# Blu-ray playback comes to OSX



## Guest (Jul 7, 2011)

But not from Apple, a third party app.

Blu-ray playback comes to OS X, but not from Apple | TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog

Anyone with a blu-ray drive try this yet? I'm very curious as to how well it works but not curious enough to buy a drive to test it with


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

if you read the comments people are saying it's just a wrapper for VLC.

It'd be nice if apple got their head out of their a** and supported BR natively.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

i-rui said:


> if you read the comments people are saying it's just a wrapper for vlc.
> 
> It'd be nice if apple got their head out of their a** and supported br natively.


+1

I send them a note every other month about their lack of BR support. If more people did it regularly, I think Apple just might get that stick removed as well.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2011)

I doubt Apple will ever offer native BR support as it's a competing format to something they offer (downloads). Sad but true.

I read the comments about it being a VLC wrapper after I posted this link ... but afaik VLC still doesn't have BR support on OSX unless I've missed something. If it does, has anyone with a BR drive tried it yet? I'd be willing to pick myself up an external BR drive for my home theatre setup if I knew it would work.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

mguertin said:


> I doubt Apple will ever offer native BR support as it's a competing format to something they offer (downloads). Sad but true.


This. However, if VLC player works with an external Blu-ray drives to play back BR movies properly and reliably, then it's not a huge deal IMO.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

mguertin said:


> I doubt Apple will ever offer native BR support as it's a competing format to something they offer (downloads). Sad but true.


Which is silly because they can't compete with Blu-Ray -- in price, quantity, nor quality. The average price for an iTunes HD movie (_if_ it's even available, let alone available to buy) is approximate to the cost of a Blu-Ray copy _with_ the a digital copy.

Today I picked up The Professional on Blu-Ray… you can't even get it on iTunes in HD. And it was the same price as their SD version: $10. Blade Runner is $15 on iTunes, which is also SD only. Also bought it on Blu-Ray today for $10. Both brand new -- not previously viewed.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> ... is approximate to the cost of a Blu-Ray copy _with_ the a digital copy.


Unfortunately, not nearly all blu-ray titles include a digital copy for us who desire one (no blu-ray player, for example). Hopefully to change with time. I know some titles do, but not nearly all.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

This article (via Mac.Blorge) states that the software is DRM-laden, has to talk to its servers to authorize playback, and infers that this might be a bit of a problem if, say, you're on a cross-country train trip or on a plane with no WiFi.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> This article (via Mac.Blorge) states that the software is DRM-laden, has to talk to its servers to authorize playback, and infers that this might be a bit of a problem if, say, you're on a cross-country train trip or on a plane with no WiFi.


lol. so instead of being able to watch a disc they purchased legally people will just stick with downloading HD bluray rips from the torrent sites that they can watch anytime, anywhere

sometimes i think they want to fail..


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> This article (via Mac.Blorge) states that the software is DRM-laden, has to talk to its servers to authorize playback, and infers that this might be a bit of a problem if, say, you're on a cross-country train trip or on a plane with no WiFi.


Perhaps that's why Blu-ray has been described as a bag of hurt. I think the future lies in downloads anyway.


----------



## Bjornbro (Feb 19, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> ...that's why Blu-ray has been described as a bag of hurt. I think *the future lies in downloads anyway*.


What's a Blu-Ray?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Bjornbro said:


> What's a Blu-Ray?


Exactly. Discs are so, like, 2009 man.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

unless you...you know...have a good quality TV and think itunes and other streaming/download services look like barf on toast (as they do)


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

From the articles I have read, Macgo player is garbage.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Bjornbro said:


> What's a Blu-Ray?


It's a cheaper and more abundant alternative to iTunes movies/TV offerings. It's like digital downloads, but comes in it's own pre-archived media.

And it looks a helluva lot better, too.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2011)

broad said:


> unless you...you know...have a good quality TV and think itunes and other streaming/download services look like barf on toast (as they do)


+1

Downloading 50G worth of content (or more) per movie is extremely unlikely at best. High bitrate 1080p + extras is not something that download will be catching up to for a long while methinks.


----------



## MacMagicianJunior (Nov 28, 2010)

ertman said:


> From the articles I have read, Macgo player is garbage.


Just gave it a try, the articles are correct.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

i think optical discs will lose out in the end b/c of convenience.

I'm videotaping my son's soccer games in HD. I'm creating both DVDs (for the rest of the team) and AppleTV/iPad files for him. I'm cringing at the quality of the DVDs - they look fine, but obviously not as good as when I'm editing the uncompressed footage.

I've offered to create i-device files, but not one parent has jumped on it. I was a bit surprised b/c I know some do have iphones and ipads. I there there is a massive segment of the population who still prefer discs, but eventually, that will change....how long it takes is another question. Most of my clients still prefer a physical disc in their hands.

Unless Apple or someone comes up with a real spanky way of compressing files of 1080P quality, I don't know if ppl will want to dload the massive files.

The other caveat for me is sound quality. I'm no audio buff, but I do have a nice 5.1 set up and no appletv file (itunes dloaded or otherwise) comes even close to the audio quality of a blu ray disc. Visually, I've seen some very excellent BR rips, but I much prefer BR disc for audio. Action movies are just awesome and I think they'd be 'meh' without the audio quality of the discs.

BUT, we are becoming a very lazy society and I can see people not caring about that as much. It'll be about convenience. Definitely for drama or comedy movies...who cares about audio...i'm in that boat for those themes, but i wouldn't dare watch a Lord of the rings digital file. Even the DVD has amazing sound.

just my 2 cents.
Keebler


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

keebler27 said:


> i think optical discs will lose out in the end b/c of convenience.
> 
> BUT, we are becoming a very lazy society and I can see people not caring about that as much. It'll be about convenience. Definitely for drama or comedy movies...who cares about audio...i'm in that boat for those themes, but i wouldn't dare watch a Lord of the rings digital file. Even the DVD has amazing sound.
> 
> ...


While I agree with societies laziness, look at the variety of drive-thrus, I disagree with the abandonment of blu-ray and its replacement will be from laziness. While I do think that convenience is a major point, I also think that as technology progresses, downloading large files will become the more efficient transmission of information and quality will increase. Eventually, we will be able to download Blu-ray quality video/audio with short download times. Is this going to happen anytime soon? no probably not, but it is the inevitable distribution solution, yes. As the quality gap decreases, it will no longer be about "laziness".


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2011)

I order most of my blu-ray's online and they are delivered to my door. That's pretty convenient as far as I'm concerned and it doesn't waste all my bandwidth downloading sub-standard quality movies. The overall bitrate of most "HD" movies on the ITMS is around 1/10th of the bitrate of just a single surround sound _audio_ track on most blu-rays.

I guess if you're in a hurry to watch a movie (or rent a movie) then downloading is ok, but I would honestly rather wait for the blu-rays to arrive or go and buy them at the store. Also another big plus for purchasing the media on optical disc is that I can lend it or give it to friends and family, or even sell it once I'm done with it, with the iTunes offerings it's DRM locked to your account forever and has zero resale value or lend-ability.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

perfect timing given this thread :


Apple to Debut 'HD+' 1080p iTunes Movie Services Later This Year? - Mac Rumors


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

keebler27 said:


> perfect timing given this thread :
> 
> Apple to Debut 'HD+' 1080p iTunes Movie Services Later This Year? - Mac Rumors


Very interesting -- I guess there might be an update to the hardware of the AppleTV after all this year. I'm curious to know if the pricing structure would remain the same or change in light of 1080p-quality movies, and how big a such a movie would be in size (8GB-ish?). Canadian ISP's and customers alike won't be impressed...


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2011)

At 10mbps they would be 6-7 times larger than they are now most likely -- unless they figure out better compression between now and then. It really depends on the content as well, animated stuff will probably compress pretty well, "smoke and fire" type movies, not so much.

It's a step in the right direction quality wise, you can make a 10mb stream look pretty good @ 1080p ... but it still doesn't account for the overly compressed audio, missing features, etc.

As for pricing I dunno, but typically if you add a plus sign to the end of something it costs more


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

I'd figure if they were to keep the existing lower bit rates, than it would be about 2.5x larger, if they were to increase the quality, then it could easily be 5+x larger.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Hard to believe I spent forty two and a half years of my life watching what I thought were pretty good 480p movies and thinking they looked just fine.


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2011)

fjnmusic said:


> Hard to believe I spent forty two and a half years of my life watching what I thought were pretty good 480p movies and thinking they looked just fine.


Yep and I used to think that am radio and 8-tracks sounded great too


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Dennis Nedry said:


> Anyone who says something like that has been misinformed or hasn't actually looked into the blu-ray licensing.
> 
> It truly *is* a bag of hurt.
> 
> ...


Whoopie. Cinavia existed in DVDs (prior to Blu-Ray) and it still managed to do well. Stop acting like it's a big f'ing wall. It's no worse than Macrovision, DVD CSS, and a multitude of other DRM technology that's existed.

Apple is cattle-prodding it's customers; the so-called bag o' hurt is completely irrelevant on the PC side and works just fine.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Dennis Nedry said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Cinavia was built and designed for Bluray, among other things. It spread into DVD, much like a cancer would. The only DVD disks to contain Cinavia are 2010/2011 releases. No movies prior to 2010 contain Cinavia. Bluray has existed far prior to 2010.
> 
> ...


How do you feel about the DRM found on iTunes Store movies?


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2011)

ertman said:


> I'd figure if they were to keep the existing lower bit rates, than it would be about 2.5x larger, if they were to increase the quality, then it could easily be 5+x larger.


You are right, I stand corrected. 2.5x larger is correct. You're also right on increasing the quality (even to keep in on par with a mbps vs. amount of pixels it would have to be more than 2.5x increase).

People often forget ... 1080p is not twice the size of 720p (on a pixel count basis), it's about 4x the amount of pixels, so in this case it's a 2.5x increase in bitrate to be used for 4x more pixels so it's technically a quality loss at that point mathematically speaking.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2011)

Lars said:


> How do you feel about the DRM found on iTunes Store movies?


Good point Lars. The DRM in iTunes is way worse than with BD's. At least with BD's I can play them anywhere, any BR player will work, with ITMS content I can only play it on machines running Apple's software and that are registered and activated with my personal iTunes account (and you're limited to 5 of them).

If you think blu-ray is a bag of hurt try and implement something that plays iTunes DRM'ed content. It hurts so much that it ain't gonna happen --- unless you're Apple.

@Dennis Nedry: Can you give us an example of any commercial digital video format that you can purchase movies in that does not have DRM?


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> Hard to believe I spent forty two and a half years of my life watching what I thought were pretty good 480p movies and thinking they looked just fine.


and they are until you move up to a larger screen, it really depends on your screen size and viewing distance.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

jeepguy said:


> and they are until you move up to a larger screen, it really depends on your screen size and viewing distance.


Watching a movie that's been filmed in IMAX on an HDTV will make one reconsider what they think "pretty good" is.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> Watching a movie that's been filmed in IMAX on an HDTV will make one reconsider what they think "pretty good" is.


I agree, there is no comparison.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Dennis Nedry said:


> I no longer purchase Bluray myself. The format is too messed up for what you're paying, and the level of support that is required to make it run is simply absurd (BR requires a full-fledged Java VM just to run the movie menus). Give me an unencrypted format as close to lossless as possible, jam it on a disk (don't need no flashy menus) and I'm happy. None of this extra "online trivia" bull**** and/or all the crap that requires an internet connection for BD-Live.
> 
> -DN


so what format are you buying? because what you want doesn't exist.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

i-rui said:


> so what format are you buying? because what you want doesn't exist.


Perhaps Dennis has waded into _torrential_ waters and has forgone the usual channels for acquiring entertainment? 

Why else would he blame consumers -- the people who actually pay for what they use -- for the state of DRM technology as it stands today?


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> Perhaps Dennis has waded into _torrential_ waters and has forgone the usual channels for acquiring entertainment?


Cinavia exists on torrents as well, and gets picked up by the PS3, so far no one has figured out how to filter it out yet, slysoft has been working on it, and claims they will have a solution soon. The standalone media player don't include Cinavia so they are not affected, and just ignore the signal.

edit: the ATV2 is also unaffected so far.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jeepguy said:


> and they are until you move up to a larger screen, it really depends on your screen size and viewing distance.


It's always about size.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i understand what you're saying, and agree to a certain point, but the issue you really have isn't with the blu-ray format, it's with the studios. any digital content moving forward is going to have some DRM, copy protection or lock on it. It's unfortunate, but i also understand why the studios feel they have to do it with an entire pirate/bootleg industry that exists worldwide.

unfortunately everybody loses in one way or another.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

DRM is a restriction put in place to protect studios from pirating, and unfortunately it only hurts people that don't pirate and restricts them from using their media privately. 

Unfortunately the attitude of some, especially those who torrent and refuse to buy what they download, only reinforces the studios belief and gives them some merit to stand on.

Also, I also don't think one has the right to upgrade in perpetuity for free. Just because one buys the DVD, doesn't mean one has the right to download 1080P versions of the media. I am all for making digital copies for your own entertainment, I don't believe the media format should be the limiting factor, one should be able to rip dvds, blurays etc to digital files to be played on home media players.

I believe that Studios and people that pirate are the ones to blame, legitimate consumers are the ones left paying for it. However, eventually I think consumers will have to start changing their actions as this is getting a bit ridiculous.


About Cinevia, I believe it is based on an audio watermark that "apparently" some rippers can remove. I believe DVDFab makes this claim.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

It's a classic case of why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free. Fact is, people, as represented by companies like Napster, Morpheus and Limewire, outsmarted the companies a long time ago, first with music MP3's via p2p sharing, which is not in itself strictly illegal, but the redistribution without compensation of copyright material is, and then moving on to movies, software, and whatever else could be shared for free. People have been doing it so long that they feel justified and entitled and see nothing wrong with it. Then it just becomes a cat and mouse game of creating barriers and outsmarting those barriers which never really gets to the legal or moral issues involved: if you really like the artist so much, why wouldn't you do everything to make sure they're compensated for their work?

That being said, I do see a certain kind of gouging when you buy the LP record to begin with, then the cassette, then the CD, and then buy the same songs again online. I'm pretty sure I've done my share to compensate my favorite artists many times over. At the same time, I know many young people whose collections consist of nothing but hundreds or thousands of pirated songs, movies, and other software that they never have any intention of paying for. I teach my own kids to purchase from iTunes or buy CD's, but there's a whole generation out there that does not get the connection between piracy and ripping off the very artists they admire. Not sure how to fix that one; it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2011)

Dennis Nedry said:


> At the moment, new releases are either obtained on DVD and torrented for HD, or if there's no DVD- flat out torrented.


You do realize of course that the DVD's you're buying are DRMed as well right? Just one that's easier to get around and is supported natively by OSX. If BR's were supported by OSX for playback you probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

While I agree that DRM hurts everyone it's just not going to away, period. Either roll with the punches and live with the changes as it happens or be doomed to keep playing those old school formats forever and only watch new movies in the theatre. Maybe whatever the next big format is won't be such a bag of hurt, but again I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.

In the meantime ... I still want to be able to play my BD's on OSX!


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> It's a classic case of why pay for the cow when you can get the milk for free. Fact is, people, as represented by companies like Napster, Morpheus and Limewire, outsmarted the companies a long time ago, first with music MP3's via p2p sharing, which is not in itself strictly illegal, but the redistribution without compensation of copyright material is, and then moving on to movies, software, and whatever else could be shared for free. People have been doing it so long that they feel justified and entitled and see nothing wrong with it. Then it just becomes a cat and mouse game of creating barriers and outsmarting those barriers which never really gets to the legal or moral issues involved: if you really like the artist so much, why wouldn't you do everything to make sure they're compensated for their work?
> 
> That being said, I do see a certain kind of gouging when you buy the LP record to begin with, then the cassette, then the CD, and then buy the same songs again online. I'm pretty sure I've done my share to compensate my favorite artists many times over. At the same time, I know many young people whose collections consist of nothing but hundreds or thousands of pirated songs, movies, and other software that they never have any intention of paying for. I teach my own kids to purchase from iTunes or buy CD's, but there's a whole generation out there that does not get the connection between piracy and ripping off the very artists they admire. Not sure how to fix that one; it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.


Well said.

The reality, as pointed out already, is that movies will always contain a level of DRM. I'm not really sure why, in many cases, this makes people so upset. I don't really see the connection between, "I own this BR movie," and "as a result, it shouldn't have DRM as I should be free to do what I want with it." Even back in VHS days, the law still stated that said movies could not legally be copied, redistributed, etc. Fast-forward 15-20 years and that same law hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is stricter enforcement of said law by applying DRM to said movies. That noted, is DRM in fact actually an unfair practice by the studios who lose millions annually in movie rentals and/or sales?

As pointed out by another poster - at the end of the day, it's the end user who doesn't pay for their movies that forces the stand of the studios to apply ruthless DRM on their content. If you do pirate films, you have yourself to blame first for this messy DRM long before anyone else.


----------



## Abby (Aug 19, 2010)

mguertin said:


> I doubt Apple will ever offer native BR support as it's a competing format to something they offer (downloads). Sad but true.


Agreed, a 3-rd party app, I think there are many can do this job, converting/ripping program.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

ertman said:


> About Cinevia, I believe it is based on an audio watermark that "apparently" some rippers can remove. I believe DVDFab makes this claim.


They don't remove it, they can create a *clone disc* or a movie only *disc* that still has it, and is recognized as legal by the PS3.


----------



## harzack86 (Jan 30, 2005)

I'm not a huge movie consumer, but feel in line with most of the comments in this thread.

Here is my workflow:
- I buy BR movie mostly because they can handle an HD TV and usually have audio tracks in English and French (unlike movies purchased in the iTunes Store).
- I rip it using a PC + BR drive with DVD Fab. Until I can find an equivalent on Mac, I'll keep the PC for that.
- I encode it with Handbrake, using the Apple TV2 preset, and make sure I include both English and French tracks
- I use "Subler" to add metadata, including title, description, jacket and rating for parental control
- I copy the final file to a NAS
- Import it (Option + drag & drop) without copying it inside iTunes
- Play it on the Apple TV 2 with my choice of language, and a great image quality on my 720p TV.

Its a bit tedious, but as I said, I don't buy movies everyday, and I find it worth for getting rid of DRM and all the other content BS, yet legally owning the movie...


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

seems so pointless to buy a movie that has 1080p and lossless sound and then dumb it down to 720p and lossy surround, not to mention the time wasted doing all that..


----------



## harzack86 (Jan 30, 2005)

broad said:


> seems so pointless to buy a movie that has 1080p and lossless sound and then dumb it down to 720p and lossy surround, not to mention the time wasted doing all that..


What would you suggest then for playing movies in English and French on an Apple TV 2 connected to a 720p TV, that doesn't involve pointless dumb operation which are wasting time? I'm open to any suggestion to improve this that doesn't involve buying a new TV or a BR player.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

broad said:


> seems so pointless to buy a movie that has 1080p and lossless sound and then dumb it down to 720p and lossy surround, not to mention the time wasted doing all that..


He isn't losing much video quality as his TV only supports 720p quality.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

harzack86 said:


> What would you suggest then for playing movies in English and French on an Apple TV 2 connected to a 720p TV, that doesn't involve pointless dumb operation which are wasting time? I'm open to any suggestion to improve this that doesn't involve buying a new TV or a BR player.


im not saying i have a great solution, just saying it seems like a huge waste of time and a lot of hoops to jump through. you can buy an inexpensive BD player now for less than the cost of a dinner at a restaurant. to me i would consider my time spent doing all that crap to be worth way more than the negligible cost of a BD player


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

Lars said:


> He isn't losing much video quality as his TV only supports 720p quality.


maybe so in terms of resolution, but i guarantee that using the apple TV preset on handbrake compresses the bejesus out of the video. 

@harzack how big are the files when you are done?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

broad said:


> im not saying i have a great solution, just saying it seems like a huge waste of time and a lot of hoops to jump through. you can buy an inexpensive BD player now for less than the cost of a dinner at a restaurant. to me i would consider my time spent doing all that crap to be worth way more than the negligible cost of a BD player


+1. i'd just buy a BR player and get better quality and save time.

I can understand down converting to 720p if you wanted a library of films to stream to various apple tvs throughout the house, but if it's just one tv then i don't see the point.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

broad said:


> maybe so in terms of resolution, but i guarantee that using the *apple TV preset on handbrake compresses the bejesus out of the video.*


I agree, considering a main feature is about 25gb with all the crap stripped out, and squeezing it into a 3 to 5gb file, you know the old saying you can't put 5lb of $hit in a 1lb bag, but hey that just me I'm very picky.


----------



## harzack86 (Jan 30, 2005)

broad said:


> maybe so in terms of resolution, but i guarantee that using the apple TV preset on handbrake compresses the bejesus out of the video.
> 
> @harzack how big are the files when you are done?


The files are around 2 to 3 Gb, which also plays well in not filling my NAS in no time 
I agree with the loss of image and sound quality, but its a trade off and I see other advantages in the process (kids not touching, scratching or breaking disks, cut the advertising and menu crap, parental control, etc...). Eventually I don't really notice the difference in quality (maybe I'm not picky enough  )


----------

