Right now how do you get your downloads to play on a Plasma if you don't have Apple TV? And even if you do then there's all the problem if you want to take the movie over to you friend's house. And what if you want to keep the movie? This all has to be worked out. Trust me guys. The average consumer will never go for it mainstream if all they can do is rent the movie.
This is a strawman argument.
-You don't play your downloads on your plasma without an Apple TV. The same way you cannot watch cable without a cable box, or record television without a DVR, or play a Blu-ray disc without a Blu-ray player. In each case the hardware is pretty important.
- The same way you take a video on demand or DVR recording to a friends house. There is no way to transport the HD version of a movie but you do have the option of carrying the SD version on a laptop or iPod. This logic applies to all cases. What would do with a Blu-ray disc at your friends house if like most people they have no Blu-ray player.
-If owning a movie was of much importance Netflix would be in the wrong business. Truthfully DVD rental is a more profitable business than DVD sales.
-You don't play your downloads on your plasma without an Apple TV. The same way you cannot watch cable without a cable box, or record television without a DVR, or play a Blu-ray disc without a Blu-ray player. In each case the hardware is pretty important.
- The same way you take a video on demand or DVR recording to a friends house. There is no way to transport the HD version of a movie but you do have the option of carrying the SD version on a laptop or iPod. This logic applies to all cases. What would do with a Blu-ray disc at your friends house if like most people they have no Blu-ray player.
-If owning a movie was of much importance Netflix would be in the wrong business. Truthfully DVD rental is a more profitable business than DVD sales.
We are 24 pages into this thread, in a discussion that has been raging for three years.
If DVD was good enough, why did they spend the extra money to get an HDTV?
Because 1.) even regular DVDs look better on an HDTV than they do on standard-definition big screens, and 2.) you haven't been able to walk out of a store with a big screen television that isn't HD for a couple years now. The only reason HDTVs are really starting to take off finally is because you can't buy a television that isn't; there's a good chance HDM media won't take off with consumers either until you can't buy a DVD player that doesn't also happen to play Blu-Ray discs.
Just to clear up the playing field, what proportion make up for the independent purchases and how many were the give away with HDTV purchases?
Since the last stats, it's hard to get a honest figure. I'm not saying free give aways don't count. If Blu-ray supporters can give away 20k units a week, that would definitely help with the HDM.
Please stop that crap about giving away 20k units. You know it isn't true.
I don't see the humor. This is a frustrating time for a consumer who wants to enjoy HD films. On the one hand, the artificially-priced and feature-complete monopolistic disc format is on it's death bed...
Another problem that is holding back downloading/streaming content is everyone forming their own services and camps that you have to buy into. Their needs to be interoperability between the services and hardware. That would offer people more options
Exactly. At least the CE companies know that one format is best (with the exception of Toshiba) but Apple, Microsoft, Vudu et al launch one music or video service after another based on their own implementations.
I think the landscape in 5 years is going to look vastly different and in 10 years the thought of movies on optical discs will see strange. Viva La Revolution!
Will likely happen, Fox testing the water with "blue harvest" is an indicator, and the extra 20GB on BD means there is at least the space to do it, but then its FOX and aren't they {whispers BD+} evil?
The digital copy is on a DVD. Not many have Blu-ray drives in their computers.
-You don't play your downloads on your plasma without an Apple TV. The same way you cannot watch cable without a cable box, or record television without a DVR, or play a Blu-ray disc without a Blu-ray player. In each case the hardware is pretty important.
- The same way you take a video on demand or DVR recording to a friends house. There is no way to transport the HD version of a movie but you do have the option of carrying the SD version on a laptop or iPod. This logic applies to all cases. What would do with a Blu-ray disc at your friends house if like most people they have no Blu-ray player.
-If owning a movie was of much importance Netflix would be in the wrong business. Truthfully DVD rental is a more profitable business than DVD sales.
I don't think anyone is saying that rentals won't have a future, but murch seems to think that rental will be the only future.
(And you can rent BD movies too you know which you can even bring to a friends house)
The digital copy is on a DVD. Not many have Blu-ray drives in their computers.
mmm, sorry if i wasnt clear, yes the tester mp4/ipod copy is on the DVD of blue harvest. BUT with the extra room on BD it should be easy to find space to stick a full length film of "iPod quality" on a BD disc IN THE FUTURE when there was a debate earlier in the thread about lossy/lossless/pmc/7.1 audio getting it hard to find room on HD-DVD and easily finding space on BD then I think they could find the 1Gb/2/4Gb needed for an iPod/AppleTV movie, that was my point
--
PS Artificially priced Monopolistic disc format was funny
If DVD was good enough, why did they spend the extra money to get an HDTV?
It doesn't exactly work that way. Remember the buying public settled for many years for VHS which was half the resolution of what most sets at the time. They could have chosen Laser Disc which was the same or more resolution of the sets of the time.
The only reason they didn't go for Laser Disc back then was it couldn't record.
I disagree. Most DVDs look much better on an HD set. It's not like you get a lot of noise like you'd get with SD broadcast tv. They just look soft in comparison to HD.
-You don't play your downloads on your plasma without an Apple TV. The same way you cannot watch cable without a cable box, or record television without a DVR, or play a Blu-ray disc without a Blu-ray player. In each case the hardware is pretty important.
- The same way you take a video on demand or DVR recording to a friends house. There is no way to transport the HD version of a movie but you do have the option of carrying the SD version on a laptop or iPod. This logic applies to all cases. What would do with a Blu-ray disc at your friends house if like most people they have no Blu-ray player.
-If owning a movie was of much importance Netflix would be in the wrong business. Truthfully DVD rental is a more profitable business than DVD sales.
You just illustrated my point exactly. If you're talking about a HD format making it to mainsteam ( which is what we've been talking about ) . Please show me your numbers for rentals as what I've been reading shows a strong trend toward owning. When you depend on rental downloading as your only source you don't have as much control or flexabiltiy ( which people are already used to ) with the product. And I might add even a DVD rental can be taken over to your friend's house. Without the hassel of the right connectors etc. Also we're talking about HD mediums not SD.
I disagree. Most DVDs look much better on an HD set. It's not like you get a lot of noise like you'd get with SD broadcast tv. They just look soft in comparison to HD.
If you were to watch a DVD on a 32" SDTV it would look better than on a 42" HDTV (not upconverted). It would be a crisper picture, the words wouldn't look as blurry either (anything with text looks like ass compared to HD).
If you were to watch a DVD on a 32" SDTV it would look better than on a 42" HDTV (not upconverted). It would be a crisper picture, the words wouldn't look as blurry either (anything with text looks like ass compared to HD).
Not only that, but 480p plasmas look better than 1080p plasmas (at the same screen size) when playing 480p content. Anyone who bought an HDTV with the intent of watching only DVD quality movies got ripped off.
Which is great if you're in a FiOS or DOCSIS 3.0 area. But wait...if you're there you already have functioning HD on Demand.
I've ran the numbers 3 times now (once in this thread, once in the previous thread, and once in another thread). Every-time it is just ignored because it proves that this can happen today over 1.5 (low end) DSL. At my parents house, they have 1.5Mbps DSL, and I am able to live stream 480p videos. 720p I have to let queue up for 15 seconds, and then it plays fine.
I've ran the numbers 3 times now (once in this thread, once in the previous thread, and once in another thread). Every-time it is just ignored because it proves that this can happen today over 1.5 (low end) DSL. At my parents house, they have 1.5Mbps DSL, and I am able to live stream 480p videos. 720p I have to let queue up for 15 seconds, and then it plays fine.
That it works for you is great. That the numbers state it ought to work is great. The reality is that there are still a lot of legacy DSLAMs and DLCs out there doing DSL that really aren't going to do a very good job with video.
That's ignoring for the moment that some cable modem build outs have too many subscribers on a line leading to bandwidth contention issues during peak usage.
The numbers also indicate that 802.11g has enough bandwidth to handle streaming video. In reality it works for some folks and not great for a lot of folks.
That it works for you is great. That the numbers state it ought to work is great...
That's a great point. I don't think anyone will dispute that downloads will become pervasive at some point. The trouble is, existing infrastructure in a lot of places will either prevent it or make the experience erratic and inconsistent. If it's intended to be widely adopted then it's gotta be robust and reliable. That's going to take some time. Optical media has plenty of life left while infrastructure, broadband monopolies and other pissing matches get sorted out.
Comments
Obvious guy says, "DVD video look better on HDTVs than they do on SDTVs, even without up-converting DVD players."
But, they don't. They look worse.
Right now how do you get your downloads to play on a Plasma if you don't have Apple TV? And even if you do then there's all the problem if you want to take the movie over to you friend's house. And what if you want to keep the movie? This all has to be worked out. Trust me guys. The average consumer will never go for it mainstream if all they can do is rent the movie.
This is a strawman argument.
-You don't play your downloads on your plasma without an Apple TV. The same way you cannot watch cable without a cable box, or record television without a DVR, or play a Blu-ray disc without a Blu-ray player. In each case the hardware is pretty important.
- The same way you take a video on demand or DVR recording to a friends house. There is no way to transport the HD version of a movie but you do have the option of carrying the SD version on a laptop or iPod. This logic applies to all cases. What would do with a Blu-ray disc at your friends house if like most people they have no Blu-ray player.
-If owning a movie was of much importance Netflix would be in the wrong business. Truthfully DVD rental is a more profitable business than DVD sales.
This is a strawman argument.
-You don't play your downloads on your plasma without an Apple TV. The same way you cannot watch cable without a cable box, or record television without a DVR, or play a Blu-ray disc without a Blu-ray player. In each case the hardware is pretty important.
- The same way you take a video on demand or DVR recording to a friends house. There is no way to transport the HD version of a movie but you do have the option of carrying the SD version on a laptop or iPod. This logic applies to all cases. What would do with a Blu-ray disc at your friends house if like most people they have no Blu-ray player.
-If owning a movie was of much importance Netflix would be in the wrong business. Truthfully DVD rental is a more profitable business than DVD sales.
We are 24 pages into this thread, in a discussion that has been raging for three years.
Why are you bringing logic into it now?
If DVD was good enough, why did they spend the extra money to get an HDTV?
Because 1.) even regular DVDs look better on an HDTV than they do on standard-definition big screens, and 2.) you haven't been able to walk out of a store with a big screen television that isn't HD for a couple years now. The only reason HDTVs are really starting to take off finally is because you can't buy a television that isn't; there's a good chance HDM media won't take off with consumers either until you can't buy a DVD player that doesn't also happen to play Blu-Ray discs.
Just to clear up the playing field, what proportion make up for the independent purchases and how many were the give away with HDTV purchases?
Since the last stats, it's hard to get a honest figure. I'm not saying free give aways don't count. If Blu-ray supporters can give away 20k units a week, that would definitely help with the HDM.
Please stop that crap about giving away 20k units. You know it isn't true.
I don't see the humor. This is a frustrating time for a consumer who wants to enjoy HD films. On the one hand, the artificially-priced and feature-complete monopolistic disc format is on it's death bed...
You forgot some words.
I don't see the humor either. Both of these formats have effectively SACD/DVD Audio'd consumers again.
1. Trying to cram expensive movies down consumer throats.
2. Requires potentially expensive infrastructure (HDTV, surround sound)
...
...
...
Don't all your twists and turns in these threads make you dizzy?
Another problem that is holding back downloading/streaming content is everyone forming their own services and camps that you have to buy into. Their needs to be interoperability between the services and hardware. That would offer people more options
Exactly. At least the CE companies know that one format is best (with the exception of Toshiba) but Apple, Microsoft, Vudu et al launch one music or video service after another based on their own implementations.
We need standards!
I think the landscape in 5 years is going to look vastly different and in 10 years the thought of movies on optical discs will see strange. Viva La Revolution!
Perhaps, but I want to watch movies before that.
Will likely happen, Fox testing the water with "blue harvest" is an indicator, and the extra 20GB on BD means there is at least the space to do it, but then its FOX and aren't they {whispers BD+} evil?
The digital copy is on a DVD. Not many have Blu-ray drives in their computers.
This is a strawman argument.
-You don't play your downloads on your plasma without an Apple TV. The same way you cannot watch cable without a cable box, or record television without a DVR, or play a Blu-ray disc without a Blu-ray player. In each case the hardware is pretty important.
- The same way you take a video on demand or DVR recording to a friends house. There is no way to transport the HD version of a movie but you do have the option of carrying the SD version on a laptop or iPod. This logic applies to all cases. What would do with a Blu-ray disc at your friends house if like most people they have no Blu-ray player.
-If owning a movie was of much importance Netflix would be in the wrong business. Truthfully DVD rental is a more profitable business than DVD sales.
I don't think anyone is saying that rentals won't have a future, but murch seems to think that rental will be the only future.
(And you can rent BD movies too you know which you can even bring to a friends house)
The digital copy is on a DVD. Not many have Blu-ray drives in their computers.
mmm, sorry if i wasnt clear, yes the tester mp4/ipod copy is on the DVD of blue harvest. BUT with the extra room on BD it should be easy to find space to stick a full length film of "iPod quality" on a BD disc IN THE FUTURE
--
PS Artificially priced Monopolistic disc format was funny
If DVD was good enough, why did they spend the extra money to get an HDTV?
It doesn't exactly work that way. Remember the buying public settled for many years for VHS which was half the resolution of what most sets at the time. They could have chosen Laser Disc which was the same or more resolution of the sets of the time.
The only reason they didn't go for Laser Disc back then was it couldn't record.
But, they don't. They look worse.
I disagree. Most DVDs look much better on an HD set. It's not like you get a lot of noise like you'd get with SD broadcast tv. They just look soft in comparison to HD.
This is a strawman argument.
-You don't play your downloads on your plasma without an Apple TV. The same way you cannot watch cable without a cable box, or record television without a DVR, or play a Blu-ray disc without a Blu-ray player. In each case the hardware is pretty important.
- The same way you take a video on demand or DVR recording to a friends house. There is no way to transport the HD version of a movie but you do have the option of carrying the SD version on a laptop or iPod. This logic applies to all cases. What would do with a Blu-ray disc at your friends house if like most people they have no Blu-ray player.
-If owning a movie was of much importance Netflix would be in the wrong business. Truthfully DVD rental is a more profitable business than DVD sales.
You just illustrated my point exactly. If you're talking about a HD format making it to mainsteam ( which is what we've been talking about ) . Please show me your numbers for rentals as what I've been reading shows a strong trend toward owning. When you depend on rental downloading as your only source you don't have as much control or flexabiltiy ( which people are already used to ) with the product. And I might add even a DVD rental can be taken over to your friend's house. Without the hassel of the right connectors etc. Also we're talking about HD mediums not SD.
I disagree. Most DVDs look much better on an HD set. It's not like you get a lot of noise like you'd get with SD broadcast tv. They just look soft in comparison to HD.
If you were to watch a DVD on a 32" SDTV it would look better than on a 42" HDTV (not upconverted). It would be a crisper picture, the words wouldn't look as blurry either (anything with text looks like ass compared to HD).
If you were to watch a DVD on a 32" SDTV it would look better than on a 42" HDTV (not upconverted). It would be a crisper picture, the words wouldn't look as blurry either (anything with text looks like ass compared to HD).
Not only that, but 480p plasmas look better than 1080p plasmas (at the same screen size) when playing 480p content. Anyone who bought an HDTV with the intent of watching only DVD quality movies got ripped off.
Which is great if you're in a FiOS or DOCSIS 3.0 area. But wait...if you're there you already have functioning HD on Demand.
I've ran the numbers 3 times now (once in this thread, once in the previous thread, and once in another thread). Every-time it is just ignored because it proves that this can happen today over 1.5 (low end) DSL. At my parents house, they have 1.5Mbps DSL, and I am able to live stream 480p videos. 720p I have to let queue up for 15 seconds, and then it plays fine.
I've ran the numbers 3 times now (once in this thread, once in the previous thread, and once in another thread). Every-time it is just ignored because it proves that this can happen today over 1.5 (low end) DSL. At my parents house, they have 1.5Mbps DSL, and I am able to live stream 480p videos. 720p I have to let queue up for 15 seconds, and then it plays fine.
That it works for you is great. That the numbers state it ought to work is great. The reality is that there are still a lot of legacy DSLAMs and DLCs out there doing DSL that really aren't going to do a very good job with video.
That's ignoring for the moment that some cable modem build outs have too many subscribers on a line leading to bandwidth contention issues during peak usage.
The numbers also indicate that 802.11g has enough bandwidth to handle streaming video. In reality it works for some folks and not great for a lot of folks.
That it works for you is great. That the numbers state it ought to work is great...
That's a great point. I don't think anyone will dispute that downloads will become pervasive at some point. The trouble is, existing infrastructure in a lot of places will either prevent it or make the experience erratic and inconsistent. If it's intended to be widely adopted then it's gotta be robust and reliable. That's going to take some time. Optical media has plenty of life left while infrastructure, broadband monopolies and other pissing matches get sorted out.