DVD or Blu Ray?

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I don't see any point in that ... the discs are not expensive. And btw: It would be yet another attempt to rip off the customer ... not only re-release movies on blu-ray, but also only in DVD quality?

It's just more convenient I think, as far as collecting TV/movie series goes. I wouldn't mind DVD quality if I can watch a full season or a half season on a single disc or whatever it comes out to.

^ I don't see any point in that ... the discs are not expensive. And btw: It would be yet another attempt to rip off the customer ... not only re-release movies on blu-ray, but also only in DVD quality?

That guy is as ignorant and stupid as they come... He's basically saying, at the beginning, that bluray movies should also improve the quality of the movie itself... so for this guy Bluray should make Transformers 2 Oscar material....  Second, the guy "googled comparisons between dvd and bluray" and saw little difference. What an idiot. Of course differences don't seems that great in a laptop in low resolution as most comparisons always are. But put a dvd and a bluray in a 26" HDTV and the GIGANTIC difference starts to appear... 

Even a just decent bluray player does a decent upconversion job of a dvd. There are some that do it better, of course. Even more so those equipped with processing chips like Faroudja or Anchor Bay, which are to be found mostly in a/v receivers and high-end bluray players. I have a dvd and TWO bluray players (the PS3 is a bluray player -and a fantastic one at that- after all) and there's no question movies in DVD look a little better played in a bluray, provided you have an hdtv. If your tv is not hd, there will be NO difference. Also, you HAVE to use HDMI to enjoy the upconversion. 

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ I agree about that. I'm watching DVDs on my computer and it has an option for "beautifying" DVDs (upscaling), but I don't like the results. I have similar problems with the 100Hz techniques ... I understand what it does and some movements are indeed more smooth, but then again in busy scenes the system gets confused (the motion tracking fails) and movements are completely garbled. I am all in favor of Blu-Ray in connection with high quality film material, but I'm against techniques that try to enhance lower resolution material.

So if you have no way of enhancing DVD picture using Blu Ray you would be enticed to buy BR films to replace the DVDs. An expensive luxury you do not need really...

AtomicCrimsonRush wrote: ^ Do you mean "Lousy compression" - just checking. Good arguments for and against here.   I watched Avatar on my DVD and was astounded at how well it translated. I could hardly believe a Blu ray player would improve such a sharp vibrant picture. I do like the idea though that i can play my DVDs in the Blu ray. I had not heard that as they dont advertise that feature very broadly.   This means I can still play my DVDs on the BR. But tell me, does the picture improve any better playing DVDs on a BR?. It probably still means I have to fork out huge amounts of cash to rebuy all my fave DVDs.   The marketers must be rubbing their hands with glee when BR was introduced... Heres a new way to make you buy all your fave movies again.

I have made some tests to see if a Blu-Ray player improve the quality of a DVD and i have never seen any difference. Like you said, it's a marketing trap...


Edited by rdtprog - May 14 2010 at 05:34

^ DVD offers a variety of sound formats though ... and I would wager that even on fairly decent equipment you can't really hear a difference. I think that just as with the mp3/CD difference, many people subjectively think they hear a difference just because they know that mp3 uses "lossy" compression.

As far as I know DVD already has quite good sound - improvements in that area are bound to be similar to those that for example DVD-A has over CD. I would say that by going to 24 bit movies get more dynamic sound, but then again few people have the hi-fi system (and the neighbors) for being able to really enjoy >90dB. Plus it hurts your ears.

The problem with improving CD sound quality is that it is already sufficient with respect to what our ears are capable of decoding. Picture quality has much more room for improvement, as even blu-ray doesn't "max out" our eyes.

The T wrote: Many people here have fully adopted mp3 as their new music format. Now, unlike with bluray/dvd, mp3s AREN'T better than cds in the audio part (in fact, they can be worse) but they are easy to download, carry around in any device, and played without the need of physical media. So people adopted them for COMFORT, not for quality. In bluray/dvd case, comfort remains the same (though bluray allows for better menus and extras), but the quality is DEFINITELY BETTER. So, is it so outrageous to want to upgrade to a system that has a considerable qualitative difference when, with music, people have switched sometimes TO THE DETRIMENT of audio quality just for comfort and availability?  Of course, this is a MUSIC forum. In a movie/hometheater forum this debate wouldn't even exist.

I would argue that mp3s are virtually indistinguishable from CD - at least if they're properly ripped and encoded, which is the case with the mp3s which you can currently buy. I definitely agree about the aspect of comfort though - it's the main reason people have switched to mp3 (including myself). There will probably be new formats, but I doubt that people will switch ... simply because mp3s/CDs are already so good in terms of quality. What's the point of a new format when - like I already said - you can't even tell the better one from the inferior one in double blind tests. It's totally different with blu-ray vs DVD.

Yes but remember. Your dvds don't become obsolete. I have TONS of dvds and watch them in my bluray player, with better picture. Most of them I'm not planning to replace with blurays. Unlike the vhs-dvd transition, this time old media will STILL WORK. (I wouldn't be talking so good about bluray if the case was different).