|
Author
|
Topic: Blu-Ray Quality - Is it me....?
|
Keith Ashfield
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 997
From: U.K.
Registered: Dec 2006
|
posted January 22, 2010 03:55 AM
After years of faithful service, my old DVD player was starting to get noisy and a bit temperamental, so I though, having just under a 1000 DVDs of various “Region ratings”, that I would purchase a HDMI “up-scaling” unit.
When in our local ASDA (Wal-Mart), checking out the HDMI capable players, I noticed a Phillips Blu-ray player at the “reasonable” price of £77.00. So I purchased this player, along with the “G-Force” Combi Pack Blu-ray + DVD pack.
Eagerly went home, set up the player with my 32” Sony Bravia T.V and loaded the disc. The quality was “stunning”. I thought that my decision to go with the Blu-ray player was “spot-on”.
However, in order to ascertain the true difference between DVD and Blu-ray, I loaded the DVD of “G-Force” and my “excitement” was somewhat diminished. The quality, to me, did not seem to be that different.
I then put the “G-Force” DVD into my DVD Recorder and then, comparing the difference between that, and the Blu-ray player, the quality difference was VERY apparent. The “up-scaling” of the DVD on the Blu-ray player really made a big difference to the picture quality. I checked a few other “normal” DVDs and continued to be impressed by the “better picture quality” afforded by the 1080i “up-scaling”.
Considering the price that I paid for the Phillips unit, and the fact that it is now “Multi-Region” for DVDs (due to a “handset hack), I am not complaining.
I will certainly not be replacing “all” of my ordinary DVD collection with Blu-ray, but will purchase any “Blu-ray combi” releases, dependent on the price. This will at least give the benefit of having the “Blu” disc and also the “ordinary” DVD, to play on my DVD projector.
No doubt the quality of the Blu-ray presentation is more apparent when seen on a larger screen, compared to a 32” television. It may be that my old eyesight is not what it used to be. Whatever the reason, I am glad that I did not “jump into the Blu-ray sea” too early, when the prices were higher.
I’m happy with what I have, for the price that I paid, and that’s all that matters really.
--------------------
"We'll find 'em in the end, I promise you. We'll find 'em. Just as sure as a turnin' of the earth".
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted January 22, 2010 08:33 AM
BR may be going through what people went through with DVD compared to Laserdisc back in the day.
The truth is, currently, the same master is used for the BR as for the DVD release, it's just that the DVD is not capable of reproducing the transfer at the same level of detail as the BR.
To the trained eye, the difference is percieveable, but it really doesn't come down to enough of a difference to matter for most people.
Instead of the BR, I went to the HDMI upgrade of DVD, and have been very pleased with the results with my ole fashioned DVD's.
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted January 23, 2010 09:09 AM
Something I'd forgotten about, a BR, DVD will only show as good as the monitor it is displayed on. For instance, I could buy a BR, but with an ole fashioned 27 inch Sanyo TV, (which we have) it will only display as many lines of resolution as is possible for that TV, (which I believe is somewhere around 500 lines), so it wouldn't matter if I showed it even on my 1080p DVD upgrade, it will still display at 500 lines. Not all digital or plasma TV's are created equal, as I'm sure that many on this forum can
verify.
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joerg Polzfusz
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 815
From: Berlin, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System
Registered: Apr 2006
|
posted January 25, 2010 05:54 AM
Hi,
the question is: What's the real resolution of a Bluray?
The official page only says "up to 1920 × 1080 pixel"...
... well, I don't doubt that the video was 1920 × 1080 before getting compressed. But I doubt that the details really survived the compression! E.g. let's take a look at these two images. Both have been made from the same uncompressed 64x64-pixel image (using Gimp). The first one ("high") was made with JPEG-compression set to "100", the second one ("low") was made with JPEG-compression set to "0".
Even though the computer will tell you that both images are 64x64 pixel, you'll have to agree that "low" looks worse than this scaled image ("high" scaled down to 24x24, then blown up to 64x64 again) and that "low" looks more like 16x16 pixel:
I guess that this example probably explains why some DVDs with up-scaling look better than the same film on BD.
And as the compression factor used for BDs isn't "100", you can easily see that the current "high" definition is kind of a hoax. You would probably have a much better image when using the BD as a storage for uncompressed video @ PAL-resolution (or at least using a loss-less compression).
I'm pretty sure that the industry is fully aware of this and hence is hiding behind "up to"-terms. Because this industry doesn't want us to have the best possible quality at home (as they fear that we all could be video-pirates). And because this industry wants us to get new devices at least every 5 years (and that hence need room for improvements to make us buy the new gadgets).
Jörg
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Adsett
Film God
Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted January 25, 2010 09:09 AM
I think, to a large extent, the public has already voted on blu-ray. Whereas Blu Ray sales are up quite a bit over the past year, they still only account for about 8% of the disc market. DVD is still the overwhelming choice, with a far superior catalogue of titles, and at much lower cost. My latest visit to super Wal-Mart shows the display of BD titles almost non existant, down to one little shelf unit, while DVD has hundreds of titles on display. So for 99% of the public DVD is ,quite simply, good enough.
After 6 months I still have mixed feelings about blu ray. There is no doubt that BD can provide a superior quality picture if its done right, as in the Disney releases and the Warner Brothers transfers. On the other hand I have DVD titles like Vertigo that look every bit as good as a BD. For 'prestige' films like Snow White, Wizard of Oz, North by NorthWest the extra cost of a BD version is well worth it to me as a film collector, and I relish the extra PQ that those BD's provide. But for run of the mill titles of recent films, which unfortunately is 99% of the BD catalogue, forget it. And I know now that BD releases will just never happen for over 95% of the classic titles in my DVD collection. And I agree with everything that Osi and Michael have said - high definition means nothing if its a crappy film, which unfortunately most of the BD releases are.
--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin Jones
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1269
From: Thetford , Norfolk,England
Registered: May 2008
|
posted January 25, 2010 10:25 AM
Michael,
It's not difficult keeping up with me! A TV engineer for 45 years dealing with the finest TV system in the world, I am still using CRT televisions working on 625 lines, which were capable on displaying EVERY spot and blemish on Irene Handl's face in all their glory. ALL those spots and blemishes simply disappeared
into a flat smudge when Digital TV broadcasts were introduced: the introduction of HD television is simply an attempt to re-establish the status quo. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; it depends on programme content and on the type of screen it's being displayed on. For resolution, contrast and general picture quality the CRT still reigns supreme: I will be using mine until they no longer work.
BUT, the progression from VHS/BETA, through CED Videodisc, to Laserdisc, DVD and now Blu-Ray is a definite step by step improvement in the recording and display of visual content AT THE DOMESTIC LEVEL. None of these can yet equal the ability of professional Videotape and of (the ultimate) photographic film to produce images approaching natural vision.
Martin
--------------------
Retired TV Service Engineer
Ongoing interest in Telecine....
| IP: Logged
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted January 25, 2010 01:04 PM
I'm gettin slightly off track, but the last post has a good point. I'm fond of looking at digital or plasma monitors at stores and such (our back, for instance, has them), and I'm struck that, while things are pin sharp when things are standing still, but as soon as things move, you that "boxing", pixilated blur that is just off putting, even with a straight digital signal into the TV.
Granted, TV broadcasts are, in general, not as the same grade of digital quality as a BR release, but it quite of putting. When we watch wrestling on Friday nights, (we have a digital converter box), and there's a big explosion, (as a wrestler enters the arena) it just becomes a big mess on the TV, which we never had with analog ...
... and the same thing happens on those digital TV's.
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas Murin, Jr.
Master Film Handler
Posts: 260
From: Lanoka Harbor, NJ, USA
Registered: Sep 2009
|
posted January 25, 2010 11:39 PM
I dunno. Why trash Blu-Ray simply because some people want a better home video experience? DVD is good enough for you? Great! But don't bash a format you don't even own. It's bad form.
The lack of classic films on Blu-Ray is simple: they aren't selling well. The studios would LOVE to put more out and more are coming but they need the sales to be there. It was the same with DVD in the beginning. Most of the classic films only really started coming out on DVD within the past 5 years or so.
It's A Wonderful Life was released on Blu-Ray last November along with A Christmas Carol (1951) and Miracle on 34th Street. I only have ACC which looks fantastic. Reviews of IAWL are mixed but most seem happy with it. Haven't heard anything about MO34S.
Yes there are some compression issues with Blu-Ray. Season 1 of Robin Hood has obvious macroblocking and several titles I have from Echo Bridge have compression issues.
However, we MUST remember that this is a new format. These issues will be worked out in time as they were with DVD. Look at any early DVD and you'll see pretty much the same issues.
For the record, the actual video difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is 6%. That's it. So it just comes down to condition of the source, the mastering and pressing.
As for Wal-Mart, they only carry the new titles for any given week along with a select few popular catalog titles. It's the same at every Wal-Mart store I've been in. Target, too but their catalog selection is much larger. Best Buy has the biggest Blu-Ray section I've seen in a store with several hundred titles.
It really too soon to say "the public has spoken about Blu-Ray". DVD did not overtake VHS overnight. It took a couple of years. Blu-Ray really just came into it's own last year. Give it a couple more years.
Big things are in store for Blu-Ray. Lucasfilm announced last year that work has begun on the Star Wars titles. The original three Indiana Jones films are rumored for 4th quarter this year as well as the Jurassic Park films and several other Spielberg titles. Several of James Cameron's films may be out this year including The Abyss and True Lies.
Finally, Gone With The Wind and Wizard Of OZ were big sellers last fall so that bodes well for future classic films. Blu-Ray is just warming up so don't count it out yet!
--------------------
My crummy Deviant Art account. Read my poetic tribute to the internet comic strip Ozy & Millie and view my crappy attempts at art.
http://cougartiger.deviantart.com/
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). The best BD's are visually stunning and clearly a step up over DVD'S. In this category I put all the Disney BD's and the classics such as Wizard of Oz, North by Northwest, South Pacific ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Its certainly a far cry from our old 20 inch Philips B/W TV that we had up to the mid-eighties ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
there was no VHS or DVD in those days. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
