Bye Bye Toshiba: Samsung Ships the First Blu-Ray Player

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by asj, Jun 16, 2006.

  1. What, you mean, like "Never having to fast-forward or rewind again", or
    "Indestructible", or "Not worrying about the machine eating the tape"?
    Well, actually, no, they didn't:
    The tech-geeks were the ones saying "Look at the clarity on 'Interview
    With the Vampire!'...Just imagine how Twister will sound on your home
    theater system!'"--
    While the public were the ones saying "So, 'It's laserdisc but it's
    not', what's the deal here?...Why aren't we just buying laserdisc? 0_o??"

    (Now the "shelf" thing?--You had to start owning them for that to hook
    you for life.
    Having every movie come out at "sale" price was also a helpful
    thunderbolt for VHS survivors.) :)

    Derek Janssen (it was just DIFFERENT back then, okay?)
     
    Derek Janssen, Jun 18, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. High def video itself never really caught on as a feature. It "sells"
    now mostly because it's included as standard equipment on what people
    really want: large flat-panel screens. And by the time it's established
    as the video standard, the whole business of buying or renting movies on
    plastic discs will probably have peaked. If so, Blu-ray and HD-DVD will
    start to look like SACD and DVD-Audio -- very niche.
     
    Neill Massello, Jun 18, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. asj

    Jay G. Guest

    None of that contradicts what I wrote.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jun 18, 2006
    #43
  4. The difference is, there's nothing we're "begging" to get that's not
    already on DVD.

    You could buy the Matrix, or Disney movie, or what have you, in a form
    it had never existed before, and even "Bonus Features" seemed like a new
    invention--
    But Another Kind of DVD, Only Better Than the Old One, has sort of a
    tough act to follow.

    (Eg., Warner *could* have done their Matrix stunt and only sold
    "Superman Returns" in hi-def format....But they didn't.
    They weren't *that* stupid, and we're not that desperate nowadays.)

    Derek Janssen
     
    Derek Janssen, Jun 18, 2006
    #44
  5. asj

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest


    You're an idiot.
     
    Roy L. Fuchs, Jun 19, 2006
    #45
  6. asj

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest

    DAmn! You actually said something that is correct.
     
    Roy L. Fuchs, Jun 19, 2006
    #46
  7. asj

    Jay G. Guest

    To be fair, with very few exceptions, there were very few older releases
    that hadn't been released on VHS or LD at some point. Had DVD not come
    along, new releases and re-releases would've continued to appear on VHS and
    LD. And failing that, studios would've been restoring and retransfering
    titles for HDTV. That's kinda the dirty secret of DVD: it is mainly
    supplementing what studios would've had to have done for HDTV in any case.
    Both Blu-Ray and HD DVD count as a "form it had never existed before."
    This was mainly a benefit of DVD combining the LD and VHS market. VHS
    users got the advanced quality on features of LD, and LD users got the
    prices of VHS.
    No argument there. HD discs are not going to replace DVD as the dominant
    video format any time soon. It's unlikely that HD discs will usurp DVD at
    the rate that DVD usurped VHS. However, they are superior formats, and at
    least one is eventually going to prevail, provided that people are still
    buying videos on disc at that point.
    What the hell are you talking about? Superman Returns isn't even out in
    theaters yet. And the Matrix was available on VHS.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jun 19, 2006
    #47
  8. asj

    Jay G. Guest

    Okay, those features aren't so geek sounding, and are familiar to anyone
    who owns a CD. However, I do have to take issue with "indestructible."
    DVDs don't wear out like tapes, but tapes were a bit more hardy of a
    transport system when dealing with actual people. I think Blockbuster was
    able to get more rents out of a tape on average than DVDs. And you didn't
    have to worry about a thumbprint ruining your viewing of a VHS.
    Even an idiot knows why they weren't buying laserdiscs. The discs were
    huge, 12", and didn't even hold a whole movie. You'd have to flip or
    switch discs multiple times to watch a whole film. Plus, they cost a
    premium. DVDs only cost fractionally more than VHS when it first came out,
    and quickly came down to matching prices for new releases.

    Honestly though, I'd think most people would reply "yes," if you asked them
    if DVD looked and sounded better than VHS.
    What shelf thing? Who said anything about shelves?
    VHS had the same sell-through price, or less, at least for films. In fact,
    they were initially cheaper, although they came out 3 months after the DVD
    due to rental pricing on VHS.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jun 19, 2006
    #48
  9. asj

    Jay G. Guest

    The FCC is requiring *all* TVs produced to have digital tuners in them,
    starting this year.
    There are plenty of HD-ready LCD TVs for less than $900 today. HD-ready
    CRTs are even less.
    DIVX was around for only 7-8 months, from winter of 98 to summer of 99. It
    was at best a hiccup in DVD adoption, especially since every DIVX player
    could play DVDs, so there was no real competition in an "either/or" sense.

    More likely, if adoption of the format actually did "explode" in 99, it was
    because the prices on players had finally come down to a reasonable level,
    and that all the major studios had finally jumped on the bandwagon.
    Beta had a far larger market than DIVX ever did, and even had the lead for
    a while.
    You may have "been there," but you aren't remembering it correctly. The
    DIVX players were never clearanced out. They could always play DVDs, out
    of the box from day one. They did cost $100 more than a comparable DVD
    player, and when DIVX was discontinued, Circuit City marked down the
    players accordingly, even offering $100 rebates to previous purchasers.
    Or, like DVD-R and DVD+R, both could co-exist in the market with the
    majority of people buying players that could work with both. Or like VHS
    and Beta, both could be popular enough to cause interesting inventories at
    video stores and cause a *real* hurt when one format goes under.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jun 19, 2006
    #49
  10. asj

    Jay G. Guest

    Really? You're going to give him the win that easily?

    If I were you, I would've at least pointed out that the forum is dedicated
    to Audio Video Systems in general, so there's no indication that there'd be
    a general bias towards either format. Also, in regards specifically to the
    reviewers, these people have bought *both* formats with their *own* money,
    so they don't have a vested interest in seeing one fail just to protect
    their "investment."

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jun 19, 2006
    #50
  11. asj

    Jeff Rife Guest

    asj () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    I'd trust people on AVS Forum far more than I would trust any advertiser-
    supported review...whether it is on a web site or in print. Many audio
    equipment manufacturers would stop supplying sample units to magazines
    that didn't give them "it's great...buy it" reviews.

    The people on AVS Forum have spent their own money (some of it hard-
    earned) on the equipment, and if they say it's a dog, it's probably a
    dog. If they say it still exhibits all the old flaws of the Faroudja
    video processor chip, then it does.

    Now, everybody there has opinions, too, and because of that when
    somebody pulls out a meter and objectively tests equipment, everybody
    else will call them on it if they don't post honest results. So, yeah,
    smart people trust posts from long-time AVS Forum users.

    Stupid people with an agenda (that would be you) laugh at the wrong time.
     
    Jeff Rife, Jun 19, 2006
    #51
  12. I really doubt they did. Many people were very frustrated by DVDs because
    they were getting "those damn black bars" on the top and bottom of the
    picture when their good old VHSs filled the screen. And sound? I don't know
    one person besides myself that hears their DVDs through anything but the
    TV's built-in speaker(s).

    Most people's home viewing comes down to, 'I got a picture, I got sound,
    what more is there?'
     
    Kimba W. Lion, Jun 19, 2006
    #52
  13. asj

    Black Locust Guest

    Actually, all 3 Matrix films are/were available on VHS. They may be OOP
    now; I'm not sure. Infact, Star Wars Episode 3 was the first MAJOR movie
    to not be released on VHS and that was in November of 2005. VHS took
    much longer to kill off then it really should have. Only NOW are the big
    film studios finally ceasing pre-recorded VHS production completely. So
    looking at it that way, will DVD co-exist with one of the HD formats
    until something else comes along to replace them both? Seems pretty far
    fetched, but that's basically what happened with VHS..
     
    Black Locust, Jun 20, 2006
    #53
  14. Yes, but you have to realize--
    It wasn't "DVD's looked sort of nicer on screen than VHS", it was "DVD's
    made you look at your VHS's as if they'd been chipped out of stone by
    Neanderthals with bear knives...'Ooh, I'll REWIND my Matrix VHS tape,
    and then I'll get out my 80's spandex and play Pac-Man on my Atari!'"

    Maybe HD's are a little "neater" than DVD's, but they ain't the quantum
    leap to make us turn against DVD's like a pack of jackals--
    Remember CD's and vinyl, or word processors and typewriters: To become
    a "replacement" technology, the new gizmo has to make you *LOATHE AND
    DESPISE* the old technology...

    Derek Janssen (as opposed to "Huh. Looks neat.")
     
    Derek Janssen, Jun 20, 2006
    #54
  15. asj

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest

    No, they are not. They are a new iteration of the 5.25 inch optical
    disc form factor.
     
    Roy L. Fuchs, Jun 20, 2006
    #55
  16. asj

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest


    Not true.
     
    Roy L. Fuchs, Jun 20, 2006
    #56
  17. asj

    Jay G. Guest

    By that argument, DVD wasn't a "form that had never existed before" either,
    since that was "a new iteration of the 5.25 inch optical disc form factor"
    as well. Movies had appeared on VCD before they did on DVD.

    However, considering the multitude of technical differences between the
    formats other than just the diameter of the disc, most people would
    consider VCD, DVD, and HD discs to be different formats, with HD-DVD and
    Blu-Ray being the newest, and ones that haven't existed before. Hell even
    you admit that they're new.

    -Jay
     
    Jay G., Jun 20, 2006
    #57
  18. asj

    Jim Guest

    as far as Joe Sixpack is concerned, the only real difference is how much
    data one can cram onto the disc (read: how many movies will fit?)

    --
    When all else fails...
    Use a hammer.

    http://dotware.co.uk

    Some people are like Slinkies
    They serve no particular purpose
    But they bring a smile to your face
    When you push them down the stairs.
     
    Jim, Jun 20, 2006
    #58
  19. asj

    Otis Bricker Guest

    It took 7 years for CDs to reach 25% of US households. I still remember the
    debates among audiophiles on the sound quality of CDs being inferior to
    Vinyl. It took a while for recording engineers to learn how to deal with
    the medium. Early recordings were poorly equalized since most were done
    with the expectation of of RIAA curve.

    It took years for DVD to out pace VHS in sales. Even now, I think more
    homes have VHS than DVD.

    I think we tend to shrink this time in memory so that it only seems as if
    it happened 'overnight'.

    TV broadcasts in the US are due to switch soon. This will increase the
    awareness of the quality difference. Having seen a DVD/HD comparision on a
    1080 monitor, I will say it was not DAY/NIGHT but it was a BIG difference.
    I will not be replacing my cheap DVD until I can get one of the newer
    formats. HVD anyone?

    ON
     
    Otis Bricker, Jun 20, 2006
    #59
  20. asj

    chrisv Guest

    Oh? Show me an alternative for recording, say, 8 hours of video, that
    costs anywhere near the $100 of a SVHS machine.
     
    chrisv, Jun 20, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.