Anyone regret getting a Blu-Ray?

Exactly .
It's nonsense to say that Bluray or HD is not worth buying unless you have a certain size screen.

If you have a 37" screen and sit 6 feet away as I do I will be getting the same amount of detail as someone who has a 42" and sits further away or someone with a 32" and sits closer.

You don't need a huge screen although if you remain at the same distance and change to a larger screen the difference between sd and hd becomes more apparent but if you are too close to a large screen sd becomes hard to watch.

I believe it was Faust elsewhere on this forum who was unhappy with hd and after a lengthy debate it became clear that he was simply sitting too far way from his screen to be able to see the extra detail that hd brings.

Sit far enough away from any screen and you won't be able to tell the difference
 
You lose a lot of the benefit. No matter how you slice it, the visual system is limited. Its like trying to read a newspaper from 8 feet away, you will lose the ability to make out the text and small detail. A 32" at 6 feet is neither cinematic or big enough to render all detail at any reasonable seating distance, its little more than a large computer monitor really. I mean if you can't afford any better at the moment, fine, thats above all other considerations. But if you can, 32" is pretty damned far from optimal as it goes for bluray, and one could quite easily say you are wasting your money on bluray with such a screen size.



Exactly, sit far enough away and you'e nullified the advantage of bluray, thus throwing your money away for no reason. :rolleyes:
 
There was a really good article in the guardian this weekend about bluray being a flawed medium particularly for older movies. The crux of it was that we are now seeing older movies with a clarity that their directors could never have accounted for, and so flaws and effects are revealed. I'll try find a link if anyones interested.
 
They could, but I would disagree. :p I'm more than content with the benefit I get from Blu-Ray at my viewing distance, which is the main thing really. I'm not bothered about how it looks on the other side of the room. I probably will upgrade to a larger screen eventually though, but a 32" is all I need for now. :)
 
I have had my Panasonic blue ray player for almost 2 years, and i still only own 5 films + band of brothers on blueray.

Unless its a film i REALLY liked i just get it on DVD instead. I will not pay more.

So not sure if i regret getting it, or if it was a waste of money, but my HD-DVD Player has definatly got a lot more use.
 
SounRAB like a horrible article by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
Film has higher resolution than hdtv, end of story.
You are only merely finally getting a taste of what people got to experience back in the day when those films came out. Sure you can gripe about the projectors or optics not being as good back then, but it only then really evens out. Old films look incredible restored on bluray, even old disney films. Many old epics weren't even filmed on 35mm, but 60-70mm, giant film with plenty of resolution, the screens they used back then were not small, the detail had to cover dozens of feet of screen space at the cinema just as it does now.

You know what looks like garbage and will forever more? Those "indi" productions in the late 90's early 2000s that bragged about their "cheap" dv video productions. Now those are left looking worse than films made decades ago.

Those dv films even look worse than old tv shows shot on film. The level of detail on the restored original series of star trek the tv show is stunning. Even more amazing when you realize you get to see it better then they could when it was originally released.
http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ra...al-series-season-1/3095/screenshot-lrg-03.png
http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ra...al-series-season-1/3095/screenshot-lrg-06.png
http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ra...al-series-season-1/3095/screenshot-lrg-09.png
http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ra...al-series-season-1/3095/screenshot-lrg-16.png
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/...the-original-series-season-1?movieid=3095#top
 
Film itself gives a higher image quality than Bluray by a long way so the theory is utter rubbish.



Have you got Snow White on Bluray ?
Have you got The Prisoner (60's ) on Bluray ?

Try those. With The Prisoner it won't play one of the dvd's .Disc 6 IIRC
 
I'm around that far away, from my 32 inch screen and it looks PERFECT. And it is most certainly not a waste at all. I can see an awful lot of detail. Yes a bigger screen will be better of course.
 
The Guardian article makes perfect sense. You watch a TV from a couple of metres away, you watch a film from maybe ten times as far. Your perception of fine detail is bound to be different if you can see it up close on an HD TV with an HD source. It's not saying Blu-ray is bad, it's saying it's capable of revealing detail that you don't need to see and that may affect your enjoyment of the film.
 
I own a blu ray player, i don't regret it. I quite like Blu-Rays personally but i'm not an avid Blu-Ray preacher. I think you will get the most out of Blu Ray if you like modern action films or expensive blockbusters. Personally I don't really like that sort of film so my Blu-Ray buying has been a bit muted (i only have 10). But Blu Ray is very impressive when done properly, especially on some select vintage movies (the 'Wizard of Oz' Blu Ray a shining example).

A good thing about Blu-Rays is they are now getting cheaper (although buyer beware in some cases, as the reason some discs are cheap is because they are a half assed transfer). However my DVD buying still outweighs my Blu-Ray buying. I know DVD is the inferior format but it's just so criminally cheap often the value of DVD outguns the quality of Blu-Ray for me. And whilst not as good, a 1080p upscaled DVD hardly looks shabby

For example the other days I bought from sainsburys on DVD

Gran Torino
 
I'm definitely getting Inception on Blu Ray.

I do get the impression a lot of the public don't really see Blu-Ray as it's own entity. I think a lot of people see it as 'DVD Deluxe'. They think DVD is the default version and Blu-Ray is the gourmet version for those who want to spend a bit more to gain more. I don't see Blu-Ray that way, but in my post I admit I mainly buy DVD and only buy Blu-Ray for special films.....but that's mainly out of cost.

I do want to answer though the 'Blu Ray is pretty cheap now' argument because it's a half truth I feel. Yes you can get a lot of Blu Rays cheap now, but the fact is a decent amount of these versions are cheap because they are half assed transfers. As Blu-Ray trades on it's offering of premium quality, this makes these a con. And there's some big movies with poor versions.

Rocky, and Total Recall have awful Blu-Ray versions (Rocky Blu-Ray looks no better than DVD). Terminator 2 had a very poor version come out, and was budget priced. But most dissapointing for me was the Gladiator and Flash Gordon Blu-Ray. The Blu-Ray version of Gladiator was so bad (it was outperformed by the superbit DVD version) that after fan pressure the studio did an improved transfer, and offered a disc exchange for a version that was finally done properly. Flash Gordon I bought sadly and the colour is all out of whack.

This isn't the fault of the format itself, it's the studios. But the reason you see a lot of triple A movies on Blu-Ray for
 
Back
Top