Blu-Ray Rant. (Sorry guys this just frustrates me.)

I have had my 1080p television for about 6 months now and it looks great. I also use it as my desktop but there are some things I have come to notice. Blu-rays aren't really THAT great. They could be so much better. An average Blu-ray movie is about 20 GB compared with a Dvd's 5-6GB. 20 GB is just not big enough to store an HD movie without eliminating compression errors. For example, if I look at a 1920x 1080 picture on my computer it looks great, but a Blu-ray movie never really compares. This is why we don't need higher resolution TV's before larger capacity discs. I know many of you guys are thinking that Blu-Ray is going to be the last physical media but I seriously hopenot. I would rather have Blu-ray 2 that has almost no compression then a greatly compressed HD streaming signal. 
 
Let me break it down by the numbers:

• Average movie: 2 hours long
• 20GB / 120 min = 166 Mb a minute. Which is ridiculous.  So in the end we get 2.7 MB per second. 2.7 MB isn't alot for 2 million pixels multiplied by however many frames per second.
  
• Higher resolution TV isn't going to mean squat with the same Blu-Ray technology as Blu-Ray isn't good enough for what we have now.

I still use DVDs...They're cool enough.

Resolution isn't everything.

i dont really give a shit about blue ray. its not like the movie is completely different because its blue ray. 

" I still use DVDs...They're cool enough. "

" I still use DVDs...They're cool enough. "

" I still use DVDs...They're cool enough. "

" Resolution isn't everything. "

" @Bombs_Away said:

" I still use DVDs...They're cool enough. "

Yeah, same. My eyesight sucks anyway, so I am not going miss a few pixels that would have been blurry anyway. "

" i dont really give a shit about blue ray. its not like the movie is completely different because its blue ray.  "

" @Bombs_Away said:

" I still use DVDs...They're cool enough. "

@ahriman22 said:

" Resolution isn't everything. "

@Jambones said:

" @Bombs_Away said:

" I still use DVDs...They're cool enough. "

Yeah, same. My eyesight sucks anyway, so I am not going miss a few pixels that would have been blurry anyway. "

@Ryax said:

" i dont really give a shit about blue ray. its not like the movie is completely different because its blue ray.  "

Damn you guys would still be watching black and white TV if it wasn't for technophiles like me. "

What's the betting this guy had a bit of an excited spaz when Avatar came out. Why don't we find out....
 
@Jack_Daniels:
Yo JD, you like Avatar blad?

I've never had a problem, and your picture analogy is flawed a picture is going to look good because its not in motion it has no problems with blurring, or moving artifacts...a movie does, And I've seen quite a few good bluray movies to not understand how your having such a problem.
 
P.S: wish you wouldn't pull numbers out your ass, I've never heard of dual layer bluray holding 100 gigs, triple layer i have but not dual layer. but regardless of that 1 dollar more? where are you getting this number?

Because that's not how that works and just because something is compressed doesn't mean you've lost any data?
 
If compression were that simple, we wouldn't need to spend millions of dollars developing new compression technology.
 
EDIT: Here's a primer for you.

I love my Blu-rays.

" @Jack_Daniels said:

" @Bombs_Away said:

" I still use DVDs...They're cool enough. "

@ahriman22 said:

" Resolution isn't everything. "

@Jambones said:

" @Bombs_Away said:

" I still use DVDs...They're cool enough. "

Yeah, same. My eyesight sucks anyway, so I am not going miss a few pixels that would have been blurry anyway. "

@Ryax said:

" i dont really give a shit about blue ray. its not like the movie is completely different because its blue ray.  "

Damn you guys would still be watching black and white TV if it wasn't for technophiles like me. "

Not really. We all moved on from Video cause it was a pain rewinding and also with the flickering screen. The difference between DVD and Bluray is minimal. But I suppose you're "cool" for  being so tech savvy ain't ya? "

yeahhhhh well go get an imax blu-ray, that will make you happy. they make use of it. 

I have had my PS3 for almost 2 years and I haven't loaded one single Blu Ray into it. DVDs are perfectly fine.

ALot of people cant see much of a difference with blu ray over dvd but i can see a big difference. 
I think it can depend on the kind of tv you use, Try an LG. 
Anyway I think any disc based media is not goin to be very good if we get any bigger than it already is. 
think about a little scratch on a normal music cd and how it might have messed up one track or a bit of a song. 
Think about how much damage a little scratch could do to a 50gb plus disc :O

" I've never had a problem, and your picture analogy is flawed a picture is going to look good because its not in motion it has no problems with blurring, or moving artifacts...a movie does, And I've seen quite a few good bluray movies to not understand how your having such a problem.  P.S: wish you wouldn't pull numbers out your ass, I've never heard of dual layer bluray holding 100 gigs, triple layer i have but not dual layer. but regardless of that 1 dollar more? where are you getting this number? "

I would think that sooner than later, HD streaming is going to be TOTALLY perfected and we will not need physical media anymore.  I, like many other people prefer physical media to digital distribution but I really think the end of this stuff is coming soon :(

Yea, yea, the compression is better and so are the dynamically associated pixel changes. But its NEW. and the box is BLUE. and has a shinyyy logo that says BLU RAY. aww yea for needing new stuff

I pirate my HD movies without issue. No need for blu-ray.

Not really. We all moved on from Video cause it was a pain rewinding and also with the flickering screen. The difference between DVD and Bluray is minimal. But I suppose you're "cool" for  being so tech savvy ain't ya? "

i just have to say who cares. the picture is still great. i'm sure once it gets more it will look good.

" @Bombs_Away said:

Not really. We all moved on from Video cause it was a pain rewinding and also with the flickering screen. The difference between DVD and Bluray is minimal. But I suppose you're "cool" for  being so tech savvy ain't ya? "

Not saying you're wrong but that reminded me of something my uncle said about cassettes a long time ago, i know the difference is obvious now but maybe back then it didn't seem so, heck i still remember when i use to think 6gig HDD's were huge now 6g's is a memory stick =p "

I have no desire to change to blu-ray until they have: 

• cheap discs 
• a reasonable price for a recordable blu-ray with a large hard drive 
• all computers use it (meaning I have a computer with it)
• Mactheripper will remove security from retail movies to make back-up copies.

Are you starting your own IMAX or something? It looks fine how it is.

I buy blu rays when they are within a couple dollars of the DVD version. 

I used to think that a DVD was just fine until I received Planet Earth on BluRay. Having seen the documentary before in SD I could notice the difference immediately. Spending the extra $5 on a disk is worth it to me because I am a graphics whore.

So if we have the technology now where is the bottle neck? Even brand new movies 
like Slumdog Millionaire only clock in at 30GB. Why not crank it up and give us the least amount of compression possible. I think it's the fat cats in hollywood refusing to spend on dual layer discs so they compress the movie and extras onto a 25 GB-50GB disc, which is total BS.

" @Bombs_Away said:

Not really. We all moved on from Video cause it was a pain rewinding and also with the flickering screen. The difference between DVD and Bluray is minimal. But I suppose you're "cool" for  being so tech savvy ain't ya? "

Not saying you're wrong but that reminded me of something my uncle said about cassettes a long time ago, i know the difference is obvious now but maybe back then it didn't seem so, heck i still remember when i use to think 6gig HDD's were huge now 6g's is a memory stick =p "

I've had my PS3 for a few years now and almost all the new movies I watch on it are Blu-Rays thanks to Netflix.  Most of the time they look great, but sometime it's just a crappy port and, well, there nothing you can do about that except wait for a re-issue.  I will say that if it wasn't for Netflix, I'd never use the thing because the discs are just too expensive for the difference in quality between DVDs and Blu-Rays.  I love the better quality of a good Blu-Ray, but I'm not going to pay $10-$15 more for a single movie. 
 
As for why some movies are shoddy transfers, well some film studios just want to rush them out to market for a quick buck.

I'm sorry, but 166mb/min is bad now?

Unfortunately everything but HD content looks like shit on my HDTV, so blu-ray is certainly welcome in my room. If i used the other TV in my house though DVDs would be fine.

" @Jack_Daniels said:

So if we have the technology now where is the bottle neck? Even brand new movies 
like Slumdog Millionaire only clock in at 30GB. Why not crank it up and give us the least amount of compression possible. I think it's the fat cats in hollywood refusing to spend on dual layer discs so they compress the movie and extras onto a 25 GB-50GB disc, which is total BS.

The bottleneck is computational bandwidth. Combressed data needs to be decompressed, which requires some kind of hardwired chip or processor. A  Netbook or a DVD player can't play BlueRay or anything beyond 10 Mbit/s, because they are too slow processing the data.With uncompressed video the bottle neck would probably be read and write speed. (which is around 50 Mbit/s for an average hard drive).   Using conspiracy theories (read someone's evil intention as an explanation for everything) won't help you understand. "

" @Jack_Daniels said:

So if we have the technology now where is the bottle neck? Even brand new movies 
like Slumdog Millionaire only clock in at 30GB. Why not crank it up and give us the least amount of compression possible. I think it's the fat cats in hollywood refusing to spend on dual layer discs so they compress the movie and extras onto a 25 GB-50GB disc, which is total BS.

The bottleneck is computational bandwidth. Combressed data needs to be decompressed, which requires some kind of hardwired chip or processor. A  Netbook or a DVD player can't play BlueRay or anything beyond 10 Mbit/s, because they are too slow processing the data.With uncompressed video the bottle neck would probably be read and write speed. (which is around 50 Mbit/s for an average hard drive).   Using conspiracy theories (read someone's evil intention as an explanation for everything) won't help you understand. "

I like Blu-Ray. It makes things look quite a lot nicer in my opinion. 

" Damn you guys would still be watching black and white TV if it wasn't for technophiles like me. "

Meh, I'll stick with DVDs for now.

If people see no difference in DVDs over blu-ray...you need to get your eyes checked..

I'll just watch blurays when its something that would be amazing, other than that yea I'll just pop in a dvd.

The nice thing about Blu is that it is capable of evolving. Look at the firmware update to enable 3D on PS3. Granted at 50" Blu is not a gigantic leap over DVD, but when I watch on my PJ that's when Blu Ray really starts to shine.

" I have had my PS3 for almost 2 years and I haven't loaded one single Blu Ray into it. DVDs are perfectly fine. "