Star Trek TNG - Blu-Ray VS DVD - see the difference..

[RGA]

Pretty clear that it's time to dump your DVD collection...

25 year old TV series TNG

Star Trek: The Next Generation Blu-ray DVD comparison - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHUQ3aGLa5Q)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Bluray has been out since 2006, and I am surprised it has took you this long to come to this conclusion. Videophiles have stuck the fork in DVD every since Bluray came out, and guess we are waiting for everyone else to catch up and put their full support behind the format.

[RGA]

This post was for others - not me - I've had Bluray for quite awhile now.

I don't early adopt on things anymore - I like to make sure it sticks. I remember almost buying DAT and Mini-disc - and I bought Laserdisc. Among the countless other failed or fringe tech.

[3LB]

The future of viewing movies is handheld devices anyway.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This post was for others - not me - I've had Bluray for quite awhile now.

I don't early adopt on things anymore - I like to make sure it sticks. I remember almost buying DAT and Mini-disc - and I bought Laserdisc. Among the countless other failed or fringe tech.

Here is a tip on early adopting Richard. If only one or two companies are supporting a certain product like the two you have mentioned, then it is not likely to succeed. The Laserdisc was not a failed product, it was a product that was superceded by another - and that was DVD.

Bluray was backed by all of the heavyweights in the CE industry. HD-DVD was supported by one. There was no way in hell Bluray was going to fail, and I stated so very early in the HD disc war. Sony did not have to pay studios to released titles on the Bluray format, the did so because they supported the format. Toshiba was trying to buy support from the film industry, and they failed to the tune of $3 billion dollars.

I bought my first PS3 the day that hit the market, and I didn't do it because I like gaming. I did it because I had full confidence it was going to succeed.

[RGA]

I agree and I would add that they handled Bluray perfectly. All the players play DVDs so it was far less painful for those people who had thousands of movies on DVD. I won't replace every DVD because I don't watch most of them all that much and many I just don't care about better picture or sound. But for the special ones I watch a lot or that are heavy on the visuals I sold the DVD and bought the bluray.

The PS3 is a brilliant device - kids want it for the games - (so do the adults apparently as I believe Woochifer said the average age of video game players is 35) and then it also plays DVDs and Bluray and has much faster start times and easy upgrades.

Further - because it's made with kids in mind who are often reckless and tough on the machines I figure it's built a little tougher than typical DVD/Bluray machines so maybe they'll last longer. Now that could be wishful thinking I admit but I bought two PS3s - I have one in Canada and bought another in HK. Love the thing. And it even has a hard drive and you can put photos on it and run it as one of those photo albums through the TV.

[Feanor]

The future of viewing movies is handheld devices anyway.
Not if you have eyes like mine. :nonod:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not if you have eyes like mine. :nonod:

I agree. And the latest figures on viewing habits do not support this notion. The television still beats the crap out of any other viewing devices by a long shot for eyes on screens. The gap is getting wider not more narrow.

[3LB]

I agree. And the latest figures on viewing habits do not support this notion. The television still beats the crap out of any other viewing devices by a long shot for eyes on screens. The gap is getting wider not more narrow.
nightflier says so

[GMichael]

nightflier says so

Somehow, I thought this was coming.:frown2:

[RGA]

The problem with sales statistics is that you don't know for sure what the customer is thinking. With a TV you don't know if they guy is buying it to watch TV or to watch movies or to use it as a giant screen for his computer (which is what I use my 37 inch TV for mostly.

With phones - well if they buy a fancy screen phone it would likely be for internet, watching movies/TV would it not? I bought a cheap LED phone because I use a phone as a phone. And it runs for over a week because it doesn't do anything else - doesn't even have a camera.

SACD player sales - the only way to know how they "truly" sold is to find out how many people bought their universal machines STRICTLY for SACD.

This never sold well anyway but the numbers would look truly terrible if you found out who bought it for the actual SACD machine.

If SACD was sold as an SACD only player with NO backward compatibility (could not play CD) the thing would have flopped epically. They shoved it into PS3 and mega cd changers and dirt cheap DVD players. Sony sold buckets of those players and they count as SACD player sales.

Then they can say see people want this - well no they didn't - they wanted a video game machine and to watch DVDs and the players happened to have some SACD symbol that I bet 99.99% of people had no clue what it was and probably thought it was some gizmo to make their CD player sound "super."

Even SACD sales have the CD portion of the music - so they will play in regular CD players and while the US market charges much more for a SACD disc that is NOT the case in Asia where sales are far far higher - so again - they prop up the numbers - look see SACD sold this many copies - but again - many people are buying the disc as a CD and since stores in Asia are selling them at the same price or only selling music on that format - the average person is propping up the sales without buying it for SACD but as a CD.

I would not be surprised if both the hardware and software sales of SACD are 20 times higher than they "really" are for the numbers of people who bought it for the actual technology.

Sometimes it's hard to tell - the PS3 is a gaming machine. How many use it to watch movies? Well I would not look at PS3 machine sales to prop up BluRay machine sales. Rather I would look to see how many PS3 remote controls were purchased. Chances are that if you use it to watch movies you would buy their excellent little remote. The sales of those are likely to be truer to the numbers of PS3 users who watch bluray - at least in any significant percentage of time.

That's the problem with all things that have multi-formats. What are they using it for - did they buy it for the promise of the technology and then never use it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

nightflier says so

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......Bwahahahahahahaha....He also said that HD-DVD would win over Bluray because it was cheaper.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The problem with sales statistics is that you don't know for sure what the customer is thinking. With a TV you don't know if they guy is buying it to watch TV or to watch movies or to use it as a giant screen for his computer (which is what I use my 37 inch TV for mostly.

With phones - well if they buy a fancy screen phone it would likely be for internet, watching movies/TV would it not? I bought a cheap LED phone because I use a phone as a phone. And it runs for over a week because it doesn't do anything else - doesn't even have a camera.

SACD player sales - the only way to know how they "truly" sold is to find out how many people bought their universal machines STRICTLY for SACD.

Richard, you have just won the award for majoring in irrelevance. Who cares how anyone uses a specific product, it was a sell - and that is all that is important to retailers and manufacturers. I would not buy a TV and use it to wash dishes. A television has a very specific purpose, and that is for video entertainment PERIOD! I buy a universal player so I can play all audio formats, not just for one. If I was just looking for SACD playback, I would choose a SACD/CD player.


This never sold well anyway but the numbers would look truly terrible if you found out who bought it for the actual SACD machine.

If SACD was sold as an SACD only player with NO backward compatibility (could not play CD) the thing would have flopped epically. They shoved it into PS3 and mega cd changers and dirt cheap DVD players. Sony sold buckets of those players and they count as SACD player sales.

Information fail. A sale of a DVD player with SACD capability is not a sale of a SACD player. It is a DVD player. A sale of a mega CD changer, goes to CD players. The PS3 is a gaming machine that has Bluray capabilities, and because of that it counts as a sale of both a gaming machine, and a Bluray player at least in the early days.It had that distinction because as the PS3 sold, it boosted the sale of Bluray disc as well. It is now credited as a sale of a game machine.


Then they can say see people want this - well no they didn't - they wanted a video game machine and to watch DVDs and the players happened to have some SACD symbol that I bet 99.99% of people had no clue what it was and probably thought it was some gizmo to make their CD player sound "super."

Wrong again. Most people who purchased the first PS3 did so because it supported multichannel SACD. There were not a lot of players on the market at reasonable prices that did this along with everything else the PS3 does.


Even SACD sales have the CD portion of the music - so they will play in regular CD players and while the US market charges much more for a SACD disc that is NOT the case in Asia where sales are far far higher - so again - they prop up the numbers - look see SACD sold this many copies - but again - many people are buying the disc as a CD and since stores in Asia are selling them at the same price or only selling music on that format - the average person is propping up the sales without buying it for SACD but as a CD.

That is exactly why there is a CD layer on most SACD, it makes it more flexible and useful and leaves open the ability to trade up to SACD


I would not be surprised if both the hardware and software sales of SACD are 20 times higher than they "really" are for the numbers of people who bought it for the actual technology.

Does not matter really.


Sometimes it's hard to tell - the PS3 is a gaming machine. How many use it to watch movies? Well I would not look at PS3 machine sales to prop up BluRay machine sales. Rather I would look to see how many PS3 remote controls were purchased. Chances are that if you use it to watch movies you would buy their excellent little remote. The sales of those are likely to be truer to the numbers of PS3 users who watch bluray - at least in any significant percentage of time.

Apparently early in Bluray's life, the PS3 really drove the sales of BR disc. Several survey's done by the studio showed that folks that purchased the PS3 in 2007-2008 purchased far more movies than those who purchased stand alone BR players. To be perfectly honest, the studio readily admit it was the PS3 that actually crushed the HD-DVD format.


That's the problem with all things that have multi-formats. What are they using it for - did they buy it for the promise of the technology and then never use it.

This is largely irrelevant because I am not a gamer but purchased a PS3, and now I play games on it every now and then. Not only games, but music and movies as well.

[3LB]

Somehow, I thought this was coming.:frown2:


geez GM, a no-nod? I was just trying to have fun at someone else's expense... it was the best I could come with on the spurr of the moment and if I coulda worked it into a sexual innuendo I woulda, but...

guess that's why my rep points are so low :frown2:

[RGA]

Wrong again. Most people who purchased the first PS3 did so because it supported multichannel SACD. There were not a lot of players on the market at reasonable prices that did this along with everything else the PS3 does.

Most people didn't buy it to play video games? Really? Please send me the link that proves your assertion - that I find quite interesting indeed. I am surprised the machine came with a video game controller and no remote control if "most people" purchased it for SACD capability. SACD was so important that they dropped it in the follow up machines. So you're really gonna need to prove your assertion with some hard evidence. Thanks.




Apparently early in Bluray's life, the PS3 really drove the sales of BR disc. Several survey's done by the studio showed that folks that purchased the PS3 in 2007-2008 purchased far more movies than those who purchased stand alone BR players. To be perfectly honest, the studio readily admit it was the PS3 that actually crushed the HD-DVD format.

That would not surprise me.



This is largely irrelevant because I am not a gamer but purchased a PS3, and now I play games on it every now and then. Not only games, but music and movies as well.

It's a great machine - I bought it for Blu-ray and DVD and have ended up playing far more games - or spending far more time with the games. No doubt gamers bought it for the games and wound up trying Bluray - liked it and now are hooked on bluray. And the quality is good enough that it doesn't really make me want to buy a dedicated bluray machine - even if they are better.


The reason I am interested in sales specific items is because I like to see whether there is real demand or whether companies create false demand and "me too" itus. I've studies business and marketing and psychology over the years and I like to see the break down. The guy selling the machine doesn't care why it's purchased so long as he makes money - So I get that - but I am curious about such things - you and 99% of the world may not be - that's fine. Sony store manager told me that their dvd players that had SACD compatibility counted as a SACD player sale. He may have lied or been misinformed. If I can see some sort of document that states these things factually - that would clear things up. But I assume the store manager would know.

[GMichael]

geez GM, a no-nod? I was just trying to have fun at someone else's expense... it was the best I could come with on the spurr of the moment and if I coulda worked it into a sexual innuendo I woulda, but...

guess that's why my rep points are so low :frown2:

OK OK, so I wasn't on my game. I'll fire a shot your way to make up for it.

[3LB]

OK OK, so I wasn't on my game. I'll fire a shot your way to make up for it.
kewel :thumbsup:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Most people didn't buy it to play video games? Really? Please send me the link that proves your assertion - that I find quite interesting indeed. I am surprised the machine came with a video game controller and no remote control if "most people" purchased it for SACD capability. SACD was so important that they dropped it in the follow up machines. So you're really gonna need to prove your assertion with some hard evidence. Thanks.

First Richard, has anyone asked for proof for the assertions that you made? Hell no, so you have nerve ask for proof to mine. The survey's I made reference to where conducted by NDP, another by the studios at the time, and another by Bluray.com. NDP, and the studio survey's are not linkable, but I have them in writing. It was not just SACD compatibility, but Bluray as well. There was not many games at the time the survey was taken, and the PS3 took a beating amoug gamers for just that reason. SACD support was a huge reason a lot of folks bought the initial PS3 over the players that were offered at the time. Later version of the PS3 omitted SACD playback because of costs, as the player sales were sagging just because of the reason. Aside from the, Universal players were hitting the market that supported SACD, so it was less important to do so on the PS3.

The PS3 came with all it needed to play games, and you can operate all functions of the PS3 via the supplied controller. Common sense would dictate if they came out with an aftermarket remotes for easy Bluray operation, then there must have been a considerable market that did not want to use the controller as a playback remote. If the main selling point was not Bluray playback at the time, these remotes would not have been necessary, or in demand enough to market them.




It's a great machine - I bought it for Blu-ray and DVD and have ended up playing far more games - or spending far more time with the games. No doubt gamers bought it for the games and wound up trying Bluray - liked it and now are hooked on bluray. And the quality is good enough that it doesn't really make me want to buy a dedicated bluray machine - even if they are better.


[quote]The reason I am interested in sales specific items is because I like to see whether there is real demand or whether companies create false demand and "me too" itus. I've studies business and marketing and psychology over the years and I like to see the break down. The guy selling the machine doesn't care why it's purchased so long as he makes money - So I get that - but I am curious about such things - you and 99% of the world may not be - that's fine. Sony store manager told me that their dvd players that had SACD compatibility counted as a SACD player sale. He may have lied or been misinformed. If I can see some sort of document that states these things factually - that would clear things up. But I assume the store manager would know.

Richard, you cannot create a demand that is not there in the first place. Sales specific items are not going to tell you what you are looking for, I have access to the sales numbers. Maybe to the store manager it counted as an SACD player sale, but not to NDP that accumulates the numbers.

Unfortunatly, NDP numbers and sales figures cannot be linked because of liscensing agreements and terms of use against posted it openly on the internet. Companies pay thousands of dollars for this information, so no open posting is allowed.

[RGA]

Thanks Sir T - what you say makes sense - just needed a clearer explanation - you can see why I would find it puzzling that a machine like the PS3 which was clearly marketed as a gaming system would have been purchased initially by SACD fans.

I certainly understand it being bought by people wanting bluray - that's why I bought it. It got great press as a quality bluray machine (wasn't it the reference quality player initially?).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks Sir T - what you say makes sense - just needed a clearer explanation - you can see why I would find it puzzling that a machine like the PS3 which was clearly marketed as a gaming system would have been purchased initially by SACD fans.

I can understand. However, if you were following the stupid disc wars like I was, you would probably know that Sony intent of the PS3 was a full home entertainment hub, not just a gaming machine. According to Paidgeek over at Bluray.com the PS3 was never market strictly at gamers at the beginning. They really did not have many games to take advantage of the system, and Sony really wanted the PS3 to help their Bluray strategy. When the games finally did arrive, and did not sell in the numbers that Sony thought they should, they began to go back to their roots of marketing the machine as a game machine with Bluray playback. SACD playback was such a big deal that the website PS3sacd.com was created so you could get the best out of the PS3's CD and SACD playback. Did you know that the PS3 have very good noise shaping filters designed to improve the PS3's CD and SACD playback? The new slims do not have that feature. Does you slim model upsample CD's to 24/176.4? Mine does, and does it very well. Did you know that the original PS3 has lower jitter measurements than some high end CD players? Mine does, but the slim does worse in this area..a lot worse. According to Paidgeek, a lot of engineering resources were made available to make the PS3 as good a CD and SACD player as the best stand alone CD and SACD players out there. There was a special drive unit that was very expensive that had to be used to meet SACD specifications. That drive unit was dropped(and so was SACD support) so that the price of the PS3 could be lowered.



I certainly understand it being bought by people wanting bluray - that's why I bought it. It got great press as a quality bluray machine (wasn't it the reference quality player initially?).

It was, and continues to be. Only the Oppo bests the PS3 on loading times. It is the only Bluray player that does audio decoding in software, and not on chips. This means Sony can keep improving the audio decoding forever via firmware upgrades, and never have to deal with the limitations of chips. There was a lot packed into the original PS3 that many folks don't know about. It has the most accurate decoding of both Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD master audio of any player out there, and both companies had confirmed this to the insiders at Bluray.com of which I am one.

The original PS3 had a lot of engineering packed in to it, that is for sure.

[Woochifer]

Great shots that show the huge amount of work that Paramount put into this project. But, this is a lot more than just the difference between Blu-ray and DVD.

Getting Star Trek: TNG into HD was far more complicated than even the original series, because the original masters were produced only for SD resolution broadcast. Nobody has seen a complete TNG episode at HD resolution, because no master sources at that resolution exist -- only the SD broadcast masters.

With Star Trek: TOS, all of the original masters were transferred from 35mm film, and even though the visual effects were primitive, they still used optical processes. 35mm film inherently has higher resolution than even HDTV, so remastering TOS for Blu-ray was a simpler process (though Paramount did add some new CGI effects). In this case, the master sources were already at HD resolution.

With Star Trek: TNG, the scenes were shot using 35mm film and those film elements were all fortunately archived. But, all of the original editing and post production were done after those film elements had first been transferred to low resolution analog videotape. For the new HD master, they had to go back to the original film elements, and reconstruct every scene and visual effect shot, one edit at a time. This is not easy and it's not cheap.

A lot of TV series from that era were done similarly. But, because they don't have nearly as large a following as Star Trek, the studios won't put the time and effort needed to bring those shows up to HD standards. And you got a lot of other series that were originally shot on video. So, there's an entire generation of shows out there that will likely never see visual quality beyond existing SD standards.