Comments on: Why $100 is the perfect Blu-ray player price

Until DVD players came down to that price, the format wasn't even close to ubiquity. Besides, Blu-ray provides only nominally better picture quality, Don Reisinger says.

[umbrae]

A Profile 2 player at $100 and media at $16-20. Thats what it takes to make Blu-Ray thrive. Until then Upscaled DVDs from Blockbuster and HD movies on Dish (and only when I absolutely want HD).

[dukeboy42]

Did this guy really just say that can only tell a slight difference between DVD and Blu-Ray? Are you kidding me? I don't know what kind of "calibration" that is, but I'd like to order a round of that on the house!

[sfitzsimmons]

$100 is exactly the price point that I am waiting for...I might pay $150 for a blu-ray player, but it would have to include 5 free movies. Unfortunately since the Hi-def war is long over, and blu-ray doesn't have anything to compete with at this time (as downloading is still a niche market), I don't see the manufacturers giving anyone free movies anytime soon. I'm fine to sit on the sidelines as I have all along and wait, all the while I'll keep paying $10-15 for regular DVD's, which offer decent picture. All the more reason is the fact that I only have a 32" HDTV and wouldn't notice much of a difference at that size between upscaled DVD and blu-ray.

[Balloonknot]

$100 is more like it...now they just need to get the price of the movies waaaayyyy down...

Personally, I think it's doomed either way.

[AndreSomething]

I think everyone is missing the obvious outcome to this entire debacle. The truth is, DVD-players will eventually be phased out of production and be replaced with equivalently priced Blu-Ray players. In other words, in a year or two, you won't be able to buy a stand-alone DVD-player without Blu-Ray capabilities. Avg consumers won't care because the new players will be able to play their old DVDs along with the newer format. Once that starts to happen, fewer and fewer retail stores will actually sell DVD movies, replacing them with Blu-Rays (which will have come down in price). Whether people notice the difference or not in image quality (or see any benefit from switching at all) is not the point. The bonuses related to going Blu-Ray are meant to attract early adopters (read videophiles with HD tvs), not the avg Joe. The truth is studios want to see Blu-Ray succeed simply because it offers better copyright protection than DVDs and gives them greater control over their products.

As for downloading, while that may represent the future, it's still not ready for prime time. First, bandwidth has a long way to go before it can pump the 15-30 MB/s needed to stream True-HD quality movies. Especially when you consider that such bandwidth would have to be available everywhere for it to completely replace Blu-Ray. That's not going to happen for a long time.

[AnthonyNYC]

Andresomething, we might not have the 15-30MB/s stream for TRUE-HD quality you mention now, we might? I don't know. But I do know that my Roku Box looks awesome playing both regular quality movies and the newly introduced HD quality movies on both my 37" and 52" LCD tv's. That is happenning now! A fact, so not sure what your point matters about it needing to be TRUE-HD or not. It is convenient, fast, and great quality. I love chosing a movie and watching it stream seconds later right on my TV. It is so futuristic, sometimes, I pinch myself, :)
All I can do is enjoy it, and let everyone else argue about it ever happenning over not. hehe...
I am also amazed how I never ever get any glitches or video hichups with the roku box which is hooked up wirelessly to my home network, my cable box can't even do that. It is great. Try it you will change your mind.

[SweetRump]

First point...no tv stations broadcast in 1080 anything..they do use 720.....

A 50 ' is big enough to see the small increse in quality blue-ray gives you but you have to look for it.

I bought a sony upgrading dvd player at Wallmart for $75 and it look great on my 720p 50" tv with tiny mirrors I bought for $800 new (a 50" lcd sitting next to it cost $2400) So for less than $1000 I have all you need of hi def as it is now.

[megustansalchichas]

the point is nobody needs a blu ray player -if your set top box can stream at 1080p and you have a 1080p display, who cares if it's streamed, disc based, or hard disk based? it's still Nights in Rodanthe.

it's not enough to have a video playing specific device nowadays -the war is in the features, does it play video games, does it stream music, does it connect to the interwebs? for $150, if all it does is play overpriced discs that I can't find at the store anyway, then it's not worth it.

If Sony would just make the PS3 backward compatible with PS2 games then I'd buy a blu ray player (140M gamers worldwide with the PS2, you think they don't want a reason to upgrade?), but for now blu ray players are not worth it for the mass market.

Especially with this economy, you've got to hit the magic number: $99.99

Personally I hope to never buy Blu Ray!!! For some reason Blu Ray seems like it is being forced upon us. I have had it with competing formats and technology that is never quite perfected.

[raindog469]

I didn't buy a DVD player until I came across one in Wal-Mart for 68 bucks on which I knew I could enter a code using its remote control to disable region locking and Macrovision. By then, I had been watching and recording TV on a PC with an 80 gig hard disk for a couple of years already.

I've moved twice in the last two years, and I haven't set up my DVD player in all that time. Each time I buy a DVD (and I buy a couple per month, at least) I toss it in one of my servers, which recognizes it's a new DVD and automatically rips it to Xvid for use on my portable media player, which has a dock connected to each TV in the house.

Whether SD or HD or whatever, if you're still using optical discs, you are not nearly the tech-savvy early adopter you think you are.

[drbyte]

The cost of these hdtvs need to drop a great deal too.

[colossus44]

I believe most of you are lost as to what bluray has to offer. The disks are not easily scratched. Why not youtube a video on people taking sand paper to a bluray. Nothing happens to the disk even after rubbing that paper quite hard onto the surface. So if you really do scratch one, then you must have driven over it. Second, if you really do watch a bluray on your tv and cant notice the difference it is because you either 1) dont have an hdtv 2) need glasses 3) are too cheap to get at least a mid range bluray player with a decent HDMI cable to go along with it. A lot of people hook up bluray players through component or worse even RCA cables.

On a side note, tvs do not upconvert dvds automatically. The person who wrote this knows absolutely nothing about televisions. The only way to upcoponvert anything is through an hdmi cable. Also, because his tv is a 56 inch and knowing tvs haven't been made in 56 inches for a long time now, this person is watching tv on a dinosaur. Basically, he doesn't know what hes missing. This is probably the same person trying to tell you that normal digital cable is the same thing as hd cable.

[colossus44]

A few things i have left out. A bluray player, with a bluray movie, will always look better than an upconvert dvd player. Not to mention that a bluray player can also upconvert better than most of the upconvert dvd players out there. Basically all bluray players will give u an amazing 1080p picture. Most of the more expensive bluray players are just to make your sound a lot better through various hd codecs and allow you to use 7.1 surround instead of 5.1. Unless you plan on paying about 800+ on a bluray player, the picture quality is going to be almost the same across the line. If you dont want to deal with updates for players and slow load times, well then the PS3 is your option. It tells you when to update through wifi or ethernet cabling and the load times are very fast. Not to mention the ps3 has support for all hd audio codecs.

[markredf150]

It's just a matter of time until these BluRay players are dirt cheap like standard DVD players and come with an HDMI cable in the box. I just checked bestbuy.com and there's a BluRay player that is going for two grand...and it doesn't have the HDMI cable to go with it. What gives?

[rivertrance]

Want to record all your movies in HD to your PC...and build your own personal video library?
Chk out the Hauppauge HD PVR...> http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html

I've beenu using it since Aug...and now have over 500Gs of HD movies and TV shows !!

[bionicjim]

I agree with many of the above points:
1) Blu-Ray was rushed to market to compete with HD-DVD so you have compatibility problems and missing/incomplete features
2) Cost of player is ridiculous and needs to be below $100
3) Media surcharge makes sense at +$5, but not more than that
4) Current upconverting DVD players are amazing
5) Digital Download, SD-DVDs, NetFlix, videogames, cable, satellite all compete with the entertainment dollar so the buy-in has to be low
6) Stinkin' Too Long to EJECT a Blu-Ray disc from a stand-alone player

Sony beat-up on the group supporting HD-DVD, but they haven't sold me a Blu-Ray player yet for all of these reasons.

[PeanuttyJ]

I have a Pioneer Elite 60" TV, a Panasonic Blu Ray player, and a Denon hub receiver (I forget the number). The Blu-Ray picture is great, the sound is also great. Nevertheless, I am convinced that Blu-Ray is for "adopt-it-now geeks," and it will drive those other geeks who don't have it insane while they wring their hands over not having the latest trend. My answer is, don't bother, it isn't worth it. I am fortunate enough to be able to toss money at things meaninglessly. I would tell the normal person that it is a joke and, if one wants to see a real technological leap, go back to the change from VHS to DVD. (Just upconvert your DVDs and forget about it.) Blu-Ray is no seachange, and I think it may yet fail with this economy. So there. Pffffttt!

[kate786]

Blu Ray technology is currently a waste of cash. I believe that it is being pushed because companies aren't makng a good profit anymore on DVD's and DVD players. I don't see what it does for me that makes it worth replacing all the dvds own for what looks to be -slightly- better picture. I don't need to see the pores on someones nose to enjoy a movie. When movies went from VHS to DVD there was a huge difference that was worth paying for. I know I am not paying $300 bucks thats for sure and I am not paying $30 a movie. I agree with the person who said $49.99 - I might buy one at that point if they had more titles...I am still not sure this whole thing won't go the way of the HD DVD player... The Blu Ray just seems like a scam to raise prices..

[epross]

Why does everyone seem to focus solely on picture quality? I just watched the latest X-files movie with DTS-Master Audio and the sound out of my system was astounding. I could hear the dialog, and more importantly all the little sounds that your hear in real life but are omitted from TV and DVD playback. It just goes to show that until you see or hear the difference, you really don't appreciate what you're missing. I'm not saying the Blu-ray is the panacea of all creation, but it surely does improve on the existing DVD standard - its probably the case that most people who can't tell the difference don't have decent equipment or it's not calibrated properly. Then again, there are always those who price is the biggest indicator of satisfaction - they'll never be happy until its free.

[screenwriter72]

I would purchase a PlayStation 3 for $150 rather than $300! I hope PS4 comes out next year so that can happen! The Blu-Ray's successor might be a hologram disc capable of holding 1 to 2 TB of data OR streaming will be the NORM for now on. Regardless, for now, Blu-Ray is here to stay for 5 years at the minimum!!!

[yogi7999]

Two comments: first - "Blu-ray provides nominally better picture quality"??? -- Not to be rude, but are you blind? No offense, just cannot believe such a statement...

Second -- I switched to Blu-ray for completely different purpose, not mentioned here - recording home videos in AVCHD format -- which is plain awesome and also requires a Blu-ray player for playback. Standard BD player was a pure waste of money (and no features, didn't even play my MP3 from a CD!) so I went for the PS3, which at the same time added some excellent home-entertainment features to my house, which I absolutely love (playing music from my home server, internet browsing, plus playing AVCHD, of course, oh and viewing my pictures on PS3 only as well, oh and all my DIVx movies, and the whole nine yards!).

So back at point one - if you really cannot see the difference, take a mini-DV camera and compare the footage to one taken with HD camcorder. Bet you $1000 (cost of my HD camc.) if you fall off your chair.

[yogi7999]

Two comments: first - "Blu-ray provides nominally better picture quality"??? -- Not to be rude, but are you blind? No offense, just cannot believe such a statement...

Second -- I switched to Blu-ray for completely different purpose, not mentioned here - recording home videos in AVCHD format -- which is plain awesome and also requires a Blu-ray player for playback. Standard BD player was a pure waste of money (and no features, didn't even play my MP3 from a CD!) so I went for the PS3, which at the same time added some excellent home-entertainment features to my house, which I absolutely love (playing music from my home server, internet browsing, plus playing AVCHD, of course, oh and viewing my pictures on PS3 only as well, oh and all my DIVx movies, and the whole nine yards!).

So back at point one - if you really cannot see the difference, take a mini-DV camera and compare the footage to one taken with HD camcorder. Bet you $1000 (cost of my HD camc.) if you fall off your chair.