View Single Post
  #31  
Old 05-04-2010, 08:19 PM
Poobah's Avatar
Poobah Poobah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdubbs View Post
All else being equal, Blu-ray discs give you substantially more accurate picture and sound than DVDs. Their video resolution is 4x that of DVDs, and their audio is lossless unlike the compressed audio formats available on DVD. It is true that the occasional disk has been authored with less-than perfect video codecs, but these have so far been limited to a handful of titles. The Fifth Element was the most prominent among them, especially given that in DVD format it was considered a reference quality disc (it has since been re-released on Blu-ray with improved video, and there was a trade-in program).

Given Blu-ray's added resolution, what you see on your display will look closer to the original source material than is possible on DVD or another SD format. For movies shot digitally (or on modern filmstock) and edited digitally, this invariably translates to a pristine image, as though you're looking out your freshly-Windexed window on a beautiful, sunny day. For movies shot in previous decades, you're going to see more of the character of the film stock... this can mean more grain for instance, and/or differences in luminance, saturation and hue unique to the era of the movie or the director's artistic choices. Some people are very vocal in their opinion that these films look "worse" on BD than on DVD because a) perceived "defects" like film grain get washed out on DVD and b) people expect Blu-ray to magically convert movies shot in the 60s, 70s, and 80s (and even 90s) to newer, more transparent filmstock. On the other hand, most film buffs would argue that differences in grain and color timing are what make The Godfather uniquely The Godfather, The Graduate uniquely The Graduate, etc. and that color correction and digital cleanup should be used only to remove dirt and corrosion from a film's negative, not to try to make movies from the 70s look like last summer's blockbuster.

It's also worth pointing out that despite the added resolution available in BD discs, the human eye can only resolve so much detail at any given distance. If you sit 8 or 9 feet away from a 50" display (even if it's 1080p), DVD and Blu-ray are going to look pretty much indistinguishable no matter what player you're using or how good your eyesight is. Likewise, the subject matter of the image being presented (irrespective of grain, etc.) will benefit from the added resolution to varying degrees. For instance, a romantic comedy, in which most of the shots are closeups of human faces, will look very much the same on DVD and BD. There's just not enough detail in a perfectly-lit, heavily made-up face to present a problem for DVD, even when scaled up to a 50-60" display. Long shots, action sequences, detailed scenery, etc. are where Blu-ray has the greatest advantage.

When watching DVDs via a BD player, your mileage will vary, esp. depending on the other components in your system. If your display, DVD player, or HT processor already up-converts SD video to an HD resolution, your BD player may do little if anything to improve playback of a DVD disc. And despite what you see in almost any episode of 24, CSI, etc., you can't take an SD image and endlessly zoom in/"enhance it" to expose more and more detail; DVD resolution is fixed, and whether you view it on a BD player or a DVD player, whether you up-convert it or not, you are ultimately bound to that limitation.

Finally, and this is not at all intended to impugn your display, but a rear-projection set may not be the best choice to show off Blu-ray's added resolution, even if your set supports 1080p. Light tends to bleed together when projected over any distance, which may make scaled-up DVD images appear smoother, while softening the crisp detail of a BD image. You can view this as a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whether you're looking to stick with DVD or make the jump to Blu-ray.

Oh, and yes, every Blu-ray player I've tried is slow as molasses compared to even the junkiest DVD player. It's all the extra BD-Java-Live crap that they load up.
Just wanted to say... well said.

The only thing I'd perhaps add is, I sit about 8-10ft away from a 60 inch Pioneer Elite and it is incredibly distinguishable when looking at a dvd vs blueray.. I can stand 14ft away and it is still very distinguishable. Eye sight definately does come into play of course.

What I usually tell people that ask me for advice when shopping for a HD tv... If your planning to sit more then 8 ft away... get the 50"... Far to many people I know, tend to get the 37" the 42"'s... and then sit 10ft away. That to me is around the area where you might as well get a 720P instead of a 1080P.. Cause I doubt most people would notice a difference at that distance on such a small screen. That said I think a DVD vs blueray would still be noticably different, given average eye sight.
__________________
B&W 802Ds, HTM2D, 805s, JL Audio F113's, MX150, MC501s, MC205, MDA1000, Denon 3800BDCI, Sonos ZP90 (Cullin Mod), 60" Kuro
Cables - Cardas Golden Reference

Round one to Chuck.
Reply With Quote