| Original message (2306 Views )
|
Replies: |
| Pollyanna 2183th Post
 
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
    
    
    
    
    
|  "Re(2):Is blue-ray and HD-DVD really the futur" , posted Tue 27 Mar 20:59:
quote:
I say pretty much the same thing about hi-def in general every day. I don't have perfect vision (though I don't need glasses), so HDTV is a total waste of money for me because I can barely tell the difference.
Seriously? I mean...I didn't think of HD too much myself until I got an HD TV. Well, actually...let me rephrase that. For watching TV, it didn't look much better than a very good normal TV, but after I got my 360, I started to see a real difference. Now I can tell a big difference between HD and non HD as well as different HD modes (I kept fighting with myself on which mode to use on Blue Dragon, finally deciding that regardless of possible animation issues, 1080 was just too pretty to pass up).
I use component cables for my PS2, but many games still look kinda muddy after playing 360, and the difference on DVD playback is noteworthy as well.
But the thing is, comparing it to a very good non-HD TV, it makes little to no difference on TV programs and little difference on non-HD video games. I think it's a totally different story for things made with HD in mind, though.
Of course, the same applies for Blue-Ray and HD-DVD...meaning, if you don't have the right setup, the difference is very minimal. If you have a super fancy HD TV, then I'm sure you can tell the difference...but that's a percentage of a percentage, and while HDTVs are quickly becoming the norm, super high end ones are not. People who think they're getting something fancy by watching Blue-Ray on a low-end HDTV are just fooling themselves.
The only thing that would make me say that DVDs were made successful due to marketing is the fact that they were essentially the same as LDs, which were insanely unpopular (whereas DVDs became very popular very quickly).
Still, DVDs had the advantage of being cheaper and smaller with more options and better picture quality. Beside that, the world had already accepted CDs over tapes, so it was quite natural to accept DVDs over VHS.
However, the new formats only have the advantage of better picture quality (and holding more data, but that's more important from a software perspective), so they seem more likely to end up like LDs (Better picture, but more expensive and more for people who are really into it).
On the other hand...now we're seeing next gen format DVDs that are dual-sided with a "normal" DVD version as well. If companies really push them, we may be getting next-gen formats as the norm for releases without alienating people who have not bought into the format yet. (although there's still the matter of price...)
[this message was edited by Pollyanna on Tue 27 Mar 21:01] |
| hikarutilmitt 369th Post
Silver Customer
| "Re(3):Is blue-ray and HD-DVD really the futur" , posted Tue 27 Mar 22:56
The bottom line about HD things is jut like with DVDs back in the day: if you don't want to see a difference or don't care to then you probably won't. I was snapped up by HD back when it was in its infancy and super expensive simply because I COULD see a difference in the picture quality, and it does enhance the experience, to me. I don't watch House in HD just because I can see the scruffy beard on Hugh Laurie more clearly and defined, it's because the image is just plain better and easier on the eyes than the blurry, noisy mess that is the SDTV airing.
My dad actually wasn't that big on getting a DVD player or DVDs and "didn't see a difference to make it better than VHS tapes" (his own words) and then we bought him a DVD player for his birthday one year and suddenly he LOVES DVDs because they've actually gotten cheaper than VHS tapes were and he could finally see the quality difference. The same thing happened with HDTV, he and my mom both didn't care about HD that much until they were at my apartment one night and saw it. now they both really want it, but they can't justify the plunge quite yet.
The funny thing is that digital cable with the HD tier and some movies channels was cheaper than the regular, bare-bones cable they were getting.
With gaming the bonuses to HD are immediately noticeable, but the same can be said about running a PC game in 1280x960 over 640x480. I rather like the BRD format because you can get a very high resolution picture running progressive scan (hate rainbows, god I hate rainbows) and with an uncompressed soundtrack, something DVD simply couldn't offer, though DTS is still mighty nice.
At the same time, we're looking at the same issue with HDDVD and BRD as we did when DVDs were coming out: in the first generation or three you won't see massive gains on it, necessarily, because it IS a new format and some of the studios aren't used to putting out or even preparing that much HD content. People said DVDs weren't as good as laser discs and barely better than VHS back 10 years ago (up to even 6 years ago in some cases), but look at them now. You don't necessarily have to buy a Criterion or Superbit DVD release to get a well-authored DVD anymore, those end up remaining for the enthusiasts and people who just want a ton of content.
I think this just comes down to presence. Once someone is shown something that just hooks them, they see the difference and can then begin their trek to the new technology.
|
| Satoshi_Miwa 2801th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(4):Is blue-ray and HD-DVD really the futur" , posted Tue 27 Mar 23:01
quote:
At the same time, we're looking at the same issue with HDDVD and BRD as we did when DVDs were coming out: in the first generation or three you won't see massive gains on it, necessarily, because it IS a new format and some of the studios aren't used to putting out or even preparing that much HD content. People said DVDs weren't as good as laser discs and barely better than VHS back 10 years ago (up to even 6 years ago in some cases), but look at them now. You don't necessarily have to buy a Criterion or Superbit DVD release to get a well-authored DVD anymore, those end up remaining for the enthusiasts and people who just want a ton of content.
I think this just comes down to presence. Once someone is shown something that just hooks them, they see the difference and can then begin their trek to the new technology.
I know that for the first generation of Blu Ray discs the images weren't that much better than DVD since they used the same codec, MPEG2. But luckily the later ones have switched to a better codec HD codec and the difference is clear as day (Casino Royale looks great in HD).
What may be the selling point for high definition discs, though, is broadcast TV. I think alot of people are starting to get the idea of HD, and what may push the switch to BluRay/HDDVD is when they go to pick up a box set of a TV show they watched. I doubt alot of them will be willing to drop down from HD to SD...
|
| ONSLAUGHT 3639th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Yes!" , posted Wed 28 Mar 02:34:
quote:
Those reasons you all mention are really valid, but they start from the premise that you already have a good HDTV. Frankly, right now, I cannot see myself spending 800€ on a new TV to be able to appreciate the differences from DVD to the new formats. In the future, when HDTVs become standard and cheaper, there will be more reasons to the new formats, but not now, I think. Or at least, not enough.
Well, I bought an HDTV and a 360 the same day, but first I tested Gears of War on my 32" Sony Wega and then on my new TV and man, like Satoshi Miwa said "It's night and day". Now I cannot go back to a normal TV. I still need to test my TV with a PS3, but I won't buy one until the good games are launched.
[this message was edited by ONSLAUGHT on Wed 28 Mar 03:07] |
| Bata kun 3030th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Meh." , posted Thu 29 Mar 01:28:
Even I own a couple of TV sets that's HD, I will never understand the deal with with them. Oh sure, you get better details, but you know what? I could care less about them.
Never mind the fact that they're expensive. They're a bother to set up and even if you do manage to set yours up properly, you have lots of complicated ways to deal with in regards of maintenance. The set up in my brother's room? It has so many instructions I will never catch on, which is a reason why I don't go there as much as I would.
To those that are behind times, don't worry. I still watch VHS more often than most people here and I still like watching from the set in my room, which is bordering with the other HD TV set. Watching with new devices is nice, but would seeing them convince me to buy them? No and even though I have a 360 in my household, I generally don't touch it willingly partially because it's in my brother's room.
I do happen to like Divx. Of course, you'd expect that from someone like me. Then again, groups do switch to Xvid because of quality reasons.
So, to answer the question, yes. However, it's a clamped down one and by that, I mean that not every home will end up with the materials seeing that they're expensive. Even if I was given $5,000, I'd likely end up blowing the money on mainly games.
ふもっふ！
[this message was edited by Bata kun on Thu 29 Mar 01:44] |
| IkariDC 614th Post
Red Carpet Regular Member
| "Re(1):Scenario" , posted Thu 29 Mar 15:51
quote:
I'll try to give a scenario that'll make sense. Brothers scolded me for leaving the television on when I paused in a game. Apparently, you're supposed to put it in some sort of screen saver mode after you paused. Otherwise, it'll burst a part or something. I don't know, seeing that I'm not a tech wiz.
The point is that I don't like having to do this sort of routine every single bloody time. I'd rather pause and do what I need to do. Hope this helps.
The reason why you're being scolded is because, if you leave a static image for a large period of time, you are forcing the device to show the same damn thing all the time and you'll make it burn the screen with it.
Screensavers prevent this by usually showing a black screen with something moving on it, avoiding showing something that is static. That's the rule, if the screensaver is well designed.
So, you can turn the screensaver on when you leave your game's paused, or you can switch the tv off. It's not that complicated isn't it? And this is not bad for HDTV sets, it's bad for regular TVs as well. Actually I know that this happens with regular TVs and PC monitors with tubes, I don't know about plasma and LCD screens. I guess it's bad as well.
GAZEROCK IS NOT DEAD
|
|
|
"Re(6):DUnno" , posted Wed 28 Mar 09:03
