|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:58 am
So who's side are you on?
Discuss:
- Pros/Cons of either system
- First movie you watched
- Any bugs you've found
- What made you pick a side?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:32 pm
Non... because the both TVs we have are from the late 80s early 90s. Plus, we play our DVDs on an old DVD play my mommy gave to us. whee
I live on free things!
All of that was free. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:44 pm
I'm for neither at the moment as well: I don't want to buy a HD DVD player, then a HD TV, HD cable Cords, and pay for HD cable. I don't care that much about the quality of the image - I still watch VHS's!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:39 pm
Uhm... Blu Ray because it won... They already called the battle and Toshiba pulled the plug on HD DVD... But even before they called the format war I for Blu Ray because it was better for the fact it held more information (good for games) and also the fact it is scratch resistant. There are other pros to it but it is mainly tech mumbo-jumbo that no one wants to hear... But yeah... Blu Ray won! WOO!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:46 am
I dunno the technical side of the argument - only that I don't want to pay for any of it, yet. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:15 pm
Red Scully I'm for neither at the moment as well: I don't want to buy a HD DVD player, then a HD TV, HD cable Cords, and pay for HD cable. I don't care that much about the quality of the image - I still watch VHS's! BE STILL MY BEATING HEART!! On a more serious note - no clue. I haven't viewed either options but I'm perfectly fine with my DVDs and VHSs. This whole business of forcing upgrades down my throat will probably met with a simple word - boycott.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:40 pm
I'm changed my answer to neither!
Some movie stars shouldn't been seen so clearly. The whole HD world is making the make-up people mad.
I embrace the blur! EMBRACE IIIITTTT!
I never see things totally clear anyways, so it REALLY doesn't matter to me. blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:30 pm
Wizzle I'm changed my answer to neither! Some movie stars shouldn't been seen so clearly. The whole HD world is making the make-up people mad. I embrace the blur! EMBRACE IIIITTTT! I never see things totally clear anyways, so it REALLY doesn't matter to me. blaugh
I saw a good example of that make-up thing. Lee and I went to Best Buy and they had a uber nice HD/Blue Ray/whateverthehell on display. The image was so clear it made the footage look bad. It was playing Fantastic Four: The Silver Surfer and the whole thing as too crisp and too clear - everything, real people included, looked totally fake. The make up was too defined, The Things costume was too noticeably a costume. It was gross.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:58 pm
Red Scully Wizzle I'm changed my answer to neither! Some movie stars shouldn't been seen so clearly. The whole HD world is making the make-up people mad. I embrace the blur! EMBRACE IIIITTTT! I never see things totally clear anyways, so it REALLY doesn't matter to me. blaugh
I saw a good example of that make-up thing. Lee and I went to Best Buy and they had a uber nice HD/Blue Ray/whateverthehell on display. The image was so clear it made the footage look bad. It was playing Fantastic Four: The Silver Surfer and the whole thing as too crisp and too clear - everything, real people included, looked totally fake. The make up was too defined, The Things costume was too noticeably a costume. It was gross. I personally like Blu Ray's picture... I think it looks really good. What I don't like though is the newer HDTV's coming out that simulate 120fps... For those of you who don't know what that is, its making the image produce 120 frames per second making the image move smoother... What we usually see is either 30 or 60fps... Now onto the point... While I think the image looks good, there are sometimes where it seems to "glitch" and make the image look bad... I'm sure it was the same with HD DVD too so its more of a HDTV thing. But onto the "too real" subject... I think some movies pull it off while others don't. Like a high budget film... Because in all honesty the FF4 movies sucked... They sucked hard... So I blame it on that fact. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:20 pm
Adam and I have pretty much decided to get Blu-Ray someday when we have teh monies.
Until then, we still have a normal dvd player/surround system.
This choice (to go Blu-ray) also means we'll be getting a PS3 (to play Rockband xd ) instead of an Xbox 360...someday when we can afford it.
Although, now that they're coming out w/ new PS3s we might wait even longer to see how well that one works.
Definately want one w/ reverse compatibility.
Anyway, I have a Blu-ray question:
I've heard that a disc has to "load" before it can even be played.
Like, you pop in a movie and it has to configure or whatever for 10 mins or so before it even starts.
True?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:18 pm
Gerzson Red Scully Wizzle I'm changed my answer to neither! Some movie stars shouldn't been seen so clearly. The whole HD world is making the make-up people mad. I embrace the blur! EMBRACE IIIITTTT! I never see things totally clear anyways, so it REALLY doesn't matter to me. blaugh
I saw a good example of that make-up thing. Lee and I went to Best Buy and they had a uber nice HD/Blue Ray/whateverthehell on display. The image was so clear it made the footage look bad. It was playing Fantastic Four: The Silver Surfer and the whole thing as too crisp and too clear - everything, real people included, looked totally fake. The make up was too defined, The Things costume was too noticeably a costume. It was gross. I personally like Blu Ray's picture... I think it looks really good. What I don't like though is the newer HDTV's coming out that simulate 120fps... For those of you who don't know what that is, its making the image produce 120 frames per second making the image move smoother... What we usually see is either 30 or 60fps... Now onto the point... While I think the image looks good, there are sometimes where it seems to "glitch" and make the image look bad... I'm sure it was the same with HD DVD too so its more of a HDTV thing. But onto the "too real" subject... I think some movies pull it off while others don't. Like a high budget film... Because in all honesty the FF4 movies sucked... They sucked hard... So I blame it on that fact. lol
Well yeah, it was a bad movie plot wise but the footage and production value was top notch basic Hollywood - scenes of people just talking, regardless of what they where saying, looked totally horrid in it's too extreme quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:18 pm
Queen of Faeries Adam and I have pretty much decided to get Blu-Ray someday when we have teh monies.
Until then, we still have a normal dvd player/surround system.
This choice (to go Blu-ray) also means we'll be getting a PS3 (to play Rockband xd ) instead of an Xbox 360...someday when we can afford it.
Although, now that they're coming out w/ new PS3s we might wait even longer to see how well that one works.
Definately want one w/ reverse compatibility.
Anyway, I have a Blu-ray question:
I've heard that a disc has to "load" before it can even be played.
Like, you pop in a movie and it has to configure or whatever for 10 mins or so before it even starts.
True? I have no idea who told you that and why they told you that... But it is completely untrue. At least with the PS3 that is untrue... And I would say that since with the PS3 it doesn't that means any Blu Ray player... The only "loading" thing that I have heard of is something Capcom is doing with its games for the PS3 where it installs stuff onto the hard drive to speed up load times in the game... That is the only loadtime I have ever heard of with something Blu Ray. And with the next wave of 80 gig PS3's has already been announced. Its going to be a 80gig (of course since I just mentioned that) bundled with MGS4 and a DS3 controller. Just so you know... And that will be your only choice for a backwards compatible PS3 unless you somehow find a 60gig (which I prefer over the 80gig backwards stuff... You can email me to find out the difference if you want)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:19 pm
Red Scully Gerzson Red Scully Wizzle I'm changed my answer to neither! Some movie stars shouldn't been seen so clearly. The whole HD world is making the make-up people mad. I embrace the blur! EMBRACE IIIITTTT! I never see things totally clear anyways, so it REALLY doesn't matter to me. blaugh
I saw a good example of that make-up thing. Lee and I went to Best Buy and they had a uber nice HD/Blue Ray/whateverthehell on display. The image was so clear it made the footage look bad. It was playing Fantastic Four: The Silver Surfer and the whole thing as too crisp and too clear - everything, real people included, looked totally fake. The make up was too defined, The Things costume was too noticeably a costume. It was gross. I personally like Blu Ray's picture... I think it looks really good. What I don't like though is the newer HDTV's coming out that simulate 120fps... For those of you who don't know what that is, its making the image produce 120 frames per second making the image move smoother... What we usually see is either 30 or 60fps... Now onto the point... While I think the image looks good, there are sometimes where it seems to "glitch" and make the image look bad... I'm sure it was the same with HD DVD too so its more of a HDTV thing. But onto the "too real" subject... I think some movies pull it off while others don't. Like a high budget film... Because in all honesty the FF4 movies sucked... They sucked hard... So I blame it on that fact. lol
Well yeah, it was a bad movie plot wise but the footage and production value was top notch basic Hollywood - scenes of people just talking, regardless of what they where saying, looked totally horrid in it's too extreme quality. I don't think its "horrid extreme quality" because Spiderman looked great on Blu Ray along with several other movies I have on Blu Ray... But I still say production wise FF4 wasn't great... But that is just my opinion. I thought it looked crappy in theatres... Again, that is just me though... lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:46 am
Wizzle I'm changed my answer to neither! Some movie stars shouldn't been seen so clearly. The whole HD world is making the make-up people mad. I embrace the blur! EMBRACE IIIITTTT! I never see things totally clear anyways, so it REALLY doesn't matter to me. blaugh Yet others should be seen so clearly...like Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises when he is fighting in the bathhouse. Hooray for my naked Ranger xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 6:56 pm
I don't see a damn bit of difference between Blu-ray and DVDs. I got switched over to digital from analog and it totally sucks. Digital television is crap. And hi def TV doesn't make crappy shows any better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
