A lot of people worry about their collections becoming obsolete BEFORE going Blu. But I've never met a single person who regretted it afterward. Or felt 'forced' to buy upgrades. New movies continue to be made, and if an old favorite comes out on Blu, you'll be happy, even excited, to spend the money for the upgrade. If not, you'll stick with your existing DVD.

The beauty of Blu-ray is, unlike every other new video format that's come along, it's compatible with the old one. So you're current collection can intermingle nicely as you continue to build in BD.

I was worried about this when I first went to Blu-ray. Your DVD collection does not become obsolete. You don't have to even look at it like a new format. Look at it like Blu-rays are for new releases and DVDs are for everything you already have. The studios are very, very slow in bringing out catalog releases. Plus you say you love every one of your 1200 collection... but if you go Blu-ray you may see yourself upgrading a few movies... but not every single one. For me... I already have 3 of my all-time favorite catalog releases with True Romance, Leon the Professional and Pulp Fiction.

Blu-rays supplement your DVD collection... not replace them.

Technically speaking, a lot of early DVD players could also play VCD. VCD is still an alive format in Asia.

Most of my DVDs are pretty much sitting around waiting to be replaced, except for the ones that I never should have purchased in the first place, which are just sitting around. I gave a bunch of them away to people who don't have (or want) a Blu-Ray player, and continue to give away as I replace the DVDs with BDs. The only DVDs I will even consider purchasing anymore are some TV series on DVD, films that are only released on DVD that I must have, and some direct-to-DVD animated films (DC/Marvel Animated).

Of course, I did not seriously start collecting DVDs until well into 2007, and stopped purchasing them cold turkey at the end of 2008. So... not nearly as large of a collection to part with/get rid of/upgrade as some, for sure. And I think the only DVDs I'd even consider watching at this point would be the Lord of the Rings (EE) Trilogy.

Good luck in deciding the future of your film collection. I struggled over the same issue for nearly a year, and ended up doing what many are suggesting: just pick up where you left off with DVDs, and replace as you see fit (or as you see a deal).

After the format war (and a very brief fling with HD-DVD), when I finally picked up a Blu-ray player, I switched almost 100% to renting. I wasn't a serious DVD collector, but of the movies on my shelf (some of which have never been watched), the average purchase price easily exceeds to the number of times I've watched each film vs. the cost of renting x times.

With rentals, I pay the equivalent of buying one title a month and can watch multiple new titles a week. If I want to watch something again, I can always rent it again.

Actually for us the so-called Big Change didn't so-much happen when we got the BD player but when we got a new set to replace the Mits RPTV. That's when everything changed. We're using last years BB Insigna brand and frankly the upconverted DVD's look pretty darn good. Good enough to not to run out and buy the BR version.

Now that said I only look for BR movies now. We pretty much have what we wanted when it came out on DVD. But what we didn't have I again look for it on BR like older Star Trek, Cars, etc...I think it boils down to features and extras between BR and the DVD versions. If it's important and fun then yea get the BR as it's usually packed with goodies (Live of course). But if not save the $$$$ for newer flicks or those special movies you really love.

I use the exact same argument completely reversed.

I buy for approximately the same cost of renting. I average close to $2 per film, less than $7 per BD, so renting doesn't make any sense to me.

I guess that 'power' renters who seek good deals and like Redbox' crappy mainstream selection could argue that renting is about $1 per film, but then they're limited in what they can watch and when. With Netflix, I might be in the mood to watch a film when I put it in my queue, but not a week or month later when it arrives. I'd rather pay slightly more and have the disc forever.

But like anything in life, we all have justifications for why we do things worked out in our minds, and very few of us will ever change.

I buy new release blu-rays (or movies I didn't previously own) and I only upgrade my favorite movies from DVD to blu.

I'm not sure if that was necessary. Is Redbox renting Blu-rays now?

Anyway, even at $7 a pop, you're either spending more or watching less than I am. I used to buy a lot too, but with the shift to HD I switched to mainly renting. My interest in having titles on the shelf has lessened, but my viewing habits haven't. I still watch the same number and broad range of films as before.

Different strokes for different folks.

I do try to stick to Blu-ray though, unless it's a foreign, indie or older title otherwise unavailable in HD. Upscaling can't hold a candle to a properly transferred and encoded Blu-ray film on a large screen projector.

Yes, in some areas. My "crappy" wasn't meant to describe the films or the tastes of the renters, but simply that Redbox offers such a small selection of films, and almost all of them mainstream recent fare, much of it direct-to-video, that the selection has to be described in negative terms.
90% of everything is not available on blu-ray. We're all different, but I think that % describes my viewing habits accurately. Wish it was all out on blu-ray, but I don't think we'll ever see that.

Well, I still have my VHS tapes and players, Laserdiscs/player and DVDs + multi-region/PAL converting DVD players and HTPCs in addition to Blu-ray, and I'm not opposed to a trip to a festival or archive screenings, so I'll just watch whatever is available in the best format out at the time.

VHS: 250 lines of resolution (p)
DVD: 480 lines of resolution (p)
Blu Ray: 1080 lines of resolution (p)

The difference between DVD and Blu Ray is obviously larger then the difference between VHS and DVD.

Mathematically, yes, but...well, then there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns

I found VHS unwatchable when I first bought into DVD. As compelling as I find the difference between DVD and Blu-ray to be, I can still watch DVDs and not feel as if I'm slumming it.

Of course, the difference is even more apparent when you factor in the number of pixels per line, which changed with each format.

VHS = 330x480 = 158,400 pixels
DVD = 720×480 = 345,600 pixels
Blu-ray = 1920×1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-VHS#C...to_other_media

So DVD has about 2.2X more resolution than VHS, but Blu-ray has about 6X the resolution of DVD, or almost three-fold the jump in resolution compared to VHS-to-DVD.

Of course, the difference is that with DVD, the difference was noticable on almost any TV, while with Blu-ray you need a TV of the right resolution and size in order to get the full effect.

I still watched VHS after I got DVD, mostly because I got into DVD early and a large chunk of stuff I wanted to watch was still only available on VHS.

Although I prefer the Blu-ray discs I still own hundreds of DVD's and still watch them. With me the problem was I wasn't very discriminating in what I bought so I did end up with a lot of dreck on the shelf. As a collector you'll definately have titles you want to upgrade, but for the most part you'll be happy with your DVD's. A good portion of my most wanted list are not necessarily my favorite movies but DVD's that have never had a decent release or some I haven't yet upgraded beyond the first generation junk disc, so I'll wait for the blu

What about laserdiscs? I still have some laserediscs that have superior sound compared to dvd.

Laserdisc resolution was included in the list I linked to.

Laserdisc = 560×480 = 268800

So DVD was about a 30% increase in raw resolution. However, anamorphic enhancement adds about 20% resolution to a widescreen image, so an anamorphic DVD would have about 1.5X the resolution of a letterboxed Laserdisc.

However, Laserdisc had uncompressed analog video. So depending on the source used for the DVD and the amount of compression used, the Laserdisc may still look better (e.g. original Highlander DVD).

Looks great on paper.
But IMO the step up in image quality from DVD to Blu-Ray wasn't nearly as much of an improvement as the step up from shitty VHS tapes to DVD.

Well, VHS had other image issues than just resolution, such as tracking adjustments and signal degradation over time due to use.

However, I've played DVD and BD versions of the same film simultaneously, switching between the two, and the BD was a clear improvement over DVD, even upconverted.

I've been an HD-DVD user since December 2006 (HD-DVD Add-On Drive on XBox 360) and Blu-ray since January of 2008 (60GB PS3). While I consider myself an HD snob that will give priority to renting/buying a high-def version of a movie/TV show/concert/etc. whenever possible, DVD's continue to be what I own and watch most since they make the vast majority of my viewing options. To me it's always about the writing/acting/performing/overall quality of the piece, with high-def picture/sound a tasty cherry on top. Last night I saw John Woo's "Hard-Boiled" on Criterion DVD (a really old Laserdisc letterboxed transfer full of knicks and washed-out colors) and it easily blew away half the Blu's I've seen over the past couple of weeks because it was a great action flick despite looking like ass. When a really good movie comes in high-def it's the best of both worlds, but a piece of **** movie with the best HD transfer and theater-quality sound is still just "Transformers 2."

If you truly love a movie/show/concert, own it and watch it repeteadly on DVD then replacing that particular disc with a Blu-ray (assuming it's a quality transfer/improvement and not a cash-in ripoff) its worth it. But hundreds of movies/shows/concerts that you only watch once every few moons (or ever)? Keep them on DVD and, if something worthwhile comes out on DVD but not Blu-ray (like half of Criterion or KINO releases), why deny yourself the viewing choices just because it's not in high-def? It's all about content baby, but if possible good content in HD makes the experience all the more worthwhile.

For me it usually depends on the movie. I recently bought I Love You Man on dvd instead of blu because I was able to find it used for six bucks. Sorry to say the image difference isn't that important to me when it comes to comedies.
Upgrading is a little different. If I can sell off my old dvd for a decent price I'll upgrade it to blu. If it's a favorite movie of mine I'll bite right away.
My price point for a new release single blu-ray is 19.99. I've only gone over that three times with Watchmen, Benjamin Button and the Terminator 2 endoskeleton bust. Thanks to the Disney/Pixar coupons it didn't happen more often.

This is technically true but it largely depends on your set-up. If you put VHS and DVD on a 14" CRT and difference is minimal compared to a 36" CRT TV.

Would a possible future high def format with 2160 lines of resolution be twice as sharp on the same 50" HDTV screen? Technically yes, but your eyes will probably not notice twice the difference.

35mm film is higher resolution than Blu-ray and yet in many cases I feel Blu-ray, on a good set-up, looks sharper than films I see in the theater.

It's not necessarily a fair comparison due to the very different scale sizes of presentation but often 35mm film is blown-up on such an overly large screen in the stadium seat multi-plexes that the film can often appear rather grainy and a little washed out.

Then again, projecting 35mm onto a 50" screen will obviously get a much better picture than Blu-ray.

Wow, I got a lot of great feedback and information. Thanks guys.

See, where I'm at right now, is I don't have an HDTV or a blu ray player, but the thought that keeps going through my head is that even though it's something I probably won't have for at least 4-5 months, if I eventually DO plan on going blu, I'd basically be shooting myself in the foot if when Inglourious Basterd's and Disctrict 9 come out, I buy them on dvd and not blu. It's kind of like a pre emptive strike I guess you could say, getting BD's, even if I can't watch them. Because if I know thats where I'm eventually going, then why the fuck am I still buying dvd's?

Another dilema I'm facing, is the fact that there are a LOT of movies that are still coming out, but are ONLY available on dvd. If I go forward with BLU, but stuff like The Sam Fuller Collection, The Dead, Husbands, and other select titles are only coming out in DVD, I would feel like I'm again shooting myself in the foot, continuing to buy dvd's even though I've gone blu. Do I continue buying dvd's, when who knows, the blu could come out a year later and here I've JUST plunked down cash on the DVD. Or, do I sit around waiting for the BLU to come out meanwhile something I'd love to have in my collection, is sitting on store shelves?

Yet another thing plaguing me, is that as much as I HATE to admit it, a small amount of pleasure that I attain from collecting, is from what is aesthetically pleasing to the eye. and I HATE HATE HATE blu ray cases, they're ugly as fuck. the loud blue color and the inch high blue border at the top make me wanna vomit. I resent the fact that distributors feel customers are so completly ignorant that they have to loudly display to anyone within a country mile that THIS IS A BLU RAY DISC. The only things I've seen so far that I really dig, are the criterion clear cases without the blue border, the criterion digi packs (which I understand have been discontinued), and select steelbooks and tv sets. Does anyone know if clear cases, or any cases different from the standard blue demon are currently available on the market? Something closer to the newer criterion blu cases? Because for the anal perfectionist inside of me, I think swapping out cases would be the way to go for me. Unless I am just blessed and the movie God's decide to start releasing everything in steelbook.

Anyways, thanks for the input guys, it's gone a long way in helping decide how I'm gonna make the transition, which at this point, I'm gonna have to admit to myself is inevitable.

The primary reason for this is (and as silly as it sounds, it really isn't) is to do exactly what you said it does: display loudly that it is a Blu-ray disc. When I started buying and renting Blu-rays, I would be asked often by the cashiers if I was aware of the difference just to make sure I picked up the right format, and not the "wrong" one. Blu-ray was always the wrong one for a lot of customers who were unaware of the difference between it and DVD.

Seriously.

My reply was always of the "I'm not that stupid" variety, but the cashiers would say it was usually the older crowd (seniors and such) that didn't know the difference. Even with those blue cases that are smaller, some people remain unaware.