Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
codecreeper

DVD vs Bluray

Recommended Posts

Anyone noticing Bluray discs to buy with movies on them are far cheaper than DVD's now?

 

When i go into JB's i see no one in the Bluray isles ,but many in DVD isles. Could buyers be turning their backs on Bluray DVD's in favour of the more popular DVD format. Just like the old VHS vs BETA tape wars.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes. I got Mad Max on Bluray when it was on that format for a matter of days on eBay for 20 bucks.

But on the other hand, you often see recent DVDs in the 8-15 range.

 

Can't say I've been to JB lately. DVD still has much greater coverage, you'd think they'd start doing compilations onto Bluray or something but it still seems like it's a premium format.

The other thing is that both are losing popularity thanks to digital downloads and streaming. I've had a BR player almost 4 years but have only bothered to buy 5 or 6 movies, and only bothered to hire 1 or 2 early on.

 

DVD as a format though, it's sort of useless now. 720x576 resolution just doesn't cut it. But we can put higher res video files on data DVDs and playback in BR or other suitable media player.

That said though, optical media is on the slide in a big way thanks to flashdrives and mechanical HDDs now being cheaper. And HDDs for some time now have been cheaper on a per Gig basis. That and the fact they're more space efficient by a factor of about 50 or more, good reason to avoid optical media altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped buying DVDs, and started getting BRDs, years before I got an actual BR player.

 

Optical is still cheaper for mass distribution than other physical media. Online is... I still don't like you're buying a licence that is essentially non-transferrable. BL when you die etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still finding that new releases usually want a $5-10 premium for bluray.

$20-25 for DVD,

$30-35 for BD,

$35-45 for 3D BD.

 

The markup pisses me off for the same content. I don't buy DVD any more, but I still look at the price when determining BD value for money. I'll pay DVD+$5 for BD and BD+$5 for 3D, but no more. I'm happy to wait a few months for things to become sensible price.

 

I also refuse to buy a 2D BD if there's a delayed 3D release - eg Star Wars VII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still use DVD exclusively.

When I archive my collection, I decomb and upsample to 720p, in h.265, and call it done.

 

Not even my friends with good eyes have ever commented negatively about quality. Quite the latter actually. The upsample and decomb\degrain tends to revive some old movies regardless of format

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVD hurts my eyes. No. Just No. Most of my watching is online or Foxtel HD anyway, so it's probably a moot point. Haven't bought a DVD or BRD for personal consumption for literally years (We still get DVD's for the kids).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that every time I buy a bluray to play on my PC (not very often), it seems next to impossible to play for free.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVD hurts my eyes. No. Just No. Most of my watching is online or Foxtel HD anyway, so it's probably a moot point. Haven't bought a DVD or BRD for personal consumption for literally years (We still get DVD's for the kids).

 

IIRC, you're quite older than me.

Out of pure curiosity, were CRT TV's, VCR's and older computer screens just impossible?

if 576p hurts your eyes, I'd hate to have tried SD TV back in the day..... even on 720p screens later on.

I hate that every time I buy a bluray to play on my PC (not very often), it seems next to impossible to play for free.

 

Especially since AnyDVD-HD went belly up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

DVD hurts my eyes. No. Just No. Most of my watching is online or Foxtel HD anyway, so it's probably a moot point. Haven't bought a DVD or BRD for personal consumption for literally years (We still get DVD's for the kids).

 

IIRC, you're quite older than me.

Out of pure curiosity, were CRT TV's, VCR's and older computer screens just impossible?

if 576p hurts your eyes, I'd hate to have tried SD TV back in the day..... even on 720p screens later on.

I hate that every time I buy a bluray to play on my PC (not very often), it seems next to impossible to play for free.

 

Especially since AnyDVD-HD went belly up.

 

 

AnyDVD is now redfox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

DVD hurts my eyes. No. Just No. Most of my watching is online or Foxtel HD anyway, so it's probably a moot point. Haven't bought a DVD or BRD for personal consumption for literally years (We still get DVD's for the kids).

 

IIRC, you're quite older than me.

Out of pure curiosity, were CRT TV's, VCR's and older computer screens just impossible?

if 576p hurts your eyes, I'd hate to have tried SD TV back in the day..... even on 720p screens later on.

I hate that every time I buy a bluray to play on my PC (not very often), it seems next to impossible to play for free.

 

Especially since AnyDVD-HD went belly up.

 

 

AnyDVD is now redfox.

 

 

Are they ACTUALLY?

I was concerned that was a grave robber jumping on the defunct brand. (malware or the like)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRT is different to LCD in that you can show low resolutions and the pixels get rounded so look much less chunky than they really are.

 

576i on standard CRT TV is as good as you get anyway, playing a 1080p Bluray won't give any advantage at all. OK, so the actual resolution is whatever fraction of the total 625 scanlines it happens to have visible but the usual is that it's actually a bit under 576.

 

Also, it was pretty rare for a CRT TV, even widescreen ones, to be much bigger than 30 inch size. These days with LCD, anything under 32" is considered small.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRT is different to LCD in that you can show low resolutions and the pixels get rounded so look much less chunky than they really are.

 

576i on standard CRT TV is as good as you get anyway, playing a 1080p Bluray won't give any advantage at all. OK, so the actual resolution is whatever fraction of the total 625 scanlines it happens to have visible but the usual is that it's actually a bit under 576.

 

Also, it was pretty rare for a CRT TV, even widescreen ones, to be much bigger than 30 inch size. These days with LCD, anything under 32" is considered small.

 

I'd imagine smaller would mean MORE eye strain, not less, regardless of clarity (within reason....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't really referring to eyestrain, just perceived quality of image.

 

A classic everyday example (for some of us) is playing old computer, console and arcade games in emulation on the PC.

The typical 80s system represented graphics equivalent to about 336 x 240 on a CRT monitor. Often this is windowed at 2 or 3x on the PC or fullscreen cropped (pillarboxed).

On the PC, even at scaled down size the image looks chunky and cheap but on the original hardware it looks nowhere near as chunky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can see this poor image from old classics which get put on DVD then upscaled they look grainy and sound is scratchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can see this poor image from old classics which get put on DVD then upscaled they look grainy and sound is scratchy.

 

If they're not sampled well.

 

a basic decomb, and the lightest degrain is amazing sampling my Stargate SG1 dvd's to 720p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases they really put the effort into Bluray rerelease.

 

Mad Max 2 - in the BR version you hear the oil rig going almost constantly in the compound. You barely hear it in the DVD or VHS version. The video quality is also better to the point where you see stuff in the background that's unrecognisable in the others, it's as if they went to the trouble of remastering it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases they really put the effort into Bluray rerelease.

 

Mad Max 2 - in the BR version you hear the oil rig going almost constantly in the compound. You barely hear it in the DVD or VHS version. The video quality is also better to the point where you see stuff in the background that's unrecognisable in the others, it's as if they went to the trouble of remastering it.

 

What's truly interesting about that, is that its the 'remaster syndrome' all over again. Just depends where you sit on the fence.

 

On one side, you have the original side, where people know that, (using older movies like mad max), the cinema wouldnt be showing very HD content. The audio is 'THX certified' meaning... dramatic... but not always with a focus on quality, and what not. The editors knew what they were cutting for, and thats how it turned out.

 

Then you have the 'HD side'. Where people would consider the 'oil pump' to be MISSING in the lower definition sources, while in reality, it might never have been there at all, to audiences (untill bluray came to be).

 

 

I personally would prefer the quality argument.. i'm probably on that side of the fence, but still leaning against it.

Its like bringing out fingernail scratches on guitar strings on remastered audio. The studio deliberately didnt brighten to too much to hide those.

Yet, you're also getting more 'information'. So.... its a hard one :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is though, it's not really fair to compare cinema quality to Bluray. Bluray is all of 1920 x 1080. If you translate that to an IMax screen you'd probably end up with pixels that are 10cm square.

But the reality is that the film original is the result of a chemical process so the resolution could be defined in terms of molecules.

 

In theory you could grab any given old film so long as it's not too far degraded, and continually improve the digital version up to 4K and beyond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The player/TV makes a big difference in the quality of DVD playback. I have 2 quite different media setups, but seating distance is about the same for both.

 

Theatre room is a high end Oppo BD player with dedicated up-scaling (although to be fair, it's tech is now about 5-6 years old), and a 5YO Panasonic 65" 1080p plasma.

Family room is a entry level Toshiba BD player and 46" LED/LCD TV. (both about 3 years old)

 

FTA SD TV is about the same ugliness on both screens - quite watchable, but a little ugly. Theatre room TV does a better upscaling but that is undone by the larger screen size for the same viewing distance.

DVD is chalk and cheese - The family room setup looks like FTA SD TV. while in the theatre room, the BD player's up-scaler makes a DVD like FTA HDTV. On a few occasions, people have complemented the HD picture quality of 'the Bluray' only to find out it was an up-scaled DVD - They notice once a real BluRay is played, but the only time DVD is poor on that 65" screen is the older, low rate 4:3 DVDs, combined with the TV zoom function to fill the widescreen.

 

While the family room setup more modern (half the age), it's in a different (lower) class completely. But so is the price.

I prefer to buy BD over DVD, but that doesn't mean I won't buy/watch something just because I can't get it on BD - A while back I had a brain fart in the shop and accidentally bought the DVD copy of Dr Who S8 in stead of BD. Only noticed when I unwrapped it (damn cardboard sleeve). 'Bugga' - but I still sat down, watched it and enjoyed it, and forgot about it 5 minutes later.

 

As for 'Cinema Quality' not a lot of filmstock has superior resolution than 4K, and much of it can't do much if any better than 1080p. The true detail is not there - partly because of the optics from that generation of equipment, partly the film chemicals and materials. For new content, it doesn't really matter any more- the vast majority is shot digital. it might now be 4k standard and 8k in some special cases, but there's always bit of it show lower/differently. A couple of years ago, it was not uncommon for significant amounts of cinema to be shot 1080p - due to limitations of the specialist cameras for action scenes and placement. And TV is usually at least a generation down on cinema - and these days, in addition to all their crap, TV is also turning out more quality content than Hollywood cinema.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the amount of flicker, and blur in a cinema, regardless of the reels quality, I'd say the display isnt even DVD quality 90% of the time.

 

And a local cinema (actually, a few) are digital now, but their old projectors arent up to showing the source at full res IMO

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for 'Cinema Quality' not a lot of filmstock has superior resolution than 4K, and much of it can't do much if any better than 1080p.

????

 

4K is approx 8.3MP.

 

The Wizard of Oz was shot on Kodachrome 25, a film with an effective resolution exceeding 100MP. They used 3-strip Technicolor, I don't know where I read about K25.

 

Now I don't know if Kodak's VISION3 or similar film stock has anywhere near the data density of K25 or the veberable K64, but I'm sure it's a damn sight better than 8.3MP.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a tricky question since film is an analog medium and the effective resolution can vary depending on quality of media, and equipment and lenses used. Also the method of measurement, one suggestion is abilty to resolve high contrast changes in a small area.

But from a quick look around it seems better than 4K, estimates seem to vary from 4MP worst case to 8-20 MP in another case and 40 MP best case.

One thing does seem fairly sure though and that's the colour depth being well better than 24bpp equivalence. Better colour depth in a picture can make up for lack of resolution.

 

The other thing that needs to be considered is that most 35mm cinema formats are anamorphic projection ie the detail in the horizontal plane is stretched out, sometimes to multiples of the vertical plane.

Edited by Rybags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for 'Cinema Quality' not a lot of filmstock has superior resolution than 4K, and much of it can't do much if any better than 1080p.

????

 

4K is approx 8.3MP.

 

The Wizard of Oz was shot on Kodachrome 25, a film with an effective resolution exceeding 100MP. They used 3-strip Technicolor, I don't know where I read about K25.

 

Now I don't know if Kodak's VISION3 or similar film stock has anywhere near the data density of K25 or the veberable K64, but I'm sure it's a damn sight better than 8.3MP.

 

 

Catch is, it doesn't look it.

Now, I know i'm not the best candidate for judging anything vision related (or maybe i am in this case? Since I can STILL notice it, lol).

But every cinema I go to, has black blotches, slightly discolored screen (usually 'warmer' than intended due to yellowing of age), and often just looks... 'blurry' (more so than usual for me :P).

 

Some could argue about pixel density, but if the resolution is truly that much greater, then I'm left to only assume its the projector itself that can't render correctly.

 

Its like playing a 1:1 pixel video on a CRT, sure, the CRT can display it due to not having a finite pixel count, but only a digital display with square pixels can make that thing look truly sharp again (this is of course, IMO, and PRACTICALLY speaking. Of course there ways and different levels of quality in regards to this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

theres no question that film is optionally far superior to 4K in resolution, colour depth, AND dynamic range.

 

but of course, projection has inherent limitations and in particular doesnt allow for HDR viewing, although the information may be there.

 

also, MS, its true that beyond whatever fidelity may be lacking in a master intentionally or otherwise, cinemas are, by and large, SHIT!!!!

 

btw, imo the 70mm print of Interstellar looked grainy and shit!

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×