Would You Buy A Blu-ray/hd-dvd Player...

[JsARCLIGHT]

As to the subject of old Macross getting into HD res, as I said in the other Macross in HD thread I believe that if someone still has the original film reels of DYRL that getting a good, clean, HD transfer of that movie is entirely possible. There is quite a large cottage industry that has grown up around simply taking older full size film masters, digitizing them into HD res and cleaning them up. While the TV show and direct to NTSC video Macross properties were most likely recorded on low grade media like conventional broadcast tapes and the like getting them into HD would require a massive undertaking... but DYRL was theatrically released on full size film. If those master reels still exsist, a good HD cut of the movie is possible. They may need a lot of cleaning up depending on how well they where stored however.

[MilSpex]

Which is currently exactly how DVD was at launch.

I'm more refferring to LD, Super VHS, VCD, and whatever else there was at the time that tried to dethrone VHS. Sure some formats were better (S-VHS & LD), but none managed to make a dent for 20 years. I just don't think people are maliable enough to accept a new format within 10 years of its launch.

Good point Keith although remember LD was HUGE in Japan, and Japan is the second largest economy in the World still.

It`s common that people regard things like LD and the Sega Saturn (vs Playstation) as failures but both were massive in Japan and were very successful for their makers.

You could be right that hi-def DVD format might not take off in the US and other parts of the world because well you can already get a damn good picture on a good quality DVD player with some kind of up-processing of images that a lot of people already have. Actually a hi-def DVD player may not look any better on a standard definition TV than a good standard definition DVD player.

So I think it could be another situation where a niche format in the US will be huge in Japan and enthusiasts like the guys on this board will source the discs from Japan and get the setups as elite status-symbols among Western otaku. The same as what it used to be like with LD. I know I looked at guys with LD players and boxsets of Macross 7 or whatever back in the day with a whole lot of jealousy.

[Keith]

Yes, guys with Macross 7 LD sets were gods among men!

[cyde01]

Here's a new development to this story:

http://news.com.com/2061-10801_3-6092194.html?tag=txt

So, according to this story, Ricoh could possibly make a player that plays both blu-ray and HD-DVD dics with a single lens and laser. Which means there's a slight chance that the blu-ray vs. HD-DVD war may end up more like DVD-R and DVD+R rather than Beta and VHS.

Also, someone mentioned holographic discs as a replacement to blu-ray/HD-DVD. This is highly unlikely because: A. The cost of manufacturing discs is much more expensive meaning less profit for the studios and B. What's the point of manufacturing something that costs more when you can fit a whole 3 hour movie on a single blu-ray/HD-DVD disc anyway?

Holographic memory is being considered for massive data storage solutions and not physical distribution of movies for movie studios because blu-ray/HD-DVD have good enough storage capacity for full-length HD movies and they are a lot cheaper to build. In order for movie companies to justify the extra cost of using holographic discs, a new super ultra hi def format would have to be created. And to even justify that new format, consumers with 50 foot screens in their homes demanding movies that can fill the entire screen space would have to be commonplace (you can file that under extremely unlikely scenarios).

A more likely scenario in the future would be one where ever-increasing data storage space, processor power, and broadband speed will pave the way for electronic distribution online. So in my opinion, an iTunes-like HD movie download service is a lot more likely to replace blu-ray and HD-DVD rather than holographic discs, although that will be decades down the road.

As far as the main topic goes no I would not buy a blu-ray or HD-DVD player JUST for Macross. First of all, I'd need the cash to buy a 60+ inch HDTV just so I could tell the difference between an HD movie and an upconverted SD DVD. And for a TV and player that cost that much, I'd need a LOT more selection of movies that I want to justify the purchase. I mean, I think I would get bored of just M+ and DYRL after a while. And while I'm pretty sure they could make a great looking HD master of M+ and DYRL, an HD version of Macross TV would surely look terrible (imagine all the glory of Animefriend in HD).

Heck I don't have anywhere to put a home theater anyway.

edit: spelling

Edited July 15, 2006 by cyde01

[MilSpex]

^^nice post.

[Ishimaru]

This should be moved to the "Anime or Science Fiction" Section.

[Keith]

I just assumed he meant holographic projection

[Graham]

Not me, not wth having a mortgage to pay off, plus the high cost of sending my kid to an international (as opposed to local) school, plus trying to cope with the never-ending floodgate of Yamato releases, I'm just barely keeping my head above water as it is.

Graham

[MjrMisaHayase]

well, i'm planning on getting a PS3 eventually, so if they rerelease DYRL? on blu-ray, (highly doubtful), then i would buy it.

i'm not getting the HD-DVD drive for my 360 though.

415180[/snapback]

I'm having serious doubts the PS3 is gonna survive.

Sony's following the traditional pattern of the video game industry, where the dominant hardware company grows overconfident, believes they are invincible, and then shoots themself in the head.

415183[/snapback]

All the companies are having the same problem 360's smoking problem, the Wii's retarded name and several other considerations that just aren't making me personally happy with all three companies.

415188[/snapback]

Only Sony is making the same mistakes that led to the fall of the House of Atari, the Kingdom of Sega, and the Nintendo Empire.

MS is still playing the traditional "Man, I wish I was number 1" role, and Nintendo is doing their own thing, which has become what they're best known for post-SNES.

Of course, Nintendo's the only one to fall and remain relevant, so clearly they're doing something right.

415189[/snapback]

I think that's mainly from the fact that nintendo's market is little kid type of games alot of the time.

As for Sony they'll always pull crap and bounce back from it, let's not forget Beta.

415289[/snapback]

And the 8-track.

[Pat Payne]

This question may have been already addressed, but why the hell do we need even better picture quality than what we have now? Most good (read:classic) films, TV shows and anime aren't going to be significantly enhanced by HD and in some cases could actually suffer from it. It's like the boasts of some TV manufacturers now of having billions of individual colors. Can any of us really distinguish 2,000,000,000 seperate colors? (and I pity the person who has to come up with names fro all of them.)

Further, according to an article on Anime on DVD from yesterday alleges that a good majority of DVDs may not be playable on HD players for whatever reason. I say "meh" to all of this HD garbage. It's just another marketing ploy by Sony, Toshiba and the other media manufacturers to get us to invest in another pricy media system because they claim that we'll be able to count the individual hairs of stubble on Indiana Jones' chin. I'll bet the discs will be pricier than normal DVDs too.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Pat Payne

[eugimon]

This question may have been already addressed, but why the hell do we need even better picture quality than what we have now? Most good (read:classic) films, TV shows and anime aren't going to be significantly enhanced by HD and in some cases could actually suffer from it. It's like the boasts of some TV manufacturers now of having billions of individual colors. Can any of us really distinguish 2,000,000,000 seperate colors? (and I pity the person who has to come up with names fro all of them.)

Further, according to an article on Anime on DVD from yesterday alleges that a good majority of DVDs may not be playable on HD players for whatever reason. I say "meh" to all of this HD garbage. It's just another marketing ploy by Sony, Toshiba and the other media manufacturers to get us to invest in another pricy media system because they claim that we'll be able to count the individual hairs of stubble on Indiana Jones' chin. I'll bet the discs will be pricier than normal DVDs too.

417675[/snapback]

well, all the bits about the merits of HD aside, you would definitely see an advantage to having more colors. It isn't just an issue of how many colors you see at one time, but about subtlty and blending of different colors. For instance, in human skin, it's very easy to portray it all as one flat color... like tan, or peach or brown, whatever. however, human skin is not monochrome and it actually has translucent areas where blues, greens, reds, etc show through. Having more bits to play with allows the TV/monitor to be better equiped to portray all that subtlty and make a more believable and life like image. That's why you want more colors.

[cyde01]

This question may have been already addressed, but why the hell do we need even better picture quality than what we have now?

You have a very good point, but I will say this.

I just saw some blu-ray footage for the first time yesterday at Fry's Electronics on a 50" 1080p TV and dang it just looks absolutely stunning. STUNNING.

Most good (read:classic) films, TV shows and anime aren't going to be significantly enhanced by HD and in some cases could actually suffer from it.

Well I wouldn't go that far. Most films and anime made for the big screen are, well, made for the big screen, regardless of age. That means they can fill up all those extra pixels in a HDTV. I'm honestly not sure how old TV shows and TV anime that are upconverted would look like on an HDTV, HOWEVER:

This is just from word of mouth on the internet, but I have heard that the difference between a blu-ray movie and a SD DVD that is UPCONVERTED is hard to tell unless you have a very large screen. I've been told that the difference is hard to tell when you go below 50". Kinda makes you wonder what the point is for all those sub 40" HDTVs...

I say "meh" to all of this HD garbage. It's just another marketing ploy by Sony, Toshiba and the other media manufacturers to get us to invest in another pricy media system because they claim that we'll be able to count the individual hairs of stubble on Indiana Jones' chin. I'll bet the discs will be pricier than normal DVDs too.

417675[/snapback]

Well, in all honesty HDTV is more about BROADCAST TV than anything else. US TV standards, being the first created in the world, have extremely poor picture quality. Interlaced video with 480 horizontal lines is simply a paltry image. SD broadcast TV in foreign countries have looked much better from the start because they were created later. HDTV was always about doing away with the archaic TV broadcast format for a higher quality one (720 or 1080 horizontal lines as opposed to 480, the option of progressive scan vs. interlacing, 16x9 widescreen aspect ratio). If you're a sports fan and watch one game in full HD, you'll know what I'm talking about, there is just no comparison.

I'm enough of a sports fan to want an HDTV someday but as far as HD movie discs, I say "meh" as well. SD DVDs already have much better picture quality than SD broadcast TV (which HDTV was made to replace), and on top of that, most HDTVs will upconvert a standard DVD to fit the larger screen, making it look even better. I have never seen upconverted DVD footage myself but I heard it is "good enough" to make the high cost of HD disc players not worth it.

And yeah, the discs are pricier than normal DVDs.

Edited July 21, 2006 by cyde01

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

well, all the bits about the merits of HD aside, you would definitely see an advantage to having more colors. It isn't just an issue of how many colors you see at one time, but about subtlty and blending of different colors. For instance, in human skin, it's very easy to portray it all as one flat color... like tan, or peach or brown, whatever. however, human skin is not monochrome and it actually has translucent areas where blues, greens, reds, etc show through. Having more bits to play with allows the TV/monitor to be better equiped to portray all that subtlty and make a more believable and life like image. That's why you want more colors.

It's all up to the porn industry to get people to become early adopters. jk

[JB0]

Well, in all honesty HDTV is more about BROADCAST TV than anything else.  US TV standards, being the first created in the world, have extremely poor picture quality.  Interlaced video with 480 horizontal lines is simply a paltry image.  SD broadcast TV in foreign countries have looked much better from the start because they were created later. 

Depends who you ask.

There's essentially only 2 formats worldwide. Many foreign nations use America's NTSC.

Others, especially European ones, use PAL.

France uses SECAM, which is a derivative of PAL that was changed with the goal of rendering PAL sets incompatible with french broadcasts and forcing manufacturers to make France-specific TVs. SECAM was also used in the USSR's border states, because it prevented soviet sets from watching evil capitalist european television.

PAL is marginally better than NTSC in that it has more lines of resolution(576 VS 480). But it has less color depth also.

Refresh rate varies with nation. Though PAL is commonly considerd to have a 50Hz refresh and NTSC to have a 60Hz refresh, both formats exist at both refresh rates.

I'm enough of a sports fan to want an HDTV someday but as far as HD movie discs, I say "meh" as well. 

That's where I'm interested...

SD DVDs already have much better picture quality than SD broadcast TV (which HDTV was made to replace),

Nope. DVD is constrained by the NTSC or PAL format, depending on region.

It has no quality gains over the broadcast standard, except for the progressive scan option. The only notable thing is it's wired, so there's a lot less interference.

and on top of that, most HDTVs will upconvert a standard DVD to fit the larger screen, making it look even better.  I have never seen upconverted DVD footage myself but I heard it is "good enough" to make the high cost of HD disc players not worth it. 

I hate resampling on principle. And I have a strong suspicion that "blurry mess" is many people's idea of "good enough."

Either way... the high cost of DVD wasn't worth it when it was at 600 bucks a player. Once prices fell below about 300, people became interested. That was about 2 years after they were introduced in the US. About 4 years after that, retailers were completely dropping VHS.

That's the adoption pattern I expect for HD disks. After a while, prices will fall. Then people will become interested(HDTVs having become commonplace in the meantime. Their marketshare is currently growing rapidly). And then it'll take over.

The fact that HD players are backwards-compatible with existing DVD libraries should help, though.

If you bought a DVD player and had an extensive VHS collection, you had to give up your old movies or keep both players hooked up. Not a problem to me, but a lot of people dislike having multiple boxes hooked to their TV.

[Shinigami Grahf]

I think digital home media is close to hitting a zenith as far as capacity and quality goes. Personally, I think current DVDs are perfect where they are. I think stuff like Blu-Ray is essentially kind of redundant. I can't see how anyone could be THAT obsessed with their sound and picture quality to need to own one of those expensive Blu-Ray players.

[cyde01]

Depends who you ask.

There's essentially only 2 formats worldwide. Many foreign nations use America's NTSC.

Others, especially European ones, use PAL.

France uses SECAM, which is a derivative of PAL that was changed with the goal of rendering PAL sets incompatible with french broadcasts and forcing manufacturers to make France-specific TVs. SECAM was also used in the USSR's border states, because it prevented soviet sets from watching evil capitalist european television.

PAL is marginally better than NTSC in that it has more lines of resolution(576 VS 480). But it has less color depth also.

Refresh rate varies with nation. Though PAL is commonly considerd to have a 50Hz refresh and NTSC to have a 60Hz refresh, both formats exist at both refresh rates.

Okay, so maybe much better was an exaggeration. Didn't know about PAL having less color depth, but it does have more resolution and the same NTSC in Japan actually has better video than in the states, although it may be hard to tell the difference.

That's where I'm interested...

good to see another sports fan on this forum..

Nope. DVD is constrained by the NTSC or PAL format, depending on region.

It has no quality gains over the broadcast standard, except for the progressive scan option. The only notable thing is it's wired, so there's a lot less interference.

I never said that DVD had more resolution, I just said DVD has better video quality. Just being wired gives it a better picture, and getting rid of interlacing helps a lot.

I hate resampling on principle. And I have a strong suspicion that "blurry mess" is many people's idea of "good enough."

well like i said, i'm just going off of hearsay, i haven't actually seen upconverted footage myself. however, when I watch a 480 NTSC DVD at full screen on my 1024x768 computer monitor it looks good enough for me, and 768 is more than 720HD and not a huge amount less than 1080HD. when i play back DVDs full screen on my 20" Apple monitor on my Powermac at work, it still looks good enough for me, and at 1200 horizontal lines, my Apple monitor has higher resolution than a 1080p HDTV. i think i would need an HDTV larger than 50" to really appreciate the difference and justify the purchase of an HD player even if it was $300, and i'd still need a much larger amount of films than are available for blu-ray or HD-DVD in the foreseeable future.

the undeniable fact is no matter how great these new formats look, the jump in video quality is not even close to what it was when we switched from VHS to DVD. the only time DVDs could possibly become "blurry messes" is if they are played back on a 60"+ HDTV, which I don't have the money to buy nor the living room to put it in anyway. i probably won't be interested for another 4 or 5 years, not 2.

Edited July 25, 2006 by cyde01

[JsARCLIGHT]

I have a Toshiba upconvert DVD player hooked into a plasma so I can speak to it's abilities (now that this thread is totally derailed and into the Other Anime section that is).

My Toshi upconvert player will upconvert to 780p or 1080i, I leave it on 1080. It actually has a button on the front of the unit and the remote that lets you actively cycle through the three resolutions on the fly to see what they look like. When viewing a perfect signal DVD (read = something from a new master or a remaster, some TV on DVD has crap quality) in 480p it looks... well... "normal". Pressing the button up one level to 720p really only makes the image look a tad bit more contrasty. Outside of that, no real gain. Pressing the button again up to 1080i once again increases the contrast a tad bit more, once again nothing too impressive.

I generally watch my DVDs upconverted to 1080i on this player. No reason really... I just do. The slight boost in contrast, when mated to a good quality plasma, results in a very crisp picture that will make people say "wow, so that's a HDTV"... but in truth the image quality is not HD level and is far from it. I would put upconverted DVD image quality on par with any standard HDTV channel movie. Like when you tune in to Showtime HD or HBO HD to watch one of their movies, it is not really all that good of an HD signal. But when you watch a hard coded pure HD program like sunrise earth, Fox sports in 720p or HDNET specials you say "holy sh!t, THAT is HD!"

One place that an upconvert DVD player and a HD set really get janky is with animation. When played back upconverted to 720p most animation takes on a hazy, almost blurry look to it. It's like the upconversion to 720p "softens" the animation. But when you meep the button and set it to 1080i suddenly everything is jagged... and it looks far too "sharp", the exact opposite of the "soft" look you got with the 720p. I mostly blame that on going from progressive to interlaced.

So I guess what I'm trying to say in my very un-technical way is that the best you can hope for with upconverted standard DVDs is a slightly sharper, "more contrasty" picture that resembles the standard fare conversion HD programming that you get with an HD connection from Dish TV (which is what I have) but that look pales vastly in comparisson with a strong, full HD program like Sunday football on FOX in 720p. I mean, I'm counting grass blades watching football... but the upconverted DVD is not remotely that clear. It's clear and "nice" to watch, but it's not HD.

Oh and yes, I am an HD addict. SD television pisses me off now... or should I say the lack of HD versions of things. I have actually found myself getting miffed that something I want to watch is not simulcast in HD. Having to watch a 4:3 NTSC signal on a 16:9 HD plasma makes you feel like your eyes are out of focus.

[Zentrandude]

I just assumed he meant holographic projection

416615[/snapback]

he?

Yep holographic projection. you guys can keep your high def, I want my 3d lucy .

[JB0]

Okay, so maybe much better was an exaggeration.  Didn't know about PAL having less color depth, but it does have more resolution and the same NTSC in Japan actually has better video than in the states, although it may be hard to tell the difference. 

Given the format uses identical ranges and encoding, I suspect Japan uses broadcast frequencies that are less susceptible to interference.

You can actually see this in effect on US sets. Channels 2-13 are in a totally diffrent band than everything else, and seem to be far stabler.

That's where I'm interested...

good to see another sports fan on this forum..

You misunderstand me. But to be fair, I'm not quite sure what I meant myself.

I think I was saying that movies were my main interest. I might've meant broadcast TV, but as I watch so little of it it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Nope. DVD is constrained by the NTSC or PAL format, depending on region.

It has no quality gains over the broadcast standard, except for the progressive scan option. The only notable thing is it's wired, so there's a lot less interference.

I never said that DVD had more resolution, I just said DVD has better video quality. Just being wired gives it a better picture, and getting rid of interlacing helps a lot.

But wired NTSC is still NTSC. Broadcast TV, (analog)cable TV, VHS, LaserDisk, DVD, and PS2 all use NTSC signals(at least, in NTSC regions). S-video and component video are still carrying NTSC signals, they just aren't as mixed.

S-video carries the chroma and luma waveforms on seperate wires, component video carries both of the chroma waveforms on dedicated wires with the luma waveform on a third.

I hate resampling on principle. And I have a strong suspicion that "blurry mess" is many people's idea of "good enough."

well like i said, i'm just going off of hearsay, i haven't actually seen upconverted footage myself. however, when I watch a 480 NTSC DVD at full screen on my 1024x768 computer monitor it looks good enough for me, and 768 is more than 720HD and not a huge amount less than 1080HD. when i play back DVDs full screen on my 20" Apple monitor on my Powermac at work, it still looks good enough for me, and at 1200 horizontal lines, my Apple monitor has higher resolution than a 1080p HDTV. i think i would need an HDTV larger than 50" to really appreciate the difference and justify the purchase of an HD player even if it was $300, and i'd still need a much larger amount of films than are available for blu-ray or HD-DVD in the foreseeable future.

I can see major faults in DVD on a 20" NTSC TV, as well as on my PC monitor(I think the last time I bothered I was running at 1280*960). Upsampling does nothing to replace missing data, it just trys to hide it.

The available HD library is growing rapidly, and will likely grow faster once the price falls and it becomes a realistic option to non-AVphiles. By the time it becomes a serious option to most people, library won't be an issue.

the undeniable fact is no matter how great these new formats look, the jump in video quality is not even close to what it was when we switched from VHS to DVD.

It's exponentially greater from where I sit. Massively higher resolution, with far better compression(image-quality-wise) on top of it.

DVD's biggest fault as a medium for delivering standard-definition video is that it uses rather heavy MPEG compression, even after moving to dual-layer disks.

Which, admittedly, was a requirement to fit a full movie on a disk the size of a CD using the technology available in the '90s, and was still a major step up from VHS. While a larger disk would have afforded higher image quality, it wasn't believed to be readily marketable(likely had as much due to retailer shelf space as it did consumer comfort and familiarity). Similarly, a better compression scheme would've required more power than was really feasable for a mass-market product.

the only time DVDs could possibly become "blurry messes" is if they are played back on a 60"+ HDTV, which I don't have the money to buy nor the living room to put it in anyway.

*shakes head*

MPEG compression consists largely of taking a clean source and making a mess out of it(not really blurry, but it's a very destructive compression process).

Most attempts at upsampling I've seen consist mainly of resampling the image then blurring it to hide the pixel edges. It's nowhere near the same as a source at the higher resolution, and in some cases it's actually massively inferior to the original image.

So I'm anxiously awaiting the day the HD format wars are over and there's ONE format at REASONABLE prices.

Edited July 25, 2006 by JB0

[cyde01]

But wired NTSC is still NTSC. Broadcast TV, (analog)cable TV, VHS, LaserDisk, DVD, and PS2 all use NTSC signals(at least, in NTSC regions). S-video and component video are still carrying NTSC signals, they just aren't as mixed.

S-video carries the chroma and luma waveforms on seperate wires, component video carries both of the chroma waveforms on dedicated wires with the luma waveform on a third.

The grown up thing to do is probably to just let this go but having a degree in TV/film, my pride just doesn't seem to let me. At no time did I ever say DVD is NOT NTSC. DVD IS NTSC (in NTSC regions), but it still has better video than broadcast. And a component input as opposed to a composite input DOES improve the image quality, although yes, like you said, it is still NTSC.

the undeniable fact is no matter how great these new formats look, the jump in video quality is not even close to what it was when we switched from VHS to DVD.

It's exponentially greater from where I sit. Massively higher resolution, with far better compression(image-quality-wise) on top of it.

Well at least I don't think so (VHS is just baaaaaad) and a lot of reputable sources agree, but hey to each his own. Like I said I don't have anything large enough that can take advantage of the extra pixels anyway.

DVD's biggest fault as a medium for delivering standard-definition video is that it uses rather heavy MPEG compression, even after moving to dual-layer disks.

Which, admittedly, was a requirement to fit a full movie on a disk the size of a CD using the technology available in the '90s, and was still a major step up from VHS. While a larger disk would have afforded higher image quality, it wasn't believed to be readily marketable(likely had as much due to retailer shelf space as it did consumer comfort and familiarity). Similarly, a better compression scheme would've required more power than was really feasable for a mass-market product.

the only time DVDs could possibly become "blurry messes" is if they are played back on a 60"+ HDTV, which I don't have the money to buy nor the living room to put it in anyway.

*shakes head*

MPEG compression consists largely of taking a clean source and making a mess out of it(not really blurry, but it's a very destructive compression process).

Most attempts at upsampling I've seen consist mainly of resampling the image then blurring it to hide the pixel edges. It's nowhere near the same as a source at the higher resolution, and in some cases it's actually massively inferior to the original image.

So I'm anxiously awaiting the day the HD format wars are over and there's ONE format at REASONABLE prices.

419092[/snapback]

Wow gee thanks for going on the assumption that I don't know how DVDs work or what MPEG compression is. That's really flattering.

All I'm trying to say is I prob. make a lot less cash than you or any of the other guys interested in HD stuff. That makes me a lot less willing to drop cash on an HDTV or a hi-def disc player. On a 17" or 20" monitor, the difference between a SD DVD and a hi-def movie are not different enough for me to justify the purchase. They would have to be a lot lower than what you're probably willing to pay for. I'm also a former film student, which means I like a lot of eclectic films that most people haven't heard of, which probably won't get released on either format for another 4-5 years. Macross is not enough. I need at least another 15-20 movies that I want on the format for me to justify buying a player. So does that automatically make me any less of an "avphile" than you? No, it just means I have different values than you. I just don't make as much money and I tend to value the content of the actual characters/story more than I value the video quality itself. Does that automatically mean I know less a/v technical knowledge than an HD fanatic? No.

That said, if a player reached reasonable prices, I could afford a living room that could fit a rather large HDTV, and there was a large enough library of movies out there that I wanted then yes I'd be interested in a hi def disc player too. But that is not likely to happen for another 4-5 years, so until that time I will still be saying "meh" to blu-ray and HD-DVD.

Edited July 25, 2006 by cyde01

[JB0]

But wired NTSC is still NTSC. Broadcast TV, (analog)cable TV, VHS, LaserDisk, DVD, and PS2 all use NTSC signals(at least, in NTSC regions). S-video and component video are still carrying NTSC signals, they just aren't as mixed.

S-video carries the chroma and luma waveforms on seperate wires, component video carries both of the chroma waveforms on dedicated wires with the luma waveform on a third.

The grown up thing to do is probably to just let this go but having a degree in TV/film, my pride just doesn't seem to let me. At no time did I ever say DVD is NOT NTSC. DVD IS NTSC (in NTSC regions), but it still has better video than broadcast. And a component input as opposed to a composite input DOES improve the image quality, although yes, like you said, it is still NTSC.

Wasn't aware you had any sort of background. Sorry.

I was just saying that the quality diffrence ultimately boils down to how clean the source is.

Well at least I don't think so (VHS is just baaaaaad) and a lot of reputable sources agree, but hey to each his own.  Like I said I don't have anything large enough that can take advantage of the extra pixels anyway. 

I'm not saying VHS didn't suck. Far from it.

Just that HD is a huge step above DVD.

And like I said, I can see the faults of DVD on smaller sets, and though I didn't mention it earlier, I can see the diffrence between low-res and high-res video clips on my PC's positively diminutive monitor, so I doubt claims that it's only visible on 50"+ displays.

Wow gee thanks for going on the assumption that I don't know how DVDs work or what MPEG compression is.  That's really flattering. 

Again, I wasn't aware you had any sort of background.

MOST people are totally unaware of how stuff works.

They just know there's pictures and sound on the DVD, or at least data that can be turned into pictures and sound.

I apologize for the unintended insult.

All I'm trying to say is I prob. make a lot less cash than you or any of the other guys  interested in HD stuff.  That makes me a lot less willing to drop cash on an HDTV or a hi-def disc player.  On a 17" or 20" monitor, the difference between a SD DVD and a hi-def movie are not different enough for me to justify the purchase.  They would have to be a lot lower than what you're probably willing to pay for. 

I make pretty close to jack squat. Which sucks since I have several rather expensive interests.

I HAVE emphasized several times that I think HD players are too expensive now. But I'm very excited about the prospect of them becoming realistically priced in the future.

I'm also a former film student, which means I like a lot of eclectic films that most people haven't heard of, which probably won't get released on either format for another 4-5 years.

Mmmm...

Sounds like me and games, actually.

My tastes skew pretty far out from mainstream there, so the releases I'm genuinely excited about are few and far between and I like a lot of titles that the masses have deemed crap for the exact reasons the masses hated them.

  Macross is not enough.  I need at least another 15-20 movies that I want on the format for me to justify buying a player.  So does that automatically make me any less of an "avphile" than you?  No, it just means I have different values than you.  I just don't make as much money and I tend to value the content of the actual characters/story more than I value the video quality itself.  Does that automatically mean I know less a/v technical knowledge than an HD fanatic?  No. 

I actually value the content too.

I just see no real reason to NOT improve the presentation.

That said, if a player reached reasonable prices, I could afford a living room that could fit a rather large HDTV, and there was a large enough library of movies out there that I wanted then yes I'd be interested in a hi def disc player too.  But that is not likely to happen for another 4-5 years, so until that time I will still be saying "meh" to blu-ray and HD-DVD.

419150[/snapback]

A few years has always been where I've predicted it'll start being genuinely interesting.

Right now it's definitely overpriced and undersupported.

And I figure it's about 2-3 years before the players become affordable, not where they really become mainstream. It took, coincidentally, about 5 years before DVD became the preferred media, despite having more obvious benefits to the average consumer(scene selection, smaller package, and no rewinding).

I'll probably grab one once they hit an affordable price point(and get the format war out of the way, since I doubt coexistence is possible and I'd rather not rebuy everything later).

I AM a technophile, after all. Just not a raging one.

[Uxi]

I have a 60" 1080p display (though it only accepts 1080i on it's inputs). I'm sitting out the format war and dedicated players until at least next year, though I will almost certainly get the higher end PS3. Even if nothing else pans out with Blu-Ray, it will look much better with my silver HT gear and let me retire my launch PS2 with the noisy fan to bedroom duty (on the 34" CRT HDTV), as well as let me play whatever PS3 games there are, my PS2 and PSX libraries, as well. I am considering the 360 HD-DVD add-on, but it really doesn't go with my HT setup and I just don't like the dual form factor. I would be much likely to sell my 360 premium and get a new SKU that had an integrated HD-DVD drive (and hopefully an HDMI output).

While Toshiba/HD-DVD wins round 1 (against Samsung), it appears to me that Blu-ray has much more CE support and much more studio support. By Christmas season, the Sony, Pioneer, Matsushita, and Sharp Blu-Ray players will be out, as well as the PS3. What other, non-rebadged Toshiba players can we expect? The studio support should show far more titles on Blu-ray, as well, barring a studio flip-flop, which might be not be unexpected...

For computers, Blu-Ray is undeniably superior, with far higher transfer rates and capacities.

[Loner]

For computers, Blu-Ray is undeniably superior, with far higher transfer rates and capacities.

419555[/snapback]

Unless Holographic Versatile Disc becomes viable enough to dominate the PC storage arena, leaving both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to compete in the movie arena. If the HVD Alliance also doesn't unsurp them there.

[JB0]

For computers, Blu-Ray is undeniably superior, with far higher transfer rates and capacities.

419555[/snapback]

Unless Holographic Versatile Disc becomes viable enough to dominate the PC storage arena, leaving both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to compete in the movie arena. If the HVD Alliance also doesn't unsurp them there.

419629[/snapback]

Of course, at this point we'll be lucky if computers ever move to freaking DVD, never mind higher-density media.

Seriously, how much software STILL comes on CD?

2 disks of OS, 4 disks of game, all to snake a few dollars out of some poor sap that thinks his Pentium 2 can run Windows XP and FEAR.

[bandit29]

Some problems with the Samsung Blu-ray player

First Samsung Blu-ray Players Had Chip Problem

Don Eklund, executive vice president of advanced technologies at Sony Pictures, noticed that the player's image did not match the quality of the master tapes from which the Blu-ray titles were encoded. He contacted Samsung, whose engineers determined that the noise-reduction circuit in the player's Genesis scaler chip was enabled, causing the picture to soften significantly.

According to Jim Sanduski, senior vice president of marketing for Samsung's Audio and Video Products Group, "Samsung is currently working to revise the default settings on the noise-reduction circuit in the Genesis scaler chip to sharpen the picture. All future Samsung BD-P1000 production will have this revision and we are working to develop a firmware update for existing product."

[MilSpex]

The future is on VHD fools.

[Mechafan]

I would not get either. First I would need a Region 1 version of DYRL and that is not going to happen. Mac + looks great in DVD for me. No HD TV at present but hope to have one by end of year. I am going to wait out the format war. They already have the successors to HD/Bluray in the works. Holographic media is in the works. Holographic DVD to Hold 1.6 Terabytes

Also more expansion to the regular DVD may be comming. DVD to possible hold up to 50TB in future.

[isamu]

Damn man, the wait for this is killing me!

It's quite strange, as I've heard the R2 DYRL was among the very first anime films released to dvd. It came out when...sometime in 1998? I know I bought it in 1999. Was the first edition that came in a limited edition LD Sized box. Paid like $100 for it. But it was worth it, as the disc itself is now signed by practically every major player who worked on the film(Kawamori, Ishiguro, Mikimoto, Iijima, etc.)

You'd think that a visual tour de force like this would've been given the remastered treatment by now. I'm sure GitS Innocence looks nice and all, but I honestly don't think its art style can match DYRL or even Mac+.

Curious but does BV, or anyone else for that matter, need permission from Big west to remaster and release the film? Hasn't Big West been known to be somewhat stingy?

I want DYRL on BR or HDDVD so badly I would probably buy a BRAND NEW SONY PEARL 1080p projector and sell my BenQ 8720(720p) just to see this film in full 1080p.

Edited December 20, 2006 by isamu

[cyde01]

Unless Holographic Versatile Disc becomes viable enough to dominate the PC storage arena, leaving both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to compete in the movie arena. If the HVD Alliance also doesn't unsurp them there.

HVD may dominate the PC storage arena in the distant future, but it will most likely never be considered for the "movie arena." Here are my reasons:

Also, someone mentioned holographic discs as a replacement to blu-ray/HD-DVD. This is highly unlikely because: A. The cost of manufacturing discs is much more expensive meaning less profit for the studios and B. What's the point of manufacturing something that costs more when you can fit a whole 3 hour movie on a single blu-ray/HD-DVD disc anyway?

Holographic memory is being considered for massive data storage solutions and not physical distribution of movies for movie studios because blu-ray/HD-DVD have good enough storage capacity for full-length HD movies and they are a lot cheaper to build. In order for movie companies to justify the extra cost of using holographic discs, a new super ultra hi def format would have to be created. And to even justify that new format, consumers with 50 foot screens in their homes demanding movies that can fill the entire screen space would have to be commonplace (you can file that under extremely unlikely scenarios).

A more likely scenario in the future would be one where ever-increasing data storage space, processor power, and broadband speed will pave the way for electronic distribution online. So in my opinion, an iTunes-like HD movie download service is a lot more likely to replace blu-ray and HD-DVD rather than holographic discs, although that will be decades down the road.