The best and worst of Blu-Ray quality

Discussion in 'High Definition' started by bigdaddyhorse, Aug 27, 2009.

  1. Wermode

    Wermode Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2001
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Matool
    One more I forgot: Dark City. I had the old DVD, had not bought the recent special edition. Again, kudos to whoever did that transfer, because the BD looks great to me.
     
  2. Shannafey

    Shannafey Don't Monkey With Me!

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    6,941
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Florida, But Far from the Hell that is Miami
    That one, I did upgrade. And what an upgrade!!
     
  3. It's me Billy

    It's me Billy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah. While I certainly wouldn't call it horrible or unwatchable, it seems like it could and should look so much better. Maybe Don May can get ahold of this one. Look at the magic he worked on The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974).
     
  4. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    1,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the point of getting Blu-Ray is what?

    I thought Blu-Ray was supposed to be awesome. The format is far from perfect. Seems like only about 75% of Blu-Rays are that much better than standard dvd. And horror films being even lower.

    Again I ask, what's the point? To spend more money?
     
  5. crikan

    crikan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,026
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I have over 100 blu-rays and I haven't seen any that aren't clearly better than DVD quality. Complaining that less than %100 of the blu-ray library is stellar is a bit unfair. After all, there are DVD's that are of VHS or lower quality. I find that blu-ray prices are much cheaper than DVD was before blu-ray came around as well. I'd guess that I paid less than $16 for more than %50 of the blu-rays I own. And the boxsets I own didn't cost me more than the DVd counterpart would have.
     
  6. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    1,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See this is where most people make a mistake. You can't use the dvd vs vhs as an comparison to make your point.

    When DVD came out, besides quality(a small factor) it was mostly about FORMAT.

    The real big reasons that DVD was supposed to be better:

    DVD's never needed to be rewind. Had the ability to skip around using chapters. They never(unless extreme conditions) are meant to wear out. Take up less room to store. Ability to be in proper viewing ratios. Had the ability to contain special features, like different audio, different languages, behind the scenes material, etc...

    Stuff that VHS could NEVER dream of. That was the whole point of dvd. Dvd quality was not a main reason. That came later. As it can be easily proven by the likes of special REMASTERED editions & Superbit, etc...

    Blu-ray was said to be the end all to dvd. Each Blu-Ray could hold 25 GB for single layered & 50 GB for dual layered discs. Close to three times the amount of a double layed standard dvd.

    They pitched Blu-ray as holding a complete tv season on ONE disc. All three Lord of the Rings on ONE disc, etc...

    It could hold TONS of more content of special features.

    Guess what? That never happened.

    So what they did was use the whole disc for quality & audio. Except for a small percentage of movies its not that much better that than an upcoverted standard dvd. Sure there are a several movies that are outstanding like Pirates of the Caribbean. But thats a very small percetange. And then and ONLY then it depends on your TV & and your Blu-Ray player & your hook-up connections. You need everything to get the full potential of the Blu-Ray. Most people don't have that set up.


    I can show you tons of reviews of films that reviewers specifically say that the movie it a slight upgrade to the dvd counterpart or on par with. Some even are worse, yes worse.

    Example: I've seen in person Blu-Ray movies that look no better than my setup using an upconverting dvd player & standard dvd. To be be fair, an every so hair edge to the Blu-Ray.


    And as far as price. I personally never paid more than $10 for a movie.

    And $20 is my max for a tv series.

    And I WILL NEVER buy a Blu-Ray version of a movie I have already. NEVER. It's just not worth it.


    And you say you have about 100 Blu-ray's. Do you have those same movies on dvd to compare? (because if you don't , I don't know how one can say it's overwhelmingly better) Does the upgrade really justify you spending an additional $20 for the same movie that you already own, for such a small upgrade in quality?

    It's like buying 2009 sports car , & ordering special rims than trashing it because the the new 2010 model has 30 more horsepower. But yet everything else is identical. ... And you have to buy same new rims again.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  7. NaturesMistake

    NaturesMistake Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    165
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I'm sort of with Baggio here. I got a blu-ray player for my b-day/Christmas and own about forty blu-rays. Most of them are only small upgrades over their dvd counterpart. However, there are a few (like Zodiac) that blow their dvd counterparts away. Every blu I own. I either have on dvd and digitally so I can compare. I will not be upgrading my whole collection, but instead, get movies I know I love.
     
  8. Dave

    Dave Pimp

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 1999
    Messages:
    7,362
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Man these blu-ray arguments remind me of myself back in the laserdisc days. Tough seeing a format you love become a second class citizen.

    Look, blu-ray is better. It has higher resolution, superior sound, etc etc etc. Obviously transfers are going to be case by case and obviously some source material isn't going to show much, if any, improvement from DVD to blu.

    Keep in mind most of us don't have the TV size to let blu-ray strut its stuff. I really wonder about all you guys saying you don't see much of an improvement. Do us a favor and tell us how big your TV is. "I have a 50" TV and I don't see much of an improvement." Okay, get a 100" TV and come back and let us know. Having I done this? NO. And I'm on board with 'blu-ray only showing slight improvements', but I at least know that is due to the limitations of my own equipment.

    I bought into HD-DVD and blu more as an investment for the future. If I'm going to buy DVD or blu now, why not get the one that is going to last the longest? Another format may come along but from all I've read, it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, excluding blu-ray 3D. But even if it does, I've stopped with the gung-ho buying that I used to do back in the day, so I really am not too concerned either way.
     
  9. Grim

    Grim Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,742
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    There are plenty of blu-rays where the quality is much better than the DVD. And about 60% of my blu-rays are upgrades from DVD's I already had so I can say I have made a fair assessment of the improvements.

    Blade Runner, The Road Warrior, 2001. Shit, even The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. These are just a few that come to mind that are HUGE improvements over the DVD. Totally worth every penny. Some transfers are admittedly lackluster and not really much of an improvement, but that's a small minority if you ask me. Another thing, and I hate to put it this way, but if someone watching a blu-ray on a shitty HDTV, then the increase in quality would probably be harder to notice. We sell brands like Vizio, Element, and Proscan at my work and I cringe at how washed out and murky their picture quality is.

    If people don't want to buy them then whatever, but I think a lot of these folks sticking with DVD are just trying to find reasons to not support blu-ray because of that very reason, they don't want anything to change.

    People bitch and bitch about films not being like they were in theaters. Then when something is released that brings us one step closer to that experience, they bitch because they have to buy new stuff. It's lose-lose for the entertainment industry.
     
  10. baggio

    baggio Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,761
    Likes Received:
    1,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    True. Take your 50" for example. To get the full benefit of 1080p , you should start sitting about 7 feet away & up a little. Anything past 13, it wouldn't matter if your 50" screen was 1080p or 720p. It would all look the same. So if your sitting 13 feet away, Blu-Ray 1080p is a waste of money, just the same as if you were sitting 5 feet & under away... waste of money.
     
  11. crikan

    crikan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,026
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don’t believe that for a second. You are grossly over exaggerating. I have Casino Royale on both Blu-ray and DVD. It is very easy to spot the differences on my 55” Sony KDS-55A2020 running 1080p from a PS3. No DVD is capable of looking like Casino Royale’s Blu-ray. I agree with the others that are theorizing that those of you who aren’t impressed with blu-ray don’t have setups capable of showcasing the format. If you aren’t watching them on 40”+ TVs in 1080p than your argument doesn’t matter. Be happy with DVD. But don’t talk about how blu-ray stinks because you haven’t fully embraced the format by upgrading to equipment that can properly showcase it.

    It’s not just new movies either. Blade Runner is one the most impressive movies I’ve watched and the recent release The New York Ripper is stunning as well. In both cases they are much better than what DVD is even capable of. You can certainly cherry pick some bad releases, but that isn’t a fair representation. And as I said before, if you are smart shopper you don’t even need to pay a premium for blu-ray movies.

    I have watched more than 50 movies on blu-ray and I’ve yet to see one that only looks as good as an up-converted DVD. And I tend to watch a lot of “classics”.

    I couldn't care less about how many movies or special features come on each disc. Video and Audio quality and not having to flip a disc is all I care about.

    I have more than a couple dozen movies on both DVD and Blu-ray.
     
  12. crikan

    crikan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,026
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Let me know which one of my blu-ray's looks no better than an up-converted blu-ray and I'll take a look.

    My Blu-ray collection

    I should also mention that I have rented more than handful of blu-ray's as well.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  13. Wermode

    Wermode Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2001
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Matool
    Exactly. My setup is close enough to make 1080p worthwhile, so I paid the extra. Totally understandable to go 720p for a larger room, though. Same deal with image quality here: cost vs. benefit.

    I think this issue gets complicated because many people are upgrading to big HD TV's, and suddenly some of those discs that once looked fine now look awful. A person with a smaller screen (or has not changed TV's since buying the DVD), may wonder what all the hoopla is about. Then there's upconversion, another endlessly debatable topic. The XBox 360 seems to have a decent upconvert, but I can't say for sure without a side-by-side comparison.

    I'm going to have to take this Blu Ray thing on a case-by-case basis. I was content with the DVD of Dead and Buried until I blew it up to 50". On the other hand, Blue Underground's DVD release of The Crazies holds up great on the big screen. With all the cash I have sunk in my collection, a BD will have to be 1) a very good movie, 2) considerably better picture quality, and 3) a very reasonable price for me to replace a DVD.
     
  14. Shannafey

    Shannafey Don't Monkey With Me!

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    6,941
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Florida, But Far from the Hell that is Miami
    Everybody has valid points in this argument. DVD was a huge upgrade from VHS for many reasons, but DVD to Blu is a different scenario and as mentioned, you really need the right hardware and connections to make the difference as well as a Blu Ray mastered correctly. I always read reviews before I buy a Blu Ray for that reason. I have a lot of DVDs that look phenomenal upconverted (some are even copies) and I won't rebuy them. I've only rebought 3 films so far. Road Warrior, Hardware and Serenity. Road Warrior was a HUGE upgrade as I only had the VHS because the DVD sucked!! Hardware was a huge upgrade as I have the UK DVD. Serenity is just one of my favorite films of all time and I got a used copy for $10 so it justified the upgrade. Also, I went to one of the digital screenings of Serenity whereas they projected a Blu Ray to a movie theatre screen and it looked incredible, so I was sold. Any new films that come out are priced around the same as a DVD, so I'm going to go for Blu. Likewise, I haven't paid much more than $3-5 for DVDs in the past few years at Big Lots and Pawn Shops, so I will still be buying a ton of DVDs! Unless it is worth paying full price for the Blu version, I'll be happy with DVD. In the past year, there have been a bunch of films released that I didn't buy specifically because I knew I'd get a Blu Ray player soon enough, like Watchmen, Dark Knight and Star Trek to name a few. I'm glad I waited for those!! Dark Knight is AMAZING on Blu!
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2010
  15. 2D4EVER

    2D4EVER Guest

    Well that is the good thing about today. Blu rays have dropped dramatically in price from their debut. Lots of new releases are only a few bucks more than their dvd counterparts and there are many older releases that are $10-$15. Even movies that weren't given lots of care and attention look markedly better on blu ray than dvd (this includes color, resolution, and less artifacting due to less compression) such as King of New York.
     
  16. Katatonia

    Katatonia Hellbound Heart

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    22,814
    Likes Received:
    4,283
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Missouri
    You can even find a lot of Blu-rays for $7.50 now on Amazon. Blu-rays are also more than simply a visual upgrade. The audio is usually (not always, depending on the studio) lossless or uncompressed, and easily blows away the puny compression rates of DVD.

    If you have a poor set-up or a small HDTV, you're likely not going to see a huge benefit from Blu-ray. If you buy cheap hardware, don't always expect to see theatrical quality.

    I also look at many DVD's now and notice the terrible compression artifacts. You almost never see that on Blu-rays with the newer VC1 or AVC encoding.

    Is every Blu-ray going to look like absolutely reference quality? No, that's wishful thinking due to the source materials for many films. But a good majority of Blu-rays are a VAST improvement over their DVD counterparts. I've even seen several Blu-rays of films that are 50-75 years old and they look stunning. I own well over 200 Blu-rays now, and many I had previously owned on DVD. I can honestly say that all of them look superior in HD.

    DVD is an outdated and declining technology now, period. If a Blu-ray comes out for a new film now, I don't even mess with the lesser DVD release. What's the point?

    If you like the quality of your DVD's for older films, then keep them by all means. I'm certainly not going to rebuy every film in my collection either.
     
  17. HellRazor

    HellRazor New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    814
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why is this even an arguement? Blu Ray is clearly superior to DVD, its a fact. That's like trying to say VHS is better than DVD - even if that's what you think, it is an opinion not substantiated by fact.

    The only way a blu ray could be worse than a DVD of the same film is if they used a better source transfer on the DVD - and even then that would have nothing to do with the technology itself. Even playing a DVD on a Blu Ray is an improvement due to the upconversion.

    More space = better resolution = improved video and audio quality. What's to debate about this?
     
  18. Hellbilly

    Hellbilly Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Messages:
    14,186
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    These figures are based on picture quality ratings (5.0 the highest rating) of movies on Blu-ray and DVDs reviewed at DVDTalk.com. The numbers speak for themselves ;)

    Blu-ray

    5.0 (6.4%)
    4.5 (15.1%)
    4.0 (33.3%)

    DVD

    5.0 (1.6%)
    4.5 (6.6%)
    4.0 (23.1%)

    Sort of interesting I think.
     
  19. Katatonia

    Katatonia Hellbound Heart

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    22,814
    Likes Received:
    4,283
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Missouri
    Exactly, there should be no debate. DVD is the horse always in last place, and it seems people are often playing devil's advocate in favor of a clearly inferior technology.
     
  20. Kolpitz

    Kolpitz Purely and Simply Evil

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,503
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Boxborough, MA
    This argument always makes me laugh. I remember in the thread where we arguing whether or not the lack of special features on some Blu-rays bothered us, and this kept coming up. "I don't understand why Blu-rays are lacking special features when they can store so much more than DVD." This is true, although the majority of BDs that are missing special features are single layer 25GB discs, which is a little less than 3 times the space of a DVD. A Blu-ray transfer takes 2.5 - 3 times the space of a DVD transfer, give or take depending on quality. So, yes, BD can store up to 5.5 times the data as a DVD, but the HD transfer takes up a good 2/3 or so of that space. So, if you really wanted to, you could fit a season of TV on one BD or the Lord of the Rings trilogy on one disc but it wouldn't be in HD. So, what's the point? Why invest in a new format just to get 480P again but on less discs? And arguing that the majority of BDs look the same as upconverted DVDs is asinine. Out of the 250+ BDs that I own, I can only think of 3 (Donnie Darko, The Silence of the Lambs and Unbreakable) that didn't completely and totally blow their DVD counterparts away. And, even if Donnie Darko suffers quality-wise, it includes both cuts of the film (so there's your BD that holds more than the DVD).
     

Share This Page