K-ON! DVD vs Blu-ray One-Shot Comparison

k-on-bd-dvd.jpg

Mio illustrates succinctly why the sales of the K-ON! Blu-ray editions have been impressively high. Further details seem superfluous under the circumstances…

You can see more of the Blu-ray edition in the previous article on the matter.


    Post Comment »
    160 Comments
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by Anonymous
    02:24 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    that is one hell of a difference

    Comment by Schrobby
    03:50 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    When I see that difference I'm sure the bastards fucked up the DVD on purpose...

    Comment by Anonymous
    Comment by Anonymous
    06:35 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I want it BIG & SHARP!!

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:19 16/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    That's what she said.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:16 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    You should keep im mind that the picture from the DVD was upscaled big time. So the picture of the DVD is smaller but sharper.

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:44 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    They just beefed up the resolution.

    Large resolution = clearer picture, thats all.

    What really concerns me is they didn't put more episode on Blu-ray. 2 ep in 1 disc is money sucker.

    Avatar of NaweG
    Comment by NaweG
    06:59 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    OK, so I'm curious. If you downsized the BluRay to the same size as the DVD, would it look as bad as the DVD does upsized? If not, then it seems the BluRay is still a better picture.

    Just my .02 worth...

    Comment by Y0k41
    07:00 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well the higher quality, the more space it takes up.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:25 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Yes but it will appear this way on big HDTVs. DVDs will be upscaled. This is why Bluray is so popular. I think this is a realistic and fair comparison.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:19 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Downscaling in the same aspect ratio loses no quality but you may not be able to make out as many details. Blowing up a non-vecotr image without the proper upscaling will stretch pixels, causing the image to look worse to some degree.

    You can always make an image smaller (resolution-wise) without a loss in quality. Dropping the file size down, even at the same resolution, will result in some loss of quality.

    Blu-ray benefits in the fact that it is on a 25-50GB sized disc and the resolution is the highest televisions will display in. So it is the best of both worlds: uncompressed files at high resolution. No matter how small your TV is, or what resolution you show it on, Blu-ray won't look worse.

    DVD is both a compression of file size and resolution. DVD is fine on standard definition television sets that can't go beyond 480p (maximum DVD resolution). So many DVD owners foolishly think that Blu-ray is nothing special and not worth it, ignorant that it is their Television that makes DVD look fine. Take the same DVD player and same DVD and put it on a television that is set to 1080p and the difference in quality is apparent. Even more-so if you put the same movie on Blu-ray on the same television.

    For example, I have I Am Legend on Both DVD & Blu-Ray and have seen them on both types of televisions and the difference is day and night, especially on my HDTV.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:18 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    DVD is not "a compression", DVD uses MPEG-2 and Blu Ray can use VC1, MPEG-2 or h264 but by no means is Blu Ray uncompressed ;)

    As for the K-On! DVD, it's still a damn site better lookin' than the Broadcast rips, as Kyoto Animation supply TV stations with masters sourced from composite video... which causes tons of chromatic abberation, strobing and dot crawl. They do this intentionally to promote the sales of DVDs and Blu Rays aferwards -_-

    So even the 1080p broadcast looks considerably worse than both the Blu Ray and DVD versions.

    Avatar of erochichi
    Comment by erochichi
    08:34 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    You all should understand that normal DVD has a resolution of 480i/p or as best 576p, but Blu-Ray can be 1080p, as K-On release. The difference in picture quality is astonishing. DVD can look sharp, but lines drawn are much thicker.
    Color reproduction is totally different in BD.
    Standard DVD builds basically on picture consisting of horizontal lines, but BD picture is a system which use pixel mapping.
    Don`t be sticky about this, Blu-Ray players are quite cheap, at least here in Sweden.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:55 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Dude you just wasted your time explaining... Even though that was admirable, I gotta say the morons will just skip past it.

    COZ BLURAY COST $1000!!!!1!!11

    People are still stuck on 2007 time line.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:32 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Blu-Ray is a lot cheaper, you can buy a Blu-ray drive for a PC for 60 dollars.

    Avatar of N.R.
    Comment by N.R.
    15:19 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    "COZ BLURAY COST $1000!!!!1!!11"
    PS3 with Blu-Ray disc cost 299$. In my country this is the cheapest.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:31 16/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    What country do you live in? In America I can buy a standalone Blu-ray player for $150.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:28 18/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    i can buy one for 130€

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:23 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    true

    Comment by Anonymous
    Comment by Anonymous
    02:24 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Worth the extra dollars, I'd say.

    Avatar of kajunbowser
    Comment by kajunbowser
    02:29 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    So true. Now if only Blu-ray could get more overall practical application.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:25 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    It doesn't matter how she looks, she's still a slut.

    Avatar of kajunbowser
    Comment by kajunbowser
    Comment by Anonymous
    02:46 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    No he's right, she's still a slut, she can go and *inverted commas* accidentally trip and show her pantsu for all to see *inverted commas"

    In a word. Slut.

    Avatar of Hellmen
    Comment by Hellmen
    02:54 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Slut.

    Avatar of EroMango
    Comment by EroMango
    03:29 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Slut. chain

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:32 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Slut chain +2

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:02 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:15 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    OMG-WANNABE-EPIC = Fail...

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:42 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Summon Dead

    Slut chain +3

    Respawn done

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:57 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Mmmm, butter...

    Avatar of kajunbowser
    Comment by kajunbowser
    07:38 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    No, you are all are. -9000^9000

    Avatar of Chen-04
    Comment by Chen-03
    09:10 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Do you mean -(9000^9000) or (-9000)^9000. One of them results in an incredibly high value, while the other one results in an incredibly high negative value.

    Besides, Blue Ray suckz anyway. Its more expansive and only nerds will enjoy the 'big' difference. I won't jack off to a version which looks slightly better than another. I care for an actual plot and interesting characters, so I never watched k-on in the first place.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:52 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Ya...
    So "expansive" that you forgot to spell....

    Moron....

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:30 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    YES SO TRUE!!! IT'S TSUMUGI FTW

    19:12 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I still like Mio, but hands down to Mugi-sama..

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:40 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    You attention whore

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:57 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    If she was a Slut Artefact would've already posted a news about it, for sure.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:26 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Holy fuck. This is what I call a difference.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:32 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Making the dvd version look like ass, so they can sell more BD versions which cost way more.

    WAY TO GO. And stupid clowns will buy them.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:40 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    I agree, the DVD could easily handle that quality, it's toned down on purpose!

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:45 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    welcome to the world of conspiracy

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:48 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Downsized or upscaled? One has to be enlarged or downsized, one way or the other.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:10 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    You apparently don't know what you're talking about. Blu-ray is true 1080p HD. So that resolution would be something of 1920x1080 pixels. DVD is around 720x480. So in order to show the difference in a side-by-side comparison, the DVD version would have had to have been blown up to fit on the screen with the Blu-ray version, then both downscaled to the resolution of this image, which is 640x800.

    This is a bit of a middle ground between the two resolutions. So although blowing up the DVD resolution a bit to show the detail in Mio's face will degrade it a bit, the fact is that there will always be a gap in quality between it and the Blu-ray. If you want to see how the DVD would look normally, save the image and downscale it a bit but you will still see the same level of difference between both versions.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:02 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Reading this thread has made me realize that Blu-Ray's difficulties not only lie with the fact that people "don't see the difference" (or are blind) or that "we just bought DVDs!" but also because they have no fucking clue what Blu-Ray or HD resolutions are.

    I'm going to borrow your comment and its explanation if you don't mind.

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:50 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Don't mind at all, feel free.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:14 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    FUCK YOU 15-09-2009 04:02 # !

    I mind it at all you fucking bitch!!!!!!!111

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:42 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Twaddle! It's not 1920x1080 but 1080x608

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:14 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    Looks like someone doesn't know screen resolutions...

    1080p / 480p anyone?

    Avatar of ShadowKit
    Comment by ShadowKit
    02:51 15/09/2009 # ! Neutral (0)

    My thoughts exactly.






    Post Comment »

Popular

Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments