or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (2008)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (2008) - Page 64

post #2521 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

When I bring up the question of bandwidth and HD movies clogging up the web they say : " We'll have a better internet then ". Well this is also years away because there's lots of fiber optic cable to be laid. Some say the web in it's current form is at the top of the traffic it can handle right now.

this would be the same web that had 4 deep sea cables cut recently, and we hardly noticed a blip after about a week, because data was re-routed.

tell me, have those cables been fixed/re-laid yet?

the movie download FUD you are spouting is the same churn of crap that the music studios spewed 5-10 years ago.. oh noes the intertubes won't be able to cope.

Gee 5-10 years eh? you think we might lay some more cable by then?

theres this place on the intertubes called the iTunes music store, you may have heard of it, its up and running, along with countless other websites, all saturating the wires with noughts and ones.

the world is still turning.

go back to your cave.

it will be dark soon, and you might want to light the fire to keep the Fear away.
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
post #2522 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

this would be the same web that had 4 deep sea cables cut recently, and we hardly noticed a blip after about a week, because data was re-routed.

tell me, have those cables been fixed/re-laid yet?

the movie download FUD you are spouting is the same churn of crap that the music studios spewed 5-10 years ago.. oh noes the intertubes won't be able to cope.

Gee 5-10 years eh? you think we might lay some more cable by then?

theres this place on the intertubes called the iTunes music store, you may have heard of it, its up and running, along with countless other websites, all saturating the wires with noughts and ones.

the world is still turning.

go back to your cave.

it will be dark soon, and you might want to light the fire to keep the Fear away.

Walter in a world where ISPs are saying they want to put a cap on downloads and movie companies don't want to just give you full access to their product I think we're all in the same cave. You keep saying things like this and the real experts, the people who own, manufacture, and engineer the outcome say differently. It's only those hopeful people who would like to imagine a downloading world where all these problems are just magically done away with that say otherwise. Besides Walter my posts are all proBluRay you should be glad we get some time before downloading everything can be acheived.

In case you doubt don't take my word for it. Read this : http://www.mediapundit.net/2008/04/c...s-what-hd.html

And : http://dvice.com/archives/2006/05/in...e_hd_video.php

and : http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/06/28...tion-download/

and : http://www.baekdal.com/articles/Tech...-video-online/

And : http://www.audioholics.com/news/edit...e=081420080410

However despite all this evidence I suspect you'll still try to say I'm wrong.

It's not just more cable. It's the movie companies and a method to make it easy for customers to use this product ( watching it on something other than their computer monitor, sharing it with their friends the same way they do physical media today etc. ).

There's downloading music and then there's downloading video, and then there's downloading true HD like you would see on you BD player. That's alot more information than just music. So say the new Indiana Jones movie comes out and they've got a special 10.99! Millions of people try to get this movie the first day. Can you imagine how people just trying to do commerce on the internet would view the slow down?

I'm not saying it won't happen. It'll just be awhile before we get to that point and this is practical.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2523 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

this would be the same web that had 4 deep sea cables cut recently, and we hardly noticed a blip after about a week, because data was re-routed.

tell me, have those cables been fixed/re-laid yet?

the movie download FUD you are spouting is the same churn of crap that the music studios spewed 5-10 years ago.. oh noes the intertubes won't be able to cope.

Gee 5-10 years eh? you think we might lay some more cable by then?

theres this place on the intertubes called the iTunes music store, you may have heard of it, its up and running, along with countless other websites, all saturating the wires with noughts and ones.

the world is still turning.

go back to your cave.

it will be dark soon, and you might want to light the fire to keep the Fear away.

As funny as that was, it was a bit harsh too.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2524 of 2640
Jimmac,

There's something called Moore's Law.
It is driving down the cost of data transmission, just as it is driving down the cost of processor power.

With my modest UK ISP - I can download a little less than one megabyte per second.
In real terms that means a 45 minute TV show in standard definition takes about 10 mins to download.

The same show at 720p with 5.1 audio takes around 25 minutes. The 720p format is great quality - but not as good a BluRay. Viewed on a 46" screen at 10 feet. It's good enough.

Better quality may be required for some purposes, but frankly it's a marginal benefit. The real benefit of non-physical media is convenience. Instant access to all your collection. That benefit outweighs the quality disbenefit.

And of course in a year or so the quality will be comparable.

The cost of distribution and manufacture of physical media is something paid for by the studios. Moore's law does not make disk pressing plants, and trucks and retaillers cheaper over time. They are keenly aware that selling a collection of zeros and ones for $10 may be more profitable than selling a plastic disk for $20.

C.
post #2525 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

The 720p format is great quality - but not as good a BluRay. Viewed on a 46" screen at 10 feet. It's good enough. Better quality may be required for some purposes, but frankly it's a marginal benefit.

Upconverted DVD is also "good enough", and about on part with iTunes "HD" content. If "good enough" is all we're going for, then why on earth do we have HDTVs in the first place? I didn't spend $2500 on a television for "good enough".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

And of course in a year or so the quality will be comparable.

No. Internet-based HD downloads aren't going to jump from 4mbps to 35mbps in a year.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

The real benefit of non-physical media is convenience. Instant access to all your collection. That benefit outweighs the quality disbenefit.

How convenient is it going to be when your hard drive goes belly up and you lose hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of video purchases all at once?

Jimmac is correct that it's going to be a while before video without physical media is practical. There's no way to safely and conveniently store a library of HD video yet, if we can even call it HD. Download speeds are not where they need to be for truly high definition content, and while they may be there in 5 years for urban areas it'll be at least 10 before rural communities could seriously do without optical media delivery. And even after those two technical issues, there's poor distribution (movies come and go from the iTunes Music Store on a weekly basis, and you can only purchase SD movies anyhow), and the issue of DRM. I don't know about you, but with how little faith Apple has in their Apple TV (continuing to call it just a hobby), I'd hate to have all of my movies locked inside a box that could be discontinued any day.

Frankly, if I'm going to sit through a film for two hours, I think I can take thirty seconds to remove the movie from a case and put the disc in a tray. Especially if that means getting the best picture and sound quality possible in return for my extra 20 seconds of strenuous, laborious work. Movies are not like songs; you're not going to decide to change it every 3 minutes, so you don't need instant access to every movie you own instantaneously.
post #2526 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

How convenient is it going to be when your hard drive goes belly up and you lose hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of video purchases all at once?

One word: Drobo.

C.


And like I said. No one. NO ONE can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 46" screen when they sit more than 6 feet away from the screen.

1080p makes sense for projection displays. But for LCD and Plasma screens - It is utterly pointless unless you sit within 6 feet.

The bit density in BluRay is mainly about deterring piracy.
post #2527 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

One word: Drobo.

C.


And like I said. No one. NO ONE can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 46" screen when they sit more than 6 feet away from the screen.

1080p makes sense for projection displays. But for LCD and Plasma screens - It is utterly pointless unless you sit within 6 feet.

The bit density in BluRay is mainly about deterring piracy.

What happens with something goes wrong with the Drobo?

And you can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 46" screen, I can tell the difference on a 26" screen (and on my 24" iMac). The Apple 'HD' downloads are a very low bit rate, they are not good. Also Blu-Ray gives you HD audio, Apple has only just provided DD, at that rate it will be over 10 years before they catch up on HD audio.
post #2528 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Jimmac,

There's something called Moore's Law.
It is driving down the cost of data transmission, just as it is driving down the cost of processor power.

With my modest UK ISP - I can download a little less than one megabyte per second.
In real terms that means a 45 minute TV show in standard definition takes about 10 mins to download.

The same show at 720p with 5.1 audio takes around 25 minutes. The 720p format is great quality - but not as good a BluRay. Viewed on a 46" screen at 10 feet. It's good enough.

Better quality may be required for some purposes, but frankly it's a marginal benefit. The real benefit of non-physical media is convenience. Instant access to all your collection. That benefit outweighs the quality disbenefit.

And of course in a year or so the quality will be comparable.

The cost of distribution and manufacture of physical media is something paid for by the studios. Moore's law does not make disk pressing plants, and trucks and retaillers cheaper over time. They are keenly aware that selling a collection of zeros and ones for $10 may be more profitable than selling a plastic disk for $20.

C.

I'm sorry but you're talking to someone who's very well versed in computers. Had the internet since 95', used to sell computers in the 80's when they were just starting out, had broad band since 2000, and sometimes it doesn't help to just throw money at the problem. Sometimes you really have to make physical changes.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-...html?tag=mncol

Quote:
Cost aside, what may be the most controversial aspect of this speed bump is that subscribers of the residential plans will get no higher cap over the 250GB monthly limit which was instated earlier this October. Comcast's own release prides the new Extreme plan on letting customers "download a high-def movie (6 GB) in about 16 minutes, a standard-def movie (2 GB) in about 5 minutes and a standard-def TV show (300 MB) in a matter of seconds." Do the math and you'll see that an extreme subscriber could easily blow past the 250 GB cap in a matter of hours.


I know all about Moore's law except it didn't apply when they ran into the heat problem with trying to shrink the processor size in PCs a few years ago. We kind of reached level ground there for a few years while they figured out this problem.

You could apply this to the internet.

Once again I'm not saying it won't happen. It'll just take a little longer than you're implying. All the wishful thinking in the world won't change that.

Quote:
The real benefit of non-physical media is convenience

Except there's that portability problem again. Until they get that ironed out for the masses this won't be the main thing.

And trust me if you want this to fly people will want the best. 1080p. It won't matter if you can't see it because it's a marketing thing.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2529 of 2640
The reason the iTunes download model works is because the purchaser can burn the music to physical media.

Downloadable HD movies MUST be structured around this exact same model in order to be successful. Anything less and I'm not interested (and I suspect the vast majority of movie enthusiasts and collectors would agree).

Ultra-compressed movies that have been DRM'd to death and cannot be shared is not appealing at all.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #2530 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

The reason the iTunes download model works is because the purchaser can burn the music to physical media.

Downloadable HD movies MUST be structured around this exact same model in order to be successful. Anything less and I'm not interested (and I suspect the vast majority of movie enthusiasts and collectors would agree).

Ultra-compressed movies that have been DRM'd to death and cannot be shared is not appealing at all.


Thank you!

True it works for music because you can burn. HD video is another kettle of fish entirely which you can't burn legally. Not saying it won't happen but there are some issues to work out first and that's going to take awhile.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2531 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

I can tell the difference on a 26" screen (and on my 24" iMac).

You're in an ultra minority if this is true for you.
post #2532 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

And like I said. No one. NO ONE can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 46" screen when they sit more than 6 feet away from the screen..

That's nice. But the problem with internet-served "HD" downloads isn't that they're 720p; it's that they're 4mbps instead of Blu-Ray's 30mbps. And you CAN see the difference in that, unless you're sitting 14 feet away from your screen. "HD" at those kinds of low bitrates is more or less just upconverted DVD, in terms of picture depth and clarity.
post #2533 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by nowayout11 View Post

You're in an ultra minority if this is true for you.

Not really, because the 720p stuff that Apple provides is crap. If you get a good quality 720p then maybe it might be harder
post #2534 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

That's nice. But the problem with internet-served "HD" downloads isn't that they're 720p; it's that they're 4mbps instead of Blu-Ray's 30mbps. And you CAN see the difference in that, unless you're sitting 14 feet away from your screen. "HD" at those kinds of low bitrates is more or less just upconverted DVD, in terms of picture depth and clarity.

I agree. it's like MP3 encoded at 16kbps, it doesn't sound anywhere near a 240kbps audio clip. In the same way that a Superbit DVD looks 20x better than a regular DVD.

For argument sake I think DL will be common practice in the future for video, but I also think many people will also prefer to have the disk. It's easy with music. I still burn all my itunes stuff to CD's, and I also back up my random 1's and 2 songs from various artists on DVD. I think the disk will rule before video downloading in the US reaches the same quality standards as a Blu-Ray disk does and quality will probably prevail for most people.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #2535 of 2640
Most consumers would not care or even bother to notice the difference. Even if the technology delivers 20x better quality, if it only caters to 5% of the market, it would not be a successful product. As 95% of the market would choose cheaper, easier, and more convenience services at any time.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #2536 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

Most consumers would not care or even bother to notice the difference. Even if the technology delivers 20x better quality, if it only caters to 5% of the market, it would not be a successful product. As 95% of the market would choose cheaper, easier, and more convenience services at any time.

If that's true then they would probably stick with DVD.

However I think even the average person will get on board with HD but downloading still has a way to go before it's practical enough to become the main thing and edge out disc.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2537 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

What happens with something goes wrong with the Drobo?

With Drobo, if a drive fails a little light comes on and tells you to replace the faulty drive. No loss of data. It just carries on serving.

What if Sony's losses keep on mounting? And they drop BluRay for Violet Ray or some other gimmicky format? BluRay is just LaserDisk. If someone handed you a LaserDisk today, it is useless. It's too big for a coaster.

I think DRM-free files will always have more longevity than plastic discs.

C.
post #2538 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Except there's that portability problem again.

I am sorry, but please read my post. There is nothing more portable than a 8GB file. Zeroes and Ones really don't not weigh very much.


C.
post #2539 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

And you can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 46" screen,

You can yes. If you sit really close to the screen.



C.
post #2540 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I am sorry, but please read my post. There is nothing more portable than a 8GB file. Zeroes and Ones really don't not weigh very much.


C.

Very funny but this doesn't address the question about moving the file to another place or device like playing on your friend's TV or loaning it to him or her which is what we were talking about. As Northgate said this is a real problem with this idea if you can't burn it to a DVD or something else. And this is just one of the problems with downloading becoming mainstream. Now do you get it?

Oh by the way I sit comfortably at 6 feet from my 53" set.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2541 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

With Drobo, if a drive fails a little light comes on and tells you to replace the faulty drive. No loss of data. It just carries on serving.

What if Sony's losses keep on mounting? And they drop BluRay for Violet Ray or some other gimmicky format? BluRay is just LaserDisk. If someone handed you a LaserDisk today, it is useless. It's too big for a coaster.

I think DRM-free files will always have more longevity than plastic discs.

C.

When the problems are worked out so they can be practical for the masses.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2542 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

That's nice. But the problem with internet-served "HD" downloads isn't that they're 720p; it's that they're 4mbps instead of Blu-Ray's 30mbps. And you CAN see the difference in that, unless you're sitting 14 feet away from your screen. "HD" at those kinds of low bitrates is more or less just upconverted DVD, in terms of picture depth and clarity.

I have to agree with you on that. People are far too caught up into the resolution rather than the bitrate. You can have 2160p video, but if it is encoded at a low bitrate it won't look better than than 1080p uncompressed no matter the viewing distance, size of screen, etc. 720p uncompressed video should look great on my 24" monitor, but the 720p content from iTunes doesn't look any better than standard DVD quality, because the bitrate is about the same. In some cases the "HD" video from iTunes even looks a bit grainy.

The bitrates of these digital video services are good enough for DVD quality, but not much better. It is fine for watching stuff on your 24" monitor, but if you output the content to a 46" LCD you are going to really start to see how low the bitrate really is.

At least for the short term, 2-3 years I don't see how digital downloads are going to be much competition for Blu-ray. In the long term though it seems inevitable that bandwidth is going to grow to the point where streaming 1080p content over the internet will become commercially viable.
post #2543 of 2640
You would rarely see 1080p contents that require absolute need for 30mbps average bitrate even on blu-ray disc. Unless the studios just like to claim high bitrate and use mpeg2 paired with lossless sound track. When using proper video and audio codec, 15 to 20 mbps is capable of delivering near lossless audio and video contents at 1080p. Which means that pristine 720p contents can be had on demand for only 7 to 10 mbps, which is not a huge streaming demand for current broadband services. Even with 3 mbps would only require 30 to 45 min buffering prior to streaming the content.

Now, see if you can tell the difference between 720p vs. 1080p contents on 60" 1080p HDTV. If some of you think that 480i superbit contents scale well on 1080p HDTV, just imagine how well 720p contents can scale to 1080p.

Regardless, I would still prefer buying and keeping the HiDef disc, but I am probably in the 5% consumer market.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #2544 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

When the problems are worked out so they can be practical for the masses.

How long did it take from going from MP3 as a grass-roots technophile thing - to mass market?

C.
post #2545 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Very funny but this doesn't address the question about moving the file to another place or device like playing on your friend's TV or loaning it to him or her which is what we were talking about. As Northgate said this is a real problem with this idea if you can't burn it to a DVD or something else. And this is just one of the problems with downloading becoming mainstream. Now do you get it?

Would it help if I posted a picture of an 8GB memory stick?



Why would anyone waste time "burning a disk"? (Or scraping tunes into scratches in vinyl)

C.
post #2546 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh by the way I sit comfortably at 6 feet from my 53" set.

Grin. You can get quite a tan sitting so close to the screen.
When you watch with your friends... do you like all huddle up?

C.
post #2547 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Would it help if I posted a picture of an 8GB memory stick?



Why would anyone waste time "burning a disk"? (Or scraping tunes into scratches in vinyl)

C.

Ok. Will the movie companies let you do it legally? And to make it clear we're talking about HD copys.

I'd be all for this kind of transport and even posted my take on the fact that a company has already decided to try marketing music in this fashion. However with video there's that studio thing again. And the bandwidth issue.

Also What about the cap that comcast is imposing. Not a good sign that the internet can currently take this kind of traffic. Which most experts say it can't.

You can keep dancing around these issues forever if you want but it's not going to make them go away. Until these issues are resolved downloading will not be the mainstream way people purchase or rent movies.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2548 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Grin. You can get quite a tan sitting so close to the screen.
When you watch with your friends... do you like all huddle up?

C.

The couch and loveseat are positioned that way and it seems quite comfortable for the 53".

Probably from the same article you looked up ( it has the same chart ):

Quote:
What the chart shows is that, for a 50-inch screen, the benefits of 720p vs. 480p start to become apparent at viewing distances closer than 14.6 feet and become fully apparent at 9.8 feet. For the same screen size, the benefits of 1080p vs. 720p start to become apparent when closer than 9.8 feet and become full apparent at 6.5 feet. In my opinion, 6.5 feet is closer than most people will sit to their 50" plasma TV (even through the THX recommended viewing distance for a 50" screen is 5.6 ft). [/I]So, most consumers will not be able to see the full benefit of their 1080p TV.


Note the italicized part. So the distance issue is an opinion. The experts have a different one.

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2549 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

How long did it take from going from MP3 as a grass-roots technophile thing - to mass market?

C.

Trust me this battle has been going on for 30 years with the movie companies. They'll be a much tougher nut to crack than the record companies. While the record companies were looking the other way for years with cassete tape copys of records the movie companies were up in arms about the VCR. Yes we won eventually but they haven't stopped being obsessed with people having free rein over their product. Even though they make more money they still want total control. If it was up to them we wouldn't have home video or computers to copy with. Absolutely paranoid about it.

Also there's currently only so much bandwidth. An HD movie takes up a lot more room than a song.

So if this was so easy how come iTunes doesn't let you burn ( or write to a portable device ) HD video right now?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2550 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Ok. Will the movie companies let you do it legally? And to make it clear we're talking about HD copys.

Legality is not all that important when the law gets out of step with what people are doing.

People started using digital music as files and now that is the default mode for buying and using music. The disc has become irrelevant and digital content has become mainstream and legitimate. DRM is on the way out too.

The visual entertainment industry would like to stop this happening to film and television. But it's like commanding the tide not to rise. Nothing they can do can stop it happening. It already *has* happened.

The problem they need to solve now is how to monetize this new way of distributing content.

C.
post #2551 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Note the italicized part.

Someone at THX needs to remove the pocket protector.

Even when TVs were flickery 18" cathode ray tubes. Families sat more than 10' away from them.

A 5'6" viewing distance is nuts.

I'll say it again, unless you own a projector. 1080p is of no benefit to typical consumers.

Yes a handful of "enthusiasts" may prefer to sit 5 feet from their screen. Just as I prefer to avoid hats with propellers.

C.
post #2552 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Someone at THX needs to remove the pocket protector.

Even when TVs were flickery 18" cathode ray tubes. Families sat more than 10' away from them.

A 5'6" viewing distance is nuts.

I'll say it again, unless you own a projector. 1080p is of no benefit to typical consumers.

Yes a handful of "enthusiasts" may prefer to sit 5 feet from their screen. Just as I prefer to avoid hats with propellers.

C.

Quote:
Just as I prefer to avoid hats with propellers.

Then make some valid arguments about your supposition about the other issues with downloading.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2553 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Legality is not all that important when the law gets out of step with what people are doing.

People started using digital music as files and now that is the default mode for buying and using music. The disc has become irrelevant and digital content has become mainstream and legitimate. DRM is on the way out too.

The visual entertainment industry would like to stop this happening to film and television. But it's like commanding the tide not to rise. Nothing they can do can stop it happening. It already *has* happened.

The problem they need to solve now is how to monetize this new way of distributing content.

C.

No it hasn't already happened legally. How many people right now are downloading all of their video content vs people who buy a DVD?

You think the studios are just going to give in. Well maybe that might happen - in 10 years or so. In that amount of time they may have resolved the bandwidth issues also. Like I've already said. This will probably happen but it's going to take some time to work the issues out. You really need to understand. Video and Audio issues in this convoluted world are not the same. I wish they were. Where money is involved business has always lagged behind technology.

We could have already had broadcast HDTV as the norm 15 years ago if it hadn't been for that aspect.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2554 of 2640
The THX recommendation for screen size vs. the viewing distance chart is to cover the field of vision to optimize and enhance panoramic viewing experience. Obviously, the chart is design to apply for bigger screens, 80"+ home theater, but not for less then 60" application. I'm sure the chart can be interpolated for shorter distance, but most home theater nuts will prefer 100"+ screen and with 8 to 9' sitting distance than 5' sitting distance on a smaller screen size.
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #2555 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post

The THX recommendation for screen size vs. the viewing distance chart is to cover the field of vision to optimize and enhance panoramic viewing experience. Obviously, the chart is design to apply for bigger screens, 80"+ home theater, but not for less then 60" application. I'm sure the chart can be interpolated for shorter distance, but most home theater nuts will prefer 100"+ screen and with 8 to 9' sitting distance than 5' sitting distance on a smaller screen size.

Most Home Theater nuts ( like myself ) don't have the room for 100". Really, honestly it looks just fine 6 feet from my 53" TV.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2556 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In that amount of time they may have resolved the bandwidth issues also.

Lets talk about bandwidth. Each commercial entity which transmits data pays for the bandwidth. That money goes to pay for an ever improving infrastructure. Data rates double every 18 months. We can cram ever more data down a fibre, and ever more data down a phoneline. Though ADSL, I am getting 8 megabits today, and should be getting 16 megabits in a few months.

This already allows many of us to forego traditional TV and get the majority of our episodic TV via the internet.

Hulu, Apple and NetFlix are paving the legitimate way. And of course you can do even better illegally.

In my ISPs "off-peak window" I can download 11 hours of TV overnight. Much more than I could ever possibly watch. Is the internet crumbling and falling apart as a result? Nope not really.

Yes, for live TV - the internet is probably the wrong infrastructure. But for movie and episodic TV even Sony accepts that consumers will prefer this method of direct delivery. Content creators can bypass networks, disk manufacturers, retail outlets, advertisers and cable companies. It lets them sell their content directly to consumers without middle-men driving the cost up.

For smaller independent producers we could be entering a golden age. Larger producers are also seeing the light. Hulu is a good example. Instead of trying to stop piracy, NBC has just gotten with the program.

Comcast, as a conventional provider of television services, has chosen to exploit its position as an ISP and is cynically capping downloads. Not surprising but perhaps someone should make *that* illegal.

C.
post #2557 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Lets talk about bandwidth. Each commercial entity which transmits data pays for the bandwidth. That money goes to pay for an ever improving infrastructure. Data rates double every 18 months. We can cram ever more data down a fibre, and ever more data down a phoneline. Though ADSL, I am getting 8 megabits today, and should be getting 16 megabits in a few months.

This already allows many of us to forego traditional TV and get the majority of our episodic TV via the internet.

Hulu, Apple and NetFlix are paving the legitimate way. And of course you can do even better illegally.

In my ISPs "off-peak window" I can download 11 hours of TV overnight. Much more than I could ever possibly watch. Is the internet crumbling and falling apart as a result? Nope not really.

Yes, for live TV - the internet is probably the wrong infrastructure. But for movie and episodic TV even Sony accepts that consumers will prefer this method of direct delivery. Content creators can bypass networks, disk manufacturers, retail outlets, advertisers and cable companies. It lets them sell their content directly to consumers without middle-men driving the cost up.

For smaller independent producers we could be entering a golden age. Larger producers are also seeing the light. Hulu is a good example. Instead of trying to stop piracy, NBC has just gotten with the program.

Comcast, as a conventional provider of television services, has chosen to exploit its position as an ISP and is cynically capping downloads. Not surprising but perhaps someone should make *that* illegal.

C.

You continue to ignore what the experts ( people more in the know and in control more than you or I ) are saying.

http://gizmodo.com/352392/vudu-test-...eds-to-be-done

Quote:
The bottom line is that HD downloads are a novelty item now, and they'll probably stay that way until:

• Higher bandwidth permits the rapid download of huge files
• A quality-assurance system is agreed upon where "HD" refers to specific attributes that go beyond frame resolution
• Hollywood deems it fit to start releasing mainstream videos in great quantities in HD—remember, those dudes hold the keys, now and forever, whether we like it or not.

And http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=511

And http://www.akamai.com/hdwp

And http://www.ip-dev.net/downloads/HD-T...the%20Bill.pdf

And http://wiredinc.com/downloading-hd-m...or-you-2008-03

Do I need to go on?

This will happen like you say but it's going to have to wait until some changes are made. Both Gates and Jobs imply it's close but they have download services to sell. To expect this to be widespread or mainstream soon is naive at best.

You continue to ignore but that won't make it true.

Quote:
Comcast, as a conventional provider of television services, has chosen to exploit its position as an ISP and is cynically capping downloads. Not surprising but perhaps someone should make *that* illegal.

By the way Comcast is one of the biggest ISPs offering broadband in the US 2nd only to At&T. So do the math. That's a lot of people and I'd be willing to bet At&T are saying the same thing.

Well look at what we found here!

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5058262

Quote:
AT&T Looking at Charging Heavy Internet Users Extra

Quote:
Cable companies are at the forefront of usage-based pricing because neighbors share capacity on the local cable lines, and bandwidth hogs can slow down traffic for others. Phone companies have been less concerned about congestion because the phone lines they use to provide Internet service using DSL, or Digital Subscriber Line technology, aren't shared between neighbors, but AT&T is evidently concerned about congestion higher up in the network.


Those who mainly do Web surfing or e-mail use little data and have scant reason to pay attention to traffic caps. But those who download movies or TV, particularly in high definition, can hit the caps imposed by cable companies.

Download caps could put a crimp in the plans of services like Apple Inc.'s iTunes that use the Internet to deliver video. DVD-by-mail pioneer Netflix Inc. just launched a TV set-top box that receives an unlimited stream of Internet video to a TV set for as little as $8.99 per month.


Yeah sure they'll just make way for this " Tide " just because you want it to be true.

It's going to take awhile ( years ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2558 of 2640
There are many facts in your mix of articles - along with some FUD.
There are multiple issues here. So let's not mix them up.


1. If you own a collection of movies and TV - having that collection on a server of some kind (a video jukebox) is massively more convenient than having hundreds of physical disks.
Physical disks are a pain in the ass. Once you switch, you'll never want to go back.
Many people with extensive DVD collections are transferring their library to files, because they can finally get their content in convenient way.

So regardless of the means of distribution, liberated media files are more fun.


2. A physical disk - such as a DVD has to be mastered, duplicated, printed, distributed, resold and purchased. There is a massive COST associated with these wasteful processes. The COST of this process is already more than the much lower COST associated with moving bits on the internet.

Here's the core of the distribution argument: Shifting a 4-8GB file is cheaper to do electronically than physically. Everything else follows from that.

Flashback to the 1800s. Someone figured it was cheaper to move goods and people via railroad than on horses.
Problem: There isn't enough capacity in rail network.
You either: Increase the capacity of the rail network or conclude that horses are the future. And try to breed a really big horse.

C.

post #2559 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

There are many facts in your mix of articles - along with some FUD.
There are multiple issues here. So let's not mix them up.


1. If you own a collection of movies and TV - having that collection on a server of some kind (a video jukebox) is massively more convenient than having hundreds of physical disks.
Physical disks are a pain in the ass. Once you switch, you'll never want to go back.
Many people with extensive DVD collections are transferring their library to files, because they can finally get their content in convenient way.

So regardless of the means of distribution, liberated media files are more fun.


2. A physical disk - such as a DVD has to be mastered, duplicated, printed, distributed, resold and purchased. There is a massive COST associated with these wasteful processes. The COST of this process is already more than the much lower COST associated with moving bits on the internet.

Here's the core of the distribution argument: Shifting a 4-8GB file is cheaper to do electronically than physically. Everything else follows from that.

Flashback to the 1800s. Someone figured it was cheaper to move goods and people via railroad than on horses.
Problem: There isn't enough capacity in rail network.
You either: Increase the capacity of the rail network or conclude that horses are the future. And try to breed a really big horse.

C.


And they were laying track for a long time.

Eventually it did come to pass. Which is what I've been saying. It just will take awhile. Long enough for BD to become entrenched. So if it's going to go somewhere it'll have that chance to find out.

Will BD become mainstream though that's still a good question. So the real question is when downloading becomes viable enough for mainstream will it have to edge out the new ( really caught on ) DVD or the new ( for videophiles only ) Laserdisc?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #2560 of 2640
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And they were laying track for a long time.

Eventually it did come to pass. Which is what I've been saying. It just will take awhile. Long enough for BD to become entrenched. So if it's going to go somewhere it'll have that chance to find out.

Will BD become mainstream though that's still a good question. So the real question is when downloading becomes viable enough for mainstream will it have to edge out the new ( really caught on ) DVD or the new ( for videophiles only ) Laserdisc?

I do agree that it will be some time before the internet replaces TV Broadcast (via Satellite, Antenna and Cable) - Families consume many hours of TV a day and broadcast is still an inexpensive way to shift video in bulk. So I think we will still be seeing broadcast media, of some sort, in 10 years time.

But displacing physical disk distribution can happen much sooner. And has of course is kicking-off with Netflix and Apple in a perfectly viable way. Sony plan to start doing direct downloads soon.

The games industry is about to make a similar transition. The motivation is to cut-out the middle-men retailers who take about half of the revenue (simply for selling a box)

C.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (2008)