Blu-ray, in General

[Matango]

No, if you were a Luddite, you wouldn't be posting online, or own a TV. Not knowing the difference between NTSC and PAL is fine, but you should know what anamorphic means, at least if you want your comments/opinions on image quality/frame composition taken seriously. Anyway, it sounds to me like you're trying to justify being too cheap and/or lazy to upgrade your equipment. No offence.

No offence taken. I'm lazy but certainly not cheap. (I mean, sheesh, I have a hundred or so Criterions.) I'm just not convinced that my film experiences will be greatly enhanced via Blu or them fancy tvs.

You should at least get a decent widescreen TV, say 32-inch or so. It'll enhance your experience of widescreen films no end. Blu-ray, for me, is a distraction that I'm about 30% pleased I bought into.

[godardslave]

the HdDVD/blu-ray will likely remain an elite, high-end "niche" consumer product for technophiles for at least the next 5 years.

Points to godardslave for calling that one.

[Napoleon]

No offence taken. I'm lazy but certainly not cheap. (I mean, sheesh, I have a hundred or so Criterions.) I'm just not convinced that my film experiences will be greatly enhanced via Blu or them fancy tvs.

The experience will vary from person to person, but I recently watched the Blu Third Man and no kidding, it was like watching the thing for the first time.

Even though it was probably my 10th or 11th.

And as for the Blu Red Shoes......!

[Caged Horse]

I didn't start buying DVDs until they stopped making laserdiscs.

And by the time they stop making DVDs, they'll probably be on the verge of releasing 4000p super-HD discs anyway (compatible monitors are already in use in both Hollywood and Japan).

[kekid]

Reading through posts on this thread, it seems there is intense debate on the adoption of a new technology. The question is not whether one adopts a new technology, but when. Eventually the old technology will fade away, as laserdiscs did, and VHS essentially has. We have three options: (1) buy nothing until the new technology completely replaces the old; (2) keep buying the old until it is no longer available; and (3) adopt the new now, and buy anything that is available in new technology in that format. (This option has a further branch as to whether we buy what is not issued in the new format in the old format, or hold off until it does become available in the new format.)
After the initial settling perioed, the software cost of the new technology becomes comparable to the old E.g. the Blu Ray disc prices are fairly comparable to the standard DVD prices. There is a general consensus that if the source material is good, the Blu Ray provides a better presentation. So adopting the Blu Ray now entirely depends on whether we can afford to make a one-time purchase of the hardware. This is clearly an individual decision. (A one-time purchase price of a low-end Blu Ray player is less than the cost of ten DVD's.)
For me personally "buy-nothing" option is not acceptable. I have adopted the new technology, but selectively buy DVD's in the standard form that are not available otherwise.

[eerik]

I didn't start buying DVDs until they stopped making laserdiscs.

And by the time they stop making DVDs, they'll probably be on the verge of releasing 4000p super-HD discs anyway (compatible monitors are already in use in both Hollywood and Japan).

What is 4000p? If you mean the 4K resolution then that is only 4096x2304px for 16:9 aspect ratio. 4K marks the width of the picture.

[aox]

Reading through posts on this thread, it seems there is intense debate on the adoption of a new technology. The question is not whether one adopts a new technology, but when. Eventually the old technology will fade away, as laserdiscs did, and VHS essentially has. We have three options: (1) buy nothing until the new technology completely replaces the old; (2) keep buying the old until it is no longer available; and (3) adopt the new now, and buy anything that is available in new technology in that format. (This option has a further branch as to whether we buy what is not issued in the new format in the old format, or hold off until it does become available in the new format.)
After the initial settling perioed, the software cost of the new technology becomes comparable to the old E.g. the Blu Ray disc prices are fairly comparable to the standard DVD prices. There is a general consensus that if the source material is good, the Blu Ray provides a better presentation. So adopting the Blu Ray now entirely depends on whether we can afford to make a one-time purchase of the hardware. This is clearly an individual decision. (A one-time purchase price of a low-end Blu Ray player is less than the cost of ten DVD's.)
For me personally "buy-nothing" option is not acceptable. I have adopted the new technology, but selectively buy DVD's in the standard form that are not available otherwise.

But there is another reason this whole argument is silly and senseless. For the first time in home video media history, you have the new format directly accommodating the old format. One doesn't have to throw out their old format and one doesn't need to stop buying them. If a small company wants to continue to make DVDs, they can and will able to do so. Blu Ray players play DVDs. These arguments would have been fair during the beta->VHS->LD->DVD format switches, but they aren't here. It really is win-win for everyone. And now that BD players are the same in price as DVD players were, there is no reason not to have one. Even if you plan on being stubborn and not buying Blu, why not be able to view one more format on your system? It was a smart move by the companies to allow the old format to continue in the new machines.

[hidaniel]

This whole DVD vs. Blu-ray is baffling to me. DVD isn't going anywhere even if Blu-ray is superior. DVDs are dirt cheap and work in Blu-ray players. I say be happy the damn things are backwards compatible, this is the most important part.

Damn you aox, you beat me to it.

[Michael Kerpan]

My only minor unhappinesses at this point are:

1. No way yet to play Region B (or C, but who cares) BRDs -- or PAL extras on all region BRDs. (Financial issues made it necessary go with an inexpensive region-bound player -- which I will have to live with for at least a couple of years).

2. My BR player is kind of dumb (or I am -- no way to see time remaining, etc.).

But my whole cost for going provisionally Blu (pre-HDTV) was $125 (for the player).

[Noiretirc]

I believe Tati was quoted as saying that Playtime was best experienced on as small a CRT as possible. Did you ever get around to watching that Noiretirc?

Hahaha....no, you must have me confused with Skuj.

Seriously though, I really will view it tonight.

(Imagine 50 blank lines here.)

Seriously though, I viewed it 3x so far. On my CRT, using my $29 dvd player. Ironically, it is the one film I viewed where I thought "shit, I need a huge projection for this".

Edit: My big fear initially was that regular DVD would become obsolete and unplayable on newer equipment. It's a great relief to know that my old DVDs will always be useable.

[TMDaines]

1. No way yet to play Region B (or C, but who cares) BRDs -- or PAL extras on all region BRDs. (Financial issues made it necessary go with an inexpensive region-bound player -- which I will have to live with for at least a couple of years).

That's the sole reason for me not being Blu enabled. I could quite happily afford a cheap Blu-ray player even if I couldn't watch it a screen capable of HD, but I refuse to do so when roughly half the Blu-rays I'm interested in are Region A exclusive. Unless I get a Tevion at Aldi in the UK then I won't be going Blu until the prices of multi-region players fall.

[hidaniel]

I remember picking up the Pioneer DV-505 back in '99 for a cool 500$ Canadian. I can't believe that was only 10 years ago. Technology is cheap these days.

[Michael Kerpan]

Because Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea are all in Region A (and those are the foreign releases I'm usually most interested in), I decided to grit my teeth and settle for Region A, despite my scruples against crippled hardware.

[Blood Pie]

Living in the states we got the better end of the region coding. I brought it up before but I understand why a lot of the opposition to blu is coming from region B because all they get is MoC while in the US I get MoC, Criterion AND all of Asia's releases so a region free unit wasn't needed. Likewise, tons of region B titles are actually region free. Outside of a handful of titles here and there I haven't had any trouble locating most of the films I want to purchase when I can pick from Region A and usually region B...

[triodelover]

forgot the secret handshake.

[Finch]

As mentioned elsewhere, I have started buying Blu-Rays even though I'm not going to get a player until April (too many other and more pressing purchases this Christmas). When I get a player, it'll be a modified-to-be-regionfree machine and £310 (as of now, by late spring it may well be less even) is quite reasonable. The region coding is annoying as far as Criterion and the Asian titles go but at least many of the studios are releasing their titles region-free (exception being, if I remember rightly, Fox and sometimes Disney). Still, I reckon that I'm going to get the UK Blus for studio titles as they are generally cheaper than their US counterparts (the UK version of Zodiac DC sold for £5.60 on Amazon UK compared to £16 + delivery for the US version - even at normal price, the UK Blu would almost certainly still have worked out cheaper) and only buy CCs from the States plus whichever title is not readily available in Europe. I'm also going to continue buying DVD-only titles and I'm not going to upgrade on many films I already own on DVD unless I care too much about the films to resist having them in a superior transfer or if the Blu is significantly stronger. Other than the region coding, the only thing I dislike about BR is the hideous packaging which makes me wish that publishers either use digipaks or use DVD keepcases with a Blu sticker on the front.

[Michael Kerpan]

Until I can afford a nice all-region player, I will just have to cope with not being able to take advantage of Region B releases. :~{

[Tribe]

As Prices Fall, Blu-ray Players Are Invited Home

From today's NY Times

December 14, 2009
As Prices Fall, Blu-ray Players Are Invited Home
By ERIC A. TAUB

Blu-ray, a high-definition variation of the DVD format introduced three years ago, was initially met by a collective shrug from most consumers. Who needed another black box to connect to the TV, the thinking went, even if it did promise to play movie discs in clear, crisp high-definition?

But this year, even as the country moves tentatively out of a recession, consumers are buying the devices at a faster pace than they bought previous generations of movie players like the VCR and the DVD player. Analysts predict that sales of Blu-ray machines will be up 112 percent over last year, one of the true bright spots in retailing this holiday season.

Blu-ray’s household penetration is higher than that of DVD for the same period after introduction, according to Shawn DuBravac, chief economist for the Consumer Electronics Association. Three years after introduction, Blu-ray stand-alone players, which exludes Sony’s PlayStation 3 game machines that also play Blu-rays discs, are in 7 percent of American homes.

Amazon.com reports that sales of Blu-ray players are outnumbering those of standard DVD units, according to Paul Ryder, the company’s vice president for consumer electronics. Among the top 10 disc players sold, eight were Blu-ray, and five of the top 10 movie titles sold were in the Blu-ray format.

At a Best Buy in Thousand Oaks, Calif., small mountains of Blu-ray players are stacked seven units high wherever flat-panel TVs are on display, while the handful of standard DVD players are in a distant aisle.

The main reason for the shift in thinking is right there on the stacks of Blu-ray players that Best Buy has piled at its video wall. Prices for high-quality models have dropped below $150, a steep drop from the $300-plus that retailers were charging when Blu-ray had its debut.

“The price for an impulse buy is under $100, and we’re getting there,” said Andy Parsons, president of the Blu-ray Disc Association, a trade group.

Amazon’s best-selling Blu-ray model, Panasonic’s DMP-BD60, is available for $129, while a no-frills Magnavox Blu-ray player is on sale at Wal-Mart Stores for $78.

“We’re sanguine about Blu-ray taking over as the physical disc format of choice,” said Tom Adams, the president of Adams Media Research. “The differences in cost between DVD and Blu-ray players and software is going away. So there will be a natural evolution from standard DVD to Blu-ray.”

It also helps that more Americans now have 1080p HDTV displays, sets with sufficiently high screen resolution to fully display the clarity of a Blu-ray disc. Forty percent of all TVs sold are 1080p, according to Riddhi Patel, an analyst at iSuppli. She says that number should rise to 46 percent next year.

In addition to superior picture quality, Blu-ray also offers features not available on standard DVD players, like pop-up menus during play. Some Blu-ray players can also connect to the Internet; the player can then receive additional information about a movie, offer movie-related games, provide updated trailers, and allow friends to simultaneously watch a film while writing comments on screen.

The newest generation of Blu-ray players lets viewers receive streaming movies and TV shows from online providers like Amazon Video on Demand, CinemaNow, Netflix and YouTube.

As a result, Blu-ray manufacturers have placed themselves in a seemingly awkward position: They are selling a device that relies on people to continue to buy discs, but the same device gives them a way to download videos — bypassing the discs the machines were built to play.

Consumer electronics companies believe that this strategy makes sense. The additional programming will add to the Blu-ray experience, executives say, which still offers superior picture and sound quality to what can be currently streamed over the Internet.

And since most HDTVs do not yet come with their own built-in Internet capability, a Blu-ray player can become an inexpensive but essential all-in-one content source, according to Todd Richardson, senior vice president for P&F USA, the marketing arm for Philips.

“These services are supplemental. They fill out the consumers’ demand for more and more content,” added Tim Alessi, LG’s director of new product development.

Yet, as high-speed broadband becomes ubiquitous, the ability to quickly download Blu-ray-quality content will become a reality. That day is probably 10 years off, according to Ross Rubin, an NPD Group analyst, as physical discs continue to provide a higher-quality image and an easier way to move programming throughout the house than by trying to create an in-home network.

But the consumer electronics industry is no stranger to product life cycles and planned obsolescence. Already, manufacturers are readying a new line of Blu-ray players and TVs that can display video in 3-D. They should be in place by next year’s holiday shopping season.

[godardslave]

found this on another forum

Why DVD's Better Than Blu-ray" (IGN.DVD article.)

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/963/963916p1.html

Blu-ray may have won the format war, but with HD DVD now soundly dispatched, an old foe refuses to retreat. Standard-def DVD still has plenty of fight left in it. In fact, there are plenty of ways in which the SD format is -- dare we say -- a better choice than Blu-ray.

Heresy, you say? Listen... We aren't trying to assert that DVD has better picture quality than Blu-ray -- that would be absurd. And of course there are cool features, like BD-Live, that seemingly give Blu-ray the edge. But when you really take an examined look at the big picture, Blu-ray isn't for everybody...

[aox]

That article is terrible and littered with falsehoods. Too much to destroy here, but this constant assertion:

You Already Own A Ton of DVDs

perturbs me to no end. This is a very unique format switch and a considerate one with this criticism not being valid. You can play DVDs on a Blu Ray player, unlike previous format switches where this was a decent complaint.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Here's the first mistake from the article: it's on ign.com

[FerdinandGriffon]

At least it concedes that the difference in picture quality is substantial. It's amazing to me the number of people I encounter who claim that to them there's no perceptible difference between Blu and DVD picture.
A particular strain of this myth that I'd like to put to rest (and that I've heard on this forum once or twice) is that you can't notice the difference on a laptop (or desktop) computer screen. Most of my movie viewing takes place on my Sony FW-390 laptop (with Blu-ray player and 16.4 inch screen) and Blu picture is still stunning enough to have persuaded me to join AOX in swearing off DVD purchase for now (a few notable exceptions made, of course).

[Antoine Doinel]

That article is terrible and littered with falsehoods. Too much to destroy here, but this constant assertion:

You Already Own A Ton of DVDs

perturbs me to no end. This is a very unique format switch and a considerate one with this criticism not being valid. You can play DVDs on a Blu Ray player, unlike previous format switches where this was a decent complaint.

The other fallacy with that article is "everyone is going to download everything" argument. Not going to happen. With ISPs charging more for less bandwidth, it's not realistic. Furthermore, being in Canada, rights issues means tons of movies available on US iTunes aren't available here. And simple things like watching a Hulu video or even streaming certain content with NBC is met with geolocking. So far the download era is met with more restrictions than anything presented by physical discs.

[fiddlesticks]

The main points of this argument could be applied with equal force to an explanation of why Gene Woodling was a better hitter than Mickey Mantle.

[manicsounds]

Why Blu-ray's better than DVD, courtesy of IGN