Why I'm Not Going With Blu-ray

I have a 4 year old 50" TV that does 720p/1080i.

I've been trying a Sony Blu-Ray on loan the last couple of weeks.

Haven't watched a ton of movies yet but so far, though I see and can appreciate the difference, I'm not sure if it's enough to jump into another format, especially since we don't actually watch DVDs that often (3 or 4 times a month).
My Denon 3930 still looks pretty damn good on DVD (the Sony doesn't match it on standard DVDs), and considering I have a couple of hundered DVDs, I'm leaning towards taking a pass and returning the Sony before my 30 days is up.
Plus, I'm not sure dts MA and/or Dolby True HD sound that much better.

 

now i feel even smarter for investing in one of these:


PIONEER DV-09 DVD PLAYER (1998)

 

That's an excellent question, and I was a non-believer myself until I actually experienced first-hand some older films on Blu-ray. Go to a Web site like DVDBeaver that routinely reviews and compares Blu-ray and DVD editions of films. Check out their comparison of Casablanca or The Third Man or Dr. Strangelove or The Day The Earth Stood Still and see if you can observe (and appreciate) the difference afforded by the increased detail and higher resolution of the Blu-ray version. Be sure to click on the Blu-ray captures to enlarge them to full resolution. Myself, I can see the difference, and even my wife, who is usually oblivious to such things, has also commented on the difference. Now whether it is enough of a difference for you personally to justify the expense of going Blu-ray, that is a question only you can answer.

BTW and FWIW, Gone With The Wind is supposedly coming out on BD sometime later this year.

Cheers,

 

I'm going to skip right over blue ray as well. For one I don't have a tv worthy and DVD's are just fine. I will love it when DVD'd go on closeout prices, and gather up a crap load for dirt cheap!

I have seen regular DVD's on 40+ inch LCD's and with a up-convert DVD player they look and sound fine to me. So that's the route I will take for a while. I mean come on, I only bought my first DVD maybe not even 10 years ago. That's too short for a media format to stay. Or at least require a complete replacement.

 

It does not require a complete replacement. When you buy a Blu-ray player you can get new movies on Blu-ray and replace only those old movies which are worth the upgrade. Not all are.

 

4K Race

>>>>>>You could be right. Some very smart scientists are saying that the big thing is going to be 3D TV (without the goofy glasses) , because its such a quantum leap over what we have now. I tend to agree. Its something I would buy even if it were very expesnsive.

 

When it gets to the point where releases are only coming out in blu-ray, that will be the time to switch over.

 

I admit to having 3 Blu players (yipes) but am policing my purchases-- I only buy new releases on Blu and am upgrading only those few titles I consider to be "desert island" discs (i.e. "Being There"). Honestly, Blu is terrific.. but DVD is just fine for many things, and given its ubiquity and reliability, it should be around for a long time.

On many older films, at least to my eyes, the difference between Blu and DVD is rather marginable -- better yes, but nothing to hold a parade over. That said, if given a choice on future purchases, I'll opt for Blu.

 

The disparaging comments on this thread regarding blu-ray sound very similar to the comments about wide-screen dvd movies a few years back. Or even when DVD's were replacing video tape. People don't like change even when it's clearly for the better.

Here is a format (blu) that is backwards COMPATIBLE with existing DVD's, actually takes advantage of the high resolution of newer tv's, and is (relatively & subjectively) affordable.

Ah, heck with it. If you're happy with your DVD's, VHS tapes, 8-tracks, & Commodore 64's then more power to ya. The day will come though when the advantages will be obvious and you'll wonder why you waited so long.



Way to stir the pot, Kat.

 

DVD are fine for me, no Full HD TV or big screen, Blue Ray can wait

 

If that were true, then DVD wouldn't have done as well as it it has - or CDs before that.

I don't remember "disparaging comments" about DVD over VHS. Oh, in the early days of DVD, some LD partisans were loathe to move on, but I recall nothing negative about DVD from the VHS folks.

There are many reasons a lot of folks aren't moving from DVD to Blu-ray. Lots of people have smaller TVs on which the difference isn't particularly prominent. Lots of people just don't care about the quality difference anyway - they got into DVD for reasons other than quality. And many just don't want to bother to buy their favorite movies AGAIN.

The move from VHS to DVD was revolutionary, while the move from DVD to Blu-ray is evolutionary. Blu-ray has done well but it's always going to be a niche market - too many people are too happy with DVD...

 

I, for one, did not "disparage" Blu-ray.. I support it (maybe I need 5 players to be a "supporter"?) What I, and others, have suggested is that at some point you stop buying upgrades of movies you've already bought several times. The upgrade from Laserdisc to DVD was huge--- especially when it comes to anamorphic presentation of widescreen films. Blu looks better, to be sure, but it's not a quantum leap in many cases, IMO, especially at 2-3X (or more) the cost of a DVD.

 

I think the negative comments about DVD came from those who were upset that they would have to buy new players. Again, many people don't like change, whatever it is. To them, change means spending some money.

We definitely know about this because of the state of the sound quality of music!

.

Many people are content watching old CRT televisions, like some on this very forum.

Having a single DVD to fit a whole movie that it took two VHS tapes to hold was revolutionary. With DVD, there is no rewind time, you get better picture and sound, no tape snarling or snapping, no accidental erasure from stray magnets, discs take less space, and they are more portable. But, to this day, you get people who actively look for VHS tapes because they don't want to step up to digital. I get a few older people who get agitated that the latest release isn't on VHS!, just as they still prefer to buy music on compact cassettes. Yup, there are still people who have not moved to CD, and not because of sound quality issues. There's just something about digital that annoys some people. Either that, or I live in a very backward area.

I can't say Blu-ray will always be a niche market item. I'm seeing all kinds of "average" consumers buying blu-ray. I get requests for it all the time. Because of the current economic situation, and that people have built huge libraries of DVDs, the migration to blu-ray has been slower than I think it otherwise would have been. But, give it time. It will improve. Like I said, when you can no longer get the latest release on DVD, it will be time to move to it. Players can already be had for around $100. Price is a good indicator of something becoming a commodity. One can make the same argument about SACD, but I say that blu-ray is different because movies appeal to more people than music alone.

Holographic discs? I'm on a wait-and-see mode. That might be a niche item.

 

Other than "loss leader"/"Black Friday"-style specials, where have you seen a Blu-ray player for $100? $250-$300 is typical...

 

I'm seeing the cost of blu-ray disc movies almost equal to that of DVDs. It's becoming a non-issue.

 

Not for old movies, at least not here in Europe. Most DVDs are sold at discount prices.

5 GBP ($8) is the price for most DVDs with older movies at Amazon.co.uk. Blu-ray discs are 9-15 GBP ($15-25).

 

Really? I don't see that. Blu-rays are almost always more expensive, and sometimes they're WAY more expensive - especially with catalog titles. For instance, you can get "Wayne's World" and "Wayne's World 2" together on DVD for $15 MSRP. If you buy the Blu-rays, it's $60 MSRP! The new "Ghostbusters" Blu-ray costs almost twice the MSRP of the DVD.

It's next to impossible to find catalog titles that are similarly priced on Blu-ray and DVD...

 

I'm very picky on which Blu-rays I buy because of the prices. I'm more into new releases than catalog at this point unless the Blu-ray is a gigantic improvement.

 

Well, I just jumped on the Blu-Ray bandwagon with the new Oppo, but I'm not going to be repurchasing movies I already own, just like I never replaced my laser discs. They're still there, and are occassionally watched.

Really, I don't have much time for movies anyway. The only upgrades I will probably do are the Lord of the Rings (when the expanded versions finally come out) and maybe the Monty Python movies I still have on LD. Stuff I don't already have, however, I will try to get Blu-Ray.

 

We must shop at different stores then. I posted a few examples earlier... for example, Led Zep's Song Remains the Same at Amazon is $19.99 on DVD but the Blu Ray is only $11.49.

There's deals to be had with a little looking (regardless of what the MSRP is).

 

Well, I go to Wal-Mart to do my walking because of my allergies (if I don't have some allergy meds, I need to stay indoors as much as possible or I won't breathe later), and they're currently carrying a bargain-basement Magnavox Blu-Ray player for $128. That's not a clearance price, either, it's their current price for the player. They had a pallet full of the things.

The local King Soopers chain (owned by Kroger) has also started carrying a small amount of Blu-Ray discs in their DVD section.

I know, I know, it's anecdotal and doesn't mean much, but I do think Blu-Ray might be slowly starting to take off.

 

Walmart is currently promoting a $128 Magnavox Blu-ray player, while several other entry-level players now start around $179 and up. This is similar to DVD player pricing prior to it reaching critical mass.

With the the DTV transition (finally!) occurring, I think the fact that many people have upgraded to new HDTV's in preparation will help to spur sales of Blu-ray players, too. Blu-ray and HDTV certainly make for a winning audio-video combination IMO. As always, YMMV.

EDIT-- Whoops! looks like Scott M. beat me to it...

 

Sure, it was true. Shortly after DVD came out titles were usually Full Screen or Widescreen. A few disks actually had both on the same disk, but this was the exception. And people moaned when they accidentally got the widescreen version and played it on their 4:3 tv's - half of the picture was replaced by "black bars". And most poeple said they weren't going to update their TV's "just to play these new disks"; vhs was fine.

And when DVD's were becoming popular many people had the same complaints I'm seeing on this thread about replacing their library of video tapes. At least THEN they had a real gripe - video tapes were NOT compatible with their new DVD players.

I'm not sure what you consider a niche market, but blu-ray is already way more than a niche market. Millions of players have been sold and more will continue to sell. New AF CD releases of 5000 are a niche market, as are MFSL releases. Blu-ray may be a slow starter but it's doing well - imho way better than SACD or DVD-Audio ever did. Starting off with a format war with HD-DVD sure didn't help the cause any, but at least that's settled. There are already thousands of blu-ray titles out there, old and new.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/

 

No, it's a special:

"Wal-Mart's Black Friday-style bargain for the Magnavox NB500MGX player begins June 14, and the deal runs through June 20. It's part of a larger Father's Day promotion that includes two-for-$20 Blu-ray movie bundles."

So it IS their "current price", but it won't be in another week!

 

Yes, there are, but the only fair way to compare prices is by going with MSRP. Amazon has the $29 Blu-ray for 60% off but is only offering 5% off the $21 DVD. The Blu-ray is still 33% more expensive than the DVD when you look at MSRP - and since ACTUAL prices vary radically, that's the only logical way to compare...