The players are very expensive.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The players are very expensive. [/QUOTE]
Many people who earn the minimum wage in Brazil (!), which is really...a low salary, have DVDs and modest home-theaters.
They'd rather watch the DVD of Queen's concert at MK or the newly remastered DVD Rock Montreal with Live Aid than the Houston gig, 77, the image of which can't be improved that much. Neither the sound. And though the show was great, Queen sounds more impressive to people in their later years, 1981-1982, mainly, and also 1985-1986. Eventually, they'll release the earlier material when people take an interest in the band: youngsters, new fans, or even people who hadn't access to their music in good quality and now, thanks to the advances made in technology, can, at a much lower cost!
Blu-Ray players will get cheaper over time, just like DVD players.
The rest of what I think is in the earlier post, and I won't write it again because there were good, well intentioned people who already complained to me about the length of my posts, and that I should be more brief, it's true. Hahaha.
So I stop here!
Many people who earn the minimum wage in Brazil (!), which is really...a low salary, have DVDs and modest home-theaters.
They'd rather watch the DVD of Queen's concert at MK or the newly remastered DVD Rock Montreal with Live Aid than the Houston gig, 77, the image of which can't be improved that much. Neither the sound. And though the show was great, Queen sounds more impressive to people in their later years, 1981-1982, mainly, and also 1985-1986. Eventually, they'll release the earlier material when people take an interest in the band: youngsters, new fans, or even people who hadn't access to their music in good quality and now, thanks to the advances made in technology, can, at a much lower cost!
Blu-Ray players will get cheaper over time, just like DVD players.
The rest of what I think is in the earlier post, and I won't write it again because there were good, well intentioned people who already complained to me about the length of my posts, and that I should be more brief, it's true. Hahaha.
So I stop here!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The players are very expensive. [/QUOTE]
True, but they are dropping in price. DVD players used to be very expensive too. I think that by the end of the year you will see Blu-ray players drop in price considerably. Personally after watching movies on Blu-Ray I just won't buy any movies on DVD again.
True, but they are dropping in price. DVD players used to be very expensive too. I think that by the end of the year you will see Blu-ray players drop in price considerably. Personally after watching movies on Blu-Ray I just won't buy any movies on DVD again.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Champipple wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't give a crap about Blu-Ray. Disc based media is on it's way out. In <5 years everything will be downloads and/or solid-state RAM.[/QUOTE]
I'll believe that when I see it. It may happen, but not in 5 years. Downloads only appear to a small vocal group at the moment. The ability to download a HD movie in full 1080p with uncompressed audio is not even close to being realized. Downloads of that size will simply choke ISPs at the moment. Blu-Ray discs hold up to 50Gb of data. Do you have any idea how long that would take to download? Nevermind how much disc space you would need to hold all those movies. Heck 20 movies could potentially use 1TB of space.
I personally have no interest in downloading movies. For one thing I can't resell a download once I grow tired of it.
I'll believe that when I see it. It may happen, but not in 5 years. Downloads only appear to a small vocal group at the moment. The ability to download a HD movie in full 1080p with uncompressed audio is not even close to being realized. Downloads of that size will simply choke ISPs at the moment. Blu-Ray discs hold up to 50Gb of data. Do you have any idea how long that would take to download? Nevermind how much disc space you would need to hold all those movies. Heck 20 movies could potentially use 1TB of space.
I personally have no interest in downloading movies. For one thing I can't resell a download once I grow tired of it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]DARREN1977 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Live at the Bowl with Live Aid tacked on disc 2.i bought the 4 disc live aid box set soley for this performance.
[/QUOTE]
You probably have very special edition of Live at the Bowl, since we have interviews and snippets from Japan concert on disc 2.
[/QUOTE]
You probably have very special edition of Live at the Bowl, since we have interviews and snippets from Japan concert on disc 2.
Serry, you are correct lol, i got a bit carried away!
Let's get things straight:
AlexRocks = Fact wise - bluray was the inferior format when compared to HD-DVD, tech-wise. It had many features that BluRay didn't have early on. And HD-DVD lost out because studio support drifted to BluRay. The two formats had practically the same picture and sound output. I'm not going to argue with a Bluray supporter, but facts are facts.
Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!
Yara, you speak sense! Loved that big post cause it really puts things into perspective.
Adam.
AlexRocks = Fact wise - bluray was the inferior format when compared to HD-DVD, tech-wise. It had many features that BluRay didn't have early on. And HD-DVD lost out because studio support drifted to BluRay. The two formats had practically the same picture and sound output. I'm not going to argue with a Bluray supporter, but facts are facts.
Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!
Yara, you speak sense! Loved that big post cause it really puts things into perspective.
Adam.
You ARE Alexkx or whatever from that other forum.
Blu-Ray was NOT inferrior to HD-DVD specifically because of its storage capapbilities which was the whole point since day one and why it won the format war. You have been misinformed by the lies propogated by the media which usually originated from Microsoft. The whole point with Blu-Ray beyond that is that over time they will be able to increase the storage capablities far more than HD-DVD ever could. Again Blu-Ray has an incredible scratch resistance to it unlike HD-DVD. Why do you think Blu-Ray won the format war? Because people are mean? I'm afraid that's not how reality works.
Listen to me Alex... I want you to stop all this continued talk about bluray. Not because I personally can't stand you repeating it over and over again like a broken record, but because you might actually convince Brian (the obsessive freak he is).
The Queen back catalogue will benefit ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from Bluray.
The albums? They've had a million opportunities to release them as individual cd/dvd combinations as well as different box sets. It hasn't happened because QP doesn't want it to happen, and no new format is going to change that.
The rarities? Again, there's already been a chance to release them if QP were interested in the slightest, and a new format isn't going to change that.
The concerts? The ones filmed in the 70's are not going to look or sound any better than a dvd version would, no matter how many gigabytes of discs space you will get. Brian has already decided not to release any footage that isn't up to "dvd standards", so what do you think is going to happen with bluray?
Let's just recap what Queen items we're going to get with bluray:
New versions of the albums? - No
New anniversaty edition of ANATO? - Yes
New concerts? - No
Re-release of WWRY concert? - Yes
Box sets? - No
Archive material? - No
I'm sorry, but bluray is the ABSOLUTELY LAST thing I want Brian to get excited about!
The Queen back catalogue will benefit ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from Bluray.
The albums? They've had a million opportunities to release them as individual cd/dvd combinations as well as different box sets. It hasn't happened because QP doesn't want it to happen, and no new format is going to change that.
The rarities? Again, there's already been a chance to release them if QP were interested in the slightest, and a new format isn't going to change that.
The concerts? The ones filmed in the 70's are not going to look or sound any better than a dvd version would, no matter how many gigabytes of discs space you will get. Brian has already decided not to release any footage that isn't up to "dvd standards", so what do you think is going to happen with bluray?
Let's just recap what Queen items we're going to get with bluray:
New versions of the albums? - No
New anniversaty edition of ANATO? - Yes
New concerts? - No
Re-release of WWRY concert? - Yes
Box sets? - No
Archive material? - No
I'm sorry, but bluray is the ABSOLUTELY LAST thing I want Brian to get excited about!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]AlexRocks wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Blu-Ray was NOT inferrior to HD-DVD specifically because of its storage capapbilities which was the whole point since day one and why it won the format war. You have been misinformed by the lies propogated by the media which usually originated from Microsoft. The whole point with Blu-Ray beyond that is that over time they will be able to increase the storage capablities far more than HD-DVD ever could. Again Blu-Ray has an incredible scratch resistance to it unlike HD-DVD. Why do you think Blu-Ray won the format war? Because people are mean? I'm afraid that's not how reality works. [/QUOTE]
Although I love Blu-ray I don't really think these are the reasons that Blu-ray won.
If Queen were ever to release their rarities set on Blu-Ray I believe that it would also be available on another format too (CD). There is no way that they would ever release it on just Blu-Ray. I would imagine any possible release on Blu-Ray would be in addition to a CD set, certainly not the only format. What Neil Young is doing it great, but realistically at the present time it's not going to appeal to everybody.
Although I love Blu-ray I don't really think these are the reasons that Blu-ray won.
If Queen were ever to release their rarities set on Blu-Ray I believe that it would also be available on another format too (CD). There is no way that they would ever release it on just Blu-Ray. I would imagine any possible release on Blu-Ray would be in addition to a CD set, certainly not the only format. What Neil Young is doing it great, but realistically at the present time it's not going to appeal to everybody.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]PieterMC wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The players are very expensive. [/QUOTE]
True, but they are dropping in price. DVD players used to be very expensive too. I think that by the end of the year you will see Blu-ray players drop in price considerably. Personally after watching movies on Blu-Ray I just won't buy any movies on DVD again.[/QUOTE]
Likewise.
The only exception I made in the last year to buying a movie or concert release on DVD that I KNEW was already available on or going to be for Blu-ray, was "Queen Rocks Montreal".
True, but they are dropping in price. DVD players used to be very expensive too. I think that by the end of the year you will see Blu-ray players drop in price considerably. Personally after watching movies on Blu-Ray I just won't buy any movies on DVD again.[/QUOTE]
Likewise.
The only exception I made in the last year to buying a movie or concert release on DVD that I KNEW was already available on or going to be for Blu-ray, was "Queen Rocks Montreal".
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Let's get things straight:
AlexRocks = Fact wise - bluray was the inferior format when compared to HD-DVD, tech-wise. It had many features that BluRay didn't have early on. And HD-DVD lost out because studio support drifted to BluRay. The two formats had practically the same picture and sound output. I'm not going to argue with a Bluray supporter, but facts are facts.[/QUOTE]
This totally conflicts with your following sentence, since Blu-ray DOES have higher bitrates for video AND audio, even combined, than HD DVD ever permitted.
[QUOTE]Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien![/QUOTE]
You must be.
HD DVD's had the more negative reviews for PQ and also AQ. I really can't see how you can consider that making it superior to BD.
Also, nobody really gave a shit about iHD, or even BD-Java for that matter. That was never the main selling point of either format. Microsoft made sure though to have their online spin doctors make fun of BD for implementing those features later on to make it look the inferior, which obviously worked with certain people like you.
Sure Java is more complicated for developers, but who do you think charged the more money for their technology? *cough* M$ *cough*
There was a reason that most of the major studios were supporting Blu-ray from the start, even Paramount despite their temporary HD DVD exclusitivity which they admitted was resulting from a deal with Toshiba where they (Toshiba) compensated them "very well" to drop Blu-ray. Yet Paramount didn't even destroy their Blu-ray discs as part of that, cos they've already reshipped them to stores, or will be finished doing that by the end of this month in addition to releasing new titles.
Blu-ray had the superior advantage of higher bitrates for video and better audio support (HD DVD never supported PCM 5.1, have you noticed?), and to say they all should have gone with HD DVD is like saying that we all agree it's ok to compromise quality in exchange for *supposedly* cheaper pricing (HD DVD discs never had a huge price difference, especially here in Canada...they were always the same as Blu-ray, so now everyone realizes that was bullshit), and it is also much like how it would be OK in that sense to drop FLAC and support MP3 only.
It just doesn't work that way in the end.
AlexRocks = Fact wise - bluray was the inferior format when compared to HD-DVD, tech-wise. It had many features that BluRay didn't have early on. And HD-DVD lost out because studio support drifted to BluRay. The two formats had practically the same picture and sound output. I'm not going to argue with a Bluray supporter, but facts are facts.[/QUOTE]
This totally conflicts with your following sentence, since Blu-ray DOES have higher bitrates for video AND audio, even combined, than HD DVD ever permitted.
[QUOTE]Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien![/QUOTE]
You must be.
HD DVD's had the more negative reviews for PQ and also AQ. I really can't see how you can consider that making it superior to BD.
Also, nobody really gave a shit about iHD, or even BD-Java for that matter. That was never the main selling point of either format. Microsoft made sure though to have their online spin doctors make fun of BD for implementing those features later on to make it look the inferior, which obviously worked with certain people like you.
Sure Java is more complicated for developers, but who do you think charged the more money for their technology? *cough* M$ *cough*
There was a reason that most of the major studios were supporting Blu-ray from the start, even Paramount despite their temporary HD DVD exclusitivity which they admitted was resulting from a deal with Toshiba where they (Toshiba) compensated them "very well" to drop Blu-ray. Yet Paramount didn't even destroy their Blu-ray discs as part of that, cos they've already reshipped them to stores, or will be finished doing that by the end of this month in addition to releasing new titles.
Blu-ray had the superior advantage of higher bitrates for video and better audio support (HD DVD never supported PCM 5.1, have you noticed?), and to say they all should have gone with HD DVD is like saying that we all agree it's ok to compromise quality in exchange for *supposedly* cheaper pricing (HD DVD discs never had a huge price difference, especially here in Canada...they were always the same as Blu-ray, so now everyone realizes that was bullshit), and it is also much like how it would be OK in that sense to drop FLAC and support MP3 only.
It just doesn't work that way in the end.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!
[/QUOTE]
There was a study in the U.S where the result was that that DVD-A and SACD were essentially pointless as they were audibly no better than CD. Technically better yes, but the human ear cannot tell the difference - CD is as good as needed.
Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!
[/QUOTE]
There was a study in the U.S where the result was that that DVD-A and SACD were essentially pointless as they were audibly no better than CD. Technically better yes, but the human ear cannot tell the difference - CD is as good as needed.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Negative Creep wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!
[/QUOTE]
There was a study in the U.S where the result was that that DVD-A and SACD were essentially pointless as they were audibly no better than CD. Technically better yes, but the human ear cannot tell the difference - CD is as good as needed.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but whoever they are, "they're talkin from here!" Thanks Fred ;)
Even old Brian can hear the difference when he remarked that the DVD-A's of Queen's material sounded more like Vinyl than cd's.
I can also personally vouch for higher bitrates because I record at high rates all the time now. I used to record at 24/44 but when I switched to 24/96, the detail in the sound was incredible. I haven't looked back since. So hey, don't believe these studies all the time. Ask people who live and breathe this stuff, day in, day out. They're the ones who will truly know.
The only way I could describe it is this... I recorded rain and cars on my street. Listening back to a 24/44 recording, it was nice. But after trying out 24/96, it was my perception that the sound felt more real. One time I had my window open and had left the recording on playback. I actually thought I was listening to cars whizzing by my window!
As for all this bluray talk, I don't care. I don't have a PS3 and I like my dvd's fine. I ain't gettin into this any further.
Adam.
Neg Creep - Higher bitrates DO affect perception in humans. Either that or I'm an alien!
[/QUOTE]
There was a study in the U.S where the result was that that DVD-A and SACD were essentially pointless as they were audibly no better than CD. Technically better yes, but the human ear cannot tell the difference - CD is as good as needed.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but whoever they are, "they're talkin from here!" Thanks Fred ;)
Even old Brian can hear the difference when he remarked that the DVD-A's of Queen's material sounded more like Vinyl than cd's.
I can also personally vouch for higher bitrates because I record at high rates all the time now. I used to record at 24/44 but when I switched to 24/96, the detail in the sound was incredible. I haven't looked back since. So hey, don't believe these studies all the time. Ask people who live and breathe this stuff, day in, day out. They're the ones who will truly know.
The only way I could describe it is this... I recorded rain and cars on my street. Listening back to a 24/44 recording, it was nice. But after trying out 24/96, it was my perception that the sound felt more real. One time I had my window open and had left the recording on playback. I actually thought I was listening to cars whizzing by my window!
As for all this bluray talk, I don't care. I don't have a PS3 and I like my dvd's fine. I ain't gettin into this any further.
Adam.