Do you keep buying DVDs?

[KindGrind]

True about the huge disparity in the quality of releases. Not all Blus are equal... some DVDs look way better than some cheap Blu-Rays.

Typically Disney does a great job on both DVD and Blu-ray, and often they do give you both the BRD and DVD for the same price, which makes it a no brainer for anyone on the fence.

When the reviews are very positive from a trustworthy source (dvdbeaver comes to mind), it helps me to make up my mind and updrage some things. Especially when the DVD I have is crappy. Movies like Days of Heaven, the aforementioned Chungking Express and Blade Runner have far superior picture quality and extras on Blu-ray than the ever had on DVD. Many obscure DVDs I own have terrible picture quality/sound by today's standards, but they are far better than VHS copies and have yet to be released to blu-ray.

[maxlords]

Using eaarphones makes a world of difference when playing video games, too. I used mine for Heavy Rain and it was such an amazing bump in sound quality over my usual setup (i.e., no speakers at all besides the TV).

Noted. Sadly I still can't due to the ridiculous distance between my TV and my couch, and the propensity of my pet rabbit to chew dangling cords..... I'm not springing for $$$$ Wireless Headphones either.

[neorichieb1971]

True about the huge disparity in the quality of releases. Not all Blus are equal... some DVDs look way better than some cheap Blu-Rays.

Thats impossible. There has NEVER been a case of a blu ray being inferior to its DVD counterpart. Unless the blu ray was faulty of course. Even Gladiator which got slated on blu ray looks 3x better than the DVD. The blu ray has since been recalled a new transfer has been made. Which is stunning.

It has to make the DVD look weak by comparison. This is why I sold my Blu-ray of The Last Samurai, a movie that I thoroughly enjoy. It's essentially a DVD transfer. Glad I got my money back when most discs were going for $30+

Again not true. Last Samurai is a good transfer. http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/295/lastsamurai.html

I can't tell the difference between Blu Ray and DVD. I teach film studies, so I don't consider myself a luddite. I just really don't care. Even if I did, there are about three films that I want to get that have been released on Blu Ray only. I think all of them are released by Eureka video (http://eurekavideo.co.uk/moc-series/). So I might end up getting one if things keep on going this way.
I can't tell the difference between Blu Ray and DVD. I teach film studies, so I don't consider myself a luddite. I just really don't care. Even if I did, there are about three films that I want to get that have been released on Blu Ray only. I think all of them are released by Eureka video (http://eurekavideo.co.uk/moc-series/). So I might end up getting one if things keep on going this way.

The bigger the screen, the more you need blu ray. If you can't see the difference on your size of TV then of course its useless having blu ray. Take my word that if you upgrade your TV down the road from 26" to 42", you will regret having DVD's a little.

I'm not fussed for the majority of new movies and the films I like were filmed before the arrival of HD and as such were not filmed in a HD format. I can't understand for the life of me why some people will fall into this trap of "Oh but it looks better on Blu-Ray" when the source material was never filmed in High Definition to begin with.

As such, i'll continue to buy films on DVD until they start making good films again.

This is ignorance. The invention of blu ray was to put more pixels on the screen to cater for HD big size televisions and projectors. Well guess what? Cinemas have been around for a 100 years buddy and there screens are HUGE! The original negative of 35mm movies holds about 4000 lines of resolution in analog form. 70mm movies hold about 8000 lines of resolution. HD is a paltry 1080. All the studios need to do is rescan the original negative, clean it up digitally and there you have a wonderful representation of the original movie. Probably not seen as good since the day it released. Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Battle of the Bulge look absolutely fantastic on my setup. I will admit the first 2 are 4:3 which takes a little out of it.. but oh well.

From what I hear, Blu-Ray discs have so much useless shit on them, and they're not cheaper in most cases. But the low resolution of DVDs doesn't agree with me.

True and not true. Disney force the viewer to fast forward through lots of previews and advertising which borders on the obscene sometimes. I will admit the BD live features are usually tacky. But in most cases the first feature disc just holds a 25-40GB version of the movie with HD soundtrack.

[KindGrind]

Robocop on Blu-ray looks like crap, and I have the "reissue" that supposedly looks better than the very first pressing of the blu-ray given to the press, which, apparently, was truly craptastic.

It really pales in comparison to the Criterion release... I know this is one rare case, but I kind of based my comment thinking about this.

[undamned]

Again not true. Last Samurai is a good transfer. http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/295/lastsamurai.html

Well, it's entirely possible that my TV isn't an ideal test candidate (55" Sony SXRD, via HDMI; maybe I need to be projecting onto a 90" screen or something), but I went into Blu-ray expecting my face to be melted off and the upgrade from DVD to BRD for Last Samurai was hardly noticeable for me. I could have expected such an upgrade from a Sony Super Bit DVD, not a BRD.
-ud

[thegreathopper]

Robocop on Blu-ray looks like crap, and I have the "reissue" that supposedly looks better than the very first pressing of the blu-ray given to the press, which, apparently, was truly craptastic.

It really pales in comparison to the Criterion release... I know this is one rare case, but I kind of based my comment thinking about this.

I have the Criterion version of Robocop and as much as I love the film the Picture and Sound quality are awful.

[KindGrind]

Don't buy the blu-ray, although I've seen a reissue this afternoon when I swung by my local HMV.

They may have made it look better...

[neorichieb1971]

There certainly are lazy transfers on blu ray. My worst is Interview with a Vampire.

Watch out for bad discs. Saving Private Ryan originally had a sync issue during the talky scene by the gramophone, Gladiator got passed off as a DNR fest (Digital noise reduction filter) which looked like crap. Both had reissues after a bombardment of resentment.

Predator will never look good imo. Its 1988 film stock was shite, it was filmed in the jungle with low tech and it uses military scenes from another source in places.

Some discs like Goodfellas and Speed racer have no HD sound at all which is alarming.

Warner are big culprits, they do 4k transfers of film stock but the clean up is usually not done. Unless the director has creative control of the blu ray. So where as 300 and Troy from Warner look fantastic, Last Samurai and Interview with a Vampire might be somewhat lacking. But lets get something straight here. DVD's are upscaled and on any HDTV that means natively pixel by pixel they would take only 1/6th of the screen. If the blu ray is native 1080 it has 1:1 pixel mapping meaning it takes up the whole screen. How ANY DVD can look better than a blu ray with 6x less information is just scientifically impossible. Perhaps it could look glossier or have a different texture, but as far as detail in the picture is concerned there can only be one winner.

Its like putting an elephant and lion on some scales and the lion being heavier.

Equipment is always important. I always turn sharpness to zero on my HDTV since its just another filter. I turn all DNR filters completely off. No matter what TV you have always make sure that blacks are black via brightness and baclight options. Have as little light in the room as possible and keep contrast low as to know glare the image otherwise its like something shining a flashlight in your face. If you do all this, your getting some way to processing a purer image. It helps if you spent some decent cash on a TV. The TV I gave my mom is 4 years old and it still performs great and its not even 1080, its 768.

[Ed Oscuro]

I can't understand for the life of me why some people will fall into this trap of "Oh but it looks better on Blu-Ray" when the source material was never filmed in High Definition to begin with.

Classic movies sure as hell weren't filmed in "oh look at the macroblocking and terrible resolution and blacks even if you survive that."

Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

The DVD format dates from the infancy of digital video. Better than CD-i, sure, but not much better. The 1997 spec and tiny amount of space available really make a difference.

Watched Master and Commander on DVD recently. There were tons of moody scenes crying out for more color depth in transitions between shades.

People like to talk about the differences between vinyl and CDs, but the difference between a DVD and a half decent Blu-Ray is readily visible if you have a display or set capable of resolving the extra. And even if you don't, there's still joy to be had from the elimination of a lot of the macroblocking, I'd bet. (Though buying a Blu-Ray player for a non-HD set strikes me as a very poor use of money.)

[KindGrind]

Alrighty, apologies. Although still very subpar in my opinion, the BRD of Robocop does look better than the Criterion release, but only "marginally" so. I had both running side by side yesterday night and the BRD definitely is brighter and crisper. Colors are notably less washed out, too. I also own an original MGM DVD and it's blurrier/uglier than the Criterion.

Saying the BRD are sometimes inferior to Blu-rays was a bit of an overstatement, I confess. It's just that the disparity in quality between releases is so ridiculous...

[neorichieb1971]

Well if you want a list of the best blu rays to compare to blu ray I can give you 3.

Avatar - 11/10 Nothing can touch it at the moment, its just mind blowing.
Monsters Inc - Before Pixar started adding blur filtering to everything 3D animation never looked this good, before or since.
Braveheart - DVD to blu ray is a massive leap.


but if you wanted a 4th.. I'd have to say Bladerunner. Ridley Scott went back to the drawing board and released 4 or 5 versions of the movie and put a lot of time restoring each and every frame. To date, this is the most remarkable achievement on blu ray.

[undamned]

Avatar - 11/10 Nothing can touch it at the moment, its just mind blowing.

I'll have to check this out. Thus far, I think the best I've seen is Pirates of the Caribbean. If Avatar is an 11/10, how would you rate Pirates?

Monsters Inc - Before Pixar started adding blur filtering to everything 3D animation never looked this good, before or since.

I own this and I thought it was great. What do you think of Ice Age 2 compared to Monsters Inc.? I thought the clarity was amazing, down to the last hair. What I'm really looking forward to is How to Train Your Dragon. It was brilliant at the local digital theatre, so I'm hoping the BRD looks as good or better.

Braveheart - DVD to blu ray is a massive leap.

I'll have to give this one a watch, too.
-ud

[brentsg]

Saying the BRD are sometimes inferior to Blu-rays was a bit of an overstatement, I confess. It's just that the disparity in quality between releases is so ridiculous...

It was the same way with DVD at one time.

[KindGrind]

Blade Runner is indeed a great example of a quality BRD set.

The Godfather Trilogy is quite a step up, too.

Most of the time, when you get a budget-priced BRD (5-7$) something's up. I bought a few Alliance Atlantis (Canadian) BRDs, all budget priced, among which Seven. Decent PQ, decent audio, but no subtitles... The subtitle tracks existed on the DVD, why not use them?