flyonthewall2983 wrote:As for the MP3/CD argument, I really don't notice much of a difference if the MP3 is in good quality with no defects. And I am a big music fan, arguably moreso than film/TV.
This, I'd guess, is going to be a largely equipment-dependent argument. I usually can't tell much of a difference on headphones, for instance, other than occasional difficulties with deep bass, but on any decent speaker system at a decent volume, I feel the difference is quite obvious.
Hell, as far as that goes, I haven't stopped lamenting the failure of SACD. I previously had a DVD player that had SACD capabilities, so I went out and bought Nashville Skyline and Let It Bleed, and was just blown away by the clarity, especially with the former.
I do listen to music mostly with headphones, and unfortunately cannot afford a sound system since the walls are anything but sound-proof where I live.
Have you listened to any Blu-Ray audio releases? I'm hearing great things about the format. My most anticipated album this year is utilizing the format quite a bit, including videos for many of the songs and other visual elements as well as what can be expected with an audio BR release.
zedz wrote:I think the big issue with adoption might be functionality. The new formats that have taken over from the old very fast - CD and DVD - offered very obvious and very basic improvements in functionality, such as instant access to tracks or availablity of bonus materials.
Absolutely - and DVD also came at an attractive price, whereas laserdiscs were seen as an expensive and fiddly niche format.
And don't forget the huge difference in physical storage space when going from VHS to DVD.
How big the screen needs to be make the difference between SD and HD impossible to miss / ignore may depend a bit on exactly what you're watching. I've never met a hockey fan who wasn't wowed by the difference HD makes in watching that sport, even with 32" screens. The difference in how easy / hard it is to follow the puck just leaps out at everybody (including people who can't see the difference between stretched vs original aspect SD TV shows on their HD / widescreen TVs). If you're watching something that is mostly "talking heads", the difference isn't nearly as significant relative to what you immediately perceive (especially since most people really only "kinda watch" movies).
I have done side by side comparisons on a 50" 1080i/720p Panasonic plasma (mine) and a 42" 1080p Panasonic plasma (my folks') with my PS3 and a few DVDs and Blus of the same film. The differences on the 50" screen were instantly obvious, and I notice the benefits of HD and Blu-ray every single time apart from a couple of discs with poor transfers. The differences on the 42" screen were far less apparent, and I could live with SD @ 42" to be honest, but 50" and I need HD material. I bought my folks some Blu-rays when they got their player, but they still just buy DVDs - I think the only Blus they have are gifts from me or my sister.
I haven't seen a screen on display less than 46" where the benefit of HD was obvious. I say 50"+ is where it is at, but 40"-42" is probably the most common HD TV size - from all the people I know, I'd say 70% of them are 42" maximum.
I want to one day have 60" or 65" in my lounge room, and I can't imagine how poor SD will look at that size.
My display is a pretty decent LCD projector with a 104" screen, and I find it hard to generalize about how DVDs look compared to Blu-rays. A really good DVD transfer (like some of Criterion's) still look almost Blu-ray-like, even at that size, while a mediocre-to-poor Blu-ray will look a lot like a DVD. The range of picture quality among DVDs is at least as great as the difference in quality between the average DVD and the average Blu-ray.
The best DVDs still look so good to me even projected this large that I personally find it unfathomable that some categorically reject this format now. And it's hard to ignore that some avoid buying any DVDs, because they seem to enjoy sharing this fact with no prompting from anyone.
Well you must have either the best upscaling DVD player in the world, or need new glasses!!
I honestly cannot see how at 104" 480p can be confused with 1080p - 640x480 vs 1920x1080. It makes no logical sense - unless your upscaling DVD player is that good.
If it isn't the compression artefacts inherent with MPEG-2 technology (the advanced MPEG-4/AVC compression technology makes no obvious difference?!?) - then surely the added depth of field afforded by the higher resolution (and again, better compression) is obvious?
Or perhaps on such a large display it is too far beyond 1080p, so they are both being stretched further than they should? Perhaps 50"-60" is about maximum for full benefit of 1080p and shows more discrepancy?
Well, my vision is fine, and I certainly don't "confuse" 480p and 1080p in general. Reading your post, daniel p, I don't think you understood me correctly. The differences are certainly obvious between Blu-rays that are up to snuff and the average DVD. But some BRDs are lacking, of course, and I think some DVDs look better than can be explained in technical terms, at least by me. Some things are just so razor-sharp that they stand far ahead of the average DVD, and when something is that awe-inspiring there's less room for improvement and there's little to no reason to upgrade it. For example, I've seen certain Criterion DVDs that look better than certain Warner Blu-rays, and the condition of the elements should not have been a factor -- they're just sort of soft and muddy. Again, the technical capabilities of the formats are not what I'm discussing; it's how they're used in practice.
I do wonder about my equipment and calibration sometimes, though, because almost every Blu-ray I play seems to display some degree of edge enhancement or haloing effect at 104". I've turned the "sharpness" setting down, so it's not that.
Honestly, while I am at this point a firm Blu-ray convert, the quality difference isn't always something I'll notice while I'm watching a movie- generally, it only registers subconsciously, and I will notice that I am more engaged in a movie if the PQ etc are very good. But while a Blu-ray is certainly better than a DVD (most of the time- I'll happily keep my DVD of the Stranger) a well made DVD generally means that I am never distracted or taken out of the movie by technical elements.
I think different people watch movies differently, and perceive different things at a conscious level, and I've known people who barely register the difference between a shitty off-TV VHS recording and a Blu-ray- it doesn't necessarily make them poor or inattentive viewers, it just means they look at things differently.
^ I think that's all true, but I'll add that I've personally been very keen on appropriately sharp transfers and I feel like the most common technical flaw is an unduly soft transfer. For example, it drives me crazy when a new "special edition" DVD or box set comes out and the transfer is softer than on the earlier release of the same film. But the limitations of the DVD format are not to blame for all this, as proved by any number of razor-sharp DVD transfers that are above and beyond the vast majority of what most labels produce, and show scarcely a single compression artifact. Just thinking of Criterion, I've read many people aside from myself describe certain transfers as looking especially film-like or nearly Blu-ray-level, such as This Sporting Life, Sweetie, Made in USA, (a few off the top of my head) and they sometimes hardly seem to make any drastic improvements, as with Smiles of a Summer Night. But it seems to take a lot of technical skill to produce a DVD transfer like that. In any case, I don't think anything I'm arguing here is especially controversial.
So that's why I don't think it makes sense for folks to completely shun the earlier format, especially considering all the amazing films that will never be released on BD (some categories of film predictably so, but I don't want to be a broken record on that).
Yeah sorry, I knew what you meant, I kinda ranted a bit. The thing is I guess, as quite a lot of my Blu purchases have been double dips, I do tend to buy from positive reviews. So to be honest I haven't seen too many poor Blu transfers. Early on I saw a few, but I usually use reviews to guide my purchases. I don't want to upgrade unless it is substantial, my DVD collection is massive.
Another thing I wanted to mention is the colours and contrast of Blu-rays - this is one area that DVD cannot compete usually. Even the good DVDs I have upgraded to Blu show obvious inferiority.
Has anyone reviewed the SOME LIKE IT HOT disc yet? The late arrival of the cover art coupled with the fact the ship date is a few days away and Google doesn't return any results for reviews does not inspire hope...
Flike wrote:Has anyone reviewed the SOME LIKE IT HOT disc yet? The late arrival of the cover art coupled with the fact the ship date is a few days away and Google doesn't return any results for reviews does not inspire hope...
Blu-ray.com reviewed it. My copy arrived today, and while I haven't had a chance to view it, it seems to have ported over all the same bonus features from the great 2-disc set. God, is the coverart awful though. I really wish MGM/FOX had considered this title worthy of classier treatment.
Didn't find a Strand thread, so I'll post it here. It appears Strand is continuing their blu-ray line with an August release of Cameraman: The Life & Work of Jack Cardiff.
Plein soleil/Purple Nooncoming in Japan at the end of the month. Almost zero chance of English subs but for some here it doesn't matter. Hopefully this bodes for some non-Japanese editions to come.
This is my first post, and I'm doing my best to try to remain on topic and I hope that this is a good thread to post my question.
I'm about to upgrade to Blu-Ray and LED. I've watched 2001 and Metropolis on my girlfriend's parents system and it was absolutely stunning.
Obviously I'm tempted to re-purchase a significant portion of my DVD collection on blu-ray, but figure that might not be necessary and really only want to do that for the more "visually striking" (for lack of a better term) movies--Alien, Blade Runner, and the like.
I'm just curious to you all, how do you feel about movies like The Godfather or 8 1/2 in terms of Blu-Ray necessity? I own the 2-disc Criterion of 8 1/2--will I really notice a substantial enough difference if I got blu-ray? Does the answer vary release to release? I've been using the website dvdjournal.com in the past few months to purchase the best editions of films, but unfortunately, that website stopped publishing before blu-ray became the norm, and short of Amazon reviews per product, it's hard to find info on what the best prints/editions are.
Thanks for your help and patience. Look forward to talking to you all!
It sounds like you have yet to discover [url=http://www.dvdbeaver.com"]DVDBeaver[/url]. The site has a huge database of films, and compares DVDs and Blus from all regions. It's an essential reference, really. If you were already aware, then please ignore this.
Drucker wrote:I'm just curious to you all, how do you feel about movies like The Godfather or 8 1/2 in terms of Blu-Ray necessity? I own the 2-disc Criterion of 8 1/2--will I really notice a substantial enough difference if I got blu-ray?
Yes, those are both great releases (though 81/2 had some DNR I believe. Still a major upgrade though), but the Godfather trilogy is one of the best releases in the format. Such meticulous attention to restoring those films is obvious from the first frames. You will notice a substantial improvement; especially the Godfather trilogy which I felt they never got right on DVD to begin with.
Does the answer vary release to release?
Absolutely. Some are better than others. Even from a technical standpoint, some are even released in DVD's old MPEG-2 codec (American Psycho for example) and don't look any different. You should consult bluray.com and beaver before purchasing. I hate arbitrary ratings, but if a release has less than 4 stars (and the reviewer has a justification in his/her review), I generally don't upgrade. But again, there have been times when I disagreed with the reviewer and their expectations when they have given a '3.5' and have proceeded to purchase.
It also varies greatly with what setup you have for watching movies- obviously, if you have a TV that can't show high definition, the added attractions of Blu-ray will be much lower (though there are still some.) The better the setup you have, the more you will notice the difference.
I would also direct you to Warner's DVD2Blu site- there are quite a few really vital movies, The Wild Bunch and several Kubricks etc., that you can get for $5 each. In my experience, they generally represent a sort of 'good enough' upgrade- Warner doesn't seem to have put in much extra work for most of them. I think if you see a significant difference there, you can safely assume that upgrading is worth it for you.
I was honestly afraid of that. I think my plan is to just start getting a bunch of movies I already own on Netflix Blu-Ray and see how it feels, case by case. If it makes no difference to me, I'll pass. Otherwise, I'm going to have to upgrade.
Watching Dr. Strangelove a month ago I noticed a difference but didn't really care that much to have it. This was a comparison of the 1st edition Kubrick, the 2-disc 40th anniversary set and then the Blu-Ray.
But I watched 2001 the other day, and I was almost to tears it was so gorgeous.
daniel p wrote:
Another thing I wanted to mention is the colours and contrast of Blu-rays - this is one area that DVD cannot compete usually. Even the good DVDs I have upgraded to Blu show obvious inferiority.
There's no reason why the contrast of Blu-ray Disc should be better than DVD. That's determined by your display (and also by your room and screen, in the case of a projector).
Most likely you're seeing improvements in film scanning technology. For SD DVD, there was nothing to stop distributors using whatever standard def source they had lying around, whereas BD means they actually have to make a new HD master (unless they're really greasy...)
