Blu-rays are 8 years old and DVDs still cling to them like a cancerous tumor. Why?

[JonBailey]

I have been burning and collecting DVD movies for years now. I have over 300 DVD titles in my 2 binders.

I just bought a new Panasonic Blu-Ray player a couple months ago and it plays back DVDs just swell. I bought a Blu-Ray player, since I need a new machine to play back my DVD collection on my TV set anyway, to be "future-proof" since Blu-Ray technology might soon eventually get cheap and as common as DVD is now.

DVD did not replace VHS overnight either.

I have never owned any Blu-Ray disk movies or have rented any such movies to date.

I play flight simulators and train simulators on my PC. I use a screencast software called Beepa! FRAPS to make videos of gameplay.

This FRAPS creates videos very large: 1 GB/per minute of playback! FRAPS has high overhead recording and only uses the .avi format for on-screen video capture.

I use Windows Movie Maker live to edit these FRAPS captures. WMM will allow splits, adding music, adding stills, special effects as fade out to black and so on. I can add captions and credits also.

WMM converts movies to .wmv or .mpeg4

In the .wmv format, 4 1/2 hours of FRAPS flight sim videos are compressed or shrunk to a file size of about 30 GB. Still large.

Windows DVD Maker then turns and burns these wmv videos to fit on standard DVD-R 4.7 GB blanks.

I tried this the other day to see if I could enjoy watching my gameplay recordings on my Samsung 40" Smart TV.

The trouble is the playback is grainy and fuzzy. Not good picture quality.
I was using my Panasonic Blu-Ray player to play these back. Hollywood movies can be fairly good on DVD but DVD does not seem to work well for long flight sim videos.

I am now considering taking up the Blu-Ray kick but this seems daunting to me. Blu-Ray technology seems confusing and expensive still.

Those blank blu-ray discs seem god-awful high-priced. I still want to enjoy gameplay watching with HD quality on my TV set.

The DVD burner in my computer is aging and it is often hard to get the drawer open. I saw a nice internal Pioneer Blu-Ray writer for a PC tower drive bay for about $50-something on amazon.com.

I wrote to Panasonic about my DMP-BD91 Blu-Ray player. I am not sure if my player will support 50 GB dual-layer discs or not. The book did not make it clear how many disc layers are supported in Blu-Ray. The book did say it supported several DVD formats with multiple layers, however. I have never dealt with multi-layer DVD or DVD-HD before either.

I am still awaiting an answer from Panasonic. Should all new modern Blu-Ray players support dual-layer disc playback?

I don't want to spend money on a new Blu-Ray burner, Blu-Ray burn/authoring software and 50 GB blanks and find out the hard way that my player might not even play them.

Is Blu-Ray the answer for watching crisp video of PC gameplay on an HD TV set?

Blu-Ray discs are not cheap but they are still cheaper and save more space than buying expensive multi-terabyte external hard drives for high-GB movies. My Smart TV will play video directly from a USB flash stick but I don't know if it even will play movies from a 5 TB USB-connected hard drive.

My Panasonic is not a Blu-Ray 3D it is important to note.

By the way, is there any free GOOD watermark-free Blu-Ray creation software for download? That will support BD-R dual layer to boot?

[mredman]

Originally Posted by JonBailey

I have been burning and collecting DVD movies for years now. I have over 300 DVD titles in my 2 binders.

I just bought a new Panasonic Blu-Ray player a couple months ago and it plays back DVDs just swell. I bought a Blu-Ray player, since I need a new machine to play back my DVD collection on my TV set anyway, to be "future-proof" since Blu-Ray technology might soon eventually get cheap and as common as DVD is now.

DVD did not replace VHS overnight either.

I have never owned any Blu-Ray disk movies or have rented any such movies to date.

I play flight simulators and train simulators on my PC. I use a screencast software called Beepa! FRAPS to make videos of gameplay.

This FRAPS creates videos very large: 1 GB/per minute of playback! FRAPS has high overhead recording and only uses the .avi format for on-screen video capture.

I use Windows Movie Maker live to edit these FRAPS captures. WMM will allow splits, adding music, adding stills, special effects as fade out to black and so on. I can add captions and credits also.

WMM converts movies to .wmv or .mpeg4

In the .wmv format, 4 1/2 hours of FRAPS flight sim videos are compressed or shrunk to a file size of about 30 GB. Still large.

Windows DVD Maker then turns and burns these wmv videos to fit on standard DVD-R 4.7 GB blanks.

I tried this the other day to see if I could enjoy watching my gameplay recordings on my Samsung 40" Smart TV.

The trouble is the playback is grainy and fuzzy. Not good picture quality.
I was using my Panasonic Blu-Ray player to play these back. Hollywood movies can be fairly good on DVD but DVD does not seem to work well for long flight sim videos.

I am now considering taking up the Blu-Ray kick but this seems daunting to me. Blu-Ray technology seems confusing and expensive still.

Those blank blu-ray discs seem god-awful high-priced. I still want to enjoy gameplay watching with HD quality on my TV set.

The DVD burner in my computer is aging and it is often hard to get the drawer open. I saw a nice internal Pioneer Blu-Ray writer for a PC tower drive bay for about $50-something on amazon.com.

I wrote to Panasonic about my DMP-BD91 Blu-Ray player. I am not sure if my player will support 50 GB dual-layer discs or not. The book did not make it clear how many disc layers are supported in Blu-Ray. The book did say it supported several DVD formats with multiple layers, however. I have never dealt with multi-layer DVD or DVD-HD before either.

I am still awaiting an answer from Panasonic. Should all new modern Blu-Ray players support dual-layer disc playback?

I don't want to spend money on a new Blu-Ray burner, Blu-Ray burn/authoring software and 50 GB blanks and find out the hard way that my player might not even play them.

Is Blu-Ray the answer for watching crisp video of PC gameplay on an HD TV set?

Blu-Ray discs are not cheap but they are still cheaper and save more space than buying expensive multi-terabyte external hard drives for high-GB movies. My Smart TV will play video directly from a USB flash stick but I don't know if it even will play movies from a 5 TB USB-connected hard drive.

My Panasonic is not a Blu-Ray 3D it is important to note.

By the way, is there any free GOOD watermark-free Blu-Ray creation software for download? That will support BD-R dual layer to boot?

Your player can play ALL Blu-Rays except 3D Blu-Rays but if you buy a PS4 it can be upgraded to playing 3D Blu-Ray

And look for deals on amazon Blu-Rays is not expensive in the slightest you can get them from $1 and up so happy hunting

http://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n%3A26253...nid=2734927011

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Wman1996

I really would like Blu-ray only releases. I have a strong feeling if there was no DVD or Digital Copy included, the overall sets would be $5-$10 cheaper.
I have really no use whatsoever for the DVDs. I keep the DVD copies in the set, but that is only for collecting/presentation sake. I sure as heck don't need the DVDs.

You could also have a strong feeling that starting tomorrow the sky will be plaid, but you'd be wrong.

Generally speaking, the inclusion of a DVD and/or digital copy doesn't have any real impact on prices. When new movies are released on Blu-Ray, they tend to cost somewhere in the ballpark of $20 regardless of the inclusion of these things. You can have a new release that includes a DVD sitting next to another new release that doesn't, and they cost roughly the same price. And when a variance does occur, sometimes it's the movie that doesn't include the DVD copy that costs more. And the variance, itself, has nothing to do with the inclusion of a DVD and/or digital copy... some studios may just charge more for certain releases because they think they can. The reality is that the DVD copy costs them pennies to include, and the digital copy ads practically no cost because it's just a code printed on a piece of paper.

The only times when the inclusion of these things has typically added to the cost is when a studio tries to release more than one different pack... like when Disney would have a combo pack with just the BD and DVD, and then a more expensive BD + DVD + Digital Copy pack. In those cases they are trying to make additional profit off of those things from those who will pay extra for them. But in those cases, you have a more affordable option to get what you want (with said option being in line with the average prices described previously for most average releases).

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

So did this thread go from wondering why we have to have DVD's in our blu-ray to now loving that we're getting DVDs with our blu-ray? What the fffffffffuu%& is happening here?

I'm here to support the O.P.. That means we make fun of DVD, no matter if they stuff it in the amaray case for "free" or not.

Naaaahhh you're right. Let's keep DVD alive. F%&k blu-ray

I don't think most people are saying that they 'love' that DVDs come with their Blu-Rays... it's just that new BD releases tend to cost the same average price regardless of whether or not DVDs are included, and most of the time the outer case is the same size and takes up the same amount of room on the shelf regardess of whether or not there is an extra disc hub with a DVD on it inside, so most of us are just rational about it and simply don't care either way.


And with all due respect to the OP, having seen that indivual's posts elsewhere on this forum previously, I can't get on board with his line of thinking. While I will, of course, choose Blu-Ray over DVD when the option exists, and quality is important to me, the content, itself outranks quality. This means that if I really want a particular movie or TV series and it's available on DVD, but not Blu-Ray, then I will buy the DVD.

There was another thread elsewhere on the forum sometime ago where the OP was arguing that any content not available in HD is simply not worth bothering with since there is so much content available in HD. This, IMO, was an asinine statement. I'm not going to stop enjoying a movie or show that I like just because it's not available in HD. Heck, I collect a lot of old TV shows on DVD, many of which would gain little to no benefit if they were released on BD, other than maybe fitting all of the episodes on fewer discs.

At the end of the day it is what it is. I'm not saying that you have to be thrilled that DVDs are included with some of your BDs, but people need to understand that even if all of the studios were to drop the DVD copies (which only cost pennies each to make) from any and all BD combo pack releases, they aren't going to drop the price of the BD at all, let alone by a noticable amount like 4 or 5 dollars. And for some people out there, the inclusion of the DVD with the BD is what makes them opt for that combo pack instead of the DVD only version.

[jackie879]

I like having a DVD copy included with a BD movie. I have friends and family who don't have a BD player, so I just give the DVD to them and they're thrilled.

Digital copies, on the other hand, I could care less about. I have no desire to watch movies on a phone or tablet, and no one else I know does either.

[img eL]

@jonbailey sounds like you need a BDXL drive

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

While I will, of course, choose Blu-Ray over DVD when the option exists, and quality is important to me, the content, itself outranks quality. This means that if I really want a particular movie or TV series and it's available on DVD, but not Blu-Ray, then I will buy the DVD.

There was another thread elsewhere on the forum sometime ago where the OP was arguing that any content not available in HD is simply not worth bothering with since there is so much content available in HD. This, IMO, was an asinine statement. I'm not going to stop enjoying a movie or show that I like just because it's not available in HD. Heck, I collect a lot of old TV shows on DVD, many of which would gain little to no benefit if they were released on BD, other than maybe fitting all of the episodes on fewer discs.

I have mixed feelings about this. While I agree that if there's some great classic film only on DVD, it's silly not to watch it that way (and we did live with DVD and thought it was pretty good before the advent of HD), I find it very hard to watch any content at SD resolutions. I have all SD channels de-programmed on my cable box even if there's no HD equivalent. I've sold off most of my DVDs and if I still wanted to watch them, replaced some with BDs. If I'm at a friend's house and they put on a DVD, I usually say, "ugghh..how can you watch that?"

But on the other hand, I am giving some consideration to purchasing the "WKRP in Cincinnati" boxed set, since it's not available on BD.

The bigger question is whether the inclusion of DVDs with BDs is helping or hurting the BD marketplace. I used to think it was a good idea: those people who were planning to buy a BD player in the future might not have wanted to make a further investment in DVD discs. This stopped them from deferring purchases. And it also helped those people who had BD in one room, but DVD in others, or DVD in the car (for kid's titles).

But at this point, with BD players under $100 and price of BD discs, especially catalog titles, at very affordable prices, the inclusion of DVDs may be hurting more than it's helping, especially when people give their DVDs away or sell them on eBay. And while it might not seem like it affects the price, it does overall because it still has to be manufactured and royalties have to be paid for that copy of the disc.

So at this point, I think I'm opposed to including them anymore, except perhaps for children's titles. There must be a reason why Criterion made such a big deal over single SKUs with both and now have reversed that decision (although Criterion purchasers are not typical of the mass market).

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Dylan34

What sucks is that everyone is going to be saying the same thing about blu-ray in about 3 to 5 years. 'Why do we keep getting these blu-ray discs with the 4k blu' 'I'm buying a 4k blu-ray, I don't need the blu-ray with it. I don't watch it and it makes the price stay inflated'. Its just natural progression.

Originally Posted by Dylan34

I was referring to us mainly, people on this site and on this very thread actually. The average person would never skip over blu-ray to get to 4k blu-ray if DVDs seized to exist, I know this. Hell, if DVD dropped off the planet they probably would move to streaming vs another physical medium which is the sad part.

well BD is BD is BD be it 4k content or 1080p content.

But even if one forgets that and it is seen simply as SD, HD, UHD what you say does not sound right to me. I don't have and have not had an SD TV for ages and I don't know of anyone that still has SD TV and uses it to watch movies. In 3-5 years I probably won't just have UHD TVs in my home and I doubt if everyone I know will have an UHD TV at their places.

I think 3D is a good example for this. It came out 3-5 years ago, I have some 3D displays in my home while the rest are 2D and some of the people I know have 3D displays while others I might visit do not. In order to be able to see the film I own where I want when I want with the quality I want (only reason to own a film) I need to be able to play it in both 3D and 2D and so it annoyed me when Disney released Oz in a 3D only format that won't play in 2D.

The difference here is HD displays have been on the market for nearly 2 decades and SD TVs have been off the store shelves for over 1/2 a decade. You add the move from NTSC to ATSC with all the adds that "your old TV might not work and you would either need a new TV or a tuner box". And it explains why old SD TVs are almost none existent in homes any more and the cheap BD player prices add to why "watching a DVD" is seen as a useless option by everyone not wanting to make excuses. The same thing won't be happening with 4k in the next 3-5 years. Now if you want to talk 10-20 years, maybe we will be having the same discussion about UHD but there is no way it will be in 3-5 years.

[Whiplash27]

For most people it comes to price. Most people aren't going to come onto a site like BR.com and do price tracking until a movie drops to $5 or whatever their threshold is. DVDs are much more affordable so people still buy them. I'm always shocked when I see a movie from like 20 years ago going for $15+ dollars. I understand if it's a classic, but even then. I know the process to restore and upscale the movies probably costs quite a bit, but after a year or so the prices should come down.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I don't think most people are saying that they 'love' that DVDs come with their Blu-Rays... it's just that new BD releases tend to cost the same average price regardless of whether or not DVDs are included, and most of the time the outer case is the same size and takes up the same amount of room on the shelf regardess of whether or not there is an extra disc hub with a DVD on it inside, so most of us are just rational about it and simply don't care either way.

yes and no. You are right that the price is more affected by perceived value (which is why, for example, some months later that same package/movie will be half that price) and yes there might not be a difference in packaging. But those are not the only things.

1) having the DVD included does, increase the perceived value to the studio and so it does "increase the cost" in that way. (keeps all the prices higher)

2) the included DVD does have an environmental cost (so if it won't be used it is good to save it)

3) there is a manufacturing cost and so it does increase the lower limit as well as profitability.

Don't get me wrong, I don't care enough and if the "with DVD" is cheaper I will buy that, but there are rational reasons for someone to feel strongly against having the DVD included

And with all due respect to the OP, having seen that indivual's posts elsewhere on this forum previously, I can't get on board with his line of thinking. While I will, of course, choose Blu-Ray over DVD when the option exists, and quality is important to me, the content, itself outranks quality. This means that if I really want a particular movie or TV series and it's available on DVD, but not Blu-Ray, then I will buy the DVD.

If the OP said that, I agree with him. It is not about if one outranks the other but a simple reality that it is a constant none choice. I can understand a bit of OCD (not meant as an insult), for example I love watching Carpenters Halloween on Halloween night (and I watched it last night for the Nth time again) but for the most part there is never a single choice of "must watch X" at any given time. So if I am sitting down and there are X films that might be perfect in content and some are on BD while others are on DVD why would I pick the content that is only on DVD when I can pick the content that I also have on BD? If when I sit down to enjoy a film there was only one choice or only one "best" choice or all the "best choices" were only on DVD your point would make sense of "content, itself outranks quality" but, at least for me there are always plenty of equally excellent choices that I am interested in watching at that point in time so why give up on quality?

to put it simply yesterday morning I had just over20 BD films on my unwatched shelf (BD movies I bought because I am interested in watching but have not had the time to watch yet), yesterday afternoon I got three more BDs that got added to the shelf. Now even if all I did was watch films it would still take days to watch them all but realistically it would be weeks if I stuck to just watching those films and before I do get to watch them all of them I would most likely add more films.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...So if I am sitting down and there are X films that might be perfect in content and some are on BD while others are on DVD why would I pick the content that is only on DVD when I can pick the content that I also have on BD?

It's more like not an issue of why but where, ie car, computer, child's room, vacation, etc. as well as those buying combos who yet don't have BD but plan on it eventually. Don't assume your situation is universal to all consumers.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...So if I am sitting down and there are X films that might be perfect in content and some are on BD while others are on DVD why would I pick the content that is only on DVD when I can pick the content that I also have on BD?

It depends what you're in the mood to watch. Some nights, I just feel in the mood for a certain movie. So I'm not going to go get it off my shelf, stop, and say, "oh, this one's only on DVD, so forget it." If I'm in the mood to watch it, I watch it.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

It depends what you're in the mood to watch. Some nights, I just feel in the mood for a certain movie. So I'm not going to go get it off my shelf, stop, and say, "oh, this one's only on DVD, so forget it." If I'm in the mood to watch it, I watch it.

Exactly. 'Content' is often interchangeable but it's just as often not. I'm not going to stop watching Fawlty Towers or Coupling or Tom Baker as Doctor Who or The Ghost and Mr Chicken or The Remains of the Day or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance simply because I don't have them on BD.

And one has to wonder just how pure purists are expected to be.

Do substandard BD releases make the cut?

Are we to stop watching Goodfellas or The Blues Brothers until they get BD releases that include lossless audio tracks? Should we leave our BDs of The Big Lebowski on the shelf because we could be watching better looking BDs?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

Exactly. 'Content' is often interchangeable but it's just as often not.

disagree with that since it is completely none sensical

I'm not going to stop watching Fawlty Towers or Coupling or Tom Baker as Doctor Who ... simply because I don't have them on BD.

I used to like Fawlty towers when it was relatively new 70s/80s , but when I bought the DVDs I saw that it did not age well at all so never bothered with the whole collection and I have no interest in watching any episodes again. But I am a big whovian and the Baker years were the best, so I get why someone is interest in watching them again, but, even though there is still no Baker BDs, the BBC has already started trickling some of the old who episodes on BD, for me I see it as a simple matter of time, and it would be a shame if I watched my DVD and wasted time on something that was a pass on content and complete fail on quality and the next day find out that the BBC was planning or releasing on BD what I just saw and waiting a few months would give me both a pass on quality as well as content.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

It's more like not an issue of why but where, ie car, computer, child's room, vacation, etc. as well as those buying combos who yet don't have BD but plan on it eventually. Don't assume your situation is universal to all consumers.

not sure what you are talking about, the discussion was about dynamo saying "the content, itself outranks quality" for himself. First of all I don't even get how there is a difference (can a person "watch" a movie with the display and audio equipment off?) the A/V is an integral part of the content. But there was definitely no "where" in his discussion.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

disagree with that since it is completely none sensical

Au contraire, I believe it's plenty sensical.

On those occasions where one simply feels like watching a comedy then pretty much any comedy might do. On those occasions Cheers and Frasier and Veep and Bored to Death are more or less interchangeable.

But on those occasions where one feels like watching a particular show or film the content is no longer interchangeable. As great as The Honeymooners BDs are they're not going to cut it when I want to watch Coupling.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...and it would be a shame if I watched my DVD and wasted time on something that was a pass on content and complete fail on quality and the next day find out that the BBC was planning or releasing on BD what I just saw and waiting a few months would give me both a pass on quality as well as content.

This sounds a lot like people who endlessly delay purchases because the price is bound to drop if they just wait a few weeks. The obvious problem with that thinking is that the prices a few weeks from now will also be bound to drop if one waits just a few more weeks and so forth and so on ad infinitum.

Could Warner announce a remastered Goodfellas BD tomorrow? Sure, anything's possible.

Is that prospect going to keep me from watching the current BD the next time I feel like watching Goodfellas? Of course not.

Similarly, the fact that Universal might someday down the road announce a BD release of The Rockford Files isn't going to keep me from watching the DVDs I have right now.

There's always going to be something better right around the corner. Why be a slave to it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

Au contraire, I believe it's plenty sensical.

On those occasions where one simply feels like watching a comedy then pretty much any comedy might do. On those occasions Cheers and Frasier and Veep and Bored to Death are more or less interchangeable.

But on those occasions where one feels like watching a particular show or film the content is no longer interchangeable. As great as The Honeymooners BDs are they're not going to cut it when I want to watch Coupling.

Why is it always straw man arguments with you? Considering I previously said “I can understand a bit of OCD (not meant as an insult), for example I love watching Carpenters Halloween on Halloween night (and I watched it last night for the Nth time again) but for the most part there is never a single choice of "must watch X" at any given time.” And I did not reply to gregmasciola that said “Some nights, I just feel in the mood for a certain movie” why would an intelligent person think my comment was meant to imply that it is nonsense that on some occasions the person has a compulsion for a given title? Also why would you assume that it needs to be “any comedy or a particular film?”

What I described as nonsense is the idea that for a sane person (and even most , if not all, nut balls) it is “just as often” which was what you added.

To go with a simple analogy, if someone is cooking and the door bell rings and they go and answer the door and later ask themselves “did I turn off the oven?” that is normal and something similar probably happens rarely to most people. On the other hand if someone is likely to leave the oven on whenever they cook “just as often” as they are to remember to turn it off then there is a serious problem with that person. And if the person turns the oven (like most) but he is just as often likely to go back and check that person has a serious case of OCD.

This sounds a lot like people who endlessly delay purchases because the price is bound to drop if they just wait a few weeks. The obvious problem with that thinking is that the prices a few weeks from now will also be bound to drop if one waits just a few more weeks and so forth and so on ad infinitum.

Could Warner announce a remastered Goodfellas BD tomorrow? Sure, anything's possible.

Again with the straw man , with a useless analogy thrown in as well. Did I talk about waiting for the “perfect copy” no, so why would you assume that? Your analogy would work if you talked about someone waiting for the title to be X$, but then your dumb slippery slope would not work. There will always be room for better A/V on every film but that is immaterial, what is being discussed is having a minimum standard (what ever it is) because someone cares about quality. Some people don’t care about quality and so it is “I don’t care what format it is” some people have a serious OCD issue and it must be the title they want on the day they want and so they are willing to sacrifice quality because of that mental disorder others it is because they are cheap (and they have the DVD or the DVD is cheaper and others like myself realize that you need to live in the real world and if you wait a bit it is no big deal and the earth won’t end if you watch something else.

Back in the late 80’s a professor at college introduced me to the film Jesus Christ Superstar (don’t remember if it was part of an assignment or discussion in class.... but it was the first I ever heard of that film) after that it became a standard part of my Easter repertoire. For many years after BD came out I had a choice, do I watch it on DVD or do I watch something else. Obviously for most of those years I went with something else but this year I had the BD (came out in 2013 after Easter) and included it again after several years in my Easter repertoire. Except for possibly getting to watch some other titles because of the freed up time do you think waiting a few years made a difference?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Why is it always straw man arguments with you? Considering I previously said “I can understand a bit of OCD (not meant as an insult), for example I love watching Carpenters Halloween on Halloween night (and I watched it last night for the Nth time again) but for the most part there is never a single choice of "must watch X" at any given time.” And I did not reply to gregmasciola that said “Some nights, I just feel in the mood for a certain movie” why would an intelligent person think my comment was meant to imply that it is nonsense that on some occasions the person has a compulsion for a given title? Also why would you assume that it needs to be “any comedy or a particular film?”

What I described as nonsense is the idea that for a sane person (and even most , if not all, nut balls) it is “just as often” which was what you added.

To go with a simple analogy, if someone is cooking and the door bell rings and they go and answer the door and later ask themselves “did I turn off the oven?” that is normal and something similar probably happens rarely to most people. On the other hand if someone is likely to leave the oven on whenever they cook “just as often” as they are to remember to turn it off then there is a serious problem with that person. And if the person turns the oven (like most) but he is just as often likely to go back and check that person has a serious case of OCD.

There was no straw-man argument at all in what Octagon said. If anything, what you wrote here qualifies more so as a straw man argument by comparison.

He just made a basic comparison. You are the one equating someone wanting to watch/have access to specific movies and/or TV shows (as opposed to some general amount of content) with being "OCD," and going so far as to compare it to someone who always has to double check if they turned off the oven.

It doesn't have to boil down to just one specific piece of content. Many people have specific favorite and even semi-favorte movies and TV shows that they really enjoy, and want to have access to (hence buying them on DVD and/or Blu-Ray).

Some nights my wife and I will decide to watch a movie. She may just say, for example, "pick something funny," so I'll grab a comedy, or even two or three and ask her if she'd prefer to watch any particlar one of the few that I grabbed.

But then there are other times where one or both of us is in a specific mood to watch a particular movie that we enjoy. It doesn't come down to watching a specific movie on a specific occasion. It can be as simple as, "I haven't watched 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' in a while, and feel like watching it again," and then opting to watch it. And that's just an example. There are many movies that I have that coule fill in that blank.

My wife's favorite movie, and one that I also enjoy a lot, is "Blast From the Past" with Brendan Fraiser and Alicia Silverstone. This particular movie has not been released on Blu-Ray, so we still watch the DVD when the mood strikes.

This goes back to what this tangent seemed to stem from originally, my comment about it being silly to forgo certain content simply because it's on DVD and not Blu-Ray/ in HD "just because" there is a lot of content in general that is available in HD. And you seemed to disagree with that, hence the discussion that has followed. If my wife and I handled our viewing preferences in that manner, we'd never watch the aforementioned movie again (until when/if it received a Blu-Ray release), which is her favorite and I also enjoy a lot. That would just be stupid.

Plus I enjoy and collect a lot of old TV shows that are only available on DVD and not Blu-Ray (many of which were made in the days when they were shot on video and not film, and wouldn't really benefit much from a Blu-Ray release anyway). This doesn't just come down to one specific piece of content, but a whole general category of content (TV shows that I grew up with and enjoy rewatching) that I would have to eliminate if my collecting were to boil down to "HD only."

And for that matter, one could easily apply the OCD argument to those who will only watch a movie or TV show if it is in HD, opting not to watch any SD content at all, even if it happens to be a movie or show that they really like. That falls far more under the category of OCD in my opinion than someone getting an urge from time to time to watch a specific movie or show that they really enjoy.



I will say that, having bought a larger, nicer TV over this past summer, that yeah, SD content, particularly some of those older TV shows (which end up looking worse than most decent anamorphic DVD movies), don't look particularly great on it. But I have options. I can watch those shows if I choose on that set and put up with the artifacts and so forth, and still otherwise enjoy them. But I also have a smaller TV in the bedroom on which the artifacts and so forth are much harder to see, giving a comparatively more pleasant presentation of those shows. Since things like old sitcoms aren't really something that I need to watch on a huge screen, I can opt to watch them in there.

And also, while I may be in a minority on this, I do still have a couple of old CRT sets laying around (contrary to a previous post of yours in which you insinuate that no one has them anymore). I'm actually planning to kind of convert a spare bedroom (which has become something of a storage room over time... something that I intend to change) into sort of a retro-gaming/viewing room. Since I have a lot of older gaming systems from over the years, going back to the days of the Atari 2600, my intent is to set up those systems and maybe a DVD player in the spare room with those older TVs.

It all boils down to personal preference. If there isn't much content out there that one will particularly miss by going 100% HD, then more power to them. But for others, there are plenty of movies and especially TV shows that they enjoy that simply aren't available on Blu-Ray/in HD and probably never will be. And if for some people there is a lot of content that falls under this category, then that's a lot to give up. It's not an "OCD" issue of having to watch a particular piece of content at a specific time or under very specific conditions. Rather, it's an issue of completely eliminating the option to ever watch that content that some people really enjoy from the equation altogether if they were to opt to never watching anything again that isn't in HD. And that's just silly.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Back in the late 80’s a professor at college introduced me to the film Jesus Christ Superstar (don’t remember if it was part of an assignment or discussion in class.... but it was the first I ever heard of that film) after that it became a standard part of my Easter repertoire. For many years after BD came out I had a choice, do I watch it on DVD or do I watch something else. Obviously for most of those years I went with something else but this year I had the BD (came out in 2013 after Easter) and included it again after several years in my Easter repertoire. Except for possibly getting to watch some other titles because of the freed up time do you think waiting a few years made a difference?

Maybe it didn't make a difference to you, and that's fine if you were fine not watching it. For others, they may not want to skip watching a favorite movie of their's, especially one that they traditionally watch in association with a particular holiday, just because it's not on BD/ in HD. It boils down to personal preference.

Will someone's life be drastically, negatively altered in some permanent fashion if they don't watch a particular holiday movie each and every year on or around that holiday? No, of course not. But depending on the individual, they may be disapointed. And likewise, no one's life will be drastically, negatively altered if they watch a movie in standard definition in the day and age of HD.

But since we don't always know for sure when or if some content will ever be released in HD, it seems rather silly to wait based purely on the possibility. I know my wife would get rather upset if I told her she can't watch "Blast from the Past" again until it comes out on Blu-Ray. If you had watched Jesus Christ Superstar on DVD each year for those years that you skipped it, would it somehow impact your ability to enjoy the BD now that it has been released? Somehow I doubt it.

At the end of the day, watching movies and TV shows is a recreational luxury. So there's always a degree to which we could argue that some aspect of it doesn't matter or make a difference as much as others, or that none of it really matters at all (i.e. it not "making a difference" that you didn't watch that movie for a few years prior to the BD release). So to get THIS particular about how something should be watched and under what conditions is silly.

[_Bryce_]

I buy Blu ray when it is a big film, action, sci-fi, heavy digital effects, epic or something I really love. But when I am just buying a story, or a comedy, I find DVD's look great on my Blu ray player. When you have a decent Blu ray player it upgrades the DVD picture very well. I love that I can find used DVD's for less than 3 bucks.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Again with the straw man , with a useless analogy thrown in as well. Did I talk about waiting for the “perfect copy” no, so why would you assume that? Your analogy would work if you talked about someone waiting for the title to be X$, but then your dumb slippery slope would not work. There will always be room for better A/V on every film but that is immaterial, what is being discussed is having a minimum standard (what ever it is) because someone cares about quality

But what if the slope is actually slippery?

Does the Goodfellas BD - with its DVD-quality lossy audio track - make the cut or not? Is it on the good side of the line or on the 'waste of time' side of the line?

What about The Big Lebowski or the first season of The Sopranos? They're both arguably better than their DVD counterparts but they're nowhere near as good as other BD offerings.

Do these BDs meet this supposed minimum of yours?

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Some people don’t care about quality and so it is “I don’t care what format it is”...

Would you consider the following a fair characterization of your viewing habits: some people don't care about content, they don't care what they're watching provided it looks really good'.

Or would it be fairer to say you care about both quality and content and that you balance the two the way you best see fit?

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...some people have a serious OCD issue and it must be the title they want on the day they want and so they are willing to sacrifice quality because of that mental disorder others it is because they are cheap (and they have the DVD or the DVD is cheaper and others like myself realize that you need to live in the real world and if you wait a bit it is no big deal and the earth won’t end if you watch something else.

So a person who watches Hill Street Blues when he feels like watching Hill Street Blues might have a serious mental disorder?

And the guy who feels like watching Hill Street Blues and thinks 'oh, wait, no, I can't watch Hill Street Blues anymore...it's not out on BD' is the one living in the real world?

Seriously???

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Except for possibly getting to watch some other titles because of the freed up time do you think waiting a few years made a difference?

No, I don't believe your decision to not watch a movie had any meaningful impact on, well, anything at all. I suspect going the other way and watching the movie would have had a similarly profound impact.