Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[andyman1970]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

As far as HDTV picture quality, most of it is just plain bad. Theres only a few channels on Dish Network that I'll even watch except for sporting events and news (HDNet, HDNet movies come to mind). Most other channels I find myself thinking, I'd rather watch this on DVD. Either the picture is terribly soft or theres annoying snipes all over the place, or its stretched. If the majority of consumers cared about the quality of what they're watching the few of us that do wouldn't have to put up with it. As far as OTA TV, sure the 2 channels I have left with no sub channel are great. Heres what Sunday night football looked like here last weekend:

It amazes me how many people think that just because a program is being broadcast on an HD channel that it is in HD. They fail to realize it still either needs to have been "recorded" or remastered in HD, and in most cases it hasn't. That is why many movies on HD channels look like a DVD and if they appear to be stretched it's because the OAR is standard 4:9 and it's now being broadcast in a 16:9 format. Just look at Family Guy, Friends and Seinfeld on TBS.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by andyman1970

It amazes me how many people think that just because a program is being broadcast on an HD channel that it is in HD. They fail to realize it still either needs to have been "recorded" or remastered in HD, and in most cases it hasn't. That is why many movies on HD channels look like a DVD and if they appear to be stretched it's because the OAR is standard 4:9 and it's now being broadcast in a 16:9 format. Just look at Family Guy, Friends and Seinfeld on TBS.

Ah thank you oh wise one for correcting me. My eyesight is too poor to tell when 4:3 (never heard of this 4:9 AR you mention) material is stretched to 16:9.

Please go back to my previous posts and see that my main complaints were against Sunday Night Football on NBC, and the premium networks (ie HBO and Showtime). The overwhelming majority of programming on those channels is in high definition. The problem with them is they are overly compressed (on Dish Network) to the point that a decent anamorphic DVD looks better.

And actually Seinfeld on TBS has been remastered for HD, and looks pretty good for a sitcom from the 90's IMO. TBS/TNT actually look good on DN when they actually have real HD material... but they still annoy the crap out of me with their banners.

[[1080-p]]

hey bring on 4k or 2k hdtvs
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=6364

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

You left off the biggest issue. The still unsettled blu-ray standards that require many players to need regular firmware updates to play the latest titles. Joe six pack, and older people probably don't have the skillset or the interest in handling that.

Firmware updates are not required to "play" latest titles. Firmware updates are required to read/update the extras, BDLive, that kinda crap that I don't care about

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by [1080-p]

hey bring on 4k or 2k hdtvs
http://www.audaud.com/article.php?ArticleID=6364

I don't know about you, but my screen is already the TV equivalent to 2K.

And "QuadHD" screens will be on the market before long (even if there is no media content to display at that resolution). And, if you don't know, QuadHD is the TV analogue to 4K.

[syncguy]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

I don't know about you, but my screen is already the TV equivalent to 2K.

And "QuadHD" screens will be on the market before long (even if there is no media content to display at that resolution). And, if you don't know, QuadHD is the TV analogue to 4K.

If 4K TVs are offered, upscaling blu-ray players would be maid to complement. That combination could serve for a long time to come before blu-ray is upgraded.

The major issue is movie transfers not using the full potential of blu-ray but not the incapability of blu-ray to present a high quality breathtaking picture.

[blacklion]

Originally Posted by FendersRule

Firmware updates are not required to "play" latest titles. Firmware updates are required to read/update the extras, BDLive, that kinda crap that I don't care about

I thought those BDs that ship with loads of DRM require firmware updates on the player in order to negotiate the HDMI handshake? A few weeks after I bought my PS3, it suddenly refused to play BDs but would play DVDs and games until I updated the firmware.

On the other hand, I've been playing BDs on both my OPPO BDP83 and Pioneer BDP320 without any firmware updates thus far. But then, I don't think I have any titles from Fox which I heard uses a lot of DRM on its BDs.

[Anthony P]

I never had to update my PS3 due to not playing movies (going back all the way to 2006) my guess your FW got corrupted somehow and the FW upgrade fixed it.

[blacklion]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I never had to update my PS3 due to not playing movies (going back all the way to 2006) my guess your FW got corrupted somehow and the FW upgrade fixed it.

Possibly. I recollect that it had great difficulty loading the Bourne Trilogy BDs unless i turned off my router. With the router off, it happily played the Bourne discs, Mission Impossible BD trilogy and the first three Planet Earth BDs but then suddenly stopped playing BDs but would play DVDs and games. I then assumed this might be due to BD Live issues/handshake and ran the FW update after which, all discs and games were now playing perfectly. Weird!

[freddylinni]

Couple of months back i had to update my to play a BD movie. I had then around 1 year old software to ps3. (my wirleless router was down so i had to find a long cable to do it)
I dont remember what movie it was but it was a girly movie. I had two movies that evening and my wife deceided to go for the girly one. I nagged here the whole evening since here choice made me stress with cables and sw updates making the movie watching delay 1 hour :-)

[Coqui2k]

Blu-ray Still Struggling to Find Customers
by Monika Bartyzel Oct 13th 2009 // 12:15PM

Filed under: Home Entertainment

I remember strolling through my local Blockbuster 10 years ago, sure that they couldn't switch to 100% DVDs in a few years. The idea seemed ridiculously optimistic. But in the blink of an eye, DVD took over and we barely had time to wave goodbye to shelves of VHS tapes. It also set some ridiculously high expectations for electronic improvement. Now, a few years later, as The Wrap states: "Blu-ray was supposed to be the format that saved studio home entertainment." Problem is, it isn't.

It's been a good three years, and the format is only cooking up 6% of home entertainment sales (compared to DVD's revenue of 20% back in 2000). Most people are still buying DVDs, and renting, the latter of which doesn't help studios a whole heck of a lot, illustrating "continuing problems for the major studios, which have convulsed amid the lack of DVD revenue growth in recent years." The blame game zeroes in on low-price rental services and used disc sales, while noting Blu-ray's failure to become an essential piece of home entertainment. This is resulting in severe price slashing that will include Blu-ray players under $100 this holiday season.

To me, the whole idea seems pretty black and white. We may be a society ready to throw away the old as soon as something new comes out, but it's usually linked to incentives. People grab new cell phones because they offer better sizes and features, and often come free with extended plans. Consumers love new iPods and computers that take size and convenience into account. Who wouldn't want a lighter laptop or a music device that plays 100 CDs instead of 25? It's a quick, one-off purchase.

In the movie world, we embraced DVDs so quickly because they vastly improved what came before. There was no be-kind-rewind headaches and tracking issues, and a much more modest size than the laser disc (not to mention ending the aches of flipping those suckers over mid-movie). It was easy to fall in love with DVDs. More ease, better picture and sound, lots of reasons to get the "I want!" urge cooking.

But blu-ray? Yes, it cooks up beautiful picture and sound -- but with the right equipment. You must have the great high-def TV and solid stereo system to really enjoy it. DVDs still offered perks to those with crappy systems. And yes, the capacity is bigger, so more stuff fits on a disc, and this allows for fancier menus and less disc-switching. But that's it. It's still just a disc, so the newbies aren't going to be enamored by a new look, and DVDs themselves have upsampling which balances out a little of the visual divide.

With all this in mind, I wonder if Blu-ray will end up being this generation's laser disc -- prime for the audio visual fiends and people who can afford it, but never really catching on en masse.

Me, I would love a Blu-ray player, but I don't have one. My TV doesn't even make DVDs look their best, and I don't have cash on-hand to spend thousands on a new system. (Aside from the fact that great sound systems are not apartment friendly.) And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Do you have a Blu-ray player? Why do you think the format is struggling?

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/10/1...ind-customers/

[jpaul1972]

I dunno about anybody else, but I don't think I've even been IN a Blockbuster in 5 years!
And speaking as a dumb consumer, I see many more blu-ray players and disks sitting on the shelves of retailers than I did Laser discs.

[benricci]

So "Monika" admits to having a crappy television and no sound system because of her apartment situation, and she is somehow qualified to deem Blu-ray as a failure? Give me a break...

Considering that blu-ray already has a bigger installed base of users in less than 3 years than Laserdisc was able to manage in over 20 years, I think it's a little silly to call it the next Laserdisc. And when you factor in that most consumers sat out the format war awaiting a winner, then blu-ray has *really* only been around for about a year and a half.

[42041]

I know it's not hard to find decent deals out there but most people buy movies in places like Best Buy, and movie studios seem to have very inflated views about how much 2 hours of entertainment is worth to the average person.

[tilapiah6]

The bottom line here is that once the tube televisions are phased out, for the most part, of homes, they will be replaced with HDTVs. Standard TVs are no longer available, and HDTVs are now the only type of television available on the market. It's only logical that people will then start adopting high definition Blu-ray technology. This will really start to kick off when the average price of a Blu-ray is 20 dollars in local stores such as Best Buy and Target. I'm sure there's still thousands if not millions of people out there who still cling to their precious VHS collection; that didn't stop them from buying DVDs. It will be a slow process, but Blu-ray technology will take over. It's inevitable, with HDTVs now being the norm. I'm guessing it will take at least a few more years before the haters start to die out. At least we have a jump start on it!

[MOONPHASE]

Blu-ray struggling? Um Blu-ray kicked the crap out of the other format. Blu-ray is growing and growing by the day. So yeah Blu-ray is past the stage of it becoming another Laserdisc.

[Beta Man]

Is she from a HT magazine etc??? She claims you need a good "Stereo" system to enjoy it...... showing that she knows nothing about HT.

Are these random blogs? I don't get it...... I guess you can expect ridiculous articles in the day and age where you can find articles declaring the cure for cancer exists, but pharmaceutical companies are "holding off" for a better pay-day.

[benricci]

The other thing that bothers me is the mentality that we (the current generation of humans on the planet) are the ONLY potential customers for a new format. As if new people won't be born anymore, and have media needs.

For the kids being born today, do you think they're gonna want DVDs when they are teenagers, or a high-def format (assuming physical media still exists 15 years from now)? Come on, now. Some of these "analysts" are so short sighted in their thinking, that's it's astounding.

This author also states (rather erroneously) that in a "blink of an eye" VHS was gone. It took may years for DVD sales/rentals to topple VHS, and VHS remained on the market with new releases well into 2006 (about a decade into DVD's existence).

Replacing a format will take time, and even the most die hard blu-fans are aware that DVD and blu-ray will co-exist for quite some time, most likely longer than VHS and DVD co-existed.

[tilallr1]

Yeah, you can't afford a High Def TV, yet you think Blu-ray is a failure?

[MOONPHASE]

Originally Posted by benricci

The other thing that bothers me is the mentality that we (the current generation of humans on the planet) are the ONLY potential customers for a new format. As if new people won't be born anymore, and have media needs.

For the kids being born today, do you think they're gonna want DVDs when they are teenagers, or a high-def format (assuming physical media still exists 15 years from now)? Come on, now. Some of these "analysts" are so short sighted in their thinking, that's it's astounding.

The problem with people like that is they only think about right this second or the past but never look at the future.