Blu-ray is dead: the sequel

By | October 31, 2008, 2:59pm PDT

Summary: Bill Hunt, Blu-ray defender? Over on The Digital Bits blogger Bill Hunt rebukes me for calling Blu-ray dead. Then he goes on to agree with almost everything I said - except for the conclusion. With friends like that, Blu-ray doesn’t need me! Industry cheerleader opinion: Bill says I don’t have the expertise to comment on a home video format [...]

Bill Hunt, Blu-ray defender?
Over on The Digital Bits blogger Bill Hunt rebukes me for calling Blu-ray dead. Then he goes on to agree with almost everything I said - except for the conclusion.

With friends like that, Blu-ray doesn’t need me!

Industry cheerleader opinion:
Bill says I don’t have the expertise to comment on a home video format - despite my large video collection, 10 foot HD home theater, Blu-ray player and HD video production work - but then goes on to say:

  • “. . . Blu-ray Disc player and movie prices are still too high.”
  • “The BDA’s licensing fees are too high. . . “
  • “. . . there are still too many barriers (not the least of which is cost) to smaller content producers . . . .”
  • “The need to continually update player firmware for title after title has been very frustrating . . .”
  • “The economic slowdown and the lengthy format war haven’t helped either.”

He even says:

I do think the industry should take a look at Harris’ recommendations for what a more “forward looking strategy” for the Blu-ray format ought to look like. I actually agree with a couple of them.

I think he meant “all of them” since he didn’t note any disagreements.

Then he sums up his view, saying:

Blu-ray isn’t going to replace DVD, the single most successful format in the history of consumer electronics, and anyone who thinks otherwise is out to lunch. But Blu-ray’s future is plenty bright, folks.

My Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) AACS Decoder Ring defines “bright” as

(adj) struggling to achieve market parity with a 10 year old technology.

Bill, I am humbled.

Download denial
We differ in how the drama plays out. I think that watchable HD downloads will enable the iTunes generation to stop buying bits on plastic.

Bill doesn’t mention the download alternative for HD content distribution. That makes it tough to figure out what he thinks about it other than he rejects it.

If I had to guess, I think the mix a few years from now is going to be 50% DVD, 30-40% Blu-ray and some smaller percentage of downloading.

Diving into downloads
The knocks against HD downloads fall into several buckets:

  • Poor quality. Those crummy 128k tracks killed iTunes. Seriously, codec technology is improving at a high rate. The percentage of people who can tell the difference will continue to shrink.
  • Bandwidth limits. True, America trails much of the industrialized world in last mile bandwidth, but we are improving. And don’t confuse downloading with streaming HD - the former doesn’t need high bandwidth to work.
  • Storage cost. Storage prices are dropping 40-50% annually. If it is a problem today - and most consumers have lots of unused disk space - it won’t be tomorrow.

Remember when people used modems? The same objections held then against music downloads. Today’s trends work to make video downloads commonplace.

The Storage Bits take
It doesn’t matter that videophiles, studios, hardware vendors and rental chains love Blu-ray. What matters is what consumers think.

The high-def war has been over for 8 months. Blu-ray’s less than 4% share of disk unit sales hasn’t budged - although its revenue share is about 15% due to its higher prices and younger catalog.

Cheaper players will help grow the available market. But there is still the disk price problem. Blu-ray disks are, on average, about 4x the average DVD price once you factor in the $5.99 back catalog specials.

Like SACD, Polavision and DIVX some home media formats fail to catch fire with consumers. Blu-ray, it seems, is another.

I’d like to see Blu-ray become as common as DVDs are today. But the window of opportunity is closing fast.

Comments welcome, of course.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Robin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small.

Disclosure

Robin Harris

Robin Harris is a president of TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm in northern Arizona. He also writes StorageMojo.com, a blog which accepts advertising from companies in the storage industry, and has a 25 year history with IT vendors. He has many industry contacts, many of whom are friends and all of whom he has opinions about. Robin has relationships with many companies in the technology industry. Every company he writes about may have sought to influence his opinion through carefully-crafted marketing messages and self-serving white papers, gifts ranging from desk calendars, t-shirts, lunches and trips as well as analyst or consulting assignments. He also invests in some technology companies. He may accept payment for services in stock as well. Robin discloses financial investments in or client relationships with companies named in Storage Bits. To help readers sort out the gold from the dross in his writings, Robin tries to communicate his reasons as clearly as he can. If you agree, you are intelligent and discerning. If you disagree, well, you disagree. In all cases, Robin encourages readers to subject everything they read, see or hear on the internet or from politicians to some simple questions: * What assumptions are implicit in the world view and judgments of the author? * What, if any, is the factual basis for the opinions the author expresses? * Is it reasonable, logical and clear? Your critical faculties: use ‘em or lose ‘em!

Biography

Robin Harris

Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. He introduced a couple of multi-billion dollar storage products (DLT, the first Fibre Channel array) to market, as well as a many smaller ones. Earlier he spent 10 years marketing servers and networks. After leaving corporate life he founded TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm. He also developed StorageMojo into one of the top storage industry blogs.

Robin writes, consults, coaches and lives among the mountains of northern Arizona.

120
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Confused! Does the US have free-to-air True HDTV?
Patanjali 28th Dec 2008
It's just that no one here seems to make reference to 1920 x 1080i TV quality at all.

It is what got me interested in BD in the first place - DVDs looked worse than TV!
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely ... You are dead on
RGC6789 31st Oct 2008
And you don't give payperview HD enough credit here
either. I have Verizon FIOS and can watch a growing
selection of movies right now with no problems at all.
And the movies are $5.99 in HD.

Download, streaming and home networking is making the
plastic obsolete.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Pay per view: good point!
R Harris 31st Oct 2008
I confess that I don't have a land line or cable - just a
wireless ISP and a cell phone. So I'm not up on the latest and
greatest.

Thanks for the note. Adds fuel to the fire.

Robin
0 Votes
+ -
Yes pay per view is the future
gtg781w 3rd Nov 2008
With Comcast on demand you can watch a good number of TV shows in HD for free, and a small selection of movies in HD also(usually based off of what premium channels you currently suscribe too). You can also stream instantly for a rental fee a large number of other HD films. I really dont see any reason to buy a blu-ray player if this trend continues.
0 Votes
+ -
If quality doesn't matter...
paferg 4th Nov 2008
Comcast's on-demand quality is weak, even more so than their HD channel quality, which is lacking. You can expect them to continue to squeeze it down as far as possible and charge as much as possible for it. On-demand also lacks every feature except the movie itself, including subtitles, and you can watch the movie for 24 hours for your $4-6. If you just feel like renting a movie and you don't feel like getting off the couch, the meager selection they offer might entice you, but any kind of rental service is a far cry from purchasing a physical copy you can watch as many times as you want. Neither the video rental industry nor the on-demand industry has killed video sales, because people like to build a collection, and no format or system has yet created a viable way to build a reliable digital collection.

Blu-ray hasn't taken off for a host of reasons, chief among them the fact that people just don't know the difference. As HD becomes increasingly common and accepted as the norm, Blu-ray will get more popular, whether or not it ever becomes the reigning format (which it probably won't). At this point there is no other option that compares to Blu-ray in terms of quality, period. The question is simply whether people will choose to pay for it.
0 Votes
+ -
It also defeats the purpose of "high definition", if one can see the excessive amount of artifacting these sorts compressed videos bring with them - by their very nature.
0 Votes
+ -
35 Gbytes of fluff, minimum.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 31st Oct 2008
If HD-DVD can hold the movie and hours of fluff fine (which it did), then the argument becomes a lot less onerous. 10 gig for download? I have 10 Mbit/sec, which means 2.3 hours for the full download, maybe 5 minute delay from watching VS purchase (over computer lines, coax delivery is substantially higher).

A spinning disk in a DRM encumbered overpriced format is not really poised to take over the industry.

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
TOO MUCH FLUFF, TOO MUCH DRM
High Altitude 3rd Nov 2008
A spinning disk in a DRM encumbered overpriced format is not really poised to take over the industry, writes Triple II. Absolutely. Let's not forget our sinking economy (we're actually in a recession, no matter how much our politicians deny). I would say the current economic conditions are the death of Blu Ray.
Amen.
0 Votes
+ -
Funny
Mike Hunt 3rd Nov 2008
It is our politicians who keep harping that the "economy is bad". My economy is just fine, no matter how many times the mass media and our politicians say that it isn't. (What's gas now, $2/gal?)

The media blitz about a "economy in crisis" is a small part of a grand ruse to get us to accept these big corporate bailouts as "necessary". Just the same as the fake "gas shortages" that they've foisted on us a few times, it is BS, pure and simple.

Don't be fooled!
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Just because you're doing well
tikigawd 5th Nov 2008
doesn't mean everyone is

if you choose to be blind to the struggles of other people then everything is fine
0 Votes
+ -
Digital d/ls are just inconvenient
Saberr 31st Oct 2008
I would never store my movies on hard drive... I would
rather own something physical so that way I can lend
to my friends, people can browse through my collection
or simply sell it later. Now can you do anything like
this for d/l movies? nope. What if the hard drive
crashes, I mean imagine losing terabytes of data,
that's a hell of a lot of movies and I assume you can
re-d/l them back but that would take days/weeks to get
it all back...

As of now, I don't see any advantages over Digital
downloads... I'll be buying optical discs especially
Blu-ray for a very long time until something better
comes a long, I don't foresee digital d/ls being the
future but we'll see...
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I prefer physical media too
R Harris 31st Oct 2008
The question is, when will I - and most consumers - make
Blu-ray the default?

Dark Knight I'll get on Blu-ray someday - the fabulous 8k
special effects work makes it worth while. But romantic
comedies? Never.

Thanks for commenting.

Robin
0 Votes
+ -
how about....
jglmdvc@... 5th Nov 2008
If the Lord of the Rings, and Star Wars series gets on
Blu-Ray I might have to break down.

Otherwise I'm with you.
Never...
0 Votes
+ -
ever heard of backing?
doctorSpoc 1st Nov 2008
i have 2TB of ripped DVDs (i live in Canada... no DMCA)... and i have
everything backed up... plus i have the physical DVDs. if hard drive
crashes.. i go out buy a new hard drive (1TB = $100 these days), press
a few buttons and it's all restored... don't know what the problem is
there.... backup is a given, simple and pretty cheap these days and get
WAY cheaper by the day.

physical media is a joke, and such a pain in the rear, i kissed it good
bye last year.. if you have a large library it takes up a huge amount of
space in your living room to store, it is incredibly difficult to find
something to watch, or even to know what you have since you need to
go flipping though 100s of jewel cases... had put mine in albums to
take up less space, but, still terrible to go through to find something to
watch.. on top of that it you need to wait for FBI warnings, menus,
commercials... then there is the fact that they scratch, kids gum theirs
up with jam and peanut butter.... terrible format.

by the time you dig through your collection, find something, wait for
all the FBI warning, commercials, menus etc... this can take many
minutes... and hopefully it's not scratched...

with a digital media collection you just skim a few menus (by genre
etc..), and press play and that's it.. you are watching your movies and it
takes up almost no space. i love movies and it is so easy to access
digital movies that i find myself just going to scenes i like in movies
and watching them (usually comedies)... i would never find myself
doing this with DVD since the process of watching a DVD takes so long
and painful in comparison.. with digital media i sit on my sofa and
press buttons... no getting of the sofa... nice.

iTunes HD downloads (which are not BlueRay quality but somewhere
between DVD and BlueRay) take a few minutes to start playing and
downloads as you watch... this will only get better and quality will only
get faster...

physical media is a pain in the rear... i've kissed it good bye and good riddance and when people realize how superior the user experience is
to using physical media.. it will be over for physical media...

but yes, a backup strategy is a must for your collection... but these
days that is really simple and inexpensive and getting more so by the
day... so that's not really and issue.
0 Votes
+ -
You're in the "technical" minority
Documatador 3rd Nov 2008
The vast majority of consumers just want to watch a movie, not be a systems administrator on their computer(s). We're trying to replace a DVD player here. It will be many years before the network infrastructure and Tivo-user level home video servers are built up and affordable, to make any purchased media content business model workable. Blu-ray has a lot of problems, but the network and home servers are even less mature in the mass market today.
0 Votes
+ -
Only for today.
Software Architect 1982 3rd Nov 2008
While true that he's in the technical minority --- TODAY, the technology ease-of-use is heading in the direction of home on-demand servers. I've done the same thing. All my home movies (about 80-100 hours worth going back to the 70's) are now available online and a few of my DVDs. It's hosted via Vista's Media Center and the user experience is via my XBox 360 in the living room. Works great. I'm a huge HD fan (have a 72" HD TV) and am very quality-aware and this works great. You too will be doing this. Maybe not tomorrow or even next year, but I guarantee you'll be doing this in the not too distant future. Blue-Ray disks will not reach the level that DVDs have. It all comes down to Sony screwing up on many levels (price, customer service, DRM, hosing paying customers' PCs with root kids on music CDs, bricking blue-ray players with "updates", suing "Grandma" because little Billy downloaded a song from her house, and constantly having to update blue ray players' firmware solely to keep up with the keys that keep getting cracked). People don't WANT to be hassled with Sony's DRM and anti-customer attitude and they're certainly not wanting to reward Sony's bad attitude by paying a high price to experience it.
0 Votes
+ -
Bending over for DRM
hillr 3rd Nov 2008
"People don't WANT to be hassled with Sony's DRM and anti-customer attitude and they're certainly not wanting to reward Sony's bad attitude by paying a high price to experience it." Abso-friggin-lutely. I rejoiced to see DIVX die and I'll rejoice to see BlueRay die a slow death if for no other reason than Sony's DRM practices (PC rootkits anybody). And frankly while I can understand the masses getting duped by Sony on BlueRay, I'm appalled that many so called "tech savy" folks jumped on the DRM side with BlueRay. Do we really want to bend over for DRM in the video space???? We've seen how well it works out in the audio space. happy
0 Votes
+ -
boy, do I agree with you...
jglmdvc@... 5th Nov 2008
Sony's attitude is amazingly bad toward consumers.
But judging from the blind support for Sony on these
boards, I wonder of they all work for them...
0 Votes
+ -
What happened in music...
arminw 4th Nov 2008
will happen with video. iTunes made music and
now increasingly video easy to get, keep and
watch. People have been transferring their
collections of music CDs into iTunes format for
years now. Ripping normal DVDs and converting
them to iTunes format is also done by the millions
each day, DRM and DMCA impediments
notwithstanding. In the end, a bit is a bit is a bit
and there is no way to tell the difference between
one bit and another. It is all basically binary data,
no matter where it is stored. Any string of bits that
can be scrambled up in their order by one person,
can be unscrambled by another. There is a demand
for convenient, device and location independent
entertainment. No technical or legal barriers will
stop people from getting what they want. The
powers that be tried to stop people from getting
alcohol. They even managed to make a
constitutional amendment on that one! We all
know how that turned out.
0 Votes
+ -
Inconsitencies
Bozzer 4th Nov 2008
You claim you have the backup DVD's for all of your movies, yet go on to say that you have kissed physical media goodbye.

Care to explain what you did with your backup media?
0 Votes
+ -
I'd wager a guess
laura.b 10th Nov 2008
That he did the same thing my husband did with his CD collection. Once he got all his CDs ripped to his computer, he boxed them up and sent them to the basement. Why keep them around and in the way? If the computer crashes completely, he's still got them and can rip them again.

He's going to get a new external HD soon, and backup all his digital copies there. Then we can ditch the boxes in the basement too. happy
0 Votes
+ -
Digital d/ls
perversion2003@... 3rd Nov 2008
Backup, Backup, Backup
0 Votes
+ -
Physical Media (disc) for me too!
scoobyJ 4th Nov 2008
I only buy digital download if I don't think I want to keep it forever. I'm not saying Blu-Ray or DVD is forever, but I know where it is in my cabinet at all times. I also, still buy hard copy books. E-books along with audio books still haven't made paper books obsolete. And, I don't think that download purchases will ever make the physical medium obsolete. CD's are another story because so many downloads are free illegal copies. Now, as for rentals, you darn tootin right that downloads will replace physical rentals eventually.
0 Votes
+ -
what is safe
Terry Belanger 4th Nov 2008
photographers place important files on multiple hard drives ( usually 3) because HARD DRIVES crash.
Until you can buys for a few hundred dollars a RAID sever where your data is 100% safe... don't bother me with POOR quality downloads

I want a piece of plastic I can always go back too
0 Votes
+ -
Nothing is "safe"
Ozone71 Updated - 4th Nov 2008
Never scratched a DVD?
Never heard the crunch underfoot of a CD?
Never melted LP's on the back seat of a car?
A hard disk drive (HDD) crash is not the only way you lose data.

When you look at your HDD, it's really just a block of disks, using magnetic, rather than optical storage like CD's and DVD's. If you take your HDD out of the machine and put it in the cupboard, its just as safe as DVD's and takes up far less volume.

When HDTV set top boxes came on the market, they had 1 tuner and no HDD, then 40GB, then 60GB, then 2 tuners and 120GB... it goes on. How hard is it to imagine a player with twin HDD's for redundancy do you "never" lose your old movies? Would a removable drive be that much harder?

If people start to vote with their feet and move towards D/L then players with dual and triple redundant, removable HDD's will hit the market.

Then your HDD becomes the "physical media" that you can slot in, backup, remove, and store safely away. It will be no different to people transferring from HDD to DVD or vice versa that some players offer now.

HDD technology is available. Redundancy is available. Removable drives are available. Why do we need a new technology? Even now you should be able to walk into a store, buy a couple of movies and have them transferred directly to the HDD in your shirt pocket.
0 Votes
+ -
Every drive can be...
arminw 4th Nov 2008
a removable drive with the simple addition of a
$20 USB cable adapter. The procedure is simple:
buy cheap drive, connect adapter and copy your
movies, music and other data. After everything
current is backed up, disconnect the disc, put it
back in the silvery plastic bag it came in and put it
in a cool dry place. From time to time, as new
digital material is acquired that needs to be backed
up and repeat this procedure until the disk is full.
After that, buy another disk and repeat. Instead of
having 20 feet of shelving, or more, filled with
plastic disks and their containers, you will have
few hard drives safely stored in a drawer.
I am all for downloading and agree it will be the way we watch movies. Some day. But at the moment, d/l of high-def isn't practical. Until it is, I'll be renting blu-ray discs from Netflix.
0 Votes
+ -
Revenue Share is NOT 15?
jordanlund 31st Oct 2008
The revenue share is only 15% because Home Media Magazine only compares the top 20 Blu-Ray sales to the top 20 DVD sales.

Were they to compare the library as a whole the % is much, much smaller. Less than 2%. The last stats I saw (released in July, the stats were for January to June, 2008) had the home based disc market as a whole clocking in at $10.77 billion. Blu-Ray's share was $194 million. So, do the math, 194M/10.77B = 1.8% over the first 6 months of 2008.

Source: hollywoodreporter.com
http://tinyurl.com/56o27h
0 Votes
+ -
The Real problems is
Mectron 31st Oct 2008
greed from major studios and Sony (who hold the right to Bluray).

Drop bluray mpvie price to the same as DVD
Subsidize the Player (console makers have been doing it for years)

Remove HDCP as it is useless, drive price of disk and hardware up for to good reason, DHCP have been cracked and there is no point in useing it, in fact it the the MAJOR cause of slow adoption not to mention illegal...

Step selling ultra low quality tranfere that are whorst to look at then the DVD version. (Termnator 2 everyone?)
0 Votes
+ -
Your correct.
phatkat 4th Nov 2008
With the economy as it is, Bluray will doom itself because of greed. Blueray is a great format for those want to backup their system inexpensively and reliably. Hard drives will fail and tapes are expensive (should know since I use tapes to backup our servers) but polycarbonate based media (ie CD, DVD, Bluray, etc) are relatively inexpensive and have a very long life so backing up to this form great for most people. I know that the majority of people don't backup to this media but will use it for viewing movies and other media forms but using this for both backing up and viewing movies since is useful since we don't need to buy so much hardware and since the economy is so bad most people are not in position of buying new hardware for no good reason.
0 Votes
+ -
Learn English please
rle11wb@... 4th Nov 2008
Your? Really? How about: You're as in: You are correct.
You're wrong! As in: You are wrong - As in Your lack of English. SHEESH!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Blu-ray is dead: the sequel
bitshiftr 31st Oct 2008
Here's the issue I've come to find after debating the demise of Blu-ray.

Regardless of the size, regardless of the price, anyone with a Playstation 3 is going to purchase Blu-ray over DVD (if presented with the option). And even if they can't tell the difference, they'll pretend to, just to justify their purchase in their minds. And then they'll show their friends and just to "fit in" they'll say they notice the differences and thus go out, purchase a PS3 which is really "a cheap Blu-ray player", and waste just that much more coin.

Maybe it's because I'm part of the younger generation and young enough to still observe peer pressure, the need to fit in with fellow technophiles, and the stupidity of throwing money at something that you _cannot_ notice the difference in. It's the same way with 320kbps vs FLAC. Yes, FLAC is higher quality, but 1) my speakers will not display any differentiable tones between formats and 2) I'll have 300MB less hard drive space per album. Yes, I can HAVE FLAC and pretend to no the difference, or I can have 320kbps MP3's and admit to not being Superman with bionic ears.
0 Votes
+ -
Outstanding point.
Cayble 31st Oct 2008
Although there is a significant difference between audio and video, that being once the audio is crisp and clear enough that it sounds real, various colorations in the sound may appeal to one group of people more then to an other. Video on the other hand almost always rises and falls on the clarity of the picture. Color variations can almost always be corrected to suit tastes in most high end televisions.

That aside, the point about audio, time and time again I have seen head to head competitions between speakers and at least 30% of the time a cheaper speaker set wins. Embarrassingly, sometimes a significantly cheaper set has appealed to an entire crowd over the higher priced pair, both sounding crisp and clear of course. Price example; $720 a pair compared to $1500 a pair. The way the speakers colored the sound was just more appealing to the general public. Of course many audiophiles will tell you that much of the general public doesn't know how to listen to music.

When it comes to sound there are three basic things that are all you have to know when you go speaker shopping. Human hearing frequency generally falls between 20Hz and 20,000Hz although I have seen lower frequencies quoted like 15Hz, and higher frequencies quoted for woman. If you have a reputable speaker company claiming in that frequency you know your going to be checking on a speaker set with a great frequency range.

Next is efficiency. Once again, IF you are dealing with a respectable speaker manufacturer who is reporting accurately, you can generally expect a speaker with higher efficiency then a different speaker to be the louder of the two speakers under the same power.

A third, but least of your concerns is the rated power handling capability of a speaker. The fact is that if your amplifier is providing clean undistorted power to a good set of speakers, power handling capacity usually means little. As they say, distortion kills speakers, not power. Either way, if your serious about getting the most bang for your buck you have to test run what your purchasing or you could end up disappointed with inflated stats or simply a poor design.

Point being, it doesn't always take some amazing cost to produce what may meet the limits of human perception in many given cases, and as such people really have to listen/look at what they are throwing their hard earned money at.
0 Votes
+ -
Since we've drifted off to audio...
Azathoth 3rd Nov 2008
A musicologist that I once worked with recommended taking piano recordings when shopping for hi-fi gear. According to him, the sharp attack and decay of piano notes are good stressors for that kind of equipment. Me, I prefer "Walking in Memphis" by Marc Cohn. I suppose a music video of that song would work well as a test for a home theatre system.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Blu-ray is dead: the sequel
gertruded 31st Oct 2008
And we learn today that Blue Ray phones home when
you play it. See the other article on today's ZDnet.

Despicable.
0 Votes
+ -
Missing the point....
nzjono 31st Oct 2008
The bottom line that so many of you seem to ignore is that Blu Ray looks so much better than upscaled DVD on a large plasma TV. Its simple, the product produces a much better picture than DVD on modern large TVs. If you have a old CRT fine stay with DVD, but anyone who is spending thousands of dollars on a high end new TV would be crazy not to go for Blu ray. It would be like hooking up am old Sony walkman to a $10,000 high end stereo, sure it would work but it would be rubbish quality.

Yes it may be presently slightly more expensive than DVD technology but it is worth every cent when you see it on a 58inch screen. Grab Playstation 3 for the kids to play game son, store all your digital photos on there to show friends through slideshows ont he tv, then pop in a blu ray movie at night and wait for people to go 'wow look at that colour!'. Just go and watch "BBCs Planet Earth" on Blu Ray and then come back and tell me its not worth buying a blu ray player.
0 Votes
+ -
You mean...
bitshiftr 31st Oct 2008
Planet Earth retails for $69.99 for the entire series on Blu-ray. You're saying that it's worth spending $400 on a PS3 (or $150 on a Blu-ray player), $2000 on a TV, and $2000 on a sound system JUST or Planet Earth? I should be able to purchase hundreds of movies of amazing quality if I invest as expensive as a home theatre, and I can't, so I won't.

You're out of your freaking mind.
0 Votes
+ -
If you want to stick with DVD that is fine...
shaun.watson@... 5th Nov 2008
Some of us do think that the extra expense is worth the extra money, which is no means as expensive as you state and prices going down every few months.

You like the quality of your upconverted DVD? That is great...more power to you. Buy Planet Earth on DVD and be content.

Me on the other hand..I CAN tell the difference between a upconverted DVD and Blu-Ray on my 50" HDTV. I paid $300 dollars for my Samsung BD-P1400 player and have been very happy with it. Blu-ray picture is sharper and more vibrant than DVD. To me it is well worth it.
0 Votes
+ -
There's the key...
hasta la Vista, bah-bie 6th Nov 2008
Some of us do think that the extra expense is worth the extra money, which is no means as expensive as you state and prices going down every few months.

There's the key right there. "Some". The rest of your post is just personal hyperbole.
0 Votes
+ -
Just like some want to stick with DVD....
shaun.watson@... 10th Nov 2008
and is a personal preference. Just like some are fine with VHS and do not upgrade to DVD. Nobody is saying you need to upgrade to Blu-Ray, but technically, it is superior to DVD and from what i have seen it is.
0 Votes
+ -
How many people...
arminw 4th Nov 2008
have the money or room for a 58" TV set? I had to
twist my wife's arms to get a 47 incher. She still
tells me it "dominates" our living room. I wonder
what size is the most purchased? On any set up to
42", it is hard to tell the difference between a well
up-converted normal DVD and blu-ray.

DVD did not take off because it was greatly better
than VHS. VHS was "good enough" for most
people. It was the convenience and ease of use
that caused DVD to be widely adopted.
0 Votes
+ -
I certainly did not miss the point.
jglmdvc@... 5th Nov 2008
The point is that I won't be taken advantage of by a greedy company like Sony especially when I don't care that most movies have to be in high def.

Honestly, on a comedy do you need to see the actors' wrinkles and shirt pattern?
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with you
mikey0357 15th Nov 2008
My BD UP-5000 plays Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and my other DVD players up to 1080p....but on my 92" projector from 10.5 ft away the Blu and HD discs smoke a DVD everyday, all day. From 300, Transformers, Revenge of the Sith, etc. to no CGI films like Casino, Goodfellas, Deer Hunter, Road Warrior, Top Gun, Blade Runner, etc. there is a night and day difference.

For the DVD enthusiasts, sure, DVD will suffice. I still prefer movies on DVDs like Boiler Room, City Hall, Clerks, A Few Good Men, etc.

A copied over VHS tape will suffice as well.
Just won't look as good to me and plenty of others.

AM radio is sufficient. But I prefer my 7.2 setup calibrated w/Audigy.

Especially when I'm watching an HDNet Concert or putting in an Unplugged DVD like Alice In Chains.

Actually I really prefer my best friend's setup of 135" Firehawk screen, Sony Pearl Projector, LG SuperBlu/HD player slamming the tunes, the flicks and PS3 or Wii over the 10.2 Audio powered by McIntosh amps and a Halcro SSP200 Processor.

But hey, DVD is good enough, if that's all you want, and in many cases, that is all that is available at this time.

If you really want to keep up with the Jones's or dream a little....check out any setup at ModernHomeTheater.com. This is what Audio/Video and pushing technology is all about.

And BBC Planet Earth series is awesome in HD. When my infant gets older, hopefully she will enjoy it as much as I do.
0 Votes
+ -
Understandably so...
bitshiftr 31st Oct 2008
See, the problem I get into is that I don't see the difference until I put them side by side. I don't hear the difference until I play it back to back. I recently upgraded to a set of Z-5500's, I understand that the speakers may colour the sound difference, but I do I hear something that this set plays that my old set (Z-2200) did not? Reluctantly, I'll say no. After all the hearing damage I've sustained through my life, I'll be damned if my ears will EXCEED that of the average human. (I decided to upgrade to 5.1 Z5500's after debating Shure 210's and Klipsch Custom 2's with Sennheiser CX300 earbuds. It appeared as though the price point was determined by impedance range, and when I finally sat down to evaluate the human element, there was no reason to fork over $200 for something I won't be able to use to its full capacity.)

That being said, as a consumer, I am very satisfied with 720p. As a technophile I enjoy watching a movie in 1080p, but am I willing to purchase an amazing sound system and a high-quality TV to enjoy a media that is, to me, overpriced? It seems like I have to keep throwing money into the mouth of the beast.

What most people are overlooking is that DVD caught on because the difference between VHS and DVD is astounding. It was clearly night and day and I did not have to put them side by side to tell the difference. Blu-ray cannot take over the market from DVD when there is no significant upgrade that will make every consumer doubt their current situation with DVD. Ol' timers like my father do not see a reason to upgrade because he can't tell the difference.

As quality of technology begins to exceed human detection, is it worth it in the end to pay extra for something we will not notice? This is a very subjective stance (if you have the money, why not enjoy the best) but, alternatively, is this a "necessity" and will it pay off in the end?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Blu-ray is dead: the sequel
nzjono 31st Oct 2008
No what Im saying is that IF you have or intend to buy a high end plasma or LCD TV OVER 42inches (50 is the new 42 anyway nowadays) then you should also get a blu ray player (or PS3).

If I buy a 1990 Toyota Corolla I will run it on regular petrol,oil, and maybe retread tyres however if I am driving a new Porsche 911 then I will run it on premium petrol,top grade synthetic oil, and high end Pirelli tyres.

Horses for courses people!

The blu ray picture is worth the extra $ if you have already spent $$$ on the TV. If you dont want a big plasma TV then fine stick with an upscaled DVD (which looks fine on smaller TVs). However dont think for one minute that it can come anywhere near to the picture qulaity and colour depth of a good blu ray movie.

As more and more consumers buy new big screen flat panel TV it would make sense they couple it with a hi-def video format that compliments what their new TV is capable of. At this point in time blu ray is the best option whether or not you think the format as a whole is a worthwhile expense.

Ihave no idea why many of you are so anti blu ray. Its a noticeably better picture than DVD on a big TV and the price really isnt that bad (compared to the initial price of a TV ). Also downloadable HD movies are still not a viable option for most people. Sure you can download a hi-def movie in 5 hours on a good connection, but a few movies would totally blow out my monthly data cap, I dont want to drag my PC through to the living room everytime I want to watch a movie. Apple doesnt even have an hdmi port to make it easy to hook up. Apple TV is not real hi-def. Many people do not want to leave their computers on all day downloading pay for view movies. People will just turn increasingly to downloading free movies off P2P sites. I enjoy having a movie collection I can look at in my entertainment shelf, not just a file on my pc.
0 Votes
+ -
Blu-Ray is as dead as ATREC-3
Wdabrock 1st Nov 2008
Blu-Ray has a better ratio perspective than 720, but invest in an upverting DVD player and you won't notice the difference. Sony seems to have a knack for coming up with format types that are DOA in the market. Blu-Ray is just on of many crappy ideas that Sony has come up with over the years that has so many features that only benefit Sony, and not the end consumer that they are getting a much deserved backlash from WE THE PEOPLE.
Oh, yeah. ATREC-3 was the original audio format for the PSP that no one wanted to use because music vendors did'nt want to disenfranchise their customers with another confusing format in the endless sea of WMA, MPEG-3, MPEG-4... you get the picture. It also was not easy to use.
0 Votes
+ -
2 reasons for not liking blu-ray.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 1st Nov 2008
The first, already posted, you have to sit ridiculously close to any TV to see full 1080p. At distances most humans watch their TV from, depending on eyesight, you can see some/most of the benefits of 720p. Upscale DVD is is very close.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2218288,00.asp

I have a 47" TV. I would have to put my couch 2 feet away from the TV so that my eyes, at 4.5 feet would see 1080p. That's where 1080p breaks down for normal human eyesight.

For anyone here with a big screen, measure how far away you are and then see what the max resolution your eye can resolve.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

It makes for a much less compelling case giving the increased costs.

Reason #2.
BD+. The most onerous, restrictive and disjgusting DRM infection ever conceived. I'll go back to VHS before I support 1984.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2904
Did you know that Blu-ray discs can report back to studios when you play a disc? Yep. The BD-Live feature

Online revocation, monitoring, mandatory updates coming soon, bricking brought to you if they ever reach the tipping point, and the list goes on an on. If this kind of disgusting crap is not halted by the geeks, who is going to stop it?

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Reason #1 - WRONG! I can tell the difference between
720p and 1080p even on my 40" LCD. All my friends who
have stop by also said the same. You can tell the
difference between 720p and 1080p, is it a big
difference? Probably not.

Reason #2 - I'm glad BD+ is evolving, I hate piracy!
And I hope one day, pirating movies is a thing of the
past. I admit I use to pirate a few movies here and
there, usually movies that I don't strongly want. I
know a friend who pirates all his games and a some
movies, I find it annoying when he acts like he bought
them and it's his...

About Blu-ray discs sending report back to stuidos, as
I already mention on that article, I don't really care
if studios are interested in how many times I've watch
their movies or what. As long as they don't mess up my
Firmware or anything like that.
0 Votes
+ -
BD devolution
Wdabrock 2nd Nov 2008
If you consider the intrusiveness of Sony and like companies into your viewing preferences "evolving", run with it, brother. If Sony wants feedback from me as an end-user, they'll get that consumer survey card that comes with the product.

My problem with Sony, et al, is the continuous updates needed to view Blu-Ray and regular DVDs. Why in the heck do I need to wait for my stinking player to download data just to play Monty Python's "The Meaning Of Life"? Disk is brand new Region 1 and NOT a Blu-Ray! Not pirated either! Half of my DVD library gets this treatment from my Sony player and it drives me up the wall! They insist it isn't a program bug. The player, so they say, is attempting to find additional material. WHAT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL? Thats on disk #2!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Intellectually dishonest!
ShadeTree Updated - 2nd Nov 2008
The chart you reference is from an article where the author concludes;

"I've read various articles debating the importance of the 1080p. I want to set the record straight once and for all: if you are serious about properly setting up your viewing room, you will definitely benefit from 1080p (and even 1440p.) Why? Because the 1080p resolution is the first to deliver enough detail to your eyeball when you are seated at the proper distance from the screen. But don't just take my word for it: read on for the proof."

He goes on to say;

"What the chart shows is that, for a 50-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p start to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 14.6 feet and become fully apparent at 9.8 feet. For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV."

Your arguement is intellectually dishonest. You attempted to change the intent of what the author stated by presenting only part of the information. You used fully apparent instead of discernable difference to slant what the article was saying. In fact the title of the article was "1080p Does Matter - Here's When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)"
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks for agreeing!
Wdabrock 2nd Nov 2008
That's my point about upverting DVD players; unless you're going to follow the owner's manual's suggested viewing distance to a tee( and who ever does!) the average sighted viewer isn't going to see a difference in image quality!
0 Votes
+ -
It's just that no one here seems to make reference to 1920 x 1080i TV quality at all.

It is what got me interested in BD in the first place - DVDs looked worse than TV!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix