AVS Forum banner
  • Our native mobile app has a new name: Fora Communities. Learn more.

Just a question about future.

1093 Views 24 Replies 16 Participants Last post by  Sergei Esenin
Hi, I'm a new user, and I have a question that I have for some time.

I wan to start a movie collection, a good one. But I don't know to buy DVD or Blu-Ray.

I like classic movies. Will classic movies look better on Blu-Ray than DVD?. I mean, a huge difference. I'm learning a lot of HD and things, but I can't understand how they can improve movies shot in the 30s or 40s... DVD is enought quality??. If I have a Blu-Ray with an upscaler to 1080, is that DVD quality enough??.


Thanks a lot!!.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Who boy - you've stepped into it big time - people are going to have strong opinions on this.


Blu-Ray is of higher quality than DVD. Period. It doesn't matter if the movie is from the 30's or the 90's. The better your display device, the bigger a difference you will notice.


Is DVD quality "good enough"? Only you can answer that. Many people are slaves to picture and sound quality. They would rather watch a crappy movie with great PQ and SQ than a better movie in a lower quality format. Other folks care more about content.


Note that you have stumbled into a DVD forum on a site that also has HD forums. Many of the PQ geeks have already migrated over to the HD forums. If you ask over there, you'll get a different answer.


Me? I have no problems enjoying movies at DVD quality, though I would always like better quality.


DVD has two huge advantages over Blu-Ray at the moment. First is selection. There are hundreds of classic movies out on DVD. Here are a handful out on Blu-Ray. Second is longevity. With the mass popularity of DVD, I know players and content are going to be around for a long time. Even though Blu-Ray is a newer, better format, it's unclear how long it will be around.
See less See more
HD Savant:

A couple of comments:


First, neither HD DVD nor BlueRay are the last word in high definition movies. There is more resolution on film than 1080p and old movies were (virtually) all shot on film. It all depends on the source file and the quality of the digital copy. So, yes, there is better quality than DVD.


Second, some of us have been arguing for some time now that HD DVD and BlueRay are obsolete before they even started their format war. The DRM systems are being compromised and the online competition is heating up. At some point in the very near future, online rentals of movies in AT LEAST 1080p resolution will be common. I believe that the "secret" to DRM is to make the online movies so easy to get, so reasonable financially, and so good in quality that the idea of actually physically storing your own copy will fade away.


I am not necessarily a proponent of online content but it seems inevitable... Frankly, I am very pi$$ed off at Sony and Toshiba for this fiasco - they both deserve to lose their shorts IMHO.
See less See more
Thanks for the replies.

My main concern is about transfers from film to HD formats. You know, always reading 'remastered' 'from the master tapes' and things like that, I didn't expect a lot of 'new' quality into HD formats.

How 'Casablanca' will become better in Blu-Ray? What is the limit?. From VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray, they always claim that they have the better possible quality.

Or TV Series. I want to buy some complete series on DVD (recent ones), but they will have 'an impressive quality' on HD formats comparing to a DVD upscaled to 1080?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnilan /forum/post/0


HD Savant:

A couple of comments:


First, neither HD DVD nor BlueRay are the last word in high definition movies. There is more resolution on film than 1080p and old movies were (virtually) all shot on film. It all depends on the source file and the quality of the digital copy. So, yes, there is better quality than DVD.


Second, some of us have been arguing for some time now that HD DVD and BlueRay are obsolete before they even started their format war. The DRM systems are being compromised and the online competition is heating up. At some point in the very near future, online rentals of movies in AT LEAST 1080p resolution will be common. I believe that the "secret" to DRM is to make the online movies so easy to get, so reasonable financially, and so good in quality that the idea of actually physically storing your own copy will fade away.


I am not necessarily a proponent of online content but it seems inevitable... Frankly, I am very pi$$ed off at Sony and Toshiba for this fiasco - they both deserve to lose their shorts IMHO.

Boy, you sure are optimistic, currently on the average users DSL or Cable connection, a full length HD-DVD or Blu-Ray dual layer would take 24+ hours to download.


Of course technology will improve but I don't think a 24 fold increase in a year is going to happen and people ARE NOT going to wait more than an hour for a movie to download. Streaming isn't an option for 1080p at the moment, netflix's 480p doesn't even stream that well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD Savant /forum/post/0


How 'Casablanca' will become better in Blu-Ray? What is the limit?. From VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray, they always claim that they have the better possible quality.

Or TV Series. I want to buy some complete series on DVD (recent ones), but they will have 'an impressive quality' on HD formats comparing to a DVD upscaled to 1080?

Casablanca was shot on 35mm film which, if properly preserved, offers higher resolution than 1080p. The remastering process uses the 35mm film, ideally as close to the original master or negative and in as good condition as they can find. They are not using the VHS copy and putting that out on Blu-Ray. They are going back to the film. I guess what people don't understand is that they have been viewing "HD" in movie theaters for 70 or 80 years with 35mm (and 70mm) film. But not many people have a 35mm projector in their living or rec room. What Blu-Ray and HD-DVD provide is a picture quality at home with a HD TV closer to the original theater experience than DVD and much better than VHS. They will eventually have consumer HD formats beyond 1080p, but it gets to the point of diminishing returns. I would not worry too much about the successor formats for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray at this point.
Downloading is becomming much more possible. How much data on HD-DVD? 40 gigs? I can download 1 gig in 5 minutes over my cable. Thats just over 3 hours to download the HD-DVD movie. Faster than netflix....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayrab /forum/post/0


...a full length HD-DVD or Blu-Ray dual layer would take 24+ hours to download. ... people ARE NOT going to wait more than an hour for a movie to download.

As EricD alluded, people wait a few days for Netflix right now and they have to deal with the hassle of mailing it back. I don't see that a 24-hour download would be a big obstacle as long as it was intelligent enough to recover from errors and outages.
Yeah, you just take the same marketing principle behind Netflix and change the delivery.


When Netflix started, you couldn't go "What to I want to watch tonight" and get a movie. You planned ahead and went "What do I want to watch in the coming weeks" and placed orders.


I imagine you'll have a queuing system and everything. You just have to wait for the first movie to come in, and the rest file in behind it while you're watching the first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayrab /forum/post/0


Boy, you sure are optimistic, currently on the average users DSL or Cable connection, a full length HD-DVD or Blu-Ray dual layer would take 24+ hours to download.


Of course technology will improve but I don't think a 24 fold increase in a year is going to happen and people ARE NOT going to wait more than an hour for a movie to download. Streaming isn't an option for 1080p at the moment, netflix's 480p doesn't even stream that well.

Hayrab:

Not sure where you are getting your download estimates from but I think you are severely underestimating the current state-or-the-art of broadband telecommunications. "Average DSL or Cable connection..." are NOT state-of-the-art. It'll be here sooner than you think. Check out Verizon's FIOS bandwidth or AT&T's version of broadband TV. It's a completely different use of bandwidth.


Note also that you don't have to download the whole movie to begin watching it. By the same logic, "more than an hour" is not necessary to buffer a movie for the illusion of real-time streaming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa /forum/post/0


Yeah, you just take the same marketing principle behind Netflix and change the delivery.


When Netflix started, you couldn't go "What to I want to watch tonight" and get a movie. You planned ahead and went "What do I want to watch in the coming weeks" and placed orders.


I imagine you'll have a queuing system and everything. You just have to wait for the first movie to come in, and the rest file in behind it while you're watching the first.

For that matter, with Netflix's "Watch It Now" feature, you don't even have to plan even that far ahead. If they increased the quality and had more choices, I'd consider that option more often. Of course, I would want to dedicate a machine to the task since it does tie up a system to do it.


This sort of thing would be a perfect co-op effort between Netflix and TiVo. Barring that, this is where the Didney effort should have gone instead of forging out on their own.
It's all well and good to have a 50 MB/sec fiber optic connection at your end but the real question is how many sites are going to be able to provide that kind of bandwidth for thousands or hundreds of thousands of users from their end. No one. Not for some time, probably. I have a 3 Mb/sec cable connection and I can count the number of times it has gone faster than about 600 Kb/sec on a download on one hand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH /forum/post/0


It's all well and good to have a 50 MB/sec fiber optic connection at your end but the real question is how many sites are going to be able to provide that kind of bandwidth for thousands or hundreds of thousands of users from their end. No one. Not for some time, probably. I have a 3 Mb/sec cable connection and I can count the number of times it has gone faster than about 600 Kb/sec on a download on one hand.

That sounds like an issue between you and your provider. My 1.5 MB DSL service (I opted not to spring for the 3 MB service) runs pretty consistantly at around 1 - 1.2 MB/s. granted, I've never seen 1.5 MB/s, but I've never been below 800 Kb/s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV /forum/post/0


That sounds like an issue between you and your provider. My 1.5 MB DSL service (I opted not to spring for the 3 MB service) runs pretty consistantly at around 1 - 1.2 MB/s. granted, I've never seen 1.5 MB/s, but I've never been below 800 Kb/s.

No, I can get 2+ all day long on a speed test. But most services I connect to don't have the bandwidth to deliver at those speeds. I don't do a lot of streaming audio and video though. What sites are you connecting to that are fast?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HD Savant /forum/post/0


I wan to start a movie collection, a good one. But I don't know to buy DVD or Blu-Ray.

I like classic movies. Will classic movies look better on Blu-Ray than DVD?. I mean, a huge difference. I'm learning a lot of HD and things, but I can't understand how they can improve movies shot in the 30s or 40s... DVD is enought quality??. If I have a Blu-Ray with an upscaler to 1080, is that DVD quality enough??.


Thanks a lot!!.

Yes movies will look better on Blu-ray than they do on DVD. That said, since you specifically are interested the classics I'd recommend sticking with DVD as only a handful of classics are out in HD right now and it'll take several years for a decent amount of classic films to be available on BD.
Fred and Network you guys are making my head spin.
Bits and Bytes seem to be getting mixed up. Line speeds are usually given in bits/sec. I haven't paid attention to DSL but I just looked and I can only get 3.0 Mb/sec (megabits). A T1 line is ~1.5 Mbs/sec. 3MB/sec (megabytes/sec) is about 30Mb/sec - that's a ton of data and I don't think you can to that on a phone line. The most I've heard of is FIOS with fiber to the house at about 15Mb/sec - supposedly. With Comcast I have about 8Mb/sec and sometimes see bursts of 700KB/sec (800KB/sec ~= 8Mbs/sec) and can sustain ~500KB/sec from a good site - few and far between and time of day dependent. I just did a speed test and got 5.9 Mb/sec, but the place only transfered a 1 megabyte file.


larry
See less See more
HD Savant : anything on film will have much more definition then can be seen with DVD or even BD. The film (hopefully in perfect condition) is then taken and digitized onto a D5 tape. D5 has extremely high BW and can be used with higher resolutions and low compression. Usually the D5 master will be created at a higher resolution, then the D5 tape is used to create the master for the disk (be it DVD or BD).

Quote:
Originally Posted by FredProgGH /forum/post/0


No, I can get 2+ all day long on a speed test. But most services I connect to don't have the bandwidth to deliver at those speeds. I don't do a lot of streaming audio and video though. What sites are you connecting to that are fast?

I'm no Techie, but I think you touch on the main issue.


What kind of bandwidth would the PROVIDER need to have to deliver (presumably) thousands of movies simultaneously?


What kind of load would this put on the system(s) as a whole if everybody starts downloading 25-50 GB at a time?


Would this affect the entire internet with respect to capacity? (would have to in my opinion)


Do we really want the internet grinding ever slower so people can watch movies?
See less See more
VOD is not from one central site. It comes from the "head end" or local distribution point. The closer to the end user the less total bandwidth needed. VOD is the future and movie studios would love it now, but cable companies move way too slow and the infrastruture is not quite ready yet for large movie selections. With VOD the customer never gets to "touch" the content - the studios dream.



larry
See less See more

Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper /forum/post/0


Fred and Network you guys are making my head spin.
Bits and Bytes seem to be getting mixed up. Line speeds are usually given in bits/sec. I haven't paid attention to DSL but I just looked and I can only get 3.0 Mb/sec (megabits). A T1 line is ~1.5 Mbs/sec. 3MB/sec (megabytes/sec) is about 30Mb/sec - that's a ton of data and I don't think you can to that on a phone line. The most I've heard of is FIOS with fiber to the house at about 15Mb/sec - supposedly. With Comcast I have about 8Mb/sec and sometimes see bursts of 700KB/sec (800KB/sec ~= 8Mbs/sec) and can sustain ~500KB/sec from a good site - few and far between and time of day dependent. I just did a speed test and got 5.9 Mb/sec, but the place only transfered a 1 megabyte file.


larry

Sorry, I meant "b", not "B". Fred used the capital B and I followed his lead without thinking about it. If I could get 1.2 MegaBYTES per second, I'd be king of the internet. Heck, I'd still be running my own web server...
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top