Recommended Posts

On a serious note: Why do Sony/Panasonic insist of 'demonstrating' HD on SD channels? Yes, that looks great. But it's still SD. Essentially, unless the program makers change, and add all the particles and 'slow motion close ups' that there TV makers insist on advertising HD with, you're getting the same crap, but 6x more of it.

Seriously?

How about to promote HD to people using SD. SD customers are the potential future HD customers.

Not hard to understand, basic marketing.

you're getting the same crap, but 6x more of it.

And that's bad?

My GF gives me sex, I wouldn't complain about getting it 6x more :laugh:

From VHS to DVD :

1) Much better picture quality (from 330x480 to 720x480) and sound.

2) Smaller format (bulky tape to small disc).

3) No need to rewind the tape

4) No degradation of the quality over time, but don't scratch the disc!

5) Can jump forward/backward to scene

6) Super clean PAUSE, slow-motion, ...

7) More language on the same disc

8) Subtitle

9) From Stereo to Digital Sound, 5.1 or more, DTS.

10) Extra stuff.

11) Storage space limited to 9Gb

12) And probably more...

From DVD to Blu-Ray:

1) Better picture quality since more resolution (1920x1080)

2) Better sound from Dolby TruHD or DTS-HD, PCM uncompressed sound.

3) More storage space than DVD, limited to 50Gb

4) Some movie now have much better/nicer "Menu" handling, BD-Live for Extra stuff.

5) Some movies now come with digital download.

6) And probably more...?

I guess it's clear that DVD was a revolution for movies. They did cost more than VHS movies (in the beginning, when both where available), but offered ALLOT more, not just a better picture.

Blu-Ray is an evolution, to follow up with the advent of HDTV.

From VHS to DVD :

1) Much better picture quality (from 330x480 to 720x480) and sound.

2) Smaller format (bulky tape to small disc).

3) No need to rewind the tape

4) No degradation of the quality over time, but don't scratch the disc!

5) Can jump forward/backward to scene

6) Super clean PAUSE, slow-motion, ...

7) More language on the same disc

8) Subtitle

9) From Stereo to Digital Sound, 5.1 or more, DTS.

10) Extra stuff.

11) Storage space limited to 9Gb

12) And probably more...

From DVD to Blu-Ray:

1) Better picture quality since more resolution (1920x1080)

2) Better sound from Dolby TruHD or DTS-HD, PCM uncompressed sound.

3) More storage space than DVD, limited to 50Gb

4) Some movie now have much better/nicer "Menu" handling, BD-Live for Extra stuff.

5) Some movies now come with digital download.

6) And probably more...?

I guess it's clear that DVD was a revolution for movies. They did cost more than VHS movies (in the beginning, when both where available), but offered ALLOT more, not just a better picture.

Blu-Ray is an evolution, to follow up with the advent of HDTV.

Maybe the difference between DVD and VHS is Bigger, BUT Blu-ray/HD CAN be 6X Better than DVD and offers many new Technologies over SD DVD too.

Let me put it this way -

VHS You see a VERY VERY VERY Unclear picture

DVD You see a Much better picture, but still Blurry you can clearly tell it's not real

HD You see a MUCH Sharper, Crisp image that is almost like seeing the Real thing!

So, to the Most Hardcore Movie freaks like myself, those new features ARE VERY IMPORTANT too!!!

Maybe the difference between DVD and VHS is Bigger, BUT Blu-ray/HD CAN be 6X Better than DVD and offers many new Technologies over SD DVD too.

Let me put it this way -

VHS You see a VERY VERY VERY Unclear picture

DVD You see a Much better picture, but still Blurry

HD You see a MUCH Sharper, Crisp image that is almost like seeing the Real thing!

So, to the Most Hardcore Movie freaks like myself, those new features ARE VERY IMPORTANT too!!!

I do understand, but it's still only about 6X better picture. People don't care about MPEG2 or VC1 or Profile 1.x/2.x or whatever better technologies behind Blu-Ray.

Blu-Ray are NOT more convenient than DVD. They don't offer anything "more" except maybe for BD-Live. Since most people don't even take the time to watch the extra stuff on DVD, I wonder if BD-Live will be a huge seller.

Again, all this is from the perspective of casual/normal consumers (and they are the majority).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have they looked at the release schedules? back catalogue titles are comign in thick and fast, as well as nearly every new dvd release has a BD release the same day.

Fail article

Just because it not biting DVD much, doesn't mean its gonna fail. for the first few years, VHS outsold DVD. Just history repeating itself.

Exactly. And I don't see streaming movies over the Internet hurting Blu-Ray much either; there's still plenty of us who like having a *disk* so you can watch it whenever and wherever you wish, and not be dependent on an Internet connection.

2-3 hours. Some could download that much even in less time. If you could stream it as well, then it would be smooth to watch right away. So why not.

I hate streaming video of any kind. Nothing annoys me more than watching something only to have it stop and rebuild the buffer because there was a slowdown somewhere and the video caught up. But that is me and my opinion.

I don't see Blu-Ray getting beat by HD downloads any time soon in the UK. Our broadband speeds are mediocre compared to the rest of the world and our ISP's seems to be enforcing strict bandwidth caps.

Then there's the inevitable mish mash of service providers. If I got my HD downloaded movie download from service A, what happens when I move to service B? Can I keep my purchase? Will it contain DRM, or be in a format unique to each service? What happens if my hard disk dies, can I download my library again? How many times? Can I watch my movies around a friends?

With a physical BD disc I know it will work in any BD player. I know when I'm done with it I can sell it or lend it to friends or family. I know I can pick up a movie while I'm doing my shopping, then come home and watch it immediately. With a digital download I'd be waiting a while

But more importantly than any of this, which one willl look awesome on my book case? :p

The the same reason why I don't think physical media will be taken over by digital download.

Why are you telling me stuff I KNOW?

I KNOW that, that's why there ARE actually some $10-$15 Blu-rays ALL the time! The same movie on SD is not expensive like $15 either. So it's ALL related!

BUT are customer complaining about those or those $25+ ones?

My MAIN point is, if you want to see a movie (For example: Iron Man) on Blu-ray for $17.99, then the SD version should drop Under $10 FIRST!

Now why the hell would the movie studios do that. Jedi, don't you understand the studios are trying to make their $ back in it's first release week? $10 for a DVD copy of Hulk won't do that.

People say - I don't see the point of getting BRD when DVD does the job pretty well. VHS did the job pretty well too but DVD is better......just like BRD is better than DVD. The difference is quite noticeable with a HDTV of course.

I spent $6000 on my 61" LCD 4 years ago........everyone was like why do you need spend so much for a TV that size when a 50" could the same job for less? All my friends that watched my 61" once, had a tought time going back to their smaller TV.

I guess the point I'm making is that, of course you pay a premium for anything better but you will enjoy it so much more. I can't go back to DVDs after watching BRD - it's like going to VHS from DVD. If you can afford it go for it - it's money well spent if you consider it an investment. An analogy is saying BRD is a Ferrari and DVD is a GTR. Sure you can modify a GTR to get it close to Ferrari performance- just like you can upconvert DVD - but really is it going to be as good as a Ferrari in reality?

People say - I don't see the point of getting BRD when DVD does the job pretty well. VHS did the job pretty well too but DVD is better......just like BRD is better than DVD. The difference is quite noticeable with a HDTV of course.

I spent $6000 on my 61" LCD 4 years ago........everyone was like why do you need spend so much for a TV that size when a 50" could the same job for less? All my friends that watched my 61" once, had a tought time going back to their smaller TV.

I guess the point I'm making is that, of course you pay a premium for anything better but you will enjoy it so much more. I can't go back to DVDs after watching BRD - it's like going to VHS from DVD. If you can afford it go for it - it's money well spent if you consider it an investment. An analogy is saying BRD is a Ferrari and DVD is a GTR. Sure you can modify a GTR to get it close to Ferrari performance- just like you can upconvert DVD - but really is it going to be as good as a Ferrari in reality?

I think the main reason why people think that Blu-ray might be dead is because people aren?t jumping at Blu-ray the same way they did with DVDs. And I think the problem is price. DVD prices went down really fast. Prices of DVD players and DVDs fell dramatically after a few years DVDs came out. It?s now a few years since Blu-ray came out and the prices of Blu-ray players and BDs are still quite high. Put that together with the financial crisis we?re having, it?s going to take a while for everyone to switch to Blu-ray. But like I said, once prices do eventually fall and more people buy HDTVs, Blu-ray will become a HUGE success, but it will just take time.

Seriously?

How about to promote HD to people using SD. SD customers are the potential future HD customers.

Not hard to understand, basic marketing.

And that's bad?

My GF gives me sex, I wouldn't complain about getting it 6x more :laugh:

What I mean is, why do they try to demonstrate? It just proves SD is pretty decent if you had decent stuff to put on it.

And are you saying your gf is bad at sex?

What I mean is, why do they try to demonstrate? It just proves SD is pretty decent if you had decent stuff to put on it.

Common sense, they're trying as best they can to promote that HD gives you better picture quality than SD, while broadcasting in SD.

So they do high focus, zoomed in images, over vibrant colours, slow motion and all the other tricks to bring out as much detail as they can in SD.

And are you saying your gf is bad at sex?

No, I'm saying I wouldn't turn down sex 6 more times if she offered it.

It light humor anyway, thanks for taking it seriously.

In my opinion we need an alternative to both discs and digital downloads. People like having what they own, and today a purchase is becoming more and more a lease rather than an actual buy (especially with DRM and proprietary players/codecs in downloads). I will say this again and truly believe it to be true: Flash and/or SD is where we should head. Even those UMD disks that Sony put out were better than Blu-Ray because they did what is needed more than storage space: take up less space and create a more durable media. Compression methods are getting better and better alongside the ability to pack more and more information into smaller packages. Flash and SD cards are expensive, but a much safer and more compact way to store this stuff.

How many of you would buy more movies and games if they took little more space than your thumb? Add in peripherals such as cases which allow you to not only store but play the media directly from the case and you have a gold mine. Start this off and soon making them manufacturable would cut their prices significantly. You could also cut down the size of players and put them in all TV's as a standard.

As great as it sounds, these cards today for the equivalent space of a single layer DVD are probably 30x the price, so this is still a bit of a distant solution. At least we would solve both the problem of space, quality, and the need to have something tangible. Not to mention you could count on your SD/Flash cards to keep working and not get scratched and stained to death.

Aside from that, the only other possibility is digital downloads. So far the only thing close to the correct concept of online media that I have seen is Steam and X-Box Live. One of the best things about the way Microsoft does things on the XB is through the gamertag's ability to recover content on any console. So if you, say, lose a hard drive, then you can simply recover your account on another system or after that system is fixed and get all the stuff you payed for again with the only cost being some download time. Steam also does this.

One of the things that does annoy me tough about both is their restrictions. XBL Arcade games revert back to their demo versions when not signed into XBL, and Steam won't even let you run the game if you aren't hooked up to an internet connection.

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
      455
    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!