What are these "ridiculous" licensing terms? Or are you just going on what Steve claims?
And why wouldn't Apple alter their kernel for support, they have already added HDCP support to the OS
HDCP only requires that a signal remains encrypted throughout the entire signal chain. This is not a restrictive requirement, and purely targeted at protecting content.
BD / AACS restrictions have not been in full swing until now (and version 1 has been delayed several times), mainly because a lot of TV sets in the USA lacked compatible digital inputs. This has changed now, it has been decided. The restrictions are quite deep (Kernel Level required, specific ports must be disabled while protected content is running, even if they are used for something else entirely, any screen shot and video capture capability in the OS must be deactivated) and worse: as several industry insiders have reported, the licensing terms imply that adherence to future additional restrictions that may be decided later is expected. For OS makers there is an additional trap: any new version, or update to an OS is potentially a subject for review and approval. So, AACS LA could delay releases (or enforce the deactivation of BD support)... And there is an additional trap for Apple: MS is a founding member of AACS LA - really think Apple wants to submit future versions of OS X to MS for approval? Just to support a technology that never took off?
Again, you started talking without engaging your brain.
He claimed he stores 12 Blu-ray movies on his iPad, if you assume an average 35Gb for a blu-ray movie, that would 420Gb, I wasn't aware that Apple sold a iPad with this capacity.
Now if they were trying to be funny, and they were blu-ray rips converted down, then they would no longer be blu-rays would they...
Let?s see if you can keep up, though my optimism isn?t overwhelming.
You responded to a comment comparing the ability to have more movies and more usage. The exact quote by the posters was, "Great. By the way, have you seen my iPad? It holds 12 bluray movies and last 10 hours.?
Since the iPad has no Blu-ray drive and Blu-ray is a physical technology, not a software technology, the poster is obviously referencing a comparative to holding studio movies. You failed to understand this in your reply.
The poster clearly referenced the iPad?s duration for video playback which should have told you they are referencing the iPad?s specs which is a maximum playback is 720p at 30 fps for H.264 Main Profile level 3.1 which has a bit rate and resolution well below studio Blu-ray discs. You also failed to understand this with your mention of a 500GB drive and 35GB files.
Even ripped Blu-ray discs are usually smaller than the original discs simply because they remove the excessive extras, audio tracks and so forth, not to mention the often encoding in a lower profile that to reduce the size, but still being better than one could differentiate on a small screen. Files encoded down to 720p often work for me without issue if I use one of the 3rd-party players for the iPad, but you still need to keep the resolution and bitrate at the specs in order to play the video smoothly and get the 10 hours. But hey, at your lack of cognition is consistent. No one can that that away from you.
I guess all Apple needs to do to counter this commercial is create create one of their own showing what happens on the flight when PC only gets halfway through the film before his battery dies - the Mac can carry on to the end of the film and beyond because his film is an HD download from iTunes.
Or what would work even better is to announced that in conjunction with groups X, Y and Z, Apple proudly announces a new SuperHD format -- 1080p video with 5.1 audio and only a 25% increase in file sizes over their regular HD offers. And a new HD Extras that would allow studios to create digital copies that are just like their Blu-ray discs. Major Studios A, B and C are already on board to support both the new SuperHD format and the HD Extras on iTunes.
Then all the arguments about 'but blu-ray has better video' and 'blu-ray has better sound' and 'they don't have all the features as the real disks in the digital copies' are greatly weakened.
so you would have SD for your phone/touch, HD for your ipad/computer and SuperHD for your Apple TV/computer to pick from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89
as there's no real reason or excuse for the lack of Blu-Ray support for Mac, other than "licensing issues" which means Jobs didn't get his own way and all the pie.
No it means there were licensing issues. Up until perhaps 8 months ago, licensing was broken up into several groups and was a complete mess.
Quote:
His assertion that BR is a dead format is bollocks,
Even Microsoft has publicly said they don't feel it is a long term format and it will be replaced by downloads.
Quote:
Anyone who says that there's no difference with that and downloaded or streaming content is also misinformed,
Actually a great deal of the general public can't tell the difference between a 720p and a 1080p video. Particularly when you are looking at it on a 15 inch laptop screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz
Big whoop, I have loads of Blu-Rays but no inclination to watch them on my Mac.
You will find that many folks are the same way. They buy BR to play on their big ass 50 inch tv with the mega sound system. Not some little laptop with a pair of headphones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89
I'l bet if you surveyed a random sample of Mac owners, not the fanatics on the boards here, and asked them did the want BR the majority would say yes.
And I bet the majority, as much as 99%, would say they don't care. Mac Mini users included. Folks using any Mac as a HTPC is a small group compared to the whole. And even then many of them would tell you that they set up such a system to avoid DVD players and such and all they would do is rip the blu-ray so hooking up an external drive is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris
As for iTunes streaming of HD content... it's only 720p, NOT FULL-HD - 1920 x 1080.
For me, that just doesn't cut it.
for most it is just fine. They can't even see the difference generally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StLBluesFan
Exactly. Yet another example of Apple actually limiting choice on their products. Blu-ray? You don't need it, whatever you may actually think! Cue the painfully silly defensive responses . . .
And yet look at the sales on their pathetic machines that don't have blu-ray. On those ipads, such a stupid toy. Apparently the general public will buy that crap anyway even though it is 'substandard' since it lacks blu-ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
We really can't know the answer. It may be related to reasonable bandwidth requirements, to avoid telcos getting up in arms, or simply a licensing issue (most likely). Remember that Apple uses FairPlay to protect content, which is not a generally supported DRM mechanism for the studios.
Remember that the studios are pushing Netflix etc to wait as much as 60 days before they can rent new movies, all because the Studios want the discs to sell and believe they are not because its too easy to just rent right away. That is likely a factor as well
Or what would work even better is to announced that in conjunction with groups X, Y and Z, Apple proudly announces a new SuperHD format -- 1080p video with 5.1 audio and only a 25% increase in file sizes over their regular HD offers. And a new HD Extras that would allow studios to create digital copies that are just like their Blu-ray discs. Major Studios A, B and C are already on board to support both the new SuperHD format and the HD Extras on iTunes.
Then all the arguments about 'but blu-ray has better video' and 'blu-ray has better sound' and 'they don't have all the features as the real disks in the digital copies' are greatly weakened
Well, they are already working on the successor, but like H.264(MPEG-4 Part 10) was to MPEG-4 Part 2, it will require more processing per frame that doesn?t scale very well compared to the increased compression. Modern HW may not be able to do feasibly decode what will be the final result (and that?s without considering that H.264 is HW accelerated on most systems for video playback).
This simple Wiki entry states a deduction in file size by about 50%, which I find to be too good to be true at this point.
PS: Note that H.264 was published in 2003, years before it really started to take hold. With H.265 not appearing to be close to finalization I wonder how many years H.264 will be the best codec. I don?t see WebM or Vorbis beating MPEG-LA codecs anytime soon.
Your iPad cannot display HD content. Why do you load it? Can your iPad really handle the codec?
An HD movie from iTunes is 720p and can be up to 5GB in size. However the SD version is included free. When syncing the ipad you can choose whether to permit the HD version to be copied to prefer the SD version when available.
I allow HD because when I play content back through the TV in my hotel suite I want HD quality.
Who's interested in licensing and supporting a dying format? B-Ray has just a few years of life left. Microsoft loves getting itself tied into losing technologies and then claiming to be smart...
What is ironic about Microsoft's commercial is that they fought blu-ray by supporting another dead optical format: HD-DVD. Their position is the same as Apple's: optical formats are dying. I think what they said was something like "blu-ray will be the last optical format" (or words close to that). They also believe the future belongs to electronic distribution of video media, and they want in. Ironically, Apple is way ahea of Microsoft in this regard with their maturing iTunes Music Store distribution network. Movies from Microsoft? Maybe for the Xbox, but not Windows.
250 comments later from supposed "elitist" on both sides of the fence with petty arguments and "I'm smarter than you..." and "My way of doing things is better than yours..." and one thing remains clear... neither Microsoft nor Apple cares about any of these comments. They will continue to profit and appeal to those who support and enjoy their products. Debate all you want, but Blu-Ray is good for those who want, streaming / Apple is good for those who want it. It's that simple.
First, those who say Blu Ray adoption is faster than DVD adoption are simply wrong. Blu Ray (both player and media) sales are stagnant, the numbers buoyed slightly by PS3 sales. Read Variety. If you're in the entertainment business, you know this.
Second, can anyone fully appreciate Blu Ray quality on a 13 or 15" laptop screen? No, so all that extra digital information is wasted.
Third, as others have pointed out, Blu Ray discs are a major battery drain and the vast majority of people fly coach (i.e. without laptops plugged in).
Fourth, yes, Apple's strategy is to sell streaming media, but it also appears to be the way media distribution is going. The idea of physical carriers (books, CDs, DVDs, Blu Rays) is very twentieth-century.
Fifth, yes, Apple should stream movies at 1080, but I'm assuming they're compromising at the moment because of bandwidth issues.
Finally, if you have a quality large screen TV and surround sound system, then, yes, renting/buying Blu Ray discs makes a lot of sense.
But not on a laptop -- which makes Microsoft's ad garbarge.
HDCP only requires that a signal remains encrypted throughout the entire signal chain. This is not a restrictive requirement, and purely targeted at protecting content.
BD / AACS restrictions have not been in full swing until now (and version 1 has been delayed several times), mainly because a lot of TV sets in the USA lacked compatible digital inputs. This has changed now, it has been decided. The restrictions are quite deep (Kernel Level required, specific ports must be disabled while protected content is running, even if they are used for something else entirely, any screen shot and video capture capability in the OS must be deactivated) and worse: as several industry insiders have reported, the licensing terms imply that adherence to future additional restrictions that may be decided later is expected. For OS makers there is an additional trap: any new version, or update to an OS is potentially a subject for review and approval. So, AACS LA could delay releases (or enforce the deactivation of BD support)... And there is an additional trap for Apple: MS is a founding member of AACS LA - really think Apple wants to submit future versions of OS X to MS for approval? Just to support a technology that never took off?
You still haven't said that the "ridiculous" part is? Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them "ridiculous". And the AACS isn't a MS technology, MS doesn't approve anything so don't try and claim they do, they are just one of the founders, there is a number of others, including Disney. The AACS LA are the ones that do the approval.
Now, personally, if you have one of those old tv's that don't support HDMI, it isn't just HD blu-ray you will be missing out on, Apples devices also only support HDMI style digital connections as well. And I can't see what the issue is, I don't strike any issues with my Blu-ray players, they handle AACS, and HDCP fine, so does my TV, so does my receiver. The reason they don't is it competes too much with their attempt at HD, plain and simple.
Let?s see if you can keep up, though my optimism isn?t overwhelming.
Now I know you don't like me, I don't care about that, I don't like you one bit, nut unlike you I don't hide behind a fake name abusing anyone that comes along and corrects people.
The fact is they make a claim, their claim was wrong, your defense was wrong. Your long essay was a waste of time, someone else posted the original message, not you, they were wrong and nothing you post to defend them will fix the fact that they were wrong. Get over it.
I wasn't aware of any law that restricted whom I can blame, do you have one in your country?
ha ha ha ha, you posted one of my messages and tried to make a joke.
If you spent money on something you don't use then why complain about the product, if you didn't need it, or had no intention of using it, why buy it in the first place?
First, those who say Blu Ray adoption is faster than DVD adoption are simply wrong. Blu Ray (both player and media) sales are stagnant, the numbers buoyed slightly by PS3 sales. Read Variety. If you're in the entertainment business, you know this.
Let's see, your first point is plain wrong. Blu-ray media sales in the US has had a 80% yoy growth, globally stand alone players are also growing at around 80%, so if that is stagnant, what do you class as growth?
For instance, I get a really really huge kick out of the movie "Forrest Gump", and I am quite sure that my enjoyment of it would not have been significantly enhanced by HD or fancy surround sound...
Thompson
Please watch Avatar in a well set up Imax theater, and then watch it on your iPad using the mono speaker. Then, please get back to us about the sound and picture not enhancing anything.
Now, you make the next logical jump up, and that is DVD to Blu-Ray. Realistically, you only have a couple of benefits: better video experience if you have a higher quality TV, and a better audio experience if you have a higher-end audio setup. .
I see. So if you have an average 1080p TV and an average surround sound system, the benefits are not apparent?
Is that your position? Do you have any support for that position other than assertion?
Comments
That depends on how close to the TV you are. You can't see the pixels on an iPhone 4 either until you are less then 12 inches from the screen.
I wasn't aware of any law that restricted how far I can sit in front of my TV or computer, do you have one in your country?
The fact is that nobody can see the difference unless they have a TV set which is at a minimum 55 inches. Otherwise, 720p is a retina display.
My Pioneer plasma is 50". 480p is basically unwatchable. 720p looks passable. 1080p looks incredible.
That's my experience. Maybe you need a TV.
What are these "ridiculous" licensing terms? Or are you just going on what Steve claims?
And why wouldn't Apple alter their kernel for support, they have already added HDCP support to the OS
HDCP only requires that a signal remains encrypted throughout the entire signal chain. This is not a restrictive requirement, and purely targeted at protecting content.
BD / AACS restrictions have not been in full swing until now (and version 1 has been delayed several times), mainly because a lot of TV sets in the USA lacked compatible digital inputs. This has changed now, it has been decided. The restrictions are quite deep (Kernel Level required, specific ports must be disabled while protected content is running, even if they are used for something else entirely, any screen shot and video capture capability in the OS must be deactivated) and worse: as several industry insiders have reported, the licensing terms imply that adherence to future additional restrictions that may be decided later is expected. For OS makers there is an additional trap: any new version, or update to an OS is potentially a subject for review and approval. So, AACS LA could delay releases (or enforce the deactivation of BD support)... And there is an additional trap for Apple: MS is a founding member of AACS LA - really think Apple wants to submit future versions of OS X to MS for approval? Just to support a technology that never took off?
Again, you started talking without engaging your brain.
He claimed he stores 12 Blu-ray movies on his iPad, if you assume an average 35Gb for a blu-ray movie, that would 420Gb, I wasn't aware that Apple sold a iPad with this capacity.
Now if they were trying to be funny, and they were blu-ray rips converted down, then they would no longer be blu-rays would they...
Let?s see if you can keep up, though my optimism isn?t overwhelming.
You responded to a comment comparing the ability to have more movies and more usage. The exact quote by the posters was, "Great. By the way, have you seen my iPad? It holds 12 bluray movies and last 10 hours.?
Since the iPad has no Blu-ray drive and Blu-ray is a physical technology, not a software technology, the poster is obviously referencing a comparative to holding studio movies. You failed to understand this in your reply.
The poster clearly referenced the iPad?s duration for video playback which should have told you they are referencing the iPad?s specs which is a maximum playback is 720p at 30 fps for H.264 Main Profile level 3.1 which has a bit rate and resolution well below studio Blu-ray discs. You also failed to understand this with your mention of a 500GB drive and 35GB files.
Even ripped Blu-ray discs are usually smaller than the original discs simply because they remove the excessive extras, audio tracks and so forth, not to mention the often encoding in a lower profile that to reduce the size, but still being better than one could differentiate on a small screen. Files encoded down to 720p often work for me without issue if I use one of the 3rd-party players for the iPad, but you still need to keep the resolution and bitrate at the specs in order to play the video smoothly and get the 10 hours. But hey, at your lack of cognition is consistent. No one can that that away from you.
I guess all Apple needs to do to counter this commercial is create create one of their own showing what happens on the flight when PC only gets halfway through the film before his battery dies - the Mac can carry on to the end of the film and beyond because his film is an HD download from iTunes.
Or what would work even better is to announced that in conjunction with groups X, Y and Z, Apple proudly announces a new SuperHD format -- 1080p video with 5.1 audio and only a 25% increase in file sizes over their regular HD offers. And a new HD Extras that would allow studios to create digital copies that are just like their Blu-ray discs. Major Studios A, B and C are already on board to support both the new SuperHD format and the HD Extras on iTunes.
Then all the arguments about 'but blu-ray has better video' and 'blu-ray has better sound' and 'they don't have all the features as the real disks in the digital copies' are greatly weakened.
so you would have SD for your phone/touch, HD for your ipad/computer and SuperHD for your Apple TV/computer to pick from.
as there's no real reason or excuse for the lack of Blu-Ray support for Mac, other than "licensing issues" which means Jobs didn't get his own way and all the pie.
No it means there were licensing issues. Up until perhaps 8 months ago, licensing was broken up into several groups and was a complete mess.
His assertion that BR is a dead format is bollocks,
Even Microsoft has publicly said they don't feel it is a long term format and it will be replaced by downloads.
Anyone who says that there's no difference with that and downloaded or streaming content is also misinformed,
Actually a great deal of the general public can't tell the difference between a 720p and a 1080p video. Particularly when you are looking at it on a 15 inch laptop screen.
Big whoop, I have loads of Blu-Rays but no inclination to watch them on my Mac.
You will find that many folks are the same way. They buy BR to play on their big ass 50 inch tv with the mega sound system. Not some little laptop with a pair of headphones.
I'l bet if you surveyed a random sample of Mac owners, not the fanatics on the boards here, and asked them did the want BR the majority would say yes.
And I bet the majority, as much as 99%, would say they don't care. Mac Mini users included. Folks using any Mac as a HTPC is a small group compared to the whole. And even then many of them would tell you that they set up such a system to avoid DVD players and such and all they would do is rip the blu-ray so hooking up an external drive is fine.
As for iTunes streaming of HD content... it's only 720p, NOT FULL-HD - 1920 x 1080.
For me, that just doesn't cut it.
for most it is just fine. They can't even see the difference generally.
Exactly. Yet another example of Apple actually limiting choice on their products. Blu-ray? You don't need it, whatever you may actually think! Cue the painfully silly defensive responses . . .
And yet look at the sales on their pathetic machines that don't have blu-ray. On those ipads, such a stupid toy. Apparently the general public will buy that crap anyway even though it is 'substandard' since it lacks blu-ray.
We really can't know the answer. It may be related to reasonable bandwidth requirements, to avoid telcos getting up in arms, or simply a licensing issue (most likely). Remember that Apple uses FairPlay to protect content, which is not a generally supported DRM mechanism for the studios.
Remember that the studios are pushing Netflix etc to wait as much as 60 days before they can rent new movies, all because the Studios want the discs to sell and believe they are not because its too easy to just rent right away. That is likely a factor as well
Or what would work even better is to announced that in conjunction with groups X, Y and Z, Apple proudly announces a new SuperHD format -- 1080p video with 5.1 audio and only a 25% increase in file sizes over their regular HD offers. And a new HD Extras that would allow studios to create digital copies that are just like their Blu-ray discs. Major Studios A, B and C are already on board to support both the new SuperHD format and the HD Extras on iTunes.
Then all the arguments about 'but blu-ray has better video' and 'blu-ray has better sound' and 'they don't have all the features as the real disks in the digital copies' are greatly weakened
Well, they are already working on the successor, but like H.264(MPEG-4 Part 10) was to MPEG-4 Part 2, it will require more processing per frame that doesn?t scale very well compared to the increased compression. Modern HW may not be able to do feasibly decode what will be the final result (and that?s without considering that H.264 is HW accelerated on most systems for video playback).
This simple Wiki entry states a deduction in file size by about 50%, which I find to be too good to be true at this point. PS: Note that H.264 was published in 2003, years before it really started to take hold. With H.265 not appearing to be close to finalization I wonder how many years H.264 will be the best codec. I don?t see WebM or Vorbis beating MPEG-LA codecs anytime soon.
(1) There's absolutely NO reason Macs shouldn't come with bluray.
(2) Microsoft touts bluray as an advantage, yet neither W7 nor Xbox support it.
The only person you can blame for this is yourself.
I wasn't aware of any law that restricted whom I can blame, do you have one in your country?
Your iPad cannot display HD content. Why do you load it? Can your iPad really handle the codec?
An HD movie from iTunes is 720p and can be up to 5GB in size. However the SD version is included free. When syncing the ipad you can choose whether to permit the HD version to be copied to prefer the SD version when available.
I allow HD because when I play content back through the TV in my hotel suite I want HD quality.
That's really a poor excuse to justify piracy.
Teach them the proper way to handle disks or they can't use it.
I've trained numerous house guests and girlfriends with that method.
Well said, Jeff. I like my moralizing with a side of practical advice.
Who's interested in licensing and supporting a dying format? B-Ray has just a few years of life left. Microsoft loves getting itself tied into losing technologies and then claiming to be smart...
What is ironic about Microsoft's commercial is that they fought blu-ray by supporting another dead optical format: HD-DVD. Their position is the same as Apple's: optical formats are dying. I think what they said was something like "blu-ray will be the last optical format" (or words close to that). They also believe the future belongs to electronic distribution of video media, and they want in. Ironically, Apple is way ahea of Microsoft in this regard with their maturing iTunes Music Store distribution network. Movies from Microsoft? Maybe for the Xbox, but not Windows.
Ghost.
First, those who say Blu Ray adoption is faster than DVD adoption are simply wrong. Blu Ray (both player and media) sales are stagnant, the numbers buoyed slightly by PS3 sales. Read Variety. If you're in the entertainment business, you know this.
Second, can anyone fully appreciate Blu Ray quality on a 13 or 15" laptop screen? No, so all that extra digital information is wasted.
Third, as others have pointed out, Blu Ray discs are a major battery drain and the vast majority of people fly coach (i.e. without laptops plugged in).
Fourth, yes, Apple's strategy is to sell streaming media, but it also appears to be the way media distribution is going. The idea of physical carriers (books, CDs, DVDs, Blu Rays) is very twentieth-century.
Fifth, yes, Apple should stream movies at 1080, but I'm assuming they're compromising at the moment because of bandwidth issues.
Finally, if you have a quality large screen TV and surround sound system, then, yes, renting/buying Blu Ray discs makes a lot of sense.
But not on a laptop -- which makes Microsoft's ad garbarge.
HDCP only requires that a signal remains encrypted throughout the entire signal chain. This is not a restrictive requirement, and purely targeted at protecting content.
BD / AACS restrictions have not been in full swing until now (and version 1 has been delayed several times), mainly because a lot of TV sets in the USA lacked compatible digital inputs. This has changed now, it has been decided. The restrictions are quite deep (Kernel Level required, specific ports must be disabled while protected content is running, even if they are used for something else entirely, any screen shot and video capture capability in the OS must be deactivated) and worse: as several industry insiders have reported, the licensing terms imply that adherence to future additional restrictions that may be decided later is expected. For OS makers there is an additional trap: any new version, or update to an OS is potentially a subject for review and approval. So, AACS LA could delay releases (or enforce the deactivation of BD support)... And there is an additional trap for Apple: MS is a founding member of AACS LA - really think Apple wants to submit future versions of OS X to MS for approval? Just to support a technology that never took off?
You still haven't said that the "ridiculous" part is? Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them "ridiculous". And the AACS isn't a MS technology, MS doesn't approve anything so don't try and claim they do, they are just one of the founders, there is a number of others, including Disney. The AACS LA are the ones that do the approval.
Now, personally, if you have one of those old tv's that don't support HDMI, it isn't just HD blu-ray you will be missing out on, Apples devices also only support HDMI style digital connections as well. And I can't see what the issue is, I don't strike any issues with my Blu-ray players, they handle AACS, and HDCP fine, so does my TV, so does my receiver. The reason they don't is it competes too much with their attempt at HD, plain and simple.
Let?s see if you can keep up, though my optimism isn?t overwhelming.
Now I know you don't like me, I don't care about that, I don't like you one bit, nut unlike you I don't hide behind a fake name abusing anyone that comes along and corrects people.
The fact is they make a claim, their claim was wrong, your defense was wrong. Your long essay was a waste of time, someone else posted the original message, not you, they were wrong and nothing you post to defend them will fix the fact that they were wrong. Get over it.
I wasn't aware of any law that restricted whom I can blame, do you have one in your country?
ha ha ha ha, you posted one of my messages and tried to make a joke.
If you spent money on something you don't use then why complain about the product, if you didn't need it, or had no intention of using it, why buy it in the first place?
A couple of points.
First, those who say Blu Ray adoption is faster than DVD adoption are simply wrong. Blu Ray (both player and media) sales are stagnant, the numbers buoyed slightly by PS3 sales. Read Variety. If you're in the entertainment business, you know this.
Let's see, your first point is plain wrong. Blu-ray media sales in the US has had a 80% yoy growth, globally stand alone players are also growing at around 80%, so if that is stagnant, what do you class as growth?
Will the three people who use Blu-Ray please raise their hands?
"BD sellthrough is the fastest-growing category in the home entertainment industry, with over twice as much revenue and growth as electronic sales. "
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=5331
For instance, I get a really really huge kick out of the movie "Forrest Gump", and I am quite sure that my enjoyment of it would not have been significantly enhanced by HD or fancy surround sound...
Thompson
Please watch Avatar in a well set up Imax theater, and then watch it on your iPad using the mono speaker. Then, please get back to us about the sound and picture not enhancing anything.
Now, you make the next logical jump up, and that is DVD to Blu-Ray. Realistically, you only have a couple of benefits: better video experience if you have a higher quality TV, and a better audio experience if you have a higher-end audio setup. .
I see. So if you have an average 1080p TV and an average surround sound system, the benefits are not apparent?
Is that your position? Do you have any support for that position other than assertion?