Has Blu-Ray Fizzled?

[Paul in Qatar]

I certainly would not know. I live in the Middle East and get my US programming by downloads. I cannot recall the last time I bought a (non-Blue Ray) DVD. I have a DVD player, but it is not Blue-Ray.

I do see old-fashioned DVDs are still for sale, so the new format has not eclipsed them. Further, DVDs themselves now seem old-fashioned. In addition, the new format was introduced just at the start of this economic funk. Not the mention all the new formats (3d TV?) that has been confusing people of late; all in all, a prescription for disaster.

Has Blue-Ray failed to launch?

[Pitchmeister]

I buy and watch Blu-rays frequently, they are alive and well. Sure, they are a bit more expensive than DVDs, but around here Download is just not an option in terms of quality, selection or availability of original language versions. I realize downloading is the future, but I like having the physical discs, and like I said, without the proper infrastructure in place, downloading isn't much fun.

[Shagnasty]

Blu-Ray is common but certainly not universal. It is superior technology to the legacy DVD format so it has not failed and will continue to grow. The biggest strike against Blu-Ray is the price premium that studios charge for Blu-Ray over regular DVD. Regular DVD is good enough for many people and there are still plenty of regular DVD players in service as standalone players and in computers so they have to continue to release movies in both formats for the foreseeable future.

[aceplace57]

I think Blu Ray was significantly harmed by the ridiculous anti piracy stuff. For example you must have the right hdmi tv and cable or you don't get the hi def resolution. Trying to connect to an older computer in hi def is really hard.

That kind of straight jacket on technology does nothing but discourage people from buying it. I still haven't bought blu ray because its just not worth the hassles and extra cost.

[kanicbird]

Quite ironically Bluray got a boost because of streaming, as many of the early HDTV's didn't have streaming capability, buying a $100 Bluray player gave people online streaming, which in those days meant Netflix, and Netflix came with the DVD by mail service, with the option to add BluRay service. So Bluray is established in many homes already.

I don't think it has failed but is becoming more of a niche, that of the highest consumer grade quality. DVD's don't have this level, nor does any streaming I'm aware of, so if you want that special movie in all its glory on your HDTV it's bluray or nothing.

That said, Bluray is not poised to dominate the marked as DVD's did as the preferred medium has changed for more casual viewing to streaming.

[The Second Stone]

There is very wide availability of BR in stores in California and all new releases are both DVD and BR. They are always a two to ten dollars more when side by side. Both pictures are good, but BR picture is much better in my opinion. My personal opinion is that BR is a huge success for the companies (Sony and ?) that developed it.

[GreasyJack]

The best comparison is probably Laser Discs, which weren't really a failure but never moved from the enthusiast market. There simply isn't enough to distinguish between DVD and Blu Ray unless you're an enthusiast with a pretty nice TV, so I'm guessing just as Laser Disc was ignored by vast swaths of the population, so too will Blu Ray.

[md2000]

I would say it's doing Ok. the problem as alluded to above is the price premium, especially for new releases.

the problem all discs have is that people are buying and even renting less (Blockbuster just closed up shop in Canada). The big rush - people buying movies they remember and love - seems to have died. Now the trick is to sell new releases. A side market was selling old TV shows, but even this market is becoming saturated. Not that many people want to buy season 3 of Columbo or Bonanza.

The main problem is streaming. Netflix is so much faster and usually cheaper; and you find what you want right there, instead of going store to store and digging in bargain bins or paying silly prices. Plus, people are not seeing great value in owning a copy. Music, fine, you listen to over and over. Audiovisual gets tired much faster. A song lasts 3 minutes, a movie takes 2 hours out of your life. how many movies have you watched 10 times? How many hit songs have you NOT heard 10 times?

DVD/BR Discs have pretty much morphed into a top-40 market and a bargain bin market.

All the problems DVDs have, Blu-Ray has and costs more.

The major value of BluRay is quality of picture. I own, for example, Avatar in BluRay. However, how important is it to own or watch Meet the Fokkers or Date night in hi-def? Plus, all those old episodes of TV shows were meant for 480i originally anyway.

Plus, there's the saturation aspect - people who are satisfied with the TV and DVD player they have, will not run out to buy bluray until the price is trivial or they buy a bigger, better TV that can use it.

My contention is that a technology captures a market, like CD or DVD did, when it is so much better than what went before that people will go "wow" and run out to buy it. CD's beat the heck out of vynil and tapes for sound quality and manageability (eventually, even for car stereo). DVD beat the heck out of tapes for watching pre-recorded material.

Blu-Ray? Not that great a jump up on DVD, especially when DVD upconverting technology is included. Certainly no better in convenience of acquiring or playing the material - where streaming wins.

I tend to buy really good material that must be seen high quality, usually on BluRay. When I rent something, I tend to rent DVD since I can easily rip that disc if (as happens) I don't get to finish watching it before it is due back. Either Netflix selection is crap in Canada, or they don't let you browse their selection properly, but I don't see anything ther that is worth $8/month.

[kaylasdad99]

Here's the setup we've had in our home entertainment system for the past ten years: My satellite DVR plugs into the VCR, and the VCR video out goes to the TV. That's when I'm on channel 3 on the VCR. I've got the DVD player in the AUX1 input to the VCR. All audio out from the VCR goes directly into our stereo amplifier through RCA cables.

So last spring when I won a flat screen TV and a Blu-Ray player, I saw that there was a coax input for the video and some RCA audio outputs (along with the HDMI ports), and I figured, "Hey cool, I can just slide the Blu-Ray in the system where I used to have the DVD player."

Nuh-uh. The Blu-Ray player only has HDMI outputs. So I still have the DVD player in the system, the Blu-Ray goes directly into the TV, and we don't get surround sound when we play a disk in the Blu-Ray.

I haven't bought a Blu-Ray disk yet, so I'm not in a position to say if I'm doing to be spoiled.





Anyway, does anyone know if there are ANY Blu-Ray players that have both HDMI and RCA output jacks?

[beowulff]

I think it's fair to say that Blu-Ray hasn't been the resounding success that was hoped for. After winning the battle against HD-DVD, it seems to have lost the war. On the market since 2006, it has only achieved a 26% household adoption rate, compared to 91% for DVD:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu...aches-26-26721

Blu-Ray is likely to be the "last gasp" for optical media, before everything goes streaming. There are lots of people (like me) who have nice DVD-based home theaters, and don't see the need to upgrade their libraries and projectors (or monitors) to Hi-Def just yet. I'll give it a few years and see how it all shakes out.

[md2000]

Nope. Worse yet, if you get an upconverting DVD payer, it too has only HDMI out. I have an old(? 2003?) rear projection TV downstairs, and it was the last year before digital input. It claims it will do 1080i on component plugs, but the only unit that I have heard of that will put that signal out is an older Bell Expressvu HD satellite receiver.

For a few months, Samsung sold upconverting DVD players with component, but the movie studios made them pull those off the market. HDMI only.

I sympathize with you. The problem I have is too many remotes. For the living room home system I have the satellite TV remote (which I hav set to turn the TV off and on as well) and the remote for the tuner/amp. When I want to watch a DVD, I need the DVD remote. Sometimes, if I don't turn things on in the right order, the TV decides to switch to a different input, and I have to drag out the TV remote to change it back to AV5.

As for feeding TV from computers, over wifi or ethernet - it's logical, but it terrifies the movie studios so badly they don't want their content anywhere near it unless yo are a computer geek. I still haven' figured out what real practical use an Apple TV box is, without a DV or BR player in it.

[kaylasdad99]

I presume you were answering my last question, md2000. That's kind of a pisser, unless I resign myself to finding and buying a stereo amplifier with HDMI inputs. But then I'm going to have to get a new CD player that has HDMI ports. Also a VHS VCR, and a tape duplicator. And I think my karaoke player.

Sheesh. I thought the financial consequences of winning this stuff was going to be limited to a little extra income tax.

[Skammer]

Doesn't your TV have audio outputs? On our system, the Blu-Ray, satellite box and Wii all go into the TV (different inputs) and all the sound goes from the TV to the sound amplifier / stereo.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Anyway, does anyone know if there are ANY Blu-Ray players that have both HDMI and RCA output jacks?

For audio? Most of them. Looking at BestBuy.com, it's hard to find one without analog audio out.

Personally, I'd just bite the bullet and get a decent AV receiver. I'm not going to guess why you need all those VHS connections, but it will limit you to what receivers you can get, as most analog-to-HDMI upconversion has been eliminated from entry-level receivers, since it's such a niche consumer need.

Do you have a Fry's Electronics near you? They always have great deals on entry-level receivers. Less than $200 is going to get you something that should work really well.

But then I'm going to have to get a new CD player that has HDMI ports.

Most AV receivers are going to have all the inputs you could want (except S-Video, which most have phased out). Your CD player is going to have be incredibly old to not have an optical audio port on it.

[muldoonthief]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Here's the setup we've had in our home entertainment system for the past ten years: My satellite DVR plugs into the VCR, and the VCR video out goes to the TV. That's when I'm on channel 3 on the VCR. I've got the DVD player in the AUX1 input to the VCR. All audio out from the VCR goes directly into our stereo amplifier through RCA cables.

So last spring when I won a flat screen TV and a Blu-Ray player, I saw that there was a coax input for the video and some RCA audio outputs (along with the HDMI ports), and I figured, "Hey cool, I can just slide the Blu-Ray in the system where I used to have the DVD player."

Nuh-uh. The Blu-Ray player only has HDMI outputs. So I still have the DVD player in the system, the Blu-Ray goes directly into the TV, and we don't get surround sound when we play a disk in the Blu-Ray.

I haven't bought a Blu-Ray disk yet, so I'm not in a position to say if I'm doing to be spoiled.





Anyway, does anyone know if there are ANY Blu-Ray players that have both HDMI and RCA output jacks?

Do you mean RCA jacks for the audio? Try this Panasonic player.

[jasg]

Originally Posted by GreasyJack

The best comparison is probably Laser Discs, which weren't really a failure but never moved from the enthusiast market. There simply isn't enough to distinguish between DVD and Blu Ray unless you're an enthusiast with a pretty nice TV, so I'm guessing just as Laser Disc was ignored by vast swaths of the population, so too will Blu Ray.

Blu-Ray has fizzled for me - and I am a guy with nearly 400 Laser Discs in the closet. I have a few hundred DVDs, but never adopted Blu-Ray.

Probably never will, I am a Netflix/VOD junkie now.

[Munch]

As someone who absolutely loves bluray (I think both the picture and audio upgrades are well worth the tiny extra investment in hardware), I think the best thing to come out of the technology is a realization by many that compiling a "video library" is one of the stupidest things you can do. Because bluray movies are so much more expensive than DVDs have been, people see the extra hurdle as too much to overcome, and resort to either a) Netflix or b) on-demand/streaming. I just shake my head at all the money I poured down the drain buying DVDs, and vowed to not repeat that error this time around. I enjoy the hell out of my system - but now my enormous video library must be sent to me one disc at a time for $10/month rather than cluttering up my house and costing thousands of dollars.

[jasg]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Anyway, does anyone know if there are ANY Blu-Ray players that have both HDMI and RCA output jacks?

Only if you find an older unit that was manufactured in 2010 or earlier.

The content providers will not allow output of 'analog' HD signals in new players. This was referred to as the 'analog hole' since it provided a mechanism to re-record an HD signal without copy protection (on very specialized equipment). Go here for an explanation.

[Kinthalis]

I still love my blu-ray movies. It's either blu-ray or streaming for me.

It's true that on PC blu-ray is a hassle. You need a GPU that supports the DRM, and a monitor that does as well. Most modern PC's are set in that regard, but older PC's need not apply.

On top of that, you'll need a third party app to actually view the content as it's not natively supported by windows.

I ended up just ripping my blurays to high quality .mkv (h.264 streams) and storing them on my hard drive.

Now they play in Windows Media Center on my dedicated HTPC, as well as just about every other device thanks to various streaming services I have setup.

[Little Nemo]

It clearly beat HD.

In terms of BluRay vs DVD, I feel that BluRays did beat DVD's but DVD's are surviving much better then I would have expected. When DVD's beat VHS, they essentially drove VHS's out of the market. BluRays aren't doing that to DVD's - DVD's are still being made and sold and I think they've even regained some of the market they had lost to BluRays.

I think BluRays just came out too late. VHS's and DVD's were introduced when people bought or rented movies. Streaming movies has become the new thing. So the people that would switch formats didn't switch from DVD to BluRay - they switched from a physical format to streaming. And the people who didn't switch to streaming are likely to be traditionalists and they're the people who would stick with DVD's.

[srzss05]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Anyway, does anyone know if there are ANY Blu-Ray players that have both HDMI and RCA output jacks?

I had an el cheapo that had RCA/component/HDMI, plus optical audio. I find it hard to believe that one can't find a BD player that won't work with the setup you describe, because I hooked it up via component and optical audio for 5.1 Dolby stereo (my TV has only 2 speakers, so the HDMI audio was wasted).

And component video is almost as good as HDMI, as both are HD.

[Kansas Beekeeper]

I had a Blu-Ray player for over a year. I use it to watch Netflix "Watch Instantly" and regular DVDs. I have yet to watch a Blu-Ray disc in it.

[gunnergoz]

No question but that I like my BR player with the movies made for it. I retired two regular DVD players and a VCR when that puppy went on my 50" TV. I do hate the price premium I pay for the BR movies, though...that truly sucks. Thus I buy far fewer than I did DVD's.

[samclem]

Moved from General Questions to IMHO.

samclem

[Francis Vaughan]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Anyway, does anyone know if there are ANY Blu-Ray players that have both HDMI and RCA output jacks?

I assume you mean RCA audio outputs with full surround. In the low end players the answer is that there were some, Panasonic made some, but they have mostly gone. The higher end players still exist with full surround audio outputs. Oppo for one. But they are not exactly cheap. If you mean component video output, no, they are no longer made.

It is possible to get HDMI to analogue converters - so you can feed a TV that only accepts component video. They are not available in the US, as they are, in principle, in violation of the HDMI rules. They were available until about 18 months ago. Still possible to mail order them however. I use a HDFury-3 to drive a very old Barco CRT projector - which despite its age can project 1080p and produces first class pictures. On this setup the difference between a DVD and BluRay is blindingly obvious. A neat thing about the HDFury is that it also has an optical audio output, which can emit stereo or AC3 5.1 sound

The problem with HDMI is that it is a solution that requires end to end HDMI to really work well. It really assumes that everything uses HDMI. Then it works out rather well, and simplifies things dramatically.

[Larry Mudd]

I think the consensus in this thread is a little more negative than is borne out by reality. I recall reading in Forbes earlier this year that 2011 sales of BluRay media increased 20% over 2010, and device sales increased 40%.

I think this is natural as large 1080p TVs are similarly becoming much more common than even relatively recently - DVD or Netflix can be pretty underwhelming on a ~50" screen.

Another thing that is driving an uptick in adoption of Bluray is its 3D capability - there were three times as many 3D Bluray releases in 2011 than 2010, and actual sales increased six times. There are even more 3D titles in 2012, and this trend is increasing.

For my part, BluRay purchases closely mirror what I'll see in the theatre. I may settle for download or streaming for something if I don't care how it looks - but if it's a good looking production of the sort I'd be interested in seeing in the theatre, if I buy it it's going to be Bluray.

[ftg]

People were hoping 3D would finally push Blu-ray into wider acceptance. But sales of 3D sets and such has flattened. There's even signs of weakness in 3D movie ticket sales for non-blockbusters, especially kids' movies.

Without a continued push from 3D, it's going to continue to fizzle along.

[control-z]

I think it's doing ok, but the market is splintered now with various Internet streaming options available, plus many people are still happy with DVD. If you want HD programming on a disc it's the only choice unless you do it yourself.

I reserve Blu-Ray for my favorite movies or shows, but I can't remember the last time I bought a Blu-Ray disc. I'd buy Seinfeld if it came out on Blu-Ray, I understand the show was shot on film so what we saw on television was lower quality.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by ftg

But sales of 3D sets and such has flattened.

I don't think that's true at all. Seems you can't get a decent HDTV these days without 3D being already included.

[Colophon]

I think physical video/music media of any kind will be museum pieces by the end of the decade, if not sooner. The whole idea of "owning" a film or an album will seem ridiculously old-fashioned to today's kids, who will get used to being able to watch or listen to just about anything ever recorded on demand, more or less anywhere.

[Heracles]

Well, for a while, the most widespread Blu-Ray player was the PlayStation 3.

Mine is usually connected via HDMI, but it does have RCA composite output (NTSC 480p format, of course). I just tried it out, and I was able to watch a Blu-Ray through the composite output (at 480p resolution, of course). But I know the PS3 also supports a component output cable via the same connector, so analog 720p should be possible.

It's possible, though, that some Blu-Ray discs have restrictions on analog output. I only have ONE disc (Spider-Man 3, which came bundled with the PS3) so I can't testify.

[ZipperJJ]

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99

Anyway, does anyone know if there are ANY Blu-Ray players that have both HDMI and RCA output jacks?

I bought this sweet LG earlier this year for use in my basement. I wanted it for all of the various-format-playing features plus the internet connectivity. I have it hooked up to the SD TV in my basement via RCA. According to the LG page on it it has HDMI, composite, component and digital out.

That very player is also recommended by mhendo in this current thread about playing MP4 files.

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by ftg

People were hoping 3D would finally push Blu-ray into wider acceptance. But sales of 3D sets and such has flattened. There's even signs of weakness in 3D movie ticket sales for non-blockbusters, especially kids' movies.

All of the reliable market research and statistics (from Screen Digest, NPD Displaysearch Quarterly, etc.) indicates that 3D technology continues to show healthy growth of 3D tech and content in both cinema and home markets.

Yes, we still see a steady stream of opinion pieces predicting an end to the "fad" using cherry-picking, but it isn't really significant when you are looking at the big picture. For example, it's true that movies primarily aimed at very small children are performing less well in 3D than they did initially. This is not difficult to understand, if you've ever taken a toddler to a movie. I'm not going to take my kids to a 3D movie until they can sit still and leave the glasses on.

This has very little to do with the continuing appeal of being able to watch movies in 3D at home. Take a look at movies which make good use of 3D, such as Hugo, The Adventures of Tintin, The Amazing Spider Man, Prometheus, Brave, The Avengers (grudging admission,) and the upcoming Hobbit trilogy, The Great Gatsby, Wreck-it Ralph, Avatar II & III, etc... (Yes, this includes some blockbusters - 3D does seem to work best for spectacle, for some unaccountable reason...) Of course people will prefer to be able to watch them in 3D as an option.

LG is putting everything into their passive 3D sets this year. This is attractive for people who balk at the bulk and expense of shutter glasses and don't mind trading resolution for 3D they can use with regular polarizing glasses. (The image still looks much better than DVD, although I prefer active 3D.)

3D aside, Bluray is still the best choice if you want your movie to look good on a decent TV. I like Netflix and all, but not for something I want to look good - even their "HD" content bitrate maxes out at 5 Mbits. I'll take Bluray's 36 - 48 Mbits for anything I actually care about, thanks.

[asterion]

I prefer passive 3D. The active is too expensive, too flickery, and too hard to use with glasses. My passive set lets me use a set of clip-on 3D glasses that are much more comfortable and work great. They even work with the non-IMAX 3D in theaters, which again makes for a much more comfortable time.