"And now the much greater war on Apathy can begin"
more like gradual market penetration. You've got to be kidding yourself if you think blu-ray players won't slowly proliferate the market. Eventually it'll get to the point where you can't find straight up DVD players in stores like walmart anymore.
Too much money has been dropped, too many behind the scenes handshakes have been given, and too many players have invested too much for it not to happen. The switch will be invisible.
It'll happen when Blue-Ray becomes as cheap as DVDs are now.
Till then, DVD kicks it's ass in every category that matters, and so will continue to dominate Blue-Ray.
And don't kid yourself, Blue-Ray and DVD are most definitely in direct competition.
It doesn't kick its ass in video and audio, and that's what matters to me!
But yeah, it will be a slow penetration into the market-but it'll happen.
Is Bluray audio considerably better than DVD?
I ask not to pick a fight, more because I'm curious.
Doesn't really matter if HD is dead. By the time Bluray gains any traction on normal DVD, we'll have super HD discs and probably a Blueray 2 for another format war.
I think the point is though that Blu is a brand name, whereas Blue is a real word.
I prefer to use as few brand names in every day conversation as I can. I hate brands and how they infect our entire lives.
Maybe some people also are genuinely confused as to what the name actually is. The whole thing was named Blu after the colour anyways, in lieu of the laser right?
Regardless, obey your thirst. Buy a Sprite.
The_Scarab on
0
Options
Zen VulgarityWhat a lovely day for teaSecret British ThreadRegistered Userregular
"And now the much greater war on Apathy can begin"
more like gradual market penetration. You've got to be kidding yourself if you think blu-ray players won't slowly proliferate the market. Eventually it'll get to the point where you can't find straight up DVD players in stores like walmart anymore.
Too much money has been dropped, too many behind the scenes handshakes have been given, and too many players have invested too much for it not to happen. The switch will be invisible.
It'll happen when Blue-Ray becomes as cheap as DVDs are now.
Till then, DVD kicks it's ass in every category that matters, and so will continue to dominate Blue-Ray.
And don't kid yourself, Blue-Ray and DVD are most definitely in direct competition.
It doesn't kick its ass in video and audio, and that's what matters to me!
But yeah, it will be a slow penetration into the market-but it'll happen.
Is Bluray audio considerably better than DVD?
I ask not to pick a fight, more because I'm curious.
(Ie, can DVD manage 7.1?)
Blu-ray has uncompressed 5.1 - 7.1 audio. But very few people own set-up capable of using it. Still only a handful of receivers know what to do with it. So you end up with DTS/Dolby digital just like whats on regular DVD's.
Do we really need two threads on this? The Tech forum already has a thread going.
I don't go that forum.
As for those of you who claim no difference between blu-ray and dvd, have you seen and heard a blu-ray movie? I think you are just being difficult for the sake of.
It looks so much better. Blade Runner for instance blew my mind (or blu it). The sound is pure and sounds completely clean, theater quality. Just look at the scenes when Batty is in the shadows in the elevator at the Tyrell corp. Or Sebastian's apartment. DVD was no slouch, but compression doesn't help.
Shit watch the shining, I had no idea it could look that great.
Sorta interesting thing I found on that Broadband penetration site, that Canada which covers more of the globe than the USA has a higher broadband penetration than France. Though I'm guessing that has alot to do with the bundling and what not that they have up there in Europe.
Do we really need two threads on this? The Tech forum already has a thread going.
I don't go that forum.
Then you should.
But I don't think anyone here is claiming that they can't tell the difference between HD and SD DVDs. Joe Consumer, on the other hand, can't and WON'T tell the difference. Especially the older movies.
Do we really need two threads on this? The Tech forum already has a thread going.
I don't go that forum.
As for those of you who claim no difference between blu-ray and dvd, have you seen and heard a blu-ray movie? I think you are just being difficult for the sake of.
It looks so much better. Blade Runner for instance blew my mind (or blu it). The sound is pure and sounds completely clean, theater quality. Just look at the scenes when Batty is in the shadows in the elevator at the Tyrell corp. Or Sebastian's apartment. DVD was no slouch, but compression doesn't help.
Shit watch the shining, I had no idea it could look that great.
It really depends what setup you have. If you have a stupidly huge HD TV and a home theatre setup, sure Blu ray will look awesome. If you have the standard home setup with an SDTV I really doubt you're going to see that much difference.
HD adoption is gaining speed, but it's still a long way from reaching anything near near market saturation. Blu Ray will most likely follow but with it's own lag before it becomes an entrenched format.
Do we really need two threads on this? The Tech forum already has a thread going.
I don't go that forum.
Then you should.
But I don't think anyone here is claiming that they can't tell the difference between HD and SD DVDs. Joe Consumer, on the other hand, can't and WON'T tell the difference. Especially the older movies.
Yep. This is why the average McWalmart 'merican isn't going to give two shits about high-def anything for quite some time.
my thoughts exactly now i want to hear from dreamworks/paramount/universal so i know when i can get some of the greatest movies of the year on Blu-ray. a DVD looks like shit on my 47in 1080p TV something i was not expecting when i made the purchase last week, but makes sense.
There's something wrong with a component in your HT system or your TV, then. There's no reason for a DVD to look bad, it should look no worse than on a regular TV and, if your DVD player is an upscaler, it should look better.
a DVD 480i, stretched to 47in. if the TV was 32in or something it would look fine, however its not, and like a large SDTV the quality has been stretched and looks shitty. there is a huge difference between the two. its like TV in 480i (basic) and HD channels, again a huge difference. i use my ps3 as an upscaler, so no its not that.
All these people arguing that blu ray wont take over because its not a huge leap over DVD like DVD was to VHS are really just bringing up a moot point. HD tv's are slowly becoming more and more prominent. Once HD tv's replace SD tv's in Joe Consumers home, Blu ray players will replace dvd players. That is barring of course any huge movement on the digital distribution side. All it will take is time. A LOT of time. Nothing is going to happen over night, it never does.
Zeta on
0
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Do we really need two threads on this? The Tech forum already has a thread going.
I don't go that forum.
As for those of you who claim no difference between blu-ray and dvd, have you seen and heard a blu-ray movie? I think you are just being difficult for the sake of.
It looks so much better. Blade Runner for instance blew my mind (or blu it). The sound is pure and sounds completely clean, theater quality. Just look at the scenes when Batty is in the shadows in the elevator at the Tyrell corp. Or Sebastian's apartment. DVD was no slouch, but compression doesn't help.
Shit watch the shining, I had no idea it could look that great.
It really depends what setup you have. If you have a stupidly huge HD TV and a home theatre setup, sure Blu ray will look awesome. If you have the standard home setup with an SDTV I really doubt you're going to see that much difference.
HD adoption is gaining speed, but it's still a long way from reaching anything near near market saturation. Blu Ray will most likely follow but with it's own lag before it becomes an entrenched format.
Man...what? If you own an SDTV you aren't going to see ANY difference. And ummmm, I have a 32' Sammy hdtv and I noticed the difference a split second after I put a movie in. I have no idea where this "stupidly huge hd tv" comes into play. I also don't have a home theater setup and I also fail to grasp why that matters.
What matters is having an hdtv and a blu-ray player, doesn't necessarily matter which size as long as you're watching from the appropriate distance.
You CAN tell the difference on a 32" Sammy, it's just not night and day. If you're a techie you'll notice, by and large if you're not though, you probably won't (with the exception of some footage, for example nature documentaries)
You CAN tell the difference on a 32" Sammy, it's just not night and day. If you're a techie you'll notice, by and large if you're not though, you probably won't (with the exception of some footage, for example nature documentaries)
Considering I spent days calibrating mine, I consider it more Dawn and Dusk as opposed to night and day. Sure, my setup isn't as great a full on hd (1080p), but considering I've tested this out with an upconverted dvd and the blu-ray copy, side by side (well...hdmi 1 to hdmi 2), I can tell the difference quite easily.
Colors are richer, details are obvious, and that's not even getting into the fluid motion side of things. I can sit a few feet closer without noticing pixels. And games are much richer on an hdtv than an sdtv with my ps3.
So, I don't understand why anyone would think there is no difference on sub-40 screens.
I can really tell a difference on my 37". With the HD DVDs I have, I'm constantly blown away by the picture quality of say Transformers or Planet Earth. My 360 w/HDMI does an amazing job of upconverting and can at times look almost as good as HD.
It does the job well enough that I don't see the need to switch to Blu-Ray for some time. When we start getting things like Indy, LOTR, Star Wars then I might feel the urge to go Blu-Ray. The difference isn't worth another $400 right now, though.
More than 75 percent of HDTV owners believe they are watching HD programming, but Leichtman estimates that 20 percent actually are not.
"Hey! Hey you gotta come check out this HDTV! It's awesome! It's so clear!"
Heh, my dad was really excited to get HD programming from DirectTV, since he could finally watch his football games in HD.
The games were in "HD" (Higher Definition, but not nearly HD) and my dad was shitting himself at the quality... At first. After about an hour or two, he's like: "WTF? This isn't clear at all!" Then I had to break it to him about DirectTV's "HD" package, and how much of a ripoff it really is.
All these people arguing that blu ray wont take over because its not a huge leap over DVD like DVD was to VHS are really just bringing up a moot point. HD tv's are slowly becoming more and more prominent. Once HD tv's replace SD tv's in Joe Consumers home, Blu ray players will replace dvd players. That is barring of course any huge movement on the digital distribution side. All it will take is time. A LOT of time. Nothing is going to happen over night, it never does.
The point is not "moot" at all. Yes, the move to HD movies will take a lot of time, but that opens the window for something more advanced than Blu-ray to swoop in and capture the market, whether that's digital distribution, or some newer form of physical media that advances on DVD in more ways than Blu-ray does. Blu-ray and HD-DVD combined still only own a sliver of the home video market right now, so by no means is it a lock that Blu-ray is going to be the next format of choice.
MegaMan on
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
As an average consumer, I'm entitled to an opinion here. :P
I didn't get a DVD player until they'd been out for awhile, and that was only due to those 2-disc sets that were considered massive back in the day starting to come out (remember Star Wars episode 1? They hyped the fact it had a whole second disk worth of bonus content. Of course, later on, every movie in the world started doing this, but at the time, it was crazy.). That, plus scene selections, lack of rewinding, AND a bit of quality enhancement did it for me.
This generation, I really don't care. I fail to notice any really mind-blowing change in quality when I look at store displays (and you know they're trying to make them look flashy). There's a bit, but not much. And considering quality is the only real difference here, I've yet to get excited. Basically, I don't see myself jumping ship until something really big comes out that I can only get on blu-ray (or blue ray, WHATEVER) and not on regular DVD, or blu/blue ray becomes dirt cheap.
And considering how long it took for the original Star Wars movies, and other such classics to come out on DVD, anyone who's waiting for that is in for a loooooong wait.
Blu Ray has a problem now. It was competing for the 'next format' with HD-DVD... now it has to compete with DVD itself while trying to squash digital downloads.
More than 75 percent of HDTV owners believe they are watching HD programming, but Leichtman estimates that 20 percent actually are not.
If 20% are not. Then 80% are.
If only 75% believe they are, then 5% of people with HDTVS dont even fucking realise it. Lucky bastards.
Actually, according to a survey done by Nielsen Media Research last year, the numbers are these:
- Only 32% of US households own at least one HDTV. (For the sake of argument we'll bump this up to 35% to account for sales since the survey was done.)
- Of those 35%, about 54% have HD content delivered to their homes. 46% do not.
- Of those 46%, roughly half believed they did have HD, but further questioning revealed that they actually did not. These are the people who can't tell the difference, or simply haven't really seen true HD before and don't know any better, nor were educated properly about the need to acquire an HD cable/satellite box or OTA tuner.
- The other half of those 46% know they don't have HD, and don't care.
So, to sum up: only 1 in 3 people have HDTVs even after they've been on the market for more than a decade (and have been at a mass market price level for 3 or 4 years). Of those, 1 in 4 don't get HD content and don't give a shit about it.
Here's the most telling thing: When the "don't care" people were asked why they bought an HDTV with no intention of purchasing HD programming, the most common response was that they only wanted a good set for watching their widescreen DVDs.
MegaMan on
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
So, I wonder if this means we can expect a Blu-Ray attachment for the 360? That would seem like an important purchase for MSoft to keep the 360 going strong.
Anyone notice how some things (mattresses and the copy machines in Highrise) are totally impenetrable? A steel wall, yeah that makes sense, but bullets should obliterate copy machines.
I don't know about you, but I always buy a bullet proof printer. Its a lot more expensive, but I think the advantages are apparent.
More than 75 percent of HDTV owners believe they are watching HD programming, but Leichtman estimates that 20 percent actually are not.
If 20% are not. Then 80% are.
If only 75% believe they are, then 5% of people with HDTVS dont even fucking realise it. Lucky bastards.
Actually, according to a survey done by Nielsen Media Research last year, the numbers are these:
- Only 32% of US households own at least one HDTV. (For the sake of argument we'll bump this up to 35% to account for sales since the survey was done.)
- Of those 35%, about 54% have HD content delivered to their homes. 46% do not.
- Of those 46%, roughly half believed they did have HD, but further questioning revealed that they actually did not. These are the people who can't tell the difference, or simply haven't really seen true HD before and don't know any better, nor were educated properly about the need to acquire an HD cable/satellite box or OTA tuner.
- The other half of those 46% know they don't have HD, and don't care.
So, to sum up: only 1 in 3 people have HDTVs even after they've been on the market for more than a decade (and have been at a mass market price level for 3 or 4 years). Of those, 1 in 4 don't get HD content and don't give a shit about it.
Here's the most telling thing: When the "don't care" people were asked why they bought an HDTV with no intention of purchasing HD programming, the most common response was that they only wanted a good set for watching their widescreen DVDs.
I know many stores no longer even stock SDTVs where I live. That said I dont exactly live in rural America.
I guess a lot of people also buy them cause they are flat.
More than 75 percent of HDTV owners believe they are watching HD programming, but Leichtman estimates that 20 percent actually are not.
If 20% are not. Then 80% are.
If only 75% believe they are, then 5% of people with HDTVS dont even fucking realise it. Lucky bastards.
Actually, according to a survey done by Nielsen Media Research last year, the numbers are these:
- Only 32% of US households own at least one HDTV. (For the sake of argument we'll bump this up to 35% to account for sales since the survey was done.)
- Of those 35%, about 54% have HD content delivered to their homes. 46% do not.
- Of those 46%, roughly half believed they did have HD, but further questioning revealed that they actually did not. These are the people who can't tell the difference, or simply haven't really seen true HD before and don't know any better, nor were educated properly about the need to acquire an HD cable/satellite box or OTA tuner.
- The other half of those 46% know they don't have HD, and don't care.
So, to sum up: only 1 in 3 people have HDTVs even after they've been on the market for more than a decade (and have been at a mass market price level for 3 or 4 years). Of those, 1 in 4 don't get HD content and don't give a shit about it.
Here's the most telling thing: When the "don't care" people were asked why they bought an HDTV with no intention of purchasing HD programming, the most common response was that they only wanted a good set for watching their widescreen DVDs.
I know many stores no longer even stock SDTVs where I live. That said I dont exactly live in rural America.
I guess a lot of people also buy them cause they are flat.
Alot of people buy them because if you want a big screen TV, you can't NOT get HD.
And if you've got a Walmart nearby, then you've got someone stocking SDTVs near you.
So, to sum up: only 1 in 3 people have HDTVs even after they've been on the market for more than a decade (and have been at a mass market price level for 3 or 4 years). Of those, 1 in 4 don't get HD content and don't give a shit about it.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
The stats that you rattle off only tell a part of the story. And "coincidentally" only back the side that seems to imply that HD/HDTV is overblown, not popular, etc. Sure, HDTV has been slow to grow for the decade it's been out. But that's pretty much expected, when sets cost thousands of dollars initially. Not to mention that resolution-hell (EDTV vs 720 vs 1080, etc.) caused a lot of confusion in the marketplace.
However, I'd be more interested in seeing what the recent growth rate for HDTV is. I can completely understand it's slow growth in the past, but what about today? The HDTV standard is pretty much locked now at 1080p, costs continue to drop, there's a ton of competition in this space, more and more retailers are cutting back (if not eliminating) their stocks of SDTV units, etc.
Posts
This.
No compression = win.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
Is Bluray audio considerably better than DVD?
I ask not to pick a fight, more because I'm curious.
(Ie, can DVD manage 7.1?)
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
I'll be watching movies on my holocube in my mountain retreat on Neptune.
Yes, mountains. On Neptune. Indeed.
Quite.
Because Blu isnt a real word and is an affront to the English language!
I prefer to use as few brand names in every day conversation as I can. I hate brands and how they infect our entire lives.
Maybe some people also are genuinely confused as to what the name actually is. The whole thing was named Blu after the colour anyways, in lieu of the laser right?
Regardless, obey your thirst. Buy a Sprite.
Blu-ray has uncompressed 5.1 - 7.1 audio. But very few people own set-up capable of using it. Still only a handful of receivers know what to do with it. So you end up with DTS/Dolby digital just like whats on regular DVD's.
I don't go that forum.
As for those of you who claim no difference between blu-ray and dvd, have you seen and heard a blu-ray movie? I think you are just being difficult for the sake of.
It looks so much better. Blade Runner for instance blew my mind (or blu it). The sound is pure and sounds completely clean, theater quality. Just look at the scenes when Batty is in the shadows in the elevator at the Tyrell corp. Or Sebastian's apartment. DVD was no slouch, but compression doesn't help.
Shit watch the shining, I had no idea it could look that great.
buy warhams
MWO: Adamski
Then you should.
But I don't think anyone here is claiming that they can't tell the difference between HD and SD DVDs. Joe Consumer, on the other hand, can't and WON'T tell the difference. Especially the older movies.
HD adoption is gaining speed, but it's still a long way from reaching anything near near market saturation. Blu Ray will most likely follow but with it's own lag before it becomes an entrenched format.
Yep. This is why the average McWalmart 'merican isn't going to give two shits about high-def anything for quite some time.
a DVD 480i, stretched to 47in. if the TV was 32in or something it would look fine, however its not, and like a large SDTV the quality has been stretched and looks shitty. there is a huge difference between the two. its like TV in 480i (basic) and HD channels, again a huge difference. i use my ps3 as an upscaler, so no its not that.
Man...what? If you own an SDTV you aren't going to see ANY difference. And ummmm, I have a 32' Sammy hdtv and I noticed the difference a split second after I put a movie in. I have no idea where this "stupidly huge hd tv" comes into play. I also don't have a home theater setup and I also fail to grasp why that matters.
What matters is having an hdtv and a blu-ray player, doesn't necessarily matter which size as long as you're watching from the appropriate distance.
What exactly do you mean? And who is it directed at?
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
Considering I spent days calibrating mine, I consider it more Dawn and Dusk as opposed to night and day. Sure, my setup isn't as great a full on hd (1080p), but considering I've tested this out with an upconverted dvd and the blu-ray copy, side by side (well...hdmi 1 to hdmi 2), I can tell the difference quite easily.
Colors are richer, details are obvious, and that's not even getting into the fluid motion side of things. I can sit a few feet closer without noticing pixels. And games are much richer on an hdtv than an sdtv with my ps3.
So, I don't understand why anyone would think there is no difference on sub-40 screens.
It does the job well enough that I don't see the need to switch to Blu-Ray for some time. When we start getting things like Indy, LOTR, Star Wars then I might feel the urge to go Blu-Ray. The difference isn't worth another $400 right now, though.
"Hey! Hey you gotta come check out this HDTV! It's awesome! It's so clear!"
Heh, my dad was really excited to get HD programming from DirectTV, since he could finally watch his football games in HD.
The games were in "HD" (Higher Definition, but not nearly HD) and my dad was shitting himself at the quality... At first. After about an hour or two, he's like: "WTF? This isn't clear at all!" Then I had to break it to him about DirectTV's "HD" package, and how much of a ripoff it really is.
If 20% are not. Then 80% are.
If only 75% believe they are, then 5% of people with HDTVS dont even fucking realise it. Lucky bastards.
The point is not "moot" at all. Yes, the move to HD movies will take a lot of time, but that opens the window for something more advanced than Blu-ray to swoop in and capture the market, whether that's digital distribution, or some newer form of physical media that advances on DVD in more ways than Blu-ray does. Blu-ray and HD-DVD combined still only own a sliver of the home video market right now, so by no means is it a lock that Blu-ray is going to be the next format of choice.
- Albert Einstein
I didn't get a DVD player until they'd been out for awhile, and that was only due to those 2-disc sets that were considered massive back in the day starting to come out (remember Star Wars episode 1? They hyped the fact it had a whole second disk worth of bonus content. Of course, later on, every movie in the world started doing this, but at the time, it was crazy.). That, plus scene selections, lack of rewinding, AND a bit of quality enhancement did it for me.
This generation, I really don't care. I fail to notice any really mind-blowing change in quality when I look at store displays (and you know they're trying to make them look flashy). There's a bit, but not much. And considering quality is the only real difference here, I've yet to get excited. Basically, I don't see myself jumping ship until something really big comes out that I can only get on blu-ray (or blue ray, WHATEVER) and not on regular DVD, or blu/blue ray becomes dirt cheap.
And considering how long it took for the original Star Wars movies, and other such classics to come out on DVD, anyone who's waiting for that is in for a loooooong wait.
Actually, according to a survey done by Nielsen Media Research last year, the numbers are these:
- Only 32% of US households own at least one HDTV. (For the sake of argument we'll bump this up to 35% to account for sales since the survey was done.)
- Of those 35%, about 54% have HD content delivered to their homes. 46% do not.
- Of those 46%, roughly half believed they did have HD, but further questioning revealed that they actually did not. These are the people who can't tell the difference, or simply haven't really seen true HD before and don't know any better, nor were educated properly about the need to acquire an HD cable/satellite box or OTA tuner.
- The other half of those 46% know they don't have HD, and don't care.
So, to sum up: only 1 in 3 people have HDTVs even after they've been on the market for more than a decade (and have been at a mass market price level for 3 or 4 years). Of those, 1 in 4 don't get HD content and don't give a shit about it.
Here's the most telling thing: When the "don't care" people were asked why they bought an HDTV with no intention of purchasing HD programming, the most common response was that they only wanted a good set for watching their widescreen DVDs.
- Albert Einstein
DAT and the CD
XBL: LiquidSnake2061
I know many stores no longer even stock SDTVs where I live. That said I dont exactly live in rural America.
I guess a lot of people also buy them cause they are flat.
Alot of people buy them because if you want a big screen TV, you can't NOT get HD.
And if you've got a Walmart nearby, then you've got someone stocking SDTVs near you.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
The stats that you rattle off only tell a part of the story. And "coincidentally" only back the side that seems to imply that HD/HDTV is overblown, not popular, etc. Sure, HDTV has been slow to grow for the decade it's been out. But that's pretty much expected, when sets cost thousands of dollars initially. Not to mention that resolution-hell (EDTV vs 720 vs 1080, etc.) caused a lot of confusion in the marketplace.
However, I'd be more interested in seeing what the recent growth rate for HDTV is. I can completely understand it's slow growth in the past, but what about today? The HDTV standard is pretty much locked now at 1080p, costs continue to drop, there's a ton of competition in this space, more and more retailers are cutting back (if not eliminating) their stocks of SDTV units, etc.
Here's a recent article from earlier this month: http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/02/north_american_hd_tv_sales_gro.php
Some quotes:
- North American high-definition television sales grew about 60% to 10 million units in the fourth quarter
- Last week, the Consumer Electronics Association said U.S. customers bought about 2.4 million HD TVs for the Feb. 3 Super Bowl
So, if HDTV growth now is doing well, and continues to accelerate, does it matter much that it's taken a while to get there? I'd say ... not really.- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com