the problem i find is that many movies just arent shot well enough to be blu-ray. added grain is something i hate. also lots of movies are shot on digi cameras and are badly lit. i much prefer the older style fixed cameras for many things to the shakey hand cam style with no lighting.
i would also like the option of front wide or front height channels since the boffins now say that both are preferable to surround rears. i have 7.1 with FW speakers and to me it adds more than surround rear. i guess i will stick with Audyssey DSX on my amp for now. my sound stage feels massive now
i do like the additional level of detail of 1080p and uncompressed audio too.
i think far too many people dont have full 1080p TVs so they dont see the difference. or they just have crappy eyesight
i actually had a superb VHS player and it easily beat many DVDs back in the day. ok, it didnt have 5.1 but neither did i at the time
Remember minidisks or super-cd's? Nah me neither.
Miniaturization or improvements in barely-discernable quality is redundant to the average consumer.
minidisk was worse quality then CD. more versatile, sure, but it was compressed audio nonetheless
BR does need to some down in price. in shops there are a ripoff but online you can do ok. i always buy double/triple play now so i have the dvd too (yet they add the digital version on the DVD, lowering its quality). i preordered the new sherlock holmes for £14 at the river. the dvd was £11 so it was quite an easy choice. i will only buy blu-rays i think i will watch more than once (i.e. a few times)
i HATE the none-skippable ****, still.
watched ALIEN on BR lately. the transfer is superb and i saw so much more than on my old DVD boxset.
porn can be a bit hit and miss. i think a lot of the stars looked better in SD
HD is a lot less forgiving
dont forget that in terms of TV i think the HD channels are less compressed than the SD channels. so i guess HD always looks much better. try watching footy then swap to the SD version... eek!