By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony's in a 'bag of hurt' because of Blu-ray

rolltide101x on 01 May 2014
Arkaign said:
rolltide101x said:
disolitude said:
Arkaign said:
Add to that the fact that streaming media looks like hot garbage compared to a good bd on home theatre.

Yeah. Those Panasonic high end home theater plasma and Pioneer Kuro sales really indicate how much people care about best picture money can buy.  We are in the age of "good enough" not "best of the best". 

I am one of those people who just does not care about ultimate picture quality. It just does not enhance a movie enough to be worth the extra costs. 


That's fair, and for many movies I also don't care that much. The wife hadn't ever seen 'The Wedding Singer', so we watched it on streaming the other day and it was fine. Some films I feel deserve the highest quality though. Sound and image quality are very important to me for those.

I absolutely agree. I will buy the Blu-Ray collectiors edition of The Hobbit trilogy when it is released



Around the Network
Burek on 01 May 2014
Arkaign said:
KylieDog said:
Because Bluray is too expensive and frankly the picture quality isn't a leap like VHS to DVD was. DVDs quickly dropped to VHS like prices too, and budget price DVDs lower than VHS ever were. Bluray has forever been more expensive than DVD.

If I buy a movie, I still buy it on DVD.


Do you have eyes? Lol on my 60" Plasma (not even brand new, it's a few years old now, Kuro Elite) the difference is LUDICROUS. 720x480 vs 1920x1080, and the sound quality. Yeesh.

On a 32" 1366x768 "720p" TV, the difference isn't too big. But any decent recent 1080p TV the difference is nuts.


You are 100% correct, but I do hope you realize you are that "niche" group of people who care enough for that to matter. Most will not care that much to spend more on a larger, better quality TV and all other accessories. They will gladly watch a film on their 32'' TVset and not bat an eyelash. 



Arkaign on 01 May 2014
LivingMetal said:
KylieDog said:
Arkaign said:
KylieDog said:
Because Bluray is too expensive and frankly the picture quality isn't a leap like VHS to DVD was. DVDs quickly dropped to VHS like prices too, and budget price DVDs lower than VHS ever were. Bluray has forever been more expensive than DVD.

If I buy a movie, I still buy it on DVD.


Do you have eyes? Lol on my 60" Plasma (not even brand new, it's a few years old now, Kuro Elite) the difference is LUDICROUS. 720x480 vs 1920x1080, and the sound quality. Yeesh.

On a 32" 1366x768 "720p" TV, the difference isn't too big. But any decent recent 1080p TV the difference is nuts.


Not a leap like VHS to DVD.


So. It doesn't have to be to be justified for some. How much of a relative jump of personal preference varies from person to person. 


True, and it doesn't help that it's objectively incorrect that the leap between VHS and DVD was larger.

VHS was ~333x480 NTSC. ~160,000 pixels.

DVD was 720x480. ~345,000 pixels.

BD is 1920x1080. ~2,070,000 pixels.

That doesn't even take into account the increased audio quality. VHS to DVD was a rough doubling. DVD to Bluray is around SIX times the detail.

Can you tell on a crappy TV? Not really. And there are millions of people who just don't GAF. That's fine with me.



Arkaign on 01 May 2014
rolltide101x said:
LivingMetal said:
KylieDog said:
Arkaign said:
KylieDog said:
Because Bluray is too expensive and frankly the picture quality isn't a leap like VHS to DVD was. DVDs quickly dropped to VHS like prices too, and budget price DVDs lower than VHS ever were. Bluray has forever been more expensive than DVD.

If I buy a movie, I still buy it on DVD.


Do you have eyes? Lol on my 60" Plasma (not even brand new, it's a few years old now, Kuro Elite) the difference is LUDICROUS. 720x480 vs 1920x1080, and the sound quality. Yeesh.

On a 32" 1366x768 "720p" TV, the difference isn't too big. But any decent recent 1080p TV the difference is nuts.


Not a leap like VHS to DVD.


So. It doesn't have to be to be justified for some. How much of a relative jump of personal preference varies from person to person. 

This is correct. It is a huge jump but most just do not care. I care on games but not shows/movies

 

Also why do people thing 1366x768 is 720p. 1280x720 is 720p..... I have only seen that here lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p


Nobody with a brain thinks that 1366x768 is 720p. (that's why the 720p in my post was in quotes)

BUT, a huge number of TVs sold as '720p' are actually 1366x768 panels. It results in even worse picture quality than a straight up 1280x720 screen would be. What sucks is that there are also TVs that are 1024x768 that are sold as 720p as well. Very misleading, and interestingly they probably account for a lot of people that think that Bluray is not much better than DVD.

MILLIONS of those crappy TVs were sold over the last decade, so it's pretty easy to see where some bad ideas come from.



rolltide101x on 01 May 2014


Nobody with a brain thinks that 1366x768 is 720p. (that's why the 720p in my post was in quotes)

BUT, a huge number of TVs sold as '720p' are actually 1366x768 panels. It results in even worse picture quality than a straight up 1280x720 screen would be. What sucks is that there are also TVs that are 1024x768 that are sold as 720p as well. Very misleading, and interestingly they probably account for a lot of people that think that Bluray is not much better than DVD.

MILLIONS of those crappy TVs were sold over the last decade, so it's pretty easy to see where some bad ideas come from.

I did not know that.  Thanks! I have bought only 1080p tvs lol



Around the Network
rolltide101x on 01 May 2014


True, and it doesn't help that it's objectively incorrect that the leap between VHS and DVD was larger.

VHS was ~333x480 NTSC. ~160,000 pixels.

DVD was 720x480. ~345,000 pixels.

BD is 1920x1080. ~2,070,000 pixels.

That doesn't even take into account the increased audio quality. VHS to DVD was a rough doubling. DVD to Bluray is around SIX times the detail.

Can you tell on a crappy TV? Not really. And there are millions of people who just don't GAF. That's fine with me.


You are correct going by statistics but VHS to DVD was a larger jump than DVD to Blu-Ray in reality. When I rent a movie I will do it digitally on the rare occassions I buy a movie it is always Blu-Ray (less than one a year) 



adriane23 on 01 May 2014
disolitude said:
Arkaign said:
Add to that the fact that streaming media looks like hot garbage compared to a good bd on home theatre.

Yeah. Those Panasonic high end home theater plasma and Pioneer Kuro sales really indicate how much people care about best picture money can buy.  We are in the age of "good enough" not "best of the best". 

Oh the hypocrisy. I expected better from you Disolitude.

 

"Oh consoles...don't even change.

Imagine a world where Microsoft or Sony unleash the fury and make their high profile next gen 100 million dollar title like Halo 5 or Uncharted 4 ...but optimize it for high end PCs instead of having engineering teams figuring out how to shoehorn an elephant into a console shoe.

Wouldn't that be something?

Halo 5 with 3 monitor surround or 4K and 144hz refresh rate utilizing Nvidia Gsync. Kids would be selling their kidneys and lining up around the block to buy the TitanZ GPU... :)"


                                     Disolitude; 4/30/2014.  http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=182449&page=3



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

Arkaign on 01 May 2014
rolltide101x said:


Nobody with a brain thinks that 1366x768 is 720p. (that's why the 720p in my post was in quotes)

BUT, a huge number of TVs sold as '720p' are actually 1366x768 panels. It results in even worse picture quality than a straight up 1280x720 screen would be. What sucks is that there are also TVs that are 1024x768 that are sold as 720p as well. Very misleading, and interestingly they probably account for a lot of people that think that Bluray is not much better than DVD.

MILLIONS of those crappy TVs were sold over the last decade, so it's pretty easy to see where some bad ideas come from.

I did not know that.  Thanks! I have bought only 1080p tvs lol


Smart man :)

It's sad, because even some nice Plasma panels were sold in that way. So you get really sharp colors and deep blacks, along with smooth motion, but the resolution is all whacked.

1080p native is where it's at, for games and movies. Well, for movies that can really benefit. Watching something with astonishingly good photography and camera work (Inception, The Dark Knight, etc) is a treat on the right screen for sure. Probably 9 out of 10 movies I don't care that much, but it really helps with the right ones.

I guess you could say the same about gaming. Tetris @ 1080p? Who cares. Just as fun at 320x200. BF4 @ 1080p or beyond on PC? Awesomesauce.

If more wasn't better we wouldn't even have next-gen consoles ;) Let's just play everything at 600p!



kitler53 on 01 May 2014
VitroBahllee said:
WTF! If "Good enough" is good enough, why such hate for the Xbox One and its lower resolutions? People on here really don't care about image quality? Could have FOOLED ME in all the X1 related threads.

But if it's about movies, then SCREW resolution, quality, color-depth, etc. Just 'good enough' is fine.

I don't get people.

listen to what people are saying.  no one is saying there isn't a difference in picture quality.  they are saying the premium  picture quality isn't worth the premium price.  now with xbone,..  it's a inferior picture quality at a premium price which just makes things even worse.



globalisateur on 01 May 2014

Well I think Sony is well aware of that.

The Playstation Now initiative is a proof that they know that part of their future success is with streaming.