Blu-ray's a bag of hurt...

[Danwar]

most people cant REALLY see the difference.

more than once i have seen blu-ray displays in Best Buy & Circuit City hooked up with composite & s-video cables, and i swear you still hear people say "This High-Def looks incredible , its so much better than normal DVD"

/sigh...

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
T2 is a pretty crappy transfer. I own it and it's definitely better than the upscaled DVD (wtaching in 1080P), but it still lacks. Watching something like Kill Bill would be much better. If you are unaware, I actually find this list: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316 to be pretty damn good. All of the Tier 0 movies I have seen from that list have looked stunning. Be warned though, many of the guys that participate in that thread see things I can't see on my 48" screen.

It is unfortunate when people are introduced to the format with a subpar title like this and hopefully the studios will be more careful with their releases in the future. That does seem to be the case so far, going by a lot of the newer releases, though there are still a few that come out looking sub-standard.

As for the loading time, I've never encountered that problem with my PS3. My movies are usually up and running within around 30 seconds maximum.

KT

i was not aware there was a 48" of any type. what do you have? plasma, lcd, dlp?
projector?

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: Amused
You gotta have the right TV to see the HUGE difference in Blu-Ray over DVDs.

And I mean HUGE difference!

And a 720p low end LCD ain't gonna do it. That's why the Blu-Ray displays at stores have large, 1080P displays.

On my 52" LCD and 67" DLP, the difference is like night and day between Blu-Ray and DVD.

OP,. what you have done is akin to buying a ferrai, driving it on a dirt road, and then complaining about the bumpy ride and traction.

I'd say you need a 40" or better set to see a difference. At 6x the number of pixels if you can't see a difference either your TV is not very good or the transfer stinks. If you're watching a romantic comedy or something like that the extra resolution probably does not matter, but for something like TDK or Iron Man, yeah it does.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: Danwar
most people cant REALLY see the difference.

more than once i have seen blu-ray displays in Best Buy & Circuit City hooked up with composite & s-video cables, and i swear you still hear people say "This High-Def looks incredible , its so much better than normal DVD"

/sigh...

Best Buy, etc. are showing Blu-rays on 120hz LCDs which give them a really "holy shit" effect. I personally think 120hz looks terrible but people are eating it up. Way to piss on the filmmakers vision

 

[spidey07]

It's not just the resolution. You should IMMEDIATELY notice the better color.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

ZOMG the fugitive on Blu ray was my introduction to Blu ray. Almost gave my drive back

Luckily Man on Fire was next

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: Chris
Wounded HD DVD Children incoming.

Y HELO THAR!

My XBOX360 HD-DVD drive takes about a few seconds to get to the disc menu from the dashboard. The HD-A2 we had on the other hand, took one minute just to show the fucking Toshiba logo.

Then again, my 360 gave me fun times like this: Text

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
T2 is a pretty crappy transfer. I own it and it's definitely better than the upscaled DVD (wtaching in 1080P), but it still lacks. Watching something like Kill Bill would be much better. If you are unaware, I actually find this list: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316 to be pretty damn good. All of the Tier 0 movies I have seen from that list have looked stunning. Be warned though, many of the guys that participate in that thread see things I can't see on my 48" screen.

It is unfortunate when people are introduced to the format with a subpar title like this and hopefully the studios will be more careful with their releases in the future. That does seem to be the case so far, going by a lot of the newer releases, though there are still a few that come out looking sub-standard.

As for the loading time, I've never encountered that problem with my PS3. My movies are usually up and running within around 30 seconds maximum.

KT

i was not aware there was a 48" of any type. what do you have? plasma, lcd, dlp?
projector?

My bad, 46" Samsung. Fixed that.

KT

 

[T9D]

...

 

[sourceninja]

I've gotten so used to watching HD TV that regular DVDs are unbearable to watch. I'm probably going to be picking up a Blue-ray soon. I won't even watch non-HD tv anymore.

 

[dwell]

Originally posted by: v1001
I agree. Blu-ray is just a mediocre upgrade. It is better though and I love the sound. But What we really need is the 4k video with less compression and TV's to match. It's coming but it will be a while. I wish they had just jumped straight to it though and bypassed 2k (1080).

That's ridiculous. It's debatable if 1080p makes any discernable difference over 720p at ~8ft on a 42 - 50" set. 4k will not matter until 120" sets are the norm (meaning never). I mean, I would be glad to have a 4k source, but law of diminishing returns apply here.

 

[jpeyton]

Set size, resolution and viewing distance matter.

Blu-Ray is a lot more noticeable on a 50" set vs. a 32" set. Your eyes can only resolve so much resolution, so if you're viewing 480P DVD and 1080P Blu-Ray side-by-side, you could easily see the difference at normal (5'-10') viewing distances, but when you get further away it becomes less noticeable.

I'm an AV enthusiast. I love my home theater. For me, Blu-Ray was a no-brainer upgrade. I have friends who aren't enthusiasts at all; they would watch all their movies on Hulu if they could.

To each his own.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
My bad, 46" Samsung. Fixed that.

KT

I :heart: my 46" Samsung. Although Crutchfield had a 62" Samsung DLP (LED as well) on sale for $1,299... I was so damn tempted. But then I saw a Samsung 30" LCD (PC) monitor at work and holy jesus, those are reaaaaaally nice.

Imagine WoW on that!

 

[0roo0roo]

disc cost is the bag of hurt.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: KeithTalent
My bad, 46" Samsung. Fixed that.

KT

I :heart: my 46" Samsung. Although Crutchfield had a 62" Samsung DLP (LED as well) on sale for $1,299... I was so damn tempted. But then I saw a Samsung 30" LCD (PC) monitor at work and holy jesus, those are reaaaaaally nice.

Imagine WoW on that!

I absolutely love my TV, I couldn't be happier with it. I can't believe I watched all of my TV and movies on a 15" laptop for a year. I can't imagine going back to that now.

KT

 

[tHa ShIzNiT]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Amused
You gotta have the right TV to see the HUGE difference in Blu-Ray over DVDs.

And I mean HUGE difference!

And a 720p low end LCD ain't gonna do it. That's why the Blu-Ray displays at stores have large, 1080P displays.

On my 52" LCD and 67" DLP, the difference is like night and day between Blu-Ray and DVD.

OP,. what you have done is akin to buying a ferrai, driving it on a dirt road, and then complaining about the bumpy ride and traction.

That's my point - I'm sure it'll look great on my old 57" RPTV, and I'm bringing it over to my dad's place to see Ironman on his 60" dlp - but how many people have larger than 40" tvs these days?

I just think it's a niche product right now, and will survive based on marketing not demand

Who the fuck DOESNT have a >40" TV right now? This is a fucking tech forum, where people have high priced gadgets and gizmos...but for fucks sake even the average joe has a 50" nowadays. Ya'll must still be in high school or college or some shit. What the fuck is going on with this forum? I have never seen so many ridiculous posts in my life.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: QueBert
I set up a Home Theater for a friend, we put the Matrix BlueRay in and it literily took about 2 minutes for the disc to actually get to the main menu. Is this typical for most BD movies?

No doubt followed by 4 minutes of wasted time with various copyright threats and other non bypassable crap.

Just gives me time to set up me recorder :Q

 

[Jack Ryan]

Originally posted by: tHa ShIzNiT

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: Amused
You gotta have the right TV to see the HUGE difference in Blu-Ray over DVDs.

And I mean HUGE difference!

And a 720p low end LCD ain't gonna do it. That's why the Blu-Ray displays at stores have large, 1080P displays.

On my 52" LCD and 67" DLP, the difference is like night and day between Blu-Ray and DVD.

OP,. what you have done is akin to buying a ferrai, driving it on a dirt road, and then complaining about the bumpy ride and traction.

That's my point - I'm sure it'll look great on my old 57" RPTV, and I'm bringing it over to my dad's place to see Ironman on his 60" dlp - but how many people have larger than 40" tvs these days?

I just think it's a niche product right now, and will survive based on marketing not demand

Who the fuck DOESNT have a >40" TV right now? This is a fucking tech forum, where people have high priced gadgets and gizmos...but for fucks sake even the average joe has a 50" nowadays. Ya'll must still be in high school or college or some shit. What the fuck is going on with this forum? I have never seen so many ridiculous posts in my life.

I LOVE the intensity!

 

[Joemonkey]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Kadarin
I saw Wall-E on blueray the other night, and I swear there were at least 10 minutes of Disney ads.

Disney has been and probably always will be the worst offender with respect to ads. Thank goodness we have the forward button.

KT

i have a couple disnety flicks where that you cant FF through those stupid ads. you press the FF button or menu button and you get the middle finger flashing on the screen.

ugh, tell me about it... then the disc has the balls to say it is equipped with "Disney Fast Play" that doesn't do a damn thing

If I hear peter pan say "Here we goooooooooooooooo!" one more time i'm gonna scream

 

[KLin]

Originally posted by: Tobolo
I have heard that the delay was annoyingly long. Been one of the reasons that I have held off. I guess I will continue to hold off.

Older bluray players have this problem. Newer models load the bluray disc faster. PS3 loads up a BD movie very quickly. Just do some research and you'll find this our for yourself.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Chris

Originally posted by: Danwar
most people cant REALLY see the difference.

more than once i have seen blu-ray displays in Best Buy & Circuit City hooked up with composite & s-video cables, and i swear you still hear people say "This High-Def looks incredible , its so much better than normal DVD"

/sigh...

Best Buy, etc. are showing Blu-rays on 120hz LCDs which give them a really "holy shit" effect. I personally think 120hz looks terrible but people are eating it up. Way to piss on the filmmakers vision

You are confusing 120hz with temporal interpolation. The real-time interpolation enabled on many LCDs causes the "soap opera" effect you are thinking of, and yes, it looks terrible. On the other hand, 120hz LCDs are one of the ways in which are almost guaranteed to view a film as the filmmaker intended if filmed at 24 frames per second.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: swbsam
I've held out on bothering with blu-ray for a while since HD-Streaming/downloading and directv where filling the need pretty well.

On Saturday I found a sony blu-ray player, open box (bd-s500) on sale for $149 and it was too good of deal to pass up, so I grabbed that and a cheapie blu-ray (T2) to give it all a whirl.

Out of the box the picture quality on a set typical of what most consumers will have, a 720p LCD, was just marginally better than upscaled dvd. Sound was fuller on my 5.1 system, but how many average Joes have surround sound setups?

Anyways, I figured out why the unit was returned - probably multiple times. Out of the box, the disk I picked up suffered from massive lip-sync issues. Also, load time was excessive and the experience not entirely seamless.

A firmware update fixed everything, but overall the experience embarrassing. I really can't see a lot of people caring, beyond the marketing hype.

I understand blu-ray is "better" than dvd, but I don't believe enough so to make for a sustainable format.

The US T2 on BD is an absolutely wretched transfer, and arguably slightly better than DVD; so no shock there. This has been documented extensively.

Take a look at Die Hard 4, Ratatoullie, Kung-Fu Panda and others, then comment again.

as far as HD media goes in this current early stage, your mileage will most certainly vary. (some transfers terrible, some ridiculously good)

Of course, it's also stupid to criticize a format based on an early gen, open-box item. Any AT member should realize that.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: QueBert
I set up a Home Theater for a friend, we put the Matrix BlueRay in and it literily took about 2 minutes for the disc to actually get to the main menu. Is this typical for most BD movies?

Yes.

It sucks, but works well if you want to go get some food/drinks before it starts

absolutely not. Again, depends on your player.

FOr the most part, the PS3 is by far the most reliable, though also underspeced compared to newer stand-alones.

I've had maybe 2 BDs over nearly 2 years now that have taken as long as 1 minute to load on my PS3. All the others have been zippy. But again, this seems to be the most reliable machine in terms of load time.

These things are expected with developing formats, and considering that prices are ridiculously cheap compared to DVD at the same time point after its introduction, I find little to complain about outside of particular studios being lazy about certain transfers.

 

[xboxist]

My Blu-ray player is a PS3. I have a 46" 1080p LCD. When I play a Blu-ray movie it looks quite a bit better than your average DVD. To the point where when I open a Netflix movie in the mail, I kinda give a disappointing "awwwww" if it's not a Blu-ray disc.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: BigToque
Is Blu-Ray better than DVD? Absolutely.
Do most people see the advantage? Probably not.

I've got a nice 1080p tv and a decent stereo, so I can see a benefit in quality.

Most people though really don't have the kind of hardware where they see any real significant increase in quality (or at least not the quality you might expect from a $200+ investment plus more expensive movies/rentals). When you are sitting 6+ feet from a 26-32" tv, using just the built-in speakers, you certainly don't notice a huge difference over DVD.

That's my point - I really don't see this catching on, to the point of supporting a totally new format...Especially during an economic downturn...Will blu-ray matter in a few years? Will it stay around long enough to live along side downloadable hd-video on demand?

But it is catching on and people are adopting at larger rates every week. If you have some time there is an interesting discussion here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb....php?t=798272&page=179 with a lot of facts, figures, and voices of dissent as well, so you get to hear all sides.

Some people say they can't really see a difference between upconverted DVDs and Blu-rays, and with certain transfer and smaller screens I can see that being true, but watching a well-transferred movie on a screen over 42", I find it very hard to believe you cannot tell the difference and that is before we even get into audio.

KT

I think Blueray is going to be a bump in the road and be bypassed by streaming.