Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet.
These are some of the reasons I came up with. Why do you not have one or why do most people you know don’t?
1- I don’t have the money.
2- I don’t have an HD TV to show it on so why bother.
3- I think the players are still too expensive. Waiting for prices to decrease.
4- I think the movies are still too expensive. Waiting for prices to decrease.
5- I don’t think the quality over DVD is enough to justify the expense.
6- I can get movies through cable, or via Internet so why bother.
7- I think another medium is not far down the road so I will just wait for the next craze.
(For those who picked # 3 or #4, how much lower does it need to go before you jump on the bandwagon?)

I jumped on the Blu ray (and HD DVD) bandwagon long ago, but some of the reasons my friends give are:

8- I don't want to have to muck around with continual firmware upgrades when a movie won't play.
9- Loading all that Java nonsense takes too long...and isn't worth it! It makes watching a simple movie into a chore. (Watching a movie on a DVD player is simple and straightforward.)
10- No resume feature. (I don't want to mess around with "Bookmarks.")

#2. The TV I have is only 27"!

That's going to change in 2 weeks though! ;)

For me 4 and 5.

Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet.
These are some of the reasons I came up with. Why do you not have one or why do most people you know don’t?
1- I don’t have the money.
2- I don’t have an HD TV to show it on so why bother.
3- I think the players are still too expensive. Waiting for prices to decrease.
4- I think the movies are still too expensive. Waiting for prices to decrease.
5- I don’t think the quality over DVD is enough to justify the expense.
6- I can get movies through cable, or via Internet so why bother.
7- I think another medium is not far down the road so I will just wait for the next craze.
(For those who picked # 3 or #4, how much lower does it need to go before you jump on the bandwagon?)

Hey...live a little, would ya!

Were not talking about cashing in your 401k amounts.
A buck and a half for a player and $10 to $25 for a movie... or if you like to hear the eagle scream everytime you let it go, try renting.

These excuses are so stale.

I jumped on the Blu ray (and HD DVD) bandwagon long ago, but some of the reasons my friends give are:

8- I don't want to have to muck around with continual firmware upgrades when a movie won't play.
9- Loading all that Java nonsense takes too long...and isn't worth it! It makes watching a simple movie into a chore. (Watching a movie on a DVD player is simple and straightforward.)
10- No resume feature. (I don't want to mess around with "Bookmarks.")

I haven't heard non BluRay people say this because, quite honestly, I don't think they know enough to know that BluRay has these issues/considerations.

I do believe that all new players should have built in wireless ethernet for seamless firmware updates. Anything less is going to handicap the adoption of the format.

Hey...live a little, would ya!

Were not talking about cashing in your 401k amounts.
A buck and a half for a player and $10 to $25 for a movie... or if you like to hear the eagle scream everytime you let it go, try renting.

These excuses are so stale.

Those prices might be accurate for a rerelease of an older movie, but new blockbusters are bumping $30. When those get below $20, I think the format will do better.

7- I think another medium is not far down the road so I will just wait for the next craze.
There won't be another viable disc format for a very long time. Even if one came out today...Remember the early days of HD DVD and Blu-ray when their catalogs were less than 100 videos? When a week would go by with zero movies released in an HDM format?

Those prices might be accurate for a rerelease of an older movie, but new blockbusters are bumping $30. When those get below $20, I think the format will do better.
And that is why I suggested renting which can run $2 to $5 per view. No need to spend $30 (which is not what anyone spends these days for new) on a new release.

Those prices might be accurate for a rerelease of an older movie, but new blockbusters are bumping $30. When those get below $20, I think the format will do better.
And new release DVD's are $19-25 after the initial release week. :)

Its not uncommon to get a DVD on release week for $17ish. I haven't seen that with BDs, more like $27-$29ish.

Its not uncommon to get a DVD on release week for $17ish. I haven't seen that with BDs, more like $27-$29ish.

Depends on where you shop. If you go with amazon pre-order you can buy them in the 17 to 20$.

I don't think the general public are that bothered about it, certainly not for the set-up costs involved plus the added cost of the movies. I think it's more of an enthusiasts format and will probably remain so. Maybe if the general public have a PS3 in the house they may have had a quick dabble with Blu-ray.

Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet.
These are some of the reasons I came up with. Why do you not have one or why do most people you know don’t?
1- I don’t have the money.
2- I don’t have an HD TV to show it on so why bother.
3- I think the players are still too expensive. Waiting for prices to decrease.
4- I think the movies are still too expensive. Waiting for prices to decrease.
5- I don’t think the quality over DVD is enough to justify the expense.
6- I can get movies through cable, or via Internet so why bother.
7- I think another medium is not far down the road so I will just wait for the next craze.
(For those who picked # 3 or #4, how much lower does it need to go before you jump on the bandwagon?)

8-what's the deal with this "HD" thing, what does that even mean?

(from what I hear when I shop for movies, some people simply have no clue what Blu-ray is about! They don't know what "HD" means, they still don't understand why those movies wouldn't work in their dvd player, and worse, they try to get an explanation from people as clueless as they are. Fro some of them, simply watching a dvd on a plasma/LCD TV magically transforms it into High-Definition...:rolleyes:)

Nothing new here. Some one posts this exact same rant with exactly the same list about once a month.

Nothing new here. Some one posts this exact same rant with exactly the same list about once a month.

+10, and the funny thing is that it's posted in the HD media section here about 99.99999999999999% of people already own HDTV and Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.

Its usually takes two things to invest in BD.

1. A display that makes BD justice.

2. That you care about PQ.

Very often, I meet people that fills one of the two. My father in law sits with a 50inch plasma about 2 meters away. But he doesnt really care about PQ, he doesnt seem to care that much about movies either, but he wanted a big TV.

And other friends doesnt even have a HDTV yet. One even still watches VHS tapes. Another one sits with a HDTV, but didnt care that much about movies, but I got him to atleast buy a DVD with HDMI.

With projector owners, its a different story. Every single one of my friends with projectors use BD.

...I do believe that all new players should have built in wireless ethernet for seamless firmware updates. Anything less is going to handicap the adoption of the format.

That means you have a wireless network configured in your home with a broadband connection. Yes, those things seem common, but not for many people. I use the "Mom and Pop" test here: Would my mom and dad ever get a BD player? No chance. Not until BD players act just like DVD players (which is somewhat of a new thing for them too!).

Not needing an internet connection and never needing a f/w update will open up BD to the "general public". That, and a big price drop for BDs. Until then, this stuff is strictly for technology literate people, and for those who have disposable income to burn on it.

Not needing an internet connection and never needing a f/w update will open up BD to the "general public". That, and a big price drop for BDs. Until then, this stuff is strictly for technology literate people, and for those who have disposable income to burn on it.

Agreed.
It seems that for whatever reasons, movies are still coming out that don't follow specs therefore needing firmware updates.

If the player manufacturers one day said, "this is it, no more firmware updates" and the movie companies had to remake tens of thousands of disc, we'd all be better off.

For the OP, heard it all before. Nothing changes except the devices (LP to CD, B&W to Color, VHS to DVD, etc. etc.). We are in the eleventh year of HDTV and have about 50% penetration.

From a SMPTE sales chart that is two or three years old.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/3003120039_9329ae8d35.jpg

From a SMPTE sales chart that is two or three years old.
Let me guess: the guy who made that chart still has a black and white TV at home and hence the reason with no less than 6 graphs has no color coding to tell the CD and DVD lines apart :).

Nothing new here. Some one posts this exact same rant with exactly the same list about once a month.
I did not mean to start this thread as a rant. I am not anti-Blu-ray. I was just curious as to why it has not caught on quicker with its fantastic sound and video.I just spent a bunch of money on HD T.V., 5.1 speakers, HD cable box, and receiver and a Blu-ray player will be next.

The most common one I hear is the that they don't see a difference in picture quality between Blu-ray and DVD.

YET, they are quick to point out how much better their picture quality has improved with an HD Broadcast, over their old standard analog broadcast.

Apparently they can see the huge difference between 480i and 720p/1080i broadcasts.

But they can't detect the improvement between a 480i DVD and a 1080p Blu-ray.


I mean, I am showing them reference quality Blu-rays on a Pioneer Elite 50" 1080p Plasma. Still, they don't seem to see it. Lol!

Anyway, cost is the next most common thing. This is a far more acceptable reason imo.
Just say it's to expensive still, which I kinda agree on, but just don't say there isn't a difference!

The most common one I hear is the that they don't see a difference in picture quality between Blu-ray and DVD.

YET, they are quick to point out how much better their picture quality has improved with an HD Broadcast, over their old standard analog broadcast.

Apparently they can see the huge difference between 480i and 720p/1080i broadcasts.

But they can't detect the improvement between a 480i DVD and a 1080p Blu-ray.


I mean, I am showing them reference quality Blu-rays on a Pioneer Elite 50" 1080p Plasma. Still, they don't seem to see it. Lol!

Anyway, cost is the next most common thing. This is a far more acceptable reason imo.
Just say it's to expensive still, which I kinda agree on, but just don't say there isn't a difference!

I think it has more to do with video based vs. film based. Most people I know think Monday night football is superior to most BD films (I know its not). Sports are bright and colorful and more life-like versus films which are 24 fps and more "film-like".

For my friends it would have to be the following (I personally don't have a stand-alone player, I just use my PS3):

Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet.
These are some of the reasons I came up with. Why do you not have one or why do most people you know don’t?

1- I don’t have the money.

3- I think the players are still too expensive. Waiting for prices to decrease.

4- I think the movies are still too expensive. Waiting for prices to decrease.

5- I don’t think the quality over DVD is enough to justify the expense.

http://www.**********************/track/img/3358/s09v0317fvxp/00.gif

I did not mean to start this thread as a rant. I am not anti-Blu-ray. I was just curious as to why it has not caught on quicker with its fantastic sound and video.I just spend a bunch of money on HD T.V., 5.1 speakers, HD cable box, and receiver and a Blu-ray player will be next.

It has caught on quickly. You can't compare it to DVD as that was the quickest adopted technology in history.

For comparisons sake (I turn 50 this summer) my family didn't own a color TV until 1975 (21 years after introduction). I didn't buy a VCR until 1982 (7 years after introduction). I bought my first CD player in 1987 (4 years after introduction). However, I bought a DVD player 2 months after they were available. Quite a difference there, eh? :)

Art

That means you have a wireless network configured in your home with a broadband connection. Yes, those things seem common, but not for many people. I use the "Mom and Pop" test here: Would my mom and dad ever get a BD player? No chance. Not until BD players act just like DVD players (which is somewhat of a new thing for them too!).

Not needing an internet connection and never needing a f/w update will open up BD to the "general public". That, and a big price drop for BDs. Until then, this stuff is strictly for technology literate people, and for those who have disposable income to burn on it.
Agreed.
While my knowledge of technology may not be SOTA, I'm not a techno-newbie either. My house is NOT networked, wireless or otherwise. I just bought my third BD player. If you tell people, they are going to have to get their house/apt. wirelessly networked, and have to pay the extra expenses that go with that, just to watch BDs, they aren't going to be happy. Unless they function just like a DVD player, the masses aren't going to like it.
Just my 2 cents.
J

I did not mean to start this thread as a rant. I am not anti-Blu-ray. I was just curious as to why it has not caught on quicker with its fantastic sound and video.I just spend a bunch of money on HD T.V., 5.1 speakers, HD cable box, and receiver and a Blu-ray player will be next.
Most people I know don't want one. They don't like the pricing, and they say they get enough HD via satellite or cable. Most just don't care.
J

And new release DVD's are $19-25 after the initial release week. http://www.*****************/trafficreport/img/3721/k08t1221bbuq/gdsmile.gif

That's right! :D

Let me guess: the guy who made that chart still has a black and white TV at home and hence the reason with no less than 6 graphs has no color coding to tell the CD and DVD lines apart :).Your guess could be correct, could be that he worked on SMPTE 421M also :D

For BR to shine properly a few things need to be in place (just video side only):

1. A large high quality HD 1080p set.
2. Some form of calibration
3. Optimal seating distance

For many these factors alone becomes an issue. People often don't buy large sets, get them calibrated and sit close to them. Having a 42inch HDTV at 15ft isn't going to give you much of a dramatic effect.

Even if you resolve the issues above you still get into factors like encode quality and most importantly, an actual appreciation for HD. Example: my gf doesn't care that we watch a movie in BR or regular DVD (on a Pioneer Pro 151 at 9ft). It simply means nothing to her. Never seen her once comment on depth and clarity or any of these things that are the "wow!" factor to her. She's not alone. Many out there are more like her, than us.

My take has always been, if BR is to become mass market, it'll be through forced adoption. Meaning, the CE's will cycle out DVD players with BR players and media prices will come down to DVD levels. At this point BR adoption will sky rocket but it might not compliment the business plan. The whole "people will pay a premium for HD!" isn't going to happen.

I haven't heard non BluRay people say this because, quite honestly, I don't think they know enough to know that BluRay has these issues/considerations.

I guess I should add that these non BluRay people are at my house watching my BluRay films and watching some of the shenanigans that I go through to get a film going. :)

I did not mean to start this thread as a rant. I am not anti-Blu-ray. I was just curious as to why it has not caught on quicker with its fantastic sound and video.I just spent a bunch of money on HD T.V., 5.1 speakers, HD cable box, and receiver and a Blu-ray player will be next.

Blu-ray had a slow start due to the very nasty format war. Sales are going well now. If you check the sales thread you will see that BD is more than making up for the decline in DVD sales even though there are more ways to get content now than ever before as well as greater competition from games etc. The new cheaper players are just rolling out and should really push sales in Q4.

Blu-ray had a slow start due to the very nasty format war. Sales are going well now. If you check the sales thread you will see that BD is more than making up for the decline in DVD sales.

Did I miss something? From the thread you suggested:

01/06/08 - 05/11/08 DVD+BD Revenue: 3,914.68
01/04/09 - 05/10/09 DVD+BD Revenue: 3,878.02

That looks like a slight decline to me. I guess you can blame it on the economy, but time will tell.

BD is no doubt being hurt by the poor economy, but IMO it is debatable whether any new disc-based format can succeed (beyond SD DVD) before HD downloads become ubiguitous.

a lot of folks i know have never even heard of blu ray. and only a few even know about hdtv.
and most folks i know are into outdoor based leisure time (skiing, boating, hiking, camping, etc) activities and very little tv.

Blu-ray had a slow start due to the very nasty format war. Sales are going well now. If you check the sales thread you will see that BD is more than making up for the decline in DVD sales even though there are more ways to get content now than ever before as well as greater competition from games etc. The new cheaper players are just rolling out and should really push sales in Q4.

BD is doing fine, but it is not making up for the drop in DVD sales. The physical market as a whole is contracting.

Not sure why this is rehashed all the time in recent months. Anyone that has watched the news or read the papers would realize the economy is in dire straits and DVD has reached title saturation. I am surprised that Blu-ray is doing as well as it is considering all the circumstances.

Please note the green box in the graphic.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/sites/hmm/files/uploads/Web%20Research_518.jpg

Not sure why this is rehashed all the time in recent months. Anyone that has watched the news or read the papers would realize the economy is in dire straits and DVD has reached title saturation. I am surprised that Blu-ray is doing as well as it is considering all the circumstances.

Please note the green box in the graphic.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/sites/hmm/files/uploads/Web%20Research_518.jpg

OMG did you not read my post or the BD sales thread? For 2009 vs. 2008...

01/06/08 - 05/11/08 DVD+BD Revenue: 3,914.68
01/04/09 - 05/10/09 DVD+BD Revenue: 3,878.02

Its nice that you found one week where disc sales were up but that does not mean very much when we have 5 months of data to look at instead. I would say over all disc sales are flat or even slightly down this year. Agree? btw, movie sales are way up...

As for the economy, I did a quick search and found that movies are doing very well...
In Downturn, Americans Flock to the Movies
Suddenly it seems as if everyone is going to the movies, with ticket sales this year up 17.5 percent, to $1.7 billion, according to Media by Numbers, a box-office tracking company.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/movies/01films.html

And from 5/11/2009
Despite strength at movie theater box offices -- ticket sales are up 16 percent year-to-date versus 2008 in the United States and Canada -- the industry continues to face problems.

Sales of DVDs remain slow. U.S.-based Digital Entertainment Group said consumer spending on all forms of home entertainment -- DVD, new Blu-ray discs, and digital downloads -- was off 5 percent in the first quarter of 2009 compared to last year

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKTRE54B05W20090512

Yep, even digital downloads can't help disc sales right now!


Now t tie this back to the OP...The reason "Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet."..is because MORE people are going to the Theaters!

The DEG added digital to the numbers this year (and boosted the overall 1Q revenue by half a billion dollars), and the home market still contracted.

This is not a knock on Blu-ray, which is doing fine on it's own accord. It is simply a fact of the market that physical media on a whole is in decline due to the sharp drop-off in DVD. Perhaps it would not be "re-hashed" if people would not post false info.

This is not a knock on Blu-ray, which is doing fine on it's own accord. It is simply a fact of the market that physical media on a whole is in decline due to the sharp drop-off in DVD. Perhaps it would not be "re-hashed" if people would not post false info.

Yes, and to be clear. NO ONE has said BD sales are not doing well or BD sales are flat. We all agree BD sales are increasing at a solid steady pace. The problem is that DVD is so dominant that not even BD plus downloads can over come its sales slide.

As stated earlier I am surprised that Blu-ray is doing as well as it is considering:

Analyst: CE Weakness Hurting Best Buy, Costco (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/best-buy/analyst-ce-weakness-hurting-best-buy-costco-15738)

Ongoing plummeting sales in consumer electronics resulted in Pali Capital May 13 reaffirming its “sell” rating on Best Buy Co. stock.

April CE sales fell 12% compared to the same period a year ago and were 2.4% worse than last December when “the world seemed to be ending,” Pali analyst Stacey Widlitz wrote in a note.

Indeed, Costco Wholesale Corp. reported a 38% decline in TV sales in April, which contributed to a 6% monthly revenue decline to $5.18 billion from $5.54 billion last year. Wal-Mart’s March CE sales were down as well, according to Pali.

Best Buy, Wal-Mart and Costco are significant retailers of Blu-ray players and movies.

Widlitz said Best Buy had successfully assumed about 30% of shuttered Circuit City’s customer base, which she added might not be enough to offset environmental factors.

“We think it is not unlikely that [Best Buy’s] domestic business could be down [nearly 10%] in fiscal year 2010,” Widlitz wrote.

Its nice that you found one week where disc sales were up but that does not mean very much when we have 5 months of data to look at instead. I would say over all disc sales are flat or even slightly down this year. Agree? btw, movie sales are way up...



To be fair, the graphic he posted was for the current week - not just the best week he could find.

Art

To be fair, the graphic he posted was for the current week - not just the best week he could find.
Art
It was still cherry picking. If you look at the weeks ending 04/26/09 or 04/20/08 it is a very different story.

He knows it varies week to week depending on what is released. Picking only one week is VERY misleading. I picked a 5 month time frame trying to be fair.

Most people I know don't want one. They don't like the pricing, and they say they get enough HD via satellite or cable. Most just don't care.
J

Ding,Ding.Ding. We have a winner!

BD is no doubt being hurt by the poor economy, but IMO it is debatable whether any new disc-based format can succeed (beyond SD DVD) before HD downloads become ubiguitous.

VOD and DLs are growing

I personally think that people just don't want to own movies as much as they did. They are satisfied with current quality and they are actaully more inclined to subscription models like Netflix, DLs or VOD then owning a disc and this will become even more prominent as times passes by. The quality is good enough for many IMO. People want more convenience and if higher quality comes with it, well that's just a plus.

I personally think that people just don't want to own movies as much as they did.

One thing I reflect over every time I buy a movie in HD that I already own on DVD, is how many times I have watched the DVD.

Sure some has been watched until I can every line from the movie, but most times its one watch per movie, maybe twice.

So its no doubt alot cheaper to rent a movie, then buy it.

But there was a convinience (and still is) to buy a movie, because that way I dont have to return it, and I dont have to watch it right away.

So I think rent vs buy has alot to do with the price difference. Some movies on BD cost 6 times the price of renting. Then I can rent the same movie 6 times before its cheaper to buy.

VOD and DLs are growing

I personally think that people just don't want to own movies as much as they did. They are satisfied with current quality and they are actaully more inclined to subscription models like Netflix, DLs or VOD then owning a disc and this will become even more prominent as times passes by. The quality is good enough for many IMO. People want more convenience and if higher quality comes with it, well that's just a plus.

Yep, one look at the activity in the DL section will confirm this.

Forget about the several billion spent on disc purchases last year...it's a dead market.

People want to own things that have value to them, always did, always will.

Yep, one look at the activity in the DL section will confirm this.

Forget about the several billion spent on disc purchases last year...it's a dead market.

People want to own things that have value to them, always did, always will.

Luckily we have some history from a similar market to help us on this so that we are not making wild guesses...

There once was an entertainment market where disc based media had taken over tape and gained a 90+% market share. Then came 2 competing HD forms of disc based media to compete with the "SD" format. So who won? Digital downloads and Apple.

Here they come...

Here they come...

Oh, I see you are already here!:D

Now back to the topic please.

Signing off.

Oh, I see you are already here!:D

Now back to the topic please.

I never left :p

To get the thread back on track.

We all have friends that has purchased bluray and we all have friends that have not purchased bluray.

So can we see any connection between our friends that havnt invested into BD?

To get the thread back on track.

We all have friends that has purchased bluray and we all have friends that have not purchased bluray.

So can we see any connection between our friends that havnt invested into BD?

From my observations, I think there are two classes of people. Those who want Blu-ray. For those folks, cost is not longer an issue. If you want Blu-ray, you have it. $200-$250 is really not a barrier for anyone I know.

The other class is those who want a new DVD player. Either because theirs broke or they want upconverting, etc. Some of those folks are looking at what is out there and opting to get a Blu-ray player. They are not as likely to switch their viewing to Blu-ray (they will still buy and rent DVDs), but they do expand the market and buy "blockbuster" titles on Blu-ray.

Both of those will provide some growth on the hardware side. And the folks who WANT Blu-ray will increase over time based on title availability.

To get the thread back on track.

We all have friends that has purchased bluray and we all have friends that have not purchased bluray.

So can we see any connection between our friends that havnt invested into BD?

I know people who do not watch a lot of TV. Some reluctantly bought a DVD player.
I know people who are more in to watching sports and do not like movies as much.
I know people who do not like to spend money.
I know people who have poor vision.

Those are types that are not buying Blu-ray.

I have an idea.

We all ask our non BD friends this question.

"Why have you not purchased a Bluray player?"

And then we post their answers here, even if their reason is technical wrong or is based on other faulty information. He could be fun to compare the answers.

Reasons I haven't bought BD Player:
* I have a 32" LCD. Not really worth it to me for that small a screen.
* For a while hdmi connections on Audio receivers were flaky and I wanted to upgrade the receiver at the same time. Haven't looked recently
* The early players were slow and buggy. They were also kinda big; looking very first gen.
* The cost has gone down but not enough that where the benefits of better picture quality and sound equal the cost; to me at least.
* I seem to be going away from wanting to own physical media. Also BD media is high if my viewing is low.
* Now subscribe to Uverse HD TV and supplement with Redbox DVD rentals
* I stopped reading up on the HDMI standard. Is this final yet or will it remain a moving target?
* I have other priorities gaining the monies - paying off debt, savings, daughter's college savings, car maintenance/upgrades, travel, going out.

I plan to get a larger screen possibly next year and even then I don't really seem to have the urge to look at BD players. I find that strange because I'm really into electronics. My Home Theater consists of a small Sharp LCD, 7.1 Mirage setup, SVS PC Ultra 13, Pioneer 7.1 receiver (non-hdmi), Wii, Dreamcast, Genesis (:D), Progressive DVD player, AT&T Uverse HD. I may add a small PC for web browsing.

I know people who do not watch a lot of TV. Some reluctantly bought a DVD player.
I know people who are more in to watching sports and do not like movies as much.
I know people who do not like to spend money.
I know people who have poor vision.

Those are types that are not buying Blu-ray.
and there are a LOT of them. imo.

To get the thread back on track.

We all have friends that has purchased bluray and we all have friends that have not purchased bluray.

So can we see any connection between our friends that havnt invested into BD?

I'm the only one in my circle of friends and coworkers that has Blu-ray.

We all ask our non BD friends this question. "Why have you not purchased a Bluray player?"

I did. As I posted above.
The players cost too much, the discs cost too much, they get plenty of HD from cable or satellite, or they just don't care.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

J

I'm the only one in my circle of friends and coworkers that has Blu-ray.



I did. As I posted above.
The players cost too much, the discs cost too much, they get plenty of HD from cable or satellite, or they just don't care.

Why is that so hard for people to understand?

J

Yeah, none of my friends has a player. I am not sure about coworkers, but I don't know any that do....there may be some (I try not to talk to a lot of those people).

Of course, up until about a month ago, I was the only one in my circle of friends with an HDTV. Now 2 of us have them! But my parents have been talking about getting one.....of course they've been talking about getting a DVR for 5 years and still don't have one, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

As stated earlier I am surprised that Blu-ray is doing as well as it is considering:

Analyst: CE Weakness Hurting Best Buy, Costco (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/best-buy/analyst-ce-weakness-hurting-best-buy-costco-15738)

At 13.2% Angola had the best economic growth rate in the world in 2008. The United States was #67 at 1.4%.


Remember to click on this link the next time someone brings up % growth as meaning something is doing well. A % based off a low baseline is just a joke :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(real)_growth_rate

At 13.2% Angola had the best economic growth rate in the world in 2008. The United States was #67 at 1.4%.


Remember to click on this link the next time someone brings up % growth as meaning something is doing well. A % based off a low baseline is just a joke :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(real)_growth_rate

The other thing is how the heck can you be surprised at BD sales are up when movie ticket sales are up 17.5%! That markat doesn't even have a tiny baseline!

Poor color TV, how will it ever survive in a world full of B&W TV’s. There is little programing available and the color sets cost so much more than B&W sets.

Poor CD, how will it ever survive in a world full of LPs. There are few titles available and the CD players cost so much more than turntables.

Poor DVD, how will it ever survive in a world full of VHS. There are few titles available and the DVD players cost so much more than VCRs. And DVDs don’t even record.

Poor Blu-ray, how will it ever survive in a world full of DVD. There are few titles available and the BD players cost so much more than DVD players.

Poor XXXYYY, how will it ever survive in a world full of BD players. There are few titles available and the XXXYYY players cost so much more than BD players.

Poor ZZZZZZ, how will..........

A % based off a low baseline is just a joke :)That is so lame. Some of us understand that most everything started with ZERO as a baseline. A local dealer was the kickoff point for DirecTV. I got to see DirecTV as having customer number 1.

That is so lame. Some of us understand that most everything started with ZERO as a baseline. A local dealer was the kickoff point for DirecTV. I got to see DirecTV as having customer number 1.

Point is that Blu Ray is doing well relative to how well it did last year at this time, when we all know that last year at this time Blu Ray sales were microscopic. Blu Rays overall share of packaged media has been around the 10 % mark since Oct of last year or so. It hasn't changed much since then. So bacically in terms of 'market penetration' Blu Ray hasn't increased it's market share since Q4 of last year.

Doing better than it did last year? Sure! Increasing it's market share on a consistent basis? Not since last year of Q4.

Now I know you'll bring in that you can't compare Q4 with Q1. I am NOT comparing the revenue of Q4 to Q1. I am comparing the change in market share. Market share is based on how the pie is divided not how big the pie is. Sure Q4 pie is bigger than Q1. No one is arguing that. But the important thing to note is that how the pie is divided hasn't changed since Q4 of last year. That clearly says that the ratio of people buying DVD v. Blu Ray hasn't changed since Q4 of last year - or since the last 6 months or so.

Now in the case of color TV v. Black and White. I am sure there was a period when the ratio of people owning color TV v. black and white started going up on a consistent basis. 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%.....it didn't just stall at 10% like Blu Ray seems to be at!

Will the ratio increase? I sure hope so! 10% isn't what studios had in mind. Sony bet a big part of their future on Blu Ray being a dominant format. It led them to put it in all their PCs thereby making them more expensive and losing market share (I own a Vaio laptop, a Vaio all in one and an HTPC (TP 20) all with Blu Ray drives) and put it on their key game console (I don't own a PS3) and to not really support digital distribution (i.e. no Netflix streaming, late to digital distribution).

Sony is not the only one. Pioneer and Panasonic have also bet big on Blu Ray. However, with Panasonic it's not as committed as Sony (my opinion) since apparently they are putting Viera cast to their TVs and some Blu Ray models.

There's a lot riding on the success of Blu Ray. I believe it will come down to studio pricing for content though.

Why most people do not have bluray????

Uh..Because they are lame.

But seriously though, I know plenty of people with HDTVs that doesn't have a Bluray player yet.

AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

AGAIN, EVERY SINGLE ONE

Says its due to the price.

They don't want to spend $299 or $279 or $249, or even $199.

All of them are waiting for the day when they can walk into a Costco or Walmart or Best Buy, and pick one up for $99, without even thinking about it.

And lucky for all of them, I'm confident come this holiday shopping season, plenty of stores will have Bluray players for $99.

It'll be last year's model, or it'll be a brand like Memorex or Sylvania, but I believe almost every store that sells Bluray players, will have some kind of Bluray player for $99, regularly, come this holiday season.

Poor color TV, how will it ever survive in a world full of B&W TV’s. There is little programing available and the color sets cost so much more than B&W sets.

Poor CD, how will it ever survive in a world full of LPs. There are few titles available and the CD players cost so much more than turntables.

Poor DVD, how will it ever survive in a world full of VHS. There are few titles available and the DVD players cost so much more than VCRs. And DVDs don’t even record.

Poor Blu-ray, how will it ever survive in a world full of DVD. There are few titles available and the BD players cost so much more than DVD players.

Poor XXXYYY, how will it ever survive in a world full of BD players. There are few titles available and the XXXYYY players cost so much more than BD players.

Poor ZZZZZZ, how will..........

Think about what you wrote. In each case the tranition was driven by a dramatic change in user experience, not just cost.

The comparison that comes closest based on the list above is Color TV and B&W. In the other cases the new technology hardware was not backwards compatible with the old format. In other words, once you bought a CD player you could not play LPs on it. You had to change your behavior, same for DVD and VHS. In both of the later cases, the new technology was more portable and more versatile to use.

A Color TV could also show B&W content. So if I bought a Color TV I would not lose access to content I had before. This exactly what happens when someone buys a Blu Ray player. It is a low risk purchase since it can always be used for DVD and in some cases can also stream Netflix and YouTube. Features that no DVD player offers today. So, from a pure content perspective a Blu Ray player is the ideal optical disk player to buy. Hence, why I can easily see Blu Ray players selling more than DVD only players.

Now for the content. In the case of Color v. B&W the content to the end user was the exact same price. They didn't have to choose between color or B&W. At least not that I know of. So when I bought a color TV the cost of content did not go up if I wanted to watch color programs.

With Blu Ray that is a big difference. The cost goes up if I want to use it for Blu Ray. So there is a decision to be made. So I could buy a Blu Ray player and still keep buying DVDs. Is the difference between DVD and Blu Ray the same as color v. B&W? You tell me! Also remember the only cost of upgrading from B&W to color was the cost of the color TV, a one time cost. With Blu Ray it's a disk by disk premium. Hence, why I keep saying it all comes down to software pricing when the hardware is fully backwards compatible. In the end that is what doomed DVD-A and SACD while CD lived on. The software premium. So I may buy a couple of demo SACDs or DVD-As and then just go back to buying regular old CDs. My SACD or DVD-A player would handle it just fine.

Not sure if you follow what I am saying, but that's the best explanation that I can come up with :)

And lucky for all of them, I'm confident come this holiday shopping season, plenty of stores will have Bluray players for $99.

It'll be last year's model, or it'll be a brand like Memorex or Sylvania, but I believe almost every store that sells Bluray players, will have some kind of Bluray player for $99, regularly, come this holiday season.

True. They'll buy the players and probably a few demo disks. I hope by then the premium over DVD will be a non factor for most people, so that as a society we can evolve from SD to HD in optical media :)

There's a lot riding on the success of Blu Ray. I believe it will come down to studio pricing for content though.

Not sure if you follow what I am saying, but that's the best explanation that I can come up with :)

Well you missed the entire point. All of the devices I mentioned were/are successful in the market place contrary to what the naysayers of the relative time said. Most of the points made against BD were made against these devices. Professionally, if you only knew the hours/days/weeks/years I put in trying to promote:


Stereo audio (and Dolby Surround) for TV
Composite Digital Video
Component Digital Video
HDTV
ATSC
Dolby Digital 5.1 Audio for TV


Yes, in all cases it required significant expenditures for the agency. The sad part is most of the management arguments against the upgrades is the very same stuff posted here. That is:


It cost too much
Nobody has it
There is no program content
Most people can not hear the difference
Most people can not see the difference
Last but not least, no one really cares

I haven't bought a Blu-ray player yet, and the primary reason is that the difference in picture quality just isn't that important to me. Not enough benefit to outweigh the drawbacks of cost (hardware and software) and annoyance (slow load times, firmware updates).

We're not big purchasers of DVDs, probably have 20 or 30 around mostly due to the kids or special purchases. But the final reason we haven't gone Blu-ray is that even though the hardware is backward compatible (can play DVDs), the software is not. Much of our limited DVD watching is in the car (for the kids on trips), taking them to Grandma's, bringing them on vacation, etc. And Blu-ray discs just don't work for us in these instances. It's made me hesitate to jump into a new format.

We should be good candidates - we have three HD sets scattered around the house (65", 52", and 43"), but the difference between Blu-ray and DVD doesn't seem as big to me as the difference between HD and SD television programming (at least when I've seen Blu-ray, at Fry's or Best Buy). And yes, before anyone asks, my eyes aren't that good (probably closer to 20/30 than 20/20).

Well you missed the entire point. All of the devices I mentioned were/are successful in the market place contrary to what the naysayers of the relative time said. Most of the points made against BD were made against these devices. Professionally, if you only knew the hours/days/weeks/years I put in trying to promote:


Stereo audio (and Dolby Surround) for TV
Composite Digital Video
Component Digital Video
HDTV
ATSC
Dolby Digital 5.1 Audio for TV


Yes, in all cases it required significant expenditures for the agency. The sad part is most of the management arguments against the upgrades is the very same stuff posted here. That is:


It cost too much
Nobody has it
There is no program content
Most people can not hear the difference
Most people can not see the difference
Last but not least, no one really cares


You cherry picked,

Your list did not contain:
Betamax,
V2000
Laserdisc
DCC
Elcasette
Quadraphonic
Minidisc
DVDA
SACD
HD DVD

My list of failed or sabotaged formats is longer.
'How will it survive...'
and it didn't.

And lucky for all of them, I'm confident come this holiday shopping season, plenty of stores will have Bluray players for $99.

It'll be last year's model, or it'll be a brand like Memorex or Sylvania, but I believe almost every store that sells Bluray players, will have some kind of Bluray player for $99, regularly, come this holiday season.

Lucky?

These poorly supported player will be an accident waiting to happen.
The looming incompatibilities will drive off the regular consumer even more than the premium pricing.

Still waiting for the format war to sort itself out. ;)

You cherry picked,

Your list did not contain:
Betamax,
V2000
Laserdisc
DCC
Elcasette
Quadraphonic
Minidisc
DVDA
SACD
HD DVD

My list of failed or sabotaged formats is longer.
'How will it survive...'
and it didn't.


WTH?

Laserdisc lasted for 20 years. There were over 18,000 titles released on LD in the USA and over 30,000 in Japan.

It was not a failure at all. It just didn't appeal to the masses.
You should have added CED - THAT was a failure.

And everyone seems to have forgotten the beloved (HA!!!) DIVX nightmare from Circuit City! And when someone mentions #5, I tell them there is a significant difference. 480i compared to 1080P? Now that is a huge difference imho! Just watch The Dark Night, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. and they will see the difference

Jeff

Reasons I haven't bought BD Player:

* The cost has gone down but not enough that where the benefits of better picture quality and sound equal the cost; to me at least.


I'm always amazed when I read something like this from a person on the AVSforum.

You can now get Blu Ray players for less than $200.

I can certainly see why the average joe might not have a Blu Ray player. But this is an enthusiast site, and I can't fathom anyone not wanting to spend money on a Blu Ray player to get the best source quality possible.

It's sort of like being interested in wine enough to join a wine tasting forum, only to express how you see no reason to spend more than $10 on a bottle of wine.

You cherry pickedYou must be confused, if something is not clear, then you should ask for a clarification. I said professionally, as in television content production and broadcasting.

As to your list of failures:

βetamax was the dominant format in many countries for many years. A version became the dominant format in TV production and was known as βetacam. That evolved into Digital βetacam. With the advent of HDTV came HDCam® and later HDCam SR® (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-videorecorders/cat-rechdcamsr/product-SRW5000/) which is cosidered the premier HDTV tape format. BTW, it has only been a few years since Sony decomissioned the βetamax format.

http://ws.sel.sony.com/PIPWebServices/RetrievePublicAsset/StepID/SEL-asset-66554/370x251


Laserdisc certainly was not a failure. It never became a common household item like the VCR or DVD player. It was only recently decomissioned by Pioneer.

Quadraphonic was reborn under the Dolby Stereo (a.k.a. Dolby Surround) banner. A lot of the circuit matrices of quad is used in Dolby Stereo.

Minidisc apparently did not do well in the consummer sector but in the production and broadcast sector it pretty much replaced the audio cart machine.

Minidisc apparently did not do well in the consummer sector but in the production and broadcast sector it pretty much replaced the audio cart machine.
I worked for Sony during the introduction of MD and I can tell you for certain no one considered it a success. On the contrary, it was taken as a sign of Sony strategy not working at the time.

Sony was one of the most powerful companies in broadcast world (at the time I worked there, they did $1B in revenue and were the most profitable division at Sony). So it is not surprising that they managed to make success out of some of the formats in that space which failed with consumers.

So asked some friends why they didnt have purchased BD yet.

Male 40: Feels unnecessary
Male 40: Waits for a recording option.
Male 40: See no finesse with it.
Male 30: Have no use for it.
Male 40: I have better things to spend my money on.
Male 30: Have no need for it
Female 40: What is bluray? (She does have a PS3, so I tell her next time ;) )

So asked some friends why they didnt have purchased BD yet.

Male 40: Feels unnecessary
Male 40: Waits for a recording option.
Male 40: See no finesse with it.
Male 30: Have no use for it.
Male 40: I have better things to spend my money on.
Male 30: Have no need for it
Female 40: What is bluray? (She does have a PS3, so I tell her next time ;) )


Male 40: Feels unnecessary
Is he a 40 inch 720p from 15 feet person?
Male 40: Waits for a recording option.
He is likely in for a long wait as it was a long time before DVD ever got this option
Male 40: See no finesse with it.
See #1, eyes checked?
Male 30: Have no use for it.
Does he also have composite cable from his cable box - LOL
Male 40: I have better things to spend my money on.
So another person with a $899 40 inch 720p set livin large since he has a flat screen.
Male 30: Have no need for it
Could have save a lot of $$ and kept his old 27 inch crt set
Female 40: What is bluray? (She does have a PS3, so I tell her next time ;)
The wizard of OZ was a great movie, what character is this :p


Education will go a long way over time to answering most of the questions and reasons above. Just as I could not imagine NOT having Blu-ray after spending what I did for a set capable (size/rez) of realizing true HD. To me if you don’t have Blu-ray you’re just wasting a lot of space and money investing in an HDTV. I just find it so mind boggling how some people can spend 5k - 10k getting whole house HDTV's and not find another couple of hundered bucks for a BD player.

BTW, I just saw the new Star Trek movie and drove 12 miles to see it at the IMAX when I have two theaters that are within 1.5 miles of home. Go figure ... :D

[QUOTE=Calamus;16471917]
Education will go a long way over time to answering most of the questions and reasons above. Just as I could not imagine NOT having Blu-ray after spending what I did for a set capable (size/rez) of realizing true HD. To me if you don’t have Blu-ray you’re just wasting a lot of space and money investing in an HDTV. I just find it so mind boggling how some people can spend 5k - 10k getting whole house HDTV's and not find another couple of hundered bucks for a BD player.
/QUOTE]
to each his own, amigo.
many folks have other interests in their lives.

I just find it so mind boggling how some people can spend 5k - 10k getting whole house HDTV's and not find another couple of hundered bucks for a BD player.

I dont think everyone even has a HDTV, and those who do, havnt a large one.

One of them was happy enough that I managed to make his DVD player region free.

Its not the money, if they really wanted a BD player Im sure they would have one already, just like my friends who have BD players.

But I see that its a bigger chance that my friends in their 30s gets BD then my friends in their 40s.

I own two BD players, own new flat panels, LCD, LED and Plasma... But for the life of me I really am hard pressed to see an actual difference in PQ when compared to a new release DVD when played on my Denon 2930ci DVD player. The BD players have the latest firmware, software updates, so they are up to date.

And going from DVD to BD is not like going from my old tube to flat panel HD. Now that was easy to justify in my book. But I still struggle when I want to buy a movie to add to my collection, DVD or BD? DVD is still winning the purchase war and I am renting the bulk of the BDs. And the fact, at least to my taste, there really are not that many good movies out there to justify the cost of the BDs over the DVDs. Hollywood is still putting out junk in my book, and I already own the DVD titles I like and see no point in "upgrading" to BD in those titles when there is very little discernable difference in PQ or content to justify the purchase.

To me if you don’t have Blu-ray you’re just wasting a lot of space and money investing in an HDTV.

Wow....I can't believe you think the ONLY reason to buy an HDTV is for Blu-Ray.

Yeah, there's certainly no benefits of having an HDTV for DVD, HTPC, streaming, videogames, broadcast HD, aesthetics, being the only type of TV you can buy now, etc :rolleyes:

Wow...just...wow. My mind has been sufficiently boggled.

I
And going from DVD to BD is not like going from my old tube to flat panel HD. Now that was easy to justify in my book. But I still struggle when I want to buy a movie to add to my collection, DVD or BD? DVD is still winning the purchase war and I am renting the bulk of the BDs. And the fact, at least to my taste, there really are not that many good movies out there to justify the cost of the BDs over the DVDs. Hollywood is still putting out junk in my book, and I already own the DVD titles I like and see no point in "upgrading" to BD in those titles when there is very little discernable difference in PQ or content to justify the purchase.
i agree. for me, at 'the end of the day', content rules.

OK, I was thinking about this. Won't Blu-ray follow HDTV and its adoption rate? Then I realized...try to buy a 25+ inch SDTV. Go ahead I dare you. HDTV is basically being forced on everyone. They may still watch SD video on it, but these days HD is virtually your only choice. (the other thing is many replace their bulky tubes with flat panels not for the HD but for the size).

Blu-ray's problem is that SD DVD isn't going away and to many they look and act the same. The are both shiny 5 1/4 inch discs. They both allow you to skip from chapter to chapter. Neither has to be rewound. Neither wears out from over playing.

So as long as people have a less expnsive choice, a large number of people with go with the cheaper format (or the one they are allready invested in).

OK, I was thinking about this. Won't Blu-ray follow HDTV and its adoption rate? Then I realized...try to buy a 25+ inch SDTV. Go ahead I dare you. HDTV is basically being forced on everyone. They may still watch SD video on it, but these days HD is virtually your only choice. (the other thing is many replace their bulky tubes with flat panels not for the HD but for the size).

Blu-ray's problem is that SD DVD isn't going away and to many they look and act the same. The are both shiny 5 1/4 inch discs. They both allow you to skip from chapter to chapter. Neither has to be rewound. Neither wears out from over playing.

So as long as people have a less expnsive choice, a large number of people with go with the cheaper format (or the one they are allready invested in).

Sure the discs physically look the same, but overall pq in my book is not there to justify dropping $30 or more for the same movie I can grab for $15. I know it is not my gear, top of the line Denons, 4308ci and 4802, all flat panels are 2008 and 2009 models from Sony, Samsung, Toshiba and LG. Not the cheapest models but not the most expensive either. New electrical in the house, line conditioners, good cabling, clean sources, etc... I hate to say it, as I own two Sony BD players, and would even be willing to upgrade one of those, which I will probably do here in the near future. But where is the WOW effect? I really don't see it other than when we watch say a Pixar animated movie.

Why haven't most people I know bought into Blu-ray? I'd say it's simple fear or indifference. Most people I know who have high-definition televisions bought them because that's pretty much all the stores are carrying these days. They wanted something bigger than what they already had, and as an afterthought for them the new set just happened to come in high def. Moreover, I doubt that most people have ever had a Blu-ray player in their house along with an SD DVD player to make a side-by-side comparison between Blu-ray and standard-definition with the same movies; so they haven't actually seen the improvement. Plus, most of the people I know sit much too far away from their sets to be able see any improvement in any case.

Then there's the fear factor. I see a lot of their excuses (like they don't think there's much or any difference between SD and HD) as rationalizations for not wanting to go to the trouble of upgrading, buying a new player and a lot of new discs. It's not a matter of money for them; they've just convinced themselves that good enough is, well, good enough out of fear and stubbornness. Everybody fears things that are new to them. HD seems too daunting a prospect for a lot of folks. Thus, they rationalize that it won't help them.

However, my neighbor just bought a BD player after owning an HD television for almost a year. So, there is progress out there. :)

John

My reason for not buying BD player are not based on facts that I have researched, just my impression.
1. Disc are too expensive at $24
2. Disc are like so 1990's. Who in the world younger than 40 wants to buy discs?
3. Wife cannot tell the difference between BD and DVD :-(
4. The future is streaming content, from home servers, netflix, Apple TV, etc.
5. The people buying BD are the same ones looking for music stores to buy CD's.

My take on the issues you cited:

My reason for not buying BD player are not based on facts that I have researched, just my impression.
1. Disc are too expensive at $24
2. Disc are like so 1990's. Who in the world younger than 40 wants to buy discs?

It depends on whether you care about the image quality of what you are watching. If you do care then you buy Blu Ray discs. They offer the best possible image at this point, especially if you are a movie lover. (And this is a forum presumably of enthusiasts, who are more interested in maximising the experience they get via their equipment than the average joe, so if baffles me to encounter anyone joining the forum who doesn't care).





3. Wife cannot tell the difference between BD and DVD :-(

Sorry to hear it. My wife can and she doesn't even care about Blu Ray or DVD. But the last thing I'm going to do is predicate my home theater hobby on my wife's interest or inclinations. If I did, I wouldnt' be me, I'd be my wife. It'd be like me stopping playing a sport because my wife can't play it or doesn't care for it.

4. The future is streaming content, from home servers, netflix, Apple TV, etc.

Well if you are talking about "the future" then there is always a future format. You should never have bought a DVD then, since clearly something new would eventually replace them.

The question is what is available NOW. I want to watch movies in the best quality I can NOW, not later. Life's short, why would I waste any of it on the sidelines waiting? Streaming does not offer the quality of Blu Ray at this point, so why would I bother?

I didn't go until I got one of the stoopid priced HD-DVD players just before they folded, was nice to finally get some HD disks to play for FAIRLY cheap. Then they did fold so I started looking for a Blu player and ended up with a Demo Panasonic BD10a for 160 at CC that still plays everything I throw at it including home made AVCHD disks on DVD media.
I wouldn't buy either format because of the ridiculously high cost of the players and the movies and still feel that way about BR, in fact for a while the deals stopped when they no longer had to beat out HD-DVD.
I have about 30 HD movies and 10 BD movies and only buy the ones I truly have to have or that are on a great sale though dome of the older movies are finally getting to the point that I MAY start buying again when my job and everything pick up.

I wouldn't buy either format because of the ridiculously high cost of the players and the movies and still feel that way....

When I bought my first DVD player in 1997, it was $600. Then I upgraded to a $1,500 player. It wasn't for years that DVD player costs came way down (along with quality of construction).

Today, you can buy a Blu-ray player for $200. I recently saw new Panasonics at Costco for around $230. Wait a couple of days after their release and you can buy most Blu-ray discs used for about half retail price. I just bought two of the latest Bonds on BD for $16.98 each through Amazon in perfect condition (one was actually new).

As I said earlier, I think it's really fear and indifference that holds people back, and the rest is rationalization.

John

My take on the issues you cited:



It depends on whether you care about the image quality of what you are watching. If you do care then you buy Blu Ray discs. They offer the best possible image at this point, especially if you are a movie lover. (And this is a forum presumably of enthusiasts, who are more interested in maximising the experience they get via their equipment than the average joe, so if baffles me to encounter anyone joining the forum who doesn't care).
Sorry to hear it. My wife can and she doesn't even care about Blu Ray or DVD. But the last thing I'm going to do is predicate my home theater hobby on my wife's interest or inclinations. If I did, I wouldnt' be me, I'd be my wife. It'd be like me stopping playing a sport because my wife can't play it or doesn't care for it.
Well if you are talking about "the future" then there is always a future format. You should never have bought a DVD then, since clearly something new would eventually replace them.
The question is what is available NOW. I want to watch movies in the best quality I can NOW, not later. Life's short, why would I waste any of it on the sidelines waiting? Streaming does not offer the quality of Blu Ray at this point, so why would I bother?

Unfortunately the average person does not think like you, hence the title of the thread which was what the OP was talking about.

Unfortunately the average person does not think like you, hence the title of the thread which was what the OP was talking about.

It's hard for some to understand how others think. I know numerous people who rarely watch TV and the thought of spending $200 on a HD movie player to them is just ludicrous.
I know others that watch lots of TV, but only on smaller screens. They tell me that content is far more important than picture quality. They also say that if they want to see a movie on a big screen, they will just go to a theater.

Something similar to this is, I think anyone who watches videos or HDTV should have a projector. Why bother with a tiny 50 inch screen when for the same price you can have a 100+ inch screen. I have learned that others see things differently.

I bought a Blue Ray Drive some months ago and installed it with the latest HTPC I built; this is installed in our Home Media Centre. I forgot all about it until I read this thread. As the drivers never shipped with Vista or with the no name BD I just have not bothered to install it fully. We have a HD DVD player add-on to XBOX this was great at first, it suffers badly from children's finger prints. Seems to me I did the right thing building HTPC and for the time being DVD is enough. I will get excited about Blue Ray when the drivers are available and the price comes down. I see no hurry.

Unfortunately the average person does not think like you, hence the title of the thread which was what the OP was talking about.

I know, but my response has been to actual AVSforum members posting their reasons for not going Blu Ray. That's the odd thing I'm getting at. The average joe isn't an AV enthusiast of course, but this IS an AV enthusiast site, presumably, which attracts the enthusiast. Which is why I always find it odd that a forum member would give similar reasons as the average joe for not buying Blu Ray.

I'm starting to think this is looking like why SACD failed and MP3s took the world by storm.

Many people, especially young people, like having control over their content. They like being able rip DVDs to their computer, their cell phones or whatever. And sharing their ripped content very easily (right or wrong.)

BD, as intoxicating as the quality can be, is going back to the old model of a physical disc sitting in front of the TV in the living room.

Hard to tell where this is going but I wouldn't bet the farm on BD ever replacing DVD.

SACD failed because NO ONE listens to music through their surround sound system, while just sitting on their couch.

The whole idea of SACD and DVD Audio is ludicrous.

Where do people listen to music? In their cars while driving, outside while doing something, while working on something in the garage, while working on something in the house, while doing something in the ..............

The point is, no one is sitting in their couch trying to pick out the details of a SACD.

But MOVIES, people watch movies in their living room and family rooms, while doing NOTHING but watching the movie.

SACD failed because NO ONE listens to music through their surround sound system, while just sitting on their couch.

The whole idea of SACD and DVD Audio is ludicrous.

Where do people listen to music? In their cars while driving, outside while doing something, while working on something in the garage, while working on something in the house, while doing something in the ..............

The point is, no one is sitting in their couch trying to pick out the details of a SACD.

But MOVIES, people watch movies in their living room and family rooms, while doing NOTHING but watching the movie.

The times they are a changing.;)

Have you been noticing that recently there has been a push from the studios and the CEM's to have people watch movies on hand held devices?

Well, its going to be pretty hard to watch a movie while your driving, or mowing the lawn, or washing your car, or cleaning your room, or while doing.........anything.

When you want to watch a movie, you sit down and give the movie your undivided attention. Unless your on a plane or in the back seat of a car.

Heck, I own two BD players and display content on a 50" and a 42" HDTV and I think that for me, the answer is 5 (and then 4 -- I see them as connected).

Most of the people I know don't have Blu-ray, and when I tell them I recently bought two Blu-ray players, the question or comment I get most is: Why? Is it a LOT better? To which I usually answer: No, not really . . . not for the price.

I think many of the people I know will adopt when full-featured players are in the $100-$150 range and new release disc pricing approaches current DVD new release pricing. Until then, for most of these folks, DVD is "good enough".

SACD failed because NO ONE listens to music through their surround sound system, while just sitting on their couch.

The whole idea of SACD and DVD Audio is ludicrous.

Where do people listen to music? In their cars while driving, outside while doing something, while working on something in the garage, while working on something in the house, while doing something in the ..............

The point is, no one is sitting in their couch trying to pick out the details of a SACD.

But MOVIES, people watch movies in their living room and family rooms, while doing NOTHING but watching the movie.

While I am mostly with you on this, I would NOT say "NO ONE". If you go over to the audio section, you will find a whole bunch of people with Martin Logan speakers, tube amplifiers, etc who sit in their couches complaining that CD WAV files are NOT lossess. (If I could find space I would love to buy some Magnepan ribbon/planer speakers. To me they sound amazing.)

IMHO, all of these things are niche products right now. High end audio (SACD, DVD-A), HDM, HD Projectors, and even AVRs. AVRs are very common to us, and almost everyone here owns at least one (I have 2)...but they are still niche products.

I know, but my response has been to actual AVSforum members posting their reasons for not going Blu Ray. That's the odd thing I'm getting at. The average joe isn't an AV enthusiast of course, but this IS an AV enthusiast site, presumably, which attracts the enthusiast. Which is why I always find it odd that a forum member would give similar reasons as the average joe for not buying Blu Ray.

What about the AV enthusiast who refuses to watch movies in any HD format that is NOT Blu Ray? Is the standard to watch a movie that APPEALS to you in it's 'best' current AV specs, or is it to want ANY movie as long as it is in Blu Ray?

I guess you're differentiating between a 'movie' enthusiast v. an 'AV' enthusiast. You can be one without the other. But I agree with you in that if one is an AV enthusiast Blu Ray ought to be part of the experience. I have a player, but recently I've found myself buying and renting fewer Blu Rays than I did earlier this year and last year. It has more to do with the 'movies' in the release schedule than anything else. If I didn't have a player the current schedule would not make me buy a player (unless it was the Samsung with Netflix and Pandora streaming). But that's just me.

Well, its going to be pretty hard to watch a movie while your driving, or mowing the lawn, or washing your car, or cleaning your room, or while doing.........anything.

When you want to watch a movie, you sit down and give the movie your undivided attention. Unless your on a plane or in the back seat of a car.

True. But people have been giving undivided attention to DVD disks for years now. I currently sit around 9ft from a 60 inch screen and the newer DVDs look pretty good when upconverted by my HTPC.

It's hard for some to understand how others think. I know numerous people who rarely watch TV and the thought of spending $200 on a HD movie player to them is just ludicrous.
I know others that watch lots of TV, but only on smaller screens. They tell me that content is far more important than picture quality. They also say that if they want to see a movie on a big screen, they will just go to a theater.

Something similar to this is, I think anyone who watches videos or HDTV should have a projector. Why bother with a tiny 50 inch screen when for the same price you can have a 100+ inch screen. I have learned that others see things differently.

and theres enough people in this world that will go with blu-ray.
the format will live on.why worry about people who don't dare about hi def.

and theres enough people in this world that will go with blu-ray.
the format will live on.why worry about people who don't dare about hi def.

(Did you type that on your Blackberry?)

As I said, I have learned that many people may never adopt Blu-ray and many would never consider a Projector (instead of a TV). There is nothing wrong with that and life goes on.

As I said, I have learned that many people may never adopt Blu-ray and many would never consider a Projector (instead of a TV). There is nothing wrong with that and life goes on.In the late 90s how many times do you think something similar was posted:

“As I said, I have learned that many people may never adopt DVD and many would never consider a 16 X 9 TV. There is nothing wrong with that and life goes on.”

And yes, I was here at AVS heavily promoting DVD (DVD over the Divx DVD format), HDTV and ATSC over COFDM. Folks may find it amusing to search the archives of AVS (not sure how far back they go).

What about the AV enthusiast who refuses to watch movies in any HD format that is NOT Blu Ray? Is the standard to watch a movie that APPEALS to you in it's 'best' current AV specs, or is it to want ANY movie as long as it is in Blu Ray?

I guess you're differentiating between a 'movie' enthusiast v. an 'AV' enthusiast. You can be one without the other. But I agree with you in that if one is an AV enthusiast Blu Ray ought to be part of the experience. I have a player, but recently I've found myself buying and renting fewer Blu Rays than I did earlier this year and last year. It has more to do with the 'movies' in the release schedule than anything else. If I didn't have a player the current schedule would not make me buy a player (unless it was the Samsung with Netflix and Pandora streaming). But that's just me.

I'm not lauding equipment over content here. I have way more DVDs than I do Blu Rays and I watch lots of DVDs. For me it is content first and I'm just as baffled by people who won't watch a movie "because it's not on HD" as I am by movie lovers who don't buy Blu Ray.

Rather, being a movie lover, and someone who likes to maximise the performance and quality of movie playback (which is why I'm on AVSforum)
I will certainly appreciate the fact that HD allows easily the finest presentation of a movie. I'd like to see a movie in the best presentation at home I can. Hence, if it's on Blu Ray I will definitely watch it on Blu Ray rather than DVD.

What baffles me is when people who are part of this forum is that now that movies are available in HD, why they don't even care to choose the movie in HD over SD. That kind of attitude I can see somewhat in a film-forum, where it can be like musicians who don't care about listening on crappy sound systems because they are so focused on just the music. (Nothing wrong with that of course). But on an Audio Video forum...the "I don't care about the visual difference enough to bother" is just a bit odd, to me.

I'm not lauding equipment over content here. I have way more DVDs than I do Blu Rays and I watch lots of DVDs. For me it is content first and I'm just as baffled by people who won't watch a movie "because it's not on HD" as I am by movie lovers who don't buy Blu Ray.

Rather, being a movie lover, and someone who likes to maximise the performance and quality of movie playback (which is why I'm on AVSforum)
I will certainly appreciate the fact that HD allows easily the finest presentation of a movie. I'd like to see a movie in the best presentation at home I can. Hence, if it's on Blu Ray I will definitely watch it on Blu Ray rather than DVD.

What baffles me is when people who are part of this forum is that now that movies are available in HD, why they don't even care to choose the movie in HD over SD. That kind of attitude I can see somewhat in a film-forum, where it can be like musicians who don't care about listening on crappy sound systems because they are so focused on just the music. (Nothing wrong with that of course). But on an Audio Video forum...the "I don't care about the visual difference enough to bother" is just a bit odd, to me.

But what if that HD movie experience comes with a $50 or $100, perhaps $200 price tag per movie?
At what price level will you start saying that DVD is good enough?

My guess is that most folks will accept a price tag between $16 and $25.

People expect HD to become a commodity and just like going from b&w to color.
The transition is already going for over ten years (US) and barely half way there. In Europe HD programming is less than 5% and new channels take forever to be added because very few are willing to pay the higher price tag for the little content that is offered.

10 years ago folks raved about DVD imgage quality. And it was way better than VHS. It was even obvious on a 32" screen size.
This time the difference is far less obvious and the price tag too high.

Still waiting for the format war to sort itself out. ;)

Ding, ding, ding !
We have a winner ! :)

In the late 90s how many times do you think something similar was posted:

“As I said, I have learned that many people may never adopt DVD and many would never consider a 16 X 9 TV. There is nothing wrong with that and life goes on.”

And yes, I was here at AVS heavily promoting DVD (DVD over the Divx DVD format), HDTV and ATSC over COFDM. Folks may find it amusing to search the archives of AVS (not sure how far back they go).
Kinda like this (http://www.robertsdvd.com/failure.html), eh?;)

In the late 90s how many times do you think something similar was posted:

“As I said, I have learned that many people may never adopt DVD and many would never consider a 16 X 9 TV. There is nothing wrong with that and life goes on.”

And yes, I was here at AVS heavily promoting DVD (DVD over the Divx DVD format), HDTV and ATSC over COFDM. Folks may find it amusing to search the archives of AVS (not sure how far back they go).

As I have said previously, I know several people who own neither a DVD player nor an HDTV. I know at least 1 family does does not even own a TV. So again, there is nothing wrong with that and life goes on.

I am amazed by the people here who are shocked, shocked by the fact that there are people out there who have no use for HD, AV Receivers, Projectors, and many of the things we love at AVS...and I know this hurts you, but that list even includres Blu-ray...and not all of them are Amish!:D

By the way, I was a big supporter of DVD over Divx and also D-VHS! I still love D-VHS. In the US there is nothing that really competes with it except maybe HTPCs that can burn HDTV to disc. Alas, its market penetration is about .001%.

Kinda like this (http://www.robertsdvd.com/failure.html), eh?;)

The article points to people not being able to record on DVD. In fact, if one could never record on DVD I am not sure it would have succeeded either.

Kinda like this (http://www.robertsdvd.com/failure.html), eh?;)You got it :).

I have seen virtually nothing new in terms of “Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet.”

The naysayers here needs to compare their post to this excerpt (posted 01/03/1996) from your link.

DVD is just a bad idea. It is being forced upon a uncaring and unwanted public and is an inferior product that simply isn't needed or desired. DVD exists only for one reason. Greed. Motion picture studios are always looking for a way to sell the same stuff over and over again and they think DVD is the answer. Electronics giants are always looking for the hot new gadget that will make consumers junk their existing products and they feel that DVD is the answer. Its not. Actually, it is an answer to a non existent question. A question that has never been and never will be asked.

The article points to people not being able to record on DVD. In fact, if one could never record on DVD I am not sure it would have succeeded either.

When in time were the first reasonably priced DVD recorders available? A street price of less than $500.

I am amazed by the people here who are shocked, shocked by the fact that there are people out there who have no use for HD, AV Receivers, Projectors, and many of the things we love at AVS...and I know this hurts you, but that list even includres Blu-ray...and not all of them are Amish!:DNothing new here.

One would think AVS members would be here for the betterment of their hobby/profession.

Nothing new here.

One would think AVS members would be here for the betterment of their hobby/profession.
And how will telling someone who could care less about HD video or who doesn't even have an HDTV to buy Blu-ray accomplish that?:confused:


The problem is that some people don't care about DVD or Blu-ray, some people are happy with just DVD upscaled, and some are happy with getting their HD video from other sources. We can try to push Blu-ray on them all we want and it would be a waste of time.

What you don't get is that most people right now would rather spend their money on ther things than Blu-ray (Like my Mom and all her bookclub friends - they have seen HD and could care less). Maybe that will change over the next few years. As I said, live with it and let life go on.

btw, if you want to push cool technology on someone, why not a Front Projector instead? I would think having a 100+ inch HD screen would come before an HDM player. :D

i don't know

...
btw, if you want to push cool technology on someone, why not a Front Projector instead? I would think having a 100+ inch HD screen would come before an HDM player. :D

And if you are spending what is needed for that type of setup, the cost of a Blu-ray player is pretty insignificant.

My 1080UB was $3k, the screen was $700 and the Blu-ray player was $220 (less than 10% of the total cost).

I know this much: most people, even those with HDTVs are still hard pressed to see an improvement with Blu-Ray over DVD in normal viewing. My parents are an example with a 3 year old entry level 42" pioneer. My brother brought home his PS3 and movie collection over christmas and we did back to back viewing of TDK, Speed Racer, and Iron man on both formats. Given their seating distances of 12ft+ and the size of the TV, BR made almost zero difference in PQ, definitely not enough to justify the added expense. They don't care, DVD looks fine to them. They are content people, and my dad was lucky to get away with a 42" TV. Most people don't care about being immersed, they just care about being entertained in their living rooms and DVD does that just fine.

On my setup it makes a world of difference, but I have a 50" plasma at a viewing distance of 9-10ft and a newish surround system. Even on a 720p set at that distance the improvement over DVD i striking.

I personally have it as both a movie and A/V enthusaist but I am by no means a snob. I will watch dvd movies if I can't get the content on BD without any argument. I still have to answer my wife's question of "Why do you need this old bond movie on BD? Nothing was digital back then!" every time I buy a classic bond movie or 80s action flick. I've made a habit of only getting BD on action titles though, since on something like a comedy i don't see the point of having the higher fidelity video.

I was going to be holding off until prices came down as well, but resident evil 5 was coming out and I couldn't wait so I got a PS3 about a month prior so i figured why the hell not?

And if you are spending what is needed for that type of setup, the cost of a Blu-ray player is pretty insignificant.

My 1080UB was $3k, the screen was $700 and the Blu-ray player was $220 (less than 10% of the total cost).

You can buy a great HD projector these days for $700. Check out the other forum and you will see what I am taking about. My Panny 1080p projector was less than $2000 and less than I paid for my 50 inch plasma.

My point was that you can get an FP and screen for LESS than a large flat panel TV. So is your point that you can get Blu-ray players and discs for LESS than other media like DVD? It really make zero sense since you are comparing apples to oranges.

By the way, which do you think looks better your Epson or a 42 inch 1080p LCD? If you think the projector, then why aren't you posting about how everyone should by a nice FP setup?

So what's my point?
"Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet"... the same reason they do not have projectors, high end AVRs, SACD, etc.

And how will telling someone who could care less about HD videoHow does one know if they care or not if they have never had an experience with something. On many occasion I have asked people if they thought a certain food item was good. Many times they replied they did not like the item in question. With further digging it was learned they had never tasted the food item. I find this same scenario with many, many items, from gourmet coffee to autos. It seems the biggest factor is, “I can not afford it or I do not know what it is therefore it must not be good.” YMMV

btw, if you want to push cool technology on someone, why not a Front Projector instead? I would think having a 100+ inch HD screen would come before an HDM player. :DAVS has forums for that technology.

FWIW, At work, we procured the first model of a Hughes/JVC D-ILA (LCoS) that was available to replace a LCD model. I also procured a Stewart (with Micro Perf) screen that was 180" dia. At home, I have the first JVC D-ILA that was native 16X9 and had DVI inputs with HDCP. The screen is a Da-Lite 106" Sound Vision. Soon, I plan to upgrade the projector, the new Planar (DLP) is the current frontrunner.

You can buy a great HD projector these days for $700. Check out the other forum and you will see what I am taking about. My Panny 1080p projector was less than $2000 and less than I paid for my 50 inch plasma.

My point was that you can get an FP and screen for LESS than a large flat panel TV. So is your point that you can get Blu-ray players and discs for LESS than other media like DVD? It really make zero sense since you are comparing apples to oranges.

By the way, which do you think looks better your Epson or a 42 inch 1080p LCD? If you think the projector, then why aren't you posting about how everyone should by a nice FP setup?

So what's my point?
"Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet"... the same reason they do not have projectors, high end AVRs, SACD, etc.


On a 42-in 1080p set, even at normal viewing distances, it is not that hard to differentiate between a Blu source and a DVD source. DVD content barely has 350k pixels versus 2M from a true HD source. If your arguement is that people can't tell the difference then why even display true HD content on a 42-inch set versus craptastic SD cable or satellite.

Some of you guys are stuck in a time warp from over 2years ago. Here is some news:
1 - BD players are no longer $1k+
2 - The PS3 is not the best option anymore
3 - BD software is readily available for rental(Netflix, BB online and in-store)
4 - Catalog titles are starting to sell for under $20
5 - Newer releases can be obtained for between $20 and $25 if you watch for sales.
6 - It is not just AV nerds buying BD players and software anymore.
7 - Downloads are not the end all
8 - BD has support from every major content producer.

Blu Ray is the least attractive format that has ever been released for home movie playback.

I did not say it is a bad format, but has been intentionally made less attractive by both hardware and software makers.

The specifics:

Price - With DVD players selling for $20-25, the initial Blu Ray players came out at (drumroll please) $1000. Even at the current price levels, the format retains the high cost designation.

Please don't babble on about how much DVD players, or VCRs, initially cost. They were new capabilities for consumers. Blu Ray just offers better versions of what everryone already has.

Hardware Functionality - Disc startup times are down right embarassing. You're disc rental period could expire before some titles actually start to play.

Software Functionality - If you lived long enough for the disc to start playing, you're not home free yet. Many software manufacturers force you to sit through (or fast forward through) unlimited numbers of promos.

Once you suffer through these, you're not near done yet!! You have to be told that any comments made by anyone on the disc aren't the manufacturer's problem, so don't sue them for the dumb comments the director made during the commentary.

Of course nobody can enjoy a good flick without the Government warning that enjoying the film too much could cost you $250,000 and 5 years of your life, with a cell mate named "Otis" that really likes you.

Once you get to the actual film, the pq and aq can be something to behold. Other times, the Director decided the film should look like crap, to force the audience to recognize that it is a "gritty drama".

I primarily rent, but if I was a buyer of titles, the mandatory previews would drive me nuts when I wanted to watch the title that I likely paid twice what I would have paid for the SD version of the same title.

My old DVD player has fast startup, and a setting that allows me to bypass all the upfront junk and go right to the movie. I miss these little conveniences that the old technology offered. Oh, did I mention that the old player sells for about 20% of a new Blu Ray player?

With cable systems growing their HD capacity and sat systems going for about nothing, it is hard to justify dropping big bucks on Blu Ray, just to be able to buy the titles you saw last month in HD on Showtime, HBO, or Cinemax.

Quality may be the reason to buy into Blu Ray, except for the downsides that I've outlined that have been intentionally built into the format.

I think what they have is a catch-22.

In order to know how great Blu-Ray is, you have to watch a Blu-Ray movie with the "Blu-Ray is great" promo trailer that's on every Blu-Ray that they force you to watch (because we all know we're watching a Blu-Ray, so of course we need to be told how great it is).

But in order to see that trailer, you have to have a Blu-Ray player.

But why would you buy a Blu-Ray player if you didn't know how great it is? Hence these people need to watch the trailer.

But in order to see the trailer, you have to have a Blu-Ray player.

But why would you have a Blu-Ray player if you didn't know how great it is?

The point is that trailer sucks :)

Fixed version:

Blu Ray is the least attractive format that has ever been released for home movie playback.

I did not say it is a bad format, but has been intentionally made less attractive by both hardware and software makers.

The specifics:

Price - With DVD players selling for $20-25, the initial Blu Ray players came out at (drumroll please) $1000. Even at the current price levels, the format retains the high cost designation.

Please don't babble on about how much DVD players, or VCRs, initially cost. They were new capabilities for consumers. Blu Ray just offers better versions of what everryone already has.

Hardware Functionality - Disc startup times are down right embarassing. You're disc rental period could expire before some titles actually start to play.

Software Functionality - If you lived long enough for the disc to start playing, you're not home free yet. Many software manufacturers force you to sit through (or fast forward through) unlimited numbers of promos.

hdmi handshake black out :(

Once you suffer through these, you're not near done yet!! You have to be told that any comments made by anyone on the disc aren't the manufacturer's problem, so don't sue them for the dumb comments the director made during the commentary.

Of course nobody can enjoy a good flick without the Government warning that enjoying the film too much could cost you $250,000 and 5 years of your life, with a cell mate named "Otis" that really likes you.

Another hdmi handshake black out, oops missed a bit of t hemovie start. :mad::(

Once you get to the actual film, the pq and aq can be something to behold. Other times, the Director decided the film should look like crap, to force the audience to recognize that it is a "gritty drama".

I primarily rent, but if I was a buyer of titles, the mandatory previews would drive me nuts when I wanted to watch the title that I likely paid twice what I would have paid for the SD version of the same title.

My old DVD player has fast startup, and a setting that allows me to bypass all the upfront junk and go right to the movie. I miss these little conveniences that the old technology offered. Oh, did I mention that the old player sells for about 20% of a new Blu Ray player?

With cable systems growing their HD capacity and sat systems going for about nothing, it is hard to justify dropping big bucks on Blu Ray, just to be able to buy the titles you saw last month in HD on Showtime, HBO, or Cinemax.

Quality may be the reason to buy into Blu Ray, except for the downsides that I've outlined that have been intentionally built into the format.

Price - With DVD players selling for $20-25, the initial Blu Ray players came out at (drumroll please) $1000. Even at the current price levels, the format retains the high cost designation.

Please don't babble on about how much DVD players, or VCRs, initially cost. They were new capabilities for consumers. Blu Ray just offers better versions of what everryone already has.:rolleyes:

Not only does it offer new capabilities, it's not as if DVD wasn't (in most cases) offering better versions.
Hardware Functionality - Disc startup times are down right embarassing. You're disc rental period could expire before some titles actually start to play.Yes, because exaggeration totally makes people agree with you.
Software Functionality - If you lived long enough for the disc to start playing, you're not home free yet. Many software manufacturers force you to sit through (or fast forward through) unlimited numbers of promos. Exists on DVD.
Once you suffer through these, you're not near done yet!! You have to be told that any comments made by anyone on the disc aren't the manufacturer's problem, so don't sue them for the dumb comments the director made during the commentary. Exists on DVD.
Of course nobody can enjoy a good flick without the Government warning that enjoying the film too much could cost you $250,000 and 5 years of your life, with a cell mate named "Otis" that really likes you. Exists on DVD.
Once you get to the actual film, the pq and aq can be something to behold. Other times, the Director decided the film should look like crap, to force the audience to recognize that it is a "gritty drama". Exists on DVD.
I primarily rent, but if I was a buyer of titles, the mandatory previews would drive me nuts when I wanted to watch the title that I likely paid twice what I would have paid for the SD version of the same title.Yet more exaggeration, and particularly so with day-and-date titles.
My old DVD player has fast startup, and a setting that allows me to bypass all the upfront junk and go right to the movie. I miss these little conveniences that the old technology offered. Except it's not a spec of the technology, it's a workaround, and an unsanctioned one at that.
With cable systems growing their HD capacity and sat systems going for about nothing, it is hard to justify dropping big bucks on Blu Ray, just to be able to buy the titles you saw last month in HD on Showtime, HBO, or Cinemax.Except for the fact that the Blu-ray timing window is actually smaller than that for cable/sat, which means that outside of the occasional Mark Cuban production, what you talk about doesn't exist for any day-and-date or many catalog titles.
Quality may be the reason to buy into Blu Ray, except for the downsides that I've outlined that have been intentionally built into the format.All but one of which were "intentionally built into" DVD (in which case the unsanctioned workaround didn't exist outside tech circles until several years after format introduction) or cable/sat.

Fixed version:Your personal technical problem is so astronomically rare that it doesn't apply to this discussion even to enthusiasts, let alone the population at large. Unless it's a widespread problem, the "problem" is an odd combination of equipment, not the format.

On a 42-in 1080p set, even at normal viewing distances, it is not that hard to differentiate between a Blu source and a DVD source.
Wow, I guess my point flew right over your head.
As your point, my mom says she can NOT tell the difference between HD and SD on my 50 inch 1080p plasma(she does wear glasses). So I guess you really need to change you statement to say "for some people".


2 - The PS3 is not the best option anymore

Depends on what you want. It still has the best/fastest procesor, can play streamed HD video, and I heard it plays games too.

So back to my point that you missed....
"Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet"... the same reason they do not have projectors, high end AVRs, SACD, etc. They have better things in THEIR lives to spend money on.

Your personal technical problem is so astronomically rare that it doesn't apply to this discussion even to enthusiasts, let alone the population at large. Unless it's a widespread problem, the "problem" is an odd combination of equipment, not the format.


players switching beteen 60p trailers/warning screens and 24p stuff gets the hdmi handshake going.

Happening with BD1400, BD30 and BD35 straight to a JVC DLA projector.

Rare problem? nope.

Wow, I guess my point flew right over your head.
As your point, my mom says she can NOT tell the difference between HD and SD on my 50 inch 1080p plasma(she does wear glasses). So I guess you really need to change you statement to say "for some people".


Depends on what you want. It still has the best/fastest procesor, can play streamed HD video, and I heard it plays games too.

So back to my point that you missed....
"Why most people I know don’t have Blu-ray yet"... the same reason they do not have projectors, high end AVRs, SACD, etc. They have better things in THEIR lives to spend money on.


Sorry I did not know your mother was a critical data point factoring whether people care about quality. Look I know plenty of everyday Joes too and some are buying into blu without me ever mentioning a word about why it is better. Again I did not realize YOUR MOTHER was the key to determining if people wanted Blu or not.

Sorry I did not know your mother was a critical data point factoring whether people care about quality. Look I know plenty of everyday Joes too and some are buying into blu with out me ever mentioning a word about why it is better. Again I did not realize YOUR MOTHER was the key to determining if people wanted Blu or not.

Hmmm, getting personal I see. :mad:

btw, you made the claim that is just not true for some people. Right? There are people who can NOT tell the difference at normal viewing distances.

So we are back to what others have said in response to the OP...

Some can't see a difference (I gave an example).
Some just don't want to shell out extra $ and have better things to spend $ on.
Some chose other sources for their HD video.
etc.

...determining if people wanted Blu or not.
I think this may be the probelm with you reasoning. For example, I want a Ferrari, but they do not make good family cars. So I may want one, but will not buy one. My bet is there are millions of people who want Blu-ray, but realize that other choices are better for their lives/situation.

Hmmm, getting personal I see. :mad:

btw, you made the claim that is just not true for some people. Right? There are people who can NOT tell the difference at normal viewing distances.

So we are back to what others have said in response to the OP...

Some can't see a difference (I gave an example).
Some just don't want to shell out extra $ and have better things to spend $ on.
Some chose other sources for their HD video.
etc.


I think this may be the probelm with you reasoning. For example, I want a Ferrari, but they do not make good family cars. So I may want one, but will not buy one. My bet is there are millions of people who want Blu-ray, but realize that other choices are better for their lieves/situation.


Look I am not trying to get personal but when some used to point out that they saw more non-AV enthusiasts people buying into blu, they would get jumped and told that firsthand experience was meaningless.

My point, which you missed, is that I have seen plenty of non-AV enthusiasts buying into Blu over the last year. My point is that just because your mother does not care it does mean that every non-AV enthusiast does not see some value going Blu.

Hate to burst your bubble but Blu is growing though it is being hurt by the current economy.

BTW, let's be realistic. Comparing Blu to a $400k sportscar is offbase. Last I checked I can get into Blu for a little over $200.

players switching beteen 60p trailers/warning screens and 24p stuff gets the hdmi handshake going.

Happening with BD1400, BD30 and BD35 straight to a JVC DLA projector.

Rare problem? nope.

Sounds like an HDMI implementation issue on the JVC. Not really blu's fault, but I guess you don't want to place blame on the precious JVC.

I have never had an HDMI issue with the PS3, my BD35, my Monoprice switcher, my 805 or my 1080UB.

players switching beteen 60p trailers/warning screens and 24p stuff gets the hdmi handshake going.

Happening with BD1400, BD30 and BD35 straight to a JVC DLA projector.

Rare problem? nope.If this isn't rare, by all means show us the widespread complaints by others with same players saying they have the same problem. We already have one saying he doesn't.

Sounds like an HDMI implementation issue on the JVC. Not really blu's fault, but I guess you don't want to place blame on the precious JVC.

I have never had an HDMI issue with the PS3, my BD35, my Monoprice switcher, my 805 or my 1080UB.

Nope, no problem with the player from the 'other' format and the projector.

Nope, no problem with the player from the 'other' format and the projector.Still doesn't explain the lack of others having the problem. Again, where's the evidence? If this was a problem with the format as you claim, then you of course have links to multiple articles and forum posts by others that mention this. Right?

Because otherwise you would be deliberately claiming a format issue when it's an isolated equipment combination issue.

Nope, no problem with the player from the 'other' format and the projector.

Is that 'other' format player actually outputing 24p? HDMI does not differentiate between what physical format's data it is carrying. These are Blu-bits boys let's jumble them... ;)

Could just be that the BD content switches between 60p (trailers/promos) and 24p (main feature) and the JVC HDMI implementation is just not fast enough to keep up.

I have a projector with a HDMI switching receiver in between. I have never had HDMI handshake issues other than on initial power-up.

PS3 and Toshiba = Never had a HDMI problem.

And here's an example of it happening with the "other format" too (http://www.highdefforum.com/hd-dvd-players/90299-toshiba-a35-handshaking-issue-hdmi.html). With an added bonus that someone with the BD35 that you claim is the problem has no HDMI issues.

It's almost as if the issue is with the widely-publicized-as-being-problematic HDMI specs (implemented with dozens of different chipsets) across all the different hardware that uses HDMI and is completely independent of any particular format. Shocking, I know.

Is that 'other' format player actually outputing 24p? HDMI does not differentiate between what physical format's data it is carrying. These are Blu-bits boys let's jumble them... ;)

Could just be that the BD content switches between 60p (trailers/promos) and 24p (main feature) and the JVC HDMI implementation is just not fast enough to keep up.

I have a projector with a HDMI switching receiver in between. I have never had HDMI handshake issues other than on initial power-up.

You really do no sh1t a :). Of course it outputs 24p.

It's just the Panny initiating the handshake. HDMI takes a couple of seconds.
It's more of an HDMI issue however it reflects poorly on the blu ray experience. Just like the wait times.
You can look up the various HDMI issues all over the forums yourself.

With a DVD Edge in between I can switch the ouput resolution between 24p and 60p without hdmi issue.

You really do no sh1t a :). Of course it outputs 24p.

It's just the Panny initiating the handshake. HDMI takes a couple of seconds.
It's more of an HDMI issue however it reflects poorly on the blu ray experience. Just like the wait times.
You can look up the various HDMI issues all over the forums yourself.

With a DVD Edge in between I can switch the ouput resolution between 24p and 60p without hdmi issue.


I know plenty of people who are using Blu with 24p enabled and they do not experience what is happening to you. It's not Blu's fault but rather the poor HDMI implementation.

What 'other' format player are you using? What rev of HDMI is on the JVC? What model number is the JVC?

It's just the Panny initiating the handshake. HDMI takes a couple of seconds.
It's more of an HDMI issue however it reflects poorly on the blu ray experience. Just like the wait times.Well at least you admit that you were falsely portraying it as a Blu-ray issue.

And how exactly does it "reflect poorly" on the format when:

1) It's not happening on just one format
2) It's not happening on that player for others
3) It's not happening for hardly anyone

I'd love to hear you explain that.

players switching beteen 60p trailers/warning screens and 24p stuff gets the hdmi handshake going.

Happening with BD1400, BD30 and BD35 straight to a JVC DLA projector.

Rare problem? nope.
I've had/have the following combination of setups:

BD30 ->Onkyo 605 ->Sanyo Z2000
BD-P1200 ->Onkyo 605 ->Sanyo Z2000
BD35 ->Onkyo 650 ->Sanyo Z2000
BD-P1200 ->Monoprice manual HDMI switcher ->Sony 60A
BD30 ->Monoprice manual HDMI switcher ->Sony 60A
BD-P1200 ->Samsung 4066 40" LCD
BD-P1200 ->Philips 42" Plasma

Not once have I have a HDMI drop out issue or using 24fps on the sets that support them.


Oh wait, I do get a blackout on the BD-P1200 if using HDMI when I update the FW. :)

If one cares to check the posting history of most of the Blu-ray naysayers here they will find many of them were strong supporters of the HD-DVD format. In their post for HD DVD support they do not bring-up all the points they are trying to make against Blu-ray. Why do you suppose that is?

One of my good friends is a movie fan and is finally considering getting blu-ray. I have been encouraging it for months. On the other hand, another friend has more than one HD flat panel (LCD and plasma) but still gets only SD from his cable company because he doesn't want to spend the money on HD. Someone like that may never get blupray. Of course, once he tries HD he may be a convert.

I think in the next year or so most of my firends will step up to blu-ray. I am certainly an evangelist.

PS3 and Toshiba = Never had a HDMI problem.

I hate to chime in on this one because it is way off topic, but I have used several projectors that output at 24 fps in combination with serveral different kinds of Blu-ray players (samsung, panasonic, PS3) and have never experienced this issue over HDMI.

Well at least you admit that you were falsely portraying it as a Blu-ray issue.


I wasn't. Someone was doing a fairly accurate description of an average HD movie experience with blu ray and I sauced it up a bit.

And of course the usual suspect turns up to 'stamp out the negatives' with the usual insults.


And how exactly does it "reflect poorly" on the format when:

1) It's not happening on just one format
2) It's not happening on that player for others
3) It's not happening for hardly anyone

I'd love to hear you explain that.

1 = not relevant anymore. There is just one retail format left for HD content.

HDMI issues are well documented across the web.
HDMI issues reflect badly on the HD experience.

...but still gets only SD from his cable company because he doesn't want to spend the money on HD.

He should still get all the all the local channels in HD if he has standard cable. I get about 10 HD channels from my cable service (1/2 are various PBS stations). They should show up as something like 10.1 or 10.2 on most HDTVs that have an HD tuner.

Aslo, I have found that to get people excited about HD, it is far easier to show them a TV show like Monday Night Football or something on Discovery HD rather than a film on Blu-ray. If I invite people over to watch a Blu-ray film on my 50 inch plasma vs. a football game on my 113 inch projector screen, the football game wins every time.

I should also mention that Planet Earth was a big winner too. It is available on BD, but also Discovery HD too. One of Blu-rays problems is that for the causal video watcher, there are far to many free options and options that do not require a new player hooked up to the TV. The good news is that for the people who love to watch HD video, Blu-ray is one of the better tools in the toolbox!

And of course the usual suspect turns up to 'stamp out the negatives' with the usual insults.
Well, I disagreed with you point on the HDMI issue because I never had a problem, but we ALL knew what that guy was going to post long before he did. We also knew he would tie it back to the format war as he aways does.

"btw, if you want to push cool technology on someone, why not a Front Projector instead? I would think having a 100+ inch HD screen would come before an HDM player."

Sad statement ....if you're serious!!??

I wasn't. Someone was doing a fairly accurate description of an average HD movie experience with blu ray and I sauced it up a bit.So, you were saying the average Blu-ray experience includes your fairly unique HDMI problems, but you deny that you're saying it's Blu-ray?

Nope, still doesn't make sense.
And of course the usual suspect turns up to 'stamp out the negatives' with the usual insults.What insults? You've admitted twice that you took your non-average HDMI experience and applied it to the average Blu-ray experience. You can't claim being that being proven wrong as "insults". And I find it hard to believe that you seriously consider that pointing out issues being claimed as Blu-ray's fault despite existing in DVD and HDMI as "stamping out the negatives".

BTW, someone who has falsely claimed for months (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15970769&highlight=hdmi#post15970769) that HDMI issues (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16370197&highlight=hdmi#post16370197) are a Blu-ray issue (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16040199&highlight=hdmi#post16040199) even after being called on it is one of the last people that has any ground to call someone one of the "usual suspects".
1 = not relevant anymore. There is just one retail format left for HD content.It's relevant when you're claiming it's part of the Blu-ray experience and that you were the first one to bring up the "other format" (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16499014#post16499014). If you're going to bring it up, you can't all of the sudden claim it's irrelevant. And if you'd said the same thing about an HDMI-capable DVD player or STB, I would have called you out on that, because as anyone can see, my issue is with you claiming HDMI is somehow Blu-ray's fault, something that you've backtracked and then reversed yourself on twice now.
HDMI issues are well documented across the web.
HDMI issues reflect badly on the HD experience.Then why persist, as you admitted, in inserting it into a thread about Blu-ray when it's not limited to it? Loudmouthed idiots reflect badly on going to movie theaters, but it's irrelevant, because that's not the fault of the movie or the theater. What you're doing is portraying the fault of the format for the issues of the connection.
Well, I disagreed with you point on the HDMI issue because I never had a problem, but we ALL knew what that guy was going to post long before he did. We also knew he would tie it back to the format war as he aways does.:rolleyes:

So even though I wasn't the one who brought it up (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16499014#post16499014), nor was I the one who claimed that it wasn't rare (despite evidence to the contrary) and the fault of a player where others had no issue (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16498307#post16498307), nor was I the one saying HDMI "reflects poorly on the blu ray experience" (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16499181#post16499181) despite evidence to the contrary, I'm the one tying it back to the format war?

:D

"btw, if you want to push cool technology on someone, why not a Front Projector instead? I would think having a 100+ inch HD screen would come before an HDM player."

Sad statement ....if you're serious!!??

In order to use Blu-ray you need some sort of HD display. It could be a 30 inch LCD or 100+ inch screen/Projector. You need the display first. Also, most people already have some sort of HD content available to them with out spending and money. For me it was cable with free HD channels.

So if someone who loves cool stuff is starting from scratch or build an home theater room (and they love cool technology), the clearly I would recommend the Front Projector first. Wouldn't you???

And sure they can add Blu-ray or other HD sources later.
Again...
" If I invite people over to watch a Blu-ray film on my 50 inch plasma vs. a football game on my 113 inch projector screen, the football game (and projector) wins every time."

So, you were saying the average Blu-ray experience includes your fairly unique HDMI problems, but you deny that you're saying it's Blu-ray?...

I agree with you on this. HDMI can be a real pain, but that is not because of Blu-ray. Its HDMI.

...


I agree with you on this. HDMI can be a real pain, but that is not because of Blu-ray. Its HDMI.

That isn't relevant. Most people I know do not have blu ray because they feel they have no need for HD. It's not because there is hatred or whatever towards blu ray.

HDMI comes with the HD experience and dodgy hdmi issues might put them of for the near future just like the higher price tag.

We need people to step in or we end up with a high end niche format paying $32 for catalog releases from Disney Inc.

"btw, if you want to push cool technology on someone, why not a Front Projector instead? I would think having a 100+ inch HD screen would come before an HDM player."

Sad statement ....if you're serious!!??

no it isn't.
i got my hd projector almost 5 years ago before there were any hd players. there was hdtv of course (edit-or dvhs) but if you wanted to watch dvds you had to get a sd dvd player.
for most of those 5 years, i used a panasonic s77 dvd player (hdmi/faroudja deinterlacer/scaler) with the pj and that combo put out a stunning image on my (at the time) 108" screen. not hd of course, but damn nice!

so it does makes a lot of sense to 'push a pj on someone'.
nowadays, of course, one can get a bd player for the same money as the panny s77 was.
:)

That isn't relevant.Then why make it a central thrust of your argument, repeatedly and in multiple threads? This is the second issue you've presented as a problem then reversed your position on to claim it is irrelevant.

And to top it all off, you've yet to produce any evidence for your claim that HDMI issues (which are widespread) pose any obstacle to HD, let alone Blu-ray, to any significant population.
HDMI comes with the HD experience and dodgy hdmi issues might put them of for the near future just like the higher price tag. Then why aren't you making this argument in the Cable/Satellite, Downloads, or HTPC forums, all of which deal with HDMI and high-def? If the issue is with "the HD experience" as you changed your mind to claim, then you can't pick and choose only one thing that you personally don't like. If it's the HD experience, then it must affect all HD.
We need people to step in or we end up with a high end niche format paying $32 for catalog releases from Disney Inc.Again, you're cherry-picking the highest-priced thing and claiming that it represents the format as a whole. Studios have lowered prices several times in recent months. Oftentimes, day-and-date titles are selling close to or as much as Blu-ray titles. The prices on players and software continues to lower every month, so this argument has less and less light.

If you want to make an argument that doesn't sound like you're misrepresenting facts, then use the actual facts, not one or two extreme examples or unrelated issues.

... Most people I know do not have blu ray because they feel they have no need for HD. It's not because there is hatred or whatever towards blu ray...

OK, now that I agree with!

Most people who come to my place to watch a movie on Blu-ray, usually say, "that's pretty cool" (although they are usually far more impressed by the 113 inch screen). Not one one person has ever said, "I hate Blu-ray", or "die Blu-ray, die". The point is that they feel (not matter what I do or say) that Blu-ray and some others forms of HD are just not for them and that they can easily live without it. They feel that SD or HD broadcasts and upscaled DVD is fine for them and the benefits of Blu-ray are not worth the extra costs and efforts.

Look at it this way, most people don't even own an HDTV, many of those that do bought them for space reasons (flat panels) and the HD part.

A little over a week. Everybody has had their say. It's not like there's going to be a definitive conclusion reached.

larry