Best Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | Price drops  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Japan
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (Blu-ray)
$9.96
 
Let's Be Cops (Blu-ray)
$9.96
13 hrs ago
The Dick Van Dyke Show: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$49.99
 
X-Men: Days of Future Past (Blu-ray)
$9.96
 
The Beyond (Blu-ray)
$24.99
10 hrs ago
The Complete Jacques Tati (Blu-ray)
$59.99
 
Harry Potter: Complete 8-Film Collection (Blu-ray)
$44.99
 
Homeland: The Complete Third Season (Blu-ray)
$19.99
 
Sleeping Beauty (Blu-ray)
$18.99
 
The Big Bang Theory: The Complete Seventh Season (Blu-ray)
$19.99
 
True Detective (Blu-ray)
$24.99
 
Batman: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$149.99
 
22 Jump Street (Blu-ray)
$14.99
 
COLLECT WATCH TRACK RATE REVIEW APP
Manage your own movie collection and always keep it with you with our Apps. Price track movies and get price drop notifications instantly. Become a member to take full advantage of all site features.
GET STARTED
Old 12-24-2012, 09:40 PM   #4381
pro-bassoonist pro-bassoonist is offline
Blu-ray reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
X
47
-
-
16
22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pagemaster View Post
Lawrence of Arabia should be seen on blu ray. The movie was filmed in 70mm and the original negative was scanned at 4K resolution (all done with theatrical distribution in mind)...all other transfers for this movie were done with a 35mm print.

Seeing the movie on blu-ray allows one to use the blu ray format at the best of its abilities.
My initial statement stands: There is absolutely nothing unique or special about Lawrence... that makes it more important to see on Blu-ray than, say, La Grande Illusion, which was also restored in 4K.

You seem to be under the impression that because it was filmed in 70mm, it is more suitable for Blu-ray. Or something like that.

Pro-B
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 09:47 PM   #4382
pro-bassoonist pro-bassoonist is offline
Blu-ray reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
X
47
-
-
16
22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fathergll View Post
Thats hold true as long as the consumers still value that medium. People don't value CDs in 2012.
Who are these people you are speaking of? Because in 2012 CD buyers were up for a second year:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell...r-second-year/

Quote:
The music industry is showing signs of renewed health, in part due to the surprising resilience of the CD format, according to a new study by The NPD Group, a consumer information research provider.

“After years of losing buyers, caused by many consumers who simply stopped buying music, the total number of CD buyers increased for the second consecutive year, growing 2% to 78 million [in 2011],” the company said.

Total music-track sales rose 4% last year, the first gain in many years. Paid download buyers increased 14% in 2011, to 45 million customers. Digital buyers also spent more at iTunes Music Store, Amazon AMZN +0.03% MP3, and other digital music stores in 2011.

The average annual expenditure for digital music rose 6% to $49, and although CD sales declined, the decrease was not nearly as steep as it has been over the last five years.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:33 PM   #4383
pagemaster pagemaster is offline
Special Member
 
pagemaster's Avatar
 
May 2011
6
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist View Post

You seem to be under the impression that because it was filmed in 70mm, it is more suitable for Blu-ray. Or something like that.
Actually, blu ray is the best possible way to see Lawrence of Arabia aside from a full 70mm presentation or a 4K theatrical presentation. Not only because it was filmed in 70mm, but because the original negatives were used to create the 4k master which was used for the blu ray.

All other home formats would not compare.

Now, as for content and storyline, you are 100% correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fathergll View Post
Yes it got longer to accommodate a larger screen. Just like the new Sharp 70" Elites are longer than the 60" Pioneer Elite Plasma's from a few years ago. Are you trying to say Apple producing phones with bigger screens is going against the smaller footprint idea? Its not.....just like if Apple produce a 17" Macbook Air model, that wouldn't be indication that "Hey you're smaller footprint idea is stupid because lookie, Apple now has a longer lap! hehehe"
How come the iPod Nano went from regular size to really small back to regular size again?

The smaller foot print is a really stupid idea. Just because it gets smaller does not mean it will sell better or go back to being larger again.

Pricing is what drives sales.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
Why are records still alive but VHS is not? when the CD came out in 82 and DVD in 96/97?
VHS did not die until about 2005-2006. VHS finally died when DVD was at mass consumption and acceptance level. But it was not footprint at all which eventually ended VHS....it was a much better product in that of DVD.

Last edited by pagemaster; 12-24-2012 at 11:10 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:45 PM   #4384
pro-bassoonist pro-bassoonist is offline
Blu-ray reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
X
47
-
-
16
22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pagemaster View Post
Actually, blu ray is the best possible way to see Lawrence of Arabia aside from a full 70mm presentation or a 4K theatrical presentation. Not only because it was filmed in 70mm, but because the original negatives were used to create the 4k master which was used for the blu ray.

All other home formats would not compare.

Now, as for content and storyline, you are 100% correct.
I don't believe we are on the same page here. I agree with what you have written But this was not my point. Virtually any film is worth seeing on Blu-ray - especially when done right these days. To be specific, I don't find Lawrence... to be any more worthy of a Blu-ray treatment than La Grande Illusion, the recently restored Tess, etc. Film is film. And just because something was filmed in 70mm does not automatically make it "worthier" of a Blu-ray presentation.

Pro-B
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:48 PM   #4385
pagemaster pagemaster is offline
Special Member
 
pagemaster's Avatar
 
May 2011
6
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pro-bassoonist View Post
I don't believe we are on the same page here. I agree with what you have written But this was not my point. Virtually any film is worth seeing on Blu-ray - especially when done right these days. To be specific, I don't find Lawrence... to be any more worthy of a Blu-ray treatment than La Grande Illusion, the recently restored Tess, etc. Film is film. And just because something was filmed in 70mm does not automatically make it "worthier" of a Blu-ray presentation.

Pro-B
Ok, I understand what you are saying.

So what you are saying is that there is no reason for DVD anymore if there is a blu ray available?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:54 PM   #4386
pro-bassoonist pro-bassoonist is offline
Blu-ray reviewer
 
pro-bassoonist's Avatar
 
Jul 2007
X
47
-
-
16
22
Default

No, my point is that every film is unique. Just because something was filmed in a large format, say 70mm, it does not mean anything. You see, I could be just as impressed with a beautiful 4K restoration of Citizen Kane as I would be with Lawrence... (though this really isn't a film a hold in high regard as so many other people do). And one more example, take a look at Mr. Nolan's Following. It is a 16mm film, transfered in 4K, and looks simply astonishing on Blu-ray.

And yes, as far as DVD is concerned, I don't see a reason to opt for the DVD release if a Blu-ray release exists. I think that the overwhelming majority of us, the enthusiasts, embraced Blu-ray because it brings us as close as possible to the original source. So, as long as this is accomplished properly on Blu-ray, there should not be a reason why one could not be as impressed with a 1.37:1 film.

Pro-B

Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 12-24-2012 at 10:58 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 03:08 AM   #4387
fathergll fathergll is offline
Member
 
Jul 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
obviously, how welse will you know what people are buying?

.



What does knowing what people are buying prove anything when its pirated like crazy for the last 10+?

Take 100 people who listen to music. Say 50 of those people pirate all their music. 30 of them buy CDs and 20 of them buy MP3s. According to a sales revenue you would think CDs are dominate but the reality is 70 of them are using MP3 exclusive.


Quote:
If ~30% of people that bought Avengers opted for the cheaper DVD and the rest for higher quality BD and ~30% of music sold is bought in low quality DL/streaming then how does it prove that people don't care about quality?
Because the audience that is left that still purchases physical discs are more likely to buy BD. Getting into BD is dirt cheap so its a natural transition for some. It never took off like DVD because of streaming/on demand. The guy who started this thread asked "Why did blu ray not take of like DVD's ?" He didn't pull that out of thin air.....BD never did catch on like DVDs.

Once you can't rent blurays anymore. Thats when things are really going to go south. The entire market is and has been changing.



Quote:
agree, but not all of it is low quality? and then I am sure that the main reason for illegal DL is cost and nothing legal can compete with free
No its certainly not all low quality. In the Napster days it certainly was. Yep main reason for illegal DL is cost. Its also convenience....people didn't have to spend much time getting music....usually a quick search and you can have an album faster than driving to the store, all for free.



Quote:
but if it is sold through normal means, Spontify, i-tunes..... then it is counted in the numbers, but if the band is also selling the CD from the back of their truck then it is not. so I am guessing the "small band" effect would actually work in CDs favour and not DL, on the other hand it will most likely be a rounding error in the final calculations.
Heh....the whole "band is also selling the CD from the back of their truck" isn't what it was years ago. People are getting a band music just by going to a link and downloading or streaming some songs.


Quote:
don't know, I can still go into BB and buy a record player and have the choice of a few players and CD came out 25 years ago and re3cords are still being produced and sold.
You're referring to the vinyl section at Best Buy that has maybe a dozen albums? If thats the future of CD then its a bleak one indeed.


Quote:
enough
Righttt....


Quote:
maybe, but they still prefer higher quality which is why they buy the CD and then copy it losslessly to their MP3 player.

Some do that...most don't go into advance settings, change the bitrate and copy music to their HD in a lossless format.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 03:23 AM   #4388
fathergll fathergll is offline
Member
 
Jul 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
and 80% of people don't use mac computers.
And what % of people were using Apple computers when they discontinued floppy drives?


The PC market will eventually follow through(they're already doing it). Mark my words....5 years from now CD drives are going to be out of a LOT of PCs in favor of ultrabooks and slim all in one desktop designs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 04:00 AM   #4389
fathergll fathergll is offline
Member
 
Jul 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
Why are records still alive but VHS is not? when the CD came out in 82 and DVD in 96/97?

Same reason film is still around. Its an extremely pleasing format to many that that can't be fully duplicated digitally. Vinyl is a niche market.


Quote:
or a nut job with no idea of how stuff works.
Nut job? There's nothing I said that hasn't been said many times in various articles by analysts in various industries or other threads even here.


Quote:
for the last 10 years I have been hearing idiots predict the extremely short remaining life of CD and it is still roughly 70% of sales.

haha ...what? 70% of what? The entire music industry plummeted and lost billions of dollars. Record stores are closing or already closed up, giant brick and mortar chains are shrinking their CD sections. Stop quoting what % of the market it holds and start comparing how much CDs themselves have lost in the last 15 years. You're saying these guys are idiots but considering in 9 years there been a decrease in 500 million units shipped per year. Those idiots are spot on about CDs. According to the CNN money article music sales dropped 18 billion to 6 billion in 10 years(with inflation). Thats insane

  Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 05:40 AM   #4390
rdodolak rdodolak is offline
Blu-ray Ninja
 
Jul 2007
1712
1136
20
Default

Hmm, one reason why the cloud and streaming aren't ready. My Netflix service died on me earlier today and it's still down. Apparently, Netflix is having issues handling the additional load due to the Christmas Eve demand. A quick google search came up with this:

http://www.helpowl.com/q/Roku/Techni...code-10/280358
http://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php...52959&start=45
http://www.facebook.com/netflix
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellycla...christmas-eve/

Long story short, if you have all of your movies in the cloud and it were to go down, like Netflix, you're SOL.

end rant

Last edited by rdodolak; 12-25-2012 at 06:36 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 07:12 AM   #4391
budious budious is offline
Banned
 
Mar 2012
Currently suspended from the ceiling of the moderators rape dungeon.
8
1
Default

The music industry is pricing itself out of radio with royalty fees, thus the old avenue of generating sales has dried up, and decreased overall industry revenue. The music execs are the ones screwing themselves over, not the pirates. When was the last time you had access to a quality radio station that didn't play anything than 90s or prior?
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 06:00 PM   #4392
fathergll fathergll is offline
Member
 
Jul 2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pagemaster View Post


How come the iPod Nano went from regular size to really small back to regular size again?

It was to make room for a new display. The "regular" size Nano you're referring to was shorter and wider than it's predecessor and just as thin. Also to mention Apple had the iPod Shuffle in its lineup which you obviously forgot to Google.


Quote:
The smaller foot print is a really stupid idea. Just because it gets smaller does not mean it will sell better or go back to being larger again.

Pricing is what drives sales.


You took basic idea I said about general footprint/convenience as to why products like cassette tapes taking over vinyl and DVDs taking over VHS and then you started a witch hunt with a microscope to prove this wrong by googling the specs of different generations of iPhones and iPods all the while you're missing the big picture.

You have to realize that all MP3 players sales have been down for some time. Would you care to know why? Its because cell phones like the iPhone and Galaxy all have very capable MP3 players built in. Thats exactly why and they completely hold true to my original statement that footprint and convenience will reign supreme. Because guess whats more covenant that having a MP3 player no matter what size? Have it built into your Phone. Here's another 'shocker'.......... digital cameras sales are also suffering. Why is this? Its because you can take decent quality photos with your cell phone. Its not DSLR quality but its good enough for point and shoot. Again this points back to the basic idea that humans gravitate towards ease because we are lazy by nature.

Im sure the following has had sales down because of smartphones
Digital cameras
Land line telephones
Portable gaming consoles
MP3 Players
GPS systems
Calculators
Alarm clocks
Video Cameras
Compasses
Maps


  Reply With Quote
Old 12-25-2012, 06:18 PM   #4393
Spicoli Spicoli is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Spicoli's Avatar
 
Sep 2010
East of Seattle
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdodolak View Post
Hmm, one reason why the cloud and streaming aren't ready. My Netflix service died on me earlier today and it's still down. Apparently, Netflix is having issues handling the additional load due to the Christmas Eve demand. A quick google search came up with this:

http://www.helpowl.com/q/Roku/Techni...code-10/280358
http://forums.roku.com/viewtopic.php...52959&start=45
http://www.facebook.com/netflix
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellycla...christmas-eve/

Long story short, if you have all of your movies in the cloud and it were to go down, like Netflix, you're SOL.

end rant

This is the reason I will not ever go to the cloud. Trusting a source to protect my product I cannot do. I need to possess physically my media.

In the future I do not care if it is on cd's, thumbs, passbooks...whatever.

I watch when I want to watch not when you say I can.
No TV, No Facebook, No Smartphone, No Texting, No Social Media, No Credit Card, No Debit Card, No Passwords or user names, No Google (start page) One VPN e mail. Only Blu-ray.com because they will not delete my account. FUVK! Stop being a slave. This is the only place I am allowed to post. Write your congressman and stop me. This is all true
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 03:32 AM   #4394
pagemaster pagemaster is offline
Special Member
 
pagemaster's Avatar
 
May 2011
6
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spicoli View Post
This is the reason I will not ever go to the cloud. Trusting a source to protect my product I cannot do. I need to possess physically my media.

In the future I do not care if it is on cd's, thumbs, passbooks...whatever.

I watch when I want to watch not when you say I can.
Its not like you can't go out and rent a movie from the RedBox machine if the Netflix account is down.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 04:48 PM   #4395
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pagemaster View Post
VHS did not die until about 2005-2006. VHS finally died when DVD was at mass consumption and acceptance level. But it was not footprint at all which eventually ended VHS....it was a much better product in that of DVD.
yup. And that is both points

The one I brought up much earlier thread: why are so many people freaking out, it took roughly 10 years for DVD to replace VHS and BD has only been around 6. Maybe it might have doine it in 6 but how can anyone know how long it will take BD to replace DVD completely? If it happens next year or the year after then BD would have taken off faster then DVD, if it is in 3-4 then it would be roughly the same, if it is 5 or 6 then again it would have been a bit slower but nothing where it would make sense to freak out and ask the question (after all DVD was the fastest adopted tech in history), but at this point no one knows how long it will be. It always takes time, when tech is new only the enthusiasts know about it, only the relatively well off can afford it because the companies need to recuperate their R&D... But word of mouth, lower prices, availability... all take time until you get to the point where the only reason anyone buys the old tech is that it is cheap and at that point it makes no sense to continue it and subsidise the old tech.


And the point that was made in my last post that when tech is clearly better (i.e. everyone agrees) then it eventually replaces the old (no more CRT TVs, no more VHS, no more 78 rpm records no more audio tapes) when it is just new but not accepted by everyone as better then it never does (33 rpm records are still around because some people think they sound better and still chose to buy and listen to them even though CDs came out 30 years ago, CDs are still the lions share of music sales.....
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 05:02 PM   #4396
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pagemaster View Post
Ok, I understand what you are saying.

So what you are saying is that there is no reason for DVD anymore if there is a blu ray available?
I agree with that but I think his point is simpler (and one that I kind of made earlier. If someone does not care if it looks good or not then who cares if it is LOA or Ted. If you care and you want the best experience then why would you care more about seeing the grains of sand more clearly but not the fur on Teds coat.

We can all understand the economic perspective (I found the DVD for much less so I got it to save a few $) but that does not negate the fact that the person also decided to degrade their experience of that film be that film LOA or the vow or anything else one mentions). Now maybe you might think/say “but I care for LOA so I am willing to pay that difference but not for ______” but that does not change the fact that if someone is objective and not subjective that both those films would benefit the same from BD.

That is why I say if a film is worth seeing/buying then it is worth to get it on BD. I value my time way ore than the few bucks difference in price, I can always make a few more bucks, spend a bit elsewhere.... but I can’t make add 2 hours to a day to see something that I don’ care about.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 05:50 PM   #4397
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fathergll View Post
What does knowing what people are buying prove anything when its pirated like crazy for the last 10+?
everything and in any discussion
Quote:
Take 100 people who listen to music. Say 50 of those people pirate all their music. 30 of them buy CDs and 20 of them buy MP3s. According to a sales revenue you would think CDs are dominate but the reality is 70 of them are using MP3 exclusive.
No, if it is 50,30, 20 then it is 50,30 20 (but if you wanted more realistic numbers it would be more like 50, 35, 15) how do you know what those 50 that are listening to pirate music are doing? what idf all the 50 are listening to wave or none compressed MP3, then it wouild mean that it would be 85% that are listening to higher quality music then itunes and only 15% to itunes or lower. If you have stats on the pirates then post them, but that is the issue about you can't know what they are listening to (care about quality or not) just that they don't see it as wrong and so they say why pay for what I can get for free.


Quote:
"Why did blu ray not take of like DVD's ?" He didn't pull that out of thin air.....BD never did catch on like DVDs.
actualy he did.


can you show me (actual numbers) where else he would have gotten it from?

Quote:
You're referring to the vinyl section at Best Buy that has maybe a dozen albums? If thats the future of CD then its a bleak one indeed.
there is more than just BB. at BB I just pointed out the electronics, since BB is more an electroncs store than a content store.
Quote:
Some do that...most don't go into advance settings, change the bitrate and copy music to their HD in a lossless format.
how do you know, until a few posts earlier you did not know that DL purchases were just a drop in the basket. Now you are pretending that the guy that will take the time to go and buy the CD, rip it to their PC transfer it to his ipod just to have better quality instead of getting it directly from Apple won't take the 2 second one time deal of making sure it is in the best quality
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 06:31 PM   #4398
biznus97 biznus97 is offline
Member
 
Nov 2012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony P View Post
I agree with that but I think his point is simpler (and one that I kind of made earlier. If someone does not care if it looks good or not then who cares if it is LOA or Ted. If you care and you want the best experience then why would you care more about seeing the grains of sand more clearly but not the fur on Teds coat.

We can all understand the economic perspective (I found the DVD for much less so I got it to save a few $) but that does not negate the fact that the person also decided to degrade their experience of that film be that film LOA or the vow or anything else one mentions). Now maybe you might think/say “but I care for LOA so I am willing to pay that difference but not for ______” but that does not change the fact that if someone is objective and not subjective that both those films would benefit the same from BD.

That is why I say if a film is worth seeing/buying then it is worth to get it on BD. I value my time way ore than the few bucks difference in price, I can always make a few more bucks, spend a bit elsewhere.... but I can’t make add 2 hours to a day to see something that I don’ care about.
While I get what you are saying, the reality is that people who have been collecting movies for more than just one format have already bought many of the movies available today on BD. So the question isn't are they willing to spend the extra few bucks. It's figuring out if the differences (good and bad) substantial enough to re-buy the movie for a second (3rd or 4th) time. Then there is the question of will it be released on BD for a second (3rd or 4th) time.
I think we all know this won't be the last format to come around. Advancements in audio and video will continue, resolutions will get higher, more special features will be made. There are many BD releases available that aren't very good. If they aren't re-released on BD then they may be corrected on another format. This has happened from DVD to BD on releases.
You could say that people who chose not to buy subpar BD releases of movies they own on DVD are settling since the BD may offer a slight improvement. You could also say that people who buy subpar releases of movies are settling since a better job could have been done.
Lastly, as with any hobby sometimes you have to take a step back a realize that there is a point of diminishing returns. Everyone reaches this point at different places. In the a/v world, someone can spend tens of thousands of dollars on high end gear, spend more time fiddling with their system than using it and still walk away unhappy. Then there are people who listen and enjoy tons of music and movies from an iPad. I've never met a person that was objective about everything.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 06:55 PM   #4399
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fathergll View Post
Same reason film is still around. Its an extremely pleasing format to many that that can't be fully duplicated digitally. Vinyl is a niche market.
agree, and that is the point now how stupid is it to believe that everyone will accept low quality audio?

The only difference is that records are niche because most prefer the low noise floor of digital to the high noise floor of records that also degrades over time (i.e. " I don't want the hisses and pops of the record")

Quote:
Nut job? There's nothing I said that hasn't been said many times in various articles by analysts in various industries or other threads even here.
yup and they are all nut jobs, there are many "analysts" that also predicted BD would die and HD-DVD would the next wave. Someone would have needed to be a nut job to believe that and yet there were many such nut jobs, what is your point



Quote:
Stop quoting what % of the market it holds and start comparing how much CDs themselves have lost in the last 15 years

OK let's forget market share for a minute (even though your comment was on what % - market share- are interested in quality for the music/video they listen to and let's look at your chart and numbers.


Yes album sales are down from the peak of 2000, but music sells albums and so years with crappy music will mean less sales that most likely explains the slight variance pre-2000. So how much of the loss is because record labels are going after crappy music based on Youtube clicks.

second your graph ends in 2010, 2011 and from what pro-bassoonist posted earlier it appears that sales are going back up

thirdly, look at your graph closely look at how it is more or less stable until a few years after CD starts coming into play and then it grew by a lot? could some of that growth be because there is no singles with CD (so if someone wanted a song they had to buy the album?) could it be because people that had the record (or cassette) would go out and re-buy the album on CD to have the CD version?

fourthly look at the graph again it is more or less straight it is 440 give or take 110k until CD starts catching on (I know I mentioned it before but now I want you to see something else), now look at a few years ago, we are back at those numbers again 440 give or take 110 depending on the year.

Lastly, I have no idea what a pampelmoose or where they got those numbers, so if those charts are wrong my comments were built on those charts alone (except for 2011 and 2012)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 09:31 PM   #4400
Anthony P Anthony P is offline
Blu-ray Baron
 
Jul 2007
Montreal, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biznus97 View Post
While I get what you are saying, the reality is that people who have been collecting movies for more than just one format have already bought many of the movies available today on BD. So the question isn't are they willing to spend the extra few bucks. It's figuring out if the differences (good and bad) substantial enough to re-buy the movie for a second (3rd or 4th) time. Then there is the question of will it be released on BD for a second (3rd or 4th) time.
I think we all know this won't be the last format to come around. Advancements in audio and video will continue, resolutions will get higher, more special features will be made. There are many BD releases available that aren't very good. If they aren't re-released on BD then they may be corrected on another format. This has happened from DVD to BD on releases.
You could say that people who chose not to buy subpar BD releases of movies they own on DVD are settling since the BD may offer a slight improvement. You could also say that people who buy subpar releases of movies are settling since a better job could have been done.
Lastly, as with any hobby sometimes you have to take a step back a realize that there is a point of diminishing returns. Everyone reaches this point at different places. In the a/v world, someone can spend tens of thousands of dollars on high end gear, spend more time fiddling with their system than using it and still walk away unhappy. Then there are people who listen and enjoy tons of music and movies from an iPad. I've never met a person that was objective about everything.
agree, with most of what you say, and the truth is that before BD came out I was thinking that I could live with DVD quality, and now I am hoping I can live with BD quality when 4k comes out. The issue is that it is a discussion on quality, when pagemaster thinks "I don't care for that film so I will watch it on DVD, it is not objective but subjective and it is all about the money being spent and nothing about the quality. If there is an improvement and I have yet to see a film I have on BD and DVD not have one, then what could really make one movie worth it and the other not?
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Blu-ray > Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
Falling down Australia blu-bren 3 09-06-2009 06:41 AM
Oh noes... someone call Amir... General Chat Esox50 16 04-27-2008 02:22 AM
News:The sky has officially stopped falling Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology cueman98 13 09-13-2007 11:24 PM
Lance Bass of Nsync teh-Gh3y!!! General Chat BTBuck1 2 07-27-2006 02:18 PM

Tags
blu-ray, failure, frustrated

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:42 AM.