blu-ray: are old films a ripoff?

Percy1983

The early blurays used mpeg2 while HD-DVD used VC1.

As mentioned in most cases if done right even older films can benefit.

I know 28 days later does not as it was not filmed in HD.

bluffer

donnajunkie wrote: »

i got terminator 2 on blu ray a couple of months ago and it is no better than the dvd version. i feel ripped off coz it doesnt even have any extras and i see now that they have released a new version with extras. i wonder if the picture is any better on the newer release?

stupid question maybe but.... is your tv a hd tv?


the extras stuff is normally an excuse to make you buy what you already have. lets face it. how many times are you going to watch the making of, scene scethes, deleted scenes and so on? once? twice??

it seems to be always the same LP to CD, VHS to DVD to Bluray i wonder in 5 years time what the next upgrade will be that the studios will want us to buy a new version of.. bluray plus? redray? double bluray?

Lum

Doesn't always work, look at the complete failure of DVD-A and SACD for example.

Next upgrade for video will most likely be an increase in resolution, and a corresponding increase in the amount of storage you can squeeze onto the disc. Maybe they'll finally get holographic storage to work, but if I was forced to make a guess, I'd guess that there'll probably be at least one more CD-like format first.

Sput2001

Doesn't always work, look at the complete failure of DVD-A and SACD for example.

Sure, they're niche formats and tend to favour jazz and classical music, but they're hardly a complete failure.

Fliss_M

What about the mini disc? Size of a flat golf ball. I remember loads of stereo products touting they could play cd's and mini cd's. Not seen head nor tail of them

Sput2001

Fliss_M wrote: »

What about the mini disc? Size of a flat golf ball. I remember loads of stereo products touting they could play cd's and mini cd's. Not seen head nor tail of them

The radio, audio and recording industries used them for a fair while. The birth of CD-R and then mp3 meant that they never really took off in the domestic market.

Lum

NickMidgley wrote: »

Sure, they're niche formats and tend to favour jazz and classical music, but they're hardly a complete failure.

So would you say they are more or less popular than LaserDisc was?

Sput2001

Lum wrote: »

So would you say they are more or less popular than LaserDisc was?

In the UK & Europe they're probably more popular. In the US and, in particular, the far east where Laser Discs were more successful, I really couldn't say.

I'd say it's comparing oranges with apples, though.

isofa

Effectly it's just to get your to keep on paying for the same things: have the film on betamax, then re-buy on VHS (inferior), have it on VHS then re-buy on DVD, have it on DVD re-buy on BluRay, have it on BluRay, re-buy on 1cm holographic cube etc. Similar with SuperAudio CDs, LaserDiscs (what happened to those massive things?!), minidiscs (again dead) etc.

Depends how much you want the quality. We have a top end CRT Sony TV and a quality DVD player, and the picture is superb. I've no intention of spending a couple of grand to upgrade it all to flatscreen and bluray at the moment, because I don't see the benefits in most of what we watch.

Yet in other sectors (notably music) people are using more and more lower quality MP3 files (downloads, purchases) rather than original CDs, it's a strange market place.

I'm with bluffer above... If you want it and like spending money on home entertainment, then go for BluRay if you want it. But I thought this was money saving expert

MilkyJoe

I found it funny when DVDs first came out they would advertise it on VHS to show that they were much better in quality.