Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

Blu-ray Sucks! Amazon keeps pushing a format that I hate and will never buy.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 326-350 of 469 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 2:35:33 AM PST
MikeT says:
" Karl Grosvenor says: ..... I will stick with DVD. "

With a 27" monitor I'd certainly agree, don't bother.

I have two 42" plasmas and sitting at a normal viewing distance I can clearly see a difference between DVD and Blu-ray. Same with your photo example, displayed on my TV's the lower res/megapixal images are obviously not as sharp as my newer higher res/megapixal images.

Neither DVD nor lower res photos look bad on my TV's, but there is a difference and I can see it. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 2:40:15 AM PST
MikeT says:
" Mr. Feltersnatch says: Wow.. you guys got trolled hard. Plus. It's all about 4k. to hell with this dated blu ray crap. "

Yes, come back in five years when 4k has even a minimally adequate number of titles to choose from, assuming that even happens. Someone is trolling alright. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 4:16:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2012 4:57:18 AM PST
No Karl, you are missing the point. 1080p isn't 16MP, it's 2MP. And DVD is 0.35MP. Incidentally, that's about twice the difference between 800x600 and 1280x1024 desktop resolution. So why don't you play with your monitor settings a bit and report back the obvious difference?

Here is a screenshot. Original size is BD resolution. Second one is rescaled to DVD resolution, then rescaled back to compare:

BD: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/3183/35812216.jpg
DVD: http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8794/dvdx.jpg

Save them both to your computer and open them so they fill up the screen, tell me you can't see the difference. My 15" computer monitor resolution is 1280x1024, a bit more than half of BD resolution, yet the difference is clearly noticeable sitting up to 5' away. In motion, the normal 2' distance would make it obvious.

Posted on Dec 13, 2012 11:24:23 AM PST
M. Hessler says:
I don't think that screen size has much to do with it, its all about the detail level. If you have a low resolution screen of any size then a DVD would look fine, but if you have any screen made in the last 10 years there is a huge difference in clarity and detail. The iPad 3 for example only has about a 10" screen, but 1080p video looks amazingly beautiful on its 1536 x 2048, 264 Pixel Per Inch screen! :) I wonder if Karl just needs a new set of glasses?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 3:52:21 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2012 3:52:45 PM PST
JNagarya says:
Is there any 4K other than "Lawrence of Arabia"?

And it's neat to be ahead of the curve, beyond blu-ray -- except when there doesn't yet appear to be more than that one 4K release.

But the latter is ideal: get the best projector system on the market, a 100 foot screen, and watch "Lawrence of Arabia" over and over and over again, waiting for the second 4K release.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 4:20:00 PM PST
As I posted on page six of the "What comes next?" thread, Sony's first 4K player will have 10 movies preloaded - The Amazing Spiderman, Total Recall (2012), The Karate Kid (2010), Salt, Battle: Los Angeles, The Other Guys, Bad Teacher, That's My Boy, Taxi Driver, and The Bridge on the River Kwai. Other than that, content will mostly be from upconvertinging Blu-ray players.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2012 11:42:45 PM PST
Has your collection of CED discs worn out yet?

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 8:11:17 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 14, 2012 8:17:10 AM PST
M. Hessler says:
I'm curious if Todd P. James has purchased a Blu-ray player since the Initial post in June 2010. I'm waiting for the movie companies to stop making the DVD format all together. It did take awhile for VHS to fade out I guess...

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 8:11:43 AM PST
A M says:
I know "A Star is Born" was restored at 6K. I think the restoration of "The Godfather" was done at 4K. And I think "The Master" did a 4K DI. But whether they will be released in a commercial 4K version, I do not know.

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 8:33:51 AM PST
warrian says:
The first 2 Alien films were re-scanned at 4K, as was Raiders of the Lost Ark (but not the other films in either series).

Posted on Dec 14, 2012 9:06:37 AM PST
Bourne1886 says:
Most people I know/ talk to only have a DVD player. BluRay hasn't hit anywhere near its peak yet. Most folks are still quite content with SD.

I doubt the average person will even bother with 4k or even know its Super HD. Only people who are really into their films bother with BD.

In the UK most people are happy with Sky TV HD which is only 1080i.
It's gonna be a while before 4k takes off, whether it be for the masses or niche market.
DVDs are still going strong over here!

Posted on Dec 17, 2012 11:54:11 AM PST
blu ray has alot of space on the disc. its much greater in resolution than a dvd or download. hd dvd is long gone so that is a forgotten issue to most people. blu ray does not suck in the least.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 17, 2012 11:19:27 PM PST
J. Bianco says:
Thank you, obvi Troll attempt.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 18, 2012 5:16:48 PM PST
Mathew J says:
No Matt. I must respectfully disagree: The 3 applicable factors are resolution, screen size and viewing distance. {That is, if every person in the discussion has the exact same eyesight} Let's take your example of "any screen made in the last 10 years". For our illustration lets try a 37 in. Hiteker[?] HD 1080 P TV being offered by Wal -Mart for $229. [No, I never heard of it either but that doesn't matter.] Now, let's pop in our 10 year old DVD of Ice Age. A 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Completely fills the screen. Nice. Pull up a chair and sit down. About 3 feet from the [very small] screen. You know what? That old DVD still looks pretty darn good! [Remember to have the sound COMPLETELY off, as in "mute". Not bad at all. OK. Now hit eject and pop in the Blu-ray version. OMG! Gorgeous! I mean BEAUTIFUL! Just like you said. " There is a huge difference in clarity and detail". So I proved your point; you're right. EXCEPT... Now walk across the room and sit oh 15 or 20 feet from that same screen. Still looks good; so what? Now walk back to your Blu-ray Player and make one final switch--this time back to the DVD. Hit "Play", Do not look at the TV; walk back to the previous 15 or 20 feet viewing distance and turn around. NOW look at the DVD. That oh so DRAMATIC difference that was evident at 3 feet has virtually disappeared! At this much greater distance , the ONE SIXTh resolution of the DVD looks virtually indistinguishable from the Blu-ray disk. And there in lies the difficulty. Even though the program content may indeed be 6 times the resolution as the same DVD--and even if our display screen is sufficient to display that resolution, at a certain distance our eyes are no longer able to resolve the picture artifacts [fuzziness] of the inferior medium [the DVD, in the example] and the great superiority of the better medium[Blu-ray] is no longer obvious.

Posted on Dec 18, 2012 6:21:05 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 18, 2012 6:21:59 PM PST
Cavaradossi says:
Matthew J

That's a very good example, but I'm thinking most people don't own HDTV projectors or 60+" plasmas or LEDs. For people who don't have projectors or very large flat screens, say 50" and under, DVDs probably still look more than acceptable, especially if upconverted. Folks tend to sit reasonable distances from their sets, and if it's a family, probably a little bit further for room to accommodate everyone. So, I think this entire discussion, fascinating as it is, consists of at least two groups of viewers, those with very large sets and projectors and those with more popular selling sizes, speaking of their experiences as though they also apply to the opposite group when they most likely don't.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 18, 2012 10:50:45 PM PST
EdM says:
> at a certain distance ... the great superiority of the better medium[Blu-ray] is no longer obvious.

You totally miss the audio aspect, for which most (IMO) BD movies have lossless, very high quality audio [DTS HD Master Audio 5.1 or Dolby TrueHD 5.1 audio], which DVD can't even dream about. Maybe unless one is listening through the flat panel built in speakers or through a cheap Home Theater in a Box setup. This is a great BD audio superiority, exhibited regardless of the distance to the screen.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 8:02:43 AM PST
Bourne1886 says:
No not true. HD always looks better than SD.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 8:35:21 AM PST
Exactly. This is why since SD is not "Standard" any longer, SD has been revised to mean "Sucky Definition"

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2012 2:20:22 PM PST
Bourne1886 says:
I like it!

Posted on Dec 23, 2012 5:35:30 AM PST
Real217 says:
I dont even understand this arguement going on here. I've been watching DVD all my life. I could buy some movies on DVD and blu-ray sometimes but after watching the whole season of Spartacus on Blu-Ray?

I couldn't watch any DVD's anymore. I'm sorry. The difference is unbelievable.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 25, 2012 12:45:38 AM PST
I never said 1080p was any mega pixels so read what I say before coming out with something so stupid,I was comparing digital camera resolutions as an example,but again you failed to get it.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 25, 2012 12:47:08 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 25, 2012 6:44:13 AM PST
bfore13 says:
"massive price difference between the different formats .. tend to cost between three and five times more than DVD's"

I'm not sure where you shop for Blu-rays, certainly not on Amazon, because there isn't that much difference in price between the formats on average. Sure, there are probably a few titles with huge inventory on DVD where they're now selling for only $3-4 but that is the exception not the rule. Many Blu-rays also come with a DVD for only a few $$ more which is great for those who are considering upgrading at some future date.

Posted on Dec 25, 2012 11:16:16 AM PST
Rykre says:
I've come to learn this:

If you watch your DVD's and Blu-Ray's on a small TV (like 32" or less) then you may not see a difference in the picture quality. (I've had this argument with myself, years back. I once said that I don't see a difference).

However, as of late, I've learned that the difference is a great deal more improved for Blu-ray if you have a larger TV. I will not watch my DVD's on my 47" TV. Period.

I keep my 32" TV (with the necessary HDMI hook-up) to play my DVD's only. If I want to watch Blu-Ray, I go to my 47" TV.

Posted on Dec 25, 2012 1:08:12 PM PST
Elder Dave says:
Just adding my experience, for whatever it's worth. I have a 55" LG and an Oppo 93 player. The upconversion from the Oppo is excellent, and I can watch my DVD's with great pleasure. They are extremely sharp and well-defined on the large screen. Yes, I can tell the difference--BD's are better, but the difference is not so great that my DVD's have become Untouchables. I think there are probably a number of players out there that give great upconversion. Maybe some of those posters who are into the tech market might point them out. I love BD's with their lossless audio, but seriously, folks, IMHO, they are not the only game in town.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  171
Total posts:  469
Initial post:  Jun 22, 2010
Latest post:  Jan 25, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 13 customers

Search Customer Discussions