+1

Here are frames from my VHS copy of GATE OF HELL (1953), one of Japan's earliest color films, made from a Janus film print:







Would a DVD or Blu-ray be sharper? Of course, but is sharpness what you want in images like these? Especially if it's much sharper than the original film prints were? Don't you want it to look "old," to look like something from another time? Don't you want to feel like you're going back to that time and place? I do. Would I spring for an upgrade? Yes. Would it be a better experience than my VHS? I don't know. It may not.

Look at some of Celestial Pictures' "restored, remastered" DVDs of 1960s Shaw Bros. titles from Hong Kong. Those films never looked like they do on those DVDs. Granted, they're a damn sight better than the old bootleg VHS copies I had to settle for, but it's still quite a distance from the way those films were originally experienced.

All I'm saying is--as an analog creature, a human being, I tend to find analog preferable on occasions.

Not always. Some DVDs just use a VHS copy as the source. Then it looks exactly like the VHS version. The same can, and will, happen with Blu-ray if it hasn't happened already.

If not that exact thing, then something very close to it happened with Gulliver's Travels. I mean, there are tracking errors, for crying out loud, and it bleeds/ghosts really badly.

That second one looks like bad water painting.

I don't know what's up with the king's hands in that first one.

Last night I compared the Blu-ray containing both versions of "Leon the professional" to the DVD (Superbit International version). This was an example where I felt the DVD is better overall than the Blu-ray. There is more of a bloated contrast and a slant towards greenish Yellow tones and more of what I'd call a washed out look on the Blu-ray, the DVD version looks more natural most of the time, the Bluray has a touch more background detail, other than that I prefer the DVD. I've only done about 5 direct comparisons between the formats so far, on 2 I preferred the DVD version overall. That said, a good Blu-ray transfer is really something, but there are a number of cases where due care is not taken to produce an exceptional transfer. I am now of the mind that a mediocre blu-ray transfer is not better than a good DVD transfer.

I like old movies from the 30,40,50,60 so would they be much better looking in blu Ray?

I would say today movies would be no doubt better on blu ray.

The main problem I have with Blu-ray today is the studios decisions to shun classic films on BR. Sure we'll get the bigger named classics but there's very little hope of getting some of the rarer titles, many of which I own on DVD. I still prefer Blu-ray for Animation and Anime though.

This is because few people are buying the classics - It's understandable studios won't remaster and release more if people aren't buying them.

Within the last year, studios have released a bunch of second tier catalogue titles on BR, many of them bare bones editions with street prices under $10. They spent little money doing this, and according to many of the reviews I've read, there isn't a notable improvement in video quality in a lot of cases.

I think the idea was to give people a chance to build a BR library fairly cheaply so they could justify the cost of the player to themselves. It doesn't appear to have been a rousing success.

I would think the better equipment you have, the larger screen, the bigger difference. Perhaps there is not much difference on a 19" screen, but get a projector and the differences become more apparent.

Another concern I've heard is that the increased resolution sometimes makes the images look cartoonish or unreal and it is hard to look at them. My equipment sucks so I don't really see this much, but I can imagine that could be so if the remastering gets out of hand.

I would think a Blu-ray done RIGHT, with respect to the original source SHOULD look better. Studios cutting corners to get product out and using computer technology to an extreme is probably going to hurt BR sooner or later. Even though the Millcreek titles are only 5 bucks at Target (Big Business, Gross Anatomy, Straight Talk, Another Stakeout), there has not been anyone say that they are really worth the upgrade. The review I read said they only tend to look "slightly" better. It's hard to know if that person compared it to the DVD or is just going from memory. Is it worth the upgrade? I don't know.

Since finally purchasing a Blu-Ray player, I haven't "jumped in" nearly as fast as the first few months of DVD ownership. I'm content with most of my DVDs for now and fully expect that at least half will never be released in high-def physical format. I've only upgraded a few older non-anamorphic titles ("The Edge", for example) and have been really pleased wit those...but the other upgrades would have to be really cheap for me to bite.

As much as I pride myself on reviewing and having a keen eye for detail, at the end of the day I'm nowhere close to being a videophile.

I got a Blu-ray player for Christmas, which was four months ago. I got one Blu-ray disc with the player and have purchased eight since, most within a couple of months after getting the player and all ten dollars or less per title. So I now have a total of nine Blu-ray discs. Not exactly a spending spree.

I just have so much other stuff to watch on DVD (and VHS), that I don't feel like upgrading just yet. I have to watch what I have. I've been very grateful for the Challenges on this board. The B-movie challenge (now in its final four days) has allowed me to go through a lot of stuff in my collection and I've had a ball doing it. I only watched one Blu-ray for it: THE HEROIC ONES, a 1970 Shaw Bros. kung fu/swordplay epic. I tended to find suitable titles mostly in my boxes of VHS pre-records stored in a closet. Great to finally plow through those. Some real gems, too.

ADDENDUM: Actually, I forgot to add one more Blu-ray disc I bought. A Japanese pop music concert that cost almost as much as the other eight Blu-ray discs I bought combined. But it was worth it, because it's probably the one Blu-ray I most enjoy.

I bought my Blu-ray player at Christmas and have amassed about 7 titles since. The most expensive was No Country For Old Men in a Steelbook for $13. The rest were $4-$8 each.

My criteria is

a) something I don't already have on DVD
b) Up-grade with extras or an anamorphic transfer
c) price is right

Otherwise I find re-purchasing Blu-ray titles that I already own on DVD is kind of like buying a bare-bones, full-screen DVD to replace my bare-bones, fullscreen VHS copy. Sure, the picture quality is better but...

This only happens when studios get heavy-handed on the DNR and other tools that they might use.

Or if you have 'smooth motion' on your TV turned on (most default to it on when new).

I think this captures the spirit of "it depends", really well. People enjoy different aspects of things that other people might find technically inferior. Better or worse can take on lots of meanings, depending on whom (?) you ask and what they criteria may be. To me that is the fun of movies, different opinions for different reasons.

As a cheap bastard, i think this is a important thing to keep in mind. The whole point of this hobby/interest may be enjoyment. If you spend 8x the amount, but get years of enjoyment you definitely got your money's worth. It is something i need to remember sometimes.

It seems like a lot of people look at DVD vs BD as an either-or situation. It's nothing even close to that for me.

Whether to buy a title on DVD or BD is a unique decision each time for me. I often buy the BD only because it's the cheaper option at the time. Availabilty, cost, portability, and extras are all more important factors than PQ/AQ for me. I happily buy both DVDs and BDs, even in the same series, and am probably at about a 50/50 mix in my purchasing right now.

Why Blu Ray is better than DVD:
1) Better picture

Why DVD is better than Blu Ray:
1) Generally cheaper
2) More titles available
3) Faster load times
4) More options on where I can watch it*

*There is one Blu Ray player in the house, but several DVD players. If it's a movie that everyone will watch (i.e. a blockbuster or romantic comedy), I'll get it on Blu Ray and everyone watches together on Friday or Saturday night on the big screen. If it's a title that only I will watch (i.e. horror, stupid comedies, indie flicks, tv series, etc.), I'll get it on DVD and will watch it myself on any of the DVD players scattered through the house anytime I chose to.

It depends...

Blu-Ray is better:
1 *May* have a better picture and/or sound. (I've never seen one so don't have first-hand knowlege. Based on comments from others it's generally better but "it depends" on the title/transfer/etc.)
2 "Standard" storage case design is marginally better than a "standard" DVD Amaray case. (I *do* own a single Blu-Ray title, which was free and came with a DVD copy. The case seems to be a marginally better design.)
3 Much larger storage/data space

DVD is better:
1 Better selection of material, especially "catalog" titles
2 Faster load times (based on comments from others who have direct experience)
3 No firmware updates needed to watch a title
4 Overall lower cost for titles
5 Overall lower cost for players/recorders
6 No restriction on playback devices (i.e. watch on any DVD player since the inception of the format)

Last night the kid and a friend wanted to watch Enchanted and would have been happy to watch in the basement, but I only have it on BD (knew I should have looked harder into that combo rerelease) so we all had to watch it upstairs. I like the movie and rewatched it, but I was hoping to watch something else at the time.

No noticeable load issues on my PS3.

What I appreciate most about Blu-ray is that it helps me really define my priorities. Where there's a choice in formats, my policy is that if I don't care enough about a movie to want the Blu-ray version, then I don't care enough about the movie to really spend the money to own it at all. It's really eliminated a lot of the $5 bin indulgences that account for a sizable portion of our library.

I've given little thought to the portability issue for two reasons. Firstly, I have never once taken a movie on any format with me to watch elsewhere (except when I was a kid, I might occasionally take a VHS or two with me when my brother and I went to our dad's for the weekend). I watch at home. If I go visit friends, it's not to congregate around a TV, which I can do here without them interrupting and distracting me. And it's just my wife and me, so we don't have to compete with anyone else for use of the entertainment system.

My wife's stepdad was hospitalized recently and when we visited him there I took notice that the TV in his room had a built-in DVD player. Knowing that surgery is pretty much inevitable for me, I got to thinking about how I couldn't actually watch some of my favorite movies because I only own them on Blu-ray now. Of course, I suspect that I'll little interest in movies during such recovery anyway; in previous hospitalizations I only really turned on the TV to watch baseball. And in any event, it seems silly to me to keep DVDs once I upgrade just on the off-chance I might one day be in a hospital room with a DVD player.

Depends. Do blu-rays come with inserts?

I just like DVDs for the range of titles and cheaper price... will probably convert to blu ray down the road but we'll see how it goes.

Pluses of Blu ray:
(Often times) Better picture
Generally, more special features for new releases

Pluses of DVD:
Much wider selection of titles
More affordable
Can save your place on the player when you stop
Generally, more special features for catalog titles
DVDs are more ubiquitous--how many laptops have a BD-ROM drive?
In the early days of DVD: you didn't have to buy a special DVD/VHS combo pack to buy a new release title