Toshiba drops HD DVD; Blu-ray wins

[En Sabah Nur]

Also, I'd rather wait and get an actual Blu-Ray player than use my PS3.

PS3 makes the best Blu-Ray player on the market. Why would ou want a separate, huge machine taking up space when your PS3 already does that. Extra equipment, extra cables. Its much cheaper to use your PS3 than to buy a separate player.

Blu-Ray will never replace DVD.

I think it will. DVDs replaced VHS, and Blu-Ray will replace DVDs in due time. Just like HVDs will replace Blu-Ray in a few decades. Technology will move forward, no matter how hard you try to prevent the change, it will just happen around you.

 

[Storm Eagle]

HVDs now? They need to just let us enjoy our happy formats for like...two seconds.

 

[Mikintosh]

Dude, paying $25 for Casino Royale on BR is way worth it. Besides, people can no longer complain about the price with all of the sales that have been going on. Best Buy has had WB titles on sale for $14.99 lately.

BS. I have a 25" standard TV, and I know for a fact the image quality if negligible. I know HDTV sales are rising, but they won't get to a point where it'll matter in the home video market for a long time.

Blu-Ray will never replace DVD. HD failed to live up to the hype, fact is most people don't care. With the current economics of the US its even less likely for HD to take off with people now having other priorities when it comes to money. People will not buy their collection again, it didn't work for the music industry it won't for the movie. VHS to DVD was a drastic difference that is why it worked. With downloading video becoming more accessible in the past few years the industry is going to have to learn to adapt and give the consumers what they want or they are going to be in the same shoes as the music industry. Blu-Ray will be a successful niche market and thats about it.

I have various reasons to not support Blu-Ray, in fact I've also slowed down quite a bit on DVD purchases. But I guess its somewhat irrelevant to the thread.

QFT. The format is a luxury, not a neccessity.

 

[Cyporiean]

The format is a luxury, not a neccessity.

As is every other entertainment item.

 

[mookie75]

DVD to Blu-Ray seems a little different to me than VHS to DVD. I think people embraced DVD because it offered a number of things beyond simply a better picture. With a DVD, you could watch your favorite movies in a widescreen format. (I know laserdiscs did that as well, but VHS didn't -- at least not very often.) With a DVD you didn't have to fast forward or rewind if you just wanted to watch some of your favorite scenes, you could jump right to them through the chapter selection menu. With a DVD you had access to all kinds of special features in which you could learn about the making of the movie, view deleted scenes, listen to commentaries by the makers and/or actors of the movie, etc etc. With a DVD, you had to watch out for scratches, but you didn't have to worry about your favorite movie turning into a tangle of brown tape inside your player. In many ways, DVD was a vast improvement over VHS.

Blu-Ray, on the other hand, seems to offer all the same things as DVD only with, some would say, a slightly better picture and a blue band on the case. It may not be quite that cut and dried in real life, but I think many people out there believe that it is.

 

[En Sabah Nur]

BS. I have a 25" standard TV, and I know for a fact the image quality if negligible. I know HDTV sales are rising, but they won't get to a point where it'll matter in the home video market for a long time.

Blu-Ray DVDs will only show you a significant picture quality increase in HDTVs, not SDTVs. So if you don't hae an HDTV yet, whats the point in getting (or even discussing) a Blu-Ray? Once you do get an HDTV, then you can debate if switching to HD quality is worth the money or not.

 

[Frank Castle]

PS3 makes the best Blu-Ray player on the market. Why would ou want a separate, huge machine taking up space when your PS3 already does that. Extra equipment, extra cables. Its much cheaper to use your PS3 than to buy a separate player.

Well it's just preferance. And since I'm not going to get a player until a few years from now, they'll be more affordable and space friendly.

 

[Mikintosh]

As is every other entertainment item.

Except more so, and there's a similar version of it that costs less money.

Blu-Ray DVDs will only show you a significant picture quality increase in HDTVs, not SDTVs. So if you don't hae an HDTV yet, whats the point in getting (or even discussing) a Blu-Ray? Once you do get an HDTV, then you can debate if switching to HD quality is worth the money or not.

Well, I doubt I'm the only person who hasn't switched over yet (this board is not a microcosm of the consumer base at large). If good HDTVs are under $500, then things would be different, but they're not. You can get a good TV & DVD (not combind) set-up for about $200 (I did for my dorm room this year), but to do the same with an HDTV and a Playstation 3 would be over five times that much. I'm sorry, but I not that interested in seeing the exact detail on Spider-Man's costume.

 

[En Sabah Nur]

Well, I doubt I'm the only person who hasn't switched over yet (this board is not a microcosm of the consumer base at large). If good HDTVs are under $500, then things would be different, but they're not. You can get a good TV & DVD (not combind) set-up for about $200 (I did for my dorm room this year), but to do the same with an HDTV and a Playstation 3 would be over five times that much. I'm sorry, but I not that interested in seeing the exact detail on Spider-Man's costume.

You can get a 19-20" HDTV under $400 in best buy. Some are for as low as $330 there. You can get a 26" HDTV for $449.99. Granted they are small, but they are HDTV non the less.

 

[Storm Eagle]

You can get a 19-20" HDTV under $400 in best buy. Some are for as low as $330 there. You can get a 26" HDTV for $449.99. Granted they are small, but they are HDTV non the less.

The picture on a 19-20 inch HDTV won't do it for me. That's just too small. Whenever I get an HDTV, I'm going to need mine to be at least 26 inches. In fact, that's probably all I really have room for in my apartment (it's a studio). Maybe I'll just need a bigger stand.

By the way, this is a comment I saw someone make on HDTVs, and I wanted to see what you, or anyone else here, might make of it:

Also as far as TVs go, unless you're buying a set that's over 39" (usually 42") it's not even worth the money for an HDTV -- you're not seeing HD quality even on an HD Set.

 

[Dogbert]

By the way, this is a comment I saw someone make on HDTVs, and I wanted to see what you, or anyone else here, might make of it:

Also as far as TVs go, unless you're buying a set that's over 39" (usually 42") it's not even worth the money for an HDTV -- you're not seeing HD quality even on an HD Set.

I think that's a gross exaggeration based on a grain of truth. The larger the TV, the more obvious the difference becomes. However, on a 39" you'll even be able to see the difference between 720p and 1080p, so SD to HD would be a big difference. I'd say 20" is more likely for the difference between SD and HD to become negligible...

 

[Bird Boy]

I think that's a gross exaggeration based on a grain of truth. The larger the TV, the more obvious the difference becomes. However, on a 39" you'll even be able to see the difference between 720p and 1080p, so SD to HD would be a big difference. I'd say 20" is more likely for the difference between SD and HD to become negligible...

Yeah, that's why I settled for 720p on my 37" because I knew I'd see no difference if I bought a 1080p set. There's not going to be that noticeable of a difference on a set like that, once you go past 37" then you'll start to notice.

-BB

 

[Peter Paltridge]

It still isn't nearly affordable enough. It doesn't stop at the HDTV, or at the Blu-Ray...I want to retain the ability to record stuff and watch it later, and possibly save it for much later. How much are the Blu-Ray recorders? Probably $500,000.

I mean heck, I'm still hoping I can afford a converter box by 2009.

 

[Beat]

Well I guess this means a PS3 is worth buying now. I don't see the big deal about devices pulling double duty, hell, I want them to. It's easier in the long run.

 

[En Sabah Nur]

Well I guess this means a PS3 is worth buying now. I don't see the big deal about devices pulling double duty, hell, I want them to. It's easier in the long run.

My sentiments exactly. PS3 is a perfect Blu-Ray player.

It still isn't nearly affordable enough. It doesn't stop at the HDTV, or at the Blu-Ray...I want to retain the ability to record stuff and watch it later, and possibly save it for much later. How much are the Blu-Ray recorders? Probably $500,000.

As for a recorder? its not worth it. Ill get a Blu-Ray drive for my PC when the speeds are decent, but not a stand alone recorder. I have a DVR for that.

I have my 42" 1080i, 720p HDTV and could not be happier. Watching HD channels and HD movies and playing PS3 HD games on my 42 widescreen is amazing. And I do see a significant difference between a regular channel and an HD channel of the same station. The quality increase it enormous.

 

[Master Moron]

They don't really win anything. Sales may go up a little bit, but it'll never replace DVDs just like laserdiscs didn't replace VHS. Sony's failed to communicate any improvements above the old format other than a somewhat better picture and the ability to choose extras while watching a movie; hardly setting the world on fire.

I agree 100%. Consumers in general don't care about blue-ray. They're just not enough of an improvement over dvds to invest in.

She won't have to switch if she doesn't want to.

That's one of the odd things I've encountered about all of this -- a lot of people are annoyed...almost hostile...that these formats even exist. There's a persistent sense of "I don't want it, therefore it shouldn't exist".

It's an alternative, not a replacement. I do think the studios would love to have everyone throw out their DVD players and dive into Blu-ray, but that's not going to happen, and they'll service that market as long as it's there.

Because, most consumers see Blue-ray as a slap in the face. I mean, many consumers have only switched to DVD in the past 7 years or so. After spending their hard earned cash on new technology they feel that it's a slap in the face that the industry is now telling them their equipment is outdated. They probably feel like if they do spend their hard earned cash on a new player that the industry will just come out with a new piece of hardware in a few years and once more the piece of technology they they dropped loads of cash on becomes a relic.

I think it will. DVDs replaced VHS, and Blu-Ray will replace DVDs in due time. Just like HVDs will replace Blu-Ray in a few decades. Technology will move forward, no matter how hard you try to prevent the change, it will just happen around you.

DVDs only replaced VHS after laserdisc bombed. I'm sure there were people who thought laserdisc would replace VHS but they were wrong. There was also a much bigger gap in time between VHS and DVD than between DVD and Blue-ray, I believe.

 

[En Sabah Nur]

I agree 100%. Consumers in general don't care about blue-ray. They're just not enough of an improvement over dvds to invest in.

Actually they do. My dad and I are in the business of Video editing and production. My dad is a videographer and video editor. He makes TV ads, Wedding videos, birthdays, anniversaries, rights of passage celebrations, everything. 8 out of 10 people ask him if he can make their video in HD. We were waiting for the format war to be over to adopt to a format and start producing Blu-Ray DVDs for clients. That time is now. So yes, consumers do want HD, they do care. I see it all the time. And if people didn't care, Holywood would not be pushing and would not support the HD format at all. As Reuters said, the format war was preventing HD video to be a multi-billion dollar business. People will care even more now that the war is over. They don't have to be scared to adopt a format without knowing if would loose the war.

DVDs only replaced VHS after laserdisc bombed. I'm sure there were people who thought laserdisc would replace VHS but they were wrong. There was also a much bigger gap in time between VHS and DVD than between DVD and Blue-ray, I believe.

As Adam Tyner pointed out, Laser Discs didn't bombed. Nor were they made to replace VHS. It was a completely different media for different purposes. Unlike DVDs and Blu-Ray.


On a side note, I find it amusing that both formats are made and spearheaded by two Japanese companies, yet their target market is US, with deciding companies as Hollywood, Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, Netflix, Target, Kmart and others. Its as if their own Japanese market and European Markets don't matter. I mean I know Hollywood makes most of the world movies and produces most of the DVDs, and Wal-Mart is the world's largest seller of DVDs, and Blockbuster is world's largest video rental, and Netflix is the world's largest online video rental, but they are not even fighting for their own markets. US is the only thing that matters to them.

 

[sleepydumbdude]

OH well I wasted a few dollars on a HD player. Under 140 and got Heroes for free. Heroes retails about 70 bucks so I guess I payed 70 bucks to for a system to watch Heroes on. Its the only HD Dvd I own at the moment. Maybe I'll get lucky and places will clearance out remaining HD Dvds.

 

[Adam Tyner]

Because, most consumers see Blue-ray as a slap in the face. I mean, many consumers have only switched to DVD in the past 7 years or so. After spending their hard earned cash on new technology they feel that it's a slap in the face that the industry is now telling them their equipment is outdated.

How is it outdated? The hardware still works. It's not as if anyone's going to stop making DVDs anytime in the foreseeable future. The overwhelming majority of movies that come out on DVD every week still don't have a high-def equivalent.

I just think it's obnoxious for people to say that if they're not interested in something, it shouldn't exist. If you don't want it, don't buy it. You're not any worse off.

DVDs only replaced VHS after laserdisc bombed. I'm sure there were people who thought laserdisc would replace VHS but they were wrong.

1) Laserdisc didn't bomb.
2) Laserdisc was released before VHS had any meaningful penetration in the U.S., so there would be no reason to think it would replace VHS. As far back as I can remember, Laserdisc was aimed towards movie collectors, and VHS was aimed towards the rental market and home recording.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Well I guess this means a PS3 is worth buying now.

If Microsoft elects to make an Blu-ray ad on for the 360, which they probably will now, the PS3 still wont be worth it.