BVHE/Disney announces first Blu-Ray titles

[TM2-Megatron]

I LOVE the look of the Blu-Ray disc cases! Even the extra grey part.

I cant' stand them... or the HD-DVD cases, for that matter. Why couldn't they have just used regular DVD cases? If not those, then I might've approved if they'd gone with the Super Jewel Box line to match up with next-gen audio formats... but who came up with the crappy things they're actually using?

As for TV shows on Blu-Ray, I doubt they'll cost much (or any) more than TV-on-DVD, when the format has matured (which is probably when they'll start coming out, anyway).

And I doubt an entire season could go on one disc, unless it's in DVD resolution (and even then, you'd need a double layer disc for many shows that have long episodes and many episodes per season, like Star Trek). And even it if were on one disc, that wouldn't make it cost the same as a single-disc movie... the discs are dirt-cheap, it's the content that you're paying for; and a TV season is worth more than a movie, however many discs it's on.

I am not sold yet on Blu Ray or HD with 60 year old animation since how good can you get, makes you wonder how CDs have lasted so long with music.

Audio CDs aren't really old yet (24, being introduced in 1982)... and don't try and tell me that's old, 'cuz it's only a year older than me.

Besides, there are two successors to CDs available: SACD (Super Audio CD) and DVD-Audio launched in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Both formats feature multichannel sound (DVD-Audio goes up to 7.1, and SACD usually includes a 5.1 mix although it only technically requires that stereo be on the disc), and considerably higher sound quality than conventional CDs.

The only reason Audio CDs haven't yet been replaced is because these two formats are competing with eachother, not unlike Blu-Ray and HD-DVD in the months (or years) to come. Many have predicted the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray competition will have hte same effect on the home video market, stagnating both new formats and leaving DVD to continue on for some years.

And if you don't want to buy into SACD or DVD-A there's always good, old-fashioned vinyl. In addition to the older favourites being reissued, a good portion of new releases on CD from modern bands can also be bought on vinyl, usually through special ordering (unless you have an uncommonly good music store nearby). Properly manufactured and played on good equipment, vinyl can sound worlds better than CDs, as well.

[Harbinger]

The Haunted Mansion

[2099net]

Besides, there are two successors to CDs available: SACD (Super Audio CD) and DVD-Audio launched in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Both formats feature multichannel sound (DVD-Audio goes up to 7.1, and SACD usually includes a 5.1 mix although it only technically requires that stereo be on the disc), and considerably higher sound quality than conventional CDs.

The only reason Audio CDs haven't yet been replaced is because these two formats are competing with eachother, not unlike Blu-Ray and HD-DVD in the months (or years) to come. Many have predicted the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray competition will have hte same effect on the home video market, stagnating both new formats and leaving DVD to continue on for some years.

What's interesting is that MP3 has virtually taken over from the CD format now, not the "next-gen" CD formats. Look at the success of the iPod. The tehnical quality of the music on the downloads is actually worse than CD, but it's a runaway success (not to mention the mountains on non iPod players and music download services).

It goes to show that QUALITY isn't always what's desired by people. Price and convenience are also important, and in the iPod's case, far more important that quality. (And iPod could do quality if it wanted to, there's gigabytes of storage on those players).

That's why I'm convinced the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray race isn't won yet.

[TM2-Megatron]

What's interesting is that MP3 has virtually taken over from the CD format now, not the "next-gen" CD formats. Look at the success of the iPod. The tehnical quality of the music on the downloads is actually worse than CD, but it's a runaway success (not to mention the mountains on non iPod players and music download services).

It goes to show that QUALITY isn't always what's desired by people. Price and convenience are also important, and in the iPod's case, far more important that quality. (And iPod could do quality if it wanted to, there's gigabytes of storage on those players).

It's interesting, but speak for yourself. There are no MP3s on my computer... only lossless *.wav files, ripped directly from CDs; about 1300 files totalling probably 45GB. I do convert them to *.aac from my iPod, but I'd never listen to anything less than CD-quality at home... preferably higher. I don't have an SACD player yet, but my computer has an Audigy2 ZS card and can play DVD-Audio at its full resolution and bit-depth.

[anger is pointless]

The Haunted Mansion

theres hardly any room for the cover art id rather see the cover art not that ugly grey area

[kbehm29]

I like the fact that they all look the SAME. I'm all about consistency - and today the "look" of DVD's varies across the board. As long as they (Disney) keep with this format - I'm good with it.