Help!

Blu-Ray is Dead

 
  

Post new topic   General Reply to Topic (not reply to a specific post)    Forums Home -> Tech News Watch RSS
Next:  Republicans back re-election to Senate of convict..  
Author Message
drwho07



Joined: Nov 29, 2007
Posts: 1546

Location: Central FL, USA

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:59 am    Post subject: Blu-Ray is Dead

Quote:
Robin Harris:
Blu-ray is in a death spiral. Twelve months from now Blu-ray will be a videophile niche, not a mass market product. With only a 4 percent share of U.S. movie disc sales and HD download capability arriving, even $150 Blu-ray players won't save it. Who dreamed HD-DVD and Blu-ray both lose?

READ FULL STORY Here!


And I didn't even get to try it!

I never tried the Beta video tape either.

Doc Cool
Back to top
rafaelapolinario



Joined: Mar 17, 2009
Posts: 2



PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:13 am    Post subject:

I have also never tried it, though. That sounds too bad for BlueRay.




----------------------------
Riled Up!
Back to top
drwho07



Joined: Nov 29, 2007
Posts: 1546

Location: Central FL, USA

PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:34 am    Post subject:

I noticed that my "Nero 8", that I use for all my CD/DVD burning, also has compatibility for "Blu-Ray" as well as all the other more common types of disks.

Over the years that I've been working with various recording media, there have been a number of types of recording media that have dropped off the radar.

The big Video Disk, was one of the first that I remember just never quite making it.
And what about the 78 rpm record? The 33 rpm and the 45 rpm records seemed to hang on for a few more years, but alas, they too have vanished.
Likewise audio tape, both reel to reel and cassette.

In the computer world, we've gone from 8" Floppy Disks, to 5.25" F.D.'s and then to 3.5" F.D.'s. And now, those too are quickly fading into obscurity.

In the course of world history, even the ZIP Disk had a fairly short run.
Completely forgotten is the 2.88 meg, 3.5" Floppy Disk. Ever see one? I have NOT.

One of the neatest drives I've seen in a long time is the combination 3.5" Floppy drive and Multi-Card reader with one USB 2.2 port, all in one little 3.5" drive.
I saw them on the shelf at the "Smart Guys Computer" store (in Orlando, FL.) recently and just had to have one. I think it was only $19.95.
It will probably go into my next computer.

"He who does not keep up with progress, will be buried by it" (author unknown)

The Doctor B)
Back to top
xavierx



Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427



PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:27 pm    Post subject:

I wouldn't be so quick to write off Blu-Ray.

First, downloading an HD movie isn't as easy as that article makes it sound. You're talking about a lot of waiting there. I've got a fast DSL connection (even faster than I pay for), and even regular movies that show up quite pixelated on my TV take forever. It is MUCH easier to use NetFlix, and then I even get my Blu-Ray.

Second, up-sampled video is still crappy compared to Blu-Ray, unless you're watching on a small or non-HD TV. A Blu-Ray movie on my 46" Samsung looks like I looking through a window - it even appears 3D (as in like real people, not the fake blue-red 3D thing).

Third, Blu-Ray comes with your PS3. And it's a good Blu-Ray. I expect more systems to come with Blu-Ray as time goes on.

Finally, the argument that "people don't need Blu-Ray" is just stupid. We don't need most of what he buy. We buy iy because we want it.
Back to top
goretsky



Joined: Dec 07, 2002
Posts: 9041

Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:03 am    Post subject:

Hello,

I think one important component is if studios decide they can make more money selling content on Blu-ray versus DVD. Right now, Blu-ray discs (singles and sets) are priced higher than their counterparts on DVD. If a movie or TV studio determines that profits will be higher with Blu-ray only releases then there is little economic reason for them to provide both both mediums.

All advertisements for movies on disc that I have seen on television seem to emphasize the more-expensive-to-consumers Blu-ray medium, so I suspect the studios are eagerly awaiting the day they no longer have to sell lower-profit DVD discs.

Unfortunately, with current economic conditions, this is unlikely to happen any time soon. You might want to keep an eye on the NPD Group's blog to see if Blu-ray uptake appears to be on the increase.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
Back to top
cterrian



Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 59

Location: Atlanta GA Area

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:53 am    Post subject:

It's rare that I even buy a DVD or download. After watching it once, I really don't care to see it again. (for the most part)
But if I did buy a DVD, it wouldn't be blu-ray. My current DVD player up converts to my Sharp 46" just fine.
I know some folks want the very best in picture quality, but the regular folks like me are still fine with up converting.

For the blu-ray users... enjoy them while they last. They are pretty to look at. Wink
Back to top
AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
zlim



Joined: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 2636



PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:15 pm    Post subject:

We are buying DVDs when they are on sale, usually for $5 or less. Since we both have "senior" eyes and grew up watching fuzzy pictures on black and white tvs, the normal DVDs seem great even compared to some older VCR tapes we have.
Back to top
xavierx



Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427



PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:54 pm    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

cterrian wrote:
It's rare that I even buy a DVD or download. After watching it once, I really don't care to see it again. (for the most part)
But if I did buy a DVD, it wouldn't be blu-ray. My current DVD player up converts to my Sharp 46" just fine.
I know some folks want the very best in picture quality, but the regular folks like me are still fine with up converting.

For the blu-ray users... enjoy them while they last. They are pretty to look at. Wink

You're right, the upconvert is better than regular DVD, but having Blu-Ray, I can tell you there is no comparison. And in my mind, it's a waste of 2 grand to settle for second best!
Back to top
cterrian



Joined: Jun 17, 2003
Posts: 59

Location: Atlanta GA Area

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:51 am    Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.]

I didn't pay $2000.00 Laughing Laughing

I paid $900, and I thought that was a bit high for a TV.
I'm like zlim, I grew up watching an old RCA black and white. I still remember buying my first Motorola color console for $300, and I thought that was a bit high in price as well. Wink
Back to top
AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   General Reply to Topic (not reply to a specific post)    Forums Home -> Tech News Watch All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada) (change)
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum