DVD v BluRay

Ageyev

Another Q: do streaming services like Netflix get the remastered copies of films that get released on blu-ray? Aliens, The Terminator, Robocop, Blade Runner and others all had significant tweaking to the picture giving it a teal and orange tint.

French Connection is another one - Friedkin drastically altered the colour timing on its first BD release and it was then re-released without the tweaks.

I know Netflix et al are heavily compressed so talking about resolution is a bit redundant but I'm curious about what kind of digital copies they recieve from studios.

Mike Litoris

Jumboman wrote: »

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.

Yep, its very visible on a 40" even 1080i...to me anyhow. Unless you're talking about ripped content then I'm not sure but setting your player or receiver to output less than 1080p its noticeable.

TheDoc

Have to say I would have said there was no difference, until I started to built a Bluray collection.

What I find surprising is how a Bluray is so much crisper and cleaner then a 1080p rip of a film. Typically a file via torrent is never pure quality because its compressed, but even with files from newsgroups that are normally top notch, the difference is drastic.

I've noticed now that through things like Netflix, Google movies etc., I'm noticing the quality being less compared to a 720p download, and all seem inferior to an actual bluray.

Ageyev

Blu-ray holds up to 50gigs, films are often 30-40gigs. A "rip" is typically 700mb-4gb so yeah way more compression.

DoYouEvenLift

How you play the files can also make a difference from what I've seen? I was watching a 1080p rip of Fury the other night (2GB Yify file so it was highly compressed) and played it through the bluray player and the quality was fine but about 10mins in the cinavia sh!t popped up so I had to play it through the TV and instantly I could notice the quality seemed downgraded?

Frank O. Pinion

TheDoc wrote: »

Have to say I would have said there was no difference, until I started to built a Bluray collection.

What I find surprising is how a Bluray is so much crisper and cleaner then a 1080p rip of a film. Typically a file via torrent is never pure quality because its compressed, but even with files from newsgroups that are normally top notch, the difference is drastic.

I've noticed now that through things like Netflix, Google movies etc., I'm noticing the quality being less compared to a 720p download, and all seem inferior to an actual bluray.

Of course a 2GB or 4GB or whatever file, even ones labelled "1080p" will be compressed, and not look as good as a Blu-ray disc. But 20GB, 30GB, etc. 1080p remuxes look fantastic. These are the files that are "pure quality", and for the past two years or so, I only download these 20GB+ files for new films. There's a HUGE difference between a YIFY 2GB "1080p" rip, and a 20GB 1080p remux.

Technocentral

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Of course a 2GB or 4GB or whatever file, even ones labelled "1080p" will be compressed, and not look as good as a Blu-ray disc. But 20GB, 30GB, etc. 1080p remuxes look fantastic. These are the files that are "pure quality", and for the past two years or so, I only download these 20GB+ files for new films. There's a HUGE difference between a YIFY 2GB "1080p" rip, and a 20GB 1080p remux.

There's a lot of ignorance on the subject with people too lazy to do a bit of research, loads think HD and 1080 attached to something automatically means amazing quality even if its 10 or 15 times more compressed than the original 1080 file. As they say little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Mike Litoris

The same goes for sound. You wont get a decent 1080p rip with DTS HDMA less than 16 gigs (sound take priority over resolution for me). There is a big difference between that and plain DTS 5.1.

beauf

A SuperHD stream on netflix looks decent. As does HD on the TV. Yes it has limitations. But if I'm not planning on getting the BD, then I'm quite happy with that. One issue I have is subtitles. Even on Netflix, getting it working right doesn't always work for me. At least on BD you have full control.

I also wait for some movies to come to XtraVision Kiosks to watch the BD. If its a movie you'll watch only once then it kinda makes sense. If you will watch it a few times, then it doesn't. You'd be better off buying it.

Wedwood

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.

The PS3 Bluray is very good, it's just the dedicated Bluray player (also a Sony) is better. I use high spec gold tipped HDMI cables and use proper calibration tools, so I know it's not down to poor set up etc.

The other benefit of the dedicated Bluray player is the lossless Dolby/ DTS through sound system rather than 'downscaling' the sound to standard Dolby 5.1 via the optical cable to external speakers.

Just back to the quality of Bluray, your typical cinema displays 2K, so Blurays 1080p is only marginally lower resolution.

In general a HDMI cable either works or not. Gold plating means nothing

Mike Litoris

Wedwood wrote: »

The PS3 Bluray is very good, it's just the dedicated Bluray player (also a Sony) is better. I use high spec gold tipped HDMI cables and use proper calibration tools, so I know it's not down to poor set up etc.

The other benefit of the dedicated Bluray player is the lossless Dolby/ DTS through sound system rather than 'downscaling' the sound to standard Dolby 5.1 via the optical cable to external speakers.

Listen, you stated the stand alone was "miles ahead" of the PS3 in terms of picture quality. Now the PS3 is "very good" and the stand alone is just better?? You're backtracking a bit there buddy.


Do some research. The PS3 will output DTS HDMA and Dolby TrueHD to a receiver. It just doesn't display it. Plus the gold on the hdmi connectors aint gonna much except put a bigger hole in your pocket.


Your posts simply suggest there was obviously a problem with your PS3 set up.

Ageyev

Deleted User wrote: »

In general a HDMI cable either works or not. Gold plating means nothing

Don't want to pile on Wedwood but the above is correct. HDMI is 1s and 0s. Expensive HBMI cables would be like spending 50 quid on a gold plated oxygen free USB printer cable - it won't make your print any better.

This dates back to scart cables which were analogue.

DoYouEvenLift

Ageyev wrote: »

Don't want to pile on Wedwood but the above is correct. HDMI is 1s and 0s. Expensive HBMI cables would be like spending 50 quid on a gold plated oxygen free USB printer cable - it won't make your print any better.

This dates back to scart cables which were analogue.

The time I learned this was funny because it was just as I was about to spend €50 on one in Harvey Norman before an actual shop assistant told me to not bother and get the cheapest version available

Wedwood

Mike Litoris wrote: »

Listen, you stated the stand alone was "miles ahead" of the PS3 in terms of picture quality. Now the PS3 is "very good" and the stand alone is just better?? You're backtracking a bit there buddy.


Do some research. The PS3 will output DTS HDMA and Dolby TrueHD to a receiver. It just doesn't display it. Plus the gold on the hdmi connectors aint gonna much except put a bigger hole in your pocket.


Your posts simply suggest there was obviously a problem with your PS3 set up.

The Slim PS3 will output lossless DTS/TrueHD via HDMI. If you're using optical, then it will 'downscale'.

The difference between PS3 and a high end Bluray player is similar to the difference between a low and high end CD player. Any difference in picture quality is probably down to greater processing power in the newer Bluray player for things like contrast, brightness etc.

Ageyev

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

The time I learned this was funny because it was just as I was about to spend €50 on one in Harvey Norman before an actual shop assistant told me to not bother and get the cheapest version available

€2 in one of them pound shop/Dealz type shops will do the trick unless you need about a 50ft throw.

I have interrupted sales "assistants" trying to sell punters those Monster cables for 70-80 Euro, all because they get massive mark up on them.

(usually the chaps selling them are only upselling based on orders from their managers, to be fair)

ButtersSuki

Watched the first 5-10 minutes of Betty Blue on Blu Ray last night (only got that far as I was interrupted and unable to return to it). This is a film I have cherised and owned on VHS, Laser Disc (yes), DVD and finally Blu Ray. I know it inside out, back to front. It has never looked or sounded so good. The Blu Ray is simply stunning. The French countryside/beachfront has never looked as good and the audio is greatly enhanced. As good a transfer as I have ever seen - admittedly based on 10mins! Worth picking up if you like your French movies.

jones

I'm all about bluray its the best quality available at the moment and my internet connection is fairly rubbish so downloading 20/30gig files just isn't an option for me. I don't buy as many these days as I just don't have the spare cash I once had - dam you life.

I tend to buy films I know i'll like or have already seen. I've spent serious money on my home cinema so for me to buy dvd's doesn't really make sense in my situation (or in my head at least).

I actually think the thread title should read bluray v download/streaming v sky hd because I'd imagine that's how most people are viewing films these days :-)

I'll buy DVD's of smaller films. Watched "The Grand Seduction" over the weekend and that is a film that does not really warrant a Blu purchase

Dirty Dingus McGee

Having read through this thread and seeing people say that DVD's look worse on a larger screen .

Can you please give me an idea how big a screen it should be before there is a change in the picture quality?

I have hundreds of DVD's and I want to be able to watch them in good quality on as big screen as possible as I am beginning to realise my current 22 inch TV is too small to fully appreciate certain films.

I watched The Homesman last night and it was partially spoiled as large amount of the film was shot in wide shots and you could barely see the faces of the characters at times.

Sad Professor

I would just get the best tv you can afford and not worry about it showing up the flaws of DVD, most of which would already be noticeable on your current screen.

The quality of the transfer and encode trumps the resolution IMO. Blu-ray has superior resolution that is very noticeable, even on smaller screens, but the studios continue to put out deliberately s***ty encodes that will have to be "re-mastered" in a few years after everyone gets over the current obsession with 2k, 4k, 8k, etc.

beauf

It's not the size of the tv. It's the quality of the dvd. Some are good some aren't.

I play my dvd back through a Bluray player and I think they look better this way. It probably upscales them better than the TV can. If you love your movies get the biggest one that works for your space. Don't worry about the dvds.

Wedwood

I converted the attic into a home cinema, which has a 720p projector on a 100 inch screen. The larger screen size gives a better overall experience even though is not 1080p, like the TV downstairs.

Although I mainly use Blurays you can watch DVDs which look fine even at that screen size.

The question for me now is which would be better - an upgrade to a 1080p projector or a 55 inch 4k TV to watch Blurays on.

DoYouEvenLift

Wedwood wrote: »

I converted the attic into a home cinema, which has a 720p projector on a 100 inch screen. The larger screen size gives a better overall experience even though is not 1080p, like the TV downstairs.

Although I mainly use Blurays you can watch DVDs which look fine even at that screen size.

The question for me now is which would be better - an upgrade to a 1080p projector or a 55 inch 4k TV to watch Blurays on.

Unless the TV would be OLED, go with the 1080p projector.

Mizu_Ger

Wedwood wrote: »

I converted the attic into a home cinema, which has a 720p projector on a 100 inch screen. The larger screen size gives a better overall experience even though is not 1080p, like the TV downstairs.

Although I mainly use Blurays you can watch DVDs which look fine even at that screen size.

The question for me now is which would be better - an upgrade to a 1080p projector or a 55 inch 4k TV to watch Blurays on.

I'd go with the projector. They can be a pain to setup, but there's no TV that can touch them for pure picture size and it won't cost anywhere near the price of the TV.

I have a setup with a DIY 110" screen and a 1080p projector (Benq W1080ST) and it's fantastic with blu-ray. I haven't seen a 4K setup with this screen size, but my setup is a great viewing experience

Adamantium

Reduce the sharpness of your TV to 0 and leave it there, I did this yesterday and everything looks like film and as was intended. My 26 inch 8 year old HDTV looks glorious now, the picture clear, but nice soft and natural

The sharpness setting on modern TV's is a holdover from the days when we still received analog when the picture could be fuzzy, broken on a bad day of weather (or just in general). You're artifically sharpening something that is already coming through the air in 1's and 0's.

shazzerman

Projector all the way. A 110-120" screen is giving you an image four times bigger than a 55" TV.

Tea 1000

shazzerman wrote: »

Projector all the way. A 110-120" screen is giving you an image four times bigger than a 55" TV.

Really good projectors are expensive though. I'm more about the picture quality than size. I decide on the TV for the quality first, then buy as big as I can afford. Projectors compromise on quality to give size, and you have to throw money at it to narrow the gap.

LiamHam82

Jurassic Park, one of my favourite films, is a disgrace on bluray, picture is full of noise and just looks like an upscaled dvd. It deserved a lot better from Spielberg.