Did Blu-Ray win?

[Echolocating]

Blu-Ray movies are practically twice the cost of regular DVD movies. That alone will keep me from adopting the new format.

 

[EnzoHonda]

I'm going go with a few people here and say that the various downloadable and on-demand stuff is going to take over.

I've recently been using my local cable companies' on-demand service and I love it. I can be watching a movie in ten seconds. I haven't looked at online stuff yet, but as soon as it's easy (it probably is already, but I'm lazy) to order a movie on my PC and play it on my TV, I'll be doing that.

The big benefit I see is being able to have every movie imaginable instantly available. It sucks that there are still so many movies that are impossible to find.

Still, I'll probably end up with a few Blu-Rays because I'll eventually buy a PS3.

 

[Sniper_Zegai]

When people ask "Did Blu-Ray win?" 9/10 they mean "Did Sony win?" and given the fact there are 197 other companies selling Blu-Ray I would'nt say yes.

But if you would ask if I think Blu-Ray is going to replace DVD as the medium of choice. Then my answer would be no. DVD's are crisp, clear and most importantly cheap.

Its just not realistic to expect people to buy a HD-TV just to enjoy Blu-Ray which are in the price range of 30-40 GBP, when DVD's are around 5-10 GBP for your average movie. Something tells me that people wont be that interested in replacing their entire DVD collections with a considerably more expensive counterpart that is only better by a small percentage.

Let me put it to you this way, will Clerks 2 become any funnier in HD? will The Fountain or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind become more tragic or moving in HD? The answer to both is no. And thats the way most people view Blu-Ray, even people who own HD-TV's.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Something tells me that people wont be that interested in replacing their entire DVD collections with a considerably more expensive counterpart that is only better by a small percentage.

No matter how many times I've seen this conversation happen, someone has said something along the lines of the above. Yet, I've never actually seen anyone suggest that someone should replace their DVD collection.

You know what? Something tells me that people won't be that interested in sticking their head in a meat grinder, either.

As far as whether Blu-ray "won," it depends on how you define the win-condition. They outlasted HD DVD. We've yet to see whether they (and by they, I mean all manufacturers of BD devices, not just Sony, but Sony most of all) will recoup their investments and turn a profit. This largely depends on HDTV adoption rates, Blu-ray market penetration, and how soon the next big thing comes around. I see a lot of people saying that downloads will take over before Blu-ray, but in terms of HD, no download service as of right now is exactly up to par with a Blu-ray disc. You also have an on-going battle between content providers, service providers, and consumers, over fair usage of bandwidth. Downloadable movies may put enough pressure on the ISPs to quittheirbitchin', but maybe, ISPs will hamper the effort sufficiently to give some other portable medium time to become quick and cost effective (whether that's Blu-ray or flash, as others suggested above). On the same front, you have some percentage of the population that really hates DRM, and no expansive downloadable system is going to do without it, for the foreseeable future.

Now, whether HD is worth the extra trouble? Sort of a personal preference thing. I don't see widespread adoption for another 5-10 years (essentially the point where HD is the assumption, rather than the exception). Me? I'm really enjoying 1080p on a 55" screen. I'm also really enjoying my Oppo for my existing DVDs. I like the newshiny stuff, but I also like to wait for it to be done cooking. On that front, I'm looking forward to buying a feature-complete Blu-ray player in the next year for less than $300.

@Khell_Sennet: While all B&M retailers are doing their best to rip people off when it comes to cabling, there are online sources (like monoprice) which have entirely reasonable prices (dare I say, *cheap*), and high build quality. Second, composite? I think you meant "component" and even then, HDMI all the way.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Downloadable content all the way. CDs are fast becoming irrelevant. As broadband speeds and hard-drive space increase, DVDs in all formats will become obsolete. Why trek to the shop to buy a game, or order it off Amazon and wait a couple of days for it to arrive, when you can download it straight to your drive. Blu-Ray may have won against HD-DVD, but I think the time of physical formats is coming to an end. Digital all the way, baby.

well ok downloadable content WILL be good when we get some good broadband speeds and north america is WAY behind the curve for that. cause i can download the 50 gig movie in 20 hours or drive to the store, spend $30 and get the movie on a disc, drive home and watch it in under an hour with a stop off at tim hortons for that sweet sweet coffee

bring ftth to north america and remove the isp's download caps and then blu-ray will be a less appealing option, till then dvd/blu-ray discs are way more easier and less time consuming

First of, spelling Microsoft M$ hasn't been funny for five years now.

Secondly, quiet you, we have another thread going on right now to discuss the console war, and it's nothing but a flame fest. We don't need it again.

it's no funny, it's truth calling them that

also the ps3 and 360 DO have something to do with this discussion as both were on either side of the format war, m$ was a backer of hd-dvd and well sony trumpted blu-ray

 

[tiredinnuendo]

Lolz. At 32" HD is pointless, no wonder you saw no difference.

HD isn't so much a method for increasing sharpness and clarity, as it is a method for stretching images to fit the new oversized TVs and still maintain normal clarity. It is simply increasing the resolution of the video/tv signal.

They were 1080p TVs. I forget what size, but bigger than 32 inch, because that's the one I eventually bought.

See bold. I'm thinking they were 42 or 48 or something. Can't remember now.

- J

 

[trinronin]

For myself, I ran the movie 300 and The Simpsons movie on DVD vs HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray on a 40 LCD tv. I thought that the Blu-Ray was indeed noticably better, especially on the animation. Insanely clear & crisp. But on the flipside, Lord of The Rings looked horrible on both HD-DVD & Blu-Ray, it was way better on the standard DVD format. So I'm guessing that there's still a ways to go, though I am happy with Blu-Ray...

 

[rayxofxsunshine]

I think that everyone's making very valid points. I'm a poor college student; if I have to choose between rent and a Blu-Ray player, well I'll take the money I save from not buying a Blu-Ray player and buy some more games for my Xbox 360 and cry to my parents for rent money that I won't get forcing myself to actually do some work for once.

I like the idea of movies going to solid-state memory devices. I think everyone can agree that disc purchases are getting lower and lower with all the available downloads out there - illegal or legit. I can solemnly admit that I haven't bought a disc for anything for over a year now; I've used resources like Amazon, iTunes, and various others to download content. I think downloadable content is amazing, but shouldn't be the only source of media. Heaven forbid I go crazy and buy a real meal somewhere and forget to pay my DSL bill, but if something like that happens, I want the option to be able to go rent/buy media of any kind. And I think there's a big demographic of people that don't download content (well. Semi-big) at all, i.e. my grandparents. I don't think they even know how to use e-mail properly. Alot of companies (and soap-boxers) forget about this demographic when it comes to converting to solely downloading.

 

[night_chrono]

I would have to agree that blu-ray and HD-DVD lost. Discs just don't cut it anymore, no matter how much storage you give them.

Radio Shack was selling 8 gig Sandisk cruzer for $60 a few weeks ago. I just got a 2 gig flash drive for FREE by buying ink at staples. Flash based storage is becoming so cheap and effective that its not going to be long till we see some kind of flash based movie player on the market.
I know that the TV's in gamestop that run all those annoying commercials read of some kind of flash media. I think it is Compact Flash. So the tech is out there.

Netflix has the download and watch thing which I find to be very convenient. I haven't tried amazons download service yet, but I would imagine that it is pretty good.

And what happens in 6 or 7 years? Are we going to get Super Blu-Ray at 1800p? I remember when 720 was HD. A format war now is just ensuring a format war latter.

If things move to downloads then there will never have to be a format change. Maybe some new codecs come along but thats not a big deal. As long as you get the .avi's (or whatever file it would end up being) it would work.

 

[Geoffrey42]

And what happens in 6 or 7 years? Are we going to get Super Blu-Ray at 1800p? I remember when 720 was HD. A format war now is just ensuring a format war latter.

1080p+720p = 1800p, I guess?

Actually, the "next big thing" would be QuadHD. IE, 4 times the pixels of a 1920x1080p display (3840x2160). But, much like "HD" has been around for nearly a decade (couldn't find an exact date, ballparking), QuadHD is just being CeBITd and CESd last year. Also, you need to be either really close to your TV, or be using an absolutely ginormous TV at a regular distance, to get any benefit out of it (resolution of the human eye, and all that jazz). NTSC has been around since 1953. I expect 1080p to last at least 1/4 that long as the dominant format (once it actually gets around to being the dominant format).

@Darth Mobius: That's certainly a different perspective on how to make use of the capacity advantages of Blu-ray (over DVD), from what I typically see people saying. But, I don't think it'll happen. Retailer:"Buy the entire Bond on 4 Blu-ray discs, only $300 (Classic bond in SD, new Bond in HD)" Consumer: "Why would I pay that much for 4 discs, when you make me pay the same for 42 DVDs?" Retailer: "Because, silly, we're not charging you for the media, we're charging you for the content!"

Retailers are selling the whole Blu-ray thing to consumers on the basis of HD. "Here, buy this comparatively expensive player, so that I can sell you movies for nearly the same price, on fewer discs!" Doesn't exactly have a ring to it.

 

[[HD]Rob Inglis]

Until they come out with better discs or devices, Blu-ray will function nicely, but it is expensive, making it less likely to take over too soon.

 

[PsiMatrix]

Retailers are selling the whole Blu-ray thing to consumers on the basis of HD. "Here, buy this comparatively expensive player, so that I can sell you movies for nearly the same price, on fewer discs!" Doesn't exactly have a ring to it.

Exactly what I think. Given that HD has been on the cards for upwards of 15 years I think DVD has kinda pissed all over it.

The step-up from VHS to DVD was double the resolution and longer lasting media that was harder to corrupt; less perishable. The next step from DVD to HD just isn't much of a step visually. As said now we're just nit-picking and in my case it just isn't worth it unless my current hardware burns out and the cost difference is negligable