Why did HD DVD lose to blueray?

Home Forums Science & Tech Why did HD DVD lose to blueray?

Viewing 27 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #83130
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why did HD DVD lose to blueray??

      HD DVD is litterallly better than blueray shit in everyway

    • #83131
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >2021
      >physical media
      ok grandpa, fuck I thought I was old

      • #83134
        Anonymous
        Guest

        They both lost.

        Everything is still released on physical media, zoomies.

        • #83135
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I was born in the 70s, kid (GenX, not boomer, you dumb kids, look up "baby boomers" and find out when you apply the term "boomer" to someone, your dumb meme just makes you sound stupid). Physical media is dead, thank fuck. Only idiots buy gradually rotting disks in 2021, hell they sucked back when they were new.

          • #83137
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Physical media is dead
            No it’s not, zoomie.

            >imagine paying for physical media
            kek

            Imagine paying to stream.

            • #83139
              Anonymous
              Guest

              kek I don’t pay to stream, imagine not know how to get everything digital for free

              • #83142
                Anonymous
                Guest

                I just bought all of the Analord albums, cost me $700 for 12 vinyl records.

                Stop being poor.

                • #83146
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  I just got the Rolling Stones entire discography in DFF masters for free because I’m not a retard

                  • #83148
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Nobody really cares though, it’s not like pirating shit is hard or makes you cool. Lots of stuff I have on vinyl has never, ever been ripped.

                    • #83369
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Lots of stuff I have on vinyl has never, ever been ripped
                      Rutracker would like to call you on your bullshit.

                • #83149
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Vinyl records
                  Enjoy them while you can because they’ll degrade every time you use them.
                  You’re not even going to use them are you?

                  • #83156
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    It takes hundreds of plays for any significant wear to occur and you can always just switch to a microline and boom, good as new.

                    I feel you’re either a chatbot, or a Chinese person.

                    • #83379
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      What’s this guy’s name?

                • #83166
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  I just got the Rolling Stones entire discography in DFF masters for free because I’m not a retard

                  you’re both fags, I have the original cuneiform recording of the virgin mary’s orgasmic scream from when god fucked her. in the pussy.

            • #83140
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >better in every way
              >has lower capacity

              I would have to imagine paying to stream since I don’t do it.

          • #83147
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Boomer doesn’t know what boomer means, nothing new here. GenX is called boomers because they hated boomers, but now they themselves are the boomers.

            • #83150
              Anonymous
              Guest

              everyone not a zoomer is a boomer, that’s how it works now

              zoomers are gen z

          • #83151
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >gradually rotting disks
            Disc rot is a total meme, in reality it’s extremely rare to nonexistent.

            • #83397
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Cope. All my old DVDs are rotted and I barely played them once or twice.

              • #83398
                Anonymous
                Guest

                outside of specialty museums rotted discs are rare

                • #83399
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  Rotted doesn’t mean completely unplayable. But they all have problems in certain scenes.

          • #83154
            Anonymous
            Guest

            anon kids that missed out on the era of physical media don’t remember the ever changing compatibility and availability bullshit that anyone who lived through that era understood why it died the second digital content became retard proof

            they just miss the fact that there used to be a level of clear product segmentation because there was greater cost to publishing them that no longer exists. back then things just simply had more money and manpower put into them. do you remember when major releases used to have giant cardboard cutouts in stores? when’s the last time you’ve seen one of those for a B list movie?

            i don’t miss it but i kind of do, in a way

            • #83179
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >ever changing compatibility and availability bullshit
              Hifi listeners went straight from vinyl to CD’s.

          • #83157
            Anonymous
            Guest

            gtfo newfag

          • #83198
            Anonymous
            Guest

            > gradually rotting disks
            > what is M-disc

            • #83200
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Disc rot is a total meme anyway. In practice, it never happens.

            • #83326
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >what is M-disc
              sounds like non-free closed-source proprietary patent-encumbered botnet

          • #83247
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Disks last longer than hdd/ssd, retard.

            • #83251
              Anonymous
              Guest

              I own several of the very earliest CDs, some of which were pressed before any commercially available CD players were even made. None have any sign of rot.

          • #83384
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I have burned data CDs from 2004 that are fine. One single bit error is enough to corrupt a file. The fact that the files are still retrievable is proof that they’re intact.

          • #83403
            Anonymous
            Guest

            words words words words words words words words words words words words

          • #83407
            Anonymous
            Guest

            This. I had lots of disc skipping when I watched movies from DVD.

        • #83136
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >imagine paying for physical media
          kek

        • #83383
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >movie theaters
          >movies are downloaded to the upstairs server farm prior to release
          nope

      • #83138
        Anonymous
        Guest

        grow up kid

      • #83372
        Anonymous
        Guest

        I have yet to see any digital media that wasn’t pixelated as fuck due to compresison

    • #83132
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They both lost.

    • #83133
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >HD DVD is litterallly better than blueray
      How so?

      • #83401
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It wasn’t. HD-DVD probably had about 33-50% lower bitrate than Bluray.

    • #83141
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Explain what makes it better

    • #83144
      Anonymous
      Guest

      might have had a shot if it came standard on the 360

      • #83185
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Yeah why didn’t they do this?

        • #83188
          Anonymous
          Guest

          to make console cheaper

        • #83189
          Anonymous
          Guest

          PS3s were sold at a huge loss initially, even though they cost $599 and the xbox 360 only cost $399.

          >The PS3 with the 60GB hard drive comes with a manufacturing and component bill of $840.35. Since it sells that version of $599, the component bill exceeds the retail price by $241.35

          >The hard-drive-equipped Microsoft game console has a manufacturing and materials cost of $323.30.

          • #83283
            Anonymous
            Guest

            lmao and add $60 per year over the course of 8 years and microsoft was rolling in money

            • #83284
              Anonymous
              Guest

              and they still managed to fuck up the next generation despite making bank during the 360 days.

    • #83152
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Both formats came out 20 years too late.

      • #83163
        Anonymous
        Guest

        it is honestly pretty interesting how the 90s and early 00s had a serious technology gap between consumer products and the high end that really doesn’t exist in the same capacity anymore. it’s like the boomers were more than okay with letting the low end stagnate while the high end continued developing right as gen x started to get in charge of things. or maybe that was because of gen x? either way, its absurd people were still be willing to pay $20 for a fucking vhs tape in 2004.

        in middle school in 2007 i was downloading 720p movies off of the pirate bay and i had peers that were still renting vhs tapes from blockbuster

        • #83171
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >its absurd people were still be willing to pay $20 for a fucking vhs tape in 2004
          Why? A decent quality VHS is fine for most people.

          You can’t even see the different between SD and HD unless you’re sitting closer than two screen diagonals anyway.

      • #83404
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >VTR: HDD-1000
        https://retro-archive.ru/images/7/70/Sony._HDTV_Digital_VTR._1989.pdf
        >A North American SMPTE/ATSC standard for 1251/60 studio origination has been brought to fruition; a growing number of production facilities are coming into operation in North America and Europe; and some major productions, including two feature-length motion pictures for theatrical distribution, a 14-part television drama series, and a made- for-TV movie, have been successfully completed.

        Anyone have any idea what these movies and tv series were?

        • #83405
          Anonymous
          Guest

          *1125/60

    • #83153
      Anonymous
      Guest

      HD DVD is inferior in every aspect. I thought this was a fucking tech board, are all of you this retarded?

      • #83203
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Yes. G want aestetics, not better. Linux is worse but more aestetics. M1 is worse but more aestetichs. Laptop is gayer byt more aeatetics

    • #83158
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >HD DVD is litterallly better than blueray shit in everyway
      it isn’t though, the ONLY thing it had was the option for double the read/write speed, but almost no consumer HD-DVD implementation used this.

      It was inferior in capacity, and had identical codec support for vide/audio.

      HD DVD was 15GB SL and 30GB DL
      Bluray was 25GB SL and 50GB DL

      Bluray won because it had higher density, that’s basically it. Also, the PS3 really helped, if xbox 360 had an HD-DVD drive instead of an optional HD-DVD drive add-on for like $150 extra, they probably could’ve won the format war, or at least made it draw out MUCH longer (HD DVD gave up only 2 years after it was introduced)

      • #83159
        Anonymous
        Guest

        holy shit you are so fucking stupid
        piss off

        • #83174
          Anonymous
          Guest

          coolstory

        • #83301
          Anonymous
          Guest

          If he’s so stupid then explain why
          Spoilers: You can’t because he’s right

      • #83187
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Perfect explanation

    • #83160
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Bump;.

    • #83161
      Anonymous
      Guest

      porn just wanted it moar

    • #83165
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why the fuck did Stonehenge lose to the Rollright Stones??
      >Big stone circle is literally better than small stone circle
      >I remember when dinosaurs roamed the earth

    • #83172
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It used only shit-tier codecs

    • #83173
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >HD DVD is litterallly better than blueray shit in everyway
      Except
      > no cheap hardware players
      >> PS3 price was bearable compared to the rest
      > porn studios supported Blu-ray
      >> MS decided they’re too big to fail

    • #83182
      Anonymous
      Guest

      except it isn’t

    • #83186
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I still watch and burn dvds

      • #83190
        Anonymous
        Guest

        They are extremely popular, streaming services are actually losing customers these days. Everybody saw Seinfeld and Friends again already, new streaming originals aren’t compelling.

        Physical media will never become totally obsolete, most of the people who claim it already is are chatbots and viral marketing slaves.

        • #83191
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Just burned Toy Story during the night
          Found a spinner full of DVD+R at the flea market for 1 buck

          • #83192
            Anonymous
            Guest

            I have it on Laserdisc.

            • #83193
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >laserdisc
              lol are you the laserdisc tard with a big collection of laserdiscs?

              God damn, what a life that must be.

              • #83194
                Anonymous
                Guest

                You mean chad. Yes.

                I imagine it’s hard to even conceive for a kid like you, stuck in your podshare. I also have thousands of vinyl records, thousands of CDs, and around a thousand DVDs. Much of what I have is rare.

                • #83197
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  The fact you still manage to convince yourself that laser disc is somehow better than a bluray or even UHD bluray copy of a film will never cease to amaze me.

                  Hell, if you have a copy of the 1957 classic "The Bridge On The River Kwai" you can compare it to the UHD Bluray copy directly and see how fucking retarded you are.

                  Though seeing as you’re an analog whore, you probably don’t own a 4k TV with good HDR anyway, so don’t bother.

                  • #83199
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    It’s easy. Digital formats have trash blacks, poorer dynamic range, everything’s been re-graded and smoothed. Resolution doesn’t really matter because nobody even sits close enough to the TV to even tell the difference between SD and HD, but Laserdisc has theoretically superior horizontal resolution to any current home format as well.

                    I get it – you can’t do math. It’s cool. Most people your age can’t.

                    • #83202
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Digital formats have trash blacks, poorer dynamic range
                      I await the day when you realize that whatever you’re watching laserdiscs on has much worse dynamic range than a modern OLED.

                      • #83206
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #83207
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >why would I realize something that just isn’t true?
                        It is true. OLEDs have higher dynamic range than is even worth it for you to bother measuring. Once you get into shit like OLED, the only things that really matter are ambient light rejection and peak brightness.
                        Your plasma TV probably only does about 3000:1. Modern LCD TVs are twice that, with future miniLEDs making the gap even bigger still.

                      • #83210
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >OLEDs have higher dynamic range
                        No they don’t, not inside a TV anyway. And the program material doesn’t either.

                        Run along now, re-buy everything you own so you can see how shitty the blacks are with digital formats. I won’t be joining you, and I suspect this is why you’re so angry. I do love the shill on demand service that the panopticon hooks us all up to though. You work through AECOM?

                      • #83254
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >xhe doesn’t know plasma does 100000:1 contrast

                      • #83255
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        They don’t, but even if they did an OLED would still be massively better. Enjoy your 130 nits anon.

                      • #83258
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        My plasma screen has an incredible range between black and white. Much more than OLED in practice because you’re limited by the input material and the input digitizer circuitry.

                        Plug in something analog and you’re using bottom of the barrel ADCs even on high end screens.

                      • #83263
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >limited by the input material
                        You aren’t. Digital has long exceeded film’s dynamic range. Shooting HDR on film is literally impossible.

                      • #83288
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        HDR is the name of a process and it only makes sense with digital. Film stock all has different dynamic range properties which can be adjusted in development.

                      • #83366
                        giannis
                        Guest

                        >Digital has long exceeded film’s dynamic range. Shooting HDR on film is literally impossible.
                        Both of those statements are wrong and I wonder what makes you believe that.

                        Let me focus on the second one. HDR doesn’t involve shooting in any different way whatsoever.
                        Camera sensor dynamic range has exceeded what screens could show anyway, but this is not the point.
                        HDR is all about tonemapping the brightness levels to a wider range (and also absolute values when needed), so the person viewing the movie can experience the highlights that the camera captured in very bright form, and similarly for darks.

                        The same material can be tonemapped to greater extremes when new viewing equipment becomes available which is able to display those extremes.
                        And of course the same technique can be (and actually *is*) applied to film, which has had even higher dynamic range than digital.

                      • #83370
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Cheap (relatively) digital cameras now have better dynamic range than any film, such as the Blackmagic Pocket.
                        HDR video has to do with color encoding. Film cameras don’t have the dynamic range to use it properly, but digital ones do.

                      • #83371
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Cheap (relatively) digital cameras now have better dynamic range than any film,
                        Not at all because each step is half as good as the one above it, you should learn about bit density. Plus film can be developed to favor high or low contrast, lights, darks, push, pull, this isn’t possible with digital.

                      • #83373
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >he thinks digital cameras still shoot in 8 bit sdr
                        oh nonononono

                      • #83374
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        doesn’t matter how many bits you have, some are garbage

                      • #83375
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >doesn’t matter how many bits you have
                        >he STILL thinks we’re talking about sdr

                      • #83376
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Bit density is a thing. You can’t argue your way out of it. HDR just bumps black up to the 5th bit or whatever but that compresses the higher bits, it’s a trade-off.

                        Analog doesn’t have bits but a continuous signal component.

                      • #83378
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >HDR just bumps black up to the 5th bit
                        No, it doesn’t. It’s a new transfer function entirely. Do you even understand what we’re talking about?

                      • #83380
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes of course but the point is you’re still throwing bits away. And you imply that HDR is a spec, there’s multiple competing specs which vary on your player / display combo, it’s a mess. Dolby looks set to lose it too.

                      • #83381
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        dolby has blown ass since the 1990s

                      • #83382
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >you’re still throwing bits away
                        You aren’t, this is literally what PQ is designed to fix.
                        PQ and HDR10 use the same function. HLG is not something that’s going to see widepread adoption.

                      • #83390
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >only ten bits

                      • #83385
                        giannis
                        Guest

                        >Cheap (relatively) digital cameras now have better dynamic range than any film, such as the Blackmagic Pocket.
                        Since you gave a specific example, Blackmagic Pocket has 13 stops of theoretical DR and 12 stops measured, Kodak Vision has 15 stops theoretical and 14 measured.
                        And this is for proper exposures, not overexposure latitude (film much higher) or underexposure latitude (digital much higher).

                        >Film cameras don’t have the dynamic range to use it properly, but digital ones do.
                        No, because of previous point.
                        But you’re missing the point.
                        I can take a 10stop image and stretch its (displayed) contrast over 16stops as displayed, which happens all the time with HDR. You don’t need an HDR image source to display HDR.
                        Most HDR releases are displayed at a higher contrast ratio than captured. Simplistically, it’s no big deal to get the highest value of the source (which probably corresponds to explosions, sun in the frame, headlights, etc.), and push it a couple stops on the display for instance.
                        That’s why HDR is tone*mapping*, if you needed HDR capture to display HDR, the would be no mapping at all since it would be 1-1.

                      • #83391
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        yes you can do it but the dark areas are gonna blow ass

                      • #83392
                        giannis
                        Guest

                        Only if you do it in a completely silly way, i.e. everything gets +3 stops.
                        But you can scale it proportionately, so the blackest thing you captured is mapped to your display’s darkest value, and the brightest thing you captured is mapped to your display’s brightest value.
                        Then no blacks will suffer and you use the full range of your display.
                        And still, the colour grader will intervene some times with a custom tonemapping that thinks suits the film best (and not just a proportional mapping).

                        The dynamic range wars have never been about the display aspect, they’ve always been about the capture aspect.
                        People wanted to capture the widest possible DR (of the scene), compressing it into the DR of the medium. This was the DR race, and all the advances were about that (since the film days and the HD curves of the films, techniques like pulling, etc.).

                        Then once you’ve captured as much of the scene as possible and "compressed" it into your capture medium’s DR, you can stretch it as little or as much as you want it to match the display medium’s DR.
                        Printing on paper? You compress it even more to fit the paper’s DR.
                        Displaying on monitor? You compress or stretch it depending on your monitor’s capabilities.

                        All the HDR does is on that second part of the process, the first part (capture medium’s DR) doesn’t really play a role, it will just look "better" cause it will have subtler gradations/intermediate values – if the capture medium had higher DR – even if the global contrast (peak/minimum values) is the same between high DR vs low DR source.

                      • #83393
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Type 2 reader detected.

                      • #83257
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        sure they do

                      • #83259
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I knew you were Chinese the moment you first posted. Nobody knows how those screens were set up, and the digital camera’s not going to have better dynamic range than the screen. Also that frame isn’t properly exposed.

                      • #83261
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        i’ve never seen so much seething happen so quickly

                      • #83264
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        the ONLY people that think plasma is somehow better, or even close, are plasma autists that simply can’t accept their beloved is finally just old garbage.

                        A modern high end OLED will blow literally any plasma TV out of the water.

                      • #83209
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >it’s extremely evident especially in darks and blacks, you’ve just tuned your shitty nu-tv incorrectly
                        no it’s not, it’s evident in super compressed streamed media (Netflix, Disney, etc)

                        But actual UHD discs? There is almost no visible compression at all, even when sitting super close to the monitor.

                      • #83211
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >almost no
                        That sucks, with Laserdisc there’s none *at all* no matter what. And you don’t have to deal with some faggot messing with the color balance, like you do with every Blu-Ray.

                        All modern movies have been ruined, everybody knows it. It’s a joke by now, an Internet meme – look how blue-green and murky and overly contrasty everything is. People know.

                      • #83213
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yeah because the resolution is so fucking low you can’t see shit beyond how smeared the edge of whatever you’re looking at is anyway.

                        Why the fuck do you want an analog smear instead of MUCH greater detail levels but with some slight digital compression if you take a magnifying glass to the frame?

                        I’d rather have the MUCH higher detail level personally, because I don’t like watching movies as if they’re being shown through vaseline.

                    • #83204
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Laserdisc has theoretically superior horizontal resolution to any current home format as well.
                      Uhhh what the fuck are you smoking?

                      Laserdisc had 425 NTSC horizontal lines.
                      (compared to VHS with only 240 lines).

                      But UHD bluray has 2160 horizontal lines. Simply far more than laserdisc ever had.

                      The ONLY advantage laserdisc has over DVD is that it’s analog and thus didn’t have compression blocking like you get with some DVD compression.

                      But with bluray, and eventually UHD bluray, the compression blocking is so minor and unnoticeable that it’s simply not a major concern anymore, especially when you have a FUCK ton cleaner image from the higher resolution anyway.

                      Pretending laserdisc is somehow still superior just makes you retarded anon.

                      • #83205
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >bluray has 2160 horizontal lines
                        Nope, bluray has 3840 horizontal lines, 2160 vertical.
                        So bluray has ~9x higher horizontal resolution than laserdisc.

                      • #83208
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        And yet, despite it all, you still can’t tell the difference between SD and HD unless you sit closer than two screen diagonals from the TV. Average viewing distance in the USA is 12′ or so per broadcast standards body research. Laserdisc’s horizontal resolution is limited only by the phase rotation rate of a photon, it can’t be compared to pixels.

                      • #83212
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Average viewing distance in the USA is 12′
                        Who gives a shit? I know where to sit and because of it I benefit greatly from 4K resolution. Consider also that the issue isn’t high resolutions, it’s that TVs are still too small.
                        Laserdisc’s horizontal resolution is limited by the 6MHz bandwidth of the NTSC spec.

                        >OLEDs have higher dynamic range
                        No they don’t, not inside a TV anyway. And the program material doesn’t either.

                        Run along now, re-buy everything you own so you can see how shitty the blacks are with digital formats. I won’t be joining you, and I suspect this is why you’re so angry. I do love the shill on demand service that the panopticon hooks us all up to though. You work through AECOM?

                        >No they don’t
                        Yes, they do, they will max out whatever device you use to measure it. Again, once you get to OLEDs only peak brightness and ambient light rejection are really relevant.
                        >And the program material doesn’t either.
                        Yes, it does. Dolby Vision’s PQ goes up to 10,000 nits – though nothing is mastered that high or could display it, yet.
                        >re-buy everything
                        Lol, you think I pay for movies?

                      • #83214
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #83215
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        it’s amazing to watch your delusion

                        Seriously, the idea that it’s better JUST because it’s analog is simply retarded.

                        Now if you want to argue 65mm/70mm film is a superior format, go right ahead. I’ll agree with you there, it’s a physically massive frame with a ton of detail, higher than even 4k digital.

                        But a fucking laserdisc? It’s delusional.

                      • #83218
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        70mm film isn’t really better than modern digital. colors in film are ironically much worse. the resolution might be arguably a bit higher than what digital can practically do now (not true if we’re talking about theaters, actually) but we are only a few years away from solving that as well.
                        people who like analog are mostly delusional nostalgiafags at this point. i do like that we’re still making vinyl records though, i’m always going to be for drm-free physical formats.

                      • #83219
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >colors in film are ironically much worse
                        that’s dependant on the film used, color and detail depends on the properties of the film.

                        Though these days, even if it’s shot with 65/70mm film, it’ll get digitally scanned to 4k+ and get graded/mastered for HDR by professionals later in post-production anyway.

                      • #83220
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        theater encodes are usually 16k, with very minimal compression
                        i’d love to see these eventually get released on some future physical format for home viewing, but the streamcucks have sealed our fate to bitstarved garbage forever probably.

                      • #83222
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >theater encodes are usually 16k
                        I fucking wish that were true.

                        A bunch of the MCU films were shot digitally in 6k, then mastered in 2k for the theatrical master, and then that same 2k master was then upscaled for the UHD bluray release.

                        Just fucking criminal. You shoot that shit in 6k, and then distribute it at 2k? Fucking disgusting.

                      • #83223
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        i highly doubt that
                        the original shrek movie was rendered in about 2k, and the only reason is how strapped for cash and storage dreamworks was at the time

                      • #83224
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I mean, there is nothing to doubt, it’s fact

                        Most films are 2k masters, SOME are 4k masters.

                        I don’t think I’ve ever seen an 8k or 16k master.

                        Here is the latest MCU film, another 2k master.

                      • #83225
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        interesting
                        where are you finding this info btw?

                      • #83227
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        imdb

                        Not all films have the technical details listed, but most major movies these days will have the info on imdb.

                      • #83228
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        that’s IMDb

                      • #83408
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Digital just has more benefits than analog and it’s not even close. I do hope analog film stays around in some form just for the experience. but Digital has better tooling, resolution, WYSIWYG (more or less). And honestly what’s kinda cool about digital cine cams is the fact that color science tech can be upgraded – like if i shot something with a RED camera 5 years ago, i can actually take advantage of the new coloring setup they have and the picture can actually look better with 0 effort

                        theater encodes are usually 16k, with very minimal compression
                        i’d love to see these eventually get released on some future physical format for home viewing, but the streamcucks have sealed our fate to bitstarved garbage forever probably.

                        t. guy who literally never looked this up ever not once.
                        literally 16k cameras weren’t even on the market up until this decade. film scanners never went this high – if you had big dick money you could get an 8K at best but at that point you’re just recording extremely high quality grain

                        I mean, there is nothing to doubt, it’s fact

                        Most films are 2k masters, SOME are 4k masters.

                        I don’t think I’ve ever seen an 8k or 16k master.

                        Here is the latest MCU film, another 2k master.

                        interesting
                        where are you finding this info btw?

                        >theater encodes are usually 16k
                        I fucking wish that were true.

                        A bunch of the MCU films were shot digitally in 6k, then mastered in 2k for the theatrical master, and then that same 2k master was then upscaled for the UHD bluray release.

                        Just fucking criminal. You shoot that shit in 6k, and then distribute it at 2k? Fucking disgusting.

                        so there’s a bit to unpack here
                        the chad cinema cameras from ARRI have such based image science that DPs use them regardless of the fact that this high end company can’t ever seem to score higher res sensors

                        Also shooting higher and mastering lower is common for cropping and vfx and literally all of the MCU is VFX

                      • #83217
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Seethe over what? You being wrong and stuck in the past?

                      • #83289
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        did they de-blue the extended version or it still looks like shit?

                      • #83290
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        They did de-blue it, yes. They did a great job actually, it’s for sure the best release.

                      • #83292
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        yes but now the snow is overexposed and there’s no texture

                      • #83296
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        You just need a better TV

                      • #83297
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I have one of the finest TVs ever made, if I upgrade it will be to Laservision. My TV also has a real Faroudja three line comb filter, also one of the finest ever made.

                      • #83300
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >I have one of the finest TVs ever made
                        certainly not a plasma, then.

                      • #83308
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        plasma does 100000:1 contrast easy, many with adobe rgb gamut or better

                        it’s still the superior display set

                      • #83309
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        They simply don’t. Plasmas get destroyed by modern QLEDs, both in gamut and contrast.
                        Where are you getting these numbers from? Plasmas don’t have contrast any better than a decent VA.

                      • #83311
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Plasmas get destroyed by modern QLEDs
                        No they absolutely do not and especially not if you want analog inputs. But either way they are inferior. Plasma has a wide gamut and dynamic range because of the inherent nature of QLED display structure at the physical subpixel and lighting level. Plasma has individually lit subpixels, you still can’t math that with any display tech.

                      • #83313
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Plasma has individually lit subpixels
                        This is such a meme it’s unreal. Self-emissive doesn’t mean shit. Your plasma has a raised black level since the pixels need a precharge and the brightness isn’t any higher than the average CRT.

                      • #83317
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Self-emissive doesn’t mean shit.
                        It’s literally the holy grail of display tech and what manufacturers are now just again reseaching. Problem is they will never beat plasma with cold light. YOU NEED THE HEAT

                      • #83323
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >displays with backlights are fine
                        no

                      • #83324
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes, they absolutely are. Do you hate all projectors?

                      • #83325
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        projectors aren’t backlit, they’re projection.

                      • #83328
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        An LCD works in a similar way. In fact LCDs typically have contrast and brightness higher than projectors can manage.

                      • #83332
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        DLP TVs worked that way, but no, most LED LCDs have an array of LEDs lighting up the display from the edge, or from behind.

                        >$3300
                        >flagship

                        show me kuro elite

                        […]
                        you can’t filter your way to a good image. this is why literally every company is trying to move towards emissive, even samsung who is currently using more filters to COPE because they got fucked by LG. the whole endgame of quantum dots is to get away from the backlight.

                        […]
                        yes, and it looks bad just like rear-projection

                        >show me kuro elite
                        >The best 8G Kuro was approaching 7,000:1 when measured
                        >Using the PRO-150FD’s pure picture preset, I measured its average black level to be 0.03 Cd/m2, which yielded a high contrast ratio (CR) of 2,612:1

                      • #83333
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >LCDs suck cuz theyre backlit
                        >yeah well what about projectors, theyre backlit
                        >yeah they suck too
                        >well LCDs are actually better than projectors

                        and your point is? no one here has brought up projectors but you.

                      • #83334
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I’ll just concede the point. It’s reasonable for you to dislike both.

                      • #83330
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        projectors are well established to be horrendous quality. thats why people buy TVs.

                      • #83316
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        OLEDs literally have the same sub pixel control.

                        Plasmas have a static contrast ratio around 3500:1 to 4000:1

                        OLEDs have an infinite static contrast ratio.

                      • #83318
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        no many common plasmas do 100000:1 contrast, static and dynamic

                        but modern displays can often only do 120:1 dynamic with cold light

                      • #83320
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Self-emissive doesn’t mean shit.
                        It’s literally the holy grail of display tech and what manufacturers are now just again reseaching. Problem is they will never beat plasma with cold light. YOU NEED THE HEAT

                        >It’s literally the holy grail of display tech
                        It is not. Pic related is your heckin superior holy grail self-emissive display! Wow!
                        >cold light
                        This is some audiofool shit. Not even LG’s nanoIPS panels are 120:1. Any LCD coming off an assembly line in current year with only 120:1 contrast is fucking instant ewaste. That wouldn’t have been acceptable in 2005.

                      • #83322
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        There isn’t a single plasma that can do more than 5000:1 static.

                        pic related, a flagship Panasonic plasma (TH-50PF10UK) MSRP was around $3300 in 2008.

                        A tested contrast ratio of only ~3800:1, and it was considered one of the highest end and best plasma displays available.

                      • #83329
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >$3300
                        >flagship

                        show me kuro elite

                        […]
                        >It’s literally the holy grail of display tech
                        It is not. Pic related is your heckin superior holy grail self-emissive display! Wow!
                        >cold light
                        This is some audiofool shit. Not even LG’s nanoIPS panels are 120:1. Any LCD coming off an assembly line in current year with only 120:1 contrast is fucking instant ewaste. That wouldn’t have been acceptable in 2005.

                        you can’t filter your way to a good image. this is why literally every company is trying to move towards emissive, even samsung who is currently using more filters to COPE because they got fucked by LG. the whole endgame of quantum dots is to get away from the backlight.

                        An LCD works in a similar way. In fact LCDs typically have contrast and brightness higher than projectors can manage.

                        yes, and it looks bad just like rear-projection

                      • #83331
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >you can’t filter your way to a good image.
                        But you can. LCD tech isn’t close to mature, and it isn’t going away either. This is just ignorance.
                        Self-emissive only serves as a term to differentiate LCDs from everything else. Why? It’s not like an OLED works in any way similarly to a CRT. It’s a meme you have made up in your teeny tiny brain.
                        They aren’t moving specifically to "self emissive." They’re just adopting better technologies.

                      • #83335
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >They’re just adopting better technologies.
                        like self emissive

                      • #83337
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #83338
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        sed and plasma were the best thing since line based drawing with an electron beam

                      • #83344
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        i have access to micro-led displays at work. they are amazing. sure they cost a lot, but, they are better than lcd. also have access to a lot of oled and again, better than lcd. pretty sure plasma is better than lcd too

                      • #83345
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        OLED and Micro-LED sure. Plasma definitely not. Simply being self emissive is not by itself an indicator of quality.

                      • #83341
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >bro just wait LCD will stop looking like shit any day now just preorder now $20k to be released q4 2035 (estimated)

                        the whole concept of a backlight is retarded, why would you reduce the resolution of your light emission into a mess? because it’s cheaper to manufacture. then they try and arrive back at the original goal by adding more filter layers with nuclear reactor back-lighting to get through all the filters. the end result is like looking at an illuminated billboard. oh and the fan noise from cooling the LEDs which are 100x hotter than plasma or CRT ever was. and they want you to pay OLED prices for this. what a joke.

                      • #83343
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >LCD will stop looking like shit any day now
                        LCDs already don’t like shit, given that they’ve beaten your plasma in just about every metric.
                        >muh nuclear backlighting
                        Hilarious coming from a plasmafag. LCDs are the most efficient displays per unit brightness, and LEDs are the most efficient lightsource you can use.
                        What the hell are you on about fan noise? Are you talking about dual layers? Because even those, despite being housefires, are still much more efficient than plasma ever was. And the only ones that need fans are the 1000 nit mastering panels. Hell, mini-LED is like 3 years from mass adoption, there’s already a few displays out with it, and that should reduce power usage EVEN MORE.

                      • #83346
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >beaten your plasma in just about every metric.
                        except ones related to image quality

                      • #83348
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        such as?

                      • #83350
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        black levels and contrast

                      • #83352
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        dual layer LCD

                      • #83353
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >poorer contrast than plasma
                        >less gamut
                        >cold light which can’t change as fast
                        it’s inferior, the only benefits are power savings and display price because they’re cheaper to make

                      • #83363
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >I say plasma has better contrast than LCD
                        >you say LCD has poorer contrast than plasma
                        it appears you agree with me

                      • #83354
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >mini-LED is like 3 years from mass adoption
                        the cope. try 10.

                        […]
                        i have access to micro-led displays at work. they are amazing. sure they cost a lot, but, they are better than lcd. also have access to a lot of oled and again, better than lcd. pretty sure plasma is better than lcd too

                        those are LCDs, the mini-led just means the local dimming is better than the dogshit people put up with currently and even dual-layer 1:1 has halos. what you need is for the LED to act as the pixel itself, not as a backlight for an LCD. that is a long way off through.

                      • #83356
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        There are already miniLEDs you can go and buy anon. Get a QN90A or an iPad. I imagine it’ll take off very fast both as a cheaper option to OLED and for power savings in mobile devices.

                      • #83361
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >those are LCDs,
                        micro-led u dumb fuck. they are not lcd

                      • #83362
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >microLED, also known as micro-LED, mLED or µLED, is an emerging flat-panel display technology. microLED displays consist of arrays of microscopic LEDs forming the individual pixel elements.

                      • #83364
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >those are LCDs,
                        micro-led u dumb fuck. they are not lcd

                        >i have access to micro-led displays at work

                        read the thread, that is not a micro-led monitor, there are no micro-led monitors. there are mini-led monitors and micro-led wall displays that cost $40,000

                      • #83365
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #83367
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        no you read it.

                      • #83368
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        no u

                      • #83336
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >tested
                        lol i’m sure that’s why you included your link

                      • #83339
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #83298
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >yes but now the snow is overexposed and there’s no texture
                        so in the mountain scenes it looks like they’re standing on giant white blobs?
                        fuck. still, I like the extended enough to ignore that, it was much harder to ignore the blue.

                        also anyone seen the new 4k akira and ghost in the shell? I saw both and they looked very detailed but de-grained to me. and the new akira audio was very hit/miss, some things sound great other things like crowd noises sound laughable, like 4 japanese dudes hollering in a hallway when it’s supposed to be a crowd of thousands.

                      • #83299
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        De-graining is death to detail, the grain structure of film is how detail is actually recorded. But your average consumer doesn’t "like" grain so the studios eliminate it as a part of their regular signal processing. So you do get bluer less flickery skies and broad tones, but that flicker recording the detail at 24fps is how films were made.

                        It’s all very tragic. Film has a sheen to it, light and darkness, and it can’t be replicated even with digital grain which is a thing too because plain old digital often looks too sterile.

                      • #83302
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        it’s even worse for anime since original animation cells or high quality master versions seem to get lost much more often than traditional films, so there are movies that you will only ever have a crappy/sdr version and that’s all there is to it. one of the reasons I’m still on 1080p, it’s better for SDR. if I was on 4k I wouldn’t feel right watching SDR without using 200w gpu power on upscaling. I’ve actually thought about just using two TVs.

                      • #83304
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        i am hopeful that eventually some sort of ai upscaling will be able to help with this sort of thing
                        obviously not as good as having the originals but could still do a very good job

                      • #83310
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        yeah I wish there was some more animation specific upscaling to avoid oil paint syndrome and fuzziness. like somehow oil paint the lines then pass it again to add back the grain/texture that was destroyed? doubt something like that could ever work in real-time. last time I looked into upscaling it was a trade-off between oil paint and fuzzy. some methods walked the line between pretty well but they required as much GPU power as a AAA game. I heard you can actually use the really intense upscalers and just do a frame-by-frame new version encode but it takes a loooooong time.

                      • #83349
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >I know where to sit and because of it I benefit greatly from 4K resolution.
                        No, you don’t. You probably don’t even know the psychometric differences between the zone and the field. If you’re moving your hear or your eye muscles too much it induces eye strain. There is a particular subtention of angle which defines the optimal viewing angle, and thus distance for any display type or size.

                      • #83351
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >more audiofool shit
                        lol

                      • #83355
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        no you really have two visual extremes and a blending in the middle and a zone of focus in the center

                        try to read a book out of the corner of your eye, you’ll get a headache inside of 2 minutes

                      • #83357
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Why should I care about any of this shit? A bigass 4K panel looks good. It takes up most of my vision while still looking great. That’s nice. I don’t give a fuck that you think I should squint at a tiny 480P display from a mile away because of the phase change alignment of the quantum chakral strings or some shit. Fuck off.

                      • #83358
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Why should I care about any of this shit?
                        because the only screen which you should use will fill the same visual field as the ideal, any more and you induce eye strain or neck strain or both

                        there is a maximum size of what you should watch as video or say a book, it’s defined as "the zone" of your vision – this research is all literally HUNDREDS of years old

                      • #83360
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >induce eye strain or neck strain or both
                        Works on my machine. Again, why should I care?
                        The entire point of HD and UHD is to fill your peripheral vision and thus increase immersion. All the important shit goes in the center of the frame – woah, crazy!
                        No movie I watch is ever going to make me read a book out of my peripheral vision, dumbass.

                  • #83201
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    If you have some remaster on BD from an old movie I’m sure as fuck that they fucked up something

                  • #83229
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Some movies are actually better on LD since they often fuck up remasters and it was the best available format back in the day. Disney stuff is an example.

                    • #83230
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Sure, but that’s a case by case basis, and generally even then they’d have to fuck up SIGNIFICANTLY to outweigh the resolution increase.

                      • #83232
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >and generally even then they’d have to fuck up SIGNIFICANTLY to outweigh the resolution increase.
                        oh they did

                      • #83233
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I agree, there are clear examples where they did, but it’s hardly every film is my point.

                      • #83235
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >it’s hardly every film
                        It’s almost every film actually. Grain removal’s been hot in Hollywood for years, that right there ruins a large amount of detail.

                      • #83237
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Lol no it’s not, that’s gross exaggeration.

                        Also, modern movies don’t really exist in analog formats, so might as well get them at the highest digital resolution possible.

                        There are plenty of UHD upscales of 35/65/70mm film that retain a ton of detail and don’t de-grain and other shit that causes detail loss.

                        Yes, it HAS happened to some films, but again, it’s far from all.

                      • #83239
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Lol no it’s not, that’s gross exaggeration.
                        Haha it is though. You can see it for yourself.

                        OH WAIT you can’t because you’ve probably never even viewed a Laserdisc.

                      • #83234
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        soul vs soulless

                      • #83293
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        do you have did The black cauldron got fucked with digital conversion?

                      • #83307
                        Anonymous
                        Guest
                      • #83342
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Also, it looks like the person who made this comparison downloaded a yify release of the itunes rip or something. Here’s a version with less compression.

                        >and generally even then they’d have to fuck up SIGNIFICANTLY to outweigh the resolution increase.
                        oh they did

                        where are you guys getting these pictures from?

                    • #83246
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >Disney stuff is an example.
                      In those cases a webrip is usually the best option, but not all Disney bluray releases have been obliterated by DNR.

                      • #83252
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Good proof that number of pixels doesn’t necessarily improve resolution because there’s a whole chain of processes involved.

                      • #83272
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        They’re both 1080p releases.

                      • #83274
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        true, all this thread has proven is that there is a good way and a bad way to do digital conversions, which should’ve been obvious
                        i imagine a laserdisc release (or even a quality laserdisc rip from some torrent site) might be preferable to bluray in some cases, in the same way some cd releases were so destroyed that the vinyl release is generally better. but it’s not true in general that laserdisc is better than, or even approaches the quality of modern digital in any real way.

                      • #83269
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Also, it looks like the person who made this comparison downloaded a yify release of the itunes rip or something. Here’s a version with less compression.

            • #83195
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Never seen one of those in my country or the player for that matter

              • #83196
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Yeah they were pretty much limited to first world nations. Still the superior home video format.

    • #83241
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Lol I watched plenty of laserdiscs in school, but you’re right in that I’m not retarded enough to actually OWN a laserdisc player and a collection of laserdiscs in fucking 2021.

      • #83249
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Why’s it retarded? I can get a good Laserdisc for less than a new Blu-Ray and it won’t have a sickly green cast or digital noise reduction.

    • #83248
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s interesting to see the industry quietly admitting that digital sucks for dynamic range, though. HDR is an improvement – or can be in theory – but it’s still not going to approach analog where there are an infinite number of steps between full black and white. And if you look at certain films which have been released in HDR the blacks are improved, but the lighter parts of the scene are crushed. Matrix 2 was ruined on Blu-Ray because of this.

    • #83260
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Why the fuck did HD DVD lose to blueray??
      Sony PS3.

    • #83266
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >plasma fags
      I knew this would happen, after all it’s the only logical step after CRT/PVM memes

    • #83275
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Criterion Collection UHD blurays start releasing in 2 months or so.

      The first one up is Citizen Kane.

      Citizen Kane also has a LaserDisc Criterion Collection release as well, I bet our local laserdisc autist will still insist the LD is best.

      • #83277
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Interesting. Who’s Criterion and why should I care?

        • #83279
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The Criterion Collection comprises of the only movies worth watching.

        • #83280
          Anonymous
          Guest

          A collection of "important" movies. Do note the quotations marks. Any smug fart sniffer will tell you the list of movies on Criterion is the crème-de-la-crème of the seventh art, which only true connoisseurs can appreciate.

          Then you will remember him the list includes fucking Armaggedon

          • #83285
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Sweet. Now I know what copies of movies to look for, as long as Criterion’s stuff is gauranteed to be mastered well.

            • #83286
              Anonymous
              Guest

              their whole shtick is to keep it as it was originally intended to be presented.

              Though i guess we’ll see when they do citizen kane if they do some crazy HDR WCG changes in the mastering, though I doubt it.

        • #83281
          Anonymous
          Guest
      • #83278
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The Criterion Collection is literally the only thing any serious movie fan needs.

      • #83287
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Yes of course, Criterion LDs were mastered by actual professionals back in the olden days, they knew their craft.

        Criterion’s done some fucky color and contrast stuff with BDs.

    • #83282
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >HHDDDBDVD

    • #83312
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >30GB on a dual-layer disc with 4x slower read/access

      vs.
      >50GB single layer that can hold entire 4k 90 minute movies

      OP GEE I FUCKING WONDER WHY

      • #83315
        Anonymous
        Guest

        but anon there’s DVD on the name, everybody loves DVDs!

    • #83395
      Anonymous
      Guest

      porn

    • #83400
      2017 Forever
      Guest

      >HD DVD is litterallly better than blueray shit in everyway
      It’s literally not.

    • #83402
      Anonymous
      Guest

      really? show me a hd-dvd rip that looks better than the BD equivalent

    • #83406
      Anonymous
      Guest

      fuck hd and bluray both
      FILM
      I
      L
      M

    • #83409
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >literally the only diffrence between them is that HDDVD only had 15GB, whereas blu-ray has 25GB
      nice bait m8

Viewing 27 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.