Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

DVD vs Blu Ray


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 172 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jul 6, 2014 7:31:25 AM PDT
J. Beaver says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 29, 2014 11:02:46 PM PDT
blu ray. unless it's not remastered and the dvd is. but that's rare.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2014 10:09:39 AM PDT
Upscaling does not create an image comparable to Blu Ray. It simply makes it larger and smooths out the low resolution. If you care about picture quality, BluRay is 6x the resolution, and will be quite noticeable in the image you see on your HDTV.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2014 11:25:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 2, 2014 11:26:41 AM PDT
007 says:
EdM- All good points. I don't really disagree with you on any of them. I'm not saying its an either/or yet but Sony and other companies are planning to stop making BD players with DVD lasers (Many people don't realize that there is a separate laser required for DVD). As long as I can play my DVDs and Blu Rays on the same player I will be happy because as you clarify many titles cannot be released on Blu Ray so as long as the industry doesn't ignore this fact and allows us to play both formats on the same player it will remain our choice which to buy. I suppose I sound overtly biased/passionate because collecting movies/tv shows is one of my favorite hobbies and the idea of them being in danger of becoming obsolete is frustrating.

As far as the original premise of the thread though: it may not be an either/or for your entire collection but when you buy a new movie or tv show you do have to choose a format and all I am saying is that DVDs with upscaling actually look very good and therefore, on most titles, I'd rather stick to the dvd which is usually the less expensive version. (Also, I am a bit OCD when it comes to my collection and it annoys me to see short BD cases next to the taller DVD cases lol) But I am not anti-BD, in fact, in time I may upgrade some of my more visually oriented films.

Posted on Apr 30, 2014 9:32:26 PM PDT
EdM says:
007 - Just like the name of this thread, there's a false premise you have fallen for. It is NOT one or the other. Likely for the next 10 years or longer, there will be some shows that will not be put on BD, perhaps for cost issues over small runs of product, or because content owners/studios, want to continue to have sole ownership of HD on some shows, to release on ad supported cable, again and again. Many older titles, TV or movies, will remain DVD only, just as some titles didn't even get onto DVD from tape, nor from LaserDisc in some cases.

Likely, BD production lines are at full capacity doing large runs of new movies, some older shows/movies and some TV, which older shows have to be remastered to have quality acceptable for BD. Examples include many the Star Trek titles. Still, BD is better, and after you get a BD player, you can choose which to buy, and just leave your old DVDs alone and revisit them or upgrade them, at your choice.

You talk about better selection on DVD, but this is a false <either/or> premise since BD players can play both DVDs and BDs, whichever you choose. Thus, you can still play old or favorite DVDs on a new BD player.

On your "obsolete" premise, that again poses the false either/or basis. Further, technology always advances. Think of the telephone from say 100 years ago, thru the standard rotary dial phone from Ma Bell, to wireless in home to smart cell phones of today. Do you have an old rotary dial phone in use in your life? Do most people you know have an automatic transmission in the car, or do they still use an old 3 on the column [4 on the floor] stick shift? Either stick or auto tranny will make a car go, it's a consumer choice.

You know, there were people called Luddites who protested the then coming industrial revolution, but progress won out. As for me, I'm looking forward to 4k HDTV that will have even better 3D built in than is available now, and to movies that have standard 5.1 channel 192kHz/24 bit lossless audio [or better]. I expect I'll still keep my existing BD and DVD library, though. Looking back to the 1970's, would you rather have bought say IBM stock on the one hand, or Microsoft [maybe Apple] stock on the other, looking at today's financial world?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2014 11:57:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 30, 2014 11:59:35 AM PDT
007 says:
It was not my intention to be polarizing. I am merely saying that I think we've reached a point where the latest technological update of something we already own shouldn't be forced upon the consumer. And yes, I know this has not happened yet (and may never happen with DVD and BD) but that is not for lack of trying. I have nothing against those who buy BD and it would be absurd if I were to advise them to buy dvd instead if that's what they want. My main point is that many like me had already spent a lot of money on dvd and would rather just stay with one format. Yes, The Office is cheaper... now, but I already have it on dvd. I'm not re-buying just to see Dwight's mustard ties in higher def.

I would however, invest in Blu Rays if I could be convinced of two things:

1) Better selection: The X Files is STILL not on BD! Also, I could literally name dozens of relatively obscure films that may not be popular enough to warrant BD printing but are among my personal favs.

2) There is no indication that Blu-Ray will last any longer than DVD. Whatever truly makes DVD "obsolete" will do the same to BD. Why jump ship for another ship destined to hit the same iceberg?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2014 12:39:28 PM PDT
EdM says:
And more- consider The Office: Season 6 [Blu-ray], as an example.

On teh same Amazon page, you can see as follows:
"Blu-ray 4-Disc Version $9.49"
"DVD Widescreen Edition $16.00"
and Amazon instant video is 29.99 for SD or 34.99 for HD.

Ignoring everything else, why would anyone buy something other than BD? Better quality at a lower price. And similarly for The Office: Season 7 [Blu-ray]. The BD version is $11.49 and the DVD version is 22.99, almost twice. That's for a show that you asked about the purchase of.

To save those thousands of $$, just buy BD for purchases of titles such as you mentioned. No need to update if you don't want and if your DVDs satisfy. Are your posts really serious, or are you just trying to flame the discussion for the sake of argument? On a logical basis, your posts are biased as well as unconvincing, and lacking in fundamental facts.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2014 12:23:42 PM PDT
EdM says:
"why spend twice as much?"

BD is NOT 2X what a DVD costs for the same movie. Sometimes, BD costs the same as or less than a DVD is for the same movie title, ignoring BD improved quality.

Once you have a decent BD player [say the next time your DVD player breaks], then you can play your old DVDs on a BD player, and when you want, a new BD title is an option. This is important, as many, especially older, TV shows are not on BD. "Everybody Loves Raymond" is on DVD but not BD. Even many current TV shows are not on BD, perhaps because BD would show up production quality shortcuts, or to get you to watch the same show in high def again on cable, and thus watch the commercials also.

When you say "they literally looked exactly the same!", that speaks very poorly about your friend's HDTV setup, about the friend's visual acuity, or perhaps something peculiar to that specific show. Also, "Looking" totally ignores the high quality audio almost always found with BD lossless codec audio tracks. To me, the audio would be reason enough for BD, although I certainly enjoy the high def video very much. Getting both makes it a slam dunk.

It's not an either /or. It's a "you choose": what to buy, what [if anything] to update with a BD of an older movie, etc.

You also later ask, "So, why can't DVDs, Blu-Rays and Streaming coexist???" and "Why not media???"

These are more questions with a false premise, because ALL of those DO coexist. Every consumer has free will to choose what they desire from what is offered.

For me, there are more than a few shows [The Good Wife", etc.] that I would have bought in BD, but I have not on DVD. They get to choose what they offer, I get to choose what I'll buy. Everything streamed looses its lossless audio, so for me that's totally out.

"maybe my trendy hipster cousin wants to discard all his physical properties for digital downloads because owning real things isn't "cool" anymore." All I can say is that such a person has no clue to what he's given up in lossless audio for the convenience of downloads. Perhaps that person doesn't actually care about quality audio, has a tin ear, or something.

Posted on Apr 29, 2014 11:20:04 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 29, 2014 11:20:30 AM PDT
007 says:
I would also ask: Why is it necessary to have one "definitive" version? Maybe in today's day and age of rapidly changing technology it makes more sense to hang on to older formats. Consumers will grew infinitely more weary of buying and re-buying the same content again and again only to know that it will soon be "outdated". So, why can't DVDs, Blu-Rays and Streaming coexist???

Maybe I WANT to keep buying DVDs because it is the format that I already invested what must by now be literally THOUSANDS of dollars in. Maybe you want to buy Blu Rays because you enjoy having the absolute best picture quality available to you.
And maybe my trendy hipster cousin wants to discard all his physical properties for digital downloads because owning real things isn't "cool" anymore.
To each his own. Specialist markets work in EVERY other industry! Why not media???

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2014 10:39:46 AM PDT
K. DeV says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Apr 28, 2014 10:27:30 AM PDT
007 says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2013 4:54:55 AM PDT
Thank you very much!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2013 8:58:01 AM PDT
EdM says:
@ Linda - The vast majority of BD players do play DVDs and CDs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Backward_compatibility

"Though not compulsory, the Blu-ray Disc Association recommends that Blu-ray Disc drives be capable of reading standard DVDs and CDs, for backward compatibility.[163] A few early Blu-ray Disc players released in 2006 could play DVDs but not CDs."

When you look them up, they should disclose [and most do] that they play DVDs and CDs. If one looks at the very lowest cost players of today, those might cut costs by eliminating this capability, so do check on this.

When you ask about ALL: CDs and DVDs - that becomes tricky. Ones that play CDs will likely play all or almost all commercial CDs [maybe not some print on demand CDs], and likewise for DVDs. However, there are CD-Rs that people burn to play on car CD players, etc., that might not be readable. Plus, there are special CD formats for special purposes - like the old Kodak Picture CDs, which the OPPO player can play... This ability with most file formats is one of the OPPO strengths. I have some SACDs [Super Audio CDs - a kind of high definition CD] that the OPPO plays fine and that sound great. Most BD players [or regular CD players] lack this ability, but most people don't care about that.

Already having a 1080 HDTV, and assuming it has HDMI input, you might go ahead and get a good BD player that can do 3D. It appears that you already have a 5.1 sound system. If the sound system has a HDMI input, the OPPO 103 can just be swapped in for your existing DVD player. The OPPO has two HDMI outs, so one can feed the HDTV and the other can feed the 5.1 audio system. If the sound system is older and lacks HDMI input, then there are two main choices. First you could get a new 5.1 [7.1, etc.] receiver with HDMI input, or you could take the audio out depending on how your receiver can input.

For a new 5.1 A/V receiver, there are two types - those that can divide/forward a 3D video stream to the HDTV via an output HDMI cable, and those that can't. Either one should be able to play the music/audio just fine, but there may be complications as far as playing the video on the HDTV. This gets even more complicated because there are copy protection aspects, more later if needed.

One exemplary receiver - Cambridge Audio - Azur 351R - 5.1 AV Receiver - Black.

This has "4 HDMI in, 1 out with support for 3D TV" as well as "with the latest CODECs including Dolby Digital Plus, DTS- HD High Resolution and the Lossless Dolby True HD and DTS-HD Master Audio formats. Pure Analogue Stereo Direct mode for audiophile playback of analogue stereo sources".

This is just one example of a capable 3D receiver with 3D out ability, and good music playing ability. There are many AV receivers, but not so many can work properly with a 3D signal. OTOH, for me, the 3D aspect would be a small bonus - it would be the high quality audio that this receiver can do that would attract me. Plus, you most likely can use your existing 5.1 speakers with whatever new AV receiver you would get.

Depending on one's budget, though, there are many possibilities in AV receivers. The 3D pass-through aspect is one that can be missed, though, if one does not know to look for it. It is not enough to have a mere AV receiver HDMI output to the HDTV, if one needs to have the ability to do 3D over HDMI to a 3D HDTV. That is, not all HDMI abilities are equal.

So, a new partial BD system [no glasses, no new HDTV, no new speakers] might include an OPPO BDP-103 Universal 3D Blu-ray Disc Player SACD & DVD-Audio and a Cambridge Audio - Azur 351R - 5.1 AV Receiver - Black, whereby the combination would result in both high quality video via the OPPO and high quality audio via the CA AV-receiver.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2013 7:58:42 AM PDT
Glasses are dependant on the 3D tv you buy. You need to buy compatible active (shutter) glasses for your active 3D display, and you would need polarized glasses for the passive 3D display. Larger Non glasses 3D displays are not on the market yet, or very expensive.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2013 7:57:29 AM PDT
EdM says:
@K. DeV - The glasses thing is a whole 'nother layer, not directly about the BD Player aspect. The complication is that there are 3D HDTVs that have one of several kinds of glasses - active glasses or passive glasses [Passive is like at 3D movies], or there is some mostly experimental tech that does not require glasses at all for 3D.

The glasses thing does not matter to your BD player, which will feed any kind of 3D HDTV. OTOH, the kind of 3D technology the 3D HDTV uses determines what the glasses situation is. The cost of active glasses is higher, but mostly not as high as originally - for a Panasonic twin glasses plus Avatar 3D BD movie, $400 list, but now with discount: Panasonic TY-EW3D2MMK2 Ultimate 3D Starter Kit (Avatar 3D + 2 Rechargeable Glasses)

Passive glasses can be quite inexpensive Panasonic VIERA TY-EP3D10UB Passive Polarized 3D Eyewear, but whatever glasses you get has to work with the HDTV. Passive glasses on an active technology 3D HDTV are a waste of money - they don't work at all in that combination.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2013 7:22:38 AM PDT
K. DeV says:
EdM, in addition to helping Linda (and myself), another question on the subject. Wouldn't one also need to purchase the 3D glasses? Or would having a 3D HDTV preclude the need for the glasses? I've a friend who has 3D, but also has the glasses. I've heard that the glasses can be a tad expensive. It's another consideration surely.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2013 6:48:55 AM PDT
All BD players (Blu-ray is one word) play standard CDs and DVDs.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2013 6:26:17 AM PDT
EdM, thank you for the thorough explination. You really do know your stuff. I do have 1080 Hd TV. 3D not that important to me. One question when buying a BRD player does it have to say dvd or Cd or do all BRD players play all CD's and DVD's? The surround sound and digital quality are more important. I will check out the website you suggested and go from there. Thank you very much for your very knowledgeable info you have been a great help!. Have an awesome day!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2013 6:08:23 AM PDT
EdM says:
Linda - Some people LOVE their 3D movies on Blu-ray Disc [BD]. Some people find it a gimmick or have a vision problem [headaches, etc.]. So, if you LOVE 3D, then you need to get a 3D BD Player.

However, 3D puts you in a higher cost bracket, compared to the lowest cost options. I prefer better quality BD players [and HDTVs and audio system, etc.]. Usually, if you get a 3D capable BD player, you may also get better ability to play non-3D content. So, IMO it does little harm to get a 3D capable player, although the price may be a bit higher.

Just having a 3D player does not mean you can play 3D content, though, because you'll also have to have or buy a 3D capable HDTV. Also, if you get a new audio system, that will either have to be able to work properly in a 3D video system, or you'll have to figure out how and then properly set up your system so that the 3D video goes properly to the HDTV, while the audio goes to your sound system. To get it all at one time is expensive.

I'd suggest, if you already have a HDTV, that you just get a high quality, 3D capable BD Player for now, and upgrade the rest of the system as your budget allows. There are many brands and models, but I'd look to reviews on the internet, as new introductions are always coming out. A high quality BD player that I like is the OPPO BDP-103 Universal 3D Blu-ray Disc Player SACD & DVD-Audio, a very well regarded BD player.

IF you go to the OPPO website for more info, there is a tab that refers to some of the many excellent reviews and ratings it has received, as well as more about the 103's features and abilities. It even has some ability to play internet content, as well as your CDs, DVDs, etc. It has excellent ability to up-convert your existing DVDs, so they will look better than when played on your existing DVD player. Note this from the OPPO website:

http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-103/

"True 24p™ Video - Many Blu-ray Discs are recorded at 24 frames per second, the same frame rate as the original movie's theatrical release. The BDP-103 can faithfully redeliver the original frames using 1080p 24Hz output (compatible display required) for smoother motion and a flicker-free, film-like home theater experience. It can also restore the original 24 frames per second progressive-scan video from well-authored DVDs and output 1080p 24Hz."

With a proper 1080p/24 capable HDTV set, the video playback experience is notably improved, IMO. I have an earlier generation OPPO BD Player myself and love it.

The thing is that it is not clear what your budget is, whether you already have a HDTV or even a 3D HDTV, if your audio setup is 3D BD friendly or not. To get the whole deal at one time is much more expensive, but you could just get a 3D capable BVD player if you already have a HDTV, and upgrade the rest later [or as and if needed].

3D movies on BD are more expensive, perhaps $5-10 extra per movie, and the really good 3D movies are only a small % of all movies coming out. So, the cost/benefit aspect is significant for some. If you want 3D playback, you can't get it without a 3D capable player. OTOH, a fine player such as the OPPO 103 above allows excellent playback, regardless of whether you use its 3D abilities or not. Hooked into a nice audio system, it will even play back your CDs and most other digital music better than you likely have ever heard before, as set forth in the "Additional Disc & Media Formats" section about the OPPO player, above.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 13, 2013 6:07:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 13, 2013 6:25:14 AM PDT
I want to buy a blu-ray home theatre system. I have alot of DVD's. There are alot of players with 3D. What is the benefit of having 3D and is it necessary? Is sony better than Panasonic or LG? Sooo many choices.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 21, 2013 6:27:51 PM PST
You should check out the new Metropolis from Kino on Blu-ray. It's an amazing restoration. It's not just current blockbusters that benefit from the increased video and sound quality of the format.

See also the Wizard of Oz on Blu-ray.

Posted on Feb 20, 2013 10:42:59 AM PST
K. DeV says:
I prefer BD to dvd although I will still buy dvd if either I have no choice, or it's a documentary and I'm not so interested in the video quality. I've seen comparisons of BD to dvd on films such as BBC Sherlock, Sherlock Holmes(Downey), Serenity, Zulu, Twilight, Dark City, Push, LOTR, Iron Man, Hot Fuzz, Galaxy Quest, Mystery Men, The Mummy (2008) and Singing In The Rain to name a smallish few.

In every case, the BD transfer quality has been superb. The transfer for Zulu was phenomenal. While the transfer for Singing In The Rain was not the same quality as Zulu, none-the-less it was superior to the dvd copy I had. Granted, there have been the odd poor transfer too, but none worst than what I already owned on dvd. Like many said, it depends upon the source material.

To address the original poster, you can also purchase region-free BD discs, but you have to be wary. Not all region-free works on all-region players. BBC's Sherlock for example, is such a case. I purchased the region-free disc thinking it would play on my region-A player, but it does not. It locks up on both the computer and the stand-alone BD player which is a Sony. Sony players can play region-free, but can't process 50i input stream. BBC tends to have 50i input. Zulu is also a region-free, but it plays just fine.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 8:50:36 AM PST
JVAN says:
It's honestly up to the market. As long as studios continue to make money selling DVD's or BD's, they will continue to make them. If too many people stop buying them, you'll see the signs, such as DVD clearance bins (not the $5 bins, those are still money makers), of newer movies, and stores allocating less space to DVD's to make room for things that sell more. This is how VHS went out. You can still buy a VHS player as well as blank tapes at Best Buy, but since retail VHS movies stopped being a money maker years ago (for both retailers and distributors), studios ceased distribution of that media.

Movie distribution is all about making money and moving inventory, as is with all consumer products. I personally enjoy owning the media, not only for the higher quality and extras, but so I also don't have to pay a subscription to have a movie available and so I can loan it or takes it to a friends house. Even with streaming, I've seen some movies that used to be available on Amazon Prime become unavailable (mostly independent titles). If I own the media, availability is no longer a factor.

Posted on Feb 19, 2013 1:06:07 AM PST
P. moore says:
I'm hoping both DVD & BLU RAY survive as most people i know are downloading movies,both streaming paid for and pirate, but I like to have a disc at hand.I'm just worried that the days of having a disc are numbered.People might disagree but how many buy a CD these days.I love the audio that is on a disc and even watching HD channels they just don't seem to compare.My opinion is Blu ray for new movies and dvd for old.I so hope they both survive.

Posted on Feb 18, 2013 11:51:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 25, 2013 6:45:37 AM PST
fulcilives says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next ›
[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:  43
Total posts:  172
Initial post:  Oct 25, 2011
Latest post:  Jul 6, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions