Blu-Ray anyone plan on heading in that direction?

[Monster Bob]

I do.

[horrorhunter]

I won't be re-buying anything on BD. There is a small improvement, especially on newer movies, but my money is better spent elsewhere. The difference between VHS and DVD was huge. The difference between DVD and BD...not so much. The only BDs I have are the combo packs I was forced to buy (to get the DVDs) of Vampire Circus and Twins Of Evil. The Blue Ray discs look great on my PS3, but the DVDs look close enough that I won't be dropping big bucks on a bunch of BDs when I've already got it on DVD. I'd rather spend the money on other parts of my collection.

[zombiehorror]

It is a double edged sword since you can see things they were betting on you not seeing on TV (example: on Star Trek, they used a mesh, instead of glass on the helmets of their space suit to avoid reflections and pick up dialog. It looks like a clear faceplate on old TV, looks like mesh in HD)

I think a lot of these "new" discoveries are because we're watching movies now with the thought that since it is HD there is going to be new stuff to discover in the first place!  I've read so many Blu-ray reviews touting some new found texture, wire or some other detail in a movie and we I check (even an older dvd sometimes) the detail is usually noticed....we just weren't so focused on finding it!  I noticed with A&C meet Frankenstein Blu-ray there is a wire visible when Dracula is looking in a window in bat form; well this is also present when I put the HD print on a standard dvd and even on older dvd releases!  I'm betting you couldn't see it on VHS but then the image was darker and had more grain/noise!

There was also talk of how amazing the scarecrows make up looked in HD and how you could see the potato sack pattern in it....well guess what, this is also present in the dvd version I have!

One reviewer mentions all the dents, dings and scratches that were on the van and detail on signs in the gas station scene in an HD print of Texas Chainsaw Massacre...well again, all that stuff is clearly visible in the dvd I have!

Here's another one I thought of; In the HD print of Frankenstein there was some mention of the bulge on Baron Frankenstein's (Frederick Kerr) neck.....yep, you guessed it!  Just as easily visible on dvd!

I'm really hoping to get a 50" (maybe a little bigger depending on price) 3D Vizio some time this year to do another Blu-ray vs dvd comparison, my Samsung 50" plasma is at least 7 years old and I don't see a gigantic improvement from one to the other......I was blown away by my sister's 60" Vizio when I saw it in action a few weeks ago; but I also don't see why the tv itself would effect the look of a Blu-ray vs a dvd!

[Scary Terry]

I love the blu-ray format and frankly have trouble watching some things on DVD now. Seeing pristine HD images on bd, and then switching back to DVD, where I notice blocky, pixilated imagery, makes me wonder why some folks can't see the upgrade.

I still have plenty of stuff on DVD -- and for vintage TV series, b-movies, etc. -- it's just fine. But a widescreen classic like Lawrence of Arabia, The Great Escape and such? The increased definition/detail/clarity makes an enormous difference.  The sound is better too, y'know.

And the restored Dracula on blu? Astounding!

I have slowly upgraded my favorite films to blu-ray (waited for sales, one-day deals on amazon, etc.) -- and won't buy anything on DVD if a blu-ray is available. I finally feel like we have something that nearly replicates the theater experience at home.

[Monsters For Sale]

I love the blu-ray format and frankly have trouble watching some things on DVD now. Seeing pristine HD images on bd, and then switching back to DVD, where I notice blocky, pixilated imagery, makes me wonder why some folks can't see the upgrade....

How big is your screen - and what brand/model?

What Blu-Ray player do you have?

[Scary Terry]

LG 46 inch TV. Sharp BD player.

But I recently tried watching the DVD of GREAT ESCAPE on the much smaller TV in our bedroom -- and the low image quality of the DVD was evident there, too.

[zombiehorror]

But I recently tried watching the DVD of GREAT ESCAPE on the much smaller TV in our bedroom -- and the low image quality of the DVD was evident there, too.

Not surprising that a dvd released in 2004 featuring a print done in 2001 looks less than stellar; unless of course you are watching a previous dvd release (1998?) then it would definitely look low quality!

[Monster Bob]

Well said, Terry.

[horrorhunter]

I won't be re-buying anything on BD. There is a small improvement, especially on newer movies, but my money is better spent elsewhere. The difference between VHS and DVD was huge. The difference between DVD and BD...not so much. The only BDs I have are the combo packs I was forced to buy (to get the DVDs) of Vampire Circus and Twins Of Evil. The Blue Ray discs look great on my PS3, but the DVDs look close enough that I won't be dropping big bucks on a bunch of BDs when I've already got it on DVD. I'd rather spend the money on other parts of my collection.

I forgot to mention that I did buy the new Universal set on BD when I found a good deal. In all fairness I have to state that I don't have a big screen TV. I'm also not disputing the fact that BD, on the average, is an improvement over DVD. I just feel that the small amount of extra money I have is better spent on things I want more than the difference between DVD and BD. Another thing is that I'm just tired of buying the same movies over and over. With all the great extras, better picture, and longevity, of DVD over any medium prior to it I just built my movie library with DVD and decided to call a halt to incessantly buying the same movies over and over again. If I had unlimited spending money I would go BD with anything possible. I would just rather spend my extra money on toys, comics, and monster mags.

Regarding DVD longevity, I know some people have been concerned with disc rot. The only thing I can say is that I haven't run into a single case where any of my DVDs have stopped playing over time. I know DVD hasn't been around that long, and my oldest ones are only around 13 years old, but I had VHS which screwed up as quickly as a few months from the time I bought them. Some broke, some just stopped playing, and some developed such terrible picture and sound that they were unviewable. A few years ago I burned every VHS tape I had onto disc, that I didn't already have on factory DVD. Of the 200 or so tapes I had 25-30 of them wouldn't even play after 10-15 years. All that lost video left a bad taste for VHS. I don't know how long our DVDs will last, but mine have already outlasted those tapes I copied. Like Mike Scott said in another thread, "As long as we take care of our discs they will probably outlast us".

[Scary Terry]

Yeah -- GREAT ESCAPE is an old disc. But I notice the lesser picture quality on newer DVDs too.

That said -- I have DVDs that look great (VALLEY OF GWANGI for one) and Blu-rays that have bad transfers and stink up the joint (BODY HEAT -- a damn shame they issued such a lousy version). But all in all, the increased definition of blu-ray makes a difference to my eye -- and when watching something that looks as rich and pristine on blu as, say, ZULU -- I'm in movie heaven.

If your mileage varies -- well, that's what makes horse races.

[Mego73]

I have seen some DVD's look good and some not but I can always tell the difference. If it so happens your DVD is of a letterboxed movie that is non anamorphic, it can look pretty ragged on HDTV's

Not surprising that a dvd released in 2004 featuring a print done in 2001 looks less than stellar; unless of course you are watching a previous dvd release (1998?) then it would definitely look low quality!