It's worse than that, to some extent BluRays are worse. As you mentioned DVDs offered massive benefits beyond just content quality (lets not forget they were even more robust, remember after too much viewing VHS got dust on the film or it generally wore out). BluRay adds features other than improved visual and audio quality (audio being so minor I don't think most people can hear it) but they suck. Crappy little Java games and poor efforts to duplicate IMDB. Ugh! Some features make it even worse. I play BluRays via my PC and if any other software touches my graphics acceleration the movie stops playing shortly after. If I open a browser window (some of which use graphics accerlation these days) I can't watch the movie (you could argue I lose the extra quality I purchased by reducing the window to fit both on the screen, but for a small email check, IMDB search or even background entertainment while I do some work, that is a PITA. In fact I can't put a BluRay on my second monitor because it isn't DRM compatible), thanks a lot DRM.
I have to disagree about visual quality though. For me there is a big difference, you can really see the difference when moving from a DVD to BluRay. I grant you it is bigger depending on the screen. My 22" desktop its an improvement, but my 46" TV then yea, big difference. Is 1080p a big enough difference against 720p though, then I'd have to say no not really, there is a difference and it is visible but I don't think I would notice it if I was really enjoying the content (same can't be said for DVD though, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the content but having seen BluRay I can always see the visual imperfections).
Even though I just slagged off BluRay I do buy them. I rarely buy BluRay or DVD though. With rental services and on-demand offering good quality content (or even BluRays) and myself rarely rewatching stuff (there's so much out there to see) I only buy what I know I will rewatch (for example my Star Trek collection). In that situation I also tend to be more inclined to shell out for the better quality. The only times I tend not to is content that doesn't really need the improvements, such as stand up comedy (not that I seen BluRay stand up comedy anywhere) or dramas with little to no action. This certainly saves me on storage space and wasted cash in general. That same rule applies to my rental habbits, if it isn't going to benefit then I go DVD as I can watch it while I do something else on my PC too, but if it adds benefit then I like to take advantage.
Now consider there are downloads out there you can get in 720p with std dolby digital without the cruft of DRM and any packaging at all then you wonder why BluRay or DVDs sell at all these days. Ok those downloads are illegal so people shouldn't use them, but they still count against BluRays uptake. Back in the day of DVD release the illegal video downloads were still poor quality and/or took forever to download, but these days if people can still settle for DVD when they purchase media then BluRay is under huge pressure against the free better than DVD quality downloads out there.
I disagree, I think both realistic and unrealistic are as good and bad as each other. No matter how realistic or unrealistic a game is there's lots of ways games could be taken.
Realistic war games could be an accurate representation that will hopefully provoke thought in a player about war and the effects it has on life, is it really worth it, what situations are acceptable and others not? If any? On the other hand the fact that this ultra realistic game is a game (fun and trivial entertainment in the same way you'd go out and play football) makes war and its effects seem like something to not worry about, after all why would people get entertainment out of misery?
Unrealistic games could be considered to trivialise what war is like or give people the wrong impression about what really happens (so the decision to go to or not to go to war seems silly). On the other hand it's an unrealistic representation and just a game, so no one in their right mind would consider it as a good source of information to form an opinion with.
Games and movies about war live in a grey area of entertainment where you are very dependant on the viewer/gamer to take it as just entertainment (enjoying how technically stunning something is, as in its impressive how realistic it looks) and not necessarily an opinion on how war should be considered. Movies and books can be created in a tasteful way so the entertainment isn't the fact that your watching people dieing but its the point its getting across ("needless death is silly", "one man's general is another man's terrorist", "fight for freedom is a fight worth fighting" etc...) and the discussion it provokes afterwards. Games however live in the darker shade of grey, since even if they do the same things as a movie or book they still make you actively take part in the killing as part of the entertainment (and so potentially making killing seem like its not such a bad thing). This means you are further dependant on your target audience not being nut jobs that might think the army have a magic re-spawning machine.
That being said games can provoke thought, for me I always remember the first mission in the Russian campaign of Call Of Duty where they are all running up the side of a hill getting cut down by Germans and thinking "... wow this is mental, I can't believe this kind of thing really happened." One mission out of a fair few and out of many games isn't a good average though is it?:-)
Like you, I am a novice when it comes to this, so I may be completely wrong. From my perspective I would say the reason it can hold just about any codec is more of a "well why the hell not?" kinda of decision, lets just add some additional flexibility. From what I know the purpose of the container is to define how 2 or more streams of audio/video link together (not much point in a container if it's only one really) such as audio delays etc, which becomes useful with stuff like DVDs being able to hold more than 1 audio stream for languages with one video, which can be a space saver. So if the container is not actually handling audio/video information really, simply handling some higher level information generic to all types of audio/video streams for the media player, then why tie it to one codec type?
On an additional possibility, from a users perspective yes it would probably be easier if this was all defined by the codec, so Divx has its own container and audio codec mashed into one, this way when you get the stuff you need for divx you got it all rather than just maybe half. From a developers perspective the separation has allowed people to focus on just what it is they need to focus on (so the guys developing XviD don't need to worry about writing an audio codec or a container because these can be handled elsewhere) and when it comes to the people writing the media players they handle a few containers so they know how the data roughly looks when it comes to them then just link to a codec to process the data.
Also you can identify the codec etc I think. If you use Transcode there is a binary called tcprobe, I am sure this has identified that a container has for example a DivX or WMV codec video in it with MP3 audio or something without me having the appropriate codec. Also I am using KDE, when I right click an AVI file and go to properties then meta information i get the following information
Length Resolution Frame rate Video Codec Audio Codec
So I know exactly what codec's etc I need. Granted this may not be helpful if I download a video clip to find I don't have the codec, but like above I can find out what codec I need easily and go get it, which is really exactly what I would need to do if I it turned out I didn't have the codec required for the hypothetical DivX file format I mentioned earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
It's worse than that, to some extent BluRays are worse. As you mentioned DVDs offered massive benefits beyond just content quality (lets not forget they were even more robust, remember after too much viewing VHS got dust on the film or it generally wore out). BluRay adds features other than improved visual and audio quality (audio being so minor I don't think most people can hear it) but they suck. Crappy little Java games and poor efforts to duplicate IMDB. Ugh! Some features make it even worse. I play BluRays via my PC and if any other software touches my graphics acceleration the movie stops playing shortly after. If I open a browser window (some of which use graphics accerlation these days) I can't watch the movie (you could argue I lose the extra quality I purchased by reducing the window to fit both on the screen, but for a small email check, IMDB search or even background entertainment while I do some work, that is a PITA. In fact I can't put a BluRay on my second monitor because it isn't DRM compatible), thanks a lot DRM.
I have to disagree about visual quality though. For me there is a big difference, you can really see the difference when moving from a DVD to BluRay. I grant you it is bigger depending on the screen. My 22" desktop its an improvement, but my 46" TV then yea, big difference. Is 1080p a big enough difference against 720p though, then I'd have to say no not really, there is a difference and it is visible but I don't think I would notice it if I was really enjoying the content (same can't be said for DVD though, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the content but having seen BluRay I can always see the visual imperfections).
Even though I just slagged off BluRay I do buy them. I rarely buy BluRay or DVD though. With rental services and on-demand offering good quality content (or even BluRays) and myself rarely rewatching stuff (there's so much out there to see) I only buy what I know I will rewatch (for example my Star Trek collection). In that situation I also tend to be more inclined to shell out for the better quality. The only times I tend not to is content that doesn't really need the improvements, such as stand up comedy (not that I seen BluRay stand up comedy anywhere) or dramas with little to no action. This certainly saves me on storage space and wasted cash in general. That same rule applies to my rental habbits, if it isn't going to benefit then I go DVD as I can watch it while I do something else on my PC too, but if it adds benefit then I like to take advantage.
Now consider there are downloads out there you can get in 720p with std dolby digital without the cruft of DRM and any packaging at all then you wonder why BluRay or DVDs sell at all these days. Ok those downloads are illegal so people shouldn't use them, but they still count against BluRays uptake. Back in the day of DVD release the illegal video downloads were still poor quality and/or took forever to download, but these days if people can still settle for DVD when they purchase media then BluRay is under huge pressure against the free better than DVD quality downloads out there.
I disagree, I think both realistic and unrealistic are as good and bad as each other. No matter how realistic or unrealistic a game is there's lots of ways games could be taken.
Realistic war games could be an accurate representation that will hopefully provoke thought in a player about war and the effects it has on life, is it really worth it, what situations are acceptable and others not? If any? On the other hand the fact that this ultra realistic game is a game (fun and trivial entertainment in the same way you'd go out and play football) makes war and its effects seem like something to not worry about, after all why would people get entertainment out of misery?
Unrealistic games could be considered to trivialise what war is like or give people the wrong impression about what really happens (so the decision to go to or not to go to war seems silly). On the other hand it's an unrealistic representation and just a game, so no one in their right mind would consider it as a good source of information to form an opinion with.
Games and movies about war live in a grey area of entertainment where you are very dependant on the viewer/gamer to take it as just entertainment (enjoying how technically stunning something is, as in its impressive how realistic it looks) and not necessarily an opinion on how war should be considered. Movies and books can be created in a tasteful way so the entertainment isn't the fact that your watching people dieing but its the point its getting across ("needless death is silly", "one man's general is another man's terrorist", "fight for freedom is a fight worth fighting" etc...) and the discussion it provokes afterwards. Games however live in the darker shade of grey, since even if they do the same things as a movie or book they still make you actively take part in the killing as part of the entertainment (and so potentially making killing seem like its not such a bad thing). This means you are further dependant on your target audience not being nut jobs that might think the army have a magic re-spawning machine.
That being said games can provoke thought, for me I always remember the first mission in the Russian campaign of Call Of Duty where they are all running up the side of a hill getting cut down by Germans and thinking "... wow this is mental, I can't believe this kind of thing really happened." One mission out of a fair few and out of many games isn't a good average though is it? :-)
Like you, I am a novice when it comes to this, so I may be completely wrong. From my perspective I would say the reason it can hold just about any codec is more of a "well why the hell not?" kinda of decision, lets just add some additional flexibility. From what I know the purpose of the container is to define how 2 or more streams of audio/video link together (not much point in a container if it's only one really) such as audio delays etc, which becomes useful with stuff like DVDs being able to hold more than 1 audio stream for languages with one video, which can be a space saver. So if the container is not actually handling audio/video information really, simply handling some higher level information generic to all types of audio/video streams for the media player, then why tie it to one codec type?
On an additional possibility, from a users perspective yes it would probably be easier if this was all defined by the codec, so Divx has its own container and audio codec mashed into one, this way when you get the stuff you need for divx you got it all rather than just maybe half. From a developers perspective the separation has allowed people to focus on just what it is they need to focus on (so the guys developing XviD don't need to worry about writing an audio codec or a container because these can be handled elsewhere) and when it comes to the people writing the media players they handle a few containers so they know how the data roughly looks when it comes to them then just link to a codec to process the data.
Also you can identify the codec etc I think. If you use Transcode there is a binary called tcprobe, I am sure this has identified that a container has for example a DivX or WMV codec video in it with MP3 audio or something without me having the appropriate codec. Also I am using KDE, when I right click an AVI file and go to properties then meta information i get the following information
Length
Resolution
Frame rate
Video Codec
Audio Codec
So I know exactly what codec's etc I need. Granted this may not be helpful if I download a video clip to find I don't have the codec, but like above I can find out what codec I need easily and go get it, which is really exactly what I would need to do if I it turned out I didn't have the codec required for the hypothetical DivX file format I mentioned earlier.