Does anyone think blu ray is worse than DVD for these reasons?

[ironpony]

I was watching Cinemassacre's video where he talks about how dvd is better than blu ray:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tetXKdi9U3c

But I find myself disagreeing with him though.

His number 10 reason is that dvds have much better menus in the past.* Better because they are bigger, longer and will be it's own little mini movie on it's own as it loads.* But that is why I hated dvd menus.* They took way too long to load, and were pretentious and gimmicky, aside from a few great ones, almost all of them I thought,*were just a drag to have wait for the loading to be over.Blu rays have quick menus that cut to the chase, and that's all you need.

Number 9 I agree with him on, as it seems more movies on blu ray have less special features compared to on the DVD.* Not sure if this is true for all movies, but Braveheart for example, the DVD special feature are much better, compared to when I bought it on blu ray later.

Number 8, the blu ray takes up either to little or too much space.* I never had this problem, so I guess it depends on what movies you want.

Number 7, he says that blu rays harder to get out of the cases.* I disagree with this cause some DVDs had weird sleeves as well, and I think both DVD and blu ray, both have an equal amount of that problem, from what I've seen.

Number 6, reconfiguring buttons.* I have never had a problem with blu ray remotes and they are just as easy for me to understand the button as a dvd remote.* What is he talking about?* I guess if you want to play a blu ray in a PS3 you're screwed, but why not just use a blu ray player instead of a PS3?

Number 5 is a big one because he mentioned software updates.* I have never needed a software update to play a blu ray ever.* I bought my blu ray player back in 2011, and I just bought Parasite (2019), recently, and it played on it perfectly fine.* What software updates is he talking about?* I've never had this problem.

Number 4 is there is less blu ray options of what to buy, because Sony owns it all, but I think there could be legal ways around that though, couldn't there?
For example, he used exercise videos on VHS for example, but less on blu ray.* Well if someone wanted to sell an exercise video, on a 1080p disc, just don't call it "blu ray" on the product, and isn't your problem solved?

Number 3, I'm not going to comment on :)

Number 2, He says blu rays are worse, cause it's hard to bookmark where you are and it will often start all over again.* I've never had a problem on my blu ray player a panasonic, which always book marks the spot.* Is Panasonic perhaps better for this?* But I've never had that problem, compared to DVD.

Number 1 is too many trailers.* This may be true, for some discs but other discs it's not so bad.* It's so so.

But I find I haven't had near as many problems as a good amount of the points as he has had.* Am I one of the lucky ones?

[Steve Freeling]

No, no, and no. Absolutely not. Blu-rays have considerably better video and audio. They are also more scratch-resistant.

[ironpony]

Do blu rays really have better audio? Aren't both 24 bit/ 48 khz though, so pretty much the same, or no?

[Dog Star Man]

I saw this video awhile back. In some cases he's dead on with DVD's having more special features than their Blu-Ray counterparts. It's often why I "double/triple/etc." "dip" my transfers.

Case in point, take Criterion as an example. Initially, (although I think they've gotten better with this, I'll explain in a moment), but when Criterion started "re-releasing" some of their older oeuvre some of the old pamphlet commentary's got lost in the transition to make way for the new. They didn't keep both... which I wanted. For films like The Passion of Joan of Arc they did indeed keep the old and expanded for the new, (so hopefully this is the trend now.) But for others like The Red Shoes the article by Ian Christie was inevitably lost.

The other thing I've noted for films outside of the realms of Criterion, is that if you want the "best quality version" with all the bells/whistles/specs, you may have to buy bulky transfers. Case in point the 5-Disc(?) "Briefcase" of Blade Runner the "modest" releases of it came with only 4-Discs(?) or less.

As far as playing a DVD/Blu-ray. I own a Region Free Blu-Ray player. I'm a transfer-junkie. In many cases Eureka MoC produces a better product than Criterion and they have a top-notch catalog. Even for films like Billy Liar and This Sporting Life while the DVD Criterion transfers are amazing, I'll still prefer to watch the Region B Blu-Ray transfers for better image and sound quality. As such, having such a player, I've never had a problem figuring out "Button Configuration" sounds like a personal problem to me. :)

I've also never had an issue with DVD or Blu-Ray menus... though I will give him some credit in the fact I find Blu-Ray menus to be a bit "carbon copied." Also, as far as trailers before films... yes, true... but I've only seen it for films like "the latest and greatest" releases. Blockbusters, Disney, and the like.

That's my two cents.

Either way, bottom line, I think if you're going to "really" get serious with your collection, your probably going to need to drop some extra money on films you may already have. I have in some cases 3+ copies of the same film because it's either on blu-ray or other older copies and other regional versions offer better specs. It's up to the consumer really. And so I consume.

[Mr Minio]

Once you get into obscure late 90s/early 00s Japanese films, you will understand how much of a look and texture they'd lose if you replaced the pristine DVD rip with a nasty, clinical Bluray restoration.

[Stirchley]

Never had the least desire for Blu-Ray. Perfectly content with my regular DVDs.

[ironpony]

Once you get into obscure late 90s/early 00s Japanese films, you will understand how much of a look and texture they'd lose if you replaced the pristine DVD rip with a nasty, clinical Bluray restoration.

Why would blu ray restoration be nasty?

[Mr Minio]

Why would blu ray restoration be nasty? Because it'd most probably ruin the celluloid texture aesthetic of the movie. I'm not saying it's impossible to preserve it during the restoration, but I can imagine how hard it would be. I'm pretty sure that people behind the restoration would unknowingly destroy it. Now, I'm by no means a videophile, and I really like to watch great movies in Blu-ray quality, but the 90s/00s Japanese films are an exception. Thankfully, not many of them have been released on Blu-ray. :)

It's easy to get all caught up in "the higher quality, the better" train of thought, and it's true for most cases, but after you have watched the same film in different formats, qualities, pre- and post-restoration etc. you will see that in some cases it's as if you were watching a completely different film. Bresson's Four Nights of a Dreamer's VHS copy that was the only available source for a very long time is so much different from the recent Blu-ray restoration. The restored version feels way colder, more clinical, sad. The warm tones of the VHS are gone. Of course, it all boils down to restoration's color grading, the actual VHS aesthetic that is unattainable on Blu-ray unless specifically aimed for, etc., but the difference it makes in how you perceive the movie isn't small.

Here's a very late Japanese film (2008) that somewhat still fits the aesthetic I'm talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9F44CIixBI

Don't you think that a Blu-ray restoration would flatten it & rescaling would make it lose its density & color grading would damage its weathered palette? Of course, I'm not denying a skillful restoration could keep all these, but I'm not sure it's possible.

[ironpony]

I'm ont sure. Some movies look really good on blu ray, others more faded and grainy. So I guess it depends on the restoration, but not sure.

[Mr Minio]

Obviously. Some films have been restored multiple times by different teams, and the results are staggeringly different.

[skizzerflake]

I can see questions about the way a film is transferred between formats, but that's an issue with the transfer, not the medium. All things considered, in a digital medium, I don't understand why anybody would want less pixels. I don't want to go back to VHS either.

It's an interesting question for me, for some movies, because the first time I saw them, they were bad film copies, transferred to something else. If I liked that look, which, after all, was a problem rather than an asset, I would consider taking off my glasses.