Why I'm Not Going With Blu-ray

Why not? Because that technology won't materialize for another 10-15 years and when it does it will be uber-expensive and will probably require more hardware updates. Not to mention blu-ray is pretty darn awesome, right now.

Blu-ray isn't another SACD or DVD-Audio format that's gonna bite the dust. It's here, it's staying, and it's great. Prices for players have dropped radically over the last year to year and a half. The disks are still expensive but some have started to drop (like the Bonds). Rental selection is pretty good though.

Upconverted DVD's can look very impressive too, though many here will tell you that upconversion isn't doing anything special (I disagree). Oh, and I watch plenty of older movies that look stunning on blu-ray.

If people like movies or home theater at all I can't see how blu-ray is anything but a win-win. Yeah, dvd's can look pretty good, but most will pale when compared to a hi-def (blu-ray) edition.

 

I just want to through this link to Amazon out there to illustrate how many Blu Ray titles are available under $15 (including Song Remains The Same for $11.49, The Searchers for $7.99 and Clockwork Orange for $13.99):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.ht..._rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=475581011&pf_rd_i=193640011

 

mmmm....it's gonna take some work to get you to come over to the blue side.

 

I resisted going Blu-ray for a long time, and my experiences with HD-DVD didn't encourage me to go Blu either. I always heard they offered very similar visual quality, and I was never impressed with the HD-DVDs I saw; they looked better than my SD-DVDs, but not by a ton. (I grabbed a player last year because it was cheap and would upconvert DVDs.)

Either a) I heard wrong about the difference between Blu-ray and HD-DVD or b) my Toshiba HD-DVD player just wasn't very good, but now that I've gone Blu-ray, I see a big old difference. It's tough to watch DVDs now, as the Blu-rays just look so much better...

 

These threads are really very silly. I mean, honestly, who cares if you wish to purposely deprive yourself of the best consumer video and sound currently available on the market. I always shake my head and laugh at folks that think nothing of spending multiple thousands of dollars on a CD Player and hundreds of dollars on a single LP or CD ostensibly in search of sonic improvements, and then balk at spending a few hundred bucks on a machine that allows them to experience full hi-definition video and sound. The differences are not subtle, not by a long-shot. I've had my Blu-Ray player for 2 years now and I've enjoyed every minute with it. You can wait forever for the "next big thing" but someday, you'll simply run out of time.

 

WE HAVE A WINNER!

From all the posts I've read, Claude's post (quoted above) indicates to me that he has gotten my joke!



That's right, folks, I was joking! I had hoped that the bit about "10.2 surround with two subwoofers" would have given it away but apparently it didn't!

Whilst I don't have a BluRay player (no HDTV either) and am in no hurry at all to get one, I'm not sitting it out in order to wait for the next format. I'm actually waiting for the price of a HDTV to come down to about half it's current level. And even then, I am satisfied with DVD's, although the allure of HD soundtracks is tempting me a LOT! Especially for movies with a lot of score/musical cues/songs in it.

More and more old TV shows that were shot on (and still exist on) film are trickling out in HD. I love my TV shows! Roll on the likes of "Bewitched" and "The Twilight Zone" and "Columbo" and "Miami Vice" in HD and I'll be happy!

Mind you, I'm living in Australia. HDTV is a joke here. One free-to-air HD channel dumped all of it's programming to become a 24/7 sports channel. Our free-to-air TV stations are allowed to run two SD channels and one HD channel. Half the country doesn't even get the HD channels yet as the regional networks are still scrambling to install the equipment everywhere! Capital city pay TV provider Foxtel has about four HD channels in it's 45+ channel lineup. Regional pay TV provider Austar (who licenses Foxtel's channels anyway!) has no HD channels yet, not even the Foxtel ones, thus causing half of the country to miss out.

Also, last time I saw a movie on a HDTV in a store, it was playing an upscaled DVD which looked very line-y. So, to be honest, I don't even know what I'm missing out on by sticking to SDTV and DVD for now.

Don't bother to try to enlighten me, either: I can't see what all the fuss is about because nobody can show me in person!

 

Aah, good one. There have been several threads started here just like yours except they WEREN't joking. So, it wasn't obvious you were kidding.

It's too bad about the lack of HD programming down under. I'm sure it's coming but it may take a bit longer. The U.S. has finally switched to digital signals (which is required for HD), but it took several years longer than originally projected.

Be patient.

 

+1

 

I'll be buying a BD player when I'm able to.

I've seen enough movies in hi-def to know that, to me, BD is worth the investment because the difference between BD and the dvd version - on a large-enough display - is not subtle. I'm not really into hi-end video (or audio for that matter: right now I'm listening to a Technics turntable connected to a Pioneer receiver and Boston Acoustics speakers) so when I invest in video gear it must offer something fundamentally better than its competitor or previous version.

And as far as older movies which I watch a lot (especially sci-fi), IIRC 35mm film actually has *more* resolution than the 1080 HD format, which explains why those movies can look so awesome on a display that's large enough to reveal HD's advantages, which in my room's case would be a 50" HDTV.

FYI for those new to BD players: every BD player I've read about also plays standard dvds, though I would still use my dvd player to play my dvds just to ease the work load on my (future) BD player.

 

I haven't bought a Blu Ray player yet. I've bought Rocky (my favorite film) enough times for now.

 

"blue rays just another word for sony's screwing you"

 

I promise you, I did know that. Hence, the holographic porn one liner.

 

Number one, the Red Camera is not actually capable of true 4K capture, because it has only a single chip and uses Bayer filtering to derive separate red, green and blue channels. At best, it can barely do 1080, and has significant problems with noise (internal and mechanical) and practical shooting issues. For more, read "The Truth About Pixels," available at this link.

Number two, the enormity of the amount of data and raw horsepower speed required to watch true 4K images is grossly complicated and expensive. I think it's totally unnecessary, at least at the consumer level. 1920x1080 (normal standard def) is actually within about 6% of 2K data, and to me is more than enough for screens under 12' diagonally. In fact, all of the 4K projects I've seen thus far have actually been viewed and processed using 2K proxies -- meaning that the filmmakers haven't actually seen 4K images until it gets bounced to film for the final. Trust me, I've seen A/B comparisons between 1080, 2K, and 4K, and it ain't as big as you think. It's more about the bits than it is about the pixels.

My point is, pining away for a 4K replacement for Blu-ray is an enormous, unnecessary step, at least in my opinion. This is like buying a Toyota Prius today and hoping you'll have a rocket-powered Ferrari in a few years.

The bottom line: I think Blu-ray looks fine and is perfectly adequate as a home video release format. It's light-years better than anything you could buy over the past 10 years, and gets people closer and closer to the look of the original master tape. If and when Blu-ray is replaced, I think what will kill it are high-res data downloads, not a new format per se.

 

Sure, but animation looks good on standard DVDs. Back before HD feeds stores would use Pixar DVDs like "A Bug's Life" to display on the big screens because they knew they'd look good.

 

As I just said in another thread, I'm into audio first. I don't have an HDTV, and I'm not too interested in Blu-Ray video. The thought of getting a Blu-Ray player for the Neil Young set occurred to me, but for what? 24/192 PCM audio? Isn't that what I bought my first DVD-Audio player for in 2000? I have DVD-Audio in two systems, and now I'm supposed to buy into a new format for DVD-Audio resolution?

I'm sure that the Neil Young Blu-Ray set in 24/192 sounds great, but I have little interest in investing in a new format to get it. Enough.

 

A more realistic possibility that could give one pause to take the plunge on Blu-Ray is the prospect of hi-def movies being downloaded or streamed to your TV over the internet.

Hardware is clearly moving in that direction, with the appliance available with Netflix to stream standard definition movies to your TV. And it seems like virtually all the new receivers and players at the mid-to-upper tiers are featuring wireless network connections, which enable streaming content.

Hard drive storage space is pretty much ready in terms of disc sizes and price. All it will take will be some minor improvements to either file compression capabilities or broadband connection speeds and I guarantee that we will be streaming hi-def content over the web and some brave studios may even offer movies for download purchase.

I for one would welcome this. I love Blu-Ray, but its not the physical disc that I'm attached to...it's the fantastic content that I'm after, which could be streamed (for movies that I would have just rented), or downloaded (for movies that I want to own and rewatch).

This, not physical media, is the future, folks and could be the downfall of Blu-Ray unless it establishes a major market presence before disc-less technology takes hold. Due to its massive market footprint, DVD will probably be around for awhile even in the face of web-delivered movies.

 

I haven't seen any James Bond titles for less than $20. . . Where did you get these????

 

Amazon had them on sale a while back, with Vol. 1 & 2 for $30 each. I actually got mine (Vol. 1 & Vol. 2, 3 Blu Rays each, still sealed/new/not a cutout) via eBay for just under $60 - including shipping - for both volumes.

Just keep your eyes open, I've seen them for this price somewhat regularly.

 

Oh, I see. I don't like the way MGM compiles the Bond collections. . . They package a Connery flick with a Moore flick, and finish it with Dalton or Brosnan bargain bin fare. To get the individual Connery movies, it costs $20 each.

 

I think I'll just sit this one out. I don't have an HDTV and won't until mine craps out. I have a couple of DVD players and won't upgrade to Blu Ray - even if my DVDs crap out. Pay per view on cable is how we watch new movies - never go to the video store and don't belong to NetFlix.

 

Again, thinking globally (which is hard to do as so many streaming videos are restricted by your nationality) Australia is at a major disadvantage as our internet is largely restricted to relatively slow DSL. Our available connection speeds are 256k, 1.5Mb, "up to 8Mb" and "up to 24Mb", with the last of those being dependent on whether your ISP of choice has installed the required equipment in the local telephone exchange. All speeds are also subject to the distance of your house from the exchange, as well as the availability of ports at your local telephone exchange.

I don't know how much it would take to stream a HD video but I do know that on our internet connection our fastest average download speed is around 800k with peaks of up to 1000k. This from our 9MB connection. Many Australians don't even get this.

The government is going to install "Fiber To The Home" internet connections over the next five years (all plans and pricing currently unknown) with a guaranteed minimum connection speed of 12MB. Is this enough speed to stream a HD movie? It is a fairly high speed compared to what we are used to. But is it enough for HD video streaming?

Of course, there are people who are working on getting movie streaming and downloads available in Australia. ISP Internode has gone into cahoots with TiVo (which in Australia is run by one of our television companies, the Seven Network, and thus, unsurprisingly, has no automatic ad skip function, nor does it cover pay TV services) to provide movies on demand, although so far they can only provide Blockbuster Video's Movie Of The Week. Internode's solution to the low bandwidth problem is simple: Those who can stream it stream it and those who can't download it overnight and watch it the next day. Currently there is no option to keep the movie if you decide to buy it.

Now I'm not saying streaming and downloading is not the way of the future. As much as I like physical product, it will probably end up this way. It's just that I've been reading about such services offering "Watch what you want when you want" being "just around the corner" since I was thirteen years old (1992). After 17 years, the closest I have found to this is YouTube. And even then, it's not always exactly what I want, it's very low definition and is interrupted every 10 minutes by having to load the next part. I think you can see why, for now at least, I am disillusioned with the promise of video on demand

 

I've made my investment with DVD and, besides, I looooove stretching out old technology to get maximum value out of it.

 

I made the jump to Blu-ray; and am happy with it. DVDs were adequate, but when you jump up to larger screen sizes, they don't always cut it.

I've come to accept that you can't win with technology. You can't sit on sidelines all the time, and you have to jump in once in awhile when you feel like it is something you'll get a lot of use out of, and like.

 

Yes, animation can look good on DVD. But here's an anecdotal data point: When I bought the bluray of "Sleeping Beauty", it came with a free DVD version of the same, so out of curiosity, I compared some key scenes, and frankly, there was no comparison. Scenes that were thrilling and impactful on bluray came across as drab and uninvolving from DVD.

But I must add, I rarely double dip--it just doesn't fit my economic model (I'm cheap).