Blu-ray: worth the money?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

wemorgan

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
8,106
Car
A205 C220d
I've recently bought myself a new 1080p 23" TV and Blu-ray player for the bedroom and watched Kingdom of Heaven last night (OK film, nothing special).

It was the first Blu-ray film that I've seen. On wide scenery shots it looked very rich and full of detail in depth (hope that makes sense). But generally I was not overly wowed by the total experience. I was expecting orders of magnitude difference to DVD films, but if I had to speculate I'd say it was 50% better.

I'm glad I bought the TV and Blu-ray now that the prices have really fallen to sensible money. If I'd bought 1-2 years ago and paid top dollar I would have been very disappointed.

Maybe I need to watch a Blu-ray film on a larger (32") to truly appreciate all the extra detail over DVD?

What are other member's experiences of Blu-ray?
 
23"? I watch mine on a 3m wide DLP and the difference is mind blowing. You can only just make out the pixels when you are about 3' awat from the screen. DVD is fuzzy by comparison. It is better than some commercial cinemas and when you add the multi channel surround then there is no comparison. I don't think I will ever go to a Multi-Screen again.
 
I bought the 23" as that was the most suitable for the size of room it's in.

When I come to upgrade the CRT TV in the living room, I'd be looking to get a 27-32", so I would hope to see an improved Blu-ray picture .
 
I bought the 23" as that was the most suitable for the size of room it's in.

When I come to upgrade the CRT TV in the living room, I'd be looking to get a 27-32", so I would hope to see an improved Blu-ray picture .

My view (viewing?) is that around 37" is the cut of point to make 1080/1080p worth watching. Your mileage may vary.

The reason an iPod/iPhone picture is so sharp is because it is so small - similar although exagerated principal.

Mike
 
I'm running a 37" LG 1080p and Blue ray player I agree with the OP there is a diffeence but it is not as good as all the marketing BS they have put out, over a DVD I would say 25% better at best.

This is a bit like the old Betamax Vs VHS argument the picture quality on the betamax was much better than VHS but one manufacturer threw so much money at it VHS lived.

Much the same with Blue Ray IMHO HDDVD was the better system of the 2 but all the marketing boys went full steam ahead on Blue Ray which was always going to be cheaper to produce in the long term
 
This is a bit like the old Betamax Vs VHS argument the picture quality on the betamax was much better than VHS but one manufacturer threw so much money at it VHS lived.

OK - going to play devil's advocate hear - I never saw a Betamax that was better than a comparable VHS, in the early days Sony = Betamax (as well as instigating the format). The critical thing is that Sony was a better (and more expensive) player than many VHS players on the market, plus many of the Beta machines were better equipped - front power loading for example.

But if you take as near as possible like for like there was no difference in picture quality. The Beta being better has become a sort of urban myth - popular as the better system failing due to market forces. The killer was price, especially when a top Panasonic was 25% cheaper than a Sony

My first VHS player was in 1982, a Fisher top loader - with, wait for it wireless remote - £500 if my memory serves me well, which it may not.

Mike
 
Hello

When I bought my Sony 40" LCD the deal came with a 'free' blue ray player and a few films.

I watched Casion Royal in blue ray and even the wife who if I asked her what 1080p was would have no idea unless its the name of a shoe shop.. She was impressed and commented on how rich and vivid the detail was.

Daft things like wall switches and plugs are clear....

I still havn't upgraded my amp and have B & W Speakers all set up with 6.1 surround but I have to say I was / have been very impressed with Blueray.

It maybe the fact its a smaller TV? you cannot tell as easily?

Still does it upscale your normal DVD's?

I've watched BadBoys 1 and thats even better than I remember, not blue ray just upscaled.
 
My experience - it's the details that show the difference I've found. Watching a normal DVD and then watching the Blu-Ray version shows where the additional information is. It's an overal additional richness and depth that shows it most clearly, and then only when you have a TV that's capable of doing it justice. I'd agree with the comment about it being about 25% better than a normal DVD, but now that I have mainly Blu-Ray movies I really notice the drop in quality when watching a normal DVD. Odd how it wasn't really so noticeable the other way round lol! ;)

Cheers,
Mark
 
A 23" screen is definitely too small to see the difference in resolution.
 
All I know is Blu-ray films look stunning on my 50" Pioneer, especially animated films. :bannana:
 
I watch Blu-rays on an 80" screen off a D-ILA projector. I was blown away by the clarity, depth & crispness of the picture. It has a lot more punch than a DVD, with lovely rich colours & more 3D like depth. Although a DVD on a good player (with upscaling) is still good, the image is a lot softer in comparison.
I would agree with other posts that 23" is too small to appreciate the difference...
 
you really need to watch a blu-ray on a bigger TV to properly appreciate it, as anything above 720p on a tv below 32" will just look a bit like an upscaled DVD! The best blu-rays to watch to really get a graps of how good the format is is anything like a pixar film (all those disney ones, like monsters inc) and nature docs like Blue Planet, these are all shot in 1080p, and look amazing, when i first watched Wall-E on our 50" 1080p TV it looked mind blowing!

It is definitely the way forward, and is coming down a lot in price, i work for a fair sized online retailer, and we have loads of good deals on blu-ray discs and players at the moment! (no, this isn't shameless advertising haha!)

The other thing to look for is the sound as it's not just the colour and picture that is better!

7.1 surround is crazy cool!!!
 
Jimmymidnight out of curiosity and laziness, what are the additional 2 speakers over a 5.1 setup do?

Ta
 
the extra 2 channels provide an "all round" feel to the sound, as in a 5.1 system you have a front left and right, a centre, a sub woofer and then 2 surround speakers (these are meant to be on your immediate left/right) and the extra 2 are rear left and rear right, giving you a kind of 360 degree sound.
 
haha, no, i don't think 7.1 set ups are that cheap (yet) either, at the moment they are for the real die hard tech heads, as i think a complete set up is about £1000, our cheapest amplifier on site is about £400 alone, before speakers/blu-ray player/sub woofer...
 
I have a 37" Sony tv and decided to go with a sony upscaler (bought in Tesco a couple of weeks back)

I got the feeling that you really needed a huge screen to benefit from Blu ray, it seems many of the other posters have confirmed this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom