# Do you Own a Blu Ray Player?



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Saw this poll on MSN and was a bit surprised that only 16% of the respondants said they have one. Is this going to be another Beta? I certainly hope not!


----------



## Big_Daddy (Apr 2, 2009)

Starbuck said:


> Saw this poll on MSN and was a bit surprised that only 16% of the respondants said they have one. Is this going to be another Beta? I certainly hope not!


I got a PS3 (awesome built-in Blu-Ray player). I think they'll be around for a while.:smile:


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

No, not yet anyway. Still waiting to see what wins the format skirmishes.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Mooh said:


> No, not yet anyway. Still waiting to see what wins the format skirmishes.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


That's pretty much been decided since HDDVD is dead. Bluray is the only HD format at this time. 

I think the reason for slow adoption has been price. Most people aren't going to throw out their perfectly good DVD player and spend $250-$300 on a BR player when many can barely tell the difference in picture quality (unless they're playing side-by-side). I've noticed that prices on the BR players have started to finally creep down but still you're looking at minimum $150 but still you can get an upconverting DVD player for $50.

I'm waiting to get a PS3 now that their prices have come within what I'd consider reasonable.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

I'm sure Blu Ray will eventually take the market. If for no other reason than because it comes in the PS3. Right now prices for stand-alone BR player are still up there, but the PS3 just recently enjoyed a drop.

I'd love to get PS3 (maybe xmas?) but I don't have a HD TV, so I wouldn't really get to enjoy Blu Ray anyway. I'm sure there's a lot of people like me out there who are just itching to buy a player and get into it, but are patiently waiting for their old CRT sets to give up the ghost. My GF said we can't buy a new TV til the old one dies, so I occasionally hit it, or try to spill stuff on it these days.


----------



## WarrenG (Feb 3, 2006)

I bought one, but I still haven't used it as I'm waiting for the home theatre *cough* man-cave, to be finished in the new house which is also, unfinished.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> That's pretty much been decided since HDDVD is dead. Bluray is the only HD format at this time.
> 
> I think the reason for slow adoption has been price. Most people aren't going to throw out their perfectly good DVD player and spend $250-$300 on a BR player when many can barely tell the difference in picture quality (unless they're playing side-by-side). I've noticed that prices on the BR players have started to finally creep down but still you're looking at minimum $150 but still you can get an upconverting DVD player for $50.
> 
> I'm waiting to get a PS3 now that their prices have come within what I'd consider reasonable.


Well, that's kind of what I mean. The bride dragged me into Blockbuster yesterday and it's hard to tell there's a market...yet. There's obviously a market when you visit the stereo/TV shop though, it's just that folks have already switched recently, still have workable gear, and sometimes can't tell the difference anyway. I fear there will be another format change, or significant improvement, soon, that's why I hesitate.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Big_Daddy said:


> I got a PS3 (awesome built-in Blu-Ray player). I think they'll be around for a while.:smile:


We did the same thing. A great deal for a Blu-ray player at $299, since you get the gaming console as well.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

I have the PS3, but havent turned it on in about 6 months. I prefer to watch from the hard drive rather than optical disk. Downloadable media will eventually kill off Bu-Ray until a holographic storage alternative is put on the market.........


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Personally, I like my video small and grainy, so all that potential detail is lost on me. A 9" black and white TV is my idea of perfect video.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

mhammer said:


> Personally, I like my video small and grainy, so all that potential detail is lost on me. A 9" black and white TV is my idea of perfect video.



kqoct my 1970's black and white is 14 inch. BUT it works fine  and no, I have no desire to up-grade from that. I put on a movie, I sit back, I pick up an book and read. The images simply calm my mind, they don't specifically entertain it.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Ive owned a Bluray player for 4 years now. not looking back. it's just to good to pass on realy. you can get most movies under 30$...and at video rental place, you can buy the previously viewed copies for 15$. 

But there is not point in having a Bluray player if you don't have the TV that go with it. Even simple DVDs will look better on a BD player with it's enhanced capabilities..

as for the Poles...don't mind those, VERY small % of people take those.


----------



## Morbo (Aug 26, 2009)

I have a blu-ray player and a TV to do it justice. I'd say it's totally worth it now that many movies on blu-ray are pretty cheap. Most of them are still a rip-off, I mean, 30$ for a movie? The only one I bought at that price was Blade Runner, it has four versions of the movie on 5 blu ray disks. It looks absolutely stunning, by the way. And for me that's the point. You can watch Transformers on blu ray and it's very nice, but watch 2001 a Space Odyssey... And it's gorgeous, a great movie experience. Even movies shot in black and white benefit from a good transfer to HD. Old movies look superb on blu ray.

But it's still a relatively unstable technology. Firmware updates are frequent and not that convenient to do. It's pretty slow at the moment too.If your VHS was too complicated for you, I'd say wait a couple of years until it's a tad more user-friendly.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

OH....if you wanna get blown away..get or rent the Sean Connery era Blueray disc, it's some of the best transfers and clean-up job I ever saw..just stunning.


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

I don't own a blue ray player - yet. I will at some point though. As this is a music site, I thought that I would mention that the editor at Guitar Player mag review the new Neil Youg retrospective, both blue ray and non blue ray and he said the price difference to buy the blue ray was worth the extra cost.
Also when you get the blue ray edition NY will send you updates, new video from old performances via the web.
For me it would definitely be worth it.

Brian


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

al3d said:


> OH....if you wanna get blown away..get or rent the Sean Connery era Blueray disc, it's some of the best transfers and clean-up job I ever saw..just stunning.


James Bond?


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

We've had a PS3 for a while now, 6-8 months, that we bought 50% for gaming platform and 50% for BlueRay player.

My wife buys a ton of movies, but is NOT buying all blueray still due to cost. I buy almost no movies but did recently buy The Who - Live At Isle Of Wight on blueray and WOW both the video and audio qualities were stunning, tho I admit I may be a lot prejudiced because this is one of my favourite bands


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i've been holding off. hasn't made $en$e, thus far.

i have a couple of questions:

1. i learned the hard way that you can't play a bluray dvd on a standard player. will i still be able to play my regular dvds on a bluray player?

2. are bluray dvds more expensive the regular dvds? if so, this is a deal-breaker, for me.

3. are all regular dvds also available on bluray, and just as easy to find? if not, this is DEFINITELY a deal-breaker.

4. i was able to purchase brand name (toshiba, panasonic) 5-disc dvd changers on craiglist for $30-$40. will i be able to buy 5-disc bluray changers similarly?

-dh


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...i've been holding off. hasn't made $en$e, thus far.
> 
> i have a couple of questions:
> 
> ...


1. Yes It will even make a standard DVD look better ( if it's a decent machine)
2. Yes a new release BD movie is about $29.95
3. The selection is getting better, most new releases these days or also on BD
4. This one I have no answer for. Anyone else???


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i've been holding off. hasn't made $en$e, thus far.
> 
> i have a couple of questions:
> 
> ...


1. Yes, a blue ray player will "up-convert" and will play any DVD.

2. At first yes, but now they're coming down. There are lots of deals.

3. Not everything is released on Blue Ray. This is no different than when Cassettes replaced Vinyl.

4. Can't answer this but I don't see why not.


As for it making sense, that's a personal thing I suppose, but the picture quality with BlueRay is definitely better than a conventional DVD.


----------



## EchoWD40 (Mar 16, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Personally, I like my video small and grainy, so all that potential detail is lost on me. A 9" black and white TV is my idea of perfect video.





keeperofthegood said:


> kqoct my 1970's black and white is 14 inch. BUT it works fine  and no, I have no desire to up-grade from that. I put on a movie, I sit back, I pick up an book and read. The images simply calm my mind, they don't specifically entertain it.


I feel incredibly sad for both of you lol.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

TDeneka said:


> I feel incredibly sad for both of you lol.


Hahaha!!

Sometimes it isn't about the science though:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocGWC3ofy64]ocGWC3ofy64[/youtube]


Yes, I also do like what survived of radio shows as well. Lots of great performances where the visuals were literally all in your mind.

However, considering that my USB flash drive can hold 16 movies with all the quality I want, I cannot see a long life to these moving disk players. I can see the next innovation coming; Apple Computers Presents, the iPlayer. No moving parts, no disks, wireless up and down loadable iVideos to match iTunes dedicated to a video signal point and click purchase or rent whenever you want movie experience device.


----------



## cptheman (Oct 15, 2009)

For now I have no reason to spend the money, but eventually Im sure I'll get one


----------



## Morbo (Aug 26, 2009)

Starbuck said:


> 1. Yes It will even make a standard DVD look better ( if it's a decent machine)
> 2. Yes a new release BD movie is about $29.95
> 3. The selection is getting better, most new releases these days or also on BD
> 4. This one I have no answer for. Anyone else???


Haven't seen any blu-ray disk changer except a Sony 400 disk changer, which is somewhat insane.

I usually buy inexpensive blurays, 10-20$ except if they are significantly more than just a movie (like Blade Runner). There's a pretty good selection of inexpensive ones and many deals from time to time. 



al3d said:


> OH....if you wanna get blown away..get or rent the Sean Connery era Blueray disc, it's some of the best transfers and clean-up job I ever saw..just stunning.


I definitely will. It's been a while since I watched an older James Bond movie.


----------



## arloskay (Sep 5, 2007)

I won one in a contest, along with a collection of movies. I haven't received it yet, though. I wouldn't have bought one otherwise (maybe a PS3 if I did). I also have an HD-DVD player that I bought when they were clearing them out, plus lots of HD-DVD movies which I have bought on clearance as well.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

When I get one, you'll know another format is on the way...

Actually we just got a free DVD player, so I'll stick with that for a while.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

No blu-ray for me. At least not yet. I just bought a Pioneer upconverting DVD player, a few months ago that I'm more than satisfied with.
Even though both my Panny Plasma's are 1080P I have no desire for Blu-Ray yet.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Meh...........


----------



## zjq426 (Aug 23, 2009)

If i were getting a blu-ray player, that would be ps3. period.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

hollowbody said:


> My GF said we can't buy a new TV til the old one dies, so I occasionally hit it, or try to spill stuff on it these days.


That's funny! My wife once made a colour TV of ours into a Black and White TV by dusting it while it was on. She got a big static jolt and that was it, no more colour.

MAybe if you rub your feet on the carpet and try to shock your TV!hwopv


----------



## Jimi D (Oct 27, 2008)

al3d said:


> Even simple DVDs will look better on a BD player with it's enhanced capabilities..


uh, no... I've got a much better upscaler in my Toshiba TV than most Bluray players will ever have, and there are plenty of decent quality upconverting DVD players with HDMI outputs on the market if you don't have a good upscaler in your HDTV (many of them leave something to be desired)...

I have a 57" HDTV and I would never recommend someone "upgrade" to Bluray from DVD unless they have a large amount of disposable income and are serious home theatre hounds... There simply is not a big enough difference between Bluray and a decent DVD print to justify the significant increase in costs at this point, imho... Sure, when I go over to Accept2's place and we check out something on his 110" projection system, we can see a difference when directly comparing the DVD to the Bluray (we did that with Carpenter's "The Thing" a while back), but I'd enjoy the movie either way. Doing a direct comparison on my 57" Toshiba TheaterWide still reveals some differences when I'm looking for them, but in the course of "moving" picture, it's not anything I'd notice unless I was specifically looking for it, and examining background nooks for tiny details is not why I watch a movie... The differences between VHS and DVD were much more obvious, much more visible...

Now, add to this the fact that I can generally find a DVD print of a movie for $10 or less, with a lot of titles available now at Walmart or other big stores for $5 a piece - Blurays cost a lot more than that! and as Sony has the market sewn-up (no competition) the price of Blurays isn't going to come down to anything vaguely resembling reasonable any time soon... It cost Sony $Billions to win the format wars - they basically bought off studios and distributers at enormous cost to keep them exclusive to Bluray - and they're looking to make that money back. Basically, the price of the media makes Bluray a luxury item, and though there are a decent number of Bluray players on the market now if you count PS3s (which Sony, of course, does), the attach rates are pathetic - last I checked they were less than 2 movies per player... You can't support a market with an attach rate that low... 

Anyway, Accept2 is right, Digital Download - files on a harddrive - is the wave of the future. "On demand" TV and cable-enabled movie rental are where it's at, and Bluray will never gain the traction that DVD had, no matter what the big corporate media companies want... And, believe me, they want to sell you Blurays - they want to do that bad! People have maxed out their DVD collections - they aren't buying DVDs in the crazy numbers that they were five or six years back. The profits made while we all built up our DVD collections were huge, but they've tapered off, so now the media consortiums need to push a format shift in the hope that we'll all run out and 
re-buy all the same movies on Bluray, because they're somehow "better" than our DVD versions, so they can continue to make money handoverfist without actually having to produce anything new.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...given that:

1. a blu ray 5-disc changer would cost me much more then the $30-40 i've been spending on brand name dvd changers on craigslist (as well, i would need two, as i have two viewing rooms)

2. blu ray dvds are more expensive, and offer less selection (especially for live music performances, which the only thing i watch) than regular dvds

3. i'm not all that unhappy with the picture quality i'm getting with my older tvs and players

it will probably be several years before i finally purchase a blu ray player.

-dh


----------



## Morbo (Aug 26, 2009)

Jimi D said:


> uh, no... I've got a much better upscaler in my Toshiba TV than most Bluray players will ever have, and there are plenty of decent quality upconverting DVD players with HDMI outputs on the market if you don't have a good upscaler in your HDTV (many of them leave something to be desired)...
> 
> I have a 57" HDTV and I would never recommend someone "upgrade" to Bluray from DVD unless they have a large amount of disposable income and are serious home theatre hounds... There simply is not a big enough difference between Bluray and a decent DVD print to justify the significant increase in costs at this point, imho... Sure, when I go over to Accept2's place and we check out something on his 110" projection system, we can see a difference when directly comparing the DVD to the Bluray (we did that with Carpenter's "The Thing" a while back), but I'd enjoy the movie either way. Doing a direct comparison on my 57" Toshiba TheaterWide still reveals some differences when I'm looking for them, but in the course of "moving" picture, it's not anything I'd notice unless I was specifically looking for it, and examining background nooks for tiny details is not why I watch a movie... The differences between VHS and DVD were much more obvious, much more visible...
> 
> ...


I see a big difference between blurays and DVD versions of the same movie, and my player's upconverting capabilities are excellent. I did see bad transfers on bluray, barely worthy of a DVD, but it's not the norm, and excellent transfers are on a completely other level. Watch the first scene in The Dark Knight on a good HDTV and tell me you don't see an improvement from DVD. 

But then again I'm a maniac. Cinematography is a big part of the movie experience for me, and I take movies relatively seriously. Maybe for someone else the difference is unnoticeable.

Blu Ray disks are steadily dropping in prices, especially older ones. As I said, I don't buy any blu ray over 20$ except if it's exceptional, and many of my movies cost me 10$. It would be terrible business if they didn't lower the costs of movies and players, because prices are usually what keeps people from going to the newest technology. To put it simply, selling a million bluray disks at 10¢ profit is better than fifty thousand at 1$ per disk. The smart business move is having your product in every consumer's home, not just the home theater "enthusiast".

Also, I don't think we're likely to see digital movies taking over completely, not without some big changes. Internet service in north america is terrible, just awful. Right now, renting one movie on my Xbox would mean at least a 2gb download (about the same as downloading Windows 7) and I have a 20 gb per month download limit (how I hate that scam). And while renting would be adequate that way, the idea of owning a movie in a digital version probably wouldn't be a success. DRMs would certainly prevent you from watching your movies at a friend's house or selling it. Like people never stopped buying CDs, people like having a physical media.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Something else occurred to me when I was chatting with a friend about Blu-Ray. I think the BR marketing people need to maybe emphasize that the players are backward compatible with DVD's - so you DON'T have to throw out your entire collection like when we went from VHS to DVD.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Jimi D;242806. There simply is not a big enough difference between Bluray and a decent DVD print to justify the significant increase in costs at this point said:


> LOL..you sound like my 85 year old uncle with big glasses....the image quality is 4 times better on any movies you wanna pick. to NOT see the quality difference, something is realy wrong with your set-up Jimi.
> 
> you can NOT deny the quality of blueray, but i agree, been a cinema fan does help. if you're the kinda of person who rents 2 movies a year and mostly watches the news, then no, it's not for you for sure.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Jimi D said:


> uh, no... I've got a much better upscaler in my Toshiba TV than most Bluray players will ever have, and there are plenty of decent quality upconverting DVD players with HDMI outputs on the market if you don't have a good upscaler in your HDTV (many of them leave something to be desired)...
> 
> I have a 57" HDTV and I would never recommend someone "upgrade" to Bluray from DVD unless they have a large amount of disposable income and are serious home theatre hounds... There simply is not a big enough difference between Bluray and a decent DVD print to justify the significant increase in costs at this point, imho... Sure, when I go over to Accept2's place and we check out something on his 110" projection system, we can see a difference when directly comparing the DVD to the Bluray (we did that with Carpenter's "The Thing" a while back), but I'd enjoy the movie either way. Doing a direct comparison on my 57" Toshiba TheaterWide still reveals some differences when I'm looking for them, but in the course of "moving" picture, it's not anything I'd notice unless I was specifically looking for it, and examining background nooks for tiny details is not why I watch a movie... The differences between VHS and DVD were much more obvious, much more visible...
> 
> ...




Anything wrong with *renting* BR? I'm lucky if I find one movie a year I'd ever consider buying. As for "TV on demand", my in-laws have this service and the titles availlable are the worst of Hollywood's dreck. If you like stuff like "GIJOE" and "Beverly Hills Chihuahua", it's great. We love going down to our local independent video store, not really knowing what we're after.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Jimi D said:


> Anyway, Accept2 is right, Digital Download - files on a harddrive - is the wave of the future. "On demand" TV and cable-enabled movie rental are where it's at, and Bluray will never gain the traction that DVD had, no matter what the big corporate media companies want... And, believe me, they want to sell you Blurays - they want to do that bad! People have maxed out their DVD collections - they aren't buying DVDs in the crazy numbers that they were five or six years back. The profits made while we all built up our DVD collections were huge, but they've tapered off, so now the media consortiums need to push a format shift in the hope that we'll all run out and
> re-buy all the same movies on Bluray, because they're somehow "better" than our DVD versions, so they can continue to make money handoverfist without actually having to produce anything new.


Actually..if you read, and keep up to date, this will mostlikly NEVER HAPPEN..they did test the idea...the amount of bandwith necessary is a minimum of 10 years in our future. The AVERAGE household has a 20 to 25gig transfer limit a month, it's even worst in most case in the US. Now, a HD qualily flick, even compressed with the hightest methode right now, is a minimum of 6gigs..and it has a LOT of artifact and it looks not that good. Now, average download time on a dedicated line, 3 to 7 hrs time. so you are stuck with a max of 3 movies a month, IF you don't use your internet for anything else. The infrastructure to pull this off would be SO costly, not to many company could afford it, so price would be insane. 

your argument does'nt realy stand either on that the companies wants to push you new medias..the same thing was said by conspiracy theorist when the DVD came out, they had the same speach you have basicaly. it took 5 to 7 years for DVD to become a standard. not 2 months. blueray as been out for "real" since the war ended about 1 year, and you're expecting it to replace every DVD player in that short of a period!...come on. 

People are watching less and less TV programming, the Series on DVD and Blueray is becomming the biggest market for them. Why wait 7 months to know the ending of a show when you can watch a whole season in 2 to 3 weeks!...When you are into movies, why rent on pay per view for the same price as renting at blockbuster!!!...A-) pay per view compress the shit out of it's movie signal, and NO extras...

Give it time..and you'll see how it goes.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> Anything wrong with *renting* BR? I'm lucky if I find one movie a year I'd ever consider buying. As for "TV on demand", my in-laws have this service and the titles availlable are the worst of Hollywood's dreck. If you like stuff like "GIJOE" and "Beverly Hills Chihuahua", it's great. We love going down to our local independent video store, not really knowing what we're after.


...so far i've only come across one movie worth owning, a movie called "once".

-dh


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...so far i've only come across one movie worth owning, a movie called "once".
> 
> -dh


wow..you're a tought cookie to please..


----------



## Big_Daddy (Apr 2, 2009)

I rarely buy movies, whether DVD or BD, as I think most Hollywood productions really aren't worth the investment. My BD library right now includes Serenity and Band of Brothers, that's it. When the extended version of Lord of the Rings comes out, I'll probably get that.


----------



## Lemonhand (Oct 18, 2009)

I got a good deal on a Blu Ray player during the Future Shop Boxing Day Sale last year - $199 with a few movies. We have a few favorites, but not many. They say your old DVD's will look sharper too, but I'm not sure about it. Overall I like it.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Lemonhand said:


> I got a good deal on a Blu Ray player during the Future Shop Boxing Day Sale last year - $199 with a few movies. We have a few favorites, but not many. They say your old DVD's will look sharper too, but I'm not sure about it. Overall I like it.


Thats one of the things about them to consider. They bring out some of the old movies on Blu-Ray and they do look better for sure but, they are no comparison to getting a new release on Blu-ray. There are limitations to what they can do on those old films based on the source.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Thats one of the things about them to consider. They bring out some of the old movies on Blu-Ray and they do look better for sure but, they are no comparison to getting a new release on Blu-ray. There are limitations to what they can do on those old films based on the source.


True....cleaning up and scanning at 4K is extremely expensive. the studios will go all the way when they know it's a sure bet, for series like Bond, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, lord of the rings, they know they have a dedicated following so the riks is minimal.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...so far i've only come across one movie worth owning, a movie called "once".
> 
> -dh


Hey I just bought that movie at a discount store (brand new) for 3 bucks. Its been sitting on my coffee table for about 3 weeks as I haven't had a chance to watch it. Never heard of it but it looks good.


----------



## Morbo (Aug 26, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Thats one of the things about them to consider. They bring out some of the old movies on Blu-Ray and they do look better for sure but, they are no comparison to getting a new release on Blu-ray. There are limitations to what they can do on those old films based on the source.


Most of the time it's true. For some reason many 80's movies look terrible on bluray. If the original print has been taken good care of, like, for instance, the old Disney movies, the resulting image quality can be as good as a recent movie. The resolution of a film reel made for projectors is significantly higher than 1080p. The colors, if they faded, can be restored digitally. Add a bit of cleaning up, and the movie looks like new. However, some film prints were treated badly, and it can show. But most classics have gone through many clean-ups and are still in pretty good shape. 

That's a great thing, too. People don't seem to realize that old movies are better than the crap being released these days. There was crap back then, but these movies are usually long forgotten. All the releases have been filtered through memory and the desire to preserve awesome movies. What remains are your Citizen Kane, Godfather, Casablanca, etc. I keep telling people to watch old movies, and when they do, it's usually a revelation. You liked Kill Bill? Try "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly". You tolerate today's horror movies? Watch "The Thing" or the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Like dark comedy? Peter Sellers and Kubrick made "Dr. Strangelove" a long time before I was born. It's still great and looks great.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

al3d said:


> Actually..if you read, and keep up to date, this will mostlikly NEVER HAPPEN..they did test the idea...the amount of bandwith necessary is a minimum of 10 years in our future. The AVERAGE household has a 20 to 25gig transfer limit a month, it's even worst in most case in the US. Now, a HD qualily flick, even compressed with the hightest methode right now, is a minimum of 6gigs..and it has a LOT of artifact and it looks not that good. Now, average download time on a dedicated line, 3 to 7 hrs time. so you are stuck with a max of 3 movies a month, IF you don't use your internet for anything else. The infrastructure to pull this off would be SO costly, not to many company could afford it, so price would be insane.
> 
> your argument does'nt realy stand either on that the companies wants to push you new medias..the same thing was said by conspiracy theorist when the DVD came out, they had the same speach you have basicaly. it took 5 to 7 years for DVD to become a standard. not 2 months. blueray as been out for "real" since the war ended about 1 year, and you're expecting it to replace every DVD player in that short of a period!...come on.
> 
> ...


Yes because we all know technology is stagnant and never moves forward. "We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom."..............

Besides when Sony did their demo of their 4K projector they didnt even use BluRay beacuse it couldnt handle it.........


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Accept2 said:


> Yes because we all know technology is stagnant and never moves forward. "We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom."..............
> 
> Besides when Sony did their demo of their 4K projector they didnt even use BluRay beacuse it couldnt handle it.........


Maybe you and Jimi ought to tell these multi-billion dollar media giants how to do it right.


----------



## aC2rs (Jul 9, 2007)

I voted no. But that will no doubt change when time comes to upgrade to a new 1080p TV.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> Maybe you and Jimi ought to tell these multi-billion dollar media giants how to do it right.


They already are doing it. Downloadable HD media has a far greater market share then BluRay. Its not even close, and it keeps growing and growing............


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Accept2 said:


> They already are doing it. Downloadable HD media has a far greater market share then BluRay. Its not even close, and it keeps growing and growing............


i'de LOVE to see those statistics....cause every studio people i've talked to said the opposite so far..


----------



## nitehawk55 (Sep 19, 2007)

Hell I'm still using VCR and the standard DVD players .

I'll give it some time , the pictures look just fine to me with what I have now but then I came from the bunny ears/snowy picture days so maybe my tolerance level is higher with picture quality .


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

What should matter the most is content of course, but it's surprising just how far tv technology has come.

Watching a good movie on blue ray and in high definition, along with good surround sound and a sub is an enhanced experience for most people. 


It's not a priority for me, but once you have it it's pretty cool stuff.


----------



## ajcoholic (Feb 5, 2006)

nitehawk55 said:


> Hell I'm still using VCR and the standard DVD players .
> 
> I'll give it some time , the pictures look just fine to me with what I have now but then I came from the bunny ears/snowy picture days so maybe my tolerance level is higher with picture quality .


Me too  I just got a dvd player a few years ago. I bet I have played less than a dozen dvd's on it. Not much for TV or movies... 

I still have a cassette player in my truck too kqoct

AJC


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Milkman said:


> What should matter the most is content of course, but it's surprising just how far tv technology has come.
> 
> Watching a good movie on blue ray and in high definition, along with good surround sound and a sub is an enhanced experience for most people.
> 
> ...


I would totally agree with that statement. I'm not really a tv watcher. We don't like the theater as it's just a rip off. BUT when you watch a really good move in 5.1 HD? It's amazing. I _prefer_ it to being at the theater.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

ajcoholic said:


> Me too  I just got a dvd player a few years ago. I bet I have played less than a dozen dvd's on it. Not much for TV or movies... I still have a cassette player in my truck too kqoct
> AJC


...same here - my toyota has a cassette player - no cd.

i have several cassette players in my studio, including two four-track tascam portastudios.

-dh


----------

