Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Off Topic OT: BD quality

Interesting point.

Yes, most interesting. I don't think anyone would disagree that downloads/online availability of content is the future and that physical media will eventually dissappear .... yet, physical media persists and 'reports of my death have been greatly exagerated'. I've made this joke before, but we are all descended from 'hunter/gatherers' not 'hunter/downloaders', and I think physical media will endure far longer than conventional wisdom predicts. Go Bluray!!

I must admit i was initally turned off of Bluray due to the lack of titles until this year, but to be honest with so main HD films on Sky i don't really see the point. I can on my screen definately tell the differnce between DVD on the 91 vs. Sky HD, although would admit some back catalogue films on there vary in quality so I can see what Which could be on about. Although this DVD comparison may not be entirely fair as i have yet to get the 91 to pump a HDMI signal along the 15m cable to my projector (so is on component only), although the SKy box has no issues at 1080i.

Can anyone comment on the difference between HD TV 720p/1080i vs. 1080p Bluray quality? also i have noticed on Bluray demos that some CGI effects can look too artificial at 1080p and therefore spoil the realism of the film.

CGI -> artificial -> realism >

Those are more often than not compositing errors

Maybe now is a good time to think about this again?

Interesting thread.

One aspect which has not been discussed is the superior audio quality of BD, particularly for opera, ballet etc.

Now the prices have dropped to reasonable levels BD is to be preferred. However if the oroginal video is HD, DVD comes through rather nicely if upscaled by iScan with the note that PAL is superior to NTSC.

Few BDs are bad but I do have quite a few DVDs in that category and I generally dislike compressed DD although DTS is sometimes bearable. Crazy to have expensive audio rigs and then pipe the DD rubbish through it!

John

Not just opera but any concert can be pushed to new heights with Bluray. Last week I bought Andre Bocelli's "Vivre- Live in Tuscany" Bluray. It was stunning both visually and musically. I watched it 4 times over the weekend. 1080P sight and 24/96 sound hard to beat. Want something a little harder? Try Metallica "Francais Pour Une Nuit" once I got it sync'd it was great. Even a few pure music Bluray's like Tom Petty's "Mojo" with both 2 channel and 5.1 surround in 24/96 exist. I for one appreciate all quality options and for now Bluray is one of the quality choices.

Gary

Absolutely. That's what I based my comment on viewing distance for a 40" panel on. I think that many people's viewing distance for BD, and HD generally, is far too great especially with screens smaller than 40". But what do you make of a public who thinks 128kbps mush played through iPod standard ear buds or a Bose Sounddock is as good as it gets?

OT
If you liked "Mojo" then you might also try "Damn the Torpedoes" in BD-Audio. It's been released recently.

That is as likely as price to account for the greater uptake of BD stateside. The improvement is so much more marked from NTSC than from PAL, even on small sets. I think it would also be fair to say that the average US TV has been larger than that which could be comfortably accommodated in the average British rabbit hutch, so again, the comparative flaws of the pre-existing medium would be more readily evident. Greater improvement on larger televisions for less money.

Why is the improvement more? What technical differences are there between NTSC and PAL? All I am aware of is that PAL DVDs are often at the wrong speed, giving NTSC an advantage (as always detailed by DVDBeaver).