djones6746

Blu ray titles such as Perfect Storm...Stargate etc...while not the best in HD transfers still are better than their dvd counterparts. I cannot see why anyone would want a standard dvd over Blu ray except for extra content...special features.

FantasticVSDoom

Again, I think preferring SD-DVD and preferring the video quality of SD-DVD is saying 2 different things... There is no contest when discussing the video quality between the 2, but preferring not to upgrade and staying with SD is perfectly understandable, and I question sometimes switching as well (basically due to price and selection at this point). That is until I watch a movie, then I remember why.

rexinnih

As is pointed out in the thread, there are a few variables to the final product, but overall, BD provides a better video (and audio) experience.

Sweet Baby James

This post sums it up perfectly.

djones6746

Without a doubt....for the most part I am hanging on to my SD versions unless the HD video and audio are top notch. Also....I will wait until the prices come down or for some of the great sales they have had in the past come along again. I refuse to pay over $20.00 for a movie and prefer nothing more than $15.00 unless it is a title I must have now.

Lastdaysofrain

I think there are two seperate issues here.

1. I perfer SD to Blu-Ray just from a cost perspective, I also have an all region player and as far as I'm aware there are no Blu-Ray players that are able to play all region DVDs (I have a lot of SD DVDs from all over the world), so I'm in no rush to upgrade and I'm fine with the quality of SD DVD.

2. Without a doubt Blu-Ray has a better picture quality than regular DVD, I think the question is if people can live without that for all the other reasons (large collections, availability of titles, cost, all region etc). Also, Blu-Ray is good, but it's still not equal to a good film print. The quality of BR is closer to film than SD-DVD so it looks more like it should, I can't see anyone who would rather watch a regular DVD from a purely image quality stand point. I do prefer somethings on VHS for Nostalgic reasons, but are there people who are nostalgic about DVD already?

glenbrenderc510

and about the blu ray and dvd. ofcourse i prefer blu-ray video quality its a no brainer, blu ray is way far better than dvd

clckworang

Oh, please. We live in the information age. Where there is a will, there is a way. If you truly wanted to discover the difference, you could find a way. Hell, if nothing else, go to DVDBeaver and look at screen comparisons.

And it seems that many here know that the Best Buy setups are not ideal, yet choose to base all judgments on that anyway. That doesn't make any sense. If you don't have all the facts, admit you don't have all the facts and hold off on passing judgments.

Brian Shannon

Ah yes, lets blame someone for their opinion, the backbone of this entire debate.

Hmm, lets see . . .

Screen caps are great, what kind of monitor do you use? How is your monitor calibrated? How big is it? Yes, that will really tell me alot.

I don't have all the facts and I don't pass judgement.

Many people just don't want to hear that some are skeptical and wary of the industry, the vendors and even some of the early adopters that think they know everything.

Thanks for reinforcing my opinions!

The Bus

List of preference, from best to worst:

- Streaming RealPlayer video over a 28.8k modem
- YouTube
- Fourth-generation VHS copy
- VCD
- DVD (bootleg)
- DVD
- Blu-ray
- Theatrical presentation

I really hate the theatre. The image is too good. Why do I want to see what the filmmaker wanted me to see? Please.

clckworang

I can go to DVDBeaver and look at screen captures either on my 46" TV or on my laptop monitor and notice a difference. Why don't you try it? Calibrate your monitor the way you want and check it out.

And what is your opinion? I'm not blaming you for your opinion. How could I? You say just a couple of paragraphs down that you haven't made a judgment. So what could your opinion even be? I don't know what it is. I never attacked an opinion. I attacked making arguments based on a position of ignorance, simply not knowing any better or knowing better but choosing to ignore the facts.

And where did this early adopters think they know everything thing come from? I certainly don't, but I took the time to investigate and look into the HD format before choosing to buy into it. I didn't have any friends who had HD-DVD or Blu-ray at the time, either. Still don't. I didn't use that as an excuse to just buy into whatever my Best Buy told me or the latest studio press release.

And how could you say to me that some people don't want to hear that some are skeptical about studios and vendors? I was one of the ones who said that you should be skeptical of vendors like Best Buy and their presentations! And if you were to look at some of my past posts, I think you would see that I have never been a big fan of how the HD format has been handled.

beebs

Quality is meeting expectations/requirements to satisfy the customer consistently. You know, both DVD and Blu-ray do this for me on my set-up currently. I have a 42" Panasonic Plasma, 1080P, all HDMI cabling. I sit 5-6' from the screen. The Plasma is well-calibrated.

I can see the difference between most Blu's (and HD DVDs) and the SD DVDs. But, for almost all titles I only miss it during direct comparisons. Often the best high def transfers are also some of the best SD transfers.

Here's how I know I'm satisfied with SD DVD. Because before Blu-ray came along, I didn't purchase the best/uber upscaler out there. I had a $50 1080i one and was completely satisfied. I had an Oppo for a while while a friend visited with it. I noticed a nicer image over the $50 upscaler, still didn't put out the $180-190 to upgrade to it. I was satisfied with the cheapy deck.

Also, after building a small library of high-def titles and watching more or less nothing but for 5-6 months, the presentation did not reset my expectations or requirements to their level. I was still perfectly happy with upconverted SD DVDs for most titles. I will try to get a title on blu-ray if renting it... but would gladly take the title I want to see right now on SD rather than wait for the blu-ray.

I am hopeful that my Blu-rays and HD DVDs will really shine on my forthcoming projector and 80-90" screen.

-Beebs

Xytraguptorh

I prefer Blu-ray quality over DVD. But not enough to upgrade many titles that I already own. I bought into HD-DVD pretty early, but luckily didn't buy a whole lot of titles. The only reason I own a Blu-ray player is because I wanted a PS3. My very favorite films I'll end up owning on Blu-ray, but most titles I'm happy with DVD.

I'd love to buy new releases on BD but I'm not paying more than $20, so until that happens I'll stick with buying the occasional DVD. I also like DVDs for their portability since I can play them so many different places. Where a BD movie I'm stuck watching it in my theater on my PS3.

The most important factor for me though is that while BD is better than DVD, the jump in quality is nowhere near what you see when watching sports in HD vs. SD. I was flipping back and forth on Sunday during football games and the difference is truly night and day. I can't say the same thing when comparing BD and DVD, even though BD is clearly superior. SD NFL games look unwatchable after flipping to the HD version. The same cannot be said (not even close) for DVD.

I have somewhere around 1,100 DVDs, but I doubt I end up with anywhere near as many Blu-rays. Blu-ray is supposed to overtake DVD in sales by 2012, according to experts (and an article at dvdfile). To me that would mean new releases under $20 and catalog titles for $10 or less. Those are the only conditions where I can see my Blu-ray collection growing very much. There are some good deals online, though, but I'm looking forward to the day when there is a $5 bargain bin Blu-ray section.

Josh-da-man

I can easily foresee a future where Blu-ray releases are tweaked in order to be more appealing to the masses. Oversaturating colors, removing film grain, etc. Sort of the HD version of clipping audio CDs and adding EE to DVDs.

PaulNJ21

I went DVD over Blu Ray, as a fan of older movies instead of newer ones it is sort of liking fullscreen over widescreen, I only want my older movies looking so good because at a certain point, the video quality becomes unnatural and not anywhere in the ballpark of how the movie was originally intended to be seen.

Walker Boh

Please give an example of an old movie that looks unnaturally good on Blu-ray. Film has higher "resolution" than Blu-ray, so I just don't understand this argument. Maybe if you give an example I can better understand where you're coming from.

I mean, I can understand if you're not into Blu-ray because of the higher prices, or there aren't enough titles that interest you, or you personally don't see enough of a quality difference over standard DVD. I just don't understand the notion that it's somehow making some things look better than they should.

Lastdaysofrain

This is a pretty ridiculous statement dude. If the movie was originally intended to be seen on film, then Blu Ray isn't going to be close to how it was originally intended to be seen, it won't be a high enough quality.

Gizmo

The LG 200 (Blu-ray and HD DVD player) can be easily hacked to play all region DVDs, PAL DVDs and all region Blu-ray discs. Its currently $300-$400 at Best Buy depending what week you buy it. Also superb DVD up-converting.

beebs

Personally I'm used to older movies (mostly I'm talking about late-20s to the mid-50s here) as projected off 35mm and 16mm dupes shown on tv, in revival houses, and VHS/Laserdisc/DVDs made from these sort of sources. I've been watching movies in this state twice as long as in nicely restored formats on DVD or HD. It was more than 20 years before DVD appeared.

There's beginning to be a sizable number of well-restored older films now. But, the vast bulk of classic films are not well restored, and still can look murky and faded. The classic film fan can watch only a tiny percentage of old films in nice spruced up new digital editions.

In some cases, such as older color films -- I don't find the latest restorations disjointed from my experiences. You can see the vibrant colors peaking out from under all that dupe, aging, and wear. But with B&W films, for whatever reason, there's a greater change in my opinion. The difference can be so great for me that it takes a little getting used to.

When I see Casablanca on HD DVD, I can understanding someone finding the quality jarring. I remember seeing restored B&W films and being a little put off by just how good they looked. One I remember well is the 1992 B&W print of Orson Welles' Othello. I'd seen restored prints before, but this one was well-projected in a nice art house theater (Philly, Ritz) from a prisitine print. Dazzling, I thought, at the time. There was a part of me, though, that would have enjoyed the film more had it been less pristine, more flawed. (The sound was a different matter.) I wondered if it ever looked that good, even when first sent out to theaters and it took me out of the film a number of times.

-beebs

wd65733

Not true.

I had a 32 inch vizio...and even then the difference between BD and DVD was pretty obvious.

Now I have a 40 inch. lcd and it's hard to go back to DVD.

pro-bassoonist

I am in full agreement with you. Outstanding post

Pro-B

joshl75

First post here, trying to find some info on Blu Ray quality. I just bought a 47" LG, LCD, 1080p 120hz. Connected to a PS3 via HDMI. Seems to me, that the goal is to replicate what we see in a theatre. In 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. I'm a professional photographer, and imagery is my job. Cinema film is a very organic process, light being projected through film, moving at 24 frames per second. Its not perfect, its not going to be, there is some flicker, there is some movement. I'm currently watching Death Proof, standard DVD, which has intentional added dust, scratches, film pops, it looks all fucked up, and honestly, I prefer it.

Future Man

There's this whole debate going on at at least one other, technically minded forum about supposed digital overtweaking of some titles on Blu-Ray (Patton is one title much talked about) to the point where for example faces supposedly look too smooth and wax-like.

toddly6666

This is why I started this whole thread. This post is exactly what I meant. But I get burned at the stake for saying that blu ray isn't better looking than DVD. I think DVD is better looking than blu ray.

I still think that Blu Ray has the advantage for sports, porn, and nature features, while DVD has the advantage for films...

Brent L

I don't get this "Blu-ray is only worth it on a big screen" talk. I have a Vizio 26 inch TV from Walmart, and I can tell a difference on pretty much every single Blu-ray I own, in terms of both video and audio.

I can only imagine that the only reason, no matter if they know it's the reason or not, that people are picking DVD over Blu-ray is because for most films the only thing they've ever seen are DVD transfers or beat up decades old film reels.

I always go back to The Searchers:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...rs_blu-ray.htm

how could anyone want to watch anything other than that Blu-ray transfer?