There are rumors that it's WB's way of pushing the format. That's where I draw the line.
That's why I bring it up - that's the kind of "ramming Blu-Ray down people's throats" that I can't stand.
The point is, regardless if you think it looks better or not, Blu-Ray is the next step in home video. Blu-Ray sales are growing and DVD sales are shrinking. It may be a few more years still, but regardless if you like it or not, if you see a difference or not, if you hear a difference or not, Blu-Ray is what company's are pushing and eventually, they will dominate the home video market. And once they dominate the market, DVD will slowly and surely fade away, company's will stop producing them, stores will stop dedicating so much of their space to them and just like always happens when a new format takes over, they will fade away for the DVD 2.0 (Blu-Ray).
It may become a new standard for *new* movies, but I doubt that many older titles will be put on Blu-Ray. For the simple reason that they don't need to be. They'll look old and whatever either way. Plus, it costs the studios more that way. I mean all those small DVDs that you can get through promotions, or the ones you can buy at tourist shops... even smaller independent movies. Because DVDs are so easy to make, there are tons more DVDs that have come out than there were VHS. (Also because it's quicker to make one, since it's digital)
But because the general public is stupid and believes all these marketing gimmicks, they'll probably be like those forum members here, whining and complaining that their favorite movie wasn't put on Blu-Ray yet.
If you think all TVs make Blu-Ray look good, you need another pair of glasses, I think. Upscaling with my player (Sony BDP-S350) looks decent. Recent titles look good, older titles tend to look like crap. They're nowhere near the quality of Blu-Ray.
I said all TVs make actual Blu-Rays look good. Not upscaled DVDs. As long as they support 1080p, they should look good everywhere. The colors may be different depending on how your TV is set up, but that's a different story. (As THOSE are usually adjustable)
Maybe the different colors were because dvd has a limited color range compared to blu? Or maybe a different team worked on the dvd than the one on blu? Fact is, there can be tons of reasons, and some evil scheme of them pushing everybody to blu-ray with some wrong colors seems highly unlikely to me.
Why would a different team work on each? It's the same movie! It's supposed to be the same in both formats!
And I wasn't aware of any color limitations to the DVD format. Like I said, mpeg-2 Blu-Rays use the exact same format DVDs use, just at a higher bitrate. And I don't think AVC is that much different. One of these days I'll make a 480p copy of Sleeping Beauty and see what happens.
And The Dark Knight Blu-Ray got a lot of criticisms as well. It doesn't even look that good. It has edge enhancement, and some DNR in it. They used the IMAX print for the entire movie, so the regular 35mm anamorphic film was processed to hold up a bit better on a giant IMAX screen. Too bad they used it for the Blu-Ray.
I've also heard a lot of good reviews about it too, though. And it no doubt looks better than the DVD... because that DVD wasn't made very well. But yes, I'm annoyed that they used the IMAX print as well... it was awesome in a real IMAX but seeing as how the average person doesn't have an IMAX screen in their home, I don't see the point. If it were up to me, you could choose between watching the full movie in 2.35:1 (like the DVD and standard movie theaters), the way it is now, or just the IMAX scenes in their correct ratio of 1.44:1 (as it is on the second disc of the DVD release)
to WB.
)