Blu-ray not worth it?

I'm reading up on the threads where people were complaining how their Bluray movies don't look THAT much better than regular DVD and I've noticed one common theme: apparently some Bluray movies aren't up to snuff.

Here are some quotes I've found in these threads:

"Depends on movie. Some movies on BD looks exactly like the DVD versions of the same movie. "

"Talladega Nights looks aweful for a BD. Its the same mpeg2 transfer thats on the DVD."

" yeah like the first gen of the fifth element and Full Metal Jacket. they where both just dvd copys with blu-ray slaped on."

But this last quote has really bothered me:

"just because its blu-ray doesn't mean you will be getting the best picture. This is more out of our hands. It has to do with how the movie was shot, mastered then encoded and transfer to blu-ray."

So if the quality of movie primarily depends on how it was shot, then doesn't that defeat the purpose of having Bluray, where we're under the impression that ALL Bluray movies are supposed to look far superior to the DVD version? It's kinda pissing me off reading about how some bluray movies don't look that much better than DVD when that's the whole point of having Bluray in the first place, to get a picture that's MUCH MUCH more detailed than DVD, otherwise, why can't I just simply buy the DVD version of a "bad" movie, get an identical picture quality, and save me $15?

Also, how is the average consumer supposed to know which Bluray movies are the "bad" ones and which ones truly stand out as true high-def movies? This isn't fair to most people who buy Bluray movies assuming it's going to kick the DVD version's ass out of the water, but then take it home and realize it wasn't worth the extra $15 premium.

One perfect example, apparently the movie 300 was supposed to be the "model" for true high-def glory (no pun intended) on bluray, yet when the movie came out, it turns out it doesn't look that much better than DVD, in fact, some people argued they looked identical. I've read on many forums where people kept saying "yeah 300 looks like garbage on my PS3"

There are some pretty big differences if you compare the two. Some huge noticeable differences are if you would watch Blade Runner on DVD and Blu-Ray.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=998844

Here is comparison pix on HD DVD :( between Beowulf DVD and High Def.

I guess HD media is really worth it for the home theater types. I do notice a difference between SD and HD media. Some transfers are bad though!

Heres Harry Potter Comparison pics

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=959545

I am always amazed when I hear people say that they cant see a significant difference between DVD and HD formats. I can maybe give it to you if you are talking about upscaled DVDs, but they have a fuzziness to them because there is not enough data to create a sharp crisp image.

Its true some of the earlier movies (and some current) just dont have very good source to generate HD from (e.g. Ocean's 13 looks like crapola). But the majority of movies look stunning.

I think Animated movies are the exception to the rule, there is not enough detail in Animated movies to make a significant difference, an upscaled animated movie will in most cases resemble its HD counter part.

How do you know which are which? Either rent first, or do your homework, read the AVS forum.

HD resolution is not the only benefit Blu-ray offers. DVDs actually suck on compression too. Many of them have visible compression artifacts, edge ringing, macroblocking, poor muddy dark scenes, so so color. While, on Blu-ray or HD-DVD, even if it's not the sharpest movie, the compession is so good you can hardly find any of those issues and better color.

It's not always about seeing every grain of sand in HD, but portraying the film the best it can look for a natural film like experience and without looking like a low-res compressed mpeg on a 50+ inch screen.

Example, one reason I don't rent HD movies off Xbox Live is they are so compressed, crap compared to Blu-ray and HD-DVD, even over DVD in some scenes depending on the action. I mean when an HD download is smaller than a dual layer DVD, you know there were some cutbacks. And a SD movie on a Blu-ray, thanks to better compression, would look better than DVD.

So don't expect every films hould be Discovery HD quality. Many are still done with film, which won't always be razor sharp, many will have grain. Atleast you know on Blu-ray, unless a bad release, that it's the best it will look.

If you want to buy a movie and not sure, wait for a review at www.highdefdigest.com

Blu-ray is an excellent investment, especially considering it is the Official Next-Gen DVD. :)

Blu-ray is an excellent investment, especially considering it is the Official Next-Gen DVD. :)

FearTheRain

I wonder if Blu-ray will ever replace DVD. They just might survive side by side, for the SD market and the HD market. As it's not like everyone has HDTVs.

And by the time that happens, downloads might be more convient to the average person.

i was thinking on buying the 300 bluray movie tmr...which is going to be my first bluray movie. But does 300 bluray really look no different than the DVD version??joeychew

HD resolution is not the only benefit Blu-ray offers. DVDs actually suck on compression too. Many of them have visible compression artifacts, edge ringing, macroblocking, poor muddy dark scenes, so so color. While, on Blu-ray or HD-DVD, even if it's not the sharpest movie, the compession is so good you can hardly find any of those issues and better color.TimothyB

blu-ray is well worth the money....but remember this, you cant expect to have the image jump out at you if your viewing it through some cheap ass TV....your viewing sorce makes a HUGE difference in what you'll truly see....dont beleive me....take a trip to the Sony store near you and have him drop in Happy Feet on Blu-Ray...then on standard disc.....there isnt anybody in the house can tell me they wont see the difference.....still not convinced...ask the tech to try a few different TV's...you'll see what I mean. Blu-Ray is worth the money.

I don't really understand why some people can't see the difference in picture & sound quality between Blu-Ray & DVDs? I bought a couple of Blu-Ray movies which I already have it in DVD. The picture quality of the Blu-Ray version of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, The Fifth Element, Pirates of the Carribean & Planet Earth is amazing & compared to their DVD counterparts makes a HUGE difference! One noticeable difference is the sound! If you have a great sound system setup, you'll be immersed in the movie itself, especially in the Blu-Ray version. Hope this is helpful!

blu-ray is well worth the money....but remember this, you cant expect to have the image jump out at you if your viewing it through some cheap ass TV....your viewing sorce makes a HUGE difference in what you'll truly see....dont beleive me....take a trip to the Sony store near you and have him drop in Happy Feet on Blu-Ray...then on standard disc.....there isnt anybody in the house can tell me they wont see the difference.....still not convinced...ask the tech to try a few different TV's...you'll see what I mean. Blu-Ray is worth the money.

ArcticCat500

Does the period key on your keyboard stick?