I was flipping through and saw Rocky HD on demand on Comcast. I decided to give it a play as I don't have it on HD DVD or BD yet. Talk about Artifacts and macroblocking. I have seen bad stuff on here that is called "HD
, but this is a little over the top.

http://www.geocities.com/bjmarchini/rockya.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bjmarchini/rockyb.JPG

I decided to go back and watch it again. It is still the same. It is a poor encode. This is the problem with some of these "HD" VOD services. It comes from a channel called Impact? It all depends on who and how it is encoded. Some don't even encode it from HD, they just upconvert it from SD and label it HD.

And by the way, I have Comcast fiberoptic cable. They installed it last year. Much faster internet. I went from about 5-6mbits to up to 30 mbits overnight.

That really looks more like the result of a corrupt data frame which compounds the problem for following frames, until a complete new picture arrives in the stream. It could have emerged during the transmission of the data or as a hiccup in the encoding itself, I would guess.

Regardless, right now it can't. The downloads would be huge and take a long time for most people. Besides that most VOD for HD is probably 720p at the max.

Maybe someday it will be just fine, but I'm pretty wary right now.

Regardless, right now it can't. The downloads would be huge and take a long time for most people. Besides that most VOD for HD is probably 720p at the max.

Maybe someday it will be just fine, but I'm pretty wary right now.

It's 1080p24 on satellite. For people with 42" Vizios, HD PPV/VOD likely look just fine. Moreover, the HD VOD stuff doesn't have them there black bars that seem to annoy most non-film buffs. Yeah, the audio isn't lossless or even high res lossy but most people don't care.

It's 1080p24 on satellite. For people with 42" Vizios, HD PPV/VOD likely look just fine. Moreover, the HD VOD stuff doesn't have them there black bars that seem to annoy most non-film buffs. Yeah, the audio isn't lossless or even high res lossy but most people don't care.

Yup, some people will never get it. As long as they don't have to leave their chair and can just press a button to watch it, thats all that matters!

Yup, some people will never get it. As long as they don't have to leave their chair and can just press a button to watch it, thats all that matters!
I agree about the convenience factor of VOD but don't forget that physiologically, paying a $3-4 rental fee for each movie at a time is easier to swallow than getting a cable bill that is 20-30 extra when your cable bill is already $50-80+ a month.(HD access is also extra and a $5+ cable box & $3+ remote rental is required.)

Also, now that blu-ray is the format, it's nice to see that the main objective/priority of some people are now making sure that kids are baby sat properly in the minivan or at home in their room. Since they are buying SD DVD for their kids, then they use the excuse to buy all titles in SD DVD & make claims that upconvert is AS GOOD as HD. :rolleyes:

HD is now all about convenience, upconverting SD DVD and the kids. Not about getting the best PQ enjoyment possible.

btw:
I was at Frys last night and there was a huge crowd around the blu-ray demo with people gawking at the amazing PQ of blu-ray and Nightmare Before Christmas.
When people see these demos and what SD DVD or HDVOD at home, they can use the blu-ray demo as a reference and without a doubt see the superior PQ difference of blu-ray's PQ.

It won't. People who use VOD as their means of HD don't buy BDs. And once the ISP get away with throttling the amount someone can DL in a month, VOD will go the way of HD DVD....

Just my 2p's worth.

Seggers

It won't. People who use VOD as their means of HD don't buy BDs. And once the ISP get away with throttling the amount someone can DL in a month, VOD will go the way of HD DVD....

Just my 2p's worth.

Seggers

Not if the company offering VOD is the cable company who is also providing the internet connection.

I dont see how companies like Apple, Amazon, etc, will be able to compete with cable companies.

I agree about the convenience factor of VOD but don't forget that physiologically, paying a $3-4 rental fee for each movie at a time is easier to swallow than getting a cable bill that is 20-30 extra when your cable bill is already $50-80+ a month.(HD access is also extra and a $5+ cable box & $3+ remote rental is required.)

Also, now that blu-ray is the format, it's nice to see that the main objective/priority of some people are now making sure that kids are baby sat properly in the minivan or at home in their room. Since they are buying SD DVD for their kids, then they use the excuse to buy all titles in SD DVD & make claims that upconvert is AS GOOD as HD. :rolleyes:

HD is now all about convenience, upconverting SD DVD and the kids. Not about getting the best PQ enjoyment possible.

btw:
I was at Frys last night and there was a huge crowd around the blu-ray demo with people gawking at the amazing PQ of blu-ray and Nightmare Before Christmas.
When people see these demos and what SD DVD or HDVOD at home, they can use the blu-ray demo as a reference and without a doubt see the superior PQ difference of blu-ray's PQ.

Oh please, you have been using this sales pitch for quite some time now and saying the same thing over and over. Try facing reality for once in that people just don't care about these things! As long as you enjoy your BD, then that should be all that matters.

+1

I agree about the convenience factor of VOD but don't forget that physiologically, paying a $3-4 rental fee for each movie at a time is easier to swallow than getting a cable bill that is 20-30 extra when your cable bill is already $50-80+ a month.(HD access is also extra and a $5+ cable box & $3+ remote rental is required.)

Also, now that blu-ray is the format, it's nice to see that the main objective/priority of some people are now making sure that kids are baby sat properly in the minivan or at home in their room. Since they are buying SD DVD for their kids, then they use the excuse to buy all titles in SD DVD & make claims that upconvert is AS GOOD as HD. :rolleyes:

HD is now all about convenience, upconverting SD DVD and the kids. Not about getting the best PQ enjoyment possible.

btw:
I was at Frys last night and there was a huge crowd around the blu-ray demo with people gawking at the amazing PQ of blu-ray and Nightmare Before Christmas.
When people see these demos and what SD DVD or HDVOD at home, they can use the blu-ray demo as a reference and without a doubt see the superior PQ difference of blu-ray's PQ.

"physiologically"???

on topic... why can't it complement it? there's plenty of blu-rays/hd-dvd that aren't the world's greatest transfers. does that mean you can't enjoy the movie?

sometimes, i think we get so caught up in pq around here that we forget what the point is in the first place...

I agree about the convenience factor of VOD but don't forget that physiologically, paying a $3-4 rental fee for each movie at a time is easier to swallow than getting a cable bill that is 20-30 extra when your cable bill is already $50-80+ a month.(HD access is also extra and a $5+ cable box & $3+ remote rental is required.)

Also, now that blu-ray is the format, it's nice to see that the main objective/priority of some people are now making sure that kids are baby sat properly in the minivan or at home in their room. Since they are buying SD DVD for their kids, then they use the excuse to buy all titles in SD DVD & make claims that upconvert is AS GOOD as HD. :rolleyes:

HD is now all about convenience, upconverting SD DVD and the kids. Not about getting the best PQ enjoyment possible.

btw:
I was at Frys last night and there was a huge crowd around the blu-ray demo with people gawking at the amazing PQ of blu-ray and Nightmare Before Christmas.
When people see these demos and what SD DVD or HDVOD at home, they can use the blu-ray demo as a reference and without a doubt see the superior PQ difference of blu-ray's PQ.

I was glancing through my Apple TV HD. They just added Maltese Falcon. OK. What I am getting to is, not everyone is enthusiastic about the selection on Blu Ray. I prefer what is available on Apple TV HD by quite a margin and it is both cheaper and more convenient for me. The experience for all practical purposes is the same as watching a Blu Ray.

Video on Demand is clearly the future. Even TVs are being sold with online access built in. For a select few HT conservatives Blu Ray like vinyl records will probably be around for awhile. But I am not the vinyl and SACD type. I simply care for the cheapest and most convenient way to get the HD content I want to watch.

Also, many cable operators are essentially bundling in VoD with their packages. HBO, Showtime and other HD movie channels are crowding out many peoples traditional purchases of DVD. There is just a lot of HD movies that one can watch with their subscription. Same for Netflix. So pay per movie is probably hugely underestimating how many people are watching movies via downloads to Tivos and DVRs.

The advantage here is with the cable and sattelite operators, not Blu Ray and DVD :)

Regardless, right now it can't. The downloads would be huge and take a long time for most people. Besides that most VOD for HD is probably 720p at the max.

Maybe someday it will be just fine, but I'm pretty wary right now.

vudu does 1080p 24fps and movie plays in seconds. Apple TV does 720p 24fps and it starts playing an HD movie in around 20 seconds.

You don't need to download the entire movie to start watching it. I have never seen macroblocking on Apple TV HD. Not once in 20-30 movies that I may have rented since March.

I was glancing through my Apple TV HD. They just added Maltese Falcon. OK. What I am getting to is, not everyone is enthusiastic about the selection on Blu Ray. I prefer what is available on Apple TV HD by quite a margin and it is both cheaper and more convenient for me. The experience for all practical purposes is the same as watching a Blu Ray.

Video on Demand is clearly the future. Even TVs are being sold with online access built in. For a select few HT conservatives Blu Ray like vinyl records will probably be around for awhile. But I am not the vinyl and SACD type. I simply care for the cheapest and most convenient way to get the HD content I want to watch.

Also, many cable operators are essentially bundling in VoD with their packages. HBO, Showtime and other HD movie channels are crowding out many peoples traditional purchases of DVD. There is just a lot of HD movies that one can watch with their subscription. Same for Netflix. So pay per movie is probably hugely underestimating how many people are watching movies via downloads to Tivos and DVRs.

The advantage here is with the cable and sattelite operators, not Blu Ray and DVD :)

Apple HD, another one trick pony appliance that does no good unless you have a decent broadband connection or don't mind hours of download time.

Have you also not seen how desperate Comcast has been with getting high speed service/cable customers lately?
Free Wii, 6 months free, of course with a 2 year commitment at their overbloated prices.

Also, these "cable packages" that have HD and HDVOD is not cheap.
I was paying $90+ just for expanded digital cable with HD.
This does not include your premium channels, which cost even more.
The HDVOD version of a title also costs $5.99-7.99 here compared to $3.99 for the SDVOD version. And on weekends, it seems the bandwidth is already hitting limits because I get messages that "the movie is not available try again later" but if I'm persistent by selecting the title about 10-20 times, then I get the movie. But the SDVOD version is always readily available.

And don't get me started with their 1000+ of FREE VOD programs that are aweful and most are garbage because included in that 1000+ is self-help, classifieds, music videos, etc.


Not everyone has $150+ a month to dump on high speed broadband, cable with HD service and multiple cables boxes at an additional cost to watch VOD in each room. Then there's the premium price as well for HDVOD.

At least with blu-ray, once I've bought the title, there's no reoccuring monthly fee to watch it again.

btw:
PPV has been around since the late 70's/early 80's. Ever heard of SELECT TV. :)
Almost 30 years later and PPV/VOD is barely catching on. The DVD/blu-ray sales and rentals are still ahead by a large margin.

Not everyone has $150+ a month to dump on high speed broadband, cable with HD service and multiple cables boxes at an additional cost to watch VOD in each room. Then there's the premium price as well for HDVOD.


but they have $150 a month to drop on half a dozen bd disks? :confused:

no one said it was gonna be free...

to your last point... this is PURELY a wag, but i'm gonna bet that the number of HD vod downloads WAY exceed the number of BD disks sold (no fair throwing sddvd rentals in there, it's not germane)... like i said, it's a wag, based on the fact that there's a heckuva lot more hardware in the wild that can do HD vod than can play bd disks...

Apple HD, another one trick pony appliance that does no good unless you have a decent broadband connection or don't mind hours of download time.

Have you also not seen how desperate Comcast has been with getting high speed service/cable customers lately?
Free Wii, 6 months free, of course with a 2 year commitment at their overbloated prices.

Also, these "cable packages" that have HD and HDVOD is not cheap.
I was paying $90+ just for expanded digital cable with HD.
This does not include your premium channels, which cost even more.
The HDVOD version of a title also costs $5.99-7.99 here compared to $3.99 for the SDVOD version. And on weekends, it seems the bandwidth is already hitting limits because I get messages that "the movie is not available try again later" but if I'm persistent by selecting the title about 10-20 times, then I get the movie. But the SDVOD version is always readily available.

And don't get me started with their 1000+ of FREE VOD programs that are aweful and most are garbage because included in that 1000+ is self-help, classifieds, music videos, etc.


Not everyone has $150+ a month to dump on high speed broadband, cable with HD service and multiple cables boxes at an additional cost to watch VOD in each room. Then there's the premium price as well for HDVOD.

At least with blu-ray, once I've bought the title, there's no reoccuring monthly fee to watch it again.

btw:
PPV has been around since the late 70's/early 80's. Ever heard of SELECT TV. :)
Almost 30 years later and PPV/VOD is barely catching on. The DVD/blu-ray sales and rentals are still ahead by a large margin.
I just have minimal cable to serve my internet needs. Not even connected to the TV. Apple TV has no monthly fee and HD movies are $5 new or $4 catalog.

The problem is you're basing the quality on really awful encodes. Xbox live is also full of them. This (http://comparescreenshots.slicx.com/comparison/105)is what is possible for a 4.5gb 720p encode, it's compared to the blu-ray source resized to 720p. If some on demand services could encode like that, then there's a big future.

Even if ISP's all implement hard caps, downloading 2 4.5-6gb files won't be that hard of a hit.

The scene has higher standards than what commericial services offer so don't get your hopes up.

HD VOD or/and HD PPV will never replace blu-ray. I think they will work side buy side like MP3 And CD to an extent. the blu ray to VOD ratio will be much higher on the BD side then Mp3 is to CD. but I think this has a lot to do with download speeds and convince as a MP3 is made for handheld players vs VOD which is watch on the TV or PC at the loction of the box.

I think the need for physical discs will always be there. having a collection of movies is good

but they have $150 a month to drop on half a dozen bd disks? :confused:

no one said it was gonna be free...

to your last point... this is PURELY a wag, but i'm gonna bet that the number of HD vod downloads WAY exceed the number of BD disks sold (no fair throwing sddvd rentals in there, it's not germane)... like i said, it's a wag, based on the fact that there's a heckuva lot more hardware in the wild that can do HD vod than can play bd disks...
After I spend $150 on several BDs, I have several BDs to rewatch, lend or sell. After I spend $150 on VOD I have nothing but the memory...therein lies the difference.
If you like giving your cable company $5.99 for a DD 5.1 compressed mess, by all means do it.

Apple HD, another one trick pony appliance that does no good unless you have a decent broadband connection or don't mind hours of download time.

Have you also not seen how desperate Comcast has been with getting high speed service/cable customers lately?
Free Wii, 6 months free, of course with a 2 year commitment at their overbloated prices.

Also, these "cable packages" that have HD and HDVOD is not cheap.
I was paying $90+ just for expanded digital cable with HD.
This does not include your premium channels, which cost even more.
The HDVOD version of a title also costs $5.99-7.99 here compared to $3.99 for the SDVOD version. And on weekends, it seems the bandwidth is already hitting limits because I get messages that "the movie is not available try again later" but if I'm persistent by selecting the title about 10-20 times, then I get the movie. But the SDVOD version is always readily available.

And don't get me started with their 1000+ of FREE VOD programs that are aweful and most are garbage because included in that 1000+ is self-help, classifieds, music videos, etc.


Not everyone has $150+ a month to dump on high speed broadband, cable with HD service and multiple cables boxes at an additional cost to watch VOD in each room. Then there's the premium price as well for HDVOD.

At least with blu-ray, once I've bought the title, there's no reoccuring monthly fee to watch it again.

btw:
PPV has been around since the late 70's/early 80's. Ever heard of SELECT TV. :)
Almost 30 years later and PPV/VOD is barely catching on. The DVD/blu-ray sales and rentals are still ahead by a large margin.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Apple TV plays in seconds not hours. The whole movie does need to be downloaded for you to start watching.

If VOD is going to have an impact, it is going to be on disc rental - Netflix and Blockbuster. But those other rental options are already popular, and have haven't stopped consumers from buying DVDs.

After I spend $150 on several BDs, I have several BDs to rewatch, lend or sell. After I spend $150 on VOD I have nothing but the memory...therein lies the difference.
If you like giving your cable company $5.99 for a DD 5.1 compressed mess, by all means do it.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most people do exactly that. I know of only one person who has a BD player and being from MA, most have Comcast cable. Guess how they watch their movies, considering they also all have DVD players? Yep, OnDemand, even my mother and father in law, both in their late 70's use it all the time. This is the real reason why DVD sales and rentals are down and some here are greatly underestimating the affect it is having on the movie viewing public and I believe with the Feb 17 cut off date fast approaching and more people come over to cable, they will be exposed to OnDemand for the first time and the percentage of people who use it will only keep increasing. The sad part is even for those who have HD capabilties, they still choose the SD version when watching so all that talk about how much better BD looks and sounds, ( which it does) means nothing to most of the general public and that will never change. Some here need to get a grip on reality!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most people do exactly that. I know of only one person who has a BD player and being from MA, most have Comcast cable. Guess how they watch their movies, considering they also all have DVD players? Yep, OnDemand, even my mother and father in law, both in their late 70's use it all the time. This is the real reason why DVD sales and rentals are down and some here are greatly underestimating the affect it is having on the movie viewing public and I believe with the Feb 17 cut off date fast approaching and more people come over to cable, they will be exposed to OnDemand for the first time and the percentage of people who use it will only keep increasing. The sad part is even for those who have HD capabilties, they still choose the SD version when watching so all that talk about how much better BD looks and sounds, ( which it does) means nothing to most of the general public and that will never change. Some here need to get a grip on reality!
You didn't surprise me...granma and granpa can't drive (or shouldn't) have limited disposable income and (possibly) limited interests. Not exactly a target for collectable media.
I suspect the reason sales and rentals are down (if they are) are many...less disposable income, types of movies being released, netflix, etc.
A rental only makes sense when one viewing is all you want of a film.
Is that not reality also?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most people do exactly that. I know of only one person who has a BD player and being from MA, most have Comcast cable. Guess how they watch their movies, considering they also all have DVD players? Yep, OnDemand, even my mother and father in law, both in their late 70's use it all the time. This is the real reason why DVD sales and rentals are down and some here are greatly underestimating the affect it is having on the movie viewing public and I believe with the Feb 17 cut off date fast approaching and more people come over to cable, they will be exposed to OnDemand for the first time and the percentage of people who use it will only keep increasing. The sad part is even for those who have HD capabilties, they still choose the SD version when watching so all that talk about how much better BD looks and sounds, ( which it does) means nothing to most of the general public and that will never change. Some here need to get a grip on reality!

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but DVD sales have risen. In the first half of the year DVD sales were up 1.1% over last year.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=13425

You didn't surprise me...granma and granpa can't drive (or shouldn't) have limited disposable income and (possibly) limited interests. Not exactly a target for collectable media.
I suspect the reason sales and rentals are down (if they are) are many...less disposable income, types of movies being released, netflix, etc.
A rental only makes sense when one viewing is all you want of a film.
Is that not reality also?

Those were only two examples, everyone else I'm talking about is younger. Do you want to go through the whole list and give the reasons why each one uses OnDemand? Why is it so hard for some of you to face up to this fact. Not everyone out there are AVSers where PQ/AQ is the top priority and most movie buffs just care if it is a good movie regardless of how it is delivered. You and I are minorities in the world of picture/sound reproduction and that my friend is REALITY whether you want to admit it or not!

I believe with the Feb 17 cut off date fast approaching and more people come over to cable, they will be exposed to OnDemand for the first time and the percentage of people who use it will only keep increasing.
So, people are going to go from no monthly cable bill to paying $55.99 month because they may need to purchase a digital converter for $10(After $40 rebate credit card)?:confused:
The cable company is pushing the $12-15 limited/basic cable with no box to these people. May be later on they can lurer them to DIGITAL CABLE, which is what's required to get VOD, which is $55+ here. Then add the tax and that $12-15 just became $65+ a month.:eek:

You keep saying SD is "good enough" for the general public but they have been exposed to the very noticeable PQ improvement of blu-ray/HD at the CE demos and you still believe that it's a "marginal" PQ improvement.
I'm not sure what titles you've watched on blu-ray but most have a noticeable PQ improvement over their SD counterpart.

It's like you're saying that even if people test drive a Corvette and find it affordable)within their budget) that they will opt to use their Pinto because it does the job of getting them to point A to B.

Most people are will to pay a little extra to get something that gives them enjoyment(improvement PQ/entertainment) instead of settling for "good enough."

btw:
I recently dumped my cable(Digital Cable+HD @ $95 w/tax) and watch OTA digital/HD programs now. Hum, imagine, someone who is an AVS member that dumps cable because the programming & VOD is awful enough that I found it cheaper to rent/buy programs I enjoy. I wonder what those who are not AV enthusiasts will be doing as cable programming is no longer entertaining.... *ding* dump cable and watch Comcast give away FREE Wii and FREE monthly subscriptions to lurer them back.... which it seems isn't working because every few months, they come out with a new luring tactic.

It's 1080p24 on satellite
My satellite provider down converts every thing to 720P. And selection is obviously not their strong suite.

Maltese Falcon isn't a particularly good example as a B&W film shot in 4:3 is not going to stress your connection any where near what some thing like Transformers will. (Maltese Falcon is still the better film)

There are definitely people who don't care about PQ and AQ. But pretty well every one I know from that group grabs their stuff from a torrent site not a DL service. People don't care as much when things are free. Once they have to start to pay then they do care.

Those were only two examples, everyone else I'm talking about is younger. Do you want to go through the whole list and give the reasons why each one uses OnDemand? Why is it so hard for some of you to face up to this fact. Not everyone out there are AVSers where PQ/AQ is the top priority and most movie buffs just care if it is a good movie regardless of how it is delivered. You and I are minorities in the world of picture/sound reproduction and that my friend is REALITY whether you want to admit it or not!

We are discussing hd vod vs. bd and not sd vod vs. bd...right?. You seem to be trying to convince us that sd vod is good enough but were not talking about sd vod. Please read the original post.

Those were only two examples, everyone else I'm talking about is younger. Do you want to go through the whole list and give the reasons why each one uses OnDemand? Why is it so hard for some of you to face up to this fact. Not everyone out there are AVSers where PQ/AQ is the top priority and most movie buffs just care if it is a good movie regardless of how it is delivered. You and I are minorities in the world of picture/sound reproduction and that my friend is REALITY whether you want to admit it or not!

even some of us avs'ers who like good pq/aq would rather watch a good movie with lesser pq than transformers in hd... :) ideally, we'd like a good movie IN hd, but given the choice, i know what i'm watching...

like i said in another post, sometimes i think we don't see the forest for the trees around here...

So, people are going to go from no monthly cable bill to paying $55.99 month because they may need to purchase a digital converter for $10(After $40 rebate credit card)?:confused:
The cable company is pushing the $12-15 limited/basic cable with no box to these people. May be later on they can lurer them to DIGITAL CABLE, which is what's required to get VOD, which is $55+ here. Then add the tax and that $12-15 just became $65+ a month.:eek:

You keep saying SD is "good enough" for the general public but they have been exposed to the very noticeable PQ improvement of blu-ray/HD at the CE demos and you still believe that it's a "marginal" PQ improvement.
I'm not sure what titles you've watched on blu-ray but most have a noticeable PQ improvement over their SD counterpart.

It's like you're saying that even if people test drive a Corvette and find it affordable)within their budget) that they will opt to use their Pinto because it does the job of getting them to point A to B.

Most people are will to pay a little extra to get something that gives them enjoyment(improvement PQ/entertainment) instead of settling for "good enough."

btw:
I recently dumped my cable(Digital Cable+HD @ $95 w/tax) and watch OTA digital/HD programs now. Hum, imagine, someone who is an AVS member that dumps cable because the programming & VOD is awful enough that I found it cheaper to rent/buy programs I enjoy. I wonder what those who are not AV enthusiasts will be doing as cable programming is no longer entertaining.... *ding* dump cable and watch Comcast give away FREE Wii and FREE monthly subscriptions to lurer them back.... which it seems isn't working because every few months, they come out with a new luring tactic.

Yes most people will settle for good enough, evidently my point is not getting through to you but I'm not surprised. Good luck with your crusade!

We are discussing hd vod vs. bd and not sd vod vs. bd...right?. You seem to be trying to convince us that sd vod is good enough but were not talking about sd vod. Please read the original post.

Regardless whether it's SD or HD vod. most people don't care. they just want to watch the movie. It's the convience factor, not the PQ/AQ factor if I have not already said it 100 times!

Sorry to burst your bubble but Apple TV plays in seconds not hours. The whole movie does need to be downloaded for you to start watching.

If that's a 75 minute movie that says you must have an average of 600,000 bit connection with no congestion to download the full movie while watching it if it's 4.5gb - a better that average rate for most people I know of that are not on FOIS.

BTW, AVS has a great forum for all those that think that is the only way to go. You can find it here...http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=184

If your not here for spinning media HD, your in the wrong forum.

Why is it that even a studio like Warner feels they can put out their HD content on Apple TV, but not on Blu Ray. Every week I see a ton of great catalog movies from warner making their way to apple TV HD, but no announcement on Blu Ray. Why?

And we are trying to argue how video on demand will compete with blu rsy. LOL. wake up!

Regardless whether it's SD or HD vod. most people don't care. they just want to watch the movie. It's the convience factor, not the PQ/AQ factor if I have not already said it 100 times!

This is the HD spinning media forum for BD and HD-DVD fans and supporters, if your not here for HD spinning media your in the wrong forum. Avs has both DVD and DOWNLOAD forums elsewhere.

This is the HD spinning media forum for BD and HD-DVD fans and supporters, if your not here for HD spinning media your in the wrong forum. Avs has both DVD and DOWNLOAD forums elsewhere.

Sorry, I'm talking on topic. You seem to be the one that has lost his way with the above post! ;)

Sorry, I'm talking on topic. You seem to be the one that has lost his way with the above post! ;)

Then why have you found it necessary to " if I have not already said it 100 times!" that people don't care about PQ/AQ. This is the Blu-ray & HD DVD Areas > HDTV Software Media Discussion forum. This forum exist because the people that come here DO care about PQ/AQ and want to hear about HD movies on BD and HD-DVD formats. There are forums for DOWNLOAD and DVD. I think your the one that is lost... or on a crusade...

Not what I read in this post http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13128393&highlight=#post13128393

Lodef
AVS Special Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northshore, MA
Posts: 1,380
And If studios are still willing to release HD DVD's, I will buy them and that includes Warner.

Why is it that even a studio like Warner feels they can put out their HD content on Apple TV, but not on Blu Ray. Every week I see a ton of great catalog movies from warner making their way to apple TV HD, but no announcement on Blu Ray. Why?

And we are trying to argue how video on demand will compete with blu rsy. LOL. wake up!

because warner, et.al. recognizes where the future revenue stream is, and don't have an emotional involvement with little round disks... ;)

Then why have you found it necessary to " if I have not already said it 100 times!" that people don't care about PQ/AQ. This is the Blu-ray & HD DVD Areas > HDTV Software Media Discussion forum. This forum exist because the people that come here DO care about PQ/AQ and want to hear about HD movies on BD and HD-DVD formats. There are forums for DOWNLOAD and DVD. I think your the one that is lost... or on a crusade...

Not what I read in this post http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13128393&highlight=#post13128393

If you havn't figured it out by now, I'm not talking about the people who visit this site including myself and everything I have mentioned so far is relevant to this thread but did I really need to explain that to you?

PS: You don't have to agree with my point of view but to try and say I can't participate because of it won't fly around here, sorry.

Post http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=#post13128393

Quote:
Lodef
AVS Special Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northshore, MA
Posts: 1,380
And If studios are still willing to release HD DVD's, I will buy them and that includes Warner.

Ah, the curtain has been raised and the stinch of bitterness is what your crusade is about trying to preach that SD is "good enough" now that blu-ray is the HDM standard.
The Toshiba SD upconvert player crusade is in the DVD "Standard Def" forum that way--->

Ah, the curtain has been raised and the stinch of bitterness is what your crusade is about trying to preach that SD is "good enough" now that blu-ray is the HDM standard.
The Toshiba SD upconvert player crusade is in the DVD "Standard Def" forum that way--->

What curtain? what crusade? what bitterness? Are you really having that hard of a time understanding what I'm saying? Is that all you have to fall back on is to bring up that I'm a HD DVD owner? So when you have nothing else factual to add, lets bring up the old format war excuse to prove a point that has nothing to do with this thread, sorry but most people in this forum are smarter than that. And If the mods want to close this thread thats fine because it seems to have gone way off course thanks to a few people who can't handle the truth!

Ah, the curtain has been raised and the stinch of bitterness is what your crusade is about trying to preach that SD is "good enough" now that blu-ray is the HDM standard.
The Toshiba SD upconvert player crusade is in the DVD "Standard Def" forum that way--->

There is no crusade for the Toshiba SD player - except from Blu Ray supporters trying to create FUD. When 99.99% of content is on DVD v. Blu Ray, it may not make sense for many people to spend $399 or so for a Blu Ray solution at this point in time.

For many people there are only a handful of Blu Ray movies worth owning at this point. When the dynamics change and the price of ownership for both media and players go down, then buying a Blu Ray player may be a no brainer.

For now, I see more content being released on BOTH DVD and Video on Demand platforms (including Cable and Satellite HD) than Blu Ray each and every week of 2008 and is likely to be the case for the rest of the year.

It's OK if you're comfortable burying your head in the sand, or living in an alternative reality. But reality is reality. It does not matter whether you are an ex HD DVD supporter or not. The fact still remains that Blu Ray is making little headway in ending the dominance of DVD or cable and satellite as preferred formats for movie content for a vast majority of the world.

2009 could be a very different year, but if you're ready to enter in 2009, it makes no sense to buy over priced hardware or software today! That is the crux of the matter :)

The irony here is that these are the exact same talking points frequently posted to advocate hdvd in its heyday. All it is, is same reasoning/different format. If the reasoning failed to produce viable results then, that is just one more reason that repeating the same reasoning all over again will fail to produce viable results, again. If there is anybody with the head in the sand, it is anybody who is willing trot out this same pony ride, completely oblivious to what happened the last time (less than a year ago, no doubt).

Br hardware/software is priced exactly where it should be (not over, not under). Certainly, it could come down a few notches to be even more attractive, however, we can be somewhat confident that it isn't going to price itself into oblivion just to explore that rock bottom pricing that is supposed to attract the casuals, who really don't care about hd quality or care to spend much in decent hd equipment in the first place.

It's 1080p24 on satellite. For people with 42" Vizios, HD PPV/VOD likely look just fine. Moreover, the HD VOD stuff doesn't have them there black bars that seem to annoy most non-film buffs. Yeah, the audio isn't lossless or even high res lossy but most people don't care.

I tried one of the new 1080p HD VOD movies from DISH last week to see what it was like and it looked very good. Much better than DVD, but not quite up to Blu-ray's quality, and it only had DD 5.1. The vast majority of consumers will be very happy with it.

I agree, the pic in the OP looks like data or transport corruption, not macroblocking.

Not if the company offering VOD is the cable company who is also providing the internet connection.

I dont see how companies like Apple, Amazon, etc, will be able to compete with cable companies.

But then you are limited by what they want you to rent, how much you pay for it and how you may watch it. Nice exemple of savage media convergence here.

It won't. People who use VOD as their means of HD don't buy BDs. And once the ISP get away with throttling the amount someone can DL in a month, VOD will go the way of HD DVD....

Just my 2p's worth.

Seggers

Comcast is planning on throttling right now at 250GB\Month. Each year their capacity grows and so will that cap. Unless we see really low cap numbers, people shouldnt have a problem with downloads.

Br hardware/software is priced exactly where it should be (not over, not under). .

The best proof about the power of low prices is the HD format war itself. HD DVD had less studios backing it, less hardware vendors and no PS3 effect. Yet, from a software perspective was pulling in around 40% of total sales. Other than low prices, what else did HD DVD have going for it v. Blu Ray? From my experience the studio, hardware and retail support was overwhelmingly for Blu Ray. So, 40% sales share is quite significant. Also, if I recall, didn't Toshiba sell as many players (being the only vendor for HD DVD) as all Blu Ray stand alone players combined? When has Toshiba sold as many of anything that added up to Sony + Panasonic + Samsung etc. Never! Again, it was low prices.

I am not arguing that Blu Ray hardware or software is too high or not where it should be. Perhaps it is. We will find out when Q4 comes around.

It would be great if Blu Ray prices come down to DVD levels - at least for me, and the Blu Ray forum allows us to copy disks to our hard drive so that they can be streamed to multiple displays in a our home.

Ironically, Comcast has been getting lambasted for the past few months for horrendous hd quality on their conventional broadcast service (see HDTV Programming forum). I don't know how this would translate to their VOD quality, but I would step warily, before committing.

I tried one of the new 1080p HD VOD movies from DISH last week to see what it was like and it looked very good. Much better than DVD, but not quite up to Blu-ray's quality, and it only had DD 5.1. The vast majority of consumers will be very happy with it.

...


Exactly. HD VOD doesn't have to have the same quality as br to succeed.
As long as the image is better than SD programs and the price is right people will be happy with it. It's a conveniant supplement to the regular hd programs already available.

Movies available as vod before a br release will cost some br disc sales.

Lot's of firmware releases needed lately to be able to play some of the new br releases on certain players. BDA has some work to do to divert a looming disaster. This mess must be solved or else br will wither away in a niche market.

HD VOD might have some blocking or softness from time to time but not being able to play a br movie you just bought for $25+ is already happening to often.

Firmware releases, lately? Not for me. I think I have only had to do 2 br-related firmwares on my ps3, since I've had it and I think those were all in 2007. Out of that time period, not once have I ever put a disc in that did nothing until a requested firmware update was acquired. So either there have been none needed for quite some time or it was inconspicuously handled pre-emptively in regular psn store related updates. Ymmv, of course.

Perhaps, the most recent high-profile update (early this year?) was the one to enable dts-ma decoding. Even then, the movie could still be played and heard w/o everything crashing to a halt until an update happens.

It is playing better now. It must be the storm. But quality still just isn't there. Although it is softer, I prefer watching SD upconverted with my HD805 with the reon than the "HD" that cable is offering. I am not saying it doesn't have more detail... usually, but the artifacting on many of these is terrible to say the least. Colors seem washed compared to HDM as well.

Ironically, Comcast has been getting lambasted for the past few months for horrendous hd quality on their conventional broadcast service (see HDTV Programming forum). I don't know how this would translate to their VOD quality, but I would step warily, before committing.

I seldom use Cox VoD either. Mainly because they don't seem to have unique content and the navigation interface is clunky to say the least. It just does not feel like you are browsing through a library. But I do use my DVR to record movies and shows. In fact that is probably the one reason I will not need to buy the Olympics Blu Ray, if they ever release one :)

Cox HD DVD allows we to connect to an external hard drive offering unlimited storage. Practically.

It is playing better now. It must be the storm. But quality still just isn't there. Although it is softer, I prefer watching SD upconverted with my HD805 with the reon than the "HD" that cable is offering. I am not saying it doesn't have more detail... usually, but the artifacting on many of these is terrible to say the least. Colors seem washed compared to HDM as well.

I had the same experience. SD upconverted on my HTPC looks better than many of the HD movies on Cox VoD. That is another problem. Many of my friends who come over, don't seem to care much about the format itself. A few months ago, they'd come over to watch Blu Ray! Now they don't care which player I am using. In fact the Apple TV seems to be creating the most buzz!

Is the HD 805 a new player?

I think that underscores an important issue- bad hd is really hd's own worst enemy. People are developing their first experiences on the kind of "hd" that appears on these cable/sat services (dare I say download-based, as well?). Is it any wonder why they may reckon that hd is not that far beyond the sd they already have? Essentially, they have not seen real hd- just very poor examples of it, under the misrepresentative marketing that "all hd is hd" once those 2 letters have been tagged to service xyz. It's definitely a poor state of affairs, imo.

I had the same experience. SD upconverted on my HTPC looks better than many of the HD movies on Cox VoD. That is another problem. Many of my friends who come over, don't seem to care much about the format itself. A few months ago, they'd come over to watch Blu Ray! Now they don't care which player I am using. In fact the Apple TV seems to be creating the most buzz!

Is the HD 805 a new player?

HD805 was an $899 onkyo HD DVD player with the Reon chip. It also allows direct access the the Reon to tweak the settings to your tastes. More noise, less noise... no problem. and so on. really nice. I got it new (labeled as refurbd to tone down the warrranty) for 106.10 from shoponkyo on July 3rd.

I think that underscores an important issue- bad hd is really hd's own worst enemy. People are developing their first experiences on the kind of "hd" that appears on these cable/sat services (dare I say download-based, as well?). Is it any wonder why they may reckon that hd is not that far beyond the sd they already have? Essentially, they have not seen real hd- just very poor examples of it, under the misrepresentative marketing that "all hd is hd" once those 2 letters have been tagged to service xyz. It's definitely a poor state of affairs, imo.

I agree.

Wow! I think you paid less than the wholesale price on a Reon!

I don't think any Reon based solution could be had for less than $800!

I think that underscores an important issue- bad hd is really hd's own worst enemy. People are developing their first experiences on the kind of "hd" that appears on these cable/sat services (dare I say download-based, as well?). Is it any wonder why they may reckon that hd is not that far beyond the sd they already have? Essentially, they have not seen real hd- just very poor examples of it, under the misrepresentative marketing that "all hd is hd" once those 2 letters have been tagged to service xyz. It's definitely a poor state of affairs, imo.

Yes. They're diluting the brand. But, next year we should see more people being exposed to Blu Ray which will make a difference. But the pricing for software at places like Best Buy are insane. They have Click! on DVD for $5.99 and the Blu Ray for $29.99. Ice Age is $35! So many people are watching just DVDS one their Blu Ray players.

I think we have a poor understanding of the mass consumer. Walk into a B&M. What do you see? Sets in dymanic mode with frame interpolation. So how you have butchered colors and a tech that is inserting frames and producting artifacts. Both big NO NO's to us, right? These demo's exist in every B&M because that is what the masses are attracted to. Put up a calibrated picture right next to it and they'll rarely pay attention.

When you start using "color accuracy, artifact free video!" and such, you're absolutely starting off on the wrong side on what's needed for mass adoption. Majority of the people are not sitting there with calibrated displays in light controlled rooms with $5000+ 5.1 systems. It's the marketing and push, along with prices that will make or break BR. Otherwise people will be happy with DVD or whatever upcoming is more convenient. Whether that's HD VOD, digital downloads or whatever.

I think we have a poor understanding of the mass consumer. Walk into a B&M. What do you see? Sets in dymanic mode with frame interpolation. So how you have butchered colors and a tech that is inserting frames and producting artifacts. Both big NO NO's to us, right? These demo's exist in every B&M because that is what the masses are attracted to. Put up a calibrated picture right next to it and they'll rarely pay attention.

When you start using "color accuracy, artifact free video!" and such, you're absolutely starting off on the wrong side on what's needed for mass adoption. Majority of the people are not sitting there with calibrated displays in light controlled rooms with $5000+ 5.1 systems. It's the marketing and push, along with prices that will make or break BR. Otherwise people will be happy with DVD or whatever upcoming is more convenient. Whether that's HD VOD, digital downloads or whatever.

I disagree. I am not talking about a few small artifacts. The kids were watching the Karate Kid and asked me what was wrong with the picture. It was artifacted to all heck. And the daughter is 13 and in no way any kind of videophile.

Yes. They're diluting the brand. But, next year we should see more people being exposed to Blu Ray which will make a difference. But the pricing for software at places like Best Buy are insane. They have Click! on DVD for $5.99 and the Blu Ray for $29.99. Ice Age is $35! So many people are watching just DVDS one their Blu Ray players.

Software prices are high but unlike the early days of DVD, BD titles are much easier to rent through Blockbuster and Netflix.

...and the advent of Amazon as an avenue for price-friendly br content utterly transforms the buyer landscape. They are eating BB's (and the like) lunch (and not just for video media). So if br movies are $35 at BB, that doesn't hurt br, per se. It just hurts BB. Today's consumer is far more saavy about seeking bargains than simply accepting BB's price as the final offer.

I'm not sure BB is even relevant any longer as any measure of market interest. If I'm looking for "electronics", BB/CC/etc are not even on my go-to list, for some time. The last time I actually bought something at BB was probably more than a few years ago, and only because I had to expend the balance on some gift cards. ;) I don't think I've even bought a dvd at BB even once. :eek: Last time I bought a dvd at CC was years ago when I picked up the deluxe remaster for Predator (and it definitely was no $5.99 bargain). Even then, I could have saved a few bucks had I just waited a week longer and looked around online.

Comcast is planning on throttling right now at 250GB\Month. Each year their capacity grows and so will that cap. Unless we see really low cap numbers, people shouldnt have a problem with downloads.

I haven't been back to this thread in a while I think my next/first/other post here/or in another thread.... did make mention of them setting a 250Gb limit.

But what, in a marketplace driven by the supplier and not the consumer, makes you think for one CPU clock cycle that it will go *up* and not *down*?

In their shoes, I'd set a 250Gb, make happy for a while and then bring it down. Repeat until they (as in you) cry Uncle and then raise it a little. Then I'd flood the airewaves with spinnola like "we listened to our customers and raised our monthly DL limit. Come over now (to the dark side) and get the all you can eat amount of 10Mb a month!"

I'd also say that I was cutting back the DL limit to make more room for my VOD traffic.

But I'm just cynical..... :D

Seggers

I disagree. I am not talking about a few small artifacts. The kids were watching the Karate Kid and asked me what was wrong with the picture. It was artifacted to all heck. And the daughter is 13 and in no way any kind of videophile.

You have some serious feed issues if your daughter at 13 was asking such....

Yeah, bjm!...your daughter is defective. Return her immediately to the manufacturer for reprogramming! :D At the very least, check her friggin' firmware for being up to date.

...and the advent of Amazon as an avenue for price-friendly br content utterly transforms the buyer landscape. They are eating BB's (and the like) lunch (and not just for video media). So if br movies are $35 at BB, that doesn't hurt br, per se. It just hurts BB. Today's consumer is far more saavy about seeking bargains than simply accepting BB's price as the final offer.

I'm not sure BB is even relevant any longer as any measure of market interest. If I'm looking for "electronics", BB/CC/etc are not even on my go-to list, for some time. The last time I actually bought something at BB was probably more than a few years ago, and only because I had to expend the balance on some gift cards. ;) I don't think I've even bought a dvd at BB even once. :eek: Last time I bought a dvd at CC was years ago when I picked up the deluxe remaster for Predator (and it definitely was no $5.99 bargain). Even then, I could have saved a few bucks had I just waited a week longer and looked around online.

That is you Mr Hanky but the average consumer stills go to the big box stores and it's quite easy to see as you mentioned in the above post, if it's priced too high they won't buy! And for many that jumped up and down when these stores went Blu exclusively during the format war only to turn around and say now they are not relevant anymore makes no sense what so ever. Many of these same people will not buy on the internet ( security, fraud or whatever) but what they will do is go home and pick up their remote of their trusted local cable provider and push a button to watch a movie. Is this competition for BD? Will this hurt BD? Will it prolong the adoption of BD? The answer to these questions is yes it will!

HD VOD is far more cost effective if you're already subscribing to HD from your cable provider. It costs $4.99 to watch an HD movie. Assuming I will not want to watch that movie 5 to 8 times (assuming BR price of $25 to $40) then I've saved money. How many movies have I watched even 4 times in my life? Probably 1 at most.

Software prices are high but unlike the early days of DVD, BD titles are much easier to rent through Blockbuster and Netflix.

That is probably true and hence the actual adoption of Blu ray is much higher than the sales numbers indicate.

I for one have a hard time justifying a buy for many disks. On the other hand a $5.99 DVD is often a pure impulse buy. I just bought Click! that way. I wasn't even tempted to get the Blu Ray.

Blu Ray is probably great for Blockbuster and Netflix.

BB and Netflix are doing everything they can to adopt Digital Downloads. It is far more cost effective for them and more convenient for the customer.

If retailers and renting companies had their way we would have no more phsical media.

HD VOD is far more cost effective if you're already subscribing to HD from your cable provider. It costs $4.99 to watch an HD movie. Assuming I will not want to watch that movie 5 to 8 times (assuming BR price of $25 to $40) then I've saved money. How many movies have I watched even 4 times in my life? Probably 1 at most.

If you've only seen one movie 4 times in your life I have no idea why you would ever want to buy a movie. VOD would clearly be a much better solutions for you, but by no means more cost effective than renting a disc. I've got somewhere near 300 movies in my collection and there's not a single one, including the tv seasons, which I haven't watched at least twice, most I have watched five or more times. If they were even available on demand at the times I wanted to watch them, it would have cost thousands more to watch them all on demand, and I would be left with nothing to show for it. Hell, rental fees for The Big Lebowski alone probably would have added up to how much I've spent on my entire collection. We can't even get into the thousands of hours I've spent watching special features or listening to commentaries, as they are not available on demand.

Comcast is planning on throttling right now at 250GB\Month. Each year their capacity grows and so will that cap. Unless we see really low cap numbers, people shouldnt have a problem with downloads. So by that logic are you saying that their capacity has shrunk, causing them to implement caps? Or is it possible that the caps were implemented because the rate of their growth is not fast enough to meet the demands of their growing customer base?

That is you Mr Hanky but the average consumer stills go to the big box stores and it's quite easy to see as you mentioned in the above post, if it's priced too high they won't buy!

...and for every "average consumer" that still goes to big box stores, there are even more shopping online. If it's priced too high, they go to other channels. The loser is BB, in this scenario. I would think the only people that are necessarily restricted to big box channels are those who are only capable of carrying cash (zero credit worthiness), want to invest in the latest line of Monster Cable products, want to pay another 25% in product cost in buyer protection policy, etc. Any way you slice it, these are not smart bargain shoppers, picking up their gear at a big box. These are sheep who really have no idea of any other way (ok, that is being harsh, but damn).

And for many that jumped up and down when these stores went Blu exclusively during the format war only to turn around and say now they are not relevant anymore makes no sense what so ever.

It's a symbolic gesture, to be sure. Ultimately, I maintain that it is irrelevant in the big picture today, just as it was then. It only brings me to the original point that you chose to refute- if BB is selling br movies at $30-35, the answer is, "Who cares? They are no longer a major player on the consumer goods scene, anyway. If their prices are too high, it doesn't lose sales on the product. It simply loses sales to them." Hence, it is a moot point whatever price is standard at BB, as a basis to make an argument.

Many of these same people will not buy on the internet ( security, fraud or whatever)...

This is a small minority. The sheer volume of internet shopping that exists to this day would seriously counter your point by orders of magnitude. Like you would remind us that video-downloads are the future certain, I would remind you that online shopping is a reality today, period, and will only become more so in the future.

...but what they will do is go home and pick up their remote of their trusted local cable provider and push a button to watch a movie.

If they truly are that price averse, they certainly aren't subscribed to any monthly cable service at $50-75/month, either. Forget about hd tiers or even specialty VOD services, on top of that. By that logic, they are still using rabbit ears for ota and squeezing out the last few drops of life out of their vhs collection. :rolleyes:

In that scenario, br IS the price-friendly avenue. It astounds me how anyone to this day can still wage an argument about price-sensitive consumers being averse to br as a source of hd nirvana, yet they would spend even more money, year upon year, for hd-tier services (but hd-lite performance) through cable/sat/ip?! Get real! Now that is a ridiculous argument.

HD VOD is far more cost effective if you're already subscribing to HD from your cable provider. It costs $4.99 to watch an HD movie. Assuming I will not want to watch that movie 5 to 8 times (assuming BR price of $25 to $40) then I've saved money. How many movies have I watched even 4 times in my life? Probably 1 at most.
Not here in Seattle.

$3.99 for SDVOD
$5.99-7.99 for HDVOD

Also, VOD does not guarantee you that a movie you enjoy today will be avalible tomorrow. Currently, they have a limited library of titles. Yes, I know... they have more than blu-ray.

You have some serious feed issues if your daughter at 13 was asking such....

Comcast HD at its best. Most are acceptable. But some are just horrendous. It is not the feed, it is the encoding. I can tell the difference. I am not talking about macroblocking which would be an indication of feed problems.The closest that I have seen to that is watching the SD DVD version of the Mummy returns upscaled to HD on my 94" screen.

It would be interesting to see what kind of file size they are using. I know it is Mpeg2.


Doing a quick search, it seems that most are in the lower teens as a bitrate. That is really low compared to HDM which can easily spike into the mid 20s for alot of scenes. Furthermore it is mpeg2 which means you are getting less detail through hat bandwidth compared to an AVC or VC1 stream.

Now granted it is 1080i and not 1080p, but This is still really low for an Mpeg-2 file.

...and for every "average consumer" that still goes to big box stores, there are even more shopping online. If it's priced too high, they go to other channels. The loser is BB, in this scenario. I would think the only people that are necessarily restricted to big box channels are those who are only capable of carrying cash (zero credit worthiness), want to invest in the latest line of Monster Cable products, want to pay another 25% in product cost in buyer protection policy, etc. Any way you slice it, these are not smart bargain shoppers, picking up their gear at a big box. These are sheep who really have no idea of any other way (ok, that is being harsh, but damn).



It's a symbolic gesture, to be sure. Ultimately, I maintain that it is irrelevant in the big picture today, just as it was then. It only brings me to the original point that you chose to refute- if BB is selling br movies at $30-35, the answer is, "Who cares? They are no longer a major player on the consumer goods scene, anyway. If their prices are too high, it doesn't lose sales on the product. It simply loses sales to them." Hence, it is a moot point whatever price is standard at BB, as a basis to make an argument.



This is a small minority. The sheer volume of internet shopping that exists to this day would seriously counter your point by orders of magnitude. Like you would remind us that video-downloads are the future certain, I would remind you that online shopping is a reality today, period, and will only become more so in the future.



If they truly are that price averse, they certainly aren't subscribed to any monthly cable service at $50-75/month, either. Forget about hd tiers or even specialty VOD services, on top of that. By that logic, they are still using rabbit ears for ota and squeezing out the last few drops of life out of their vhs collection. :rolleyes:

In that scenario, br IS the price-friendly avenue. It astounds me how anyone to this day can still wage an argument about price-sensitive consumers being averse to br as a source of hd nirvana, yet they would spend even more money, year upon year, for hd-tier services (but hd-lite performance) through cable/sat/ip?! Get real! Now that is a ridiculous argument.

Nice spin, if only the world was really like what you percieve. I must be wrong then because I'm sure everyone of those people will go out and buy a BD player because they all want nothing but the best PQ/AQ and nothing less. What was I thinking!

You can call it spin, but I think the point you are missing is that not only will this demographic that you describe pass on that fancy-shmancy br player, but they will fail to enter that VOD market, by the very same mechanisms you cite- overall cost.

You can call it spin, but I think the point you are missing is that not only will this demographic that you describe pass on that fancy-shmancy br player, but they will fail to enter that VOD market, by the very same mechanisms you cite- overall cost.

I disagree and heres why:

Convience trumps price in most cases and something no one seems to bring up is that VOD is not just about price.

As I speak my Comcast system is offering over 200 SD movies and over 40 HD movies free, thats right free. No added cost to your bill!

And I'm sure some will be enticed to pay the 3.99 or 4.99 for new releases that they have not seen yet if for no other reason than they can just press a button instead of running out to the store or waiting for it in the mail.

No matter how you want to look at it, it has it's advantages to compete with BD and DVD and only falls short in one catagory with BD and that is PQ/AQ and for the segment of the population (which is most of it ) that we are talking about, that is not a deal breaker I am sorry to say!

I disagree and heres why:

Convience trumps price in most cases and something no one seems to bring up is that VOD is not just about price.

As I speak my Comcast system is offering over 200 SD movies and over 40 HD movies free, thats right free. No added cost to your bill!

And I'm sure some will be enticed to pay the 3.99 or 4.99 for new releases that they have not seen yet if for no other reason than they can just press a button instead of running out to the store or waiting for it in the mail.

No matter how you want to look at it, it has it's advantages to compete with BD and DVD and only falls short in one catagory with BD and that is PQ/AQ and for the segment of the population (which is most of it ) that we are talking about, that is not a deal breaker I am sorry to say!

1) Selection trumps convenience and price. Selection is cables weakest link.

2) Sure there are 200 free sd movies and 40 free hd movies but often the 40 in hd are upconverted from the 200 in sd so it's more like 160. While 160 is a wide selection, it seems to be the same 160 over and over and over. They seem also to be more recent releases...try finding Unforgiven, LOTR, etc. They are nowhere to be found. This is one of the reason I dropped HD service from my provider.

3) Netflix type accounts are much more cost effective avenues for viewing films you didn't feel like shelling out theatre price admisssions for. Views can get down to the dollar range if you use it enough...and I do.

4) VOD has the advantage of instant gratification.
It falls short on value, selection, picture quality and audio quality .

While I realize the world really likes vanilla (and I do too) I prefer variation in my diet.

Also just a reminder to those who think the bandwith cap are a temporary mesure. Capping as nothing to do with infrastructure or the lack of it. It has to do with money. If you get unlimited service from your ISP they are only getting your monthly payment, but if they impose cap on your monthly service then they can make more money by charging you for the excedent usage. And since, in most places, you are limited to only a few ISP per city then if they all impose limit you are fracked. Case in point, Montreal. Here we have 2 major player Bell and Videotron. Before we were uncapped but now BOTH of them have imposed cap and in the case of Videotron it will cost you 7$ a gig over your limit. There not doing it for a technical reason. Internet service has now the same quality and speed that it had before the capping. Montreal doesn't have a big demographic boom and the demand for new connection is not sky rocketing. They are purely doing it for the money and they will all do it sooner or later.

1) Selection trumps convenience and price. Selection is cables weakest link.

2) Sure there are 200 free sd movies and 40 free hd movies but often the 40 in hd are upconverted from the 200 in sd so it's more like 160. While 160 is a wide selection, it seems to be the same 160 over and over and over. They seem also to be more recent releases...try finding Unforgiven, LOTR, etc. They are nowhere to be found. This is one of the reason I dropped HD service from my provider.

3) Netflix type accounts are much more cost effective avenues for viewing films you didn't feel like shelling out theatre price admisssions for. Views can get down to the dollar range if you use it enough...and I do.

4) VOD has the advantage of instant gratification.
It falls short on value, selection, picture quality and audio quality .

While I realize the world really likes vanilla (and I do too) I prefer variation in my diet.
Also don't forget that if you decide to pause or watch the VOD title later, you only have 24 hours or you have to pay again(double dip) to watch it.

1) Selection trumps convenience and price. Selection is cables weakest link.

2) Sure there are 200 free sd movies and 40 free hd movies but often the 40 in hd are upconverted from the 200 in sd so it's more like 160. While 160 is a wide selection, it seems to be the same 160 over and over and over. They seem also to be more recent releases...try finding Unforgiven, LOTR, etc. They are nowhere to be found. This is one of the reason I dropped HD service from my provider.

3) Netflix type accounts are much more cost effective avenues for viewing films you didn't feel like shelling out theatre price admisssions for. Views can get down to the dollar range if you use it enough...and I do.

4) VOD has the advantage of instant gratification.
It falls short on value, selection, picture quality and audio quality .

While I realize the world really likes vanilla (and I do too) I prefer variation in my diet.

1.& 2 Those are just the free movies, they add new ones all the time for the more recent releases that you need to pay for. Not a weak selection at all.
ps: unforgiven was on it for a long time!

3, Most people with a cable box will use it because it is already there and their paying for it factor, no need to look elsewhere.

4. A lot of people might not agree with that point of view on value and selection, which leaves PQ/AQ and for most of these folks,thats not a deciding factor as I have said many times.

5. I believe Comcast is working on day and date release with some movie studios, again adding another option to VOD that would probably do well.

Also don't forget that if you decide to pause or watch the VOD title later, you only have 24 hours or you have to pay again(double dip) to watch it.

I believe most people watch a movie in one sitting, don't you?

1.& 2 Those are just the free movies, they add new ones all the time for the more recent releases that you need to pay for. Not a weak selection at all.
ps: unforgiven was on it for a long time!

3, Most people with a cable box will use it because it is already there and their paying for it factor, no need to look elsewhere.

4. A lot of people might not agree with that point of view on value and selection, which leaves PQ/AQ and for most of these folks,thats not a deciding factor as I have said many times.

5. I believe Comcast is working on day and date release with some movie studios, again adding another option to VOD that would probably do well.


I did a comparison of that versus it on HD DVD. The quality was night and day better on HDM.

Don't get me wrong, convenience factor is generally there and you are also more apt to watch films that you normally wouldn't.

Each has its place. It is too bad that they can't use AVC or VC-1 as the streaming codec instead, but I imagine they are pretty locked into at this point.

I personally never watch the stuff that I actually have to pay per view. If it isn't free, its not for me. I would spend the extra money to buy or rent it in disc.

Good example of a good VOD for me the other day was bull Durham. I would have never watched that, but it was on so I gave it a shot. Not a bad flick.

right now vod or hdm downloads can't tough overall pq and aq ob br. when i rent an hd movie from e* it's a joke. full of macros, only 5.1. i don't think the cablecos or satcos are going to be able to provided hdm at br comparable quality for several years.

so for me br is the way to go - right? well one problem, i can't afford $400.00 for 2.0 player. with the economy sucking, i think there are a lot of other people in the same boat. br doesn't seem to care about maximizing their consumer penetration while they have the best technology available. if they don't make their move now and start cutting player prices by q4, it may be too late.

i really believe that netflix, apple or some other provider will be able to provide on demand high quality 1080p 24 quality movies in a year or two. maybe not quite the quality of br, but close enough for a/v afficiandos. and that will be it for br. why expend hundreds of dollars for a physical media that will be outdated in a 3-5 years when you can rent 1080p movies for $5 a pop.

if i were sony, i'd sell the br players like tosh did, at a loss, to get them in enough households to have enough mass penetration so the format is viable enough for the studios to support in coming years. i really think this battle will be decided in the next 18-24 months.

1.& 2 Those are just the free movies, they add new ones all the time for the more recent releases that you need to pay for. Not a weak selection at all.
ps: unforgiven was on it for a long time!

My point precisely...they keep the same movies in the rotation forever. How many "John Tucker Must Die" fans are there that it stays in rotation for 8 months?
Several people have remarked that they have hundreds of discs in their collection. The local video store at a few thousand discs has a good selection...160 on cable is weak.
Hey, I add new videos to my collection each week.

3, Most people with a cable box will use it because it is already there and their paying for it factor, no need to look elsewhere.

You get what your willing to settle for. Good enough is... mediocre.

4. A lot of people might not agree with that point of view on value and selection, which leaves PQ/AQ and for most of these folks,thats not a deciding factor as I have said many times.

Take a poll...Sorry, value and selection stand as reason not to vod. PQ and AQ is a deciding factor considering what I (and others) have shelled out for HDTVs and sound equipment

5. I believe Comcast is working on day and date release with some movie studios, again adding another option to VOD that would probably do well.

Great for films no one would pay to see in a theatre. Otherwise a pipedream.

Here's something else to consider.

We on AVS, mostly, seem to like our shiny round discs.

Most Joe 6 Pack look at the cost of a BD in BB (poor old BB, we always seem to pick on them) and think "frak that, I'll just VOD it".

What they don't think is "frak that, the pq/aq will be worse on VOD, I'd better spend 4 - 7 times the VOD cost -which I only intend to watch once - and buy the BD".

What they do think is the VOD is 4 - 7$ and the BD is 25 - 40$, for something I'm probably only going to watch once. Plus the wife wants a new handbag, plus the kids need shoes, plus gas is 4$ a gallon etc etc etc.

VOD, as much as I hate it, will always be considered to be cheaper than BD, because it is cheaper than a BD. In so much as the headline cost.

Also most J6P aren't that interested in building up a library of discs. The want to watch the film and not deal with the grief of storing that disc. Or waiting for it in the mail and sending it back.

Just for the record, I've never VOD'ed or Netflixed. You don't know where it's been.... :eek: :)

Seggers

Just for the record, I've never VOD'ed or Netflixed. You don't know where it's been.... :eek: :)

Seggers

especially after reading the "22 tips..." thread... :eek:

i understand the "need to collect"... i've got heaven knows how many cd's... a lot of them have been listened to once or twice and now collect dust... i guess i've never been bitten by the "collect movies" bug, because there are so very few that i'll watch more than once...

all things being equal, i'd rather watch a movie on bd than on vod... but realistically (as many have pointed out), all things aren't equal... and (as i pointed out), i think sometimes we forget what the purpose of watching a movie is... if i can fire up a movie on appletv from the comfort of my recliner and watch it, that's going to be more satisfying than not watching a movie at all...

i guess for some here (for whatever reason, whether that be an emotional attachment to little round disks, or an inability to enjoy a movie for what it is), anything other than bd will be unacceptable... what those people need to understand is that they are in a very small minority of the general population...

Why is it that some members believe that EVERYONE at AVS is an AV guru, specialist or "above average" movie enthusists?

Is this just a talking point?
If we at AVS are considered not the norm, then why do some believe they know so much of what J6P wants ?:confused:
If they know so much, they should be in marketting for a CE manufacturer or technology firm and should be making millions because they have their finger on the pulse of the general public.


Let me tell you how I got here.

I was by no means an AV enthusists but did enjoy movies.
I had a Sony AV receiver with a Coax input that I used from my 1999 Samsung DVD player viewed on my 27" Sharp CRT.
Had 5.1 speakers, all Radio Shack Optimus speakers from the mid 90's. :eek:

In 2006, I got a decent tax return and decided I wanted an HDTV.
After some shopping, I settle for a 42" Plasma.
Got it home and connect it to my SD cable and it looked horrible. I thought something was wrong with the TV. After talking with some people at work, they said I need an HD signal to see better PQ like at the store demos.

So, I buy up from my $29.99 basic cable(about $37 w/tax) to Digital cable with HD for $70 w/tax.(You need digital cable to get HD.)
Now, I see what I'm missing on SD cable.

I watched a few VOD titles but most had this weird blocking thing on the picture. I later found out the technical term is macroblocking. Every VOD I watched, especially those with dark scenes had macroblocking. It became annoying after a while and I knew it wasn't normal since most of my HD channels didn't have this issue.

Then I see a blu-ray & HD DVD demo at Best Buy. The PQ was great but the price was way too high. After the prices came down to were I found it acceptable Q3 of 2007, I bought in to blu-ray due to technical specs and movie library.

Time passes and blu-ray becomes the standard, I've upgraded my entire AV setup for best possible PQ/AQ I can afford & dump my cable completely because the programming is horrible and not worth the $90+ I was paying for Digital cable, 2 cable boxes with HD. My money is best spent on things I enjoy at my pace & not spoon fed programming/selection. OTA HD is not bad & it's FREE & thanks to digital, theres some extra channels I get OTA that's not available on cable yet .


I still find myself as a novice near the J6P level but now enjoy HiDef PQ and have a hard time watching poor quaility HD or SD. Some SD DVD do look decent upconverted if they are newer titles but most older SD DVD's just can't be made to look "near HD."

My GF 57 dad bought a 42" LCD and a blu-ray player last Xmas. Even he can tell the difference between blu-ray, SD DVD and SD cable.

The point is, after seeing blu-ray and knowing it's the best PQ out there right now, it's up to the individual to decide if it's affordable to purchase. If people are buying HDTV's & see blu-ray, it's just a matter of price before they make a purchase.

right now vod or hdm downloads can't tough overall pq and aq ob br. when i rent an hd movie from e* it's a joke. full of macros, only 5.1. i don't think the cablecos or satcos are going to be able to provided hdm at br comparable quality for several years.

so for me br is the way to go - right? well one problem, i can't afford $400.00 for 2.0 player. with the economy sucking, i think there are a lot of other people in the same boat. br doesn't seem to care about maximizing their consumer penetration while they have the best technology available. if they don't make their move now and start cutting player prices by q4, it may be too late.

i really believe that netflix, apple or some other provider will be able to provide on demand high quality 1080p 24 quality movies in a year or two. maybe not quite the quality of br, but close enough for a/v afficiandos. and that will be it for br. why expend hundreds of dollars for a physical media that will be outdated in a 3-5 years when you can rent 1080p movies for $5 a pop.

if i were sony, i'd sell the br players like tosh did, at a loss, to get them in enough households to have enough mass penetration so the format is viable enough for the studios to support in coming years. i really think this battle will be decided in the next 18-24 months.

You can get a BR player now that will play BD disks now online for for the low to mid 200s. 1.0 is just fine. 2.0 only adds web based features and memory for things such as saving favorite scenes. In others words, it is the same features that you have with DVD now.... which much better resolution and sound.

DVD is still watchable for me though. I still buy SD as well.

For those here who are mixing the pricing of view-once scenarios with buy scenarios, allow myself to introduce you to an evidently new concept...it's called rental store video. :eek: Go to Blockbuster, walk up to the br shelf, rent the movie you wish to see...5 bucks. Of course, now the argument is going to be that you don't like to drive or waste gas going to the video store. :rolleyes: It's a weak argument (because, clearly people do drive around to pick up goods and services...this is not a matter of breaking through your hard-embedded Amish background).

For the movies that are worth keeping (collecting), there is no replacing the premium presentation of a physical br disc. VOD is just not on the same level, if the movie really matters to you, regardless of the smoking per-view price. (That has yet to account for the yearly cost of making the service available, in the first place. The whole cost advantage over the buying/renting br disc route gets shaky, at best.)

If they know so much, they should be in marketting for a CE manufacturer or technology firm and should be making millions because they have their finger on the pulse of the general public.


i don't "know" a lot...

however, i "observe" a lot...

take a guess at why verizon is building out their fios network as fast as they can... hint: it's not to provide phone service or to make surfing avs faster...

For those here who are mixing the pricing of view-once scenarios with buy scenarios, allow myself to introduce you to an evidently new concept...it's called rental store video. :eek: Go to Blockbuster, walk up to the br shelf, rent the movie you wish to see...5 bucks. Of course, now the argument is going to be that you don't like to drive or waste gas going to the video store. :rolleyes: It's a weak argument (because, clearly people do drive around to pick up goods and services...this is not a matter of breaking through your hard-embedded Amish background).

For the movies that are worth keeping (collecting), there is no replacing the premium presentation of a physical br disc. VOD is just not on the same level, if the movie really matters to you, regardless of the smoking per-view price. (That has yet to account for the yearly cost of making the service available, in the first place. The whole cost advantage over the buying/renting br disc route gets shaky, at best.)

always the online netflix and Bb option too for shut-ins

Very true! I just wanted to throw some water on the silly, repeated use of the $4 vod rental vs. $30 br purchase argument. ;)

Why is it that some members believe that EVERYONE at AVS is an AV guru, specialist or "above average" movie enthusists?

Is this just a talking point?
If we at AVS are considered not the norm, then why do some believe they know so much of what J6P wants ?:confused:
If they know so much, they should be in marketting for a CE manufacturer or technology firm and should be making millions because they have their finger on the pulse of the general public.


Let me tell you how I got here.

I was by no means an AV enthusists but did enjoy movies.
I had a Sony AV receiver with a Coax input that I used from my 1999 Samsung DVD player viewed on my 27" Sharp CRT.
Had 5.1 speakers, all Radio Shack Optimus speakers from the mid 90's. :eek:

In 2006, I got a decent tax return and decided I wanted an HDTV.
After some shopping, I settle for a 42" Plasma.
Got it home and connect it to my SD cable and it looked horrible. I thought something was wrong with the TV. After talking with some people at work, they said I need an HD signal to see better PQ like at the store demos.

So, I buy up from my $29.99 basic cable(about $37 w/tax) to Digital cable with HD for $70 w/tax.(You need digital cable to get HD.)
Now, I see what I'm missing on SD cable.

I watched a few VOD titles but most had this weird blocking thing on the picture. I later found out the technical term is macroblocking. Every VOD I watched, especially those with dark scenes had macroblocking. It became annoying after a while and I knew it wasn't normal since most of my HD channels didn't have this issue.

Then I see a blu-ray & HD DVD demo at Best Buy. The PQ was great but the price was way too high. After the prices came down to were I found it acceptable Q3 of 2007, I bought in to blu-ray due to technical specs and movie library.

Time passes and blu-ray becomes the standard, I've upgraded my entire AV setup for best possible PQ/AQ I can afford & dump my cable completely because the programming is horrible and not worth the $90+ I was paying for Digital cable, 2 cable boxes with HD. My money is best spent on things I enjoy at my pace & not spoon fed programming/selection. OTA HD is not bad & it's FREE & thanks to digital, theres some extra channels I get OTA that's not available on cable yet .


I still find myself as a novice near the J6P level but now enjoy HiDef PQ and have a hard time watching poor quaility HD or SD. Some SD DVD do look decent upconverted if they are newer titles but most older SD DVD's just can't be made to look "near HD."

My GF 57 dad bought a 42" LCD and a blu-ray player last Xmas. Even he can tell the difference between blu-ray, SD DVD and SD cable.

The point is, after seeing blu-ray and knowing it's the best PQ out there right now, it's up to the individual to decide if it's affordable to purchase. If people are buying HDTV's & see blu-ray, it's just a matter of price before they make a purchase.

Are you serious with these questions?

Yes most people here are videophiles/audiophiles, it's not called a Science forum for nothing.

And I don't know about you but I have other friends, family and co-workers, none of them are big into this stuff but I do ask questions and they tell me whats important to them in the world of audio/video reproduction and it's nothing like what us fanatics care about, thats why I can post about their perceptions and thats why we relate to them as the average joe because thats exactly who they are, they make up most of the population, not us!

Are you serious with these questions?

Yes most people here are videophiles/audiophiles, it's not called a Science forum for nothing.

And I don't know about you but I have other friends, family and co-workers, none of them are big into this stuff but I do ask questions and they tell me whats important to them in the world of audio/video reproduction and it's nothing like what us fanatics care about, thats why I can post about their perceptions and thats why we relate to them as the average joe because thats exactly who they are, they make up most of the population, not us!
This forum is part science and mostly opinion. It is really nothing more than a hobby forum where you can exchange ideas.


It does amuse me, however, to see people post things like the following:

I believe in "x".
I know others who believe "x" also.
Therefore everybody must believe in "x".

This forum is part science and mostly opinion. It is really nothing more than a hobby forum where you can exchange ideas.


It does amuse me, however, to see people post things like the following:

I believe in "x".
I know others who believe "x" also.
Therefore everybody must believe in "x".

:D

Sometimes I think this forum has a much to do with science as astrology has to do with astronomy..

This forum is part science and mostly opinion. It is really nothing more than a hobby forum where you can exchange ideas.


It does amuse me, however, to see people post things like the following:

I believe in "x".
I know others who believe "x" also.
Therefore everybody must believe in "x".

+1

If someone posts, "I like watching some movies on my Ipod and do not care that they are not HD".

You get posts back like, "No! you are a h8ter!", "You are trying to kill my format!", "You clearly love format 'X' (which has nothing to do with Ipods)", etc.

Its rather funny. People are only allowed to have an opinion if it is the same as those who think they are always right.:D


btw, I do use HD on demand. It is much easier than renting BDs. The renting option is for movies I am not sure about, and therefore I don't care if they are not FULL HD. Almost all romantic comedies fall into that category, as do most documentaries.

For those here who are mixing the pricing of view-once scenarios with buy scenarios, allow myself to introduce you to an evidently new concept...it's called rental store video. :eek: Go to Blockbuster, walk up to the br shelf, rent the movie you wish to see...5 bucks. Of course, now the argument is going to be that you don't like to drive or waste gas going to the video store. :rolleyes: It's a weak argument (because, clearly people do drive around to pick up goods and services...this is not a matter of breaking through your hard-embedded Amish background).

For the movies that are worth keeping (collecting), there is no replacing the premium presentation of a physical br disc. VOD is just not on the same level, if the movie really matters to you, regardless of the smoking per-view price. (That has yet to account for the yearly cost of making the service available, in the first place. The whole cost advantage over the buying/renting br disc route gets shaky, at best.)

For the movies worth keeping. And I would assume each has their own preference of how they wish to keep something. For instance, some would say any picture worth keeping should be taken on film and printed on paper!

Next, Netflix and Blockbuster online rentals for Blu Ray probably come closest to a Apple TV type VoD model. However, a walk in to a Blockbuster is not even close. Not close in terms of the convenience factor, not close in terms of the selection and both of these are huge reasons why people prefer VoD in the first place. It is like discounting Amazon.com and saying I can buy the same product for cheaper by going to Costco!

The question is whether HD VoD gives you the experience that is sufficent to not want Blu Ray and vise versa. That is a personal choice to say the least. This is no different between the CD v. download music v. subscription model. For some, buying a physical CD is important. CDs even sell more than mp3. So I would not count on CDs going away. But to bet against mp3 is also foolish. We are entering a world where there is going to be choice in how we view HD content. There are pros and cons to different models.

You can swim against the current. That is also your choice. But if you see what is happening in the consumer electronics world, you'll know which way the current is flowing :)

You can swim against the current. That is also your choice. But if you see what is happening in the consumer electronics world, you'll know which way the current is flowing :)

Last time I check the consumer electronics WORLD wasn't limited to only the USA and Verizon FIOS customer. You have to look at what is happening elsewhere regarding bandwith cap to see that HD DL may become a USA only thing. And last time I checked the USA isn't the WORLD. Hell most of the tech product aren't even designed and produce in the US anymore.

Now that may come as overly aggresive and I'm sorry for that, english ain't my first language.

But like I said before the trend now for ISP is to impose cap not remove them. They also, each of them, corner the market for VOD either by the way of a partnership with an existing player or by setting up their own, not compatible with anybody else service. Japan announced a few week ago that they'll start capping user (if it wasn't in place before) and cap exist in many other country including mine Canada. Some ISP in the US also announced cap. Of course you are not limited when you are using your ISP vod service but you are when you ant to use a competitors that may have a greather or better selection that they do.

Last time I check the consumer electronics WORLD wasn't limited to only the USA and Verizon FIOS customer. You have to look at what is happening elsewhere regarding bandwith cap to see that HD DL may become a USA only thing. And last time I checked the USA isn't the WORLD. Hell most of the tech product aren't even designed and produce in the US anymore.

Now that may come as overly aggresive and I'm sorry for that, english ain't my first language.

But like I said before the trend now for ISP is to impose cap not remove them. They also, each of them, corner the market for VOD either by the way of a partnership with an existing player or by setting up their own, not compatible with anybody else service. Japan announced a few week ago that they'll start capping user (if it wasn't in place before) and cap exist in many other country including mine Canada. Some ISP in the US also announced cap. Of course you are not limited when you are using your ISP vod service but you are when you ant to use a competitors that may have a greather or better selection that they do.

First. The rest of the world isn't even close to adopting Blu Ray and DVD is the de facto standard. So, I was really addressing concerns based on this thread and products being designed today and for the future.

Second, the fact that there is bandwidth limitations today is 'proof' that people are already using the infrastructure beyond what it is capable of handling. This is exactly what I was referring to when I said, the future direction of technology.

Third, last I checked, the US was still the leading when it came to delivery of content. Whether it was DVD, Blu Ray, itunes or the internet. I am sorry to burst your bubble or what you believe in, but the adoption started right here. IN the US.

Fourth, basic business will say that IF bandwidth is a problem, there is money to be made in solving that problem. Hence, in a capitalist world that will happen. I recall my cell phone data service used to be capped. Now it is not. Again, those you quote the bandwidth limitations as the reason why Blu Ray will compete is clearly betting against the direction of technology.

Fifth, I am not a Verizon FiOS customer. I use Cox and have around 20mpbs download speed and no caps on my bandwidth. Comcast has said they would limit at 250GB a month. IF anyone is downloading 250GB a month, they have already bought into downloable content in a big way! The more people who are caught by this cap, the more it proves that we are moving to a networked driven world. Heck, even 25GB download is a lot!

Finally, we owe it to ourselves to examine the evidence carefully. It does not make sense to get into an emotional debate about importance of the US. But from what I see, I am posting here on AVS, most people who are posting here and are discussing issues are closely related to the US market.

I am not sure there are AV forums in China and India talking about Blu Ray and the future of Blu Ray. I am sure, they are downloading and viewing YouTube and podcasts.

Hell most of the tech product aren't even designed and produce in the US anymore.




Do you consider Google, Intel, HP, nVidia, AMD, Apple, Microsoft, Honeywell etc to be tech companies or not?

Most of the software, graphics cards, video processors and the like are still produced in the US. The media gallery software on my Pioneer Plasma was probably designed in Japan, but if you compare it to itunes or Microsoft Media Center it is quite primitive.

The processors on all three current gen game consoles were designed by IBM. They may now be manufactured elsewhere, but were designed in the US.

Not sure what your point was?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most people do exactly that. I know of only one person who has a BD player and being from MA, most have Comcast cable. Guess how they watch their movies, considering they also all have DVD players? Yep, OnDemand, even my mother and father in law, both in their late 70's use it all the time. This is the real reason why DVD sales and rentals are down and some here are greatly underestimating the affect it is having on the movie viewing public and I believe with the Feb 17 cut off date fast approaching and more people come over to cable, they will be exposed to OnDemand for the first time and the percentage of people who use it will only keep increasing. The sad part is even for those who have HD capabilties, they still choose the SD version when watching so all that talk about how much better BD looks and sounds, ( which it does) means nothing to most of the general public and that will never change. Some here need to get a grip on reality!

Huh?

I'd rather buy and own content and not be hostage to my ISP and cable/sat provider for less then reliable connectivity that may interrupt my enjoyment.

I use VOD hardly at all because I *hate* the subliminal 'ca-ching' sound of paying for a movie, just to watch it once, then 'ca-ching' if someone else in my family wants to watch it again.

If I own my BD, I can watch it when I want to, however I want to, because I own the title.

I don't like VOD for several reasons - the PQ is just one of them.

You can swim against the current. That is also your choice. But if you see what is happening in the consumer electronics world, you'll know which way the current is flowing :)

Amazing that everyone knows the future. Truth is that even CEOs and analysts don't know, they can only guess. Truth is no one really knows what events will happen that will affect the future.

It could stay DVD.
It could go HDM
It could go VOD
It could go Downloads.
It could go reading books instead.
It could go to watching live broadcasts.
It could return to the movie theater.
It could be all of the above with each in some type of balance.

No one knows. Please don't try to be nostrodamus and proclaim that you know better than everyone else with comments like that. I should probably take that advice too. Perhaps I will.

First. The rest of the world isn't even close to adopting Blu Ray and DVD is the de facto standard. So, I was really addressing concerns based on this thread and products being designed today and for the future.

Second, the fact that there is bandwidth limitations today is 'proof' that people are already using the infrastructure beyond what it is capable of handling. This is exactly what I was referring to when I said, the future direction of technology.

Third, last I checked, the US was still the leading when it came to delivery of content. Whether it was DVD, Blu Ray, itunes or the internet. I am sorry to burst your bubble or what you believe in, but the adoption started right here. IN the US.

Fourth, basic business will say that IF bandwidth is a problem, there is money to be made in solving that problem. Hence, in a capitalist world that will happen. I recall my cell phone data service used to be capped. Now it is not. Again, those you quote the bandwidth limitations as the reason why Blu Ray will compete is clearly betting against the direction of technology.

Fifth, I am not a Verizon FiOS customer. I use Cox and have around 20mpbs download speed and no caps on my bandwidth. Comcast has said they would limit at 250GB a month. IF anyone is downloading 250GB a month, they have already bought into downloable content in a big way! The more people who are caught by this cap, the more it proves that we are moving to a networked driven world. Heck, even 25GB download is a lot!

Finally, we owe it to ourselves to examine the evidence carefully. It does not make sense to get into an emotional debate about importance of the US. But from what I see, I am posting here on AVS, most people who are posting here and are discussing issues are closely related to the US market.

I am not sure there are AV forums in China and India talking about Blu Ray and the future of Blu Ray. I am sure, they are downloading and viewing YouTube and podcasts.

Bandwith limitation have nothing to do with infrastructure. It has to do with money. They can charge you for the extra bit you download. We also went the way of the no limit -> 250g limit -> 20/10 limit... You'll get there soon enough when your ISP realize they can charge you 7$ the extra gig like they do here. Even the docsys 3 75mbps deal here is limited to 100g combined and cost 90$ per month and the 7$ per gig extra does apply.

You think 25gb is a lot!!! that is 3 DVD. I watch more movies than that in a month. and at 7$ a gig extra I prefer to buy the shinny disk.

Don't confuse computer tech and AV tech also. We are talking about AV gears here and last time I check most of those company were not based in the USA. And frankly even the company that are based in the US don't do much of their R&D and assembly there when they can outsource both to India and China for a fraction of the price. Go on some tech related site like Slashdot and hear the scream of those US tech people every time a job is outsource.

Bandwith limitation have nothing to do with infrastructure. It has to do with money. They can charge you for the extra bit you download. We also went the way of the no limit -> 250g limit -> 20/10 limit... You'll get there soon enough when your ISP realize they can charge you 7$ the extra gig like they do here. Even the docsys 3 75mbps deal here is limited to 100g combined and cost 90$ per month and the 7$ per gig extra does apply.

You think 25gb is a lot!!! that is 3 DVD. I watch more movies than that in a month. and at 7$ a gig extra I prefer to buy the shinny disk.

Don't confuse computer tech and AV tech also. We are talking about AV gears here and last time I check most of those company were not based in the USA. And frankly even the company that are based in the US don't do much of their R&D and assembly there when they can outsource both to India and China for a fraction of the price. Go on some tech related site like Slashdot and hear the scream of those US tech people every time a job is outsource.

Let me reiterate:

First, the need for bandwidth limitation shows that bandwidth use is on the rise. So, you can read this as a good thing or a bad thing. But if you're looking for growth, there you have it!

Second, Apple TV HD is less than 4GB and and SD is 1GB. So, when we're talking about downloads we are also considering better compression technologies. DVD was not designed for a download model, just as Blu Ray is not.

Third, you missed my point where I said, if bandwidth limitation is an issue, someone will come and solve it since their is money to be made there. Cellphone data plans were exactly that way. It went from limited usage to unlimited. Why? Infrastructure improved. IF it is not an infrastructure issue, then I'll go with the provider that gives me the most bandwidth. The one who is limiting, will lose customers. Simple as that.

Fourth, I am very aware of the outsourcing business model. The whole idea is to outsource low value items like QA and testing and bug fixing and call centers to low cost countries. Core design and R&D are still done here. You think Intel, IBM, Microsoft, Cicso etc are designing their next gen products in India and China? Of course not! Some design could be done there, if you see any Apple product they'll proudly tell you where it is designed :)

Amazing that everyone knows the future. Truth is that even CEOs and analysts don't know, they can only guess. Truth is no one really knows what events will happen that will affect the future.

It could stay DVD.
It could go HDM
It could go VOD
It could go Downloads.
It could go reading books instead.
It could go to watching live broadcasts.
It could return to the movie theater.
It could be all of the above with each in some type of balance.

No one knows. Please don't try to be nostrodamus and proclaim that you know better than everyone else with comments like that. I should probably take that advice too. Perhaps I will.

Actually the future is always uncertain. But you could try and gauge the pulse based on the information at hand. This thread posed a question, so I am assuming the OP was looking for an answer. Clearly it is debatable what will happen. All I said is examine the evidence to see which way the current is flowing....

Everyone could be wrong. But IF networked content were already dead, why would so many products be designed around it. Why would the CEO of Sony himself call an investors conference and make that a central theme for Sony's growth.

We can agree to disagree. But the basic premise of science is to examine the evidence. If everything is based on random probability and 'YOU' believe that. Then Mr. Nostradamus is an excellent choice.

What I believe is that we will increasingly have a multi format world. Some downloads, some physical, some HD, some SD, some live streaming. Will people read books? I can't imagine why not. But I also can't imagine why they will stop watching movies at home.

If everything about the future is 'we don't know', then there is no discussion. Since we don't know the future is as sure as death, but that is not the point. :rolleyes:

HD VOD/downloads (in their current state) are not really a major threat to Blu-Ray right now IMHO. Their biggest threat is to the Blockbusters and the Netlix's of the world (which does affect Blu-Ray).

Fact is, you cannot own the VOD or download (Vudu does offer some ownership but it depends on the movie and studio). People like to buy and own movies. That is a fact.

For people that care about audio and video, Blu-Ray is noticeably superior to VOD and downloads.

Lastly, I have seen 1080p VOD movies on Dish for $5.99-$6.99! So it appears that Netflix and Blockbuster still have the upper hand when it comes to pricing.

I have tried both HD downloads (Xbox 360 marketplace) and HD VOD via Dish and was not very impressed. The Sony PS3 HD downloads are not even in 5.1 sound. They have a long way to go IMHO.

HD VOD/downloads (in their current state) are not really a major threat to Blu-Ray right now IMHO. Their biggest threat is to the Blockbusters and the Netlix's of the world (which does affect Blu-Ray).

Fact is, you cannot own the VOD or download (Vudu does offer some ownership but it depends on the movie and studio). People like to buy and own movies. That is a fact.

For people that care about audio and video, Blu-Ray is noticeably superior to VOD and downloads.

Lastly, I have seen 1080p VOD movies on Dish for $5.99-$6.99! So it appears that Netflix and Blockbuster still have the upper hand when it comes to pricing.

I have tried both HD downloads (Xbox 360 marketplace) and HD VOD via Dish and was not very impressed. The Sony PS3 HD downloads are not even in 5.1 sound. They have a long way to go IMHO.

Many dynamics at play here. Ownership v. rental v. subscription. For now, all next gen formats including Blu Ray and VoD are marginal products. I would say Tivo and DVRs are probably the closest to main stream. The reason we don't think of Tivo and DVRs as competitors is because we don't pay for them.

I agree, downloads have quite a ways to go in terms of video and audio quality. But anyone who has used Apple TV HD or Vudu will tell you that the gap isn't great (of course it will come down to what one considers great). But it is naive to believe that the quality isn't going to go up. There is no laws of physics limitation here :)

Did itunes start out with offering loss less audio on their site? Of course not. Did we ever imagine that we would have people integrating ipods into high end stereo equipment? At least I didn't.

I am simply answering the question on this thread. You can believe that HD on demand can never compete with Blu Ray (it has already out lived HD DVD). That is your choice.

I guess I have said my part on this thread :)

HD VOD/downloads (in their current state) are not really a major threat to Blu-Ray right now IMHO. Their biggest threat is to the Blockbusters and the Netlix's of the world (which does affect Blu-Ray).
....
I have tried both HD downloads (Xbox 360 marketplace) and HD VOD via Dish and was not very impressed. The Sony PS3 HD downloads are not even in 5.1 sound. They have a long way to go IMHO.
agree ... VOD on demand seems to be more of a thread to dvd rentals than blu-ray. There's a few movies that I'm really looking forward to seeing in High Def on blu-ray -- and low quality VOD won't cut it. We also have TWC's on demand cable box, and it has much better than DVD video quality, but there's still some mpeg motion artifacts, which drive me crazy, and its not quite blu-ray equivalent video resolution. Also, disc's have extras, that you don't get with VOD, and they have captions.

As far as DVD movies, yeah, I've tried sony PS3 downloads, and even though its only 2 mbits/sec, they seem to have equivalent to DVD quality. They're limited to 24 hours, and they don't have dvd extras, don't have captions, and don't have dolby 5.1 sound. But the convenience is huge, in comparison to DVD rentals.

But it is naive to believe that the quality isn't going to go up.

Actually such a notion IS pretty naive. Otherwise sd digital satellite should be utterly flawless, by now. What really happens is they always figure what you really want is a concerted ceiling in actual pq/aq and then use the saved bandwidth to give you more channels of crap. That's the trend we have observed for over a decade, now, with the wonders of digital broadcast. There is NEVER an improvement (and if there is, it is shortlived). The quality stays the same (mediocre) and they simply find ways to put even more garbage programming through the same pipe or ways to charge you more for more "services".

It would absolutely be naive to expect the history of video-download to be any different. I'm not saying it cannot end up bucking the trend. I will be the first in line to admit surprise if it does, but let's not dismiss that the odds are heavily against this scenario, until demonstrated otherwise.

But it is naive to believe that the quality isn't going to go up.

Actually such a notion IS pretty naive. Otherwise sd digital satellite should be utterly flawless, by now. What really happens is they always figure what you really want is a concerted ceiling in actual pq/aq and then use the saved bandwidth to give you more channels of crap. That's the trend we have observed for over a decade, now, with the wonders of digital broadcast. There is NEVER an improvement (and if there is, it is shortlived). The quality stays the same (mediocre) and they simply find ways to put even more garbage programming through the same pipe or ways to charge you more for more "services".

It would absolutely be naive to expect the history of video-download to be any different. I'm not saying it cannot end up bucking the trend. I will be the first in line to admit surprise if it does, but let's not dismiss that the odds are heavily against this scenario (on a historic and business basis), until demonstrated otherwise. If the "compression technologies of the future" can actually improve beyond the sheer magicality of current avc, they'll simply use it to duplicate the quality (or lack of) we already have but shrink the data down to ever smaller sizes.

Many dynamics at play here. Ownership v. rental v. subscription. For now, all next gen formats including Blu Ray and VoD are marginal products. I would say Tivo and DVRs are probably the closest to main stream. The reason we don't think of Tivo and DVRs as competitors is because we don't pay for them.

There are many dynamics but revenue does not lie. Optical disc sales dwarf VOD/download sales combined. DVD sales were actually slightly up the first half of this year vs last year and Blu-Ray sales are way up (340%+).

I am not saying that VOD and downloads are not viable options. I have tried them both. VOD is especially convenient. But there are a lot of limitations (DRM, ownership, etc).

I agree, downloads have quite a ways to go in terms of video and audio quality. But anyone who has used Apple TV HD or Vudu will tell you that the gap isn't great (of course it will come down to what one considers great). But it is naive to believe that the quality isn't going to go up. There is no laws of physics limitation here :)

I have not tried AppleTV or Vudu but I have watched HD downloads via Xbox marketplace. And from what I gather the Xbox downloads are on par (if not better) than the Vudu and AppleTV offerings. I would say it is on par with Dish HD movies. And I still see the gap as being pretty big. At least for me. Although many people will not be as picky, but the DRM is going to be the biggest issue along with Internet bandwidth and capacity issues.

Did itunes start out with offering loss less audio on their site? Of course not. Did we ever imagine that we would have people integrating ipods into high end stereo equipment? At least I didn't.

I am simply answering the question on this thread. You can believe that HD on demand can never compete with Blu Ray (it has already out lived HD DVD). That is your choice.

Actually I never said that at all. I said that "in it's current state". I expect downloads to get there. But I think it will take awhile. At least 10-15 years. I live in the metro Salt Lake area and I have one option with regards to broadband. Qwest DSL. The fastest speed I can get it 3.5 mbps. Most of my neighbors that have broadband have the lower tiered plan and get under 1mbps.

It is going to take time. I have always been an early adopter and I would not be sorry to see optical media go away at some point, but we are clearly not ready yet.

Actually such a notion IS pretty naive. Otherwise sd digital satellite should be utterly flawless, by now. What really happens is they always figure what you really want is a concerted ceiling in actual pq/aq and then use the saved bandwidth to give you more channels of crap. That's the trend we have observed for over a decade, now, with the wonders of digital broadcast. There is NEVER an improvement (and if there is, it is shortlived). The quality stays the same (mediocre) and they simply find ways to put even more garbage programming through the same pipe or ways to charge you more for more "services".

It would absolutely be naive to expect the history of video-download to be any different. I'm not saying it cannot end up bucking the trend. I will be the first in line to admit surprise if it does, but let's not dismiss that the odds are heavily against this scenario (on a historic and business basis), until demonstrated otherwise. If the "compression technologies of the future" can actually improve beyond the sheer magicality of current avc, they'll simply use it to duplicate the quality (or lack of) we already have but shrink the data down to ever smaller sizes.

I am in total agreement with this. I am aware of a company that is part of an R&D effort where the goal is to squeeze 3000 channels into current cable bandwidth. The idea is to encode as little information as possible and the decoding part to be smart enough to assemble it back. The quality again is supposed to be DVD-like. So you're right in that the value is on more, rather than better :eek:

There are many dynamics but revenue does not lie. Optical disc sales dwarf VOD/download sales combined. DVD sales were actually slightly up the first half of this year vs last year and Blu-Ray sales are way up (340%+).

I am not saying that VOD and downloads are not viable options. I have tried them both. VOD is especially convenient. But there are a lot of limitations (DRM, ownership, etc).


I have not tried AppleTV or Vudu but I have watched HD downloads via Xbox marketplace. And from what I gather the Xbox downloads are on par (if not better) than the Vudu and AppleTV offerings. I would say it is on par with Dish HD movies. And I still see the gap as being pretty big. At least for me. Although many people will not be as picky, but the DRM is going to be the biggest issue along with Internet bandwidth and capacity issues.



Actually I never said that at all. I said that "in it's current state". I expect downloads to get there. But I think it will take awhile. At least 10-15 years. I live in the metro Salt Lake area and I have one option with regards to broadband. Qwest DSL. The fastest speed I can get it 3.5 mbps. Most of my neighbors that have broadband have the lower tiered plan and get under 1mbps.

It is going to take time. I have always been an early adopter and I would not be sorry to see optical media go away at some point, but we are clearly not ready yet.

It's difficult to measure true download/VoD sales since a lot of it is free. So, if you look at number of movies downloaded v. sold on Blu Ray. You will be surprised by which dwarfs which :D

Also, calculating revenue is not as straightforward as it first seems. For instance, IF you could not Tivo or download HBO movie to a DVR what imact would that have on subscription $? So, how do you account for the added $ that people are willing to pay for HBO because they can Tivo/download it. I for one, would never subscribe to any premium channel if downloading was not an option.

I for one can't imagine a world without some physical content format. People like shiny disks :)

I don't think disks will go away. I also think Blu Ray will be big. But I also think video on demand is already here. Tivo and DVRs ARE indeed examples of VoD. The VoD rental market is in an early stage. One thing about Apple TV is that an HD movie starts playing almost instantly. It does not need to install the whole movie before you can watch it. But it is also limited in that you only have 24 hours to watch it. Yet, by last accounts they were renting something like 50K movies a week. Not bad for a single source. Their expected revenue is $150M this year. Compare that with $650M for Blu Ray this year. That's a difference of about $500M. In the overall scheme of things, that just isn't a big difference - especially when you consider that no studio needed to build anything to put their movies on Apple TV!

Apple TV has already surpassed HD DVD in terms of content and sales and longivity :)

At best the AV sites that are very pro Blu Ray are simply ignoring Apple TV. The custom installer market isn't touching it either. It's selling mostly by word of mouth to the usual Apple crowd. So given all that, I'd say it's done reasonably well. But I agree in that we are at a very early stage to make a definitive call.

Let me reiterate:

First, the need for bandwidth limitation shows that bandwidth use is on the rise. So, you can read this as a good thing or a bad thing. But if you're looking for growth, there you have it!

Again, the limitation is not due to an infrastructure problem. Cable co. and ADSL co. are not in the same leage as cellphone. Both of those are split into market that are lockdown. Most of those have exclusivity contract with the city or won't share the infrastrucure with competitor. You don't have a choice as in the cellphone business where anybody can buy a range of frequency and buy space to put their antena. And most cable co. are nothing more than an oligarchy where competition doesn't really exist. They already have all the hardware and bandwith that is necessary to service your need for now and for the moderate future. But they are in it for the MONEY! That is why they impose cap. Not to regulate traffic but because THEY CAN!

Second, Apple TV HD is less than 4GB and and SD is 1GB. So, when we're talking about downloads we are also considering better compression technologies. DVD was not designed for a download model, just as Blu Ray is not.

An I can transcode a DVD to XVid for half the space and with the same perceptible quality on a non HD crt but would I pay for it, NO. And have you tried lending that movie to a friend?

Third, you missed my point where I said, if bandwidth limitation is an issue, someone will come and solve it since their is money to be made there. Cellphone data plans were exactly that way. It went from limited usage to unlimited. Why? Infrastructure improved. IF it is not an infrastructure issue, then I'll go with the provider that gives me the most bandwidth. The one who is limiting, will lose customers. Simple as that.

Again Cable co. and ADSL co. are in lockdown market. For a new player to come either the gov. has to interveen or the third party has to lease the line of those presently owning the market and guess what, the customer of those third party are capped as well.


Fourth, I am very aware of the outsourcing business model. The whole idea is to outsource low value items like QA and testing and bug fixing and call centers to low cost countries. Core design and R&D are still done here. You think Intel, IBM, Microsoft, Cicso etc are designing their next gen products in India and China? Of course not! Some design could be done there, if you see any Apple product they'll proudly tell you where it is designed :)

Then you are behind with the time because engineering position are also being outsource to India and China. Microsoft and Intel are two of the leading expert in outsourcing high level job elsewhere.

Again, the limitation is not due to an infrastructure problem. Cable co. and ADSL co. are not in the same leage as cellphone. Both of those are split into market that are lockdown. Most of those have exclusivity contract with the city or won't share the infrastrucure with competitor. You don't have a choice as in the cellphone business where anybody can buy a range of frequency and buy space to put their antena. And most cable co. are nothing more than an oligarchy where competition doesn't really exist. They already have all the hardware and bandwith that is necessary to service your need for now and for the moderate future. But they are in it for the MONEY! That is why they impose cap. Not to regulate traffic but because THEY CAN!



An I can transcode a DVD to XVid for half the space and with the same perceptible quality on a non HD crt but would I pay for it, NO. And have you tried lending that movie to a friend?



Again Cable co. and ADSL co. are in lockdown market. For a new player to come either the gov. has to interveen or the third party has to lease the line of those presently owning the market and guess what, the customer of those third party are capped as well.




Then you are behind with the time because engineering position are also being outsource to India and China. Microsoft and Intel are two of the leading expert in outsourcing high level job elsewhere.

I am an electrical engineer. I have been to IBMs India offices many times. I used to work for IBM for many years. What you are saying about major US technology companies designing their core and next gen products in India and China is just false.

I don't know about China yet. But India is not ready to design the next Windows OS, or the next Google or the next Intel processor. That is not what the Intel and Microsoft engineers in India are doing. My brother in law works in Hyderabad for Microsoft and I know what they are doing there. Their last big project was XP SP3. They work on service packs and other bug fixes across their product line. In US they focus on the next gen stuff and where they need to maintain edge.

I am not sure where you are getting your data, but these are not well informed (in my opinion based on my experience).

As for bandwidth limitations. The only one I am aware of in the US is 250GB by comcast (but it does not count against movies you buy from them!) Most places have no limitation that I am aware of.

Can I lend you a movie I rented on Apple TV? Can I borrow the movie you rented from Netflix? The answer to those questions will tell you what content providers will prefer? It's a business after all...

I am an electrical engineer. I have been to IBMs India offices many times. I used to work for IBM for many years. What you are saying about major US technology companies designing their core and next gen products in India and China is just false.

I don't know about China yet. But India is not ready to design the next Windows OS, or the next Google or the next Intel processor. That is not what the Intel and Microsoft engineers in India are doing. My brother in law works in Hyderabad for Microsoft and I know what they are doing there. Their last big project was XP SP3. They work on service packs and other bug fixes across their product line. In US they focus on the next gen stuff and where they need to maintain edge.

I am not sure where you are getting your data, but these are not well informed (in my opinion based on my experience).

As for bandwidth limitations. The only one I am aware of in the US is 250GB by comcast (but it does not count against movies you buy from them!) Most places have no limitation that I am aware of.

Can I lend you a movie I rented on Apple TV? Can I borrow the movie you rented from Netflix? The answer to those questions will tell you what content providers will prefer? It's a business after all...

Guess what I'm in the IT business for one of the leading firm in Canada and I got my info from Microsoft and Intel representative here so... Like you said in my opinion and based on my experience... YMMV...

Vod for your isp doesn't count on your cap. I never said it would but then you are tied to their choice of movie and tarrif. If you want to use, say iTunes or Netflix or Amazon then you are SOL.

Of course I can lend any physical media to any of my friend. Even if it's a rental. I'll just pay the late fee if I don't return it in time. But I can't lend a DRM locked AppleTV movie to anybody unless I use some piece of arguably illegal software to unlock it and then I still have to burn it or copie it on a physical media to give to my friend unless you give him your AppleTV box. At least with a disk I don't have to give him the player also.

Guess what I'm in the IT business for one of the leading firm in Canada and I got my info from Microsoft and Intel representative here so... Like you said in my opinion and based on my experience... YMMV...

Vod for your isp doesn't count on your cap. I never said it would but then you are tied to their choice of movie and tarrif. If you want to use, say iTunes or Netflix or Amazon then you are SOL.

Of course I can lend any physical media to any of my friend. Even if it's a rental. I'll just pay the late fee if I don't return it in time. But I can't lend a DRM locked AppleTV movie to anybody unless I use some piece of arguably illegal software to unlock it and then I still have to burn it or copie it on a physical media to give to my friend unless you give him your AppleTV box. At least with a disk I don't have to give him the player also.

I've been to India. I've seen operations first hand in India. I've been responsible for hiring people in India. I've been part of a decision making process in deciding what to outsource to India.

I've seen companies that have failed because they outsourced core development to India.

I don't know which company you work for in Canada. But in the last couple of years I was part of a team for a large US software company that bought a Canadian software company :)

I've been on the hardware and software side of things.

DRM is not something that will prevent content providers from supporting a format. Blu Ray has way more DRM than DVD. But is that something that bothers you?

DRM is something that content providers are doing, not that digital distribution requires it. Things change. You can buy DRM free music today. A couple of years ago you could not.

But I get the sense I am barking up the wrong tree here. You started your discussion that most US tech is designed outside the US. So, our difference is much more fundamental than even digital distribution :)

I've been to India. I've seen operations first hand in India. I've been responsible for hiring people in India. I've been part of a decision making process in deciding what to outsource to India.

I've seen companies that have failed because they outsourced core development to India.

I don't know which company you work for in Canada. But in the last couple of years I was part of a team for a large US software company that bought a Canadian software company :)

I've been on the hardware and software side of things.

DRM is not something that will prevent content providers from supporting a format. Blu Ray has way more DRM than DVD. But is that something that bothers you?

DRM is something that content providers are doing, not that digital distribution requires it. Things change. You can buy DRM free music today. A couple of years ago you could not.

But I get the sense I am barking up the wrong tree here. You started your discussion that most US tech is designed outside the US. So, our difference is much more fundamental than even digital distribution :)

You're begining to be childish now. Internet resume don't mean much. You sound as if you want to win this argument just for the sake of winning it. In your opinion outsourcing isn't a problem. That is nice but it doesn't make it a reality. Call up Lou Dobbs on CNN en explain it to him because he sure feel like outsourcing of high profile tech job and R&D is a problem. And he is not alone.

And you should try to follow, I didn't start by saying that most tech was design outside of the US. I started by saying that bandwith cap are a thing you will have to live with in the future and then you answered with a US centric answer to wich I replied that your are not the center of the universe.

Again you lost track of the discussion. Even with DRM I can still lend my BR to friends or sell them or give them away. You can't do that with your precious AppleTV.

But I can rent a movie on Apple TV and my friends can rent a copy and still have $20 left in my pocket.

I'll not argue with your or Lou Dobbs opinions. I'll leave it at that.

If you believe that HD VoD cannot compete with Blu Ray then that is also fine.

Finally, let's just leave it at we agree to disagree. If you and Lou Dobb believes that Google Search, Cisco routers, Intel chips and Apple products are primarily being designed in India and China, all I can say to you and to him is to get his facts right. No one is saying outsourcing is not happening, I disagree with what you say is being outsourced.

But I can rent a movie on Apple TV and my friends can rent a copy and still have $20 left in my pocket.



Actually renting HD movies from Apple TV/VOD, etc it more expensive than renting Blu-Ray. Especially if you watch several movies a week like I do and have either a Netflix or Blockbuster account which lets you rent multiple movies a month for a set fee. BD rentals (in store) at my local Blockbuster are under $4 for new releases. Dish network wants $5.99-6.99 for HD new releases. What does AppleTV charge?

Actually renting HD movies from Apple TV/VOD, etc it more expensive than renting Blu-Ray. Especially if you watch several movies a week like I do and have either a Netflix or Blockbuster account which lets you rent multiple movies a month for a set fee. BD rentals (in store) at my local Blockbuster are under $4 for new releases. Dish network wants $5.99-6.99 for HD new releases. What does AppleTV charge?

And if you use internet rental it is even cheaper. I use Zip.ca with the 3 at a time - unlimited package for $25 per month I get about 6 movie per week so that comes down to $1 per movie.

Actually renting HD movies from Apple TV/VOD, etc it more expensive than renting Blu-Ray. Especially if you watch several movies a week like I do and have either a Netflix or Blockbuster account which lets you rent multiple movies a month for a set fee. BD rentals (in store) at my local Blockbuster are under $4 for new releases. Dish network wants $5.99-6.99 for HD new releases. What does AppleTV charge?
Apple TV is $4.99 for new and $3.99 for catalog HD titles.

In terms of selection, only online rentals can come close. However, what I found with Netflix I could never get more than a couple of BD titles a week for $20 a month and many titles I wanted were on long wait. Things may have changed now.

Apple TV has a great user interface. It is a mistake to lump Apple TV with your cable TV VoD experience.

The value of VoD in my view is the convenience factor. Apple TV does more than just movies for instance.

Originally Posted by ack_bk
Actually renting HD movies from Apple TV/VOD, etc it more expensive than renting Blu-Ray. Especially if you watch several movies a week like I do and have either a Netflix or Blockbuster account which lets you rent multiple movies a month for a set fee. BD rentals (in store) at my local Blockbuster are under $4 for new releases. Dish network wants $5.99-6.99 for HD new releases. What does AppleTV charge?

Exactly. I get a ton of mileage out of my monthly Blockbuster plan. I could even go cheaper with Netflix but BB is on the way home so it is convenient.

Then there is Safeway that has DVD's and Blu-ray's at $1.49. Selection isn't as good but it is a nice option to at least browse after shopping.

I have zero motivation to pay more for lesser quality than blu-ray.

Apple TV is $4.99 for new and $3.99 for catalog HD titles.

In terms of selection, only online rentals can come close. However, what I found with Netflix I could never get more than a couple of BD titles a week for $20 a month and many titles I wanted were on long wait. Things may have changed now.

Apple TV has a great user interface. It is a mistake to lump Apple TV with your cable TV VoD experience.

The value of VoD in my view is the convenience factor. Apple TV does more than just movies for instance.

I am a huge Apple follower. I do not even own a PC in my house anymore and I work in computer security. I have switched countless friends, co-workers, and family members over to Mac's. I really like the idea of AppleTV, and I was very excited when the first AppleTV was released, but Apple really gimped it. Apple Take 2 is better (5.1 sound for most movies), but I am still waiting. I want a DVR capability. I do not want to spend another $229-329 on AppleTV right now when my PS3 can essentially do the same thing and it plays Blu-Ray. If Apple can come up with a subscription based HD movie model and a DVR and Blu-Ray playback I may go that route, but between my Dish HD DVR and my PS3, Apple TV really brings nothing different to the table. Apple needs to differentiate themselves or they will get passed by.

There is a whole generation that watches YouTube all day. Where do you think PQ ranks on their priority list? Let me just say it's not where you and I would have it. So if they watch a movie with VOD, and it's even one of the free ones to boot, what do you think they are missing out on? Heres a simple answer, Nothing and they couldn't be more happier about it. That is the sad truth!

There is a whole generation that watches YouTube all day. Where do you think PQ ranks on their priority list? Let me just say it's not where you and I would have it. So if they watch a movie with VOD, and it's even one of the free ones to boot, what do you think they are missing out on? Heres a simple answer, Nothing and they couldn't be more happier about it. That is the sad truth!
Some live under the bridge down by the river. Running water and electricity mean nothing to them and they couldn't be happier about it. That is a much sadder truth.
There is no rhyme or reason to what makes some happy...or what some settle for.

If they are happy with YouTube, they're not going to be interested in wasting money on vod or even dvd's or monthly-pay cable services for that matter. It's an entirely different market demographic, altogether- outside the scope of any argument that could possibly be presented at this forum.

There is a whole generation that watches YouTube all day. Where do you think PQ ranks on their priority list? Let me just say it's not where you and I would have it. So if they watch a movie with VOD, and it's even one of the free ones to boot, what do you think they are missing out on? Heres a simple answer, Nothing and they couldn't be more happier about it. That is the sad truth!
YouTube is FREE.
VOD is not.

VOD also requires Digital Cable, a $15+ premium(Digital Classic) on basic/extended cable, add another $7 for HD. Standard Basic Extended cable here in Seattle is about $65 after taxes. You can see how adding Digital Cable & HD starts to add up and increase a household budget just to watch PROGRAMMED TV.

See, convenience is already starting to cost more even if you don't use it.

And YouTube is nice for a quick fix when you are on the go but it is a poor substitue to even SD TV. Of course if 320x240 shacky video with scratchy sound is good enough for you then don't worry and be happy but we are discussing HD here and YouTube ain't it.

Notice the gamut of arguments we have observed by the VOD folk, so far (and it is good to see that each of them have been debunked, one after another)?

Cost...debunked, then Selection...debunked, then Convenience...debunked, then Indifference to pq...debunked...and soon we will then wrap right back around to Cost, as if it has not already been discussed. ;) (not to mention that all of these issues have been discussed and debunked in various topics that have cropped up here ever since January, but hey, why not rehash the SOS when you can, just to see if anyone is paying attention :p )

My wife and kids spend quite a bit of time watching YouTube videos on my Apple TV connected to a 60" Kuro plasma. The image is much better than I expected, but I still can't stand to watch it. Now, if they were to increase the resolution about 2x and improve the compression YouTube could get interesting.

I've been down the YouTube route, just as well, via the ps3 internet browser. Would I sacrifice the experience of watching a favorite movie at YouTube level pq, just because I can? Not on your life! I'm going to seek out the very best presentation of the title to maximize the experience over 2 hrs of my valuable time.

The point being- none of these arguments are particularly strong examples of reasons to distinctly exclude br from your viewing habits. Certainly there will be times when one way may be more practical at the time than another. More power to you to view it in the manner you wish. Just be wary of blanket statements constructed to suggest that br is entirely extraneous because of perk xyz of vod (and vice versa). Chances are the very reasoning that would eliminate br as a worthy avenue are just as well applicable to eliminate vod as a worthy avenue. That's where perspective and honest representation can be important aspects when investigating this matter.

Last time I check the consumer electronics WORLD wasn't limited to only the USA and Verizon FIOS customer. You have to look at what is happening elsewhere regarding bandwith cap to see that HD DL may become a USA only thing. And last time I checked the USA isn't the WORLD. Hell most of the tech product aren't even designed and produce in the US anymore.

I think a lot of people on this forum who rave about their accessibility to HD downloads aren't taking into account that many places in the U.S. aren't blessed with fast enough connections to make routine downloading of HD content practical. Sure, if you live in a major city it's a given, but on average, download speeds in the U.S. fall behind much of the world. According to a recent Cisco-sponsored study by the University of Oxford, the U.S. ranks 16th in the world when it comes to broadband speed. With availability of services like FIOS, how slow does broadband in the rest of the U.S. have to be in order for its overall score to be that low?

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080911/tc_nm/broadband_dc_1)

"Several industrialized countries, such as Great Britain, Spain, Australia and Italy, offer broadband speeds that on average are just below what is necessary to make good use of broadband applications such as watching videos on YouTube, video chatting and small file sharing, the researchers found."

Even if broadband speed and access in the U.S. and other countries goes up dramatically in the near future (by no means a sure thing), it's no guarantee that it will result in increased popularity of downloaded HD media. I live in Japan, which is currently ranked #1 in the survey, so bandwidth is definitely not an issue (although, as Nosferax notes, download caps may take effect soon for some ISPs). Yet HD downloads are hardly a blip on the radar here. And it sure doesn't have anything to do with lack of HDTVs in peoples homes.

First. The rest of the world isn't even close to adopting Blu Ray and DVD is the de facto standard. So, I was really addressing concerns based on this thread and products being designed today and for the future.

I'll take a shot in the dark and say that you haven't visited an electronics store (or home) in Japan within the past year or so. If you did, you'd see that Blu-ray capable devices are indeed on its way to replacing SD DVD. BD recorder/players are now manufactured by virtually every major CE manufacturer in Japan, and already constitute over a third of total sales.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUST1342320080528

And this trend shows no signs of slowing down. I'm going to the CEATEC show (Japan's equivalent of CES) at the end of the month, and almost every major CE exhibitor has some type of BD-related gear listed on their booth description.

Notice the gamut of arguments we have observed by the VOD folk, so far (and it is good to see that each of them have been debunked, one after another)?

Cost...debunked, then Selection...debunked, then Convenience...debunked, then Indifference to pq...debunked...and soon we will then wrap right back around to Cost, as if it has not already been discussed. ;) (not to mention that all of these issues have been discussed and debunked in various topics that have cropped up here ever since January, but hey, why not rehash the SOS when you can, just to see if anyone is paying attention :p )

I like to close my eyes once in awhile and imagine the world aint the way it is too, sometimes. ;)

Notice the gamut of arguments we have observed by the VOD folk, so far (and it is good to see that each of them have been debunked, one after another)?

Cost...debunked, then Selection...debunked, then Convenience...debunked, then Indifference to pq...debunked...and soon we will then wrap right back around to Cost, as if it has not already been discussed. ;) (not to mention that all of these issues have been discussed and debunked in various topics that have cropped up here ever since January, but hey, why not rehash the SOS when you can, just to see if anyone is paying attention :p )

How did you arrive at these conclusions? First, there are many types of VoD. Some of it is even free. Using a Tivo or a DVR is also a form of VoD. I subscribe to HBO only because I can record the movies!

Convenience factor? It doesnt't get any easier than sitting on your couch browsing through hundreds of titles and watching what you want, when you want .

Selection? Not even close. VoD has thousands and thousands of titles and options. Even Apple TV has added more HD titles in the last 5 months than Blu ray.

LOL. IF VoD was such a bad idea, The CEO of Sony would not have addressed it as part of an investors briefing. As far as I recall, there was no mention of Blu Ray.

At Cedia we saw a bunch of $1K plus players announced. LOL. That should tell you what market they are targetting.

I think a lot of people on this forum who rave about their accessibility to HD downloads aren't taking into account that many places in the U.S. aren't blessed with fast enough connections to make routine downloading of HD content practical. Sure, if you live in a major city it's a given, but on average, download speeds in the U.S. fall behind much of the world. According to a recent Cisco-sponsored study by the University of Oxford, the U.S. ranks 16th in the world when it comes to broadband speed. With availability of services like FIOS, how slow does broadband in the rest of the U.S. have to be in order for its overall score to be that low?

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080911/tc_nm/broadband_dc_1)

"Several industrialized countries, such as Great Britain, Spain, Australia and Italy, offer broadband speeds that on average are just below what is necessary to make good use of broadband applications such as watching videos on YouTube, video chatting and small file sharing, the researchers found."

Even if broadband speed and access in the U.S. and other countries goes up dramatically in the near future (by no means a sure thing), it's no guarantee that it will result in increased popularity of downloaded HD media. I live in Japan, which is currently ranked #1 in the survey, so bandwidth is definitely not an issue (although, as Nosferax notes, download caps may take effect soon for some ISPs). Yet HD downloads are hardly a blip on the radar here. And it sure doesn't have anything to do with lack of HDTVs in peoples homes.



I'll take a shot in the dark and say that you haven't visited an electronics store (or home) in Japan within the past year or so. If you did, you'd see that Blu-ray capable devices are indeed on its way to replacing SD DVD. BD recorder/players are now manufactured by virtually every major CE manufacturer in Japan, and already constitute over a third of total sales.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUST1342320080528

And this trend shows no signs of slowing down. I'm going to the CEATEC show (Japan's equivalent of CES) at the end of the month, and almost every major CE exhibitor has some type of BD-related gear listed on their booth description.

LOL. Blu Ray Recorders are for storing VoD and networked content. In fact check out what Pioneer said was the primary use case for their 400GB Blu Ray disks? Hint: it wasn't for movies :)

Blu Ray recordable format is excellent for VoD. The popularity of Blu Ray recorders v. players in Japan does not mean that VoD is dead there. Just the opposite :)

Just in case you didn't realize recording movies and HD content from your TV to a DVR or Blu ray recorder IS an example of VoD. You can't record a Blu Ray movie disk onto a Blu ray recroder - but I am assuming you already knew that! Only non Blu Ray HD movies can be saved on a Blu Ray recorder. Now isn't that funny. LOL.

I think we're finally getting somewhere now!

LOL. Blu Ray Recorders are for storing VoD and networked content. In fact check out what Pioneer said was the primary use case for their 400GB Blu Ray disks? Hint: it wasn't for movies :)

Blu Ray recordable format is excellent for VoD. The popularity of Blu Ray recorders v. players in Japan does not mean that VoD is dead there. Just the opposite :)

Just in case you didn't realize recording movies and HD content from your TV to a DVR or Blu ray recorder IS an example of VoD. You can't record a Blu Ray movie disk onto a Blu ray recroder - but I am assuming you already knew that! Only non Blu Ray HD movies can be saved on a Blu Ray recorder. Now isn't that funny. LOL.

I think we're finally getting somewhere now!

A link to the Pioneer comment you're referring to would be appreciated.

And I don't think you have a clear idea of what Blu-ray recorders are and how they are used in the Japanese market. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't VoD stand for Video On Demand? That means the ability to record a program that is requested by the viewer to be viewed or recorded AT A TIME OF THEIR CHOOSING. Recording from regular broadcast (which is what most Japanese viewers still do at the moment because of the relatively low penetration of HD cable) does not count as VoD.

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

"Video on demand (VOD) or Audio video on demand (AVOD) systems allow users to select and watch/listen to video or audio content on demand."

Most of the people I know who own BD-recorders, including myself, do not record VoD as defined above, but instead use it to record and archive regularly scheduled HD programming.

As far as networked content is concerned, I subscribe to one of the fastest Internet services in Japan (B-Flets), and although they do offer video on demand, it is not currently in HD, but SD only. The only provider in my area that offers HD on demand is J-Com which has relatively low market penetration.

By the way, Pioneer is a poor example to use because they only recently introduced their first BD recorder, and therefore have almost no experience in this area. Until now, they only had players available in Japan, and were in fact the only company for quite a while to offer a player-only unit.

As the owner of a BD recorder, I'm quite aware of what it can do. Maybe you weren't aware that BD recorders also playback prerecorded BD movies. Of the dozens of people I know who own BD recorders, I haven't met one who HASN'T watched a prerecorded BD. In fact, many more of them have watched purchased or rented BDs than have recorded VoD programming.

+1

If someone posts, "I like watching some movies on my Ipod and do not care that they are not HD".

You get posts back like, "No! you are a h8ter!", "You are trying to kill my format!", "You clearly love format 'X' (which has nothing to do with Ipods)", etc.

Its rather funny. People are only allowed to have an opinion if it is the same as those who think they are always right.:D


btw, I do use HD on demand. It is much easier than renting BDs. The renting option is for movies I am not sure about, and therefore I don't care if they are not FULL HD. Almost all romantic comedies fall into that category, as do most documentaries.

And some of us say that this is the Blu-ray & HD DVD Areas and if you want to talk about movies on your Ipod, AVS has a section for it - check out the "Portable A/V" section. It is beyond me why people keep bring up DL, VOD, and even YOUTUBE in the Blu-ray & HD DVD Areas when AVS has sections dedicated to many of those subjects with people that care about those technologies. It's like talking the best Rabbit Ears to use on your SD TV in the HDTV section because SD has a much larger market share and those guys just need to listen for a second and they will know that you really can't see or hear the difference anyway. LOL :)

I was flipping through and saw Rocky HD on demand on Comcast. I decided to give it a play as I don't have it on HD DVD or BD yet. Talk about Artifacts and macroblocking. I have seen bad stuff on here that is called "HD
, but this is a little over the top.

http://www.geocities.com/bjmarchini/rockya.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/bjmarchini/rockyb.JPG

.

I decided to go back and watch it again a week after the storm. It is still the same. It is a poor encode. This is the problem with some of these "HD" VOD services. It comes from a channel called Impact? It all depends on who and how it is encoded. Some don't even encode it from HD, they just upconvert it from SD and label it HD.

And by the way, I have Comcast fiberoptic cable. They installed it last year. Much faster internet. I went from about 5-6mbits to up to 30 mbits overnight

It is is so hit or miss with these HD selection. Even the best ones don't wow me like HDM does.

It is beyond me why people keep bring up DL, VOD, and even YOUTUBE in the Blu-ray & HD DVD Areas

The title of the OP is "HD on demand supposed to compete against BD or HD DVD? "...and you can not understand why people keep bringing up VOD??????????? Just how bad is your tunnel vision?

FYI, everyone else agrees that one of the purposes of this forum is to compare and contrast Blu-Ray and HDM versus other HD and video formats. So something like, "how does Blu-ray stack up against UMD....Bob prefers UMD because it is more portable", would be acceptable. It doesn't mean every needs to agree, but its a forum!

btw, I prefer Blu-ray to UMD and have no reason to buy UMD.

I think a lot of people on this forum who rave about their accessibility to HD downloads aren't taking into account that many places in the U.S. aren't blessed with fast enough connections to make routine downloading of HD content practical. Sure, if you live in a major city it's a given, but on average, download speeds in the U.S. fall behind much of the world. According to a recent Cisco-sponsored study by the University of Oxford, the U.S. ranks 16th in the world when it comes to broadband speed. With availability of services like FIOS, how slow does broadband in the rest of the U.S. have to be in order for its overall score to be that low?

(http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080911/tc_nm/broadband_dc_1)

"Several industrialized countries, such as Great Britain, Spain, Australia and Italy, offer broadband speeds that on average are just below what is necessary to make good use of broadband applications such as watching videos on YouTube, video chatting and small file sharing, the researchers found."

Even if broadband speed and access in the U.S. and other countries goes up dramatically in the near future (by no means a sure thing), it's no guarantee that it will result in increased popularity of downloaded HD media. I live in Japan, which is currently ranked #1 in the survey, so bandwidth is definitely not an issue (although, as Nosferax notes, download caps may take effect soon for some ISPs). Yet HD downloads are hardly a blip on the radar here. And it sure doesn't have anything to do with lack of HDTVs in peoples homes.



I'll take a shot in the dark and say that you haven't visited an electronics store (or home) in Japan within the past year or so. If you did, you'd see that Blu-ray capable devices are indeed on its way to replacing SD DVD. BD recorder/players are now manufactured by virtually every major CE manufacturer in Japan, and already constitute over a third of total sales.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUST1342320080528

And this trend shows no signs of slowing down. I'm going to the CEATEC show (Japan's equivalent of CES) at the end of the month, and almost every major CE exhibitor has some type of BD-related gear listed on their booth description.

Thank you! :D

I decided to go back and watch it again a week after the storm. It is still the same. It is a poor encode. This is the problem with some of these "HD" VOD services. It comes from a channel called Impact? It all depends on who and how it is encoded. Some don't even encode it from HD, they just upconvert it from SD and label it HD.

And by the way, I have Comcast fiberoptic cable. They installed it last year. Much faster internet. I went from about 5-6mbits to up to 30 mbits overnight

It is is so hit or miss with these HD selection. Even the best ones don't wow me like HDM does.

They are still using mpeg-2 for encoding. Others service like Apple are using AVC. Also, cable encodes are relying on live streaming play. Other services like Apple first download to a hard drive and then play from there. Hence, they are no subject to the same limitations. I have very fast Cox HD, and Apple TV is a step above. For those you are opposed to 720p (which is what Apple does), albeit at 24fps. Vudu does 1080p/24fps. Again, it downloads to a hard drive and plays from there. The good thing is that the player calculated your download speed and figures out how much it needs to download (head start) before you can start watching a movie.

Macroblocking, break ups and pixelation is something you get on many cable VoD HD. But I have not seen them of Apple TV, or even DVD for that matter. Most systems that require you to first download and then play have no reason for these types of problems. Live streaming is a different kettle of fish and bandwidth limitations will be a factor. The bandwidth between your hard drive and CPU (which is what Apple TV is) is much greater than any optical disk based system is capable of delivering.

So, again, don't confuse the technology with what you are seeing today :)

I also noticed people are looking at their cable service and drawing inferences on how all VoD services are going to look. That is again a mistake.

Not everyone is going to adopt VoD. But not everyone is going to adopt Blu Ray either. Or to be more specific, buy blu ray movie disks. People are already using free VoD services far more extensively than Blu Ray (Tivo, DVRs, etc etc).

And one more angle to this is that the only way to watch your favorite TV shows in HD (better than cable quality) without ads is via VoD. Now, I am betting those same people who claim that nothing less than the best will do will say, "we're fine with the cable version until it comes out on Blu Ray" :D

A link to the Pioneer comment you're referring to would be appreciated.

And I don't think you have a clear idea of what Blu-ray recorders are and how they are used in the Japanese market. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't VoD stand for Video On Demand? That means the ability to record a program that is requested by the viewer to be viewed or recorded AT A TIME OF THEIR CHOOSING. Recording from regular broadcast (which is what most Japanese viewers still do at the moment because of the relatively low penetration of HD cable) does not count as VoD.

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

"Video on demand (VOD) or Audio video on demand (AVOD) systems allow users to select and watch/listen to video or audio content on demand."

Most of the people I know who own BD-recorders, including myself, do not record VoD as defined above, but instead use it to record and archive regularly scheduled HD programming.

As far as networked content is concerned, I subscribe to one of the fastest Internet services in Japan (B-Flets), and although they do offer video on demand, it is not currently in HD, but SD only. The only provider in my area that offers HD on demand is J-Com which has relatively low market penetration.

By the way, Pioneer is a poor example to use because they only recently introduced their first BD recorder, and therefore have almost no experience in this area. Until now, they only had players available in Japan, and were in fact the only company for quite a while to offer a player-only unit.

As the owner of a BD recorder, I'm quite aware of what it can do. Maybe you weren't aware that BD recorders also playback prerecorded BD movies. Of the dozens of people I know who own BD recorders, I haven't met one who HASN'T watched a prerecorded BD. In fact, many more of them have watched purchased or rented BDs than have recorded VoD programming.

I am aware that recorders play back Blu Ray movies, but if that is what you want to do - play back Blu Ray movies, why get a Blu Ray recorder? A Blu Ray recorder can record anything - except a Blu Ray movie :)

Tivo and DVRs are examples of VoD (even if you go by the Wiki definition). You can choose to record which programs you want to watch and choose when to watch it. Your TV program guide is your catalog to choose from.

There is no difference between recording a future show on HBO on your TiVo than renting a future title to be released on Netflix. One difference, is that current Tivo/DVR model does not let you record previous shows, for that you'll need to purchase a different service. However, that is a current limitation. In future, when you Tivo say an episode of a series it will ask you if you also want to include all past episodes from the current season etc. You'll probably need to pay for it. But the technology is there.

If anyone here imagines that VoD has reached it's full potential or even close....

http://www.pioneer.eu/eur/content/press/news/500GB_Bluray.html

While Blu-ray discs (BD), offering both 25GB and 50BG, are sufficient for current demands, we see the need for a technology that can support far greater capacities as HD streaming in particular becomes commonplace and users build larger files of digital content.

I took this directly from the Pioneer site, so no question of manipulation of intent etc. So don't disagree with me. Take it up with Pioneer. If that is not enough, I can also post Howard Stringers Analyst call from last Q, Well, you can find it in Yahoo finance as well :)

Thank you! :D

Are you smiling for Cisco (since this is good news for them). Where does Cisco design it's products? :D

The title of the OP is "HD on demand supposed to compete against BD or HD DVD? "...and you can not understand why people keep bringing up VOD??????????? Just how bad is your tunnel vision?

FYI, everyone else agrees that one of the purposes of this forum is to compare and contrast Blu-Ray and HDM versus other HD and video formats. So something like, "how does Blu-ray stack up against UMD....Bob prefers UMD because it is more portable", would be acceptable. It doesn't mean every needs to agree, but its a forum!

btw, I prefer Blu-ray to UMD and have no reason to buy UMD.

Everdog, you hit the nail on the head! It's amazing when some people don't agree with what some others say, they tell you your in the wrong forum. Could it get anymore obvious than the post you are referring too?
Too Funny!

Are you smiling for Cisco (since this is good news for them). Where does Cisco design it's products? :D

http://www.sourcingmag.com/content/c060821a.asp :D

Does Cisco do any R&D or IT services globally?
Cisco has a global development and IT strategy. As part of that strategy, [many] development and IT functions happen at locations around the world, including Bangalore. These functions include engineering (research and development), IT applications development, back-office business processes and other customer support-related functions.

http://www.sourcingmag.com/content/c060821a.asp :D

Does Cisco do any R&D or IT services globally?
Cisco has a global development and IT strategy. As part of that strategy, [many] development and IT functions happen at locations around the world, including Bangalore. These functions include engineering (research and development), IT applications development, back-office business processes and other customer support-related functions.

Did you miss this...he's been instrumental in building Cisco's largest R&D facilities outside of San Jose, CA

The biggest R&D facility is in San Jose, CA. That is where core IP is created. This is true for many companies. Use your US operations to drive edge and business strategy. Out source those tasks which do not constitute edge....that's part of scaling your business.

Did you miss this...he's been instrumental in building Cisco's largest R&D facilities outside of San Jose, CA

The biggest R&D facility is in San Jose, CA. That is where core IP is created. This is true for many companies. Use your US operations to drive edge and business strategy. Out source those tasks which do not constitute edge....that's part of scaling your business.

You said they where not outsourcing their R&D I proved you wrong. Now I don't want to discuss it anymore with you since you are acting like a 12 years old trying to win a pissing contest. If it makes your ego feel better consider yourself the winner but I'm moving you to my ignore list from now on since I don't feel you can bring anything constructive to my enjoyment of this forum.

I am aware that recorders play back Blu Ray movies, but if that is what you want to do - play back Blu Ray movies, why get a Blu Ray recorder? A Blu Ray recorder can record anything - except a Blu Ray movie :)

Wow, you really are clueless about the BD market in Japan, aren't you? As I said in my previous post, for most of the past two years, BD recorders were the ONLY Blu-ray playback devices available on the Japanese market besides the PS3 (which I also own) and a couple of Pioneer players (both of which cost almost as much as a BD recorder). This is where the medium/high-end video disc market in Japan has been heading for years, even before Blu-ray.

And I never said that playing back BDs was ALL I want to do. By your logic, people who used to buy or rent prerecorded VHS tapes shouldn't have bought VHS recorders. They should have just gotten players. Oh, wait, could it be that maybe, just once in a while, they wanted to record broadcast TV programs as well? Can you explain to me why this desire should be any different now in the HD era? Because that's essentially what BD recorders are, a means to record and archive HD broadcasts. Just because disc/HDD recorders never caught on in the U.S. doesn't mean they are irrelevant everywhere else.

Tivo and DVRs are examples of VoD (even if you go by the Wiki definition). You can choose to record which programs you want to watch and choose when to watch it.

There is no difference between recording a future show on HBO on your TiVo than renting a future title to be released on Netflix. One difference, is that current Tivo/DVR model does not let you record previous shows, for that you'll need to purchase a different service.

Then, am I correct in assuming that you would also consider the previously-mentioned ancient VHS recorder to be a VoD device? I didn't realize VoD had been around THAT long. After all, my 26 year-old JVC was perfectly capable of being programmed to record a movie on HBO without my presence. I wonder how many other AVSers would agree with your categorization? Show of hands please!

My definition of VoD has always been a movie or show that's available from the content PROVIDER on demand. Otherwise, it's just a broadcast. Did you actually read the Wikipedia link I provided? It said:

"The majority of cable and telco based television providers offer both VOD streaming, such as pay-per-view, whereby a user buys or selects a movie or television program and it begins to play on the television set almost instantaneously" That's a lot different from programming a TIVO and waiting for the program to air a few hours or days later.

I think that you'll find that what you're talking about is actually called "time shifting."

While Blu-ray discs (BD), offering both 25GB and 50BG, are sufficient for current demands, we see the need for a technology that can support far greater capacities as HD streaming in particular becomes commonplace and users build larger files of digital content.

I took this directly from the Pioneer site, so no question of manipulation of intent etc. So don't disagree with me. Take it up with Pioneer. If that is not enough, I can also post Howard Stringers Analyst call from last Q, Well, you can find it in Yahoo finance as well :)

Are you really trying to use a reference to a non-commercialized technology still in the R&D phase that may not even be compatible with any existing BD recorder as a justification for why Japanese consumers are buying BD recorders now? None of what you posted above has any relevance to current buying trends in Japan. People are buying BD recorders in increasing numbers because it does what they need it to do NOW, not in some hypothetical future. And for the majority of buyers, this need does NOT include recording VoD programming.

I decided to go back and watch it again a week after the storm. It is still the same. It is a poor encode. This is the problem with some of these "HD" VOD services. It comes from a channel called Impact? It all depends on who and how it is encoded. Some don't even encode it from HD, they just upconvert it from SD and label it HD.

And by the way, I have Comcast fiberoptic cable. They installed it last year. Much faster internet. I went from about 5-6mbits to up to 30 mbits overnight

It is is so hit or miss with these HD selection. Even the best ones don't wow me like HDM does.

Part of the problem is Comcast. There has been some news stories recently that have discussed this in depth (including here at AVS). As Comcast has added more and more HD channels they have further compressed other channels to make room (bandwidth) for the new channels:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/comcast-compresses-hd-no-one-shocked

This thread is a good read:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271

Wow, you really are clueless about the BD market in Japan, aren't you? As I said in my previous post, for most of the past two years, BD recorders were the ONLY Blu-ray playback devices available on the Japanese market besides the PS3 (which I also own) and a couple of Pioneer players (both of which cost almost as much as a BD recorder). This is where the medium/high-end video disc market in Japan has been heading for years, even before Blu-ray.

And I never said that playing back BDs was ALL I want to do. By your logic, people who used to buy or rent prerecorded VHS tapes shouldn't have bought VHS recorders. They should have just gotten players. Oh, wait, could it be that maybe, just once in a while, they wanted to record broadcast TV programs as well? Can you explain to me why this desire should be any different now in the HD era? Because that's essentially what BD recorders are, a means to record and archive HD broadcasts. Just because disc/HDD recorders never caught on in the U.S. doesn't mean they are irrelevant everywhere else.



Then, am I correct in assuming that you would also consider the previously-mentioned ancient VHS recorder to be a VoD device? I didn't realize VoD had been around THAT long. After all, my 26 year-old JVC was perfectly capable of being programmed to record a movie on HBO without my presence. I wonder how many other AVSers would agree with your categorization? Show of hands please!

My definition of VoD has always been a movie or show that's available from the content PROVIDER on demand. Otherwise, it's just a broadcast. Did you actually read the Wikipedia link I provided? It said:

"The majority of cable and telco based television providers offer both VOD streaming, such as pay-per-view, whereby a user buys or selects a movie or television program and it begins to play on the television set almost instantaneously" That's a lot different from programming a TIVO and waiting for the program to air a few hours or days later.

I think that you'll find that what you're talking about is actually called "time shifting."



Are you really trying to use a reference to a non-commercialized technology still in the R&D phase that may not even be compatible with any existing BD recorder as a justification for why Japanese consumers are buying BD recorders now? None of what you posted above has any relevance to current buying trends in Japan. People are buying BD recorders in increasing numbers because it does what they need it to do NOW, not in some hypothetical future. And for the majority of buyers, this need does NOT include recording VoD programming.

Let me see if I can make it easier for you :D

First. A Blu Ray recorder cannot record a Blu Ray movie. A VHS recorder could record a VHS movie. So not the same thing. A Blu Ray recorder (or more specifically the recorder feature) is useful ONLY for recording non Blu Ray movies. Let me know if this is confusing :confused:

Second. Yes. VHS Recorders was a way to enable VoD. Except it was primitive and not HD. It was also difficult to record multiple programs at the same time etc etc (if impossible). VHS is a format. VoD is a capability/service. One is not the same as the other. TiVo and DVRs do more elegantly and far better what you could do with a VHS recorder. That is called progress. Let me know if this confusing

Third. There are different types of VoD. broadcast recording is a form of it. Apple TV, Cable Movies on Demand, Amazon Unbox, xbox marketplace, PS3 network, Hulu.com, Netflix Streaming Service, YouTube, Podcasts etc. are other examples of VoD. The revenue models are also different and only time will tell which models will work. When you have cable providers with 1000 channels, the TiVo/DVR (VoD) aspect will be a big part of it. You will be paying for it through your subscription fees and ads that you watch. Most people can't watch 1000 channels at a time. So more and more content will end up on TiVos and DVRs - where Blu Ray is an excellent format to archive. I think this is where we differ on our understanding.

Finally. No. I was not implying that, that is the reason Japanese are buying Blu Ray recorders. But I was referring to the fact that Blu Ray as a format is not incompatible with VoD model. VoD is competitive with the Blu Ray disk movie distribution model. Again, this should not be confusing.

Do I believe, Blu Ray disks will be around (movies). Absolutely! But if you see the title of this thread, it is about 'how will HD on demand compete'. If you believe it cannot compete, based on what you see in Japan today then fine. I am simply expressing my perspective from the way I see it.

OK. Here is wher you can help me clear my confusion:

So, you are saying that people in Japan are buying Blu Ray recorders simply because they want to play back Blu ray movies. Not because they want to record anything on it. Aren't recorders a lot more expensive than just players? IF people don't need Recorders, since they can't record a Blu Ray movie why don't the vendors release just players? I'd love to get an explanation for this since it does show something unique about Japanese buyers.

They are still using mpeg-2 for encoding. Others service like Apple are using AVC. Also, cable encodes are relying on live streaming play. Other services like Apple first download to a hard drive and then play from there. Hence, they are no subject to the same limitations. I have very fast Cox HD, and Apple TV is a step above. For those you are opposed to 720p (which is what Apple does), albeit at 24fps. Vudu does 1080p/24fps. Again, it downloads to a hard drive and plays from there. The good thing is that the player calculated your download speed and figures out how much it needs to download (head start) before you can start watching a movie.

Macroblocking, break ups and pixelation is something you get on many cable VoD HD. But I have not seen them of Apple TV, or even DVD for that matter. Most systems that require you to first download and then play have no reason for these types of problems. Live streaming is a different kettle of fish and bandwidth limitations will be a factor. The bandwidth between your hard drive and CPU (which is what Apple TV is) is much greater than any optical disk based system is capable of delivering.

So, again, don't confuse the technology with what you are seeing today :)

I also noticed people are looking at their cable service and drawing inferences on how all VoD services are going to look. That is again a mistake.

Not everyone is going to adopt VoD. But not everyone is going to adopt Blu Ray either. Or to be more specific, buy blu ray movie disks. People are already using free VoD services far more extensively than Blu Ray (Tivo, DVRs, etc etc).

And one more angle to this is that the only way to watch your favorite TV shows in HD (better than cable quality) without ads is via VoD. Now, I am betting those same people who claim that nothing less than the best will do will say, "we're fine with the cable version until it comes out on Blu Ray" :D

I don't think you understand. It is not signal loss. I have freezed frames on multiple days and it is the same errors. It is an encoding error and not a transmition error. The problem is that while this is extreme, it sometimes seems the norm that this is the case especially when it comes to catalog titles on HD VOD demand services. We can try to say that VOD is not a download, but then we can't classify something like Netflix or anything else that streams as that either, can we?

And some of us say that this is the Blu-ray & HD DVD Areas and if you want to talk about movies on your Ipod, AVS has a section for it - check out the "Portable A/V" section. It is beyond me why people keep bring up DL, VOD, and even YOUTUBE in the Blu-ray & HD DVD Areas when AVS has sections dedicated to many of those subjects with people that care about those technologies. It's like talking the best Rabbit Ears to use on your SD TV in the HDTV section because SD has a much larger market share and those guys just need to listen for a second and they will know that you really can't see or hear the difference anyway. LOL :)

Um.... I was talking about VOD (aka video on demand), or most specifically in this case HD on demand as in HD VOD as opposed to SD VOD.

I don't think you understand. It is not signal loss. I have freezed frames on multiple days and it is the same errors. It is an encoding error and not a transmition error. The problem is that while this is extreme, it sometimes seems the norm that this is the case especially when it comes to catalog titles on HD VOD demand services. We can try to say that VOD is not a download, but then we can't classify something like Netflix or anything else that streams as that either, can we?

That example is just the tip of the iceberg. That is the type of "HD" quality we will have to live with if users increase and the pipe owners don't upgrade their infrastructures. That example will be the reality for most and I doubt most will find the end results acceptable.

Notice that VOD services are not used to demo HDTVs on the showroom floors. Typically that falls to BD or other highend closed circuit systems.

The current operators are just hoping that consumers are dumb enough to believe that "HD" automatically means quality. Their "HD" goal is to compress the heck out of everything so they deliver as much "HD" as possible even if it means relatively bad "HD" content.

Let me see if I can make it easier for you :D

First. A Blu Ray recorder cannot record a Blu Ray movie. A VHS recorder could record a VHS movie. So not the same thing. A Blu Ray recorder (or more specifically the recorder feature) is useful ONLY for recording non Blu Ray movies. Let me know if this is confusing :confused:

Second. Yes. VHS Recorders was a way to enable VoD. Except it was primitive and not HD. It was also difficult to record multiple programs at the same time etc etc (if impossible). VHS is a format. VoD is a capability/service. One is not the same as the other. TiVo and DVRs do more elegantly and far better what you could do with a VHS recorder. That is called progress. Let me know if this confusing

[/B]

I think you are wrong on a few of your points. Peopled loved VHS because they could have a physical copy of a movies they recorded (I still have about 20 sporting events and movies that are unavailable on DVD). Tivos and DVRs have VERY limited space and when it runs out you have to start deleting. Also, if their drive fails, you are out of luck. But with a Blu-ray recorder you get physical media. You can record the Super Bowl and know you will have an HD copy for 20+ years.

I still tout D-VHS, which is clumsy and bulky and has the VHS bad rep. But you can create an HD library 100x larger that what is currently available on Blu-ray.

Now don't get me wrong, if a Blu recorder came available in the US that was as easy to use as a VHS player, I would jump all over it!

Also, why on earth would you want to record a Blu-ray disc on a Blu-ray recorder unless you wanted to make illegal copies? You make that sound like a bad thing, but the fact is Blu-ray recorders PLAY BDs and that is enough. You also have the option of recording a movie from something like HBO HD that is also available on Blu-ray.

Part of the problem is Comcast. There has been some news stories recently that have discussed this in depth (including here at AVS). As Comcast has added more and more HD channels they have further compressed other channels to make room (bandwidth) for the new channels:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/comcast-compresses-hd-no-one-shocked

This thread is a good read:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271

The sad part is two fold (if not more):

1) People use Comcast HD and figure it isn't that much better than what they have on DVD. Even I thought comparing HD on demand against DVD was a good test of quality and decided, at first, that there really wasn't as much as a difference as I was lead to believe (and in motion - not freeze frames). I remember doing that specifically with Blood Diamond.

2) Comcast is a major player. So we are talking about just as much of a force as Sony or Apple or Microsoft if not more.

From wikipedia

Market cap US$ 54.27 Billion (2008)
Revenue ▲ US$ 30.895 Billion (2007)
Operating income ▲ US$ 5.578 Billion (2007)
Net income ▲ US$ 2.587 Billion (2007)
Total assets ▲ US$ 113.417 Billion (2007)
Total equity ▲ US$ 41.340 Billion (2007)
Employees 100,000 (2008)


I couldn't find a link or stat, but I am sure their subscribers dwarf any other hard media with the exception of perhaps DVD. I am imagine their HD boxes (just as some house have multiple BD box, many households have multiple HD boxes) also greatly outnumber BD players, Apple TVs and other HD services combined.

I really have never seen a Fios so I don't know if it is better or worse. I do know that Fios is generally less common. There are also many folks who dismiss Verizon as a Video solution because they are mainly a telecommunications company.

And the kicker is that of all the service, it seems that comcast offers the worst quality to boot. I don't hate comcast... that much. And I am obviously a subsriber. I do like their service... alot and their internet speed is great, but i am not dissillusioned into thinking that my HD on demand is as good as my HDM... ON my 720p 94" projector screen.

That example is just the tip of the iceberg. That is the type of "HD" quality we will have to live with if users increase and the pipe owners don't upgrade their infrastructures. That example will be the reality for most and I doubt most will find the end results acceptable.

Notice that VOD services are not used to demo HDTVs on the showroom floors. Typically that falls to BD or other highend closed circuit systems.

The current operators are just hoping that consumers are dumb enough to believe that "HD" automatically means quality. Their "HD" goal is to compress the heck out of everything so they deliver as much "HD" as possible even if it means relatively bad "HD" content.

exactly.

The current operators are just hoping that consumers are dumb enough to believe that "HD" automatically means quality. Their "HD" goal is to compress the heck out of everything so they deliver as much "HD" as possible even if it means relatively bad "HD" content.
And it seems some at AVS have bought in to that HD VOD means quality or equal to blu-ray.
May be the cable providers have a different meaning for HD other than PQ.
Might possibley mean High Density SD transmission because the HD VOD I've viewed only look at best slighty better than the SD VOD version. Not any where close to Blu-ray HD(Hi Definition) PQ.

And it seems some at AVS have bought in to that HD VOD means quality or equal to blu-ray.
May be the cable providers have a different meaning for HD other than PQ.
Might possibley mean High Density SD transmission because the HD VOD I've viewed only look at best slighty better than the SD VOD version. Not any where close to Blu-ray HD(Hi Definition) PQ.

Really? I have not seen one post making that claim. Maybe you are confused with another thread?

And here is something else to digest. Some Comcast systems are better than others, hence some VOD PQ will also look better than others. Myself, I enjoy watching HD VOD on my system and don't think it's that bad at all and I have never seen the pq like the caption shown above. Is it as good as my HD DVD disc, NO! but that doesn't mean it will never improve and as of right now it is more than adequate for the average joe and how do I know this?, they tell me so!

I don't think you understand. It is not signal loss. I have freezed frames on multiple days and it is the same errors. It is an encoding error and not a transmition error. The problem is that while this is extreme, it sometimes seems the norm that this is the case especially when it comes to catalog titles on HD VOD demand services. We can try to say that VOD is not a download, but then we can't classify something like Netflix or anything else that streams as that either, can we?

No, what I was saying is that their are 2 reasons why your cable encodes look worse than VoD services like Apple TV.

First. Cable used mpeg-2, whereas Apple TV and even Netflix use more modern codecs like AVC and VC-1 which are much better with low bit rate video compression.

Second. Is the streaming v. download. So when the content is encoded for something like Apple TV the encode can assume that real time decoding is not necessary (not withstanding the fact that the graphics processing on something like Apple TV is more powerful than what is on a typical Scientific Explorer 8300 HD Explorer box). With cable VoD, most of the services that I know of require real time decoding. So when you combine poor processing on the STB with real time decoding with mpeg-2. It's not hard to see why the end result isn't often even up to part with good DVD upconversion. So downloadable solutions are not subject to the same limitations as cable or sattelite.

So, it is the encode that is difference. The combination of using legacy codec like mpeg-2 and the need for real time decoding is the difference.

In a nutshell, the encode you are seeing on Comcast is NOT the encode you will see on Apple TV or Vudu or even xbox Marketplace. Not sure if I can explain it in any simpler way :confused:

The sad part is two fold (if not more):

1) People use Comcast HD and figure it isn't that much better than what they have on DVD. Even I thought comparing HD on demand against DVD was a good test of quality and decided, at first, that there really wasn't as much as a difference as I was lead to believe (and in motion - not freeze frames). I remember doing that specifically with Blood Diamond.

2) Comcast is a major player. So we are talking about just as much of a force as Sony or Apple or Microsoft if not more.



I couldn't find a link or stat, but I am sure their subscribers dwarf any other hard media with the exception of perhaps DVD. I am imagine their HD boxes (just as some house have multiple BD box, many households have multiple HD boxes) also greatly outnumber BD players, Apple TVs and other HD services combined.

I really have never seen a Fios so I don't know if it is better or worse. I do know that Fios is generally less common. There are also many folks who dismiss Verizon as a Video solution because they are mainly a telecommunications company.

And the kicker is that of all the service, it seems that comcast offers the worst quality to boot. I don't hate comcast... that much. And I am obviously a subsriber. I do like their service... alot and their internet speed is great, but i am not dissillusioned into thinking that my HD on demand is as good as my HDM... ON my 720p 94" projector screen.

They are obviously catering to a less than enthusiast market. Their revenue model is driven by both subscribers and content providers. The more content they can stuff down their pipes the more revenue for them.

In terms of market cap, they are about the same size as Sony and around 1/3 of Apple. It's interesting that Sony owns the largest Hollywood Studio, whereas Comcast is a pure distribution play.

On a side note, the great valuation that Comcast has is probably a reason why Time Warner is looking to perhaps spinoff their cable operations.

Really? I have not seen one post making that claim. Maybe you are confused with another thread?

And here is something else to digest. Some Comcast systems are better than others, hence some VOD PQ will also look better than others. Myself, I enjoy watching HD VOD on my system and don't think it's that bad at all and I have never seen the pq like the caption shown above. Is it as good as my HD DVD disc, NO! but that doesn't mean it will never improve and as of right now it is more than adequate for the average joe and how do I know this?, they tell me so!

That there lies the problem. INCONSISTENCY of PQ from region to region or city to city or possibly dependent on bandwidth capacity during peak hours.
One day a movie might look great but other times it looks like a puzzle full of blocks.
In my region, I can not tell you how many times I got the message "the movie is not available, try again later" when trying to view an HD VOD but then the SD VOD of the same title is available. This tells me it's a bandwidth/loading issues.

So, did you conducted a scientific poll of the average consumer on what they like in PQ and have some statistical information for us to back up your claim of what the average consumer finds adequate for PQ?

That there lies the problem. INCONSISTENCY of PQ from region to region or city to city or possibly dependent on bandwidth capacity during peak hours.
One day a movie might look great but other times it looks like a puzzle full of blocks.
In my region, I can not tell you how many times I got the message "the movie is not available, try again later" when trying to view an HD VOD but then the SD VOD of the same title is available. This tells me it's a bandwidth/loading issues.

So, did you conducted a scientific poll of the average consumer on what they like in PQ and have some statistical information for us to back up your claim of what the average consumer finds adequate for PQ?

We're closer to the starting line than the finish. That is for sure. Current bandwidths are just touching HD capable levels. 5 years ago, people would have laughed if someone said even DVD level quality was possible. It's called progress. On demand will never replace physical disk. It didn't for music and it won't for movies.

That there lies the problem. INCONSISTENCY of PQ from region to region or city to city or possibly dependent on bandwidth capacity during peak hours.
One day a movie might look great but other times it looks like a puzzle full of blocks.
In my region, I can not tell you how many times I got the message "the movie is not available, try again later" when trying to view an HD VOD but then the SD VOD of the same title is available. This tells me it's a bandwidth/loading issues.

So, did you conducted a scientific poll of the average consumer on what they like in PQ and have some statistical information for us to back up your claim of what the average consumer finds adequate for PQ?

Do you really need a scientific poll? I just take their word for it. If they had said the PQ sucks and would never watch it again then maybe I'm not giving them enough credit but no one ever says that which leads me to the perception that it is adequate or they wouldn't be using it. I don't know how much simpler it could be but if you don't want to believe me and feel hardly anyone uses HD VOD and all these people will end up buying BD because of the improved PQ/AQ, then carry on. Myself, I don't get that vibe when talking to these people but if it makes you happy that someday you think they will all have BD in their homes, so be it.

PS: I have never had any of the problems you stated above, I guess I must be LUCKY then!

Do you really need a scientific poll? I just take their word for it. If they had said the PQ sucks and would never watch it again then maybe I'm not giving them enough credit but no one ever says that which leads me to the perception that it is adequate or they wouldn't be using it. I don't know how much simpler it could be but if you don't want to believe me and feel hardly anyone uses HD VOD and all these people will end up buying BD because of the improved PQ/AQ, then carry on. Myself, I don't get that vibe when talking to these people but if it makes you happy that someday you think they will all have BD in their homes, so be it.

PS: I have never had any of the problems you stated above, I guess I must be LUCKY then!

They may also say that if there is no alternative where they live or if they don't know better. I had people who said to me that VHS was great for them back in the day until they bought their first DVD player or came to my place to watch a few. I'm talking about picture quality not the convenience. Picture and sound quality sold DVD. No point at the time to pay like I did for my Panny A310 $1100.00Cdn just to not have to rewind a tape when you can buy a rewinder for $10.

As more people are able to sample the quality of a great encode on BR with lossless audio against what pass for HD from cable or satellite (I'm speaking about my personnal experience here so YMMV - Ain't annecdotal experience great :D ) they'll adopt BR.

In the future another technology will surpass BR but for the time being VOD ain't it and I don't see it as a solution for the future either. VOD distributor aren't driven by quality since they have a captive market. They won't spend all that much ressource to improve their product since like you say it's good enough :o

No, what I was saying is that their are 2 reasons why your cable encodes look worse than VoD services like Apple TV.

First. Cable used mpeg-2, whereas Apple TV and even Netflix use more modern codecs like AVC and VC-1 which are much better with low bit rate video compression.

Second. Is the streaming v. download. So when the content is encoded for something like Apple TV the encode can assume that real time decoding is not necessary (not withstanding the fact that the graphics processing on something like Apple TV is more powerful than what is on a typical Scientific Explorer 8300 HD Explorer box). With cable VoD, most of the services that I know of require real time decoding. So when you combine poor processing on the STB with real time decoding with mpeg-2. It's not hard to see why the end result isn't often even up to part with good DVD upconversion. So downloadable solutions are not subject to the same limitations as cable or sattelite.

So, it is the encode that is difference. The combination of using legacy codec like mpeg-2 and the need for real time decoding is the difference.

In a nutshell, the encode you are seeing on Comcast is NOT the encode you will see on Apple TV or Vudu or even xbox Marketplace. Not sure if I can explain it in any simpler way :confused:

I agree. Comcast could probably due a better job with other codecs. Do you think they are pretty much grandfathered into being stuck with Mpeg 2 now?

We're closer to the starting line than the finish. That is for sure. Current bandwidths are just touching HD capable levels. 5 years ago, people would have laughed if someone said even DVD level quality was possible. It's called progress. On demand will never replace physical disk. It didn't for music and it won't for movies.

The sad part is though that comcasts SD doesn't even compare to DVD either.

Let me see if I can make it easier for you :D

First. A Blu Ray recorder cannot record a Blu Ray movie. A VHS recorder could record a VHS movie. So not the same thing. A Blu Ray recorder (or more specifically the recorder feature) is useful ONLY for recording non Blu Ray movies. Let me know if this is confusing :confused:

If you mean that a Blu-ray recorder can't make a copy of a pre-recorded Blu-ray movie, you're right. But then, people with VHS who didn't have the ability to overcome Macrovision couldn't make a (watchable) copy of a prerecorded VHS either.

The problem seems to be that you're implying that ability to copy a Blu-ray movie is the ONLY function that qualifies something to be called a Blu-ray recorder. This is where you and I (along with everyone in Japan who owns a BD recorder disagree). With a BD recorder, you can record an HD broadcast onto a blank BD disc in its original MPEG2 form and play it back in full HD on other BD players or recorders, including a PS3. So yes, you are MAKING a Blu-ray movie disc. Otherwise, what would you call it?

Second. Yes. VHS Recorders was a way to enable VoD. Except it was primitive and not HD. It was also difficult to record multiple programs at the same time etc etc (if impossible). VHS is a format. VoD is a capability/service. One is not the same as the other. TiVo and DVRs do more elegantly and far better what you could do with a VHS recorder. That is called progress. Let me know if this confusing

You're also still ignoring the commonly accepted definition of VoD as stated in the Wikipedia reference, which is the ability to watch a movie or show from a PROGRAM PROVIDER immediately upon request. VHS recorders were simply a MEANS to record a video program just like TiVo and DVRs for later viewing. As I said earlier, this is called "time shifting" NOT VoD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-shifting

"Time shifting is the recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to at a time more convenient to the consumer. Typically, this refers to TV programming but can also refer to radio shows via podcasts."

No matter how many advanced features "progress" gives us, it doesn't change the basic function or purpose of these devices.

Third. There are different types of VoD. broadcast recording is a form of it. Apple TV, Cable Movies on Demand, Amazon Unbox, xbox marketplace, PS3 network, Hulu.com, Netflix Streaming Service, YouTube, Podcasts etc. are other examples of VoD. The revenue models are also different and only time will tell which models will work. When you have cable providers with 1000 channels, the TiVo/DVR (VoD) aspect will be a big part of it. You will be paying for it through your subscription fees and ads that you watch. Most people can't watch 1000 channels at a time. So more and more content will end up on TiVos and DVRs - where Blu Ray is an excellent format to archive. I think this is where we differ on our understanding.

Actually we agree that there are different types of VoD, but I'm remarking only on the broadcast and cable aspects because they are the only versions of VoD that apply to current Blu-ray recorders. BD recorders aren't capable of accepting protected content from any of the other VoD sources for obvious copyright reasons.

Finally. No. I was not implying that, that is the reason Japanese are buying Blu Ray recorders. But I was referring to the fact that Blu Ray as a format is not incompatible with VoD model. VoD is competitive with the Blu Ray disk movie distribution model. Again, this should not be confusing.

I think you should go back and look at your original post once again. Although it may not have been your intent, your original comment on the Pioneer 500Gb Blu-ray development sure made it sound that way. The very first sentence was:

"Blu Ray Recorders are for storing VoD and networked content. In fact check out what Pioneer said was the primary use case for their 400GB Blu Ray disks? Hint: it wasn't for movies."

How else should I or anyone else have perceived this comment?

Do I believe, Blu Ray disks will be around (movies). Absolutely! But if you see the title of this thread, it is about 'how will HD on demand compete'. If you believe it cannot compete, based on what you see in Japan today then fine. I am simply expressing my perspective from the way I see it.

Fair enough. There are many differences between the U.S. and Japanese CE markets, which is why I'm always careful to state where my perspective is coming from. By the way, I don't discount that VoD could become a bigger player in Japan in the future. Just that at this time, it plays a very small role in the decision making of Japanese consumers compared to the U.S.

So, you are saying that people in Japan are buying Blu Ray recorders simply because they want to play back Blu ray movies. Not because they want to record anything on it. Aren't recorders a lot more expensive than just players? IF people don't need Recorders, since they can't record a Blu Ray movie why don't the vendors release just players? I'd love to get an explanation for this since it does show something unique about Japanese buyers.

If you reread my previous post, you'll see that I was saying the exact opposite.

"And I never said that playing back BDs was ALL I want to do."

We also use BD recorders to archive programming that we've saved to the recorder's built in HDD. That way, we can free up space for future recordings without losing anything. Thanks to this capability, many BD recorder owners have legal full HD copies of movies like the Star Wars or Lord of the Rings series that can be played back on other Blu-ray players including the PS3.

Historically, disc recorders have been big business in Japan for several years now, even before Blu-ray. Even standard DVD players in the Japanese market have been supplanted by DVD/HDD recorders. DVD player only models are now usually found in discount stores or some small, rarely-visited corner of big box electronics stores. Portable DVD players still sell for obvious reasons. The simple fact is that Japanese buyers just aren't as price driven as American consumers, so they'll pay more if they think they're getting better value, features or something unique. Japan didn't become the world's biggest market for designer handbags and fashions by accident.

If you understand the Japanese TV market it's easy to understand why disc recorders are popular here. In the U.S., we're spoiled because we can get almost any TV series ever made (even crappy ones) in DVD sets. That's possible because the demand for U.S. TV shows is global, which justifies the expense of creating DVD master for these shows. The same can't be said for Japanese TV shows (remember, Japan has far less than half the population of the U.S.). Even the best series here don't show up on DVD, let alone Blu-ray, very often. The only exception is Anime, which has developed an audience outside Japan. The bottom line? If you want a copy of your favorite TV show to watch when you want, you have to be able to record it. Since VHS is dead as a dodo, recordable DVDs and now Blu-ray are the only options.

Current model Blu-ray recorders also allow for on-the-fly transcoding of MPEG2 broadcast video to H.264, allowing us to maximize recording capacity on BD recordable discs when perfect bit-for-bit copies of the original broadcast aren't required (for recording favorite TV series, for example).

One of the things about Japanese people that you also have to understand (which even I didn't thoroughly comprehend until I lived here) is how much they like to collect things. You know that stereotype about Japanese tourists with cameras around their necks? There's some truth to that. But it's less about love of the camera than it is wanting to "keep" a memory. When you go to a movie here, they still have really incredible, high-quality movie books like the ones that went out of style in the U.S. long ago. So it's not unusual that they might want to keep a permanent copy of a TV show that they like.

Also, Japan and the U.S. have almost the same total number of HDTVs in peoples homes. This despite the fact that the U.S. has about 2-1/2 times the population. So the increased demand for HD-capable recorders and players is understandably higher here. And don't forget that Japanese consumers have been exposed to HD-quality images for almost 20 years (analog and digital), so their definition of what's "acceptable" picture quality is also different.

If you mean that a Blu-ray recorder can't make a copy of a pre-recorded Blu-ray movie, you're right. But then, people with VHS who didn't have the ability to overcome Macrovision couldn't make a (watchable) copy of a prerecorded VHS either.

The problem seems to be that you're implying that ability to copy a Blu-ray movie is the ONLY function that qualifies something to be called a Blu-ray recorder. This is where you and I (along with everyone in Japan who owns a BD recorder disagree). With a BD recorder, you can record an HD broadcast onto a blank BD disc in its original MPEG2 form and play it back in full HD on other BD players or recorders, including a PS3. So yes, you are MAKING a Blu-ray movie disc. Otherwise, what would you call it?



You're also still ignoring the commonly accepted definition of VoD as stated in the Wikipedia reference, which is the ability to watch a movie or show from a PROGRAM PROVIDER immediately upon request. VHS recorders were simply a MEANS to record a video program just like TiVo and DVRs for later viewing. As I said earlier, this is called "time shifting" NOT VoD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-shifting

"Time shifting is the recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to at a time more convenient to the consumer. Typically, this refers to TV programming but can also refer to radio shows via podcasts."

No matter how many advanced features "progress" gives us, it doesn't change the basic function or purpose of these devices.



Actually we agree that there are different types of VoD, but I'm remarking only on the broadcast and cable aspects because they are the only versions of VoD that apply to current Blu-ray recorders. BD recorders aren't capable of accepting protected content from any of the other VoD sources for obvious copyright reasons.



I think you should go back and look at your original post once again. Although it may not have been your intent, your original comment on the Pioneer 500Gb Blu-ray development sure made it sound that way. The very first sentence was:

"Blu Ray Recorders are for storing VoD and networked content. In fact check out what Pioneer said was the primary use case for their 400GB Blu Ray disks? Hint: it wasn't for movies."

How else should I or anyone else have perceived this comment?



Fair enough. There are many differences between the U.S. and Japanese CE markets, which is why I'm always careful to state where my perspective is coming from. By the way, I don't discount that VoD could become a bigger player in Japan in the future. Just that at this time, it plays a very small role in the decision making of Japanese consumers compared to the U.S.



If you reread my previous post, you'll see that I was saying the exact opposite.

"And I never said that playing back BDs was ALL I want to do."

We also use BD recorders to archive programming that we've saved to the recorder's built in HDD. That way, we can free up space for future recordings without losing anything. Thanks to this capability, many BD recorder owners have legal full HD copies of movies like the Star Wars or Lord of the Rings series that can be played back on other Blu-ray players including the PS3.

Historically, disc recorders have been big business in Japan for several years now, even before Blu-ray. Even standard DVD players in the Japanese market have been supplanted by DVD/HDD recorders. DVD player only models are now usually found in discount stores or some small, rarely-visited corner of big box electronics stores. Portable DVD players still sell for obvious reasons. The simple fact is that Japanese buyers just aren't as price driven as American consumers, so they'll pay more if they think they're getting better value, features or something unique. Japan didn't become the world's biggest market for designer handbags and fashions by accident.

If you understand the Japanese TV market it's easy to understand why disc recorders are popular here. In the U.S., we're spoiled because we can get almost any TV series ever made (even crappy ones) in DVD sets. That's possible because the demand for U.S. TV shows is global, which justifies the expense of creating DVD master for these shows. The same can't be said for Japanese TV shows (remember, Japan has far less than half the population of the U.S.). Even the best series here don't show up on DVD, let alone Blu-ray, very often. The only exception is Anime, which has developed an audience outside Japan. The bottom line? If you want a copy of your favorite TV show to watch when you want, you have to be able to record it. Since VHS is dead as a dodo, recordable DVDs and now Blu-ray are the only options.

Current model Blu-ray recorders also allow for on-the-fly transcoding of MPEG2 broadcast video to H.264, allowing us to maximize recording capacity on BD recordable discs when perfect bit-for-bit copies of the original broadcast aren't required (for recording favorite TV series, for example).

One of the things about Japanese people that you also have to understand (which even I didn't thoroughly comprehend until I lived here) is how much they like to collect things. You know that stereotype about Japanese tourists with cameras around their necks? There's some truth to that. But it's less about love of the camera than it is wanting to "keep" a memory. When you go to a movie here, they still have really incredible, high-quality movie books like the ones that went out of style in the U.S. long ago. So it's not unusual that they might want to keep a permanent copy of a TV show that they like.

Also, Japan and the U.S. have almost the same total number of HDTVs in peoples homes. This despite the fact that the U.S. has about 2-1/2 times the population. So the increased demand for HD-capable recorders and players is understandably higher here. And don't forget that Japanese consumers have been exposed to HD-quality images for almost 20 years (analog and digital), so their definition of what's "acceptable" picture quality is also different.

So we are largely in agreement. So if Apple TV one day sells HD movies, or I can access HD movies due to a paid subscription (which is what cable or satellite in the US) to record any HD movies in their current catalog. Then I can convert them to Blu Ray using a Blu Ray recorder! So, VoD content becomes Blu Ray.

In fact that is what Pioneer was also implying for the use of large capacity Blu ray disks.

On a related note. Not sure if anyone has seen the huge Panasonic ad in Times Square, NYC. The product they are promoting is Viera Link - or the ability to access networked content (including movies) directly to their new Viera TV. Not implying that Panasonic does not care about Blu Ray. But at least they acknowledge that networked content is something that people care enough for them to pay big $ to advertise :)

Some new numbers to discuss.

Just 0.6% of U.S. consumers’ monthly film spending goes to downloading movies for either purchase or rental, according to a recent NPD Group survey. The overwhelming majority of spending, about 81%, comes from buying and renting movie and TV DVDs. About 18% is from theatrical movie ticket purchasing.

When NPD asked how consumers watched a full-length movie in the past three months, 67% of respondents said they watched the film on a DVD they already owned. Far fewer said they watched the movie on a portable device or through a streaming video service, at 8% and 4%, respectively.

http://www.contentagenda.com/article/CA6596819.html?industryid=45173

Some new numbers to discuss.

Just 0.6% of U.S. consumers’ monthly film spending goes to downloading movies for either purchase or rental, according to a recent NPD Group survey. The overwhelming majority of spending, about 81%, comes from buying and renting movie and TV DVDs. About 18% is from theatrical movie ticket purchasing.

When NPD asked how consumers watched a full-length movie in the past three months, 67% of respondents said they watched the film on a DVD they already owned. Far fewer said they watched the movie on a portable device or through a streaming video service, at 8% and 4%, respectively.

http://www.contentagenda.com/article/CA6596819.html?industryid=45173


What about VOD? You can't tell me that it is in that .6%. :confused:

That there lies the problem. INCONSISTENCY of PQ from region to region or city to city or possibly dependent on bandwidth capacity during peak hours.
One day a movie might look great but other times it looks like a puzzle full of blocks.
In my region, I can not tell you how many times I got the message "the movie is not available, try again later" when trying to view an HD VOD but then the SD VOD of the same title is available. This tells me it's a bandwidth/loading issues.

So, did you conducted a scientific poll of the average consumer on what they like in PQ and have some statistical information for us to back up your claim of what the average consumer finds adequate for PQ?

Excellent point about inconsistency in PQ. That's a very big issue with BR also! People watch reference material loops in store demo's. This sets their expectations. They pick up 5 movies. 3 of the 5 might not even being Tier 2 and a far cry from what they were "promised" with BR. The inconsistency certainly hurts BR also.

The same poll could apply towards BR also.

Thanks to this capability, many BD recorder owners have legal full HD copies of movies like the Star Wars or Lord of the Rings series that can be played back on other Blu-ray players including the PS3.

The level of acrimony in this thread discourages me from posting anything, but this comment is particularly intriguing. Isn't it the case that Japan permits downloading and archiving of copyrighted material for personal use? Trends in the US seem to me to be going in the opposite direction.

First there's the continuing issue of the broadcast flag (http://www.eff.org/issues/broadcast-flag), a technology designed to prohibit recording of unencrypted HD content carried over ATSC. While the FCC's attempt to require that hardware manufacturers implement the flag was overturned on appeal, the flag is already incorporated into some software players, notably Windows Vista (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/update-nbc-and-microsoft). The studios have continued to lobby Congress to pass legislation requiring the flag. Any such law would be much more impervious to being overturned on appeal than the FCC's decision was.

We do have HD recording devices like those from Tivo (using "CableCARDs") and the cable and satellite providers own DVRs, but I don't believe it's possible to copy the material on those devices to another device or to optical media. Are there any BD recorders that can use CableCARDs and record and archive HD content sent over cable and satellite systems? If so, I'd be very interested.

Services like AppleTV only offer the equivalent of rentals as far as I know. The few "download-to-own" services that I've seen encumber the content with DRM technologies like Microsoft Silverlight which make it difficult, or even impossible, to transfer material from one device to another or to record it on a physical medium. Is there any legitimate VOD service that permits you to archive copies of the works you download, or transfer those copies to other devices or to physical media? (There are some rumblings (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/13/1429241) in this direction, but actual implementation is probably a long way off.)

On the issue of encodings for HD VOD, my understanding is that the biggest obstacle to the adoption of newer technologies like VC1 is the huge installed base of set-top boxes that only support MPEG2. MPEG4 has been around for years now, and it's only starting to be adopted by one provider that I know of, DirecTV. Having seen the CPU load imposed on my computer when trying to decode H.264 programs in 1080p, I suspect it's a cost issue. As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, even the AppleTV box has a much heftier processor than most set-top boxes.

Isn't it the case that Japan permits downloading and archiving of copyrighted material for personal use? Trends in the US seem to me to be going in the opposite direction.

Yes, television viewers in Japan are allowed to archive recordings made on their HDD recorders to optical media like Blu-ray or DVD. In the past, this was called "Copy-once" because as soon as your optical disc copy is recorded and verified once, the original recording your HDD is deleted. A new system now being implemented will allow certain material (at the discretion of the content owner) to be copies up to 10 times before it is deleted from the HDD. This is known as the "Dubbing 10" system, and many current model Blu-ray recorders already accommodate it, or can be upgraded to do so via firmware.

Unfortunately, none of the Japanese Blu-ray recorders use CableCARDs since that system was never adopted in Japan.

Amazing what they pass off as HD anymore. I decided to check out the online episodes of Lost on ABC.com. To my surprise, you could watch it in HD.

The disclaimer said you needed atleast a 2mbit connection. I was thinking "ok" knowing my BDs and HD DVDs are about 20-30 peak and DVDs are about 8-9.

It look decent. I had Lost Season 3 on DVD so I popped it in my HD805 and HTPC to compare. Wow. My SD DVD was much better than their HD when upconverted. Actually sharper too.

I am watching on a 92" screen as well so the differences were startling. More so because I expected the HD to be atleast a little bit better... not the other way around. Colors were really off too.

Amazing what they pass off as HD anymore. I decided to check out the online episodes of Lost on ABC.com. To my surprise, you could watch it in HD.

The disclaimer said you needed atleast a 2mbit connection. I was thinking "ok" knowing my BDs and HD DVDs are about 20-30 peak and DVDs are about 8-9.

It look decent. I had Lost Season 3 on DVD so I popped it in my HD805 and HTPC to compare. Wow. My SD DVD was much better than their HD when upconverted. Actually sharper too.

I am watching on a 92" screen as well so the differences were startling. More so because I expected the HD to be atleast a little bit better... not the other way around. Colors were really off too.
I notice the same with Fox OnDemand in HD from their website.
I watched Prison Break in "HD" and was really no better than SD in resolution and color. This was on a "42 LCD.

When it comes to HD on demand from these network channels, I think the "HD" must have something to do with widescreen and nothing more.

Here are a couple of articles from HMM. Looks like the industry is pursuing a co-existance model.

Moving beyond DVD to a co-existance model.


http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq134/avpallino/Co-exist.jpg

Are just selective in what you highlight or are you selective in what you read as well? The paragraph above the one you highlighted seems to squash the point you are trying to make.

Are just selective in what you highlight or are you selective in what you read as well? The paragraph above the one you highlighted seems to squash the point you are trying to make.

That's why the operative word is 'co-existance' or are you unfamiliar with that word :rolleyes:

I highlighted what I thought was unusual, coming from Fox. So, what you think coexistance means? Please educate me here.

That's why the operative word is 'co-existance' or are you unfamiliar with that word :rolleyes:

I highlighted what I thought was unusual, coming from Fox. So, what you think coexistance means? Please educate me here.

I agree with jv. I read it as that DVD is by far still the dominant format and the most that digital downloads can do is hope to co-exist.

I agree with jv. I read it as that DVD is by far still the dominant format and the most that digital downloads can do is hope to co-exist.

Anyone who thinks digital downloads will totally replace optical disks is living in a fantasy world.

What Fox rep was saying is that deprecating DVD in terms of marketing and other initiatives was not a good idea.

Also, on the current issue of HMM the CEO of Warner and Netflix have interesting comments on downloads. The Netflix CEO didn't seem to hot on Blu Ray for now. I'll post the article tomorrow if you like.

Please do

Please do

Warner CEO and Digital Downloads

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/electronic-delivery/time-warner-ceo-electronic-more-profitable-dvd-13543

Courtesy of Home Media Magazine. Sept 17

Please do


http://www.homemediamagazine.com/netflix/netflix-cfo-says-blu-ray-have-limited-impact-2008-13529

Courtesy of Home Media Magazine. Sept 15

Please do

Also latest sales of Blu Ray compared to DVD (notice weekly change for Blu Ray in this chart). The following chart shows just how small a percentage of DVD Blu Ray still is today. For all of this year, the share has remained about the same. The end of the HD format war apparently has not lead to an increasing share for Blu Ray. It was an continues to be a niche format for now. Could change, but we're quite a ways away from that.


Image deleted. But it shows DVD with 92% market share and Blu Ray sales down 13.39% for the week. DVD sales are flat.

Point was to show, Blu Ray is just to small a format to rule out the competition.

Courtesy of Home Media Magazine. Sept 21-27 2008



So in a nutshell, competition with Blu Ray is possible. IF that is point we are discussing here. Blu Ray isn't really going gang busters for now. LOL. The game is still being played and we'll likely end up with a coexistance model.

Also latest sales of Blu Ray compared to DVD (notice weekly change for Blu Ray in this chart).


http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq134/avpallino/ThePicture.jpg



Cherry-picking data to push your agenda is so 2007. :p

How about the previous week:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w184/darkblueme/12sep2008a.png

Cherry-picking data to push your agenda is so 2007. :p

How about the previous week:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w184/darkblueme/12sep2008a.png

Um.... doesn't DVD cost 2-3x as much on average.

I picked up Lost Season 3 on Amazon for $30. Lost Bluray is $64.95 on bluray.

If we use DVD at $15 and Bluray at $25 (conservatively), 7.4 million versus 360,000. That is pretty sad by any stretch of the imagination..... in other words about 5%.

I think it is just a problem of market penetration of players and higher costs.

I know in my case, I still and buying SD instead of BD when it is cost effective. I just couldn't justify the $65 for Lost... but the $30 for the SD still looks good, upconverts great on my DV-HD805 and looks better than the "HD" versions on the studio website. Of course, I wouldn't even consider Iron Man on SD nor would I on HB2 or TDK. I am still think about the Hulk. And comedies for the most part are still SD for me.

I'm fascinated by where I'm seeing Blu Ray discs appear for sale.

A new Shoppers Drug Mart opened up near me and near their "Pictures Developed" portion of the store they have a rack of Blu Ray movies prominently displayed. No DVDs anywhere in site in the store, just Blu Ray.

Even wilder: a local small scale convenience-store (part of a chain) has Blu Ray discs for sale lining the shelves behind the cash register.

And my local video stores have quite a number of Blu Ray movies for rent.

It sure ain't like Laser Disc...

Um.... doesn't DVD cost 2-3x as much on average.

I picked up Lost Season 3 on Amazon for $30. Lost Bluray is $64.95 on bluray.

If we use DVD at $15 and Bluray at $25 (conservatively), 7.4 million versus 360,000. That is pretty sad by any stretch of the imagination..... in other words about 5%.

I think it is just a problem of market penetration of players and higher costs.

I know in my case, I still and buying SD instead of BD when it is cost effective. I just couldn't justify the $65 for Lost... but the $30 for the SD still looks good, upconverts great on my DV-HD805 and looks better than the "HD" versions on the studio website. Of course, I wouldn't even consider Iron Man on SD nor would I on HB2 or TDK. I am still think about the Hulk. And comedies for the most part are still SD for me.

At Walmart, some of the same movies you find in the $5 DVD bin are also available for $20 - $25 on Blu-ray.

Now you could argue that studios make a lot more from Blu-ray, and profits is what is important...but since Blu-ray costs more to delvelop and sells so much less, that eats away at those profits.

I'm fascinated by where I'm seeing Blu Ray discs appear for sale.

A new Shoppers Drug Mart opened up near me and near their "Pictures Developed" portion of the store they have a rack of Blu Ray movies prominently displayed. No DVDs anywhere in site in the store, just Blu Ray.

Even wilder: a local small scale convenience-store (part of a chain) has Blu Ray discs for sale lining the shelves behind the cash register.

And my local video stores have quite a number of Blu Ray movies for rent.

It sure ain't like Laser Disc...

I live in part of the northeast metropolis (north of Philly) where the average home still costs about 350K. The only places that I have seen BD for sale are a single rack at the walmarts, BB, CC, Target and a few other electronic stores. No grocery stores, local stores and such. They are getting there though. they still only have a small section in Bb.

IMO, one of the best judges of format dominance (not sales, but actual use) is the rental section in Bb or HV. My local blockbuster has two sections of BD along the wall which I guess is two racks? Of course that is still more than I ever saw for HD DVD. None of my Bbs carried them and only have the HVs did. I started out red too. I look at this as a good sign though. Atleast they are in there.

None of the Rite Aids, Eckerts or Walgreens near me have them. Of course, they never really had many DVDs either. :D I have found them to be one of the best places to get Halloween and Easter Candy though. No one ever thinks of going there so when the Big Stores run low, they still have plenty.

Warner CEO and Digital Downloads

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq134/avpallino/HMMWarner.jpg

How about including the dates with your articles.:)

I'm fascinated by where I'm seeing Blu Ray discs appear for sale.

A new Shoppers Drug Mart opened up near me and near their "Pictures Developed" portion of the store they have a rack of Blu Ray movies prominently displayed. No DVDs anywhere in site in the store, just Blu Ray.

Even wilder: a local small scale convenience-store (part of a chain) has Blu Ray discs for sale lining the shelves behind the cash register.

And my local video stores have quite a number of Blu Ray movies for rent.

It sure ain't like Laser Disc...

Blu Ray is certainly being marketed better. But not sure if the money for these stores is from selling the Blu Ray disks, or selling the shelf space for Blu Ray.

My guess would be a rental model at these outlets would work better. Example. My local grocery store has a $1 a night DVD rental machine. You slide your card, select the movie and when you return it it charges you $1 a night. The store went from 1 to 2 kiosks because of the demand. I am guessing, IF they added a Blu Machine with $2 rental a night, they may actually do pretty good business and drive traffic to their store as well.

Interestingly, I was told they may add yet another kiosks with disks for sale - these would be used disks at discounted prices. It helps that it is next to an in store Starbucks :)

What I am getting to is that availability is great and all, but there must also be a compelling business plan. When I go to a drug store, I am thinking really cheap movies. Perhaps for the car or the kids (if I am out of town). But I could be wrong. In Canada perhaps that is where people go to for movies....

How about including the dates with your articles.:)

Current issue of Home Media Magazine. So that would be last Friday!

Cherry-picking data to push your agenda is so 2007. :p

How about the previous week:



THIS thread is about 'How exactly is HD on demand supposed to compete against BD or HD DVD?"

So, let's start by thinking about the topic at hand and NOT get into an emotional mess over Blu Ray and where it is headed.

These are the points I have made (please address the points and not me or try to portray me as someone with an agenda). I have found over the last month that calling anyone who has a Blu Ray centric point of view as having an agenda earns you a warning on AVS. But anyone accusing me seems to be doing just fine. So, I'll play with the rules we have here...

First, that we are likely to have a co existence model with multiple formats that include streaming, digital downloads and perhaps even SD DVD with Blu Ray.

Second, Even the industry seems to agree with this view as can be seen from a number of sources, the CEO of Netflix, the CEO of Time Warner, the CEO of Sony, the CEO of Disney and Senior Execs from Fox have all talked about the importance of digital downloads as part of the overall content distribution strategy.

Third, Even Blu Ray is aligned WITH and not against digital downloads. An example of this is Pioneer. The use case for their high capacity 400GB+ Blu Ray disks (according to them) is for HD digital downloads.

Fourth, Blu Ray is and continues to be a small sliver of DVD. Some weeks it may gain a couple of points and other weeks it gives up a couple of points. In the end, so far the trend does not show a clear replacement strategy of DVD in favor of Blu Ray.

NET NET. Blu Ray represents a sliver of the overall market, it also represents a sliver of overall content. If anything, it is likely that more content is being released on digital downloads than Blu Ray. At least in the US. I would guess in the last 6 months Apple TV itself has probably added as many titles from Hollywood studios as Blu Ray.

So, which of these points are you disputing? Or please present a point that you want to dispute.

If memory serves me right. It was you who started a thread on the DVD Forum cutting back their meetings on the HD Software Forum and attacked the E500 DVD player in the owners thread without actually owning a player (or perhaps even having seen one). Am I missing something here?

If you cut & paste newspaper articles, you may be violating copyright rules [and AVS rules]: particularly if you don't give the detail credits that should accompany them

So, which of these points are you disputing? Or please present a point that you want to dispute.

What I was specifically disputing was your drawing attention towards latest sales and the "weekly change for Blu Ray in this chart". That was one week. Thereby insinuating that, because sales dropped from one week to the next, it followed that... What exactly followed?



If memory serves me right. It was you who started a thread on the DVD Forum cutting back their meetings on the HD Software Forum

Yep. Similar threads on the outcome of DVD Forum SC meetings had been started in the past, so it's not out of line.

and attacked the E500 DVD player in the owners thread without actually owning a player (or perhaps even having seen one). Am I missing something here?

Beg your pardon:

(a) You can't attack a piece of machinery, unless you think it has feelings you can hurt. :D

(b) I did not even criticize the player. I posted information (a German review, eg), and corrected another forum member when he said that Cloverfield was a waste on Blu-ray. That is all (BTW the E500 isn't even available yet where I live.)

Warner CEO and Digital Downloads

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq134/avpallino/HMMWarner.jpg

Courtesy of Home Media Magazine. Sorry. The article is linked in the initial post. I didn't realize this was not allowed by HMM (to post the image of the article)

If you cut & paste newspaper articles, you may be violating copyright rules [and AVS rules]: particularly if you don't give the detail credits that should accompany them

Sorry about that. I just added the source.

What I was specifically disputing was your drawing attention towards latest sales and the "weekly change for Blu Ray in this chart". That was one week. Thereby insinuating that, because sales dropped from one week to the next, it followed that... What exactly followed?
For those interested, an easy way to see the last 6 weeks at Engadget:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/09/21/nielsen-videoscan-high-def-market-share-for-week-ending-septembe/

Check the links at the bottom of the article.

I am sorry but the source specifically states no parts may be copied or reproduced in whole or part and its privacy statement is linked:



http://www.homemediamagazine.com/terms-use

besides you still have not disclosed the date of the article

Best you link to the article

Thanks

What I was specifically disputing was your drawing attention towards latest sales and the "weekly change for Blu Ray in this chart". That was one week. Thereby insinuating that, because sales dropped from one week to the next, it followed that... What exactly followed?






I clarified the reason for that graph. It was to show that Blu Ray market share and sales volume are low enough and the product is a small enough niche market that the competition has ample opportunities to coexist.

Again, I'd like to see data that shows any dramatic increase in Blu Ray market share since the end of the format war. The chart for any week is pretty much a picture of what is going on week after week :)

Also, here is what CFO from Blockbuster had to say yesterday...

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/blockbuster-cfo-dvd-drive-business-13573

Looks like certain types of content do better on Blu Ray, and some types of content that do really really poorly. So, having a Blu Ray only world is probably something even the studios are frightened about. At least as things stand now.

I can't see!, I can't see! WHY! I got my eyes closed! Famous quote taken from the legendary Curly Howard that would aptly apply here judging by some of the responses.

I am sorry but the source specifically states no parts may be copied or reproduced in whole or part and its privacy statement is linked:



http://www.homemediamagazine.com/terms-use

besides you still have not disclosed the date of the article

Best you link to the article

Thanks

Thanks. Let me see if I can find them. Or I'll just delete these. Just curious how the Blu Ray sales thread has images from the same publication? I just assumed that since it's there, it could be here. Guess I was wrong :)

OK fixed :)

Just curious how the Blu Ray sales thread has images from the same publication?

point taken: and frankly I had not seen those sales figures charts for some time :)

if you could clean it up I would appreciate it

For those interested, an easy way to see the last 6 weeks at Engadget:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/09/21/nielsen-videoscan-high-def-market-share-for-week-ending-septembe/

Check the links at the bottom of the article.

http://www.engadgethd.com/tag/VideoScan/

.

While the percentage for BD is low compared to the DVD, I recall last year when we were looking at 2% to 3 % of the DVD market. As a matter of fact, here is the numbers from just a scant 6 months ago showing BD and HD-DVD together totaling just 4% of DVD. Seeing an average around 10% is not bad IMO. I wish my 401k had the same 300+% increase over the last year.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/04/11/nielsen-videoscan-high-def-market-share-for-week-ending-april-6t/

I can't see!, I can't see! WHY! I got my eyes closed! Famous quote taken from the legendary Curly Howard that would aptly apply here judging by some of the responses.
Do you have anything constructive to say in this thread.:rolleyes:

While the percentage for BD is low compared to the DVD, I recall last year when we were looking at 2% to 3 % of the DVD market. As a matter of fact, here is the numbers from just a scant 6 months ago showing BD and HD-DVD together totaling just 4% of DVD. Seeing an average around 10% is not bad IMO. I wish my 401k had the same 300+% increase over the last year.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/04/11/nielsen-videoscan-high-def-market-share-for-week-ending-april-6t/

Me too! I'd rather just not check it for a while and just watch some blu's :D

Um.... doesn't DVD cost 2-3x as much on average.

I picked up Lost Season 3 on Amazon for $30. Lost Bluray is $64.95 on bluray.

If we use DVD at $15 and Bluray at $25 (conservatively), 7.4 million versus 360,000. That is pretty sad by any stretch of the imagination..... in other words about 5%.

I think it is just a problem of market penetration of players and higher costs.

I know in my case, I still and buying SD instead of BD when it is cost effective. I just couldn't justify the $65 for Lost... but the $30 for the SD still looks good, upconverts great on my DV-HD805 and looks better than the "HD" versions on the studio website. Of course, I wouldn't even consider Iron Man on SD nor would I on HB2 or TDK. I am still think about the Hulk. And comedies for the most part are still SD for me.


Note the small print:
'top 20 volume'

The rest of the 'top' 90000 is mostly dvd sales which makes 5% rather generous.

Blu ray titles tend to spike due to early adopter effect resulting in a more favourable number for blu ray if only looking at the top 20.
Br lost 8% in comparison to the previous week, perhaps the previous week had a stronger release schedule?

While the percentage for BD is low compared to the DVD, I recall last year when we were looking at 2% to 3 % of the DVD market. As a matter of fact, here is the numbers from just a scant 6 months ago showing BD and HD-DVD together totaling just 4% of DVD. Seeing an average around 10% is not bad IMO. I wish my 401k had the same 300+% increase over the last year.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/04/11/nielsen-videoscan-high-def-market-share-for-week-ending-april-6t/
I am pretty sure that the chart is for the Top 20 titles only. Given the sheer volume of titles for DVD, I am guessing that the overall sales for DVD is much higher than 92%.

It certainly seems hard to see a trend. It has bounced up and down from 4% to 12% since it has been reported this way (with last 3 weeks being 8%, 12% and 6%).

Note the small print:
'top 20 volume'

The rest of the 'top' 90000 is mostly dvd sales which makes 5% rather generous.

Blu ray titles tend to spike due to early adopter effect resulting in a more favourable number for blu ray if only looking at the top 20.
Br lost 8% in comparison to the previous week, perhaps the previous week had a stronger release schedule?

It's new releases that drive the majority of sales so don't be so quick to write off BD success.

BD will coexist with other options. Some consumers by choice don't want anything to DL or don't have HSI or are unwilling to pay for it. Vice versa some don't want anything to do with BD.

Its about choice. I prefer my viewing options to include the best video and audio available. So I buy and rent BD. Does anyone here have a problem with people having a choice?

I'm curious, when they count DVD numbers are they including strictly movies or all the other stuff out there as well?

Not that I'm worried. It is great seeing blu-ray at tons of locations. Heck, I never had the ability to rent DVD's in my local grocery store that early on in DVD's life yet I can rent blu-ray's at Safeway for $1.49 or even $.99 on special. Not bad :D

Note the small print:
'top 20 volume'

The rest of the 'top' 90000 is mostly dvd sales which makes 5% rather generous.

Blu ray titles tend to spike due to early adopter effect resulting in a more favourable number for blu ray if only looking at the top 20. Proof? After all this effect is known to happen to DVD, so why treat it different?
Br lost 8% in comparison to the previous week, perhaps the previous week had a stronger release schedule?Yes, it did.

It's new releases that drive the majority of sales so don't be so quick to write off BD success.

BD will coexist with other options. Some consumers by choice don't want anything to DL or don't have HSI or are unwilling to pay for it. Vice versa some don't want anything to do with BD.

Its about choice. I prefer my viewing options to include the best video and audio available. So I buy and rent BD. Does anyone here have a problem with people having a choice?

No I don't see any problem with people having choices. I love choice, i'm all for it.

What I don't like is when they are pushing some half baked, bit starved distribution model as a replacement for a superior, quality wise, physical media and thus taking my prefered choice away.

I love the liberty that a physical media gives me. I can lend it, sell it etc... I can't really do this with DL since most of those are in a proprietary format or so DRM filled as to be near impossible to copy unless you go the analog route. Some even limit the amount of time you can watch it.

If DL is good for you by all means use it and enjoy, but don't advocate it as a replacement for physical media and all the liberty it gives us.

I'm curious, when they count DVD numbers are they including strictly movies or all the other stuff out there as well?


Very likely they count the other stuff as well for br sales too.
Otherwise they end up with a lower percentage and that would be bad pr wise.
PS. The graph shows top 20 titles only so most of the 'other stuff' on DVD falls out of the count.


Not that I'm worried. It is great seeing blu-ray at tons of locations. Heck, I never had the ability to rent DVD's in my local grocery store that early on in DVD's life yet I can rent blu-ray's at Safeway for $1.49 or even $.99 on special. Not bad :D

This only shows that movies for sale on a disc are now a commodity item.
That wasn't the case for DVD early in it's life cycle.

Guess that an impulse buy at the gas station is unlikely these days for a br disc.

No I don't see any problem with people having choices. I love choice, i'm all for it.

What I don't like is when they are pushing some half baked, bit starved distribution model as a replacement for a superior, quality wise, physical media and thus taking my prefered choice away.

I love the liberty that a physical media gives me. I can lend it, sell it etc... I can't really do this with DL since most of those are in a proprietary format or so DRM filled as to be near impossible to copy unless you go the analog route. Some even limit the amount of time you can watch it.

If DL is good for you by all means use it and enjoy, but don't advocate it as a replacement for physical media and all the liberty it gives us.

No one I know of is saying digital downloads are a replacement for physical media.

I am not sure what leads people to believe that there can only be one format. Seems like a bunker mentality, a us against the world outlook that is clearly not in line with the industry thinking.

I am the first to say, Blu Ray is the highest quality movie format around. There is huge pressure on studios to release high quality Blu Ray titles. However, the costs of doing this are usually not justified by the market, so many titles are pushed further back in favor of what sells. With other formats, include what is referred to as HD Lite the pressure to be the best of the best just isn't there. Unfortunately, a lot of the market for now does not seem to mind content that is not best of the best.

In the end the market will drive where content goes. It'll be interesting to see how many people upgrade their Godfather DVD with another DVD set, v upgrade from DVD to Blu Ray. It is highly collectible titles like The Godfather trilogy where Blu Ray is clearly head and sholders above all other formats. It is for these types of content where the relative sales should be booming. Otherwise, it is just canabalizing DVD sales for day date releases. Or worse, people not buying Blu Rays but also holding off on DVD because they want to wait. Which would be the worst scenario....

Very likely they count the other stuff as well for br sales too.
Otherwise they end up with a lower percentage and that would be bad pr wise.
PS. The graph shows top 20 titles only so most of the 'other stuff' on DVD falls out of the count.

Yes, the top 20 has been posted several times now ;) So there really isn't much of all the other stuff on blu ray like there is for DVD to impact numbers below the top 20.

This only shows that movies for sale on a disc are now a commodity item.
That wasn't the case for DVD early in it's life cycle.

Guess that an impulse buy at the gas station is unlikely these days for a br disc.

Maybe one day they'll have adult content behind the counter. Pretty sure some gas stations off that on DVD.

It's new releases that drive the majority of sales so don't be so quick to write off BD success.

BD will coexist with other options. Some consumers by choice don't want anything to DL or don't have HSI or are unwilling to pay for it. Vice versa some don't want anything to do with BD.

Its about choice. I prefer my viewing options to include the best video and audio available. So I buy and rent BD. Does anyone here have a problem with people having a choice?

A future choice for hdm dpends on the movie studios.
Higher production cost and only a marginal profit (if at all) isn't what the bean counters like to see.
Sacd support from the major record studio's withered away slowly shortly after sacd won a format war. Br might face a similar fate.

It's important for hdm future that br sales gain some serious tracktion.

I'm curious, when they count DVD numbers are they including strictly movies or all the other stuff out there as well?

Not that I'm worried. It is great seeing blu-ray at tons of locations. Heck, I never had the ability to rent DVD's in my local grocery store that early on in DVD's life yet I can rent blu-ray's at Safeway for $1.49 or even $.99 on special. Not bad :D

I think it was Einstein who said, I could see further because I was riding on the shoulders of giants. DVD is the giant on whose shoulders Blu Ray is riding. So, differences between when DVD launched and Blu Ray are quite meaningless. Lesson learnt from DVD can be applied today to Blu Ray. Physically, they are the same size disks and hence can he distributed exactly the same way. VHS and DVD wasn't like that. Different times, different context, different approach to home video market.

The motion of uniformly accelerated objects was something I learnt in school. It took Galileo a lifetime. Yet he is considered a genius and I am not :eek:

It helps to have some context :D

I am the first to say, Blu Ray is the highest quality movie format around. There is huge pressure on studios to release high quality Blu Ray titles. However, the costs of doing this are usually not justified by the market, so many titles are pushed further back in favor of what sells. With other formats, include what is referred to as HD Lite the pressure to be the best of the best just isn't there. Unfortunately, a lot of the market for now does not seem to mind content that is not best of the best.

The bolded part above sounds a lot like the first three to four years of DVD. The catalog was decidedly more action/adventure based.

The bolded part above sounds a lot like the first three to four years of DVD. The catalog was decidedly more action/adventure based.

Could be. But DVD had a much easier competition. VHS was inferior in almost all respects. Bulkier, more expensive, not compatible with PCs (which was making great in roads at the time), VHS was analog, DVD is digital, in addition to better PQ and AQ...

...At this point predicting the future is almost impossible. But I think we can agree that there is ample opportunity for competition and that is really what this thread was about :)

The bolded part above sounds a lot like the first three to four years of DVD. The catalog was decidedly more action/adventure based.

Yes it does,

But there is an important difference. Back then DVD replaced a for more costlier to produce tape format. There was not a cheaper to produce format to fall back to.

This time replacing DVD with br will not result in lower production costs.

So other than a chance to establish a higher price level there isn't much incentive to push for a more expensive format if it doesn't gain serious tracktion in the market.

VOD is a small market at the moment. A more serious 'contender' is people just being happy with the regular tv channel offerings and the 'free' hd channels included in the subscription.