Even so, compression plays the biggest factor. Just eliminating the compression needed for a DVD automatically enhances the quality. Not saying it's HD, but it should be clearer. I'm just not buying their tests.

This is how they did it: "Our expert viewing panel watched a selection of 17 films from a variety of studios, both made before and after the advent of the Blu-ray format. Each title was viewed simultaneously on DVD and Blu-ray disc on two identical Full-HD Sony TVs and played back on two identical Sony Blu-ray players (Blu-ray players can play both high-definition and regular DVD discs).

"When watching a DVD movie on a player connected to an HDTV via HDMI you have the option to adjust the settings and ‘up-scale’ the picture. For comparisons sake we left the 'up-scaling' option off, so the DVD was watched in its regular 576p resolution setting."

I was referring to older movies. The ones made prior to High-def. For example Star Wars. I know everything is film with HD camera currently. I see the cameras with the "HD" symbol a lot during sports broadcasts.

So the older films were filmed in HD?

I think what Soldier One is trying to say, is that all films are shot on a format that's by it's nature high quality. Not necessarily shot with HD cameras, but the older 35mm film cameras had great picture quality.

When those are compressed however, that quality suffers. So blu-rays allowing them to be uncompressed gives a better picture.

However those older films have to be touched up.

Actually, movies are shot above HD resolution. 35mm films usually transfers to around 5.3k resolution... so movies are actually "brought down" to HD. Also, theaters have been using 35mm copies of the films (although they're starting to move towards digital prjection) so they aren't really brought down for the theater. So your chain would actually look like this: Theater-Blu-Ray-HDTV-DVD in terms of quality.