DVD Talk
How long until blu-ray is outdated? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : How long until blu-ray is outdated?


puddytay
06-05-08, 11:25 PM
Most people think 1080p is the best that video will ever be... We'll from what I've heard true HD is around 4500p. So my question is Blu Ray going to be around for at least 10 years or are we likely to see an ultra HD player in a couple of years? I'd like to upgrade my favorite dvds to Blue Ray but that's around 500 and I don't want to spend all of that doe just to have to upgrade yet again a couple years down the road.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi
06-05-08, 11:28 PM
Do you really think anyone knows other than those that go by everything a guy a Sony says?

I'd guess less than 10, assuming it even really takes off.

Artman
06-05-08, 11:29 PM
Heh...have no idea. For me, Blu-Ray is it though. I've only got another 200 to convert from DVD... :)

kstublen
06-05-08, 11:34 PM
Technology will always be improving. Everything becomes outdated. I don't care though, as long as we don't get into the medium of digital downloads.

darkside
06-05-08, 11:39 PM
Most people think 1080p is the best that video will ever be...
What people? Everyone I talk to either has no idea what 480p or 1080p mean or know a lot about HD and know that 4k is what movies are transfered at.

The important thing to know is that the majority still are happy with 480i content upconverted on their HDTVs and the fact that broadcast TV is not going above 1080i anytime soon. That combined with the fact Blu-ray is struggling really gives little reason to worry about the next TVs coming. They will release 2560p TVs soon with no content to play on them. I guess people will convince themselves that 1080p looks better upconverted on them. Who knows when 4K TVs will hit, but if they do and there is real 4K content it will be worth upgrading for as that is probably the ceiling for film transfers to be identical to the masters.

Honestly, it is not worth worrying about. I will say that Blu-ray is a very significant upgrade in detail and especially color over DVD and I will be happy with it for quite a while. 4K if it comes will be a long way off. They will first have to come up with a disc that can hold a 4K transfer.

tylergfoster
06-05-08, 11:41 PM
Yeah, 4k is the next step and it will be quite awhile before that is easily feasible as a home entertainment format.

Zodiac_Speaking
06-05-08, 11:44 PM
First 1440p has to come out. i'm not worried about BD fading soon.

FusionX
06-05-08, 11:48 PM
I hope soon, the glow of 1080p has worn off. I'm ready for the next level.

Gerry P.
06-05-08, 11:55 PM
480i color television has been the standard since 1967-68. That's 40 years. 1080p should last at least half as long.

4k will come along in just a few year, but it will remain a high-end niche product.

Gizmo
06-06-08, 12:45 AM
Just you wait for 13,480p baby. That stuff is nuts!

Arithon
06-06-08, 01:06 AM
Technology will always be improving. Everything becomes outdated. I don't care though, as long as we don't get into the medium of digital downloads.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

Part of the fun of DVDs is the collecting of it. That, and internet connections are a long way off from downloading the amount of stuff you can fit in special editions (not to mention you'd have to have insane amounts of storage). Would you really want to download the 50-ish GB of the LotR extended trilogy, AND the special features? Blarf.

Anyway, to be more on topic, DVD could technically be considered "outdated" right now, and it still sells wonderfully, and will continue to be the standard for some time. I don't see Blu-Ray actually forcing DVD out of the market for some time to come, yet.

Then, you'd have a fair lifespan on Blu-Ray for some time after. 1080p movies look rather fantastic, as it is. I wouldn't worry about having to repurchase your entire collection of BDs any time soon.

caiman
06-06-08, 01:11 AM
How would 4500p even be discernable to the human eye outside of a ridiculously large screen?

Gerry P.
06-06-08, 01:35 AM
I've now had the opportunity of experiencing it on relatively large and expensive TV sets, and am more convinced than before that it serves no legitimate purpose. Again in my personal opinion, it is a toy for people with too much disposable income.Isn't looking and sounding better a legitimate purpose?

Arpeggi
06-06-08, 01:36 AM
5 years at most.

Gerry P.
06-06-08, 01:47 AM
Sorry, I deleted my previous post that quoted you when I was trying to edit it. Anyway...How much and at what cost?Well, Blu-ray has about 6 times the resolution of DVD. Hope that helps. I haven't paid more than $20 for a title (though I doubt that is the "cost" you are referring to). That price will go down over time.
Aren't there other things that could more profoundly enhance our experience of cinema? Such as eliminating the barriers to obtaining foreign productions and deepening and widening the material available rather than re-releasing the same stale blockbusters in moderately better picture quality?Unlike DVD, there are no PAL to NTSC conversion issues with Blu-ray and on most titles there is no region coding. As for "deepening and widening the material available," DVD is still doing that and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future. If physical media stays around long enough, Blu-ray will take up that mantle as surely as DVD took it from VHS.
In my opinion, Blu-ray does *nothing* to improve the way we relate to the audiovisual arts.Beyond cinema I don't know what audiovisual arts you are referring to, but watching a Blu-ray on a 100" screen is as close as you will get to a true cinematic experience (i.e. film projected in a theater) at home.

pridesticks06
06-06-08, 02:40 AM
How long until blu-ray is outdated? How about how long until SD is outdated? I just read somewhere that most of the population in America hasn't a clue what BD is, let alone ready to adopt it. By the time most people can go Blu, it'll be walking out the door.

That being said, I'm still running a console tv with SD. I'm hoping to get a new tv this fall or early spring then maybe BD next year, though I am NOT replacing my titles. They'll just have to play on the BD player. I might get some titles that would look extravagant, but other than that no.

Just my two cents though.

Fok
06-06-08, 03:33 AM
IMO it would probaby be another 10 years. Even CD's are still around

Spiderbite
06-06-08, 03:39 AM
Wait for downloads. It isn't far off.

Netflix is rumored to be teaming with Xbox for movies right now. They already have a $100 box available for unlimited downloads right now http://www.roku.com/netflixplayer/ (though the content now is not HD but the box is ready for it when Netflix gives the go ahead).

Unless I can get a BR player for less than $200, I have no interest in it. And if one does hit a decent price point, I certainly will not go thru and replace my current dvd collection with more expensive BRs when downloading most anything is around the corner. Waste of money.

GenPion
06-06-08, 03:44 AM
Outdated? Really? Do we seriously need that to happen? As long as we are talking about 50 In. HDTV's and below I don't see any point. Blu Ray discs should look amazing (I have a HD-DVD player and will likely purchase a PS3 as my Blu Ray player of choice next week). High Definition is better than anything I have ever experienced or watched via home media ever. I hope it's stays around for a long time.

tylergfoster
06-06-08, 06:02 AM
I maintain that Joe Six Pack has so many computer/internet problems already that downloads are not going to be seriously adopted for a long, long time, and even then, I think the majority of those out there prefer packaged media.

Plus, Joe Six Pack can understand the term "high definition" and if they want it they won't be getting it with downloads.

eedoon
06-06-08, 06:31 AM
With the difference between 720p and 1080p so minuscule on screen that is smaller than 40", I doubt that home video market will ever see something better than 1080p. Of course, we've heard about that 2106p TV that Samsung develops now, but I'm not sure it will find a place in someone's home.

4K technology and something like that probably only going to be popular in digital cinema and something of that sort.

And as many other have mentioned, I think at this point the future is going to be a) Video Downloads and b) solid state media, but I have my doubt that it's going to be in higher resolution than 1080p.

vcuram
06-06-08, 06:42 AM
112 years, Einsteins.

Pizza
06-06-08, 07:25 AM
Wait for downloads. It isn't far off.

Netflix is rumored to be teaming with Xbox for movies right now.
This is one of the things I don't understand about downloads; Why don't the studios (and music labels) create their own download sites? Cut out the middle men and get all the profits. With everything being digital, why have and/or create a need for places such as Netflix or Blockbusters or even iTunes?

RichC2
06-06-08, 09:41 AM
The big push after this step will come from computer oriented uses rather than strictly video, the improvement in video with current high definition is huge - the color array is especially impressive, but there is a limit to how "accurate" you can represent an image on a screen of limited size - which we aren't far off from.

How much and at what cost?

Aren't there other things that could more profoundly enhance our experience of cinema? Such as eliminating the barriers to obtaining foreign productions and deepening and widening the material available rather than re-releasing the same stale blockbusters in moderately better picture quality?

In my opinion, Blu-ray does *nothing* to improve the way we relate to the audiovisual arts.

The elimination of PAL and NTSC standards is a big one for me in obtaining foreign productions as is the limiting of coding standards. I was never a fan of purchasing PAL dvds as I could never lend them out, it isn't an issue on these High Def Medias which is a fantastic addition. Though I am curious what this 1080/50 thing that popped up with the [REC] Blu is all aboot.

And it is substantially higher than "moderately better picture", though that is dependent on individual setups (and color blindness, as much of the improvement comes in the form of amazingly vibrant color). The cost will predictively be minimal as time progresses. The revelation for me are the restorations, the ability to see movies older than I am, in pristine condition.

Brad Hood
06-06-08, 10:48 AM
Laserdisc and VHS coexisted peacefully for 22 years; I don't see why DVD and Blu-Ray can't have a similar run.

With broadcast TV staying at 720p/1080i for the foreseeable future, I don't foresee enough demand for higher resolution televisions or media for a major company like Sony or Toshiba to risk launching a new format anytime soon.

Even if the market tips toward downloads, I don't see consumer market resolutions going above 1080p for 12-15 years. I personally prefer physical media and I hope that Blu-ray continues to grow.

Mr. Cinema
06-06-08, 11:02 AM
What useful information are we going to get out of this thread? 1080p is what we're going to have for a long time. Does anyone really think the studios want to give us 4k resolution? They do still want us to go to the theater. How much can the human eye absorb?

I think this thread should be closed as I have a feeling it's going to turn ugly eventually, like most of the threads in this forum.

namja
06-06-08, 11:28 AM
The important thing to know is that the majority still are happy with 480i content upconverted on their HDTVs and the fact that broadcast TV is not going above 1080i anytime soon. That combined with the fact Blu-ray is struggling really gives little reason to worry about the next TVs coming.
Yup.

For most people, the difference between VHS and upconverted DVD is night and day. It gets you 90% there, while Blu-ray gets you the last 10%. When they can barely notice the difference between upconverted DVD (480) and HD (1080), it is really difficult to convince them that they need anything more than 1080.

Also, when most of the TVs out there are 42" or smaller, how closely do you have to sit to actually benefit from 4k over 1080? Like 3"?

Jericho
06-06-08, 11:35 AM
1440p may come along at some point soon, but to have a screen big enough to see 1440p content, or even a small advantage over 1080p is pretty rare. So I don't see studios releasing much content to that market. Meaning 1080p is probably the best we'll see for a while, meaning Blu-Rays shouldn't get outdated for sometime.

Shannon Nutt
06-06-08, 12:43 PM
Wait for downloads. It isn't far off.


This is the "Bill Gates answer" to home video. That home video sales will go obsolete once download technology advances. (I mention Bill Gates because of his famous quote that books would vanish because people would download everything to their hand-held devices, plus Microsoft's current obsession with downloads.)

People will always want physical media - be it videos, games, books, etc. I think it's because we're obsessed with packaging.

Home video will NOT got the way of the music industry. At least not in the forseeable (15 to 20 years) future.

That's my take, at least...and I'm sticking to it. ;)

mike2
06-06-08, 12:47 PM
Dvd has been around for a good 10 years...I'd say Blu-ray will do the same.

Jon2
06-06-08, 12:54 PM
How long until blu-ray is outdated? How about how long until SD is outdated? I just read somewhere that most of the population in America hasn't a clue what BD is, let alone ready to adopt it. By the time most people can go Blu, it'll be walking out the door.

Technically speaking... SD became outdated as soon as HD entered the arena. Just like VHS became outdated when DVD entered the arena.

Funny you should bring up that most of the population doesn't have a clue about BR. Because the same could be said of DVD... for almost 3 years after it was introduced. Despite the fact that in it's first year of sales, DVD outsold the combined first year sales of all other consumer electronics up to that point. That's the first year sales of vacuum tube radios, phonograph players, TVs, transister radios, tape players from 8-tracks to Sony Walkmans, CD, video players, laserdisc, and pretty much everything else that qualifies as a CE.

As for those waiting for the future of downloads, I wouldn't hold my breath. AT&T just announced that the internet will reach capacity around 2012. They want to increase capacity and they say they need money to do it. The telcos are increasingly trying to find ways of getting more money from endusers. The hot topic right now (and for some of them it's no longer just a topic... they're already trying this on a "trial" basis) is about charging you more for the amount of bandwidth you use, or for exceeding a monthly limit, or both.

Want to download or stream movies... be prepared to pay more that just what your vender of choice (be it iTunes, Nettflix, or whatever) will charge you. The telcos want a piece of that action, too, just for getting it from them to you. And that's just for standard def stuff... wait until you see what HD stuff is going to cost.

Tracer Bullet
06-06-08, 01:28 PM
This is the "Bill Gates answer" to home video. That home video sales will go obsolete once download technology advances. (I mention Bill Gates because of his famous quote that books would vanish because people would download everything to their hand-held devices, plus Microsoft's current obsession with downloads.)

People will always want physical media - be it videos, games, books, etc. I think it's because we're obsessed with packaging.

Home video will NOT got the way of the music industry. At least not in the forseeable (15 to 20 years) future.

That's my take, at least...and I'm sticking to it. ;)

We are not obsessed with packaging. That is a simplistic answer.

Realistically, people are looking at the experience of watching a movie, reading a book, etc. They are mostly doing this subconsciously. Look at music downloads. The experience of buying music online is preferable to buying a CD. Lower cost, no travel, seamless integration with preferred listening methods.

In contrast, the video download market is currently fragmented amongst a variety of providers, all incompatible with one another, all with clunky interfaces, poor pricing, and relatively slow downloads.

Video downloads can succeed, but the environment and challenges are different. Currently, the best experience is a DVD. Whatever wants to replace that will have to provide a better experience. At best, Blu-ray provides the same experience.

Qui Gon Jim
06-06-08, 03:07 PM
Currently, the best experience is a DVD. Whatever wants to replace that will have to provide a better experience. At best, Blu-ray provides the same experience.
This is one of the best passages ever posted in this forum. Well said.

Mr. Cinema
06-06-08, 03:09 PM
If anyone on here can show me a DVD that provides the highest video resolution available, 1080p, and uncompressed audio, I'll agree that DVD and BD offer the same home theater experience. I'm eagerly waiting.

RichC2
06-06-08, 03:16 PM
I have to disagree, in terms of general populous, yes DVD is likely the best experience. For me, the experience of watching a muddy picture blown up to 96" or so isn't particularly pleasurable, and HDM more than remedied that, adding substantially to the experience.

I agree it is more the delivery than the quality for most people, though.

Tracer Bullet
06-06-08, 03:16 PM
DVD provides HD picture and uncompressed audio? Since it doesn't, Blu-ray provides the best home theater experience. That is a fact.

That is not what I mean what I refer to the experience. I am referring to the steps and means necessary to listen to an album, watch a movie, or read a book. Look at the downloadable music available- it is of worse quality than a CD, but is growing while traditional CD sales are dropping every year.

DVD provided better audio and video quality, but that is not what made DVD. Portability, lowered cost, and higher durability did. Blu-ray offers no advantages in these key areas.

If you don't believe me, I have one word for you: laserdisc.

RichC2
06-06-08, 03:23 PM
The big difference there is laserdiscs were huge and easily scratchable, it didn't have any portability what so ever. Blu cases are slightly smaller than DVD cases but thats about it. I don't think there is an actual comparison of media switching from two very similarly portable formats outside of 8 Track -> Cassette Tape.

8 Track -> Cassette Tape -> CD -> Digital Media/MP3s

(1975) Betamax / (1977) VHS / (1980) Laserdisc -> (1997) DVD -> HDM / Digital Media/Downloads

Tracer Bullet
06-06-08, 03:26 PM
The big difference there is laserdiscs were huge and easily scratchable, it didn't have any portability what so ever.

But that's exactly my point.

Laserdisc provided a better quality of presentation, but was more cumbersome and more expensive than VHS tapes. It failed.

Blu-ray provides a better quality of presentation, but aside from that offers no advantages over DVD.

Mr. Cinema
06-06-08, 03:33 PM
That is not what I mean what I refer to the experience. I am referring to the steps and means necessary to listen to an album, watch a movie, or read a book. Look at the downloadable music available- it is of worse quality than a CD, but is growing while traditional CD sales are dropping every year.

DVD provided better audio and video quality, but that is not what made DVD. Portability, lowered cost, and higher durability did. Blu-ray offers no advantages in these key areas.

If you don't believe me, I have one word for you: laserdisc.
At what point does video and audio quality fall into your list of positives for a format?

BD's pricing is exactly the same as DVD's during it's beginning. BD's are more durable than DVD. Portability? I'll say backwards compatibility is more important. A BD player will play every dvd you own, and it also plays those discs which offer up THE VERY BEST in audio and video quality.

Laserdisc still managed to be around 20 years, despite its higher cost than DVD and BD.

BD has been out for only 2 years. That's it. And that was during a format war. Now it's the only game in town. Can we not set back and see how it evolves? Are we too impatient? Why must BD produce DVD results right at this minute?

DVD was not a success overnight.

Your argument makes it sound like that BD is going to fail because it's on a disc.

DVD was a phenomenon. BD doesn't have to be that. If it generates enough revenue for studios to continue to support it, then everyone benefits.

But again, BD has been sole HD disc format for a whopping 3 months.

RichC2
06-06-08, 03:35 PM
But there's the issue I have as well, it'd be equivalent to something like a Super VHS coming out, requiring a new player but still working with every other VHS out there.

Since Bluray plays DVD and Blus it'd be a natural progression, as I commented before it almost seems it'd be wiser to sell them as DVD Players with Blu support. At some point, every DVD Player would support it and leave it up to the consumer which version of a movie they should purchase. It may not be an evolutionary step, but it is the current best option. I think a better way of putting it is "discs" are the best current option.

That said, it is a new playing field these days, with other technology getting a boost and a decidedly more "connected" world, there are more forces at work than before (all previous video standards ran at the same maximum resolutions, for instance). Quality is viewed a little more closely than it was, and mp3 got more popular as the quality got closer to CD (though admittingly, internet speeds also picked up, computers got stronger, and playback methods got better as well.)

I don't see huge back catalog sales for the format down the line, but moving forward I definitely see a shift to the format for new releases and restorations. The industry trying to "reinvigorate the DVD market" won't happen until the needed tools for proper VOD/Downloads are available, but that is still a long ways off as nobody has found a way to establish a feeling of "ownership" with it, which is ultimately what the consumer is purchasing.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi
06-06-08, 03:54 PM
The big difference there is laserdiscs were huge and easily scratchable, it didn't have any portability what so ever. Blu cases are slightly smaller than DVD cases but thats about it. I don't think there is an actual comparison of media switching from two very similarly portable formats outside of 8 Track -> Cassette Tape.

8 Track -> Cassette Tape -> CD -> Digital Media/MP3s

(1975) Betamax / (1977) VHS / (1980) Laserdisc -> (1997) DVD -> HDM / Digital Media/Downloads

You forgot records

Tracer Bullet
06-06-08, 03:59 PM
At what point does video and audio quality fall into your list of positives for a format?

It doesn't factor in. It is even arguable whether or not DVD's better audio and video quality was a determining factor in its mass consumer acceptance. Again, it's about what the easiest experience is, not necessarily the best.

BD's pricing is exactly the same as DVD's during it's beginning. BD's are more durable than DVD. Portability? I'll say backwards compatibility is more important. A BD player will play every dvd you own, and it also plays those discs which offer up THE VERY BEST in audio and video quality.

And I said:

Blu-ray provides a better quality of presentation, but aside from that offers no advantages over DVD.

I have never had a problem with the durability of a DVD, and I doubt many people have under normal use conditions. Blu-ray's durability may be better due to the coating, but it's not a real advantage if your closest competitor does not have a problem in that area.

Backwards compatibility is a moot point as well when the benefits of the new format are in question.

Laserdisc still managed to be around 20 years, despite its higher cost than DVD and BD.

True, and I'm not saying it was a failure, just as I'm saying that Blu-ray is probably not going to be a failure. But a mass consumer format? Probably not.

You have to ask- why did laserdisc not overtake VHS? It had nothing to do with audio/video quality. Just as whether or not Blu-ray will overtake DVD has nothing to do with audio/video quality.


DVD was a phenomenon. BD doesn't have to be that. If it generates enough revenue for studios to continue to support it, then everyone benefits.

Yep. I'd be perfectly happy with a laserdisc-like existence.

RichC2
06-06-08, 04:02 PM
You forgot records

No, I intentionally left them out. As far as I'm concerned, vinyl always existed outside of the realm of new formats, and still kicks ass. ;)

And with that, I really do think people underestimate the value of HDMs backwards compatibility with DVD. This isn't a player that is eliminating the previous generation or one that is incompatible with competing formats (anymore :)), it actually makes it slightly better.

With all previous incarnations, you had to upgrade your libraries. VHS didn't work with Betamax, Laserdisc didn't work with VHS, Laserdisc didn't work with DVD, VHS certainly doesn't work with DVD. Blu works with DVD.

It's a compatible upgrade to an existing format, it can very easily "take over" down the road.

kstublen
06-06-08, 04:11 PM
I think people that use iTunes or any other music downloading site to purchase entire albums are FOOLS. It is only a few dollars less than if you went to the store and purchased it yourself. And what happens if your computer crashes? You just lost all of your music. Sure, you can sometimes get it back using iTunes, but you only have a limited amount of times you can do that.

Downloading is the worst thing EVER.

RichC2
06-06-08, 04:14 PM
I actually had a thing typed up about that (nobody purchases albums on there, at least nobody that I know) but backed out of posting it.

Spiderbite
06-06-08, 05:19 PM
I actually had a thing typed up about that (nobody purchases albums on there, at least nobody that I know) but backed out of posting it.

I would have liked to have read it.

Tracer and Rich have hit the nail on the head. BR will be around but it will likely stay second banana to DVD until either downloading or something revolutionary comes out.

I personally am not a downloading fan but you have to see the writing on the wall and accept it eventually. Even my peers make fun of me because I still enjoy buying CDs and call me a grandpa (I'm 35). I do admit that it is entertaining to daydream about walking up to my TV, pushing a button and watching whatever movie I wish at the click of a button. But that is still a little ways off. I don't think people will stand for bandwidth caps or extra charges because soon, a company will remove that and it will kill it. Remember when AOL charged $50 for their dial-up? I remember when Juno (I think that was what it was called) and others came out and dial-up was $10 or free and AOL collapsed eventually.

Now portability comes into play but that is mainly for my kid. I have no interest in watching movies on iPods, phones or even on 25 inch TVs at a beach condo. I like watching movies in my house on my big screen with my surround sound system. So...it comes back to my kid. He wants to watch the latest Scooby-doo boxset. Do I buy it on dvd for 15 bucks or on BR for $30 (or more). I buy the cheaper set and hand it over. Do I buy the portable BR player for $400 or the $50 special at Wal-mart? He doesn't give a shit what it looks or sounds like on our portable 7 inch screen dvd player. And he's not going to when he 15 either. So I am going to go on the cheap end as most every average parent will. Kids help push the technology no matter what you think. Kids might be another reason why Laserdisc could never touch VHS. VHS was durable, cheap, portable and you didn't give a crap when your kid smashed a tape in half.

Drexl
06-06-08, 09:56 PM
At what point does video and audio quality fall into your list of positives for a format?

When people point out that BD offers no advantages over DVD other than better picture and sound quality, what I would like to know is: what other advantages are they looking for? Things like eliminating the previews or removing all copy protection aren't going to happen, so what needs to be better?

A solid state media format is about the only thing I can think of, but that's still way too expensive to even consider producing on a mass scale. Should we just continue to use our HDTVs to watch standard definition material for several more years, just because there isn't a format with more advantages over an extremely successful format?

As for a higher definition format, I'm not sure I would be interested. I just wouldn't feel like sitting that close to the display, and even then I wonder if the incremental improvement would be worth the expense.

JTH182
06-07-08, 01:07 AM
VHS was durable, cheap, portable and you didn't give a crap when your kid smashed a tape in half.


VHS was ridiculously expensive when it first came out. Even more so than DVD or Blu Ray.

My parents paid $800 for their first behemoth of a VCR and $80 for Dumbo when I had mono as a kid. Even blank tapes were $15.

And that was in the 80's! Imagine what that would be in today's dollars!

Blu Ray will eventually take over from DVD, albeit slower than VHS>DVD. Downloads will probably gain a lot of momentum, but a lot of people need that physical media in their hands. I myself will rarely download if it's a movie I really like. Perhaps as a substitute for renting, but I would never "buy" a download.

Music downloading caught on at such a rapid rate because people could (and still can) do it for free. Free always wins when trying to make decisions on a purchase. Also, as someone else mentioned, listening to music is a passive activity. Going to a movie is an "event," whereas if I'm running on the treadmill or something the quality of the music isn't very important as I listen through my Treo.

TheMovieman
06-07-08, 01:22 AM
I think people that use iTunes or any other music downloading site to purchase entire albums are FOOLS. It is only a few dollars less than if you went to the store and purchased it yourself. And what happens if your computer crashes? You just lost all of your music. Sure, you can sometimes get it back using iTunes, but you only have a limited amount of times you can do that.

Downloading is the worst thing EVER.

I kind of used to feel this way (well not that downloading is the worst thing ever), but I've downloaded a couple of albums through Amazon.com. I also like the fact that I can just download a couple of songs from an album rather than all 12 songs, more than half of which I usually don't like anyway. By doing that, rather than paying $10 for a CD, I only spend maybe $4. Besides, when I actually do buy CDs, I usually just copy the songs onto my computer (and upload to my iPod) anyway.

But music is different than movies. I cannot see myself downloading a movie I really want vs. buying a physical disc.

Tracer Bullet
06-07-08, 02:38 AM
When people point out that BD offers no advantages over DVD other than better picture and sound quality, what I would like to know is: what other advantages are they looking for? Things like eliminating the previews or removing all copy protection aren't going to happen, so what needs to be better?

That's exactly it, though- most people don't really care. They see a format with exactly the same usability of DVD.

B5Erik
06-07-08, 02:44 AM
Blu Ray is likely here for at least a decade, and probably more.

Unless you've got a 60" TV or bigger it will be almost impossible for the untrained eye to see ANY difference between 1080P and 4500P.

As much as I can see a significant difference between Blu Ray and DVD, I don't think for a second that I'll be able to see any difference between 1080P and 4500P, and I damned well know I won't pay the premium price for something I'll never see. I doubt many people would.

Blu Ray is as far as they can take it for this generation. Remember, standard def was designed back in the 30's (TV itself was invented in the 20's). It's taken a hell of a long time just to get to 1080P High Def. There won't be any programming for anything higher def than that for a long, long time, and without programming (something to play a that definition), there's no point in making the TV's.

I love HDTV's and I love Blu Ray, but thinking about going beyond that just gets silly.

pro-bassoonist
06-07-08, 03:24 AM
Blu Ray is likely here for at least a decade, and probably more.

Unless you've got a 60" TV or bigger it will be almost impossible for the untrained eye to see ANY difference between 1080P and 4500P.

As much as I can see a significant difference between Blu Ray and DVD, I don't think for a second that I'll be able to see any difference between 1080P and 4500P, and I damned well know I won't pay the premium price for something I'll never see. I doubt many people would.

Blu Ray is as far as they can take it for this generation. Remember, standard def was designed back in the 30's (TV itself was invented in the 20's). It's taken a hell of a long time just to get to 1080P High Def. There won't be any programming for anything higher def than that for a long, long time, and without programming (something to play a that definition), there's no point in making the TV's.

I love HDTV's and I love Blu Ray, but thinking about going beyond that just gets silly.

:up:

Pro-B

RoboDad
06-07-08, 04:06 AM
That's exactly it, though- most people don't really care. They see a format with exactly the same usability of DVD.
The problem is, you didn't answer Drexl's question.

Earlier, you said that Blu-ray needed to offer more than just improved picture and sound to differentiate itself from DVD. What did you have in mind? Or, are you saying that there is nothing more that could differentiate the two, and that, as a result, you don't see Blu-ray ever catching on?

RoboDad
06-07-08, 04:15 AM
But music is different than movies. I cannot see myself downloading a movie I really want vs. buying a physical disc.
This is the point some of us have been trying to make for a while now. Music and movies are two very different experiences. I can listen to music while I am driving, riding the bus, working in my office, sitting in the dentist's chair, working out at the gym, mowing the lawn (OK, just barely ;)), or any of a hundred other activities. And for those activities, I don't need pristine quality sound (in fact, for many of those activities, sound quality beyond what MP3 offers would be wasted anyway). I can't even imagine trying to watch a movie while engaging in any of those activities.

Jericho
06-07-08, 09:09 AM
If you're comparing prices, you have to realize that Blu-Ray prices will come down, just like VHS and DVD prices did. All those formats were much higher priced in the beginning. To some extent, people act like this will always be true of Blu-Ray, that it will never fall in price. Give it time people. We're basically 2 years in. Most people on this forum probably didn't own a DVD player two years into DVD. If you did, you'd probably realize that DVDs were not cheap in B&M stores. The thing that made DVDs cheap back then were crazy online deals. But that was just a lucky coincidence that DVDs were growing right when all these stupid companies were giving stuff away on the internet. It took a few years after that for B&M stores to really offer competitive prices.

Tracer Bullet
06-07-08, 12:11 PM
Or, are you saying that there is nothing more that could differentiate the two, and that, as a result, you don't see Blu-ray ever catching on?

Yes.

DJ_Longfellow
06-07-08, 12:20 PM
I say digital downloads is the next step that may hit somewhat mainstream. Blu-Ray will still be the "best" option in my opinion for a long time though. I don't see many companies streaming 1080p content to a majority of the households.

markwe
06-07-08, 12:45 PM
There is a ton of R&D that goes into things like this. I don't see anything taking place of blu-ray for a LONG LONG time.

From what I know Samsung or a different tv manufacturer did make a 2560p tv just for show for some conference.

Its hard to think that they can fit more than 50g on some type of cd medium.

basketb
06-07-08, 03:46 PM
There is a ton of R&D that goes into things like this. I don't see anything taking place of blu-ray for a LONG LONG time.

From what I know Samsung or a different tv manufacturer did make a 2560p tv just for show for some conference.

Its hard to think that they can fit more than 50g on some type of cd medium.

Think again:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/call_recall_optical_drive/

B5Erik
06-07-08, 04:08 PM
Standard Def HAS faded away. Try to find new SDTV's at a retail store. Very, very few available.

A lot of people have High Def cable or satellite for their HDTV's, Blu Ray is increasing it's market share - this is all at the expense of Standard Def.

It's taken a long time for Standard Def to be replaced, but it's in the transition phase now (slowly being phased out).

Blu Ray and HDTV are going to be around for a while.

DVD Polizei
06-07-08, 04:32 PM
Blu-ray could easily be around for years, but this doesn't mean a Super High Def format will replace it anytime soon. We will certainly see and witness higher definition formats being presented at CES in the future. But these will not go mainstream. Hell, Blu-ray is embraced by almost all studios now, so I can't see a new definition spec or format just popping up instantaneously without their approval. The studios, at least I think, don't want to burn their bridges too fast and do not want another competitor with Blu-ray.

Al_Tahoe
06-07-08, 05:54 PM
Its hard to think that they can fit more than 50g on some type of cd medium.I remember buying my first home computer in 1991. I bought it from COMPUSA, and elected to get the largest hard drive they sold. Not that I believed it, but I remember the salesman stressing that this was all the storage I would ever need.

The size of the hard drive?... 213 MEGAbytes.

RoboDad
06-07-08, 06:02 PM
Yes.
Fair enough. You are completely entitled to believe that. Of course, I think you are completely, absolutely, profoundly wrong, but that's just me ;).

But, it also raises the question of why you are so interested in these discussions, if you already believe Blu-ray to be a failed format.

darkside
06-07-08, 08:15 PM
Blu-ray could easily be around for years, but this doesn't mean a Super High Def format will replace it anytime soon. We will certainly see and witness higher definition formats being presented at CES in the future. But these will not go mainstream. Hell, Blu-ray is embraced by almost all studios now, so I can't see a new definition spec or format just popping up instantaneously without their approval. The studios, at least I think, don't want to burn their bridges too fast and do not want another competitor with Blu-ray.
Getting all the studios on board for Blu-ray was a fight that took several years to complete. The studios and CE companies have huge investments that will take years to pay off. They are not jumping to another format any time soon. Maybe not for a decade or more.

I think you will see the all the studios push more and more for downloads because they have control of the DRM so you can't lend it out and you never actually own a disc you can resell. This is the kind of control over you they want. Blu-ray could be the last disc format if download speeds increase and downloads catch on.

GenPion
06-07-08, 09:06 PM
Blu Ray is just BEGINNING. It will not be dying any time soon.

pro-bassoonist
06-08-08, 02:06 AM
The problem is, you didn't answer Drexl's question.

Earlier, you said that Blu-ray needed to offer more than just improved picture and sound to differentiate itself from DVD. What did you have in mind? Or, are you saying that there is nothing more that could differentiate the two, and that, as a result, you don't see Blu-ray ever catching on?

I am going to requote the question RoboDad asked above as it was avoided twice. I am curious to know what more BR needs to offer seeing that you appear convinced it isn't enough?

Pro-B

Tracer Bullet
06-08-08, 03:24 AM
But, it also raises the question of why you are so interested in these discussions, if you already believe Blu-ray to be a failed format.

:lol: at asking someone why they're interested in a discussion on the internet.

I own Blu-ray. I like Blu-ray. I just don't see it ever becoming a widely adopted format. :shrug:

Tracer Bullet
06-08-08, 03:27 AM
I am going to requote the question RoboDad asked above as it was avoided twice. I am curious to know what more BR needs to offer seeing that you appear convinced it isn't enough?

It's not a matter of functionality (improved audio/video quality), it's a matter of usability. DVD works for people. They get video they want to see in the currently easiest way possible. Blu-ray offers no advantages in this area.

DVD Polizei
06-08-08, 04:19 AM
I think you will see the all the studios push more and more for downloads because they have control of the DRM so you can't lend it out and you never actually own a disc you can resell. This is the kind of control over you they want. Blu-ray could be the last disc format if download speeds increase and downloads catch on.

I dunno. Studios won't have opportunities to double-dip as much, and won't be able to sell their low-cost high-profit shitty packaging. Packaging is everything. Maybe 10 years from now we'll see more of an effort, but hard copies are here to stay.

Since downloading movies is for only one location, most people won't want it. Being able to take a movie over to a friend's house and watch it on their bigger/better TV, or just loaning out a movie to a friend, will keep hard copies stocked in stores.

The studios can push for downloads all they want, but historically, being denied consumer freedoms associated with buying a product, will not sell and will fail. If the studios want to isolate their rural consumers as well (due to inferior connections), hey, knock yourselves out.

At this point in time, ISPs aren't willing to give their bandwidth away, and are even locking down their downloading freedoms with tier pricing for those who go over a certain amount--penalizing those who download large amounts of data. Not only would downloading 10 Blu-ray movies a month take a considerable amount of time, but you would have a nice surprise coming in the mail from your ISP billing department.

Studios may want it. Studios aren't going to get it.

pro-bassoonist
06-08-08, 04:22 AM
I own Blu-ray. I like Blu-ray. I just don't see it ever becoming a widely adopted format. :shrug:
I find this to be a contradictory post to say the least since back in February you appeared to be receptive of the idea that mass adoption is possible:



And the coin landed on the wrong side, in my opinion. Toshiba had the player prices down to a level where average people were starting to buy them. The Warner decision effectively killed HD DVD, but we've got probably another year or more before Blu-Ray player prices get that low, postponing the possiblity of mass adoption even further down the road.
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?p=8499139#post8499139

I wonder what could have happened since February to change your opinion from recognizing that there is a possibility for BR to become mass to not seeing it ever becoming widely adopted?

Could it be the fact that you were proven wrong about having two niche formats?

I fear that no amount of crappy yelling posts or well thought out posts will change the fact that both formats are going to linger on as small niche products.
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=7956107

Furthermore...



I have never had a problem with the durability of a DVD, and I doubt many people have under normal use conditions. Blu-ray's durability may be better due to the coating, but it's not a real advantage if your closest competitor does not have a problem in that area.


Fine. Granted that most of us are collectors with large libraries I still believe that we use our DVDs normally. So, I find this statement also contradictory. At least judging by what you posted here:


Not true at all. Different hardware, different results. I can't count the number of times I've had a DVD with playback issues on one player that plays flawlessly on another.http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?p=8262699#post8262699

I'd say DVD playback issues are right in the same area with durability and compatibility. What do you think?

Finally the reason I asked you to answer RoboDad's question is because earlier in this thread you said:


Video downloads can succeed, but the environment and challenges are different. Currently, the best experience is a DVD. Whatever wants to replace that will have to provide a better experience. At best, Blu-ray provides the same experience.

...which tells me that something changed dramatically for you after you made the following statement last April:

I don't think there's any way of knowing if the new DVD formats or downloading (or something else that we can't see) are going to overtake SD-DVD. Downloading is great, but unless you're a geek it's difficult to get that material displayed on your TV. Xbox 360 and Apple TV might be pushing hard for downloading, but that's another box you have to buy, so there's invested cost involved in either downloading or buying a new HD-DVD or Blu Ray player. I don't think many people are interested in buying another appliance right now, period.
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?p=7956107#post7956107

You changed your position on practically every point you've argued about. And even after three separate requests you still have not answered what RoboDad asked...I wonder why?

Pro-B

Qui Gon Jim
06-08-08, 07:57 AM
He DID answer.
He NEVER said he thought BD was a failure.

It is absolutely comical how some of you just trash anyone who has even the slightest bit of a critical thought towards a media format.

He owns the format and likes it. He just doesn't see it as a "leap" from DVD that will capture the hearts and minds of the mainstream consumer.

All the talk of how bad DVD looks and how good BD looks on huge screens is pertinent HERE, in an enthusiast forum. Most people don't have TVs bigger than 40", and at that point the investment in the advantages of BD diminishes.

BD does what DVD does, but better. Indisputable. Will that be "the next big thing?" It remains to be seen.

PopcornTreeCt
06-08-08, 09:42 AM
VHS - You have to rewind/fast forward
DVD - Special Features/No rewinding

Blu-ray exactly the same as DVD. It's not even a smaller disc!

Jay G.
06-08-08, 09:52 AM
Blu-ray exactly the same as DVD. It's not even a smaller disc!
Would a smaller disc have been an advantage for Blu-ray though? I mean, the Gamecube had smaller discs than other video game systems, but the cases that held the discs were the same size. Plus, they don't fit in standard carrying cases as securely. There really weren't any advantages to the smaller format.

Also, Blu-ray players would've still needed their loading trays to be DVD/CD size for backwards compatibility.

I don't think consumers are looking for a smaller media size at all.

PopcornTreeCt
06-08-08, 10:38 AM
Probably wouldn't have been any better for it being smaller. There's nothing innovative about Blu-rays over DVDs other than better PQ and AQ. The digital copy was a nice start but apparently that can't fit on the same disc so it's useless.

Maybe if we get to the point where we can download commentaries from fans/filmmakers from the web, that would be a nice bonus, but I doubt that will ever happen because the studios want us to double and triple dip.

The Bus
06-08-08, 11:02 AM
VOD will destroy Blu-ray, once it is correctly implemented.

Do you know where I keep my CDs? In a box somewhere. Well, in a few boxes, as I've got hundreds of them. I'd like to do the same with my DVDs. Honestly, it's about the content. Box art and packaging is nice but it's not THE reason I buy DVDs.

If I want to listen to an album, I load it from a menu from within my computer, my PS3, or the 360 (all in different areas of the house). I can put an album on my iPod and take it with me.

I wish I could do that with movies. And we're almost, almost there. To anyone that doesn't see this coming, you're fooling and deluding yourself.

RichC2
06-08-08, 11:09 AM
I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that, I will however, disagree with the "almost, almost" there.

Probably wouldn't have been any better for it being smaller. There's nothing innovative about Blu-rays over DVDs other than better PQ and AQ. The digital copy was a nice start but apparently that can't fit on the same disc so it's useless.

Maybe if we get to the point where we can download commentaries from fans/filmmakers from the web, that would be a nice bonus, but I doubt that will ever happen because the studios want us to double and triple dip.

The digital copies would fit just fine, putting it on a second disc is a courtesy for people as Blu-owners is already a small number, Blu-owners with Blu PC Drives is even smaller.

Draven
06-08-08, 11:12 AM
I am going to requote the question RoboDad asked above as it was avoided twice. I am curious to know what more BR needs to offer seeing that you appear convinced it isn't enough?

Pro-B

Prices directly in-line with current DVD prices, and a sub-$200 player that isn't a video game machine and maybe you'll have something.

Otherwise, I think Blu-Rays have about 10 years or so of life as a niche product and will be replaced by VOD.

Tracer Bullet
06-08-08, 11:47 AM
Cut for length

Yeah, you're right. I have changed the way I think about this. :shrug:

It happens.

Instead of combing through my old posts and looking for gotcha! moments (really? people do change their minds, after all) why not argue against my position? Does Blu-ray offer any better usability than DVD? In fact, name me one widely adopted media format that was successful because of functionality, not usability.

DVD Polizei
06-08-08, 11:51 AM
ISPs don't like VOD. In 10 years, Blu-ray discs WILL be in line with DVD prices. Maybe cheaper. At that point, it wouldn't be too smart to download movies for a fee, over and over again just to watch the damn movie a few months later.

[think Goodfellas with Ray Liotta as narrator]

DVD P: "Ooops! I had to delete the movie off my proprietary machine to make room for more HD movies. Can I watch the same movie again, because I already paid for it?"

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "My ISP is charging me more because more content is being downloaded and--"

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "My box was stolen and the hundreds of movies I have stored? Do I have to pay for all those movies to download them again?"

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "Yeah, I have a machine in my living room, but I also want to watch movies in my upstairs bedroom and my son wants to watch movies in his room as well."

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "Hi. I'm over at my friend's house and I have the same movie on my machine at home."

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "Hi. It's me again. I'm using my laptop on vacation, and I can't get a decent connection to--"

Studios: "Hi sir. Let me check on that one:

Fuck you. Pay me."

-----

I just don't see how VOD is going to be embraced by consumers.

B5Erik
06-08-08, 11:57 AM
VOD will destroy Blu-ray, once it is correctly implemented.

No, it may complement Blu Ray, but it won't "destroy" it.


Do you know where I keep my CDs? In a box somewhere. Well, in a few boxes, as I've got hundreds of them. I'd like to do the same with my DVDs. Honestly, it's about the content. Box art and packaging is nice but it's not THE reason I buy DVDs.

As I noted before, I've had 2 computers go bad and have yet to recover the audio and picture files from them. If I had paid thousands of dollars for movies and music I'd be pissed!

Which is why I'll never pay for downloads. I want a physical medium to store my music and movies on that I don't have to worry about having files become corrupted or lost due to a hard drive gone bad.


If I want to listen to an album, I load it from a menu from within my computer, my PS3, or the 360 (all in different areas of the house). I can put an album on my iPod and take it with me.

I wish I could do that with movies. And we're almost, almost there. To anyone that doesn't see this coming, you're fooling and deluding yourself.
For most people that's a lot of work just to watch a movie in the bedroom...

Turning on the computer, downloading the movie into your portable video player, hooking said player up to the bedroom TV - that will take more time than a lot of people will be willing to spend. It's a lot easier just to put the Blu Ray disc into the player already in your bedroom that's already hooked up to the TV. And if you want to move from one TV to another in the middle of the movie you just take the disc out and put in in another player in another room and pick up where you left off.

For a lot of people (especially those less tech savvy) discs are a lot easier and more conveneient.

As far as VOD (streaming live to a box hooked up to your TV), that's the same as a rental, and a lot of people would rather buy than rent.

It's going to be a long time (25-30 years) before there are no physical media forms (DVD, Blu Ray, whatever) available as new/current products to buy.

And that's not even considering those who DO like to have the packaging!

B5Erik
06-08-08, 12:00 PM
ISPs don't like VOD. In 10 years, Blu-ray discs WILL be in line with DVD prices. Maybe cheaper. At that point, it wouldn't be too smart to download movies for a fee, over and over again just to watch the damn movie a few months later.

[think Goodfellas with Ray Liotta as narrator]

DVD P: "Ooops! I had to delete the movie off my proprietary machine to make room for more HD movies. Can I watch the same movie again, because I already paid for it?"

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "My ISP is charging me more because more content is being downloaded and--"

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "My box was stolen and the hundreds of movies I have stored? Do I have to pay for all those movies to download them again?"

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "Yeah, I have a machine in my living room, but I also want to watch movies in my upstairs bedroom and my son wants to watch movies in his room as well."

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "Hi. I'm over at my friend's house and I have the same movie on my machine at home."

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."

DVD P: "Hi. It's me again. I'm using my laptop on vacation, and I can't get a decent connection to--"

Studios: "Hi sir. Let me check on that one:

Fuck you. Pay me."


rotfl :lol: rotfl

pro-bassoonist
06-08-08, 12:06 PM
Instead of combing through my old posts and looking for gotcha! moments (really? people do change their minds, after all) why not argue against my position? Does Blu-ray offer any better usability than DVD? In fact, name me one widely adopted media format that was successful because of functionality, not usability.

Actually, I looked through your posts to see where you stand on the issues you argue about as you never replied to this question:

The problem is, you didn't answer Drexl's question.

Earlier, you said that Blu-ray needed to offer more than just improved picture and sound to differentiate itself from DVD. What did you have in mind?

For me to argue against your position I must know what your position is, and up until the last post you made here you were very clear that BR does not offer better usability yet you have not made it clear what more means to you. This was why Drexl made his initial comments and this is why RoboDad re-questioned you.

Anyhow, seeing how radically you changed your position on practically every single point you made, it is probably understandable why you can not answer.

Pro-B

RoboDad
06-08-08, 12:10 PM
VOD will destroy Blu-ray, once it is correctly implemented.

Do you know where I keep my CDs? In a box somewhere. Well, in a few boxes, as I've got hundreds of them. I'd like to do the same with my DVDs. Honestly, it's about the content. Box art and packaging is nice but it's not THE reason I buy DVDs.

If I want to listen to an album, I load it from a menu from within my computer, my PS3, or the 360 (all in different areas of the house). I can put an album on my iPod and take it with me.

I wish I could do that with movies. And we're almost, almost there. To anyone that doesn't see this coming, you're fooling and deluding yourself.
Actually, the ones who are deluding themselves are the people who think it ever can be "correctly implemented". As long as Hollywood studios are involved, there will be no correct implementation. If we have learned nothing else, we know how fickle they are, and how much they have grown to love the prospect of consumers repurchasing the same content.

VOD faces several problems that no implementation can overcome, as long as the studios are the owners of the content:


Studios sell content to other studios, and those new content owners will be under no obligation to honor previous consumer "purchases" of downloaded content.
Studios are purchased or absorbed by other studios, and again, the new owners will not necessarily be obligated to honor previous consumer "purchases".
Studios can opt to place titles on moratorium, suspending existing "purchases" for a time.
VOD providers can fail or be purchased by other VOD providers. In such cases, there will be no guarantee of access to content previously "purchased".
Consumer storage of "purchased" movies can fail, and VOD providers may have cumbersome and costly requirements to replace lost content, or may even disallow re-downloading the content without repurchasing it (which has already happened in at least one documented case).

Jay G.
06-08-08, 12:13 PM
[think Goodfellas with Ray Liotta as narrator]

DVD P: "Ooops! I had to delete the movie off my proprietary machine to make room for more HD movies. Can I watch the same movie again, because I already paid for it?"

Studios: "Fuck you. Pay me."
The Xbox 360 allows you to redownload TV shows you've purchased for no additional charge, so you actually can delete it and get it back later without repaying. If they ever make movies available for purchase on the 360 it's possible they'll offer free redownloading for those purchases as well.

Jay G.
06-08-08, 12:28 PM
hich is why I'll never pay for downloads. I want a physical medium to store my music and movies on that I don't have to worry about having files become corrupted or lost due to a hard drive gone bad.
Downloads can be put onto a physical medium in most cases. iTunes and most music stores allow purchases to be burned as audio CDs. with Amazon's MP3 store, you can burn the MP3s to disc as audio or data, or move to a backup drive or online backup service. iTunes video files can be copied and moved as well, although playback is limited to authorized devices.

There's a technology called Qflix that will allow downloading of videos to be burned to copy-protected DVDs, which will allow major studio adoption of the technique.
http://www.qflix.com/

For most people that's a lot of work just to watch a movie in the bedroom...
Which is why Netflix created a set-top box. LG is looking to integrate Netflix's online service into an upcoming Blu-ray player. Tivo has access to Amazon's Unbox. And of course, a lot of people already have a cable/satellite box attached to their TV.

It's a lot easier just to put the Blu Ray disc...
Which you had to travel to the store to purchase/rent in the first place, or order/rent online and wait to arrive. Once a VOD or download service is implemented in a house, the user doesn't even have to get up from the couch to insert a disc before they can start playing what they want.

As far as VOD (streaming live to a box hooked up to your TV), that's the same as a rental, and a lot of people would rather buy than rent.
A lot of people would rather buy, it's true. But a lot of people would rather rent. Netflix didn't become a success due to a lack of renters. Even they can see the writing on the wall and have started offering an online distribution service. When given the choice between seeing the film they want on their TV now, or seeing it in 3-5 days when it arrives in the mail, online distribution has a lot of appeal.

It's going to be a long time (25-30 years) before there are no physical media forms (DVD, Blu Ray, whatever) available as new/current products to buy.
I agree that physical media is going to have a niche in the video market for years and decades to come. However, online distribution is going to have an ever growing portion of that market as the technology develops.

DVD Polizei
06-08-08, 12:31 PM
So, basically VOD will complement physical disc content. Which is more realistic.

Mr. Cinema
06-08-08, 12:36 PM
Prices directly in-line with current DVD prices, and a sub-$200 player that isn't a video game machine and maybe you'll have something.

Otherwise, I think Blu-Rays have about 10 years or so of life as a niche product and will be replaced by VOD.
The pricing is following exactly as DVD did. DVDs didn't drop down to $15 after 2 years of existence. BD and DVD both have very similar list prices during their first 2 years of existence. If you're expecting all BDs to drop down to the $15 area now, you'll be waiting for some time.

BD costs more to manufacture, and offers alot more in terms of audio/video quality and interactivity than dvd. Of course it's going to be priced higher.

Even the list prices NOW for both formats are very similar. BD is just not getting a larger discounted price when they're released.

Jay G.
06-08-08, 12:39 PM
VOD faces several problems that no implementation can overcome, as long as the studios are the owners of the content:

Studios sell content to other studios, and those new content owners will be under no obligation to honor previous consumer "purchases" of downloaded content.
I have never, ever heard of a content provider having the ability to revoke past licensed purchases, even when the content switched hands or the distributor, (like iTunes) loses distribution rights. This simply does not and will not happen. Once you own it, you own it. The problem of licensing only come up currently if you lose the content or the license info due to hardware or software failure.

VOD providers can fail or be purchased by other VOD providers. In such cases, there will be no guarantee of access to content previously "purchased".
It's not like the software/hardware from the distributor of the online content fails immediately. Licenses can he held by the end user in perpetuity. Granted, once the currently owned hardware fails there may be no way to purchase new hardware for continued playback, but that could be said of failed physical disc formats as well, like HD DVD.

Consumer storage of "purchased" movies can fail, and VOD providers may have cumbersome and costly requirements to replace lost content, or may even disallow re-downloading the content without repurchasing it (which has already happened in at least one documented case).
Good point, although you can replace the word "VOD" with "DVD" or "Blu-ray" and it's essentially the same: if the disc you purchased eventually fails to play anymore, which can and does happen in numerous documented cases, you don't get that content back without repurchasing it. At least with downloaded content, the content providers typically allow the making of backup copies.

Draven
06-08-08, 12:51 PM
The pricing is following exactly as DVD did. DVDs didn't drop down to $15 after 2 years of existence. BD and DVD both have very similar list prices during their first 2 years of existence. If you're expecting all BDs to drop down to the $15 area now, you'll be waiting for some time.

And? BDs offer enhanced video and audio quality, but otherwise they match almost exactly feature-wise with current DVDs, and in many cases offer LESS content for more money. Why would anyone expect the pricing to follow the same model? DVDs were far different and much more usable than VHS. BDs don't justify their cost.


BD costs more to manufacture, and offers alot more in terms of audio/video quality and interactivity than dvd. Of course it's going to be priced higher.

Really? I'll give you audio/video (not by much though, most people can't tell much of a difference) but "a lot more" interactivity? I wholeheartedly disagree. Any examples?

Even the list prices NOW for both formats are very similar. BD is just not getting a larger discounted price when they're released.

Which is a big reason why the format is struggling.

Tracer Bullet
06-08-08, 01:36 PM
Actually, I looked through your posts to see where you stand on the issues you argue about as you never replied to this question:



For me to argue against your position I must know what your position is, and up until the last post you made here you were very clear that BR does not offer better usability yet you have not made it clear what more means to you. This was why Drexl made his initial comments and this is why RoboDad re-questioned you.

Anyhow, seeing how radically you changed your position on practically every single point you made, it is probably understandable why you can not answer.

Pro-B

I'm not trying to be offensive, but I don't think you understand the distinction I am making being functionality and usability. Functionality refers to the quality of presentation- audio/visual quality, primarily, but also refers to added features such as commentary tracks, special features, etc. Basically, the content portion of the format.

Usability refers to the physical properties of the format- size, ease-of-use, how one uses it, plays it, buys it, acquires it, keeps it. In thinking about this Blu-ray vs. DVD "battle" for a while now, it has become apparent to me that media formats succeed or fail based on usability, not functionality. Blu-ray clearly offers no advantage over DVD in usability.

B5Erik
06-08-08, 01:41 PM
I'm not trying to be offensive, but I don't think you understand the distinction I am making being functionality and usability. Functionality refers to the quality of presentation- audio/visual quality, primarily, but also refers to added features such as commentary tracks, special features, etc. Basically, the content portion of the format.

Usability refers to the physical properties of the format- size, ease-of-use, how one uses it, plays it, buys it, acquires it, keeps it. In thinking about this Blu-ray vs. DVD "battle" for a while now, it has become apparent to me that media formats succeed or fail based on usability, not functionality.
That would be true - if we weren't switching to a new TV format. But since we are in the early stages of a switch to High Def the old DVD's are noticeably deficient compared do Blu Rays when it comes to functionality.

Like with OAR, it will take a lot of educating the masses for them to really get the benefits of Blu Ray on an HDTV (which more and more people own every month), but as time goes on people will learn, they will see the difference, and they WILL want HD programming for their HDTV's that they paid a premium price for.

DVD is a digital medium based on a technology and a picture standard that was created before WWII. It will hang around for quite a while, but all that while Blu Ray will continue to grow.

Tracer Bullet
06-08-08, 02:03 PM
That would be true - if we weren't switching to a new TV format. But since we are in the early stages of a switch to High Def the old DVD's are noticeably deficient compared do Blu Rays when it comes to functionality.

Yes, and I've never said differently. However, I believe it doesn't matter. Media formats are not adopted because of functionality.

Like with OAR, it will take a lot of educating the masses for them to really get the benefits of Blu Ray on an HDTV (which more and more people own every month), but as time goes on people will learn, they will see the difference, and they WILL want HD programming for their HDTV's that they paid a premium price for.

This seems like magical thinking to me.

pro-bassoonist
06-08-08, 02:08 PM
I'm not trying to be offensive, but I don't think you understand the distinction I am making being functionality and usability. Functionality refers to the quality of presentation- audio/visual quality, primarily, but also refers to added features such as commentary tracks, special features, etc. Basically, the content portion of the format.

Usability refers to the physical properties of the format- size, ease-of-use, how one uses it, plays it, buys it, acquires it, keeps it. In thinking about this Blu-ray vs. DVD "battle" for a while now, it has become apparent to me that media formats succeed or fail based on usability, not functionality. Blu-ray clearly offers no advantage over DVD in usability.

Tracer, I understand perfectly what you wrote. The reason I went back through your posts is because I did not read a single comment clarifying what more in terms of usability BR could have offered? Your only to-the-point comments have been about functionality.

My question to you is: what more in terms of usability BR could have offered to separate itself from SDVD?

Pro-B

Tracer Bullet
06-08-08, 02:14 PM
Tracer, I understand perfectly what you wrote. The reason I went back through your posts is because I did not read a single comment clarifying what more in terms of usability BR could have offered? Your only to-the-point comments have been about functionality.

My question to you is: what more in terms of usability BR could have offered to separate itself from SDVD?

Pro-B

Nothing. It is basically DVD+. The same goes for HD DVD, as well.

Blu-ray does nothing to make it easier to watch a movie. That is what the average person cares about. Whatever the next home media format is, it is going to be more usable than DVD or Blu-ray and will make it easier to watch movies. And the next step in making it easier will be eliminating more of the effort of watching video.

Qui Gon Jim
06-08-08, 02:25 PM
The pricing is following exactly as DVD did. DVDs didn't drop down to $15 after 2 years of existence. BD and DVD both have very similar list prices during their first 2 years of existence. If you're expecting all BDs to drop down to the $15 area now, you'll be waiting for some time.

BD costs more to manufacture, and offers alot more in terms of audio/video quality and interactivity than dvd. Of course it's going to be priced higher.

Even the list prices NOW for both formats are very similar. BD is just not getting a larger discounted price when they're released.
DVD was the perfect storm. It hit at a time when the economy was good, it offered a paradigm shift in the playback and availability of films, and, most importantly IMO, it had no other delivery methods impeding its way.

BD does not have any of these luxuries. Just because DVD was successful does not necessarily mean that BD will follow suit.

B5Erik
06-08-08, 02:35 PM
DVD was the perfect storm. It hit at a time when the economy was good, it offered a paradigm shift in the playback and availability of films, and, most importantly IMO, it had no other delivery methods impeding its way.

BD does not have any of these luxuries. Just because DVD was successful does not necessarily mean that BD will follow suit.
No, but the shift to HD is certainly a strong indicator that another "Perfect Storm" is hitting, thanks to a little help from the government mandating digital broadcasts. The shift in TV standard is the first in 60 years (70, for all practical purposes, as the difference between pre-war and post-war TV's were negligable - although enough to make the pre-war TV's big paper weights once TV came back online after the war). Anyway - the shift in TV standards is a once in a lifetime thing, and it's happening now - just when Blu Ray needs it.

Standard DVD's look like crap on a lot of HDTV's. Blu Rays look incredible. People will see that.

Not everyone cares, but over time a large number of people will switch so that they can get High Def movies for their High Def TV's. And don't discount the, "Keeping up with the Joneses," factor. That will have a lot of people buying them just to have the latest and the coolest video equipment. A lot of people that can't afford HDTV and Blu Ray now will find those items at more affordable prices a year from now (and certainly 2 years from now).

Draven
06-08-08, 02:38 PM
That would be true - if we weren't switching to a new TV format. But since we are in the early stages of a switch to High Def the old DVD's are noticeably deficient compared do Blu Rays when it comes to functionality.

Like with OAR, it will take a lot of educating the masses for them to really get the benefits of Blu Ray on an HDTV (which more and more people own every month), but as time goes on people will learn, they will see the difference, and they WILL want HD programming for their HDTV's that they paid a premium price for.

DVD is a digital medium based on a technology and a picture standard that was created before WWII. It will hang around for quite a while, but all that while Blu Ray will continue to grow.

Most people who own HDTVs don't care about hi def content for those TVs. Why on earth do you think that's going to change? People are going to grow new eyes?

pro-bassoonist
06-08-08, 02:40 PM
Nothing. It is basically DVD+. The same goes for HD DVD, as well.

Blu-ray does nothing to make it easier to watch a movie. That is what the average person cares about. Whatever the next home media format is, it is going to be more usable than DVD or Blu-ray and will make it easier to watch movies. And the next step in making it easier will be eliminating more of the effort of watching video.

Thank you. This being said, the problem with your observation is that it is highly unlikely that there will be a next physical home media format. Not in a foreseeable future...given recent statements by those who are involved with the rental market for instance that DVD/BR business is on course to peak in the next 5-10 years, and those who control content dismissing VOD as a viable option.* With other words, if there is nothing that could have been improved in terms of usability then it is also highly unlikely that the disappointment you are so concerned with will force the average consumer to reject what the industry is set to promote.


*
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&entry_id=26852

Netflix: DVD business could peak in 5 to 10 years

Netflix's online DVD rental business could peak in five to 10 years, CEO Reed Hastings told investors Wednesday.

"Everybody peaks sometime," Hastings said in a brief interview. But "the DVD is a strong eco-system and Blu-ray is going to make it stronger."

The Los Gatos company expects eventually to shift its emphasis to streaming television shows and movies online. Last week, for instance, Roku, a startup, introduced a $99 set-top box that transfers video to the television, one of four expected Netflix-enabled set-top boxes to be introduced this year and next. Executives said they also hope the Netflix service will be incorporated into future game consoles, Internet-enabled televisions and high-definition DVD players.

Right now, Netflix offers about 10,000 titles online -- most of them older and independent films, and none so far in high-definition -- and said it hopes that studios will soon clear the rights to add more films to the mix.

But it added that it believes its model to offer combined online DVD rentals and a streaming service for a monthly fee will help pave the way as it competes against the likes of Apple, Amazon, YouTube and other Web sites and services.

Netflix is distinguishing itself by not depending on advertisements or fees to download the shows and films, executives said. Consumers also don't have to watch the videos during a limited time period.

Netflix said it could reach as many as 20 million subscribers through streaming. But it emphasized that it doesn't plan to introduce a stand-alone streaming service any time soon -- "We're a long way before we reach that point in time," said Netflix chief financial officer Barry McCarthy -- and that DVDs allow it to offer a full library.

Separately, Netflix executives also said that it expects to offer online streaming to Intel-based Mac computers this year. Currently, it is only available for Windows PCs.

And though it currently does not charge extra for rentals of next-generation Blu-ray DVDs, it is testing different prices for its high-definition offerings.

and...

**
http://www.tvpredictions.com/stringer060508.htm

Sony's Stringer: Downloads Can't Compete With Blu-ray

The electronics chief says the high-def disc is gaining steam.

By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (June 5, 2008) -- Sony CEO Howard Stringer says supporters of the Blu-ray high-def disc have nothing to worry about from digital downloads.

In fact, Stringer says downloads won't even be competitive in the United States.

“I don’t think in this country it’s going to be competitive,” Stringer told The New York Times in an article published today.

The executive explained that U.S. Broadband services are so slow that it can take 10-14 hours to download a high-def film over the Net. Americans will never have the patience for that, he argued, so Blu-ray should dominate the home video category.

“Blu-ray is really gathering momentum," he told The Times.

Of course, Stringer has cause to downplay downloads and praise Blu-ray. Sony is the main backer of the Blu-ray high-def disc.

Supporters of digital downloads, such as Microsoft, TiVo, Apple and NetFlix, contend that Broadband speeds will soon increase and eventually make even HD downloads fast and convenient.

To sum it all up and address the original topic for this thread: physical media and Blu-Ray will be here for quite a bit longer than many seem to believe.

Ciao,
Pro-B

Draven
06-08-08, 02:45 PM
No, but the shift to HD is certainly a strong indicator that another "Perfect Storm" is hitting, thanks to a little help from the government mandating digital broadcasts. The shift in TV standard is the first in 60 years (70, for all practical purposes, as the difference between pre-war and post-war TV's were negligable - although enough to make the pre-war TV's big paper weights once TV came back online after the war). Anyway - the shift in TV standards is a once in a lifetime thing, and it's happening now - just when Blu Ray needs it.

Standard DVD's look like crap on a lot of HDTV's. Blu Rays look incredible. People will see that.

Not everyone cares, but over time a large number of people will switch so that they can get High Def movies for their High Def TV's. And don't discount the, "Keeping up with the Joneses," factor. That will have a lot of people buying them just to have the latest and the coolest video equipment. A lot of people that can't afford HDTV and Blu Ray now will find those items at more affordable prices a year from now (and certainly 2 years from now).

What does the digital conversion have to do with hi-def movies?

Gizmo
06-08-08, 02:47 PM
What does the digital conversion have to do with hi-def movies?

Apparently it will force those 1% of people that are still using analog connections to go out and buy a HDTV which would then mean a guaranteed Blu-ray disc player purchase as well as 100 movies. :shrug:

Gizmo
06-08-08, 02:50 PM
Standard DVD's look like crap on a lot of HDTV's. Blu Rays look incredible. People will see that.

:lol:

You can't possibly mean that, right? A standard DVD with an upconverting player looks pretty damn good to most people hence the lackluster Blu-ray sales. How many people here at DVDTalk refuse to buy into Blu-ray because upconvertered DVD is good enough? Many of them were early adopters of DVD and see no need to spend $300-$700 for a BD player and then another $20-$35 to rebuy their favorite catalog titles (sans bonus features for many) in a Blue case.

B5Erik
06-08-08, 02:59 PM
:lol:

You can't possibly mean that, right? A standard DVD with an upconverting player looks pretty damn good to most people hence the lackluster Blu-ray sales. How many people here at DVDTalk refuse to buy into Blu-ray because upconvertered DVD is good enough? Many of them were early adopters of DVD and see no need to spend $300-$700 for a BD player and then another $20-$35 to rebuy their favorite catalog titles (sans bonus features for many) in a Blue case.
My in-laws have an HDTV and complain that the DVD's looked better on the old set. (They don't have an upconverting player, and they don't understand the difference.)

Not everyone who buys a new HDTV is going to buy an upconverting player when they are being encouraged by the sales rep to buy the Blu Ray player instead to get real HD on their HDTV.

And I was one of the people holding out against Blu Ray - until I actually compared Blu Ray to DVD. DVD is not good enough, not for me, anyway.

Mr. Cinema
06-08-08, 02:59 PM
Really? I'll give you audio/video (not by much though, most people can't tell much of a difference) but "a lot more" interactivity? I wholeheartedly disagree. Any examples?

Most people can't tell the difference between BD and dvd video? Really? Where did you conduct your polling?

How many dvd to BD comparisons have you made between titles regarding audio and video?

There is a DAY and NIGHT difference on many, many titles. The latest being There Will Be Blood. I can say that because I have watched the dvd and BD. The dvd is full of compression artifacts and has a completely lifeless color palette. The BD is easily superior. Not only is the image artifact free and crystal clear, but the colors are not washed out, as they are on dvd. It gets us as close to Paul Thomas Anderson's vision as possible.

Regarding interactivity, dvd cannot produce true picture-in-picture features, nor can it offer up online interactivity. Read up on the upcoming Sleeping Beauty BD.

Since dvd can only hold a puny 9 gb of information, it is severely limited in what it can offer.

Oh, you wanted examples of titles with interactivity: Rambo, V for Vendetta, Untraceable, Saw IV, 3:10 to Yuma, Resident Evil: Extinction, Sunshine, Pan's Labyrinth, and others. Once more BD Live players are introduced, we'll be seeing more and more features added. Batman Begins, The Mummy, The Mummy Returns, Vantage Point, Men in Black, Shrek the Third, Transformers, and other upcoming titles will also have interactive features.

What is disturbing to me is the fact that we have fans of movies who don't want to see their films with the best audio and video presentation available. Why is that? Are you a true movie fan?

If cost is the reason, that's fine. But simply saying you'd rather not see a movie as close to the director's intent as possible, that is really strange. To choose severely compressed video over high definition video is disturbing. To choose dolby digital 5.1 over LOSSLESS audio is disturbing.

B5Erik
06-08-08, 03:01 PM
What does the digital conversion have to do with hi-def movies?
Hmmmm... The broadcast TV industry along with TV manufacturers are using the digital conversion to also convert to HD.

Most TV's sold now are HDTV's. DVD is not HD, Blu Ray is HD.

Resistance is futile.

JTH182
06-08-08, 03:02 PM
Unfortunately DVD was just an intermediate format that just happened to become a phenomenon. HDTVs have been around for as long as DVDs, but it just happened that there were no kinds of physical medium that could hold a Hi-Def movie at the time. Step in the DVD.

Blu Ray is the heir apparent and will eventually just transition to the main format. Prices will come down and players and discs will become more available and viable. Eventually it will get to a point where it won't make sense to buy DVD when you can have a better experience for a small amount more. (I would argue for a lot of people that is already the case, and it's only gaining steam).

If anything I believe VOD will be the death of renting. Instead of renting you will just download for a fee. That's already happening. Ownership will continue to be the realm of physical media though.

For me, I don't rent movies and will only download if they are offered for free through Comcast. Otherwise I will buy a movie I really like, or wait for it to come on HBO if I don't care that much about it.

Mr. Cinema
06-08-08, 03:03 PM
So, basically VOD will complement physical disc content. Which is more realistic.
I think VOD will become the sole rental market, when it's READY. And by ready, I mean the infrastructure being able to handle everyone on my street downloading titles at blazing speeds at the same time and giving me the same audio/video quality that BD offers.

But, imo, it will not replace discs.

Mr. Cinema
06-08-08, 03:05 PM
Why do we have some members demanding that BD do what it took DVD years to do, which is put millions and millions of players in households and having titles available from $5-$15?

Draven
06-08-08, 03:11 PM
Most people can't tell the difference between BD and dvd video? Really? Where did you conduct your polling?

Pretty much anyone who I've ever talked to who doesn't frequent this forum can't really see a difference, unless you are talking about truly terrible DVD transfers. However, I know there are terrible BD transfers out there too.


What is disturbing to me is the fact that we have fans of movies who don't want to see their films with the best audio and video presentation available. Why is that? Are you a true movie fan?

At what point did I say I don't care about audio and video quality? I simply recognize that I am in no way, shape or form a typical consumer.


If cost is the reason, that's fine. But simply saying you'd rather not see a movie as close to the director's intent as possible, that is really strange. To choose severely compressed video over high definition video is disturbing. To choose dolby digital 5.1 over LOSSLESS audio is disturbing.

People like us aren't going to determine if the format will take over DVD. Few people care about these things. They want easy and cheap, and Blu Ray is neither.

I love HD content. Pretty much everything I watch is in HD if it can be. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to how abnormal that is.

Mr. Cinema
06-08-08, 03:14 PM
DVD was the perfect storm. It hit at a time when the economy was good, it offered a paradigm shift in the playback and availability of films, and, most importantly IMO, it had no other delivery methods impeding its way.

BD does not have any of these luxuries. Just because DVD was successful does not necessarily mean that BD will follow suit.
DVD was also not in a format war. And please don't say Divx was real competition. :)

BD disc sales are going up. If they weren't, then I would be worried. But they are increasing. And I believe one of Grubert's old posts had showed that they are close to mirroring DVD disc sales during the same time period of their life cycle. I believe year 3 is when DVD jumped to about 19 million discs sold, and that gave it the green light for mass adoption. BD is predicted to selling 15 million discs this year.

From what I've been reading, 2009 is the big push year. Being a huge movie fan, I am hoping it really takes off next year. Unfortunately, we do have members cheering for failure, which I will never understand. And we even have some who are demanding it meet high expectations right now, even though it's only June '08.

I think we need to see how BD can do with a Christmas all to itself and see if they get a big bump into the crucial 2009 year.

Mr. Cinema
06-08-08, 03:16 PM
People like us aren't going to determine if the format will take over DVD. Few people care about these things. They want easy and cheap, and Blu Ray is neither.

What is difficult about BD?

Regarding DVD being "easy and cheap", it was not so during its first 2 years of the format. Discs had retail prices of $29.99 - $34.99 and players were still over $200. Don't fall into the trap of comparing BD in year 2 vs DVD in year 11. That happens too often in this forum.

My reference about those not wanting the best video/audio quality was just me venting in general. :)

DarkestPhoenix
06-08-08, 03:22 PM
How would 4500p even be discernable to the human eye outside of a ridiculously large screen?

QFT

Gizmo
06-08-08, 03:28 PM
Hmmmm... The broadcast TV industry along with TV manufacturers are using the digital conversion to also convert to HD.

Most TV's sold now are HDTV's. DVD is not HD, Blu Ray is HD.

Resistance is futile.


Wow.

Draven
06-08-08, 03:48 PM
What is difficult about BD?


I suppose you could hook a Playstation 3 up with the included composite cables to a 19-inch TV, but most recommend a much more complicated setup.

Jay G.
06-08-08, 04:28 PM
I suppose you could hook a Playstation 3 up with the included composite cables to a 19-inch TV, but most recommend a much more complicated setup.
Most would recommend a much more complicated setup for DVD as well.

Jay G.
06-08-08, 04:30 PM
Apparently it will force those 1% of people that are still using analog connections to go out and buy a HDTV which would then mean a guaranteed Blu-ray disc player purchase as well as 100 movies.
Where did you get that statistic? I found a report that said that around 12% of TVs were used for analogue OTA in 2005:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25749-4-report-analog

lizard
06-08-08, 05:58 PM
What is difficult about BD?...Let's see...

• Firmware updates

• HDMI handshake issues

• Older players can't play certain features on newer discs; Profile 1.0 versus 1.1 versus 2.0

• Audio options: Bitstream? Not if one doesn't have an HDMI 1.3 receiver with decoding. And even if one does, what about the secondary audio tracks? Nope. Doesn't work. Lossless? Not if one uses the S/PDIF optical/coax connection. Analog? Not if the player can't decode the lossless codecs, even if it does have analog outputs, which many players don't. And just what IS the difference between DD, DTS, DD+, PCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD HR, and DTS-HD MA?

• Video options: 720p, 768p, 480i, 480p, 1080i, 1080p, 1080p/24

• Upscaling of DVDs is constrained over component. And what's the difference between component and HDMI anyway?

• How come my player won't remember where I stopped the disc when I start it up again like my DVD player did?


Yeah, this stuff is really simple... for you and me and the rest of us who hang out here. For others though, it's more like this:


WTF?! I just want to watch a damn movie!

DVD Polizei
06-08-08, 07:07 PM
A few answers to some of your questions.

I agree, most people don't give a crap about the different audio formats and could care less what they are. In fact, I'd even bet with all these audio formats and cute names, most consumers couldn't tell the difference between a DD 5.1 mix and a DTS-MA mix. Reason? The movie itself.

HDMI delivers the same video quality as Component, only it adds audio cables as well, into one nice "convenient" package. Of course, this convenient package was created to control consumer viewing, and to force paying consumers to spend more money on hardware.

Resume play is an issue because of the disc itself. Some Blu-ray players support resume play on some discs. So, it's a double obstacle. You have to find the right Blu-ray player, and even if you do, only certain discs allow resume play.

RoboDad
06-08-08, 07:14 PM
I have never, ever heard of a content provider having the ability to revoke past licensed purchases, even when the content switched hands or the distributor, (like iTunes) loses distribution rights. This simply does not and will not happen. Once you own it, you own it. The problem of licensing only come up currently if you lose the content or the license info due to hardware or software failure.
We've never heard of it, be cause VOD is still in its infancy. Distributor licenses for films have been revoked or renegotiated when studios have sold content . Not necessarily immediately, but through other means. It happens. And with VOD, it will continue to happen. Only now it can happen with a license you or I purchase. I have no doubt that the contracts consumers "sign" with VOD distributors and those that VOD distributors sign with the studios will all have clauses that protect the studios at the expense of the distributors and the consumer.
Good point, although you can replace the word "VOD" with "DVD" or "Blu-ray" and it's essentially the same: if the disc you purchased eventually fails to play anymore, which can and does happen in numerous documented cases, you don't get that content back without repurchasing it. At least with downloaded content, the content providers typically allow the making of backup copies.
The obvious flaw in your argument is that with traditional physical media, barring some form of natural catastrophe, it is ridiculously unlikely that you will lose an entire movie collection in one fell swoop. In the case of downloads, one crashed drive could be the end of a collection. Backups? Yeah, I'm sure everyone will be doing that with their 1 TB drives. Just like the way everyone backs up their PC hard drives today.

I think it is far too soon in the life of VOD/downloads to say what is "typical". There aren't enough players, and the customer base is far too small to be able to say how the various services will look in five years. The one thing that I think it is safe to assume is that it won't be very similar to the music download model.

darkside
06-08-08, 08:10 PM
WTF?! I just want to watch a damn movie!
This seems to be an issue with people I have talked with. I had one coworker that decided to get a BD player and after talking to a Best Buy employee for 15 minutes they decided on an upconverting standard DVD player. The talk of firmware updates, different players have different capabilities depending on profile support or audio codec support completely turned them off. They want to put in a disc and have it work. They don't want to deal with updating the player or not having the player work with certain content or having discs take minutes to load. They just want to pop in a disc and watch a movie.

Stuff like this probably guarantees that BD never reaches the success level DVD has achieved.

DVD Polizei
06-08-08, 08:16 PM
Yep. Which is why I preferred HD DVD. :D

In any case, I'd say Blu-ray will eventually get its kinks worked out within a year as long as more different profiles aren't made in such as small timeframe, and the Blu-ray Forum or whoever they are, can get their standards realized instead of looking like a dumb blonde who can't chew bubblegum and walk at the same time.

PopcornTreeCt
06-08-08, 08:58 PM
Netflix: DVD business could peak in 5 to 10 years

Netflix's online DVD rental business could peak in five to 10 years, CEO Reed Hastings told investors Wednesday.

"Everybody peaks sometime," Hastings said in a brief interview. But "the DVD is a strong eco-system and Blu-ray is going to make it stronger."

The Los Gatos company expects eventually to shift its emphasis to streaming television shows and movies online.Last week, for instance, Roku, a startup, introduced a $99 set-top box that transfers video to the television, one of four expected Netflix-enabled set-top boxes to be introduced this year and next. Executives said they also hope the Netflix service will be incorporated into future game consoles, Internet-enabled televisions and high-definition DVD players.

Right now, Netflix offers about 10,000 titles online -- most of them older and independent films, and none so far in high-definition -- and said it hopes that studios will soon clear the rights to add more films to the mix.

But it added that it believes its model to offer combined online DVD rentals and a streaming service for a monthly fee will help pave the way as it competes against the likes of Apple, Amazon, YouTube and other Web sites and services.

Netflix is distinguishing itself by not depending on advertisements or fees to download the shows and films, executives said. Consumers also don't have to watch the videos during a limited time period.

Netflix said it could reach as many as 20 million subscribers through streaming. But it emphasized that it doesn't plan to introduce a stand-alone streaming service any time soon -- "We're a long way before we reach that point in time," said Netflix chief financial officer Barry McCarthy -- and that DVDs allow it to offer a full library.

Separately, Netflix executives also said that it expects to offer online streaming to Intel-based Mac computers this year. Currently, it is only available for Windows PCs.

And though it currently does not charge extra for rentals of next-generation Blu-ray DVDs, it is testing different prices for its high-definition offerings.


Please explain to me how DVDs haven't already peaked when they keep making less money than the previous year.

I don't think downloads will ever overtake DVDs but they will be the death of Blu-ray, because Blu-ray is already niche as it is.

DVD Polizei
06-08-08, 09:36 PM
I didn't post that. In any case, have DVDs really peaked? The last 3 or so years we've seen prices drop, while more individuals start their DVD collections at younger ages. Hell, I think the first 10 years of DVD made the foundation for the next 10 years of DVD to really take off at low prices, allowing for more discs to be owned per individual.

Jay G.
06-08-08, 09:37 PM
We've never heard of it, be cause VOD is still in its infancy. Distributor licenses for films have been revoked or renegotiated when studios have sold content . Not necessarily immediately, but through other means. It happens. And with VOD, it will continue to happen. Only now it can happen with a license you or I purchase.
downloaded videos may be in its infancy, but downloaded music is several years on in its lifespan, and nothing like that has happened as far as I know. iTunes no doubt has lost licenses for some albums, or even whole artists and labels. However, the people that downloaded the no-longer-available tracks are still able to play their copies with no problem. It's a purchase, and no studio is going to go and revoke individual purchases anymore than they go around and take back all the purchased CDs/DVDs if a distributor loses licensing to a title. That distributor was authorized to sell that title for a specific time period, and any purchases made in that time period are still legitimate purchases after the time period has passed.

Brad Hood
06-09-08, 06:59 AM
I don't think downloads will ever overtake DVDs but they will be the death of Blu-ray, because Blu-ray is already niche as it is.

I don't think you can claim that the format is a niche when it's still in it's infancy. The format war just ended. Give it a couple more years; if it hasn't caught fire, then it's a niche format.

Qui Gon Jim
06-09-08, 08:40 AM
DVD was also not in a format war. And please don't say Divx was real competition. :)

BD disc sales are going up. If they weren't, then I would be worried. But they are increasing. And I believe one of Grubert's old posts had showed that they are close to mirroring DVD disc sales during the same time period of their life cycle. I believe year 3 is when DVD jumped to about 19 million discs sold, and that gave it the green light for mass adoption. BD is predicted to selling 15 million discs this year.

From what I've been reading, 2009 is the big push year. Being a huge movie fan, I am hoping it really takes off next year. Unfortunately, we do have members cheering for failure, which I will never understand. And we even have some who are demanding it meet high expectations right now, even though it's only June '08.

I think we need to see how BD can do with a Christmas all to itself and see if they get a big bump into the crucial 2009 year.

DIVX absolutley was co0mpetition for DVD. There were studio holdouts, and retailers picking sides. A lot of ways it was like BD v. HD DVD.

Is anyone surprised that BD is tracking similar to DVD in its early years? We are talking about the same early adopters that got into DVD in its inception phase.

What some are questioning is BDs ability to make the jump to the "next level" of consumer acceptance. Just because DVD sold 10M copies in two years and so did BD does not mean that in 10 years BD sales will be where DVD sales are.

Or it could be.

Time will tell, but there are some that talk like BD is already this rousing success, but it isn't. Yet.

RichC2
06-09-08, 08:45 AM
Similarly, there are some that talk like BD has already lost the chance of mass appeal, but it hasn't. Yet.

Tracer Bullet
06-09-08, 09:40 AM
Thank you. This being said, the problem with your observation is that it is highly unlikely that there will be a next physical home media format. Not in a foreseeable future...given recent statements by those who are involved with the rental market for instance that DVD/BR business is on course to peak in the next 5-10 years, and those who control content dismissing VOD as a viable option.

I think this is correct, but it really has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. The next widely adopted "format" (physical or not) will have better usability than DVD.

With other words, if there is nothing that could have been improved in terms of usability then it is also highly unlikely that the disappointment you are so concerned with will force the average consumer to reject what the industry is set to promote.

I don't see why not. No one is forced to buy a Blu-ray player. History is littered with failed products that were pushed by companies.

The Bus
06-09-08, 10:11 AM
No, it may complement Blu Ray, but it won't "destroy" it.

I meant more "destroy" in terms of usability.

Turning on the computer, downloading the movie into your portable video player, hooking said player up to the bedroom TV - that will take more time than a lot of people will be willing to spend. It's a lot easier just to put the Blu Ray disc into the player already in your bedroom that's already hooked up to the TV.

No, I'd need to get my keys, go into my car, drive to the store, pay for the Blu-ray disc, then I can play it. I mean, if we're going to have the full comparison here.

VOD is far from prime-time. If someone can do it correctly, then it will become very popular. Right now we've got tech that was a pipe dream only ten years ago. In ten years, hopefully it will be ready.

pro-bassoonist
06-09-08, 01:05 PM
I think this is correct, but it really has nothing to do with what I've been talking about. The next widely adopted "format" (physical or not) will have better usability than DVD.

Actually, it has everything to do with what you said, or to be more precise, with what you failed to address. You don't know what can be improved in terms of usability yet you keep referring to it as the selling point for the next mass format. That is why I questioned you repeatedly. Yet, on the factual side of things those who are involved in the business appear certain that such mass substitute isn't on the horizon, physical format or not.


I don't see why not. No one is forced to buy a Blu-ray player. History is littered with failed products that were pushed by companies.

No one was forced to buy a DVD player either but when the technology was agreed upon by the studios and retailers there was very little doubt that it would be a success. Therefore, looking at the 5-10 year curve noted as the most likely period when physical media is likely to peak gives me a good reason to believe that the "next" big thing is somewhere in the very, very distant future.

Pro-B

lizard
06-09-08, 01:09 PM
A few answers to some of your questions.

I agree, most people don't give a crap about the different audio formats and could care less what they are. In fact, I'd even bet with all these audio formats and cute names, most consumers couldn't tell the difference between a DD 5.1 mix and a DTS-MA mix. Reason? The movie itself.

HDMI delivers the same video quality as Component, only it adds audio cables as well, into one nice "convenient" package. Of course, this convenient package was created to control consumer viewing, and to force paying consumers to spend more money on hardware.

Resume play is an issue because of the disc itself. Some Blu-ray players support resume play on some discs. So, it's a double obstacle. You have to find the right Blu-ray player, and even if you do, only certain discs allow resume play.My questions were rhetorical and intended to present some of the complications of the Blu-ray Disc format as seen by an average consumer. I am quite familiar with the answers to all of them, having been "here" since this forum was a thread in the main DVD Talk forum.

I disagree about the position memory ("resume play") stuff. I believe that the CE manufacturers could implement a PM solution that was independent of disc flags and the like, but they choose not to. Perhaps there is some clause in the BD licensing agreement that prevents them from doing it. Whatever the reason, it is one of those annoying little things that makes me wonder what the designers of the BD format were thinking. How could they be that stupid not to have PM as a mandatory feature of the format?

Yes, it is just a little thing, but it demonstrates to me how half-baked the format is.

RoboDad
06-09-08, 01:26 PM
DIVX absolutley was co0mpetition for DVD. There were studio holdouts, and retailers picking sides. A lot of ways it was like BD v. HD DVD.
I know what you are trying to say, but I have to disagree (at least to a point). Yes, Divx was intended to be competition for DVD, but it failed to achieve any kind of critical mass, so it never really offered any real competition. The number of players and discs sold for that format paled in comparison to DVD. The fact that it really only lasted a year is proof of that.

Is anyone surprised that BD is tracking similar to DVD in its early years? We are talking about the same early adopters that got into DVD in its inception phase.

What some are questioning is BDs ability to make the jump to the "next level" of consumer acceptance. Just because DVD sold 10M copies in two years and so did BD does not mean that in 10 years BD sales will be where DVD sales are.

Or it could be.

Time will tell, but there are some that talk like BD is already this rousing success, but it isn't. Yet.
If that's how anything I have said has come across, then I apologize for that. I don't think Blu-ray is a rousing success today. But, I have yet to see anything in its progress that is significantly different than the way DVD developed, so I have every reason to expect it to continue to follow that same rate of adoption. So, I don't view it as a dismal failure, either.

That's the thing I don't get. The rollout of Blu-ray is tracking with the DVD rollout so closely it is amazing (even including the recent expansion/promotion at Walmart). Maybe the logical thing to do is to see how it continues to develop, and see if it can make the next "jump". The fact that it hasn't done so already doesn't mean that it can't, or won't, but many seem to be talking as if that were the case.

Tracer Bullet
06-09-08, 01:33 PM
Actually, it has everything to do with what you said, or to be more precise, with what you failed to address. You don't know what can be improved in terms of usability yet you keep referring to it as the selling point for the next mass format. That is why I questioned you repeatedly. Yet, on the factual side of things those who are involved in the business appear certain that such mass substitute isn't on the horizon, physical format or not.

It is not incumbent on me to say exactly what would make the next delivery method more usable, but one example that comes readily to mind is instantaneous access.

And usability is not the "selling point" of the "next format", it is what has made every widely-adopted media format successful. It's the reason why Laserdisc, DVD-Audio, Minidisc, etc. did not succeed.



No one was forced to buy a DVD player either but when the technology was agreed upon by the studios and retailers there was very little doubt that it would be a success. Therefore, looking at the 5-10 year curve noted as the most likely period when physical media is likely to peak gives me a good reason to believe that the "next" big thing is somewhere in the very, very distant future.

DVD succeeded because it was noticeably more usable than VHS tapes. It had nothing to do with studios pushing the format. People don't go out and blindly buy whatever big corporations tell them to. As I said, history is littered with failed formats that their backers wanted terribly to succeed.

Qui Gon Jim
06-09-08, 01:46 PM
Actually, it has everything to do with what you said, or to be more precise, with what you failed to address. You don't know what can be improved in terms of usability yet you keep referring to it as the selling point for the next mass format.

Perhaps that "what" hasn't been discovered yet. He did define it as something that streamlines the ease of use.


No one was forced to buy a DVD player either but when the technology was agreed upon by the studios and retailers there was very little doubt that it would be a success.

Define success. Laserdisc was a successful format. If BD attains the longevity and penetration that LD did is it a success? No consumer CE product save the television and radio has been as proliferated as the DVD. What evidence is there that BD will rise to even greater heights when DVD itself is plateauing/declining?

RoboDad
06-09-08, 01:58 PM
Define success. Laserdisc was a successful format. If BD attains the longevity and penetration that LD did is it a success? No consumer CE product save the television and radio has been as proliferated as the DVD. What evidence is there that BD will rise to even greater heights when DVD itself is plateauing/declining?
VHS is/was as successful as DVD, as a technology. The number of VHS recorders/players sold is staggering. But it never achieved the same level of success for pre-recorded media as DVD. Although, much of the reason for that was the pricing structure that was established from day one for DVD, courtesy of Warren Lieberfarb.

pro-bassoonist
06-09-08, 02:08 PM
Perhaps that "what" hasn't been discovered yet. He did define it as something that streamlines the ease of use.


Then there is very little to be concerned about, as this thread partially implies, that what we have currently at hand isn't going to be around for quite some time. I find it hard to believe that something which has not been discovered yet will spell the death of physical mass media formats in a near future.

Pro-B

pro-bassoonist
06-09-08, 02:34 PM
DVD succeeded because it was noticeably more usable than VHS tapes. It had nothing to do with studios pushing the format. People don't go out and blindly buy whatever big corporations tell them to. As I said, history is littered with failed formats that their backers wanted terribly to succeed.

The above observation goes very much against what you have been arguing on this forum for quite some time now. I don't believe for a second that VOD, which is by all means the closest competitor physical medial might have, is going to provide noticeably better usability options. Other than improved delivery, which according to numerous sources America will have a difficult time coping with in a possible mass market given that the infrastructure for it is simply unavailable hence more than likely demanding massive investments, I don't see another fundamental improvement VOD can offer. If anything it is very likely that it will eliminate a lot of the options people nowadays factor in when they decide to purchase and own a film (improved transfers, added bonus features, collectible coverwork, etc). Add to that the security issues which the studios will face allowing worldwide access to their HD libraries, something parties such as Fox are notorious for having issues with, and I not only believe that VOD isn't a credible threat for physical media in a foreseeable future (perhaps as DVDPolizei mentioned it will end up being a tiny complimentary option only) but also find it very unlikely that VOD will unify and entice the studios to have their entire libraries at the fingertips of dedicated pirates...forcing them, the majors, to destroy BR.

The likelihood of having another mass physical format...it isn't even serious to debate that such will be adopted by the studios in a very, very distant future.

Pro-B

pro-bassoonist
06-09-08, 02:48 PM
Please explain to me how DVDs haven't already peaked when they keep making less money than the previous year.


Peak has to do with volume/traffic. The making money part has nothing to do with it. This should be rather obvious.

Pro-B

Tracer Bullet
06-09-08, 02:48 PM
The above observation goes very much against what you have been arguing on this forum for quite some time now.

I've already said I changed my mind on this issue, but I haven't made some sort of 180-degree switch. :hscratch:

kefrank
06-09-08, 02:59 PM
And usability is not the "selling point" of the "next format", it is what has made every widely-adopted media format successful. It's the reason why Laserdisc, DVD-Audio, Minidisc, etc. did not succeed.
Those are not very good examples. Laserdisc was a success - not a DVD-level success, but it certainly made a lot of people a lot of money over the course of a good number of years. Minidisc did have usability advantages over CD, but it was not a success. It provided the same sound quality and usability of digital audio, in addition to being smaller, more durable and more easily recordable. Clearly, what you call lack of usability was not the reason minidisc failed.

DVD succeeded because it was noticeably more usable than VHS tapes. It had nothing to do with studios pushing the format. People don't go out and blindly buy whatever big corporations tell them to. As I said, history is littered with failed formats that their backers wanted terribly to succeed.
I think this is a gross oversimplification. You're telling me marketing had nothing to do with the success of DVD? That's extremely naive. DVD's usability was certainly a factor in its overtaking of VHS, but so too was the marketing push and collective backing from a number of corporations. Your "failed formats" argument is a red herring. Just because "history is littered with failed formats that their backers wanted terribly to succeed" does not mean their backers marketed those products effectively or that there weren't other factors involved in those failed formats besides usability.

In order to support your assertion, you'd have to show that all successful formats succeeded strictly because of their usability. Laserdisc already puts a hole in your assertion, because it was a viable, financially-successful format that according to you, had about the same level of usability as the existing alternative (VHS).

I don't think anyone here necessarily expects Blu-ray to be a success like DVD was. DVD was more than a success. It completely transformed the home video market. Blu-ray is simply looking to fill in the market that DVD created, and so far, it is well on its way to meeting those expectations. It does not have to completely eliminate DVD from the market to be a success. Additionally, there is potential for some significant usability advantages with BD-Live technology, so don't count it out yet on the basis of your usability criteria.

pro-bassoonist
06-09-08, 03:35 PM
I don't think anyone here necessarily expects Blu-ray to be a success like DVD was. DVD was more than a success. It completely transformed the home video market. Blu-ray is simply looking to fill in the market that DVD created, and so far, it is well on its way to meeting those expectations. It does not have to completely eliminate DVD from the market to be a success. Additionally, there is potential for some significant usability advantages with BD-Live technology, so don't count it out yet on the basis of your usability criteria.

:up:

Pro-B

Tracer Bullet
06-09-08, 03:45 PM
Those are not very good examples. Laserdisc was a success - not a DVD-level success, but it certainly made a lot of people a lot of money over the course of a good number of years.

Sure it did, but it was never a widely-adopted consumer format. That is what we are discussing here.

Minidisc did have usability advantages over CD, but it was not a success. It provided the same sound quality and usability of digital audio, in addition to being smaller, more durable and more easily recordable. Clearly, what you call lack of usability was not the reason minidisc failed.

But were the advantages/differences enough to supplant CDs? Obviously not. I'm not sure a smaller size inherently improves usability.

In order to support your assertion, you'd have to show that all successful formats succeeded strictly because of their usability. Laserdisc already puts a hole in your assertion, because it was a viable, financially-successful format that according to you, had about the same level of usability as the existing alternative (VHS).

What did laserdisc offer that VHS did not? Better quality. In what area was laserdisc successful? The niche enthusiast market. This is not a coincidence.

kefrank
06-09-08, 04:37 PM
Sure it did, but it was never a widely-adopted consumer format. That is what we are discussing here.
is it? i don't want to delve into the pit of semantics too much here, but what constitutes "widely-adopted"? your claims about success or failure depend on a well-defined standard, which i have not yet read.

But were the advantages/differences enough to supplant CDs? Obviously not. I'm not sure a smaller size inherently improves usability.
in the CE world, i think we can safely say that a smaller form factor has been shown to be a desired usability advantage and just one of multiple advantages that minidisc had. additionally, you're not doing anything to back up your claim. if i point to a product with usability advantages that didn't succeed, you will simply state those usability advantages were not enough. if a product succeeded, the usability advantages were enough. these statements are not evidence of your premise, they are developed from your premise that usability is the only factor that matters. you still haven't shown where that premise was developed from in any way.

What did laserdisc offer that VHS did not? Better quality. In what area was laserdisc successful? The niche enthusiast market. This is not a coincidence.
this is both a deflection and a reversal of your take that laserdisc failed. you still have not done what is necessary to support your assertion, which would be to provide some evidence that all successful (however you're defining that) formats succeeded strictly because of their usability, which also requires you to provide evidence that other factors, such as marketing, had absolutely no bearing at all.

The Bus
06-09-08, 05:45 PM
Minidisc (until very recently) did not have CD quality audio.

B5Erik
06-09-08, 10:19 PM
Minidisc (until very recently) did not have CD quality audio.
No, but Minidisc is damned cool! (And the sound quality is pretty darned good.) I love the editing features of Minidisc. It would have been the perfect replacement for audio cassettes.

GreenMonkey
06-09-08, 10:28 PM
What did laserdisc offer that VHS did not? Better quality. In what area was laserdisc successful? The niche enthusiast market. This is not a coincidence.

I'm with Tracer on most of what he is saying.

The combination... lack of extra utility over DVD, expensive equipment requirement (HDTV), and marginal improvement (for the average consumer running a 32"-42" screen at 8-12 feet)...

A niche like Laserdisc. That said, home theater is more popular these days, and Sony shoved blu-ray into the PS3, so it's going to be a big fat niche - good for us.

I've never expected to see people changing over from DVD in droves, and I've yet to see any evidence to suggest it will happen.

That said, Sharp thinks the biggest selling screen will be 60" by 2015, so maybe when displays start getting bigger you'll see some movement.

Pookymeister
06-09-08, 11:03 PM
May have already been posted - but downloads overtaking physical Blu-ray media won't be happening until broadband opens up.
With companies like Time Warner still experimenting with limiting users to less than 5gb a month and charging $2 per gig over that - hi-def media downloads will be a while coming.

DVD Polizei
06-10-08, 01:02 AM
My questions were rhetorical and intended to present some of the complications of the Blu-ray Disc format as seen by an average consumer. I am quite familiar with the answers to all of them, having been "here" since this forum was a thread in the main DVD Talk forum.

I disagree about the position memory ("resume play") stuff. I believe that the CE manufacturers could implement a PM solution that was independent of disc flags and the like, but they choose not to. Perhaps there is some clause in the BD licensing agreement that prevents them from doing it. Whatever the reason, it is one of those annoying little things that makes me wonder what the designers of the BD format were thinking. How could they be that stupid not to have PM as a mandatory feature of the format?

Yes, it is just a little thing, but it demonstrates to me how half-baked the format is.

Well ok, I'm glad you clarified yourself. Because the average Blu-ray inquirer wouldn't have noticed your rhetorical debate and would have wondered why nobody responded. :)

Of course Blu-ray isn't perfect. Neither was DVD when it first came out. Flippers and Snappers bugged the shit outta me. Then came better quality transfers. Hell, we still get remastered editions on DVD which are decades overdue.

HD DVD didn't allow resume play, either, if you recall, so it's not just Blu-ray which has this problem.

There are theories which range from wanting you to see the previews again to being a multi-layered chaotic mess if resume was implemented. I can understand both possibilities. But probably, it comes down to a lack of standardization from studio to studio.

For my own resume play fix, I simply click back on the chapter where I last left off. It's stupid, but I'll have to say I will do that and have the chance of watching an awesome picture in HD, versus having resume on a lower-res DVD movie.

Brad Hood
06-10-08, 05:18 PM
I'm with Tracer on most of what he is saying.

The combination... lack of extra utility over DVD, expensive equipment requirement (HDTV), and marginal improvement (for the average consumer running a 32"-42" screen at 8-12 feet)...

A niche like Laserdisc. That said, home theater is more popular these days, and Sony shoved blu-ray into the PS3, so it's going to be a big fat niche - good for us.

I've never expected to see people changing over from DVD in droves, and I've yet to see any evidence to suggest it will happen.

That said, Sharp thinks the biggest selling screen will be 60" by 2015, so maybe when displays start getting bigger you'll see some movement.

I agree to a point, BUT, virtually every TV sold from this point forward will be an HDTV thanks to the broadcast conversion AND Blu-ray has one advantage that Laserdisc did not, backward compatibility. I can definitely see J6P upgrading to a Blu-ray player when his DVD player buys the farm, especially after prices come down.

As an aside, I don't recall ever seeing Laserdisc, DVD-A, prerecorded Minidiscs, et al at Walmart. Just having the retail space is a start.

lizard
06-10-08, 05:43 PM
For my own resume play fix, I simply click back on the chapter where I last left off. It's stupid, but I'll have to say I will do that and have the chance of watching an awesome picture in HD, versus having resume on a lower-res DVD movie.In addition to the resume play when stopped, that you mention, I was hoping that the BD designers would enable the position memory function of many DVD players, so that when the player is turned on again with a disc already inside, it resumes where last stopped. This is especially useful for TV on DVD since one can queue up the next episode and the player will start right up there the next time the player is turned on, and skip all the boot screens and menu stuff.

I also had a player (Panasonic) that would remember positions on five different discs and resume play at that point whenever that disc was inserted. This was useful for putting together a demo program for visitors. It worked with most but not all DVDs, so it appeared to be flag dependent.

They can do this stuff with DVD but can't be bothered to do it with the new super-duper whiz-bang Blu-ray Disc format?

namja
06-10-08, 07:09 PM
I don't see Blu-ray becoming outdated for at least 10 years. Same with DVD. And CD. It will be a long time before CD becomes truly outdated because people hear very little difference between a CD and whatever is "better" than CD quality. Same with Blu-ray. Most people won't be able to see the difference between Blu-ray and whatever is "better" in quality (1440, 2160, 4k) unless they are sitting in front of a 70"+ TV. Heck, most people don't even see the difference between upconverted DVD and true HD on 42" TVs. And DVD will stick around for a long time because they are cheap/ubiquitous. The only way to make DVD outdated is if BD becomes as cheap as DVD (both the players and the media).

Downloads will become the next "in" thing in 7-10 years when we get reliable 50 mbps Internet speeds. As previously mentioned (in another thread, a while ago), Korea & Japan already have those speeds now, and I can't imagine us not catching up to them in 7-10 years. When downloading HDMs becomes as easy as downloading MP3s now, I imagine the physical media will take a hit. But outdated? No. CD sales have taken a big hit as a result of MP3 downloads but they certainly are not "outdated" by any means.

Spiderbite
06-10-08, 08:01 PM
Well, some of you guys (and the $100 GC at Wal-mart) convinced me. I am a strong believer that downloads will be the future but at the same time, I am old school and do like having hard copies of the things I love.

I was going to wait and see where it all panned out but since I canceled all my HD cable in the last few months and HD-DVD died...I was going thru HD withdrawals and was in denial. I fucking hate that I have to support Sony but there is no other way unless I wait several more years for a different physical format (if that even comes) or for downloads to get their shit together.

I think boxes like the Roku Netflix box is the future but there is no timetable on when they will be HD and then you never know what content will and won't be approved for use. I love that the 360 can download HD movies but I refuse to pay 5 bucks for a rental that disappears in a few days or weeks. I love Netflix because I can watch my fill for a fixed price and plan to just stick with them for my BR needs (even if they decide to charge a little extra).

So I went and bought a PS3 yesterday and plan to use it strictly for BR. Can you believe the damn thing doesn't even include component cables in the box??? But that is another topic.

But this time I will not fall into the DVD pitfall of buying movies constantly only to want the bigger and better edition that is released a year or two later. I am going to stick to rentals only this time and will only buy movies that I feel I HAVE to own (which I am going to severely limit...but then I will either buy them new/used for 10 to 12 bucks. I got to where I would have unwrapped movies on the shelf which is silly. I still tend to only find the time to actually watch the ones that come thru Netflix while the ones I buy just sit and collect dust.

I got my first taste last night. Borrowed I Am Legend from a friend. Crummy movie but the picture looked damn good. :)

Drexl
06-10-08, 08:06 PM
Congratulations, brianluvbd. :)

Yeah, the composite-only thing is really looking silly in this day and age for consoles, and I consider good cables a requirement now. Then again, what do they include? Some want HDMI, some need component. Including both would be kind of a waste.

Spiderbite
06-10-08, 10:08 PM
Congratulations, brianluvbd. :)

Yeah, the composite-only thing is really looking silly in this day and age for consoles, and I consider good cables a requirement now. Then again, what do they include? Some want HDMI, some need component. Including both would be kind of a waste.

It's funny you mentioned that name. It was cool and unique when I registered it near 10 years ago. Guess I am stuck with it. Ugh.

I would say they need a minimum of component cables included. They cost nothing nowadays and for a product that ties iteself so closely to High Definition, including just composite cables is pretty retarded.

mphtrilogy
06-11-08, 03:26 PM
Most people think 1080p is the best that video will ever be... We'll from what I've heard true HD is around 4500p. So my question is Blu Ray going to be around for at least 10 years or are we likely to see an ultra HD player in a couple of years? I'd like to upgrade my favorite dvds to Blue Ray but that's around 500 and I don't want to spend all of that doe just to have to upgrade yet again a couple years down the road.

I have over 2000 dvds, and just got a Blu-Ray PS3 player.

I will buy a "few" of my faves again in Blue-Ray, but no way am I going to replicate a huge #. I will rely on an upconverting player for that.

New movies going forward will primarily be Blu-Ray though.

RichC2
06-11-08, 04:10 PM
It's funny you mentioned that name. It was cool and unique when I registered it near 10 years ago. Guess I am stuck with it. Ugh.

I would say they need a minimum of component cables included. They cost nothing nowadays and for a product that ties iteself so closely to High Definition, including just composite cables is pretty retarded.

Agreed. Microsoft worked it out (Composite/Component hybrid), why couldn't Sony? Cutting costs, but ah well, got over that one pretty quick, especially since my PS2 component cables worked with it.

BD will be out of date in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds. So around July 9th, at around 10:52:50 PM EST. Yeeeah, my nerd moment for today.

cerial442
06-12-08, 01:03 AM
I will buy a "few" of my faves again in Blue-Ray, but no way am I going to replicate a huge #. I will rely on an upconverting player for that.

New movies going forward will primarily be Blu-Ray though.

Thats my stance on it. Upconverted DVDs don't look as good as Blu-Ray movies, but they still look good.

darkside
06-12-08, 01:22 AM
Thats my stance on it. Upconverted DVDs don't look as good as Blu-Ray movies, but they still look good.
I replaced more than I thought I would with all the good deals last year, but I have slowed way down this year. I'm trying to buy BD going forward for new movies, but I'm only replacing DVDs going forward if it is a real favorite. If we start getting more deals where disc prices get around $10 I may start replacing more, but I don't see too many of those deals anytime soon.

I totally agree BD looks better than DVD, but DVD is hardly unwatchable. Both my PS3 and LG BH200 do a very solid job of upconverting DVDs.