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

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

But you didn't specify the screen size. I said you wouldn't see a difference in resolution for a 50 inch screen 10 feet away, but with a larger screen you could. Based on the chart I linked to, I'd bet that in the example you mention where a difference was seen 8.8 feet away, the screen size was larger than 70 inches (unless the people were picking up on the better color space of 4K rather than the better resolution, but if the experimenters trying to test specifically for the effects of resolution they would have controlled for color by intentionally displaying the 4K image with the same color set as the 2K one...

They did "control the color". I thought I’d made that clear in the previous post that there was no difference in the color gamut between the ‘4K’ and HD material (both B.T. 709) shown to the observers. As to the size, it was 56.2” diagonal.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

I don't really understand what you mean here--by "other finer picture quality stuff" are you talking about the color space, or something else?

Yes, for one thing, a wider color gamut (than B.T.709) as discussed previously, along with other *stuff* over a year ago (before it became fashionable by video journalists/bloggers to do so) scroll down to ‘recipe’ –
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...pe#post7325076

The last few pages on the ‘4K Movie Releases’ thread contains a rejuvenated discussion comparing various aspects (technical as well as business) of DCI P3 vs. B.T.2020 vs. B.T.709 colorimetry. I imagine we’ll eventually get around to discussing the advantages/disadvantages of xvYCC color too.

[Hypnosifl]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

They did "control the color". I thought I’d made that clear in the previous post that there was no difference in the color gamut between the ‘4K’ and HD material (both B.T. 709) shown to the observers. As to the size, it was 56.2” diagonal.

Do you have a link? Were all people able to distinguish the two resolutions, or just some? I suppose if they had a control group that included some people whose vision was better than 20/20 this would be possible, for a 56.2 inch diagonal the size of pixels on a 2K screen would be 0.0255 inches, and at 8.8 feet=105.6 inches this would be an angular size of about 0.0255/105.6 = 2.4*10^-4 radians. 20/20 vision is defined as being able to distinguish lines with a slightly larger angular separation of 2.9*10^-4 radians, but as the page I linked to on the Rayleigh Criterion said, the limits to human visual acuity for "most acute vision, optimum circumstances" was found to be 2*10^-4 radians, so some people would be able to see details just slightly smaller than the size of pixels on a 56.2 inch 2K display at 8.8 feet.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

Do you have a link?

You would have to be associated with of one of the EBU member organizations (in the U.S., e.g. APL, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) to gain access to the specific test methods and materials. Are you? Otherwise, no.

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

Were all people able to distinguish the two resolutions, or just some?

No, not all, a statistically significant amount, though.

Originally Posted by Hypnosifl

20/20 vision is defined...

Many people with so called ‘20/20’ vision see better than ‘20/20’, e.g. they can read one or more letters on the next lowest line, which is why when using the conventional screening charts optometrist or opthalmalogists’ assistants use terms like 20/20+1 or 20/20+2 for patients that are *in between* 20/20 and 20/10.

Snellen is actually imprecise. Researchers measuring for exact visual acuity use the more precise ‘LogMAR letter charts’ aka ‘ETDRS charts’…. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2814576/

But, like I said before, teasing apart 4K resolution vs. 2K resolution and human’s ability to resolve as such is a moot point because 4K is here to stay and grow….this study had better results (49 out of 50 people identified superior picture quality on 55” 4K TVs at 9 ft. distance)… https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...up#post8868563

[Tok]

4K might be here to stay but to the vast majority it is a bullet point on a spec sheet.

Too many CE makers and content owners here posing as a 'regular' to hype it up.

Until 4K is available in native disc or broadcast count me as uninterested. NF can go fook themselves with overly compressed 4K in name only.

[mrr1]

Originally Posted by KaineKinetic

Except that Vinyl is still the superior format over cd's

Bahahahahaha!

[CranBack]

I don't think BD will ever surpass DVD as the dominant home-video medium. When DVD is surpassed it will be by streaming and digital download.

Even though BD was a much greater improvement over DVD than DVD was over VHS, it didn't seem that way to consumers. The VHS to DVD transition made sense, because it was tape to disc, a transition most consumers made with respect to music in the late 80s and early 90s, so the VHS to DVD transition seemed like the logical extension of that to home movies.

In contrast, BD is a disc and looks exactly the same as DVD. Thus, making the transition didn't seem intuitively necessary to most consumers, especially since BD makers stupidly (IMO) initially priced BD as an elite item. It was silly to think consumers were going to pay $30 for a BD when a DVD could be had for 1/3 the price. Even today, BD prices are significantly higher than DVD, for no good reason.

An "upconverted" DVD looks damn good on an HDTV, so unless you are finicky about picture quality* BD isn't worth it.

*I sure am finicky, which is why I bought my last DVD in late 2005 and have bought nothing but HD-DVDs and then BDs since, and I bet you are too. But we are a small minority.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by CranBack

I don't think BD will ever surpass DVD as the dominant home-video medium. When DVD is surpassed it will be by streaming and digital download.

Even though BD was a much greater improvement over DVD than DVD was over VHS, it didn't seem that way to consumers. The VHS to DVD transition made sense, because it was tape to disc, a transition most consumers made with respect to music in the late 80s and early 90s, so the VHS to DVD transition seemed like the logical extension of that to home movies.

In contrast, BD is a disc and looks exactly the same as DVD. Thus, making the transition didn't seem intuitively necessary to most consumers, especially since BD makers stupidly (IMO) initially priced BD as an elite item. It was silly to think consumers were going to pay $30 for a BD when a DVD could be had for 1/3 the price. Even today, BD prices are significantly higher than DVD, for no good reason.

An "upconverted" DVD looks damn good on an HDTV, so unless you are finicky about picture quality* BD isn't worth it.

*I sure am finicky, which is why I bought my last DVD in late 2005 and have bought nothing but HD-DVDs and then BDs since, and I bet you are too. But we are a small minority.

You lost me at looks damn good!

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by CranBack

Even though BD was a much greater improvement over DVD than DVD was over VHS, it didn't seem that way to consumers. The VHS to DVD transition made sense, because it was tape to disc, a transition most consumers made with respect to music in the late 80s and early 90s, so the VHS to DVD transition seemed like the logical extension of that to home movies.

DVD is 17 years old and a lot of consumers didn't buy into it until many years later. When Blu-ray was first released there were a good number of people stating that they just bought into DVD and dsaw no need to upgrade to something new so soon.

Originally Posted by CranBack

In contrast, BD is a disc and looks exactly the same as DVD. Thus, making the transition didn't seem intuitively necessary to most consumers, especially since BD makers stupidly (IMO) initially priced BD as an elite item. It was silly to think consumers were going to pay $30 for a BD when a DVD could be had for 1/3 the price. Even today, BD prices are significantly higher than DVD, for no good reason.

Not unusual at all as DVD was priced between $30-$40 when it was first released. So Blu-ray is no different.

[CranBack]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

DVD is 17 years old and a lot of consumers didn't buy into it until many years later. When Blu-ray was first released there were a good number of people stating that they just bought into DVD and dsaw no need to upgrade to something new so soon.

Not unusual at all as DVD was priced between $30-$40 when it was first released. So Blu-ray is no different.

I bought DVDs beginning in April 1997 and never paid more than $19.99, even when WB was test-marketing them in just 6 cities and you had to buy them from online retailers willing to break that prohibition. Heck, it was effectively less than that because once you bought 8 of them (IIRC) you could send in the proofs of purchase and get one for free.

And for $19.99, you were getting a clearly-better video presentation plus extras that were revolutionary at the time for anyone without a Laserdisc player, which was 99.9% of the population.

[CranBack]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

You lost me at looks damn good!

I concede I should have said "pretty good". So can you continue reading the rest?

[rdodolak]

Originally Posted by CranBack

I bought DVDs beginning in April 1997 and never paid more than $19.99, even when WB was test-marketing them in just 6 cities and you had to buy them from online retailers willing to break that prohibition. Heck, it was effectively less than that because once you bought 8 of them (IIRC) you could send in the proofs of purchase and get one for free.

And for $19.99, you were getting a clearly-better video presentation plus extras that were revolutionary at the time for anyone without a Laserdisc player, which was 99.9% of the population.

Back then online retailers we're just setting up shop and many brick and mortar stores still sold DVDs for list price. But, yes, you could find good deals if you knew where to look or shop. However we were the minority back in 1997.

BD was no different as you could easily purchase BDs for under $20 back in 2006, when it was first released, despite the titles having a higher list price.

[eiknarf]

Don't forget to vote based on the question raised by the op:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=240420

[CranBack]

Originally Posted by rdodolak

Back then online retailers we're just setting up shop and many brick and mortar stores still sold DVDs for list price. But, yes, you could find good deals if you knew where to look or shop. However we were the minority back in 1997.

BD was no different as you could easily purchase BDs for under $20 back in 2006, when it was first released, despite the titles having a higher list price.

Point taken about being able to get BDs for lower than list in 2006 as well.

OK, then why do you think BDs have failed to overtake DVDs the way DVD overtook VHS?

DVD market share surpassed that of VHS in mid-2003, approximately 6 years after introduction, and by the 8-year mark, the ratio was 85% - 15% in favor of DVD.

But we're now eight years deep into BD, and DVD > BD by approximately 66% - 33% in a typical week.

Clearly, BD has not had anywhere near the same success versus DVD that DVD did versus VHS. What's your take on it?

[RockzillaXD]

I wonder if HD-DVD should have won in the long run. The players were already priced lower, and IIRC it was easier to manufacture the discs. So I think the prices of movies would have dropped faster than BDs.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by CranBack

Point taken about being able to get BDs for lower than list in 2006 as well.

OK, then why do you think BDs have failed to overtake DVDs the way DVD overtook VHS?

DVD market share surpassed that of VHS in mid-2003, approximately 6 years after introduction, and by the 8-year mark, the ratio was 85% - 15% in favor of DVD.

But we're now eight years deep into BD, and DVD > BD by approximately 66% - 33% in a typical week.

Clearly, BD has not had anywhere near the same success versus DVD that DVD did versus VHS. What's your take on it?

Who cares as long as I can still watch bluray? It's no secret that the general population are clueless sheep IMO. Cheap and nasty will always win the day. This point has been made a billion times on this forum alone. Quality exists for the niche/minority and thank goodness it does!

[CranBack]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Who cares as long as I can still watch bluray? It's no secret that the general population are clueless sheep IMO. Cheap and nasty will always win the day. This point has been made a billion times on this forum alone. Quality exists for the niche/minority and thank goodness it does!

DVD was higher-quality than VHS, but won the mass market anyway.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by CranBack

DVD was higher-quality than VHS, but won the mass market anyway.

Sure it did, it was such a great new format. Menus, extras, chapters, etc. It brought to movies what CD did to music, ease of use, but with the added bonus of a highly superior PQ and AQ.

BD really only delivers on PQ and AQ. Now take AQ out as very little have a semi decent surround setup to even notice, and let's face it, a well mastered DVD upscaled is still quite nice picture wise. And what seems obvious to us as a great leap in PQ is obviously not enough for many who think DVD is still enough. But if UHD BD happens, I think it will be time to retire DVDs as at that point I can't see who would still be producing DVD players, already it's only a question of maybe $20. But most will still keep playing their DVDs, just using a much better player.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by CranBack

DVD was higher-quality than VHS, but won the mass market anyway.

Pretty sure DVD was all about convenience. It was just a happy coincidence that picture quality was better. No rewinding the tape, no tape stick in machine, chapter selection, clear screen when rewinding and fast forwarding and no static or lines across image and much better audio quality.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Sure it did, it was such a great new format. Menus, extras, chapters, etc. It brought to movies what CD did to music, ease of use, but with the added bonus of a highly superior PQ and AQ.

BD really only delivers on PQ and AQ. Now take AQ out as very little have a semi decent surround setup to even notice, and let's face it, a well mastered DVD upscaled is still quite nice picture wise. And what seems obvious to us as a great leap in PQ is obviously not enough for many who think DVD is still enough. But if UHD BD happens, I think it will be time to retire DVDs as at that point I can't see who would still be producing DVD players, already it's only a question of maybe $20. But most will still keep playing their DVDs, just using a much better player.

Even then, we are just covering the same ground but wording it differently. The picture quality was a happy coincidence. It was the ease of use that was the driving force. Non techie people are ignorant (IMO) when it comes to that stuff. If DVD was nothing more than VHS quality on a disc it still would have taken off. Just let them get on with it. I will seek out the best quality like I have always done.