Is it me or is Blu-Ray not that special?

[professorhat]

manicm:professorhat:the only tangible benefit Blu-ray has over DVD is the picture and sound quality

Well excuse me Prof, why else did I buy a Blu-ray player for? The nice logo???

Well indeed! My point was though, if you upgraded a film from a VHS to a DVD, even if the sound and picture wasn't improved, you at least didn't have all the other shortcomings of the VHS format any more, so it didn't feel like a complete waste of money. The same isn't true for Blu-ray over DVD, so if the picture / audio looks and sounds virtually identical on the Blu-ray, then you feel cheated.

 

[Alec]

professorhat:(BD-Live is not a benefit, it's just mostly a waste of time).

Amen brother!

 

[Alec]

bigboss:

al7478:How is BluRay doing now, compared to DVD at the same stage of its development?

Check these links:

Anybody got anything really up to date?

 

[Cofnchtr]

al7478:

Anybody got anything really up to date?

Hi,

HSBC's profits have almost tripled...

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[manicm]

Well yeah, heavily dependent on 1. Movie and 2. Whether you have full HD telly.

For 1. I've bought a few really old movies on Blu-ray and they were a waste of money e.g. Third Man.

For 2. You definitely won't see all the Blu-ray picture improvements on a 720p telly as opposed to full 1080p.

And just to annoy some I will say:

3. Blu-ray is not really better than a good CRT + good DVD player.

 

[professorhat]

manicm:3. Blu-ray is not really better than a good CRT + good DVD player.

Doesn't annoy (well not me anyway) - just don't agree

 

[manicm]

Well not so in technical terms of-course, but in sheer enjoyment:

My dad still uses the CRT with my Pioneer DVD 535 player - and in picture/sound terms it is still the business i.e. when watching a DVD on it I don't miss the extra resolution of Blu-ray at all. The Pioneer still conveys a good sense of image depth, and noise is just not an issue.

The only reason I went Full HD is that widescreen CRT tellys were not available/an Easter hunt in my country. And if I had one I simply wouldn't have bothered with the full HD route unless of-cource broadcasts dictated otherwise (our public broadcaster will only be going digital in a few years).

 

[Alec]

Cofnchtr:al7478:

Anybody got anything really up to date?

Hi, HSBC's profits have almost tripled... Cheers, Cofnchtr.

Ooh, you are a card!

 

[manicm]

bigboss:

al7478:How is BluRay doing now, compared to DVD at the same stage of its development?

Check these links:

Click

Clicky

Clickety

Remember that blu-ray has one formidable competitor which DVD didn't during its time: online movie streaming.

In any event, going by these links, the decline of DVD has been greatly exaggerated.

 

[Anonymous]

manicm:

3. Blu-ray is not really better than a good CRT + good DVD player.

I got my BD player over 12 months before I got an HD tv. I noticed an improvement of picture quality then over dvd, I then noticed a further jump when we upgraded to a HD tv. My mother-in-law now has our old CRT and when I go around and see that I do notice a drop in picture quality from our Sony 46HX703. I can see a loss in detail and the scan lines which is something I never noticed when it was our tv. The old CRT tv in question was no slouch in it's day. It is a Toshiba 36" pricture frame 3, all 49kilos of it.

 

[professorhat]

manicm:Well not so in technical terms of-course, but in sheer enjoyment

Fair enough from your point of view, but I still don't agree. My home cinema system wasn't really a comparative experience to going to the cinema until I upgraded to Blu-ray (and I've had decent home cinema systems for over 10 years now). Previously, I would be a bit annoyed if I missed a film I wanted to see in the cinema - now I actually prefer to wait for the Blu-ray release and watch it on my system, because it is actually more enjoyable that way.

Having said that, would someone watching a film on a 32" TV, with no sound system and from 15 feet away feel the same - probably not. This is why you get these differing opinions.

 

[roger06]

professorhat:now I actually prefer to wait for the Blu-ray release and watch it on my system, because it is actually more enjoyable that way.

Yeah – no effin' kids on Facebook on their phones the whole way through...

 

[manicm]

roger06:

professorhat:now I actually prefer to wait for the Blu-ray release and watch it on my system, because it is actually more enjoyable that way.

Yeah – no effin' kids on Facebook on their phones the whole way through...

Just as many adults too in the cinema..

 

[Vimeous]

I originally bought my Bluray player to watch the latest movies and planned to continue buying cheap DVD's for older stuff.

However Bluray, indeed all good-quality HD content, has me totally hooked. For us the picture is so much more clean and clear, sounds carries additional weight and punch.

Of course this leaves me with a dilemma to the point where I don't buy either DVD or Bluray - only rent HD content from Virgin, despite the stupid cost.
I don't want to spend more than £5 on a film. The fact that films made for Bluray (or remastered with that aim) look so much better makes me avoid DVD altogether. I will only buy DVD's for £3/4 if there is no original/remastered HD version out there.
I do have Blurays - they're on every Christmas and Birthday list but that's where they'll stay until prices sink under £10.

While the quality of Bluray is hugely dependant on the source content and the quality of the transfer. It is just as true for DVD's.
The in-law's are huge fans of crime drama and recently rang me to complain their Taggart DVD's looked terrible (blocky) on their new 32" Sony flatscreen. Their previous 19" effort had none of this bother.
Of course the reason for the change in TV was they couldn't hear the Taggart DVD properly on the old TV (unlike all other DVDs they own).
The cause of both issues was the direct-from-VHS transfer by the cheapskate production company.
When they watch more modern transfers on DVD or Bluray they are simply stunned by the clarity!

 

[DandyCobalt]

professorhat:

manicm:Well not so in technical terms of-course, but in sheer enjoyment

Fair enough from your point of view, but I still don't agree. My home cinema system wasn't really a comparative experience to going to the cinema until I upgraded to Blu-ray (and I've had decent home cinema systems for over 10 years now). Previously, I would be a bit annoyed if I missed a film I wanted to see in the cinema - now I actually prefer to wait for the Blu-ray release and watch it on my system, because it is actually more enjoyable that way.

Having said that, would someone watching a film on a 32" TV, with no sound system and from 15 feet away feel the same - probably not. This is why you get these differing opinions.

Completely agree!!! We wait for the blu-ray and get a great (much better than cinema) experience at home through projector. Surround sound is far better - The Expendables (DTS HD 7.1) was fabulous (poor film, but very enjoyable and great sound). But happy to watch either DVD or blu-ray on 42" plasma - not much difference really with good upscaling.

 

[TKratz]

bigboss:The difference between DVD and blu-ray is much more apparent on larger screens as compared to a 32-inch TV. On my 50-inch Kuro, the difference is massive. I've stopped buying DVDs now. You haven't mentioned your screen size or if your TV is full HD. HDMI cable won't make a difference; your TV will.

Spot on Bigboss. I couldn't agree more!

 

[nads]

manicm:
Well yeah, heavily dependent on 1. Movie and 2. Whether you have full HD telly.

For 1. I've bought a few really old movies on Blu-ray and they were a waste of money e.g. Third Man.

For 2. You definitely won't see all the Blu-ray picture improvements on a 720p telly as opposed to full 1080p.

And just to annoy some I will say:

3. Blu-ray is not really better than a good CRT + good DVD player.

very very wide sweeping statments.

1. film is a higher resolution that BD. a poor transfer is just a poor transfer.

2. I do on mine.

3. some would say that a CRT is better than a LCD but your statement is odd as you are missing the most important bit. How the BD is screened.

 

[manicm]

nads:

very very wide sweeping statments.

1. film is a higher resolution that BD. a poor transfer is just a poor transfer. So we agree on this one.

2. I do on mine. I stand by my opinion that a full HD telly is best for Blu-ray.

3. some would say that a CRT is better than a LCD but your statement is odd as you are missing the most important bit. How the BD is screened. I did not say some would say, it was just my own purely subjective opinion based on emotion that I would not expect anyone else to agree with (I'm not saying DVD is technically better, quite the opposite). And I must emphasise my comparison was with CRT + DVD Player, not by themselves individually.

 

[Alec]

nads:2. I do on mine.

How do you know?

 

[6th.replicant]

Since changing from a 42in HD Ready (720p) plasma TV to a 50in Full HD (1080p/24fps) plasma, the difference 'tween DVDs and BDs is vast. If possible, now only buy BDs.

 

[nads]

al7478:
nads:2. I do on mine.

How do you know?

as i have a DVD player and i have a BD player and i have BD and DVD of the same movies. I also have an HD ready TV or two.

Like I say I can tell the difference.

I would take pictures but the difference may not show up on your screens resolution

 

[Anonymous]

I have BD and DVD of the same movies, flicking between the two, BD on Sony BDP-S570 / DVD on Sony RDR-DC205 (which upscales) and BD is much better. Puttting the DVD in the BDP-S570 and it improves a little, better upscaling perhaps, though BD is far superior.

 

[JohnnyV111]

I think many people feel short changed after the industry trumpeted such nonsense as HD being the equivalent of "the difference between colour and black and white," as well as dangling the "HD Ready" rotten carrot for years, only to be replaced with the confusing "Full HD" moniker. Clearly the PQ of Blu-ray is superior, and how much so depends on the viewer and their equipment. The audio of BD can trounce Dolby Digital, especially with classical music BDs, and even ageing movies can become surprisingly vitalised, but over TV speakers or a budget surround system the advantage is lost.

There has been a revolution in home entertainment in the last decade, but this has come from a number of factors including digital storage/distribution and large flat screens. HD has played a relatively minor role, as the fact that several members of this specialist forum doubt the benefits attests.

 

[Alec]

nads:al7478:

nads:2. I do on mine.

How do you know?

as i have a DVD player and i have a BD player and i have BD and DVD of the same movies. I also have an HD ready TV or two.

Like I say I can tell the difference.

I would take pictures but the difference may not show up on your screens resolution

That only means you can tell the difference between DVD and BluRay on an HD ready screen, not that you can tell BluRay on an HD ready screen from BluRay on a full HD screen, which is what you would need to do in order to answer "I can" to manicm's post.

 

[The_Lhc]

Two days and 4 pages of replies later and the OP hasn't replied to a single point raised, which leads me to suggest it's a rather subtle troll, although the idea of the iPlayer being much better quality than blu-ray is total nonsense, so maybe not that subtle... The bit that really makes me think it's a troll is...

harrisonaard1:The sound - steering or depth/scale - is no different. I have a good budget 7.1system (Q speakers, Pro 50 sub, Sony1200ES Amp)

Yes, that's because your amp doesn't decode HD audio over HDMI, so you're listening to the same bog-standard DD/DTS soundtracks as you get on DVD, so it's going to sound the same because it IS the same. It's not blu-ray that isn't that special, it's your system.