BD loses ground to DVD even with $199 BD players

[tuoyo]

Jordahn said:

tuoyo said:

Jordahn said:

frybread said:

DVD offered many advantages over VHS.

No rewinding, ability to skip to any scene, interactive features, widescreen (rare on vhs), took up less space, and finally: picture quality.


Blu-Ray offers just one advantage: picture quality...

 

...AND uncompressed sound, TWO noticable advantages. People need to realize that going the HD route is far more than just upgrading a 19" SDTV to a 32" SDTV. That's just a little more than incremental. Going from SD to HD (Blu-ray) is a whole new ball game. To really take fulll advantage of Blu-ray, you need a 1080p HDTV AND a sound receiver that supportS uncompressed sound. All your equipment pretty much needs to be new. But the sound quality still sounds better on a non-uncompressed audio supporting receiver. I think the main reason for the decline is because of a lagging economy and high gas prices. Otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't be business as usual.

You are kidding right?  I have a £1000 HD projector, an £800 surround sound receiver and an £800 speaker package and I got a £300 Sky HD satellite box and pay £10 a month extra for HD sibscription.  I can tell you that even with these there is no way buying HD discs is worth the money.   HD does not offer any great advantage that makes it worth any substantial outlay.  I would still rather buy a DVD for £5 than a blu ray of the same movie for £10.  Now that's even with me already having all the required equipment.  Imagine how the average person that needs to upgrade all his equipment would think.

 

No I'm not kidding, and I'll tell you why.  The only way you are going to readily get 1080p with uncompressed sound and disc extras for the time being is with Blu-ray.  You are of the OPINION that Blu-ray isn't worth the money which I can respect.   If some people are willing to pay extra to get extra, then so be it.  CD's were more expensive that cassettes, and DVD's were more expensive than VHS.  Some people were willing to pay extra then, and some people are willing to pay extra now.  Nothing wrong with that.  You CANNOT fault someone for acting on their own preference when they can afford to.  And about the average person, the way I see it is that Blu-ray isn't for the average person for the time being.  HD is catering more towards the HD enthusist.  I for one never though that Blu-ray will be dominant/mainstream.  As long as it has its target audience, and it's worth the content providers' business venture when both parties are happy.

See that's where you are wrong.  The real benefit in the jump from cassette to cd and vhs to dvd was not the picture and sound.  On the tv sizes and technology (CRT) that were available at the time you couldn't really tell a major difference between vhs and dvd.  It is only with flat screens (and their crap performance with anything with a poor quality source) and with surround sound systems being more readily available that you noticed a difference in sound and picture quality.  The real benefit was not having to bother with rewinding and forwarding and not having to worry about your tapes wearing out from significant use.  This is especially true in the case of music.  Quality is not the reason why cd had a strong uptake.  Otherwise how do you explain the fact that mp3s are killing off cds?

Blu Ray unfortunately does not offer that advantage over DVD which is why I think unless Blu Ray manufacturers force it on people by making movie studios stop producing movies on DVD I don't think it is going to have a chance.