Support NeoGAF

[ToxicAdam]

I'm a casual follower of this format war, and I was wondering: Is all this fuss going to be worth anything? Is it going to be the same kind of "wow" I got when I viewed my first DVD after using VHS for a decade?

It doesn't seem like it will. It seems like as a storage media it is going to excell. But, as far as a huge leap in visuals .. not so much.

 

[Willco]

YOU DECIDE.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

YOU DECIDE.

Pictures are pretty damn small to show resolution differences.

 

[VALIS]

It won't. The difference between a nicely mastered DVD to the same movie in HD is noticable, but pretty marginal, IMO. Nothing I'm going to rush in getting. But most of the people who are gonna post in this thread will be members of Team BluRay, who will likely say something entirely different.

 

[FlameOfCallandor]

No its not the same at all.

 

[acidviper]

1. NO!
2. There are few people who can take advantage of HDMI and 1080p60.
3. There are even fewer sources that will take advantage of such high resolutions save blockbusters and CG movies.
4. Shittier or cheaper movies will just port DVD stock unto BluRay with no optimization if BRD suceeds.

 

[Beer Monkey]

It's as big of a jump. VHS to DVD was a threefold increase in 'pixels', DVD to HDTV is sixfold.

Of course, VHS to DVD also had an improvement in noise and color bandwidth, but DVD to HDTV also has an increase in color bandwidth and also gains detail due to less filtering and compression artifacts.

To get that benefit, you'll need to spend $3K or more on a display device, though.

2. There are few people who can take advantage of HDMI and 1080p60.

When DVD came out, very few people had display devices that could fully render 720x480. Most people still don't.

It won't. The difference between a nicely mastered DVD to the same movie in HD is noticable, but pretty marginal, IMO.

Not on a display device that is sufficient, viewed at the proper distance. It's not even close.

 

[Hitokage]

No, not logistically anyway. Among other things, you don't have to keep your old dvd player around. You can just continue playing DVDs in the new players.

Quality-wise, absolutely.

 

[Kleegamefan]

I'm a casual follower of this format war, and I was wondering. Is all this fuss going to be worth anything? Is it going to be the same kind of "wow" I got when I viewed my first DVD after using VHS for a decade?

It doesn't seem like it will. It seems like as a storage media it is going to excell. But, as far as a huge leap in visuals .. not so much.

Well consider VHS to DVD is a 4.5 times jump in resolution (320 x 240res vs 720x480)

so

320x240=76,800 pixels

and

720x480=345,600 pixels

therefore 345,600/76,800=4.5


So if we take that forward to DVD-Blu-ray we get a six times jump in detail, however (720x480 vs 1920 x 1080)


so

720x480=345,600 pixels

and

1920 x 1080=2,073,600 pixels

therefore

2,073,600/345,600=6


Since 6>4.5, you are seeing a bigger jump in pixel detail going from DVD to Blu-ray than from VHS to DVD

 

[FightyF]

Well I'm not too up to date on it all, but I can say safely that an HDTV broadcast looks far better than a DVD movie on my TV.

But I think that for other reasons that it may be a bad time to release a new format. Too soon IMO, and we'll be stuck with crappy, rushed technology. That's right, I'm calling BRD and HDDVD crappy, rushed tech. Actually I need to read up a bit on both formats. Things like forward compatibility and capacity upgrades are what I'm more interested in.

 

[Pedigree Chum]

No. DVD sounded the end of rewinding, tapes unravelling and brought with it extras and scene slection along with a more durable, compact form factor. The advantages of Blu-Ray and HDDVD aren't as compelling to the casual movie watcher.

 

[Beer Monkey]

320x240=76,800 pixels

and

720x480=345,600 pixels

therefore 345,600/76,800=4.5

That's assuming progressive DVD and interlaced VHS (which can be be deinterlaced through a proper line doubler). Most people didn't have progressive displays or the ability to display 720 horizontal resolution, so that 4.5 increase would be rare indeed. I still say 3 is a better number, and even that's a stretch.

 

[VALIS]

Not on a display device that is sufficient, viewed at the proper distance. It's not even close.

But I've seen movies like LOTR and Shark Tale on well mastered DVDs and also in high definition, and like I said, you certainly do notice a difference, but I just didn't think it was that big. Besides the pixel jump in going from VCR to DVD, you had all the benefits with going from a touchy analog media in video tapes to an unalterable digital media in DVD. No more wobbly pictures, interference, sound or image glitches in certain parts of the tape, etc. One of the biggest differences was seeing such a stable image quality on DVD after years of VHS.

 

[FightyF]

No. DVD sounded the end of rewinding, tapes unravelling and brought with it extras and scene slection along with a more durable, compact form factor. The advantages of Blu-Ray and HDDVD aren't as compelling to the casual movie watcher.

That's a great point that I haven't considered.

Formfactor being another one...there isn't anything more convenient about these CD sized discs. Had the next gen format been in the shape of USB keys or something, that would have been sweet. As you can tell I was hoping for the next format to be non-optical...but I guess it would be unrealistic in expecting something non-optical to be comparably cheap to produce.

 

[Kleegamefan]

That's assuming progressive DVD and interlaced VHS (which can be be deinterlaced through a proper line doubler). Most people didn't have progressive displays or the ability to display 720 horizontal resolution, so that 4.5 increase would be rare indeed. I still say 3 is a better number, and even that's a stretch.

I was being liberal to paint the jump from VHS to DVD in the best possible light

 

[Beer Monkey]

But I've seen movies like LOTR and Shark Tale on well mastered DVDs and also in high definition, and like I said, you certainly do notice a difference, but I just didn't think it was that big.

Very few, probably less than 1% of the 'high definition' TVs out there, can display 1920x1080, let alone in progressive. What device were you watching and at what viewing distance?

And what was the source?

There's also some pretty bogus broadcast high-def out there. DirecTV is downrezzed to 1280x1080, and local television stations are known to really overcompress their signal to fit in simultaneous SDTV subchannels.

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are capable of providing better image quality than OTA/Cable/Satellite High Def, and hardly any installed display devices can even resolve any high-def signal at full detail.

 

[Kleegamefan]

But I've seen movies like LOTR and Shark Tale on well mastered DVDs and also in high definition, and like I said, you certainly do notice a difference, but I just didn't think it was that big. Besides the pixel jump in going from VCR to DVD, you had all the benefits with going from a touchy analog media in video tapes to an unalterable digital media in DVD. No more wobbly pictures, interference, sound or image glitches in certain parts of the tape, etc. One of the biggest differences was seeing such a stable image quality on DVD after years of VHS.

Just keep in mind that brodcast "HD" is not the same as Blu-ray...


A satellite HD feed can have a max of 19.2mbps bitrate(good enough only for 720p or 1080i, not 1080p) , whereas BRD has more than twice that for video alone....that is, 40mbps for video and 14 for audio and data for a total of 54mbps...


So I am sure Shark Tale looked nice in "HD" but that doesnt mean it will quite be the same thing even the same movie on a 1080p BD disk

Oh and less than 1% of HDTVs can display 1080 res???

I dont believe that for one moment...

 

[soundwave05]

Although if recordable Blu-Ray takes off, then it'll have done something even DVD hasn't ... give people the chance to record TV onto a disc without having to buy a DVR which most people don't have.

Right now, most people still record programming on their VHS tapes ... hopefully Blu-Ray can change that.

 

[Chittagong]

Nope.

DVD was a complete revolution: no more bouncing picture, out with rewinding, in with special features, variety of subtitles, 16:9 picture format, sharp picture. Smaller in size, durable and cheap to manufacture, it exploded the home video market as ordinary people finally began to see building a home collection of fims as a viable option - they were digital, they'd last unlike tape.

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are just incremental improvement of an existing format, kind of like SACD. Pretty much the only thing that improves in any meaningful way is the resolution. Although improvement there is mathematically big, I don't believe it makes that much a difference to the consumer. Take movies like Lord of the Rings as an example. The DVD version is extremely crisp and beautiful, and looks great even on large screens. Adding detail to that won't be big a differentiator. Add to this the fact that you need a HD television, and one with HDMI, and it's easy to see that neither format will be anywhere near the revolution DVD was. Naturally as the market penetration of the Blu-Ray or HD-DVD devices increase as they become the norm, movie sales will start to offset DVD. But the formats will not be driving player sales.

Digital distribution of HD content will be the next VHS-DVD transition, in my opinion. A whole new convenience is introduced: you can really quickly with a few clicks watch exactly the movie you want, in the room of the house you want, without the need to worry about the whereabouts of the disc or if it is scratched. No storage space is needed anymore. You can only have a beautiful, small Mac Mini or Shuttle in your livingroom.

 

[Willco]

Although if recordable Blu-Ray takes off, then it'll have done something even DVD hasn't ... give people the chance to record TV onto a disc without having to buy a DVR which most people don't have.

Right now, most people still record programming on their VHS tapes ... hopefully Blu-Ray can change that.

Why would people blow off DVRs, which a lot of people have and are becoming integrated in almost all the HD set top boxes for cable and dish, for an expensive, recordable video player?

I mean, right now it costs about $4 more a month for me to have a DVR versus how much for Blu Ray?

 

[Beer Monkey]

I absolutely don't expect high-def disc to be the relatively fast revolution that DVD was. Nope, not at all.

But that's a complete different aspect of the technology than the image quality, which is a jaw-dropping, stunning upgrade. Those who say otherwise have got sour grapes on their minds, or don't know what they are talking about due to a lack of proper experience or good eyesight.

 

[ThirstyFly]

4. Shittier or cheaper movies will just port DVD stock unto BluRay with no optimization if BRD suceeds.

Why single out BluRay for this point? Is there something about HD-DVD that will keep lazy studios from doing low quality transfers for it?

 

[Azure Dream]

No. DVD sounded the end of rewinding, tapes unravelling and brought with it extras and scene slection along with a more durable, compact form factor. The advantages of Blu-Ray and HDDVD aren't as compelling to the casual movie watcher.

And standardized widescreen for theatrical releases. (Finding widescreen VHS stuff was a difficult task, and most people didn't understand why they should make the "black bar" tradeoff.) And anime with both the original soundtrack with subtitles and the dub on the same disc. Anything less now is considered cheap and lazy.

That's the big thing about HD-DVD and Blu-Ray that makes me doubt: Other than visual and audio quality, which are big draws to a lot of people, I know, does it offer anything in terms of playback features that really benefit the consumer, giving them more control or choice? Everything I've heard so far is designed to benefit the studios, with stronger pirating protection and content management (talk of even the discs tying themselves to physical players, or at least "calling in" when possible to check the validity of the disc). Things that at best drive down production costs (which won't be reflected on the consumer if a publisher can help it) and can range in annoyance levels.

Do Blu-Ray or HD-DVD add anything to change how one plays back or skips through a movie in a way that would be appreciated by the consumer?

 

[Bebpo]

YOU DECIDE.

And I'm sure if the same pic showed a VHS version to the side it would look pretty much identical as well.

Tiny pics FTW! @_@

Note to OP: The answer is yes but the average joe won't see it because they won't have a decent TV.

 

[soundwave05]

Blu-Ray won't replace DVD ... but I think you will be surprised how successful the format is, just like the success of UMD movies has coufounded a lot of people.

And HDTV is no longer such a luxury item ... yes it's still a premium price, but those prices are definitely coming into "average joe" range, and never underestimate the "Jones family next door got a new HDTV and are having a Super Bowl party ... when are we going to get with it and get an HDTV?" mentality of many suburbanites in North America.

In a year you'll probably be able to get a decent brand name HDTV for $500 or less.

Actually the fact that Blu-Ray is in PS3 right from day 1 almost ensures there will be more Blu-Ray players in homes than what DVD got its first two years.

The DVD format sales for its first two years of availibility in the US were barely over like 1.5 million installed base, and sales were even slower in Europe and Japan.

You can see the sales chart for US sales here:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/cemadvdsales.html

 

[Pedigree Chum]

Honestly, if it wasn't for PS3 I'd consider these formats DOA. While they won't be as big as DVD in the long run, I think that BRD will have a good run.

 

[Zaptruder]

BluRay will be the partner in crime with SED TVs.

... considering that SED TVs won't be reasonably priced for at least another 3 years, we're kinda flailing about in a shitty transition phase about now...

 

[xsarien]

I'm a casual follower of this format war, and I was wondering: Is all this fuss going to be worth anything? Is it going to be the same kind of "wow" I got when I viewed my first DVD after using VHS for a decade?

It doesn't seem like it will. It seems like as a storage media it is going to excell. But, as far as a huge leap in visuals .. not so much.

Probably not, which is why HD-DVD and BR players will both play standard DVDs.

 

[racerx77]

Why would increased resolution make such a huge difference for games, but not movies? It's still much higher resolution than standard DVD.

 

[chinch]

I'm a casual follower of this format war, and I was wondering: Is all this fuss going to be worth anything? Is it going to be the same kind of "wow" I got when I viewed my first DVD after using VHS for a decade?

It doesn't seem like it will. It seems like as a storage media it is going to excell. But, as far as a huge leap in visuals .. not so much.

VHS to DVD was probably more a jump since it went from low-res analog to med-res digital and DVD brought alot of new conveniences, 5.1 sound (to masses), etc.

DVD > HD gives more "pixels" and picture upgrade than VHS >> DVD but that is a small part of the story imho and one the CE companies will soon learn.

If you have a quality 720p large screen TV/PJ you probably will be "wow-ed" by HD discs but this is diluted somewhat given the fact people have been watching HDTV for a few years now. The best bluray movie I sit and watch won't impress me as much as the first HD sporting event I saw and regularly enjoy.

Now, if you have a HDTV set and never saw a true HD broadcast you're pretty lost

 

[I <3 Katamari]

Considering I don't think either of them will be replacing DVD, I'd have to say no.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Why would increased resolution make such a huge difference for games, but not movies? It's still much higher resolution than standard DVD.

Exactly. The jump from DVD to full resolution HDTV is like gaming at 640x480 versus 1600x1200 (it would be like 1600x1152, to be exact). Can you imagine if I told a serious PC gamer that there was a 'subtle' difference between 640x480 and 1600x1200? :lol Anybody that can't see the HUGE differences that such changes make are either too far away from their display, their display sucks, or they need to go to the optometrist.

 

[Ponn]

Exactly. The jump from DVD to full resolution HDTV is like gaming at 640x480 versus 1600x1200 (it would be like 1600x1152, to be exact). Can you imagine if I told a serious PC gamer that there was a 'subtle' difference between 640x480 and 1600x1200? :lol Anybody that can't see the HUGE differences that such changes make are either too far away from their display, their display sucks, or they need to go to the optometrist.

Or they are trying to convince themselves and justify why they don't have a HDTV yet.

 

[Frog]

High res version??

 

[Shogmaster]

Well consider VHS to DVD is a 4.5 times jump in resolution (320 x 240res vs 720x480)

so

320x240=76,800 pixels

and

720x480=345,600 pixels

therefore 345,600/76,800=4.5


So if we take that forward to DVD-Blu-ray we get a six times jump in detail, however (720x480 vs 1920 x 1080)


so

720x480=345,600 pixels

and

1920 x 1080=2,073,600 pixels

therefore

2,073,600/345,600=6


Since 6>4.5, you are seeing a bigger jump in pixel detail going from DVD to Blu-ray than from VHS to DVD

Unfortunately, all of that will depend on the quality of the source and transfer. Most film stuff will require more than a passing glance to notice the difference, especially if the DVD is upresed.

Video stuff will be much easier to see the diffrence, if you compare video source of the 80~90s and the HD video of today. Too bad that Hollywood mostly has the film stuff to sell....

 

[mrklaw]

on a big screen - fuck yes! I saw a demo of the Qualia on a 100+" screen and it blew me away.

On smaller screens the difference won't be as noticable, but still good to have

 

[DaCocoBrova]

Fuck no.