At least the Criterion DVD & Blu-ray are sold as separate items. The ITV ones are sold with two disks in same box.
But of course there's not really much difference between DVD and Blu-ray Blu-ray is mainly just advertising hype to make everyone go out and buy another copy of the disks they already own
Blu-ray is a quantum leap above DVD - a submicroscopic change
No offence taken. But have you ever run a valid comparison?
It's no good just looking at one Blu-Ray and saying "Isn't that wonderful, it must be better than DVD - because the ads say it is and the technology shows that there are more bits in it."
The question is, can people tell the difference when they show a DVD & a Blu-Ray made from exactly the same source material and displayed on the same HD screen? Set that up and then switch back & forth between them and see if anyone can accurately tell the difference.
I have run that test for a lot of people - remarkably few people can detect any difference
There may be more information in a Blu-Ray, but can you see that difference?
If the difference can't be detected with the human eye there's not much point in buying Blu-Ray copies of titles you already own on DVD
It's only a valid comparison when you have the same film on DVD & Blu-ray and they came from exactly the same source material. As Blu-ray releases are often more recent than DVD releases the Blu-ray releases are often made from different, better, source material.
The latest Criterion Blu-ray & DVD of Blimp are both from the same source material so are a valid comparison.
But not many people buy the DVD & Blu-ray of the same film made from the same source material, so not many people notice the lack of difference between them
"There's not really much difference between DVD and Blu-ray"
I am astounded that there is actually anyone so unperceptive that they really believe this preposterous statement. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is amazing, except perhaps to the blind. Anyone who owns a modern (post-CRT) television will benefit enormously from Blu-ray, compared to DVD, especially with color movies. "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp", viewed from a Blu-ray disk on a large-screen modern television, is gorgeous.
Of all the fuss the differences between blu ray and DVD. I must chime in. Back in March 1997 when DVD first rolled out. For years, folks were holding onto the videotape format and not consider changing formats. I was one that wanted the BEST a movie can look (I was on the Laserdisc bandwagon) and was quick to jump on the DVD train. At first it was slow for lack of studio support. Warner was early adaptors. Lets fast forward to 2013 people are still worried (questioning) change. The blu ray format must not be compared to a NTSC system (VHS, LD, DVD) because HD is a whole different ball game. I am not concerned about the masters being used to make blu ray or DVD, but the final product itself. Blu ray will ALWAYS out perform DVD any day because of its much greater bit rate and massive improvement in horizontal resolution. So trying to tell anyone that DVD can look as good as blu ray is only fooling themselves or don't find it important enough to face the truth. Colonel Blimp of course will look outstanding on a 1080p screen from a good blu ray player over an "upconverted" DVD. We must also remember that "upconverting" still doesn't add what is missing from a standard definition DVD in the first place. So the battle DVD vs blu ray is already won. Now, where are the 2160p discs!?
I just watched the Blu-ray restored "Colonel Blimp" and it is breathtaking. It looks like it was just made last week, except actually better looking than movies made today. Spectacular. No DVD can approach it.