eyepatchdreams said:
Treblaine said:
Conspicuous absences:
-Relevance of Blu-ray
It's been well over half a decade, almost 6 years since the PS3 hit the market and Blu-ray may have beaten HD-DVD but somehow it hasn't edged regular DVD out of the market. And now I look back at why we were REALLY excited about DVD back in the late 90's, it was the convenience of fast chapter select, no rewinding and the ability to play on more devices. It was MORE convenient. Blu-ray is LESS convenient! And I don't think the extra-detail is worth it. Is Casablanca really going to be better being able to see more detail of Humphrey Bogart's face? The detail of Blu-ray only makes it easier to see the suspending wires in The Matrix while more green-screen effects are broken.
That an the late-stage revelation that blu-ray has a much slower read-time that DVD, that means the PS3 has inherently longer loading times than the Xbox 360 was too much.
I don't think you are in the target audience for Blu-ray. Its really more for people who want to invest in hi-def while owning the required setup. The difference in Blu-ray vs. DVD is how well the picture looks and the appeal of multiple soundtracks.
Also, here is a review on the ultimate Matrix Blu-ray Collection. Note that wires were not found and the only problem with the set is the tint of black in the later movies.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Ultimate-Matrix-Collection-Blu-ray/1089/
Yeah, with hindsight I realise I am not and was not the target market. I knew exactly what Blu-ray was and I knew it was essentially the same DVD technology only with different light0wavelength and higher data density. I just stupidly thought the extra-detail would make it all worth it, I took it all on blind faith... wishing its worth would manifest.
But Playstation 3 with Blu-ra was not pushed to the niche Home-Theatre guys. It was pushed the same way as PS2 pushed DVD, as
THE NEW FORMAT! The promise was DVD's days were numbered... and you didn't want to be left hanging like the guy who still has a VHS player for tapes. But that doesn't matter. Maybe I just got caught up in the hype, but back then it really did feel like PS3 was going to be everything PS2 was (relative to competition) but better.
I don't care about multiple soundtracks. That would be an artistic decision that depends on deeply understanding each film, I'd much rather defer that decision to the director or editor of the latest release. I understand that the user CAN make that decision but it is very much an enthusiast decision and I am not that much into any particular film to start hooing and harring about what would be the more fitting soundtrack. I appreciate alternate version like the Aliens Director's Cut that adds so much to the movie, but you could do that just as well on DVD, there I really am deferring to the director's decision.
That was another problem with blu-ray. "ultimate" editions being released right after they duped us with expensive initial releases that were just lazy quality. I'm sorry, you can't sell me crap and then say "ahh ha, got you there, now this is the real deal". Fifth Element I think was most infamous.
I had also gotten used to how I can buy a DVD and I can play it on my console, my PC and my laptop. Then easily rip it to sync onto my portable devices or simply back up into a flash-drive or external-hard drive. How I can plug in an external monitor or projector without having to worry if it is HDCP compatible.
I know you can remove wires by extra digital processing but my point was not really how you can see through some effects in higher resolution. My point was these films were great not because of the detail that you could resolve, they even depended upon low resolution to do the movie magic of hiding effect and make it look like Neo really is delivering those flying kicks on his own strength. In The Matrix, it is DEMONSTRATIVE that the resolution is such that you cannot see the suspending wires and it is still such an amazing film. I don't think films need much resolution to be great, I appreciate Casablanca on DVD for how you don't have the artefacts of VHS medium interfering with the original artist's presentation of a film reel projected.
Films are not about sharpness of representation, just like the 24-frames-per-second is an inherent part of film, a certain amount of blur and unsharpness is an inherent part. Getting the hue and contrast right are far more important to setting the mood for a movie than being able to see the crows-feet around Keanu Reeves' eyes.
But computer games, more pixels and more frames-per second are always better due to the way they work, not as a passive experience controlled in advance by a director. Games depend on you being able to see far and aim with pixel precision, and with more frequently your eyes are updates (higher framerate) you can respond quicker and be more capable in terms of gameplay.
There is also the aspect of being actually able to RESOLVE the extra detail even when it is there. This is briefly looked at in the theory of the Lechner distance - which though not scientifically proven - but in principal makes sense. Just because all the discrete the pixels are on a TV screen doesn't mean you can actually significantly distinguish one from another so that if you are a certain distance from a TV screen it is impossible to distinguish a 720x576 image from a DVD upscaled to 1920x1080 from a 1080p image shown natively pixel-per-pixel on a 1920x1080 screen.
So to actually reap the rewards of a film where each frame is 1920x1080 pixels you either have to sit very close, within 5 feet of a 30-inch screen. Or if at a more reasonable distance of 9-feet would necessitate a 70-inch screen. 9 foot from a 30-inch screen (very common layout) you can resolve the pixel detail that a DVD would give on a screen like that.
