Why I Am Not An Early Adapter Of Blu-Ray (1 Viewer)

[Dick]

Beside the laser-disc-high price points I mentioned in a separate thread, I am truly agitated by the fact that Blu-Ray releases only occasionally take advantage of the relatively huge disc capacity.

True, TERMINATOR 2 (for example) on Blu-Ray is comparatively inexpensive, but does it include the extended cut? No. Other extras? No.

I'll be damned if I am going to do any "double-dipping" with the Blu-Ray format...I did that enough with standard DVD's, thank you. I will await what I consider to be a definitive edition and MAYBE buy it, if it's not going to set me back forty bucks. After all, this country is in an economic crisis state, and commodities like video systems and discs are just not going to do well if they are overpriced and lacking the incentive of decent added-value content.

Although some Blu-Ray releases actually contain features not available on standard counterparts (some of the more recent Pixar titles, for example), most instead DROP the added-value features from earlier releases.

WHAT THE F**k?

What about all that disc capacity?

You can present a long movie with loss-less bit rates and still have a ton of space for extras... isn't that part of the point of high-def discs?

If Hollywood really wants this format to take off the way standard DVD did ten years ago, they're gonna have to drop those prices AND offer nothing less (and hopefully much more) for added-value content than previous releases contained. Otherwise, Blu-Ray might very well become the same sort of niche product laser disc used to be.

 

[Bob_L]

The thing that HD discs (and specifically the format war) did for me was break the buying habit. It turned me into a renter.

However, if you're truly an HT enthusiast, I don't see at this point how you can stay on the sidelines. Once you've seen an HD disc on a large, high-quality display, you'll immediately understand the real benefit of the medium. It's not about the bit rate, or the bandwidth, or the disc capacity, or the extras. It's about seeing film at home and feeling like you're truly in a theater; and it's about seeing video content so sharp and lifelike you can't believe your eyes.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Ha, ha!
Early was '06!
Your not not early, your late late!

Why would you post an anti-HD Disc thread on the HD Software Forum?
Are you looking for a fight?
(that's not allowed here)
Are you looking for "us" too change your mind?

If its just an anti-dipping thing, I started a thread for that B4 the 1st HD Disc release!
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...e-dipping.html
01-09-06
Told ya u were late! ;-)

 

[David Deeb]

I don't understand who is going to force you to "double dip" anything just by getting a Blu-ray player. Just stick in that old Terminator 2 movie in your BD player and watch it and quit stressing about it. The old disc will play in your new BD machine.

Do you have an HD tv?

Wouldn't you like to watch movies that you don't yet own in HD?

If you are going to wait for some "definitive edition" for everything, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with a machine that plays High Definition video.

By the way, I was at the bookstore on Saturday & saw a new "definitive edition" of Tom Sawyer. Hope all those people from 1880 held out for this new edition.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Dick,

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here by stirring up old fights, but I have to say, not only is it unproductive, most of your data isn't accurate

Blu-ray has already passed the niche status of LD. In fact, it had already beat out LD's entire multi-decade history before the end of last year. It's getting a marketing and education push from supporters, but this being a slow time of year for sales, they're doing the best they can. I can guarantee you this holiday season will be a huge time for Blu-ray ads.

 

[Jari K]

Here we go again...

 

[Jason_V]

My thoughts exactly.

But to be a bit more constructive...notice how Dick doesn't mention the discs which do come with all their SD extras: Flags of Our Fathers, Ratatouille, Batman Begins, Smallville S6...and a whole host more. (I only grabbed a couple high profile releases from a list...)

It is true, though, some discs don't port over all their extras. So, in those instances, be mad at the individual studio or release, NOT the entire format. (Dick, were you mad when the 2 disc limited edition of United 93 and Munich were extremely hard to find and swear off buying DVD's for that reason? Same logic.)

Again, no one is going to twist your arm, Dick, to buy anything. No one. It is entirely your choice in every way, shape and form.

Let me just ask: what good is this thread?

 

[Thivanka R. Perera]

Well, as a previous poster before me said the price of an HD disc is only about $7 more than it's standard DVD version.
Street Kings on Blu-ray is $27, the special edition DVD is $25 and the other single-disc DVD release is $19 (at Amazon). Not much of a difference if you ask me, but retail store prices can often vary with prices around $29, $32 or even $36 per disc.
Just buy off Amazon, I think the prices are good as it gets for these luxury items.

 

[Doug Otte]

Have some people lost sight of the primary reason for this hobby? It's to see/hear movies in the best possible picture/sound quality. Extras are nice - but they're...extras. BD discs cost more than DVDs because they provide more value. Isn't that the way capitalism works? The customer is willing to pay more for better value.

Keep sitting on the sidelines, and the rest of us will enjoy our movies.

Doug

 

[Travis Brashear]

Actually, it sounds like you're not an early adopter of Blu-ray...

I'm just sayin'...

 

[David Wilkins]

I'm not saying that you have no valid points to make, but most of them have been said many, many times by many, many people. In the end, the issue always hinges on a person's own priorities. Nothing about home theater is essential. We're all playing.

The "forty dollar" discs you mention are obviously suggested retail, and the absence of bonus features applies primarily to Fox titles. But there are a very large number of good deals and outstanding quality available; they might not slap you in the face when you walk into a local big-box store, but they're readily available. For example: right now Amazon has 'Batman Begins' for $17.95. Who can argue with that? And there are plenty of top notch titles available for under $20.00. You're not going to find all that many standard-def titles for a whole lot less. It's irritating to hear people spout off about DVD's being $7.95. There are some, but look at the whole market. Again, the Amazon example: go there and look at their 100 top selling titles. There are one hell of a lot of SD discs selling in the mid to upper twenty dollar range.

People are in the habit of taking a worst case example and using it to paint an entire industry, which is unfair and untrue.

Suit yourself, but as for me: I'm enjoying the hell out of BD, and have never had to pay outrageous prices for anything; if such were the case, I wouldn't be playing the game.

 

[Dave H]

It sounds as if you'd be much happier just sticking to your DVDs instead of getting so angry and frustrated (for no good reason IMO).

 

[TravisR]

I was thinking the same thing.

And David Wilkins really seems to sum up my own thoughts.

 

[RobertR]

I haven't bought a BR player yet, not because of software, but because it's taken two years for the format to be able to give me the kind of player I want: Advanced codecs sent to analog outs, and full functionality (2.0, not "all the features are coming next year" models). I'll likely buy either a Panasonic BD50 or a Sony S550.

 

[Mike Frezon]

While I might agree that the OP's argument strains the facts, I have trouble with those that are making the case that the price of BDs is not substantially more than SDs.

If we work within the premise already laid down that BDs are only about $7 more than their SD counterpart, we've got to recognize that (if we are talking about a $19.99 SD-DVD), the BD would ring-in at 35% higher.

That's not an insignificant differential. I continue to contend that BD prices need to come down further to get more people to embrace the new technology.

But I also have no way of knowing if the new technology costs more to produce...

But, I agree that this doesn't seem to be the thread for that discussion.

 

[Dave H]

I would expect a new technology to cost more than a 12+ year old technology. In addition, I'm getting far better quality with BD than SD so I would expect to pay more - it's no different than almost anything else I buy.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Dave: I understand completely. I've got enough of the blue cases on my shelf. My point is only:


I'll pay it (for the most part, but it sure has made me more selective and change my buying patterns--which isn't a bad thing) and you'll pay it...but there are a lot of people who aren't willing to go Blu because of the hardware and software costs involved.

 

[Camper]

Why would you own a HDTV and not want to see movies in their most brilliant presentation possible?

Who says you have to buy them?
I can't afford to buy very many titles on Blu-ray or SD. Neither can i afford to go to the movie theater as often as i once did.

But when i rent a movie, I sure want to take advantage of my HDTV.

In a couple of years, I'll go back and buy some of my favorite movies after the prices fall.

So the only cost of being a 'early adopter' at this point is a $300-$400 player you can buy with deferred interest just about anywhere.

As a laser-disc fan for 10 years (before kids)--i can tell you this is nothing like the expense of that hobby!!

 

[David Wilkins]

Some discs are a bit high, but there are quite a few that are very reasonable considering the newness of the format. The whole BD thing is still in its toddler stage. Not every company is onboard yet, much less up to speed on everything the format has to offer.

I want to see lower prices just like everybody else, and they will come. But until everything is in full swing, and companies start recovering some of their start up costs, prices will be a little higher. Doesn't anybody remember the higher costs associated with every other format in the past? When VHS players were new. When laser disc players were new. When CD and DVD players were new. You know...before we got locked into this mode of $50 DVD players and a software market that assumes you will buy virtually every title.

I'm not talking ancient history. I remember paying $32 for the newly released restoration of 'Vertigo' on DVD. Try morphing those dollars into 2008 dollars and see what you get. I've never felt jacked-up by BD prices. I'm just choosier about purchases, which is not a bad thing. I ended up buying too damn many DVD's.

The same principles apply to BD hardware. They're high, they'll get lower. If you're careful you can find a deal. I snagged a new Samsung BDP-1400 for $267.00 online a while back. That's utterly do-able. No regrets, very happy. All discs play. When they get cheaper, I'll upgrade.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Couldn't agree more with that, David.

But just remember fellas. Everyone's financial situation, personal circumstances, history with the hobby and priorities/perspectives are just...different. One man's "doable" is another man's hardship.

The technological advances provided by HD are terrific...and everyone would like to attend the party. But current prices are going to prohibit it for many.

And that's all I'm trying to say. Basic economics. Not everyone can afford to play. But when prices come down (further) more will jump in the pool.