Try watching blu-rays on PS3... it loads quick, it remembers where you are up to and there is plenty of storage for your BD Live content.
Neil Miller
· 3 months ago
Agreed. My PS3 is second only to my girlfriend...
RobHunter
· 3 months ago
In load time or storage space?
RobertFure
· 3 months ago
That is the funniest thing you've ever typed.
pykmi
· 3 months ago
Interesting article, but most of your woes here seem to be about your blu-ray player rather than the format itself. It's true that most older models take forever to load for some reason, but right now you can buy a player for less than 200 dollars that can fix your problems. I'll have to agree with your points on BD-live and the lack of features on some studios' releases.
KevinCarr
· 3 months ago
You are probably right. I have a Sony, which is usually a good brand. I should have gone with the PS3.
RobertFure
· 3 months ago
You should try to return or sell your Blu-ray player and get the PS3 Slim in September for $300. Most of your problems will go away, but I do agree that menu navigation can be confusing on all discs. The PS3 actually makes that a little worse sometimes, as you don't select with "Play" but rather the PS3 button itself (if you buy the bluetooth remote). Using the controller is a pain in the ass.
pykmi
· 3 months ago
A good example of what the blu-ray format can do is Watchmen: Director Cut's Maximum Movie Mode. I'd love to see more releases with similar features.
kheas
· 3 months ago
i have another gripe. If Blu-Ray is "10 times" the capacity of DVD, then why are TV box sets still coming out in 4-6 disc sets, instead of an entire season on 2- maybe 3 discs. It could be done I'm sure. I am looking forward to getting the Star Trek TNG series on on say 15 discs. But as it is right now they cant even put the whole of Firefly on 1 disc. Why? The original release of Firefly was on 4 discs, the Blu Ray is on 3. Not much of an improvement. I know, consumers see more discs as more value, but I see more room on my DVD/blu shelf = more dvds/blu I can fit = more dvd's/blu i can buy. I wont be joining the Blu Ray world until they can get the technology up to par. Yes, it looks freaking amazing, but seriously, it could be so much more.
RobertFure
· 3 months ago
You shouldn't want fewer discs. Fewer discs = more compression. DVD has a maximum resolution of 720x480 (without loss of quality) where as Blu-ray is 1920x1080 . So while the Blu-ray disc has more space, the Blu-ray episode takes up more space. If you put on standard definition video, you could fit 10x the information (about) onto the BD, but you wouldn't have HD.
So don't consider Blu-ray as holding more episodes, consider it as holding more information - which includes more picture and sound information. The disc doesn't magically make something look better, it just has a lot of room to add in more picture and sound info. You should upgrade soon - like this winter. I say pick up the PS3 Slim ($300) as the Playstation 3 is the best Blu-ray player on the market, because it is actually beyond just a player - its an entertainment computer that will always be able to upgrade its software infinitely.
Plus, BD costs are coming down. Average sale price of something in first week release is $40 for a tv series and $24 for a movie, which compares to DVDs at $34 for TV and $19 for a movie, roughly.
kheas
· 3 months ago
i see your point about compression. there would be some loss now, but look at the jump from VHS to DVD in space saving. an entire season of a tv show took upwards to 30 tapes but with DVD you get 4-7 discs depending on the season length. Shouldn't we see the same type of leap with Blu-ray. I think the tech is there to have both great quality, extra features and fewer discs its just that no one is using it.
not only that but it feels we are stepping backwards. Basically put, no special features on VHS: lots of special features on DVD: very few special features on blu-ray. Then again, to contradict myself, early DVD's had little to n o special features, maybe we have just gotten a bit spoiled...
!_!
· 3 months ago
to save money, the reason the tv box sets come in 2-3 discs is becuase they are in a singel layer instead of a dual layer, just like dvd
Brian
· 3 months ago
I agree on the crappy extras, and lack of uniformity across studios, but my discs don't have 10 minute load times. What player are you using? I've only ever had one disc take longer than a few seconds to load. Maybe you need to have your player looked at.
I also miss the "memory" feature of DVDs, and cannot understand for the life of me why Blu Ray doesn't have this. Absolutely baffling.
Even so, I'm all-in with Bluray. I am addicted to the picture and sound quality. It has made me a snob, but I don't care. Watching Dark Knight in a dark room with the surround sound cranking....... that's all I need to say.
Brian
· 3 months ago
Also, regarding multiple disc box-sets or lack of extras on bluray...wouldn't this be because of the high bit rate of the video and audio. High res video and audio takes up a LOT of room, and I'm fine with zero extras if it means UNCOMPRESSED audio.
Peter Donohue
· 3 months ago
Who here likes the VHS format best? They don't scratch, they're clunky as hell (which I love), and you can record over them! Did you accidentally buy A Goofy Movie when you were young? Well, say hello to Mad Men episode 1 season 3! VHS! VHS!
joshi38
· 3 months ago
Accidentally?! I bought it on purpose when I was young and damned proud I am of myself now. ;)
Stan
· 3 months ago
I agree with many of your comments. My biggest gripe is the inability to resume a movie where you left off if you stop a BD disk. It appears this only affects Java-enabled disks. I have been able to resume a lot of BD disks, but none of the disks that have BD-Live features will resume. This is a definite step backward - not being able to restart a disk where you stopped it is very annoying! Very, very, VERY annoying!
Some of your gripes have been addressed by the newest generation of BD players. Most new ones now have acceptable load times, and most contain 1 GB of storage now, too. But I agree with your comment about BD-LIve overall; that is a feature that has yet to provide any value, in my opinion.
Jack
· 3 months ago
I'm afraid it's the player. For sane prices, the PS3 is absolutely unrivalled in speed.
@ Kheas - only a -dual-layered- BRD can be called 10x the size of a -single-layered- DVD. However complaints about why the number of discs are increasing are missing the point that 1920x1080 video is precisely -5 times- the resolution of a PAL DVD and slightly more for an NTSC. The audio is also obviously of a far higher fidelity.
drphibes
· 3 months ago
Great Post. Blu-Ray is the format that costs more, offers less selection, and complicates viewing with the headaches you enumerate. Once I get a larger screen TV, I've decided I'll get an up-converter DVD player. And be very happy for it. The problem with Blu-Ray is that it doesn't represent the feaures/benefit leap that DVD was compared to VHS. The "installed base" of DVD users are content. They don't have major pain points that make them want to upgrade to a format where the movies are fewer and more expensive and the players themselves are double or triple the price, even at $150.
drphibes
· 3 months ago
Great Post. Blu-Ray is the format that costs more, offers less selection, and complicates viewing with the headaches you enumerate. Once I get a larger screen TV, I've decided I'll get an up-converter DVD player. And be very happy for it. The problem with Blu-Ray is that it doesn't represent the feaures/benefit leap that DVD was compared to VHS. The "installed base" of DVD users are content. They don't have major pain points that make them want to upgrade to a format where the movies are fewer and more expensive and the players themselves are double or triple the price, even at $150.
drphibes
· 3 months ago
Great Post. Blu-Ray is the format that costs more, offers less selection, and complicates viewing with the headaches you enumerate. Once I get a larger screen TV, I've decided I'll get an up-converter DVD player. And be very happy for it. The problem with Blu-Ray is that it doesn't represent the feaures/benefit leap that DVD was compared to VHS. The "installed base" of DVD users are content. They don't have major pain points that make them want to upgrade to a format where the movies are fewer and more expensive and the players themselves are double or triple the price, even at $150.
jpbazinet
· 3 months ago
Although you're right about the 'features' not being a big incentive, picture-wise DVD to Blu-ray is a much greater leap than VHS to DVD was. VHS is roughly equivalent to 333x480 pixels. DVD is 720x480. Blu-ray is 1920x1080, roughly five times higher than DVD.
tylerdurden1681
· 2 months ago
And those are all great reasons why 1. I never bought a Blu-ray player, I got one as a gift. 2. I only have bought three Blu-rays movies in the year that I have had it. I just got the essentials (The Road Warrior, The Dark Knight, and Friday the 13th) cause who can really afford $29.99 for movies these days? The only other blu-ray movie I might buy this year would be Trick r Treat which comes out next month.
All Comments
I know, consumers see more discs as more value, but I see more room on my DVD/blu shelf = more dvds/blu I can fit = more dvd's/blu i can buy.
I wont be joining the Blu Ray world until they can get the technology up to par. Yes, it looks freaking amazing, but seriously, it could be so much more.
So don't consider Blu-ray as holding more episodes, consider it as holding more information - which includes more picture and sound information. The disc doesn't magically make something look better, it just has a lot of room to add in more picture and sound info. You should upgrade soon - like this winter. I say pick up the PS3 Slim ($300) as the Playstation 3 is the best Blu-ray player on the market, because it is actually beyond just a player - its an entertainment computer that will always be able to upgrade its software infinitely.
Plus, BD costs are coming down. Average sale price of something in first week release is $40 for a tv series and $24 for a movie, which compares to DVDs at $34 for TV and $19 for a movie, roughly.
not only that but it feels we are stepping backwards. Basically put, no special features on VHS: lots of special features on DVD: very few special features on blu-ray.
Then again, to contradict myself, early DVD's had little to n o special features, maybe we have just gotten a bit spoiled...
I also miss the "memory" feature of DVDs, and cannot understand for the life of me why Blu Ray doesn't have this. Absolutely baffling.
Even so, I'm all-in with Bluray. I am addicted to the picture and sound quality. It has made me a snob, but I don't care. Watching Dark Knight in a dark room with the surround sound cranking....... that's all I need to say.
Some of your gripes have been addressed by the newest generation of BD players. Most new ones now have acceptable load times, and most contain 1 GB of storage now, too. But I agree with your comment about BD-LIve overall; that is a feature that has yet to provide any value, in my opinion.
@ Kheas - only a -dual-layered- BRD can be called 10x the size of a -single-layered- DVD. However complaints about why the number of discs are increasing are missing the point that 1920x1080 video is precisely -5 times- the resolution of a PAL DVD and slightly more for an NTSC. The audio is also obviously of a far higher fidelity.
Blu-Ray is the format that costs more, offers less selection, and complicates viewing with the headaches you enumerate.
Once I get a larger screen TV, I've decided I'll get an up-converter DVD player. And be very happy for it.
The problem with Blu-Ray is that it doesn't represent the feaures/benefit leap that DVD was compared to VHS. The "installed base" of DVD users are content. They don't have major pain points that make them want to upgrade to a format where the movies are fewer and more expensive and the players themselves are double or triple the price, even at $150.
Blu-Ray is the format that costs more, offers less selection, and complicates viewing with the headaches you enumerate.
Once I get a larger screen TV, I've decided I'll get an up-converter DVD player. And be very happy for it.
The problem with Blu-Ray is that it doesn't represent the feaures/benefit leap that DVD was compared to VHS. The "installed base" of DVD users are content. They don't have major pain points that make them want to upgrade to a format where the movies are fewer and more expensive and the players themselves are double or triple the price, even at $150.
Blu-Ray is the format that costs more, offers less selection, and complicates viewing with the headaches you enumerate.
Once I get a larger screen TV, I've decided I'll get an up-converter DVD player. And be very happy for it.
The problem with Blu-Ray is that it doesn't represent the feaures/benefit leap that DVD was compared to VHS. The "installed base" of DVD users are content. They don't have major pain points that make them want to upgrade to a format where the movies are fewer and more expensive and the players themselves are double or triple the price, even at $150.
VHS is roughly equivalent to 333x480 pixels. DVD is 720x480.
Blu-ray is 1920x1080, roughly five times higher than DVD.