Blu-ray v. HD DVD

I am going to plump for Blu-ray, only because my first flat screen is 1080p Sony and I have got a playstation 3, not onbly does this play blu-ray but upscales dvds as well and there aint a great seal of difference between the two now.

I do think its a bit daft putting ancient films on to blu-ray format
and expect to see some wonderfull transformation, an upscale of the orginal dvd is about as good as its going to get.

I am going to plump for Blu-ray, only because my first flat screen is 1080p Sony and I have got a playstation 3, not onbly does this play blu-ray but upscales dvds as well and there aint a great seal of difference between the two now.

I do think its a bit daft putting ancient films on to blu-ray format
and expect to see some wonderfull transformation, an upscale of the orginal dvd is about as good as its going to get.

[Neil]

Originally posted by easygoingeezer
I do think its a bit daft putting ancient films on to blu-ray format
and expect to see some wonderfull transformation, an upscale of the orginal dvd is about as good as its going to get.

Well I used to think the same as you EGG. But I have to say we got Dirty Dancing 20th Anniversary on Blu-ray for Christmas and I was mighty impressed with how good it looks.

Neil

[Neil]

Originally posted by easygoingeezer
I do think its a bit daft putting ancient films on to blu-ray format
and expect to see some wonderfull transformation, an upscale of the orginal dvd is about as good as its going to get.

Well I used to think the same as you EGG. But I have to say we got Dirty Dancing 20th Anniversary on Blu-ray for Christmas and I was mighty impressed with how good it looks.

Neil

Interesting thread here...

Even though I wouldn't go out and buy a HD player today, I have voted for Blu-ray simply because it has a bigger market share over HD-DVD and with the recent decision by Warner Bros to back Blu-Ray (meaning that all bar two major Hollywood studios back Blu-Ray) it's only a matter of 'when' not 'if' will Blu-Ray wins.

I find it funny that a few of my college friends reckon Blu-Ray is going to 'crash and burn' as they put it and back HD-DVD because of its lower costs. Another friend backs HD-DVD because 'Blu-Ray is Sony, they always have to do their own thing'.

I'll be waiting for the prices of Blu-Ray players to drop first before buying one (the current PS3 40GB is of no use to me - I want to play PS2 games on it).

I agree with Pete, the upscaling on the Virgin Media V+ Box is superb (even though our Sony KDLS40A12U LCD isn't a 1080i/1080p TV, it's still great).

Interesting thread here...

Even though I wouldn't go out and buy a HD player today, I have voted for Blu-ray simply because it has a bigger market share over HD-DVD and with the recent decision by Warner Bros to back Blu-Ray (meaning that all bar two major Hollywood studios back Blu-Ray) it's only a matter of 'when' not 'if' will Blu-Ray wins.

I find it funny that a few of my college friends reckon Blu-Ray is going to 'crash and burn' as they put it and back HD-DVD because of its lower costs. Another friend backs HD-DVD because 'Blu-Ray is Sony, they always have to do their own thing'.

I'll be waiting for the prices of Blu-Ray players to drop first before buying one (the current PS3 40GB is of no use to me - I want to play PS2 games on it).

I agree with Pete, the upscaling on the Virgin Media V+ Box is superb (even though our Sony KDLS40A12U LCD isn't a 1080i/1080p TV, it's still great).

[Pete]

Originally posted by NS

I agree in principle - but having seen a Sony KDL46X3500 fed 1080p I wasn't nearly as impressed as my Pioneer when fed 1080i. What would you put this down to?

(Bear in mind we tweaked and played with the Sony settings and just couldn't get a 'decent' picture)

I suspect the weak link in most HD set ups tends to be the monitor itself; and the Sony LCD 46' just isn't as good as a Pioneer Plasma. Having spent a fair bit of time looking at the 42'+ market of late, whilst LCD has got much better over the last 12 months, it still isn't where you want to be if you want a big picture. It's also important to realise that not all Plasmas are made equal. Sony and LG just can't seem to do it as well as Pioneer and Panasonic. Put the things side-to-side with a Playstation attached to both, and you can clearly see a quality difference. The Panasonic, in particular, manages to achieve fantastically crisp images with real depth in the contrast.

Blu-Ray is probably going to win the HD format war simply because it has the momentum. I can't see any reason why the industry would about-turn now, and the fact that HD DVD has cheaper consumables doesn't seem to have had much effect on the battle thus far, nor is the Sony badge hindering Blu-Ray.

[Pete]

Originally posted by NS

I agree in principle - but having seen a Sony KDL46X3500 fed 1080p I wasn't nearly as impressed as my Pioneer when fed 1080i. What would you put this down to?

(Bear in mind we tweaked and played with the Sony settings and just couldn't get a 'decent' picture)

I suspect the weak link in most HD set ups tends to be the monitor itself; and the Sony LCD 46' just isn't as good as a Pioneer Plasma. Having spent a fair bit of time looking at the 42'+ market of late, whilst LCD has got much better over the last 12 months, it still isn't where you want to be if you want a big picture. It's also important to realise that not all Plasmas are made equal. Sony and LG just can't seem to do it as well as Pioneer and Panasonic. Put the things side-to-side with a Playstation attached to both, and you can clearly see a quality difference. The Panasonic, in particular, manages to achieve fantastically crisp images with real depth in the contrast.

Blu-Ray is probably going to win the HD format war simply because it has the momentum. I can't see any reason why the industry would about-turn now, and the fact that HD DVD has cheaper consumables doesn't seem to have had much effect on the battle thus far, nor is the Sony badge hindering Blu-Ray.

[mitchja]

The other weak link is often the HDMI cable itself. I have a friend who works for a large electrical retailer and he wont use a 1 meter long HMDI cable that costs under £60. He says there is a huge difference in HDMI cable quality and you should get the most expensive one you can afford.

Regards

[mitchja]

The other weak link is often the HDMI cable itself. I have a friend who works for a large electrical retailer and he wont use a 1 meter long HMDI cable that costs under 60. He says there is a huge difference in HDMI cable quality and you should get the most expensive one you can afford.

Regards

[Pete]

Originally posted by mitchja
The other weak link is often the HDMI cable itself. I have a friend who works for a large electrical retailer and he wont use a 1 meter long HMDI cable that costs under £60. He says there is a huge difference in HDMI cable quality and you should get the most expensive one you can afford.

Regards

I know this is true for audiophiles when it comes to analogue signals, but I'm having problems getting my head around why this would be the case for HDMI / DVI / USB or any other kind of digital cable. Error correction in the stream means it either works or it doesn't - data is either 1s or 0s. If I'm wrong, I'd love to read an explanation of why spending lots (and you can spend £180 on an HDMI cable!) is any better than £30 on a Philips bog-standard one.

[Pete]

Originally posted by mitchja
The other weak link is often the HDMI cable itself. I have a friend who works for a large electrical retailer and he wont use a 1 meter long HMDI cable that costs under 60. He says there is a huge difference in HDMI cable quality and you should get the most expensive one you can afford.

Regards

I know this is true for audiophiles when it comes to analogue signals, but I'm having problems getting my head around why this would be the case for HDMI / DVI / USB or any other kind of digital cable. Error correction in the stream means it either works or it doesn't - data is either 1s or 0s. If I'm wrong, I'd love to read an explanation of why spending lots (and you can spend 180 on an HDMI cable!) is any better than 30 on a Philips bog-standard one.

[RichardMannion]

Originally posted by Pete

Originally posted by mitchja
The other weak link is often the HDMI cable itself. I have a friend who works for a large electrical retailer and he wont use a 1 meter long HMDI cable that costs under £60. He says there is a huge difference in HDMI cable quality and you should get the most expensive one you can afford.

Regards

I know this is true for audiophiles when it comes to analogue signals, but I'm having problems getting my head around why this would be the case for HDMI / DVI / USB or any other kind of digital cable. Error correction in the stream means it either works or it doesn't - data is either 1s or 0s. If I'm wrong, I'd love to read an explanation of why spending lots (and you can spend £180 on an HDMI cable!) is any better than £30 on a Philips bog-standard one.

Indeed. Now if the binary data was getting corrupted due to poor cable construction that's different - but in reality there is no need to spend that kind of money on a digital cable.

[RichardMannion]

Originally posted by Pete

Originally posted by mitchja
The other weak link is often the HDMI cable itself. I have a friend who works for a large electrical retailer and he wont use a 1 meter long HMDI cable that costs under 60. He says there is a huge difference in HDMI cable quality and you should get the most expensive one you can afford.

Regards

I know this is true for audiophiles when it comes to analogue signals, but I'm having problems getting my head around why this would be the case for HDMI / DVI / USB or any other kind of digital cable. Error correction in the stream means it either works or it doesn't - data is either 1s or 0s. If I'm wrong, I'd love to read an explanation of why spending lots (and you can spend 180 on an HDMI cable!) is any better than 30 on a Philips bog-standard one.

Indeed. Now if the binary data was getting corrupted due to poor cable construction that's different - but in reality there is no need to spend that kind of money on a digital cable.

My SonyKDL40V3000 is the dogs wotzits, I love my ps3 too, the quality of my photo library in 1080p and my itunes library is awsome.

Anyone got Close enclounters yet, is it worth a blu-ray copy and erm life of brian[:I]

My SonyKDL40V3000 is the dogs wotzits, I love my ps3 too, the quality of my photo library in 1080p and my itunes library is awsome.

Anyone got Close enclounters yet, is it worth a blu-ray copy and erm life of brian[:I]

[buns]

This is an interesting thread, not least that I did not realise there was so much to choosing my replacemnt HD TV (BTW don't tell Mrs Buns as she thinks our current Sony 28' is still working fine[:w]).

As someone who opted for Beta in the original format war, it is perhaps best that I keep my advice to myself[:D][:D][:D]

buns

[buns]

This is an interesting thread, not least that I did not realise there was so much to choosing my replacemnt HD TV (BTW don't tell Mrs Buns as she thinks our current Sony 28' is still working fine[:w]).

As someone who opted for Beta in the original format war, it is perhaps best that I keep my advice to myself[:D][:D][:D]

buns

[Darren Wheeler]

I can see Blu-ray winning. As Neil said, the Adult Entertainment Industry are choosing Blu-ray (how ironic!) over HD-DVD and that will help it along nicely (they also use Region 0). Being Early Adopters they have a lot of muscle to flex and they are a multi-billion dollar industry in the US alone. In fact some countries Adult studios are larger than mainstream studios. How do I know this? Draw your own conclusions.....[:w][:w]

Like Pete, I'd love to hear the reason behind an expensive HDMI cable. 1's and 0's, on and off, voltage, no voltage. Unless the cable is poorly constructed, there is insufficient shielding or a powerful source of interference nearby, there is no reason for corruption of the data.

[Darren Wheeler]

I can see Blu-ray winning. As Neil said, the Adult Entertainment Industry are choosing Blu-ray (how ironic!) over HD-DVD and that will help it along nicely (they also use Region 0). Being Early Adopters they have a lot of muscle to flex and they are a multi-billion dollar industry in the US alone. In fact some countries Adult studios are larger than mainstream studios. How do I know this? Draw your own conclusions.....[:w][:w]

Like Pete, I'd love to hear the reason behind an expensive HDMI cable. 1's and 0's, on and off, voltage, no voltage. Unless the cable is poorly constructed, there is insufficient shielding or a powerful source of interference nearby, there is no reason for corruption of the data.

Originally posted by mitchja
He says there is a huge difference in HDMI cable quality and you should get the most expensive one you can afford.

Regards

LOL, of course he would say that as this is how his employers make their profits, they make more out of selling overpriced accessories than TVs and DVD players etc but to say there is a huge gulf in quality in HDMI cables is a complete load of twaddle.

Obviously he has to tell customers to buy the most expensive cable because that is what he is getting paid to do. It is a such a common ploy to get customers to part with more of their cash and unfortunately a lot of first time buyers fall for this bull and pay more for goods than is really necessary, very simillar to selling extended warranties on toasters and hairdryers.

Originally posted by mitchja
He says there is a huge difference in HDMI cable quality and you should get the most expensive one you can afford.

Regards

LOL, of course he would say that as this is how his employers make their profits, they make more out of selling overpriced accessories than TVs and DVD players etc but to say there is a huge gulf in quality in HDMI cables is a complete load of twaddle.

Obviously he has to tell customers to buy the most expensive cable because that is what he is getting paid to do. It is a such a common ploy to get customers to part with more of their cash and unfortunately a lot of first time buyers fall for this bull and pay more for goods than is really necessary, very simillar to selling extended warranties on toasters and hairdryers.

I just went out and bought a Blu-Ray player. Just so happened it was a PS3 (I already have a 360).

I have always had a interest in these matters demonstrating, what I believe to be, the first PC/Home Theatre Combo with multi-region DVD player as Live 98 when all that was available was a handful of titles in the UK. At the time I was given a Yamaha DSP-A1 amp by Yamaha (which I still have) and a set of Bose Accoustimas (SP) Speakers from Bose (again which I still have). However, maybe it's my eyes, I can never seem to see quite as much difference between formats and picture qualities that others hype about.

For me, I can see a huge difference between PAL/NTSC DVDs. But, my DVD player has always been connected via composite video cable (which as you probably know is pretty much the worst for picture quality) and I can't really really see a big difference when I tried connecting the same player via S-Video (which I did at one point) and in fact I found the lines on S-Video to be jagged when not straight (ie when neither Horizontal or Vertical).

I bought a HD capable Plasma (Sony) before the HD Ready system was ratified and therefore I only have one set on component HD input (no HDMI). I currently have my Sky HD, 360 and PS3 connected via a Radio Shack Component switch box with probably some of the cheapest cables imaginable and I just cannot really see how the picture would get better. Yes I understand the difference between 1080i and 1080p, but to me the difference between a good quality (perhaps superbit) DVD (10mb+) and Blu-ray (maybe 25mb+) isn't as marked as I had expected. It is certainly, to me anyway, not as marked as between VHS and DVD which I believe was about a 100% increase in displayed lines.

When I look at my Component Connected 1080i plasma vs a friends 1080p LCD (and we haven't compared side by side) I still think my display is nicer, crisper (without being over sharp) and generally better than the LCD which seems to suffer appauling especially with fast moving scenes and moving text.

I also remember when the iPod first came out and a lot of people claimed it would fail as no-one would want to reduce their sound quality over CD. Well to me I can't really hear the reduction in quality on my iPod vs CD but again that may simply be my ears!

Anyway, long live Blu-Ray (only because I have bought into the technology) - Now the capacity is there perhaps we can have some truly stunning discs.

Btw, does anyone else have any of the POTC titles on blu-ray? Is it just on the PS3 that the menus looks like they were designed by an 8 year old child?

Paul

I just went out and bought a Blu-Ray player. Just so happened it was a PS3 (I already have a 360).

I have always had a interest in these matters demonstrating, what I believe to be, the first PC/Home Theatre Combo with multi-region DVD player as Live 98 when all that was available was a handful of titles in the UK. At the time I was given a Yamaha DSP-A1 amp by Yamaha (which I still have) and a set of Bose Accoustimas (SP) Speakers from Bose (again which I still have). However, maybe it's my eyes, I can never seem to see quite as much difference between formats and picture qualities that others hype about.

For me, I can see a huge difference between PAL/NTSC DVDs. But, my DVD player has always been connected via composite video cable (which as you probably know is pretty much the worst for picture quality) and I can't really really see a big difference when I tried connecting the same player via S-Video (which I did at one point) and in fact I found the lines on S-Video to be jagged when not straight (ie when neither Horizontal or Vertical).

I bought a HD capable Plasma (Sony) before the HD Ready system was ratified and therefore I only have one set on component HD input (no HDMI). I currently have my Sky HD, 360 and PS3 connected via a Radio Shack Component switch box with probably some of the cheapest cables imaginable and I just cannot really see how the picture would get better. Yes I understand the difference between 1080i and 1080p, but to me the difference between a good quality (perhaps superbit) DVD (10mb+) and Blu-ray (maybe 25mb+) isn't as marked as I had expected. It is certainly, to me anyway, not as marked as between VHS and DVD which I believe was about a 100% increase in displayed lines.

When I look at my Component Connected 1080i plasma vs a friends 1080p LCD (and we haven't compared side by side) I still think my display is nicer, crisper (without being over sharp) and generally better than the LCD which seems to suffer appauling especially with fast moving scenes and moving text.

I also remember when the iPod first came out and a lot of people claimed it would fail as no-one would want to reduce their sound quality over CD. Well to me I can't really hear the reduction in quality on my iPod vs CD but again that may simply be my ears!

Anyway, long live Blu-Ray (only because I have bought into the technology) - Now the capacity is there perhaps we can have some truly stunning discs.

Btw, does anyone else have any of the POTC titles on blu-ray? Is it just on the PS3 that the menus looks like they were designed by an 8 year old child?

Paul

As predicted (and something a few college friends of mine are going to have to accept), Blu-Ray has won and this will be confirmed when, not if, Toshiba pulls the plug on HD-DVD...

Link here