So about this Blu-Ray stuff....

[Neon Noodle]

Has anyone watched anything on Blu-Ray?

I just started seeing these pop up all over Best Buy and I read a little about them on www.wikipedia.com and it seems to me that they have a much easier chance of being damaged with the data being closer to the surface than a standard DVD.

But how is the picture & sound? Is it worth the price tag of $25-$35? Also, does it include the special features that most regular DVD's do?

I just wonder if they'll end up like the SUPERBIT DVD's.

[The Burgomaster]

Blu-Ray is curently competing with High-Definition DVD as "the future of DVDs."  (Sort of like the old Beta vs. VHS war that ended up with Beta videotapes and machines disappearing from the market).  You need special machines to play the Blu-Ray and High-Def discs (and they aren't compatible with each other, but my understanding is that both machines will play "standard" DVDs).  I wouldn't touch either system with a 10 foot pole until one clearly emerges as the winner.  By then, the prices of both the machines and the DVDs should be significantly lower than they are right now.

[Mr_Vindictive]

I'm with Burgo.  Stay well away, until one comes out as the winner.

I don't see the point in Blu-Ray or HDDVD just yet.  The only reason to own them is if you have an HD TV.  The discs are supposed to put out at a full 1080p but I have yet to see one myself to determine if that is correct or just a bunch of BS from the manufacturer.  

If I were to try and predict a winner, I'd say it's going to be HD-DVD.  You can buy a few HD-DVDs right now that will work in both a regular DVD player and a HD-DVD player.  You do have to look on the package to make sure that it is compatiable with both.  HD-DVD also came out a bit earlier than Blu-Ray.  Sony is counting on the new Playstation 3 to really push and sell the Blu-Ray format as it will have a built in BR drive.

[AndyC]

Kevin "Tom Servo" Murphy wrote a great article on this topic. Fits pretty well with my sentiments on the matter. Drives me nuts that these companies are already competing like hell to replace something that has only been around for a few years, and that we're all really happy with. I hate being told every few years that I should be dissatisfied with the last newer, better thing, even if it works just fine. And in this case, DVDs have barely become universal. VHS cassettes at least had a couple of decades to become obsolete, and they clearly do have problems when compared to DVDs. Anyway, here's Murphy's take on it:

http://www.ayearatthemovies.com/kwm_writings.htm

[Ash]

The Blu-Ray website lists these specs:
"The format provides five times larger capacity than today's DVDs, with unprecedented storage capacity of 25 GB (single-layer) and 50 GB (dual-layer)"

I can only imagine 10-20 years from now when discs have storage capacities in the terrabytes, we'll look at those specs and laugh our asses off.
The only thing I like about Blu-Ray is the name.
It sounds cool.
Other than that, I've invested too much to switch.

I predict HD DVD will win simply because it has the title "DVD" in it which is familiar.

[Jim H]

"competing like hell to replace something that has only been around for a few years"

Well, to be fair, DVDs are about 10 years old now.  Not nearly the 20 years VHS got and LaserDisc got, but hey.  Of course, DVD was only the mainstay for about 6 years or so.

"I can only imagine 10-20 years from now when discs have storage capacities in the terrabytes, we'll look at those specs and laugh our asses off. "

I wouldn't be suprised if we don't see higher capacity discs at all.  Something non-optical will probably come along, like cheaper versions of flash-based RAM, etc.  Thing about higher capacity with HD-DVD - the films take up like 5 times more space.  So no, we won't be seeing that much more content on HD versions, at least as far as I can tell.  Maybe if compression improves.  Kind of too bad.

[The Burgomaster]

If there is ever a chance that DVDs will become completely obsolete, I will buy about 10 DVD players and keep them in storage.  Then, every time one dies, I'll have another to take its place.  I have too much money invested in DVDs to ever get rid of them and replace them with a more advanced format.  I did that with my VHS tapes and it gave me a sick feeling.

[ulthar]

Jim H Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the films take up like 5 times more
> space.  So no, we won't be seeing that much more
> content on HD versions, at least as far as I can
> tell.  

I fear any content addition is going to be advertisements.  I cannot stand it now when a disk as six coming attractions (which are often years old), especially when the disk is designed so you cannot 'page' through them (fast forward still works, though).

I'm waiting for Coke and Nike commercials.  They'll fill the available space on whatever medium is there if the movie does not take it all.

[AndyC]

I was just thinking that the only real advantage I can see to these new formats is that special features wouldn't need to be on a second disc, and longer movies, like LOTR, wouldn't need to be split. But then, between the larger size of high-definition video and the other crap they're likely to stick on there, it might not be an advantage after all.

And I'm not really in any hurry to get into high definition anyway. A while back, I was shopping for a second satellite receiver and couldn't find the model I wanted. The guy in one store tried to convince me to buy an HD receiver for twice the price, since it will work with my regular TV and it will still work when I go to HD in a couple of years. Um, I have no interest in HD. I just spent good money finally getting a larger regular TV, and I'm very happy with it. Same thing goes for DVDs. I resent being told that it's inevitable that I will buy something I neither want nor need.

I'm also a little wary of cramming more and more data onto the same size disc, especially when it's sensitive to things like scratches, fingerprints and other things. I've seen enough CDs, with a relatively low density of data, rendered useless fairly quickly by the average user who doesn't know enough to keep it in the case, hold it by the edges, don't set it shiny side down on a surface (if you set it down at all), etc. It seems this will only get worse as the inforamation written on the disc gets smaller and more tightly packed. I'm inclined to agree that the future of storage will not be in discs at all, but in solid-state devices, as soon as someone can make flash memory cheap enough to make it competitive with mechanical storage devices. There could be real advantages in terms of size, speed and capacity, worth the trouble and expense of changing over once again. But it could be a long time before anyone sells 5 gigs of flash memory for the price of a DVD.

[dean]

Working in the audio visual industry has taught me a few things about this stuff, though I admit I'm relatively new in the market and by no means an expert.

HD in terms of TV broadcast gives you fantastic quality picture, but that pic is usually better served with a kick ass screen to go with it.

On your normal tube tv everything looks fine because that's what you're used to, and it's a different way of looking at the picture.  Having looked at different formats on different types of screens I can safely tell you that a HD picture on pretty much any big screen plasma looks absolutely stunning, and the same will eventually be said for whatever format, either Blu-ray or HD-DVD, wins in that regard.

I say eventually because obviously despite the quality being better, how many movies are currently made in HD format?  Well more and more everyday, but as much as it would be nice to upscale that old copy of Gone With The Wind, it really wouldn't work out, and is best served for new movies rather than older ones.  You look at digital TV at the moment and the picture is great, but not everything [well here at least] is filmed in the HD format, so as such not everything is widescreen, for example.

In terms of VHS vs DVD vs whatever new format, it seems that historically you get about 10 or so good solid years of a format before it's superseded.  Since technology is moving pretty quickly in this industry, everyone is trying to one-up the other by releasing something bigger and better [which is why big screen tvs drop in price a fair bit every few months: competition is fierce]

So it makes perfect sense that although VHS had a good run, DVDs have been around for a good ten years or so [I think it was released '96 or so, off the top of my noggin] and as such a new format is about due really.  Especially since technology has really caught up with how we view movies/tv and such: the big difference is digital.

If you ask my opinion on Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, well I'd probably say HD-DVD will win out because Sony are being tightasses about how they market their product [I have a thing against how they market themselves, so it's more personal than professional advice there] but regardless it seems that everyone is pretty skeptical on these formats at the moment, and rightly so.  It does seem too early for a new format, but I can tell you, whichever one wins out, the quality is still going to be fantastic.  

But as per usual, you really should look after them: sure you could bang around VHS as much as you like, but lets face it, the quality of a vhs versus a DVD is miles apart [for most 'good films at least] and also dvds are much more vulnerable because they're exposed unlike the big plastic shell VHS has [I'm kind of killing two threads with one post here]

Unfortunately we as consumers have to dance to the tune of the producers in this case, unless you were all willing to make a stand and not buy either of them, but I predict that although it will start out slow [since people are waiting to see how it develops] eventually you will find that those of you who consider themselves the movie buff will now be looking at a brand spanking new format which will blow you away and how can you say no to that?

Though don't stress Burgomaster: I don't see DVD dying off completely yet.  It will still take a long time for either format to become cheap enough to mass distribute movies of 'lesser' reputation, and realistically, there's no need to upgrade, unless you were looking at all your blockbuster films with a sigh wanting more out of them.  The best thing about this is that DVD will remain backwards compatible and as such, we have the luxury of hanging onto our older formats, unlike the big switch from VHS to DVD.

Wow, I ranted quite a while on that.  It seems like I can't stay away from work, even though I try... how annoying...

[LilCerberus]

ulthar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jim H Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > the films take up like 5 times more
> > space.  So no, we won't be seeing that much
> more
> > content on HD versions, at least as far as I
> can
> > tell.  
>
> I fear any content addition is going to be
> advertisements.  I cannot stand it now when a disk
> as six coming attractions (which are often years
> old), especially when the disk is designed so you
> cannot 'page' through them (fast forward still
> works, though).
>
> I'm waiting for Coke and Nike commercials.
> They'll fill the available space on whatever
> medium is there if the movie does not take it all.


That's just one reason why I prefer those $1.00 DVDs.
Even though I've been accunulating them since December of 2003, they still excite me, even when I can't find anything I want.

To me, it's these $1.00 DVDs that truly entales the golden age of home entertainment.
I look forward to the day that I open up a box of Crispie Puffs and find a copy of Stooges in Orbit.

[Jim H]

"In terms of VHS vs DVD vs whatever new format, it seems that historically you get about 10 or so good solid years of a format before it's superseded."

Historically?  How so?  VHS came out in 1976 and became quite mainstream in the early 80s.  LaserDiscs came out in 1978, and were not really supplanted by DVD til around 1998-1999.

Previous to that, 78 RPM shellac records lasted about 30 years.  After that came 33s, which were released in 1948 and to this day are still made.  They were the mainstay until the mid 80s, meaning a nearly 40 year life as the dominant medium.  Even audiocassettes were popular from the 1970s into the late 90s.

[Jim H]

"I will buy about 10 DVD players and keep them in storage. Then, every time one dies, I'll have another to take its place."

Don't worry about it.  HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players can play DVDs perfectly.  Not to mention by the time you can't buy a new plain DVD player (I have no idea when that will happen - probably not until 2030 or even later, considering you can still buy new LaserDisc and 78 RPM record players), HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players will be very cheap.

[ulthar]

Jim H Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Historically?  How so?  VHS came out in 1976 and
> became quite mainstream in the early 80s.
> LaserDiscs came out in 1978, and were not really
> supplanted by DVD til around 1998-1999.
>

I don't think LaserDiscs could be considered "main stream" in the sense of this discussion.  There was Beta then VHS then DVD.  So far, of the three, VHS has had the longest run of average joe-user popularity.

And it will take another five years or so for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD to catch on, to the masses at least.  Sure, there are those on the front edge of all tech advances, but I think we have to look at what is the biggest seller for the 'average' consumer.

> Previous to that, 78 RPM shellac records lasted
> about 30 years.  After that came 33s, which were
> released in 1948 and to this day are still made.
> They were the mainstay until the mid 80s, meaning
> a nearly 40 year life as the dominant medium.
> Even audiocassettes were popular from the 1970s
> into the late 90s.

That just means 78's and 33's were around when technology in general was more 'stable.'  In the 'modern era,' with the corporate mindset that goes with that ("hey guys, let's build in planned obsolescence"), it takes a few years for a tech to rise, a few years to sit on top and few years for the replacement to supplant it.  Give it three for each phase and you get 9, or purty near the 10 year 'lifespan' mentioned by the other poster.

And I thought vinyl LP's were NOT manufactured anymore.  Interesting to know that they are.  You got a citation for that?

[ulthar]

Jim H Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> by the
> time you can't buy a new plain DVD player ... HD-DVD
> and Blu-Ray players will be very cheap.

That's not the point; have you seen the size of HIS video collection?

Sure, the players NOW can play DVD's, but what about when the suits decide they are ready to resell all their movies in a new format, and that capability magically disappears from new units.  Do you think Burgo wants to repurchase 3000 movies?

Nah, the whole thing stinks (the phasing out of older formats).  Formats should not be phased out if there is still market for them.  That said, as the market dwindles, costs may go up, but that's just supply-demand kicking in.