# Choosing between Blu Ray and DVD...



## rizzi_nyc (Mar 12, 2010)

I'm wondering if people are selective on which movies they buy on BR format versus DVD? I've read some posts where people aren't sold on BR and they are sticking to DVD. I'm not that extreme and enjoy the video and audio enhancements that come with BR. But since I copy all of my discs to hard drive, I am sensitive to space requirements. Thus, moving forward, I'm curious if I can "mix and match" depending on the benefit that I may or may not get from BR. For example, if I wanted to buy the original Wall Street, does it really matter if that is in BR format? Its review on Blu-ray.com is not good although it still recommends over DVD due to the fact that you can get the BR version so cheap. But is it worth the additional approx. 25Gb?? Even for new movies, let's say "Blind Side", does the BR offer that much benefit over the DVD version? 

I tend to lean towards getting the best quailty, especially since I'm archiving and I think the better quality will be appreciated down the line, but I'm curious if people "mix and match" when selecting their movies.

Thanks.


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

I go with blu-ray on everything that I buy, but I only buy movies that I'm intrested in keeping and viewing repeatedly. Netflix DVD is fine for everything else,


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

Assuming you have the hardware and software to rip Bluray discs the other factors to contend with are
1) It takes a lot longer to rip a disc
2) It takes up a considerable amount of storage space (although hard drives are cheap)
3) Depending on your network you may encounter problems when streaming them due to their size

Of course if you get a Bluray that has a Digital Copy included you have the best of both worlds. The BD for premier viewing and the Digital Copy for viewing on your iPad/iPod/PC or whatever.

http://gizmodo.com/5161848/how-to-rip-blu+ray-discs


----------



## rizzi_nyc (Mar 12, 2010)

Thanks guys. MatrixDweller, you bring up most of the points I am contending with in my decision. I checked out the link you sent and it seems more complicated than what I'm doing. I'm using DVDFab to rip BR, and I rip to ISO. As of now, I haven't been worrying about putting them on my Iphone, ipad, but I suppose I would use Handbrake to do that in the future. But I regress. I'm primarily ripping to hard drive to stream over my network in the future. The jury is still out about the network feasibility, it seems hit and miss and I'm trying to figure that out. The time and the hard drive space is my two main concerns, but as you say, hard drives are pretty cheap these days. I'm thinking that I should continue buying BR for the most part, but for more obvious choices where there's not a real benefit, I'd stick with DVD.


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

I always buy Blu-Ray if it has good audio and video reviews of coarse a good story line too otherwise we rent DVD's.:T


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Can't help you, I don't buy movies anymore. Netflix for me: the way I look at it, I own 70k titles, I just have to wait a day for them to come from my warehouse, which is managed by netflix.

At the end of the day, buying just didn't make sense for me anymore. Figuring $2/rental, I'd have to watch a movie 5-10 times for it to become even a break even proposition. For blu-rays, 10-15 times. There are very few movies I've watched that often (pulp fiction, boondock saints, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fight club), and many more movies I've bought thinking I would watch them that often and didn't.

And then there is your question, blu-ray vs. dvd. Think of all those poor schmucks who built up vast DVD collections, never broke even, and now are saddled with mountains of physical media that is poorer quality than what I can rent for $2. Some people see vast physical media collections as bragging rights, I see it as a fool's gamble and a waste of money.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

But Marshall, Netflix still does not offer the quality of playback both in audio and video that owning the BluRay gives you. If your like me its Always BluRay even if I rent. There is no substitute for the real hard copy of the movie.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

tonyvdb said:


> But Marshall, Netflix still does not offer the quality of playback both in audio and video that owning the BluRay gives you. If your like me its Always BluRay even if I rent. There is no substitute for the real hard copy of the movie.


I'm not talking about streaming, I'm talking about renting vs. buying. Streaming is just a bonus. For all but your favorite movies that your going to watch no less than 10 times, buying just doesn't make mathematical sense.

If I had to list the number of movies I've watched 10 times or more over the course of my life (VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray) it would be:
Pulp Fiction
Fight Club
Boondock Saints
The Secret of Nihm
Beverley Hills Cop II
The Matrix
Shawshank Redemption
Memento
Equilibrium
Pirates of the Caribbean
Paul Simon - You're the One
And lets say 10 more that I can't remember right now.

By all logic, my physical movie collection should be comprised of only 21 titles, and the rest should come from Netflix. Keep in mind that many of these I've watched on 2 or 3 formats, so really the number I should be using is 30 times, assuming a $20 purchase price vs. a $2 rental price.

What's your list of movies that you've watched more than 10 times? Now look at your movie collection. How many of those have you watched less than 5 times? How many have you watched only once?


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

eugovector said:


> What's your list of movies that you've watched more than 10 times? Now look at your movie collection. How many of those have you watched less than 5 times? How many have you watched only once?


Very true, I would say Back to the Future, Star wars, StarTrek series, and a few more but I get your point. Ten times is a bit dramatic as renting from Blockbuster costs $5 so that about 4 to 5 time of watching a movie befor its worth owning. However that thing is that its nice to have the movie in your hands for all the extras as I dont know to many people that watch them if its a rented one. Toy story3 for example I have watch the movie on BlyRay but have not seen the extras yet and want to this weekend. If I had rented it I would not have been able to do so.


----------



## ironglen (Mar 4, 2009)

eugovector said:


> If I had to list the number of movies I've watched 10 times or more over the course of my life (VHS, DVD, and Blu-ray) it would be:
> Pirates of the Caribbean


Really? 10 times! :heehee:

I have to agree with Marshall: I've had my bd player for about a year now and other than demo purposes, I hardly ever put a title I own back in for a viewing. I've only bought Avatar on bd format, as netflix gives me a much greater library than I could ever own- that said, I will probably pick up very few titles to have on hand that I really enjoy, and can share with others (family movies).


----------



## taoggniklat (Mar 30, 2010)

I agree with the others. While bluray is nice, I really only buy those that really are worth the sound and video experience and are also movies that I will watch more than once (LOTR, etc). Or I will get them if they are on sale really cheap. Other than that my regular DVD collection is just fine for everyday movie watching.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

The girlfriend will occasionally buy a dvd, but I insist on br even if its not highly rated. The only exception might be a movie I really want to own and simply cant wait for the price to come down (Star Trek) on the br. I waited FOREVER to come across a reasonably priced br of Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Sony and Disney are notorious for keeping their prices high for long periods of time. That being said, I dont rip any of my media, never have. If space were an issue I would probably be more open to a 10gig rip rather than a 25. Btw, Hitachi just released a 3TB hdd, so buck up!


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

ironglen said:


> Really? 10 times! :heehee:=


PotC is an entertaining movie and one of the best demo discs you can get. Great sound, great picture. Do I think it holds up to the Godfather, Citizen Kane, or Aliens? No, but at the end of the day, I've put that disc in my system more often than almost any other disc I own.


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

eugovector said:


> Can't help you, I don't buy movies anymore. Netflix for me: the way I look at it, I own 70k titles, I just have to wait a day for them to come from my warehouse, which is managed by netflix.
> 
> At the end of the day, buying just didn't make sense for me anymore. Figuring $2/rental, I'd have to watch a movie 5-10 times for it to become even a break even proposition. For blu-rays, 10-15 times. There are very few movies I've watched that often (pulp fiction, boondock saints, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fight club), and many more movies I've bought thinking I would watch them that often and didn't.
> 
> And then there is your question, blu-ray vs. dvd. Think of all those poor schmucks who built up vast DVD collections, never broke even, and now are saddled with mountains of physical media that is poorer quality than what I can rent for $2. Some people see vast physical media collections as bragging rights, I see it as a fool's gamble and a waste of money.


That is a real eye opener Marshall, now every time i go to buy one i will think about what you said and probly save some money.:T


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

The greatest justification for buying rather than renting DVDs is grandkids. I'll swear I have unintentionally memorized the dialog of " Lady and the Tramp". Kids seem to never tire of watching the same movies.


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

koyaan said:


> The greatest jusrificarion for buying rather than renting DVDs is grandkids. I'll swear I have unintentionally memorized the dialog of " Lady and the Tramp". Kids seem to never tire of watching the same movies.


This is true as i find myself buying mostly kid movies lately for when the twins are old enough to watch TV and they usually have exellent picture and sound which gets my attenton.:T


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

tonyvdb said:


> Ten times is a bit dramatic as renting from Blockbuster costs $5 so that about 4 to 5 time of watching a movie before its worth owning.


I'm on a Blu-ray plan that costs $10.99/month. I get around 5-6 movies per month so about $2 each (not counting what I watch through instant streaming, which is a lot). Assuming a Blu-ray purchase price of $19.99 (and that's often a bargain), 10 times is a pretty conservative estimate.

Another way to look at it is that my netflix subscription for a whole year costs a little less than 7 blu-rays (about half a blu-ray per month). I guess, if you watch the same 7 movies over and over again (and I do know kids that do this, I was one of those kids thus the Secret of Nihm is on my list), then buying makes sense. Otherwise, I see huge DVD collections as obsessive content hoarding. I feel the same way about people who load hundreds of movies and thousands of tracks of music, legally or illegally, on their harddrives but never listen/watch to them. Though, as someone who recently moved, a 2TB harddrive weighs substantially less then the same amount in physical media, though, I suppose, is less impressive to look at.


----------



## lsiberian (Mar 24, 2009)

Blu-ray is what I get for presents. I never buy movies since it's an easy gift for people. I save my money for wood, and big stuff(Computer, Phone, Projector, etc)


----------



## Trick McKaha (Oct 7, 2009)

I sure agree with Eugovector. I wish I had started considering the local Blockbuster as my own satellite warehouse sooner, but now with Netflix, I try to only buy Blu-Rays that I might need to play right now or a lot of times. And also for me, that would be 21 or fewer.
Movies I've watched 10 times?
Last Temptation of Christ
um...
Gettysburg
and maybe a couple others I can't think of.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

With good upscaling from DVD, I find that Blu-ray does not increase the level of enjoyment on many movies. With romantic comedies and slapstic comedies in particular I find the difference in my enjoyment to be negligible. Certain movies, however, do call for the Blu-ray format.

I also agree with the Netflix philosophy. So much better of a deal than anything else out there. I encourage everyone to join (especially as my shares are now over $180, hehe).


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

I've been strictly Blu Ray for 2 years.

While BD quality may vary, the BD version of a movie is always better than the DVD version - even in romantic comedies.

If you shop correctly, they're not even that much more expensive. With 150 BD's, I'm averaging less than $15 per movie ($13.72 to be exact).

With a 126" display, two 65" displays, and a 60" display, I want the best picture I can get every time.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

150BD x $13.72 = $2058

Assuming a rental costs $3 (which is pretty high), you're looking at the equivalent of 686 rentals. If you figure it for $1 (redbox price), you're at $2058 rentals, or one movie a day for over 5 and a half years. If you figure $12/month for netflix (1 out blu-ray plan at new pricing), you're at 171.5 months or 14 years of netflix.


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

eugovector said:


> 150BD x $13.72 = $2058
> 
> Assuming a rental costs $3 (which is pretty high), you're looking at the equivalent of 686 rentals. If you figure it for $1 (redbox price), you're at $2058 rentals, or one movie a day for over 5 and a half years. If you figure $12/month for netflix (1 out blu-ray plan at new pricing), you're at 171.5 months or 14 years of netflix.


Not sure what your point is.

Is owning more expensive than renting? Certainly, I didn't realize that was the point of the thread.

Is it less expensive than going to the theater? Definitely.

I haven't been to a movie theater in almost 10 years and prefer to wait and watch in my own theater (not a 51" display in a living room). My wife and I used to go almost once per week.

Just in the last 2 years, I've saved over $1000 (104 weeks X $30 per weekend=$3120. $3120 - $2058 I've spent on BD's) by buying instead of going to the theater.

And I haven't even watched all the BD's that I have. I like to have a collection because we entertain often and when guests come over, I like to ask them what they'd like to watch in the theater and have the ability to provide them with a vast selection.

I don't want to have to ask them before they come and then drive down to BB and get it, or place it in my Netflix queue and hope it arrives in time.

Not to mention that about 40 of those are Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks for my kids. When they want to watch a movie (like during this week when they're home from school), I like to have it for them and not have to worry about if I picked the right movie from Netflix or not. 

So, again, what was your point?


PS. I believe BD's from redbox are more than $1.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

In response to the original post:
If I ripped movies, I would always use the best format available. I do rip all my music and always record it as WAV. Yes it takes time and space, but I will make that compromise.

In response to what this has turned into,'buying vs. renting':
Obviously buying media has advantages over renting if you can afford it. I'm now over 40 years old and recently started making around $48,000/yr. Income for most of my life had been well below $30,000/yr (military).
I rent BR through Netflix and buy occasionally (i.e. Avatar, Master and Commander, PotC). I would rather save money with Netflix that I can spend toward better equipment. Some people are lucky and don't have to make choices like that.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

You should check out FLAC, WMA-Lossless, or other lossless codecs vs. WAVE. All the quality, most of the compatibility, and 50% of the space. I like dbpoweramp for converting.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

WAV has been my standard simply because that is what I started with when the other lossless formats weren't very popular. In the computer, it'll probably stay that way.
To save space in a portable music player, I would usually convert that music from WAV into another lossless format that's compatible with the player.


----------



## Cory Phoenix (Nov 7, 2010)

In response to the original poster, I can't remember the last movie I bought on DVD. If I want to own a movie, even comedies, I prefer to have the audio/video quality that the blu-ray format provides. I agree that sometimes there's not a huge difference in quality, but sometimes, it's startling how much better the blu-ray looks and sounds compared to it's DVD version. About the only things I'll buy on DVD anymore are tv series that I feel have high replay value. 

In response to the renting vs. buying topic that's sprung up, I feel strongly that people will spend their extra money on what they enjoy spending it on. There's no right or wrong. Who am I to say that the person who's passion is rebuilding classic cars is wasting their money if they already have a car that gets them from point A to point B? Some people spend more money on Starbucks in a year than I spend on movies. The amount of extra money people spend is relative as well. I'd love to be able to EARN the amount of EXTRA money a millionaire spends on their hobbies each year.

So my passion is movies, and the movie viewing experience. Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy saving money on what I choose to spend it on whenever I can. But, not only do we go watch a movie a week on average in the theater, but we also have a Netflix account; buy almost all our favorite blu-ray movies we want to own; immediately burn them 1:1 to the ever-increasing hard drive space of our Popcorn Hour so that we can have instant access; and I also try to upgrade aspects of our home theater every chance I get. I don't believe this is any more a waste of money than collecting stamps, owning season tickets to a sports team, or eating out each night. To each his own. :T


----------



## philmadxx (Dec 17, 2006)

Bluray is worth the extra space - especially when you have a big screen (PJ). Storage is cheap. 

The audio that comes with it is better also.

My 2c.


----------



## GranteedEV (Aug 8, 2010)

when i was used to dvd, i never thought much would be much upgrade.

but now that i'm used to blu ray, i couldn't imagine watching anything on dvd unless forced to.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

GranteedEV said:


> when i was used to dvd, i never thought much would be much upgrade.
> 
> but now that i'm used to blu ray, i couldn't imagine watching anything on dvd unless forced to.


My sentiments exactly!


----------



## mjcmt (Aug 30, 2010)

eugovector said:


> Can't help you, I don't buy movies anymore. Netflix for me: the way I look at it, I own 70k titles, I just have to wait a day for them to come from my warehouse, which is managed by netflix.
> 
> At the end of the day, buying just didn't make sense for me anymore. Figuring $2/rental, I'd have to watch a movie 5-10 times for it to become even a break even proposition. For blu-rays, 10-15 times. There are very few movies I've watched that often (pulp fiction, boondock saints, Pirates of the Caribbean, Fight club), and many more movies I've bought thinking I would watch them that often and didn't.
> 
> And then there is your question, blu-ray vs. dvd. Think of all those poor schmucks who built up vast DVD collections, never broke even, and now are saddled with mountains of physical media that is poorer quality than what I can rent for $2. Some people see vast physical media collections as bragging rights, I see it as a fool's gamble and a waste of money.


I agree w/ your conclusions about owning vs. renting. Only some movies I would repeatedly watch, so it would take quite a few viewings before it justifies owning. I have bought a few DVDs at a yard sale for the cost of renting, so I bought them to watch and give away to my friend you has quite a library of titles.


----------



## Emuc64 (Nov 15, 2009)

My personal rule is to never pay more than $20 for a movie regardless of format (an easy feat for DVDs now and a good price point for BDs) due to that being the cost of at least that much for a movie excursion with my fiance. "Might as well own it for that price."

Re: DVD vs. BD - it depends.
If it's a recent movie (3 years or newer), I can probably appreciate the picture and sound upgrade and will definitely go for BD. 

If it's 10 years or older, I know the picture won't be filmed in HD - so I go with DVD. 

The middle ground (yrs 4-9) depends on the title and which one is cheaper. 

I'm happy with my choices so far.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

If the movie's over 10yrs old, it was probably recorded on film which is the ultimate high definition. Film is not restricted by 'lines of resolution.'
So transferring film to BD (1080 lines of resolution) is actually reducing the quality.


----------



## Emuc64 (Nov 15, 2009)

gdstupak said:


> If the movie's over 10yrs old, it was probably recorded on film which is the ultimate high definition. Film is not restricted by 'lines of resolution.'
> So transferring film to BD (1080 lines of resolution) is actually reducing the quality.


So that kind of makes sense to me because film is "analog" and what comes out is only restricted by current technology. However, most old things I've seen just doesn't look good when transferred to digital media. I see a graininess to it that's not "clear" to me, unlike today's films. Perhaps if lots of money went into recovering the original film, clean up, mitigation of degradation, etc. The film might look okay, but then there's the audio which can be a hit or miss.

Personally, I don't see the need to purchase or re-purchase older titles on BD because they just don't look or sound as good as recent films with this new technology in mind. Go older (70's & 80's titles) and I just can't justify the differences between BD & DVD in terms of quality (& perhaps price).


----------



## fractile (Mar 15, 2009)

to summerize 
BD has greater resolution than DVD and old movies transferred to BD are not so blurry as SD. I heard that Netflix is phasing out mailing disks and in the future will be only streaming. You can buy a BD and sell it back on Amazon fairly easily if you don't want to keep watching it. For those who want to archive, yes disk space is getting cheaper, and I expect disk capacity to go up 10X within a few years, due to new technology.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

fractile said:


> to summerize
> BD has greater resolution than DVD and old movies transferred to BD are not so blurry as SD. I heard that Netflix is phasing out mailing disks and in the future will be only streaming. You can buy a BD and sell it back on Amazon fairly easily if you don't want to keep watching it. For those who want to archive, yes disk space is getting cheaper, and I expect disk capacity to go up 10X within a few years, due to new technology.


I'd say your prediction on hard drive space is a little bit of wishful thinking. The trend shows we're about 10 years out from 30TB drives. I'm sure we'll be streaming or downloading something close to blu-ray quality (40mbps max) by that time, atleast considering where streaming media was 10 years ago (realvideo anyone??)


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

rizzi_nyc said:


> I'm wondering if people are selective on which movies they buy on BR format versus DVD? I've read some posts where people aren't sold on BR and they are sticking to DVD. I'm not that extreme and enjoy the video and audio enhancements that come with BR. But since I copy all of my discs to hard drive, I am sensitive to space requirements. Thus, moving forward, I'm curious if I can "mix and match" depending on the benefit that I may or may not get from BR. For example, if I wanted to buy the original Wall Street, does it really matter if that is in BR format? Its review on Blu-ray.com is not good although it still recommends over DVD due to the fact that you can get the BR version so cheap. But is it worth the additional approx. 25Gb?? Even for new movies, let's say "Blind Side", does the BR offer that much benefit over the DVD version?
> 
> I tend to lean towards getting the best quailty, especially since I'm archiving and I think the better quality will be appreciated down the line, but I'm curious if people "mix and match" when selecting their movies.
> 
> Thanks.


I try to limit my Blu-ray purchases to action, adventure, animated and science fiction. I kind of feel like that's where most of the potential is in the audio and video presentations. I would never buy something like "The Blind Side" on Bluray personally.


----------



## q2bon2b (Aug 5, 2010)

eugovector said:


> I'd say your prediction on hard drive space is a little bit of wishful thinking. The trend shows we're about 10 years out from 30TB drives. I'm sure we'll be streaming or downloading something close to blu-ray quality (40mbps max) by that time, atleast considering where streaming media was 10 years ago (realvideo anyone??)


I always thought it was an exponential curve and am surprised that it is such a straight line curve. Another example of my "intuition" being wrong. So blu-ray and DVD have quite some life left in them, unless streaming technology undergoes an explosive exponential improvement. Either way, companies like Netflix are bound to prosper - wonder which are publicly traded companies?


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

It is exponential, look at the scale on the left. Still, we're 6-10 year out from 30TB.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

That's why there are drive arrays, no need to wait on a single drive to reach 30TB. :T


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Agreed, but I think it's more the price. Right now, getting 2TB for <$100 is amazing. Imagine in 10 years getting 30TB for <$100.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

Affordability definitely hampers things a bit.


----------



## q2bon2b (Aug 5, 2010)

eugovector said:


> It is exponential, look at the scale on the left. Still, we're 6-10 year out from 30TB.


You're right. I am obviously not detail-oriented.:no:

And yes, I agreed, price point is critical too.


----------



## echopoint (Nov 12, 2010)

rizzi_nyc said:


> I'm wondering if people are selective on which movies they buy on BR format versus DVD? I've read some posts where people aren't sold on BR and they are sticking to DVD. I'm not that extreme and enjoy the video and audio enhancements that come with BR. But since I copy all of my discs to hard drive, I am sensitive to space requirements. Thus, moving forward, I'm curious if I can "mix and match" depending on the benefit that I may or may not get from BR. For example, if I wanted to buy the original Wall Street, does it really matter if that is in BR format? Its review on Blu-ray.com is not good although it still recommends over DVD due to the fact that you can get the BR version so cheap. But is it worth the additional approx. 25Gb?? Even for new movies, let's say "Blind Side", does the BR offer that much benefit over the DVD version?
> 
> I tend to lean towards getting the best quailty, especially since I'm archiving and I think the better quality will be appreciated down the line, but I'm curious if people "mix and match" when selecting their movies.
> 
> Thanks.


I always buy blurays unless it's a kids movie because I need to be able to easily rip it for playback on mobile devices. The recent exception being a movie that came with a digital copy. The new trend for bluray movies to come with a DVD and digital copy is great as long as the price isn't prohibitive. 

I would be interested in knowing how to rip sone of my blurays. What ever happened to managed copy?


----------



## Theresa (Aug 23, 2010)

I don't buy DVDs anymore and have never bought a BD. I don't need to, I too have Netflix. Netflix is the best thing to come about for years. Many of the shows I want aren't available on BD and for those I'm satisfied with DVD or streaming. Its just the cap on usage that comcast has that worries me. I exceeded it once this past summer. No, I don't download pirated stuff, at least not that recently, but being disabled I do watch a lot. I get up at 3am and there isn't much else to do since my attention span is too short these days to read much.


----------



## sga2 (Nov 14, 2009)

Emuc64 said:


> So that kind of makes sense to me because film is "analog" and what comes out is only restricted by current technology. However, most old things I've seen just doesn't look good when transferred to digital media. I see a graininess to it that's not "clear" to me, unlike today's films. Perhaps if lots of money went into recovering the original film, clean up, mitigation of degradation, etc. The film might look okay, but then there's the audio which can be a hit or miss.
> 
> Personally, I don't see the need to purchase or re-purchase older titles on BD because they just don't look or sound as good as recent films with this new technology in mind. Go older (70's & 80's titles) and I just can't justify the differences between BD & DVD in terms of quality (& perhaps price).


It's all in the efforts undertaken in the restoration/transfer to high def format. The recent release of Aliens (1986) on BD - which is amazing, by the way - shows what is posible when the proper resources are applied to this process. This is one of my all-time favorite movies, and the BD blows the DVD away.

Still, part of the equation is how (on what) you intend to view the material. On large displays the resolution really becomes important. I can watch DVD's on my 42" TV in the family room without much complaint, but on our 130" screen in the basement home theater they are nearly unwatchable.

Regards,
sga2


----------



## Emuc64 (Nov 15, 2009)

sga2 said:


> ...shows what is possible when the proper resources are applied to this process.


Okay, so it sounds like a proper transfer of older material is more of a rarity than the norm. Is there a list of really great BD titles that are pre-2000 movie releases? Titles like you mentioned, that are better than the DVD versions?

Thanks.


----------



## sga2 (Nov 14, 2009)

Emuc64 said:


> Okay, so it sounds like a proper transfer of older material is more of a rarity than the norm. Is there a list of really great BD titles that are pre-2000 movie releases? Titles like you mentioned, that are better than the DVD versions?
> 
> Thanks.


Heat and Terminator 2 are also great on Blu Ray, much better than DVD.

My pre-2000 Blu Ray library is a bit thin... something I hope to remedy this Christmas.

If you are interested in anything in particular, just google "[Title] Blu Ray review".

Also, though there are exceptions, most of what I've seen looks alot better on Blu Ray than DVD. It's just that when you see a truly exceptional transfer, you wish they were all handled with as much care.

Regards,
sga2


----------



## recruit (May 9, 2009)

I have seen some really excellent BD transfers and some really bad but there is a lot pre 2000 that are certainly in all the glory of high definition.

Also remember that the size of the screen does matter, so if you are viewing with a plasma/LCD at 42" you probably would not notice much difference between 720p and 1080p, if viewing on a PJ with say a 7ft screen then 1080p is advantageous


----------

