• Is Blu-Ray Worth It?
    42 replies, posted
honestly in my opinion the Avatar Blu-Ray doesn't even look that good. It looks like what a "great" Blu-Ray looked like two years ago. and then everyone is just chanting saying it looks beautiful solely because it's Avatar.
Blu-ray is just the next step in CD evolution...
i usually rent bluray, you pay a bit extra for outstanding quality and sound. well worth it
For some movies such as Avatar, yes. It really is worth it. But really tthe majority of movies don't need to be in HD, it makes it a bit nicer but at the end of the day who wants to see Jonah Hill's face in it's full detail? (Love you really, Jonah.)
To be honest, I've never really noticed a difference between my 1080p upscaling DVD player and my friend's Blu Ray, mostly because I don't hold a magnifying glass up to the screen to inspect the fidelity of every damn pixel. If you're a sucker for Blu Ray exclusive features, then by all means, go ahead.
I want to say yes, but for the expensive ones going for 400 dollars? No. Not one fucking bit. I got one for 88 dollars and it's very good. Buy that one.
Here's an exert from the June issue of Popular Science magazine: [quote] “Should I re-buy classic movies when they come out on Blu-Ray?” Yes, Assuming you own a high-def TV. Even the older 35 millimeter film used to shoot classics like Spartacus can deliver upward of 6,000 lines of resolution far more than DVD’s 480 or Blu-Ray’s (and your HDTVs)1080p. When movie studios create their Blu-ray versions, they digitize directly from the original film print, so a remastered Blu-ray will get you much closer to the original quality than a DVD, and for the foreseeable future it will probably remain the maximum resolution widely available for home use. Having spent years in the remastering trenches, though, I can give an even better reason to upgrade. The quality of the film scanners used to convert film to a digital format has improved dramatically in the past few years. That gives mastering artists more to work with when they apply tools to even out film grain and remove fading, film cuts and other damage that befalls elderly prints. As a result, you’ll see brighter, clearer colors, less variance in quality between scenes, and a sharper image. Of course sometimes the mastering is so good that it exposes flaws in the original film. For example, did you know that they painted the grass green in the opening segment of The Sound of Music? Old VHS copies looked fine, but when we transferred it from the original 65 millimeter film, you could tell.[/quote]
[QUOTE=DoneZ;22654260]I just rented The Spirit on blu-ray (as this was the most visually interesting movie I could think of at the time) to see what it would look like on my HD television. What I am wondering is both of these two things. First is it cost effective to buy blu-rays that I may already own on DVD? Is there that much of a difference in the definition of movies made 40 or 50 years ago? I know I sound terribly misinformed, but I have tried to figure these things out on my own and I just haven't come to a definite conclusion. What I also want to know is what movies are worth owning on blu-ray? This is the real reason why I made this thread. I was thinking of buying some Pixar movies and that is all I know.[/QUOTE] Depends on your overall set up. Personally they're worth it. They're fairly cheap compared to what they used to be priced as. Personally i love watching movies on my 52" LCD TV in full 1080P. Some movies look better then others. Hell most blu-ray players are not that expensive anymore and they also up-scale regular DVD's. Even with upscale they look fairly decent, obviously not blu-ray but still look good enough.
I'm never buying another DVD. And it wasn't even a full-HD tv, or particularly big. Big time worth it. Depending on the transfer old films will see the most improvement, as they use film. Some even use 70mm. Apart from the overall quality upgrade, Bluray also suffers from none of the problems associated with DVD. It runs at full 24p, whereas DVD's are telecined, PAL DVD's run 4% too fast because they are simply sped up from 24 to 25. Some VHS' use pitch correction but I've yet to hear this in a DVD which means everyone sounds a bit like helium. And on NTSC depending on the way it was telecined it can result in some nasty judder.
see my thread for questions and answers [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=22675259[/url]
To me '6x sharper picture' means nothing, but I do like the way BluRay is a bit more dynamic (menus, the way extra features are played and displayed) and the amount of content you can get on them. No need for a bonus disk when it's all on one.
Eh, the picture is amazing. Sharp as a cinema, and perfect. DVD is like a VHS that got compressed with JPEG a couple of times too many in comparison.
From now on we'll use the Blu-ray Discussion megathread if that's alright. [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=954522[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.