News Star Trek: Discovery Season Two On Blu-Ray And DVD

[Boris Skrbic]

And yet, despite the above, I still have good old SDTVs in daily use in two rooms and still buy DVDs more than once every ten years.

And that’s great — SDTVs can still be used to replicate the original viewing experience if an older show just isn’t available in HD+.

I have a 1080p projector but not a UHD display in my home cinema setup. I’m still at 5.1 for speakers and it’s driven by a 9 year old Yamaha AVR. Basically, I’m like the mechanic who works on brand new cars (I setup other people’s home cinema or other A/V kit 2-3 times a year as a favour to them) but drives a 10 year old car.

UHD releases are still relatively young and limited, so that’s a bit different from DVD v Blu-ray.

I don’t normally bother to list all of that to talk about something like DVD vs Blu-ray but you’ve made several posts suggesting that people who aren’t “keeping up with the Jones” are somehow wrong for doing so. And that’s, well...wrong.

I have the money to upgrade my A/V gear every few years, but I don’t do so. I prefer to buy gear that lasts. Better for my wallet and the environment. I just bought the entire series of The Americans (haven’t seen the show but always wanted to). I bought it on DVD. In 2019. Why? Economics. The complete series is not available on Blu-ray and likely never will be. It is available on iTunes in HD. And I have the gear to stream it. But the iTunes package is more than twice as expensive. Not worth the extra money—to me. And that’s the rub.

I appreciate the improvements of the latest formats and gear. But I also buy the upgrades when they reach a price point I consider fair (and when the previous gear is either completely obsolete or no longer works). That line differs for everyone. Moreover, some (many) people don’t care about the latest and greatest formats. They are satisfied with the content of their entertainment. And. That’s. Perfectly. Fine. (Even for Star Trek fans)

If a series available in HD isn’t worth watching in HD then I’d just skip it. Why subject one’s eyes and ears to hours upon hours in worse quality when better quality is available? Why miss out on all the detail a production put into a show? Maybe you save a few dollars but then it’s not worth your precious time, and how is the environment helped by companies still putting out both superior and inferior formats just because they sell?

 

[Reyman]

Choosing to buy DVDs is not a morally charged decision. It’s a matter of individual preference—probably driven more by economics than anything else.

In my circle of friends and family, I’m the “go to guy” for all matters A/V. I’m fully up on the latest UHD displays and UHD disc players (of which there will never be a variety of models remotely as numerous as Blu-ray players, let alone the far more ubiquitous DVD players at the height of their popularity). I’m familiar with all three HDR systems available to consumers and how each differs from the other. I can install pretty much all immersive audio setups that do not require rebuilding walls and/or rooms (I’m not a carpenter)—Dolby Atmos, DTS: X, Auro 3D. I know how to fine tune Audyssey, Anthem’s ARC, Dirac Live and proprietary room compensation software from Onkyo, Pioneer and Yamaha.

And yet, despite the above, I still have good old SDTVs in daily use in two rooms and still buy DVDs more than once every ten years. I have a 1080p projector but not a UHD display in my home cinema setup. I’m still at 5.1 for speakers and it’s driven by a 9 year old Yamaha AVR. Basically, I’m like the mechanic who works on brand new cars (I setup other people’s home cinema or other A/V kit 2-3 times a year as a favour to them) but drives a 10 year old car.

I don’t normally bother to list all of that to talk about something like DVD vs Blu-ray but you’ve made several posts suggesting that people who aren’t “keeping up with the Jones” are somehow wrong for doing so. And that’s, well...wrong.

I have the money to upgrade my A/V gear every few years, but I don’t do so. I prefer to buy gear that lasts. Better for my wallet and the environment. I just bought the entire series of The Americans (haven’t seen the show but always wanted to). I bought it on DVD. In 2019. Why? Economics. The complete series is not available on Blu-ray and likely never will be. It is available on iTunes in HD. And I have the gear to stream it. But the iTunes package is more than twice as expensive. Not worth the extra money—to me. And that’s the rub.

I appreciate the improvements of the latest formats and gear. But I also buy the upgrades when they reach a price point I consider fair (and when the previous gear is either completely obsolete or no longer works). That line differs for everyone. Moreover, some (many) people don’t care about the latest and greatest formats. They are satisfied with the content of their entertainment. And. That’s. Perfectly. Fine. (Even for Star Trek fans)

Some decent points here. I actually hold a very similar point of view to this when it comes to AV.

However I will add from a personal point of view that there is very little need for SDTVs, particularly in 2 rooms. You can very easily and cheaply pick up a very good quality second hand plasma TV which will give you a far superior picture for SD and DVD content.

Also the next big innovation in picture quality tech will likely be AI upscaling. However it's of very little use when it comes to DVDs, but does have a significant impact when it comes picture quality with Blu rays and HD content.

Blu rays (HD content) still have some legs it seems, DVDs not so much. Blu rays may cost a little more, but imo you're definitely getting your monies worth from an AV point of view.

 

[fireproof78]

Blu ray is too expensive for me to add. And, the video quality can look really weird to me. It's unsettlingly

 

[Tuskin38]

And that’s great — SDTVs can still be used to replicate the original viewing experience if an older show just isn’t available in HD+.



UHD releases are still relatively young and limited, so that’s a bit different from DVD v Blu-ray.



If a series available in HD isn’t worth watching in HD then I’d just skip it. Why subject one’s eyes and ears to hours upon hours in worse quality when better quality is available? Why miss out on all the detail a production put into a show? Maybe you save a few dollars but then it’s not worth your precious time, and how is the environment helped by companies still putting out both superior and inferior formats just because they sell?

You’re forcing an awful lot of opinions onto other people. If they don’t want to watch HD, they don’t want to watch it.

 

[Ovation]

Why subject one’s eyes and ears to hours upon hours in worse quality when better quality is available? Why miss out on all the detail a production put into a show? Maybe you save a few dollars but then it’s not worth your precious time, and how is the environment helped by companies still putting out both superior and inferior formats just because they sell?

I decide whether it’s worth my “precious time”, not you (or anyone else). As for the environment, in this case there is no HD disc alternative (in fact, many current series are put out ONLY on DVD as a physical format and the HD version is ONLY available by streaming—a good number of them after disappointing sales for Blu-ray single season releases). Also, believe it or not, reliable and affordable broadband internet for HD streaming is not universally available, even in North America. Even less so for UHD streaming.

However I will add from a personal point of view that there is very little need for SDTVs, particularly in 2 rooms. You can very easily and cheaply pick up a very good quality second hand plasma TV which will give you a far superior picture for SD and DVD content.

I prefer free to cheap. The SDTV in the living room is used primarily by my wife (who has ZERO interest in upgrading unless the TV dies as she’s perfectly happy with SD) and half or more of the channels she watches are only SD anyway. The other SDTV is in the kids’ playroom for video games and half of those are vintage non-HD games. They suit our particular needs just fine.

I own around 5000 movies and about 100 or so TV seasons of various shows. Probably a 60/40 HD/SD split (rough guess). I have, slowly, upgraded some SD material (and given away the SD versions to people who appreciate free stuff and also have my wife’s attitude to video quality). However, I don’t plan to upgrade all of it. As such, I’m very happy with my current projector (excellent SD to HD upscaling) and when I do upgrade the other displays, a critical feature will be the upscaling from SD (fully cognizant of the limitations involved).

 

[Reyman]

when I do upgrade the other displays, a critical feature will be the upscaling from SD (fully cognizant of the limitations involved).

Also why I mentioned picking up a plasma as there isn't much out there that doesn't a better job with SD content, and it's unlikely that anything new will come along that does. The better second hand plasmas seem to actually be increasing in resale value too.

Fair enough if you have people who still appreciate older tech. My mum didn't want to part with her black and white TV until the mid 00s.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Let’s not get sidetracked (too much) into the availability of broadband, shows which are only in SD on disc or the double-dip factor and gradual upgrades. Right now on Amazon, DSC S1 is $34.99 on Prime Video, $34.39 on Blu-ray and $29.96 on DVD. Why go for DVD if it’s half the quality at almost the same price?

 

[Tuskin38]

Let’s not get sidetracked (too much) into the availability of broadband, shows which are only in SD on disc or the double-dip factor and gradual upgrades. Right now on Amazon, DSC S1 is $34.99 on Prime Video, $34.39 on Blu-ray and $29.96 on DVD. Why go for DVD if it’s half the quality at almost the same price?

Why do you care such much?

 

[Ovation]

Let’s not get sidetracked (too much) into the availability of broadband, shows which are only in SD on disc or the double-dip factor and gradual upgrades. Right now on Amazon, DSC S1 is $34.99 on Prime Video, $34.39 on Blu-ray and $29.96 on DVD. Why go for DVD if it’s half the quality at almost the same price?

Well, those topics are important to those of us who watch things NOT Star Trek. Moreover, you made value judgements on the viewing choices of others regarding more than just Trek.

IF the discussion was limited to Trek, specifically DSC, then I would agree the Blu-ray is worth the extra 5$—to me. However, I wouldn’t presume it was so for everyone else who might be interested. THAT’S the bit (assuming it’s true for everyone, along with dismissing the many reasons why it’s NOT true for everyone, as explained to you at some length) that’s generating a certain degree of frustration among your fellow posters.

 

[fireproof78]

Why go for DVD if it’s half the quality at almost the same price?

Because streaming is inconsistent in my area due to the Internet I have, I already own a DVD player and have no desire to purchase Blu Ray, and I like having physical media.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Well, those topics are important to those of us who watch things NOT Star Trek. Moreover, you made value judgements on the viewing choices of others regarding more than just Trek.

IF the discussion was limited to Trek, specifically DSC, then I would agree the Blu-ray is worth the extra 5$—to me. However, I wouldn’t presume it was so for everyone else who might be interested. THAT’S the bit (assuming it’s true for everyone, along with dismissing the many reasons why it’s NOT true for everyone, as explained to you at some length) that’s generating a certain degree of frustration among your fellow posters.

Those topics are important to the extent that one should strive to solve the issues. Sure, there are always limitations of some sort. I also watch shows on DVD when they’re not available on Blu-ray or in HD streaming locally. However, it’s not subjective in the sense that one would normally and forever prefer worse to better, unless the HD presentation has serious shortcomings (eg. when opening up or cropping 4:3 for widescreen, DNR issues in certain transfers, availability of original or alternate versions).

If people don’t care, that’s fine — but they should be inspired to at every opportunity. If someone is binge-watching a show on a poor TV, suggest the better option in the house. If you can catch a movie anywhere but need tickets purchased in advance for IMAX, do that if the movie matters. Similarly, if we see that DSC is available only on slightly cheaper DVD, make sure it’s pointed out. Even a small step is enough, but let’s not pretend that DVD is some kind of a holy personal choice to feel protective about.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Because streaming is inconsistent in my area due to the Internet I have, I already own a DVD player and have no desire to purchase Blu Ray, and I like having physical media.

A Blu-ray player would be a one-time upgrade, as opposed to the number of times you’d be spending only a little less for half the quality.

 

[Ovation]

Those topics are important to the extent that one should strive to solve the issues. Sure, there are always limitations of some sort. I also watch shows on DVD when they’re not available on Blu-ray or in HD streaming locally. However, it’s not subjective in the sense that one would normally and forever prefer worse to better, unless the HD presentation has serious shortcomings (eg. when opening up or cropping 4:3 for widescreen, DNR issues in certain transfers, availability of original or alternate versions).

If people don’t care, that’s fine — but they should be inspired to at every opportunity. If someone is binge-watching a show on a poor TV, suggest the better option in the house. If you can catch a movie anywhere but need tickets purchased in advance for IMAX, do that if the movie matters. Similarly, if I see that DSC is available in only slightly cheaper DVD, make sure it’s pointed out. Even a small step is enough, but let’s not pretend that DVD is some kind of a holy personal choice to feel protective about.

Do you own stocks in HD gear and media companies? Own an A/V store? It’s the ONLY logical reason for you to persist in telling others “they MUST care” about formats to such an incessant degree.

In any case, I’m off to hook up my VCR to the home cinema so I can watch my pan and scan version of Blade Runner (despite owning a UHD copy with Blu-ray in anticipation of an eventual display upgrade)—BECAUSE I CAN!

 

[Tuskin38]

A Blu-ray player would be a one-time upgrade, as opposed to the number of times you’d be spending only a little less for half the quality.

Again, why do you care?

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Do you own stocks in HD gear and media companies? Own an A/V store? It’s the ONLY logical reason for you to persist in telling others “they MUST care” about formats to such an incessant degree.

In any case, I’m off to hook up my VCR to the home cinema so I can watch my pan and scan version of Blade Runner (despite owning a UHD copy with Blu-ray in anticipation of an eventual display upgrade)—BECAUSE I CAN!

See, there it is again: why be sensitive about my arguing for the best format possible? Do I need to repeat that one needn’t even watch DSC if one doesn’t care for lore, or that the cheaper Netflix subscription and Dolby Vision are preferable to Blu-ray (in countries where DSC is on Netflix) in solid streaming conditions?

Why look for more ulterior motives than me having internalized future tech since watching TNG in the 1990s and wondering why enough Star Trek fans might still be happy collecting DVDs? I’m not even a first adopter (though I become interested almost immediately), but at some point enough is obviously enough.

 

[fireproof78]

A Blu-ray player would be a one-time upgrade, as opposed to the number of times you’d be spending only a little less for half the quality.

The cost adds up, because each blu ray is more. The quality is simply not important enough to me to rework the economics when I have equipment that works.

 

[cultcross]

If someone is binge-watching a show on a poor TV, suggest the better option in the house

That would be quite a dickish thing to do, really. You don't criticise people's tech in polite society.

A Blu-ray player would be a one-time upgrade, as opposed to the number of times you’d be spending only a little less for half the quality.

A one off expense, followed by many smaller expenses for the pricier format, and for many people money is tight. It may not be for you, that's great. But for others, the additional regular costs of buying in HD just make it too expensive, or mean they have to buy fewer movies/series than they otherwise could.

Blu-Rays also, for me, have features that I find annoying. They load much slower than DVDs, and on my system, which I won't be spending a "one off cost" to change, they don't retain their place when turned off like DVDs do. I also like to play DVDs on the PC on occasion and I don't have a Blu Ray drive.

Plus, some people just don't get a lot out of very brilliant picture quality, if you don't have the eyesight to appreciate the difference, or alternatively just don't care about the difference, why spend the money?

There are a lot of reasons people would still buy DVDs, and there probably will be until physical media dies entirely.

 

[Tuskin38]

Like I'm 100% for Blu-Ray, I haven't bought a stand alone DVD in years (some Blu-Ray packages come bundled with DVDs). But I'm not going to nag someone into buying a Blu-Ray player if they don't want to.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

That would be quite a dickish thing to do, really. You don't criticise people's tech in polite society.

Why assume the worst? I was thinking more along the lines of “You know what, that OLED is really going to make this series shine, and let me turn off motion smoothing, you don’t want that.”

A one off expense, followed by many smaller expenses for the pricier format, and for many people money is tight. It may not be for you, that's great. But for others, the additional regular costs of buying in HD just make it too expensive, or mean they have to buy fewer movies/series than they otherwise could.

Then they’ll become more selective (which I try to be as well) or prefer a streaming subscription and solid broadband to obsolescent disc purchases that cost too much in relation to their quality. I don’t buy the Netflix stuff on Blu-ray either, especially when it’s available in HDR there. There are many ways to optimize purchases without going back to DVD when HD is available. Technology drives down costs in the long term.

Blu-Rays also, for me, have features that I find annoying. They load much slower than DVDs, and on my system, which I won't be spending a "one off cost" to change, they don't retain their place when turned off like DVDs do. I also like to play DVDs on the PC on occasion and I don't have a Blu Ray drive.

That’s true, which is why streaming is much more comfortable where available and comparable in quality.

Plus, some people just don't get a lot out of very brilliant picture quality, if you don't have the eyesight to appreciate the difference, or alternatively just don't care about the difference, why spend the money?

There are a lot of reasons people would still buy DVDs, and there probably will be until physical media dies entirely.

Poor eyesight when it cannot be fixed: sure, but if people don’t care, they should be inspired to at every opportunity.

 

[Tuskin38]

I'm sure when they stop selling DVDs they'll switch to Blu-ray or just streaming.