Thinking of buying a Blu Ray player

[holyzombiejesus]

Help a brother.

I might buy a blu ray player and have 3 questions.

1) Is it worth it? Just upgraded me telly and, whilst it's nothing flash, it's loads better than my knackered bulky old one, so I might actually be able to appreciate better quality. Are Blu Rays a long term thing or likely to be a bit more flash in the pan?

2. Can they be made multi region? I don't have any discs at all at present but might well buy some (hello, Criterion!) in the future. I do have quite a few DVDs that would require a region free player; if it came to it and I couldn't make the Blu Ray region free, would I be able to make the DVD facility region free?

3. What's the drop in quality like if I only paid £50 - £60 rather than £100 odd?

[Consignia]

1) Is it worth it? Just upgraded me telly and, whilst it's nothing flash, it's loads better than my knackered bulky old one, so I might actually be able to appreciate better quality. Are Blu Rays a long term thing or likely to be a bit more flash in the pan?

I think so. You get better quality DVD and even HD streams mostly. You could argue about their long term future with streaming overtaking as the delivery mechanism, but I've had loads of mileage out my BD player, and you can easily see the difference between DVD and Bluray.

2. Can they be made multi region? I don't have any discs at all at present but might well buy some (hello, Criterion!) in the future. I do have quite a few DVDs that would require a region free player; if it came to it and I couldn't make the Blu Ray region free, would I be able to make the DVD facility region free?

The DVD player part, possibly. It varies from player to player. The actual Blu-ray part, not so easily. The spec makes it's a ball-ache to have easily changeable region codes. It's probably worth checking on the web before buying if that's what you want.

3. What's the drop in quality like if I only paid £50 - £60 rather than £100 odd?

I don't believe there's much difference, at least there didn't used to be.

[Ignatius_S]

...1) Is it worth it? Just upgraded me telly and, whilst it's nothing flash, it's loads better than my knackered bulky old one, so I might actually be able to appreciate better quality. Are Blu Rays a long term thing or likely to be a bit more flash in the pan?...

Personally, for the very low entry point for a decent player I think it's worth having one, but depends on how much physical media you're intending on playing. With normal DVDs, IIRC, the picture is slightly upscaled on a blu-ray player (or some anyway) but the real reason to get one is whether you're going to play blu-rays. In terms of quality, with older stuff (i.e. not created in HD) personally, I don't notice too much difference compared to watching via DVD – newer stuff, is another matter. One advantage of blu-ray is that it holds a lot more data that a DVD – and going from one season of Justfied to another, where one on was blu-ray and the other DVD, although this sounds very lazy, it was nice not having to change discs so much.

As for being a flash in the pan, blu-ray was launched a decade ago and I don't think we'll see it being usurped anytime soon. Physical media is on the decline and although there have been some new formats that were talked up (this was a little while ago) because of that decline I'm more inclined to think that blu-ray being eclipsed will because of a dominance in digital media, rather than a rival new physical media. Put it this way, do you see a new physical format replacing CDs?

...2. Can they be made multi region? I don't have any discs at all at present but might well buy some (hello, Criterion!) in the future. I do have quite a few DVDs that would require a region free player; if it came to it and I couldn't make the Blu Ray region free, would I be able to make the DVD facility region free?...

As far as I'm aware, the only way you can make a player multi-region for blu-ray playback is by a hardware modification, which isn't cheap. However, DVD playback can be multi-region, no problem. The Sony player I got was multi-region out of the box, but if a player wasn't, you can usually enter a software code. (*edit* as Consignia says, check this beforehand - personally, I would go with one that has DVD multi-region as standard). More than a few blu-rays are region-free or multi-region – FWIW, I've found the region lock far less of an issue with blu-ray. If you definitely want Criterion stuff, consider about getting a Region A player.

...
3. What's the drop in quality like if I only paid £50 - £60 rather than £100 odd?

Without comparing specific models, it's impossible to say for sure but I wouldn't see this is as something to be concerned about. You can get some very cheap players that are excellent and I wouldn't say that if you did pay £100 instead of £60 (for example) you're necessarily getting that was better – also for £50-60, you could get something by the likes of Sony or LG. If you're looking to get a decent bargain, I would look at Richer Sounds, see one or two (or three) that you like and do a web search and see what forums and reviews say about it. (Incidentally, other retailers might be offering it as a similar price point to Richer, so you don't necessarily have to get it from them, although I rate them highly).   

[El Unicornio, mang]

I recommend getting one. They're long term, there is 4k on the horizon but you really would need a very big TV (about 60" +) to tell the difference (and it still depends how far you sit from the telly). This diagram gives a good idea:



Plus, blu rays are pretty cheap now. You can pick many up for a fiver each, newer ones range between 10-20.

You can get a very good player for £50. Something like this would be perfect: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-DMP-BD81EB-K-Network-Blu-ray-Player/dp/B00INYCCOW/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1416401549&sr=8-3&keywords=blu+ray+player

There are some players out there which allow you to "hack" them to play mult-region, you can also buy ones which are multi-region ready but they tend to cost more. (I use my laptop blu ray player so run a program called AnyDVD which automatically allows multiregion disc play)

In all honesty, I don't believe that better picture/sound quality = more enjoyment (I enjoyed my VHS tapes just as much as I do DVDs or blu rays), but once you've seen blu ray you probably won't want to go back to DVDs. Some people (like my Mum) can't tell the difference between SD and HD (or don't care), if that's the case you might as well stick with DVDs as you can pick them up for next to nothing now since people are desperate to get rid of their collections so they can upgrade to bluray.

One other advantage of blu rays over DVDs is that there isn't the annoying problem that UK DVDs had where American films and TV shows would be sped up (due to the different frame rate) so everyone sounded like chipmunks. There's no such issue with blurays.

[Uncle TechTip]

In summary - yes, yes, no.

[colacentral]

Blu ray is definitely worth it but to make the most of it I would recommend getting a configuration Blu ray to ensure all of your tv settings are correct. They cost about 20 quid which sounds steep but you'll be amazed at how far off the correct settings will be compared to what the human eye thinks they should be (especially because the default settings on TVs intended to look bright and shiny on a shop floor have conditioned us to think overly bright and washed out is the correct setting.)

I have a toshiba Blu ray which is region free on both the DVD and Blu ray parts of the machine. It's one of the very few and it's no longer being produced, but I got one on eBay for 120 quid a few months ago. I don't have the exact model to hand but I can get it if you're interested.

I would say a good experiment is to search Blu-ray.com for films / tv that they've rated highly and which you already own on DVD but wouldn't mind double dipping on. Press play on both at the same time and switch between hdmi screens. I, rather sadly, did this, and was annoyed at the standard of video on DVD that I had pissed away so much money on over the years.

[colacentral]

I also would add that in addition to picture quality, sound is also improved, and media plays at the correct amount of frames per second meaning things are also the correct length. Again, it sounds minor, but I went from watching NTSC downloads of the sopranos to watching it on pal DVD and found the theme tune felt rushed and tony soprano sounded like a chipmunk. Blu ray doesn't have that issue.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Blu ray is definitely worth it but to make the most of it I would recommend getting a configuration Blu ray to ensure all of your tv settings are correct. They cost about 20 quid which sounds steep but you'll be amazed at how far off the correct settings will be compared to what the human eye thinks they should be (especially because the default settings on TVs intended to look bright and shiny on a shop floor have conditioned us to think overly bright and washed out is the correct setting.)

I used one of those but found it to be a bit of a waste of time as there is no "correct" TV setting. It varies too much between how well lit your room is, and each individual bluray, so even if you get it configured you're going to end up faffing about with settings anyway. Now I only alter settings if I'm watching a bluray and something looks off (for example the Once Upon a Time in America Extended bluray required a big boost in colour, contrast, red and a reduction in brightness.)

[colacentral]

That's true about the light of the room changing but if you watch things mostly in the evening with low light it shouldn't change that much, and if the source material is wrong, that is a flaw in the disc itself, and I personally wouldn't change the TV settings to compensate. "Correct setting" is probably the wrong phrase to use though, I'll admit.

The main thing is that the white and black levels need to be balanced correctly to provide maximum detail but changing one will always throw the other one off slightly, so it's not easy to do it with the naked eye.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Well, that's another issue I had. Getting the black levels correct made it impossible to get the white levels correct so I ended up having to get something inbetween, which ended up being pretty much how I had it anyway. It is worth bringing the backlight down though, it's always set really high when you buy a new telly but really only needs to be at about 50%.

I only watch blurays with the lights off, so I don't have to mess about with the levels much, but some blurays definitely need more fiddling about with than others. I can get quite obsessive about it too, particularly getting that sweet black level without compromising any detail in darker scenes.

[falafel]

Personally, for the very low entry point for a decent player I think it's worth having one, but depends on how much physical media you're intending on playing. With normal DVDs, IIRC, the picture is slightly upscaled on a blu-ray player (or some anyway) but the real reason to get one is whether you're going to play blu-rays. In terms of quality, with older stuff (i.e. not created in HD) personally, I don't notice too much difference compared to watching via DVD – newer stuff, is another matter. One advantage of blu-ray is that it holds a lot more data that a DVD – and going from one season of Justfied to another, where one on was blu-ray and the other DVD, although this sounds very lazy, it was nice not having to change discs so much.

As for being a flash in the pan, blu-ray was launched a decade ago and I don't think we'll see it being usurped anytime soon. Physical media is on the decline and although there have been some new formats that were talked up (this was a little while ago) because of that decline I'm more inclined to think that blu-ray being eclipsed will because of a dominance in digital media, rather than a rival new physical media. Put it this way, do you see a new physical format replacing CDs?

As far as I'm aware, the only way you can make a player multi-region for blu-ray playback is by a hardware modification, which isn't cheap. However, DVD playback can be multi-region, no problem. The Sony player I got was multi-region out of the box, but if a player wasn't, you can usually enter a software code. (*edit* as Consignia says, check this beforehand - personally, I would go with one that has DVD multi-region as standard). More than a few blu-rays are region-free or multi-region – FWIW, I've found the region lock far less of an issue with blu-ray. If you definitely want Criterion stuff, consider about getting a Region A player.

Without comparing specific models, it's impossible to say for sure but I wouldn't see this is as something to be concerned about. You can get some very cheap players that are excellent and I wouldn't say that if you did pay £100 instead of £60 (for example) you're necessarily getting that was better – also for £50-60, you could get something by the likes of Sony or LG. If you're looking to get a decent bargain, I would look at Richer Sounds, see one or two (or three) that you like and do a web search and see what forums and reviews say about it. (Incidentally, other retailers might be offering it as a similar price point to Richer, so you don't necessarily have to get it from them, although I rate them highly).

What do you mean by 'not created in HD' in relation to 'older stuff'? Do you mean TV? Some box sets (eg Twin Peaks) are now using transfers from film, if they were originally shot on film. And anything shot on 35mm far surpasses the resolution of 1080p anyway.

[falafel]

Unless by Older Stuff you mean Charlie Chaplin films and episodes of Eldorado.

[Ignatius_S]

What do you mean by 'not created in HD' in relation to 'older stuff'? Do you mean TV? Some box sets (eg Twin Peaks) are now using transfers from film, if they were originally shot on film. And anything shot on 35mm far surpasses the resolution of 1080p anyway.

Basically, where something was created without HD in mind - mileage will obviously vary. Although there can be some stuff that is great, there are blu-ray releases that don't offer much over a DVD version or can be seen as inferior.


Although there can be some excellent transfers, like the one you mentioned, a lot of other products don't get the same treatment for a variety of reasons. For instance, The Shield wasn't supposedly put onto blu-ray because 8mm film wasn't going to offer good enough quality, even though other stuff had made that transition nicely - the reason would have been for money.

Although this is going back a while, in terms of blu-ray, the Criterion version of The Third Man is considered superior to the one by Studio Canal (unless someone prefers a grainy aesthetic). The Criterion version is based on its DVD version and unless someone is watching it on a very large screen, they would be hard pressed to notice any difference and even then, I suspect not anyone would notice anything. That DVD version is a noticeably better than the Studio Canal blu-ray version. Keeping on the Criterion theme, with its America Lost and Found: The BBS Story, the quality of both the blu-ray and DVD versions were outstanding and although I suspect most people would plump with the former, it wasn't a no-brainer to buy that over the DVD.

With some transfers, we've seen quite a lot of unpopular decisions. For instance, with the recent The Rutles release, the second film was on a DVD in the format it was created in and how it was meant to be viewed (4:3 and in mono) and although the first was also shot in 16mm, it was put onto blu-ray (in the same pack)and the decision was made to replace the mono music with stereo versions from the album and to have it in 16:9. Some people won't mind, but for others, it's an issue - and personally, I don't really care for when the format is changed and we lose some of the picture as a result. Another recent release was Once Upon a Time in America and there, there were some issues (e.g. colours looking different) compared to previous releases, which disappointed some people.

[Consignia]

What do you mean by 'not created in HD' in relation to 'older stuff'? Do you mean TV? Some box sets (eg Twin Peaks) are now using transfers from film, if they were originally shot on film. And anything shot on 35mm far surpasses the resolution of 1080p anyway.

Quite a lot of TV stuff, especially British wasn't shot on film, it was shot on tape. And not everything has the original film masters available either.

[El Unicornio, mang]

One other thing which takes getting used to with blu ray is film grain, very apparent with older films, obviously nonexistent with films shot digitally. The Taxi Driver blu ray looks spectacular but is extremely grainy (as it should be). Some releases use Digital Noise Reduction but it's frowned upon as it gives everything an unnaturally smooth, waxy look. Apparently the Predator bluray suffers a lot from too much DNR.