Slashdot Mirror
Blu-ray Adoption Soft, More Still Own HD DVD
MojoKid writes "A new study by Harris Interactive notes that currently,
one in ten Americans (10%) own an HD DVD player, while just 7% own a Blu-ray player. Crazy, right?
More Americans own HD DVD right now than the 'winning' format, Blu-ray. If you think about it, that statistic isn't that shocking. When HD DVD was around, it was far and away the 'budget' format for high-def. The players were cheaper, the films were cheaper. In other words, it was a format more ready to thrive in a down economy. Blu-ray was always viewed as a niche format for those absorbed in A/V, not the common man's format. The survey also found that on average, consumers purchased approximately six standard format DVDs in the last six months, compared with one in HD DVD format."
If you had no format knowledge, and someone told you you could have HD DVD or Blu-Ray, which would you pick? Probably the one you thought you knew, High Definition DVD. You might even think it was more compatible with your existing DVD stuff. Blu Ray? What's that?
more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s? really?
Due to the egregious DRM that encumbers HD players (esp. Blu-Ray) and the necessity to have these devices connected to the internet in order to keep their DRM updated, I will never purchase one of these pieces of s*!t. I have a firm policy of refusal to support any vendor who utilizes DRM in their products. If they want to treat me as a criminal, I won't support them.
That said, I do purchase DVD's, but the first thing I do is to strip the CSS and region codes from them and back them up as ISO images on my NAS array. I also have a region-free DVD/VHS player. I don't give copies of my purchased DVD's to anybody, but I refuse to abrogate my right to make backup copies that I can use and/or re-burn as necessary, and can take with me on the road when I am traveling without endangering the original copy. I can drop a half-dozen movies on my laptop hard drive and play them when I am away on business travel.
At normal viewing distance I honestly can't tell the difference.
I have a 720p capable LCD hooked up to a 360 (via HDMI) with the HD-DVD add-on. Really can't tell the difference between a DVD upscaled on the 360 and an HD-DVD. Not a stellar setup, though, so ...
The other day I was in Blockbuster and watching their BluRay demo disc (Hancock) on a proper Sony 1080p capable telly. It does a sliding effect where it shows the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD (presumably with DVD suitably fuzzed to exagerate the effect, although maybe they're just honest and don't need to do that). Up close the difference was obviously quite noticable, but at normal viewing distance it was really hard to tell.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Curious why you would assume they are more likely to goto Netflix or iTunes?
https://www.speakservers.com/
The first HD movie I watched was "300" on my mates' PS3 linked to a 46" Hi-Def TV (full 1080p). I'll never watch another Hi-Def movie again.
The definition was so good that I could see the seperations around the actors and knew exactly when they were in front of a green screen and no on set. Totally ruined the visuals (which is, in all honesty, the only reason to watch that movie).
Total waste of money. I'm happy with my 24" monitor and DVD drive in my PC (which actually runs up to 1920x1200, higher than Hi-Def).
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
That was how Sony convinced the producers that they had won, by counting PS3's instead of stand alone players. This is no different than some of the Apple people claiming 10% market share but failing to state that it included phones!
Personal account, only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies. Most don't even use it to play regular DVDs, it is the "KIDS MACHINE".
HD-DVD loaded faster, have less expensive players, and less expensive movies. It also had some great shows/movies out early that Blu Ray did not. I have both players now, I would have loved HD-DVD to have won. Why? Because of the G-D ads that too many Blu-Ray movies force you to sit through. See, that AD thing is probably another reason movie producers would favor Sony over HD. They could force you to watch their ads for other products because HD stated that that feature was not allowed - not so in Blu-Ray
Well with http://red2blu.com/ I could get the blu-ray versions fairly cheap, but my HD-DVD player is again, faster and less prone to abuse by the dvd creator.
Sony screwed the consumer over by lies and buying off the movie producers. They are getting exactly what they deserve, flat to falling sales. The players are overpriced and worse the movies border on extortionist in pricing. I do not buy new Blu-Ray movies, I rent them on occasion, but if they are higher than standard DVD I will just wait till the price goes down. This has two effects, by the time the price comes down the movie may no longer be interesting to me meaning I didn't need it anyway, the second being that perhaps one day they will get the hint.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The definition was so good that I could see the seperations around the actors and knew exactly when they were in front of a green screen and no on set. Totally ruined the visuals
Movie theaters nowadays use a 1080p or bigger format with an even higher bitrate than Blu-ray Disc. Had you seen the film in a movie theater, might you have noticed the same compositing failures?
Yes, when you put your face up to the TV, you can tell the difference. The OP was talking about "normal viewing distance." If you think you can tell the difference from 10 to 15 feet about, you are full of it.
YES. Here's the real problem. If you call up the average schmoe with an upconverting DVD player connected to an HDTV and ask him if he has "an HD DVD player" I'd wager that at least three times out of 10 that guy says, "Uh-huh."
Leaving that aside, the linked Web site is trying to make a faulty extrapolation from the data. I own an Xbox HD DVD drive that I haven't powered up since last October, a PS3, maybe three or four HD DVD discs and about 90 Blu-ray titles. And yet I do not own a "Blu-ray player." But if I had responded to this survey, my participation would have been used as evidence that Blu-ray adoption is soft. Nuh-uh.
These figures show something but I am not sure I like it.
People who have stand-alone players probably want to buy media in that format. Even when the gaming systems are included, the numbers are roughly equivalent. But, there is a sizable lead HD-DVD over BluRay.
I have an HD-DVD player. A few movies for it (although, its mostly just a DVD player for me). Would I buy HD-DVD movies? Hell, yes, I keep getting marketing literature for Hi-def movies, to which I reply "Yes, I would be interested, please give me HD-DVD format".
The demand is there (30% greater install base) -- where is the media?
Yes, I believe there is a conspiracy to eliminate HD-DVD. Personally, I don't give a hoot if players are no longer available, but, given the install base, it WOULD make sense to make HD-DVD releases.
But, no new HD-DVDS: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/releasedates.html
No HD-DVD rentals, no HD-DVD "classic" sales at Walmart. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE MORE INSTALLED HD-DVD PLAYERS. Sounds like cartel behaviour to me. Certainly no market forces at work. Why doesn't someone get into the business of mastering "bargain" HD-DVDs to sell for $15? If one in ten US households have an HD-DVD player, it certainly sounds like a business opportunity to me. At least I should be seeing HD-DVDs in the second-tier retailers "XS Cargo". Simply run more of the movies already mastered!
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Lemme see. I could afford a 600 Full HD flat screen, but really, why do it before my 82cm CRT dies somewhere in 2020 ? Even if I had a flat screen, DVD would be good enough.
DVD brought to us good enough pictures on a price that makes any video marketable at virtually any price. Yeah it was fine to watch LOTR on it, but seeing the crappy 1980s cartoons most Gen-Xers buy in bulk, the picture quality is not the main selling point. It's that it's very cheap to produce.
Blu Ray does not add a lot on top of it. Good classics won't be release for the next 5 years, for the same reason they were not released immediately on DVD: you don't want your A-list movie to be in the budget bin by the time everyone has a player. The manufacturing cost is probably low, but not as low as DVDs. And niche crap that we were happy to watch on a b&w CRT in 1982 are readily available on DVD, so why wait ?
I truly think a large part of the issue here is that "Blu-Ray" is a horrible HORRIBLE name. The name HD-DVD is alliterative and logical. HD-DVD "sounds" like the logical upgrade to the DVD, while "Blu-Ray" sounds like a Star Wars weapon.
The two rules for success are:
1) Never tell them everything you know.
Are you sure you did not watch that movie on a LCD with a movie destroying "High Clarity" mode that makes every movie you watch look like a "behind the scenes" video? Is say this because 300 was not that clear of a film in Blu-Ray. I think that the current trend for "ultra sharp" tv's is going to backfire on the TV manufacturers. They look great at the store, but after about 10 minutes of viewing you notice that all the motion blur is being removed, which makes the film look more fake that it should.
1. BluRay licensing makes it very difficult (expensive) to enable mass-adoption.
I can attest to this. We shot the US Open Racquetball Championships for the Tennis Channel in HD, so naturally for the DVDs of the matches BluRay was considered. I checked into it, and the setup fees alone were outrageous enough for the Tennis Channel to say no, and we went with SD DVD instead. When a freaking TV network can't afford to make BluRays, you know you're not in good shape. This was in October 2008.
300 is a bad example. I own it on HD-DVD, and think it looks terrible compared to most movies on either HD-DVD or BR. I hadn't picked up on the green screen obviousness, but I assumed it was likely do to the digital effects. It looks like it was filmed digitally and then they put the film "look" back in.
Watch Dark Knight on Blu Ray sometime -- that looks fantastic.
I have a PS3 and I bought it explicitly for BluRay. I have more BluRay movies than games. But hey, don't let me interrupt your hatred of Sony with inconvenient details that are incongruous with your devotion to seething rage at Sony.
I didn't buy a dvd player for many years after the format was introduced. Something to do with initially costing £600 for a player, and no recording capability. I didn't buy a cd drive for my computer until years after they were available. DVD writer ? Not until they became cheap enough to be worth adding on. I have looked at getting a bluray writer, and although they are quite cheap, they are not cheap enough. Once we get down to £40 region they'll be worth the money.
300 isn't really a top tier movie for PQ (picture quality). I challenge you to watch something like Kung Fu Panda, Cars, Pirates of the Caribbean, or frankly anything in the Tier 0 (reference) section of this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316
I agree with you btw, I didn't like 300 in HD, but I like it a lot less in SD. Good HD movies absolutely smash even the best DVD's with the best upconversion.
Its just the "-1 (disagree)" modding that happens early on when you post a comment that somebody doesn't agree with. It'll self-correct soon and you'll be back on the plus side. I'd do it myself if I was modding today, but alas, the robot overlord did not bless me with mod points today.
Long post short: I have a PS3 and will not buy a standalone because the gaming console is just fine for playing movies.
Now a lot of folks might think they have HD TV and have a DVD player that is either 480p or an upscaling one but that's not HD-DVD. It just doesn't seem like it's possible for those numbers to be correct. If you look at the income distribution as well, it suggests to me that the sample set is flawed if nothing else. Computer ownership went down? HD TV ownership is substantially different than the Neilsen numbers. Original xbox numbers are consistent but PS2 numbers went down? The $50k to $75k folks own way more gadgets than the $75k+ crowd? 'splain that to me.
Why was this modded insightful?
By now, everybody knows that some comments are incorrectly moderated Troll/Offtopic/Flamebait/etc early on, and will eventually be modded correctly.
In fact, I'm starting to wonder if people post things like "Why was this moderated as a 'Troll'?" after good comments, regardless of whether it was actually moderated as a troll, just to piggyback off the comment's success.