Too Early for Blu-ray?

[A/VUSMCSGT]

I feel ya Starmax. Some stuff doesn't look that different.

But for some people, like me, who have netflix, blu-ray costs $2 more a month than DVD...so I get everything on BR that's available on BR. If I watch 20 movies a month on BR, it costs $.10 more a movie than standard DVD...so it's plenty worth it.

 

[jostenmeat]

Let me try to explain this a little better. I have a very nice system: 55" 1080p Hitachi LCD monitor, seven Def Tech 7002 speakers and three Hsu VTF-3 Mk 2 subs in a 7.3 room configuration, a flagship Denon AVR-5805 receiver with ten assignable 170 watt amps, an excellent Denon 3910 Universal player with a Burr-Brown 12-bit/216 MHz video D/A converter, and a recently purchased Panasonic BD-55 BluRay player. Room treated with bass traps, heavy drapes, carpet, bookshelf diffusers...all that crap. Shabby equipment is not my problem here. I realize that BluRay is better than DVDs, but I'm saying that most of the titles available on BluRay right now are not significantly better on my set-up than the same movie on DVD. For example, we compared the BluRay and DVD versions of Pineapple Express (my 15 year old son's idea). Yeah, the BluRay was better, but not enough to warrant the extra cost ($12.99 DVD / $24.99 BluRay). The movie simply didn't have the visual and sonic chops to make that much of a difference. Movies like Iron Man or Jurassic Park are created for optimum visceral impact and should be viewed on BluRay where it actually makes a difference over DVDs. I did the same comparison on Valentine's Day watching chick flicks (Night at Rodanthe) with my girlfriend. Those kind of movies don't have fireball explosions and car chases...as a rule they're evenly paced, character-driven movies geared to push your emotional buttons. It struck me when I was in the Borders music section shopping for movies that I don't need to pay the extra $10 or so for a BluRay version of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, because the slightly enhanced resolution wasn't worth the money to me. That's all I'm saying here...some movies deserve BluRay, some don't.

With all of that explaining, do you realize you still leave out the single most pertinent piece of information.

Screen size means absolutely nothing without distance (or viewing angle).

If you sit far away enough, no, you cannot discern improvements in resolution. Obviously.

edit: want to attach a couple of things.

Firstly, a helpful viewing angle calculator

a cool tweaking of cartonbale as done by ThA tRiXtA

 

[Starmax]

Jostenmeat...that completely, utterly and absolutely misses my point.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Jostenmeat...that completely, utterly and absolutely misses my point.

I agree that many movies aren't really made for Blu-ray, but I would actually tend to feel that this is an issue with studios and film instead of Blu-ray vs. DVD. I think studios are not up to speed yet with how much better Blu-ray is over DVD and the visual quality improvements which can be had with the format. At some point, this may require films to be shot on digital rather than film to optomize resolution throughout the process and have native digital footage that it bit-for-bit identical to the original shot when it comes out on Blu-ray.

Yet, at this time, there are movies which only see a minor improvement overall when it comes to Blu-ray, and were never made, or intended to have, any 'punch' whatsoever. That is, the try to convey a story by conveying a story instead of blowing crud up.

So, a movie with limited range in the audio, and video which doesn't have the care taken to ensure perfection, will get little benefit from Blu-ray. While sci-fi, action, adventure, etc. type films will at least take advantage of the audio, and often have stellar results with the video quality jump.

That said, I don't intend to look back at DVD ever again, and a few bucks more to own a movie when I only buy 20-30 a year is not the end of the world to me.

 

[Starmax]

BMXTRIX...that is completely, utterly and absolutely what I meant! Thanks for saying it more clearly than I apparently was able to.

I believe the same disparity in quality among BlueRay discs goes for live concerts as well. David Gilmour's "Remember That Night, Live at the Royal Albert Hall" as a prime example of a BluRay done right, mainly because the concert was recently produced/recorded specifically for the BR format. I don't know the technical minutia of what differences are involved between shooting for DVD vs BluRay, but surely there are noticeable differences watching the David Gilmour disc and a much older concert like "The Last Waltz" that was transferred from an older format. All high rez productions aren't created equal...I've noticed great variances in sound quality among DVD-Audio and SACD discs, just like HD TV programming is all over the map.

 

[jostenmeat]

Jostenmeat...that completely, utterly and absolutely misses my point.

Then you have completely, utterly, and absolutely missed mine as well.

I agree that many movies aren't really made for Blu-ray, but I would actually tend to feel that this is an issue with studios and film instead of Blu-ray vs. DVD. I think studios are not up to speed yet with how much better Blu-ray is over DVD and the visual quality improvements which can be had with the format. At some point, this may require films to be shot on digital rather than film to optomize resolution throughout the process and have native digital footage that it bit-for-bit identical to the original shot when it comes out on Blu-ray.

Which ones? I just watched Burn After Reading last night. I never watch extras, but I've already mentioned here that the extras are supposed to have a lot of pop, as they used HD video for that. Film is grainier, but I personally love it, and I'm sure they chose that for a reason for the movie itself. (I thought it looked very good, and very consistent). One can still tell when the master, or something or other, could've been better (recent experiences are Mongol and Boondock Saints), but to say either of those don't look better than DVD leaves me as . I'm not saying that's what anyone said, but even subpar examples are still waaaaaaaaay better than DVD.

Yet, at this time, there are movies which only see a minor improvement overall when it comes to Blu-ray, and were never made, or intended to have, any 'punch' whatsoever. That is, the try to convey a story by conveying a story instead of blowing crud up.

Which ones? House of Flying Daggers... Sleepy Hollow... um..... I'm sure there's a few more. But, I could name a hundred that are well worth the blu upgrade!

So, a movie with limited range in the audio, and video which doesn't have the care taken to ensure perfection, will get little benefit from Blu-ray. While sci-fi, action, adventure, etc. type films will at least take advantage of the audio, and often have stellar results with the video quality jump.

I will grant that differences in audio are much less predictable than with the video. However, even if a movie has some healthy application of DNR, EE, and the like, it still looks way better than the DVDs. Now, if they didn't have to resort in scrubbing the film, then one is in for a serious treat. Granted of course that one has a viewing angle that allows for the enjoyment of any increased rez.

That said, I don't intend to look back at DVD ever again, and a few bucks more to own a movie when I only buy 20-30 a year is not the end of the world to me.

I haven't since '07. Can't.

However, my viewing angle would probably allow for the full benefit of 1440p, let alone 1080p.

 

[Starmax]

Jost, you're wearing me out. I did get your point. You were trying to empirically establish that BluRay was superior to DVD technology in every measurable way, and if I could not detect a vast difference between the two formats in every movie I watched, then something was wrong with my set-up. I've been saying that's a bogus premise, because I've watched several DVD/BluRay same-movie comparisons, and it's just not so. There is no question that best of BluRay is without equal....just finished watching the BluRay "Cars" and it was light years better than my DVD version. But BluRay is still an emerging technology. There are several titles out right now that are light years better than the same version in DVD. I'm not disputing the superiority of the format. But I've also watching a disappointing number of BluRay movies that were only negligibly better. Why do you have a problem with that? Please don't answer...it was rhetorical.

 

[jostenmeat]

How far do you sit from your LCD?

 

[Starmax]

OMG...I can't believe you completely, utterly and absolutely asked me that!

I just measured and my sweet spot is 7'1" from my TV screen. My two front speakers are 6'9" apart, so where I'm sitting almost forms an equilateral triangle, which is a good thing. Movies not only look good, but sound good.

What?

 

[jostenmeat]

OMG...I can't believe you completely, utterly and absolutely asked me that!

It's actually very helpful to know. People now can at least see that you appreciate 1080p with 20/20 vision from your viewing angle. Without that information . . . ?

It gives your subjective opinion more credence. Does that make any sense?

Do we have to deal with attitude to get the simple piece of information?

I just measured and my sweet spot is 7'1" from my TV screen. My two front speakers are 6'9" apart, so where I'm sitting almost forms an equilateral triangle, which is a good thing. Movies not only look good, but sound good.

What?

Equilateral is a nice starting point, but it depends on the speakers and situation within the room. I believe the best information, AFAIK, for a starting guideline could be to have the axes cross right in front of the head. Then again, even with the same speakers do people find different preferences for angles. I know that this is the case for my own stereo speakers.

 

[PENG]

It's actually very helpful to know. People now can at least see that you appreciate 1080p with 20/20 vision from your viewing angle.

I cannot comment on BRs but I do own a few HD DVDs that don't look 1080p at all. So may be Starmax also own a few BR discs that look more like 480p.

Other than that there is no doubt BR is a must for anyone who sits close enough to his/her HDTV. Conversely for those who must sit say 12 feet away watching anything small than a 50" 1080p display may get by with a DVD player that has nice upscaling and enhancing capabilities. Thanks for the chart by the way, I am going to save it for future reference.

 

[jliedeka]

To answer the original question, I think it's not too early for BD. I've had a BD player for a few months now and I guess that still makes me an early adopter to some. My attitude is that when there is enough media that I want available, it's time to buy in.

There still isn't a perfect player but mine is good enough to show the advantages of Blu-Ray over DVD. The video looks better than upscaled DVDs and for many title the audio takes it to a whole other level.

I'm not saying I'm going to re-purchase every DVD I own as BD. I have done that with a few like Dark City, Batman Begins and LA Confidential.

I don't believe that the video of BD is hampered too much by how movies are shot. A clean 35mm print should still look better than the best 1080p. Given the limitations of human vision, however, I wouldn't be rushing to buy a 4k system when that becomes available. I think 1080p video is not going to be appreciably worse than anything else in the average or above average home theater.

Jim

 

[jostenmeat]

Other than that there is no doubt BR is a must for anyone who sits close enough to his/her HDTV.

Yes. DVD is unwatchable on my rig, and that goes for the best transfers I know of using Anchor Bay to a very nice display, in a light controlled room. Trust me, I would love to enjoy LOTR on my 75 sq ft screen, but I can make out the highlighted outlines of Bilbo right from the beginning (where they were using blue screens, so he can disappear). It's clear as day, and I just can't watch it. Still patiently waiting on BD release.

Conversely for those who must sit say 12 feet away watching anything small than a 50" 1080p display may get by with a DVD player that has nice upscaling and enhancing capabilities.

+1.

Thanks for the chart by the way, I am going to save it for future reference.

You're welcome.

 

[lsiberian]

OMG...I can't believe you completely, utterly and absolutely asked me that!

I just measured and my sweet spot is 7'1" from my TV screen. My two front speakers are 6'9" apart, so where I'm sitting almost forms an equilateral triangle, which is a good thing. Movies not only look good, but sound good.

What?

It's actually very helpful to know. People now can at least see that you appreciate 1080p with 20/20 vision from your viewing angle. Without that information . . . ?

It gives your subjective opinion more credence. Does that make any sense?

Do we have to deal with attitude to get the simple piece of information?



Equilateral is a nice starting point, but it depends on the speakers and situation within the room. I believe the best information, AFAIK, for a starting guideline could be to have the axes cross right in front of the head. Then again, even with the same speakers do people find different preferences for angles. I know that this is the case for my own stereo speakers.

You want attitude I'll give you attitude! But seriously it's still harder to tell on a TV than on a Projector. Even small changes are noticeable on PJ display. It's really an unfair comparison.

 

[jostenmeat]

You want attitude I'll give you attitude! But seriously it's still harder to tell on a TV than on a Projector. Even small changes are noticeable on PJ display. It's really an unfair comparison.

IMO, it's not necessarily TV vs PJ. Some of THE most avid reviewers of BD titles are using Kuro's with immersive viewing angles.

However, this is at least the 3rd time I've said this at AH, I simply don't listen to any BD title review of anyone using an LCD. It's just a discrimination I make so that life is easier. Half the time, they don't even know they are using frame interpolation, and so no wonder they think DNR is a great thing. Ok, that might be exaggerating a bit, but you would be surprised.

 

[Starmax]

Jost, my attitude was manufactured exasperation...didn't mean for it to be taken seriously. Perhaps our rigs are so fundamentally different that we're living in two distinct movie universes. Are my AV standards lower than yours? Doesn't matter...watching DVD movies on my system made me happy, thrilled even. BluRay was obviously superior with sound and visual detail, some titles more noticeable than others. It appears that the difference between the two formats on my system isn't as significant as it is on yours, especially when you say DVDs were almost unwatchable.

 

[allargon]

Jost, my attitude was manufactured exasperation...didn't mean for it to be taken seriously. Perhaps our rigs are so fundamentally different that we're living in two distinct movie universes. Are my AV standards lower than yours? Doesn't matter...watching DVD movies on my system made me happy, thrilled even. BluRay was obviously superior with sound and visual detail, some titles more noticeable than others. It appears that the difference between the two formats on my system isn't as significant as it is on yours, especially when you say DVDs were almost unwatchable.

DVD's might be unwatchable for people with projectors and/or people with crappy Blu-Ray players (including the highly lauded Panasonics) that can't upscale worth a care. However, for most people with screen sizes below 65", DVD's are quite watchable although HD sources tend to look better.

 

[Starmax]

Nights in Rodanthe

Hello, Starmax's girlfriend here. Is no one going to dis him for watching "Nights in Rodanthe"?

And the debate rages on...

 

[JLMEMT]

Hello, Starmax's girlfriend here. Is no one going to dis him for watching "Nights in Rodanthe"?

And the debate rages on...

That's not right!

Are you saying that it was his choice to watch it?
He most certianly pawned it off on you.

I have "enjoyed" this thread as I really want to jump into Bluray, but have been trying to wait for several reasons.
I know I won't wait a lot longer though.

 

[poutanen]

I still think the PS3 is a good deal. I bought my 60 gig about a year and a half ago (got one of the last ones left in the Toronto area, or so I was lead to believe, for $399 CDN)... anyway, it's a BluRay player, plays all my old ps2 games, and a benefit which I wasn't expecting was using it as a media hub, for lack of a better term. I have stored over 50% of my CD collection on the hard drive, and set up playlists, now I never have to pick a few CDs to listen at any one time. This makes my 25 cd changer old news.

I'm not fine paying $35 a movie for BR, just as I wasn't happy paying $20+ for DVDs, so I always buy previously viewed ones from blockbuster. Usually pay about $5-10 and they have a 30 day warranty so you can at least get it home and make sure it's not scratched.

I would buy a PS3 again if mine was stolen.