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.
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.
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.
Moved from General Questions to IMHO.
samclem
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think that’s true at all. Seems you can’t get a decent HDTV these days without 3D being already included.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.