DJariya

Just curious, are you still using a standard def TV?

I stayed primarily with DVDs until I got my 1st HDTV 3 years ago.

Blu-Ray players are so cheap now and they also play DVDs and upcovert the video. Your selling yourself a little short if you have an HDTV.

Quack

A lot of shows I get on DVD will never see the light of day on Bluray, I also had a nice little collection of WWF(E) DVD's as well.

flansered

This is something I would like to see most of the anti-blu-ray people answer. Type and size.

milo bloom

I'm not anti-Bluray by any stretch, but I'm against those who say "Bluray or die" in response to any push back against the format.

I have a 46" LCD as our main tv screen. And what folks don't seem to understand is that many DVDs still look "good enough". Stuff like Star Trek: The Next Generation? They looked like shit, even compared to other DVDs much less Bluray, that's an easy upgrade.

But there's plenty of other movies that had good encodes, from good masters, and have good sound mixes. Maybe these people that say they don't see a difference really mean they don't see enough of a difference to dump their old collection.

critterdvd

I have to agree. My primary TV is 37" and while I adopted to blu-ray a couple of years ago I still buy a lot of DVDs. If there is a significant price difference between the two formats I almost always go with the DVD (unless it's something like "The Avengers").

And also I bet 80% of what I would want to buy in the TV Genre will NEVER be available on Blu.

meshershark

I'm using a Toshiba Cinema Series 65 inch rear-projection CRT TV (5-10 years old), which is "HD-ready" but not 1080p. I plan to move to something modern when that finally gives up the ghost, but even then I plan to steer clear of Blu-Ray as long as I possibly can. I'm loathe to replace my large collection, especially since that would benefit Sony. I'll admit to being inconsistent in the sense I don't balk at buying standard DVDs of Sony studio productions, but I consider that a case of not punishing myself just to spite them. Granted, my boycott of Blu-Ray could be considered by some to be doing that exact thing, but I don't see it that way because I immensely enjoy my standard collection on my current setup and I don't feel like I'm missing out on much (which is partly due to the ignorance of never having seen a full show at a more stellar resolution).

Ash Ketchum

I know what you mean. I was completely resistant until I asked my nephew to give me a demonstration on his set-up. He showed me HOW THE WEST WAS WON on Blu-ray on a 60-inch set and I was floored by it. I took some shots from my digital camera just to have a record of what it looked like and then went home and compared it to my DVD of the same film on a 32-inch screen. Comparison pix below. At Christmas that year, my nephews gave me a Blu-ray player. Since then, however, I've only bought about 20 selected titles on Blu-ray plus some Japanese pop music concerts, which offer extra numbers on the Blu-rays. But I hardly use it. I just have too much stuff on VHS and regular DVD to catch up with before I start up a whole new collection. Not everything has to look as good as HOW THE WEST WAS WON. I watch a lot of cheap kung fu movies which I'm more than happy with in lesser formats. Although a genuinely good, well-photographed kung fu film on Blu-ray can be pretty awesome, like THE HEROIC ONES and BROTHERS FIVE. But a low-budget kickfest like SHAOLIN DEADLY KICKS is just fine on a Mill Creek DVD.

Here's how HTWWW looked on Blu-ray on my nephew's set-up:


Here's how my DVD looked on my set-up:


Blu-ray:


DVD:


Notice that the DVD doesn't even contain all of the image.

mike07

^ That's a big difference but most of that is the difference in size. Obviously you aren't going see that big of a difference on a 32" TV even with a Blu-ray player.

I'm a lot like you, in the lines of having a huge backlog of titles on VHS & DVD to make a switch to a new format - I own around 30 titles now but have only opened/watched maybe 5 of them. I have a small screen as well, 32", and until I move into a bigger place I don't see myself getting a bigger screen.

To answer the OP's question, of course your not the only one who still buys DVDs. Unless the price is right (

Julie Walker

That's a nice comparison, but it looks like the dvd is from the earlier dvd release which didn't feature the entire image since Cinerama is tough to transfer for home video. However, the restored version was released on both dvd and blu-ray, so the full image does exist on a dvd release as well. But had I seen the dvd of How The West Was Won that you have, and then saw the blu-ray. I would be blown away by the additional image details and print quality.

WOODPRODUCTIONS

Since I still do buy DVD's as well as Blu Ray's, I want to make another comment regarding the quality difference between the two. There is definitely a quality difference, however, when I first bought my first few DVD's years ago, there wasn't one complaint from me, I was one happy camper and enjoyed watching them. Why should it be any different now? I still enjoy watching these same DVD's, granted there is an upgrade in quality, just like I did many years ago. When I buy Blu Rays's now, its usually a new release of a title that was neither released either in Blu Ray or DVD format or simply a title that I've never owned before. As I stated on my last post, I do still upgrade some of my old DVD's to Blu Ray, usually when its a title that ranks on the upper echelon of all time favorites. When comparing the two, you can argue that one is flawed compared to the other, using an analogy, just because a movie is in black and white and not in color, it does not make it a bad movie. In many cases it gives it a certain character, that makes it unique and special.

I know that many people on the board have a huge collection of DVD's that they've collected over the years and spent a small fortune. I really dont think that you have to replace every single title that is now available in Blu Ray, but if you wish to do so, why not, its a personal choice. The bottom line, as long as you enjoy your collection no matter what format, why should anything else matter.

mythmaker18

I bought my first BR player late 2010 when I bought my first LCD television (a 60"), but to this date, I still buy plenty of DVDs. As people have said, there is simply a lot of product out there that has no BR release and, for shot-on-video television shows like classic Doctor Who, etc., there's absolutely zero likelihood of BR release, as there'd be no picture quality improvement. I won't box myself into a "blu-ray or nothing" corner if a title is only available on DVD.

That said, if I have a choice of format, I almost always go with BR, but I usually play the "waiting game" for prices to drop, "lightning deals" (I bought all four seasons of Mad Men with Amazon's Christmas deals for less than $10 "bux" each).

I like those combo packs, too, especially if they're at or near the same price. That way, we have an extra DVD to send out as a "loaner" or for the wife to take to to small bedroom TV, etc.

So, original poster, DVD is far from dead, even to many of us who have upgraded to BR.

milo bloom

I for one, wouldn't mind seeing shows like this done on Bluray with a whole season on one disc. Even if it's still standard def, the compression will be better for the picture and the audio could be better also. Not sure if the cost of authoring and pressing a single Bluray disc would be better than the cost of multiple DVDs and the special packaging, but the cost would come down over time.

mdnitoil

It'll be a long time before you see something like this and then it will be from the Mill Creeks of the world. When people buy Blu, they expect a certain minimum quality. Selling it solely on it's space-saving ability will be a fail for most folks.

Jack Straw

I have a BD player, but still buy plenty of DVDs even when the BD is available. I do so primarily based on cost. When I can get the DVD for between $4-$7 less, I will, unless it's a title or favorite actor or director that I like a lot or collect (e.g Chris Nolan, Tarantino). I do double-dip and pick-up older tiles on BD that have been out a while and price reduced. Also, many times BD editions simply aren't noticeably better looking transfers and were just issued by the studio to cash in on the perception of better technology in use when the DVD looks just as good in comparison.

mythmaker18

Also, I saw someone else post (in another forum, I think) that there's something in the Blu-Ray spec/licencing that requires that the main feature of any blu-ray release must be high-definition for it to be legally released as a Blu-ray, partly to avoid customer confusion/complaints about the format.

Anyone know if this is true, or someone out there was just making it up?

LugNutX

I've got an 82" HDTV (so it's hard to hide the flaws) and own a Blu-ray player and still buy DVDs on a regular basis.

That said, I'm a bargain shopper and don't make any movie purchases unless I can find them for cheap. I have too much of a backlog and too much access to cheap rentals to spend big bucks on very many films.

I have yet to see a Blu-ray that didn't show a dramatic increase in picture quality (though I know they exist) and most are a noticeable step-up in audio quality as well. We can debate the merits all day, but a lot of older movies with mono and stereo soundtracks see little audio improvement on Blu. Obviously, anything released in the last few years gets its first view on this format.

What keeps me buying DVDs are the prices. Because I buy used, I can regularly find movies I'm interested in for a little more than a Redbox rental. On top of that, all of those super-, mega-, ultimate- boxed sets that cost an arm and a leg a few years ago now sell for less than a new release. It is extremely rare for me to pay over $5 for a standard (1- or 2-disc) release, or about $15-20 on a limited edition. I love MOVIES and getting the "ultimate" editions with all the features, books, toys, memorabilia, cool cases, etc. are part of the fun for me.

While I was initially excited for the new DVD releases each week, now I get excited about tracking down a special edition I didn't know existed and finding the best deal on it. It's become a much cheaper way for me to collect the movies I enjoy in their "most fun" SKU.

I have a great upconverting Blu-ray player that produces an excellent picture with standard def DVD, and a lot of the time (especially if it's a movie I'm familiar with) it's more than good enough for me. It's no Blu-ray, but a few minutes after I'm sucked into the film, I don't really notice until the credits roll. There are a few occasions where a bad encode makes things noticeable to the point I'm distracted, but it's rare. In fact, it usually looks quite a bit better than most OTA HDTV content I receive.

mike45

I still buy DVD's. Movies I know will probably never be on Blu-ray. I just picked up "Fate Is The Hunter"(1964). Not a perfect film. A guilty pleasure.

davidh777

I haven't heard it, but I wouldn't be surprised as a brand-enforcing thing

JOE29

I agree. I buy both formats. I don't think that there is anything wrong with buying standard DVD's When I first noticed those double bluray / Standard DVD sets I was against them completely but now i'm the first one to pick up these sets. I buy a lot of tv shows / history channel DVD's also. But when it comes to recent first run movie releases I have to go blu.

DJariya

I actually had to re-purchase a DVD of a movie that I initially upgraded because the BD special features sucked. It was House of Flying Daggers. Totally did not pay attention to the BD extras when I bought it for $7 or 8 at a Best Buy sale. Then I sold the DVD, but after double checking, I realized I lost an audio commentary and a 40+ minute behind the scenes documentary from the DVD, so I went ahead and bought a used copy of the DVD. Now I have both.

For those who upgrade their DVDs, always make sure your not getting screwed on downgraded extras. I know alot of the FOX/MGM titles on BD actually have less extras then their DVD counterparts.

milo bloom

There's a thread for that, actually: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/hd-talk/600...extras-ii.html

DJariya

Thanks. But the point I was trying to make in regards to this thread is that I still buy DVDs because sometimes the BD counterpart is inferior in the extras department.

speedy1961

NO. I still do (although not as many while I'm in school).

Hope to upgrade to Blu-Ray later this year.

milo bloom

And the point of that thread is to give you the info needed to make that decision...

meshershark

I'll throw in that another consideration in sticking to standard DVD is that I don't want to risk lowering the subjective value of my large (but not epic) collection by introducing a few better-quality titles. Knowing that something better is out there is different from that superiority being in my face consistently and my having to go back to what then becomes inferior by comparison. Right now, I have hundreds of titles that are acceptable and enjoyable in their current incarnations. I don't want them to start seeming less than that. To me, this is a qualitatively different situation from the VHS-to-DVD transition; that was a quantum jump in format, while this is a mere upgrade. I feel much the same about audio CD: I'd ignore any hi-def CD format as long as possible rather than make my hundreds of CDs shine less brightly in my own eyes. This attitude has the beneficial side-effect of saving me considerable money.