Go ask /tv/

because on amazon it is only a little bit more and I already have a 1080p TV and a PS3 so I might as well.

Bottom looks better. The one on the top looks like a man.

It's for the people who buy those trendy little box cars. Sure, they might have a better looking car, but I didn't have to spend as much more mine and it's probably much more efficient.

Over 30 GB just for the average sized movie? That would take hours,
>implying torrenting doesn't already take hours

Try watching a blu ray in motion vs a dvd (on a good 1080p tv) and you will see

>>36647174
Hi /b/ good to see you fallout from CP wed has me lookin for trollin' too

The bottom picture looks shooped.

>>36647264
Doesn't for people who have proper internet. I downloaded a 2 gig rip of inglorious basterds in like 30 minutes.

Good job posting an almost 20 years old movie as an example

infrequent copy pasta is infrequent.

Blu-Ray > Streaming (only because most max out at 1080i, and lack of extras that BD has) > any other portable medium.

Simple

I download 720p an 1080p at the rate of 2 or 3 a day.

Bluray WON the HD format war and HDDVD (backed by Microsoft) LOST.

The new hd standards is BLURAY.

America internet infrastructure is shit and the BLURAY will be here to stay because online video service is shit for HD contents right now.

Wow, good job posting a comparison picture from a fucking ancient movie

>>36647174
meh I guess if you already have a nice tv and a PS3 it makes sense. I doubt they cost much more then dvds (I havent really looked). But yeah I wouldn't go out of my way to get a blu ray movie. switchign from playing ps3 to wii is brutal for me because of how much the lower resolution bothers me (its sooooo blurry) but it never does for movies. I'm content with pirating dvd rips.

>>36647264
on my connection it would probably take 81 years according to my calculations

>>36647264

Newsgroups aren't torrenting.

When I'm downloading something on usenet, it takes maybe 10 minutes for one of those 1GB Xvid movies, 30 minutes for the average DVD, and several hours for a Blu-ray film.

Most 720p film rips are about 4.5 Gigs

While the full 1080p rips can be had for as low as 8.5 Gigs, of course I've seen them go up to about 27GB, and while I've never compared the quality between a 4GB and a 30GB version of the same film, the smaller files still come out looking fantastic. I guess they have to remove things like colour depth information, perhaps some sound quality, that kinda thing.

When I get a PS3 I'm gonnna buy a few of my favourite films on Blu ray just to have a look.

Kind of a shit example don't you think? I bought that for eight bucks on amazon (thought I was getting a great deal) and the quality was terrible. I have other blu-rays like Speed Racer and Wall-E, and the quality is worth it.

>>36647378
The movies don't bother you because your PS3 up-converts DVD's to high-def

I have a PS3 and don't own a single blu-ray movie. Downloading blu-ray rips is good enough.

When you look at a these comparison images you won't see that much of a noticeable difference. It's when you're actually on a HDTV you can see why Blu-Ray is great.

People are not able to tolerate anything but bluray are picky bastards.

I could watch a film in grainy streamed quality, or in black and white if I had to. The meaning of the film is still there, and as long as I'm able to make out what's going on in the film, it's not a problem. Spoiled little brats.

Here's the zoomed in Wall-E comparison. Bluray is much better, but it's not "OH GOD MY EYES ARE BLEEDING THIS IS UNWATCHABLE."

Lets face it, if a film has been put on Blu ray by now, it's probably so shitty it isn't worth watching to begin with.

>>36647508

Go away you fat dinosaur.

sage

>>36647174
My xbox 360 with VGA cable / upscaler onto a 1360x 768 40" samsung lcd playing standard def T2 looks better than OP's bluray pic.
GTFO
oh btw bluray rips of pixar films look better .
OP's pic is gay

>>36647508
I feel the same exact way.i've never seen any problems when watching my regular old dvds. If I started watching blu ray all the time, I would probably end up not being able to go back. The way I see it, dvd is still the best quailty (for me). because I personally have never watched a bluray movie to compare.

The change from VCR to DVD was a good one for obvious reasons. bluray however, is just a slight visual improvement.

The diff between upscaled dvd and blu-ray is slight. Blu-ray is just a stop over platform and will not be a dominate one like vhs, dvd etc, it will be like laser disc.

No one buys bluray in my area. Back when the Dark Knight came out, I went to Best Buy to find it. Almost completely sold out in the DVD section, but fucking piles of it in the bluray section.

Do you think the Blu-ray is bullshit?

The thing is, if one could afford a HDTV around 45" or larger, HD is really pleasing to the eye. If one owned a 5.1 or 7.1 speaker system with a nice amp, one would also be able to experience the amazing sound quality BD has to offer.

bluray is p balla

not all of us are living on welfare and chump change

3 words:
Advent Children Complete

The only movie worth watching for blu-ray

Watch Speed Racer on blu-ray, it's like watching your mate play an awesome video game but not letting you play even though there's a 2 player option.

I own Ironman and a few other Bluray movies, but I got them for gifts and I still haven't even opened most of them. It's just too inconvenient for me, my DVD player is in the living room where I sleep, and my PS3 is in my hobbies room.

I'd much rather watch the same film in the living room on my DVD player, than watch it at my PS3 in a much less comfortable environment, even though the visual quality would be far better.

>>36647508


i can't see shit on a camrip.

>>36647508
This!

How on earth is anybody supposed to appreciate classic films if the picture isn't in breathtaking high-definition with Dolby surround sound?

>>36647780
huge faggot detected

>comparing blu ray and DVD using same size picture.
>Everybody else falling for it.

You sad consumerist drones, I pitty you.

Go watch Coraline RIGHT NOW!

>>36647860
are you stupid?

you would watch them at the same size anyway, or do you watch DVDs with a HUGE black border around them on your HD TV?

>>36647860
You're pretty edgy and unique not really, faggot

>>36647752
Currently, gamers who purchase a PlayStation 3 80GB system through Gamestop.com or in store, will also receive a Final Fantasy VII Advent Children Complete Blu-ray movie bonus.

I'm one of those guys who gets really picky when it comes to playing games on an HDTV, but I don't give a shit about movies.

My Wii is probably the best example of this. When I first got my Wii and plugged it up to my HDTV I couldn't stand it. The image was all stretched and every game looked like someone just shit a bunch of pixels on my screen, so I went out and got the HD Wii cords and it helped a bit.

Movies though? I could watch a blurry streamed film on that same HDTV and I wouldn't care. It's not like you have to actually interact with a movie, because you still understand what is going on from the voices and blurry bodies.

>>36647860
What on earth is wrong with that?

Why buy DVD when you can settle for VHS?

Why buy an HDTV when you can settle for SD?

>>36647911
RIIIGHHTTT...

0/10

>>36647780
put your ps3 in your living room you bastard

>>36647911

Well, my TV has the option to do that.

But no I don't.

Personally I have my PC connected to a 32" LCD TV with all my movies stored as VOB/IFO files. Upscaled using some shit that utilises nvidia's CUDA technology. Looks good enough to me. Does an alright job with reencoded videos too. Same with the PS3.

Sure, use a pic from a movie that was recorded with 1991 technology.

Over 30GB ? GET REAL! I download my 1080p BluRay movies off of Newsgroup, they are 13GB and only take about an hour or two to downloads, if that long, sometimes I can get them a bit faster (half an hour or so).

I don't even own a PS3 or BluRay player, I play them on my PC XD

>>36647986

Then I would have to sit on the floor though? There is too much distance from the furniture and the TV for playing games in the living room. Much more convenient in the hobby room.

Also, why do people seem offended that I don't watch my movies on my PS3?

>>36648088

wat?

Most of those are well over 30GB, and that's just the first page.

If I could enjoy watching movies on VHS when I was younger, I don't see why I NEED to watch anything on Blu-Ray. People in this thread are making it sound like a fucking necessity or you'll go blind from the horrible quality.

Jesus christ, how old are you people? You're talking like the first movies you've ever seen were in HD quality.

Bluray is for elitist pricks.

>>36648088

I envy you guys. 13gb is nearly half of my monthly bandwidth cap.

I actually dislike movies with extremely hyper realistic quality. When I think of movies, I associate it with the quality VHS or DVDs. If I wanted to see something that looked exactly the real world, I would take my ass outside.

>>36648349
>bandwidth cap

I know not these words of which you speak.
Shit, I must've downloaded at least 40 gigs worth this past month.

>>36648409

>I dislike quality

ITT: Underage kids vs Elderly

>30 GB

More like 4-6

I for one would just like to see them use the extra
storage space to include the entire TOP GEAR
collection for example.

Anyone remember choose your own adventure books?
Imagine a choose your own adventure movie! :D

The jump from vhs quality to dvd quality was LESS than the jump from dvd quality to bluray quality.

Bluray movies own the hell out of dvd's. Sure dvd's are fine and watchable, but saying its "not that big a difference" or whatever is just retarded.

So Bluray won vs HD-DVD?

>>36647574
do you watch movies zoomed in?
no? then whats the point in it being less blurry when zoomed in?

are you stupid, the jump from vhs to dvd was a way bigger jump because it was more convenient

how is putting a blu ray in any more convenient than a dvd?

also, ps3 owner here who doesnt own a single blu ray.

>>36648959
"Won" is understating it. BluRay destroyed HD-DVD to the point that nobody even carries HD-DVDs anymore.
It's either BluRay or Regular DVD, there's no inbetween anymore.

>>36649132
I laughed when my college bought all of the teachers HD-DVD laptops and now they are only good for DVD's.

>>36648959
Wow, have you been living under a rock?

>>36648951
what are you fucking retarded

the jump from VHS to DVD was significant because it was a transition from analog (which deteriorates, is more bulky, and requires more effort to watch/use) into digital (which fixed all of those problems). The quality did improve but most people didn't give a shit about that. They just knew they didn't have to rewind the fucking thing.

VHS to DVD =/= DVD to Bluray

>>36649126
>also, ps3 owner here who doesnt own a single blu ray.

Your point? I only have Beetlejuice on bluray because I have -everything I could already want- on DVD. Nobody's forcing you to use BluRay movies.
But I do have to admit, those things are damn near indestructible when compared to regular DVDs and the sound. If I only had a better TV and sound hook-up I'd be watching it right now.

I have a really big ass TV (72"). Bluray discs look marginally better than regular DVDs. But you'd have to get right up on it to notice it really.

>>36649132
When did this happen?

>>36649203
I did a paper on HD media about a year and a half ago, and at the time this was still very undecided.

>>36649203
wut

Capitalist pigs.

>>36649315
March 2008, no more HD-DVD format machines will be made.

December 15, 2008.
Last HD-DVD ( Death Proof, lol) shipped.

>>36647174
>ps3 games
duel layered blurays can hold a lot. MGS4 would have needed 5 DVDs if it wasn't for bluray.

>the looks
well, eventually bluray will take over DVDs, like DVDs took over VHS, and VHS took over Hi-Fi.

>hard to pirate
that's a good move on the company's part. any step they take to make piracy more difficult is a step in the right direction at least for them

Blue Ray is the laserdisc of this generation

>>36650405

Except that nobody had lazerdisk players, and lazerdisks were inefficient, unlike bluray.

So it's kinda not like lazerdisk at all. Dumbass.

>>36650405
It's Blu-ray.

Blu

>>36650466
might I suggest pulling your head out of your ass before you say anything again

>>36650466
LDs are still superior to DVDs in terms of sound.

Also, quite a number of people owned LD players in the 80's- mid 90's. Similar in proportion to people owning blurays now.

>>36650516
hurt laserdisc owner detected

Better picture, better sound. Bet you're the same faggot that thought CDs were better than Vinyl.

I doubt that anyone who uses glasses can tell the diferences between Dvd and Blu-ray at 2 or more meters away from the screen.