So far, I'm not a Blu Ray/HD fan

Instrument of Pain

12-19-08

I was at Costco the other day and they had a display hi-def tv and Blu Ray system playing The Dark Knight.

I don't know if it's just me but it looked like the lighting was so defined and harsh that it made the movie look staged and fake.

I wonder if other films will be similarly effected?

Anyone else not like the look of super high def?

Powdered Water

Parm A Shaun

12-19-08

I'm more than a little curious about that myself. As you may have noticed I'm thinking about either upconverting or just buying a Blue-ray player. Some of the things I've seen on High Def have looked really great. Sporting events in particular, but that's also live television.

I'm pretty curious to see how the majority of movies are going to look. Are they going to be changed and look fake like you mentioned? And how about all of the older more classic films that are already available? How is an upconverted DVD player or a Blue-ray player going to make those look? I mean, you can only do so much with the damn thing right?

Right now my TV is showing movie in 480i and they look pretty damn good to me, I'm not so sure that they need to look better. But the temptation to upgrade is killing me!

Maybe I should go back to smoking crack, I had a much lower class of problems back then.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Sir Toose

Instrument of Pain

12-19-08

Yeah I didn't want to pollute your thread with my dissention so I started a new one

The Dark Knight Blu Ray was incredibly clear, I can't dispute that. With that clarity though I'm afraid will come other issues. I love the dirty, grainy look of some old films. I'd hate to think of them appearing clean and plastic, it would change the aura for me for lack of a better term.

Of course, maybe the old ones will just look the same and all of the new ones will be subject to 'plastic world' treatment.

I can definitely see a value for live TV, news, and most importantly of all, CAGEFIGHTING! I can't get enough of MMA... been addicted to it since '92 or so.

BadaBing

Registered User

12-19-08

I honestly can't tell a difference between DVD and Blu-Ray.

re93animator

ibebangin

12-19-08

Originally Posted by Sir Toose

I don't know if it's just me but it looked like the lighting was so defined and harsh that it made the movie look staged and fake.

I wonder if other films will be similarly effected?

A simple problem. Easily fixed by adjusting the contrast on your TV. Had the same problem when I started using it.

Originally Posted by Sir Toose

Yeah I didn't want to pollute your thread with my dissention so I started a new one

I've watched the Blu-Ray versions of Planet of the Apes, Bonnie and Clyde, and Rio Bravo. My eyes tell me that the older blu-ray transfers seem to have less time put into them or they're just hard to clear because they are old, but they certainly still have the grainy look to them. For older films I'd just go with the standard DVDs as they look completely fine. Some 70's, 80's films are the exception. I bought the Halloween blu-ray disc and it looks and sounds truly fantastic.

Pros: After buying the HD cables, 1080 TV, and a PS3 I have to say that regular DVDs do look fine, but blu-ray blow them out of the water. Not only the picture quality but the audio is top notch. It works especially well as a companion to a surround sound home theater system.

Cons: There are some bad transfers. Some have hardly any difference from standard DVD. For that problem they review all of the transfers on blu-ray.com.

If your a perfectionist when it comes to your home theater system, I'd recommend trying it. If not, you may just be wasting precious time and money.

n3wt

\m/ Fade To Black \m/

12-19-08

I have said in another thread that I have just got a up-scaling DVD player home cinema system and we got a HDMI cable and the quality of the movie is brilliant. It is just as stunning IMO as a blu-ray as the picture is amazing.

If you are not interested in getting a Blu-Ray player I would suggest either a Up-Scaling DVD player or a PS3.

It all depends on what you are looking for and if your happy with your dvd player that you have well thats awesome.

Either way keep looking to see if you can see anything that you may enjoy. As im not really into Blu-Ray but a few of my mates are raving about it. Im happy with what we just bought.

__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

Nightowl

Registered User

12-22-08

I want to get blu ray .i got playstation3. my tv is no good. so i have to get new tv. maybe for my birthdaty .

Pyro Tramp

got mad game, yo

12-22-08

I noticed same problems you mentioned with HD Toose. I'm not going to buy into the whole blu-ray bag. I have a PS3 and probably will get an HD TV to make most of the console, i have a few blu-ray discs but will only shell out for them in rare instances.

__________________

'LONG LIVE THE NEW LIST'

Reviews NEW: MARTYRS | Quickies | Top 100 | DVD Collection

Movie Maven

BANNED

12-22-08

My tv isnt 1080p so I cant watch blu-rays or have a ps3 hooked to my tv. If i had the spare money id get one.

But wont happen anytime soon.

I've seen the quality and the difference of both Blu and DVD and if you cant tell the difference ya need to get yur eyes checked LOL.

TheDOMINATOR

Name's Davis

12-22-08

I own a Blu-ray player and have seen a few movies on Blu-ray, and I couldn't be happier. Actually, that's not true. I could be. My television isn't "Full HD"; its highest resolution is 1080i and, therefore, when I watch a Blu-ray, I'm not watching it in the highest quality. This is why my number one "want" is to upgrade my TV, but I can't afford it.

In 1080i high definition, though, I'm loving the Blu-ray technology. I look forward to upgrading my TV one day, and hopefully the definition isn't *so* high that it brings out the flaws of the films I watch on Blu-ray.

__________________
"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven."
John Milton, Paradise Lost

My Movie Review Thread | My Top 100

John McClane

You ready? You look ready.

12-23-08

There are several things I feel I need to address in this thread. One, don't go by floor models because they are absolutely horrible. They either have the brightness cranked up all the way, or they have features enabled on the TVs that aren't designed for movies. For example, Samsung's new HDTVs have a 120Hz feature that is great if you're watching football, but terrible for movies. One, it ends up speeding the film up so it's running faster than it should, and then CGI ends up looking super fake. Practically all the Samsung models I've seen at the store have this feature turned on.

Another thing, the age of a film has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of an HD transfer. I've seen plenty of older films with much, much sicker transfers than brand new films (Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, and 2001) . This holds turn to DVDs, as well.

The transfer depends on a.) the source reel they use b.) the codec of choice c.) the transfer machine/method used and d.) the time spent to clean up problem spots. The only time age comes into affect is the source reel, but most studios have an archival copy of their films that are ran only when new technology allows for a better digital transfer.

For example, both Full Metal Jacket and The Fifth Element have been released on Blu-Ray twice. The first releases were fuzzy/grainy/all around sh!tty, but the second releases were hands down off the wall stunning. Now I know what you're thinking, I don't wanna have to buy multiple copies of a film just to get a good one, but I can assure you this should rarely happen, especially since they've finally gotten their grove on transferring. Remember, DVDs were once victims to re-releases based on poor quality.

Lastly, video quality is not the only benefit to Blu-ray/HD. Sound, with the proper setup, is a beast of an improvement. IMO, it's a bigger improvement than the video. Sounds are crisper, more profound, immense. However, bad transfers can also happen here and are actually much more common than bad video. Some releases are just downright lazy and slap the old DVD standard on the discs, which doesn't take full advantage of the format. Which is why codecs/transfer methods are very important in my choice of which discs to purchase. The same rules of video transfer above apply to the sound on these discs.

If you have the right equipment, have it setup properly, and you have an excellent Blu-Ray disc/HD transfer, then the quality difference is going to jump right out at you. Whether it's sound, or video.

Friendly tip of advice for Blu-Ray owners who wanna grab good discs: Disney, 20th Century Fox, and Universal are absolute sure bets for, at the very least, a decent transfer. Most of the stuff, if not everything, I have from those three is out-f***ing-standing.

Good luck!

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Sedai

A system of cells interlinked

12-23-08

I think that's what he meant, McClane. I think he was talking about first gen Blu-Ray transfers, and not the age of the actual film.

I am waiting to pass judgment on this stuff until it's been out for a bit. The first few DVDs I bought looked terrible. It took them a while to get the technology right.

I do think this generation of discs isn't going to last long, though. Too many other options on the horizon, like HDDL.

__________________

�It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.� ― Thomas Sowell

re93animator

ibebangin

12-23-08

Originally Posted by John McClane

Another thing, the age of a film has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of an HD transfer. I've seen plenty of older films with much, much sicker transfers than brand new films (Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, and 2001) . This holds turn to DVDs, as well.

The transfer depends on a.) the source reel they use b.) the codec of choice c.) the transfer machine/method used and d.) the time spent to clean up problem spots. The only time age comes into affect is the source reel, but most studios have an archival copy of their films that are ran only when new technology allows for a better digital transfer.

For example, both Full Metal Jacket and The Fifth Element have been released on Blu-Ray twice. The first releases were fuzzy/grainy/all around sh!tty, but the second releases were hands down off the wall stunning. Now I know what you're thinking, I don't wanna have to buy multiple copies of a film just to get a good one, but I can assure you this should rarely happen, especially since they've finally gotten their grove on transferring. Remember, DVDs were once victims to re-releases based on poor quality.

You pose a great point, but I believe the age of a film can effect a transfer a great deal. 12 Monkeys and Blade Runner are not terribly old. They were both filmed in decent audio and video quality to begin with. Older movies such as 50's and 60's films are a step above the original quality, but they lack in comparison to newer films. 2001 is the exception. It is by far the greatest transfer I've ever seen considering it came out in 1968. The standard DVD looks impressive as hell too. Every other transfer I've seen from that time period does not look nearly as good though.

Also, you are absolutely right about the earlier blu-ray releases. Some of the first blu-ray transfers are hardly different from the standard DVD release.

One point you missed was the definition the source was originally filmed in. Evil Dead 2 was released only 20 years ago, but due to the low budget of the film (I think) the audio and video quality is despicable for a blu-ray transfer. It is not the transfer that is to blame though, but the poor quality in which the movie was originally filmed.

Powdered Water

Parm A Shaun

01-06-09

I just finished a pretty good article that I kind of agree with. The more I think about it I may just end up with an upconverted DVD player just to jazz up my already rather large DVD collection. I may buy a PS3 some day but I'm in no hurry there and I pretty much agree with this guy. I just don't think Blue ray is going to replace regular DVD.

Anyway here is the article...

How can we expect Blu-ray to succeed?

Posted by Don Reisinger

Online research firm Futuresource released a study Monday that discussed the relative success Blu-ray is enjoying right now in Western Europe.

According to the report, Blu-ray disc sales are up significantly in Europe so far this holiday season, and based on its findings, it believes the strong sales will continue through 2009. In fact, it believes European Blu-ray sales will triple during 2009, seeing 2.5 million players enter homes next year. Similar results are being witnessed in the U.S.

But that's not all. A release last week claimed the latest Batman film, The Dark Knight, witnessed sales of 1.7 million Blu-ray units, representing the most popular Blu-ray title of all-time.

Quite impressive, eh? Well, what if I told you that worldwide combined DVD and Blu-ray sales of The Dark Knight totaled 13.5 million units? Suddenly, that 1.7 million Blu-ray unit mark doesn't look so hot next to the 11.8 million DVDs that were sold, huh?
Of course, we shouldn't expect Blu-ray to catch up anytime soon. According to Futuresource in a study it released earlier this year, Blu-ray isn't expected to outsell DVD until 2012. And even then, Blu-ray will control just a bit more than 50 percent of media sales with DVD coming in around 45 percent to 50 percent. In other words, DVDs will still be a major force four years from now.
Based on all that information, can we honestly sit here and say that Blu-ray has a chance at becoming the success DVD is?
I just don't see it.

I don't think there's any debating that as Blu-ray player pricing comes down and the price of the media itself starts dropping, Blu-ray will start gaining ground on DVD. But once people realize that the difference isn't that great between the two formats and replacing an entire library of movies isn't as fun as it sounds, I'm not convinced Blu-ray will enjoy the kind of success DVD did when it replaced VHS.

More importantly, can we really expect Blu-ray to enjoy any major success as HD streaming becomes more ubiquitous? Consider all the places you can find streaming content: iTunes, online video services, set-top boxes like the Roku Netflix box, video game consoles, and your own cable VOD box. I simply don't see how Blu-ray expects to compete.

Think of it this way: would the average consumer rather buy a Blu-ray player for $250 and purchase movies for $30 at Best Buy or buy an Apple TV for $300 or a Roku Netflix Box for $99 and watch as many movies as they'd like at a cheaper price without going to the store?

I'm willing to bet very few would choose the former.
It's not that Blu-ray is a bad format or that it's not worth using. I simply don't see the average consumer with a family, mortgage, minivan, and constant time concerns with work and baseball practice, choosing an entirely new media format over the simplicity and relative affordability of HD streaming.

Maybe it was bad timing or perhaps it was a complete misunderstanding of consumer desire, but either way, Blu-ray strikes me as just another footnote in the long and storied history of home entertainment.

Now bring on the streaming.

Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

John McClane

You ready? You look ready.

01-07-09

DVD isn't going anywhere. That's obvious.

Annkis

BANNED

01-07-09

Blue ray requires more money...

Last edited by ��st��y; 01-07-09 at 11:15 AM. Reason: Removing spam.

Tacitus

The People's Republic of Clogher

01-07-09

I got my first Blu Ray movie (the Blade Runner set) when I still had an SD television and the supposed quality leap wasn't at all apparent.

Now that I've got an HD set (even one at the lower end of the market like mine) the differences between BD and the same movie on a decent upscaling DVD player is startling. I think the difference is most apparent in older movies, not new releases.

The recent Godfather box set is a case in point. I went as far as to compare specific scenes on the same set at the same time of day from the same HDMI input on the TV and, well, it was like using a PC monitor at 640x480 then switching to 1440x900 or better. Not just definition either, colours were richer, blacks blacker and whites whiter.

When you factor in the sheer size of the BD disc's storage capacity compared to DVD (and thus, the amount of stuff that can actually be held on a single disc) it's led me to the conclusion that, even though I'll be paying more, everything I buy now will be on Blu Ray unless it just can't be got or is horrendously cheap on DVD.

You're gonna get some duff quality transfers, as has already been mentioned, but that is no different from the early days of DVD. Anyone who bought Blade Runner or Goodfellas in the early 2000s will no doubt agree with me there and the moral is to read some reviews of the movie's quality before you buy. This is as good a site as any to start with.

Now, I'm not some anal type who looks for production values over cinematic excellence but why cling to the DVD mast when I have a superior alternative? Sure, there'll be something new along in a few years for us to spend money on and I doubt if any format will send shockwaves quite like the comparison between VHS and DVD but that's not really the point. It's as good as we can get now and, wonders will never cease, I can actually afford it.

Spend half an hour calibrating your TV, too - it's essential, even with DVDs. You can do a half-decent job with the THX Optimizer found on many DVDs (everything released by Disney, I think, and anything that George Lucas has had his little hands on) without even buying a calibration disc.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

TheUsualSuspect

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds

01-18-09

Thanks for the site tacitus, if anyone else wants to check a site to see if a film has a good BD transfer, check here.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Sammieb91

BANNED

01-18-09

Originally Posted by Annkis

Blue ray requires more money...

not really. depends on the size of tv you purchase. plus you can take the PC route. you can buy a blu-ray drive for your computer if you choose.

Blu-rays aren't really expensive if you really think about it... if you only buy specific ones...the ones you really REALLY want. they are worth it.

Tacitus