It arrived at the precise time that most folks were realizing you didn't need to own physical product any more.

I used to get exercised about hifi but I've changed the way I listen to music - now mostly on the computer or in the car, and I don't really care that much any more, I don't know why, maybe I've just become a pleb. With TV again - life is too short really, plus HD from what I'm told is only effective on a big screen and if you sit too close it's rubbish, ie a normal smallish living room doesn't cut it! But I don't have HD, just going on hearsay.

I'm quite happy with DVD. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone I know who's bought one.

I'm perfectly happy with MP3s, my current Ipod sounds better than any portable player of any kind I've owned over the years (I don't miss cassette hiss) and so long as a picture is clear I'm also happy.

The biggest thing for me where my music and my films/tv are concerned is the lack of degredation through wear and tear, aging process, bad storage. I hated vinyl for the scratches and dust. I really did. When CDs happened I was so glad, and MP3s are just an extension of that. I was the same with video and DVD. I get annoyed with pixellation sometimes, which is especially apparent on cheaper DVDs or on digital TV, but compared to things that used to trouble my viewing....remember videos going funny and having to mess with tracking. Or worse, that lovely disaster that hit video cassettes and music cassettes, the tape coming unwound...aaaarrrgh.

Do not miss it at all.

it's great-but mainly used as an upscaling DVD player with maybe a couple of dozen blu-ray disks. I think most people are actually much more able to spot good pictures than good sound, but I don't know how much they value it when they've seen it.

I will probably get a Blu-Ray/Freesat/Hard disk pvr for my flat one of these days-but want to be able to record Blu Rays of HD TV to take over to FPO's, and a quick trial of this w/ a helpful dealer proved tricky, so purchase on ice for time being.

She doesn't want to have cable or sat for HD, or a PVR herself; and you'd be surprised how few ways to solve the data transport problem actually exist due to DRM issues etc. Currently works well with recordable DVDs.

Picked up a £70 philips machine in Asda 6 months ago and am very impressed with it. I only buy films for it that will be greatly enhanced by the HD experience but am very pleased with the outlay.
The majority of Blu Ray discs are played on the Playstation 3 probably which is compatible.
I have a 42" full 1080 tv in an average sized dining room and it looks great on it.

Does it mean I have to buy them all over again, like CDs over LPs? Or will it play them anyway?

I'm putting it off. It's one thing after another technology-wise. I can't keep up.

1: It's a luxury item launched at a time when we are having to keep a close watch on our wallets (AND you need an HD TV to complete the picture)

2: It is still marketed as something of a tecchie/AV purists product (as in picture quality/bonus features etc.) and however good that may be, I am not sure that it is as big a deal or as irresistible to most customers as retailers think it is. I agree with you there.

3: Maybe people dislike the prospect of having to upgrade a lifetime's worth of DVDs to a new format, even if to appreciate the point above.

4: Maybe people would rather surf the net and youtube than sit down and watch a movie for the evening?

My own gripe is that some films are now only issued on BR, which to me is unfairly upping the ante.

I'm a noted crank on this website. Anytime anyone mentions sound or picture quality I always roll up. So here's my contribution for today: It doesn't matter as long as you can see what's happening on screen. The picture has to be super soupy and soft focus before it becomes a problem. The difference in sharpness from DVD to Blu-Ray is very hard to detect, especially once you settle into a movie and stop going out your way to notice colour bleed or soft edges etc. I would also argue, although this might just be me, that the difference in sharpness from VHS to DVD isn't that big.

I admit DVD is better than VHS in every way. The picture is sharper, it doesn't wear out, it has extra features etc. It's definitely better although not superior to the extent that VHS is unacceptable in quality. I still watch VHS and I have no issues with it. It was, and remains, a good format.

Blu-Ray isn't better than DVD. Two reasons for this. One; the picture is technically sharper but to my eyes the difference is negligible to the point of irrelevance. Two; it takes forever for the discs to load and then the menus are too fancy to the point of being outright annoying.

For a short while I refused to watch full screen tapes on the grounds that the picture was butchered. It didn't take me long to realise that all widesceen gave you was more set/location on the sides and perhaps a prettier composition. What was important in the shot was 99% of the time still in the frame, usually near the centre. A close up on Tom Cruise being punched in the face remains the same no matter how many pixels or what aspect ratio is being used.

The only films I can testify as being a big improvement in higher quality is Apocalypse Now which did look much better on DVD than it did on my widescreen VHS tape (the orange smoke deeper and more lurid etc). And Cliffhanger needs to be seen in widescreen as the terrifying mountain vistas are 50% of that film.

I can say that I've rarely felt a film was improved by being watched on a better format. Perhaps the most visually demanding films have been improved, such as David Fincher movies. I dread to imagine watching the insanely dark Panic Room on VHS.

Is it better to watch 2001/Seven/Lawrence of Arabia on a widescreen DVD instead of a full screen VHS? Yes. The movie would be improved, but that doesn't mean the VHS tape is unwatchable. Ten minutes in and you stop concentrating on the muddy picture and the missing edges and you concentrate on the story. In the end it just doesn't matter as long as the picture quality isn't so poor that it's distracting you.

Is it better to watch 2001/Seven/Lawrence of Arabia on a widescreen Blu-Ray instead of a widescreen DVD? To me it doesn't matter. They will probably look the same, especially once I stop counting the pixels.

----------------------

"It's great that a song now costs the same amount as a pack of gum and lasts the exact same amount of time before it loses its flavour and you have to spend another buck."

Freedom by Jonathan Franzen, Page 200.

just don't want to get gazumped by technology again. You buy VHS, then some bought laser discs, then buy your whole library on DVD and they bring out Blu Ray.
I just think as soon as I buy it another technology will make it redundant sson enough.
I don't think I need super duper clear quality either. It's like adding another blade to the razor. How close CAN you shave. Really?

And I can't imagine everybody being in a rush to swap all their CDs for SACDs, if they started releasing them on a mass scale.

People have spent the last 10 years replacing their VHS videos with DVDs, just as they spent the previous decade replacing their vinyl with CDs. They're now replacing their CDs with a more portable but inferior format, in MP3s, so there's little chance of replacing DVDs with more expensive versions of the same.

Don't fall for all the nonsense about HDMI cables pedalled by people trying to sell them.

HDMI is a digital format, all you need to worry about is the length of the cable - in no way will the contents of the cable or the metal that the connectors is made of make any difference to the picture quality (unless it just doesn't work in which case you get a replacement cable).

Whilst Blu Ray might be the future, etc., I won't bother until my current DVD player gives up the ghost and even then I won't replace my DVDs with Blu Ray discs unless there is a very compelling reason.

...was watching Spinal Tap for the umpteenth time, but on the iPad, with noise cancelling headphones, on a transatlantic flight. The picture and the sound quality were just right, but most of all, it was right film, right place, right time.

imo, is just how different our personal experience of sight, sound etc actually is. I could sit next to LOUDspeaker throughout a showing of e.g.2001 on VHS, in a cinema in 70mm, outside on 70mm, on BD, DVD etc (and I've seen it on all those media).

At the end I'd have *no idea* what his subjective experience felt like to him. To me this is the elephant in the room of all such discourse---see e.g. the "how was it for you" thread I did way back,

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/how-is-it-for-you-varieties-musica...

and rather more potentially interesting than the rather Onionesque ["The Sports Team From My Area is Superior to the Sports Team from Your Area"] debates we tend to slide into on such matters ?

Or is that just me ?

The quality difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is there, though all but insignificant, and certainly nowhere near the leap from VHS to DVD. To most punters, DVD is as good as it gets, and as Paul Wad sagely notes above, echoes the vast majority's attitude to SACD vs. CD, i.e. why bother, it doesn't need improving.

The key reason BR hasn't become a dead duck is because of games consoles, which is how it's managed to retain a viable market penetration, but the take-up of stand-alone machines & disks has generally been a big disappointment to the industry, though you'll have to search hard to find anyone who'll admit it.

MP3s have shown that most real people are more interested in delivery rather than content anyway, i.e. convenience far outweighs any degradation in sound/vision, as long as the threshold values (doesn't skip, hiss or wear out) are maintained.

...about Blu-Ray v. DVD (and it still astounds me that anyone is prepared to stand up and say that there's no difference between standard and HD)you can get an indication of BR uptake just by looking at your local Blockbuster (or Tesco for that matter).
Over the last year the Blu-Ray shelves have expanded from one stack of shelves to about half the shop.
I do think BR will get overtaken by downloadable and streamed content in the mass market before too long, but BR will probably survive at the top end of the market simply because our broadband suppliers are unlikely to be able to keep up with demand in the short to medium term - very high quality streaming therefore will be either restricted, or costly, or both. The number of people currently with the hardware and bandwidth to successfully stream all their content is just too low in the UK to see off discs just yet, but its coming.

For my Blu Ray experience. Something like Blade Runner or Minority Report etc look and sound amazing. I suppose its not so important for the majority of stuff you'd want to see, for instance TV shows Dramas and the like.

Although I picked up the Blu Ray Gattlestar Galactica and that really came to life. Very Sharp in comparison with the DVD.

Only problem with the PS3 is that it's not multi region without messing with your warranty, although mines up now so any idea's on that one would be much appreciated.

Kings of Leon live Blue Ray sounded bloody good too.

And I can see actors' make up and Nick Park's fingerprints on Gromit. That's too much definition in my book. However, for nature documentaries and sport (special mention here to the Tour de France on Eurosport HD) HD's great.

Despite being 'only' standard definition and not offering any DVD playback without being hacked the Wii has been a runaway success for Nintendo for its innovative user interfaces which are now being emulated by Sony and Microsoft. Aren't we in danger of Blu Ray being technology for technology's sake instead of something driven by the consumer?

We have already witnessed one loser in the HD battle of the formats. Don't forget all the other shiny discs which ended up with a tarnished reputation too, now consigned to oblivion.

Like digital radio BR has its supporters and naysayers.

If the experience being offered by Blu Ray isn't taken up by enough consumers surely it is likely to become abandoned before it has chance to prove its worth?

only because my old DVD player died. The most important thing to note is that the Blu Ray players are 'back compatible' with your DVD collection; you do NOT have to replace your DVDs. And the Blu Ray will upscale your old DVDs making them look even better. So don't throw out your DVD player. But if you need a new one, go BluRay.

Couldn't believe the diffrence on the Blu. Looks a million times better.

the BBC Yellowstone series on BluRay. Absolutely stunning , beautifully shot with great sound as well. BluRay is made for nature docs, I imagine Planet Earth would blow your mind.

before you decide it's good? I saw Avatar as clearly as I've ever seen a film. It's still shit. Then again, I saw the first Lord of the Rings on VHS on a portable TV in a caravan. Loved it.

The novelty of "look, you can see every hair in that ocelot's nostril" wears off pretty quickly with Blu-Ray. It's the stuff you don't particularly think of as being a feast for the eyes that has ended up impressing me the most.

Seventies films, in particular, are a total revelation. Watching Dog Day Afternoon in HD is like being transported, à la Life on Mars, to a top-notch city-centre first-run cinema in 1975.

The experience of watching these films, in other words, is just like now - except it was then.

Martin Scorsese has been right all along. The degradation of colour prints over the second half of the twentieth century was quite scandalous, and we grew so accustomed to seeing washed-out, over-grainy old films on TV, VHS and even DVD - like peering through a busy chip-shop window on a bitter-cold February night - that we assumed that's what they looked like first time round. But no. The new HD transfers (presumably straight from the original negs) show that they actually looked every bit as sharp and colour-subtle as anything shot today. And often even better. Old science-fiction films made using glass paintings and models simply look classier in HD than the CGI'd-to-death blockbusters sold to us as the state of the art.

The HD Blade Runner - a film that's pushing 30 years old - shows up Inception & Co. something rotten.

when I can get an all in one box that: can record onto DVD or Blu Ray, or an internal 1TB hard drive; twin tuners for Freesat; i-player, 4OD and itv player integration; USB ports for attaching external storage; and costs less than £300.

Don't think it exists yet.

Its only as good as the worst part of the system. Our LG LCD screen is very dissapointing and so much content on our Virgin cable box is shot in standard definition. The sound is better though. I wouldn't want to go back to VHS but the broadcasters have a long way to go yet. I did see Sky's new 3D stuff demoed recently though and it was fantastic. Not for a whole evenings viewing though but great for a film or event. You still need the Joe 90 glasses though.

We got very used to watching very poor pictures for years, we only had one way of recording stuff and so it was VHS from analogue broadcasts. Then all of a sudden DVDs came along but, for most people, they were read only. I think most people have only become used to a consistently good picture in the last 4 or 5 years (I would guess that 6 years ago the majority of timeshifters were still doing it with VHS) and, as it's so much better than they were used to (and relatively happy with) they don't really see any need to upgrade.

There's a couple of important things to understand about blu-ray.

The quality of blu-ray titles is quite varied. Sometimes it's to do with the source material, sometimes it's to do with the workmanship of the transfer. Quality is the first factor.

The second is the presentation. The size of an image largely determines the importance of it's resolution. A 32" screen is not going to do 1080p justice, not even close. Personally, I don't think it's worth starting a blu-ray collection with anything smaller than 42" MINIMUM.

I didn't have the same opinion until I bought myself a high-end 55" screen recently. The difference from DVD to a reference-quality blu-ray title is astonishing. I implore anyone not yet convinced to find a way to view top blu-ray titles on a good TV. The bigger, the better.

I HIGHLY recommend the following titles:

Baraka
The Dark Knight
Blade Runner
Any Pixar film

"Baraka" has the best picture quality of any blu-ray so far, it's unbelievable.

The IMAX scenes from "The Dark Knight" rival "Baraka".

Out of films over 20 years old, "Blade Runner" is probably the title to benefit most from blu-ray. It's a revelation.

The colours and crisp detail of modern animated films such as those created by Pixar are a sight to behold. I own "Up" and "Rataouille" so far.

Documentaries and old classics such as "Planet Earth" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" respectively all benefit greatly also.

Another thing i've learnt is that TVs of today can be very finely tuned. I general, LCDs need more tuning than Plasmas do out of the box to fulfil their potential, but both are capable of similarly excellent results. This is something to consider when simply browsing at electronic stores; most TVs are set to "demo" modes where brightness and contrast are exaggerated and colours are over-saturated.

If this all sounds a bit unneccesary and over the top, then perhaps blu-ray isn't for you. Cinema is a passion of mine, and even though I don't earn a lot of money, I don't regret paying a lot of money on a top range setup. It's worth every cent for revitalising an innocent wonder in a very simplistic strength of cinema: sight and sound. It was never lost, but it naturally grows stronger.

For those who understand this, but just don't think replacing their whole DVD collection is worth it: why not now? Blu-ray has about 10-15 years before it's superceded. Now's the time to make the most of it. What's the alternative? To wait, then "Um", "Ah" or scoff at the next leap in technology? Jumping on the wagon 5 years down the track just shortens your enjoyment, and isn't that what home media is essentially about?

High-end TVs have become more affordable. I own an LCD, but Plasma undeniably gives the best bang for buck at the moment. By all means, get the best price you can, but cinema lovers shouldn't disregard the world of HD.

My two favourite films, "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Apocalypse Now" have yet to be released on blu-ray. The latter is just around the corner, the former I am still anxiously awaiting news for. I have held off rewatching both titles until I can watch them on blu-ray next. It's great (but painful) to have such anticipation about home entertainment.

It's all a money making con. "How can we make people buy ths stuff they've already bought all over again...?"

Here's a wheeze....the next one is already hoving into view - 3D...!!