backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 228 comment(s) - last by adiposity.. on Jun 29 at 2:24 PM


  (Source: Sony)

A new survey indicates 93 percent of consumers don't plan on buying a Blu-Ray player. Will Blu-Ray go the way of Sony's Betamax -- another promising format -- or will it live on thanks to support from rental services like Blockbuster and the entry of sub-$200 players?  (Source: HiTech Canada)
New format desperately tries to avoid slipping into obscurity

When asked about his hard-fought victories over the Romans in 279 BC and 280 BC, King Pyrrhus of Epirus famously remarked, "one more such victory would utterly undo (me)."  Today, over a year after having dealt a death blow to its competitor HD-DVD, Blu-ray, Sony's proprietary high definition format, faces a similar Pyrrhic victory.

In the world of digital media being ubiquitous is the key to success.  The most successful storage formats have found their way into the homes, cars, or offices of the majority of consumers.  Whether its EP/LP records, cassette tapes, CDs, or DVDs at the height of each of these formats they could almost always be found in every household.

However, Blu-ray is not.  During its sales battle against HD-DVD observers always overlooked the fact that while it outsold its competitor, its own sales were not very large.  Now with the market to itself, Blu-ray is still struggling to avoid joining the likes of Laserdiscs and Betamax as the next fizzled format.

A recent Harris Interactive Poll showed that approximately 93 percent of consumers still don't have a dedicated Blu-ray player.  In fact more Americans own a HD-DVD capable player (11 percent) than a Blu-ray capable player (7 percent), though Blu-Ray does benefit from the fact that 9 percent own a Blu-ray capable PS3.  Their report also provides evidence that the attrition of the HD-DVD v. Blu-ray war continues to hurt sales.  Customers reported confusion about the high definition formats. 

While HD-TV ownership is up to 47 percent, up 35 percent from a year ago, most customers surprisingly report being content waiting for high definition cable, watching internet video, or up-converting DVDs for their HD fix.  Writes Milton Ellis, Vice President and Senior Consultant, Harris Interactive Technology, Media, and Telecom Practice, "Blu-ray also faces competition from alternative technologies such as cable, satellite, and the Internet.  Consumers today can easily watch high definition TV channels or use the Internet or video-on-demand to access high definition movies."

Speculates Mr. Ellis, "In the near future, access to high definition movies may be a download or streaming delivery of one’s favorite movies to a home media server that eliminates the need for a Blu-ray player and Blu-ray disc. One thing is for sure, the market will be highly competitive, and consumers will have a wide variety of choices for their entertainment experience."

Blu-ray is not without hope.  Sony continues to push the format in its computers and in its Playstation 3 gaming console.  Desktop and external Blu-ray R/W drives also should help further adoption.  And some video rental services, such as Blockbuster have devoted small sections to the format.  Lastly, the entry of sub-$200 players have helped sales to post some growth of late.

However, as Mr. Ellis points out, Blu-Ray stands at a crossroads three years after it hit the market in June 2006.  It still has its backers and a small but very loyal market segment.  However, the format is facing a do-or-die situation when it comes to proving its relevance with the average consumer.  Otherwise, like many other enthusiast formats, it risks going the way of the dinosaur.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Until
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 9:34:11 AM , Rating: 5
Until Blu-ray is the same price as DVD it isn't going to gain ground. In today's times, people can live with an up-converted DVD. While I do buy Blu-rays, I buy very few. It has to be an awesome movie for me to buy it. Yes you can find Blu-rays cheap. But they're typically older movies I already have on DVD and I'm not rebuying all my movies just to have them in HD. Being in HD doesn't make it a better movie.

Hell I bought Terminator 2 on Blu-ray because its one of those epic movies that I felt it'd be worth having in HD and it doesn't even have the extended version of the movie.




RE: Until
By shikigamild on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By flyboy84 on 6/23/2009 9:42:55 AM , Rating: 5
The advantages of DVD over VHS are much more than BRD over DVD.


RE: Until
By 16nm on 6/23/2009 10:24:52 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
BRD over DVD


I think the problem is the name. EVERYONE knows what DVD is and naturally knows what HD-DVD would mean, but "Blu-ray"? What does the name Bluray mean to the average consumer? It's not obvious and the averag joe is too lazy to really look into it so he just keeps buying the DVD format.


RE: Until
By phazers on 6/23/2009 11:38:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
EVERYONE knows what DVD is and naturally knows what HD-DVD would mean, but "Blu-ray"? What does the name Bluray mean to the average consumer?


Since just about every Sony & Walt Disney DVD release in the last year or so has a BD promo on it, I'd imagine quite a few consumers not quick enough to skip over the previews are familiar with the format by now.

Personally I think the average selling price of the players has to get down well below $100 and the average disc price has to be below $15 before it'll take off. And the promos have to tout the fact that the players will also play your old DVD collection..


RE: Until
By 9nails on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By BOLt on 6/23/2009 11:08:43 PM , Rating: 5
You haven't seen a BRD movie then.

Try Ironman in Blu-ray versus DVD on a good HDTV. The differences in picture (and sound) are quite noticeable.


RE: Until
By Oregonian2 on 6/24/2009 11:10:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't doubt it being noticeable. Don't doubt most all could notice the difference.

But it is as dramatic an improvement as VHS->DVD both in terms of video quality and actually-used user features (meaning DVDs didn't need to be rewound, DVDs could random access scenes, DVDs had bonus-material that was rare for VHS, etc)? I suspect that the "total" improvement of Blu-Ray is less dramatic.

Also there's the matter of being used to one's cable/satellite/etc version of HD which likely isn't as good as Blu-ray. This lowers what is "acceptable" in terms of comparison with well-upconverted good quality DVDs.

My quasi-reasonably priced OPPO plain-DVD player upconverts good DVDs (there are awful ones, some are only half of one DVD layer) very well. As good as Blu-Ray (assuming a Blu-Ray version exists, the vast vast vast majority of DVD titles that exist don't have Blu-Ray versions ...) video is, one still can very well enjoy a good DVD without being the least bit bent out of shape which one WOULD be using a VHS tape.

For a lot of material (say, episodes of Perry Mason that were broadcast in the 1950's) having a Blu-Ray version isn't going to help much in terms of video quality.

Of course, the number of folk who have excellent HD systems may also be small relative to the number who use regular DVDs. And there's folk like me who still have ancient audio systems (think mine is a 6.1 receiver connected to a 5.1 speaker setup) who may not be able to appreciate the better audio quality even if it's detectable.

P.S. - Disclosure (see other thread): I do have a Panasonic 1080p 58" plasma for the video part, but my speakers are only ancient Energy take 5 ones (plus Energy subwoofer).


RE: Until
By robinthakur on 6/25/2009 5:39:32 AM , Rating: 2
I own a PS3 and yes its a noticeable difference *to me* on my 46" 1080p calibrated screen with an onkyo 607 and KEF 3005SE speakers plus PS3. I was surprised recently however that a lot of people I have round could not tell the difference between my DVD copy and the Blu Ray version. ignoring the colour depth, clarity increase and improved motion handling. Some couldn't tell the difference even up close...This is in the UK which has a much lower penetration of HD content than the US, so theoretically it should blow people away.

The bottom line is that Blu Ray is an elitist's niche format. To get the best out of the format (without talking BIG money) you need a full-HD TV, an Amp which decodes Dolby True HD/ Master DTS etc. a Blu Ray Player, and you need to know how to set them all up properly. Now if you think the average person on the street knows or cares how to do that, you are living in a fantasy land, especially at the current time. If they even lack the knowledge to set it up correctly, then they won't see any difference to DVD. Trust me, it raises my eyebrows in shock but alot of people don't even use HD connections to connect their BD players...

They need to do something, and quick, otherwise it will just be another format which didn't quite reach critical mass. They need to get 1-box packs where you get a br player, speakers and amp in one pack, I think I've only seen a couple of them. BR recorders are also very much in demand to allow people to record HD, and it also gives them confidence in the format being around for a while, and therefore being worth investing in!


RE: Until
By robinthakur on 6/25/2009 5:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
I own a PS3 and yes its a noticeable difference *to me* on my 46" 1080p calibrated screen with an onkyo 607 and KEF 3005SE speakers plus PS3. I was surprised recently however that a lot of people I have round could not tell the difference between my DVD copy and the Blu Ray version. ignoring the colour depth, clarity increase and improved motion handling. Some couldn't tell the difference even up close...This is in the UK which has a much lower penetration of HD content than the US, so theoretically it should blow people away.

The bottom line is that Blu Ray is an elitist's niche format. To get the best out of the format (without talking BIG money) you need a full-HD TV, an Amp which decodes Dolby True HD/ Master DTS etc. a Blu Ray Player, and you need to know how to set them all up properly. Now if you think the average person on the street knows or cares how to do that, you are living in a fantasy land, especially at the current time. If they even lack the knowledge to set it up correctly, then they won't see any difference to DVD. Trust me, it raises my eyebrows in shock but alot of people don't even use HD connections to connect their BD players...

They need to do something, and quick, otherwise it will just be another format which didn't quite reach critical mass. They need to get 1-box packs where you get a br player, speakers and amp in one pack, I think I've only seen a couple of them. BR recorders are also very much in demand to allow people to record HD, and it also gives them confidence in the format being around for a while, and therefore being worth investing in!


RE: Until
By Dwezil on 6/24/2009 12:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
So, you saw the promos for BlueRay that are on a regular DVD and weren't impressed? All you saw was a standard definition commercial - you cannot see what a high def movie would look like from a standard definition dvd.
That reminds me of the TV ads that used to show how great one manufacturer's TVs were by showing gorgeous pictures on them - but if you could see how great the picture was, then your TV could obviously show something that looks that good too!


RE: Until
By Samus on 6/24/2009 8:01:41 AM , Rating: 3
it's just messed up HD-DVD lost the format war. i coulda swore backwards compatibility would have pretty much secured victory, but somehow.....somehow....the clearly less user friendly, substantially more expensive format with identical picture/audio quality still won.


RE: Until
By RMSe17 on 6/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By Samus on 6/25/2009 5:48:15 AM , Rating: 3
Burning aside, the DRM and lack of backwards compatibility make bluray clearly less consumer oriented.

The reason HD-DVD burners lacked market share (or even existance) is because Sony appeared to be strongarming the consumer electronics biz in China. Toshiba, not being in the business of making 'burners' couldn't care less about the lack of recording market. They were just concentrating on aligning studio's and getting vendor hardware out that cheap (the playback variety)

Had Toshiba (or anybody) made a cost effective recorder, it *might* have helped HD-DVD's cause, but I firmly believe with Sony in the way they were dead in the water from day zero.


RE: Until
By rollakid on 6/23/2009 7:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What does the name Bluray mean to the average consumer?


Seafood?


RE: Until
By Locutus465 on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By invidious on 6/23/2009 10:49:27 AM , Rating: 5
The visual capabilities were not the only upgrade from VHS to DVD. DVDs are smaller, more durable, and cheaper to blanks of. Fitting on a spindle or in a booklet made storage and portability huge plusses for DVD. While the phyiscal BR is virtually identical to a DVD.

So while from a resolution and bit rate point of view BR is a huge jump from DVD, people who are not tech savy don't understand those things and see little increase in practicality.

Personally trying to watch a DVD on my 47" LCD makes me want to cry, my cable box never goes below the HD channel range. Blueray is definately great for people like me and many others here. But my parents for example have a 28" LCD and a $30 DVD player, they have little desire to drop $200 on a BR player.


RE: Until
By Hiawa23 on 6/23/2009 11:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
So while from a resolution and bit rate point of view BR is a huge jump from DVD, people who are not tech savy don't understand those things and see little increase in practicality.

Personally trying to watch a DVD on my 47" LCD makes me want to cry, my cable box never goes below the HD channel range. Blueray is definately great for people like me and many others here. But my parents for example have a 28" LCD and a $30 DVD player, they have little desire to drop $200 on a BR player.


I think most don't care about bit rates & all that tech stuff. I would imagine watching DVDs on a TV that big wouldn't give the same clarity of Blu ray, but most people don't have Tvs that big, especially in this economy, & probably is a reason why Blu ray maybe is not taking off like some thought. The largest Tv in my home is 27", I just don't see any reason to get a tv that big unless someone is going to give me one. The cost benefit just isn't there for me, but for people like you seems fine, the problem with that is you are not the majority, not sure if that will change anytime soon especially with everything else more important that people have to deal with now.


RE: Until
By Locutus465 on 6/23/2009 2:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
you couldn't be more wrong, HDTV adoption is leaping forward at an amazing rate:

quote:
Looking at high definition television sets, almost half of consumers now report owning a high definition television (47%), up decidedly from May of 2008 (35%). HDTV ownership rises dramatically with household income (27% for those with less than $35K vs. 62% among those with more than $75K).


http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?nd...

While the author is also being negative about the new format, it does decidedly prove your points wrong. Even in the 32+" range bluray is already noticiably better than DVD. It's just a far superior product in every way. From the video and audio quailty, to the enhanced value offered by BD-Live.


RE: Until
By mezman on 6/23/2009 3:49:37 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, Blu-Ray is a far superior product to DVD from a technical standpoint. But Joe Sixpack doesn't know or care about the advantages of high bit rate AVC encodes over Mpeg-2 or 3Mbs DTS-HD MA over 448kbs DD. Not to mention the fact that even if Mr. Sixpack does have a surround sound setup, it most likely can't take the new lossless audio formats and his speakers aren't good enough to show the difference anyway.

Technical superiority is great for guys like us. But as long as player prices are high and media prices are twice what DVDs cost, Blu-Ray will never take off. That makes me sad as a gear head, but economics will rule the day I'm sure.


RE: Until
By Ryanman on 6/23/2009 4:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
oh GOD you used the term joe six pack!

WHY AMERICA?!? WHY?!?


RE: Until
By menace on 6/23/2009 5:07:58 PM , Rating: 3
Yep the average Joe has six-pack abs
Vive L'America!


RE: Until
By RubberJohnny on 6/23/2009 11:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
...or a six-pack of beer.


RE: Until
By ayat101 on 6/24/2009 1:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
YES... exactly... the abs created by drinking six-packs :)


RE: Until
By Lightnix on 6/24/2009 3:12:40 AM , Rating: 2
Why have a six pack when you can have a keg?


RE: Until
By evolucion8 on 6/24/2009 12:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
By Lightnix on 6/24/2009 3:12:40 AM , Rating: 3
Why have a six pack when you can have a keg?

LOLL

I own a BluRay player in my PC which costs me about $130 8 months ago, but the high prices of the Blu Ray movies plus the little library of movies, doesn't help at all. I only own 6 blu ray movies and I plan to buy another one in the next 6 months.


RE: Until
By Locutus465 on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By foolsgambit11 on 6/23/2009 4:46:35 PM , Rating: 5
And Betamax was a far superior product to VHS. And 8-tracks were way better than cassettes. Technical superiority is only the primary decision criterion for a small minority of users. The fact that you could jump anywhere in a movie quickly and easily was a huge thing for my parents when I introduced them to DVD. I had to point out the picture quality boost over VHS. Still, even though my parents loved the convenience of DVDs, it took them maybe 5 more years to get a player, because it wasn't that high of a priority for them. It wasn't until players and DVDs were priced about the same as VHS that they jumped in. I remember my dad saying, "I found a DVD player for less than $100, should I get it?" At this point, you could barely find VHS anywhere anymore, so it was a necessity to upgrade, too.

Blu-Ray has an uphill battle.


RE: Until
By tastyratz on 6/23/2009 4:46:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ferarri is superior to a Ford, but you don't see everyone just getting the Ferarri do you?
The limitations of a magnetic vs optical media are endless and beyond the scope here. Any consumer planted in front of a dvd and vhs could easily figure out the advantages. Any size TV shows dramatic quality. Functionally they were simpler and more appealing from a usage scenario. Bluray doesn't bring that to the table.

I was one of the first people to get a ps3, and love my bluray - but from a generic consumer perspective they wont understand fully.

More consumers are getting "HD" tv's, but the larger higher quality televisions are going to blast the differences and make them obvious. That's the upper eschelon of buyers. hdtv's and 42+ hdtv's are different categories.

Down to basics a Bluray can play a movie... just like dvd. Its going to appeal more to the enthusiast and *phile market. These are people approaching the home theater with a larger budget. If the player is only 200, it only matters to the people who have the extra 200 for a player. The majority of consumers would rather (ick) get a "good enough" home theater in a box system with their new tv.

You can start to see the difference with a new hdtv and bluray player on a ~$600 home theater budget. Most would rather get the cheap htib with their tv (and benefit more from it)

You can take advantage of and fully enjoy the benefits of bluray with a $2000+ entry total system budget. ( 800 up tv, 400 ps3, 800 decent truhd receiver + speakers)

How many people in today's economy fit in group 2 vs group 1? Cost vs benefit makes it not worthwhile unless your in group 2.


RE: Until
By Locutus465 on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By 9nails on 6/23/2009 9:13:03 PM , Rating: 5
All things being equal, I'd rather have the less expensive car and money for dinner. I don't need big and flashy right now, I need affordable.


RE: Until
By GWD5318 on 6/23/2009 10:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... it's like buying a Camaro ($22k) to a focus, which would you rather drive?


Depends on the Focus. On more that one occasion I've left Camaros in the dust of my SVT Focus ZX5. Sure, they have me in the straightaways, but once the road get's twisty, buh-bye.

On topic: I have to agree with the opinion of that unless the prices drop and the practical benefits of Blu-ray is better communicated with the average buyer, this superior format is likely to become another Betamax.


RE: Until
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 2:46:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
DVDs are smaller, more durable, and cheaper to blanks of.

I have a friend who is a librarian. They rent both DVDs and video cassettes. She says she gets about 100 rentals out of a DVD before she has to replace it, vs. 500 for a video cassette. I was pretty shocked to hear that, but she said the disks get scratched through handling, whereas the cassette tape is always protected.


RE: Until
By akugami on 6/23/2009 8:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
One of the benefits of was the scratch resistant coating. I'm not sure if it's a standard requirement or optional feature. I'm too chicken to attempt scratching up my minuscule Blu-Ray collection to test this out and I can't seem to find a clear answer via Google.


RE: Until
By Josh7289 on 6/24/2009 12:58:31 AM , Rating: 3
In another sense DVDs are more 'durable' than VHS, since the quality of VHS tapes degrades the more you watch them.


RE: Until
By Solandri on 6/24/2009 3:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
Bear in mind that you can make perfect backups of DVDs because they're digital (after you defeat the copy-protection). While that's not very useful for DVD rentals, if you own a DVD and know it's going to suffer a lot of wear and tear (e.g. Disney movies for the kids), just burn a copy and put the original in a safe place. Let the kids watch off the copy. When they've watched it 100 times and destroyed the disc, just burn another copy, good as new.

If you tried to do the same thing with VHS, the image quality of the copy would be inferior, and your original would slowly degrade with each playback. You'd also run into the Macrovision copy protection. While it can be defeated too, doing so requires buying a hardware device. Defeating the DVD's copy protection only requires downloading some free software.

(Disclaimer: I do not condone illegal copying of copyrighted materials. I do however support exercising your fair use rights to back up copyrighted materials you have lawfully purchased. AFAIK, Disney is the only studio which offers replacement discs for the cost of media and shipping. So all the other studios can take their copy protection and shove it.)


RE: Until
By Hiawa23 on 6/24/2009 9:03:48 AM , Rating: 2
Bear in mind that you can make perfect backups of DVDs because they're digital (after you defeat the copy-protection). While that's not very useful for DVD rentals, if you own a DVD and know it's going to suffer a lot of wear and tear (e.g. Disney movies for the kids), just burn a copy and put the original in a safe place

This is great for rentals. I have Netflix, & it takes minutes to copy & send back the DVDs, so you can perfect copies of any dvd if you have the right tools & they are pretty easy to get.


RE: Until
By killerb255 on 6/24/2009 12:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
I believe Solandri was referring to exercising your fair-use rights to make a backup copy of something you own and not blatant piracy?


RE: Until
By Oregonian2 on 6/24/2009 11:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Personally trying to watch a DVD on my 47" LCD makes me want to cry, my cable box never goes below the HD channel range. Blueray is definately great for people like me and many others here


Are you using the set's upconverting of the DVD?

I've a 32" LCD HDTV (720p) that if fed a SD DVD signal, video looks like (relative) crap.

I've a 58" Plasma HDTV (1080p) that if fed 1080 upconverted HDMI video with upconversion by an OPPO DV-981HD DVD player, a good DVD looks extremely good with one almost thinking it's an HD source (not quite, but one is surprised at the quality).

So one might think the upconversion would look worse on the MUCH bigger screen, the opposite is true in my case.

The quality of the up-conversion makes a huge difference.


RE: Until
By Zapp Brannigan on 6/23/2009 1:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about all of what you've said, but 95% of people don't care about stuff like that. All they care about is instant scene selection, no rewinding and perfect freeze frame (for the boobies!!). DVD delivers these things as well as Blu-ray.


RE: Until
By Locutus465 on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By foolsgambit11 on 6/23/2009 4:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No it doesn't, DVD for instance makes you leave the movie to do all this
DVD does do all of this, but not as well or as conveniently as BD. So, yes, it does. Most consumers will put up with a small inconvenience and 'good enough' quality rather than pay a couple hundred for a player and an extra ten bucks a movie, especially if their screen doesn't have > 480 vres and they don't have a surround sound system.

You don't have to convince the people here that BD is technically superior to DVD. We all know that, and those of us who can afford it are all up in the HD content. But your arguments are really not convincing to the everyman out there.


RE: Until
By Locutus465 on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By foolsgambit11 on 6/23/2009 5:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, I see the confusion. The OP said that "DVD delivers these things as well as Blu-Ray".

You parsed that as 'DVD delivers these things "every bit as good" as Blu-Ray'. I parsed it as 'DVD delivers these things, "in addition to"/"as does" Blu-Ray'. Which he meant, I don't know, but it's quite likely you're right. Both our points, though, stand as valid comments. BD does these things better, but most people don't see the price/performance as being worth it.


RE: Until
By Locutus465 on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By 9nails on 6/23/2009 9:23:26 PM , Rating: 3
No price is as good as what you already own.

And very few people can upgrade for the cost of a player alone. Most have to suffer through the confusion of which cables to buy and how to network their player for the firmware update worries. That, on top of the cost for each BD disc, is enough justification not to upgrade when the difference can appear to be minimal.


RE: Until
By 91TTZ on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By cyriene on 6/23/2009 11:19:41 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree. The problems with VHS tapes wearing out, and remember the tracking issues and trying to adjust that.
VHS >>> DVD > BRD

The resolution of Blu-ray is nice over DVD, but other than that there isn't much the average consumer would care about.


RE: Until
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 4:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
My librarian friend says she has to replace DVDs after 100 watchings, but VHS don't need to be replaced for 500 watchings.


RE: Until
By rcc on 6/23/2009 5:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, but they are lending to people. Owners are going to treat their discs better. Unless they have kids, then they replace every 20 viewings. Unless they wise up and put them on a hard drive.


RE: Until
By bobobeastie on 6/23/2009 4:25:38 PM , Rating: 1
The alligator eats the bigger (better) number (thing)
I think you mean VHS<<<DVD<<<<<<BD
Well, that's my opinion, but you get the idea.


RE: Until
By piroroadkill on 6/24/2009 5:49:42 AM , Rating: 2
VHS is much much much greater than DVD which is greater than Bluray?


RE: Until
By Dribble on 6/23/2009 11:22:19 AM , Rating: 5
VHS had more wrong with it then resolution. It wore out, it was big and bulky, you can't instantly skip to a point in a vhs, it had no menus. Never really did special features (due to size 2 vhs's and the inability to skip to the feature you wanted).

Dvd also had much better sound then vhs (I know blue ray has better sound then dvd but unless you are an audiophile with a 7.1 setup you can't really tell the difference).

The other problem is blue ray only really looks better on a full hd set (i.e 1080p), it doesn't really help much for 720p TV's as you have to interpolate either way.
i.e. PAL Dvd's have 576 lines of resolution, which is pretty close to the tv's 720 lines. Blue ray has to downscale from 1080 to 720 which doesn't map 1:1 meaning a loss of quality over a true 720 line format, hence the difference ends up being pretty minor.


RE: Until
By Parhel on 6/23/2009 1:18:40 PM , Rating: 5
For me, the best part was never having to rewind a tape again. The rest was nice to have too, but that was number one.


RE: Until
By Locutus465 on 6/23/2009 2:53:19 PM , Rating: 1
D-VHS had menus, skipping (though not absolutly instant), was high definition and had better audio than DVD. Yet people didn't jump all over it. I was told not long ago that speacial features don't matter ;) Probably because bluray pwns DVD in speacial features.


RE: Until
By RubberJohnny on 6/24/2009 12:34:30 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with your first 2 points, but the third is pure BS - Dribble you might say ;)

Interpolation is NOT a problem when downscaling. On a 720p projector (92 inches) it's nearly impossible to see a difference in quality from downscaling a 1080p bluray as opposed to a native 720p file, have you got any links to back up your theory?

I also come from a PAL region and a downscaled bluray looks MUCH better than an upscaled PAL dvd on a screen that size.

quote:
PAL Dvd's have 576 lines of resolution, which is pretty close to the tv's 720 lines...
PRETTY CLOSE ?!?!?! it's less than half the res!

Dont forget you are only looking at the vertical resolution of 576p, which in reality is 720 Ă— 576 = 414720 pixels. 720p is 1280 x 720p = 921600 pixels. Over twice the resolution! and it's not an even 1:2 map to upscale, in the end it looks like crap compared to a bluray.


RE: Until
By Regs on 6/24/2009 1:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't know all the technical specs, but I knew it was BS just from my own personnel experience owning a 720p LCD TV. Thank you for that explanation.

Their are some blue rays that show little difference compared to a DVD, other than of course it not being stretched and distorted to fit a larger screen TV using 720 Ă— 576. Those blue-rays are usually the ones with piss poor color replication. The Dark knight for instance...the movie was all dark! Other than the a few explosions and the jokers face paint, there was nothing really eye popping about it. Though who also wants to see The Dark Knight stretched out, pixilated, and distorted on their 42-48+ screens.

As for the format war, serves them right. The studios went with blue-ray to fit their own needs, and not the customers. So F' them.


RE: Until
By RubberJohnny on 6/24/2009 10:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
Dark movies are decidely hard for (non LED backlit) LCDs to reproduce well.

I have the same problem with my (cheap) 720p DLP projector, blacks are crushed so you lose detail in the dark sections of the movie. You can adjust the gamma or brightness up to compensate but then the whites become overblown.

That's why plasmas are generally regarded as having a better quality picture, lets hope they keep making them for a while to come.


RE: Until
By robinthakur on 6/25/2009 5:49:38 AM , Rating: 2
Say what you will, I found my Blu Rays much less impresssive when I took it to my mother's house and played it back through her 720p Samsung 46" than it is on my Samsung 1080p 46". I had to keep explaining that this *was* the next big thing even though nobody there could really tell the difference at normal viewing distances, and even I had difficulty seeing many of the benefits besides increased colour resolution even up close...! No wonder it hasn't taken off. You would need all manufacturers to stop making DVD players and move to blu-ray en masse for this to happen, along with the confusing HD branding on some upscalers, which makes some people unaware of the difference!


RE: Until
By RubberJohnny on 6/24/2009 3:29:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
blue ray only really looks better on a full hd set (i.e 1080p), it doesn't really help much for 720p TV's as you have to interpolate either way.

Had a feeling this was completely false.

From http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zybe...
quote:
If you want to watch a 1080i HD broadcast or a 1080p Blu-ray on your TV, those signals will need to be scaled to 720p first...A bad scaler will introduce artifacts such as shimmer, aliasing, or pixelation. A good scaler will be essentially seamless


RE: Until
By tlampen on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By 91TTZ on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By Sunner on 6/24/2009 4:12:09 AM , Rating: 3
I was around for VHS as well, and in my eyes, the move from VHS to DVD was far bigger than the move from DVD to BD.
While I personally love HD movies, trying to convince my parents, or indeed any of my "non geek" friends that BD is worth it would be a lost cause.
Better image/sound quality? They don't care.
PiP features? They don't care.
All they want is to watch movies in a comfortable way, DVD lets them do this, and they all own DVD players/recorders.

When my parents bought a DVD player though, they did care about not having to (re)wind the tape, tapes wearing out the more you watch, the discs being far smaller, etc. All of those are practical things that you don't need to be a geek to appreciate.

Heck, apart from quality, there's not a single thing about BD that appeals to me, and I'm fairly sure I'm a major geek :)


RE: Until
By Hiawa23 on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By TSS on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By Boze on 6/23/2009 10:56:15 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your assessment. You can go over to Newegg right now and pick up a 1 terabyte external hard drive from Western Digital or Maxtor or pick your company, for around $99 to $109. That's what... $0.10? 10 cents per gigabyte? All those external drives have USB 2.0 and/or FireWire 400/800 interfaces. Transfer speeds to/from my stack of 1 TB MyBooks is around 30 to 38 megabytes per second, well approaching the limits of the USB 2.0 spec anyway. Don't have a power outlet? Not a problem, several external drives draw power straight from the USB port itself.

Furthermore, with USB 3.0 on its way and solid state drives quickly gaining ground, soon you're going to see blazingly fast data transfer from external drives.

If I were really interested in moving data to and from my computer to a friend's, I would hardly use a recordable format these days unless I was going to drop it in the mail. If you can't make it over to someone's house, not a big issue; ask them to bring their laptop to class or work, plug in your external drive or USB flash drive (these get to 128 GB and larger now) and transfer the data over. When they get home, they can move it from laptop to desktop over the network.

I am really seeing less and less of a need to ever use recordable media.


RE: Until
By killerb255 on 6/24/2009 1:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
+1 on this note.

I read about the introduction of Blu-ray when it was announced in 2004, and I was pretty excited back then. HD-DVD was announced shortly after that, and I figured there was going to be format confusion that rivaled DVD+R and DVD-R considerably (in which that ended as a stalemate, as any DVD burner these days can deal with both formats).

Nowadays, even with Blu-ray winning, it's competing with the following:

1) Price.

2) The economy (laid-off workers could care less about Blu-ray in most cases).

3) DVDs, as the difference between BD and DVD in quality is not as big of a jump to many as DVD was compared to VHS.

4) DRM to some extent (old HDTV that's not HDCP-compliant, anyone?)

4) Alternative storage media--Hard drives, flash drives, flash cards (SD, MS, etc.), and SSDs.

Within the next year or so, we may see 2 TB SD cards (yes, that's T B, not GB)!! If that's the case, next gen consoles may end up using cards to store game releases instead of optical media (which almost seems like a step backwards...remember the Sega Master System and TurboGrafx16 with their card-based games?)

The only real advantage BD can claim in the storage dept. would be on a PS3 vs. that of an XBox 360, and even that's minor (those that have played the XBox 360 game Star Ocean: The Last Hope with all of its disc swapping may wonder if the 360 would benefit from BDs...).

In any case, whether it'd be for HD video or plain ol' storage, BD may very well be the second-to-last optical media format anyone will really care about. The last will be Pioneer's 250 GB/layer Holographic disc format, which may support 7000+x4000+ UHDTV format, which nobody will care about if SD cards do the same...


RE: Until
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 4:16:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The advantages of DVD over VHS are much more than BRD over DVD.

I think it's about the same.

- DVD upped the line resolution from VHS's 320-400 up to 480. BRD ups it from 480 to 1080.

- VHS occasionally had special features after the main feature, but DVD took it to the next level with audio commentary, production stills and other special features. BRD ups that by providing PIP and Internet content.

- DVD introduced multiple dubbed (usually 3: Engl, Sp, & Fr) sound tracks. BRD ups that to dozens.

- VHS had four channel sound, DVD 5.1, and BRD 7.1.

The visuals are what get me. 1080P is such a leap beyond anything that has come before it, I think it will be the standard for the next 10 years at least. When properly done, it looks so good that there will be no motivation for people to migrate to something better. And at 8-9 feet the eye can't differentiate between 720P and 1080P, so even if we bumped it up to 1620P or something, you wouldn't be able to sit close enough to notice the difference unless you had a 65" TV.

There's also the sound. 7.1 formats are already lossless, so it can't really get any better.


RE: Until
By Oregonian2 on 6/24/2009 11:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The visuals are what get me. 1080P is such a leap beyond anything that has come before it, I think it will be the standard for the next 10 years at least.


Doubtful seeing as how broadcast TV isn't capable of 1080P, and given that it took a zillion years to get to digital at all, the next upgrade may take a while.

1080 may become standard though (1080i for broadcast).


RE: Until
By MrPoletski on 6/24/2009 1:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
not to mention that if the film was not recorded in HD then the blu ray version will just be an upscaled normal definition image. I learnt this when I got The Usual Suspects on blu ray, sure it's better quality than normal tv but it's no better than a well produced DVD.

On the other hand, recently HD filmed stuff looks far superior on blu ray vs DVD.

One thing to remember about DVD is that it arrived about the same time as mass mainstreamed LCD TV's which also gave a marked increase in picture quality.


RE: Until
By AlexWade on 6/23/2009 9:57:02 AM , Rating: 4
I was one of those. But here is the difference.

VHS quality degraded over time. After several playbacks, the sound gets fuzzy and the picture fades. DVD quality does not do that. With DVD it is all or nothing. So it was worth getting a DVD because my VHS was already ruined due to frequent playbacks. Add to that, the extra abilities in DVD, such as chapter skip and no need to rewind. And since DVD when they first came out went straight to the movie without "coming attractions" and obligatory menus and intros, it was all the better.

Blu-Ray and HD DVD did not add any of those things, they just inherited the selling points of DVD. I re-bought a movie that I had on DVD. I bought the HD DVD version of Apollo 13. That is when I found out something. When the source is not HD quality, then there is very little visual improvement going from DVD to HD DVD or Blu-Ray. I compared a shot using the upscaled DVD version vs the HD DVD version and the HD DVD version was only slightly better. Why upgrade the HD DVD or Blu-Ray if the only benefit is a nicer menu system and a few extras which I will rarely use?

I also bought So I Married An Axe Murderer on Blu-Ray (never had the DVD version). It too was not sharp like newer movies. It looked like an upscaled DVD. Why spend more for so little benefit? That is the difference. There was a huge benefit going from VHS to DVD, less of a benefit going from DVD to Blu-Ray. Except on newer titles, but most people don't know that.

P.S. I propose we ban any movie previews on DVD's and Blu-Ray except on rental discs. Further, I propose that we require the movie to be at the top menu or playing within one minute, no exception. Who is with me?


RE: Until
By rudy on 6/23/2009 10:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
I agree I cannot believe how I will put in a movie and come back after doing several things to get ready and the previews will still be running. The movie industry has been down hill since sony took over half of it. If you do not give the customer value you will eventually lose them.

The only blue ray players I have are ones that came free in computers I have. And I almost never rent a movie in BR, I either get what they have at redbox or find it online. Personally I think it will be good if BR fails cause it may speed up the move to online content.


RE: Until
By wallijonn on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 4:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
Downloadable movies also aren't 1080P with lossless 7.1 soundtracks either.


RE: Until
By Golgatha on 6/23/2009 12:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
A HTPC with AnyDVD HD and a Blu-ray drive is what you need. No lobbying or waiting involved.


RE: Until
By killerb255 on 6/24/2009 1:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
...but how many Joe Sixpacks will have or even bother with an HTPC?


RE: Until
By Motoman on 6/23/2009 10:08:14 AM , Rating: 4
...that's because VHS tapes wear out quickly, not because they wanted to re-buy them. DVDs will last as long as Blu-Ray disks.


RE: Until
By ice456789 on 6/23/2009 11:07:28 AM , Rating: 5
Here are my personal barriers to entry, which will probably mirror the market barriers that BRD is dealing with.

Cost has already been discussed. It is not worth $300 + $30 per movie for me to upgrade, when current DVD's really don't look bad even on my 50" HDTV. The cost of the software is crippling.

If I were to jump in to BRD, a huge hurtle is portability. I have kids. If they wanted to watch Wall-e on a trip in the car I'd have to buy the DVD version. I understand some BRD's include a DVD version, but not a majority. That would probably be the biggest factor in deciding which kids movie to buy.

The single biggest thing keeping me from buying though is that I see disk media being phased out in a few years. Soon we'll be buying our movies on SD cards or just downloading/streaming them with. SD cards or flash drives seem to be very close to reality. The hardware involved to play them would not be expensive, and the disks themselves are always going down in price. Currently a single layer BRD holds 25 gigs (per Blu-ray.com). A 32 gig SD card can currently be had by a consumer for less than $70. If a movie company were to buy in bulk, I imagine that price would be halved. In a couple years it will be financially feasible to put movies onto SD cards. The question is will downloading/ streaming become mainstream before then?

The race to replace the DVD as the primary movie unit is underway, and IMO BRD trails far behind flash memory and downloading. The latter two formats are much more future-proofed. Download a movie to your house and if you need to take it with you, put it on a thumb drive or SD card and plug it right in to your car's video screen or your friend's TV. Just like MP3's have taken over music, so will digital take over movies. It's just a matter of time. BRD WILL become the next laserdisk.


RE: Until
By Parhel on 6/23/2009 12:35:03 PM , Rating: 5
My feelings exactly. Even if my DVD player were to break today, and I actually bought a BRD player to replace it, I can tell you with certainty that I would never purchase a single BluRay disc.

First off, I don't care to own movies in general. I watch them once, then they just take up space. For what I want to see, I have Netflix and I prefer to stream that over the Xbox. The only videos I'm likely to rewatch enough to bother owning are my kid's movies, and I want to be able to watch those in the car and on airplanes on my portable.


RE: Until
By deltadeltadelta on 6/23/2009 3:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The single biggest thing keeping me from buying though is that I see disk media being phased out in a few years.


EXACTLY! I HATE having my media tied to a device. Of course, even when it ends up in portable streams or files, there is still the codec/viewer problem. But at least we are moving in the right direction.


RE: Until
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 4:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
You'll always be able to buy a BRD player. VHS has been around for 35 years and you can still buy VHS players.


RE: Until
By ice456789 on 6/24/2009 12:04:20 AM , Rating: 3
Tell that to my friend who owns a large library of laserdisks and his player just broke. Hey, it's been around for 15 years, he should still be able to buy one right?

BRD players will only be available in 10 years if they become the dominant media for movies, and I don't see that happening.


RE: Until
By Inkjammer on 6/23/2009 9:39:04 AM , Rating: 5
Yep, exactly. I still see Blu-ray discs being sold for $25, $30 and over. Sometimes I'll spot a disc "on sale" for $19.95 but that's hardly the average. Look at the same movie on DVD, and it's half the cost. Blu-ray has incredible advantages over regular DVDs, but the costs are monstrous by comparison.


RE: Until
By zombiexl on 6/23/2009 9:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I started buying BR's because my kids ruin all my dvd's. They know they arent allowed to touch the blue (or red, yes i still have some hd-dvds) cases.

Some BR's are starting to come with DVD and BR. Usually for under $30, which is good since I only have 1 ps3 in the house and no other BR players yet even though i have a few hd tv's.


RE: Until
By mcnabney on 6/23/2009 9:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
Why spend thousands replacing your DVD collection with BluRays when 4K is peeking around the corner?

4K displays can already be purchased.
4K media will only require a 100GB disk, which can already be done with a quad-layer BD.
There are already PC gaming cards and software that supports 4k resolutions.

BluRay is already irrelevant. In three years 4K will start entering the consumer market and people will buy into that since that is the maximum resolution that all film movies made up until now can be digitized. So 4K will be the long-term future standard so what is the point wasting money on BDs?


RE: Until
By Zandros on 6/23/2009 10:50:50 AM , Rating: 5
Very few sources provide enough visual detail for 4k to be of use. In most cases, I'd say 1080p is a stretch.


RE: Until
By Parhel on 6/23/2009 1:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
True. And even if the source material were up to that level, raising resolutions beyond 1080p is going to have seriously diminishing returns on even the largest of display sizes.

Also, with the shape of the global economy, I'd say any new standards that would require consumers to rebuy everything is far off. If the market isn't even adopting BluRay, I doubt any major players are thinking 4k is viable.


RE: Until
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 4:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, while most people are investing in 1080P TVs, 4K won't be able to top BRD on those in any noticeable way.

There's also the limitation of the human eye which can't differentiate between 720p and 1080P at 8 feet or more. So, you'll either need to sit really close, or have a very large TV to notice the improvements offered by 4K.


RE: Until
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 10:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
Do you seriously think there will be yet another standard out in 3 years? The correct answer is no. You won't be able to realistically stream or download those kinds of file sizes so those delivery methods are out for the near future. And most people want to physically have a movie.

Just because the technology is available to build a better display, doesn't mean the media will be there.


RE: Until
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 5:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
I agree FIT. The best near-theater quality experience for the next 5-10 years is going to come from BRD. At some point you'll be able to stream 20 GB 1080P movies but not for many years.


RE: Until
By Boze on 6/23/2009 11:20:18 PM , Rating: 1
20 GB streams? Not for many years? What kind of slow ass connections are you people running?

I'm already seeing people in specific parts of America with 40 mbps cable connections. 10, 25, 50, and even 100 mbps FTTP (Fiber To The Premises) is becoming available in more and more cities with the city government realizing that for a modest investment, they can lay fiber throughout their city, or modify and enhance existing installations, and then offer up digital television, telephone services, and Internet access for ridiculous prices. Chattanooga I believe does this, its $99 a month for an obscene amount of channels, all standard telephone features with unlimited nationwide long-distance, and a 50 mbps symmetrical connection!

Even with an asymmetrical connection like cable or xDSL, all you need is high downstream bandwidth capabilities anyway. And it would be simplistic to simply start buffering the movie enough so that you could begin watching in a few minutes and have enough buffered to never see an interruption. Go fix yourself some popcorn or get a drink while you wait.

The vast majority may not have this capability yet due to piss poor managing of $300 million dollars that the federal government granted to cable companies about a decade ago, but Americans aren't quite as stupid as people think. Everyone's starting to come around to understanding that digital delivery is the future. The true laypeople that get their music from iTunes, or Amazon MP3, or wherever are eventually going to ask, "Why can't I get the newest movie releases the same way I get my new music releases?" They're not going to know or care about the tremendous additional bandwidth of having a picture to go along with that audio; they're going to care about being able to see their movie.

The savvy media companies, ISPs, and studios are hopefully aware of this and are considering quickly how to address this. There's no excuse not to have a 100 mbps connection across all of America. There's no excuse for the richest nation on Earth not having the world's best telecommunications network. Distance and size is a copout.


RE: Until
By killerb255 on 6/24/2009 1:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
...it is a copout, but ISPs are still going to use it in the form of proposed bandwidth caps and other means.

Verizon may be utilizing FTTP, but AT&T is being lazy about it and utilizing FTTN (Fiber to the Node) and using copper connections from the node to the premises.

Also, rural areas will still continue to lose out, as their best options for any kind of broadband is a cell modem or satellite! Cable companies and telcos won't bother with rural areas with populations of less than 1000 scattered throughout farmland...


RE: Until
By Dribble on 6/23/2009 11:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
Movies are only recorded at about 2K, with the exception of Imax specials (which are about 4K). Hence there would be nothing to watch.


RE: Until
By ArcliteHawaii on 6/23/2009 4:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
Or no advantage or BR anyway.


RE: Until
By RubberJohnny on 6/24/2009 12:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Movies are only recorded at about 2K, with the exception of Imax specials (which are about 4K). Hence there would be nothing to watch.

More misinformation from Dribble...

Movies are mostly shot on 35mm film which yields around 4k of res when digitised except for when a digital intermediate stage is introduced
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zybe...

Baraka was digitised to 8K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraka_(film)

I agree there becomes a point when an increase in res doesn't help image quality. Experts would argue that contrast is more important which says alot when many people have LCDs with terrible static contrast ratios as their main movie displays.


RE: Until
By randomname on 6/24/2009 3:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
I definitely would not say that 35mm is "around 4k". You start to see film grain in much lower resolutions, on Blu-ray and even below that. On the other hand, you can see some of the limits of 1080p/2k when it is transferred to 35 mm film. I would say that 35mm film is around 2k in useful resolution.

Possibly if most of the photography is done in bright daylight (or the same level of lighting) you could use film stock that would in all conditions gives more resolution than 2k, but otherwise graininess limits the resolution. (Remember that on still cameras you can have longer exposure times than 1/24 sec.) Or if the movie is filmed using 70mm film or is completely digital, the film transfer might have significantly more than 2k res. But usually one of the greatest advantages of digital cinema is digital projection (DLP), which is more consistent than film projection, where the picture can be much lower in resolution than what it could (and should) be.

And don't expect Casablanca to be the prime example of 4k, the film of that era yields much less resolution than modern (Super) 35mm.


RE: Until
By Shadowself on 6/23/2009 12:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
Where can a consumer get a 4K system (not a special, custom set up)?

Where can a consumer get 4K media?

What titles are commercially available in 4K format?

Until you answer these questions, we can only surmise you're just trolling.

4K will happen, but it is extremely unlikely it will be a common, commercial, consumer format before 2020. We may *start* to see high end consumer systems around 2015 or so, but mass market systems won't happen until at least 2020.


RE: Until
By 9nails on 6/23/2009 10:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
You're going a little strong with the trolling remark.

The 4K systems are currently available in commercial systems. I suppose, if you like, you could install such a system in your own home. But I would expect the price would be in the several hundred thousands of dollars. But if you want to look now, find some screens in your home town that support this resolution. For example, near me Star Trek was released to an iMax theater which has a 4K projector. The picture was breath taking. I saw the same movie in a standard 2K theater and was able to notice the lack of detail and clarity.

With the lack of interest in Blu-Ray I suspect that the next evolution would come quicker than we might think.


RE: Until
By RubberJohnny on 6/24/2009 1:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
Was it the new Star Trek?

According to: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zybe...

'...even though the new 'Star Trek' was shot on 35mm, it's forever locked to 2k because that was the resolution of its DI (digital intermediate) stage...'

Maybe the projector was just better quality in the 4k cinema?

Also if people aren't impressed enough with 1080p to buy bluray then i doubt raising it again will entice them to jump on 4K, especially with the astronomical costs involved ATM. Sad but true.


RE: Until
By randomname on 6/24/2009 3:54:12 AM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt that an average (but wealthy) consumer could buy DCI projectors and films to use in his home theatre. They (DCI, LLC) can choose their customers and they want to prevent piracy. And the members are mostly movie studios, who want to maintain movie theatres as the best (or at least the first) place to watch movies.

As I have understood it, often the first versions of a movie land on torrents when an employee of a movie theatre films the movie (using cameras donated by richer people) when the film is played through (before press screenings) to check the image quality etc. Then it is distributed though a darknet before it is seeded to torrents by numerous unrelated people. If the same people could do the first part in their homes, the risks would be much lower.

However, if your name is Steven Spielberg, I'm sure you could buy the equipment to use at your home.


RE: Until
By BigPeen on 6/23/2009 12:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Why would the movie studios allow movies to be released in 4k? They'd just be cannibalizing all their movie theater ticket sales?


RE: Until
By menace on 6/23/2009 5:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
4K??? whaddaya watch your TV from a foot away???


RE: Until
By killerb255 on 6/24/2009 1:26:50 PM , Rating: 2
4k? Is that the same as UHD/UHDTV? 7000+x4000+ resolution?

I thought 250 GB holographic discs would be the format to support that? Then again, for those that have BD players, it would make more sense to use the existing players with firmware upgrades to support multi-layer BDs and UHD format...

Either way, as I said before, with 2 TB SD cards around the corner, optical media may not last another 10 years...


RE: Until
By AlphaVirus on 6/23/2009 10:02:04 AM , Rating: 2
If anyone is in the Houston, TX area I would like to introduce to you the Movie Exchange on Westheimer/Hillcroft. You will find old Blurays for $5 and new for at most $25, the average is about $15 for popular hits. Normally the highest are for trilogies, box sets, and major box office hits. If you are not in Houston then you might want to begin looking on Craigslist or other websites similar to Amazon because lots of people sell movies online.

http://www.bing.com/local/details.aspx?lid=YN844x1...


RE: Until
By mcnabney on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By cyriene on 6/23/2009 10:49:30 AM , Rating: 5
Meh,
I started to use Bing some, just so I am not so reliant on Google. I haven't had a problem finding anything. I haven't search for difficult things, but for basic searches I don't see much difference in the two.
Also, Bing has better maps and image searches the Google in my opinion.
That said, I still use Google 90% of the time for my searches out of habit.


RE: Until
By Parhel on 6/23/2009 1:35:57 PM , Rating: 3
I was removing a virus from my grandfather's computer the other day, and several of my Google searches were redirected to paid advertisements. At first, I thought it was the virus, but after some research it turned out to be Google doing that. It might have been his Google toolbar, because it doesn't happen to me, but I'll switch to Bing the second they try that crap on me.


RE: Until
By ExarKun333 on 6/23/2009 4:11:31 PM , Rating: 2
Your ignorance speaks volumes too; go troll somewhere else and use your webcrawler search engine. Your a fool.


RE: Until
By cyriene on 6/23/2009 11:22:41 AM , Rating: 2
But when it comes down to it, most movies don't benefit from the higher resolution enough to justify the increased price in the consumer's mind. Sure it looks better, but DVDs still look good with upconversion for a fraction of the cost. Better resolution will not turn a shitty movie into a good movie.

The main reason for my HDTV is for HD signals from DirectTV and over the air. Sports look much better in HD and I get the local channels for free. Plus, I can watch TV in HD everyday. I have no intentions to buy a bunch of BRD movies and watch them over and over. It isn't worth the cost.
The only thing BRD are good for is renting from netflix or blockbuster and returning. I don't understand why people buy a ton of movies. I will buy a select few because only a select few movies are actually good and I would want to watch again. BRD will need to drop in price to commpete against the other forms of HD entertainment.

Eventually I will get a Blu-ray player, but it will be a drive in my pc which is hooked up to the TV. This is cheaper and more functional than yet another box in the entertainment system.


RE: Until
By Hiawa23 on 6/23/2009 12:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. The only reason I even bought an HDTV was for my computer & PS3 Xbox 360. Yep, I think we all gree, the higher res the better but for the average consumer it aint needed.


RE: Until
By wallijonn on 6/23/2009 12:55:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Eventually I will get a Blu-ray player, but it will be a drive in my pc which is hooked up to the TV. This is cheaper and more functional than yet another box in the entertainment system.


It'll probably need to be a Media Centre PC because a regular PC will probably generate too much fan noise. Even the PS3 has too much fan noise when watching quiet scenes in a movie. Yes, you can turn up the volume but then you'd probably not be able to watch a movie late at night when your neighbours are sleeping.

Cheaper? I doubt it. A $2000 PC is hardly cheaper than a $400 console. Yes, I'm sure that you'll justify it by saying that the PC does so much more, but it does it at a higher price; just the OS alone is probably as much as a player.


RE: Until
By bolders on 6/23/2009 2:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
You dont need to justify the use of a PC as being able to do more as it would not cost $2000 dollars.

The cost in the UK for a PC that can play bluray is about ÂŁ500-ÂŁ600. I know these prices are in pounds sterling but we tend to pay more for hardware here than in the US. The cost in pounds is roughly the same as in dollars despite the exchange rate.

A cheap (low power) dual core AMD or intel system with integrated gfx such as the 780g chipset would be more than enough for HD playback.

An intlligent choice of PSU, the use of high quality fans (such as noctua - approx ÂŁ30) and a laptop hardrive produce a near silent PC.

Finally a bluray drive is about ÂŁ50-ÂŁ60 and comes with PowerDVD or other playback software.

bolders


RE: Until
By robinthakur on 6/25/2009 6:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but blu-ray integration into VMC (or any other media centre) is a complete pain with having to open the Power DVD software in another window. If anyhting goes wrong with this handover, its very hard to get back to media cente using just the remote...and streaming bitstream audio from it over HDMI was a complete pain. I eventully dumped mine and got a ps3 maybe a year or two ago, and it just works, no hassle, as you sometimes forget it should be. Still use the HTPC for some things but BR playback is not one of them...

I know in *theory* an HTPC is the best solution, but if anyone other than me ever tried to use it I would inevitably get about 10 phone calls asking how to do this or that, or something's crashed or "we're sitting here, all my friends are round and we can't watch anything on TV, we've pushed the green button several times, reset it several times and getting really pee'ed off. Why can't it just work like a normal TV?!?". Like Windows Mobile, you can do far more with it if you know how, but the complexity and unintuitiveness is a deal-breaker for most.

Plus you're advocating a machine that costs ÂŁ600 when a cheapo 1.1 BR player in the UK costs maybe ÂŁ139?? Do you live in the real world or just visit occasionally? The blu-ray player while ntionally missing a tiny bit of quality will be easier to use, still export 7.1 over the HDMI cable and 1080P and will just work. No DRM restrictions faffing, no Any DVD config, and many times fewer headaches.


RE: Until
By foolsgambit11 on 6/23/2009 5:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
You can just put the computer in another room. Solve the remote problem with a remote pickup.


RE: Until
By Uncle on 6/23/2009 12:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
Most BR at Walmart here are $33.00 Canadian. Still boycotting Sony for rootkit fiasco and other unfriendly consumer problems. HD TV and downloads for me Sony. Sony can disappear for all I care. Sony is too large for their britches, they like to steam roll over people.


RE: Until
By Bender 123 on 6/23/2009 9:41:58 AM , Rating: 4
Agreed...

I consider myself a tech whore...i will buy anything fancy and gadgety, but Blu-Ray has not interested me. I know, it looks hella good and sounds great, but the software is too expensive. The hardware is finally getting to the level of impulse buy, but the discs, at $30 for a new movie, are too expensive. I can either buy an epic 40+ hour game for 40-60 dollars or buy two movies. Or I can buy the standard DVD of the same movies for $5-$10. I cannot justify the price difference to myself, much less get the wife approval factor cleared.


RE: Until
By TheDoc9 on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By mcnabney on 6/23/2009 10:41:17 AM , Rating: 3
It isn't just the cost of the BD player. It is three BD players to replace the DVD players throughout my house. And a BD drive on my laptop. And in the car. And a new portable BD player for the kids.

See, that is what it is like replacing an entrenched product. Back when DVD appeared people owned just one or two VHS machines. Now, DVD is everywhere.


RE: Until
By Bender 123 on 6/23/2009 10:42:40 AM , Rating: 4
Coke vs Pepsi...You see value in spending extra on the difference and I do not. I know all the advances in Blu, I just don't really care.

Not to dump gas on the bonfire, but its the same argument as for the PS3...Look at the value! It costs more, but comes with all these other things!

For me, all the extra things don't add up to the extra cost being a worthwhile purchase...


RE: Until
By Targon on 6/23/2009 11:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
In time, the prices will come down, and everyone will have it. The big difference between the move to DVD and the move to BluRay is that there was no competition for the DVD standard. The end of HD-DVD wasn't three years ago, it was a year or so ago, and many people were waiting for things to settle down from the format war before even considering a purchase.

Once you make the step forward, going back becomes more difficult. So, take your time, but in the end, you will probably make the transition.


RE: Until
By Bender 123 on 6/23/2009 11:20:39 AM , Rating: 4
The only issue with that argument is that many people did not know/care that there was a format war going on...that's the definition of Pyrric victory. They won in a battle over a format that was not really the main competition for consumer dollars. Look at AudioDVD and SACD. Everyone said they were awesome and would do away with the standard CD, because the quality was better. Nobody cared and CDs kept going until a digital offering arrived, that, strangely, has worse audio quality than the preceding tech.

Its like the Bengals beating the Lions...yes, you beat somebody, but the Colts are still 10 games up on you.


RE: Until
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 10:57:41 AM , Rating: 3
Most new GOOD movies are in the $25 range. But the DVD version is $15.


RE: Until
By Xavier434 on 6/23/2009 11:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
I just bought V is for Vendetta for $12.99 on Blu-ray.


RE: Until
By theapparition on 6/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Until
By FITCamaro on 6/23/2009 12:14:47 PM , Rating: 3
I also said new. How old is that movie? 2 years old?


RE: Until
By Cappadocious on 6/23/2009 2:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you see some older content on sale all the time for very reasonable prices but when I go to Best Buy (the worst prices I have seen for BD in my area so far) and they are all $30-35 dollars I wont touch them even if I have a gift card... because my $25 gift card still falls far short.

I love my PS3 but until the price of the disks come down to DVD levels for newer releases my monstrous collection of BD (4) will stay at it's current level.


RE: Until
By Xavier434 on 6/24/2009 8:53:28 AM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, but you are missing the point. Pricing trends when it comes to new technologies are reasonably predictable. Blu-ray is no different. We are seeing them gradually go down in price as time goes on. The best price on a 2 year old Blu-ray movie used to be $30+ not very long ago. Now it is $12.99. Before you know it, a 1 year old movie will be $12.99. Around that same time you will be seeing brand new releases hitting the shelves for around $20 which is pretty reasonable.

I remember the same thing happening with DVDs. It really wasn't that long ago when most DVDs on the shelves were $20+ and people bought them without complaints. That suggests that price is not the only thing which will hold people back. The difference in quality between an unconverted DVD and a Blu-ray is another factor, but as more and more advanced TVs are replacing older HDTVs the noticeable differences in quality are increasing. Then of course there is the econ. People are being more conservative with their cash. They are all willing to spend money on movies, but many are not willing to spend money on Blu-ray even if the prices are reasonable.


RE: Until
By blowfish on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By mcnabney on 6/23/2009 9:54:09 AM , Rating: 5
You could also compress the BluRay to fit onto a 3.5" floppy disk if you don't mind a 1kb bitstream. What is your point? Once compressed it isn't BluRay quality anymore.


RE: Until
By Lord 666 on 6/23/2009 9:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
How long is the wait for T2 to actually get to the menu screen? I've got the Skynet edition and it takes forever to load, regardless if I have an active Internet connection or not using my Samsung 1500. Anyone else have better results with a 3600 or PS3?

Another Profile 2.0 disc that isn't so annoying is Transformers.


RE: Until
By jrenner on 6/23/2009 11:13:08 AM , Rating: 2
My only bluray player is my PS3 and it is quite quick though not as fast as a dvd. The color gamut (depth, range of colors) is very noticeably better on BD and most newer movies clearly sharper though I agree that does vary a lot. Check out V for Vendetta on BD; 2001 is astonishingly-improved for such an old movie (but still my favorite). I think they put some real work into cleaning up that one.


RE: Until
By inperfectdarkness on 6/23/2009 9:50:07 AM , Rating: 4
100% correct.

dvd won over video for MULTIPLE reasons--among which is that THAT transition was from analog to digital, the clarity increased substantially,the packaging decreased substantially, and the manufacturing costs decreased substantially.

blu-ray does NOT offer the average consumer substantial improvements over DVD. most consumers are hard-pressed to notice substantial differences between the two until viewed on >40" tv screen. additionally, since dvd is a smaller sized format--it makes more sense for portability (storage on laptops, etc).

finally, there's the cost issue. i've purchased NUMEROUS "anthologies/trilogies" on dvd for <$20. on blu-ray, many of those movies INDIVIDUALLY are selling for $30. who in their right mind (in my financial situation) would opt to spend $90 on a set of movies instead of $20?

$129 players are a step forward. blu-ray priced 2x-3x dvd's aren't. and unless all my blue-ray pr0n has the user capability to watch the action ala the bank-scene from swordfish (360 controllable rotation) it's not going to inspire more $$$ from my wallet to upgrade from dvd in that department either.


RE: Until
By 91TTZ on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Until
By mmntech on 6/23/2009 11:03:44 AM , Rating: 1
I know in Canada, BD movies were typically $10-$20 more than DVD, which translated to at least $10 more than they were in the US. Prices have only recently dropped where they are reasonably on par with American retailers. The price of the discs themselves is the big barrier, for me anyway. I've had my PS3 for about a year and a half now but I've only ever bought 3 movies for it. BD does offer an advantage in picture and audio quality, even on my 26'' HDTV. Still, I don't think it's worth $10-$20 more than regular DVD.

Furthermore, somebody below mentioned DRM. With my DVD collection, I can easily rip my DVD collection to my media server and have every one available on demand. Until I can do that with BD, I'm more inclined to buy the DVD copy.


RE: Until
By akugami on 6/23/2009 8:46:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
...unless all my blue-ray pr0n...


Strangely enough I find the prospect of Blu-Ray porn to be a negative. Do you really want to see every bump and pore on an "actress's" skin? Or the wrinkle lines and makeup used to try to hide them? Let's leave our porn at DVD quality. :)


RE: Until
By VoodooChicken on 6/23/2009 9:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
I've actually been noticing the price difference between Blu & 2-disc movies have been right around $3 or less. I just preordered Coraline from Amazon, and Blu was the exact same price as the DVD. Supposedly comes with a DVD version also and includes 3D glasses (better be better than Journey to the Center of the Earth but won't hold my breath).

Not EVERY movie needs to be on Blu-ray, or HD DVD when I bought these (I STILL pick up the occassional title for $5). There's actually been very few times I've doubled-dipped. I read reviews extensively to see if HD movies are worth it (this DNR and EE business is getting serious). I care more about quality "special features" than the assumed a/v upgrade.
One of the best high def movies I've seen on my particular tv with my particular xbox player was Ron Burgundy. Do I watch it everyday? No. Will I be watching it again any time soon? Probably not. My favorite standard DVD? Probably the Criterion Robocop or Die Hard 1 out of the 5-star collection trilogy. Will I upgrade these to Blu anytime soon? Don't think so. The overall a/v and special features were good enough for me.
Now maybe in 2012/13 they'll have new anniversary editions out for these movies and add new things to them. I'll definitely give them a look then. Maybe even technology and the doofuses using it will know how to give better product then.


RE: Until
By callmeroy on 6/23/2009 10:10:53 AM , Rating: 5
Blu-rays are nice --- but to be perfectly 100% honest with everyone, the difference isn't as phenominal as I thought it would be. Oh I can tell that the blu-ray is nicer than my standard DVD at home for sure, but I don't know -- it's not as "wizz bang" awesome as i expected, many my expectations were too high.

Finally -- I'm 100% content with my DVD resolution, at the price point Blu-ray is now with the movies its only at the "neat to have" stage, not the "omg I must have this" stage. I have no issues waiting for as long as it takes for prices to plummeted, its not an urgent want.


RE: Until
By Xavier434 on 6/23/2009 11:06:48 AM , Rating: 2
The difference depends a lot on the TV. In particular, larger TVs with higher contrast ratios will display much more noticeable differences between unconverted DVDs and Blu-ray. I'm not knocking your HDTV or anything, but keep that in mind.

Of course, it depends on the viewer too. Some people dislike the differences in quality more than others.


RE: Until
By ExarKun333 on 6/23/2009 4:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
The difference really also depends on what type of movie you are viewing. CGI movies look amazing on Blu-Ray, but "non-flashy" movies don't get the same treatment.

Also, if BD movies had a $5 price premium over DVD, they might start to sell. I would gladly fork out $20 over $15 for a new movie, or $10-15 over $5-10 for an older movie. Double or triple the DVD amount is insane, though.

I have a PS3, and I only buy BD movies when they are on-sale ~$20 or through amazon (or the like) for ~$10 for an older movie.


RE: Until
By Locutus465 on 6/23/2009 4:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
with a combined HDM collection of 164 discs, I can assure you that "non-flashy" movies get a fanstastic upgrade in HDM. In fact some of the most breath taking HDM I own has aboslutly zero CGI enhancement (some of it was filmed before CGI was practical).


RE: Until
By maverick85wd on 6/23/2009 10:18:10 AM , Rating: 3
I see where you're coming from, and I agree. Until they get at least a little closer to DVD in price they're going to have a hard time really penetrating the market.

However, the format only just won the format war a year and a half ago. When DVD first came out a lot of people I know didn't buy it for 3 or 4 years. Some longer than that.

I definitely think DVD will take a lot longer to die out than VHS did (for all the reasons other comments have pointed out about VHS vs. DVD). But I also think for certain movies people will prefer the high-def format. Until the price comes down significantly I would guess most people will buy the standard DVD for most movies and BD for their favorites. However, even in the mean time prices are falling, and there is a great used selection on Amazon. I recently picked up 5 BD for 80 bucks with shipping.

The download/streaming arguments are valid, however considering the bandwidth caps and "fair-use" policies coming out of most internet companies these days, I'm not sure they will be practical. Even then, a lot of people prefer a hard copy they can do whatever they want with. I believe this is partially why "pay-per-view" never totally replaced VHS or DVD as well.

So basically I think they're jumping the gun on this assessment.


RE: Until
By Hiawa23 on 6/23/2009 10:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
I have a HD DVD player, & a PS3, of which only gets used as a game player. Actually I find myself buying HD DVDs cause those are like $.99 on Ebay. Other than that, I am totally fine with DVDs for my movies, & I have not bought a single Blu ray disc other than the 10free ones I received.

HD for movies just isn't a big deal to me, especially with the prices of them, so unless they get the movies down to mass market pricing, & or the players, I don't expect Blu ray to pull off what DVD did, plus with digital ditribution getting into more homes, online rentals, Blu ray, now faces competition that DVD just did not have back in the day, plus the economy can't be helping. I think the main reason Blu ray even took off at all was because every PS3 has the drive in them. You subtract the PS3 from the equasion & I bet things look alot worse for the format.


RE: Until
By Aikouka on 6/23/2009 10:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
As a little note, the newer Terminator 2 Skynet Edition on Blu-Ray has all three versions of the movie. However, you must enter Judgment Day's date (82997) on the movie version selection menu to unlock the third one. You must have bought the older one.

I do agree that pricing definitely hurts sales.


RE: Until
By Xavier434 on 6/23/2009 10:36:03 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you in general because too many people will base median Blu-ray prices to that of what they are being sold for in stores. However, it is very easy to find Blu-ray disks for much cheaper on the web. Particularly, I have had a lot of luck on Amazon. If the retail stores start lowering their prices to meet online store prices then I think we will see lift off.


RE: Until
By ajfink on 6/23/2009 10:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
I sold my PS3 in part because there weren't enough movies I wanted to spend so much money per film on. The cost is still too high for most consumers, I agree wholeheartedly.


RE: Until
By Octoberblue on 6/23/2009 11:52:22 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with this initial post. Others saying DVD is "already a Dinosaur" don't understand the topic. You can't look at this from a tech perspective because the market dynamics are complex, and the market does not always (or even usually) adopt the best technology. If it did we would've all grown up with Beta instead of VHS. The point is that DVD has a massive market share.

And by the way, there's always someone ready to come along talking about how we're all going to have home servers and order everything online, eliminating the need for blu-ray. Now seriously guys, do you think the 93% of people who haven't bought blu-ray are going to set up home video servers? Sure, that's great for tech junkies, and a better entertainment system you probably won't find. But this is about the mainstream market.

In my opinion Blu-ray is not in danger at all. People seem to forget how long it took DVD to be adopted, even after the format wars were over. It was years, literally. I myself didn't even buy a DVD player until they had been on the market for 7 or 8 years. The mainstream will get into the act. You just have to offer them $120 or so players at Wal-mart. Over the next few years these lower-priced players will be the perfect Christmas, Birthday, Father's Day, etc gift for millions of people, just like with DVD. As that starts to happen, and it won't be long now, the video stores will rapidly move to more and more Blu-ray on the shelves until it supplants DVD entirely. I can't imagine a scenario in which this will not happen. It's just how these things go, and all of the elements are in place that were in place for VHS and DVD.

For those of us who are attaining Dinosaur status ourselves, we remember when people used to argue that no home video format, VHS or otherwise, would ever be adopted by the mainstream market. After all, people could watch the latest movies on HBO or Showtime, in the convenience of their own home, without having to make a run to some video rental store. And ownership? Who would want to own a movie anyway? After you've seen it a couple of times you're done with it...


RE: Until
By geddarkstorm on 6/23/2009 1:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly can't believe how much FUD is in this article. Let's look at the raw numbers, kindly put together over in hidefdigest.com:

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/high-definition-sm...

You'll notice that blu-ray sales and revenue continues to grow at ~100% rate between paired year-to-year weeks. Also, player sales have jumped 400% the beginning of this year compared to last.

I dunno about you, but these numbers look quite good, and show a trend even stronger than DVD's growth when it was new and facing down VHS. Blu-ray isn't struggling what so ever...


RE: Until
By Assimilator87 on 6/23/2009 4:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
I kinda hope that Blu-ray dies because that's the only way I'd be able to afford the movies. I bought the 360 HD DVD player for $50 and it came with six movies total, one in the box and five through the mail. I also bought a recertified internal drive for $25, just to have a backup drive. Most movies on Amazon are around $5. There's absolutely no way that Blu-ray, or even DVD, can compete with that. Price is the biggest barrier into new formats. Also, for people like me, there're only a few movies that I'd actually watch more than once on a regular basis so it's a bit pointless to spend gobs of money to own a movie.

I wonder how many people will actually read/scroll down enough to see this post lol


RE: Until
By grampaw on 6/23/2009 5:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Guess I'm ahead of the game. Bought both HD-DVD players and PS3s back when both first came out - figured format war would be like VHS/Beta-max fiasco and go on for at least 5 years. I was wrong there, but still use the HD-DVD players as upscalers.

Rented Blu-ray (and HD-DVD in its day) discs as soon as available from Netflix. About a year ago I realized: Blu-ray discs were hard to rent; the Discs started coming with high-end audio codecs for the only English soundtrack my amps couldn't handle correctly; the discs had all sorts of bells & Whistle glitzy features I'd never use and were downright confusing; and up-scaled digitally shot movie DVDs look really good, not that much different across the room from Blu-ray. I'd pretty much stopped renting Blu-ray altogether when Netflix raised the Blu-ray rental price, which was the final blow for me.

So now I have 2 HD-DVD players and 2 PS3s attached to various HD TVs that are used solely for upscaling standard DVDs - and I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement.


RE: Until
By sxr7171 on 6/24/2009 2:33:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's those greedy bastages again. Blu-Ray: $9.99-$14.99 Trust me it will sell.


RE: Until
By djc208 on 6/24/2009 7:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the penetration into the market. You have to go looking for the BD players, then worry about what profile/feature set it has. Most times you have to pay extra to get the "standard" BD 2.0 profile. Meanwhile DVD players are fighting to differentiate themselves with extra features for lower prices.

Then there's the accessories. Portable DVD players and in-car entertainment systems don't support BD, and I don't know that any exist. Meanwhile every laptop produced has at least a DVD reader, so why switch to BD if it means your 2, 3, 5 DVD players are now useless for watching the new movies you just bought.

BD should start including a free DVD copy of the movie with the BlueRay disk to counter this.


RE: Until
By Major HooHaa on 6/26/2009 7:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't until someone clarified, that you can actually play your DVD movies on a Blu-Ray player, that I sat up and took notice of the new format.

One of the problems is that you don't just need a Blu-Ray player, you also need a big Hi-Def T.V. as well.

Or alternatively, you could buy a blu-ray player for your P.C, as they have been working at hi-def resolutions for years.


Before we write off Blu Ray
By Jonh68 on 6/23/2009 10:04:05 AM , Rating: 4
We need to compare how Blu-Ray was with the other formats at this point in it's life cycle. That would be a better comparison.

Also, the adoption of HD TV is still going on. However, much like mp3's, I would not be surprised if the general public would go for inferior streaming movies and the physical HD format war numbed consumers so much they decide to wait for streaming/delivered content.




RE: Before we write off Blu Ray
By BenSkywalker on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Before we write off Blu Ray
By AEvangel on 6/23/2009 10:32:24 AM , Rating: 2
Apple TV is 1080p and it takes like about 5 minutes to watch a movie, which is the perfect amount of time to go pop the popcorn get your soda and come back ready to watch it all for like $4.99.

Heck, while not 1080p, Hulu is still better then most standard cable and it's free streaming TV and some movies to my TV. I'm sorry but the days of discs are dying, online streaming content is much more accessible and easier to use.


RE: Before we write off Blu Ray
By xRyanCat on 6/23/2009 11:33:53 AM , Rating: 3
Not if the big ISPs have their way. Uncapped, uncensored, highspeed, internet access is still a long, long way away for many Americans. And even when it's available, a large percentage simple won't need or want it.

Physical media is still in it for the long run. 10 years and we might see more of a change.

And HD movies from iTunes are only 720p.


RE: Before we write off Blu Ray
By lecanard on 6/24/2009 12:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
1080P or 720P, it doesn't really matter for downloads because they are both pathetic compared to Blu-Ray quality. 1080P does not mean the bitrate is anywhere close to that of Blu-Ray, it just means the resolution is the same, so you can look at blurry compression artifacts in high resolution, whereas Blu-Ray owners can actually see high detail.


RE: Before we write off Blu Ray
By rudy on 6/23/2009 10:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
The attraction is you do not need to go out and get it or wait for it to be mailed to you. Waiting for the download is usually shorter then running out to the store. The main concern I now have is that most downloaded content is running 3-5 dollars and redbox is at 1$


RE: Before we write off Blu Ray
By AntiM on 6/23/2009 10:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
There's one more thing to consider. What Sony endorsed format has ever become a commercial success?
I can't think of any.
I wouldn't put too much stock in the long term future of Blu-Ray.


RE: Before we write off Blu Ray
By mcnabney on 6/23/2009 10:44:38 AM , Rating: 2
CD, but they had a partner for that.


By SavagePotato on 6/23/2009 12:43:11 PM , Rating: 1
People forget quickly how the same thing was said about dvd. Then when the price was right dvd exploded.

I remember one episode of the simpsons from way back where they are at the dump and there's a pile of betamax tapes, then a pile of laser discs, then a sign next to it that says reserved for dvd.

Blu ray may explode similarly when the price is much less as well.


i think that...
By alpensiedler on 6/23/2009 9:53:55 AM , Rating: 3
anyone tech enough to insist on watching 1080p movies is also tech enough to download them instead of wasting money on an expensive player and an expensive disc.




RE: i think that...
By rninneman on 6/23/2009 10:13:28 AM , Rating: 3
Problem is, there is no where to legally download content that rivals Blu-ray video and audio quality.


RE: i think that...
By AEvangel on 6/23/2009 10:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Apple TV offers full 1080p for Download for like $4.99 a movie.


RE: i think that...
By zombiexl on 6/23/2009 10:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
At what bitrate. 1080p just means the video is a certain resolution. Call me a skeptic, but I'm pretty sure you arent downloading 15GB movies on appleTV or xbox, etc.


RE: i think that...
By rninneman on 6/23/2009 11:02:25 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, the quality of the content on iTunes is no where near Blu-ray. iTunes HD movies are encoded in heavily compressed 720p and while the Apple TV is capable of outputting 1080p. Although, I doubt the Apple TV in its current form will ever be able to actually decode 1080p video because of a lack of processing power.


RE: i think that...
By cyriene on 6/23/2009 10:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, No you are wrong. My girlfriend and her roommate have a blu-ray player and Netflix to watch the movies. But, they have no idea how to download anything, much less a torrent of a blu-ray rip.


RE: i think that...
By lecanard on 6/24/2009 12:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
anyone tech enough to insist on watching 1080p movies is also tech enough to download them instead of wasting money on an expensive player and an expensive disc.


They would also be tech enough to know that 1080P downloads are MUCH lower bitrate than Blu-Ray, and not even remotely comparable. And they also want a physical disc, not some DRMed file.

Oh, someone said 15 GB. Blu-Ray discs are 50, not 15.


Hire me to proofread
By Jephph on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hire me to proofread
By rninneman on 6/23/2009 10:19:41 AM , Rating: 5
It's just another bad article from Mick. Not only is it grammatically incorrect, the substance is lacking too. "due-or-die" should be "do-or-die" and his assertion that 93% of those surveyed don't have any interest in Blu-ray is flat out wrong. The survey concluded that 7% own a player. That doesn't mean everyone else has no desire to get one. Mick: do you even think about your articles before you post them?


RE: Hire me to proofread
By bplewis24 on 6/23/2009 11:38:13 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. But the fanboys on this site will still rate up each other's ignorant comments agreeing with the falsified article without any care for the actual reality.

Brandon


RE: Hire me to proofread
By Chaser on 6/23/2009 12:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
And honestly I'll take the expert opinions here that still carry a torch for HD DVD -or really anything against Sony- with a grain of salt.

Slow and steady. The U.S. just went digital. The electronic departments of Walmart's are growing and growing. High Def is a the first stages of the wave and it will continue to grow. Once fall season comes along and people are spending more time in their homes and the Christmas season once again approaching and cheaper players are available -which have been announced- Blue Ray will do fine.

Slow and steady.


RE: Hire me to proofread
By PrazVT on 6/23/2009 1:34:22 PM , Rating: 3
I agree - Blu-ray is still relatively new for most people and the players have only recently started coming down in price. But about the only time I ever touch a DVD now is if a movie on Netflix isn't available on Blu-ray. But that being said, it's taken our household a year or two to warm up to all this. First the two PS3s, then the Yamaha RX-V663 receiver, upgraded the surround speakers, switched over to HDMI when we got the downstairs 61" LCD. Then upgraded dishnetwork to dish HD, replaced upstairs 27" Sony CRT w/ a 47" 120Hz LCD TV. And then started Netflixing blu-ray movies and converting them to HD .m2ts files w/ AC3. I still buy blu-rays (Planet earth stuff, classics like Die Hard trilogy, etc.) but you have to wait a little for the best buy rip-off price to come down.

A couple things -

1 - Blu-ray is not cheap to get into, but those claiming upscaled DVDs are good enough - well it's good enough for you maybe. Even my 5mbit/s 720p blu-ray rips look better than dvd.

2 - If the word "Blu-ray" confuses you, well..stick with DVD b/c it won't get much easier if you're having those kinds of issues.

Like has been said a few times on here, Blu-ray is starting out and will follow the same path VHS and DVD followed for widespread adoption over the years.

I'm not even sure why this article has been written frankly. Thus far, whenever I'm in Best buy, I see the new releases in Blu-ray. More and more TV shows are showing up in blu-ray .. frankly I think it's in great shape.


RE: Hire me to proofread
By ApfDaMan on 6/23/2009 10:34:44 AM , Rating: 1
There are a few people who dont give a shit.


For me
By Spivonious on 6/23/2009 9:43:03 AM , Rating: 1
For me it's the lack of a "film" look to the picture. It's too clear and too smooth. It makes everything look fake.




RE: For me
By Jonh68 on 6/23/2009 10:11:02 AM , Rating: 5
I know. Better clarity, color, and sharpness are terrible things.


RE: For me
By mcnabney on 6/23/2009 10:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, his problem might be the display. Some LCD TVs will 'create' new frames to insert between the real frames which are a digital 'hybrid' of the the frame before and after it. That process smooths out the image and makes it look more like a soap opera and very unfilmlike.


RE: For me
By Spivonious on 6/23/2009 1:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
That could be it. It was on some of those new 120Hz TVs.


RE: For me
By foolsgambit11 on 6/23/2009 5:28:15 PM , Rating: 2
I remember people saying that about DVDs too when they first came out. VHS just looks like film, they'd say.


Poll does not make sense
By Shadowself on 6/23/2009 12:12:56 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
A recent Harris Interactive Poll showed that approximately 93 percent of consumers still don't have a Blu-ray player. In fact more Americans own a HD-DVD capable player (11 percent) than a Blu-ray capable player (7 percent). Their report also provides evidence that the attrition of the HD-DVD v. Blu-ray war continues to hurt sales. Customers reported confusion about the high definition formats.


I don't believe this for a moment. No significant quantities of HD-DVD players have sold for almost 18 months. Before January 2008 there were only marginally more HD-DVD players sold. This "poll" would imply that as of the discontinuation of HD-DVD they had almost a 50% lead and Blu-ray has sold nothing since. This is just pure BS.

Considering that Blu-ray players HAVE been selling since January 2008, the "poll" would suggest that HD-DVD must have had at least a 2:1 advantage in the number of players in homes. With that advantage it never would have died! The studios would have definitely supported something that had twice the audience!

Whether you believe Blu-ray was the better format or not, whether you believe Blu-ray will survive another year or not, whether you believe DVD will be the last true mass media optical format or not does not matter when evaluating this "Poll". The numbers they claim just do not add up. Period.

Also if only 11% of people have an HD-DVD player (and I believe this to be a GROSS exaggeration as even the HD-DVD forum did not claim even close to that high a penetration as of January 2008) then how are people in general confused about the high definition formats? Other than that exaggerated 11% who has even heard of HD-DVD? Stop anyone in a Blockbuster or virtually any other video store and ask them what disk support full HD video. You'll either get an, "I don't know." or "Blu-ray". I'd be shocked if even 5% said "Either Blu-ray or HD-DVD."




RE: Poll does not make sense
By walk2k on 6/23/2009 12:24:47 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed, it's utter nonsense. People probably misinterpreted the questions, when they saw "HD-DVD" they thought it meant just meant DVD connected to a HDTV or a "HD UPCONVERTING" DVD player.

And obviously wherever they pulled their numbers from they didn't include PS3 or the numbers would have quadrupled.


RE: Poll does not make sense
By bplewis24 on 6/23/2009 2:12:01 PM , Rating: 4
You are 100% correct, sir.

Furthermore, here is an article that does some shallow breaking down of the dubious Harris Poll figures: http://www.betanews.com/article/Harris-Poll-More-A...

Also, here is an NPD report that completely contradicts the Harris Poll summations (and actually polls more people a couple months earlier than the Harris Poll): http://www.highdefforum.com/891527-post19.html

Lastly, I'd like to point out that I do believe HD-DVD stand alone players were taken over by stand alone Blu-ray players even before January 2008. Many people have forgotten that at CES 2008--right after Warner dropped the bomb on HD DVD that they would be going blu-ray exclusively--Toshiba cancelled their press conference and then held one the next day. At that press conference one of the marketing reps for HD DVD released graph charts (of which screen shots can be found online) showing that HD DVD players captured 49% of the stand-alone HD player market for the holiday shopping period (where they discounted players as low as $99). Note the following exerpt:

quote:
Sally tried to put on a good game face, though, noting that HD DVD unit sales over the holiday shopping period accounted for 49.3% of the market. What she didn’t note was that the figure would then translate to Blu-ray capturing the majority of sales of standalone players despite heavy Toshiba discounting. And those numbers do not include PlayStation 3 sales.
Industry watchers were abuzz with reports that retailers were seeing heavy return rates on HD DVD players since Christmas after buyers realized many of the movies they wanted were only on Blu-ray.


Source: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/ar...

Back at the time, many industry insiders believed that this very reason is what caused Warner to bail on HD-DVD. Despite the spin that the HD-DVD Promotional Group consistently tried to put on the numbers (and did a good job of fooling the rabid fanboys with), HD-DVD stand-alone players were not nearly as successful in outselling blu-ray stand-alone players as they could have, and should have been, considering they were selling them at a loss.

And yet I'm supposed to believe in the 1.5 years since , HD-DVD has outsold blu-ray stand-alones (and PS3's?) since it has become defunct? Give me a break. And shame on Jason Mick for perpetuating this FUD.

Brandon


A waste of space
By BikeDude on 6/23/2009 9:40:39 AM , Rating: 5
I've started collecting blu-ray titles, but I hate it with all my guts.

I had to purchase AnyDVD to be able to even watch these titles, since my old 30" Apple LCD apparently is free of the necessary DRM.

Strike 1.

My current DVD (and blu-ray) collection now spans several bookshelves and other means of storage. I have limited floor space.

Strike 2.

I have to search around and it is difficult to keep track of the titles I own.

Strike 3.

I have enough bandwidth for downloading these things... I can afford hard drives to store such downloads...

The movie industry should connect the dots! Grrr.

Oh... Considering the low price of flash these days... Why am I buying shiny discs that scratch oh so easily? Why can't I buy a blu-ray title while on vacation in the USA and watch that title at home in Europe? (well... I can, thanks to AnyDVD-HD... :P)




RE: A waste of space
By Indigo64 on 6/23/2009 10:37:41 AM , Rating: 2
The people that run these corporations are obviously folks who have kids that are rebellious or they themselves were once the wild ones. History has shown that the more you try to control, the less control you ultimately have. Love & Logic anyone?


RE: A waste of space
By walk2k on 6/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: A waste of space
By lecanard on 6/24/2009 12:45:04 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever tried to scratch a Blu-Ray disc?


Why BR hasn't taken off
By Wererat on 6/23/2009 3:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
The HD format's advantages over DVD are:
- Storage: approximately 6x
- Video rez: 6.75x
- Audio: Lossless audio is possible

However:
- The movie only takes up so much space, and many people do not spend evenings watching all the extras.
- Video rez improvements are meaningless to some people generally (we have an aging population) and always without sufficient display hardware.
- Video rez improvements are also meaningless if source content is badly produced in the BR format.
- Some content just doesn't improve in higher rez.
- Audio improvements likewise require a significant hardware investment in quality receivers and speakers before being meaningful.

Secondarily, the HD-DVD situation continues to plague BR because cheap HD-DVD players are still out there and discontinued HD-DVD content is cheaper than DVD.

BR is the best, but at the present time it won't get any traction when "good enough" is available for lots less.




RE: Why BR hasn't taken off
By Locutus465 on 6/23/2009 3:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
you people act like hollywood is just chalk full of films that can't possibly benifit from HD. This is so completely false it's astouding. At least 98% of all content out there will benifit greatly from HD... Consider Star Trek TOS S1, after the original prints were scanned and cleaned the improvement in HD was already astounding, that's before paramount/cbs even went to work adding in new speacial effects in key scenes (Yep, I've seen both the original broadcast version and updated versions in HD). Additional titles which benifit from HD:

Casablanca
Top Gun (OMG)
Blade Runner (OMG)
Star Trek: Motion Picture Collection (movies 1-6)
Dune (I own this on HD DVD)
James Bond: Thunderball, Goldfinger, From Russia with Love, Dr. No
Bullet

This is to say nothing of what kind of improvement you get with new releases on bluray vs. DVD. Again, this is the second post I've seen suggesting that HDTV penetration is too low for the format to be relivent. That's complete bs, 46% of consumers report owning an HDTV in the USA alone. See my post above for references.