Can't Whip up enthusiam for Blu Ray - Page 3

With few exceptions, I don't plan to upgrade to Blu any of my 600+ SD-DVD collection ever, I'm as much as an Audiophile/videophile as anyone here, but an up-converted good quality sDVD with DD 5.1/ DTS is more than GOOD ENOUGH for mere mortals.

 

If the price is right I will upgrade selected old original releases that looked really bad, some were not even released in WS ever, but I'm not willing to pay more than 14.99 for any NEW title regardless, 7.99 to 9.99 is my cut-off amount for back catalog.

 

As for “Collecting” ? I won't let that dog bite me again, I bought many sDVD titles thinking that they might be “Collector's Items” in the future, only to find them now selling for $5.00 or less brand new, and for a dollar a pop or less at any garage sale.

 

Blu Ray will never be as popular as sDVD is/was, and chances are, given the popularity of Streaming, Downloads, and dollar a day rentals, that current Blu market penetration numbers are the best we'll ever see.

 

In a few years time, all Blu Ray titles available today will be selling at garage sales/Bargain shops for what a sDVD sells there now, by then, if “Streaming” takes over and packaged releases dwindle, I might pick up a few more.

No, not really; but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.  sDVD will never approach a well mastered HD-DVD or Blu-ray title particularly in color performance.  The expanded color space of ATSC permits saturation and subtlety that are not capable of being produced on an NTSC format such as DVD.

- Walter.

The thing is  well mastered is not something you can say about every Blu-ray that comes out...not by a long shot. To many duds for my taste so far. So in many cases he is right just because of sloppy Blu-ray work.

Singing the praises of a new and technically superior format (or anything else in life) isn't being a snob; to follow that line of thought would imply that we were fools ever to abandon VHS, because anything better is just snobbery.

This brings to mind a facet of our cultural that I've long found irritating. A person who leans heavily toward quality, be it coffee, beer, cars or whatever, tend to get branded as "snobs", or as being "uppity". It's not a new phenomenon, and I'm not talking about the common and understandable reaction to rudeness or insult.

There's a large element in our society who seem put off by those who strive for superior function or product, and tend to dismiss it as "getting above yourself".

Part of our overall problem as a culture, is the celebration, in its many forms, of mediocrity.

Okay...we're talking about lowly home theater, and I'm skyrocketing off into the ozone.

But, Brent, I understand what you meant...I just got carried away by the nature of your remark.

  

The problem with that is you just described the majority of the now and future set-ups of joe blow consumer. Many here are not the norm so how is this format going to catch fire if average Joe isn't impressed?  Not trying to be Mr. Negative in the last couple posts just want it to succeed and see problems.

That is close to my stand as well.  The only set where I've noticed upgrading necessary is my new 1080p 49" HD-TV, But they look very good regardless off of my projector screen, and most Criterions in particular look very good on my HD-TV with very little noticeable need for improvement.  I'm a supporter of blu-rays, but typically don't find myself rebuying new editions right away unless there are more extras to boot.  If this last Christmas is anything to go buy, I can also wait until the price gets low enough to do a double dip.  I'd rather add a new film to my collection than replace it under normal circumstances.

Actually, switching over to blu-ray has helped me save money. I find I'm much more selective about what I buy now. I'm not willing to buy DVDs because I know there is, or will likely be, a superior version out there, and I'm not willing to pay a huge premium over the DVD to get the blu-ray.

I only buy favourite titles and rent most everything else.

Yeah, the higher prices have made me either just rent or wait for a sale on a number of titles that I would have probably bought immediately on DVD.

Quote:
Except that the reality of the situation is that Blu-ray market penetration continues to rise in both sales and rental.  Meanwhile, VOD and downloading has had a decade to make a dent, but is still a small percentage, a lot of which isn't movies or TV but YouTube clips.  And even if a movie or TV show is downloaded, it's almost 100% likely to be rented, not sold.  Plus, let's not forget that 1/3 of the US doesn't even want broadband at the moment, and that the ISPs complain every time they have to spend a single penny more to upgrade their networks that can barely handle mobile browsing, let alone the small percentage of people streaming/downloading.  Even CDs still outsell digital music, and those files are fractions of a percent the size of video.  AppleTV is still more or less a curiosity, which shouldn't be happening for something that's supposed to be so popular.

So, yes, Blu-ray may never be as popular as DVD, but that's not really saying anything.  DVD was a record-setter by several orders of magnitude over every video format before and since.  In the meantime, Blu-ray's still growing at a decent clip, and unlike streaming et al, still makes sales, not just rentals.
Edited by Jesse Blacklow - 2/25/10 at 7:32am

What Jesse said. 

While young adults and teenagers are much more enthusiastic about breaking free of the pattern of buying a book, CD, DVD, etc., I think most older consumers are still of the mindset they want to have something they can hold in their hand when they purchase a "thing." 

I am quite enthusiastic about Blu-ray.  The technological advancement over DVD continues to excite me...even though I've had a player now for quite awhile.  That first-generation player (Panny BD-10) takes a while to load newer discs (sometimes QUITE awhile, it's true).  But the journey is almost always worth it. 

I would be more enthusiastic if software prices were getting lower.  But I continue to be optimistic that they will. 

I see encouraging signs of better BD prices ..although they always, unfortunately, seem to come right alongside discouraging signs that as long as DVDs continue to dominate the market some distributors will want to attach premium prices to the better (and niche) technology.  It often feels like one step forward, two steps back. 

For me it's the opposite - the older I get, the less need I have to own something. After amassing somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1200 DVDs, and realising it would take me years to watch them again just one more time, I'm more than content to rent everything but particular favourites now.

I'm more concerned with quality. I prefer blu-ray because that's the best available consumer format right now. If downloads are ever able to match or exceed the quality of blu-ray, I'll be more than happy to switch to downloading.

Nick: 

Your experience is echoed by many here that are making the transition from DVD to Blu (myself included).  But I have found, for me, that I am simply purchasing less now--making conscious decisions about what titles I really want to own/upgrade, etc.

I still find most of my non-hobbyist contemporaries (I'm 50) wanting to own something tangible after their purchase.

It is the quality of the Blu presentation that prompts my enthusiasm, too.  And I don't have a high-end system. 

This is the crux of the online content vs. disc delivery issue for me. You never know what you're getting quality-wise with downloadable video content. However, I know that when I rent or purchase high definition video on a Blu-ray disc I'm getting the very best video quality possible in a consumer product 99.9% of the time. For the same reason I won't purchase music online unless it's available in some sort of lossless CODEC (FLAC, OGG, etc.). No 128mbps MP3 for this guy. It is ALL about quality. After all, that's why we do this home theater thing, isn't it?

I agree that the quality basically tops the priority list, but I initially got into HT (w/ the advent of DVD) more because I wanted something (more) for the wife and I to enjoy regularly at home since having kids (starting around the time of DVD rollout).  

Still, I was already (moderately) into audio before HT and had a sizeable CD collection before diving into DVD/HT -- and no, I too would *never* buy an MP3 or the like even though I've resigned myself to using max bitrate MP3/AAC for some music on a portable device (though I still try my best to stick w/ lossless ).

_Man_

  HT as birth control?!?  Sounds like a topic for a whole 'nother thread! 

ROTFL...   Only *YOU* can go that far OT like that, Mike -- in that fun sorta way of course.    Actually, I suspect that would bring the HT WAF to a whole new, never imagined/dreamed-of level, if that could be true, LOL.  

_Man_

Just for the record, my current main viewing system is based around an Optoma HD65 projector (720p native resolution).  And while I can certainly see the difference between DVD and Blu-ray on this system, my good-quality DVDs still look "good enough".  

When I obtained my Panasonic BD-60 player in late December I immediately replaced my DVDs of "The Dark Knight", "Iron Man", and "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" with their Blu-ray counterparts due to the unfortunate fact that the MPEG-2 encodes on those particular DVDs were so poor.  But I find myself hesitating to replace the good-quality DVDs in my collection.  For example, I purchased the "Die Hard" Blu-ray for just $10 recently at Wal-mart; but I found that it looked only marginally better than my "Die Hard" DVD. (But I have to admit that the DTS-MA audio was a revelation.)

In any event, I'm going to be very selective about replacing extant titles in my DVD collection. The theatrical LOTR Blu-rays?  I dunno' ... I'll probably wait for the Extended Versions ...   The recently announced "Sound of Music"?  I'll be pre-ordering that title as soon as Amazon will let me!

can the global internet actually handle a shift towards downloading / streaming all high definition content?

because from where I am sitting here in London, england, it can't!

a close friend works for the UK telecoms regulator (OFCOM) and we always talk about these kind of issues over a beer, the sheer cost and time to upgrade the entire infrastructure is simply insane...


I use a broadband provider (Virgin) that absorbed one of the first fibre optic cable networks (Telewest), and the benefit is maximum DL speeds of 100MB, with 200MB being rolled out next year

but this is not the norm, as geography plays havoc with DL speeds when you are talking about older infrastructure with copper cabling (British Telecom - which serves most of the UK)

I currently use a 10mb fibre optic service, and its not quick enough for HD streaming unless it the "right time" of day

some people here in the UK still can't get broadband, due to physical limitations of their home being too far from the local 'copper' exchange - there are options like satellite broadband but its not affordable?


back to Blu-Ray, the only person I know (apart from myself) with Blu-HD is 1 single work colleague; none of my family, friends or other colleagues have made the switch

which is kinda odd, considering many have upgraded old SD CRT televisions to HD ready sets, but are lacking the Blu player or a HD cable provider (e.g. Freesat HD, Sky HD or BBC HD)


if a friend comes over to my house and watches my setup, they always *comment* about the awesome quality of the viewing experience, but this has not pushed them into pulling the trigger on a HD setup?


personally I like to own a physical copy of the movie or music album, my HD setup is not connected to anything, even a television aerial, if I need to update firmware I drag my Blu player and HD screen into the computer room and plug in the broadband

I have bought software in the past that has been downloaded, and unless you burn off a copy, if anything happens to your hard drive you have lost that item :(

the entire disc / download landscape is changing, but having a physical copy is part of "collecting", its great to have all those blu-ray's and dvd's sitting on the shelves, as it makes choosing which movie to watch every night, MUCH easier than trawling through a 'list' on a computer

What's I find interesting is that Blu-Ray prices have become insanely cheap MUCH quicker than DVD ever did. The number of quality titles currently available on Amazon for $9.99 is mind-boggling to me and it makes switching over to Blu-Ray a no-brainer IMHO.

I agree, Brent.

It's been a while since we've had an ongoing thread of this nature...but essentially, you could resurrect one of those long threads from a year and a half ago, and it's people complaining about the same things. You'd think that we're still in the infancy of disc technology (including a too large percentage of outright poor quality transfers, like the very early days), $500+ players, and piss poor title selection. 

Don't think for a moment that I'm an industry or format apologist, or someone who perpetually wears the proverbial rose colored glasses. I'm none of those, and I've done more than a little venting around here over the years. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see hard evidence that spawns so many negative posts. I think people cue on one example that sticks in their craw, then skew everything else toward it. One example is the "$5.00 DVD". Sure, there are quite a few, but I've noticed no small number of SDVD's that are still selling for $20.00+. In fact, I've seen a number of examples were the BD is priced lower than the SDVD title.  

In most every respect, our hobby and our passion has never had it so good (pretend you didn't hear that, Sony, Disney, etc.). Imagine if your 15-year ago self could be plopped down into this market place, with selections (both hardware and software), at the relative price points. You'd swear you had died and gone to Valhalla. If this were still the pre-DVD era, we would be paying somewhere around $100+ per BD; that's just drawn out of thin air, with little thought, but it's bound to be in the neighborhood, and might be a gross under estimation.

Then someone will fire back: "But BD is never going to catch fire." Well, truth is, it probably won't...but that's because the standard optical disc format (DVD, and to some extent the CD) arrived at a very specific time in tech history, and assumed a level of adoption that might never be equaled by any other physical medium; it doesn't mean there's something wrong with BD, or that BD can't have a highly successful run, without reaching that same level of penetration. 

So, go ahead folks. Take a swing at me. Really kick my ass for making such moronic comments. But these thoughts ring pretty much true for me, all factors considered.

BD: It is what it is, enjoy it, or decide to stay away. The sky hasn't begun falling. We have at least until 2012, before we and all our discs fall into a tectonic fissure. 
 

 

 David, thats a beautiful post man.
I am gonna read it again, i liked it so much.
Well said, all of it.

Amen!

The picture is gorgeous. But I am disappointed in Blu Ray as a consumer-electronics device. It's inferior to DVD in almost every way. Load times are atrocious. Menus are even more inconsistent in layout and scheme. You can't resume a movie mid-way through after turning off the player. There are needless options and confusion over audio decoding and special features.

As for DVD: after 10 years of "collecting" and merging my collection with my wife's a few years ago, we have perhaps 100 movies and 20 TV seasons. I didn't massively collect DVD and I'm not going to collect Blu Ray. But given the opportunity, I'll watch Blu Ray. The picture difference is obvious and significant, and I don't particularly care to watch DVD anymore. This is accentuated now that I've got OTA HD, since DVD is now inferior to even normal TV -- a significant change in the past year.

I don't mean to single any one person out with this (since a number have mentioned it) but I have a 1.0 profile player and the absolute longest time that I have to wait for a disc to load is around 2 minutes and I imagine that nearly every other 1.1 or 2.0 player loads much faster than mine. Of course, it'd be great if I dropped a disc in the player and it instantly played but I think people are really over exaggerating or worrying too much about the amount of time that they have to wait for a disc to load. Has anyone ever had 90 minutes to watch a movie but not had 91 minutes to let a disc load and watch a movie?

 The point is really it shouldn't be that way at all though. It's not just the load times it's other things but thats one I find inexcusable for a next generation format. Devices should get easier and quicker to use and thats where Blu-ray has failed. Average Joe doesn't want to wait or make 10 adjustments to make it play at best quality...and frankly I don't either. Make better players is all we ask so this format will be easier for the public to buy into.

 The load times are far too long for a device that simply reads a disc and plays back the contents. It's not like we're fighting the Civil War here; things aren't unliveable. But for a toy, a luxury good, too many things about Blu Ray suggest a design goal was, "Antagonize the user when possible".

I completely understand that point but my feeling is that the positives of Blu-ray make the extra minute wait worth it (especially considering that we're talking about having to wait one minute).

Well, DVD's load pretty quick but Blu-rays do take a long time to load. I think that Blu-ray players rely too heavily on java and I don't see why Java is neccessary to load Blu-ray disks. 

I wouldn't go so far as to say studios are purposely trying to antagonize consumers with long load times and unnecessary features but sometimes it does seem like they don't want to make sitting down to watch a movie too easy. They should learn from Criterion - pop in a disc, a menu appears and just hit play! Barely a few seconds to load and best of all: no frigging warnings or disclaimers or forced trailers.

I think releasing $5 DVDs was a mistake on the part of the studios and retailers. On the one hand, it's great to have a favourite movie for the price of a Starbuck's coffee, on the other it devalues films as a whole.

I'm not pining for a return to laserdsic pricing, but there was something kind of exciting about having to save up to pay $75 to own a copy of The Empire Strikes Back - it felt like something rare and special. Feelings that aren't exactly evoked when you pick through the $5 bargain bin at the supermarket.

Yes, I'm being facetious. It's probably design-by-committee, where the needs of the involved companies outweigh the needs of a user-centric device. It might also be design-by-engineer, driven by people who only care about technical capability and not about actual usability by a normal person.

I'll add that I like the in-movie menu. But even that is hindered by inconsistent behavior and needing to return to the main menu for certain actions (for no good reason, from a user perspective).

But, the picture is great. To me, it's no small improvement over DVD. My eyes are still young enough to find it substantially better. And I'll suffer the inconveniences.