Some people like the video quality of a Sony HDTV over a Panasonic HDTV. And vice versa. It doesn't mean that one has better video quality than the other. It's all about which one your eyes prefer.

So, I'm curious, I'm not asking about which technology is better - DVD or Blu Ray - I'm just asking which video quality do you prefer to watch?

I personally prefer DVD over Blu Ray, because:
1. I don't have a mega-sized tv (just 37 inches), in which Blu Ray has video quality advantage over DVD for when TV/projector screens are much bigger.
2. The Blu Ray video quality of new movies are just too bright, too crisp. It's like trying on prescription glasses which are too strong. I don't want backgrounds to be as crystal clear as foregrounds - that's not the way eyes work. I can't really comment on old movies released on Blu Ray because I haven't seen any when they play the Blu Rays in the electronics stores, but I have a feeling that older movies released on Blu Ray is something that I would prefer.
3. Blu Ray is also headache-inducing. I was watching the Transformers Blu Ray in an electronics store and the brightness/crispness/sharpness factor just hurt my head. Furthermore, CGI seems to be even more fake/obvious on Blu Ray over DVD.

Blu Ray is still pretty amazing - almost 3D-like, but i'm not interesting in watching a 3D movie everytime I watch a movie. I just want the same video quality as I see in the movie theaters, instead of something so drastically different.

If you have the right set up, and the initial transfer is done right on the BD, then I'd go with that.

Watching a Blu-ray on a 19in tube set wouldn't mean shit. I think it all depends on your setup.

This bothers me as well especially with the demo loops that Best buy uses.

Just make sure you don't use that 120hz technology. That's probably where you got the headaches from.

I agree that bad F/X show up more in Blu-Ray, but the same was true in DVD over VHS. I don't remember ever seeing the strings waving the Queen's tail in the movie Aliens until I had it on DVD.

I voted that I like both equally. Blu-Ray is obviously superior, but I'm not one of the people that refuses to buy anything that's not Blu. Personally, I think that's just silly. I will buy a new release in Blu, but if it's not available I still buy and enjoy regular DVD's.

Electronic store setups are not to be judged on quality, because they intentionally have the brightness and contrast turned up much higher than normal to make the TVs stand out more. In the display menu, it's the 'daylight' setting or some similar name, also referred to as 'torch mode'. No one would watch any kind of TV like that at home unless they didn't know how to set it up properly.

Blu-Ray looks amazing compared to DVD.

It's not so much that I prefer DVD's video quality, it's just that I don't care about Blu-Ray's video quality.

Honestly, it all hinges on the transfer. I've seen HD content that looked about as good as an SD upconverted. I've also seen HD content that blows the SD out of the water. Just because something is on BR doesn't mean it looks better than SD; there are many variables you have to factor in to determine if the picture is truly better.

I'd say that from what i've seen so far, I prefer Blu-ray. But that doesn't mean that I plan on upgrading every title that I own on DVD though. Some movies look just fine in SD.

I think that is easily the most sensible choice.

High five.

I certainly haven't seen enough comparisons to be anything resembling an expert, but we do have a display showing Spider-Man 3 in standard and Blu-Ray. While the image quality of the Blu-Ray is noticeably much sharper (and probably preferable when comparing it directly to standard DVD), it struck me as almost too good. Like I wasn't watching a movie, but a BBC version of it. It definitely bothered me and I would probably want to avoid watching movies like that on Blu-Ray. Not sure if the standard was upconverted or not, but somewhere in the middle would be better, personally. I don't remember that effect when we had Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire playing side by side, so it might just be that particular movie.

I'm not even remotely ready to upgrade, and I can live with that. I still only have a regular 4X3 television, although I do plan to upgrade eventually.

K

Video quality closer to the theaters is exactly what you get with BD if it's done right.

I don't understand the comments about brightness, unless you're referring to the in-store displays in torch mode. If you're referring to the smoothness of the frame rate, it seems this is yet another case of someone thinking the motion interpolation is caused by the format rather than the TV.

Honestly it depends on the movie. Like 80 horror movies and stuff I kinda like the low-grade grainy quality. Thats why I've kept a lot of old VHS's despite owning the DVDs.

Just because something is on a Blu-Ray disc doesn't automatically mean it's better video quality than the same thing on DVD. You could have the same exact thing on Blu-Ray that's on DVD and the only thing different is the extra space on the disc.

As long as everything is improved, I'll go with Blu-Ray.

That sounds like the previously mentioned 120hz or whatever mode they have on some HDTVs. I think it goes something like how the actual frames per second on a movie isn't quite 24, and so that mode has the player create a frame where normally two frames would blend together, thus making the motion more accurate and clear. Basically this makes the video look like what HD camcorders usually look like, or it even looks like real life. It's missing some sort of artificial sheen that a movie usually has and it almost makes the film look cheaper. This is not an effect of Blu-Ray, this is an effect of the TV (an optional one, thankfully), and I agree that it looks weird.

I think it makes sports games look better or something.

I'm still waiting to see a jaw-dropping hi-def demonstration (either BD, broadcast or even poor departed HD DVD). I've checked the displays in stores, from the big boxes HT rooms to the WalMart displays and I've never seen something that would make me dump my 32" SD Sony tube.

I want to believe, I really do! I just haven't seen anything that looks remarkably better than a DVD (or even a good SD broadcast) on my 4:3 tube.

Don't ask me why -- I see the numbers and I've worked with computers and graphics all my life (though maybe that's why) -- but I just don't see what all the hoopla is about.

Also, I just don't trust those "side-by-side" comparisons I see in the store. The DVD version always looks so washed out and blurry that I can't help but think that I'm seeing some sales trickery as they never look that poor at home - although I know that non-upscaled DVDs can look worse on a hi-def TV.

I want to believe!

Same for me as well.

i agree.

to all of you who are only judging the quality of Blu-ray based only on the displays at stores. I would have thought most people around here would have known better than that.

Yeah, I just don't get that, or the people that day, they can't tell the difference b/w a Blu-Ray or a movie on there little 27" 4:3 TV, or what have you.

I want the best possible, transfer of a film, especially on older films, I watched the Sand Pebbles last night, an older film that is just night & day compared to the DVD transfer. So how on earth could someone prefer the DVD quality over the Blu.

Yes, there are definitely Blus released so far, that for whatever dissapointing reason, have dissapointing transfers (Patriot Games IMO), so I can understand maybe on those preferring the SD & I agree there are still a TON of movies I own that I don't feel the need to upgrade (films like Val Lewton films an example I'm perfectly fine in SD). But I'll still take the audio upgrade over a SD any day of the week also.

I really think for the most part, anyone that prefers a DVD over a Blu quality wise, just doesn't have the proper set-up.

Poor analogy. When you're pitting one brand of HDTV to another, you're at least comparing HDTV to HDTV. But DVD and Blu-ray are vastly different in terms of technical specs.

I can't argue with you there. The benefits of Blu-ray on a 37-inch TV will be limited.

Your comment about brightness is not surprising if your frame of reference has been store displays, which are notorious for having their brightness set way too high.

However, Blu-ray does not magically change the sharpness of the background of the picture in comparison with the foregrond.

One might argue that that had to do as much with the movie as it did the technology. That said, I thought the special effects in "Transformers" looked pretty poor on DVD. I can imagine they'll only look worse in high-def. But that has to do with the quality of the movie, not Blu-ray.

Theatrical presentations are considerably higher-resolution than Blu-ray.

All else equal, Blu-ray is FAR better.

well, i'm using my 50" panasonic plasma and during the last fall season i watched "heroes" in HD every week. having not converted to blu-ray (yet), i purchased the SD version of the dvd and watched it on my upconverting player. now i could obviously see the difference between what i was watching on dvd versus what i had seen in HD, but i wasn't disappointed and i didn't feel the need/urge to jump to blu-ray. the picture quality was really good, and while the sharpness and colors on HD were better, i don't know if they were worth the ~$10 price difference to buy a new release blu-ray for a movie, and ~$20+ for a tv show.

and i know comparing blu-ray to an HD source is probably not the best thing, since the HD source isn't 1080p, and i can see how big-budgets, special-effects-driven blockbusters would probably benefit from HD, but considering most of what i watch is television shows and then comedies/dramas, i don't really have too much of an interest in jumping over.