Support NeoGAF

[gollumsluvslave]

I hate calling people liars, but if you're not seeing a noticeable difference on a 50" screen between BD and DVD, and you have no vision problems, then you're a liar. The difference is undeniable.

This is always aproblem just because you can see things, doesn't mean other people can.

Some people think 60fps in games is so obvious, other people just don't notice. Similar stuff with audio - 192 MP3 vs even Redbook CD is like night and day to me, but some people really can't hear the difference.

It doesn't make them liars, maybe they aren't as sensitive to some of the things others are.

 

[Threi]

It's very simple actually:

BD has a clear visual advantage over DVD (duh) but is the advantage worth the cost? For most people no. DVD still looks pretty damn crisp, even on HDTV sets.


Simple as that.


(52" Samsung LCD just so you know because apparently you have to state your TV before you post your opinion.)

 

[dk_]

This is always aproblem just because you can see things, doesn't mean other people can.

Some people think 60fps in games is so obvious, other people just don't notice. Similar stuff with audio - 192 MP3 vs even Redbook CD is like night and day to me, but some people really can't hear the difference.

It doesn't make them liars, maybe they aren't as sensitive to some of the things others are.

You're calling them retarded then?

 

[borghe]

BD has a clear visual advantage over DVD (duh) but is the advantage worth the cost? For most people no. DVD still looks pretty damn crisp, even on HDTV sets.

but just as DVD in the early days, this cost doesn't exist in a vacuum. Players will be down to $150 this holiday through holiday door busters, new movies are slowly creeping closer towards $20, and costs in general are coming down.

In 1999 were were still paying $22-25 for single disc special editions on DVD. Yet somehow that still managed not to tank the format.

As for that bolded part, it is a justification and nothing more. Someone watching VHS on their set this entire time will still think that looks just as crisp as day one. The fact is that once you spend your time watching Blu-ray as your dominant format like many of us, going back to DVD for the classics that haven't been brought over yet is just downright ugly. But we saw the same thing happen during DVD. People insisting that VHS was just fine and then once DVD hit $99-149 and they jumped in "OMG does VHS look horrible." People justify their price point however they need to. If it's too high then the old format looks good enough. If the price is just right then the old format looks horrible.

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Seems to me like it's progressing similarly like DVD did. It started slow, and then built momentum.

 

[borghe]

Seems to me like it's progressing similarly like DVD did. It started slow, and then built momentum.

but yet either these technology writers weren't around for the birth of DVD, they didn't pay attention to it, or they spouted this same exact misinformation during it... still haven't figured out which one this zdnet blog author is.

 

[borghe]

as a counterpoint, here is a piece by bill hunt over at digitalbits. I know many people don't care for him or his editiorials, but I always have enjoyed the site, their commentary and reviews, and feel this editorial is an excellent argument against the zdnet piece:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

As you may know, there have been a couple of recent reports online that the Blu-ray format is D.O.A. or otherwise doomed to failure. The most recent such proclamation is an alarmist piece by ZDNet's Robin Harris, that has resulted in a small flood of e-mails from readers today, some concerned, many skeptical and all curious as to our reaction.

Look, folks... let's have a little perspective here. People have been predicting the death of Blu-ray Disc for more than two years now. And many of those doing so were either staunch HD-DVD supporters previously or simply NEVER saw much of a future for Blu-ray or high-definition discs. Harris, it seems to me, falls into the latter category. He's a fine guy, I'm sure, but from what I've read of his work, he's never really been much of a videophile. He's a storage guy. Hard drives. It says so right there in his bio: "Robin Harris has been selling and marketing data storage for over 20 years in companies large and small." There's nothing wrong with that, and more power to him. But I don't expect him to be any kind of advocate for a home video format, other than one based around a downloading model. And he's hardly the person to best judge the future of what is, at its very essence, a HOME VIDEO FORMAT.

That's not to say that Harris doesn't make some valid points. The BDA's licensing fees are too high, and there are still too many barriers (not the least of which is cost) to smaller content producers adopting the format. I'll give you a few more obstacles the format faces: Blu-ray Disc player and movie prices are still too high. Studios should cut software prices across the board by $5 to $10. Profile 2.0 players should become standard and cheap, and fast. The need to continually update player firmware for title after title has been very frustrating, most recently with the James Bond Blu-rays. That's not a big deal if you have a PS3, but if you have a profile 1.0 or 1.1 player, it means either downloading and burning a firmware update disc, or calling the manufacturer's tech support line and requesting one be sent to you by mail. That's a pain in the ass, and the industry needs to figure out a way to make it easier. The economic slowdown and the lengthy format war haven't helped either. I do think the industry should take a look at Harris' recommendations for what a more "forward looking strategy" for the Blu-ray format ought to look like. I actually agree with a couple of them.

But let's get real here. Blu-ray is NOT dead. It's not close to death. It's not even remotely sick or ailing. Saying otherwise is simply a clever ploy to get a LOT of people to read your columns. Look folks, Blu-ray is still essentially a NEW format to most people. This is the format's FIRST YEAR of unopposed exposure to consumers - the first year it hasn't been embroiled in a bitter format dispute with HD-DVD. The standard DVD format didn't begin to really take off until well over a year after its Divx pay-per-view nemesis finally died. It's worth noting that my prediction has ALWAYS been that Blu-ray and DVD would co-exist for many years, and that Blu-ray would gradually increase its market share over time. If I had to guess, I think the mix a few years from now is going to be 50% DVD, 30-40% Blu-ray and some smaller percentage of downloading. Blu-ray isn't going to replace DVD, the single most successful format in the history of consumer electronics, and anyone who thinks otherwise is out to lunch. But Blu-ray's future is plenty bright, folks.

Let's look at this from another perspective. One month ago, Paramount's Iron Man became the first Blu-ray Disc release to sell 500,000 units in its first week of release. Industry sources tell me that the title has CONTINUED to sell well and is closing in on 1 million units sold. If Iron Man doesn't get there first, Warner's mega-smash hit The Dark Knight is on deck for release on Blu-ray Disc on 12/9. Does anyone think it isn't going to fly off the shelves too? Either way, by the end of the year (almost certainly by the end of January), one of these two titles - and quite possibly BOTH - could hit 1 million units sold. That milestone will have been reached just a little more than two years after the Blu-ray format was launched. Do you know how long it took DVD to have its first million selling title? Just under THREE years - The Matrix, which debuted on the format in late 1999. Seems like Blu-ray's right on track to me.

The format's got LOTS more going for it too. First, player prices are finally dipping below $250, right on track with the pace in the early days of DVD. Best Buy has its Insignia brand BD player priced at $249, and a Samsung player on sale for $229. Multiple retailers are expected to be selling Blu-ray players for LESS than $200 on Black Friday and for the holiday season. According to Video Business, Sears will be selling Sony's BDP-S350 for just $179.99 and Samsung's BD-P1500 for $199.99, both profile 2.0/BD-Live ready players. Look for other BD player deals at select retailers to follow, some as low as $149.

Second, look at all the great titles available! You know, earlier this year many of the studios were telling me that big titles were coming for the holidays, and that the floodgates were really going to open in 2009, but I STILL didn't expect the torrent of great titles we're seeing now. Consider the new releases alone... Transformers, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, The Dark Knight, Cloverfield, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Hancock, Wall-E, Sex and the City, Tropic Thunder, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, Rambo, There Will Be Blood, Hellboy II: The Golden Army, Kung Fu Panda, Casino Royale and many, many others.

Now consider the AMAZING catalog titles that have been (or will soon be) released on Blu-ray... SIX vintage James Bond films, ALL of the Austin Powers films, Sleeping Beauty, Blade Runner, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Godfather Collection, ALL of the Terminator films, Starship Troopers, all of the Planet of the Apes films, all of the Pirates of the Caribbean films, Casablanca, How the West Was Won, L.A. Confidential, JFK, all of The Matrix films, FIVE Stanley Kubrick films including 2001, The Nightmare Before Christmas, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, the Omen films, Bonnie and Clyde, the Die Hard films, ID4, the Mission: Impossible films, Dawn of the Dead, the Dirty Harry films, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Superman and the Superman II: Director's Cut, the Spider-Man films and on, and on, and on.

In his piece, Harris claims there are few quirky indie films on the format. Has he not seen Transsiberian, Sukiyaki Western Django, Mongol, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Persepolis, Shinobi or any of the MANY such titles now available or coming soon? What about the documentary titles? Baraka, Planet Earth? The TV titles? Heroes, Lost, Sarah Connor Chronicles, Torchwood, Pushing Daisies, Band of Brothers?

You think all of those titles are impressive? Look at the tip of the iceberg of what's coming next year: The Star Trek films, Braveheart, Pinocchio, The Lord of the Rings films, King Kong (1933), The Wizard of Oz, Ben Hur, North by Northwest, the Ghostbusters films, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind, the Rush Hour films, The French Connection, Napoleon Dynamite, Office Space, Raging Bull, Ronin, the new Battlestar Galactica TV series and HUNDREDS of others. That's just scratching the surface. There are titles that I KNOW FOR A FACT are in the works for release on Blu-ray in 2009 that will blow your minds, but I can't mention them by name yet. MAJOR catalog releases. For god's sake, folks... The Final Countdown is on Blu-ray! Are you kidding me?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

The question isn't, "Is Harris right?" The question is, "Is Harris even PAYING ATTENTION?" Of course not. He's fine guy... but he's A DATA STORAGE GUY. He's not a film guy. He's not a home video industry expert. Make no mistake, the Hollywood studios are 110% behind the Blu-ray Disc format, folks. So are the hardware manufacturers, and so are all the major retailers. They're going to blow the doors off this format in 2009 in terms of amazing releases. And watch for prices on hardware and software to get even more affordable in the coming year. Blu-ray is going to be around for quite a long while, I don't care what Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Robin Harris tell you. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME TO BE A MOVIE FAN. PERIOD.

Blu-ray is dead?! Yeah, right! And I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

As Charlie Brown might say, "Good grief..."

 

[Threi]

People justify their price point however they need to. If it's too high then the old format looks good enough. If the price is just right then the old format looks horrible.

I disagree. People who claim that previous video formats "look like crap" and BD "looks sooooooo much better" are using hyperbolic statements. BD looks 1.595x as good as DVD today and will look no less or more than 1.595x as good as DVD 5 years in the future. The only thing that will have changed is that the price of BD will have gone down, making the visual benefit worth the cost. Right now it isn't.

VHS is still watchable. But DVD is now affordable and it isn't necessary to buy VHS anymore. Same thing will happen with BD eventually.



IF BD discs cost $1000 a pop and BD players cost $20 000 would there be anyone defending it right now?

 

[borghe]

I disagree. People who claim that previous video formats "look like crap" and "look so much better" are using hyperbolic statements. BD looks 1.595x as good as DVD today and will look no less or more than 1.595x as good as DVD 5 years in the future. The only thing that will have changed is that the price of BD will have gone down, making the visual benefit worth the cost. Right now it isn't.

this is exactly what I was saying. When the price is too high, they "claim" the old format looks good enough. When the price is just right, they "claim" the old format looks like crap. This response was too the people here who say "upconverted DVDs look amazing on my TV". It's not that the DVDs look amazing as so much as they look good enough to justify not spending $200 on a player and $25/movie. Once they are looking at $150 for a player and $20/movie, "looks amazing" will magically turn into "wow, I can't believe how bad they look". It really is an amazing transformation in visual quality that is brought upon by a few dollars in price reductions.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

I disagree. People who claim that previous video formats "look like crap" and BD "looks sooooooo much better" are using hyperbolic statements. BD looks 1.595x as good as DVD today and will look no less or more than 1.595x as good as DVD 5 years in the future. The only thing that will have changed is that the price of BD will have gone down, making the visual benefit worth the cost. Right now it isn't.

VHS is still watchable. But DVD is now affordable and it isn't necessary to buy VHS anymore. Same thing will happen with BD eventually.



IF BD discs cost $1000 a pop and BD players cost $20 000 would there be anyone defending it right now?

You've got a salient point. There is a pretty noticable difference in image quality, but in the market, doesn't seem to be worth nearly as much in dollar terms as the manufacturers hoped it would be.

 

[pswii60]

Some people can't tell the difference between the graphics on a Wii and a 360, let alone people telling the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray.

Those people annoy me. They either don't notice or don't care.

But they also exist in the audio world. Like my friend's girlfriend who said to him - "who needs a hifi? We can have one of these iPod docks, it'll take up less space and look nicer." "BUT IPOD DOCKS HAVE SHITTY SPEAKERS AND SOUND SHIT, YOU GOTTA BE JOKING" he yelled back at her. She said "Don't be silly, they all sound the same". Luckily there were no knives around at the time.

 

[Crisco]

If you're sitting in front of a 50"+ 1080p HDTV and can't tell the difference between a Blu-ray and an upscaled DVD, there is something physically wrong with you. I'm not even joking, go get your eyes checked, go get a CAT scan, do something. You are seriously fucked. It's not even close, not remotely.

I've been watching Blu-ray's on a 60" 1080p TV for over a year now, and I can't watch a normal DVD anymore. They look like dog ass in comparison. Now, the difference between Blu-ray and compressed 720p video or broadcast HD, much much closer. The difference is definitely there, but it's not "HOLY SHIT, WHO CLEANED THE VASELINE OFF MY TV" anymore.

This is the format's FIRST YEAR of unopposed exposure to consumers - the first year it hasn't been embroiled in a bitter format dispute with HD-DVD. The standard DVD format didn't begin to really take off until well over a year after its Divx pay-per-view nemesis finally died. It's worth noting that my prediction has ALWAYS been that Blu-ray and DVD would co-exist for many years, and that Blu-ray would gradually increase its market share over time. If I had to guess, I think the mix a few years from now is going to be 50% DVD, 30-40% Blu-ray and some smaller percentage of downloading. Blu-ray isn't going to replace DVD, the single most successful format in the history of consumer electronics, and anyone who thinks otherwise is out to lunch. But Blu-ray's future is plenty bright, folks.

Let's look at this from another perspective. One month ago, Paramount's Iron Man became the first Blu-ray Disc release to sell 500,000 units in its first week of release. Industry sources tell me that the title has CONTINUED to sell well and is closing in on 1 million units sold. If Iron Man doesn't get there first, Warner's mega-smash hit The Dark Knight is on deck for release on Blu-ray Disc on 12/9. Does anyone think it isn't going to fly off the shelves too? Either way, by the end of the year (almost certainly by the end of January), one of these two titles - and quite possibly BOTH - could hit 1 million units sold. That milestone will have been reached just a little more than two years after the Blu-ray format was launched. Do you know how long it took DVD to have its first million selling title? Just under THREE years - The Matrix, which debuted on the format in late 1999. Seems like Blu-ray's right on track to me.

That's the argument right there. The rest of his post is just a fanboy rant, but this is what most reasonable people have been saying all along. It's performing on par with DVD and will eventually get ~50% of the market, maybe a little more, before downloads start to take over.

 

[VanMardigan]

Dammit, I hate agreeing with Bill Hunt.

Some people can't tell the difference between the graphics on a Wii and a 360

This is also impossible for me to believe. I don't personally know a single person who cant' tell the difference. I've met a ton of them who DON'T CARE about the difference, but none who can't tell. Same with dvd and Blu Ray. They'll notice a difference, but won't care. That's fine, their choice. Just don't justify that choice saying you can't see a difference.

 

[borghe]

This is also impossible for me to believe. I don't personally know a single person who cant' tell the difference. I've met a ton of them who DON'T CARE about the difference, but none who can't tell. Same with dvd and Blu Ray. They'll notice a difference, but won't care. That's fine, their choice. Just don't justify that choice saying you can't see a difference.

because if they say they don't care, they come off as ignorant. if they say they don't see it, all of the sudden it becomes subjective and unable to be argued. and no, I'm not kidding. I don't think people do this intentionally, but I think our society has raised us this way. Offer an opinion stated as fact and it becomes near impossible to dispute.

 

[Davidion]

Bill Hunt's right on point. Calling Blu-Ray a dead format is just crying for attention at this point.

Dammit, I hate agreeing with Bill Hunt.

Why's that?

 

[Raistlin]

VHS to DVD was a massive upgrade, both in quality and durability

Why do many people continue to say this ... that the the jump to BD is relatively a smaller upgrade in quality?

It isn't. The quality upgrade is much more than it was from VHS to DVD. I'll enterain other points in the arguments, but the quality thing just boggles my mind.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Dammit, I hate agreeing with Bill Hunt.

C'mon, the guy had valid reasons for his positions.

 

[MidiSurf]

I hate calling people liars, but if you're not seeing a noticeable difference on a 50" screen between BD and DVD, and you have no vision problems, then you're a liar. The difference is undeniable.

And it's not just a sharper and more detailed picture. You get more vivid color, lack of obvious compression artifacts, and much better quality on fast moving scenes. Even on good dvd upscaling devices like Ps3, it's obvious. Even my wife can see the difference. We were watching Last Samurai on a 30" CRT when my wife commented how crappy it looked compared to other HD movies. This happened early on in the movie. Sure enough, Netflix had sent us the dvd version rather than the HD DVD version.

Meh, Maybe I just don't pay enough attention to PQ while watching movies. Oh, and you get very good colors out of DVDs if you know how to calibrate your tv.

EDIT: And I didn't say I don't notice difference between DVD and BD.

 

[borghe]

Why do many people continue to say this ... that the the jump to BD is relatively a smaller upgrade in quality?

It isn't. The quality upgrade is much more than it was from VHS to DVD. I'll enterain other points in the arguments, but the quality thing just boggles my mind.

because VHS->DVD was more than a visual/audible upgrade. Watch your videotape 3-4 times and the quality started to go down. Anyone remember tape rewinders? Even worse rewinding fees at Blockbuster? VHS tracking? Nothing worse than getting a tape from blockbuster only to have a massive buzzing coming from your left speaker because of tape quality. Chapter skip, scene selection, multi-lingual, subtitles (which always worked, as opposed to the mostly sketchy closed captioning). I'm a huge Blu-ray advocate, but VHS->DVD will probably remain as one of the most significant consumer level upgrades ever. With that being said, yes.. the visual and audio upgrade for Blu-ray is quite a bit bigger than it was for DVD as long as you have an HDTV that is at least 32" and a stereo capable of passing high res audio (either through internal decoding or 5.1 inputs)

Oh, and you get very good colors out of DVDs if you know how to calibrate your tv.

My Mits was calibrated by CraigM from HomeTheater Spot and it cost me a damn pretty penny to do so. DVD is nowhere near the color depth and saturation of Blu-ray. just saying. Yeah you can get your DVDs looking as good as DVDs can look, but on a properly calibrated TV the differences become even more pronounced between the two.

 

[Raistlin]

Are people still bitter that their favorite format didn't make it?

Wait ... are you referring to HD DVD, or BD? If its that latter, by your logic ... DVD didn't make it.

 

[Raistlin]

I disagree. People who claim that previous video formats "look like crap" and BD "looks sooooooo much better" are using hyperbolic statements. BD looks 1.595x as good as DVD today and will look no less or more than 1.595x as good as DVD 5 years in the future. The only thing that will have changed is that the price of BD will have gone down, making the visual benefit worth the cost. Right now it isn't.

:lol What's with the exact value?

 

[y2dvd]

As long as there are B1G1 sales, I will keep supporting blu rays! People can easily make the jump if they just look for these sales.

 

[VanMardigan]

As long as there are B1G1 sales, I will keep supporting blu rays! People can easily make the jump if they just look for these sales.

When was the last time we got one of those?

 

[glaurung]

You guys are crazy.

*goes to buy more blu-rays*

 

[Raistlin]

because VHS->DVD was more than a visual/audible upgrade.

etc

Sorry, maybe I should have made myself more clear. When I said I'll entertain other points in the argument ... I meant stuff like degredation, UI, etc. I agree with those parts of the discussion.

What I'm talking about ... and it continues to blow my mind ... is that many people argue the A/V delta between VHS and DVD is actually greater than that of DVD and BD. Its crazy talk.

DVD is nowhere near the color depth and saturation of Blu-ray. just saying.

Yeah, definitely. The difference is more than just resolution ... the fact its encoded 4:2:2 versus DVD's 4:2:0 makes for a very nice upgrade in color.

 

[Raistlin]

When was the last time we got one of those?

A while, though B2G1 still happen.

 

[captive]

Why do many people continue to say this ... that the the jump to BD is relatively a smaller upgrade in quality?

It isn't. The quality upgrade is much more than it was from VHS to DVD. I'll enterain other points in the arguments, but the quality thing just boggles my mind.

Because blu-ray is only EXACTLY 1.5 times better than dvd.



Van check this post for the joke.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13442232&postcount=308

 

[VanMardigan]

Where does the 1.5 figure come from? Resolution-wise its six times, bitrate-wise it's 3-4 times, audio its 3-4 times. What is the reference point for that number?

 

[pel1300]

Until prices come down there is no reason for me to own a blu-ray player.

Its only necessary if you have a 40+ inch HD television and a nice surround setup... otherwise for myself a college student living in a small dorm in New York... blu-ray won't exactly improve the quality of the picture on my 19 inch LCD computer monitor that much... to pay $400+ on the device and movies.

No thanks.

ummm...download a high def movie/tv show onto your 15 to 19 inch screen computer. now download the SD version.

See a difference? If you don't then you need glasses.

On my 32 inch vizio the difference was just as obvious as on a 40 inch samsung lcd and a 50 inch panny.

 

[Stinkles]

Right, so I thought this story was the usual format hysteria, but sure enough, I got up this morning, went to check my Blu Ray collection and it's all dead. Useless. May as well be VHS tapes of Batman and Robin.


Also, the sanctity and specialness of my hetero marriage is only operating at 73% capacity thanks to the continuing ability of the gays to marry in Mass and CA.

 

[Mrbob]

Despite my concerns about TV showing pricing on Blu Ray (which is ridiculous), movie pricing isn't that far off. Usually Blu Ray movies are only 5 to 7 dollars more than their DVD counterpart. It only seems like more because studios aren't selling you just the single disc movie on Blu Ray, but the two disc collectors edition.

For example, most DVDs now come with a one disc version which is priced at $14.99 at release and $19.99 to $24.99 for the two disc collectors edition. Look for the same movie on Blu Ray and it is $24.99 to $29.99, but only in the disc disc format. They don't sell the single disc version.

Here is what I'm hoping for down the road with releases:

One disc DVD $14.99
One disc blu Ray $17.99-$19.99
Two disc DVD $19.99
Two disc Blu Ray $22.99-$24.99

 

[LunaticPuma]

I am absolutely astounded no one has brought up the fact that Blu-Ray is the first backwards compatible movie format. They really need to hype that fact more. I think they would capture more people by creating the idea of transitioning to Blu-Ray instead of replacing DVD. It's just like the transition to HD. It's extremely hard to buy a non-HD tv now. No one makes SD flat screens because there is no money there.

Blu-Ray will take over DVD because it is a natural extension of DVD. Prices will fall into impulse buy territory eventually. Besides, movie studios and retailers want the fat Blu-Ray margins they used to get with DVD.

 

[Raistlin]

Where does the 1.5 figure come from? Resolution-wise its six times, bitrate-wise it's 3-4 times, audio its 3-4 times. What is the reference point for that number?

Exactly. Not to mention better color, and far better compressions algorithims (which makes the bitrate delta actually bigger when talking apples to apples - this leads to far less artifacts at their respective resolutions).

I am absolutely astounded no one has brought up the fact that Blu-Ray is the first backwards compatible movie format. They really need to hype that fact more. I think they would capture more people by creating the idea of transitioning to Blu-Ray instead of replacing DVD. It's just like the transition to HD. It's extremely hard to buy a non-HD tv now. No one makes SD flat screens because there is no money there.

Blu-Ray will take over DVD because it is a natural extension of DVD. Prices will fall into impulse buy territory eventually. Besides, movie studios and retailers want the fat Blu-Ray margins they used to get with DVD.

Good points, and something many forget. Some point out that HDTV's (esepcially good ones) are expensive, as are the necessary audio components. What they don't seem to get is that HDTV is an evolving tech. Prices are coming down, and quality is going up. The same can be said for receivers that support at least LPCM. What is happening is that SDTVs and receivers that don't support high-res audio are simply disappearing from the shelves.

As we continue to move forward, more and more people will reach a point where they need a new TV or receiver ... and the only thing that will really be available will be what is needed to take advantage of bluray.

So yes, right now ... the starting point is a bit pricey ... but what happens in a few years?

 

[borghe]

Because blu-ray is only EXACTLY 1.5 times better than dvd.

VHS: 320x480
DVD: 720x480
Blu-ray: 1920x1080

VHS->DVD = 1.25x pixel count
DVD->Blu-ray = 6x pixel count

many people like to claim VHS at 320x240 but this is INCORRECT. Even though it was an interlaced source, an individual frame comprised of two fields was still 480 lines. Line doublers proved this by outputting 480 lines from VHS and laserdisc to capable displays. Also considering on most SD TVs, people were still watching their DVDs interlaced thus for the sake of that argument, reducing them to 720x240. :\

people like to incorrectly measure the single horizontal and vertical pixel counts and report that as the percentage increase, but it's the picture area where the difference lies and the fact is that there is 6 times more picture area.

unfortunately onix is incorrect about color sampling. both AVC and VC-1 still use 4:2:0 sampling and suffer the problems from it. Still, the increase in pixel count does directly influence color densities and saturation along with edge and fine detail.

The biggest visual upgrade on DVD is one that is never even talked about in these arguments, and this is bringing line doubling (aka 480p) to the mainstream market. This is a much bigger visual factor than any resolution increases between DVD and VHS. But on that note, Blu-ray bringing 24p IMHO is still even bigger than 480p as it is the first time we are able to see film like framerates presented faithfully in our home getting rid once and for all of dreaded 3:2 motion jittering.

 

[Stinkles]

I am absolutely astounded no one has brought up the fact that Blu-Ray is the first backwards compatible movie format.

That's because it's largely irrelevant. DVD players are not only ubiquitous and cheap, they're tiny too. It has no more effect than the Wii's lack of DVD playback does on its sales.

I won't use my Blu Ray player to play DVDs because it's a huge hassle - more than a minute from start to play. And the PS3 is too hot and noisy for that purpose. So I use a $60 upscaling Samsung.

 

[captive]

Wow sarcasm is really lost on some of you.
Come on people I have posted plenty in the HD threads you should know I would never say something as stupid as blu-ray is only 1.5 times better....

 

[DrXym]

Blu Ray isn't dying. Most of the people proclaiming its death are trying to pitch some proprietary VOD / DD service, or are just HD DVD fans still angry that their format own lost. There is little downside to owning a blu ray player. Players are now quite cheap and there are plenty of titles. You can even buy and play DVDs if you want but you also benefit from HD content too. The progression from DVD to BD is going to be very natural as people take to HD which they are already doing.

Sales of players and of disks should be pretty strong this Christmas. Sales of The Dark Knight are guaranteed to smash the existing record held by Iron Man.

 

[borghe]

Wow sarcasm is really lost on some of you.
Come on people I have posted plenty in the HD threads you should know I would never say something as stupid as blu-ray is only 1.5 times better....

yeah, I went back to the first post to state 1.595x or whatever. my bad.

for the record, I have no blu-ray owning friends. They all have their various reasons, all of which we've seen in this thread at one point or another. The difference is, every single one of them concedes that they eventually will get a player. Whether it's because they eventually want a PS3, or they're just waiting for the players and movies to hit a certain price point, or because they acknowledge that eventually if you want to go to the store and grab a new $40 player the blu-ray one sitting right next to it will only cost $60. And I've known these guys long enough (decades) to know that this is exactly what they were like back in 1999 with DVD as well. Heck, some of them bought Matrix on VHS! :lol

 

[Stinkles]

Sales of players and of disks should be pretty strong this Christmas. Sales of The Dark Knight are guaranteed to smash the existing record held by Iron Man.

But those are preaching to the choir. The only true killer app for the system is still Planet Earth. It needs more of that shit to increase hardware sales - or Blu Ray exclusive releases.

 

[Raistlin]

unfortunately onix is incorrect about color sampling. both AVC and VC-1 still use 4:2:0 sampling and suffer the problems from it. Still, the increase in pixel count does directly influence color densities and saturation along with edge and fine detail.

Ugh ... my bad. This is what happens when I post on little sleep.

 

[TheHeretic]

VHS: 320x480
DVD: 720x480
Blu-ray: 1920x1080

VHS->DVD = 1.25x pixel count
DVD->Blu-ray = 6x pixel count

If you think the difference between a VHS tape and a DVD in terms of quality was resolution you never watched a VHS tape, period.

 

[VGChampion]

It will suck when everything eventually goes digital download only. I like my physical copies. I never trade in or sell any of my purchases but I want them physical. I still don't trust my digital copies being usable in the future.

I know there's the argument that why would I care about what I have downloaded not working once the servers go off in the future just like how I don't watch VHS anymore. I see where they're coming from but I still do have a few VHS that never showed up on dvd. :lol

 

[Raistlin]

If you think the difference between a VHS tape and a DVD in terms of quality was resolution you never watched a VHS tape, period.

Obviously degredation is an issue. I believe nearly everyone discussing it has stated that ... but when comparing actual A/V, we're talking about a 'fresh' tape.

 

[DrXym]

This is always aproblem just because you can see things, doesn't mean other people can.

Some people think 60fps in games is so obvious, other people just don't notice. Similar stuff with audio - 192 MP3 vs even Redbook CD is like night and day to me, but some people really can't hear the difference.

It doesn't make them liars, maybe they aren't as sensitive to some of the things others are.

The difference between SD and HD is extremely obvious on a 42" screen or larger. I think it's tough to explain it to people unless you actually show them content in SD and HD running side by side on the same size TV.

 

[polyh3dron]

Looks like this blogger got a shitload of hits for suggesting that the BD format is dying. Maybe I should post a blog saying that too and I'll get lots of hits as well.

 

[borghe]

But those are preaching to the choir. The only true killer app for the system is still Planet Earth. It needs more of that shit to increase hardware sales - or Blu Ray exclusive releases.

this is kind of backwards actually. Planet Earth and whatnot is preaching to the choir. The videophiles who would be wowed into the format through a gorgeous documentary will likely already be in the format. It's The Dark Knight (or Matrix or Godzilla 1998 for DVD or Jurassic Park or Star Wars for laserdisc) that brings the mainstream into the format. The mainstream doesn't care about a documentary or small budget movie that they don't even sit through for free on TV. They want that "movie theater at home" experience.

 

[Raistlin]

Yeah, when stuff like LotR starts hitting ... stuff like that will help bring in the mainstream.

 

[Stinkles]

this is kind of backwards actually. Planet Earth and whatnot is preaching to the choir. The videophiles who would be wowed into the format through a gorgeous documentary will likely already be in the format. It's The Dark Knight (or Matrix or Godzilla 1998 for DVD or Jurassic Park or Star Wars for laserdisc) that brings the mainstream into the format. The mainstream doesn't care about a documentary or small budget movie that they don't even sit through for free on TV. They want that "movie theater at home" experience.

I hate to use anecdotes to disagree - but my wife made me move my Blu Ray player upstairs for Planet Earth and the folks I know at work who got a PS3 for Blu Ray got it for Planet Earth specifically. It has a kind of minor Oprah buzz and got lots of daytime TV coverage.

And the fact remains, film is not the best way to demo Blu Ray, digital HD is. Another advantage it has for the mainstream is that "box sets" could be contained on one or two discs for convenience.

 

[polyh3dron]

 

[DrXym]

But those are preaching to the choir. The only true killer app for the system is still Planet Earth. It needs more of that shit to increase hardware sales - or Blu Ray exclusive releases.

I own Planet Earth and it looks great but you aren't going to convince mainstream customers off the basis of a nature documentary. Early adopters might be swayed by a HD clip of a flock of birds but the mainstream wants movies. It's the blockbusters which will sell them on the format. The rest follows on from that.

Anyway The Dark Knight should benefit not just from the people who bought players last Christmas or in the first half of the year, but also from those who purchase them from today onwards. Batman is a system seller. If Iron Man + Indiana Jones can push top 20 sales to 17% of DVD then The Dark Knight plus others like Wall-E are likely to push it over 25%.

I don't expect it will be the end of the "blu ray is dying" comments. Some of the HD DVD zealots will use the entirely predictable January - May sales slump to recycle the same old tired arguments all over.