Blueray vs upconvert DVD - not seeing $200 worth of difference

[sdifox]

What's wrong with finding a hddvd player just to use it as an upconverter?

 

[ProfJohn]

Get one of the pixar films on Blu ray and get back to us.

The ones I have seen look amazing.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
And I realize it's somewhat subjective, but most stuff I've read indicates that there is little to no sound difference with these "HD Audio" formats on the BR discs, over regular DTS and DD.

I'd like to get a preamp that will decode those formats and see for myself, but I don't see how my system could sound much better, unless I got some seriously nicer speakers. Don't think a new audio format is going to do it.

The difference is there for anyone who wants to experience it. But like everything else in the tech world, those who don't care won't notice anything different and feel the need to tell the world about it.

 

[erwos]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: destrekor

Hell, the sound upgrade alone is also worthy in my opinion, but without a decent surround setup, then that might not be even brought into consideration.

And I realize it's somewhat subjective, but most stuff I've read indicates that there is little to no sound difference with these "HD Audio" formats on the BR discs, over regular DTS and DD.

I'd like to get a preamp that will decode those formats and see for myself, but I don't see how my system could sound much better, unless I got some seriously nicer speakers. Don't think a new audio format is going to do it.

I'm not so sure on that. The rear channels just seem to have much more seperation and activity to them and the LFE tracks seem to run a lot more hot than any DVD's that I've played.

Ding ding! It amuses the hell out of me when people can't tell the quality difference, but completely ignore the fact that the separation improvement is like night and day. Ditto for resolution with video - I can _maybe_ understand someone missing the resolution difference on a lame TV, but how in the world do you miss the improved colors?

 

[Chapbass]

I almost buy blu ray exclusively since I got my ps3 (and hddvd as well if theres movies on it ). Granted, on a 110" Projector, its slightly more noticible, but still, a huge diff.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: pulsedrive
Too true. Sadly HDDVD was MUCH better quality. I have been horribly disappointed in Blu Ray.

absolutely no difference in the medias. You're simply seeing things that aren't there.

However, there are cases where now that HD DVD is dead, the new BD transfers from previous HD DVDs have been sub-par: added DNR, EE, which the studios seem to think the ave public wants. They may be correct about that, but it does look worse...if you know what to look for.

On a pure technical basis, BD is more capable than HD DVD; it just depends on how the studios choose to utilize those capabilities.

And as for the OP, in some cases you are correct. Some BD transfers are simply wretched, barely upscaled versions of the DVD transfer. Some, however, are worlds apart in quality.

I can say that it's very difficult for me to watch DVD quality without noticing the difference (more than a year our from owning Blu Ray and HDDVD, and I still watch a lot of my favorite flicks on DVD.)

 

[zinfamous]

and btw...I finally got a cheapo Polk PW10 half-off = $100 at BB today.

After going more than a year with 5.0 sound and the inability to access the DTS-HD tracks through LPCM, (PS3) I can tell you there is a WORLD of difference in terms of audio. I do have Spidey 2 on DVD and BD, so I'll try and give those a run-through to get a true comparison.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: pulsedrive
Too true. Sadly HDDVD was MUCH better quality. I have been horribly disappointed in Blu Ray.

absolutely no difference in the medias. You're simply seeing things that aren't there.

However, there are cases where now that HD DVD is dead, the new BD transfers from previous HD DVDs have been sub-par: added DNR, EE, which the studios seem to think the ave public wants. They may be correct about that, but it does look worse...if you know what to look for.

On a pure technical basis, BD is more capable than HD DVD; it just depends on how the studios choose to utilize those capabilities.

And as for the OP, in some cases you are correct. Some BD transfers are simply wretched, barely upscaled versions of the DVD transfer. Some, however, are worlds apart in quality.

I can say that it's very difficult for me to watch DVD quality without noticing the difference (more than a year our from owning Blu Ray and HDDVD, and I still watch a lot of my favorite flicks on DVD.)

and one way in which earlier BD releases were of lower quality than the HD-DVD releases, were studios were sticking to either single-layer BD (25gb), yet studios were almost exclusively using DL HD-DVD discs (30gb). And to further the shame, often the early releases on BD were using MPEG2 instead of the superior formats, and again, on 25gb discs. This led to some rather miserable transfers, although some did still find ways to shine, say if they used BD50 even when sticking to MPEG2.
In the early days, the manufacturers weren't making as many BD50's as the BD25's, so they were somewhat rare in the early BD movie days.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
and btw...I finally got a cheapo Polk PW10 half-off = $100 at BB today.

After going more than a year with 5.0 sound and the inability to access the DTS-HD tracks through LPCM, (PS3) I can tell you there is a WORLD of difference in terms of audio. I do have Spidey 2 on DVD and BD, so I'll try and give those a run-through to get a true comparison.

yeah, the sound difference is amazing if you can pick up on it with decent equipment.
I've been going this whole time with my HK receiver keeping the LPCM at -10dB for the low audio range, so my front's have been drastically underutilized, as well as obviously my subwoofer. In the midst of getting a usb-to-serial cable so I can perform the firmware upgrade which fixes the receiver's LPCM handling. Cannot wait, going to have to fire up Resistance 2 and some action movies to re-experience why I love Blu. Just picked up the Band of Brothers BD set, so I think that will be a damn good place to start.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: destrekor

Hell, the sound upgrade alone is also worthy in my opinion, but without a decent surround setup, then that might not be even brought into consideration.

And I realize it's somewhat subjective, but most stuff I've read indicates that there is little to no sound difference with these "HD Audio" formats on the BR discs, over regular DTS and DD.

I'd like to get a preamp that will decode those formats and see for myself, but I don't see how my system could sound much better, unless I got some seriously nicer speakers. Don't think a new audio format is going to do it.

The formats will only make a difference if the track is properly encoded, and there have been a few prominent BD releases that failed in that area. Also basically every release that I've seen has an uncompressed PCM track, so why bother with the HD codecs? But I'm not a movie buff, all I want is the feature film in as high a quality as possible, so advanced specs don't rock my boat at all.

Also there's no point in upgrading your system to decode HD formats. You should already have a PS3. But if you don't, then you lost.

 

[newnameman]

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: destrekor

Hell, the sound upgrade alone is also worthy in my opinion, but without a decent surround setup, then that might not be even brought into consideration.

And I realize it's somewhat subjective, but most stuff I've read indicates that there is little to no sound difference with these "HD Audio" formats on the BR discs, over regular DTS and DD.

I'd like to get a preamp that will decode those formats and see for myself, but I don't see how my system could sound much better, unless I got some seriously nicer speakers. Don't think a new audio format is going to do it.

The formats will only make a difference if the track is properly encoded, and there have been a few prominent BD releases that failed in that area. Also basically every release that I've seen has an uncompressed PCM track, so why bother with the HD codecs? But I'm not a movie buff, all I want is the feature film in as high a quality as possible, so advanced specs don't rock my boat at all.

Also there's no point in upgrading your system to decode HD formats. You should already have a PS3. But if you don't, then you lost.

That was the case with early releases, but very few new releases have PCM tracks.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: destrekor

Hell, the sound upgrade alone is also worthy in my opinion, but without a decent surround setup, then that might not be even brought into consideration.

And I realize it's somewhat subjective, but most stuff I've read indicates that there is little to no sound difference with these "HD Audio" formats on the BR discs, over regular DTS and DD.

I'd like to get a preamp that will decode those formats and see for myself, but I don't see how my system could sound much better, unless I got some seriously nicer speakers. Don't think a new audio format is going to do it.

The formats will only make a difference if the track is properly encoded, and there have been a few prominent BD releases that failed in that area. Also basically every release that I've seen has an uncompressed PCM track, so why bother with the HD codecs? But I'm not a movie buff, all I want is the feature film in as high a quality as possible, so advanced specs don't rock my boat at all.

Also there's no point in upgrading your system to decode HD formats. You should already have a PS3. But if you don't, then you lost.

That was the case with early releases, but very few new releases have PCM tracks.

Yeah studios are now starting to move to Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master almost exclusively over uncompressed LPCM, probably because they are noticing very little if any noticeable sound quality, and might as well save some space. Earlier releases tended to keep all the extra content in 480i/p, and that was annoying, but it looks like most releases are now giving extra content the HD treatment as well, especially if a multiple disc release. And if that's the case, then I'm all for that. I haven't given it any testing myself, so I cannot say whether or not a 5.1 Uncompressed PCM track has any noticeable difference compared to a 5.1 Dolby TrueHD track, but if the latter can save space on the disc to give more room for other content or a higher bitrate video encode, than by all means do it.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: newnameman

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: destrekor

Hell, the sound upgrade alone is also worthy in my opinion, but without a decent surround setup, then that might not be even brought into consideration.

And I realize it's somewhat subjective, but most stuff I've read indicates that there is little to no sound difference with these "HD Audio" formats on the BR discs, over regular DTS and DD.

I'd like to get a preamp that will decode those formats and see for myself, but I don't see how my system could sound much better, unless I got some seriously nicer speakers. Don't think a new audio format is going to do it.

The formats will only make a difference if the track is properly encoded, and there have been a few prominent BD releases that failed in that area. Also basically every release that I've seen has an uncompressed PCM track, so why bother with the HD codecs? But I'm not a movie buff, all I want is the feature film in as high a quality as possible, so advanced specs don't rock my boat at all.

Also there's no point in upgrading your system to decode HD formats. You should already have a PS3. But if you don't, then you lost.

That was the case with early releases, but very few new releases have PCM tracks.

Yeah studios are now starting to move to Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master almost exclusively over uncompressed LPCM, probably because they are noticing very little if any noticeable sound quality, and might as well save some space. Earlier releases tended to keep all the extra content in 480i/p, and that was annoying, but it looks like most releases are now giving extra content the HD treatment as well, especially if a multiple disc release. And if that's the case, then I'm all for that. I haven't given it any testing myself, so I cannot say whether or not a 5.1 Uncompressed PCM track has any noticeable difference compared to a 5.1 Dolby TrueHD track, but if the latter can save space on the disc to give more room for other content or a higher bitrate video encode, than by all means do it.

Interesting. I haven't bought any BD movies this year, so I had no idea.

Dolby TrueHD is a lossless codec, so there is exactly zero difference between it and the uncompressed source. The question is what did they do to the master audio to get that uncompressed source, and whether any crimes were committed in the name of compressibility.

 

[themisfit610]

LOL yeah Best Buy is just terrible about showcasing their equipment...

I'm totally spoiled by BluRay now. I can hardly stand watching DVDs anymore, even with good upconversion via AviSynth on the PC.

There really is no comparison!

Also, 25mbps is more than enough to reach transparency for even the crappy H.264 / VC-1 encoders most studios use. Heck, I can encode transparently with x264 at about half this bitrate (8-12). Sure, there's always exceptions for insanely grainy sources, but grain preservation is usually spot-on with BluRay.

I love grain, as a matter of fact. It brings so much texture to a film, and it actually tricks your eyes into seeing more detail than actually exists I usually add grain using special tweaked settings in ffdshow when I watch any video on the PC. It also has the side effect of dithering out banding artifacts.

~MiSfit

 

[Fallengod]

Yeah im kinda getting there myself. Ive learned from over the years its never good to jump on the bandwagon of new technology. I still currently do not own any blu-ray player or blu ray movies, but I have seen examples of them at best buy and such. Id have to say they look pretty amazing.

I actually own many dvds and have been content with them. I encode and use avisynth alot myself for dvds.

I just picked up a blu-ray player on black friday for $150, I still dont know if I wanna keep it yet though. They are supposed to drop quite a bit in 2009. Im sure as soon as I have some blu-ray movies ill probably get addicted....

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: pulsedrive
Too true. Sadly HDDVD was MUCH better quality. I have been horribly disappointed in Blu Ray.

I have never seen a more blatantly false statement than this. For shame. :roll: I'd have to search for the comparisons, Universal movies made for HD DVD then later redone to Blu-ray specifications, improved the image quality by a significant amount. But let me guess, you hate film grain and love a smooth picture, right? That's the difference between HD DVD & Blu-ray, Blu-ray has the bit-rate to accurately reproduce film grain, while HD DVD's bit-rate cannot and studios were forced to filter out grain before encoding.

I have never seen a more blatantly false statement than this. For shame. :roll:

The Grain and Noise Problem The nature of grain (starting at page 9)

Obviously you can cram a bit more film grain onto a BR disk than an HD-DVD, but if it exceeds what was on the original film print, it just becomes excessive. But to make a stupid claim like studios had to take grain out of a film for HD-DVD shows you really don't have a clue WTF you are spouting off here about.

Now, mind you, the amount of grain in a transfer for a SD copy might have to be reduced a lot to make it look less grainy, because of a severely reduced bit rate, but that problem in an HD-DVD was non existent. Nice try spreading more BR fanboy BS though. A good example is Sleepy Hollow. On the SD version there is noticeably less grain than on the HD-DVD version, and so much so, that many people thought the HD-DVD was flawed and mismastered who did not see it at the theater. And there are plenty of other HD-DVDs that also faithfully reproduce all the film grain you could ever ask for, such as Children of Men.

If you are somehow inferring an artificial film grain added to a BR during mastering makes it look more natural, well, I guess you and I might disagree with that, since it will invariably change the look of the film from the actual film print by adding noise which effects the entire film from focus to color to contrast.

But if you are using an all digital camera for recording a movie, natural film grain especially from low light conditions will not be natural at all, but an added effect in post production, as this white paper claims.

Ultimately it would be ideal if the director, producer and cinematographer were to approve and supervise a final master of an HD-DVD, BR or SD release, but I have a funny feeling they are usually not consulted until after it is ready for release, if at all, and the final determination is unfortunately and sadly left at the hands of the people who are mastering the format.

 

[Adul]

i can not will not settle for DVD ever again. HiDef formats for me all the way

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: pulsedrive
Too true. Sadly HDDVD was MUCH better quality. I have been horribly disappointed in Blu Ray.

I have never seen a more blatantly false statement than this. For shame. :roll: I'd have to search for the comparisons, Universal movies made for HD DVD then later redone to Blu-ray specifications, improved the image quality by a significant amount. But let me guess, you hate film grain and love a smooth picture, right? That's the difference between HD DVD & Blu-ray, Blu-ray has the bit-rate to accurately reproduce film grain, while HD DVD's bit-rate cannot and studios were forced to filter out grain before encoding.

I have never seen a more blatantly false statement than this. For shame. :roll:

The Grain and Noise Problem The nature of grain (starting at page 9)

Obviously you can cram a bit more film grain onto a BR disk than an HD-DVD, but if it exceeds what was on the original film print, it just becomes excessive. But to make a stupid claim like studios had to take grain out of a film for HD-DVD shows you really don't have a clue WTF you are spouting off here about.

Now, mind you, the amount of grain in a transfer for a SD copy might have to be reduced a lot to make it look less grainy, because of a severely reduced bit rate, but that problem in an HD-DVD was non existent. Nice try spreading more BR fanboy BS though. A good example is Sleepy Hollow. On the SD version there is noticeably less grain than on the HD-DVD version, and so much so, that many people thought the HD-DVD was flawed and mismastered who did not see it at the theater. And there are plenty of other HD-DVDs that also faithfully reproduce all the film grain you could ever ask for, such as Children of Men.

If you are somehow inferring an artificial film grain added to a BR during mastering makes it look more natural, well, I guess you and I might disagree with that, since it will invariably change the look of the film from the actual film print by adding noise which effects the entire film from focus to color to contrast.

But if you are using an all digital camera for recording a movie, natural film grain especially from low light conditions will not be natural at all, but an added effect in post production, as this white paper claims.

Ultimately it would be ideal if the director, producer and cinematographer were to approve and supervise a final master of an HD-DVD, BR or SD release, but I have a funny feeling they are usually not consulted until after it is ready for release, if at all, and the final determination is unfortunately and sadly left at the hands of the people who are mastering the format.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Seriously, I absolutely love reading your posts, especially how much you think you have any shred of credibility on the forums. You probably still think HD DVD sales are outpacing Blu-ray sales, and the published sales numbers from independent sources are still paid off by Sony. :laugh: We all know your sister owns a PS3 but has no movies, thus no one else who ones a PS3 buys movies either. You also once, unprovoked, accused me of crapping in HD DVD cases and mailing them out to forum users. It's all about credibility.

Your whole post begs the question, do you really know what grain is? I bolded the sentence that is particularly funny, because the first half repeats exactly what I said, and the second half is just, well, way too funny that you think I want grain added into the picture for the home video release. :laugh:


I get my information from reading many comments, including those from the likes of Robert Harris, the person in charge of The Godfather restoration, which you called "HD Gory".

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

What the fuck are you talking about?

Seriously, I absolutely love reading your posts, especially how much you think you have any shred of credibility on the forums. You probably still think HD DVD sales are outpacing Blu-ray sales, and the published sales numbers from independent sources are still paid off by Sony. :laugh: We all know your sister owns a PS3 but has no movies, thus no one else who ones a PS3 buys movies either. You also once, unprovoked, accused me of crapping in HD DVD cases and mailing them out to forum users. It's all about credibility.

Your whole post begs the question, do you really know what grain is? I bolded the sentence that is particularly funny, because the first half repeats exactly what I said, and the second half is just, well, way too funny that you think I want grain added into the picture for the home video release. :laugh:


I get my information from reading many comments, including those from the likes of Robert Harris, the person in charge of The Godfather restoration, which you called "HD Gory".

I guess you didn't bother to read the link I provided about film grain and noise and DVD mastering, since it was a bit too techy for your tiny blue oxygen starved brain to figure out.

If posting is all about credibility then you and many other brain damaged posters need to just stop posting. Do us all a favor, OK?

And an opinion or comment need not be credible to be posted, and you are a perfect case in point.

Now go crap in some more HD-DVD cases, shrink wrap them, and sell them on Ebay for laughs, little blue fan boy. :roll:

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: pulsedrive
Too true. Sadly HDDVD was MUCH better quality. I have been horribly disappointed in Blu Ray.

There's no significant difference between the two media formats. Some of the original issues between the two were more to do with the transfer than the format it was moved to. Some of the initial Blu Ray transfers were very badly done.

As for the discussion of the OP - it's really title and system dependent. Some titles simply are much better champions of the format than others. I found the colors and sharpness in "Last of the Samurai" to be incredible vs. the DVD. The soundtracks have much better distinction between channels and the LFE tracks are usually much more energized. But you need a higher end setup to take advantage of the high def audio codecs.

I don't own a projector, but I guess the difference it makes there in terms of PQ is just stunning.

When you get used to watching & listening to Blu-Ray movies, many DVDs just feel "flat" in terms of color and sharpness.

Not something you really understand until you watch them for a while and you know what you are missing out on.

Upconverting simply can not add sharpness or color or energy to soundtracks.

The same was true when CD was first released, the quality wasn't what we have today and the first digtal recordings had a rather robitic, tinny, poor sound to them. A Sterophile Magazine Editor at the time even questioned the Viability of the format, stating (not verbatim/not exact) "If this is what the future holds for audio, then the future doesn't look good".

Studio's are still trying to work on and learn Blu-Ray mastering, Give it some time and allow for newer more recent movies to make their way specifically to Blu-Ray and things will start too look good.

I have seen the same material in both HD and SD using my PS3 on my Sony* , the difference is there and is very noticeable. But you'll be disappointed if expect your favorite I Love Lucy to Look better in HD. The problem is that it never was recorded in HD so there will never be the improvement you are looking for.


*KD-34XBR960 is a 34" CRT and unlike flat panel TV's it does not require or use an HD Scaler. Matrix Display Technology (Plasma, LCD, DLP) will have much more blockier, interpolated results.