How is the DVD a better format then the CD, yet BD is not a better format then CD? Every advantage you can say the DVD has over the CD, the BD has over the DVD, and by a larger factor (other then sound).

The size delta is better.

The resolution delta is better.

Sound is better on BD, but not as extreme.

One of the advantages BD has over DVD, that DVD does not have over CD, is a much better surface coating.

BD is the right amount of jump if you ask me.

No, I expected you to wait 20 years to make a new format rather than forcing out what was available at the time simply to have everyone rebuy their media library for a crisper picture and drive the HD-TV market.

It's been barely 5 years since DVD established itself as the dominant format of the industry and already you want to bring out a new one?

The problem is not that there is better technology to be had at the moment which Blu-Ray did not take advantage of but that the industry didn't wait for better technology to be had before trying to endeavor another format.

no, not at all. Though I appreciate your attempt to belittle my opinion while avoiding my argument and its points altogether.

People get that twisted a lot. Blu-Ray was never an advantage for Sony; Sony was the advantage for Blu-Ray.

Their entire plan is to sell their hi-def business and right now Sony is knee deep in high def.

Gaming and Blu-Ray is another thing totally, I won't get into that though.

I did not list DVD as the successor to CD, I listed them both seperately as respective solutions to thier media. CD replaced Cassettes and DVD replaced VHS.

Simply making a disc that can hold more means little to an industry that wasn't necessaraly hurting for disc space. And better picture and sound are nice, but are ultimately aesthetic improvements, not utility improvements in the way DVD was to VHS in terms of ease of navigation, non-degradable digital format, and the advent of multiple viewing options for a movie or tv show.

Blu-Ray is only a jump in the same respect that DVD-9 was a jump to DVD, sure the jump was bigger but ultimately it was only in superficial aspects, not the convenience or utility of the medium. Even if you can argue that the processes by which Blu-Ray surpasses DVD are far more complex and varied, the end result remains the same, a format that by large improves picture, sound and space, not utility or convenience.

Does this make Blu-Ray bad? Not necessaraly, but it does cast it in a far more questionable argument of whether it meets any standard of necessity as one would expect from a new and emerging format.

I wasn't trying to belittle your opinion at all as I don;t really care about the fate of Blu-ray. I just wondered if your hatred for BD was a result of your hatred for Sony.

You happened to delete the part of my post where I said if there was a small sized 400gb blu ray disc that could be played on a small sized disc man type device then I would see the benefit.  I use my PC for storage not DVDs.  And if you think they would put a whole series of Lost on one disc and pass on the saving to consumers then you are dreaming. 

I don't hate Sony and don't particularally care for you asserting such.

Blu-Ray is too little too soon.

Let's be honest here.

Onimusha12 isn't arguing for or against Blu-Ray, she's arguing against the PS3 as always.

So take her arguments with a gargantuan grain of salt.

@Onimusha

If I had an HDTV and the movie i wanted was on both DVD and Blu Ray, I will buy the Blu Ray to make full use of my HDTV, 1000's of consumers with HDTV's think this way