Everytime I hear someone claim that 'there is only a small difference in image quality between DVD and Blu-Ray moveis' I can't help but wonder if these people either haven't actually seen a proper comparison or if their exposure to Blu-Ray was based on an old movie or a bad screen/projector. The detail level of a modern movie on Blu-Ray and on DVD is so screamingly clear that anyone who has watched Blu-Rays for a while feel they entered blur world when they are shown SD resolution media.

But sure, when the studios release old movies which was recorded onto film back in the day and try to turn it into a Blu-Ray movie it do often not improve much over the DVD version or in some cases looks worse due to blemishes on the recorded film actually becoming more visible on the Blu-Ray version.

So I suggest people do what I do. Keep your old collection on DVD and get new movies on Blu-Ray. Also remember that you do not always need to buy, renting is also possible and much cheaper if its a 'see once' movie.

HD-DVD is better :-p

logical arguments are against the forum rules, please adhere to site rules.

1080p is (roughly) 2.5 megapixels, 35mm film is (roughly) 12 megapixels ... In other words, old movies have far more detail than Blu-Ray could ever dream of displaying.

On top of that, it is not (necessarily) that people can not see the difference between upscaled DVD and 1080p video but that they really don't care about the difference. I have walked into many people's homes who still use a VCR regularly, typically recording their TV shows in the 6 hour per cassette format, which is far (FAR) lower quality than 480i; many of these people jumped onto DVD because it offered many convienience features and not because of the quality improvement, and Blu-Ray offers nothing in terms of convienience over DVD.

Are you responding to my post?  If you are I think you are either drinking Sony juice or you have a problem with reading.  I think I had this same problem with you on another Blu Ray thread (if it wasn't you then forgive me, if it was you then you are really beginning to piss me off).  Where did I talk about resolution?  Where did I talk about graphics?  I simply pointed out how the difference between VHS and DVD is like night and day on a huge HD display while on a huge display using a £6000 projector we could barely tell the difference between upscaled DVD and HD. 

1080p is (roughly) 2.5 megapixels, 35mm film is (roughly) 12 megapixels ... In other words, old movies have far more detail than Blu-Ray could ever dream of displaying.
prove it, i watch old movies all the time.
old movies=grainy and blurry

not responding to you tuoyo, sorry for the confusion.

If you stick two tv's beside each other, each playing the same movie, one in DVD and one in Blu-ray, yeah there's a difference. But people don't watch movies like that. If I watch a movie on Blu-ray and then watch it again on DVD, I notice very little, if any difference.

I think you need to be introduced to an interesting web page: http://www.google.com

Low budget old movies often did not use 35mm cameras because film was (and still is) amazingly expensive, and you could save a lot of money by using a 16mm camera which would be (roughly) the same resolution of 1080p. Now there are visual artifacts that exist on film that do not exist in digital images, and they become clear well before the maximum detail of an image has been displayed, but these can easily be filtered out when the film is digitized in order to convert it to dvd/Blu-Ray ... There are many movies where this wasn't done for DVD because of how low budget the conversion process was, which could also be an explaination to your observation.

I already tried google squirrel, just because you know what to type in the search box and i don't doesn't make me an idiot. It makes you someone who doesn't source their facts. :P
even still i haven't seen one movie from my history of seeing movies that compares with some of the newer movies i've seen on BR.