Trevor

No! Really? And you do realize that there is no waiting with CH, right? And I basically never buy used btw.

I've mentioned my CH/coupons/numbers maybe twelve times, once each in twelve different threads over the past year. If you have a good memory or have stumbled upon it enough to bother you, I apologize. I don't bring it up all the time, it just seemed an appropriate response at that moment. Just as you deemed the above an appropriate response.

GenPion

I'm pretty sure I average out to $10 a Blu-ray. So that's not quite Trevor's $8 figure, but it's far from being that bad either.

Goldblum

Dude, the "war" officially ended over a year and a half ago and was dying long before that. Time to move on.

I don't understand why people take these decisions so personally, especially after so much time has passed. I can understand being pissed at the time, but come on now.

DivxGuy

Looking back, HD-DVD was clearly the underdog and those of us who bought in should have expected what happened.

Cheato

^ Hindsight is 1080p.

Trevor

I agree that bitterness over "the war" is a silly reason to be anti-blu now.

But couldn't one easily take exception with the last two posts?

Yes, HD was the underdog, but right up to the end, there was big potential for it to swing either way, right? Didn't one major studio almost commit to red, before switching at the last minute to blu, causing the rest of the studios to follow suit?

But again, not trying to bring that dreck up again. Blu won, it looks great, and can be found almost as cheap as SD.

cpgator

I bought into HD-DVD because it was first and because BD had some quality issues. Once I became happy with BD, I started buying both. Then HD-DVD went away, and I now only purchase BD. Not a big deal and I still enjoy the movies I have on HD-DVD.

I never tried to guess who would win out - i just was interested in enjoying what was currently available.

toddly6666

We should put all HD-DVD owners in a refugee camp and let them rot there.

Gizmo

DVD is a 10+ year old product that has exhausted most of its catalog while Blu-ray is just now growing. Of course Blu-ray would be increasing

Gizmo

FYI - Wal-Mart recently cut back on Blu-ray titles at most of their stores. And high-volume are typical Day and Date titles. Catalog titles may only sell a few thousand copies a month even if its 'new to Blu'.

Gizmo

And for all those that are bitching - go to Wal-mart/Best Buy and grab a Blu-ray player for $100. It'll still play all your DVDs - I promise.

bsmith

Ahhh...but will it do it as well. Personally, the only BR player I would get for dual purpose BR and SD playback at this time would be the Oppo, which costs $499.

DivxGuy

That's the case with catalog titles of any format and explains why most catalog titles don't appear on a format until several years after its introduction.

Gizmo

What DVD players are you guys using now? Most BD players will do a better job upscaling DVDs then a $100 DVD player bought at Best Buy. Oppo is a bit extreme.

jjcool

And when you compare prices of dvds with their blue ray counterparts at amazon, you still get that $7-10 difference.

cpgator

You do realize you can keep your current DVD player, right? I use my DVD player for DVDs and my BD player for BD. Works out just fine.

bsmith

Not according to most of the reviews I've read. Many don't regard quality SD playback as a priority. Maybe for you the Oppo is extreme but not to me and others that want the best output of our existing SD collections as well.

Perception in the value of improved output quality is subjective, which is probably why some don't feel that HD is absolutely necessary for them. But I would think that someone that craves HD would also crave the best upconversion and processing available for SD content as well.

bsmith

Yes, I do. I was just referring to a comment suggesting that a low-end BR player could do as good a job with SD content as many upscaling DVD players.

Interestingly, enough some people either don't want to deal with multiple players or don't have space for another player and would want a single player solution. That is part of the reason many have an interest in the Oppo. I'm not one that needs that, but I'd still prefer the Oppo.

In addition, some prefer not to replace a high-end receiver that just happen to be out of date with the HD audio formats. So a BR player with quality analog outputs is necessary in order to take advantage of HD audio. Many of your cheap BR players do not provides this support.

Gizmo

Most of those SD comparisons are towards a high-level SD upconverter. Assuming a good chunk of people simply have a Sony/Toshiba/whatever upconverter almost any BD player on the market will provide similar if not better quality.

Gizmo

Many actually do. You may have to spend $200 or so, but I could recommend several with Analog outputs. Fact is - many people have since upgraded and putting in additional hardware when most people are just going to connect directly to their TV is stupid. I'd rather see cheaper players without Analog.

bsmith

Most of the comparisons I've seen have been regarding BR players of $250 and up (last year it would have been more like $500 and up) against high-end SD upconverters. And most don't fair well because they usually only contain the most basic of upconverting processing capabilities. Which isn't necessarily a slight if they are trying to provide quality BR capabilities at a price point, unless one also has a high interest in using it for SD as well.

Which makes me question what upconverting capabilities a $100 BR player would have. Now if someone is using a $50 DVD player then maybe they would be happy with the SD playback of a $100 BR player. But a $100 BR player would not satisfy the needs of many of us and that is more of the point I was making.

bsmith

Just because it supports analog out doesn't necessarily mean it provides a quality output, you still have to consider the DACs involved. What good is it to have a high-end receiver with quality DACs if earlier in the chain you are going to use cheap DACs in a BR player. Just referencing that just because $100 BR players are available it doesn't mean it's a good fit for everyone.

Gizmo

So now you want a cheap Blu-ray player with analogs? Well, act quick as the CEs are moving away from Analog as it adds too much to cost of players. Besides a few "premium" players you won't be seeing much analog out there. Sony has already stopped production of their last (besides the very expensive ones available in speciality shops) analog player, the S550.

bsmith

I never said I wanted a cheap player. But when people continue to make references that you can get a player for cheap (only $100), it comes off as if they are saying there no logical reason not to get one. For so little, why not right?

Well I have just been clarifying why someone might not be ready to jump aboard just yet. For example, that the majority of content they are most interested in is not currently available. And that even though players can be had cheap does not mean that those are players they would consider worth purchasing.

Players with internal decoders and analog outputs really only began appearing last summer. I highly doubt they are going to go away anytime soon. It is an extra expense to produce and I wouldn't purchase a sub $200 unit with those capabilities anyway since for that price it would likely have had to cut corners some where. The likelihood is that these players will cost anywhere from $400 and up to maintain a quality product. I don't mind that at all and will pursue it when I feel it is worth my while based on more content of interest becoming available within the format. Until then why spend the money on a still evolving technology when each generation released is better then the previous.

Gizmo

The majority of people in this thread are bitching about new titles that have BD Exclusive features. So $100 to play those title (which people are complaining about) makes sense.

Analog has been in Blu-ray since day One - you might mean players that internally decode both TrueHD and DTS MA...which would be correct. However the CEs are moving away from Analog (in BD Players) since most receivers are now HDMI capable. Why keep putting (expensive) features into a player that few are going to need?