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

[gregmasciola]

People always try to say that physical media is being phased out and streaming will replace it. I think most people just base this on the fact that stores don't carry as many movies as they used to. But they're leaving out at least 2 important factors:

1. Piracy - there are plenty of people who don't stream or buy discs, but just download their movies illegally.

2. Online Sales - one of the reasons stores don't carry as many titles is probably because people who do buy discs buy more of them online. And this is kind of a vicious cycle because carrying less titles will just lead to more online sales, and many people will only buy their discs online.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

People always try to say that physical media is being phased out and streaming will replace it. I think most people just base this on the fact that stores don't carry as many movies as they used to. But they're leaving out at least 2 important factors:

1. Piracy - there are plenty of people who don't stream or buy discs, but just download their movies illegally.

2. Online Sales - one of the reasons stores don't carry as many titles is probably because people who do buy discs buy more of them online. And this is kind of a vicious cycle because carrying less titles will just lead to more online sales, and many people will only buy their discs online.

I have no expectation that physical media will go away anytime soon. Unfortunately I do expect more and more niche titles to be released as downloads and streaming only, this has already started to happen.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by callahan09

So the pie grew overall by $3.58 million because blu-ray grew that much more than DVD shrank.

That's what she said!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

That's not true at all.

I think you might have misunderstood what I said since it is more or less in the same vain as what you continued with.

For most people, the main reason to buy a movie or TV show is because they know the will watch it again. If they only planned on watching it once, buying it would be a huge waste of money.

for the person you describe the decision tree would look like

Am I interested in the film? --no-- not interesting for this discussion
yes |
Will I watch it enough times to make it worth buying? -- no -- rent
yes |
buy the film


with obviously the second step depending on the person and the price (i.e. in one case it might be "the film is 5$ in the garbadge bin I will buy it even if I only see it once" while for someone else it might be I can rent a film for 2$ I need to know I will see it more than 10 times to make that 20$ price worth it.

but there are others where the decision tree would be

Am I interested in the film? --no-- not interesting for this discussion
yes |
buy the film


in theory there might also be

Am I interested in the film? --no-- not interesting for this discussion
yes |
rent the film


but in my experience such people don't exist and they are an illusion and it is just a matter of time before something makes sense for them to buy and so they are really just like the first person with nothing , so far, passing the second test.

so the first group of people (that rent usually what they won't watch more than one) I call renters (since they rent films be it the traditional method or PPV or subscription....) and why I said -Only renters have that notion of "more than once" built into their psyche".

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I specified in my post that his intelligence is NOT what I was referring to.

but that is because you are not bright enough to get it.

And your guess would be completely wrong.

how can “I am guessing it might not end up as high on your list” be completely wrong when you follow with

The only reason that I made it a point to state that it is her favorite movie is because it IS her favorite movie. She has stated this to me several times. My personal all time favorite movie happens to be Back to the Future

Wouldn’t that make her list

1) "Blast From the Past"
And yours
1) BTTF
....
n) "Blast From the Past"
and so the definition of “not as high on the list?

You claim intelligence and integrity and yet keep missing the point of very simple things like this.
[

Because I am smart enough to realize that #1 and “probably wouldn't even be in my top 10” means that it is lower on your list and because I only something is wrong when it is.

But the point that I've been making and that Octagon has made is that MANY THINGS are a trade off.

I get what you are saying but you are missing my point, that you see it as a trade off because you feal like making it so and not because it needs to be one.

And on the flip side of that coin, there are other people out there who are even pickier than you,

Probably, as well as wealthier..... I just don’t pretend it is otherwise. I never said I am the pickiest, but you said you care about content and quality andf opbviously you don’t care much for either

My point wasn't to assume that there aren't plenty of movies that could be chosen from on Blu-Ray. My point was to simply ask what if you were with a group of people, for whatever reason they decided that they wanted to watch a particular movie, and that movie happened to be one that's not available on Blu-Ray, and the only option would be DVD... how would YOU react? It doesn't matter if this is one of many gatherings with these people and usually you guys pick out a Blu-Ray to watch. Maybe this time someone happens to own a particular DVD (or borrowed it from someone they know), and decided to bring it along, and everyone else is interested in watching it. How do you react when and if such a one-off occasion occurs?

Bad choices?

Yes you chose the TV and to exchange it several times. Who else is there to blame? Even if your third (?) TV was a lemon ytou chose to get rid and replace the other two.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Can someone else confirm that they're reading what I'm reading?

yeah scary

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

True. I hear ya.
So then, as a whole, if DVD is down 5% and blu-ray is up 22%, does that mean physical media is up 17% ?

no.

1) those charts are weekly charts that compare one year to an other on that given week so should be taken with a large grain of salt (i.e. the title released a given week will drive the numbers and so it can be up or down mostly based on that- if you compare a big blockbuster to a crappy title it is normal that the block buster is much bigger) But since DVD did go down while BD went up

2) if you look at the chart again you will see DVD is down 5.6% and blu-ray is up 22.9% while total was up 2.86% it is not as simple as 22-5=17 because BD and DVD don't have the same % of the of the pie.

i.e. if a store last year sold 1000$ of BD and and 2000$ of DVD last year and the % were the ones in the chart this year it would have sold 1229$ of BD and 1888$ of DVD this year so the total would be 3117 this year and 3000 last year or an increase of 3.9% but if last year that store sold 2370$ of DVD it would have sold 2237.28 of DVD this year and so the totals would be 3370 for last year and 3466.28 this year and you would have the difference is 2.857% as you see just changing how may DVDs sold last year (and so the slice of the pie for DVD and BD) changed the % for the total. What you said would only work if last year BD was more or less equal to DVD

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I think you might have misunderstood what I said since it is more or less in the same vain as what you continued with....

It just seemed at first like you were saying that only renters are interested in watching something more than once.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but that is because you are not bright enough to get it.

Why do you feel the need to be obnoxiously insulting?

I understand it just fine. You feel that anyone who makes any kind of "trade off" has OCD, because you don't feel trade offs should ever be made. This is no different than 99.9% of the other discussions that I see you involved in on this site. You think that you are absolutely, completely correct about anything and everything, and only your opinion matters. Anything contrary to it is by default wrong in your eyes.

how can “I am guessing it might not end up as high on your list” be completely wrong when you follow with

Wouldn’t that make her list

1) "Blast From the Past"
And yours
1) BTTF
....
n) "Blast From the Past"
and so the definition of “not as high on the list?

Because I am smart enough to realize that #1 and “probably wouldn't even be in my top 10” means that it is lower on your list and because I only something is wrong when it is.

Here you go again.

The problem, Anthony, is that you focus on whatever part of the statement you wish to focus on, and then argue like this, and call everyone else wrong.

Here's what I said earlier:

It just happens to not necessarily be my absolute favorite movie in my collection, and probably wouldn't even be in my top 10, but it still ranks pretty high overall out of all of the movies that I own. I actually like that movie more than a lot of movies that I own on Blu-Ray

You focus on whatever part of the statement you can in order to just continue to be argumentative. Nothing more, nothing less. After reading that it is not in my top 10, you therefore effectively come to the conclusion that it may as well just be at the bottom for all intents and purposes... which is not the case AT ALL. I clarified my stance on it, but you purposely focus on one piece of it, ignoring the other, and acting like I just don't care about the movie at all. As you can see from my counts under my screen name, I have well over 700 Blu-Rays and over 1,000 DVDs.... obviously there is going to be a lot of content that I enjoy, but doesn't make into my top 10 that I still wouldn't want to give up. I explained how that particular movie still ranked higher than a lot of other content that I own. You do this sort of thing all of the time just to continue arguing. How is it that you haven't been banned from this forum?

I get what you are saying but you are missing my point, that you see it as a trade off because you feal like making it so and not because it needs to be one.

This statement makes no sense what so ever. Please define what you mean by "need" within the realm of what content someone chooses to watch. I'm not asking for the literal dictionary definition (though I'm sure you will still post it, because you seem to have a hard time replying to what I'm actually saying and asking, and instead focus on some small part of it and go off on some random tangent as you see fit). Rather, I'm asking that at what point do certain aspects of this hobby... a hobby that none of us needs in order to live... become a "need" while others are "choices" or what someone "feels" like doing? Do you literally NEED to watch movies in HD? Will you turn to dust and cease to exist if you don't?

When you choose to watch a movie on Blu-Ray, you have done that because you "felt" like watching it. When you choose to not watch content that isn't available on Blu-Ray or in some form of HD, you've made that choice because you "don't feel" like watching SD content, or more accurately, you put the HD quality over the content. Which is your choice to make. But at no point is any of it a need. They are just your own idiosyncratic preferences.

Why is only watching content in HD a "need," based on your standards, but anything else something that someone just "feels like doing?" You have yet to quantify this in any kind of remotely reasonable manner.

The problem is that no matter what, both sides of this are a trade off. There is a lot of content that I enjoy watching and rewatching. While a lot of that content is available in HD, a lot of it also isn't. In order to make the choice to go 100% HD, I would need to give up any and all content that I enjoy that is only available in SD... which would be a trade off. On the flip side of that coin, in order to choose to have access to any and all content that I want and am interested (that is available for me to purchase on Blu-Ray or DVD), while I will opt for Blu-Ray when there is the option, I need to accept that in some cases they only option to watch that content is in SD on DVD... also a trade off. For me, the latter is the lesser of two evils. Neither option is perfect.

While, yes, there is plenty of content in HD that I do enjoy, opting exclusively for it would still mean not having access to a lot of other content that I enjoy, which would be a negative to me.

Probably, as well as wealthier..... I just don’t pretend it is otherwise. I never said I am the pickiest, but you said you care about content and quality andf opbviously you don’t care much for either

Based on what, Anthony? Other than you trying to be obnoxious, rude, and condescending to me, what basis is there for this statement? Because some content that I watch and still care about is not necessarily in my "top 10," that means I don't care about content? And because some content that I enjoy is only available in SD and I still watch it, I don't care about quality? That makes no sense.

If I don't care about content, then why would I buy Blu-Rays and DVDs of movies and TV shows that I enjoy watching? And why would I watch them?

If I don't care about quality, then why would I choose to buy a movie or TV show on Blu-Ray instead of DVD when the option does exist?

I care plenty about both of these things. But there is a balance. I'm not going to refuse to watch content that I want to watch just because it's not available in HD, but I will also choose the higher quality when the option is available for the content that I want to watch. I'm not going to 100% forgo one in all cases across the board in favor of the other... to choose either extreme exclusively (only watching content in HD, but being limited on content... or having access to all content, but watching all of it in SD, even in cases where HD would otherwise be an option) would be a much bigger and more negative trade off for my preferences than simply balancing them out as I currently do. I very much appreciate HD and will of course choose it when the content that I want is available in it.

But like I said before, for me when it comes to those cases where it's either/or and "both" is not an option, content wins out. If I really want to watch a particular movie or TV show, and it's only available in SD, then I'm watching it in SD. By contrast, if I have no interest in watching a particular movie or TV show at all, then the quality of the picture and sound don't even factor into the equation. I'm not going to watch a movie that I have no interest just because it is in HD.

Yes you chose the TV and to exchange it several times. Who else is there to blame? Even if your third (?) TV was a lemon ytou chose to get rid and replace the other two.

I will admit that yes, in hindsight I should have gone for a bigger TV in the first place since I ended up not being happy with the size (but liked the TV in all other respects). I thought that compared to the 37 inch TV that I had up to that point, a 51 inch would seem a lot bigger by comparison. The size looked fine in the store, but it didn't hold up as well when I got it home. It is what it is. It's like they say, hindsight is 20/20, foresight isn't. Part of why I bought it from the retailer that I chose is because they have that two week return window if I'm not satisfied.

I'm sure you've made choices from time to time that you later came to regret. You likely won't admit it here, though. No, not you. Because you like to give the appearance that your **** don't stink.

I was also budget conscious with a limit on how much I wanted to spend out of pocket. I wanted to get a plasma before they were gone. If it hadn't been for that, I likely would have held off upgrading longer. When all was said and done (after the exchanges) I got some no interest financing on the difference with payments that I am comfortable with. Under normal circumstances, I don't like being in debt for things outside of actual needs (like a mortgage or a car payment), and try to avoid financing something like a TV. But since it was no interest, I was comfortable with the payments, and Plasma is being phased out, I went for it.

The second TV buzzed TERRIBLY after I got it. That was something that I simply couldn't live with. And it was not evident with the floor model at the store. I even checked it. I know to an extent buzzing is an issue with Plasma, but it can vary. The first set buzzed some, but not in a manner that was disruptive to normal viewing. The second set was. While I wanted the larger size, the buzz was not a trade off that I could live with.

I don't see how you can exactly say this second occasion was me being indecisive or making bad decisions. Being new to plasma, aside from my experience with the 51" set, I didn't have any first hand basis for comparison when it comes to plasma buzz. In reading reviews and such, the positive reviews outnumbered the negatives. When the buzzing issue was addressed at all in some of these reviews, the negative reviews referred to the buzz as being overly distracting. And where applicable, the positive reviews stated that the buzz was in normal levels and not distracting during viewing. I chalk that up to possible variances in each TV set produced and possibly with what pitches different people can hear. I didn't hear it in the display model, so I took the chance at it. The one that I got buzzed horribly.


The 3rd TV was "just right" in terms of the size being right and the buzzing not being a problem. But then it developed the aforementioned screen issue. And then after that was fixed, it had the new issue of intermittently not turning on. And that has now been resolved as well (or at least seems to be). A tech came out last Friday to look at it and trying changing out some boards. Luckily the problem did occur while he was here. Changing the boards (memory board and power board) did nothing to resolve it. He ended up taking it back to the shop for further troubleshooting. They ended up replacing the panel again. I got it back on Wednesday. So far the TV is working fine and looks great. The only problem now (which is relatively minor, but still annoying) is that the front of the TV's stand got scratched up from them transporting it. So they are coming back out on Monday to swap out the stand. HOPEFULLY this is the end of all of the frustration.

I opted for this TV to get the most out of my HD content, of which have a lot. It does not mean that I will completely refuse to watch any content that is only available in SD.


But your rude, condescending replies to this are uncalled for and unnecessary.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Why do you feel the need to be obnoxiously insulting?

just being Frank.

You feel that anyone who makes any kind of "trad off" has OCD, because you don't feel trade offs should ever be made.

not at all, you still don't get something simple.

I went to work yesterday. I could have taken the car which has the benefit of not having to walk in the cold (in door parking) and having a comfortable seat but has the negatives of being stuck in traffic for a long time (over an hour) as well as having to pay for expensive parking. I could have taken the bus which has the benefit of being a short trip (bus lane) and cheap fare (less then 1h worth of parking) but has a the negative of having to stand for the 15 minutes bus trip in a sardine can followed by a 5 minute walk outside in the cold.

Here a normal person can talk about a trade off because both have negatives and positives and the person needs to decide what negatives and positives are more important.


But if discussing watching X tonight that looks like crap or watch Y tonight that looks good
it only becomes a trade-off if one assumes watching Y as a negative because they are absolutely fixated on watching X today and that is what the OC in OCD stands for.

You focus on whatever part of the statement you can in order to just continue to be argumentative.

no I focused on the part of the statement that was relevant. I said her favourite title is not your favourite title and you said it was not correct. If I would have said you loath the title she loves the rest of your reply would have been relevant but not in this case.

Nothing more, nothing less. After reading that it is not in my top 10, you therefore effectively come to the conclusion that it may as well just be at the bottom for all intents and purposes... which is not the case AT ALL.

not at all. If that would have been my conclusion I would have said as much. But I said something completely different from the get go that you decided to pretend was wrong.

This statement makes no sense what so ever. Please define what you mean by "need" within the realm of what content someone chooses to watch on modern home theater equipment.

simple, let me go with an example, a few days ago I was sitting down to watch a film, I picked up my new Transformers film, looked at the back saw that it was over 2h and that would mean that it would end too late and I would be tired the next day at work and not be as efficient so I put it back on my unwatched shelf and picked a different film that I would enjoy as much.

Now on the other hand if I would have fixated and decided nothing matters and since I decided to watch the new Transformsrs film that is all that matters and who cares about the negative consequences, then I would be discussing feeling the need to watch that title. But because I don't have OCD and picked a different one I had a good nights rest that day and today, with a bit more free time I will watch it.

If I don't care about content, then why would I buy Blu-Rays and DVDs of movies and TV shows that I enjoy watching? And why would I watch them?

If I don't care about quality, then why would I choose to buy a movie or TV show on Blu-Ray instead of DVD when the option does exist?

I don't care about clothes, do you think that it means that I should walk around naked? do you think it means I should walk around in a garbage bag?Or do you think just because I wear clothes that makes me a fashionista?

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

just being Frank.

No, you are just being needlessly rude.

not at all, you still don't get something simple.

I went to work yesterday. I could have taken the car which has the benefit of not having to walk in the cold (in door parking) and having a comfortable seat but has the negatives of being stuck in traffic for a long time (over an hour) as well as having to pay for expensive parking. I could have taken the bus which has the benefit of being a short trip (bus lane) and cheap fare (less then 1h worth of parking) but has a the negative of having to stand for the 15 minutes bus trip in a sardine can followed by a 5 minute walk outside in the cold.

Here a normal person can talk about a trade off because both have negatives and positives and the person needs to decide what negatives and positives are more important.


But if discussing watching X tonight that looks like crap or watch Y tonight that looks good
it only becomes a trade-off if one assumes watching Y as a negative because they are absolutely fixated on watching X today and that is what the OC in OCD stands for.

Simple, let me go with an example, a few days ago I was sitting down to watch a film, I picked up my new Transformers film, looked at the back saw that it was over 2h and that would mean that it would end too late and I would be tired the next day at work and not be as efficient so I put it back on my unwatched shelf and picked a different film that I would enjoy as much.

Now on the other hand if I would have fixated and decided nothing matters and since I decided to watch the new Transformsrs film that is all that matters and who cares about the negative consequences, then I would be discussing feeling the need to watch that title. But because I don't have OCD and picked a different one I had a good nights rest that day and today, with a bit more free time I will watch it.

No, you don't get something that is simple. Your comparisons are absolutely ridiculous and extreme.

You are comparing staying up late to watch a movie, which will have a major negative impact on your work day the next day to simply watching something in HD vs. SD. Specifically, you are comparing watching that particular movie at that exact time to watching something in SD ever under any circumstance.

It's not a matter of being fixated on watching a specific program right this minute. With your Transformers example, you could make the wise and responsible decision to simply watch it later (perhaps the next day, if time allows). The option to still watch that particular movie at some point in the near future is very much on the table.

Also, the negative consequences of choosing to watch it at that time is that it will have a significant effect on your work performance the next day, which will potentially impact your job and career if you make a habit of this sort of thing, resulting in you losing your job and dealing with a lot of hardships because of it.


By contrast, watching something in SD really has no major impact of that caliber. If you watch something in SD... you've watched something in SD. Life goes on, nothing is really majorly impacted. I've even watched some DVDs on my new TV upscaled. Is the quality fantastic? No. But would I call it crap? No. It's certainly not Blu-Ray, but it's watchable. And the issue here isn't that I have to watch this exact title right at this exact moment.... it's that I like this title, and would like to watch it again at some point in general. And if it's a title that is not available in HD, and in some cases may never be (as I previously stated, I have a lot of old TV show content on DVD that likely will never get an HD/Blu-Ray release, and in some cases wouldn't benefit from BD much if shot on video), at some point it means watching it in SD... which is not some horrible, negative, life-shattering event.

This is the problem with the comparisons that you keep making. They really don't hold up under scrutiny and you aren't comparing apples to apples.

Most of your comparisons are super extreme and/or focus too much on the "right now" aspect of it, when really the issue is eliminating an option entirely, not so much having to watch something as this exact moment. I have A LOT of content that falls under this category, not just one or two pieces, and not just something that I feel the need to watch this instant.

For any content that does somehow look terrible on my main living room TV, I have the option of the smaller TV in the bedroom, and old CRT TV in another room, etc. Some nights I like to lay in bed and watch a movie or show. It may be a DVD, it may be a Blu-Ray. But either way I'm not getting the size or PQ out of it that I get from the larger set. But I like having that option. This a good time to watch the content that won't look good on the larger set, because in this case it's looks fine on the smaller TV, and I'm in a situation where I'm going to watch something on that smaller TV regardless.



I would also throw this wrinkle into the argument. When you (in general terms, not you specifically) get a fancy new piece of technology... a really high quality TV, the latest gaming system, etc, and use the best quality content on it, the benefits of it REALLY pop out at you because it's new and better than anything you've experienced up to that point.

But over time, while you still appreciate the quality, you get used to it. It's no longer as special as it was to start out with because it simply becomes the standard.

But if, for example, you watch something in SD for a while, then go and watch something in HD, the difference really stands out.

The situation with my TV is a good example of this. My wife and I got used to having the big TV in the living room. When the tech had to take it to the shop last Friday, I put our old TV back in the living room so we would have something to watch in the mean time. And that's what we watched until Wednesday when the new TV came back from being fixed. After a few days of watching the older, smaller TV, the new TV seemed BIG again. So despite all of the crap that we went through, that was one semi-benefit.

Now, granted, I'm not going to unnecessarily make it a point to move around what TVs are in what rooms just to have the new TV feel big again... mostly because they are very heavy, it would be a pain in the ass, and moving them around more than is necessary just risks damaging them. Nor would I want it to have a problem again that requires it to go back into the shop just for the "benefit" of it feeling kind of new again when getting it back after watching a smaller set. In other words, the trade off would be some really genuine negatives. That is more comparable to your Transformers/work example.

But, simply popping in a DVD once in a while doesn't have the same dangers and drawbacks. It's a very simple, safe, risk free thing to do. And while the quality won't be top notch, by watching content of this type from time to time, it will make the content that is top notch seem that much more special.


And watching a DVD is only negative if the quality is so poor that it bothers the person viewing it. If it bothers you, then it's a negative. If one is not bothered by it, then it's not a negative.


And one could argue that being fixated on watching things in HD to the point of refusing to watch excellent, enjoyable content that is only available on DVD/ in SD (especially if the DVD transfer is at least on the higher end of DVDs and upscales well) is a form of OCD. Plain and simple.

We can keep going in circles here, Anthony. The point is that you keep trying to frame this in a way that exaggerates the gravity of the issue at hand to absurd, ridiculous levels, with this very one-sided view of what constitutes OCD, when in reality we can make that argument from almost any angle of this in regards to anyone's preferences, including yours.

I don't care about clothes, do you think that it means that I should walk around naked? do you think it means I should walk around in a garbage bag?Or do you think just because I wear clothes that makes me a fashionista?

Once again, a terrible comparison (you are really good at those... if they gave out an award for terrible comparisons, you'd probably win). Clothes are a necessity in our society. Walk around naked, you get arrested. Show up to work wearing a garbage bag... you probably won't have a job for much longer. High end TVs, Blu-Rays, and DVDs are not a necessity. People who aren't really into clothes will still have a decent amount of them and replace them as needed. Someone who doesn't care about home theater and content isn't going to buy a high end TV, probably will opt for whatever is available on Netflix streaming instead of buying a lot of movies, and for the ones they do buy, will likely opt for DVD even when the Blu-Ray is available for almost the same price.

And someone can be generally fashionable without being the most extreme example of a "fashionista." This isn't a case of on or off, black or white. There are many shades of gray.

Plus someone who actually is a fashionista and keeps up with the latest fashion trends can still lounge around the house in a t-shirt and flannel pajama pants on a lazy day off.


When it comes to Home Theater set ups, I'd probably consider myself to be the the equivalent of the generally fashionable person. Am I the utmost discerning PQ and AQ critic in the world? No. Are there people out there who are more enthusiastic and knowledgeable than me, with better set ups, and who upgrade far more often? Of course.

But it doesn't mean that I'm the extreme polar opposite either - someone who doesn't care at all, has no interest or no knowledge, etc.... which is what you are implying. I wouldn't have bought the expensive Samsung F8500 Plasma if I didn't care about quality. If I didn't care about it, I would have just picked some random LCD set at Walmart with no research going into it at all.

I'm probably on the more extreme end of most of my friends and family when it comes to this stuff. I've actually been referred to as a "videophile" on a few occasions, though I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement in terms of it meaning the utmost extreme. I very much appreciate it when I can get the best picture available, but I'll still watch something even if it doesn't reach that standard. At the same time, I will be the first one to jump on it if, for example, I'm over at my mom and step-dad's place and their TV/equipment settings are incorrect, or if they are watching a channel in SD that they also get in HD.

And I care A LOT about content. I've made some blind buys that I regret here and there, but most content that I buy, especially for things that I previously seen (i.e. movies that I saw theatrically or have seen/owned on past formats, TV shows that I watched on TV) are things that I intend to watch again. If "once and done" was enough, I wouldn't buy it after seeing it the first time theatrically, on a previous format, or on TV.

As out of line as the statement about me not caring about quality was, the statement about me not caring about content was even more ridiculous and couldn't be further from the truth.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

just being Frank.



not at all, you still don't get something simple.

I went to work yesterday. I could have taken the car which has the benefit of not having to walk in the cold (in door parking) and having a comfortable seat but has the negatives of being stuck in traffic for a long time (over an hour) as well as having to pay for expensive parking. I could have taken the bus which has the benefit of being a short trip (bus lane) and cheap fare (less then 1h worth of parking) but has a the negative of having to stand for the 15 minutes bus trip in a sardine can followed by a 5 minute walk outside in the cold.

Here a normal person can talk about a trade off because both have negatives and positives and the person needs to decide what negatives and positives are more important.


But if discussing watching X tonight that looks like crap or watch Y tonight that looks good
it only becomes a trade-off if one assumes watching Y as a negative because they are absolutely fixated on watching X today and that is what the OC in OCD stands for.


no I focused on the part of the statement that was relevant. I said her favourite title is not your favourite title and you said it was not correct. If I would have said you loath the title she loves the rest of your reply would have been relevant but not in this case.

not at all. If that would have been my conclusion I would have said as much. But I said something completely different from the get go that you decided to pretend was wrong.



simple, let me go with an example, a few days ago I was sitting down to watch a film, I picked up my new Transformers film, looked at the back saw that it was over 2h and that would mean that it would end too late and I would be tired the next day at work and not be as efficient so I put it back on my unwatched shelf and picked a different film that I would enjoy as much.

Now on the other hand if I would have fixated and decided nothing matters and since I decided to watch the new Transformsrs film that is all that matters and who cares about the negative consequences, then I would be discussing feeling the need to watch that title. But because I don't have OCD and picked a different one I had a good nights rest that day and today, with a bit more free time I will watch it.



I don't care about clothes, do you think that it means that I should walk around naked? do you think it means I should walk around in a garbage bag?Or do you think just because I wear clothes that makes me a fashionista?

No offense, but I think you're just trying to keep this argument going for the fun of it. Nobody ever said anything about being fixated on watching a certain title at an exact time. Some of us just said that once in awhile, we may be in the mood for a certain movie/show, so that's what we decide to watch. Plain and simple. There's nothing OCD about that at all.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

It's not a matter of being fixated on watching a specific program right this minute.

it is , but you are just being too obtuse to get it

It's not a matter of being fixated on watching a specific program right this minute. With your Transformers example, you could make the wise and responsible decision to simply watch it later (perhaps the next day, if time allows). The option to still watch that particular movie at some point in the near future is very much on the table.

yes (which is why I bought it) but the option to still watch that particular movie at some point in the future is very much on the table even if it is now only in SD.

you are missing the obvious because you are too busy making excuses for watching stuff in SD and not listening to something simple.


let's make a simple decision tree for Joe that cares about quality and wants to decide what to watch right now

do I have to watch A in SD right now?- yes -watch A
no|
is B, C or D (the only other good films) all in SD? -yes- watch A
no|
watch B,C ort D and keep A to watch in the near future

the issue is that this should apply every time (with A being pushed back even further in the "near future") for someone that cares about quality unless
1) Joe becomes fixated and it has to be A right now
2) B, C sandf D are all SD (and that might have made sense in 2006 but not realy 2014 when there are many good films available in HD
3) If Joe decides he does not care about quality and he removes step 2
4) A becomes available in HD

Also, the negative consequences of choosing to watch it at that time is that it will have a significant effect on your work performance the next day, which will potentially impact your job and career if you make a habit of this sort of thing, resulting in you losing your job and dealing with a lot of hardships because of it.


By contrast, watching something in SD really has no major impact of that caliber.

seriously, you talk about exaggerating and you took going to bed a bit late and turned it into losing one's job to make it look bad? As for watching in SD there is a negative (since I care), if I watch a 2h film in SD that is 2h I won't get back (and it adds up over time) while at the same time not giving me what I want (the content that what was filmed).

Most of your comparisons are super extreme and/or focus too much on the "right now" aspect of it, when really the issue is eliminating an option entirely, not so much having to watch something as this exact moment.

how am I eliminating options entirely and it is not about "right now"? For example Easter 2013 I decided not to watch JCSS at that time (and I new I would need to wait for 2014), Easter 2012 the title was not announced yet but I decided to skip it at that time. same for 2011...but this year I did watch it at Easter time. Can you explain how every year I did not watch that title it was never about a "right now" decision at the time and it had to be about eliminating an option entirely and so I should not have seen it this year when it was available in HD?

For any content that does somehow look terrible on my main living room TV, I have the option of the smaller TV in the bedroom

OK but shouldn't the reason to watch a film be to watch the film and not just to have it playing while you are trying to see as little of it as possible in order to make a crap picture acceptable?

I would also throw this wrinkle into the argument. When you (in general terms, not you specifically) get a fancy new piece of technology... a really high quality TV, the latest gaming system, etc, and use the best quality content on it, the benefits of it REALLY pop out at you because it's new and better than anything you've experienced up to that point.

But over time, while you still appreciate the quality, you get used to it. It's no longer as special as it was to start out with because it simply becomes the standard.

But if, for example, you watch something in SD for a while, then go and watch something in HD, the difference really stands out.

I get what you are saying, but think about it for a second. Let's say Joe watches the DVD of BTTF on his small TV one day and then the next day he watches the BD of BTTF on his big TV. You are saying Joe will say "wow look at all the detail in BTTF that I missed when I watched it on that small TV in SD compared to the big TV in HD.

Do you agree?


My question is this. If Joe Cared would it be a good thing because he can say wow now because he can see all the detail he missed before and it looks better or would it be a bad thing (almost mourning) that the previous day all he saw was a pale imitation of BTTF and he is just realizing it the second day when he sees the BD on the big screen and he cares for what was lost the previous day?

[crazyBLUE]

Anymore name calling & that person will wish he had not done it!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yes (which is why I bought it) but the option to still watch that particular movie at some point in the future is very much on the table even if it is now only in SD.

you are missing the obvious because you are too busy making excuses for watching stuff in SD and not listening to something simple.


let's make a simple decision tree for Joe that cares about quality and wants to decide what to watch right now

do I have to watch A in SD right now?- yes -watch A
no|
is B, C or D (the only other good films) all in SD? -yes- watch A
no|
watch B,C ort D and keep A to watch in the near future

the issue is that this should apply every time (with A being pushed back even further in the "near future") for someone that cares about quality unless
1) Joe becomes fixated and it has to be A right now
2) B, C sandf D are all SD (and that might have made sense in 2006 but not realy 2014 when there are many good films available in HD
3) If Joe decides he does not care about quality and he removes step 2
4) A becomes available in HD

Why should it apply every time?

Why is "I feel like watching [insert a particular title here]" constitute OCD? You really have not been able to really defend that statement. You are really stretching the meaning and use of it.

Also, there's a difference between eliminating "right this minute" from the equation and extending that out to weeks, months, years, or possibly never.

Maybe for you if you like two or more movies "equally," they are completely interchangeable at all times for you. But for some others, while they may not rank a particular movie over another, there are just simply times when they are more in a "mood" to watch a particular one over the other.

Someone may enjoy eating at a really high quality, 5 star restaurants and may have enough money to do so regularly. It doesn't mean that they also don't like to eat at more moderator priced "family" restaurants. They may even enjoy fast food from time to time. The enjoyment of one does not eliminate the other from the equation, yet that's exactly what your argument comes down to in all of this.

Just because someone cares about quality does not mean is has to be the end all / be all deciding factor in the end decision. That's only the case for someone on the utmost extreme end of caring about quality above all else, which is what you seem to do. And that's fine if those are your preferences. Unlike you, I can accept that someone else's preferences may differ from my own. It's when they try to say that their preferences and choices should be the template upon which everyone else chooses what they will watch, that's when I have a problem. And you'll notice that the handful of others who have responded to this back and forth have agreed with me. You are pretty much on your own here.

And honestly, on some level it's almost too bad that you care about quality as much as you do. Since for you almost all content is apparently just generally "interchangeable" and you apparently don't care that much if you never watch a particular piece of content again or at all if it doesn't meet your minimum requirements, you would almost be better off just subscribing to a few services like Netflix, Hulu, and so forth instead of spending money on lots of discs. You'd certainly save a lot of money that way.

seriously, you talk about exaggerating and you took going to bed a bit late and turned it into losing one's job to make it look bad? As for watching in SD there is a negative (since I care), if I watch a 2h film in SD that is 2h I won't get back (and it adds up over time) while at the same time not giving me what I want (the content that what was filmed).

First of all, I didn't exaggerate that much if you go back, reread, and actually comprehend what I said. I didn't say that the one, single instance of staying up late would result in you losing your job. It would just effect your job performance for that one day, and possibly not to an extent that anyone would notice if it is just a one-off. I specifically stated that if staying up late to watch long movies was to become a regular occurrence when you have to work the next day, and it were to effect your productivity over a long period of time, it could lead to that. It's a long term, cumulative effect.

While by contrast, watching something in SD is simply watching something in SD. If from your view point it's "time wasted that you won't get back," then that's how you feel about it and maybe it's not a good idea for you. I don't feel the same way. But that's because you are THAT bothered by it. It's still not going to remotely have the chance of having a potential cumulative effect as your staying up late example, if one does that regularly, even for someone eith your stance on SD content.



For me, in general I watch far more content in HD than I do SD. If I'm watching regular television, I'm of course going to opt for the HD version of any given channel where applicable. If I'm going to watch a movie, of course I'm going to opt of HD/Blu-Ray if the option is available.

But I won't refuse to watching something in SD, and it really doesn't bother me or make me feel like it is "time wasted." And just because I choose to do that doesn't mean that I don't like or appreciate quality.

Here are some specific examples. When we first got the new TV, I popped in the Blu-Ray of The Avengers. My wife and I were in awe of the quality of the new set. We therefore like and appreciate quality.

But we also like the TV show "The Goldbergs," and we watch the new episodes on HD when they are on. But when the first season was released, it only came out on DVD and not Blu-Ray (and I refuse to buy digital downloads). If Blu-Ray had been an option, I would have bought it on that format. But since DVD was the only option, I picked it up.

Shortly after picking it up, one weekend my wife and I decided to "binge watch" several episodes of it. And it was on our new, big TV. Was PQ great? No. But it wasn't atrociously terrible either, and we weren't really bothered by it. We were laughing, enjoying the show, and having a great time. While, yes, I would have preferred if it were in HD, the lack of it didn't detract from the main point of the experience of watching it for us. I guess my wife and I having a great time like that constitutes 'OCD' in your book, Call it what you will, but we had a great time and I make no apologies for that... least of all to you.

If the quality would bother you that much, then I can understand if you would opt not to watch it. But that doesn't mean that others are wrong for making that choice, and it doesn't mean that they don't care about quality. It just means that it's not the end all/be all factor for them.

It's not a black and white, yes or no, one choice or the other kind of thing. You are the one turning it into that. You are the one holding this entire argument to your standards, acting like everyone else who doesn't agree with you is crazy and is OCD. Really stop and think about that for a moment, Anthony. Who is really more OCD? The person that reasonably balances things out for their own preferences and enjoys what they watch, and recognizes that others may have differing preferences and accepts that.... or the person who acts like their standard is the 100% absolute one-and-only right way to do things, and that everyone else who does things differently is wrong and crazy?

how am I eliminating options entirely and it is not about "right now"? For example Easter 2013 I decided not to watch JCSS at that time (and I new I would need to wait for 2014), Easter 2012 the title was not announced yet but I decided to skip it at that time. same for 2011...but this year I did watch it at Easter time. Can you explain how every year I did not watch that title it was never about a "right now" decision at the time and it had to be about eliminating an option entirely and so I should not have seen it this year when it was available in HD?

I'm defining right now as literally right now, right this minute. Will I die or cease to exist if I don't watch this piece of content right this minute? No. If it means waiting for a bit, that's fine. But you are talking about pushing things out for years, and possibly to forever if something isn't available in HD and may never be in some cases.

That's a ridiculous, opposite extreme for many people. My point is finding a happy medium between "I have to watch this RIGHT THIS MINUTE" and "I won't watch this EVER AGAIN if not available in HD." Now yes, that means if someone waits for a while, at some point "later" will eventually become "now," but there's a difference between someone obsessing over watching something at the exact given moment, and just generally feeling like watching a particular show or movie, and at some point sitting down and watching it, even if it's not available in HD.

If you can't see the difference, Anthony, then there's just no helping you.

OK but shouldn't the reason to watch a film be to watch the film and not just to have it playing while you are trying to see as little of it as possible in order to make a crap picture acceptable?

No. The picture is still plenty big enough for me to see and tell what is going on. It's just not so big that the artifacts of lower quality content stand out in a negative way.

Also, for me, while there are some movies on DVD that this applies to, it applies far more to old TV series. In many cases no remastering or such is done since in some cases they barely sell enough units to justify releasing it. I'm talking about old sitcoms from years ago, etc. I happen to like that kind of thing.

Like I said in a previous post, I recently picked up the complete series of WKRP in Cincinnati. While it would be great if having it in HD were an option, it's not exactly the kind of thing where having the absolute top quality visuals or a super large presentation is a must. I've watched a few episodes while laying in bed, and have had a great time with it. I wasn't obsessing over the quality.

I'm enjoying my content, Anthony. And the quality is not some tremendous problem. I still VERY MUCH enjoy and appreciate stunning visuals in the content that I watch that has them, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to pass on watching something that I want to watch just because the visuals aren't up to snuff with the more 'reference quality' material in my collection.

Why is that a bad thing in your eyes? Why can't you just leave well enough alone instead of trying to hammer your standards on everyone else, and acting like they are crazy for doing things a bit differently?

Understand, too, Anthony that in stating that someone is OCD for watching SD content at all, you aren't just attacking me, but you are attacking A LOT of members of this forum. There are plenty of sections and threads in which people discuss content that isn't available on Blu-Ray that they enjoy on DVD. I'm sure most of those people choose Blu-Ray when it's an option, but don't refuse to watch something when it isn't.

So go ahead and keep attacking people for their preferences and for having opinions contrary to your own. You've been doing it for years. It's one thing to correct someone when they get actual facts wrong, but we are discussing personal preferences, not absolute facts.. though you keep posting as if your opinions and preferences are fact. That's the problem.

Frankly, and with all due respect to the admins and mods of this forum, I don't understand how it's possible that you haven't been banned yet. The only thing I can figure is that they keep you around to have a good laugh.

I get what you are saying, but think about it for a second. Let's say Joe watches the DVD of BTTF on his small TV one day and then the next day he watches the BD of BTTF on his big TV. You are saying Joe will say "wow look at all the detail in BTTF that I missed when I watched it on that small TV in SD compared to the big TV in HD.

Do you agree?


My question is this. If Joe Cared would it be a good thing because he can say wow now because he can see all the detail he missed before and it looks better or would it be a bad thing (almost mourning) that the previous day all he saw was a pale imitation of BTTF and he is just realizing it the second day when he sees the BD on the big screen and he cares for what was lost the previous day?

In regards to your last paragraph, why does caring about quality dictate that "Joe" or anyone else has to have one specific reaction out of these two? Why can't someone care about quality and be "wowed" by the quality they now have access to without "mourning" the fact that they didn't have it yesterday? If 'mournung' is how you'd react, then that's just how you'd react.

I can only answer for myself here. For me, I wouldn't 'mourn' having just watched it in SD. I would be happy to now have it in HD going forward. As I said previously, I'm a huge BTTF fan, and I consider the first film to be my favorite movie. Though more accurately, I would probably say that all 3 are my top 3 films. I love the whole Trilogy.

Now that I have the movies on Blu-Ray, of course I'm going to opt to watch them on Blu-Ray whenever I'm at home (including in the bedroom, since I have a BD player in there as well) or am otherwise in a situation where I plan to watch the movies and the BDs are accessible.

But at the same time, let's say I was over at someone's house who didn't have as nice of a TV as I do, and only had the BTTF movies on DVD, and they randomly asked if I wanted to watch one of them. I wouldn't refuse. It wouldn't bother me. In fact, I'd still be very happy to watch them.

Probably more than any other movie or show, the BTTF films are movies that I can probably watch at any time. I honestly can't imagine a scenario where someone would ask be "Do you want to watch BTTF" and I would say, "Hell no!" Even if it were on DVD. Heck, even if it were on VHS (though that would not be my preferred way to watch it, of course). They are just the kind of movies that I can watch anytime, anywhere (within reason... I'm not going to let it get in the way of actual important things in life).

I VERY MUCH appreciate the higher quality that the Blu-Rays offer. I actually just watched Part II last night night on Blu-Ray on the new TV, and it was great.

But I wouldn't refuse to watch it in SD if it were the only option available at a given time. I would only "mourn" the loss of HD if somehow that option were taken away from me completely to ever watch ever again after having seen them tat way.


And it's all relative. BTTF is a pretty major catalog title, one that we would expect to have a BD release, and upon having it, it's my go to choice that I wouldn't want to go away or be completely without... but that doesn't mean I'm so 'snobbish' about it that I could never watch it in SD again on a rare occasion. But something like WKRP, for example, I would never expect to have a BD release. I'd be happy if it could be in HD and got a BD release, but I accept that it most likely never will. I accept that DVD is probably the best that will get, and I still enjoy it as is with no regrets.




Let me ask you this, what do you think you will do once that new 4K BD format comes out? Do you expect that, simlar to your current attitude on DVD, the quality will be so good that you never want to watch a regular BD again? Odds are as a format, it is going to be very, very niche, even after it is eventually around for a while. There will probably be a lot of movies that never see the light of day on it given current trends. And since streaming has yet to really catch up with standard Blu-Ray quality, I don't antcipate 4k streaming to be anywhere near the quality of 4K BD for a LONG time. This means that if you were to take a stance of anything of lesser quality being unacceptable, you would be limiting your content options even more so than now, even a few years into the format. At what point does the the other shoe drop in which quality isn't the end all / be all deciding factor? It is possible to care about quality without it being the one single factor that trumps everything else.

[schan1269]

Originally Posted by Redshaggydoo

That's a great chart!! Still hard to believe that blu ray only holds that small market share. I can't remember the last time I bought a DVD.

Then you are missing out on 75% of the world's cinema.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

But if discussing watching X tonight that looks like crap or watch Y tonight that looks good
it only becomes a trade-off if one assumes watching Y as a negative because they are absolutely fixated on watching X today and that is what the OC in OCD stands for.

If you elect to not watch something you feel like watching and settle for your second or third or fourth choice then you are making a trade-off.

When you wanted to watch JCS at Easter but decided to watch something else instead you were making a tradeoff.

If you limit yourself to Blu-ray only you are making a tradeoff. You are shrinking the pool of available titles in return for higher quality. That is a tradeoff. I don't see how you can call it anything else.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

No offense, but I think you're just trying to keep this argument going for the fun of it. Nobody ever said anything about being fixated on watching a certain title at an exact time. Some of us just said that once in awhile, we may be in the mood for a certain movie/show, so that's what we decide to watch. Plain and simple. There's nothing OCD about that at all.

The freedom to watch what you feel like watching is one of the biggest appeals of physical media. If I want to watch The Rockford Files I don't have to wait for it to come on cable or hope it's available on demand or on Hulu or whatever...I can just pop in a disc and watch The Rockford Files.

Originally Posted by schan1269

Then you are missing out on 75% of the world's cinema.

And some awfully good TV too.

Just one example of many: I would still not have seen The Wire if I had turned my nose up at HBO's (decent but hardly BD-quality) upconverts.

[Palmer Joss]

Originally Posted by scorpiontail60

Blech.

Does anyone find it a bit ridiculous that most of the new stuff being put out on Blu-ray still has a bunch of DVDs and other worthless bullshit like digital copies crammed in there? 4K home video is almost here, Blu-ray is already beginning to feel obsolete, yet somehow this dinosaur of a format is still clinging on for dear life. Can you imagine if a cassette tape came bundled with every new music album released on CD?

I have hundreds of extra discs sitting on my shelf that I have no idea what to do with because of this nonsense. I thought this fad would die off years ago but it's still here... it doesn't even make sense for kids' movies anymore because Blu-ray has now saturated the market so thoroughly that the kids' room has ended up with a Blu-ray player.

I'm starting to think I should make some 'modern art' out of all these stupid DVDs like people used to do with all those AOL CDs. That's what all this cramming of DVDs into Blu-ray releases reminds me of. It's the AOL CD infestation all over again. Maybe we should make a site called NoMoreDVDs.com.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050302...oreaolcds.com/

Speak for yourself, here in backward England we are still waiting for hundreds of movies etc to be released on BR, but this doesn't happen because the greedy *******s in Hollywood seem to think that the only market that matters is Region A!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

If you elect to not watch something you feel like watching and settle for your second or third or fourth choice then you are making a trade-off.

When you wanted to watch JCS at Easter but decided to watch something else instead you were making a tradeoff.

If you limit yourself to Blu-ray only you are making a tradeoff. You are shrinking the pool of available titles in return for higher quality. That is a tradeoff. I don't see how you can call it anything else.

because what you say does not make any sense. It would be a trade off in only one of two situations

1) you can watch many movies at the same time
2) for some reason a specific movie is the only good choice

let's go with the example you mentioned "When you wanted to watch JCS at Easter but decided to watch something else instead you were making a tradeoff." if I am sitting down at Easter time and I want to watch (for example) the robe (an other Easter themed film) and JCS it is impossible for me to watch both of them I am forced to choose one or the other, that is not a trade off but only the simple reality that every time someone chooses something that means they needed to have made a choice.

The reality is that there are many good Easter themed films out there, every time around Easter I need to decide what I want to see on each day and every year I can't get to see all of them during that period so some will have to wait for the next year, so "shrinking the pool" will happen no matter what and shrinking it by removing good titles that are only available in SD does not hurt but makes the decision on what to watch easier.