Comments

John_Cline wrote on 12/18/2008, 10:00 PM
"The first "Fifth Element" movies were up-sampled DVD."

Well, not exactly, but the first release didn't look very good at all. It was one of the first movies on Blu-ray and was released in June of 2006 to coincide with the initial release of Blu-ray players. In July of 2007, Sony released a new, remastered version of 'The Fifth Element' for Blu-ray which looked and sounded about a 1000% better and even went so far as offering a free "Replacement Exchange Program" for consumers unhappy with the original release. That is an example of Sony treating its customers right.
MozartMan wrote on 12/19/2008, 3:33 AM
The first "Fifth Element" Blu-ray release was not upscaled DVD, It was different master. That info came from Sony insider on Blu-ray.com forum.
Skuzzy wrote on 12/19/2008, 4:03 AM
"It seems to me that most of the people who can't tell the difference are also the same people that prefer the ease of a burger and fries over a decent dinner at a "slow" restaurant."

Or, they adopted HD early and are stuck with a 720p only television. You have to remember, 1080p TV's were not mainsteam until early this year. Up to that point, 720p TV's were all that most consumers could afford, and they still are more affordable.

Or maybe your DVD player was a turd. People claim the PS3 does a decent job upconverting DVD's (to 720p, not 1080p) (John Cline, I have heard that from several people), and yet, the image quality of my DVD player (also upscaled to 720p) is significantly better than that of the upscaled PS3 output.

Most consumers have no idea what the difference is between a 720p TV and a 1080p TV is. Apparently, most of you who have 1080p TV's have no idea how little difference there is between an upsampled DVD and a down-sampled BluRay looks. Yet you keep on claiming those who do, have no clue what they are talking about.

That's like telling the Smart Car owner he is clueless when he states his car is much slower than the Ferrari you are driving. And your come back being, "You just have no idea how to drive it".

Sounds rather silly to me. Your telling me I have no idea what I am seeing on my own television set, which you cannot see. Is all audio/video gear the same? If it is, then why the heck did I spend $1200 on a DVD player? Why the heck did I buy B&W speakers? Why the heck did I buy a $2500 amp for the mains and a $3000 amp for my subs? Damn. I wasted a lot of money when that $99 surround sound system would do everything just as well.

Yes, I was an early adopter to HD. My TV is 4 years old, and I will be glad when I can replace it. I am happy for those of you who can enjoy 1080p. It makes a huge difference in the quality of the image. Why you are arguing that it is not any better than 720p is beyond me. Yes, that is what it sounds like as well.
PeterWright wrote on 12/19/2008, 4:22 AM
An interesting topic.

I've had an EX1 for a year, and a Z1 for two years before that.

The people I earn a living from have never heard of either, but I like to prepare myself -

I don't yet have any blu-ray capability, but expect to do so one day, unless solid state, which is already available, makes it obsolete.

I would never argue that HD doesn't look better than SD - and here amongst the educated video fraternity, yes. it's fantastic ...... but I am also strongly into reality, and know that watching a standard DVD is perfectly acceptable for most, on any screen.

Therefore, as I've said before - when bluray or it's solid state replacement, becomes very very cheap, it may stand half a chance of becoming "normal" and until then is just an indulgence.

blink3times wrote on 12/19/2008, 4:43 AM
"Most of what I have on BD I also have on DVD, so I can compare on my very decent 1080p TV. Honestly, if you can't tell the difference there is either something wrong with your eyes, your setup or the particular BD title. Some BD titles were done badly."

That honestly makes no sense at all. You have 2 copies of a video so you can compare in order to tell the difference, but there is something wrong with another person's eyes if they can't tell the difference??? What if they don't have 2 copies to compare?

I suppose if I had a Blu Ray and a dvd copy and did A/B comparisons then I too would be able to tell people their eyes are no good.

If it comes down to having to do A/B comparisons between dvd and blu ray in order to tell the difference then I would say blu ray has failed miserably and is not worth the increased expenditure.

I will agree that BD presents a clearer picture... there is no doubt about that... and when doing A/B comparisons the differences are pretty drastic. I saw a split screen A/B comparison at Best buy a short time ago and it was like night and day. But the problem is that dvd doesn't look that bad on its own
Skuzzy wrote on 12/19/2008, 5:04 AM
Blink, you may be on to something as well.

Ok, taking a different tact. When you brought home your DVD player and watched a DVD for the first time, you had to be blown away by the sound and image improvements over watching normal broadcasts. Maybe not "blown away", but there was a substantial improvement in the quality over the normal analog NTSC broadcast of the day.

Now fast forward to the present. For the last 2 years, or so, I have been watching 720p content over my broadcast connection, as much of what I watch has already made the change to broadcasting native HD content.

I go out and plunk down my $500 for my PS3 (I really got it for gaming) and pick up a BluRay movie at the same time. Now I watch this movie, in all its 720p glory, and guess what? It's no different than what I watch normally on TV. No visual improvement at all.

Is the sound better? I do not have an external TrueHD or DTS-HD decoder yet, so I am stuck with 5.1. No, its not any better either.

This is what most people who bought an HD TV prior to 2008 are seeing. From 2007, and back, 720p was the standard. 1080p was reserved for the $10,000+ TV's. HD TV's have been around for over 5 years now, and I think most people forget that. Most seem to forget the lion share of HD TV's owned by people are also only 720p capable.

Now, DVD players and TV's alike will upscale standard DVD to 720p. Some are very good at it, using both 3:2 pulldown as well as some type of anti-aliasing or temporal algorithms to smooth out the edges and keep it sharp. Those show little, if any, difference as compared to a BluRay at 720p, which has to be down-sampled to play at 720p, introducing its own set of visual issues.
blink3times wrote on 12/19/2008, 5:27 AM
"Ok, taking a different tact. When you brought home your DVD player and watched a DVD for the first time, you had to be blown away by the sound and image improvements over watching normal broadcasts

Yes.
There were DRAMATIC differences between vhs and dvd that even a total fool could see. But the differences between dvd and Blu Ray are apparently small enough to cause debate, A/B comparisons, and lots of talk about the proper playback equipment, proper seating distance.... etc

This being the case one has to wonder if the added expense is really worth it..... where as with dvd there was no question.

Skuzzy wrote on 12/19/2008, 5:31 AM
In an environment where you have a good 1080p TV, and a good external amp capable of decoding TrueHD or DTS-HD, I think it is worth it.
blink3times wrote on 12/19/2008, 5:38 AM
For sure.

I will add though that the difference between HDV on sd media and HDV on blu ray ARE in fact dramatic... which is really why I'm into Blu Ray in the first place.

But the Hollywood movies..... well it's more like the dvd quality is good enough to make the Blu Ray quality look almost NOT significant enough.
Coursedesign wrote on 12/19/2008, 9:50 AM
There were DRAMATIC differences between vhs and dvd that even a total fool could see.

That would apply to home-recorded VHS tapes, and early store tapes (remember paying $95 for a movie?)

Later commercially duplicated VHS tapes from Hollywood had an amazing quality, far far better than before.

The only technology contribution I'm aware of for this is the use of special recording heads with 50 micron heads (much wider than regular), but I still don't quite understand how they could make the picture THAT much better. It was really quite close to DVD picture quality, and nearly indistinguishable on a smaller TV (say a 26" SD CRT).

Anyone here know?

blink3times wrote on 12/19/2008, 10:07 AM
"Later commercially duplicated VHS tapes from Hollywood had an amazing quality, far far better than before."

You're talking about quality while I'm talking about the whole ball of wax. No rewinding/FF-ing. No eating tapes, chapter forwarding... yadda, yadda. The whole dvd package was much more attractive and that's why it took so easily. Who cares about quality? Obviously not the common folk. Blu Ray, MP3....etc is proof of that
Coursedesign wrote on 12/19/2008, 12:34 PM
I was just making a side comment, seeking to understand what they did to make VHS amazingly better.

Hope you don't think I miss the rewinds of VHS tapes.

(Although I do recall that when video rental stores first started carrying DVDs, store employees put "Be Kind, Rewind" stickers on the DVD cases... :O)

And I'm glad Apple doesn't use MP3 for my iPod/iPhone. MP3 is a pretty poor sound quality/disk space compromise for music listening. If you need a highly compressed format, AAC sounds better, and for the rest, there is FLAC.

Serena wrote on 12/19/2008, 4:27 PM
One of the things people don't mention is eyesight. Many people don't have 20:20 acuity, particularly as age creeps in, but for all normal needs a bit of softness goes unnoticed. Getting that corrected can make a big difference to one's judgement about image resolution, so when someone says they can't see the differences between Blu-ray and DVD if the TV is less than 50 inches (a debate in another place), I'd suggest getting their eyes checked. I can see it easily on a 40 inch. I don't need glasses for distance vision (unfortunately do for close work), but recently I noticed some softness in distant power lines and got myself tested. Bit of correction for astigmatism increased acuity, noticeably on HDTV. This matters only when debating the technical merits of various display systems. Just as opinions about audio systems assume the judges have "golden ears".
winrockpost wrote on 12/19/2008, 4:53 PM
This difference topic comes up quite a bit,,, I have a bluray player do not own any bluray movies, but have rented a few and as I have said before to me not a huge wow factor,, though i love live sports on hd.
I have cable and if i watch nfl on cable then switch over to on the air the pic is better, cleaner .... but not really worth the hassel ... kind of like a bluray movie,, but I don't have clark kent eyes and think mp3 is ok
John_Cline wrote on 12/19/2008, 5:08 PM
Basically, this argument comes down to subjective opinion about whether an individual can see the difference. This is very different from those who claim that just because they can't see the difference that there IS no difference and further make the claim that the Blu-ray technology itself is worthless. There is most certainly a technical and obvious visual difference between DVD and Blu-ray.

I have been exposed to very high-end uncompressed broadcast HD and view it on monitors that cost as much as a luxury car. I have also seen uncompressed 4k and 8k television in the labs and at NAB. It has always been my dream that something close to this image quality could exist in my home. A 1080p television with a Blu-ray player is as close as I have ever come to realizing this dream and it's a whole hell of a lot closer than an upscaling DVD player. What I ultimately want is 3-dimensional TV that appears as though I am literally looking through a window at reality. This is probably going to happen sooner than I think.
Serena wrote on 12/19/2008, 5:23 PM
>>>I don't have clark kent eyes and think mp3 is ok<<<

Many people are very content with low grade images (cell phone, SD, and so on) and while they can see the difference they don't care. Unfortunately, as John mentioned, often discussions get very confused by people not being clear about their standpoint. Its one thing to say image technical quality is not high in one's viewing needs and therefore not a personal economic necessity, and quite another to assert that claims of higher technical quality are a sham (actually meaning the differences are unimportant). Leads to very long debates about very little.
Harold Brown wrote on 12/19/2008, 7:06 PM
One of my favorite movies is Enter The Dragon with Bruce Lee. I have it on DVD and Blu-Ray and basically there really isn't much difference between them viewing from a distance. From 2 feet away you can see the Blu-Ray image is better. I was disappointed because I was expecting a far better image quality. From what I have read the Bit Rate hovers round 25 to 30 Mbps.
Paul Mead wrote on 12/21/2008, 11:20 AM
This was mentioned before, but I think it is worth repeating. IMO, DVD to BD is not the big leap that VHS to DVD was. I thought that the image quality improvement you got from going from VHS to DVD was dramatic. Throw in the surround sound and cleaner audio and you really had a big jump in video enjoyment. DVD to BD is more subtle, IMO. I truly believe that BD is better, but the difference isn't as dramatic as what you got from going from VHS to DVD. I know that when we watch a well produced BD my family doesn't pick up on the improved sharpness, the more natural colors, the smoother contrast. I love it. Everybody else could care less.

That, I believe is the real issue for BD success. Yeah, it is a better video experience, but will enough people appreciate the improvements to spawn a switchover movement that is as dramatic as when people dumped VHS and went to DVD? I doubt it. Not enough people will appreciate the improvement enough to cough up the money to switch to BD.


My BD experiences:

Regarding BD startup time, from what I have seen with newer players, the startup time is now small enough to not be aggravating, so I don't see that as a problem. Our family usually doesn't get settled in front of the screen until the movie is well into the opening credits, so the extra fifteen seconds of startup time isn't even noticed.

I have noticed that even the slightest scratch on a BD will render long sections (like many minutes) as totally wiped out. The tolerance for abuse is nothing like what you have for DVD. I have had to send BD disks back to NetFlix as "damaged" when I could only find just a tiny scratch on the back. (OK, maybe they were burned poorly -- I don't know.) Contrast that to DVDs that I put into the same player that look totally trashed with scratches yet play almost flawlessly. That will be a wakeup call for people who throw their disks on a shelf. Do that with your BDs and they will quickly become unwatchable.
blink3times wrote on 12/21/2008, 8:05 PM
"Throw in the surround sound and cleaner audio and you really had a big jump in video enjoyment."

Well, I will say that the wife and I watched Mamma Mia! this evening and the audio was DTS MA with data rates hitting upwards of 5.5Mbps. The clarity was something that dvd couldn't even come close to. There was much more depth, the highs were much more pronounced. The whole audio experience is more enjoyable.
Terje wrote on 12/23/2008, 5:10 AM
@Skuzzy: Or, they adopted HD early and are stuck with a 720p only television.

Sure, that is why I pointed out that I was talking about a decent 1080p TV. In most viewing situations you need a 1080p TV of at least 42" to have much use of 1080p signals. Even 1080p at smaller than 42" TVs is not going to do the footage justice.

@Skuzzy: Or maybe your DVD player was a turd.

It wasn't. It is an Oppo, generally considered one of the better upscalers.

@Skuzzy: That's like telling the Smart Car owner he is clueless when he states his car is much slower than the Ferrari you are driving. And your come back being, "You just have no idea how to drive it".

Not really. It's me pointing out to someone that my Ferrari is nicer to drive than his Yugo and that he needs at least a Mustang GT or better to appreciate decent roads. When that Yugo owner then gets annoyed and tells me that I am an elitist for claiming that decent roads can only be appreciated by owners of decent cars I walk away thinking that he needs a lesson in both driving and car appreciation.

@Skuzzy: Why you are arguing that it is not any better than 720p is beyond me

I am surprised, stunned I guess, that you would think I am arguing thus since I have not written anything of that nature. I have in fact specifically pointed out that you do indeed need a decent TV (but they are slowly getting into "dime a dozen" territory) to appreciate it.
Terje wrote on 12/23/2008, 5:14 AM
@blink: If it comes down to having to do A/B comparisons between dvd and blu ray in order to tell the difference then I would say blu ray has failed miserably and is not worth the increased expenditure.

Well, if you had read the entirety of what I wrote you would also have noticed that I used an example of mixed SD and BD content.

Do I need to switch between SD and HD to tell the difference? No, I don't, I can easily tell the difference. I only use this advice to people who claim there is no real difference, and there are still a few of those out there.
Terje wrote on 12/23/2008, 5:19 AM
@blink: But the differences between dvd and Blu Ray are apparently small enough to cause debate

The problem is slightly more subtle than that. If you brought home a DVD player after they became affordable, you could see an immediate difference on your existing TV. With Blu-Ray you can only see the difference on a newer TV. This is why I try to stress in any discussion that a decent TV is needed. Absolutely minimum 42 inches for example.
blink3times wrote on 12/23/2008, 5:20 AM
"I have in fact specifically pointed out that you do indeed need a decent TV (but they are slowly getting into "dime a dozen" territory) to appreciate it."

Yup... but it doesn't stop there. They also recommend you have a 42" or larger..... while statistics are showing that the average hdtv being bought is 42" and smaller. I have a 60" and a 42" (plasma), and I can tell you first hand It's really not worth spending Blu Ray money on a 42" tv.
blink3times wrote on 12/23/2008, 5:22 AM
"Well, if you had read the entirety of what I wrote you would also have noticed that I used an example of mixed SD and BD content."

Terje... there is no doubt about it..... IF you have the proper equipment then Blu Ray is worth the money and drastic improvement can be seen.... but most DON'T have the proper equipment.