Amen. I still see plenty of HD video these days that’s so bit-starved, it looks worse to me than a good DVD.

Speak for yourself. Upscaling a DVD to a 4k large TV looks tremendously bad unless you're doing it with specialized software with some format-aware intelligence in it. So you need a computer hooked to your TV.

There's plenty of bitrate starved streaming content that's available on streaming that's poorly upscaled from a DVD, but that's not the case on studio upscale Blu-Rays with extremely plentiful bitrates and sometimes even film re-scans resulting in a quality that was better than what you could even get in the theater from the original film stock.

A bluray won't be bit-starved.

UHD streaming, even if it is bit-starved, should be far ahead of a DVD. HD content that is bit-starved is more of a tossup, but I rarely see egregious behavior even from youtube's bad bitrates. I only see that on overcompressed television stations.

What? Of course you will notice a difference. No digital cameras means that everything was on film. More than enough for 4k, maybe less for 16mm.

> For most movies from the 80s and 90s it's not like you're going to notice a difference going to Blu Ray or UHD streaming.

Complete crock of shit. Movies from the 80s and 90s were usually shot on 35mm - DVD quality does not begin to extract the detail nor the dynamic range in these films.

It’s not a subtle difference.

And if bitstarving is an issue it’s usually going to be DVD. No amount of encoder magic can overcome MPEG-2 inherent shortcomings.

For movies you are absolutely going to notice a difference. Anything that was recorded digitally like many TV series is less clear.

Just getting rid of interlacing makes any upgrade from DVDs worth it IMO.