Yes but until Managed Copy comes out there's no way to backup a Blu-ray disc so while it offers more in audio and video resolution it does not allow you to backup your copy and play from a digital file yet.
And you need to back up a scratch-resistant optical disc...why?
And you need to back up a scratch-resistant optical disc...why?
Because scratch resistent doesn't equal scratch proof.
Look I agree with people right now that Blu-ray (HD on optical delivery) is the best format for viewing media. I've got amost 300 movies to testify to this but I can see that in 5 years the landscape is going to be different and watching movies on optical disc will be as antiquated as listening to music on optical discs is today.
Because scratch resistent doesn't equal scratch proof.
DVD's scratch pretty easy, right? I never had to repurchase a DVD because it would no longer play due to a scratch. With Blu-Rays, I've never even SEEN a scratch (and I rent them 2 at a time from Netflix). I can't see any reason why a person would need to make a backup of a blu-ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Look I agree with people right now that Blu-ray (HD on optical delivery) is the best format for viewing media. I've got amost 300 movies to testify to this but I can see that in 5 years the landscape is going to be different and watching movies on optical disc will be as antiquated as listening to music on optical discs is today.
Although movies and music both come on physically-compatible media, they are completely different experiences that don't require the same accessibility in the digital world. For music, yes it was completely silly to spend sixty seconds pulling a disc from the shelf and queuing it up just to listen to a three minute song — especially if you want to follow it up with a song from a different disc. But watching a movie is a completely different experience; you don't watch 10-20 movies in a row like you listen to songs. It's a 90-120 minute commitment. I can look for the disc on the shelf while the blu-ray player is booting up, so at the very most it might take 15 seconds longer than it would to find the film in the menu on an Apple TV. Furthermore, you don't take your movies with you the way you do music; you can't watch movies while you jog/walk/drive/work the way you do music.
Regarding the convenience of having instant-access to movies you don't own but would like to buy or rent from your couch, it's going to remain a very limited selection unless the studios completely change the way they do business. Small window releases, month-long or more delays from disc to VOD, and exclusivity rights to television stations for the first 1-2 years of a film's home video release are all reasons why no one will ever be able to build a virtually endless library of movies the way Apple has done with music. Unless you can come to rely on a service to almost always have what you're looking for, it's not going to become a one-stop shop for people to see movies. And the studios will never, ever let you go home on the day of a desirable film's home video release and stream it instantly from your Netflix account for just your monthly subscription rate. And most people aren't going to give up their netflix accounts so they can pay $5 per rental from the convenience of their couch. VOD has been available from cable and dish providers for years and years, and yet the optical disc remains.
The point being, we're a helluva lot farther than 5 years away from watching movies on optical media being as archaic as listening to music on a CD. The studios just aren't going to let anyone build a limitless digital library of movies at affordable rates the way Apple did with music. And with the differences in how one uses movies versus music, it's really not that important anyhow.
Look I agree with people right now that Blu-ray (HD on optical delivery) is the best format for viewing media. I've got amost 300 movies to testify to this but I can see that in 5 years the landscape is going to be different and watching movies on optical disc will be as antiquated as listening to music on optical discs is today.
5 years? Antiquated? In 5 years, downloads will still be a mess. Devices that download movies from iTunes still won't be able to play movies from Amazon and vice-versa. And I still won't be able to get faster internet than what I pay for 1.5 Mbps. And my disc player will still play Blu-ray and DVD's.
The point being, we're a helluva lot farther than 5 years away from watching movies on optical media being as archaic as listening to music on a CD. The studios just aren't going to let anyone build a limitless digital library of movies at affordable rates the way Apple did with music. And with the differences in how one uses movies versus music, it's really not that important anyhow.
Video consumption is in fact different than music consumption but let's be realistic here. Television series on DVD have grown tremendously over the last few years and that content is primarily 30-60 minute segments. I'm also a lover and collector of movies and thus my consumption is different than many. I'll pop in a movie just to watch a segment that I love (like th Balrog scene from LotR).
What you all propose we do is simply accept 20th century ideology. Buy a playback device for every room in the home...hope there is a portable version. What is 21st century is the ability to play content across multiple devices and network this content easily. I have little hope that Blu-ray will be able to meet this challenge given the DRM pileup. It may not be important to you but as people begin to look at the many video capable devices they own they're going to naturally gravitate towards the solution that provides the most convenience and that is where he studios will be forced to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123
5 years? Antiquated? In 5 years, downloads will still be a mess. Devices that download movies from iTunes still won't be able to play movies from Amazon and vice-versa. And I still won't be able to get faster internet than what I pay for 1.5 Mbps. And my disc player will still play Blu-ray and DVD's.
Based on what? Look at Broadband penetration today versus 5 years ago. Look at computing power and how we have 8 core computers now. In 2003, just 6 years ago. iTunes 4 was announced with the store. Since then Apple has become one of the largest media resellers. I don't know how anyone could state that in 5 years that downloads will be anything like they are today. We'll be on a nextgen codec that delivers today's quality or better at half the datarate.
I realize that some of you have crappy broadband but that's not the norm for city folk. You'll be playing your Blu-ray discs and watching forced trailers and much of the populace will be watching their movies on multiple devices in great quality.
Digital downloading is one part of digital distribution. There is also streaming and video on demand, in which you do not have to purchase everything over again.
You don't have to buy a specialized stand alone player for downloading and streaming. Any device with a data connection and media player can download/stream media content.
You dancing on semantics. My point is that buying or renting a physical disc is not as convenient as instantly downloading/streaming. People are lazy and for many the convenience is worth the lower quality.
Bandwidth is an issue. But its not stopping services such as Hulu and Netflix Watch Instantly from growing faster than physical media sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123
Digital downloads is also to get people to buy everything all over again. If you look at the iTunes store, there are movies on sale. And if you want to watch the download on your TV, you need to buy a stand-alone device. I do Netflix and Amazon so I don't have to go to the store. And leaving home isn't a bad thing since I have to do that for my other shopping anyway. And if I were to compromise on picture quality, I don't have to spend anything at all with my DVD players (and my old movies still play, woo-hoo).
Downloading movies may be great for those people with super fast internet but it is pretty painful for people like me that have 1.5 Mbps DSL. And no, I really don't want to pay more for internet just so I can download movies.
I bought the stand-alone device for my TV (AppleTV) thinking downloads would be good but it really has not been a good experience for me. The disc has been a much better experience for me.
What are the tools for measuring glossiness? Clearly the glass panel is LESS glossy than the LCD display, so what is the glossiness level if one image showing a reflection while off is glossy and another object showing no reflection while off is also glossy, because they certainly aren’t the same level of glossiness. Having this all-or-nothing attitude toward the level of glossiness while the display is off, without even a mention of reflections while the backlight is on or the quality of the backlight used is not a scientific approach by any means.
I don't know how you think the glass is less glossy than the panel. It isn't. but the glass is coated with an anti-reflection surface, so that may make it seem so.
There are tools that measure glossiness, or technically, the surface finish. I have tools for that, though they are mostly intended for metal, they work for plastic as well.
There are much more sophisticated tools using lasers and computers.
It would be worse using a matte screen below a glossy glass.
The problem with matte is that is causes flare even when the lights are out.
Light refracting through a glossy surface almost all goes to the user. But light refracting through a matte screen is moving through billions of tiny, imperfect lenses. That reflects some of that light back to the interior of the screen, and at various angles away from the point of origin. That spreads the light from brighter areas over to areas of lower brightness, causing a lessening of saturation, shadow detail, and blacks. There is no way to correct for that. Making the contrast greater doesn't get rid of the problem. This is called "light piping".
It's the way manufacturers spread the reflection out over the surface of the screen from outside lights, but they can't prevent it from doing the same thing from the light coming out of the screen, so you get a double whammy. It's why glossy screens have better saturation, shadow detail and blacks.
Someone here once commentated that matte screens qualities were "right", and that glossy screens were wrong. But that's incorrect.
It's like what we used to do in the darkroom when we used a nylon stocking to soften the image from the neg. It spread the light from the bright parts of the neg into the darker parts. This is the same effect.
Higher quality graphics correction monitors have a screen that's a much finer matte than other screens so as to minimize this problem. And hoods are supplied, or can be bought for them. The chief monitor designer at NEC told me that they would go glossy in their correction monitors, but that today's users have grown up with matte screens and won't go to glossy. So its more a marketing thing than anything else.
Really? Because I thought it was to offer a superior product for those who appreciate it? Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible with DVDs, so why would I have to repurchase all of my DVDs in Blu-Ray format? If I wanted to move to a streaming-only setup however I would legally have to repurchase every film I own in an electronic, DMR'd format. Which would be quite difficult considering Apple's iTunes only offers 71 movies for HD purchase at this time.
I said the studios want you to buy everything over again. Whether you do it or not is up to you.
We have to differentiate buying to own vs renting. Streaming and video on demand are a rental business model, you have access to entire libraries and you don't have to permanently purchase anything.
iTunes is not the only place to get digital content.
Quote:
Of course Blu-Ray wouldn't hold up on a 50 foot screen, but what does that have to do with home viewing?
My point is that Blu-ray is a compromise like everything.
Quote:
You have to purchase a device for streaming, as well. It doesn't just come out of thin air. And until streaming offers a plethora of film for purchase in HD — not just 71 (the number currently available on iTunes) — the whole "convenience" argument is void. Movies aren't only available for a short time on Blu-Ray before disappearing, nor does one have to wait months after the DVD release before they can obtain one. Additionally, if I rent 2 Blu-Ray discs at a time through NetFlix and watch/return them as quickly as they come I could conceivably watch 20 Blu-Rays a month for $17; the same number of films from a streaming service would cost $80 to rent in HD, be a fraction of the quality, and that's assuming I could even find 20 HD movies worth renting from the limited selection. Streaming is a sound theory, but the content, short window releases and pricing makes it a highly unrealistic option.
You guys need to pay more attention to my words. I'm talking about a dedicated stand alone players. The only thing you can do with a Blu-ray player is play optical media. A computer is not a dedicated stand alone player.
With your Blu-ray/Streaming example you fail to factor that Netflix has unlimited streaming. You could watch all 20 movies straight. You could finish all 20 by the time you would receive the first Blu-ray disc.
Quote:
The best option on the market right now is a Blu-Ray player with streaming capabilities thrown in for free, most notably the LG 390 with both netflix and VUDU streaming and wi-fi built in. That way one can rely on streaming on the oft-occasion that the movie you want is actually available in HD (particularly VUDU's vastly-superior HDX format), and all of the other times you can play an honest to goodness HD optical disc.
That may be the best option for you. That does not mean its the best option for everyone. Netfllix has reported far more people stream Netflix movies than rent its Blu-ray discs. Netflix has reported that its streaming service is the company's future.
Of course. But BR looks fantastic on a 15 ft screen, it's the best home video format so far.
Especially if you sit far away.
Quote:
Leave where again? I don't leave home for my Blu-Rays. I use Netflix for most of them. Amazon for a few that I want to buy. Maybe not as convenient as streaming, but since I don't use a small screen, I think it's worthwhile.
Leaving home was just an example, but not the most important part of my point. One way or another you have to wait for a physical disc to be brought to your home, which ever method of transportation is used.
Quote:
Just because it's streaming doesn't mean a specialized stand-alone device isn't helpful. On a TV, a stand-alone device is usually better for the job than using a computer.
You guys are thinking too linearly. The television is not the only option for viewing TV anymore.
I did not say that there were no stand alone players for streaming. My point is that one is not required.
You guys are making my point. Downloading/streaming does not fit into the limited confines of physical media and how physical media is viewed.
You guys need to pay more attention to my words. I'm talking about a dedicated stand alone players. The only thing you can do with a Blu-ray player is play optical media. A computer is not a dedicated stand alone player.
You may want to look at some of the blu-ray players out there, they can do a lot more than just play optical media.
Based on what? Look at Broadband penetration today versus 5 years ago. Look at computing power and how we have 8 core computers now. In 2003, just 6 years ago. iTunes 4 was announced with the store. Since then Apple has become one of the largest media resellers. I don't know how anyone could state that in 5 years that downloads will be anything like they are today. We'll be on a nextgen codec that delivers today's quality or better at half the datarate.
I realize that some of you have crappy broadband but that's not the norm for city folk. You'll be playing your Blu-ray discs and watching forced trailers and much of the populace will be watching their movies on multiple devices in great quality.
Is is based on my experience - broadband hasn't gotten faster for me, I still have 1.5 Mbps DSL. Anything faster is unnecessary for browsing and email and is a waste of money. And despite Apple being the largest media resellers, most music is still sold on a disc. And yes, we are talking music when we talk iTunes dominance, right.
You guys are thinking too linearly. The television is not the only option for viewing TV anymore.
I did not say that there were no stand alone players for streaming. My point is that one is not required.
You guys are making my point. Downloading/streaming does not fit into the limited confines of physical media and how physical media is viewed.
Yes I do use a computer for watching streaming video like YouTube and NFL.com but sitting in front of a computer for a 2 hour movie is not really a good movie experience for me. It isn't something I would compare to Blu-ray.
From a technology stand point there is no reason why televisions themselves could not include ethernet, WiFi, or SD card slots. The television itself could receive download/streaming media. SD cards could be used to watch high quality 1080P movies. There would be no need for stand alone players or discs.
The reason consumer electronics companies don't do this is because they are trying to protect their stand alone player sales. Inevitably they will be forced to let it go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123
Yes I do use a computer for watching streaming video like YouTube and NFL.com but sitting in front of a computer for a 2 hour movie is not really a good movie experience for me. It isn't something I would compare to Blu-ray.
You are speaking for yourself. Many of the rest of us are streaming as much video as we want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123
Is is based on my experience - broadband hasn't gotten faster for me, I still have 1.5 Mbps DSL. Anything faster is unnecessary for browsing and email and is a waste of money. And despite Apple being the largest media resellers, most music is still sold on a disc. And yes, we are talking music when we talk iTunes dominance, right.
You are speaking for yourself. Many of the rest of us are streaming as much video as we want.
I’ve been tethering my iPhone since it was included in the v3.0 Beta. I use more GB in a day than most likely do in a year from streaming and torrents.
PS: I know I’m part of the problem, and would gladly pay for tethering if they offered it. I’m even willing to pay the typical fee for it, I just don’t want to pay $300 for nasty USB attachment that also requires a 2 year agreement.
PPS: Woot! Getting 1.4Mbps down/370Kbps up. I wonder if the spectrum change has happened yet.
You are speaking for yourself. Many of the rest of us are streaming as much video as we want.
I am speaking for myself but I don't think I am the only one that has 1.5 Mbps DSL. And I am a fan of streaming - 1.5 Mbps works well for streaming YouTube and NFL.com. But for HD movies, that is where the disc comes in. Judging from discs and disc related hardware sections of stores, I am not the only one that feels the disc isn't going anywhere soon.
From a technology stand point there is no reason why televisions themselves could not include ethernet, WiFi, or SD card slots. The television itself could receive download/streaming media. SD cards could be used to watch high quality 1080P movies. There would be no need for stand alone players or discs.
The reason consumer electronics companies don't do this is because they are trying to protect their stand alone player sales. Inevitably they will be forced to let it go.
The reason I don't do any of that is because I have a lot of movies on DVD. Blu-ray lets me play HD movies and the old DVD movies. It is convenient for me, just insert disc and play, no connecting cables, no external monitor with HDCP issues, no new HDTV to buy with SD card for new movies, DVD player for old movie. For people like me, the simplicity of getting a disc in the mail and putting it into the player works well.
Comments
Of course. But BR looks fantastic on a 15 ft screen, it's the best home video format so far.
It's even better on Frank's 2000" TV.
Yes but until Managed Copy comes out there's no way to backup a Blu-ray disc so while it offers more in audio and video resolution it does not allow you to backup your copy and play from a digital file yet.
And you need to back up a scratch-resistant optical disc...why?
And you need to back up a scratch-resistant optical disc...why?
Because scratch resistent doesn't equal scratch proof.
Look I agree with people right now that Blu-ray (HD on optical delivery) is the best format for viewing media. I've got amost 300 movies to testify to this but I can see that in 5 years the landscape is going to be different and watching movies on optical disc will be as antiquated as listening to music on optical discs is today.
Because scratch resistent doesn't equal scratch proof.
DVD's scratch pretty easy, right? I never had to repurchase a DVD because it would no longer play due to a scratch. With Blu-Rays, I've never even SEEN a scratch (and I rent them 2 at a time from Netflix). I can't see any reason why a person would need to make a backup of a blu-ray.
Look I agree with people right now that Blu-ray (HD on optical delivery) is the best format for viewing media. I've got amost 300 movies to testify to this but I can see that in 5 years the landscape is going to be different and watching movies on optical disc will be as antiquated as listening to music on optical discs is today.
Although movies and music both come on physically-compatible media, they are completely different experiences that don't require the same accessibility in the digital world. For music, yes it was completely silly to spend sixty seconds pulling a disc from the shelf and queuing it up just to listen to a three minute song — especially if you want to follow it up with a song from a different disc. But watching a movie is a completely different experience; you don't watch 10-20 movies in a row like you listen to songs. It's a 90-120 minute commitment. I can look for the disc on the shelf while the blu-ray player is booting up, so at the very most it might take 15 seconds longer than it would to find the film in the menu on an Apple TV. Furthermore, you don't take your movies with you the way you do music; you can't watch movies while you jog/walk/drive/work the way you do music.
Regarding the convenience of having instant-access to movies you don't own but would like to buy or rent from your couch, it's going to remain a very limited selection unless the studios completely change the way they do business. Small window releases, month-long or more delays from disc to VOD, and exclusivity rights to television stations for the first 1-2 years of a film's home video release are all reasons why no one will ever be able to build a virtually endless library of movies the way Apple has done with music. Unless you can come to rely on a service to almost always have what you're looking for, it's not going to become a one-stop shop for people to see movies. And the studios will never, ever let you go home on the day of a desirable film's home video release and stream it instantly from your Netflix account for just your monthly subscription rate. And most people aren't going to give up their netflix accounts so they can pay $5 per rental from the convenience of their couch. VOD has been available from cable and dish providers for years and years, and yet the optical disc remains.
The point being, we're a helluva lot farther than 5 years away from watching movies on optical media being as archaic as listening to music on a CD. The studios just aren't going to let anyone build a limitless digital library of movies at affordable rates the way Apple did with music. And with the differences in how one uses movies versus music, it's really not that important anyhow.
Look I agree with people right now that Blu-ray (HD on optical delivery) is the best format for viewing media. I've got amost 300 movies to testify to this but I can see that in 5 years the landscape is going to be different and watching movies on optical disc will be as antiquated as listening to music on optical discs is today.
5 years? Antiquated? In 5 years, downloads will still be a mess. Devices that download movies from iTunes still won't be able to play movies from Amazon and vice-versa. And I still won't be able to get faster internet than what I pay for 1.5 Mbps. And my disc player will still play Blu-ray and DVD's.
The point being, we're a helluva lot farther than 5 years away from watching movies on optical media being as archaic as listening to music on a CD. The studios just aren't going to let anyone build a limitless digital library of movies at affordable rates the way Apple did with music. And with the differences in how one uses movies versus music, it's really not that important anyhow.
Video consumption is in fact different than music consumption but let's be realistic here. Television series on DVD have grown tremendously over the last few years and that content is primarily 30-60 minute segments. I'm also a lover and collector of movies and thus my consumption is different than many. I'll pop in a movie just to watch a segment that I love (like th Balrog scene from LotR).
What you all propose we do is simply accept 20th century ideology. Buy a playback device for every room in the home...hope there is a portable version. What is 21st century is the ability to play content across multiple devices and network this content easily. I have little hope that Blu-ray will be able to meet this challenge given the DRM pileup. It may not be important to you but as people begin to look at the many video capable devices they own they're going to naturally gravitate towards the solution that provides the most convenience and that is where he studios will be forced to go.
5 years? Antiquated? In 5 years, downloads will still be a mess. Devices that download movies from iTunes still won't be able to play movies from Amazon and vice-versa. And I still won't be able to get faster internet than what I pay for 1.5 Mbps. And my disc player will still play Blu-ray and DVD's.
Based on what? Look at Broadband penetration today versus 5 years ago. Look at computing power and how we have 8 core computers now. In 2003, just 6 years ago. iTunes 4 was announced with the store. Since then Apple has become one of the largest media resellers. I don't know how anyone could state that in 5 years that downloads will be anything like they are today. We'll be on a nextgen codec that delivers today's quality or better at half the datarate.
I realize that some of you have crappy broadband but that's not the norm for city folk. You'll be playing your Blu-ray discs and watching forced trailers and much of the populace will be watching their movies on multiple devices in great quality.
You don't have to buy a specialized stand alone player for downloading and streaming. Any device with a data connection and media player can download/stream media content.
You dancing on semantics. My point is that buying or renting a physical disc is not as convenient as instantly downloading/streaming. People are lazy and for many the convenience is worth the lower quality.
Bandwidth is an issue. But its not stopping services such as Hulu and Netflix Watch Instantly from growing faster than physical media sales.
Digital downloads is also to get people to buy everything all over again. If you look at the iTunes store, there are movies on sale. And if you want to watch the download on your TV, you need to buy a stand-alone device. I do Netflix and Amazon so I don't have to go to the store. And leaving home isn't a bad thing since I have to do that for my other shopping anyway. And if I were to compromise on picture quality, I don't have to spend anything at all with my DVD players (and my old movies still play, woo-hoo).
Downloading movies may be great for those people with super fast internet but it is pretty painful for people like me that have 1.5 Mbps DSL. And no, I really don't want to pay more for internet just so I can download movies.
I bought the stand-alone device for my TV (AppleTV) thinking downloads would be good but it really has not been a good experience for me. The disc has been a much better experience for me.
What are the tools for measuring glossiness? Clearly the glass panel is LESS glossy than the LCD display, so what is the glossiness level if one image showing a reflection while off is glossy and another object showing no reflection while off is also glossy, because they certainly aren’t the same level of glossiness. Having this all-or-nothing attitude toward the level of glossiness while the display is off, without even a mention of reflections while the backlight is on or the quality of the backlight used is not a scientific approach by any means.
I don't know how you think the glass is less glossy than the panel. It isn't. but the glass is coated with an anti-reflection surface, so that may make it seem so.
There are tools that measure glossiness, or technically, the surface finish. I have tools for that, though they are mostly intended for metal, they work for plastic as well.
There are much more sophisticated tools using lasers and computers.
It would be worse using a matte screen below a glossy glass.
The problem with matte is that is causes flare even when the lights are out.
Light refracting through a glossy surface almost all goes to the user. But light refracting through a matte screen is moving through billions of tiny, imperfect lenses. That reflects some of that light back to the interior of the screen, and at various angles away from the point of origin. That spreads the light from brighter areas over to areas of lower brightness, causing a lessening of saturation, shadow detail, and blacks. There is no way to correct for that. Making the contrast greater doesn't get rid of the problem. This is called "light piping".
It's the way manufacturers spread the reflection out over the surface of the screen from outside lights, but they can't prevent it from doing the same thing from the light coming out of the screen, so you get a double whammy. It's why glossy screens have better saturation, shadow detail and blacks.
Someone here once commentated that matte screens qualities were "right", and that glossy screens were wrong. But that's incorrect.
It's like what we used to do in the darkroom when we used a nylon stocking to soften the image from the neg. It spread the light from the bright parts of the neg into the darker parts. This is the same effect.
Higher quality graphics correction monitors have a screen that's a much finer matte than other screens so as to minimize this problem. And hoods are supplied, or can be bought for them. The chief monitor designer at NEC told me that they would go glossy in their correction monitors, but that today's users have grown up with matte screens and won't go to glossy. So its more a marketing thing than anything else.
Really? Because I thought it was to offer a superior product for those who appreciate it? Blu-Ray players are backwards compatible with DVDs, so why would I have to repurchase all of my DVDs in Blu-Ray format? If I wanted to move to a streaming-only setup however I would legally have to repurchase every film I own in an electronic, DMR'd format. Which would be quite difficult considering Apple's iTunes only offers 71 movies for HD purchase at this time.
I said the studios want you to buy everything over again. Whether you do it or not is up to you.
We have to differentiate buying to own vs renting. Streaming and video on demand are a rental business model, you have access to entire libraries and you don't have to permanently purchase anything.
iTunes is not the only place to get digital content.
Of course Blu-Ray wouldn't hold up on a 50 foot screen, but what does that have to do with home viewing?
My point is that Blu-ray is a compromise like everything.
You have to purchase a device for streaming, as well. It doesn't just come out of thin air. And until streaming offers a plethora of film for purchase in HD — not just 71 (the number currently available on iTunes) — the whole "convenience" argument is void. Movies aren't only available for a short time on Blu-Ray before disappearing, nor does one have to wait months after the DVD release before they can obtain one. Additionally, if I rent 2 Blu-Ray discs at a time through NetFlix and watch/return them as quickly as they come I could conceivably watch 20 Blu-Rays a month for $17; the same number of films from a streaming service would cost $80 to rent in HD, be a fraction of the quality, and that's assuming I could even find 20 HD movies worth renting from the limited selection. Streaming is a sound theory, but the content, short window releases and pricing makes it a highly unrealistic option.
You guys need to pay more attention to my words. I'm talking about a dedicated stand alone players. The only thing you can do with a Blu-ray player is play optical media. A computer is not a dedicated stand alone player.
With your Blu-ray/Streaming example you fail to factor that Netflix has unlimited streaming. You could watch all 20 movies straight. You could finish all 20 by the time you would receive the first Blu-ray disc.
The best option on the market right now is a Blu-Ray player with streaming capabilities thrown in for free, most notably the LG 390 with both netflix and VUDU streaming and wi-fi built in. That way one can rely on streaming on the oft-occasion that the movie you want is actually available in HD (particularly VUDU's vastly-superior HDX format), and all of the other times you can play an honest to goodness HD optical disc.
That may be the best option for you. That does not mean its the best option for everyone. Netfllix has reported far more people stream Netflix movies than rent its Blu-ray discs. Netflix has reported that its streaming service is the company's future.
It's even better on Frank's 2000" TV.
You know Frank?
He has parking for 500.
Of course. But BR looks fantastic on a 15 ft screen, it's the best home video format so far.
Especially if you sit far away.
Leave where again? I don't leave home for my Blu-Rays. I use Netflix for most of them. Amazon for a few that I want to buy. Maybe not as convenient as streaming, but since I don't use a small screen, I think it's worthwhile.
Leaving home was just an example, but not the most important part of my point. One way or another you have to wait for a physical disc to be brought to your home, which ever method of transportation is used.
Just because it's streaming doesn't mean a specialized stand-alone device isn't helpful. On a TV, a stand-alone device is usually better for the job than using a computer.
You guys are thinking too linearly. The television is not the only option for viewing TV anymore.
I did not say that there were no stand alone players for streaming. My point is that one is not required.
You guys are making my point. Downloading/streaming does not fit into the limited confines of physical media and how physical media is viewed.
You guys need to pay more attention to my words. I'm talking about a dedicated stand alone players. The only thing you can do with a Blu-ray player is play optical media. A computer is not a dedicated stand alone player.
You may want to look at some of the blu-ray players out there, they can do a lot more than just play optical media.
Based on what? Look at Broadband penetration today versus 5 years ago. Look at computing power and how we have 8 core computers now. In 2003, just 6 years ago. iTunes 4 was announced with the store. Since then Apple has become one of the largest media resellers. I don't know how anyone could state that in 5 years that downloads will be anything like they are today. We'll be on a nextgen codec that delivers today's quality or better at half the datarate.
I realize that some of you have crappy broadband but that's not the norm for city folk. You'll be playing your Blu-ray discs and watching forced trailers and much of the populace will be watching their movies on multiple devices in great quality.
Is is based on my experience - broadband hasn't gotten faster for me, I still have 1.5 Mbps DSL. Anything faster is unnecessary for browsing and email and is a waste of money. And despite Apple being the largest media resellers, most music is still sold on a disc. And yes, we are talking music when we talk iTunes dominance, right.
Especially if you sit far away.
You guys are thinking too linearly. The television is not the only option for viewing TV anymore.
I did not say that there were no stand alone players for streaming. My point is that one is not required.
You guys are making my point. Downloading/streaming does not fit into the limited confines of physical media and how physical media is viewed.
Yes I do use a computer for watching streaming video like YouTube and NFL.com but sitting in front of a computer for a 2 hour movie is not really a good movie experience for me. It isn't something I would compare to Blu-ray.
From a technology stand point there is no reason why televisions themselves could not include ethernet, WiFi, or SD card slots. The television itself could receive download/streaming media. SD cards could be used to watch high quality 1080P movies. There would be no need for stand alone players or discs.
The reason consumer electronics companies don't do this is because they are trying to protect their stand alone player sales. Inevitably they will be forced to let it go.
Yes I do use a computer for watching streaming video like YouTube and NFL.com but sitting in front of a computer for a 2 hour movie is not really a good movie experience for me. It isn't something I would compare to Blu-ray.
Is is based on my experience - broadband hasn't gotten faster for me, I still have 1.5 Mbps DSL. Anything faster is unnecessary for browsing and email and is a waste of money. And despite Apple being the largest media resellers, most music is still sold on a disc. And yes, we are talking music when we talk iTunes dominance, right.
You are speaking for yourself. Many of the rest of us are streaming as much video as we want.
I’ve been tethering my iPhone since it was included in the v3.0 Beta. I use more GB in a day than most likely do in a year from streaming and torrents.
PS: I know I’m part of the problem, and would gladly pay for tethering if they offered it. I’m even willing to pay the typical fee for it, I just don’t want to pay $300 for nasty USB attachment that also requires a 2 year agreement.
PPS: Woot! Getting 1.4Mbps down/370Kbps up. I wonder if the spectrum change has happened yet.
You are speaking for yourself. Many of the rest of us are streaming as much video as we want.
I am speaking for myself but I don't think I am the only one that has 1.5 Mbps DSL. And I am a fan of streaming - 1.5 Mbps works well for streaming YouTube and NFL.com. But for HD movies, that is where the disc comes in. Judging from discs and disc related hardware sections of stores, I am not the only one that feels the disc isn't going anywhere soon.
You can attach a computer to a larger monitor.
From a technology stand point there is no reason why televisions themselves could not include ethernet, WiFi, or SD card slots. The television itself could receive download/streaming media. SD cards could be used to watch high quality 1080P movies. There would be no need for stand alone players or discs.
The reason consumer electronics companies don't do this is because they are trying to protect their stand alone player sales. Inevitably they will be forced to let it go.
The reason I don't do any of that is because I have a lot of movies on DVD. Blu-ray lets me play HD movies and the old DVD movies. It is convenient for me, just insert disc and play, no connecting cables, no external monitor with HDCP issues, no new HDTV to buy with SD card for new movies, DVD player for old movie. For people like me, the simplicity of getting a disc in the mail and putting it into the player works well.