Blu-ray barely better than DVD

BluRay is marginally better than DVD

Judge for yourself:

Blu-ray vs. DVD Screenshot comparison thread?

Its about 10% better than DVD, as I said marginal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Brian, look at the amount of data that can be stored on the blu-ray disk and the bit rates. It is actually a big difference. Then look at the resolution 1080 I\P etc. compared to 700-800.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems noticeable enough to me. It's like the difference between the world being sharp and clear, or slightly blurry and out of focus. If I had a choice between the to, sharp and clear seems like the better option. If you want to call the difference marginal, knock yourself out, but in this case marginal still must mean "a noticeable improvement."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have to say, also, that those images show a big difference and that is not the ideal way to determine the difference by looking at ripped jpegs. The Blu-Ray shows much more detail though. I honestly never watched a blu-ray movie myself.

 

Dont get me wrong Im not writing off Bluray HD I own some 20 dics. Im just saying that the picture quality claims of leaving DVD for dead are exagerated, when I read that article yesterday I agreed alot on offer by Bluray simply isnt that great.

I did say Bluray picture quality was better, but only marginal, a be honest look at some of the comparisons with the Pirates of the Carribean, marginal at best.

 

The differences between the two are huge and even much more than VHS to DVD. DVD is 9.8 Mb/s and Blu-Ray is 40.0 Mb/s so i guess the disk will play show between 20 and 40mbps and dvd is stuck at a verly low under 10 mbps.

Sometimes its hard to tell but look at the high contrast and low light scenes because you may not see too much of a difference on well lit or daylight scenes if the films intentionally look soft so if you are gauging by sharp images alone you wont see the difference but still blu-ray retains so much more original data.

 

Not to mention DVD can't do 3d

 

What's blu-ray? I don't own a blu-ray dvd player or anything that has a blu-ray so I don't know the difference between regular dvd and blu-ray.

 

This link is useless. The images are both 720by405. To make a true comparison the HD image should be 1920by1080. This means that on most computer viewing the comparison pages the second image should fill the screen.

This is the difference between HD and DVD.

Approx DVD resolution image:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

HD Resolution image:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The main reasoning is that Blu-ray can hold more data on the disc than a standard DVD. The increasing in any quality is possible through the compression levels used to store the film data being less Vector related and more Bitmap (Raster).

There are however a couple of common points, firstly:

When taken from an initial pilot set of files, was the compression rates set differently, or are they just using the same compressed files on both formats? (This would be common with the first generation Blu-ray as generating second lesser compressed versions would take time to emerge)

Secondly:

During the Which? test, did they use HD televisions or screens that had inbuilt HD enhancing chipsets? (It's highly possible the chipset's are marginalising the progress between the two different formats by either scaling up or down the output.)

 

If truly HD one cannot tell the difference between it and Blu-ray.To close.Much more important is the equipment one is using to view the media.

 

I found the link very useful, and it clearly showed the difference between SD & HD images, which was significant IMO.

Resolution and Definition have nothing to do with screen size.

 

I'm curious is everyone here talking about the same DVD formats? There is the old DVD which first entered the market and then eventually was replaced with HD DVD.Blu-ray is in competition with HD DVD only.If you have equal media equipment when comparing the 2 competing formats,the naked eye cannot tell the difference.There is split camps for both HD DVD and Blu-ray with Blu-ray in the lead.But not because of better quality but rather due to market forces,partnerships,back door deals,politics etc.Think about it, there would be no arguing over which format was clearly better if one was clearly better.The 2 formats are both equally superior and as such one only need to decide which format will be around longest.Vendors arn't going to tell you the truth since each vendor has a side there already on,so you get bias.

 

X-Man2: the discussion is comparing standard DVD to Blu-ray.

 

No, "old" DVD is still here, it wasn't replaced by HD DVD.

That was a high definition system developed by Toshiba, in competition with Sony's Blu-Ray system. Toshiba threw in the towel about three years ago.They, along with all the other manufacturers, produce hi-def Blu-Ray players today.HD DVD is no longer available. It died a quick death, rather than the protracted VHS vs. Beta war of the 1980s.

 

what you call a marginal difference makes a big difference. it's obvious the blue-ray is much clearer and crisper in picture which highlights more exacting details.

 

All this talk of video quality and here I find out from Cnet that Blu-ray has a better and best audio level performance.Does anyone have experience with the audio? If so can you give us your thoughts,opinions etc.Thanks....

From Cnet:


AV receiver: We've mentioned high-definition video, but Blu-ray also allows for high-resolution audio. To listen to the new high-resolution soundtracks at their highest fidelity you'll need an AV receiver, but you don't need a new receiver with onboard decoding. Here are the four most common scenarios:

* I don't have a receiver: Well, you'll need to buy an AV receiver to take advantage of the new soundtrack formats, but the good news is that many affordable AV receivers now include Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio decoding. While it's not essential if you have a receiver with onboard decoding for those formats, it's probably worth getting anyway in case any future electronics use those formats. Check out our list of top AV receivers for a recommendation.
* I have an AV receiver, but it doesn't have HDMI inputs: As along as your receiver has analog multichannel inputs, you can still use it to listen to the new high-resolution audio formats. In this case, you'll need a Blu-ray player that has onboard decoding for Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, plus multichannel analog outputs. Luckily we've done a roundup of Blu-ray players with 7.1 analog outputs if you have an older receiver.
* I have an HDMI receiver, but it doesn't decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio: You can use this receiver to listen to the new soundtracks, but you need a Blu-ray player with onboard decoding for the new soundtracks. Players with onboard decoding are much more common now.
* I have an HDMI receiver with Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio: Great, you have the most flexibility. If your Blu-ray player doesn't have onboard decoding, but has bit stream output, set it for bit stream output and let your receiver do the decoding. If your Blu-ray player has onboard decoding, then you can choose either option and they'll both sound the same.

It's worth mentioning that if you're not an audiophile, there's nothing wrong with using either the optical or coaxial digital audio connector. You won't get the true resolution of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, but the sound will still be in 5.1 surround and you probably won't notice the difference.

Surround-sound speakers: You're not getting the full Blu-ray experience unless you have a surround-sound speaker system. While that used to mean you'd be stuck with big boxy speakers, our list of the best home theater speakers includes plenty of smaller, top-performer speaker packages for décor-minded buyers. And if you really don't want a bunch of speakers and wires in your living room, you can opt for a single-speaker surround-sound option, although you won't be getting the full Blu-ray experience.

HDMI cables: It's something easy to forget when you're buying all your equipment, but you need a way to hook it all up, too. The easiest way to connect your Blu-ray player to your HDTV and AV receiver is to use an HDMI cable, which is capable of carrying both 1080p HD video and high-resolution audio. The most important thing to remember with HDMI cables is don't pay extra for HDMI cables. In fact, you should never pay more than $10 for a standard 6-foot HDMI cable, as there's absolutely no difference in quality. If you want the full scoop on why to buy cheap HDMI cables, check out our Quick guide to HDMI cables.

It's also worth mentioning that you don't need to use an HDMI cable to get high-definition video from your Blu-ray player, although we recommend going HDMI if you can. For older high-def displays that don't support HDMI, every Blu-ray player includes a component video output, which can output Blu-ray Discs at 1080i and DVDs at 480p.

 

Here's my personal experince with DVD/Blu-Ray. When I first got my Blu Ray player I barely noticed the difference. Now that' I've had it for a few years, I can notice a HUGE difference when I watch DVD's.

 

Those screen captures are not the best I've seen...other sites such as DVDbeaver and Highdefdiscnews are much better.

I've watched Blu Rays for maybe a year and can notice huge differences, both in new movies and old. See for yourself:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/zulu.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews21/king_kong_2005_dvd_review.htm

And btw, Terminator 3 sucks whatever format you are watching.