Has blu-ray failed? - Page 3

firehawk12 · November 30 2008, 02:19 AM

Arrghman wrote:

I find the whole "5 year thing" to be pretty unlikely. For a format to supplant Blu-Ray, it would have to provide a tangible benefit... and in 5 years we'll still be on HDTV's with the same resolution as now and Blu-Ray discs and players will be as cheap as DVD is now. A "replacement" technology would have to be either significantly better in the eyes of the public (and given that many people can't even tell the difference between HD and SD now...) or be significantly cheaper... and new technologies are rarely cheaper on release then existing ones.

Especially considering when most people buy 720p TVs... yeah, I don't see a big change soon.

rafterman1701 · November 30 2008, 02:48 AM

The real competition is the rise of digital distribution. I'd say BD and DVD are the last big physical formats we'll get. DVD is the broader, mass market one while BD is the Laserdisc version. It appeals to the hardcore, which is what Laserdisc did while VHS was mass market. I think people forget that before DVDs hit big time, collecting movies and especially TV for home use was hugely expensive. The DVD market is huge, bigger than the VHS market was. To call Blu-Ray a failure is to be a bit short sighted. It's not necessarily DVD's replacement. I'd rather have it around and doing poorly than have no HD option for films at home. If you're fine with DVD, good on you. But I like HD content. Sure, BDs are expensive, but in my opinion DVDs just got too cheap for their own good. We all need to take a step back and see the home video market's entire 30 year history in context. Remember when videos to buy were 6 months after the rental release? We're incredibly spoiled and the market has a ton of formats to contend with these days. It's too complex to simply call it a failure. Personally, I buy DVDs, BDs and download content as well.

Reverend · November 30 2008, 04:33 AM

I think for most people it's not a matter of not wanting to upgrade, it's not being able to afford it and let's be honest, to the non-media fanatic the difference in quality isn't that significant. In a way, DVD has been too successful for Blu-Ray to really compete since there's no way a sizeable chuck of people are going to replace all their DVDs with a more expensive format AND buy an overpriced player.

Actually if anything BR has helped make DVD all the more affordable by adding a little competition. I've notice the price of brand new films (even 2 disc sets) has gone down in the past few years from something around the £18-20 mark down to around the £10-12 mark while the ever popular tv season sets have plummeted from the £60-£80 price range to something more like £20-30.

Arrqh · November 30 2008, 04:52 AM

rafterman1701 wrote:

The real competition is the rise of digital distribution.

With the current landscape of the ISP market, HD digital distribution is not going to be taking off any time soon thanks to increasingly restrictive bandwidth caps.

bigdaddy · November 30 2008, 05:18 AM

My thought is, do I really need to watch shows in HD? Comedies in HD? What's the point?

I'm skipping this gen unless it last 20 years, which I doubt.

Mr. Laser Beam · November 30 2008, 05:55 AM

bigdaddy wrote:

My thought is, do I really need to watch shows in HD? Comedies in HD? What's the point?

I guess not everybody cares about picture quality.

Me, I will watch anything on Blu-Ray that I can. I replace all standard def DVDs with Blu-Rays at the earliest opportunity. The quality is just too good for me to pass up - I've *seen* it. I have a perfectly good HDTV, and I figure why feed it with anything but the best?

To answer the original question: No. Blu-Ray has not failed. Not even close. It's only just *started*. It's way too early for the Luddites to crow about its death.

Arrqh · November 30 2008, 06:11 AM

bigdaddy wrote:

My thought is, do I really need to watch shows in HD? Comedies in HD? What's the point?

You don't have to do anything. Don't want to watch things in HD? Don't! Don't want to watch things in color? Don't!

Hicks · November 30 2008, 07:18 AM

I don't think it's failed at all. I don't think it will necessarily do as well as DVD eventually did, however. That would be because many will continue to buy "small" TVs (less than 30") where blu-ray really won't shine. Especially if you're just using the TV's speakers for audio.

Myself, I'm an enthusiast for TV/Movies and higher-quality picture/sound, so as soon as I could financially, I dived in with an HDTV, a blu-ray player, and I upgraded my audio receiver so that I could get Dolby TrueHD, DTSHD, PCM5.1, etc.

I'm mostly quite pleased, though not as blown away as I thought I'd be. It's not a massive improvement over DVD, but enough so that I'm happy.

I think blu-ray will have a smaller piece of the pie than DVD over the years because it's less "necessary" than upgrading to DVD from VHS, but given the fact that HDTV continues to grow and become increasingly popular, I think it will do just fine.

For those not interested in BD for various reasons:

1) Price can suck, but if you buy online it's not that bad. Buying through Amazon, I've never paid retail price for a BD. It's still more expensive, but not outrageously so IMO. Furthemore, as a Netflix user, it only cost me an additional dollar a month to be able to rent BD's. Just by being more selective in my purchasing choices than I was with DVD, and opting to rent more often, I haven't really spent more here. Granted, it was expensive to get the player and the new receiver, but I wanted those things and can accept that.

2) Picture quality is sometimes not much different, but the bigger and better your HDTV is, the more noticeable it gets (in particular when the studio behind the disc does it right). I will also say I wasn't expecting to notice the difference in audio, but I do. It's pretty enjoyable.

I think if you're an enthusiast like me, someone who likes high-quality picture/sound more than the average bear without being an audiophile/videophile, I recommend it if you've got the coin.

If not, no bigge; enjoy your DVDs. But Blu-Ray's going to be okay.

Orintho · November 30 2008, 08:23 AM

I want to know who decided that Blu Ray was going to be the next VHS, so to speak. I have no money for a new Blu Ray player nor do I have money to replace all my DVD movies, most of which have great pictures, special features, and so forth. I would like to get some films in high def - but I do not need older films or TV shows that were not filmed in a compatible method to properly convert over and whose quality can get hurt by high def changes. Who wants to look at the coffee stains on Spock's uniform on TOS for example, or stair at the wooden planks used to make up the floor of the bridge? That ruins the show.

I myself have been worried that the switch to Blu Ray would be used to abuse the consumers the way music CDs were. When CDs first arrived, they were about double the price of regular albums and did not come down (to adjust to the market as the public switched to CDs) for years and years.

Orac Zen · November 30 2008, 08:41 AM

If people have money to spend on a snazzy TV, Blu-ray players and disks, good luck to them. Not everyone's in that situation and dismissing them as "Luddites" who are "blind" or don't "care" about such things is pretty pathetic. God forbid that anyone should have interests in things other than owning the latest and greatest entertainment stuff, or who simply don't have the money to splash out on such things.

I've seen no compelling advantage(s) in "upgrading" from DVD, as there were to go from VHS to DVD. The difference isn't great enough to interest me, even if I didn't have other things to do with my money. If that makes me blind or uncaring or a Luddite or anything else, too bad. To each their own.

firehawk12 · November 30 2008, 08:56 AM

I guess it's all relative. To me, watching something in SD is like watching a 16:9 or other widescreen aspect ration film in 4:3. It just bothers me.
(With Blu-Ray, we've finally moved beyond having fullscreen versions of films, which is just an added benefit).

But sure, I suppose it's all relative. You don't need to have a 50" TV to experience the benefits of HD. Hell, just download the Star Trek trailer from Apple in HD and compare it to the SD trailer. Even on a small computer screen, you can instantly tell the difference.

Cicero · November 30 2008, 09:11 AM

firehawk12 wrote:

I guess it's all relative. To me, watching something in SD is like watching a 16:9 or other widescreen aspect ration film in 4:3. It just bothers me.
(With Blu-Ray, we've finally moved beyond having fullscreen versions of films, which is just an added benefit).

Didn't we do that for a time with DVD, too?

But sure, I suppose it's all relative. You don't need to have a 50" TV to experience the benefits of HD. Hell, just download the Star Trek trailer from Apple in HD and compare it to the SD trailer. Even on a small computer screen, you can instantly tell the difference.

My complaint about Blu Ray is that it still isn't good enough. I'm hopeful that the next generation beyond it will finally be of satisfactory definition. Everything still looks hazy and grainy on Blu Ray, and fine details can't be made out.

firehawk12 · November 30 2008, 10:53 AM

The problem is we don't have television displays that are higher than 1080p, which is how HD content is going to be pushed into homes. And to be honest, people who spent several grand on a 70" TV aren't going to rush out to upgrade again any time soon anyway, I don't think.
Even then, on the PC side those super high res monitors that are like 2500x1600... those most be expensive as hell right now.

I mean, a lot of content shot on digital is now 4k because everyone is adopting the Red Camera, but the only people who are able to show it are theatres with extremely expensive projectors.
Indeed, the new hotness seems to be 8k transfers (over 30 terrabytes of data!), but there's no way that will ever make it into homes in the near or even far future.

Bob The Skutter · November 30 2008, 11:55 AM

To be honest I'm in no rush to get Blu-Ray, I have a 720p/1080i HDTV but I just don't see a huge difference between PAL and 1080i. Certainly not enough to pay extra subscription for HD channels, and folk out extra for a BR player and discs, maybe when the players are under £100 and the discs can be had at the same price as DVDs.
Yeah HD can look great, but generally not in dramas, it's more in documentary when you have stunning vistas and skylines to look at, not grimy streets and people's faces.

Timelord_Victorious · November 30 2008, 12:18 PM

If you don't have the money to buy a Bluray player: fine!
If you don't have the money to buy a HDTV set: also fine!

But where from comes this myth that you have can't use your standard DVDs anymore IF you upgrade?
That's bullshit!
Put a DVD into a bluray player and watch what happens. It plays. It shows you your movie! Fantastic technology isn't it?
No need to re-purchase on anything. There might be a few selective movies which are to tempting in HD to keep watching them in plain old DVD, like LotR, but that's about it!
You actually can have the best of both worlds.
If you do that you probably will shift to buying more bluray discs than DVDs over time as the prices will go down and your eye will get finetuned to see the difference.
But there's nothing wrong with that, is it?

November 30 2008, 02:48 AM	#32
rafterman1701 Commodore	Re: Has blu-ray failed? The real competition is the rise of digital distribution. I'd say BD and DVD are the last big physical formats we'll get. DVD is the broader, mass market one while BD is the Laserdisc version. It appeals to the hardcore, which is what Laserdisc did while VHS was mass market. I think people forget that before DVDs hit big time, collecting movies and especially TV for home use was hugely expensive. The DVD market is huge, bigger than the VHS market was. To call Blu-Ray a failure is to be a bit short sighted. It's not necessarily DVD's replacement. I'd rather have it around and doing poorly than have no HD option for films at home. If you're fine with DVD, good on you. But I like HD content. Sure, BDs are expensive, but in my opinion DVDs just got too cheap for their own good. We all need to take a step back and see the home video market's entire 30 year history in context. Remember when videos to buy were 6 months after the rental release? We're incredibly spoiled and the market has a ton of formats to contend with these days. It's too complex to simply call it a failure. Personally, I buy DVDs, BDs and download content as well.

November 30 2008, 04:33 AM	#33
Reverend Rear Admiral Location: UK	Re: Has blu-ray failed? I think for most people it's not a matter of not wanting to upgrade, it's not being able to afford it and let's be honest, to the non-media fanatic the difference in quality isn't that significant. In a way, DVD has been too successful for Blu-Ray to really compete since there's no way a sizeable chuck of people are going to replace all their DVDs with a more expensive format AND buy an overpriced player. Actually if anything BR has helped make DVD all the more affordable by adding a little competition. I've notice the price of brand new films (even 2 disc sets) has gone down in the past few years from something around the £18-20 mark down to around the £10-12 mark while the ever popular tv season sets have plummeted from the £60-£80 price range to something more like £20-30. __________________ Star Trek Logos - Dark Knight Adventures - DeviantArt

November 30 2008, 05:18 AM	#35
bigdaddy Vice Admiral Location: Space Massachusetts	Re: Has blu-ray failed? My thought is, do I really need to watch shows in HD? Comedies in HD? What's the point? I'm skipping this gen unless it last 20 years, which I doubt. __________________ "Bqhatevwr" - Former Senator Scott Brown

November 30 2008, 07:18 AM	#38
Hicks Captain	Re: Has blu-ray failed? I don't think it's failed at all. I don't think it will necessarily do as well as DVD eventually did, however. That would be because many will continue to buy "small" TVs (less than 30") where blu-ray really won't shine. Especially if you're just using the TV's speakers for audio. Myself, I'm an enthusiast for TV/Movies and higher-quality picture/sound, so as soon as I could financially, I dived in with an HDTV, a blu-ray player, and I upgraded my audio receiver so that I could get Dolby TrueHD, DTSHD, PCM5.1, etc. I'm mostly quite pleased, though not as blown away as I thought I'd be. It's not a massive improvement over DVD, but enough so that I'm happy. I think blu-ray will have a smaller piece of the pie than DVD over the years because it's less "necessary" than upgrading to DVD from VHS, but given the fact that HDTV continues to grow and become increasingly popular, I think it will do just fine. For those not interested in BD for various reasons: 1) Price can suck, but if you buy online it's not that bad. Buying through Amazon, I've never paid retail price for a BD. It's still more expensive, but not outrageously so IMO. Furthemore, as a Netflix user, it only cost me an additional dollar a month to be able to rent BD's. Just by being more selective in my purchasing choices than I was with DVD, and opting to rent more often, I haven't really spent more here. Granted, it was expensive to get the player and the new receiver, but I wanted those things and can accept that. 2) Picture quality is sometimes not much different, but the bigger and better your HDTV is, the more noticeable it gets (in particular when the studio behind the disc does it right). I will also say I wasn't expecting to notice the difference in audio, but I do. It's pretty enjoyable. I think if you're an enthusiast like me, someone who likes high-quality picture/sound more than the average bear without being an audiophile/videophile, I recommend it if you've got the coin. If not, no bigge; enjoy your DVDs. But Blu-Ray's going to be okay.

November 30 2008, 08:23 AM	#39
Orintho Vice Admiral Location: USA	Re: Has blu-ray failed? I want to know who decided that Blu Ray was going to be the next VHS, so to speak. I have no money for a new Blu Ray player nor do I have money to replace all my DVD movies, most of which have great pictures, special features, and so forth. I would like to get some films in high def - but I do not need older films or TV shows that were not filmed in a compatible method to properly convert over and whose quality can get hurt by high def changes. Who wants to look at the coffee stains on Spock's uniform on TOS for example, or stair at the wooden planks used to make up the floor of the bridge? That ruins the show. I myself have been worried that the switch to Blu Ray would be used to abuse the consumers the way music CDs were. When CDs first arrived, they were about double the price of regular albums and did not come down (to adjust to the market as the public switched to CDs) for years and years. __________________ If you accept your enemies' evaluation of you, you accept undeserved blame, and thus give them the power to destroy you.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

November 30 2008, 08:41 AM	#40
Orac Zen Mischief Manager Location: Missing him ^	Re: Has blu-ray failed? If people have money to spend on a snazzy TV, Blu-ray players and disks, good luck to them. Not everyone's in that situation and dismissing them as "Luddites" who are "blind" or don't "care" about such things is pretty pathetic. God forbid that anyone should have interests in things other than owning the latest and greatest entertainment stuff, or who simply don't have the money to splash out on such things. I've seen no compelling advantage(s) in "upgrading" from DVD, as there were to go from VHS to DVD. The difference isn't great enough to interest me, even if I didn't have other things to do with my money. If that makes me blind or uncaring or a Luddite or anything else, too bad. To each their own. __________________ Max 2008 - 2013

November 30 2008, 08:56 AM	#41
firehawk12 Fleet Admiral Location: EXILE + ATTON = GUUUUUUSH!!!! (pic by aimo)	Re: Has blu-ray failed? I guess it's all relative. To me, watching something in SD is like watching a 16:9 or other widescreen aspect ration film in 4:3. It just bothers me. (With Blu-Ray, we've finally moved beyond having fullscreen versions of films, which is just an added benefit). But sure, I suppose it's all relative. You don't need to have a 50" TV to experience the benefits of HD. Hell, just download the Star Trek trailer from Apple in HD and compare it to the SD trailer. Even on a small computer screen, you can instantly tell the difference. __________________ The best reason to watch Curling: Johnson Sisters! "How do you trust a nation that's invented Karate? They're standing there in their pajamas... then they kick you in the balls!"

November 30 2008, 10:53 AM	#43
firehawk12 Fleet Admiral Location: EXILE + ATTON = GUUUUUUSH!!!! (pic by aimo)	Re: Has blu-ray failed? The problem is we don't have television displays that are higher than 1080p, which is how HD content is going to be pushed into homes. And to be honest, people who spent several grand on a 70" TV aren't going to rush out to upgrade again any time soon anyway, I don't think. Even then, on the PC side those super high res monitors that are like 2500x1600... those most be expensive as hell right now. I mean, a lot of content shot on digital is now 4k because everyone is adopting the Red Camera, but the only people who are able to show it are theatres with extremely expensive projectors. Indeed, the new hotness seems to be 8k transfers (over 30 terrabytes of data!), but there's no way that will ever make it into homes in the near or even far future. __________________ The best reason to watch Curling: Johnson Sisters! "How do you trust a nation that's invented Karate? They're standing there in their pajamas... then they kick you in the balls!"

November 30 2008, 11:55 AM	#44
Bob The Skutter Admiral Location: Bob The Skutter	Re: Has blu-ray failed? To be honest I'm in no rush to get Blu-Ray, I have a 720p/1080i HDTV but I just don't see a huge difference between PAL and 1080i. Certainly not enough to pay extra subscription for HD channels, and folk out extra for a BR player and discs, maybe when the players are under £100 and the discs can be had at the same price as DVDs. Yeah HD can look great, but generally not in dramas, it's more in documentary when you have stunning vistas and skylines to look at, not grimy streets and people's faces. __________________ It's all right, children. Life is made up of meetings and partings. That is the way of it. I am sure that we shall never forget Tiny Tim, or this first parting that there was among us.

November 30 2008, 12:18 PM	#45
Timelord_Victorious Rear Admiral	Re: Has blu-ray failed? If you don't have the money to buy a Bluray player: fine! If you don't have the money to buy a HDTV set: also fine! But where from comes this myth that you have can't use your standard DVDs anymore IF you upgrade? That's bullshit! Put a DVD into a bluray player and watch what happens. It plays. It shows you your movie! Fantastic technology isn't it? No need to re-purchase on anything. There might be a few selective movies which are to tempting in HD to keep watching them in plain old DVD, like LotR, but that's about it! You actually can have the best of both worlds. If you do that you probably will shift to buying more bluray discs than DVDs over time as the prices will go down and your eye will get finetuned to see the difference. But there's nothing wrong with that, is it?