Blu-ray: better than the theater?

vbimport

#1

I just posted the article Blu-ray: better than the theater?.

The director of the movie “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor”, claims that the Blu-ray version of the film will be superior to the version that is now playing in theaters. Rob Cohen…

Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/14939-Blu-ray-better-than-the-theater.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/14939-Blu-ray-better-than-the-theater.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

I think i go to less movies, just the really big ones I want to see on a really big screen. I think this summer i’ve got to Indiana Jones and the Dark Knight. But when theatre tickets are 11 bux, and there’s two of you. Thats 22 bux, if you want munchies thats pretty much got you over the price of a bluray…

but my tv is only 42 inches so there are several movies a year I want to see on a bigger screen.


#3

Since I’m hearing from everywhere that this movie blows, I don’t think it will really help BR.
But for good movies, well if I had one of those 100"+ plasmas, maybe it would be “better”. It depends how you define “better”. Otherwise I’ll take the BIG screen for movies that deserve a big screen. Also, for certain movies, there’s the audience factor of sharing the experience with 100’s of other geeks and you will never get that at home.


#4

I remember back in 1999 when I started watching DVD’s on my 32-inch RCA CRT TV, with my new 5.1 surround-sound system, I thought that the DVDs were superior to going to the movies. That was before there were any stadium-seating theaters around here, and before digital movie projectors and digital sound with giant subwoofers at the theaters.
I got over it.


#5

I’m with ivid. I hear this movie sucks. It scores 5.5 out of 10 (with almost 8,000 votes) on IMDB. Not so hot and not something Blu-ray should be advertising. At any rate, if newer Blu-ray movies come out that look better at home than the theatre, that’s just one more kick in the nutsack for the theatres. The last time I was in a theatre was last month to see Hellboy 2 with a buddy of mine. I paid because I got a gift card for Christmas. Two tickets, a large popcorn, and nachos platter came to $28. Yeah, just a bit of a rip-off. We smuggled in a couple of bottles of pop we bought next door at Wal-Mart for $1.50 each. Why did we do this? Because the same bottles of pop were being sold at the theatre for $4 each (with tax). I’m not a poor guy, but just out of principle I refuse to pay that kind of cash for a 600ml bottle of pop. The theatres are dead to me.


#6

$28 for a movie??? LOL…for $28 I can get ~10-11 BluRay’s/HD-DVD’s…Which do you think I’m gonna choose? I’m perfectly happy with my 46" 1080p display and 5.1 HD audio :wink:


#7

There’s no doubt that the movie theaters can be expensive, the point is, why pay the big bucks if you are getting an inferior experience compared to watching the Blu-ray version at home?

Of course, not everyone has a good home theater set up, but superior Blu-ray versions could help drive demand for home theaters and Blu-ray. It also gives theater goers who enjoyed a movie at the theater a reason to rent or buy the Blu-ray if they want to experience an even better version of the film. The Dark Knight for example, will it be better on Blu-ray?


#8

the governments have done a good job of getting you lot locked up in your nice little homes with ya wanna b yheatres and at a price of no social life this way you can control the masses and rake in the tax $ at the same time SHAME on you.

get out and get a life socialise as much as possible it stops governments shafting you big time !


#9

@ idiot

Are you high? That’s not even a decent conspiracy theory.


#10

@ferd

Are you as old as you look?

LOL j/k


#11

@SciFer
I was at work and looking for a small enough graphic to use for an avatar, all I could find was this little picture of Karl Marx. I work with a guy who looks just like the picture. So I started using it. Now that I have announced that it’s Karl Marx, I hope people don’t start thinking I’m a Democrat and one of B. Hussein Obama’s “sheeple”. I’ll stick with it until I can find something better.


#12

I’ve been to plenty of theaters that had the rear speakers off or the volume was too loud or too soft.

At home, I control the environment and I select the equipment. …And I don’t let in the people who are going to talk through the whole film.


#13

I never said there weren’t advantages to a home theater. Some of the advantages vary depending upon the location, time of viewing and demographics of the attendance at the “real” theater to which your home is being compared.
However, if you try to make your home theater truly equivalent to only the actual movie-viewing experience at a quality theater with stadium seating, digital projection and top-of-the-line sound system, you will be spending an assload of money. Make that a double-assload.
I spend $11-$13 (depending on matinee or not) for two people to go to my local theater, which matches the above description. The food is expensive. I avoid it.


#14

Working as a manager at a movie chain with digital projectors, I can tell you that when a Blu Ray drive is hooked up via HDMI it looks almost as good. The file size for the Mummy is over 150gb just for the movie. So I doubt if it will look or sound any better than it would on a current Dolby Digital Cinema.
On another note, hooimg up a PS3 or an Xbox 360 and using it toplay games in phenominal. Imagine playing Metal Gear Solid 4 or Halo 3 on a screen that big. It’s beyond belief.


#15

Blu-ray is nowhere near the quality of 35mm film. What is this idiot smoking ? Sounds like some propaganda that Sony et al would push.


#16

for $28/movie you can keep your ‘socal life’ :smiley:


#17

I think it’s impossible to skip a good movie in theater and wait for the blu-ray. Who wants to wait 3-4 months? I think most of people even watch a boxoffice movies twice or more.


#18

LOL…I go to like 1 movie/year. I watch/have so many movies that I ALWAYS have something to watch :slight_smile:


#19

Yeah, I’m with BluBalls. I think most of us have a formidable DVD library and we definitely don’t need to go to a theatre to watch a movie. And there’s always the video store for the latest releases. I don’t even spend much on DVDs now. In the beginning I could go and easily spend $200 over the weekend. Now I have about 650 DVDs, so I have lots of variety. If I need something I don’t have then I just fire up my bittorrent program.

Watching a movie with the family: $0.25 to burn the DVD.
Popcorn and pop from the store: $4.10
Keeping your hard-earned cash from the movie studios: Priceless.

:slight_smile:


#20

BitRate, you would be correct if the 35mm film was being projected on a small 100" screen.
35mm is roughly equivalent to 4000 x 3000 pixel resoultion. The film editing, special effects and animation softwares that are used to composite effects and animations etc… into a movie renders at that resolution, roughly, or the 16x9 equivalent.
But you’re forgetting the math. 1920x1080 will look sharper on a 50" HDTV than 35mm will look when projected onto to 50 foot screen in a cinema.
But this sounds more like they didn’t finish the movie in time for theatrical release. Why wait to add those enhancements, unless this was a Sony movie and they insisted on enhancing the BR version…