Blu-Ray just not "catching on"

[FordSVT]

Well the points I hear here, soem are utter rubbish.

One the difference of what VHS displayed (the data not how you tv handles it) and DVD while dramatic is not as significant as the difference between DVD and 1080i.

Now the stickler for that is that you might have a HDTV (if you do) that either isn't large enough or not 1080i to allow you to actually see the difference.

For example my 50 inch 1080i running a standard film DVD looks okay, but sowing a blue ray 1080i form of that same film is a huge difference.

But showing that same film on my 35 inch 720 doesn't have near the jump in viewable quality.

You make many good points, but this isn't one of them. Does a HD disk look better than a DVD, especially on a larger screen? Of course.

But when people are talking about the marked improvement between VHS and DVD, it's the whole package. VHS tapes wear out quickly, have a much grainier look to the picture, you get lines, the sound isn't as good at all (I defy anyone to find a Dolby Surround VHS tape that's been played more than three times that still has the rear sound working properly), you have to rewind them, they jam, all the extras included in DVDs, they are bigger and harder to shelve, on and on.

To most people, a Blu Ray is a DVD with a better picture. That's it. The incentive to buy just isn't there, especially when most people have a 32-42 inch HDTV, many of them only 720p. We're talking about a large sample, not you as an individual. They'll sell millions of them between PS3s and all the units they basically give away with home theatre packages, and now that they're hitting the $200 range they'll sell even more, but I think people's point that they are usually $5-10 more expsensive than first-run DVD movies is a very valid one. A lot of the people I know with PS3s own a couple of BluRay movies like Iron Man and Transformers just to show it off, but they still spend most of their money buying DVDs.

 

[Cutter John]

As some posters have mentioned earlier, the biggest difference maker in noticing Blu-Ray's clear quality advantage over DVD is:

1) Television size

and

2) Viewing distance


If you have a 27 inch LCD and watch it 20 ft across the room, you probably won't notice a difference at all.

But,

If you have a 60 inch Plasma and are 10ft away, your jaw will hit the floor.

The difference IS that huge.

Pixels don't lie.

This.

I have a 27 inch flatscreen tube set and don't have the intention or the money to shell out for anything bigger anytime soon. So BR for me would be wasted.
Actually between my poor eyesight and general laziness, I usually just watch my movies on a little 7-inch portable player hooked up to an old set of 2.1 pc speakers. The big set just gets used for broadcast tv watching.

 

[hamudm]

You know, I don't have an AMAZING setup, but for me, if I can buy the Blu Ray and avoid buying the DVD, I'm all over it. I'm running:

- 42" Viewsonic N4280p 1080p
- Yamaha 5.1-Channel Home Theatre System (YHT-290)
- PS3 (40GB)
- Toshiba HD-A20 hd-dvd player
- Toshiba HD-A3 hd-dvd player

Even with the specs of my system not being top of the line, there is a MARKED difference between upconverted 480p --> 1080p video and HD 1080p video, to the point where tentpole SFX titles NEED to be replaced in either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. Don't get me wrong, upconverting looks much better than 480p video, but a hi-def source is unparallelled in audio and visual fidelity.

 

[ACE]

This article is complete and utter nonsense.

I have been purchasing Blu-ray discs for nearly two years, now - with over 200 titles in my collection. Very few of these titles have I paid more than $13 for - the exception being certain multi-disc collections like BBC's Planet Earth or The Godfather Trilogy, where I still paid under $50 each for. Smart shoppers can easily find Blu-ray discs for DVD prices. There is no reason to pay the suggested retail of $30-$40 for any movie title.

I still remember back in 2000, when DVD had been out on the market for three years, and Blockbuster still only had a handful of DVD titles to choose from, compared to the thousands of VHS tapes. I bought my first DVD player in early 2000 and paid over $400 for it - again, three years after the format's introduction.

Flash forward to present day 2008 - Blu-ray has been out a scant two years and has already deeply penetrated nearly all major retailers and there are already players being advertised for under $200! The week that Iron Man was realeased on Blu (September 30th) resulted in a Blu-ray Disc market share of over 16% of all packaged disc media sales - WAY, WAY ahead of what DVD sales were two years in against VHS.

As to downloads, many service providers are looking for ways to severely limit how many gigabytes a customer may use in a given month's time - and/or introduce steep tier pricing schedules for those who download large amounts of data. Now, considering that packaged HD media is routinely presented at 1080P resolution and occupying nearly 50 gigabytes (or more) of space on a Blu-ray disc, just how on earth will the quality or quantity of downloadable files be able to compete with this, let alone the required storage space needed to hold these files - hard drives, recordable Blu-ray discs? Oops, now your back to writing on discs again to archive. Why not just buy the packaged media outright in the first place?

I'm just an old guy of 72 who embraces new technology, but not blindly so. But, I do love movies - and being able to watch a film-quality presentation in the home on a large projection screen is a dream come true for me. I'm semi-retired from the film and TV industry and only work on occasion when something of interest comes along - so I have a lot of spare time to appreciate what this new technology has to offer. I imagine that Blu-ray will be around at least 10 years, and, hopefully, I will be around to see a possible successor to that format, possibly in the form of a solid-state memory card, if you're talking packaged media.

In a nutshell, DVD does look good, and looks even better when upscaled. But, in no way can it hold a candle to a Blu-ray version of the same title - the difference in picture quality is startling - especially at larger screen sizes. So, before you count it as a "dying format", take a look and see for yourself just how amazing this stuff looks. I think you'll be impressed.


ACE

 

[PKerr]

At this point I have a 67" HDTV upgraded recently from a 62" I've had for about a year now.
So I've had a HDTV for a year and a few months.
I still see no reason to move to Blu-ray. DVD is fine for me.

I will (at some point) be upgrading my sound system since it's about 8 years old. Still on 5.1 DTS

I too am in the category that have yet to move my VHS's into DVD.
About half I can't because they are documentaries or old Cagney/Bogart type movies.

 

[Smiley]

Where are you getting Blu-Ray titles (new, I'm assuming) for $13 or less? Outside of a first-week special, it's tough to get a regular DVD for that.

 

[PKerr]

Where are you getting Blu-Ray titles (new, I'm assuming) for $13 or less? Outside of a first-week special, it's tough to get a regular DVD for that.

I was thinking the same thing.
I just bought the 2 disk versions of the Hulk and Indy for $22.00
The single disk versions were $18.00

 

[RoJoHen]

Where are you getting Blu-Ray titles (new, I'm assuming) for $13 or less? Outside of a first-week special, it's tough to get a regular DVD for that.

And somehow I don't think they're putting Blu-Ray discs in the bargain bin at Walmart.

 

[Gryffindorian]

This article is complete and utter nonsense.

I have been purchasing Blu-ray discs for nearly two years, now - with over 200 titles in my collection. Very few of these titles have I paid more than $13 for - the exception being certain multi-disc collections like BBC's Planet Earth or The Godfather Trilogy, where I still paid under $50 each for. Smart shoppers can easily find Blu-ray discs for DVD prices. There is no reason to pay the suggested retail of $30-$40 for any movie title.



ACE

Well, if there's a flea market in my area where they sell cheap Blu-Ray movies, I'd like to know. I have never seen a $13 BD movie sold at Target, Wal-Mart, Circuit City, or Best Buy; I can tell you that for sure. Even the crappy documentaries or other films on BD start at $19.

 

[Aragorn]

I see the same $10-$15 Blu-Ray sales online and in some stores constantly, but it's the usual suspects of Bram Stoker's Dracula, The Patriot, Big Fish, Black Hawk Down, A Few Good Men, Hellboy, Donnie Brasco, SWAT, Layer Cake, Memento, The Fifth Element, etc., of Columbia/Tri-Star titles.

Artisan has a lot of bargain-priced titles too.

Fox has unreasonably high MSRP for their titles, especially when you consider how stripped down a lot of them are.

You could always shop at the 20% off sales at Deep Discount and DVD Planet they have twice a year.

 

[hamudm]

At this point I have a 67" HDTV upgraded recently from a 62" I've had for about a year now.
So I've had a HDTV for a year and a few months.
I still see no reason to move to Blu-ray. DVD is fine for me.

I will (at some point) be upgrading my sound system since it's about 8 years old. Still on 5.1 DTS

I too am in the category that have yet to move my VHS's into DVD.
About half I can't because they are documentaries or old Cagney/Bogart type movies.

See... to me that's just bizarre. Blowing up a 480p image on a 67" (!!!!!!!!!) screen defeats the purpose of buying an HDTV. The size of the screen itself magnifies haziness and detail issues... what must be 10-fold!

I'm sure it's "good enough" for you which is fine... I mean to each his/her own. But trying to convince (I'm not accusing you, but just some people in general) that blu-ray is not a significant upgrade from DVD worth investing in, seems kinda ignorant to me.

 

[hamudm]

Where are you getting Blu-Ray titles (new, I'm assuming) for $13 or less? Outside of a first-week special, it's tough to get a regular DVD for that.

I get $16.99 and $19.99 previously viewed copies at roger's video all the time. They run 30% off sales regularly as well... this would amount to about $13 each, if not less. In addition, I have their rewards card that entitles me to a free blu-ray for every ten PV titles I purchase... these often are as low as $3.9-$5.99 each on DVD. I use this offer to buy small independent films or releases like Snakes (ON A MUTHF*CK'N) Plane!!!

EDIT: In addition, there is a small chain here of video/game stores called Willow Video. They carry new-release Blu-Rays for $19.99-$21.99... no more (and often less than the cost of) a new-release DVD title.

 

[Aragorn]

I'm sure it's "good enough" for you which is fine... I mean to each his/her own. But trying to convince (I'm not accusing you, but just some people in general) that blu-ray is not a significant upgrade from DVD worth investing in, seems kinda ignorant to me.

Well you do know that if HD-DVD had won he'd be all over this board supporting it, right?

Also, have you read the posts by some people on this board who like to stretch out their 4:3 pictures to fill their widescreen HDTVs? It's sort of the same mindset there.

 

[The Wormhole]

Walking into this conversation late in the game, maybe my thoughts have already been covered. But I got to say, I just don't see the big deal for Blu-Ray. After all, a standard DVD already has superior picture, better than VHS, television and even the movie theatre itself. This is esentially perfection in an entertainment medium. Are people really obsessed with some form of uber perfection that they would want to make improvements on top of that.

Besides, I've seen Blu-Ray demonstrations at places like Future Shop and Best Buy, and honestly, I don't see it as an improvement worth mentioning.

 

[Captain Craig]

Besides, I've seen Blu-Ray demonstrations at places like Future Shop and Best Buy, and honestly, I don't see it as an improvement worth mentioning.

Your in good company but I'll just tell you we are viewed as "ignorant" by those who think it is worth it.

 

[Candlelight]

I work with 1080i & p material every day and we haven't got a blu-ray burner yet, simply because no one is interested in it. If they were we would be investing in it and burning off blu-ray copies of our tv shows, but we're not.

Most formats seem to do a 10-15 year cycle before being superceded (1980 for VHS, 1995 for DVD, 2008 for Blu-Ray) so I figure we are good on this format for at least another decade. Unless there is a mass shift to ultra high rez material (how many people other than Peter Jackson use Red One cameras on a regular basis?) then I doubt we'd see any commercial products for a while.

 

[ACE]

Okay,

I just came from Costco where I purchased Blu-ray Discs of Battle of the Bulge and Wyatt Earp for $12.99 each, where they have many titles for $11.99 - $12.99.

Last week, Fry's had five of the six just-released catalog James Bond Blu-ray titles for $16.99 each, which I then took the add to Best Buy, where they price matched, and I applied a $20 Reward Zone certificate, bringing the total down to approximately $13 each. Fry's also had The Godfather Trilogy Blu-ray set on sale for $49, which I again price-matched at Best Buy, whose retail on that title is $89, saving me nearly half. Ditto a price match for In the Line of Fire Blu-ray for $13.99.

Fry's routinely has incredible sales on Blu-ray titles, which many other nearby retailers with match. Also, Amazon frequently has sales and special offers on many titles.

I suggest to anyone who is interested to check out the Blu-ray.com forum Hot Deals thread, where most or all of the weekly bargains are posted for the various retailers. If you're clever, you will never need to pay even close to retail for any of these titles. Just shop around.

Also, Bill Hunt over at The Digital Bits just posted a reply on the Harris Blu-ray article. It's work checking out, as he is absolutely right:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

 

[Captain Intrepid]

Well the points I hear here, soem are utter rubbish.

One the difference of what VHS displayed (the data not how you tv handles it) and DVD while dramatic is not as significant as the difference between DVD and 1080i.

To be clear, because I made a point along these lines, one of the reasons the the DVD to Blu-ray changeover is not as dramatic as the VHS to DVD changeover is because the over-all format change is not as dramatic. Everything about a DVD from size, to features, to picture quality, to ease of use was an improvement over tape. Blu-ray offers, so far, only significant upgrade in picture quality. Which is not enough for some. There may be more features to follow, but the few discs I have don't offer them.

Not to mention, that video and sound upgrade is going from great to fantastic, instead of ok to great like it was with the vhs dvd transition.

 

[Rii]

UHD, which has 16 times the resolution of HD, is currently expected to begin to become available in about 6 years. It should be able to display existing films in at least their original resolution.

This should come in handy for those of us who own a cinema complex.

 

[jeff lebowski]

As some posters have mentioned earlier, the biggest difference maker in noticing Blu-Ray's clear quality advantage over DVD is:

1) Television size

and

2) Viewing distance


If you have a 27 inch LCD and watch it 20 ft across the room, you probably won't notice a difference at all.

But,

If you have a 60 inch Plasma and are 10ft away, your jaw will hit the floor.

The difference IS that huge.

Pixels don't lie.

This.

I have a 27 inch flatscreen tube set and don't have the intention or the money to shell out for anything bigger anytime soon. So BR for me would be wasted.
Actually between my poor eyesight and general laziness, I usually just watch my movies on a little 7-inch portable player hooked up to an old set of 2.1 pc speakers. The big set just gets used for broadcast tv watching.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not recommending Blu-Ray for everyone. I DO NOT recommend Blu-Ray for those that have a setup similair to yours or even a little bit better than yours.

But those that say "There's little difference..." need to qualify their remarks as well.