What Blu-ray needs to do in 2009 in order to gain ground
by Darren Murph 
posted Dec 30th 2008 at 12:00PM
Just think about it -- the move from VHS to DVD was almost entirely unlike the transition from DVD to Blu-ray. In the former example, the quality improvement was incredible. Rewinding became a thing of the past. Full blown surround sound was introduced. Special features and tasty extras were able to fit. Interactive menus were born. Discs were able to be played on desktops and laptops. Compare that to the shift from DVD to Blu-ray. The disc size has remained the same (physically). Audio has only marginally improved, mostly at a level that only audiophiles can appreciate. Visually, there is noticeable improvement only for those with enough cash to snag an HDTV. BD-Live interactivity isn't nearly as captivating as it sounds on paper. Oh, and Blu-ray Discs are markedly more expensive than DVDs.
The reality is that there is far less motivation to switch from DVD to Blu-ray than there was years ago when consumers were tempted to leave VHS behind and enter the DVD arena. Yet, for whatever reason, Blu-ray movies are priced in opposition to that fact. The way we see it, BD will continue to be a niche product so long as it's priced like a niche product, and if it holds out too long, we won't be shocked to see the increasingly ubiquitous HD streaming snag away at least a small bucket of potential customers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
JDUBB @ Dec 30th 2008 12:20PM
Darren Murph- first off don't write for Engadget if you don't appreciate new technology. Who cares if it's a niche market? Visually only for those with enough cash to "snag a new HDTV"? That's one of the dumbest things I have ever heard - people find the money for new HDTV's. Almost as dumb as your comment about HD streaming - that's even more of a niche market. Go back to your VHS and casette tapes and quit writing for Engadget!
DEEZNUTZ @ Dec 30th 2008 12:54PM
You must be new 'round these parts...
DeadPlasmaCell @ Dec 30th 2008 3:16PM
You failed to grasp the actual meaning of the article.
Fred @ Dec 31st 2008 1:26AM
BRAVO DARREN.
And now to JDUBB... who is this tool.
Wryker @ Dec 30th 2008 12:20PM
I agree - BD should be charging the same if not LOWER prices for their BD's right now to keep people enticed to get them. Charging more is shooting themselves in the foot.
I strongly prefer packaged content versus streaming since there is noticeably lower quality on streaming than physical media.
BD needs to get their act together. I want them to succeed but they need to change their attitude that their product is 'elite' and realize that people don't see the value in the incremental benefits. Drop the prices on their BD's, don't pump out reissued DVD's onto BD JUST to say they're BD when most of the transfers aren't any better than the DVD upscaled, and lower the prices of the BD's: otherwise they just might not make the inroads necessary...now if only there was another option....like some sort of 'red ray'...hmm...another HD-DVD option.....hmmmm
The Fuzz 53 @ Dec 30th 2008 12:59PM
Charging more is the Sony way though. Sony's sales this year went down the crapper. Their solution? Raise prices in the name of an appreciating Yen.
Wryker @ Dec 30th 2008 1:06PM
True - and that's another reason why the XBOX 360 and Wii continue to kick the PS3 to the curb (though I own all 3)
Nate @ Dec 30th 2008 2:14PM
Charge less for a superior product? Ok. Let's be reasonable.
Erwos @ Dec 30th 2008 12:25PM
If you can't hear the audio difference on BR-D's new audio codecs when it comes to surround, you're not listening. The surrounds are much more defined, and bass is far better, too.
Blu-Ray's problem is the high price of discs - not just at release, but the lack of cheap catalog releases. They need way more (any?) presence in the $5-$10 section.
Doug @ Dec 30th 2008 1:21PM
The audio differences are only audible on an upper end audio system. Relatively few people have systems capable of reproducing the differences.
Erwos @ Dec 30th 2008 1:23PM
Like I said, I very much disagree. I would be willing to admit that the difference is subtle until it's pointed out, but not that you necessarily need much of a sound system. The only requirement, really, is some way of getting those TrueHD/DTS-MA tracks to your receiver.
Doug @ Dec 30th 2008 1:27PM
You can disagree if you wish, but not very many people are investing in home theaters; a huge majority are still listening to movies through their televisions built-in speakers. And many that invest in home theater are buying HTIB's, which are in no way able to reproduce even the smallest nuances of the differences of lossless audio.
Most people can't even tell the difference (and even fewer care) between a low bitrate MP3 and CD audio... how are they going to hear the difference between Dolby Digital and lossless audio?
squiggleslash @ Dec 30th 2008 1:59PM
The reason why sound is generally better on Blu-ray than DVD is because the latter's sound is often poorly mastered and over-compressed, not because there's a significant audible difference between the two.
Now, that might sound like heresy, but bear in mind the limits of human hearing, the degree to which the response time of speakers are likely to impact the reproduction of 24 vs 16 bit audio, and the psychoacoustic model behind the common compression standards which is based upon real human behavior. Blind testing has shown most people cannot tell the difference between high bitrate MP3 (for instance, and high bitrate here is still less than 200kbps) and the PCM source it was compressed from.
I'm not saying you can't tell the difference. But, here's the thing:
I can tell the difference between the audio on my HD DVDs and my DVDs. In general, most of my DVDs sound worse than most of my HD DVDs.
Game, set, and match lossless codecs, right?
Nope. My Receiver is a fairly old Kenwood (yeah, Kenwood made receivers once), hooked up to my Toshiba HD A2 via a TOSLINK cable...
...which means...
...that all that gorgeous lossless audio is being converted to DTS (regular, plain old DTS, as encoded on a good DVD) before it gets to my receiver.
In theory, any HD DVDs I have encoded with Dolby anything or PCM should actually sound worse than native encoded DTS versions for DVD, because the Toshiba is doing the conversion on the fly and DTS - at least until recently - was generally done by DTS themselves, overseeing the entire process, making tweaks and such as they did the encoding so it'd sound "just right".
The reason the HD DVDs sound better is NOT the codecs. It's the fact that the audio doesn't suck. It's the fact that they're not trying to cram everything in a 300kbps Dolby Digital 5.1 stream. They're not trying to put in five different sound tracks and a movie in 5Mbps.
And what I said about HD DVD applies to Blu-ray too, they're the same codecs and the studios have the same attention to detail. Yes, you can hear the difference. And I'm sure if you have really, really, really, exceptional hearing, and a really friggin' good Receiver, it may well be the PCM (or pseudo-lossless) 24-bit audio is helping a teeny weenie bit. But the real major difference is that the damned audio's been done properly. That's the difference most people can hear. And when you get a good DVD, most people can't tell the difference.
DrXym @ Dec 30th 2008 4:02PM
Cheap discs come as the the selection increases. Exactly the same happened with DVD and I see no difference this time around. In fact, you can already see some decent deals on disks in places like Walmart & Amazon. Such deals will only increase as the format matures.
Chip Douglas @ Dec 30th 2008 4:26PM
I go back to my father-in-law scenario again. He has a beautiful 52" samsung in his living room. There is no way his wife would let him add a home theater system to the room nor would he spend thousands on components necessary to take advantage of the benefits of BluRay or even DVD. They watch dvd's using an S-Video cable on a regular dvd player. I don't see them upgrading any time soon. And I would venture to guess that this represents most television viewers.
mntwister @ Dec 30th 2008 4:42PM
Doug that is very incorrect in my opinion, you do not need a ten thousand dollar stereo system to hear the difference between 320kbps dolby digital on dvd and true lossless on blu-ray. Even the cheapest of stereos will reproduce the clarity of the horns, the kettle drums, the violins.....It is a completely different sound no matter what stereo system is being used. My friend has a 450.00 system, including speakers and all, a very inexpensive set, and purchased a blu-ray player, and he is knocked out by the difference of the sound of some of his favorite movies on blu-ray over the dvd version.
Truth Teller 3 @ Dec 30th 2008 8:07PM
"mntwister @ Dec 30th 2008 4:42PM
Doug that is very incorrect in my opinion, you do not need a ten thousand dollar stereo system to hear the difference between 320kbps dolby digital on dvd and true lossless on blu-ray. "
Who said anything about $10,000?
$5,000 is much more like it.
LMAO
I'd wager a majority of the PS3 fanboy gang haven't even got the receiver & speaker package to do 320kbps Dolby Digital justice.....and certainly not 1500kbps DTS or Dolby Digital Plus.
If you speakers are of insufficient quality so that they can't even produce and differentiate properly between a decent range of various frequencies then no matter how much you want to believe & fool yourself you are not going to be getting the benefit of lossless audio.
No matter how badly you want to delude yourself to the contrary.
Sadly that is the truth about so much of this 'debate'.
There are way too many people without the necessary high-end equipment (receiver & speakers) pretending they can hear all the difference in the world on a lossless audio track -
usually when their laughably low-end ragedy-a$$ed garbage cheap $400 Sony lights up a little sign and suddenly sounds 'a little bit louder'.
Very funny stuff though.
Saps made to be milked by the marketing dept & ad men.
They'll be spouting BS about how you believe things can be 'future proof' next.
LMAO
Jeff @ Dec 30th 2008 5:30PM
Even though it is niche, I don't think its been priced as so. Lately I've been getting movies in the range of $9.97 to $24.99, which is the same price that DVD's are when released. I got Kill Bill Vol 1 & 2 for $14.99 each when released at Best Buy; Sweeny Todd for $9.97 at Wal-Mart; Kung Fu Panda for $23.99 at Wal-Mart; The Dark Knight Steel Case for $27.99 which was only $1.00 more than the DVD version at Futureshop.
Prices can only take you so far, and I think prices now are better than DVD when it was first released.
Dave @ Dec 30th 2008 12:27PM
"Visually, there is noticeable improvement only for those with enough cash to snag an HDTV."
Well Duh!! Blu ray is ment for HDTV sets!!
"Audio has only marginally improved, mostly at a level that only audiophiles can appreciate."
Completely wrong!!
Audio has improved a huge amount with lossless audio & all you need is a reviver with HDMI inputs to enjoy it, that's hardly audiophile territory!
If you are going to write about technology perhaps you should know something about it!
The economy may have held Blu_ray back a bit but it is growing by leaps & bounds & should continue to do so.
demon @ Dec 30th 2008 6:44PM
Unfortunately that only matters to those with a full blown AV system - most people don't fall into that category. They hook up a DVD (or Blu-Ray) player directly to their TV. Done and done. They don't have an AV receiver, or a 5.1/6.1/7.1 speaker system. The audio is going out of their TV's internal speakers - which don't have very good amps, and have poor bass and weak dynamic range in general. They're not going to see the audio improvements - and I'll certainly agree that a nice TrueHD or DTS-HD MA track sounds far better than even some of the best DVD soundtracks, but without the right equipment to get the most out of that, it's not going to matter.
Ben @ Dec 30th 2008 12:35PM
If Hollywood believed customers would buy DVDs forever then Blu-ray would've never been invented, but the fact is that all those HDTV owners want real HDTV.
The point of Blu-ray was to deliver HD movies in a way that would help Hollywood increase its profits. If Hollywood believed downloads was the answer, again Blu-ray would've never existed.
Blu-ray really isn't competition against any other format because any way you shake it the money goes to Hollywood, so they are going to go with the format they believe will be the most profitable. This isn't downloads, yet.
Sure, paying a 10-15 premium for Blu-ray over DVD seems like a lot of money, but not when you compare it to the $20 Vudu is getting for a SD movie with no extras and no option to resale or transfer.
E Payne @ Dec 31st 2008 8:11AM
BR was made so people would stop downloading copies from the net!! As of right not you cant copy BR!! Thats why it one the war!! HD DVD were easy to copy!!
nick @ Dec 30th 2008 10:08PM
I disagree partly. I think Hollywood is attempting to maximize profits and support a format which is less likely to be copied. They're slightly scared of digital, although I think digital is inevitable. And at the time Blu-Ray was introduced, there wasn't a viable methodology for delivering digital. That's becoming less the case as time goes on.
There has been test cases where studios have delivered movies directly to your TV over the internet. I think the middle man (Blockbuster, Netflix, Best Buy, et al) will eventually lose business to the media companies selling content directly to the consumers. Not only could prices be lower under such circumstances, these companies could keep more of the profit for themselves.
As far as this article, I think Blu-Ray has a couple of hurdles. For the most part, it's an improvement in picture of DVD and to some extend sound, but perhaps not enough so to justify the higher cost of entry. You also need an HDTV, which for most people is not something you buy every day. I think outside of early adopters, most people buy a TV when they have to buy a TV. Lastly, we're still dealing with disc. Now I know at lot of people find comfort in disc, but where's the improvement? Same size.... but slightly smaller packaging?
For me, I have a huge investment in purchased DVDs, but after multiple versions of the same movie (Special Edition, Ultimate Edition, Extreme Edition, Director's Cut, etc) the whole concept of ownership fell out of favor. Did I really need to own the movie? Especially when they keep releasing alternate versions? I'd much rather watch the movie at will and not necessarily own it. But that's me....
Pricing is a factor. Players have finally come down, but content needs to follow. Are blu-ray movies really worth $30? If I goto the cinema its $7.50 to see a movie on the big screen. To see the same movie at home, I have to pay 4-5x the cost of going to the cinema?
Lastly, the ecomony is a factor right now.
Truth Teller 3 @ Dec 31st 2008 2:24PM
**"Ben @ Dec 30th 2008 12:35PM
If Hollywood believed customers would buy DVDs forever then Blu-ray would've never been invented"
Oh come on now Ben, get real.
The CE corps invented Blu-ray (and HD DVD for that matter) because they know that the idea of a perfect 'free market' is a fantasy.
Sometimes the market gets led.
The problem the Blu-ray support has is that Blu-rtay comes at an unfortunate time, delayed by their own dumb war with the DVD Forum they face not only 'good enough' (for the mass-market) upscaled DVD but a world economy about to dive deep into the sh!tter.
**"E Payne @ Dec 31st 2008 8:11AM
BR was made so people would stop downloading copies from the net!! As of right not you cant copy BR!! Thats why it one the war!! HD DVD were easy to copy!!"
Wrong.
It's true that those backing Blu-ray lied to the movie business about how Blu-ray was so much more secure than HD DVD an that that may well have been a factor in the 'war'.
Here is the truth.
Right now, today, every single Blu-ray movie released to date is available on the net as a downloadable stright copy & encoded rip.
The idea that Blu-ray was more secure was a laughable load.
Michael Sterling @ Dec 30th 2008 12:42PM
Blu-ray adoption will improve DRAMATICALLY if the industry implements three steps:
1) Frikkin' explain what Blu-ray is (specifically, that it's HD). Sure, there's been the occasional ad about Blu-ray, but having worked at Best Buy in the last year and being the A/V aficionado of my friends and family, the number one question I hear is "What is Blu-ray anyway?" The general public DOES NOT KNOW how it's different from DVD. I'm not talking about special features, BD-Live, etc. I'm talking about them not knowing it is HD in the first place.
2) Invest all money, resources and time into selling cheaper Blu-ray players and drop upscaling DVD players altogether. If people can buy an upscaling DVD player for $50 instead of a Blu-ray player for $200, which are they going to pick? If the upscaling DVD player isn't even available and Blu-ray players are $100-150, which are they going to pick?
3) Release titles on Blu-ray ONLY. I have a feeling that if Joe or Jane Shmoe really really like a certain movie and it's only available on Blu-ray, that might tip their hand to adopting the format. It's manipulative but it will work.
Consumers need to be told, "Blu-ray is the HD format of the future and if you want your favorite movies you'll have to adopt the format." It will work.
Jeano @ Dec 30th 2008 1:05PM
Let the market rule. There is a reason that Blu-Ray is selling as well as might be desired. The players are expensive and the Blu-rays more 2 times the price of DVDs.
I just bought Blu-ray player. The picture is great. However I don't have a surround sound environment and the Blu-ray discs are way too expensive. It won't take off until the movies and other content is cheaper.
tony @ Dec 30th 2008 3:31PM
Your comments are based on fantasyland. There's this thing out there called the "market" and it operates under what is commonly known as the law of supply and demand. You can't just take away what people clearly want because you want them to buy something else. That never works. Look at Windows Vista and XP. Microsoft keeps on extending the deadline for killing XP because the market doesn't want Vista. Its the same with Blu-Ray. The industry can't kill DVD just because they want everyone to buy Blu. That never works. If you force the issue then there will be a huge drop-off in revenue because people are not going to shell out for what they don't want. Oh sure, a few will go along, but many will not. And even if only 20 percent stop buying then that is an absolute financial disaster for the selling companies. And believe me, the drop-off would be larger than 20% if people can no longer by DVDs. No company will take that risk. Try thinking a little bit 'bigger picture' before you try solving the problems of the world.
cashmonee @ Dec 30th 2008 12:49PM
Great post. I know most here don't get it, but this is the view of the average consumer. Unfortunately for Blu-Ray, they need mass adoption (average consumers) in order to be around.
Case in point, I have a DVD player on it's last leg, but I am having a real hard time justifying the minimum $250 price tag of a decent Blu-Ray now that the prices have gone up after Christmas. I have a 42", 720p TV that I sit 14 ft from and no surround sound. Even if I invested in surround, I could not afford a setup good enough to tell the difference between DVD and BD. So I am looking at buying a nice DVD player for about 1/3 that.
Make Blu-Ray the only choice. Make it a small premium for the player. Entry players should be $99 MSRP, decent players $149-$199 MSRP. Discs should cost no more than an extra $5. Do those two things and you have a winner. Oh and enough with the profiles and firmware updates for DRM fixes. I do not want to spend triple on the player and movie only to sit down and not be able to watch it because I don't have the right firmware for the DRM. It's confusing, and if something gets confusing average consumers throw up their arms and give up.
Steve_S @ Dec 30th 2008 12:53PM
I think alot of people wold benefit by being able to watch the same movie or video clip on two of the same model TV's side-by-side, one running an upconverting DVD player and the other running Blu-ray. Call it the Blu-ray difference or whatever and let people decide for themselves if the extra cost is worth it to them.
I recently bought two TV's and thought about getting one 1080p and one 720p for cost purposes until I was able to look at the same manufacturer's tv with 720p and 1080p side by side. The difference even without a 1080p source was obvious but had I not be able to compare them I don't know if I'd have chose the 1080p set.
John Ashby @ Dec 30th 2008 8:51PM
The fallacy of optical HD being only "marginally better" than DVD doesn't explain the popularity of new 1080p televisions, which are only "marginally better" than 720p/1080i with cable, satellite, or DVD- but are selling like crazy.
Physical media made great Christmas presents this year - Blu and DVD both win out there over downloads (gift cards???). If the studios stop charging a premium for Blu content, it can still win the day.
cashmonee @ Dec 30th 2008 1:11PM
To be fair, 1080p TVs are so popular because that is about all you can buy now. It has little to do with the idea that it is better than 720p, which for most material, it is marginally better at best.
You make a good point though. Take away DVD, make BD the only real option like they have done with 1080p sets and like they did with VHS-DVD.
DVD4ME @ Dec 31st 2008 2:32AM
Studios are ALWAYS going to charge a premium for blu ray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How many times does it have to be said here, blu ray is more expensive to produce, and the only reason the studios will bother with BR at all is to make extra $ !
If they drop prices to match DVD, they will be worse off, BR will ALWAYS be more expensive then DVD, it has to be, otherwise the studios will stick with DVD, you think they really give a shit about High Definition??!!
$$$ is the ONLY thing that matters!
numerwan @ Dec 30th 2008 1:04PM
I think you hit the nail DM... I love watching blu-ray movies, but if someone asks if they should switch, well, its kinda hard to convince them considering to get the full experience you need an HDTV and surround sound reciever that decodes TrueHD, DTSHD etc etc... But at a minimum, an HDTV....
Bluray needs to find some common ground with regular DVD owners as well. I think its easier to convince someone to pay 19.99 for a bluray over the 14.99 counterpart as compared to 34.99 vs 14.99... I paid 24.99 for Batman, and i wasnt happy with the price... But the movie is what sold me... What about all the other blus?
Overall, i think BD should get on their hands and knees and suck on Netflix/Blockbusters toes for keeping them in the loop... If people couldnt rent the BDs, they wouldnt have a shot in hell of surviving...
Andy Sullivan @ Dec 30th 2008 1:06PM
It really boils down to $$$$$. If you want to sell blu movies to the masses you must price it in such a way that I will say "why not" just buy blu? Good quality players in the $150 to $200 range that do a good job of up converting will sell very well if the movies are priced the same as SD movies. As more and more people migrate towards HD TV sets the lure of affordable blu- ray will become a natural progression.
Alex @ Dec 30th 2008 1:09PM
I don't know what you guys are smoking but the bulk of consumers don't care if the TV is 1080i or 1080p, they care that it is around $1000 or less. Most people don't care about lossless audio, because regular people - if they even have a home theater - are listening to their movies over HTIB crap or over the TV. The Wall Street Journal just had (another) article sounding the death knell of the PS3. BD isn't an Epic Fail, just a Fail. At least you could record TV on a BetaMax!
Stone @ Dec 30th 2008 1:12PM
I agree with the post. In order to reach mass appeal, the players need to reach the $200 sweet spot that most mainstream consumers feel is worth purchasing. Most people I know with HD sets are waiting for the eventual price drop before they invest in a completely new physical format. Even after this Christmas season, the cheapest BD-Live ready player I've found was $250 which is still too high considering upscaling DVD players can be found for under $100.
Doug @ Dec 30th 2008 1:23PM
While AV receivers may able to take advantage of the differences in BR audio, the speakers that most consumers own won't reproduce those differences. BR's audio advantage is going to be experienced by a lot fewer people than the visual advantages.
Not that it matters that much, though. With MP3 and related codecs dominating consumer electronics, consumers don't seem to care much for high quality audio.
scjessey @ Dec 30th 2008 1:26PM
Blu-ray is the new Laserdisc.
Blu-ray is a little bit better than DVD in the same way as Laserdisc was a little bit better than VHS (and Betamax, I suppose). Laserdisc failed mostly because of the extra cost of media (although a lack of a consumer-level recording option put the nail in the coffin), and Blu-ray needs to lower prices to ensure it doesn't suffer from the same fate.
People who read Engadget HD are already convinced the Blu-ray is a Good Thing™, but people who thought Joe the Plumber was a cool guy are still waiting for Walmart prices - for both buying and renting. And get rid of the copyright protection and region crap too - I want to be able to play my purchased media on any Blu-ray equipment I wish, whether it is standalone player or some sort of PC-based unit.
Make it play anywhere, anyhow, for less money - then Blu-ray will become ubiquitous.
arkweld @ Dec 30th 2008 1:51PM
Laserdisc failed because the discs were huge and unwieldy and flipping over a 12 inch metal platter half way through a movie was an idea that was never going to take off with mass consumers. Fine for music, but not when you are vegging out on a comfortable couch in the middle of a dramatic scene.
Ben @ Dec 30th 2008 2:14PM
Blu-ray is not LD and won't be LD because LD players couldn't play VHS tapes, they cost 10X as much and the movies were almost impossible to rent.
Take BD, which costs about $100-200 more than a decent upconverter and movies which are ~30% more. Not to mention they play all DVDs.
The fact is that in another year or two you won't even be able to buy a DVD player from anyone other than some Chinese company you never heard of.
arkweld,
You have an odd definition of failed. Maybe you mean you didn't own one growing up, but LD was around for 20 years, had players from every major manufacture and offered over 10k movies from every major studio. Not sure how that is a failed format in any definition.
arkweld @ Dec 30th 2008 2:38PM
Laserdisc did fail. It didn't achieve mass market acceptance or widespread popularity. A niche market amongst enthusiasts doesn't count. Even if it put out some definitive edition discs like Seven it doesn't matter in the consumer world if most people never saw it.
It's right next to my minidisc player in the world of consumer electronics. I still use one. I know people who still love theirs, but it doesn't matter.
Blu-ray is not the next Laserdisc. It already has more consumer penetration than Laserdisc and software is easy to find in regular consumer goods stores.
DVD4ME @ Dec 31st 2008 1:53AM
Ben, long term, DVD play back 'may' be very detrimental to BR and may end up being the final nail in it's coffin
The average consumer may be forced to purchase a BR player, but if Joe the plumber can buy a DVD for $10 less than the same BR, it's a big chance he and the bulk of the population will continue to do so, because as it is said here time and time again, many people can't see the difference,and they certailnly can't hear any difference, so why spend another $10 on a movie, that's a 6 pack of beer and a bucket of pop corn to consume when watching the DVD.
1stGreg @ Dec 30th 2008 1:48PM
Wow. Where to start.
Blu Ray's HD quality can only be appreciated by HDTV owners... Really? No Way! Where did you get that, I had NO IDEA !
Now the sound. Sorry, but even if you indeed need a receiver capable of either PCM (not expensive, check the Sony DG-720 per exemple) or decoding HD codecs (Sony DG 820 or Yam RX-V663 are fairly affordable) to hear it, there is a pretty good difference between the old DD or DTS sound and the lossless new ones.
Now, I see a lot of people mentionning lile you how the difference between the VHS and DVD has been -huge-. Well, not to school you, Darren (and I know the original article makes this point too), but you forgot a little thing in between called "LaserDisc". I know in your mind that the DVD has been literally the second coming, but it hasn't invented everything.
Laserdisc: Superior Image quality compared to VHS: check. Dolby Digital Sound and DTS sound: Check. Direct Chapter access: Check.
In reality, the only things that DVD had brought forth are real digital image (which at first gave worst images than good LDs), a fairly poor level of interactivity (for which few actually care) and thankfully a small physical size, easily manageable, and prices that fell rapidly. That was the saving grace of the format, while the price of LDs and its cumbersome format kept it from reaching mainstream.
Now the only thing Blu Ray needs is falling prices. It's already happening for players, but it needs to happen faster for films, where good deals can almost only be found online. If Studios really want BR to succeed, they will lower prices, have more releases, advertise more on picture and sound quality, and at the end of 09 they will start releasing the Blu Ray films 1 week in advance compared to DVD.
Personally, I'll buy my second BR player (for the bedroom) this year, and thanks to Xmas, my BR collection has been grownig quite a bit :)
Doug @ Dec 30th 2008 1:38PM
The main competition for Blu-ray is upconverted DVD. Most people I know who are actually buying HDTVs are buying the lower-end models, and even then they're getting the 720p models, not the more expensive 1080p versions.
With a decently encoded DVD and a good upscaling player on a 720p set, Blu-ray has very little advantage over DVD. On a 720p set, there are only 156% more pixels, which really isn't enough to make a huge difference. And since most people are buying sets 32" and smaller, they'd have to be sitting pretty close for their eyes to discern the difference anyway. For HD to make a huge difference, you need a larger set, and it had better be 1080p, and from a reputable manufacturer.
Add to that the fact that after you've gotten into the story of the movie, you don't even think about whether you're watching HD or ED.
We can't count digital downloads out yet either. With 30 and 50 mbps internet connections starting to make their way into people's homes, there is potentially enough bandwidth to stream Blu-Ray quality video in realtime. The iPod has taken over audio; I don't think it is too far fetched for digital downloads to take over video at some point as well, especially since most movie watching is done at home (not far from an Internet connection) and not on the road. I'm not saying it's going to take over anytime soon, but it can't be ignored. Especially if HD rentals are only a few dollars, or if the download version is significantly cheaper than a Blu-ray disc.
Wryker @ Dec 30th 2008 1:52PM
The problem with the idea of downloads taking over packaged media (even with higher bandwith) is companies (Comcast for example) are putting 'caps' on downloads per month - and downloading one or two HD movies would easily push the monthly limits. And I, for one, do not want to 'worry' about going over in my Mb's (just like going over your minutes on a cell-phone plan).
Andy @ Dec 30th 2008 1:40PM
Blu-ray discs aren't expensive if you buy from sites like Amazon. If you're stupid enough to shop at places like Best Buy or Circuit City for your discs, you deserve to pay the $35 per disc prices. I personally have never payed more than $25 for a Blu-ray, often below $20.
Doug @ Dec 30th 2008 3:36PM
But DVDs are cheaper online too. Online Blu-ray discs are more expensive than DVDs, just like in the stores.
regeya @ Dec 30th 2008 9:11PM
Eh, I was just at the local Best Buy. Not only did they have sub-$200 players (actually just display models), but they had discs at $20 apiece, which is about what DVDs were going for when I got my first player. I think that's mostly desperation, but it's also a far cry from $35 per disc.
Now, don't be too hard on those of us who still pop into Best Buy on occasion. Sometimes they'll have a decent deal, and with things slowing down in retail this year, they've been willing to cut deals on the sales floor.
E Payne @ Dec 31st 2008 8:10AM
Yes!! Its cheaper to buy online but for BR to do good it needs some help!!! When I go to the mall and go pass the movies all I see is high price BR's!!! So I wont and dont buy them!! Thats the problem!!! The price needs to come down see people who are just popping in the mall for a shirt or something will see cheaper BR movies and buy them right then and NOW!!!
daxiang12 @ Dec 30th 2008 1:42PM
I tend to agree with Darren for the most part of his post.
However, I do think, graphically, BR is not only marginally better than DVD. It is much better.
But People DO need HDTV to change from DVD to BR. For the transition from VHS to DVD, your TV needed not to be upgraded.