Have your say & ask the experts

are you hooked up by hdmi

I agree - Blu Ray is good - but nowhere near as all the hype suggests. As far as PQ is concerned, if my system was someone else's and I walked in when playing a BD I'd simply think it was a good DVD player and a good telly.

Having stated that though - the sound is a huge step up and at first my BD was connected to the TV via component and I've recently upgraded to HDMI and that makes a big difference...

I use a PS3 for hidef viewing and can easily tell a difference on my Pioneer 42" (768 panel)

The PS3 should be set to LIMITED RGB, 1080P and AUTO

If you cant honestly tell any difference you either have bad eyes or somethings wrong with your setup

Personally speaking ive found that changing the stock mains cable for something far better made a hugh difference to my PS3 (Particularly sound)

Maybe your mains electricity is very 'dirty' and youd benefit a mains conditioner?

This is something you will gradually need to adjust to and re-evaluate your expectations of Blu-ray.  The problem is inconsistency in the investment in the digitial transfer process by the product manufacturers and the film materials owners who release/license it.

I have about 40 Blu-ray discs, playing them through a Yamaha Z7 AV receiver and a Pioneer LX-91 Blu-ray player. This kit is arguably the best on the market up to the £2k bracket at the moment. So, really I'd expect to get optimum viewing results, however... many of the Blu-ray film transfers leave a lot to be desired and many only offer subtle improvments on the remastered, special anniversary DVDs I own.  The background in panaramic shots is the place to see the weaknesses in the transfers, expecially the sky, which is invariably filled with pixelated noise/interference.  Another likely factor is the film stock and camera equipment used to shoot the film and what version of prints they have used for the transfer.

The only films that really seem to hit the performance target are films that were released to the cinema more recently (in the last 2 years), things like the Batman films, Pan's Labyrinth, Mongol, Pirates of the Caribbean. The James Bond films are superb, but then they were superlative on DVD too. I watched Zulu today, the print is one of the clearest I have seen, with little evidence of pixelated "noise" in the panaromic shots, which I was very surprised at given its age.  The Thing is pretty good, but also suffers from background noise on a lot of the landscape shots.  American Werewolf in London is not much an improvement on the Anniversary edition DVD.

Music Blu-rays are similarly inconsistent. The best I have seen is ZZ Top's "Live in Texas," which really sets the benchmark. Led Zeppelin's "The Song Remains the Same," is an atrocious transfer (regardless of the merits of the film... or lack of them).

SonicD

I feel that over the last couple of years and still to this day that we are being sold short by the film companies. It doesn't matter how good your Blu ray Kit is...say a great Sony 200H motionflow TV coupled by the latest £400 Sony Blu ray player, if the blu ray transfer is bad you're going to end up seeing a lot of subbish on your pristine screen

In many respects too many Blu Rays are just not that a significant step up from their DVD counterparts...take Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull or Iron Man for example...they're both great quality transfers but in a blind test you'd be hard pressed to say which one was the Blu Ray

Some Blu rays too such as Die Hard, Halloween and the Fog are chronically bad quality transfers

The best Blu Ray I have seen to date and in my own collection is Goldfinger..I have a 720p TV and even with that the picture is mind blowing on my fairly modest 42inch screen and has real depth but then again lowry labs did remaster it frame by frame which I guess many of the older films will have to be if we are to get the kind of pictures we all want to see from Blu Ray...it's no good film studios churning out Blu Rays for the sake of calling them Blu Rays if they lack real quality

I went to see Jackson's Kong when it came out, strangely excited I was too. I left dissappointed. Then i thought "well, what were you expecting, you berk, you've seen the two previous versions and, for shame, the sequels. I mean, ape goes to NY and dies. Its liek wondering what happened in Titanic (it sinks). Idiot".

I feel similar about bluray. people said it wasnt any good on TVs smaller than 42" (and id seen blurays in a number of systems before, tho sometimes not for long), and yet i got a player anyway. Now, i know people think my player plays DVDs better than my old one, and i got the BDP on the cheap (ish), but what if id spent the same money on a better DVD player?

So its 6 and half a dozen i think. the quality isnt as good as soem hope for, and its not really, imho, a worthwhile move for many. But, for the reasons ive stated, i shouldve known better.

I have noticed that people with lcd's are a lot happier with blu ray than people with plasma's.

Plasma's produce by nature darker colours.

Whereas lcd's are brighter colours by nature.

I have a philips lcd and have always been really pleased with my high definition pictures and I used to have a ps3 and I thought that was really good for what it was, but just remember it is a good console firstly and standalone blu ray players are better.

I do think a lot depends on the combinations of tv and blu ray player but certainly not size of tv.

More quality of the products.

Hi

 I can believe you're struggling to see the difference in quality.

Shoddy tranferes aside, i agree film studios will alway look for a quick buck on old stock when a new/better quality devise hits the market.

That point aside lets get real close to the TV, after all yout not going to get real detail from across the road. This is what Blu Ray allows us to do, have a much closer viewing position, larger TVs or both with an excellent picture quality. Further to this we now all have access to studiio quality sound. Anyone who's only heard a standard DD or the better quality DTS sound tracks on DVD will be blown away buy the new HD sounds codexs.

 Lastly; TVs are larger and cheapers, while Blu Ray players are also cheaper  than 10 years ago  - what do we want?? LOL

 I'm happy with the disappointment

Vance

vanceg:

while Blu Ray players are also cheaper  than 10 years ago  - what do we want?? LOL 

Vance

Possibly because they weren't available then! 

Anyway, I don't think it's worth worrying about the quality, as we'll all be buying 3D discs in a couple of years, to go with our new 3D televisions ...

yes typo on my side - Cheaper than a good quality DVD player

Vance

ElectroMan:

vanceg:

while Blu Ray players are also cheaper  than 10 years ago  - what do we want?? LOL 

Vance

Possibly because they weren't available then! 

Anyway, I don't think it's worth worrying about the quality, as we'll all be buying 3D discs in a couple of years, to go with our new 3D televisions ...

Will they be 3D Plasmas, 3D LCDs, 3D LED-Backlit LCDs, 3D OLEDs, 3D AMOLEDs, 3D Projectors or all of these? Will the content of these fabulous 3D discs likely be displayed in FullHD, SuperHD, UltraHD or SuperDuperUltraMegaHD 3D (SDUMHD3D - for short)?

I wonder what clever marketing phrases they'll develop.

From what I can gather, you'd be wasting your money on Bluray titles older than about 2 years - otherwise stick with DVDs for your old stuff.

Obviously there will be exceptions to this - I'm sure Mr Lucas is BDing Star Wars as we speak, and of-course LOTR.

Need to use discretion for older titles.