# Is anyone tired of blu ray?



## Earthtime:3978 (Jan 13, 2012)

Oh yeah, sometimes blu ray is astonishing, often times it is not though. I see a dime a dozen processing going on and I'm not happy with it. But on a different point. Would you want more options? I mean a film-like presentation that avoids compression. Think film minus digital.:yikes:


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

With 4K video starting to be produced the image quality will get even better. With all the space available on the disks Im surprised that they still dont include an edited version of movies with alot of language and sex. That was one of the things that was said to have been included on DVDs when they first came out but that never happened.


----------



## phreak (Aug 16, 2010)

I just picked up Crank on BluRay for $5. Haven't watched if yet, but I noticed that one of the options on the disc is a family friendly audio track with the swearing omitted. Features like that can make use of some of the empty space on the disc.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

phreak said:


> I just picked up Crank on BluRay for $5. Haven't watched if yet, but I noticed that one of the options on the disc is a family friendly audio track with the swearing omitted.


Really! thats very interesting. I have not come across that on a movie before. Good to know.


----------



## Earthtime:3978 (Jan 13, 2012)

:sn::snigital video images for cameras or games is great (still like film for cameras). I can't say an even higher digtal resolution is high on my list. I like a film to look like a film, not some high tech game. Laserdisc was on the right track. Although there was some , many discs on the right player and monitor put you right in a theatre. Check out hig def analog for the real deal. It will cost you though. Japan had Muse laserdisc players that needed a decoder. 

If todays technology could be applied to Muse, or a variation of that, it would be staggering. I also have been long tired of plastic boxes that remind me of a kids toy. Laserdisc had some great artwork and large font to read backstorys and the like. We are digitally saturated at this point and it will continue for years to come. But, at some point film lovers will demand an alternative. 20 years from now laserdisc in some way will return. Things have a way of coming around (again).


----------



## KalaniP (Dec 17, 2008)

I doubt it. Digital has surpassed analog in nearly every way, at this point, and is easier to work with. All signal flows are moving to digital at this point (think HDMI-only stereo systems which are getting more and more common), which will make it even harder to bring back analog devices. And even the movies are being shot directly on digital, which has reached the point where it is both less expensive to work with than film and easier to manipulate. There are still a very few drawbacks compared to film, but with each new generation of professional cameras, there are fewer and fewer drawbacks compared to film, and more and more advantages. (especially in post)

There are bad blu rays out there to be sure, but are you saying there were never any bad LD's made? I'm sure there are plenty of examples of things done right on each side of the digital divide, and condemning all blu rays based on some bad apples is doing a disservice.

I understand the longing, in some ways, and everyone is entitled to their personal preference, my main point is I really don't see a return to analog in our future. Just ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Earthtime:3978 (Jan 13, 2012)

KalaniP-
Of course ALL things won't return to analog, that's just silly. We are discussing the home video market and watching blu ray movies. Saying that the newest version of high resolution is not high on my list is far from "condeming" all blu ray. We all know there are poor transfers on every format and laserdisc was a big culprit in that area. However, when it's done right , it looks great. My point is options. You can listen to music on CDs, MP3s, IPODs etc.. It's all digital though. But guess what, I have the option to go non-digital when listening to music. I can take out an old vinyl record from 20 years ago and play it on, get this, a brand new turntable.

If I told you there will be new turntables (and new LPs!) during the onslaught of CD in the early 80s you would say what? "I doubt it?" Probably. Granted, vinyl was a long part of our culture but never the less it is a relatively archaic form of transport. But it works, and people rightfully love it. Analog is a different sound. 20, 30 or even 40 years from now the desire to see a film in it's raw form may bring us back to a purest time as well. I hope so. Because digital IS NOT the beginning and end all. Right now laserdisc offers you the smoothness of film, but I admit it could stand to be perfected. That's why I mentioned MUSE, analog HD. 

Again, analog will certainly not replace digital for home theatre but it will be a viable option.onder:


----------



## KalaniP (Dec 17, 2008)

Vinyl will be around for as long as the enthusiasts keep a market for it, but I still see that market shrinking every day. At some point, as alternative tools improve, and as the the small but vocal community shrinks (as the older generations pass away, if nothing else), I can easily see the labels deciding it's not worth pressing vinyl anymore.

As for the rest, I WAS speaking of the home video market when I said it would not return to analog. Give it another 10 years, and that many fewer people will even know what analog connections are... and their home video receivers and televisions won't even have the jacks anymore. That's what I was referring to by it getting harder and harder every day to reverse the trend. Unless you want to digitize the analog data before sending it to your AVR and TV? Seems like a step back, and needlessly complex. But the analog inputs needed to output your analog signal are disappearing rapidly. And TVs are no longer analog, either... it's all about fixed-pixel digital displays, so no matter what your analog material is going to need to be digitized at some step in the chain.

Even today, you have to buy a fairly high end receiver to get a full set of analog inputs. And there are TVs on the market that have no inputs other than HDMI. Like it or not, this is the direction I see things moving.

(personally, I don't really like it, but I don't expect to get my way in this)


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

I love blu-ray but it seems to me that alot of movies are just being thrown on blu-ray without any video or audio enhancments.:dontknow:


----------



## Earthtime:3978 (Jan 13, 2012)

Digital has surpassed analog now. That's the key word, now. We are not living in a technologically permanent society. Many high end amps and receivers have phono inputs for a reason. As a matter of fact, receivers that had long discontinued phono inputs now have them. Everything points digital ,your right, and no doubt there will be a continual effort to improve upon that. None of this stops the potential for analog's future.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

Earthtime:3978 said:


> .. None of this stops the potential for analog's future.


Are you thinking people will want movies to go back to being filmed on analog?
Or are you thinking people will want a way to watch digital movies on an analog display?
Or both?
I still have an analog display (CRT RPTV) and love it. But the quality and advantages of digital displays are rising fast.

As far as music is concerned, I think high resolution digital audio has much greater potential over analog (vinyl).

Oh, and to answer the thread question... no, I'm not tired of Blu ray yet, I don't need any other analog/digital medium. I think it looks and sounds awesome when the content has been processed properly.
Also I never did get into the nitty gritty about Laser Disc so I don't know if a properly produced Blu ray would be better than a properly produced Laser Disc, or the other way around...interesting.


----------



## Earthtime:3978 (Jan 13, 2012)

Most movies are shot on high grade film, and are just that, film, but that is rapidly changing. I guess that will change entirely one day. Some directors swear by film only. As to home video, lots of people watch analog movies, that is why laserdisc still has a strong following. You CAN watch an analog movie on a digital display, although it may not be the best choice with some models.

In the future though, displays may have alternate inputs or switching specifically designed to watch analog at it's maximum. Watching a good laserdisc on a high end CRT is awesome. Hi def analog will take root (again) one day as an option for home theatre enthusiasts. I'm not a blu ray basher, but I'm not alone in saying that sometimes you want to get away from that highly digitalized look and get back to a smooth look and open colors that non-compression brings.:clap:


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

No Im not tired of blu ray. Because quality is inconsistent I will admit that I am more picky and tend to check reviews before owning (it might just get a Netflix rent if it didnt review well) but I continue to be wowed by either audio, video, or both on a fairly regular basis. An individual's impressions of blu ray are greatly dependent on the rig, front projection guys will likely be more appreciative of all the video resolution and color increases they can get, whereas owners of accurate and powerful sound systems are more likely to appreciate the increased audio resolution and dynamics. My system is nothing spectacular but a _well mastered_ blu ray is epic in my little theater, no other medium drops my jaw quite like a good blu ray does.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I 100% agree ^^

There is no better form of media that looks or sounds like BluRay I have to still admit I wish HD DVD would have won but Blu is here to stay and its worth every penny in my opinion.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

Earthtime:3978 said:


> ..Hi def analog will take root (again) one day as an option for home theatre enthusiasts.


I've looked at some LaserDisc stats and it is nowhere near what I would call hi def for either video or audio.
LD video lines of resolution is up to a max of 425. Blu ray resolution is much, much higher. (I understand there was a very limited hi def version of LD that used MUSE compression (notice the word 'compression')). 
LD video SNR is approximately 50-70. Blu ray is better.
LD video has noticeable distortion such as crosshatching due to NTSC and other factors (not to mention LD's S-video connection is subpar to using component or HDMI connection). Blu ray has varying degrees of distortion depending on video codec.
LD is generally said to have a softer picture than DVD/Blu ray.
LD audio can have 2 channels of hi res analog audio (VCR quality), and 2 channels of PCM, and may have old style Dolby Digital/DTS. Blu ray can have multiple channels of hi res uncompressed digital audio.

Blu Ray looks better to me.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I know many people want to hang on to the way things were / are but is 24 frames per second really worth hanging on to ???

You got to remember that every advance goes through this.... talkies, color,widescreen (multiple iterations), stereo, multi-channel sound.... 

There are still those that sing the praises of the old tech but for most its just something to smile at when you see it.

As far as I am concerned the quicker the flicker goes by the wayside the better.


----------



## Earthtime:3978 (Jan 13, 2012)

Remember it is the "older" technology that brings us to where we are today. And the idea that that older technology was BETTER than our current was NEVER my point. Future old school options and the desire to see home entertainment viewed alternatively should be embraced. You can only get a good chuckle from those who see things as always remaining the same.


----------



## Earthtime:3978 (Jan 13, 2012)

gdstupak said:


> I've looked at some LaserDisc stats and it is nowhere near what I would call hi def for either video or audio.


My friend, I wasn't speaking of standard laserdisc as hig def. I was talking about MUSE, which is hi-def analog. It was on two Japanese players, the HLD-X9 and HLD-XO. I know the stats on laserdisc. I'm not saying laserdisc is better than blu ray. It's another way of watching films. 

The blu ray audio is a higher bit rate but with laserdisc is just a different sound. It's uncompressed digital audio that has nice fullness to it. It's a matter of preference. Enjoy all things.


----------



## CatBrat (May 20, 2010)

I for 1 enjoy my blu-rays a lot more than the DVD's. Sometime's there's no or very little difference, but overall I'm impressed with the enhanced video and audio presentation.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

Earthtime:3978 said:


> I'm not a blu ray basher, but I'm not alone in saying that sometimes you want to get away from that highly digitalized look and get back to a smooth look and open colors that non-compression brings.


I did put a note in my earlier reply about there being a rare hi def version of Laser Disc (Muse), but I also noted that it is also a compressed format similar to what you like to say is wrong with Blu ray.
I understand that you've never directly said that Laser Disc or other analog sources do not have the compression artifacts of Blu ray, but it does seem inferenced.


----------



## 86eldel68-deactivated (Nov 30, 2010)

> Is anyone tired of blu ray?


I'm not.


----------



## Earthtime:3978 (Jan 13, 2012)

gdstupak said:


> I did put a note in my earlier reply about there being a rare hi def version of Laser Disc (Muse), but I also noted that it is also a compressed format similar to what you like to say is wrong with Blu ray.
> I understand that you've never directly said that Laser Disc or other analog sources do not have the compression artifacts of Blu ray, but it does seem inferenced.


 Most of the time when I write about non-compression I'm addressing the audio of laserdisc. I did talk about connecting compression to color which is why you understandably got the inference I wasn't intending. Laserdisc has many flaws. I do like to bring it up from time to time though because it can keep us interested in a time when film truly looked like film.


----------



## hgoed (Mar 22, 2010)

Most of the purchases I make are for gifts as I prefer to rent and move on, so I haven't been that interested in the extras on the disc. It might be frustrating to pay extra for something with nothing added. That said, even if the video wasn't better, I've never seen a BluRay that was worse. I'm not sick of them...it'll actually be nice when DVDs fade away, so there won't be a market for lower resolution content.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

hgoed said:


> ... so I haven't been that interested in the extras on the disc.


Extras on Blu ray isn't what the OP is asking about.
The OP is wanting the option to be able to watch movies on other media such as Laser Disc, video tape, film projector, or some other new form of hi def analog media. Something that gets away from the digital format.


----------



## amythompson172 (Jan 16, 2012)

Simply put: No. They are almost as cheap as DVD's and twice the quality. I will take Blu-Ray forever up until other options come into play... It depends on the price and the upgrade, but thats how I feel!


----------



## hgoed (Mar 22, 2010)

I understand the OP didn't mention extras, but other posters did.
Re the desire for uncompressed media--that's all just in the perception of what compression is. Any media is compressed to the size of the receptors resolution. 

Regardless of the impractical size of a file that perfectly records the full range of sounds/reflections or of an image that has all lightwave patterns recorded, one is still limited by the transducer technology and somebody has to make an informed guess as where to compromise. 

I didn't touch that part of the discussion, because I've seen steady improvement over the last 30 years and I cant afford to participate in car chases or gunfights just to experience a plot in the highest fidelity possible.


----------



## KalaniP (Dec 17, 2008)

hgoed said:


> I cant afford to participate in car chases or gunfights just to experience a plot in the highest fidelity possible.


Party pooper. :neener:


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

I do appreciate the quality of Blu-ray but find the discs too temperamental to enjoy. Maybe it's my Oppo BDP-80 (that stinks BTW), but the BD is so sensitive the defects that rentals are a total frustration! My Oppo freezes constantly! The HTPC does a better job for the time being. When a disc does play through it is great. However, my wife and I agree that a good upconverted DVD is the preferred choice in most movies.


----------



## KalaniP (Dec 17, 2008)

vann_d said:


> I do appreciate the quality of Blu-ray but find the discs too temperamental to enjoy. Maybe it's my Oppo BDP-80 (that sucks BTW), but the BD is so sensitive the defects that rentals are a total frustration! My Oppo freezes constantly! The HTPC does a better job for the time being. When a disc does play through it is great. However, my wife and I agree that a good upconverted DVD is the preferred choice in most movies.


Sounds like a bad player (which should be read as "player gone bad" since Oppos are usually pretty good) more than anything else. I've only ever had one rental disc refuse to play in my old Panny BR player (BD35 that's slower than dirt but works with everything and just won't die!). I rent BR discs from Netflix, blockbuster (online mail in and local stores both) and two local independent shops, and never had an issue. Ditto for my slighter newer (but nowhere near high end) Sony BR player. Neither cost more than $150, IIRC, so hardly anything special.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

KalaniP said:


> Sounds like a bad player (which should be read as "player gone bad" since Oppos are usually pretty good) more than anything else. I've only ever had one rental disc refuse to play in my old Panny BR player (BD35 that's slower than dirt but works with everything and just won't die!). I rent BR discs from Netflix, blockbuster (online mail in and local stores both) and two local independent shops, and never had an issue. Ditto for my slighter newer (but nowhere near high end) Sony BR player. Neither cost more than $150, IIRC, so hardly anything special.



Yes, unfortunately it player gone bad I think. I've sent it in for repairs once already and am going to be sending it back a second time shortly.


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

In my experience a poor blu-ray encode is still miles better than the alternatives (mediocre streaming encodes, good PPV ecnodes great DVD encodes)


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

GranteedEV said:


> In my experience a poor blu-ray encode is still miles better than the alternatives (mediocre streaming encodes, good PPV ecnodes great DVD encodes)


What tires me (and it is not just this format) is the constant whinging about grain, scrubbing of said grain or floating grain. For me, HD is about not only faithfully presenting the picture, but also about clarity. Yes I understand that some directors choose film stock that will deliver a grainy image in the name of art, but to add 'floating grain' digitally to a relatively clean image is just silly IMO. 

When I look out a window, I don't see grain. Why does it have to be there? In many cases, it seems soften the finer detail, so why is good?


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

Mark Techer said:


> Yes I understand that some directors choose film stock that will deliver a grainy image in the name of art, but to add 'floating grain' digitally to a relatively clean image is just silly IMO.


+1
I'll go a step further and mention that I hate anything done artsy-fartsy to an image. When I watch any type of movie, I want to see natural colors, natural lighting, natural contrast. I accept some artistic license under certain circumstances to show different events inside a movie (i.e. different timelines, different realities), but many movies make the visual changes much too drastic for my tastes.

I know this comment is off topic but I saw the opportunity and just had to voice my opinion.


----------



## Twin_Rotor (Jan 1, 2012)

I'll have to disagree with the "artsie fartsie" comment, but not directly. I get your point, but there is always going to be a gradient difference between a chemical reaction and a CCD processed image. 

CCDs also do not provide the same effects with lenses and color filters. I'm not an expert, but I have seen vs. examples with depth of field and color, and there is a difference. Maybe its just my eye, but its there.

This discussion parrallels with analog audio(vinyl) vs. digital. You can't really comapre them. 

There are benifits and disadvantages in both formats. It will be an argument untill the end of time I think.

Also, there is no grain effect with film if the camera is loaded with the proper film, lense, shutter speed, apature setting and lighting. But its kinda hard to use a 400m.m. piece of film at a 20ISO speed in a live action camera


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Twin_Rotor said:


> I'll have to disagree with the "artsie fartsie" comment, but not directly. I get your point, but there is always going to be a gradient difference between a chemical reaction and a CCD processed image.


Agreed. But why does grain (not noise) have to be added to digital captures? When Michael Mann shot COLLATERAL and MIAMI VICE, he did so in digital because he said digital gave him a better shadow detail he was after. His earlier film HEAT was shot on film and tends to just show black at a certain light level. There is a heap of noise in both COLLATERAL and MIAMI VICE Vs grain in HEAT. With enough light, the digital image should be clean. Most people I know won't even watch it because of how much noise there is. 

What happened to STAR WARS 2 and 3? Both shot digitally. I saw both in the cinema which were very clean, the DVDs get hailed as some (especially SW3) transfers we have had, yet the BDs are not 'clean'. I was actually disappointed because SW2 and 3 should have looked as good as AVATAR. Was the grain added to make them better blend with the original trilogy? If so, that is an artistic modification, and one I don't agree with. 



> CCDs also do not provide the same effects with lenses and color filters. I'm not an expert, but I have seen vs. examples with depth of field and color, and there is a difference. Maybe its just my eye, but its there.
> 
> This discussion parrallels with analog audio(vinyl) vs. digital. You can't really comapre them.


So why try and make one look like the other? Take the original BD of PREDATOR. It preserves the original 35mm film capture (from 1986) and is as grainy a BD as they come. Out comes the ULTIMATE HUNTERS EDITION and they've scrubbed it to the point if looks like it was shot with a HD handi cam under really bright lights. 

The BACK TO THE FUTURE films are another example. I don't mind the look of these, yet the world over cried about the scrubbing they got. 

Compare the HD DVD of TRANSFORMERS to the BD. I saw the first TF film in the cinema, then on on HD DVD, then got to see it again on 35mm. The 35mm print had lots of grain in even the bright desert scenes. Where is this on the BD? Michael Bay said that he felt the grain would help blend in the GC and for most part it does. 



> There are benifits and disadvantages in both formats. It will be an argument untill the end of time I think.
> 
> Also, there is no grain effect with film if the camera is loaded with the proper film, lense, shutter speed, apature setting and lighting. But its kinda hard to use a 400m.m. piece of film at a 20ISO speed in a live action camera


The title of the tread is am I tired of BD? Given there is nothing else to go to, no. Given that we pay good money for day and date releases and get rubbish is tiring. No wonder I like animation.


----------



## Twin_Rotor (Jan 1, 2012)

Maybe the SW Blu Ray releases were taken from a lower resolution source just get them on the shelves? I think that makes more sense than a downgrade, especially since the originals have been "enhanced" to look cleaner.

Like I said, I get what you're getting at. I think most of it is due to the all might holywood dollar. Whatever is cheapest works. Forget the consumer.

I'd rather see movies in original format, not processed like the Predator edition you mentioned. Other people want it to look like it was shot in digital.

Just can't make everyone happy I guess.

I think this thread name should be "Is Anyone Tired of Blu Ray Inconsistancy". 

Nothing eles to go to eh? Thats what they said about the candle  The point of the camera setup comment was to show that its just not the distributors.. It starts with the producers. A lot of the older films are going to be forced onto shelves in a processed format just to make the money.

I agree with having both original formats(for older movies) and processed versions. But its not going to happen unless there is money in it. Doing both formats will drive cost up, which will drive sales down. All about the bottom line baby


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

Twin_Rotor said:


> Maybe the SW Blu Ray releases were taken from a lower resolution source just get them on the shelves? I think that makes more sense than a downgrade, especially since the originals have been "enhanced" to look cleaner.


AFAIK, the OT is the same 2K scans from the 2004 DVD set. They are not perfect but they are the best they have looked on any home video format so far. Ep1 was shot on 35mm film and 2 and 3 were shot using 1920 x 1080 digital HD video cameras. The films were framed to be inside the 816 centre pixels. These should have looked better than they do. 



> Like I said, I get what you're getting at. I think most of it is due to the all might holywood dollar. Whatever is cheapest works. Forget the consumer.


And it is a shame too. 



> I'd rather see movies in original format, not processed like the Predator edition you mentioned. Other people want it to look like it was shot in digital.
> 
> Just can't make everyone happy I guess.


When it first came out, I thought well maybe to be more inline with PREDATOR 2 (which is clean) and PREDATORS, but when I rented PREDATORS it was grainy as a bucket of sand. It made no sense. 



> I think this thread name should be "Is Anyone Tired of Blu Ray Inconsistancy".


Too true.


----------



## xmaoo190 (Oct 20, 2011)

Earthtime:3978 said:


> Oh yeah, sometimes blu ray is astonishing, often times it is not though. I see a dime a dozen processing going on and I'm not happy with it. But on a different point. Would you want more options? I mean a film-like presentation that avoids compression. Think film minus digital.:yikes:


I'd have to agree with you. I bought a bunch of BR DVD's over the holidays at a fantastic price, but I would never pay the price they were asking after having watched them now, regardless of how much I love the movie. Why? For the same reason you stated: film-like presentation that avoids compression. There is a discernible difference in quality over standard DVD but nothing to pay $25 over.


----------



## m R g S r (Feb 4, 2012)

Not really. I won't waste the extra $ that a blu ray costs on a non-action blu ray. I enjoy the action scenes on blu ray, really the only reason I purchase them!


----------



## Muzikal-JRNE (Jun 8, 2009)

I think blu-ray audio and video quality is great! The one disappointing trend I have been noticing a lot is the lack of behind the scene footage and "the Making of" material. Seems like the movie studios are keeping it off until they can release a Special Edition or whatnot. 

Cheers, Joe


----------



## sga2 (Nov 14, 2009)

Not tired of BluRay, but I wish more studios would/could put more resources into remastering older movies shot on film to take full advantage of the format. When done properly (Aliens), the results are stunning. There are movies I own on DVD but would not buy on BluRay only because of the relatively poor transfer(compared to highest-quality Blu, not compared to DVD). 

That said, when 4k is available (and affordable) for the home theater market, I will be happy to upgrade. Except that I might skip the 4k version of Star Wars which is surely to have even more "enhancements"... 

sga2


----------



## Mark Techer (Jan 17, 2008)

sga2 said:


> That said, when 4k is available (and affordable) for the home theater market, I will be happy to upgrade. Except that I might skip the 4k version of Star Wars which is surely to have even more "enhancements"...


4K is going to = :spend:

By the time SW comes out, he no doubt would have put gungan in everyone of them by then.


----------



## OZZIERP (Feb 19, 2012)

I think Blu-Ray will be the last disc format will see and yes I prefer it over all I had and i think I covered them all but RCA Selectavision as I went with Laserdisc but none come anywhere near the picture and sound.


----------

