Not having a hi-def tv pretty much negates the necessity of purchasing the Blu Ray of this film. Not to mention a bunch of extras I would probably not watch. Standard Def version will be fine by me.

---

For what the film was I'm completely happy with the cam ;)

---

I only buy Blu's that I know my family will watch several times and is also worthy of a High Def experience. This is defiantly one of them. Just Picked up the Blu-Ray Iron man today. I agree and disagree with some of you. I like some of the extras but don't care about the online "Live".

I like the new Mean Bat Man. Real man with realistic weapons.

Holy isht @ the MSRP.

I didn't think DK was as mind blowing as everyone else, but this will probably be one of the first titles I pick up when I get a BD player.

I can't wait to watch the Dark Knight on blu-ray! It should also be interesting to see what Warners finally does with BD-Live, i've actually been working with them on some projects so I'm especially curious what they've got up their sleeves.

Quote:

---

I can't wait to watch the Dark Knight on blu-ray! It should also be interesting to see what Warners finally does with BD-Live, i've actually been working with them on some projects so I'm especially curious what they've got up their sleeves.

---

Well isn't BD-Live a feature that HD-DVD had? Not the same name obviously, but heard they had that or that they were going to bring it out. Also the more features they bring out would require firmware upgrades or buying newer Blu-Ray players.


The Dark Knight was a long movie and I kinda got bored watching it in theaters. It was the poor choice in female lead which got me, katie holmes is no better, but come on already!

Originally posted by 1bonehead:

---

Still not buying BD

---

I'll say it twice, still not buying BD.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1bonehead:

---

Still not buying BD

---

I'll say it twice, still not buying BD.

---

Then Don't, My Dual Deck VHS Player Works just fine.^^

thought the movie was great, but my tv is only 32" so yeah.
no way i'm spending all that money for a blu-ray when upconvert looks as good as it does.
really, i'm not spending what the dvd costs on release either.
i tend to wait until a movie is <$10 before making my purchase.

let me know when this version drops that low in price.
really, let me know when any worthwhile blu-ray title does.




i've seen the comparison models in store; a 37" 1080p panel with a blu-ray player running a "demo disc."
there is even a section where it's split into one-half blu-ray picture and one-half "standard dvd via component."
you'll Never see one that shows blu-ray versus standard dvd upconverted over hdmi,
because even at that screen size the average consumer would be instantly swayed back to dvd.

Originally posted by 1bonehead:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still not buying BD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll say it twice, still not buying BD.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'll say it twice. I'm still gona buy it. There, that negates your negative comment. Now its neutral, no one is going to know if Blu-Ray is worth it or not. You better make another comment. We all know that the Movie is going to look awesome with 1080 lines of information compared to 480 lines of information.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1bonehead:

---

Still not buying BD

---

I'll say it twice, still not buying BD.

---

Not a big fan of quality and progress? Well, at least you can still enjoy VHS (^_^)

Originally posted by glassd:

---

I'll say it twice. I'm still gona buy it. There, that negates your negative comment. Now its neutral, no one is going to know if Blu-Ray is worth it or not. You better make another comment. We all know that the Movie is going to look awesome with 1080 lines of information compared to 480 lines of information.

---

Maybe you need an eye upgrade to actually see all the detail or just a magnifying glass and sit next to the screen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by glassd:

---

I'll say it twice. I'm still gona buy it. There, that negates your negative comment. Now its neutral, no one is going to know if Blu-Ray is worth it or not. You better make another comment. We all know that the Movie is going to look awesome with 1080 lines of information compared to 480 lines of information.

---

Maybe you need an eye upgrade to actually see all the detail or just a magnifying glass and sit next to the screen.

---

i said the same thing,
but really you just need a massive (read:40"+) screen to see the difference.

well, at least i would need one to see hundreds upon hundreds of dollars worth of difference.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by glassd:

---

I'll say it twice. I'm still gona buy it. There, that negates your negative comment. Now its neutral, no one is going to know if Blu-Ray is worth it or not. You better make another comment. We all know that the Movie is going to look awesome with 1080 lines of information compared to 480 lines of information.

---

Maybe you need an eye upgrade to actually see all the detail or just a magnifying glass and sit next to the screen.

---

i said the same thing,
but really you just need a massive (read:40"+) screen to see the difference.

well, at least i would need one to see hundreds upon hundreds of dollars worth of difference.

---

I know the benefits as i have a HD screen, freesat and my son has a ps3 and it is clearer, i would admit that, but not anywhere near the hype, and most certainly nowhere near the current price tag, which is just a huge money grab as is all "new" technology, but what else do you expect from sales execs and public relations for a "company" (insert name as it could be most).

HD is nothing new, PC's have used hi-res visuals for many, many, many, many years, and when you first experience it, it's like wow, oooo, aahhhh, but the improvements over dvd are just, so so and not worth bothering with unless you have a completely disposable income.

BTW the quality is only as good as the media you put into it, so maybe "Disaster movie" is the choice for blu-ray players as this is about the level of the MPAA cash cow machine, the sweet spot pg13 rating and all.

Disaster Movie

Quote:

---

Tagline: Not another shallow Hollywood movie
Rated PG-13
1.3/10 14,292 votes
Bottom 100: #1

---

BTW What rating is Batman Dark Night "Rated PG-13" omg another cash cow designed to hit the sweet spot.

---

[quote

---

Maybe you need an eye upgrade to actually see all the detail or just a magnifying glass and sit next to the screen.

---

i said the same thing,
but really you just need a massive (read:40"+) screen to see the difference.

well, at least i would need one to see hundreds upon hundreds of dollars worth of difference.

---

I assume that both of you are kidding as SD utilizes 408,960 pixels and HDTV utilizes 2,073,600 pixels. That is over 5 times the detail. I most defiantly do not need a magnifying glass to see the difference. SD on my HDTV looks like crap. Up converting just stretches the Crap. Snowlock, my HDTV and Blu-Ray Player did cost @ $1,600 more than a P.O.S. SDTV and DVD player. My screen size is 40+ inches. If I did not have this equipment, I would not be reading this article, much less making useless comments about it.

One thing for sure: Warner had better beef up their BD-Live servers ahead of TDK's release and a do a better job than Paramount.

Tuesday's release of Iron Man apparently overwhelmed Paramount's BD-Live servers - an issue they're working to resolve:

Quote:

---

The following is a statement from Paramount regarding the BD-Live functionality of Iron Man:

"The Iron Man Blu-ray went on sale Tuesday and due to the overwhelming popularity of the release an unprecedented demand was placed on the BD-Live connection. The disc represents a truly state-of-the art Blu-ray presentation with a first of its kind BD-Live application. As such, the heavy amount of traffic strained the servers due to so many people heading to the same destination. The bandwidth capacity was increased in preparation for the release but the demand exceeded all expectations so capacity was expanded dramatically last night and local servers were established worldwide to accommodate all the fans. The issue should be completely resolved but if anyone experiences a brief traffic jam, we have provided consumers with a menu option during disc startup that allows them to go directly to the movie main menu or continue to download the BD-Live features."

---

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1849

13thHouR
So the home video market wants to get into HD and the world will end because its SOny's blu ray? BR movies still halve in price after a few months so whats the problem beside needing a good TV to enjoy the quality difference?

No doubt aboout that error5. I thought my disk was bad as it seamed to hang up on the power cell screen. Warner needs to do what Paramont wound up doing later by giving you the choice to enable BD-Live and letting you know that it may take awhile to download the info. I dont care much about BD-Live at the moment so it would not have been a problem for me if they would have given me a choice Thursday night.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe you need an eye upgrade to actually see all the detail or just a magnifying glass and sit next to the screen.

---

i said the same thing,
but really you just need a massive (read:40"+) screen to see the difference.

well, at least i would need one to see hundreds upon hundreds of dollars worth of difference.

---

I assume that both of you are kidding as SD utilizes 408,960 pixels and HDTV utilizes 2,073,600 pixels. That is over 5 times the detail. I most defiantly do not need a magnifying glass to see the difference. SD on my HDTV looks like crap. Up converting just stretches the Crap. Snowlock, my HDTV and Blu-Ray Player did cost @ $1,600 more than a P.O.S. SDTV and DVD player. My screen size is 40+ inches. If I did not have this equipment, I would not be reading this article, much less making useless comments about it.

---

my tv and playstation set me back a pretty penny as well,
but i didn't have the moneyor the room for anything bigger than 32" screen.

once i put in a blu-ray and compared it to an upconverted dvd, and saw a big difference...until i sat down.


the least expensive players are still in the same price range as the cheapest ps3,
and that's nowhere near as low as the price i payed for my first standalone dvd player.
then there's the discs themselves; i usually wait until a dvd drops below $10, but $15 is a reasonable cap.
good luck with blu-rays of movies actually recorded in hd in that range.


so that's around $350 extra for the player itself, assuming one already has the tv (which most don't.)
then you have to take into account building a library of media,
and with all the movies running $25-$35 right now that's an additional $15-$25 Per Movie.

hundreds of extra dollars to see a difference only when i'm looking for it is not for me.



also, let me know how much of a p.o.s. sdtvs are in about 20 years.
in my experience, that's the average lifespan of your really cheap ($150 25"+) crt sdtv's.
prolly more like 30 years, but i'm a bit young to boast all that.

Originally posted by snowlock:

---

the least expensive players are still in the same price range as the cheapest ps3,

---

Not anymore:

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/15564.cfm

Quote:

---

The move marks the first time Sony has officially lowered the price of a Blu-ray player lower than the price of its $399 PlayStation 3 console

---

In addition, the Panasonic BD35 is $299 and the Samsung 1500 is around $250 from amazon - all below the PS3's price. The Magnavox from Walmart is also around $250. Black Friday and holiday season prices could even be much lower.

Originally posted by snowlock:

---

good luck with blu-rays of movies actually recorded in hd in that range.

---

Any movie shot on 35mm film can give you resolutions up to and sometimes exceeding 4K so I don't know exactly what you mean by this. Just because a movie is old doesn't mean it can't be HD. Read the explanation here and how an old film like Blade Runner was mastered in 4K resolution:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/feature...hd-is-made.html

Quote:

---

The "4K" refers to the 4,000 lines of resolution at which the movies are scanned — more than triple that of 1080p high-def. And for even more perspective: Your typical theatrical film tops out with a rez of 3K to 4K (few actually reach the 4K level). The idea is to squeeze every pixel of detail out of the celluloid, essentially preserving the original movie in perfect digital condition forever. After all, who knows how long high-definition will last before higher definition nudges in? And even now, select digital cinemas are popping up with 4K projection.

---

Originally posted by snowlock:

---

then you have to take into account building a library of media, and with all the movies running $25-$35 right now that's an additional $15-$25 Per Movie.

---

I've never had to spend more than $10 extra over the DVD for any BluRay release. You just have to know where to look and NEVER EVER buy your movies from Best Buy. On amazon, the 2-disc BluRay of Iron Man is only $3 more than the 2-disc DVD:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url...ron+man&x=0&y=0

p.o.s. SDTV = piece of shi" standard definetion TV = Cathode Ray Tube = CRT

Where can I get a PS3 for $219?

Btw, I only buy Blu-Ray movies that I feel are worthy of HD. Just movies that are action packed or a lot of CGI.

I can see in your situation with a small 32" that 1080p would not be a Great improvement unless you were sitting Close to the screen.

Originally posted by juankerr:

---

I've never had to spend more than $10 extra over the DVD for any BluRay release. You just have to know where to look and NEVER EVER buy your movies from Best Buy.

---

amazon is, apparently, having a pretty good sale on blu-ray.
actually makes me want to buy something, to be honest.
the thing is i simply never have the money to spend more than $15 on a movie.
i tend to only spend $8-$10 on a dvd, and i don't see anything better than awful for under $12.

blu-ray just has nothing i would be looking to own for less than $20,
and amazon seems to indicate they're at a "deep discount."
i know retailers love to profess false discounts, and that blu-ray movies have dropped in price,
but my point is that they are still quite a (relatively) large margin out of my price range.

it would be different if there was a massive jump in the Perceived image quality;
but while the resolution mathematically indicates one, it's nigh on invisible for my normal viewing.


like the article about mastering blade runner, btw, and i didn't know that's usually how it worked.
guess i've just seen some badly-mastered dvd's of older movies and assumed they were just like that.

Originally posted by glassd:

---

p.o.s. SDTV = piece of shi" standard definetion TV = Cathode Ray Tube = CRT

---

That comment is really sad you know that SDTV have the highest life span of all TV's. there is a tv in my house thats now a stand for items in such that's lasted since 1952, Granted it's B/W, but it still works. it just doesn't get used all that much.

I have a restored 1965 Mustang but my Wife's Mini-Van drives better, corners better, gets 3 times better gas mileage. The CRT was invented in 1897 and has been improved upon since. It's days are numbered. 2,073,600 pixels worth of real information and definition (HDTV) is a massive improvement over 408,960 pixels of information (CRT). BTW, I have a CRT in my Girl's room, my Boy's room and our bed room. When I want the best possible viewing experience, I use the HDTV / Blu-Ray / Surround Sound in the Living room. Just like with my HDTV compared to my SDTVs, I understand that my Mustang (other than being slap cool) is a P.O.S. compared to my Wife's Mini Van.

if your mustang is such a POS sell it to me.

pos compared to newer vehicles. I'ed sooner sell one of my kids.