Is some DVD pictures better than some BR versions?

[Tony M]

I just read in the Avatar thread some say their DVD with upscaling is better than a BR version.

Is that right?

If it is, we need a new column for this please. I was going to try and replace my 400 DVDs to BR but don't know now. I shrank my collection down from about 600. So I have kept alot of great ones. I now own 5 BRs and was going to really go heavy searching for those titles I love...I guess not now.

Will more expierenced BR disc owners help out hear. I didn't think there were any bad or even less than stellar BR discs out there.

Learn something every day sometimes.:o

[Keiko]

I just compared the two earlier today. IMO, the Avatar blu-ray is far superior to the SD DVD, hands down. Now, I have read that some blu-ray transfers aren't much better than their DVD counterparts. Two that I can recall off hand are Independence Day and the original Terminator.

[Conradicles]

With my PS3 upscaling to 1080P to my Pioneer Plasma with a Standard DVD I must say the picture looks quite good. Blu-ray always looks a tad better, but not by a huge margin.

Fact is that Blu-ray looks better...But upscaled DVD's to a sweet TV look good as well.

[AsSiMiLaTeD]

It depends on the movie. I can tell you though that with something like avatar the br is going to be far superior, not even close

[Tony M]

So far it looks like BR is better except the two movies Kieko mentioned. I have the originals of them so I'll definately keep them.

I hope to get my BR player and TV up and playing today. I'll post a pic when I do.

[leroyjr1]

Blu ray all the way.

[cheddar]

There are more variables here than just what upconversion can accomplish vs. blu-ray. Blu-ray movies are 1080p, which means that every dot on a 1920x1080 pixel image is spoken for vs. 480p where every dot on a 720x480 pixel image is spoken for. In upconverting to 1080p, all those missing pixels must be approximated and filled in. Upconversion can't add new information that isn't there, it just takes the old information and approximates what the new, larger picture should look like.

So if the pores aren't there on someone's face in 480p, they won't be there in a 1080p upconversion either. But the lines that show the edge of the face, etc., will be enlarged to the new resolution drawing less attention to themselves (less pixelation, jagged edges, etc.) with good quality upconversion usually found in players, avrs, and video processors rather than the mediocre upconversion usually found in TVs.

[cheddar]

Now it's quite possible that the pores on faces won't be there in 1080p either because either the blu-ray transfer was digitally scrubbed to eliminate noise and imperfections in the original film elements, or too many specs of dust, etc. are left in the picture when it's not properly cleaned up. And now the 1080p image looks dirty because it's resolving all the fine detail.

If any options on the TV like noise reduction, edge enhancement, or scaling (even 1080p HDTVs sometimes default to scaling a 1080p image because they're trying to avoid overscan on non-blu-ray material), then the TV is also removing detail from a blu-ray image. All these options should be turned off when comparing images to SD-DVD.

[cheddar]

Finally, what you actually consider a good image may be very different than what other people like. Some people prefer their images to be digitally scrubbed so that all those nasty pores and film grain are gone and the image looks as clean and smooth as possible. Others like every pore on a face to be exposed and every speck of director intended film grain to be there for that theatrical look. So it's quite understandable that some may prefer the type of image available with good upconversion while others will take notice of all the detail missing from a non-native 1080p version.

It's generally acknowledged that with the same movie, the blu-ray version will be better (however slight) in things like colors and fine object detail. Even the poor transfer of Fellowship of the Rings is still better than its DVD counterpart. It just looks bad in comparison to the other movies on blu-ray in the series. Is the poor transfer worth the upgrade from upconverted DVD? Only you can tell by actually using your standards to compare the two images.

If you are really considering replacing your prized DVDs with blu-ray, I'd suggest renting them first to judge on a case by case basis whether it's worth it to upgrade and not blind buy (or not buy) blu-rays just because other people recommend one way or another. Eventually you'll know in a more general way if the upgrade is worth it to you or not and which ones make the cut.

[nguyendot]

Tony... i have to disagree with this one.

The BR is FAR FAR superior to the normal DVD. I bought the 2 pack with the normal DVD and the BR. Upscaling is just fancy line doubling. You can't create detail that wasn't there in the first place.It can approximate it, but honestly you can't just 'make up' detail that wasn't there to begin with. You're just filling the voids.

I have compared the two on my 46" LED Samsung, and the BR version is the clearest BR I have ever seen. The normal DVD with upscaling on my PS3, HD-D3 (hd-dvd), and my Samsung upscaling dvd is OKAY, but it's nothing to write home about when compared to BR.

The first thing i noticed about the BR copy was just how clear some of the backgrounds were. On the normal dvd it's blurry by comparison.

[cheddar]

Yes, I should add, on a great transfer like Avatar, the comparison shouldn't even be close. Unless you have something wrong with your set-up (like turning on all the digital 'clean-up' options and disabling the pixel-by-pixel mode engaging overscan scaling on your TV), which would actually downgrade the blu-ray image.

[nguyendot]

I had it running 1920x1080@24p, 1:1 pixel mapped, nothing turned on as far as image "enhancements". HDMI via PS3, BDP-S1, and Samsung upconvert to my B6000 LED.

The black levels looked amazing, giving awesome color.

I'll try it on the non LED samsung tonight in the bigger room (on the Klipsch ForteII's)

[Ron-P]

Considering they used the entire 46 gigs on the Blu-ray disc for the PQ and SQ I highly doubt that a DVD (with only about 9 gigs) could look better. Fact is, there's just no way it can.

[Tony M]

Thanks cheddar, Ron-P, Leroyjr1,Keiko, conradicles,Bluefox,AsSimilated and tuan. It should be BR every time for the most detail, etc.

I see your point where some might not like it or the settings are set up wrong.

Thanks again all.;)

[kevhed72]

So, would it be worth connecting your BD player to your AVR via component cables (in addition to your HDMI cable) to be able to upscale your old DVDs?
or
Hook up a standard DVD player in addition to your BD player to use your AVRs upscaling?

I am still trying to figure out why my AVR has this upscaling feature...

[nguyendot]

I just compared the two earlier today. IMO, the Avatar blu-ray is far superior to the SD DVD, hands down. Now, I have read that some blu-ray transfers aren't much better than their DVD counterparts. Two that I can recall off hand are Independence Day and the original Terminator.

Don't forget 28 days later... it was recorded and remastered on a Canon XL1s camcorder! That's only 480p to begin with, so the bluray was a waste of money.

[nguyendot]

Considering they used the entire 46 gigs on the Blu-ray disc for the PQ and SQ I highly doubt that a DVD (with only about 9 gigs) could look better. Fact is, there's just no way it can.

They'd have to use some super h.264 codec to even come close and fit it in 9 gigs. Even so, the sound wouldn't be there :)

[Tony M]

Don't forget 28 days later... it was recorded and remastered on a Canon XL1s camcorder! That's only 480p to begin with, so the bluray was a waste of money.

Thanks Tuan ;)

I feel there will be a list that gets printed in one of my hometheater or audio magazines that will put alot of bad DVDs on it.

[Keiko]

The first thing i noticed about the BR copy was just how clear some of the backgrounds were. On the normal dvd it's blurry by comparison.

Same thing I noticed. The backgrounds were extremely sharp and focused on the blu disc. On the DVD, not so much. Sound quality was much, much better too on the blu-ray. The differences between the two discs are quite remarkable.

[Ron-P]

Don't forget 28 days later... it was recorded and remastered on a Canon XL1s camcorder! That's only 480p to begin with, so the bluray was a waste of money.

I'd much rather forget 28 Days Later, what a crappy Blu-ray (for the reason you mention) and what a seriously crappy film.

[mutelight]

I tried the DVD first on my Oppo and while it looked quite nice for a DVD, the second I put in the BD version, there was a stark difference.

[Tony M]

I got my 1080P panny and Pioneer Elite Blu-ray up and running today...almost. The picture wasn't perfect but almost. So I read a little more into the manuals.

My Pioneer manual says it doesn't send 1080P through component cables, only 1080i. Bingo...

So until I get an HDMI cable, I'm not getting it all.:(


Has anybody else heard about this short-fall?

[mutelight]

Don't worry, 1080i still produces a great picture.

But it forces needless interlacing and deinterlacing which will degrade the image a fair amount.

[Tony M]

It's a nice pic. now , oh yeh, but since I have both 1080P at both ends, I might as well get the HDMI cable and get wow'ed even more.:D

[Tony M]

Well the cable I wanted was not on sale anymore but It had 1.3 in BIG ad on the package...

I get a cheaper cable but I've seen SOMEWHERE there is a new 1.3 thing about HDMI cables and the cheaper one has nothing on the package about 1.3. I asked the salesman but he didn't know whether there could be a difference or not.I bought the cheaper one.

I look up on the net and see the 1.3 is supposed to support more info and stuff. Deep color is one thing extra and my new TV has the deep color feature and other stuff.

Any of you know about this 1.3 and whether or not it's worth worring about?

[mutelight]

Well the cable I wanted was not on sale anymore but It had 1.3 in BIG ad on the package...

I get a cheaper cable but I've seen SOMEWHERE there is a new 1.3 thing about HDMI cables and the cheaper one has nothing on the package about 1.3. I asked the salesman but he didn't know whether there could be a difference or not.I bought the cheaper one.

I look up on the net and see the 1.3 is supposed to support more info and stuff. Deep color is one thing extra and my new TV has the deep color feature and other stuff.

Any of you know about this 1.3 and whether or not it's worth worring about?

Just go to monoprice.com for your HDMI cable needs.

[Tony M]

10/4..

I just might go with what I have. Thanks all.:)

[Tony M]

I just went to Monoprice and ordered alot more for the same price. ;)

Thanks again....you too Tuan.