Obviously, you make a good point here. My initial remark may have been construed as a sarcastic take on the viability of DVD when it was, in fact a mere acceptance of the eventuality that the studios will have to assess the point to which it is still worth their while to manufacture DVD's.

I never said anything about the timetable of the upgrade process being relevant. If it takes ten more years for a Blu-ray release of Lawrence of Arabia to come out (and I'm well aware such a release is tentatively scheduled for a release possibly as soon as the end of this year), then in ten years fans such as myself would be presented with the same choice we're presented with now: Have the best available, or an inferior choice. You yourself said It sounds as though we're being asked by our conquerors to welcome them because they will improve our lives...and they're coming one way or another, anyway.

The problem is there are no VHS players to my knowledge that utilize HDMI interface. You will not achieve comparable resolution thru S-Video or composite interface, and probably couldn't match DVD regardless because of VHS's inferior native resolution.

I think the answer is that many people feel that image quality of DVD was vastly superior to VHS, apparently much more so than Blu Ray is to DVD.

You're confusing the arguments. My statement was part of the "choose only one" conversation.

I see the point of your second paragraph, but remember, blu-ray is no way guaranteed to even come close to the point where DVD is now. Downloads or a future technology will likely overtake blu at some point.

Right now, DVD and blu-ray complement each other perfectly.

Good one. But I, at least, never subscribed to that argument.

DVD was a huge improvement over VHS. In many ways more than just AV quality. I have always been a huge movie/TV fan, but wouldn't touch VHS. I waited until a portable, affordable, and permanent format like DVD came along.

Blu-ray is an improvement over DVD, but really, the only thing it improves upon is A/V quality. A/V quality is only one small part of movies/this hobby. And blu-ray is a big step backwards in some areas. I can play my DVDs anywhere on the planet. There is no guarantee and it will at least be many years before blu-ray home and portable players are as ubiquitous as DVD players are now.

The jump from VHS to DVD was lightyears better than the jump from DVD to blu-ray.

Really, my issue was you characterizing studios as tyrannical corporations that steal people's "choice" from them, when in reality it's the public at large that determines the demand for DVD, and the studios are not going to give up on a format until the vast majority of people have. So it's a matter of being outvoted by others.

You sound bitter about being offered a better quality choice. Why is it a bad thing that you'll eventually have a choice between a version of a film with better video/sound quality, or a version with lower quality but possibly certain other advantages (such as lower price or the fact that you already own it)?

Again, nobody is forcing you to buy the BD. The DVD version will play on any BD player. Upconversion will make the DVD look better on HDTV than it did on SDTV. If you want, you can spend the extra money for a BD version. However, nobody is going to force you, and you can choose not to if it makes sense to you.

Wow, just.... wow. I don't see how you went from my quote to your conclusion, which seems to me like a gross mischaracterization of my point. Would you characterized it the same way if, instead of taking about the transition from DVD to BD, I had been talking about the transition to VHS to DVD? Because my arguments apply to what happened with that transition as well. Did you welcome our DVD "conquerors" with open hostility too?

In context, what I meant was that for those who desire the best video and audio, they'd obviously want to be able to own all your titles in BD and view them that way. However, realistically, people consider all other factors, and simply having better video and audio isn't going to cause anyone to replace their DVD collection overnight. However, that desire for better quality will drive a lot of people to slowly convert their collection, just like what occurred with LD/VHS to DVD, LP/cassette to CD, PS2 to PS3, etc.

For those who simply don't care about having the best video and audio quality, DVD will serve them fine for years to come. If DVD ever does disappear as a new-release format, then that would mean that demand is such that BD is mainstream, and likely as cheap as DVD is today.

I'd turn down that offer in a heartbeat. I'm more of a homebody than anyone I know, but why would I want my entire collection only viewable in my own living room? I can watch my DVDs anywhere on the planet. Besides myself, I know of maybe 5 of my 500 or so friends that have a blu-ray player.

The decision to buy DVD or blu is based on a lot of factors. Price is only one of them. A/V quality is only one of them, and it is down the list for me. The story is the thing, not the bells and whistles.
I think you're confusing my "either/or question" with my stance. I don't think that at all. I think that DVD and blu-ray can and do co-exist peacefully. I think the future, unfortunately in my ocd collector opinion, is moving away from the disc-based formula. 5 years from now will look a lot like it does now in terms of the DVD/blu ratio, but with downloads sharing or probably leading the overall purchases.

You don't need HDMI for upconversion. You don't even need component. You only need those to send an upconverted signal to an HDTV. If you send a composite 480i signal to an HDTV, the HDTV will then upconverted internally to its native resolution (likely 720p or 1080p). It has to upconvert, otherwise the 480i signal would only appear as a postage stamp windowboxed in the middle of the TV.

I remember the DVD vs. VHS arguments on this site, and there were plenty who didn't think that DVD had superior image quality to VHS, or at least not enough to justify upgrading. Most of the arguments are the same this time round, it's only the DVD supporters who think they're unique.

I don't think I did. Your argument was "I'd choose DVD and never BD, since I can purchase/own/view 12,000 titles that I want on DVD right now, while there's only 100 titles on BD at this moment that I'd want."

My argument was, "I'd choose BD and never DVD, since if I bought/owned/viewed those 100 titles that I want that are available right now, it'd take me a year or more to do so, at which point, 100 more titles that I'd want will likely be on BD, which would take me another year to do so, at which point there'd be another 100 more titles available that I'd want to see, etc."

You're arguing for only DVD because it currently has a formidable catalog, even though you couldn't possibly get through it all. I argued for only BD because its catalog will outgrow my ability to view it, just like DVD did, and I get the benefit of better video and audio quality as I do so.

Ok, I see it now.

You're forgetting that with DVD, you could choose your 100 favorite films of all time, but with blu-ray, perhaps only 5 or 6 of them are even available on blu right now.

Also, for your better A/V quality (not the end-all-be-all for a lot of us), you're trading in portability and $.

Didn't you just repeat his exact argument? I guess you changed it a little, but it's not like the ONLY films someone watches are their favorites.And price is steadily coming down (lots of great catalog titles like Bullitt and Enter the Dragon for $14.99, probably the same price you'd find their 2-disc SE DVDs at, and constant sales), and portability isn't necessarily a necessity for some of us either.

Really? That's funny. I'm assuming for the people that didn't think that DVD had superior image quality to VHS were people who didn't see a side-by-side comparison of the movie played on an HDTV? Didn't DVDs come out before the widescreen HDTV craze?

I only started to buy dvds due to affordability. I liked DVD over VHS because of "no rewinding" and most movies released on DVD were widescreen.

But if a Blu Ray player got cheap and Blu Rays were sold at the same price as DVD, I still wouldn't upgrade.

I'm confused, I thought my argument was pretty much the opposite of their's?
Totally agree. But with DVD, their are currently 20,000 or more titles that I may want to watch someday. Only a few hundred with blu. That's changing, thankfully. But a valid point since the main point of this thread is that there are valid reasons for people to stick with DVD for now.
You're in DVDtalk; if you're paying more than $5 for any DVD you're doing it wrong. My average is just under $5 per DVD, and $10 for blu-ray.
Agreed. But it is a valid point for many.

That's OK, I'm patient. I had to wait for titles to appear on DVD too.

Right now I'm trading in portability, although some BDs come with digital copies that can be placed on devices even more portable than DVD. I'm also exchanging an increase in cost for an increase in quality. But then, I'd have a format that would make the titles I own look as good as currently possible on whatever TV I buy in the future.

Of course, the handful of Disney BDs I own included a DVD, but under your hypothetical situation I'd guess I'd have to throw those discs out?

The majority of people were comparing VHS to DVD on an SDTV, yes. People did point out that DVD, with its anamorphic enhancement, would look noticeably better than VHS on an HDTV, but then the VHS countered why should they buy into a format that required additional hardware to get it's full potential? (sound familiar?)

Why? That sounds more like stubbornness than anything like a reasonable stance.

You know, I had decided not to address this thread anymore, but there are at least three new topics now circulating here and not surprisingly there are some very conclusive predictions in them that are simply astounding to see posted, let alone defend. The post above is a perfect example:

So, you have over 100 BDs already and you state that the only thing BD improves over DVD is A/V quality? And that DVD was a huge improvement over VHS, more than just A/V quality?

I mean, seriously, how do you defend these two claims?

Pro-B

I thought the comparison of picture quality was the real point. Is a VHS image on your widescreen comparable to a DVD image? I'm assuming its not, or you would own VHS as a opposed to DVDs.


This may be true, but I don't remember that debate myself. I do remember the LD vs DVD debate pretty clearly. I seem to remember it centering primarily over compression vs non compressed video, although there were certainly some other issues.

I thought LD was far superior to VHS in picture and audio, and went with it for that reason. I thought (at the time) DVD to be marginally superior to LD in picture and sound but vastly better as an overall package because of actual disc size, and the amount of data that could be stored on a disc, and its capacity for extras. Keep in mind I went DVD after dual layer discs we introduced to the market place.

Back on the clock, eh?

It may have been your point; I was correcting your apparent misconceptions on what upconversion is, since you didn't think VHS could be upconverted.

The point was that it's not just about price, and an image being "just fine." VHS was "just fine" for most people for a few decades, but then they switched to DVD. If being "just fine" was enough for sustainability, then no new format would succeed, since every previous format was "just fine" enough for the majority of its users.

People look at overall value. If a new product offers better features, then people will buy into it, providing the cost meets their willingness/ability to pay for it. As BD drops in price, more and more people who used to view DVD as being "just fine" will buy into the new format.

What do you mean by "capacity for extras"? LDs had plenty of capacity for extras, and some of the best early DVD Special Editions were direct ports of LD sets.

You are right, but I also just don't like my movies too crisp. But that's just me. I'm not making an argument, I just like DVD more. I'm not saying DVD is better. I'm not used to blu ray, but i'm telling you, it hurts my eyes how everything is so crisp and bright. After watching a Blu Ray demo, I feel like i'm seeing purple spots everwhere cuz my eye sockets got burned.

I've been told that electronic stores don't know how to set up their HDTVs. Yes, it's true to some extent, but:

1. In the beginning of DVD and HDTVs, I remember seeing the DVD on HDTV demos in electronic stores, and I was amazed by DVD.

2. I see Blu Ray on HDTV demos in electronic stores, and I'm not so amazed. The only thing I'm amazed is how the ultra-clarity hurts my eyes. haha!

So, I don't think that it's the electronics store's fault if they aren't setting up their HDTVs up okay due to me not being in love with Blu Ray.

Very confused. Aren't the multiple advantages of DVD over VHS readily apparent and universally claimed?

Quality
OAR
Pricing
Permanence
Size

Permanence was the biggest reason for me. I never got into cassettes or VHS, specifically for the degradation and breaking/tangling issues. DVDs may not be truly permanent, but you have to admit they are a heck of a lot more durable than tapes.

Size was a huge reason too. I can store 200 DVDs in a book sized binder that would fit 9 VHS tapes. 200 is a heck of a lot more than 9. Even if you don't use binders, DVD cases are what, a third the size of a VHS case?

Concerning size, why don't companies make more mini-dvds? Smaller DVD cases and more room for storage space. Would it be problematic or costly for companies to release mini-dvds as "2 Mini-DVD editions (one mini-dvd of the movie and one mini-dvd with the extras)? And then they could fit in a case the size of a PSP case or something as thin as the Blu Ray case?

But you are making an argument Todd, one which is very difficult to take seriously. You don't own a Blu-ray player, so how do you come forward claiming that you are not used to it? (after all, you have not seen a single film in its entirety on Blu-ray -- that is what I gather from your posts). Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to compare it to DVD whatsoever. If your only access to Blu-ray has been through demos that you've seen at the major retailers, I feel pretty confident stating that you really have not been given a good opportunity to get to know the format and its advantages.

Pro-B

Does Blu-ray fix the horrible picture quality of Grindhouse (Planet Terror/Death Proof)? The DVD version looks horrible with constant scratches and grain. Hopefully Blu-ray fixed this problem.

The point was that the dvd was about a third of the price of the blue ray.

Are you talking about the one aisle of blue rays that most stores have? As opposed to the multiple aisles that most stores have for DVD.