Oh yes I have said that. From the average sitting position in the living room the average person cannot see a huge difference from BR and DVD.
Ten years ago the average person could see a difference between VHS and DVD.
Yes. That's exactly what I've been saying. We've had this discussion on a number of other threads here over the past couple of years.
Quote:
Well obviously they don't see that BR sells more computers.
That's possible at this point in time. But it didn't sell many computers when they put the first DVD recorder into the $3,5000 Powermac I bought either. It takes a couple of years.
That's why they should offer it as an upgrade. Even if they couldn't offer it on a MacBook, they could on the Mac Pro, the iMac, and even the Mini.
That wouldn't cost them much, and would let them know what the demand is, and if it's rising over time, or falling.
At worst, make the OS compatible, and let third party companies continue to offer the players and recorders. That would cost them little.
Quote:
We are essentially comparing the price of write once optical discs to rewritable SSD. Write once SSD would be a lot cheaper than RW.
When I mentioned Intel's SSD, it was just to show that prices for flash come down with a generational shift in process technology, as capacity goes up. I did mention that it was more expensive flash than stick flash. And you're talking about stick flash. Prices there are subject to the same advances as flash for SSD's.
But, re-writable disks still cost little. No more than a few cents more than the write once versions.
I was mostly making the comparisons between a pressed disk cost vs the cost for the flash stick. And that flash, would have to be non- rewritable. It would really have to be a ROM, but you were talking about flash.
Quote:
Look at it this way. Back when DVD was new, they were typically around $25 - $20 depending on the movie. You could buy the VHS version for $10 - $5. I'm sure at the time it was a lot cheaper to make VHS tapes than press DVD's. Until DVD production really ramped up.
It's always cheaper to press disks than to record to tape. I remember it. DVD costs were cheaper after the first year.
Quote:
I'm sure they can create a write once SSD format, it doesn't need to be the fastest high quality variant. They could sell movies for $40 - $30 with the advantage that the movie can play in anything without the need for a third media player.
They already have ROMS. You would put the movie on a ROM. This is easy to do.
No one would buy a movie for $30 to $40. You were the one who just used $20 to $30 pricing on B-R movies (rare these days) as a reason why almost no one would buy them.
I see some people caring, but not too many. As most things do have an optical player, that's not much of an incentive.
In a year, we'll see B-R players for under $100, maybe $75. Why buy a movie for $30-40, when the B-R will cost $15. That will quickly cost more than a B-R player.
And before holiday season 2011, B-R players will be selling for $50, less on sale.
Quote:
From the article I got the numbers from. Active users were people who use the internet on a regular basis.
Honestly, I still don't now what that means.
Quote:
Yeah I wasn't paying close enough attention and got MB and Mb confused.
I just wanted to chime in and say "itunes is slow". Because it is!
There are several ways to measure speed, but the most important one to humans are the responsiveness of the user interface. A well-designed user interface continues to function while the application performs background tasks. Itunes consistently ignores input when communicating with my iPod, AppleTV or when switching views. If they don't want to patch this beast together before they switch to Cocoa, then they'd better get switchin' because it is very annoying.
This is a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro from last year. Makes me miss WinAmp. So, fingers crossed Steve will yell "surprise! I wasn't sick, I've just been rewriting iTunes instead of sleeping" and BRING IT ON.
Hmmm, doesn't seem to be slow on my 8 core Nehalem Mac Pro. I wonder why?
I agree I don't think flash for media will work as a major distribution format, at least not the way things are currently set up.
I think if electronics manufacturers were being smart about the future this is they way they would go to keep physical media going, perhaps some years down the road they will. At the current moment they are most concerned with keeping us locked into buying players and discs. They are going to ride that business model until it collapses. Usually they are slow to change and the collapse is very hard for them.
I don't agree streaming will only dribble. The options and choices for watching streamed video has greater potential than Blu-ray. What will really put streaming/downloading over the top will be mobile devices. Apple has pretty much set the iPhone up for media streaming. Media streaming services are working on adapting for the mobile space. Its taking other phone manufacturers more time to get themselves to a point where media streaming services can take advantage of their platforms. Soon it will all come together.
We agree on some things. But I'm really concerned as the point of this discussion, with HD downloads. That's what we're talking about.
Right now, Apple's 720 downloads look just a bit better than a DVD of the same movie. A bit sharper, but sometimes not as good in shadow detail, or highlights, or color saturation, where they seem noisy in comparison.
A 1080p download at the same quality level as their 720 offerings will not come close to the B-R disk. When I compare the 720 download to the B-R, all I can say is Ugh!! And the price is the same or higher!
What bandwidth will Apple need to offer an uncompressed (over the format's built-in compression) download of the movie, and how many people will have the bandwidth on their end?
That's the real question. All the rest pales in comparison.
So, let's get some real numbers.
Assuming a download bandwidth of 10Mb/s, that gives us an ideal rate of 1.25 MB/s.
If we have a 1080p movie at the same quality level as a B-R, let's assume 25GB. Some longer movies are using dual layer B-R disks already.
That comes out to a download time of 333 minutes, or almost 5.6 hours.
How many people are willing to wait 5.6 hours for the movie to download? Because 10Mb/s isn't enough bandwidth to stream the movie obviously.
To do that requires at least 25Mb/s.
How long do you think it will be before the majority of people have connections of even the paltry 10Mb/s? How many will have 25Mb/s in a decent amount of time from now?
And that's ideal. What if someone else in the house wants to use the connection at the same time?
Dude.. what are you talking about. You cannot buy Brand new released movies on VHS. Even if there are a FEW titles available, the majority of stuff is DVD only meaning that if you want to be able to watch the latest movies.. you can't on VHS. Thus VHS is Obsolete.
2006 is when major industry stopped producing VHS. So you are correct but many companies still support it (see my post about Panasonic's combo BD/VHS) and required it (see my post about reality shows requiring VHS tape for applicant auditions). It may be obsolete but not completely gone. That's all i was saying. 30 years and not gone yet. And, my point was that everyone on this post seems to think that BD is dead and should just go away. So if VHS is still around after 30 years, BD will probably be around for another 20 if not longer.
Apple should allow the option. It's a flimsy excuse to look at the price. When Apple included CD, it was very expensive. Same thing with DVD. Blu-Ray is no different. In fact, in inflated dollars, B-R is cheaper than either CD or DVD was when Apple included them.
The only difference is that back then, Apple had no download business to push. Now it does.
In Apple's defence, the success of CDs and DVDs was inevitable whereas Blu-Ray faces a much more fractured, certainly more complicated marketplace.
It seems to me that Apple has by no means indicated it will not support Blu-Ray ever. The timing wasn't right until maybe now and so Apple waited. Nothing wrong with that.
At worst, make the OS compatible, and let third party companies continue to offer the players and recorders. That would cost them little.
Its true but you know Apple.
Quote:
It's always cheaper to press disks than to record to tape. I remember it. DVD costs were cheaper after the first year.
Ok, I'll take your word for it.
Quote:
No one would buy a movie for $30 to $40. You were the one who just used $20 to $30 pricing on B-R movies (rare these days) as a reason why almost no one would buy them.
I agree few people would buy a $30-$40 movie. What differentiates this idea is that you don't need a stand alone player. You can simply stick the card into a TV or computer and have glorious 1080P and surround sound.
Early adopters would be into this at that price point. As the price comes down, it would filter to the masses. But electronics manufacturers won't do this because it risks destroying their current business model.
Quote:
I see some people caring, but not too many. As most things do have an optical player, that's not much of an incentive.
I think people would have no problem moving on from optical players if given a choice.
I barely use the optical player in my Mac anymore. Most of the software on my computer has been downloaded from the developers website. The last third party application I recall installing from a disc was MS Office and that was about four years ago.
Most of the media I watch is from cable, video on demand, Hulu, iTunes, or Netflix streaming. A growing number of my friends are watching movies through torrents. But I don't participate in that myself.
Several of my gaming friends are more into playing Xbox or Playstation online. You really don't even need the optical disc for that, even though you still have to buy it to play the game online.
Quote:
In a year, we'll see B-R players for under $100, maybe $75. Why buy a movie for $30-40, when the B-R will cost $15. That will quickly cost more than a B-R player. And before holiday season 2011, B-R players will be selling for $50, less on sale.
The electronics industry would charge a premium for this to make up for the loss in media player sales.
$30-$40 would not be that way forever, the price would come down as the price for BR has come down.
Quote:
Honestly, I still don't now what that means.
Its like my Grandmother. She lives in a retirement home and the building is wired for broadband. She has computer hooked up to broadband, but she rarely ever uses it.
I don't say "small" pejoratively. I say it because I know, and read of so many people who think that at their normal viewing distance, they can appreciate 1080p with a 42" set, which is the most popular size, though larger sets are being bought more now that prices have dropped.
I say small because in order to get the full resolution of 1080p from it, a person with 20/20 vision needs to sit no further than 5 feet away. How many people do that? In order to see the full 720p you need to sit no further away than 8 feet. Even that's closer than most people sit.
So for the average seating distance that most people have, a 42" set is "small".
These numbers are based on known, and agreed upon viewing abilities of people, it's not an opinion.
Sorry you get the full resolution regardless of the distance, although the typical person wont perceive the full benefit of a 40" 1080P until 5 feet. However blu ray discs contain much more detail (compared to heavily compressed iTunes media). Disks are typically 50GB and main features are typically about 28GB.
Frankly I sit around 6 feet away from my 42" plasma and Blu Ray 1080P content is noticably better than all other sources I use. The best example of this can be found in comparing DVDs to Blu Ray versions of the same film.
On my 24" PC screen the difference may not be obvious however I want to buy a film once and play it back at home and when travelling so blu ray on a Macbook Pro would rock.
In short for home cinema lovers Blu Ray is a must.
All I want in iTunes 9 is the ability for it to recheck a remote folder for changes to files and consistently lock on to the folder in Time Capsule. Songbird does this, but I prefer iTunes. I want to be able to keep my music library on my Timecapsule, which already works (just not consistently), and not have to update the location (the same location) randomly when I'm using iTunes.
It's my biggest gripe. Sometimes it just works and I'm impressed, others it does not. I know I'm not the average mac user with this setup, but I don't have the room I need on my laptop.
Sorry you get the full resolution regardless of the distance, although the typical person wont perceive the full benefit of a 40" 1080P until 5 feet. However blu ray discs contain much more detail (compared to heavily compressed iTunes media). Disks are typically 50GB and main features are typically about 28GB.
That was his point. What can be perceived regardless of the actual resolution on the screen.
Quote:
Frankly I sit around 6 feet away from my 42" plasma and Blu Ray 1080P content is noticably better than all other sources I use.
6 feet is really close for a 40" television. That means the TV is larger than is needed for your room.
Nothing at this point can have a zero carbon foot print. The electricity used to run all of these systems mostly comes from burning coal. The goal at this point is to lower the carbon foot print as much as possible within current practical means.
Well yes and no
yes
Everything thing alive has some carbon foot print.
AND NO
By going 100 percent digital do you suppose that all those
Dvd AND dvd player factories being closed saves carbon and other terrible stuff. ?
Shipping dvd players and dvd's to warehouse's and then reshipping again to local; stores or to amazon and then shipped a third or even fourth time to the person who bought the dvd /dvd player
And driving to those stores add a forth or fifth carbon action
plastic/cardboard wrapping again ADDS to all that and shipping to assembly plants and the producing of materials itself
Cradle to grave demands that I mention that all these trillions of discs are never going back to nature like say THE MBP glass screen . And all that plastic and other landfill stuff , in the digital world there are no words for any of these items because the carbon foot print of mega mega server farms is very low per single billable MB item
In fact the carbon saved by going all digital woulld be so large that if you had mega server farms that only did itunes/amazon DL's you would be carbon plus forever .
You can slightly reduce the dvd world carbon foot print a bit by grabbing low hanging fruit like solar or wind to some production area's . Shipping by boat or car or plane is already at its best carbon level . So you can only reduce by 10 to 40 percent considering how scattered the whole dvd industry is .
Server farms already save so much carbon at the start compared to the mega large dvd industry
\\ Yet they can go all the down to 8 percent by adding wind/wave/solar /thermal/geo /and better SW to manage the whole thing , LOW amp chips made in the billions will also reduce the cooling costs of all digital world server farms .
AND best of all
an all digital world means direct to consumer from artist transactions
And all the pirates can not beat $7.99 DL or $4.99 Dl movies/
Teno is talking about buying the movie on a stick, not bringing your own in.
I don't think that bringing your own in would work. You could do that now with a DVD or even a CD disk, but you can't. I know that a stick would be better, because the kiosk wouldn't need an optical recorder with the possible breakdowns, but I just don't see this working.
Pirates will always be around as something has to be paid for. Even if a movie cost one dollar, they would still pirate it.
I think a flash stick is stuck between two worlds. The world of optical, which will be around for a while yet, and the world of download which will be dribbling in over the next ten years.
I just don't see a place for it. It seems to be a product without a market in this regard.
MEL STOP GETTING stuck on minor details
It is a controllable way to stop pirates
tenobell also has great idea;s about all this .
MY sons already use little squares discs for there DS games so please think ahead my friend
in ten years with fingerprint control we can wipe out the pirates and get cheap movies and studios will make more money
MELL i can use this post 6 months from now and argue the other way .
6 yrs from now cutting out all the stores plastic gas oil trucks factories players on and on that it takes to keep the disc world alive will be fast fading away , Our carbon foot print will get smaller
mayne i will vist you mel in 7 yrs and we can laff about how wrong we all was .
Your generous: I'd say within 5 years optical's dead. Why carry a disc when a thumb drive will do? 64GB are going to get cheaper over the next few years. I just can't get excited over Blu-Ray and have no intention of purchasing the beast. It's yesterday's technology on steriods is all.
Sorry you get the full resolution regardless of the distance, although the typical person wont perceive the full benefit of a 40" 1080P until 5 feet. However blu ray discs contain much more detail (compared to heavily compressed iTunes media). Disks are typically 50GB and main features are typically about 28GB.
Frankly I sit around 6 feet away from my 42" plasma and Blu Ray 1080P content is noticably better than all other sources I use. The best example of this can be found in comparing DVDs to Blu Ray versions of the same film.
On my 24" PC screen the difference may not be obvious however I want to buy a film once and play it back at home and when travelling so blu ray on a Macbook Pro would rock.
In short for home cinema lovers Blu Ray is a must.
I'm not sure if I fully agree with this chart. I have a 37" 720p Plasma (i was an early adopter) and run blu-ray on it, and we sit about 12' away from it. I do notice the difference between 480p and 720p very clearly on this set. Now that might have something to do with the Blu-ray player.
Comments
Oh yes I have said that. From the average sitting position in the living room the average person cannot see a huge difference from BR and DVD.
Ten years ago the average person could see a difference between VHS and DVD.
Yes. That's exactly what I've been saying. We've had this discussion on a number of other threads here over the past couple of years.
Well obviously they don't see that BR sells more computers.
That's possible at this point in time. But it didn't sell many computers when they put the first DVD recorder into the $3,5000 Powermac I bought either. It takes a couple of years.
That's why they should offer it as an upgrade. Even if they couldn't offer it on a MacBook, they could on the Mac Pro, the iMac, and even the Mini.
That wouldn't cost them much, and would let them know what the demand is, and if it's rising over time, or falling.
At worst, make the OS compatible, and let third party companies continue to offer the players and recorders. That would cost them little.
We are essentially comparing the price of write once optical discs to rewritable SSD. Write once SSD would be a lot cheaper than RW.
When I mentioned Intel's SSD, it was just to show that prices for flash come down with a generational shift in process technology, as capacity goes up. I did mention that it was more expensive flash than stick flash. And you're talking about stick flash. Prices there are subject to the same advances as flash for SSD's.
But, re-writable disks still cost little. No more than a few cents more than the write once versions.
I was mostly making the comparisons between a pressed disk cost vs the cost for the flash stick. And that flash, would have to be non- rewritable. It would really have to be a ROM, but you were talking about flash.
Look at it this way. Back when DVD was new, they were typically around $25 - $20 depending on the movie. You could buy the VHS version for $10 - $5. I'm sure at the time it was a lot cheaper to make VHS tapes than press DVD's. Until DVD production really ramped up.
It's always cheaper to press disks than to record to tape. I remember it. DVD costs were cheaper after the first year.
I'm sure they can create a write once SSD format, it doesn't need to be the fastest high quality variant. They could sell movies for $40 - $30 with the advantage that the movie can play in anything without the need for a third media player.
They already have ROMS. You would put the movie on a ROM. This is easy to do.
No one would buy a movie for $30 to $40. You were the one who just used $20 to $30 pricing on B-R movies (rare these days) as a reason why almost no one would buy them.
I see some people caring, but not too many. As most things do have an optical player, that's not much of an incentive.
In a year, we'll see B-R players for under $100, maybe $75. Why buy a movie for $30-40, when the B-R will cost $15. That will quickly cost more than a B-R player.
And before holiday season 2011, B-R players will be selling for $50, less on sale.
From the article I got the numbers from. Active users were people who use the internet on a regular basis.
Honestly, I still don't now what that means.
Yeah I wasn't paying close enough attention and got MB and Mb confused.
Happens
I just wanted to chime in and say "itunes is slow". Because it is!
There are several ways to measure speed, but the most important one to humans are the responsiveness of the user interface. A well-designed user interface continues to function while the application performs background tasks. Itunes consistently ignores input when communicating with my iPod, AppleTV or when switching views. If they don't want to patch this beast together before they switch to Cocoa, then they'd better get switchin' because it is very annoying.
This is a top-of-the-line MacBook Pro from last year. Makes me miss WinAmp. So, fingers crossed Steve will yell "surprise! I wasn't sick, I've just been rewriting iTunes instead of sleeping" and BRING IT ON.
Hmmm, doesn't seem to be slow on my 8 core Nehalem Mac Pro. I wonder why?
I agree I don't think flash for media will work as a major distribution format, at least not the way things are currently set up.
I think if electronics manufacturers were being smart about the future this is they way they would go to keep physical media going, perhaps some years down the road they will. At the current moment they are most concerned with keeping us locked into buying players and discs. They are going to ride that business model until it collapses. Usually they are slow to change and the collapse is very hard for them.
I don't agree streaming will only dribble. The options and choices for watching streamed video has greater potential than Blu-ray. What will really put streaming/downloading over the top will be mobile devices. Apple has pretty much set the iPhone up for media streaming. Media streaming services are working on adapting for the mobile space. Its taking other phone manufacturers more time to get themselves to a point where media streaming services can take advantage of their platforms. Soon it will all come together.
We agree on some things. But I'm really concerned as the point of this discussion, with HD downloads. That's what we're talking about.
Right now, Apple's 720 downloads look just a bit better than a DVD of the same movie. A bit sharper, but sometimes not as good in shadow detail, or highlights, or color saturation, where they seem noisy in comparison.
A 1080p download at the same quality level as their 720 offerings will not come close to the B-R disk. When I compare the 720 download to the B-R, all I can say is Ugh!! And the price is the same or higher!
What bandwidth will Apple need to offer an uncompressed (over the format's built-in compression) download of the movie, and how many people will have the bandwidth on their end?
That's the real question. All the rest pales in comparison.
So, let's get some real numbers.
Assuming a download bandwidth of 10Mb/s, that gives us an ideal rate of 1.25 MB/s.
If we have a 1080p movie at the same quality level as a B-R, let's assume 25GB. Some longer movies are using dual layer B-R disks already.
That comes out to a download time of 333 minutes, or almost 5.6 hours.
How many people are willing to wait 5.6 hours for the movie to download? Because 10Mb/s isn't enough bandwidth to stream the movie obviously.
To do that requires at least 25Mb/s.
How long do you think it will be before the majority of people have connections of even the paltry 10Mb/s? How many will have 25Mb/s in a decent amount of time from now?
And that's ideal. What if someone else in the house wants to use the connection at the same time?
Dude.. what are you talking about. You cannot buy Brand new released movies on VHS. Even if there are a FEW titles available, the majority of stuff is DVD only meaning that if you want to be able to watch the latest movies.. you can't on VHS. Thus VHS is Obsolete.
2006 is when major industry stopped producing VHS. So you are correct but many companies still support it (see my post about Panasonic's combo BD/VHS) and required it (see my post about reality shows requiring VHS tape for applicant auditions). It may be obsolete but not completely gone. That's all i was saying. 30 years and not gone yet. And, my point was that everyone on this post seems to think that BD is dead and should just go away. So if VHS is still around after 30 years, BD will probably be around for another 20 if not longer.
I did 7 ,months of chemo radition last year . So HD lives on with itunes and amazon DL ??? NO br DL ???
IS this on what format ??
I was refering to Watchmen BD and LotR on DVD.
Yep, the PlayStation 3 features a slot-load Blu-Ray drive. It works beautifully.
I agree, but it's hardly going to be the size you can put in a sub 1-inch thick laptop is it?
I agree, but it's hardly going to be the size you can put in a sub 1-inch thick laptop is it?
People have posted a number of products here earlier.
People have posted a number of products here earlier.
Yes, cos adding nearly $1000 dollars to the pre-markup price of any MacBook is going to be a really compelling idea.
/sarcasm
Apple should allow the option. It's a flimsy excuse to look at the price. When Apple included CD, it was very expensive. Same thing with DVD. Blu-Ray is no different. In fact, in inflated dollars, B-R is cheaper than either CD or DVD was when Apple included them.
The only difference is that back then, Apple had no download business to push. Now it does.
In Apple's defence, the success of CDs and DVDs was inevitable whereas Blu-Ray faces a much more fractured, certainly more complicated marketplace.
It seems to me that Apple has by no means indicated it will not support Blu-Ray ever. The timing wasn't right until maybe now and so Apple waited. Nothing wrong with that.
At worst, make the OS compatible, and let third party companies continue to offer the players and recorders. That would cost them little.
Its true but you know Apple.
It's always cheaper to press disks than to record to tape. I remember it. DVD costs were cheaper after the first year.
Ok, I'll take your word for it.
No one would buy a movie for $30 to $40. You were the one who just used $20 to $30 pricing on B-R movies (rare these days) as a reason why almost no one would buy them.
I agree few people would buy a $30-$40 movie. What differentiates this idea is that you don't need a stand alone player. You can simply stick the card into a TV or computer and have glorious 1080P and surround sound.
Early adopters would be into this at that price point. As the price comes down, it would filter to the masses. But electronics manufacturers won't do this because it risks destroying their current business model.
I see some people caring, but not too many. As most things do have an optical player, that's not much of an incentive.
I think people would have no problem moving on from optical players if given a choice.
I barely use the optical player in my Mac anymore. Most of the software on my computer has been downloaded from the developers website. The last third party application I recall installing from a disc was MS Office and that was about four years ago.
Most of the media I watch is from cable, video on demand, Hulu, iTunes, or Netflix streaming. A growing number of my friends are watching movies through torrents. But I don't participate in that myself.
Several of my gaming friends are more into playing Xbox or Playstation online. You really don't even need the optical disc for that, even though you still have to buy it to play the game online.
In a year, we'll see B-R players for under $100, maybe $75. Why buy a movie for $30-40, when the B-R will cost $15. That will quickly cost more than a B-R player. And before holiday season 2011, B-R players will be selling for $50, less on sale.
The electronics industry would charge a premium for this to make up for the loss in media player sales.
$30-$40 would not be that way forever, the price would come down as the price for BR has come down.
Honestly, I still don't now what that means.
Its like my Grandmother. She lives in a retirement home and the building is wired for broadband. She has computer hooked up to broadband, but she rarely ever uses it.
We agree on some things. But I'm really concerned as the point of this discussion, with HD downloads. That's what we're talking about.
If we have a 1080p movie at the same quality level as a B-R, let's assume 25GB. Some longer movies are using dual layer B-R disks already.
About 62% of US BD releases have been been on BD50
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...itunes+is+fast
Hmmm, doesn't seem to be slow on my 8 core Nehalem Mac Pro. I wonder why?
Are you saying that badly written UI(/any) code runs better on faster hardware? That is OUTRAGEOUS!
I don't say "small" pejoratively. I say it because I know, and read of so many people who think that at their normal viewing distance, they can appreciate 1080p with a 42" set, which is the most popular size, though larger sets are being bought more now that prices have dropped.
I say small because in order to get the full resolution of 1080p from it, a person with 20/20 vision needs to sit no further than 5 feet away. How many people do that? In order to see the full 720p you need to sit no further away than 8 feet. Even that's closer than most people sit.
So for the average seating distance that most people have, a 42" set is "small".
These numbers are based on known, and agreed upon viewing abilities of people, it's not an opinion.
Sorry you get the full resolution regardless of the distance, although the typical person wont perceive the full benefit of a 40" 1080P until 5 feet. However blu ray discs contain much more detail (compared to heavily compressed iTunes media). Disks are typically 50GB and main features are typically about 28GB.
Frankly I sit around 6 feet away from my 42" plasma and Blu Ray 1080P content is noticably better than all other sources I use. The best example of this can be found in comparing DVDs to Blu Ray versions of the same film.
On my 24" PC screen the difference may not be obvious however I want to buy a film once and play it back at home and when travelling so blu ray on a Macbook Pro would rock.
In short for home cinema lovers Blu Ray is a must.
It's my biggest gripe. Sometimes it just works and I'm impressed, others it does not. I know I'm not the average mac user with this setup, but I don't have the room I need on my laptop.
Sorry you get the full resolution regardless of the distance, although the typical person wont perceive the full benefit of a 40" 1080P until 5 feet. However blu ray discs contain much more detail (compared to heavily compressed iTunes media). Disks are typically 50GB and main features are typically about 28GB.
That was his point. What can be perceived regardless of the actual resolution on the screen.
Frankly I sit around 6 feet away from my 42" plasma and Blu Ray 1080P content is noticably better than all other sources I use.
6 feet is really close for a 40" television. That means the TV is larger than is needed for your room.
Nothing at this point can have a zero carbon foot print. The electricity used to run all of these systems mostly comes from burning coal. The goal at this point is to lower the carbon foot print as much as possible within current practical means.
Well yes and no
yes
Everything thing alive has some carbon foot print.
AND NO
By going 100 percent digital do you suppose that all those
Dvd AND dvd player factories being closed saves carbon and other terrible stuff. ?
Shipping dvd players and dvd's to warehouse's and then reshipping again to local; stores or to amazon and then shipped a third or even fourth time to the person who bought the dvd /dvd player
And driving to those stores add a forth or fifth carbon action
plastic/cardboard wrapping again ADDS to all that and shipping to assembly plants and the producing of materials itself
Cradle to grave demands that I mention that all these trillions of discs are never going back to nature like say THE MBP glass screen . And all that plastic and other landfill stuff , in the digital world there are no words for any of these items because the carbon foot print of mega mega server farms is very low per single billable MB item
In fact the carbon saved by going all digital woulld be so large that if you had mega server farms that only did itunes/amazon DL's you would be carbon plus forever .
You can slightly reduce the dvd world carbon foot print a bit by grabbing low hanging fruit like solar or wind to some production area's . Shipping by boat or car or plane is already at its best carbon level . So you can only reduce by 10 to 40 percent considering how scattered the whole dvd industry is .
Server farms already save so much carbon at the start compared to the mega large dvd industry
\\ Yet they can go all the down to 8 percent by adding wind/wave/solar /thermal/geo /and better SW to manage the whole thing , LOW amp chips made in the billions will also reduce the cooling costs of all digital world server farms .
AND best of all
an all digital world means direct to consumer from artist transactions
And all the pirates can not beat $7.99 DL or $4.99 Dl movies/
So its win-win for lower media prices
i need some daylight
Teno is talking about buying the movie on a stick, not bringing your own in.
I don't think that bringing your own in would work. You could do that now with a DVD or even a CD disk, but you can't. I know that a stick would be better, because the kiosk wouldn't need an optical recorder with the possible breakdowns, but I just don't see this working.
Pirates will always be around as something has to be paid for. Even if a movie cost one dollar, they would still pirate it.
I think a flash stick is stuck between two worlds. The world of optical, which will be around for a while yet, and the world of download which will be dribbling in over the next ten years.
I just don't see a place for it. It seems to be a product without a market in this regard.
MEL STOP GETTING stuck on minor details
It is a controllable way to stop pirates
tenobell also has great idea;s about all this .
MY sons already use little squares discs for there DS games so please think ahead my friend
in ten years with fingerprint control we can wipe out the pirates and get cheap movies and studios will make more money
everyone is happy
win win win future
time for some COD4
MELL i can use this post 6 months from now and argue the other way .
6 yrs from now cutting out all the stores plastic gas oil trucks factories players on and on that it takes to keep the disc world alive will be fast fading away , Our carbon foot print will get smaller
mayne i will vist you mel in 7 yrs and we can laff about how wrong we all was .
Your generous: I'd say within 5 years optical's dead. Why carry a disc when a thumb drive will do? 64GB are going to get cheaper over the next few years. I just can't get excited over Blu-Ray and have no intention of purchasing the beast. It's yesterday's technology on steriods is all.
Sorry you get the full resolution regardless of the distance, although the typical person wont perceive the full benefit of a 40" 1080P until 5 feet. However blu ray discs contain much more detail (compared to heavily compressed iTunes media). Disks are typically 50GB and main features are typically about 28GB.
Frankly I sit around 6 feet away from my 42" plasma and Blu Ray 1080P content is noticably better than all other sources I use. The best example of this can be found in comparing DVDs to Blu Ray versions of the same film.
On my 24" PC screen the difference may not be obvious however I want to buy a film once and play it back at home and when travelling so blu ray on a Macbook Pro would rock.
In short for home cinema lovers Blu Ray is a must.
I'm not sure if I fully agree with this chart. I have a 37" 720p Plasma (i was an early adopter) and run blu-ray on it, and we sit about 12' away from it. I do notice the difference between 480p and 720p very clearly on this set. Now that might have something to do with the Blu-ray player.