Samsung announced blu-ray will be gone in 5 years, good riddance to that, a lot of "B" titles would never make it to blu ray anyway. I heard that they would stop making SD DVD in 2010 but, maybe not since there are movies that are on DVD that I never even thought made it to dvd or would make it there until recently like, Air rage and the original 3 cuts of blade runner, I cant wait for a real american DVD of raise the titanic (not the lions gate fullscreen DVD it doesent count ) but like the reigon 2 only special edition, thats a guilty pleasure movie of mine. :D

If you spend to much time worrying about the future, you miss they joy of watching titles today.

I heard that blu-ray player prices need to come down and discs are way to expensive for most people so blu-ray is already on it's way out.
The Wal-mart $5 bin Full screen DVD's are good enough for the general public and look nice on their HDTV.

The Toshiba XD-E500 upconvert DVD player will most likely champion DVD to obsolete blu-ray or at least make blu-ray become a niche product even with all the CE/Studio support.

I heard that blu-ray player prices need to come down and discs are way to expensive for most people so blu-ray is already on it's way out.
The Wal-mart $5 bin Full screen DVD's are good enough for the general public and look nice on their HDTV.

The Toshiba XD-E500 upconvert DVD player will most likely champion DVD to obsolete blu-ray or at least make blu-ray become a niche product even with all the CE/Studio support.

I agree, there is no reason that a blu ray player shold be $800.00 let alone 400, plus if the OEM lasers that are manufactured by outside parties cost $400.00 to make then maybe they could find another company willing to make them at a cheaper price (like the PS3's) light duty laser.

What was said was “I think it [B]has 5 years left, I certainly wouldn’t give it 10”, Andy Griffiths, director of consumer electronics at Samsung UK

Didn't see GONE anywhere in there and I also see 10 in there. I think the intention was to say I think it [Blu-ray] has 5 years left and will be gone in 10”

With that said, Griffiths also believes the time is now for Blu-ray. “It’s going to be huge”, Griffiths is quoted in Pocket-lint.com. “We are heavily back-ordered at the moment.”

Griffiths also says OLED will become mainstream in 2010 (I assume replacing LCD).

Another WAGIMO :D

I heard that blu-ray player prices need to come down and discs are way to expensive for most people so blu-ray is already on it's way out.
The Wal-mart $5 bin Full screen DVD's are good enough for the general public and look nice on their HDTV.

The Toshiba XD-E500 upconvert DVD player will most likely champion DVD to obsolete blu-ray or at least make blu-ray become a niche product even with all the CE/Studio support.

blu ray isnt going to 'become a niche product', it IS a niche product, trying to break into the mainstream.
imo, of course.

As a red now purple owner, I am going to enjoy the bluray haters that jump on this band wagon and declare it a dead format.

If any format is going to replace it, it will most likely be .................DVD.

I don't see any plausible way to DVD is going to be replaced by either BD or downloads within 10 years.

I think DVD will evolve a bit and may lose it strangle hold that it currently has on the market, but it won't go away by any means.

I think DVD will end up like CDs. They will be majority of what people buy. And just as music downloads, DVD and downloads will live happily together which each having its place.

Unfortunately, this is most every HDM owners worste fear (except for the haters). I know this is what I fear the most.

I think it will more likely end up as a permanent niche product like Laserdisc was for 20 years. And I am ok with that. I still find DVD watchable as long as I haven't seen the HD version.

blu ray isnt going to 'become a niche product', it IS a niche product, trying to break into the mainstream.
imo, of course.
But niche products usually aren't stocked at Wal-mart, Target or even your local convinence store.

I still find DVD watchable as long as I haven't seen the HD version.

Same here.
Even though I can tell SD is not near the PQ of Blu-ray, I just sit back another 5 feet from my normal viewing area and it's not so bad watching SD. :)

I heard that blu-ray player prices need to come down and discs are way to expensive for most people so blu-ray is already on it's way out.
The Wal-mart $5 bin Full screen DVD's are good enough for the general public and look nice on their HDTV.

The Toshiba XD-E500 upconvert DVD player will most likely champion DVD to obsolete blu-ray or at least make blu-ray become a niche product even with all the CE/Studio support.

The first paragraph, true except that BD could come down in price eventually. The second paragraph, absurd. I own a XDE and while it helps some DVDs minimally, the crappy DVDs still look like crappy DVDs (DVDs with bad encodes, etc).

But niche products usually aren't stocked at Wal-mart, Target or even your local convinence store.

Of course they do. Every now and then I find something on sale there that is actually not made in China. :D

Buckle up and keep the thread civil.
Do not attack or post rude comments.

There are already rumors we may see some holiday deals on BD players for under $200.

This Samsung guy was just talking crap. In five more years how many more BD players will be in the wild? BD has already gone way beyond the LD market. I remember when LD and CED were at a few stores in the midwest in my youth, but I never remember LD being at every major retailer.

BD is at my local Target... Wal*Mart.... Best Buy... Circuit City... etc.

The only thing holding BD back now is high catalog pricing. Once the studios realize the product has moved beyond the early adopter phase (typically consumers with more disposable income), the prices will start to drop to more reasonable levels.

I think DVD's will dominate, at least for a few more years, although they are starting to show their age a little bit. They are cheap, and most people think they look "good enough". The majority of consumers are still more into how big the TV is, not how good it looks, but some people are finally starting to understand that bigger isn't always better. Blu-Ray will probably get a little more popular in time, but the technology is evolutionary, not revolutionary, so I don't think it will ever really take off like they thought it would.

As for the future, I see downloads becoming more and more popular, as long as they get higher bandwidth and/or better compression. I don't think they will ever be near Blu-Ray quality though.

Whatever happened to holographic technology? Just think, if we had a movie player with no moving parts that used removeable credit card (or smaller) sized media to play movies and whatever else with. Now that would be revolutionary.

Aww the remnants of the crappy old days. If you want SD then stick with SD and head to the SD section if you have no plans on trying out blu ray. If you are here for HD and are willing to deal with prices and glitches for now then welcome. This thread is just an avenue for folks to start unnecessary bickering. Stick to AVS subjects please....

As for the future, I see downloads becoming more and more popular, as long as they get higher bandwidth and/or better compression. I don't think they will ever be near Blu-Ray quality though.

Wait until everyone is trying to download a movie on Friday night.

As far as compression goes, I don't think the compression algorithms can be pushed much farther. You still need a minimum amount of data. And if bandwidth is an issue, the lowest common denominator wins. The content providers will just use more compression to fit it into the space available. Like you said it will never be BD quality, but you know darn well they will try to call it HD at every chance.

Wait until everyone is trying to download a movie on Friday night.

As far as compression goes, I don't think the compression algorithms can be pushed much farther. You still need a minimum amount of data. And if bandwidth is an issue, the lowest common denominator wins. The content providers will just use more compression to fit it into the space available. Like you said it will never be BD quality, but you know darn well they will try to call it HD at every chance.

I think the problem is that most folks don't realize how compression works. Our current formats lose data.... they lose alot of data. You can't take a 200-300 JPEG2000 2K digital movie and squeeze down to under 30gb without losing PQ. It is just a matter of how much you reduce and still have an acceptable product.

Furthermore, I think alot of people believe it is like taking a cookie and using the honey I shrunk the kids ray to reduce its size. In order to reduce size, you need to remove, yes remove, frames. The more frames you lose the more you affect the film. Remove reference frames and you can keep smoothness, but lose detail. Remove motion frames and you keep detail but lose the smoothness of motion.

A great way to truly understand the difference in the result is to take an older DVD and run it through DVDshrink. Once with max detail and the other with max smoothness. At first, you think detail is the best, but you realize there is what I call a jitter in the motion and it doesn't seem natural.... kinda like looking at a spinning car wheel.

In order to compress it any further, you will start to lose detail. Perhaps I am over sensitive or something to it, but I sometimes see this jitter in some of the HD on BD and HD DVD already though most are just fine.

The other problem is that folks think that bandwidth increase wil be able to meet the demand of downloading becoming mainstream..... in time. It just won't. there are whole threads and articles outlining the problems.... do a search. It is like saying that we are going to switch to trains instead of cars within 10 years. It would take an unprecedented effort. And building fast cost more last time I checked.

To me, and others, BD is our last best hope for us AV PQ enthusiasts. I too wish HD DVD had won out, but I am not going to starve myself because Pizza Hut went out of Business and we are all stuck with Dominos. Dominos is still better than the Acme brand at the store.

Beta lasted 15 years, VHS lasted 25 years, LD lasted 20 years, DVD is now 11 and is on the downtrend being replaced by Blu-ray faster than people believe. These facts need to be kept in mind.

Blu-ray will likely be the last hard, collectable distribution medium, so for those who like collections, it will last. Collecting things is part of our genes, not to be completely replaced by bits strings on a hard drive.

I give Blu-ray a very long tail for longevity even if hard media decline.

It's fine as long as (in 5 yrs or whatever) there is a better format to replace it.

Beta lasted 15 years, VHS lasted 25 years, LD lasted 20 years, DVD is now 11 and is on the downtrend being replaced by Blu-ray faster than people believe. These facts need to be kept in mind.

Blu-ray will likely be the last hard, collectable distribution medium, so for those who like collections, it will last. Collecting things is part of our genes, not to be completely replaced by bits strings on a hard drive.

I give Blu-ray a very long tail for longevity even if hard media decline.

agreed. and just think how great the BDs will look when upscaled to 4K in 10 years.... much better than DVDs.

I do think this is the last physical media for some time. I think this holiday season is the beginning of the end for DVDs reign if there is going to be an end. There are no new must get video consoles for the family. Last year we saw a big jump in HD TV sales. If I didn't have a BD in my HTPC, I would probably pick up a $200 BD player for the family christmas present. I actually thought about dumping my HTPc and doing just that. Even my dad was asking me advice on which BD to get for christmas and he doesn't even really use his DVD player. He has an HDTV and everyone at the local senior citizen rec center tells him he needs to get one. I had a chuckle thinking of a bunch of older retiries discussing bluray.

There are already rumors we may see some holiday deals on BD players for under $200.

This Samsung guy was just talking crap. In five more years how many more BD players will be in the wild? BD has already gone way beyond the LD market. I remember when LD and CED were at a few stores in the midwest in my youth, but I never remember LD being at every major retailer.


How has BD possibly surpassed the LD market? I saw LDs at many rental outlets and in most stores that also sold CDs in my area for a very long time (15 years plus!). LD had over 45,000 releases while BD has maybe a couple of thousand (including many duplicate titles for different worldwide markets).

With that said, I feel that they are both niche products catering to the collector and will remain so. BDs lifespan will not exceed that of LD nor will they offer as many titles/releases.

Samsung announced blu-ray will be gone in 5 years, good riddance to that, a lot of "B" titles would never make it to blu ray anyway.

I think "announced" implies that Samsung is in a position to dictate when BD's time is up, which really isn't the case. And they have virtually ZERO control over the availability of content (unlike Sony). It's just his opinion, which is possibly colored by Samsung's less than dominant position among Blu-ray-supporting CE companies.

We should also keep in mind that Samsung is one of the (if not THE) biggest manufacturers of non-optical data storage products (flash memory, SSDs, HDDs, etc.) in the world, so they may have a larger stake in the success of downloadable media than any other BD company. After all, regardless of how the digital content is downloaded, it will have to be stored somewhere.

The bottom line is that they stand to make a lot more money from the success of downloadable content than they ever will from BD, so it's understandable that they wouldn't be leading the charge for Blu-ray, and might even be hoping that BD ends sooner rather than later.

blu and red owner here...

it's not out of the question that it won't make it much past 5 more years...

high def media/players have been out how long now? a bit over 2 years? and the pricing of media/players has remained relatively inelastic in that time period. now, that probably wouldn't be such a big deal, except that over those last 2 years, the penetration of high def tv sets has grown considerably. which means that there's the hardware out there for people to "appreciate" high def media. so the potential for "demand" is there.

and, realistically speaking (and i know "we at avs" don't fall in this group), there really ISN'T that great a difference between high def media and plain vanilla dvd... there simply isn't... the marginal improvement in pq isn't worth the price differential to the great majority of people... especially when you consider the "real world" ramifications of dropping the money on the player and then the media to play on it... the average joe ain't got the discretionary income he had a few years ago...

imo, the "future" is downloads and sd-dvd... i know that's not a popular opinion, but unless pricing comes down significantly and in a hurry, blu is just as doomed as red was... decent scaling tech is trickling down into consumer grade sets, which bodes well for sd-dvd as well...

the only way blu survives is if the players/media come down to a price point where they actually DO replace sd-dvd (i.e. equal pricing)... and it's gotta happen in a hurry...

one consumer's opinion (as disjointed as it may be), anyway...

How has BD possibly surpassed the LD market? I saw LDs at many rental outlets and in most stores that also sold CDs in my area for a very long time (15 years plus!). LD had over 45,000 releases while BD has maybe a couple of thousand (including many duplicate titles for different worldwide markets).

With that said, I feel that they are both niche products catering to the collector and will remain so. BDs lifespan will not exceed that of LD nor will they offer as many titles/releases.

But remember that some of those releases had a production of less than 1000. And it is a different market.

I personally don't consider LD a success anyway. I am not saying that it wasn't a great format. The truth is that it was years ahead of its time. But it was more of a status symbol than something made for the everyday consumer. Bluray is pushing this into the consumer level.

Bluray is more consumer friendly than laserdisc... as scary as that sounds. There was nothing consumber friendly about flying saucer size discs that you had to change or flip during a movie. And remember that for many years, these were analog and not the digital type of media that added the convenience factor.

And this is a different culture now. There is a much larger segment now that has a "home theater" now than was the case in the early 70s and late 80s.

----------

It is interesting to think that folks rave about how bad VHS looked. Truth is it looked pretty good. It really didn't start looking all that back until 27, 32 and 36 inch TVs with people sitting much closer than they do now becoming the norm.

Looking back, I sat back further from the 27" TV then than I do my 94" screen now.

It is all dependent on so many factors.

For 1080p video, we don't need another format. I think it would be a terrible move to introduce televisions with resolutions higher than 1080p. We are just beginning to adjust to that standard. Blu ray will be around longer than 5 years, definitely. I'd say even longer than 10, since I am never going to rely on downloads for my movies.

How has BD possibly surpassed the LD market? I saw LDs at many rental outlets and in most stores that also sold CDs in my area for a very long time (15 years plus!). LD had over 45,000 releases while BD has maybe a couple of thousand (including many duplicate titles for different worldwide markets).

With that said, I feel that they are both niche products catering to the collector and will remain so. BDs lifespan will not exceed that of LD nor will they offer as many titles/releases.

The availability of LDs in your area may have more to do with the "tech-savviness" of the Seattle population than it does the overall popularity of the format worldwide. As someone who collected LDs from 1984 - 1998 and went through 3 players, I can say that Blu-ray (after only two years on the market) is most definitely easier to find than LD ever was. The only nationwide video chain that I can remember stocking a decent selection of LDs is Tower Video. Most of my 300+ LDs came from small specialty shops or mail order. Was there ever a time when you could walk into a Target, Walmart, Costco or Sam's Club and buy an LD disc? Nope. Yet you can already find BDs in all of these retailers. Don't get me wrong, I loved LD (and still have them to this day), but a lot more people have at least heard of Blu-ray today than were ever aware of LD even at the end of its life. The rental situation was even tougher.

Samsung announced blu-ray will be gone in 5 years, good riddance to that, a lot of "B" titles would never make it to blu ray anyway. I heard that they would stop making SD DVD in 2010 but, maybe not since there are movies that are on DVD that I never even thought made it to dvd or would make it there until recently like, Air rage and the original 3 cuts of blade runner, I cant wait for a real american DVD of raise the titanic (not the lions gate fullscreen DVD it doesent count ) but like the reigon 2 only special edition, thats a guilty pleasure movie of mine. :D

I hate to be the one to do it, but where is that Samsung press release? A link would be fine.

I heard that blu-ray player prices need to come down and discs are way to expensive for most people so blu-ray is already on it's way out.

And when they start cutting prices tooling up for Xmas the next thread will be "Blu-ray panicked had to drop prices, Blu-ray is over". You read it here first.

A lot of things are hard to predict. But one thing is for certain: the Samsung guy is receiving 12 lashes as we speak, driven by all the other BD companies complaining to his boss! :)

For 1080p video, we don't need another format. I think it would be a terrible move to introduce televisions with resolutions higher than 1080p. We are just beginning to adjust to that standard. Blu ray will be around longer than 5 years, definitely. I'd say even longer than 10, since I am never going to rely on downloads for my movies.

why do we need to go higher than 1080p? that is already beyond what any movie looks like at theaters and 1080I was pushing it, plus blu ray itself is not an innovative format just a disc with a higher capacity and thats it, now if they put movies on SD cards or chips or maybe even a card or cartride with NO moving parts at all then that would be an Innovation, not to mention complex Blu ray-DVD servo drives would be eliminated.

Blu ray is easily a twenty year format. Nothing on the horizon is even close to replacing it.

Blu ray is easily a twenty year format. Nothing on the horizon is even close to replacing it.

Totally agree. I predict that Blu-ray will be around longer than DVD. It probably won't ever dominate the market to the degree DVD has due to alternative options (downloads primarily), but I can see it lasting for 20 years easy.

not so fast.... with developments coming like this, and coming SOON, I wouldn't be so confident....

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063082

Blu-Ray won't be the last physical format. Likely something based on flash memory will replace it. PPV and VOD from multichannel providers combined with kiosks will do major damage to the B&M rental market. Netflix will continue to thrive. Downloads won't make it to the big time due to ISP's throttling.

I do think Blu-Ray has 5-10 years left. 20 years? No...

I do think Blu-Ray has 5-10 years left. 20 years? No...

Describe to me another 1080 format that will come along which is cheaper and produces a better picture than BD. At most you'll see BD 3.0 which has the deep color version of the movie on layers 3&4 and the normal version of the movie on layers 1&2. I think the next format will arrive about five years after the first 4k or 8k televisions come around.

Describe to me another 1080 format that will come along which is cheaper and produces a better picture than BD. At most you'll see BD 3.0 which has the deep color version of the movie on layers 3&4 and the normal version of the movie on layers 1&2. I think the next format will arrive about five years after the first 4k or 8k televisions come around.

MP3 isn't better than CD, Vinyl, SACD or DVD-A. It's more convenient. HD PPV/VOD is more convenient. The only thing that keeps it at bay is the 1-2 month release window (except Warner) between when the Blu-Ray/DVD is released. Make PPV/VOD day and date and both optical format sales will tank.

BD 3.0 is audio only (to replace SACD?) I believe. Deep color would be nice, but AFAIK it's not on the horizon. Maybe they will introduce a spec for deep color with 1440p displays.

why do we need to go higher than 1080p? that is already beyond what any movie looks like at theaters and 1080I was pushing it, plus blu ray itself is not an innovative format just a disc with a higher capacity and thats it, now if they put movies on SD cards or chips or maybe even a card or cartride with NO moving parts at all then that would be an Innovation, not to mention complex Blu ray-DVD servo drives would be eliminated.

When you have a projector setup, 1080p is not as perfect as it sounds. Neither is HDM.

MP3 isn't better than CD, Vinyl, SACD or DVD-A. It's more convenient. HD PPV/VOD is more convenient. The only thing that keeps it at bay is the 1-2 month release window (except Warner) between when the Blu-Ray/DVD is released. Make PPV/VOD day and date and both optical format sales will tank.

BD 3.0 is audio only (to replace SACD?) I believe. Deep color would be nice, but AFAIK it's not on the horizon. Maybe they will introduce a spec for deep color with 1440p displays.

The other thing that would tank would be studio profits. Think they would really gross hundreds of millions of dollars?

How has BD possibly surpassed the LD market? I saw LDs at many rental outlets and in most stores that also sold CDs in my area for a very long time (15 years plus!). LD had over 45,000 releases while BD has maybe a couple of thousand (including many duplicate titles for different worldwide markets).

With that said, I feel that they are both niche products catering to the collector and will remain so. BDs lifespan will not exceed that of LD nor will they offer as many titles/releases.

Look I own a LD player and I remember having to get many titles through mail order even when LD was at its height of popularity.

It took many years for LD to amass a huge and rather ecleltic catalog. DVD did not have a huge catalog overnight either. Give BD time and it will get there. You can't blame studios for releasing titles that are guranteed to sell titles.

not so fast.... with developments coming like this, and coming SOON, I wouldn't be so confident....

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063082


Blu-ray already has enough of a market presence that any competitor will have an even tougher time than HD DVD.

Most hard core AV enthusiasts are already on the Blu bus. Its the same group that built DVD up for the masses. Not saying that BD will have the same success as DVD, but it will be much larger than the LD niche market.

When you have a projector setup, 1080p is not as perfect as it sounds. Neither is HDM.

BUT when you see a true HD source like BD compared against its DVD counterpart, it is like someone removed the scales from your eyes. After viewing BDs almost exclusively for the last year, I can no longer comfortably watch DVDs blown up to near 100 inches.

not so fast.... with developments coming like this, and coming SOON, I wouldn't be so confident....

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1063082
That link says it's "Beyond HD". It says it's 3x Blu-ray's bitrate but it's still only up to 1080p. The article says "Current HD just does not scale to large screen projection and when I saw the quality of this solution it gave me goose bumps" - yet it's still 1080p isn't it? I'm still not sure what it is - is it downloads or a physical media format or is it a broadcast thing? Apart from the increased bitrate and more colours it doesn't appear to be much different than Blu-ray.

Do you think the Samsung person knows something we don't?

Blu Ray will be around minimally 5 years and likely far longer.... Nostradamus has spoken!:D

Sounds like another anti-Blu Ray thread.

* Consider the source, Samsung... They still can't even figure out how to make a BLu Ray player that works!

That link says it's "Beyond HD". It says it's 3x Blu-ray's bitrate but it's still only up to 1080p. The article says "Current HD just does not scale to large screen projection and when I saw the quality of this solution it gave me goose bumps" - yet it's still 1080p isn't it? I'm still not sure what it is - is it downloads or a physical media format or is it a broadcast thing? Apart from the increased bitrate and more colours it doesn't appear to be much different than Blu-ray.

Do you think the Samsung person knows something we don't?

Wait and see, is my advice, companys always tries to hype up their product. But it not just about quality they have to conquer, its the convience factor.

BD is good enough, so I wonder what they have that can beat it. 4:4:4??? 12bits???

A lot of things are hard to predict. But one thing is for certain: the Samsung guy is receiving 12 lashes as we speak, driven by all the other BD companies complaining to his boss! :)

And I thought the streetgang world was tough... ;)

This is the most entertaining thread since the end of the format war.:)

That link says it's "Beyond HD". It says it's 3x Blu-ray's bitrate but it's still only up to 1080p. The article says "Current HD just does not scale to large screen projection and when I saw the quality of this solution it gave me goose bumps" - yet it's still 1080p isn't it? I'm still not sure what it is - is it downloads or a physical media format or is it a broadcast thing? Apart from the increased bitrate and more colours it doesn't appear to be much different than Blu-ray.
Seems like a rather expensive High End solution.

Do you think the Samsung person knows something we don't?
Like he said:

We should also keep in mind that Samsung is one of the (if not THE) biggest manufacturers of non-optical data storage products (flash memory, SSDs, HDDs, etc.) in the world, so they may have a larger stake in the success of downloadable media than any other BD company. After all, regardless of how the digital content is downloaded, it will have to be stored somewhere.
Add in Toshiba and their partner SanDisk which they are building flash memory factory together with.
If they together want to make a flash based movie content standard, why keep optical disk?

The photo world is totally flashbased.
The video world is moving there.
The digital 4K movie camera Red uses flash. (the consumer digital 3K Scarlet comes next year with flash.)
The DSLR Nikon D90 records 720p video on flash, more DSLR will have HD video in the future (including RED fullframe DSLR, 2010.)
Flash SSD will be as much standard in PC’s in 5 years as hard disks are now.
Why should the world keep spinning optical disks just to see a movie outside of a PC when everything else visual is stored on flash?



And to everybody that says BD is big already (including the Samsung director), is BD really as big as the propaganda try to tell us?

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/7747/top20wb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

why do we need to go higher than 1080p? that is already beyond what any movie looks like at theaters and 1080I was pushing it, plus blu ray itself is not an innovative format just a disc with a higher capacity and thats it, now if they put movies on SD cards or chips or maybe even a card or cartride with NO moving parts at all then that would be an Innovation, not to mention complex Blu ray-DVD servo drives would be eliminated.

I don't think 1080p is surpassing film "resolution":

Film doesn't have pixels, but the industry-standard 35-millimeter stock has a visual resolution roughly equivalent to 4K.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-09/ff_redcamera

So if 35mm is to remain the standard for shooting films there's definitely benefit over 1080p.

Then again there's already UHD with 8K resolutions under development...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video

It's fine as long as (in 5 yrs or whatever) there is a better format to replace it.

Agree, but even IF there is a replacement designed in 5 years, how long was the development cycle for BD...5 years? So if in 5 years there is something better how long to real product hits the shelves. Also consider whats happening in the HDTV market with Toshiba announcing higher def HDTV sets and Sony/Samsung anouncing much faster / greater bandwidth sets.

In 5 years we will have upscaling BD players and we will need every bit of BW and compression we can get to deliver the quality the new HDTV's will deserve.

I don't think 1080p is surpassing film "resolution":


I think he said it had more resolution then the theater, not the orginal negative. And thats true since an avarage theater had about 450-750 lines on avarage.

If you spend to much time worrying about the future, you miss they joy of watching titles today.

Bingo, the future may hold better, but BD is the best hi-def today.

IMO Blu-Ray was the wrong technology at the wrong time. First, SD DVD is the 800 lb gorilla of media formats and will be for a long time. 99% of consumers are 100% satisfied with DVD quality on their HDTV, and as DVD prices continue to drop they are loathe to put out a lot of money for something marginally better. Any efforts to improve PQ should have focused on doing so within the framework of the existing DVD format, and that was doable from the get-go. It was Toshiba and Sony et al who saw a chance to lock in future royalties with a "new" format that set us all down the blue laser path despite evidence that the red laser was perfectly capable of doing the job as well or even better, and certainly much cheaper.

Walmart only gives shelf space to products that sell and provide them a profit, and I doubt seriously if BD is doing that for them. While I think they will show BD more patience than usual, they will only stick with it so long before they give up and pull the plug. And when they do the entire BD industry will crumble like a house of cards.

Read the original article. Samsung spokesman was talking about a 5 year opportunity before their CE division have to rely on OLED TVs to pay their bills. If the whole interview was read in entirety, you'd realize he meant that Samsung CE only has a 5 year opportunity to make money in BD players before they have to rely on OLED.

Presumably he was referring to the DVD player timeline where after 7 yrs of existence, the generic $50 walmart players take over and the tier 1 players generally disappear from the DVD player landscape.

why do we need to go higher than 1080p? that is already beyond what any movie looks like at theaters and 1080I was pushing it, plus blu ray itself is not an innovative format just a disc with a higher capacity and thats it, now if they put movies on SD cards or chips or maybe even a card or cartride with NO moving parts at all then that would be an Innovation, not to mention complex Blu ray-DVD servo drives would be eliminated.

There are many threads here about the real resolution of film that far exceed 1080p and most are scanned @ 4k. As far as 1080p being good enough, consider this August 28th article: “Beyond 1080p: Toshiba talks up higher definition. Says it's ready to serve up 4K and 8K TVs. Read the full press release here… beyond-1080p-toshiba-talks-up-higher-definition (http://www.techradar.com/news/television/hdtv/beyond-1080p-toshiba-talks-up-higher-definition-460015)

While "chip" movies are desirable as it would serve the needs of the collector if available in ROM, the chips will need to have much larger capacity and be much cheaper (a couple of dollars) to hold a movie, multiple languages, multiple sound formats, and extras. Especially in light to the Toshiba article referenced above where the resolutions are growing in the coming years to greater than 1080p. I think we may have to wait a while for out wall sized TV’s and ultra fat solid state media to drive it and while we wait, I’ll be enjoying BD.

BUT when you see a true HD source like BD compared against its DVD counterpart, it is like someone removed the scales from your eyes.
And that's exactly what the average person who does not own blu-ray sees when they observe a blu-ray demo/movie running at the CE stores.
They watch in awe of the picture clarity and most likely notice right away that blu-ray PQ is a major difference/improvement over SD DVD.
The only thing that's stopping them from jumping into to blu-ray is the price(if they own an HDTV).
If they own an HDTV, they'd most likely watched HD sports & news and can make comparisons between their SD DVD sittings and OTA/cable HD.

If they took the time to watch VOD HD movies, they will notice artifacts(macroblocking) right away especially on dark scenes & other short comings of VOD HD PQ.

IMO Blu-Ray was the wrong technology at the wrong time. First, SD DVD is the 800 lb gorilla of media formats and will be for a long time. 99% of consumers are 100% satisfied with DVD quality on their HDTV, and as DVD prices continue to drop they are loathe to put out a lot of money for something marginally better. Any efforts to improve PQ should have focused on doing so within the framework of the existing DVD format, and that was doable from the get-go. It was Toshiba and Sony et al who saw a chance to lock in future royalties with a "new" format that set us all down the blue laser path despite evidence that the red laser was perfectly capable of doing the job as well or even better, and certainly much cheaper.

Walmart only gives shelf space to products that sell and provide them a profit, and I doubt seriously if BD is doing that for them. While I think they will show BD more patience than usual, they will only stick with it so long before they give up and pull the plug. And when they do the entire BD industry will crumble like a house of cards.

Why do you say only marginally better? Anyone with a display more than 4 millimeters can clearly see blu-ray offers a monster improvement over dvd. I am so sick and tired of reading this. Maybe to SOME the difference is marginal but that doesn't mean that is fact...it just means they are crazy and their standards of difference are low. Note that many will say a Lexus LS460 is marginally better than say a Camry but clearly that is the issue with the person and is not reality.

I can only guess the people who say that junk have itty bitty 50" or less TVs. Once you go up to a projector sized screen you see how dvd is pretty much crap compared to blu-ray.

I for one am glad they didn't try and tweak dvd and gave us some mediocre hd lite quality.


As for the OP, I doubt it is only around for 5 more years but hey, I am sure many who think that think downloads are around the corner (which I continue to chuckle at every time I read that) and ignore the clear reality that download caps are being implemented by most ISPs which makes the download theory totally illogical.

Why do you say only marginally better? Anyone with a display more than 4 millimeters can clearly see blu-ray offers a monster improvement over dvd. I am so sick and tired of reading this. Maybe to SOME the difference is marginal but that doesn't mean that is fact...it just means they are crazy and their standards of difference are low. Note that many will say a Lexus LS460 is marginally better than say a Camry but clearly that is the issue with the person and is not reality.

I can only guess the people who say that junk have itty bitty 50" or less TVs. Once you go up to a projector sized screen you see how dvd is pretty much crap compared to blu-ray.

Well basicly, most consumer has 50" or less displays. So for them its marginally better.

IMO Blu-Ray was the wrong technology at the wrong time. First, SD DVD is the 800 lb gorilla of media formats and will be for a long time. 99% of consumers are 100% satisfied with DVD quality on their HDTV, and as DVD prices continue to drop they are loathe to put out a lot of money for something marginally better. Any efforts to improve PQ should have focused on doing so within the framework of the existing DVD format, and that was doable from the get-go.
Yes, we know(hear the drum beats) that SD DVD is good enough for some people and a good upconvert will satisfy those who are wishing for the death of blu-ray quickly to be replaced by something from their preferred CE manufacturer.

Still not sure where you are pulling this 99% number from in respect to HDTV owners and DVD's. :confused:

SSD has a long way to go...
"SAMSUNG MCCOE64G5MPP-0VA00 2.5" 64GB SATA II Internal Solid state disk (SSD) - OEM $790.00"

$790.00 for 64GB! - That’s a lot more than I paid for my BD player.

Yes, SSD prices will fall and if Hard Drive tech had reached the end of the road then SSD might make some inroads. As long as the price per bit is 10x the cost of spinning media it has a long way to go.

BUT when you see a true HD source like BD compared against its DVD counterpart, it is like someone removed the scales from your eyes. After viewing BDs almost exclusively for the last year, I can no longer comfortably watch DVDs blown up to near 100 inches.

As an owner of of BD, HD DVD and DVD at 94"...... you need a better upscaler.

HDM is by far much more detail. There is no question from my own experience. But DVD is still very watchable.

If you compare a DVD to HDM, it does blow it away. I could never watch the Last Starfighter on DVD again. But this is because I have seen the difference. If you have only seen the DVD version of that title, you wouldn't see as much of a difference. It is all relative.

I still watch most of my TV shows on DVD. Some shows like Lost or BattleStar Galactica on DVD are such good transfers and upscaled by my HD805 so well, that it looks pretty HD to me compared to some of the HDM films that I see. Not compared directly to the same title in HD, but other films in HD.

For instance, I think Battlestar galactica SD DVD upscaled with my Reon chip looks better than Caddyshack HD.

On the other hand, My Hercules the legendary journeys on DVD almost looks like VHS quality at times in comparison .... same with Star Trek the Next Generation.

As has been said in the past....... it all depends more on the transfer and the source than the resolution. the original BD release of the 5th element exemplifies this.

I agree as well that blu-ray will be around for a very very long time. higher than 1080p there is diminishing returns. dont forget that there have been upwards of 500gb+ blu-ray disc prototypes. the format is apparently extremely flexible

edit: and regarding digital downloads. ain't gonna happen. i have a cap of 25gb per month in a huge metropolitan area with high speed cable. never gonna happen.

I guess most have already been said about this matter. There are only three replacements for BD nowadays: Downloads, Flash and a new optical format.

The first will not happen anytime soon because video download is the ONLY application that is driving consumer needs for more bandwidth. Whatever you save on the disc cost, you will be paying up monthly on your internet access bill. And that drive is not that strong, and the technology to enable more bandwidth is not scaling that fast. A top speed interface of a router today costs way more than a top speed interface of a router 10 years ago. As the backbones become faster, increasing the speed becomes more and more costly. You need to have an increasing source of income to finance this growth, and we don't have enough residential killer apps to do that yet.

The second requires customer hardware to make the purchase. That is not practical, and is a business model that has never been tested before. No one I know goes to a store to buy MP3 music with a memory card or even an Ipod. Everybody that uses solid storage and personal players fill them up at home, so either they bought the cd and ripped it, or they bought the content online and downloaded it. Buying the memory chips of the shelf with the films already in it are cost and production impossibilities. The solid chips cost so much more than any feasible optical media, and the time it takes to copy the content to one of them, compared to how long it takes to make one disc, is risible.

That leaves us with another optical format. This is the more likely competitor, but it would need to offer much more capacity than what BD already have(at least 10x), and also much higher reading speed. And on top of that, you would need content with lots more of resolution, displays capable of such resolution, and possibly still being totally useless. Because as you increase resolution, you have to increase screen size/ distance of the audience ratio to make it a visible improvement, but then you cannot increase screen size beyond normal room limitations AND you cannot get over a certain FOV that will cause discomfort to the audience. I believe 100 inch screens will be the top limit at home theaters, and in that case, no much more than double of the current 1080 lines will be useful. But then, double that resolution would be served well enough by a 4 layer BD... Which might even be readable by current generation BDs with a firmware upgrades...

BD will not be the last hard media format, but it will last a loooong time. DVD will die much sooner because you can get similar quality with much smaller files, so downloading actually predates DVDs much easier than BDs...

Allan

ps. Anyone saying DVD with upscaling gets close enough to HD need to visit their optometrists...

edit: and regarding digital downloads. ain't gonna happen. i have a cap of 25gb per month in a huge metropolitan area with high speed cable. never gonna happen.

Luckily, not the entire world has cap of 25GB.

Luckily, not the entire world has cap of 25GB.

Wait a bit, it's comming sooner than you think.

Comcast just imposed a 250gb limit, ISPs are not going to just sit around and have their useage go up while they still charge the same price for their service.

Everyone just assumes downloads are the future, but ask Comcast, or Time Warner or AT&T what they think about providing all of that bandwidth.

250GB/month?

That is 5 BD disc a month assuming the BD movies uses ALL 50 GB.

Sorry. Even doing my hayday of online games for 8+ hour at a time. I never went above 40 GB bandwidth useage.

250GB, you can go over it once or twice but every single month? You are doing something you are not supposed to be doing. No if's,. and's or doubt's about it.

Anyone wants unlimited. Flip the Coin for a T-1 or T-3. Done deal.

Well basicly, most consumer has 50" or less displays. So for them its marginally better.
most consumers in u.s. still have 27" crt sd tv sets. with $30 dvd players and they are happy with those.

blu ray-"what's that?" they say.

i have blu ray, hd dvd, and of course, dvd.
dvd looks almost as good as both hdms on my calibrated hd pj and 108" screen setup.
when one has good players and calibrated display they all can look great!

if all i had was dvd, it wouldnt bother me a bit, cuz it looks so good. and that's on a 108" screen.

ps. Anyone saying DVD with upscaling gets close enough to HD need to visit their optometrists...

Actually, I have 20/20 vision and can honestly say SD-DVD's look as good on my 42" tv as the same Blu disc on my 104" projector.

Problem is most people don't have pj's.

But seeing as how the average size TV is increasing each year, we are headed in the right direction.

If people knew for a fact that it would end 5 years down the road, would they still be buying these? Bet the answer is yes for most.

This topic for discussion leads to pure speculation. My crystal ball is not functioning.

My crystal ball is not functioning.

Crystal ball? Wow you are high tech!

All i have is my lowely, ancient Magic 8 Ball. =(

Actually, I have 20/20 vision and can honestly say SD-DVD's look as good on my 42" tv as the same Blu disc on my 104" projector.

Problem is most people don't have pj's.

But seeing as how the average size TV is increasing each year, we are headed in the right direction.


Since I use an HTPC for my DVD playback I can resize my DVD playing window. I have a 60 inch screen that I watch from around 9 ft away. A DVD at around 40-42 inches diagonal from 9 ft has the same visual experience as a Blu Ray or Apple TV HD at 60 inches from the same distance.

For many people, I could easily go to 50 inches and it would still look HD to them. So the possibility that Blu Ray will replace DVD really depends on how many people watch a 50 inch screen from closer than 9 ft.

Of course factors such as price, content, convenience and availability are also key factors.

Samsung is a major backer of Blu Ray on the consumer electronics side, but also a big backer of Solid State drifves (which could be seen as competitive with Blu Ray as a storage device). I believe they see online content as a big factor for driving large capacity solid state drives. Pioneer is on the other boat, where they too are positioning Blu Ray disks as a large capacity storage platform.

So anything that Samsung says have to be seen in that light. DVD is already pretty much dead as a high capacity storage platform.

Also, Samsung does not own Blu Ray IP in replication and encoding like Sony and Panasonic. They also don't own a studio. So their skin in the game is different.

I can't imagine any network based movie format delivering the quality of content that Blu Ray can. I can see network content exceeding DVD - Apple Tv HD already does that. In my opinion when someone is saying they 'believe' Blu Ray won't be around after 5 years or so, is really saying they 'wish' Blu Ray.....

.

* Consider the source, Samsung... They still can't even figure out how to make a BLu Ray player that works!


Well blu ray is a new format, so the players will be buggy, I wouldnt be too hard on samsung for that, blu ray lasers are expensive to make and the technology has only been around for three years. :cool:

Maybe samsung is trying to make blu ray players cheaper

edit: and regarding digital downloads. ain't gonna happen. i have a cap of 25gb per month in a huge metropolitan area with high speed cable. never gonna happen.


You mean after you reach 25Gb, your internet will stop working! What sort of a metropolitan area is this?

Comcast limit is at 250GB. An Apple TV HD file is under 4GB. You could rent 30 movies and still have a lot of left over! I am betting as encoding software gets better, the required space will be even lower.

Comcast just imposed a 250gb limit, ISPs are not going to just sit around and have their useage go up while they still charge the same price for their service.

Everyone just assumes downloads are the future, but ask Comcast, or Time Warner or AT&T what they think about providing all of that bandwidth.

true, but if you use comcast VOD or PPV or anything comcast, it wont count against your 250gb cap. genius business plan to eliminate competition.

Blu-Ray is the last format I will be supporting for a LONG time, and quite possibly ever. HDTVs, let alone Blu-Ray players will take several more years before cracking the mainstream market. Now they are already talking about replacing Blu-Ray because OLED can display higher resolution?

Personally I don't think this exec is right (although it would still be nice to hear Samsung issue some sort of retraction) If analyists are to be believed, HDTVS and Blu-ray arent going to make a signifcant dent in the market until 2012. If it takes them that long to adopt basic HDTVs, how long will it take for OLED to catch on? How long before the theoretical next-gen players that take advantage of OLED catch on? Just in time for the hologram TVs and players to make the market?

If I (and many people here) aren't willing to jump the Blu-Ray ship for a decade or more, what makes this guy think average consumers will? I have no intention of buying the same movie titles a fourth or fifth time on various formats, Blu-Rays mark my final purchases, and lots of people won't even go that far. Blu-Ray catalog titles are selling very poorly as it is, even BR supporters by and large are satisfied enough with their already purchased SD editions to not rebuy them for 30 bucks a pop. But if this exec (or Samsung in general) thinks people want to buy Evil Dead 2 or Commando AGAIN in OLED glory,and in such a short amount of time, then I say go for it. Lose lots of cash and feel the backlash, bloodsuckers.

And I thought the streetgang world was tough... ;)


Ask some MSFT employees how many lashes they received for buying PS3's? I think they are just recovering now.

Seems like a rather expensive High End solution.


Like he said:

Add in Toshiba and their partner SanDisk which they are building flash memory factory together with.
If they together want to make a flash based movie content standard, why keep optical disk?

The photo world is totally flashbased.
The video world is moving there.
The digital 4K movie camera Red uses flash. (the consumer digital 3K Scarlet comes next year with flash.)
The DSLR Nikon D90 records 720p video on flash, more DSLR will have HD video in the future (including RED fullframe DSLR, 2010.)
Flash SSD will be as much standard in PC’s in 5 years as hard disks are now.
Why should the world keep spinning optical disks just to see a movie outside of a PC when everything else visual is stored on flash?



And to everybody that says BD is big already (including the Samsung director), is BD really as big as the propaganda try to tell us?

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/7747/top20wb9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

For pre-recorded media, optical media is still far cheaper to produce.

There is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be developed for flash media to take over the pre-recorded media market. Ask Nintendo why they decided to abandon the cartridge based console. They could not keep up with demand whereas the other game makers just had to press CDs to meet market demands for high demand titles. Some day? Maybe, but again there is a lot of cost in developing the infrastructure and probably just as much concern with piracy surrounding flash based media.

Many optical disc manufacturer's are expanding their BD lines. If they thought it was not growing then they would not bother.

Again this thread is just turning into another typical AVS BD bashing thread.

I agree as well that blu-ray will be around for a very very long time. higher than 1080p there is diminishing returns. dont forget that there have been upwards of 500gb+ blu-ray disc prototypes. the format is apparently extremely flexible

edit: and regarding digital downloads. ain't gonna happen. i have a cap of 25gb per month in a huge metropolitan area with high speed cable. never gonna happen.

"never gonna happen"...

don't kid yourself... it wasn't very long ago (less than 10 years), when it was common knowledge that fiber to house was "never gonna happen" because no one would make the investment to do the drops... the "last mile" problem was considered to be intractable...

there's many examples of "never gonna happen" that actually have happened... people make the mistake of looking at technology as it relates to them today, vs. how it will be in the future... i.e. "i have a 25gb cap today"...

I have a 60 inch screen that I watch from around 9 ft away. A DVD at around 40-42 inches diagonal from 9 ft has the same visual experience as a Blu Ray or Apple TV HD at 60 inches from the same distance.

A well mastered DVD may be able to that, but there are plenty of average and below average discs that can't match BD quality unless you are viewing them from much larger than average viewing distances versus screen size.

With Comcast, I can easily tell the difference between their highly compressed SD channel and its HD counterpart ON A 32" SD set from 9 feet away.

You mean after you reach 25Gb, your internet will stop working! What sort of a metropolitan area is this?

Comcast limit is at 250GB. An Apple TV HD file is under 4GB. You could rent 30 movies and still have a lot of left over! I am betting as encoding software gets better, the required space will be even lower.


Compression techniques can't mature much more and every technique still requires a minimum amount of data. Like every other media before it, the main thing that suffers when too much compression is applied is quality.

The life expectancy of Blu-Ray is a simple concept. It will last as long as the Studios take to resell all their titles on Blu-Ray. Then they'll switch to something new so they can resell the same titles again.

The driving force is not technology, media, TV size, or anything else, it's the revenue stream of the studios.

You mean after you reach 25Gb, your internet will stop working! What sort of a metropolitan area is this?

Comcast limit is at 250GB. An Apple TV HD file is under 4GB. You could rent 30 movies and still have a lot of left over! I am betting as encoding software gets better, the required space will be even lower.

Apple HD file under 4gb. that sure screems of quality. Last I checked Apple is using its own proprietary version of AVC.... similar to Nero's.

A 4GB AVC (an FYI AVC=H.264) in "HD" versus a 19gb HDAVC HDM HD main feature (not the whole disc). Even if you took the HDM and reduced it down to 720p, you will still end up with about 8-9gb which is double what you are claiming that apple is downloading.

Has anyone ever used DVD shrink and set the output to 50%? What do you end up. If you encode it for smoothness and remove reference frames, you end up with a blurry washed out video. If you keep the reference frames and remove motion frames, you keep detail, but you lose enough smoothness to make it almost unwatchable.

Given the choice between a 4gb "HD" 720p AVC and a 4gb SD 480p AVC.... I think the 480p might look better in many of the scenes...... especially action flicks. I would still prefer even 720p HDM to both.

Call me an HDM snob, but I have gotten to the point, where I won't even watch HD on demand movies on Comcast anymore unless it is a blind watch that I just truly don't care about. Even HD sports doesn't seem as good anymore.

I have used Netflix's "near DVD quality" films and shows. when compared to the DVD version of the same movie... there is no comparison.

Here is a comparison

Apple TV Take 2 review (part 2): HD Movie comparisons (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/02/14/apple_tv_take_2_review_part_2_hd_movie_comparisons.html)

Outside of the download market, Apple TV's movie rental business faces competition from optical disc formats, both the entrenched DVD and the aspiring Blu-Ray and the remains of HD-DVD. All three formats have a luxury of bandwidth that Apple TV--and every other download service--lacks. Even the decade-old DVD delivers a 9.8 Mb/sec data signal; many US households only have a 1.5 Mb/sec connection to the Internet, and the fastest service usually peaks out around 6 Mb/sec.

Despite that advantage, Apple TV can compete well against DVD because that format uses the older MPEG-2 compression. Movies from iTunes use MPEG-4 H.264, which is roughly twice as efficient. That means iTunes can push near DVD-quality video in real time to users with a fast Internet connection, and with a streaming delay, can even deliver HD quality video that bests DVD.

The Blu-Ray format can pump out 36 to over 200 Mb/sec of data, which simply can't be matched by downloads. While the first wave of Blu-Ray discs used MPEG-2, newer titles are beginning to use the same efficient compression that download files use. This enables Blu-Ray to deliver 1080p video and specialty HD audio tracks using much less compression and subsequently more picture clarity and audio fidelity.


Everything has its place, and downloads are inevitable, but don't be fulled into the idea that downloads will surpass DVDs within the next 10-15 years. I don't even think BD will do that anymore.

The other thing that people keep overlooking is the cost build these networks. The world is in an energy crysis that makes everything cost more. It will get increasingly more expensive to keep building new infrastructure. We have been spoiled in a world where the days ahead are better than the days behind. This has not always been the case. There is no guarantee that it will, and it looks less likely as more events come to pass.

After the depression, people went back to owning everything rather leveraging themselves. Atleast they could keep what they owned. I am in a retail business, and I have begun to see that trend start to happen again. If you stop paying your subscription or can't afford it anymore, you will lose out on it. Atleast with DVD and Bluray, you still can watch your movies.

And don't give me the "then you won't have the money to watch them anyway". Plenty of good lower income folks buy DVDs. You need something to make life a little better. I was in that situation after my divorce. I, like many, looked over my bills and cut what was unnecessary. could spring for a movie every now and then, but I could not commit to a monthly bill.... even though it was probably cheaper overall. Picking up a cheap used DVD from blockbuster every now and then helped to brighten a then dark world.

--------

I have seen people make the argument that folks like to own something tangible. It is not that they want to own something tangible for the thrill of ownership. It is that they want something without strings attached like you do with contracts or subscriptions. They don't want to have to make a long term commitment to that company.

Ownership = freedom in many peoples eyes.

The life expectancy of Blu-Ray is a simple concept. It will last as long as the Studios take to resell all their titles on Blu-Ray. Then they'll switch to something new so they can resell the same titles again.

The driving force is not technology, media, TV size, or anything else, it's the revenue stream of the studios.

Bingo.

I still see years of milking out Blu-ray. After that, they'll have to figure out something 'better' to re-sell you their titles; 1080p, lossless audio, and online "content" and features won't be enough. Should be interesting.

Bingo.

I still see years of milking out Blu-ray. After that, they'll have to figure out something 'better' to re-sell you their titles; 1080p, lossless audio, and online "content" and features won't be enough. Should be interesting.

True. I could agree with a ten year prime time phase, but the main reason some are moving beyond DVD is because DVD was designed as a SD media. SD products are yesterday's technology.

BD was designed around the HDTV standard. The HDTV standard is going to be with us for a long long time. There may be some refinements, but I don't look for any major changes to the ATSC standard for at least 30 to 40 years.

How much resolution does the average person need on a typical 42 to 50-in set? Even most of today's highend setups top out at 110 inches. I don't think the homes of tomorrow will be able to facilitate a screen much larger than that. To most people any set beyond 50-inches is an enormous screen.

BD might not be growing as fast as DVD, but again BD's adoption rate is directly proportional to the number of HDTV sets installed.

True. I could agree with a ten year prime time phase, but the main reason some are moving beyond DVD is because DVD was designed as a SD media. SD products are yesterday's technology.

BD was designed around the HDTV standard. The HDTV standard is going to be with us for a long long time. There may be some refinements, but I don't look for any major changes to the ATSC standard for at least 30 to 40 years.

How much resolution does the average person need on a typical 42 to 50-in set? Even most of today's highend setups top out at 110 inches. I don't think the homes of tomorrow will be able to facilitate a screen much larger than that. To most people any set beyond 50-inches is an enormous screen.

BD might not be growing as fast as DVD, but again BD's adoption rate is directly proportional to the number of HDTV sets installed.

Exactly. Because VHS was designed for pre-SD sets. :rolleyes: ...... oh wait...... :D:o

For all we know, it will be replaced with a portable, ipod like adapter that streams the infor wireless or something. Imagine the remote as your player? Buts it not going to be PC based downloads like many hope on here. It will be proprietary devices that will cost $2000 for the first year, will be filled with the latest DRM bugs and won't play half the movies available. :D

BD's adoption rate is directly proportional to the number of HDTV sets installed.

It just that Blu is a much, much smaller proportion. :D

I have a forumla...
If a movie is a kids movie, buy SD (no blu in the mini-van or kids room).
If the movie is a romantic comedy, buy SD.
If the movie is a gamble/impusle buy, buy the cheapest (SD).
If the movie is an action flick, buy Blu....
If the movie is not available in HD, buy SD.

Sure, lost of techies and early adoptors will buy blu whenever available, but that is not how the average consumer thinks.

Blu will be around in 5 years just like SACD and UMD are still around.

btw, I have a 110 inch 1080p screen and SD DVDs look pretty darn good.

BD might not be growing as fast as DVD, but again BD's adoption rate is directly proportional to the number of HDTV sets installed.

unfortunately, that assumption is not true...

BD will still be around in 5 years but it won't be nearly as popular as some people predict here. There are lots of factors and reasons why but the Number 1 reason is people are not hell bent on PQ as the folks here who visit AVS and that simple statement will never change no matter how long BD is able to stay around unfortunately.

Ask some MSFT employees how many lashes they received for buying PS3's?
Can't speak for everyone but I had two PS3s, and 4 BD players and no one raised their voices let alone complain. I think I wrote the first review of any BD player here on AVS (the Samsung). So the answer is none as far as I know.

At Microsoft, knowing your competitor is a key way you do business. As it should be. Remember the interchange in The Hunt for Red October?

Capt. Bart Mancuso: [Ramius comments in Russian to Borodin that Mancuso is a "buckaroo". Ryan laughs] What's so funny?
Jack Ryan: Ah, the Captain seems to think you're some kind of... cowboy.
Captain Ramius: [in Russian] You speak Russian.
Jack Ryan: [in Russian] A little. It is wise to study the ways of ones adversary. Don't you think?
Captain Ramius: [in English] It is.


I think they are just recovering now.
That is the kind of punishment most people would love to get subjected to. :D

To the VOD and DL limit stuff. There are 2 issues I see here:

1. The actual limit. Comcast is the second bunch of cowboys (to my knowledge) that are imposing a bandwidth usage limit. TW started a trail in TX somewhere.

The other thing some people seem to be forgetting is that it's 250Gb *for now*. The amount can well be lowered. Meaning your 5 or 10 BDs a month could suddenly become 0 or 1 a month, for the same fee of course.

2. Use our product instead. "But sir, for a mere arm and a leg a month, we could up your DL allowance. Or, for the same price, or maybe a few sheckles more, you could just pick up your Comcast remote and surf over to *our* VOD content."

And we have to remember that not all countries have such a generous allowance. I believe in Down Under (Aus) that their limit is in the MB per month and usually doesn't cover the amount of patches that MS put out on patch Tuesday!

Sure stinks to me.

Personally, I like my shiny round discs and will buy them for as long as I can find them.

Seggers

Downloads will take over when the ipod generation grows up. Quality will not matter to them just as with music mp3. Enjoy it while it lasts.

The comment does not surprise me from Samsung, Sony bullied CE manufacturers and content producer into their format. The statement that the Samsung guy made is just lets us know how happy the Blu-ray family is right now. This Christmas will either prove that Blu-ray was the best format or not. What I saw last Christmas at the stores was nice stacks of un-sold blu-ray players blocking the isle ways. With the economy going the way it is I do not see people plunking down the dough for a luxury like that. With all this talk of prices must come down, all I got to say was the other format was there until it was forced to throw in the towel.

Downloads will take over when the ipod generation grows up. Quality will not matter to them just as with music mp3. Enjoy it while it lasts.

frankly, that ignores all the advances made in compression technology... testing consistently proves that the great majority (if not all) people cannot reliably distinguish between a 256 encode and the original...

again, people seem to be stuck in "yesterday" and "today", and are ignoring the fact that technology marches forward...

it may be true that just about all the juice is squeezed out of the orange when it comes to making stuff much smaller, but it's far from true that available bandwidth isn't growing at a rapid rate...

like it or not, delivering content is going to be a big revenue stream, and it's not as far away as some might like to believe...

I predict BD will last 5 - 10 years and have lots of new and many old catalog releases...

this retread of threads past...i'll give it about 5 days before it implodes.

Downloads will take over when the ipod generation grows up. Quality will not matter to them just as with music mp3. Enjoy it while it lasts

Yes, everything will regress to lower quality:rolleyes:makes perfect sense.

Yes, everything will regress to lower quality:rolleyes:makes perfect sense.

And Pong will rule again. :D

thanks to all who got aggravated over my slightly tongue in cheek post.

actually im using rogers cable in toronto (unfortunately) and while the tier of internet i have has 25gb a month cap which is absurd i assure you, it doesnt get shut off if i pass it but supposedly you incur hefty fees (ive never passed it)

when i said "itll never happen" i meant in a practical sense. sure itll probably happen one day and we'll all get 1080p 15+ mbps 5.1 lossless downloads but i predict it wont be for a while. if im wrong then i shall eat my words gladly, what do i care.

There are lots of factors and reasons why but the Number 1 reason is people are not hell bent on PQ as the folks here who visit AVS and that simple statement will never change no matter how long BD is able to stay around unfortunately.


The no.1 reason I bought an HDTV and many others is because of improved PQ and widescreen. Then I get it home and the PQ looks like crap due to my SD cable signal. So I upgrade to HD cable and viola, it looks pretty good.

Then I see a blu-ray demo at Best Buy and am blown away by the PQ like 99% of the people who've walk by the demo(now at Wal-mart, Target, Frys, Circuit City, etc.) but the $1000 player price was out of my range. I then waited until the price came down to where I found it acceptable to buy a blu-ray player and jumped in.
I can only expect that those who own an HDTV and have seen blu-ray demo's are most likely waiting for the prices to drop in the range they find acceptable to make a purchase.
Life is too short to settle for average when the current available best PQ medium comes down within your price range. Also, they can still enjoy their SD DVD's too since blu-ray players are upconverters as well.
Player prices are already below $300 and are nearing $200 very soon.
Paying $120-200 for an average SD PQ upconvert player at this point is basically a waste of money.

Any body got a link to the dang story that started this thread.

And Pong will rule again. :D

LOL. :eek: :rolleyes:

Downloads will take over when the ipod generation grows up. Quality will not matter to them just as with music mp3. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I disagree. Ever hear the phrase seeing is beleiving. We are a visual society. Our primary sense is our site unless it is lost.

Sound has always been secondary to PQ. This is why so many more folks have a big TV with 2 speakers versus a surround sound system.

What is usually the first piece people upgrade with their setup.... the display. What do people brag about in their system? the display. It is all about the eye candy.

I think he is very wrong, 5 years will probably find blu ray in the middle of it's stride. The quality of the product is very high, and very convenient. 1080p tv's are really in the fairly early stages of development. When a truly great 40ish inch 1080p can be had for around 1200 dollars we will start seeing even people who had denounced the quality ponying up.

Any body got a link to the dang story that started this thread.
I have not found the original story yet. Here is one version, not sure whether this one started all the hype: http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/17399/18423/samsung-blu-ray-5-years-left.phtml

Anyway, the article doesn't sound that bad for Bluray as it seems:

"I think it [Blu-ray] has 5 years left, I certainly wouldn't give it 10", Andy Griffiths, director of consumer electronics at Samsung UK told Pocket-lint in an interview.

Hoping to capitalise before it's too late, Griffiths believes that 2008 is the format's year.

"It's going to be huge", he told Pocket-lint. "We are heavily back-ordered at the moment."

Citing online rental sites like LoveFilm's adoption of Blu-ray titles, the move to offer cheaper players and a now clear path to adoption following the Blu-ray HD DVD battle, Griffith says the format will be a winner, although not for long.

Thanks tteich.

unfortunately, that assumption is not true...

ccotenj,

I never said it was 1:1 proportional. I just said directly proportional meaning for every 50 HD sets sold maybe 10 BD players are sold. Granted the PS3 may skew numbers some because it is also sold to people who hook it up to SD sets.

I have a forumla...
If a movie is a kids movie, buy SD (no blu in the mini-van or kids room).
If the movie is a romantic comedy, buy SD.
If the movie is a gamble/impusle buy, buy the cheapest (SD).
If the movie is an action flick, buy Blu....
If the movie is not available in HD, buy SD.



Talk about stacking the deck in your favor. Those may be your principles, but not everyone thinks the same way.

If a movie is a kids movie, buy HD (really don't want my kids watching TV everywhere they go).
If the movie is a romantic comedy, buy HD. (usually nice looking eye candy actresses)
If the movie is a gamble/impusle buy, RENT FIRST (BD).
If the movie is an action flick, buy Blu.... (we actually agree here)
If the movie is not available in HD, I guess they don't want my business.

A well mastered DVD may be able to that, but there are plenty of average and below average discs that can't match BD quality unless you are viewing them from much larger than average viewing distances versus screen size.

With Comcast, I can easily tell the difference between their highly compressed SD channel and its HD counterpart ON A 32" SD set from 9 feet away.

A 4GB Apple TV HD movie is so good, that neither my wife nor me can justify going out and buying a Blu Ray disk or DVD unless we want to watch the movie multiple times. If you haven't tried it, give it a shot. It really is impressive, even if you don't factor in the less than 4GB for each movie.

Could I tell the difference if I had a Blu Ray doing an A-B. Most likely. But from 9ft away on a 60 inch screen, the visual experience is pretty much the same for me. I have never seen a movie that looked great on Blu Ray, but a notch lower on Apple TV HD. They are in the same class.

Some catalog titles that are available on Apple TV but not on Blu Ray look similar to their DVD counterpart (but better). However, since Blu Rays don't exist yet, the comparison is moot.

This shows at a minimum that compression algorithms are getting better all the time.

Talk about stacking the deck in your favor. Those may be your principles, but not everyone thinks the same way.

If a movie is a kids movie, buy HD (really don't want my kids watching TV everywhere they go).
If the movie is a romantic comedy, buy HD. (usually nice looking eye candy actresses)
If the movie is a gamble/impusle buy, RENT FIRST (BD).
If the movie is an action flick, buy Blu.... (we actually agree here)
If the movie is not available in HD, I guess they don't want my business.

Problem is that you can usually end up with 2 or 3 SD movies for the price of one Blu Ray for any of the movies in that category.

I would add, IF it is an action movie and you are unlikely to watch it more than a couple of times (i.e. Transformers for me), I'd rather rent it on Apple TV HD. I use the Apple TV HD library as 'my' library to browse and rent as I see fit. Wallet-wise I still come out way ahead and I effectively have a much larger library at my disposal to choose from. Add instant gratification from my couch to that...

Everdog, I believe it is time to have your eyes checked.

Why? we are talking about sensory experience here. What ever works for you! IF I can enjoy a movie in SD, why would I want to have my eyes checked?

And Pong will rule again. :D


Perhaps Toshiba's slogan should be:

Toshiba.... Innovating to the lowest common denominator.

I heard Toshiba has big plans for the wheel.

Why? we are talking about sensory experience here. What ever works for you! IF I can enjoy a movie in SD, why would I want to have my eyes checked?


Look it was a post in jest.

But if you seriously think that a movie encoded with a resolution roughly 350k pixels (720x480) is going to look good blown up over 100 inches on display capable of resolving over 2M pixels (1920x1080) you are seriously deceiving yourself.

On a 92-in 1080p display:
I did comparisons with DVD and BD on the same titles when I had both available and in cases where even the DVD was considered a reference title, like T5E, the BD easily blew it away. Now if I did not have the BD, the DVD would have been merely passable, but in no way was considered near HD quality going through a pretty good Oppo 971.

DVDs look really soft and undefined when the displayed at sizes never intended for SD.

Everdog, I believe it is time to have your eyes checked.

Why? we are talking about sensory experience here. What ever works for you! IF I can enjoy a movie in SD, why would I want to have my eyes checked?

perhaps craigw needs to invest in a better sd player and display or (re)calibrate his current one(s)/display(s).
sd dvds look great on my 108" screen; hdm even better!

Problem is that you can usually end up with 2 or 3 SD movies for the price of one Blu Ray for any of the movies in that category.

I would add, IF it is an action movie and you are unlikely to watch it more than a couple of times (i.e. Transformers for me), I'd rather rent it on Apple TV HD. I use the Apple TV HD library as 'my' library to browse and rent as I see fit. Wallet-wise I still come out way ahead and I effectively have a much larger library at my disposal to choose from. Add instant gratification from my couch to that...


Look we could argue this all day but the hard fact is that BD is a growing business. Some here are trying so hard to convince possible buyers BD has no future.

I rent a lot also, but I rent BD. Blockbuster has made it very easy on the wallet for me. BDs through the mail and available at the storefront two miles from my home.

perhaps craigw needs to invest in a better sd player or (re)calibrate his current one(s).
sd dvds look great on my 108" screen; hdm even better!

I have one the better Oppos.

Look no reason to attack me. Go ahead live in your fantasy world that DVD upconverted is "nearHD." The only thing it is near to is soft focus.

Line scaling and progressive output does not magically give you detail that was never there in the data.

I have one the better Oppos.

Look no reason to attack me. Go ahead live in your fantasy world that DVD upconverted is "nearHD." The only thing it is near to is soft focus.

Line scaling and progressive output does not magically give you detail that was never there in the data.

on mine, it is VERY near hd.:cool:

Look we could argue this all day but the hard fact is that BD is a growing business. Some here are trying so hard to convince possible buyers BD has no future.

I rent a lot also, but I rent BD. Blockbuster has made it very easy on the wallet for me. BDs through the mail and available at the storefront two miles from my home.

Yes. It is a growing business, in fact even the Samsung rep admits that Blu Ray will be huge for the next few years. I for one see the high end going beyond optical disks and the low end being DVD. Just my opinion as well.

on mine, it is VERY near hd.:cool:

Go on and live in your fantasy world. Don't let anything like science get in your way of what you believe.

Again 350k pixels << 2M pixels

"<<" means "much less" for you non-math and science types.

I have one the better Oppos.

Look no reason to attack me. Go ahead live in your fantasy world that DVD upconverted is "nearHD." The only thing it is near to is soft focus.

Line scaling and progressive output does not magically give you detail that was never there in the data.

Movies are fantasy :)

The problem is that Blu Ray is fighting this exact fantasy situation....that upconverted DVD is near HD! Even sony and panasonic are marketing that with their upconverting players :eek:

Perhaps Toshiba's slogan should be:

Toshiba.... Innovating to the lowest common denominator.

I heard Toshiba has big plans for the wheel.

Then why is You Tube so popular? Last I checked, more people watch You Tube than Blu Ray - by a very very big margin!

The no.1 reason I bought an HDTV and many others is because of improved PQ and widescreen. Then I get it home and the PQ looks like crap due to my SD cable signal. So I upgrade to HD cable and viola, it looks pretty good.

Then I see a blu-ray demo at Best Buy and am blown away by the PQ like 99% of the people who've walk by the demo(now at Wal-mart, Target, Frys, Circuit City, etc.) but the $1000 player price was out of my range. I then waited until the price came down to where I found it acceptable to buy a blu-ray player and jumped in.
I can only expect that those who own an HDTV and have seen blu-ray demo's are most likely waiting for the prices to drop in the range they find acceptable to make a purchase.
Life is too short to settle for average when the current available best PQ medium comes down within your price range. Also, they can still enjoy their SD DVD's too since blu-ray players are upconverters as well.
Player prices are already below $300 and are nearing $200 very soon.
Paying $120-200 for an average SD PQ upconvert player at this point is basically a waste of money.

I guess you didn't understand my post, you talked right around it but what else is new.

Heres a news flash. Lots of people who own HDTV's will never watch HD programming on it. Why you may ask? See my previous post and price has nothing to do with it!

Go on and live in your fantasy world. Don't let anything like science get in your way of what you believe.

Again 350k pixels << 2M pixels

"<<" means "much less" for you none math and science types.
'non' is spelled non, not 'none'.

Go on and live in your fantasy world. Don't let anything like science get in your way of what you believe.

Again 350k pixels << 2M pixels

"<<" means "much less" for you none math and science types.

On a 6X4 photo a 2MP image looks pretty much the same as a 12MP image. Science is not about more is better.

Movies are fantasy :)

The problem is that Blu Ray is fighting this exact fantasy situation....that upconverted DVD is near HD! Even sony and panasonic are marketing that with their upconverting players :eek:


Did you come up what that all on your own?

The BD business is growing. If it was not then do you think that optical disc makers would be struggling to add more lines to meet demand.

At the end of this year the BD business will have grown by triple digits compared to where both BD and HD DVD were at last year.

On a 6X4 photo a 2MP image looks pretty much the same as a 12MP image. Science is not about more is better.


Stop changing the rules.

That is because visual acuity at that small of a size makes it a moot point.

Again, I challenge anyone to watch a DVD at 100" from ten feet and then watch the BD counterpart on the same setup and then tell me they can't see a differece.

Stop changing the rules.

That is because visual acuity at that small of a size makes it a moot point.

Again, I challenge anyone to watch a DVD at 100" from ten feet and then watch the BD counterpart on the same setup and then tell me they can't see a differece.

:confused:
absolutely no one said there wasn't a difference.:rolleyes:

I have never seen a movie that looked great on Blu Ray, but a notch lower on Apple TV HD. They are in the same class.



wow. that's crazy. i watch on a 61" 1080p screen from about 10 feet away- so basically, the same situation as yours. The difference between an apple tv download and a blu ray is readily apparent. I'm confident i could pick which is which absolutely 100% of the time. That's almost like saying there's no difference between DirecTV and bluray- how the heck are you not noticing all the macroblocking in fast scenes in the apple tv downloads? :confused:

I guess someone wants this thread locked!

If blu-ray is doomed in five years, then all forms of physical media will be gone in five years. I don't see that happening. Wal-Mart sells more VCR/DVD combo players than BD players. Half of this country still has a VHS based movie collection. American's can't move that fast! The only reason blu-ray is not today's standard is because a HDTV with 1080P input capability resides in only 5% of American homes.....and half that population are members of this forum. American's buy value--not quality. Blu-ray hasn't even started yet! I saw a women at Target looking at a DVD player that was priced at $29.95. She looked at me and said, "I thought the price of these things had come down?" The cashier's at CC and BB roll their eyes at me everytime I buy BD's. They simply can't believe anyone would pay thirty bucks for a movie. Remember, this forum is not the place to debate the future of audio/video. We are jaded and do not--I repeat---do not represent the average American. Not even close.

:confused:
absolutely no one said there wasn't a difference.:rolleyes:

but it is so very "NEAR" which is complete BS.

I think I know why you think it is so near to HD. I see from checking your equipment list you are using a Panny 500. That projector is only 720p. 920k pixels << 2M pixels.


I would agree on a 720p setup that the difference between a true HD source, a downscaled to 720 BD, and a upscaled DVD would be harder to see.

You need to go "FullHD" son.

wow. that's crazy. i watch on a 61" 1080p screen from about 10 feet away- so basically, the same situation as yours. The difference between an apple tv download and a blu ray is readily apparent. I'm confident i could pick which is which absolutely 100% of the time. That's almost like saying there's no difference between DirecTV and bluray- how the heck are you not noticing all the macroblocking in fast scenes in the apple tv downloads? :confused:

First, you are talking about Apple TV HD right? I have watched may be 20-30 movies. I have never seen even one second of macroblocking! Like I said. While the Blu Ray is a little sharper, they are in the same class. The differences are marginal and there is no way that one could enjoy the Blu Ray version, but not the Apple TV HD version?

Do you really have Apple TV HD? The fact that you are mentioning macroblocking make me doubt it very much. Apple TV HD is far superior to VoD from my cable provider (Cox).

wow. that's crazy. i watch on a 61" 1080p screen from about 10 feet away- so basically, the same situation as yours. The difference between an apple tv download and a blu ray is readily apparent. I'm confident i could pick which is which absolutely 100% of the time. That's almost like saying there's no difference between DirecTV and bluray- how the heck are you not noticing all the macroblocking in fast scenes in the apple tv downloads? :confused:


Most likely because he is anti-BD, anti-Sony, etc or he has a vested interest in seeing BD fail.

but it is so very "NEAR" which is complete BS.

I think I know why you think it is so near to HD. I see from checking your equipment list you are using a Panny 500. That projector is only 720p. 920k pixels << 2M pixels.


I would agree on a 720p setup that the difference between a true HD source and a downscaled to 720 BD would be harder to see.

You need to go "FullHD" son.

now, you're changing the rules.
i already have hd. son.
works for me.

Stop changing the rules.

That is because visual acuity at that small of a size makes it a moot point.

Again, I challenge anyone to watch a DVD at 100" from ten feet and then watch the BD counterpart on the same setup and then tell me they can't see a differece.

Yes. You should be able to tell the difference. But it is probably not sufficient to dump DVD for Blu Ray, when DVD has 20 times as much content and the disks are 2x or more cheaper and content can be saved and played in far more devices than Blu Ray!

Yes. Blu Ray looks better. But for most the improvement isn't sufficient enough to invest in it. After all, any content on Blu Ray is also on DVD and other HD formats. However, the reverse is not true.

i already have hd. son.
works for me.

"FullHD" as in 1080p. Time to get with the now.

Yes. You should be able to tell the difference. But it is probably not sufficient to dump DVD for Blu Ray, when DVD has 20 times as much content and the disks are 2x or more cheaper and content can be saved and played in far more devices than Blu Ray!

Yes. Blu Ray looks better. But for most the improvement isn't sufficient enough to invest in it. After all, any content on Blu Ray is also on DVD and other HD formats. However, the reverse is not true.


Changing the rule again? DVD at this point in its life had a rather small catalog also. With that reasoning why don't AVSers go back to LD or maybe VHS. They have got huge catalogs also.

Sorry HD is future. I have been done with pre-recorded SD content for nearly three years. In fact I am selling off a large portion of my DVD collection while it still has some value. The fact that DVD is SD will make it a bargain bin item in less than ten years.

Fine, it is not sufficient for you to purchase BDs then why do you care so much that people may move to BD. You are here trying so hard to convince people that BD is not needed when in fact it is the only format currently available that pushes the ATSC spec to its limit. Sorry I would much rather push up against the spec and force companies to keep innovating than just accepting something because it is the current populist standard.

If all of mankind did not push innovation we would all be living in caves still trying to figure how to use a club. I reward innovators not commodity pushers.

"FullHD" as in 1080p. Time to get with the now.
why dont you tell us what kind/size display/screen and sd/hd players you have.
and how far you sit from screen.
thanks.

i see your 'about me' file has no gear listed.

Most likely because he is anti-BD, anti-Sony, etc or he has a vested interest in seeing BD fail.

Anti Sony?

I have a Sony TP-1 HTPC

I have a Sony TX Notebook

I have 2 Sony GPS systems

I have a Sony XBR 5 52 inch LCD

I have a Sony XBR 5 46 inch LCD

Anti Blu Ray?

I have an LG BH 200 Blu Ray/DVD player

I have around 24 Blu Ray disks (concerts and movies).

My investment in Apple TV is the 160 GB STB and around 20-30 HD movies that I have rented.

For someone who hates Sony and Blu Ray, I seem to have invested more than 90% of people in the US! No? What I am saying is that for Blu Ray to succeed it must be more than just higher resolution. Simple as that! We are also examining a statement by a rep from Samsung. So, it isn't like he is a fool and I am a fool and that Samsung wants Blu Ray to fail. Right?

Let me tell you guys a quick story about a non-forum movie enthusiast. A friend of mine (who makes about 150K a year) called me one day and wanted to come by my house to see if my BD copy of "3:10 To Yuma" looked better than his bootlegged copy he paid $5 for. You guys know how that went! I swear his copy looked like the bootlegger used a camcorder in the movie theater. My friend admitted that the quality of the sound and video was a no brainer, but said he still wouldn't pay 30 bucks for it....ever! Not to mention buy a BD player, a pre-pro with amps, a 5K TV, 7.1 speaker system, etc..etc..etc. That's the market Blu-ray, media centers and online streamers are trying to tap into. Not us!

Changing the rule again? DVD at this point in its life had a rather small catalog also. With that reasoning why don't AVSers go back to LD or maybe VHS. They have got huge catalogs also.

Sorry HD is future. I have been done with pre-recorded SD content for nearly three years. In fact I am selling off a large portion of my DVD collection while it still has some value. The fact that DVD is SD will make it a bargain bin item in less than ten years.

Good for you. If more people saw it like you, Blu Ray will last forever :)

ccotenj,

I never said it was 1:1 proportional. I just said directly proportional meaning for every 50 HD sets sold maybe 10 BD players are sold. Granted the PS3 may skew numbers some because it is also sold to people who hook it up to SD sets.

that's like saying, "for every 100 ice cream cones sold, there are 10 bd players sold"...

bd is NOT driving the hdtv market... you can wish it to be so, but it's simply not...

and trust me... i WANT blu to succeed... i'm not a blu hater... being an early adopter of both blu and red, i hate seeing my purchases go to waste...

but it is so very "NEAR" which is complete BS.

I think I know why you think it is so near to HD. I see from checking your equipment list you are using a Panny 500. That projector is only 720p. 920k pixels << 2M pixels.


I would agree on a 720p setup that the difference between a true HD source, a downscaled to 720 BD, and a upscaled DVD would be harder to see.

You need to go "FullHD" son.

FullHD... ok that is a little snobbish. Technically 480p is HD you know.

I can see a massive difference on my 720p PJ screen at 94" from 8-9' away. when comparing the DVD versus netflix online versus bd.

If I had to rate them on a scale of 1-10(1 junk, 10 perfect)

youtube: 1.5
netflix on demand: 3
DVD (phillips DVP642): 4
DVD (HTPC/HD805): 5.5
Comcast HD: 4.5-6.5 (depending on artifacts and macroblocking)
HDDVD/BD: 8

BD on my friends Sharp 47" 1080p 92u LCD: 8.9

Worst HD transfer that I have seen so far is the Last Starfighter but it is by far much better its DVD version. Caddyshack is another where the DVD is horrendous in comparison. I never realized how "Perky" Morgan Fairchild was in that movie with no (ahem).

The best that I have seen so far. Phantom of the Opera is really good. There are a couple of others that I am missing here that I am sure. Even though it is B&W Good Luck and Good Night looked amazing. Even my daughter commented on that (she said it was the only thing that kept her watching it - she is 13 :D)

The biggest swing from SD to HDM for me has to be the Mummy returns. The Mummy returns has horrendous artifacts thoughout much of the disk. Surprised me how bad it was as I had never noticed in the old days on my 27" CRT, but at 94" it really kills it.

Even the LOTRs seems overly "soft" on DVD for my tastes. The HD version that I have seen on cable looks better, but has artifacts. Can't wait until it is out on BD.

that's like saying, "for every 100 ice cream cones sold, there are 10 bd players sold"...

bd is NOT driving the hdtv market... you can wish it to be so, but it's simply not...

and trust me... i WANT blu to succeed... i'm not a blu hater... being an early adopter of both blu and red, i hate seeing my purchases go to waste...


HDTV is in the driving seat for Blu adoption. No HDTV set means no reason for Blu. Ie. directly proportional. Again I am sure someone in the BDA has data for every certain number of HD sets sold that a certain number of BD players are sold. Again players not discs.

Let me tell you guys a quick story about a non-forum movie enthusiast. A friend of mine (who makes about 150K a year) called me one day and wanted to come by my house to see if my BD copy of "3:10 To Yuma" looked better than his bootlegged copy he paid $5 for. You guys know how that went! I swear his copy looked like the bootlegger used a camcorder in the movie theater. My friend admitted that the quality of the sound and video was a no brainer, but said he still wouldn't pay 30 bucks for it....ever! Not to mention buy a BD player, a pre-pro with amps, a 5K TV, 7.1 speaker system, etc..etc..etc. That's the market Blu-ray, media centers and online streamers are trying to tap into. Not us!
yep.
back in july i had a similar experience. a buddy got his b.s. mech. eng. from m.i.t., then off to law school (years ago). a fairly serious tech head.

he visited me in july, we watched a few hd movies including a few blu rays. he had never even heard of blu ray/hd dvd or hd projectors. movies on my setup totally blew him away.

but he has no interest in having this stuff for himself. :confused:
he still watches a 27" crt at home with a very occasional dvd.

Heres the difference and it is a big difference!

DVD was an upgrade in not just PQ over VHS, but more importantly it was an upgrade in convience.

BD and HD DVD was only an upgrade and some still say a slight one at that in PQ/AQ

Which one do you think is more important to the Average Joe, I think we all know the answer.

OnDemand is growing and it is not because of the PQ, it is for that Convience thing again which is being able to watch it without leaving your sofa with the press of a button.

Video is no different than audio, except for the Philes in both catagories, most people don't care about such things and probably never will, much to the chagrin of many here.

Anti Sony?

I have a Sony XBR 5 52 inch LCD

I have a Sony XBR 5 46 inch LCD

?

There is your problem. Your screen is too small. You need a bigger screen. You do realize a 100" screen has 4 times as much area, right?

FullHD... ok that is a little snobbish. Technically 480p is HD you know.

I can see a massive difference on my 720p PJ screen at 94" from 8-9' away. when comparing the DVD versus netflix online versus bd.

If I had to rate them on a scale of 1-10(1 junk, 10 perfect)

youtube: 1.5
netflix on demand: 3
DVD (phillips DVP642): 4
DVD (HTPC/HD805): 5.5
Comcast HD: 4.5-6.5 (depending on artifacts and macroblocking)
HDDVD/BD: 8

BD on my friends Sharp 47" 1080p 92u LCD: 8.9

Worst HD transfer that I have seen so far is the Last Starfighter but it is by far much better its DVD version. Caddyshack is another where the DVD is horrendous in comparison. I never realized how "Perky" Morgan Fairchild was in that movie with no (ahem).

The best that I have seen so far. Phantom of the Opera is really good. There are a couple of others that I am missing here that I am sure. Even though it is B&W Good Luck and Good Night looked amazing. Even my daughter commented on that (she said it was the only thing that kept her watching it - she is 13 :D)

Not trying to come off as snobbish but the fact is that a 1080p projector has a over a 100% increase in the number of pixels compared to a 720p model. It is a fact.

Although nothing stops a BD being encoded at 720p, the format itself was designed having a large enough bit bucket and transfer rate to do 1080p with relative ease.

Comparing a BD downscaled to 720p and DVD upscaled to 720p on the same projector might be an okay comparison if you are evaluating the projector performance, but if you are evaluating the formats against one another it is a very POOR evaluation.

You are only upscaling DVD slightly and over half of the pixel information on the BD is thrown away.

480p is NOT HD. It may be part of the ATSC spec, but according to that spec you need to have at least 720p before it is considered HD.

The "FullHD" term was created by the electronic makers to differentiate yesterday's 720p models with today's 1080p models. But again a 100% increase in pixels is not trivial.

HDTV is in the driving seat for Blu adoption. No HDTV set means no reason for Blu. Ie. directly proportional. Again I am sure someone in the BDA has data for every certain number of HD sets sold that a certain number of BD players are sold. Again players not discs.

ummm... no... needing one item to use another isn't a definition of "directly proportional"... ;) that would be a "relationship"...

IF you can show a link to a direct proportion, go for it... until then, you are merely speculating...

edit: i see you've bought into the "full hd" routine. 720p IS full hd. by definition. what's 1440p going to be? "fuller hd"? "fullest hd"? "mondo hd"?

why dont you tell us what kind/size display/screen and sd/hd players you have.
and how far you sit from screen.
thanks.

i see your 'about me' file has no gear listed.

i see you do have a 1080p pj and a 92" screen.

what pj and players are you using.

FullHD... ok that is a little snobbish. Technically 480p is HD you know.

Actually 480p is not HD. It is EDTV "Enhanced Definition".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edtv

720p and higher is HD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television

Snobbish links included.....:cool:

There is your problem. Your screen is too small. You need a bigger screen. You do realize a 100" screen has 4 times as much area, right?

Among non Sony products I have a 60 inch Pioneer Pro 151FD plasma. I sit around 9 ft away from that display. The other LCDs, the viewing distance is further away - 12-14 ft.

Anyway, I am not saying I can't see the difference. Of course I can. Blu Ray is the best. But what I was saying is that watching Apple TV HD feels the same. The difference isn't sufficient that I would downgrade the experience. Now, DVD is a notch below Blu Ray or Apple TV - perhaps even 2 notches below. But if there was a movie that I wanted to watch and it was available only on DVD, it would not prevent me from playing it on my HTPC. The quality is completely acceptable.

This is very different for me than say VHS. Once I got into DVD VHS became inconvenient to have around. I knew immediately that VHS had no future. With DVD, I just don't feel that way.

Obviously my judgment is not perfect. But to assume that anyone who does not believe that Blu Ray is not the future is somehow anti Sony or anti HD is not true. I believe, Blu Ray as it stands today is far from proving itself a guaranteed success. I agree with the Samsung rep, in that in the short term Blu Ray will probably grow in popularity. But as someone who works very closely in the technology space, this is not where R&D is being spent today (i.e. in optical disk) for future content delivery. At least not when it comes to video processing chips, storage technologies, computer chips and software. That's from my perspective.

ummm... no... needing one item to use another isn't a definition of "directly proportional"... ;) that would be a "relationship"...

IF you can show a link to a direct proportion, go for it... until then, you are merely speculating...

edit: i see you've bought into the "full hd" routine. 720p IS full hd. by definition. what's 1440p going to be? "fuller hd"? "fullest hd"? "mondo hd"?


Sounds like you just want to argue semantics. Again there is a directly proportional "relationship" (ie. they are directly portional) between HD sets sold and BD players sold.

Speculating? Potential BD player customers either already own a HD set or will be purchasing one. The point is that BD adoption rate is tied HDTV adoption rate. Never said that there is a 1:1 relationship, but there is a relationship. A directly proportional one at that :D

And I did clarify the "FullHD" being created by manufacturers, but do you deny that 2M pixels vs. 920k is NOT over a 100% pixel increase?

Of the people who need to buy the current technology in order to jump start sales and adoption; How many do you think would understand anything we are writting about in this forum. If AVS forum members were the only people the blu-ray, dolby true HD, DTS-MA folks had to sell, these formats would be good to go!

frankly, that ignores all the advances made in compression technology... testing consistently proves that the great majority (if not all) people cannot reliably distinguish between a 256 encode and the original...

again, people seem to be stuck in "yesterday" and "today", and are ignoring the fact that technology marches forward...

it may be true that just about all the juice is squeezed out of the orange when it comes to making stuff much smaller, but it's far from true that available bandwidth isn't growing at a rapid rate...

like it or not, delivering content is going to be a big revenue stream, and it's not as far away as some might like to believe...

This is because with audio only we're coming from a different direction than we do with video. CDs are already essentially lossless (ignoring things like bitrate and the A/D conversion). So you're going from a lossless media to a lossy one like MP3, however with proper compression you'll be hard pressed to actually HEAR a difference. So as long as you don't really hear the difference people won't care that it's compressed, even though people like us here at AVS consider it "inferior quality" because a lossless medium exists.

With video we're moving in the opposite direction, there is no consumer lossless video format. DVD already is the "MP3 version" of the movie. With tech like BD we're trying to move closer and closer to quality of the original master video. If lossless video had already been available to consumers, then we'd all be sitting here saying how Blu-Ray was the "inferior quality" version of the movie.

i see you do have a 1080p pj and a 92" screen.

what pj and players are you using.

guess i must now be on someones ignore list:eek: or is there some reason they dont want to list their gear?

i see you do have a 1080p pj and a 92" screen.

what pj and players are you using.

Here is my equipment list
Epson ProCinema 1080UB
PS3
Oppo DVD971
Motorola Comcast DVR
Onkyo TX-SR805
92-in Optoma GW soon to be replaced
Def Tech BP10B main, CLR2000 center, BP2X side surround, ProMonitor 100MKII back surround
Velodyne CT100 soon to be replaced

There is your problem. Your screen is too small. You need a bigger screen. You do realize a 100" screen has 4 times as much area, right?

Why does he need a 100" screen!?

This is also a problem.

How many consumers out there have screens this large in their homes? A fraction of a percent? It certainly doesn't help the format when someone proposes that Joe average dumps his recently purchased 50" screen for one twice as large with a projector (not to mention the greater expense).

Let's get real - Ain't gonna happen.

My screen is a "lowly" 55" Sony SXRD and I can clearly see the difference in HD vs. SD material on my screen. It certainly is better than SD but nowhere near the point that I find my SD-DVD collection "unwatchable" as some have experienced here. Would I find it unwatchable with a 100" screen? maybe, maybe not, but I highly doubt it. I certainly wont be purchasing a screen that large for my apartment anytime soon and I doubt we'll be seeing an influx of your typical Best Buy/Wal-mart shoppers lining up to purchase 100" screens with a projector.

Let me tell you guys a quick story about a non-forum movie enthusiast. A friend of mine (who makes about 150K a year) called me one day and wanted to come by my house to see if my BD copy of "3:10 To Yuma" looked better than his bootlegged copy he paid $5 for. You guys know how that went! I swear his copy looked like the bootlegger used a camcorder in the movie theater. My friend admitted that the quality of the sound and video was a no brainer, but said he still wouldn't pay 30 bucks for it....ever! Not to mention buy a BD player, a pre-pro with amps, a 5K TV, 7.1 speaker system, etc..etc..etc. That's the market Blu-ray, media centers and online streamers are trying to tap into. Not us!

I run into that all the time. It is clearly the norm. It is quite possible, if not likely, that if BD is still around in 5 years, that it will be as a niche product.
J

Yes. You should be able to tell the difference. But it is probably not sufficient to dump DVD for Blu Ray, when DVD has 20 times as much content and the disks are 2x or more cheaper and content can be saved and played in far more devices than Blu Ray!

Yes. Blu Ray looks better. But for most the improvement isn't sufficient enough to invest in it. After all, any content on Blu Ray is also on DVD and other HD formats. However, the reverse is not true.

Direct from Amazon.com...
1. Iron Man (Two-Disc Special Collectors' Edition) by Jeff Bridges, Jr. Robert Downey, Clark Gregg, and Terrence Howard (DVD - Sep 30, 2008)
Buy new: $39.99 $22.99

2. Iron Man (Single-Disc Edition) by Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, and Gwyneth Paltrow (DVD - Sep 30, 2008)
Buy new: $34.99 $16.99

3. Iron Man (Ultimate 2-Disc Edition) by Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow (Blu-ray - Sep 30, 2008)
Buy new: $39.99 $27.95

Day and date releases are no where near [B]"2x or more" in BD. Even if you compare the low end single DVD to the Ultimate 2-disc BD edition is the cost is not 2x as much.

Sure, you can find a DVD that has been out for years and compare to a new BD catalog release and see that big a difference or compare the BD list to WAL-MART DVD sale prices and see a big difference, but I’m pretty sure everyone sees that’s is an apple to orange comparison.

I run into that all the time. It is clearly the norm. It is quite possible, if not likely, that if BD is still around in 5 years, that it will be as a niche product.
J


It already is a niche product. I go to the store and see the outrageous prices for some terrible movies. At my local Frys they had some bd's for $13.99...and every title sucked. At the same time they have Transformers on HD DVD for $7.99 and the BD version for $25.99!!!!
And dont try to insult me ny posting a SS and telling me in frame 10035 there was more detail in it on the BD version than the HD DVD version because I dont care.

The other thing is audio. The BD version is better but not leaps and bounds but on other titles the audio specs are very much better than HD DVD. The problem is who has the system to really hear the difference? You and I maybe but not the masses....I hope BD is around for some titles but like I have always predicted, BD will never overtake DVD and both formats will lose ground to digital distribution. Which in turn, will fracture the marketplace making it possible to get HD in some form or the other through many outlets/channels.:)

Direct from Amazon.com...
1. Iron Man (Two-Disc Special Collectors' Edition) by Jeff Bridges, Jr. Robert Downey, Clark Gregg, and Terrence Howard (DVD - Sep 30, 2008)
Buy new: $39.99 $22.99

2. Iron Man (Single-Disc Edition) by Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, and Gwyneth Paltrow (DVD - Sep 30, 2008)
Buy new: $34.99 $16.99

3. Iron Man (Ultimate 2-Disc Edition) by Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow (Blu-ray - Sep 30, 2008)
Buy new: $39.99 $27.95

Day and date releases are no where near [B]"2x or more" in BD. Even if you compare the low end single DVD to the Ultimate 2-disc BD edition is the cost is not 2x as much.

Sure, you can find a DVD that has been out for years and compare to a new BD catalog release and see that big a difference or compare the BD list to WAL-MART DVD sale prices and see a big difference, but I’m pretty sure everyone sees that’s is an apple to orange comparison.

Listen I sorta agree with you...but thats amazon....most will be buying this from retail outlets and Ironman will be $13.99 some places......the BD will be $29.99 at bestbuy...:confused:

Let me tell you guys a quick story about a non-forum movie enthusiast. A friend of mine (who makes about 150K a year) called me one day and wanted to come by my house to see if my BD copy of "3:10 To Yuma" looked better than his bootlegged copy he paid $5 for. You guys know how that went! I swear his copy looked like the bootlegger used a camcorder in the movie theater. My friend admitted that the quality of the sound and video was a no brainer, but said he still wouldn't pay 30 bucks for it....ever! Not to mention buy a BD player, a pre-pro with amps, a 5K TV, 7.1 speaker system, etc..etc..etc. That's the market Blu-ray, media centers and online streamers are trying to tap into. Not us!

Salary has nothing to do with brains. Having that good of setup without BD is like owning a Lamborghini and driving it 70 MPH on the interstate on a clear day. :rolleyes:

that's like saying, "for every 100 ice cream cones sold, there are 10 bd players sold"...

bd is NOT driving the hdtv market... you can wish it to be so, but it's simply not...

and trust me... i WANT blu to succeed... i'm not a blu hater... being an early adopter of both blu and red, i hate seeing my purchases go to waste...

If you enjoy HD, then neither your Blu or Red purchases is a waste. I think you'll be enjoying both formats on your upscaling BD/HDDVD player on your 4k wall monitor in 10 years, but not so much the upscaled DVD on the same setup...:D

Why does he need a 100" screen!?

This is also a problem.

How many consumers out there have screens this large in their homes? A fraction of a percent? It certainly doesn't help the format when someone proposes that Joe average dumps his recently purchased 50" screen for one twice as large with a projector (not to mention the greater expense).

Let's get real - Ain't gonna happen.

My screen is a "lowly" 55" Sony SXRD and I can clearly see the difference in HD vs. SD material on my screen. It certainly is better than SD but nowhere near the point that I find my SD-DVD collection "unwatchable" as some have experienced here. Would I find it unwatchable with a 100" screen? maybe, maybe not, but I highly doubt it. I certainly wont be purchasing a screen that large for my apartment anytime soon and I doubt we'll be seeing an influx of your typical Best Buy/Wal-mart shoppers lining up to purchase 100" screens with a projector.

I agree with you but have 1 issue. Today, most of your new flat screens make SD look so good that it is hard to see a difference on most HD titles. I can see it but i do installs for a living and you dont know how many times a custiomer has said hey that HD is awesome only to find out that it was the SD version of that film. When I put in the HD version they see differences but it varies from title to title and usually the movies that have high replay value dont highlight BD/HD DVD's strong points.:)

For me now it is the audio part....but again, how many times can I watch Transformers for the audio....the movie wasn't that great but it is an awesome HD experience on either format. That being said lets do some math:

Transformers on BD is $25.99
Transformers on HD vod or apple or some other HD rental place-$5.99-estimated


Ask your self...would i watch this movie 5 times to justify the cost of buying the disc?

I wouldnt watch iut that many times but it does have a special place in my heart as the first true hd orgasm i ever had!:D

It already is a niche product. I go to the store and see the outrageous prices for some terrible movies. At my local Frys they had some bd's for $13.99...and every title sucked. At the same time they have Transformers on HD DVD for $7.99 and the BD version for $25.99!!!!
And dont try to insult me ny posting a SS and telling me in frame 10035 there was more detail in it on the BD version than the HD DVD version because I dont care.

The other thing is audio. The BD version is better but not leaps and bounds but on other titles the audio specs are very much better than HD DVD. The problem is who has the system to really hear the difference? You and I maybe but not the masses....I hope BD is around for some titles but like I have always predicted, BD will never overtake DVD and both formats will lose ground to digital distribution. Which in turn, will fracture the marketplace making it possible to get HD in some form or the other through many outlets/channels.:)

Well...
BD will never have the number or titles that DVD does. Why would anyone want to put some of the total CRAP that is on DVD on BD (The Day of the Triffids anyone)? I don’t have any problems with that. I also believe BD will never be as big as DVD has been, but it doesn't have to - neither will any of the DL services. It will have a place with the people that want the best and are willing to pay for it. I see the HD market being much more diverse as there will be other ways to get content but there is nothing wrong with that. After all, there was only ONE model T, now look at all the models of cars, vans, SUV, trucks and motorcycles you see each day on the way in to work. Now that’s diversity!

My projector screen is 92" , but my bedroom CRT HDTV is 1080i 26". I can EASILY tell the difference between SD and HD. If you can't get your eyes checked.

My projector screen is 92" , but my bedroom CRT HDTV is 1080i 26". I can EASILY tell the difference between SD and HD. If you can't get your eyes checked.

I would believe you but distance in your bedroom is my concern dude. I think you can easily tell the difference on the most stellar of transfers but generally speaking IMO this isn't the case. Like I said, most of the best looking HD movies are either animation or crappy movies not worth using as benchmarks.:)

It already is a niche product. I go to the store and see the outrageous prices for some terrible movies. At my local Frys they had some bd's for $13.99...and every title sucked.
That's my point. Between the high prices, and consumer apathy, I don't see alot happening down the road.

Why would anyone want to put some of the total CRAP that is on DVD on BD (The Day of the Triffids anyone)?
That kind of thinking will kill BD.
I LIKE Day of the Triffids. I would take it over the vast majority of BDs out now. Not everyone wants a library limited to Spiderman, Transformers and related ilk.
Thats exactly why I still my many more DVDs than BD.
J

This is the link to the actual article, quoting Samsung, that this thread is based on (sorry if it's already been posted):
[B]http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/17399/18423/samsung-blu-ray-5-years-left.phtml

In addition, consider the following:

--A THX scientist recently stated it's too late for Blu, suggesting its time for more convenient technology (ie, flash cards):
http://www.ohgizmo.com/?s=thx+scientist+too+late+for+blu

--Last year everyone scoffed at the possibility for such services to become mainstream, but on Sept 3rd, Amazon launched its venture with Sony for 40,OOO titles! (Netflix sealed its deal with Microsoft only last month).
With built-in ethernet/Wifi already being added directly to TV's, and other equipment (ie, PS3), streaming is going to be VERY possible and VERY easy:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080903/20080903006572.html?.v=1

--Blu isn't set to overtake DVD until 2012--A LOT can happen with technology in four years.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/08/20/another-research-firm-asserts-that-bds-will-overtake-dvds-in-201/

The above is just a sampling of what's happening now.

perhaps craigw needs to invest in a better sd player and display or (re)calibrate his current one(s)/display(s).
sd dvds look great on my 108" screen; hdm even better!

I agree or he's blind. :eek:

Then why is You Tube so popular? Last I checked, more people watch You Tube than Blu Ray - by a very very big margin!


Because its free. :D

I agree or he's blind. :eek:


i dont know what kind of pq he'd get from dvds via ps3 (should be pretty good) but his oppo 971 is a bit dated (re video processor) compared to oppo 983 or xa2/hd805. his 971 might not present dvds at their best on his 92" screen.

That's my point. Between the high prices, and consumer apathy, I don't see alot happening down the road.


That kind of thinking will kill BD.
I LIKE Day of the Triffids. I would take it over the vast majority of BDs out now. Not everyone wants a library limited to Spiderman, Transformers and related ilk.
Thats exactly why I still my many more DVDs than BD.
J

Better protect your DVD of it then, no way you'll be seeing it on the Apple hd (or any of the HD DL services) either...

Listen I sorta agree with you...but thats amazon....most will be buying this from retail outlets and Ironman will be $13.99 some places......the BD will be $29.99 at bestbuy...:confused:

It's not really apples to apples when you compare Best Buy's price to a theoretical price offered by "some places." FWIW, Best Buy has the single disc version of Iron Man listed for $19.99 and the two disc version for $24.99.

In the end, you get what you pay for and I'll happily pay the difference to get the BD version of Iron Man. YMMV.

This is the link to the actual article, quoting Samsung, that this thread is based on (sorry if it's already been posted):
[B]http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/17399/18423/samsung-blu-ray-5-years-left.phtml

In addition, consider the following:

--A THX scientist recently stated it's too late for Blu, suggesting its time for more convenient technology (ie, flash cards):
http://www.ohgizmo.com/?s=thx+scientist+too+late+for+blu

--Last year everyone scoffed at the possibility for such services to become mainstream, but on Sept 3rd, Amazon launched its venture with Sony for 40,OOO titles! (Netflix sealed its deal with Microsoft only last month).
With built-in ethernet/Wifi already being added directly to TV's, and other equipment (ie, PS3), streaming is going to be VERY possible and VERY easy:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080903/20080903006572.html?.v=1

--Blu isn't set to overtake DVD until 2012--A LOT can happen with technology in four years.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/08/20/another-research-firm-asserts-that-bds-will-overtake-dvds-in-201/

The above is just a sampling of what's happening now.

What is happening now is that BD is the only delivery method for high quality audio and video for your HDTV.

Things may come along to replace it in the future but tell us one other way thats ready right now...in two years...in five years. No need to explain ideas being toyed with today, tell us when the infrastructure will be ready(download kiosks for example) and when the the players will be ready and selling to consumers. No need to hear about 480i or p resolution... or even 720p.
Minimum: 1080i.
Please also refrain from telling us about vudu/hudu/whatever boxes or apple tv...they are all here today, gone tomorrow devices not built for those who want to collect.

It might be time for more convenient technology but the technology is not ready for us.

...and I'll happily pay the difference to get the BD version of Iron Man. YMMV.


I will too....but this is just 1 great movie of many that are complete crap.:)

It might be time for more convenient technology but the technology is not ready for us.

So true...maybe this is the reason why every HD player out there has had its share of problems...even the PS3.

Bugger this I had a dozen questions I want to rant about I can pm you those questions and thoughts but I’m staying neutral on this doesn’t interest me in the least.

Long live DVD…

I will too....but this is just 1 great movie of many that are complete crap.:)


One person's crap is another person's favorite. Frankly, I'm surprised there are as many good movies available in Blu-ray as there already are. And with Criterion joining the crowd shortly, we'll be getting even more quality films. --Unless you think anything older than you are and in black-and-white is crap. :)

John

One person's crap is another person's favorite. Frankly, I'm surprised there are as many good movies available in Blu-ray as there already are. And with Criterion joining the crowd shortly, we'll be getting even more quality films. --Unless you think anything older than you are and in black-and-white is crap. :)

John

I think you know what I mean......"Dark City" to me is a must own..."The Hulk" is not. I am probably older than you.:p

Better protect your DVD of it then, no way you'll be seeing it on the Apple hd (or any of the HD DL services) either...
That's probably true, considering the fact that I have no intention of getting Apple HD or any other HD download services.
J

I will too....but this is just 1 great movie of many that are complete crap.:)

It's interesting to me that you chose that one little piece of my post to respond to, as opposed to addressing the (intentional?) "apples to oranges" comparison you made.

FYI, here are some apples to apples comparisons using some of the popular brick & mortar stores:

Wal-Mart: 1 Disc SD = $16.86, 2 Disc SD = $22.86, BD = $27.86
Fry's: 1 Disc SD = $19.99, 2 Disc SD = $24.99, BD = $29.99
Circuit City: 1 Disc SD = $19.99, 2 Disc SD = $29.99, BD = $34.99

Of course, the prices could change closer to the release date, but right now, none of those (including Best Buy & Amazon) have a 2X difference, even when comparing the single disc version to the BD. I think Calamus was right on point with his post.

F.Y.E. -Blu ray $49.99. :eek:

F.Y.E. -Blu ray $49.99. :eek:

I couldn't find it on their site, but if they're able to find people dumb enough to pay more than MSRP, then good for them.

FullHD... ok that is a little snobbish. Technically 480p is HD you know.


Thats EDTV.

Then why is You Tube so popular? Last I checked, more people watch You Tube than Blu Ray - by a very very big margin!

But how many hours do they spend watching youtube. Pretty well every one has seen a clip but how many watch 2 hours straight? And where would those numbers be if the company gave every one a Blue-ray player to watch at work?

i dont know what kind of pq he'd get from dvds via ps3 (should be pretty good) but his oppo 971 is a bit dated (re video processor) compared to oppo 983 or xa2/hd805. his 971 might not present dvds at their best on his 92" screen.


Or perhaps westgate with my 1080p unit I can clearly see how superior BD is compared to an SD technology.

Or in other words until you have a true 1080p setup, I suggest you temper your words how good SD looks on a HD set or at least clarify right away you are using a 720p projector. Your Panasonic 500 was their first gen consumer grade LCD projector. Again my setup has an effective resolution that is over 100% greater than yours. IOW, I can see what BD is fully capable of whereas you can't.

While at the local store today I could tell immediately which sets were being feed with a DVD source vs a BD.

Also, if you need a $400 DVD player to get "near" HD quality with DVD, IMHO as someone with a huge DVD collection, it is still a waste of money especially considering for the same price you can now get a PS3 or a SA player.

DVDs upscaled might look a little better with the PS3, but again I can hardly tolerate DVD on large screen setups any longer so I watch very few DVDs.

BTW if up converting is king. Why is Oppo demoing a BD player?

Or perhaps westgate with my 1080p unit I can clearly see how superior BD is compared to an SD technology.

Or in other words until you have a true 1080p setup, I suggest you temper your words how good SD looks on a HD set or at least clarify right away you are using a 720p projector. Again my setup has an effective resolution that is over 100% greater than yours.
sd dvds dont just look great on my setup, they look stunning! hdm, even better!

sd dvds dont just look great on my setup, they look stunning! hdm, even better!


Again get a 1080p unit and then tell me how great they look.

Again I can see what BD is fully capable of whereas you can't.

I might believe merely passable, but "stunning"????

BTW if up converting is king. Why is Oppo demoing a BD player?


Because Oppo knows the market is growing for BD players whereas the days for selling an overpriced upconverter are numbered.

Hats off to Oppo for looking to the future instead of trying to live in the past like Toshiba.

I couldn't find it on their site, but if they're able to find people dumb enough to pay more than MSRP, then good for them.

I agree, if anyone is willing to pay that much for one disc they deserved to get burned, even some DVD's and CD's are above MSRP, even when next to the same disc which cost less than MSRP AKA. marked down or even better used.

I usually try to find a used copy of whatever CD or DVD I am looking for especially if its a special edition that goes for below its original MSRP. :D

I agree or he's blind. :eek:



RL,

If anyone needs a new setup its the people who are using 4+ year old 720p projectors.

DVDs are merely passable on my setup. Nothing in DVD upscaling technology is going increase their native resolution of 720x480 (350k pixels) to 1920x1080 (2M pixels).

Anyone who claims DVD looks stunning on a large screen display needs to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Passable? Maybe, but stunning they are not. Maybe if you have never seen a 1080p display fed with a signal at the display's native resolution.

I have got a bridge for sale for anyone that truly believes that.

RL,

If anyone needs a new setup its the people who are using 4+ year old 720p projectors.

DVDs are merely passable on my setup. Nothing in DVD upscaling technology is going increase their native resolution of 720x480 (350k pixels) to 1920x1080 (2M pixels).

Anyone who claims DVD looks stunning on a large screen display needs to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. Passable? Maybe, but stunning they are not. Maybe if you have never seen a 1080p display fed with a signal at the display's native resolution.

I have got a bridge for sale for anyone that truly believes that.


what about people that own 7 year old AVR's and 4 year old flat screen CRT TV's's?

what about people that own 7 year old AVR's and 4 year old flat screen CRT TV's's?


People making comments how great SD looks should at least comment what type of equipment they are using.

Claiming SD is stunning on a 720 setup is not saying much.

People making comments how great SD looks should at least comment what type of equipment they are using.

Claiming SD is stunning on a 720 setup is not saying much.


I don't know about you, but Finding Nemo DVD looks stunning on my setup.

We are videophiles on here. Mass America is different than people on this board.

I just find it hard to justify spending $27 for Point Break BD at amazon when they are selliung the dvd for like $7.

I think you know what I mean......"Dark City" to me is a must own..."The Hulk" is not. I am probably older than you.:p

Yeah, I agree with you there. We either like the same crap or the same favorites. :)

BTW, I've been reviewing music and movies for close to forty years, and I started in my mid-to-late twenties. Are you really older than I am?

John

yeah, i agree with you there. We either like the same crap or the same favorites. :)

btw, i've been reviewing music and movies for close to forty years, and i started in my mid-to-late twenties. Are you really older than i am?

John

no!!:)

And I have made my choice...the LG BH200...this way I can Pick up all the fire sale HD DVD's at Frys!

DVD looks like a complete mess compared to blu ray. Anyone who denies that is either half blind or is trying to fool themselves.

I don't know about you, but Finding Nemo DVD looks stunning on my setup.

We are videophiles on here. Mass America is different than people on this board.

I just find it hard to justify spending $27 for Point Break BD at amazon when they are selliung the dvd for like $7.

This thread is going nowhere and its somewhat entertaining......, but I had to reply to your reply as I almost spewed my drink out of my nose. Don't get me wrong I watch some crap movies myself. I have many a guilty pleasure. My taste runs the gamut from classic cinema to present day pop corn leave your brain at the door movies. However trying to make the argument with Point Break is laughable. 27(HD) or 7(SD) is to much money to throw away period for this movie. IMHO. I will most definitely pay the difference for the HD movie. Nightmare before X-MAS has a 5 dollar difference. So no Venti Starbucks and I'm covered. Will I replace my SD God Father Trilogy for the upcoming HD one? in a heart beat...

Most animation either traditional or now cgi will look stunning as SD and much better in HD. Any of the PIXAR movies look good. Finding NEMO is no exception however the movie has loads of banding, macro blocking and typical things that are on DVD that get amplified by today's larger TV's. No upscaling in the world will remove these problems. Don't get me wrong OPTICAL HD has these types of problems when there is poor quality control. Quality DVD's can look very good, but most of the time if you compare it(if it has one) to it's HD counter part the picture and sound will really shine with a half decent set up. Wait for some sales we are about to have lots of them with the holidays coming up... With a little patience sooner or later an HD movie will go on sale. I can foresee that even a gem like point break will be on sale soon enough.

In my circle of friends folks ask for advise when there doing upgrades on either video or sound equipment. I always tell them if its a TV smaller than 47" inches DVD will be good enough. 50" and above aside from paying for an HD package if they buy or rent movies then consider a blu ray player and buy or rent the HD movie. A TV over 50" will really shine when used to it's potential. I know not everyone has 10,000 to 20,000 invested in there HT, but if you do and you now have heart burn to fuel that system then you really did not think this through. Can't buy a Mercedes and then when you pull in to the gas station you only buy 5 bucks of regular.. Fill up that tank with Premium and hold on......

But how many hours do they spend watching youtube. Pretty well every one has seen a clip but how many watch 2 hours straight? And where would those numbers be if the company gave every one a Blue-ray player to watch at work?

I must have watched YouTube for at least 2hrs straight when I first discovered Kids Incorporated as I watched most of the videos (the 80s ones at least) on there at the time. :D

IMO, BD/HD DVD and any HD programmings advantages imcrease with the size of the screen. This is why I think most people, the masses, feel upconverted dvd is good enough. The differences on smaller screens is more subtle, couple this with the fact that not every title id reference quality and there is the issue. Most people will and do see big differences when it comes to TV and sports though but movies on HD is more subjective.

As for audio, with the right set up the differences are very apparent and there is no argument there.

I don't know about you, but Finding Nemo DVD looks stunning on my setup.


How times have changed...

Shark Tale would be eye candy.

[...]

HDM=The Only Way to Fly!!!!!!
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12244576&highlight=#post12244576

So, in November, Shark Tale would have been eye candy on HD DVD, but fast forward barely a year and the Finding Nemo DVD looks stunning. :rolleyes:

IMO, BD/HD DVD and any HD programmings advantages imcrease with the size of the screen. This is why I think most people, the masses, feel upconverted dvd is good enough. The differences on smaller screens is more subtle, couple this with the fact that not every title id reference quality and there is the issue. Most people will and do see big differences when it comes to TV and sports though but movies on HD is more subjective.

As for audio, with the right set up the differences are very apparent and there is no argument there.

If we use your line of thinking and agree that people will notice the difference on larger screens and larger screen sizes are selling in increasing amounts, then hd sources will be more sought after.

BD is an HD source.

I would say that the "masses" aren't even at the upconvert player stage yet ( I don't have numbers, maybe you do). They're are still at the standard dvd player stage.
I would further submit that "reference" quality means little to anyone other than us. It either looks and sounds better or it does not. I admit I have not watched all BDs but I can say that there is not one I've viewed and said, hey, the sd version looks and sounds the same as the bd version.

If we use your line of thinking and agree that people will notice the difference on larger screens and larger screen sizes are selling in increasing amounts, then hd sources will be more sought after.

BD is an HD source.

I would say that the "masses" aren't even at the upconvert player stage yet ( I don't have numbers, maybe you do). They're are still at the standard dvd player stage.
I would further submit that "reference" quality means little to anyone other than us. It either looks and sounds better or it does not. I admit I have not watched all BDs but I can say that there is not one I've viewed and said, hey, the sd version looks and sounds the same as the bd version.

Most every dvd player sold today upconverts to 1080 something.

You have made the point yourself..."Reference" quality means something only to us...meaning that the masses, the people who drive sales of new products, have to see a difference in order to justify the upgrade. I deal with these people on a daily basis....some see it distinctly and some you have to pick and choose tiles to show them. When I do an Install I make sure there is plenty of Disney BD and movies like Transformer and the Pirates movies. There is no denying the difference in PQ there and then let them find the differences in other "Not so over the top in quality titles" themselves.:)

If we use your line of thinking and agree that people will notice the difference on larger screens and larger screen sizes are selling in increasing amounts, then hd sources will be more sought after.
Maybe, maybe not. The question is, will they think the difference is worth the extra money? That's where the real arguing comes in.



I would say that the "masses" aren't even at the upconvert player stage yet ( I don't have numbers, maybe you do). They're are still at the standard dvd player stage.
That doesn't really matter, the TV will upscale if the player doesn't.

I admit I have not watched all BDs but I can say that there is not one I've viewed and said, hey, the sd version looks and sounds the same as the bd version.
That may be, but there are a few out there that really don't look much better than a really good DVD. Check out the PQ tier thread.
J

No one in their right mind would argue that SD DVD is as good as HDM (BD) when properly displayed. But S-VHS was a comparable leap in resolution over VHS when it came out but never even came close to replacing VHS as a format, and the price of admission was much cheaper than BD compared to SD DVD, and didn't require an expensive new TV. Of course S-VHS never got anything close the full marketing support from the CE companies or the studios that BD is getting. But still it is an example of the mind-set of the general public that whatever they are watching at the moment is good enough and it's paid for. Even DVD succeeded mainly because of the genius marketing approach that made the disc the same size as the CD, and of course it was "digital" which meant it was better than "analog" (whatever that is), plus of course even Mr. Magoo could see the huge PQ improvement, even on a 27" CRT. BD has none of those (relative) advantages and carries a very big price tag (Denon just announced a new "entry level" BD player priced at $799). IMO BD has a huge hurdle to get over to replace DVD in the marketplace, and right now I just don't see it happening. The question is how long the window of opportunity will stay open for it to succeed or be dropped into the dustbin of media history along with the 8-track and the laser disc. My guess is about 2-3 years, and I still think Walmart is key, just as Walmart was key to HD-DVD taking a big lead of non-PS3 BD player sales before Sony's game ending Warner gambit. If Walmart drops BD that will be the beginning of the end.

I just find it hard to justify spending $27 for Point Break BD at amazon when they are selliung the dvd for like $7.

The same argument was used against DVD when tapes were in the bargain bin and the DVD counterpart cost $20+.

Catalog prices will come down. The studios know there is a certain market that will pay the higher prices. After this holiday season I think we will see catalog titles streeting for under $20 regularly.

IMHO, I would have a hard time spending even $7 on Point Break :cool:

How times have changed...


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12244576&highlight=#post12244576

So, in November, Shark Tale would have been eye candy on HD DVD, but fast forward barely a year and the Finding Nemo DVD looks stunning. :rolleyes:


Indeed, it just points to the fact that some are still very upset the horse they bet on lost the race. They are acting like Cartman: Screw you guys.... I'm going home

The real question is with Nemo's highly detailed colorful world is how much better will it be on BD. I don't even think it will be a contest.

I have Cars on both BD and DVD. There is no comparison between the amount of detail that can be seen between the two versions. The BD just makes you appreciate the level of detail that people at Pixar put into their titles.

Indeed, it just points to the fact that some are still very upset the horse they bet on lost the race. They are acting like Cartman: Screw you guys.... I'm going home

The real question is with Nemo's highly detailed colorful world is how much better will it be on BD. I don't even think it will be a contest.

I have Cars on both BD and DVD. There is no comparison between the amount of detail that can be seen between the two versions. The BD just makes you appreciate the level of detail that people at Pixar put into their titles.


I agree. I'll buy any Pixar title on Blu Ray. I too found the Blu Ray version of Cars to be vastly superior to the DVD. Same for Ratatouille. Unfortunately, I ALSO had to buy the DVD version for my daughter since it is one of her favorite movies - I guess the same for Finding Nemo.

While it was seldom used, one feature that HD DVD did have that would have been valuable here is having both the DVD and Hi Def versions on the same disk. In fact having a digital version that can be copied for portable and non BD devices would also work.

I believe the main point of contention is one of value. No one can argue that SACD was not vastly superior to CD or Apple itunes. But folks tended to favor the good enough. Is cable HD good enough? Is SD DVD good enough? Only time will tell.

While it was seldom used, one feature that HD DVD did have that would have been valuable here is having both the DVD and Hi Def versions on the same disk. In fact having a digital version that can be copied for portable and non BD devices would also work.


I agree with kid's movies having the DVD may be more convenient but it is not necessarily a deal breaker for me. I am not sure that the current digital copy is that great. It does not work with some portable devices like iPods (probably due to Apple having their own sales model). I would be all for a managed copy system, but I have a feeling that ability won't come for free either. Disney is already testing to see if consumers are willling to spend more for a "digital copy." I don't think I am going to be spending extra to get a lo-res copy.

I agree with kid's movies having the DVD may be more convenient but it is not necessarily a deal breaker for me.

Me neither. But, for some it would. Cars and Ratatouille were just outstanding Blu Ray disks. Those along with the Pirates series were the creme-de-la-creme for me!

Casino Royale was another title where I thought the Blu Ray was an excellent upgrade over the DVD.

Unfortunately, I realized that some of the great transfer (for me) we done last year. This year, the quality has been a mixed bag so far. Perhaps the types of movies being released has something to do with it.

Most every dvd player sold today upconverts to 1080 something.

You have made the point yourself..."Reference" quality means something only to us...meaning that the masses, the people who drive sales of new products, have to see a difference in order to justify the upgrade. I deal with these people on a daily basis....some see it distinctly and some you have to pick and choose tiles to show them. When I do an Install I make sure there is plenty of Disney BD and movies like Transformer and the Pirates movies. There is no denying the difference in PQ there and then let them find the differences in other "Not so over the top in quality titles" themselves.:)
most of the folks i know (not low income either) are still buying $30 walmart dvd players (non upconverting) to go with their 27" crt sd tvs.

and that's all they want.

most of the folks i know (not low income either) are still buying $30 walmart dvd players (non upconverting) to go with their 27" crt sd tvs.

and that's all they want.

Some people here will never understand that due to the nature of themselves. ;)

most of the folks i know (not low income either) are still buying $30 walmart dvd players (non upconverting) to go with their 27" crt sd tvs.

and that's all they want.


And good for them. It is their right to buy what they want, but when a format reaches $30/player it is basically saying the item in question is a commodity item. There is no room to make a profit any more. It leads to my argument that DVD will eventually become a bargin bin format. Especially when 1080p displays and HD hardware/software is what drives sales and profit for the CEs and content providers.

It is becoming a HD world. SD is yesterday's tech. Upscaling/upconversion is just a temporary band-aid on a mortal wound. Nothing can change the fact that DVD was designed around a dinosaur SD video standards.

Some people here will never understand that due to the nature of themselves. ;)

And some will never understand that technology marches forward regardless of how hard some cling to the past :D

No one in their right mind would argue that SD DVD is as good as HDM (BD) when properly displayed.
I hope you are being sarcastic because if that's your real point of view or observation, then I don't see why you are in the HDM forum making speculations like this.
Since SD DVD is "AS GOOD AS HD" from what you say, your knowledge of getting these results would be better utilized in the DVD Standard Def forum so those with SD DVD can get HD results. Provide the science behind your claims and I'm sure many will jump on your ship.

Especially when 1080p displays and HD hardware/software is what drives sales and profit for the CEs and content providers.

It is becoming a HD world. SD is yesterday's tech. Upscaling/upconversion is just a temporary band-aid on a mortal wound. Nothing can change the fact that DVD was designed around a dinosaur SD video standards.

What a load of BS.
HD driving profits for content providers???????
Perhaps you should look at sales of DVDs Vs. BDs.

Its not becoming an HD world yet.It may or may not ever. Last I heard, most households do not have an HDTV, and many if not most that do aren't watching any HD content. SD may be yesterdays tech, but it is still the majority and the norm, like it or not.
J

And some will never understand that technology marches forward regardless of how hard some cling to the past :D
Kind of like SACD. How's that working out for you?
J

And good for them. It is their right to buy what they want, but when a format reaches $30/player it is basically saying the item in question is a commodity item. There is no room to make a profit any more. It leads to my argument that DVD will eventually become a bargin bin format. Especially when 1080p displays and HD hardware/software is what drives sales and profit for the CEs and content providers.

It is becoming a HD world. SD is yesterday's tech. Upscaling/upconversion is just a temporary band-aid on a mortal wound. Nothing can change the fact that DVD was designed around a dinosaur SD video standards.

Great post for the most part. I don't agree on upscaling/upconversion being a band-aid though, that would be giving it too much credit. Sure it is a nice option to have for DVD's but still nowhere remotely close to blu-ray's quality. Aside from the huge PQ advantage most upscalers don't even touch on the huge audio advantages of blu-ray.

What a load of BS.
HD driving profits for content providers???????
Perhaps you should look at sales of DVDs Vs. BDs.

Its not becoming an HD world yet.It may or may not ever. Last I heard, most households do not have an HDTV, and many if not most that do aren't watching any HD content. SD may be yesterdays tech, but it is still the majority and the norm, like it or not.
J


From a hardware perspective HD is driving the CE industry. With that in mind more HD content has a much higher growth potential for content providers. 10-15 years from now SD technologies will be forgotten.

And some will never understand that technology marches forward regardless of how hard some cling to the past :D

The Concorde failed not because people did not want to travel faster or opposed to supersonic travel. It was essentially beaten by decades old technology that was cheaper and good enough for most people's inter continental travel. Some however, when possible only take the Concorde :)

If Blu ray represents technical progress, then so is video on demand and HD recordable content. Progress is measured along multiple dimensions. Not all innovations work out in the end.

Blu Ray may take off when the big titles come out in Q4.

Aside from the huge PQ advantage most upscalers don't even touch on the huge audio advantages of blu-ray.

Thats OK, since most people homes doesnt touch the huge audio advantage of BD either. ;)

I think I have lost track of the discussion, are we talking what improvments BD gives us that hang on this site, or BDs advantage for the more normal people?

Thats OK, since most people homes doesnt touch the huge audio advantage of BD either. ;)

I think I have lost track of the discussion, are we talking what improvments BD gives us that hang on this site, or BDs advantage for the more normal people?

Not ok for me. If subpar PQ and AQ is fine for you I'm ok with that, I'm not watching them at your place.:cool:

Not ok for me. If subpar PQ and AQ is fine for you I'm ok with that, I'm not watching them at your place.:cool:

You always welcome if you pass by, but I was refering to the avarage homes capacity.

You always welcome if you pass by, but I was refering to the avarage homes capacity.

Thanks, you're always welcome as well.

Well, when I post I'm speaking for advantages I enjoy or want to enjoy from a player. I owned one of the first scaling DVD (zenith over component) players that I was aware of. For it's time (at least 5 years ago) it was a cool way for an improvement to my DVD collection. The best way to enjoy movies in my home for a while. Basically for me since somethig vastly superior has arrived (thankfully blu-ray is thriving :D) I don't have any desire to go back, kind of like I wouldn't go backt to cassette tapes either ;)

Thanks, you're always welcome as well.

Well, when I post I'm speaking for advantages I enjoy or want to enjoy from a player. I owned one of the first scaling DVD (zenith over component) players that I was aware of. For it's time (at least 5 years ago) it was a cool way for an improvement to my DVD collection. The best way to enjoy movies in my home for a while. Basically for me since somethig vastly superior has arrived (thankfully blu-ray is thriving :D) I don't have any desire to go back, kind of like I wouldn't go backt to cassette tapes either ;)

Well there isnt so much for me to go back to either. BD and projectors goes hand in hand. (TV shows and some type of movies works OK on DVD)

But if my main display had been a 32 inch flatscreen, BD wouldnt be worth it. And lossless wouldnt be important if the speakers were the TVs built in speakers.

Well there isnt so much for me to go back to either. BD and projectors goes hand in hand. (TV shows and some type of movies works OK on DVD)

But if my main display had been a 32 inch flatscreen, BD wouldnt be worth it. And lossless wouldnt be important if the speakers were the TVs built in speakers.


At some point the BD player prices will start to entice the average viewer.

1. HD DVD was cheaper hardware wise. Doesn't really matter anymore.
2. HD DVD had PiP and internet. Doesn't really matter anymore.
3. BD players too expensive at 1k... 500(which was okay for HD DVD at launch)... 300 to 200(awesome for HD DVD BTW)... You see my point the price for HD DVD was always considered decent, but anytime BD hits those price points we still hear the same "It's too expensive" argument.

BD will be a mainstream product. Go to any CE store and 99% of the HDTVs that have an optical disc format player connected is of the BD type.

Again I could see the difference between a BD player and DVD player from ten feet away on 50-inch set. It was not even close.

I suggest these people who claim "DVD is stunning" watch a steady diet of 1080p BD video on 1080p set for a couple of months and then go back and watch a DVD. Once you have been conditioned to HD quality, SD content is barely passable.

BD will be a mainstream product
Maybe, maybe not. Its too soon to tell.

Go to any CE store and 99% of the HDTVs that have an optical disc format player connected is of the BD type.
Yup, and a good percentage, if not the majority are playing DVDs.

I suggest these people who claim "DVD is stunning" watch a steady diet of 1080p BD video on 1080p set for a couple of months
I'd love to, but there just isn't enough out there, and most of what is isn't very good. According to CEDIA, there are 770 BD titles out. To put that in perspective, my video library has over 1300 titles in it.

What fanboys seem to forget, is that its about the message, not the messenger. I buy movies (and TV shows). If they are on BD at a reasonable price, I'll buy the BD. If not, I'll buy the DVD. I should be getting Season 4 of Medium delivered tomorrow. Where's the BD of it?
Instead, they are doing double dips of crappy movies.
That says it all.
J

I suggest these people who claim "DVD is stunning" watch a steady diet of 1080p BD video on 1080p set for a couple of months and then go back and watch a DVD. Once you have been conditioned to HD quality, SD content is barely passable.

The display also needs to be calibrated, i dont know how many times I walk into a CE store and see BD presentation on terrible displays (with 120fps, DNR and EE on full)

If it wernt how good HD/BD looked on a projector, I never would have bothered with it, sure I can see that it look better on a smaller display aswell, but thats just it, it look better, nothing more.

But when I watch it on a projector, it look like its film is being projected. Its fantastic.

Well there isnt so much for me to go back to either. BD and projectors goes hand in hand. (TV shows and some type of movies works OK on DVD)

But if my main display had been a 32 inch flatscreen, BD wouldnt be worth it. And lossless wouldnt be important if the speakers were the TVs built in speakers.

I'd still be using blu-ray if my 32" was an HD set.. Of course I wouldn't be settling for a 32" set at this point in the game.. Heck 42" Plasma's can be had for under $700 now which is less than the MSRP of my 27" set I bought in High School went for (before adjusted for inflation).

I'm using a 60" set right now and I love it.. My friends 1080p projector that I helped them buy looks fantastic as well. I'm sure one day I'll go that room when I have the space for it (maybe a drop down to cover a flat panel on the wall when watching at night ;) )..

Do they even sell SD 32" sets at Best Buy, Circuit City now?

I'd still be using blu-ray if my 32" was an HD set.. Of course I wouldn't be settling for a 32" set at this point in the game.. Heck 42" Plasma's can be had for under $700 now which is less than the MSRP of my 27" set I bought in High School went for (before adjusted for inflation).

With avarage BD prices here at 35$, I wouldnt... :(




I'm using a 60" set right now and I love it.. My friends 1080p projector that I helped them buy looks fantastic as well. I'm sure one day I'll go that room when I have the space for it (maybe a drop down to cover a flat panel on the wall when watching at night ;) )..


You should test my solution, I have my electric screen to cover the windows in my living room, just push a button and I get the screen and the darkness at the same time.


Do they even sell SD 32" sets at Best Buy, Circuit City now?

I hope this question wasnt directed at me. ;)

You know I was watching Sunday Night football last night and saw a curious commercial for DirectTV

The commercial itself was nothing that stood out. It was towards the end...

In Big letters.

VOD at 1080p. The same QUALITY as Blu-ray (they used the Blu-ray Logo)


(basically posted on this forum on August 28).

So the battle lines are being drawn.

With avarage BD prices here at 35$, I wouldnt... :(

Ouch, that is steep. I feel fortunate to live in a location in California where I have a nice variety of store as well as sites like Amazon. I've never even paid close to $35 for a title (Planet Earth not included). $10-15 for most of my blu-ray's.. Even now after the war I usually spend less than $20.

You should test my solution, I have my electric screen to cover the windows in my living room, just push a button and I get the screen and the darkness at the same time.

That's pretty sweet!

I hope this question wasnt directed at me. ;)

Just an observation for my local stores, I don't think they offer any. The ratio of HD to SD sets is massively lopsided to HD sets. My conservative guess would be over 95% sold are HD.

Just an observation for my local stores, I don't think they offer any. The ratio of HD to SD sets is massively lopsided to HD sets. My conservative guess would be over 95% sold are HD.

Over here its almost impossible to sell a flatscreen that isnt marked HD-ready.

Its funny, people care more that their screen is HD-ready, then they care about watching stuff in HD.

Well here they do not care about "HiDef". They care about the 2009 when all tv signal go digital and analog ceases to exist.

What they haven't been told is that digital signal does not automatically equal hi-def.

Over here its almost impossible to sell a flatscreen that isnt marked HD-ready.

Its funny, people care more that their screen is HD-ready, then they care about watching stuff in HD.

Sounds like how it was here a long time ago. Heck I bought my first HD set and was pissed that Comcast wouldn't even provide HD channels for years.. It did look nicer for SD channels as well, the model below was SD only had very noticeable scan lines.

What they haven't been told is that digital signal does not automatically equal hi-def.

Indeed, a lot of people are confused about this.. Honestly don't blame them.. cable company's do their best to push the idea that digital is better..

You know I was watching Sunday Night football last night and saw a curious commercial for DirectTV

The commercial itself was nothing that stood out. It was towards the end...

In Big letters.

VOD at 1080p. The same QUALITY as Blu-ray (they used the Blu-ray Logo)


(basically posted on this forum on August 28).

So the battle lines are being drawn.

Dish did the same exact thing with "I Am Legend". I rented it and "10,000 B.C." and it was better than their standard HD but I could see the differences in quality. They were small but there. The most telling part was the audio which was very compressed. IMO, because I wopuld never buy these films as they are 1 watch movies it was perfect. It was also 1080p/24 and was displayed as such on my screen. I really liked it and would use this service for all the titles i would not buy on BD.

With avarage BD prices here at 35$, I wouldnt... :(


I don't know where you are located but this is a predominately US market oriented board.

The average price for BDs even at B&M outlets is well under $35.

Heck with Amazon and me being frugal I would say the average price for my collection has been about $20/title.

I don't know if you are BSing or not, but again $35/title is the upperend of BD pricing here in the states and I will be damned if I am ever paying that much. Some studios are just milking the early adopter train while they can. Not much different than what they did in the early DVD days. In the end, BDs will be priced based on what the majority is willing to pay.

Maybe, maybe not. Its too soon to tell.


Yup, and a good percentage, if not the majority are playing DVDs.


I'd love to, but there just isn't enough out there, and most of what is isn't very good. According to CEDIA, there are 770 BD titles out. To put that in perspective, my video library has over 1300 titles in it.

What fanboys seem to forget, is that its about the message, not the messenger. I buy movies (and TV shows). If they are on BD at a reasonable price, I'll buy the BD. If not, I'll buy the DVD. I should be getting Season 4 of Medium delivered tomorrow. Where's the BD of it?
Instead, they are doing double dips of crappy movies.
That says it all.
J
yep. unlike some fanboiz, content matters first to me (i dont watch the schlock that is coming out on many bds (or dvds) lately); if its in hd great, if not, i'm quite happy with dvds on my 108" screen.
having a good dvd player helps a lot. some folks might appreciate dvds more with a good player.:cool:

yep. unlike some fanboiz, content matters first to me (i dont watch the schlock that is coming out on many bds lately); if its in hd great, if not, i'm quite happy with dvds on my 108" screen.
having a good dvd player helps a lot. some folks might appreciate dvds more with a good player.:cool:


Again a good player can't do any magical fairy dust processing to turn SD into HD. some folks may need a 1080p display to truly appreciate the difference between HD and SD. :cool:

So we are going to resort to calling people fanboiz. It seems like you have spent a lot time posting on the HD DVD subforums. I guess it just appears to me that you have an ax to grind against BD.

And now we are calling films coming out on BD shlock because the DVD catalog is so superior (because all DVD titles are classic cinema :D ). Why don't you tell me in a couple of weeks how "stunning" Coppola's Godfather restoration looks on DVD because I really don't care when the same title is being issued on a True HD format. I will happily be watching my shlock titles this fall like Godfather, The Dark Knight, Wall-E, etc.

Again a good player can't do any magical fairy dust processing to turn SD into HD. some folks may need a 1080p display to truly appreciate the difference between HD and SD. :cool:

So we are going to resort to calling people fanboiz. It seems like you have spent a lot time posting on the HD DVD subforums. I guess it just appears to me that you have an ax to grind against BD.

And now we are calling films coming out on BD shlock because the DVD catalog is so superior. Why don't you tell me in a couple of weeks how "stunning" Coppola's Godfather restoration looks on DVD because I really don't care when the same title is being issued on a True HD format. I will happily be watching my shlock titles this fall like Godfather, The Dark Knight, Wall-E, etc.


As Grubert has pulled out another example of.. Many people's arguments have changed considerably after their format of called it quits due to not being nearly as popular with consumers as blu-ray.

As Grubert has pulled out another example of.. Many people's arguments have changed considerably after their format of called it quits due to not being nearly as popular with consumers as blu-ray.


Exactly. Just like they did during the format war, it was always about changing the rules to make them look good.

I just don't understand how anyone can expect to be taken seriously claiming DVD looks stunning at 108 inches. Never mind to mention the fact that is with a 720 projector which can't truly show the viewer how good BD is compared to DVD. Maybe I am coming off as too much of an elitist but I am LMAO with some of the BS I see coming from that side still.

A mere search on many of these anti-BD types quickly show they were on the losing side. So it gives you a glimpse into why they feel the way they do about BD. The term sore-loser comes to mind.

Exactly. Just like they did during the format war, it was always about changing the rules to make them look good.

I just don't understand how anyone can expect to be taken seriously claiming DVD looks stunning at 108 inches. Never mind to mention the fact that is with a 720 projector which can't truly show the viewer how good BD is compared to DVD. Maybe I am coming off as too much of an elitist but I just am LMAO with some of the BS I see coming from that side still.

A mere search on many of these anti-BD types quickly show that were on the losing side. So it gives you a glimpse into why they feel the way they do about BD. The term sore-loser comes to mind.

At that size even the lousiest HD transfers(most anyway) are easily distinguishable from the SD counterparts and there is no argument there.
So, I agree with you there, but having your signature like that truly shows your bias anyways. Neither of these HD formats are ready for prime time and the one that prevailed spent the most money, but was it worth it? I say yes if I only get Dark City and the Tarrantino films in hd out of this.:)

At that size even the lousiest HD transfers(most anyway) are easily distinguishable from the SD counterparts and there is no argument there.
So, I agree with you there, but having your signature like that truly shows your bias anyways. Neither of these HD formats are ready for prime time and the one that prevailed spent the most money, but was it worth it? I say yes if I only get Dark City and the Tarrantino films in hd out of this.:)


I would disagree. Now that BD is at profile 2.0, it's prime-time.

As far as my sig, at least I am not hiding behind some faux pro-BD image. We have all seen the "BD is good, but DVD upconverted is good enough for me" posts that are typically a veiled attack by former HD DVD owners.

I really hope when you referred to the HD formats you meant HD DVD and BD, because XDE is not a format, but rather a questionable algorithm applied on top of upscaling/upconversion. CNET basically blasted it.

Amazing that you have to do a search on a post I made a year ago. It still looks damn good on my setup. It will look even better on hd.

Not everyone needs to have the best of everything grubert. Just because something IMO looks stunning doesn't mean it won't look better.

My family was in awe when I put nemo on my setup.

How times have changed...


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12244576&highlight=#post12244576

So, in November, Shark Tale would have been eye candy on HD DVD, but fast forward barely a year and the Finding Nemo DVD looks stunning. :rolleyes:

And to the other poster on here with a bias. I have been format neutral from the beginning and I did not "bet on the wrong horse". I love movies and bought movies from both sides so I didn't have to choose a side.

Amazing how some people still have that winner or loser imprinted in their head over the so called format war and people picking sides.

The real winners are the ones that were format neutral and bought stuff at highly subsidized prices on both isles.

Now I will hit the high road and let the fanboys continue with their bikkering.

And to the other poster on here with a bias. I have been format neutral from the beginning and I did not "bet on the wrong horse". I love movies and bought movies from both sides so I didn't have to choose a side.

Amazing how some people still have that winner or loser imprinted in their head over the so called format war and people picking sides.

The real winners are the ones that were format neutral and bought stuff at highly subsidized prices on both isles.

Now I will hit the high road and let the fanboys continue with their bikkering.
if you're referring to me, i'm format neutral. it was the other guy who had the issues, not me. i'm a fan of all the formats.

Not your dude. Your a movie fan. Not a format fan.

if you're referring to me, i'm format neutral. it was the other guy who had the issues, not me. i'm a fan of all the formats.

Not your dude. Your a movie fan. Not a format fan.

oh yeah, thanks. what i meant to say.

OK! Now that everyone has made nice, i'll ask again.

Since there is no question we like and (at least a dozen other people in the the US, the EU and Far East...oh...Canada too)want some form of collectable HDM, what's gonna swoop in and replace BD in 5 years???
More specifically, what's the storage medium, how will it be mass produced to satisfy the units needed at a cost that is not prohibitive. Where are the factories to produce it and where are the CE devices to "play" the media?
5 years is a short time, it's got to be in the pipeline now.
Keep in mind, no matter how many are satisfied with renting something, many others want to own it and put it on a shelf.
And please, let's not fall back to the old sd dvd thing, that's yesterdays tech (whether or not it hangs around for another 5, 10 or 15 years) and its potential for AQ and PQ has topped out. Although it's just wonderific for most it ain't going to cut it for HDM and that's why were here...isn't it?

I would disagree. Now that BD is at profile 2.0, it's prime-time.

As far as my sig, at least I am not hiding behind some faux pro-BD image. We have all seen the "BD is good, but DVD upconverted is good enough for me" posts that are typically a veiled attack by former HD DVD owners.

I really hope when you referred to the HD formats you meant HD DVD and BD, because XDE is not a format, but rather a questionable algorithm applied on top of upscaling/upconversion. CNET basically blasted it.

I know you disagree but your wrong:)

I was referring to HD DVD as a format....it is a dead/dying format but really the only comparable to bluray as far as PQ/AQ.

The problem I have with posters like these is your angry that BD isn't just welcomed with open arms and taking over dvd right now. It will never overtake DVd because there are too many ways to get HD in some form or the other right now. And every day that list of ways grows longer. I just watched 10,000 bc in "1080p" on Dish VOD. Now I know it isn't as good as BD but the differences are minimal and mostly on the audio side for sure. What I am saying is I am one of those guys who would rather have the movie day and date with its release at the theaters in my home. I am also one of those guys who will buy select titles on BD and Dish "1080p" the others maybe.

Titles I will buy:
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Ironman
The Dark Knight
Tarrrentino films
Dark City


Thats it. The rest I own on HD DVD. I will netflix some and vod the others.

See where I am going with this? In the olden days there was only DVD and VHS really and now look how convoluted the marketplace has become. Even DVD is losing out to a very competitive market. I dont know whats next but I dont believe BD will dies in five years but it will be niche like it is now.