1080p over component

Levi Pearson levipearson at gmail.com
Tue Aug 3 14:40:51 MDT 2010


On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Aaron Toponce <aaron.toponce at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 01:27:42PM -0600, Levi Pearson wrote:
>> I'm sure you'll enjoy your lack of BluRay player with all those
>> reasons you have for not purchasing one.
>
> 1. The hardware is still substantially more costly than standard
> definitation hardware. Both disks and players.

I got my BluRay player for ~$100.  WalMart has started selling cheap
BluRay 'classics' discs now, too.  Still more expensive than DVD, but
I don't buy a lot of discs in the first place, so I don't find it to
be a big deal.

>
> 2. It's really not "catching on"- adoption is slow [1]. Could this be
> the next SACD/DVD-A? How about 3D?

Pretty much all new releases I've seen have a BluRay version, and the
back catalog is starting to fill up.  I don't really care, since
adoption rose high enough to bring the price point down to what I
considered reasonable and disc availability is high.  I also don't
care about 3d.

> 3. I've heard, although not bothered to confirm, from family and friends
> that some Sony Pictures Blu-Ray disks will not play in their non-Sony
> Blu-Ray players.

I have a Sony player, so I can't comment on this.

> 4. If HDMI is not used as the interconnect, not only is the video
> downgraded to 540p, but the audio is downgraded to 2 channel stereo.

If you don't have HDMI, you probably shouldn't get BluRay.

> 5. To take advantage of 7.1 channel surround sound and 1080p video, I
> must upgrade my DVD player (obviously), my DLP television and my current
> 7.1 receiver. The cost for going Blu-Ray is significant.

You should still be able to get 5.1 digital sound into your receiver,
and 7.1 via analog cables if you get a player with a built-in decoder.
 I think DVDs max out at 6.1 audio anyway.

> 6. If I don't "upgrade" to HDMI, then why suffer the pain of the down
> convert, when standard definition DVD is providing me a crystal clear
> picture with 7.1 audio? The 480p display is just fine.

Well, if you don't want HDMI, don't get BluRay.  HDMI has its
problems, but the single cable solution is also really convenient.
DVD isn't exactly free of DRM, either.

> 7. I'm not interested in rebuilding my movie collection, yet again, just
> for the latest-and-greatest.

BluRay players play DVDs just fine.

> For me, I don't see the advantage. So the disks are higher capacity, and
> as a result, store some interactive features, extra footage, and
> whatnot. Yet, I never see these features on the movies at the store.
> Just the standard director commentary, behind the scenes, deleted
> scenes, etc. Sure, one disk instead of two, but they're still more
> costly than the standard two-disk set.
>
> At FYE in Riverdale, they have a Blu-Ray setup advertizing it full boar.
> Now, granted, the movie is playing on a 27" or 32" television, but when
> I look at the screen, I don't feel that the picture is any different.
> I've already got 7.1 surround sound, so it doesn't offer anything new
> there. I guess I'm missing something.

If you can't see the difference in the picture, I can't make you see
it with my words.

> I'm trying to be practical here. From my seat, it seems that Blu-Ray
> would piss me off more than want me to pop popcorn, snuggle in a blanket
> with my wife, and watch Avatar.
>
> I just don't see the advantages.

Like I said... sounds like you'll be really happy without BluRay
considering all your reasons for not wanting it.  Mine was pretty much
a drop-in replacement for my DVD player, though, and hasn't been very
annoying at all.

        --Levi


More information about the PLUG mailing list