Blu-Ray just not "catching on"

[RoJoHen]

I don't know about the "everyone will agree" part. People here seem to go out of their way to say they can't see any difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. And then you've got those people who stretch their 4:3 pictures to fill their widescreen TVs who are on another planet all together.

Well, let me clarify.

"Everyone will agree" if they watch Blu-Ray under the right conditions. The problem is you pretty much need a giant TV and be watching from the right distance in order for the picture quality to be noticeable. I could buy a Blu-Ray disc and play it on a 20" TV and probably won't notice a damn thing.

I notice a major difference just using the HDMI upconverter on my DVD player. I'm sure that Blu-Ray will look even better. But the question is: do I care?

I don't. DVD is fine for now, and it will be until Blu-Ray disc prices drop...or until I can start renting Blu-Ray discs at Hollywood Video.

 

[Commander Vaughn]

I don't know about the "everyone will agree" part. People here seem to go out of their way to say they can't see any difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. And then you've got those people who stretch their 4:3 pictures to fill their widescreen TVs who are on another planet all together.

Well, let me clarify.

"Everyone will agree" if they watch Blu-Ray under the right conditions. The problem is you pretty much need a giant TV and be watching from the right distance in order for the picture quality to be noticeable. I could buy a Blu-Ray disc and play it on a 20" TV and probably won't notice a damn thing.

I notice a major difference just using the HDMI upconverter on my DVD player. I'm sure that Blu-Ray will look even better. But the question is: do I care?

I don't. DVD is fine for now, and it will be until Blu-Ray disc prices drop...or until I can start renting Blu-Ray discs at Hollywood Video.

They still have Hollywood Video? All the ones around here closed...

As for me, I won't be getting Blu-ray. Why bother?

 

[Goliath]

I haven't switched to Blu-Ray because I still haven't bought an HDTV.

Same here. I don't even have a flatscreen.

My TV is a twelve-year-old Magnasonic that I got from my parents as a housewarming gift. The screen is 16x12. It's mono. It doesn't even have those multicoloured jacks in the back--just a single jack for the cable.

But it still works fine. And as long as it keeps working, I just have no incentive to buy another.

It's also why I haven't bought a next-generation video-game console yet. That, and the fact that I haven't even played all of my last-generation games.

I guess I just don't care all that much about sound and picture quality. When I was growing up, we were so poor that we watched big old B&W TVs that family and friends handed down to us. As a result, I'm one of the few people on this board who really understands the first line of William Gibson's Neuromancer.

So while I can finally get one, I kind of don't want to. It looks great in the stores, but when I'm watching a DVD at home on my regular flat-screen TV, I'm not exactly thinking, "This looks like crap!" Some part of me still marvels that it's so much sharper than VHS.

That's my attitude as well. Good enough is good enough.

 

[RoJoHen]

They still have Hollywood Video? All the ones around here closed...

Weird. They're really the only thing left around here. Everything else has closed.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

TV HD movies do not look as good as BD HD movies.

Quite.

In fact, my favorite IMAX movie (Chronos) was the reason I got a Blu-Ray player in the first place. I'd had that movie recorded on my DVR for months, but I bought the Blu-Ray on a whim - even before I had a player to play it on. When I finally did get a player, I had a classic WTF? moment: I waited this long? I shoulda done that months ago! The jump in quality was amazing. Even though the DVR recording was in high definition.

And the standard def version of the same film on DVD? Forget it. I had that too, once, and it sucked big time. This is one of those films where the standard DVD is basically crap.

 

[dkehler]

Yep and more future proof.

Not at all a given. Blu-Ray has a major head start and just because something is "better" doesn't mean that it will be embraced by the public. Remember beta?

Not to mention, if you think that Blu-Ray isn't that much of an improvement over DVD, then surely you will see even less improvement of this new format over Blu-Ray. Unless people start routinely having 100+ inch screens, I think Blu-Ray is plenty good enough for the foreseeable future.

How is a tad over 2 years a major head start especially when it hasn't really caught on?

Also, did you miss this part?

"Because RDM's system is based on inexpensive red laser technology, their players are expected to sell for much less than Sony's, which routinely sell for hundreds of dollars. The high price of Blu-ray players has been credited for the technology's slow public reception.

The retail prices for RDM's players and discs are expected to "equal those of the traditional DVD format, greatly undercutting Blu-ray," said Diebel."

Both the players and disks will be cheaper.
That my friend will make a big difference.

Which brings me to question if this was the rumored MS "forward compatibility" for the next 360.
It might also explain why MS will not make an add on Blu-ray for the 360.
If they use this tech on the next 360 there won't be any game that wouldn't fit on a disk.

I guess time will tell. From my understanding, Blu-Ray is ahead of where DVD was at the same stage in its life span. That doesn't sound like a failure to me.

The only thing that the new format could do to kill Blu-Ray is somehow convince all the movie studios to switch to that format, which is possible, I suppose, but since they are basically all committed to Blu-Ray at the moment, it doesn't seem likely. Perhaps if this new format had come out a year ago, before the movie studios were set up to create Blu-Ray discs, the new format might have been cheaper to implement, but now?

Put it this way, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[dkehler]

I don't know about the "everyone will agree" part. People here seem to go out of their way to say they can't see any difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. And then you've got those people who stretch their 4:3 pictures to fill their widescreen TVs who are on another planet all together.

Give it up already, dude. Feel free to watch things the way you want to on your television set, but I personally have no problem whatsoever with the way the stretch mode on my widescreen television fills the screen on 4:3 content, what little there is these days anyway. It's not remotely as bad as, say, fullscreen DVDs, which (mostly with exceptions) cut off the sides of widescreen content.

 

[ialfan]

I don't know about the "everyone will agree" part. People here seem to go out of their way to say they can't see any difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. And then you've got those people who stretch their 4:3 pictures to fill their widescreen TVs who are on another planet all together.

Agreed on that last part. I just don't get why people insist on distoring the picture like that. Things should be presented and shown at their original aspect ratio. If you don't want black bars on the left and right buy a 4:3 screen.

 

[dkehler]

I don't know about the "everyone will agree" part. People here seem to go out of their way to say they can't see any difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. And then you've got those people who stretch their 4:3 pictures to fill their widescreen TVs who are on another planet all together.

Agreed on that last part. I just don't get why people insist on distoring the picture like that. Things should be presented and shown at their original aspect ratio. If you don't want black bars on the left and right buy a 4:3 screen.

Because the distortion isn't particularly noticeable if you're not looking for it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I stretch 4:3 content on my TV, but only because I'm concerned about burn-in.

 

[hamudm]

Because the distortion isn't particularly noticeable if you're not looking for it.

GAAAHH!!!

 

[BigFoot]

^ Hey, to each his/her own. I definitely prefer the black bars on sides, but some people do like to "see more".

 

[Orac Zen]

I'm just going to stop trying to convince people.

Cool. Because, y'know, describing people who don't see things your way as ignorant really doesn't help get your point across.

I haven't switched to Blu-Ray because I still haven't bought an HDTV.

Ditto.

So while I can finally get one, I kind of don't want to. It looks great in the stores, but when I'm watching a DVD at home on my regular flat-screen TV, I'm not exactly thinking, "This looks like crap!" Some part of me still marvels that it's so much sharper than VHS.

Yep. I don't need the latest and greatest anything, and I can't justify spending the kind of money required on an HD-TV and Blu-ray setup anyway. To each their own.

 

[Aragorn]

Because the distortion isn't particularly noticeable if you're not looking for it.

So what exactly are you looking at if you're not paying attention to the humans who are suddenly shorter and fatter?

 

[Dane_Whitman]

Because the distortion isn't particularly noticeable if you're not looking for it.

So what exactly are you looking at if you're not paying attention to the humans who are suddenly shorter and fatter?

Not to mention all those weirdly shaped planets when you're watching one of the 600 episodes of Star Trek that were filmed in 4:3.

 

[dkehler]

Because the distortion isn't particularly noticeable if you're not looking for it.

So what exactly are you looking at if you're not paying attention to the humans who are suddenly shorter and fatter?

As I'm sure you're aware, most widescreen TVs have a proportional "stretch" mode which minimizes the distortion in the centre of the screen. Perhaps some people are more sensitive to it than others, but it looks perfectly acceptable to me.

 

[Aragorn]

You're free to do what you want -- as long as you're not demanding/expecting your friends and family to watch that same picture with you -- but I think it's pretty telling when two Pulitzer Prize-winning writers each had to devote one of their articles to people who stretch out their 4:3 pictures.

 

[dkehler]

You're free to do what you want -- as long as you're not demanding/expecting your friends and family to watch that same picture with you -- but I think it's pretty telling when two Pulitzer Prize-winning writers each had to devote one of their articles to people who stretch out their 4:3 pictures.

Telling of what? That they don't have anything better to write about?

Nobody has ever complained about my television set up, believe me. However, I have gotten much praise about it.

 

[Aragorn]

Well, if that's how you want to put it, then this is how I'll put it -- it's telling that common sense is anything but common.

 

[dkehler]

Well, if that's how you want to put it, then this is how I'll put it -- it's telling that common sense is anything but common.

I just fail to see why some of you guys seem to think it's such a big deal. Again, it's so minor even compared to fullscreen DVDs of widescreen content.