Is Blu-Ray Losing the Video Wars?

[JKL2000]

Why all the recent releases with 2CD/DVD releases, and the poor Blu-Ray is released on its lonesome? Why so few 2CD/BR releases? I was surprised when Rush finally came out with the R40 2CD/BR release, but I believe they waited a bit on that one.

I'm looking at the last couple of live Yes releases and wondering why there are 2CD/DVD releases but no 2CD/BR releases.

I had thought since BR players can play DVDs the switch to BR was assured, but perhaps not? Maybe it's the fact that for some dumb reason they charge more for BRs?

[JKL2000]

BTW, all this time (until reading up a bit) I thought Songs from Tsongas was a concert in Africa or some faroff land. (hangs head in shame...)

[LASERCD]

Why all the recent releases with 2CD/DVD releases, and the poor Blu-Ray is released on its lonesome? Why so few 2CD/BR releases? I was surprised when Rush finally came out with the R40 2CD/BR release, but I believe they waited a bit on that one.

I'm looking at the last couple of live Yes releases and wondering why there are 2CD/DVD releases but no 2CD/BR releases.

I had thought since BR players can play DVDs the switch to BR was assured, but perhaps not? Maybe it's the fact that for some dumb reason they charge more for BRs?

Because Blu-ray licensing fees are exhorbitant.

[JKL2000]

Because Blu-ray licensing fees are exhorbitant.

What does that mean exactly? That the BR technology has to be licensed? If so, isn't that self-defeating on the part of the BR "rights holders?" Or is that the only way they get money? I assumed it was owned by companies such as SONY.

[Facelift]

Well, I don't use Blu-Ray.

[3RDegree_Robert]

Jed, 3RDegree just burns the Blu-rays on my BDR burner fees be damned. It's when you make an "official" Blu-ray a la the way most of your favorite Prog bands make a "real" replicated CD (vs. a duplicated CD-R) that the fees come in and it becomes really expensive.

[3RDegree_Robert]

That said, I think Blu-rays will be able to go way beyond just 2 layers and will be able to show 4k video (Blu-ray/HD quality on crack)...and it "won" the video war against HD-DVD in 2007-ish. The only war I'd say it's engaged in is the war of tastes of the public where it's easier to just stream HD vs. having a physical disk like so many of "us" like having.

[JJ88]

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/com...al-media-36233

It does not help when the DVD and Blu-Ray are still issued simultaneously/separately.

[LASERCD]

What does that mean exactly? That the BR technology has to be licensed? If so, isn't that self-defeating on the part of the BR "rights holders?" Or is that the only way they get money? I assumed it was owned by companies such as SONY.

It means Sony owns the technology and if you want to manufacture a Blu-ray you have to pay them a licensing fee. It used to be $10k. I'm sure its a lot less now but when you consider how few music Blu-rays sell it makes it prohibitive for most bands.

If you all think CDs are going away...DVDs are in much worse shape.

[Proglodite]

For me, the anti-scratch coating is a huge factor in blu-ray's favor...but I suspect most people aren't even aware of it's long-term significance. --peter

[rcarlberg]

"Losing the video wars" to what? Regular DVD? They're not even comparable, DVD is SD. Blu-ray already WON the HD video war against HD DVD.

However there's little advantage to going to Blu-ray unless you have HD content.

[JKL2000]

"Losing the video wars" to what? Regular DVD? They're not even comparable, DVD is SD. Blu-ray already WON the HD video war against HD DVD.

However there's little advantage to going to Blu-ray unless you have HD content.

I meant as far as market dominance.

[Progbear]

I meant as far as market dominance.

Well, unless you have an extremely expensive high-end TV/home video setup, the difference in quality between DVD and Blu-Ray is going to be basically nil. Since most consumers have SD setups, DVD is good enough. So obviously people aren’t going to buy Blu-Ray as much.

Plus, Blu-Ray is an idiotic name.

[nosebone]

Well, unless you have an extremely expensive high-end TV/home video setup, the difference in quality between DVD and Blu-Ray is going to be basically nil. Since most consumers have SD setups, DVD is good enough. So obviously people aren’t going to buy Blu-Ray as much.

Watch the Blu-ray of Jaws that was released a few years ago. That will change your mind.

[mogrooves]

I just bought a Blu-ray player; seems that DVD movies are fading away.

[Jerjo]

I tried to sell a stack of DVDs to a used record store a couple months ago (they have a lot of used DVDs). Manager told me that they only buy Blu-Ray now, regular DVDs aren't selling.

[rcarlberg]

Well, unless you have an extremely expensive high-end TV/home video setup, the difference in quality between DVD and Blu-Ray is going to be basically nil. Since most consumers have SD setups, DVD is good enough. So obviously people aren’t going to buy Blu-Ray as much.

Plus, Blu-Ray is an idiotic name.

Blu-ray is incrementally better than DVD, it's not night-and-day but it's noticeable (I have a pretty good TV). However, normal (non-HD) movies are only barely noticeably better in HD so I'd agree that unless the movie was DESIGNED for HD (Avatar, The Life of Pi, Gravity) the difference isn't worth the money.

Blu-ray has some additional capacity (for extras and stuff), and the ability to include online content, but the discs that make use of this are few and far between (and frankly not very impressive).

Blu-ray is a very stoopid name. Unfortunately HD-DVD was already taken.

[rcarlberg]

Watch the Blu-ray of Jaws that was released a few years ago. That will change your mind.

Explain please. What did they do with the disc to take advantage of the Blu-ray capabilities?

[rcarlberg]

I meant as far as market dominance.

I don't know about where you live, but here in Seattle the breadth and depth of offerings in Blu-ray is still woeful compared to DVD. Amazon does better, but it seems like very few video stores are stocking anything but the latest summer blockbusters in BD.

[nosebone]

Explain please. What did they do with the disc to take advantage of the Blu-ray capabilities?

They painstakingly restored frame by framethe whole movie.
It took forever, but it's so clear and realistic that it puts you in the water.
Best BR I've seen so far.

[3RDegree_Robert]

Explain please. What did they do with the disc to take advantage of the Blu-ray capabilities?

When they scan the original film and clean up all the dust and junk and make it 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels instead of just 480 pixels...if you have an HD tv (as I contend most people do these days) you really have to not care or not have very good vision to not notice the difference. The only time Blu-ray won't look better than DVD is when the source footage is video. Video cannot be made to look better (like a 90's television show shot on video like Highlander or something) but film can be scanned at 4k (has been for a decade now) and can look amazing.

[Spiral]

Is it losing? I sure hope so.

unless you have an extremely expensive high-end TV/home video setup, the difference in quality between DVD and Blu-Ray is going to be basically nil. ... Plus, Blu-Ray is an idiotic name.

Well said. I'd say the same goes for audio as well. Supposedly there are BRs out there (like Trent Reznor's more recent recordings or the Steven Wilson reissues) that use the medium to its fullest detail in presenting the sonics, but it's nothing you're really going to hear on an average system anyway. Whether it's music or movies, to me any difference isn't noticeable enough to justify the extra cost.

Sure it's handy that a single disc can hold 25/50gb instead of 7.7, but with the reissues I've got (admittedly not many--mainly the big Crimson boxes), there's no valuable use of the extra space. They just throw in an older album or an extra LP transfer or something. Plus, my PC can read and rip audio from a DVD if I want. It can't scan a BR disc, so any data in there is useless anyway unless I'm sitting in front of the TV to listen... which is basically never.

[JJ88]

There are at the moment two competing, similar disc formats, and the industry is still releasing both simultaneously with no sign of DVD releases coming to an end. When it was VHS v DVD, the physical format itself was obviously different...tape as opposed to disc, with the improvement that implies. It's not like that this time around, it's disc v disc (for those who still have interest in physical formats in the first place).

[Jimmy Giant]

As mentioned, the 4k content is coming in 2016. The players and second wave of TVs will hit by mid year. Content will be sparse at first and I expect the players to be rather expensive. It'll take a year before it starts becoming normalized. DVD will probably survive (linger) because they're backward compatible and far cheaper to produce between media and licensing costs. Anything that doesn't need the higher resolution has no benefit beyond DVD.

[Yves]

I'm going to hold off on buying a 4K TV. I find that, with the disappearance of video stores, I'm rarely watching movies or TV shows from a BluRay source. It'll be a long while before my satellite provider and people like Netflix offer 4K streaming here in Canada. By then the market will have saturated and the prices will be reasonable. I've already seen a drop in price for 4K TVs. Meanwhile, LED TVs offering 240hz motion capture are selling for very affordable prices these days. I may need to update my set up soon.

As for the BluRay vs DVD debate, I find that BluRay offers superior sound. DTS-HD Master Audio delivers the goods!