chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,594
is there a problem with that?
the PS3 is a damn good player.
and also, a damn good value.
the PS2 also pumped DVD sales, and was arguably the reason for DVD finally taking off.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Best Buy told me to wait new xbox coming?
- Thread starter Casej18
- Start date
is there a problem with that?
the PS3 is a damn good player.
and also, a damn good value.
the PS2 also pumped DVD sales, and was arguably the reason for DVD finally taking off.
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
News of HD-DVDs demise are greatly exaggerated. Toshiba's price cuts are causing sell outs. Out of stock at Wal-marts. They are almost as cheap as upconverting players now. Only a $129.98 at Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Psychotext
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,897
Yeah, a pretty big one. If sales of the PS3 have been poor (they have been) and they make up something like 90% of the overall BR player sales out there, it's not exactly setting the world on fire in terms of sales.
It'll improve, but I still feel that HD players largely appeal to a niche market and mass adoption wont be likely until 2010.
Thawaxshop
Bad Trader
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2006
- Messages
- 444
It wouldnt matter if HD-DVD burned know why??? Chew on this....
Xbox needs something like this to keep IT alive. Already game makers are starting to release games only for PS3 for one simple fact, and that is that games are getting more detailed and that means the files are getting bigger. Without something like the HD-DVD player built in in a years time (just guessing) games might be too big for a standard DVD and xbox will be screwed.
Xbox needs something like this to keep IT alive. Already game makers are starting to release games only for PS3 for one simple fact, and that is that games are getting more detailed and that means the files are getting bigger. Without something like the HD-DVD player built in in a years time (just guessing) games might be too big for a standard DVD and xbox will be screwed.
Psychotext
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,897
Who?
It's just like the situation with the xbox last round. It doesn't matter if your console is more powerful, or has a HDD as standard... publishers like money and they'll always go multiplatform unless you moneyhat them or your console has a serious sales advantage. Only Sony's 1st and 2nd party developers will take advantage of the hardware like that.
Oh, and the idea that MS will ever release a high capacity drive for playing 360 games is utterly ludicrous, and just goes to show you know very little about the industry.
Tigerblade
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2004
- Messages
- 2,423
I've never read a line that has so much BS in it. I know others have mocked it but I'd like to add
Marginal......marginal???? I'm guessing you've never watched one of the better quality discs on a big 1080p screen.......hang on.....marginal??
There is only one disc I've seen that is not what I'd call HD and that's RoboCop (unfortunately as that's one of my fave films), still a better PQ than the standard DVD release tho. EVERYTHING else I've seen blows DVD clean out of the water. You think Transformers on HDDVD is marginally better than the standard DVD? You need your eyes testing mate as your going blind.
DragonMasterAlex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,993
I've never read a line that has so much BS in it. I know others have mocked it but I'd like to add
Marginal......marginal???? I'm guessing you've never watched one of the better quality discs on a big 1080p screen.......hang on.....marginal??
There is only one disc I've seen that is not what I'd call HD and that's RoboCop (unfortunately as that's one of my fave films), still a better PQ than the standard DVD release tho. EVERYTHING else I've seen blows DVD clean out of the water. You think Transformers on HDDVD is marginally better than the standard DVD? You need your eyes testing mate as your going blind.
Yes, I HAVE watched 1080p movies on a 1080p screen, and the difference is MARGINAL. Are they clearer? Sure! Do they show more detail? Unquestionably! Do they carry better sound? Yes they do!
Does 1080p make a shitty movie a good movie? NO IT DOES NOT.
And yes, I've watched Transformers on 1080p HD-DVD on an 80" screen--the difference is MARGINAL, and the movie is just as mediocre as it was in theatres and on DVD.
Golden Monkey
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2007
- Messages
- 157
Why can't people understand that this is an inventory dump. Toshiba would rather sell these players at a reduced rate now instead of being left holding the bag when the bottom drops out for HD-DVD later. If you buy one with a bunch of free movies that's fine. You're still getting an upconverting DVD player and some free movies. Just as long as you know that you are buying a format that will soon be dead.
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
DragonMasterAlex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,993
They have $5 DVD's all the time, and during the holidays Target, Wal Mart, CC, BB and many others frequently have big name titles in the sale bins for $3-4 apiece. With prices like that, not many people would choose an HD format over a regular DVD format, and for good reason!
DragonMasterAlex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,993
DragonMasterAlex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,993
Adoption of the HD formats is easier simply because the new players will still play the old disks, which was not true in the VHS-->DVD transition. You keep screaming that 'BD is winning", but you're missing the larger truth: Downloadable content is beating BD and HD-DVD both senseless, as should be the case.
The future is in digital distribution, not some half-baked tip-toe improvement in technology that amounts to nothing more than improved disk density and higher bit rates. When you can buy a movie one time and play it on any of your digital devices, whether iPod, TV/Console, computer, whatever, all without the need to buy multiple versions of the same product, *then* you'll see a real advance.
And I've watched LOADS of true HD content and seen the SD (and upscaled) variants, and the difference is tiny. If you're more impressed by seeing the zits on some actor's ass than you are with good writing/directing/acting, then you need to learn a little something about what makes entertainment *entertaining*. Hint: Pixel count isn't a factor.
DragonMasterAlex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,993
Having watched Lost's 2nd season on 720p at home and seen several episode on a friend's BD player on an 80" screen, I'll just put this plainly: you're full of shit. There is no significant difference between 720p and 1080p on that particular example. The good episodes are still good--because of the writing, acting and directing--and the shitty episodes are still shitty.
greyt_Autumn
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2001
- Messages
- 572
Uhh, nobody said that it improves lousy movies. Bad movies are bad on any fomrat- even a THX certified theater with pristine digital projection.
However, HD at 720P is still better than ANYTHING at 480P!
Psychotext
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,897
Amatuer porn says hand me the Vaseline please.
krameriffic
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,214
Yeah, you just gotta not shop at places like FYE. They still sell DVDs for like $25+, stuff you can get for like $5 at other places.
4saken
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 13,171
cuz thats about all he has left to argue with. He cant make an argument on HD content otherwise. I also am confused what the quality of a movie has to do with the quality of the picture.
DragonMasterAlex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,993
I disagree. I have watched Ratatouille on XBL Download (720p), Bluray (1080p), and standard dvd on an upscaling player, on screens ranging from 61" to 80", and they ALL look great, not one version of the movie looks bad at all.
As is the usual case with the Hype eaters, you perceive massive improvements where they don't exist. Clearer a bit? Yes. Night and day, suck vs non-suck? Hardly.
DragonMasterAlex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,993
The point was, my sadly illiterate friends, that no matter how many pixels you put behind a bad movie, it's still a bad movie, and that accounts for 95% of movies released. I'm not going to all of a sudden enjoy a bad movie because now it's prettier to look at.
It's sad that these things have to be explained, but I guess that's what happens when you're talking to people who swallow the hype the way a 2 dollar whore swallows the...well, maybe you get the picture. Then again...probably not.
I'm not really sure anyone was saying that by making the quality of the picture better would improve the movies actual rating.
I could see however, "enjoying" any movie that much more due to a clearer picture. Maybe you see things you didn't see before (for good or for bad) or the fact that it just looks sweet.
I don't go to the movies often, but when I do, its because A) I want to see w/e movie is being released B) The Big Screen C) The Surround Sound (at db's that I can't have at my APT w/o cops showing up) Big Screen and Great Sound doesn't make the actual movie any better, but does make my experience watching the movie all that much better. Same with home entertainment systems. A 80 inch HDTV might not actually make any random movie better, but the experience you get while watching it should hopefully improve over watching it on that 27 inch SDTV.
Not everyones eyes work the same, but personally (as an Art Major *therefore, I'm very keen to attention to details*) I can tell a difference between 720p and 1080p. Its not a lot, but if I have a choice I'd rather be watching w/e in 1080p over 720p.
DragonMasterAlex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,993
I do appreciate the variance of experience when going to a theatre, to be sure, but I'd also argue that there's more going with that experience than the big screen and the surround sound. Typically one goes to the movies with friends and/or family, conversation and giggles are had, a brisk walk in the evening air, probably some dinner or a snack, etc.
Point being, there's a lot that goes with that experience that can't be replicated with a clearer picture or bigger booms. Hell, I've *walked out* of shitty movies in theatres irrespective of picture clarity (and let's face it, film puts 1080p to shame in a "urinate in your eyes" kind of way) or audio experience. I simply don't have time to waste on it. If I want to go and look at pretty pictures, I go to an art gallery or a museum, not a movie theatre. I watch a movie to be entertained with a story, a good performance, neat special effects if the story being told warrants it (and at that, I've walked out on bad movies that had good SFX, just because the story and/or acting sucked).
This brings up a good topic, though: a higher resolution is really only meaningful on a larger screen. For your average 32" and below screen, it's a virtually moot point when it comes to movies. IMHO, HD resolutions make much more difference to *games* than they do to films, so at least in that sense it's not a completely wasted technology. However, I remain convinced that Bluray and HD-DVD are mere roadbumps on the way to true media delivery innovation.
The chewbacca defense! Completely shift your argument mid sentence and leave everyone scratching their heads on what the hell your talking about.
Your opinion on what a bad movie is and isn't is your opinion alone. Visual quality is also your opinion, however watching spiderman 3 on BD and 480 side by side there is a world of difference. Watch the scene where the Sandan starts "pulling" himself together after his fall into the sand experiment which converted him into the sandman. I did this after my superbowl party with 27 people in attendance. Spiderman 3 on my old Sony 37" wega playing from my 360 with component video side by side with spiderman 3(BD) playing from the pds 3 via hdmi onto my 47" vizio LCD, the difference was much much greater then just marginal to the point where people were literally amazed at the difference in picture quality.
Not all BD movies are equal in terms of visual quality. Watching the Rock or Con-Air on BD there isn't a whole lot of difference, the picture is cleaner but when compared to Spiderman 3, Pirates 3, there is a distinguishable difference between them. So while I can agree to a certain extent that there are quite a few high def movies that don't really capture a high def picture, the ones which do show quite a difference that i wouldn't describe as marginal.
Considering a large majority of the world is without reliable high speed internet, let alone computers, and that a large portion of people who do have computers can't figure out how to open their firewalls or networks to use bit torrent and or other peer to peer sites, I doubt we'll be seeing this soon.
DragonMasterAlex
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,993
In the first place, I didn't shift arguments one bit, I simply clarified the position. Second, I also have clearly said that it obviously can make a difference in some kinds of movies. I could certainly see where the sandman sequence would look a bit better, but honestly, the movie itself was mediocre enough that i wouldn't care very much anyway. I enjoy visual stuff, make no mistake, but once again, the visual fidelity of a movie isn't what makes a movie enjoyable or good.
As for digital distribution, you don't need people to be able to open ports on their firewalls. Ever hear of UPnP?
. It's also worth noting that the majority of the world's people are without HDTV's *period*, and will be for the foreseeable future, which makes the lack of high speed internet a moot point.A bad movie is a bad movie. But take your all-time favorite movie. If you have an option between a 50 inch HDTV or a 20 SDTV to watch it on, which would you go with? If cost was not a factor, and you have those 2 sets sitting there, which would you rather watch it on. Now I think it would be safe to say that most people would choose the 50 inch.
Planet Earth has no real actors, no real story, its just life. But because its life in HD, makes somethings all that more interesting to look at and watch. I'd never thought I would sit down and watch "Ice Worlds" for over and hour, but it just looks so nice on my TV, and makes me feel like I'm right there, which just adds to the overall experiance. SDTV's just don't do that.
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
HD-DVD is dead. Not because of the signature, but because the general public will see it that way and the very influential techies saw the HD-DVD camp give the public message "were folding" with the cancellation at ces.
There will be no Xbox 360 with built in HD-DVD player ever. Paul Thurott said it best: the HD-DVD add on for the Xbox 360 is the best way to make your Xbox louder if you think its too quiet. That thing roars.
aww man, that picture of angle falls was insane.
There will be no Xbox 360 with built in HD-DVD player ever. Paul Thurott said it best: the HD-DVD add on for the Xbox 360 is the best way to make your Xbox louder if you think its too quiet. That thing roars.
aww man, that picture of angle falls was insane.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,594
a higher resolution is only meaningful on a---higher resolution screen. it doesn't matter the size of the display. if the display is HD, then having an decent HD signal matters a ton. I used a 22 inch monitor for my HD display for about 5 months. even though it is physically smaller than my 32 inch HDTV that I now have, DVDs actually looked worse on the 22 inch screen because it has a lot more pixels that it has to scale the image to fit. its actually 30 pixels shy of supporting 1080p.
the point of having HD is to have a much nicer picture---at any given display size. colors are way more vibrant, lifelike, and blended. objects are more solid and 3 dimensional. maybe even you could sit a bit closer if you choose, so that you can really lap up that film grain. something that a decent HD transfer is quite good at----being film-like.
Parja
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2002
- Messages
- 12,670
In the first place, I didn't shift arguments one bit, I simply clarified the position. Second, I also have clearly said that it obviously can make a difference in some kinds of movies. I could certainly see where the sandman sequence would look a bit better, but honestly, the movie itself was mediocre enough that i wouldn't care very much anyway. I enjoy visual stuff, make no mistake, but once again, the visual fidelity of a movie isn't what makes a movie enjoyable or good.
As for digital distribution, you don't need people to be able to open ports on their firewalls. Ever hear of UPnP?
It's obvious by your ranting that you're not the target demographic of the HD camp. Resolution and clarity are not priorities for you. That's fine.
However, you seem to have a serious problem admitting that resolution and clarity are major concerns for a majority of viewers. The sales of HDTVs (and specifically recent sales of 1080p TVs) and HD programming (via OTA, cable, and satellite) are simple proof of that.
Sure, the HD disc formats haven't taken off like gangbusters, but that's clearly because it's currently cost prohibitive for many people and there's two freakin' formats vying for the standard HD format crown. As soon as HD-DVD gives up the fight and BluRay gets a little more mature and they can start making reasonably priced players, that will change.
What I think is funny about the people that say they can't watch normal DVDs anymore is, what do you do after you've watched all 10 of the movies available that are worth seeing on Blu-Ray?
I know that I've been looking forward to seeing Caddyshack in HD too. It will be soo much funnier.
HD is nice, but in my case, the type of movies that I'll go out of my way to see on it is a select group. Usually action and sci-fi movies. Otherwise, DVDs are fine and cheap. I haven't watched a Blu-Ray movie on my PS3 yet.
I know that I've been looking forward to seeing Caddyshack in HD too. It will be soo much funnier.
HD is nice, but in my case, the type of movies that I'll go out of my way to see on it is a select group. Usually action and sci-fi movies. Otherwise, DVDs are fine and cheap. I haven't watched a Blu-Ray movie on my PS3 yet.
Wow, so you're openly flaming people now that you don't have a leg to stand on. That's precious, and makes you look as old as your handle does.
I have a 60" Sony Bravia, and no, the difference in picture quality is not "marginal." Normally I'd shy away from e-arguments like this by virtue of the fact that it is essentially just another opinion argument, but I fail to see how a FOUR FOLD INCREASE in resolution can be "marginal" by anybody's standards. Also, not a single person said the aforementioned increase in resolution makes a bad movie worth watching, except for you. And then you started calling people illiterate for being utterly confused about the way-the-fuck-out-of-left-field progression of your argument, and everybody on the internet got dumber for it.
Well, getting back on topic, I once overheard a best buy employee tell a woman and her child that she needed this piece of software to put MP3's on the psp, and if she just tried to transfer the files, Sony had a program in the psp that would make it stop working, unbelieveable. I almost walked over and told that woman the truth, I should have.
You should have.
4saken
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 13,171
I own 70+ BDs. There is a massive library of quality HD titles available. Of course ones view of what is a quality movie and what isnt is quite subjective.
Oh btw. Netflix just went Blu-Ray exclusive.
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=947
I just bought Hannibal Rising [Blu-ray] and cannot wait to get it and watch it - its my favorite film of 2007 and with blu-ray should be even better than before
Psychotext
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,897
Ummm... way to bump an ancient thread to post info that's barely related to the thread. How on earth did you find this?
EvilTwinSkippy
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 680
Another case for everybody to get an AED - they can revive anything and here's the proof!
I think he was just picking a random thread to practice his leet linkage skillz. One sentence, three links. Why?
I think he was just picking a random thread to practice his leet linkage skillz. One sentence, three links. Why?
Another case for everybody to get an AED - they can revive anything and here's the proof!
I think he was just picking a random thread to practice his leet linkage skillz. One sentence, three links. Why?
What's an "AED".