This is topic For Anyone who Doubts that Blu-ray is better than DVD. in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003214

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on September 07, 2014, 05:37 AM:
 
Well, the other evening, I went to watch a recent Disney animation release in my home cinema.

Powered everything up and popped in the disc. After it had loaded, a Disney logo appeared and my first impression was, "Crickey...that looks soft".

So I start checking the player's output to make sure it hadn't been accidently altered. Switched it manually to 1080p...no better. By now the trailers are running and I'm thinking, "maybe the trailers are just not great quality..."

So the movie begins and I put the player into Source Direct mode, making sure the output is 1080p/24Hz. Still the image doesn't look sharp. Now I start delving into the projector settings and thinking, "what can have been altered?"

Scratching my head, I glance down at the disc box...it's a double play disc set and I've loaded the DVD version instead of the Blu-ray...

[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]

What a dope!

Loaded the Blu-ray and it was sparkling! If there was ever any doubt that Blu-ray was far superior to DVD...

Another lesson in "check the most obvious things first!!!"
 
Posted by Paul Barker (Member # 4318) on September 07, 2014, 05:53 AM:
 
i still know people who project dvd and blu ray and still say they cannot see much difference between the two. the mind boggles. i swear by blu ray everytime. there is always a noticeable difference.
 
Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on September 07, 2014, 05:56 AM:
 
There is a big noticeable difference. If you have the right TV. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Joe McAllister (Member # 825) on September 07, 2014, 09:27 AM:
 
I think that when properly encoded Blu Ray looks better. However some early releases in this format used DVD masters which look no better than a DVD "upscaled" using an HDMI cable.
 
Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on September 07, 2014, 10:07 AM:
 
Well, Joe, there were a handful of very early releases that did get things wrong, but that was many years ago now and pretty much irrelevant, as with all formats when they first launch.

Just look at the utterly inadequate masters that were used for many DVD releases back in the day. Bad master material married with low bit-rate digital masters, often resulting in DVD releases looking just like their VHS counterparts, but now with the addition of digital blocking!

Of course, this situation didn't last long as the public are not easily duped. It was just an early cash-in, as with any "new" format.

Also, "up-scaling"...hmmm...see I don't believe all up-scaling is equal given what I have experienced. If you're using processing to re-calculate 560i into 1080p, then there are many ways to do this and some are excellent, whilst some are, how to put this...rotten.

Not trying to be argumentative BTW, just saying what I have seen over the years. [Smile]

I've seen some very cheap DVD players do a fantastic job of up-scaling, whilst I've also seen some very expensive Blu-ray players make a right pig's ear of it. [Razz]
 
Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on September 08, 2014, 06:57 AM:
 
I agree, BD's are great. And sometimes an upscaled DVD can improve a little.
 
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 08, 2014, 08:56 AM:
 
Rob, exactly the same thing happened to me a couple of months ago when I was showing The Sound Of Music. !
[Smile]
No question that most projected BD's look vastly superior to most projected DVD's. The best blu rays, the ones which the studios have lavished money on to restore and have been given a very careful digital transfer, look absolutely stunning when projected on a large screen. But, I have often seen BD's that look no better than DVD's, and I have often seen DVD's that you would swear were Blu Rays.
My Panasonic Blu Ray player seems to do an excellent job of upscaling most DVd'S.
 
Posted by Winbert Hutahaean (Member # 58) on September 08, 2014, 11:10 AM:
 
If the films are from the same disc, it can be the DVD version was put deliberetly in low quality mode to save the storage capacity.

We should compare apple to apple between the best DVD vs BD.

To date I still don't have a BD player. I may jump to the next format generation which I hear is being made now.

This gonna be my second case where the first one is when I jumped from VHS to DVD without having LD in my film collection.

From my experience each format has 10 years life span.

I think now is already close to BD's 10 years anniversarry and it is the time to welcoming a new format generation :-)

Cheers,
 
Posted by Ken Finch (Member # 2768) on September 10, 2014, 02:39 PM:
 
Technically Bluray should be better than DVD. However, as well as the criteria already mentioned, one has to consider not only the player but the quality of the cables used in the link and also the quality and set up of the display. From my own personal experience I found that some VHS tapes were as good as the same film on DVD.
Also a lot of HD Television transmissions show no noticeable difference unless the TV is more than 32" but this not "Full H.D".
I do not have a Bluray player but do have one that upscales. I have also found that my replacement projector which is "Full H.D". displays much better quality images on DVD and VHS than the previous one and as I have a large collection of films on both formats see no reason to replace these with Bluray versions.
Are we in danger of becoming like the "Rivet Counters" amongst the model railway enthusiasts? I also remember that when HD TVs first came out in the shops, the displays carried a split screen of standard and HD images and the standard half was deliberately softened!! Perhaps the same trick is being used with these DVD versions suplied with the Bluray ones. Ken Finch.
 
Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on September 11, 2014, 01:04 AM:
 
I've been pretty amazed how film-like a well-done Blu-ray can look on my JVC DLA front projector. Many have made instant coasters of the prior DVDs (particularly early releases).

That said, be it DVD, Blu-ray, or Super 8. Crap in = Crap out. All formats have their unworthy eyesores and disappointments. I'm talking to you Niles Cinema. [Wink]
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on September 11, 2014, 06:58 AM:
 
From what I've heard, The Back to the Future box set is totally messed up on Blu-Ray. I have a friend who screened the 35mm first and they decided to check out the Blu-Ray. It was appalling and no one said anything good about it. Plastic was the word used

Also I heard I shouldn't rid myself of the Laserdisc of Last of the Mohicans, as that one is better than the DVD/Blu-Ray. So it all comes down to what the companies decides to do with it. Blu-Ray is of course better in resolution than the DVD and LD's, but still there's something to pick on many releases
 
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 11, 2014, 09:45 AM:
 
Sure there are some Blu Rays and DVD'S that are not the highest quality, but they are few and far between. At least there is zero disc-to-disc quality variation.
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 11, 2014, 12:28 PM:
 
I have to say, to my eyes and ears , I haven't seen or heard a bad one yet. Ok some of the re-mastering touches on older films might not be to everyone's tastes, but you cannot fault a simply perfect picture and sound field which is what I see and hear each time I pop a Blu Ray disc in.

My Die Hard Blu Ray (watched two evenings ago) puts my 8mm print totally to shame for image quality and colour rendition and Die Hard is a decent print, make no mistake of that.
 
Posted by Timothy Ramzyk (Member # 718) on September 11, 2014, 01:02 PM:
 
I don't favor an over-processed image, and some early releases of blockbuster titles suffered from too much digital noise reduction (eliminating the appearance of grain) or edge enhancement (artificial sharpening). I think there was an initial fear that audiences wouldn't accept the appearance of actual film-grain that the extra definition would support. Thankfully that seems largely a thing of the past these days, and 95% of what I buy looks pleasingly like actual film rather than waxy video.

At least there are sights that credibly review BD, with frame grabs, so there isn't a lot of room for ending up with a bad surprise.

I'd put out there that seeing the Universal Blu-ray set of their classic monster films was nothing short of revelatory, partially because of the format, but mostly due to the spare-no-expense restoration work done on the films themselves.
 
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 11, 2014, 07:41 PM:
 
There is no doubt in my mind that DVD and Blu Ray and digital projectors are the best thing that ever happened for film collectors.
 
Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on September 11, 2014, 11:32 PM:
 
Totally agree, Paul -- given the stunning restoration work on the classics, we're truly living in a golden age for film collectors. Talk about truly pristine prints (and sound) that are available via Blu-Ray!
 
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on September 12, 2014, 02:53 AM:
 
Blu-Ray is most definitely better in quality than DVD and the end result will be governed by how you view the disc.

The leading question at the moment is how long will they continue to manufacture Blu-Ray media as Sony have already revised production due to fall in sales. It seems the public are leaning more towards Netflix and ITunes which I am guessing is more about a younger generations choice of viewing method and clever marketing. Other factors have taken a toll on BR such as HMV closing high street stores thus reducing on the shelf availability but we shall see.
 
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on September 12, 2014, 03:00 AM:
 
Without doubt Video projection has come a long way as with the quality of the image you now get from Blu-ray.

However with film collecting or film projection I do feel that's a different ball game altogether, regarding that certain on screen "look" of film, compared with a digital image that you might watch at the cinema.

Going to the cinema these days.....well you are certainly going to watch, say a movie... but sadly, not a film [Frown]
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on September 12, 2014, 05:20 AM:
 
Unless you're lucky and live close to Mr. Tarantino's new cinema :-) Also heard something about his new film, The Hateful Eight, were going to be shown in 70mm theatres on real film before the digital version. I cross my fingers that many more people see and feel the difference and demand quality and life, not sterile, jerky, digital video
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 12, 2014, 06:47 AM:
 
24fps was never without it's "jerks and "stutters"" Vidar, especially when panning or filming fast motion scenes.
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on September 12, 2014, 08:17 AM:
 
It's not the same stutter I see ... I know fast panning would give a little, but it's something I only see in digital (it might be compression issues or something, but it's not the same)

I see stutters in movement and everything in digital and will never enjoy a digital film as much as a reel film.
 
Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on September 12, 2014, 10:19 AM:
 
Agree, Andrew -- in dealing with both film and video in my professional life, there was always a "stutter" with fast pans in film, particularly when projected on a large cinema screen. But video shot at 24fps captures an amazing "film look" without the problems inherent with actual film, such as negative dust, etc. We employed video shot at 24fps for a series of commercials that aired nationally, and it absolutely captured the rich tones and vibrant colors, even when projected on a massive pano screen at a major event. And this is coming from a long-time film collector.

The video "stutter" issue referenced in previous posts seems to be limited to a few individuals who can, for whatever reason, seem to overly detect it. However, as I get older, I realize that my hearing isn't what it used to be, but that doesn't mean that FM radio is inferior to AM radio simply because I can't hear top-end frequencies like I used to when I was younger.

I am a film fan but, as Rob Young so eloquently put it in a post a couple of months ago, film now pretty much boils down to simply a matter of devotion rather than its technical merits in light of today's technology. Over 100 years is a very good run for any technology, including film, but thank goodness time marches on -- or we'd still be driving Model T cars! [Smile]
 
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 12, 2014, 11:41 AM:
 
Anybody heard any news on 4K film software? Are the next generation films going to be sold on 4K Blu Ray discs?
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on September 12, 2014, 11:43 AM:
 
So you are trying to tell me 24fps of celluloid stutter, while compressed video at 24fps do not? I was expecting, when blu-ray came and had 24fps, that the motion would be like film, but it's not. Compression, cpu power for decoding the compressed images are by far more prone to not update as quick as a raw photo. Technically, film looks, feels and is better than digital. What you say there does not make sense to me
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 12, 2014, 12:42 PM:
 
I was merely pointing out that film isn't without motion stutter during panning etc just like nothing ever could be at 24fps. Digital is exactly the same at that filming speed. What's not to make sense out of that Vidar?
 
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on September 12, 2014, 12:46 PM:
 
CELLULOID FREAKIN RULES!!!!

(ehhh, ignore me, I'm just a backwards ole fuddy duddy!!!) [Smile]
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 12, 2014, 01:12 PM:
 
Luckily, we all agree with you on that Osi, hence the forum.
Nevertheless the facts are the facts as I was highlighting to Vidar. That's all.
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on September 12, 2014, 01:34 PM:
 
I was actually replying to Hourigans post ... He says video do not have the same stutter as film ... I know 24fps isn't fast enough to get it all. But if you check out still frames of digital compare it to film, you should see motion blur on film and "perfect" images on digital. That motion blur, for me, makes it look better. The stutter isn't as hard. But, as I also say, it's not the panning stutter alone ... Objects in digital doesn't move as smooth and I still believe this is due to motion blur and the compression that video uses. Film shows 24fps raw pictures, video does not.

No one can ever talk me into going to the "cinema" again, unless it's a real cinema

If you don't see what I see, I can only say, good for you, but it bugs the hell out of me.
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 12, 2014, 01:37 PM:
 
We are all in the same camp Vidar, that's why we all just love REAL film, warts and all! [Wink]
 
Posted by John Hourigan (Member # 111) on September 12, 2014, 04:16 PM:
 
(sigh) -- Vidar, if you read the lead sentence in the second paragraph of my post, you'll see that I reference the video "stutter" issue.
 
Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 12, 2014, 04:22 PM:
 
John.. to me at least, and I know others will include Rob & Paul, your point of view and valid points made, make perfect sense!
 


Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2