Will BLURAY kill DVD?

[lordhutt]

Although I have tons of SD DVD's I cannot see myself ever buying another now that I have Blu Ray.

The quality just blows SD out of the water.
Even though the prices can be ridiculous if you buy from Best Buy or Wal Mart or any other chain....Places like Amazon and Ebay always have great prices if you look.

As far as replacing dvd's I already have....I will for my favorite movies (one's I will watch repeatedly) but certainly not all.

[ricoman]

Blu-ray movies are US$10 in China at mom-and pop stores. Same movie in DVD is one dollar.
Two dollars will buy you a DVD that is marked Blu-ray. (see screenshot).
Blu-ray logo makes DVDs sell better.

3.jpg

So, they actually sell DVD9 (or BD9) discs in China? I've converted a few to AVCHD and they play great on my Panasonic BD player. Guess it's only a matter of time before they start showing up here. All bootlegs no doubt.

[ricoman]

Although I have tons of SD DVD's I cannot see myself ever buying another now that I have Blu Ray.

The quality just blows SD out of the water.
Even though the prices can be ridiculous if you buy from Best Buy or Wal Mart or any other chain....Places like Amazon and Ebay always have great prices if you look.

As far as replacing dvd's I already have....I will for my favorite movies (one's I will watch repeatedly) but certainly not all.

Yes, this is exactly the way I feel.

[fjmr]

ricoman wrote!!

I've converted a few to AVCHD and they play great on my Panasonic BD player.

I also converted from BD to AVCHD and they play cool and great on my BDP Pana 30!!

At first time is quite difficult to distinguish if it is a BLURAY or not!!

But BD is BD with all its charm!!

That is folks!!

[Anonymous5394]

Blu-ray is so overrated and to the naked eye a good encoded DVD differs very little from a HD source, unless you have eagle eyes.

I compared my 30 Days of night DVD to the Blu-ray version I rented and played on my mate's Blu-ray player we used in playback tests on same TV: my 1080p TV. The DVD looks much better despite being hooked up with HDMI lead and using myupscaling DVD player. Land of Dead DVD is visaually much better than its Blu-ray counterpart too. My mate's Dawn of The Dead HD is superbly good (he bragged so much about it, I got ear ache! ), but no way matches the "awesome" Divimax release for quality of appearance and the price is a fraction of this blu-ray.

I have seen very low bitrate xvid releases and H264 which blow some dvd's out of water too. No kidding!

DVD is a superb format along with newer Blu-Ray which is not necessary most of the time, but when it does outperform DVD qualitywise then said DVD source is usually poorly encoded to what we expect- for me anyway. No doubt people differ and prefer it to DVD. Blu-ray does offer an attractive alternative and can be excellent quality no doubt, but I have read too many Net reviews about Blu-Ray releases not being any better than DVD ones and seeing with my own eyes the hype, to persuade me to change.

This DTS is better than Dolby strikes a similar chord too! Go with your gut instinct I say!

[Reelman472]

I haven't seen a single argument made here that is any different then those made when vcr's came out or when dvd's came out. People who say bluray doesn't look better are just plain wrong. Also the people complaing about having to start their movie collection over again are wrong. The dvd's piped through a quality bluray player and hdmi are beautiful. Here in america a new release movie on Tuesday is almost identical in price for dvd or bluray. I've bought a lot of blurays for 10 bucks.

Reelman

[jman98]

I only bought a HDTV for the size, 46", not the picture quality, even my vcr through rca plugs looks good on it, to my eyes, and yes I have had them tested recently !

That's certainly possible as better HDTVs have various sharpening filters that can make just about anything look good. I'm getting really good results on mine out of VCD, better than I ever would have expected. Don't misunderstand, I'm not claiming that VCD looks like DVD, not at all, but VCD is a lot better looking on my HDTV than I ever expected it would be. Also watching 4:3 video in 4:3 on an HDTV helps a lot. Stretching 4:3 to 16:9 can be a big negative.

[freebird73717]

Stretching 4:3 to 16:9 can be a big negative.

Agree. My inlaws do that and I can't stand to watch tv at their house because of it. I've tried showing them the difference but I keep getting the response "I don't like those black bars on the sides. I like it better filling the whole screen". The distorted view doesn't seem to bother them.

[fritzi93]

I too have not watched a DVD since I got Blu-Ray. Well, a couple times just for comparison, and not all the way through.

First-class animation on upscaled DVD fares pretty well compared to Blu-Ray. Example: Wall-E. But the difference is immediately apparent when comparing them successively.

It's all downhill from there for DVD. Recent movies that are well done with an eye to release on Blu-Ray are much better than on DVD. Example: any Harry Potter movie. Older movies perhaps not always, but some remasters are terrific, as for example "The Searchers". A movie like "Predator", in which very little effort was put into the transfer, still looks better on Blu-Ray.

The assertion that Blu-Ray isn't much better than DVD...it's laughable. :P Mind you, a fairly big display is needed. I got my mother a 32" Toshiba 720p HDTV (with built-in DVD player) and I'll be the first to admit, a Blu-Ray player wouldn't be worth it for her IMO. One can dispute just what size HDTV *does* justify it, but you get the point.

Prices are coming down for BD discs, especially re-releases. For instance, Wal-Mart has "Bullitt" now for under $10 bucks, gonna have to get that one. (I just checked, it's $8.36).

I for one do intend to replace my favorite movies with Blu-Ray discs. That's not an unmanageable number, there aren't a whole lot of movies I want to see twice.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Well, I'm 59 and I love HD and I wear glasses. I have a 50" in my living room and a 40" in my bedroom and a bluray player and an HD DVD player (DOH!!!), plus a bluray burner in my 'puter. Don't get me wrong, standard DVDs upconverted look great, but good, real HD is awesome.

I'm 43 and hate HD mainly because the TVs are unwatchable (to my eyes) and the content is crap. I can count on one hand the things I'd really like to see in HD. I dread the day when my trusty CRT TV cops it and I have to buy some POS that the masses have been told is better. If the content is good, the quality of the medium doesn't matter. B/W 4:3 movies from 1926 more often than not beat most current Hollywood movies that rely on FX and infrasonics rather than any semblence of a story. Maybe I'm too young to be so crotchety but so what

[RLT69]

@JohnnyMalaria

Amen brother!

I watched the blu-ray version of Star Trek (reboot movie) on a 46" Sony Bravia TV. Looked nice. Then I watched Farscape on DVD on my 27" CRT and wondered, am I missing something....The visuals were still spectacular, even on a crappy old CRT. It kind of helps that the story is good too. :P

[lordhutt]

Well, I'm 59 and I love HD and I wear glasses. I have a 50" in my living room and a 40" in my bedroom and a bluray player and an HD DVD player (DOH!!!), plus a bluray burner in my 'puter. Don't get me wrong, standard DVDs upconverted look great, but good, real HD is awesome.

I'm 43 and hate HD mainly because the TVs are unwatchable (to my eyes) and the content is crap. I can count on one hand the things I'd really like to see in HD. I dread the day when my trusty CRT TV cops it and I have to buy some POS that the masses have been told is better. If the content is good, the quality of the medium doesn't matter. B/W 4:3 movies from 1926 more often than not beat most current Hollywood movies that rely on FX and infrasonics rather than any semblence of a story. Maybe I'm too young to be so crotchety but so what

are you trolling?

HD tv's unwatchable???....I don't understand this comment...

You can count on one hand what you would really like to see???....then you just must not like movies and tv as there are hundreds (if not more) of top movies and tv show available in HD...maybe you should buy a radio...

Good content means you don't need good quality....are you insane?....Should I have kept my old VHS copy of 'The Godfather'

To young to be so crotchety...you're talking like a stubborn 90 year old!!!...don't know to many people who want to watch movies from 1926 Embrace the technology, bro, it's your friend!!!

Every single person that has seen a BD on my 52" Sony has simply drooled!
The more HD I get the less willing I am to watch SD. You can have your 500 pound crt....nothing but flat panels in my house for years now.

[lordsmurf]

No. Solid-state and on-demand are what will kill DVD. It needs at leats 5 more years, however.

Blu-ray is a sideshow, like Laserdisc.

Most Blu-rays I review of non-new movies actually look WORSE than the DVD, because the noise and flicker is not hidden from the MPEG-2 GOP encoding. It looks like shit, to be blunt about it. New movies shot digitally look fine, but that's really it.

The videos need to be cleaned, but that costs, further driving up prices (and/or cutting into profit), and then it's hard to sell, too. Catch 22.

[somebodeez]

... People in the USA (and Canada to a lesser extent) fail to understand that the vast majority of the world's population lives outside of North America.

How presumptuous :P

...Most Americans have a pathological aversion to physical media now. This is part of the reason that DVD recorders have basically failed here. So I can see that here there is a big push for rentals or streaming here. It's what the "kids" want.

Well, I don't know about "most Americans" but this one (although I'm not a kid) still prefers physical media because it never expires and can't get yanked away from me on a whim or an error.

Streaming media:
In the US ISPs want to shift towards metered broadband (I honestly don't know don't what ISPs outside of the US are doing and don't presume to) and I wonder what effect this will have (if any) for streaming media.
Also there are large areas in the US where broadband is still not available so for many, this isn't even an option at this time and isn't likely to be for some years to come.

... DVD doesn't suffer from any killer drawbacks and for many the quality of DVD is "good enough".

Amen.
I've got a 63" plasma and a 50" plasma and pioneer upscaling SD DVD players and yes, my DVDs look fine and dandy and while suffice this American while I sit back and wait for those BR products to evolve, prices come down etc.

[lordhutt]

Most Blu-rays I review of non-new movies actually look WORSE than the DVD, because the noise and flicker is not hidden from the MPEG-2 GOP encoding. It looks like shit, to be blunt about it. New movies shot digitally look fine, but that's really it.

I will admit I was disappointed a while back when I bought Predator on BD....It was not the HD quality I was hoping for. However, I did not think it looked WORSE, and have yet to see one that does.

Care to share a few examples?

[JohnnyMalaria]

Well, I'm 59 and I love HD and I wear glasses. I have a 50" in my living room and a 40" in my bedroom and a bluray player and an HD DVD player (DOH!!!), plus a bluray burner in my 'puter. Don't get me wrong, standard DVDs upconverted look great, but good, real HD is awesome.

I'm 43 and hate HD mainly because the TVs are unwatchable (to my eyes) and the content is crap. I can count on one hand the things I'd really like to see in HD. I dread the day when my trusty CRT TV cops it and I have to buy some POS that the masses have been told is better. If the content is good, the quality of the medium doesn't matter. B/W 4:3 movies from 1926 more often than not beat most current Hollywood movies that rely on FX and infrasonics rather than any semblence of a story. Maybe I'm too young to be so crotchety but so what

are you trolling?

No.

HD tv's unwatchable???....I don't understand this comment...

I have yet to come across an LCD HDTV that I can bear to watch for more than about 30 seconds before feeling quite nauseated. The motion blur (nothing to do with MPEG compression) is awful. Some people see it, some don't. I do. The only HDTVs I can watch are the high-end plasmas and they aren't available in the size I have room for.

You can count on one hand what you would really like to see???....

...in HD.

then you just must not like movies and tv as there are hundreds (if not more) of top movies and tv show available in HD...maybe you should buy a radio...

I like movies and I like TV - but not most of the drivel pumped out by Hollywood using the same crappy formula. More than 90% of my viewing is of movies with the vast majority on TCM or DVD rental.

Good content means you don't need good quality....are you insane?

Not at all. If the content (not the FX but the story, characters etc) is strong enough then it simply won't matter whether the original source is 16mm B/W with a Western Electric mono soundtrack or not. The current (i.e., last 15 years) trend has been to hang a poor story off audio and visual effects. Even remakes of solid movies are dumbed down to appeal to enough movie-goers who aren't willing to actually think about what they are watching.

....Should I have kept my old VHS copy of 'The Godfather'

A second-generation long-play copy of that movie would still be much more satisfying to watch than most current offerings.

To young to be so crotchety...you're talking like a stubborn 90 year old!!!...don't know to many people who want to watch movies from 1926 Embrace the technology, bro, it's your friend!!!

I appreciate the technology. I hate its abuse.

Every single person that has seen a BD on my 52" Sony has simply drooled!
The more HD I get the less willing I am to watch SD. You can have your 500 pound crt....nothing but flat panels in my house for years now.

But what technology is your Sony?

[cal_tony]

I watch more movies than most people(500-1000 a year). Some I watch very closely, most not so closely. I multi task most of the time so that would be the not so closely. Anyway, I wouldn't want to hazard a guess about the longevity of DVDs or any other media. Like I said, I watch a lot of movies and I know what I see re: the movies and the industries involved in bring movies to us.

I've begun to replace some of my DVDs with BRs recently because of the BR price drops and I noticed at Amazon quite a few of the BRs are less expensive than the corresponding DVD. Whats up with that? Than I remembered how Sony shot down Toshiba last year. Sometimes the consumer picks the format sometimes it's the industry.

I do watch my movies on the latest stuff(55" tv,2 HD media players {WD and Seagate}, a PS3 and a half dozen upscaling DVD players). As far as BRs quality goes in relation to DVDs,

I see some movies in BR that are much improved throughout in comparison to their DVD counterpart. I do buy those.

Others, like Lordsmurf said above are worse. Until he explained it in his above post I didn't know why. Now I do.

Than there are those movies, and I think most of what I see, fits in this category. Movies that are very similar in quality for either format but the BR has some scenes that just POP.

For this category, it's a tough choice for me. Is it worth the expense for just a scene or two?

I'm in my 60s and I remember VHS very well. It wasn't what you got in the theaters. It just enabled you to play a movie at home on a SD TV with at least watchable quality. When DVD came along the picture was much better and when HDTVs came along, the at home quality was much improved for every movie.

With BRs, some quality over DVD is show-able at home but in many cases, even with the newest equipment, it just isn't there.

My personal opinion is that with a good transfer DVD, in most cases, it doesn't get much better. What your watching is a movie. It's fake. The sets are cardboard. Most of the actors and actresses just don't look all that good and in most cases the lighting is just awful.

The picture quality of VHS was limited. On DVDs the quality could be much better. The media allows for it, but you just don't get it from the studios. Finally, if studios tinker with the quality of DVDs to increase sales of BRs than the life expectancy of DVDs would be in jeopardy.

On the horizon, I see the interest in 3D BR. It could work out and be a game changer. But, I don't think so.
The movie "The Jerk" from a decade or so ago had some scenes in it where Steve Martin invents a new nose piece for eye glasses. It's a great product until it begins to effect the wearers vision. Going to see a 3D movie in a theater once in a while may not be the same as having that kind of device at home and having your children watch 3D movies a couple of hours a day. Lots of people already experience headaches form 3D movies in theaters. With such a device at home. Could be a problem that results in major recalls and vision related lawsuits.

Tony

[jman98]

I'm 43 and hate HD mainly because the TVs are unwatchable (to my eyes) and the content is crap. I can count on one hand the things I'd really like to see in HD.

Before I bought an HDTV 3 years ago, I'd have mostly agreed with this. I found my whole TV viewing experience so much enhanced with a better TV that I watch more now (DVDs, BluRay, sports, TV shows) than I did since I was a kid. I suppose there is some chance that you might be like a friend of mine. You would not believe how crappy the quality is of what he watches. He watches over the air with poor reception and deliberately records stuff in VCD format to watch later on his old SD TV. He is perfectly content with that.

Most network TV shows and most Hollywood movies have no interest for me, but it's certainly possible to find other things to watch, such as foreign movies, should that appeal to you. Renting movies via Netflix is one such possibility.

If you like sports, I promise you that once you start watching in HD it's really tough to watch in SD. Baseball probably benefits the least from HD in my opinion, but there really is no comparison for watching other sports in HD vs. SD. Soccer and (American) football probably show off the benefits of HD the best.

[JohnnyMalaria]

I'm 43 and hate HD mainly because the TVs are unwatchable (to my eyes) and the content is crap. I can count on one hand the things I'd really like to see in HD.

Before I bought an HDTV 3 years ago, I'd have mostly agreed with this. I found my whole TV viewing experience so much enhanced with a better TV that I watch more now (DVDs, BluRay, sports, TV shows) than I did since I was a kid. I suppose there is some chance that you might be like a friend of mine. You would not believe how crappy the quality is of what he watches. He watches over the air with poor reception and deliberately records stuff in VCD format to watch later on his old SD TV. He is perfectly content with that.

Actually, I'm very anal about technical quality which is why I find LCD HDTV's impossible to watch - whether from HD-DVD, satellite or other sources. I can't abide TVs, audio systems etc that haven't been properly set up and always try to squeeze the last ounce of performance out of them.

If you like sports, I promise you that once you start watching in HD it's really tough to watch in SD. Baseball probably benefits the least from HD in my opinion, but there really is no comparison for watching other sports in HD vs. SD. Soccer and (American) football probably show off the benefits of HD the best.

Much to my wife's delight (and mine by association), I don't watch sports (except maybe a World Cup quarter/semi/final if the right team's in it). But I definitely appreciate how the HD technology brings a lot of greater satisfaction to many people who do enjoy televised sports.

[orsetto]

I don't fully agree with orsetto. Actually unless he would care to cite examples to the contrary, Disney is the ONLY studio I know that includes a DVD with their BluRay releases as a standard course of action.

When Disney did this they were way ahead of the curve and largely catering to their "electronic babysitter" clientele who needed spare DVDs for the backseat of their Dodge Caravans. Considering how dense Disney has been in the past, recently they've perked up and become the most proactive studio. They are right on top of media consumption trends and are way out in front of their competitors with multiple strategies prepared for a number of possible futures, including delivery on SD cards, downloads, streaming, VOD, phones, etc.

Last month both Warner Bros. and Universal issued official announcements that all major new BD releases for 2010 would include a standard def DVD "bonus disc" (Universal, being the dirtbags they are, will be selling trouble-prone BD/DVD "flipper discs" instead). This is to combat consumer resistance to BD not being playable on the many cheap legacy playback devices in homes and cars, and to smooth the way for Wal*Mart and other big retailers to carry much more BD without alienating the slower-adopting DVD crowd. It sounds like a good idea on paper, whether it will achieve their stated goals remains to be seen. Also do not expect every single new release to include a DVD in the package: you have to parse the studio-speak into plain English (the DVD will be included only on the biggest hits and small-but-important releases they want to give an extra retail push to). Given that it was Warner turned the tide and handed BD its "victory", I'm a little surprised other studios besides Universal didn't jump right on this dual-disc bandwagon. Perhaps they're waiting to see what Sony does first, but that could be a big mistake: Sony is unlikely to "admit defeat" by including a DVD with their own BD releases, even if it proves a very smart interim move for other studios.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Universal, being the dirtbags they are, will be selling trouble-prone BD/DVD "flipper discs" instead

Yeah those flipper discs were a flop on HD DVD, I have two and the HD DVD side won't play without freezing.

I think the studios including a DVD with a BD is brilliant marketing and everybody wins: it increases sales to the studios, the retailers need less space and the consumer can play the movie anywhere. I'm glad they are doing away with the digital copy.

[fritzi93]

I will admit I was disappointed a while back when I bought Predator on BD....It was not the HD quality I was hoping for. However, I did not think it looked WORSE, and have yet to see one that does.

Me either. Admittedly, the "Predator" BD is weak, disappointing even. Perfect example of a poor job, which is why I cited it as an example earlier in the thread. This review puts it well:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/609/predator.html

But it's not worse than DVD, no way. I have a copy on DVD as well. The faults show up most strikingly in shadowy scenes, but at least the video isn't over-sharpened, and no haloing. Well-lit scenes are okay, if not spectacular.

[HemLok]

Some Blu-ray releases have been disappointing but this isn't the fault of the Blu-ray format. The blame falls to those who made decisions behind the how Blu-ray release was managed and the quality of the original footage. Was the original movie remastered or simply transferred? Top Gun is an example of a Blu-ray release that simply doesn't exemplify the improvements in visual quality that are possible with Blu-ray. The Blu-ray release of Top Gun isn't horrid but the dog fighting footage is grainy and part of this can be blamed on the way it was shot originally. I own the Steelbook Blu-ray release of Highlander and that is a movie that has always had issues with the video quality dating back to the VHS tape release and the subsequent SD DVD releases. I always had issues with the parking garage scene being too dark and grainy with the old releases. The graininess transferred right through to the Blu-ray release but hands down the Blu-ray video quality is better than any DVD release for the movie. I've merely listed two Blu-ray releases. Some releases are utter garbage while others have been stellar. The Blu-ray format, as a whole, isn't the problem in these cases.

Seriously, for the people who actually want to claim that a well done Blu-ray release is no better than a well done SD DVD release simply are missing something. My intent isn't to insult people but it really is a fact. Watch both versions on a 50+" HDTV without upconverting the SD DVD one. Then upconvert the SD DVD release. Now watch a well made Blu-ray release. While the upconverted SD DVD release may be far far better than watching it without upconversion the fact is that it won't be better than a decent Blu-ray release.

At the end of the day, I still don't believe that Blu-ray is the best HD format but I can't deny the improvements in visual and audio quality that are part of the format specifications. I still believe that HD-DVD had advantages over Blu-ray and I greatly dislike how much control Sony has over the Blu-ray format be it the specifications, protections, publishing, blank media product, etc. I utterly abhor the fact that the format specifications prevent all pusblishers/studios/etc from moving to release Blu-ray content due to licensing costs. Blu-ray is not an open and friendly format.

[lordhutt]

I have yet to come across an LCD HDTV that I can bear to watch for more than about 30 seconds before feeling quite nauseated. The motion blur (nothing to do with MPEG compression) is awful. Some people see it, some don't. I do. The only HDTVs I can watch are the high-end plasmas and they aren't available in the size I have room for.

Wow, I have to say that sucks and it's quite unfortunate...do you wear glasses?

I like movies and I like TV - but not most of the drivel pumped out by Hollywood using the same crappy formula. More than 90% of my viewing is of movies with the vast majority on TCM or DVD rental.

Although I really enjoy 'good quality' movies I have to admit I am one of those people who will watch almost anything.
There are few movies that I had to turn off after about 10 minutes.

Even if you don't like any of the newer movies/shows there is still quite a selection of older stuff available in BD....although how good the transfer is, is another thing...

Still though, plenty of great movies in the last couple years....
Avatar, Inglorious Basterds, Gran Torino....hmmm now that you have me thinking about it. Although I have 'enjoyed' many new movies in the last few years.... there have not been that many 'great' ones

Every single person that has seen a BD on my 52" Sony has simply drooled!
The more HD I get the less willing I am to watch SD. You can have your 500 pound crt....nothing but flat panels in my house for years now.

But what technology is your Sony?

LCD XBR4

[filmboss80]

This thread seems to have degenerated into the usual "Which is better..." debate. Getting back to the OP's original query, I don't see DVD dying out very soon, based on factors cited much earlier in this thread.

[videopoo]

Seriously, for the people who actually want to claim that a well done Blu-ray release is no better than a well done SD DVD release simply are missing something. My intent isn't to insult people but it really is a fact. Watch both versions on a 50+" HDTV without upconverting the SD DVD one. Then upconvert the SD DVD release. Now watch a well made Blu-ray release. While the upconverted SD DVD release may be far far better than watching it without upconversion the fact is that it won't be better than a decent Blu-ray release

I think some people just like to be on the other side of the fence regardless how ridiculous it is. But anyway....

The Studios will dictate what platform you will watch content. They decide who, what, where and when.

[usually_quiet]

I predict DVD will outlast Blu-Ray. Something else will kill it. I'm guessing what does will be similar to the Kindle's system where there is no physical media.

[Constant Gardener]

When "Gilligan's Island" is available on Blu-Ray, the battle is over.

[karhooi]

Definitely, we saw how CD kills cassette, DVD kills VHS, BR kills DVD

[johns0]

Definitely, we saw how CD kills cassette, DVD kills VHS, BR kills DVD

BeeR kills dvd