Blu-ray vs DVD

we have a sony upscaler surround sound but when i want to watch blurays i use the computer and run it thru the tv and surround sound
 
Ah well if that is the case and it is the extras then yes Blu-ray comes with more extras probably to justify the extra cost involved and I suspect that Blu-ray players are fairly cheap now so probably worth an upgrade :D
 
The difference is not quite the same as VHS vs DVD, but still big enough to notice.

You got a good screen on the PC? I recently upgraded my collection and still have several of the old DVDs. I'll do a couple of identical screenshots if you want.
 
kermitgreenkona88":b0x2dvy2 said:
Blu-ray comes with more extras probably to justify the extra cost involved

Blu Ray disks are 25GB, 5 times the storage of a standard DVD. Plenty of room for the Blu Ray movie, the DVD version, and every conceivable extra including bloopers and out-takes.
 
FMJ":je123xbm said:
Blu Ray disks are 25GB, 5 times the storage of a standard DVD. Plenty of room for the Blu Ray movie, the DVD version, and every conceivable extra including bloopers and out-takes.
That is of course assuming your Blu-Ray is a single-layer one. There are plenty of dual-layer ones. Most movies are around 20GB just for the main film.
 
FMJ":25a1zupl said:
kermitgreenkona88":25a1zupl said:
Blu-ray comes with more extras probably to justify the extra cost involved

Blu Ray disks are 25GB, 5 times the storage of a standard DVD. Plenty of room for the Blu Ray movie, the DVD version, and every conceivable extra including bloopers and out-takes.

Most DVDs were dual-layer, so 9-ish G - not necessarily full, but often taken to a buck-and-a-half, just to make it more awkward for those wanting to make, um, unauthorised "backups" on single layer DVD-Rs. I seem to recall that when that great, long, epic, um, big-word, film Titanic came to DVD, at first (due to it's length) the DVD release wasn't anamorphic - I believe because of the amount of data. Not sure whether it was ever re-released as anamorphic on DVD - but if so, they probably had to cut some corners, sorry, make some optimisations to make it fit.

That said, don't know much about bluray disks, having never done much manipulation, but doesn't much the same apply - single layer 25G, dual-layer 50G?
 
Sorry just want to clear up what I said I was not talking about justifying manufacturing costs, I meant the extra cost to buy them ;) :oops:
 
Picture quality is a marked improvement. They're back compatible and will play "most" DVDs - I've not found one yet the won't play - so your existing collection won't be redundant.

Went Blu Ray for all our players years ago. The one in our front room is also web connected so we can watch Netflix etc through it.
 
Blu Ray players are cheap now too - I bought ours in 2010 for £50!!! It upscales dvd but doesn't go on the net, never really bothered me though, depends on how much you use netflix, etc...
 
Buy the best TV you can afford otherwise old school TVs without a HDMI socket (or DVI) socket are rendered next to useless by a £34.99 LG Smart Blu-Ray player.

Upscaling doesnt really do much, it just makes any badly authored films look even worse. Older DVD films suffered from this quite a lot and you sometimes end up buying the remastered version over the original. So you may as well buy the BR version instead... Older TV's simply downsacale back to its native resolution anyway. Progressive scan was much better for older displays.

Blu-ray will only play on HDMI enabled screens. The digital nanny state wont let you do it any other way unless you have an early BR player. The hardware is so cheap now, its not worth investing in any special ebay boxes.

Not all blu-ray players can be made region free for DVD either, so if you have any imports, they wont play. There are software hacks as most 'smart' players/ TV's are basic PC's anyway.

There also little widgets that turn HDMI TV's into Smart TV's allowing internet streaming of iPlayer and so forth - if your broadband is good. These double up as recorders as well
 
Back
Top