Blu-ray Disc Releases : Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

For example, I recently bought Leon Blu-ray (UK edition) and was disappointed the Menu system is wayyy too mundane and uninspired compared to the US DVD version.

"Ce qui n'est pas clair n'est pas français" - Rivarol

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Yes, because a snazzy menu always trumps six times the pixel count and uncompressed audio.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Menu system? Seriously???

I think you've got your priorities in the wrong place, boy. You're talking about the creativity, or lack thereof, of menu designers, not the technical specs of the blu-ray format itself.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

"Menu system" ok then

You example means nothing at the end of the day, if you think about it... Would I rather have better picture and sound quality or a better menu presented? Yeah, I appreciate when a good menu is done for a film, but I much prefer the quality of the better audio and picture over a menu I spend seconds looking at.





To conquer FAT, you must become... fat!

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Sure the movie and pixels trump the menues/easter eggs etc but I partly agree with you OP. I don't get why they make a nice bluray and make the menues feel like a budget dvd from 1999 or drop some of the fun easter eggs that the massive dvd releases had.

The menus for Star Wars, Abyss, T2, matrix and many other titles on dvds were top notch. I especially loved the edited version of the trailer that looped over and over in the background of The Matrix. Just fabulous stuff that couldn't be found anywhere else.

And ye the UK Leon release is beyond crap menu-wise. Feels like an intern made it.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Thank you for agreeing with me. I mean, the difference is so stark between the two menus. The US DVD version is animated, and there is a bit where you click on an option, and a sound plays like a bomb and it explodes into more options. The menu is a joy to look at.

I like nice menus because, I don't immediately watch a film, sometimes I need a bit of time to get settled down, to fix myself a drink or whatnot, so I leave it on the menu screen while I am getting ready.

Also, I think the Leon Blu-ray menu is particularly poorly done because to switch between the Director's cut and Theatrical version, it wasn't clearly defined. It just had "Play Movie", how are we suppose to know which version is that? Then I realised the "Theatrical Version" is tucked away elsewhere, and the "Play Movie" version is the Director's cut by default. Why can't they clearly label "Director's Cut" and "Theatrical cut" and put it together? Plus the background/artwork of the menu is f ugly.

"Ce qui n'est pas clair n'est pas français" - Rivarol

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Ugh, I hate that gimmicky crap. Simple menus are best.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Depends if you care about Picture and sound quality (I do).

The only way where the DVD can be better, is when all the DVD extras have not been ported over to the Blu-ray. That is damn annoying.


You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

The menus may not look like much, but blu-ray has got it where it counts, kid.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

I can't imagine Clerks being any better on BR than it is on DVD.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Don't be so ignorant, it's much better. The details and black levels are far more accurate.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

I have a different opinion than you so I'm somehow ignorant?

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Blu-ray will always look better unless the studio screws up, I apologize for coming across as rude.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Studios do screw up though.

Some blu rays are not remastered or restored to fully utilise the potential of the format.

Amadeus for instance is apparently DVD type quality picture and sound on blu ray.

It's worth checking reviews before forking out cash for a poor quality release.

It's also worth having a multi-zone player so you can cherry pick the
releases from anywhere in the world.

my player cost £50 and with a firmware upgrade from the internet can play any DVDs or Blu Rays.

Personally I recently bought the German blu ray of Leon because it has 7.1 audio.

Also I bought the US Citizen Kane because it is very good restoration (UK restoration is apparently awful).

Also I bought the Swedish release of the Mission Impossible films because only their Blu Rays have lossless audio (well 1-3 anyway).

I would love to buy the Die Hard films but will wait for them to do a proper remastering job on them first.

With regards to menus, I personally would rather have a basic menu, I don't want to have to wait while excerpts from the film are played - especially if I haven't seen it yet. Probably the best compromise would be that one can skip the animated menu if necessary, it would be great if this could be done also for trailers, and FBI and copyright warnings.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.


Amadeus for instance is apparently DVD type quality picture and sound on blu ray.


Entirely incorrect. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Amadeus-Blu-ray/6264/

An example of a bad Blu-ray is Dirty Dancing.

A rare example of a movie that does not need Blu-ray since it was shot in standard definition is 28 Days Later.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

28 Days Later may not benefit from BD picture quality but the DTS-HD sound on the BD is a major improvement on the DVD's squashed Dolby Digital sound. Although I reckon the BD should have just been in 576p Standard def and then they could have used the remaining disc space to upgrade to 96khz audio.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

I will agree that sometimes studios screw up in the transfer. Mad Max 2-The Road Warrior, for example, in its 2007 blu-ray incarnation (Max on the cover against blueish-orange skies) is a pale, washed-out facsimile of its more rich, colorful 1996 DVD transfer, and the magnificent six-track Dolby surround flyovers of the gyrocopter somehow got vanquished in what sounds like a 3-channel front-only mix.

Thankfully, Warner got it about as right as it's apparently going to get this time in its 2013 blu-ray remaster (Max on the cover against grayish skies), with more of the rich color palette as well as the omnipotent 360-degree surround gyrocopter flyovers from the DVD reinstated.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Most of Warner's early BD releases were garbage. Lossy sound, 1080i DVD masters deinterlaced to faux-1080p, strangled bitrates and generally just crap.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

A simpler menu means more space available for the movie, which means they can use a higher bitrate and make it look better. Or they can use the space for more special features.

Look at Dark Knight, for example. It skips the menu entirely and starts the movie automatically. No trailers or anything either. All it has is the pop-up menu that appears over the movie. This is almost perfect, the only problem is that the lossy audio track is selected by default and I have to switch it to TrueHD while the movie is playing.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

That's a lie and you know it

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Seriously?
I would say that in most cases BR is better than dvd

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

BD holds more data than DVD, which is better. What that data contains is subjective.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

There are some DVDs ahve hav emore extra and more ausio tracks then Blu ray.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.


There are some DVDs ahve hav emore [sic] extra and more ausio [sic] tracks then Blu ray.

If that is the case, it's not a limitation of the Blu-ray disc, only a business decision. What's your point?

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

"Weird Science" looks even worse on Blu-ray than the original DVD - which I thought would be impossible. There are some more examples but that is the one that stands out most for me.



Desperanto spoken here...

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Every bluray I've bought/rented has had awful, minimalist menus compared to DVD. The Bluray's still overall better though, due to more resolution and stuff.

It especially bothers me on the Simpsons seasons, because those have really interesting menus on the DVD, but not on Bluray. Still went with the Blurays for the ones that had them, though, they look way better than the DVD.


It's certainly possible a Bluray release could be worse (and not due to menus or extras being lax) if they did a bad transfer or something, but I personally haven't encountered that.

--
You have many question, Mr Sparkle. I send you premium -- answer question, hundred percent!

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

When you talk Star Trek, then the 2-disc DVD releases are a whole lot better than the Blu-ray releases.
The DVD's have some pretty cool menus, specially First Contact with how it morphs from Starfleet look to Borg.
All those cool animated DVD menus are not featured on the Blu-ray's, here they are all just the same pretty boring looking menu.

Then to talk about the movies them selves, where you get a couple of Directors Cut versions on DVD, but not at all on Blu-ray.

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.

Yeah because flashy animated menus are so much more important than lossless audio and a quadruple increase in the resolution of the actual movie. I suppose you also prefer some DVDs because they have a cooler picture on the disc label print than on the Blu Ray?

Re: Blu-ray is not always better than DVD.


For example, I recently bought Leon Blu-ray (UK edition) and was disappointed the Menu system is wayyy too mundane and uninspired compared to the US DVD version.

I know what you mean, but the fact is that the difference is 100% in the content itself, and 0% a function of the optical disc standard being used. It might take some effort and expense to rewrite the munu software so that it works the same for both standards, but that's the publisher's fault (possibly the artists') if they fail to make that effort and/or spend the money to have a seamless product.
Top