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