Should we worry? (1 Viewer)

[Felix Martinez]

No it doesn't. I just bought another player for my bedroom TV which is not HD (yet). I already have another player in the home theater, but the point is - you can buy into Blu now with whatever SD setup you have, and then upgrade the TV later.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Perhaps. But one is not immedeatly comparable to the other, and at this point, Blu-ray has done a much better job in expanding both day-and-date and small-studio/catalog slates (or at least quicker), I can't say that Blu-ray is a "movie-buff" format like LD was.

 

[David Wilkins]

You have a valid point, except for the posts where software price has been the predominant topic.

There isn't an exact, one for one comparison available. We're at a transition point for TV display technology. The whole game is changing. We'll have 480 CRT's around for decades to come, but if I'm not mistaken, no major manufacturer is still producing CRT's. In every respect, they just don't make sense anymore.

In short (and as echoed above by others), the industry doesn't expect, or really need, BD to approach DVD penetration levels; DVD was probably a once in a lifetime phenomenon, because it was the right format at just the right time, and suits a very large array of needs inexpensively.

 

[Rachael B]

The course of this thread has, indeed, convinced me to quit worrying. I think I'll go watch my new Criterion BD of The Last Emperor and chill.

 

[David Deeb]

Worried? I'm not worried about BD succeeding. I really don't even want to watch any SD anymore & think that's what most HD viewers discover when they get an HDTV. But I can't imagine there not being HD media available to buy.

However, it seems there is always plenty of "worry" and nail-biting in these threads:

- Will BD succeed?
- Why doesn't my disc have a paper insert?
- Why don't they include more bonus features?
- Why do they include bonus features. I don't watch them & it takes up too much space.
- Will they change the packaging size on my favorite series?
- Why did the Dark Knight change aspect ratios even though the director wanted it that way.
- Worry this!
- Worry that!

The only thing I might be "worried" about is whether or not I'll actually live long enough to actually watch all the BDs and DVDs I've already bought.

 

[lukejosephchung]

Hi, Rachael, good to see you here too! Planning to pick up my copy of "The Last Emperor" after work and chill, just like you...

 

[Travis Brashear]

You've only supported my statement--whether you buy the HDTV before, at the same time as, or somewhere down the road after you've invested in Blu-ray, to get the full benefit of Blu-ray, you must upgrade more than just your media player. The same wasn't true of SD-DVD.

 

[Edwin-S]

To get the full benefit of SD DVD you had to upgrade your set to one that could take advantage of anamorphic encoding. The set either had to be a 16:9 set or be a 4:3 set capable of performing an anamorphic squeeze. Your statement that SD DVD did not require an upgrade is not entirely correct.

 

[Rakie]

Id say no.. It's a visual thing.

The average person can't distinguish the difference between an MP3 and a CD, but they could see the difference between VHS and DVD, and they can see the difference between DVD and BD. Visuals aren't hard to notice.

Some people don't really notice much at all... My fathers TV settings are atrocious. he has an alright LCD TV, Sony somethin' or other... He sets the image to "Vivid" the colors are bleeding everywhere, he puts the treble to 12 (max) and about a million other messed up settings. I have the custom setting done well for him, but he just goes to Vivid or Standard.

And you know what ? He can see the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray, haha. If he can notice, I'm sure anybody could!

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Ditto that for me.

_Man_

 

[Travis Brashear]

I think you're splitting a mighty fine hair there; I don't know of a single "Joe Sixpack" consumer who is aware of the difference between anamorphic and non-anamorphic DVDs but even the most neophyte consumer knows that BD means high-def; ergo, he's gonna need a high-def TV before bothering with adopting this new kind of software.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

Yeah but LD never had a title sell more than 200,000 copies of any title, period, let alone within a week from release. Mind you, this is throughout LD's entire, twenty year, life span. Whereas, BD has achieved 1.7 million sales of 'The Dark Knight' BD, in just two weeks, and that too only 2 & 1/2 yrs into the life span of the product.

More importanly, you forget that, as you so prophetically put it, "There were 2 mil LD homes when it crashed & burned." only because, a product that was not only superior to LD in every which way, but was also cheaper to produce and market, namely the DVD, came along to replace it. What superior product, do you think exists, which will replace BD right now?

PS: By what standard, do you consider 15% of market share (1.5 million BDs out of a total 10 million sales), a drop in the bucket? I know thousands and thousands of companies that would take a 15% market share and be happy to live with it forever, let alone within 2 & 1/2 yrs of a product life cycle.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

Wow, you really think that it was the studios that withdrew support for LD owners? Hell, I owned approx. 4000 LDs when DVD first came out, soon after which, is when I went and bought myself a Sony S7000 DVD player and guess what, I never ever again bought a LD. By the way, this was not because of lack of titles being released on LD, the studios actually released titles well into the end of 2000, but because I, like most LD owners, quit supporting LDs. Can you think of one good reason, why the studios should have continued supporting LD under the circumstances? I for one cannot think of any reason at all. As long as the existing BD base of customers stays with BD, the studios will always release titles.

 

[David Wilkins]

Pardon me, is that 4000 as in four thousand? I guess that qualifies you as an enthusiast.

I wouldn't even venture a guess as to how many DVD's you own.

I feel like such an amateur.

 

[PaulDA]

One of my wife's high school friends has a storage locker to keep the LDs he owns--last count, over 9000.

 

[RickER]

Sanjay is quite correct about LD. I tell ya, Pioneer did a wonderful job of supporting the LD market. They were happy with the less than 5% market share they had.
If you guys wanna keep calling LD a failure, why dont you call Video Tape a failure too. Its all but dead thanks to DVD and Blu-ray. 20 years is NEVER a failure in home electronics!

I probably only owned 200 LDs in the 18 years or so i owned one. Bought my first LD player in 1983, and i stopped buying LDs in 97 after i saw DVD. Now i have 900 DVDs and 100 Blu-rays.

 

[Edwin-S]

I'm approaching the issue from the point that you stated BD requires an upgrade to realize the full benefit while SD DVD doesn't. Well, I believe that statement, in regards to SD DVD, is wrong. To realize the full benefit of SD DVD a person has to upgrade their set.

The casual consumer's ignorance of the benefits of anamorphically ehanced DVDs does not obviate the requirement to upgrade equipment in order to maximize the benefits of SD DVD. Anyone paying the slightest attention will notice the difference between non-anamorphic and anamorphically enhanced discs when those discs are played on a set capable of taking advantage of the anamorphic encoding.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

Yes, that's right, I did mean 'four thousand'. I guess my enthusiasm sort of wore out with DVD and thus I ended up with only aprrox. 2400 (twenty four hundred) DVDs. As for BDs, I am runnng quite far behind, with only 114 (one hundred & fourteen) titles. Ofcourse, the almost total non-availability of BDs here in India, has not helped matters, as I am totally dependent on friends to get me BDs from the US, when they travel here.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

But the fact remains that even without an upgraded tv, one can clearly see the benifits of DVD over LD & VHS. Also, the consumer's ignorance of the benefits of anaorphically enhanced DVDs does matter, since the need for a new tv is not felt or understood by them. Whereas in the case with BD, the consumer very clearly is aware that they need to upgrade their tv to get HD. Although one might argue that even without a HD tv, BD probably will show a somewhat better picture than DVD. Also, let's not overlook the fact that switching from LD to DVD did not require an upgrade in audio equipment to get the full benefits from DVD, whereas with BD, one has to eve upgrade the receiver/pre-pro to get the new HD audio formats.

 

[Travis Brashear]

Thank you, Sanjay; you took my counterargument right out of my mouth and saved me the typing time!