S
Shingen Takeda
Guest
Blu-ray? No way: High tech discs that don't live up to the hype
By Sean Poulter
Last updated at 8:55 AM on 25th November 2010
They are supposed to offer films with the sharpest pictures and sound yet experienced in our living rooms. But Blu-ray discs fail to live up to their expensive price tags, according to a consumer watchdog. Typically, the films cost around double the figure for an ordinary DVD, while many have a recommended price of more than £20. However, a test by Which? found fewer than one in three Blu-ray films delivered an outstanding difference.
Manufacturers have spent billions of pounds developing the high-definition Blu-ray technology and hope to sell millions of the sophisticated players needed to watch them.
However, many consumers have been sceptical about the promised extra image detail – with the result that sales have not taken off as expected. Which? pointed out that the marketing for the technology promises ‘the maximum high-definition experience’.
However, it said there is little consistency in the definition offered by movies sold in Blu-ray – with a major gulf between the best and worst. The organisation’s experts used two identical TVs to simultaneously watch Blu-ray and standard DVD versions of 17 films. Around half of the Blu-rays offered only a marginal improvement.
The research saw experts using two identical TV sets to simultaneously watch Blu-ray and standard DVD versions of 17 films
Four, including Grease and Gandhi, were better, and just five offered an outstanding improvement.
Which? said: ‘Only five Blu-rays, such as newer films Avatar and Casino Royale, and classics, including Zulu, were of the highest-definition quality we were expecting. A disappointing eight were only marginally better or looked virtually the same as the DVD version.’
Which? asked the body that represents major studios in the UK, the British Video Association, about the vast differences in quality. But it failed to answer the question, instead saying that research showed most consumers thought Blu-ray looked better than DVD.
Which? said: ‘We don’t dispute that Blu-ray generally does look better than DVD, but based on our test, a big step-up is not a given.’ The report said the better-quality films were probably transferred from the original high-quality source, and the worst merely converted to HD from copies of the original.
‘HD DVD’, supported principally by Toshiba, was originally envisioned to be the successor to the standard DVD format. However, in February 2008, after a protracted high definition disc war, rival Blu-ray won out and Toshiba abandoned its format.
By Sean Poulter
Last updated at 8:55 AM on 25th November 2010
They are supposed to offer films with the sharpest pictures and sound yet experienced in our living rooms. But Blu-ray discs fail to live up to their expensive price tags, according to a consumer watchdog. Typically, the films cost around double the figure for an ordinary DVD, while many have a recommended price of more than £20. However, a test by Which? found fewer than one in three Blu-ray films delivered an outstanding difference.
Manufacturers have spent billions of pounds developing the high-definition Blu-ray technology and hope to sell millions of the sophisticated players needed to watch them.
However, many consumers have been sceptical about the promised extra image detail – with the result that sales have not taken off as expected. Which? pointed out that the marketing for the technology promises ‘the maximum high-definition experience’.
However, it said there is little consistency in the definition offered by movies sold in Blu-ray – with a major gulf between the best and worst. The organisation’s experts used two identical TVs to simultaneously watch Blu-ray and standard DVD versions of 17 films. Around half of the Blu-rays offered only a marginal improvement.
The research saw experts using two identical TV sets to simultaneously watch Blu-ray and standard DVD versions of 17 films
Four, including Grease and Gandhi, were better, and just five offered an outstanding improvement.
Which? said: ‘Only five Blu-rays, such as newer films Avatar and Casino Royale, and classics, including Zulu, were of the highest-definition quality we were expecting. A disappointing eight were only marginally better or looked virtually the same as the DVD version.’
Which? asked the body that represents major studios in the UK, the British Video Association, about the vast differences in quality. But it failed to answer the question, instead saying that research showed most consumers thought Blu-ray looked better than DVD.
Which? said: ‘We don’t dispute that Blu-ray generally does look better than DVD, but based on our test, a big step-up is not a given.’ The report said the better-quality films were probably transferred from the original high-quality source, and the worst merely converted to HD from copies of the original.
‘HD DVD’, supported principally by Toshiba, was originally envisioned to be the successor to the standard DVD format. However, in February 2008, after a protracted high definition disc war, rival Blu-ray won out and Toshiba abandoned its format.
