WTHeck is Blu-Ray?

[Skidmore]

What technology that I don't have yet does it replace? How is it different from HD, which I don't have either? Why should I even consider getting anything uses the technology? Who thinks of these things and do they ever consider that people don't have tons of income to constantly update?

Tecnologically challenged in rural America,

Skidmore

[TheWraith]

1. It replaces DVDs. It's basically a high-definintion DVD. nt

[kestrel91316]

28. I watch DVDs on my desktop since my DVD player died after only ONE YEAR.

Does this mean I am gonna have to replace my fucking computers so they can play the new "improved" blu-rays???

[TheWraith]

44. Well, if you wanted to you could simply buy a Blu Ray drive.

They can be had for around $40. But what the hell is everybody's hostility to new technology? It's not like DVDs are going away, this is just an upgrade.

[kestrel91316]

82. So I need a special drive to watch them? MORE stuff to buy?

And then I need to keep my old DVD drive to watch DVDs that AREN'T bluray??? I don't necessarily hate new technology per se. I hate PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE that requires me to complicate my life and spend MORE money.

What is so terribly wrong with DVDs the way they are? If it ain't broke, why "fix" it?

[hendo]

91. nope

blu-ray players are reverse compatible.

Nothing is wrong with DVDs, Blu-ray discs just have a larger capacity, that means fuller sounds HD pictures, and more special features.

[TheWraith]

100. So why are you so angry when you don't have to do anything?

If DVDs work for you, fine. Keep using them. If anything, Blu Ray helps you because it'll drive down the price of regular DVDs. It's not "planned obsolescence" or some evil conspiracy. It's a newer technology capable of holding over 5 times as much information, thus making it possible to have sharper, clearer movies on a single disc. Maybe that doesn't appeal to you, but it's no reason to go paranoid. Frankly, it comes off as glorifying the past to an unrealistic extent. Somebody said all the same things about DVDs, and about VHS before that. If we always settled for what we had, we'd still be using 8mm film.

And no, Blu Ray is reverse compatible, so a new drive would play your old DVDs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. Actually it is planned obsolescence and part and parcel of

consumerism

You see it in the DVD\blue ray mess

You see it in computers not meant to last beyond a certain point (if you want to run modern software)

You see it in the planned lifespan of my clothes washer... my mom's her first lasted over 30 years, mine, the one I just replaced lasted ten... the one that I replaced it with, ten if we are lucky

So yes, there is planned obsolescence designed into every product you buy

[TheWraith]

116. There's this thing called science. It advances.

In the case of Blu-ray, it uses a more tightly focused laser to increase the density of information that can be stored on a disc. This isn't something that was physically possible with the technology 10+ years ago when DVDs were being designed. Now, tell me: do you think they should have ignored the idea of creating better discs back then, or now, to placate some people's obsession with attacking all change as part of some corporate paranoia?

This is NOT, I repeat, NOT planned obsolescence or anything similar. It's advances in technology, the same way that the more demanding software today generally looks a hell of a lot better and does more than something released five years ago. Speaking of which, computer sales have dropped off mainly because all the recently built computers have more than enough horsepower for current tasks. Note the lack of action by the Trilateral Commission.

[bobbolink]

83. "But what the hell is everybody's hostility to new technology?"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[NeedleCast]

98. Technophobes

Believe me, the vast majority of the electronics using population of the world falls into this category. As a software-trainer and developer, the resisteance we see to new software is usually very high, even if it's replacing software that is poorly rated.

This OP is case in point. The OP doesn't seem to know anything about blue-ray but shows a great deal of hostility towards it despite not knowing the first thing about it.

[last_texas_dem]

66. That probably all depends on how much clout the "Blu-Ray" lobby has in Washington...

Not that I'm even sure that there *is* a Blu-Ray lobby in Washington, but I'd be surprised if there isn't!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

2. The Wikipedia Blu-Ray page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

Blu-ray Disc (also known as Blu-ray or BD) is an optical disc storage medium. Its main uses are high-definition video and data storage. The disc has the same physical dimensions as standard DVDs and CDs.

The name Blu-ray Disc is derived from the blue laser (violet-colored) used to read and write this type of disc. Because of the beam's shorter wavelength (405 nanometres), substantially more data can be stored on a Blu-ray Disc than on the DVD format, which uses a red (650 nm) laser. A two-layer Blu-ray Disc can store 50 gigabytes, almost six times the capacity of a two-layer DVD, or ten and a half times that of a single-layer DVD.

During the format war over high-definition optical discs, Blu-ray Disc competed with the HD DVD format. On February 19, 2008, Toshiba—the main company supporting HD DVD—announced that it would no longer develop, manufacture, or market HD DVD players and recorders,<2> leading almost all other HD DVD companies to follow suit, effectively ending the format war.

Blu-ray Disc was developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association, a group representing makers of consumer electronics, computer hardware, and motion pictures. As of November 27, 2008, more than 1150 Blu-ray Disc titles have been released in the United States and more than 610 Blu-ray Disc titles have been released in Japan.<3><4><5> There are expected to be over 1300 Blu-ray Disc titles released in the United States by the end of 2008.<6>

:toast:

[Skidmore]

6. Thanks,

and AAAAARRRRGHHHH!

We just started acquiring a few DVD titles, and have no digital televisions.

[EOTE]

12. Then I'd continue using DVDs.

The DVD format is going to be supported for a good while longer. Years from now when they finally stop supporting the format, you'll probably be able to get a Blu-ray player for around $40 (even now you can get one for around $100) that will play all of your current DVDs in addition to Blu-rays. I'm fairly disappointed that HD-DVD bowed out so quickly, it was superior technology at a much cheaper price. As a result of HD-DVD's demise, you can pick up HD-DVD players extremely cheaply and as well as hundreds of very cheap HD-DVDs.

[TheWraith]

25. Agreed. If you don't have an HD TV, then there's no reason to go with Blu Ray until you do. nt

[comtec]

74. How was HD-DVD usperior? it was inferior in every way...

ok here's the nuts and bolts
HD-DVD was the outer limits of DVD tech. They could store 15 GB per layer
Blu-Ray is the very BEGINNING of this new technology and can store 25GB per layer with a current maximum of 4 layers!

But that's where the differences end. Once you actually look at the Video information stored ON the HD or BD it's pretty much the same file type.

HD came about because BD uses Java to drive it's menu system, making it pretty much universal, and cheaper to make readers (non-proprietary OSes means lower cost) HD, was funded by microsoft running their proprietary "flash-killer" silverlight.
MS has spent 10+ years and bullions KILLING Java, and removing it from teh desktop (only to have it move VERY successfully to the mobile market) and here comes BluRay bringing Java back!

HD was cheaper, faster/easier to make because it worked with existing tech, known tech that's 15 years old.
When DVD came out it could "only" store 4.2 GB of data per layer. HD trippled that to 15GB per layer (I'm being generous, ive seen that number as low as 12GB per layer). It's amazing, but it was lost from teh start.

HD is teh end of DVD tech, BluRay is the beginning of Blue-Laser tech.

And before you start, I work IN AV, and this comes direct from a guy who makes DVDs for a living (literally the software to run one, not just making movies, and no it's not porn).

And I would LOVE to know where you can get a BD drive for 40 dollars!?

Here in Europe i can only get one for 109€ and that's after 20% taxes.
The cheapest TV-top unit I've seen is over 200€

Personally, I say buy a PS3, for the overall quality, scaling, oh and the games! There's also a new tuner available for it (digital) that you can use for recording TV programs! :)

now HD Simply means High Definition, and there are two types:

HD Ready = 720p, it's a very nice picture, but don't bother, it's an older, place-holder technology that is getting very cheap but so is...

FULL HD - 1080p, VERY crisp clear images. 4+x the resolution of modern TVs, and it's 16:9 wide screen. Full HD screens are becoming increasingly affordable.

The rumor is that sometime in '09 Sony will feature their OLED screens which generate their own light, are seriously flat (3 pieces of paper thick) and low-energy consumption... they will also cost several small hybrids! :)

HDMI is a transmission cable. High Definition Multimedia Interface.... that means it does pretty pictures, surround sound audio, and TV control in one cable. It's digital so don't buy the BS hype about "this HDMI cable is better than THAT one!"

It's a digital signal, that means it's PERFECT... until it's not, then it stops! There is no signal degradation like there is in analog signals (normal composite for example) Digital has a FIXED range, then it just stops.

COMPONENT... wow that's a loaded one I won't go into as it needs it's own thread.

ok so that's HD, REALLY HD, HD-DVD, and BluRay.

I hope that helps a bit.
If you need more detailed info try www.extron.com (my employer) who dies high-end AV, but also has a great tutorial and glossary on site for what all this crap is! :)

[EOTE]

93. There are a number of issues with your post.

HD-DVD is hardly the 'outer limits of DVD tech'. You talk about the storage per layer as if that actually means anything. The fact that they expected to have 10+ layer HD-DVDs certainly would have taken storage capacity out of being a factor. On top of that, you have to figure in the codecs being used and how efficient each format is at decompressing the formats. At least at first, HD-DVD was using superior CODECS which allowed near lossless compression at file sizes a good deal smaller than the equivalent Blu-ray disc. And once again, the comparison to standard DVDs is kind of ridiculous as the optics are completely different and HD-DVD, just like Blu-ray, uses a blue laser as opposed to the red laser used in DVD/CD. So, HD-DVD is the beginning of blue laser technology just as Blu-ray was. However, because many of the same developers of CD and DVD were on board for the development of HD-DVD, backwards compatibility with CDs and DVDs was far more issue free with HD-DVD. So you could hardly call it 15 year old technology. Was it more cost efficient? You bet your ass it was. I work with AV on a daily basis, and from the content of your post, it seems as if I'm a good deal more familiar with it.

With regards to BD's use of Java, it's done a pretty piss poor job of utilizing it from the get go. That's why so many of the so called 'standard' features of Blu-ray, such as interactive content, are only now becoming accessible and that's if you've got a player that's either upgradeable or capable of the current standard out of the box (few and far between). As I'm sure you know, the PS3 is one of those players, but there are a whole lot of people who don't want a game system at the heart of their home theater. I never said you could procure a Blu-ray player for $40, I said that there are a number of players for a bit more than $100 now (including a drive only for computers made by LG which plays both Blu-rays as well as HD-DVDs) and in a few years, you certainly should be able to find them for around $40.

As for your explanation of HD resolutions, there are some problems there as well. HD ready does not pertain to any specific resolution, it only refers to the television which it describes. HD ready means that the television is capable of displaying HD resolutions. Usually 1080i and 720P for HD ready CRTs while they still made them (I own one), and solely 720P for HD ready LCDs (as LCDs and plasmas are incapable of displaying anything interlaced). The difference between 'HD ready' and 'HD capable' displays is that 'HD capable' displays all have an integrated ATSC tuner so they're able to receive and decode over the air HD signals and play them back in HD without requiring an external tuner. You could theoretically have a 1080P television which was only 'HD ready', but all HDTVs made nowadays have internal ATSC tuners. As for full HD, you're correct that it's the same thing as 1080P (1920x1080 full resolution displayed every field as opposed to every other field in the case of 1080i). The difference between 1080i and 1080P is another good reason why I preferred HD-DVD. I bet you you'd be unable to determine the difference between a 1080i source upconverted to 1080P on the television and a true 1080P signal coming from that same source. The only difference is that the fields are de-interlaced on the source (say an HD-DVD player or Blu-ray player) as opposed to being de-interlaced on the television. For a person who has spent big bucks on a good 1080P display, who's to say that the TV's integrated de-interlacer won't be superior? With HD-DVD, you had the option of getting a player which 'only' supported 720P/1080i for a small fraction of the price of 1080P Blu-ray players, yet if your TV had a decent de-interlacer, you'd get an upconverted 1080P picture which was indiscernible from the true 1080P source. I've viewed the HD-DVD and Blu-ray of Transformers both on the same 1080P display device, the HD-DVD was displayed in 1080i, the Blu-ray in 1080P, I preferred the HD-DVD. As for not bothering with a 720P device, that seems rather foolish depending on what you'd like to use it for. First of all, in display devices less than 50", you're very unlikely to be able to discern much of a difference at all between 720P and 1080P (and I do detail viewing just inches away from my 24" monitor which is capable of resolutions well beyond 1080P, so I'm very familiar with this). So if you're picking out something for casual use and it's not going to be terribly large, there's no good reason not to get a 720P display if you're happy with it. The big rip offs that you're seeing nowadays is companies offering TV sets around 32" in size (not monitors mind you, but TV sets) with 1080P resolution. If you're watching Blu-rays on a 32" set and expect to see the difference between 720P and 1080P, you better expect to have your nose touching the screen.

As for HDMI being all digital, that doesn't necessarily mean that one cable can't be better than another. First off, you'd be rather dumb spending $100 on a 20' HDMI cable, but that doesn't mean you won't find large differences between cables, especially at longer lengths. I get all my cables from monoprice.com and I've found their HDMI cables to be fantastic for the price. However, going beyond 25' or so, you'll be hard pressed to find many HDMI cables which pass 1080P entirely properly. When you move up to 1440P, there are far, far fewer which will do it properly. My projector accepts HDMI/DVI as well as components and I'm still using my component cables even though I've got loads of spare HDMI cables laying around, I'd have an awfully long post if I went into explaining why.

[ieoeja]

101. Does a player offer any advantage (besides price) over a PS3?

I decided to stop buying DVDs at this point. Might as well start going with Blu-Ray (I have *one* already purchased by accident). So I was going to get a player in the near future. Hadn't thought of PS3 til I saw the previous post.

Gaming is not a big consideration. I still have a PS1! And I only got it secondhand less than a year ago!

But as long as I am getting a Blu-Ray player, why not get something that does double duty? Thoughts?

I also would have gone higher resolution on a new screen. But your remarks on it being impossible to tell when using a smaller TV, and I certainly won't be going with some 50 inch behemoth with my small rooms, has me rethinking that. Actually, is there a size of room to size of screen guide? Presumably I'd want a smaller TV seated five feet from the TV than seated fifteen seat.

[EOTE]

102. Lots of good questions.

First of all, can you tell me the size/resolution of your current TV and how far you typically sit from it? You can get a PS3 for around $400 and if you want to use it for both games and movies, it's certainly not a bad deal. However, if video is your sole concern, I'd recommend one of two routes. The first would be to add a Blu-ray drive to your computer to make yourself an HTPC (this route certainly isn't for everyone, but it's a pretty cool way to go). You can find Blu-ray drives for under $100 and LG makes a Blu-ray/HD-DVD drive for just a tad more than $100. The second route I'd suggest is getting a fairly cheap (around $150) standalone Blu-ray player. For video quality, even the very cheap Blu-ray players should match the quality of the PS3, they just might have a more difficult time with interactive content. Regardless, a cheap player should certainly hold you a few years until all Blu-ray players are on the same specification and most likely insanely cheap by then. These options are both a good deal cheaper than a PS3, but the PS3 is still pretty damn sweet. I've got an XBox 360 and I play it on a rather frequent basis. Games are pretty friggin cool nowadays, so if you're looking to get back into gaming, there's never been a better time.

With regards to appreciating 1080P resolution, I think for typical viewing distances, 50 inches is where you start to notice the difference between 720P and 1080P. If you sit rather close to the screen, you'd probably notice the difference starting at 40", but not by much. The primary display that I use is a 720P projector used in conjunction with a 100" screen. Sure, at this size I'd appreciate a little more resolution, but 720P material looks fantastic. Broadcast HD looks great, but HD-DVD and Blu-ray look far better even when comparing the same resolution. Once you're at 720P, increasing the resolution further doesn't provide nearly as much of an increase in picture quality than by increasing color accuracy (something with both HD disc formats do quite well). So while I notice a big difference between broadcast HD and HD-DVD/Blu-ray on my projector, I've compared my 720P projector to a 1080P projector that resides on the cheaper end of the scale (for 1080P projectors) and I preferred the picture my 720P projector's image provided even though I appreciated the extra resolution that the 1080P projector provided (and it's a lot easier to notice the extra resolution when you're looking at a 100" screen). So there's a LOT more to consider to overall image quality than just resolution alone. In the relatively near future, you're going to see 1440P (a resolution my current CRT already supports) display devices. Of course there will be lots of unscrupulous manufacturers selling 1440P sets in sizes far too small to appreciate this resolution just as they do with 1080P now. I really imagine that you'll need to have a large format projector in order to appreciate any resolution beyond 1080P.

[EOTE]

104. Oh, I forgot to answer your original question.

As far as advantages that standalone players offer over the PS3, I can't really think of any aside from price. In fact, there are some standalone players that sell for a good deal more than the $400 80GB PS3, yet aren't rated as highly because they aren't as easily upgraded as the PS3 goes. If you're planning on getting a good, future-proof Blu-ray player, the PS3 is the way to go. If you'd like to adopt the technology now for a more reasonable price and don't mind the thought of perhaps getting another player in the future when they're much cheaper, I'd go with one of the other options I listed.

[Idealism]

3. Its Sony's format for DVDs

It was copyrighted and was being legally fought over, but Sony won the lawsuit, and since its a better format than DVDs, it will see widespread use soon as how movies are watched in-home.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. lol! It sounds like Sony's revenge for the Betamax. I hope this bites them in the ass too!

I am just so weary of the ever constant changing and proprietary technologies.

[Idealism]

16. Actually, its a superior format

Thats why it was being fought over by so many companies, but Sony had the pricier law team and they won the case. Now Sony has the entire market cornered and will receive royalties for whomever sells BluRay

[joshcryer]

67. It's great though that at least the superior format won.

And now that BD+ is broken we're set to enjoy a good high def format for at least a decade.

[Bucky]

124. superior quality, superior price, superior market segmentation...

I find DVDs do good enough. I'm watching a movie, not analyzing geologic data maps.

[DainBramaged]

19. Ain't that the truth

[WillyT]

26. Ah Betamax...

I remember that fuck-up well.

Was teaching school at the time, and boy did the Beta v. VHS thing cause all sorts of havoc.

:shrug:

[ProfessorGAC]

92. I Had One

D'Oh! That was a mistake. And, they were more money than VHS. Double whammy.
GAC

[Rosco T.]

96. I still have 3 high-end Beta decks...

two SL-HF750's and an SL-HF900... both still going strong and no problems after all this time

[onehandle]

30. It will. Downloadable is the future. nt

[Deja Q]

37. Compare any downloaded flick with a blu-ray disc...

Blu-ray discs are 25GB.

A download is 4GB or more, depending on quality.

Never mind extras.

Plus cost of internet speed, storage, and redundant storage; I hope you don't use 56k...

I think blu-ray will be around for some time.

[onehandle]

43. DVD is perfection for most people. Blu-ray will be a niche in that market.

Meanwhile bandwidth is spreading out and storage is getting cheap, cheap, cheap.

And Every media company who can, is pushing buy and rent by demand.

Blu-ray discs are twice as expensive (or more) than DVDs and we are in a recession while technology keeps developing.

I think that by the time that the recession is over, set-top boxes will have hit blu-ray in the jugular. Except maybe for videophiles.

I think Blu-ray is the LaserDisc of our time. I still have a couple of hundred of LaserDiscs. Watch one once in a while.
(I have the Star Wars trilogy on LaserDisc and refuse to buy Lucas's new crap on DVD. Remaster the original films, George.)

I am pretty close to a videophile. I have a big-ass HD Sony and have viewed an upscaled DVD, Apple TV HD, and Blu-ray on it.

Let's say that Blu-ray is rated a 10. I would rate Apple TV an 8 or 9. And an upscaled DVD a 6 or 7. All depending on the title.

Most people (including often me) are happy with to blown away by an upscaled DVD.

The thing I really like about set-top boxes are minimal menus, no commercials, and nearly instant play.

I think the convenience alone will make downloadable media the champ sooner, rather than later.

The fight between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is over. Now it's all physical media against downloadable media.

I obviously don't have 56k. Few people do and the dial in numbers are being dropped like hot potatoes.

[EOTE]

99. STBs or Home Theater PCs are pretty damn sweet.

I've got a number of 720P and 1080P movies on my HTPC and it's a lot more convenient running an HTPC than a BD machine. What you say about cheap storage is very true. I picked up a pair of 250 gig SATA II drives on Woot a while back for $55 shipped. Since then, I've added another terabyte of storage to my system very cheaply. So now I've got a movie juke box that's pretty much the ultimate in home theater add-ons. I'll also be picking up an HD-DVD/Blu-ray optical drive in the near future, but I'm very happy with the downloadable content that's available now.

[Kalyke]

45. Hey!!

Your avatar rotates now... and really tries to hypnotoad us!!

[joshcryer]

68. Not to mention downloadable DRM. Consumers prefer physical copies of their data.

Unless they're pirates of course. ;)

[DainBramaged]

4. Just another way to take more money from your pocket (non-technical terms)

To watch Blu-ray, you need a Blu-ray player, and a LCD TV that has high enough resolution to watch Blu-Ray. If you like lots of pretty interactive thingies like an XBox 360, than Blu-ray is for you, otherwise, unless you watch a movie more than 2 or 3 times, Blu-ray is just another way of separating YOU from you money. HD DVD is a dead technology, Blu-Ray buried it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. I've also heard that the difference is not very noticeable unless you have a large TV

[DainBramaged]

10. Go to a Best Buy and ask them to do a demo between the two

When you only have vision in one eye like me, high resolution (or 3D for that matter) is a moot point.

[K Gardner]

15. Most Blockbusters have demos set up in their stores now with the PS3/BluRay and comparison

videos side-by-side.

[DainBramaged]

18. I'm a Netflix kind of guy!

:party:

[progdonkey]

13. XBox 360 uses DVD; PS3 is Blu-Ray...

(just to be nit-picky ;-) )

That is the problem with video technology right now, though: if you have a really nice TV but regular cable/VHS/hell, even DVD, it just makes the artifacts more visible; if you have a high quality Blu-Ray player with all the trimmings, but an older TV that can only handle a coaxial input, for instance, you won't get to take advantage of the glorious beauty of Blu-Ray (:P). You have to have both.

It's similar with sound systems: MP3s often sound better on middle-level systems than on high-end ones because the mid-level ones hide a lot of the crappiness of the compressed MP3s, while the high-end systems will let you hear every single compression artifact there is on the file.

If you choose to go high-end, you have to go all the way.

[DainBramaged]

21. Just another way to take money out of my tiny pocket!

:hi:

[anigbrowl]

35. Yeah. Ignore the fact that it actually delivers about 10x the data storage of DVD

A full-size HD image needs about 4 times the resolution of standard definition (what's on a DVD). And the iamge quality is much better if you're looking at video due to lower compression.

[DainBramaged]

39. (sigh) A regular DVD on sale day of release is $16

how may times will you watch it? A Blu-Ray is $29. I use Netflix, and rent about 4 movies a month. Why should I spend more for the whole nine yards of electronics upgrades when a standard DVD is plenty for me? I don't care that a Blu-Ray has more storage capacity than a DVD, what difference does it mean to me. Oh and did I mention being BLIND in one eye? That negates any sort of 3D/HD effect I could possibly appreciate.


I'll make you a deal, I'll get Blu-Ray discs if you buy me all of the hardware necessary to watch it.

[demwing]

49. Time will compel you

as it will me...Eventuall, you won't be able to buy DVDs anywhere but EBay.

I'm the original hold out, only having recently begun converting our collection from VHS to DVD, and upgrading the computer to DVD as well.

I wait till I'm a step or two behind before I catch the wave, and that way I don't pay geek prices for my technology.

[anigbrowl]

78. ?1

I wait until I'm a step or two behind the wave for the same reason, but that means 18 months. For the last several years (thinking back to 2004 or or so when I bought one) a DVD reader/writer for a computer has been available for about $35. After a certain length of time, you don't save any more money because the price has been reduced to the cost of manufacturing and shipping and there is no more margin to cut.

Blu-ray players are a hot item this year, but they're already going through the early stages of the price curve. by 2010 you'll be able to pick up a Blue-Ray writer (should you want one) for about $100 and a reader for something like $50.

[anigbrowl]

77. You don't want it, stick with DVD

People who do want it consider it worth paying for. Hey, why not sell your DVD player and move back to VHS, you'll save even more money on useless electronics you don't need.

Being blind in one eye has exactly zero to do with your ability to enjoy HD or not. I don't know why you brought up 3d, which has exactly nothing to do with it.

[Deja Q]

5. Higher quality DVD - also note,

only modern tv programs and filmed movies will take proper advantage of it; older tv shows recorded on video tape won't look much better (save for the reduction or elimination of compression artifaction).

For all media, sound improvement should be instantly noticeable.

Is it worth the current prices? Almost.

[Tesha]

105. Many "older TV shows" were actually shot on film and the BluRay versions...

...of those shows *WILL* look better.

You're right that TV shows that are only available on NTSC videotape
can't look better, but seriously: except for nominally-live TV (like
variety shows and the like), how many of those were there?

Tesha

[K Gardner]

7. It allows you to see your home movies at the 1080 resolution to go along with your

brand new expensive HDTV, which of course we all bought with our stimulus checks. The only catch is you have to have a Blu Ray Player to play the more expensive BluRay DVDs. The best Blu Ray Player, according to most reviewers, is the (wait for it...) Sony Playstation 3. The new Sony PS3s retail for anywhere from $399 - 499. That's actually at the cheap end of the spectrum for a "decent" Blu Ray Player.

I'm still trying to figure out what to do with my 8-track tapes from 1970.

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

17. as a Best Buy HD guru

okay, I'm a level 3 Home Theater specialist, but back to the main point--you can get a nice blu Ray player for less than $300. The best player has been and will be for a while the PS3 like you stated. This is because you can upgrade the features of the Blu Ray built in player as new ones are introduced. And it's alot better than going out to the movies (no need to pay for parking, no overpricd and over salty popcorn, etc).

[K Gardner]

34. I hate this thread. I just broke down and bought the PS3 from Best Buy, LOL.. I've

been looking at it for a month now and couldn't stand it any longer. Got the Drake's Bundle.

I'm still trying to rationalize it :-)

[ZombieHorde]

106. My motto is: Pleasure is its own reward.

[librechik]

9. until Bluray, DVDs didn't have high def--Blu Ray makes true HD viewing possible

and HD is the bomb. We like Bluray better than movies in the theater.

You can definitely live without it, but if you ever think about getting a new TV and video player, I would go with a big LCD screen and Bluray. Yowza. If you look around,, you can find bargains-- I bought my Panasonic (list 475) for about $250.

[Budgies Revenge]

11. I was in Circuit City several months ago.....

They had an ultra hi-def TV playing a Blu-Ray version of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on their sales floor. I will be honest, I'm not sure if I liked the Blu-Ray or not. I don't know how to best describe this, but the picture was jarring. It was like the movie had been filmed with some strange combination of a hand held video and 3-D camera.

[onehandle]

20. Simply HD DVD. And I would not invest in it. Physical media is going the way of the Dodo.

Downloadable media is now and the future.

Blu-Ray came too late.

[Skidmore]

22. Here I sit still on dial-up.

[onehandle]

31. Nearly 60% have high-speed internet. Over 80% of those with internet access have high-speed.

Dial in access numbers have been dropping like crazy for ten years.

I get faster than dial-up on my iPhone.

Many who can't afford high-speed or even dial-up will be left behind.

Sad but true.

[B Calm]

53. The sad part about it, no cares about bringing high speed to rural areas!

You can spend about 300 dollars for a satellite dish and 60 dollars a month for very slow high speed, and I say screw that! We are so far behind the rest of the world, it makes me sick!

[onehandle]

54. Yeah, that's the part that makes the whole thing break down.

They're the minority and will be screwed for a while.

It sucks for sure. And we are far behind the world in so many things it's ridiculous.

[trotsky]

88. We need a TVA for the 21st century.

Bring cheap high-speed Internet access to everywhere in the contiguous US. You gotta figure it would increase economic activity - think of all the people and businesses that could then participate in the online economy.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

24. I think so too

Netflix already has it. Sort of.

[onehandle]

29. None of the providers have good systems. It will get better. nt

[anigbrowl]

36. Don't agree, and I work in the vid/film industry

HD over broadband ain't happening in any meaningful way for several years yet.

[Deja Q]

38. I don't work in the industry but the reasons why downloads won't replace it should be obvious.

:D

[onehandle]

56. It is happening. Still in its infancy, but it's ramping up as Blu-Ray is trying for a 3% share.

The fight between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is over.

Now it's all physical media against downloadable media.

See reply #43 for more.

[Shardik]

72. Hate to say Fox, but I just caught a streaming HD of 24 smoothly

and without hitches.

I'll admit that I have a state of the art system and broadband, but was amazed at what Fox had done in streaming.

[anigbrowl]

79. I totally agree about what's *possible*...

but given that most people don't have state of the art system or connection, and also that they want to be able to watch a movie whenever they get the impulse, we won't see the end of physical media for a long time yet. Now vs the Rental market, streaming is definitely competitive since you don't have to wait. On the other hand, there's still the image quality issue, but I probably have higher standards than most people in that department so I'm fussy.

[entanglement]

57. We're still some time away from that

Consider the download time for a 20 GB full HD feature. That's 20 x 1024 x 8 Mbits which would take about 15 hours for people on a 3 Mbps broadband connection to download. That, without considering that big ISPs are steadily moving in the direction of imposing bandwidth limits on users.

Now, if the average broadband speed was like what they have in Korea (100 Mbps) with no download limits, it would be a different story.

[RC]

58. Not without a major upgrade of the internets it aint.

Too much copper and not enough glass and IPv6 needs to be hauling the load first.

[ZombieHorde]

107. You can download movies and games on the PS3.

[Speck Tater]

23. I'm still trying to get used to 45 RPM vinyl. What's wrong with 78 RPM bakelite anyway? nt

[DonEBrook]

27. They go around too damn fast for my parrakeet to ride on 'em!

:D

[Marr]

32. I really don't like this super-crisp formats, personally. Anyone else notice how

they make everything look like it was shot on a blue screen, even when it wasn't? And special effects become a hell of alot less convincing as well.

[onehandle]

46. Many films look positively unnatural on Blu-Ray in general.

That is something that I did not expect.

[scubadude]

33. Blu-Ray and Netflix are intertwined by Samsung Players

A couple of Samsung Blu-Ray players will let you download movies through your broadband connection
from Netflix. Bleeding edge tech at this point. The downloads are not high def though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102301415.html

Scuba

[David Zephyr]

40. I think others have answered you initial question, but Blu-Ray looks great on the screen.

We coughed up the bucks to get the blu-ray perhaps too early as prices have really come down now, but watching DVD's in this format is delightful.

I imagine that the prices on blu-ray consoles will be very affordable after the holidays. There will be a lot of inventory to move and that will be a good thing.

This is one technological improvement that truly is an improvement.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

41. We have quite a library of DVD's ... will we be able to

view them on a Blu-Ray player? I understand they will not have the same HD quality as the ones made for Blu-Ray ... but I don't want to have 2 players if I can get away with the one. Hubby's makin noise about Blu-Ray for xmas.

Thanks for any info.

[Orsino]

42. I am reliably informed that not only will my Blu-Ray player handle my old DVDs...

...but its processor will substantially improve the picture I get out of them. Up-convert players are substantially cheaper than Blu-Ray, and will also squeeze more picture out of old discs.

I just watched my first Blu-Ray movie last night (The Forbidden Kingdom), and was blown away.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

59. Thanks, Orsino

:hi:

[Orsino]

114. I checked it out today...

...re-watching an old DVD of The Matrix. It looked great, much better than on a standard-resolution monitor.

BluRay is definitely better.

[TheWraith]

48. Yes, a regular DVD will play on a Blu-ray player.

While the BR player will "upscale" the DVD to look better on an HDTV, it can't do anything to improve the original DVD quality, which is determined by its picture resolution. The resolution of a standard DVD is 720 x 480. The resolution of a Blu-ray movie is 1920 x 1080.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

60. Thanks, Wraith ...

:hi:

[drbtg1]

69. Also, remember the HDMI cable.

In order to increase the standard DVD resolution (480i, 480p) on a Blu-ray player to HD levels (720p, 1080i, 1080p), you'll need an HDMI cable (and a TV that has an HDMI input). Hollywood balked over allowing upconverting over component cable, so they restricted it to HDMI.

My two cents: give a serious look at the Sony BDP-S550. It is the only player available now that is BD Profile 2.0 (or BD-Live capable, meaning it can download additional movie material if you choose to hook it up) AND process (internally) & output every single audio format on Blu-ray (including DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD) over analog outputs. This means if you have a slightly older receiver that doesn't have HDMI (or has HDMI but can't process DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD internally) but has 7.1 analog (RCA) inputs, you can still get amazing sound. DTS Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD sound really blows away anything on DVD.

[Tesha]

108. Yes.

The Sony players, at least, play essentially all the standard formats
that were available on 5-1/4" plastic platters from CD through CD-R
through DVD to BluRay.

Tesha

[ZombieHorde]

109. The PS3 plays Blue Ray, DVD, and CDs.

[TrogL]

47. I'd hold off on buying into it

I don't think it's going to last long.

There's better technologies coming down the pipe.

[CRF450]

62. Like what? nt

[zane25]

71. Maybe something that wasn't bought and paid for by Sony.

[rucky]

50. What's so great about high-def?

I've seen things in hi-def, and didn't think it justified the extra cash for all the equipment & service upgrades. Not even close.

[B Calm]

52. I see no difference! It's just a way for the rich to get richer!

[TheWraith]

63. If you can't see a difference, then you have NOT seen anything in HD.

Lots of people think that because they've got an HD TV, they're automatically getting HD programming. But unless you've got bad eyes, then the difference is completely unmistakeable.

[DutchLiberal]

111. Nothing wrong with MY eyes, and there IS no difference.

It's just another way of scamming of people.

[TheWraith]

112. Then as I said, you haven't actually seen anything in HD.

The difference is very noticible.

You'd swear that it's a capital crime on DU not to be a paranoid cynic.

[Bjorn Against]

122. My guess is you are not watching on an HDTV or not using an HDMI cable

If you watch a Blu-Ray on a proper HD setup you will be able to tell a difference, I was skeptical at first too but now that I have seen it there is no denying it is far superior to DVD.

[ZombieHorde]

55. The greatness is more apparent for video games, since most movies are not high-def, even if sold on

a high-def format, such as blue ray.

[TheWraith]

64. That's not the case: Blu Ray discs are specifically made for HD movies. nt

[ZombieHorde]

65. There are many movies on Blue Ray that were made before HD.

I summit this list as evidence.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?show=nowavailable

My wife just bought A Clockwork Orange on Blue Ray.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

87. self delete for lack of reading comprehension

need to read

[Tesha]

110. Please don't be an idiot, at least in public.

Film doesn't have a fixed resolution and a good 35mm movie, even an
ancient one, has more than enough inherent resolution to create a perfectly
fine HDTV (1080p) digital version.

70mm has far more resolution than HDTVs can currently show you.

Tesha

[TheWraith]

113. A movie doesn't have to be made in the last couple years to be in HD.

Traditional film (70mm, etcetera) has far better quality than was ever possible on VHS, or even DVD. All you need is a clean, digital transfer and restoration to make a copy in high definition.

[drbtg1]

73. Actually most movies are BEYOND high-def

Most movies are film. There's a difference between film and video.

[CRF450]

61. Some people have a real eye for quality and sharpness.

I'm one of them, cant get me back to a regular tv! Even the PS3 games look awsome on the 47" LCD flat screen in HD.

[ZombieHorde]

51. The PS3 is a blue-ray player.

You can download movies to rent or buy on the PS3 as well. If you love movies (or video games) the PS3 is a fun toy to have.

[youthere]

70. It's this generation's equivalent of "Dolby".

Remember how our cassettes used to sound so hollow and tinny on the Walkman until they came out with Dolby? Suddenly you could pick up bass and the music quality was so much better. Blue-Ray does the same thing for movies.

[Fumesucker]

97. Sorry, Dolby B (the consumer Dolby) has nothing to do with bass at all.

All Dolby B does is help remove some of the (high frequency) hiss on the very slow moving cassette tape, it does nothing at all for bass.

Dolby A was the pro product for studio tape recorders and Dolby C was an improvement on Dolby B, however you could play back a Dolby B tape on a non Dolby machine and it sounded pretty close to normal, not so with Dolby C, you have to play them back through a Dolby C machine or they sound like crap..

Then there is Dolby HXPro.. which doesn't really have much at all to do with noise reduction but does increase the ability of a given cassette recorder to properly record high frequencies. There is no playback decoding needed for HXPro tapes, all the processing is done during the recording.

And if you want to hear really crappy sound try playing back a DBX encoded tape without a DBX playback decoder, it hurts the ears. But DBX really makes reel to reel tape recorders shine when it is working properly.

[youthere]

119. I'm almost positive you're speaking english.

[Bake]

75. It's what I want for Christmas!!

Hint hint.

Bake

[spinbaby]

76. We just got one

Our old DVD player bit the dust and Sam's Cult had a Blu-Ray player for under $200 including the HDMI cable. We only have one Blu-Ray movie so far and I must say that James Bond looks awesome in high definition. The player makes our newer DVDs look better, but old DVDs with crappy picture quality still look pretty crappy. Overall, I'm happy with it.

[Connie_Corleone]

80. You can see the difference in picture quality no matter the size of the TV.

If you can't see the difference, then you're not looking at HD.

Downloads are not going to replace blu-rays. I don't care what anyone says.

Blu-ray is NOT like Betamax. That would be HD DVD which died earlier this year. Sony Blu-ray won that battle even though both formats were similar in picture quality.

If you don't watch a lot of movies or you don't care about having better picture quality than standard definition DVD, then you don't need HD. Save your money.

I love movies and the sharper the picture quality the better for me. So I have an HDTV (50 inch)with a blu-ray player (PS3).

[Greyskye]

81. Q: Is Blu-Ray worth it if you have a 50" 1080i display?

I currently use a good (http://www.oppodigital.com/) upconverting standard DVD player.

If I went Blu-Ray, would I see much of a difference on a 50" 1080i display?

[Ichingcarpenter]

84. Yes even on a 40" you can tell plus think of it as massive storage for your PC

I'm hoping that the the new terabyte disks and machines prices will come down.

That's gonna be the next big jump. My harddrive is 320 gigs and the new disks
will be 1000gigs of storage or one terabyte. You will be downloading movies more and more
from the internet vs buying it or renting it from a store so I would be sure that the product
you buy is not just compatible with not just your TV but with your computer.

[Greyskye]

85. Even at 1080 interlaced v. 1080 progressive?

That's my biggest concern. I don't want to plonk down the money for a player that will give me a great picture that my TV immediately down-converts to the same resolution I'm watching now. :shrug:

[Ichingcarpenter]

86. Maximum resolution on DVD is 480p it can't do 1080

1080i, 1080p is for blueray.

More here:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-13817_7-6462511-2.html?tag=rb_content;rb_mtx

[Greyskye]

89. Through an upconverting DVD player it can

This is the DVD player I'm currently using, which upconverts my standard DVD's to 1080i: http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/dvd-players/oppo-dv-970hd

Here are the Oppo's output specs:
Digital Video: HDMI with HDCP (NTSC 480i/480p/720p/1080i, PAL 576i/576p/720p/1080i)

I'm trying to understand how much of a visual improvement I would get (if any) if I went to a Blu-Ray player (which outputs at 1080p), but still used my 1080i 50" Panasonic plasma TV to view it on.

[Ichingcarpenter]

94. I wouldn't upgrade if you have that (great machine)

I have an older DVD machine for my TV that doesn't do that. I'm gonna wait until they have
a blue ray player that can easily synch with my computer and TV.

[TheWraith]

117. You'd get some improvement if you were watching a Blu-Ray disc.

With a standard DVD, you wouldn't get any improvement, since it's still limited by the DVD's source quality, not the sharpness of your TV.

[Greyskye]

118. Pretty much what I thought. The question then...

...is how much improvement would I get through Blu-Ray?

Until I hear or see otherwise, I think I'm going to assume that the improvement would be minor compared to the cost.

Thanks.

[TheWraith]

120. Not as much as you'd get if you had a higher res TV.

Blu-Ray is designed to accomodate the highest TV standard currently known to man: 1080 line progressive scan. That means 1080 lines of resolution, continuously. 1080i means interlaced, which is half the lines at once. So with Blu-Ray the bottleneck is your TV.

Still, there is a very visible difference. I have an older 1080i-only TV, and run both regular DVDs through it as well as HD from my satellite box. The HD is a major improvement. However, I've declined to upgrade to Blu-Ray just yet. Another year or so of commoditization will help bring the price down a little more on the boxes, and quite a bit more on the discs. Plus by that time my TV might be due for retirement, to be replaced by one that could take full advantage of Blu-Ray.

[DS1]

90. It's how you fight off the Romulans

[ProfessorGAC]

95. Since Their Energy Sig Is Green. . . .

. . .wouldn't orange be a better way to fight them. BluRay seems like a good one to combat Klingons.
The Professor

[Bjorn Against]

115. Blu-Ray gives a picture that is so beautiful I didn't even think it was possible...

If anyone doubts me that Blu-Ray is far superior to DVD watch Planet Earth on Blu-Ray. It is the most amazing thing I have ever witnessed on a television. If you are watching on an HD TV and using the correct cables you will see a big difference, I was a skeptic myself as I used to think standard def was fine but after seeing the difference with my own eyes I became a believer in HD and anyone who tells me that they can't tell a difference either does not have good eyesight or they haven't seen true HD.

[Bucky]

125. You've convinced me... I'm changing my DU username to "Boner for Blu-Rays"

How much detail do you really need to see a movie?

[Omaha Steve]

121. Blu-ray.com Exclusive: Blu-ray Player Benchmarks

We bought a PS3 (80 gig) in June. We love it for the Bluray player, not the games. The system is updated online like a PC often. Notice the PS3 passed the benchmarks. Don't buy a cheap player without checking the list or you will be sorry. Nothing at Walmart is on the list. We use Netflix and have about a dozen films so far. Since the FCC killed analog TVs as a format, HDTV & Bluray are going to grow quickly.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2138

Posted December 4, 2008 12:29 PM by Ben Williams

Blu-ray.com With the rapidly increasing numbers of Blu-ray players hitting the market, it is becoming more and more difficult to determine which players are worth your hard earned cash. In an effort to help our readers and Blu-ray consumers in general, Blu-ray.com has created a special Blu-ray player benchmark test. We've tested the most popular players on the market today using custom Java tools, the Caffeinemark benchmark for Java performance on embedded platforms as well as player load-time speed testing tools. Our hope is that these numbers will prove to be valuable for those seeking the fastest and best-performing Blu-ray players currently on the market.

The following players have been tested using the Blu-ray.com Performance Benchmark (please note that all testing has been done with the respective player's latest firmware updates):

Sony PS3 (40GB)
Sony PS3 (80GB)
Insignia NS-2BRDVD
LG BD300
Olevia BD100
Panasonic BD35
Panasonic BD55
Pioneer BDP-51FD
Pioneer Elite BDP05FD
Samsung 2550
Sharp HP21U
Sony 350
Sony 550

Complete spreadsheet

From the Player page, click on specifications and scroll about halfway down the page to the “Performance” area. Contained within this section are the specific benchmark numbers. Now that you've found them, what do they mean?

Power on time: Measures the time the player takes, in seconds, to power on from the remote control and to convey that it is ready to work via the HDTV display. The lower the number the better.

Disc Eject Time : This test measures the amount of time it takes, in seconds, for a player to fully eject the disc tray while playing a Blu-ray movie. The lower the number the better. Since disc eject times vary from film to film, it is the relative performance measurement between players that should be considered.

Movie Load Time – Basic: Measures the amount of time, in seconds, that a player takes to load a film, encoded without Java or BD+, from the time the disc tray starts closing to the time that content appears on the screen. BD drive speed can impact this number. The lower the number the better. Since load times vary from film to film, and also the order they are played, it is the relative performance measurement between players that should be considered.

Movie Load Time - BD-J: Measures the amount of time a player takes, in seconds, to load a film, encoded with BD-Java, from the time the disc tray starts closing to the time that content appears on the screen. BD drive speed can impact this number. The lower the number the better. Since load times vary from film to film, and also the order they are played, it is the relative performance measurement between players that should be considered.

Movie Load Time – BD+: Measures the amount of time a player takes, in seconds, to load a film, encoded with BD+ copy protection, from the time the disc tray starts closing to the time that content appears on the screen. BD drive speed can impact this number. The lower the number the better. Since load times vary from film to film, and also the order they are played, it is the relative performance measurement between players that should be considered.

BD-J Overall Performance: This measurement measures the number of Java instructions executed per second, reflecting the player's overall ability to efficiently execute BD-Java content. This will affect the player's smoothness of menus, games, and other features using BD-J. Some players will not execute this benchmark and are marked with a red “NO” in the performance section. A "NO" rating does not indicate poor performance, but simply that the player in question does not support the form of media that the test disc is recorded on. The higher the number the better.

The following tests measure player's BD-Java graphics abilities. These numbers show how efficient the player will be at loading and navigating menus as well as Java based games.

BD-J Small Object Performance: Measures smoothness and speed of small Java graphic objects – the higher the number the better.

BD-J Large Object Performance: Measures smoothness and speed of larger Java graphic objects - the higher the number the better.

BD-J Scaling Performance This test measures the player's ability to scale Java graphics for BD menus and games. The higher the number the better.

BD-J Opacity Performance This measurement calculates the player's ability to render graphics that are opaque. The higher the number the better.

While none of these numbers indicate how a player will perform from a picture quality or audio quality standpoint, they do indicate the players that have the ability to handle complex Blu-ray content in the most efficient and seamless manner. Numbers also tend to improve as firmware updates are rolled out for each player. So, don't be too disappointed if your favorite player doesn't score very well. Our hope is that these numbers help to answer several of the many difficult questions asked while in the decision-making process for finding the right Blu-ray player for each reader's own personal needs.

As more Blu-ray players are made available to us and new firmware is released, we will continually update the players section with the most up-to-date performance data.

[lelgt60]

123. Blu-Ray is a dead technology. Streaming over the internet is replacing it as we speak

Netflix has a few hundred movies now that can work off several Samsung players