blu-ray player and movie prices

[chrisshea]

im sure im not the only 1 out there that doesnt give a **** about blu-ray players beeing more expensive then HD-DVD
what i dont see people talking about it that When u want the Best U pay For it
i remember buying my first dvd players at 899$
what i mean is blu-ray SHould be more expensive then Hd-dvd
just like buying a Sony 40" lcd tv or buying a 40"lcd westinghouse
ur not gething that same quality

i personaly wish blu-ray players didnt go cheaper then 500$
i mean its the Best thing on market soo it should be more expensive
like u dont buy magnavox camera when u want good stuff lol

all to say that the best stuff in any field of electronics or cars or whatever ur looking into buy is always a Cheap shit and good stuff

i woulnt even buy a 300$ blu-ray player if there was 1
id buy the 700-900$

and im not rich or have easy money
i shouldnt even have blu-ray lol i make like 12000$ a year lol

[mshulman]

First, HD DVD isn't better than HD DVD. Its different. But for the person sitting at home not even thinking about buying it yet (which is the vast majority of consumers), in the end they will both deliver the same thing when it comes to movies. IF we are talking storage space for computer applications, then its a different story.

Second, while you may be happen spending more for a player than most people will spend on a TV, you are in the minority. Maybe not on this website, but it hardly matters what people here think. Mass adoption of a product is what counts. Price is what gets you there.

[supersix4]

LMAO so like when we bought our fist blu-ray player for 950$ on-sale because you paid 999$ yours is better? LOL...If I was making 12k a year I wouldnt be bashing on people who buy westinghouse,vizo,w/e,over sony,MacIntosh,marantz exc. if paying more for stuff than others makes you feel better about yourself do it up.. since Im sadden to tell you though there isnt a difference in PQ between our ps3's,BDP-S1, and our friends s300...ignorance is bliss

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by mshulman

First, HD DVD isn't better than HD DVD. Its different. But for the person sitting at home not even thinking about buying it yet (which is the vast majority of consumers), in the end they will both deliver the same thing when it comes to movies. IF we are talking storage space for computer applications, then its a different story.

Second, while you may be happen spending more for a player than most people will spend on a TV, you are in the minority. Maybe not on this website, but it hardly matters what people here think. Mass adoption of a product is what counts. Price is what gets you there.

"HD DVD isn't better than HD DVD." OF course not, HD-DVD is HD-DVD, but Blu-ray is better than HD-DVD because of storage space.
Blu-ray can deleiver a higher PQ and AQ than HD-DVD.

[mshulman]

Originally Posted by MasterXeus

"HD DVD isn't better than HD DVD." OF course not, HD-DVD is HD-DVD, but Blu-ray is better than HD-DVD because of storage space.
Blu-ray can deleiver a higher PQ and AQ than HD-DVD.

ah.. my typo. I have yet to see any picture quality difference between the two. And even at the max bitrate for each title, is it noticable on a 720P set? Even on a 1080P set? I don't think the majority of people will see the difference.

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by mshulman

ah.. my typo. I have yet to see any picture quality difference between the two. And even at the max bitrate for each title, is it noticable on a 720P set? Even on a 1080P set? I don't think the majority of people will see the difference.

Can't say for the majority of people, it's not my place or yours. I can only say for myself. I haven't seen anything on HD-DVD near the PQ and AQ of POTC 2.

[BStecke]

Me neither. When used to its potential, Blu-ray will always have HD DVD beat . . . better technology is better technology. It just needs to be used more often.

[mshulman]

Originally Posted by MasterXeus

Can't say for the majority of people, it's not my place or yours. I can only say for myself. I haven't seen anything on HD-DVD near the PQ and AQ of POTC 2.

Well, I haven't see POTC 2 yet, just the first one. I've got it on order though.

Planet Earth is the best title I have seen yet.

[BStecke]

Planet Earth is by no means reference quality.

We probably have HD DVD to thank for that.

[Ascended_Saiyan]

IMO, it's not really about any one thing. It's about being able to have it all without compromising anything else. HD DVD can't do that. Blu-ray can do that a lot better than HD DVD can. That makes it FAR superior to HD DVD. I don't buy into a format for an incomplete or short term advanced experience. But, maybe that's just me.

[mshulman]

Originally Posted by Ascended_Saiyan

IMO, it's not really about any one thing. It's about being able to have it all without compromising anything else. HD DVD can't do that. Blu-ray can do that a lot better than HD DVD can. That makes it FAR superior to HD DVD. I don't buy into a format for an incomplete or short term advanced experience. But, maybe that's just me.

ok, but aren't you sacrificing portability with Blu-ray? HD DVD Combo's are overpriced, but they might not always be. With Blu-ray, many people will have to double-dip or not enjoy the High Def version. At least with HD DVD people can have the choice of both.

I will admit the Combo's are used very poorly today and over priced. My point is the possibilities they have. I don't have links, but I've seen info that indicates the cost of producing a combo is about $1 more per disc than regular HD DVD. Seems they are just trying to get as much money as they can from buyers today, but if they ease up, they could offer them for nearly the same price.

I don't care which wins - I just want whatever movie I want to be in HD. The problem however is that I just don't see the typical consumer adopting Blu-ray to the extent it needs to be for all movies to be eventually transferred over.

[mike79]

Originally Posted by mshulman

ok, but aren't you sacrificing portability with Blu-ray? HD DVD Combo's are overpriced, but they might not always be. With Blu-ray, many people will have to double-dip or not enjoy the High Def version. At least with HD DVD people can have the choice of both.

I will admit the Combo's are used very poorly today and over priced. My point is the possibilities they have. I don't have links, but I've seen info that indicates the cost of producing a combo is about $1 more per disc than regular HD DVD. Seems they are just trying to get as much money as they can from buyers today, but if they ease up, they could offer them for nearly the same price.

I don't care which wins - I just want whatever movie I want to be in HD. The problem however is that I just don't see the typical consumer adopting Blu-ray to the extent it needs to be for all movies to be eventually transferred over.

Personally, I don't really want a combo disc. Why would I want to watch a moive on dvd that I can watch in high-def. I still don't really get the whole combo thing.

[BStecke]

I'm tempted to make a poll as to how many people have stopped buying SD DVD completely or almost altogether, save a sprinkle here and there for films not available in HD at all, on either format (Pathfinder, for instance). I know I'm one of them. I don't even look at standard DVD's. I (and most others, I'd be willing to bet) have no interest in portability . . . at this point, if it's in HD, I have a hard time spending my money on it.

As far as having to purchase a movie in SD that's on HD DVD but not Blu . . . I'd rather double dip than buy an HD DVD player. At least when the BD comes out, they're still a living format that someone will purchase from me. The rarity of this occurence, given Universal's fairly limp year, puts my loss in SD DVDs at a cost still lower than an HD DVD player. I wish I owned Batman Begins in HD . . . it's the only reason I was even half considering an HD DVD player. But I'll wait, because it will come out on BD, most likely by the end of the year, and possibly with a better video transfer and audio.

[mike79]

yeah, I don't think I have bought one Sdvd since I got my PS3.

[mshulman]

Originally Posted by mike79

Personally, I don't really want a combo disc. Why would I want to watch a moive on dvd that I can watch in high-def. I still don't really get the whole combo thing.

How about in the car? While travelling? Or while sitting on a plan with a portable DVD player?

Granted, many of us here would rather wait and watch at home on our High Def TV's. But to think we represent the typical public is naive. If we did then players would be flying off the shelves.

Look at the big picture. Look at the family that has a nice high def TV And home theater setup. The also have a summer home with a standard TV. Plus they have DVD players in their cars. Kids want POTC 3 when it comes out. What does Dad buy?

If he buys blu-ray, it can only be watched at home and he knows kids will complain when they can't see it in the car. IF he buys DVD, it can be played everywhere, but he would like to see it in HD. So what can he do? He'd have to buy both to satisfy everyone.

THAT is where the Combo plays a role. It prevents having to double-dip or miss out on one thing or the other. As they are priced, its not so great, but prices aren't set in stone. I have just always liked the premise behind it. I actually even had the opportunity to make use of one. While spending a week in Cape Cod at my parents, I brought 3 netflix rentals we had out. I forgot that 2 were HD DVD's. Turns out they were Combo's, so we were able to still watch them.

I really think everyone here thinks everyone is going to drop DVD once they get blu-ray, but its not going to happen. Just consider that many cars today have DVD players in them. And they're going to continue to do so for years to come. DVD is far more widespread then VHS ever was. To think any format will replace it is a bit pretentious.

[mshulman]

Originally Posted by BStecke

I'm tempted to make a poll as to how many people have stopped buying SD DVD completely or almost altogether, save a sprinkle here and there for films not available in HD at all, on either format (Pathfinder, for instance). I know I'm one of them. I don't even look at standard DVD's. I (and most others, I'd be willing to bet) have no interest in portability . . . at this point, if it's in HD, I have a hard time spending my money on it.

A poll here will be useless. I think it would be fair to say nearly everyone here owns a blu-ray player. That's really not a very good representation of the general public. I think it could be broken down like so:

Enthusiasts: 1%
Above Average Consumer: 5%
Average Consumer: 90%
Below Average: 4%

I can tell you what a poll will say. It will show hardly anyone here buys DVD's. Go into a Walmart, Best Buy, Target..etc and poll 100 people. It will show something completely different.

[BStecke]

For the small percentage of the small percentage of the population that this would affect . . . sure, maybe the combo would be better. But . . . businesses don't target small percentages of small percentages. As a last resort I'll watch a movie on a portable device. But it won't be a movie that will make a big difference on my tv at home. I'll watch a comedy or something, but action movies wait until I can watch them properly. If I have kids and a DVD player in the car and a summer home and I afford all that comfortably . . . I'll drop the extra 15 bucks on a couple standard DVD's.

[mshulman]

I think its a much bigger percentage than you think it is.

[BStecke]

Most of your comments are based on how few people actually have an HDTV. So now you're taking that small percentage and taking a sample from that group, creating an even smaller percentage of the total population.

So let's say this is accurate regarding people with HDTV's:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/04/13...w-own-an-hdtv/

And 28% of the population (approx. 302 million (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html)) have an HDTV. That's about 84,560,000 people with an HDTV. So then we take the approx. 150,000 BD players sold (http://www.tvpredictions.com/sonysold061407.htm) plus the PS3's sold for good measure (or do those not count when we're talking about HD DVD?) with worldwide sales of about 4.5 million (http://play.tm/story/12089) and we get about 4,750,000 people with a Blu ray player (when talking about the US, yes, this will be lower, but I like to figure high). That's about 5.6% of people with an HDTV. So then we take the percentage of people who have all these things, PLUS the need for a portable version of the same movie (let's call it 75% for good measure, we'll figure high) and that's about 4.2% of the country. So . . . not a very big number.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by mshulman

ah.. my typo. I have yet to see any picture quality difference between the two. And even at the max bitrate for each title, is it noticable on a 720P set? Even on a 1080P set? I don't think the majority of people will see the difference.

wait until a LOTR movie comes out on HD DVD...plus you're seeing quality differences in the recent Universal titles all being half assed...

just because studios use the same compression for both formats doesn't mean they can't...