The Ultimate Guide to Blu-ray: have your say!

[Anonymous]

The greatest change for me with Blue Ray is the HD sound formats, which if played on a good system should sound as the director intended the dynamics are aw some.

As for picture again it should look as the director intended and is only as good as the equipment you play it on

I initially started with a 40" Samsung ( cant remember the model ) and picture was jaw dropping at times although the set had problems of its own.

I managed to change it to a Panasonic 50" ,as everyone said Plasma was superior , I have never had the same experience with this plasma set, ( Standing by for flak )

One thing I have noticed and friends of mine concur on there Freesat receivers , on Satellite transmissions when watching some films ,in my opinion and theirs the picture detail is far superior in Satellite 1080i than we have been able to produce from 1080P Blue Ray and it is this detail I strive to achieve in my home cinema.

Recent attempts have been with a Denon 2500 and Pioneer 320,both have not been able to do it.

The films for example were Ice Age 2 ( the pores clearly visible on the sloths nose and more detail throughout ) and Kung Fu Panda ( superior detail throughout the whole film ) OK these are animations and they always look good but if someone can explain why I perceive more detail on Sky than in my home cinema I would be much obliged ,as more detail on animations must equate to more detail on everything else

In my home cinema a use a Panasonic AE3000 HD projector and I am sure comment will be made that you cannot compare it to plasma , but the same detail was visible when I had my LCD Samsung

Sorry if people think this should perhaps be a different thread but I think it is justified if there is a consensus of opinion between Blue Ray and SkyHD picture quality ( Standing by for more Flak )

 

[Anonymous]

No, I am not blind or deaf. In terms of sound, I watch tv/ films through my tv speakers, so I can't comment on the sound aspect of blu ray.

I never said that blu ray wasn't better, it is. I just don't think the increase in quality is so great as to justify the price difference. There may only be £3-5 difference upon release, but the price of dvds falls far quicker than that of blu rays - when a dvd costs £5 and the blu ray costs £20-30, then, in my opinion, it is not worth the difference. I saw Quantum of Solace on blu ray in my local Sony Centre at the bargain price of £34.99 - come on! In my opinion, anybody that would happily pay that is a fool.

I agree with Ginder. The content is the most important thing. I don't watch a scene and think, "WOW - I can see the pores of that person's skin." I certainly would not base my decision regarding which film/ programme to watch on whether it was on dvd or blu ray. That, to me, is ludicrous. Sure, given both versions of the film, I would choose the blu ray (who wouldn't) but I don't think it is the massive step up that it is claimed to be.

I am one of those people who would say, "I have 23 blu rays but I could have had 75." I would rather watch 75 films (if I had the time) than 23.

Basically what I am saying is that blu ray is good, but too expensive in comparison with dvd. I still buy them, but I am more than happy with the performance of dvd and these make up the majority of my purchases. I am sure people will point out that blu ray is several times the quality of dvd and therefore worth this difference. That's fine. It's a personal choice. Whenever I can, I will watch the blu ray version.

 

[Messiah]

al7478:
Messiah:I was watching channel 4 HD the other day and didn't even realise it was the HD channel..............

If you had switched over to the SD channel 4 you would have noticed the difference tho.

Good point - and I did turn over as the HD channel was experiencing glitches and the picture was inferior but I suppose it shows it was not much better on the HD channel which leads me too...

daveh75: You also need to take into account that a lot of 4HD content isn't HD!!!!

Did not know that - how do you tell then??

 

[sonycentre]

Lol i think this debate will rage on.if you are happy watching dvd then great,no need to be "blu" sorry.listen cd sound will always sound better then mp3,but alas how many people own i-pods/walkmans and so on,freeview many say that a good analouge picture is on an old crt set is better then a freeview one on an lcd/plasma.Until we all have to do a re-tune on september 30th,the bit-rate on freeview will give a better picture.I think most of us humans are cretures of habit.when we redecorate our homes,we go through a stage of thinking "do i really like that wall that shade of whatever?" then we get used to it and learn to love it.We are all spoilt for choice now when it comes to what we can have accses to.With right set-up dvds,and blu-rays can give us lots of enjoyment,same as music.And people that say blu-rays are not cheap,how many of you paid £15 to £20 for dvds in 1996 to 2001?,I went to tesco,s the other day,Knowing on dvd £16.93 and on blu-ray 17.99 no contest to pay a little bit more just for the sound of the plane and train crash was worth its waiting gold.And there is a diffrence with sky hd and blu-ray watched my blu-ray of hancock no contest twice the detail then skys picture could muster,but the sky pic was still very good.

 

[Tom Moreno]

hmtb:
...when a dvd costs £5 and the blu ray costs £20-30, then, in my opinion, it is not worth the difference. I saw Quantum of Solace on blu ray in my local Sony Centre at the bargain price of £34.99 - come on! That's extortionate, and in my opinion, anybody that would happily pay that is a fool.

Fool indeed. I haven't paid that much for a Blu-ray in over a year, other than for a box set. The going rate in modern times if you take the time to find a retailer is more towards £12-15 a disc. And this isn't exclusive to drudging through websites trying to find deals either, this is the average price at Sainsburys (where they even have a respectable selection) and becoming the norm in HMV as well. I find that so much mud that is slung about Blu-ray is being slung by people that are mainly sitting on the sidelines and basing their truths on a perpetual cycle of regurgitated myths.

I remind people that Blu-ray is a 3 year old format and that DVD's in 2000 (when they were three years old) cost more. Blu-ray at the moment is making the motions to move from being in its early adopter phase to going mainstream. This transition requires two criteria, mass adoption of HDTV's and player prices breaking the £100 mark. The adoption of HDTVs is well and truly under way as most TVs currently being sold is at least HD ready, and soon enough every new telly on the shelves will be a minimum of HD Ready as standard. And I am willing to bet that we will see a plethora of sub £100 BD decks from your Grundigs, ALBAs, and other brands as such filling shelves at retailers by Christmas 2010. After all if you're £50 DVD player has just died (as they do) are you going to pick up another one at the shop to replace it or chance the £70 one that plays them Blu-DVDs as well? These people won't be concerned with the audio system or anything of that nature but will notice the picture difference between the new disks and their old DVD player.

But ultimately we are not those people. We who tend to attend this forum (for the most part) are not the market that these players are aimed at, but the proliferation of that market is what will ultimately drive the reduction in price of disks. Many of us who participate in these forums are here because we enjoy a more accurate degree of reproduction of films or music in our homes. I fail to see how a new format that delivers a greater level of detail and involvement with the material isn't a benefit to these aims? Of course any new format is going to be expensive at the outset, but it will balance itself out in the long-term as wider adoption finds fruition. I think Blu-ray is well on that path at this point.

 

[Cliff1]

I had changed my amp to a Yam 863se & bought a Pana. BD35 blu ray player ,the amp was getting on a bit so i was thinking of changing anyway & my player was a £50 Sony,so if i was changing it, thought i might just well buy blu ray,haven't changed my tv because it's a brilliant pic & 36".

I'd read & been told how great HD sound was on blu ray so i bought a couple of discs that had dropped to £10 each, to check out the sound & have to say the extra clarity in dialogue i was expecting,was not there for me.

I was expecting it to be crystal clear & a massive step up from DVD.I can't see a noticable difference in dialogue in DTS or DD on a DVD & HD master audio on the 2 blu rays that i have & from that point of view i'm disappointed.

I certainly will not buy loads of blu rays even if i were to change the tv,not at £18 - £30 a go.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with what you're both saying regarding the cost of films. I used to pay £15-20 for dvds back then, but then, there wasn't a cheap alternative, which was compatible with laptops, portable players etc (this was important to me at the time). Given the huge back catalougue and the cheap price of dvds, it doesn't seem worth it TO ME, to pay the difference EVERY TIME. Don't get me wrong, I do like the format, and buy it for films I really like, but dvds are a perfect alternative, when the film:

a) isn't available on blu ray; and/ or

b) costs £3; and/ or

c) doesn't have much action or special effects (most of my blu rays are action films/ comic book adaptations - my dvd collection is much more varied); and/ or

d) any other situation in which I decide the price difference is not worth it to me.

I saw a 40" Sony LCD W5500 in the same Sony Centre, playing the "Lord of the Rings" on dvd through a blu ray player and I was very impressed. It might not have been blu ray, but it was very good.

 

[Anonymous]

The main off putting thing about blu ray is when you walk into your local HMV and see movies priced at £25..when you walk into your local Asda you see them priced at £18 when the dvds placed right next to them are priced at £4-£5. Theres alot of people that dont internet shop and when they see those prices in the local stores they avoid the format altogether. How can Blu ray compete when you can get 3 new titles on dvd for £10 from your local supermarket??

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with you Ginder. For most people, there isn't really an incentive to buy blu ray for £15-30 when the dvd is £3-6. I love films, and I would buy a lot less films if I bought them all on blu ray. That said, it is still a great format, there's no doubt about that. It's just that dvds do a great job at a fantastic price.

 

[Anonymous]

Al7478, regarding the point about programmes filmed in HD; BBC quite often have the same programme running at the same time. I regularly switch between Dragon's Den and also Jonathan Ross off the top of my head. The difference is small, it's what format the show was filmed in to start with that's important. But as someone else said, watch a programme on C4 HD that wasn't shot in HD to start with and it looks pants!!

Lesmor, your comment about Sky HD films vs Blu-ray is VERY interesting. I hadn't noticed that up to now but it is a very cutting remark for the Blu-ray worshippers. My view is that I'm 99% more likely to watch a given film on Sky HD precisely because I've already paid for it (and therefore want as much value for money as poss), but also because I don't want to watch the same film over and over again just to justify spending £10 odd on a BD. Yes you can get BDs without paying £25-30 but those same websites aren't selling BDs at £10 and DVDs for £8; they're selling the DVDs for £5 or less. Not rocket science, it will always be thus.

Also I think my DVD upscaler must be a gud'un because I get huge detail that my older steam-driven DVD player couldn't achieve when tried side by side. Again, the BD and Blu-ray player was a baby step forward in comparison.

I can't comment on Blu-ray sound as I've not gone down that particular road. I love music which is why I spend money on quality hi-fi, but a-mezzin movie soundtracks don't really get me goin.

Finally, in terms of the general point about differences in detail, you are only really aware of the finest detail if you're looking for it, and how many seconds of watching a 2 hour film are you really aware of it??? HOWEVER, I watch a lot of sport (rugby in particular) and I find that the levels of detail in HD are a relentless source of joy and satisfaction (ahem). Being able to make out which player has the ball from distance makes the enjoyment so much greater for the full 80 minutes. Watch the same game in SD and it is excruciating!! The recent Tri-Nations series was awful to watch on the HD channels because the SH nations don't transmit in HD. The Lions series in SA was shot in HD and was a joy.

To be fair, that's not really a Blu-ray issue. But it IS a debate about the relevance of HD. In my view, HD is much more important in the field of sport than it is in film, not that we can't have both................

 

[dcanham001]

Personally i think it depends how you see your film collection. i only have around 50ish films in my collection and get rid of films that i dont watch in any 2-3 year period as they tend to come round on TV in that time anyway. therefore the films i have are all favourites of mine and get watched on a (reasonably) regular basis.

all the blu-rays that i own i already owned on dvd or are brand new releases that i would have bought on dvd anyway. the slightly higher price tag is justified for me because i know its a great film already (btw i have never paid more than £10 per blu ray) but i can see why people with 200+ dvds dont want to replace their entire collection

i also think that older films benefit greatly from blu ray - i have watched the searchers in both SD and HD blu ray and the difference was massive

 

[Anonymous]

Gandaft, I agree 100% about going back to older films to watch again in HD. Terminator 1 was on Sky HD the other night and the visual quality and detail was amazing. All of the other times I've watched it were fairly misty viewings. In my mind I'd assumed it was because old cameras were rubbish! Not so. I'd never seen it in the cinema so had no reference point. It looked fabulous.

But then again, that's an HD thing rather than a Blu-ray thing.

 

[professorhat]

lesmor:One thing I have noticed and friends of mine concur on there Freesat receivers , on Satellite transmissions when watching some films ,in my opinion and theirs the picture detail is far superior in Satellite 1080i than we have been able to produce from 1080P Blue Ray and it is this detail I strive to achieve in my home cinema.

Can't explain that - my experience has been the opposite i.e. Blu-Rays produce a better picture than Sky HD films in my eyes. I guess it's going to depend mostly on the quality of the Blu-Ray transfer.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi all, I think the problem most of us have is cost. We got our wives onboard when we wanted Home Cinema, we then could justify amp,dvd player,speakers,stands and cables. maybe an upgrade of TV to 37in LCD and maybe Sky+ HD but Blu-Ray may be "A bridge too far" as half the time my other half is'nt interested in the Home Cinema aspect. And I think that affects most decisions,especially in my house

 

[Anonymous]

"Did not know that - how do you tell then??"

How do you tell?
Press Info button on SKY remote and if it is in HD, it will detail it in the top right hand corner, you know where it says if it is Dolby Digital[DD] etc?
And it says in the EPG also.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, I have a question on the "Sky HD better than Blu-ray" point; Does it make a difference depending on whether the original source of the film is in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio rather than the 1.85:1 ratio?

I ask that with the suspicion that 1.85:1 ratio might actually transmit more detail in the Sky signal when compared to a 2.35:1 transmission? What pisses me off is that I end up zooming in on it with my TV because I cannot stand having a large % of my expensive HD TV showing nothing but black (deep tho it is!!). More and more fims are being transmitted in 2.35:1 these days. Why? We've all got 16:9 TVs haven't we?

 

[professorhat]

Well, it's been argued here before and ultimately it comes down to what you prefer. I prefer a film to be in its original format, so if a film was filmed in the 2.35:1 ratio, this is how I want to see it, ensuring I see it as the director intended. Others like yourself don't like the black bars above and below, so you have the option of zooming the screen in so you don't have these.

I guess by broadcasting in this format, it means they can keep everyone happy since I and people like me can watch it in the orginal format and you can press the Zoom button to remove the black bars.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes fair enough Prof.

But does it make any difference to the quality as received at the Sky HD box?

 

[professorhat]

Dunno for sure, but I wouldn't have thought so.

 

[The_Lhc]

Cliff1: I had changed my amp to a Yam 863se & bought a Pana. BD35 blu ray player ,the amp was getting on a bit so i was thinking of changing anyway & my player was a £50 Sony,so if i was changing it, thought i might just well buy blu ray,haven't changed my tv because it's a brilliant pic & 36".

I'd read & been told how great HD sound was on blu ray so i bought a couple of discs that had dropped to £10 each, to check out the sound & have to say the extra clarity in dialogue i was expecting,was not there for me.

I was expecting it to be crystal clear & a massive step up from DVD.I can't see a noticable difference in dialogue in DTS or DD on a DVD & HD master audio on the 2 blu rays that i have & from that point of view i'm disappointed.

I certainly will not buy loads of blu rays even if i were to change the tv,not at £18 - £30 a go.

No disrespect Cliff but are you sure you're actually listening to the HD soundtracks? Sounds very much like you're still listening to the original DD or DTS soundtrack. You're not using an optical or coaxial connection from the BDP to the amp or anything like that are you?

 

[Deleted member 2457]

Hi

Blu ray for me is awesome. I just bought gladiator blu ray for £12.99 it has the theatrical version and the extended version director's cut on one disc yes 1 disce for all that content blu rays take much more contenet on one disc than dvd. I think one disc can take upto 50GB of information.

So I got two films for £12.99 now onto the best bit the picture and sound, outstanding picture quality why have a high definition tv without a quality blu ray player, then the sound a clear jump from dvd. If you are not seeing a big difference you are not doing it right.

For me upgrading to blu ray is expensive but well worth it when you see the quality.

Just hope to see more deals like gladiator in the future.

Also bought Amy winehouse blu ray and got Two differenet concerts on one disc, was only expecting one when I bought it, stunning quality to boot.

 

[Alec]

Beasties, i still havent seen the progs you mention in both hd and SD, especially not at the same time, but did compare Later... today. I thought the HD was better, tho the SD was good. I think thats filmed in HD...?

 

[Anonymous]

Gel,

I have read that the Gladiator transfer was pretty poor (other forums & Amazon), that it is of inconsistent quality, that the DNR process removed detail and that it is essentially a DNRed and cleaned up version of the print used for the dvd (this was expressed as a negative - don't why though).

I guess if a poor transfer is impressive, then a good (or great) one will look exceptional to you.

Given that blu rays have the capacity for so much storage, I think they should include a theatrical and director's cut/ extended edition where one exists. Cinema Paradiso on blu ray, I believe, only has the theatrical version. I'm glad I bought the Director's cut on dvd. Since length doesn't necessarily equate with quality, it would be nice to have a choice of which version to watch.

In my opinion you only got one film, albeit two versions of it.

 

[Torres09]

I've been very impressed with most BluRay's i've bought, however films like Zulu, The Italian Job (1968), 2001 A Space Odyssey, Bladerunner (to name a few) on BluRay are awsome...These movies are 30-45 years old and on BluRay the picture quality is a massive step up from DVD's.....

Id be amazed if anyone who's seen any of these films on BluRay and were not convinced by the format??

 

[shado]

Bluray does have some bad points where films like The Sound of Music - Sky HD with its false canvas scenery and Forbidden Kingdom - BD with the very noticeable fake CGI mountain added into the background that stands out like a sore thumb and may detract from your viewing pleasure. DVD/SD is much kinder in this respect. I personally do not see the point in replacing my entire DVD collection especially when most of it was not filmed in high definition to begin with, and am more than happy with the upscaling process of my player. For example I have Close Encounters on both Bluray and DVD. The BD version enhances the grainy texture of the image and the sound is in the same league in both formats with my equipment as the Soundbar cannot process HD audio but produces an acceptable surround version on the Yamaha. So in my opinion the Bluray version of this older film does not offer much significant improvement.

One thing I do like about Bluray is the lack of trigger pause that DVD suffers when moving through the layer process. Animation looks fantastic with the likes of Bolt, Cars & Wall e. Hopefully films like Avatar will further enhance BD technology.

I have recently purchased Heart alive in Seattle on DVD as it was filmed in 2002. Where it is a great live show both Ann and Nancy are looking decidely ropey and I am sure the Bluray version would have been more frightening for the viewer and the HD Telly.