Blu Ray VS DVD: Saga continues!

emthree

Established Member
Saw this to-day. I must say I agree with some of this. Many HD discs (including HD DVDs) are poorly mastered, making them marginally, if at all, better visually than their (upscaled) DVD counterparts. Seems the studios aren't putting in enough effort or money into the format. The reference discs are clearly superior to their DVD counterparts, but I have many in my collection that by hindsight just aren't good enough to justify double dipping.

Blu-ray barely better than DVD • reghardware
 

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
This refers to a Which report, and has already been done to death elsewhere.
The report didn't give any information about how the test was done - what display, what viewing distance, etc.
I think it goes to show that the "experts" at Which are nothing of the sort. Internet "information" at its worst.

Nick :(
 
D

dovercat

Guest
This refers to a Which report, and has already been done to death elsewhere.
The report didn't give any information about how the test was done - what display, what viewing distance, etc.
I think it goes to show that the "experts" at Which are nothing of the sort. Internet "information" at its worst.

Nick :(

The comparison done by Which magazine did give some details.
Two identical Sony BDP-S550 players connected via hdmi to two identical Sony Bravia KDL-40W4500
When playing DVDs the Blu-ray player had upscaling option turned off.
Watching 17 films
Oustanding Improvement with Blu-ray discs 5 films
Significant Improvement with Blu-ray discs 4 fims
Marginal or No Improvement with Blu-ray disc 8 films
Blu-ray disc quality - Blu-ray DVD player reviews - TV & DVD - Which? Technology

The daily mail has jumped on the bandwagon as well. So hopefully Januray sales will have lots of cheap blu-ray players and discs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
You're quite right, they did say what display they used.

Perhaps I should sell my enormous BD & HDDVD collections now.

Nick
 

Bald Monkey

Distinguished Member
Is it bad if pressure mounts on the studios to ensure every BR release is as good as it can be rather than simply as good as it needs to be?

Is it bad if more people with 32" LCD's 10Ft away from the sofa realise they might not gain much switching to BR, before they spend their money.

:confused:

Whilst their testing procedures and ability might be questionable surely their motives are sound?
 

Avi

Distinguished Member
Is it bad if pressure mounts on the studios to ensure every BR release is as good as it can be rather than simply as good as it needs to be?

Probably not.

I think there may sometimes be a perception issue with what people expect HD "should" look like. Typically in store demos use specific HD video material or CGI to promote the "wow" benefit of HD. Artistic intent means not all "film" material will look like this ergo people become disillusioned.

Is it bad if more people with 32" LCD's 10Ft away from the sofa realise they might not gain much switching to BR, before they spend their money.

I don't think so and it comes back to consumer awareness versus CE/retailers using any new tech to push a sale.

Avi
 

CJROSS

Prominent Member
Guys I watched "Twilight" on SD DVD last night for the first time, I must say I was flabbergasted with the PQ on the S760 (have it moved onto the 40W4000 for an extended look see) now I am sure I'd enjoy a BD version more for PQ & AQ, but as mentioned if a good SD transfer looks as good as some BDs, well the industry has only itself to blame if there is a slower take up of the tech (BD disc buying).

When BD is done correctly I think we all know it can be truly stunning it has that edge PQ & AQ wise over SD, but when a very good SD is compared to a less than excellent BD, well things become a little muddied. One thing I find is that BD audio blows SD into the weeds. For both movies and music BDs. DTS-MA HD to me at 5.1 is akin to SACD or DVD-A. DVD-V could rarely match that.
 

Avi

Distinguished Member
but as mentioned if a good SD transfer looks as good as some BDs, well the industry has only itself to blame if there is a slower take up of the tech (BD disc buying).

This comes back to the point about display size etc. It makes a difference and I agree the industry is largely to blame for playing the usual numbers game to shift product.

Avi
 

Bald Monkey

Distinguished Member
That's what I'm sceptical about; I think they're just trying to grab some attention.

In a sensational way? I disagree, I see enough posts on here echoing similar views to believe that their findings are relatively accepted.

My own experience of watching HD on a 32" LCD backs this up.

4x the resolution, HD Audio as good as the master, BD-Live :rolleyes: etc etc makes great advertising copy but if the reality for most people is that they see little improvement, expecially on older less profitable releases then it doesn't take long for disapointment to sink in. And some HD releases are poor IMHO.

Without the on average better SD-DVD playback and streaming capability, which for many does not even offer the HD quality we are discussing here, then I suspect there would be a lot of BD players still sat on shelves. Is there anyone here who doesn't check out the quality of a back catalogue BR release on review sites before purchase? I do, the first question I want to answer is "is it worth the cost, is it much better than the SD-DVD version" - How bad is that for the format?

Seems to me the studios are making the player manufacturers life more difficult with lackluster releases, why bother? It's just cashing in IMO. And the player manufacturers are making downloading and viewing pirate MKV's even easier and more mainstream by pushing the capability on their players.. Just like the HD-DVD and BR competition, lack of unity is the problem. IMHO
 
Last edited:
Then again, some people like their discs to be DNR'd to death so that the picture is "clearer" and "sharper" and all the "horrible grain" is gone...I think the point has been missed by Which totally.

Nobody has stated whether or not the discs tested have been "re-mastered" or not. The biggest mistake they have made IMO is North By Northwest...I have both the UK Blu-ray and the latest R2 DVD releases. The Blu-ray has a little DNR touch up but mostly in dark scenes...this results in a little black crush but on the whole, it's one of the best Blu-ray transfers I've ever seen - defo up there with From Russia...IMO.
The DVD on the other hand had been DNR'd to death and ALL traces of grain removed and edge enhancement applied heavily. To the "untrained" eye and on a "small" screen, this would indeed look "cleaner" and "sharper" - but on my 92" inch screen and upscaled to 1080P, it's a bloody mess!
 

SyStemDeMoN

Distinguished Member
I am happy with 98% of my blu rays.

I don't care what a particular magazine has to say with some tests on a tiny screen and not taking into account the clear advantage with the audio for BD.
 

Nic Rhodes

Distinguished Member
I must admit I never consult review sites re discs for purchase and rarely even read reviews. Much prefer to make my own mind up and that relies on trying the disc myself rather than listening to others who have a different agenda and different priorities to me. Many also have vested interests and / or charge for their services.
 

barrywi

Established Member
One of the main selling points of Blu Ray is for home cinema. I dont think a 40 inch screen is big enough to see the difference between the two formats.
Some re mastered blu rays are superb, for instance ZULU which even on SKY looked magic, seeing the flies and Caines fillings when he shouts "Fire".
I am totally convinced by Blu Ray but am worried this criticism and dumbing down by the press on it may stop the film makers producing more re masters.
Typical of the Daily Mail! I used to work with many jounalists and most ( not all ) couldnt change a light bulb and had no technical knowledge.
 

CJROSS

Prominent Member
One of the main selling points of Blu Ray is for home cinema. I dont think a 40 inch screen is big enough to see the difference between the two formats.

I think I can easily tell the difference with BD/SD 2 different 1080p 40" Sony LCDs. I can easily fire up the BD of Avatar, Blade Runner then compare the SD I have too ;) and a few others I have seen to see the difference.
 

AndyCob

Prominent Member
Actually I thought there was a more telling proof of the lack of technical understanding in this bit from the article:

"When watching a DVD movie on a player connected to an HDTV via HDMI you have the option to adjust the settings and ‘up-scale' the picture. For comparisons sake we left the 'up-scaling' option off, so the DVD was watched in its regular 576p resolution setting."

You can't really turn off the upscaling it has to be being done somewhere either in the display or player (I suspect they mean they set the BD player to output at 576p for SD, I hope they didn't leave it set on 576p for BD as well or they were downscaling BD to SD) or the 576p (which in fact is 576i on a DVD disc so they have the player deinterlacing at least to progressive scan for SD DVD). If they truly had turned off upscaling and were watching at 576 then they would be viewing SD as a small picture in the centre of the screen surrounded by a huge black border on all four sides for the rest of screens unused native 1920,1080 pixels.

I actually own Ghostbusters as an example on BD and DVD and there is a massive improvement in detail on the BD but at the same time it is a very grainy film and this is apparent on the BD transfer but it doesn't detract from the quality improvements. Unfortunately I think many viewers think of grain as some sort of poor picture quality rather that a feature of the process by which the film was made and therefore tend to often rate the over DNR and edge enhanced messes that so many of us on here hate as the better quality versions.
 
Last edited:

Welwynnick

Distinguished Member
To the "untrained" eye and on a "small" screen, this would indeed look "cleaner" and "sharper" - but on my 92" inch screen and upscaled to 1080P, it's a bloody mess!
I don't care what a particular magazine has to say with some tests on a tiny screen and not taking into account the clear advantage with the audio for BD.
Much prefer to make my own mind up and that relies on trying the disc myself rather than listening to others who have a different agenda and different priorities to me.
Typical of the Daily Mail! I used to work with many jounalists and most ( not all ) couldnt change a light bulb and had no technical knowledge.
Actually I thought there was a more telling proof of the lack of technical understanding in this bit from the article:
Hurray for AVF, where most people still "get it". Which? don't have any real experts; there simply aren't enough experts in the country for all the products and services they assess, and no magazine has the budgets and resources to back up their claims.

I wouldn't argue that a few BDs look disappointing, but that's not really a question of BD vs DVD as media - thats more about the specifics of a particular release. I recall that when CD was introduced, some unscrupulous magazines did LP vs CD shoot-outs, and they often used an infamous Heaven 17 album. That CD was badly mastered, but they still held it up as an example of how bad CD was.

The combination of FullHD sources and displays at reasonable prices are the best thing that's happened to video for a very long time. We've never had it so good.

Nick
 

The latest video from AVForums

Tribit StormBox Blast Bluetooth Speaker: Review Coming Soon
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom