Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: New Blu-Ray prices coming down

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » The Afterlife » New Blu-Ray prices coming down (Page 3)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: New Blu-Ray prices coming down

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-30-2009 03:41 PM

quote: Chris Slycord
Saying crap like this is why a lot of us don't appear to like you, btw.

In other words: The "Not surprising you'd miss that, though." was unnecessary.

| IP: Logged

Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009

posted 11-30-2009 03:45 PM

Pretty arrogant to assume that VHS is the only tape format ever invented along with beta and reel-to-reel. Pros don't have access to anything better than that, right?

If you never dealt with Betacam, Digibeta, et al, you never should've responded to my post.

I specifically said tape was a better choice over optical disks for PROFESSIONALS. I pity professionals that used VHS.

| IP: Logged

Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 11-30-2009 03:52 PM

quote: Julio Roberto
If you are interested in 3D playback at home, you may want to hold on the purchase of a blu-ray player 'til next Christmas, when the 3D models are expected.

With prices of basic decent players reaching the $130 mark, I don't think holding off on a purchase just because 3D might be around the corner is a wise choice.

Even if I bought into the idea that 3D is going to be huge (I don't), the low price of admission right now means that there isn't much of a reason to hold off for the "next upcoming thing."

Buy an LG or Panasonic player for $130, get a Netflix membership, and start enjoying HD movies now! Even if 3D does become a huge phenomenon on Blu-ray in the next year so, how many movies will actually be available in 3D?

If every mainstream 3D movie ever made was released immediately, that would total up to, what, a 100 or so movies? I fail to see why people would spend any extra on the display or the player to gain the ability to play so few 3D movies. It would have to be a no-cost add-on to gain a reasonable market share that would justify the release of catalog 3D titles, and even then, I have a hard time imagining it.

Maybe it's my limited imagination getting in the way, but I've never been accused of having a limited imagination... [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-30-2009 03:53 PM

quote: Karl Borowski
BTW, editing posts after I reply to them are why you piss me off practically every time you post.

I didn't do that at all. I was editing it while you were making your reply. If I had edited it afterward, there'd be a message saying that I edited it.

And again, it's arguable that DVD vs VHS is a bigger overall improvement than Blu-Ray vs DVD in that most of the improvements that happened just by virtue of being digital already happened with DVD. I'm referring to being able to switch chapters quickly, change sound formats on-the-fly, adding subtitles easily, easy use of extra-features, and similar. Arguably the only improvement on DVD to Blu-Ray is the picture with a slight improvement in sound.

edit:

quote: Karl Borowski
Pretty arrogant to assume that VHS is the only tape format ever invented along with beta and reel-to-reel.

Even if I were assuming that (which I wasn't), how would that make me arrogant? I simply misread your post. It was a combination of me glancing through the post too quickly and you talking one moment about professional stuff and another talking about VHS. My mistake.

| IP: Logged

Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009

posted 11-30-2009 04:03 PM

So, because you can jog around in a medium that is, by its very nature, linear, that makes it better?

I think *you* just argued that DVDs are better than 35mm.

There was a commercial here for an OnDemand service for a local cable provider here that had the line:

"Dude, you have gotta rewind that chase scene,"

to the projectionist up in the booth of a movie theatre, as a reason that movies on demand were better than their theatrical counterparts. . .

Edit @ Chris: I've had my back against the wall ever since I joined here. IDK if you guys were hazing me or what, but yeah, I am much more likely to be overly judgemental against a group of people that was instantly biased and judgemental against me than a group of people that were welcoming and friendly from the get-go.

If you made an honest mistake and mis-read my post i am sorry that I jumped all over you; I never did learn to develop that "thick skin" that others in this industry seem to have been born with.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 11-30-2009 04:04 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
I don't know if I'm in the 1% or not...I haven't given both formats enough of a listen on suitable equipment.

I just ask because of previous comments by you that say you could probably tell the difference between a high quality source recorded to high-resolution digital audio (say, 24-bit 96khz) and magnetic 70mm played for the first time, both on the same system and how dry an dull digital audio is compared to the wonderful warmth of magnetic sound. Magnetic audio is so warm that you'll never need a coat again.

If you can tell the difference between that and not the difference between lossy DVD audio and lossless Blu-ray audio (usually at a higher resolution), then something is wrong somewhere.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 11-30-2009 04:17 PM

quote: Karl Borowski
So, because you can jog around in a medium that is, by its very nature, linear, that makes it better?

I think *you* just argued that DVDs are better than 35mm.

1) I didn't say that jogging around the movie alone made it better than VHS. VHS tapes don't have 5.1 sound, ability to add subtitles for my hard-of-hearing dad automatically, quickly go to extra features, etc.

2) Bringing up 35mm in this discussion ignores that we're talking about formats used for consumers. And saying that I think DVDs are better than 35mm ignores what I consider to be good enough quality for a big-screen (which DVDs definitely don't provide imo).

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-30-2009 05:02 PM

quote: Karl Borowski
I really really hate when people use their comments to support their own personal predicaments rather than common sense.

Karl: You're just being stupid, or a troll...I'm not sure which. Chris already replied to you with much of what I would say, but in additon:

You don't know me and you don't know my lifestyle. For your information, I've never rented a DVD in my life, or a VHS either for that matter.

I was late jumping onto the DVD bandwagon because I have never been a big movie collector and didn't really feel the need to own too many. Nowadays I probably have around 100 movies because I've bought my favorites. The rest of my DVDs are TV shows, which I happen to like to collect. I'm not a renter, I'm a buyer. I don't have an ounce of regret over what I have bought, because I see no need to "upgrade" 95% of it, so I don't know where you come off saying I'm justifying my purchases with my comments here.

As for common sense, when it comes to video, a lot of my comments here are from a business standpoint because I work in a store where we sell CDs, DVDs and some stereo equipment. When I predict that Blu-Ray is never going to be the blockbuster that DVD was, I'm sorry you disagree with me but I'll pretty much guarantee that I'm right on this issue and I'll back that up with about 40 years of experience in the audio/video software retail marketplace.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 11-30-2009 05:49 PM

The ONLY things DVD offered were compact size, longer running times per side (eventually) and (also eventually) a lower price. All of the other features already existed on LaserDisc, which most people ignored. Well, I guess there is the menu, but I never really considered that a plus.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 11-30-2009 06:10 PM

quote: Karl Borowski
DVDs became commercially available in late 1997, early 1998, depending on your geographic location.

Actually early to late '97. I purchased DVDs at Ken Crane's store on Beach Blvd (?) in Ocean County in mid-March of 1997 while out there on a business trip to Paramount. We had a pre-release screening of "The Saint" with Val Kilmer in a screening room which is how I remember the date. Howard Stern's movie was just about to open as well. Warner DVD titles were just about to be released to the "selected markets".

quote: Karl Borowski
HD is the first step FORWARD in quality since 16mm film

Really? I would have thought maybe Techinicolor or VistaVision or 70mm or Cinerama... or something... might have competed!

Karl - lighten up. You are comparing "pro" formats with consumer formats and that's not relevant to the discussion. We all understand it's your opinion that the leap from DVD to HD/Blu-ray is a more significant improvement than VHS to DVD. I go in the column that disagrees with you...I will still watch DVD when BR is not available (can't upconvert to my TV either) but it pains me to put in a VHS tape.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-30-2009 06:11 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
All of the other features already existed on LaserDisc, which most people ignored.

I think with Laserdisc, the timing was just bad. I remember we had a couple of those in the store, and the first thing people would ask was "Can it record?" because they were still all fascinated with the VHS recording capability and timeshifting, etc. This was before renting movies became such a big deal. When they found out they could only BUY movies, they turned their attention right back to the tape machines.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 11-30-2009 06:16 PM

Mike -

I bought my first LD player in the summer of 1981 - a Pioneer VP1000. Many factors worked against the format including the running time limitation, size of the disc, manufacturing defects, the helicopter sound that the CLV disc inevitably made while trying desperately (and as often as not unsuccessfully) to correct for disc warpage, etc. After a few years they worked out a lot of the bugs just in time for laser rot to start showing up.

Anyone remember "dead sides"?

| IP: Logged

Karl Borowski
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 161
From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum
Registered: Sep 2009

posted 11-30-2009 06:34 PM

Joe and I are in complete agreement on something for once.

[Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-30-2009 06:40 PM

Joe and Joe - remember Pioneer's name for Laserdisk? They called it "DiscOVision." I had a feeling that format would be a goner based on that name alone, considering the "disco era" had such a bad name by the early '80s!

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 11-30-2009 06:48 PM

Mike:

Actually that was Magnavox and Universal's idea...MCA DiscoVision - and the "dead sides" I was referring to were unique to the MCA product. Here's what they were:

The original "DiscoVision" discs only ran up to 30 minutes per side. In those days, based on the length of a movie, you might end up with an odd number of sides. This also occurred though with less frequency after the introduction of one-hour CLV discs. Since the disc had to be a certain thickness to meet the specs the solution was to sandwich the odd side with a random side of whatever was available - and then shellac over it to make it unreadable. With very little glass cleaner and even less patience you could remove the covering and see what treasure might be hidden there.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.