DVD v BluRay

Theboinkmaster · 28-04-2015 11:42AM

What I want to know is where the fvck is True Lies on blu ray.

Skerries · 28-04-2015 12:46PM

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

What I want to know is where the fvck is True Lies on blu ray.

and The Abyss!

Get the finger out Cameron!

Theboinkmaster · 28-04-2015 03:34PM

Skerries wrote: »

and The Abyss!

Get the finger out Cameron!

Think they're ready but there's some kind of legal dispute with fox :mad:

Nerdkiller1991 · 28-04-2015 03:52PM

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Think they're ready but there's some kind of legal dispute with fox :mad:

Makes me wonder how long until the inevitable Star Wars 4K release, since Fox owns A New Hope in perpetuity.

Caovyn Lineah · 28-04-2015 03:54PM

LiamHam82 wrote: »

Jurassic Park, one of my favourite films, is a disgrace on bluray, picture is full of noise and just looks like an upscaled dvd. It deserved a lot better from Spielberg.

I have to agree with this, I bought it last year and was very disappointed. How did the 3d version look on BR?

Nerdkiller1991 · 28-04-2015 04:04PM

Caovyn Lineah wrote: »

I have to agree with this, I bought it last year and was very disappointed. How did the 3d version look on BR?

BD.

I think I heard it was more of the same. Though it did fix that moment where the CG raptor disappeared for a frame or two during their encounter with the T rex at the end.

Stillhouette · 28-04-2015 07:03PM

i would like to add that Ben Hur on Bluray is the most stunning looking film I own. They really did an amazing job on it.

karaokeman · 02-05-2015 12:09PM

Just wondering what did people do with their DVD collections once blu-ray became popular?

Mickeroo · 02-05-2015 12:14PM

karaokeman wrote: »

Just wondering what did people do with their DVD collections once blu-ray became popular?

Still have and use mine, won't be upgrading every film I own by a long shot.

McLoughlin · 02-05-2015 12:30PM

karaokeman wrote: »

Just wondering what did people do with their DVD collections once blu-ray became popular?

Just kept them same with VHS, some VHS never got released on DVD and some DVD never got released on Blu Ray. So glad kept my collection.

Wedwood · 02-05-2015 03:04PM

Most cinema screens are typically 2k in resolution, a Blue ray is about 90% of the quality. So seeing a properly remastered classic movie on Blu ray is like stepping back in time to see these movies as they were originally viewed.

Some movies are special and well worth the upgrade from DVD, like Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia and so on.

Another advantage is that they won't degrade like film, so future generations will inherit these pristine movies at a quality similar to the original cinema standard.

Why wouldn't you upgrade ?

Stillhouette · 02-05-2015 07:45PM

karaokeman wrote: »

Just wondering what did people do with their DVD collections once blu-ray became popular?

I still watch them. I am not the type of person that will replace all of my DVD's with Blu-rays. I have only bought five of my DVD's again.

dr.fuzzenstein · 02-05-2015 08:17PM

Unless you're Mr Magoo, the difference between DVD's and Blu Ray is staggering!
720x576 interlaced (important difference) vs 1920x1080 progressive

Let's look at standard PAL resolution: (i.e. DVD)
That is 0.415 Megapixel. But that is not the whole story. Because it is interlaced an LCD cannot display it, so the two half display have to be mashed together, effectively HALVING the resolution!
It's a format from the 40's. Drop it already! Are there many people here who would say "Actually, I prefer VHS?" PAL is a format that is riddled with compromises. From a cinematic point of view it is terrible.

Now, Blu Ray:
2.07 Megapixel. Progressive! No loss of resolution on flat displays and no interlacing. Much, much, MUCH better for transferring from film negative.
Now ask yourself this question: Would you buy a camera with 0.4 megapixel or one with 2 megapixel? Would you argue the 0.4 takes better images?
Just check it out:

'nuff said!
PAL and DVD's are dead, kaputt, verschissen, verdreckt, verreckt und kaputt!
If anyone thinks DVDs look anywhere near as good:

Mickeroo · 02-05-2015 08:22PM

I fully acknowledge the difference, still not going to buy my few hundred dvds again. Blu Ray is for my absolute favourites and classic movies for me. I have a brand new copy of Lawrence of Arabia sitting on the coffee table to be watched in the next few days, never a seen it before.:)

dr.fuzzenstein · 02-05-2015 10:50PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

I fully acknowledge the difference, still not going to buy my few hundred dvds again. Blu Ray is for my absolute favourites and classic movies for me. I have a brand new copy of Lawrence of Arabia sitting on the coffee table to be watched in the next few days, never a seen it before.:)

You got it right.

Once you go above 40 inch screen size DVD's will start to suffer quite badly lookswise.
In the end, the coaster it's on is absolutely unimportant, people still have this connection in their head about the media. Once upon an (analogue) time the medium dictated the quality, cassettes, vinyl, VHS, beta, etc..., but all that has changed. Even DVD's weren't video discs, hence the name. Digital Versatile Disc. It was more the old players and the fact that people (to this day) insist on using SCART leads, oh the crappyiness. The other end of the scale would be people paying over a hundred Euro for a HDMI lead. It transfers 1s and 0s, as long as they arrive, it doesn't matter if the cable costs 5 or 100 Euro, the can and will not be a difference in quality.
I think streaming will be the future, even YouTube is capable of 1080p and some decent quality. Gone are the days of 240p crappy homevideos.
I laugh at DVD's because I used to do quite a bit of transferring of video to DVD, mostly camcorder tapes and some old VHS (now that is truly sh*t quality) and the actual amount of information contained in the images is quite lousy. It's funny how DVD's where trumpeted as this great thing, when they where just PAL and nothing hectic.
Anyways, I have no idea where I'm going with this, can anyone lend me a point to all this?

johnny_ultimate · 02-05-2015 11:19PM

Blu-Ray is superior, no question whatsoever about that, the only possible reasonable answer to choose one over the other is financial and even then the difference is only rarely significant. However I still don't think I've upgraded any but a small handful of DVDs, although I'll always buy Blu Ray when I can. Simply put, I'd rather spend money on something totally new (although that new can of course be old films

) than forking out for another copy of something I already own. Certainly there's a few things I've been meaning to upgrade - something like The Naked Island, or The Life of O-Haru - when I spot 'em at the right price, but for simple financial reasons rebuilding a collection when most DVDs are serviceable is something I just wouldn't do for anything other than the best of the best, or the most visually spectacular films, or the ones with poor DVD transfers.

Once again I do need to restress that the only reason DVD hasn't been relegated to obsolescence just yet is because many smaller distributors cannot afford to have all their releases on Blu-Ray - it's still a comparatively expensive format, with a small market. I know Third Window Films for example have said they cannot afford to release everything on Blu-Ray, given they're serving a niche market already with many of their releases. I reckon the same is true for Second Run. Companies releasing films that are even more niche than the more offbeat and arthouse fare the likes of Eureka and Criterion work in (and indeed Criterion's Eclipse series is still DVD) benefit significantly because there's a cheaper format out there that still has a significant if dwindling market. Better that these films are being released at all, than to despair they are not in HD.

cloud493 · 02-05-2015 11:22PM

I'm fairly annoyed right now, that 5 or so t shows I like haven't been given blu ray releases :mad: they're fairly big shows like, don't know why they didn't.

johnny_ultimate · 02-05-2015 11:29PM

There's not a market for them, simple as that. Boxsets are expensive, and fans likely picked up their favourites in the DVD era (the first time boxsets weren't insane, impractical things). Given the prevalence of streaming services, they have found a more natural home anyway!

And hey can't forget that a lot of classic TV shows wouldn't necessarily benefit from Blu-Ray, given they were shot and mastered for SD in the first place. Expensive to bring 'em up to scratch, and in some cases I reckon the extra fidelity might even highlight the visual limitations that were there in the first place but were irrelevant given everybody watched them in lower quality. With a handful of exceptions (Twin Peaks and the like), it was only in the late 90s / early 2000s that TV companies really started pushing the sort of more cinematic looks that do look great on Blu-Ray.

Right Turn Clyde · 03-05-2015 12:05AM

karaokeman wrote: »

Just wondering what did people do with their DVD collections once blu-ray became popular?

I kept all mine, and I actually still buy them when the price is right. Rust & Bone, for example, is a fantastic looking DVD, and the money I saved on it versus the Bluray version largely funded my purchase of Ken Russell's The Devils, which also looks great on DVD. In fact, it's not available on Bluray. So DVD is very much alive for me.

Adamantium · 03-05-2015 12:16AM

Battlestar Galactica (2003-2009) looks and sounds incredible on Blu Ray, it was shot in 1080p starting in 2003 (which was unusual at the time) and every acne scar on Edward James Olmos face shows, the man looks like he has seen action.

The space scenes are still cinema-like and look glorious. The show has incredible attention to detail and set design. It was like watching it for the first time again

Blu Ray sounds so good, but is rarely mentioned as the biggest selling point, but Bear McCreary's soundtrack sings.

Advertisment over:pac:

MisterAnarchy · 03-05-2015 12:44AM

Adamantium wrote: »

Battlestar Galactica (2003-2009) looks and sounds incredible on Blu Ray, it was shot in 1080p starting in 2003 (which was unusual at the time) and every acne scar on Edward James Olmos face shows, the man looks like he has seen action.

The space scenes are still cinema-like and look glorious. The show has incredible attention to detail and set design. It was like watching it for the first time again

Blu Ray sounds so good, but is rarely mentioned as the biggest selling point, but Bear McCreary's soundtrack sings.

Advertisment over:pac:

Its one of the best tv series I have ever seen and the Bluray is stunning ,its one of the few tv shows that really looks stunning.

McCreary is a genius
Heres a taster of his work on BSG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC39vxowYw

dr.fuzzenstein · 03-05-2015 11:36AM

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's not a market for them, simple as that. Boxsets are expensive, and fans likely picked up their favourites in the DVD era (the first time boxsets weren't insane, impractical things). Given the prevalence of streaming services, they have found a more natural home anyway!

And hey can't forget that a lot of classic TV shows wouldn't necessarily benefit from Blu-Ray, given they were shot and mastered for SD in the first place. Expensive to bring 'em up to scratch, and in some cases I reckon the extra fidelity might even highlight the visual limitations that were there in the first place but were irrelevant given everybody watched them in lower quality. With a handful of exceptions (Twin Peaks and the like), it was only in the late 90s / early 2000s that TV companies really started pushing the sort of more cinematic looks that do look great on Blu-Ray.

Totally agree, the source material is very important and a lot of stuff from the 80's and 90's will not look significantly better. Funnily enough, older stuff shot on 16 and 35 mm film benefits the most, just look at the remastered original Star Trek, those look absolutely fabulous.
My main gripes however are two things:
A lot of old stuff was shot in 4:3 and now it has to be stretched, morphed and cropped to force it into widescreen. It looks horrible! A lot of the time the Blu Ray has the right format, but TV stations don't want to have two black bars on either side, so they murder the aspect ratio.
The other one, a lot of the effects of the old Star Trek episodes where digitally redone from scratch, so suddenly you see this 21st century CGI space battle that looks totally out of place.
To me it's the equivalent of taking an old grandfather clock, ripping out the works and replacing it with a digital radio controlled LCD clock. Bleurgh!

One thing (which I saw on telly) looked absolutely astounding and it was Monty Python And Now For Something Completely Different. I previously saw it on telly, pre Hi Def and Blu Ray, it looked terrible! Washed out, blurry, brown tinged, fuzzy, just awful. If anyone has a DVD of that, get the Blu Ray!

beauf · 03-05-2015 01:14PM

I think a good DVD still looks good even on large tvs especially if its played through a good upscaling player. Some stuff isn't any better on bluray. So I would read a review of the bluray before bothering with it. Sometimes there's extra content on the bluray too.

DVD v BluRay

Comments