What is the point of having TVs with higher resolution than your eye? The size of the screen is pointless, as very few people want a TV that occupies more than a 30 degree field of view. Having a larger TV means that you sit further away, so 1080p is fine for all size screens, even if they are a mile high and two miles wide.
30 degrees field of view is the furthest seat in a theater. Unless you like sitting way in the back 30 degrees is a minimum to achieve immersion...not an optimal. With higher resolution you can sit closer and judging by the fact that people do so in a theater they will do so with home theater.
In any case, you can see better than 1080p at 30 degrees if you have better than 20/20 vision. I've also read that human can see far smaller horizonal (and vertical) lines than 1/60th of a degree. I think the example given is power lines against the sky.
The more resolution the more real an image looks. 1080p is no where near optimal IMHO.
What is the point of having TVs with higher resolution than your eye?
While I definitely agree with you, I am going to say something. . .
Why have a sound system whose response is better than what the ear can hear? You analog kids (pun intended) seem to think so.
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
LOL Forever?! You're nuts. I don't think any person in technology with any intelligence would say such things. . .
Dude, CD Audio has lasted for a while, and nobody is really complaining. With the iPod boom, it looks like it will be the standard bearer for a very long while, since there's no need for multi-channel audio on a set of headphones. That is, stereo will do fine.
BACK ON TOPIC:
I just saw an ad on TV advertising "Underworld Evolution" for Blu Ray. I've seen it like three times in the past few hours. I probably wouldn't have glanced to the side to look at it if it weren't for the hot, dark-haired lady who appears to be the protagonist of said movie, but it's the first ad I've seen for HD video.
Sony were banging on at E3 about NEEDING blurays storage CAPCITY to store the games code... ps1 CD-650meg plenty of room to grow, ps2 DVD 4 GIG plenty of room to grow, PS3 25/50 GIG plenty of room to grow...
if Sony are pushing bluray as the format for the movie industry, and they get to the PS 4 what are they going to push then? gold ray? will the studios keep pushing movies out on bluray and we all stay content with 60" screens at 1080..?
or will we be "forced" into upgrading yet again to "gold ray" and 4k TVs??
this just occured to me, was wondering about your input
Where do you get those #'s? 300gb or 2 hours. That seems like a thrown out # to me.
25 gB is enough for 1080p @ 30 degrees for 2 hours based on MPEG2 encoding. If you go with MPEG4 that goes down to 16gB.
360 degrees in a circle, so to get 360 degrees you multiply that number by 12 (16gb x 12 = 192gB). I figured that four regular 4x3 1080p screens would cover the ceiling, which equals another 64 gB (for 256 gB total). 20 channels of SACD for two hours is another 20gB (276 gB total). 24 gB for misc other stuff (smell-o-vision?).
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Why have a sound system whose response is better than what the ear can hear? You analog kids (pun intended) seem to think so.
I trust my senses - I have heard a world of difference between supposed "perfect" sound sources. Even cheap CD players can sould very different from each other.
Video, on the other hand, seems less subjective. Once you get to a certain point, you can't tell a difference - for me, I once saw a nature video on japaneese analog HDTV that looked like real life, so I know that the current HDTV standards are capible of being like that (of course, every HDTV signal since then has kind of let me down, but maybe that is because we have digital HDTV instead of analog ).
I think the example given is power lines against the sky.
Power lines are never perfectly horizontal...so it's a bad example. I bet it's much harder to see a perfectly horizontal thin line in the sky than one that bends or sags.
Video, on the other hand, seems less subjective. Once you get to a certain point, you can't tell a difference - for me, I once saw a nature video on japaneese analog HDTV that looked like real life, so I know that the current HDTV standards are capible of being like that (of course, every HDTV signal since then has kind of let me down, but maybe that is because we have digital HDTV instead of analog ).
By 'real life' do you mean that looking at the TV was like you were looking through a window? 'cuz I hope real life videos look like real life...it ain't computer animated.
By 'real life' do you mean that looking at the TV was like you were looking through a window? 'cuz I hope real life videos look like real life...it ain't computer animated.
Normally TV (even HDTV) does not look like it is a window - this did. It was real enough that I suspended disbelief and thought that I was there, which has never happened for me any other time with a TV.
The only thing that knocked me out of it was when they panned up a bit, and the sun caused an overexposure.
It took 300K worth of gear to get me there, though, with doubled up 50K 9" Vidikron CRT projectors and 200K worth of Meridian and Fijuroda gear, etc.
Sony were banging on at E3 about NEEDING blurays storage CAPCITY to store the games code... ps1 CD-650meg plenty of room to grow, ps2 DVD 4 GIG plenty of room to grow, PS3 25/50 GIG plenty of room to grow...
if Sony are pushing bluray as the format for the movie industry, and they get to the PS 4 what are they going to push then? gold ray? will the studios keep pushing movies out on bluray and we all stay content with 60" screens at 1080..?
or will we be "forced" into upgrading yet again to "gold ray" and 4k TVs??
this just occured to me, was wondering about your input
Rod
Well, considering that this time, the Blu-ray format is more future-proofed in that there are 100GB quad-layered discs in the pipeline already, I think you don't have anything to worry about with the PS4 or Blu-ray. There has also been a 200GB 6-layered Blu-ray disc developed by TDK.
In general, the Blu-ray format should be able to handle storage necessities for years to come.
Pray tell what's coming in the future that is going ot require 100GB or 200GB discs?
It's also doubtfull that the players of the first few generations will ever be able to read the discs. As of today any Blu-Ray player that you buy does NOT have support for anything beyond 50GB per disc. It's unclear about whether a firmware change can fix this.
The issue revolves around the incredibly tight tolerance that the laser must have to deal with each new layer. The accuracy needed almost jumps exponentially.
With 50GB discs you have 6hrs of recording at 18Mbps datarate. I'd bet you good money that in 5 years we'll have superior quality at 14Mbps than what ships today so we could be looking at 8hrs on a 50GB disc. So again I ask what exactly are we futureproofing? Datarates are not going to go up once you've achieved transperancy at a particular bitrate does it make sense to crank the throttle and burn up more space?
Now imagine the delays we see with 50GB discs and have they are more difficult to yield and then think about the hurdles that have to be jumped to sandwich 4 layers together or 8.
Like DVD-18 (Dual Sided DL discs) it's possible to create them but they are finicky and thus very few studios use them. It's cheaper to toss in a couple of DVD-9 discs and call it a day. I think you'll find that when the rubber meets the road Studio will just ship 2 or 4 50GB discs in lieu of 1 100GB or 200GB disc.
If the Blu-Ray players can start playing a disc faster than the HD-DVD players that will probably be enough to win the war. Geez. I cannot believe what a pain in the ass the Toshiba HD-DVD player is to use. It takes almost a minute and a half for a movie to actually start playing. Booting is for computers not consumer electronics. Never mind the freezes and other glitches. It was clearly rushed to market. Being first isn't always best.
Ummmm. . . It's pretty easy to tell the difference between DVD video and HD video, especially on a big screen TV. Since most TVs these days are pretty damn big, it's an easy distinction to make unless you have macular degeneration.
IMO you should modify what you said to be "Since most TVs BEING SOLD these days ..." There's a huge installed base of perfectly good TVs that won't be upgraded to something larger for at three to five years. Plus most HD-ready TVs sold two to four years ago are limited to component video as the best input source. Most people think twice before dumping a perfectly good TV for something larger and newer.
I hope all the HD companies in the HD/BR market are going to be able to survive for the next three to four years on just sales to early adopters.
Well, considering that this time, the Blu-ray format is more future-proofed in that there are 100GB quad-layered discs in the pipeline already, I think you don't have anything to worry about with the PS4 or Blu-ray. There has also been a 200GB 6-layered Blu-ray disc developed by TDK.
In general, the Blu-ray format should be able to handle storage necessities for years to come.
the blu-ray format SHOULD be able....
the xbox 360 has a no HD version... so dont software companys have to make ALL versions of the 360 run a game? in other words the HD isnt a required part..
same argument with bluray discs in the PS3... unless as murch says its possible to upgrade the BR drive in the first PS3s via a software update to be able to cope with 4/8 layer discs..
im just wondering where we are heading RE the NEXT disc format... it stands to reason that while yeilds for 8 layer discs will improve.. its STILL by the very virtue of haveing 8 layers and more places to go wrong gonna prove to be quite expensive...
but then maybe by then broadband will be manditory and we can just download levels and games like mp3s in iTunes today..
i do seem to remember people thinking dvd was PLENTY of room for a game... yeah so even 200 GB is PLENTY of room for a game maybe not so in 6/10 years time??
the xbox 360 has a no HD version... so dont software companys have to make ALL versions of the 360 run a game? in other words the HD isnt a required part..
same argument with bluray discs in the PS3... unless as murch says its possible to upgrade the BR drive in the first PS3s via a software update to be able to cope with 4/8 layer discs..
im just wondering where we are heading RE the NEXT disc format... it stands to reason that while yeilds for 8 layer discs will improve.. its STILL by the very virtue of haveing 8 layers and more places to go wrong gonna prove to be quite expensive...
but then maybe by then broadband will be manditory and we can just download levels and games like mp3s in iTunes today..
i do seem to remember people thinking dvd was PLENTY of room for a game... yeah so even 200 GB is PLENTY of room for a game maybe not so in 6/10 years time??
Rod
Every format will be supplanted with a better one eventually. The question is, do you want a format that will be able to handle the test of time better and for longer than a format that won't at all.
My point Blu-ray SHOULD be able...HD DVD WONT be able.
Granted early models of Blu-ray won't be able to read the 100GB and 200GB discs, but technology evolves and soon there will be players capable of reading such high capacity discs. Murch declared the 50GB Blu-ray disc a "pipe dream" if this is any indicator as to how much you ought to put in his predictions. And he has yet to provide any substantial evidence as to his claims of yield problems as it pertains to Blu-ray.
I think 100GB discs will be here at the end of 2007/ early 2008 and there will be a plethora of affordable players by then capable of reading such discs.
I'm excited as to what this year holds. This month will be just the beginning for Blu-ray.
Marzetta7 let's no get into who's more accurate lest I point people back to your statement just a day ago about Blu-Ray "fully" supporting CD when in fact teh $1800 Pioneer and Sony units do not.
Again you keep telling me I need 100GB or 200GB discs for the future and I'm still pondering why. I guess it's my sales background that requires me to have a "benefit" for every feature touted. So I ask
Is 100GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 2x 50GB discs? Or 200GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 4x 50GB discs?
If datarates are actually decreasing yet I'm getting transperancy to a D5 master then my only reasoning for adding larger discs is total playback time. Is total playback time really that much of an issue when you have 6hrs of HD recording today?
I think you're just getting caught up in the geekdom and hype of Blu-Ray without looking at the real world necessities. Ponder this...with 100GB discs the speed of the reading/writing will have double to keep recoring times in check. So not only will a firmware update have to take place but the the BDA has to engineer in a 2x performance increase.
all this talk about blu-ray in the ps3, higher storage, this and that.
a lot of you forget about costs. those of you who just speak as if more is always better must be either loaded or have really bad business sense and should never run a company.
develping games that take up 2 whole cd's on the current dvd format cost millions of dollars to make. there are only a handful of games that even fill that much capacity right now. imagine the cost of developing games that take advantage of the storage that blu-ray offers.... thats one hell of a risky venture.
Marzetta7 let's no get into who's more accurate lest I point people back to your statement just a day ago about Blu-Ray "fully" supporting CD when in fact teh $1800 Pioneer and Sony units do not.
Is that all you got? Pretty weak dude, especially considering that the Pioneer Elite model will be $1,500 not $1,800, but I'm sure in this instance this was a minor oversight like mine seing how Panasonic's DMP-BD10 will play CDs, so will Philip's BDP9000, and Samsung's BD-P1000. Not to mention all the PC drives from Philips, BenQ, and others of the BDA that will support CD playback (hard to keep everything straight with so many vendors supporting Blu-ray). An involuntary slip on my part, that pales in comparison to the deliberate falsehoods you state--lest I mention No 50GB discs, No MMC, Blu-ray discs more expensive, Blu-ray discs requiring caddies, poor Blu-ray disc yields, Hollywood studios defecting from Blu-ray, etc.
Quote:
Again you keep telling me I need 100GB or 200GB discs for the future and I'm still pondering why. I guess it's my sales background that requires me to have a "benefit" for every feature touted. So I ask
Is 100GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 2x 50GB discs? Or 200GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 4x 50GB discs?
Then ponder no more, as I've stated numerous times, the 100GB and 200GB discs will most likely be used for future games so that one doesn't have to take out the disc and put another back in, it will most likely be utilized for TV sitcoms, movie trilogies, for backups (in the home market primarily although I could see small businesses getting use out of it as well), and most likely in some other facets of technology or entertainment that I'm not currently thinking about.
Moreover, with the number of disc manufacturers behind Blu-ray, you never know what the price of 100GB or 200GB Blu-ray media will be in the future, but I'm sure when technology and entertainment utilize it as I think they will, it will soon become affordable as economies of scale will make sure of it.
In addition, let me remind you again about what was illustrated at this years E3 conference in regards to storage. When PS2 originally came out 75% (or something in that range so don't get all anal on me there Murch with your "fully" attempt beforehand) of games came on CD based media and the remainder came on DVD. Currently now, 95% of games come on DVD. My point is that developers as well as other technologies will always in some way or another dictate or require more storage. Just because your short-sightedness cannot fathom this, doesn't mean others' foresight needs to be hampered by your pessimistic outlook on the needs of future optical media.
Quote:
If datarates are actually decreasing yet I'm getting transperancy to a D5 master then my only reasoning for adding larger discs is total playback time. Is total playback time really that much of an issue when you have 6hrs of HD recording today?
I think you're just getting caught up in the geekdom and hype of Blu-Ray without looking at the real world necessities. Ponder this...with 100GB discs the speed of the reading/writing will have double to keep recoring times in check. So not only will a firmware update have to take place but the the BDA has to engineer in a 2x performance increase.
Put your dome around this one, considering that the BDA has already achieved a 2x perfomance increase as illustrated by the 4x LG drive, technology will evolve as it always has with faster drives. What?...did you think that somehow Blu-ray hardware from launch will need to somehow utilize the 100GB and 200GB media now to make it the better format? Get real man, 50GB, better durability, and higher resolution output all at the same price already make this the case. Seriously, I don't think engineering a 2x, or a 4x or an 8x increase will be an issue in the future considering that historically all optical media has increased in performance as time went on. So, really I don't understand your issue here.
Even with DVD, do you have players that were released at launch capable of reading today's DL DVD media?...I don't think so. The same progression applies to Blu-ray and other media formats that improve over time, so please stop the fear mongering and pessimism. If you don't want to use or need to use 100GB or 200GB media in the future, then just don't purchase it and leave the consumption up to the developers and other consumers who will need it or want it. Sheesh.
all this talk about blu-ray in the ps3, higher storage, this and that.
a lot of you forget about costs. those of you who just speak as if more is always better must be either loaded or have really bad business sense and should never run a company.
develping games that take up 2 whole cd's on the current dvd format cost millions of dollars to make. there are only a handful of games that even fill that much capacity right now. imagine the cost of developing games that take advantage of the storage that blu-ray offers.... thats one hell of a risky venture.
We've discussed cost quite often and openly. Cost is the same for Blu-ray and HD DVD. Open the cranium, let it seep in.
In regards to your illogical rant about games, see my post above regarding storage as it pertains to games. The more storage, the better. Get used to it,...I'm sure I'll keep having to remind you.
We've discussed cost quite often and openly. Cost is the same for Blu-ray and HD DVD. Open the cranium, let it seep in.
In regards to your illogical rant about games, see my post above regarding storage as it pertains to games. The more storage, the better. Get used to it,...I'm sure I'll keep having to remind you.
no where in my post did i compare the cost of blu-ray and hd-dvd so maybe you need to read it again.
the more storage the better? you think so right? thats why people are praising up and down the nintendo wii? bashing the ps3? interesting.
thats why a developer could potentially go bankrupt trying to release a big game on the ps3? interesting again.
you have ZERO business sense and your scope only rests on numbers.
Marzetta7 let's no get into who's more accurate lest I point people back to your statement just a day ago about Blu-Ray "fully" supporting CD when in fact teh $1800 Pioneer and Sony units do not.
Again you keep telling me I need 100GB or 200GB discs for the future and I'm still pondering why. I guess it's my sales background that requires me to have a "benefit" for every feature touted. So I ask
Is 100GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 2x 50GB discs? Or 200GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 4x 50GB discs?
The Sony and Pioneer players are considered "flagship" models designed to cater towards videophiles. Seeing as how there are significantly cheaper Blu-Ray players that do play CDs including Sony's own PS3 it's likely CD playback has been left off on purpose. No problem. With such significant manufacturer support for Blu-Ray there are plenty of players to choose from.
Not knowing if you will need 100GB and 200GB discs in the future is probably the best reason to go with a format that can support them. All too often "X amount should be enough" has been claimed and subsequently proven incorrect. What is needed now is almost never what is needed just a few years down the line. It's good to have a format that is as future proof as possible. Something that has room to grow.
Will a 200GB Blu-Ray be cheaper than four 50GB discs or will a 100GB Blu-Ray be cheaper than two of them? Depends. Recordable discs for computer use probably won't. Prerecorded discs used for movie trilogies and tv show box sets probably will be assuming these higher capacity discs are used outside of computer applications. Savings derived from the use of smaller packaging, less materials used and lower shipping costs need to be factored in.
My hope would be that Blu-Ray players could support 100GB discs as that should be enough for a typical HD television series season or movie trilogy. I do doubt that 200GB discs will be used outside of computer applications though. What's nice about Blu-Ray is that these are being designed prior to its release so you don't have a kludge of conflicting formats after the fact as we have seen with DVD.
Comments
Originally posted by e1618978
What is the point of having TVs with higher resolution than your eye? The size of the screen is pointless, as very few people want a TV that occupies more than a 30 degree field of view. Having a larger TV means that you sit further away, so 1080p is fine for all size screens, even if they are a mile high and two miles wide.
30 degrees field of view is the furthest seat in a theater. Unless you like sitting way in the back 30 degrees is a minimum to achieve immersion...not an optimal. With higher resolution you can sit closer and judging by the fact that people do so in a theater they will do so with home theater.
In any case, you can see better than 1080p at 30 degrees if you have better than 20/20 vision. I've also read that human can see far smaller horizonal (and vertical) lines than 1/60th of a degree. I think the example given is power lines against the sky.
The more resolution the more real an image looks. 1080p is no where near optimal IMHO.
Vinea
Originally posted by e1618978
What is the point of having TVs with higher resolution than your eye?
While I definitely agree with you, I am going to say something. . .
Why have a sound system whose response is better than what the ear can hear? You analog kids (pun intended) seem to think so.
Originally posted by emig647
LOL Forever?! You're nuts. I don't think any person in technology with any intelligence would say such things. . .
Dude, CD Audio has lasted for a while, and nobody is really complaining. With the iPod boom, it looks like it will be the standard bearer for a very long while, since there's no need for multi-channel audio on a set of headphones. That is, stereo will do fine.
BACK ON TOPIC:
I just saw an ad on TV advertising "Underworld Evolution" for Blu Ray. I've seen it like three times in the past few hours. I probably wouldn't have glanced to the side to look at it if it weren't for the hot, dark-haired lady who appears to be the protagonist of said movie, but it's the first ad I've seen for HD video.
Sony were banging on at E3 about NEEDING blurays storage CAPCITY to store the games code... ps1 CD-650meg plenty of room to grow, ps2 DVD 4 GIG plenty of room to grow, PS3 25/50 GIG plenty of room to grow...
if Sony are pushing bluray as the format for the movie industry, and they get to the PS 4 what are they going to push then? gold ray? will the studios keep pushing movies out on bluray and we all stay content with 60" screens at 1080..?
or will we be "forced" into upgrading yet again to "gold ray" and 4k TVs??
this just occured to me, was wondering about your input
Rod
Originally posted by emig647
Where do you get those #'s? 300gb or 2 hours. That seems like a thrown out # to me.
25 gB is enough for 1080p @ 30 degrees for 2 hours based on MPEG2 encoding. If you go with MPEG4 that goes down to 16gB.
360 degrees in a circle, so to get 360 degrees you multiply that number by 12 (16gb x 12 = 192gB). I figured that four regular 4x3 1080p screens would cover the ceiling, which equals another 64 gB (for 256 gB total). 20 channels of SACD for two hours is another 20gB (276 gB total). 24 gB for misc other stuff (smell-o-vision?).
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Why have a sound system whose response is better than what the ear can hear? You analog kids (pun intended) seem to think so.
I trust my senses - I have heard a world of difference between supposed "perfect" sound sources. Even cheap CD players can sould very different from each other.
Video, on the other hand, seems less subjective. Once you get to a certain point, you can't tell a difference - for me, I once saw a nature video on japaneese analog HDTV that looked like real life, so I know that the current HDTV standards are capible of being like that (of course, every HDTV signal since then has kind of let me down, but maybe that is because we have digital HDTV instead of analog
Originally posted by vinea
I think the example given is power lines against the sky.
Power lines are never perfectly horizontal...so it's a bad example. I bet it's much harder to see a perfectly horizontal thin line in the sky than one that bends or sags.
Originally posted by e1618978
Video, on the other hand, seems less subjective. Once you get to a certain point, you can't tell a difference - for me, I once saw a nature video on japaneese analog HDTV that looked like real life, so I know that the current HDTV standards are capible of being like that (of course, every HDTV signal since then has kind of let me down, but maybe that is because we have digital HDTV instead of analog
By 'real life' do you mean that looking at the TV was like you were looking through a window? 'cuz I hope real life videos look like real life...it ain't computer animated.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
By 'real life' do you mean that looking at the TV was like you were looking through a window? 'cuz I hope real life videos look like real life...it ain't computer animated.
Normally TV (even HDTV) does not look like it is a window - this did. It was real enough that I suspended disbelief and thought that I was there, which has never happened for me any other time with a TV.
The only thing that knocked me out of it was when they panned up a bit, and the sun caused an overexposure.
It took 300K worth of gear to get me there, though, with doubled up 50K 9" Vidikron CRT projectors and 200K worth of Meridian and Fijuroda gear, etc.
Originally posted by Trendannoyer
just a thought...
Sony were banging on at E3 about NEEDING blurays storage CAPCITY to store the games code... ps1 CD-650meg plenty of room to grow, ps2 DVD 4 GIG plenty of room to grow, PS3 25/50 GIG plenty of room to grow...
if Sony are pushing bluray as the format for the movie industry, and they get to the PS 4 what are they going to push then? gold ray? will the studios keep pushing movies out on bluray and we all stay content with 60" screens at 1080..?
or will we be "forced" into upgrading yet again to "gold ray" and 4k TVs??
this just occured to me, was wondering about your input
Rod
Well, considering that this time, the Blu-ray format is more future-proofed in that there are 100GB quad-layered discs in the pipeline already, I think you don't have anything to worry about with the PS4 or Blu-ray. There has also been a 200GB 6-layered Blu-ray disc developed by TDK.
In general, the Blu-ray format should be able to handle storage necessities for years to come.
It's also doubtfull that the players of the first few generations will ever be able to read the discs. As of today any Blu-Ray player that you buy does NOT have support for anything beyond 50GB per disc. It's unclear about whether a firmware change can fix this.
The issue revolves around the incredibly tight tolerance that the laser must have to deal with each new layer. The accuracy needed almost jumps exponentially.
With 50GB discs you have 6hrs of recording at 18Mbps datarate. I'd bet you good money that in 5 years we'll have superior quality at 14Mbps than what ships today so we could be looking at 8hrs on a 50GB disc. So again I ask what exactly are we futureproofing? Datarates are not going to go up once you've achieved transperancy at a particular bitrate does it make sense to crank the throttle and burn up more space?
Now imagine the delays we see with 50GB discs and have they are more difficult to yield and then think about the hurdles that have to be jumped to sandwich 4 layers together or 8.
Like DVD-18 (Dual Sided DL discs) it's possible to create them but they are finicky and thus very few studios use them. It's cheaper to toss in a couple of DVD-9 discs and call it a day. I think you'll find that when the rubber meets the road Studio will just ship 2 or 4 50GB discs in lieu of 1 100GB or 200GB disc.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Pray tell what's coming in the future that is going ot require 100GB or 200GB discs?
Really. Dirty. Porn.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Ummmm. . . It's pretty easy to tell the difference between DVD video and HD video, especially on a big screen TV. Since most TVs these days are pretty damn big, it's an easy distinction to make unless you have macular degeneration.
IMO you should modify what you said to be "Since most TVs BEING SOLD these days ..." There's a huge installed base of perfectly good TVs that won't be upgraded to something larger for at three to five years. Plus most HD-ready TVs sold two to four years ago are limited to component video as the best input source. Most people think twice before dumping a perfectly good TV for something larger and newer.
I hope all the HD companies in the HD/BR market are going to be able to survive for the next three to four years on just sales to early adopters.
Originally posted by marzetta7
Well, considering that this time, the Blu-ray format is more future-proofed in that there are 100GB quad-layered discs in the pipeline already, I think you don't have anything to worry about with the PS4 or Blu-ray. There has also been a 200GB 6-layered Blu-ray disc developed by TDK.
In general, the Blu-ray format should be able to handle storage necessities for years to come.
the blu-ray format SHOULD be able....
the xbox 360 has a no HD version... so dont software companys have to make ALL versions of the 360 run a game? in other words the HD isnt a required part..
same argument with bluray discs in the PS3... unless as murch says its possible to upgrade the BR drive in the first PS3s via a software update to be able to cope with 4/8 layer discs..
im just wondering where we are heading RE the NEXT disc format... it stands to reason that while yeilds for 8 layer discs will improve.. its STILL by the very virtue of haveing 8 layers and more places to go wrong gonna prove to be quite expensive...
but then maybe by then broadband will be manditory and we can just download levels and games like mp3s in iTunes today..
i do seem to remember people thinking dvd was PLENTY of room for a game... yeah so even 200 GB is PLENTY of room for a game
Rod
Originally posted by Trendannoyer
the blu-ray format SHOULD be able....
the xbox 360 has a no HD version... so dont software companys have to make ALL versions of the 360 run a game? in other words the HD isnt a required part..
same argument with bluray discs in the PS3... unless as murch says its possible to upgrade the BR drive in the first PS3s via a software update to be able to cope with 4/8 layer discs..
im just wondering where we are heading RE the NEXT disc format... it stands to reason that while yeilds for 8 layer discs will improve.. its STILL by the very virtue of haveing 8 layers and more places to go wrong gonna prove to be quite expensive...
but then maybe by then broadband will be manditory and we can just download levels and games like mp3s in iTunes today..
i do seem to remember people thinking dvd was PLENTY of room for a game... yeah so even 200 GB is PLENTY of room for a game
Rod
Every format will be supplanted with a better one eventually. The question is, do you want a format that will be able to handle the test of time better and for longer than a format that won't at all.
My point Blu-ray SHOULD be able...HD DVD WONT be able.
Granted early models of Blu-ray won't be able to read the 100GB and 200GB discs, but technology evolves and soon there will be players capable of reading such high capacity discs. Murch declared the 50GB Blu-ray disc a "pipe dream" if this is any indicator as to how much you ought to put in his predictions. And he has yet to provide any substantial evidence as to his claims of yield problems as it pertains to Blu-ray.
I think 100GB discs will be here at the end of 2007/ early 2008 and there will be a plethora of affordable players by then capable of reading such discs.
I'm excited as to what this year holds. This month will be just the beginning for Blu-ray.
Again you keep telling me I need 100GB or 200GB discs for the future and I'm still pondering why. I guess it's my sales background that requires me to have a "benefit" for every feature touted. So I ask
Is 100GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 2x 50GB discs? Or 200GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 4x 50GB discs?
If datarates are actually decreasing yet I'm getting transperancy to a D5 master then my only reasoning for adding larger discs is total playback time. Is total playback time really that much of an issue when you have 6hrs of HD recording today?
I think you're just getting caught up in the geekdom and hype of Blu-Ray without looking at the real world necessities. Ponder this...with 100GB discs the speed of the reading/writing will have double to keep recoring times in check. So not only will a firmware update have to take place but the the BDA has to engineer in a 2x performance increase.
a lot of you forget about costs. those of you who just speak as if more is always better must be either loaded or have really bad business sense and should never run a company.
develping games that take up 2 whole cd's on the current dvd format cost millions of dollars to make. there are only a handful of games that even fill that much capacity right now. imagine the cost of developing games that take advantage of the storage that blu-ray offers.... thats one hell of a risky venture.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Marzetta7 let's no get into who's more accurate lest I point people back to your statement just a day ago about Blu-Ray "fully" supporting CD when in fact teh $1800 Pioneer and Sony units do not.
Is that all you got? Pretty weak dude, especially considering that the Pioneer Elite model will be $1,500 not $1,800, but I'm sure in this instance this was a minor oversight like mine seing how Panasonic's DMP-BD10 will play CDs, so will Philip's BDP9000, and Samsung's BD-P1000. Not to mention all the PC drives from Philips, BenQ, and others of the BDA that will support CD playback (hard to keep everything straight with so many vendors supporting Blu-ray). An involuntary slip on my part, that pales in comparison to the deliberate falsehoods you state--lest I mention No 50GB discs, No MMC, Blu-ray discs more expensive, Blu-ray discs requiring caddies, poor Blu-ray disc yields, Hollywood studios defecting from Blu-ray, etc.
Again you keep telling me I need 100GB or 200GB discs for the future and I'm still pondering why. I guess it's my sales background that requires me to have a "benefit" for every feature touted. So I ask
Is 100GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 2x 50GB discs? Or 200GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 4x 50GB discs?
Then ponder no more, as I've stated numerous times, the 100GB and 200GB discs will most likely be used for future games so that one doesn't have to take out the disc and put another back in, it will most likely be utilized for TV sitcoms, movie trilogies, for backups (in the home market primarily although I could see small businesses getting use out of it as well), and most likely in some other facets of technology or entertainment that I'm not currently thinking about.
Moreover, with the number of disc manufacturers behind Blu-ray, you never know what the price of 100GB or 200GB Blu-ray media will be in the future, but I'm sure when technology and entertainment utilize it as I think they will, it will soon become affordable as economies of scale will make sure of it.
In addition, let me remind you again about what was illustrated at this years E3 conference in regards to storage. When PS2 originally came out 75% (or something in that range so don't get all anal on me there Murch with your "fully" attempt beforehand) of games came on CD based media and the remainder came on DVD. Currently now, 95% of games come on DVD. My point is that developers as well as other technologies will always in some way or another dictate or require more storage. Just because your short-sightedness cannot fathom this, doesn't mean others' foresight needs to be hampered by your pessimistic outlook on the needs of future optical media.
If datarates are actually decreasing yet I'm getting transperancy to a D5 master then my only reasoning for adding larger discs is total playback time. Is total playback time really that much of an issue when you have 6hrs of HD recording today?
I think you're just getting caught up in the geekdom and hype of Blu-Ray without looking at the real world necessities. Ponder this...with 100GB discs the speed of the reading/writing will have double to keep recoring times in check. So not only will a firmware update have to take place but the the BDA has to engineer in a 2x performance increase.
Put your dome around this one, considering that the BDA has already achieved a 2x perfomance increase as illustrated by the 4x LG drive, technology will evolve as it always has with faster drives. What?...did you think that somehow Blu-ray hardware from launch will need to somehow utilize the 100GB and 200GB media now to make it the better format? Get real man, 50GB, better durability, and higher resolution output all at the same price already make this the case. Seriously, I don't think engineering a 2x, or a 4x or an 8x increase will be an issue in the future considering that historically all optical media has increased in performance as time went on. So, really I don't understand your issue here.
Even with DVD, do you have players that were released at launch capable of reading today's DL DVD media?...I don't think so. The same progression applies to Blu-ray and other media formats that improve over time, so please stop the fear mongering and pessimism. If you don't want to use or need to use 100GB or 200GB media in the future, then just don't purchase it and leave the consumption up to the developers and other consumers who will need it or want it. Sheesh.
Originally posted by Elixir
all this talk about blu-ray in the ps3, higher storage, this and that.
a lot of you forget about costs. those of you who just speak as if more is always better must be either loaded or have really bad business sense and should never run a company.
develping games that take up 2 whole cd's on the current dvd format cost millions of dollars to make. there are only a handful of games that even fill that much capacity right now. imagine the cost of developing games that take advantage of the storage that blu-ray offers.... thats one hell of a risky venture.
We've discussed cost quite often and openly. Cost is the same for Blu-ray and HD DVD. Open the cranium, let it seep in.
In regards to your illogical rant about games, see my post above regarding storage as it pertains to games. The more storage, the better. Get used to it,...I'm sure I'll keep having to remind you.
Originally posted by marzetta7
We've discussed cost quite often and openly. Cost is the same for Blu-ray and HD DVD. Open the cranium, let it seep in.
In regards to your illogical rant about games, see my post above regarding storage as it pertains to games. The more storage, the better. Get used to it,...I'm sure I'll keep having to remind you.
no where in my post did i compare the cost of blu-ray and hd-dvd so maybe you need to read it again.
the more storage the better? you think so right? thats why people are praising up and down the nintendo wii? bashing the ps3? interesting.
thats why a developer could potentially go bankrupt trying to release a big game on the ps3? interesting again.
you have ZERO business sense and your scope only rests on numbers.
good luck. time will hit you in the face hard.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Marzetta7 let's no get into who's more accurate lest I point people back to your statement just a day ago about Blu-Ray "fully" supporting CD when in fact teh $1800 Pioneer and Sony units do not.
Again you keep telling me I need 100GB or 200GB discs for the future and I'm still pondering why. I guess it's my sales background that requires me to have a "benefit" for every feature touted. So I ask
Is 100GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 2x 50GB discs? Or 200GB Blu-Ray going to be cheaper than 4x 50GB discs?
The Sony and Pioneer players are considered "flagship" models designed to cater towards videophiles. Seeing as how there are significantly cheaper Blu-Ray players that do play CDs including Sony's own PS3 it's likely CD playback has been left off on purpose. No problem. With such significant manufacturer support for Blu-Ray there are plenty of players to choose from.
Not knowing if you will need 100GB and 200GB discs in the future is probably the best reason to go with a format that can support them. All too often "X amount should be enough" has been claimed and subsequently proven incorrect. What is needed now is almost never what is needed just a few years down the line. It's good to have a format that is as future proof as possible. Something that has room to grow.
Will a 200GB Blu-Ray be cheaper than four 50GB discs or will a 100GB Blu-Ray be cheaper than two of them? Depends. Recordable discs for computer use probably won't. Prerecorded discs used for movie trilogies and tv show box sets probably will be assuming these higher capacity discs are used outside of computer applications. Savings derived from the use of smaller packaging, less materials used and lower shipping costs need to be factored in.
My hope would be that Blu-Ray players could support 100GB discs as that should be enough for a typical HD television series season or movie trilogy. I do doubt that 200GB discs will be used outside of computer applications though. What's nice about Blu-Ray is that these are being designed prior to its release so you don't have a kludge of conflicting formats after the fact as we have seen with DVD.