|
|
|
Consumers still not sold on Blu-ray
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 25 June, 2009
The results of a new survey by Harris Interactive show that despite winning the hi-def format war Blu-ray isn't showing any real signs it will become a mainstream success. In fact they indicate more people own standalone HD DVD players (11%) than Blu-ray players (7%).
When you factor in PS3 game consoles and the Xbox 360 add on HD DVD drive the numbers shift to favor Blu-ray, but it's ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
28. June 2009 @ 05:06 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by FredBun:
The last couple posts hit it right on the head, other than that, bluray does nothing for me, my family, friends and neighbors, I have a Sony XBR 40 in. set, I hate admitting it cause I vowed never to buy anything Sony after that rootkit fiasco, but my deal was almost a steal, I rented our first bluray movie using the kids ps3, we all watched as I also invited the neighbors.
After the movie I kept switching my DVD movie to the bluray movie I had both, nobody could tell the difference, my wife when we watched the bluray movie she asked when are we gonna watch the bluray movie, she knows nothing about anything techie, I said we already did, need I explain more.
What I did see, about a month ago I was at a friends house he had one of them huge sets, 50 plus something, there is when I saw a difference, but not a considerable one, not for the kind of prices these guys are trying to lure you in, I use my upconverted DVD player on my set and it's just fine, if bluray had a difference like from VHS to DVD now that would be a difference, DVD to Bluray, no thanks, plus now they want you to upgrade all your equipment & collections etc, this is a no-brainer where this is going people, and a last point, the other day I was buying some blank media at my favorite site, I just happen to look at blank bluray media, I almost crapped my pants.
I find that very hard to believe Fred. I think the Bravia TV's are one of the sets that Blu-ray differences really shine through. What movie was it? It must have been a poor BD transfer. I have seen the rare BD that has been no better than DVD also, while most are so much better it's like chalk and cheese.
In regards to other comments here, I can certainly agree that quality improvements mean nothing if the story line suffers. However, what we're going for here is a transfer that is transparent to the master. A media standard that can offer the end consumer the ability to basically bring the film reel home and watch and hear the movie as it was intended to be like at the cinema, ie: with no video or audio quality loss when compared to the master.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. June 2009 @ 05:09
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
28. June 2009 @ 06:07 |
Link to this message
|
I knew somebody was gonna come back with a comment like that, e.g. there must of been something wrong with that disc, absolutely not, I already had a store bought DVD of Rescue Dawn, nothing wrong with it, I own a Sony Bravia XBR 40 in. 120hz, and I bought it because it was a 120, the 60's for my eyes were terrible, I actually got a headache from one, the motionflow was to my eyes were unwatchable.
Watching my movies are crystal clear, I went out and rented the same movie in bluray and there was nothing wrong with that disc either, it was a brand new rental from blockbuster, no difference what so ever, I have tons of movies and I am very particular weither it's a copy or store bought, if there is a minor flaw I return or disgard, and as I say again, I'm not the only person that seen it that way.
Last month a friend invited me to watch Spiderman 3 on his superset 50 plus something, his was a bluray, I brought my reg. DVD copy of spidey 3, and yes there was a differnce in quality, but let me expalin if this makes any sense, watching that bluray movie was as clear as watching spidey on my 40 in. set without bluray, cause watching reg. DVD's on his superset was not good, it seems to me the bigger the set the lousier picture on them giant sets, so where's the advantage unless you invest in nothing but bluray and I am not one of those that will spend money foolishly even if I has big bucks, and if you have a quality LCD tv 40 in. or under bluray is totally useless, I would love to say otherwise and admit wow this is great what a difference, but I call them as I see them, bottom line, totall waste of money.
|
Senior Member
|
28. June 2009 @ 09:59 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I would love to say otherwise and admit wow this is great what a difference, but I call them as I see them, bottom line, totall waste of money.
Amen brother Fredbun, Amen.
|
|
Toshibot
Member
|
28. June 2009 @ 10:37 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by FredBun:
I would love to say otherwise and admit wow this is great what a difference, but I call them as I see them, bottom line, totall waste of money.
Not for me.
I just upgraded to an Epson 6500UB 1080p projector and a 96 inch screen. It's BluRay or nothing for me.
Upconverted DVD is barely watchable unless I pass the signal thru a $3500 DVDO iScan VP50 outboard video processor.
BluRay is worth every damn penny I spend on it.
|
Member
|
28. June 2009 @ 10:54 |
Link to this message
|
My media room has a 124" screen. There is a big difference between Blu ray and DVD. DVDs are kind of washed out at that size while BD is crisp.
Bottom line. DVD will join the ranks of VHS. It's just a matter of time.
|
|
HDNow
Junior Member
|
28. June 2009 @ 11:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ChiefBrdy:
My media room has a 124" screen. There is a big difference between Blu ray and DVD. DVDs are kind of washed out at that size while BD is crisp.
Bottom line. DVD will join the ranks of VHS. It's just a matter of time.
It's not just the video. The lossless audio shines when you have the right system. I just got a new Denon receiver and Definitive speakers so tthe BluRay experience is better for me.
According to bluraystats.com 79% of all BluRay movies have lossless audio. It's just another advantage that gets overlooked sometimes.
|
Member
|
28. June 2009 @ 17:54 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by HDNow:
Originally posted by ChiefBrdy:
My media room has a 124" screen. There is a big difference between Blu ray and DVD. DVDs are kind of washed out at that size while BD is crisp.
Bottom line. DVD will join the ranks of VHS. It's just a matter of time.
It's not just the video. The lossless audio shines when you have the right system. I just got a new Denon receiver and Definitive speakers so tthe BluRay experience is better for me.
According to bluraystats.com 79% of all BluRay movies have lossless audio. It's just another advantage that gets overlooked sometimes.
Agreed. I have a Denon too with B&W speakers. There is a noticeable difference.
"Is that 3 thousand dollar bounty on the shark in cash or check?"
"We can do it the easy way...Or we can do it the REAL easy way."
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
28. June 2009 @ 19:19 |
Link to this message
|
Ok, I guess I am starting to see a trend here. Some AV equipment will show little or no improvement with Blu-ray. I too have invested a fair amount into a good home cinema experience which is why I can appreciate the difference (see the link in my signature. I plan to upgrade JBL ES100 pack to the B & W CM9 pack in the near future also). I guess to appreciate Blu-ray, the right equipment is needed.
|
|
stumpied
Junior Member
|
28. June 2009 @ 22:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
The problem with Blu Ray is that far more people have 40" or even 50"+ televisions. If you need a 100"+ screen to "really" see the differance, then most people will not even bother.
I think the Blu Ray lovers are the acception, and "most" consumers are the rule. That's why "most" people don't want to spend the $$$. They see little return or benifit from spending their hard earned $.
I could care less what other people want to spend their money, but for me, right now, not going to happen any time soon for myself.
|
|
Shaggy69
Newbie
|
28. June 2009 @ 23:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Oner:
Originally posted by blivetNC:
It all boils down to cost versus perceived benefits. It was a quantum leap forward in technology between DVD and VHS/Beta, (no rewinding, lots of cool features, much better picture and sound, closed captioning, etc.) unfortunately the gap between DVD and BlueRay/HD is not as great as SOme companiNY wants you to believe. VHS will play on the same TV as DVD, but to realize the difference between DVD and BluRay one needs an HDTV. So, buy a new player and a new TV to see marginally better picture quality.I'm sticking with DVD for now until the mega tetrabyte drive comes out and all my movies are in my media computer and not lined up on a bookshelf or crate.
1) SONY is not the only company in the BD association, funny how you call only a specific one out though for some reason...
2) "The gap between DVD and BlueRay/HD is not as great" ~ Exhibit A & B + some direct ones
DVD - BD
DVD - BD
DVD & BD
If those don't show a "gap" then there is no point of me saying anything further...
well it looks like you used a standard dvd player and not an up scaling DVD player, my up scaling samsung does a wonderful job and actually looks closer to the BD versions of yours. I can almost count the hairs on Kong's arms with my standard DVD playing. like most people are saying, it is just not worth it to upgrade to Blu-Ray for the minimal improvement.
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
28. June 2009 @ 23:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ryu77, edit your sig to conform to forum specs ASAP. yours is 90x115 pixels & 5 lines of text which includes the blank line.
4. If you want to use both text and image in your signature the image should not be more than 500 pixels wide and 100 pixels tall, and you can use up to three lines of text.
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
29. June 2009 @ 01:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ddp:
Ryu77, edit your sig to conform to forum specs ASAP. yours is 90x115 pixels & 5 lines of text which includes the blank line.
4. If you want to use both text and image in your signature the image should not be more than 500 pixels wide and 100 pixels tall, and you can use up to three lines of text.
?? It's been like that for almost a year and now you tell me? It's nice to see that members like myself that have contributed a lot to this website still get spoken down to by mods. ddp, take whatever action you see fit as it really doesn't bother me.
|
Senior Member
|
29. June 2009 @ 06:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
lol, I love this, to all that disagreed about my views on bluray, and don't get me wrong, it's great to disagree cause we can learn from many different point of views, but you guys have made my point for me, especially the one's that own these big sets, you guys are right, you diffently need bluray because of that cause watching reg. DVD's on those sets trully suck so I don't find that an advantage thats a hindurance unless of course you got big bucks and if thats the case more power to you. I'm a different animal, even if I had big bucks I couldn't do it I'm to old school.
I have also been cursed cause you people that own those really huge sets, watching them in a living room my eyes just can't take, and those really big projection screens YUK, even with bluray they suck, the person that owned it thought it was the most fantastic picture and I was glad for him but my eyes coudn't take it, I wish it was different, I had to walk down his hallway before my eyes could adjust to it, sitting to close to those things made me dizzy, him he loved it I was jealous. Unless of course if you can afford one of those huge rooms that create a theater setting that might work and of course your on a pro basketballs players salary.
|
|
varnull
Suspended permanently
|
29. June 2009 @ 06:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's the kings new clothes syndrome Fred.. They paid out huge bucks and can't stand to see anybody who a) doesn't live in a palace big enough to fit the damn things in.. and b) wouldn't squander that kind of money on what after all is only a tv even if they had it.
market share October last year .. b-r 13% .. current 12% .. that's total films on disks sales.. and slowly falling as people see they have been conned. Where are you supposed to fit a 60" or above tv in a room 9' by 8' with a window, 2 doorways and a fireplace in it anyways?
scientific studies in 1934-36 showed that the optimum screen size for comfortable viewing at a sensible distance was 12" at 5-7 feet distance.. anything larger was found to be possibly damaging over extended periods.. they suggest getting up from your computer for 2 minutes in every 30. I can't watch these huge things... they either look damn awful or give me a headache or both.
|
Senior Member
|
29. June 2009 @ 06:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
varnull, ditto
|
|
Toshibot
Member
|
29. June 2009 @ 08:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by varnull:
It's the kings new clothes syndrome Fred.. They paid out huge bucks and can't stand to see anybody who a) doesn't live in a palace big enough to fit the damn things in.. and b) wouldn't squander that kind of money on what after all is only a tv even if they had it.
That's where the whole concept of "home theater" gets lost.
You have to realize that a home theater display is no longer just a TV.
There is a segment of consumers out there that understands that the whole idea behind a "home theater" is to re-create the experience you have when you watch a movie in an actual theater.
Quote:
market share October last year .. b-r 13% .. current 12% .. that's total films on disks sales.. and slowly falling as people see they have been conned.
Everyone in the business world knows that you don't compare sales data from October of the previous year to that from June of this year. You compare year-on-year numbers:
Quote:
scientific studies in 1934-36 showed that the optimum screen size for comfortable viewing at a sensible distance was 12" at 5-7 feet distance.. anything larger was found to be possibly damaging over extended periods.. they suggest getting up from your computer for 2 minutes in every 30. I can't watch these huge things... they either look damn awful or give me a headache or both.
Citing studies from before World War II doesn't prove anything. If I watched a 12 inch screen from 5 to 7 feet away I wouldn't be able to make out the scores at the upper left hand corner of a football broadcast.
Based on more recent studies, sitting 12 feet away from a 96 inch screen gives you the full benefit of 1080p - and a great home theater experience to boot.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
|
Senior Member
|
29. June 2009 @ 08:55 |
Link to this message
|
lol, you know surveys and studies make me laugh even though the one varnull used pretty much nailed it cause it was just common sense, I have yet to see a really large screen that can give you the same effect as going to the movies, we just are not there yet bluray or not if you try to tell me any different I just shrug my shoulders and say yeah right with a giggle, many that spend that kind of money have to defend the cost they put out and thats cool if it makes you happy, just don't try to say it's a real movie experiance, it's not, yes you can make the sound a complete movie experiance but visual not yet.
I know in years to come the visual will be duplicated, again, if you can afford that theatrical room, but remember as varnull said, I don't care how clear that huge screen can be, to watch a tv that big that close cause most people can not afford a theater just isn't gonna happen, and I have read somewhere there already experimenting with large screen tv's that can compare to a real movie screen, than again I could never watch a movie in front rows I would puke, so unless you have those big bucks and don't forget what do you think those new big screens will cost, for 90% of us it's will always be out of our reach, most of us I think will be satisfied with a nice 40 or even a 46 incher.
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
29. June 2009 @ 13:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ryu77, if you had read the rules when you made youro sig then this would not be happening. try to police over 600,000 members with multi-million posts & you can see why you got missed till now. i'm even hitting addicts over their sigs so nobody is immune. just fix it, ok?
|
|
progrockt
Newbie
|
29. June 2009 @ 13:28 |
Link to this message
|
Another good example of the "average consumer doesn't really care about quality" argument is lately I'm surprised at the MAJORITY of bars, restaurants, events and even stores I've been to that have wide-screen sets set up completely wrong, nor do they really care (during the Stanley Cup one set was 16x9 with a squished image with letterboxing on top of that, and another set was a stretched 4x3 picture) most of the people I asked didn't see a problem with the picture including the employees who basically shrugged their shoulders and said "looks fine to me" (I had to leave it was giving me such a headache). Anyways my point being is if the average person can't set up their sets correctly, let alone even see there is an obvious problem with the picture, they sure ain't gonna notice the quality of Blu-ray.
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
29. June 2009 @ 18:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Varnull:
scientific studies in 1934-36 showed that the optimum screen size for comfortable viewing at a sensible distance was 12" at 5-7 feet distance.. anything larger was found to be possibly damaging over extended periods.. they suggest getting up from your computer for 2 minutes in every 30. I can't watch these huge things... they either look damn awful or give me a headache or both.
Good to see that we are referring to studies (75 years ago) that completely relate to our generation. Imagine playing Jay-Z to someone in that generation... "It's the Devil music!... Burn them at the stake!"
The years you refer to is when TV was just being launched to the public. The first TV was made in 1928 and wasn't commercially available until the late 1930's. I couldn't even imagine who could afford one then. Of course they are going to tell that a 12" set is optimum because that is all they could manage to produce at that time! Also, on what basis were these studies performed? Who was the control group? etc. etc.?
Come on Varnull, 12 inches!? and 5 - 7 feet?? Who sits that close to the TV in their Living Room? And where the hell can you get a 12" TV from today? Oh ok... You can get a screen that size with a portable DVD Player! :-P
Originally posted by progrockt:
Another good example of the "average consumer doesn't really care about quality" argument is lately I'm surprised at the MAJORITY of bars, restaurants, events and even stores I've been to that have wide-screen sets set up completely wrong, nor do they really care (during the Stanley Cup one set was 16x9 with a squished image with letterboxing on top of that, and another set was a stretched 4x3 picture) most of the people I asked didn't see a problem with the picture including the employees who basically shrugged their shoulders and said "looks fine to me" (I had to leave it was giving me such a headache). Anyways my point being is if the average person can't set up their sets correctly, let alone even see there is an obvious problem with the picture, they sure ain't gonna notice the quality of Blu-ray.
Yes, you are right there.
I can't begin to tell you how many times I have seen a wide screen TV set up incorrectly.
As I sell this stuff for a living, sometimes it is very difficult to explain modern AV tech to people, while other times people catch on very quickly. It is a new World now that's for sure but one thing for certain is that we are not going to take any steps backward in technology.
That is where the HDMI idea was born. This was ideally introduced as a way for consumers to be able to connect their AV equipment with less set up know how. Digital video and audio in a single connection. As everything is connected digitally, the CEC mechanism can use logic to communicate between devices. This should automate optimum settings for the user. Maybe we haven't quite got there with HDMI yet, but is is an evolving technology which seems to be very close to being 100% user friendly.
So those that wish to stay with DVD, that's fine. I just find it odd that there is something better that is readily available but you choose not to have any interest. Some even go as far as to say, there is no quality improvement? Is this some kind of denial? The only thing that I can understand stopping people is the cost. Now please don't speak on behalf of everyone and tell me that it is too expensive because A) The term "too expensive" is a highly subjective matter and will differ greatly depending on who you ask, and B) The cost of Blu-ray Players and media will come down, it is inevitable. What one should be saying is I can't justify the cost at this point in time.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. June 2009 @ 12:52
|
Senior Member
|
29. June 2009 @ 21:23 |
Link to this message
|
Ryu77, good post, first I really don't think varnull was trying to use that article as a main fact, I think you might have missed the point if you read between the lines so to speak.
Your last point, first you sound like a guy that really knows his stuff technically anyway about these sets and I don't argue the fact, but as you say you think people like myself don't want to get with the program cause of costs only, nothing can be further from the truth in my case anyway, I really couldn't afford the set I got but did it anyway, as I did with VCR's, monitor TV's, surround sound systems and even my first video camera with the portable VCR hanging on my side, before people I hung with didn't even know what the hell it was, I worked harder and longer to acquire these things with arguments from the misses to no end even though in the end she enjoyed these things as much as I did.
I got these things because there was a difference, it was a total new technology, it was exciting even though the prices were dear. So in no way would I hold back and I'm sure many others if something as exciting comes again, hell DVD from VHS was great, now there was something to be excited about, I didn't jump on the band wagon because it was new, it was great, a whole new viewing experience even though many thought I spent my money foolishly later on they all jumped on the band wagon anyway and all came asking me for advise, I was a year ahead of all of them.
Now I'm not techie like you are, but I do have common sense and eyes which are still good thank the bearded guy upstairs, if this bluray thing was worth it I would definitely jump on it, unfortunately it's not meaning it has not much to do with the cost, well some I'm not gonna lie, but the fact of the matter is with the bluray there is nothing to be excited about, in other words it's a rip as far as the prices are now anyway.
Even if the prices come down as low as all the DVD sitch is now, why change anyway, I still cannot see any difference on my 40 inch set, and what about people like me that have a whole collection of DVD movies, I redid my VHS collection to DVD's cause it was worth it, and now were suppose to do it again to bluray because they say the viewing experience is something to behold, are these people sh%#@#g me, it's again the dumming down of America because it has always worked before, this time I don't think people are as stupid or are at least waiting for something well worth more than bluray.
But than again if your the type that has to have the new toys because the industry says it's the way to go than more power to you, and or if you have the big bucks for a theater than that's great to cause that's the only way bluray shines just a little bit.
And last, I still loved your post, it was well written.
|
Senior Member
|
3. July 2009 @ 18:32 |
Link to this message
|
Just a note with my own personal experience.
I've got a 50" Panasonic 1080p Plasma. Yeah there IS a difference in image quality but ONLY if the Blu-ray has been digitally mastered well. Some movies hardly look better than decently upscaled DVDs at all... some do.
With good upscaling DVDs do look excellent. The main difference between that and Blu-ray I see in mid to longshots (like landscapes ect). Otherwise ... meh! It's perfectly understandable someone not wanting to bother with a blu-ray player.
The real advantage is with the HD TV broadcasts... they look much better than the standard SD TV.
I've not bothered to go out and buy any Blu-rays (I just rent them) and I certainly would not bother to replace any of my existing DVDs.
I'm not rich. I'm not interested in a fancy car or somesuch, but I like my AV. I pump my games and a PC (which has the blu-ray OD) through this set too- they look great. So I'm glad I made the purchase of the TV set.
Its a lot easier being righteous than right.
DSE VZ300-
Zilog Z80 CPU, 32KB RAM (16K+16K cartridge), video processor 6847, 2KB video RAM, 16 colours (text mode), 5.25" FDD
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. July 2009 @ 06:46
|
|
zhanxue
Suspended permanently
|
6. July 2009 @ 04:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
SPAM removed
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. July 2009 @ 05:27
|
|
zhanxue
Suspended permanently
|
6. July 2009 @ 04:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
SPAM removed
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. July 2009 @ 05:27
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
zhanxue
Suspended permanently
|
6. July 2009 @ 04:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
SPAM removed
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. July 2009 @ 05:28
|
|
