DVD's That are Better than The Blue Ray Versions (1 Viewer)

[Jesse Blacklow]

There's no version of "Deliverance" that looks better than the HDM versions, so I'm not sure why this would make a difference.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

How's the EE?
As bad as the SD DVD?
Thanks.

 

[Peter Neski]

"There's no version of "Deliverance" that looks better than the HDM versions, so I'm not sure why this would make a difference."

I guess your talking about the HD versions,I have the Blue Ray and did
side by side with a Original 16x9 Standard single disc after reading a post which
claimed the earlier version was better

Guess what? Its better! so much I went to amazon and Ordered a copy.
The extras are great on the Blue Ray ,so it isn't a waste at all

 

[Dan Lassiter]

I may be in the minority here, but I prefer the Superbit version of Bram Stoker's Dracula to the blu-ray version. I like the color timing of the Superbit and I think the blu-ray is way too dark.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Perhaps the newer televisions and Blu Rays will give more color depth to Technicolor movies like Gone with the Wind, but for black and white movies (many shades of gray), standard DVDs are fine, and look quite amazing.

Not at all. Grey scale is usually dumbed down for SD in order to avoid chroma key rainbowing. In HD the grey scale is represented in a manner much more akin to the original film. Just check out Casablanca, 20 Million Miles to Earth, and Jailhouse Rock.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

I'd like to see this post which claims the DVD is better, because frankly they're speaking out of their behind. Just the resolution increase alone puts their statement to lie, as does essentially every review of the disc out there.

As for your personal experience with the disc, I don't know what to say. Calibration? Display gizmos that mess with sharpness? Non-HD resolution monitor? Dunno, but there is a 0% chance that the a 480p version is anywhere near to the 1080p version in quality. I can say this from first-hand experience. Unless you can provide screenshots showing the DVD quality winning out, I'm putting this one in the "Mythbusters" category.

 

[David (C)]

Is the SD-DVD "brighter" than the BD?

 

[Cees Alons]

That sort of generalizations won't help the discussion at all, because it simply isn't true. I have no opinion about the "Deliverance" releases, but higher-resolution output image are only better if the higher-resolution content is there to begin with, and retained.

Else, you would also have a blind believe in the new Toshiba upconversion algorithms. Somehow, I don't think you do.

This thread is about cases where viewers think the better resolution, or the higher colour definition isn't there in the blu-ray version. Or they perceive other problems.
Do I understand from your post that you haven't compared both Deliverance releases yourself either?


Cees

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

No, I have seen the "Deliverance" BD, and the difference in resolution is immediately apparent. It's not POTC sharp, but it's pretty good for 30 years old.



EDIT: I just noticed that Peter mentions he bought the earlier release, which is a single-layer DVD from 2001, which for a nearly two-hour movie, would have been compressed all to hell. If he's thinking that has higher resolution than the BD, I'd say there's something seriously wrong with his setup.

 

[Peter Neski]

"compressed " Yes it shows Compression problems,still its better ,Better Color,

 

[Peter Neski]

"resolution increase alone puts their statement to lie"

this isn't true because
the source is different ,1080p is only as good as its source,and these releases
don't use the same source, if you made a BR from the source used from
that old Comformist Laser,It would have less resolution than the last Remastered Standard DVD even if it was 1080p

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Color is one thing (and if that's your complaint, this thread and your 1st post are wildly misleading), but if you're saying the compression problems of a 4.7GB disc compared to a 25GB disc don't have any effect on the image, you're completely wrong.

 

[Peter Neski]

All I can tell you is compare for yourself,I would love the new one to be Better
,Most are

 

[TravisR]

I'm not trying to be a jerk but what is the point of this thread?

So far, the only titles that have been noted are Evil Dead II, Deliverance, Stargate and Bram Stoker's Dracula. Deliverance and Dracula were noted because of a change in color between the DVD and the Blu-Ray which is a preference that may vary from to viewer to viewer rather than something that can deemed right or wrong. Stargate was noted because someone thinks the CG looks better at DVD's lower resolution. Evil Dead II was noted as being no better than the DVD.

So I can't understand why there's a thread dedicated to this topic when there doesn't seem to be a topic.

 

[Peter Neski]

How about This "Yes "Live at Montreux 2003 The HdDVD (and Blue Ray I think) are recorded at the wrong speed) The DVD is the right speed

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

That's exactly what I'm wondering. IMO, this thread isn't bringing anything to the table except for one person's personal preference for coloring, which is neither an objective argument for "better" nor a demonstration for the resolution argument.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

And this is where you're completely wrong. Deliverance's BD, HD DVD and DE DVD iterations are more faithful to the original source than the first DVD of Deliverance. Deliverance is a "flashed" film, meaning that the film was briefly pre-exposed to light before shooting to create a certain effect that the DP was looking for, being a desaturated colour appearance that exposes more detail in shadow areas. That first Deliverance DVD also was "pictureboxed", meaning that it is lower resolution to begin with, so there is really no way that it can be a more accurate representation of the film on digital media. It may be more aesthetically pleasing to you, Peter, but the majority of the HTF would prefer a presentation more faithful to the theatrical experience.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Travis, I agree with you in principal. However, I would just like to clarify my position with Evil Dead II. It is my assertion that the master used on the THX SD DVD is more faithful to the source than subsequent remastered transfer, which was used as the basis for the BD. I have no doubt that if that THX transfer was used as the basis for the BD it would look better than the THX SD DVD, but it wasn't. Therefore, it is my opinion that the THX SD DVD is still more faithful to the souce than the remastered BD.

Again, I agree with you in principal here that one exception does not a trend, or even really a topic, make.

 

[Peter Neski]

If the overall picture is better ,how is that not what this thread is about
I didn't start this thread Because I don't agree that BR is a better Format!!!
I could only think of a couple Titles which I would Prefer the dvd version
to the Blue Ray version.Many people didn't care for the Blue Ray Longest
Day (I Haven't seen it yet) wouldn't that be another title? I don't know
Its mostly about Personal Taste.

 

[PaulDA]

The problem with "better" as the descriptor is that it is not well defined. In technical terms, no DVD is better than a BD (presuming nothing is defective with either one). If we move to the subjective judging of the "look" of a title--then "better" becomes highly individualized and use of the word leads to confusion (much like some of the comments like "Better how? More features/extras? Better sound? More language/subtitle options?" and so on.).

It would have caused less confusion if the title of the thread read: Are there any DVDs you prefer over the BD version? That would allow for personal preferences without opening it up to confusion. In that scenario, you're preference for the original DVD release of Deliverance could not be misconstrued (as it has in this thread) of being an argument for its technical (vs aesthetic) "superiority".