Fortunately I missed the cassette and VHS craze, but I watched as my small but expensive CD collection became useless garbage, and then I watched as my smaller but equally expensive DVD collection became useless garbage.
Nope, not gonna buy a single blu-ray, and I don’t own a blu-ray player. If I can’t stream it, I don’t really need to watch it. I don’t need to own a copy of anything, I’m probably not going to watch it more than once anyway. You can’t fool me thrice.
I don’t think it’s that people literally can’t tell the difference. I think if you had one TV set up properly playing Blade Runner on a regular DVD, and another identical TV playing Blade Runner on a Blu Ray, then the vast majority of people would be able to pick out the Blu Ray immediately.
But most people aren’t comparing the two formats side by side, they are just watching a movie at home, maybe on a good new TV where everything is set up right, and maybe not. A small minority of film enthusiasts cares about watching specific films in the best possible way, most people just want to watch a movie for the night.
And for visual spectacles like Life of Pi it would make more sense to watch them on Blu Ray. But looking at the new movies on DVD this week, which include The Gift, Pixels, Max, and Southpaw, I would guess the vast majority of people wouldn’t really care about having the best visual quality for those movies.
Really, they weren’t trying to gouge anyone. Keep in mind that only a very small number of film buffs will buy a title for a hundred bucks. But a much larger population will do so when the title is closer to twenty bucks. So they make a lot more overall selling to the larger audience at the higher price.
I think it’s a combination of most people not being that excited about higher resolution as to go out of their way to deliberately get a Blu-Ray version for the higher resolution, and that in most cases, what they have is good enough.
I mean, if I’m getting something on disc, I’ll always opt for the Blu-Ray version, but if the option is streaming in 720i on the regular subscription fee, or buying a full-price Blu-Ray in 1080p, I’ll just stream it.
I can tell the difference- I have a calibrated 50" 1080p Panasonic plasma TV, and I’m sitting at the right distance. The problem is that for most everything I watch, I just don’t care that much. But it can be spectacular when you see a well done 1080p Blu-Ray… my son loves the “Cars” and “Planes” movies, and they’re particularly spectacular in 1080p, being digitally generated and all that.
But for watching TV and movies on Dish Network at home, I can get most of the movie channels in 1080i, and most broadcast networks are in 720i or better, so there’s not much call to go get Blu-Rays of anything just to avoid interlacing.
I can’t remember the last time I actually put a physical disc in a machine to watch a movie. Streaming is so dominant that now the idea of physical media seem weird.
I don’t consider my CDs “useless garbage.” I’ve long since ripped them all to iTunes and now the physical discs are my “archival” copies.
Some films can never be blu-ray quality. 28 Days Later, for example, was filmed entirely digitally and at the time they did not film it at Blu-Ray quality. Oh sure, they sell a blu-ray disc. But the quality literally cannot be better than dvd because the master isn’t high enough resolution. So the blu-ray disc for this movie is a rip-off (and the reviews on amazon say as much).
I too thought at one point that blu-ray and dvd mostly looked the same, but that was mostly the result of looking at bad blu-ray releases. Seeing one properly mastered makes the difference obvious. You can see it especially when looking at people’s faces and making note of how many details you can see.
But as to the topic at hand: high priced blu-rays and streaming service. Due to this combination I’m very selective about which media I pay for on blu-ray.
Yeah, but I remember it took several years before new releases in VHS were down in the 20-30 dollar range. For a long time, you’d have to wait most of a year after its theatrical release for a movie to come out on VHS, then you had to wait most of a year again for it to come down from $69.99 to $29.99. If by that time you still cared enough about the movie to want to buy it anymore.
There are movies that tell a story–The Notebook, Gremlins, It’s a Wonderful Life, Joe vs. the Volcano, Shirley Valentine–where the story is more the point than the camera work. DVD or VHS is satisfactory.
When you get into things like Blade Runner, Avatar, LOTR, etc. I’d say you are better-served by Blu-ray because the better visuals help to pull you into the artist’s world. As a bonus, more content on a Blu-ray means you can do a long movie on a single disc.
Can’t really argue with that – if someone doesn’t care enough about resolution to bother with HD content then it’s their call. Much as some are OK with squawking sounds coming out of their TV speaker instead of having a home theater audio system. And for some movies I don’t much care whether it’s HD or not, either, but for most I do. I was responding to those who claim that they don’t actually see any difference at all. And I really don’t think that it’s just a “small minority” that care about optimizing the visual and audio experience, or you wouldn’t have so many people buying large TVs and home theater audio systems. It’s a small minority who literally set up home theaters with large screen projection systems.
And FTR, I think “upconverting” is overhyped. You can’t get more information than is already in the image, and upconverting is what your TV scaling engine already does to all content less than its maximum resolution. I know there are upconverting players that are touted as doing a better job but I’ve never been persuaded.
I don’t know what you used to pay to rent DVDs, but I used to pay about $3/night for first run movies, in 1990s prices. The current $4-6 to rent one is about even, inflation-adjusted. And I had to physically go to the store twice in about 24 hours, which took time and gas and maybe they didn’t even have the movie I actually wanted.
So, compared just to old rentals, new rentals are actually a pretty good deal.
What’s really changed is that there’s more competition. There are so many more movies and shows and other entertainment that’s available for lower cost or free in a variety of ways that I’m less willing to pay that except for things that are really high on my list.
Agreed.
I have no idea what a p is and i notice no difference between blueray or dvd, i assume my fancy nearly new tv does have a shit ton of p’s.
If I want to watch a particular movie, I’ll do it right and see it in a theater. If I’m watching at home, it’s either background noise or mindless distraction- in which case I’m not really particular about the exact thing I’m watching as long as it is entertaining. I’m probably watching on my iPad or even my phone.
As for owning, the small risk that Apple or Amazon tanks is well worth not having a bunch of junk cluttering my house that I need to haul around when I move. I really don’t want to own any physical media. I want it in the cloud, where I can get what I want wherever I happen to be and otherwise don’t have to think about it.
Cosigned. When my son was living at home, he would get annoyed to find me watching the “regular” version of a channel instead of the HD version. He’d flip it, and I’d nod and smile when he said, “See, isn’t that better?”
Couldn’t tell a bit of difference.
When I purchase a movie or tv episode from Amazon I always choose the cheaper SD version because it makes zero difference to my eyes.
When I got my first HDTV many years ago, it was just a small 32" model as they were still pretty expensive back then. And only 720p.
I remember my brother at the time scoffing that HD made much of a difference, or that you could even see the difference on a small screen. But I was pretty excited about my new toy and when he came over for a visit I put on some HD broadcasts. “See what I mean?” I gloated. He sat their quietly, and said “yes, I can see that.”
Point being, the next thing I heard, he had spent a fortune getting a gigantic HDTV of his own. 
I don’t know what to say about all these claims that folks “can’t tell the difference”. Either there are a lot of TVs improperly configured, or we have a significant representation here from members of the Association of the Legally Blind. 
My eyesight is pretty freaking bad 
I can see the difference between HD and not, at least when they’re side by side. If you showed me a single TV and asked whether it was HD or not, I’m not sure I would be right very often without the comparison. Most importantly, I just don’t care. I do not feel like a slightly sharper image improves my viewing experience.
When I go buy a new TV, it will certainly be HD, but I have no current plans to buy a new set, and a blu-ray player is even further down the list.
We only bought Hgtvs last year, at the time we dropped cable and went to all streaming. I had not purchased a DVD in years and there was no point in buying Blu-ray with CRT TV sets.
I don’t know about “portable,” but in terms of players for TVs, I have a hard time finding one that will play DVDs but not Blu-Rays.
Question: how many of the DVDs in the stores you visit are for recently released movies? TV series, I can understand, as there won’t be many Blu-Rays of series that weren’t in HD at the time.
Both DVDs and Blu-Rays are being hurt by streaming. Buying (as opposed to renting) discs, like buying VHS tapes, was seen as a niche market, except for things like animated films that would be watched quite a few times. With streaming, especially through cable boxes, there’s no real need to rent a disc (and the hassle of actually having to go somewhere to rent it, and then go back to return it) any more.
Anybody else remember DivX, and the complaints that it would make it far too easy for studios to restrict when you could watch your movies? 15 or so years later, more and more people “rent” movies through streaming, and Netflix keeps announcing its “list of what movies are no longer available.” Who had the last laugh after all?
An interesting analysis on the interplay between factors related to seeing the difference. 1080p Does Matter – Here’s When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)
Our rooms didn’t get smaller 12 years ago when BR was introduced. for a good chunk of that time TVs in bigger sizes were still pretty expensive. Streaming was already gaining by the time prices were really coming down for the screen. Even then at 10 ft on a 50" screen you are just at the point where the difference between 720p and 1080p starts to show up. For a lot of people, for a lot of the time that BR has been on the market, there was a big cost to get the screen bigger or the need to set the room up suboptimally for everything but watching TV. Even with dropping prices it’s still not cost free to just go bigger on the TV.
From the links conclusion:
One thing that has not been mentioned is that many, many computers were sold with DVD burners, which made for handy back-up and data portability. Some time since, we have been buried in a pile of keychain thingies and SD cards which have made the data usage applicability of discs decline precipitously. Few computers were sold with actual blu-ray burners, so that piggy-back effect never materialized. And the capacity was never comparable. They were aiming for 60Gb on a dual layer double sided disc, IIRC, which is really blown out of the water by solid-state storage devices that have become very inexpensive.