Friday, January 4, 2008

Blue Wind


Warner Home Video announced today that they will be Blu-Ray only as of May. This decision will bring the count of exclusive-to-Blu-Ray content to 70%. It wouldn't surprise me if the other 30% (i.e., Paramount, Universal, and a few others) followed suit by the end of September. Looks like I'll be buying a Blu-Ray player and waiting on Star Trek to be released in that format.

11 comments:

jacylrin said...

I also overheard in the office today that Apple is going with BluRay, so yeah, looks like the market is leaning that way.

Siskoid said...

Terrible idea.

angrygrrface said...

I'm trying to refrain from yelling "blue ray sucks."

De said...

Which is the terrible idea, Siskoid - Warner going Blu-Ray or my buying a player?

smacky said...

Same question as De: Why does Blue Ray suck? I had heard it was superior to HD DVD long before the format war was leaning one way or the other.

Siskoid said...

De: Warner going Blu-Ray and forcing consumers to invest in a new technology already, without a significant change in product quality. From what I hear, Blu-Ray discs are more fragile (being thinner) than DVDs, and fragility is my main peeve about the DVD format (chips and scratches that may result in scrambled or unplayable discs)!

HD or Blu, it doesn't much matter to me in as much as I don't believe we need to convert to a new technology quite yet. Do we? Maybe I just don't want to get a new tv, a new player, and a new "cable" distributor quite yet. Not when the picture quality is FINE to my eyes.

I don't begrudge anyone their preferred format, but exclusivity will hurt those who've already invested in other players.

Also: I'm resistant to any change. Take my words for what they are.

De said...

Blu-Ray is inherently more fragile, which is why each disc has an additional coating put on it. It's also why Blu-Ray discs are a little more expensive than their competitors - it's an additional manufacturing step. After the coating process, a Blu-Ray disc is more durable than either a CD or a DVD.

I don't believe we need to convert to a new technology quite yet. Do we?

DVD can only output 720 lines of info while an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc can output 1080 lines. I'll admit that's merely a "quantum hop" in technology compared to the quantum leap DVD was to VHS.

I'm one of the folks who have already made the move to HDTV and am quite intrigued at the possibility of having that level of visual quality on a physical medium. Add in a new level of special features and that's icing on the cake to me.

Maybe I just don't want to get a new tv, a new player, and a new "cable" distributor quite yet. Not when the picture quality is FINE to my eyes.

Your line of thinking is the one predominantly held by most Americans and Canadians. The studios know this, which is why DVD isn't going anywhere for a while.

exclusivity will hurt those who've already invested in other players

This was the case back in the Beta/VHS days too. It would really cool if the Blu-Ray folks made some kind of "peace offering" to the HD-DVD crowd, but that remains to be seen if it happens.

angrygrrface said...

Maybe just renting out Blue Ray discs sucks. At the store I was working in, the average life span of a rental Blue Ray DVD was about six customers.

Siskoid said...

Thanks for the insights De.

A clarification: Is Blu-Ray exclusivity only in the arena of Hi-Def? (i..e Blu vs HD) Or will they also stop manufacturing regular DVDs?

De said...

Siskoid: Blu-Ray is limited solely to high definition presentations (though some of the early discs certainly didn't appear to be HD quality). Standard DVDs will continue to be around for a good, long while.

Bill Hunt over at The Digital Bits says we'll be seeing some sort of olive branch extended to HD-DVD adopters to entice them to make the switch to Blu-Ray.

Siskoid said...

Then I take back my outrage.

:)

Quick Linker