DaDude Posted June 29, 2009 Author Share Posted June 29, 2009 I have no use for Blu-ray as everything looks good on DVD anyways Just keep repeating that sentence over and over each day. You may just believe it. ;) http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/bdreviews/drno.htm I have the Region 1 NTSC DVD. So, I can't rely on those comparisons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR_Candyman Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Just keep repeating that sentence over and over each day. You may just believe it. ;)I have the Region 1 NTSC DVD. So, I can't rely on those comparisons. I said it looks good, not AS good, but really freaking close until you get a huge ass TV. You just keep telling yourself BD is so much better to justify your expenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryster Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 (edited) I said it looks good, not AS good, but really freaking close until you get a huge ass TV. You just keep telling yourself BD is so much better to justify your expenses Blu-Ray IS so much better than DVD, by an order of magnitude. Just look at the same film on DVD and Blu-Ray side by side on the same equipment and the difference is as clear as night and day. Also the "expenses" are not really "expensive" any more. You can now get a Blu-Ray player for much less than the cost of my first DVD player back in the days when that format was new. My current player was ?125, and the discs are not massively more expensive than DVD for new releases either. Take Watchmen for instance. DVD ?15.99, Blu-Ray ?17.99. Given the negligible difference in price between the two, I know which one I'd choose. Edited June 29, 2009 by TCLN Ryster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR_Candyman Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 sorry but I have compared both, many times, and blu-ray's really not that much better looking. And I'm sorry but $300 or more Canadian is a lot when I have better things to pay for, like my 4 acre acreage, my motorcycle, and the new car I'll get probably next year, not to mention the deck I'm going to build in a few weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 29, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 29, 2009 Some things will never come out on BR.1960's classics? Yeah, they REALLY benefit from 1080p :p Pinocchio in HD, it's not even widescreen and it looks better :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigapixels Veteran Posted June 29, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 29, 2009 I'm not sure how you can say Blu-ray isn't much better than DVD. It's SD vs HD, and the difference is quite apparent. If you don't care too much about that difference, that's completely understandable, but the fact is that there are between 500,000 and ~2,000,000 more pixels in the image (depending on the HD resolution) compared to standard definition. Back to the original topic, however, it's simply because the market isn't there yet. The audience of Blu-ray owners out there is extremely minor when compared to DVD owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaDude Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) I said it looks good, not AS good, but really freaking close until you get a huge ass TV. You just keep telling yourself BD is so much better to justify your expenses sorry but I have compared both, many times, and blu-ray's really not that much better looking. Well what movies were you comparing? I've mentioned this in another thread that a handful of BDs out there are poorly transferred. If you compare a movie like "Final Destination," then yeah, the difference is minimal because that BD doesn't look that great. But compare the BD and DVD versions of a movie like "Iron Man" and you should see a big difference. If you don't, then something's wrong on your end. You need to use HDMI cables, not component with Blu-ray. My TV is only 720p and I see a very big difference. I haven't seen these, but I heard that "King Kong" and "I Robot" are really amazing. I just ordered "I Robot" for $12.99 at Amazon. I can't wait until that arrives. And $12.99 for that movie is expensive? Give me a break! $12.99 for a well transferred BD is indeed justifying my expenses. Trust me. This is coming from a guy who was anti-HD when I first joined this site. If I see a difference, then everyone else should. If you claim you don't, you either have a bad TV or setup or you're just fooling yourself. Edited June 30, 2009 by xraffle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR_Candyman Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I shouldn't NEED to get a better TV to see a difference! I never effing watch TV so why would I spend money on a new one when the old works great as it is? I do find it funny how you mention Iron Man as a good comparison though, because I have compared Iron Man on a very good TV, both properly set up. Yes, you can tell a difference, but it's not that big of a difference. Certainly nothing to write home about. Is it worth it if you've got oodles of cash flowing out of every orifice? Yes. If you are like me and have ebtter stuff to spend money on, then no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 30, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 30, 2009 I shouldn't NEED to get a better TV to see a difference! I never effing watch TV so why would I spend money on a new one when the old works great as it is? Then why would you even waste any of your time talking about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MR_Candyman Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Then why would you even waste any of your time talking about this? Can't you read? This topic is not about watching TV, it's about Blu-ray and DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoTrunks Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I guess not everyone has an eye for seeing the differences, just like the audiophiles that swear over lossless formats. I definitely see a difference; some movies obviously show more of a difference than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_Lyons10 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I guess not everyone has an eye for seeing the differences, just like the audiophiles that swear over lossless formats. I definitely see a difference; some movies obviously show more of a difference than others. Yeah, true. I'm just soooooo not interested in rebuying my movies. I own them on DVD already, I don't really want to upgrade. I've seen upscaled DVD's, and this is really poor, so I don't know what the solution is. There should be some sort of trade in program... LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idoia Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 it's like for the same reason they still release NEW games for PS2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaDude Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 Yeah, true. I'm just soooooo not interested in rebuying my movies. I own them on DVD already, I don't really want to upgrade. I've seen upscaled DVD's, and this is really poor, so I don't know what the solution is. There should be some sort of trade in program... LMAO Who says you have to upgrade your movies? I haven't repurchased any movie on Blu-ray yet. I'm just adding onto my movie collection by buying movies I like, but never bought on DVD...like "Iron Man." The reason I bought into Blu-ray is because the prices have gone down dramatically. I'm constantly seeing a movie on Amazon or at Best Buy and DVD version is $17.99 and the BD is $19.99. Now, for a measly $2 more, I can get better quality. Yes, DVD is "good enough" but for a little extra money, and I do mean "little," you can get a sharper picture and sound. Rarely have I see a BD movie cost more than $2 than its DVD counterpart. Funny how people spend $300 on a video game system, $60 on games, and $30+ for gaming accessories and they think Blu-ray is expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 30, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 30, 2009 Can't you read? This topic is not about watching TV, it's about Blu-ray and DVD. But how do you watch Blu Rays and DVDs... oh wait nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaDude Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 I shouldn't NEED to get a better TV to see a difference! I never effing watch TV so why would I spend money on a new one when the old works great as it is? There you go. You don't care about the difference, so then don't buy Blu-ray. That's the answer. Most people here at the Home Theater forum watch TV, so that's why we care about the difference and we see it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 30, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 30, 2009 Funny how people spend $300 on a video game system, $60 on games, and $30+ for gaming accessories and they think Blu-ray is expensive. The people that spend that on video game systems are a majority of enthusiasts, like the types of people who buy Blu Ray in it's first 6 months/1 year on the market. Most people won't buy games consoles till they're cheap, the PS2 didn't hit 140 million sales in it's first 2-3 years, it took 8/9 years. Why? Because it only hit $129 like 3/4 years back, and just came down to $99 this year. So many people lack a sense/understanding of product lifecycle around electronics and how that relates to sales and price (not aimed at you, general remark). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Montage Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 sorry but I have compared both, many times, and blu-ray's really not that much better looking. Sorry, but what were you comparing? I deliberately bought Phantom Of The Opera on BD as a comparison, and it's astounding. I shouldn't NEED to get a better TV to see a difference! I never effing watch TV so why would I spend money on a new one when the old works great as it is? Wow, that's the daftest thing I ever heard... We aren't talking about watching TV... I COULD plug my BD's output into an old 14" black and white TV. I'm sure it would look as poor as a DVD would look - arguably poorer. It sets no precedent to say that BD looks no better than DVD. You simply have said your TV is not up to par with modern hardware and you have no value in upgrading. A perfectly valid situation, and represents a large portion (majority?) of the market... But it means nothing in the DVD/BD quality comparison. It almost excludes you from giving a valid opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaDude Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) The people that spend that on video game systems are a majority of enthusiasts, like the types of people who buy Blu Ray in it's first 6 months/1 year on the market.Most people won't buy games consoles till they're cheap, the PS2 didn't hit 140 million sales in it's first 2-3 years, it took 8/9 years. Why? Because it only hit $129 like 3/4 years back, and just came down to $99 this year. So many people lack a sense/understanding of product lifecycle around electronics and how that relates to sales and price (not aimed at you, general remark). Really? Most people who like playing video games have a PS3, Xbox 360 or a Wii already. I'm the only one that refuses to upgrade my PS2 and Xbox due to the ridiculous prices. That's why I quit video games and I'm happy I did. And unlike some people here, I'm not denying that these newer systems are better. They are, obviously, but for the price they charge, it's not worth it to me. Edited June 30, 2009 by xraffle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaDude Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 Actually they can, and do. I've seen movies from the 30's in HD that look great. Actually, there may be some truth to that. I just bought "A Clockwork Orange" on BD and the picture quality was disappointing. While it's certainly not terrible and is still better than its DVD counterpart, the picture is average at best. This is not the kind of movie I'd play to show off to friends about how amazing Blu-ray is. Of course, the problem could mostly be due to the low budget of the film, but I'm sure age has some part in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+StevoFC MVC Posted July 1, 2009 MVC Share Posted July 1, 2009 Actually, there may be some truth to that. I just bought "A Clockwork Orange" on BD and the picture quality was disappointing. While it's certainly not terrible and is still better than its DVD counterpart, the picture is average at best. This is not the kind of movie I'd play to show off to friends about how amazing Blu-ray is. Of course, the problem could mostly be due to the low budget of the film, but I'm sure age has some part in it. As you said, A Clockwork Orange doesn't look great compared to other movies on Blu-Ray, but that's because of the original. The movie overall, in all versions, is somewhat soft looking with some cameras and grainy with others. You can't change that considering that's how it was filmed. A new movie could have the same problems. The color saturation is much better than the DVD version, as is the audio. You can only do so much if the original isn't perfect to begin with. So it does benefit the movie to be on Blu-ray (and HD DVD) over DVD. It has very little to do with age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldgunner Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I've got 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Italian Job on bd, both films from the 60's and both exceed some newer releases in terms of picture and audio quality. It mainly relies on the quality of the studio masters and the attention to detail in the post processing of the disc. But to answer the original question, msot TV shows were filmed on magnetic tape and are mastered in SD. Movies often need a new transfer for the HD releases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I've got 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Italian Job on bd, both films from the 60's and both exceed some newer releases in terms of picture and audio quality.It mainly relies on the quality of the studio masters and the attention to detail in the post processing of the disc. But to answer the original question, msot TV shows were filmed on magnetic tape and are mastered in SD. Movies often need a new transfer for the HD releases. Actually, the quality of the film and Cameras used to shoot the film have most to do with quality. if it was shot on good film with good cameras, then really old film may actually have a better raw video than modern digital HD cameras used to shoot movies. The advantage is that these old films had a lot more details than what was used, at least on TV's (cinema's got more of the details but still..)modern movies shot in digital, They'll always be the res they where shot in, they can never be re transferred at a high resolution. Good thing most movies are shot with cinemas in mind, and no high def tv's then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted July 1, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted July 1, 2009 I've got 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Italian Job on bd, both films from the 60's and both exceed some newer releases in terms of picture and audio quality.It mainly relies on the quality of the studio masters and the attention to detail in the post processing of the disc. But to answer the original question, msot TV shows were filmed on magnetic tape and are mastered in SD. Movies often need a new transfer for the HD releases. I've not seen those films in HD, but I've watched Ghostbusters in 1080p. Looks nicer than SD, noticeable differences but there's a heck of a lot of noise in the transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaDude Posted July 4, 2009 Author Share Posted July 4, 2009 I shouldn't NEED to get a better TV to see a difference! I never effing watch TV so why would I spend money on a new one when the old works great as it is?I do find it funny how you mention Iron Man as a good comparison though, because I have compared Iron Man on a very good TV, both properly set up. Yes, you can tell a difference, but it's not that big of a difference. Certainly nothing to write home about. Is it worth it if you've got oodles of cash flowing out of every orifice? Yes. If you are like me and have ebtter stuff to spend money on, then no. You know, I just went to Best Buy and they were playing the Spider Man 3 BD on a 50" Plasma Panasonic HDTV. Wow!! Now, if you can't see a difference there, you need your eyes fixed. The picture on a Plasma TV blows any LCD out the window. I gotta get me one of those now. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts