Blu-Ray vs DVD

[Meatus]

I have a very large DVD collection. And now i have a Blu-Ray player and starting to build a collection of Blu-Ray's.

I have a full HD television and said Blu-Ray player, but i don't see much of a difference. Yes i would say the picture quality is better. But it wasn't a Wow! moment where i went "Wow, this is amazing, how could we not have had this" to be perfectly honest i could have lived without it. And now having to buy Blu-Ray versions of DVD's i already own just seems a stupid waste of time! And yes i know it isn't just picture quality, but storage capacity as well. But does anyone else see this change as unnecessary?

On another point, a lot of my friends say i am mad & that Blu-Ray is amazing & far superior! Am i alone in disagreeing?

[Deano!]

You are not alone.

I too find the whole 'high definition' thing a bit of a con. For instance, when digital TV got going seriously in Oz about 6 or 7 seven years ago there were only a few channels, but most were in HD. As more channels were added, they down-graded nearly all the old HD channels to allow for more SD channels. No one actually noticed the difference until it was pointed out. And I'm talking about HD tuners with HD capable screens here.

I've also seen increasing examples of over-compressed video on digital lately. It's probably similar to sound quality. Many kids these days have probably never heard a really good HiFi system as they only ever hear MP3s played through iPods.

[Meatus]

Well don't even get me started on MP3's thats a whole other thread.

But i also agree about HD TV. With Sky HD they go on and on about how great it is, experiece television like you've never experienced it before, through High Definition. But basically its just ?10 a month more on your bill for a slightly clearer picture in my opinion.

But with the Blu-Ray's & DVD's they are essentially the same thing, except one stores HD images and uses a blue laser & has greater storage capacity. But how badly do you crave this HD picture quality, which as i have said from my own personal opinion, isn't that great. It's certainly no giant leap forward. So as well as your player & the roughly between ?6-?10 extra for a Blu-Ray disc as opposed to a DVD & then replacing all your original DVD's for an HD upgrade, basically just for a slightly better picture seems a bit of a 'rip-off' and when it comes to that extra storage space, some of the extras from the DVD's are missing & not featured on the Blu-Ray version. So do you keep your DVD's along with your Blu-Ray's? or do you trade them in? Commercialism at its most offensive. By ripping the buyer off with the old adage 'you ain't seen nothing like this' & 'you must have this'

Though i suppose you have the right to say, the hell with it, i will just keep my DVD's thank you very much. But will they soon discontinue the DVD?

[Deano!]

You can imagine the nerds from the lab one afternoon showing the big Sony, Panasonic and Toshiba executives their new super technology screen with dazzling clarity. The big bosses would say "No No No! Can't you come up with something that's just a bit better than what we already have? We need to meter this stuff out just a bit at a time."

[Meatus]

I believe 3D tv's are a waste of time as well. I don't like them & i don't like films in 3D! It really is a waste of time & the glasses!!! OK so they are not those Red & Blue/Green efforts from days gone by. But still having to put glasses on and look like Roy Orbison to watch TV?

[Twingo]

I watched Avatar in 3D at the cinema and i thought the 3D looked great and added to the movie, i've watched a lot of other films since and the 3D hasn't had the same wow, if it's done right then it looks great, if its an afterthought you get crap.

With Avatar 2/The Hobbit cinema is moving to 48 or 60fps, so it looks like a new HD disc format will have to be bought in as the bluray specifications simply cannot handle that much data.

[Meatus]

Exactly - which spells out RIP-OFF!!!

[itfilm]

Well I agree HD TVs r over priced, the upshot of owning one, say a 32inch or bigger is they are light and easy to move around and you now save a hell of a lot of space compared to the old big back ones and I believe the power consumption is lower too. As for Blue Ray wot a complete con that is, when you get HD on the net for sod all, I blug my mac in into my 32inch sony and watch hd tv from say the bbciplayer no need for that over priced blue ray disk at all!

But the biggest changes in tv's of recent times are widescreen and digital, this is just an on going process, if you stand still you'll be out of date in no time! The HD thing for me is greatest on the net you can now buy a camera like a canon 5d and you able to shoot amazing HD video like in the link below and this can be screened in a full size cinema with no change in quality.

http://vimeo.com/18280328

[one eyed jack]

Before you rush out and buy your favourite dvd on the Blu Ray format, consider when the film was made

The only con with Blu Ray lies with the mastering of the film. A lot of titles rushed to take advantage of the new gold rush merely transferred existing masters on to Blu Ray from the original mastered format it was on meaning the quality would be exactly the same as it was on DVD. ie any movie title before the last 3 years will only look exactly the sameas it was mastered. Hence not much better than the dvd you got already

More recent films benefit from Blu Ray because the mastering stage is a lot higher to facilitate better picture quality and in most cases now 7.1 surround sound.

As for 3D movies in the cinema? Dont bother. A movie shot in 2D processed into 3D isnt worth spending the extra bucks . A movie shot on a 3D process platform is worth the extra bucks and the only film I know to date that has been shot in that format is Avatar.

Pixar movies look great in 3D because it is all processed on computer and can be manipulated more effectively than a 2D live action feature.