DVD v BluRay

Right Turn Clyde

I'm just wondering how may people have made the switch over at this stage? The reason I ask is because I watched some DVDs for the first time in a few years last night, and it really got me thinking about whether HD is worth the extra money, which can be considerable, depending on the release.

I watched Water for Elephants first, and it looked really, really good. Perhaps I've bought into the HD hype, but I honestly don't remember DVDs looking that well. Saying that, I got my TV calibrated recently, so perhaps I never actually seen a DVD at its best before?

The second one I watched was Fritz Lang's M. I own the Masters of Cinema dual format release, so I've seen it in HD before. However, I was very pleased with how it looked on DVD. You don't need to see it in HD to admire the beautiful restoration work.

With this in mind I had a ramble around Xtra-Vision today (yes, I'm a culchie) to see what DVDs were on offer. You have to dig deep, but there were some really good bargains there. I noticed a lot of Artifical Eye releases for €10 or less, and we all know how bloody expensive AE BluRay's are. So all of this has come as a bit of a shock. I thought I was evangelical about HD, but come pay-day I'm gonna splash a few quid on some DVDs, and party like it's 2004.

Anybody else feel the same?

Right Turn Clyde

Incidentally, a key advantage of buying DVDs is that your collection will actually look quite cool. BluRay covers are small and fat. It's not a good look, and I say that as a small, fat person. I feel that the DVD cover absolutely nailed it. Slim and noble. It looks like a book, which is the holy grail of compact design.

johnny_ultimate

Blu-Ray all the way. 99.9% it's the superior image and sound. There are lacklustre Blu-Rays out there, but they're rare (the Artificial Eye Mizoguchi collection, for example, is considered a poor transfer).

I have nothing against DVD, there's still some films and new releases out there only available in that format, typically smaller releases from the likes of Second Run. That's cool, and I certainly have no issues watching SD content especially when upscaled. DVD is still IMO an acceptable way of watching a film, if not necessarily the preferable option - a little fuzzy for sure, but nothing that would put me off watching if it's the only option available (or in the extraordinary cases where there is a massive price discrepancy). But if the BR is available, and only a bit more expensive - and online one rarely pays serious premiums for HD over SD - there's no question in my mind which is superior.

Starscream25

You'll notice the difference with sci fi or action films most, definitly worth it if you are a fan of either genre, The original Star Wars on bluray is a feast on the eyes, it also gives older films a great look too such as Zulu or even the thing, colours are quite vibrant.

Right Turn Clyde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Blu-Ray all the way. 99.9% it's the superior image and sound. There are lacklustre Blu-Rays out there, but they're rare (the Artificial Eye Mizoguchi collection, for example, is considered a poor transfer).

I have nothing against DVD, there's still some films out there only available in that format, typically smaller releases from the likes of Second Run. That's cool, and I certainly have no issues watching SD content. DVD is still IMO an acceptable way of watching a film, if not necessarily the preferable option. But if the BR is available, and only a bit more expensive - and online one rarely pays serious premiums for HD over SD - there's no question in my mind which is superior.

Sound was the one thing that I found disappointing last night. I had to turn my TV up a few extra notches and 'tune' my ears a bit. And I don't have surround sound, so I can only imagine how noticeable it would be on a good set-up.

I think there's life in the old dog yet, but to be honest I'll only be buying them when there's a significant price difference. For example, some of the Masters of Cinema and BFI DVDs are up to 40% cheaper than the BluRays. I'm happy to settle for second-best for that price.

Right Turn Clyde

Starscream25 wrote: »

You'll notice the difference with sci fi or action films most, definitly worth it if you are a fan of either genre, The original Star Wars on bluray is a feast on the eyes, it also gives older films a great look too such as Zulu or even the thing, colours are quite vibrant.

I've been impressed by BluRay since day one, but it was actually the old releases that blew me away. And it happened to me as recently as yesterday. There's a close-up shot of a hand in the recent Masters of Cinema release of Fritz Lang's Spione and it is truly remarkable. That film is just shy of 90 years old!

I'm starting to defeat my own argument here. It seems I'm still very much in love with Bluray.

Bottom line: I can't fcuking afford them.

Right Turn Clyde

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

online one rarely pays serious premiums for HD over SD

I buy online a good bit, but I still enjoy picking up stuff in person. I love having a root around in Tower, or in the IFI. But of course you pay for the privilege, especially with BluRays. I've been rode so many times by Tower. Why on earth are they so expensive?

Reg'stoy

I have quite a few DVD and Bluray copies of the same film. Blade Runner and 2001 a space odyssey for me are improved greatly in both audio and picture. Dune another favorite of mine, it's picture quality was improved dramatically in Bluray. Event Horizon, again the picture is improved.

I would imagine that your TV and if you had a good surround sound speaker system would be a big factor in choosing to purchase bluray copies of DVD's you already own.

I hate to admit it, but I have two or three different DVD versions of the same movie so also getting the bluray was not such a huge ask, but I have gotten 'that look' when pointed out that "don't you already have that" and I reply "yeah but not the extra 30 secs directors cut ".

Starscream25

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

I've been impressed by BluRay since day one, but it was actually the old releases that blew me away. And it happened to me as recently as yesterday. There's a close-up shot of a hand in the recent Masters of Cinema release of Fritz Lang's Spione and it is truly remarkable. That film is just shy of 90 years old!

I'm starting to defeat my own argument here. It seems I'm still very much in love with Bluray.

Bottom line: I can't fcuking afford them.

Yup there quite saucy in price alright, I haven't bought one in a year or so, I'll be holding out for Star Wars 7 I'd say. Another film Im keen on getting at some stage is seven samurai, another old film that on blu ray I hear looks great, although I can't seem to see a copy for sale that I can use in ireland.
I feel the extra visual quality bluray brings adds another layer of enjoyment to the cinematic experience, it's funny that sometimes the quality is so good you can make out the plastic like pieces to a set or even a monster or whatever, easier to see the bloopers that you'd learn about after watching a film.

Right Turn Clyde

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I have quite a few DVD and Bluray copies of the same film. Blade Runner and 2001 a space odyssey for me are improved greatly in both audio and picture. Dune another favorite of mine, it's picture quality was improved dramatically in Bluray. Event Horizon, again the picture is improved.

I would imagine that your TV and if you had a good surround sound speaker system would be a big factor in choosing to purchase bluray copies of DVD's you already own.

I hate to admit it, but I have two or three different DVD versions of the same movie so also getting the bluray was not such a huge ask, but I have gotten 'that look' when pointed out that "don't you already have that" and I reply "yeah but not the extra 30 secs directors cut ".

My girlfriend regularly catches me with a Bluray in one one hand and my phone in the other, frantically checking IMDB to see if it's in the correct aspect ratio. Needless to say she thinks I'm an absolute clown.

Right Turn Clyde

Starscream25 wrote: »

Yup there quite saucy in price alright, I haven't bought one in a year or so, I'll be holding out for Star Wars 7 I'd say. Another film Im keen on getting at some stage is seven samurai, another old film that on blu ray I hear looks great, although I can't seem to see a copy for sale that I can use in ireland.
I feel the extra visual quality bluray brings adds another layer of enjoyment to the cinematic experience, it's funny that sometimes the quality is so good you can make out the plastic like pieces to a set or even a monster or whatever, easier to see the bloopers that you'd learn about after watching a film.

I seen Criterion's BluRay version of Seven Samurai and it's a pristine transfer. Only available in the US though, or as very expensive import.

Snake Plisken

Blu-Ray for me, better picture and sound, but you need a decent AV setup to get the most out of it. I'm selective on what I buy and love seeing classics like John Carpenter's The Thing on Blu-Ray and spotting little details that I couldn't catch in the Dvd like Doc Cooper has a nose ring! Couldn't see that on the Dvd version. I know most people are into streaming now but I'm old school and still like to buy and own physical copies of movies and CD's.

Gmol

Can't beat blu ray for action and sci fi. Occasionally buy the odd 3d, you can get good 2nd hand deals on some. Aavatar while not a great film is spectacular on 3d projector with surround sound.

Starscream25

Watched close encounters last week on blu ray, seeing those aliens in detail is quite cool. If you can get a 5.1 surround system I'd recomend that too, hearing john williams scores from varying films really does make for a decent night on the couch, all you need is popcorn after that.

johnny_ultimate

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

I buy online a good bit, but I still enjoy picking up stuff in person. I love having a root around in Tower, or in the IFI. But of course you pay for the privilege, especially with BluRays. I've been rode so many times by Tower. Why on earth are they so expensive?

I barely even consider buying in shops anymore, unless it's the occasional 'wide release' I'm looking for. For 'specialist' releases the price is just too high, and that's in the exceedingly rare case they even have the damn thing in the first place. Buying online - I tend to find Eureka's website extremely well priced for Masters of Cinema releases, especially with their frequent discounts - is just so much more affordable that I will happily sacrifice the joy of browsing. (to be fair to the IFI shop, they sometimes have decent discounts and a decent range - I know I've picked up BFI Ozu and Cassavetes Blu-Rays in there for pretty good prices, as well as plenty of slightly more obscure DVDs. New releases are still very expensive though).

I do enjoy trips to London, though, as Fopp and the BFI shop are genuine meccas for browsing.

I do agree with you older films surprisingly benefit most from transfers. The silent MoC films in my collection are easily among the most immaculate transfers out there, genuinely breathing new life into the film.

Certainly some of the nicer Blu-Ray sets can be super expensive. I'm tempted by MoC's BR Shoah set for the 'after Shoah' films mainly, considering I can't see myself tackling the main event again for another couple of years at least and I have the DVD anyway. But there does seem to be a good old price gap between that set and the 'after' standalone DVD set. In that case, I'd certainly be willing to go second best - or maybe just wait for a decent discount

Frank O. Pinion

Simply, there is huge difference in quality between a good DVD copy and a good Blu-ray copy. It's been years since I watched a DVD version of a newly released film.

Don't worry though, 4K/2160p content is coming, and 8K/4320p after that.

johnny_ultimate

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Don't worry though, 4K/2160p content is coming, and 8K/4320p after that.

There was a great breakdown by the folks at Masters of Cinema somewhere, although I can't recall exactly where, that argued 4-5k is the plateau. For home viewing of every film that currently exists, that's the ideal - any further improvements are going to be minor. You can't extract resolution or information that is not there, effectively, and 4K is considered pretty much as good as we're going to get for archival content. Also the fact that the appreciation of higher resolution content is limited by the size of home displays anyway (you need a big screen to fully appreciate 4K).

Obviously future content may be produced in dizzying resolutions, but for the cinematic canon the 4K upgrade will be, in theory, the last one before diminishing returns start setting in.

Mike Litoris

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Anybody else feel the same?

No.


Just do it man! Get that damn Blu Ray player and dump the CRT too. If you've a few hundred quid to spare get a budget receiver and 5.1 speakers. Even a budget set up opens up the whole other side to a movie and, imo, adds more to the experience than the increased picture quality.

Frank O. Pinion

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There was a great breakdown by the folks at Masters of Cinema somewhere, although I can't recall exactly where, that argued 4-5k is the plateau. For home viewing of every film that currently exists, that's the ideal - any further improvements are going to be minor. You can't extract resolution or information that is not there, effectively, and 4K is considered pretty much as good as we're going to get for archival content. Also the fact that the appreciation of higher resolution content is limited by the size of home displays anyway (you need a big screen to fully appreciate 4K).

Obviously future content may be produced in dizzying resolutions, but for the cinematic canon the 4K upgrade will be, in theory, the last one.

Yes, I've viewed 4K content, and it truly looks incredible, but like most people I haven't seen 8K. It would be hard to imagine a huge improvement over 4K. Still, it'd be nice to compare the two, side by side.

Right Turn Clyde

To notice the difference between 4K and 8K we'd need TV's that are bigger than the walls in most of our living rooms. 4K will be the end of it, at least until some head-spinning technology is produced that doesn't rely on physical space.

karaokeman

Does anyone think DVDs will become obsolete in the near future?

I have no Blu-rays but I'll probably collect a few for stuff I really love. (Most likely the unaltered original Star Wars trilogy when its finally released).

I understand some people like extreme detail, but when I watch DVDs I find the quality is good enough to satisfy the price (still light years ahead of VHS).

Hyzepher

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Saying that, I got my TV calibrated recently, so perhaps I never actually seen a DVD at its best before?

Where/who did the calibration?

Tipsy McSwagger

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

I'm just wondering how may people have made the switch over at this stage? The reason I ask is because I watched some DVDs for the first time in a few years last night, and it really got me thinking about whether HD is worth the extra money, which can be considerable, depending on the release.

I watched Water for Elephants first, and it looked really, really good. Perhaps I've bought into the HD hype, but I honestly don't remember DVDs looking that well. Saying that, I got my TV calibrated recently, so perhaps I never actually seen a DVD at its best before?

The second one I watched was Fritz Lang's M. I own the Masters of Cinema dual format release, so I've seen it in HD before. However, I was very pleased with how it looked on DVD. You don't need to see it in HD to admire the beautiful restoration work.

With this in mind I had a ramble around Xtra-Vision today (yes, I'm a culchie) to see what DVDs were on offer. You have to dig deep, but there were some really good bargains there. I noticed a lot of Artifical Eye releases for €10 or less, and we all know how bloody expensive AE BluRay's are. So all of this has come as a bit of a shock. I thought I was evangelical about HD, but come pay-day I'm gonna splash a few quid on some DVDs, and party like it's 2004.

Anybody else feel the same?

No

Right Turn Clyde

Hyzepher wrote: »

Where/who did the calibration?

Slight correction: it wasn't professionally calibrated. Rather, I came across an article online written by a professional, and he listed the settings that he used to calibrate that same model. So it's not calibrated for my exact environment. But it made a massive difference to the picture. My unit is nine years old, and if it wasn't for some slight burn-in I would have no reason to upgrade. The DIY calibration breathed new life into it.

It takes a while to get used to the difference, because at first everything seems quite dark. It does't feel right. But eventually your eyes get used to it and you can see the difference. I can still flick back to the old factory settings, and they actually make me laugh when I see them. It's so bright and garish, and it makes SD look woeful. Funnily enough, the Sky menus looks terrible on my new settings, because the Sky box is designed with those harsh factory settings in mind.

the_monkey

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Yes, I've viewed 4K content, and it truly looks incredible, but like most people I haven't seen 8K. It would be hard to imagine a huge improvement over 4K. Still, it'd be nice to compare the two, side by side.

To really notice 4k what size tv do you need ?

I can't imagine 1080p film on bluray on my 40" TV looking any clearer for me where I sit (3-4 meters)

Frank O. Pinion

the_monkey wrote: »

To really notice 4k what size tv do you need ?

I can't imagine 1080p film on bluray on my 40" TV looking any clearer for me where I sit (3-4 meters)

60"-70" depending on how close you sit. But think about it like this, a few years ago, a 40-something inch TV was considered "big" by most people. Now, many people are getting 50"-60" sets, with the upper retail sizes of 75" or 80" between €6,000-€8,000.

€6,000 for a 75" 4K TV is not millionaire money, for someone who loves watching films in their own home.

the_monkey

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

60"-70" depending on how close you sit. But think about it like this, a few years ago, a 40-something inch TV was considered "big" by most people. Now, many people are getting 50"-60" sets, with the upper retail sizes of 75" or 80" between €6,000-€8,000.

€6,000 for a 75" 4K TV is not millionaire money, for someone who loves watching films in their own home.

For sure , and now TVs don't look so big without the frames anyway , my mum has 42" and looks smaller then mine As mine is 4 years old

I plan to get a 46" next ..

Snake Plisken

Good to see a thread with like-minded boardies discussing Bluray and 4K displays.
I don't understand the point of these curved TV's, back when I was growing up companies strived to produce the flatest CRT screens, now it seems we are going backwards with these curved screens, lets hope its a short lived fad.

feelgoodinc27

Will 4k require a new disc format?

Outkast_IRE

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

Will 4k require a new disc format?

panasonic is launching its 4k blu-ray player this year i think, they have basically said the new dual or triple layered discs are capable of carrying enough data.

Think the rest of the industry is falling in line with this, the new players will be backwards compatible with dvd and ordinary blu-ray.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=15769

the_monkey

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

no panasonic is launching its 4k blu-ray player this year i think, they have basically said the new dual or triple layered discs are capable of carrying enough data.

Think the rest of the industry is falling in line with this, the new players will be backwards compatible with dvd and ordinary blu-ray.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=15769

Fantastic news , the big problem I thought with 4k would be the storage .
Be another few years when media players catch up - since a 4k movie will be at least 100gb maybe ?

Hard drives need to be huge to keep a decent library - I guess streaming is the way but very fast fibre net is needed.

next gen Blu-ray Discs will do for now

the_monkey

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Good to see a thread with like-minded boardies discussing Bluray and 4K displays.
I don't understand the point of these curved TV's, back when I was growing up companies strived to produce the flatest CRT screens, now it seems we are going backwards with these curved screens, lets hope its a short lived fad.

+1 curved TVs I know it's concave and not convex but still the biggest load of ****e since 3d ....

MisterAnarchy

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

I'm just wondering how may people have made the switch over at this stage? The reason I ask is because I watched some DVDs for the first time in a few years last night, and it really got me thinking about whether HD is worth the extra money, which can be considerable, depending on the release.

I think it all depends on how big your tv is .
The bigger the set the most noticeable the difference in picture quality .
Once you go over 39 inches DVD will look patchy.

Mpeg 2 or h262 (DVD) is a pretty old and inefficient codec now so not only is the resolution much lower than Bluray (primarily h264) ,the video quality for even similar resolution is much less.

There does seem to be quite a wide variation in both Dvd and Blu-ray picture qualities,some Dvds can look great others terrible ,likewise with Blu-ray ,some of the discs I have seen lately have been very poor.

Certain Blu-ray players can make DVDs look better than others ,dependent on the chipset and upscaling technology.

I only watch Blu-Rays now

Outkast_IRE

the_monkey wrote: »

Fantastic news , the big problem I thought with 4k would be the storage .
Be another few years when media players catch up - since a 4k movie will be at least 100gb maybe ?

The next gen disc sizes range from 50gb - 100gb and they are using a newer compression format. Decent article on it here
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/4k-blu-ray-discs-arriving-in-2015-to-fight-streaming-media/

Nerdkiller1991

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

The next gen disc sizes range from 50gb - 100gb and they are using a newer compression format. Decent article on it here
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/4k-blu-ray-discs-arriving-in-2015-to-fight-streaming-media/

I still don't think it's really large enough for 4K. I feel like 200GB BD's would be a the best amount of space for it.

Elessar

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever bought a Blu-Ray disc. Digital format is where it's at.

4k is the next big thing, but then 8k is around the corner. Will 8k take off? Who knows. Someone mentioned there is no real need for anything beyond 4k, I'm pretty sure the same was said for 2k/1080p. 4k file sizes are already huge, I can only imagine what 8k is like. Do any movies master on 8k these days?

johnny_ultimate

Elessar wrote: »

Digital format is where it's at.

Blu-Ray still has many benefits over digital, not least the fact that is significantly less compressed than digital alternatives (a full quality 'rip' of a Blu-Ray would be a good 20GB+, at least). There are many films that are far more easily procurable on disc formats, especially smaller and niche releases. Many of those films are only released and translated because smaller distribution companies still rely on physical releases as their bread and butter (there's very little money in digital for many releases). And the best physical releases offer supplementary materials that are often worth the purchase alone - from the novel sized accompanying booklet that comes with Master of Cinema's Late Mizoguchi boxset to the rare shorts and even sometimes bonus feature films that come with top-tier releases (like the BFI Ozu films, where the major features all come with a much harder to procure film from the great man's oeuvre).

I have no problem with digital formats, but certainly given my own tastes and interests it'll be quite a few years if not decades yet before I foresee physical editions being completely superseded.

Outkast_IRE

Elessar wrote: »

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever bought a Blu-Ray disc. Digital format is where it's at.

4k is the next big thing, but then 8k is around the corner. Will 8k take off? Who knows. Someone mentioned there is no real need for anything beyond 4k, I'm pretty sure the same was said for 2k/1080p. 4k file sizes are already huge, I can only imagine what 8k is like. Do any movies master on 8k these days?

Where is 8k coming from, there is already some arguing that the difference from high quality current HD to 4k is very hard to see at normal viewing distances, i would imagine that the argument will hold truer at 8k, seems like the marketing department is just gearing up to want us all to replace our tvs every couple of years.

To be honest i think if you get one of the highest quality tvs of the current generation and put it up next to a 4k tv the difference isnt mind blowing.

What has happened in the race to the bottom price wise with the current tvs is the quality has suffered so now when comparing the €10,000 4k tv to the average build current generation there is a massive gulf in quality.


Also 100gb will be fine with the new compression technology, as everybody probably is aware 4k is so large you nearly always need it compressed, basically the new 4k blu ray players will have a lot more processing power to handle this new compression that they are using.

johnny_ultimate

I think gaming will benefit more from higher resolutions than film, TBH, considering 5K filming is still a rarity in even big cinema blockbusters. The 4K upgrade will be more of a quantum leap in terms of gaming.

Really high resolutions will be better appreciated in a cinema context if and when they do come, although obviously the big technical upgrade - not long behind the last big one - will mean it will be a slow process.

Nerdkiller1991

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Also 100gb will be fine with the new compression technology, as everybody probably is aware 4k is so large you nearly always need it compressed, basically the new 4k blu ray players will have a lot more processing power to handle this new compression that they are using.

I know that they're using new codecs for the next gen BD format. I'm just saying that perhaps we're not getting enough out of it when it comes to size. After all, when it first released, Bluray discs could store up to 5 times more than what DVD had to offer. This, on the other hand, we're only seeing a two times difference at the most.

Outkast_IRE

Nerdkiller1991 wrote: »

I know that they're using new codecs for the next gen BD format. I'm just saying that perhaps we're not getting enough out of it when it comes to size. After all, when it first released, Bluray discs could store up to 5 times more than what DVD had to offer. This, on the other hand, we're only seeing a two times difference at the most.

I was reading another article somewhere that was saying to increase the disc capacity again they would have to use another colour laser which isnt in common usage and is expensive to produce, along with the media being very expensive & thus using it would just result in a large price difference and potential issues with backwards compatibility.

Nerdkiller1991

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

I was reading another article somewhere that was saying to increase the disc capacity again they would have to use another colour laser which isnt in common usage and is expensive to produce, along with the media being very expensive & thus using it would just result in a large price difference and potential issues with backwards compatibility.

I don't mean like sticking more data per layer, I'm saying the addition of more layers would help mitigate the problem. Having 6 layers of 33GB BDXL's would be enough.

the_monkey

Elessar wrote: »

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever bought a Blu-Ray disc. Digital format is where it's at.

4k is the next big thing, but then 8k is around the corner. Will 8k take off? Who knows. Someone mentioned there is no real need for anything beyond 4k, I'm pretty sure the same was said for 2k/1080p. 4k file sizes are already huge, I can only imagine what 8k is like. Do any movies master on 8k these days?

That's the thing , storage for these files now is an issue - streaming or discs are needed for now ...

I do not think that I could convince my O/H that my 3 year old 60" 1080p needs an upgrade!!

pixelburp

Thing I've found about those giant screens, the ones that are 50" and beyond, is that if you're not watching films or something inherently cinematic, they can really dominate and overpower a room. Watching Gravity on a 75" screen that takes up the entirety of a wall is probably a hell of an experience, but the idea of something like Fair City, the weather forecast, or any number of TV adverts and general mundane broadcasts plastered across a giant screen sounds pretty unpleasant. Unless you have a dedicated room for a home cinema, giant TVs feel grossly impractical.

I have a 42" in our living area and given the amount of space we have to work with, that's about as large as I could get away with without the living area becoming 'The TV plus a few seats'. Plus, as much as I love cinema, and love the concept of cinema itself, I could never justify dropping €6,000 on a television. To me, that's 'new car' money, not something I'd spend on what I still consider a luxury. I don't even have that kind of disposable income, so it's a bit of a non-runner.

I thought the same with my 42" until I got the bigger one. Also have my PC hooked up to it for gaming so love it.

Living room is big enough to handle it though to be fair.

TheDoc

I wasn't rushing to buy Blu-Ray at first. DVD was doing me fine and the cost assosiated with Blu-Ray releases near the start was nothing short of laughable.

But after investing in a bigger TV last christmas, we bought some Blu-Rays on sale to give it a spin. We bought Equilibrium, Alien Anthonoloy and a season of Son's of Anarchy. After watching Alien and Aliens on Bluray, the misses and myself pretty much agreed that any new purchases would be Blu-Ray.

Granted we are heavy on the streaming and downloading, we have pruned right back on our physical purchases. But the ones we do make are blu-ray no questions asked.

Oddly enough Blu-Ray looks that little bit crisper and sharper then the equivalent from say a download or stream from netflix. Maybe its not, just seems that way to me.

Outkast_IRE

TheDoc wrote: »

I wasn't rushing to buy Blu-Ray at first. DVD was doing me fine and the cost assosiated with Blu-Ray releases near the start was nothing short of laughable.

But after investing in a bigger TV last christmas, we bought some Blu-Rays on sale to give it a spin. We bought Equilibrium, Alien Anthonoloy and a season of Son's of Anarchy. After watching Alien and Aliens on Bluray, the misses and myself pretty much agreed that any new purchases would be Blu-Ray.

Granted we are heavy on the streaming and downloading, we have pruned right back on our physical purchases. But the ones we do make are blu-ray no questions asked.

Oddly enough Blu-Ray looks that little bit crisper and sharper then the equivalent from say a download or stream from netflix. Maybe its not, just seems that way to me.

Oh man that alien anthology is what i show anybody when im talking about how good blu-rays can be with old movies converted correctly. Alien and Aliens are so crisp on the screen they could of been filmed yesterday, it puts many more modern movies to shame. I suppose alot of it is to do with the huge amount of visual effects in it rather than computer generated effects.

I would also stream and download a fair bit, but i would also visit the cinema and purchase my favourite movies on blu-ray... you gotta support the industry when they put out something of good quality.

Nerdkiller1991

TheDoc wrote: »

I wasn't rushing to buy Blu-Ray at first. DVD was doing me fine and the cost assosiated with Blu-Ray releases near the start was nothing short of laughable.

But after investing in a bigger TV last christmas, we bought some Blu-Rays on sale to give it a spin. We bought Equilibrium, Alien Anthonoloy and a season of Son's of Anarchy. After watching Alien and Aliens on Bluray, the misses and myself pretty much agreed that any new purchases would be Blu-Ray.

Granted we are heavy on the streaming and downloading, we have pruned right back on our physical purchases. But the ones we do make are blu-ray no questions asked.

Oddly enough Blu-Ray looks that little bit crisper and sharper then the equivalent from say a download or stream from netflix. Maybe its not, just seems that way to me.

It's not just you. Streaming services such as Netflix offer a highly compressed image full of visual artifacts inherent to such a low quality bitrate. In fact, compared to some other streaming services, Netflix comes up pretty poor, at least according to this.

http://hdguru.com/blu-ray-vs-hdtv-streaming-services-a-quality-comparison-review/

Even their 4K streaming service only has a bitrate similar to that of an AVC encoded BD. Not to mention, Netflix has a habit of cropping the image certain movies to fill the screen, which just screws the the composition. Something that almost never happens these days with Bluray.

http://whatnetflixdoes.tumblr.com/

DoYouEvenLift

You can get blurays very cheaply nowadays on eBay and sometimes Amazon (<€10). I try to only buy blurays that are worth having and using blu-ray.com is a big part of that. I check the ratings of the bluray on there and usually if it's above a 4/5 for video and audio I'll buy it. For 3D blurays I only buy them if they're true 3D/filmed in the format and not post-converted.


Hmv/Xtravision have some good movies in the 4 blurays for €30 as well, each works out at €7.50 since delivery is free.

cloud493

I don't own any DVD's. Only blu rays.