"rob" <rob@spamoff.net> wrote in message
news:c61sd4l9jng2i61ap3eo3jr4d0bom55jd4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:15:22 +0800, "Alan Rutlidge"
> <don't_spam_me_rutlidge@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Me" <me@home.com> wrote in message
>>news:-dOdnZ36CvXzSFrVnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>> Bugger-all people that I've seen are renting Blu-ray titles. The
>>>> majority are grabbing regular DVDs to rent.
>>>>
>>> Correct, I have a Video Ezy across the road, chock full of DVDs and only
>>> two small shelves with Blu-ray discs on them, about 20 titles or so.
>>>
>>> I asked the staff why are there so few Blu-ray discs, and the reply was
>>> there is no point in stocking more because so few people want them.
>>>
>>Don't you see this as a Catch 22 situation? If you don't get the titles
>>onto the shelves or keep the selection of available titles very limited,
>>then it makes sense that people aren't going to support the format.
>
> Not really. It's pricing and awareness that creates the demand for a
> format, not shelf space.
So what is it other than pricing? If the BR is the same or similar price to
the DVD (let's be fair here and compare new release with new release), it's
got to be the awareness or misinformation factor.
>
>>In the case of Blu-ray vs. DVD when shown of a large screen Full-HD
>>display - the difference in PQ is significant.
>
> Maybe, but how many people have full 1080p displays that do Blu-ray
> justice ? And how many can get one at an "affordabe" price ?
Not maybe - IS a difference, and quite a significant one at that!
What is your definition of affordable?
Lots of money is spent on what I call "junk" expenditure. Yes, junk and
wasted money IMHO, but obviously not in the opinion of some others.
I don't smoke so I'm not burning the cost of a pack or two of cigarettes
every day. Nor do I have a problem with excessive consumption of alcohol
(Hic - err only sometimes
), but I know of people who do spend hundreds
of dollars every week on these products. Incidentally the same people are
also the ones against discontinuing analogue TV transmissions, because in
their view, a $49 STB is too expensive, but they don't bat an eye on
spending $250 every week on cigarettes and booze. Go figure that out! $49
is the cost of a bottle of scotch.
>
> The answer is obvious: Bugger all
>
>> On a small 29" 3:4 aspect TV
>>at the same viewing distance no one is going to pick any significant
>>improvement.
>
> Which is precisely why Blu-ray is a scam and a complete waste of
> money. The majority of people still have 4:3 displays and a standard
> DVD player. Why should they change to Blu-ray ?
>
And where did it write they have to?
Don't discredit yourself by making up the story as you go.
The wonderful thing about choice, is it's yours to make.
I prefer Blu-ray over standard DVD, which in turn is an improvement over
LaserDisc and VHS.
I still have all these formats, but it's a no brainer as to which one has
the better PQ and SQ over the other three IMHO.
Linear Mode
