Betcha DVD will still be going strong in the next 2-9 years. You simply look for reasons to argue with me. I've acknowledged numerous times that Blu Ray is superior. It would be rediculous not to. It just is in no way "must have" compared to DVD as DVD was compared to VHS. I'm perfectly happy waiting for either better or cheaper players (than the feature over-inflated PS3) or the next format depending on the pace of these emerging technologies. I fully understand that my opinions and preferences on the matter further re-enforce my obvious mental retardation, inbredness, redneckness, and whatever other adjectives the enlightened among us can conjur up.

And we're trying to tell you that your reasoning for believing it isn't as big of a deal as DVD was, is ridiculous. You even go as far as to say that HD programming is a better jump than the jump to blu-ray, when in reality the blu-ray jump is nearly identical to the one the HD programming is making: resolution.

Also, for the billionth time, a PC will do a better job with a DVD than the fanciest DVD player you can buy. Period.

A. The drives are faster
B. They're reliable
C. They read data straight to the PC, which decodes the video and audio and maintains the digital signal entirely.
D. They have numerous quality outputs, including SPDIF (TOSLINK or COAX), DVI, HDMI, and more.
E. The system has a video card dedicated to outputting that: video.
F. The CPU is fast enough to do higher quality scaling, enough RAM to do decent caching, support for numerous filters, can adjust playback both on sound and video, in digital...
G. The LCDs are faster.
H. It supports output to your fancy HDTV sets anyway



Furthermore, the 360 is a terrible DVD player, and it's been noted numerous times that it does a crappy job of upconverting DVDs.

The "next format" won't be coming anytime soon. There's no need for it. HD programming is here, now. You want to go to HDTV, yet you don't want to watch HD movies. This makes no sense. You believe that it's time to switch to HDTV on cable, but you think it's too early on movies. Do you even read what you write?

Yeah, console players are easier and more convenient most of the time. And I seriously hope you aren't arguing that DVD players are technically superior because people buy them.

For the new site owner, I think you're an ***. Reviews I have read and my personal experience with the 360 via HDMI are opposite what you state. I would prefer to enjoy HD programming over SD programming (over the DVD vs BR argument) because over the air/cable suffers far more from degradation than DVD discs do. I personally don't invest additional money in either HD programming or discs for my own personal reasons of where I presently choose to spend my money. Enjoy your DVDs on your computers and BRs on your PS3s. I really don't care. I stated my opinions on the matter with regard to "waiting on the PS3". I'm not going to continue the debate on the matter, as it is getting old, and I concede that all arguments against my positions are valid.

Only responding because this came in prior to my last post.

No, Audio/Video equipment is superior to computer hardware. The typical computer setup may be superior to budget A/V equipment but high end A/V equipment trump most, if not all, computer equipment. Now please refer to previous post as I am done here.

Dude, you just called the superadmin an ***.
Dear sweet god.

How about some evidence for that claim? You don't have a clue as to how this stuff works. Where are you even getting your information? A Best Buy salesmen? Some audiophile friend?

Audio interfaces for PC (either PCI, USB or firewire) are fully capable of rivaling the most expensive HD equipment. In fact, they probably measure better, as they are usually used for mixing and mastering. Not like you can tell the difference anyway. I would bet you the contents of my savings account that you couldn't tell the difference in a DBT between say, an E-MU 1212m or similar mAudio model PCI sound card and the best standalone hi-fi DAC on the market. Even a modest X-Fi would be sufficient.

The same goes for video. CM is totally right about DVD playing. Even an old CPU is more than powerful enough to do any, and I mean any of the processing found on even the most expensive DVD players. Modern CPUs exceed the computing power of a DVD player by I don't know how many orders of magnitude. There isn't something a console DVD player can do that a PC cannot. There is no magic here.

But I don't know why I bother. I'm throwing around simple terms like DBT and DAC that you'll have to put into Wikipedia because you're ****ing clueless, yet continue to make arguments suggesting otherwise.

That's funny, because it wasn't even a few months ago they were reviewing upconverting high quality dvd players for home theaters, and how the 360 didn't even compare.

I also find it funny that the exact situation I suggested in my previous post, you dismissed (about HD/SD programming). Yet now you insist that it was exactly what you meant. Make up your mind.

Finally, I wasn't aware that being truthful meant I was an ***. I'm sure you can find better reasons to call me an *** than this debate... I know of a few off hand if you wish to borrow them.

Also being the site owner is unrelated to being an ***.

Oh, I thought it came with the job

I am done with the debate here but I really don't understand your confusion with regards to my views of broadcast resolutions and movie (BR, DVD) media. If I was somehow unclear before my view is that I look more forward to higher resolution broadcast media because normal over the air/cable looks so bad when comparing it to anything of DVD quality or higher. DVDs seem acceptable to me (even though older and substandard transfers are frustrating) and of course any HD content beyond that is great.

Reviews I read of the 360 Elite upconversion were quite positive. It would surprise me if a dedicated upconversion DVD player did it better. Dedicated A/V hardware usually does the job best.

Sorry about calling you an ***. I'm frustrated by some things here, not enough to lose sleep over, but the overall environment where it seems to be perfectly acceptable to insult people in various ways irritates me and I tend to hold the staff to high standards.

question... were they using a 360 hooked up with HDMI or VGA or were they using component... because i remember reading from a few places that the 360 compares with the upconvert players that are sold at the major retail chains (best buy, circuit city, wal-mart, etc...) while the 360's non upconverting playback didn't compare even with cheapo non-upconvert players

now when comparing with the high end models which can actually cost as much as a bluray player sure the 360's upconversion fails to compare

hahahahaha



Yeah, seriously though. Bluray discs are very high capacity and new compression algorithms are coming out all the time. Hitachi has demonstrated a 100 GB quad-layer Bluray disc running on an unmodified Bluray drive. Now that Bluray has won the format war it's going to be around until everything is replaced with internet streaming.

yeah yeah i'm waiting for them to actually make a 10 layer disc (according to the specs it's possible) enough space to put a whole tv series on a single disc at 1080p with lossless audio

For that matter, how long untill getting a BD drive is actually feasable?

Probably by the end of the year.

I hope the price of disks goes down drasticly 12 dollars for a single disk however large, is insane.

They always do. We used to pay a fortune for writable DVDs, and CDs before that.

$12 for a single rewrittable disc? I guess that's why the $5 for a bunch of rewritable Blu-Rays was considered a slick deal.

Why? You'd have to have a HUGE tv to really see a noticeable difference.

just felt like mentioning i felt it funny that i was checking this thread while using my ps3... since the room with my computer is currently occupied by fbi agents... or people putting up sheetrock... i'll let you guess which

Hmm, really? You mean the typical 50ish inch hometheater screen would not show a noticable difference if it ran at four times the resolution of 1080P displaying content at 2160P? Be careful "son of Wookie06". You run the risk of being the next me in this thread.

hueg t


Not really, you'd just have to sit pretty close to it. My last laptop had a 15.4" 1080p screen and I could see individual pixels just fine.

Digital theater projectors come in (pretty much) two sizes: 2048x1080 and 4096x2160. And that's the nice thing about the future format: you'll be able to get almost the exact same picture that the film's director intended. Well, until UHDV equipment enters production.

Besides, in spite of the seemingly-logical inefficiencies, this can only lead to an improved picture quality regardless of your individual setup:

Having a display with a higher pixel density than cones in your eye looks more realistic because that's how real objects you look at behave.

Having a greater-resolution source with a current-generation display will look better because you have a much higher bit rate. You'll have fewer visible compression artifacts and a generally sharper picture. Additionally, your picture will still look good when you move to a future display technology.

Having a greater resolution display with a current-generation source will look better. Among other things, I'd prefer 4 smoothly-blended pixels to one huge square one I can see from 20 feet away. I'm funny that way though.

The Red One camera does 2540p at 60 fps :aaa:

Good lord.
Wait.
The Red One?
Is it by any chance big?

the red one can also do 4K at 30fps

I wish my computer, or hell any computer, could.

Now maybe you'll be happy that I am in complete agreement with you. Or, possibly, you'll reconsider your opinion.