How bad can Blu-ray PQ can get before it starts looking like a DVD?

[sasquatch451]

Regarding the picture quality rating the reviews on this web site: What rating might represent the equivalent PQ of a DVD? I.e. given a "good" dvd player (with "good" upscaling), what would be the PQ rating for that DVD disc?

For example, Casey Broadwater, recently gave The Host a Video rating of 4.5. Now, if that PQ rating was 3, would that be roughly the same as the DVD version of the same film? 2.5? 2?

I know DVD PQ quality differs just as much as blu-ray PQ quality - I'm just curious about how bad blu-ray PQ can get before it starts looking like a DVD.

[Batman1980]

To be honest while a LOT of people here would disagree, even a horrible blu-ray transfer still looks better than a DVD, even upscaled. I've been told the difference becomes more and more noticeable the bigger your screen is but I've never seen a blu-ray on a screen bigger than 52".

[kpkelley]

I'd say the best DVDs played back through the best upscaling players would be about a 2.5, with your good dvd transfers being a 2.

Discs that generally get reviewed below that level have issues that would apply to their DVD release as well, making the terrible Blu-ray better than the terrible DVD.

[Another_Dude]

The DVD of Cars would probably score around 2-2.5 on those ratings, depending on screen size and equipment.

A non-upscaled DVD on my 120" screen is brutal.

[Johnny Vinyl]

Your thread title is a little misleading wouldn't you say? I thought it meant that you had a question about the actual Blu-ray discs and whether or not they would dimish in quality over time. Seems like that's not the case. The answer by the way is....NO.

Regarding the body of your text, one cannot compare the quality of a DVD to the quality of a Blu-ray regardless of how the reviewer has rated any given Blu-ray. They are 2 seperate formats and cannot be compared.

I am sure there are sites (I don't follow the DVD market myself) that have reviews on DVD's based on PQ and the like. That is your best bet of finding out whether or not a DVD has the quality (for a DVD) you are looking for.

You will not find a comparison here in any review.

John

[bijankarim]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

I'd say the best DVDs played back through the best upscaling players would be about a 2.5, with your good dvd transfers being a 2.

Discs that generally get reviewed below that level have issues that would apply to their DVD release as well, making the terrible Blu-ray better than the terrible DVD.

but you see i upconverted star wars episode 2 on my 1080p keeping it in mind it's probably the best DVD transfer it looked like mediocre blu-ray. it would be a 2.5-3 stars

[Uniquely]

Just two days ago I watched a regular DVD (Queen of the Damned) for the first time in over a year. I have to say that IMO the picture quality of that particular film upscaled by my Panny BD60, was pretty on par with many of the average and below average transfers I have seen on blu-ray. This is sitting about 8-9' away from a 56" 1080p screen. I can see why in the opinion of many people; picture quality alone isn't enough reason for them to make the jump yet.

That being said, what DID jump out for me was the difference in audio quality. The DVD audio almost seemed to be of lesser quality than what I get from Dolby broadcasts on my satellite box, and was definately nowhere near the quality of the lossless tracks that I have apparently grown quite used to.

[Terjyn]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

Just two days ago I watched a regular DVD (Queen of the Damned) for the first time in over a year. I have to say that IMO the picture quality of that particular film upscaled by my Panny BD60, was pretty on par with many of the average and below average transfers I have seen on blu-ray. This is sitting about 8-9' away from a 56" 1080p screen. I can see why in the opinion of many people; picture quality alone isn't enough reason for them to make the jump yet.

You can't really compare an upscaled movie with a different movie and get a meaningful result.

Of course a "perfect" DVD transfer upscaled can look better than an average or worse Blu-Ray transfer. That's why people are saying that a DVD can go up to 2-2.5 on a Blu-Ray scale. Queen of the Damned was reviewed as being an excellent DVD picture.

[Uncle Leo]

Just buy


Gangs of New York and you will know!

[McGarnigal]

has anyone here really noticed a differance between upscaled Big Fish and on blu? I love that movie and bought the blu right away, but it doesnt look too good imo

[zombie77]

Originally Posted by Uncle Leo

Just buy


Gangs of New York and you will know!

or try the french connection

[syncguy]

Many reasons could contribute to a bad quality blu-ray:
1. bad quality original - e.g. old movie print
2. bad transfer, low quality equipment
3. Too much compression when encoding. e.g. AVC can be compressed to such an extent that it will look like 8 Mbit/s mpeg2 which is used in DVD.

If not careful, a blu-ray can be easily produced with DVD or even sub-DVd quality. However, this hasn't happened in reality, I believe.

One of the bad quality blu-rays I have seen is HP1 Reg B. Quality is very bad IMO.

[mac1165]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

To be honest while a LOT of people here would disagree, even a horrible blu-ray transfer still looks better than a DVD, even upscaled. I've been told the difference becomes more and more noticeable the bigger your screen is but I've never seen a blu-ray on a screen bigger than 52".

I've seen at least 30 movies on Blu-ray projected on a 96" 2.35:1 screen. In ALL cases, the Blu are noticeably better than any DVD I've seen on the same screen.

[sasquatch451]

Thanks for the replies and input. This was mostly just a thought experiment for me. The video rating in the blu-ray reviews does have some effect on my decision to buy or not - sometimes more, sometimes less. Sometimes I will already have the DVD of a movie and need to decide whether or not to buy the blu-ray version. The Princess Bride, for example. The DVD was not very good (in my opinion) so I was happy to pay for the blu when I saw that it got a video rating of 4.0

[RiseDarthVader]

There was a Blu that I don't remember that when compared to the DVD it has significantly less detail in the image then the DVD because soo much heavy DNR got applied to it.

[Mr. Al]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

There was a Blu that I don't remember that when compared to the DVD it has significantly less detail in the image then the DVD because soo much heavy DNR got applied to it.

Maybe your thinking about the first edition of The Fifth Element.

[koontz1973]

BD can look as bad as DVD can. You just need to hook up your BD player to a standard TV, use a normal cable and not tune it in properly. Using this method, it can look worse.

[loco]

I have about 90 movies on blu ray and the only movies I was disappointed by PQ-wise were the Ocean's 11,12,13. The transfer seemed as if i was watching DVD, the colors bleed like ink on a paper towel. Everything else, in my opinion, is order of magnitude better than DVD. Even Ronin (one of my all time favorite movies) that received really rough reviews for PQ to me seems a lot better than the DVD version.
The latest blurays have a picture throughput of more than 30megabytes/sec. The Ronin Blu ray does about ~19megs/sec. A DVD picture runs at about 4megs/sec throughput. No matter how you upscale, a dvd picture just cant compare. Another way to think about it is...if for some reason a DVD picture can match the bluray picture using hardware and software wizardry, then imagine if the same technical upsampling wizardy was being applied to a blu ray picture, where would that take the quality of the bluray picture.
I guess we will see that done to blu ray...when 4k or 8k tech starts getting introduced and blu-ray has become as ubiquitous as DVD.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

To be honest while a LOT of people here would disagree, even a horrible blu-ray transfer still looks better than a DVD, even upscaled. I've been told the difference becomes more and more noticeable the bigger your screen is but I've never seen a blu-ray on a screen bigger than 52".

Wow, I find people who kept telling me there wasn't a big difference suddenly changing there mind once they saw it on screens 70" and bigger. Generally the bigger the screen, the bigger the difference visible between dvd and blu.

Originally Posted by McGarnigal

has anyone here really noticed a differance between upscaled Big Fish and on blu? I love that movie and bought the blu right away, but it doesnt look too good imo

I found there to be a significant difference between the dvd and the blu in terms of PQ and AQ.

[P@t_Mtl]

I see it more this way, at least for me personaly. When you enjoy a movie, truly enjoy a movie, the PQ quality is not really a concern. In general I have been very happy with my BD purchases. Even as a example, Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves that everyone is destroying as a BD with horrible PQ, I still love it. As for DVD some upscale better then others but I will still watch my favorite movies even if they are horrible DVD's. Why would I stop watching my favorite movie. The danger of using only PQ as excuse for watching movies is not a good idea, I think you watch movies for movies, for the stories not for the PQ. Sure good quality is a good thing but that should not be the main reason for watching a movie IMO.