The room with my TV is basically sized best for a viewing distance where 720p content is noticeable but not eye-poppingly different. It doesn’t help that my dominant eye doesn’t reliably correct to 20/20. About every other prescription it’s 20/25 so I assume it’s kind of in between and a matter of rounding up or down. 1080p is basically indistinguishable from 720p in my eyes at my viewing distances.
DVD is 480p. Blu-ray being able to handle 1080p goes way past the in between resolution I notice. Since the difference is relatively small for me and there’s still a small price difference last time I bothered to look, DVD still wins.
Are you interested in replacing all of your BluRay collection with 4K versions when they become available? Unless I’m at the movie theatre, my aging eyes are fine with 1080p on my TV. There comes a point of diminishing returns. This is what I’m saying.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But, I’m not replacing my DVD collection with Blu-rays. I’m just choosing to purchase Blu-rays instead of DVDs. I haven’t completely converted to streaming and still like having the disk (whether DVD or Blu-ray) on hand.
A DVD played on an old DVD player does look pretty bad on a high-definition TV, but a DVD played on an upscaling player (Blu-Ray player or recent DVD player) looks almost as good as a Blu-Ray disk. I wouldn’t pay much extra for a BR disk and have no plans to replace my DVD collection.
Not really equivalent. Most people, even those with a large TV, don’t sit close enough to it to be able to see the difference between HD and 4K. They do sit close enough to see the difference between HD and SD though.
As for me, I can easily tell the difference between SD and HD content on my TVs, but I stream content now so I’ve never got in to blue rays.
For people whose TV is not big enough for them to be able to see HD vs SD it would be idiotic to buy HD content.
Blu-Ray is much more detailed, like going from SD to HD (which I believe that is exactly what is happening), and one must have a HDTV to view the difference, along with the proper connections to the TV from the blu-ray.
However as far as enjoyment of the movie, sometimes less is better, much like how reading a book or listening to one, is sometimes better than seeing the movie, as the mind paints the picture. Less detail sometimes allows us to paint the detail ourselves which many times can enhance the movie/show. Also fine detail can be distracting at times, seeing a face up close and in sharp focus so we can see every hair follicle, hair and wrinkle does not normally happen IRL - nor in DVD’s SD resolution, nor do objects at close range appear crystal clear and larger than life as we are usually looking more in the distance, and even if we were looking at the object close by it, due to the way the mind processes the world, the box of kleenex we may be looking at close range does not appear to be enlarged beyond life like it would appear on the big screen. Perhaps the up close clarity would be good for those who are shortsighted, but I tend towards the far sighted side so not use to looking at things up close. But even accounting for that the larger then life distraction is still there.
Upscaling usually does a pretty good job of interpolating to 1080p. But when it’s bad, it’s usually really bad. Grassy meadows or fields are something I immediately notice being upscaled.
I’ve replaced some of my DVDs with Blu-rays, usually when amazon is running some amazing sale, but have no plans to replace all of them. Everything I buy new I buy blu-ray though. I prefer being able to watch my favorite movies whenever I want for free than depending on a streaming service having them available at the time.
You get used to it. You only notice it at first because it’s stuff you’ve never seen before because of the blurriness/muddiness of previous formats. Like when I get new glasses and think “Hey, I can make out individual leaves on that tree across the yard!” rather than just a textured green shape. But I don’t spend the next year being stunned by trees. By the same token, just because my old glasses were good enough to get by and enjoy life, my new ones are still better.
I don’t often buy movies so I don’t have much of a collection to replace. When I rent movies, I’ll always take the BR option is it’s available and would buy a BR version of the rare films I do purchase.
I don’t need to see the actors warts and all. I recently read though that Blu-ray discs have significantly more scratch resistance, but that’s not sufficient reason to dump my DVD collection and convert to Blu-ray which would be costly. However, I did recently buy the Star Wars Blu-ray+DVD sets because they were reasonably priced, and would do the same for other movies if the price is right.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen Blu-ray, but I’m not that discriminating a viewer. I watch movies for the story, and as long as I can tell the men from the women and cars from trucks, it’s usually enough definition for me.
Blu-Rays are better, but there’s nothing wrong with a well made DVD. The improvement in resolution that HD provides is barely noticeable a lot of the time.
The bigger question comes down to whether it’s worth it to buy Blu-Ray movies or programs you already have on DVD. For the most part, the answer is no, because 99% of them that my wife and I possess are pre-HD content to begin with, and that hasn’t been remastered (or can’t really be remastered) in HD. For example, a DVD of “You Can’t Take it With You” isn’t going to gain much if remastered in HD; it was filmed in 1938 and even if they rescan the original film, it’s unlikely to look particularly better than a DVD, as the film quality back then just wasn’t typically that awesome.
But if the movie’s from the past 10 years or so, or recently remastered, there’s no real reason NOT to opt for the Blu-Ray version except cost; the quality will be quite a bit better, assuming that it’s native 1080p content, or remastered to 1080p.