Gnomus wrote:
> 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.
I mean that no matter how fast the media/drive can do transfers, there
is some point where any additional speed is wasted. Kind of like having
a s****ts car that can go 200 miles/hour in the U.S. where the speed
limit is 70. It's nice, it's fun, it looks cool, but it's not going to
be significantly better than something that can only do 140 miles/hour.
>> 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.
I understand, but both formats need a little bit of compression.
I've seen the Blu-Ray spec. where it says that they can do something
like 6 or 8 hours of video, and as a general rule, movies aren't that
long.
.... again, sometimes enough really is, and in this case I don't think
there is a significant advantage of Blu-Ray over HD.
>> 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.
My HD DVD player meets the only defined "platform" for HD DVD. It plays
movies, and it'll do HDi, the HD DVD specification for interactive
content. It also just worked, which is what I want from a stand-alone
player.
For Blu-Ray, I'm not sure if platform 1.1 is good enough, or if I really
want a 2.0 player. As a consumer, it seems difficult to find out why I
should even care (although, presumably, I don't want a 1.0 player since
that platform is already discontinued). This is the "winning" format.
|
