just started my blu ray collection with The Conjuring, The Dark Knight Rises, Godzilla, Guardians of the Galaxy, Schindlers List, Pulp Fiction, Boyhood, the Star Wars Saga, and Step Brothers. After seeing all these movies in comparison to how the DVD versions look on my tv, i think its a worthy investment if you care about the visual quality of what youre watching. I'll be buying blu ray movies from now on.
***** I agree with you that DVD is piss easy to rip but blu ray is still totally do able it's just a bit of a pain. There are ways to play bluray on linux it's just an extra step but libdvdcss is never going going to make blu rays play on linux because it's designed specifically for DVD's.
Some good that did me mine got minor scratch wont play in one area anymore. DVD still works with far more scratches. Also blue rays are technically unrepairable. Compared to DVD's. The reason the put the layer of lacquer to protect from scratches is the fact smaller scratches can put it out of commission. Its because the data divots are so much smaller. Which is the same reason it holds more data.
Anyone who's saying you can't tell the difference below 40" has clearly never watched a blu-ray on a smaller screen. I have a 27" monitor and blu-ray looks fantastic on that. I'd never go back to DVD even on a smaller screen, blu-ray is a million times better.
DVD and Blu-Rays look the same to me on my 32'' tv, that being said when I hook it up to 50" it blows it out of the water. I love Blu-Ray, but you have to have a big screen to really appreciate and notice all the details. I am with you on the never buy a DVD again part, but lets not get to over the top and say Blu Ray looks a million times better on a smaller screen.
It all depends how far away from your screen you are. I sit around 4-5 feet away from mine and yes, blu-ray is more than noticeably different; everything - colour, contrast, sound, black levels, artifact levels - are all so much better on blu-ray. Granted, if you're ten feet away from your smaller screen then definitely, you will hardly notice the difference. Nice to have a decent conversation on UA-cam though man, most of what you say on here gets shot down by someone or other in about 5 minutes... Cheers :)
samcooke343 Yea I agree Blu-Ray is superior and I will never buy another DVD however, I would still recommend dvd for people who don't watch that much movies or who own smaller television sets or even *shudder* tube T.V's. Cheers :)
It depends not from TV size but from it resolution. For example you can see difference between 480p dvd and 1080p blu-ray even on small tablet, if it have 1080p resolution.
I believe DVDs was made to get the best picture and audio quality possible on CRT TVs since it was released in 97. Hard to believe it's been around for 19 years lol
I hate to admit it, but I hated the idea of bluray when they first came out. Pay twice as much for a slightly better picture and sound, not to mention that I've been collecting DVDs for years and got very far with, then I finally gave in & watched a few movies on bluray... And now I'm torn because now that means I have to repurchase all my fav films. But it's worth it though, blu looks amazing and I can't go back to just standard
Awesome video. I think what actually struck me the most is that not only was the image sharper, but the colours were amazing! They really popped, I really noticed it on the Braveheart ones with the blood and the grass.
If you guys really need convincing, watch Star Trek TNG on blu-ray. That restoration was a gift from god. Really, it looks like it was shot in 2005, rather than 1990.
+juresaiyan Season 1 looks at least a good as season 7 did, which is what blows me away! at least 80% of the horrible quality at that time was from very inferior post-production methods where they transferred everything onto videotape to apply special effects, etc, and that is the phase where all the colors and sharpness just got destroyed. The remaster is the original completely rebuilt from the original source with a completely updated digital post-production process, no more of that tape transfer crap! The only thing left in the early seasons that gave away its age is basically any scene with low or unbalanced set lighting. But any scene that did have brighter and better balanced lighting looks pretty much identical to the later seasons, plus!
I used to be one of those people that would say "it wasn't shot in HD and therefore is not meant to be seen that way" not anymore. Just recently started my Blu-Ray collection. It's an interesting feeling.It's like a fresh start. Out with the old, in with the new.
i definitely notice a difference. my mom on the other hand does not. depends on how well you see and how much you care to notice. when vhs was out i thought it couldnt get better. when dvd came out i was completely blown away and thought there is no way it can be better than this. then blu ray came out and i'm completely in awe. my mom doesnt see a difference between vhs and blu ray unless i point it out. you may be like my mom. if you are, i still love you
as far as that goes, brilliant video, bravo. especially for going back so far for the comparisons. i always thought it really wouldnt matter because of the image being captured in lower resolution due to the equipment of the time but wow what a difference.
I have an Epson 8350 projected onto a 106" screen, the only way to watch a movie is Blu-ray everything else falls short. If you watch a DVD on a large projected screen it will make you crazy after having seen Blu-ray. Nice video thanks.
They're also at native resolution on an SD display. People seem to forget you can't make pixels bigger without losing quality, which is exactly what's happening when you play a DVD on an HDTV.
Yes, quite a difference between CD and Blu Ray especially with the 1926 movie "The General" with Buster Keaton. The details in all the movies with Blu Ray was so much clearer. Thanks for sharing.
A lot of classics are getting the full blown restoration and re-release treatment (in 4K no less, i.e., for cinema showings too. They Alien films look amazing on the big screen in the 4K restoration they did for them and the Blu-ray release). If you like films like Zulu and 2001 then it's almost worth getting a Blu-ray player JUST for those. They look absolutely OUTSTANDING. Taxi Driver and Bridge on the River Kwai are also some exceptionally good looking old films o Blu-ray.
Thanks! I got a Blu-Ray player for my computer and I wondered, if old films would look better. But you convinced me, I'll get some of my favourite old movies on Blu-Ray now =)
The results: For both 40 TVs (seated at 9 ft from the TV) DVD 1080p delivers details but with blurry borders in background, for example in Edge of darkness and Fantastic Four one can read the license plates of cars and background advertisements very clearly, though, the borders of the numbers and letter looks soft (blurry on the edges of the letter and numbers, but still being able of reading them very clearly).
Sean, I don't know if you've ever mentioned it, but what were your thoughts on the Superbit DVD format. I first head about them back in 2005 when my dad updated the home theatre system and one of the workers at Best Buy recommended them. He didn't see much of a difference in picture, but did on sound. I noticed slightly better picture and great improvement on sound. It was almost the same with Blu-ray for both of us, except the first thing I noticed was much better black levels. That was in 2008
Note that you can scan and digitize anything... 80ppi magazine halftone prints, for instance, at any dpi you want. That doesn't mean there's useful detail below a certain analog size.
the facial close up shots used particularly in 1970's films really do exhibit the amount of make-up used by the actor and the perspiration, on blu ray...
yeah i agree i could just buy some of my favorites. but the way you described it in the beginning of this video was like it was going to absolutely blow my mind away which there was a slight sharpness in detail but not mind blowingly.
To me, the best movie format is the one that has the closest resemblance to how the film originally looked on the theater. To do otherwise is a degrade whether you ignore the flaws time and use caused or try to better them.
DVDs look better because they're uncut, which means you can see the hands under the puppets and the strings holding up the fake planets. Also, on the cover of my Clash of the Greeks DVD, Persyphilis is riding his flying eagle-walrus over the swelling river of bile while holding the head of Queen of the Snake Druids as the Klunken monster is lunging toward the virgin princess of Rodanthe, who is chained to the entrance of the cave of hidden pleasures next to the Klunken's trophy skulls hanging like wind chimes, whereas the cover of Clash of the Greeks Bluray shows Persyphilis wearing his White Blouse of Elgyn while looking at the Klunken's attempted assault of the princess, which sadly seems to be occurring right beside whoever is taking his picture.
Also my Species 2 Bluray is in a blue case which is all wrong because the cover is in red, which is sending me the subliminal message that i'm supposed to feel heightened emotions as well as calm, soothing emotions, which i'm used to by now but is still not the way to market a movie. DVD made every case black, which is a better strategy because no matter what you take away from a watching a movie, theres always the reminder that at the end of every great story comes the black, shapeless void of death, where any meaning will be swallowed into a space where there is no time or matter, but only mutations and infidelities and mysteries and mountains of forgotten black DVD cases.
It is affordable. It's cheap as hell to get a Blu-ray player these days and you can play ALL of your DVD's on it too, so you're losing nothing and gaining a hell of a lot. You don't have to replace everything either, you can just get new releases on Blu-ray, and a lot come with a DVD version too so you can still use it on the other players around the house that haven't been replaced yet. The Blu-rays themselves aren't even that much more expensive either, especially for the quality boost.
I just recently bought my first bluray player and am starting to build a collection. Certain types of movies i dont mind having on DVD but 3D movies and movies where you are drawn to the scenery are great on bluray.
It is possible to watch Blu ray movies in good quality from blank DVDs. What you have to do is compress the Blu ray using mp4 and once it's a media file you can burn it to a blank DVDs as a media file. You can't play it on a stand alone DVD player but you can play it on a stand alone Blu ray player as well as your DVD disc drive on your computer using KMPlayer or VLC.
Wow. The last example is just staggering, how you can see the detail on the bricks when the two guys are walking through the town. Im not much of a movie guy myself, but even I can see the huge increase in quality that the older movies have recieved from blu ray. Excellant video!
If/when your DVD player kicks the bucket it's worth replacing it with a Blu-ray player. It'll still play all of your DVD's and upscale them so they look better than ever (still nowhere near as good as an actual Blu-ray though, simple physics doesn't allow for this lol). The price difference between the two formats is pretty minimal now too, so it's worth getting new releases on Blu-ray and just keeping your DVD collection, no need to go replace it all unless you want to.
OK, I’m not some DVD purist and I agree that Blu-ray is a much higher-rez format, there’s no denying this fact. However, some of the examples you give are taken from film masters from before, and after a major restoration was performed. In particular the general, yes, Blu-ray offers far more resolution, but also the master matters and the fact is the Blu-ray presentation you used was scanned after a major physical and digital restoration was undertaken and not simply because Blu-ray is just that much better. You have to be honest in these videos.
There is nothing dishonest about this video. I took current examples at the time to show the difference in quality. This was simply to show the difference, and that's what I did. To dig into the multitude of difference as to how each master was prepared, what the sources were, how they were or weren't restored, etc. would have been far beyond the scope of this video. It should be obvious that better care was taken with transferring and restoring the masters with Blu-ray, that's kinda the point and should be self-evident from these examples. Clearly, obviously they took more care to restore the masters for HD presentation. Unlike just DNRing the hell out of the master and slapping it on a DVD. All of these were considered some of the best example at the time of DVD versus Blu-ray, and the best titles to truly showcase the difference. This isn't a video about restoration. This is a video about the end result as presented on both formats. What you will see when you pop the disc in your player. The point where they said "Okay, that's good" and released it. Yes, more effort is put into Blu-ray releases (generally) so they look their best. That's literally the point. Slapdash low-res fuzzy as hell SD DVD? Or pristine, fully restored HD Blu-ray edition? So that's why I chose these particular titles. Saying "you had a definite agenda of proving DVD inferior, rather than an honest comparison" is flat-out wrong. This could not be a more honest comparison. I literally took the screenshots as is and showed them as is, to present both accurately. I even made sure to zoom in to show the finer details. It would be ignorant of me to say "Make up your own mind!" when the difference is so clear and obvious, come on. Take this for what it is, it proved the point I was making. My "agenda" was showing that Blu-ray is clearly better quality, as this was in direct response to countless naysayers at the time saying there was no difference. This was simply to show that yes, there absolutely is a difference and it's huge. Were these extreme examples? Maybe, but that's not the point - the point is these were the hot new titles everyone was talking about and comparing to their DVD counterparts at the time. So I simply compiled them together to have a quick, simple, and hopefully somewhat entertaining look at the differences. Look at the date on this video. It was a very different world at the time, and there weren't anywhere near as many high profile titles out as there are now. The format was still in its infancy, barely out of the format war. I stand by my video and how I chose to present the images for this subject. This is also the concluding episode in a 20+ part series about HD overall. I cover some of the other things you mention in other videos. This was the grand finale," as it were. I'd been talking about HD for many videos, it was time to SHOW what I had been talking about. The dramatic text narration is just a bit of showmanship as I have a flair for the dramatic.
As Zaranyzerak says, there is no dishonesty here. Any remastering was done as part of the conversion for the new Blu-ray release. The images are taken from the best dvd release available Vs the new Blu-ray remaster. The General for example does not have it's dvd shots taken from a dvd of that remaster, because they never made a dvd release of it. The point stands that a movie from 1926, or earlier like with Metropolis, gains from "the Blu-ray treatment". In the case of Metropolis, I have the recent remaster in its steel book collectors edition, which includes a dvd copy of the same remaster. Trust me, it's still night and day. I also have Avatar on Blu-ray. The first release that is. A bare bones Blu-ray with a static menu and almost the entirety of the 50GB used for the movie. It's a reference movie basically. Came free with my Blu-ray player. But it also came with a dvd copy, again static menu, all 8GB used for the film. Compare the two, night and day. Thus even if the dvd shots of the movies in this video came from a dvd release of the same source used for the Blu-ray, you might find some better colours, maybe a little less artifacts than previous DVDs, but it's still night and day.
so far ive noticed: Clearer imagery at far distance better lighted areas(if that makes sense) enhanced color Im most impressed with the difference in "how the west was won" been at war with myself wither to star collecting blu-rays instead of DVD, Im still a bit undecided, but this video definitely tipped the battle in blu-rays favor. still going to do some more digging. but hanks fo the video.
Timingchameleon The only difference in the technology is the laser, in blu-ray they use a blue laser (hence the name) which has a smaller beam, this allows the disk to have small grooves to read, thus increasing the storage capacity without increasing the physical size. The quality comes from the filming and editing processes done before the film is ever on a disk. The reason why this video shows the blu-ray having more quality is because it has been enhanced since the original dvd releases which have been made nearly a decade before, (fight club was released in 2009, the blu ray was a 10th anniversary, for an example). A normal DVD doesn't have the capacity to have the same quality as blu-ray as well as the extra content on the disk, HD-DVD can do 1080p with good amount of extra content, but still the blu-ray has nearly 4 times the storage capacity allowing for higher resolution film as well as more extra content.
***** Blu-ray has the same problem of disk rot, the physical bodies of them are made from the same components, the only difference in the two formats is blu-ray uses a finer laser which allows the format to have larger storage capacity.
***** natural disk rot would just occur as the material decays. It's plastic and thin bits of metal so when those are decaying the pits and lands of the disk will eventually degrade and make it harder for the laser to read them.
I've bought some Blu-rays of my favourite films, but some films I just can't be bothered to upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray.I still buy more DVDs than BDs, and I'm certainly not going to replace my DVD collection with Blu-rays.I think Blu-ray is a niche format for movie nerds who want to see every blackhead on the nose of their fave film stars.I can still watch a movie perfectly well on DVD, I've got better things to spend my money on than re-buying the same films over and over.
If you buy stuff on iTunes it's there forever for you to redownload when you like. iCloud is for documents and stuff like Pages and Keynote or other apps that make use of it. Purchases don't count towards your limit. I rip all my stuff to my media server so everyone in the house can watch what they want when they want. The quality is actually pretty damn good to be fair, but it depends on your encode setting. If you want the full experience then of course the Blu-ray is king, or a raw rip.
Some of it is on purpose, but the fact is they'll have changed it far more for the DVD release than the Blu-ray because the MPEG2 codec can't hold as much colour information as H.264 that's used for Blu-ray (or the original film source for that matter). You'll notice this if you ever make your own DVD's too. You'll see the colours get washed out when it's converted to MPEG2 format.
Not sure why it would? It all depends on the resolution it was rendered out at. If it was only rendered in 480p, then yes it wouldn't look as good as something rendered natively in HD or 4K. This isn't really an issue with modern CG as it is all done natively in HD or 4K anyway. Older CG for television rendered at 480p, however, typically wouldn't gain much from HD unless it was either re-rendered at higher resolution or A.I. upscaled. In the recent case of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, they had to re-do all the CG effects that were created for the Director's Edition because that cut was only made for SD DVD over two decades ago. So they re-did ALL of those shots in 4K for the recent 4K release. This was an exception as it was just a few shots and should not be taken as a feasible process to be applied to ALL older CG.
Thank you. With what Raquel Medina said about animation looking weird on blu ray. Do need an HD tv for blu ray to work besides the blu ray player or will not having an HD tv make the blu ray on animation look weird?
... this video has done what multi-million dollar advertising budgets have not. ... made me want to get a BluRay really really badly. MY BIRTHDAY IS COMING UP!!
Thanks for this wonderful video! Now,i'm just going to throw my DVD player out of the window,and buy a brand new Blu-Ray Player for my HDTV.And with some Blu-Ray movies that i already have in DVD,and enjoy it in another way! Thank you!!
Do I need a specific type of TV to view Blu-Ray movies? I have a smaller flatscreen TV from 2010 / 2011 but am considering an upgrade and would love to get a Blu-Ray player as well. Thanks.
I might not be Zaranyzerak, but I'll answer for you. It's official news that Sony's new 4K disc format will be coming out sometime by 2015; so you should probably wait to get a 4K TV and a native 4K player; the 4K disc format is likely appearing in the second half of 2015.
Thanks. I knew there was something new being created but hadn't heard when it would be out. I will probably wait, even though there will probably be something better a year after that is released.
@marioarty I don't have one yet. I Moved to a different state after I wrote that. I got a smaller TV a year or two ago to replace my old one that randomly glitched out and wouldn't work. My Samsung Blu-Ray player no longer plays Blu-Rays for some unknown reason so I'm down to watching DVD's even though I've sold off at least 70% of my movie collection. I've been looking at 4k TV's and players.
I shake my head at people who can't tell the difference between standard definition and high definition. If you have an HD monitor, standard definition films and games will look like you're viewing them through a dirty window. The standard definition images look muddy in comparison to the HD images. Furthermore, Blu Ray allows the opportunity for home video to be as aestheticallly close to a film's theatrical version as has ever been possible.
@itsabomberscope It all depends on the movie. Some old movies that were released in theaters, then vhs, and then dvd. Since the dvd source is best one up to that point, they will use that to transfer it to Blu Ray.
@IceStudios100 Well, film IS susceptible to dirt. If you're talking about the black blob looking things that show up on occasion on the top right of the screen. That's signaling a reel change, entire movies aren't shipped to theaters as one big reel, they're shipped in multiple reels and have to be spliced together.
I have run test with both BR and DVD 1080p, and yes! of course I used BR disc for the BR. The movies I used were Pirates of the Caribbean, Fantastic Four and Edge of Darkness. For Edge of darkness y used a copy of the original DVD (no compressed). By the way I used for the test a Sharp LED TV 40 (Full HD), LG plasma 40 ( 720P) , and Samsumg LCD 32
Like I said before, I respect Blu Ray, but I have to stick with DVD since it's more accessible and cheaper for me. Also, not all stuff is available on Blu Ray. Thanks for the comparions they were awesome. Wish you'd used King Kong 1933. I would've loved to have seen the jungle in Blu Ray. Awesome catchy music, you said you made it yourself?
Outstanding video, sir! You really managed to erase my doubts about Blu-Ray. The only thing that still is an argument for DVDs is the price, at least for older releases. Often you can get DVDs that are 2 or 3 years old for under 5$, used on Amazon marketplace even for under 1$. Such bargains are not possible with Blu-Rays... yet.
No matter how much evidence you show, the people who think you're wrong are people who don't care about actual quality. They're hipsters who simply like older things because they're old. It's useless trying to show them they're wrong.
well as you see on 3:59, Blu Ray could make movies faker! actually, the quality is SO good that you can see the 'perfect' customs, and the 'perfect' grass.
i have a big collection of dvds and dont know if i should swap to blu ray everyone says blu rays are better but i dont want to start my collection all over again what should i do
some people can listen to music on a laptop and then listen to the same song on a home stereo and dont care and dont seem to notice the difference. others like myself spend hundreds of dollars on special imported headphones, DAC, FLAC tracks, amplifier, and equalize each track when they listen to music and wouldnt have it any other way. if you watch a blu ray on your 42" and dont notice a difference, keep with DVDs. they are cheaper. whatever makes you happy in my opinion.
Wonderfull! Now video is in 1080p, but as you can notice. Blu-Ray is not perfect. Wait until Holographic Versatile Disc comes... (2160p, Quad-Highdefinition)
This about the same as comparing console *DVD* to PC Gaming *Blu-Ray* My question though is if you have a blu-ray player on just standard tube TV 480p or lower is it even going to give an improvement. I'm thinking not, but if you can answer it, that would be nice.
I have blue ray of 'Kiss Me Deadly'. I rented Criterion DVD of same film. Watched 15 minutes of beginning, up to trip to Repair shop. Once blue ray, twice DVD. I could see 0 difference in image. I will be curious to look at the suplementary material to see if any noticeable difference. I suppose I would notice a difference if I will put the one film on my non high def TV which is 40 inches, and the other on high def. I just am thinking that bluerays for the extra $10 are overated.
I will buy Blu-Ray when it replaces DVD once and for all, and when its prices are reasonable enough in the country I live. I spent a lot of time in my DVD collection and am simply not willing to replace it all again just because the market tells me so. Besides, I cannot argue against the quality of HD-Video, but I´m not at all bothered by DVD´s quality. In the end, A good movie is a good movie, be it in VHS, DIVX, DVD or BD.
Good choices, but you did pick the movies that had a lot of time and money spent on, by either the director's themselves or by a company such as Lowrey (sp?) who did the Bond movies. Out of a small number of movies that will have a lot of love spent on them, you will get a majority of them that the distributors will just chuck out on Blu Ray without any restoration or proper care in to upgrading the movie in to 1080p properly and will not look any different to its normal dvd counterpart.
the problem is not wich one is better...the problem is only newer movies will be on blu ray and old dvd format will disappear and not all blu ray movies looked that good
@Zaranyzerak Well For me I donno what they rendered the stuff from considering its from PC to film. Film is shot ..well on film directly. But yes film doesnt exactly have res to see pixles IM one of those ppl that didnt believe that old movies deserved Bluray HD conversion but I was def wrong (long before this vid). Atm I am waiting for Toy Story 3 to come out on bluray I already bought 1 and 2 on DVD back in 2008 but there is a trilogy Box coming out So Im def keen on this .
Movies on DVD are always compressed just to fit it on the disc and therefore look worse than the original material. The videos on DVD aren't 1080p and modern tv screens have to scale it up to fit the screen which doesn't make them look better. Like when you resize a jpg from 50x50 pixels to 200x200 pixels. It looks worse. The blu-ray has more space, therefore you can get bigger files on there. Naturally not all blu-rays look great. Sometimes the original material is missing or whatever.
VHS wouldn't be used by a reputable company, but it would be and has been by these fly-by-night public domain companies.At any rate, it's pretty clearly a 16mm reduction print, several generations removed from the original, even if it isn't a VHS when there are DVDs mastered from the same original film elements You aren't just comparing DVD to Blu-ray here, but companies that take pride in their work, vs companies that will ship anything that encodes to the dollar bin. See Silent Era for details
is blue ray just an HDTV equalizer like blue rays are the dvd's that play HD videos or what does a blue ray do? like its all just graphics rite? if i have an HD TV do i need blue ray discs to get full HD?
just started my blu ray collection with The Conjuring, The Dark Knight Rises, Godzilla, Guardians of the Galaxy, Schindlers List, Pulp Fiction, Boyhood, the Star Wars Saga, and Step Brothers. After seeing all these movies in comparison to how the DVD versions look on my tv, i think its a worthy investment if you care about the visual quality of what youre watching. I'll be buying blu ray movies from now on.
***** DVD's are not DRM free, they still have copy protection it's just significantly easier to break than blu-ray's which can be ripped now anyway
***** I agree with you that DVD is piss easy to rip but blu ray is still totally do able it's just a bit of a pain. There are ways to play bluray on linux it's just an extra step but libdvdcss is never going going to make blu rays play on linux because it's designed specifically for DVD's.
+Christian Ramos Boyhood is such a cool movie. I love it
Christian Ramos same
They should do another one that includes the VHS version so we can see how much more clear the DVD is than the VHS.
blurays are instantly Superior in my opinion, because they have that scratch resistant layer to them.
Some good that did me mine got minor scratch wont play in one area anymore. DVD still works with far more scratches. Also blue rays are technically unrepairable. Compared to DVD's. The reason the put the layer of lacquer to protect from scratches is the fact smaller scratches can put it out of commission. Its because the data divots are so much smaller. Which is the same reason it holds more data.
Anyone who's saying you can't tell the difference below 40" has clearly never watched a blu-ray on a smaller screen. I have a 27" monitor and blu-ray looks fantastic on that. I'd never go back to DVD even on a smaller screen, blu-ray is a million times better.
DVD and Blu-Rays look the same to me on my 32'' tv, that being said when I hook it up to 50" it blows it out of the water. I love Blu-Ray, but you have to have a big screen to really appreciate and notice all the details. I am with you on the never buy a DVD again part, but lets not get to over the top and say Blu Ray looks a million times better on a smaller screen.
It all depends how far away from your screen you are. I sit around 4-5 feet away from mine and yes, blu-ray is more than noticeably different; everything - colour, contrast, sound, black levels, artifact levels - are all so much better on blu-ray. Granted, if you're ten feet away from your smaller screen then definitely, you will hardly notice the difference. Nice to have a decent conversation on UA-cam though man, most of what you say on here gets shot down by someone or other in about 5 minutes... Cheers :)
samcooke343 Yea I agree Blu-Ray is superior and I will never buy another DVD however, I would still recommend dvd for people who don't watch that much movies or who own smaller television sets or even *shudder* tube T.V's. Cheers :)
***** Yes that's what I meant. 4K films are huge, they need way bigger discs to store them.
It depends not from TV size but from it resolution. For example you can see difference between 480p dvd and 1080p blu-ray even on small tablet, if it have 1080p resolution.
Brings back memories. 1080p was a game changer.
I believe DVDs was made to get the best picture and audio quality possible on CRT TVs since it was released in 97. Hard to believe it's been around for 19 years lol
25 years
@@rygdoomed442 Still watchable. But yes Blu Ray is quite good.
dvds are made for a old school dvd portable to look good
Thanks for showing how blu ray kicks ass :D
Watching this reminds me of the first time I wore glasses. From blurry to clear. Seeing details that you never could make out before.
I hate to admit it, but I hated the idea of bluray when they first came out. Pay twice as much for a slightly better picture and sound, not to mention that I've been collecting DVDs for years and got very far with, then I finally gave in & watched a few movies on bluray... And now I'm torn because now that means I have to repurchase all my fav films. But it's worth it though, blu looks amazing and I can't go back to just standard
You'll have to do it again next year. Sony have announced 4K format 2015.
Americans are lazy...I hate being American I love the physical formats!
@@ILoveXXRussellcXX it's 2020 and I can still say normal Blu rays are more than sufficient
Awesome video. I think what actually struck me the most is that not only was the image sharper, but the colours were amazing! They really popped, I really noticed it on the Braveheart ones with the blood and the grass.
If you guys really need convincing, watch Star Trek TNG on blu-ray. That restoration was a gift from god. Really, it looks like it was shot in 2005, rather than 1990.
i dont know what you mean. whats the difference between a movie from 1990 and 2005?
+juresaiyan Season 1 looks at least a good as season 7 did, which is what blows me away! at least 80% of the horrible quality at that time was from very inferior post-production methods where they transferred everything onto videotape to apply special effects, etc, and that is the phase where all the colors and sharpness just got destroyed. The remaster is the original completely rebuilt from the original source with a completely updated digital post-production process, no more of that tape transfer crap! The only thing left in the early seasons that gave away its age is basically any scene with low or unbalanced set lighting. But any scene that did have brighter and better balanced lighting looks pretty much identical to the later seasons, plus!
@@PassCookie A movie from 1990 looks much better than one from 2005.
My mind blown, perception shattered.
Not to say blu ray isn't waaay better anyways, the quality of watching dvds at 1080p also depends heavily on how good the upscaling algorithm is
I want to see the General in Blue Ray now...what a big difference.
Thank you for making this video.
Marco Viti I want to watch it right now. Such a great movie.
I used to be one of those people that would say "it wasn't shot in HD and therefore is not meant to be seen that way" not anymore. Just recently started my Blu-Ray collection. It's an interesting feeling.It's like a fresh start. Out with the old, in with the new.
i definitely notice a difference. my mom on the other hand does not. depends on how well you see and how much you care to notice. when vhs was out i thought it couldnt get better. when dvd came out i was completely blown away and thought there is no way it can be better than this. then blu ray came out and i'm completely in awe. my mom doesnt see a difference between vhs and blu ray unless i point it out. you may be like my mom. if you are, i still love you
as far as that goes, brilliant video, bravo. especially for going back so far for the comparisons. i always thought it really wouldnt matter because of the image being captured in lower resolution due to the equipment of the time but wow what a difference.
I have an Epson 8350 projected onto a 106" screen, the only way to watch a movie is Blu-ray everything else falls short. If you watch a DVD on a large projected screen it will make you crazy after having seen Blu-ray. Nice video thanks.
my favorite picture is at 8:19. it's awesome how much clearer the writing on the lamp post becomes
Great video the grass in Braveheart seemed little more natural in dvd version but otherwise blu ray is superior
They're also at native resolution on an SD display. People seem to forget you can't make pixels bigger without losing quality, which is exactly what's happening when you play a DVD on an HDTV.
Yes, quite a difference between CD and Blu Ray especially with the 1926 movie "The General" with Buster Keaton. The details in all the movies with Blu Ray was so much clearer. Thanks for sharing.
CD's are just for audio..
A lot of classics are getting the full blown restoration and re-release treatment (in 4K no less, i.e., for cinema showings too. They Alien films look amazing on the big screen in the 4K restoration they did for them and the Blu-ray release). If you like films like Zulu and 2001 then it's almost worth getting a Blu-ray player JUST for those. They look absolutely OUTSTANDING. Taxi Driver and Bridge on the River Kwai are also some exceptionally good looking old films o Blu-ray.
Thanks! I got a Blu-Ray player for my computer and I wondered, if old films would look better. But you convinced me, I'll get some of my favourite old movies on Blu-Ray now =)
The results:
For both 40 TVs (seated at 9 ft from the TV)
DVD 1080p delivers details but with blurry borders in background, for example in Edge of darkness and Fantastic Four one can read the license plates of cars and background advertisements very clearly, though, the borders of the numbers and letter looks soft (blurry on the edges of the letter and numbers, but still being able of reading them very clearly).
Sean, I don't know if you've ever mentioned it, but what were your thoughts on the Superbit DVD format. I first head about them back in 2005 when my dad updated the home theatre system and one of the workers at Best Buy recommended them. He didn't see much of a difference in picture, but did on sound. I noticed slightly better picture and great improvement on sound. It was almost the same with Blu-ray for both of us, except the first thing I noticed was much better black levels. That was in 2008
That's the magic of higher resolutions.
We should have a comparison between HD movies through digital distribution and then compare it to Blu-ray.
From Philippines.. sir can I ask a question? What is Comparison of Blueray copy to Brrip. Video Sample pls...
Great music and good examples of the clarity of the Blu-ray technology. I was impressed with the sharper focus and also the more vivid colors.
I connected my computer to my receiver and this track is crystal clear. Very dynamic and punchy at the deep bass. Once again Great job on this track.
Note that you can scan and digitize anything... 80ppi magazine halftone prints, for instance, at any dpi you want. That doesn't mean there's useful detail below a certain analog size.
Do a 4k to Blu Ray comparison.
the facial close up shots used particularly in 1970's films really do exhibit the amount of make-up used by the actor and the perspiration, on blu ray...
yeah i agree i could just buy some of my favorites. but the way you described it in the beginning of this video was like it was going to absolutely blow my mind away which there was a slight sharpness in detail but not mind blowingly.
Amazing examples! I hope this shows people how blu-rays potential is far greater than dvd.
Im watching this in 2014 and 4K released, lets watch these movies in 4K.
To me, the best movie format is the one that has the closest resemblance to how the film originally looked on the theater. To do otherwise is a degrade whether you ignore the flaws time and use caused or try to better them.
DVDs look better because they're uncut, which means you can see the hands under the puppets and the strings holding up the fake planets. Also, on the cover of my Clash of the Greeks DVD, Persyphilis is riding his flying eagle-walrus over the swelling river of bile while holding the head of Queen of the Snake Druids as the Klunken monster is lunging toward the virgin princess of Rodanthe, who is chained to the entrance of the cave of hidden pleasures next to the Klunken's trophy skulls hanging like wind chimes, whereas the cover of Clash of the Greeks Bluray shows Persyphilis wearing his White Blouse of Elgyn while looking at the Klunken's attempted assault of the princess, which sadly seems to be occurring right beside whoever is taking his picture.
Also my Species 2 Bluray is in a blue case which is all wrong because the cover is in red, which is sending me the subliminal message that i'm supposed to feel heightened emotions as well as calm, soothing emotions, which i'm used to by now but is still not the way to market a movie. DVD made every case black, which is a better strategy because no matter what you take away from a watching a movie, theres always the reminder that at the end of every great story comes the black, shapeless void of death, where any meaning will be swallowed into a space where there is no time or matter, but only mutations and infidelities and mysteries and mountains of forgotten black DVD cases.
How did you manage to make the 1926 movie into a blu-ray showing of the original anyway? Or did you just find a blu-ray copy of that movie.
I collect DVDs because I prefer the form factor and lack of the blu ray banner at the top but have a digital blu ray library, best of both worlds imo
It is affordable. It's cheap as hell to get a Blu-ray player these days and you can play ALL of your DVD's on it too, so you're losing nothing and gaining a hell of a lot. You don't have to replace everything either, you can just get new releases on Blu-ray, and a lot come with a DVD version too so you can still use it on the other players around the house that haven't been replaced yet. The Blu-rays themselves aren't even that much more expensive either, especially for the quality boost.
I just recently bought my first bluray player and am starting to build a collection. Certain types of movies i dont mind having on DVD but 3D movies and movies where you are drawn to the scenery are great on bluray.
It is possible to watch Blu ray movies in good quality from blank DVDs. What you have to do is compress the Blu ray using mp4 and once it's a media file you can burn it to a blank DVDs as a media file. You can't play it on a stand alone DVD player but you can play it on a stand alone Blu ray player as well as your DVD disc drive on your computer using KMPlayer or VLC.
Great video. I've owned movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey on DVD and Blu-ray, and there's just no comparison on which one looks better.
I didn't changed my mind. These are the same ''old'' movies, but in HD. There isn'a a difference that could make me buy it a second time.
Wow. The last example is just staggering, how you can see the detail on the bricks when the two guys are walking through the town. Im not much of a movie guy myself, but even I can see the huge increase in quality that the older movies have recieved from blu ray.
Excellant video!
And yet some people think DVD and Blu Ray are the same
Thank you for uploading the video, I might upgrade to Blu-ray :)
Those days when we would purchase films we didn't even like that much, just to see them in 1080p
If/when your DVD player kicks the bucket it's worth replacing it with a Blu-ray player. It'll still play all of your DVD's and upscale them so they look better than ever (still nowhere near as good as an actual Blu-ray though, simple physics doesn't allow for this lol). The price difference between the two formats is pretty minimal now too, so it's worth getting new releases on Blu-ray and just keeping your DVD collection, no need to go replace it all unless you want to.
OK, I’m not some DVD purist and I agree that Blu-ray is a much higher-rez format, there’s no denying this fact.
However, some of the examples you give are taken from film masters from before, and after a major restoration was performed. In particular the general, yes, Blu-ray offers far more resolution, but also the master matters and the fact is the Blu-ray presentation you used was scanned after a major physical and digital restoration was undertaken and not simply because Blu-ray is just that much better.
You have to be honest in these videos.
There is nothing dishonest about this video. I took current examples at the time to show the difference in quality. This was simply to show the difference, and that's what I did. To dig into the multitude of difference as to how each master was prepared, what the sources were, how they were or weren't restored, etc. would have been far beyond the scope of this video. It should be obvious that better care was taken with transferring and restoring the masters with Blu-ray, that's kinda the point and should be self-evident from these examples. Clearly, obviously they took more care to restore the masters for HD presentation. Unlike just DNRing the hell out of the master and slapping it on a DVD. All of these were considered some of the best example at the time of DVD versus Blu-ray, and the best titles to truly showcase the difference. This isn't a video about restoration. This is a video about the end result as presented on both formats. What you will see when you pop the disc in your player. The point where they said "Okay, that's good" and released it. Yes, more effort is put into Blu-ray releases (generally) so they look their best. That's literally the point. Slapdash low-res fuzzy as hell SD DVD? Or pristine, fully restored HD Blu-ray edition?
So that's why I chose these particular titles. Saying "you had a definite agenda of proving DVD inferior, rather than an honest comparison" is flat-out wrong. This could not be a more honest comparison. I literally took the screenshots as is and showed them as is, to present both accurately. I even made sure to zoom in to show the finer details. It would be ignorant of me to say "Make up your own mind!" when the difference is so clear and obvious, come on.
Take this for what it is, it proved the point I was making. My "agenda" was showing that Blu-ray is clearly better quality, as this was in direct response to countless naysayers at the time saying there was no difference. This was simply to show that yes, there absolutely is a difference and it's huge. Were these extreme examples? Maybe, but that's not the point - the point is these were the hot new titles everyone was talking about and comparing to their DVD counterparts at the time. So I simply compiled them together to have a quick, simple, and hopefully somewhat entertaining look at the differences. Look at the date on this video. It was a very different world at the time, and there weren't anywhere near as many high profile titles out as there are now. The format was still in its infancy, barely out of the format war. I stand by my video and how I chose to present the images for this subject.
This is also the concluding episode in a 20+ part series about HD overall. I cover some of the other things you mention in other videos. This was the grand finale," as it were. I'd been talking about HD for many videos, it was time to SHOW what I had been talking about. The dramatic text narration is just a bit of showmanship as I have a flair for the dramatic.
As Zaranyzerak says, there is no dishonesty here. Any remastering was done as part of the conversion for the new Blu-ray release. The images are taken from the best dvd release available Vs the new Blu-ray remaster. The General for example does not have it's dvd shots taken from a dvd of that remaster, because they never made a dvd release of it. The point stands that a movie from 1926, or earlier like with Metropolis, gains from "the Blu-ray treatment". In the case of Metropolis, I have the recent remaster in its steel book collectors edition, which includes a dvd copy of the same remaster. Trust me, it's still night and day.
I also have Avatar on Blu-ray. The first release that is. A bare bones Blu-ray with a static menu and almost the entirety of the 50GB used for the movie. It's a reference movie basically. Came free with my Blu-ray player. But it also came with a dvd copy, again static menu, all 8GB used for the film. Compare the two, night and day.
Thus even if the dvd shots of the movies in this video came from a dvd release of the same source used for the Blu-ray, you might find some better colours, maybe a little less artifacts than previous DVDs, but it's still night and day.
the introduction of this videos last 1 year!! so exhausting ....
so far ive noticed:
Clearer imagery at far distance
better lighted areas(if that makes sense)
enhanced color
Im most impressed with the difference in "how the west was won"
been at war with myself wither to star collecting blu-rays instead of DVD, Im still a bit undecided, but this video definitely tipped the battle in blu-rays favor. still going to do some more digging. but hanks fo the video.
Timingchameleon The only difference in the technology is the laser, in blu-ray they use a blue laser (hence the name) which has a smaller beam, this allows the disk to have small grooves to read, thus increasing the storage capacity without increasing the physical size. The quality comes from the filming and editing processes done before the film is ever on a disk. The reason why this video shows the blu-ray having more quality is because it has been enhanced since the original dvd releases which have been made nearly a decade before, (fight club was released in 2009, the blu ray was a 10th anniversary, for an example). A normal DVD doesn't have the capacity to have the same quality as blu-ray as well as the extra content on the disk, HD-DVD can do 1080p with good amount of extra content, but still the blu-ray has nearly 4 times the storage capacity allowing for higher resolution film as well as more extra content.
***** Blu-ray has the same problem of disk rot, the physical bodies of them are made from the same components, the only difference in the two formats is blu-ray uses a finer laser which allows the format to have larger storage capacity.
***** natural disk rot would just occur as the material decays. It's plastic and thin bits of metal so when those are decaying the pits and lands of the disk will eventually degrade and make it harder for the laser to read them.
I've bought some Blu-rays of my favourite films, but some films I just can't be bothered to upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray.I still buy more DVDs than BDs, and I'm certainly not going to replace my DVD collection with Blu-rays.I think Blu-ray is a niche format for movie nerds who want to see every blackhead on the nose of their fave film stars.I can still watch a movie perfectly well on DVD, I've got better things to spend my money on than re-buying the same films over and over.
Damn i love Blu Ray quality. Makes me wonder what format is coming after this that will make Blu Ray look fuzzy
Hello 4K came out blu ray is still great and dvd upscaled doesn’t look that bad 4K is only when you get a payrise
If you buy stuff on iTunes it's there forever for you to redownload when you like. iCloud is for documents and stuff like Pages and Keynote or other apps that make use of it. Purchases don't count towards your limit. I rip all my stuff to my media server so everyone in the house can watch what they want when they want. The quality is actually pretty damn good to be fair, but it depends on your encode setting. If you want the full experience then of course the Blu-ray is king, or a raw rip.
Some of it is on purpose, but the fact is they'll have changed it far more for the DVD release than the Blu-ray because the MPEG2 codec can't hold as much colour information as H.264 that's used for Blu-ray (or the original film source for that matter). You'll notice this if you ever make your own DVD's too. You'll see the colours get washed out when it's converted to MPEG2 format.
Getting a blu-ray player was worth it! There's a HUGE difference, I'm never going back to dvd!
Of course DVD is going to look worse if you upscale it to 1080p! Try Blu Ray and DVD NORMAL intended settings and then compare.
Does some CGI look worse if the resolution is higher?
Not sure why it would? It all depends on the resolution it was rendered out at. If it was only rendered in 480p, then yes it wouldn't look as good as something rendered natively in HD or 4K. This isn't really an issue with modern CG as it is all done natively in HD or 4K anyway. Older CG for television rendered at 480p, however, typically wouldn't gain much from HD unless it was either re-rendered at higher resolution or A.I. upscaled.
In the recent case of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, they had to re-do all the CG effects that were created for the Director's Edition because that cut was only made for SD DVD over two decades ago. So they re-did ALL of those shots in 4K for the recent 4K release. This was an exception as it was just a few shots and should not be taken as a feasible process to be applied to ALL older CG.
Thank you. With what Raquel Medina said about animation looking weird on blu ray. Do need an HD tv for blu ray to work besides the blu ray player or will not having an HD tv make the blu ray on animation look weird?
... this video has done what multi-million dollar advertising budgets have not.
... made me want to get a BluRay really really badly. MY BIRTHDAY IS COMING UP!!
Ok they make old movies look better but what about modern movies? Does it still make a big difference then?
Thanks for this wonderful video! Now,i'm just going to throw my DVD player out of the window,and buy a brand new Blu-Ray Player for my HDTV.And with some Blu-Ray movies that i already have in DVD,and enjoy it in another way! Thank you!!
Do I need a specific type of TV to view Blu-Ray movies? I have a smaller flatscreen TV from 2010 / 2011 but am considering an upgrade and would love to get a Blu-Ray player as well. Thanks.
I might not be Zaranyzerak, but I'll answer for you.
It's official news that Sony's new 4K disc format will be coming out sometime by 2015; so you should probably wait to get a 4K TV and a native 4K player; the 4K disc format is likely appearing in the second half of 2015.
Thanks. I knew there was something new being created but hadn't heard when it would be out. I will probably wait, even though there will probably be something better a year after that is released.
How’s your 4K tv doing ?
@marioarty I don't have one yet. I Moved to a different state after I wrote that. I got a smaller TV a year or two ago to replace my old one that randomly glitched out and wouldn't work. My Samsung Blu-Ray player no longer plays Blu-Rays for some unknown reason so I'm down to watching DVD's even though I've sold off at least 70% of my movie collection. I've been looking at 4k TV's and players.
I shake my head at people who can't tell the difference between standard definition and high definition. If you have an HD monitor, standard definition films and games will look like you're viewing them through a dirty window. The standard definition images look muddy in comparison to the HD images. Furthermore, Blu Ray allows the opportunity for home video to be as aestheticallly close to a film's theatrical version as has ever been possible.
@itsabomberscope It all depends on the movie. Some old movies that were released in theaters, then vhs, and then dvd. Since the dvd source is best one up to that point, they will use that to transfer it to Blu Ray.
@IceStudios100 Well, film IS susceptible to dirt. If you're talking about the black blob looking things that show up on occasion on the top right of the screen. That's signaling a reel change, entire movies aren't shipped to theaters as one big reel, they're shipped in multiple reels and have to be spliced together.
Blu Ray is so much more expensive
+Eddie Reyes and has 60 fps (is that right? :/)
+prince me no that makes no sense , but You have the best 1080p and the best sound.
***** does it work for xbox one?
So what's the difference between blu-ray and double layer then? In terms of film quality ofcourse.
I have run test with both BR and DVD 1080p, and yes! of course I used BR disc for the BR. The movies I used were Pirates of the Caribbean, Fantastic Four and Edge of Darkness. For Edge of darkness y used a copy of the original DVD (no compressed).
By the way I used for the test a Sharp LED TV 40 (Full HD), LG plasma 40 ( 720P) , and Samsumg LCD 32
Like I said before, I respect Blu Ray, but I have to stick with DVD since it's more accessible and cheaper for me. Also, not all stuff is available on Blu Ray. Thanks for the comparions they were awesome. Wish you'd used King Kong 1933. I would've loved to have seen the jungle in Blu Ray. Awesome catchy music, you said you made it yourself?
Outstanding video, sir! You really managed to erase my doubts about Blu-Ray. The only thing that still is an argument for DVDs is the price, at least for older releases. Often you can get DVDs that are 2 or 3 years old for under 5$, used on Amazon marketplace even for under 1$. Such bargains are not possible with Blu-Rays... yet.
Watching this in 144p, and Blu-ray still looks better than DVD.
No matter how much evidence you show, the people who think you're wrong are people who don't care about actual quality. They're hipsters who simply like older things because they're old. It's useless trying to show them they're wrong.
Sadly, this has proven to be true. Which is why I don't really bother anymore. Pointless.
well as you see on 3:59, Blu Ray could make movies faker! actually, the quality is SO good that you can see the 'perfect' customs, and the 'perfect' grass.
i have a big collection of dvds and dont know if i should swap to blu ray everyone says blu rays are better but i dont want to start my collection all over again what should i do
some people can listen to music on a laptop and then listen to the same song on a home stereo and dont care and dont seem to notice the difference. others like myself spend hundreds of dollars on special imported headphones, DAC, FLAC tracks, amplifier, and equalize each track when they listen to music and wouldnt have it any other way. if you watch a blu ray on your 42" and dont notice a difference, keep with DVDs. they are cheaper. whatever makes you happy in my opinion.
Wonderfull! Now video is in 1080p, but as you can notice. Blu-Ray is not perfect.
Wait until Holographic Versatile Disc comes... (2160p, Quad-Highdefinition)
This about the same as comparing console *DVD* to PC Gaming *Blu-Ray* My question though is if you have a blu-ray player on just standard tube TV 480p or lower is it even going to give an improvement. I'm thinking not, but if you can answer it, that would be nice.
I have a big screen philips, if I buy blu ray will the HD actually show on my TV?
In some cases, the lower definition is better suiting. Notably, constructed sets.
I have blue ray of 'Kiss Me Deadly'. I rented Criterion DVD of same film. Watched 15 minutes of beginning, up to trip to Repair shop. Once blue ray, twice DVD. I could see 0 difference in image. I will be curious to look at the suplementary material to see if any noticeable difference. I suppose I would notice a difference if I will put the one film on my non high def TV which is 40 inches, and the other on high def. I just am thinking that bluerays for the extra $10 are overated.
@FROSTYGECKOZ So on top of the $80 BD, you also need that $50 software?
I will buy Blu-Ray when it replaces DVD once and for all, and when its prices are reasonable enough in the country I live. I spent a lot of time in my DVD collection and am simply not willing to replace it all again just because the market tells me so. Besides, I cannot argue against the quality of HD-Video, but I´m not at all bothered by DVD´s quality. In the end, A good movie is a good movie, be it in VHS, DIVX, DVD or BD.
So why is the last movie in Sepia tone on bluray and b&w on dvd? Its just something im wondering, the movie looks great on bluray.
Good choices, but you did pick the movies that had a lot of time and money spent on, by either the director's themselves or by a company such as Lowrey (sp?) who did the Bond movies.
Out of a small number of movies that will have a lot of love spent on them, you will get a majority of them that the distributors will just chuck out on Blu Ray without any restoration or proper care in to upgrading the movie in to 1080p properly and will not look any different to its normal dvd counterpart.
the problem is not wich one is better...the problem is only newer movies will be on blu ray and old dvd format will disappear and not all blu ray movies looked that good
@Zaranyzerak
Well For me I donno what they rendered the stuff from considering its from PC to film.
Film is shot ..well on film directly.
But yes film doesnt exactly have res to see pixles IM one of those ppl that didnt believe that old movies deserved Bluray HD conversion but I was def wrong (long before this vid).
Atm I am waiting for Toy Story 3 to come out on bluray I already bought 1 and 2 on DVD back in 2008 but there is a trilogy Box coming out So Im def keen on this .
Hello, is it possible to a comparison between Web (Netflix) and Blue ray?
Movies on DVD are always compressed just to fit it on the disc and therefore look worse than the original material. The videos on DVD aren't 1080p and modern tv screens have to scale it up to fit the screen which doesn't make them look better. Like when you resize a jpg from 50x50 pixels to 200x200 pixels. It looks worse.
The blu-ray has more space, therefore you can get bigger files on there.
Naturally not all blu-rays look great. Sometimes the original material is missing or whatever.
DVD- 10 megabits. HDTV- 19 megabits. Blu-ray- 48 megabits.
do you ever watch Alien in the theater version from 1979 on blu ray ? Damm this is amazing
Very entertaining.Awesome music.Enjoyed it,thanks!
Amazing video... And I love the music, very nice made...
Any blu-ray skeptic needs to watch the Blade Runner blu-ray and they will change their mind
VHS wouldn't be used by a reputable company, but it would be and has been by these fly-by-night public domain companies.At any rate, it's pretty clearly a 16mm reduction print, several generations removed from the original, even if it isn't a VHS when there are DVDs mastered from the same original film elements You aren't just comparing DVD to Blu-ray here, but companies that take pride in their work, vs companies that will ship anything that encodes to the dollar bin. See Silent Era for details
is blue ray just an HDTV equalizer
like blue rays are the dvd's that play HD videos
or what does a blue ray do? like its all just graphics rite?
if i have an HD TV do i need blue ray discs to get full HD?
Glad you put how the west was won on here, one of the best discs ever made
Are the BR drives for computers the same as a BR player? I was thinking of getting one.