Ah! I knew Blu Ray was snake oil! (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

If the OP, or anyone else, looks at this and doesn't see huge differences, I question his grasp of reality, his vision, or both.

 

[Carl Johnson]

On my modest 40" set blu ray is noticeably better than DVD, but I wouldn't say that there is a sexy increase in visuals.

When a new release movie comes out I always buy the blu ray over the DVD, even if the blu is a few bucks more expensive.

When it comes to titles that I already have on DVD the only way that I will upgrade to blu is if it's a title that I really like and it's dirt cheap. I'm a Star Wars fan, but personally don't think that it is worth $90 to upgrade.

 

[robbbb1138]

I wasn't blown away by Blu-Ray when I got my first player, other than noticing how "perfect" the image looked on the menu for the first movie I watched, but it was more a deal where, after a few months of watching Blus, I just couldn't stand to watch DVDs or broadcast HD movies anymore. For instantly being blown away, I'm not even sure what to recommend to someone that I think might be looking for that. A Pixar movie?

 

[Mark-P]

I think I can also understand why someone might be resistant to embrace new technology. I'm a movie collector. My VHS collection was in the hundreds and subsequently so was my Laserdisc collection. My DVD collection actually crossed into the thousands, so when Blu-ray came along I was AFRAID to buy a BD player right away because I thought I would be so blown away by the quality that I would no longer be able to enjoy my huge DVD collection... and that it more or less what happened. Blu-rays awe me and DVDs don't. I can still watch upconverted DVDs and yes I still buy DVDs of titles that I'm fairly confident aren't likely to be released on BD any time soon, but I cannot watch one of my old DVDs if a Blu-ray version has come out, because I know I'm not seeing the best available version! It's kind of sad that every new Blu-ray release instantly turns my old DVD into a coaster.

 

[bluejin39]

Recent work good feeling tired, but every day or back home would open the computer time to play the game, and it's not because the game is how interesting, but because the runescape game was very challenging, when I step by step to when I was thrilled to promotion, now I'm going to play underground city, that is a very challenging a stage. Here I learned how to make money, how to use the money I've earned to buy I need weapons and equipment, ready to upgrade the level of just, when I step by step to upgrade, I will get better treatment.：rolleyes：

 

[Paul D G]

Originally Posted by elementBike

Tony,
Have you visited an electronics store (Best Buy, etc.) to view BD demo material on a high-end display? Does it look different/better/the same as your display?

Exactly. I'd be in Best Buy with my six year old back when they had side by side DVD vs Blu displays and ask him which he thought looked better and he always picked the Blu Ray version.


I wouldn't be surprised if it were an output setting on the player (or maybe even a setting on the TV). I'll never forget going to visit a friend's house and he had a movie playing on his massive 16:9... but he had the player still set to output for a 4:3 display. "Excuse me, but I can't let this travesty continue..." I said grabbing the remote. A few clicks later and everyone was "ooooh! That's much better!"


How he couldn't see everything was stretched out and not think something was wrong I'll never know.

 

[MichaelEl]

I can still watch upconverted DVDs and yes I still buy DVDs of titles that I'm fairly confident aren't likely to be released on BD any time soon, but I cannot watch one of my old DVDs if a Blu-ray version has come out, because I know I'm not seeing the best available version! It's kind of sad that every new Blu-ray release instantly turns my old DVD into a coaster.

A Blu-Ray doesn't always look better than the DVD version. Some Blu-Rays are processed so much they look like cartoons, while others are based on film sources that are so poor the extra resolution makes no difference. People should always read reviews before they upgrade, especially when it comes to older films.

 

[TravisR]

That doesn't mean the Blu-Ray will always look better than the DVD.

I think everyone here realizes that so I didn't feel a need to say it. Next time, I'll be sure to say that 99.999999999999999% of Blu-rays look better than the DVD.

 

[MattAlbie60]

The thing that really kind of wowed me about the original post was his comments about the TWILIGHT ZONE Blu-ray sets. I still say they're among the best looking discs out there right now. If you can't see the difference, that's shocking. Look at the screen capture comparisons on DVD Beaver - they're amazing. I had to restart a few episodes when I first bought the "First Season" because I was just lost in the frame and wasn't paying attention to the audio

 

[Craig Beam]

Same here, Matt. The Definitive Edition DVDs were great, but the blu-rays are significantly better (like, shockingly so). Anyone looking at TZ on blu-ray and finds themselves underwhelmed MUST be using outdated or subpar (or poorly calibrated) equipment.

 

[David_B_K]

I have a 62" DLP which I plan on upgrading to a plasma or LCD this year. To me, the difference between DVD and Blu-ray is quite striking if it is a well-done Blu-ray even on my 5 year old set. However, in order to see video clearly on my set, I have to clean it inside and out. I found a detailed guide over at AVS which showed how to take off the screen and clean the insides, particularly the smaller mirror that reflects the image from the lamp to a larger mirror above. The larger mirror is almost always clean, but the smaller one gets covered in dust so bad you can "write" in it. The small mirror faces upward, so all the dust collects on it. You would not think a sealed unit could accumulate so much dust; but it can. After a cleaning it is like a new TV. I was frankly shocked at the improvement the first time I did the cleaning. I was looking through a haze for a while and thought some stellar Blu-rays were only so-so until the cleaning. There all kinds of reasons the OP is seeing a sub-par picture. I am tempted to say, as someone else did: "good for you; you'll be saving money". But that's not even true. Blu-ray is really not particularly expensive compared to DVD any more.

 

[Greg_S_H]

I have an aging Sony 30XS955. It's a 30" 16x9 tube TV and it weighs 148lbs. Native 1080i. I've had it since February 10, 2006 (I know because the very first image I saw on the screen was Yoko Ono at the 2006 Winter Olympics opening ceremony ). I don't have a lot of blu-ray discs, but DVDs were spoiled for me just from broadcast HD. I'd watch a show in HD and then buy the DVD set and feel disappointment. The blu-rays I have, on the other hand, look better than the original broadcasts. Dunno, but I was easily sold on the technology. I mean, it only makes sense, right? More lines of resolution, more detail. And, of course, it would be better still if I had a 1080p-capable TV.

 

[Robert George]

Originally Posted by MichaelEl


A Blu-Ray doesn't always look better than the DVD version.

Okay...name one.

 

[gomezfan69]

The Hills Have Eyes (1977). SD is SD whether it's on a DVD or a Blu-ray Disc.

 

[TravisR]

The Hills Have Eyes (1977). SD is SD whether it's on a DVD or a Blu-ray Disc.

Have you actually watched the disc? I've seen it debated whether it's an HD transfer (of a very low budget 16mm movie that's nearly 35 years old) or an upconvert. Either way, that's an exceedingly rare exception and if it is SD, it's tough to even count it as a Blu-ray. EDIT: I don't mean any of that in a combative way. Just that the source of the disc can't be that great so it's possible that's why people aren't in agreement on whether it's HD or SD.

 

[Vincent_P]

At the time Anchor Bay released their DVD of THE HILLS HAVE EYES, they were clearly distinguishing their HD mastered titles as being "Divimax" releases, and HILLS had no such branding. I heard through the grapevine that the film elements were in such bad shape that they decided against doing an HD master, and seeing as how the Image Blu-ray obviously uses the same master, it's pretty clear i's an upconvert. There are lots of "old 16mm" titles on Blu-ray from real HD masters and they show a definite improvement in detail and clarity over their SD DVD counterparts. Not so THE HILLS HAVE EYES. Anybody who denies this is an upconvert is fooling themselves. Vincent

 

[gomezfan69]

Have you actually watched the disc?

Yes I've watched the disc and also compared directly to the DVD. Any difference between the two was imperceptible to my eyes. Usually when I hear people throwing around words like "no better than upscaled DVD" or "it's just an upconvert" I give it no weight at all. So I was surprised to find a disc like this. I never thought I'd buy a blu-ray from a reputable company (with 1080p High Definition listed on the back) only to find that it's identical to my SD DVD.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Originally Posted by Tony J Case

is it connected to your Blu-ray player?
With the - oh crap, I can never remember if it's component or composite. I've got the cables that break the signal into the red and green and blue, that if you plug them into the wrong sockets, the picture looks like a bad tye-dye job.

Is your Blu-ray player set to output 480p or 1080? I have a 10 year-old projector and a component connection and the image is STUNNING.


Something is wrong.

 

[Felix Martinez]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

Make sure the BD player is set on 1080p output. Just about every BD player has settings to output different resolutions - 480i/480p/720p/1080i/1080p

Agreed. In his case though it would be 1080i over component. And it should still look stunning. My guess is the player is outputting other than that resolution.

 

[TonyD]

 

Is your Blu-ray player set to output 480p or 1080?  I have a 10 year-old projector and a component connection and the image is STUNNING.

 

Something is wrong.

 

I doubt tony case is coming back in here, making this entire topic a load of snake oil.