pro-bassoonist

Need for what? His post indicates that he has already made the jump to HD, and that one of his major issues currently appears to be pricing. Furthermore, the generalization he produced does not support an all-out rejection of the format. Please, reread what he wrote and what post he addressed.


No it isn't. I did not state that improved video quality is the only aspect of BD's tech portfolio that motivated me to begin upgrading, or that it was a good enough reason. What I did write is that SDVD content on large-size screens does not awe me.


Point taken, but cost has absolutely nothing to do with performance (as you imply). These are two entirely different issues which most of the people who belong to the "good enough" camp conveniently lump together.

This is certainly a subjective issue and I've made my opinion on it well known. I would certainly agree with your observation in general, but taken to its extreme, the logic behind it would dismiss any form of ownership, regardless of format...as illogical.

Pro-B

pro-bassoonist

I don't see it as a case against or for - it is part of the logical progression every mass media format undergoes. If it wasn't then DVD would have never become mainstream and taken over VHS (which kept hundreds of thousands of films exclusive to the format).

Pro-B

Trevor

I think it is only a small fraction of people who are obsessed with the increased picture quality, or who buy blu ray mainly for it.

Joe public, and most of us here on this film enthusiast forum I'd guess, don't see a huge amount of difference. Or at least not enough to warrant the greatly increased cost over DVD and the limitation of only playing it on one player.

I can play my DVDs literally everywhere (most homes, many cars, most laptops, portable players, etc). I could name hundreds if not thousands of places I regularly go to where I have the ability to play my DVDs. I can play my blu rays in exactly one place, my living room.

Even if blu rays cost the same as DVD, I'd still mainly buy DVDs, no contest.

Cameron

For me the jump from VHS to dvd was as easy as being able to have the majority of the catalog in OAR. Finding WS tapes was impossible, and when they did make them you payed a premium for them.

I bought a HD-DVD player, and a lot of the movies i wanted weren't coming out in either format. So at this point I'm just waiting for the right deal. DVD gets me by. I'd like to see some more indie and foreign fare on Blu, and that might get me to jump over...but until Blue Underground, Anchor Bay, etc. start releasing some diffrent titles I don't already own on dvd then I just don't care.

Adam Tyner

Blue Underground isn't pursuing new acquisitions, so you're out of luck there. For what it's worth, though, BU's Blu-ray discs absolutely eclipse the DVDs; the standard definition versions are marred by excessive digital noise reduction and clunky edge enhancement, but the high-def discs don't suffer from that same sort of awkward processing.

It seems like Anchor Bay's more or less thrown up its hands and given up, so reissues are all you're likely to see there too unless Starz picks up the home video rights for some horror movies fresh out of theaters. (I think their day-and-dates have all been comedies and dramas, though.)

Trout

That is pretty much the same reason I am waiting to buy BD. I'd rather watch a regular DVD of Nightmare City then a Blu-Ray version of Transformers.

Jay G.

Really, all the arguments in the article, with the exception of upconversion, applied to the VHS vs DVD debate as well. Let's just rename the arguments:

It's Cheaper Than DVD

DVD players started out more expensive than VCRs, and DVDs started out more expensive than their retail VHS counterparts. A day-and-date Disney release was cheaper to get on VHS than DVD. This eventually changed as stores discounted the DVD more, and not the VHS. Once they dropped VHS completely, the point was moot, although to this day you still read about people acquiring used VHS because they're cheaper than DVD.

Mo' Technology, Mo' Problems

This doesn't even need renaming. VHS was simple: insert tape and press play. Any problems that arose was because of a physical problem. Not like DVD, where the earliest players had difficulties playing certain discs, despite being, unlike BD, one continuous spec.

You Already Own A Ton of VHS

OK, so not too many people owned a lot of pre-recorded VHS. However, more people probably own a lot of tapes of shows, movies, etc that they had recorded off TV. However, the increase in quality and extra features drove people to purchase or re-purchase in the new format.

You Can't Get That on DVD

This is still true: some titles have so far only been released on VHS.

DVD is A Stop-Gap

When DVD was released, a lot of people knew HDTV was coming, and an inevitable HD disc format. DVD was intended as a stop-gap.

It took longer than BD has been around so far.

Fok

Until things get cheaper (HD TVs, Blu-Ray disks) then I think Blu-ray will definately become the primary format. But for now I'm happy with DVD's

Nick Martin

Tell that to the many net nerds who swear by screencaps taken with cameras to judge image quality.

darkhawk

I'm sticking with DVDs for now

chris_sc77

Jay G. I am sorry but I believe all of your "points" you made are incredibly incorrect. .
For one thing DVD new releases were what at most a $40 list price. VHS had VERY few priced to own new releases for less than $100.

And also there may be some titles on VHS not on DVD but overall by far and large DVD's have a much wider and diverse (not to mention easily attainable) international and classic film catalogue.

bunnydojo

I have to agree.

DVDs promised the same presentation every time forever versus VHS's constantly degrading quality as time and viewings weighed in. Blu-ray offers no such drastic advancement. (Scratch-resistant coating has no real worth to someone who carefully handles discs).

DVDs made it so that we didn't have to rewind, saving some time and effort. Blu-ray has no similar advancement (depending on how much you value bookmarking over regular Scene Selection).

DVDs increasingly offered films in their original aspect ratio, while VHS favored "formatted" presentations. Blu-ray gives no staggering improvement, carrying the same image as DVD, albeit clearer. The same can be said of audio quality: DVD gave us sound coming from behind and from the sides, and now Blu-ray gives... somewhat clearer sound, maybe from another side or two?

DVDs offered special features at the push of a button. Blu-ray may offer PiP fanciness, but (in my limited experience) it's little an Audio Commentary or Featurette doesn't give you.

And, a small point, but the shorter Blu-ray cases move further away from the dimensions of theatrical one sheets, so perhaps this actually leads to a minus for packaging? Again, though, it's a small point either way.

And I'm sure I missed some big DVD/VHS differences. Meanwhile, between DVD and Blu-ray, all I'm able to come up with is online capability (which, as far as I've seen, is not being used to any particularly alluring ends).

Don't get me wrong, the ideal is to have films in their best possible presentation. But going from VHS to DVD was like going from sitting to being able to walk. Going from DVD to Blu-ray is like going from walking to speed walking, and it's silly to belittle people or claim them as not being a film fan simply because they aren't spending the money on Blu-ray and/or don't perceive the format as being a terribly significant improvement over DVD. This is especially true so early on, when the spectrum of great and classic films is so limited.

Jay G.

You're referring to the "rental window" that VHS had, where it was first priced for retail, and then a retail pricing was released a few months later. DVD did get an advantage by being released with only retail pricing, however that retail pricing was more expensive than the later VHS retail price.

Did it start out like that though? BD has the same potential as DVD had in terms of catalog. Perhaps more so, since there's no PAL vs NTSC issues with imports, at least in terms of the HD feature.

As for the others, what is incorrect about saying people already had VHS copies of films, or that DVD was inevitably going to be replaced by a future format?

You bring up some valid points about some advantages DVD had over VHS that BD doesn't have over DVD, having "just" superior video and audio quality, and more advanced special features. However, those weren't the points the article was making. The points the article was making were, for the most part, true of DVD in the beginning.

I never claimed anything of the sort. I don't have a BD player myself. I got burned on HD DVD, and limited funds have kept me from upgrading. I think a film fan can derive satisfaction from a DVD, a VHS, or even a crappy youtube vid of an old VHS dub of something. However, I'm also not deluding myself into thinking DVD is the "better" format; it's just something that is good enough until I finally do go BD.


This is a hypothetical.

It's several decades out in terms of consumer applications. Movie theaters are just getting 4k projectors, and this UHDV is claiming 4x that resolution. Meanwhile, we're still struggling with a decade-old transition to broadcast TV with a max resolution of 1080i. Remember that manufacturers for decades could've made a consumer TV or video playback device with better resolution than NTSC or PAL, but never bothered exceeding the government standard.

I'd be surprised if anyone answers no to this question. There's a reason why every BD player supports DVD.

My DVD collection is too big as it is. I'm likely to trim my DVD collection down and be much more selective in BD purchases.

Another format will eventually replace BD. It's inevitable, just like it was inevitable that VHS and DVD would be replaced. If you want to wait until a format comes out that will never be usurped, you're never going to buy into any format.

What would the future format have that would prompt you to repurchase? What features would it have that would cause you to think your current BD is no longer good enough? It's not like a future format is going to make all BD players and discs suddenly stop working.

Did you instantly throw out all your VHS tapes when you bought a DVD player? Just because you have and view a few BDs doesn't mean you can't still watch your DVDs.

UHDV and holographics are so far out they're not worth worrying about right now. 3D tech can and is being integrated into BD. Again, there's no guarantee that BD will exist forever, and it's not likely to, but unlike when DVD came out, there's no newer definition standard already approved by the FCC and set into motion. So the most likely competitor is going to be downloads or streaming. So as long as you're OK with occasionally inserting a BD disc when much of your other content is virtually instantly accessible via your remote, you should be fine.

bunnydojo

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I inadvertently interwove the response to your post with the general response to some of the posts in this thread and similar ones in the past.

pro-bassoonist

Many people upgrade older SDVD releases because the improvements BD offers in the audio department are substantial. You should look around other forums and see how many people upgrade old Eagle Rock Entertainment releases (The Cure) or Opus Arte/Arthaus Musik/TDK (opera) releases for example.

Joe Public and a number of enthusiasts on this forum used to claim that there wasn't much of a difference between PAN/Scan and OAR. You have been on this forum since 1999 - you don't remember the endless debates at TALK? You don't remember the long threads about the "black bars"?

Why was it OK back then when DVD was replacing VHS to be passionate about seeing a difference, yet, now it is not? Why are film aficionados who feel strongly about quality tagged "elitists"?

As far as pricing goes - Jay G. nailed it.

What makes you sure that one day you won't be able to play BDs in most homes, cars, most laptops, portable players, etc?

So from greatly increased cost (which isn't) to even if Blu-rays cost the same you seem to have made up your mind as far as quality is concerned - you don't care. That's fine, there are plenty of people who do and, just as it was the case with the transition from VHS to DVD, improved quality will find more supporters than detractors.

Pro-B

Trevor

Of course many people on forums like these do so. But do you think even 1% of the movie buying public at large do so?
It's funny how often "why do I see black bars" or "I like fullscreen" STILL comes up here.
I don't think quality was even in the top three reasons why the general public switched from VHS to DVD. I think pricing, features, and durability were 1, 2, and 3. With quality a close 4th, or perhaps all 4 being pretty much equal. But quality was nowhere near the main reason for the general public.
I truly hope that happens, and soon. But I don't think it will. I know you probably disagree, but, like many others, I believe that the majority of people will move on to digital downloads before blu-ray reaches anywhere near the saturation of DVD. Personally, I plan to always avoid downloads and stay with physical media. But I expect to be in the minority.
How do you define "greatly"? In retail right now, most DVD single editions are $10 less than Blu-ray, right? For a bargain shopper like us, we probably average $5 per DVD and $10 per blu-ray. I'd call double the price "great". I'd rather have two films that I want than one blu-ray that I sort of want (saying this last part because the type of films I like aren't on blu ray yet for the most part).

I'm not anti-blu by the way. I own perhaps 100, and hope that every film ever made gets released on blu. But until the sliding scales of price, portability, and library hit a much better cost/value number for me, I'm mainly buying DVD.

drmar35mm

I don't disagree that Blu-Rays are noticeably better looking and sounding than standard DVDs. But I won't be moving to them for some time because:

• I don't have an HD TV and won't be getting one until my CRT dies (which shouldn't be for a few more years).
• Players cost more than I care to spend.
• Blu-Ray discs cost more than I care to spend.
• I have no intention of replacing broad swaths of my DVD library. (I've done things similar twice in my life, going from LPs to CDs, from VHS to DVD. No thank you very much. Those are dollars I won't be spending.)
• Too much of what I want isn't on Blu-Ray and may never be.
• And, most importantly, I'm still quite happy with what DVD provides. I don't think seeing Movie X on Blu Ray vs. DVD is worth the trouble.

I expect at some point--when I have that LCD TV, and Blu Ray disks and players are roughly the same cost as current DVDs and players--then I will move over. And Blu Ray and DVD will live in harmony in my house.

pro-bassoonist

There is a very informative article that was posted on this forum some time ago courtesy of Variety. In it Universal's Kornblau points out that the DVD market is driven by approximately 10% of consumers - these are the people the studios are going for in regard to BD. With other words, the public at large still doesn't matter (though it probably will after Christmas of 2009). And as far as I know, the BD group that matters at this point is far larger than 1%.

Obviously, you did not understand what I was attempting to point out to you. This is very unfortunate.

I am not going to get into the pricing argument as it was most definitely not the deciding factor, or even one of the top three, for DVDs early transition to mass. The attractive pricing came much later on - to be specific, when Warner's Liberfarb convinced the majors that DVD could be a "owners" format - at this point BD is way ahead of it. And yes, quality was certainly one of the key factors as it is what prompted film enthusiasts (elitists) to unleash a massive campaign in support of DVD on a number of different sites (ironically, as I mentioned earlier, even though you have been here since 1999, you don't remember, or, you don't care to remember) touting OAR, dismissing its competitor (DIVX), etc.

I certainly disagree. In fact, I even believe that because of the consumer caps many Internet providers have started introducing, streaming/downloading won't be a factor for the rental sector either. At least, not in the next 5-10 years.

5-10$ are the catalog DVD titles. New releases are in a different price bracket, and DVD certainly isn't that far behind BD (in fact, do a quick search on First Look Features new titles pricing, or LionsGate's catalog product...BD pricing has been moving in the direction you desire for sometime now). The majors are already pushing catalog BD titles to 13-14$, I expect to start seeing new titles around 20-24.99$ as well. This is how DVD transitioned from VHS, and this is how BD will mature. I certainly understand that some people wish that all prices were identical at this very moment (a good example would be Criterion's pricing scheme), but these are mostly folks who do not understand how the market functions and how pricing relates to product viability.

I know that you are not. This is why I decided to respond to your posts. But, again, I think that some of your expectations are slightly unrealistic. BD will not have all the films that are currently available on DVD, just like DVD did not earn all of the films that were on VHS; this is just how these transitions work. Also, BD pricing is already way ahead of DVD's pricing patterns back in 1999-2000 and the studios are well aware of what it takes to further encourage interest in the format. At least this is the impression that I've gotten.

Have a great weekend,

Pro-B

Trevor

I'll have to check it out. Am I correct to assume that this 10% are home video aficionados, much more likely to know about and want HD media? I don't quite understand how studios care more for a 10% group and not for the overall numbers. It still seems to me that the general public, even ones with HDTVs, are going to prefer DVDs until the price, portability, and selection are closer to DVD.

General question to anyone: What are the current DVD vs BD numbers? Is there an unbiased site that shows the sales data in units?
No, I think I did understand and agree with you. I was just making a tangential point that there are still a lot of people here clueless about OAR.
I remember all that, just trying to stick to my main "argument", and don't see the relevance of those details. My opinion, and that of most I talked to (friends and shoppers) back in that day of VHS vs DVD, was that price, size, and durability were just as important as the improved quality. Remember the crazy low prices we were all averaging back then, with the Reel coupons, BFL rebates, etc?
Also, most would argue that the quality improvement from VHS to DVD was much greater than DVD to BD. Right?
But even I'm wrong on all that, and pricing was not a factor back then, how does that apply to now? Whenever I talk to anyone in the general public about blu ray, the first thing they want to talk about is price. You have to agree that price is the number #1 factor right now, right?
I hope you're right. I'm all for physical media.
No, my $5 and $10 numbers were for all titles, for bargain shoppers. Using deals found here one should easily average $5 for any SD and $10 for any BD . We of course use CH for much of it, combined with coupons and loss leaders, etc, occasionally having to wait a month or two before buying a new release.
For the general public, the prices are about $16 for a new release SD, and $26 for BD, right? $10 per title seems like a lot to me.
Hopefully that means the BD prices will continue to drop or at least get closer to DVD.
You too. Thanks for the always interesting and informative reply. I know that I can always count on you to disagree with everything I write.

Edit to add: Wait, the weekend is pretty much over isn't it? Have a good week.

fumanstan

I'd actually say most people DON'T do a side by side comparison. Most people see a demo at a store or maybe see it at an owner's place, but never a direct comparison between the BD and DVD of the same movie.

For instance comparing Pirates of the Caribbean on DVD and then throwing in the Blu-ray on my 50" 720p Plasma, the difference was incredible and I didn't remember the DVD looking that bad until I saw the Blu-ray.

naitram

The quality difference between HD-media and SD DVD is typically dramatic to me, and watching some films in HD is an experience that's well worth the money. But those who feel the PQ/AQ difference is modest-to-minimal should stick with DVD until prices moderate to upgrade their systems.

mzupeman2

Let's take one example, that I actually find to be quite dramatic: Transformers. Who isn't going to watch the DVD, then watch the HD upgrade, and tell me there isn't a difference?

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

Can't we talk about something that'll cause less heartburn, like politics?

For what it's worth, I'm excited I can buy Bolt on blu-ray from Toys R Us for $25 - $10 disney coupon - $4 pasta rebate, bringing it down to $11 total. Plus I can get a second disney movie for $10 off.

Trevor

But even if everyone agreed that the AV improvement was dramatic, a lot of people don't care enough to pay more for a format with no portability and mediocre selection.

And then there are a lot of people who, while they can appreciate better AV quality, watch movies for the story.

They can appreciate a movie on a 5" black&white as much as you appreciate it on a state-of-the-art theater.

For me, story counts for at least 95% of why I watch and buy films. Presentation, including AV quality, is maybe 5%. And while I prefer state-of-the-art, I get almost as much enjoyment from a film from my iphone or my Mom's 19" inch as I do from an IMAX theater.

Many, many people feel differently of course, and that's great. But some of you post as if the rest of us are crazy for not being wowed by more pixels and lossless audio.

I'd be all for the increased quality if the other factors were more equal. But price, portability, and selection are important, you have to admit that. And I think that the general public factors those three things into their buying decisions even more than we do. I'm closer to one of you than the majority of film buyers out there. And if even I see the advantages of DVD over blu ray, then the general public is sure to be slow to embrace it.

bsmith

Just an observation. Something that continues to get bantered around regarding the differences in PQ and AQ between SD DVD and BD. Some say the differences are incredible while others say a slight improvement. Then comes the rebuttals to have one's eyes checked or that they are fooling themselves.

For the most part I think everyone is seeing the same things it just that each has their own priorities of its importance and value and uses different adjectives to describe it.

If you read many individual reviews of just SD DVD's you will see some calling a transfer utter garbage while others say it was excellent. Many like to present their views in extremes, one direction or another. If these types of debates can happen within a technology then it should be obvious how far the discussion can go when comparing across technologies.

While not as bad as speaker discussions, it is subjective none the less.