Yeah, enjoying the movie itself should always be the point. In my job I have encountered a lot of people who actually PREFER FS. Orignally I was almost aghast in horror, the superiority of OAR (or at least WS) to those nasty P+S versions being one of the few things I was "sure" of.

Then I thought to myself....hey, if this is how they enjoy the movie...who am I to tell them how to watch it.

I agree, worrying about image and audio quality while watching something detracts from the viewing experience. There's a time and place for thinking over the image and audio quality, and that's before purchasing.

Well, why wouldn't you?

Hasn't nearly everyone thought at some point,"I wish I had seen that film in theaters"? Of course, that's imagining an idealized theatrical film experience, with a quality screen and a respectful and appreciative crowd.

However, in regards to "sounding so much better," all the theatrical formats are lossy, so the lossless codecs on BD have the potential to sound better than a theatrical release.

Again, I'm not sure if I worry too much when watching the DVD, but there's plenty of films I have on DVD that I would like to see on BD so I could see them in better quality (provided it's a quality BD release).

Just in general, when watching TV, I watch plenty of SD content, but watch the shows in HD whenever I can. There's shows that I've loved in SD that I've watched for years. However, when the HD channel is rolled out, I find the HD versions to be just that much more immersive.

Doesn't that go without saying though?

It's like how I never gave a second thought to seeing Journey to the Center of the Earth in IMAX, but I'm kicking myself a little for not seeing The Dark Knight in IMAX. I really enjoyed it when I saw it theatrically in a standard theater, but I imagine the experience in IMAX was just a little more heightened and immersive.

I can totally understand hesitation in buying into a new format. Heck, my first posts in this thread were from before I had a BD player. However, at the prices BD players and discs are going for nowadays, I feel there's very few reasons left why anyone with an HDTV shouldn't at least dip their toes into it.

I too can understand the need for not overdoing ANYTHING, not just DNR...I just don't agree with his assessment of PATTON. His basic point is you are losing detail in DNR. I don't know how much more detail one could possibly see on this disc. It's so vivid and sharply detailed it practically hurts my eyes. But he's the expert, not me. Plenty of other qualified viewers liked it. Decide for yourselves...

Unfortunately we will never really will know how much detail one could possibly see on this disk without having it done both ways to compare. So it is an unprovable point either way. I've have no frame of reference myself to make the assessment. But I brought it up in reference to "mdnitoil''s comments as a possible cause of what he was seeing. More often then not when I hear these comments it seems like DNR is a likely cause. For the most part, a soft image or edge enhancement are symptoms most by now know how to explain, but not always DNR. But I agree everyone needs to come to their own conclusions.

The last two films I saw in a theater were "Lost World" and "LOTR: Two Towers" when each were first released. And the only reason we went to see "Two Towers" is because we just saw "Fellowship of the Ring" on DVD and didn't want to wait a year for the DVD release of the 2nd installment. Interestingly, I don't miss anything about the theater experience. Doesn't even enter my mind.

Just another example of just how different priortizes can be between people. For example, I have seen the first two seasons of "House" and four seasons of "24". Both are broadcast in HD yet I have only watched them in SD on DVD's. Other then sports I watch almost nothing broadcast on TV. All my TV watching is on SD DVD's. It has been this way for at least three years now. I just prefer to watch what I want, when I want, and how much I want. So if I want to watch a whole season of "24" within a two to three week span, I do. I'm on my own schedule and I prioritize that over the desire to watch HD over SD.

I'm not saying one way is better then the other, but just showing an example of how much prioritizes can be different between two individuals. Which I think has alot to do with the differring views in this thread. I think all but maybe a very few will acknowledge that Blu-ray as a format is technologically superior to SD. But as far as adoption goes, it has alot more to do with priorities, perceived value, and lifestyle then whether it looks and sounds better. There's almost no way to alter a person's view on this subject when two sides are approaching it from totally different perspectives.

That's interesting. What is it about the theatrical experience you don't like, and why do you prefer home viewing?

Personally, I probably don't see as many films theatrically as I'd maybe like because of the expense of the theatrical experience, and the inconvenience of having to go out to a theater at such-and-such a time, well before the movie starts, to get a seat, sit through commercials, etc. Then there was my disclaimer of an "ideal" theatrical audience, which usually doesn't occur. So while I like the experience of seeing a film in a darkened room on an extremely large screen, it's often not worth the bother. That still doesn't stop me from occasionally wishing I could've seen a particular film in an ideal theatrical environment.

If those shows were available on BD though (and 24 Season 7 is), wouldn't you rather watch it on BD than on DVD?

I understand the appeal of disc over broadcast, and there are some shows I watch on DVD rather than on TV. However, my point was that, all other things being equal, why wouldn't you want to watch it in HD? Which is why I was comparing my HD broadcast viewing to my SD broadcast viewing, and not my HD broadcast viewing to DVD viewing. I'd compare my DVD viewing to my BD viewing.

Do you watch those in SD or HD?

I'm not trying to alter any views, that's hopeless. I'm just trying to offer an explanation of my point of view, while attempting to understand others' points of views.

I just prefer watching in the comforts of my own home completely on my own schedule. Back in the 90's I just had a 40" Mit's tube TV with 5.1 surround sound. But since 2003, I have a dedicated room in the basement I constructed just for my watching pleasures. With 7.1 surround sound, speakers hidden in columns or false walls, stage, acoustic treatments, 4 theater recliners with cup holders, and all the adornments, with a 92" projection system.

All things being equal, or relatively equal, of course I would. I have no adversion to BD. It's just not the top factor in my decision making. For example, I recently picked up season 7 of "24" for $7.99. Now if the BD was presented to me for around $15 at the same time I would have snagged it instead. But it was priced much higher. About a 1.5 years ago I picked up the remastered Star Trek TOS's on DVD and a little before that all the remastered James Bond movies for all really good deals. Would I go for the DVD's over the BD's right now if the price differences were say only 25%, of course not. But I feel no reason to upgrade either because what I have is really good quality and I'd rather put the additional funds to other things that I don't have. That said, I had the option to pick up the "Prisoner" on BD for $39 a few weeks ago while the DVD set wasn't much cheaper. So I obviously went BD.

Even without a BD player yet, I have picked up about 35 BD titles because of the deals. I am averaging about $12 a disk. These are either older titles I don't have, newer titles I'd rather get in BD from the get go (new Star Trek), inexpensive catalog titles that have bad DVD counterparts, or inexpensive catalog titles that have high watchability with me as DVD replacements.

I don't really see myself buying any movies in DVD anymore other then classic titles that quite possibly would never come out in BD. Also, I watch al lot of older TV shows that most likely will never make it to BD. Plus, with TV shows you are talking about potentially many seasons. I currently have some 250+ seasons of TV shows. There is little chance I would have that collection without low cost DVD deals. For example, I'm just starting "Smallville". At the current price of $15 a season from Walmart I can get 7 seasons for under $100. That would not be the case even if they were available in BD right now. And the DVDs look quite good.

Why limit it to that criteria? Viewing is viewing in my opinion, and all options available are part of the equation. However, to stay within your criteria for a moment, broadcast TV doesn't apply for me, but when comparing TV DVD and BD (when both are available), the swing many times goes towards DVD due to prices differences when considering the potential of an entire series and the number of shows I have interest in. I just can't plunk down $40 a season on average and get what I ultimately want.

HD of course. Sports really is a different animal. You have to follow it's schedule and so in that case it is literally a direct comparison of SD and HD content. The only potential difference anyone could bring up is the cost difference for getting the HD channel package over SD. But other then that they truly are directly comparable in all other respects, and SD loses.

That's fine I can understand that. But is some cases within this thread it is as if some people view that the perspective of others is just not logical when in reality it is just different.

If I had that setup, I'd probably never go to the theater.

Fixed.

Of course, nobody in this thread has stated that if you get a BD player you have to upgrade all your DVD purchases.

This is interesting, because The Prisoner has been available on DVD for over a decade, yet you just bought the BD. Was it the combination of the HD remaster plus the "bargain" price for the BD that caused you to finally pick it up?

Why don't you have a BD player yet? Hoping for a Christmas present?

As has been pointed out, BDs have dropped significantly in price. It may not happen for a while yet, but BD deals will eventually be as good as current DVD deals. You already pointed out the example of The Prisoner BD set.

Because with that example, I was comparing HD to SD, with all else being equal. Once you mix methods of delivery, the case gets muddled. For example, the advantages of DVD over HD broadcast are the same as the advantages of BD over HD broadcast, so your championing of DVD over HD broadcast has little to do with image quality.

In a similar vein, I could say HD broadcast is superior to DVD for watching sports, due to the immediacy and availability, and we'd obviously be talking about aspects of the method of delivery, not the quality of the content.

What do you ultimately want? If you just want as much content for as little as possible right now, than DVD is the way to go. If you want the best possible presentation of a show you like, than BD is the way to go. If you want a mix of good quality and low cost, depending on the show, you could mix BD and DVD purchases going forward, which is what you seem to be doing already.

Keep in mind that DVD is only a good investment if you think you'll never have the desire to upgrade that particular show to a higher-quality version (or if a higher-quality version is technically impossible, as with shot-on-video shows). Although, even then, buying a cheap DVD of it now, and then waiting for a cheap BD copy, may be better, financially speaking, than buying the BD from the get-go at a more expensive price.

For instance, The Sopranos - The Complete First Season on Blu-ray Disc lists for little more than half of what the DVD list price was. Granted, the first season was released about a decade ago on DVD, but HBO hasn't really done an overwhelming job of dropping their season set prices over the years. I was really surprised by this.

A more current example would be Star Wars: The Clone Wars - The Complete Season One. Per DVD Empire: DVD list price: $44.98; BD list price: $59.99. Of course, no one on this forum pays list price anyway. Currently, DVD Empire has them on sale for $37.89 and $47.99, respectively, further closing the price differential from $15 to $10. Then it's a matter of perspective whether the Hi-Def treatment is worth an additional $10 to the viewer/purchaser.

Or in the case of Amazon, it's $31.99 for the DVD and $32.99 for the blu-ray. Prices have really started to come closer together in the recent months.

One dollar. That's all the difference between the two releases. Wow. Why haven't I ordered this from Amazon yet...?

Because you know that title will be under $20 within a few months?

I do like a good deal, but I'm also not that patient. No, I think it's just that I've been broke because my wife insists on participating in the obligatory gift-exchanging this time of year with so many people. Personally, I would cut people off who have jobs and can buy their own damn things, but apparently that mentality makes you come off as stingy or selfish. Whatever. At least by the time this is all settled down, Clone Wars should be approaching that $20 range.

Hey JayG, just curious, does Sony give you a percentage of every Blu-ray player & disc that is sold?

Just kidding, but your persistance that people run out & buy Blu-ray comes across as a tad obsessive.

I don't think so, just because it's Star Wars. They'll go out of print, like the cartoon Clone Wars, before a good price drop hits it.

I'm still waiting for another good sale on the prequel trilogy. I bought the original trilogy for $20, or so, at Toys R Us 2 years ago but they were sold out of the prequel set. I've been waiting years for that other set to drop down to that price again.

I personally haven't bought a Sony device in at least a decade, if not longer. I think their products are mostly overpriced.

I like a good argument, and I'm persistent. Now, if you're done with the Ad Hominem, do you have any comments on DVD vs Blu-ray?

After 690 responses in this thread alone, I'm not sure there is much more interesting to say on the subject.

Now it seems the blue ray has jumped to 41.99, while the dvd has stayed at 31.99.

blu-ray.

This is sort of a chicken-and-egg argument, but DVD is still more attractive to me because it can be played in so many places on so many devices, and doesn't have the higher system requirements. I won't argue that a BlueRei disk ( ), encoded well, played on a suitable HD device, beats DVD's audio and video and potentially special features hands down. But I'm willing to make that trade off when I can bring DVDs with me and watch them in the car, in the upstairs bedroom, in a hotel, in the airport, etc.

And ultimately it's about the content - though I have been tempted to get a BluRay player, and there are certainly titles I would pick up on BD, I haven't encountered any "system sellers" that have made me want to actually drop the money on the player or the disks (although admittedly average BD prices do seem to be coming down, and there's more combo packages to my undiscerning eye).

I think Amazon did this just to spite our thread, and to rub it in my face that I hadn't purchased it at that price....

This is a non-argument for me because I've never really taken my library other places. At home, we have two TV's; one in the living room, and one in the bedroom. We watch most everything in the living room, except Craig Ferguson at night in the bedroom. (I will say, though, that having Blu-rays has stopped me from my previous habit of watching (listening to?) commentary tracks at night while my wife falls asleep.)

It's back to $32.99.

It's willing to give you another chance.

Yeah, but it's not a sincere offer. It's only because it knows after buying Quantum of Solace and Batman Blu's today I can't justify the expense.

It should be noted that the minimum requirements for watching BD isn't any different than with DVD: composite AV cables. Of course, you're not going to get any quality boost over DVD with such a setup, but it'd be playable.

I guess the question is then: do you need to be able to watch everything you own everywhere, or are their films you'd be willing to sacrifice some portability (currently), in exchange for better quality?

And, as you pointed out, there's number of combo packages that have both BD and DVD, so that you don't have to make that sacrifice. I don't recall a DVD that ever came with a bonus VHS copy.

Point: Blu team!