Is Blu-ray That much...

[YosemiteSam]

On another note, I spent the weekend watching a 720p 50" tv...at over 10' away you can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080. So don't let people sway you from that.

You must have been watching 1080 on a 720 tv. :laugh2:

 

[TheCount]

I think all these Blu-Ray comparison stills and videos that are being posted are funny.

None of them are really all that convincing and definitely do not give an accurate depiction of just how good Blu-Ray really looks.

The easiest way to explain Blu-Ray vs DVD is to flip back and forth between the Fox HD channel and the Fox SD channel while watching a football game.

Well obviously watching them yourself is the best comparison, but if you think flipping between Fox and Fox HD is the best comparison between DVD and Blu Ray, you'd be wrong. That's Apples to Oranges.

All you're comparing is SD vs HD, 1080p is a different beast. You aren't receiving any 1080p signals through Comcast or whatever, that's for damn sure.

 

[burmafrd]

Upconvert works on SOME materials but does not work if your source is not good to begin with. Just like a HD channel that shows sources that are not HD 1080 but maybe 720 or even 480. They are not going to look that much better no matter what. You can tell by watching the commercials- if they clearly look better then you know you have a bad source.

But don't let anyone tell you that getting a 1080p monitor or big screen is not a good idea. You have to make sure you have the feeds to work with it as a Blu Ray or Digital Broadcast. Or HD Satelite. I up graded this year to HD and got a Mitsibushi HC5500 projector and have a 72" screen. It is incredible (and got both the projector and screen for a total of $2000)

 

[TheCount]

Upconvert works on SOME materials but does not work if your source is not good to begin with. Just like a HD channel that shows sources that are not HD 1080 but maybe 720 or even 480. They are not going to look that much better no matter what. You can tell by watching the commercials- if they clearly look better then you know you have a bad source.

But don't let anyone tell you that getting a 1080p monitor or big screen is not a good idea. You have to make sure you have the feeds to work with it as a Blu Ray or Digital Broadcast. Or HD Satelite. I up graded this year to HD and got a Mitsibushi HC5500 projector and have a 72" screen. It is incredible (and got both the projector and screen for a total of $2000)

I don't think upconverting is for improving the quality of video, it's not going to make SD look like HD. It just scales the resolution so it doesn't look like crap on your HD screen, which has a higher resolution than the source might. All it really does is rescale an image to fit on a given display.

 

[kmp77]

You must have been watching 1080 on a 720 tv. :laugh2:

No, Direct TV....720p. I have 1080 at home. I work in photo/video so goofy assumptions like that don't apply

 

[kmp77]

Well obviously watching them yourself is the best comparison, but if you think flipping between Fox and Fox HD is the best comparison between DVD and Blu Ray, you'd be wrong. That's Apples to Oranges.

All you're comparing is SD vs HD, 1080p is a different beast. You aren't receiving any 1080p signals through Comcast or whatever, that's for damn sure.

Ditto this.

And if you have say, Direct TV, there is NO point in getting a 1080p tv...especially under 50". The only 1080 source is the ppv movies. Everything else is 720p. Even on 1080i cable...some shows are shot in 720 so its even pointless half the time. Just because of the feed source is 720/1080..doesn't guarentee the quality of that video in the feed. Flipping through the channels you'll see shows shot with 1080 cameras, 720 cameras, 480 cameras where its just upscaled and cropped to be 16x9.

But if you watch alot of blue-ray movies, 1080 would be nice though. 60" 1080 tv with blue-ray would be nice. Over 50", go 1080...under, doesn't matter.

 

[Dallas]

I would just like to thank the poster for posting the GINORMOUS pics. I now have a bottom scroll bar.

Well Done!!


IRONMAN on Blue-Ray

Get it!!!

 

[Hoofbite]

That would be wrong too. HD TV is broadcast in 720, not 1080.

And DVD is far better than what you get over standard television. So it washes out in the end and is readily available comparison.

 

[YosemiteSam]

No, Direct TV....720p. I have 1080 at home. I work in photo/video so goofy assumptions like that don't apply

Whoa, so you're the guy that used to work in those yellow Kodak photo developing booths back in the 80s! :laugh2:

 

[Kevinicus]

Yes Blu-ray is much better but there are some things to know.




Some facts:

• A standard definition TV only shows 480i.
• A TV with QAM/over the air antenna will pick up a digital 1080i or 720p.
• Blu-ray plays in 1080p - so if your TV is not 1080p, blu-ray is somewhat overkill. Your TV will down convert the 1080p source to 720p/1080i. You probably won't notice a difference unless you have a set over 50".
• If your playback device is connected to your TV by a Composite cable (yellow, red, white) the max picture is 480p. If your playback device is connected to your TV by a Component cable (red, blue, greed, yellow, and white) the max picture is 1080i. If your playback device is connected to your TV by an HDMI cable the max picture is 1080p.

Recommendations for the best picture quality and Blu-ray performance:

• 
  

• 
  
  That really depends on the player and how strict it is with the HDCP stuff, etc. Component is fully capable of 1080p on some TVs.

 

[kmp77]

Whoa, so you're the guy that used to work in those yellow Kodak photo developing booths back in the 80s! :laugh2:

Yup! And that makes me an expert on the subject I was the only 8 year old in the 80s who worked for Kodak in those booths. I miss those days, go to work and then go back home and play with my gi joe and transformers. Those were the days.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Yup! And that makes me an expert on the subject I was the only 8 year old in the 80s who worked for Kodak in those booths. I miss those days, go to work and then go back home and play with my gi joe and transformers. Those were the days.

Don't forget Voltron too!

 

[Hoofbite]

Well obviously watching them yourself is the best comparison, but if you think flipping between Fox and Fox HD is the best comparison between DVD and Blu Ray, you'd be wrong. That's Apples to Oranges.

All you're comparing is SD vs HD, 1080p is a different beast. You aren't receiving any 1080p signals through Comcast or whatever, that's for damn sure.

I never meant the fox HD vs SD to be the gold standard for Blu-ray/DVD comparisons. Just figured it would give the guy a better idea than the pictures and YouTube videos.

 

[burmafrd]

It depends on how the transfer is made when you are talking about anything shot on 35MM high quality film. THAT base source is fully transferable to 1080p.

Very little other then feature films is capable of that. Now anything shot by HD cameras like sports and such are of course up there but even then it depends on what grade of cameras are used- and whether its saved on film or digitally= and even there its possible to not have 1080p.

 

[CliffnDallas]

I want to take a moment and thank you guy's for all the great information. Most of which is over my head, I just like the results.

 

[Kangaroo]

I'm a little to old for video games, but I found one for under $150.00 at walmarts site.

No such thing as too old for video games

 

[Kevinicus]

Don't forget Voltron too!

That's just the crappy small version. The really cool kids, like myself, had the large Voltron that let you put the action figures in each lion. And we had the rare castle as well.

 

[kmp77]

Don't forget Voltron too!

I had that one. I think it's around here some place. I don't remember watching voltron as a kid though. I think I got it from a family member for Christmas. I missed a bit growing up in a small town. For some reason we didnt get all the cartoons in the 80s

 

[Jenky]

Anyone know if the differences in HDMI cables really matter? For instance some cables are about 20 bucks others are around 90. I'm talking about the same version HDMI cables, but maybe they contain different materials for oxidation ? Anyways, anyone notice a difference between high quality HDMI cables and standard ones?

 

[CliffnDallas]

Anyone know if the differences in HDMI cables really matter? For instance some cables are about 20 bucks others are around 90. I'm talking about the same version HDMI cables, but maybe they contain different materials for oxidation ? Anyways, anyone notice a difference between high quality HDMI cables and standard ones?

The HDMI cable I bought at Wally World is made by Panasonic I think and was about $30 bucks. Seems to work well. There were some for much more though.