Mr. Cinema

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

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

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 Meaning 1080p is probably the best we'll see for a while, meaning Blu-Rays shouldn't get outdated for sometime.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

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

Dvd has been around for a good 10 years...I'd say Blu-ray will do the same.

Jon2

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 SD became outdated as soon as HD entered the arena. Just like VHS became outdated when DVD entered the arena.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

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

This is one of the best passages ever posted in this forum. Well said.

Mr. Cinema

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You forgot records

Tracer Bullet

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.

And I said:

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.

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.


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

RichC2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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