Toronto entertainment writer Bruce Kirkland of the Toronto Sun wrote an interesting, although not news breaking, piece about the state of affairs with the 'hi-def' format, Blu-ray...
http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/columnists/bruce_kirkland/2009/01/04/7912751-sun.html
Blu-ray is too expensive on a hardware and software level. As Kirkland correctly points out, most people are content with their regular DVDs (which can be "upconverted" on a capable machine).
3 comments:
How many folks do you think replaced their CDs (which replaced, if of a certain age, their LPs) with PURCHASED mp3s? Probably not many. I'd guess that people are wise to the money-grab that format changes bring about and aren't as willing to change again, especially from one basically very good digital format to a slightly better digital format. And I still think a lot of people don't know the difference between the two. Doesn't help when the discs are the same physical size and shape.
It also does not help that the economy is the shits -- going down fast with luxuries such as Blu-ray a no go for most.
The format produces a lovely picture, for sure, and certainly from a crispness standpoint. But, and it's a biggy, Blu-ray suffers that malady inherent in Hi-Def: It has an image as flat as a piece of paper. I know, I see it every day at work!
VHS rules!
Post a Comment