Blu-Ray quality disappointing

[tulegit]

Originally Posted by JTK

If that's truly the case, and I'm not misreadnig these people, then we're back to either some piece of equipment needing an upgrade and/or a trip to your friendly neighborhood optometrist.

Is it really neccessary, after 60 posts, that you still must comment on people's eysight? Seriously, do you really believe that the reason people are critical of BD quality must have something wrong with their vision?

With equipment, people are doing comparisons of DVD vs BD on the same TV. We're not comparing BD on our display and DVD on another higher quality display. It's a straight comparison of DVD vs BD on the SAME display. With all things being the same...tv, BD player, AV reciever, wire, etc, the only difference is the source.

Also, when I first purchase the PS3 and brought home MI3; I played it on my PIONEER plasma and my wife (who I mentioned before has better than 20/20 vision) said "it looks the same". So please stop blaming equipment or eyesight.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by tulegit

Is it really neccessary, after 60 posts, that you still must comment on people's eysight? Seriously, do you really believe that the reason people are critical of BD quality must have something wrong with their vision?

In some cases? Yes.

With equipment, people are doing comparisons of DVD vs BD on the same TV. We're not comparing BD on our display and DVD on another higher quality display. It's a straight comparison of DVD vs BD on the SAME display.

You're making my points for me.

With all things being the same...tv, BD player, AV reciever, wire, etc, the only difference is the source.

Also, when I first purchase the PS3 and brought home MI3; I played it on my PIONEER plasma and my wife (who I mentioned before has better than 20/20 vision) said "it looks the same". So please stop blaming equipment or eyesight.

Something ain't right. MI:3 is mindblowing on an HD optical format vs. its SD counterpart.

If someone really says they couldn't see a difference, then something is clearly wrong.

[tulegit]

Originally Posted by JTK

In some cases? Yes.




You're making my points for me.



Something ain't right. MI:3 is mindblowing on an HD optical format vs. its SD counterpart.

.

I'm not making your point. If we use the same display and setup to do a comparison, it eliminates the possibility of equipment being the culprit.

I'm sorry, I don't have MI3 in SD but it is definetly not "mindblowing" in HD optical.

Mind blowing was when we all first experience DVD after years of VHS. Thats why it became so popular so fast.

Mind blowing was when we first watch Monday Night Football on ABC-HD. That complete changes the game for me.

Mind blowing was when I played my HD home movies on a widescreen TV. I was hook on HD when I saw my pregnant wife and 2 dogs in HD and all its glory.

Mind blowing is NOT paying $700 on a PS3 and years and years of anticipation to finally watch BD and be let done because theres a slight improvement over DVD.

I'm not saying BD sucks and i give up on it. I'm just dissappointed that I own 7 BD's and really only happy with 1. And like many here posted...you have to have a trained eye and the average joe can't really appreciated BD, well then thats not really a good arguement for BD and its not going to help BD go mainstream if you have to be a "pro" or "expert" to watch BD.

[Kenshiro]

Originally Posted by tulegit

So please stop blaming equipment or eyesight.

We are just trying to figure out why you can't see what EVERYONE else, especially people who watch and review these movies for a living, can clearly see. Since everyone else can see an obvious improvement, the problem has to be your set-up or you... sorry but thats just the simple truth. Even my wife reluctantly agreed that BD is an improvement over upscaled SD, and she's about as untechnical as they come.

[DavePS3]

It is a pretty big jump up from just standard dvd playing at 480p, I'm sure you agree with that.

[theknub]

did you try setting the output to 1080i instead of 1080p?

[tulegit]

I understand people trying to point out my equipment. But i have said before that pretty much everything looks great on my equipment. So i guess i'm just tired of hearing it.

The eyesight arguement is what it is.

I'm not saying there's no difference. There definitely is an improvement over DVD. It's sharper with more details like skin textures, etc. I guess what it comes down to is what your level of expectation is and how high or low your standards are when it come to quality and how much more money you are willing to spend to replace your collection of DVD's or to simply build on it with BD's.

Personally, I'm just going to build on it because the cost vs benefit is just not worth it for me. Of course I'll replace Star Wars and LOTR, but i'll keep my DVD's of X1, X2 etc.

Another point worth noting. Back in the days of DVD...if one came out and you liked it...you bought it. Plain and simple. Now if a BD comes out, I'll have to jump on the internet and read review about quality and see what "tier" it's on before I head out and purchase it.

[JBlacklow]

Originally Posted by tulegit

I'm not making your point. If we use the same display and setup to do a comparison, it eliminates the possibility of equipment being the culprit.

Actually, you'd want to compare on different equipment to make sure. By testing the same equipment you're removing the source and display as a variable.

Mind blowing was when we all first experience DVD after years of VHS. Thats why it became so popular so fast.

DVD players, especially for the first couple years, were displayed at roughly the same resolution as VHS, Laserdisc, and SDTV.

Mind blowing was when we first watch Monday Night Football on ABC-HD. That complete changes the game for me.

No argument there. That's partially what drew me into HD.

Mind blowing is NOT paying $700 on a PS3 and years and years of anticipation to finally watch BD and be let done because theres a slight improvement over DVD.

I'm not saying BD sucks and i give up on it. I'm just dissappointed that I own 7 BD's and really only happy with 1. And like many here posted...you have to have a trained eye and the average joe can't really appreciated BD, well then thats not really a good arguement for BD and its not going to help BD go mainstream if you have to be a "pro" or "expert" to watch BD.

Yet we've shown evidence that there are fairly obvious differences, and personal evidence that casual viewers can see the difference, and you still refuse to admit that it's a problem with anything but BD. You're like the guy in this article who advocates purposely pissing people with HD off.

[tulegit]

Originally Posted by theknub

did you try setting the output to 1080i instead of 1080p?

Yes, I did set the PS3 to 1080i and the quality was worse. I saw a lot more noise in the background. The details were still there. I didn't watch any fast moving scenes but i'm sure it would have been even worse.

[tulegit]

Originally Posted by JBlacklow

Actually, you'd want to compare on different equipment to make sure. By testing the same equipment you're removing the source and display as a variable.

DVD players, especially for the first couple years, were displayed at roughly the same resolution as VHS, Laserdisc, and SDTV.

No argument there. That's partially what drew me into HD.

Yet we've shown evidence that there are fairly obvious differences, and personal evidence that casual viewers can see the difference, and you still refuse to admit that it's a problem with anything but BD. You're like the guy in this article who advocates purposely pissing people with HD off.

Sorry, I don't have the time to purposely piss off people on the internet.

[HDTV1080P]

When the DVD format first came out in 1997 companies were only releasing movies on single layer DVD’s and the quality was poor because of too much compression. When dual layer discs appeared quality improved. According to several reviews in Widescreen magazine the first MPEG-2 single layer BLU-RAY discs had the same or slightly better picture quality then standard DVD’s. For example the old dead D-VHS format used 50GB with MPEG-2 just for movies with no extras for 1080I movies with 1.54MB DTS sound tracks. Bit rates around 25MB per second up to 28MB per second on D-VHS had excellent quality results. BLU-RAY and HD-DVD goal should be to match or beat the quality of D-VHS in which they have on some titles.
When HD-DVD and BLU-RAY movies were released this old 50GB D-VHS format was used as a reference when comparing select titles. BLU-RAY movies are now being released on 50GB discs with MPEG-4 compression. VC-1 and MPEG-4 are better quality then the 10 year old MPEG-2 system to compress movies.
Make sure you are using 50GB discs with MPEG-4 or VC1 compression. Widescreen review has some excellent reviews on HD-DVD and BLU-RAY movies every issue. The earlier 25GB BLU-RAY movies like the Fifth Element were poor in quality since they used MPEG-2 compression on such a small disc. VC-1 and MPEG-4 are always better then MPEG-2 when the exact same data rate per second is used. BLU-RAY titles quality will continue to improve as time goes on. The format is less then a year old.

[Josh]

This is not a shortfall of Blu-ray. This is a personal issue that many people will face when adopting new formats. Some will see the difference and never be able to go back to DVD. Others won't see a difference, and will stick with DVD. Its going to happen. But why we need 4 pages to say that, I don't know. Closing.