blue ray player over regular dvd ?

[paul04]

I have a samsung blu-ray player. and the picture quality is stunning. it is also a smart blu-ray player, which allows you to connect to the internet,(netfix,iplayer and all the others you can get)
It also has a usb socket (like the ps3) so you can plug in your memory stick and see pictures or play stored movies you have.

 

[MontyVeda]

And it'll play all the stream movies sites like Netflix, LoveFilm plus BBC, ITV, 4OD and so much more.
IMHO PS3 for the price is a bargain

according to 'the lads' I (used to) work with... the blu-ray player in the PS3 isn't a very good one.


regarding blu-ray in general... i'm scared of it. If/when i upgrade, then all this...

...will be substandard.

and it's not like buying ones first cd... as vinyl has a certain warmth that cd lacks... blu-ray is simply better.

 

[The Brewer]

according to 'the lads' I (used to) work with... the blu-ray player in the PS3 isn't a very good one.

Poppycock....My mates brothers friend said it was okay

 

[StuAff]

according to 'the lads' I (used to) work with... the blu-ray player in the PS3 isn't a very good one.


regarding blu-ray in general... i'm scared of it. If/when i upgrade, then all this...

View attachment 20538

...will be substandard.

and it's not like buying ones first cd... as vinyl has a certain warmth that cd lacks... blu-ray is simply better.

Nice little collection there- got some of those myself. As in many cases I've ended up buying DVD as an upgrade to VHS already, I'm trying not to do the same with BR too often- unless it's either a really good price or the quality/extras seem worth it. Upscaled DVD is still pretty impressive.

 

[User6179]

is it worth paying the extra ,really,whats the benefit ,they seem a fair bit more expensive ,whats the reason ,any better

Depending on the number of pixels of your tv you could get a better picture on standard dvd with a smaller tv rather than blu-ray with a large tv ( the bigger the tv the worse the picture ).


blu-ray and dvd will be dead in 10 years with digital downloading taking over IMO.

 

[StuAff]

Depending on the number of pixels of your tv you could get a better picture on standard dvd with a smaller tv rather than blu-ray with a large tv ( the bigger the tv the worse the picture ).

It doesn't work like that, honestly....and the OP has already said he's got a 1080p TV.

 

[StuAff]

blu-ray and dvd will be dead in 10 years with digital downloading taking over IMO.

Apart from all the other reasons that someone might prefer to buy a physical copy (higher quality, sleevenotes, the flexibility to make your own copies for phone etc...) 4K (aka Ultra HD) might just keep disc formats going for a while yet. Pointless for sensible-sized TV, but that won't stop makers flogging them, and the file sizes will be way bigger than BR- either completely impractical for current home net connections (150+ GB for full length) or massively overcompressed to fit in current bandwidth. YouTube has some 4K video, trying to watch the full res version on this 13MB connection was stuttery in the extreme. Even with fibre broadband, that's going to be very demanding....For that, (as yet unreleased) higher-capacity BR will make much more sense.

 

[User6179]

It doesn't work like that, honestly....and the OP has already said he's got a 1080p TV.

It does work like that for instance a 24" 1080p tv has a better picture than 26" because the 24" has more pixels per inch than a the larger model and if you compare a 1080p 24" verses a 1080p 44" then the 24" would have a better picture with standard dvd than the 44" with blu-ray!

If anyone has ever plugged there pc into a 44" 1080p tv they will know the picture is terrible compared to say a 16" monitor with 720 resolution!

 

[StuAff]

It does work like that for instance a 24" 1080p tv has a better picture than 26" because the 24" has more pixels per inch than a the larger model and if you compare a 1080p 24" verses a 1080p 44" then the 24" would have a better picture with standard dvd than the 44" with blu-ray!

If anyone has ever plugged there pc into a 44" 1080p tv they will know the picture is terrible compared to say a 16" monitor with 720 resolution!

Now, there is some logic in your thinking here, but you've forgotten a few key points. Assume for a moment that you've got two panels of identical quality, identically setup (colour temperature, sharpening, etc), with the same source material played from the same hardware running through the same cables- and any of those variables might otherwise render your comparison difficult, possibly entirely inaccurate- you won't, in everyday use, be viewing the material from the same distance. Unless you like sitting really, really close to a large screen or viewing a small one from across the room! If you've done all that and then made those statements, fair enough...

 

[User6179]

Now, there is some logic in your thinking here, but you've forgotten a few key points. Assume for a moment that you've got two panels of identical quality, identically setup (colour temperature, sharpening, etc), with the same source material played from the same hardware running through the same cables- and any of those variables might otherwise render your comparison difficult, possibly entirely inaccurate- you won't, in everyday use, be viewing the material from the same distance. Unless you like sitting really, really close to a large screen or viewing a small one from across the room! If you've done all that and then made those statements, fair enough...

Dosnt matter how you cut it 2 tvs of the same definition ,the smaller one has the better picture , going back to my original point you will get a better picture (all things being equal ) by using the smallest tv that is practical , for example 32" at 10ft away with standard dvd will be better than 44" with blu-ray .

I found this out the expensive way by purchasing an expensive 44" tv and finding the picture to be not as good as my 27" monitor ,so i watch all dvds on the monitor.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

I'm no expert here, but I thought that it was the scan rate as well as the native resolution that contributes to how good a TV is at displaying HD video?

 

[2Loose]

Eddy, comparing apples to oranges never works, but I appreciate your thinking.

A 22 inch wide monitor at 1920 x 1080 compared to a 32 inch wide tv at same 1080p resolution should be the same quality
If the viewing angle is the same, the image is the same and the screen technology is the same ie. made by same firm, using same tech (contrast ratio, refresh rate etc) .
Most importantly, you must be sat proportionally the same distance away which levels the playing field somewhat.

Generally, monitors are built to a higher quality\faster refresh rate because people sit closer to them and they therefore costa bit more for the same size.

@Victor: scan rate really doesn't apply to led\lcd\plasma screens as each pixel can be controled individually to some extent. Unlike CRT's which this did apply to.