Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Super Saiyan
1769 Followers
Keith Sadler
349 Followers
Gerakis100
2982 Followers
Lt Gen Panda
17116 Followers
Yuki Cross
1368 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
ghostkiller001
2025 Followers
Mendokusai Daiyo
17822 Followers
thegman3Dec 29, 2010
"I'm anticipating Star Wars release greater than my first child." Don't let your wife read this.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
This article is just plain stupid. 720p is better than SD...and a regular DVD player cannot play 720p.
To say a Blu Ray player is pointless for TVs under 40 inches is like saying any HD TV under 40 inch is pointless. And that is just a stupidthing to say.
Not that I expect actual tech savvy writing from gizmodo.
mikepictorDec 30, 2010
Most people will not observe any meaningful benefit from going to 720p on a tv that small. You have to be remarkably picky to be sufficiently unsatisfied with SD on a 26 inch tv, in order to feel you *need* 720p. The article therefore makes a very good point. If you don't have the level of entertainment centre that would make SD look disappointing, then there is really no point to spending the money to get quality that you won't appreciate.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
Bulls**t. ESPECIALLY his 37 inch TV owning friend. I have a 32 inch and the difference is night and day.
Stop spewing the same s**t that you THINK makes you sound elite or something. Because all it does is make you sound like a pathetic wannabe expert.
mikepictorDec 30, 2010
You opinion is noted. It doesn't make it any closer to reality however. I never said you couldn't tell the difference. I said most people won't care if they have smaller tvs. The difference will not be enough to justify needing new hardware.
I have a 46". Of course I can tell the difference, but even at 46", SD, especially upscaled SD is quite frankly perfectly watchable. I don't mind the HD if I happen to be watching something that has it, but I've tried blu-ray, and I ended up taking back the player. The improvement was not worth trying to invest in a blu-ray library, and most material I download is SD. I've never minded it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JamHammsterDec 30, 2010
I think it all depends on the size of the room and how far away you are from the tv.
hipmanDec 30, 2010
Yeah, and I bet you watch it with your headphones too, thinking "oh my god this surround sound is amazing!".You have no clue.
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
Nope....but to say there is no difference in the picture qualtiy shows you are the one with no f**king clue.
Could be a time for a trip to Sterling Optical.
It is just f**king common sense, which neither of you apparently possess at all. People tend to buy the smaller TVs for smaller spaces. So to just give a TV size as the criteria is asinine. A 26 inch will look the same from 6 feet as a 42 inch will look for 15. (or so.)
nasserinasaucerDec 30, 2010
Exactly. I can clearly tell the difference on my 20" screen, because it only sits 4 feet away from me.
Bigger screens go in the bigger rooms, but to say that no one can tell the difference between an upscaled dvd and 720p content is bulls**t of the highest degree.
skidooerDec 30, 2010
There was a recent study that showed that video quality only became a concern by viewers when the quality of the content in the video was not being enjoyed.
If someone finds that Blu Ray enhances the experience, perhaps the experience was not really all that enjoyable to begin with?
hipmanDec 30, 2010
So forget about Star wars on bluray then, or?.....
Closed AccountDec 30, 2010
Yeah...I am sure that was a really scientific study.
Not to mention, there is a difference between "became a concern" and "noticeable difference"
skidooerDec 30, 2010
http://scienceblog.com/37469/video-quality-less-important-when-youre-enjoying-what-youre-watching/
norman619Dec 30, 2010
Most of that difference is in your head. There isn't much difference. Now if you are looking at a film that was actually shot in high def THEN you will see a huge difference obviously but most films are not shot in high def so you are seeing things.
elmuerte17Dec 30, 2010
Article completely missed out on 720p... yeah, buddy with his 37" TV might not get the most out of his Blu-Ray, but it sure as hell is an improvement over a 480p DVD player. I can tell the difference pretty damn easily between 720p and 480p on my 32" so it stands to reason that he'll be able to tell with his 37."
And it's not like Blu-Ray players are so expensive anyways... spend fifty bucks for a DVD player, or a hundred for a Blu-Ray? Unless you plan to not get a bigger TV until the next generation of video storage rolls around, there's really no downside. If someone buys me a Blu-Ray player for Christmas, I'm not going to trade it in for a DVD player just because I don't sit close enough to my TV to discern every pixel in 1080p.
somedummyDec 30, 2010
Yeah, but you might get pissed that it takes 2 minutes for your Blu-Ray play to boot and start playing a movie.
elmuerte17Dec 30, 2010
No more pissed that I can't skip through trailers or that the price of movies has gone up in spite of materials and manufacturing processes being cheaper than ever.
This is why I just use my computer... Windows Media Center is actually pretty slick with the right addins.
wem003Dec 30, 2010
Here we go again.... Must be 3 million of these articles by now. Bottom line, if you gear isn't up to par and you can't tell a difference then don't get it.
If you can tell a difference, stick with it - because you probably have it already.
One thing that gets every time on these threads - it's not just about video. Lossless audio rules too.
hipmanDec 30, 2010
Do you need loosless if you have DD @ 640kbps?.
dauntless1Dec 30, 2010
Depends on your audio equipment and tastes.
oltimegaDec 30, 2010
There is a handy chart for this exact problem.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
Essentially, his father should get a Blu-ray player if his 26 inch TV is less than ~7.5 feet away.
His roommate should get a Blu-ray player if his TV is less than ~11 feet away.
This is of course if they would like to take advantage of the quality of their television. People are perfectly happy with SD still. I prefer to watch my 37" within like 4 feet on 1080p to see every juicy detail.
dauntless1Dec 30, 2010
Well hell.
I sit 4-6 feet from my 46" when I play games or watch blu-rays by myself, and it looks f**king incredible.
For evidence, see Avatar. I don't care if you like the movie, the bluray quality is amazing.
norman619Dec 30, 2010
That's because it's a CG film. All Cg films are rendered at better than HD quality so no s**t it's going to look damn good on bluray which is a HD format. But when you are looking as a SD film which was simply transferred to BR you won't see that much of a difference. You can't create those additional bits which are missing keeping the quality of that SD film from looking HD. Same reason why in graphics you strat big then you scale down to the resolution you need. You never want to scale up.
wem003Dec 30, 2010
35mm film has a much higher equivalent resolution than 1920x1080. While a 'live' film can look bad, it has more to do with the effort of the transfer - not the limitations of the format.
http://www.filmschooldirect.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm
norman619Dec 31, 2010
All they do is upconvert SD versions. they will not remaster old films just to put out on Bluray. Sony may but I doubt the other studios will.
wem003Dec 31, 2010
No they don't, they scan in the film master if its not a digital source. Most film masters would be 4k or 8k resolution.
wolfingDec 30, 2010
It's not only about the video quality (though it's the most important difference). Bluray also has many qualities that DVDs don't have: Extra languages, usually a lot more extras, etc. Also, TV series fit more in a disk making it more convenient/less bulky (instead of 4 episodes per disk, there may be 8).
And Bluray drives play DVD movies, so no, you don't have to spend a lot of money to replace your old library.
norman619Dec 30, 2010
If the video was not shot in high def it will be that much better on bluray. Anyway they charge way too much for the bluray of the same movie you can get on regular DVD. I don't own many Bluray discs for this reason. If it weren't for my PS3 being able to play Bluray I wouldn't even have a bluray player. Not really worth it on its own.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Dec 30, 2010
"I'm anticipating Star Wars release greater than my first child."
That's just sad.