Is blu-ray all you expected it to be?

[Unforgiven]

As some have already said a lot depends on the output source. On my old TV it was hard to spot much of a difference, but on my new 42" Plasma the difference is very clear.

 

[Vonhelmet]

If filmed in HD then Blueray walks all over DVD format

Lew

It doesn't even have to have been filmed in HD. Actual film is much higher quality than 1080p or even 4k, but it deteriorates. If there is a well stored original in good condition that can be scanned for the Blu Ray transfer, then that can provide equal quality to something filmed now in HD.

 

[Nimdok]

Admittedly I've not bought many Blu-rays yet, but after having watched the likes of Fight Club on DVD on a CRT TV to watching it on Blu-ray on an HD TV, I'd have to say I'm impressed. Going to have to buy some more visually impressive films to truly see the capabilities - not that Fight Club doesn't look great mind you, but I'm sure there are better looking ones out there.

 

[PermaBanned]

I'm not sure of your point. You still have to have the equipment to play back and master from 35mm (or any) film in the same way you do with digital formats? If necessary with digital, masters can be updated and moved to a new format if required without loss assuming lossless masters.

Also you talk about backups, how do you back up 35mm film?

I totally understand 35mm is great but your arguments for it vs digital are not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography#Archiving

To play back film all you really need is two reels, a motor, a lens and a lamp (well, the sound is a bit more complicated but it's often given as an optical waveform). Digital is far more complicated. If you're going to maintain secure storage for decades at a time, updating it and replacing redundant parts then you need to pay somebody to do that. As opposed to film where you really just need to pay for the storage space. Add onto that the cost of the new materials and extra backups required...

Making backups of 35mm film is easy enough. Just expose another strip through the master. Exactly like how an enlarger works. If the master is positive then the copy can be positive. If the master is negative then you can have a negative copy, which will come out true colour.

 

[realBabelfish]

the problem i find is that many movies just arent shot well enough to be blu-ray. added grain is something i hate. also lots of movies are shot on digi cameras and are badly lit. i much prefer the older style fixed cameras for many things to the shakey hand cam style with no lighting.

i would also like the option of front wide or front height channels since the boffins now say that both are preferable to surround rears. i have 7.1 with FW speakers and to me it adds more than surround rear. i guess i will stick with Audyssey DSX on my amp for now. my sound stage feels massive now

i do like the additional level of detail of 1080p and uncompressed audio too.

i think far too many people dont have full 1080p TVs so they dont see the difference. or they just have crappy eyesight

i actually had a superb VHS player and it easily beat many DVDs back in the day. ok, it didnt have 5.1 but neither did i at the time

Remember minidisks or super-cd's? Nah me neither.

Miniaturization or improvements in barely-discernable quality is redundant to the average consumer.

minidisk was worse quality then CD. more versatile, sure, but it was compressed audio nonetheless

BR does need to some down in price. in shops there are a ripoff but online you can do ok. i always buy double/triple play now so i have the dvd too (yet they add the digital version on the DVD, lowering its quality). i preordered the new sherlock holmes for £14 at the river. the dvd was £11 so it was quite an easy choice. i will only buy blu-rays i think i will watch more than once (i.e. a few times)

i HATE the none-skippable ****, still.

watched ALIEN on BR lately. the transfer is superb and i saw so much more than on my old DVD boxset.

porn can be a bit hit and miss. i think a lot of the stars looked better in SD HD is a lot less forgiving

dont forget that in terms of TV i think the HD channels are less compressed than the SD channels. so i guess HD always looks much better. try watching footy then swap to the SD version... eek!

 

[Broken Hope]

i think far too many people dont have full 1080p TVs so they dont see the difference. or they just have crappy eyesight

My TV isn't a full 1080p set and the difference is still night and day between Blu-Ray and DVD, I just think most people only really see differences in quality if the quality is bad enough for it be a distraction.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I watch everything on my pc with a dell u2412m. I definitely noticed the difference going from dvd to bluray. an AV receiver helps as well, as that allows you to receive all the sound channels, which obviously makes for a better movie. DVD had 6 channel audio but bluray has lossless audio.

When I watch movie or tvshow on my pc while I am on it, i shrink the movie to a small size and put it in the bottom right. With dvd i barely needed to change the default size. With bluray I have to reduce it by 60% and this makes it very clear. Some bluray are not that good at all though. I watched one the other day and the video quality was terrible. High resolution but too many artifacts and just looked bad.

 

[kidloco]

When it's a full screen blu ray yes. Just watch something like District 9 and the quality is stunning. Letter box films fail to impress though.

 

[Curio]

I don't really see any difference between DVD and Blu-Ray on my TV. It's 1080p but only a 32" Full-screen stuff maybe looks a bit better, but letterbox format.....VHS would probably be just as good. I need a bigger TV