Why did blu ray not take off like DVD's ?

[josuv22]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

most people don't want to have to upgrade to a new medium every 4-5 years....i think that's the biggest problem.

that and people that say they can't see a differenece between blu and dvd.

I had some one who claimed sky HD looked the same as SKY
they had a HDTV and sky HD box hooked up with a scart cable.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

The time difference between the first DVD player and the first Blu-ray Disc player is far more than 5 years. So your "4-5" theory is nulled.

And you decided to use your FIRST post in these forums to be a complete douche to a long-time, well-respected member WHY?

Me thinks you won't last long around here. Back to junior high with you.

[bandit29]

Originally Posted by Michael1989

Probably because the change from a chunky video tape to a disc was different and appealing.

Going from DVD to Blu is kind of the same so hasn't gotten peoples attention so much

Agreed. I remember the jump from VHS to DVD it was really different..better.

Blu-rays didn't take off well for a few reasons. Format war with HD-DVD and the start of the recession were big reasons. People not feeling the need to upgrade is another.

And now blu-ray has survived..but technology has caught up with it. Like it (not me)or not blu-ray quality downloads will take over eventually. I'm not so sure they ever need to be blu-ray quality...If you don't have an AV system and are just watching through the TV only, the current HD downloads(iTunes,Amazon, PSN etc) are "good enough " for most people. Downloads have over taken books & music. Slowly happening now with videogames.


Now whenever the next physical format begins..if there is one..I probably won't upgrade again.. I've been through enough lol .. VHS-DVD-BLU-Downloads

[bobbydrugar]

Don't underestimate the learning curve for blu-ray. Take your average AV consumer and ask them to define the difference between Composite, Component, and HDMI. I could guess that there are a good many people out there that would buy a blu-ray player get it home and hook it up with the old composite cable that they used for their DVD player, put on their brand new blu-ray and turn around and state quite truthfully that blu-ray doesn't look much better then DVD to them. Are they wrong or just misinformed?

Another angle is my favorite ploy of advertising how much better the picture and sound of a blu-ray are by playing an advertisement on the begining of a DVD .

Now as an aside I don't think blu-ray sales are anywhere near as dismal as some people think. I think there are rose colored glasses on this one thinking hey back in 2003 no body was buying VHS so by proxy on day one blu-ray should have crushed DVD. When in point of fact Blu-ray had to first contend with HDDvd for its first couple of years (and believe it or not there are still a lot of people out there that remember the Beta-Max/VHS war) and decided to wait that period out to see who won. Now that that is over you really had the tru begining of Blu-ray as the decisive successor to DVD so we are really only a couple of years into the formats true reign.

Good points have also been made about the TV hardware. With DVD all you had to do was buy a dvd player and you were ready to go (Unless you wanted true progressive scan DVD and how many people upgraded to component video for that). Now there is a new TV, new Cables, and if you want to take advantage of the HD audio codecs then you also get to buy an AVR reciever and probably a surround sound speaker setup. That is a HUGE investment for what is realistically for the average Home AV experience (i.e a 46" screen at close to 10+ feet away viewing distance) a very minor upgrade in quality.

Thanks,
T

[bandit29]

Originally Posted by bobbydrugar

Don't underestimate the learning curve for blu-ray. Take your average AV consumer and ask them to define the difference between Composite, Component, and HDMI. I could guess that there are a good many people out there that would buy a blu-ray player get it home and hook it up with the old composite cable that they used for their DVD player, put on their brand new blu-ray and turn around and state quite truthfully that blu-ray doesn't look much better then DVD to them. Are they wrong or just misinformed?


Thanks,
T

this. I have friends who still can't figure that stuff out. They always ask me. I don't mind. I had to explain all this to my chief of police brother in law lol.. he was like huh? lol Now he a 108" HD projector screen in his basement lol

[octagon]

I've got a different question: why do so many people care whether Blu-ray meets or surpasses various DVD-related yardsticks?

Household penetration is more than respectable, players are more than affordable, we're getting a wider and wider selection of well-produced catalog titles every year and discs are dirt cheap.

DVD was phenomally successful. It had over 90% household penetration. That's up there with phones and tvs. It's a really high bar.

Does it really matter if Blu-ray hits those levels or not?

[Tony208]

I hated VHS, I remember when my Raiders tape broke and I opened it and taped it back together.

[RiFiFi1955]

Originally Posted by MattvonSyborg

Some good points here. Most people I know (regular non film-freaks) have always stared in disbelief when they see my DVD collection. They usually stream or download movies (maybe see them in theatres and rent them) but a lot of people don't really see the need to rewatch movies that much.

I have had the same response from people when they see my collection. I have heard things like "Why do you need all those movies?" or "When will you ever watch all them?".

Originally Posted by MattvonSyborg

but a lot of people don't really see the need to rewatch movies that much

And I hear people say stuff like that all the time too. Like "Oh I have already seen it so why would I watch it again."
People just have different interests and passions I guess.

[Beard Esquire]

I don't agree with the idea that blu-ray hasn't taken off like DVD. DVD did not surpass VHS in sales/rentals until 2003, that was 6 years. We are already seeing this year that certain big blu-ray titles are outselling their DVD counterparts. Almost the same time frame.

Plus things are different now, we have Hulu, Netflix, webTV, Digital Cable/Satellites with instant access, options we just didn't have in 1997 to compete with DVD or VHS.

My collection is far greater vs the same time frame as DVD, but not as big as laserdisc in the same first 6 years.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by My_Two_Cents

And you decided to use your FIRST post in these forums to be a complete douche to a long-time, well-respected member WHY?

Me thinks you won't last long around here. Back to junior high with you.

I don't know if he is a douch or not, but DVD came out in 1996 ibn Japan and 1997 in the US, that is 9-10 years

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

I've got a different question: why do so many people care whether Blu-ray meets or surpasses various DVD-related yardsticks?

agree, especially since most of them tend to be imaginary

DVD was phenomally successful.

that is a good point. I still believe there is a good chance that major studios will drop DVD faster then they did for VHS , but even if it is a bit longer will it realy mean anything?

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by RiFiFi1955

I have had the same response from people when they see my collection. I have heard things like "Why do you need all those movies?" or "When will you ever watch all them?".

I get the same response from my library of books.

I say the same thing when I go round to someone's house and see their massive collection of thimbles. It doesn't really mean a lot, that comment.

I've managed to amass a far larger collection of blurays than I ever did DVD. DVD and those massive "36 TVs never managed to cut it for me as far as Home Cinema went. It always seemed like a compromise, I'd watched DVD and even VHS on projector screens and it was always a slightly muted affair - the shortcomings were way too noticable for me to bother much.

Bluray, however, means that you can, after some purchases and DIY, screen a film at 12-15 feet at home, really capture the cinema feel, look and sound like never before.

Now when someone asks me why I've got a load of movies on the shelf, the answer is 'why wouldn't I'?

[stratford]

As politely as possible, how can people claim that blu looks the same as dvd when one only shows half the frame at a time(interlaced) and has 1000 lines rather than about 500?

Many DVD sets such as documentaries and TV series require fewer blu discs so are easier to manage.

A 2 DVD set commonly fits one Blu with out compramise

[stevo4264]

One of my co-workers (Scott) this week asked me if I knew when the BD of Ted was out, I told him I'd check and find the best price for him. Next day I go to work and tell him there's 2 versions available, the single BD and the DVD plus BD + digital copy version.

His reaction was a "Huh" I repeated myself, only to get "what's the difference" I patiently explained the difference between a BD and a DVD, now Scott has had a BD player for 12 months or so. And you know what he said "oh I thought they were the same thing"

I walked off, what could I say

[budious]

Digitally mastered movies still look pretty good at DVD resolution, and most players support progressive playback at 480p and upscaling so interlacing is less of an issue. Generally, about half of BD masters are not adequately of HD quality to represent a genuine step up from a DVD. Sure, there are great BD titles out there, but they are an exception and not a rule. Content wise, there are still many VHS only titles, and many more Laserdisc or DVD only titles, I'm not gonna be limiting myself to watching the mainstream titles on BD because of self imposed artifical limitations.

[alphadec]

because people are idiots! all people wants is to sit and watch movie on low resolution ipad and mobile phones.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

...if a show didn't sell well enough on DVD, studios won't bother with a BD release.

+1

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

...Crummy economy is another factor...

Could be, but a BD is a cheap fix over driving the family to the theater.

Originally Posted by nec1912

Why did blu ray not take of like DVD's?

DVD was a bigger change over VHS then BD is over DVD despite 6x the resolution.
A lot of people sit too far back from their sets so the DVD PQ is enouf for them.
DVD is priced lower and can be played back in a Blu-ray player; VHS was a dead end.
It seems as long they are selling something that uses a 12cm disc, DVD can continue ad infinitum.

[krazeyeyez]

Anyone ever notice how many of the "can't see a difference" people choose to watch there cable shows in hd and can see a difference there. Lol.

I think bluray has caught on pretty fast... remember all these same comments back when dvd players first hit. My first dvd player ran me $800 ... one playets and movies hit low prices it became the standard.... not neccesarily because of all the benefits over vhs. Same is happening with blu now.

[flawed]

Most TV series cant justify the money for it. Look at all the work that had to go into TNG. Many companies couldn't possibly justify that cost and time to do that with many shows. TNG is also probably a medium road example some shows just are not capable of meeting the standards for a BluRay release.

On the side of the movie companies, I tend to think BluRay has been slower because of the initial HDDVD vs BluRay war, and that HD masters of a movie are more costly then a digital SD master.

Consumer wise, Blu [after the HDDVD vs BluRay] is about the same as DVD was in the same length of time given the amount of releases [in some areas I actually think it's even farther with many older movies, or specialty types such as Japanese animation, or foreign movies].

[sonyfanboy]

I don't know where you're from, but I've been to Walmart on Black Friday and the people you'd expect to be on welfare are picking up blu-rays like hotcakes and talking about upgrading to the latest led tv. Blu-ray is mainstream. I rest my case.