Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Streaming and Digital Media' started by Everett S., Jan 31, 2013.
While that is indeed interesting, I find it particularly amusing that they are choosing to call it "SuperHD".
Post edited - made too big a generalization
With an expected total bitrate (audio + video) of 7 Mbps (2D) and 12 Mbps (3D), that's significantly less than the average video bitrates of most commercially available titles (ranging from a low of 14 Mbps, but averaging well over 20 Mbps with some titles chewing up well over 30 Mbps - again, for video only).
I am still fascinated by the seemingly large portion of the population that places a higher premium on portability than audio/video quality.
I am still fascinated by the seemingly large portion of the population that places a higher premium on portability than audio/video quality. Yes, I am puzzled by this also.
The same people who've settled for lossy audio iPod as 'acceptable' are the same people who will accept VHS-like quality for their portable movie viewing. Depressing, but true.
I make en effort to bring my friends into the theater whenever they come over to demo Netflix/Streaming quality vs Blu-ray. Even the luddites are shocked. I think the real problem is that most of them don't have a system capable of truly displaying the difference. An uncalibrated cheap LCD panel and a $150 HTIB don't do much to aid our cause
so that's "everyone" for the past 30 years, since the Sony Walkman? People want easy. Blu-ray is hard. It could have been easier. It could have even be easier to make blu portable, if instead studios hadn't worked so tirelessly to make harder and illegal.
I don't understand how Blu-ray is any harder than any other disc-based format. Or "less portable." Things that fit in my hand, by definition, are portable
Are you saying that Blu-ray looks much better than Netflix "HD" streaming? If so, I disagree with that. Are you streaming with a device that's 1080p capable? Since I upgraded to my Pan. 220 player(which streams Netflix in 1080p) the difference is very small in most cases, and in some cases look just as good. In fact, some Blu-rays I've seen look worse than Netflix HD streaming. And I'm talking about viewing with my projector/106" diagonal screen setup. It cannot be said that "All Blu-rays look better than Netflix HD streaming". It's not true. It's also not true that "All Blu-rays look better than DVD's". I've seen some Blu-rays that look no better than DVD's. And I've seen some DVD's that look better than some Blu-rays. It all depends...
Such as? I can think of a handful of upconverted SD transfers on Blu-ray but even those still look the same as the DVD.
Some I can't remember because I don't own them, but a couple terrible looking Blu-rays I can think of right now are The Godfather, Texas Chainsaw Massacre(original). And there are some "Superbit" DVD's like Terminator 2 that look GREAT, better than some Blu-rays. All I was trying to say is it's not a given that ALL Blu-rays will look better than ALL DVD's. That simply is not true.
The Godfather is a highly regarded disc. It doesn't have a crystal clear image but it shouldn't. The intent of a Blu-ray transfer should be to look as close to what a print of the movie looked like when it played in the theater and The Godfather Blu-ray succeeds at that.
You can't compare one movie to another. Obviously, a decades-old low budget movie shot on 16mm like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not going to look as nice as The Avengers or Finding Nemo. The only fair comparison to make is between the DVD and the Blu-ray of the same movie and when you do that, I can't think of one example of where the DVD looks better than the Blu-ray of the same movie. Granted, there's probably tens of thousands of titles out of there so there may be one example out there somewhere. That's certainly not to say that all Blu-rays are good (they aren't) but barring some massive and incredibly rare error, they are better than or at least on par with their DVD counterpart.