Yes.
For a lot of what I love in foreign movies, physical media is the only way to go.
For a lot of what I love in foreign movies, physical media is the only way to go.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do you still buy DVDs?
- Thread starter MacBH928
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly.
And just because a technology has been invented does not mean that everyone feels a need to adopt it, or use it.
Sometimes, an existing technology meets our needs perfectly well.
Also owning your media means (in theory) you can watch it for longer. Streaming services don’t keep the same line up indefinitely. Plus you have to keep up your subscription.
Yes, me too. Except I had Beta tapes and Laser Discs as well.
That's why I think iTunes is a game changer. Movies purchased in HD are being updated automatically and with no additional charge to whatever the highest quality encode is, including free upgrades to 4K, Dolby Vision, HDR10, and Dolby ATMOS.
Combine that with the fact that Apple frequently has $5 and $10 sales on titles I actually like (not just old WB/MGM catalog titles meant for the Walmart bargain bin), and it's a winner.
For example I love the "Alien" movies and got them for $5 each, and one by one they (and many of my other HD purchases) are being upgraded over time for free to 4K/HDR/ATMOS as it becomes available from the studio. Likewise, as extras become available, they are just there. No need to double-dip for a "Special Edition" disc.
With free upgrades, there's no more double dipping or triple-dipping or quadruple-dipping for me. Even if Apple stops the policy of free upgrades some day, the reality is that 4K is good enough for me. There have been massive improvements over the decades, but I'm noticing we are also reaching the point of diminishing returns.
Just to be clear, this is for "HD" purchases only. The cheaper tier "SD" purchases are stuck where they are.
If you missed a movie, the Blu Ray can eventually be cheaper than a cinema ticket. I would not buy it again anyway.
I recent bought a product that came packaged with a DVD. It just sat on my counter...like an inanimate object, until I threw it away.
Coincidentally, last week I threw away a Betacam cartridge. It has been sitting in a drawer...like an inanimate object.
Coincidentally, last week I threw away a Betacam cartridge. It has been sitting in a drawer...like an inanimate object.
A few years ago, my brother gave me the first series (probably the best series of the lot) of Downton Abbey on DVD; as recently as this year, I watched it - in its entirety - again.
And this year, as a sort of comfort thing - and yes, the production values, acting, script, and history are all excellent - I treated myself to The Crown on DVD - exceedingly good.
I loved it.
Now I'm imagining the Betacam cartridge as an animate object, wondering when you're going to let him out of the drawer, and trying to conduct conversations about video production with paperclips and post-it notes, which roll their eyes (well, not exactly eyes, except in the case of Clippy) and quietly giggle when "Ol' Gramps Betacam" starts in on yet another story of his experience Back In The Day.
Because I didn't have anything better to do with my Thursday PM than to invent fanciful tales while my Lambo is out being detailed.
When I buy them now 4k Ultra HD Disk, but I have only purchased one. Still considering streaming purchases, but I usually go with the lowest price between that if it is available as 4k vs physical disk.
Certainly not. Just riffing.
And since you mentioned "mocking", isn't it odd that a mockingbird has that name? After all, how could humans tell by listening to the mockingbird songs that it's mocking other birds (teasing them in a contemptuous manner)? Or is this the simpler non-judgemental meaning of "mock" that's merely a synonym of "mimic"? And what about when the mockingbird makes variations in the songs it mimics? So shouldn't it more properly be called a riffingbird?
You may have mispronounced something in the spell, because I'm feeling quite peaceful.
Dare I say: a Pax.
I’ve noticed that the image of a DVD running on a Blue Ray player, connected to a 4k TV is excellent, so regarding owned titles, you are still in good shape from a tech standpoint.
Just note your DVD is 2 generations back, but fortunately they have seen fit to build in backwards compatibility for new players. But at some point there will be a break. That is why I’ve kept a functional DVD player in my media cabinet, while recognizing now, when that breaks comes, due to backwards compatibility, it should be the extra 4k player I am keeping, when the next generation appears. My guess is the break I am describing would be from the spinning laminated disk methodology of delivering media content.
Physical media prices were always expensive to me, $10-20 per movie for something I will watch once in 1.5 hours is too expensive. If its a movie I really like that I will watch few times sure, but given a lot of the movies are just brainless entertainment not to mention a lot of them are disappointing now days its just not worth it.
Who is still buying the SD version? I don't think any screen built for mobile or TV is still in SD today.
[doublepost=1558806353][/doublepost]
If you are buying a title that has been never released on BD thats understandable but I was wondering about newer titles, why are they released on DVD when BD is superior in every way.
[doublepost=1558806394][/doublepost]
may I ask what advantage does deepdiscountdvd has over Amazon or Ebay?
I mentioned deeddiscountdvd in response to your question...
I should have been more explicit in my answer and indicated that DDD is a one stop store.
I worked at a library and I was amazed at how popular DVDs still were. They had some of the highest circulation rates.
We're already talking about 8K but people are still buying 480p DVDs.
I will buy DVDs if that is all that exists of a certain movie or TV show I want to watch, but it is an absolute last resort.
I guess it's a bit like music. Yes there was Super Audio CD and today there are very high bit rate versions... but 99% of people are happy with FM radio or low quality mp3 and even CD quality is well beyond what they would really ever need.
For most people DVDs are perfectly fine. This was brought home to me as for work I've spent a lot of time in Asia over the past year and there it's still DVDs all round. Well sometimes I see VCDs too - really. And I'm not talking about in poor areas just all over.
The only thing that really is challenging it is amazon prime and netflix etc.
I might be wrong but I believe Blu ray is far harder to make illegal copies of? In much of Asia even in swanky malls one finds dodgy looking little stores selling rows of DVDs that look rather dubious.
I think it's part of a broader cultural change too, across the entire globe. A film is something, like a piece of music, to just enjoy in that moment and move on. Price and availability beats quality. When I was growing up a VHS seemed expensive, you would only normally buy it of something special. Therefore the search for higher quality formats made sense. If however you'll watch it once then move on, the quality is likely to be less important.
As this is an Apple forum I think this is something Apple should be concerned about - outside western nations I've never met anyone using Apple TVs and yet across the rest of the world TV continues to grow and grow and amazon in particular has gone all in, creating their own shows even in Asian markets.
I bought a couple of used SACDs from the local Goodwill, just out of curiosity. I can't tell the difference except for the fact that they are multi-channel surround sound.
It's probably time to sell them. I see that for one of the two titles I have, sellers are asking for $180 to $600 on Ebay.
I bought a couple of used SACDs from the local Goodwill, just out of curiosity. I can't tell the difference except for the fact that they are multi-channel surround sound.
It's probably time to sell them. I see that for one of the two titles I have, sellers are asking for $180 to $600 on Ebay.
The only difference I noticed on an audio platform was from cassette tape to Audio CD. Otherwise all other audio platforms sounded similar to me. In fact, even cassette tapes didn't sound bad on an original production.
I don't buy anything at all I have to say. I get so much between my standard service provider's TV contract and Netflix (which is also part of the prior service contract) that I'm not too interested in spending more of my life on front of my TV.
I bought a couple of used SACDs from the local Goodwill, just out of curiosity. I can't tell the difference except for the fact that they are multi-channel surround sound.
It's probably time to sell them. I see that for one of the two titles I have, sellers are asking for $180 to $600 on Ebay.
That is one of the big differences with SACD's. Most CD's only have stereo. You may get all your speakers working versus a straight stereo of left-right which is usually being done at the receiver/head unit, while SACD's will have a true mix up to six discreet channels.
Like I mentioned in my previous post, I pretty much buy second hand now. The cost is a lot cheaper. Same goes for my CD's unless it is a band I really like and then I buy their CD (which happens to be a lot of bands).