Questions for people who haven't gone Blu yet... (1 Viewer)

My only "mistake" switching to Blu was impatience--I jumped aboard early 2008 when players were still at the $300 mark. If I just waited half a year I could have bought two! And now of course they're under $100. Still, I don't regret having Blu, since it co-exists just fine with my DVD setup. I selectively pick Blu titles. I feel no need to replace 90% of my DVD collection; most will unlikely see Blu anyway. Blu is still an "event" format for me, and it's a dazzling format to cultivate for what titles I choose for it.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi
The thing is, it pays to own a Blu-ray player, period. Because even if you NEVER buy a Blu disc, your large existing standard DVD collection will look even BETTER when upscaled on a Blu-ray player. They do not become obsolete or anything. Then, once you have the new player, you always have that option to buy any future Blu-ray discs, too.

This is an interesting point. I've not compared the upconversion picture Q with SD DVD's on my SD upconvert player vs a BR player. I might borrow somone's BR player and do some A/B comparisons. Has anyone here done that? How much better is the BR upconvert picture vs a SD player upconvert player?

Originally Posted by DaveF
Not for nothing, but in a thread specifically pointed at non-blu adopters, trying to convince us that our reasons for not purchasing are unfounded is kinda silly at this point in time. It's not like each of us hasn't heard every single reason why blu isn't so bad at least a thousand times by now.


I think it really comes down to the fact that us non-blu people just don't care enough to spend a dime on it. I also think most of us recognize that it's inevitable that we will end up with a player once our existing one dies, but there's no point in accelerating the process. As for the magical upconverting properties of blu, most of us who care about that sort of thing bought upconverting SD players years ago. Blu upconverting may be better, but we're making do with our inferior tech for the time being.

The upconvert comparison point is one that might get me to buy my 1st BR player if the BR loading time is comparable (with SD discs) to my SD player.


I have also been aware of the advantages of BR as most all of us at a forum such as this but your point is a good one. To date, I'm happy with what I see on the 50" Panny Plasma from about 8-9 ft distance with my SD upconvert player. I watch everything in OAR and my older SD discs look good in 1.33:1 . I can't see entering the BR mkt yet.


I would be persuaded to enter the BR mkt only if there was a considerable increase in BR releases of older TV/DVD sets and films or if I view the upconversion A/B comparison test and see a significant improvement in the picture Q of converted SD discs.

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by Jeff Willis
Now that I've had the Blu-ray for a year, I've found two things: I love the picture; it's gorgeous and superior in every way to DVD. I hate the performance and am so annoyed by the load up times that I watch even fewer discs than ever before; that little bit of friction pushes me towards Tivo or videogames or iPhone stuff.

I've been wondering about the (SD DVD) BR disc loading time vs the load time with a SD player. I recall reading in the early days of BR players, there were reported issues with disc loading times and some early-format bugs. I'm guessing that all of the early version BR player problems are a thing of the past but how does the (SD) disc BR player loading time compare with at SD player loading time?
.

[/QUOTE]

I have a 2009 Blu-ray player (Panasonic BMP-30, I think). I've not timed it but load times feel about 4x longer than DVD. My wife was also commenting on how annoying it is. And then I was talking with a coworker who bought a blu-ray player sometime in 2009 or 2010 and he's annoyed by the length load times as well.


I have a strong dislike of the entire blu experience; it's the worst-designed consumer electronics system I've seen in ages. The AV is fantastic, but the complete lack of concern for the user experience is galling.

 

[Matt Hough]

There is NO difference in load times for DVDs in my SD player and any of my Blu-ray players. Blu-ray discs can take a long time to load depending on a number of factors, but that's not the player's fault. The discs are authored that way. The early Blu-rays of things like The Searchers and The Phantom of the Opera (which lack BD-Java encoding) load quickly, have resume, etc. just like DVDs, but they look clearly superior to their DVD counterparts.

 

[DaveF]

And new blu-rays load slowly, have unskippable previews, and don't have resume (I'm glaring at you, "Dollhouse Season 1"). Look great. Terrible usability.

 

[marcco00]

dave, have you looked at a SDVD title on your blu ray player? i'd like to hear your thoughts. any issues with load times or the picture quality-- how would you rate the picture quality?

 

[DaveF]

I've watched some DVDs on the Blu-ray player. Quality is fine, but not as good as Blu-ray. (I sold the DVD player on eBay, replacing with the Blu-ray. I didn't want two disc players in the living room system.) I don't recall the load times.

 

[Bob Cashill]

While new to Blu I haven't had any huge problems with load times; SALT, for example, loaded up fine for me, but I admit I don't know how lengthy a long load time can be.

 

[Robin9]

Originally Posted by Jeff Willis
This is an interesting point. I've not compared the upconversion picture Q with SD DVD's on my SD upconvert player vs a BR player. I might borrow somone's BR player and do some A/B comparisons. Has anyone here done that? How much better is the BR upconvert picture vs a SD player upconvert player?

In my experience it isn't better. I use an OPPO DV-981HD DVD player and a Sony S350 Blu-ray player. The OPPO is better than the Sony at playing DVDs. The difference isn't huge but it's noticeable using a front projector onto a big screen.

Originally Posted by DaveF
I have a strong dislike of the entire blu experience; it's the worst-designed consumer electronics system I've seen in ages. The AV is fantastic, but the complete lack of concern for the user experience is galling.

Correct! I love Blu-ray discs when they're done well but the whole shebang is the most user unfriendly system ever invented. It seems designed deliberately to annoy the customers! The inventers of this system should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Matt Hough]

Originally Posted by DaveF

And new blu-rays load slowly, have unskippable previews, and don't have resume (I'm glaring at you, "Dollhouse Season 1"). Look great. Terrible usability.

That's not true about all new Blu-rays. Many of the Fox Blu-rays I've reviewed lately DO have resume. So do Criterion's discs (which also have bookmark ability but no need to do that to hold your place since they do resume).


But again, it's all about the authoring. Disney Blu-rays allow you to skip their opening previews if you push the top menu button before they start.


It would be nice if all the studios would consistently author their discs to allow these convenient shortcuts, and maybe they'll all get on the bandwagon eventually. It hasn't happened yet, sad to say,

 

[DaveF]

I've not watched a lot of Blu-rays, but of the varied handful I have, none have auto-resume like DVDs do. And the few that have some form of resume involve a Green button and buried sub-menus to get at it, making it effectively useless. And if it's not in all Blu-rays, then it's effectively on no blu-rays, because if a user can't count on it being available, they change their habits to no longer expect it or use it.

 

[Gary OS]

I can't really add anything new to the discussion, but I do give a hearty "Amen" to Jeff Willis' post (#21 on the first page). It would take something really big, in terms of a release, to make me go Blu. I guess if the entire Andy Hardy series was released I might consider it. Or the entire Blondie series. That would make me jump. But I have a pretty solid region free upconverting dvd player right now and I can't see double-dipping so more than likely I'll never switch over. The films and TV shows I'm most interested in simply aren't likely to be released on Blu-ray (something like a mega set of the Ozzie & Harriet TV series or the entire run of Whistler films). I just can't see those things on the horizon, so I'm staying put for right now.


Gary "not sure how much longer the dvd format will be around, but I hope it's for another couple of years" O.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Originally Posted by Gary OS
I can't really add anything new to the discussion, but I do give a hearty "Amen" to Jeff Willis' post (#21 on the first page). It would take something really big, in terms of a release, to make me go Blu. I guess if the entire Andy Hardy series was released I might consider it. Or the entire Blondie series. That would make me jump. But I have a pretty solid region free upconverting dvd player right now and I can't see double-dipping so more than likely I'll never switch over. The films and TV shows I'm most interested in simply aren't likely to be released on Blu-ray (something like a mega set of the Ozzie & Harriet TV series or the entire run of Whistler films). I just can't see those things on the horizon, so I'm staying put for right now.


Gary "not sure how much longer the dvd format will be around, but I hope it's for another couple of years" O.

Agree, I forgot to mention those examples, just to think about a complete remsatered Andy Hardy, Blondie, the Whistler series, etc.... if, and the chances of these films getting released on BR are slim to none, we were to see BR-only editions, then I'd be buying that BR player the next day.


From reading online comments about BR, those of us that haven't yet entered the BR mkt have stayed out of it due to the lack of available catalog titles. There are those of us that would buy the BR player if we saw titles such as the ones mentioned being released only on BR.

I'm not in favor of exclusive-only BR releases unless that's the only way that we'd see films such as what's been mentioned in Gary's post. I think we should be given the choice with BR and SD releases.


There are some over on the SD TV board that seem to believe that we'll begin to see widespread BR releases of the older TV shows but we haven't seen that happen. There are potential BR buyers out there that are watching for that but it hasn't materialized.


I've basically seen BR as primarily a recent/current film release format with some of the more well-known classics included.

 

[Andrew Radke]

I haven't yet made the jump to Blu-Ray as I'm legally blind and really fail to see the difference in picture quality when sitting from a distance. I do own a 55" Hitachi rear-projection LCD HD set, and have viewed television in high definition. Up close I will admit that the picture is indeed beautiful. But as I watch the bulk of my movies on my couch a few feet away from the set, my eyes are unable to differentiate high definition from standard definition. From a distance, it all looks the same to me. Seeing as how cheap the players have become, I may eventually be inclined to purchase one if and when the standard DVD format shows serious signs of becoming obsolete. I thoroughly enjoy the 900+ standard-def titles in my collection, and I will continue to purchase them.

 

[mdnitoil]

The thing of it is, I'm close to being done. I've got well over 2000 titles in my collection and I'm only sporadically picking up the fringe stuff as it becomes available. Quite frankly, precisely the sort of stuff that will never make it's way to blu. There are other things I'd like to get, but really, if they haven't made it to SD in over ten years, it's just silly thinking they're on the blu horizon. So really, why in the world would I even bother with a blu ray player? The odds of getting any new content that I actually care about are slim to none so it would only be about the double dips. Frankly, that's a tech I can do without. If I'm lucky, I pick up two actual new movies a year. Just not a big fan of the stuff Hollywood churns out year after year. I built my collection, the material isn't degrading on my shelves and I have more than I can watch over the next ten years.

 

[marcco00]

thanx robin9 for that info!


i have to agree with scott. i have now the widest-range of titles on SDVD....inching up toward 1000. thanx to this board, i have purchased an all-region dvd player & and have been filling in missing titles with dvds from other regions (my best find in 2010- 'dracula prince of darkness', an italian import that's anamorphic!!).


i will stay with SDVD as long as they're released, but when they phase out, so will my collecting. including the vhs era, 20 years of collecting is enough for me.



my only concern in this hdtv era was to find the best picture quality for a 480p signal,which i accomplished with a 720p set. i was not really looking for the latest, cutting edge technology------ which NOW seems to be 3D tv.


this tech stuff moves so fast!

 

[Mike*HTF]

Originally Posted by mdnitoil
...in a thread specifically pointed at non-blu adopters, trying to convince us that our reasons for not purchasing are unfounded is kinda silly at this point in time. It's not like each of us hasn't heard every single reason why blu isn't so bad at least a thousand times by now. I think it really comes down to the fact that us non-blu people just don't care enough to spend a dime on it..

x2

Well-said, mate.

 

[DaveF]

Lots of good reasons not to go Blu -- well, there's no bad reasons really to not spend $$ on a luxury good But I'm amused by the one reason that goes like this, "I don't want to replace my DVD library so I'm not buying a Blu-ray player."


Is this self-preservation? Because Blu-ray players also play DVDs. There's absolutely no requirement to repurchase an entire library after buying a $100 Blu-ray player. I've still got my 200 DVDs. But new purchases are Blu-ray. We've taken advantage of some Studio replacement programs and affordably rebought some favorite movies. But mostly, it's a forward looking upgrade for us. No plan to spend $4000 re-buying old movies.


But maybe some people fear they couldn't resist the temptation, and a $100 Blu-ray player would beget a $20,000 replacement of their 1000 DVDs?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Originally Posted by mdnitoil

The thing of it is, I'm close to being done. I've got well over 2000 titles in my collection and I'm only sporadically picking up the fringe stuff as it becomes available. Quite frankly, precisely the sort of stuff that will never make it's way to blu. There are other things I'd like to get, but really, if they haven't made it to SD in over ten years, it's just silly thinking they're on the blu horizon. So really, why in the world would I even bother with a blu ray player? The odds of getting any new content that I actually care about are slim to none so it would only be about the double dips. Frankly, that's a tech I can do without. If I'm lucky, I pick up two actual new movies a year. Just not a big fan of the stuff Hollywood churns out year after year. I built my collection, the material isn't degrading on my shelves and I have more than I can watch over the next ten years.

"Why in the world would you even bother with a blu-ray player"? If for no other reason, how about to make your existing DVD collection sparkle a little bit more? And I wouldn't be so sure that there would be "no content on Blu that you'd actually care about". Though the chances are slim, sometimes a movie gets released exclusively to a newer format and bypasses the older (just like some things came to DVD which were not on VHS).
And like we've said, you'd never be required to double dip. But surely, if you have certain extra-special favorite films, there may be those which you'd like to own. Just looking at your avatar -- what if there eventually came to be a gorgeous KING KONG VS. GODZILLA Blu-ray for the original Japanese version? The US version currently available on regular DVD is not all that hot. The main thing is, you always have the option and if you want to buy several Blus here and there, you can.


Something I just noticed in another thread --- You wrote in the TEN COMMANDMENTS thread that you see no point in re-buying the upcoming new 55th Anniversary Edition on SD, because it will not contain the 1923 version like the Blu-ray does, and you said you would therefore stick with your older DVD of this title. But what I gather from this is that you WOULD have double-dipped for this new SD release otherwise. So it's not like you don't do double-dipping at all, right? And yes, another advantage to Blu-ray is that sometimes it now gets extra features which the SDs do not get (and bravo, IMO). But if you had a Blu-ray player, you would be able to get the 1923 version as an extra feature, and the visual quality of the 1956 movie would be absolutely radiant. Just thinking about the look of the '56 version right now, if THAT movie isn't one that'll look positively breathtaking on a Blu-ray, I don't know what other movie would!

 

[mdnitoil]

I think, for myself, I'm just getting tired of chasing new tech for it's own sake. When I think back to the downright awful presentations that I put up with on broadcast television because it was the only game in town, I'm almost embarrassed to discover just how much money I've frittered away chasing that next incremental bump in quality. I think I've reached a point where I've had enough. When blu offers exclusive feature films that I can't get anywhere else, I'll give it some thought. Until then, I won't be jumping in. I've already got my upconverting SD player and that '23 version of Ten Commandments has already been available for a few years now on the previous SD release.