bub

I would like to add one point to those posting that older movies do not transfer well.

Even though Blu-Ray's have much higher resolution than DVD's, they do NOT have the resolution of even old films. Old films are 'squeezed down', resolution(wise), to fit the Blu-Ray format. I've seen many older films that are some of the best Blu-Ray's, picture quality(wise), you can find.

Don't pass on older films simply because you think that they can't look good on Blu-Ray! It all depends on the quality of the transfer, film > Blu-Ray. It is certainly common knowledge that many current films have shoddy transfers, making the Blu-Ray look horrible.

I think Blade Runner Blu-Ray looks incredible, btw.

Forgot to add that I sit 13 feet away from my 105" screen (via BenQ W5000 1080p projector).

jpb07

I'll throw in my 2 cents here... We watched HD-DVD, BR, HD broadcasts on a DELL 32" 720p tv up until a a couple of years ago. For the year prior to our upgrade to 56", we sat 15-20' back. I still could tell a big difference between BR and DVD. Granted some of the difference came from our sound system but the picture itself was still noticably better. The prime viewing spot...my recliner...is now approx 10' away from the 56" and I rarely want to watch non-HD content on there. (The 32" got kicked to the bedroom about 6' away from the pillows....and I can tell a big difference now between SD and HD.)

My point is that if you can't see a difference you need to get your eyes checked, pick a better disc, and/or move closer to the TV. I can barely stomach the 32" in the bedroom (will be playing TV musical walls again when 3D comes out) much less in my main viewing room.

jpb07

Oh and as for old vs new, I can do better than Blade Runner. Go throw Gone With the Wind in there and compare it to Gladiator. Unless the movie was completely done via computers, the PQ is always going to be dependent on what kind of transfer it gets...the only reason age can become a factor is when it has to do with the condition of the master. (Which pointing out the Godfather trilogy, even a lousy master can be fixed well enough to bring it close to today's standards.)

MarcinL

Wow. Seriously??? I can't even believe this threat exists.

Okay first!!

If you just seen a Blu-Ray preview at the store with the 2 year old Sony Blu-Ray Demo on a TV that has not been calibrated and is running on pre-set from factory or worse adjusted by a 18-year HS kid..You don't have any room to comment

Second!

If you have a non-HD set, EDTV or some crappy set and or good set but not calibrated. You can't comment either!!!! Although you should see a difference there.

Third

I'm not going to waste time explaning differences or what to look for and what to have. This is a waste of time.. SO I HAVE A PROPOSITION FOR ANYONE THAT IS NOT IMPRESSED WITH BLU-RAY!!!


IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY, PLEASE SEND ME YOUR COPY OF A BLU-RAY MOVIE OR ALL MOVIES AND I WILL GLADLY REPLACE IT WITH DVD VERSION AND PAY POSTAGE FOR YOU AS WELL! SINCE YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE THEN IT WON'T MATTER TO YOU, BUT IT WILL TO ME SO IT'S A WIN-WIN!!!!!

davidh777

I just dug up this old one

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/546...-me-my-tv.html

Mazje

Oh, it exists. It's a very real threat.

RonBoster

Did the OP ever come back to his own thread?

JimRochester

He was probably afraid after the first 2 responses

tommyp007

decaf

dvd-4-life

Yes he did. I mentioned that I watched War Greatest Hits Live and it looked much better than the previous blu-ray. I will watch Goldfinger tomorrow.

vjack99

My new PS3 finally arrived, and I watched my first blu-ray last night, Casino Royale. I have a 53" Toshiba rear projection TV that maxes out at 1080i. Since my receiver is pre-HDMI, I had the video going to the TV through HDMI and the audio going to the receiver via optical. I thought I'd share my impressions here in case they are helpful to anyone.

The blu-ray picture quality was definitely better than the DVD (I've been using an Oppo player consistently praised for excellent upconversion). I could see the difference in some scenes better than others, but it was noticeable throughout the film. The picture was sharper, and the colors were more vivid. However, the difference was smaller than what I had hoped for. Noticeably better but certainly nothing worth getting excited about.

What I was not expecting was the improved audio. I figured that there would be no difference on my old receiver, but the sound was a bit better. Again, this was not a dramatic improvement, but I could hear a difference. This makes me think that upgrading my receiver to a current HDMI model so I can take advantage of the new blu-ray audio formats would result in an even greater improvement.

The improvements were enough that I will likely buy blu-ray discs over DVDs where available but not enough that I feel any need to replace the DVDs I already own with blu-ray versions. I would have an easy time recommending blu-ray to movie enthusiasts seeking the best possible format and willing to spend the extra money, but it doesn't seem like enough of an improvement to recommend widely.

Drexl

Actually, at least on the original release, Casino Royale's Dolby Digital audio track is 448kbps (unlike the 640kbps that is common), so it's likely that there would be no difference from the DVD. Were you listening to the PCM track, downmixed to stereo?

You have to manually select the PCM track, so if you just put the disc and played it, you'd be hearing DD.

StephenX

Gladiator BD is one of the worst transfers out there right now. I watched a copy that belonged to a friend, and it mostly looks like your watching a DVD with SOME improvements scattered throughout. Overall, though, its aweful. Blade Runner looks like a totally different movie, however.

Kory

On the topic of unimpressive Blu-rays, I'd like to throw "Wallstreet" into the mix. It's not that it looked bad, and I'm sure it was better than the DVD, but I've come to expect more from my Blu-rays.

collven

I went from a RP Toshiba 1080i set to a Sony 1080p LCD a couple of years ago and it was almost a night and day difference in the picture quality. The new set was so much better than the old one, it wasn't even funny. I really liked my Toshiba, but I didn't know how much better Blu-ray could look until I got the new set.

Josh Z

Keep in mind that most older RPTVs have 7" CRT lamps in them that are barely capable of resolving 540p detail. Only the top-of-the-line models with 9" lamps could fully resolve up to 1080 lines. And even of those, if the set is several years old, the lamps may have dimmed so much that you're not seeing all you could.

Ignohippo

I tried a Stouffer's frozen dinner of meatloaf once. Because of that, I've decided steak really isn't very good.

Nick Martin

All the talk about grain being seen as negative possibly stems from some of the reviews - One reviewer in particular, Jeffery Robinson usually has these lines verbatim in almost every review he's written:

"However it does have a slight grain"

"It suffers from a slight grain"

Meaning he's clearly not a fan of grain at all, since he's always mentioning it in a negative tone.

Mr. Salty

You're kind of mixing your technologies. If an RPTV has CRT guns, it doesn't have lamps.

HE Pennypacker

It has nothing to do with the way his TV is performing.
It's merely too small.

Nick Martin

I have two TVs, neither of which are 1080p. One is 42", the other is 26".

I can see a world of difference between Blu-ray and DVD at 720p, to say nothing of 1080i or anything beyond.

Blu-ray just offers a more natural, lively image beyond the obvious jump in detail at any size.

Adam Tyner

Take him to task for it. He may not have had anyone chat with him about this before.

Qui Gon Jim

I thought HD DVD and then Blu-Ray looked wonderful on my 1080i Panasonic RPTV, over component. BD totally blows me out of the water now that I have a modern full 1080P TV.

OP is crazy.

bsmith

Instead of calling the Op crazy or that he needs his eye's checked or any of the other typical responses, you should just sit back and realize all the responses given are subjective and not something that can be measured. Yes, the differences between DVD and BR can be measured in various technical ways, but not how one describes the differences or what the differences mean to them.

So two people can watch the same thing, on the same screen, from the same distance, and one can say "wow it knocks my socks off" and the other "yea, its okay". They are just both opinions with neither more accurate or correct then the other. So, instead of criticizing the Op just accept that as his opinion and move on.

Just for the record, I sit 13' back from a 92" display using a Sony 1080p projection system. I also have the Oppo bdp83 BR player and a high-end Denon/M&K 7.1 audio system. In my opinion, BR is a nice improvement (more the audio then video). However, I would have been perfectly happy with DVD's and only see myself replacing about 20% of my movie collection, and even less of my TV collection. Although, I will buy BR's for most new movie purchases.

If I actually watched movies with the main intent of looking for video and audio differences that would be one thing. However, I watch mainly for the content. So video and audio improvements can enhance the experience for me but it doesn't make the experience. Just as poorly mastered DVD's can detract from the experience, but it doesn't mean I can't still enjoy the experience.

Moopher

Yes, but the quality of the video is the issue here, so maybe OP should have really studied the format before making a decision. By bringing it to the forum he is subjecting himself to our views and opinions. Now I know some BD's are stinkers, but many are not and perhaps OP should have watched a film or two more before branding it a certain way.