This might be also posted in the hardware section but since we are talking about the picture quality I figured I'd post it in the section about the actual medium. Mods feel free to move this.

How much better do you think is the PQ of Blu-ray compared to upscaled SD-DVD?

For me it is 20-30% better. My reference is the Oppo 983 and the PS3. I use a sanyo Z2000 on an Elite 120" matte white, fixed screen in a totally black room (painted black, no windows, dark carpet, dark furniture) with a viewing distance of about 15'. The Pj has undergone a rough calibration but no ISF calibration. Still I am fairly certain I have it set up to within 90% of its potential.

Even at 20-30% it is worth it for me but I was not completely blown away.

Let's make a poll.

10%: Meh, hardly worth it.
20%: A noticeable improvement.
30%: I can get used to this.
40%: This is nice!
50%: Now, that's a real difference.
60%: Can't believe I missed out on that.
70%: This is great!
80%: Holy cow! What a difference!
90%: Fabulous. There is no comparison.
100%: Is this idiot blind? I don't watch upsampled SD-DVD anymore.

No offense Till, this is a useless pole as stated. The reason I say this is because every blu-ray is different. Cars or the Pirates movies all have spectacular PQ and AQ, but the original releases of The 5th element and FMJ were atrocious. So on the 1st group, I would say 100%, on the 2nd group ,maybe 10% if I were generous. This is basically what the tier thread was created for (though it looks solely at 3d pop and sharpness, and does not take into consideration directorial intent), to decide if a particular film has a significant increase in PQ enough to warrant an upgrade.

Maybe we can just assume it's a best case scenario VS a best case scenario?

It depends from disc to disc.

But for arguments sake, isn't always at least 60%. The ads always say 6 times the resolution. What math do they use?

With the color space I would bump that number another 15%. Based on my personal tastes I would rank it all as a solid 82%. But then I would deduct 4% since, numerically, the upscaled is the same. Giving me still 76% better.

Where is the companion poll. How much better is lossless over legacy audio.

Hooray a poll! I voted 70% but as been stated numerous times before, this is really heavily dependent on both screen size and viewing distance (and also not all BD/DVD are created equal as just pointed out).

When I'm kicking back in the living room and watching Blu-rays on my 46" LCD from about 8' I find that the difference is noticeable but can often be very subtle. Upscaled DVD looks great with this combination and the distance is large enough to obscure most DVD MPEG-2 artifacts, but Blu-ray is still marginally sharper most of the time.

However, when I pop a Blu-ray in my computer and watch my 24" or 32" screens from between 2-4' the difference is astounding. At this distance, the DVD experience is borderline miserable with artifacts galore, but my breath is often taken away by the clarity of the Blu-ray picture.

Since you only rate it as a 20-30% improvement, the obvious answer is to decrease your viewing distance because it does not seem like you are close enough to your screen to discern the fine detail improvements. Although perhaps you are like me in my living room environment, where I don't yet want to destroy the DVD experience by getting too close to the screen!

The ads always say 6 times the resolution. What math do they use?

It's 6 times the number of pixels (1920x1080 = 2,073,600 which is 6 times 720x480).

Yeah i find it hard to put any number down for a choice. As the discs very from disc to disc. Even if you say Best Case to Best case. How do we know what is the best case of visual quality. It really is an improvement but i wouldn't place an overall number

Watch Jumper BD and DVD back to back as I did and you will vote 20%. Even the DTS MA audio was not much better than the DD. A year and a half ago I would have voted 90%. Now I am at about 60%

On my 58" plasma... Blu Ray is 20% better!
On my 168" screen... Blu Ray is 200% better!


It is logarithmically related to screen size. The bigger the screen, the larger the improvement.

On my 58" plasma... Blu Ray is 20% better!
On my 168" screen... Blu Ray is 200% better!


It is logarithmically related to screen size. The bigger the screen, the larger the improvement.

i've been told that also 1080p is more benficial to larger screens (projected).I find a big improvement on my screen.Mind you the current sd dvd releases are starting too look very nice also, it's mainly the older one that don't shine much anymore.

For me :

37 " 720p LCD 7ft away = 20% better

56 " 1080p DLP 9ft away = 40 - 50% better

22" 720p computer 1-2 ft away = 80% better

Size and seating distance are definitely critical.

On my 58" plasma... Blu Ray is 20% better!
On my 168" screen... Blu Ray is 200% better!


It is logarithmically related to screen size. The bigger the screen, the larger the improvement.

I agree 100%. The bigger the screen - the more you need Blu-ray's additional quality. On my 36" - DVD's look fabulous and I would pass on upgrading to Blu-ray. On my 50" - you can clearly see the Blu advantage. On my 106" - no comparison. Blu-Ray is undeniably superior every time.

I think it's useless to compare until we start comparing upconverted DVDs to upconverted BDs. We need better displays! ;)

On my 58" plasma... Blu Ray is 20% better!
On my 168" screen... Blu Ray is 200% better!


It is logarithmically related to screen size. The bigger the screen, the larger the improvement.

Wouldn't the player you use for upscaling matter. I voted 100% on a 52 inch LCD from 8ft away. Comparison is based on using an LG BH 200 for SD upconversion v. Blu Ray.

The colors and details are much better on Blu Ray.

100% for me.

If the Blu-ray (or HD DVD RIP) version is available I can't stomach the standard def version anymore, unless its a chick flick or two person talking at each other movie. Even with the great upconversion of my HD XA2, I just hold off watching a DVD now, until I get the Blu-ray (or HD DVD) version.

70%. I finally got a 55inch 1080p tv and I can now really tell the difference from sd dvd to hd dvd( or blu ray) On my original 42inch 720p tv you could only see a slight difference with upconverted dvd. To me screen size is what gives you alot more detail with high def over upconverted dvd. The eyes can only see so much.

There's no way to answer this. It not only depends on the discs, but on the upscaling player as well.

For me :

37 " 720p LCD 7ft away = 20% better

56 " 1080p DLP 9ft away = 40 - 50% better

22" 720p computer 1-2 ft away = 80% better

Size and seating distance are definitely critical.

QFT!

Why is it that forum polls almost NEVER take into account the answer I want to give thereby causing me not to vote?:( My answer is that it varies wildly....a crappily encoded BD can actually be worse than a very well done dvd upscaled with a high-end player..except for the audio which is usually better on the BD. In other words, I can't give a percentage that would be true in all cases.

Wouldn't the player you use for upscaling matter. I voted 100% on a 52 inch LCD from 8ft away. Comparison is based on using an LG BH 200 for SD upconversion v. Blu Ray.

The colors and details are much better on Blu Ray.

Upscaling is upscaling.

I have some of the best upscaling you can buy:

1. Denon 3800 Blu Ray
2. Toshiba XA 2 HD DVD
3. Oppo 980H--> 480i over HDMI----> Lumagen Radiance----HDMI--->native rate of projector

All look the same... bad when blown up to a large screen. But on smaller screens (e.g. my 58" Panny plasma), Blu Ray has a slight (20%) but definite advantage over all of the excellent upscaling solutions I have above.

Now on my 168" wide screen, all DVDs look horrific. Too little resolution...

My impressions are when comparing the best DVD recordings to the best Blu Rays. Best against best.

Why is it that forum polls almost NEVER take into account the answer I want to give thereby causing me not to vote?:( My answer is that it varies wildly....a crappily encoded BD can actually be worse than a very well done dvd upscaled with a high-end player..except for the audio which is usually better on the BD. In other words, I can't give a percentage that would be true in all cases.

I just gave my answer in the form of a weighted average.

Brandon

Upscaling is upscaling.

I have some of the best upscaling you can buy:

1. Denon 3800 Blu Ray
2. Toshiba XA 2 HD DVD
3. Oppo 980H--> 480i over HDMI----> Lumagen Radiance----HDMI--->native rate of projector

All look the same... bad when blown up to a large screen. But on smaller screens (e.g. my 58" Panny plasma), Blu Ray has a slight (20%) but definite advantage over all of the excellent upscaling solutions I have above.

Now on my 168" wide screen, all DVDs look horrific. Too little resolution...

My impressions are when comparing the best DVD recordings to the best Blu Rays. Best against best.

168 :eek:

We need better displays!

I have pretty good vision, so honestly I was very unimpressed with DVD after I bought my first hdtv.

Once I got into hd-dvd and blu-ray, it was great. You are able to see so many small details that are just lost on the sd-dvd. Plus I watch on a 128'' screen, which isnt 168 as mentioned above, but it is still pretty big and any flaws are noticeable immediately (even hd broadcasts can look awful....TNT...argh.)

But if the movie isnt out on blu/hd....I can still suffer through the dvd :cool:

+1 to everything above. Im not going to quote em all! :D

Im recently using a 159", and have roughly a 42 deg viewing angle from front row. Which means I believe I would really benefit from 1440p, let alone 1080p. DVDs just cannot cut it anymore for me!

I only have a 60" SXRD A3000 and the difference between BD and DVD is huge...especially sitting 8-9 feet back. Even so-called lower quality BDs (Terminator 2, etc.) look better than the DVD version I've seen.

Even mediocre Blu-rays outperform their dvd counterparts just going off the improvement in colors alone. I do think some people sit too far back from their display or have poor enough eyesight to really judge the substantial difference.

80% better. :)

90% better is what i voted because i do see a huge difference between even the best DVD releases.....I'm not counting those Blu Rays which have had excessive DNR applied i'm talking about a typical high quality Blu Ray compared to a very high quality DVD release. ( say a film from the same genre with the same look to stop arguments about the source being totally different )

I think screen size makes all the difference....I view at 106inches using a projector and sit just 12 feet away ( maybe 11 feet - been a while since i measured )

I think calibration makes a huge difference too.

Why does the poll need such granularity? 40% or 50%? Is there much difference? How can you quantify it, anyway? And why stop at 100%? Is it not possible for something to be 150% better? Or 500% better? Or is middle school math (just like middle school English, it seems) so difficult?

Sorry.

Keep going...

They make a huge difference. I have a 47 inch TV and can tell substantial difference. My girl didn't think there was a difference until I compared 300 DVD with Blu-ray.

On my 58" plasma... Blu Ray is 20% better!
On my 168" screen... Blu Ray is 200% better!


It is logarithmically related to screen size. The bigger the screen, the larger the improvement.

Obviously the resolution of your display is also a factor. My PJ is only 720p and while Blu Ray looks better, it's not 200% better. I'd say 40% better on my 126" screen. Once I get a 1080p projector, that could change.


Now on my 168" wide screen, all DVDs look horrific. Too little resolution...


I believe you're exaggerating a bit. How did you stand to watch SD DVD's all those years when they were so horrific? I even remember some of your reviews where you stated that the PQ was outstanding/reference. The advent of Blu Ray did not cause all those same movies to all of a sudden become horrific. SD DVD's still look very good on my set-up.

Obviously the resolution of your display is also a factor. My PJ is only 720p and while Blu Ray looks better, it's not 200% better. I'd say 40% better on my 126" screen. Once I get a 1080p projector, that could change.



I believe you're exaggerating a bit. How did you stand to watch SD DVD's all those years when they were so horrific? I even remember some of your reviews where you stated that the PQ was outstanding/reference. The advent of Blu Ray did not cause all those same movies to all of a sudden become horrific. SD DVD's still look very good on my set-up.

Maybe he meant they were outstanding and reference for DVD. :D Considering we didn't have BD's back then and he was reviewing DVD's...

Nice, thanks for all the interesting answers. It seems that things like viewing distance and screen size really did enter into most of your considerations which is why I gave mine as a reference point. Eyesight, by the way, is fairly goo with -0.5diopter on one side and -0.25 on the other side. I do wear glasses for watching movies even though that would not be needed.

I did not go over 100% in the poll because, from my viewpoint, it really is not 200% better and I could not fathom how anybody might think so. But seeing how 50% of those who took the poll find it 90-100% better, maybe I should have done that.

As I said, my 30% for me means that it is better and that I could get used to it. However, I am not getting depressed when I put a normal DVD into the 983, which is supposed to have very good upscaling. I will probably rent Ratatouille soon, of which I own the SD DVD. Should be interesting. I am also waiting to buy Monsters Inc. on BD. I find the upscaled picture is outstanding and cannot imagine the BD to be much better but we shall see. In the future, if a title is available as BD, I will buy it rather than buying SD.

So what's everyone's seating distance. Mine is roughly 1.5 times the diagonal. It is not only what I prefer in terms of vision but is also the sound sweet spot, so I wouldn't change it. Isn't the standard recommendation something like 1.5 times the width or 32-35 degree viewing angle. Jeez, I once knew all these things by heart.

Till

No offense Till, this is a useless pole as stated.
My pole isn't useless!!! :D

Otherwise, no offense taken.

Cheers,

Till

Jeff, I'm assuming your 168" diagonal is on a 2.35:1 screen? Didn't you get the curved Stewart?

Fair enough, Till, even though I thought descriptive choices like marginally, significantly (my choice), etc. would have been better, and would have avoided the first impression that I got. I am a bit hypersensitive to these things, but I see you fully agree with the English part, LOL.

Fair enough, Till, even though I thought descriptive choices like marginally, significantly (my choice), etc. would have been better, and would have avoided the first impression that I got. I am a bit hypersensitive to these things, but I see you fully agree with the English part, LOL.

DJ, if you read the actual post, I put some "descriptive" choices in there. I was just too lazy to repeat it for the poll.

Till