i have a 32 inch samsung hd tv and i have hdmi with my 360 and watching dvds on there are kinda amazing with certain ones but should i upgrade to a blu ray player and would it really make a difference?
blu ray
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Blu ray is far better then dvd. even on my 20 intch monitor it looks great. still with dvd when you have an HD tv is foolish
Yes, it will look better. To see it for yourself, hook up your tv to your PC, then have the PC output at 800*600. Then have it at 1366*768 (which is what your Blu-Ray player will output at if your tv is 720P). Yep, it's night and day. And that was comparing it to 800*600 which is even a higher resolution than 480 (regular DVD). I don't think PC's these days can output lower than 600 vertical. And getting a Blu-Ray playeris a no-brainer sincenow you can find Blu-Ray players for as little as $120 for a name-brand model such as Toshiba or Samsung, which is almost the same cost as a DVD player....I purchased my Sony DVD player 1.5 years ago for $99, and I still regret it to this day. I'm planning on getting the PS3 cuz it's only $180 more than a Blu-Ray player, and it can play PS3 games :)
This is not a true representation of the difference in resolution. People need to understand that all flat screens have a native resolution and if you feed them anything but their native resolution, they have to scale it up or down to their native resolution. Pretty much all computer monitors will look very poor with any setting other than its native resolution. If you ant to test this with a PC, you need to either use a CRT monitor as that has no native resolution or get 2 monitors of the same brand and the same line calibrated the same except one is natively 720p and the other is natively 1080p and then play the sources. At some distance from those monitors the added resolution is no longer visible to the human eye. Now I love Blu-Ray (disc issues, slow loading, price, and compatibility issues aside), but people need to understand that the added resolution is only visible from a set distance based on the size of the screen ( http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html). The way some people talk about 1080p on this board leaves people to think that 1080p is the end all spec for image quality. If that was the case every single 1080p tv out there would look the same. Resolution is only one part of the equation, the other parts are native contrast, color reproduction, scaling, refresh rate, and video noise.Yes, it will look better. To see it for yourself, hook up your tv to your PC, then have the PC output at 800*600. Then have it at 1366*768 (which is what your Blu-Ray player will output at if your tv is 720P). Yep, it's night and day. And that was comparing it to 800*600 which is even a higher resolution than 480 (regular DVD). I don't think PC's these days can output lower than 600 vertical. And getting a Blu-Ray playeris a no-brainer sincenow you can find Blu-Ray players for as little as $120 for a name-brand model such as Toshiba or Samsung, which is almost the same cost as a DVD player....I purchased my Sony DVD player 1.5 years ago for $99, and I still regret it to this day. I'm planning on getting the PS3 cuz it's only $180 more than a Blu-Ray player, and it can play PS3 games :)
violian
[QUOTE="violian"]This is not a true representation of the difference in resolution. People need to understand that all flat screens have a native resolution and if you feed them anything but their native resolution, they have to scale it up or down to their native resolution. Pretty much all computer monitors will look very poor with any setting other than its native resolution. If you ant to test this with a PC, you need to either use a CRT monitor as that has no native resolution or get 2 monitors of the same brand and the same line calibrated the same except one is natively 720p and the other is natively 1080p and then play the sources. At some distance from those monitors the added resolution is no longer visible to the human eye. Now I love Blu-Ray (disc issues, slow loading, price, and compatibility issues aside), but people need to understand that the added resolution is only visible from a set distance based on the size of the screen ( http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html). The way some people talk about 1080p on this board leaves people to think that 1080p is the end all spec for image quality. If that was the case every single 1080p tv out there would look the same. Resolution is only one part of the equation, the other parts are native contrast, color reproduction, scaling, refresh rate, and video noise.Yes, it will look better. To see it for yourself, hook up your tv to your PC, then have the PC output at 800*600. Then have it at 1366*768 (which is what your Blu-Ray player will output at if your tv is 720P). Yep, it's night and day. And that was comparing it to 800*600 which is even a higher resolution than 480 (regular DVD). I don't think PC's these days can output lower than 600 vertical. And getting a Blu-Ray playeris a no-brainer sincenow you can find Blu-Ray players for as little as $120 for a name-brand model such as Toshiba or Samsung, which is almost the same cost as a DVD player....I purchased my Sony DVD player 1.5 years ago for $99, and I still regret it to this day. I'm planning on getting the PS3 cuz it's only $180 more than a Blu-Ray player, and it can play PS3 games :)
rastan
Exactly, his 720p television has a native resolution of 1366x768, but a DVD player outputs at 640x480, so the resolution will look poorer since theresolution is different. I asked him to try his tv on 800x600 to mimic the resolution mismatch between a regular DVD player and the tv. A blu-ray player can output an HD movie natively at 1366x768, which is his tv's native resolution, so that fact alone proves that the image will look better in that aspect alone. So he should get a Blu-ray player.
[QUOTE="rastan"][QUOTE="violian"]
Yes, it will look better. To see it for yourself, hook up your tv to your PC, then have the PC output at 800*600. Then have it at 1366*768 (which is what your Blu-Ray player will output at if your tv is 720P). Yep, it's night and day. And that was comparing it to 800*600 which is even a higher resolution than 480 (regular DVD). I don't think PC's these days can output lower than 600 vertical. And getting a Blu-Ray playeris a no-brainer sincenow you can find Blu-Ray players for as little as $120 for a name-brand model such as Toshiba or Samsung, which is almost the same cost as a DVD player....I purchased my Sony DVD player 1.5 years ago for $99, and I still regret it to this day. I'm planning on getting the PS3 cuz it's only $180 more than a Blu-Ray player, and it can play PS3 games :)
This is not a true representation of the difference in resolution. People need to understand that all flat screens have a native resolution and if you feed them anything but their native resolution, they have to scale it up or down to their native resolution. Pretty much all computer monitors will look very poor with any setting other than its native resolution. If you ant to test this with a PC, you need to either use a CRT monitor as that has no native resolution or get 2 monitors of the same brand and the same line calibrated the same except one is natively 720p and the other is natively 1080p and then play the sources. At some distance from those monitors the added resolution is no longer visible to the human eye. Now I love Blu-Ray (disc issues, slow loading, price, and compatibility issues aside), but people need to understand that the added resolution is only visible from a set distance based on the size of the screen ( http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html). The way some people talk about 1080p on this board leaves people to think that 1080p is the end all spec for image quality. If that was the case every single 1080p tv out there would look the same. Resolution is only one part of the equation, the other parts are native contrast, color reproduction, scaling, refresh rate, and video noise.Exactly, his 720p television has a native resolution of 1366x768, but a DVD player outputs at 640x480, so the resolution will look poorer since theresolution is different. I asked him to try his tv on 800x600 to mimic the resolution mismatch between a regular DVD player and the tv. A blu-ray player can output an HD movie natively at 1366x768, which is his tv's native resolution, so that fact alone proves that the image will look better in that aspect alone. So he should get a Blu-ray player.
Good example Violian. Displaying a 800x600 image on a PC monitor that is natively higher resolution forces the pixels to be realigned, and hence will no longe yield a pixel per pixel mapping scheme. Thus if you own an HD TV of any caliber 720 or 1080, you should upgrade to BluRay because that is the only way to get a proper pixel per pixel mapping scheme across your display. You're example of forcing an 800x600 feed into a PC monitor with higher resolution is a perfect comparison. Anyone with an HD TV of any caliber should really move onto BluRay if not for resolution, do it for proper pixel to pixel mapping.[QUOTE="violian"][QUOTE="rastan"] This is not a true representation of the difference in resolution. People need to understand that all flat screens have a native resolution and if you feed them anything but their native resolution, they have to scale it up or down to their native resolution. Pretty much all computer monitors will look very poor with any setting other than its native resolution. If you ant to test this with a PC, you need to either use a CRT monitor as that has no native resolution or get 2 monitors of the same brand and the same line calibrated the same except one is natively 720p and the other is natively 1080p and then play the sources. At some distance from those monitors the added resolution is no longer visible to the human eye. Now I love Blu-Ray (disc issues, slow loading, price, and compatibility issues aside), but people need to understand that the added resolution is only visible from a set distance based on the size of the screen ( http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html). The way some people talk about 1080p on this board leaves people to think that 1080p is the end all spec for image quality. If that was the case every single 1080p tv out there would look the same. Resolution is only one part of the equation, the other parts are native contrast, color reproduction, scaling, refresh rate, and video noise.pimperjones
Exactly, his 720p television has a native resolution of 1366x768, but a DVD player outputs at 640x480, so the resolution will look poorer since theresolution is different. I asked him to try his tv on 800x600 to mimic the resolution mismatch between a regular DVD player and the tv. A blu-ray player can output an HD movie natively at 1366x768, which is his tv's native resolution, so that fact alone proves that the image will look better in that aspect alone. So he should get a Blu-ray player.
Good example Violian. Displaying a 800x600 image on a PC monitor that is natively higher resolution forces the pixels to be realigned, and hence will no longe yield a pixel per pixel mapping scheme. Thus if you own an HD TV of any caliber 720 or 1080, you should upgrade to BluRay because that is the only way to get a proper pixel per pixel mapping scheme across your display. You're example of forcing an 800x600 feed into a PC monitor with higher resolution is a perfect comparison. Anyone with an HD TV of any caliber should really move onto BluRay if not for resolution, do it for proper pixel to pixel mapping.Thanks Pimperjones. I wishI could virtually "high-five" you on this forum....like the equivalent of Facebook's "poke" feature..lol. Everyone should get a Blu-ray player and blu-ray movies. The more people thatsupports blu-ray players and movies, the cheaper they'll be, and that's good for every consumer.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment