The biggest non-political debate online at the moment is Blu Ray vs. DVD. There are some adamantly defending DVD which I think is fine, provided they don’t stress that it is better than the alternative. It isn’t. You can prefer it, or it can be “good enough for you,” but it isn’t better.
I held off Blu Ray as long as I could. Like most people, I thought it was just another file format to gouge me out of my money. In a way it is, but in a way… it isn’t. Even on my smaller flatscreen, I noticed a difference. That wasn’t blatantly apparent, though, until I got a bigger flatscreen in 1080p format and suddenly DVD’s looked like crap on it.
I could blather on about how Blu Ray image sources are roughly 11 times larger than DVD, so they blow up way bigger a lot nicer, and how the format itself is different so there’s almost no compression (sort of like saving something as a JPG with pixilation or a BMP with no pixilation).
But… a picture says a thousand words. Here is why Blu Ray is better:
Above: The BBC’s Pride & Prejudice, DVD format (original, the 2010 release apparently has a better image).
Above: The BBC’s standard remastered Blu Ray format.
Notice the details? You can see everyone’s face and it’s not that nasty yellow color, although for the most part the DVD usually slants green when compressed. See below:
Ooh, Colin Firth actually has a nice skin tone that isn’t yellow!
… who knew Lizzie’s room wasn’t green?
I think this one speaks for itself.
And that, my friends, is why I’ll never buy another DVD.
(Not sold yet? Click here to see what The Lord of the Rings looks like in DVD vs. Blu Ray.)