I don't understand how people can think that the difference between DVD and Blu-ray and between standard and HD broadcast is not obvious, even in a PAL set-up....How can anyone have difficulty in discerning between them?
I don't think discernment is the issue (albeit a far more modest difference on a 40" TV vs a 120" screen), it's the value appended to the difference that is the determining factor. The families whom I mentioned above can see the difference, but the response is still "so what?"
Gotcha. My daughter and her partner initially had the same reaction to my Sky HD.
Having said that, a 40" 1080p panel at the correct viewing distance should yield the
same detail as 120" screen fed with 1080p and the same material. Having a bigger screen doesn't extract more detail than is present in 1080p material and all the available detail should be discernible on a decent 40" screen at the appropriate viewing distance.
But if you read the Which reports they are not talking about the value attached to the experience - they are genuinely saying that they see little or no difference: "only slightly sharper", "not deemed to be a significant improvement", "no significant improvement", "the resolution didn't appear to have improved", "resolution not much better than DVD" and so on. Maybe the odd film is a poor transfer but 8 out of 17 showing little or no improvement? That's simply not my experience on a very similar set-up - not by a long chalk.
Then they go and give the Blu-ray version of the Untouchables 5 stars and the DVD version 3 stars (8.25 versus 6 points) and put the former in the category of only "slightly sharper" and "not a significant improvement". That's just bonkers - one subjective assessment at complete loggerheads with another subjective assessment. The same is true of Die Hard: 6.5 points for Blu-ray, 4.5 for DVD yet in the "not significant improvement" category. But From Russia With Love, 8.75 v 6.5 puts it in the super improvement category. We don't know what the points mean or how they were assessed or how they relate to stars. We don't know the viewing distances or if the panels were calibrated. One of the "experts" in the video talks about the
white balance being "turned up too high" which is meaningless guff - he probably means the
brightness but if he's an expert he should know the difference - and how do we know it's the source rather than the screen? It's arbitrary, contradictory and worthless silliness. It just confirms me in my prejudice that if Which "experts" weren't working for Which, they'd be salesmen at a big high street electronic retailer.
It's quite possible that some Blu-ray transfers are not as good as they could be, so to that extent, Which have a case. But their claim that half the Blu-ray discs are not significantly better than DVD? Nah.
Google Search
|
Meridian Systems
|
Meridian Streaming
|
Restaurant
|
WiKi
|
Duncan's Meridian Info
|
Board Rules
|
Restaurant Rules
