so still watch 480p? seriously.

>>11164324
Blu-ray will probably be the last disc medium...

>>11164340

believe it or not, most people do, not everyone is a tech-head and/or rich

Ohai u oldfags, newfags, whateverfags. check out this new ca/m/wh0re site full of russians: http://u5l.de/je Best is, it is 4 free

>>5480

prolly not, i think it will remain just a novelty for the wealthy and won't transcend to the masses like DVD has

>>11164445
>implying bluray will never get cheaper (like dvd did)

>>11164368
I feel sorry for you welfare people

Of course it will. Remember how long it took DVD to replace VHS though? Like 10 years.

Blu-Ray will never be able to properly replace the DVD due to the sheer price of a Blu-Ray player as compared to that of the price of the DVD player that is able to properly play content and allow the consumer to watch movies.

As well, Blu-Ray even compared to HD-DVD has barely any noticeable differences when it comes to overall quality of the HD-DVD. The simple reason that its being regarded as the 'new format' is due to Sony attempting to buy out the entire market and monopolize it with their own format.

if you watch more than one movie a week, you owe it to yourself to get a bluray player

Blu-ray came too late. Digital media is already huge.

Digital will replace physical before blu-ray can get a real foothold.

>>11164550
>implying bluray players will never get cheaper (like dvd players did)

>>11164550

lol

I guess you're either to young or you forgot how expensive DVD players were when they came out. And you can buy Blue ray players for like £30 now.

>>11164550
Yes because things don't drop in price over time. Were you too young to witness DVDs replacing VHS or something?

Bluray will obviously take over eventually.

>>11164602

not everyone likes downloading. some prefer physical media.

>>11164445

>implying it hasn't already

Older blu-rays are selling for $15-20 now. Used can go lower than 10.

>>11164609
fuck yeah blue ray

It can replace DVD if they can take advantage of the size. I think it's possible that you can put a entire season of a TV show on one blue-ray disc.

>>11164550
Blue-ray players are actually getting cheaper.

>>11164550
What a fucking retard.

In order to buy Blu-rays, you need the whole set up:
Big fucking screen, great sound system, the works.

Till I get enough cash for all of that, DVDs are fine to me.

Blu-ray = BetaMax

Ohai u oldfags, newfags, whateverfags. check out this new ca/m/wh0re site full of russians: http://u5l.de/je Best is, it is 4 free

>>5927

DVD still has a repertoire many times the size of Bluray. It's going to take a decade for all of the old and obscure movies to be transferred.

>>11164689
>I think it's possible that you can put a entire season of a TV show on one blue-ray disc.

Only if they used a lower resolution.

>>11164717
i think it's fair to say hddvd = betamax

>>11164709
You don't have to have a HDTV to enjoy Blue-ray. That's what they want you to do. You can use a Blue-ray player on a normal TV or a TV that has at least component ports.

>>11164823
but what would be the point? you might as well watch dvds.

>>11164823

>blue ray
>blue

>>11164823

>pay more for higher resolution content
>watch on a shitty SD tv

1080p on my 60" kuro looks pretty good

It's quite hard to buy a TV that isn't HD anymore.
Bluray is cheaper now and will get much more cheaper.
Give it 5-10 years when Bluray has a decent size library. That was the problem with DVD when it first came out, there were no DVDs to actually buy

Old unopened BluRay discs are like $10.00 and $78.00 is the cheapest player price, and most players are already around the a bit over $100.00 price.

>>11164763
I meant to say if the TV series was not filmed in HD at all. The TV series would have to be filmed in 4:3 unless it was made in film. If it was made by film, there would be a possibly of a widescreen version of the program or the footage may be upgraded to a HD version.

BluRay will catch on when the discs and players are dirt cheap. And when more HDTV have replaced crts.

>>11165904
the resolution and the aspect ratio are not actually connected to each other in that way.
Even if a show was not shot in HD, it could be transferred to HD and still would result in a higher quality.

>>11165976

when you fullscreen a video it doesn't magically give you better quality, stop talking bullshit

>>11166305
what the fuck are you talking about?

>>11166391
If it was not shot in HD, the transfer to HD is like taking a shit image into photoshop and upscaling it.

Old films are shot with 35mm film so making them HD is easily possible. What you're suggesting doesn't work.

>>11164550
DVD was expensive its first few years, blu-ray has gone down quite a bit and is still going down.

My hard drive has already replaced dvd and bluray...