Blu ray Transformers

[Paulbot]

I bought the Transformers bluray solely to support Madman Entertainment, and I actually found it to be a pretty good upgrade compared to their first DVD release.

Yes it's much better quality than their first DVD release of TFTM, but the difference to their second release (the double disc special edition) is less pronounced.

Why not buy a PS3 for $300 and plug up to your sdtv with the included RCA inputs? At least then you can pick up whichever movies have exclusive bluray content and not stress about having wasted money on a standalone player.

And you can play War for/Fall of Cybertron. I wouldn't have bought a standalone blu-ray player, but since I got my PS3 and Blu-Ray discs (except new releases) are the same price as DVD why not buy those versions.

[griffin]

Technology & storage mediums are changing fast enough for me to not bother collecting Blu-ray. By the time I can afford a home theatre system that can fully utilise the higher visual and sound quality of Blu-ray, I think that we'll have movies released on something like USB sticks or purchased online to download. I've seen a lot of Blu-rays already being released as 3-packs to get people used to installing a copy onto a computer... perhaps to have people more willing to download (legally) movies & TV shows instead of buying discs that take up a lot of physical space.
To me it just feels like Blu-ray won't be around for too long, as it will be replaced with a non-disc storage medium... so doesn't inspire me to buy them (needing two different players to watch my movies or buying a new one that can play all of them).

[gantz]

The problem with the digital copies is they're only standard definition with Dolby Digital 2.0 sound, not the most amazing versions.

Would the cost really be that much different for producing a digital copy with greater resolution and and sound?

Another question: has anyone found the up-scaling of DVDs performed by your blu-ray player to be that good?

[UltraMarginal]

The problem with the digital copies is they're only standard definition with Dolby Digital 2.0 sound, not the most amazing versions.

Would the cost really be that much different for producing a digital copy with greater resolution and and sound?

Another question: has anyone found the up-scaling of DVDs performed by your blu-ray player to be that good?

but the digital copies are primarily intended for use on portable media devices, so there is no point being higher res or having surround soiund. sound especially would be lost on a 2.0 setup if it were coded for 5.1 or 7.1.

[Mr Ed]

Another question: has anyone found the up-scaling of DVDs performed by your blu-ray player to be that good?

Up scaling is good but it's not Blu ray quality.

I got a Panasonic BD twin tuner and I run HDMI into a Yamaha 7.1 AMP which in turns runs into my Sony 52" LCD tv. Setup is about 3 years old and it cost me a load of $$$$ but it was well worth it watching BD movies

[Cat]

It depends on the application. Blu Ray holds more information that a normal DVD as has been stated therefore picture can be shown at a higher resolution e.g. 1080p given the right TV equipment, however, it is a really expensive process to remaster a movie that was made 20 years ago and in digital terms, it's easy to go backwards in terms of quality, but to polish a movie is like polishing a turd - it'll still look crap. It's the old LP's vs CD's argument.

Not quite.

Digital is actually quite a bit behind your traditional cinema master from decades past.

We're at 1920 x 1080 on Blu-Ray.

The original analog film most used back then gives a definition equal to something like 6800 x 2000.

It depends on the type of remastering, as there's different methods. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution, nor 'polishing a turd'.

[5FDP]

Not quite.

Digital is actually quite a bit behind your traditional cinema master from decades past.

We're at 1920 x 1080 on Blu-Ray.

The original analog film most used back then gives a definition equal to something like 6800 x 2000.

It depends on the type of remastering, as there's different methods. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution, nor 'polishing a turd'.

As I mentioned, it depends on the application I doubt that anyone here has a rig set up to view 35mm film in the comfort of their home cinema room. My response was regarding a comparison between Blu Ray and DVD - not analogue film and Blu Ray.

There are many different methods for remastering a movie however in most cases movies filmed over the past 10 years will look better than digitally remastering a movie made over 20 years ago. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.

[kup]

Since recently I bought a 50" full HD TV, I am only just getting into all this High Def stuff.

You certainly have to do a bit of homework as dealing with this thing is more 'computer' than TV, specially with the newer smart TVs. I had a bit of trouble with my attempt at installing 5.1 speakers mainly because I went in with the old school 'analogue' mentality of how they worked without taking the HDMI port into consideration which is all digital with device handshakes and whatnot.

Anyways, I am waiting to pick up my Blu-Ray drive/player today along with a rented copy of X-Men First Class for testing. I will see how it goes.

On a topic related note, I was also considering getting the G1 Movie on Blu-Ray but since I already own the latest DVD one, is it worth it?

[jimoinj]

Hey Kup, I have the G1 Blu ray movie and also had the G1 DVD. Well, the DVD had 2 versions - widescreen and fullscreen, while the Blu ray has only one, the full screen. Apart from that they are the same in terms of features.

For picture quality I honestly could find little difference at all. Both are remastered. I mean obviously it's better than the earlier Madman release of the movie, but that's because it wasn't remastered, the latest DVD (remastered) is also equally better.

However JB Hi-Fi told me that you need to have a TV with 'true HD', or 'full HD' as opposed to just HD in order to get the full benefits of Blu Ray. I believe mine is only HD, not true HD. True HD costs around $1000 plus I'm told. I got a cheapo Soniq 42' for $399.

[kup]

Hey Kup, I have the G1 Blu ray movie and also had the G1 DVD. Well, the DVD had 2 versions - widescreen and fullscreen, while the Blu ray has only one, the full screen. Apart from that they are the same in terms of features.

For picture quality I honestly could find little difference at all. Both are remastered. I mean obviously it's better than the earlier Madman release of the movie, but that's because it wasn't remastered, the latest DVD (remastered) is also equally better.

However JB Hi-Fi told me that you need to have a TV with 'true HD', or 'full HD' as opposed to just HD in order to get the full benefits of Blu Ray. I believe mine is only HD, not true HD. True HD costs around $1000 plus I'm told. I got a cheapo Soniq 42' for $399.

Recently, they are selling Full HD TVs from $600-$800. They aren't crap either, full features.

Try JB-Hifi for reasonable retail prices or small distributers for even cheaper.

My TV only cost me $650 and it's a Panasonic Viera 50" Full High-Def with DLNA connectivity so you can stream movies from your PC onto the TV through your home network.

Recently I have plugged in a little Zino PC to it which I bought very cheaply to play vintage console games and will be using this for Blu-Ray and youtube watching. The PC is designed for Home media so it plugs in through HDMI for video and audio.