By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony's in a 'bag of hurt' because of Blu-ray

I stopped buying physical (video) media a long time ago and since BD cost more than DVD... I just stuck with DVD. You see for a very large majority of users, BD doesn't offer that much of an improvement to satisfy its difference in cost. If BD is every to fully replace DVD, it has to be the same price. DVD looks really good as it is and is usually upscaled on BD players or DVD players with HDMI out. Hell, I won't even pay the extra few cents to rent BD from redbox over DVD. Its just not worth it.

Also, those of you bitching about digital ownership... you still have that choice. You can backup your digital copies on a HDD, SD Cards, or in cloud storage. Which is still infinitely more simplified than keeping tons of discs. All I need now is my minivan to utilize digital sources for video vs disc and I would completely abandon them.



Around the Network

Blu-Ray just didn't manage to capture the flag from DVD, and with digital distribution growing it's no wonder that Blu-Ray is having a hard time.



Not everyone has high-speed fiber internet connection. It takes me like 7 hours to download a 5Go game (Trials Fusion) and I can't stream 1080p movie.

Buyin' Blurays since I got my PS3 back in 2008 (now have 100+ BRs), and never bought a single DVD since then. The difference is HUGE, just try Alien DVD versus BR, or even Inception DVD versus BR. I'm not even talking about the sound here, only visuals.

I just watched Avatar on BR yesterday on my 50 inches plasma Panasonic ST60 : drop-dead gorgeous. Have never seen anything like this before.

I agree prices can be a problem, since BR cost ~30% more than DVD at launch. Just wait for promotions or packs, like amazon usually proposes.



KylieDog said:
Because Bluray is too expensive and frankly the picture quality isn't a leap like VHS to DVD was. DVDs quickly dropped to VHS like prices too, and budget price DVDs lower than VHS ever were. Bluray has forever been more expensive than DVD.

If I buy a movie, I still buy it on DVD.


Do you have eyes? Lol on my 60" Plasma (not even brand new, it's a few years old now, Kuro Elite) the difference is LUDICROUS. 720x480 vs 1920x1080, and the sound quality. Yeesh.

On a 32" 1366x768 "720p" TV, the difference isn't too big. But any decent recent 1080p TV the difference is nuts.



Sums it up well : http://www.avsforum.com/t/1474847/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-blu-ray-vs-online-vs-dvd-vs-vhs



Around the Network
KylieDog said:
Arkaign said:
KylieDog said:
Because Bluray is too expensive and frankly the picture quality isn't a leap like VHS to DVD was. DVDs quickly dropped to VHS like prices too, and budget price DVDs lower than VHS ever were. Bluray has forever been more expensive than DVD.

If I buy a movie, I still buy it on DVD.


Do you have eyes? Lol on my 60" Plasma (not even brand new, it's a few years old now, Kuro Elite) the difference is LUDICROUS. 720x480 vs 1920x1080, and the sound quality. Yeesh.

On a 32" 1366x768 "720p" TV, the difference isn't too big. But any decent recent 1080p TV the difference is nuts.


Not a leap like VHS to DVD.


The resolution increase is actually much larger from DVD to BD, and DVD on my TV looks about like VHS to me. It somehow manages to be both muddy AND blocky.

Funny enough, people often said the exact same nonsense about DVD when it came out.

"Oh, VHS looks just as good as DVD".

"Really?, what TV and sound system do you have?"

"My RCA 21" from 1987, I just run the sound through my TV"

"ooooooookay then"



KylieDog said:
Arkaign said:
KylieDog said:
Because Bluray is too expensive and frankly the picture quality isn't a leap like VHS to DVD was. DVDs quickly dropped to VHS like prices too, and budget price DVDs lower than VHS ever were. Bluray has forever been more expensive than DVD.

If I buy a movie, I still buy it on DVD.


Do you have eyes? Lol on my 60" Plasma (not even brand new, it's a few years old now, Kuro Elite) the difference is LUDICROUS. 720x480 vs 1920x1080, and the sound quality. Yeesh.

On a 32" 1366x768 "720p" TV, the difference isn't too big. But any decent recent 1080p TV the difference is nuts.


Not a leap like VHS to DVD.


So. It doesn't have to be to be justified for some. How much of a relative jump of personal preference varies from person to person. 



disolitude said:
Arkaign said:
Add to that the fact that streaming media looks like hot garbage compared to a good bd on home theatre.

Yeah. Those Panasonic high end home theater plasma and Pioneer Kuro sales really indicate how much people care about best picture money can buy.  We are in the age of "good enough" not "best of the best". 

I am one of those people who just does not care about ultimate picture quality. It just does not enhance a movie enough to be worth the extra costs. 



rolltide101x said:
disolitude said:
Arkaign said:
Add to that the fact that streaming media looks like hot garbage compared to a good bd on home theatre.

Yeah. Those Panasonic high end home theater plasma and Pioneer Kuro sales really indicate how much people care about best picture money can buy.  We are in the age of "good enough" not "best of the best". 

I am one of those people who just does not care about ultimate picture quality. It just does not enhance a movie enough to be worth the extra costs. 


That's fair, and for many movies I also don't care that much. The wife hadn't ever seen 'The Wedding Singer', so we watched it on streaming the other day and it was fine. Some films I feel deserve the highest quality though. Sound and image quality are very important to me for those.



LivingMetal said:
KylieDog said:
Arkaign said:
KylieDog said:
Because Bluray is too expensive and frankly the picture quality isn't a leap like VHS to DVD was. DVDs quickly dropped to VHS like prices too, and budget price DVDs lower than VHS ever were. Bluray has forever been more expensive than DVD.

If I buy a movie, I still buy it on DVD.


Do you have eyes? Lol on my 60" Plasma (not even brand new, it's a few years old now, Kuro Elite) the difference is LUDICROUS. 720x480 vs 1920x1080, and the sound quality. Yeesh.

On a 32" 1366x768 "720p" TV, the difference isn't too big. But any decent recent 1080p TV the difference is nuts.


Not a leap like VHS to DVD.


So. It doesn't have to be to be justified for some. How much of a relative jump of personal preference varies from person to person. 

This is correct. It is a huge jump but most just do not care. I care on games but not shows/movies

 

Also why do people thing 1366x768 is 720p. 1280x720 is 720p..... I have only seen that here lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p