Recommended Posts

I just wish the price of the movies would come down. I picked up a player a few weeks ago for $300 and I'm happy with that. I went browsing through the movies at the local Best Buy and most are set at $29.95 or more. They're on sale for $24.95 for the first few days and then get jacked up again. I know everyone is trying to capitalize, but with DVDs still on the shelves, the distributors have got to make it worth my while to pick up the BluRay instead. They're price gouging themselves into oblivion.

I just wish the price of the movies would come down. I picked up a player a few weeks ago for $300 and I'm happy with that. I went browsing through the movies at the local Best Buy and most are set at $29.95 or more. They're on sale for $24.95 for the first few days and then get jacked up again. I know everyone is trying to capitalize, but with DVDs still on the shelves, the distributors have got to make it worth my while to pick up the BluRay instead. They're price gouging themselves into oblivion.

thats what got us in the credit crunch business. Greed.

*SIGH*

The REAL problem is exactly people are NOT letting DVD go!!! They think it's cheaper, but quality is now really bad! $16 for 480p Quality? I RATHER have a 6x Better quality for $10 more!!!

You CAN'T have a Cheap Blu-Ray right now, with still Expensive DVDs customers still Embracing Ignorantly!!!

It's just LOGIC and Common Sense man! (They can NOT be the same price, or close, and Never will with such difference in Quality!) Customer NEED to stop embracing SD DVDs, and then DEMAND Blu-ray prices to drop, then it will! :|

Edited by JediXAngel
I've never watched a movie via a Blu-Ray disk. I find it obserd to pay $45+ for a movie simply to get a little better quality. DVD's work fine for me and my family :).

$45+?? where are you getting those numbers from? even in retail stores theyre like $29.99, unless you go to the mall in those smaller stores where theyre a ridiculous $39.99.

i've never once paid more than $20 any HD DVD or Blu-ray movie i own. you have to be crafty and buy them during special sales or on ebay...

*SIGH*

The REAL problem is exactly people are NOT letting DVD go!!! They think it's cheaper, but quality is now really bad! $16 for 480p Quality? I RATHER have a 6x Better quality for $10 more!!!

You CAN'T have a Cheap Blu-Ray right now, with still Expensive DVDs customers still Embracing Ignorantly!!!

It's just LOGIC and Common Sense man! :|

ROFL

quality is NOW really bad? why? did someone go around and scratch all the DVDs in stores?

upscaling too much hassle?

to be honest BR quality is better, yes, but prices dont reflect the increment in quality at all, unless you're an enthusiast.

Where are you guys purchasing Blu-Ray movies for 45? I get them all for 29 at wal-mart unless it's a special boxed version. Every new movie (last few months) that I have purchased has come with a Digital DVD backup copy which I find very nice...

Digital downloads work great for music and lower quality movies, but until everyone is on fibre I don't see how downloading HD movies works... A vast majority of the united states is only on DSL/Cable granted that is fast, but not nearly the speeds you would want downloading such a large file... I hate downloading 4GB ISO and playing COD4 online.. just doesn't work at times..

Another great reason I love Blu-Ray movies is that my kids (under 5) can easily load up a movie and not SCRATCH it, unlike DVD. I can't tell you how many times I had to reburn a DVD (from backup) that they destoryed...

I like the ability to download content vs having to buy the full price for some crap I don't always need, but with the fact of it being bundled with a digital copy now, makes me sway my vote.

Where are you guys purchasing Blu-Ray movies for 45? I get them all for 29 at wal-mart unless it's a special boxed version. Every new movie (last few months) that I have purchased has come with a Digital DVD backup copy which I find very nice...

And I get Most for FREE-$25 :)

I have a hard time seeing the difference between a proper upscaled DVD and a BR/HD-DVD disc on my 42" Pioneer, so I'm not paying almost double for the same movie.

That is such a... you know what? I am not going to insult you just ... :no: Just look at these pictures...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1070952

You tell me if it's even CLOSE!!!

And I get Most for FREE-$25 :)

That is such a... you know what? I am not going to insult you just ... :no: Just look at these pictures...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1070952

You tell me if it's even CLOSE!!!

so.. you get them for free or 25$? and statistically you would represent what ... 0.001% of movie buyers?

.. besides, if the difference was SOO much,people would flock to the upgrade. wonder why they dont.

evidently they dont see the benefit versus the cost, me thinks.

Hahaha, oh please, upscaled DVDs look nothing like that unless you downloaded a DVD rip :rolleyes:

never said they do, but with an upscaling DVD being 29euro and positioning quality between SD and HD... i still think its the alternative the majority of people is going for these days.

And I get Most for FREE-$25 :)

That is such a... you know what? I am not going to insult you just ... :no: Just look at these pictures...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1070952

You tell me if it's even CLOSE!!!

I agree with you to a point. I first saw those comparisons on this 24 inch monitor at a resolution of 1920 by 1200. You could defiantly tell the difference.

Then I was going to show my parents. They were sitting on the couch in front of my 42 720P TV. So I pulled them up on the TV with a resolution of 1280 by 720. I pulled them up and I was surprised. I could of swarn they looked a lot better when I saw them the first time. I mean the Blu-Ray picture did look sharper. So I think it depends on your resolution. The guy with the 42 inch really might not of seen that much difference. I think to really see the difference you have to go with a bigger TV 50+

so.. you get them for free or 25$? and statistically you would represent what ... 0.001% of movie buyers?

.. besides, if the difference was SOO much,people would flock to the upgrade. wonder why they dont.

evidently they dont see the benefit versus the cost, me thinks.

But only 1/4 of americans have even adopted HD in their homes so far... I do agree, most ppl are not going to purchase blu-ray at a high price right now, but that will change once everyone gets used to full HD content all the time. Half the broadcasts on TV are not all HD all the time, so I can't expect ppl to want HD or see an advantage when they don't have it thrown in their face all the time.

I agree with you to a point. I first saw those comparisons on this 24 inch monitor at a resolution of 1920 by 1200. You could defiantly tell the difference.

Then I was going to show my parents. They were sitting on the couch in front of my 42 720P TV. So I pulled them up on the TV with a resolution of 1280 by 720. I pulled them up and I was surprised. I could of swarn they looked a lot better when I saw them the first time. I mean the Blu-Ray picture did look sharper. So I think it depends on your resolution. The guy with the 42 inch really might not of seen that much difference. I think to really see the difference you have to go with a bigger TV 50+

Thank you.

The way the resolution is handled on the TV is very different from a PC monitor, hence why most comparisons are null and void because people just run the movies in VLC players and take a screenshot, here the difference is enormous due to PC monitors rely so much on native resolutions and lack proper upscaling.

A TV handles video sources so much better, specially in the upscaling department. Yes HD sources look great on my HD-Ready TV but an upscaled DVD doesn't look to shabby either.

On my PC monitor the difference between SD and HD is huge but on my TV the difference is tiny.

By the way, I'm talking 720p here, NOT 1080p in case anyone wonders.

Why is it so hard for people to understand that 720x480 is lower quality than 1920x1080? It's 6X more pixels.

Upscaling a DVD to 1080p is like going into Photoshop and doing a rescale of a 720x480 picture to 1920x1080. It's only better because it fits the native resolution of HDTV, but you don't get any new information. It's more pixels with filters and sharpening, nothing else. You can't have what's not there to begin with.

And lets not go on and on about compression ratio and bitrate. We all know that Internet download or streaming use aggressive compression and low bitrate and most are 720p max. So again, FAR from the quality found on a Blu-Ray disc.

NOW, the one and only problem with Blu-Ray is the cost. Cost of the player and movies. Unless it's now too hard to handle a physical media because we deal with a bunch of lazy people.....

Thank you.

The way the resolution is handled on the TV is very different from a PC monitor, hence why most comparisons are null and void because people just run the movies in VLC players and take a screenshot, here the difference is enormous due to PC monitors rely so much on native resolutions and lack proper upscaling.

A TV handles video sources so much better, specially in the upscaling department. Yes HD sources look great on my HD-Ready TV but an upscaled DVD doesn't look to shabby either.

On my PC monitor the difference between SD and HD is huge but on my TV the difference is tiny.

I agree, I enjoy upscaled DVDs from redbox on my PS3, but after I watch a Blu-Ray movie and pop in one of the kids DVD's it does look significantly different only because my eyes become acute to the higher quality... Now when I wait a few and watch another upscaled it's not to bad... But again this goes to my point, once HD because a standard on TV as it is, ppl may respect the higher quality, and it should be cheaper by then...

on a side note Even HDTV from comast doesn't have the same effect as Blu-Ray at times...

For me, I get my HD movies from premium channels and pay-pre-view. I have very little desire to watch a movie more than once. Frankly, the higher resolution doesn't help me enjoy the movie any more. The differences between VHS and DVD were like night and day. The differences between DVD and Bluray are pretty marginal to Joe the plummer.

Digitial Distribution over Blu Ray is dumb. Anyone who really cares about quality knows this. If you just like the bigger picture and nicer audio, sure its good enough, but the real quality obsessive people will want Blu Ray or until its successor comes. There's just too much compression done with digital downloads and digital cable boxes ect. Blu Ray is the only way to get the absolute best quality. So no its not dead, I buy Blu Ray movies all the time and rip them onto my mac (gotta use windows to do it though :angry:)

But for the sake of the argument, most people are perfectly happy with compressed HD, as few people are as obsessive as myself. Blu Ray will eventually die, but only to be replaced by a non disc format. Digital Downloads won't go away, and thats good, but I'll always opt for buying my HD movies/shows physically then overtheair. I hate discs as much as the next guy so I just rip em and then store the originals in my closet. :)

Also Shadrack, it depends on what your watching it on and what movie it is. Older movies I agree not a big impact, but newer ones meant for HD do look exceptional, but importantly all look much nicer on a large screen, the bottom line is the smaller it is, the more stretching required. Less stretching, better picture. But on a 20-40" screen you probably won't notice a massive difference between dvd to blu ray, but when you start getting into the 60-70" you really do.

Digitial Distribution over Blu Ray is dumb. Anyone who really cares about quality knows this. If you just like the bigger picture and nicer audio, sure its good enough, but the real quality obsessive people will want Blu Ray or until its successor comes. There's just too much compression done with digital downloads and digital cable boxes ect. Blu Ray is the only way to get the absolute best quality. So no its not dead, I buy Blu Ray movies all the time and rip them onto my mac (gotta use windows to do it though :angry:)

But for the sake of the argument, most people are perfectly happy with compressed HD, as few people are as obsessive as myself. Blu Ray will eventually die, but only to be replaced by a non disc format. Digital Downloads won't go away, and thats good, but I'll always opt for buying my HD movies/shows physically then overtheair. I hate discs as much as the next guy so I just rip em and then store the originals in my closet. :)

Also Shadrack, it depends on what your watching it on and what movie it is. Older movies I agree not a big impact, but newer ones meant for HD do look exceptional, but importantly all look much nicer on a large screen, the bottom line is the smaller it is, the more stretching required. Less stretching, better picture. But on a 20-40" screen you probably won't notice a massive difference between dvd to blu ray, but when you start getting into the 60-70" you really do.

and that 60-70" HDTV will set you off how much exactly in good old Europe??

am i the only one on the continent that doesnt see himself being able to afford one before 5 or 6 years, when a 37" (and not a great one at that) is still around 1000euro?

For me, I get my HD movies from premium channels and pay-pre-view. I have very little desire to watch a movie more than once. Frankly, the higher resolution doesn't help me enjoy the movie any more. The differences between VHS and DVD were like night and day. The differences between DVD and Bluray are pretty marginal to Joe the plummer.

Night and Day to me!!!

3a680e66.png

7b09a10b.png

Even on a 32" it's still clearly noticeable! You don't notice it, then you really MUST have eye sight issues!!!

You don't have a good eyesight does NOT mean that these HD resolution aren't Day & Night VS DVD!

DVD resolution, now it's blurry and out of focus. Blu-ray (HD) so Sharp and Crisp (Again, even on a 32 inch)!!!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!