Good news on the growth of Blu-ray and the holiday buying season hasn't started yet.

BD player sales up +225% from last year
BD Movie Releases up by +157%
Number of BD manufactures up +78% over last year

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/sony-debuts-thi.html

And it's nice to know that Samsung is staying in the game with an all new "Future Proof" model, the p2500

http://gizmodo.com/5042950/samsung-bd+p2500-blu+ray-player-is-today-and-future-proof

NEC is planning on producing 1,000,000 Blu-ray chip sets per month by the beginning of 2009.
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/nec-technology-promises-cheaper-blu-ray-players

interesting numbers...

i wonder how many of those players that sold were sold to people who already had one and "upgraded"? are there a set of statistics that are that granular?

I think the Blu-ray market is growing at a nice clip given the setbacks the format was dealt in the past two years. I think we are well on our way to seeing every major Hollywood movie appear on Blu-ray eventually.

I think the Blu-ray market is growing at a nice clip given the setbacks the format was dealt in the past two years.

well... they don't give purple hearts for self-inflicted wounds... ;)

to be honest, i'd feel a lot better about future prospects if that percentage of movie releases was significantly higher...

well... they don't give purple hearts for self-inflicted wounds... ;)

to be honest, i'd feel a lot better about future prospects if that percentage of movie releases was significantly higher...
I have to agree. I'm not overly impressed with those numbers.
J

I think the Blu-ray market is growing at a nice clip given the setbacks the format was dealt in the past two years. I think we are well on our way to seeing every major Hollywood movie appear on Blu-ray eventually.

Not to be a stickler for details, but we have yet to see after eleven years "every major Hollywood movie" appear on DVD, let alone BD. But I'm patient, and in time (I agree with "eventually") I'm sure we'll see at least most major Hollywood movies on DVD and Blu-ray.

John

And it's nice to know that Samsung is staying in the game with an all new "Future Proof" model, the p2500

http://gizmodo.com/5042950/samsung-bd+p2500-blu+ray-player-is-today-and-future-proof


Future proof??? :confused: I don't see any mention of 3D-HD capabilities for a start. Apart from the extra 900MB or so of storage and Deep Colour it's basically the same as an HD DVD player from over 2 years ago, lol! (Only without the added bonus of region-freeness. ;)) I think I'll stick to (region free) Blu-Ray on my PC thanks. It may have problems sometimes but it's probably more future proof than any regular Blu-Ray player.

i am extremely disappointed with the tiny increase in movie releases, you would think it would be a lot higher then that since all the studios are on one format.

also, i have been disappointed with the type of content being released. a lot of the anticipated movies were already out on bd and hd dvd. i check the release announcements all the time looking for some of my favorites to show up. we get reissues in pretty box sets and hd dvd retreads. i am getting very bored. it seems like there were a lot of my favorites in the trailers at the formats launch. since they finished up all that launch content it seems like they have pretty much gone to to the b or worse list.

part of the problem is that i have also gotten a lot picker about what content i will buy since the prices went up. i won't be paying 20-30$ for old movies that you can get on dvd for $3-4. i paid about $10 on average for bd during the war. i picked up the entire james bond movie collection on dvd recently for $80 (22 movies) how much would that cost on bd if it existed? it isn't that i can't afford the moviews, i just would rather watch 5 good movies on dvd then one mediocre one in hd for the same money. after about 10 minutes into a good movie i forget about hd or not and just enjoy it.

somebody wake me when they get some good content.

i am extremely disappointed with the tiny increase in movie releases, you would think it would be a lot higher then that since all the studios are on one format.

also, i have been disappointed with the type of content being released. a lot of the anticipated movies were already out on bd and hd dvd. i check the release announcements all the time looking for some of my favorites to show up. we get reissues in pretty box sets and hd dvd retreads. i am getting very bored. it seems like there were a lot of my favorites in the trailers at the formats launch. since they finished up all that launch content it seems like they have pretty much gone to to the b or worse list.

part of the problem is that i have also gotten a lot picker about what content i will buy since the prices went up. i won't be paying 20-30$ for old movies that you can get on dvd for $3-4. i paid about $10 on average for bd during the war. i picked up the entire james bond movie collection on dvd recently for $80 (22 movies) how much would that cost on bd if it existed? it isn't that i can't afford the moviews, i just would rather watch 5 good movies on dvd then one mediocre one in hd for the same money. after about 10 minutes into a good movie i forget about hd or not and just enjoy it.

somebody wake me when they get some good content.

Well said. Thank you.
J

Those numbers seem weird. There were not 2 million SALs sold last year, but there were more PS3s sold. Where do they get that weird number.

Also, only 700 titles? That is killing the format.

BD Movie Releases up by +157%

This is a little misleading. I would imagine that many of those "releases" were HD DVD exclusive titles like Transformers or Red October and such.

Hopefully BD player prices will hit the $199 this holiday season. It would be nice to see an entry level $199 player. Wouldn't need to output DTS-MA or TrueHD.... just output at a decent level would be fine.

The one thing that does concern me is that I can't remember the last time I saw a Bluray add on TV. I think they were expecting a landslide into bluray when HD DVD fell and felt they didn't need to continue the advertising blitz.

Those numbers seem weird. There were not 2 million SALs sold last year, but there were more PS3s sold. Where do they get that weird number.

Also, only 700 titles? That is killing the format.

That looks like a number pulled from their arse if you ask me. They moved about 200,000-300,000 stand alone units through 2007. The PS3 was much higher, around 6-7 million. Where are they getting 2.0 million from?
And are they really going to "sell" 6.5 million stand alones this year? Last I heard they were on track for about 650 million in revenue. Which while nearly triples last years revenue. Is still a drop in the bucket compared to DVD.

Unless they consider every PS3\Blu Ray player given away with a TV as "sold".

well... they don't give purple hearts for self-inflicted wounds... ;)

to be honest, i'd feel a lot better about future prospects if that percentage of movie releases was significantly higher...


There still is a capacity issue. BD lines are at full capacity in anticipation of Q4. BTW, that's not a bad problem to have.

Well over half of the sales for the year in the home video industry comes in Q4.

BD is growing. Those are pretty good growth numbers considering that all studios were not releasing BDs until just July of this year.

Also, only 700 titles? That is killing the format.
Yea. The link shows 770 titles. I have more titles in my personal video library.
I'm underwhelmed.
J

Yea. The link shows 770 titles. I have more titles in my personal video library.
I'm underwhelmed.
J


Considering BD is only a little over two years old and ALSO there was format war for almost that long, I don't think BD has a terrible catalog.

There is no pleasing anyone around here.

I have plenty of good movies to watch on BD. Your argument has about the same validity that HD DVD was for classic movie buffs and BD was for gamers. Is there a law that BD owners are only gamers? Last I checked 300 sold a high number of units on HD DVD as well.

Basically BD is treating this holiday season as their first season on the market since HD DVD is no longer an issue. Many unaware of BD will see a new format in Q4 launching with all the big summer titles and 700 other movies. It's all about perception :D

We know the lines are going full bore and the replicators are buying new lines. If they had released a Star* movie on BD25 all hell would have broken loose. So I think they are getting the titles out as fast as they can right now.

We know the lines are going full bore and the replicators are buying new lines. If they had released a Star* movie on BD25 all hell would have broken loose. So I think they are getting the titles out as fast as they can right now.

LOL. A quick check showed me that Apple TV has 596 HD movies added since April 1 2008. And these are ALL movies by major US studios. And it required no new plants or replication lines etc etc. By all accounts Apple TV HD is just getting warmed up.

here is the list http://www.appletvjunkie.com/completehdlist


Just curious. What does the 770 list include?

Considering BD is only a little over two years old and ALSO there was format war for almost that long, I don't think BD has a terrible catalog.
2 years is a long time for only 770 titles. That's why I dropped SACD.

There is no pleasing anyone around here.
We can't all be fanboys.

I have plenty of good movies to watch on BD.
I'm glad you're happy, but I've run out of BDs to watch, and I'm only getting a couple a month lately. I'm still buying lots of DVDs though. I was hoping that by now, it would be the other way around.
Pity.
J

LOL. A quick check showed me that Apple TV has 596 HD movies added since April 1 2008. And these are ALL movies by major US studios. And it required no new plants or replication lines etc etc. By all accounts Apple TV HD is just getting warmed up.

here is the list http://www.appletvjunkie.com/completehdlist


Just curious. What does the 770 list include?

Not a bad list. What is the pricing? If it is like Comcast and MS Live's pricing then that is way to much for what is just HD lite at best. If it is dirt cheap like their songs then not bad at all. If they offered something close to blu-ray quality I'd be tempted to use them as secondary service for some of the content that doesn't make it to blockbuster and their blu-ray offerings.

2 years is a long time for only 770 titles. That's why I dropped SACD.

770 titles is OK, if its the right titles.

I can settle with 385 titles, if the titles were Gladiator, Aliens, Raiders etc.

Not a bad list. Still it is just HD lite at best with Apple's service. If they offered something close to blu-ray quality I'd be tempted to use them as secondary service for some of the content that doesn't make it to blockbuster and their blu-ray offerings.

IF they surpass Blu-ray (and they have only been around a couple months and have almost caught up), it will start to hurt. Even HD-lite is better than no HD at all.

Considering BD is only a little over two years old and ALSO there was format war for almost that long, I don't think BD has a terrible catalog.

There is no pleasing anyone around here.

I have plenty of good movies to watch on BD. Your argument has about the same validity that HD DVD was for classic movie buffs and BD was for gamers. Is there a law that BD owners are only gamers? Last I checked 300 sold a high number of units on HD DVD as well.

Basically BD is treating this holiday season as their first season on the market since HD DVD is no longer an issue. Many unaware of BD will see a new format in Q4 launching with all the big summer titles and 700 other movies. It's all about perception :D

You wouldn't know it by the lack of advertising.

770 titles is OK, if its the right titles.

I can settle with 385 titles, if the titles were Gladiator, Aliens, Raiders etc.

I've been pretty happy with blu-ray's offerings this year so far and the future looks very nice for my tastes. Of course I do want those three you mentioned and some other catalogues as well. I'm actually surprised that I've gotten some great catalogs like Blade Runner, Dark City, etc already.

IF they surpass Blu-ray (and they have only been around a couple months and have almost caught up), it will start to hurt. Even HD-lite is better than no HD at all.

Of course, but given the choice for blu-ray vs. low quality services like Live, Apple, Comcast, DVD, etc then it's a no brainer to go blu. Not offered on blu then I'll check one of the options out.

IF they surpass Blu-ray (and they have only been around a couple months and have almost caught up), it will start to hurt. Even HD-lite is better than no HD at all.

Apple iTV is even more of a niche than BD at this point. I would guess than more folks have heard of bluray as opposed to iTV.

1.6m sales last year. they are hoping for 2.5 this year.

They have a big hurdle to climb to overtake them.

Besides, if I had to pick a potential winner on the HD download side, I would go with netflix. They are have 4 devices: xbox 360, PCs, netflix SA and the new LG BD/netflix player.

I really like the idea of this product when it launched, but has been considered a bit of flop thus far from what I have read. Great idea though.

...Besides, if I had to pick a potential winner on the HD download side, I would go with netflix...

Has Netflix released any indication that they plan to offer HD downloads?

Not a bad list. What is the pricing? If it is like Comcast and MS Live's pricing then that is way to much for what is just HD lite at best. If it is dirt cheap like their songs then not bad at all. If they offered something close to blu-ray quality I'd be tempted to use them as secondary service for some of the content that doesn't make it to blockbuster and their blu-ray offerings.

Price is $3.99 for catalog titles and $4.99 for recent. Not sure how MSLive works, but with Apple TV HD you can start watching almost instantly. Plus the Apple UI is excellent in my opinion!

PQ is 720p 24 fps. It's much better than my Cox HD movies and slightly below Blu Ray. But from an HD experience my guess is that most people won't find Apple TV to be a compromise, unlike HD Lite. From what I have seen.

For me the biggest advantage with something like Apple TV is you have a nice UI to browse through thousands of titles (600 in HD) plus all your own DVD from one place. Of course it also provides access to podcasts, YouTube and TV shows.

If Apple offers a subscription model I can easily see Apple TV pull off an itunes like dominance in this market.

For our family, the first device we go to when we sit down in front of the TV is Apple TV.

I heard Apple TV is selling around 50K rentals a month. Plus, itunes is selling downloads. So overall, they could do around $150M is sales this year. Much smaller than Blu Ray. But this is all Apple alone!

Has Netflix released any indication that they plan to offer HD downloads?

They do have plans and supposedly their SA is capable. I prefer HDM anyway and would prefer to see it take the lead role as the preferred medium. Just my personal preference.

ZDNet: HD Downloads Not Really Hhttp://www.tvpredictions.com/zdnet011808.htmD

.....Microsoft is now offering high-def downloads via its XBox 360 gaming console while Apple just added them to its Apple TV device. Additionally, Netflix and several other companies are planning to offer HD download services.
....

I don't think Bluray can win the battle this holiday, but do you think they could lose it this winter?

Price is $3.99 for catalog titles and $4.99 for recent. Not sure how MSLive works, but with Apple TV HD you can start watching almost instantly. Plus the Apple UI is excellent in my opinion!

PQ is 720p 24 fps. It's much better than my Cox HD movies and slightly below Blu Ray. But from an HD experience my guess is that most people won't find Apple TV to be a compromise, unlike HD Lite. From what I have seen.

Thanks for the info. Not much different than Live (I think I paid $6 for a new release), both HD light services are over priced and under performing then just as Comcast is.

Yeah, I've used the UI and it's as one would expect from an Apple product That has never been an issue with any formats I've used even if others aren't as slick looking. Basically a non-issue as long as they work which they all have from my experience.

Thanks for the info. Not much different than Live (I think I paid $6 for a new release), both HD light services are over priced and under performing then just as Comcast is.

Yeah, I've used the UI and it's as one would expect from an Apple product That has never been an issue with any formats I've used even if others aren't as slick looking. Basically a non-issue as long as they work which they all have from my experience.

Biggest problem that I have with these download services is that they "own" you once you sign up. I like the idea of disc because I am not obligated to keep a service or use their programs. Personal preference and I am not saying that it is the better way to go. Anyone else feel that way?

Biggest problem that I have with these download services is that they "own" you once you sign up. I like the idea of disc because I am not obligated to keep a service or use their programs. Personal preference and I am not saying that it is the better way to go. Anyone else feel that way?

You mean, not being able to change or monthly subscriptions? I've only done the 1 time rentals with any of them to try them out so I don't feel that way.

I can feel that way to an extent with paying for certain packages with Comcast and my Blockbuster monthly rental plan, but I knew what I was getting into. For me the BB monthly rental plan has been my favorite as it gives me the best quality by far.

You mean, not being able to change or monthly subscriptions? I've only done the 1 time rentals with any of them to try them out so I don't feel that way.

I can feel that way to an extent with paying for certain packages with Comcast and my Blockbuster monthly rental plan, but I knew what I was getting into. For me the BB monthly rental plan has been my favorite as it gives me the best quality by far.

Well, what I mean is paying for the right to download a movie, but obligated to keep your service running in order to keep it or being obligated to only use certain devices. Good example is many of the Music download services. Same with the Blockbuster download feature.

.... Good example is many of the Music download services. Same with the Blockbuster download feature.

Thank Apple on that one. How people allow.....oh wait. That is why. PEOPLE!

Well, what I mean is paying for the right to download a movie, but obligated to keep your service running in order to keep it or being obligated to only use certain devices. Good example is many of the Music download services. Same with the Blockbuster download feature.

Good point. Though I doesn't apply to Apple as just having iTunes music service as just having the software is free. Comcast on the other hand you have to have service to begin with of course.

2 years is a long time for only 770 titles. That's why I dropped SACD.


We can't all be fanboys.


I'm glad you're happy, but I've run out of BDs to watch, and I'm only getting a couple a month lately. I'm still buying lots of DVDs though. I was hoping that by now, it would be the other way around.
Pity.
J

A lot of calling people fanboys lately around here. Typical response by those with a weak argument.

770 titles considering there was a format war is not bad. BD finally has full studio support so now is the time for catalog to grow quickly but even then Universal just started releasing titles two months ago so give them some time to truely ramp up.

The war is over. BD capacity will be increasing. It was the same way early in DVDs lifecycle.

As far as content not being released on BD, do what many are starting to do. Don't buy the SD content. I quit buying SD over 3 years ago now. I can live without it if it is not a HD release.

A lot of calling people fanboys lately around here. Typical response by those with a weak argument.

The war is over. BD capacity will be increasing. It was the same way early in DVDs lifecycle.

As far as content not being released on BD, do what many are starting to do. Don't buy the SD content. I quit buying SD over 3 years ago now. I can live without it if it is not a HD release.

Funny thing is I do the opposite. On blind buys that I am not sure that I want, I will usually get them on DVD out of the 4 for $20 bin at my local Bb. Watch them. Then I either resell them on ebay or keep them depending on the rewatchability. If it is something really good, I will get the HD DVD / BD version.... but it has to be really good.

There are some movies, I get HD out the gate. Iron Man will be one. Dark Knight will be another. Probably HB2 although I have not seen that. On the fence about the Hulk. And then I do the same as I do above.

To me, all content doesn't have to be HD. I can go either way on many titles. Same with TV shows that I get on disc.

I have also started to replace my SD collection for my favs. From movies like the Last Starfighter and the Mummy to must haves like the Matrix Trilogy.

It is more of a cost to value ratio thing for me.

Trust me. Blu Ray capacity for movies isn't going to increase.

Trust me. Blu Ray capacity for movies isn't going to increase.


Not disc capacity, but production capacity.

I highly doubt that over 50GB will ever be needed on a BD unless you want to put all three LOTR extended cuts on a single disc. But the HD DVD crowd sure touted up that mythical HD DVD 51 triple layer disc for a long time.

Funny thing is I do the opposite. On blind buys that I am not sure that I want, I will usually get them on DVD out of the 4 for $20 bin at my local Bb. Watch them. Then I either resell them on ebay or keep them depending on the rewatchability. If it is something really good, I will get the HD DVD / BD version.... but it has to be really good.

There are some movies, I get HD out the gate. Iron Man will be one. Dark Knight will be another. Probably HB2 although I have not seen that. On the fence about the Hulk. And then I do the same as I do above.

To me, all content doesn't have to be HD. I can go either way on many titles. Same with TV shows that I get on disc.

I have also started to replace my SD collection for my favs. From movies like the Last Starfighter and the Mummy to must haves like the Matrix Trilogy.

It is more of a cost to value ratio thing for me.

If its a title I have not seen before then I rent the BD via Blockbuster.

Good news on the growth of Blu-ray and the holiday buying season hasn't started yet.

BD player sales up +225% from last year
BD Movie Releases up by +157%
Number of BD manufactures up +78% over last year

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/sony-debuts-thi.html

And it's nice to know that Samsung is staying in the game with an all new "Future Proof" model, the p2500

http://gizmodo.com/5042950/samsung-bd+p2500-blu+ray-player-is-today-and-future-proof

NEC is planning on producing 1,000,000 Blu-ray chip sets per month by the beginning of 2009.
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/nec-technology-promises-cheaper-blu-ray-players

And yet we continue to hear the same arguments from the same naysayers over and over again.

The numbers show BD has some potential.

interesting numbers...

i wonder how many of those players that sold were sold to people who already had one and "upgraded"? are there a set of statistics that are that granular?

I'm on my 7th BD player.

Well, what I mean is paying for the right to download a movie, but obligated to keep your service running in order to keep it or being obligated to only use certain devices. Good example is many of the Music download services. Same with the Blockbuster download feature.

Subscription is based on paying for a service. As long as you pay you get to enjoy the service. Lot's of things are that way. Your cable, electricity, gas, telephone, rental housing, car leases, etc etc. It's a way of life really. Just depends on what you want to own and keep. In most cases when I buy a movie or music off of itunes, I knowing I am trading off paying a lower price for limited ownership. But, so far it hasn't prevented me from enjoying that content in any place I choose to - home, in the subway, in the car, the office etc.

The way I see it, I can rent 6-9 HD movies for the price of owning one Blu Ray disk. So I just treat the Apple library as my own :)

I don't think I've watch many movie more than thrice. So the pleasure of a shiny disk stored in a shelf isn't a big deal for me. Sony for one has a much larger library on Blu Ray than Apple TV. But the other studios - particularly the old HD DVD supporting ones have a substantially larger Apple HD presence. And of course without Disney, Apple TV would not eve have taken off :)

In the end I think services like Apple TV will hurt Bricks and Morter rental shops the most. DVRs and Tivo are more likely to impact Blu Ray saes from a downloadable model.

People forget that Tivo is very much a Video on Demand/ digital download model. Digital downloads are far more common than people think. Only problem is that studios haven't found a way to charge you for Tivo content :)

Not disc capacity, but production capacity.

I highly doubt that over 50GB will ever be needed on a BD unless you want to put all three LOTR extended cuts on a single disc. But the HD DVD crowd sure touted up that mythical HD DVD 51 triple layer disc for a long time.
No doubt production capacity will go up. My point is that dynamics today are differet from 1997. Today we can bet on many horses. I for one, am enjoying HD from many sources and have a nice selection and the costs are perhaps cheaper overall than even when I was buying DVD (net net)!

People forget that Tivo is very much a Video on Demand/ digital download model. Digital downloads are far more common than people think. Only problem is that studios haven't found a way to charge you for Tivo content :)

Funny that you mention Tivo.

I was under the impression until recently that you bought the box and it was free (My TV watching is abysmal). It was intresting when I found out that you have to pay for that time shifting ability. Luckily my need for such a device is non-exitant.

Funny that you mention Tivo.

I was under the impression until recently that you bought the box and it was free (My TV watching is abysmal). It was intresting when I found out that you have to pay for that time shifting ability. Luckily my need for such a device is non-exitant.


That's the problem with most of the downloading schemes. There are many hidden costs.

In general subscription is a lucrative revenue model. Even software companies are trying this. Software as a service is the approach :)

Really. All types of software can be sold as a service. It lowers the cost for consumers and increases revenue for providers. But the trade off is DRM! No free lunch yet :)

How long before Google puts out a Google Movie Player. Or Google Entertainment Pack?

Not disc capacity, but production capacity.

I highly doubt that over 50GB will ever be needed on a BD unless you want to put all three LOTR extended cuts on a single disc. But the HD DVD crowd sure touted up that mythical HD DVD 51 triple layer disc for a long time.

Agreed. About a third of the BD movies are under 20gb (I am Legend for example) and almost all are under 30gb. Worste case scenario they have 2 BDs instead of 1.

I remember reading that technically you could have up to 8-9 layers I think on DVD which would have been about +/-40gb. those things never really come to the market place. I think 50gb is where it will stay.

I am sure that in 10 years folks will go nuts taht they trying to put Quad HD on a 150gb BD disc when it makes sense to go with the capacity Holographic or protein discs in the next gen.

And people will still be clammering that downloads should take over. :D

It lowers the cost for consumers and increases revenue for providers.

I think you will find those 2 concepts are mutually exclusive.

In my case I want to buy the disk because in the long run it is cheaper that way.

I remember reading that technically you could have up to 8-9 layers I think on DVD which would have been about +/-40gb. those things never really come to the market place. I think 50gb is where it will stay.

Of course since even if you run the movie at full mux, there will be room for a +138 minute movie.

But if you create a stress scenario movie that forces it to run at full mux for 139 minute, then would we need a bigger disc, but no motion picture in the world would look like that so its just a theoretical scenario.

I think you will find those 2 concepts are mutually exclusive.

In my case I want to buy the disk because in the long run it is cheaper that way.

How many times do you watch each movie?

For consumers the cost will be lower for those who only watch a movie a few times.

For content providers the revenue opportunity is from selling through multiple channels and the reduction in theft. Plus it requires no investment in infrastructure. You bypass all the packaging and replication steps.

The service model has the potential of expanding the marketing and hence why both consumers and providers may prefer it.

Clearly, there will be a market for physical media. But, the service model is all around us. It isn't unique for movies.

Some minor bickering removed.

How many times do you watch each movie?

For consumers the cost will be lower for those who only watch a movie a few times.

For content providers the revenue opportunity is from selling through multiple channels and the reduction in theft. Plus it requires no investment in infrastructure. You bypass all the packaging and replication steps.

The service model has the potential of expanding the marketing and hence why both consumers and providers may prefer it.

Clearly, there will be a market for physical media. But, the service model is all around us. It isn't unique for movies.

How long has PPV been around? It was expected to destroy the physical media market. OnDemand and DLs are just another variant. They may take a bite out of the rental market, but there still is a very strong group of consumers who prefer physical media over digital files. Even with audio the only easy option for obtaining lossless audio is purchasing the CD. Apple iTunes and other online providers are still compressing the heck out of music AND NOW they expect us to believe that HD DLs are so close to BD quality that physical media is dead. Sorry there are still too many questions about ownership and fair-use with heavily DRM'd and proprietary files.

bd needs to get lower priced, 2.0 compliant players out on the market fast!

they also need to get more high quality transfers of popular titles out fast.

i really think the slow pace on these 2 fronts since the end of the war threaten bd's long term viability. they have a limited time frame to penetrate the market and, so far, their market penetration is niche only.

they need to give consumers some economically inticing incentives to promote mass adoption before their window of opportunity closes. there are other formats available and new technologies around the corner

770 titles considering there was a format war is not bad. It's not good, either. The ill-fated Divx format had over 500 titles in its first year, even with partial studio support, with another 3,000 planned for the following year. And two years after launch, the DVD catalog numbered in the thousands, with the demand described by one e-tail spokesperson as "insatiable."

Blu-ray may be doing well in terms of player volumes (thanks to the PS3, of which I have one), but the catalog is weak. No matter what anyone says.

How long has PPV been around? It was expected to destroy the physical media market. OnDemand and DLs are just another variant. They may take a bite out of the rental market, but there still is a very strong group of consumers who prefer physical media over digital files. Even with audio the only easy option for obtaining lossless audio is purchasing the CD. Apple iTunes and other online providers are still compressing the heck out of music AND NOW they expect us to believe that HD DLs are so close to BD quality that physical media is dead. Sorry there are still too many questions about ownership and fair-use with heavily DRM'd and proprietary files.

Lets see,

1. HDTV"s are selling more now than ever: Fact

2. Some of these owners will want HD programming from their cable provider:
Fact

3. They will be issued one of them STB's things: Fact

4. Guess what those STB's do?: Fact

You are greatly underestimating the potential of VOD, It will only increase in multiples the people that utilize it and grow much faster than BD. Why do you think all these providers keep making more and more bandwidth available for it. They see where the future is heading and where the money is to be made.

Lets see,

1. HDTV"s are selling more now than ever: Fact

2. Some of these owners will want HD programming from their cable provider:
Fact

3. They will be issued one of them STB's things: Fact

4. Guess what those STB's do?: Fact

You are greatly underestimating the potential of VOD, It will only increase in multiples the people that utilize it and grow much faster than BD. Why do you think all these providers keep making more and more bandwidth available for it. They see where the future is heading and where the money is to be made.

I have Comcast. Their OnDemand is not bad for free content, but it is overpriced for SD/HD pay content.

It is one of those features that some will use a lot at first, but after a while the novelty wears off.

Again while many years in the future bandwidth won't be an issue, BUT for many people HSI is still out reach geographically and financially. Again maybe if a few test markets, but the vast majority of consumers don't have access or simply don't want to pay the jacked up prices for those services.

I very close to telling Comcast to take a hike. I have two DVRs, digital cable and internet. I am paying $150/month. Digital Cable while an improvement over their analog service still leaves a lot to desire quality wise.

Meh.

I've all but disappeared from buying BR since the format war ended. Why? Prices are too high. The competitive sales during the format war spoiled me. I won't pay $25+ for BR titles, and that's where the price point has seemed to have settled. The only "sales" one finds any more are the same old tired releases from the first year of BR's existence. I already own all of those.

Every time I walk into Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or Circuit City, every new/recent title is $29.95. Eff that. No Frye's or Costco in this region. Amazon doesn't have the sales it used to.

During the format war, I was buying plenty on both formats. Now I'm buying neither. :(

It looks to me like HDM peaked in the holiday season of 2007.

Lets see,

1. HDTV"s are selling more now than ever: Fact

2. Some of these owners will want HD programming from their cable provider:
Fact

3. They will be issued one of them STB's things: Fact

4. Guess what those STB's do?: Fact





So unfortunatly, #3. The goverment is not issue out anything. The consumer has to pay for it and more so if they want Hi-Def.

#4. The coupon'd ones? Nothing more than allow for Digital to analog. They do not provide Hi-Def unless they purchase the $200 STB ;)

Don't assume. Assuming is bad.

I have Comcast. Their OnDemand is not bad for free content, but it is overpriced for SD/HD pay content.

It is one of those features that some will use a lot at first, but after a while the novelty wears off.

Again while many years in the future bandwidth won't be an issue, BUT for many people HSI is still out reach geographically and financially. Again maybe if a few test markets, but the vast majority of consumers don't have access or simply don't want to pay the jacked up prices for those services.

I very close to telling Comcast to take a hike. I have two DVRs, digital cable and internet. I am paying $150/month. Digital Cable while an improvement over their analog service still leaves a lot to desire quality wise.

Again your point always comes back to the quality factor, most important to you and I but not so much to everyone else.

The reason I keep trying to hammer this point home is this is what the reality is in my circle of friends, family and co-workers. OnDemand is big with them, DVD gets used here and there and BD is not even on the map ( only 1 has one). And this trend has been growing over the last few years towards VOD, BD might make inroads here and there but feedback I get from these folks is that their content with what they have and this can not be good for mass adoption of HiDef physical media considering I didn't even bring up the DL aspect.

So when I post statements in this regard, it is not myself that I am speaking for but the consensus of most others that I know. I know some here don't want to hear this but these are the facts and I'm not any happier with them than you are!

So unfortunatly, #3. The goverment is not issue out anything. The consumer has to pay for it and more so if they want Hi-Def.

#4. The coupon'd ones? Nothing more than allow for Digital to analog. They do not provide Hi-Def unless they purchase the $200 STB ;)

Don't assume. Assuming is bad.

Not what I was talking about at all, just people who are buying HDTV"s that want HDTV programming from their cable co. HD Boxes & DVR's is what I meant when I used issued. And yes the consumer will be paying for these services. Just trying to point out more people will be exposed to VOD because of it, sorry for the confusion.

Again your point always comes back to the quality factor, most important to you and I but not so much to everyone else.

The reason I keep trying to hammer this point home is this is what the reality is in my circle of friends, family and co-workers. OnDemand is big with them, DVD gets used here and there and BD is not even on the map ( only 1 has one). And this trend has been growing over the last few years towards VOD, BD might make inroads here and there but feedback I get from these folks is that their content with what they have and this can not be good for mass adoption of HiDef physical media considering I didn't even bring up the DL aspect.

So when I post statements in this regard, it is not myself that I am speaking for but the consensus of most others that I know. I know some here don't want to hear this but these are the facts and I'm not any happier with them than you are!

BUT, the point that you missed is that these services are continuing to become cost prohibitive. I would glady keep my Comcast service if declining OnDemand meant a smaller cable bill. That "free" content costs me even when I don't use it.

I know some people that use OnDemand but it still is relatively small and remember only so many users can access it at one time for it to work. Again they don't have infinite bandwidth.

And as far as most not caring about quality, I don't buy it. Some may say that, BUT remember a lot of people were wowed on showroom floors by what HDTV can deliver only to be disappointed at home by how bad SD looked. Heck even my near elderly mother asked me why she did not get the Jets football game in widescreen last Sunday. If people are willing to buy HD, then I believe the majority expect a quality experience. Otherwise that $1k+ they dropped on a large HD set was a waste of money.

Also, I don't know how you seriously expect people to believe that you advocate quality when your screen name, Lodef, may lead people to believe you have an axe to grind especially when you continue to question BD and HD advantages.

If people are used to SD and have not seen HD then I agree they probably won't care until they truly experience quality HD.

Not what I was talking about at all, just people who are buying HDTV"s that want HDTV programming from their cable co. HD Boxes & DVR's is what I meant when I used issued. And yes the consumer will be paying for these services. Just trying to point out more people will be exposed to VOD because of it, sorry for the confusion.

No problem. We are all confused!!! :confused::confused::)

Not disc capacity, but production capacity.

I highly doubt that over 50GB will ever be needed on a BD unless you want to put all three LOTR extended cuts on a single disc. But the HD DVD crowd sure touted up that mythical HD DVD 51 triple layer disc for a long time.

And based on the fact that folks like you acknowledge that that much capacity wasn't needed yet BD and fans touted it as an advantage over HDDVD.

Art

Over 50GB wasn't needed is what Craig is saying I believe. Plenty of movies on blu-ray have been over HD DVD's space limitations as well as bandwidth limitations. BD fans were right to tout the significant space and bandwidth limitations.

Over 50GB wasn't needed is what Craig is saying I believe. Plenty of movies on blu-ray have been over HD DVD's space limitations as well as bandwidth limitations. BD fans were right to tout the significant space and bandwidth limitations.
Not really.

Not really.

Well I'm sure Craig will clarify further then if needed.

Over 50GB wasn't needed is what Craig is saying I believe. Plenty of movies on blu-ray have been over HD DVD's space limitations as well as bandwidth limitations. BD fans were right to tout the significant space and bandwidth limitations.

Disk size limitations had almost no bearing on Warners choice or for that matter Paramounts when they switched.

If space were that critical to HD, warner would not be putting out as much HD content as they are on Apple TV as they are. Now even NBC is going to put their TV shows in HD on that format. Each Apple TV movie is under 4GB. There is just a lot of resources being spent on low bit rate compression going on for me to discount it outright. Everyone wants it, outside of Blu Ray disks.

Wow! watched the Maltese Falcon on HD. What a great movie, gonna watch Casablanca with my wife this weekend. These movies are already on HD :)

Disk capacity is irrelevant or moot. Studios would be fine with 25GB, and they will, once their respective agreements run out. Is my guess.

Disk capacity is irrelevant or moot. Studios would be fine with 25GB, and they will, once their respective agreements run out. Is my guess.

BS... BDs technical specs were and are superior to any other consumer based HD fomat available.

Regardless, it was only irrelevant to those who were backing the format with lesser horsepower.

Lower disc space and to a bigger degree lower bandwidth limited possibilities on HD DVD even though they technically had those features in their spec. How many HD DVDs took advantage of those extra features? How many HD DVDs had lossless audio? How many HD DVDs had an average bitrate of over 20Mbps?

Also, as the yields improve and capacity increases, producing BD50s will be an incremental increase over BD25. Sounds like the old yield and capacity issues being thrown out again. Once the kinks were worked out of DVD9, it quickly became what the DVD consumers demanded for decent quality.

Lower disc space and to a bigger degree lower bandwidth limited possibilities on HD DVD even though they technically had those features in their spec. How many HD DVDs took advantage of those extra features? How many HD DVDs had lossless audio? How many HD DVDs had an average bitrate of over 20Mbps?

How did HD DVDs bandwith limits the possiblitys? Usually its always the studios that limits the releases.

Remember that BDs bandwith was a sideeffect of squeesing more data on the same surface area as CD, DVD, HD DVD. Not that you needed it for 8bits 4:2:0 releases.

BS... BDs technical specs were and are superior to any other consumer based HD fomat available.

Regardless, it was only irrelevant to those who were backing the format with lesser horsepower.

Lower disc space and to a bigger degree lower bandwidth limited possibilities on HD DVD even though they technically had those features in their spec. How many HD DVDs took advantage of those extra features? How many HD DVDs had lossless audio? How many HD DVDs had an average bitrate of over 20Mbps?

Also, as the yields improve and capacity increases, producing BD50s will be an incremental increase over BD25. Sounds like the old yield and capacity issues being thrown out again. Once the kinks were worked out of DVD9, it quickly became what the DVD consumers demanded for decent quality.

If studios demanded the space, why are they releasing HD content (at a faster rate mind you) on Apple TV that is only 4GB?

Basically, they don't care. For them it is content and whether people will pay for it.

One of the few HD DVDs I saw was the Matrix Trilogy. As a consumer I saw zero difference v. any Blu Ray I recall. By zero I mean zero. So space was not what it came down to. No movie I know of looks great on Blu Ray but crap on Apple TV HD. Zero.But Apple TV HD is a notch below Blu Ray. But not by much, and not even noticable by most people who come to my home. And these are fairly well off and intelligent people with decent AV systems of their own.

So, I think Blu ray will succeed because HD will replace SD and it is the only HD optical disk format. No other reason.

How did HD DVDs bandwith limits the possiblitys? Usually its always the studios that limits the releases.

Remember that BDs bandwith was a sideeffect of squeesing more data on the same surface area as CD, DVD, HD DVD. Not that you needed it for 8bits 4:2:0 releases.


What was their maximum throughput? 30Mbps

Let's say you had a 2-hr movie that needs roughly 22Mbps average for decent video. That's 19.8GB just for the video. Now say that you want the following audio tracks: TrueHD 24b@48kHz (avg of 4MBps) and 5 other 5.1 lossy language tracks (roughly 2.5MBps) so the total audio bandwidth is 6.5Mbps resulting in another 6GB being used. Do you see your 22MBps video and 6.5Mbps audio average is already pushing close to the 30Mbps limit?

Now add a secondary 480p video track at average of 4Mbps.... Do you see the problem? At some point the compression is going to have increase for the main feature OR features sacrificed. This is why Transformers did not have lossless on HD DVD. Specs be damned the secondary video track will take another 3.6GB (19.8 + 5.9 + 3.6 = 29.3 GB) on a 120min movie. BD has the space and bandwidth to easily accomodate longer features and include more value added content than HD DVD.

Now with BD I can keep my 22Mbps or go higher, add my secondary 480p video track maybe add another language. I have plenty of space and BANDWIDTH.

What was their maximum throughput? 30Mbps

Let's say you had a 2-hr movie that needs roughly 22Mbps average for decent video. That's 19.8GB just for the video. Now say that you want the following audio tracks: TrueHD 24b@48kHz (avg of 4MBps) and 5 other 5.1 lossy language tracks (roughly 2.5MBps) so the total audio bandwidth is 6.5Mbps resulting in another 6GB being used. Do you see your 22MBps video and 6.5Mbps audio average is already pushing close to the 30Mbps limit?


What do you base that a 2 hour movie needs 22mbs ABR?

There are several titles that has proven you can get top quality on Peak Bitrate lower then that.

Usually ABR is just an effect of the final specs for the release, not that you needed 22mbs ABR just because its was 22mbs ABR in the end product.


Now add a secondary 480p video track at average of 4Mbps.... Do you see the problem? At some point the compression is going to have increase for the main feature OR features sacrificed. This is why Transformers did not have lossless on HD DVD. Specs be damned the secondary video track will take another 3.6GB (19.8 + 5.9 + 3.6 = 29.3 GB) on a 120min movie. BD has the space and bandwidth to easily accomodate longer features and include more value added content than HD DVD.

Why use 4mbs avarage on PiP track? You say that compression needs to increase for the main feature, but you can waste 4mbs avarage bitrate on the PiP? If anything the PiP can always be compressed more.



Now with BD I can keep my 22Mbps or go higher, add my secondary 480p video track maybe add another language. I have plenty of space and BANDWIDTH.

And BD can only play with space and bandwith* if they use BD50 (And not every title gets BD50)

Just take you own example, you already past BD25 capacity with 4,3 GB.



*=Bandwith effects the ABR, and must be considered even if it can peak all the way to 48mbs, its not recommended.

If studios demanded the space, why are they releasing HD content (at a faster rate mind you) on Apple TV that is only 4GB?

Basically, they don't care. For them it is content and whether people will pay for it.

One of the few HD DVDs I saw was the Matrix Trilogy. As a consumer I saw zero difference v. any Blu Ray I recall. By zero I mean zero. So space was not what it came down to. No movie I know of looks great on Blu Ray but crap on Apple TV HD. Zero.But Apple TV HD is a notch below Blu Ray. But not by much, and not even noticable by most people who come to my home. And these are fairly well off and intelligent people with decent AV systems of their own.

So, I think Blu ray will succeed because HD will replace SD and it is the only HD optical disk format. No other reason.


My first question: Are you viewing on 1080p native resolution display? If so, my next question would be what's wrong with your setup? Apple TV's HD offerings are only highly compressed files with native resolution of 720p. Compared with 1080p that's over a 50% decrease just in resolution never minding the fact the file is highly compressed. Personally I am tired of Apple's shananigans and Steve Jobs is this generations P.T."There's a sucker born every minute" Barnum. Jobs was recently claiming BD was dead in an interview. Well does he have a vested interest in physical media being dead? iTunes, anyone? With the answer to question one should you take his opinion with a little sketicism? YES.

I have heard reviews from much more credible sources claiming that HD Apple TV is slightly better than DVD at best. I believe one of them was the HDTV Guys podcast.

Disk size limitations had almost no bearing on Warners choice or for that matter Paramounts when they switched.

Never claimed it was. Paramounts was payout, though there last title before the bribe to drop blu-ray Blades of Glory had a lossless track on the blu-ray version and not the HD DVD version. And of course they've continued the trend after Toshiba callled it quits and they came back to blu .

Warner simply went with the format that the vast majority of early adopters went with. However they've also demonstrated that having more space doesn't mean a studio will use it, they have a history of catoring to the lowest bandwidth available between the two formats. Universal as well is now releasing titles with better audio on blu than they have on their HD DVD counter parts:)

If space were that critical to HD, warner would not be putting out as much HD content as they are on Apple TV as they are. Now even NBC is going to put their TV shows in HD on that format. Each Apple TV movie is under 4GB. There is just a lot of resources being spent on low bit rate compression going on for me to discount it outright. Everyone wants it, outside of Blu Ray disks.

If the Apple TV HD downloads were as good as blu-ray you might have a point. But the fact is they are HD light just like MS's Live and Comcast On Demand movies, all which use less space. The fact is these HD light sources simply don't match up at all to blu-ray's quality in PQ and AQ.

Disk capacity is irrelevant or moot. Studios would be fine with 25GB, and they will, once their respective agreements run out. Is my guess.

Sure for Apple TV it is. In your guestimation when do their aggreements end? When they'll start to only use 25GB discs?

What do you base that a 2 hour movie needs 22mbs ABR?

You are missing the main point. BD has ability to do more due to the higher SPACE and BANDWIDTH.

Again answer my main question. How many HD DVDs had lossless? PiP? Web interactivity? AND I'll add another reference video?

BD25 is fine for low demand titles that don't demand the deluxe treatment and I agree just as many if not more sacrifices are needed for BD25 compared to HD DVD30. It's probably the big reason Speed Racer is not getting lossless audio.

But the studios know that with high profile high demand titles BD consumers are near demanding BD50 due to less compression required and lossless audio options.

Like DVD9, BD50 will become the BD norm on high profile titles. Disney and most of the other studios tout which type of disc is being used in their PRs. All the major summer blockbusters, other than TDK at this point which has not been announced, have been announced to be released on BD50s.

You are missing the main point. BD has ability to do more due to the higher SPACE and BANDWIDTH.

What can BD do with more space and bandwith, when its still looked to a 8bit 4:2:0 system?

Once a title hit transparancy, its not so much more that can happen to the title.

The biggest problem for both HD DVD and BD, was that studios used old masters for some releases.


Again answer my main question. How many HD DVDs had lossless? PiP? Web interactivity? AND I'll add another reference video?

Since I dont count titles I dont have an answer, but how do you now what title didnt get lossy because of bandwith and storage, and what didnt get lossless because of studio policy?

As for PiP, I would say that its dependant on what the title is, nothing really to do with bandwith, it takes some manpower to add a PiP track to a movie, so its usually just high profile titles that get the PiP track, and as a funny side note, its usually high profile titles that gets lossless audio aswell.

As for reference video, if it has a reference master, its usually gets reference PQ.


BD25 is fine for low demand titles that don't demand the deluxe treatment and I agree just as many if not more sacrifices are needed for BD25 compared to HD DVD30. It's probably the big reason Speed Racer is not getting lossless audio.

BD25 would do fine for most titles, just put the extras on a second disc.

You are missing the main point. BD has ability to do more due to the higher SPACE and BANDWIDTH.

Again answer my main question. How many HD DVDs had lossless? PiP? Web interactivity? AND I'll add another reference video?

BD25 is fine for low demand titles that don't demand the deluxe treatment and I agree just as many if not more sacrifices are needed for BD25 compared to HD DVD30. It's probably the big reason Speed Racer is not getting lossless audio.

But the studios know that with high profile high demand titles BD consumers are near demanding BD50 due to less compression required and lossless audio options.

Like DVD9, BD50 will become the BD norm on high profile titles. Disney and most of the other studios tout which type of disc is being used in their PRs. All the major summer blockbusters, other than TDK at this point which has not been announced, have been announced to be released on BD50s.

You are a little off there craig. Most encodes using VC1 and AVC are less than 22gb. Space was never a problem. For instance, My Top gun WITH lossless TrueHD, DTS and DD+ was a total of 19gb.

What hurts BD25 is that there is just enough room main title and a couple of extras. This is one of the areas that HD DVD 30 excelled at. It about the right amount for a movie in those codecs with enought room for extras. Of course, the lower costs toward of BD50 squashed that edge.

The myth that HD movies need 40-50gb is just not true. Anyone who has ripped HDM to their HTPC knows this for a fact. The area it actually has the biggest benefit is for episodal disks or multiple movies on 1 disc..... or the rare close to 4 hour film like LOTR return of the king.

Take I am legend for instance. The size is in the mid-teens in its VC1 codec. with an alternate ending. Reviews rate the PQ on that film very high.

I agree with MovieSwede on this. In terms of HDM, the transfer has much much more to do with the quality than the codec or size of the file. That is not saying that squeazing that movie down in 4-6 GBs of 1080i HD for VOD doesn't impact it, but BDs cap is well above what is needed and BD25 will easily hold most movies. VOD HD services can show you what lower bitrate to the extreme can do for a movie. Funny thing is that there are some really good movies on DVD5. The Saint comes to mind. Sure, shrinking will greatly reduce the quality from DVD9 to DVD5 when using non-studio programs, but that has to do with the lack of quality in the program than the movie. Encoding a 90 minute movie with studio encoders to DVD5 from the original source can produce a very watchable movie. Of course, there is only so much you can do when going down to 2gb as would be the comparison with SD VOD.

But the studios know that with high profile high demand titles BD consumers are near demanding BD50 due to less compression required and lossless audio options.


Are the majority of BD consumers demanding less compression? The wast majority of BD consumers, wants top PQ and AQ, if a title look good and sound good, most consumers are content with that.

Its just a handfull of people, that are not satisfied with great PQ and AQ, but also wants the disc specs to look good aswell.

You are a little off there craig. Most encodes using VC1 and AVC are less than 22gb. Space was never a problem. For instance, My Top gun WITH lossless TrueHD, DTS and DD+ was a total of 19gb.

What hurts BD25 is that there is just enough room main title and a couple of extras. This is one of the areas that HD DVD 30 excelled at. It about the right amount for a movie in those codecs with enought room for extras. Of course, the lower costs toward of BD50 squashed that edge.

The myth that HD movies need 40-50gb is just not true. Anyone who has ripped HDM to their HTPC knows this for a fact. The area it actually has the biggest benefit is for episodal disks or multiple movies on 1 disc..... or the rare close to 4 hour film like LOTR return of the king.

Take I am legend for instance. The size is in the mid-teens in its VC1 codec. with an alternate ending. Reviews rate the PQ on that film very high.

It's pointless to argue this anymore since the format you are defending is in the graveyard of dead formats.

Again to say that BD space and bandwidth advantage was null is ludicrous.

4:2:0? HD DVD maybe had the bandwidth to handle 4:2:0 stationary video, but BD can handle the fast changing highly dynamic video much better than HD DVD did.

Again I am done with this argument. How bout back to the main topic that BD numbers are all up significantly compared to one year ago? Or does that not work if you are here to try to convince the masses BD is doomed.

Are the majority of BD consumers demanding less compression? The wast majority of BD consumers, wants top PQ and AQ, if a title look good and sound good, most consumers are content with that.

Its just a handfull of people, that are not satisfied with great PQ and AQ, but also wants the disc specs to look good aswell.


Why do they look good? Less compression compared to even OTA broadcasts.

BUT, the point that you missed is that these services are continuing to become cost prohibitive. I would glady keep my Comcast service if declining OnDemand meant a smaller cable bill. That "free" content costs me even when I don't use it.

I know some people that use OnDemand but it still is relatively small and remember only so many users can access it at one time for it to work. Again they don't have infinite bandwidth.

And as far as most not caring about quality, I don't buy it. Some may say that, BUT remember a lot of people were wowed on showroom floors by what HDTV can deliver only to be disappointed at home by how bad SD looked. Heck even my near elderly mother asked me why she did not get the Jets football game in widescreen last Sunday. If people are willing to buy HD, then I believe the majority expect a quality experience. Otherwise that $1k+ they dropped on a large HD set was a waste of money.

Also, I don't know how you seriously expect people to believe that you advocate quality when your screen name, Lodef, may lead people to believe you have an axe to grind especially when you continue to question BD and HD advantages.

If people are used to SD and have not seen HD then I agree they probably won't care until they truly experience quality HD.

I guess you hang out with a different crowd but if you ever want to see how popular VOD is, check out your QAM tuner on a Friday or Saturday night. ;)

As for my moniker, I wouldn't be here if quality did not mean anything to me and I hate SD and will always watch HD when given the choice but for you to bring that up makes you look silly since I have been here almost as long as you and nowhere in any of my 1400 post have I ever stated SD or upconverted is good enough for me so I challenge you to prove differently.

But if you want to know the reason why I use it, I have always been a huge fan of Reverse Psychology, does that make any sense to you now?

And based on the fact that folks like you acknowledge that that much capacity wasn't needed yet BD and fans touted it as an advantage over HDDVD.

Art


The space capacity was a bonus for longer features. The bandwidth made it so fewer sacrifices have to be made.

I have already heard that Iron Man has an average BR of 37Mbps!!! That sounds too high, but I am not complaining because if any thing is wrong it is in the source and not because the BD did not have the horsepower to deliver a quality presentation.

That's a pretty lame argument from someone who is always grasping at straws why BD is doomed.... UF :eek: get it :cool:


Is BD doomed ? It could be or it might not but it does have plenty of competition, something you'll never admit. I would be careful how you use the word lame around here. ;)

PS: I have a BD player on my christmas list, if the price is right I might end up with one since I'm not buying it so I hope it is still around for awhile. You might even recieve your commission on it! :D

Now if only you could bury your boring sig and attitude in that graveyard also. Let's forget about format specs and lackluster releases and focus on the state of the players that are being released over 2 years after inception. Still no 2.0 stand-alones and all 1.1 players are either junk or overpriced. Your options at $200 are basically nill. The only 2.0 player is a video game console that doesn't bitstream and has to be jury-rigged to be used with a universal remote. What a difference a year makes! :rolleyes:

I guess you would rather go back to $1k players 1.0 players.

The fact is that both Samsungs and Sonys new entry level models will be FW upgradeable to profile 2.0. Both of which bitstream even in their current 1.1 state.

As far as my sig... nothing is changing the facts that Toshiba is fighting innovation to keep their DVD royalty stream alive as long as possible.

@OP. Actually by glancing through this thread not much has changed in a year. Looking through the comments in this thread it appears that quite a few people still think there is a format war and one look in their posting history would probably tell me all I need to know..

I am a happy Blu-Ray owner right now. I am happy to see hardware prices dropping with more and more companies jumping in. Movie pricing is still too high IMHO, but over the last few weeks the sales have picked up and I expect it will only get better. While I wish there were more catalog titles being released, I cannot complain too much as there are about 20 BD movies (minimum) that I plan on buying over the next 3.5 months (possibly as many as 40 with some good sales). And there are more titles being announced almost everyday. Things could be better. But things could be worse (we could still be in the middle of a format war with splintered studio and CE support and uncertainty).

The fact is that both Samsungs and Sonys new entry level models will be FW upgradeable to profile 2.0.

That is WRONG. FW alone will NOT get you to profile 2.0 on those models.

How did HD DVDs bandwith limits the possiblitys? Usually its always the studios that limits the releases.

Remember that BDs bandwith was a sideeffect of squeesing more data on the same surface area as CD, DVD, HD DVD. Not that you needed it for 8bits 4:2:0 releases.

The fact that movies like Transformers looked amazing compared to most releases proves what your are saying. "its always the studios that limits the releases"....not the bandwidth.

That is WRONG. FW alone will NOT get you to profile 2.0 on those models.


Fact: BD Live Ready. All they require is an external memory card (SD) and internet connection.

The fact is that both Samsungs and Sonys new entry level models will be FW upgradeable to profile 2.0. Both of which bitstream even in their current 1.1 state.

You mean the Samsung BD-P1500 that I happen to own that has horrendous audio drop-outs and the Sony BDP-S350 with the yellow push. Even if Sony and Samsung actually upgrade these players to 2.0, they are still junk players. What i'm looking for is a good player.

You mean the Samsung BD-P1500 that I happen to own that has horrendous audio drop-outs and the Sony BDP-S350 with the yellow push. Even if Sony and Samsung actually upgrade these players to 2.0, they are still junk players. What i'm looking for is a good player.

You keep changing the argument. First it was the PS3 not working with an IR remote.... then no profile 2.0 and bitstreaming.... now it's specific player problems. The DVD industry had their share of buggy players at the beginning also. Complain to the manufacture or deal with the PS3 not having an official IR solution though there are some decent third party ones now available.

I use a PS3 with the IR2BT and overall it works with my Harmony 880. PS3 is still the best player available and by far the best value.

The fact that movies like Transformers looked amazing compared to most releases proves what your are saying. "its always the studios that limits the releases"....not the bandwidth.

Yet the blu-ray version of transformers has superior audio and video as shown by Xylon's screen caps.

I am just tired of seeing the same sore losers post over and over how BD is going to fail.

I'm just sick of the plain losers who let there devotion to a brand name get in the way of the facts. Which are, while both formats had there real and percieved short comings, the format that is left is doing a poor job of addressing those real short comings and people like you make excuses for them for no readily apparent reason.

Fact: BD Live Ready. All they require is an external memory card (SD) and internet connection.

Fact: When something requires anything to work that means it's not ready.

Don't let anything like math and science get in the way with your perception of reality.


If you can't see or hear the difference, then science does not change the reality of your experience. All that AV Science intends to do, or can really do is to enhance the human experience of sound and video.

IF you automatically feel better seeing a higher bit rate or the audio logo at the back of the box makes you feel better, then that is great. Sometimes science is more marketing. For instance, I find it very difficult to judge whether a display is good or not, just by their specs. Should I buy a display that has the highest contrast ratio listed, the highest resolution and hdmi 1.3 deep color support? After all, science tells me that it has the best specs so ought to be better than a lowly Runco Plasma that says 5000:1 contrast ratio and is only hdmi 1.2 and no mention of deep color. May be that Vizio really is the best display in the world!

@OP. Actually by glancing through this thread not much has changed in a year. Looking through the comments in this thread it appears that quite a few people still think there is a format war and one look in their posting history would probably tell me all I need to know..

I am a happy Blu-Ray owner right now. I am happy to see hardware prices dropping with more and more companies jumping in. Movie pricing is still too high IMHO, but over the last few weeks the sales have picked up and I expect it will only get better. While I wish there were more catalog titles being released, I cannot complain too much as there are about 20 BD movies (minimum) that I plan on buying over the next 3.5 months (possibly as many as 40 with some good sales). And there are more titles being announced almost everyday. Things could be better. But things could be worse (we could still be in the middle of a format war with splintered studio and CE support and uncertainty).


Exactly for all the doom and gloom we hear here, many of us will be enjoying the exciting BD releases this fall that include: Godfather, Wall-E, Kung Fu Panda, Iron Man, TDK, etc. Whereas HD DVD owners have 'near' HD upconverted DVDs.

You keep changing the argument. First it was the PS3 not working with an IR remote.... then no profile 2.0 and bitstreaming.... now it's specific player problems. The DVD industry had their share of buggy players at the beginning also. Complain to the manufacture or deal with the PS3 not having an official IR solution though there are some decent third party ones now available.

I use a PS3 with the IR2BT and overall it works with my Harmony 880. PS3 is still the best player available and by far the best value.

You are the one that brought 2 specific players into the arguement, what are you talking about? $399 + nonsense dongle I have to hook up to it to make it work with my remote is not a value for a blu-ray player that doesn't even do bitstreaming. Aren't you boring yourself at this point?

I'm just sick of the plain losers who let there devotion to a brand name get in the way of the facts. Which are, while both formats had there real and percieved short comings, the format that is left is doing a poor job of addressing those real short comings and people like you make excuses for them for no readily apparent reason.



Fact: When something requires anything to work that means it's not ready.


Sounds like you are upset over buggy players which I think are legitimate complaints. But if you really want to get into BD now, get a PS3 and let the other makers work out their bugs another generation or two before buying a SA. I don't plan on using my PS3 forever, but it has far exceeded what I have expected out of it.

BTW, I am not a Sony fan. I have had bad Sony equipment before, but the fact is that every name brand manufacturer has at some point had a lemon product. The PS3 though is one of the best things ever to come out of their engineering department.

You are the one that brought 2 specific players into the arguement, what are you talking about? $399 + nonsense dongle I have to hook up to it to make it work with my remote is not a value for a blu-ray player that doesn't even do bitstreaming. Aren't you boring yourself at this point?

AND you are the one that pointed out flaws. Have you actually used them or are you just repeating what someone else said.


Why is bitstreaming important? :confused::confused::confused:

Both lossless formats can be sent as uncompressed PCM over HDMI. The likelihood you would hear a difference between player and receiver decoding is most likely nill. All you are really doing is lighting up a light on your receiver if it internall decodes it.

And the IR2BT is not a dongle I have to hook up to the PS3. It is an IR sensor that receives IR commands and then sends the appropriate PS3 BT command. It sends every BT signal the current PS3 BT remote does. Granted it is hard to get, but it works and there are other options out there for those that want to use an IR to BT system for FULL control of the PS3 with an Universal remote.

Sorry I thought I might be helping you out but sounds like you already have preconceived notions on the PS3.

Sounds like you are upset over buggy players which I think are legitimate complaints. But if you really want to get into BD now, get a PS3 and let the other makers work out their bugs another generation or two before buying a SA. I don't plan on using my PS3 forever, but it has far exceeded what I have expected out of it.

I just can't justify spending roughly $450 for something, I know will be replaced when something that does fit my criteria does come along, so i'm in an uncomfortable position of go without or deal with the buggy player. At this point in the game I shouldn't be in this position.

Sounds like you are upset over buggy players which I think are legitimate complaints. But if you really want to get into BD now, get a PS3 and let the other makers work out their bugs another generation or two before buying a SA. I don't plan on using my PS3 forever, but it has far exceeded what I have expected out of it.

I dumped my Samsung Blu-Ray player for a PS3 about a year ago and have never looked back. Have played well over 150 BD movies without a single audio or video freeze or drop. It is fast. Quiet (at least mine is, but I keep it in a cool area). My biggest complaint (IR) now is not even an issue with the Blu-Wave IR dongle (use a Harmony remote to control everything) that I picked up for $9.99 at Amazon.

I just can't justify spending roughly $450 for something, I know will be replaced when something that does fit my criteria does come along, so i'm in an uncomfortable position of go without or deal with the buggy player. At this point in the game I shouldn't be in this position.


The thing is that a PS3 will also probably have good resale value. I doubt that if you bought one and used it for a year or two that you would lose more than $150 - $200 reselling it. Not bad for a year or two of use.

Personally the PS3 is such a great value I don't know why anyone would spend $300+ on a SA when the PS3 is only $100 more ($125 with the remote). Again the PS3 will hold its resale value much more than a SA.

I dumped my Samsung Blu-Ray player for a PS3 about a year ago and have never looked back. Have played well over 150 BD movies without a single audio or video freeze or drop. It is fast. Quiet (at least mine is, but I keep it in a cool area). My biggest complaint (IR) now is not even an issue with the Blu-Wave IR dongle (use a Harmony remote to control everything) that I picked up for $9.99 at Amazon.


Exactly! I bought a 60GB unit in December 2006. Trying out some the current SA at the local shops still makes me question why any would buy a SA over the PS3. Just my opinion.

If you can't see or hear the difference, then science does not change the reality of your experience. All that AV Science intends to do, or can really do is to enhance the human experience of sound and video.

I have no idea what the bitrate of Apple TV, Comcast HD VOD, MS's Live is.. I know what my eyes and ears tell me. It is significant downgrade from Blu-ray and even HD DVD.

I have no idea what the bitrate of Apple TV, Comcast HD VOD, MS's Live is.. I know what my eyes and ears tell me. It is significant downgrade from Blu-ray and even HD DVD.

Which titles have you compared? The biggest difference to me is on the audio rather than video.

Does anyone realize that a 1.0 BD player will play all the disks as long as the hardware has been firmware updated (not to 2.0, but jsut updated). BD 1.0 is has the same features as DVD, but much better PQ and AQ.

1.1 adds a few save your favorite scene features with its memory - pass
2.0 adds web interactivity - pass (it can download slow depending on your connection)

All this hub bub about 2.0, and I bet most don't even plug the thing into the ethernet port. I know I only plugged in my HD DVD players when I needed to update. But you can do that just as easily with a disc as well that you can burn.

I wish HD DVD won too, but profiles are just a justification people use to stay out of it and not a real reason.

I am sure when it is $150 for 2.0, there will still be folks complaining about the price. Same when it gets to $100. And when it is $50, people wil complain that the $50 one doesnt have the advanced codec decoding to analog out and a glowing remote.

Compared to a $1000-3000 TV or a $120 per year rental HD cable box, $200-300 really isn't that bad. Heck, alot of folks here will spend just as much on year of renting from netflix at $20/month.

Which titles have you compared? The biggest difference to me is on the audio rather than video.

x-men, Mission Impossible, some others as well. These were on Pioneer Plasma displays. There is an Apple store close to my work in Palo Alto, same place I bought my 24" iMac a few months ago.

1.1 adds a few save your favorite scene features with its memory - pass


Actually, 1.1 adds support for PiP via a secondary video stream. What you're talking about (basically bookmarking scenes) can be accomplished with 1.0 players.

Does anyone realize that a 1.0 BD player will play all the disks as long as the hardware has been firmware updated (not to 2.0, but jsut updated). BD 1.0 is has the same features as DVD, but much better PQ and AQ.

1.1 adds a few save your favorite scene features with its memory - pass
2.0 adds web interactivity - pass (it can download slow depending on your connection)

All this hub bub about 2.0, and I bet most don't even plug the thing into the ethernet port. I know I only plugged in my HD DVD players when I needed to update. But you can do that just as easily with a disc as well that you can burn.

I wish HD DVD won too, but profiles are just a justification people use to stay out of it and not a real reason.

I am sure when it is $150 for 2.0, there will still be folks complaining about the price. Same when it gets to $100. And when it is $50, people wil complain that the $50 one doesnt have the advanced codec decoding to analog out and a glowing remote.

Compared to a $1000-3000 TV or a $120 per year rental HD cable box, $200-300 really isn't that bad. Heck, alot of folks here will spend just as much on year of renting from netflix at $20/month.

Hardware prices are not an issue. As long as you are aware that most if not ALL low end Blu Ray players (PS3 excluded) are very poor DVD players (perhaps deliberate). So, you'll have to add the cost of a DVD player on top of the Blu Ray player for a real cost of ownership. Unless you are 100% Blu or are not looking to replace your existing DVD solution.

I agree that the profile issue is more political than anything.

Also, the Blu Ray library is getting better all the time. But you'll also have the factor is the effort and cost of getting content into the mix. If everything falls in place from the content side (based on your preference) I'd say go for it :)

Actually, 1.1 adds support for PiP via a secondary video stream. What you're talking about (basically bookmarking scenes) can be accomplished with 1.0 players.

Right. But you know what I mean. I am looking over the specs myself for adding a SA BD player (I am moving out of my HTPC for HD playback.

I thought I definitely needed atleast this 2.0 or at the minimum a 1.1. After reading the specs, I personally don't think I really need more than 1.0. And if it saves me money, the better.

Apparrently it was initial firmware problems with early players that caused disc playback problems and not really the profiles. I have a friend with a 1.1 that has played anything (Sharp model I think). Even the 1.0s seem to be fine once you upgrade their firmware.

I think I am going to try to pick up a refurbd Samsung BD-P1200 as it uses the Reon Chip like my Onkyo DV-HD805. Or maybe just go with the 1400 as I already have a great upscaler.

Unless there is some deal that wows me near christmas and doesn't require me to stand in line at 3am on a certain Friday morning to save $50-100 on a unit they only have 5 of in stock. I am pretty stoked about getting Iron Man and TDK on Bluray. Now I will have a red BB and blue TDK. If I could find a white BD case for the 3 one that is coming out, it would be very patriotic.

Right. But you know what I mean.
I have no way of knowing what you meant, but the statement that I quoted (and corrected) was wrong.

Yet the blu-ray version of transformers has superior audio and video as shown by Xylon's screen caps.

Actually the consensus was that the hd dvd version had better pq overall. The audio improvements, if any, cannot be shown by screen caps. Since the two audio tracks are different mixes, the improvement or lack thereof is up to the individual user.

Yet the blu-ray version of transformers has superior audio and video as shown by Xylon's screen caps.

Only to you...and its very subjective.

The fact that people can say this...
Actually the consensus was that the hd dvd version had better pq overall.
kills your argument and proves what I said, PQ is dependent on the studio and not the bitrate.

btw, 99.99999% of viewers do not do screen captures and zoom in to individual frames to look for tiny differences.
While sitting back and enjoying the MOVIE, I say you can not tell the difference.

Again BD and DL will coexist, but I have to question anyone who claims they are at the same quality level.

Highly compressed 720p is at a distinct disadvantage over high bitrate 1080p. Maybe the differences are not as large if the viewer is using a 720p set.

I guess I have to add Apple TV has not impressed me in the demos I have seen. Not enough to make me want to plop down $299 and pay more than I would have to pay for BD rentals. Maybe if the quality gets there someday, but today it is just another box that does not live up to its potential.

You can't actually see an HD movie demo of Apple TV HD in their stores. The trailers are not the same quality as the actual movie.

Also, Apple TV does more than play rental HD movies. We have 2 guys here making judgment on a product they have never seen a movie on.

I didn't realize till right now that the Apple store HD demo is NOT of the actual movie.

So, unless your store is different ;)

I have heard other reviews that put its quality well below BD. I know what I saw in Apple's store. I was not impressed. Not enough to even remotely consider purchasing a unit.

Two guys here yes, but there are also professional critical reviews that have been less than kind to AppleTV. Plus with having a PS3, that can do essentially the same thing at the same AppleTV HD-lite quality, I have no reason for Apple TV.

I have heard other reviews that put its quality well below BD. I know what I saw in Apple's store. I was not impressed. Not enough to even remotely consider purchasing a unit.

Two guys here yes, but there are also professional critical reviews that have been less than kind to AppleTV. Plus with having a PS3, that can do essentially the same thing at the same AppleTV HD-lite quality, I have no reason for Apple TV.

How many studios supporting PS3 downloads? Isn't it 2 channel audio only? Does it start a movie instantly?

But sure, the PS3 is a great solution!

I have heard other reviews that put its quality well below BD. I know what I saw in Apple's store. I was not impressed. Not enough to even remotely consider purchasing a unit.

Two guys here yes, but there are also professional critical reviews that have been less than kind to AppleTV. Plus with having a PS3, that can do essentially the same thing at the same AppleTV HD-lite quality, I have no reason for Apple TV.

All the reviews I have seen put the quality on par with Xboxmarketplace and HD VOD via satelitte providers (not sure about Comcast as they seem to be hit or miss with regards to compression and quality). I have compared Xbox HD downloads to both Blu-Ray and HD DVD. It is not even close for me in terms of PQ/AQ. Xbox HD downloads are superior to upconverted DVD, but not by that much. I would have a hard time believing that Apple TV downloads are as good (or even close) to Blu-Ray on a large 1080p screen. Same with audio. And lack of extras is not a dealbreaker for all movies, but there are many movies where I like to delve into the extras.

How many studios supporting PS3 downloads? Isn't it 2 channel audio only? Does it start a movie instantly?

But sure, the PS3 is a great solution!

Not as many as Apple. 2-ch? not sure
instanst start? No but the quality is enough of a dropoff compared to BD that I don't even consider using it.

But yes the PS3 is a great solution especially considering the BD drive is built-in.

Not as many as Apple. 2-ch? not sure
instanst start? No but the quality is enough of a dropoff compared to BD that I don't even consider using it.

But yes the PS3 is a great solution especially considering the BD drive is built-in.

It is 2 channel audio. I would say start times (buffering/downloads) are on par with the Xbox. But Sony just launched HD downloads. Apple also only offered 2 channel audio in the beginning. I expect the service to improve over time, but I am with you. If the movie is available on Blu-Ray, downloading really does not make sense.

Bickering posts removed.

What a difference a year makes?

Apparently, very little ... for many of the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth die-hards the war is still raging (Finally came back to see if this forum had lifted itself out of the quagmire, and I find several threads like this ...).

Oh well, maybe in another year ... or two??? :)

What a difference a year makes?

Apparently, very little ... for many of the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth die-hards the war is still raging (Finally came back to see if this forum had lifted itself out of the quagmire, and I find several threads like this ...).

Oh well, maybe in another year ... or two??? :)

It's because there is a rapid fanbase here who think that if you throw more bits at something (audio, video) automatically means it is better.

It is tough for them to accept that isn't the case since they built their whole BD>HD DVD argument is based upon this.

I just want quality audio/video/extras, a great variety of movies, and dependable players.

It is REALLY REALLY SAD that the PS3 is still by far the best player...and it's going on 2 years old now.

What kind of progress is that?

It's because there is a rapid fanbase here who think that if you throw more bits at something (audio, video) automatically means it is better.

It is tough for them to accept that isn't the case since they built their whole BD>HD DVD argument is based upon this.

I just want quality audio/video/extras, a great variety of movies, and dependable players.

It is REALLY REALLY SAD that the PS3 is still by far the best player...and it's going on 2 years old now.

What kind of progress is that?

It isn't sad for the many of us, including high end home theatre owners, reviewers and Criterion for examples that know and enjoy what the PS3 can do. What is beyond sad and borders on tragic is that some are still bad mouthing the PS3 when it does what it does well. Fine, it doesn't work for some, but after they have made their point about how they don't like the PS3, what is the point of continuing on about it. If one doesn't like it, fine, say so and move on as the continuing negative BS now literally years later is more than old. Let us owners who do enjoy one of the best if not the best CE product in years to do just that.

What a difference a year makes?

Apparently, very little ... for many of the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth die-hards the war is still raging (Finally came back to see if this forum had lifted itself out of the quagmire, and I find several threads like this ...).

Oh well, maybe in another year ... or two??? :)

or less when this unnecessary forum gets closed. :)

Apparently, very little ... for many of the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth die-hards the war is still raging (Finally came back to see if this forum had lifted itself out of the quagmire, and I find several threads like this ...).

Oh well, maybe in another year ... or two???

Don't hold your breath. For while the war seemed to end with just a few die hards trying to keep it alive. But recently there seems to be a concerted effort to bring the war back to life. Almost no thread that has actual hard numbers in it passes without a huge wave HD-DVD fans comming in and ruining the thread.

I am not going to stop buying BDs because of this, but I am getting close to stopping coming to avsforum.

Good Night