Disappointed in blu ray picture

bronson · 09-10-2008, 18:29

I'm starting to be a bit disappointed with the picture quality of blu rays.I just don't feel the picture quality is that amazing to replace my dvd collection or even some of it.
I tend to just rent blu rays lately but buy the odd one that i really want.
Blu ray is better than upscaled dvd but not by much on certain titles.

I'm finding it harder to tell recently got the Goonies this week on blu ray....switched back to my upscaled dvd and the picture was only slightly better.

I have a Samsung 50" plasma and use a ps3(all set up right)my eyesight is also good lol.

Anyone else feel a bit let down by the blu ray picture quality

sancheeez · 09-10-2008, 18:33

How old/what resolution is the Samsung TV?

If it's an older HD ready model, then it won't look as good as a newer, full HD one.

Jarrak · 09-10-2008, 18:40

Nope but you have to get the right movie

Then again there is no question that the HD experience requires a number of factors to hit the "wow" factor and more often than not the lack of restoration of catalogue releases means that while there is more detail it is accompanied by noise and other issues.
A DVD will have a lot of the noise and grain etc absent either through simply being too low a resolution to see it or other image processing done to the master and when you upscale you can get an image that looks "cleaner" but the trade off is a reduction in detail. Many people would consider that a fair trade off and simply never accept that HD means you see more detail and that detail can be good and bad and be happy with it.
Another advantage for DVD is that when titles are remastered and restored they benefit as well as Blu-ray, a modern re-release will be significantly better than it's DVD version from last century

I have about 500 DVD's and I only ever considered double dipping with HD versions for perhaps 1 in 10 but for new releases it's HD everytime (when it's an option) and watching Batman Begins, Robin Hood and Pushing Daises etc I wouldn't want to rely on DVD to feed my plasma

bronson · 09-10-2008, 18:59

It's a Samsung Q96HD bought earlier this year.

paulr2006 · 09-10-2008, 19:02

think something is wrong somewhere, my BD collection looks absolutely stunning on my 40" Samsung LCD, far better than SD & often quite a lot better than Sky HD due to less compression. Some BD movies are better than others of course & some are simply stunning.

LCDMAN · 09-10-2008, 19:05

Have a look here for some optimum settings - the 5064 is the USA version of your Q96.

http://www.tweaktv.com/tweak-my-tv/c...-hp-t5064.html

There is also a thread dedicated to the Q96 & 97 (42" & 50") here;

http://www.avforums.com/forums/plasm...ml#post6888311

Edit: Just found the spec and it's not Full HD - it's only 1365 x 768 so Blu Ray at 1920 x 1080 is being scaled down. To get the full benefit from Blu-Ray you need a Full HD TV not HD ready. On the other hand, it's standard def images are rated good in most reviews I've found.

sancheeez · 09-10-2008, 19:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronson

It's a Samsung Q96HD bought earlier this year.

Is it set up properly?

From what I know of them, Samsung TV's have about a squillion settings you can play with and, generally speaking, they look pretty bad on the factory settings out of the box.

Have a look on AV forums, there is a thread about 300 pages long dedicated solely to tweaking the options on Samsung TV's to get the best out of them!

It's also not a full HD set from what I can find on the net. At that size, full HD with a bluray source would undoubtedly look better than HD ready. Although, it should definitely still look considerably better than DVD .... no question.

Matt Quinn · 09-10-2008, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by sancheeez

It's also not a full HD set from what I can find on the net. At that size, full HD with a bluray source would undoubtedly look better than HD ready. Although, it should definitely still look considerably better than DVD .... no question.

'768' displays are fine up to about 37"; maybe 42" at a push. But at 50" you're bound to see the screen's limitations unfortunately.......

bobcar · 10-10-2008, 01:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Quinn

'768' displays are fine up to about 37"; maybe 42" at a push. But at 50" you're bound to see the screen's limitations unfortunately.......

No it depends completely on the ratio of TV size to how close you sit, a 32" at 5' is "bigger" than a 50" at 8'. Saying a screen should be a certain resolution for a certain size is meaningless without knowing the viewing distance.

bobcar · 10-10-2008, 01:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by LCDMAN

To get the full benefit from Blu-Ray you need a Full HD TV not HD ready.

That is true but then most people don't sit close enough to their chosen TV size to get the benefit of full HD anyway (this is based purely upon my admittedly very limited experience of 5 friends with full HD none of whom sit close enough to get the benefit of full HD and 2 of them don't sit close enough to even get the benefit of HD ready).

Pencil · 10-10-2008, 05:21

The bigger the TV, the more stretched the picture (I thought)? Do you sit quite far away when watching?

Also, make sure it's set to 1080p and not 1080i.

MAW · 10-10-2008, 06:49

As long as it can accept 1080p, that's a good suggestion. Samsung processing is often lacking on the deinterlacing front. It may be constructing 540p frames from the 1080i, as well as the 3:2 pulldown issue, which gives you judder. Halving the effective resolution of the source material can result in some diappointment! The picture will still be better than DVD, there's still more picture info, but that could account for it just not leaping out and grabbing you. I have a 768 50" plasma, and I assure you, running HD films, it's 100% obvious that it's something special, even with the less than perfect ones.

Deacon1972 · 10-10-2008, 10:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Quinn

'768' displays are fine up to about 37"; maybe 42" at a push. But at 50" you're bound to see the screen's limitations unfortunately.......

So the quality of my 84" image from my 720 projector will be absolutely pants then?

The thing is it isn't.

I think there's something not quite right with your screen size/resolution theory to be honest.

floopy123 · 10-10-2008, 10:18

Quote:

I'm starting to be a bit disappointed with the picture quality of blu rays.I just don't feel the picture quality is that amazing to replace my dvd collection or even some of it.
I tend to just rent blu rays lately but buy the odd one that i really want.
Blu ray is better than upscaled dvd but not by much on certain titles.

I'm finding it harder to tell recently got the Goonies this week on blu ray....switched back to my upscaled dvd and the picture was only slightly better.

Reality hits, folks! I think Blu-ray is one of the biggest cons in recent entertainment history. Sure, Blu-ray does look fantastic, the images themselves are no con - it does deliver a true HD experience - but upscaled DVD can look just as fantastic. There's no way Blu-ray is that much better than upscaled, it's a few percentages better, and no matter what pro-Blu-ray people claim, my eyes are the best judge. As long as upscaled DVD remains, not enough people will buy into Blu-ray to make it the mass market format.

Blu-ray vs upscale is also similar to the bogus argument between 720p vs 1080p. On smaller tvs you'll never tell much or any difference.

sancheeez · 10-10-2008, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

So the quality of my 84" image from my 720 projector will be absolutely pants then?

No.

But if it was a 1080p full HD image it would look sharper if you examined it carefully wouldn't it?

I suspect as I started this, I should maybe clarify ....

An HD Ready panel will look good. But, if fed a full HD signal, a Full HD panel will look slightly better. I wouldn't say either would look "pants" (my set is a 720p one and I'm perfectly happy with it!) more that one would look very good, the other would look excellent. (Assuming both were viewed from the same distance)

Quote:

Originally Posted by floopy123

but upscaled DVD can look just as fantastic. There's no way Blu-ray is that much better than upscaled

I disagree.

floopy123 · 10-10-2008, 10:29

If people take stock.... all you're doing it arguing whether or not an image looks a bit more detailed. Does a Blu-ray title look that much better than a good quality transfer upscaled DVD? Most people would say no.

Does 720p and 1080i look that bad compared to 1080p? Most people would say no.

We live in a time of amazing digital technology but people can and do get obsessed with the details, "oh, this has to be better than that format, you've got to see the Goonies in Blu-ray because it's so much better than upscaled, you've got to watch everything in 1080p on a 50 inch screen!"

The reality is let your eyes be the judge. You don't have to buy into 1080p Blu-ray if you think upscaled is good enough. I reckon Blu-ray is here to stay so sooner or later people will invest in the products but you don't have to rush into it. People can get too obsessed with getting the best when all it means is spending the most money and making Sony richer. Blu-ray's success depends on millions of people buying all their old film collections again. This means a lot of money is spent and this is what Sony want you to do. Sony is a ruthless business - see how much they dislike Microsoft! - and they want you to spend all your money on their products. You can't become market leaders without being ruthless. Well, I find it hard to believe you can.

You_mo · 10-10-2008, 10:36

YES! I say Blu ray is for enthusiasts, I'm afraid. You'll hear them rave about it, but in reality I've found that it's best to not to buy a movie you already own if it looks good on your upscaled DVD. HD means clearer grain a lot of times! Ignore the personal insults about 'needing glasses' etc. we know what we see. I stick to buying new blu-ray movie releases and movies I don't already own unless the DVD transfer is bad. "Dark City" falls into this category, the DVD version is meh, but the blu-ray version is stunning.

floopy123 · 10-10-2008, 10:51

Upscaled is bad for Sony (even though the PS3 can upscale - lol) because it must limit sales of Blu-ray players and discs. But upscaling is good for consumers because it gives them a choice. If you think Blu-ray is much better than upscaled then it makes sense to invest in Blu-ray but if you're happy with upscaled DVDs, stick with them.

It's a win-win situation for the consumer.

And I believe in the long term Blu-ray will become the standard DVD format. But it could take a long time, a decade, perhaps. I think recordable Blu-ray players and recordable discs are the long term future for Blu-ray. When people can buy cheap Blu-ray recorders/Blu-ray R and RW discs I think the format will experience increased sales.

September 26, 2008 - item about Blu-ray:

Quote:

Even though Sony's Blu-ray won the high definition DVD format war against Toshiba's HD-DVD, there are signs that Blu-ray is struggling to gain consumer acceptance. Nielsen's recent figures show Blu-ray discs sales in the U.S. are declining, which has lead Sony and other Blu-ray vendors to begin offering free trial discs in magazines and to chop the price of players in some cases to below $200.

Blu-ray hasn't taken off in big numbers.

This item suggest Blu-ray will be defunct in five to ten years!

Quote:

Samsung Electronics is having doubts over the marketability of the next-generation storage format ― Blu-ray ― saying that the format could be a short-lived one, as little as five years. However, Sony says the format will last for at least 10 years.

"I think the high-definition Blu-ray format has only five years left. I certainly wouldn't give it 10," Andy Griffiths, a regional director of Samsung's branch in the United Kingdom said recently. Samsung is the world's No. 2 seller of Blu-ray players.

"Blu-ray will be replaced with a new format or technology," he said, without giving more explanation as to why he believed that it had a relatively short shelf life.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...123_32098.html

That's kinda depressing for Sony.

floopy123 · 10-10-2008, 11:15

Just to add one more point - in 1999 Sony and Philips invested in Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD). It was claimed to be better sound quality than standard compact discs. It didn't sell enough units. A flop. People kept with standard CD format. It's possible Blu-ray with be the 21st video equivalent of SACD. Better technology than standard DVD but not appealing or cost-effective enough to become the standard format.

OranguMaTang · 10-10-2008, 11:34

It's not quite true to say comparing SD to HD is like comparing 720p to 1080p. HD can show a good improvement in picture quality on set's from say 32inch to 50inch, only then does 1080p start to matter.
I don't think bluray will ever replace dvd, for the majority it just isn't of any interest to them and the benefits are not worth the cost. I'm sure most HD tv's will show nothing but SD.
I don't think there will be many who replace dvd titles with bluray ones, I know I won't and I love bluray!

sancheeez · 10-10-2008, 11:40

Yup.

I think that will be bluray's problem.

It's quite expensive and it's not enough of a departure from DVD for people to make an obvious distinction.

Tape/vinyl to CD was obvious. CD to SACD wasn't .... and it died.

VHS to DVD, again, an obvious distinction. DVD to Bluray? Not so obvious. Yes, it's better quality but DVD is still a pretty good medium and I can see a LOT of people thinking "why bother?" when it comes to bluray. It's just not "different" enough in the same way that DVD was to VHS. Even something as simple as the fact that a bluray disc looks pretty much identical to a DVD will put some people off. Sounds daft, but it's true.

Personally, I think bluray needs a pretty hefty price drop, pretty soon if it's going to avoid becoming a niche format.

Hard to say though ..... ask me again in 10 years!

Deacon1972 · 10-10-2008, 11:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by sancheeez

No.

But if it was a 1080p full HD image it would look sharper if you examined it carefully wouldn't it?

But the poster was stating 768 resolution only works well on smaller screens, larger screens have limitations at this resolution.

A 37" 768 screen viewed at 60" should look no different to a 50" 768 screen viewed at 80"

720 over 84" looks brilliant.

Yes, I would expect 1080 to look better, but this is not because limitations show up on larger screens that have low resolution.

Clarification on what is meant by limitation would be helpful.

sancheeez · 10-10-2008, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deacon1972

Clarification on what is meant by limitation would be helpful.

Which wasn't me!

I didn't use the word limitation anywhere. I just said that a full HD screen of that size would probably look slightly better than an HD ready one ..... IF using a 1080p source and viewed from the same distance.

Matt Quinn is the limitation man!

MD_Zero · 10-10-2008, 12:22

Depends on the film, transformers and the disney pixar films looks amazing as does planet earth...older films like halloween on blu ray wont look much better than an upscaled dvd

Deacon1972 · 10-10-2008, 12:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by sancheeez

Which wasn't me!

I didn't use the word limitation anywhere.

Matt Quinn is the limitation man!

I know that - which is why I quoted them and was questioning their theory in my initial post.

09-10-2008, 18:29	#1
bronson Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,410	Disappointed in blu ray picture I'm starting to be a bit disappointed with the picture quality of blu rays.I just don't feel the picture quality is that amazing to replace my dvd collection or even some of it. I tend to just rent blu rays lately but buy the odd one that i really want. Blu ray is better than upscaled dvd but not by much on certain titles. I'm finding it harder to tell recently got the Goonies this week on blu ray....switched back to my upscaled dvd and the picture was only slightly better. I have a Samsung 50" plasma and use a ps3(all set up right)my eyesight is also good lol. Anyone else feel a bit let down by the blu ray picture quality

09-10-2008, 18:33	#2
sancheeez Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,762	How old/what resolution is the Samsung TV? If it's an older HD ready model, then it won't look as good as a newer, full HD one.

09-10-2008, 18:40	#3
Jarrak Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ilkeston Posts: 18,075	Nope but you have to get the right movie Then again there is no question that the HD experience requires a number of factors to hit the "wow" factor and more often than not the lack of restoration of catalogue releases means that while there is more detail it is accompanied by noise and other issues. A DVD will have a lot of the noise and grain etc absent either through simply being too low a resolution to see it or other image processing done to the master and when you upscale you can get an image that looks "cleaner" but the trade off is a reduction in detail. Many people would consider that a fair trade off and simply never accept that HD means you see more detail and that detail can be good and bad and be happy with it. Another advantage for DVD is that when titles are remastered and restored they benefit as well as Blu-ray, a modern re-release will be significantly better than it's DVD version from last century I have about 500 DVD's and I only ever considered double dipping with HD versions for perhaps 1 in 10 but for new releases it's HD everytime (when it's an option) and watching Batman Begins, Robin Hood and Pushing Daises etc I wouldn't want to rely on DVD to feed my plasma

09-10-2008, 18:59	#4
bronson Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,410	It's a Samsung Q96HD bought earlier this year.

09-10-2008, 19:02	#5
paulr2006 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Nottinghamshire Posts: 1,098	think something is wrong somewhere, my BD collection looks absolutely stunning on my 40" Samsung LCD, far better than SD & often quite a lot better than Sky HD due to less compression. Some BD movies are better than others of course & some are simply stunning.

09-10-2008, 19:05	#6
LCDMAN Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Yorkshire, God's County Posts: 5,182	Have a look here for some optimum settings - the 5064 is the USA version of your Q96. http://www.tweaktv.com/tweak-my-tv/c...-hp-t5064.html There is also a thread dedicated to the Q96 & 97 (42" & 50") here; http://www.avforums.com/forums/plasm...ml#post6888311 Edit: Just found the spec and it's not Full HD - it's only 1365 x 768 so Blu Ray at 1920 x 1080 is being scaled down. To get the full benefit from Blu-Ray you need a Full HD TV not HD ready. On the other hand, it's standard def images are rated good in most reviews I've found.

09-10-2008, 19:07	#7
sancheeez Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,762	Quote: Originally Posted by bronson It's a Samsung Q96HD bought earlier this year. Is it set up properly? From what I know of them, Samsung TV's have about a squillion settings you can play with and, generally speaking, they look pretty bad on the factory settings out of the box. Have a look on AV forums, there is a thread about 300 pages long dedicated solely to tweaking the options on Samsung TV's to get the best out of them! It's also not a full HD set from what I can find on the net. At that size, full HD with a bluray source would undoubtedly look better than HD ready. Although, it should definitely still look considerably better than DVD .... no question.

09-10-2008, 22:59	#8
Matt Quinn Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 166	Quote: Originally Posted by sancheeez It's also not a full HD set from what I can find on the net. At that size, full HD with a bluray source would undoubtedly look better than HD ready. Although, it should definitely still look considerably better than DVD .... no question. '768' displays are fine up to about 37"; maybe 42" at a push. But at 50" you're bound to see the screen's limitations unfortunately.......

10-10-2008, 01:39	#9
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by Matt Quinn '768' displays are fine up to about 37"; maybe 42" at a push. But at 50" you're bound to see the screen's limitations unfortunately....... No it depends completely on the ratio of TV size to how close you sit, a 32" at 5' is "bigger" than a 50" at 8'. Saying a screen should be a certain resolution for a certain size is meaningless without knowing the viewing distance.

10-10-2008, 01:45	#10
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by LCDMAN To get the full benefit from Blu-Ray you need a Full HD TV not HD ready. That is true but then most people don't sit close enough to their chosen TV size to get the benefit of full HD anyway (this is based purely upon my admittedly very limited experience of 5 friends with full HD none of whom sit close enough to get the benefit of full HD and 2 of them don't sit close enough to even get the benefit of HD ready).

10-10-2008, 05:21	#11
Pencil Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,252	The bigger the TV, the more stretched the picture (I thought)? Do you sit quite far away when watching? Also, make sure it's set to 1080p and not 1080i.

10-10-2008, 06:49	#12
MAW Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 28,577	As long as it can accept 1080p, that's a good suggestion. Samsung processing is often lacking on the deinterlacing front. It may be constructing 540p frames from the 1080i, as well as the 3:2 pulldown issue, which gives you judder. Halving the effective resolution of the source material can result in some diappointment! The picture will still be better than DVD, there's still more picture info, but that could account for it just not leaping out and grabbing you. I have a 768 50" plasma, and I assure you, running HD films, it's 100% obvious that it's something special, even with the less than perfect ones.

10-10-2008, 10:05	#13
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by Matt Quinn '768' displays are fine up to about 37"; maybe 42" at a push. But at 50" you're bound to see the screen's limitations unfortunately....... So the quality of my 84" image from my 720 projector will be absolutely pants then? The thing is it isn't. I think there's something not quite right with your screen size/resolution theory to be honest.

10-10-2008, 10:18	#14
floopy123 Inactive Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,843	Quote: I'm starting to be a bit disappointed with the picture quality of blu rays.I just don't feel the picture quality is that amazing to replace my dvd collection or even some of it. I tend to just rent blu rays lately but buy the odd one that i really want. Blu ray is better than upscaled dvd but not by much on certain titles. I'm finding it harder to tell recently got the Goonies this week on blu ray....switched back to my upscaled dvd and the picture was only slightly better. Reality hits, folks! I think Blu-ray is one of the biggest cons in recent entertainment history. Sure, Blu-ray does look fantastic, the images themselves are no con - it does deliver a true HD experience - but upscaled DVD can look just as fantastic. There's no way Blu-ray is that much better than upscaled, it's a few percentages better, and no matter what pro-Blu-ray people claim, my eyes are the best judge. As long as upscaled DVD remains, not enough people will buy into Blu-ray to make it the mass market format. Blu-ray vs upscale is also similar to the bogus argument between 720p vs 1080p. On smaller tvs you'll never tell much or any difference.

10-10-2008, 10:20	#15
sancheeez Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,762	Quote: Originally Posted by Deacon1972 So the quality of my 84" image from my 720 projector will be absolutely pants then? No. But if it was a 1080p full HD image it would look sharper if you examined it carefully wouldn't it? I suspect as I started this, I should maybe clarify .... An HD Ready panel will look good. But, if fed a full HD signal, a Full HD panel will look slightly better. I wouldn't say either would look "pants" (my set is a 720p one and I'm perfectly happy with it!) more that one would look very good, the other would look excellent. (Assuming both were viewed from the same distance) Quote: Originally Posted by floopy123 but upscaled DVD can look just as fantastic. There's no way Blu-ray is that much better than upscaled I disagree.

10-10-2008, 10:29	#16
floopy123 Inactive Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,843	If people take stock.... all you're doing it arguing whether or not an image looks a bit more detailed. Does a Blu-ray title look that much better than a good quality transfer upscaled DVD? Most people would say no. Does 720p and 1080i look that bad compared to 1080p? Most people would say no. We live in a time of amazing digital technology but people can and do get obsessed with the details, "oh, this has to be better than that format, you've got to see the Goonies in Blu-ray because it's so much better than upscaled, you've got to watch everything in 1080p on a 50 inch screen!" The reality is let your eyes be the judge. You don't have to buy into 1080p Blu-ray if you think upscaled is good enough. I reckon Blu-ray is here to stay so sooner or later people will invest in the products but you don't have to rush into it. People can get too obsessed with getting the best when all it means is spending the most money and making Sony richer. Blu-ray's success depends on millions of people buying all their old film collections again. This means a lot of money is spent and this is what Sony want you to do. Sony is a ruthless business - see how much they dislike Microsoft! - and they want you to spend all your money on their products. You can't become market leaders without being ruthless. Well, I find it hard to believe you can.

10-10-2008, 10:36	#17
You_mo Guest Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 10,767	YES! I say Blu ray is for enthusiasts, I'm afraid. You'll hear them rave about it, but in reality I've found that it's best to not to buy a movie you already own if it looks good on your upscaled DVD. HD means clearer grain a lot of times! Ignore the personal insults about 'needing glasses' etc. we know what we see. I stick to buying new blu-ray movie releases and movies I don't already own unless the DVD transfer is bad. "Dark City" falls into this category, the DVD version is meh, but the blu-ray version is stunning.

10-10-2008, 10:51	#18
floopy123 Inactive Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,843	Upscaled is bad for Sony (even though the PS3 can upscale - lol) because it must limit sales of Blu-ray players and discs. But upscaling is good for consumers because it gives them a choice. If you think Blu-ray is much better than upscaled then it makes sense to invest in Blu-ray but if you're happy with upscaled DVDs, stick with them. It's a win-win situation for the consumer. And I believe in the long term Blu-ray will become the standard DVD format. But it could take a long time, a decade, perhaps. I think recordable Blu-ray players and recordable discs are the long term future for Blu-ray. When people can buy cheap Blu-ray recorders/Blu-ray R and RW discs I think the format will experience increased sales. September 26, 2008 - item about Blu-ray: Quote: Even though Sony's Blu-ray won the high definition DVD format war against Toshiba's HD-DVD, there are signs that Blu-ray is struggling to gain consumer acceptance. Nielsen's recent figures show Blu-ray discs sales in the U.S. are declining, which has lead Sony and other Blu-ray vendors to begin offering free trial discs in magazines and to chop the price of players in some cases to below $200. Blu-ray hasn't taken off in big numbers. This item suggest Blu-ray will be defunct in five to ten years! Quote: Samsung Electronics is having doubts over the marketability of the next-generation storage format ― Blu-ray ― saying that the format could be a short-lived one, as little as five years. However, Sony says the format will last for at least 10 years. "I think the high-definition Blu-ray format has only five years left. I certainly wouldn't give it 10," Andy Griffiths, a regional director of Samsung's branch in the United Kingdom said recently. Samsung is the world's No. 2 seller of Blu-ray players. "Blu-ray will be replaced with a new format or technology," he said, without giving more explanation as to why he believed that it had a relatively short shelf life. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news...123_32098.html That's kinda depressing for Sony.

10-10-2008, 11:15	#19
floopy123 Inactive Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 5,843	Just to add one more point - in 1999 Sony and Philips invested in Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD). It was claimed to be better sound quality than standard compact discs. It didn't sell enough units. A flop. People kept with standard CD format. It's possible Blu-ray with be the 21st video equivalent of SACD. Better technology than standard DVD but not appealing or cost-effective enough to become the standard format.

10-10-2008, 11:34	#20
OranguMaTang Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 712	It's not quite true to say comparing SD to HD is like comparing 720p to 1080p. HD can show a good improvement in picture quality on set's from say 32inch to 50inch, only then does 1080p start to matter. I don't think bluray will ever replace dvd, for the majority it just isn't of any interest to them and the benefits are not worth the cost. I'm sure most HD tv's will show nothing but SD. I don't think there will be many who replace dvd titles with bluray ones, I know I won't and I love bluray!

10-10-2008, 11:40	#21
sancheeez Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,762	Yup. I think that will be bluray's problem. It's quite expensive and it's not enough of a departure from DVD for people to make an obvious distinction. Tape/vinyl to CD was obvious. CD to SACD wasn't .... and it died. VHS to DVD, again, an obvious distinction. DVD to Bluray? Not so obvious. Yes, it's better quality but DVD is still a pretty good medium and I can see a LOT of people thinking "why bother?" when it comes to bluray. It's just not "different" enough in the same way that DVD was to VHS. Even something as simple as the fact that a bluray disc looks pretty much identical to a DVD will put some people off. Sounds daft, but it's true. Personally, I think bluray needs a pretty hefty price drop, pretty soon if it's going to avoid becoming a niche format. Hard to say though ..... ask me again in 10 years!

DS Forums

Disappointed in blu ray picture

10-10-2008, 11:54	#22
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by sancheeez No. But if it was a 1080p full HD image it would look sharper if you examined it carefully wouldn't it? But the poster was stating 768 resolution only works well on smaller screens, larger screens have limitations at this resolution. A 37" 768 screen viewed at 60" should look no different to a 50" 768 screen viewed at 80" 720 over 84" looks brilliant. Yes, I would expect 1080 to look better, but this is not because limitations show up on larger screens that have low resolution. Clarification on what is meant by limitation would be helpful.

10-10-2008, 12:19	#23
sancheeez Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,762	Quote: Originally Posted by Deacon1972 Clarification on what is meant by limitation would be helpful. Which wasn't me! I didn't use the word limitation anywhere. I just said that a full HD screen of that size would probably look slightly better than an HD ready one ..... IF using a 1080p source and viewed from the same distance. Matt Quinn is the limitation man!

10-10-2008, 12:22	#24
MD_Zero Inactive Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: London Posts: 2,163	Depends on the film, transformers and the disney pixar films looks amazing as does planet earth...older films like halloween on blu ray wont look much better than an upscaled dvd

10-10-2008, 12:25	#25
Deacon1972 Guest Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 8,103	Quote: Originally Posted by sancheeez Which wasn't me! I didn't use the word limitation anywhere. Matt Quinn is the limitation man! I know that - which is why I quoted them and was questioning their theory in my initial post.