Topic: Well well.. Look who just went Blu

[Najemikon]

To truly judge Blu-Ray as a format, you need to judge something with a better depth of field. The Iron Man films are perfect examples of exactly what Blu is capable of when it comes to effects driven action films, but you're right, it's not such a huge leap from DVD. Especially a fresh, mastered-at-the-same-time-DVD. Heck, even my Ultimate Edition Silence of the Lambs is a blu-killer.

You need to see something older, re-mastered for HD to get the real benefit. Or just something that puts a lot of stock in how the film is photographed. No Country for Old Men is a good recent example. I find the ability to see into the middle and even far distance of a landscape shot, genuinely adds to the story. Imagine the famous shot in Lawrence of Arabia; the detail in HD must be staggering.

This is where I see the real difference between DVD and Blu. Yeah, it's cool seeing raindrops on a car, but not necessary. I also didn't need to realise how bright Michael Caine's tooth filling is in Zulu! But the depth of colour and clarity in the uniforms or the Zulu war-paint. That, means something.

A recent blown away moment for me is Saving Private Ryan. I haven't watched it properly, but I already know the film well. Honestly, the clips I watched it's like seeing it for the first time. Spielberg put so much work into the stock of the film and frame-rate. I didn't realise how much was lost on DVD; he bleached the film of colour, but DVD fails on the contrast between what is there. Blu picks up all the gorgeous shading. It's stunning.

[RossRoy]

I fully realize that Iron Man, being so modern and so CGI heavy, probably isn't the best example of what Blu can achieve over DVD. But I heard so many complaints about older film transfer being half hassed job (rehash of the DVD master, too much noise reduction, etc etc etc) that I just didn't trust my memory to actually pick a "reference" transfer to Blu of a catalog films. That, I will shop for from the comfort of my house using all the resources I can to actually select a movie that is recognized as a worthwhile transfer to Blu.

Thing is, I'd also like it to be something I am familiar with, so that I'd actually be able to judge if the difference in quality is worth it to me.

Saving Private Ryan would probably be a good choice.

I did have the 5-disc Blade Runner set in hands for a few minutes, before putting it back on the shelf, that would probably also be a good selection.

[Achim]

Loading times can be long, that is indeed annoying at times. However, on my PS3 the discs actually install some data on the hard drive, making subsequent loads faster.

As I indicated above, the key lies in the comparison A Blu-Ray by itself will even underwhelm(sp?), but pop in the DVD of the same film right afterwards and you'll see the difference. I did that with Blade Runner. I bought the 5-disc DVD and later upgraded to Blu. I then decided to pu both in their respective players and just switch channels. Amazing... Another example is Dawn Of The Dead; first I thought"really...?", but the comparison taught me better.

But sure, some older stuff gets bad transfers (sometimes a bad Blu is still better than a DVD though, which is wht Blubeaver actually gives two ratings) or the source material is just not up for the task. Always check some reviews first, when in doubt. I found those comments myself later, but as Jimmy reported the guys from Shout! pointed out they only make some Roger Corman Blus because the other film look atrocious in hi-def. But when done properly and with enough resources then old films can shine on Blu.

[Jimmy]

But when done properly and with enough resources then old films can shine on Blu.

That's why only the Hollywood majors produce them and no genre film are released. It isn't economically viable to any independant label to do them. The sale doesn't justify the high cost of doing the transfert, even the major loose money with this... But they have something the independant don't have and it's the television rights. By exemple MGM only make a profit with that because of their TV channel...

One day everyone will wake up and realize it was just too soon for this. It's a niche format in the same way the laser disc were for the video tape and because of this bad launching decision to please a monopole the format will die as the beta tape did even with a better quality...

I know I preach this for nothing here but all that expensive equipment is a waste of money that will be put in the closet in less than a year. The monopole experience had just failed : you can't launch something unecessary when the economy is crashing...

[hal9g]

One day everyone will wake up and realize it was just too soon for this. It's a niche format in the same way the laser disc were for the video tape and because of this bad launching decision to please a monopole the format will die as the beta tape did even with a better quality...

You're kidding here, right.

You're not really comparing Blu ray to Laser Disc, are you?  The market for Blu ray is exponentially larger today than Laser Disc was during its hay day!

You don't really believe Blu ray will die out the way beta tape did (as I remember, VHS won that war and Blu ray won the war with HDVD).

I know you must be jesting, because nobody can really believe that Blu ray is not a significant enhancement over DVD, as long as they have the right equipment to enjoy it...and the prices will continue to drop.  I just bought a Blu ray drive for $89.  The first DVD player I bought, a Pioneer DV09, I paid $1100 for!!!!!

You really need to get a little perspective.

[Jimmy]

Not at all...
This format is a studio monster and nothing more than that... It's a niche market, it will rest this way and it will die because of it.

Of course someone who is happy to get a better looking transfert of the most recent crappy product shown at the theatre will be satisfied with that, but not everybody care about the Hollywood cinema and for them the format is useless.

Just to make sure : I don't talk about you personally Hal, but the general BR consummers.

I've paid 800$ for my for my first vhs player, a lot less for my first dvd reader (more or less 250$) and I will not spent one cent for a BR player. I don't like mainstream film, so looking better or not isn't an issue for me and I'm perfectly happy with the quality I get from a dvd.

[hal9g]

I understand that because of your "special" tastes, that Blu ray is of little use to you.

To compare Blu ray to Laser Disc and/or Beta tape is, well..... silly.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To compare Blu ray to Laser Disc and/or Beta tape is, well..... silly.

Not entirely sure about this.
In my eyes Blu-Ray is an enhanced DVD. Not more not less.
With this premise I'm quite sure that it would have been long dead, if the players weren't compatible with DVDs.

[Kathy]

I doubt I will ever get this type of player. I'm sure that the picture quality is much better for some movies but I don't really care.

I'm fine with what I have and love getting DVDs for a buck or two. If the price for those DVDs can match this - I'll be happy to switch. Until then its not happening for me.

[hal9g]

To compare Blu ray to Laser Disc and/or Beta tape is, well..... silly.

Not entirely sure about this.
In my eyes Blu-Ray is an enhanced DVD. Not more not less.
With this premise I'm quite sure that it would have been long dead, if the players weren't compatible with DVDs.

First of all, they did make them compatible.  That just makes good business sense.

However, back to the question at hand, I knew exactly one person personally who owned a Laser Disc player while they were on the market.  I understand it was somewhat more popular in Japan and other parts of Asia.  It had almost zero following in Europe.  I knew maybe a dozen people who owned Betamax machines, and they quickly switched to VHS once the war was over (kinda like what happened to HDDVD).  There is no legitimate comparison to Blu ray.  Statistics on sales are available at numerous sites.  Blu ray disc sales are projected to be $1.3B dollars in 2010.  I'd love to control a niche market like that!

I understand that many people do not feel the cost difference is worth it, and they are certainly correct if they do not have both the proper video and audio equipment to take full advantage of it.  However, if you do have the right equipment and the right environment, I'm sorry, but it is an entirely different experience from DVD, IMHO.

[Achim]

Fpr me it's always been:

Hollywood films = mass market
Independent films = niche

Not sure how it's suddenly the other way around

[Jimmy]

We talk about a format... If you think that a player where you must spend thousands of dollars to see the little differences is mass market good, but Joe Regular don't spend that kind of money just to watch a film (whatever it looks better or not as the propaganda want us to believe). If Joe Regular don't spend the money it's a niche market...

Concerning the quality, many of those supposed great looking dvd look worse than what is available already on dvd.

Blu-Ray Sales Drop, a Victim of Being Both Too Early and Too Late

[Achim]

We talk about a format... If you think that a player where you must spend thousands of dollars to see the little differences is mass market good, but Joe Regular don't spend that kind of money just to watch a film (whatever it looks better or not as the propaganda want us to believe). If Joe Regular don't spend the money it's a niche market...

Jimmy, I don't know about Canada, it m ay be all different there.

I bought a PS3 as a Blu-ray player, which cost me $400, not thousands (and that was almost 3 years ago). By now there are Blu-ray players available for less than $100 in the US. I think you may be playing of your memory from 3 to 4 years ago, which would match your description. It is all different now. I'd have to find sources again, but I believe the Blu-ray market is already approx. 30% of all sales, which makes it neither replacement (not gonna happen in the next 3-5 years) nor niche.

[RossRoy]

What Jimmy is saying, relates to this quote by Hal:

I understand that many people do not feel the cost difference is worth it, and they are certainly correct if they do not have both the proper video and audio equipment to take full advantage of it.  However, if you do have the right equipment and the right environment, I'm sorry, but it is an entirely different experience from DVD, IMHO.

What this basically means is that to get the most out of Blu ray you don't just need a Blu ray player and disc. You also need a good hi def TV with a new sound system. Which can easily rank up in the thousands of dollars.

The reader itself is but a mere fraction of that total cost.

[Jimmy]

As Sebastien said this is what I refer to. The reader isn't the only necessary purchase and it's pretty useless without an HD TV set and a good sound system (the high cost is there and not the reader itself). It's the first system that force the consummer to spend thousands of dollar to see the differences (whatever they worth it or not).

Like I said a fast launching to got a jump in the HD-TV sales who didn't sell great at that time. This is what the monopole wanted in the first place, not to replace the normal DVD who are adequate for 90% of the Joe Regular crowd. BTW expect a new format in a year or two to help boost the poor sales of the new 3D TV set.