So, is Blu-Ray worth it, yet?

[Warp Coil]

I have yet to pull the plug on Blu-ray. I certainly understand the appeal - most new films and TV shows that are released look great in high-definition. A lot of big Hollywood blockbuster films no doubt benefit from the Blu-ray treatment. However, there are a few reasons why I haven't pulled the trigger and upgraded yet:

1. Cost. My Sony DVD player that I bought brand new back in 2001 still works great. I have no need to run out and buy a Blu-ray player (though, should my trusty hardware fail on me, it's worth considering). Also, Blu-ray titles cost more than a standard DVD (at least $5-10 more, typically... sometimes more) so I prefer the cheaper route.

2. Quality. While I do own an HDTV, it's only 32" and I don't have any surround sound system in place. I personally don't think that there's a massive benefit to watching Blu-ray unless you've got a big screen. For me, standard DVDs still look great.

3. Accessibility. I like being able to share my DVDs and take them around with me. Maybe I go to a friend's house. Maybe I haul my laptop and some DVDs to work over the weekend to keep me occupied while I'm there. Well, none of my friends and family have upgraded to Blu-ray. My laptop doesn't support it, either. So I'd lose some flexibility with how I choose to watch content.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Blu-ray player or surround sound upgrade

I don't have any surround sound system in place.

Warp Coil I would highly recommend putting in a 5.1 surround speaker system before you do any picture upgrade. It really lets you enjoy a film as you immerse yourself in the sound of it.
If you only have a mono TV speaker or stereo speakers there is a huge difference in a 5.1 setup and your experience.

You don't need 7.1 Channel Surround even though some Blu-ray media supports it. It is a minimal difference from 5.1.

Be careful about placement though:

Placement: 5.1 speaker layouts should conform to the ITU-R BS.775 standard, despite the myth that music and video content require different placements. The ITU standard states that the left and right speakers are located at ±30degrees, while the rear speakers should be positioned approximately ±110degrees.

a diagram is here for the placement. text SOURCE

You do need to be good about keeping the speakers about the same height as your head during normal viewing. If that means hanging them on the wall or getting speaker stands then it's part of the audio upgrade.

 

[melancholymecha]

720p still looks excellent.


J.

it does, but the problem is that they are starting to release the special delux edition versions of certain movies on blue ray only & not dvd. And I think thats going to become a more common practice in the coming years.

But the hi-def Blu-ray discs will still play on the 720p sets as hi-definition video. As noted up thread it can look better than 1080i though not quite as good as 1080p.

really? so I can get a BR player, hook it up to my 720p lcd tv & it will play the discs? I thought BR players were incompatible with 720p sets?

 

[RoJoHen]

it does, but the problem is that they are starting to release the special delux edition versions of certain movies on blue ray only & not dvd. And I think thats going to become a more common practice in the coming years.

But the hi-def Blu-ray discs will still play on the 720p sets as hi-definition video. As noted up thread it can look better than 1080i though not quite as good as 1080p.

really? so I can get a BR player, hook it up to my 720p lcd tv & it will play the discs? I thought BR players were incompatible with 720p sets?

A quick google search turned up this:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=34121

Seems you should be just fine playing Blu-Rays.

 

[Warp Coil]

Re: Blu-ray player or surround sound upgrade

I don't have any surround sound system in place.

Warp Coil I would highly recommend putting in a 5.1 surround speaker system before you do any picture upgrade. It really lets you enjoy a film as you immerse yourself in the sound of it.
If you only have a mono TV speaker or stereo speakers there is a huge difference in a 5.1 setup and your experience.

You don't need 7.1 Channel Surround even though some Blu-ray media supports it. It is a minimal difference from 5.1.

Be careful about placement though:

Placement: 5.1 speaker layouts should conform to the ITU-R BS.775 standard, despite the myth that music and video content require different placements. The ITU standard states that the left and right speakers are located at ±30degrees, while the rear speakers should be positioned approximately ±110degrees.

a diagram is here for the placement. text SOURCE

You do need to be good about keeping the speakers about the same height as your head during normal viewing. If that means hanging them on the wall or getting speaker stands then it's part of the audio upgrade.

I would love to purchase a surround sound system, but I live in a condo and there's really no room for an elaborate speaker setup. One day, when I move into a place with more room, I'll update the TV and the sound!

 

[Mooch]

it does, but the problem is that they are starting to release the special delux edition versions of certain movies on blue ray only & not dvd. And I think thats going to become a more common practice in the coming years.

But the hi-def Blu-ray discs will still play on the 720p sets as hi-definition video. As noted up thread it can look better than 1080i though not quite as good as 1080p.

really? so I can get a BR player, hook it up to my 720p lcd tv & it will play the discs? I thought BR players were incompatible with 720p sets?

You can play a blu-ray on any kind of television, even a standard definition (480i) one.
It will work just fine on a 720p set.

 

[ATimson]

Anyway, standard DVD isn't going away anytime soon. BBC Video just announced they're releasing Doctor Who DVDs until at least the end of 2013. That says to me not every company is trying to forcefeed Blu-Ray ... and the fact they're committing to another 4 years of the format -- and no studio to my knowledge has made any announcement that they're retiring DVD anytime soon -- leads me to believe I'm not the only one who is being blown away by Blu-Ray (well, that and the fact a growing number of people just don't give a damn and are downloading everything to watch a few times and then delete).

Sorry, I'm a bit hyped about the upcoming release of the complete Farscape on DVD (no Blu-Ray in sight, btw).

Not everything can be delivered in high-def--pre-2009 Doctor Who sure as hell can't, and Farscape probably can't either. Given that, the studios would be foolish to release SD-only content on Blu-ray; while they'd see some minor benefit from the better compression algorithms (but not anything that would "blow you away" like actual HD resolution does), it's not worth the hassle of putting up with the idiots who don't understand that Blu-ray doesn't have to equal high-def.

 

[melancholymecha]

A quick google search turned up this:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=34121

Seems you should be just fine playing Blu-Rays.

But the hi-def Blu-ray discs will still play on the 720p sets as hi-definition video. As noted up thread it can look better than 1080i though not quite as good as 1080p.

really? so I can get a BR player, hook it up to my 720p lcd tv & it will play the discs? I thought BR players were incompatible with 720p sets?

You can play a blu-ray on any kind of television, even a standard definition (480i) one.
It will work just fine on a 720p set.

well thats awesome! also, this is probably a stupid question, but can a blu-ray player play standard dvds?

 

[ATimson]

also, this is probably a stupid question, but can a blu-ray player play standard dvds?

Technically, they aren't required to, but as far as I know every single one to date does so.

 

[melancholymecha]

^does the quality of a standard dvd suffer when played on a blu-ray machine or does it look the same?

 

[Aragorn]

The DVD upscales when played on a Blu-ray player, which despite what some blind people claim, does not make it equal to Blu-ray quality.

 

[Harvey]

Given that, the studios would be foolish to release SD-only content on Blu-ray; while they'd see some minor benefit from the better compression algorithms (but not anything that would "blow you away" like actual HD resolution does), it's not worth the hassle of putting up with the idiots who don't understand that Blu-ray doesn't have to equal high-def.

That didn't stop Fox from releasing Firefly. Although the live action was shot on 35mm and is easily transfered to 1080p, the visual effects were only rendered at 480p. The exact same thing could be done for Farscape, although I hope not. If they put it out on HD, they better go all the way and remaster the visual effects. Otherwise, there's no point.

 

[ATimson]

That didn't stop Fox from releasing Firefly. Although the live action was shot on 35mm and is easily transfered to 1080p, the visual effects were only rendered at 480p. The exact same thing could be done for Farscape, although I hope not.

You assume it could be. Have there been any statements to the effect that there exist assembled cuts in a format other than on video (that is, the same boat that TNG/DS9/Voyager are in)? It would not surprise me in the least if Farscape had edited to tape...

If they put it out on HD, they better go all the way and remaster the visual effects. Otherwise, there's no point.

There's perhaps "less point" than Firefly given their seemingly heavier usage of effects (pulse pistol blasts being the main offender), but I'm not sure there's "no point".

A better candidate for a job similar to Firefly would be Babylon 5. While the effects would be in even lower resolution than Firefly (360i instead of 480p), at least it's got an assembled cut on film, or the necessary information to produce one easily (as evidenced by the new 16:9 masters a few years back).

 

[Amaris]

^does the quality of a standard dvd suffer when played on a blu-ray machine or does it look the same?

No. In fact, usually the Blu-ray player makes the DVD quality look much better (although nowhere near Blu-ray quality). So it's win/win.


J.

 

[rrrsports]

HDMI cables are essential and you don't have to buy the unnecessarily expensive monster cables that salesmen try to push.

 

[Amaris]

HDMI cables are essential and you don't have to buy the unnecessarily expensive monster cables that salesmen try to push.

Yep. I went to Amazon and bought 3 HDMI cables (6 feet long each) for $6.00 total. All of them still work and the picture quality is superb.

J.

 

[Harvey]

That didn't stop Fox from releasing Firefly. Although the live action was shot on 35mm and is easily transfered to 1080p, the visual effects were only rendered at 480p. The exact same thing could be done for Farscape, although I hope not.

You assume it could be. Have there been any statements to the effect that there exist assembled cuts in a format other than on video (that is, the same boat that TNG/DS9/Voyager are in)? It would not surprise me in the least if Farscape had edited to tape...

The problem with TNG/DS9/VOY as I understand it has less to do with the fact that they were edited on 480p video and more to do with the fact that the visual effects were created at that resolution. The same problem, I assume, falls upon Farscape. The original film negatives should be easily matched to the final edits based on time code information.

 

[OdoWanKenobi]

HDMI cables are essential and you don't have to buy the unnecessarily expensive monster cables that salesmen try to push.

Yep. I went to Amazon and bought 3 HDMI cables (6 feet long each) for $6.00 total. All of them still work and the picture quality is superb.

J.

Yeah, what the heck is up with all of the $100+ HDMI cables I see, when others are at $0.01?

 

[Amaris]

HDMI cables are essential and you don't have to buy the unnecessarily expensive monster cables that salesmen try to push.

Yep. I went to Amazon and bought 3 HDMI cables (6 feet long each) for $6.00 total. All of them still work and the picture quality is superb.

J.

Yeah, what the heck is up with all of the $100+ HDMI cables I see, when others are at $0.01?

Are you kidding? The other day I found an Alan Parson's Project CD I was looking for. It was $12, which is about right for an older CD, right? Right. Well, I was browsing through the prices of other sellers and one of them was listed as "$101.09 - Used - Acceptable", and they had a really high customer satisfaction rating. It just makes no sense whatsoever that someone would pay that kind of money for a used, "acceptable" CD, when everyone else had it anywhere from $12-$20 for brand new. I believe it was Barnum who said "There's a sucker born every minute".

J.

 

[JoeZhang]

The other thing about blu-ray is that often properly remastered films will have the soundtracks redone as well - Blade Runner on a decent set, not only looks amazing but sounds fantastic.