Blu Ray vs DVD?

[B_Lightkeeper]

I just recently made the move to Blu Ray however other than perhaps much better picture and sound quality, what are advantages and cons of Blu Ray?

Someone told me the discs were thicker and harder to scratch?

Thus far I only have five titles on Blu Ray and I bought them when they were sale priced. I also like the combo editions - one Blu Ray and regular DVD in same package.

 

[pepsiperfect]

There really isn't a "vs" scenario here. Blu Ray is superior in every shape and form imaginable (DVDs can hold 4.7GB of data, Blu-Rays can hold 50GB). You made the right switch.

 

[josh20hung]

I dont see any difference .. Ive had a blue ray for a few years and still buy dvds

 

[flame boy]

If you have the correct set up, ie an HDTV connected to the Blu-ray player with 1080i/p HDMI cables then you should see a noticeable difference in quality. Blu-ray has a much higher picture and sound quality however a lot of less popular titles were rushed in the conversion process and therefore suffer with the quality somewhat (Personally "Batman Returns" doesn't look that different) but if you pick a movie title which has been carefully upgraded you should see the difference the second the movie starts - some great titles on Blu-ray are The Godfather Trilogy, Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner - all of them are slightly older titles but they are crisp and visually stunning.

This is nothing new, some of the transfers to DVDs are shockingly poor quality, for example the movies Highlander and Predator had terrible transfers on DVD for the longest time. The same applies for their Blu-ray counterparts.

 

[798686]

I like them both - it's only recently blu-ray titles have looked significantly better than dvd (imo) - Avatar, Inception, etc.

Some older conversions, as Flamey says, are a bit hit and miss.

One thing that annoyed me initially was the fact I couldn't go back to the place where I stopped watching previously on a blu-ray - but that option's just been included with Inception, so I'm happy.

 

[haulthat]

From a performance standpoint Bluray is superior in every way. From a marketing standpoint it is more expensive, there are less people with bluray players, and... hmmm DVD has fewer letters? Thats about it. I wrote TimeWarner (AOL whatever the fuck) a letter begging them to adopt bluray instead of HD-DVD. Obviously my letter changed everything, and I am solely to thank.
Put simply... more space, more potential to eventually support much more space (dual layer has been surpassed by leaps and bounds), and yes the coating you mentioned is a fact. Some older conversions suck because the studio distributing it does, that has no reflection on the technology. I THANK GOD for the hard coat though, it was the dream come true for me.

From the Bluray website: TDK Develops New Hard-Coating Technology for Blu-ray Discs
Share
Posted October 30, 2004 12:00 AM by Marwin

TDK has successfully developed a new hard-coating technology that makes Blu-ray Discs even more resistant to scratches and fingerprints than existing DVDs, without requiring a cartridge to protect the discs. Two separate layers of fine silica particles prevent scratches, and fluorine-containing resins in each layer repel ink marks. The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) is pleased with the development because no consumer optical disc that uses a cartridge has ever been a commercial success. The new hard-coating is expected to provide a boost to the upcoming Blu-ray Disc format, which members of the BDA plan to launch next year as a successor to DVDs.

Also:

Storage capacity
Bluray

25GB (single-layer)
50GB (dual-layer)

DVD
4.7GB (single-layer)
8.5GB (dual-layer)

 

[btmboy]

We rented an HD movie on my xbox 360 last night and I didn't think it looked all that on my HDTV to be honest. That might just be Microsoft's bad encoding though, I don't know.

I'll buy a blu-ray player when the disks are slightly cheaper. I have to say though, whenever I buy a DVD now there is a little voice in the back of my head that says 'well you're kinda wasting your money because you know in a few years you will want everything blu-ray'.

But hey ho!

 

[B_Marius567]

I have a 3-d blu-ray player hooked to my 2008 samsung Digital Light Processing 3-d hdtv and it looks wonderfull.

3-d blu-ray players are only $400.00 now.

 

[btmboy]

I have a 3-d blu-ray player hooked to my 2008 samsung Digital Light Processing 3-d hdtv and it looks wonderfull.

3-d blu-ray players are only $400.00 now.

Yeah its not really the cost of the player - who wants to pay 3x the cost of a DVD for the same film? Thats my issue!

 

[btmboy]

Yeah its not really the cost of the player - who wants to pay 3x the cost of a DVD for the same film? Thats my issue!

Actually, you know what - after looking at some Blu-Ray prices online... I'm SO OUT on this one. They are like £5 more than a DVD, max. Maybe I should make the switch too...

 

[Mickactual]

Once I bought my BluRay player, I found myself hard pressed to revert to watching standard DVD's.
The only negatives with Blu for me are:

• Disc prices
• Title availablilty
• PC Blu players will not allow vidcapping

Hopefully all 3 of these minuses will someday be rectified.

 

[bigboy9239]

I have both....the Blue Ray is hands down, far superior to DVD's as far as picture quality is concerned....But I still have maybe a hundred DVDS....