Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Technically-oriented discussion of classic films on everything from 35mm to Blu-Ray
Michael O'Regan
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Michael O'Regan » Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:23 pm

Yes, that's pretty much the way I look at it.
:D

Jonathan
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:38 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Jonathan » Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:33 am

I don't know about TVs, but one factor with modern projectors I've auditioned is they seem to be much brighter (even after adjustments) than the older ones I'm used to and this mercilessly exposes the digital and other unwanted noise in the VHS and DVDR material that (of necessity - and not just economic) comprises a large part of my collection. As others have reported here and elsewhere, the films in these inferior formats looked far worse than on my lower-spec machines. So I've stuck with my old SD projector - in fact, I've been buying up more of the same model on eBay as people sell them cheaply when they upgrade. It's now virtually impossible in the UK to buy a decent non-1080p LCD projector new anyway, and there's no real choice even in 1080p LCD in my sub-£1000 price range. There are far more low-priced DLP machines but I cannot watch DLP, being very susceptible to "rainbow effect" - I see them literally every few seconds on black & white films.

Returning to the OP's complaint about films being sold only in Blu-ray editions, I haven't found that to be the case in the areas that interest me. In fact, the tide seems to be turning the other way, at least in the UK. Masters of Cinema adopted a hard-line Blu-ray only stance a couple of years ago, but were quickly forced to abandon it for parallel and now Dual Format releases (except with titles like Touch of Evil, already out on DVD). Even when films are remastered for Blu-ray, there usually seems to be a new DVD edition (e.g. Kino's Keaton series). As long as this continues, I've nothing against Blu-ray and in fact I've owned a BR player for several years (when they were quite expensive, it was dumped on me after one use at a trade show!)

But for the foreseeable future, it's more important for me to continue watching hundreds of obscure films in OK quality than achieve "perfection" with the relatively tiny number of films released on Blu-ray that really interest me. Another factor in this equation is that even the films I'd buy on Blu-ray are ones I've already seen countless times over the past four decades (and I mean titles like The Phantom Carriage as much as The Adventures of Robin Hood) and am likely to revist less than those I don't know so well. Also, most Blu-ray releases in my areas of interest tend to be of titles that are already my best-quality DVDs. No doubt the Blu-rays on an ideal system look far better still, but I'd still rather sacrifice that experience and not have all my off-air and VHS material look far worse than it does at present. The ideal solution, I suppose, would be to run two projectors in tandem but it isn't practicable for me (and I don't like watching anything on a computer, or even a TV).

User avatar
Mike Gebert
Site Admin
Posts: 6135
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Mike Gebert » Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:00 am

I don't think I'm "right".
I'm just interested in that particular set.
Once again, why the sarcasm? It's very unbecoming of you.
Well, my manners are pretty bad, I grieve over them on long winter evenings...

This is just one of those discussions that goes around and around in circles— we've talked about your son's TV in another thread, too. There's something wrong with something that your son's blu-ray HD picture is worse than the DVD one, and I don't know how to answer your anecdotal experience about one television set a continent away over the internet except to say, it's not typical and many people find blu-ray worth spending a fairly small premium on. OK?
“I'm in favor of plagiarism. If we are to create a new Renaissance, the government should encourage plagiarism. When convinced that someone is a true plagiarist, we should immediately award them the Legion of Honor.” —Jean Renoir

Michael O'Regan
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Michael O'Regan » Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:41 pm

Mike Gebert wrote:
I don't think I'm "right".
I'm just interested in that particular set.
Once again, why the sarcasm? It's very unbecoming of you.
Well, my manners are pretty bad, I grieve over them on long winter evenings...

This is just one of those discussions that goes around and around in circles— we've talked about your son's TV in another thread, too. There's something wrong with something that your son's blu-ray HD picture is worse than the DVD one, and I don't know how to answer your anecdotal experience about one television set a continent away over the internet except to say, it's not typical and many people find blu-ray worth spending a fairly small premium on. OK?
Once again I wasn't asking the question in relation to my son's TV. I was asking in relation to that particular set, just using his TV as an illustration.
In any case, you don't really need to get involved in ANY discussion that is not to your liking.

Paul Penna
Posts: 572
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 11:02 am

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Paul Penna » Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:10 pm

Michael O'Regan wrote: Once again I wasn't asking the question in relation to my son's TV. I was asking in relation to that particular set, just using his TV as an illustration.
I've had that Marx Brothers set since before I upgraded to a hi-def system, both front projectors with a screen about 7.5 feet wide and, like most standard DVDs, I find they look better now. That being said, there are a lot of variables. Firstly, none of the Marx films still exist in camera negative form, so what we're seeing are film elements a number of generations down, which are necessarily grainier, among other things. A high-def system has the potential of making that more evident - along with the actual detail of the image, of course. But I've never found this set to be objectionable in that regard. That's another variable - how one perceives and reacts to film grain. For some people it's a bigger deal than for me. We're lucky that there are still films of that vintage that have been transferred from the original negatives, and a comparison with those will have the Marx films coming up short. Bottom line, for me, is that there's nothing grossly wrong with the Marx set compared to other films of that vintage in that state of preservation. My gut feeling is that what you're experiencing is most likely due to some other variable(s) - connection method, input setting, picture adjustment settings, screen size or viewing distance, just to name some larger issues - rather than a problem with this particular DVD set, or the viewing of standard DVDs through hi-def systems in general.

User avatar
Mike Gebert
Site Admin
Posts: 6135
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:23 pm
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Mike Gebert » Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:43 pm

Once again I wasn't asking the question in relation to my son's TV. I was asking in relation to that particular set, just using his TV as an illustration.
In any case, you don't really need to get involved in ANY discussion that is not to your liking.
Alas, I find that I do really need to get involved in any number of discussions not to my liking, on an official level, but in this case it's more just wondering... what answer are you looking for? Lots of people have expressed various reasons for preferring blu-ray. I would not urge anyone who doesn't see a difference to spend the money on it. But I also wouldn't urge them not to... based on one anecdotal experience. I'd assume they knew what they liked and why.
“I'm in favor of plagiarism. If we are to create a new Renaissance, the government should encourage plagiarism. When convinced that someone is a true plagiarist, we should immediately award them the Legion of Honor.” —Jean Renoir

Michael O'Regan
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Michael O'Regan » Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:52 pm

Mike,
I'm not looking for any answer. Christopher answered my question.
As regards the Blu Ray/DVD thing - to each his or her own. I may even end up with Blu Ray myself.
I enjoy this forum and try to get along with other members.
Sorry, if I made a big deal outta this - I've just never found sarcasm to be anything other than unpleasant when it's directed at me.
When it's directed at someone else I'm fine with it :)

User avatar
Gagman 66
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 8:18 pm

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Gagman 66 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:23 pm

:( I finally bought a Blu-ray player just before Thanksgiving. I have barely used It. I have no Blu-rays yet. WINGS is coming. It plays regular DVD's just fine. Though look people DVD-R and DVD+R's it will play, but you can't see anything. You can hear the audio, the video is not visible! I guess I need a new TV in order to actually view anything on DVD-R. Since about 65% of my collection is DVD-R I find this pretty discouraging.

User avatar
Jim Reid
Posts: 1546
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Dallas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Jim Reid » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:20 am

Gagman 66 wrote::( I finally bought a Blu-ray player just before Thanksgiving. I have barely used It. I have no Blu-rays yet. WINGS is coming. It plays regular DVD's just fine. Though look people DVD-R and DVD+R's it will play, but you can't see anything. You can hear the audio, the video is not visible! I guess I need a new TV in order to actually view anything on DVD-R. Since about 65% of my collection is DVD-R I find this pretty discouraging.
I have tons of both DVD+R's and DVD-R's. Play them all the time on my Samsung blu-ray player. Maybe it's the way you have it hooked up.

User avatar
Jim Reid
Posts: 1546
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Dallas, Texas
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Jim Reid » Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:23 am

A better display will show more flaws. iF you have questionable quality DVDs, they will probably look better on an SD set.

User avatar
silentfilm
Moderator
Posts: 9430
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:31 pm
Location: Dallas, TX USA
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by silentfilm » Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:18 pm

Gagman, you need to check your manufacturer's website, to see if they have updated the firmware on your BluRay player. You can do this by connecting it to the internet, or downloading the firmware to your PC and burning a disc to load in the player. BluRay players are much more complicated than DVD players, due to all of the extra features, and you will have to do some troubleshooting.

Michael O'Regan
Posts: 2125
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Blu-Ray Vs. DVD

Unread post by Michael O'Regan » Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:16 pm

Well, on my sons TV.......

:twisted: :wink:

Post Reply