Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[RiFiFi1955]

Originally Posted by MattvonSyborg

Some good points here. Most people I know (regular non film-freaks) have always stared in disbelief when they see my DVD collection. They usually stream or download movies (maybe see them in theatres and rent them) but a lot of people don't really see the need to rewatch movies that much.

I have had the same response from people when they see my collection. I have heard things like "Why do you need all those movies?" or "When will you ever watch all them?".

Originally Posted by MattvonSyborg

but a lot of people don't really see the need to rewatch movies that much

And I hear people say stuff like that all the time too. Like "Oh I have already seen it so why would I watch it again."
People just have different interests and passions I guess.

[Weirded Wonder]

I don't agree with the idea that blu-ray hasn't taken off like DVD. DVD did not surpass VHS in sales/rentals until 2003, that was 6 years. We are already seeing this year that certain big blu-ray titles are outselling their DVD counterparts. Almost the same time frame.

Plus things are different now, we have Hulu, Netflix, webTV, Digital Cable/Satellites with instant access, options we just didn't have in 1997 to compete with DVD or VHS.

My collection is far greater vs the same time frame as DVD, but not as big as laserdisc in the same first 6 years.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by My_Two_Cents

And you decided to use your FIRST post in these forums to be a complete douche to a long-time, well-respected member WHY?

Me thinks you won't last long around here. Back to junior high with you.

I don't know if he is a douch or not, but DVD came out in 1996 ibn Japan and 1997 in the US, that is 9-10 years

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

I've got a different question: why do so many people care whether Blu-ray meets or surpasses various DVD-related yardsticks?

agree, especially since most of them tend to be imaginary

DVD was phenomally successful.

that is a good point. I still believe there is a good chance that major studios will drop DVD faster then they did for VHS , but even if it is a bit longer will it realy mean anything?

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by RiFiFi1955

I have had the same response from people when they see my collection. I have heard things like "Why do you need all those movies?" or "When will you ever watch all them?".

I get the same response from my library of books.

I say the same thing when I go round to someone's house and see their massive collection of thimbles. It doesn't really mean a lot, that comment.

I've managed to amass a far larger collection of blurays than I ever did DVD. DVD and those massive "36 TVs never managed to cut it for me as far as Home Cinema went. It always seemed like a compromise, I'd watched DVD and even VHS on projector screens and it was always a slightly muted affair - the shortcomings were way too noticable for me to bother much.

Bluray, however, means that you can, after some purchases and DIY, screen a film at 12-15 feet at home, really capture the cinema feel, look and sound like never before.

Now when someone asks me why I've got a load of movies on the shelf, the answer is 'why wouldn't I'?

[stratford]

As politely as possible, how can people claim that blu looks the same as dvd when one only shows half the frame at a time(interlaced) and has 1000 lines rather than about 500?

Many DVD sets such as documentaries and TV series require fewer blu discs so are easier to manage.

A 2 DVD set commonly fits one Blu with out compramise

[stevo4264]

One of my co-workers (Scott) this week asked me if I knew when the BD of Ted was out, I told him I'd check and find the best price for him. Next day I go to work and tell him there's 2 versions available, the single BD and the DVD plus BD + digital copy version.

His reaction was a "Huh" I repeated myself, only to get "what's the difference" I patiently explained the difference between a BD and a DVD, now Scott has had a BD player for 12 months or so. And you know what he said "oh I thought they were the same thing"

I walked off, what could I say

[budious]

Digitally mastered movies still look pretty good at DVD resolution, and most players support progressive playback at 480p and upscaling so interlacing is less of an issue. Generally, about half of BD masters are not adequately of HD quality to represent a genuine step up from a DVD. Sure, there are great BD titles out there, but they are an exception and not a rule. Content wise, there are still many VHS only titles, and many more Laserdisc or DVD only titles, I'm not gonna be limiting myself to watching the mainstream titles on BD because of self imposed artifical limitations.

[alphadec]

because people are idiots! all people wants is to sit and watch movie on low resolution ipad and mobile phones.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

...if a show didn't sell well enough on DVD, studios won't bother with a BD release.

+1

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

...Crummy economy is another factor...

Could be, but a BD is a cheap fix over driving the family to the theater.

Originally Posted by nec1912

Why did blu ray not take of like DVD's?

DVD was a bigger change over VHS then BD is over DVD despite 6x the resolution.
A lot of people sit too far back from their sets so the DVD PQ is enouf for them.
DVD is priced lower and can be played back in a Blu-ray player; VHS was a dead end.
It seems as long they are selling something that uses a 12cm disc, DVD can continue ad infinitum.

[krazeyeyez]

Anyone ever notice how many of the "can't see a difference" people choose to watch there cable shows in hd and can see a difference there. Lol.

I think bluray has caught on pretty fast... remember all these same comments back when dvd players first hit. My first dvd player ran me $800 ... one playets and movies hit low prices it became the standard.... not neccesarily because of all the benefits over vhs. Same is happening with blu now.

[Gally]

I don't see it happening. The existence of streaming video didn't prevent my friends and family from buying DVDs and blu-ray in the past. People like the physical copies, and they like having the special features, something streaming services just won't do.

[flawed]

Most TV series cant justify the money for it. Look at all the work that had to go into TNG. Many companies couldn't possibly justify that cost and time to do that with many shows. TNG is also probably a medium road example some shows just are not capable of meeting the standards for a BluRay release.

On the side of the movie companies, I tend to think BluRay has been slower because of the initial HDDVD vs BluRay war, and that HD masters of a movie are more costly then a digital SD master.

Consumer wise, Blu [after the HDDVD vs BluRay] is about the same as DVD was in the same length of time given the amount of releases [in some areas I actually think it's even farther with many older movies, or specialty types such as Japanese animation, or foreign movies].

[sonyfanboy]

I don't know where you're from, but I've been to Walmart on Black Friday and the people you'd expect to be on welfare are picking up blu-rays like hotcakes and talking about upgrading to the latest led tv. Blu-ray is mainstream. I rest my case.

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by flawed

Most TV series cant justify the money for it. Look at all the work that had to go into TNG. Many companies couldn't possibly justify that cost and time to do that with many shows. TNG is also probably a medium road example some shows just are not capable of meeting the standards for a BluRay release.

These HD masters can also be used for TV syndication.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

I've got a different question: why do so many people care whether Blu-ray meets or surpasses various DVD-related yardsticks?

Household penetration is more than respectable, players are more than affordable, we're getting a wider and wider selection of well-produced catalog titles every year and discs are dirt cheap.

DVD was phenomally successful. It had over 90% household penetration. That's up there with phones and tvs. It's a really high bar.

Does it really matter if Blu-ray hits those levels or not?

Of course it matters. It decides if we have 5 or so years to still enjoy our blurays or ten years or more. Bluray is only 3.5% up YOY i think, that means my beloved format may not see the end of the decade!

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Bluray is only 3.5% up YOY i think, that means my beloved format may not see the end of the decade!

Come on. Doesn't follow at all.

[JohnnyFontane]

I didn't start buying blu-rays until '08 when I saw Dark Knight on blu-ray at a friend's house. I couldn't believe how great it looked. So, the next day, I bought the blu-ray and a blu-ray player even though I didn't have an HD tv. Why? Because I could use them on my regular tv and knew that I'd 100% buy an HD tv in the future anyway, so why continue to buy dvds? Also, blu-rays are more scratch resistant and stuff. I used to take good care of my dvds but they would always get scratched and start skipping. No worries with blu-ray

[mastadge]

Originally Posted by stratford

As politely as possible, how can people claim that blu looks the same as dvd when one only shows half the frame at a time(interlaced) and has 1000 lines rather than about 500?

Because most people only casually experience their entertainment. There's a reason that the most popular digital music services offer by default 256 or 320k bitrates, not even CD quality, and that even now iTunes offers to downconvert higher bitrate stuff to 128k when putting it onto the iPod. Most consumers aren't sitting and digging into their music: they're playing it in their cars, or as background noise while doing other things. Same with movies. Most movie and TV watchers are casual viewers (citation needed, I know, and maybe I'm wrong), who pop something on to decompress after work or for basic entertainment or for noise in the background while doing homework or cleaning. They're not audiophiles or videophiles. They don't have home theater setups. They aren't looking for much if any intellectual or sensory engagement with their movies. I know that I, like probably many around here, really care about the details. I remember wondering whether I'd really notice the difference when I finally upgraded to Blu-ray, so I sat down and compared some DVDs to Blu-rays on my modest 23-inch screen -- and was delighted to find that there really was a visible difference even on that small screen size. I could actually read the text on posters on the walls, text which was just a vague blur on the DVD. I could actually make out fine facial details -- whiskers, wrinkles and crinkles -- that simply disappeared at DVD resolution. But I would wager that that level of immersion is simply not important to most viewers. Outside of some small niches, movies are more or less disposable entertainment and getting maximum video and audio quality is simply not that important, especially if it requires upgrading hardware.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by flawed

Most TV series cant justify the money for it. Look at all the work that had to go into TNG. Many companies couldn't possibly justify that cost and time to do that with many shows. TNG is also probably a medium road example some shows just are not capable of meeting the standards for a BluRay release.

TNG is a special case. All the special effects work was recorded on standard def tapes and had to be completely redone. That added tremendously to the cost. Most other TV shows won't need to do that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "medium road", they certainly took the "high road" on TNG. The PQ is a gargantuan improvement over the DVD's and is certainly worthy of a BD release. Try and google for some comparison shots. Anyone expecting a 25 year old TV show to look like a film released last week, will indeed be disappointed I guess. It is however a long long ways away from the worst looking BD I've ever seen.

EDIT: ok, just saw some season 2 screens of TNG. If THAT is what you were referring to, then I apologize. Looks like CBS farmed it out to the same people who gave us the wonderfully scrubbed of horrible grain releases such as Patton (not the recent remaster), Out of Africa and Back to the Future. Disappointing.