Dvd or Blu-ray?

pacemakerguy

pacemakerguy

CAGiversary!
ok i'm saving up for a HD tv well i don't need help with that. what i do is the DVD player now should i get a DVD player that is a HD upgrader that when u put a regular dvd in it, it makes it a better picture and looks HD or blu-ray.
only problem with blu-ray is i don't have the money for one and if i get one which is better a regular blu-ray dvd play or ps3?
thanks
and by the way i'm gonna buy all my stuff on black friday. so help
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote name='sendme']Only thing I have ever heard that I didn't take as BS with HDMI cables that were 100 and 10 bucks was the shielding. I'm not even sure how true that is. What I was told that the higher priced ones have better shielding so nothing interfears(SP?) with the signal as much as it would with the cheaper ones.[/QUOTE]

The bottom line is, the signal will either go through and work perfectly, or it won't. Unless you're running a really, really long piece of cable with a bunch of other cables carrying really high current, interference isn't something you'll ever have to worry about.

See, with analog video, it did matter; interference could cause slight picture quality problems. But with digital video, there is no varying quality; either the signal gets through, or it doesn't. And it'd take some pretty hefty interference to prevent the signal from getting through.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']there isn't??[/quote]
haha with the way people are talking on here about how blu rays are expensive you'd think they didn't realize that you don't have to buy all BR's when the PS3 has an upconverting dvd player too.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']The bottom line is, the signal will either go through and work perfectly, or it won't. Unless you're running a really, really long piece of cable with a bunch of other cables carrying really high current, interference isn't something you'll ever have to worry about.

See, with analog video, it did matter; interference could cause slight picture quality problems. But with digital video, there is no varying quality; either the signal gets through, or it doesn't. And it'd take some pretty hefty interference to prevent the signal from getting through.[/QUOTE]

Ok I didn't really think their was a need for expinsive cables atleast not unless you were running a theater. Even if one was to use a long cable they could always use a repeter. If I remember right them are what they use to bost the signal over a long distance isnt it? Anyway all that would be a lot for normal home use.
 
yeah i'm just gonna plan on waiting for the black friday ads. hopefully they have blu-ray or good dvd play for cheap
 
[quote name='sendme']Ok I didn't really think their was a need for expinsive cables atleast not unless you were running a theater.[/quote]
You mean like, a real movie theater? They don't use the same kind of equipment as we do at home...

Even if one was to use a long cable they could always use a repeter. If I remember right them are what they use to bost the signal over a long distance isnt it? Anyway all that would be a lot for normal home use.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there are repeaters and things like that. Really not necessary for home use.
 
[quote name='HowStern']haha with the way people are talking on here about how blu rays are expensive you'd think they didn't realize that you don't have to buy all BR's when the PS3 has an upconverting dvd player too.[/quote]

I was told the PS3 does not upconvert DVDs but I know when I watched "Always Sunny" on the PS3 it looked a lot better than when I play it through my Xbox 360
 
[quote name='DestroVega']I was told the PS3 does not upconvert DVDs but I know when I watched "Always Sunny" on the PS3 it looked a lot better than when I play it through my Xbox 360[/quote]

Yep they added it in FW update 1.80
It upconverts to full 1080p
 
[quote name='Demolition Man']The LG BH-200 can be easily region hacked for Bluray titles plus can handle PAL to NTSC as well. So I can't imagine region free being the reason why Oppo wouldn't do a Blu/HD player at this point of time. My guess is more of cost reasons and lack of demand for said unit at this time. But who knows..... I'd love to see Oppo do a sweet Blu/HD/SACD/DVD-A/DVD unit. I'd buy one for sure. :drool:[/quote]
Wow i never knew that was possible might have to try it out.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']I was told the PS3 does not upconvert DVDs but I know when I watched "Always Sunny" on the PS3 it looked a lot better than when I play it through my Xbox 360[/QUOTE]

The 360 does upscaling just fine.

Do you guys really understand what "upscale" or "upconvert" means? Look, open a picture on your computer, and zoom in on it. That's what upscaling is, just for video. Anytime you watch an SD DVD movie on an HDTV, and the image is not surrounded by black bars on all four sides, then it's being upscaled. Either by your DVD player or game console, or by the TV itself. Upscaling is not a fancy feature. Seriously.

An HDTV has a fixed number of pixels (either 1920x1080 or 1280x720). They cannot actually physically change their display resolution, like a CRT. A DVD image is fixed at 640x480 pixels. For it to fill up the screen, those 640x480 pixels must be stretched/"upscaled" to fill those 1920x1080 or 1280x720 pixels. If you send it a 640x480 source image, then it will probably stretch that image up on it's own. Consoles and DVD players that "upscale" the image on their own are doing something that the TV could, and would have to do, on it's own. They're just doing it's work for it.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']DVD? Blu-ray? Neither. Laserdisc, my friends. It's making a comback.[/QUOTE]

i agree laserdisc is making a comeback! i love mine and will never get rid of them.

as for the actual topic of the thread, upscaling does not output to 1080p, it just cant. thats like buying a smart car and stretching it to the size of a van and saying you have a van. that would be adding something to the film on the dvd and that just isnt possible. upscaling is a nice feature, and yes it does make regular dvds look a little better (this is all coming from a ps3 user) but it is no substitue for actual high definition. the op need to figure out wether they want to get by with an upconverting dvd player of if they actually want high definition.

there is a price difference so i understand that and that is why i only recently joined the high definition era, didnt have the extra cash. there are some good deals right now on blu-ray players. like the $100 gift card on ps3 that some stores have or the amazon deal, that should be in this forum and opposed to gaming, where you buy a specific player and 4 blu discs from a list and $100 off. if the op pays attention between now and black friday they can probably get a nice setup, with blu ray, for under $1000. if that is too much remeber that the big box store offer interest free financing for anywhere between 12 and 36 months. so really what they get is all depending on how much is too expensive for them.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']DVD? Blu-ray? Neither. Laserdisc, my friends. It's making a comback.[/QUOTE]

You know, they still had movies being released on Laserdisc in Japan until 2002, I believe.
 
whats making me want to jump on the Blu bandwagon is that every big movie now seems to have a barebones release for around $15 and a special edition for around $23. so for just a couple bucks more i could get all the special features (some blu exclusive ones too) and also get better sound and picture by picking up the blu release. hopefully i can pick up a player on black friday.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']The 360 does upscaling just fine.

Do you guys really understand what "upscale" or "upconvert" means? Look, open a picture on your computer, and zoom in on it. That's what upscaling is, just for video. Anytime you watch an SD DVD movie on an HDTV, and the image is not surrounded by black bars on all four sides, then it's being upscaled. Either by your DVD player or game console, or by the TV itself. Upscaling is not a fancy feature. Seriously.

An HDTV has a fixed number of pixels (either 1920x1080 or 1280x720). They cannot actually physically change their display resolution, like a CRT. A DVD image is fixed at 640x480 pixels. For it to fill up the screen, those 640x480 pixels must be stretched/"upscaled" to fill those 1920x1080 or 1280x720 pixels. If you send it a 640x480 source image, then it will probably stretch that image up on it's own. Consoles and DVD players that "upscale" the image on their own are doing something that the TV could, and would have to do, on it's own. They're just doing it's work for it.[/quote]

It doesn't stretch the image out, actually.To put it simply it guesses what information is in each pixel as best it can and adds more of the same pixels around it.
1080P_upConversion.jpg

Like say you have a red pixel, it will add red pixels all around it. This can lead to jaggies sometimes but overall a sharper cleaner picture.

But yeah some tv's have better upscalers than dvd players. So, like you said it would be best to elt the TV do it on certain occasions. Depends on the player.
Like destrovega said I've noticed the PS3 does a much cleaner job of it than the 360. Another thing is that 360s without hdmi or vga hook ups will only do 480p due to DRM not being able to go through component.

I bet there will be some good deals on BR players on BF. I saw an ad for a phillips one going for $250 earlier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='HowStern']It doesn't stretch the image out, actually.To put it simply it guesses what information is in each pixel as best it can and adds more of the same pixels around it.[/quote]
LOLOLOL. O rly?

I'm pretty sure I understand the concept of image resampling, mmkay?
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']The 360 does upscaling just fine.

Do you guys really understand what "upscale" or "upconvert" means? Look, open a picture on your computer, and zoom in on it. That's what upscaling is, just for video. Anytime you watch an SD DVD movie on an HDTV, and the image is not surrounded by black bars on all four sides, then it's being upscaled. Either by your DVD player or game console, or by the TV itself. Upscaling is not a fancy feature. Seriously.

An HDTV has a fixed number of pixels (either 1920x1080 or 1280x720). They cannot actually physically change their display resolution, like a CRT. A DVD image is fixed at 640x480 pixels. For it to fill up the screen, those 640x480 pixels must be stretched/"upscaled" to fill those 1920x1080 or 1280x720 pixels. If you send it a 640x480 source image, then it will probably stretch that image up on it's own. Consoles and DVD players that "upscale" the image on their own are doing something that the TV could, and would have to do, on it's own. They're just doing it's work for it.[/QUOTE]

DVD resolution is 720x480, not 640x480. And the native resolution on the panel on many LCD and plasma HDTVs are other than 1920x1080 or 1280x720. My 52" 1080p Toshiba LCD in my living room has a native 1920x1080 resolution, but my 42" 720p Samsung plasma in my bedroom has a native 1024x768 resolution. The Olevia 23" 720p LCD in my son's bedroom has a native 1366x768 resolution, and the Element 19" 720p LCD in my daughter's bedroom has a native 1440x900 (16x10) resolution, which is more typical for a PC monitor than an HDTV.

Regarding the OP's original question, if you want the best picture and sound quality (assuming you have the right audio gear to handle it), Blu-ray is your choice. While upconverted SD DVDs can look very good, I've not seen one that can touch the quality of even middle-of-the-road transfers on Blu-ray. When I was format neutral before HD DVD died, I had an HD DVD player (HD-A1) that was considered among the best at SD DVD upconversion, and I A/B'ed several SD DVDs and HD DVDs to see how much difference there was. What I found was that, for a transfer of similar quality between the SD and HD versions, there is still a noticeable improvement in picture quality with the HD disc format.

The size of your HDTV will usually also play a part in how much perceived improvement you see in an upconverted SD DVD vs. a Blu-ray. In general, the bigger the TV, the more difference you'll notice. On a 32" or smaller TV, you probably won't notice as much improvement for Blu-ray as you will on a 40" or larger HDTV.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='msu89dawgs']The Olevia 23" 720p LCD in my son's bedroom has a native 1366x768 resolution, and the Element 19" 720p LCD in my daughter's bedroom has a native 1440x900 (16x10) resolution, which is more typical for a PC monitor than an HDTV.
[/QUOTE]

look who plays favorites :)

just playin, one was probably cheaper at the time.
 
[quote name='Animal7390']look who plays favorites :)

just playin, one was probably cheaper at the time.[/QUOTE]

But I did get the HDTV for my daughter's room first, and she has an HD DirecTV DVR for hers, whereas my son still has an SD DVR. So, it balances out. (I'm trying to rationalize here, so the parental guilt doesn't kick in....)
 
If money is a problem, the ps3 is gonna be pretty expensive for a while. You can probably pick up a blu-ray player for under $200 easily this Xmas and it will do as good a job upconverting any dvds as most $50-$100 dvd upconverters will. The thing about the standalones is that disc load times tend to be long and some people have had issues with certain discs in certain players (at least until the firmware was upgraded) and firmware upgrades can be a PITA (having to burn your own CD of the upgrade).
 
[quote name='msu89dawgs']But I did get the HDTV for my daughter's room first, and she has an HD DirecTV DVR for hers, whereas my son still has an SD DVR. So, it balances out. (I'm trying to rationalize here, so the parental guilt doesn't kick in....)[/QUOTE]

Good lord. My parents would have never let me have a TV in my room. You're hooking them up.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']LOLOLOL. O rly?

I'm pretty sure I understand the concept of image resampling, mmkay?[/quote]

If it just "stretched it out", like you said, the image would look worse. mmkay?
 
[quote name='msu89dawgs']But I did get the HDTV for my daughter's room first, and she has an HD DirecTV DVR for hers, whereas my son still has an SD DVR. So, it balances out. (I'm trying to rationalize here, so the parental guilt doesn't kick in....)[/QUOTE]

well at least you balance it out.
 
I've noticed something major here....EVERYONE IS EQUATING THE PS3 AS THE ONLY BLURAY PLAYER!

DO YOU HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN BLU-RAY???? It's hilarious how almost every post is "Get a PS3!" and not "get a stand-alone player, you know, like normal people who watch movies"

Now, there's two ways to look at this; PS3 is the best blu-ray player (more than likely is) so you want the man to have the best at a ho-hum price (340 to watch high def movies plus 20+ dollars per title doesn't seem like a real winner!)

OR

No other blu-ray player is even legibility affordable or better than the PS3 and the blu-ray format is in danger that you have to sell a man a video game console just to enjoy a movie. That's teh way I see it! If I gotta buy a PS3 for affordibility and the best features just to watch a movie....then I might not even need to venture into blu-ray!


My advice: just get a good upconverting dvd player and keep it moving! I'm going to be real...I used to rent movies all the time earlier in the year from netflix and throw them in the ps3. I didn't see a mindblowing difference compared to regular dvd. I bet if I had the super blown out 1080 65inch TV with every feature undre the sun like everyone on the internet claims to have (hahaha) I'd see a huge difference.
 
some decent movies in this deal and from what i have researched the cheaper of the 2 stand alone players is really good. so for around 260 you can get some really good titles and a standalone player. you could also wait till bf and get the player itself for 180 which to keep cost down up front might be a very good deal.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html?ie=UTF8&plgroup=3&tag=3230c-20&docId=1000302301

also, this is 200 on bf and 203 shipped from amazon now.
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-BD-P1...?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1226338853&sr=8-1#
 
[quote name='strongpimphand']I've noticed something major here....EVERYONE IS EQUATING THE PS3 AS THE ONLY BLURAY PLAYER!

DO YOU HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN BLU-RAY???? It's hilarious how almost every post is "Get a PS3!" and not "get a stand-alone player, you know, like normal people who watch movies"
[/quote]

Well, the firmware updates are a huge part of it. You can buy a stand-alone player for $250 and have it never get upgraded. One day you might buy a movie and realize it won't play in your $250 player because it requires a FW update. Or you can get a PS3 for $300 (if you look around for a deal) and have constant FW updates available keeping it as up to date as even the most expensive blu ray players out there.
 
[quote name='msu89dawgs']DVD resolution is 720x480, not 640x480.[/quote]
Well, 720x480 is the max, but DVD video can be encoded natively at lower resolutions (such as 640x480...).

And the native resolution on the panel on many LCD and plasma HDTVs are other than 1920x1080 or 1280x720. My 52" 1080p Toshiba LCD in my living room has a native 1920x1080 resolution, but my 42" 720p Samsung plasma in my bedroom has a native 1024x768 resolution. The Olevia 23" 720p LCD in my son's bedroom has a native 1366x768 resolution, and the Element 19" 720p LCD in my daughter's bedroom has a native 1440x900 (16x10) resolution, which is more typical for a PC monitor than an HDTV.
Click to expand...

I know. I'm trying to not make this any more complicated than it has to be, because it seems like many people turn into turn into complete morons when you try to explain home-video concepts to them (digital video, upscaling/resampling, aspect ratio, letterboxing, etc).

[quote name='HowStern']If it just "stretched it out", like you said, the image would look worse. mmkay?[/QUOTE]
Uh, except it is just stretched out. What other term do you want to use to refer to the process of taking an image of a lower resolution, and enlarging it to fill a higher resolution (without enhancing the definition)?

And whether or not you think it looks "worse," it sure as hell doesn't look any better. You can't add detail or definition to an image that wasn't already there. I can't believe there is any debate about how much ass HD video kicks. I guess I have to use another visual aid here.

Okay, let's look at some screens of the Tinkerbell movie (IT'S THE ONLY MOVIE I HAVE ON HAND IN BOTH SD AND HD, OKAY) that just came out. These were captured directly from the DVD and Blu-Rays.

Here's a screen in SD DVD resolution:
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3246/tinksdig9.png

Here's that screen "upscaled" to 1080p (this is the same "upscaling" that a PS3 or 360 or upscaling DVD player will do):
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/7366/27298gr5.jpg

And here's the same scene, in true 1080p, from the Blu-Ray:
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9671/tink1080tc9.jpg

HD kicks ass. Upscaling sucks. If you have an HDTV and aren't watching HD movies, you're wasting that TV. Case closed.
 
Yeah, I really have to ask people who "Don't care" to watch Blu-Rays on thier HDTV just cause the TV size they got ended up being HD... why bother pay your cable company for the HD package then? watch everything in SD if it doesn't matter.

I bet there are actually people with an HDTV that watch only SD programming channels. Which is just crazy.
 
Coffee, I totally agree HD image is way better. I'm an HD snob now. I can't watch things in regular definition half the time. But upconversion does at least add repeated pixels around the original source images pixels. It does stretch it out, yeah, but it also does some filling to make it look cleaner. This can make it look worse or better depending on the processor used. But there's no question HD video is the way to go on HDtv.
 
[quote name='HowStern']But upconversion does at least add repeated pixels around the original source images pixels. It does stretch it out, yeah, but it also does some filling to make it look cleaner.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the proper term is "resampling," FYI.

I don't like the term "upconvert," because it's obviously a marketing term which manufacturers hope will make consumers think that such players "convert" their DVDs to "near-HD quality," as the boxes on cheap upconverting DVD players often advertise...
 
they often advertise full 1080p conversion which boggle my mind.

marketing and advertising, making people dumber since the beginning.
 
I bought a standalone Blu-ray profile 1.1 player (the cheaper Magnavox at Wal-Mart) for $198 since it loads faster than the low-end Sony Blu-ray being sold at Target and WM right now.

I contemplated on the PS3 mainly because of the profile 2.0 but at this time and for the BD-Live discs but I don't mind waiting a little longer for the next PS3 that will be over 100+GB of disk space.

But I will tell you right now, I have not stopped purchasing DVD's because I have Blu-ray. Mainly for price and I realize that for me, I want to be selective for what I purchase for Blu-ray.

Like being a cheap ass gamer...I'm also cheap ass when it comes to my DVD/Blu-ray purchases. Unless it's a Blu-ray I reall really want, the only Blu-ray that I'm getting are what the companies send me to review or awesome releases that I can find under $19.99. Better yet $14.99 or under.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']I bet there are actually people with an HDTV that watch only SD programming channels. Which is just crazy.[/QUOTE]

This is not a joke: for the past 6 months I have had an antenna on top of my HDTV getting only free over the air digital signals. Though, at the start of the new year, I am going to go back to cable (my cable company includes around 28 HD channels for free with standard cable) and I'll probably get an HD-DVR as well. BUT, this has been a big step for me. Still to this day, I can barely justify the price of cable, even with an HDTV, especially when over the air signals are more abundant and clear now that digital has come around.
 
Video, video, video.

If people actually cared about audio, then there'd be no argument to begin with.

Actually, I might have to take that back---apparently, there are some people who can't tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and 24-bit PCM.
 
[quote name='Megalith']Video, video, video.

If people actually cared about audio, then there'd be no argument to begin with.

Actually, I might have to take that back---apparently, there are some people who can't tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and 24-bit PCM.[/QUOTE]

Hear, hear (no pun intended). I have a lot more money invested in my audio components than I do in the video part of my HT. Having TrueHD, DTS-HD Master, and LPCM lossless audio tracks available on Blu-ray is huge to me. The best lossless audio tracks for Blu-rays are much more immersive, fuller and more detailed than their DD or DTS counterparts on DVD.

I'll still have to concede that the visual superiority of Blu-ray is still much more noticeable over DVD than the audio component, especially on less capable surround sound systems. I guess it's like having a larger TV or a projector; the improvement in quality is easier to see, or in this case, to hear.
 
[quote name='Legolas813']This is not a joke: for the past 6 months I have had an antenna on top of my HDTV getting only free over the air digital signals. Though, at the start of the new year, I am going to go back to cable (my cable company includes around 28 HD channels for free with standard cable) and I'll probably get an HD-DVR as well. BUT, this has been a big step for me. Still to this day, I can barely justify the price of cable, even with an HDTV, especially when over the air signals are more abundant and clear now that digital has come around.[/QUOTE]

Not quite the same, if you're getting HD digital OTA programming with an antenna it's still HD programming. (and usually looks better than the overly recompressed crap the cable/sat companies shoot out claiming to be "hd")
 
[quote name='kndy']I contemplated on the PS3 mainly because of the profile 2.0 but at this time and for the BD-Live discs but I don't mind waiting a little longer for the next PS3 that will be over 100+GB of disk space.
[/QUOTE]

Don't let the
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
When Bluray players get in the $150-200 range for a decent one and discs are launching at $15-20 like DVDs I'll think about taking the plunge.[/QUOTE]

Well, just ordered the Sony BDP S350 for $150 with free shipping from www.sonystyle.com (use "DISCOVER50BR" for $50--credit to slick deals).

I won't be buying many discs until prices come down, but I can at least start getting blu rays from Netflix. Will definitely buy The Dark Knight on Blu Ray in a couple weeks though!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well, just ordered the Sony BDP S350 for $150 with free shipping from www.sonystyle.com (use "DISCOVER50BR" for $50--credit to slick deals).

I won't be buying many discs until prices come down, but I can at least start getting blu rays from Netflix. Will definitely buy The Dark Knight on Blu Ray in a couple weeks though![/quote]

Good for you man! I just read through this whole thread today, and I do think people get defensive about their position...whether it's "gotta be Blu-Ray!" or "DVD is good enough!" It always comes back to cost though. Obviously, with all things equal, EVERYBODY would love to have the best available entertainment experience. But if it's more than you want to spend, there's nothing wrong with holding out.

But to the rigid DVD defenders preaching the low cost of their beloved format; do you not think you have Blu-Ray/HD-DVD to thank for that a little bit? Anybody remember what happened to the price of VHS when DVD was making its way in? DVD is an old format that is slowly being grown out of. It's just the nature of technology and progression. They're not selling you these DVDs for cheap because they care about your feelings.

And people who called you crazy for having an HDTV but not an HD player...well, it's gotta start somewhere guys. What about the people who play 360 or PS3 on an SDTV? Is that not just as crazy? People do what they have to do. Having been an early adopter of Blu-Ray (I bought a PS3 at $500 and have about 30 BRs), I'm encouraged by the lower prices this holiday season. It all starts with the players.

Companies have to show people how accessible this new (and better) format is before people will care about it. They also need to address the "buying your library all over again" misconception and focus on the fact that it will play your old DVDs. This is a HUGE difference from the VHS to DVD transition. Going from DVD to Blu-Ray doesn't make your old movies worthless. It just gives you a better choice for new releases...and the OPTION of upgrading your old movies. There should be a huge sign in every store's electronics department hammering home that point to people.

I've read articles talking about Blu-Ray being the next Laserdisc player, but I just don't see how that could be possible once everything comes together. The next year (possibly 2 because of the horrible economy) will show a big shift in living room entertainment. February 17th, 2009 will jumpstart it when analog broadcasting ends. Sure, people can get "the box" to allow their old TVs to work, but with prices continuing to fall, the accessibility of HDTVs will be greater than ever.

Once HDTVs occupy more homes, the prices of Blu-Ray players and discs will drop, and they will follow suit. I can't comprehend why people think there is some kind of imaginary grudge against Blu-Ray. Right now, it's expensive. That's the only problem I see. And that's changing every day.
 
I would go for Blu-Ray... DVD size 4.7gb Double Layer 8gb

Blu-Ray
A single-layer disc can hold 25GB.
A dual-layer disc can hold 50GB.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']#-o[/QUOTE]

Yeah, exactly.

Also, to the original poster-no amount of upcoverting actually adds any detail. It's still standard definition-roughly 1/7th the picture quality.

And you don't need a special DVD player to upscale...you need a good TV with a good scaler in it. Or for that matter, a PS3 or 360 can upscale too, depending on the interface used. But personally I want to see stuff in HD, even if the DVD version is a bit cheaper.
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']
But to the rigid DVD defenders preaching the low cost of their beloved format; do you not think you have Blu-Ray/HD-DVD to thank for that a little bit? Anybody remember what happened to the price of VHS when DVD was making its way in? DVD is an old format that is slowly being grown out of. It's just the nature of technology and progression. They're not selling you these DVDs for cheap because they care about your feelings.
[/quote]

Can't totally agree with that. DVDs were pretty damn cheap back as early as 1999 to 2000 when I really got into them and started buying. They were very aggressive in getting prices down and making the format take off.

We haven't seen that with Blu Ray on a large scale yet. Right now prices on players are great for Black Friday, but disc prices still aren't great. I've been looking for some deals today and can't find anything to buy as everything I'd consider is at least $15 and just isn't a purchase at that price for me.

But given I own 300+ DVDs and off the top of my head I've watched one of them over the past 3 months I probably shouldn't be buying movies anyway and just sticking with Netflix!

I've read articles talking about Blu-Ray being the next Laserdisc player, but I just don't see how that could be possible once everything comes together. The next year (possibly 2 because of the horrible economy) will show a big shift in living room entertainment. February 17th, 2009 will jumpstart it when analog broadcasting ends. Sure, people can get "the box" to allow their old TVs to work, but with prices continuing to fall, the accessibility of HDTVs will be greater than ever.
Click to expand...

I don't see that move having any impact one way or the other as it only affects people who watch locals through an antenna, and those people aren't buying a Blu Ray player (or an HDTV) anytime soon. It has no effect on the majority of people watching with cable or satellite.

That said, I don't think BR will be Laserdisc, but I do think it will remain more of a niche product and DVD will stick around just like CDs have. I hope I'm wrong, but unless they keep player prices in the $150-200 range and get new release discs down to $20 soon with catalog titles for $10-15 it's going to be a tough battle as most people (myself included) don't care enough about a/v quality to pay extra for it.

Unless it's a movie with lot of special effects/eye candy I'm not going to drop $25-30 on the Blu Ray if I can get the DVD for $10-15 despite owning (soon) a BR player. But if the prices are equal or close then the BR is of course a no brainer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it all really comes down to the hardware you're going to be using. I have a 32 inch no name brand HDTV and old ass Sony home theater speakers. The difference between Blu Ray discs through my PS3 and upconverted DVDs through my Panasonic player is minimal at best. I'm sticking with DVD until I can afford better equipment and I figure the price of BRs will have dropped by then.

Also it depends on your buying habits. If all you like to buy is brand new stuff then the price difference between DVD and BR isn't that much. I personally purchase most of my DVDs used from Blockbuster and Hollywood video on a regular basis because they sell a huge chunk of their stock of new releases within a few weeks for like 2 for $20, 3 for $20, or if you wait like a month or two then it's 4 for $20. I barely see any BRs in their used for sale section and they aren't that much cheaper than new ones anyway. The condition of my discs are either mint or really good and they have a guarantee on them if they don't work if you happen to get a crap one.

If you plan on getting a super sweet setup though with a large screen and good speakers then by all means go with Blu Ray and just keep your eyes peeled for deals and sales on the discs, especially on Amazon.
 
[quote name='biggoronspaceship']If you plan on getting a super sweet setup though with a large screen and good speakers then by all means go with Blu Ray and just keep your eyes peeled for deals and sales on the discs, especially on Amazon.[/quote]

This is basically me. I've got a 50" Toshiba, and many of my blu-rays I obtained from Gamestop's B2G1/B2G2/etc. Others I've gotten deals on through Amazon, Tower, FYE, etc.

It takes a really damn good movie to make me pay $25 for it (hello Dark Knight!). And even when I do pay $25, it's usually not $25 cash value. I usually have credit from different sites/promotions/offers online so my out of pocket expense is usually cut in half.
 
[quote name='biggoronspaceship']
Also it depends on your buying habits. If all you like to buy is brand new stuff then the price difference between DVD and BR isn't that much.[/QUOTE]

I can't agree with that. DVDs are usually on sale week 1 for $14-17, while the Blu Rays are usually $25-30.

Then you get to the catalog titles and sales on them. Lots of places had DVDs for $2-6 for black friday, for instance, while Blu Ray sales were mostly $15 with a pretty limited selection at that price. In generally it's easy to find new DVDs for $5-10 if you wait a few months, while people still get excited for buy one get one free $30 Blu Rays.

There's a premium on Blu Ray disc prices across the board--from launch to catalog titles to the used market.

It just varies from person to person whether that premium is worth it. I'm not much of a videophile, so it's only worth it for absolute must buy movies with a lot of eye candy like The Dark Knight.

But I've gotten very picky about what I buy anyway, since as noted above I seldom watch any of the 300+ DVDs I already have. So going forward I'll probably just only buy what I want enough to play Blu Ray prices for and just netflix anything else. So in the end of the day, the disc prices don't bother me much as if nothing else they'll keep me from impulse buying movies I won't watch enough to justify owning!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I can't agree with that. DVDs are usually on sale week 1 for $14-17, while the Blu Rays are usually $25-30.[/quote]

Ya know, the more I read from you, the more I think you're just an argumentative person with an extremely biased opinion. I will grant you that, on the whole, DVDs are generally cheaper. But you make it sound as though it is impossible to find a new release blu-ray for a comparable price. I've pre-ordered and bought multiple blu-rays for $19.99 as soon as they came out. As mentioned before, you have to know where to look (Amazon, Tower, FYE, etc.).

Go look at Amazon right now.
WALL-E: 3 disc standard definition special edition: $22.99
WALL-E: 3 disc blu-ray special edition: $24.99.
THE DARK KNIGHT: 2 disc standard definition special edition: $20.99
THE DARK KNIGHT: blu-ray (I think it's actually 2 discs, but it doesn't say it...regardless, it's the same content): $23.99

Where are these massive differences you're talking about? Sure, I guess if you bought the barebones edition of each DVD, you'd pay around $15. I guess therein lies the rub. When you buy blu-ray, you don't have the option of not purchasing the special features.

But this isn't a problem for me because I only buy movies I really liked on blu-ray and I want as much extra stuff from them as possible. Hell, for Judd Apatow comedies, sometimes the special features (deleted scenes, gag reel, line-o-rama, etc.) are better than the movie!

[quote name='dmaul1114']Then you get to the catalog titles and sales on them. Lots of places had DVDs for $2-6 for black friday, for instance, while Blu Ray sales were mostly $15 with a pretty limited selection at that price. In generally it's easy to find new DVDs for $5-10 if you wait a few months, while people still get excited for buy one get one free $30 Blu Rays.

There's a premium on Blu Ray disc prices across the board--from launch to catalog titles to the used market.[/quote]

I think this is also pretty biased (not to mention misinformed). At this point, DVDs can be sold for $2 because they're ridiculously cheap to make. At the same time, usually the movies in that section have lost their demand or had very little to begin with. There ARE blu-rays that fall into this category.

The positive side of blu-rays staying expensive is you get more of your money back if you choose to sell them. In that regard, it makes them no different than DVDs. You're just operating on a different scale.

[quote name='dmaul1114']It just varies from person to person whether that premium is worth it. I'm not much of a videophile, so it's only worth it for absolute must buy movies with a lot of eye candy like The Dark Knight.

But I've gotten very picky about what I buy anyway, since as noted above I seldom watch any of the 300+ DVDs I already have. So going forward I'll probably just only buy what I want enough to play Blu Ray prices for and just netflix anything else. So in the end of the day, the disc prices don't bother me much as if nothing else they'll keep me from impulse buying movies I won't watch enough to justify owning![/quote]

Wait. I get to the end and now you're happy that blu-ray prices are high because it will help you show more self restraint??? You seem to have a little bit of internal conflict going on man. I guess if you're used to buying movies on a whim, then yeah, going blu would really hurt your finances. Otherwise, yeah, it's simple: buy what's worth it.
 
I just personally am not going to put up with the DVD versions of things if there's a Blu Ray version. I mean if something is worth watching, it's wroth a little more to see it with massively better picture quality. Ditto for online services for that matter. I don't really use Netflix's streaming service because when I've started a film I want to watch, I realize I'd much rather watch it on DVD (or of course Blu Ray if it's available).

Universal needs to get off their behind though and release Blu Ray versions of Battlestar Galactica and the Borne movies though :whistle2:D
 
[quote name='n8rockerasu']
Where are these massive differences you're talking about? Sure, I guess if you bought the barebones edition of each DVD, you'd pay around $15. I guess therein lies the rub. When you buy blu-ray, you don't have the option of not purchasing the special features.
[/quote]

Yeah I quit buying SEs years ago as I never watch extra features so it's a waste of money. So it was always the $15 new release, or waiting to grab the barebones DVD for $5 later on. I have little time to watch movies and I can't bring myself to waste it on extras when I could be watching a movie.

So Blu Rays are definitely much pricier to someone like me who just bought the occasional barebone DVD release week and more often waited for sales in the $5-10 range.

I think this is also pretty biased (not to mention misinformed). At this point, DVDs can be sold for $2 because they're ridiculously cheap to make. At the same time, usually the movies in that section have lost their demand or had very little to begin with. There ARE blu-rays that fall into this category.
Click to expand...

I understand why Blurays are more expensive, I've just not willing to pay the premium for most movies. For instance, for a comedy I couldn't care less if it's in standard def or high def. Added resolution doesn't make it any funnier! :D. But I'll pay the extra for a movie full of eye candy and special effects where I care more about the video quality. Other's are videophiles and only want to watch the best looking version of every film. To each their own.

Wait. I get to the end and now you're happy that blu-ray prices are high because it will help you show more self restraint??? You seem to have a little bit of internal conflict going on man. I guess if you're used to buying movies on a whim, then yeah, going blu would really hurt your finances. Otherwise, yeah, it's simple: buy what's worth it.
Click to expand...

No internal conflict, just getting ready to move this summer and looking at my 300+ DVDs on the shelf and realizing I've probably watched 10-15 of them in the past of the year as I've mainly just watched stuff frome Netflix. And being busy as hell with work and finishing up my Ph D a lot of times my Netflix rental sits for a week or two before getting watched.

So I was just saying that I'm not that annoyed about the prices as I've stopped buying movies for the most part anyway. Probably bought 3-5 DVDs in the past year. Whereas I'd be very annoyed if I was still buying movies on a whim like I did with DVDs from say 1998-2004/2005 when I started slowing down.

With the little time I spend watching my movie library renting just makes more sense for me, and I need to go to that and work on paring down my DVD collection to just the stuff I will actually watch again. Again, with the limited time, I generally would rather watch something I haven't seen rather than re-watch something.

As such, the point of this rambling is that at least the higher blu ray prices are another barrier to giving in and buying something on a whim that I'll watch once and never touch again!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']As such, the point of this rambling is that at least the higher blu ray prices are another barrier to giving in a buying something on a whim that I'll watch once and never touch again![/quote]

Totally understandable. I can definitely see where you're coming from now. Once you add all the special features on to the improved video and audio, you're paying for A LOT that, personally, you don't need.

For me, personally, I enjoy the extra stuff. I even watched the BD Live features on my "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" blu-ray. Seeing Russell Brand's audition was worth the price alone!

Regardless of all this jibber jabber we've been engaging in, haha, I think you'll enjoy the hell out of The Dark Knight on blu-ray once you get it! That's really the endgame for anybody. Buy what you'll get the most enjoyment out of. :)
 
Yeah I can't wait to pick up The Dark Knight next week, and to start getting some Blu Rays from Netflix. Definitely looking forward to getting my player even though I don't plan on buying a lot of Blu Ray discs anytime soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top