things to spend our money on. On a 32 inch 1080p HDTV, some Blue-rays just don't look up to par.

Personally, I just don't think it's worth a $2000 TV just to watch old spidey in all his glory at home. Some do. It is worth $350 for a TV that can hook up to all my consoles and my computer at the same time. So, yeah, Spiderman does look "better" but not enough for my jaw to drop and go OMG!. It's so minor, I have to be thinking about it. I've done that comparison already.

Lets put it this way, there is no guarantee that Blue-Ray will beat out DVD. I own a HDTV, I own a PS3, I got my 5 free Blue-rays. Whoopie. I'm personally, not impressed. I wish I were. I wish I just had over $2000 to blow on a disposable item (which is exactly how I see TVs), I'd rather invest my money else where. There's a reason why when you have gone into an American home in the past 20 years, most TVs are in the 36 in range.

These statemne

That 32 inch TV is your problem. You really need go bigger, at least 40 to 42 inches. Hopefully some cash will flow your way. You won't see a difference on anything with a 32 inch. I had a 32 inch TV for 6 years, then upgraded to 42 inch Hitachi 42hds69. The 32 inch is in my bedroom and I refuse to watch anything on it. I make my wife watch Lifetime on it and she is even getting tired of it. She thought I was crazy for paying $1300 for a plasma TV. Now she wants another one, preferably Pioneer.:D

Also this statement reflects a viewing distance of 5 to 8 feet.

These statemne

That 32 inch TV is your problem. You really need go bigger, at least 40 to 42 inches. Hopefully some cash will flow your way. You won't see a difference on anything with a 32 inch. I had a 32 inch TV for 6 years, then upgraded to 42 inch Hitachi 42hds69. The 32 inch is in my bedroom and I refuse to watch anything on it. I make my wife watch Lifetime on it and she is even getting tired of it. She thought I was crazy for paying $1300 for a plasma TV. Now she wants another one, preferably Pioneer.:D

Also this statement reflects a viewing distance of 5 to 8 feet.

I can go buy one today. It's not a question of having the capital to get one, it's the question of thinking it's worth it. Think about it for a moment, $2000 for a TV. I've bought a car for that much. There are LOTS of reasons not to get a larger TV. Size, cost, space to put it, things like that. In addition to a list of "why not a bigger one" you have the fact my money is invested. I put $2000 in to a TV or $2000 towards an IRA. IRA makes better sense. I spent significantly less on my TV because that's TVs are worth to me, the ability to watch CSI and Battlestar with a better image isn't worth $2000. Nor is watching Spiderman in all his glory. When true 1080p in the 42-26 inch range is available for $400, I'll probably buy another one. That won't be for some time.

Oh and you probably are crazy for buying a plasma TV. I've read there are a number of them that get screen burn in from the forced 4:3 black bars on TV broadcasts.

Originally Posted by PepticBurrito View Post
Plasma. Lets see, you spent, what $1500+ for that thing, right. You get what you pay for, I guess. Some of us have better things to spend our money on. On a 32 inch 1080p HDTV, some Blue-rays just don't look up to par.

Personally, I just don't think it's worth a $2000 TV just to watch old spidey in all his glory at home. Some do. It is worth $350 for a TV that can hook up to all my consoles and my computer at the same time. So, yeah, Spiderman does look "better" but not enough for my jaw to drop and go OMG!. It's so minor, I have to be thinking about it. I've done that comparison already.

Lets put it this way, there is no guarantee that Blue-Ray will beat out DVD. I own a HDTV, I own a PS3, I got my 5 free Blue-rays. Whoopie. I'm personally, not impressed. I wish I were. I wish I just had over $2000 to blow on a disposable item (which is exactly how I see TVs), I'd rather invest my money else where. There's a reason why when you have gone into an American home in the past 20 years, most TVs are in the 36 in range.

and yes I have disposable income, you can spend your money on what ever you want.
I'm sorry I have a good job and work hard for my money, and with the right tv it IS jaw dropping.
and the reason most tv's are in the 36 inch range is because when people bought them there wasn't much of and alternative, I know I used to have one.
I'm not even gonna get into how much better the audio is on BD and hd-dvd, it's an all around great experience.
But o ya, I spend alot of money on my HT too but thats whats great about hobbies, they are what ever you want them to be.

Oh and you probably are crazy for buying a plasma TV. I've read there are a number of them that get screen burn in from the forced 4:3 black bars on TV broadcasts.


for the love of god dude, thats just a sad statement. It's not our fault you don't want/can't afford a nice tv. Spend your money on what ever you want, I know I sure as hell will and my 65 inch PLASMA tv is gonna be freaking HUGE!!!!!!

for the love of god dude, thats just a sad statement. It's not our fault you don't want/can't afford a nice tv. Spend your money on what ever you want, I know I sure as hell will and my 65 inch PLASMA tv is gonna be freaking HUGE!!!!!!

Two points.

1. People seem to assume I can't "afford" a $2000 TV. That's incorrect. I have enough completely disposable cash to buy a new car with it. I've already paid off my house. I see no reason to by a $2000 TV, there's a difference.

2. I have read on these very forums some users report that their PLASMA TVs get screen burn in due to the forced 4:3 aspect on some "HD" broadcasts. It's just a fact that I have read people report it. That makes me not even want one, regardless of price.

If a 60 inch TV were in my future, I personally would just get a projector and a screen. At that point, you might as well. If you're gonna spend a lot money, might as well get something worth owning.

1. If you don't want a good tv then good for you. For the general population on these forums, it IS something we all want and love to own. If you can or can't afford one doesn't matter. Telling people on a forum devoted to tech, that you can't see a difference on you 36 inch tv is pretty funny, of course it's not going to be jaw dropping, it's too small for a big noticeable difference. Those of us with bigger units DO notice a difference and though not every movie is amazing they are all better than dvd quality.

2. Well then if you would have read the forums a bit more you would have read that ALL new plasmas come with some sort of pixel shift tech, so burn in has been a thing of the past for the last couple of years.

Ahh well they are not going to make a 1080p projector for $400 for a LONG time if ever at all, so I guess it will be something you'll never own.

and don't worry I'll be spending alot of money and it will be fantastic :)

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

With his Television, he'd have to sit 5 feet from the television to see any difference.

You'd be crazy to sit that close to a television frankly.

Since clearly, this thread is off track lets rehash where I'm coming from.

Blue-ray is irrelevant, there's no reason to believe it will beat out DVD, because most people are like me. That's the whole point. You guys LOVE big TVs, cool, right on, awesome. That doesn't affect me, and I find it irrelevant. As the rest of the population. That's the point. If those of us who buy HDTVs because we just want a clearer picture or we just want to play games on them (as in my case), Blue-ray isn't going to make a lick of difference. The majority isn't going to be buying 60 inch 1080p TVs, they aren't buying 60 inch TVs. The majority isn't going to notice a lick of difference between spiderman 3 on DVD or Blue-ray from their couch. They're going to wonder, just as the thread headline suggests, "What's the fuss about".

I believe the future is not Blue-ray or HD DVD. Oh sure, people like those on AVS are going to build their theater systems with 7.1 surround, a 60+ inch plasma and watch Blue-rays thinking about how great it is. They'd be right. It will look and sound amazing when you pay a enough money to open up a Roth IRA. The future is on demand video and online downloads. The blue-ray player in the PS3 is a novelty that can give great results in a narrow band of circumstances. For the rest of the population, it gives slightly above average results in most cases. That's the point.

It is amusing just how antagonistic some of you get. It really is. It's just text on a screen, it will be okay.

Oh, and pixel shift (which I am fully aware of) won't save you from the black bars forced on the side of the screen by the broadcasters (you know as it the black bars are part of the broadcast). Move a black pixel over one and it's replaced by another black pixel.

One last thing. I can build a wide screen HD projector for $400-600 dollars, which I'm thinking about doing. Why spend $2500 for something that has $400 bulbs, when I can build one that uses $10 bulbs. I'm honestly surprised no one pre-manufactures them ready to be used.

I can completely understand not wanting a "really good" tv. If you don't watch enough tv, it probably isn't worth it. Some people don't watch tv as their main passtime.

I, on the other hand, do, and I spent alot of money to make that passtime as enjoyable as possible.

I'm a firm believer in spending alot of money to get the "best" for things I'll be using ALOT. Like my bed and TV. For me, those are two things that I can't get away from using alot. I also put a nice stereo in my car, because I have a pretty long commute. It is totally worth it to me, because it gets a ton of use.

Things that I don't use very often, I don't spend alot of money on.

If this guy doesn't watch alot of tv, and doesn't care about the picture, then leave him alone, he probably has other hobbies that he enjoys more, and chooses to spend his money there instead.

All this being said, I still can't believe, if he has so much disposable income, that he doesn't have a bigger tv. Maybe it's just one of those things that you don't miss until it's gone. My girlfriend did NOT want our new tv, but I got it anyway, and now, she would never let me get rid of it. She hates to admit it, but I was right :p

Since clearly, this thread is off track lets rehash where I'm coming from.

Blue-ray is irrelevant, there's no reason to believe it will beat out DVD, because most people are like me. That's the whole point. You guys LOVE big TVs, cool, right on, awesome. That doesn't affect me, and I find it irrelevant. As the rest of the population. That's the point.

You are really painting with a broad strokes and a big brush assuming, that everyone outside of AVS thinks like you and wont see the difference or that they wont spend the money. To each his own. I have a 2000 dollar Mountain bike...people call me crazy for spending that kind of money on something without a motor. Oh well... Not everybody thinks like you or I do and not everyone has the same justifications or reasons to spend or not to spend, and to assume your logic is the status quo. Well thats pretty ambitious. To say the least.

PepticBurrito, you're trolling. Building a $400 HD projector? Do you have a line on a 100mpg carburetor?

BTW a 3" mono TV speaker is good enough for anybody. You can understand the dialog and hear the melody just fine.

My girlfriend bought a decent HDTV last year and went without HD for a while. When I finally helped her hook it up, she was watching Dancing With the Stars one day and was like, "wow there really is a HUGE difference!". HD is like that. Most people don't care until they see it in front of them.

As for on-demand, yea I do think its the future. But the bandwidth just isn't there right now for a majority of people, and DRM is still really cumbersome and annoying compared to just shelling out for a disc. On-demand may be the primary way we watch movies in, oh, 7 or 10 years. But guess what, that is a long time. DVD's entire lifespan has been 11 years. A high definition disc format will serve us well during that time.

Yeah. Seriously, if you talk so much about Roth IRA and investments, why aren't you on the Fidelity forum or Merrill Lynch forum? Why are you on the PLAYSTATION forum? These feeble toys and video game systems? Why would you even spend $400 on a video game system? The Atari worked just fine.

I also don't see a HUGE difference (I hope it's only a settings issue, but could be my TV is older and has lower contrast ratio), but the bottom line is eventually BD or HD DVD's will be the only option and the price will be what DVD's are currently. It is what it is. Try to go purchased "The Brave One" or some other new movie on VHS today.

Before I got my PS3, I played DVDs on a Samsung player that upscaled the DVD quality to something better than a DVD's native resolution. I have a Samsung DLP 1080i 43" HDTV. Now I get blueray movies from Netflix, and I really don't see the difference from what I saw with a regular DVD and my upscaling Samsung player. Am I missing something or is the difference so minor that my aging eyes can't see the difference? Also, on a side note, if you use Netflix, think twice about changing your settings to Blueray; every Blueray movie in my queue is on a long or very long wait, and it's been that way for some time. According to Netflix, it takes them 30 days to get new copies of movies from the studios and clearly they didn't order enough. It's ridiculous. Anyway, thanks for the input.

I can't tell, did Midnightwatcher make some troll accounts for when HD-DVD was going by the wayside?

My girlfriend bought a decent HDTV last year and went without HD for a while. When I finally helped her hook it up, she was watching Dancing With the Stars one day and was like, "wow there really is a HUGE difference!". HD is like that. Most people don't care until they see it in front of them.


Live shows and sporting events always bring out the best that HD can offer.

Movies are so-so....if you see grain, thats distracting, film is 24p so when you see juddering that can take you out of the moment, etc, etc.

HD really shines best with Live/Shot at 30p or 60i/p stuff.

In fact even digital CGI stuff shot on film but converted to HD can look not so great......watching SITH at 1080i from HBO just made it *even more obvious* that it was actors walking around on a green screen.

rvs,

Some of the 720p (which your set is) sammy dlp's were notorious for not properly deinterlacing 1080i feeds.

That's probably your problem. Set your sat/cable box and consoles to all output 720p and see if you don't see some improvement.

Also, calibrate your inputs with AVIA or something similar.

Hehe... while I was home over break my mom was watching an HD-DVD on their new TV and loving it. She couldn't believe the improvement in PQ that the HD-TV and HD-DVD offered. We were all sitting downstairs watching it together... and then she goes and says "you know what... when you graduate we should really think about redecorating the basement and put in a home theater." Man you should have seen my dad's face light up hehe... couldn't get him to stop smiling.

The point is, in the past TV sizes were limited mostly by technology. CRT technology never really went past 40" (I think the biggest sets made were in the 40-41" range). The majority of "big" sets were right around 36". People were used to sitting farther away, and resolution was a big limiting factor. Sure, there were "big screen" rear projection units, but the PQ was still so-so. The majority of TVs were CRT based. Now we have new tech that allows us to make sets with larger screens, higher resolutions, and smaller footprints. Size becomes less of a concern when you can hang a TV on the wall. The industry is switching to HD-TV. There is no reason to think that there won't be a huge impact based on that alone. As far as BR beating DVD is concerned, it still has a lot of ground to cover; however, do realize what point in time we are at. People who have HD-DVD players and BR players are still early adopters. The format war is still going strong, and plenty of bugs are still being worked out. DVD didn't magically sell 100s of millions of players the first day it came out either. VHS lasted for quite a while before DVD totally took over. The same will happen with HD formats. It will be quite some time until you see your local blockbuster only carrying BR or HD-DVD. Download based media is a great idea; however, many people are still going to want the option to buy or rent physical media. CDs are still selling, and to be honest, there is MORE of a reason to have download based media for music than for video. It takes up less bandwidth and has a greater market. Solid state MP3 players are a huge improvement over previous CD players as they don't have any skipping issues - you can basically use them whenever/whereever you want. Less moving parts... also very good. You can store a ton more songs than you could on CDs. However, that's not necessarily true of digital HD downloads. You don't really need them to be hugely portable, and there is more of a factor of wanting something physical to buy. On demand services are great (I have it). However, until it's more economical to use, and looks better than DVD quality (even for HD) I'll stick with renting physical media.

One of the huge advantages (in my eyes) of the CD>MP3 market was that you could store a whole ton of stuff in a little bit of space. This isn't currently even close for HD media. Long movies (IE: kingdom of heaven at about 3hrs) are already needing to be compressed to just fit the movie on a double layer BR disc (50gb). Until there is solid way to "buy" and store this media, you have a problem (as people aren't going to want to rent everything). Furthermore, such storage doesn't give you the same advantages as MP3s gave over CDs. Putting it on a digital storage set top box or network isn't going to make it more portable. Putting it on a server may make it easier to access from points in your house. However, it would generally make it more difficult to bring to a friends house or what not if you want to watch a movie there. Bottom line: it's just a different market.

I do think that HD on demand will compete with BR for rentals. However, for people that want to permanently own a movie, BR does have it's advantages. In any case, it's going to take a while for BR to become main stream... just like it's going to take a while for HD downloads to have the quality to rival them. I really do see them coexisting nicely... I doubt that one will kill the other.

As far as BR beating DVD is concerned, it still has a lot of ground to cover; however, do realize what point in time we are at. People who have HD-DVD players and BR players are still early adopters. The format war is still going strong, and plenty of bugs are still being worked out. DVD didn't magically sell 100s of millions of players the first day it came out either. VHS lasted for quite a while before DVD totally took over. The same will happen with HD formats.VHS had the porn industry to sell the new format to the masses. DVD had The Matrix and then later The Sopranos. BR hasn't had its breakthrough title(s) yet.

Also, too, most people are still not sure what "HD" is. LCD and plasma are just "flat-screen TVs" to the mass market. People want them, but only because of what they are, not what they do. BR doesn't make sense to the mass market yet. It's in serious need of a killer title or brand or series.

CDs are still selling, and to be honest, there is MORE of a reason to have download based media for music than for video.It's sort of like the transition from the gold standard to a paper economy in the late 19th c. US; or more recently the growing transition to a credit economy over a cash one. Gold was no more stable or physical of a standard than freely determined inflation and interest rates. Cash is no more "physical" than credit. Similarly, I'm sure people will eventually be willing to let go of the "physical media" of CDs and DVDs. The unspoken truth here is that CDs and DVDs are no more "physical" than downloaded content is; it's all just digital data no matter how you look at it. People will catch on to this soon enough. The distribution channels are already in place. It's now just a matter of bandwidth and storage space; two (potentially) easily solved problems.

I'm guessing, though, that CDs and DVDs (or BR-Ds) will be around for a while as legacy formats for people wanting higher quality material. It'll probably be a long time before download distribution is able to provide lossless audio/video from mastered sources. There's probably some magical point of "acceptable quality" for the mass market. Downloadable music has pretty much hit this already; movies aren't there yet.

Until there is solid way to "buy" and store this media, you have a problem (as people aren't going to want to rent everything). Furthermore, such storage doesn't give you the same advantages as MP3s gave over CDs. Putting it on a digital storage set top box or network isn't going to make it more portable. Putting it on a server may make it easier to access from points in your house. However, it would generally make it more difficult to bring to a friends house or what not if you want to watch a movie there. Bottom line: it's just a different market.This may be the problem. We're too used to thinking in terms of "physical media." I can see a situation where movie distributors do something similar to the various consoles' download stores. Perhaps we won't "store" anything on our end. If distributors can just solve the bandwidth problem, then maybe they don't also need to solve the storage problem. Just make material accessible from anywhere at a "high enough" quality.

Remember, too, that the music industry led the media transition into discs. It may (against its own wishes) lead everyone down the downloadable route, too.

Confidenceman, I definitely agree with all your points. HD-TVs are becoming more mainstream, and the adoption of them is really critical do the advancement of BR and HD content in general (no matter how it is distributed). In the past year or two we have definitely seen a huge move towards HD sets, with some stores pulling SD sets off their shelves already (IE: walmart). However, there is plenty of lag time associated with adopting a new technology like this. Because of prices, it's not likely that everyone and their brother is going to replace every TV in their house with a top end HD set right away. Furthermore, BR and HD-DVD media prices are still VERY expensive (as if new release DVDs weren't already high enough). The relative buy in price is still pretty high, but will fall as they become more main stream.

Bandwidth and storage space will definitely continue to improve; however, I'm not sure if we are going to see multiple TB drives at reasonable prices in the next few years. Having companies just stream downloads to you whenever you want to watch them has some huge benefits (but also it's share of problems). From my point of view, it's ideally suited towards the rental market because of the convenience factor. For me to personally buy into that market, they would need to have a very reasonable catalogue (rivaling netflix or blockbuster) and would also have to have a unlimited monthly type of plan. I would drop my current rental subscription ASAP if I could get all my rentals streamed. However, at current prices (via on demand service), I would be spending an arm and a leg compared to the $30/month I spend at BB for local unlimited rental (i watch a lot of flicks). For rentals, I'm not so concerned with having the absolutely best quality, I'm more concerned with convenience and a relatively large catalogue. It's nice to be able to rent BR discs at the local blockbuster, but in truth I would much rather watch a film on DVD that I enjoy than watch a bad BR film (or be severely limited to selection in the long run).

As far as physical media is concerned, I like to have physical copies for movies simply to increase the quality, allow the movie to be lent to a friend (or bring it somewhere), etc... In truth, I listen to almost all my music on my mp3 player, but I buy almost all of it on CD and rip it myself. I have 100s of imported CDs on my computer... but I've only bought like 2-3 harder to find songs on iTunes (I know lol... sad right). However, importing this media and putting it on an ipod that is the same size as a pack of gum makes it a hell of a lot more convenient for me. Songs are 3-5 minutes long, can be enjoyed without a TV, etc... With movies you are more or less tied to a stationary setup in your home. There is little reason to drag a DVD collection with you everywhere; however, there is a great reason to bring a bunch of music! I liked the analogy though, and I definitely agree, there really is no difference other than how the media is stored (as far as physical vs download - just easier to refer to them as that I guess).

I think that people like to have a disc with the cover art and the case. It's nice to have a collection of things to covet and look at.

I think that people like to have a disc with the cover art and the case. It's nice to have a collection of things to covet and look at.True, but the implication doesn't spread very wide into the mass market. Collectors and consumers are different beasts. Collectors still buy and listen to vinyl, for example. They're beautiful to look at and listen to compared to modern media.

Consumers are much more likely to "collect" non-traditional formats (like downloadable content) without any sort of nostalgia or mystical aura attached to them (as in the case of vinyl collectors).

iTunes is a perfect example. It has done very well in the mainstream, but folks like me get too attached to the "cover art and the case" to buy very many iTunes songs. I've got maybe two or three purchased iTunes songs in my 120gig digital music collection, comprised mostly of ripped CDs from my collection of "cover art and cases."

I guess my point is that technophiles like us are far more likely to stay attached to physical media than is the mainstream. We fetishize this stuff. No one else cares that much. I can imagine a situation where discs are available only for special order or in specialty shops for those of us wanting higher quality audio and video than is available through standard outlets (like online distribution).

Now that BR has gained some serious momentum against its immediate competition, it now has to convince consumers to make the transition from SD to HD. That's an expensive proposition, especially for US consumers who are on the verge of a large-scale recession. Digital downloads are convenient and cheap and--despite their lesser audio/video quality--are very well suited to viewing on HD sets (which can be easily hooked up to a set-top media box or basic HTPC via digital-friendly connections).

Now that BR has gained some serious momentum against its immediate competition, it now has to convince consumers to make the transition from SD to HD. That's an expensive proposition, especially for US consumers who are on the verge of a large-scale recession. Digital downloads are convenient and cheap and--despite their lesser audio/video quality--are very well suited to viewing on HD sets (which can be easily hooked up to a set-top media box or basic HTPC via digital-friendly connections).
And no matter what Peptic says the world wants, I'd venture a bet that FAR MORE people will want a disc they can hold in their hands. To the VAST majority (who can't even grasp the iTunes concept yet), "digital media" just isn't something they can wrap their heads around. Now, 10 or 20 years from now when the kids who gre up on iTunes (and the like) are adults with salaries and disposable income, sure we might see a "sea change" away from physical media.

Movie studio's insistence on cumbersome DRM alone will keep physical media like Blu-ray viable for quite some time. Does Peptic honestly BELIEVE people will give up portable and automotive (i.e. "less connected") and go straight from DVD to what, portable hard drives they carry around?

And like was inferred above, just as the studios transitioned from tape to DVD over several years, transition from red laser optical to blue laser optical will take many years yet.

Now that BR has gained some serious momentum against its immediate competition, it now has to convince consumers to make the transition from SD to HD. That's an expensive proposition, especially for US consumers who are on the verge of a large-scale recession. Digital downloads are convenient and cheap and--despite their lesser audio/video quality--are very well suited to viewing on HD sets (which can be easily hooked up to a set-top media box or basic HTPC via digital-friendly connections).

Digital downloads of SD stuff yes, And MP3's yes. But to have a large library of HD content available for download. The current Infrastructure will not be able to handle it. And if and when true Gigabit (home) networks are widely available to make this a realistic options, you better believe that the Phone/cable companies are gonna want to recoup money on their investment of putting fiber or more coax in the ground. It aint cheap do this, and they are going to make the consumer pay. Thats why I personally dont see HD content for download taking over anytime soon. Maybe in the bigger cities where fiber back bones are in place, but out in the burbs. It will be a long time before fiber to the home is widely available.

Upscaled DVD still looks geniunely good enough on my 720p 50" plasma that I simply havent felt the urge. And thats after viewing HD discs. The picture is still extremely clear at any viewing distance and the digital 5.1 sound still makes me smile.

Strange, I find BD far superior on my 37" LCD that I sit about 7 feet away from. Not the smallest reason being the significantly reduced posterization compared to DVD. Not that I don't enjoy being able to see all the details of the picture, often down to the film grain itself. I can only imagine how a 1080p set would look.

Maybe it helps that I calibrated the set using a colorimeter.

I can completely understand not wanting a "really good" tv. If you don't watch enough tv, it probably isn't worth it. Some people don't watch tv as their main passtime.

I, on the other hand, do, and I spent alot of money to make that passtime as enjoyable as possible.

I'm a firm believer in spending alot of money to get the "best" for things I'll be using ALOT. Like my bed and TV. For me, those are two things that I can't get away from using alot. I also put a nice stereo in my car, because I have a pretty long commute. It is totally worth it to me, because it gets a ton of use.

Things that I don't use very often, I don't spend alot of money on.

If this guy doesn't watch alot of tv, and doesn't care about the picture, then leave him alone, he probably has other hobbies that he enjoys more, and chooses to spend his money there instead.

All this being said, I still can't believe, if he has so much disposable income, that he doesn't have a bigger tv. Maybe it's just one of those things that you don't miss until it's gone. My girlfriend did NOT want our new tv, but I got it anyway, and now, she would never let me get rid of it. She hates to admit it, but I was right :p


ha very well said! I think the exact same way and my gf did the same thing when I got the plasma for the bedroom and now she wants a bigger one! muhahaha yes!!!

43" is worthless for HD

Definitely not true. But, 43" is not big enough to see a big difference between 480p and 1080i. Especially with DLP.

What's the fuss about? Bluray movies are amazing on my mediocre set up. The combination of picture and 7.1 HD sound is amazing to say the least. I don't have a trained eye or ear but I can surely tell the difference. Hey, my brother still loves his 27" trinitron and Dolby Pro-Logic set up. To each his own.

im lost when people say they cant see a difference...of course ive got a hdtv 46in sammy with the ps3..but still..theres a NOTICEABLE difference.

And no matter what Peptic says the world wants, I'd venture a bet that FAR MORE people will want a disc they can hold in their hands. To the VAST majority (who can't even grasp the iTunes concept yet), "digital media" just isn't something they can wrap their heads around. Now, 10 or 20 years from now when the kids who gre up on iTunes (and the like) are adults with salaries and disposable income, sure we might see a "sea change" away from physical media.

Movie studio's insistence on cumbersome DRM alone will keep physical media like Blu-ray viable for quite some time. Does Peptic honestly BELIEVE people will give up portable and automotive (i.e. "less connected") and go straight from DVD to what, portable hard drives they carry around?

And like was inferred above, just as the studios transitioned from tape to DVD over several years, transition from red laser optical to blue laser optical will take many years yet.

Totally agree. Digital downloads will never replace physical media.

Totally agree. Digital downloads will never replace physical media.

They will if the price is right. Do more people rent movies than buy them?
Yes. That means there are more people interested in just renting the content rather than owning it.

So take a look at a streaming HD service....like Netflix's unlimited streaming video now if you are a paid member. Only imagine that in HD...so for a subscription fee per month you can watch any HD release, streamed to your system.

Its part of the "I lease my car and rent my movies and pay rent on my apartment" method of thinking....why own when you dont have to.

Me, I like physical media....but alot of people couldn't care less about amassing a movie collection.

Digital downloads of SD stuff yes, And MP3's yes. But to have a large library of HD content available for download. The current Infrastructure will not be able to handle it [...] Thats why I personally dont see HD content for download taking over anytime soon. Actually, my point wasn't that HD content will be widely downloadable; it's that consumers and providers will find a "good enough" quality that's perfectly doable with today's technology. What I was saying is that HDTVs are much more suited to downloadable content than standard def TVs, even if that content is SD.

Ultimately, though, this will come down to a competition between the lazy consumer (who will always look for a "good enough" solution rather than a "best" one) and the market hungry corporations (who will always look for ways to sell a "good enough" solution, but convince consumers it's the "best" solution). Consumers will push for "good enough" quality content like digital downloads, and corporations will continue pushing for creating new marketable, "physical" commodities like BR movies and HD tech. The mass market always pushes for a cheap, convenient option, and the big guys always try to find ways to get them to spend as much as possible on **** people didn't realize they needed or wanted. We have yet to see who will win.

I'm all about HD tech and BR's success, but it's a damn hard sell to the mass market. "Go buy a new TV. Go buy a new audio system. Go buy these overpriced wires. Go buy a new cable package." That's a lot to sell to the mass market. Convincing consumers that BR is actually worth it is going to be a long, hard fight. Just like in gaming, it's going to take some really appealing exclusives. The Matrix was instrumental in selling DVD tech to the mass market. But to convince consumers to also buy a new TV and all the extras in addition to a BR player is going to take a seriously appealing exclusive.

Before I got my PS3, I played DVDs on a Samsung player that upscaled the DVD quality to something better than a DVD's native resolution. I have a Samsung DLP 1080i 43" HDTV. Now I get blueray movies from Netflix, and I really don't see the difference from what I saw with a regular DVD and my upscaling Samsung player. Am I missing something or is the difference so minor that my aging eyes can't see the difference? Also, on a side note, if you use Netflix, think twice about changing your settings to Blueray; every Blueray movie in my queue is on a long or very long wait, and it's been that way for some time. According to Netflix, it takes them 30 days to get new copies of movies from the studios and clearly they didn't order enough. It's ridiculous. Anyway, thanks for the input.

it could possibly be because you have the blu ray set to 1080i output
try changing it to 720p ive noticed its a little clearer because of the progressive lines of resolution. or maybe your not using an hdmi cable? try those it might help :)

43" is worthless for HD

I have only a 40 inch but there is a HUGE difference between SD and HD.

I have only a 40 inch but there is a HUGE difference between SD and HD.Of course there is.

I think the common misconception about viewing distances for HDTVs is that you somehow "can't see" the HD quality if you're not within the ideal viewing distance. So you get idiots talking about how you "need at least" a certain size TV for proper viewing.

Not just that, but there are a whole slew of reasons why HD sets will always look better than SD sets, even at ridiculously far away distances or with really small sets.

What those calculated viewing distances actually indicate is a viewing distance that maximizes visible detail without sacrificing overall scope. At further distances (and further distances are sooner reached for smaller sets), you start losing details while retaining scope. At closer distances, you gain minimal detail but lose scope.

Point being: even at distances further away than the "ideal," you're still receiving much more detail in an HD image than in SD, but you may not be getting quite as much detail as you would at closer distances (or with a larger set). So it's not just pompous to say '43" is worthless for HD'; it's also ignorant.

Of course, if you want to talk about the relevance of screen size and viewing distance for distinguishing 720p from 1080p, then that's another issue altogether. Then screen size and distance matter greatly in being able to tell the difference.

They will if the price is right. Do more people rent movies than buy them?
Yes. That means there are more people interested in just renting the content rather than owning it.

So take a look at a streaming HD service....like Netflix's unlimited streaming video now if you are a paid member. Only imagine that in HD...so for a subscription fee per month you can watch any HD release, streamed to your system.

Its part of the "I lease my car and rent my movies and pay rent on my apartment" method of thinking....why own when you dont have to.

Me, I like physical media....but alot of people couldn't care less about amassing a movie collection.Totally agree. Physical media won't be REPLACED by digital downloads any time soon, but I do think digital downloads will fully replace rentals. And since more people want to rent vs buy, this will hurt bluray in the long run.

Why not download your rentals? It's cheap and convenient, and do you really think Average Joe knows what macro blocking is? Or cares? Or knows the difference between 5.1 and 7.1 audio? Or has a receiver capable of lossless audio? Nope, Joe doesn't care about audio. As long as the video content he is viewing says "HD" and there is sound coming out of every one of his 5 speakers that came in his HT in a box, he will be happy enough.

As far as bluray vs SD, yes, there is a difference, but depending on your setup, you have to decide if it's worth it to you to watch your content on bluray. I think certain titles and HT setups show the differences much more than others, but if your setup isn't giving you a difference that warrants the price difference, then it probably isn't worth it at this time. If you want to get more of a feel of what some of the picture differences might be between SD and bluray, you might check out the bluray vs SD screenshot sticky in the blu-ray software section. Some of the pictures don't show much, but others show alot. Especially when comparing an upscaled SD picture from a crappy upscaling player to one from a good upscaler like the oppo or ps3.

I think people's biggest problem with bluray is that they expect the quality increase from DVD to be the same as the quality increase from SD -> HD tv. And when it isn't knock-your-socks off better like SD to HD tv, they are disappointed. Maybe if some upscaling SD DVD players didn't do such a good job, people would be more blown away.

Actually, my point wasn't that HD content will be widely downloadable; <snip> Convincing consumers that BR is actually worth it is going to be a long, hard fight. Just like in gaming, it's going to take some really appealing exclusives. The Matrix was instrumental in selling DVD tech to the mass market. But to convince consumers to also buy a new TV and all the extras in addition to a BR player is going to take a seriously appealing exclusive.
I think we are saying the same thing. In addition to all the upgrades people will have to make (spend) in order to get HD compliant. Throw in another XX dollars per month for the "super duper high speed fiber optic network" It will be another big thing to overcome.

To really notice the difference on some movies you would actually have to do a side by side comparison. I put the Swordfish DVD in and then the Swordfish BD in and couldn't really tell a difference, so I skipped to the scene where Halle Berry is sun bathing and lo and behold instead of the blur of the plant behind Hugh Jackman there is a damn crisp image of a plant. I mean this plant has like 500 times the detail than the DVD version.

They will if the price is right. Do more people rent movies than buy them?
Yes. That means there are more people interested in just renting the content rather than owning it.

So take a look at a streaming HD service....like Netflix's unlimited streaming video now if you are a paid member. Only imagine that in HD...so for a subscription fee per month you can watch any HD release, streamed to your system.

Its part of the "I lease my car and rent my movies and pay rent on my apartment" method of thinking....why own when you dont have to.

Me, I like physical media....but alot of people couldn't care less about amassing a movie collection.

I wouldn't say thats the general way of thinking, cars and apartments are a different story all together. Also for most people the dl speeds just are not there. I have a 20 down and 4.5 up (in canada) but thats not even close to the norm. 1.5mbps would be the norm and imagine dling a 45 gig hd movie over that? lol no thanks.
and Until it's changed I don't see this as much of a option right now or for a few years yet.

I wouldn't say thats the general way of thinking, cars and apartments are a different story all together.


Not necessarily, especially when you grow up conditioned that "Owning = Depreciation". What is the advantage of owning a BD disc at, say $24.95. You can watch the movie any time you want, at the drop of a hat.

But what if you were paying $14.95 a month and could watch any movie on HD, in HD, at the drop of a hat, by streaming it. Most people do *not* watch movies over and over...most people watch a movie, and maybe years later they watch it again. If thats your modus operandi, then you dont buy movies, nor collect multiple versions of them. I mean, my parents are just rolling into their 60's and they sure aren't movie collectors, they only buy DVD's when they are like $5 bucks each, when its so cheap that it makes sense just to buy it and have it handy for that rainy day.

But....if they could have instant access to movies at the click of a button....they'd probably go that route.


Also for most people the dl speeds just are not there. I have a 20 down and 4.5 up (in canada) but thats not even close to the norm. 1.5mbps would be the norm and imagine dling a 45 gig hd movie over that?


True enough, but two comments. One, with DOCIS 3 on the cable side and FIOS on the telephone side, bandwith over the next few years will slowly increase all over the world. Wont happen overnight, but the option will eventually be there.

Two, with compression advances and the average digital HD display being smaller than 42", you dont need to pump a 45gig movie uncompressed over the cable pipes......hell, go out now and download a WMVHD under 10gigs in size. I've seen a movie in that format, projected on my 720p PJ at 110" that gave my disc-based copy a run for its money, and it fit on a dual layer DVD.
I was like.."holy crap". Now if you're mom-and-pops, on your 42" set...you'd never be able to tell the original from the full bandwidth disc.

So thats the solution to streaming...better math. No uncompressed sound of course, so that is a tradeoff..but honestly..*how many people out there* really own a system that can do uncompressed sound justice? Those $300 HTIB 7.1 setups with HDMI inputs really aren't bringing out the best those expensive (in terms of disc space) soundtracks have to offer anyhow...


and Until it's changed I don't see this as much of a option right now or for a few years yet.

You must be on the younger side, as I roll up on 40 the years fly by for me :)
I went looking for a store in the mall recently that had closed 3 years earlier...."but I was just here..errr....uh..hey wheres the arcade? Where's Karate Champ!?" :D

Remember....consumers want convenience over quality..that is the general rule of thumb. See: MP3's.

When you can get HD (or near-HD) at the push of a button, your'e gonna lose roughly half of your DVD/Disc renting/buying audience.

Comcast's aggressive "800 HD channels" idea of having tons of HD on demand content is a step to take that market. Microsofts pilot program on Xbox LIVE with HD downlaods is another, and that will tie in with IPTV over time.

Theres also a whole slew of people like Headrusch and myself who have huge DVD collections.. containing many titles that were never opened.

I stopped buying DVD's about a year ago. I strictly rent.

Not because I cant afford it.. I just prefer not to continue to build a stack of movies that I might watch once.. twice.. or never. Looking at my collection now.. I have about 6 titles that are completely unopened.

Theres also a whole slew of people like Headrusch and myself who have huge DVD collections.. containing many titles that were never opened.


oh my god you can see into my HOUSE! :D

My friends do a good job busting my balls when they come over....I have more unopened movies on my shelf than opened ones, back from the Columbia House days when paying $10 on average was waaaaaaay better than Joe Consumer paying $17.99 to $19.99 for a new release movie.

Of course you wind up with movies you get cuz they are great...but maybe you haven't felt like watching...and then the years go by..and by...and by...and thats why I have things like Saturday Night Fever, Forrest Gump and Heavy Metal all sitting there unopened.

You know..for that rainy day :)

I'll open up ne of those boxes someday and watch dust fall out. " Gah! DVD ROT!"

I think that in this new digital age with more choices than ever as to how we consume media, there won't be any clear winner.

Digital rental is definately gonna take over. We already have it with On Demand movies that you rent for 24 hours. No doubt that for renting just pushing a button on your remote is how the masses will "rent" movies.

But most people can't figure out how to get an HD signall to an Hd TV. How in the heck are they gonna figure out how to store, transfer, and play their bought digital media. It becomes cumbersome to the average joe. Heck, popping a DVd into a DVD player and getting it to play is enough for most people to wrap their head around.

As the current gen grows up I think that more and more people will keep their movies stored on a HDD. But even then you have to stay on top of redundant back ups. But this format will not be able to give us the PQ of BR disc for quite a while.

It will be interesting to see how things evolve. But some things are timeless. And maybe having something you can touch, feel, hold, and collect will always be something humans like.

You can even add in the fact that some like myself have so many options to choose from as far as HD goes.

Local HD channels for free
Directv HD
Maketplace for Live

These are the options I have that have held me off from caring about HD disc. They are still options and Directv is really looking like a tempting thing to get rid of since marketplace and local channels are free for the shows I watch now.

Well I have close to 700 dvd's and around 140 BD and 79 hd-dvd's (all opened and watched) but I also get them and a quarter of the cost everyone else gets them at, so for me it's a great option.
Believe me I'm not saying it's not a good idea, it is but

But most people can't figure out how to get an HD signall to an Hd TV. How in the heck are they gonna figure out how to store, transfer, and play their bought digital media. It becomes cumbersome to the average joe. Heck, popping a DVd into a DVD player and getting it to play is enough for most people to wrap their head around.


and thats my point, most of the people I know are painfull to watch use anything electronic because they really have no idea what they are doing. I'll go to a friends house and ask him if he calibrated his tv and he looks at me like I'm the one who's crazy lol

And yes I'm 28, not too old. I paint hot rods but electronics are my real passion, I'm the guy who upgrades his pc every month, I spend countless hours reading about all the new tech and would consider myself very well informed about "most" electronic related news and devices. but I think in this case I think your giving too much credit to the average joes.

When this hits believe me I'll be the first one in line but until then I'll be quite happy watching BD and hd-dvd and not playing crysis ;)

Totally agree. Digital downloads will never replace physical media.

Agreed.
Internet access still isnt as "common" as say, television imho.

Plus, people said the same thing about mp3 downloads.

People want something tangible regardless.

I think we have a tendency to be so enveloped in our own electronic world, we tend to thing everyone else out there is also...which is wrong.

Never watched a BD before but Im gonna go buy one today. I just got done watching my first DVD on my HDTV and it looked amazing i'm not sure how much better it can get but I guess I'l see. Gonna get 300.... or anyone got any other suggestions?

Never watched a BD before but Im gonna go buy one today. I just got done watching my first DVD on my HDTV and it looked amazing i'm not sure how much better it can get but I guess I'l see. Gonna get 300.... or anyone got any other suggestions?

Heh...if youve got the tv youre going to love 300.

pirates of the carribean 3 also.

Clearly, those discs are not priced as potato chips. I only buy collection items...Blade Runner, Cast Away, etc. Films that marked my life one way or another. For the rest, NetFlix is my ticket to the silver screen.

This being said, I have no limits for the like of Blade Runner. I bought it on VHS, LD, DVD and now Blu-ray.

Unless broadband becomes a national priority handled by the Federal Government, physical media is here to stay.
Telcos and other infrastructure owners are all too happy to have US consumers pay $20-80 a month for something Europeans can get for $10 or less. Milking an existing infrastructure is clearly more juicy than investing capital to upgrade it to the standards of the time.

Now that Blu-ray wooped HD-DVD ass, its now Blu-ray VS. HD downloads...LOL...

All this being said, I still can't believe, if he has so much disposable income, that he doesn't have a bigger tv.


There's an easy answer for that, in my case, it's impractical. I play games old school style, at a computer desk. I play using a Splitfish controller, that thing and PSN having dedicated servers (with some games) is ultimately what pushed me over the edge with dumping the 360 and getting a PS3. With the 360, I was playing via VGA on a 20 inch monitor, leaning back in a recliner. In order to get HD out of a PS3 you need either HDMI or component, VGA without a transcoder won't work with the old monitor AND since the PS3 doesn't have a built in scaler, it can't do the tricks to fit on the screen like the 360 can (so widescreen is a must). My "old" Sony in the living room has faux HD (via component) that's only 480p. So the day I bought my PS3, I picked up a TV, it has a VGA input in addition to standard HDTV connections, so I can share it with my computer. Anything over the low 30s range in size would seriously get in the way.

I'm actually seriously considering upgrading this whole set up via a hand made LCD projector. I figure it would be a fun project and over the life of use, easier to maintain. Though the noise of the fan(s) will definitely detract from it. Waiting two years for the price to drop on projectors is just silly. IMHO either get one or don't.

PepticBurrito, you're trolling. Building a $400 HD projector? Do you have a line on a 100mpg carburetor?


Look up DIY projectors, you'll learn something new about what people who aren't afraid to literally rip apart a LCD monitor can do.

As for on-demand, yea I do think its the future. But the bandwidth just isn't there right now for a majority of people, and DRM is still really cumbersome and annoying compared to just shelling out for a disc. On-demand may be the primary way we watch movies in, oh, 7 or 10 years. But guess what, that is a long time. DVD's entire lifespan has been 11 years. A high definition disc format will serve us well during that time.

I seriously wish I could remember which media CEO it was that I referenced in a previous post (I hope it wasn't the post I lost when the AVS database crashed). This is pretty much exactly what he said, for the most part. I pretty much agree with him, sort of. Problem is, full market penetration for HDTVs probably won't be happening until after Cable starts shutting off the analog broadcasts (which will be after HDTVs go the price people are accustomed to playing for TVs). Blue-ray won't seriously begin to take off until after that. That's years off. In internet terms, that's eons.

Consumers are much more likely to "collect" non-traditional formats (like downloadable content) without any sort of nostalgia or mystical aura attached to them (as in the case of vinyl collectors).

iTunes is a perfect example. It has done very well in the mainstream, but folks like me get too attached to the "cover art and the case" to buy very many iTunes songs. I've got maybe two or three purchased iTunes songs in my 120gig digital music collection, comprised mostly of ripped CDs from my collection of "cover art and cases."connections).


I fall in both of those categories simultaneously. I still buy vinyl. There's a very human experience in putting a record on to listen to it. I stopped buying CDs years ago. First, e-music (back when they were completely unlimited subscripting) then iTunes, now Amazon and iTunes. My vinyl I pick up anywhere I can. It's nearly a lost art (save for DJ and punk rock circles), which is a shame.

Sometimes I wish my vinyl was on my iPod, but somehow that would take away from playing the record...

Look up DIY projectors, you'll learn something new about what people who aren't afraid to literally rip apart a LCD monitor can do.
Well why are you still here? go rip apart a lcd pannel and make a projector. When it's done we need pics!

Would HD downloads be 1080P and lossless audio?

Now that Blu-ray wooped HD-DVD ass, its now Blu-ray VS. HD downloads...LOL...

vs. DVD.

Remember, DVD sales are still VERY high compared to HD media sales. With advances in up conversion via either hardware or software (in the PS3's case), many consumers are having a hard time justifying BR or HD-DVD purchases because the media is still expensive. The studios really have to focus on making the highest possible quality release that they can. There are far too many BR and HD-DVD releases that are only slightly better than a quality up converting DVD player can achieve. Not every blue ray is up to the quality of things like Cars, Crank, Fifth Element (the remastered version), etc...

vs. DVD.

Remember, DVD sales are still VERY high compared to HD media sales. With advances in up conversion via either hardware or software (in the PS3's case), many consumers are having a hard time justifying BR or HD-DVD purchases because the media is still expensive. The studios really have to focus on making the highest possible quality release that they can. There are far too many BR and HD-DVD releases that are only slightly better than a quality up converting DVD player can achieve. Not every blue ray is up to the quality of things like Cars, Crank, Fifth Element (the remastered version), etc...

LOL, well duh. DVD has been around for over a decade and HD media has only a few years under its belt. Many people forget that it took DVD 10+ years to get where it is now. Why they expect these formats to be even reasonably close in sales, available titles, etc just blows my mind. :confused:

That wasn't intended at you, but in general.

Ok I just got done watching 300 on Bluray... I must say I'm NOT impressed. I noticed no huge quality improvement although I havn't watched the DVD version. Plus I hate letterbox IDK what the point in letterbox on a widescreen TV is!

I'm not giving up on Bluray but jeeze... Maybe its cuz my TV is only 32" (but still 1080p) I don't know.

Your screen is part of the problem, you just aren't going to be able to make out alot of the added detail that HD brings to the table on a screen that size unless you are sitting RIGHT up close to it. Also 300 is a so-so choice for showing off HD....some things (like seeing all the individual arrows that fly through the air) is nice...but its a very stylized movie, lots of blown-out whites, etc.

Ok I just got done watching 300 on Bluray... I must say I'm NOT impressed. I noticed no huge quality improvement although I havn't watched the DVD version. Plus I hate letterbox IDK what the point in letterbox on a widescreen TV is!

I'm not giving up on Bluray but jeeze... Maybe its cuz my TV is only 32" (but still 1080p) I don't know.

Most movies have aspect ratios that are wider than a 16:9 widescreen TV.

So they can either cut off the 2 sides of the movie and not letterbox it, or they can letterbox it and show you the entire movie.

Personally, I'd rather see the entire movie.

Now that Blu-ray wooped HD-DVD ass, its now Blu-ray VS. HD downloads...LOL...

Low quality HD downloads that don't compare.

Great news from netflix this morning :D

Your screen is part of the problem, you just aren't going to be able to make out alot of the added detail that HD brings to the table on a screen that size unless you are sitting RIGHT up close to it. Also 300 is a so-so choice for showing off HD....some things (like seeing all the individual arrows that fly through the air) is nice...but its a very stylized movie, lots of blown-out whites, etc.

Yea I set fairly close... like less than 4 or 5 ft usually so I am thinkin its the movie itself since I agree it doesnt look like a good choice. I mean some parts looked amazing though...

Does Bluray give any sound advantage? I dont guess id notice it on my Pioneer Xbox 360 set tho...

Yea I set fairly close... like less than 4 or 5 ft usually so I am thinkin its the movie itself since I agree it doesnt look like a good choice. I mean some parts looked amazing though...

Does Bluray give any sound advantage? I dont guess id notice it on my Pioneer Xbox 360 set tho...

Yup, depending on the movie quite a nice improvement in sound. You can experiment switching between the codecs on the fly while it is playing.

My dad is selling his Anthem D1 Statement and getting a Denon 4308CI. Now, he readily expects a big sound downgrade, but do you think the Denon might be an improvement with a lossless source?

My dad is selling his Anthem D1 Statement and getting a Denon 4308CI. Now, he readily expects a big sound downgrade, but do you think the Denon might be an improvement with a lossless source?

Tough to say but your audio is only good as your source. I'd imagine he'll miss the fullness and dynamic range of the Anthem but will be surprised to hear all the details & richness in lossless 96kHz+ with the Denon.

I heard a noticeable difference even playing games in LPCM vs. using the optical connection.

Originally posted by briankmonkey
Low quality HD downloads that don't compare.
see thats the thing, if there are people who can't see the difference between 480P DVD and 1080P BD, how the hell are they going to see the difference between 480P DVD and what ever lower resolution HD downloads has to offer...

It is really laughable how literally minutes after Warner announced going exclusive, more people started talking about HD downloads...LOL...

I would be all for HD downloads IF AND ONLY IF I could keep them stored on a bank of hard drives, and if they were indeed 1080P and lossless audio. My only problem would be my internet connection which will not be improved upon any time soon...

Problem is, full market penetration for HDTVs probably won't be happening until after Cable starts shutting off the analog broadcasts (which will be after HDTVs go the price people are accustomed to playing for TVs). Blue-ray won't seriously begin to take off until after that. That's years off. In internet terms, that's eons.

Well, in the meantime, I have my PS3, I have an HDTV, every movie studio is putting new releases out on Blu-Ray (ok I think there's one or 2 HD-DVD holdouts). So I am fine.

I don't expect Blu-Ray to ever become as popular as DVD. A lot of people have HDTVs and just hook them up to their cable box and since its digital they think it is HDTV so they are sitting there using their HDTV with SD content, of course stretched to fit the whole screen! So they don't care.

But I do think as time goes on people will become more literate and Blu-Ray will grow every year, perhaps in double digits (not the absurd 25% growth or whatever you saw in DVD's 2nd and 3rd years). I remember back when DVD came out people were all like, "why are there borders?" because they were so used to garbage P&S on VHS. Now, I think most people prefer widescreen. So change does happen.

Ok I just got done watching 300 on Bluray... I must say I'm NOT impressed. I noticed no huge quality improvement although I havn't watched the DVD version. Plus I hate letterbox IDK what the point in letterbox on a widescreen TV is!

I'm not giving up on Bluray but jeeze... Maybe its cuz my TV is only 32" (but still 1080p) I don't know.

300 is also a very "grainy" movie. Effect is added to the film on purpose but I think it takes away some of the detail quality. I still say Crank has impressed me the most that I have witnessed. It is not letterboxed and I think that looks better when it fills the entire screen. I have POTC on Blu-Ray and that is also top notch but it is letterboxed.

I have a 42' LCD by the way.

see thats the thing, if there are people who can't see the difference between 480P DVD and 1080P BD, how the hell are they going to see the difference between 480P DVD and what ever lower resolution HD downloads has to offer...

It is really laughable how literally minutes after Warner announced going exclusive, more people started talking about HD downloads...LOL...

I would be all for HD downloads IF AND ONLY IF I could keep them stored on a bank of hard drives, and if they were indeed 1080P and lossless audio. My only problem would be my internet connection which will not be improved upon any time soon...

Nah, DVD on an HD DVD player is just as good as HD. Lol, they were touting that since 06. Probably why they didn't buy enough HD DVD's to keep studio support :o

Nah, DVD on an HD DVD player is just as good as HD. Lol, they were touting that since 06. Probably why they didn't buy enough HD DVD's to keep studio support :o

So, just to satisfy my own curiosity...are you "Pro Blu Ray" for some reason, or just "Anti-Everything Else".

???

So, just to satisfy my own curiosity...are you "Pro Blu Ray" for some reason, or just "Anti-Everything Else".

???

I do love blu-ray movies, so yes Pro blu ray. I've been a home theater enthusiast for a long time, long before blu-rays. Blu-ray has just brought my home theater experience to a much higher level :)

Loving blu-ray movies doesn't make me "anti-everything else", I'm far from that. I have lots of things I enjoy quite a bit :)

It is really laughable how literally minutes after Warner announced going exclusive, more people started talking about HD downloads...LOL...

QUOTE]

I know huh, thats what i noticed..they want blu ray to fail...it is funny tho as i highly doubt that (just like mp3 downloads even tho people keep conveniently forgetting as downloads are NOT ousting cds...people want something tangible and not everyone has access to high speed internet--and thats IN the usa, not a 3rd world country) movie downloads are going to replace blu ray....please stop grasping for straws....

[QUOTE=tneck;13078800]300 is also a very "grainy" movie. Effect is added to the film on purpose but I think it takes away some of the detail quality. I still say Crank has impressed me the most that I have witnessed. It is not letterboxed and I think that looks better when it fills the entire screen. I have POTC on Blu-Ray and that is also top notch but it is letterboxed.

I have a 42' LCD by the way.

Ive got POTC 3 also and yeah, it looks really great.

I do love blu-ray movies, so yes Pro blu ray. I've been a home theater enthusiast for a long time, long before blu-rays. Blu-ray has just brought my home theater experience to a much higher level :)

Loving blu-ray movies doesn't make me "anti-everything else", I'm far from that. I have lots of things I enjoy quite a bit :)

You just seem to take a delight in trashing every BD alternative that comes down the lane, from upscaling DVD's to HDDVD's to downloadable HD content...as a Home Theatre enthusiast I'm surprised you dont have an HDDVD Player as well.

ooo netflix is going BD exclusive! ouch for hd-dvd x2
and also 300 wasn't the best movie for hd anyways, like what was stated it has a grain in the film that takes away from the films sharpness.

Get planet earth!!! now that looks kick ass to the 9th degree!

You just seem to take a delight in trashing every BD alternative that comes down the lane, from upscaling DVD's to HDDVD's to downloadable HD content...as a Home Theatre enthusiast I'm surprised you dont have an HDDVD Player as well.

Don't be so surprised then, I do have a HD DVD player ;) edit: I have a Zenith (model 318 something) upscaling DVD player as well. It actually works over component as it was one of the earliest models released. Lol, I paid more for my zenith than my HD DVD player . Of course, I've moved along to better and now use my PS3/A3 as my upscaler and don't buy DVD's in general.

I don't bash every alternative, but some things simply don't add to be worth paying for like Comcast HD on demand, Live on demand. Paying more for less quality isn't my style.

Of course if the content isn't available on blu-ray (hence why I have a HD DVd player for Uni and Paramount titles) that is a different matter. Can't get it on blu-ray, I'll fall back on to HD DVD as it is still better than DVD and on demand services like Live or Comcast. When something is available on blu-ray there is no reason to go with the other routes for me as I have blockbuster and Hollywood Video close enough to rent blu-ray's which are the best I can get in my home.

Originally posted by briankmonkey
Great news from netflix this morning
I missed that news this morning.:eek:

And apparantly Best Buy is going to officially start recommending there customers to buy blu-ray! Not that I listen to BB employees...LOL!

I missed that news this morning.:eek:

And apparantly Best Buy is going to officially start recommending there customers to buy blu-ray! Not that I listen to BB employees...LOL!

Think about it, knowing all the facts and using common senses. I simply can't recommend any friend or family member to buy into HD DVD? Last year was a different story and I actually did. I offered my friend to buy his player back off him immediately after the Warner announcement. He said he'll use it as an upconverter anyways, his old DVD player was on its last legs anyways. Plus he got the same deal I got, player and $10 HD DVD's for $99 so not a big investment.

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj133/gtsportsmedia/netflix_blu.jpg

All I want to know is when will Transformers be available on Blu-Ray so I can see Megan Fox in all her HD glory. Obviously that will happen once Paramount jumps ship; hopefully sooner than later.

ooo netflix is going BD exclusive! ouch for hd-dvd x2
and also 300 wasn't the best movie for hd anyways, like what was stated it has a grain in the film that takes away from the films sharpness.

Get planet earth!!! now that looks kick ass to the 9th degree!

I was thinking about getting that..ive heard that it looks incredible..will netflicks have it?
I got to blockbuster for my blu rays currently.

All I want to know is when will Transformers be available on Blu-Ray so I can see Megan Fox in all her HD glory. Obviously that will happen once Paramount jumps ship; hopefully sooner than later.

You and me both..ive got the dvd version upconverted with my ps3.

Most movies have aspect ratios that are wider than a 16:9 widescreen TV.

So they can either cut off the 2 sides of the movie and not letterbox it, or they can letterbox it and show you the entire movie.

Personally, I'd rather see the entire movie.

Or the spec could have been made correctly and TVs would be shipping in a proper aspect ratio that didn't do letter box widescreen on a widescreen TV. It is silly.....

Or the spec could have been made correctly and TVs would be shipping in a proper aspect ratio that didn't do letter box widescreen on a widescreen TV. It is silly.....

There is no proper aspect ratio. Movies have been made in tons of different aspect ratios. Which one should be chosen?

* 1.33:1 A standard television set; roughly equivalent to 4:3.
* 1.37:1 Referred to as the academy aspect ratio. The standard for films shot before the mid-1950s.
* 1.66:1 A bit wider than a standard TV, but not by much.
* 1.78:1 The dimensions of a widescreen television set; roughly equivalent to 16:9.
* 1.85:1 Popular aspect ratio for many movies.
* 2.35: Another popular aspect ratio for movies.

16:9 is basically the average of these aspect ratios.

You can buy projectors and lenses to project in these super wide aspect ratios. Pretty cool and expensive stuff. There is a portion of this site that is dedicated to it.

There is no proper aspect ratio. Movies have been made in tons of different aspect ratios. Which one should be chosen?

* 1.33:1 A standard television set; roughly equivalent to 4:3.
* 1.37:1 Referred to as the academy aspect ratio. The standard for films shot before the mid-1950s.
* 1.66:1 A bit wider than a standard TV, but not by much.
* 1.78:1 The dimensions of a widescreen television set; roughly equivalent to 16:9.
* 1.85:1 Popular aspect ratio for many movies.
* 2.35: Another popular aspect ratio for movies.

16:9 is basically the average of these aspect ratios.

You can buy projectors and lenses to project in these super wide aspect ratios. Pretty cool and expensive stuff. There is a portion of this site that is dedicated to it.
It would be nice if they'd gone with 1.85:1 instead of 1.78, though.

Or the spec could have been made correctly and TVs would be shipping in a proper aspect ratio that didn't do letter box widescreen on a widescreen TV. It is silly.....Sounds like you don't understand a major part of film history.

As Shape says, there're a ton of aspect ratios that have been used throughout cinematic history, and there is no "standard" aspect, only an "average." Remember, too, that prior to the 1950s, most films were in something close to a 4:3 ratio, so the "average" changes depending on what time period you're talking about.

Shape's listed only a few of the countless different aspect ratios used in the past 130 years of film history. Here's a link to a wikipedia page listing many, many more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_formats

Until someone can make a TV that magically shrinks and grows as needed, there will never be a TV that will perfectly fit all aspect ratios.

There is no proper aspect ratio. Movies have been made in tons of different aspect ratios. Which one should be chosen?

* 1.33:1 A standard television set; roughly equivalent to 4:3.
* 1.37:1 Referred to as the academy aspect ratio. The standard for films shot before the mid-1950s.
* 1.66:1 A bit wider than a standard TV, but not by much.
* 1.78:1 The dimensions of a widescreen television set; roughly equivalent to 16:9.
* 1.85:1 Popular aspect ratio for many movies.
* 2.35: Another popular aspect ratio for movies.


Making it ALWAYs letterbox widescreen on a widescreen TV is just plain silly, which is how the spec is written. Now I hope new movies are going to start migrating to 16:9 for ones which the company assumes will be a big hit on home purchases and that will be good enough to solve the problem.

Until someone can make a TV that magically shrinks and grows as needed, there will never be a TV that will perfectly fit all aspect ratios.

I'm not gonna assume these guys chose based off of "16:9, that's a great ratio!". These kind of things are chosen based of expected chip advancements, OTA bandwidth limitations, CCD design, camera costs, etc and are more pragmatic than just "make it movie size!". Yes, "movie size" has changed historically and depends on the director/editor and the general view of the art by the creators.

It's always going to be a comprise, balancing concerns of everyone involved. In the end, it's still silly to letterbox widescreen. That's the kind of thing that should be fixed for future at the very least, but probably shouldn't have been much of a concern in the first place. When I eventually start the migration towards HD for my movies, I'll probably be that guy who goes for the "full screen" version, assuming of course the "full screen" version wasn't quite literally cropped from the "widescreen" final product and then interpolated to fit the screen. Which is weird, because I've always bought the "widescreen version" due to my dislike of pan and scan. If they go all pan and scan on me, I'll have to put up with letter boxing, again.

Does anyone know if these letter boxed movies are stored on these disk at higher resolution than they are being shown at and in the future 1080p will be a "consumer" size TV with a larger than 1080p being released later? Kind of like how DVD can store at anamorphic 480p, where as TVs in peoples homes was something like 640x480.

It almost sounds like you understand...Yes, "movie size" has changed historically and depends on the director/editor and the general view of the art by the creators....but unfortunately you don't...It's always going to be a comprise, balancing concerns of everyone involved. In the end, it's still silly to letterbox widescreen. That's the kind of thing that should be fixed for future at the very least, but probably shouldn't have been much of a concern in the first place.There's nothing to "fix." I'm not sure how many different ways we can say this, there is no standard "widescreen" aspect ratio. "Widescreen" is merely a catch-all term used to describe a wide array of many different screen aspect ratios.

You understand that in order to drop letterboxing for many aspect ratios, you'd have to lose the sides or top/bottom of the original image, right? If that's what you want, then why are you even interested in a widescreen set? You may as well be watching this stuff on a hi-def CRT in 4:3.

When I eventually start the migration towards HD for my movies, I'll probably be that guy who goes for the "full screen" version, assuming of course the "full screen" version wasn't quite literally cropped from the "widescreen" final product and then interpolated to fit the screen.How else would you propose creating a full screen version? :D Something's gotta give. Other than cropping the edges, your only other option is to stretch the top and bottom of the image, distorting the original image in the process.

The problem you have is with the film industry. Television has (mostly) standardized its aspect ratios. Film has not and probably never will. That means there's a problem when you try to watch a film on a television set. The two technologies don't fit perfectly.

Besides, there's already 130 years' worth of film with unstandardized ratios that no one can do anything about. I suppose we could just burn all the original prints and just start from scratch.

Making it ALWAYs letterbox widescreen on a widescreen TV is just plain silly, which is how the spec is written. Now I hope new movies are going to start migrating to 16:9 for ones which the company assumes will be a big hit on home purchases and that will be good enough to solve the problem.


God I hope not. Part of the great thing about going to see a movie at a theater is seeing the really wide screen. A 16:9 ratio simply can't compare.

Film makers will use whatever ratios they want to.

There is no problem to solve, here. If you want to fill the screen with the picture, just select a zoom mode on your TV remote. For that matter, doesn't the PS3 have a pan and scan mode for BDs?

I think the point is... Why didn't they just set the standard for widescreen TVs the same ratio as what these crazy letterboxed movies are (the actual tv would of had to of been wider)? Why have like 10 different ratios? It wouldnt of changed games because a game can be pretty much any resolution.

Now I hope new movies are going to start migrating to 16:9 for ones which the company assumes will be a big hit on home purchases and that will be good enough to solve the problem.




And, I hope you are never in charge of any important decisions related to movie making.

I think the point is... Why didn't they just set the standard for widescreen TVs the same ratio as what these crazy letterboxed movies are (the actual tv would of had to of been wider)? Why have like 10 different ratios? It wouldnt of changed games because a game can be pretty much any resolution.

First of all, it isn't practical to have TVs that wide in most people's homes. The wider a TV screen is, while keeping the same diagonal measurement, the smaller the screen is for SD 4:3 material. People wouldn't accept that.

Second of all, there is NO STANDARD for film ratios!

Third, you CAN get ultra wide front projectors and wide screens to match. Here's a forum about it: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=117

Go to it! :) Say goodbye to black bars forever!

One thing Blu-Ray has going for it over downloads is familiarity; average folks are used to having a disc-based movie player hooked up to the TV ... they aren't used to having a computer or other box hooked up for HD downloads. If cable boxes get to that point then maybe. For now Blu-Ray has to take advantage of its position and push the product as hard as possible while the mainstream consumer is still undecided.

I would be all for HD downloads IF AND ONLY IF I could keep them stored on a bank of hard drives, and if they were indeed 1080P and lossless audio. My only problem would be my internet connection which will not be improved upon any time soon...

Ditto for me. Until / unless downloads result in an identical product to Blu-Ray I'm sticking with the physical media. I'm not going to settle for a 5 GB movie when a 50 GB version is available.

I think the point is... Why didn't they just set the standard for widescreen TVs the same ratio as what these crazy letterboxed movies are (the actual tv would of had to of been wider)? Why have like 10 different ratios? It wouldnt of changed games because a game can be pretty much any resolution.Did you read the past two pages of this thread? I'll say it again, there is no way to match televisions to all the different movie formats. And they never will, unless they invent a TV with adjustable/movable edges. Make it as wide as you want, it won't matter. Movies vary from 1:1 ratios to 4:1, and they hit an almost infinite number of variations in-between. Specialty theaters go even wider.

As I said before, there are far more than "10 different ratios." Film is a very different technology from television. In film, there's no reason to have a standard ratio; filmmakers choose a ratio based on their individual wants and needs. You can't simply wave a wand and do away with over a century of films that have a ridiculously huge variation in aspect ratios. That's never going away.

We have standards for everything else; why not standards for the aspect ratios of how movies are made? Why is this such a taboo concept? We'd all enjoy the movies as the director directed it on the same TV screens, and black bars would disappear. When a director agrees to direct an IMAX film, he asceeds to the demands of the standard. Why not for movies as a whole? For past films, we put up with the different aspect ratios, but for everything going forward we'd be good.

We have standards for everything else; why not standards for the aspect ratios of how movies are made? Why is this such a taboo concept? We'd all enjoy the movies as the director directed it on the same TV screens, and black bars would disappear. When a director agrees to direct an IMAX film, he asceeds to the demands of the standard. Why not for movies as a whole? For past films, we put up with the different aspect ratios, but for everything going forward we'd be good.


Because a comedy and a war epic don't have the same framing needs. Movies are still designed to be seen in THEATERS. I want wide sweeping vistas covered with war machines in 2.35:1, but you don't exactly need that with talking head movies.

I'm not terribly concerned what some dolt who can't grasp aspect ratio wants in his living room.

Because a comedy and a war epic don't have the same framing needs. Movies are still designed to be seen in THEATERS. I want wide sweeping vistas covered with war machines in 2.35:1, but you don't exactly need that with talking head movies.

I'm not terribly concerned what some dolt who can't grasp aspect ratio wants in his living room.

I guess that makes sense. A panoramic view of two girls chatting in their bedroom in a chic flick probably wouldn't make sense. I like the idea of the 'wall as your TV' like in Total Recall. It would adjust on the fly to the aspect ratio of the film, but is probably at least one or two years off :)

Okay, maybe more, but I'd be first in line to buy . . .

Seriously, though, my next HT will be a dedicated room with a projector. Then the black bars do go away, right?

I gotta admit.. when I do think about the 1 and only BluRay player I'd be interested in buying.. it would without a doubt be a PS3.

I gotta admit.. when I do think about the 1 and only BluRay player I'd be interested in buying.. it would without a doubt be a PS3.

Maybe the xbox720p will have a blu-ray drive ;)

Theres a great possibility it will.. that said I doubt it will ever match the PS3's price.. which would be the most important factor for me.

If its one thing the PS3 taught us early this generation.. its that you got to pay to play.

Yup, this generation of consoles has been higher than the previous. $400 for my 360, $500 PS3, $250 Wii (well it had a pack in game but still).

Hey, I could have a lot more expensive hobby than video games ;0

I paid $900 for a Toshiba progressive scan DVD player when they first came out. $600 for the PS3 was a bargain.... I still laugh thinking about home theater guys complaining about the price when Sony annouced it before launch...I mean duh, its got a BD player in it, why the surprise...LOL...but thats all in the past....and even funnier was reading the HD-DVD guys complaing about BD player prices when I paid $900 for a TOSHIBA progressive scan DVD player and that wasn't even there top of the line model...LOL...

How else would you propose creating a full screen version? :D Something's gotta give. Other than cropping the edges, your only other option is to stretch the top and bottom of the image, distorting the original image in the process.




Cropped from the master and not interpolated up, without pan and scan. Making full use out of the HDTV.

Cropped from the master and not interpolated up, without pan and scan. Making full use out of the HDTV.

So if something happens in the part of the movie that is cut off, just pretend it didn't happen?

:confused:

Just hit the zoom button for the same effect.

Cropped from the master and not interpolated up, without pan and scan. Making full use out of the HDTV.Cropping is cropping, no matter what. That doesn't change the fact that you'd be losing chunks of the original image.

Really, if you're not interested in getting as faithful a reproduction of the original film print as possible in your home, why are you investing in expensive AV equipment? I just don't get it.

Admittedly, there are times that widescreen can go horribly wrong. For example, for some strange reason, The Shining (and other Kubrick films) keeps getting released in the incorrect aspect ratio. It was shot in a television-like aspect ratio and meant to be matted to a widescreen aspect (in the theater). Anyhow, no one can agree exactly what aspect most of his films are supposed to be displayed in. Unlike film, though, video transfers have to choose a set ratio. For HD, since so much space is devoted to video and audio quality, it isn't really possible to include multiple aspect ratio print transfers.

Point being, this isn't an issue you can just "fix."

Cropping is cropping, no matter what. That doesn't change the fact that you'd be losing chunks of the original image.

Really, if you're not interested in getting as faithful a reproduction of the original film print as possible in your home, why are you investing in expensive AV equipment? I just don't get it.

Have you every watched a movie in 16:9 and were happy with it? Happier than if it were in 4:3?

When you go from anamorphic DVD to a standard def TV, you go from 480 vertical lines to 360. So I bought an EDTV that had an "16:9 enhanced mode" that retained the original 480p anamorphic resolution in widescreen. It looked better. When you have a blue-ray, whose resolution on the disk I haven't the slightest idea, and then letterbox on a 720p tv, the real output can be anywhere from 545 to 692 in vertical lines (assuming it's not in 16:9 based on your previous aspect ration list). Which, by the way, isn't that much better than DVD on the low end.

Or, they can take the master and actually generate 1080p vertical pixels, it will be cropped just like my DVDs I've always been happy with, but will show a significant resolution increase over DVDs on all 720p and 1080p TVs. For those who want "letter box" they can increase the horizontal pixel count and just let it fall off the screen, you pull our your remote put it in letter box, you see it all. That fixes the problem for both parties.

These guys lack imagination.

Requested a thread title change. It bugs me every time I visit the forum.

I paid $900 for a Toshiba progressive scan DVD player when they first came out. $600 for the PS3 was a bargain.... I still laugh thinking about home theater guys complaining about the price when Sony annouced it before launch...I mean duh, its got a BD player in it, why the surprise...LOL...but thats all in the past....and even funnier was reading the HD-DVD guys complaing about BD player prices when I paid $900 for a TOSHIBA progressive scan DVD player and that wasn't even there top of the line model...LOL...

So what you are saying is that because YOU paid $900 for a progressive scan DVD player.. many of which widely available for about $29 bucks at any given 7-11 these days.. means that noone else should complain about pricing of current consumer electronics.

Gotcha!

Compliants about aspect ratio's on BDs and HD-DVD is silly to be, you think that must who are seriously looking at either would be the type to know the differences between the different aspects used. Also, most decent HDTVs will allow you to zoom, getting rid of the bars with little quality loss.

Originally posted by Daekwan
So what you are saying is that because YOU paid $900 for a progressive scan DVD player.. many of which widely available for about $29 bucks at any given 7-11 these days.. means that noone else should complain about pricing of current consumer electronics.

Gotcha!

I paid $900 for a progressive scan DVD player when they first came out, 7 years ago, not today where there available for $30...:rolleyes: and it wasn't just me....

My point is that HD-DVD made a huge error in judgment in assuming that cheap players would win the war. People who are not willing to spend $400 on a player will not spend $25 on many HD disk. Toshiba was selling HD-DVD players for $99 thinking that those same people who wouldn't buy in at $400 would all of a sudden start buying HD-DVD instead of cheap DVD. So what makes me laugh is that the same company, Toshiba, who sold progressive scan DVD player for $1200 (when that technology was new 7 years ago), some how thought that people who buy into the format at $99 would spend 25% of what they paid for the player on 1 HD-DVD movie..., I think not....and what really sucks for those people who bought into HD-DVD at $99, is that eventually it will be difficult for them to rent HD-DVD due to the netflix decision, and all along thats probably what there plan always ways, to rent and not buy...LOL...

I paid $900 for a progressive scan DVD player when they first came out, 7 years ago, not today where there available for $30...:rolleyes: and it wasn't just me....

My point is that HD-DVD made a huge error in judgment in assuming that cheap players would win the war. People who are not willing to spend $400 on a player will not spend $25 on many HD disk. Toshiba was selling HD-DVD players for $99 thinking that those same people who wouldn't buy in at $400 would all of a sudden start buying HD-DVD instead of cheap DVD. So what makes me laugh is that the same company, Toshiba, who sold progressive scan DVD player for $1200 (when that technology was new 7 years ago), some how thought that people who buy into the format at $99 would spend 25% of what they paid for the player on 1 HD-DVD movie..., I think not....and what really sucks for those people who bought into HD-DVD at $99, is that eventually it will be difficult for them to rent HD-DVD due to the netflix decision, and all along thats probably what there plan always ways, to rent and not buy...LOL...

I agree and disagree, price for the players would have made a huge difference in the war between Blu Ray and HD-DVD if WB hadn't gone exclusive almost immediately after those sales ended. Heck, WB went exclusive in January and the $99 sales were in Dec, the impact of those sales will never truly be known because of the WB (and now, Netflix) decision.

But to say that it was a bad move is premature seeing as how there is now way to gauge what the true impact of the move would have been.

Wal-Mart still sells mostly "Fullscreen" DVD's for the hillbillies who say "I want my TV screen to be full".

Maybe they will offer 16:9 pan-and-scan BD's for the hillbillies who have bought widescreen TV's.

Originally posted by mrigsby
Heck, WB went exclusive in January and the $99 sales were in Dec, the impact of those sales will never truly be known because of the WB (and now, Netflix) decision.

I respectfully disagree, in other words, please don't hunt me down and TOW me in Warhawk.;) I believe Warner was watching Christmas disk sales and saw that BD disks still out sold HD-DVD disks even though an additional 120,000 $99 HD-DVD player were added to the mix. There was enough time for Warner to watch and see if $99 player would make a difference, and it apparantly didn't. If it did, you wouldn't see Warner going BD exclusive, don't forget Warner has always been pro HD-DVD, hence the reason BD never got Matrix. It was all about disk sales for Warner... The people who wouldn't buy into HD-DVD untill the players hit $99 were planning on renting instead of buying, in my most humble opinion.:) And now the netflix news...ouch...

Requested a thread title change. It bugs me every time I visit the forum.

If you only have a 43" 720p HDTV, and you're sitting at 8-10 feet you're not going to be wowed by most BD titles compared to upscaled SD DVD, at least that I've seen. I think it's been overhyped for most. Others have agreed on this thread, so I don't see what the problem is with the title. I was disappointed by my first BD titles; I was expecting to be wowed from everything that I'd heard from BD proponents who are probably all watching their BDs on 60" 1080p sets. Oh well.

Wal-Mart still sells mostly "Fullscreen" DVD's for the hillbillies who say "I want my TV screen to be full".

Maybe they will offer 16:9 pan-and-scan BD's for the hillbillies who have bought widescreen TV's.


Like I said before, there are ways to make EVERYONE happy on the same disk. If every Blue-ray disk have a full 1080 vertical lines of resolution and all the horizontal lines needed to keep the full theater view of the movie on the disk and you had the choice between letterbox (which lowers res, but gives the entire scene, this is exactly what we have now), pan/scan DVD style (simple horizontal origin change), or simple crop and your player did the rest and sent to your TV, that would be a good thing.

The way it is now, the majority of people currently purchasing HDTVs are NOT going to see a difference on a letterbox Blue-ray vs a DVD on the same exact TV from their couch, because the common theater aspect ratios don't have enough vertical resolution on 720p HDTVs.

Wanting an actuall HD signal on my HDTV from my HD movie player doesn't make me a hillbilly, it makes me a informed consumer.

Wanting an actuall HD signal on my HDTV from my HD movie player doesn't make me a hillbilly, it makes me a informed consumer.

Yeah, but not knowing what an "actual HD Signal from an HD movie player" is makes me think otherwise.

[QUOTE=PepticBurrito]
The way it is now, the majority of people currently purchasing HDTVs are NOT going to see a difference on a letterbox Blue-ray vs a DVD on the same exact TV from their couch, because the common theater aspect ratios don't have enough vertical resolution on 720p HDTVs. [QUOTE]

Well I have an HDTV (50" Panny Plasma) and I can DEFINITELY see a difference in my BD letterbox version of POTC:COTBP compared to my DVD version. In fact for every BD I've watched thus far I have seen some sort of improvement over it's DVD counterpart. I have read through this whole thread and different people are experiencing different results however for me there is a great difference.

To put it in a simple statement, when I am considering a purchase of a new movie to add to my collection I am picking the BD version over DVD EVERY time with no exception. I personally find watching DVDs not nearly as enjoyable. For instance, last night I watch LOTR:FOTR extended version on DVD and while it used to wow me in PQ terms I found myself cringing at the lack of detail and softness of the picture. I can't wait for that series to be released on BD!

Like I said before,[excised craziness]You crazy.:rolleyes:

You crazy.:rolleyes:

How is that crazy? How is it crazy to expect 1080 vertical lines on the Blue-ray disk, regardless of aspect ratio? They would look identical to what they do now for anyone who wants letterbox. There would actually be 720 vertical lines of resolution on all those 720p TVs being sold to Joe Average, rather than anywhere from slightly better than 500 (DVD quality) up to 720. The Blue-ray 2 player that we all own will easily handle this.

The reason quite a few Blue-ray movies don't look any better to than DVD to people is because of aspect ratio and it wasn't actually using much more vertical lines than DVD. On a 720p TV, Spiderman 3 gives approximately 540 vertical lines, the anamorphic DVD gives 480. Combine that with TV size and viewing distance, a common household 720 HDTV is not going to see much, if any, difference over DVD on quite a few Blue-ray movies, unless they zoom into the picture and watch it "full screen". Even then with viewing distance, they may not really such much of a difference.

Well I have an HDTV (50" Panny Plasma) and I can DEFINITELY see a difference in my BD letterbox version of POTC:COTBP compared to my DVD version.

You most certainly can. I don't doubt that for a second. Those who don't see a difference aren't blind. Now POTC is one of the finest examples of a Blue-ray movie on the market, I own it it looks damn good, even on my 32 incher.

Let's look at the other end of the spectrum: Spiderman 3 on a 720p HDTV (the most commonly sold HDTV today), in that case they have approximately 540 vertical lines of resolution (using a ruler to determine it's approximately 6/8 of 16:9). The DVD has 480. Not much of a difference unless you zoom into the screen, at which point you get at best 810 vertical pixels.

Wouldn't it be nice if it actually had 1080 and you had the option of zooming in when ever you wanted?

Yeah, but not knowing what an "actual HD Signal from an HD movie player" is makes me think otherwise.

540 vertical pixels on a 720p TV for spiderman 3 Blue-ray isn't that impressive.

How is that crazy? How is it crazy to expect 1080 vertical lines on the Blue-ray disk, regardless of aspect ratio?

The 1080 horizontal (not vertical) lines ARE on the Blu-Ray disc, regardless of the aspect ratio. Those black bars are NOT encoded into the video stream. On good DVDs, they weren't encoded into the video stream, either.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Anamorphic_lens_illustration_without_stretching.jpg/250px-Anamorphic_lens_illustration_without_stretching.jpg

Figure 1. If shooting in widescreen picture format, without an anamorphic lens, the available film area is not used completely; some of the film surface is wasted on the frame lines.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Anamorphic_lens_illustration_with_stretching.jpg/250px-Anamorphic_lens_illustration_with_stretching.jpg

Figure 2. With an anamorphic lens, the picture is optically "squeezed" in the horizontal dimension to cover the entire film frame, resulting in a better picture quality. When projecting the film, the projector must use a complementary lens of the same anamorphic power to stretch the image horizontally back to its original proportions.



DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are encoded like Figure 2, with the picture stretched. When the player reads the disc, it squeezes the image down to the correct aspect ratio.

More:
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=anamorphic+DVD&i=37765,00.asp

Even better:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/

Anamophic demos:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/anamorphic185demo.html
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/anamorphic235demo.html

The interesting thing here is that a 480p DVD could actually end up not being upscaled in the vertical direction if displayed on a 720p TV. :) Think about it. The horizontal pixels will be stretched, however.

The 1080 horizontal (not vertical) lines ARE on the Blu-Ray disc, regardless of the aspect ratio. Those black bars are NOT encoded into the video stream. On good DVDs, they weren't encoded into the video stream, either.


I'm going to assume you don't know what the word vertical means. 1080p has 1920 HORIZONTAL lines and 1080 vertical lines.

I know what anamorphic means.

Unstreached anamorphic DVD will have letter boxing all the way around the image, since there are not enough horizontal lines to fill a 720p TV (which requires 1280).

You see from anamorphic DVD to Blue-ray for spiderman 3 on a 720p TV you gain at most 80 pixels vertical resolution AND extra information that was cropped out to fit it in a 16:9. In real world terms, it doesn't look better.

One more time for the reading impaired. If spiderman 3 had 1080p VERTICAL pixels, rather than approximately 810 (due to loss of vertical pixels in letter boxing), and 2060 horizontal pixels (rather than 1920 HORIZONTAL pixels) and your blue-ray fix it letter box to your screen. For those who want letter box it would the same it does today, for those with want 16:9, it will look better at the cost of losing edge information. On all TVs.

Now if today, spiderman 3 was shipping with 2060x1080 and was being sampled down by my PS3 to fit in letter box on my TV, I want to change those settings, right now. I don't see that function anywhere.

I'm going to assume you don't know what the word vertical means. 1080p has 1920 HORIZONTAL lines and 1080 vertical lines.

I say again, you crazy. :eek: You're confusing "horizontal lines" with "horizontal resolution." Speaking correctly, horizontal resolution measures vertical lines, and vertical resolution measures horizontal lines. I can see why you'd be confused, but you're incorrect.

I know what anamorphic means.But you've proven repeatedly that you don't. I suggest you go read up on it. There have been some good suggestions above. We're only trying to be helpful.

I respectfully disagree, in other words, please don't hunt me down and TOW me in Warhawk.;) I believe Warner was watching Christmas disk sales and saw that BD disks still out sold HD-DVD disks even though an additional 120,000 $99 HD-DVD player were added to the mix. There was enough time for Warner to watch and see if $99 player would make a difference, and it apparantly didn't. If it did, you wouldn't see Warner going BD exclusive, don't forget Warner has always been pro HD-DVD, hence the reason BD never got Matrix. It was all about disk sales for Warner... The people who wouldn't buy into HD-DVD untill the players hit $99 were planning on renting instead of buying, in my most humble opinion.:) And now the netflix news...ouch...

I agree they were watching December disk sales, but a move like lowering prices that much needs time to impact the market. As a business owner, I can tell you that a decision of this magnatude did not occur in december, it occured somewhere around Nov (with a clause that if HD-DVD started selling more, the decision would be changed).

I do agree that the HD-DVD business plan consisted of a bunch of "too little too late" moments. They didn't go after the studios aggressively enough in the beginning and it cost them.

I think the main problem with Warner was that they were lookign to cut costs, that's why they came up with that rediculous idea of "total HD" discs. When that failed, they felt that it was time to back one and get it over with and felt the easiest way to do that was back the technology with the most studios.

Either way, the disc sales probably played a part in the decision but it was only a part. They were looking at the big pisture and the best way to support HDM with the least amount of hassle. If it weren't for the other studios backing blu ray, I think it might have been a different story considering Blu Rays higher cost of manufacturing.

But, Sony attacked this fight the right way, they learned from the beta max fiasco and are now reaping the rewards.

Personally, I could care less either way.,.the biggest thing that annoys me is that until Universal and Paramount start releasing Blu Ray, I can't rent them.

Pixels can't be horizontal or vertical. They are square (well, in most cases).

There are 1920 vertical lines of resolution on a 1920x1080p display.

There are 1080 horizontal lines of resolution on a 1920x1080p display.

So if I'm physically limited to 1080 horizontal lines, then if I get a letterboxed wide screen movie, I'm losing resolution. If I get a full screen movie, I gain in resolution but lose in seeing the full movie as was intended by the director. Is there no win-win here? It seems I'm going to lose either way. Is the only solution to spend $20K on a HT with a projector and a 150" screen?

Cropped from the master and not interpolated up, without pan and scan. Making full use out of the HDTV.

I think the issue you're discussing is that you want to make the most of the display, and others want to make the most of the original source.

So if I'm physically limited to 1080 horizontal lines, then if I get a letterboxed wide screen movie, I'm losing resolution. If I get a full screen movie, I gain in resolution but lose in seeing the full movie as was intended by the director. Is there no win-win here? It seems I'm going to lose either way. Is the only solution to spend $20K on a HT with a projector and a 150" screen?

We aren't covering any new ground here guys, and there are entire threads dedicated to aspect ratios.

The reason quite a few Blue-ray movies don't look any better to than DVD to people is because of aspect ratio and it wasn't actually using much more vertical lines than DVD. On a 720p TV, Spiderman 3 gives approximately 540 vertical lines, the anamorphic DVD gives 480. Combine that with TV size and viewing distance, a common household 720 HDTV is not going to see much, if any, difference over DVD on quite a few Blue-ray movies, unless they zoom into the picture and watch it "full screen". Even then with viewing distance, they may not really such much of a difference.

You seem to be continually leaving out the horizontal resolution of 1280. Which is almost 1.8 times higher than DVD's 720. Why?

Spiderman3 is a 2.35:1 movie. On Blu-ray that means it has active picture information of 1920x817, or 1,568,640 pixels. Downrezzed for a 720p display that comes out to 1280x544 or 696,320 pixels. The anamorphic DVD is not using 480 lines, it still has black bars, and is in fact using about 400 active lines of picture info, ie 720x400 or 288,000 pixels. So the Blu-Ray has more than 5.4 times as much picture information to work with. On a 720p display it is actually displaying more than 2.4 times as much picture info. Also remember DVD is normally filtered, softened, to prevent single pixel height lines from flickering on interlaced displays. And then there is the fact that down-rezzing in this case is actually easier to do well than up-rezzing because you have more info to work with. So if someone can't see the difference between DVD and Blu-ray even on a 720p set then they are sitting to far away, their eye-sight is bad, or the blu-ray had a bad mastering job (which has happened).

I say again, you crazy. :eek: You're confusing "horizontal lines" with "horizontal resolution." Speaking correctly, horizontal resolution measures vertical lines, and vertical resolution measures horizontal lines. I can see why you'd be confused, but you're incorrect.

But you've proven repeatedly that you don't. I suggest you go read up on it. There have been some good suggestions above. We're only trying to be helpful.

One of the problems with posting things this long is one has to assume there's a group of people who don't read it or just scan it and fill in the missing information with their assumptions. I decided to actually put some thought into it, rather than typing as I think. Follow it if you want, but please reply ONLY if you read the whole thing. The reason why I'm posting this is so that people with $2000 TVs will stop belittling people for saying they don't see much of a difference. This is a real problem and they aren't blind.

Anamorphic DVDs were made so that 16:9 480p MPEG could be shown on 4:3 screens without including the black bars in the files. They are designed for three circumstances.

1. Really old DVD players that have no idea what to do. In this case, the MPEG decoder chip still reads the file and interprets it as 4:3 with no black bars. Of course, this will look sub-par because objects will appear stretched out.
2. DVD players that are aware of the DVDs which add the black bars and display at 16:9. This is not show with the full pixel count of the original DVD, since NTSC doesn't have enough pixels to do that. In the vertical space provided, you end up with 360 pixels.
3. DVD players that are aware of the DVDs and have component out (or something else capable of carrying the signal). These players don't add the black bars and display the scan lines as is. The EDTV will shorten the distance between the pixels in the vertical direction, thus showing the full pixel count of the DVD.

All of this is 100% irrelevant when talking about showing DVDs on HDTVs with your PS3. The HDTV, in no way shape or form, needs to shorten the distance between the pixels, because it's default display is exactly what needs to be done in order to show the movie at 16:9. On an HDTV, the actual vertical pixel count of an anamorphic DVD is going to be 480. There's no refitting need, no black bars need to be added, the movie can be shown with all the information in the file, which is 720x480. Why it keeps getting brought up is beyond me.

Now, based on the aspect ratio list posted by Shape, on a 720p HDTV you are likely to have three outcomes with Blue-ray movies.

1. 1.78:1 : Approximately 16:9, so approximately 720 vertical pixels
2. 1.85:1 : Approximately 693 vertical pixels, with 27 black pixels
3. 2.35:1: Approximately 545 vertical pixels, with 175 black pixels

Which means, one can not look at ONLY the 720p part when discussing the display output of the Blue-ray, they MUST consider the black bars. On the low end, which I suspect Spiderman 3 falls in, you end up with a vertical pixel count that is only slightly better than 480p (545 vs 480). Meaning on the same exact 720p HDTV using a PS3 , Spiderman 3 will show a physically smaller vertical image that has only a slightly more vertical pixels than the DVD which, btw will show full screen (leaving a vertically larger image). On the Blue-ray, the real gain is more horizontal viewing area, since it's not being cropped. Hence, in real terms, it's not going to look any better.

This is why I suggested all Blue-ray movies should have 1080 vertical pixels and then have 1920 horizontal pixels or HIGHER depending on the aspect ratio to show the movie in it's true format. Additional, include on the disk origin changes based of the scene, so that "Full Screen" will have the same effect as todays DVDs, but if you wanted you can show it letter boxed, it will sample it down to fit your screen and show the uncropped movie. This will guarantee in all cases that the movie will have an option of having more vertical pixels than DVD, enough that you would have to blind to say there is not much of a difference even on 30 inch TV. This is for those who mocked my suggestion that they "Fix" the issue. It is fixable.

On Joe Average's HDTV, which in most likely-hood is going to be 720p, the current set up of Blue-rays may or may not look better than DVD. Leaving people to wonder "What the fuss is all about"

Is that clear enough for you?

You seem to be continually leaving out the horizontal resolution of 1280. Which is almost 1.8 times higher than DVD's 720. Why?

A certain percentage is being cropped off, the only thing that will be the same is the vertical pixels. I'm assuming the DPI on LCDs is going to be the same in both directions. So examining the quality of display area of the DVD only vs the Blue-ray is all needs to done. If you were to stretch out Blue-ray movie, you would lose some of the pixels on the edges. If it's true with vertical direction, it's true with the horizontal.

On Joe Average's HDTV, which in most likely-hood is going to be 720p, the current set up of Blue-rays may or may not look better than DVD. Leaving people to wonder "What the fuss is all about"

Is that clear enough for you?

Just so you know, I did read through your entire post. Now I am not even close to a technical master when it comes to this stuff or really understanding all this talk about pixels and lines of resolution and all that so I will not try and debate that stuff.

I just want to watch movies! :)

With that being said my Panny is a 50" plasma that is 720p native and I have watched spidey 3 in both DVD and BD and the BD looks so much better. As I stated in my earlier post, every BD I've watched thus far I have seen some sort of improvement over it's DVD counterpart. For me that's what it all boils down to and when I have a choice between buying a movie in either DVD or BD format, I undoubtedly choose the BD every single time. :cool:

Just so you know, I did read through your entire post. Now I am not even close to a technical master when it comes to this stuff or really understanding all this talk about pixels and lines of resolution and all that so I will not try and debate that stuff.

I just want to watch movies! :)

With that being said my Panny is a 50" plasma that is 720p native and I have watched spidey 3 in both DVD and BD and the BD looks so much better. As I stated in my earlier post, every BD I've watched thus far I have seen some sort of improvement over it's DVD counterpart. For me that's what it all boils down to and when I have a choice between buying a movie in either DVD or BD format, I undoubtedly choose the BD every single time. :cool:

I see a very big difference, particularly in scenes with a lot of small things (like several people).

I see a very big difference, particularly in scenes with a lot of small things (like several people).

Exactly, and that's what I got Blu-Ray for. For me it has been totally worth it and I don't even like watching SD DVD's now cause Blu-Ray has spoiled me. :o

A certain percentage is being cropped off, the only thing that will be the same is the vertical pixels. I'm assuming the DPI on LCDs is going to be the same in both directions. So examining the quality of display area of the DVD only vs the Blue-ray is all needs to done. If you were to stretch out Blue-ray movie, you would lose some of the pixels on the edges. If it's true with vertical direction, it's true with the horizontal.

That post made barely any sense. But I'm assuming you mean if you zoom in on the blu-ray, cropping off the sides, the difference in resolution is not significant compared to DVD. You seem to be starting from 1280x544 then cropped to 16:9 for a horizontal resolution of 967 or about 1.5 times the pixel density of DVD for a 2:35:1 movie (cropped the same), except you aren't starting with a 1280x544 resolution. You are starting with 1920x816 (2.35:1). Crop that to 16:9 and you get 1450x816 that is a higher resolution than 1280x720 which means even zoomed-in Blu-ray will use the 720p display more fully than the anamorphic DVD. 1280x720 is 2.67 times the pixel density of 720x480. And repeating myself, even on a 720p display, if you can't see the difference between DVD and HD you are sitting to far away, have bad vision, or you have a badly mastered Blu-ray.

if you can't see the difference between DVD and HD you are sitting to far away, have bad vision, or you have a badly mastered Blu-ray.

QFT

if you can't see the difference between DVD and HD you are sitting to far away, have bad vision, or you have a badly mastered Blu-ray.

Or perhaps it's because you're like me, having watched SD DVDs with a quality upscaler for a few years, and now the jump to BD is not the jump it would have been from a SD DVD. Because I see little if any difference on my 720p DLP from 8 ft. away; most everything I watch is letterboxed which probably makes the problem worse since I'm seeing less vertical pixels in the image, if I understand this thread correctly.

I see a very big difference, particularly in scenes with a lot of small things (like several people).This is the types of things people also notice immediately when taking the plunge into HDTV. You watch a sporting event like basketball and you can actually see clarity in the faces of crowd. With SD, they are just colored blurs for the most part.

Or perhaps it's because you're like me, having watched SD DVDs with a quality upscaler for a few years, and now the jump to BD is not the jump it would have been from a SD DVD. Because I see little if any difference on my 720p DLP from 8 ft. away; most everything I watch is letterboxed which probably makes the problem worse since I'm seeing less vertical pixels in the image, if I understand this thread correctly.

No, your display is the weak point so there isn't much benefit from HD disk media. With a top display there is a huge difference between DVD and Blu.

Well, I'm upgrading my display in the next few months to a 52" 1080p display. Hopefully, that'll make the difference. Waiting to see the reviews and pricing on the new Samsung 650.

Or perhaps it's because you're like me, having watched SD DVDs with a quality upscaler for a few years, and now the jump to BD is not the jump it would have been from a SD DVD.
An upscaler does not create detail that was not there to begin with, it just does a better job of making it bigger than the simple algorithms used in cheap scalers. It's still an SD-DVD, just bigger.

Aren't BDs (like most good SD-DVDs) anamorphic, thus using the entire 1920x1080p for image detail? Obviously you're limited by the number of pixels in your set, though.

Or perhaps it's because you're like me, having watched SD DVDs with a quality upscaler for a few years, and now the jump to BD is not the jump it would have been from a SD DVD. Because I see little if any difference on my 720p DLP from 8 ft. away; most everything I watch is letterboxed which probably makes the problem worse since I'm seeing less vertical pixels in the image, if I understand this thread correctly.

Looking at this article http://www.carltonbale.com/home-theater/home-theater-calculator/ You would seem to be within the distance where you should be able to see a difference maybe not a stark difference but a difference nonetheless. I'm wondering have you calibrated your display? Contrast, brightness, and sharpness? Sharpness in particular can actually hide detail if turned up to high, most TVs from the factory have the sharpness cranked up, along with contrast and brightness and color and tint tweaked so that they'll have some attention grabbing "pop" in the showroom but those settings are far from optimal for movie viewing and getting real detail out of your source. Avia is a calibration disc and is available from netflix so it won't cost anything extra.

The chart in the link also assumes 20/20 vision. Is your eyesight that good? There is a spreadsheet on that webpage that will adjust the viewing distance number for differing vision. You won't get a pretty graph from it though.

Thanks. I'll try the Avia calibration disk. I've never calibrated the set.

Another factor to consider regarding seeing a big difference when watching a BD disk, is what your normal TV viewing habits are. I have a 1080P 52" set. I target 99% of my TV viewing to HD content. The quality varies of course. But if you get used to watching some of the better HD stations (Discovery-HD, VOOM-HD channels, etc), you are actually getting accustomed to BluRay type quality. So when you put in a BD for the first time, that 'wow' factor might not hit you. It did not for me. I do see BD quality differences, but not the 'wow' factor as I experienced when I first went from SDTV->HDTV, or Stereo->5.1 Surround, or Stereo-Audio->5.1 DVD-Audio.

M wife notices the difference enough to tell me to repurchase stuff

M wife notices the difference enough to tell me to repurchase stuff

Don't know if it's a good or a bad thing :p

My GF doesn't care about the difference between SD and HD... so I get her stuff in SD and mine in HD :D

M wife notices the difference enough to tell me to repurchase stuffMy wife can tell the difference, she just doesn't care.

I like how 50 percent of the posts in this thread begin with "My wife....":D

I like how three and a half years passed between the first and second posts on this page.