In article <38-dnRi8y85bc1_anZ2dnUVZ_rOqnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Ned Ludd
<andy.block@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> POD {Ò¿Ó} wrote:
> > Ned Ludd <andy.block@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> once tried to test me. I ate their
> > liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti
> >
> >> While you believe that Blu-Ray has to be superior simply because the
> >> disks are higher capacity?
> >
> > Well that is the only difference between them. You can go on about
> > firmware versus Java engines, or the choice of one codec over another,
> > but bottom line the only real difference is blue is bigger, and though
> > I'm guessing, I think it has a faster transfer rate.
> >
> >> Of course, I can see why you discount upscaled SD since none of the
> >> Blu-Ray players are known for their ability to upscale.
> >
> > No, but I have a DVD player that also does it and the PS3 does a
mighty
> > fine job of it, but that is not the point. With a DVD disc, all you
get
> > is 500 lines of picture data, no more, and all upscaling is, is the
> > equivalent of making the picture twice as big and squinting at it.
You
> > don't get any more picture data, all it does is either double the
lines
> > up, or exstrapolates the difference between the two existing lines. So
I
> > don't care how many lines you are making it into, you are getting no
> > better quality of picture, lines may not be jagged, but you are not
> > getting ****es in skin, DVD can't magic them out of thin air.
> >
>
> ... and all you get out of Blu-Ray is 1080 lines which is (gasp!) the
> same as HD DVD.
>
> I can't find the reference at the moment, but Blu-Ray does have a higher
> transfer rate, but both formats are well over the HD video transfer
rate.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. If the HD spec has a max
video rate of, say, 18 mps, then going over would mean the equipment
probably couldn't play the disc.
>
> In other words, if you need a kilogram of something, and that's all you
> need, and you have a choice between a 1.7 kilogram package and a 2.0
> kilogram package, either one will be more.
The im****tant thing with encoding video is that the more space you
have, the less you have to compress the signal. The less compression,
the better the image looks. Use single and double layer DVDs as an
example.
>
> In my opinion, Blu-Ray goofed with the whole platform thing. There is
> 1.0, which is now a "legacy" platform (already?) and 1.1 which is most
> players, and platform 2.0 which does some things that 1.1 will never do,
> and then there is what, BD-Live or somesuch, which may or may not be
> paired with any platform.
Not only is it a new technology, but the hardware people had to bend
over backward to satisfy the studios. I'm not surprised that both
HD-DVD and Blu-ray were a little less than customer-friendly.
>
> I bought my HD-A2 because it was price-competitive with good upscaling
> SD players -- and it does that very well.
>
> ... and it plays the only HD title I really wanted.
|
