Blue Ray is looking different

[MikieV]

I'm just afraid the past is still a good indicator of how things will work in the future. Human nature? Corporate Nature?

I bought a LaserDisc player, when they first came out, and nobody else I knew could understand why I would pay so much for a machine which could not record! Yet, the same people could understand how a record player produced better music quality than a cassette tape, and thought nothing of owning both.

CD players only took off, because Record labels were willing to release their entire catalogs on them => ONLY Classical, at first - since the initial high-cost (remember mid-80's >$600.00 CD players) would only be acceptable to audiophiles who listened to music with a wide dynamic range.

I bought an early DAT recorder/player - only to see the format ignored by the general market - because the Music industry refused to release its' catalogs onto a format where digital copying was fairly easy (even though my Sony had the Serial Copy Management System - to prevent digital copying).

DVD player/recorder technology was prevented from entering the US, until copywrite concerns could be addressed (How many YEARS was DVD-RAM around, before DVD-R became available/affordable?).

DVD players were only popular once the Movie Studios were convinced the CSS sytem would prevent copying. They will be DAMN SURE they do not get taken to the cleaners by some kid, again.

Open Source ideas like the Gutenburg Project are great - but they can only release material in the public domain - and that is becoming a fading memory - as copyright is being extended for 50, 75, 100? years after the work is initially published. Will Disney EVER willingly relinquish the copyright to ANY of their works??

BlueRay is nice technology, VP6 compression is nice technology - but which Movie Studios or Record Companies are going to allow these products into the US market, without their own hands firmly on the reins??

Sorry, I'm not usually such a "wet blanket".

Mike

[energy80s]

Same thing happened with Laserdisc. It catered more to the audio/videophile in a time when VHS was still king. The problem with Laserdisc was price.

No the problem with laser disc was that it didin't record whereas VHS did. If Laserdisc had of had recording capabilities from the start, VHS would have had a much rougher ride. In this day and age, home recording is king. As Laserdisc didn't offer recording capabilities it was never going to be anything other than a nitche market, therefore machines were priced artifically high. Same goes with DAT. Only recording studios could afford it, so home digital audio recording didn't materialise until 1992 with the advent of DCC and minidisc.

[MikieV]

[/quote]In this day and age, home recording is king. As Laserdisc didn't offer recording capabilities it was never going to be anything other than a nitche market, therefore machines were priced artifically high.[/quote]

As a purchaser of the first model of Pioneer LaserDisc player sold in the US (LD-1000?, circa 1982?) I find this amusing.

At that time, few people seemed to understand my argument that LD and VHS/Beta were related, almost like Records and Cassettes => records and LD were higher quality, and VHS/cassette would allow compilations, and recording from TV/radio (as appropriate).

The "sudden" wide-acceptance of DVDs has been an amazement to me, after watching the LD format die for "lack of ability to record". The big selling-point of DVD over LD seems to be => you don't have to flip the disc over, in the middle of the movie!

DVD players don't record, and it seems a lot of people think nothing of having a DVD-player -and- a VCR. What caused the sudden shift?? The combination of DVDs -and- Wide-screen TVs -and- Surround-sound systems?? Is this another example of "Critical Mass", or a "Tipping Point"?

Why did a mass audience "suddenly" embrace wide-screen "letterbox" format - when for years, friends had wondered why I was willing to buy a second copy of a movie, on LD, when Criterion released a letterbox version?

Why did people stop complaining about the top and bottom of the movie being "cutoff" - leaving those black spaces at the top and bottom of the picture => and complaining the picture was smaller on-screen, than the "original" (pan&scan) version.?

LD players were more expensive, and you had to buy a monitor to see the improvement in quality that not going through a RF-modulator gives. Also, average TV quality at the time was only good enough for VHS/Beta.

At the time, I was miffed that LD players were more expensive than VCRs, but the movies were CHEAPER. LDs were being stamped-out (like CDs and DVDs are now), while VCR tapes were reproduced in real-time, on massive banks of recorders (high-speed recording to helical-scan VCRs was not an option then, if now?) => Most LD movies were $30-50 dollars, while most new movies on tape went for 80-100 dollars - which is why everyone -rented- movies on tape - and many bought two cheap VCRs to allow copying of rented movies (the beginning of the copy-protection/cracking wars??).

I am looking forward to having DVD-recording capabilities that, in conjunction with DVD-rentals/purchases, will allow me move away from regular use of a VCR. 20-years is long enough.

[dcsos]

Here is an existing BLU RAY drive that reads DVD titles from hollywood as well as your DVD-R's if you were clever enough to use DVD-R media
So stop guessing...the future is now!

http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/hardware/storage/0,39007132,39013640p,00.htm?

Sony is expected to sell a bundle to indusrty even if the consumers don't drive the price down soon!

[tompika]

Here is an existing BLU RAY drive that reads DVD titles from hollywood as well as your DVD-R's if you were clever enough to use DVD-R media

I didn't know you were so clever (again?)

[dcsos]

thanks Tompika...and ....oops!