Red Ray instead of Blu-Ray?

[Michel Hafner]

The worst part of Blu Ray is color subsampling and sticking to REC709 color standard without alternatives. 1080p YUV 4:4:4 cinema color gamut would look a lot better at 40 Mbit/s h264 than what we can have now. No Red Ray needed for better Blu Ray image quality. But an even more efficient codec as Red Ray apparently is that can do 4K from Blu Ray is very welcome, of course. If you did 4K with h264 at 40 Mbit/s it would also look better than what we get now from Blu Ray, simply because going from a lower resolution to a higher resolution source helps improve apparent image quality, even if you stay at the same bit rate or do not go up a lot. 9 Mbit/s 720p/1080p looks usually a lot better than 9 Mbit/s SD (as from DVD) and
20 mbit/s 1080p better than 250 Mbit/s SD studio masters (there is no comparison). You can not make up for missing detail and sharpness by reproducing random noise very precisely. This effect alone makes 4K look better than 1080p at comparable bit rates. The artifacts at 4K pixel size tend to become invisible while the additional detail and sharpness is quite visible.

 

[Elsie N]

I think some of us could take a lesson from Stuart in how to post. Notice he makes his points in a few lines, not line after line after line ad nauseum. Might even get fewer of those long-winded posts skipped over.

Just sayin'.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

'People are entitled to opinions!', but people are, entitled to knowledge.

Saying little but arguing incorrectly, just leads to much explanation. Something trolls often use on the original internet newsgroups.

__

 

[Elsie N]

'People are entitled to opinions!', but people are, entitled to knowledge.

Saying little but arguing incorrectly, just leads to much explanation. Something trolls often use on the original internet newsgroups.

__

Now see? I actually read all of THIS post. ;-)

 

[Bob Minervini]

Please do get RedRay out... can't beleive DVDs are still sold!

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Long answers fit long intelligence.
(Pre-written )

 

[Elsie N]

Long answers fit long intelligence.
(Pre-written )

Wayne, no argument there. And I'm not the post police saying you should post more concisely. I actually want to read your posts and see what you have to say, but I found myself reading into them a few lines, seeing how much more there was to read, looking at the clock on the wall, and then just skipping over the rest and moving on. Others I'm sure have the time and are focused on the subject you comment on enough to invest the time. I try to absorb a little of each and every subject, and don't have time for the detailed minutiae.

Perhaps I was being a little self-centered in trying to have things my way by getting you and others to make your points more succinctly.

It's not you... it me.:001_smile:

 

[Wayne Morellini]

That is ussually the case. I forget if these posts are concise, but generally they are. Concise does not mean short, but generally is shorter. There is a proleforla of relevant consise information, and at certain levels of discussion/exploration wisely put together, it gets long. Plus when you make it simpler for people in general to read, it just gets longer.

If people incorrectly challenge with short posts what I would bypass and not challenge myself, then discussion is 9 times longer.

However, sorry if my messages have been a bit long,just the target, the debate, and my ability to see the area around s subject. I have tourrets and aspergers, and have them humming together, that lets multiple spontaneous streams of analysis branch out and can systematically work through a subject.

The 128 character txt generation is leading to the death of intellectural expansion.

 

[Elsie N]

However, sorry if my messages have been a bit long,just the target, the debate, and my ability to see the area around s subject. I have tourrets and aspergers, and have them humming together, that lets multiple spontaneous streams of analysis branch out and can systematically work through a subject.

The 128 character txt generation is leading to the death of intellectural expansion.

That explains a lot... and has just made reading your posts that much more interesting.

cheers!

 

[Josh Snyder]

Just throwing a question out here:

I'm still on an old widescreen CRT with a great image. An older DVD player, and a nice DVD collection.

I know at one point in time I will have to update to an HDTV.
I don't have a problem with that.

I'm not so sure of Blu-Ray though...
I don't know if it's smart to invest in a new optical format at this point. In Belgium, most people still are on DVD, so the format will probably completely break trough in a year or so. But is it wise to invest in an optical format, when the future may lie in solid state media?

I don't have a problem with investing in Blu-Ray (although I'm not a particular big fan of the format, not because of technical reasons, but the way Sony handles its consumers with the format) if the next future format is 10 years away. But if we're talking about a good breaktrough in RED RAY or another format in 3 years or so, it seems stupid to invest in a whole new format. (points to the HD-DVD people)

I know RED Ray isn't there yet, and RED completely isn't in the consumer-space. But if my current set would be broken, at one point in the future, I want to think about bying into highly properiatary media which is maybe dead in a couple of years again. (RED RAY works with Drives and normal DVD's, right?)
I know you can't spend forever waiting for the next big thing, but just not completely fond of Blu-Ray - although I realise that technically, it's one of the best consumer HD formats at this point.

Sony's way is as annoying as Apple's. No freedom.

The investment for Blu-Ray is small. RED RAY will not be format people use in 3 years because for format to be standard you must be able to buy the players from all stores in the world that sells anything more than milk and bread. I don't see RED doing that. You are living this day and age, so use the format that everyone else is using too. It's tupid to not use something because something different MIGHT be the next thing in next 5 years.

But starting to collect huge collection of Blu-Ray movies is stupid because the day will come that Blu-Ray movies are worth nothing, same thing that happened to VHS and DVD, and same thing will happen to format after Blu-Ray.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Your $10 blu ray movies on your media player in Redray, sounds ok compared to using a download service each time. People should have an option to have a hard ("Real") version.