256GB blu-ray discs

[toughtrasher]

I have both those things (no Netflix and a bad connection) as well as owning a PS3 and I will buy DVDs before Blu Rays, they're half the price, have a much more expansive range and I don't notice the quality difference too much when viewing on a TV.

I've only really bought one or two blu-rays in my life, just to test it out on my PS4. I didn't notice much of a quality difference either, but I spent $15 on Gravity

[jmaster299]

I've only really bought one or two blu-rays in my life, just to test it out on my PS4. I didn't notice much of a quality difference either, but I spent $15 on Gravity

It depends on the blu-ray, there is no quality standard, and companies take advantage of that to be cheap. All the Harry Potter movies are an example of that. I know not everyone watches those movies, but they are a known example of a company, Warner Brothers, being cheap. The blu-rays are just upconverted from 480p, and the DVDs are only 320p. By comparison, Avatar is native 1080p on blu-ray, and the difference is obvious when compared to cheap upconverts like Harry Potter. Because Avatar is native 1080p, it upscales well to 4K and on a 4K TV it looks beyond amazing. I can't even imagine what native 4K movies will look like, but high capacity discs like these will be necessary to store and distribute them.

[toughtrasher]

It depends on the blu-ray, there is no quality standard, and companies take advantage of that to be cheap. All the Harry Potter movies are an example of that. I know not everyone watches those movies, but they are a known example of a company, Warner Brothers, being cheap. The blu-rays are just upconverted from 480p, and the DVDs are only 320p. By comparison, Avatar is native 1080p on blu-ray, and the difference is obvious when compared to cheap upconverts like Harry Potter. Because Avatar is native 1080p, it upscales well to 4K and on a 4K TV it looks beyond amazing. I can't even imagine what native 4K movies will look like, but high capacity discs like these will be necessary to store and distribute them.

How would someone know if a company is being cheap with it's blu-ray disc? I didn't know about the Harry Potter thing (won't watch it anyway) but it's nice to know not to buy the Blu-Ray edition if a company didn't do it's best on it.

[jmaster299]

How would someone know if a company is being cheap with it's blu-ray disc? I didn't know about the Harry Potter thing (won't watch it anyway) but it's nice to know not to buy the Blu-Ray edition if a company didn't do it's best on it.

You can try searching online, but for the most part it just comes down to being able to notice it yourself. I read, a lot, and I've read the Harry Potter series and I'm not ashamed to admit that. So I do watch the movies to compare, and I think they are steaming piles of crap. But when I watched them, it was very obvious how horrible the quality was. Very pixelated and very dark. I got the the SD and HD digital versions free when I bought the discs, and that's when I was able to see exactly what the quality was for the different versions. A regular DVD should be at 480p, but that's where the "HD" version caps out at.

High-Def Digest is a good site to look at for getting information on the quality of blu-ray movies. Especially those blu-ray transfers of older movies that you find in the $5 bin at Walmart. Many times the quality ends up being worse.

[Dylan522p]

not impressed

 

USB 3.0 thumb drives are capable of high capacities in a more convenient form factor that doesn't require a disc drive, it's also really fast and not at risk for scratches...

But it costs WAYYYYYY more. Optical media is much cheaper and lasts much longer.

My question is? if my understanding is correct, it wouldn't be any more difficult for current blu ray players / drives to read the discs? because it can be read by the same laser?

 

So if that is the case, can't manufacturers release firmware / software updates for their current players so they can play 4k content on these discs? 

 

The current generation of consoles claim they can play 4k video via their current HDMI video outputs?

Yes at 30FPS.

[WanderingFool]

But it costs WAYYYYYY more. Optical media is much cheaper and lasts much longer.

Yes at 30FPS.

Many films are 24fps though, so gives more wiggle room

[jmaster299]

Many films are 24fps though, so gives more wiggle room

Yeah, 30fps doesn't mean anything for movies.

[algoat]

It depends on the blu-ray, there is no quality standard, and companies take advantage of that to be cheap. All the Harry Potter movies are an example of that. I know not everyone watches those movies, but they are a known example of a company, Warner Brothers, being cheap. The blu-rays are just upconverted from 480p, and the DVDs are only 320p. By comparison, Avatar is native 1080p on blu-ray, and the difference is obvious when compared to cheap upconverts like Harry Potter. Because Avatar is native 1080p, it upscales well to 4K and on a 4K TV it looks beyond amazing. I can't even imagine what native 4K movies will look like, but high capacity discs like these will be necessary to store and distribute them.

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but film to DVD store at 480i/480p. For blu-ray conversion, the original 35mm films usually scanned at 4K or higher, 2K for some. Heck, even the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie was scanned at 8K and then down converted to 1080p. Yes, some movies like Avatar, Sin City, Star Wars 2/3 were shot natively at 1080p and look great but isn't future proof if the masters are limited to this resolution. As to blu-rays up converting from 480p? That doesn't even make sense if the scanners are 2K and higher.

[jmaster299]

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but film to DVD store at 480i/480p. For blu-ray conversion, the original 35mm films usually scanned at 4K or higher, 2K for some. Heck, even the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie was scanned at 8K and then down converted to 1080p. Yes, some movies like Avatar, Sin City, Star Wars 2/3 were shot natively at 1080p and look great but isn't future proof if the masters are limited to this resolution. As to blu-rays up converting from 480p? That doesn't even make sense if the scanners are 2K and higher.

No, you are obviously clueless on this topic. Yes DVDs are supposed to be at 480 and Blu-rays at 1080, but that is often not the case. If what you say is true, then all DVDs would be of equal quality and all Blu-rays would be of equal quality. Just looking at some random movies, the DVD version of Deathly Hallows Part 1 has a native resolution is 853x352, which is less than 480, just like I said it was. Some older movies are even worse, Star Trek First Contact is only 640x272. For some HD movies, Hunger Games and Hunger Games: Catching Fire are both only 1280x530. You can view the info by playing the movie via Quicktime and click on "Window" and then "Show Movie Inspector". I'm sure there is a way to get the info from things like VLC as well, I just happen to know the way to get it via Quicktime off the top of my head.

So, when watching any of those movies on a Blu-ray player for your TV, it's just upconverting those smaller resolutions to 1080p. The file isn't being upconverted professionally before being burned to the disc, like it should be, and the weak upconverting from your home player makes the crap quality obvious to see. That's why the studios are lazy and cheap. There is no reason for the file on any Blu-ray disc to not be a 1920x1080 resolution.

[algoat]

No, you are obviously clueless on this topic. Yes DVDs are supposed to be at 480 and Blu-rays at 1080, but that is often not the case. If what you say is true, then all DVDs would be of equal quality and all Blu-rays would be of equal quality. Just looking at some random movies, the DVD version of Deathly Hallows Part 1 has a native resolution is 853x352, which is less than 480, just like I said it was. Some older movies are even worse, Star Trek First Contact is only 640x272. For some HD movies, Hunger Games and Hunger Games: Catching Fire are both only 1280x530. You can view the info by playing the movie via Quicktime and click on "Window" and then "Show Movie Inspector". I'm sure there is a way to get the info from things like VLC as well, I just happen to know the way to get it via Quicktime off the top of my head.

So, when watching any of those movies on a Blu-ray player for your TV, it's just upconverting those smaller resolutions to 1080p. The file isn't being upconverted professionally before being burned to the disc, like it should be, and the weak upconverting from your home player makes the crap quality obvious to see. That's why the studios are lazy and cheap. There is no reason for the file on any Blu-ray disc to not be a 1920x1080 resolution.

 

Yes, I do know what I am talking about.  The old DVDs are strange because a lot of them are 4:3 in aspect ratio, yet they try to fit in a widescreen in that space.  This was really because they were made in an age before the 16:9 widescreens TVs that we have today.  So what you're left with is your rectangular TV (16:9), with a smaller square viewing space (4:3, black bars on the side), and a smaller rectangle (2.35:1, more black bars on top and bottom) in that space which reduces the picture.  The newer DVDs do have the 16:9 aspect ratio or widescreen.   I happened to have a lot of the movies you listed on blu-ray and they are all definitely 1920 X ~800ish, but with black bars to make up the rest of the 1080.  This is because they are shot in an anamorphic ratio of 2:35 to 1.  I got this information directly from VLC player.  I don't where you got your Hunger Games movie at that resolution, but it seems like it was a compressed rip.  1280x530 is basically 720p with anamorphic bars on the top and bottom.  My Hunger Games 2 original blu-ray is about 1920x820 as well, directly from VLC.