More DVD News -- Over the Edge Productions

[MoraWintersoul]

Also, I find this whole "well, I'm poor" thing kinda funny. I'm on a pretty meager entry-level pay myself, and that's a recent upgrade for me. Just like with DVDs, I get BluRays when they're on sale, or else online. Look on Amazon.com for a recent movie on BluRay, and then DVD. The price isn't that different. In some cases, the BluRay is even cheaper. On Amazon, you can get the LotR trilogy complete with like 11 bonus discs brand new on BluRay for $55. If, for some reason, you decide you want that on DVD, it'll cost you even more.

Since rob is timing out, let me try and be an awfully less eloquent version of him to give you a response.

The problem isn't in "I can't possibly afford it", the problem is in "I don't NEED it for now and therefore would consider it burning money". If I told my folks at home I was getting a Blu-Ray player, their first question would be "what do you need it for?" and it would be a good question. I don't watch many movies, and none of my favorites are young enough to be filmed in HD. You said DVDs look awful on big screens but not even my TV screen is an awful lot bigger than my computer screen. Hell, I'm not even sure there's a DVD player in my house, I simply don't need it - I pop a DVD into my computer whenever I want to watch something. For people who do not care about seeing everything in the highest possible quality (because, how much difference will it make on a computer screen anyway?), a Blu-Ray player + building a collection of Blu-Rays will be an unnecessary expense for as long as there are DVDs to buy.

Would I like to see Mangini's monster kit in super HD? Sure. Do I need to see it? Nah. I'm fine without.

[Shadow2222]

Myself, I'm extremely glad there is a Bluray option. That being said, I'm glad there is a DVD version available too 

Being a tech geek, I have to have new technology right away, so I've had a Bluray player ever since I got my PS3 in 2006. If its anything like Live at Budokan on Bluray, it will look great.

[Podaar]

I think it is clear that depending on your starting point, both Rob Webster and Perpetual Change are correct. Perhaps even talking past each other a tiny bit.

If your starting from zero and have some money to invest in a player and television combo Prepetual Change makes a good point since the price difference is so minimal from SD technology to HD technology it doesn't make sense to go with the SD. If you already are vested in SD technology and need to make decisions based on potatoes and baby baths then Rob Webster's point is quite clear and even responsible.

Good discussion.

[MoraWintersoul]

Good discussion.

Yeah!

[philmcson]

I bought a Blu Ray player for discount price at a local retailer. Still haven't got a single BR disc 

[wasteland]

Maybe we should open a new thread specificately on this issue, which is by the way extremely interesting, in GMD, just in order to be completely free from the vincules of the thread subject here. If new information about the DVD came in 15 minutes, we would forcefully had to abandon this branch to discuss the obvious in topic stuff, and that would not be good for the sake of discussing and confronting. Who opens?

[Podaar]

^ Then I could regale everyone with my commiserating over Mrs. Podaar forcing me into HD 3D technology all "for the sake of the grandchildren"!

[Ben_Jamin]

My blueray is my PS3

[Perpetual Change]

Also, I find this whole "well, I'm poor" thing kinda funny. I'm on a pretty meager entry-level pay myself, and that's a recent upgrade for me. Just like with DVDs, I get BluRays when they're on sale, or else online. Look on Amazon.com for a recent movie on BluRay, and then DVD. The price isn't that different. In some cases, the BluRay is even cheaper. On Amazon, you can get the LotR trilogy complete with like 11 bonus discs brand new on BluRay for $55. If, for some reason, you decide you want that on DVD, it'll cost you even more.

Since rob is timing out, let me try and be an awfully less eloquent version of him to give you a response.

The problem isn't in "I can't possibly afford it", the problem is in "I don't NEED it for now and therefore would consider it burning money". If I told my folks at home I was getting a Blu-Ray player, their first question would be "what do you need it for?" and it would be a good question. I don't watch many movies, and none of my favorites are young enough to be filmed in HD. You said DVDs look awful on big screens but not even my TV screen is an awful lot bigger than my computer screen. Hell, I'm not even sure there's a DVD player in my house, I simply don't need it - I pop a DVD into my computer whenever I want to watch something. For people who do not care about seeing everything in the highest possible quality (because, how much difference will it make on a computer screen anyway?), a Blu-Ray player + building a collection of Blu-Rays will be an unnecessary expense for as long as there are DVDs to buy.

Would I like to see Mangini's monster kit in super HD? Sure. Do I need to see it? Nah. I'm fine without.

Just want to say I appreciate and understand all of this, and I'm the same in a lot of ways.

[interray]

Sneak Peak Coming Soon
                                     

Highlights










Over the Edge Productions

16 minutes ago.



Directing the dream theater show in Argentina. Sneak peak coming soon!



.




Like · Comment · Share

[Prog Snob]

Sneak Peak Coming Soon
                             

Highlights

Over the Edge Productions

16 minutes ago.



Directing the dream theater show in Argentina. Sneak peak coming soon!

Like · Comment · Share

You left out the photo.   

[Cedar redaC]

That's awesome! I'm pretty psyched to see what the Blu-Ray will look like.

I agree with Mora on the Blu-Ray Vs. DVD thing. I prefer Blu-Ray disc sound and video quality, but if I already have the DVD, I probably wouldn't replace it until the DVD wore out or broke.

As for 3D stuff: It's nice, but I find it rather gimmick-y and rarely beneficial to the final product. I'll watch a 3D movie in theaters, but I just don't enjoy it so much more that I feel the need to upgrade to a 3D television or projector.

[The Letter M]

John Myung's only shot on the entire DVD. Mike Portnoy paid the editor's off...

-Marc.

[philmcson]

More JM shots apparently wouldn't make sense 

[The Letter M]

More JM shots apparently wouldn't make sense 

Also, in that shot, he's in front of Mangini, making it the only good reason for him to have a shot there.

-Marc.

[philmcson]

More JM shots apparently wouldn't make sense 

Also, in that shot, he's in front of Mangini, making it the only good reason for him to have a shot there.

-Marc.

Haha, don't be afraid, I'm sure that MM had at least one camera placed behind the kit as well as the overhead cam recording his awesomeness, that moment of JM covering MM won't make a difference.

[The Letter M]

More JM shots apparently wouldn't make sense 

Also, in that shot, he's in front of Mangini, making it the only good reason for him to have a shot there.

-Marc.

Haha, don't be afraid, I'm sure that MM had at least one camera placed behind the kit as well as the overhead cam recording his awesomeness, that moment of JM covering MM won't make a difference.

Nope - MP paid Eric Disrude a dollar to have those cams disabled for the show at Luna Park.

-Marc.

[Shadow2222]

That's awesome! I'm pretty psyched to see what the Blu-Ray will look like.

I agree with Mora on the Blu-Ray Vs. DVD thing. I prefer Blu-Ray disc sound and video quality, but if I already have the DVD, I probably wouldn't replace it until the DVD wore out or broke.

As for 3D stuff: It's nice, but I find it rather gimmick-y and rarely beneficial to the final product. I'll watch a 3D movie in theaters, but I just don't enjoy it so much more that I feel the need to upgrade to a 3D television or projector.

Ah, but 3D is so much better at home with the active shutter glasses. I have a 60" Mitsubishi 3DTV that I absolutely love.

[Cedar redaC]

I think 3D would be cool if they could really create depth instead of just basically making certain 2D objects pop out.

[philmcson]

More JM shots apparently wouldn't make sense 

Also, in that shot, he's in front of Mangini, making it the only good reason for him to have a shot there.

-Marc.

Haha, don't be afraid, I'm sure that MM had at least one camera placed behind the kit as well as the overhead cam recording his awesomeness, that moment of JM covering MM won't make a difference.

Nope - MP paid Eric Disrude a dollar to have those cams disabled for the show at Luna Park.

-Marc.

A dollar? Yes, and he surely gave JLB a call and wished him two great evenings and that he trusts James' voice 

[Shadow2222]

I think 3D would be cool if they could really create depth instead of just basically making certain 2D objects pop out.

You would honestly be surprised then. Titanic, Dredd 3D, and many more have great depth. Even if you don't like Titanic, I'm sure you are familiar with the scene where Rose threatens to jump from the back of the Titanic. The water there in the overhead shots looks 100 feet below her! It is really incredible.

3D looks better at home due to the technology in the glasses being so much more advanced than the simple plastic glasses given at the theaters.

[wasteland]

Wait, the sneak peek was that photo or is there a preview video coming? 

[Ben_Jamin]

Wait, the sneak peek was that photo or is there a preview video coming? 

I'm wondering the same thing.

[wasteland]

I think it's video. The stills from productions aren't really new and never before the word sneak peek was used by OtE to refer to them.

[MoraWintersoul]

 

[Octavaripolis]

Please let there be a preview video of the songs with the string ensemble

[philmcson]

Nah, the beginning of BITS would nail it.... 

[BlobVanDam]

Also, I find this whole "well, I'm poor" thing kinda funny. I'm on a pretty meager entry-level pay myself, and that's a recent upgrade for me. Just like with DVDs, I get BluRays when they're on sale, or else online. Look on Amazon.com for a recent movie on BluRay, and then DVD. The price isn't that different. In some cases, the BluRay is even cheaper. On Amazon, you can get the LotR trilogy complete with like 11 bonus discs brand new on BluRay for $55. If, for some reason, you decide you want that on DVD, it'll cost you even more.

The players and discs are pretty cheap these days, but you also need the big TV to make use of it. The same upgrade wasn't necessary for DVD, since it was all SD equipment.
If you're still using an older TV, Bluray offers almost no advantages over DVD, unlike DVD over VHS.

Bluray is a bigger investment than DVD was, and it's a matter of priorities if you don't have a lot of money, so there's nothing funny about prioritizing what you want to put your disposable income towards.

[Perpetual Change]

Also, I find this whole "well, I'm poor" thing kinda funny. I'm on a pretty meager entry-level pay myself, and that's a recent upgrade for me. Just like with DVDs, I get BluRays when they're on sale, or else online. Look on Amazon.com for a recent movie on BluRay, and then DVD. The price isn't that different. In some cases, the BluRay is even cheaper. On Amazon, you can get the LotR trilogy complete with like 11 bonus discs brand new on BluRay for $55. If, for some reason, you decide you want that on DVD, it'll cost you even more.

The players and discs are pretty cheap these days, but you also need the big TV to make use of it. The same upgrade wasn't necessary for DVD, since it was all SD equipment.
If you're still using an older TV, Bluray offers almost no advantages over DVD, unlike DVD over VHS.

Bluray is a bigger investment than DVD was, and it's a matter of priorities if you don't have a lot of money, so there's nothing funny about prioritizing what you want to put your disposable income towards.

Oh, I get that. The medium is better, and not even really that much more expensive, but yeah, if you already have a nice system surrounding a big tube TV, it's gonna cost at least half a grand to get something comparable for the new format.

I'm sorry if, in my zeal, I overlooked that people who still have tube TVs have to make a big investment to make BluRay worthwhile. I personally bought my first real TV like 6 months ago. It's like a 33" Samsung flatscreen. I think I got it on sale for around $200. The BluRay player and 5.1 system were a gift my parents got on black friday for the same price. Not too shabby for a first entertainment system, if I must say so myself

[Dream Team]

Obviously I am not "current" - I had no idea the stuff had gotten that cheap. Sounds like it's time to upgrade . . . .

[Zydar]

I'm still deciding if I want to upgrade to BluRay or not. I can afford one, and I have a decent TV. I don't really watch a lot of movies, but I watch quite a lot of concert DVDs so I would buy the concert films on BR and other movies on DVD if I was to get one. It's interesting to read your arguments in this thread (although it's not its intended purpose).

[me7]

I still don't own a HDTV, but I stopped buying DVDs and moved to BluRay the moment it became available. Why? Because my PAL TV won't last forever and will be replaced by a 1080p TV when it breaks down (or I finish studying, get a job and make some cash).
Every DVD I buy right now will turn out to be a wrong investment when I get my next TV.

Even if you don't benefit from the increased resolution, BluRay has a better quality per pixel ration than DVD. Artefact heavy DVDs like DT's Score would look much better on BluRay even when downscaled to PAL resolution.
1080p offers roughly five times the amount of pixels that PAL does. BluRay compensates for that by having five times the storage space of a DVD, but it doesn't end there. BluRay also uses vastly superior compression technology (AVC vs MPEG2), resulting in way less aggressive compression. Visible artefacts like in Score, which I have a love-hate relationship with due to its bad picture quality, are a thing of the past - except for some badly mastered BluRays that use MPEG2.

Some people here claim that PAL/NTSC and HDTV are like stereo and 5.1 and will continue to coexist. Are you sure that PAL TVs are even produced these days?

[Podaar]

You would honestly be surprised then. Titanic, Dredd 3D, and many more have great depth. Even if you don't like Titanic, I'm sure you are familiar with the scene where Rose threatens to jump from the back of the Titanic. The water there in the overhead shots looks 100 feet below her! It is really incredible.

3D looks better at home due to the technology in the glasses being so much more advanced than the simple plastic glasses given at the theaters.

I'm trying to resist staying off topic but finding it difficult. I second Shadow2222's comment above. Active shutter technology is REALLY impressive and comfortable too. Animated features like 'Finding Nemo' have true depth due to all the correct data being available to the 3D producers.

Also, yes, a terrific new setup isn't cheap but I was VERY pleasantly surprised how affordable it turned out to be when I was talked into buying a new TV, 3D BluRay player, and surround system. So if you have the means, it's not such a terrifyingly expensive investment right now. Getting all working properly is a bit of different story! 

[Shadow2222]

I'm trying to resist staying off topic but finding it difficult. I second Shadow2222's comment above.

Thanks! 3D can be truly amazing when working right (and I agree, sometimes it can be hard to initially get it working. Also, I completely forgot about animated movies, which are some of the best in 3D! I have to see Finding Nemo in 3D soon.

Okay, back on topic:

I know its already been stated in this thread, but I reaaaaally hope that TCOT works its way onto the DVD, even if it is from High Voltage. It's criminal that we haven't seen a professionally recorded version of that yet!

[Cedar redaC]

Agreed.