I'm feeling Blu.

[One-Way]

Well, well. The day has finally come. I have made my first step into the world of Blu-ray.

After extensive research, I have made the personal decision to begin collecting Blu-ray titles. I haven't yet made a purchase of a Blu-ray player, so I haven't technically crossed over just yet.

I have, however, purchased three Blu-ray titles: Goodfellas, Full Metal Jacket and Blood Diamond. I came across a killer deal from a private seller and had to make the purchase.

I have also decided on a Blu-ray player. I am looking to purchase the Sony BDP-S550. I have also decided not to purchase exclusively for Blu-ray. I will purchase DVDs that are not released on Blu-ray, and rare DVDs which are not available on Blu-ray.

If you need any help on Blu-ray or make any purchases, post them here. I will be keeping track of my purchases in this thread.

[MrHyeSev]

Re: I'm feeling Blu.

One- Way , whats the main diffrence between DVD & Blu Ray?

[One-Way]

Re: I'm feeling Blu.

As far as storage capacity, a Blu-ray consists of 25/50GB whereas a DVD consists of 4/8GB. You can fit a lot more on a Blu-ray disc, which enables distributors to put a higher quality image. The less the disc can hold, the more it has to be compressed; this is why some DVDs are grainy and don't look quite as nice.

Also, a Blu-ray disc is capable of holding better audio. For example, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD and DTS Digital Surround; none of which can be made possible on a DVD. Again, more storage capacity, better video and audio. This provides both a high definition image as well as audio.

There are many other differences but this should give you an idea. If you have a 1080p high definition television which is larger than 32 inches, then Blu-ray is for you. If not, you can hold out on it until it becomes as popular as DVDs.

[MrHyeSev]

Re: I'm feeling Blu.

O Ok thanks One- Way

[Sip]

Re: I'm feeling Blu.

As One-way said, the main difference in the disks is storage capacity. In addition to that, the huge advantage blu-ray has over dvd is that is supports H.264/Mpeg4 video vs. regular mpeg2 in DVDs. The difference between the algorithms is HUGE. So not only do you have a lot more space on blu-ray, you can also cram a lot lot more video into the space than on dvds.

So even if blu-ray was the same size disk as a standard dvd (4.7GB), it would still have much better quality video due to the superior compression of MPEG4.

[One-Way]

Re: I'm feeling Blu.

That's correct.

[Siggie]

Re: I'm feeling Blu.

BF did a lot of research on his bluray player and originally bought a sony one... then gave up and went with PS3 just for the bluray. That's the best apparently, so you have to suck it up and spend the extra for that if you want the best player. None of the others can match the processing.

[One-Way]

Re: I'm feeling Blu.

BF did a lot of research on his bluray player and originally bought a sony one... then gave up and went with PS3 just for the bluray. That's the best apparently, so you have to suck it up and spend the extra for that if you want the best player. None of the others can match the processing.

Who is BF? Boyfriend?

Anyway, the PS3 isn't technically the best. A lot of people just go with the PS3 because it's the best deal, and it really is.

However, previous Blu-ray players weren't upgradeable so when they came with Profile 1.0 or 1.1, you were stuck with them and couldn't upgrade. Now, Sony's newest Blu-ray players, such as the S550, come with Profile 2.0 (BD-Live) and in case you need to upgrade the firmware, it's possible.

Standalone players also upconvert DVDs better than the PS3 does. The PS3 is slightly better at loading but by a few seconds. I much rather have a standalone which upconverts better and is upgradeable, rather than go with the PS3 simply because of faster loading time.

[KanadaHye]

Re: I'm feeling Blu.

People haven't noticed a huge improvement in quality from DVD to Blu-Ray which is why it hasn't been all that popular. It was more of a gimmick to get people to spend on something that really doesn't improve the movie experience all that much since movies are just now starting to be recorded in HD format. Older movies are just upconverted. This might be one of those technologies that gets skipped over and they'll find another great medium to make the standard. On the other hand, watching sports in HD is a MUST. So out of those 3 movies you mentioned, I'm guessing Blood Diamond might be recent enough to be in actual HD format... the others would just be redigitized. All good movies though.

[One-Way]

Re: I'm feeling Blu.

You couldn't be more wrong.

People haven't noticed a huge improvement in quality from DVD to Blu-Ray which is why it hasn't been all that popular. It was more of a gimmick to get people to spend on something that really doesn't improve the movie experience all that much since movies are just now starting to be recorded in HD format.

There is a huge improvement in quality between DVD and Blu-ray. Actually, it's more popular than you think. The main problem why it hasn't caught on like DVD did because DVD was long overdue. We desperately needed a new format and DVD was more compact and practical. It blew VHS out of the water because there was a huge difference in picture quality, audio, style, etc.

Sure, there isn't a big difference in DVD and Blu-ray, lookwise, they're both discs. As far as quality goes, there is a huge difference between the video and audio. It's a matter of HD; are you telling me the sound you hear in a movie theatre is similiar to what you hear at your house? Blu-ray can basically fit that on the disc which is how we get both HD picture and audio.

Older movies are just upconverted. This might be one of those technologies that gets skipped over and they'll find another great medium to make the standard.

Incorrect.

Older movies are not upconverted when transfered onto Blu-ray. This is a common misconception and a problem I had early on.

For films like Casablanca, they aren't upconverted for Blu-ray. The film is actually compressed onto a Blu-ray disc, much like a DVD. However, because a Blu-ray disc has more capacity, it allows for a better picture. DVDs don't have much space (4/8GB) therefore it has to be compressed much, much more.

On the other hand, watching sports in HD is a MUST.

I find it hilarious when people bring this up.

Watching sports on your television is not pure HD. It doesn't matter if you have a full HDTV which stretches 60" or more. The simple fact is they do not broadcast in full HD. Much of the resolution is lost and sometimes it is very obvious. In fact, most networks do not even shoot with 1080p HD cameras. Sure, some do, and most sport channels do, but then again, it's not up to par with Blu-ray because it's broadcast.

Blu-ray is full HD; you're not losing any resolution because it's not being sent over a signal nor is it broadcast.

So out of those 3 movies you mentioned, I'm guessing Blood Diamond might be recent enough to be in actual HD format... the others would just be redigitized. All good movies though.

Again, another misconception.

Blood Diamond was not shot on HD; nor were the other two. So just because it's a newer film, it will look better? No!

All three films were shot ON film. None were shot digitally. Again, because there is more space on a Blu-ray disc, the transfer looks better; there's more room for video and audio.

I don't mean to sound rude but this is one of the issues I had to clear up before I could decide. It's not a matter of "digitizing." They're not digitally enhancing anything; you think they're actually digitally improving films like The 400 Blows which is on Blu-ray? No way.

Film is arguably the best resolution we have now, far better than anything digital. The store capacity on a Blu-ray disc allows us to transfer the film over without compressing it as much as DVDs do.

Moreover, I don't think Blu-ray will be around forever. Blu-ray's (HD) resolution is 1080. Film shoots at 2k resolution, and the RED camera which has gained much popularity, shoots at 4k. So, we already have cameras that shoot in much better quality than Blu-ray/HD. The problem is you still have to compress the 4k image to fit a Blu-ray, which results in loss of picture quality.

So one day, when the consumer can go buy a TV which is capable of 4k, we will be able to watch pure 4k on it. We're half way there, because the TVs have already been built. The problem is, it took HDTV so long to catch on, 4k might take 20+ years to do the same.