[LeoD]

 Mr.Flibble, on 31 March 2011 - 06:52 AM, said:

One disk per movie. I wouldn't want to get up and change disk. I mean, if someone were to do a marathon of the three movies, that would be switching disk 5 times before the end. It would break the atmosphere.

Many people would have to watch from the toilet, then.
Why not rip and concatenate the whole shit and play from your HDD?

 Mr.Flibble, on 31 March 2011 - 06:52 AM, said:

Most people aren't going to experience the difference because most people don't have a mini theater in their house.

Then why buy Blu-ray in the first place? Despite having a 42'' TV I won't replace normal DVDs unless I've bought myself a Beamer and a BIG screen. The most ridiculous thing are those 'new' HD sound formats. Even if they had the equipment most people won't be able to hear any difference between good MP3/AC3/DTS and 96KHz/24Bit to begin with.

[Jeff]

As I said before, some people found sitting through a 3-4 hour movie a bit long, so with two discs per movie, they could watch the first half one night and the second half another time. Besides, what's so bad about getting up and changing discs? My personal opinion, but our society has become lazy over the last 25-50 years or so.

[Kathy]

LeoD, on 31 March 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

Then why buy Blu-ray in the first place? Despite having a 42'' TV I won't replace normal DVDs unless I've bought myself a Beamer and a BIG screen.

Because blu-ray clarity looks great. If only frame rate wasn't lagging behind with 24.

Quote

The most ridiculous thing are those 'new' HD sound formats. Even if they had the equipment most people won't be able to hear any difference between good MP3/AC3/DTS and 96KHz/24Bit to begin with.

How is that ridiculous? It's pretty logical that blurays have also a better audio since format allows it. What's there to bitch about better quality? You don't need hd-audio receiver to play audio from blu-rays.

[Jeff]

The 24 FPS format has been used since the 1920s or so. Although James Cameron was saying recently that the next step would be 48 FPS. So for LCD/LED that would be at least 240 Hz for 48p playback or with plasma it would be 96 Hz. Although by the time we have 48 FPS movies, there won't even be LCD/LED or plasma. We'll probably have OLED or something.

I've actually experimented converting some of my videos to 60 FPS and they look miles better than the 24 FPS format.

[Kathy]

 Jeff, on 31 March 2011 - 10:02 AM, said:

So for LCD/LED that would be at least 240 Hz for 48p playback or with plasma it would be 96 Hz.

LCDs are already doing 96Hz with 24p.

Quote

Although by the time we have 48 FPS movies, there won't even be LCD/LED or plasma. We'll probably have OLED or something.

I don't think that home theatre is much of a problem for going to 48 frames. You can still do various pulldowns and many people wouldn't care. The more of a problem is the theatre equipment, I assume.

Quote

I've actually experimented converting some of my videos to 60 FPS and they look miles better than the 24 FPS format.

There is always an issue of tv-like motion, though. But still... 24 must die. Panning can be atrocious on 24 frames.

[Jeff]

 Lotan, on 31 March 2011 - 10:29 AM, said:

LCDs are already doing 96Hz with 24p.


I don't think that home theatre is much of a problem for going to 48 frames. You can still do various pulldowns and many people wouldn't care. The more of a problem is the theatre equipment, I assume.

I haven't seen any LCDs at 96 Hz, although I know in Europe they operate at 100 Hz for 25p.

Quote

There is always an issue of tv-like motion, though. But still... 24 must die. Panning can be atrocious on 24 frames.

Probably because trying to convert 24/25 FPS to 100/120/200/240+ is kind of tough. If they just did it to 50/60 FPS, then there wouldn't be that much stuff to interpolate. I've tested it on some of my stuff, and even the most juddery pans are smooth at 60 FPS. No need for 120 FPS, which would make it look like a soap opera.

[Kathy]

 Jeff, on 31 March 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

I haven't seen any LCDs at 96 Hz, although I know in Europe they operate at 100 Hz for 25p.

I doubt there are any 25p blu-ray movies. My european tv does 24p. Although, I coundn't find information about whether it's 4:4 or 5:5.

[Jeff]

European standards go by 50 Hz all the way up to 400 Hz in terms of TVs. For plasma I think they use 100 Hz instead of 96 Hz here in North America. Thing is 50 Hz, the flicker would drive everyone nuts, so unlike here in Canada where the Panasonic V series is the only TV with 96 Hz, in Europe, the G and V series are 100 Hz.

In terms of Blu-ray movies in Europe, I think they play it at 24p, but they speed it up by 4% or so to get 25p.

[Master Fibbles]

 LeoD, on 31 March 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

Many people would have to watch from the toilet, then.

Haha. Everyone should have a TV in their bathroom. Isn't that part of some of those commercials for these new fancy DVR packages you can get for insane amounts of money?

 LeoD, on 31 March 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

Why not rip and concatenate the whole shit and play from your HDD?

That would be ideal, wouldn't it...

 Jeff, on 31 March 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

My personal opinion, but our society has become lazy over the last 25-50 years or so.

Technology has allowed us to become stupid and lazy. Shit happens.


What is with the obsession with "better"? I'm never going to have some super theater system that will properly justify the purchase of the newest and latest of vido or audio formats. Why? For starters, I can't hear for shit anyway and I don't plan on having the money to burn on stuff that goes out of date almost as fast as it breaks down. I also don't see the point...but that is just philosophy.

[The Commander]

With this talk of the LOTR, I thought I would let people know that filming for The Hobbit has finally begun, we should see a release some time mid-next year.

[Master Fibbles]

I hope it is good. I enjoyed the book more than LOTR (which I never really finished nor got particularly far in).

[Kathy]

 Jeff, on 31 March 2011 - 12:22 PM, said:

In terms of Blu-ray movies in Europe, I think they play it at 24p, but they speed it up by 4% or so to get 25p.

It shouldn't. The material is 24p. In dvd times movies were actually 25 frames on dvd itself. I doubt blu-ray player speed up anything. Also, I think full hd TVs don't have a 50/60Hz problem now. My EU tv is currently connected to PC with a 60Hz. And I play movies from blu-ray drive. Pulldown 2:3 will give 60Hz. From PS3 I was able to do 24p and I doubt movie was faster.

[Micky C]

A surprising number of people in my year level at school don't actually watch tv anymore.

[Lunick]

 Micky C, on 01 April 2011 - 07:54 PM, said:

A surprising number of people in my year level at school don't actually watch tv anymore.

I actually asked this question to some friends on Friday and they said they get their entertainment from Facebook or they just download episodes off the net. I actually don't watch T.V anymore either :/

[High Treason]

I know loads of people that don't watch TV, but they are all older than me. I don't like TV and I hate that I have to pay a license every year just because I own one, I took the reciever out (not the easiest task without working desoldering tools.) but still turns out I have to pay a license - no shit, it is costing me over £100 a year just because I want to play with the Sega every once in a while!

[Micky C]

That sucks. In Australia we have a great free-to-air series of television networks. Most of them are ad-supported, a few of them are government supported, but when you have a TiVo like me you can just fast-forward the ads. I don't know how I lived without the TiVo, my family went straight from recording on VHS videos to it, completely skipping the DVD-R thing.

Oh, and in Australia, we don't pay licenses for the TV, the channels, OR the TiVo! (Unlike America we just pay a once-off up front cost)

[Lunick]

I never knew America had to pay for their T.V I'm so glad I still have my T.V then

[High Treason]

Hehe, I'm in the UK, around 90% of our TV channels are payed for by advertisements but the BBC are not and are the sole reason that you need to pay a license, they are notorious among people here for being Capitalist Copyright Nazis.

[Lunick]

High Treason, on 01 April 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

Hehe, I'm in the UK, around 90% of our TV channels are payed for by advertisements but the BBC are not and are the sole reason that you need to pay a license, they are notorious among people here for being Capitalist Copyright Nazis.

Oh, whoops That sucks then

[Micky C]

Yeah when I mentioned America I was talking about their monthly TiVo rates. Although from what I've heard most Americans have cable TV which I assume has some kind of recurring fee.

[Jeff]

I have a plasma TV, but as for a cable subscription, I won't buy one. All there is all day is reality TV. I get my cable company asking be to buy something and I told them the day reality TV goes off the air is the day I get cable.

Hedonism bot: Less reality, more fantasy.

[Micky C]

But reality TV is so cheap, you don't have to pay writers and (I believe) you don't have to pay contestants because there is usually a prize at the end.

[Lunick]

Micky C, on 02 April 2011 - 01:33 AM, said:

But reality TV is so cheap, you don't have to pay writers and (I believe) you don't have to pay contestants because there is usually a prize at the end.

I just hope Big Brother doesn't come back anytime soon. That was just terrible.

[Jeff]

It's okay to have reality TV, just don't flood the channels with it.

Oh and I think the Boeing 747 just landed judging by the loud jet noise out my window. I'll have to check Flightstats.com. Yup, it was the Cargolux from Los Angeles.

[Micky C]

Lunick, on 02 April 2011 - 01:35 AM, said:

I just hope Big Brother doesn't come back anytime soon. That was just terrible.

I think the reason why Big Brother was so popular at first was because it was (at the time) different to everything else on TV, and I believe it was one of the first shows where you could ring up to have someone voted off? I was young at the time and it was the first show I remember where you could do that. My older brother was obsessed with the show for the first season but I shortly after the second season started he couldn't care less about it.

[High Treason]

Ah, Reality TV, in many ways, it is like the gaming industry, it is cheaper and easier to make something about real (though often strangely fake and plastic looking) life than it is to do something cool and original, like that flavor of Doritos...

Right I am back from the shop and I have eaten some Doritos. But yeah, E4 was one of the worst stations for that crap, it was all Big Brother before, and I hate that show, now it seems to be shitty aspirational soaps ike Hollyoaks, Gilmore Girls, Skins and The Inbetweeners, not to mention how much they re-run Friends, annoyingly most people I know watch this channel and ONLY this channel! Charlie Brooker summed up my feelings on Aspirational TV quite well; http://www.youtube.c...h?v=59OJ17raqWw

ITV2 isn't much better, and I know one person that will ONLY watch that channel, that has all sorts of cheap versions of E4 shows on it, and loads of Katie Price and stuff like that, I hate it, it's my TV and what really makes it worse is the person that watches that station on it falls asleep most of the time, if you turn the TV off or switch the station they actually wake up, put it back how it was and fall back to sleep.The worst thing on that channel by far is I'm a Celebrity, Get me out of here! Hey, MickyC, you live in Australia don't you? That is where the show is filmed, if I found out which jungle they filmed it in do you reckon you could set it on fire or run a bulldozer through it when the next series is on? I would actually watch the show if that happened.

[Master Fibbles]

I don't have cable and I only watch 2~3 channels anyway...and only about 5 shows. I don't get the fee for TiVo, honestly. Unless there is a cloud involved, it is a bullshit charge. I watch TV through my computer's TVTuner card. I record shows, rewind and skip commercials....I don't pay a dime for that.

For a while I was paying to Netflix but until I get a better/more source of income, I'm keeping it disabled. I don't have time to watch it anyway so it would be a stupid waste of $8 a month.

[Micky C]

High Treason, on 02 April 2011 - 05:41 AM, said:

Ah, Reality TV, in many ways, it is like the gaming industry, it is cheaper and easier to make something about real (though often strangely fake and plastic looking) life than it is to do something cool and original, like that flavor of Doritos...

Right I am back from the shop and I have eaten some Doritos. But yeah, E4 was one of the worst stations for that crap, it was all Big Brother before, and I hate that show, now it seems to be shitty aspirational soaps ike Hollyoaks, Gilmore Girls, Skins and The Inbetweeners, not to mention how much they re-run Friends, annoyingly most people I know watch this channel and ONLY this channel! Charlie Brooker summed up my feelings on Aspirational TV quite well; http://www.youtube.c...h?v=59OJ17raqWw

ITV2 isn't much better, and I know one person that will ONLY watch that channel, that has all sorts of cheap versions of E4 shows on it, and loads of Katie Price and stuff like that, I hate it, it's my TV and what really makes it worse is the person that watches that station on it falls asleep most of the time, if you turn the TV off or switch the station they actually wake up, put it back how it was and fall back to sleep.The worst thing on that channel by far is I'm a Celebrity, Get me out of here! Hey, MickyC, you live in Australia don't you? That is where the show is filmed, if I found out which jungle they filmed it in do you reckon you could set it on fire or run a bulldozer through it when the next series is on? I would actually watch the show if that happened.

Omg I hate Friends. I can't really stand that show, it's not that funny, and I could never start actually caring for/what happens about the characters.

And I'd try to do something but a forest fire in Australia is a BIG problem.

[Mark]

Here in my part of the U.S. there are still about about 25 free over the air digital TV channels. Mostly the big main networks. Everything else like cable and satellite TV costs extra.

[High Treason]

Friends does suck, Ross is the benchmark for the term "douchebag" and I really want to puch him and most of the other charachters in the face, but believe me, Hollyoaks is much worse in my opinion, stories consist of

"This guy is gay/transvestite/pakistani!"
"OMG! That guy is different and we are all fashion slaves/slags and have loads of friends! That guy is phail!"
"OMG! I'm the one charachter that likes that guy! Naw, Homophobism/Racism is fail! Now I will make him as boring as the rest of us!"
"Slagfest and loads of wasted money!"

Followed by the end credits prompting you to call a number once the credits have finished/you've seen the next episode on E4 if you have been affected by such issues, Almost as if the show thinks it raises awareness of such things and is doing a great service, wheras all it does is leave you feeling left out, empty and bitter, not to mention that people that follow the show copy the charachters so if you happen to be like the guy that was being picked on in the show they will yell insults at you in the street or throw things at you. The Inbetweeners is like Hollyoaks with obnoxious school kids and weaker stories, Skins is like Hollyoaks but with college students and slightly more drugs/sex.

Those ITV shows are all reality TV and speak for themselves, it's all either "This is the boring life of Katie Price." or "This is what happens when we dump a load of washed up celebrities in Australia somewhere, but the show is so fake that we know there is no real threat to their health." - Actually, if that show had the celebs going up against poisonous snakes and stuff I would probably watch it.

I actually thought of editing my post after I thought on it and realised that burning things in Australia is a big problem, Hopefully I haven't offended anyone - I was only trying to joke at the expense of the celebrities.