Blu Ray vs. DVD?

[rogueslayer452]

Okay, this has been bugging me for a while, what exactly is the difference between Blu Ray and DVD? Better, higher quality in picture I get that, but otherwise what exactly is the benefit of having something more expensive than your average DVD, which in turn is still majorly costly itself?

Because today I grabbed the Sucker Punch DVD only to realize that it's the theatrical cut, the extended director's cut version with all the bonus features are on the Blu Ray release, the DVD only has like, two special features, and that's it. Which honestly? I think that's rather stupid. Most people don't have Blu Ray, some don't even want Blu Ray, and I would rather have an extended version of the movie without it being a privilege for only Blu Ray users. I don't know whether they are even releasing the extended cut on a regular DVD which is really pissing me off. I don't know, I find this rather too complicated and too much of a hassle, and kind of a rip-off, imo.

Comments

[philstar22.livejournal.com]

I'm actually not sure beyond the better picture. I'm totally buying a blue ray player when I get around to buying a player. Mostly because DH part 1 extras only came on the blue ray. I bought it, but now I haven't been able to watch ay of the extras yet.

[epicycles.livejournal.com]

I actually have a Blu-Ray player, but I just buy normal DVDs. It's not worth the cost for me, especially because DVDs I can play in my computer, my portable DVD player, can be ripped to my hard drive, etc.

But they are pretty. I do have BBC's Planet Earth in Blu-Ray, and it's EPIC. Nature stuff is definitely best in HD.

[lodessa.livejournal.com]

The sound is also better. Basically it is like when DVDs came out and we were all annoyed to switch from VHS but then we did and we now look at VHS and are like "how did we watch this wobbly shit".

That said, I hate how they do that with the different versions. I really really wanted the theatrical cut blu-ray for Watchmen and in the US you literally can only get the directors cut on blu-ray.

[carameltrap.livejournal.com]

I don't know the difference between both except that it's a total rip off when all the goodies go into the blu ray but not the DVD. I'd feel cheated of my money. The player and discs aren't even affordable over at where I am.

[stillglows.livejournal.com]

It reminds me of when CDs came out. They'd still produce cassettes, but all the extra songs were on the CDs. It's a total marketing scheme by big corporations and I agree is stupid.

[thefreshchuff.livejournal.com]

I can definitely tell the difference when I watch a regular DVD to a Blu Ray one; the picture is much crisper and richer and the sound quality is better. I think it's really stupid that they don't include the same features on each, though.

[entangled-now.livejournal.com]

I'm the same. I honestly couldn't see that much of a difference in the picture quality, and I'm very rarely bothered about special features. So there's almost no need for me to buy Blu-Ray (though I guess I will eventually be forced to, when ordinary DVD starts vanishing.)

[forwardish]

Because if they didn't then people wouldn't fork out the extra cash for bluray which sort of defeats the purpose of making it?

This is actually something that our office mates at work are dealing with right now... what goes on the bluray disc and what goes on the dvd.

Maybe it will make you feel better about the whole process to know that it is a fucking process that lots of thought goes into?

IDK. What I don't get is the 2 disc sets with regular dvd and bluray. I mean it works in the sense that I got all the regular dvds from ours when I moved, which, YAY but still, I'm like... what's the POINT?!

[forwardish]

Okay, because someone mentioned it, although they probably won't see this:

HD TVs were not MADE for dealing with SD. Seriously, you have to get a high quality tv to have SD look genuinely good in it because of all the extra shit that has to be put into it to make SD look remotely decent. And if you are looking at television shows on dvd from pre-2002ish (say, sex and the city season 1 or something) then the quality is just going to SUCK no matter how much your tv costs, unless your screen is TINY, which sort of defeats the purpose anyways.

I seriously cannot deal with watching my buffy early season dvds or my sex and the city dvds on a 50 inch or 55 inch high end HD tv sans bluray player. With a bluray player upgrading it, it is watchable, but on a regular dvd player it looks like SHIT, I can't even watch it.

That being said, if you have a GOOD bluray player and a GOOD hd tv most FILMS will look good enough that you won't notice a huge difference unless there is a lot of camera movement (action streaks a lot more watching SD on an HD tv, so watching a Bourne movie makes it noticeable). TV though, TV is a different story. TV that wasn't originally filmed in HD (so basically anything before 3 years ago) is never going to look totally crisp on an HD TV. And just... UGH, it frustrates me, how much noise you can see, so much *grumble*

So THAT is the point of bluray.


As for special features: point blank, they can FIT MORE SHIT onto a bluray disc.

Now, why do they release dvds with NO special features, LAME. SUPER FUCKING LAME. But they did it before bluray too, with releases with like nothing and releases with a second disc and what not.

/end rambling