Do bad transfers still look better than DVD?

[kings35]

Take most of the Saw movies, Terminator 2, and The Punisher (Thomas Jane). I haven't seen how they look on Blu but most people say they are crap transfers. My question is even if they are bad transfers do they still look better than DVD. I've had a PS3 for 3 years but never really cared for Blu Ray too much and now out of nowhere I'm making the switch and rebuying all of my favorite movies on Blu Ray.

[MaCruz]

They are not crap transfers.. Just better than standard DVD.

T2 Skynet Edition IMO is a very good transfer. The Saw series could of looked better. I bet someone will bring up Gladiator too.

[BillieCassin]

Although this question comes up a lot, I have yet to find anyone who actually thinks a specific DVD looks better than it's Blu counterpart. It's like how even a crappy BMW looks better than a nice Escort.

[vegeta88]

Blu-ray > DVD. Always, even if only marginally.
You can experiment on this if you want. I've hooked up a DVD player and Blu-ray player to the same TV and paused movies at the same spot, switched sources and looked. Even on movies with okay to worse transfers look better on Blu-ray (this takes into account upscaling).

[kings35]

Originally Posted by vegeta88

Blu-ray > DVD. Always, even if only marginally.
You can experiment on this if you want. I've hooked up a DVD player and Blu-ray player to the same TV and paused movies at the same spot, switched sources and looked. Even on movies with okay to worse transfers look better on Blu-ray (this takes into account upscaling).

Trust me I know this, I did it with the Dark Knight. amazing pq/aq. But anyway I guess it doesn't hurt to get the Punisher again even if the improvement is minimal. The only thing I don't like about it is the DVD I have is the extended cut and the BR isn't.

[42041]

"slightly better than DVD" isn't worth $20-30 to me.

[streamako]

Originally Posted by 42041

"slightly better than DVD" isn't worth $20-30 to me.

This is what i was thinking. If its only a slight difference why would i want to spend another $20 on that.

[DeadDog]

Originally Posted by 42041

"slightly better than DVD" isn't worth $20-30 to me.

True, but most of the titles mentioned are only in the $10 range or even less.

[DarkDune]

Bad Transfer Blu is ALWAYS bad if you can wait to spend the same cash on a better Blu of the same movie when it is re-released on a "Collector's Edition" etc.

IMHO of course!

[Octavio]

I have yet to see any BD that doesn't looks better than its DVD counterpart.
The exception is perhaps 28 days later. But the movie look the way it is supposed to look. It can't look better. Anyway the audio track included on the Blu-ray puts to shame the DVD. Therefore all in all even 28 days later BD is superior to the DVD

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Octavio

I have yet to see any BD that doesn't looks better than its DVD counterpart.
The exception is perhaps 28 days later. But the movie look the way it is supposed to look. It can't look better. Anyway the audio track included on the Blu-ray puts to shame the DVD. Therefore all in all even 28 days later BD is superior to the DVD

28 Days Later was shot using a Canon XL1 MiniDV camera.
It's basically a 480i camera to begin with.

EDIT: Oh wait, it's a PAL camera. So it's shot in 576i. Probably processed to make it look like 576/25p somewhere along their post-production.

But if I'm not mistaken, 28 Days Later DVDs and Blu-ray was still taken from a digitized scan of their 35mm masters. But I don't really think it benefited much from that step.
I would have preferred if they could get their hands on the original, digital 576p source and release it as a 576/25p or 480/24p video.

That's just me anyway.

[6AM]

I've already made the decision that very few of my existing DVD collection will be upgraded to Blu. Blus are just too expensive and my DVD collection is too vast to start over again. It's not like DVDs look like VHS, either.