OK, so Wal Mart tries to screw customers with money. Are you surprised? What should you do about that? Not be dumb enough to buy your Blu-Rays at WM. Blaming the format for your own stupidity is absurd (assuming you were actually dumb enough to buy the BD at WM).
It will depend a lot on the studio. Do they take 70mm into consideration? If they do, you should see a difference for sure. If they just print the same stuff on 35 and 70mm, no difference.
production standards (including makeup) are not in line with the quality of the output, and so you see flaws you would not normally see
How so? The difference between BD and movies in the theater is small. If you see this on the BD then you'd see it in the theater. Your comment makes no sense.
n the huge price premium.on equipment and media for the privilege of seeing those imperfections
There is a difference in price on equipment, obviously, but the "huge difference" in price on media exists only in your head.
720p and 1080i at 13 feet from the 42" tv is NOT VISIBLE.
You are correct. That is utterly an totally correct. That is because 720p and 1080i is the same image. No difference. Just in the way it is painted on your TV, and you won't really notice that. Oh, you meant 1080p?
If you think you can tell the difference from 10 to 15 feet about, you are full of it.
At a normal viewing distance on a good HD set, Blu-Ray is as good as, or in some cases better than, movie theater quality (see research from another of my posts). If you tell me that DVD is as good as movie theater quality you are not full of it, you are utterly empty of it. You don't even have shit for brains. Just vacuum.
Those who actually own blue ray movies is a much more relevant statistic than who has a player capable of playing them.
Good point. 14% of movies sold today are BDs. That is a higher penetration than DVD had at the same point in its history. Not bad, given that you have to get a new TV set for BD and you did not for DVD.
only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies
Cool stats. Bad ones of course. 14% of movies sold today are on BD. Easy stats. Not like the dumb-ass stuff the OP quoted. Dumb-ass not because I disagree with it but because it was astonishingly wrong. Tosh never sold enough HD-DVD players to cover 11% of the US market. Even if all of them were sold in the US.
Enough sour grapes for 200 gallons of bad wine. Wrong too of course. Why don't you just check Amazon for BD movie prices please?
Oh, and forced play has been a part of all movie formats since (and including) DVD. It was part of HD-DVD too. Please try to get your facts straight before you take the offer of a tissue from the Anonymous Coward below.
more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s? really?
Yup. You see, the little bastards learned from the HD porn and started to fuck, and then they had little HD-DVD player children. That is the only rational explanation for the fact those numbers. You see, Toshiba never made enough HD-DVD players to cover 11% of US homes. 1% - yes. 2% - maybe. 11% - only if they had babies.
It wouldn't surprise me if a substantial number of those saying they have an "HD DVD player" actually own Blu-Ray devices.
Maybe. They do not own HD-DVD players for sure. Toshiba never made that many. The HD-DVD penetration in the US is nowhere near that high unless HD-DVD players have found a way to fuck and have little HD-DVD player children.
they're ridiculously priced. Anything over $20 is ridiculous for a movie
Even though you have apparently never tried it, there is this thing called "The Internet" where you can do a lot of cool stuff. You can find information. You can shop. You can post mindless drivel on public sites. Oh, yes, you had figured out the last one.
From Amazon.com
Quantum of Solace - $19.99
Ghostbusters - $18.99
Watchmen (Director's Cut) with the right to copy - $24.99
Transformers - $18.99
Casino Royale - $14.99
Planet Earth - $44.99 (compared to $47.49 for the DVD version)
The discussion is the same. The drivel is the same. Get a clue please.
some of the people who owned a PS3 and no other separate BD player, might have ticked Yes to both questions
That might be the case. We do know that a lot of the people who do not have an HD-DVD player ticked that they had one though. We know it since Toshiba (the only ever producer of HD-DVD players) never made enough of them to cover even a small portion of the 11% of the ones who claim they own one.
HD-DVD penetration in the US is at 2% at best.
More interesting, 14% of all movies sold today are on Blu-Ray. That isn't all that bad and a significantly higher adoption rate than DVD had at this point. Considering the fact that upgrading to Blu-Ray involved a new TV and a new movie player, and upgrading to DVD from VHS only required upgrading your player, I'd say Blu-Ray adoption is chugging along rather nicely at 14%. Particularly considering the shitty economy.
they've separated out the PS3 owners from the Blu-Ray player owners
This is not even half of the story. Toshiba never made enough HD-DVD players to cover 11% of the US market. The article lumps up-converting DVD players in with HD-DVD.
The retards who created this study are too clueless to have a job in the economy, and by extension the moron who posted it here should be thrown off slashdot for being too dumb for "membership".
Are the HD-DVD fanbois still out there spreading their FUD and BS? It seems so. The clueless idiots who did this study, and by extension, the clueless idiot who posted it really need to learn how to read and how to do a minimum amount of research.
As others have pointed out - there was not enough HD-DVD players sold in the world to make that 11% number correct. It is total BS. It is absurd. In addition, the number of PS3s is higher than the number of Blu-Ray players. That is similar to saying that there are more Ford Automobiles sold in the US than the total number of cars sold. I had expected better by both hot hardware and a slashdotter. Too dumb.
Blade Runner, for instance, looks absolutely stunning
This is a very good example. Blade Runner on Blu-Ray is probably the best it has ever been seen by any audience. Including way back when it was in the theaters (where it bombed by the way). Duplication was not as good then so when the print ended up in the theater it was nowhere near original quality. The Blu-Ray is absolutely amazing and should not be missed.
they have a much higher effective resolution than 1920x1080
For various technical, biological and other reasons, they do not. Remember, what was shot on analog is not what you see in the analog theater. All movies today go from analog to digital (for editing) and back to analog. The "resolution" of the end product is determined not by the amount of grain on the celluloid (obviously better resolution than 1920x1080) but the resolution and printing capabilities of the film printer. This is exacerbated by a repeated duplication of said celluloid. Most movie theaters today will show films of less quality than a good 1080p TV with an HD source.
The crucial point when it comes to quality is not the resolution but the number of scan lines that can be perceived. With a movie going through a number of processes, film to digital, then digital to film, then duplication round after duplication round, a 1080p movie on a good screen might well be of higher quality than an "analog" movie in the movie theater.
So, what is the quality of a typical movie theater you ask (or at least you should). According to an international study named "Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation" a typical theater has a 750 scan lines resolution. A very good HD set will typically be about there or a little higher, depending on where you sit.
You can even read about it here.. I am SO looking forward to a TV with 4520 scan lines of resolution.
This is a genuine comment from someone explaining their perception
Honestly, I don't think it is. He is essentially saying that he'd prefer movies on a 21" screen fed by a VHS player than going to the movie theater since the quality of the movie is too good at the theater.
The definition was so good that I could see the seperations around the actors
So, you think HD is too good? So you won't use it? That's absurd. Green screen is used in only a small portion of all movies, why would you let a single movie decide for you? Also, if this was such an issue you'd have the same problem at any quality movie theater. Are you saying you won't go to the movies because they look too good? You'd perhaps rather watch them on VHS?
Walks like a troll, talks like a troll. Must be a troll but I won't waste mod points on it.
Some seriously retarded people blame the Jews for everything. They are just wired that way. Probably due to repeated hammer blows (delivered by daddy) to their heads as they grew up.
Re:40 and still relevant
on
Unix Turns 40
·
· Score: 1
all the Linux desktops and all the Linux servers combined wouldn't match the number of OS X desktops alone
I doubt that all the Linux servers and all the Linux desktops, combined, will match the number of iPhones and iPods (touch) sales combined. Those also run OS X.
Anyone thinking that Linux has anywhere near the penetration of OS X is on some serious drugs.
Could you have heard could've instead of could of? They pretty much sound exactly the same.
They sound the same when you speak with a British-style accent, not with an American accent. Identifying this as uniquely American seems to be somewhere 180 degrees off the truth.
I for one would not make a network dependent on SNMP, which most of the ones you mentioned are.
Not really. Most of the network management systems I have used can use alternate ways of getting to the information other than SNMP. I would not worry too much about enabling SNMP on an internal network though, any network admin should be able to enable SNMP and also prevent anyone from the outside getting to that information, but it depends a little on the device of course. Anyway, most network management systems can get to your devices using telnet or ssh rather than SNMP.
I have seen people suggest Visio, Excel and other tools that should not be on your list. Get an automatic system for doing this.
I do not know the size of your network but Microsoft, HP and IBM all have tools that range from bad through decent to good, depending on more factors than I would like to delve into here. If, for example, you have a large network, the later Tivoli solutions from IBM will discover your network, store your passwords, discover the applications on your network, register and report on dependencies (your CRM depends on subnet 172.130.*.*, your Oracle Financials needs port xxx and yyy open in FirewallA, FirewallB and FirewallD). Just as an example. I am not with IBM and I haven't dealt with Tivoli in about a year, but it worked really well for us. We had a huge network, tons of in-house apps and other things though.
As an example, we got a notification about a critical security patch for a specific version of our hardware, my spreadsheets were wildly out of date, but it took less than a minute with our network management software to get a list of all the HW that required this particular patch. You will never be able to do this with Visio and Excel.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, so Wal Mart tries to screw customers with money. Are you surprised? What should you do about that? Not be dumb enough to buy your Blu-Rays at WM. Blaming the format for your own stupidity is absurd (assuming you were actually dumb enough to buy the BD at WM).
It will depend a lot on the studio. Do they take 70mm into consideration? If they do, you should see a difference for sure. If they just print the same stuff on 35 and 70mm, no difference.
production standards (including makeup) are not in line with the quality of the output, and so you see flaws you would not normally see
How so? The difference between BD and movies in the theater is small. If you see this on the BD then you'd see it in the theater. Your comment makes no sense.
n the huge price premium.on equipment and media for the privilege of seeing those imperfections
There is a difference in price on equipment, obviously, but the "huge difference" in price on media exists only in your head.
It's called statistical sampling for a reason.
If the methods are so bad that they miss by about half an order of magnitude, they need to fire their statistician.
720p and 1080i at 13 feet from the 42" tv is NOT VISIBLE.
You are correct. That is utterly an totally correct. That is because 720p and 1080i is the same image. No difference. Just in the way it is painted on your TV, and you won't really notice that. Oh, you meant 1080p?
If you think you can tell the difference from 10 to 15 feet about, you are full of it.
At a normal viewing distance on a good HD set, Blu-Ray is as good as, or in some cases better than, movie theater quality (see research from another of my posts). If you tell me that DVD is as good as movie theater quality you are not full of it, you are utterly empty of it. You don't even have shit for brains. Just vacuum.
Those who actually own blue ray movies is a much more relevant statistic than who has a player capable of playing them.
Good point. 14% of movies sold today are BDs. That is a higher penetration than DVD had at the same point in its history. Not bad, given that you have to get a new TV set for BD and you did not for DVD.
the movies border on extortionist in pricing
only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies
Cool stats. Bad ones of course. 14% of movies sold today are on BD. Easy stats. Not like the dumb-ass stuff the OP quoted. Dumb-ass not because I disagree with it but because it was astonishingly wrong. Tosh never sold enough HD-DVD players to cover 11% of the US market. Even if all of them were sold in the US.
Enough sour grapes for 200 gallons of bad wine. Wrong too of course. Why don't you just check Amazon for BD movie prices please?
Oh, and forced play has been a part of all movie formats since (and including) DVD. It was part of HD-DVD too. Please try to get your facts straight before you take the offer of a tissue from the Anonymous Coward below.
more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s? really?
Yup. You see, the little bastards learned from the HD porn and started to fuck, and then they had little HD-DVD player children. That is the only rational explanation for the fact those numbers. You see, Toshiba never made enough HD-DVD players to cover 11% of US homes. 1% - yes. 2% - maybe. 11% - only if they had babies.
It wouldn't surprise me if a substantial number of those saying they have an "HD DVD player" actually own Blu-Ray devices.
Maybe. They do not own HD-DVD players for sure. Toshiba never made that many. The HD-DVD penetration in the US is nowhere near that high unless HD-DVD players have found a way to fuck and have little HD-DVD player children.
DVDs cost half or less than blu-ray
Amazon.com - Planet Earth. DVD is $47.99, Blu-Ray is $44.99
The price difference is not really there. Not any more.
they're ridiculously priced. Anything over $20 is ridiculous for a movie
Even though you have apparently never tried it, there is this thing called "The Internet" where you can do a lot of cool stuff. You can find information. You can shop. You can post mindless drivel on public sites. Oh, yes, you had figured out the last one.
From Amazon.com
Quantum of Solace - $19.99
Ghostbusters - $18.99
Watchmen (Director's Cut) with the right to copy - $24.99
Transformers - $18.99
Casino Royale - $14.99
Planet Earth - $44.99 (compared to $47.49 for the DVD version)
The discussion is the same. The drivel is the same. Get a clue please.
some of the people who owned a PS3 and no other separate BD player, might have ticked Yes to both questions
That might be the case. We do know that a lot of the people who do not have an HD-DVD player ticked that they had one though. We know it since Toshiba (the only ever producer of HD-DVD players) never made enough of them to cover even a small portion of the 11% of the ones who claim they own one.
HD-DVD penetration in the US is at 2% at best.
More interesting, 14% of all movies sold today are on Blu-Ray. That isn't all that bad and a significantly higher adoption rate than DVD had at this point. Considering the fact that upgrading to Blu-Ray involved a new TV and a new movie player, and upgrading to DVD from VHS only required upgrading your player, I'd say Blu-Ray adoption is chugging along rather nicely at 14%. Particularly considering the shitty economy.
they've separated out the PS3 owners from the Blu-Ray player owners
This is not even half of the story. Toshiba never made enough HD-DVD players to cover 11% of the US market. The article lumps up-converting DVD players in with HD-DVD.
The retards who created this study are too clueless to have a job in the economy, and by extension the moron who posted it here should be thrown off slashdot for being too dumb for "membership".
Are the HD-DVD fanbois still out there spreading their FUD and BS? It seems so. The clueless idiots who did this study, and by extension, the clueless idiot who posted it really need to learn how to read and how to do a minimum amount of research.
As others have pointed out - there was not enough HD-DVD players sold in the world to make that 11% number correct. It is total BS. It is absurd. In addition, the number of PS3s is higher than the number of Blu-Ray players. That is similar to saying that there are more Ford Automobiles sold in the US than the total number of cars sold. I had expected better by both hot hardware and a slashdotter. Too dumb.
Blade Runner, for instance, looks absolutely stunning
This is a very good example. Blade Runner on Blu-Ray is probably the best it has ever been seen by any audience. Including way back when it was in the theaters (where it bombed by the way). Duplication was not as good then so when the print ended up in the theater it was nowhere near original quality. The Blu-Ray is absolutely amazing and should not be missed.
they have a much higher effective resolution than 1920x1080
For various technical, biological and other reasons, they do not. Remember, what was shot on analog is not what you see in the analog theater. All movies today go from analog to digital (for editing) and back to analog. The "resolution" of the end product is determined not by the amount of grain on the celluloid (obviously better resolution than 1920x1080) but the resolution and printing capabilities of the film printer. This is exacerbated by a repeated duplication of said celluloid. Most movie theaters today will show films of less quality than a good 1080p TV with an HD source.
The crucial point when it comes to quality is not the resolution but the number of scan lines that can be perceived. With a movie going through a number of processes, film to digital, then digital to film, then duplication round after duplication round, a 1080p movie on a good screen might well be of higher quality than an "analog" movie in the movie theater.
So, what is the quality of a typical movie theater you ask (or at least you should). According to an international study named "Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation" a typical theater has a 750 scan lines resolution. A very good HD set will typically be about there or a little higher, depending on where you sit.
You can even read about it here.. I am SO looking forward to a TV with 4520 scan lines of resolution.
This is a genuine comment from someone explaining their perception
Honestly, I don't think it is. He is essentially saying that he'd prefer movies on a 21" screen fed by a VHS player than going to the movie theater since the quality of the movie is too good at the theater.
He's either trolling or he's just dumb.
The definition was so good that I could see the seperations around the actors
So, you think HD is too good? So you won't use it? That's absurd. Green screen is used in only a small portion of all movies, why would you let a single movie decide for you? Also, if this was such an issue you'd have the same problem at any quality movie theater. Are you saying you won't go to the movies because they look too good? You'd perhaps rather watch them on VHS?
Walks like a troll, talks like a troll. Must be a troll but I won't waste mod points on it.
Some seriously retarded people blame the Jews for everything. They are just wired that way. Probably due to repeated hammer blows (delivered by daddy) to their heads as they grew up.
all the Linux desktops and all the Linux servers combined wouldn't match the number of OS X desktops alone
I doubt that all the Linux servers and all the Linux desktops, combined, will match the number of iPhones and iPods (touch) sales combined. Those also run OS X.
Anyone thinking that Linux has anywhere near the penetration of OS X is on some serious drugs.
Could you have heard could've instead of could of? They pretty much sound exactly the same.
They sound the same when you speak with a British-style accent, not with an American accent. Identifying this as uniquely American seems to be somewhere 180 degrees off the truth.
Does anyone use Windows 95 these days? Doesn't that require surgical brain removal first?
I for one would not make a network dependent on SNMP, which most of the ones you mentioned are.
Not really. Most of the network management systems I have used can use alternate ways of getting to the information other than SNMP. I would not worry too much about enabling SNMP on an internal network though, any network admin should be able to enable SNMP and also prevent anyone from the outside getting to that information, but it depends a little on the device of course. Anyway, most network management systems can get to your devices using telnet or ssh rather than SNMP.
I have seen people suggest Visio, Excel and other tools that should not be on your list. Get an automatic system for doing this.
I do not know the size of your network but Microsoft, HP and IBM all have tools that range from bad through decent to good, depending on more factors than I would like to delve into here. If, for example, you have a large network, the later Tivoli solutions from IBM will discover your network, store your passwords, discover the applications on your network, register and report on dependencies (your CRM depends on subnet 172.130.*.*, your Oracle Financials needs port xxx and yyy open in FirewallA, FirewallB and FirewallD). Just as an example. I am not with IBM and I haven't dealt with Tivoli in about a year, but it worked really well for us. We had a huge network, tons of in-house apps and other things though.
As an example, we got a notification about a critical security patch for a specific version of our hardware, my spreadsheets were wildly out of date, but it took less than a minute with our network management software to get a list of all the HW that required this particular patch. You will never be able to do this with Visio and Excel.