DVD vs. Blu-ray

allikat · Post by **allikat** » Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:13 am

It is entirely likely you can get freesat in germany , just go via the UK, and pick up a box here. Add a dish of the appropriate size (1m is recommended) and you can watch UK tv in germany

drew · Post by **drew** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:53 pm

Disembodied wrote:
I get the strong impression that the whole technology is in a state of flux right now, and that nobody has yet decided what's going to happen. In five years DVDs – blu-ray and otherwise – might have gone the way of the betamax and we might be streaming everything, perhaps into a special socket behind our ears ... I predict a surge in sales of shower caps. Anyway, my advice would be, unless you're a massive film buff, go with what's cheap, basic and functional. Let others take the pain of early adoption.

At the moment I don't think there's anything that's only available on blu-ray, and unless you have a huge HD telly the advantage of blu-ray over basic DVD is, I think, hard to see. Unless you have a fascination with actors' nose-pores, a bog-standard unregioned DVD player is all you need and is dirt cheap. Personally I'm sticking with that until the whole thing gets sorted!

Sage advice. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm sticking with DVD as I find it quite satisfactory. I can see the difference with HD when looking at static images, but the moment you have significant movement in the video you loose the benefit of the high resolution IMHO.

Add to that SD reception looks dreadful on an HD telly IMHO. I prefer my SD set. I hate looking at blocky compression artifacts.

Cheers,

Drew.

maik · Post by **maik** » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:15 am

I can see the difference with HD when looking at static images, but the moment you have significant movement in the video you loose the benefit of the high resolution IMHO.

I agree. Until recently I didn't see any reason to even think about getting Blueray gear. The addition of 3D does provide a reason now, but the technology is still in its infancy (pictures loose about 90% of their brightness when viewed through shutter glasses), so I'll hold off another few years and stick to DVD :)

PhantorGorth · Post by **PhantorGorth** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:18 pm

drew wrote:
Disembodied wrote:
I get the strong impression that the whole technology is in a state of flux right now, and that nobody has yet decided what's going to happen. In five years DVDs – blu-ray and otherwise – might have gone the way of the betamax and we might be streaming everything, perhaps into a special socket behind our ears ... I predict a surge in sales of shower caps. Anyway, my advice would be, unless you're a massive film buff, go with what's cheap, basic and functional. Let others take the pain of early adoption.

At the moment I don't think there's anything that's only available on blu-ray, and unless you have a huge HD telly the advantage of blu-ray over basic DVD is, I think, hard to see. Unless you have a fascination with actors' nose-pores, a bog-standard unregioned DVD player is all you need and is dirt cheap. Personally I'm sticking with that until the whole thing gets sorted!
Sage advice. I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm sticking with DVD as I find it quite satisfactory. I can see the difference with HD when looking at static images, but the moment you have significant movement in the video you loose the benefit of the high resolution IMHO.

Add to that SD reception looks dreadful on an HD telly IMHO. I prefer my SD set. I hate looking at blocky compression artifacts.

Cheers,

Drew.

Blu-Ray is the outcome of a VHS vs Betamax war. It was Blu-Ray vs HDVD. HDVD was a more open standard base where as Blu-Ray was more closed. One reason Blu-Ray won out was that its interactivity support was higher (supports Java for instance). Of course given what little extra Blu-Ray gives over DVD it can be argued that it is already outdated so I won't be surprised if another format comes out soon.

So I agree with both Drew and Disembodied. I haven't upgraded either.

JazHaz · Post by **JazHaz** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:29 pm

PhantorGorth wrote:

Blu-Ray is the outcome of a VHS vs Betamax war. It was Blu-Ray vs HDVD. HDVD was a more open standard base where as Blu-Ray was more closed. One reason Blu-Ray won out was that its interactivity support was higher (supports Java for instance). Of course given what little extra Blu-Ray gives over DVD it can be argued that it is already outdated

You mean HD DVD.

Don't forget that Blu-Ray had the advantage of higher capacity than HD DVD. Upto 50 GB for Blu-Ray dual layer as opposed to HD DVD's 30 GB.

See this website for more comparisons between the formats: http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/19/blu- ... -division/

Website · Post by **DaddyHoggy** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:53 pm

JazHaz wrote:
PhantorGorth wrote:

Blu-Ray is the outcome of a VHS vs Betamax war. It was Blu-Ray vs HDVD. HDVD was a more open standard base where as Blu-Ray was more closed. One reason Blu-Ray won out was that its interactivity support was higher (supports Java for instance). Of course given what little extra Blu-Ray gives over DVD it can be argued that it is already outdated
You mean HD DVD.

Don't forget that Blu-Ray had the advantage of higher capacity than HD DVD. Upto 50 GB for Blu-Ray dual layer as opposed to HD DVD's 30 GB.

See this website for more comparisons between the formats: http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/19/blu- ... -division/

Surely at the end of the day, it was that Sony learned (learnt?) their lesson from VHS v Betamax? Now they own much of the distribution of films and film production companies and of course the PS3 was effectively a relatively cheap Blu-ray player that happened to be a games console as well. From the moment the PS3 came out - the HD-DVD format was doomed.

JazHaz · Post by **JazHaz** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:05 pm

DaddyHoggy wrote:
From the moment the PS3 came out - the HD-DVD format was doomed.

It's never seemed to me to be that quite cut and dried. PS3 looked for a long time to not be the success that the PS2 was, with the XBOX 360 being the market leader.

Website · Post by **DaddyHoggy** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:18 pm

JazHaz wrote:
DaddyHoggy wrote:
From the moment the PS3 came out - the HD-DVD format was doomed.
It's never seemed to me to be that quite cut and dried. PS3 looked for a long time to not be the success that the PS2 was, with the XBOX 360 being the market leader.

True, but then people looked at the price of a stand-alone Blu-Ray player (at the time) and then the price of the PS3 and even if they didn't want the games console it was still cheaper (or at least as cheap) to buy a PS3.

dalek501 · Post by **dalek501** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:36 pm

I sell AV and stereo gear and all we sell now DVD wise are Blu-ray machines. I can't remember the last time I sold a standard DVD player!

As for the future, it will depend on three things really-

What the film companies want. IE. Whats easier to protect from copying? A blu-ray disc/memory card or downloads.

What the manufacturers want. IE. Memory cards and downloading are all very well but they are reliable. And manufacturers need something that is resellable every few years when the current machine breaks.

And thirdly, broadband speed. I know in my area its far too slow for HD transmissions and is not likely to be super fast for quite a few years yet. London and built up areas may get it, but rural areas will take years and years before its standard. Maybe thats different in different countries though?

Website · Post by **DaddyHoggy** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:44 pm

dalek501 wrote:
I sell AV and stereo gear and all we sell now DVD wise are Blu-ray machines. I can't remember the last time I sold a standard DVD player!

As for the future, it will depend on three things really-

What the film companies want. IE. Whats easier to protect from copying? A blu-ray disc/memory card or downloads.

What the manufacturers want. IE. Memory cards and downloading are all very well but they are reliable. And manufacturers need something that is resellable every few years when the current machine breaks.

And thirdly, broadband speed. I know in my area its far too slow for HD transmissions and is not likely to be super fast for quite a few years yet. London and built up areas may get it, but rural areas will take years and years before its standard. Maybe thats different in different countries though?

From friends who live in London they say Fibre and therefore proper/fast Broadband is difficult to come by - as its v. expensive to dig up the roads.

dalek501 · Post by **dalek501** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:53 pm

DaddyHoggy wrote:
From friends who live in London they say Fibre and therefore proper/fast Broadband is difficult to come by - as its v. expensive to dig up the roads.

Yeah, we get alot of customers who ask us if Blu-ray will be around for a long time. Its very hard to give them an accurate and therefore reliable reply. Technology is changing so fast these days that something could be just round the corner that allows full HD transmission on "ordinary" broadband speeds.

But in the end all we can really say is "probably". Sony etc have invested a great deal of money in it and wont want to chuck it away too quickly like they had to do with SACD.

Personally I dont like the idea of getting my TV all streamed. I like to have a collection on the shelf! But when as consumers have we ever really had a choice in what we get!

Its our turn for the digital switchover here at the moment, and I would say the majority of our customers dont understand it, and dont want it. They were happy with the 5 channels they were getting. But they have been forced to change and spend more money.

I'm sure they will come round when they realise the benifits. Despite the shockingly compressed picture quality, the range of other BBC channels and HD programming has to be an advantage.

JazHaz · Post by **JazHaz** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:06 pm

dalek501 wrote:
Its our turn for the digital switchover here at the moment, and I would say the majority of our customers dont understand it, and dont want it. They were happy with the 5 channels they were getting. But they have been forced to change and spend more money.

I'm sure they will come round when they realise the benifits. Despite the shockingly compressed picture quality, the range of other BBC channels and HD programming has to be an advantage.

I was an early adopter of digital TV (Freeview). Currently on my third set top box, and thinking of getting a new one! Although am thinking of ditching Freeview and going for Freesat.

It's horrible when I go to my parents and they only have four channels (they live in a rural location and can't get channel Five), although they recently got broadband so with iPlayer etc its not as bad as it was.

dalek501 · Post by **dalek501** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:34 pm

We do a hell of alot with Freesat. My only gripe with it is about this time last year they promised there would be 6 HD channels by Christmas. We are obviously past that and still no sign!

JazHaz · Post by **JazHaz** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:44 pm

JazHaz wrote:
It's horrible when I go to my parents and they only have four channels (they live in a rural location and can't get channel Five), although they recently got broadband so with iPlayer etc its not as bad as it was.

They also can't get Freeview. Obviously satellite is available, but they "don't want an unsightly dish" on their lovely cottage!

Website · Post by **DaddyHoggy** » Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:54 pm

JazHaz wrote:
JazHaz wrote:
It's horrible when I go to my parents and they only have four channels (they live in a rural location and can't get channel Five), although they recently got broadband so with iPlayer etc its not as bad as it was.
They also can't get Freeview. Obviously satellite is available, but they "don't want an unsightly dish" on their lovely cottage!

I've got some friends who had one fitted to a mini-tower added to an outbuilding for their picture-post card cottage - it was expensive, they had to get planning permission and in high winds they can lose their picture, but that's better than no picture at all, which is the alternative!