pro-bassoonist

Yes, the logic behind it (from the majors' point of view) is: If the DVD market is driven by approximately 10% of active content consumers, then you are looking to retain a portion of that number for Blu-ray. If you do so (and sales charts certainly indicate that growth is consistent) then you could refocus on penetrating the rest of the market. This is the point Mr. Kornblau made.

Home Theater Magazine still publish their charts.

I see.

Absolutely. I do remember (800.com; Reel.com). Again, though, you don't build a mass market overnight. You also have to understand that balanced transition is what the studios are looking for. I am unsure how easy it is to accomplish it in these difficult economic times, but the fact that revenue from BD continues to increase while revenue from DVD continues to decrease should make two things clear to you: DVD business is rapidly declining (hence the reason why you see so many smaller companies go belly-up) and the market is already in a restructuring mode (BD/DVD/VOD/traditional rentals, non-traditional rentals, etc). And, in case it isn't clear, VOD/streaming isn't a viable fraction of it.

Yes, you are correct. But this isn't the same market - while there are plenty of similarities that many have rightfully brought up in the past when DVD was compared to BD, there are different factors that drive BD growth nowadays. With other words, what you thought was key in terms of quality for DVD (let's assume OAR and portability) isn't an issue for BD, or not yet (at least in 99.99% of the cases) and people have a completely different perception about quality. I believe that in a couple of years the picture would be even more extreme (best example: consumers' cry over Warner's audio treatments not too long ago, which in fact you don't believe is what motivates most people to upgrade to BD).

How does it apply? The simple answer is: it eliminates unrealistic expectations (and since you have been involved with CH for many years then you surely know what I mean). The longer answer is: in the Variety article

Fear not! Physical media will be here for a very, very, very long time.

I understand. But you know what, your observation implies to just about every business you could think of. If you are a bargain shopper then the general public really isn't something you should bother with, nor those who cater to it. I also, understand what you are saying about the 10$ difference but this is how the majors introduced DVD as a mass format to the public - gradually lowering the prices as the market expands. I would agree with you that they did not have a DVD-like competitor at the time when the transition occurred and things are a bit more complicated at the moment, but the pricing scheme they bet on in the past worked. It is working with BD as well now, though not as fast as some people would have liked.


You are very welcome Will talk to you soon.

Pro-B

Kurt D

If they'd titled the article "Why DVD's still acceptable for many consumers, compared to Blu-ray" we'd have avoided this whole brouhaha once again! (But they wouldn't have gotten as much traffic.)

tylergfoster

The better A/V quality for me makes the film more immersive.

And I agree. I am not surprised that in a tough economy people don't care about upgrading. It's the people who are actively against what is nothing more than an improved technology that get to me. It's just a disc format that allows films to be watched in HD. If you can live without it, live without it. If you can't, you can't. And if you want to live without it but there are things you want to get, tough. You just have to make a decision. There are only two options: own a Blu-Ray player or don't, and there won't be any more options within the foreseeable future.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

The ones I find the worst are the ones that are super pro-blu ray and come down on people that don't care enough to upgrade. They'll find a reason why the person doesn't want to upgrade and try to clear up the misconception then not get that the person just doesn't care because at this time, they don't feel the need to upgrade.

It's like getting into a debate with a car salesman who's followed you to a grocery store. He just doesn't get that not everyone wants to buy a new and improved car from him because the old one is just fine for now.

stingermck

Oh yeah IGN? Well the movie theater is better than both!

Abe.

Movie theater... gotta disagree there

The Bus

With cut-rate BD players going for $199, the article has a point. Once name brand players are $1XX, then more people will join in.

Software prices are too high but have improved from a year ago.

Not very relevant. A BD player can replace a DVD player and more than likely be a reason to use HDMI, which actually makes things easier.

Not very relevant as this would be a discussion of purchases going forward. The existing collection is a sunk cost.



A valid reason to keep existing DVDs, but not a valid reason to keep from upgrading DVDs where this isn't the case (i.e. most new releases).


A valid reason, although BD is going to be a decade-long stopgap for some people. (For others, movies on demand arrived years ago).

Overall, as a value proposition, DVD still has a slight edge. But this "article" is shit.

beebs

Pro-B you are one-trick pony and more slippery than a greased pig. I enjoy your turning my response to someone else into your usual overly zealous, blu-tongued BR-can-do-no-wrong diatribe. Well played, sir. Happy to oblige.

You bring non-image quality in when I was responding to a post that was about image quality. I won't repeat my contention, it's valid and stands.

madcougar

Money is the main factor for me. I was one of those people who couldn't afford laserdisc 20 plus years ago. I would read about how much better it looked than video and about the extra features and drool. I jumped into DVD fairly quickly about 18 months after its debut.

With that said, I just don't see the point of Blu-ray right now. The best TV in my house is a 32 inch 720p. My surroundsound (on a 60 inch rear projection TV) is 5.1. I am not going to be able to afford a nice TV and surround sound anytime soon.

wd65733

uh...what??

You talk as if upconverted dvd is such a huge leap..honestly progressive scan dvd players from 2001 are just as good, maybe even better. My panasonic rp82 player in 480p gave me better pq than my ps3's 1080p "upconversion".

And then you state that BD's difference over standard DVD is "negligible"????

*mind blown*

pro-bassoonist

There is absolutely nothing tricky in agreeing with the statement that in terms of video BD is vastly superior to DVD, even on the tiny size screen which you mention. If there is a study you wish to cite that directly disproves what is argued, and that somehow your home experience is related to it, then by all means please feel free to link it. Otherwise, your SD DVD is extremely pleasing and "good enough" clarification is as greasy as my addition that the type of experience BD offers is vastly superior to SDVD.

With other words, your rebuttal is just as subjective and dismissive as I initially noted.

Pro-B

nothingfails

I love how all the condescending snobs who have the "I have a better home theater system than you" complex (which stops being cool after high school, may as well flaunt "my daddy makes more than yours" too) because someone writes an article saying why one may not feel compelled to make this transfer when we're in an era where unemployment is highest than it's been in years and many people are having to take pay cuts because the economy is in the toilet.

RayChuang

I hate to break out the bad news for the IGN folks, but compare a DVD of a movie up-converted to 1080p with an upconverting player versus the Blu-ray version of the same movie. The best example of this: Disney/Pixar's Cars.

If you have a 50" or bigger display screen, one thing immediately jumps out on the Blu-ray version: the awesome clarity of the backgrounds. In Cars, you can easily see every tiny detail of the decals on the cars, and in large crowd scenes you can see the details of the "crowd" of cars in the stands quite easily.

Besides, the cost of Blu-ray players have dropped lately; you can soon get a full Profile 2.0 (BD-Live) player for under US$200, and it could be as cheap as US$175 by this fall.

tylergfoster

Well, for the record, we're people on a message board responding to a thread. Both sides of the argument have a tendency to jump the gun. The existence of the IGN article isn't necessarily thumbing its nose at Blu-Ray owners, and just because Blu-Ray owners post a response to the article in this thread doesn't mean they're "coming down" on those who like SD-DVD.

In any case, there are literally no reasons to choose either SD or HD aside from personal preference. People can describe their own reasons for choosing one or the other, but in the end, it's still up to one person: you.

wd65733

What gets me is the people who claim that they don't care enough for the visual improvement of BD, but then rave about how amazing upconverted DVD looks.

upconverted dvd vs. 480 dvd

upconverted dvd vs. BD

Honestly, can anyone say that the first one is a bigger leap? You are kidding yourself if you do.

sracer

Yes, I have more, but it isn't necessary. Bringing up "28 Days Later" supports the previous claim by An4h0ny that the significant difference in picture quality between BD and SD is that "it depends". It depends upon the particular film in question.

You and others dismissed him for being ignorant. I provided an example of where the image quality of the two are nearly indistinguishable.

The difference in video quality between the BD and DVD versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey are amazing. The difference for 28 Days Later... non-existent.


And perhaps you feel the need to defend your hi-def purchases. Because after all, if people don't agree with you that every BD title is drop-dead-gorgeously better than DVD then it will appear that you wasted your money. (see, I can turn the tables too)



It certainly seems to be the top issue by those who are defending Blu-ray in this thread. If you read my post in the context of this thread then you would have seen that I was responding to the claim that BD is ALWAYS better than DVD (except when insufficient hardware is used).

wd65733

Do you even realize why 28 Days Later was filmed with an SD camcorder??

Seriously that movie is a terrible example to support your position. Even a future format superior to BD probably won't improve the PQ of a movie that is supposed to look blurry. I can't believe you keep bringing it up. So please, do bring up these "more" examples you have.

By your logic, you can downplay the pq of DVD by pointing out how the DVD of 28 Days Later doesn't look much better than the VHS.

wd65733

Not really. Most people made reached the conclusion that BD has much better PQ BEFORE purchasing their BD player by seeing it in action first, which is why they purchased one to begin with.

Alterator

Ok, now that is downright condescending. What looks "better", and what is a "bigger leap" are subjective terms. Trying to make people feel dumb because they don't agree with you is simply not necessary.

And I'll pick up what you threw down here: I bought a 65" HDTV to replace our old 32" CRT about 2 years ago. We sat down to watch Oklahoma! (2-disc SE) on it with our Sony progressive-scan DVD player, and turned it off after about 30 minutes. I changed every setting I could, but the picture (480) was simply awful. My wife started talking about returning it, even. I did some research, took a chance and ordered an Oppo 1080i upconvert DVD player. We sat down and watched the same movie - and we couldn't take our eyes off of it, the movie was so incredibly beautiful, and the detail was amazing! We loved it, and could not believe the difference.

Jump forward a year - we decide to try Blu. We upgraded a couple of our Pixar movies and tried it out. Simply put, we haven't noticed a big enough difference to make us "BD fans". We tried two different players (and a BD drive on my 1080p HTPC), and my friend brought over his PS3 & movies - still not that big of a deal to us. Don't get me wrong, BluRay is awesome; but it is rarely worth the extra money to us, to get the HD disc.

So... maybe "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" should be taken here?

wd65733

Who knows...maybe that Sony dvd player was defective if it's as horrible as you describe.

And I never said that all progressive scan players are as good as upconverting players.

I just know that my progressive scan player from 8 years ago, the panasonic RP82, gives as good PQ as the PS3's upconverting(and the PS3 is a pretty good upconverter).

Sorry, but I just find this hard to believe that you can be so amazed at the difference between the same DVD being played at 480p vs. upscaled...

and yet not see a good enough improvement from that to a good bluray disc.

The improved color alone should be obvious at first glance.

Only if you're willing to admit that it's fair for people to claim that they don't see a noticeable improvement from VHS to DVD.

Your story is a little hard to believe.

Even SD television doesn't look as terrible as what you describe

sracer

Of course I know about how 28 Days Later was filmed. And for the previous consumer media generation the original release of Highlander on DVD was WORSE than its VHS release. The point is that the technical capabilities only tell one part of the story. If you want to focus on pure stats, fine... there are also many who look at the raw specs of a PC to gauge its superiority to a task.... or focus on the megapixel count on digital cameras.

However, I and a few others don't focus on the theoretical ultimate. I'm about the practical.... about what is actually produced.

When I make a purchase decision on a title, I don't blindly buy the Blu-ray version. I compare and contrast the version that is available on Blu-ray vs what is available on DVD. But it does require a bit more thought than simply always buying the Blu-Ray version.

wd65733

Well then that obviously has nothing to do with the capability of BD over DVD.

A few rare exceptions like 28 Days Later are not enough to conclude that BD's superior IQ over DVD just "depends" on the title.

That's like saying ps3 having superior graphics over ps2 "depends" on the games being compared. The cases where ps2 games can compare visually to ps3 games are so rare that it's not even worth thinking about.

MBoyd

Eh I'm not reading the whole thing, but this caught my eye. the "classicists" will be collecting Blu-ray IMO.

Alterator

Ok, see, here's the thing: you say that upscaled 1080P DVDs and native 1080P Blurays are so different... but an 8-year-old 480i player is as good as new-technology upscaling 1080i player?

Do you understand what you just wrote?

Forget it, never mind. You win. Bluray rules. Upscaling DVD players are the biggest ripoff since the pet rock. I'm going now.

Carcosa

I have to throw in my two cents here. I have both a Blu ray player and a Toshiba XDE upconverting DVD player.

My random viewing and comparisons have shown me that it certainly seems entirely dependent on any particular movie you choose. Some Blu Ray discs are breathtaking, like 2001, THE SEARCHERS, PATTON, etc. Unbelievable.

Others films were not worth the "upgrade" in retrospect...RIO BRAVO, A CHRISTMAS STORY, 7th VOYAGE OF SINBAD,THE MIST, the new releases of THE FINAL COUNTDOWN, BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, CASABLANCA....and all the James Bond films which I regret parting with now. The improvement was negligible at best, and suspect many films depending on all sorts of variables just won't see that great of an improvement to justify replacing a DVD in one's collection. When I bought my Blu Ray player I was ready to trade in all my discs that were available in a Blu Ray counterpart but I rethought that one pretty quickly.