Why Blu-ray for SD quality shows/movies

[BJMRamage]

OK, I am new here. I actually have yet to install/mount/connect teh HDTV and Blu-ray, etc. So, that in mind, please bear with me...I tried searching but got no results and maybe used wrong phrases.

Why would one want a Blu-ray Disc over standard DVD for old movies or old TV shows? (I read and can understand TV series being on less discs and making it easier that way) But with upconverting DVDs how would a movie, like Taxi Driver or Bullitt be any better with Blu-ray than a DVD? Is part of it to have BD-Live or other content or keeping Discs in a similar package size?


Also, how many of you have gone out to replace your DVD collection with BDs?And do some of you just purchase a DVD in place of BD if the movie is ok, or not really "worthy" of HD? say a comedy that doesn't have a great audio track or noteworthy cinematography?


Thanks in advance, again I am new so take that into consideration.

[SkullPhyre]

Before the flame war starts here. You said you have it but have yet to hook it up. Hook it up get one of the said movies,tv shows in both Blu-ray and dvd. Watch the dvd then watch the Blu-ray. All of your questions will be answered. And if you still want to watch dvd's after that. Well then we cannot help you here.

[Monkey]

"But with upconverting DVDs how would a movie, like Taxi Driver or Bullitt be any better with Blu-ray than a DVD?"

Upconverting doesn't magically bring back resolution to above 480p. Movies like Taxi Driver inherently have lost tons of resolution when captured to DVD. Even Blu-ray doesn't retain all the resolution from the original source for Taxi Driver but is insanely better than DVD.

[6thDeadlyVenom]

Originally Posted by Monkey

"But with upconverting DVDs how would a movie, like Taxi Driver or Bullitt be any better with Blu-ray than a DVD?"

Upconverting doesn't magically bring back resolution to above 480p. Movies like Taxi Driver inherently have lost tons of resolution when captured to DVD. Even Blu-ray doesn't retain all the resolution from the original source for Taxi Driver but is insanely better than DVD.

but many movies like terminator 1 only have a 480p source they release as blue ray as well.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by 6thDeadlyVenom

but many movies like terminator 1 only have a 480p source they release as blue ray as well.

ummmmmmmmmm, no..... Terminator 1 was NOT a 480 source. It was sourced from a true Hi-Def master, it just wasn't a brand new master with the newest tech to "clean" it up.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by 6thDeadlyVenom

but many movies like terminator 1 only have a 480p source they release as blue ray as well.

I love how newbies come in here spreading BS all over the place...

And "blue" ray? Seriously? That, alone, kills any credibility you think you may have.

[blu_sharpy]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

I love how newbies come in here spreading BS all over the place...

And "blue" ray? Seriously? That, alone, kills any credibility you think you may have.

I think it should be a rule that on these forums blu is spelt without the 'e'

[kevinbr100]

Originally Posted by BJMRamage

OK, I am new here. I actually have yet to install/mount/connect teh HDTV and Blu-ray, etc. So, that in mind, please bear with me...I tried searching but got no results and maybe used wrong phrases.

Why would one want a Blu-ray Disc over standard DVD for old movies or old TV shows? (I read and can understand TV series being on less discs and making it easier that way) But with upconverting DVDs how would a movie, like Taxi Driver or Bullitt be any better with Blu-ray than a DVD? Is part of it to have BD-Live or other content or keeping Discs in a similar package size?


Also, how many of you have gone out to replace your DVD collection with BDs?And do some of you just purchase a DVD in place of BD if the movie is ok, or not really "worthy" of HD? say a comedy that doesn't have a great audio track or noteworthy cinematography?


Thanks in advance, again I am new so take that into consideration.

well bluray is replacing dvd format so that is one good reason. another is a lot of tv series were actually shot on film
so even though digital high definition technology was not available at the time the show was created, film resolution is still higher than the high definition technology available today. so definitely you can see an improvement in quality with older shows in this case.

[bboisvert]

Originally Posted by BJMRamage

But with upconverting DVDs how would a movie, like Taxi Driver or Bullitt be any better with Blu-ray than a DVD?

Taxi Driver isn't an "SD quality" movie.

How is Taxi Driver or Bullitt any different than, say, Funny People or The Hangover? They're all still shot on film (which has a much higher resolution than a DVD). The age of the film doesn't matter.

Honestly, rather than ask this question, I'd suggest doing a comparison. Watch an "older" BD - Gone with the Wind, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Casablanca, The Wizard of Oz, etc. - and compare it to an upconverted DVD of same. I think you'll be shocked at the difference.


It's all about resolution. If the source (movie or TV) has more than 480 lines of resolution, you'll see benefit by going to high definition. It's really that simple.

[styl3s]

im not a audio freak and no im not replacing my DVD collection.. i still buy more DVDS then bluray because to be frank BR could end up going away and being replaced

I buy both, some BRs dont look that much better then DVDs so im not going to pay more just to have better AQ but to each to own.. i know people who have sold their entire DVD collection to upgrade to BR and personally i think its stupid.. i own well over 800 dvds not including TV shows and i only get rid of the ones im upgrading to (IE sold my lost sets to upgrade to blu) and ill continue to do that on blus worth owning but i still buy a buttload of standard DVDS

[benricci]

Originally Posted by styl3s

i still buy more DVDS then bluray because to be frank BR could end up going away and being replaced

I think we can all agree we're well past that possibility. It's here to stay.

Yes, of course someday it will be obsolete, but that's true of any format. For now, though, I think it's silly to NOT buy blu over DVD because you think it's magically gonna "go away".

[42041]

Even silent films were shot to be displayed on a screen much larger than your TV, and given proper care transferring them to HD, they will blow away the DVD. Whether you feel they're worth buying in blu-ray is entirely your prerogative.

[styl3s]

Originally Posted by benricci

I think we can all agree we're well past that possibility. It's here to stay.

Yes, of course someday it will be obsolete, but that's true of any format. For now, though, I think it's silly to NOT buy blu over DVD because you think it's magically gonna "go away".

People said the same thing about laser disc, i know blu-ray is here to stay but who is say in 2010 or 2011 a new format doesn't come out? im a firm believer in DVD isn't going anywhere, not atleast for along time.. i dont believe BR is going to completely take over DVD like DVD did to VHS

i buy both, im not going to pay more for something that doesn't look superb when i can buy it cheaper on DVD and play it on my 1080i upconverter and have it look almost as good.. take burn notice season 2.. looks absolutely awful on BR, like i said some people have jumped to BR and cool.. im not going to because i don't believe dvds are going anywhere anytime soon.

[blu_sharpy]

Originally Posted by styl3s

People said the same thing about laser disc, i know blu-ray is here to stay but who is say in 2010 or 2011 a new format doesn't come out? im a firm believer in DVD isn't going anywhere, not atleast for along time.. i dont believe BR is going to completely take over DVD like DVD did to VHS

i buy both, im not going to pay more for something that doesn't look superb when i can buy it cheaper on DVD and play it on my 1080i upconverter and have it look almost as good.. take burn notice season 2.. looks absolutely awful on BR, like i said some people have jumped to BR and cool.. im not going to because i don't believe dvds are going anywhere anytime soon.

If DVD's arent going anywhere then why do they lack in nearly ANY special features whereas Blu-ray has them all. This is just what happened when the transition between Laserdisc and DVD was taking place.
In my opinion, DVD was created so people could get used to owning something on a disc based format and was used as the middle man until Hi-Def was made available for home usage.

[benricci]

Originally Posted by styl3s

People said the same thing about laser disc

Lol, that's not really true, at least not in the sense you're taking my original post. Laserdisc never became a mainstream consumer product, which blu-ray has already done in three short years. You're right, DVD isn't going anywhere, but neither is blu-ray.

I think most people agree that they will co-exist for a number of years. But it's clear from the numbers that blu-ray's popularity is through the roof, and it's clearly the hi-def media of choice amongst consumers.

Laserdisc languished as a niche format for nearly 20 years before finally dying. It never posed a serious threat to VHS and never came close to becoming a dominant format. At its peak, there were only about 2 million Laserdisc players in the States.

[Crollo]

Originally Posted by styl3s

People said the same thing about laser disc, i know blu-ray is here to stay but who is say in 2010 or 2011 a new format doesn't come out?

Hello from the future. Still stand by your "Bluray is going to go away!" theory?

I'll get some shots from inception and post them here in a bit.

480p vs 1080p







480p upscaled has washed out colors, terrible definition, blocky, compression artifacts at every corner.
To even remotely consider comparing it to 1080p, all I can assume is you just have a 480p TV and can't tell the differences.
It is seriously severely difficult to showcase a movies quality with just still images, but I guarantee you that even 720p looks a thousand times better then that upscaled bullshit.

Also, bluray for SD content will still look better because you can hold a much higher bitrate then what you can just simply pop into a dual layered DVD.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by BJMRamage

Why would one want a Blu-ray Disc over standard DVD for old movies or old TV shows?

Film typically has a much higher resolution than Blu-ray (depending on the size used) and will always look better in HD.

TV shows were sometimes filmed, but even those on NTSC video would benefit slightly from Blu-ray vs. DVD. NTSC is 525i and DVD is 480p. If you de-interlace NTSC to 525p and put that raw on a Blu-ray, you would get 45 extra lines of data. Of course, if you use a simple line doubler to 1050p, that will get you very close to 1080p.

[jerwin]

Originally Posted by Josh

. NTSC is 525i and DVD is 480p. If you de-interlace NTSC to 525p and put that raw on a Blu-ray, you would get 45 extra lines of data.

Like the mysterious line 21? I've always wanted to see that in raw form.

[snipemonkey]

First off, we need to clear up a common (it seems to me the MOST common) misunderstanding about film resolution:

A lot of people seem to be under the odd misapprehension that just because we've all gotten used to seeing older films/TV shows in low definition (480 or below) there is simply nothing more to see. As if somehow, at some ambiguously-defined magic moment in the past, camera film suddenly started absorbing more resolution and -- voila! -- high-def was born. Kind of like saying that anything pre-Star Wars (or pre-whatever) isn't capable of showing more image detail.

Not so. Older movies, when projected from a good print and on decent equipment, are capable of just as much image detail and resolution as anything filmed today. It's only because we've all grown up with (if not 'used to') shitty transfers of Taxi Driver and Bullitt that we think it'll never look better. Given a good print (hopefully one struck directly from the original camera negative, if possible) and a competent telecine artist, any older film will "pop" in high-def.

Whether you CARE about the added clarity is another question entirely. Most people, given an good, properly calibrated A-to-B comparison between standard DVD and Blu-ray, would be forced to concede that Blu-ray is clearly superior. Here's the rub, though -- the bee in the bonnet of all us cinema nerds: For most people, DVD is "good enough."

I might not get it, but it's pretty clear that, in general, the vast majority of the viewing public are just fine with Youtube as their entertainment-delivery vehicle of choice. High definition doesn't mean anything to the general public except "more expensive."

Se la vie.

[Alkaline]

Originally Posted by snipemonkey

First off, we need to clear up a common (it seems to me the MOST common) misunderstanding about film resolution:

A lot of people seem to be under the odd misapprehension that just because we've all gotten used to seeing older films/TV shows in low definition (480 or below) there is simply nothing more to see. As if somehow, at some ambiguously-defined magic moment in the past, camera film suddenly started absorbing more resolution and -- voila! -- high-def was born. Kind of like saying that anything pre-Star Wars (or pre-whatever) isn't capable of showing more image detail.

Not so. Older movies, when projected from a good print and on decent equipment, are capable of just as much image detail and resolution as anything filmed today. It's only because we've all grown up with (if not 'used to') shitty transfers of Taxi Driver and Bullitt that we think it'll never look better. Given a good print (hopefully one struck directly from the original camera negative, if possible) and a competent telecine artist, any older film will "pop" in high-def.

Whether you CARE about the added clarity is another question entirely. Most people, given an good, properly calibrated A-to-B comparison between standard DVD and Blu-ray, would be forced to concede that Blu-ray is clearly superior. Here's the rub, though -- the bee in the bonnet of all us cinema nerds: For most people, DVD is "good enough."

I might not get it, but it's pretty clear that, in general, the vast majority of the viewing public are just fine with Youtube as their entertainment-delivery vehicle of choice. High definition doesn't mean anything to the general public except "more expensive."

Se la vie.

Beautifully put