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

[Canada]

Because a lot of people think DVD's are good enough, and there are still DVD pack-ins .

[amoergosum]

Originally Posted by buzzwoody

The difference between DVD and VHS is HUGE. There is very little reason to change from DVD to Blu-ray.

Come on now...this is the perfect post to troll this thread/entire forum.

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Is that the same as a ZX Spectrum Sinclair?

Fairly certain...fact-checking...looks to be (almost) one and the same. The computer was a joint Timex-Sinclair venture, with the Timex name attached for US sales. The earliest models were the TS1000 or the ZX-1, depending on geography; the Spectrum was a model line incorporating (gasp!) color display. I can't recall the particular US model my uncle owned, but I feel fairly certain it was the TS1000.

I was lucky to have some tech geeks in the family, I guess. Within a couple years, my widowed grandmother was dating a jazz trumpeter/amateur radio buff who demonstrated for me how to make a phone call over repeater stations--from his car (!!!). He also sold her on getting a VIC-20 and then a Commodore 64. Her dot-matrix printer was a source of awe and wonder.

Flash-forward: the phone in my pocket is full of Star Trek, and my kids know the difference between BD and DVD but tend to get most excited about no-hard-media options that allow them to watch Mary Poppins on a tablet during long-distance drives.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

Fairly certain...fact-checking...looks to be (almost) one and the same. The computer was a joint Timex-Sinclair venture, with the Timex name attached for US sales. The earliest models were the TS1000 or the ZX-1, depending on geography; the Spectrum was a model line incorporating (gasp!) color display. I can't recall the particular US model my uncle owned, but I feel fairly certain it was the TS1000.

I was lucky to have some tech geeks in the family, I guess. Within a couple years, my widowed grandmother was dating a jazz trumpeter/amateur radio buff who demonstrated for me how to make a phone call over repeater stations--from his car (!!!). He also sold her on getting a VIC-20 and then a Commodore 64. Her dot-matrix printer was a source of awe and wonder.

Flash-forward: the phone in my pocket is full of Star Trek, and my kids know the difference between BD and DVD but tend to get most excited about no-hard-media options that allow them to watch Mary Poppins on a tablet during long-distance drives.

Yes, I owned the rubber keyed one. It had games like Horace goes skiing!

Mind you, I also had an Amstrad!

I like trek but couldn't watch on a phone.

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I like trek but couldn't watch on a phone.

lol--I meant that my phone is more a piece of Trek tech than something I just use to talk with people from a distance.

I only ever watch anything on my phone if I'm having a hard time going to sleep. The phone's always close at hand since it's my alarm clock (mailbox/calendar/still-and-videocamera/audio recorder/music repository/gaming device/answerer-of-the-unknown-questions) as well.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Joe Cain

lol--I meant that my phone is more a piece of Trek tech than something I just use to talk with people from a distance.

I only ever watch anything on my phone if I'm having a hard time going to sleep. The phone's always close at hand since it's my alarm clock (mailbox/calendar/still-and-videocamera/audio recorder/music repository/gaming device/answerer-of-the-unknown-questions) as well.

Did you see the moto 360 smartwatch images? If smartwatches all look as sleek as that they may have a chance of replacing smartphones. They would work as alarm clock, info finder, health monitor, voice recorder, video recorder (very crude one!)and no doubt in a few years as a standalone music player/radio etc.. It could check email/Facebook as well. I imagine they would work very well as alarm clocks. It would vibrate rather than play music etc.. If it's on your wrist, I imagine it would vibrate more and more until you tell it to turn off (or other words ending with off!) people think I'm barmy for suggesting the complete replacement of smartphones with watches but aside from video they will eventually do everything a phone does. Maybe, in our lifetimes they will be able to fit a 4 inch screen on our wrists but I think that be beyond the next 30-40 years lol. Holograms might come before that!

I can't recall seeing a smartwatch on trek but I bet the die hards (maybe you are one?) have seen them.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

Who says they're not?

Do you know anybody who does all of their movie watching on a smartphone?

And what constitutes a big screen?

As I've mentioned before, I used to have a 12 inch black-and-white portable in my room when I was a kid. I maybe had a 19 inch screen in my first several apartments.

My nieces today have a 32 inch HDTV in their bedroom and their 'small' screen viewing is on 12-17 inch HD screens. And then there's the 50 inch HD set in their family room.

Their 'small screens' are almost as big as our normal sized tvs were and their big screens are far bigger.

There is a good reason that personalised streaming subscriptions for mobile devices only are being planned for the near future. They are targeting youngsters who only ever use their mobile to watch movies, tv etc..
This is not a fad Octagon, these people won't move on to big displays. This is their way of doing things now. All the pieces are moving into place for this to be a major thing. It would be my guess that these personalised services will not permit casting to a big screen. In other words, pretty soon (say, a couple of years) households will have two accounts. One for the living room and one for the mobile devices (the kids or young adults.) looking far into the future I can see how that would pan out.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by amoergosum

Come on now...this is the perfect post to troll this thread/entire forum.

for a lot of people though, they are right. How many people have an HD tv yet are watching SD channels on it(I am)? They don't have a home theatre hooked up so 5.1 or 7.1 doesn't matter. They want to see the movie and either they rent or they look at the price when buying and see dvd is $5-10 cheaper so they decide to go with the dvd. The differences that make blu-ray better just are not there for them. When you look at vhs and dvd, it was a huge jump not only in quality but in other ways - machine ran much quieter, discs were smaller, didn't need to rewind, etc. Between dvd and blu-ray, yeah there is a quality improvement but that is the only real difference and you pay for that. For them, there is no real reason to switch and that is why dvd is still around. Doesn't matter if you can get the same quality on your phone or tablet, they are looking for something that they can throw on Saturday evening and watch at home and dvd is it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

for a lot of people though, they are right. How many people have an HD tv yet are watching SD channels on it(I am)? They don't have a home theatre hooked up so 5.1 or 7.1 doesn't matter. They want to see the movie and either they rent or they look at the price when buying and see dvd is $5-10 cheaper so they decide to go with the dvd. The differences that make blu-ray better just are not there for them. When you look at vhs and dvd, it was a huge jump not only in quality but in other ways - machine ran much quieter, discs were smaller, didn't need to rewind, etc. Between dvd and blu-ray, yeah there is a quality improvement but that is the only real difference and you pay for that. For them, there is no real reason to switch and that is why dvd is still around. Doesn't matter if you can get the same quality on your phone or tablet, they are looking for something that they can throw on Saturday evening and watch at home and dvd is it.

Why do you personally watch SD channels on a HDTV? Don't you care about quality?

A lot of people aren't right by the way. Just because they don't care doesn't make them right. If they don't see a difference there is something very wrong with their setup or their eyesight. It might be right for them but the statement is not right.

[Wes Blu-ray]

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/

You Total Fool.

What exactly is wrong with DVDs still being around ?

Oh, and if you really think that Blu-ray is beginning to become obsolete...you need help, seriously.

[Scarface32]

I don't mind having a DVD bundled in, but what I really hate is when studios don't treat the two formats equally. Examples:

On The Illusionist if you want to see the movie with audio commentary turned on, you have to watch it on the DVD. The Blu-ray in the SAME bundle only has the movie.

On Ponyo if you want to watch in the original Japanese language, you have to watch the DVD. The Blu-ray in the SAME bundle only has English and French.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Wes Blu-ray

You Total Fool.

What exactly is wrong with DVDs still being around ?

Oh, and if you really think that Blu-ray is beginning to become obsolete...you need help, seriously.

Careful Wes. Strong opinions are apparently not permitted by our fellow members!

[PrestigeWorldwide]

What I'm most annoyed with is how some modern TV shows are broadcast in HD, yet the show is only offered on DVD. My son likes watching the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles series, so I went to buy the blu-ray and was shocked that it wasn't available. I was torn between buying the digital HD version or DVD. Went with the DVD so he can easily take discs with him when he goes to visit other family.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PrestigeWorldwide

What I'm most annoyed with is how some modern TV shows are broadcast in HD, yet the show is only offered on DVD. My son likes watching the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles series, so I went to buy the blu-ray and was shocked that it wasn't available. I was torn between buying the digital HD version or DVD. Went with the DVD so he can easily take discs with him when he goes to visit other family.

Yep, it was exactly the same for me with a show called inside no 9. DVD only or HD itunes. Annoying doesn't even start to describe it.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Why do you personally watch SD channels on a HDTV? Don't you care about quality?

A lot of people aren't right by the way. Just because they don't care doesn't make them right. If they don't see a difference there is something very wrong with their setup or their eyesight. It might be right for them but the statement is not right.

costs. In order to get the HD channels, I still need to pay for the SD channels and the packages for the HD channels have a lot less channels for a lot higher price. Plus selection as there are still a lot of channels that I can only get in SD.

It isn't a matter of right or wrong, it is a personal opinion. For them there is no advantage to blu-ray. Technically yeah there are differences which make blu-ray superior but those are not important for them. They are not saying dvd and blu-ray are the same thing, or that upconverted dvds look as good as blurays, they are saying that the reason to switch is not a large one for them. If you feel it is important and worth the switch, then that is fine as that is your decision. How many people listen to mp3s? Yeah, the quality isn't as good as a cd or other formats but for most people, it is more than enough. It all comes down to how it is done - if you compress the hell out of an mp3, it will sound like crap. Same with dvd -a decently remastered dvd will give you decent quality.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

costs. In order to get the HD channels, I still need to pay for the SD channels and the packages for the HD channels have a lot less channels for a lot higher price. Plus selection as there are still a lot of channels that I can only get in SD.

It isn't a matter of right or wrong, it is a personal opinion. For them there is no advantage to blu-ray. Technically yeah there are differences which make blu-ray superior but those are not important for them. They are not saying dvd and blu-ray are the same thing, or that upconverted dvds look as good as blurays, they are saying that the reason to switch is not a large one for them. If you feel it is important and worth the switch, then that is fine as that is your decision. How many people listen to mp3s? Yeah, the quality isn't as good as a cd or other formats but for most people, it is more than enough. It all comes down to how it is done - if you compress the hell out of an mp3, it will sound like crap. Same with dvd -a decently remastered dvd will give you decent quality.

That's what I was getting at. The difference is huge though. That is a fact.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That's what I was getting at. The difference is huge though. That is a fact.

Hey Steed, just curious as I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying, and this by no means a shot at you, but why do you care so much what others chose, as far as I know blu-ray is thriving, you get to buy pretty much any new releases for the last 6 years, the huge back catalog is slowly getting done and we know BD will be around until something better.

If they said BD was dying or not posting record weekly sales I might understand, but I just don't. If you're happy, what does it change if others don't like it also?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Hey Steed, just curious as I'm trying to get my head around what you're saying, and this by no means a shot at you, but why do you care so much what others chose, as far as I know blu-ray is thriving, you get to buy pretty much any new releases for the last 6 years, the huge back catalog is slowly getting done and we know BD will be around until something better.

If they said BD was dying or not posting record weekly sales I might understand, but I just don't. If you're happy, what does it change if others don't like it also?

That's not the way it works though. How many hi fi separates systems do you see in the electrical stores these days? It affects home cinema down the line. That has a knock on effect of disrupting my future options and possibly eliminating the option of home cinema entirely a few years down the line.

Bluray is not really thriving to be honest. It has had a few good weeks of high sales but the way things are looking 2013 looks to be the year it peaked. It has a lot of catching up to do if it's going to match last years sales yet alone bettering it. I still think/hope it will be around for the next 6-8 years and I will always collect blurays but we can't pretend this quality shrinkage isn't going to happen. I just hope the quality doesn't drop too low.

[bruceames]

Most people are happy with DVD, because rather than having it look obsoleted by watching it on their new HDTV, the upscaling makes them look better than ever. Smaller displays (50" and under) are the norm, and outside of that 3:1 seating-distance-to-display-size-ratio, you're not going to see much of a difference between DVD and Blu-ray anyway.

In my bedroom I have a 50" plasma, but the darn thing is mounted on the far wall about 14 feet away. Heck, even though the TV is pretty big, even VHS is watchable from that distance. So now that wall-mounted TV are all the rage, the normal viewing distance is actually increased because people are simply mounting on the wall behind where the old TV was (perhaps two feet closer).

[The_Donster]

Honestly pentatonic, it shouldn't matter, but for whatever reason it does to Steedeel. I can't decide if it is genuine or meant to provoke? Having more than my fair share of run ins with them I'm going with the latter. I know they think I've popped into this thread to bust their balls, but I actually did my best to stay out of it because they were posting in it. For someone who claims to be as old as they are, the are very narrow minded in their views. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm surprised that they haven't been suspended or banned with their posts. Especially when I see that another member in this thread has been suspended. Anyway, I'll leave it there and hope that they'll stop being so judgmental of others viewing habits.

Getting back on topic, I don't mind the combo's myself. My family and I take quite a few vacations. Most places don't have BD players. While we do have a portable BD player, we generally only use that for road trips and not for out of state trips. So the DVD's come in handy. I do agree with Scarface32 about the studios not treating the formats equally. While I enjoy Director/Uncut versions, I'd like to have both versions on the DVD and BD. For whatever reason, there are still quite a few movies out there that aren't complete on BD.