DVD v BluRay

Technocentral

You can get blu ray players for 69 euro now, when thread was first started was a few hundred so no excuse anymore if you value pic quality.

DoYouEvenLift

Technocentral wrote: »

You can get blu ray players for 69 euro now, when thread was first started was a few hundred so no excuse anymore if you value pic quality.

The thread was only started 5 days ago

Frank O. Pinion

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

The thread was only started 5 days ago

We live in a wild economy.

Snake Plisken

Spare a thought for me with my 100 HD-DVD's and Toshiba HD-DVD player. I bet on red but blue won at the end of the day! So had to rebuy stuff like the Matrix trilogy etc so triple buys for me lol!

Snake Plisken

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Spare a thought for me with my 100 HD-DVD's and Toshiba HD-DVD player. I bet on red but blue won at the end of the day! So had to rebuy stuff like the Matrix trilogy etc so triple buys for me lol!

Playstation 3 was the decider for me. Having that many BluRay players penetrating the market seemed to immediately make it a winner to me.


Basically, I got lucky

TheDoc

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Spare a thought for me with my 100 HD-DVD's and Toshiba HD-DVD player. I bet on red but blue won at the end of the day! So had to rebuy stuff like the Matrix trilogy etc so triple buys for me lol!

Feel you.

I got the HD DVD player for my Xbox 360 Thankfully didn't go mental on buying the actual HD DVD's. I bought two, (300 and Enter the Dragon) and they looked grainy and garbage and considering the price I kept to DVD at the time.

beauf

I just read the review of the 300 here

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/887/300.html.

....

Well, I'm going to put on my flame-proof suit and say that because the film has been so intentionally processed and "degraded," its very nature just doesn't lend itself to the kind of truly eye-popping and ultra-realistic high-def that I've come to equate with the term reference quality.
...

All things considered, I still found watching '300' an often less-than thrilling experience on a purely subjective level of wanting to enjoy a good-looking, awe-inspiring high-def image. But as a representation of the film's style, there's no debating that this HD DVD edition of '300' delivers -- so much so that even for high-def purist like myself, it's possible to ignore the film's intentionally degraded visual design and just enjoy the ride.
....

I have the original uncut of DAS Boot on DVD. I've heard similar criticisms of that on BD as the source is grainy and dark anyway. I like how my Cheap Blu-Ray player upscales it. Some of my other older War movies on DVD upscale quite nicely too.

Right Turn Clyde

beauf wrote: »

I just read the review of the 300 here

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/887/300.html.




I have the original uncut of DAS Boot on DVD. I've heard similar criticisms of that on BD as the source is grainy and dark anyway. I like how my Cheap Blu-Ray player upscales it. Some of my other older War movies on DVD upscale quite nicely too.

Maybe I'm way off here, but should Das Boot not look grainy? I remember being terribly dissapointed with The Godfather on Bluray because of the grain. But of course the grain is supposed to be there. Getting rid of it removes depth and makes the transfer look even worse.

jones

I only buy blurays now and have done for the past 8 years or so. I couldnt tell you the last dvd I bought. In saying that I only buy films now I know whereas in my dvd years I would of done a lot of blind buying too. I've a 64" plasma and every pixel counts :-)

Ageyev

I got Netflix in Feb of last year and in the period from then till now I've only bought one film on physical media but I'm thinking of breaking my fast as Amazon have some blu-rays I want on offer two for £10. Looking at Robocop and Terminator which were remastered not too long ago.

They also have some Hitchcock and a few older 'classics' such as The Searchers as well as the Sony Classics line feat. Lawrence of Arabia.

Adamantium

I like buying physical and always will if only because some day I'd love to watch movies with my kids (when I have them).

I can just imagine them cracking up the chestbox of dvd's and blu rays that are in the attic and being fascinated with the cover art and images on the box of whats to come. I can't wait to do it with them actually!

Like this one I still have and bought in 2004 (don't crucify for me showing the special editions for my future kids lol, ironically enough it has the Empire of Dreams documentary on the making of the original trilogy that the blu ray bizarrely lacked..WTF?!)



Most films are so disposable and so plentiful and lacking in substance, sometimes the best memories are the analouge real things which we remember them by, a floating icon is of little sentimentality or fondness to a kid. Sad they might never know that.

Tony EH

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I think it all depends on how big your tv is .
The bigger the set the most noticeable the difference in picture quality .
Once you go over 39 inches DVD will look patchy.

Mpeg 2 or h262 (DVD) is a pretty old and inefficient codec now so not only is the resolution much lower than Bluray (primarily h264) ,the video quality for even similar resolution is much less.

There does seem to be quite a wide variation in both Dvd and Blu-ray picture qualities,some Dvds can look great others terrible ,likewise with Blu-ray ,some of the discs I have seen lately have been very poor.

Certain Blu-ray players can make DVDs look better than others ,dependent on the chipset and upscaling technology.

I only watch Blu-Rays now

/\

This.

I watch all my films on a TV that's under 40in and frankly there's bugger all difference between a well produced DVD and a BluRay, except the price.

However, the picture difference does kick in when you're look at the film on larger screens. That's really where you'll see BluRay come to life.

In saying that, I've seen some god awful BluRay transfers in my time and some stuff that's released on BluRay, is just silly and unnecessary, like 'The World at War'.

Technocentral

Tony EH wrote:

In saying that, I've seen some god awful BluRay transfers in my time and some stuff that's released on BluRay, is just silly and unnecessary, like 'The World at War'.

True, for instance a film like "The Man From Earth" which was shot on standard definition DV got a Blu Ray release! Completely pointless, at least World at War was shot on16mm so if they had the original film elements it could benefit slightly from Blu Ray

Technocentral

Actually Blu Ray.com gave World at War a great review, said some elements were 35 mm and restoration looked great overall.

Nerdkiller1991

Technocentral wrote: »

Actually Blu Ray.com gave World at War a great review, said some elements were 35 mm and restoration looked great overall.

Ehhh, but show is cropped from the original aspect ratio, so that's a dealbreaker.

Tony EH

Technocentral wrote: »

Actually Blu Ray.com gave World at War a great review, said some elements were 35 mm and restoration looked great overall.

Perhaps, but 90% is grainy footage from the 1930's/40's, so a Blu is rather pointless and it's release price was a joke, to say the least.

I actually didn't mind the cropping.

A Blu of 'Gravity' makes sense. But a Blu of the likes of 'The World at War', or frankly any TV series from the 50's to at least the 70's is a bit silly, especially when cost is taken into account.

pixelburp

Adamantium wrote: »

I like buying physical and always will if only because some day I'd love to watch movies with my kids (when I have them). [...]

Haha, that's a nice dream, though I'd throw some caution that there's a good chance your kids might go "jeez, Dad, this is borrrrring, I wanna watch Transformers 8 on my Occulus implant"

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Perhaps, but 90% is grainy footage from the 1930's/40's, so a Blu is rather pointless and it's release price was a joke, to say the least.

I actually didn't mind the cropping.

A Blu of 'Gravity' makes sense. But a Blu of the likes of 'The World at War', or frankly any TV series from the 50's to at least the 70's is a bit silly, especially when cost is taken into account.

Star Trek looks fairly nice, it must be said

calex71

Tony EH wrote: »

Perhaps, but 90% is grainy footage from the 1930's/40's, so a Blu is rather pointless and it's release price was a joke, to say the least.

I actually didn't mind the cropping.

A Blu of 'Gravity' makes sense. But a Blu of the likes of 'The World at War', or frankly any TV series from the 50's to at least the 70's is a bit silly, especially when cost is taken into account.

I got the The Prisoner on Blu Ray recently and the difference is night and day, it truly did benefit from the process, and was worth the money and I had the dvd's for years so I did actually compare them . I guess it comes down to the source and effort put into the process , maybe the prisoner is an exception rather than a rule regarding older tv stuff though.

Hmmmm now I'm reminded to see if Danger Man ever came out on Blu :pac:

Edit: Actually there was a clip I recall seeing before I bought them of the Intro theme with dvd + blu side by side sold me on them, must see if I can find it.

Tony EH

calex71 wrote: »

I got the The Prisoner on Blu Ray recently and the difference is night and day, it truly did benefit from the process, and was worth the money and I had the dvd's for years so I did actually compare them . I guess it comes down to the source and effort put into the process , maybe the prisoner is an exception rather than a rule regarding older tv stuff though.

Hmmmm now I'm reminded to see if Danger Man ever came out on Blu

Edit: Actually there was a clip I recall seeing before I bought them of the Intro theme with dvd + blu side by side sold me on them, must see if I can find it.

But you're not really comparing like for like.

Of course a brand new BluRay transfer is going to be better than an old DVD transfer.

I've seen the new BluRay of 'The professionals' and it blows the old 2002 DVD transfer out of the water...but of course it would.

But the only real comparison would be to see a new DVD copy of a new transfer against the new BluRay copy.

The point is that for the vast majority of people, a new, well produced DVD (especially of TV material) would be perfectly fine, and even more preferable when stacked against the cost of a BluRay.

Zubeneschamali

pixelburp wrote: »

Haha, that's a nice dream

Along with the usual new releases the kids wanted to see, like Guardians of the Galaxy and How to Train Your Dragon 2, I ordered blu-rays of Kelly's Heroes and Where Eagle's Dare this Christmas, and did indeed watch them with the kids - movies I remember watching around their age.

We had a good laugh at both (even though WED is not supposed to be a comedy).

Tony EH

Just as a matter of interest, what did the kids make of 'Where Eagles Dare', besides laughing .

I remember watching that on TV every time it was on and loving it.

Still love it.

beauf

Always watch Eagles at Xmas. My kid watched it the first time this yeah he said it was good.

pixelburp wrote: »

Haha, that's a nice dream, though I'd throw some caution that there's a good chance your kids might go "jeez, Dad, this is borrrrring, I wanna watch Transformers 8 on my Occulus implant"

So true. They have very different interests.

beauf

How would you rate the BD of Kellys and Eagles?

Zubeneschamali

beauf wrote: »

How would you rate the BD of Kellys and Eagles?

I hadn't seen either in years and years - WED uses lots of blue screen, and it's pretty sad. KH was mostly practical effects, actual tanks driving around actual Yugoslavia-pretending-to-be-France, so it's aged better.

Zubeneschamali

Tony EH wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, what did the kids make of 'Where Eagles Dare', besides laughing .

They enjoyed it well enough, but between the ropey effects, the bottomless bag'o'dynamite the lads carried and the ridiculous double-double-double cross interrogation scene, we were in fits laughing at it vs. laughing with KH.

beauf

I think thats a problem with a lot of movies. The effects date badly. A "modern" audience often can't get past it.

Which is why The Hobbit will (does) look ****e in a few years Vs Lord of the Rings.

Practical effects will always look better

indough

There are quite a few practical effects in Where Eagles Dare, if I am remembering correctly there were also a number of injuries on set caused by them, including serious burns sustained by both the director and producer. It was also one of the first films to use front projection for some of the effects, rather than blue screen.

Tony EH

I think the effects hold up well enough in 'Where Eagles Dare'.

It was made in 1968 after all.

TheDoc

holy ****, I havn't seen Where Eagles Dare in donkeys.

Went through this phase as a relatively young child where my granddad would bring me down to Xtravision and he'd show me all the classic westerns and war movies. Was favourite part of my week, stay the night over and have this ultimate film fest of stuff my mother definitly wouldn't want me to see.

I remember Where Eagles Dare big time, because I just shouldnt shake the image of Eastwood brandishing two Mp40's

TheDoc

I actually couldn't make the purchase fast enough

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kellys-Heroes-Eagles-Double-Blu-ray/dp/B009CSWMP2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421860574&sr=8-4&keywords=where+eagles+dare

Impulse buy strikes again!

*Edit: Just noticed there is a 2 for £10 on Amazon at the moment. Just grabbed Where Eagles Dare, Kellys Heroes, Guns of Navarone and The Eagle has Landed.

Technocentral

TheDoc wrote: »

I actually couldn't make the purchase fast enough

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kellys-Heroes-Eagles-Double-Blu-ray/dp/B009CSWMP2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421860574&sr=8-4&keywords=where+eagles+dare

Impulse buy strikes again!

*Edit: Just noticed there is a 2 for £10 on Amazon at the moment. Just grabbed Where Eagles Dare, Kellys Heroes, Guns of Navarone and The Eagle has Landed.

Pacifist, eh?

micks_address

Tony EH wrote: »

But you're not really comparing like for like.

Of course a brand new BluRay transfer is going to be better than an old DVD transfer.

I've seen the new BluRay of 'The professionals' and it blows the old 2002 DVD transfer out of the water...but of course it would.

But the only real comparison would be to see a new DVD copy of a new transfer against the new BluRay copy.

The point is that for the vast majority of people, a new, well produced DVD (especially of TV material) would be perfectly fine, and even more preferable when stacked against the cost of a BluRay.

I'd agree with this especially if you are watching on a 32" set. At something like 50" the difference is much more pronounced.. It's like blowing up a low res photo.. It doesn't look to bad small but when blown up gets messy.

I was buying blu rays since the ps3 came out.. I remember paying 45 euro superman the movie in hmv!Think I bought the box set with all the movies for 15 euro last year..

It's not all about picture quality either.. If you have the right setup for audio there is a significant upgrade in quality..

I can see quite a difference between sky HD channels and blu ray.. But I'm a picture freak so have an isf calibrated 50" Panasonic plasma

Anyway sorry a but late to the thread so apologies if treading old ground

Cheers
Mick

Technocentral

Tony EH wrote: »

I think the effects hold up well enough in 'Where Eagles Dare'.

It was made in 1968 after all.

So was "2001", but that's the daddy of the mac daddy.

Tony EH

Aye,

But I'd argue that '2001' had an easier time of it in the effects dept. Douglas Trumbull et al were creating model effects for a Sci-Fi space scenario, where imagination can be more...fluid...shall we say. The effects in 'Where Eagles Dare' have to replicate real life situations (of something that happened 20+ years previously) and would be naturally harder to do.

Those monkey suits at the beginning of '2001' don't look so good any more though. Not that they looked so great in the first place.

happysunnydays

Tony EH wrote: »

Those monkey suits at the beginning of '2001' don't look so good any more though..

Hold on! ...those were suits?

Wedwood

Was previously using a PS3 to play blurays which was fine, but got a proper BluRay player (with 5.1 speakers) over Christmas and WOW !!! The picture quality is miles ahead of the PS3, and listening to lossless DTS/ Dolby is superb.

I like buying Sony gear (which both the TV and Bluray player are), which is a bit expensive but the quality is there and lasts.

I watched my Raiders of the Lost Ark BD on the new setup and it looked and sounded like a brand new movie.

After buying that movie on VHS, VHS widescreen, DVD, now finally Bluray, I can finally say that along with most of my other Blurays now looks (and sounds) as good if not better than the cinema presentation, which is the Holy Grail for Home Cinema enthusiasts.

micks_address

There shouldn't be much difference in the ps3 and a newer blu-ray player.. were you connected up via hdmi on the ps3?

Wedwood wrote: »

Was previously using a PS3 to play blurays which was fine, but got a proper BluRay player (with 5.1 speakers) over Christmas and WOW !!! The picture quality is miles ahead of the PS3, and listening to lossless DTS/ Dolby is superb.

I like buying Sony gear (which both the TV and Bluray player are), which is a bit expensive but the quality is there and lasts.

I watched my Raiders of the Lost Ark BD on the new setup and it looked and sounded like a brand new movie.

After buying that movie on VHS, VHS widescreen, DVD, now finally Bluray, I can finally say that along with most of my other Blurays now looks (and sounds) as good if not better than the cinema presentation, which is the Holy Grail for Home Cinema enthusiasts.

Technocentral

Tony EH wrote:

Those monkey suits at the beginning of '2001' don't look so good any more though. Not that they looked so great in the first place.

That was make up effects, I was referring to the opticals effects.

And that is as bad as they are ever going to look.
Think how bad early computer effects look nowadays (even given how amazing they looked originally)

Technocentral

Reg'stoy wrote:

I have quite a few DVD and Bluray copies of the same film. Blade Runner and 2001 a space odyssey for me are improved greatly in both audio and picture. Dune another favorite of mine, it's picture quality was improved dramatically in Bluray. Event Horizon, again the picture is improved.

I have some DVD and Blu Ray versions of the same films, and the Blu rays are far superior eg Blade Runner, 2001, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia etc, it's not just the transfer it's the higher picture definition of Blu Ray, conversely with TV stuff I have like Seinfeld and Cheers I've no interest in HD versions as the characters and dialogue is all that's important.(picture is fine on DVDs btw especially Seinfeld), only DVD box set I have that I'd like on Blu Ray is Northern Exposure as it was nicely shot.

beauf

Technocentral wrote: »

Pacifist, eh?

Incidentally if you look at how Client came to be in Kellys and why he was unhappy with it. It turns out it was meant (in the original script) to be anti war movie along the lines of Catch 22 etc.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

And that is as bad as they are ever going to look.
Think how bad early computer effects look nowadays (even given how amazing they looked originally)

I watched a few recently that I think the effects have dated badly, Memphis belle, Terminator etc.

Wedwood

micks_address wrote: »

There shouldn't be much difference in the ps3 and a newer blu-ray player.. were you connected up via hdmi on the ps3?

Same HDMI connections, just a better performance from the Bluray player.

Mike Litoris

Wedwood wrote: »

Same HDMI connections, just a better performance from the Bluray player.

There must have been something seriously wrong with your set up for even the most advanced blu ray player to be "miles ahead" of the PS3 in terms of picture quality. The PQ of a PS3s Blu Ray player isn't one of its weak points.

micks_address

Mike Litoris wrote: »

There must have been something seriously wrong with your set up for even the most advanced blu ray player to be "miles ahead" of the PS3 in terms of picture quality. The PQ of a PS3s Blu Ray player isn't one of its weak points.

Yep the ps3 isnt the best dvd up scaler but for 1080p is pretty decent

It was almost the gold standard for years

Jumboman

Can anyone here actually tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 42 inch screen or smaller ?

I don't think you really need 1080p unless your TV is bigger than 42 inches

I'd rather see 720p with less compression than have 1080p video with even more compression .

Blu ray would be a perfect format if it didnt use video compression.

Ageyev

Can anyone really tell the difference in picture and sound quality between blu-ray players playing a blu-ray disc? Check that you haven't any of the processing settings on like noise reduction (my Sony BD player has this option for BD playback for some daft reason.