Why I'm Not Going With Blu-ray

I've been impressed by Blu-Ray and am planning on buying a player. A lower priced player shouldn't represent too much of an investment should the format be superceded. The Bu-Ray demo I watched yesterday on a Sony 46" 1080p, 240 Hz LCD flat panel had an extraordinary 3-D like quality.

 

Best Buy demo? Beware, most of those Sony TV demos are using "frame interpolation" to give an exaggerated smoothing effect between the actual 24 frames-per-second film speed or graphic rendering.

The audio equivalent of using the loudness button

 

Early adopters & audio/video enthusiasts are the people that start trends by embracing the technology in the first place, then other people notice. That's how it trickles down to joe six pack and everyone else. If the very people who are the target audience that should know better keep parroting how unproven superior technology is, of course it will be difficult to prosper.

It's one thing to be content with current technology, that's the prerogative on the end user, but for the life of me, I can't understand the undercurrent of resistance. I would think the prospect of higher audio and video resolution would be a hit among people here. Thought wrong I suppose.

 

"The people here" do not (by and large) represent Joe Average consumer. Trust me- I'm a music nerd and I know I'm not anything like most people who go out buying CDs.

I'm just saying that most people don't care that their movies are presented in Hi-Def with 5.1 sound. The evolution from VHS to DVD provided consumes with much more reason to upgrade.

Now; if someone gave me a 60-inch HDTV, a Blu-Ray player, and a handful of movies for free; I'm sure I'd enjoy the improved picture quality very much.

 

Sure. I agree. I meant people here. Obviously, the forum members here are far from average, which is why the apprehension for adopting blu-ray is surprising to me.

 

If the "with it" people here are apprehensive about adopting to Blu-Ray, that doesn't bode well for the format's sucess (in my opinion, anyway).

Of course; I still buy my music on CDs and don't own an MP3 player and I don't download music, so maybe I'm just odd.

 

I find this whole think amusing, really. Video is about "improved" picture quality (1080P) and $thousands for a big screen and high resolution, yet these same masses will listen to low def MP3s and use the TV speakers for their audio. What?

I am hoping that BlueRay will change all that with video and high rez audio riding on HDMI, and due to convenience alone, people will buy some sort of HT receiver with HDMI in and deal with just one cable to that and one to the set. This will automatically upgrade the sound even if the speakers are poor. These people are about convenience first.

I am all for BlueRay as a format, but not at $30-$40 a disc, but that is changing as we write. I would have never thought that DVDs would be $5 either. Even though 480P is good, it is not BlueRay good even if just at 720P.

Audiowise, it will now be up to Sony to deliver the goods with great combo players with excellent analog outputs that will play all the formats well, BlueRay, DVD, CD, SACD, and great multichannel DD and DTS. People are tired of Sony dropping the ball on their own formats. Those of us who do home theater 2.0 because we are audiophiles and not videophiles should hope this happens.

This is Sony's chance to move HD audio into mainstream video land. With the $500 OPPO BlueRay/multiformat player almost here, price is no longer an issue to excellent audio quality. Sony can do this right along with their PS3...if they were smart. Add SACD back into the player and they could be well on the way.

We should know by the Christmas selling season where this is all headed. Other artists will have to start releasing more HD audio as downloads, SACD, or BlueRay if the industry wants to support an improved music format. A lack of software will really hurt.

With the price of gas going throuigh the roof, again, staying at home could be made more fun if the industry takes notice. The MP3 crowd might just experience what audiophiles have known for decades. Great HD audio should be a great marriage with HDTV. If you have younger children who like gaming, a $399 80 gig PS3 is a no brainer and get the BlueRay player to boot.

 

I'm gonna take this with a large grain of salt from someone who still uses cassette tapes

Personally, I can't WAIT to get a Blue Ray player for my computer and a few of those Neil Young Archives releases. I'm biased though since I'd love to have affordable burnable 50 GB media for my computer. Blue Ray could offer this in the next year or two, while any other technology is still years away.

 

I have a PS3 and usually just rent blu-ray movies from Netflix. I do own a few BD, but those were mainly gifts from friends/family. I think the picture and audio were worth the upgrade, but I bought a PS3 to hedge my bets.

The PS3 can be used to download movies/games, works as a media server, view digital photos, etc... If Bluray fails, and I think it will be a while before it is completely replaced, I still have a machine that has other uses. I think the Oppo has other benefits (especially audio) that help with the decision to upgrade from DVD.

That being said, if you do not watch movies, care about how they sound, and could care less about picture quality and don't have an HDTV, then I would not make the switch either.

 

I care about picture quality- there's nothing I hate worse than a DVD with a bad transfer. But, a DVD with a good transfer (The 2-disc Special Edition of Casablanca, for example- which looks beautiful!) in the proper aspect ratio is all I need.

 

I have never been in the vanguard of technology. I bought my wife a Blu-Ray player for Mother's Day, together with her favorite viewing of all time, the version of "Pride and Prejudice" with Colin Firth in it--which is famous for looking much better in VHS than DVD--the DVD was a disaster for some reason.

So the Blu-Ray discs of this "Pride and Prejudice" filled a useful purpose, as the DVD is unwatchable for a real fan.

We have been shocked at how much better Blu-Ray discs look compared to the (successfully transferred) DVDs of our favorite films. We love Blu-Ray.

Also, all of our DVDs look so much better when played on the Blu-Ray.

We have some DVDs of 1930s English films, which are very grainy and difficult to watch on our DVD player. In the Blu-Ray player, they are much more clear, on an exponential order of magnitude. It is miraculous.

 

Case in point, I want to buy "Gran Torino" on BD. A week after its initial release, the standard DVD is $10 at Target, while the BD is $29.99. I'm really waffling on whether I really want the Blu of this title, given the differential. Sure, the BD will come down in time, still....

If the studios really want the format to fly they should incent people to get on board with deals on software. Unless you're looking for "The Fugitive" or "Swordfish" on BD they're pretty hit-and-miss.

 

What I find disappointing so far about the marketing of the Blu-Ray disc is that there are so few titles available, and almost all of them seem to be action/adventure, horror or sci fi. Just try to find a decent selection of "women's movies" for your wife on Blu-Ray. As for classic films released before 1990, forget it, with a few notable exceptions.

I was told by a clerk that "Gone With The Wind" and "Wizard of Oz" are being released this fall in Blu-Ray, and that the industry thinks this will be like the time when the Beatles catalog was released on CD--the event which causes the masses to switch over big time. He also told me that the studios are getting ready to release a large number of older, classic films on Blu-Ray.

 

I'm with you here. The newest X-Files movie has great blacks, as it is an excellent DVD transfer. A movie I love, Unbreakable, is an awful transfer with pixcel movement in the darkest scenes. This was not a $5 DVD from Walmart.

It is almost the same argument for an audio engineer who messes with the mix down and ruins a great recording. Video transfer engineers are doing it to. There is no video scaler that I know of that can fix some of this. We shouldn't have to. Bad BlueRay discs will definately hurt this format. My Pirates of the C II disc is very good through the PS3.

My set is a Philips 720P 42" LCD, but plenty good enough for me. Now, you can buy full 1080P versions for what I paid a year and a half ago. That set was nearly the same price as my top of the line Sony std def. tube set of 7 years ago.

 

When people "against" blu-rays on here quote prices I think you have to cut their number in half and then you have close to the actual non retail price that you can really find them for. It is true Best Buy/Target/Walmart is not the place to buy blu-rays at right now although once in a while they have a decent sale on them.

 

Of course, there are some BD movies that sell for more than the DVD . Whether or not the extra money is worth spending is really up to you. However, I would just wait a week or so for the price to fall and grab it then. If you are buying a movie for your library, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to buy the inferior version...unless it is a movie that doesn't benefit from better sound and video.

That being said, I usually just rent BDs. For classics, like Wizard of OZ (mentioned above), I would rather pay a little extra and have the highest quality version in my library.

No one is saying you should have more than you need. However, if you wanted the best quality available today, you would want to own it on Blu-ray. Similarly, if people are happy with low bit rate mp3s and think they sound great, then who am I to argue?

 

1) It's tough to find a lot of 50% off specials; they exist, but 20-30% is more typical.

2) I'M NOT AGAINST BLU-RAY! I have player, and I friggin' LOVE it - I'm much more impressed with the format than I expected.

Because I love it doesn't mean I don't notice prices, though. Cripes, I don't even BUY the damned things, so from my point of view, prices are irrelevant - the Blu-rays I get come to me for free. That doesn't mean I don't realize that the discs are pretty pricey, though...

 

It's 24.99 @ Amazon, if that helps. Add that there's no sales tax w/Amazon, the spread gets a little closer.

 

DVD isn't a format capable or worthy of conveying the great transfers. I don't have the Casablanca BD but I do have the HD-DVD and it's stunning. By all accounts the BD is too. DVD is the relative equivalent of MP3 audio.

I thought DVD was a flawed format from the start and just bridge technology. The bridge across the river is complete now. BD out classes LD and DVD in every way possible.

I rented John Adams on DVD a few months back. The PQ was dismal and audio hard to hear. I loved the content though. I viewed the first 2 parts this morning on my newly purchased BD set and the difference is remarkable. The video noise is gone and dialog crisp.

DVD is a dead end. The water is wide. It's now the new VHS. I might add that you have no idea how good, in absolute terms, how superb the Casablanca transfer looks, it would appear.

 

There are several indicators that the major movie studios are "dumbing down" the bitrate and disc size of new standard DVD releases to DVD-5 (i.e. 4.7GB as opposed to 8.5GB) to futher separate the apparent picture quality differences between DVD and Blu-ray.

 

I believe that. I think they were having a hard enough time making DVD's look good even before this developement.

 

They havn't had a problem making them look good to me.. and many others who aren't adapting to the latest 'n greatest...

 

You've proably stayed behind on display technology, and you're damn lucky or unlucky, dependin' on your point of view, to not have "eagle" eyes...

 

DVDs look fine to me. Video is not my main interest, and DVD quality is more than good enough for me.

 

If you can limit yourself to a 36", old school tube-type TV (as I do), then DVD is fine. IMO, blu ray is only worth it if you have a BIG HD flat screen.