High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

Blu-ray Enthusiasts Alone Can't Save the Format

eHDMI
11-15-2008, 12:13 AM
HDTV owners like Blu-ray best when it comes to putting something up on the big, expensive screen. That was the most notable message from a survey of HDTV owners released today by the Digital Entertainment Group.

Story (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/daves-download/2008/11/14/blu-ray-enthusiasts-alone-cant-save-the-format.html)

tvine2000
11-15-2008, 06:16 AM
Story (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/daves-download/2008/11/14/blu-ray-enthusiasts-alone-cant-save-the-format.html)

why in the world do you keep posting crap like this.
blu-ray is doing fine inspite of these survey's.
don't you get it,all news media has a agenda,in this case,they hate blu-ray so they bend the truth anyway they want.plus they are paid real good to it.
the ce's are still makeing bd players,the studio's are releaseing more titles every week[look at the release list for 11/18/08]
until that changes,stop spreading misinfromation,and enjoy you hobby,or get a ipod

Loves2Watch
11-15-2008, 08:17 AM
why in the world do you keep posting crap like this.
blu-ray is doing fine inspite of these survey's.
don't you get it,all news media has a agenda,in this case,they hate blu-ray so they bend the truth anyway they want.plus they are paid real good to it.
the ce's are still makeing bd players,the studio's are releaseing more titles every week[look at the release list for 11/18/08]
until that changes,stop spreading misinfromation,and enjoy you hobby,or get a ipod

This shows just how misinformed you are.

eHDMI
11-15-2008, 12:27 PM
All I do is pass on news stories and let people discuss them. I own a PS3 and love it. I'm taking a view either way on it.

brant
11-15-2008, 12:32 PM
its not crap. its the news, and its the truth. i don't own blu-ray and will not own a blu-ray anytime soon. it it were less than $100, i might buy one. The cost of the discs would have to decrease as well. The DVD player connected to my high-def tv upconverts to 1080i and cost me $30; its not blu-ray, but it definitely has a good picture. You can buy new DVD's for $10 now. I personally don't know anyone who does own a blu-ray player. I would be much more willing to pay for an internet based subscription service with HD content. I have an all HD satellite service now so i do have HD content. If i didn't have an HD tv service, i probably would be more willing to buy blu-ray just to see some type of high-def on my tv. the bottom line with me is that i don't think blu-ray is worth the cost.

JoeRoscoe
11-15-2008, 05:26 PM
When the digital transition happens we'll get a better feel for BluRay's staying power. Note...

PS3 is the best selling BluRay player, which could also be it's Achilles Heel, as it appeals more to teen and young adult set than the more upscale home theater owner who will ultimately determine HighDef video's future.

VuDu, NetflixHD and VOD, among others, will pose a stern test to BluRay's dominance as package free media appeals to all HD suppliers from a cost standpoint, several problems need to addressed, such as DRM and storage (for those who wish to own their media) but none of these are insurmountable.

HD video streaming can offer several thousand titles (at least) all selectable without the need to leave home or the use of snail-mail and lossless sound can be streamed as well (for those who demand the best audiio).

Most households in the U.S. have cable and/or dish as their primary HD source, and as such the basic needs are already in place.

Tivo-type units will offer storage capacities of 1 to 2 1/2 terabytes in the near future and 100 gig (or more) flash-drives are possible, and being discussed are web-site storage for your purchased media (video and/or audio) to free you from the worry of in-home equipment failure or changes as technology improves.

BluRay right now offers the best performance for the buck, but the times they are a-changing and the digital transition will usher in a whole new world of possibilities. :)

Chris Gerhard
11-15-2008, 05:37 PM
The story makes no sense, of course enthusiasts can keep Blu-ray well and alive. DVD is going nowhere and people like Brant don't think Blu-ray is worth the cost and who cares? I certainly don't. Better informed people that have seen it first hand know it is a great quality product and a great value. Not everybody is going to purchase the product, some don't care about quality and that is their right. DVD is very good, it just pales in comparison to Blu-ray. Blu-ray prices have dropped like a rock but it is more expensive to make and better than DVD so it will always be priced higher as it should be. The day the market decides better quality is not worth more money is the day we quit seeing competition to build better products. With every day that passes the more certain I am that Blu-ray and DVD are both going to survive for years and both likely end their runs simultaneously.

Chris

JoeRoscoe
11-15-2008, 07:39 PM
I'm not so sure that Brant is intirely wrong in this, Chris, a WELL calibrated HDTV using a really good quality SD-DVD upscaler can produce pictures that the casual viewer would find hard to distinguish from a BluRay (or HD-DVD, which I have) source.

I've tested this several times, with friends, using my Sony KV-34HS420 HDTV as the viewing source and only the most savvy (or eagle-eyed) observer could notice a difference between them. (Case in point, Transformers in SD-DVD and HD-DVD discs, played on a Toshiba HD-A2 player in my dedicated home theater set-up).

I admit my equipment isn't state-of-art, but that Sony Wega CRT-based set is one of the best I've seen and I've seen many in my search for the best affordable HDTV be it LCD, Plasma, or CRT. (The key word being affordable).

I also must mention that the Wega imploy's a function known as DRC (Digital Reality Creation) which replaces the NTSC waveform with the HD equivalent (a glorified line doubler, which is non-defeatable in this set). Since this treats both the SD and HD signal this may not be a fair test. It seems to work very well.

I use both the Avia II and Joe Kane's wonderful (if complicated) Digital Video Essentials HD-DVD set-up disc's as calibration instruments. While neither of these will give ISF calibration results they come fairly close.

One of these friends has a Panasonic Plasma (a TH-42PZ80U) and he grudgingly admits this Sony is it's equal in picture quality, (though I think the Sony is better).

All of this is highly speculative, of course, but beauty is in "The Eye Of The Beholder" (pun).

JoeRoscoe
11-15-2008, 09:29 PM
I'll just add my :2cents worth here...

You will never see BluRay players and media, at what you can buy SD players and media for now. :(

The DVD Forum set licensing and royalty fee's for what is now known as SD-DVD. :)

Sony sets licensing and royalty fee's for BluRay and that structure is very ridgid compared to the DVD Forum standards. :(

Sony would like nothing better than to see SD-DVD stop and BR become the only "optical" disc format. :(

That won't happen as Sony has as many foes, as they do friends, in the optical disc trade. :)

Ultimately, the end user (i.e. us the consumer) will decide and Sony has no control over that. :)

brant
11-16-2008, 09:49 PM
DVD is going nowhere and people like Brant don't think Blu-ray is worth the cost and who cares? I certainly don't. Better informed people that have seen it first hand know it is a great quality product and a great value.


so i'm an uninformed dumbass because i don't want to spend a few hundred bucks on something that i won't get any more satisfaction out of than my standard DVD player? i never said it wasn't a higher quality picture, and i stand 100% behind my comment that it is not worth the cost. if you were right, we wouldn't be seeing so many of these articles and blu-ray's numbers would be a little higher, don't you think? as for enthusiasts keeping it alive, think laser-disc. Better informed people know when they're getting shafted.

hatt
11-16-2008, 10:20 PM
I'm not sure why people with no interest in high definition media are so vocal about their non interest in high definition media. Do you guys have a hard time sleeping knowing people enjoy something you don't?

Rich_Guy
11-16-2008, 10:36 PM
I'll just add my :2cents worth here...

You will never see BluRay players and media, at what you can buy SD players and media for now. :(



You do realize that originally VCRs and the movies for them sold for more than Blu-ray does now. As the format ages and grows more popular the price comes down.

While no one knows whats in store for the future it is very possible that one day Blu-ray may completely replace std DVD and be priced as low. For now Blu-ray is the best and those who want it will pay the premium until the mainstream brings the price down.

Rich_Guy
11-16-2008, 10:39 PM
I'm not sure why people with no interest in high definition media are so vocal about their non interest in high definition media. Do you guys have a hard time sleeping knowing people enjoy something you don't?

Pretty funny isn't it.

hoorta
11-17-2008, 03:15 AM
so i'm an uninformed dumbass because i don't want to spend a few hundred bucks on something that i won't get any more satisfaction out of than my standard DVD player? i never said it wasn't a higher quality picture, and i stand 100% behind my comment that it is not worth the cost. if you were right, we wouldn't be seeing so many of these articles and blu-ray's numbers would be a little higher, don't you think? as for enthusiasts keeping it alive, think laser-disc. Better informed people know when they're getting shafted.

To each their own. Personally, I'll find it real interesting how low the price of a BluRay player will be on Black Friday. I've heard $120 for a legacy 1.0 @ Wal Mart. FWIW, I've bought Blu Ray titles without the player, and I'm jumping on the Panasonic 2.0 35K @ $240 before the end of the year, regardless.

Joe Las Vegas
11-17-2008, 04:59 AM
why in the world do you keep posting crap like this.
blu-ray is doing fine inspite of these survey's.
don't you get it,all news media has a agenda,in this case,they hate blu-ray so they bend the truth anyway they want.plus they are paid real good to it.
the ce's are still makeing bd players,the studio's are releaseing more titles every week[look at the release list for 11/18/08]
until that changes,stop spreading misinfromation,and enjoy you hobby,or get a ipod

I kind of agree with you, but don't shoot he messenger, blame the media and their "surveys" Blu-ray discs have a place now that many tv's are 16x9 and 1080p, and with a BD you can get true 7.1 sound, so put all this together and you get the best cinematic experience that can be had, so IMO there is a place for Blu-Ray discs for the future.

JoeRoscoe
11-17-2008, 11:23 AM
Of course Rich, when VHS was launched it was at the top of the price pyramid...Players routinely cost $1500.00 or more and blank VHS tapes cost as high as $39.95, extremely costly even by today's standards, and this did not include Sony which as we know was pushing their own BetaMax format, but there-in lies the rub, consider this...

Even when it became apparent that Sony lost the video tape war, Sony NEVER discounted BetaMax, retailers did, as a way to reduce or eliminate BetaMax from their inventory.

Sony NEVER discounted Sony MiniDisc, even when it was apparent that it failed to catch the consumer's interest, prices remained steep as other storage media passed it by. Just try to find them now and when you do they are still quite costly.

Sony rarely offer corporate discounts, some retailers would rather return them than do discounts, as their profit margin is narrow to begin with.

Sony's corporate leaders have been there many years, and discounting is not part of there corporate lexacon, they seem to prefer other incentives to assist retailers.

Time is the potential enemy here...Sony itself gives the BR format a 10 year life span and also believes this to be the last optical format...remember that when VHS came out over 30 years ago there was no internet, and when DVD came out most people had 56K modems which made video streaming completely impractical so your choices were limited and competition breeds value. Make no mistake, high quality video streaming is here and won't go away, in time it will not only change the playing field, it will completely destroy it. :2cents

sigill
11-17-2008, 05:16 PM
I'm not sure why people with no interest in high definition media are so vocal about their non interest in high definition media. Do you guys have a hard time sleeping knowing people enjoy something you don't? I think people know how much better BD is than SD-DVD and i think criticizing it makes them feel better. Who wouldn't want better picture and sound? We early adopters will keep BD going until the prices go down and then the mainstream consumer will jump on board!!

HD Goofnut
11-17-2008, 10:23 PM
I think people know how much better BD is than SD-DVD and i think criticizing it makes them feel better. Who wouldn't want better picture and sound? We early adopters will keep BD going until the prices go down and then the mainstream consumer will jump on board!!

I think we'll know if that's the case by this time next year.

sigill
11-18-2008, 03:09 PM
I think we'll know if that's the case by this time next year.
Indeed, i think 2009 has to be blu-rays year. IMO i think BD disc sales need to be hitting 20-25% on a regular basis by the end of next year.

HD Goofnut
11-18-2008, 05:01 PM
Indeed, i think 2009 has to be blu-rays year. IMO i think BD disc sales need to be hitting 20-25% on a regular basis by the end of next year.

I agree and not just the top titles of each week, but the entire comparison of BD to SD DVD from week to week.

brant
11-18-2008, 06:11 PM
I think people know how much better BD is than SD-DVD and i think criticizing it makes them feel better. Who wouldn't want better picture and sound? We early adopters will keep BD going until the prices go down and then the mainstream consumer will jump on board!!

nobody is arguing the quality of blu-ray; its the cost. And with upconverted DVD's meeting most people's viewing needs, including my own, for prices much less than blu-ray, why switch?

HD Goofnut
11-18-2008, 06:22 PM
nobody is arguing the quality of blu-ray; its the cost. And with upconverted DVD's meeting most people's viewing needs, including my own, for prices much less than blu-ray, why switch?

It's like Coke, once you've had it you really don't want to go back to Sam's Choice Cola. At least it's that way for myself.:D

hatt
11-18-2008, 06:25 PM
nobody is arguing the quality of blu-ray; its the cost. And with upconverted DVD's meeting most people's viewing needs, including my own, for prices much less than blu-ray, why switch?
A whopping $1 more a month for me to watch all the available BDs. I know, I'm a big spender, what can I say. :cool:

I agree that if $128-250 for the purchase of a player is a big deal and likely to impact paying bills, BD is a bad option. You probably shouldn't be buying or renting DVD at that point however, and canceling cable/sat/text messaging plan/etc in order to save that money for essentials.

rcoleman11
11-18-2008, 11:27 PM
HD video streaming can offer several thousand titles (at least) all selectable without the need to leave home or the use of snail-mail and lossless sound can be streamed as well (for those who demand the best audiio).


Only problem is that you can't leave home with any of those titles. :)

HD Goofnut
11-19-2008, 06:33 AM
Only problem is that you can't leave home with any of those titles. :)

And you have only a small window of time to watch them with no HD audio.

Chris Gerhard
11-19-2008, 07:41 AM
so i'm an uninformed dumbass because i don't want to spend a few hundred bucks on something that i won't get any more satisfaction out of than my standard DVD player? i never said it wasn't a higher quality picture, and i stand 100% behind my comment that it is not worth the cost. if you were right, we wouldn't be seeing so many of these articles and blu-ray's numbers would be a little higher, don't you think? as for enthusiasts keeping it alive, think laser-disc. Better informed people know when they're getting shafted.

I have both Blu-ray and DVD to form my opinion that Blu-ray is worth the cost and many millions of people already agree with me and own Blu-ray. Many millions more will purchase it next year. DVD is fine, I like it and use it but your argument that Blu-ray isn't worth the cost is specific to you and is wrong for people that want a better product and are willing to pay for it. Why bother with offering opinions on products you don't own and know very little about at a high def forum where the discussion is about high definition? I don't go to a forum about Harley Davidson with my opinion that a standard bicycle is a better value and better for me specifically. I recognize a lot of people want a motorcycle and one that has a loud vroommmmm is what Harley owners want.

This article is poorly supported, Blu-ray will be around many years after the author has nothing more to say about it. Enthusiasts are going to keep Blu-ray alive, the number of enthusiasts already owning a Blu-ray player is over 20,000,000 worldwide and that might double in the next couple of years. DVD will still be much bigger but that doesn't mean that Blu-ray is going anywhere but continue to grow.

Chris

Nikopol
11-19-2008, 07:41 AM
nobody is arguing the quality of blu-ray; its the cost. And with upconverted DVD's meeting most people's viewing needs, including my own, for prices much less than blu-ray, why switch?

Because it's the better DVD. :D

Why are people replacing their older HDTVs, the old tv's also showed an HD picture.....

tvine2000
11-19-2008, 08:06 AM
The story makes no sense, of course enthusiasts can keep Blu-ray well and alive. DVD is going nowhere and people like Brant don't think Blu-ray is worth the cost and who cares? I certainly don't. Better informed people that have seen it first hand know it is a great quality product and a great value. Not everybody is going to purchase the product, some don't care about quality and that is their right. DVD is very good, it just pales in comparison to Blu-ray. Blu-ray prices have dropped like a rock but it is more expensive to make and better than DVD so it will always be priced higher as it should be. The day the market decides better quality is not worth more money is the day we quit seeing competition to build better products. With every day that passes the more certain I am that Blu-ray and DVD are both going to survive for years and both likely end their runs simultaneously.

Chris

but chris this has been like this since day one.
the doom &gloom bunch.every step of the way,theres a bunch that would rather buy into surveys and polls,some like ehdmi claims he or she''just'' reports the news story's'',thats fine,but some like me will stick my :2cents too.my point is i just point blank don't trust the news media,never have ,never will!
i take them with a ton of salt.so far they have been wrong about blu-ray.lots of people here said blu-ray players will take years to come down in price....wrong!
as far as movies you don't have to buy them ,rent them,or go shopping theres great deals out there.
my point is report the bad story's about blu-ray,but report the good story's too.
if ehdmi can't do that,then theres a hidden agenda going on and you where they can stick that!

Onkyo606
11-19-2008, 12:57 PM
My first VCR costs $588.00 on sale with a wired remote, and blank VHS cassettes were $24.95. My boss paid $900.00 for a Sony DVD player 10? years ago, and titles were $25.00 up. By Christmas, the 2nd tier BR's will be less than $200.00, and I see more discs under $25.00 all the time. Next year?

brant
11-19-2008, 01:33 PM
t your argument that Blu-ray isn't worth the cost is specific to you and is wrong for people that want a better product and are willing to pay for it. Why bother with offering opinions on products you don't own and know very little about at a high def forum where the discussion is about high definition?


obviously my argument is not specific to me or there wouldn't be so many articles about how poorly blu-ray is doing. I chimed in because some attacked the OP about posting such an article and called it crap; i simply gave the perspective of someone who agreed with the article. I have an HD tv and I have HD programming; HD is not something i'm oblivious to. how can you say i know very little about blu-ray when he haven't discussed the specifics of the format, only quality? I have eyes; i can see the picture and so far, that's about as specific as it has been. so, you want to try your hand at coming up with a relevant argument? its an open forum; i can type what i like. if you have a problem with it, go elsewhere. :yippee:

btw, i've noted in another post similar to this that i would purchase blu-ray if the costs were more inline with those of current DVD's players. I don't care that its not the same technology, the price can come down. my first DVD player was almost $600; my last was $30. My first DVD was $40, the last I purchased was less than $10, new, at wal-mart.

Chris Gerhard
11-19-2008, 02:15 PM
obviously my argument is not specific to me or there wouldn't be so many articles about how poorly blu-ray is doing. I chimed in because some attacked the OP about posting such an article and called it crap; i simply gave the perspective of someone who agreed with the article. I have an HD tv and I have HD programming; HD is not something i'm oblivious to. how can you say i know very little about blu-ray when he haven't discussed the specifics of the format, only quality? I have eyes; i can see the picture and so far, that's about as specific as it has been. so, you want to try your hand at coming up with a relevant argument? its an open forum; i can type what i like. if you have a problem with it, go elsewhere. :yippee:

btw, i've noted in another post similar to this that i would purchase blu-ray if the costs were more inline with those of current DVD's players. I don't care that its not the same technology, the price can come down. my first DVD player was almost $600; my last was $30. My first DVD was $40, the last I purchased was less than $10, new, at wal-mart.

In case you haven't noticed there are also many articles with a positive point of view about Blu-ray and despite 3 years of articles claiming that Blu-ray is doing poorly, it is still with us and doing fine. Your opinion is nothing more than your opinion, the facts are simple, Blu-ray has survived the idiotic format war and stands alone for the market that wants the best possible source for their HDTV and as HDTV market penetration grows so will Blu-ray. It is here to stay and if you think differently, you might come back in a couple of years and admit you were wrong. DVD is so good that the market won't move 100% to Blu-ray like it moved away from VHS to DVD, but enough of the market is going to own Blu-ray that nothing any of the detractors offer can have any impact at all. Blu-ray is front and center at the Best Buy stores I visit and Wal-Mart has expanded their Blu-ray sections greatly this year and offers players from Magnavox, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and sometimes Philips. Any further price drops for Blu-ray players and recent release films will be very minor going forward. The profits are miniscule already and competition has driven prices down to levels nobody was predicting in 2007, much less when the product was introduced in 2006.

You think it is too high, don't buy it, I think it is a great value. If you don't buy it, it won't matter, it will do fine without you.

Chris

brant
11-20-2008, 08:31 PM
You think it is too high, don't buy it, I think it is a great value. If you don't buy it, it won't matter, it will do fine without you.


really? :huh

i'm not making an argument that i want to buy it; where did you miss that? i have no plans of purchasing one anytime soon. you should go to page 1 to see just how this argument started. someone posted an article about floundering blu-ray sales, another member attacked him for posting that, and i chimed in with an agreeing opinion of the article. suddenly i'm the a-hole because i agreed with the author. God forbid someone disagree that blu-ray is the greatest thing ever; sure its a great picture, but not at the current cost. and yes that's my opinion, just like your's belongs to you and is no more valuable than mine.

tvine2000
11-21-2008, 09:46 AM
so i'm an uninformed dumbass because i don't want to spend a few hundred bucks on something that i won't get any more satisfaction out of than my standard DVD player? i never said it wasn't a higher quality picture, and i stand 100% behind my comment that it is not worth the cost. if you were right, we wouldn't be seeing so many of these articles and blu-ray's numbers would be a little higher, don't you think? as for enthusiasts keeping it alive, think laser-disc. Better informed people know when they're getting shafted.

brant your so wrong and time will prove you wrong.
others and i don't have to prove anything,were enjoying blu-ray now
better then broadcast hd,better then hd downloads.
by the way this thread is aaaaaa blu-ray!
go to sd dvd to make your feelings known

oblioman
11-21-2008, 05:17 PM
really? :huh

i'm not making an argument that i want to buy it; where did you miss that? i have no plans of purchasing one anytime soon. you should go to page 1 to see just how this argument started. someone posted an article about floundering blu-ray sales, another member attacked him for posting that, and i chimed in with an agreeing opinion of the article. suddenly i'm the a-hole because i agreed with the author. God forbid someone disagree that blu-ray is the greatest thing ever; sure its a great picture, but not at the current cost. and yes that's my opinion, just like your's belongs to you and is no more valuable than mine.

You be not an A-hole and this forum is full of great discussion. The one point about this forum is that it's the - High Def forum, and not the standard def or upconverted forum. We are all about High definition and dollar for dollar, blue ray is the consumers cheapest route to great hd. Upconverted dvd's may look better than standard def, but the sound is still the same. Streamed, cable, sat, all have a degree of compression that reduce pic quality. One thing that consumers really should pay attention to is the outstanding audio that BD and HD DVD deliver - upconverting does nothing for the audio.

smitty5569
11-22-2008, 05:14 AM
interesting

Chris Gerhard
11-22-2008, 06:54 AM
interesting

Not really, but it is funny.

Chris

tvine2000
11-26-2008, 12:19 PM
I think people know how much better BD is than SD-DVD and i think criticizing it makes them feel better. Who wouldn't want better picture and sound? We early adopters will keep BD going until the prices go down and then the mainstream consumer will jump on board!!

and sony,universal agree with you.
they are very aware early adopters and said almost word for word what you just said,

PFC5
11-26-2008, 07:13 PM
You be not an A-hole and this forum is full of great discussion. The one point about this forum is that it's the - High Def forum, and not the standard def or upconverted forum. We are all about High definition and dollar for dollar, blue ray is the consumers cheapest route to great hd. Upconverted dvd's may look better than standard def, but the sound is still the same. Streamed, cable, sat, all have a degree of compression that reduce pic quality. One thing that consumers really should pay attention to is the outstanding audio that BD and HD DVD deliver - upconverting does nothing for the audio.

How the hell are you Oblioman? :hithere:

I hope you and the misses have a happy Thanksgiving! :)

JohninTenn
11-26-2008, 07:44 PM
I see both sides. I'm really glad to see there are people that have the disposable cash to replace their movie library. Bur that ain't me. If I had to replace 500+ titles I would be sleeping in my bass boat. Now any new ones I buy will be HD. We all have our toys. Some of you would think I'm crazy for paying $150+ for a fishing reel.. I fall in the high tech redneck category. There is room for all of us here if the new pres doesn't tax us to death.

hoorta
11-29-2008, 02:12 AM
I see both sides. I'm really glad to see there are people that have the disposable cash to replace their movie library. Bur that ain't me. If I had to replace 500+ titles I would be sleeping in my bass boat. Now any new ones I buy will be HD. We all have our toys. Some of you would think I'm crazy for paying $150+ for a fishing reel.. I fall in the high tech redneck category. There is room for all of us here if the new pres doesn't tax us to death.

Unless you're richer than Midas, no one is going to completely replace their DVD library with Blu Ray, just like I didn't run out and replace every one of my 33rpm vinyls with CDs. :) I'll be mighty selective in what I replace, say Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, Star Wars, and maybe five other titles.

BTW, my :2cents talking to one of the Joe Sixpacks at work- hard media will be around for a very long time yet. At least as long as it takes the last of the Baby Boom Generation to head to the Great Woodstock in the Sky. It's portable, and immune to hard drive crashes.

And the price is coming down fast- to the point this peon is getting one for Christmas. I just scored a friend of mine a Sharp 1.1 player @ HH Gregg for $150 on Black Friday.

brant
11-29-2008, 03:13 PM
brant your so wrong and time will prove you wrong.
others and i don't have to prove anything,were enjoying blu-ray now
better then broadcast hd,better then hd downloads.
by the way this thread is aaaaaa blu-ray!
go to sd dvd to make your feelings known


i don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.

as of right now, i'm not wrong, and we'll have to wait and see if time proves me wrong. streaming HD video is the way of the future. Its nice to have a few physical copies, and sure the HD disc format will be around for awhile, but it will never sell like DVD has.

and why can't you grasp the fact that i haven't argued BD quality? that seems to be the only thing you guys can come up with; "blu-ray is better". I haven't said that its not better, not once. also, i haven't asked you to "prove anything". You and Chris are clueless when it comes to writing a relevant response.

rcoleman11
11-29-2008, 04:22 PM
as of right now, i'm not wrong, and we'll have to wait and see if time proves me wrong. streaming HD video is the way of the future.

As of right now, millions of consumers are buying discs and relatively few are buying streaming videos or downloads. As long as the vast majority prefer discs, that isn't going to change.

HD Goofnut
11-29-2008, 04:59 PM
As of right now, millions of consumers are buying discs and relatively few are buying streaming videos or downloads. As long as the vast majority prefer discs, that isn't going to change.

Right, and it's showing no signs of changing for at least 5 years.

brant
11-30-2008, 11:50 PM
As of right now, millions of consumers are buying discs and relatively few are buying streaming videos or downloads. As long as the vast majority prefer discs, that isn't going to change.

you're absolutely right; millions are buying discs, but what type of discs? go check the latest nielson market share ratings and get back to me on that.

looks like those millions also agree DVD's are just fine right now. i'll concede blu-ray sales are growing, but not nearly to the levels of DVD. i bought almost 40 dvd's on black friday just because they were so dang cheap.

electrictroy
12-01-2008, 03:41 AM
.....all news media has a agenda,in this case,they hate blu-ray..... Citation please. Where do you get this information that the media hates Bluray?

As for downloads, with companies like Comcast imposing 50 gigabyte limits on their customers, it's not going to be practical to distribute a 25 gig HD movie online. The customer's internet bill would skyrocket with "overage" fees.

BobY
12-01-2008, 06:11 PM
Citation please. Where do you get this information that the media hates Bluray?

As for downloads, with companies like Comcast imposing 50 gigabyte limits on their customers, it's not going to be practical to distribute a 25 gig HD movie online. The customer's internet bill would skyrocket with "overage" fees.

Unless Comcast (or your particular broadband provider) is also in the business of supplying video downloads for a small fee ;)

They won't be 25GB either. They will be using more efficient codecs and compressing them more than Blu-Ray--they may even be 720p. They won't look as good as Blu-Ray (and likely won't have the advanced audio codecs), but they will look great and sound great and be perfectly acceptable to millions of consumers who are more interested in convenience than absolute PQ, just as MP3's are perfectly acceptable to millions of consumers who are more interested in convenience than absolute AQ. And they will look and sound better than broadcast or cable/SAT HDTV.

hdmyg8586
12-01-2008, 07:19 PM
I found that connector you were looking for

hdmyg8586
12-01-2008, 07:20 PM
22222222222222222222222

hdmyg8586
12-01-2008, 07:22 PM
333333333333333333333333

hdmyg8586
12-01-2008, 07:23 PM
4444444444444444444444444

hdmyg8586
12-01-2008, 07:24 PM
555555555555555555555555555555555

hdmyg8586
12-01-2008, 07:26 PM
I found that connector you were looking for
Cindy, is this the thing you were looking for?
www.liangdianup.com/computeraccessories_1.htm
It's on the list of computer accessories and parts. They have the DVI video thing to convert that jap monitor to work with your other computer. Just about any other kind of wire adaptor, usb connectors, monitor extension wires, ps2 extention wires, and all kinds of female and male swap connectors and things that I think would help your shop. If that above link don't work then goto www.lducompany.com and click on computer accessories. Let me know if that is what you need and give me your email address again.

tvine2000
12-01-2008, 08:09 PM
i don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.

as of right now, i'm not wrong, and we'll have to wait and see if time proves me wrong. streaming HD video is the way of the future. Its nice to have a few physical copies, and sure the HD disc format will be around for awhile, but it will never sell like DVD has.

and why can't you grasp the fact that i haven't argued BD quality? that seems to be the only thing you guys can come up with; "blu-ray is better". I haven't said that its not better, not once. also, i haven't asked you to "prove anything". You and Chris are clueless when it comes to writing a relevant response.

you can do ether, i don't really care.
all i know is the studios are behind bd and more ce's are making players,more bd releases every week and doesn't seem to be slowing down.

rcoleman11
12-01-2008, 08:42 PM
looks like those millions also agree DVD's are just fine right now. i'll concede blu-ray sales are growing, but not nearly to the levels of DVD. i bought almost 40 dvd's on black friday just because they were so dang cheap.

Of course Blu-ray sales haven't reached DVD levels - a majority of the population still doesn't have HDTV.

brant
12-01-2008, 08:42 PM
you can do ether, i don't really care.
all i know is the studios are behind bd and more ce's are making players,more bd releases every week and doesn't seem to be slowing down.

of course they're behind it; they charge more money for it!

BobY
12-01-2008, 09:38 PM
Of course Blu-ray sales haven't reached DVD levels - a majority of the population still doesn't have HDTV.

And a majority of HDTV owners still don't have Blu-Ray. First things first.

rcoleman11
12-02-2008, 09:07 AM
And a majority of HDTV owners still don't have Blu-Ray. First things first.

True, but HDTV had a head start.

BobY
12-03-2008, 03:13 PM
True, but HDTV had a head start.

I'm not sure that's relevant--the installed base of HDTV's is what it is, regardless of how long it took to get there.

It's not the fact that the majority of the population doesn't have HDTV's that is holding back BD sales, the current problem is the majority of HDTV owners (apparently 75% or more) haven't bought into Blu-Ray.

Once there is a significant majority of HDTV owners with Blu-Ray, then they can worry about the rest of the population.

hoorta
12-04-2008, 02:05 AM
I'm not sure that's relevant--the installed base of HDTV's is what it is, regardless of how long it took to get there.

It's not the fact that the majority of the population doesn't have HDTV's that is holding back BD sales, the current problem is the majority of HDTV owners (apparently 75% or more) haven't bought into Blu-Ray.

Once there is a significant majority of HDTV owners with Blu-Ray, then they can worry about the rest of the population.

Yeah, and there were damn good reasons us HDTV fence sitters were holding out.

1) Price. Well, as predicted once the Chinese manufactured rigs hit the market, the asking price went through the floor.

2) Upgradability\final standard. I seriously doubt I'll ever use the BD Live features, but I was waiting for a 2.0 player that I could afford. Santa answered with the Panny 55k @ $310. And if you had a receiver that was HDMI capable (I don't) there were decent 1.1 BR players outputting lossless audio as low as $150 on Black Friday.

3) We'll see what happens to sales during and post holiday season. BR players have now dropped into the price range DVD players occupied a few years back. If you're buying new equipment, why wouldn't you go for the new technology that goes along with it? BB was throwing in a free BR with every Sony and Panasonic HD tv they were selling as a promo. Let's face it if you have the cash to lay out $1k+ on a HDTV, you're not going to balk at paying $5-10 more for a BR title. And I'd wager the vast majority of folks out there don't rush out and pick up two or three new titles every week, so that extra cash outlay for a visually superior product is minimal.

rcoleman11
12-04-2008, 03:46 PM
I'm not sure that's relevant--the installed base of HDTV's is what it is, regardless of how long it took to get there.

It's not the fact that the majority of the population doesn't have HDTV's that is holding back BD sales, the current problem is the majority of HDTV owners (apparently 75% or more) haven't bought into Blu-Ray.

Once there is a significant majority of HDTV owners with Blu-Ray, then they can worry about the rest of the population.


It took years for a majority of TV owners to buy DVD players. Same will be true of Blu-ray.

BobY
12-04-2008, 03:51 PM
It took years for a majority of TV owners to buy DVD players. Same will be true of Blu-ray.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but they need to sell to the majority of HDTV owners first, which is a long way to go yet. They have almost no chance of selling to people who don't have HDTV's unless it's by accident.

marcallo
12-04-2008, 07:10 PM
With TONS of blueray players being sold everywhere. As is evident by Amazon being consistantly sold out on their daily stock and best buy adn their like having massive sales. I think blueray will be here for a while. As others have said I'm not going to go out and upgrade my DVD collection, but anything new that comes out I will of course be getting on blue ray if I decide to buy it. And with my blockbuster account (of netflix if I ever switch) I can get Blueray disks shipped to me for the extra buck for my system to really shine.

I dont' see the purpose in arguing the death of a high def product on a high def forum. Dont' we WANT people to adopt blueray so that high def gets more ummm highdeffier?

tvine2000
12-07-2008, 09:14 AM
I kind of agree with you, but don't shoot he messenger, blame the media and their "surveys" Blu-ray discs have a place now that many tv's are 16x9 and 1080p, and with a BD you can get true 7.1 sound, so put all this together and you get the best cinematic experience that can be had, so IMO there is a place for Blu-Ray discs for the future.

joe ,i'm not trying to shoot the messenger,its just were all big boys and girls,if i could figure out the media is crooked anybody can.
he chooses to buy into it.

tvine2000
12-07-2008, 09:22 AM
With TONS of blueray players being sold everywhere. As is evident by Amazon being consistantly sold out on their daily stock and best buy adn their like having massive sales. I think blueray will be here for a while. As others have said I'm not going to go out and upgrade my DVD collection, but anything new that comes out I will of course be getting on blue ray if I decide to buy it. And with my blockbuster account (of netflix if I ever switch) I can get Blueray disks shipped to me for the extra buck for my system to really shine.

I dont' see the purpose in arguing the death of a high def product on a high def forum. Dont' we WANT people to adopt blueray so that high def gets more ummm highdeffier?

i wouldn't say its arguing,more debating.
you should have been here during the format war,that was arguing!
but your right,i want people to adopt blu-ray too,and we should be pushing it, its all we have for hi def at the moment
i sense that if hd dvd won,you be saying the same thing about hd dvd.
some people are just not happy people no matter what

electrictroy
12-10-2008, 10:35 AM
They have almost no chance of selling to people who don't have HDTV's unless it's by accident. Bluray looks better than standard DVD, even on an old analog set.

BobY
12-10-2008, 02:38 PM
Bluray looks better than standard DVD, even on an old analog set.

They have almost no chance of selling to people who don't have HDTV's unless it's by accident.

There having a hard enough time selling Blu-Ray players to people who do have HDTV's.

What consumer would be crazy enough to spend more for a Blu-Ray player and more for Blu-Ray discs for the utterly marginal improvement they would see watching Blu-Ray as a Composite Video or S-Video NTSC signal?

electrictroy
12-11-2008, 08:33 AM
What consumer would be crazy enough to spend more for a Blu-Ray player and more for Blu-Ray discs for the utterly marginal improvement they would see watching as S-Video NTSC signal? (raises hand)

I'm sick of seeing compression artifacts on DVD. I'm done with it.

BobY
12-11-2008, 11:28 AM
(raises hand)

I'm sick of seeing compression artifacts on DVD. I'm done with it.

But you would buy an HDTV to go with your BR player.:D

Few consumers without HDTV's know or care about compression artifacts on DVD's and are incredibly unlikely to intentionally spend more money to buy Blu-Ray players and discs in order to correct a "problem" they don't even realize they have.

I haven't really noticed compression artifacts on recent DVD transfers with dual-layer DVD's for quite some time. While many older DVD titles suffer from obvious artifacts, so do many of the older BD titles currently out there.

hoorta
12-12-2008, 03:10 AM
They have almost no chance of selling to people who don't have HDTV's unless it's by accident.

There having a hard enough time selling Blu-Ray players to people who do have HDTV's.

What consumer would be crazy enough to spend more for a Blu-Ray player and more for Blu-Ray discs for the utterly marginal improvement they would see watching Blu-Ray as a Composite Video or S-Video NTSC signal?

Well, I'm one of them. I'm greatly enjoying my Panny BD55k hooked up to a legacy 48" RPCRT that only supports 1080I component in. Sorry to disappoint you, but even the DVDs non-upconverted look better and the Blu-Rays are a whole 'nother world. UM, the improvement is NOT marginal, if you're a critical viewer Bobby.

Now if you'd like to take the stance of one of my friends, (who should be declared legally blind) that can't tell the difference between HD and SD on a a Mitsubishi 65" 1080p DLP, be my guest, but you'll be in the vast minority.

Jambi
12-13-2008, 05:32 AM
:helpme Will I see a significant improvement with blu-ray over DVD on a SD tv?:what:

Nikopol
12-13-2008, 05:47 AM
:helpme Will I see a significant improvement with blu-ray over DVD on a SD tv?:what:

Probably not. It might be possible, that if a DVD has many compression artefacts the Blu-ray might be a little bit better. Overall imo it's not worth it, if you don't have an HDTV or want to buy one in the near future.

Jambi
12-13-2008, 06:21 AM
Probably not. It might be possible, that if a DVD has many compression artefacts the Blu-ray might be a little bit better. Overall imo it's not worth it, if you don't have an HDTV or want to buy one in the near future.
What is a compression artefact?

Nikopol
12-13-2008, 06:34 AM
What is a compression artefact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact

electrictroy
12-14-2008, 09:31 AM
When a movie looks like an old Nintendo videogame (large blocky pixels) instead of a realistic scene. Usually that only affects dark scenes, but it's still annoying. What consumer would be crazy enough to spend more for a Blu-Ray player and more for Blu-Ray discs, for the utterly marginal improvement they would see watching as S-Video NTSC signal? (raises hand) I'm sick of seeing compression artifacts on DVD. I'm done with it. But you would buy an HDTV to go with your BR player.:D Reading comprehension is not one of your strong points, is it BobY? I don't have a HDTV. I *am* one of those people you described who watched HD VHS*, HD DVD*, and HD Bluray via S-video. Few consumers without HDTV's know or care about compression artifacts on DVD's I agree with you there. I get annoyed when I'm watching firelit scenes that look like orange-red blocks instead of fire, but I'm aware that most consumers don't care about such thing.

But I'm fanatical. As soon as Star Trek DS9 is released on Bluray, my old pixelated/blocky/mosquito-infested DVDs are going on sale. Ditto Lord of the Rings, Stargate, and any other poorly-authored DVD collection I own.

*
* Sold for ~$1000 in cash.

BobY
12-14-2008, 01:56 PM
Well, I'm one of them. I'm greatly enjoying my Panny BD55k hooked up to a legacy 48" RPCRT that only supports 1080I component in. Sorry to disappoint you, but even the DVDs non-upconverted look better and the Blu-Rays are a whole 'nother world. UM, the improvement is NOT marginal, if you're a critical viewer Bobby.

Now if you'd like to take the stance of one of my friends, (who should be declared legally blind) that can't tell the difference between HD and SD on a a Mitsubishi 65" 1080p DLP, be my guest, but you'll be in the vast minority.

The mere fact that you have a 1080i input means you are not the kind of person I am talking about. I don't know of any TV's that accept a 1080i input, which is an HD format, and are not considered HDTV's these days--even 1024 x 768 Plasmas. The CEA loosely defines an HDTV as any display capable of "around 768" lines, more recently they changed it to say "at least 720" lines, since the old definition would have excluded 720p as a legitimate HD format depending on one's subjective definition of "around 768".

Do me a favor: hook your BD player up to your RPTV using S-Video or Composite Video at 480i and let me know how it looks, because that's what the consumers I'm talking about would see--not Component Video at 1080i downscaled to SD resolution.

BobY
12-14-2008, 02:18 PM
When a movie looks like an old Nintendo videogame (large blocky pixels) instead of a realistic scene. Usually that only affects dark scenes, but it's still annoying. Reading comprehension is not one of your strong points, is it BobY? I don't have a HDTV. I *am* one of those people you described who watched HD VHS*, HD DVD*, and HD Bluray via S-video. I agree with you there. I get annoyed when I'm watching firelit scenes that look like orange-red blocks instead of fire, but I'm aware that most consumers don't care about such thing.

But I'm fanatical. As soon as Star Trek DS9 is released on Bluray, my old pixelated/blocky/mosquito-infested DVDs are going on sale. Ditto Lord of the Rings, Stargate, and any other poorly-authored DVD collection I own.

*
* Sold for ~$1000 in cash.

What exactly did I fail to read and comprehend? I see nothing in your post on this thread that indicated that is what you were doing...

Now, do you think you represent anything other than an infinitesimally small portion of the market--people who have invested a fair amount of money in HD sources and don't have any way of viewing them in HD? In the real consumer world, there are about 3 times as many people who have HDTV's and don't have a BD player than those who do have a BD player. I think the number of people who have standalone BD players and buy BD movies but don't have an HD display is extremely tiny.

IIRC, you have a PS3, which I'm willing to bet you bought also for the purpose of playing games, so you really don't represent at all the market for standalone BD players. I can imagine that a large number of PS3 owner's don't have HDTV's, since you don't need an HDTV to enjoy a game.

You do need an HDTV, or must plan on buying one soon, to rationalize purchasing a standalone BD player and BD discs for more money than a DVD player and DVD's, while providing no benefit that average consumers would recognize.

It's chicken and egg. Most new films on either BD or DVD will not suffer from egregious artifacts, while most old films on DVD, which may suffer from artifacts, aren't available on BD and won't be for years, if ever.

I think you're going to be waiting for DS9 for a long time. Wasn't that one of the ST series where the effects and editing were done in SD video, so there is no HD master to work from and they must completely re-edit the show from the raw footage and completely redo the effects in HD?

hoorta
12-15-2008, 03:15 AM
The mere fact that you have a 1080i input means you are not the kind of person I am talking about. I don't know of any TV's that accept a 1080i input, which is an HD format, and are not considered HDTV's these days--even 1024 x 768 Plasmas. The CEA loosely defines an HDTV as any display capable of "around 768" lines, more recently they changed it to say "at least 720" lines, since the old definition would have excluded 720p as a legitimate HD format depending on one's subjective definition of "around 768".

Do me a favor: hook your BD player up to your RPTV using S-Video or Composite Video at 480i and let me know how it looks, because that's what the consumers I'm talking about would see--not Component Video at 1080i downscaled to SD resolution.

I wouldn't even have to bother doing something like that. My Sony DVD Player that I just trashed gave me the option of playing DVDs in either 480i or 480p. Ain't no comparison. Add to that, the Panasonic BD 55 is superior even without upconversion- and I'll lay that on the superior electronics.

To a certain point I can agree with your stance that J6P can't tell (or won't pay) the difference to get HD, but this forum isn't generally addressed to J6P. I can tell the diff between a Pioneer Elite FD111 and any of Panasonic's offerings, but then again, I'm probably in the 0.01% of the people Nielson wants to gather data on.

BobY
12-15-2008, 10:42 PM
I wouldn't even have to bother doing something like that. My Sony DVD Player that I just trashed gave me the option of playing DVDs in either 480i or 480p. Ain't no comparison. Add to that, the Panasonic BD 55 is superior even without upconversion- and I'll lay that on the superior electronics.

To a certain point I can agree with your stance that J6P can't tell (or won't pay) the difference to get HD, but this forum isn't generally addressed to J6P. I can tell the diff between a Pioneer Elite FD111 and any of Panasonic's offerings, but then again, I'm probably in the 0.01% of the people Nielson wants to gather data on.

Either I'm not following you, or you're not following me.

You say you have your BD player hooked up over Component Video with the scan rate set to 1080i. That is nothing at all like a typical consumer with an SDTV that doesn't even have Component Video inputs, or if it does, can only accept 480i or 480p. In most of those cases, the BD player would be hooked up using either Composite Video or S-Video, which is limited to 480i and the NTSC color generation system based on slow-response phase changes of the Chroma signal. The result is poor compared to Component Video and very poor compared to Component Video at 1080i (even if the display itself isn't capable of fully resolving 1080i content).

I doubt you would see much of a difference (other than Troy's artifacts) between watching a BD downscaled to 480i over Composite Video and watching a DVD at 480i over Composite Video. The superior resolution and color response of BD cannot be carried over a Composite Video or S-Video connection. Even DVD's, at 720 x 480 resolution, exceed the abilities of Composite Video to reproduce.

That's why I suggested hooking your BD player up via Composite Video or S-Video, rather than Component Video, and see how that looks, because that's what the vast majority of consumers who own SDTV's would see if they got a BD player and didn't get an HDTV.

electrictroy
12-16-2008, 06:44 AM
What exactly did I fail to read and comprehend? You failed to comprehend a simple conversation like so:

BobY: "What consumer would be crazy enough to spend more for a Blu-Ray player and more for Blu-Ray discs, for the utterly marginal improvement they would see watching as S-Video NTSC signal?"

electrictroy: "(raises hand)"

BobY
12-16-2008, 02:22 PM
You failed to comprehend a simple conversation like so:

BobY: "What consumer would be crazy enough to spend more for a Blu-Ray player and more for Blu-Ray discs, for the utterly marginal improvement they would see watching as S-Video NTSC signal?"

electrictroy: "(raises hand)"

:D Fair enough. Although I was speaking in the future tense regarding selling BD players to non-HDTV consumers who haven't bought a BD player and asking "what consumer would be crazy enough", not "what consumer is crazy enough", so technically that would exclude you since you are already doing that.

So your saying your crazy?;)

greatmazinga
12-16-2008, 04:01 PM
I paid over $300 for my first DVD player and the movies cost about $25-$30 at the time. BD players play CD, DVD and BD. If you think an upconverted DVD looks as good as a BD then there is really no reason for you to be reading the HIGHDEFFORUM. :error

brant
12-16-2008, 11:51 PM
I paid over $300 for my first DVD player and the movies cost about $25-$30 at the time. BD players play CD, DVD and BD. If you think an upconverted DVD looks as good as a BD then there is really no reason for you to be reading the HIGHDEFFORUM. :error

i don't think upconverted looks as good as blu-ray, but its certainly 'good enough' until the costs come down.

hoorta
12-17-2008, 04:31 AM
Either I'm not following you, or you're not following me.

You say you have your BD player hooked up over Component Video with the scan rate set to 1080i. That is nothing at all like a typical consumer with an SDTV that doesn't even have Component Video inputs, or if it does, can only accept 480i or 480p. In most of those cases, the BD player would be hooked up using either Composite Video or S-Video, which is limited to 480i and the NTSC color generation system based on slow-response phase changes of the Chroma signal. The result is poor compared to Component Video and very poor compared to Component Video at 1080i (even if the display itself isn't capable of fully resolving 1080i content).

I doubt you would see much of a difference (other than Troy's artifacts) between watching a BD downscaled to 480i over Composite Video and watching a DVD at 480i over Composite Video. The superior resolution and color response of BD cannot be carried over a Composite Video or S-Video connection. Even DVD's, at 720 x 480 resolution, exceed the abilities of Composite Video to reproduce.

That's why I suggested hooking your BD player up via Composite Video or S-Video, rather than Component Video, and see how that looks, because that's what the vast majority of consumers who own SDTV's would see if they got a BD player and didn't get an HDTV.

Ok, got ya. (I think) SD video looks like crap regardless of the source, compared to HD. If some people are happy with 480i, God Bless 'em. I'm not. :)

Nikopol
12-17-2008, 04:45 AM
Ok, got ya. (I think) SD video looks like crap regardless of the source, compared to HD. If some people are happy with 480i, God Bless 'em. I'm not. :)

SD "video" can look like crap, but it can also look absolutely fantastic. It is totally depending on the source and what was done to it, the transfer.

I am a total Blu-ray nut, bought over 100 Blu-rays this year alone, and i have a few DVDs where i honestly could not say if it was SD or HD on some scenes, especially close-ups. Once a scene displays things like landscapes or buildings though, imo SD is always noticeable as it simply lacks the capacity to hold the amout of detail HD can. But SD doesn't have to look like "crap". ;)

electrictroy
12-17-2008, 06:20 AM
:D Fair enough. ..... So your saying your crazy?;) I see DVD artifacts on my analog S-video set and they annoy me, hence this is why all my future purchases will be Blurays to eliminate said artifacts.

(shrug) I'll let you decide if that's crazy or not.

BobY
12-17-2008, 07:15 PM
I see DVD artifacts on my analog S-video set and they annoy me, hence this is why all my future purchases will be Blurays to eliminate said artifacts.

(shrug) I'll let you decide if that's crazy or not.

I didn't venture an opinion. I simply asked who would be crazy enough and you raised your hand.:D

Only you can decide whether it's worth it for you to pay more just to reduce compression artifacts and not receive the primary benefit of Blu-Ray--HD. It would certainly not be worth it to me and, I suspect the vast majority of consumers with SDTV's, but it's your money.

I have to ask, though, do you actually have any DVD titles with objectionable artifacts that also happen to currently be available on Blu-Ray without artifacts? Just curious whether you are talking hypothetically/philosophically, or whether it's based on real-world experience.

BobY
12-17-2008, 08:37 PM
Ok, got ya. (I think) SD video looks like crap regardless of the source, compared to HD. If some people are happy with 480i, God Bless 'em. I'm not. :)

I wouldn't necessarily say that. I would simply say HD looks better than SD--sharper and clearer with more accurate colors, but if you play HD content via an SD connection, you lose almost all of that, as the player downscales the HD to SD resolution and remaps the color to the NTSC color space and encodes it using the inferior NTSC color approach.

BobY
12-17-2008, 08:40 PM
I paid over $300 for my first DVD player and the movies cost about $25-$30 at the time. BD players play CD, DVD and BD. If you think an upconverted DVD looks as good as a BD then there is really no reason for you to be reading the HIGHDEFFORUM. :error

I'm afraid that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. More to the point, if you think a BD player hooked up over an SD connection to an SDTV is going to look much better than a DVD hooked up over an SD connection to an SDTV, then there is really no reason for you to be reading the HIGHDEFFORUM. :error

electrictroy
12-18-2008, 06:43 PM
I have to ask, though, do you actually have any DVD titles with objectionable artifacts that also happen to currently be available on Blu-Ray without artifacts? Just curious whether you are talking hypothetically/philosophically, or whether it's based on real-world experience. So far the DVD titles I find most objectionable are Star Trek, Stargate, and Lord of the Rings, none of which were released on Bluray. The original Trek is available in HD-DVD, and I would buy it but the standard died.

I look forward to selling these compression-artifact flawed DVDs on Ebay.

Jambi
12-25-2008, 11:57 PM
Just sell your HDTV and get a SDTV (CRT). They cost about $200-$300 dollars and last over 10 years. You will have a good picture with no pixelation from DVDs. SD DVD looks perfect. Most DVDs even have 5.1 surround sound. No need for HDTV other then to suck even more money out of the wallets of consumers.

hoorta
12-28-2008, 11:52 PM
Just sell your HDTV and get a SDTV (CRT). They cost about $200-$300 dollars and last over 10 years. You will have a good picture with no pixelation from DVDs. SD DVD looks perfect. Most DVDs even have 5.1 surround sound. No need for HDTV other then to suck even more money out of the wallets of consumers.

Yeah, and while your at it, no reason to have a 5.1 surround system to go with the CRT, why two channel stereo, or monophonic systems sound systems are every bit as as good!!! Personally I'd recommend buying a couple of $10 speakers at the local dollar store- you'll never be able to tell the difference between them and something decent like Paradigms, or Definitive Technology. NOT. :haha:

Jambi
12-29-2008, 12:56 AM
Yeah, and while your at it, no reason to have a 5.1 surround system to go with the CRT, why two channel stereo, or monophonic systems sound systems are every bit as as good!!! Personally I'd recommend buying a couple of $10 speakers at the local dollar store- you'll never be able to tell the difference between them and something decent like Paradigms, or Definitive Technology. NOT. :haha:
People should just take the money they save because of buying an sdtv and buy a sound system (5.1 surround preferably) to go with it. Read when dvds are played on an hdtv there are artifacts (pixelation) I see no artifacts on an sdtv with dvd unless the dvd is scratched. Blu-rays are too expensive. So getting an sdtv would solve the problem.

I WISH HIGH DEFINITION WAS NEVER INVENTED. I HATE BLU-RAYS FOR MOVIES AND HATE HD-DVD.

Blu-rays are good for gaming because larger storage medium = larger game.

hoorta
12-29-2008, 10:26 AM
People should just take the money they save because of buying an sdtv and buy a sound system (5.1 surround preferably) to go with it. Read when dvds are played on an hdtv there are artifacts (pixelation) I see no artifacts on an sdtv with dvd unless the dvd is scratched. Blu-rays are too expensive. So getting an sdtv would solve the problem.

I WISH HIGH DEFINITION WAS NEVER INVENTED. I HATE BLU-RAYS FOR MOVIES AND HATE HD-DVD.

Blu-rays are good for gaming because larger storage medium = larger game.

You read? You mean you have no personal experience with the format? Whatever- there's still a few people out there that think eight track tapes are just groovy.

Sort of inconsistent- essentially you're saying 5.1 sound is an improvement over stereo, but 1080p isn't a worthwhile improvement over 480i SD. I'd say 99.9% of the readers of this forum would disagree with you. And as the prices on 37" 720p sets have dive bombed, the general market is taking that same position. Allowing for inflation, a 37" LCD is no more expensive than the 27" Sony CRT that I bought circa 1990 or so.

Sorry HDTV is here to stay. I'll even make a prediction that will disappoint you even more. Within five years, you won't even be able to buy an SD TV. Certainly not a CRT. I'd advise stocking up now on the last remaining available CRTS so you'll have a lifetime supply of them since you love them so much. FWIW, Panasonic shut down their CRT production line years ago.

Joe Las Vegas
12-30-2008, 12:28 AM
Quit your fighting already, HD looks great and BR discs are here to stay since they're the logical replacement for dvd's since they can do 1080p and 7.1
Sure it ain't cheap going HD, I spent $1000 on a 42" 1080p tv and $600 on a 7.1 system, now I have to get a PS3 to run BR, but in the end you're set for the future.

Jambi
12-30-2008, 12:56 AM
Quit your fighting already, HD looks great and BR discs are here to stay since they're the logical replacement for dvd's since they can do 1080p and 7.1
Sure it ain't cheap going HD, I spent $1000 on a 42" 1080p tv and $600 on a 7.1 system, now I have to get a PS3 to run BR, but in the end you're set for the future.

But don't dvds look better on an sdtv then on a hdtv with upconversion.Or does upconverted dvd look better then dvd.

I like dvds because they are cheap. And if i do get an hdtv it would be a 32" hdtv. Will dvd look good on a 32" 720p tv or will it look pixelated.

BTW, I have read that blu-ray will fail because most people won't pay the extra money for a movie in HD. Alot of blu-ray movies cost about twice as much as the dvd version of the same movie.

Nikopol
12-30-2008, 04:18 AM
But don't dvds look better on an sdtv then on a hdtv with upconversion.Or does upconverted dvd look better then dvd.

I like dvds because they are cheap. And if i do get an hdtv it would be a 32" hdtv. Will dvd look good on a 32" 720p tv or will it look pixelated.

BTW, I have read that blu-ray will fail because most people won't pay the extra money for a movie in HD. Alot of blu-ray movies cost about twice as much as the dvd version of the same movie.

You can't really generalize this. If you're watching DVDs on a 480i SD CRT, some of the issues the CRT technology has are actually masking some of DVD's problems. Some find that pleasant though, like the "analog" feeling you get from vinyl. Nothing wrong with that.

The quality of DVDs on a HDTV depend directly on the quality of the scaler, that upconverts the SD signal to a HD resolution. You can get any variety, from "super-sucking" to "very close to HD". Depends on the individual unit.

On a decent setup, HD will SMOKE SD any day however.

If it's still too expensive for you or you don't see the benefit, then you can choose to stay SD and with cheap DVDs. Nothing wrong with that. It just like many people stayed with VHS for many reasons as DVDs started to show up in the 90's. Some do it to this very day.

This is an HD forum however and most here choose to move forward with technology.

Chris Gerhard
12-30-2008, 04:26 AM
I'm afraid that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. More to the point, if you think a BD player hooked up over an SD connection to an SDTV is going to look much better than a DVD hooked up over an SD connection to an SDTV, then there is really no reason for you to be reading the HIGHDEFFORUM. :error

I don't know how you would quantify much better but Blu-ray over an SD connection to an SDTV most certainly does look better than DVD on average. I sure wouldn't consider it enough better to justify the premium but I would call it or at least might call it much better. Vague terms get to mean basically whatever we mean when we say it.

Chris

BobY
12-30-2008, 09:09 PM
I don't know how you would quantify much better but Blu-ray over an SD connection to an SDTV most certainly does look better than DVD on average. I sure wouldn't consider it enough better to justify the premium but I would call it or at least might call it much better. Vague terms get to mean basically whatever we mean when we say it.

Chris

There is no way to quantify it other than quality-per-dollar.

Since you would be losing the superior color of Blu-Ray by converting it to the phase-encoded NTSC color-space, and you would be losing the HD resolution by downscaling it by a factor of 6 (chopping over 2 Million pixels down to around 346,000 pixels), about the only improvement you are left with when using Composite Video or S-Video (or RF--gahhh!) is a possible reduction in compression artifacts. Since most modern DVD transfers have little in the way of notable artifacts and many are now made from HD masters, IMHO, I think it would be the very rare film that was available both on DVD and Blu-Ray which would look noticeably better on Blu-Ray when played on an SDTV over an SD connection, but like Troy, it's up to the consumer to decide the value. I doubt there are many Troy's out there...

If you are talking about comparing the "average" DVD with the "average" BD on an SDTV over an SD connection, it's not really relevant, as the vast majority of DVD titles are simply not available on BD, so there is no way to make any fair comparison. It also stands to reason with 80,000-90,000 titles out there on DVD, there are far more poor, older transfers on an absolute basis. The only honest comparison is the same film, released as both a DVD and a BD, which will give you an accurate picture of how much better a BD looks than a DVD on an SDTV using an SD connection, as there is no way of knowing whether any given DVD title will ever be released on BD, or how much better it might look.

hoorta
12-31-2008, 12:41 AM
But don't dvds look better on an sdtv then on a hdtv with upconversion.Or does upconverted dvd look better then dvd.

I like dvds because they are cheap. And if i do get an hdtv it would be a 32" hdtv. Will dvd look good on a 32" 720p tv or will it look pixelated.

BTW, I have read that blu-ray will fail because most people won't pay the extra money for a movie in HD. Alot of blu-ray movies cost about twice as much as the dvd version of the same movie.

Personally, I don't think Blu-Ray will fail. There's debate here that VOD (video on demand) and direct downloads will eventually supplant BR, but I'm not that certain.

Any new technology is pricey- you can check out Sony's 9" OLED monitor that will set you back a cool $2,000 fer instance. But the price of BR players has dropped 80% since their introduction, and as economics of scale take over, I'll bet they'll be in the $100 price range in a year or two.

:) As to BR discs costing more than DVDs, I'm old enough to remember that you used to have to pay a premium to get stereo 33 rpm vinyl over monophonic recordings.

hatt
12-31-2008, 12:51 AM
I'm afraid that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. More to the point, if you think a BD player hooked up over an SD connection to an SDTV is going to look much better than a DVD hooked up over an SD connection to an SDTV, then there is really no reason for you to be reading the HIGHDEFFORUM. :errorI sure find this odd coming from you, the king of talking all day about HD stuff and sitting down to watch DVDs.

Joe Las Vegas
12-31-2008, 05:48 AM
But don't dvds look better on an sdtv then on a hdtv with upconversion.Or does upconverted dvd look better then dvd.

I like dvds because they are cheap. And if i do get an hdtv it would be a 32" hdtv. Will dvd look good on a 32" 720p tv or will it look pixelated.

BTW, I have read that blu-ray will fail because most people won't pay the extra money for a movie in HD. Alot of blu-ray movies cost about twice as much as the dvd version of the same movie.

Sure dvd's look better on a SDTV than a HDTV, but now that I have my 42" 1080p with my 360 and HD DN box I'll never go back to the way it was, now we have to move forward and adopt BR as the HD norm, plus prices will go down eventually and you don't have to buy BR discs, you can rent at blockbuster or Nextflix, I've been renting forever by mail with blockbuster and when I get my PS3 I'll switch to renting BR movies instead of DVD's.
I'm sure that by 2010, BR movies will be cheap and plentiful, just like HDTV's and dvd's were expensive 5 years ago, now they're cheap and everywhere.
And BR discs don't cost twice as much as DVD's, they're only 25% more expensive, that's not that much more.

BobY
12-31-2008, 11:43 AM
I sure find this odd coming from you, the king of talking all day about HD stuff and sitting down to watch DVDs.

If you were paying attention, you would see that I simply repeated his comment back to him to show he wasn't following the discussion at that particular point, as he seemed to be addressing my comments. If he wasn't addressing the previous discussion (i.e. BD over an SD connection to an SDTV), then my response wasn't necessary.

I talk about HD stuff then sit down to watch HD, I just don't sit down to watch Blu-Ray, because there is not nearly enough desirable content on Blu-Ray to make it worth it for me to own a player or buy discs--just like Tens of Millions of other HDTV owners who don't own Blu-Ray.

Many BD fans here just can't seem to understand that Blu-Ray is not the only source of HD and that to many people, content is more important than pixels.

Jambi
01-01-2009, 12:45 AM
And BR discs don't cost twice as much as DVD's, they're only 25% more expensive, that's not that much more.
Well all or most of the XXX blu-rays cost almost $50, even when the dvd version drops to nearly $25.
$50 is twice as much as $25.

Joe Las Vegas
01-02-2009, 12:51 AM
Well all or most of the XXX blu-rays cost almost $50, even when the dvd version drops to nearly $25.
$50 is twice as much as $25.

XXX Porn BR moveis, I didn't know they made those yet.;)

Jambi
01-02-2009, 01:43 AM
XXX Porn BR moveis, I didn't know they made those yet.;)
Digital Playground makes Blu-rays movies.

Joe Las Vegas
01-06-2009, 02:51 AM
Digital Playground makes Blu-rays movies.

For real! damn!:lol:
I would never buy a Porn BR movie, those whores on films make enough money as it is.

Joe Las Vegas
01-06-2009, 02:56 AM
For those of you broke as hell , you can get a good HDTV with 5.1 sound, get a Vizio, they are set up to have their own sound and they sell the other 2 speakers separately to get 5.1, 2.1 is from the tv itself.
All you need after that is a DVD player with HDMI out, which you can get at Wlamart for $40, which is what I have now.
http://www.vizio.com/accessoryDetails.aspx?id=2602&pid=

erict
01-07-2009, 07:55 PM
I feel blu-ray won't fail at all. I still don't have mine like may others. The reason....$cost$. Yea I know players are comming down in the cost department but BD are so damm expensive. I feel once BD disks come down in cost and more rentals are on the shelves we will see an increase in the blu-ray sales. I feel it's no diff then when HDTV was introduced. Look at the cost of HDTV's now. Give it time and it will level out and be the choice of media:2cents

jimbo41
01-07-2009, 10:26 PM
prices are definitely coming down! This was an unbelievable buy but I got a samsung bdp1500 (not my first or second choice for players !) for $1.68 The catch, (there always is ) I had to buy 8 br titles from warner collection? 110 or so to choose from. Full price? your thinking (as was I) no ! most were on sale! average cost of the discs was $20.00 so, for $168.00 I got a player and 8 discs!! superman returns, v for vendetta, 2001, unforgiven, and bladerunner 5 disc director's cut ($25.00 most expensive of the 8 ) were some of the bd I chose. So in a year or two I think the prices will drop! besides, I don't plan on relpacing all my sd dvd's does anyone! only certain movie will benefit from hd of br do I need to see Steve Carell's (40 year old virgin funny scene great movie) chest hair in high def? An example of a movie I would not buy on br format! (others may!,each to his own) Point is I will only buy bd I feel would benefit from hd upgrade. I don't plan on getting rid of my sd dvd"s ever!

erict
01-08-2009, 06:25 AM
prices are definitely coming down! This was an unbelievable buy but I got a samsung bdp1500 (not my first or second choice for players !) for $1.68 The catch, (there always is ) I had to buy 8 br titles from warner collection? 110 or so to choose from. Full price? your thinking (as was I) no ! most were on sale! average cost of the discs was $20.00 so, for $168.00 I got a player and 8 discs!! superman returns, v for vendetta, 2001, unforgiven, and bladerunner 5 disc director's cut ($25.00 most expensive of the 8 ) were some of the bd I chose. So in a year or two I think the prices will drop! besides, I don't plan on relpacing all my sd dvd's does anyone! only certain movie will benefit from hd of br do I need to see Steve Carell's (40 year old virgin funny scene great movie) chest hair in high def? An example of a movie I would not buy on br format! (others may!,each to his own) Point is I will only buy bd I feel would benefit from hd upgrade. I don't plan on getting rid of my sd dvd"s ever!


I feel the same way as I wonít be replacing my SD movies. The problem I have is when I buy a movie I really only watch it once and store it away. Thatís why after many years I rejoined blockbuster again to just rent movies. Iím just waiting for the blu-ray disk selection to grow and I know it will. Until then I am just going to take my time on buying a blu-ray player as this will be the format of the future, at least for now.