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."

107 of 685 comments (clear)

  1. I always maintained blue ray was moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People can just download stuff in any format. The industry is confused about this issue. My computer can play just about anything, so screw them.

    1. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by 2.7182 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention, movies can be made at any resolution almost, esp. cgi movies. Even using povray I can generate 6400x4800 res movies, and you know what? I don't need a dvd to same them. There is this universal storage device called a "hard drive". Also, crazily enough, as you point out, the movies can be in any of these mysterious "formats", such as .mov, .mp4, .avi, etc. If they want to provide me with a way to back up a 50 gig directory fine, but it's so old fashioned to think that this is going to be the new "movie" format.

      Also, I've even downgraded from dvd quality. I am very happy streaming things from Netflix.

    2. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by shoemilk · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, the winner of the HD DVD BluRay format war is has and always will be "None of the above"

    3. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Chatsubo · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's amazing. Sony are so bad at format wars that, even when they win, they lose.

      --
      > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
    4. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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/
    5. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by furby076 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really moot. Most people are either 1) Not sure how to download movies 2) not sure how to get them to play 3) would rather watch them on their 40 inch tv while in their couch instead of 22 inch monitor while in their desk chair.

      You may have a 40 inch monitor or have your computer wired to your plasma/lcd but most people do not. You may know how to use torrents but most people do not.

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    6. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by srjh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe downloadable content will be the winner much further down the track, but for the moment I think the problem is that Blu-ray hasn't done enough to dethrone DVDs as the standard format.

      Think about what DVDs had to offer over VHS - much smaller form factor (you can get about three TV seasons worth of content in a case the size of a VHS tape), significantly increased quality (both picture and sound), the ability to choose subtitles in dozens of languages with a click of a button, no rewinding, multiple soundtracks on the one disc, selectable camera angles, chapter selection, usable menus, special features, audio commentaries, no degradation of the signal from repeated use, etc...

      Blu-ray offers... a slightly better picture. If you fork out ridiculous amounts of cash for the new discs, players and a HD Television to go with it.

      Sure, I can tell the difference, and so can most people, but DVDs are actually reasonably good quality to begin with, and good enough for most people out there, myself included.

    7. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's amazing. Sony are so bad at format wars that, even when they win, they lose.

      A curious game where the only winning move is not to buy Sony.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    8. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by jambox · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, the only reason to watch that movie is if you're bi-curious.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    9. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Narishma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who have broadband and no caps, have their PC connected to their TV and are generally computer savvy can just download stuff in any format.

      There. Fixed it for you.

      --
      Mada mada dane.
    10. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by furby076 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No they do not actually. Netflix to your TV (via xbox) is standard def and slightly below standard def. Comcast HD is not 1080p. They push out a degraded 1080i so it will typically look like a 780p. It's good enough but falls far short of blu ray, hd dvd, and even upconverted dvd. Blu Ray is 1080p

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    11. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by jambox · · Score: 4, Funny

      What? It was camper than a row of pink tents.

      --
      You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
    12. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been winning that game for a long time now, as has anyone else
      who cares about their rights as consumers.

    13. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Enjoy your 480p content then. Doesn't matter what resolution your monitor can handle, you need to pair it with a suitable source. DVD looks pretty bad on a monitor, unless you're 10' away from it. And what's the point of that? And did your roomate have his TV calibrated properly? Too much sharpness and edge enhancement will add halos, it's possible that you were seeing that. 300 had a strange look & feel, could be that as well. Go check out A Bug's Life, hell even the older Bond films on BD and you should be very impressed.

      My couch is about 9' away from my new 52" LCD and everything I've watched on BD looks amazing. Definitely better than up-scaling regular DVDs.

    14. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    15. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's amazing. Sony are so bad at format wars that, even when they win, they lose.

      This quote from the article doesn't tell the whole story, though:

      "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?"

      If you look at the chart, they've separated out the PS3 owners from the Blu-Ray player owners. Combine the 7% Blu-Ray owners with the 9% PS3 owners, and that's 16%. I'm sure that most PS3 owners didn't feel the need to buy a separate Blu-Ray player.

    16. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Talderas · · Score: 5, Informative

      So you're judging your opinions of HD on one of the few movies that was done almost entirely in front of blue/green screens, the exception being the scene involving the Persian horseback messenger coming across the hills. Mind you 300 was about 90% blue screen and 10% green screen. I'd venture to say that unless you were seeing this effect the entire movie, then your complaint isn't nearly as problematic as you make it out to be.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    17. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by jslater25 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To further your thoughts, it has been my experience that many older DVD titles, when played on a Blu-Ray player and on a large HD television, still look better than watching them on a smaller screen. And, the BluRay version of the same title might not show much if any improvement. So why start a new video collection when the old still works? This isn't like moving up from VHS to DVD format where you see (and often hear) a major difference in quality.

    18. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by futuresheep · · Score: 5, Informative

      Chances are your friend doesn't have the TV calibrated properly. Turning up the sharpness too high on many Hi-Def sets will cause this effect by adding in a lot of edge enhancement (ringing) to the image. Getting a good calibration disc like AVIA or Digital Video Essentials will make a huge difference in the appearance of HD sources.

    19. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Ross+D+Anderson · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair I think that sounds like a one off, and a bit of an knee jerk response on your part. I've personally not noticed that issue with any HD films I've seen (though I've not seen 300 in HD, the film sucked enough in SD). Blade Runner, for instance, looks absolutely stunning, as does Planet Earth, and the Pixar films look gorgeous too.
      I'd give it another go before I make my decision on one, very poor, film.
      Additionally, I'd get your mate to check he hasn't turned the sharpness of the image on the tv way up as this can cause JPEG-esque blocky artifacts to appear.

    20. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by pelago · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you look at the chart, they've separated out the PS3 owners from the Blu-Ray player owners. Combine the 7% Blu-Ray owners with the 9% PS3 owners, and that's 16%. I'm sure that most PS3 owners didn't feel the need to buy a separate Blu-Ray player.

      On the other hand, some of the people who owned a PS3 and no other separate BD player, might have ticked Yes to both questions. In other words, you can't necessarily add together the numbers for BD players and PS3s together, as you may be counting some devices twice.

    21. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by locnar42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I bought a PS3 for the main purpose of watching movies and for my kids to play a few games on here and there. I use it for watching BluRay and DVD and find the interface as easy as any DVD player I've ever owned. I own the remote control also, but even when the kids have lost it and I have to use the controller it's pretty much just one button click to get the movie going. I never owned a PS2 so I don't know how it compares. I did use an original XBOX as a DVD player for a little while and found it so pitiful (even with the remote) that I bought a separate DVD player instead, however my XBOX remote was flaky and I don't know which one caused the other.

    22. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by mrdoogee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    23. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by BillCable · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was reported that Criterion uses the Playstation3 as their reference Blu-ray player. So I'd say it's up there in terms of quality.

    24. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is the most true statement that can ever be made about Sony. Sony is an amazing company. Their product line is extremely wide and varied. Their quality is also extremely wide and varied. Their policies are consistently crappy and unfriendly, even suspicious, to the consumer.

      No more Sony. Just that. No More Sony.

    25. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by jebrew · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I own a PS3 and I watch blu-ray from Netflix on it all the time. I don't even have the remote and the interface is very nice. Also, due to how much horsepower the system has, it's one of the top players on the market. A friend of mine has both the PS3 and a standalone player (his parents), and I can honestly say that it's a wash as far as interface goes. The discs themselves pretty much determine that. Image quality wise, I can't tell the difference. Also, the 120hz TV causes a strange effect when you see blu-ray movies on it...almost feels like the movie is being fast forwarded.

      Long post short: I have a PS3 and will not buy a standalone because the gaming console is just fine for playing movies.

    26. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by mrdoogee · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you buy the Blu-ray Disc Remote for an extra $20 - $25... not bad. If you try to do it with the Dualshock 3 (or sixaxis) its more or less as clunky as the PS2's DVD player.

    27. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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).

      Conventional movies shown in theaters show more detail than HD; if the appearance was that bad then it is because 300 had exceptionally poorly executed visual effects, not because of any fundamental problem with HD video.

    28. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by skine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    29. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree absolutely. The real reason the HD disk formats have struggled is because DVD is "good enough" for most people. DVD replaced VHS because of better picture and sound, but also because it offered the convenience of no rewinding, more stuff on one disk, the ability to skip to different chapters, etc and it's more robust than tapes. Blu-ray (or HD-DVD) doesn't offer anything above slightly better picture (assuming you have a decent, and expensive TV with a decent sound system).

      CDs replaced cassettes and vinyl for much the same reasons, the sound is better, but one of the biggest selling points is being able to skip tracks and not have jammed tapes or scratched vinyl. CDs were then replaced not by higher quality CDs, but by more convenient downloads. Similarily, the only thing to dethrone DVDs will be convenient and cheap movie downloads.

    30. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Practically every movie on the big screen is high-def -- or filmed at even higher "resolutions" if actually filmed. If the special effects were bad enough to see the green screen effects or make the CGI noticeable (such as in Langoliers - which was lousy processing even for its time, even for a made-for-TV movie) then blame the special effects house, not the process itself.

      Film movies can appear to be low-resolution, but that is because of using low-quality prints. Film should ideally offer resolution that is much, much higher than "hi definition" digital formats. Many directors will choose a high-grain film or print though, for "ambience" or "effect" and I've even seen that grain on "digital" movies, so YMMV, etc.

      Don't most films look amazing on the big screen? Well, providing the "projectionist" actually focuses it? All too often when I go to the movies the ads before the movie are in perfect focus then the movie is out of focus, which makes me prefer watching the movie at home on my old, crappy, 36" NTSC CRT. However, when the film is in sharp focus, it's amazing - and very revealing of flaws. Remember when A New Hope was re-released in the theater? Even though they cleaned a lot up and re-did a lot of the effects digitally, the old green screen process was still evident in many of the scenes, and was a bit distracting.

      High-Def is great. I like it a lot. However, as I've said many times on here, it doesn't make lousy writing worth watching, and doesn't make good writing better. High-def does inherently improve make documentary and instrctional videos though. IMHO High-Def is good for these things:

      1. Documentaries and instruction videos
      2. Gaming (but you could use a PC or Mac with a high-res monitor for that!)
      3. Turning you into a "pixel peeper," focusing on the format rather than enjoying the story (which seems to be the case referenced in your post)
      4. Raises revenue so our government can continue its onerous trend of runaway spending
      5. More revenue for retailers by forcing everyone to upgrade televisions, or at least buying set-top boxes.

      My CRT is still running, so I put off upgrading. I came this >&lt& close to buying the Samsung LN46A650 but I put it off, thinking LED backlighting will go mainstream in the next model. I was wrong on that. You have to go up to the UN46B7000, and even then, you're getting edge lighting, not an LED backlight. :(

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    31. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Talderas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your right, one movie is enough, however that's only if that one movie is indicative of the norm for filming. 300 is not the norm. The point is, the style of filming was vastly different from the norm. So making sweeping judgments about films on a particular display technology based on a unique film is utterly ridiculous. Take something like Ironman or Batman: Forever and see how those rate up in HD, or even better use a James Bond film, but to use 300 as your sole factor in the worth of technology is utter stupidity.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    32. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Funny

      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 not on set.

      Big deal. I could detect when Doctor Who used Color Separation Overlay, and i didn't need more than a partially snowy NTSC screen to do it.

    33. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 2, Informative

      Getting a good calibration disc like AVIA or Digital Video Essentials will make a huge difference in the appearance of HD sources.

      Absolutely. I've used my Avia disk to set the basic video settings on five TVs so far including my own RP CRT plus new LCDs and Plasmas recently bought by friends and family members.

      It's really easy to do and everyone I've done it for has been stunned by the difference. Some of the factory settings on TVs are unspeakable too. My Hitachi RP CRT had the contrast set to 100, when the optimal value based on the Avia test pattern (which looked spectacular) was around 20. As a matter of fact, in that example, the factory settings would almost surely ruin the TV.

      Speaking of calibration...I just don't get why all TVs have like five or more preset video settings when, generally speaking, there really is only one set of correct values. Then again, with 99% of the general public skewing all their 4:3 content to 16:9 and not seeing anything wrong with it (don't even get me started on that) I guess they feel people expect it and don't know any better.

    34. Re:I always maintained blue ray was moot by CronoCloud · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speaking of calibration...I just don't get why all TVs have like five or more preset video settings when, generally speaking, there really is only one set of correct values.

      Multimedia/Games.

      Settings that make movies or broadcast TV look good aren't that good for games, and vice versa. Or at least they didn't used to be. I have the "User" contrast and brightness down to about half on this screen I have this PS3 connected to, but It's calibrated for Linux (where I want the black in my terminal to be black) and not as much as for games and movies.

  2. It's all about the names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:It's all about the names by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think this applies to the demographic though. These were still early adopter products up to the death of HD-DVD, and this group are quite knowledgable about tech.

    2. Re:It's all about the names by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It wouldn't surprise me if a substantial number of those saying they have an "HD DVD player" actually own Blu-Ray devices.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    3. Re:It's all about the names by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Informative
      I doubt it. If the alternative wasn't mentioned, maybe so, but hearing "or do you own BluRay" would be a pretty big hint to all but the terminally absent minded. It's emblazoned an inch high along the entire length of most Blu Ray titles.

      I gotta say, as bad as the fiasco was, it was one of the few things Best Buy did right - I bought a HD DVD player that Christmas, and when the format was discontinued, Best Buy actually sent me a $50 gift card 'for my disappointment in the situation', unsolicited.

  3. really? by notgm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s? really?

    1. Re:really? by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      more people own hd-dvd players than own ps3s? really?

      It's kind of tempting when HD DVDs are selling brand new on Amazon for $4. You a Monty Python fan? These will be collectables someday just like laserdisc or betamax.

      --
      My work here is dung.
    2. Re:really? by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. The statistics are clearly faulty.

      First, 1 in 10 Americans does not own either of these formats. Come on, really? 30 million Americans own HD-DVD players? If Toshiba and their partners had sales like that, the format war would have been over long before it was - in HD-DVD's favor.

      Second, this clearly isn't taking into account the 22 million PS3's out there, of which about 12 million are in the United States. This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $99 player announced over the weekend comes along. But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it.

    3. Re:really? by zoobaby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, may people are starting to use HTPCs, media centers, or laptops that have Blu Ray players in them that wouldn't show up in a survey.

    4. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Second, this clearly isn't taking into account the 22 million PS3's out there, of which about 12 million are in the United States. This is still the player of choice for most people - at least until that $99 player announced over the weekend comes along. But this is one case where a game console is actually clearly better than most standalone players and most people know it.

      On the other hand, games compete with films -- quite a few of those PS3 owners do not own a single Blu-Ray movie.

      The install base is there, but it doesn't translate into market potential in the same way that standalone players do.

    5. Re:really? by Dan667 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I own a blue ray player, but do not own a single blue ray disc (bought it after our dvd player died, but just use it to play dvd's). Those who actually own blue ray movies is a much more relevant statistic than who has a player capable of playing them.

  4. Flawed interpretation of the study by Joehonkie · · Score: 4, Informative

    So they're counting the PS3 and the Blu-Ray players as separate items in their study. If you add the two together, Blu-Ray adoption is higher. Of course, the question is if they count Xbox HD-DVD drives, but those numbers are probably low.

    1. Re:Flawed interpretation of the study by Nukenbar · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't think that both Xbox HD-DVD drives will change the numbers too much.

    2. Re:Flawed interpretation of the study by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The PS3 is, first and foremost, a Blu-Ray player. That's how it was designed, that's how it was marketed

      Buh?? I call bullshit. The PS3 is a gaming platform that happens to double as a Blu-Ray player, just as the PS2 was a gaming platform that doubled as a DVD player. I've never seen any evidence that it was ever marketed as anything else, and I'd love to see support for such an outlandish claim.

  5. I work in he rental industry by SchizoStatic · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a way to make some extra dough I work at a video rental chain (the largest here in the US) and just from what I have seen no one really wants to rent Blu-Ray. We got 90% of the new releases on Blu-Ray and yet they prefer dvd even at the same price point. Who wants to buy a blu-ray player at over $200 right now when I can keep buying dvds at a cheaper price. Blu-Ray is beautiful yes but for most pictures I don't need or want to pay an extra 10-20 dollars for it.

    --
    https://www.speakservers.com/
    1. Re:I work in he rental industry by barzok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're only looking at one market segment though - people who still rent from a physical store.

      Early adopters and people who have invested in home setups which would make Blu-Ray worthwhile are more likely to rent from other places (Netflix, iTunes) or just buy the movies outright. No point in owning a Blu-Ray player if your only TV is a 10 year old 27" Panasonic tube.

    2. Re:I work in he rental industry by SpooForBrains · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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"
    3. Re:I work in he rental industry by SchizoStatic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Curious why you would assume they are more likely to goto Netflix or iTunes?

      --
      https://www.speakservers.com/
    4. Re:I work in he rental industry by furby076 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quick Google search for "blu ray player" on google shopping turns up a Blu-ray Disc® Player BDP-S300 for 150. This is refurb.

      What you guys can do to help increase your rentals of Blu ray? Put up two tv's that are the exact same tvs. Put up a blu ray player. Put up a regular dvd palyer. Play the same movie (different formats appropriately) and have them play at the same exact time. Now that you convinced your customers which is better (and it is fairly dramatic) enjoy your rentals.

      Also - don't be afraid to put up old movies. Top Gun looks great in blu ray.

      For added fun sell blu ray players on the cheap or help customers find great deals online "Want to rent blu ray? Not sure what to look for? Let us help you."

      Bring this suggestion to your boss and if your boss is smart your boss will use this idea. Considering video rental stores are lagging in sales this is a cheap way to increase them. This will also make the boss happy with you. Do it a couple of months before your annual review and get a better raise?

      --

      I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    5. Re:I work in he rental industry by guyniraxn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps it's your TV? I have a PS3 and it's got a really nice upscaler for DVDs but it can't add in texture and details that aren't in the image. While the DVDs look great, there is still a clear difference with Blu-Ray. It's sharper and has more detail. You could also have some poorly transferred HD-DVD titles, there are a lot out there on Blu-Ray too; I always read reviews at highdefdigest.com before buying one so I don't get burned with a movie that'll look just as good on DVD.

    6. Re:I work in he rental industry by Arkham · · Score: 3, Informative

      At 720p you can barely tell a difference. At 1080p the difference is more noticeable.

      However, the difference between Blue-Ray and DVD isn't just in the picture, it's in the sound. If you have a true HT setup (I have a 7.1 home theater room with a 1080p projector), and the difference between a DVD and a Blue-Ray is noticeable in the picture quality, but especially in the sound quality.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    7. Re:I work in he rental industry by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      720p and 1080i at 13 feet from the 42" tv is NOT VISIBLE.

      Yes it isi very visible at the correct viewing distance, but most people dont do that. Most homes are set up wrong and they sit an insane distance from the set..

      42" 1080p set? get your face 6-8 feet from it.

      Want a chart? then here...

      http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadgethd.com/media/2006/12/resolution_chart.jpg

      Get your face closer to the set, having it 15 feet away above the stupid fake fireplace is not where it belongs.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:I work in he rental industry by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because it's a demonstration meant to market a product, not be scienctific and fair.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    9. Re:I work in he rental industry by drfireman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no such thing as the "correct" viewing distance. I like to watch at such a distance that the screen takes up about 20 degrees of visual angle. That makes me comfortable, even though I know a lot of people enjoy 30 degrees, and some of them consider me "insane." I don't watch movies to demonstrate my sanity, I watch them for enjoyment. It doesn't matter to me even a tiny bit that I might be missing out on some of the resolution of the image. If some new video standard had a zillion times the resolution of blu-ray, I wouldn't sit with my face pressed up against the tv.

  6. I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how many people with a regular up-scaling DVD player think they have an HD-DVD player?

    1. Re:I wonder by Charlie+Kane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:I wonder by AxelTorvalds · · Score: 2, Interesting
      These numbers seem flawed to me. There weren't enough HD-DVD players created. Still only like 1/3 of US households even have HD monitors. (Here.) According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) Toshiba, the largest HD-DVD unit maker had sold about 1 million units right before they pulled the plug.

      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.

  7. No Surprise by Zero_DgZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think what is more telling is the fact that so many people are still buying standard def., original flavor DVD's over Blu-Ray. In some ways, I really think this should come as no surprise.

    DVD player in the minivan/SUV: Standard def.
    Portable DVD player: Standard def.
    The majority of televisions still in the USA: Standard def (digital or otherwise).
    Cost of a perfectly capable, plays-all, region free DVD player in the supermarket: $20.

    Whichever big-business sector you hate this week (the hardware makers, the movie studios, the publishers, the MPAA, whatever) are pretty much trying to cram a high cost technology down the thoats of people who by majority don't want it, can't use it, or can't afford it.

    1. Re:No Surprise by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      And why would you compare it to DVD vs VHS or CD vs tape? Unlike those comparisons, Blu-ray is not a transformational technology relative to DVD. DVDs don't wear out, and an upscaling DVD player produces output that - viewed on a cheap HDTV - isn't that far behind Blu-ray quality for the majority of viewers who are more interested in watching something entertaining than in wanking over the specification of their AV suite.

      Yes, yes, I know, Blu-ray is far superior, and if we'd only just buy a $2000 HDTV, adamantium plated HDMI cables, and view it while standing on our heads and licking a irate gecko, we'd see that the quality is obviously better than DVD.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:No Surprise by Wisconsingod · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why are you having people spend money they don't need to?

      Gold plated HDMI Cables are just fine.

    3. Re:No Surprise by DinDaddy · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you wear rubber pants filled with mayonnaise, the sound is vastly improved as well.

      As a point of curiosity, is the gecko irate because of the licking, or was he already that way?

  8. Blu-Ray needs piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    People are just waiting for the BD-R disc's to come down in price, $15 for 1 disc is too much, blu-ray needs piracy to succeed.

    1. Re:Blu-Ray needs piracy by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      Blueray has piracy, at least in South East Asia, where there are malls full of shops selling Bluerays with the best covers a 10 year old color photocopier can provide, for the same price as 3 DVDs that aren't even out in the cinema yet (ie about $8).

    2. Re:Blu-Ray needs piracy by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Informative
      No...for some reason I don't quite understand, it's become standard operating procedure for Asian bootleg DVDs to have the Blue-Ray insignia on the (flattened) box. This is even true for cam recordings you find on the street. However the actual disks are DVD-5, and only DVD 5. DVD 9s (which are much less common, because they cost $1.50 instead of $.75) will usually come in plastic cases with higher-quality box art and no Blue-Ray insignias.

      Blue Ray players are very difficult to find in East Asia, while those "Blue Ray" bootlegs are *everywhere*...

      Of course, those in the know are just downloading off emule or youku.com anyway, why waste $.75?

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  9. Clarification? by toleraen · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Maybe my coffee is off this morning, but I'm seeing PS3 owners + Blu-ray Players = 16%, where 360 addon + HDDVD players = 14%. Since they even say:

    When Blu-ray player or PS3 owners are asked...

    I take it they're counting the two separately, which would show Blu-ray ahead. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:Clarification? by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, well I own a DVD burner and a stack of blank DVDs, so I own every movie ever made!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Clarification? by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone who buys a Blu Ray player does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs.
      Not everyone who buys a PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs (In fact, one would assume that a minority do).

      Thus it would be disingenuous to claim that all PS3 purchases equate to a Blu Ray player purchase when measuring the "popularity" of the format.

      On the other hand, a 360 HDDVD drive purchase *does* equate to an HD-DVD player purchase as that is its sole purpose.

    3. Re:Clarification? by ratboy666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
    4. Re:Clarification? by toleraen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not everyone who buys a PS3 does so because they want to play Blu Ray discs (In fact, one would assume that a minority do).

      While I don't disagree with your statements, I'm curious why you would assume only a minority of PS3 owners are Blu-ray watchers. The PS3 was touted by review sites as the best Blu-ray player on the market for the money for quite a long time. This year old EngadgetHD article says that 87% of PS3 owners watch blu-ray. I can't read the source of that info at work, 87% seems a tad high to me, but saying it's a minority sounds a little off.

  10. Re:But... by RedK · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you read the article, you'd see that no. The PS3 is counted seperatly, which makes absolutely no sense if you want to compare blu-ray adoption.

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
  11. Re:But... by agentgonzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...does this statistic take into account PlayStations, laptops, and other electronics which include Blu-ray players?

    Did you even RTFA? http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item10047/blu-ray-adoption.png

  12. It was budget because it was failing! by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HD-DVD wasn't "budget" from the outset or because of any particular economy in the price of players or disks. HD-DVD cost as much as Blu-ray to start off with and then it went cheap fast when it became clear it was losing the battle. Had HD-DVD emerged the victor I'm sure we would've seen plenty of bargain-priced Blu-Ray deals and a correspondingly disproportionate install base.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    1. Re:It was budget because it was failing! by BeardedChimp · · Score: 5, Informative

      This isn't true, from here:
      "The primary advantage of this format is a low manufacturing cost. Since HD-DVD media is so technically similar to standard DVD media (it uses the same layer thicknesses as DVD, made of similar materials), the discs can be produced with only a slight modification to existing manufacturing lines. "
      "This technology comes with a significant price. Manufacturing Blu-Ray discs requires significant costs in updating DVD fabrication equipment, and would be a sharp manufacturer cost increase over HD-DVD."

      Toshiba also got the jump on sony and released it's first players months earlier allowing it to get production ramped up. It's true that when HD-DVD started to lose they chopped at the price, but it was already significantly lower than Bluray.

  13. Re:Weird... by LatencyKills · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm one of those. Part of it is that I just don't see it - HD is nice, but not new-player-and-new-media-purchase nice. The other part of it is something of media purchasing fatigue - I bought it on VHS and rebought it on DVD, and now I have to buy it again on some HD format? No thanks.

    --
    Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
  14. Of course there's a high number of HD DVD players by joe_cot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even though blu-ray won, there were still tons of HD DVD players. They went somewhere, and it wasn't landfills. Stores had fire sales on HD DVD players, many selling them as upconverting DVD players.

  15. No HD for me, thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. Never FORGET The Real Reason They Gave In!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most people don't remember that Sony paid off Toshiba with a big sum of money to exit the market. And, in return for letting Blu-ray win, Toshiba was granted the right exclusive right to embed a Blu-ray player in their laptops. That is the only reason that Sony won the format wars, their format was actually a lot less successful than Toshiba's HD-DVD.

    I bought one, my parents bought one, my brothers all bought one (3 brothers), my newphew and uncles all bought one (4) and my best friend from college bought one. Essentially, everyone I knew was ticked off that they spent several hundred dollars on a player that was now obsolete almost instantly. On the bright side, all the HD discs went on sale fast.

    I'm pretty offended that Toshiba gave in, and that Sony forced them to. Neither had the customer's interests in mind when they made that deal. They screwed us out of quite a bit of money. So, will my family or myself buy a bluray? No, because it still stings. They lost a lot of hearts and minds. And, our wallets still feel a bit empty.

  17. Both are obsolete. by downix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real telling issue is that less than 20% of US Households have adopted either, and it's been out for years. Frankly, this should be no surprise, the "format war" dragged on for so long that by the time the victor had stepped forth, the market they were fighting for was already passing them by. The migration to HD video on demand, online streaming, and yes, downloading of material makes disk-based distribution an out of date concept who is slowly fading into the past.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Both are obsolete. by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  18. Re:early adopters VSs the luddites by UserChrisCanter4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    HD-DVD is dead. There's no need to wait to see who will win, as that question was answered a year and a half ago when Toshiba (the banner carrier for HD-DVD) announced that they would discontinue all HD-DVD production. According to the wiki article, the entire HD-DVD promotion group was dissolved March of last year. To my knowledge, no one builds a new HD-DVD player; there are a small number of PC drives that include HD-DVD compatibility, but I assume that's because of the low cost of inclusion once the blue laser diodes for Blu-ray are already in the drive. You can not walk into a retail store and find an HD-DVD player unless they found some hidden stock in the back and are clearance selling it for $20. You can't find HD-DVD discs unless the same thing happens. Any movie that's come out since then will never come out on HD-DVD. HD-DVD is dead and voluntarily buried by its own support and manufacturing group.

    In summary, there is no more waiting. The race was over last year. You can debate whether the quality improvement is worth the money, and there's some definite complaints to be made about the cost of the discs. If your only concern, however, is which of the formats will win, then there's no reason to continue waiting. Blu-Ray won last year.

  19. Physical media is dying by ZP-Blight · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a lot of experience in this field, and here are the reason why physical media is doomed, probably even sooner than many expect.

    Here's why:
    1. BluRay licensing makes it very difficult (expensive) to enable mass-adoption.
    2. Bandwidth is getting cheaper while high-speed internet is becoming more accessible.
    3. DRM is slowly dying.

    This will lead to Downloadable HD content which you could stream/burn/transcode to any format you want within the next 2-5 years (on a mass-market scale as we're already seeing this in some fringe markets).

    And if the establishment wont move in this direction, piracy will only grow as people want things to be easy and will take the path of least resistance (if DRM is more complicated/unreliable than Piracy, we'll see more content pirates).

    --
    Zoom Player Lead Dev.
    1. Re:Physical media is dying by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  20. Death to physical media! by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Owning movies really isn't worth it these days. First off, there's rarely a movie I'd want to see more than once. Second off, services like Netflix make it easy to get the movies I do want to see, first time or repeat, with very little delay. And as they're working out the legal kinks with the streaming service, it'd be just like owning the originals at home. Why clutter my life with all those discs? Let's not forget there's also the issue of format wars, buying all your movies again when the latest format drops. Who needs that? I'll stream the movie at HD resolution and when they come out with super-HD a few years from now, I'll stream it like that as well, no worries about buying new hardware.

    Granted, there's still going to be the situations where you don't have broadband and want to bring your movies with you. If Netflix has good lawyers, they'll be able to let you operate in cache mode. Select the movies you want, plug in your thumb drive, you download them and are in cache mode and can watch them on the go wherever you want. If they don't have good lawyers and can't make that happen, I can still bittorrent what I want to watch offline.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  21. Wii does not play DVD-Video by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

    I own 3 computers with DVD players and a Wii (which uses DVDs).

    Wii doesn't come with DVD-Video player software. Its game discs aren't even DVD-ROM; like GameCube discs, Wii discs have a different file system (not UDF), a physical sector format with slightly different anti-direct-current scrambling, and six pinholes punched in their lead-in. There is homebrew software to play DVD-Video on a Wii, but it probably infringes the MPEG-2 and Dolby Digital patents and the major movie studios' anti-circumvention rights (under the U.S. DMCA and foreign counterparts). More importantly, the Wii disc drive is designed for random access, not streaming a two-hour cut scene.

  22. Disingenous, at best by Coopjust · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you combine the 360 addon owners with the regular pool, 14% of those surveyed own an HD-DVD player.

    So, if you combine the PS3 owners with the regular Blu-Ray owners, 16% of those surveyed owned a Blu-Ray player.

    Here is the logical response you probably have now: "But, every HD-DVD owner (including addon) bought it to watch Blu-Rays, while many PS3 owners probably bought it just to play games."

    That's taken care of by the survey too. Out of all, PS3 owners 25% buy all their movies in Blu-Ray and another. 32% buy "most" of their movies in Blu-Ray. So 57% are regular Blu-Ray buyers now, and many PS3 owners are waiting for prices to come down.

    HD-DVD owners? Stores gave the players away. They were cheaper than other upscaling players at some point. The addon for the 360 was $20 at my local stores with 5 free movies. Many HD-DVD owners probably bought closeout gear at low prices.

    So while the percentages may technically be right, with the fire sale that followed HD-DVDs failure, it's not terribly suprising. And the 7% is it at least 12% for Blu-Ray buyers, since over half of all PS3 owners buy movies.

  23. Re:Weird... by c · · Score: 2, Funny

    > The porn industry wanted the longer play time though,
    > so my dad had to get the other player.

    I'm sure your father will be thrilled to know that for Father's Day, his porn viewing habits have been broadcasted to the world.

    c.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  24. Don't buy into that lie by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Don't buy into that lie by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "HD-DVD loaded faster,"

      Mine doesn't. Waiting for my HDDVD to start up is extremely painful. It's 2-3x the startuptime of my ps3, more, if you include the time to actually start playing the movie on each.

      "have less expensive players,"

      At the time, yes. (Of course, the best BluRay player at the time also plays video games...)

      " and less expensive movies."

      Now, but not then. Back then, I was paying the same for both, when you compare the same movie in each format.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:Don't buy into that lie by epiphani · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personal account, only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies.

      Funny, I have a PS3 and I only have two games. I use it more for the blu-ray, media center options, and internet access on my tv.

      Everyone I know that bought a PS3 uses it more because its a blu-ray player and an excellent DVD upscaler.

      --
      .
    3. Re:Don't buy into that lie by guruevi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's STATISTICS.

      Mac OS X does have 10% market share - because it runs on all Apple products regardless of purpose (embedded, desktop)
      Linux does have 50% market share - in embedded products because it's the most stable and has the best performance for those purposes and it's cheap for integrators
      Apache does have 90% market share - on web servers because again, it's the most compatible and best known solution out there and since most Apache run Linux you could say Linux has about the same market share.
      Cisco runs 60% of the Internet - because Cisco products simply have the best routers a million dollars will buy
      HD-DVD is in more households than Blu-Ray - because they are being resold as upconverting DVD players for $99 - half the people probably don't even know they can play HD-DVD movies (as if you can get any)

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    4. Re:Don't buy into that lie by terjeber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the movies border on extortionist in pricing

      only one of the circle of friends who has a PS3 have more than two blu ray movies

      Cool stats. Bad ones of course. 14% of movies sold today are on BD. Easy stats. Not like the dumb-ass stuff the OP quoted. Dumb-ass not because I disagree with it but because it was astonishingly wrong. Tosh never sold enough HD-DVD players to cover 11% of the US market. Even if all of them were sold in the US.

      Enough sour grapes for 200 gallons of bad wine. Wrong too of course. Why don't you just check Amazon for BD movie prices please?

      Oh, and forced play has been a part of all movie formats since (and including) DVD. It was part of HD-DVD too. Please try to get your facts straight before you take the offer of a tissue from the Anonymous Coward below.

  25. Discs still too expensive by sirwired · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Right now, you can get a cheap Blu-Ray player for not much more than what I paid for my first DVD player. However, I have not even felt a twinge in that general direction; I've been too spoiled by $4 to $6 movies, and until I can routinely get Blu-Ray discs for under $10, forget it. There are really very few movies I would re-buy in Blu-Ray, further reducing my desire to buy one of those things.

    I do have a 1080p TV, and a usable 7.1 receiver waiting for the day when it does make sense though...

    SirWired

  26. Artifacts in a theater near you? by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Artifacts in a theater near you? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

      Not just movies today - movies on film are analog, so they get scratches and such, but they have a much higher effective resolution than 1920x1080.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:Artifacts in a theater near you? by terjeber · · Score: 5, Interesting

      they have a much higher effective resolution than 1920x1080

      For various technical, biological and other reasons, they do not. Remember, what was shot on analog is not what you see in the analog theater. All movies today go from analog to digital (for editing) and back to analog. The "resolution" of the end product is determined not by the amount of grain on the celluloid (obviously better resolution than 1920x1080) but the resolution and printing capabilities of the film printer. This is exacerbated by a repeated duplication of said celluloid. Most movie theaters today will show films of less quality than a good 1080p TV with an HD source.

      The crucial point when it comes to quality is not the resolution but the number of scan lines that can be perceived. With a movie going through a number of processes, film to digital, then digital to film, then duplication round after duplication round, a 1080p movie on a good screen might well be of higher quality than an "analog" movie in the movie theater.

      So, what is the quality of a typical movie theater you ask (or at least you should). According to an international study named "Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation" a typical theater has a 750 scan lines resolution. A very good HD set will typically be about there or a little higher, depending on where you sit.

      You can even read about it here.. I am SO looking forward to a TV with 4520 scan lines of resolution.

    3. Re:Artifacts in a theater near you? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 2, Informative

      70mm? Are you sure it's not 35mm film? To the best of my knowledge, there are only a very few movies on 70mm film because there aren't too many theatres with a 70mm projector.
       
      (I own a movie theatre.)

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  27. Re:Weird... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Everyone else said your dad watched porn?"

    There... I hope I just saved someone some trouble.

  28. DVD Good enough by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 ?

  29. VHS is a factor, too. by lptport1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I haven't even finished replacing all of the VHS tapes I own with DVD. The VHS tapes still work. What makes them think I want to be updating from two different working formats, simultaneously? To a format that is substantially compromised with DRM, and that they'll want me to upgrade from in about five to ten years?

    Planned obsolescence is not a sustainable strategy, culturally, economically or environmentally.

  30. It's the name.... by nam37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  31. Here's a tissue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  32. Re:early adopters VSs the luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your claim only makes sense in a world where there is only two options: Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Unfortunately, the market has more options than that. The market has spoken: DVD (plain old regular, non-high-definition) is the format war winner.

    VHS died a quick and painful death at the hands of the most quickly adopted consumer technology ever, the DVD, simply because the advantages of the technology so favored DVD. That is not the case with DVD vs. Blu-Ray.

    In short, Congrats Sony! Welcome to the LaserDisc club!

  33. Hardware not expensive, the disks are by DaveGod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The hardware isn't expensive if you already have a HD TV, and here in the UK the TV's seem to be doing well enough even though the only widespread HD content is from a games console. Compared to the TV the BR drives are cheap - decent units can be bought for cheaper than when DVD got popular. But people still aren't buying them because the movies are still very expensive. I can go to my local store and walk out with 6 good DVD's for the price of a single Bluray (plus the choice of titles on the shelves is about 40x wider, and the difference gets much bigger using online stores).

    The only thing IMHO holding Bluray back is that the disks themselves are far too expensive relative to what people are used to paying, given the real-world benefits are not perceived as being that great. Sure, BR is technologically vastly better, but people are still quite happy with DVD and for most movies the higher resolution is just not important - and as for audio, most people use the TV speakers anyway. I have a BR player and use a a subscription rental where a BR is the same as a DVD - for blockbusters I go for BR, but for the vast majority I really don't care.

    Sometimes I actually go for the DVD version. The "don't pirate me" messages at the start of DVDs are bad enough but with every BR they are infuriating, can't I just tick some "I acknowledge piracy is illegal" box once and have the other disks see that I've already sat through this crap? I just got Band of Brothers on BR and since I watched an episode a night I sat though 90 seconds of crap for 10 nights - 15 minutes in total. There's something wrong when I'm making a habit of loading the BR then switching back to the web browser while it gets to the menu. All I am going to say about the required firmware upgrades is that an unexpected 40 minute routine (OK, counting the PowerDVD patch) is not welcome when I have deliberately left myself just enough time to watch the movie to finish off the night.