DVD or cinema.
Bluray and 3D were just marketing gimmicks to shift boxes when what is really needed is a massive improvement in scripts and acting.
Sadly my equipment hasn't got the right buttons to make those improvements. High def/3D crap is just crap, but clearer.
DVD or cinema.
Bluray and 3D were just marketing gimmicks to shift boxes when what is really needed is a massive improvement in scripts and acting.
Sadly my equipment hasn't got the right buttons to make those improvements. High def/3D crap is just crap, but clearer.
Very enlightened post.:rolleyes: Tell us why high def/3D is "just crap, but clearer" and why blu-ray and 3D were just marketing gimmicks to shift boxes. I'd be really interested in your views on this.
DVD or cinema.
Bluray and 3D were just marketing gimmicks to shift boxes when what is really needed is a massive improvement in scripts and acting.
Sadly my equipment hasn't got the right buttons to make those improvements. High def/3D crap is just crap, but clearer.
My TV is only 20" so there wouldn't be enough difference to make it worth paying for Bluray, since the screen wouldn't be big enough to properly display the HD qualities, as far as I know (plus DVD is much cheaper, although I mainly rent rather than buy, via Lovefilm). My DVD recorder upscales anyway, so its good enough for me.
I buy both on DVD and blu-ray, depending on three things.
1: Is it something I want to watch at it's best.
2: Is it something that is available in Blu-ray
3: Price.
I don't think Blu-ray is a gimmick, especially not for watching films with a lot going on at home.
I've got some titles on Bluray and DVD and with some films the extra detail available on blu-ray can be amazing (things like being able to read the text on background screens, or papers*).
I do think that 3d at home,. at least at the moment however is a gimmick
I also don't think that DVD and Bluray will be going anywhere for a fairly long time, as it's still not possible to stream good quality video everywhere, and a lot of people like to own a physical copy of something they've paid for - especially for something that is relatively hard/expensive to backup yourself (and in the case or digitally owned copies of movies, you're still very much reliant on the service you bought it from remaining operational).
*Sometimes you can tell the film makers have put the extra effort in, when you realise the report sat on someone's desk in the film actually ties in to something.
A mixture of Blu-Ray and DVD, depending on the price and the film, anything I'm particularly interested in will be on Blu-Ray, but I still pick up older bargains on DVD or newer films where the picture quality isn't likely to be much of an issue.
Currently ripping all my DVDs to a media server (in full quality) for easier access. May do the same for Blu-Ray in the future but the quality of the playback device and the storage requirements may put me off.
Very enlightened post.:rolleyes: Tell us why high def/3D is "just crap, but clearer" and why blu-ray and 3D were just marketing gimmicks to shift boxes. I'd be really interested in your views on this.
I watch a film to see a quality plot with a good and literate script acted by excellent actors. How do 3D or High def contribute to those things? Very little, so they must be about something else - special effects? thrills for the eyes, possibly?
Manufacturing is all about making money. When most people have the equipment already to view films at home, you need to get them to replace it or you stop making money. The way you do that is by bringing out new gimmicks. Sales figures suggest that the public uptake of Bluray and 3D has not been good, so we can all expect the next marketing gimmick.
Meanwhile Hollywood is intent on bringing out noisy, effect-laden dross for kids and lazy sequels when one of their efforts has made money.
There aren't many films I would want to retain and re-watch but if I did it would be BluRay - I know it's not a 'film' as such but Planet Earth is terrific in HD.
Other than that I mainly watch them in HD via Sky. I'm not a great fan of going to the cinema these days.
I have most of Woody Allen's films on DVD. These are mostly mono sound and HD wouldn't significantly add anything to the experience.
Very enlightened post.:rolleyes: Tell us why high def/3D is "just crap, but clearer" and why blu-ray and 3D were just marketing gimmicks to shift boxes. I'd be really interested in your views on this.
3D is primarily a marketing gimmick, one jumped upon by the film studios to draw in extra crowds to otherwise unremarkable films, one loved by cinema chains as it cuts down on piracy and one loved by equipment manufacturers as it gave them an excuse to flog everyone a new TV.
It's technology driven by the desire to increase revenue, and not to improve the viewer's experience.
I never bought into the blu-ray thing. Never saw the point tbh. I watch mainly DVD's, go the cinema or stream something online from my laptop. Some things just aren't worth watching in hi-def. There's no point.
On different days I like watching the film, then the added in documenantarys/making ofs, then listening to the cast/director commentary. These are on disc copies.As far as I know when you stream you only stream the film and cannot acces such bonus features. By all means though correct me if i'm wrong on that.
I watch a film to see a quality plot with a good and literate script acted by excellent actors. How do 3D or High def contribute to those things? Very little, so they must be about something else - special effects? thrills for the eyes, possibly?
Manufacturing is all about making money. When most people have the equipment already to view films at home, you need to get them to replace it or you stop making money. The way you do that is by bringing out new gimmicks. Sales figures suggest that the public uptake of Bluray and 3D has not been good, so we can all expect the next marketing gimmick.
Meanwhile Hollywood is intent on bringing out noisy, effect-laden dross for kids and lazy sequels when one of their efforts has made money.
Whats wrong with "thrills for the eyes"? Movies are a visual medium. And that doesn't just mean special effects it can simply mean a well shot film with beautiful cinematography, which will look a lot better on blu-ray than on DVD.
In answer to the OP, cinema, blu-ray, streaming or downloading
Blu ray. DVD just doesn't look good on large HD TVs. If your TV is 32" DVD still looks fine. Above that and you're pushing it and you should go blu ray. They should be the same price as DVDs though.
There are few movies that I consider worthy of repeat viewings. Most new movies are a bit like fast food. Tasty and fun for a quick fix, but no real lasting nutrition.
Comments
Bluray and 3D were just marketing gimmicks to shift boxes when what is really needed is a massive improvement in scripts and acting.
Sadly my equipment hasn't got the right buttons to make those improvements. High def/3D crap is just crap, but clearer.
Same here, although if my V+ gets to critical I have to delete somer without watching.
Very enlightened post.:rolleyes: Tell us why high def/3D is "just crap, but clearer" and why blu-ray and 3D were just marketing gimmicks to shift boxes. I'd be really interested in your views on this.
My TV is only 20" so there wouldn't be enough difference to make it worth paying for Bluray, since the screen wouldn't be big enough to properly display the HD qualities, as far as I know (plus DVD is much cheaper, although I mainly rent rather than buy, via Lovefilm). My DVD recorder upscales anyway, so its good enough for me.
I've had to do that too, though I have 52 hours free at the moment so it shouldn't be an issue for some time.
1: Is it something I want to watch at it's best.
2: Is it something that is available in Blu-ray
3: Price.
I don't think Blu-ray is a gimmick, especially not for watching films with a lot going on at home.
I've got some titles on Bluray and DVD and with some films the extra detail available on blu-ray can be amazing (things like being able to read the text on background screens, or papers*).
I do think that 3d at home,. at least at the moment however is a gimmick
I also don't think that DVD and Bluray will be going anywhere for a fairly long time, as it's still not possible to stream good quality video everywhere, and a lot of people like to own a physical copy of something they've paid for - especially for something that is relatively hard/expensive to backup yourself (and in the case or digitally owned copies of movies, you're still very much reliant on the service you bought it from remaining operational).
*Sometimes you can tell the film makers have put the extra effort in, when you realise the report sat on someone's desk in the film actually ties in to something.
Currently ripping all my DVDs to a media server (in full quality) for easier access. May do the same for Blu-Ray in the future but the quality of the playback device and the storage requirements may put me off.
I watch a film to see a quality plot with a good and literate script acted by excellent actors. How do 3D or High def contribute to those things? Very little, so they must be about something else - special effects? thrills for the eyes, possibly?
Manufacturing is all about making money. When most people have the equipment already to view films at home, you need to get them to replace it or you stop making money. The way you do that is by bringing out new gimmicks. Sales figures suggest that the public uptake of Bluray and 3D has not been good, so we can all expect the next marketing gimmick.
Meanwhile Hollywood is intent on bringing out noisy, effect-laden dross for kids and lazy sequels when one of their efforts has made money.
Other than that I mainly watch them in HD via Sky. I'm not a great fan of going to the cinema these days.
I have most of Woody Allen's films on DVD. These are mostly mono sound and HD wouldn't significantly add anything to the experience.
3D is primarily a marketing gimmick, one jumped upon by the film studios to draw in extra crowds to otherwise unremarkable films, one loved by cinema chains as it cuts down on piracy and one loved by equipment manufacturers as it gave them an excuse to flog everyone a new TV.
It's technology driven by the desire to increase revenue, and not to improve the viewer's experience.
On different days I like watching the film, then the added in documenantarys/making ofs, then listening to the cast/director commentary. These are on disc copies.As far as I know when you stream you only stream the film and cannot acces such bonus features. By all means though correct me if i'm wrong on that.
Via a media player and downloaded films
But also
Blu Ray Via PS3
And now again DVD and TV to
Whats wrong with "thrills for the eyes"? Movies are a visual medium. And that doesn't just mean special effects it can simply mean a well shot film with beautiful cinematography, which will look a lot better on blu-ray than on DVD.
In answer to the OP, cinema, blu-ray, streaming or downloading
There are few movies that I consider worthy of repeat viewings. Most new movies are a bit like fast food. Tasty and fun for a quick fix, but no real lasting nutrition.