I couldn't care less about "sharpness" rather I care A LOT about microblocking, something very common on streaming even with the fastest of connections.
(Microblocking is nonexistent for the most part on blu-ray.)
commercial movies don't come on dvd writable disc, so that price doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, your perception of quality, and mine differ, if you can are happy with a low quality video upscaled then fine, just don't expect everyone else to be.
You just don't get it, but that can't be your fault, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
So if a service is not available to me, how can that service be better, or more convenient? The service doesn't exist, which means it isn't viable. The service that does exist is better by default, you can't question that.
The world does not go around you and the advancements in consumer electronics & technologies will not wait for you, either. It's time to realize that some people in the world do have access to more things than you. You just need to accept that your limitation to what is feasible to you does not lead to incapability or limitation to others. Such is life.
I couldn't care less about "sharpness" rather I care A LOT about microblocking, something very common on streaming even with the fastest of connections.
(Microblocking is nonexistent for the most part on blu-ray.)
MB is related to bit rate, but can also be exacerbated by not so capable video processor equipped on your player.
I couldn't care less about "sharpness" rather I care A LOT about microblocking, something very common on streaming even with the fastest of connections.
(Microblocking is nonexistent for the most part on blu-ray.)
Netflix on the PS3 and Vudu don't suffer from this at all. Hopefully, when/if netflix releases updates for other devices, those devices will also get the newer, higher quality streams.
No seriously, my streaming experience is 100% block free. It wasn't one year ago but it is now. If you haven't tried it recently, it might be worth another look.
It is the current bench mark for consumer video, and just like everything before it, something else will come along that is better.
And that something will be streaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Why can't you get new TV shows or trailers on Blu-ray? BR-Live allows for this.
BD Live is a streaming service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Convenience differs for individuals, I have a video store a couple of minutes walk away, that is convenient.
Still less convenient than pushing the remote on your Apple TV though. Regardless of how close the Blu-Ray store is, streaming is more convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Wonderful word "IF".
It's still a better designed system than relying on a physical store to have a copy of every movie in the hope they have the one you want to watch. Those physical stores are in the process of closing down pretty quick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
So if a service is not available to me, how can that service be better, or more convenient? The service doesn't exist, which means it isn't viable. The service that does exist is better by default, you can't question that.
You do have one form of streaming right now so it does exist but in the format you have access to, Blu-Ray is currently cheaper and higher quality. In the big picture though, the convenience and quality of streaming is eroding the physical disc rental model. Netflix know it and Blockbuster certainly know it. When your local rental store closes down, you'll know it too.
You just don't get it, but that can't be your fault, right?
So since you are so great, please explain what I don't get
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
The world does not go around you and the advancements in consumer electronics & technologies will not wait for you, either. It's time to realize that some people in the world do have access to more things than you. You just need to accept that your limitation to what is feasible to you does not lead to incapability or limitation to others. Such is life.
ok, so what you are saying, if a product is not available to me, either because it doesn't exist, or isn't in my region, then that same product is better and I should be using it? How would I do that? Surely the better product to me is the one I can actually use?
Now, one issue is, you don't read. I didn't say it wasn't available, I said there was only one provider, now if you had read my messages you would have got this piece of information.
And no one has even denied this, streaming will one day be the product of choice, you seem to be missing the fact that, that day is not today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
BD Live is a streaming service.
yeah, of course it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Still less convenient than pushing the remote on your Apple TV though. Regardless of how close the Blu-Ray store is, streaming is more convenient.
It depends on what you message convenient as, $5 from a video store is more convenient to me that $10 to Apple and my internet provider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's still a better designed system than relying on a physical store to have a copy of every movie in the hope they have the one you want to watch. Those physical stores are in the process of closing down pretty quick.
As I said, Apple is the only player around, they don't have many movies, I can't rent them for months after my video store has them, and they charge more than the video store.
How is that a better system?
One day stream will be great and the majority of consumers will use it, that day is not today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You do have one form of streaming right now so it does exist but in the format you have access to, Blu-Ray is currently cheaper and higher quality. In the big picture though, the convenience and quality of streaming is eroding the physical disc rental model. Netflix know it and Blockbuster certainly know it. When your local rental store closes down, you'll know it too.
As I have said a number of times in this post, and a vast number of times in other posts, no one has denied this fact, everyone knows that steaming will be the product of choice in the future. yet again and again you constantly try to convince me of something I have already agreed with you on, there is no need to try and said it again, I know streaming will be that product, and when it arrives in an acceptable product form for the majority of consumers it will be great.
What I'm saying is that because of the rise of various forms of content distribution that Blu-ray will not reach the popular of DVD.
... which should not be the basis (or part thereof) for some people to drum the death of Blu-ray and spout the virtues of digital distribution. the fact we have this thread here on appleinsider.com suggests some people are using the lack of Blu-ray support in Apple products, thus far, as justification enough to discredit physical media in favour of digital distribution.
And no one has even denied this, streaming will one day be the product of choice, you seem to be missing the fact that, that day is not today.
It's not an instantaneous transition though. What's clear is the migration is happening now. That is what's being denied right now. There's a notion that people are picking up Blu-Ray instead of digital services. If you are into buying DVDs, it makes sense to future-proof your purchases and go for Blu-Ray now instead of continuing to stock up on SD media.
In terms of rentals for good services like Netflix (which I know isn't available to everyone) people are picking up streaming to the point that it surpasses DVD rentals:
This has pushed them to offer streaming-only subscriptions. Redbox (a physical disc provider) is to offer streaming this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
One day stream will be great and the majority of consumers will use it, that day is not today.
It is already great with some services today, just not the ones you have access to. There are a lot of variables to consider here and location is one of them. In countries where internet services are poor and/or streaming services aren't offered yet, Blu-Ray or DVD will still be strong. I don't think it matters though, if we are all agree streaming will be the format of choice for most people then the issue is just when that happens.
The answer differs based on location. For some people that time is today, for others, it might be years away. The US has Netflix, HBO online and others, the UK has BBC iPlayer, 4od and Lovefilm. Other European countries will have their own services. In some places, TV providers are linking up with Youtube to offer content. In China you have youku.com doing this type of thing.
Australia and New Zealand may only have the viable option of creating a US account and buying movies that way:
Ultimately, the providers need to stop holding things back by limiting shows and movies per country and take their distribution global. The internet has removed the barriers to international content. You can get TV shows from the US the same day they are broadcast anywhere in the world... but not legally. By the time the reach the official distribution, it's months away. Same goes for people in the US watching the BBC content via proxy servers. It needs to stop. Providers need to realise we are part of a global community now and start offering services that reflect this.
The music companies, the phone companies, the TV providers, the movie studios, the cinema chains all need to come out of the forgotten era they were born in and embrace the technology we have.
If you are into buying DVDs, it makes sense to future-proof your purchases and go for Blu-Ray now instead of continuing to stock up on SD media.
It is hard to conceive general consumers future-proofing on their movie purchases when stores like Best Buy still charges close to retail sticker price on most of the releases. DVD still cost much less to own, but streaming services, for those we have access, may be cheaper with paying $10/month. Obviously, most online stores are better on pricing without instant gratification, but it just seems ridiculous what BB was asking.
I just returned from BB trying to pick up some 3D Blu-ray and was shocked at their asking price. Anything 3D costs $40+ with most tagged at $45. I then looked for some of the older releases of 2D bluray and the decent titles ranged from $20-$30. Then, I went to Walmart next door and found much more reasonable pricing comparable to Amazon, but lacks the variety.
I guess I am just venting. Few 3D bluray movies I had purchased from amazon, the price ranged from $28 - $35, even on new releases like Despicable Me 3D.
No wonder most people with bluray players still buy DVD's instead. Well, I guess less people are buying DVD's in general, when it is even cheaper to rent them, via streaming or on a disc.
It's not an instantaneous transition though. What's clear is the migration is happening now. That is what's being denied right now. There's a notion that people are picking up Blu-Ray instead of digital services. If you are into buying DVDs, it makes sense to future-proof your purchases and go for Blu-Ray now instead of continuing to stock up on SD media.
No one is denying that people are using streaming now, it is the level of use that is getting over estimated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
In terms of rentals for good services like Netflix (which I know isn't available to everyone) people are picking up streaming to the point that it surpasses DVD rentals:
Remember, as big as Netflix is, they are just but one company, in the US the rental market is still controlled by DVD, it far exceeds the other methods in revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The answer differs based on location. For some people that time is today, for others, it might be years away. The US has Netflix, HBO online and others, the UK has BBC iPlayer, 4od and Lovefilm. Other European countries will have their own services. In some places, TV providers are linking up with Youtube to offer content. In China you have youku.com doing this type of thing.
Again, no one is arguing that these services exist. In NZ two of the networks have an on demand service, but I try not to use them, I find the quality terrible, and the internet cap takes a hammering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Australia and New Zealand may only have the viable option of creating a US account and buying movies that way:
Remembering this is against Apples terms of service and they can restrict access at any time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Ultimately, the providers need to stop holding things back by limiting shows and movies per country and take their distribution global. The internet has removed the barriers to international content. You can get TV shows from the US the same day they are broadcast anywhere in the world... but not legally. By the time the reach the official distribution, it's months away. Same goes for people in the US watching the BBC content via proxy servers. It needs to stop. Providers need to realise we are part of a global community now and start offering services that reflect this.
This is one area where I don't think they will want to change, they had been given the opportunity to restrict access by region to a much greater degree than ever before and I believe they enjoy it
And since when I do purchase media I current get most of it from overseas it restricts the legal right we have of importing items ourselves.
And if you can't tell a 720p video on a 100"+ screen there is something wrong with your eye sight.
Again you just want to simplify everything in a way that isn't that simple. 100" screen and 1080P HD won't look great under any circumstances, there are a lot of factors at play.
Very large screens generally don't have very much pixel density because people are generally watching them from a great distance away. If you went up close to them they would look like crap. A 100"+ screen with high pixel density would be too expensive to be practical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Again, you are showing static images of a phone, compared to moving images on a video.
The static images of the video is still the truth of the video you are watching. You just don't want to accept his point.
Nope. Good video gear will make bad transfer more apparent, but good 720p transfer will scale as well as good 1080p contents. Try it yourself, this will be true even on 100+" screen. If you can walk into a room and tell number of content pixels playing on the display, then you've got talent.
Depends on what you're used to watching. Upscaled 720p should have a softer image aka loss of image detail. I don't think this requires golden eyes...side by side I think many folks can tell. I may not be able to tell for stuff I don't watch often on gear I don't own but implying that you can't tell on normal quality gear is a claim too far IMHO.
Very large screens generally don't have very much pixel density because people are generally watching them from a great distance away. If you went up close to them they would look like crap. A 100"+ screen with high pixel density would be too expensive to be practical.
The 1080 res was chosen for a specific pixel density at a certain distance as a function of screen height. This distance is the minimum distance to achieve immersion (30 degrees horizontal viewing angle).
Depends on what you're used to watching. Upscaled 720p should have a softer image aka loss of image detail. I don't think this requires golden eyes...side by side I think many folks can tell. I may not be able to tell for stuff I don't watch often on gear I don't own but implying that you can't tell on normal quality gear is a claim too far IMHO.
The main reason people do pay little extra $ for a better video processor equipped player is so that you do not end up with softer images aka loss of image details during upscaling and watching the material on big screen. It maybe more noticeable for 480p to 1080p scaling, but 720p material is another story.
Depends on what you're used to watching. Upscaled 720p should have a softer image aka loss of image detail. I don't think this requires golden eyes...side by side I think many folks can tell. I may not be able to tell for stuff I don't watch often on gear I don't own but implying that you can't tell on normal quality gear is a claim too far IMHO.
How soft or sharp an image is not entirely dependent on its resolution. Its also the bit rate, bit depth, and compression algorithm. If done well 720P scales just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The 1080 res was chosen for a specific pixel density at a certain distance as a function of screen height. This distance is the minimum distance to achieve immersion (30 degrees horizontal viewing angle).
LCD manufacturers don't adhere to any standard pixel density. Pixel densities of different panels can be entirely different.
How soft or sharp an image is not entirely dependent on its resolution. Its also the bit rate, bit depth, and compression algorithm. If done well 720P scales just fine.
All else being equal then upscaled 720 will always be softer than 1080. This may be a trade you are willing to make fir whatever reason but you cannot claim it is invisible. "just fine" is dependent on who's defining "fine".
Quote:
LCD manufacturers don't adhere to any standard pixel density. Pixel densities of different panels can be entirely different.
You will find that all 1080 HDTV displays have the same pixel density at the 30 degree HVA distance...namely 1 pixel per degree which is the rough threshold of human visual acuity for 20/20 vision. It's part of the HDTV spec.
The main reason people do pay little extra $ for a better video processor equipped player is so that you do not end up with softer images aka loss of image details during upscaling and watching the material on big screen. It maybe more noticeable for 480p to 1080p scaling, but 720p material is another story.
Says who? Certainly not the folks that pony up for better displays and processors(folks on avsforums). You always end up with a softer image as the detail information simply isn't possible to be present. Arguing that crappy bit rate 1080i video from a crappy transfer looks worse than high bit rate 720p from a good transfer isn't a compelling counter argument to the position that well done 1080p material always looks better than well done 720p material upscaled to 1080p.
Again you can always argue that you are willing to make that trade for whatever reason but there will be visible image degradation that most folks can detect in a side by side comparison of common high quality source material. Not every scene but in many...that's why there are reference movies scenes that folks tend to use in comparing equipment.
All else being equal then upscaled 720 will always be softer than 1080. This may be a trade you are willing to make fir whatever reason but you cannot claim it is invisible. "just fine" is dependent on who's defining "fine".
Well, most people don't even know they're always watching softer 1080p version due to the display setting. Most displays will overscan roughly 5+% and this is where things get softer, especially, when using a fixed pixel displays. Whether this is noticeable or not really depends on the viewing condition, display size & viewing distance. Such small difference is more noticeable on material like text, just like when you're not using a native resolution on the PC display, however, displaying picture or graphics almost and always shows less to none difference in the material being presented.
Having said that, interpolation techniques used for graphical lines from 720p to 1080p material is less of an issue during scaling process (dependent of the processor, of course), as most of you will never notice the difference between native 1080 being overscaned vs. 720p being scaled to 1080p display.
If you normally calibrate your TV and learn to tweak the settings to remove overscan, you'll know my claims aren't far fetched.
Once again, number of pixels or material resolution is just one part of achieving better PQ, however, it is definitely overly misunderstood as a holy grail of overall PQ. Well, this is clear demonstration of 1080p truely being a great marketing gimmick. It's fooling most of you, too.
Well, most people don't even know they're always watching softer 1080p version due to the display setting.
Sure but my tvs all do 1:1 pixel mapping so no overscans. ,
Quote:
If you normally calibrate your TV and learn to tweak the settings to remove overscan, you'll know my claims aren't far fetched.
Once again, number of pixels or material resolution is just one part of achieving better PQ, however, it is definitely overly misunderstood as a holy grail of overall PQ. Well, this is clear demonstration of 1080p truely being a great marketing gimmick. It's fooling most of you, too.
I don't bother running VE any more and frankly I watch a lot of SD netflix. I know for me convenience trumps PQ 99% of the time. I buy BR with digital copy/DVD and typically watch the digital copy or the ripped DVD even on the HDTV because that's what happens to be in iTunes.
But I like owning the blu-ray because I can see the diff between current streamed hd (cable, Netflix, whatever) and blu-ray.
Resolution isn't the most important aspect of PQ but no one producing high quality is skimping by going 720p to save bits. Typically they'll choose a medium without as much size constraints.
Comments
(Microblocking is nonexistent for the most part on blu-ray.)
commercial movies don't come on dvd writable disc, so that price doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, your perception of quality, and mine differ, if you can are happy with a low quality video upscaled then fine, just don't expect everyone else to be.
You just don't get it, but that can't be your fault, right?
So if a service is not available to me, how can that service be better, or more convenient? The service doesn't exist, which means it isn't viable. The service that does exist is better by default, you can't question that.
The world does not go around you and the advancements in consumer electronics & technologies will not wait for you, either. It's time to realize that some people in the world do have access to more things than you. You just need to accept that your limitation to what is feasible to you does not lead to incapability or limitation to others. Such is life.
I couldn't care less about "sharpness" rather I care A LOT about microblocking, something very common on streaming even with the fastest of connections.
(Microblocking is nonexistent for the most part on blu-ray.)
MB is related to bit rate, but can also be exacerbated by not so capable video processor equipped on your player.
I couldn't care less about "sharpness" rather I care A LOT about microblocking, something very common on streaming even with the fastest of connections.
(Microblocking is nonexistent for the most part on blu-ray.)
Netflix on the PS3 and Vudu don't suffer from this at all. Hopefully, when/if netflix releases updates for other devices, those devices will also get the newer, higher quality streams.
No seriously, my streaming experience is 100% block free. It wasn't one year ago but it is now. If you haven't tried it recently, it might be worth another look.
It is the current bench mark for consumer video, and just like everything before it, something else will come along that is better.
And that something will be streaming.
Why can't you get new TV shows or trailers on Blu-ray? BR-Live allows for this.
BD Live is a streaming service.
Convenience differs for individuals, I have a video store a couple of minutes walk away, that is convenient.
Still less convenient than pushing the remote on your Apple TV though. Regardless of how close the Blu-Ray store is, streaming is more convenient.
Wonderful word "IF".
It's still a better designed system than relying on a physical store to have a copy of every movie in the hope they have the one you want to watch. Those physical stores are in the process of closing down pretty quick.
So if a service is not available to me, how can that service be better, or more convenient? The service doesn't exist, which means it isn't viable. The service that does exist is better by default, you can't question that.
You do have one form of streaming right now so it does exist but in the format you have access to, Blu-Ray is currently cheaper and higher quality. In the big picture though, the convenience and quality of streaming is eroding the physical disc rental model. Netflix know it and Blockbuster certainly know it. When your local rental store closes down, you'll know it too.
You just don't get it, but that can't be your fault, right?
So since you are so great, please explain what I don't get
The world does not go around you and the advancements in consumer electronics & technologies will not wait for you, either. It's time to realize that some people in the world do have access to more things than you. You just need to accept that your limitation to what is feasible to you does not lead to incapability or limitation to others. Such is life.
ok, so what you are saying, if a product is not available to me, either because it doesn't exist, or isn't in my region, then that same product is better and I should be using it? How would I do that? Surely the better product to me is the one I can actually use?
Now, one issue is, you don't read. I didn't say it wasn't available, I said there was only one provider, now if you had read my messages you would have got this piece of information.
And that something will be streaming.
And no one has even denied this, streaming will one day be the product of choice, you seem to be missing the fact that, that day is not today.
BD Live is a streaming service.
yeah, of course it is.
Still less convenient than pushing the remote on your Apple TV though. Regardless of how close the Blu-Ray store is, streaming is more convenient.
It depends on what you message convenient as, $5 from a video store is more convenient to me that $10 to Apple and my internet provider.
It's still a better designed system than relying on a physical store to have a copy of every movie in the hope they have the one you want to watch. Those physical stores are in the process of closing down pretty quick.
As I said, Apple is the only player around, they don't have many movies, I can't rent them for months after my video store has them, and they charge more than the video store.
How is that a better system?
One day stream will be great and the majority of consumers will use it, that day is not today.
You do have one form of streaming right now so it does exist but in the format you have access to, Blu-Ray is currently cheaper and higher quality. In the big picture though, the convenience and quality of streaming is eroding the physical disc rental model. Netflix know it and Blockbuster certainly know it. When your local rental store closes down, you'll know it too.
As I have said a number of times in this post, and a vast number of times in other posts, no one has denied this fact, everyone knows that steaming will be the product of choice in the future. yet again and again you constantly try to convince me of something I have already agreed with you on, there is no need to try and said it again, I know streaming will be that product, and when it arrives in an acceptable product form for the majority of consumers it will be great.
What I'm saying is that because of the rise of various forms of content distribution that Blu-ray will not reach the popular of DVD.
... which should not be the basis (or part thereof) for some people to drum the death of Blu-ray and spout the virtues of digital distribution. the fact we have this thread here on appleinsider.com suggests some people are using the lack of Blu-ray support in Apple products, thus far, as justification enough to discredit physical media in favour of digital distribution.
And no one has even denied this, streaming will one day be the product of choice, you seem to be missing the fact that, that day is not today.
It's not an instantaneous transition though. What's clear is the migration is happening now. That is what's being denied right now. There's a notion that people are picking up Blu-Ray instead of digital services. If you are into buying DVDs, it makes sense to future-proof your purchases and go for Blu-Ray now instead of continuing to stock up on SD media.
In terms of rentals for good services like Netflix (which I know isn't available to everyone) people are picking up streaming to the point that it surpasses DVD rentals:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...aming-only.php
This has pushed them to offer streaming-only subscriptions. Redbox (a physical disc provider) is to offer streaming this year.
One day stream will be great and the majority of consumers will use it, that day is not today.
It is already great with some services today, just not the ones you have access to. There are a lot of variables to consider here and location is one of them. In countries where internet services are poor and/or streaming services aren't offered yet, Blu-Ray or DVD will still be strong. I don't think it matters though, if we are all agree streaming will be the format of choice for most people then the issue is just when that happens.
The answer differs based on location. For some people that time is today, for others, it might be years away. The US has Netflix, HBO online and others, the UK has BBC iPlayer, 4od and Lovefilm. Other European countries will have their own services. In some places, TV providers are linking up with Youtube to offer content. In China you have youku.com doing this type of thing.
Australia and New Zealand may only have the viable option of creating a US account and buying movies that way:
http://www.iphonewzealand.co.nz/2010...video-gallery/
but it's an option.
Ultimately, the providers need to stop holding things back by limiting shows and movies per country and take their distribution global. The internet has removed the barriers to international content. You can get TV shows from the US the same day they are broadcast anywhere in the world... but not legally. By the time the reach the official distribution, it's months away. Same goes for people in the US watching the BBC content via proxy servers. It needs to stop. Providers need to realise we are part of a global community now and start offering services that reflect this.
The music companies, the phone companies, the TV providers, the movie studios, the cinema chains all need to come out of the forgotten era they were born in and embrace the technology we have.
If you are into buying DVDs, it makes sense to future-proof your purchases and go for Blu-Ray now instead of continuing to stock up on SD media.
It is hard to conceive general consumers future-proofing on their movie purchases when stores like Best Buy still charges close to retail sticker price on most of the releases. DVD still cost much less to own, but streaming services, for those we have access, may be cheaper with paying $10/month. Obviously, most online stores are better on pricing without instant gratification, but it just seems ridiculous what BB was asking.
I just returned from BB trying to pick up some 3D Blu-ray and was shocked at their asking price. Anything 3D costs $40+ with most tagged at $45. I then looked for some of the older releases of 2D bluray and the decent titles ranged from $20-$30. Then, I went to Walmart next door and found much more reasonable pricing comparable to Amazon, but lacks the variety.
I guess I am just venting. Few 3D bluray movies I had purchased from amazon, the price ranged from $28 - $35, even on new releases like Despicable Me 3D.
No wonder most people with bluray players still buy DVD's instead. Well, I guess less people are buying DVD's in general, when it is even cheaper to rent them, via streaming or on a disc.
It's not an instantaneous transition though. What's clear is the migration is happening now. That is what's being denied right now. There's a notion that people are picking up Blu-Ray instead of digital services. If you are into buying DVDs, it makes sense to future-proof your purchases and go for Blu-Ray now instead of continuing to stock up on SD media.
No one is denying that people are using streaming now, it is the level of use that is getting over estimated.
In terms of rentals for good services like Netflix (which I know isn't available to everyone) people are picking up streaming to the point that it surpasses DVD rentals:
Remember, as big as Netflix is, they are just but one company, in the US the rental market is still controlled by DVD, it far exceeds the other methods in revenue.
The answer differs based on location. For some people that time is today, for others, it might be years away. The US has Netflix, HBO online and others, the UK has BBC iPlayer, 4od and Lovefilm. Other European countries will have their own services. In some places, TV providers are linking up with Youtube to offer content. In China you have youku.com doing this type of thing.
Again, no one is arguing that these services exist. In NZ two of the networks have an on demand service, but I try not to use them, I find the quality terrible, and the internet cap takes a hammering.
Australia and New Zealand may only have the viable option of creating a US account and buying movies that way:
Remembering this is against Apples terms of service and they can restrict access at any time.
Ultimately, the providers need to stop holding things back by limiting shows and movies per country and take their distribution global. The internet has removed the barriers to international content. You can get TV shows from the US the same day they are broadcast anywhere in the world... but not legally. By the time the reach the official distribution, it's months away. Same goes for people in the US watching the BBC content via proxy servers. It needs to stop. Providers need to realise we are part of a global community now and start offering services that reflect this.
This is one area where I don't think they will want to change, they had been given the opportunity to restrict access by region to a much greater degree than ever before and I believe they enjoy it
And since when I do purchase media I current get most of it from overseas it restricts the legal right we have of importing items ourselves.
And if you can't tell a 720p video on a 100"+ screen there is something wrong with your eye sight.
Again you just want to simplify everything in a way that isn't that simple. 100" screen and 1080P HD won't look great under any circumstances, there are a lot of factors at play.
Very large screens generally don't have very much pixel density because people are generally watching them from a great distance away. If you went up close to them they would look like crap. A 100"+ screen with high pixel density would be too expensive to be practical.
Again, you are showing static images of a phone, compared to moving images on a video.
The static images of the video is still the truth of the video you are watching. You just don't want to accept his point.
Nope. Good video gear will make bad transfer more apparent, but good 720p transfer will scale as well as good 1080p contents. Try it yourself, this will be true even on 100+" screen. If you can walk into a room and tell number of content pixels playing on the display, then you've got talent.
Depends on what you're used to watching. Upscaled 720p should have a softer image aka loss of image detail. I don't think this requires golden eyes...side by side I think many folks can tell. I may not be able to tell for stuff I don't watch often on gear I don't own but implying that you can't tell on normal quality gear is a claim too far IMHO.
Very large screens generally don't have very much pixel density because people are generally watching them from a great distance away. If you went up close to them they would look like crap. A 100"+ screen with high pixel density would be too expensive to be practical.
The 1080 res was chosen for a specific pixel density at a certain distance as a function of screen height. This distance is the minimum distance to achieve immersion (30 degrees horizontal viewing angle).
Most folks sit too far away to be watching HD.
Depends on what you're used to watching. Upscaled 720p should have a softer image aka loss of image detail. I don't think this requires golden eyes...side by side I think many folks can tell. I may not be able to tell for stuff I don't watch often on gear I don't own but implying that you can't tell on normal quality gear is a claim too far IMHO.
The main reason people do pay little extra $ for a better video processor equipped player is so that you do not end up with softer images aka loss of image details during upscaling and watching the material on big screen. It maybe more noticeable for 480p to 1080p scaling, but 720p material is another story.
Depends on what you're used to watching. Upscaled 720p should have a softer image aka loss of image detail. I don't think this requires golden eyes...side by side I think many folks can tell. I may not be able to tell for stuff I don't watch often on gear I don't own but implying that you can't tell on normal quality gear is a claim too far IMHO.
How soft or sharp an image is not entirely dependent on its resolution. Its also the bit rate, bit depth, and compression algorithm. If done well 720P scales just fine.
The 1080 res was chosen for a specific pixel density at a certain distance as a function of screen height. This distance is the minimum distance to achieve immersion (30 degrees horizontal viewing angle).
LCD manufacturers don't adhere to any standard pixel density. Pixel densities of different panels can be entirely different.
How soft or sharp an image is not entirely dependent on its resolution. Its also the bit rate, bit depth, and compression algorithm. If done well 720P scales just fine.
All else being equal then upscaled 720 will always be softer than 1080. This may be a trade you are willing to make fir whatever reason but you cannot claim it is invisible. "just fine" is dependent on who's defining "fine".
LCD manufacturers don't adhere to any standard pixel density. Pixel densities of different panels can be entirely different.
You will find that all 1080 HDTV displays have the same pixel density at the 30 degree HVA distance...namely 1 pixel per degree which is the rough threshold of human visual acuity for 20/20 vision. It's part of the HDTV spec.
The main reason people do pay little extra $ for a better video processor equipped player is so that you do not end up with softer images aka loss of image details during upscaling and watching the material on big screen. It maybe more noticeable for 480p to 1080p scaling, but 720p material is another story.
Says who? Certainly not the folks that pony up for better displays and processors(folks on avsforums). You always end up with a softer image as the detail information simply isn't possible to be present. Arguing that crappy bit rate 1080i video from a crappy transfer looks worse than high bit rate 720p from a good transfer isn't a compelling counter argument to the position that well done 1080p material always looks better than well done 720p material upscaled to 1080p.
Again you can always argue that you are willing to make that trade for whatever reason but there will be visible image degradation that most folks can detect in a side by side comparison of common high quality source material. Not every scene but in many...that's why there are reference movies scenes that folks tend to use in comparing equipment.
All else being equal then upscaled 720 will always be softer than 1080. This may be a trade you are willing to make fir whatever reason but you cannot claim it is invisible. "just fine" is dependent on who's defining "fine".
Well, most people don't even know they're always watching softer 1080p version due to the display setting. Most displays will overscan roughly 5+% and this is where things get softer, especially, when using a fixed pixel displays. Whether this is noticeable or not really depends on the viewing condition, display size & viewing distance. Such small difference is more noticeable on material like text, just like when you're not using a native resolution on the PC display, however, displaying picture or graphics almost and always shows less to none difference in the material being presented.
Having said that, interpolation techniques used for graphical lines from 720p to 1080p material is less of an issue during scaling process (dependent of the processor, of course), as most of you will never notice the difference between native 1080 being overscaned vs. 720p being scaled to 1080p display.
If you normally calibrate your TV and learn to tweak the settings to remove overscan, you'll know my claims aren't far fetched.
Once again, number of pixels or material resolution is just one part of achieving better PQ, however, it is definitely overly misunderstood as a holy grail of overall PQ. Well, this is clear demonstration of 1080p truely being a great marketing gimmick. It's fooling most of you, too.
Well, most people don't even know they're always watching softer 1080p version due to the display setting.
Sure but my tvs all do 1:1 pixel mapping so no overscans. ,
If you normally calibrate your TV and learn to tweak the settings to remove overscan, you'll know my claims aren't far fetched.
Once again, number of pixels or material resolution is just one part of achieving better PQ, however, it is definitely overly misunderstood as a holy grail of overall PQ. Well, this is clear demonstration of 1080p truely being a great marketing gimmick. It's fooling most of you, too.
I don't bother running VE any more and frankly I watch a lot of SD netflix. I know for me convenience trumps PQ 99% of the time. I buy BR with digital copy/DVD and typically watch the digital copy or the ripped DVD even on the HDTV because that's what happens to be in iTunes.
But I like owning the blu-ray because I can see the diff between current streamed hd (cable, Netflix, whatever) and blu-ray.
Resolution isn't the most important aspect of PQ but no one producing high quality is skimping by going 720p to save bits. Typically they'll choose a medium without as much size constraints.