DIG
Active topics
  1. Originally posted by vanquish:Nothing, HD DVD is a dead format.

    Don't worry though DVD can look 80% as good as Bluray, especially if its in anamorphic widescreen.


    It's funny to think just a few years ago the two camps were going nutso about HD-DVD vs Blu-ray, and now it's all BD. The best thing about HD-DVD was region-free coding, where Blu-ray wasn't and still isn't. But why Blu-ray demands a $500 - $1000 increase over a DVD player is pathetic - because it has 1.2 times the resolution of DVD and gives me internet access to all my favourite movie features. I can buy a DVD player for $19, and a Blu-ray player for $1000???

    Initially, I wanted HD-DVD to win the format wars, because Blu-ray was backed by Sony. Enough said.

    That to me is not a $500 premium decision worth making. I'll stick with DVDs for the moment. However, HD-DVD movies are going quite cheap, like $10 per movie, so some are worth getting, like Rattle and Hum, because it's important to have it on every freaking format available.
  2. I was buying a ps3 anyway so blu ray wasnt a premium for me. Some movies have blown me away on blu ray while others have shown no more than a slight improvement over standard dvd. Im hooked though and shaln't ever buy another standard dvd as long as there is a corresponding blu ray release.
  3. Originally posted by germcevoy:I was buying a ps3 anyway so blu ray wasnt a premium for me. Some movies have blown me away on blu ray while others have shown no more than a slight improvement over standard dvd. Im hooked though and shaln't ever buy another standard dvd as long as there is a corresponding blu ray release.


    There was meant to be a Blu-ray addon for the 360, but I'll wait. It looks like that idea is dead in the water. I could have got the PS3 but decided against it for some stupid reason. I guess I saw it in the store the night I went shopping and thought "I might buy an Xbox tonight". I was originally going to buy the new King of Pop compilation album, but came home with that and a 360.

    Speaking of which, I'm gonna load up my PSP tonight. Haven't played the thing for ages since I got Test Drive and Gangs of London.
  4. Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

    It's funny to think just a few years ago the two camps were going nutso about HD-DVD vs Blu-ray, and now it's all BD. The best thing about HD-DVD was region-free coding, where Blu-ray wasn't and still isn't. But why Blu-ray demands a $500 - $1000 increase over a DVD player is pathetic - because it has 1.2 times the resolution of DVD and gives me internet access to all my favourite movie features. I can buy a DVD player for $19, and a Blu-ray player for $1000???

    Initially, I wanted HD-DVD to win the format wars, because Blu-ray was backed by Sony. Enough said.

    That to me is not a $500 premium decision worth making. I'll stick with DVDs for the moment. However, HD-DVD movies are going quite cheap, like $10 per movie, so some are worth getting, like Rattle and Hum, because it's important to have it on every freaking format available.


    I also supported HDDVD, I dislike Sony's shameless marketing and all the misleading BS they constantly spout, from the PS2 days to the "Full HD" PS3.

    By the way Bluray has 5 times the resolution of DVD not 1.2
  5. Originally posted by vanquish:[..]

    I also supported HDDVD, I dislike Sony's shameless marketing and all the misleading BS they constantly spout, from the PS2 days to the "Full HD" PS3.

    By the way Bluray has 5 times the resolution of DVD not 1.2


    Does it?


  6. Yup Full HD is 1920x1080 while PAL DVD is 720x576 exactly 5 times more pixels if you do the math.

    However its not 5 times better looking, especially if the video is anamorphic (wider than wide) widescreen.
  7. I knew about FullHD being that resolution, but I just did the basic sums, if you sort of get what I mean.

    1920 down to 720 = 1
    1080 down to 576 = 5

    I see where you're coming from now, I didn't think of it that way. The anamorphic effect is horrible - it happens on lots of concert DVDs.
  8. However its not 5 times better looking, especially if the video is anamorphic (wider than wide) widescreen.


    It has to be one shitty transfer for the blu ray not to look considerably better than the standard dvd. I thought Rattle and Hum looked good on blu ray but its turned out to be the worst looking blu ray I own. I, Robot and I Am Legend show the real potential. Both stunners.
  9. Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]

    It has to be one shitty transfer for the blu ray not to look considerably better than the standard dvd. I thought Rattle and Hum looked good on blu ray but its turned out to be the worst looking blu ray I own. I, Robot and I Am Legend show the real potential. Both stunners.


    I Robot and I Am Legend were filmed in native HD for Blu-ray, Rattle and Hum wasn't. That could be a good reason. Something like Finding Nemo looks stunning in HD.
  10. Originally posted by germcevoy:[..]

    It has to be one shitty transfer for the blu ray not to look considerably better than the standard dvd. I thought Rattle and Hum looked good on blu ray but its turned out to be the worst looking blu ray I own. I, Robot and I Am Legend show the real potential. Both stunners.


    Its not a day and night difference, about 25% better than DVD going through a good upscaler.

    And Drew anamorphic widescreen is not an effect, its how the film was shot, it means you're getting the whole picture (its not cropped). Its the exact same way the film was shown in cinemas.

    While the black bars are annoying, it helps cover up DVDs resolution disadvantage.

    PS: Incidentally, and as if to say 'yes, we really are shameless marketers', Sony have launched Blu-ray 'awareness' ad campaign down here, which makes it seem like you're being cruel to your HDTV if you use it to watch anything other that their $40 discs.
  11. Audio I've been messing with for ages, but video is a whole new kettle of fish to me.

    I quite like the anamorphic widescreen - it makes some movies look better and looks more classic to me. Because some films are pixelated to no end, they need that sort of thing. On other movies, I'd put it as a full-screen rather than the black-bar effect.

    I've gotta start checking this stuff out.
  12. Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]

    I Robot and I Am Legend were filmed in native HD for Blu-ray, Rattle and Hum wasn't. That could be a good reason. Something like Finding Nemo looks stunning in HD.


    Oh, Rattle and Hum doesn't have to be filmed in Digital to look good.
    Even though R&H was shot in 1988 on film, outdated though it may seem, it's still significantly higher 'resolution' than Full HD.
    Remember it movies don't look shabby when you watch them on three storey high cinema screens do they?

    While it may be a bit grainy (due to the nature of film), the resolution should be the same as Star Wars Episode 3 and the like which were filmed with digital cameras.
    And some people, prefer the look of film anyway, most movies today are still shot on film, including the Dark Knight (which I will get on Blu-ray, the film deserves it)

Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.