Blue-Ray vs. DVD
|
Currently untagged - add relevant short tags using the box to the left What are tags? |
OK, I got my first movie on Blue-Ray disc: "Iron Man". It looked awesome, had a nice, clear picture. The thing is, I put on my DVD of "Hellboy" afterward, and while the upscaled image wasn't quite as sharp as the Blue-Ray, it was good enough. I've decided that it's not worth it to replace my DVDs with Blue-Ray, and for most movies, DVD is probably good enough.
If you have a PS3 or a Blue-Ray player, how impressed by Blue-Ray are you? Is it a must-have technology, or is DVD still good enough for most movies?
If you have a PS3 or a Blue-Ray player, how impressed by Blue-Ray are you? Is it a must-have technology, or is DVD still good enough for most movies?
DVDs? Well ladida, Mr. French man.
I still use 8-tracks and beta max.
It's hard to believe that DVD is already a 10+ year old technology. I still have my 9-year-old Toshiba SD-2109 that I've paid $250 for.
clifton: It's hard to believe that DVD is already a 10+ year old technology.
I can believe it. I just can't believe it took so long to kill off VHS. :)
I can believe it. I just can't believe it took so long to kill off VHS. :)
eddie van helsing: I can believe it. I just can't believe it took so long to kill off VHS. :)
It needed to get cheap enough for the masses and that took a little time. I could've gotten a cheaper DVD player at the time, but the cheaper ones were known to have issues with certain discs (such as The Matrix). Now you can get one that plays every other format for much much cheaper.
And having recordable media certainly helped, too.
It needed to get cheap enough for the masses and that took a little time. I could've gotten a cheaper DVD player at the time, but the cheaper ones were known to have issues with certain discs (such as The Matrix). Now you can get one that plays every other format for much much cheaper.
And having recordable media certainly helped, too.
peanut butter and jelly fits better in my vcr
It all depends on the movie. With Pixar movies, the difference is well worth the cost. I don't have a player myself just yet. I'm going to wait another year for the prices to come down and for the selection to get better.
eddie van helsing:
Badly paraphrasing something from The Simpsons.
To actually answer the question, as far as quality goes, I was fine with VHS, hell I watch movies and TV shows on surfthechannel.com all the time, which is about youtube quality. DVD is obviously superior to VHS because of ease of use and the prevalence of widescreen. So for me there is no reason to switch to Blue Ray, especially with the price difference.
Badly paraphrasing something from The Simpsons.
To actually answer the question, as far as quality goes, I was fine with VHS, hell I watch movies and TV shows on surfthechannel.com all the time, which is about youtube quality. DVD is obviously superior to VHS because of ease of use and the prevalence of widescreen. So for me there is no reason to switch to Blue Ray, especially with the price difference.
clifton: It's hard to believe that DVD is already a 10+ year old technology. I still have my 9-year-old Toshiba SD-2109 that I've paid $250 for.
Yeah, but what's $250 in 1998 dollars now? :)
Been discussed before, but Blu-Ray sales will not be nearly as successful as DVDs because upscaling makes the DVDs look good enough that you don't have to rush out and replace your collection like folks did with vinyl and VHS. People may buy new titles in Blu-Ray, but if the DVD is significantly cheaper, that's the way to go.
Yeah, but what's $250 in 1998 dollars now? :)
Been discussed before, but Blu-Ray sales will not be nearly as successful as DVDs because upscaling makes the DVDs look good enough that you don't have to rush out and replace your collection like folks did with vinyl and VHS. People may buy new titles in Blu-Ray, but if the DVD is significantly cheaper, that's the way to go.
szmike: It all depends on the movie. With Pixar movies, the difference is well worth the cost. I don't have a player myself just yet. I'm going to wait another year for the prices to come down and for the selection to get better.
Well, I had already bought a PS3 for games, and I figured that since I was going to buy a copy of Iron Man anyway, I might as well get it on Blue-Ray and see if the new tech is as good as Sony claims. I was impressed by the picture clarity. I couldn't hear any difference in the sound, but I only spent $300 on my surround sound rig; I figured that was good enough since I lived in an apartment at the time. Still, upscaled DVD is good enough for the most part, though I'd be tempted to get the Lord of the Rings moves on BD if the extended versions are reissued.
Well, I had already bought a PS3 for games, and I figured that since I was going to buy a copy of Iron Man anyway, I might as well get it on Blue-Ray and see if the new tech is as good as Sony claims. I was impressed by the picture clarity. I couldn't hear any difference in the sound, but I only spent $300 on my surround sound rig; I figured that was good enough since I lived in an apartment at the time. Still, upscaled DVD is good enough for the most part, though I'd be tempted to get the Lord of the Rings moves on BD if the extended versions are reissued.
If you have a TV under 40" or so, there's no way the human eye can resolve full HD resolution at normal viewing distances of 6'. (Google the science if you want.)
So for most people, a good upscaling DVD player is plenty good enough. I picked up a $200 upscaling all-region player with a Faroudja upscaler, the chip which is widely held to be one of the best and is used on $6K reference standard players.
Generally the limiting factor is going to be the source material. With my DVD player, film grain is clearly visible a lot of the time, even on new movies. On "2001", in the zero G pen scene, you can see a fingerprint on the sheet of glass used for the effect. To me, that's already more resolution than I need.
One place where Blu-ray does win noticeably is scenes with a lot of action and a very complicated backdrop, like fight scenes in a jungle. It's not so much the resolution there as the data rate--with DVD the backdrop gets blurry from compression artifacts, but with Blu-ray's improved compression and higher data rate it all stays clear. However, it's a pretty subtle effect--you have to be looking at the backdrop rather than the actual action, and to really see it you need to pause the movie. So the chances of it actually making a compelling difference in real situations are remote.
So in summary: I've got a PS3 and an upscaling DVD player. I still buy DVDs, but I rent Blu-ray when it's available, so long as it's the same price, because why not? But I'm not gonna buy Blu-ray discs when I can pick up the DVD for half the price.
So for most people, a good upscaling DVD player is plenty good enough. I picked up a $200 upscaling all-region player with a Faroudja upscaler, the chip which is widely held to be one of the best and is used on $6K reference standard players.
Generally the limiting factor is going to be the source material. With my DVD player, film grain is clearly visible a lot of the time, even on new movies. On "2001", in the zero G pen scene, you can see a fingerprint on the sheet of glass used for the effect. To me, that's already more resolution than I need.
One place where Blu-ray does win noticeably is scenes with a lot of action and a very complicated backdrop, like fight scenes in a jungle. It's not so much the resolution there as the data rate--with DVD the backdrop gets blurry from compression artifacts, but with Blu-ray's improved compression and higher data rate it all stays clear. However, it's a pretty subtle effect--you have to be looking at the backdrop rather than the actual action, and to really see it you need to pause the movie. So the chances of it actually making a compelling difference in real situations are remote.
So in summary: I've got a PS3 and an upscaling DVD player. I still buy DVDs, but I rent Blu-ray when it's available, so long as it's the same price, because why not? But I'm not gonna buy Blu-ray discs when I can pick up the DVD for half the price.
szmike: It all depends on the movie. With Pixar movies, the difference is well worth the cost.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that. Yes, with something that's entirely digitally generated, you don't have the source material limitations, so Blu-ray will be noticeably better.
Oh yeah, forgot to mention that. Yes, with something that's entirely digitally generated, you don't have the source material limitations, so Blu-ray will be noticeably better.
meta: If you have a TV under 40" or so, there's no way the human eye can resolve full HD resolution at normal viewing distances of 6'. (Google the science if you want.)
I've got a 42" TV, and I sit about 8' from the screen.
I've got a 42" TV, and I sit about 8' from the screen.
DVD >>>>> VHS
Blu-Ray > DVD
IMO, Blu-Ray is only worth it if you're a home theater buff or you just have a ton of cash laying around.
We are approaching the limits of our actual vision, any improvements from here out are either diminishing returns or a whole new technology (holograms or something).
Blu-Ray > DVD
IMO, Blu-Ray is only worth it if you're a home theater buff or you just have a ton of cash laying around.
We are approaching the limits of our actual vision, any improvements from here out are either diminishing returns or a whole new technology (holograms or something).
Toshiba will have the last laugh here. I'll put money on it.
And here I was putting all free movies on my 2.5 Tb of harddrives like a chump, when I could have had a couple thousand dvd boxes packing every corner of my house...
Soon as I can right click and sort a dvd rack by date or by name, I might think about buying DVDs/BRDiscs
Soon as I can right click and sort a dvd rack by date or by name, I might think about buying DVDs/BRDiscs
I wouldn't replace movies I already had, but I will spend the extra money to get the nicer versions of new movies.
Also, Netflix does BluRay so that's win-win.
Also, Netflix does BluRay so that's win-win.
eosdominus: And here I was putting all free movies on my 2.5 Tb of harddrives like a chump, when I could have had a couple thousand dvd boxes packing every corner of my house...
Soon as I can right click and sort a dvd rack by date or by name, I might think about buying DVDs/BRDiscs
I don't understand collectors. Are you going to watch 4000+ hours of content even twice?
Soon as I can right click and sort a dvd rack by date or by name, I might think about buying DVDs/BRDiscs
I don't understand collectors. Are you going to watch 4000+ hours of content even twice?
feepness: I don't understand collectors. Are you going to watch 4000+ hours of content even twice?
it's that you *could* if you wanted to.
why own a sports care or SUV....
it's that you *could* if you wanted to.
why own a sports care or SUV....
meta: If you have a TV under 40" or so, there's no way the human eye can resolve full HD resolution at normal viewing distances of 6'. (Google the science if you want.)
You neglected to mention how much easier on the eyes a non-interlaced picture is.
You neglected to mention how much easier on the eyes a non-interlaced picture is.
thundercougarfalconbird: DVDs? Well ladida, Mr. French man.
If you want to use them, just place them in the movie hole.
If you want to use them, just place them in the movie hole.
gahbrone: it's that you *could* if you wanted to.
why own a sports care or SUV....
I don't know...why would you own a sports car or SUV?
/sedan
why own a sports care or SUV....
I don't know...why would you own a sports car or SUV?
/sedan
fatsean: I don't know...why would you own a sports car or SUV?
/sedan
unbelievably, infinitesimally, tiny, penis.
/sedan
unbelievably, infinitesimally, tiny, penis.
strikitrich: Yeah, but what's $250 in 1998 dollars now? :)
Been discussed before, but Blu-Ray sales will not be nearly as successful as DVDs because upscaling makes the DVDs look good enough that you don't have to rush out and replace your collection like folks did with vinyl and VHS. People may buy new titles in Blu-Ray, but if the DVD is significantly cheaper, that's the way to go.
It doesn't help that blu-ray movies cost $30+ bucks a piece.
Been discussed before, but Blu-Ray sales will not be nearly as successful as DVDs because upscaling makes the DVDs look good enough that you don't have to rush out and replace your collection like folks did with vinyl and VHS. People may buy new titles in Blu-Ray, but if the DVD is significantly cheaper, that's the way to go.
It doesn't help that blu-ray movies cost $30+ bucks a piece.
lincoln: It doesn't help that blu-ray movies cost $30+ bucks a piece.
Didn't DVDs cost a similar amount at first, if you adjust for inflation?
Didn't DVDs cost a similar amount at first, if you adjust for inflation?
eddie van helsing: Didn't DVDs cost a similar amount at first, if you adjust for inflation?
Perhaps, but DVDs introduced a whole new way of watching movies... No more having to rewind, no more degredation with each viewing. Being able to skip previews. No more tape jams.
Perhaps, but DVDs introduced a whole new way of watching movies... No more having to rewind, no more degredation with each viewing. Being able to skip previews. No more tape jams.
lincoln: Perhaps, but DVDs introduced a whole new way of watching movies... No more having to rewind, no more degredation with each viewing. Being able to skip previews. No more tape jams.
Being able to skip previews? That WOULD be an advance!
Being able to skip previews? That WOULD be an advance!
jimjam: Being able to skip previews? That WOULD be an advance!
If you can't figure out how to do that, you deserve to watch the ads.
If you can't figure out how to do that, you deserve to watch the ads.
If you logged in, you could post here.