The Blu-ray Discussion Thread

[MmzHrrdb]

I only just realised that there isn't an official discussion thread thread on Blu-ray yet! The newest and best technology in watching movies as we know it, and it didn't even have a thread! tsk tsk tsk

I got into Blu-ray about a year and a half ago when I bought my 40" LCD and my PlayStation 3 and have since been in love with the format. I still buy DVDs because I love them, I love the look of them, they're cheaper and of course, most films haven't been released on BR yet; but when I get around to it I try to buy as much BDs as I can, even if I already have them on DVD, because I like to know that I own a movie that can be viewed in the best possible quality. I currently own 45 BDs which in total adds up to 49 films.

Another reason why I still buy DVDs is because they usually look very good up-scaled and using the PS3's and the TV's ability to remove video blocks and compression artefacts, but they look literally 45% as good as Blu-ray. Since I don't go to cinemas it's lovely to be able to not view films in almost source-master quality, for not only new films but for ones which were released before I was born.

Of all the BDs I have, the transfer of "2001: A Space Odyssey" looks the best. Watch it at night and it literally looks like you're in a movie theatre back in '68 watching it for the first time. The transfers for "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe" and "No Country For Old Men" also look absolutely stellar, particularly the latter which absolutely beautiful scenery and shots of the desert. The number one movie I am currently awaiting for a release is "Suspiria", because I believe that if they do the transfer right it will look as good as Jeremy Sisto.

Blu-ray Stills

BR still #1 from "2001: A Space Odyssey"
BR still #2 from "2001: A Space Odyssey"

I frequently visit Blu-ray.com to check out the latest BD reviews, all of which contain numerous 1080p screenshots of the film.

[Luna6ix]

i remember having this discussion about dvd's years ago when they first came out, and i came to the conclusion that i really didnt care about the quality difference between dvd and vhs, and i even care less now that blue rays are out i mean hell there's already been development work on uv ray discs so blue rays have a short life to live.

[Pickpocket]

Another gimmick created to suck more money out of idiots.

[Filligan]

I could understand the transition from VHS to DVD. The most important thing about that transition was people, smart people anyway, were seeing films in the proper aspect ratio. And sure, it looked nicer and they take up half the space. But this transition to blu-ray is ridiculous. No one in the world needs to see every single cubic millimeter of a butterfly's leg as if it were under a microscope. It's just so unnecessary and the ads for it that compare the quality of DVD to Blu-Ray are so horribly exaggerated.

I was hoping Blu-Rays wouldn't push DVDs out of the market, but they're getting cheaper and more and more older DVDs are being upgraded. It all seems pretty pointless when you consider that I am not losing anything from the film experience by watching it on DVD and there's still so much competition in the HD market. I don't think I'll ever get into Blu-Ray until it's the only thing left, but I dread the day.

Oh, and the cases are ugly as fuck.

[KGB]

I agree with all of you, I think the current quality of DVDs on my decent TV is good enough for me. Still, I gotta admit I really wanna see that '2001: A Space Oddyssey' Blu-Ray edition. It's one of the few films, if not the only, that I would actually want to observe every little detail in ridiculously High-Definition image quality. The experience would just be so mesmerizing, you have to admit it.

[cagedwisdom]

I have not once in my life watched a DVD and thought "damn, I wish the resolution on this was higher". And keep in mind that I have several friends with home cinemas (hell, I just moved in with one) and regularly watch DVDs on screens larger than 72" (or maybe more, what do I know). I seriously don't get how it's worth paying the currently ludicrous price for a blu-ray player just to achieve a leap in picture quality that would on far over half of people's TVs be completely unnoticeable.

EDIT: Oh, and I've got to side with Filligan. The blu-ray cases are so ugly.. I seriously dread the day when my collection of films will contain one of those god-awful cases.

[frederic_g54]

I agree with all of you, I think the current quality of DVDs on my decent TV is good enough for me. Still, I gotta admit I really wanna see that '2001: A Space Oddyssey' Blu-Ray edition. It's one of the few films, if not the only, that I would actually want to observe every little detail in ridiculously High-Definition image quality. The experience would just be so mesmerizing, you have to admit it.

I own 9 blu-ray titles, one of them being "2001", and the picture quality is in one word... SICK (the film is more than 40 years old ). As you can imagine, it's absolutely mesmerizing, especially on a Full HD TV.

If you own a PS3 or Blu-Ray player, you have to get it, trust me

"The Prestige" has a nice image quality aswell, I like Wally Pfister's camera work.

[Luna6ix]

I have not once in my life watched a DVD and thought "damn, I wish the resolution on this was higher". And keep in mind that I have several friends with home cinemas (hell, I just moved in with one) and regularly watch DVDs on screens larger than 72" (or maybe more, what do I know). I seriously don't get how it's worth paying the currently ludicrous price for a blu-ray player just to achieve a leap in picture quality that would on far over half of people's TVs be completely unnoticeable.

EDIT: Oh, and I've got to side with Filligan. The blu-ray cases are so ugly.. I seriously dread the day when my collection of films will contain one of those god-awful cases.

can i have your friends? does everyone in norway have wealthy friends or is it just you?

i dont get one thing though, if you have several friends who own home cinemas, and you're of similar wealth, then why would you care about the miniscule price on a blu-ray compared to the cost of a home cinema. i may be making a lost of assumptions so feel free to tell me if im wrong.

[cagedwisdom]

Norway is overall a wealthy country, but you might say that I hang out in a community of people who don't exactly scrape the barrel for cash. In any case, I don't think a media player should cost that much, that's all. Good speakers can cost much, fine. A good image display whether it be a TV or a movie projector can cost much, fine. But a machine to simply read the source material and send the signals to said apparatus? I just don't think there's any justifying a media player costing more than, say, $150-200 unless it's also a computer or, as is the case with blu-ray, also a PS3. Problem is I have no interest in PS3 and there is only one game for it I would even consider playing, so it's hardly worth it.

Consider it this way: I could buy a blu-ray player, or I could buy a good DVD player and about 50 DVDs. That's not even a choice I need to think twice about.

I myself don't have an overabundance of money to be honest (I'm hardly of similar wealth), and the money I do have I've spent simply on a decent TV and a vast DVD collection. I do need to buy a new DVD player soon, and I can get a decent one for pretty cheap now. At least that's one good thing that has come from the introduction of blu-ray.

[MmzHrrdb]

Eh....some of you don't really understand what you're missing out on. Not wanting to watch your favourite movies in high definition is something I'll never be able to relate to. The overall experience of watching a movie with pristine audio and video is 1000 times better than anything DVD has to offer.