Sony Blames Blu-ray for "Bag of Hurt" - Page 34 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 79Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #991 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 11:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aarghon View Post




really?? 100 gb a movie? Lol all the savings are gone in hardrive buys for sure... I'll gladly pay for a 4k disc ...If they do come.

 

Current Blu-Ray discs can hold 50 GB.  A 90 minute, 2D, 1080p Blu-Ray movie typically takes up ~30 GB of that space, using AVCHD (H.264) compression.  2D 2160p (UHD) is 4 times the amount of pixel data, so would take up 4 times as much space using the same compression...

 

30 GB x 4 = 120 GB

 

However, they can use HEVC (H.265) compression instead, which is theoretically twice as efficient for the same quality (level of compression artifacts), so divide that number by 2...

 

120 GB / 2 = 60 GB.

 

That's just the theoretical efficiency improvement of HEVC, though.  The actual improvement in efficiency they are currently getting is closer to 30%, so...

 

120 GB x (1 - 30%) = 120 GB x 70% = 84 GB

 

Add in another 10-20% for Dolby Vision HDR & WCG metadata and you are right around that 100 GB number.  Double that for 3D 4K (which may or may not become a reality) and you are at 200 GB.

HockeyoAJB is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #992 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 11:49 AM
Member
 
atmusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aarghon View Post

I'm doing exactly the same... When you don't NEED to get on the novelty bandwagon, you save a lot of $$$...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinnEars View Post

Right... the "gotta have it now" mentality works fine for those with tons of disposable cash but for those of us on limited incomes frugality is a must. I'll wait for TWO OR MORE YEARS for a good movie to be available on the cheap. I don't need them NOW.smile.gif
Yes but we need all those who buy into the hype and pay big $$s to keep the Movies Studios and actors fat and happy.
atmusky is offline  
post #993 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 11:56 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

Double that for 3D 4K (which may or may not become a reality) and you are at 200 GB.
Actually, 3D doesn't double the space. It normally runs in the area of a 50% increase due to repeated elements between eyes. It would be more like 150 GB or so.

So, with disc sizes up to around 160-180 GB, they'd more than have it covered, including room for extras.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #994 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 11:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,541
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

Current Blu-Ray discs can hold 50 GB.  A 90 minute, 2D, 1080p Blu-Ray movie typically takes up ~30 GB of that space, using AVCHD (H.264) compression.  2D 2160p (UHD) is 4 times the amount of pixel data, so would take up 4 times as much space using the same compression...

30 GB x 4 = 120 GB

However, they can use HEVC (H.265) compression instead, which is theoretically twice as efficient for the same quality (level of compression artifacts), so divide that number by 2...

120 GB / 2 = 60 GB.

That's just the theoretical efficiency improvement of HEVC, though.  The actual improvement in efficiency they are currently getting is closer to 30%, so...

120 GB x (1 - 30%) = 120 GB x 70% = 84 GB

Add in another 10-20% for Dolby Vision HDR & WCG metadata and you are right around that 100 GB number.  Double that for 3D 4K (which may or may not become a reality) and you are at 200 GB.

They've been showing that HEVC is not 2x as efficient as H.264 image quality wise. It's more like 20-25% real world. 50% is pure marketing B.S. If they cram UHD video that much, it won't look great on a large screen or projection system... the only way you'll really see the benefits of these improvements.

You'll need a 150 GB or larger disc for all the things we want: higher bit depth, greater color gamut, higher frame rates, "Dolby Vision," lossless object audio that isn't severely dumbed down. I could care less about 3D video... 3D audio, on the other hand.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #995 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 12:28 PM
Member
 
bobafetthotmail's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 39

Sony + Panasonic are indeed developing a 300-ish GB disk, with goal of making next versions store 500GB and 1 TB the following years, and supposed to be able to last at least 50 years

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2106260/sony-panasonic-develop-300gb-optical-discs-for-enterprise-storage.html

 

Not for movies (it's dubbed "archival disk") but I don't see why they can't repurpose it if needed. I'm suspecting they are actually recycling old projects they had for 4k in the hopes of not wasting the research already done.

whatever_gong82 likes this.
bobafetthotmail is offline  
post #996 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,613
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by atmusky View Post


Yes but we need all those who buy into the hype and pay big $$s to keep the Movies Studios and actors fat and happy.

this is true, but I have to wonder, how many ppl would actually stop acting if they 'only' made a couple hundred thousand a year? I mean, there are actors that have been around a while that might just retire out of principle, but are those up and comers really choosing acting because plan B was only going to pay them a million or two. I have a feeling the actors, producers, etc would still be just fine making a couple hundred thousand instead of millions per movie.

I think if everybody just stopped going to movies one day, there might be a problem, but if the money starts to trickle in instead of flow, they might be forced to take price cuts themselves. I just don't see ALL these ppl deciding that waiting tables in Hollywood is more dignified that making movies for less money. maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see how making less money in the 'real world' would be a better option than taking a pay cut in Hollywood.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #997 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 02:11 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Writer @ AVS
 
imagic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 5,561
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1040 Post(s)
Liked: 2194
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobafetthotmail View Post
 

Sony + Panasonic are indeed developing a 300-ish GB disk, with goal of making next versions store 500GB and 1 TB the following years, and supposed to be able to last at least 50 years

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2106260/sony-panasonic-develop-300gb-optical-discs-for-enterprise-storage.html

 

Not for movies (it's dubbed "archival disk") but I don't see why they can't repurpose it if needed. I'm suspecting they are actually recycling old projects they had for 4k in the hopes of not wasting the research already done.

 

 

If the issue was as simple as storage capacity, BDXL already holds 100GB and the hardware to read it is cheap enough today. That's enough storage to fit h.265-compressed UHD/4K movies. I don't think disc capacity is the issue, the primary problem is the questionable viability of another disc-based format. 

Apple's mere existence is an existential threat to any future Blu-ray standard, I doubt the company will allow a UHD/4K disc-based format to dominate without putting up a fight.


Find out more about Mark Henninger at www.imagicdigital.com
imagic is offline  
post #998 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 02:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
 

...

 

Apple's mere existence is an existential threat to any future Blu-ray standard, I doubt the company will allow a UHD/4K disc-based format to dominate without putting up a fight.

 

To me, that would be short-sighted thinking on Apple's part.  I don't think the existence of a UHD/4K physical format would hurt Apple.  I think the existence of a UHD/4K physical format would increase sales of UHD/4K displays by such a significant margin that companies like Apple could actually benefit from the larger 4K consumer base who will be buying both physical and digital 4K content.

 

For example, my parents live even further out into the sticks than I do.  Their only option for high speed internet is 3 Mbps DSL.  But, they make more money than I do, so they have no problem paying for Amazon Prime and renting movies from Amazon or iTunes as well as buying Blu-Ray discs when they happen to be in a store.  Create a 4K physical format and I can guarantee that they would buy a 4K display and player in the next few years, which would then allow them to stream/download 4K titles from Amazon/iTunes as well.  Don't make a 4K physical format and I doubt they will bother purchasing a 4K display, which means no 4K digital sales from them.

HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #999 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 03:13 PM
Senior Member
 
TinnEars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 259
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by atmusky View Post


Yes but we need all those who buy into the hype and pay big $$s to keep the Movies Studios and actors fat and happy.

this is true, but I have to wonder, how many ppl would actually stop acting if they 'only' made a couple hundred thousand a year? I mean, there are actors that have been around a while that might just retire out of principle, but are those up and comers really choosing acting because plan B was only going to pay them a million or two. I have a feeling the actors, producers, etc would still be just fine making a couple hundred thousand instead of millions per movie.

I think if everybody just stopped going to movies one day, there might be a problem, but if the money starts to trickle in instead of flow, they might be forced to take price cuts themselves. I just don't see ALL these ppl deciding that waiting tables in Hollywood is more dignified that making movies for less money. maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see how making less money in the 'real world' would be a better option than taking a pay cut in Hollywood.

Probably very few. Those types of people are narcissists so money is secondary to them being "seen and admired".
TinnEars is offline  
post #1000 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,541
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post


If the issue was as simple as storage capacity, BDXL already holds 100GB and the hardware to read it is cheap enough today. That's enough storage to fit h.265-compressed UHD/4K movies. I don't think disc capacity is the issue, the primary problem is the questionable viability of another disc-based format. 


Apple's mere existence is an existential threat to any future Blu-ray standard, I doubt the company will allow a UHD/4K disc-based format to dominate without putting up a fight.

You're going to need more than 100 GB for quality UHD and quality audio. But, I don't think the industry really cares about quality anyway. They'll do the bare minimum and sell it as the next best thing to sex.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1001 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 03:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
Aarghon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinnEars View Post

Probably very few. Those types of people are narcissists so money is secondary to them being "seen and admired".

If any people willing to have big success in what they are good at are narcissists, well 90% of people are narcissists and only a tiny fraction actually know it.

Energy Rc-70 fronts, Energy Rc-70 surrounds, Energy veritas 5.2c, Energy rc-mini heights
Dual Reaction-Audio BPS212
Pioneer Elite sc-61 AVR
Pioneer Elite n50 network player
Marantz CD6004 cd player
Marantz UD5007 Blu ray player
Panasonic Tcl55dt60 led tv , Playstation 3 and a lot of old consoles
Aarghon is offline  
post #1002 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 03:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post
 

 

 

If the issue was as simple as storage capacity, BDXL already holds 100GB and the hardware to read it is cheap enough today. That's enough storage to fit h.265-compressed UHD/4K movies. I don't think disc capacity is the issue, the primary problem is the questionable viability of another disc-based format.

...

 

Mark,

 

In your discussions with your industry contacts, have any of them hinted at the possibility of there being certain goals or milestones (in terms of disc sales, digital content sales, 4K display sales, etc.) that they are looking for in the next year, which could influence their decision to either get behind a push for a 4K physical format or abandon it altogether?

 

One would think that a good 2nd quarter for Blu-Ray sales, coupled with a reduced growth of digital content sales, and decent (but not great) sales of 4K displays could push them to want a physical format.  On the other hand, a poor 2nd quarter for Blu-Ray sales, combined with another large jump in digital content sales could spell the end of any hope for a new physical format.  Just curious if any of them have actually come out and said as much or perhaps even mentioned what those goals might be.

HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #1003 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 03:43 PM
Senior Member
 
_Michaelangelo_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bremerton
Posts: 401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobafetthotmail View Post

Were choppy all movies you saw in your entire life? I think not.
Most movies appear choppy to me. The point is, there is significant difference between the various frame rates, motion blur or not.

Here is a video shot at 120 Hz.
http://www.blurbusters.com/tests-with-120fps-web-video-in-real-time/

Now that there is a 120 Hz source I can use ffmpeg and other tools to interpolate to a different frame rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobafetthotmail View Post

The examples you pulled up are examples of visual artifacts that happen with fast camera movements. No movie has the issue depicted ...
I see fast pans in action movies all the time. SOME directors are definitely aware of the issue, but not ALL directors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobafetthotmail View Post

I did some research in the past and apart from not finding jack about the common myth about fighter pilots

The quotes is "The United States Air Force in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS."

1/220th second = 0.004545 s = 4.54 ms.

For comparison,
30 fps = 33.33 ms
60 fps = 16.66 ms
96 fps = 10.41 ms
100 fps = 10.00 ms
120 fps = 8.33 ms
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobafetthotmail View Post

Any variable strobe can be used to give a estimate.
I'll definitely be looking into that test ! Some of the cheap strobe apps don't allow you to specify the strobe rate. Do you have a recommended iOS app?


I much prefer this test: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

There is a clear difference between 60, 90, and 120. You can even adjust the motion blur from none to heavy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobafetthotmail View Post

Motion blur does the same thing.
I strongly disagree. Motion blur is a "kludge" in that it blurs the crap out of everything. A high frame rate keeps everything nice and sharp (in focus.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobafetthotmail View Post

I'm starting to think you have hardware issues.
My eyes are not the ones with the problems. cool.gif

"Know Thyself" - The Beginning of All Wisdom
_Michaelangelo_ is offline  
post #1004 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 04:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
nrc2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

You are making an assumption here that you can't back up.  There are reports of some ISP's willfully impeding internet traffic and creating congestion.  However, the highest number I have seen thrown out there for the level of intentional throttling is 50% (I find hard to believe that it's actually that high).  Even if that 50% claim is true and every ISP suddenly stopped doing it (unlikely), that would only result in a doubling of the current bandwidth for end users using those sites, at best.  Currently, fewer than half of US households subscribe to a fixed broadband internet service that provides a 10+ Mbps connection speed (good enough for HD streaming) and even fewer can actually get 15+ Mbps.  This is the current minimum bandwidth required to stream 4K without all of the extra goodies like HDR, WCG, lossless audio, etc.  Roland Vlaicu from Dolby Laboratories has stated that you can expect an additional 10-20% increase in the bandwidth required for video encoded with Dolby Vision metadata.  This means the minimum bandwidth required to stream 4K w/ HDR & WCG is at least 16.5 to 18 Mbps.  Note that 15 Mbps 4K streams (using HEVC encoding) are worse than 25-30 Mbps 1080p (Blu-Ray quality) content when it comes to things like compression artifacts, banding, etc.  If they really wanted to match Blu-ray in terms of level of compression artifacts, they would need to be somewhere in the 50-60 Mbps range for 4K HEVC streams.  Obviously, most people don't have internet connections that can handle that, so they compromised and went with the 15 Mbps number.  If they used a physical format, they could easily handle 50-60 Mbps movies on a 100 or 128 GB disc.

As of 2010 (most recent figure I could find), roughly 17% of US homes had at least one Blu-Ray player.  For households that owned at least one HDTV (which represents 82% of current US households), 25% owned at least one Blu-Ray player.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics that tell us how many of these households also have 10+ Mbps internet service, so it's difficult to say exactly how much more of a load would be put on the internet infrastructure if no new physical media is created and everyone switches to streaming.  We don't know how many households will purchase a 4K TV in the next few years (the percentage will probably be in the single digits), or how many more households that don't already own an HDTV will purchase one.  We don't know how many more will begin streaming HD or how much more HD streaming will be done by those who already do it.  There are simply too many unknowns to be able to predict exactly how much more bandwidth will be required to meet the needs of a population that is doing more and more streaming.

However, what we can say for certain is that, if the movie/television industries want to maximize sales then...

A) Improvements must be made to the internet infrastructure on top of getting ISP's to stop throttling.  And, they will need to get a large number of US citizens to choose to upgrade from their current 3 Mbps plan to one that offers speeds of 15-25 Mbps.  This would allow sufficient bandwidth to not only stream a single HD video, but to do other things at the same time.  Good luck doing that at current pricing.

and/or

B) Physical formats must continue to be made.  Not only do they need to continue releasing Blu-Ray discs, but they must also release a new 4K/UHD physical format and player for those unable to stream and unwilling to wait hours upon hours for a movie to download on their slow internet connection.

Doing "A" only would improve the HD streaming experience of current end users as well as allow them to expand their online customer base, but would result in the loss of potential sales to people who refuse to pay the monthly fee for a fast internet connection plus those who live in areas which are unlikely to see decent internet for at least another year or two.  Doing "B" only would produce more sales of 4K capable equipment (including displays) than "A".  It would also ensure that anyone can purchase their content, regardless of the status of their internet connection.  However, it would slow the rate of growth of streaming sales as the negative experiences with video streaming pile up.  Doing both would give them the best of both worlds.
You people on this forum are so bent on physical media that you will not see the obvious. And everything I have stated is a fact. I am a network architect with over 25 years experience with TELCOS and ISP's and I have forgotten more about IP Telephony than you know or will ever know. Here on AVS I just cannot win because I am dealing with AV enthusiasts that are in their own world. What do you know about IP? Other than what you hear or read about on google?
nrc2112 is offline  
post #1005 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 04:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
nrc2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 39
When was the last time you did a IP packet inspection, or created and End to End Architecture Solution for congressional legislation? I am trying to educate those here that optical media is dead and to create more demand for streaming, downloads, etc. I just sold off all my optical media to include CD DVD BLURAY. guess what my ROI was, yes you guessed it, pennies on the dollar. For example a disk that you paid 10 bucks for today you can sell for .01 cents. What a waste, why not just rent the movie for 5 bucks for 24hrs. And watch it a few times.
nrc2112 is offline  
post #1006 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 04:17 PM
Advanced Member
 
Aarghon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

You people on this forum are so bent on physical media that you will not see the obvious. And everything I have stated is a fact. I am a network architect with over 25 years experience with TELCOS and ISP's and I have forgotten more about IP Telephony than you know or will ever know. Here on AVS I just cannot win because I am dealing with AV enthusiasts that are in their own world. What do you know about IP? Other than what you hear or read about on google?

Ohh my Ohh my .Con-des-cen-ding. I won't say anything more...

Energy Rc-70 fronts, Energy Rc-70 surrounds, Energy veritas 5.2c, Energy rc-mini heights
Dual Reaction-Audio BPS212
Pioneer Elite sc-61 AVR
Pioneer Elite n50 network player
Marantz CD6004 cd player
Marantz UD5007 Blu ray player
Panasonic Tcl55dt60 led tv , Playstation 3 and a lot of old consoles
Aarghon is offline  
post #1007 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 04:26 PM
Member
 
bobafetthotmail's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:

Here is a video shot at 120 Hz.

don't have anything to see it at native fps.... all monitors I have are 60hz.

 

Quote:
The quotes is "The United States Air Force

without a full-text scientific article or at least and abstract on an authoritative site that is just a bunch of text written by someone (yes I know I'm paranoid). I would have loved to find again my sources but I failed.
 

Quote:

 

Some of the cheap strobe apps

I'm not an expert in iOS apps, but this should do the trick for free (also has an actual practical use beyond mere experimenting or annoying friends/pets, as explained in the description). https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/strobe-light-tachometer-to/id708094321?mt=8

 

Quote:
I much prefer this test: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/

I know that site lol, but that's not real motion blur. And  I still lack a 120hz screen.
 

Quote:

 

Motion blur is a "kludge" in that it blurs the crap out of everything.

Motion blur isn't post processing nor an effect, only stuff in movement should be blurred while the rest of the image should be clear. But it shouldn't "feel" blurred. If it does there is something wrong.

 

Games do it very wrong. TV can have some functions, that do it very wrong too.
 

Quote:

 

My eyes are not the ones with the problems.

On a second thought, yeah, that's a possibility too. :p Would not call it "problem" though. If you have superior visual fps you can see stuff/details faster and read faster than normal.

 

I was talking about hardware issues in the sense that maybe it's the device you use to see the media that is responsible of these issues. TVs and PC screens tend to show things much more differently, at least for me. But I think you probably made extensive testing on your own.

bobafetthotmail is offline  
post #1008 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 04:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post


You people on this forum are so bent on physical media that you will not see the obvious. And everything I have stated is a fact. I am a network architect with over 25 years experience with TELCOS and ISP's and I have forgotten more about IP Telephony than you know or will ever know. Here on AVS I just cannot win because I am dealing with AV enthusiasts that are in their own world. What do you know about IP? Other than what you hear or read about on google?

 

You are mistaken if you think I am so blinded by a desire for physical media that I can't see the "obvious".  I am well aware that Blu-Ray could potentially be the last physical format.  I just personally think that would be a mistake.  As far as using the internet for information, sure, I use it.  But, I'm not naive enough to believe a single source of information without cross-referencing it.  There have been direct quotes from industry insiders, who say that the BDA is in fact working on a standard for a new physical format.  How hard they are working on it and how much resistance they are getting is unclear.  Furthermore, if you read my posts, I try to present logical reasons for why a physical format would be beneficial to everyone involved.  I don't just say "WE NEED BD4K OR ELSE".  That would be childish.

 

If you disagree with my logic then feel free to debate it.  If I use a statistic and you believe it to be inaccurate then provide a quote from a credible source that shows otherwise.  Telling people that they are wrong and that you just know it from your 25 years of experience without any other supporting evidence makes you look like a tool.

whatever_gong82 likes this.
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #1009 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 05:08 PM
Advanced Member
 
nrc2112's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 39
This is my last post here, last year IMAGIC was not in agreement with me about the fact that Bluray and Optical media is dying or dead. Now he is onboard and will use VUDU on his next 70 inch Visio TV. He is almost ready to throw in the towel on Bluray. When someone with Mark's access to industry insiders says he is bullish on Streaming and Downloads, then I'm satisfied that I was right then and I right now even more so. I will check back in with you all in 1 year to show you that you are wrong.
nrc2112 is offline  
post #1010 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 05:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,344
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Liked: 415
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

You people on this forum are so bent on physical media that you will not see the obvious. And everything I have stated is a fact. I am a network architect with over 25 years experience with TELCOS and ISP's and I have forgotten more about IP Telephony than you know or will ever know. Here on AVS I just cannot win because I am dealing with AV enthusiasts that are in their own world. What do you know about IP? Other than what you hear or read about on google?

And therein lies your problem. You are not looking at any of the obvious audio and video advantages for an enthusiast, nor some of the market realities that still exist making physical media still necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

This is my last post here, last year IMAGIC was not in agreement with me about the fact that Bluray and Optical media is dying or dead. Now he is onboard and will use VUDU on his next 70 inch Visio TV. He is almost ready to throw in the towel on Bluray. When someone with Mark's access to industry insiders says he is bullish on Streaming and Downloads, then I'm satisfied that I was right then and I right now even more so. I will check back in with you all in 1 year to show you that you are wrong.

And Blu-ray will still be here and still strong in a year from now. In fact, we'll be talking a lot about 4K Blu.
whatever_gong82 likes this.

DavidHir is online now  
post #1011 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 05:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bladerunner6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,455
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Sony may have won the battle against HD DVD, but its Blu-ray format is losing the war against streaming media. Even though the company has yet to announce its financial results for this past fiscal year, which ended March 31, 2014, the company issued a warning that its operating income will be approximately 68% lower than it anticipated.




According to The Verge, a significant part of Sony's lost income results from a rapid decline in demand for physical media, with Europe leading the way.


Sony introduced Blu-ray eight years ago and fought a heated battle with rival format HD-DVD. Sony won out and HD-DVD vanished, the turning point for the format came when Sony included a Blu-ray player in its PlayStation 3 console. However, Sony's victory occurred before Apple got into the movie streaming and download business. Unfortunately for Sony, Apple never adopted the Blu-ray format, in fact Steve Jobs referred to it as a "bag of hurt."


The media landscape is dramatically different today as a result of Apple's approach. Now, 4K/UHD streaming movies threaten to match or supersede Blu-ray quality. Already, HD video offerings from iTunes, Vudu, Amazon, Xbox, and others come close to what Blu-ray offers.

The main questions are these: is Blu-ray doomed? Would it be pure folly to introduce a new disk-based format? If Sony could not make Blu-ray work, then what hope is there for physical formats in the future?

Like AVS Forum on Facebook
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
+1 AVS Forum on Google+

I haven't read every post in this thread but has anyone commented on the fact that Sony has real problems that are huge versus minor one's like the slowdown in physical media sales?

Sony has been struggling in the TV business for a decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/business/international/sony-expects-annual-net-loss-as-it-continues-to-restructure.html?_r=0

Marketshare wise Sony is also hurting.

http://www.twice.com/news/tv/global-flat-panel-tv-sales-decline-july-ihs/3345
bladerunner6 is offline  
post #1012 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 07:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,541
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 333
The Sony brass doesn't know what they're doing and they haven't for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. They sabotage practically every format they've had a part in creating. They're dinosaurs.

It's time for free-thinking American electronics companies to bring it home to the U.S. and show the world we can compete in this industry again.

Without a strong R&D and manufacturing base supported by a robust middle class, this country is heading towards third world status. We cannot sustain ourselves with the path we're on.
whatever_gong82 likes this.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1013 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 07:57 PM
Member
 
catonic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post


 
.....an existential threat......

??!! This being the AVS forum Mark, could you please give us a scientific explanation of what that means? smile.gif
catonic is offline  
post #1014 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 09:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,613
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 423 Post(s)
Liked: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrc2112 View Post

You people on this forum are so bent on physical media that you will not see the obvious. And everything I have stated is a fact. I am a network architect with over 25 years experience with TELCOS and ISP's and I have forgotten more about IP Telephony than you know or will ever know. Here on AVS I just cannot win because I am dealing with AV enthusiasts that are in their own world. What do you know about IP? Other than what you hear or read about on google?

the problem isn't with the networks, it's the companies that own them

I have no doubt that streaming a UHD movie is possible. I just don't want to pay 300bux a month for that 'privilege'. if streaming/downloading content is going to be universally accepted, it needs to be cheaper than buying discs. and currently it's not even close for most ppl. even if the streaming service were free, the amount I'm charged for bandwidth makes discs look dirt cheap.

so I don't think it's wrong for being as skeptical as we are. I mean I know things will improve, but what needs to change for me is either 10x the bandwidth for no additional charge, or about an 80% decrease in what I'm being charged. considering prices have only gone up, and bandwidth about doubled in the last 10yrs, what the heck should make me think either of those two things will happen?

I'm currently paying about 130/mth for the equivalent of ONE uhd movie's worth of bandwidth. for about 200/mth, I can step up to around 2-3 movies per month. so bit for bit is just not practical. in reality, streaming is a question of how much compression can you actually get away with. the movies on iTunes or whatever are what, 6-8gbs? what happened to the other 22gb's? for many ppl, it's not a big deal, but for others(like us) it's huge. and I suspect the difference in quality between a full quality UHD movie and one compressed enough to be streamed effectively will be even larger.

if you're trying to sell the argument that highly compressed video is good enough, this is not the place. we will always want the best quality, and if that means a disc format, it's a welcomed inconvenience.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
post #1015 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 10:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,541
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 511 Post(s)
Liked: 333
As people drop satellite and cable for the internet, ISP rates will only increase. Most of the top ISP's in the country are also television providers. They want to make a profit somehow. Lose money with their cable side, make it up through their internet service.

So much for the free market. Most of these conglomerates are vertically integrated monopolies codified by corrupt state and federal regulators.
BornSlippyZ likes this.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is online now  
post #1016 of 1354 Old 05-21-2014, 11:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 133 Post(s)
Liked: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

Most of the top ISP's in the country are also television providers. They want to make a profit somehow. Lose money with their cable side, make it up through their internet service.
Most?

I can't think of any ISP in the US that isn't a TV provider - or owned in some way by a company that provides TV.

I can, however, think of acouple TV providers that aren't ISPs, but AT&T wants to change at least one of those.

Heck, some of the worst, and most reviled ISPs not only provide TV service, they actually make it and own the channels that air it.

We're screwed.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #1017 of 1354 Old 05-22-2014, 04:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
StinDaWg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,591
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 249 Post(s)
Liked: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyoAJB View Post

Current Blu-Ray discs can hold 50 GB.  A 90 minute, 2D, 1080p Blu-Ray movie typically takes up ~30 GB of that space, using AVCHD (H.264) compression.  2D 2160p (UHD) is 4 times the amount of pixel data, so would take up 4 times as much space using the same compression...

30 GB x 4 = 120 GB

However, they can use HEVC (H.265) compression instead, which is theoretically twice as efficient for the same quality (level of compression artifacts), so divide that number by 2...

120 GB / 2 = 60 GB.

That's just the theoretical efficiency improvement of HEVC, though.  The actual improvement in efficiency they are currently getting is closer to 30%, so...

120 GB x (1 - 30%) = 120 GB x 70% = 84 GB

Add in another 10-20% for Dolby Vision HDR & WCG metadata and you are right around that 100 GB number.  Double that for 3D 4K (which may or may not become a reality) and you are at 200 GB.
The flaw with this comparison is thinking Blu-rays actually need 30+ Mbps bitrates. They are only doing that to fill the disk. x264 (the best video encoder by far) can compress most Blu-rays to 8-15 Mbps with quality that is visually transparent to the disk. That is just average bitrate. They can still go up to 30+ Mbps during certain scenes to keep quality if needed. A few movies will need more due to grain, but this is the "sweet spot" for 99% of 1080p encodes.
StinDaWg is online now  
post #1018 of 1354 Old 05-22-2014, 05:30 AM
Member
 
atmusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by StinDaWg View Post

The flaw with this comparison is thinking Blu-rays actually need 30+ Mbps bitrates. They are only doing that to fill the disk. x264 (the best video encoder by far) can compress most Blu-rays to 8-15 Mbps with quality that is visually transparent to the disk. That is just average bitrate. They can still go up to 30+ Mbps during certain scenes to keep quality if needed. A few movies will need more due to grain, but this is the "sweet spot" for 99% of 1080p encodes.
Well that is what allot of this thread is about. Can a viewer actually see and hear the difference between streaming HDX from Vudu versus watching on a BRD. In my opinion the answer is no for most viewers, they have too small of a TV for their viewing distance and aren't using a higher end AV system for sound. For someone who has setup a good home theater system I still believe the answer is yes you can see and/or the difference. The primary reason I think solid media (disks) will be around for at least another decade and that 4K will also be delivered via disk is that just too many people do not have access too or don't want to pay for reliable high speed internet that can even stream HDX not to mention 4K. Plus I don't think the studios are foolish enough to risk being under the total control of ISPs for their survival, with streaming & disks they have the best solution available, they get access to nearly 100% of the population while allow the consumer to pick how they want to buy/watch a movie (happy consumers buy more), while retaining control of distribution. This gives the studios plenty of time to let the tech and market sort themselves out.
whatever_gong82 likes this.
atmusky is offline  
post #1019 of 1354 Old 05-22-2014, 05:51 AM
Member
 
atmusky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post

this is true, but I have to wonder, how many ppl would actually stop acting if they 'only' made a couple hundred thousand a year? I mean, there are actors that have been around a while that might just retire out of principle, but are those up and comers really choosing acting because plan B was only going to pay them a million or two. I have a feeling the actors, producers, etc would still be just fine making a couple hundred thousand instead of millions per movie.

I think if everybody just stopped going to movies one day, there might be a problem, but if the money starts to trickle in instead of flow, they might be forced to take price cuts themselves. I just don't see ALL these ppl deciding that waiting tables in Hollywood is more dignified that making movies for less money. maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see how making less money in the 'real world' would be a better option than taking a pay cut in Hollywood.
That is my opinion about the whole "entertainment" industry in general. But as long as people are willing to pay they will keep raising prices - that is a basic principal of our market system - and one of the reasons that cable/satellite service costs have gone up 3X the inflation rate. People seem willing to pay allot of money for "entertainment" and have a need to worship those (the Stars) providing it.
atmusky is offline  
post #1020 of 1354 Old 05-22-2014, 05:51 AM
Member
 
ClaptonsGhost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 17

For some of us, watching tv is all the entertainment we can afford. By no means does it mean I "worship" those (the Stars) providing it.

ClaptonsGhost is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off