Gotta fight some ignorance here.
BD Live and the pop-up menu bar are two additional features of Blu-Ray; the latter is highly convenient. Uncompressed surround-sound audio is an additional advantage of the format over DVD. I could go on but I’m really here just to refute Fish’s use of the word “only.”
Blu-Ray is just Betamax Mark IV or whatever. Sony gets so close to industry standard so many times and always fails.
And this argument sounds like technological advancements in compression and bandwidth techniques are impossible.
I have yet to see any downloaded content that looks as good as Blu-ray.
If you’re content to watch a movie on a shitty laptop screen knock yourselves out.
It also needs to be mentioned that Blu-ray disks are much sturdier (ie resistant to scratching) than DVDs. I gave up buying previously viewed DVDs from Blockbuster and Hollywood video because nearly every title I bought had unforgivably bad scratches; as if people used them to plaster sheetrock.
Someone else stated this and, really, the argument ends with this…
“If you cannot see/appreciate the difference between 480p and 1080p you have vision problems that need to be addressed.”
Find me betamax tape that sold 600,000 copies its first day of release. That would be a monumental feat for ANY media format, let alone one that is already “obsolete”.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/12/11/the-dark-knight-moves-600-000-blu-ray-discs-on-day-one/
On Demand video displays on the TV and looks just fine. You can also load things on an X-Box or other media server. :rolleyes:
Telling the difference, and feeling that it’s worth 8x the cost are two different things.
As the technologies you’re presupposing are unknown and may be delivered at some unknown date in the future at an unknown cost, let’s stick with what we have available to us today for the sake of this argument.
Please explain “8x the cost,” as it appears to be an arbitrary figure.
…or you’re not sitting close enough to the screen…or your screen is not big enough.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/
5 for On-Demand video vs 40 for a Blu-Ray disc. Of course I know there is price fluctuation. Some videos On-Demand do not charge you for the view, and sometimes Blu-Ray discs are available for like 20. But for a new release an average price of 5 and $ 40 for a new Blu-Ray disc.
Considering the topic of the OP, that’s a ridiculous request.
Outside of box sets or special editions, I’ve never seen a $40 blueray. $30, tops.
Hehe - point conceded.
That isn’t saying that much–SDTV maxes out at 480 lines of resolution. By comparison, most people run their computer monitor at 600 lines or higher. TV has lagged behind pretty much everything else as far as video resolution goes. I also find that TVs are more forgiving of defects than monitors–DVDs that look fine on an SDTV can look like crap when loaded into my computer (this is really more a problem with the encoding that the format, but you get the idea).
I’m not saying you should upgrade, that’s up to you and if you’re happy, it’s not my business. But SDTV video quality is pretty bottom of the barrel compared to other forms of video media out today. Saying it looks ‘fine’ is a bit like saying ‘eating that cake won’t make you puke’.
Ok, 5-6x.
$30 is a more realistic figure, with thrifty shopping yielding sub-$20 Blu-Rays in many cases.
Whatever figure you arrive at, it’s an ownership vs. rental argument. It’s also a “just the movie, please” vs. “bonus features” argument.
I rent ($5) the Blu-Ray’s I haven’t seen yet and buy the Blu-Rays of the movies I love. As a trial, I downloaded one HD movie rental from the PlayStation Network. It was just around 9GB downloaded. The picture and audio both were squarely in the “meh” category. For the same price, I wish I would have picked it up at the video store. Haven’t downloaded a movie since.
You’re aware that you’re comparing rental prices (On-Demand) with purchase prices, right? Why not compare it to Blockbuster’s Blu-ray rental prices, or Netflix’s subscription fee for Blu-ray rentals?
Also, please look over amazon, and you’l find that the average price for a newly-released Blu-Ray is about $24.
Downloaded or streamed content is about 90% of my viewing, too.
I don’t expect that to hold up as well once I have the TV I want, though. Even a relatively decent 1.5GB divX movie looks a bit crap compared to regular DVD, on my ho-hum 29" CRT.
I’ve downloaded some “hi-def” content, and while it’s better, it’s not a patch on Blu-Ray, and the added overhead to the DL is asking a bit much.
We’ll need a completely new data transmission infrastructure before direct download video will ever be able to compete realistically with a physical media based HD format. That’ll take a while, and in the meantime Blu-Ray is gonna be king.
Oh, I don’t know, maybe because you wanted to buy Blu-ray discs going forward, but keep the DVDs you currently have (which will look better on HDTV)? No, that’s crazy talk.
There is still no way in the world that you’re averaging 40 bucks a DVD.
No shit. Kinda like the move from black-and-white to color.