Taking Sides - HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?

s1ocki - holy shit.

ts: dvd vs blu-ray

Can't currently play blu-ray on my laptop.

blu-ray looks better

i own speed racer blu-ray

i do not own a blu-ray device

this is the way i live

i have owned an HDTV for three years. i have never seen an actual HD signal on it (and no, .mkv bluray transcodes don't count).

what do you have hooked up to it?

http://www.gamersover40.com/images/pong_game.jpg

i have a blu-ray player ands till haven't watched a blu ray disc. I did buy 2001 though.

Dear home video advertisers: your unsubtle rearrangement of the wording of all of your ads to read "Now available on Blu-Ray and DVD!" and showing pictures of only Blu-Ray discs is not going to make your 21st Century iteration of the laserdisc any more popular to the people who have spent hundreds or thousands of dollars over the past decade amassing a movie collection in a not-all-that-different-but-perfectly-serviceable format. Retards.

Which is to say that I vote for DVD over Blu-Ray, obvs. Blu-Ray should be treated like a premium format for people who want something a little extra, not like something that is going to necessarily overtake DVDs.

they should be more humble and stop trying to sell their products?

no, what i think they should do is bring BD price down to parity with DVD. then they'll sell them.

Perfectly serviceable? Absolutely. Not all that different? Er . . . the difference between 480p and 1080p is actually really, really significant. If you're not seeing or feeling it, that's cool, but it really is there.

The good thing is that the hardware is all backwards compatible, so when Blu-Ray reaches a certain market penetration (and cheap recorders are available), and manufacturers stop making DVD players and studios stop making DVDs, you'll still be covered.

BD is coming, nothing u can do to stop tht sorry

I just don't understand the public's demand for HD at all. WHY are so many people willing to spend hundreds more just so they can have a slightly clearer picture on the TV?

Exactly. I guarantee most people don't really appreciate it that much from an aesthetic or technical standpoint. It's just some new effing gadget to jizz all over. I can appreciate its existence, I just don't care enough to make the investment in a big switchover.

It's just some new effing gadget to jizz all over.

This jizzing that you speak of drives a whole sector of the consumer market. It's small, yes, and different than the "early adopter," because that consumer may actually have complaints about the product which may be useful to the company producing that product. No, this consumer is the "omnivorous, insatiable adopter." They have too much money to care what they buy, but not enough to know how to value it. If they don't like it, they won't have any insight on it, they'll just buy something else. They're the 20-something kids of rich parents, the nouveau riche who are totally tech-ignorant, and the upper-middle class who are gloriously irresponsible with money. They're not a make-or-break demo, but they do spend a shitload.

The marginal cost of a Blu-Ray player was pretty low if you were in the market for a 5th generation video game console in any case (the PS3 is one of the better players). I have some movies of the Baraka/The Fall class of eyecandy that would undoubtedly benefit, and I can afford it, but won't adopt for a simple reason: at the moment, there are no Blu-Ray players that are also seamless upconverting all-region unlockable DVD players. About a third of my DVD collection are R2, R3, or R4, and I'm not about to clutter my AV stack with another box just to play a handful of movies that would really benefit.

The best thing I've seen for marketing blu-ray is Disney's new approach, doubling up DVD and Blu Ray for the same price. So, the new Snow White release can be purchased in a pack with blu ray discs and a bonus DVD of the film for the same price as just a DVD of the film with some extras. They're doing the same with Up. It's animated movies like that that really interested me (since I have a kid and have to see the things a hundred times and want them to look cool, but also want to be able to send the dvd off with him to grandma who does not have a blu ray player. ok she doesn't have a dvd player right now either for some reason but I did buy her one). If they did this for everything I'd surely buy more stuff on blu ray.

I watched Heat on DVD the other day and the quality was absolutely awful, at least on my laptop screen which is admittedly at a higher resolution than a standard TV

Not to make this a whole big thing, but...do we really need all of this fidelity? Does every representational image have to mirror reality down to the smallest crystal-clear pore on Ryan Reynolds' nose? I was watching some 70s flick on DVD for the first time the other day and was a little bummed at how much character had been scrubbed out by the digital upgrade from grainy film stock. I think there is an extent to which the application of a hi-def sheen is kind of an affront to a filmmaker's original intention.

I know, I know. I sound like a total vinylhead here, maaaaaaan...

Not to make this a whole big thing, but...do we really need all of this fidelity? Does every representational image have to mirror reality down to the smallest crystal-clear pore on Ryan Reynolds' nose? I was watching some 70s flick on DVD for the first time the other day and was a little bummed at how much character had been scrubbed out by the digital upgrade from grainy film stock. I think there is an extent to which the application of a hi-def sheen is kind of an affront to a filmmaker's original intention.

I know, I know. I sound like a total vinylhead here, maaaaaaan...

― I HEART CREEPY MENS (Deric W. Haircare), Sunday, November 1, 2009 6:07 AM (42 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Bluray/HD doesn't "scrub" grainy film stock, it reproduces it. You're just reminiscing on the video noise you had on VHS.

I just don't understand the public's demand for HD at all. WHY are so many people willing to spend hundreds more just so they can have a slightly clearer picture on the TV?

― Mr. Snrub, Sunday, November 1, 2009 2:34 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Because it's not slightly clearer, it's much clearer, sharper, more detailed etc.

500 lines of resolution vs. 1080.

This is like saying you don't see the difference between 16mm and 35mm.

I think there is an extent to which the application of a hi-def sheen is kind of an affront to a filmmaker's original intention.

I kinda feel if this is your attitude then you might as well just buy a projector and rent a theater or something, because viewing a film in any setting less than a darkened theater with a 10 foot high screen is probably not going to cut it. FWIW I'll take a hi-def polished transfer over a VHS pan and scan any day.

it's not a SHEEN that gets put over the film, its a more faithful reproduction of the film itself! its not like filmmakers are making movies on VHS or something.

why would you be OPPOSED to movies looking better??

>at the moment, there are no Blu-Ray players that are also seamless upconverting all-region unlockable DVD players.

My Sony BDP-S350 does exactly this, although I'm not sure what you mean by seamless. It upscales very respectably, and there's a hack for multi-region DVD playback. I *do* find the current scarcity of multi-region Blu-Ray players frustrating (Momitsu aside), but this will doubtless change with time.

and slocki otm - a well-mastered blu-ray is light years closer to watching a film as the director intended than VHS or dvd can manage. I already stanned this upthread, but my greatest enjoyment from BR has been seeing older films in high-definition, after years of only knowing them from tv or vhs.

xxxpost

Yes, HD only goes part of the way to recreating what's recorded on the film. I think you'd need a player with about 6000 lines to replicate what's on film.

This is why I invested in BD. The 1080 lines of information made me realize this is what Kubrick wanted 2001 to approximate. I threw some letterbox DVDs on and was surprised at how undetailed they look in comparison. DVD being 480 pixels high + a lot of those being lost on TV with the black bars = some LOL youtube resolution

I agree the Disney DVD+Blu-ray for the same price packaging is the way to go, and if all studios did that I think consumers (or at least I) wouldn't get the feeling they're being bled as they're pushed to yet another overpriced but built to expire format.

That said, does anyone have a real idea how well Blu-ray is doing? There's so much sketchy obfuscation out there, beginning with the utterly ridiculous notion that everyone who buys the PS3 is somehow a Blu-ray supporter and a notch in the format's favor. If I knew it was truly gaining market share I'd take Blu-ray more seriously as something other than a video-phile niche.

I think it's actually doing pretty well. DVD's not going to die anytime soon, but Blu-Ray is still growing somewhat rapidly.

The Digital Entertainment Group released 3rd quarter sales for BDs were up 66% for 3rd qtr 2009 compared to 3rd qtr of 2008, and 83% Year-to-date. It was 12% of all new theatrical home video releases. I have no idea who the DEG is but if these are accurate I think it's at the point where it really takes off in 1-2 years.

Like Josh said, I don't think PS3 or player unit sales should determine the technology's path, but I think actual movie sales might be a better number. Since Blu-Ray players can be had for as little as $100 now, I think by the end of next year we'll be at the point where it's kind of pointless to NOT buy a Blu-Ray player over anything else. We'll see if that translates over to movie sales.

The price of the media needs to come down too. If you're halfway respectable and intelligent you're buying new releases for $15-$20 off Amazon, which is what DVD prices were like a year go (and still are, for newer discs), but if you go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart you'll see some mediocre new releases for $35 or more. Ugh.

I don't know if it represents a peek at what is to come, but this week Best Buy is having their first pretty huge sale on Blu-Rays. Their flier this weekend showed pricing for Blu-Rays in different pricing groups of $10,$15, and $20. Rather crap selection from what I was able to tell, but is this the start of more reasonable prices?

Online pricing for blu-ray is starting to live in the real world, I'd agree, but most physical retailers in the UK seem content to let stuff fester on the racks at absurd prices like £27.99. The only way to get any value is in two-for-ones etc, which are starting to creep in at places like HMV, and hopefully will be even better in the run up to Christmas and the sales afterwards.

For those already in the blu-ray camp you may already be aware of the excellent site DVDBeaver, which has a huge archive of reviews for sd and hd disks and does extensive comparisons between the sd and blu-ray versions of films with very useful screenshots. Their main focus is on picture and sound quality, and if you're unsure over whether it's worth upgrading an old favourite from sd you'll generally find an answer:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/

I love DVDBeaver, but my understanding is that their image comparisons are suspect and inconsistent.

Also, per the Best Buy sale, I think Best Buy is officially in the process of phasing out all/most home video, or significantly limiting it. In terms of market share, it's Netflix that's leading the way, and I presume Netflix and video on demand will damper sales of whatever in the near future. Which leaves DVD fading and Blu-ray in stasis, before it has a chance to take over and fade away, too.

Netflix and video on demand will damper dominate sales of whatever

A lot of this returns to death of physical media discussions. The bottom line for me is that until there's the infrastructure, ease of use and crucially bandwidth to support the same quality of sound and picture as I get on blu-ray ie. 1080p video and uncompressed audio, *on demand* then I'll keep buying disks, or renting them through Lovefilm (uk netflix style disks in the mail service). Realistically, this is going to be at least 5 years off over here and assumes big progress being made in the telecom infrastructure.

With that said, even when dvd and blu-ray are totally defunct, I'll still have a stack of films on disk that I can watch whenever I want to. Doubtless will have a 3D tv by then and will be discussing the merits of 8000p resolution...

why are cds/dvds/blu-rays SO expensive in the uk/europe anyway? they're so cheap to manufacture... you can buy a spindle of 50 cd-rs over here for like $20... i just don't understand it.

I don't know about SO expensive - shopping online I'll very rarely pay more than £12/$20 for a blu-ray, generally I'll keep an eye on Amazon or Play.com and buy in their sales which make them more like £8/$13 or so. Most CDs on Amazon are between £5 and £8 ($8/$13). Is that way off the beam of US prices?

hm

Dag, this Variety story makes it seem as if the industry is banking on Blu-ray breaking through in 2012:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118010838.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

2012? Two years of digital evolution from now? Really? By then they'll be beaming HD content straight into our brains.

maybe they mean the MOVIE 2012

I'd watch more blu ray if netflix charged less to rent them.

yeah i've been pretty disappointed with Netflix instant "HD" streaming through Xbox Live...to me, it usually looks worst than DVD, and not even in the same neighborhood as Blu-ray

I'm amazed BD players haven't fallen in price more quickly. It didn't take long before sub £50 DVD players appeared on the market, yet it's a struggle to find anything much cheaper than about £130. Until players become much cheaper Blu-ray will remain a niche market. Other thing is the leap in quality between DVD and Blu-ray, especially if you have an upscaling player isn't as significant as the improvement between DVD and VHS.

It didn't take long before sub £50 DVD players appeared on the market

I'm not sure about that. DVD was launched in, what, 1997? I bought a Sony (OK, it was a Sony but it was an entry-level model and it was on offer at Richer Sounds) in late 2002 and it was about £130. The no-brand supermarket players seems to arrive about a year later. For there to be Blu-ray players on sale in Asda for £50 the format itself needs to be massively more popular. (And it's doing badly in Europe and I know only too well - I work in the industry and we're hanging on to our jobs).

It's the industry's own doing. Blu-ray players were/are priced so high because the patent holders are, erm, holding tight to those patents. Proprietary greed, etc.

yeah i've been pretty disappointed with Netflix instant "HD" streaming through Xbox Live...to me, it usually looks worst than DVD, and not even in the same neighborhood as Blu-ray

This is a bitrate problem -- Blu-Rays have a bitrate of about 40mbps, while streaming HD is usually less than 20mbps. See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962&tag=rbxccnbzd1 for more on that.

BTW, if you live in the US and want a good Blu-Ray player, you can get a Sony at lol Wal-Mart this weekend for $148: http://gizmodo.com/5397060/walmart-selling-200-xbox-360-this-weekend-with-free-100-gift-card

whoa. that's tempting. is there a catch? is that a decent player?

here's the irony, which of course the electronics industry is banking on: once i buy a blu-ray player, i need to justify it by getting an HDTV. and once i buy that, i need an appropriately fancy sound system. etc. etc. so what i think is a bargain will probably end up costing me $$.

It's a very good player -- Sony is the inventor of Blu-Ray so their players tend to have very good functionality, load times, etc. Amazon reviewers give it 4 stars avg.

It's the industry's own doing. Blu-ray players were/are priced so high because the patent holders are, erm, holding tight to those patents. Proprietary greed, etc.

― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, November 4, 2009 6:27 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

also the whole format fiasco that this thread was created to address!!