kd5

^ If that was directed at me, then yes, I agree, a new TV would give me HDMI and a greater appreciation of the HD in high definition video. I wish I had the $$$ to just buy one outright but I don't, so I'll nursemaid my Pioneer for as long as humanly possible... -kd5-

Fok

Eventually once you get a new HDTV, it will be interesting to hear you opinion on the whole Blu-ray format.
Granted, if I was using a non HDTV I probably would be very happy with DVDs.

I did the whole upgrade (late) all at once (HDTV & Blu player) and admittedly when watching some Blu-ray movies, it was like seeing them again for the first time due to the picture and sound quality.

Utlimately people should do whatever makes them happy. For me picture quality is a big factor as it enhances the movie experience and you see things you didn't see before.

Just slightly off topic, one thing that does piss me off is when people say they won't upgrade to blu ray as they'll have to replace all their DVDs. This is not the case as both formats can co-exist.

Aceguy

I think people need to know that the formats co-exist. That's the way it is in my collection. I don't talk about new blu-ray's or dvds, I talk about new movies I got because they both contain films, they are disc media, and you can play them both on one machine if you have both. There have been cases where image quality has been important to me. One time before I had blu-ray, I went to a friend's house to show him Blade Runner. He had a 40 inch 1080p tv and an upscaling player. I was amazed at the way the film looked when it was upscaled. So in general I love the point you make.

Preterite

It might. But then again, it might not. I saw a store display of a huge, top-end HDTV showing the new Star Trek on BD and the picture quality was incredible. I could really see the difference a great set-up can make. But I didn't feel home theater envy, and I felt no urge to upgrade my DVD copy of the film. I have an HDTV in my bedroom and a CRT in the living room and I'm happy watching DVD on either.

hilts

Over the years I have learned that most of the time "unwatchable" really means "not as bad as you think".

orangerunner

I can understand the rationale when people say they will have to replace their collection.

After you see and hear Blu-ray it does make your once-cherished DVD collection pale in comparison. Some people feared they would have to buy everything in Blu-ray in order to feel content with their collection.

Sure, feelings of discontent and not having the latest and greatest is what drives the consumer electronic business but for many, money is an issue.

I had that feeling, especially when Blu-ray was quite expensive a few years ago. I felt like buying into Blu-ray would be like getting hooked on a more potent drug that costs a lot more money.

For many early adopters it probably was like that. Blu-ray was an "all or nothing" change. There was no point in buying Blu-ray and hooking it up to your CRT with an older sound system.

You had to get the player, the movies, the new HDTV, the $60 HDMI cord and preferably, the better sound system to really benefit from it. There was no benefit from doing it half-assed.

Today, you can get a 50" HDTV for $500-$600, Blu-ray players can be had for $60 and discs as low as $4-$5. Six years have also passed since the introduction of Blu-ray and it's been 15 years since DVD was introduced. Switching out your DVD for $5 a title isn't a big deal.

kd5

I think I may have implied that at one time out of ignorance but then I realized it was not true. -kd5-

mdnitoil

The irony to the whole "Blu and DVD can co-exist in the collection" posts is that there is always another poster claiming that Blu is da bomb and they can no longer watch DVD. Both posts always occur in every thread that has anything to do with image quality. It's uncanny.

Iron_Giant

VQ is not the only important thing about a BR, but it is #1 for me.

My wife does not like the Sound Sound on (Unless she is watching the movie also) and she does not like the Bass on. So, my awesome wife kills the importance of Surround Sound for me, but the thing I love about BR is that the voices are soooo much easier to understand.

Sub-Titles are clearer than they are on a DVD, which help me when I want to know exactly what they are saying in the movie or what is being said in the background. Sometimes Sub-Titles will give you info that the Sound does not say at all.

Love that BR is in a smaller Disk Holder most of the time.

It is awesome will it takes half as many disk to put a full season on BR than on DVD.

BR is awesome.

Living Deadpan

The question I've been pondering is: At what point does it go from being image QUALITY to image DISTORTION? In terms of individual transfers. Can we say, without a doubt, that Kino's restorers represent F.W. Murnau's directorial vision?

Another interesting thing to me is when image clarity leads people to find flaws that the filmmakers never thought would be scrutinized on Future Video Technology. I've dubbed this the Grail Knight's Book Syndrome after discovering an amusing piece of trivia about Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade.

http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/G...night%27s_book

In fairness, this was probably discovered back on VHS, but I think it exemplifies my question: What, exactly, do we consider valuable imagery? A Blu-ray equivalent of the GKB Syndrome would be when you're distracted by seeing the make-up on an actor's face for the first time. Is this one of the benefits of "image quality"?

Eddie W

This has much more to do with the pause button than image quality. I think very few film makers are concerned with home video technology at all when shooting films. Movies are shot to be projected on HUGE movie theater screens. If anything, we're still seeing less detail on home video systems, even with Blu Ray. It's just a heck of a lot closer than DVD or VHS ever were.

This WAS a problem with early HDTV shows that were used to being shot on more forgiving SD video. But theatrical movies have never been shot with the expectation that they'll only be seen on SD video.

mdnitoil

That sort of depends on which theatrical films we're talking about. Older pre-53 films were meant to be projected on silver screens. The standard silver screen dimensions are much smaller than modern movie screens, and yet the standard theater size was larger. The end result being that audiences were seeing a much smaller image, projected farther. While film technically had the best resolution posssible, one could easily argue that the projected result was a lower resolution than the one being displayed on hi-def equipment.

That'sAllFolks

Even in the days of DVDs, I never passed on a release of a movie I liked because I heard the PQ was bad. Heck, if I really liked a movie I'd buy it even if it was only released in fullscreen (not always, I had to really like the movie). And I only have one movie I bought because I thought the BD would make it look spectacular - the Day After Tomorrow - bud I haven't watched it, so who knows.


Sometimes I will blind-buy a used DVD for a dollar even if I know a BD exists, but I won't buy a $3 DVD at Big Lots if I know a BD exists (unless the DVD is a jam packed SE in which a lot of the stuff did not get carried over). Especially since it's becoming a lot more common to pick up BDs for 5 bucks.

I do assume that a BD will always look better than its upconverted DVD counterpart. I guess that may not always be the case. And I don't upgrade everything, even at 5 bucks.

Spottedfeather

Or you hold off buying a blu-ray because the picture quality is absolute crap. Like the Predator ultimate hunter edition.

JLyon1515

Why wouldn't someone want to watch a movie in the best image quality available. Obviously the film itself matters, but the end user can't change that. The end user can however choose a Blu-ray over a DVD, and that's why there is so much discussion over image quality. We can help choose that, and if a Blu-ray isn't up to snuff, we can let the companies know about it. If a movie isn't up to snuff, there's no point complaining to a studio.

b2net

Agree... I buy a movie or TV show because I want to watch the story... when buying I want the best possible sights and sounds available (and sometimes special features).. I, however, will not buy a program just because it has great sights and sounds.. I have to already want the particular movie or show.. So basically, I will only buy an inferior video/audio quality version ... if the better quality version is not available.. and if the better quality version is a ton more in price... I wait out the inevitable price drop..

Fok

The funny thing is when the next format is released, there will be other debates between Blu-ray and the new format.

b2net

Unfortunately... that is true... ha !

JaxComet

I've reached the point that HD quality TV/Movies are now the normal. The "holy shit that looks awesome" reaction is no longer there. It's quite painful to watch anything that isn't in HD.