Originally Posted by chanster (Post 9145958)

Is it worth $10-$15 more for new releases? Or $20 more for some catalog releases? I don't know, thats a personal decision.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist (Post 9145897)

You are arguing that one of the products is revolutionary while the other isn't. This implies to me that one of the formats still offers more advantages to the consumer than the other.

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist (Post 9145897)

So, you don't know what could have been revolutionary but you are certain BD isn't it. And so do most people. Can you describe what a revolutionary format would have been in general, or did the revolutionary cycle end with DVD?

Pro-B

Originally Posted by atlantamoi (Post 9145997)

For me, definitely not. I guess I'm not much of a collector, but I will not own a big collection until the prices drop down closer to what current DVDs sell for now. I own both HD and Blu-ray players, but will simply use Netflix to satisfy my craving. I'm the kind person who doesn't have a huge list of movies I even want to see more than once (not with tons of other newer ones waiting to be seen).

I didn't buy any HD movies the past year, but after purchasing a Blu-ray player two weeks ago and starting to look at deals I ended up buying an Ebay lot of HD-DVD movies for 1/3 or 1/4 the price of Blu-rays. The price of a movie totally affects how many I will own and right now I wouldn't even consider buying one for $20. No way.

Originally Posted by cinemaman (Post 9146826)

maybe it's just me.. but decided to look at what it would cost to RENT a BRD from blockbuster.

$9.. NINE Dollars for a RENTAL??

Sorry- that just seems insane. For some bizarre reason I thought renting these would be a cost effective alternative to buying these...

I haven't spent more the $7 on buying a DVD in years. To have to pay more than that to rent is something I can never see me doing..

Originally Posted by beebs (Post 9146649)

It also baffles me that we are into third and fourth generation players and load times are a common question among people on forums like this.

Originally Posted by beebs (Post 9146649)

In forums like this, there's a very vocal group... perhaps a majority here who appreciate and root for the format. A minority are drinking the Blu-Koolaid.

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 9146267)

No, you're not looking at the terms in context. DVD was revolutionary at the time it was released. The dominant format was VHS. DVD offered so many improvements over VHS (better picture/sound, special features, commentaries, low prices) that it was a revolution in home video. It completely changed the way people thought about watching movies at home. VHS couldn't ever replicate a theater experience. DVD could begin to do that, with clear images and 5.1 sound.

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 9146267)

A revolutionary new format would not be disc-based, for one thing. You can start with that. I used the term "paradigm shift" above, and perhaps that's a better term than "revolutionary." Blu-ray does not shift the paradigm, it stands firmly within the bounds of what DVD has already done. It simply does it better, with more interactivity and better PQ/AQ. And again, there's nothing wrong with that. No one here is attacking Blu-ray as a product or a format. What we are pointing out is where the marketing/public perception is going wrong, and why some people are content to stay with DVD. No one here is arguing that we should get rid of BD or go back to DVD.

Originally Posted by DthRdrX (Post 9145304)

Not to mention the component vs DVI/HDMI arguments. The best place to look for the VHS/DVD comparisons is via Google's newsgroup search, now labeled under the "groups" search function.

Originally Posted by JimRochester (Post 9146917)

I get mine online and in the store. BB doesn't upcharge BD the way Netflix does. I get anywhere from 10 - 20 discs per month so my avg cost is $1 - $2 each rental

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist (Post 9147000)

You want to argue that Blu-ray isn't where DVD is in terms of pricing, fine, there is no argument there.

Originally Posted by Spiky (Post 9147023)

I disagree. Am I the only one here who remembers that there was no $5 bargain DVD bin 10 years ago? DVD came out at the same prices as BD is right now. And even today DVD street prices for recent releases are $20-23 for normal editions. BD is $26-30, usually. What's the inflation for the last 10 years? Does that cover the $1-3 difference between BD prices today and DVD then?

Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist (Post 9147000)

Actually, the reason I questioned the use of revolutionary was precisely because I try to see things in context:

1. LD was also a disc-based format.
2. LD was also a quality-touted format (standard definition).
3. LD also eliminated a lot of the technical setbacks VHS introduced (rewinding, durability).
4. LD also offered better viewing quality (OAR for many films).

Fast-forward to DVD:

1. Evolutionary improvement in terms of portability (size)
2. Evolutionary improvement in terms of quality (OAR)
3. Evolutionary improvement in terms of language options
4. Evolutionary improvement in terms of storage (dual layer capacity)

The only revolutionary aspect of DVD's history is pricing. But pricing as we know it today was certainly not introduced as part of the format's portfolio, with other other words, DVD did not become an own-format until Lieberfarb and team decided to effectively stave off any future chances of DIVX-copycats. Every other aspect of DVD's tech portfolio was, in my opinion, evolutionary.

Fast-forward to Blu-ray:

1. Evolutionary improvement in terms of quality (higher resolution)
2. Evolutionary improvement in terms of durability (hard-coating)
3. Evolutionary improvement in terms of interactivity (not peaked yet)
4. Evolutionary improvement in terms of capacity

You want to argue that Blu-ray isn't where DVD is in terms of pricing, fine, there is no argument there. But, once again, DVD did not arrive as an own-format, it matured to become such, and BD isn't even close to being a mature format. With other words, the technical application "revolutionary" is attached to appears contradictory to say the least as, once again, other than pricing I don't see another feature DVD boasts that wasn't an improvement of what LD introduced.




Using all of the points you've made in your post I don't see how any such format, if it ever arrives, could be described as revolutionary. To me personally, revolutionary implies something groundbreaking, never before done. At this point, unless someone invents a 3D device where the audience is granted a 3D live access to the content the device plays, meaning real-time interaction with the data simulating nerve-based emotions, and allowing content alteration, I don't see a real possibility for a "revolutionary" format - based upon the fact that every single new tech spec this new format would be introducing will be of evolutionary nature - improvements in terms of delivery (online, interactive, etc), capacity, resolution, interactivity, etc.

Pro-B

Originally Posted by cinemaman (Post 9146826)

maybe it's just me.. but decided to look at what it would cost to RENT a BRD from blockbuster.

$9.. NINE Dollars for a RENTAL??

Sorry- that just seems insane. For some bizarre reason I thought renting these would be a cost effective alternative to buying these...

I haven't spent more the $7 on buying a DVD in years. To have to pay more than that to rent is something I can never see me doing..

Originally Posted by Drexl (Post 9147111)

DVD didn't arrive as an own-format? I remember discs in 1997 being priced to own. Regardless of what kinds of deals that may have been proposed, DVDs were never rental-priced.

Originally Posted by Coral (Post 9147132)

The argument is silly. DVD is revolutionary in quality, features, practicality, price and portability. It changed the way people viewed movies and is a monster success that almost everyone adopted because it's so revolutionary. And DVDs were priced to own when first released. Blu-Ray is evolutionary.

Originally Posted by Spiky (Post 9147023)

True. But $1/month upcharge spreads pretty evenly over 10-20 discs, no? I'd put both services pretty even on pricing. And now Redbox is rolling out BD rentals, although nada here so far.

Originally Posted by RoboDad (Post 9146922)

Comments such as this are uncalled for. They add nothing of value to any discussion, and only serve to diminish your own credibility, by demonstrating your intolerance for opinions that disagree with your own.

Originally Posted by beebs (Post 9147937)

I see some folks with a rapid defensive response to things anti-Blu and I call like I see it. You don't see that. That's a difference of opinion, I say.

-beebs

Originally Posted by Spiky (Post 9147023)

You're comparing VHS to component video?? That is....ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Coral (Post 9147132)

The argument is silly. DVD is revolutionary in quality, features, practicality, price and portability. It changed the way people viewed movies and is a monster success that almost everyone adopted because it's so revolutionary. And DVDs were priced to own when first released. Blu-Ray is evolutionary.

Originally Posted by RoboDad (Post 9148188)

Rather than taking an all-or-nothing, extreme stance on the issue, wouldn't it be better to acknowledge that there were some aspects of DVD that were revolutionary, some that were evolutionary, and some that were neither?

In terms of physical size and accessibility of content (menus, direct scene access, etc), I would easily agree that DVD was revolutionary. Both of those areas made the discs more portable, and more important, more usable.

In terms of image and sound quality, DVD was marginally evolutionary. Other than the widespread introduction of anamorphic widescreen video, it really didn't offer a significant jump in quality over Laserdisc.

In terms of pricing, aside from the earlier availability of titles, it was neither evolutionary nor revolutionary. By the time DVD arrived on the scene, sell-through VHS, priced at $20 or less, was becoming more and more common. That concept was not invented for DVD, the DVD format merely exploited it better.

Similarly, special features such as deleted scenes, commentaries, and documentaries were common on Laserdisc, and even on some VHS titles. None of that was new to DVD. The menu-driven architecture of DVD made the features more accessible, but that is a separate point.

Originally Posted by RoboDad (Post 9148188)

Rather than taking an all-or-nothing, extreme stance on the issue, wouldn't it be better to acknowledge that there were some aspects of DVD that were revolutionary, some that were evolutionary, and some that were neither?