There are some people that just don't mind not seeing all the little details. When I look at the comparison photos of those three different versions of The Searchers at DVDbeaver, I just see them as different picture quality interpretations. They all look equally good to me - just different visual styles - one's crisper, one's more colorful, one has better contrast, one has more detail, etc, etc...

What exactly did you mean? That scratches and burns are what makes a film experience enjoyable? This has got to be the biggest la-la-la post I have ever read. Blu-ray is not all about providing unreal images. On the contrary, it is about replicating the original source as best as possible. Only a few day ago, I had The Third Man for a review and the film looks absolutely breathtaking in 1080p. The black and white color-scheme is arguably the best I've seen thus far on the format (better than Great Expectations).

I really cannot grasp this constant fascination some of you have with insisting that lower resolution offers higher video quality. It makes absolutely no sense and no matter how many times you come here claiming that "this is exactly what I meant" your post won't be read with a greater dose of respect.

Joshi75, if the smooth movement 120HZ offers bothers you then turn it off. I personally am not a big fan of it either.

Pro-B

Huh?

Who are these people? People posting on internet boards confusing detail and resolution with style?

Where are you heading with this one, yet again, Toddly?

Pro-B

Does restoration not mean anything to some people? I'd be willing to bet that almost all, if not all, of the director's of the classic films through the years would be thrilled with how their films look in HD.

I've always thought that the entire goal of home video was to eventually emulate the original theater experience in terms of video and audio quality. The closer we all get to that, the better.

So if you're sitting down to watch a movie on your new HDTV and you have a Blu-ray and a DVD version to choose from, you are indifferent about which one you watch?

Very strange.

That's a problem with your TV not Blu-ray. Your set has some sort of motion interpolation feature that needs to be turned off.

When watching Iron Man on Blu Ray, I feel it looks too good, unnatural. You can tell when a scene is shot in front of a green screen, its way harder to suspend disbelief while watching. There's something unnatural about the motion, camera pans, etc that just dosen't feel right.

that's how I feel when watching a blu ray. I don't feel that as much when watching a DVD.

There are millions of DVD watchers that are perfectly happy with DVD, regardless if they have ever seen a blu ray.

I would be fine just staying with dvd over BD, but the inclusion of exclusive features on BD are probably what will drive me over. Hell, I still buy movies on vhs if they haven't been released on dvd yet. I'm just here to enjoy the disc or video content, not so much the quality. I'm not saying that I don't want what I'm watching to look clear, I just want to see the damn movie :P

Clear good quality plus great features. That's what makes me buy a DVD over a BD at times. If the current BD has no features but the DVD has the features, which does happen at times, I'll go with DVD over BD

I'm happy sticking to DVD for now

Yep, figured that out, shut it off, and things look much better now, I'm much happier with blu now. That being said, I just saw Gran Torino and Milk in the theatre, and the big screen experience isn't nearly as sharp and crisp as blu ray.

I still buy DVDs because I would think the actual movie itself is more important than how "good" it looks.

Yeppers. Blu-Ray is awesome compared to SD

I prefer Dvd I own a Blu Ray and I just dont see that much difference and I have put 2 tvs right next to each other abd theres just a tiny change. (and it was a 1080p hdtv)

One of the reasons I will continue to buy movies on dvd is that I have a 400 disc dvd changer in my living room. It is quite convenient to have all those movies at the push of a button. Also I get dvds fairly cheap at my local video store and let my friend and brother borrow them. I will buy BD (i just got a ps3 on early december), I have Dark Knight and Planet Earth, I think BD will be more for summer popcorn flicks and the like...for now at least.

See? That's what i'm seeing. I don't have any understanding as when people say that blu ray is the closest to the way it looks in the theater. If the film isn't a digital projection, and just a regular theater projection, I've always thought that dvd and now blu ray is sharper and crisper than on the big screen.

I'll agree with your assessment before this post pro-b. No matter what people may think about HD, HD is the ultimate way to view any material. I mean, even old black and white films look amazing and have the finest detail. Just because the source wasn't pristine itself, doesn't mean it won't look even better in high def. People should understand this. High def isn't just about getting transfers that all look like a Pixar film or something, it's about the closest possible representation of the film you can have for your home theater, period.

However, to ignore the people out there that really truly either don't see a difference, and don't see enough of a difference, isn't a conspiracy or anything. There are people out there. Thankfully, most the people I know can appreciate a great looking Blu-ray title over DVD any day. I actually did a side by side comparison with a person or two that I know, that really didn't see enough of a difference. My jaw dropped. Those people do exist. There are still people out there that prefer their old standard definition sets that aren't flatscreen, or have knobs instead of remotes. Some people only care about watching the material, and could care less about any kind of quality. Just because it makes perfect sense to us that 'how could anyone NOT want to see something in high def if they can', doesn't mean that holds true to everybody.

People are misleading you by saying 'it's the closest presentation to the theater possible'. If you look carefully enough to what experts say, it's the closest possible presentation of the 'film' itself. The resolution of film is like a picture, it's not really restricted by any amount of pixels. That film on a projector in a movie theater, has many many reasons why it may not look as sharp or crisp or whatever. The film is on a projector that's been used more than Rosie O'Donnels local doughnut shop. The sharpness could be off. There's a long list of things that could hinder the experience... not to mention that it's magnified a whole bunch for the screen.

Have you had the opportunity to see a movie on a digital projection screen in a theater yet? Different experience, indeed.

Blu-ray isn't hindered by the equipment, lighting conditions, or numerous other factors that can ruin an image slightly in a theater. It's a digital image on a blu-ray disc that's being read by a machine, and it's being presented on a screen. There's nothing to ruin or interfere with your picture. And being that the resolution is so high, you're basically getting the best possible picture quality that's to your eyes, just as good as the film source... and those are the key words, the 'film source'... not the presentation in the theater.

Hell, I don't really go to the theater anymore unless it's digital or in IMAX. Despite the fact that I do get the best possible presentation at home for the reasons I mentioned above compared to the theater, and because I don't have to deal with the audience and environment, it's a better deal. I can own a movie for how much it costs to buy an IMAX ticket!


For anyone else in the forum that has a hard time understanding how high def can be better, put it in simple terminology, and I may have said this before. Take a photograph, and then take a bunch of colored balls and try and recreate it using the same pixelation as a 480 image. What happens when you can add more balls? You can get finer details in there, right?

Or perhaps think of video games. The lower the bit, the crappier the 'quality'. The NES was 8 bit, the SNES was 16, and the further up you go and the better games can look. Now games are HD, and look how amazing they look today.

If they don't see an appreciable difference between SD and HD then any discussion of "quality" is mooted. The quality for those persons it the same regardless of presentation.

At any rate, further to an earlier post of mine in this thread, I have *finally* seen an impressive HD display in-store (still have no close friends that have made the leap) that was qualitatively better than my SD setup -- and in Wal*Mart of all places!

Polls like these help me determine what % of the population is batshit insane. What's interesting is the % always falls into a very specific range. While these are not the same people who believe the moon landings are fake, I can sense there being some overlap.

Perhaps if the moon landing had been broadcast in HD there would have been less of a controversy!

(does this count as a threadcrap?)