# Blu-ray and Snow Leopard



## iheartmac (Jan 5, 2006)

Do all of the changes and upgrades to Snow Leopard mean that we'll see Blu-ray players that much sooner? Like, the next generation of iMacs perhaps?


----------



## chewy (Feb 16, 2006)

I haven't seen anything directly from Apple indicating that Blu-Ray support is coming in the near future. With the NVIDIA GPU, the graphics hardware is certainly there to offload the decoding, but what's still missing is audio passthrough thru miniDP. Unless Apple changes this in the future, the best audio you'd get out of your Mac is a compressed Dolby Digital or DTS stream through the optical audio output... no lossless 7.1 sound, which is one of the big things in Blu-Ray.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Very unlikely. Blu-Ray may be popular as a movie player, but it's nowhere near as popular as USB/SD sticks for storage. I think the SD slots in the newer Macs may be offering a clue of where Apple thinks that technology (b-r) is going to go.

Myself, I believe Blu-Ray to be a transitional format at best. Five years from now people will scoff at 25GB on a disk.


----------



## Clockwork (Feb 24, 2002)

Apple Rethinking Blu-ray? | homemediamagazine.com

I think it is a good idea and think it is a little overdue but not a bid deal at this point. Although some people don't see a bright future for blu-ray, I believe blu-ray is here to stay. Due to bandwidth issues, and people who like to own copies of the media you need alternatives to just downloading content.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

chas_m said:


> Very unlikely. Blu-Ray may be popular as a movie player, but it's nowhere near as popular as USB/SD sticks for storage. I think the SD slots in the newer Macs may be offering a clue of where Apple thinks that technology (b-r) is going to go.
> 
> Myself, I believe Blu-Ray to be a transitional format at best. Five years from now people will scoff at 25GB on a disk.


 Transition? Hardly. Scoff? Laughable.

They're popular for different reasons. SD Cards are more likely to be used in cameras, but they suffer from slow transfer rates. USB sticks are a more widely used to transfer modest amounts of data--personally.

But SD cards and USB sticks are not suitable for archiving/transferring large amounts of data and besides, how many people just give them away? Remember Zip disks? We had to call everyone to return the damn things all the time--it gets expensive after a while.

Blu-Ray currently holds up to *50 GB *of data (a nice omission on your part). In five years there will be storage capacities will be passing the 200 GB mark. Last year Pioneer announced that they can produce 400 Gb discs.

Blu-Ray is going to be around for a while. Get used to it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Clockwork said:


> Apple Rethinking Blu-ray? | homemediamagazine.com
> 
> I think it is a good idea and think it is a little overdue but not a bid deal at this point. Although some people don't see a bright future for blu-ray, I believe blu-ray is here to stay. Due to bandwidth issues, and people who like to own copies of the media you need alternatives to just downloading content.


Bingo!

I don't know about anyone else, but digital downloads are great in smaller chunks--music, the occasional TV show, etc. But resource intense stuff like HD movies and games? Call of Duty was a 6 Gb download, and being the movie fiend that I am, I just can't see myself renting movies from Apple. I'd hit my cap within a week or two. I can rent HD movies through my Cable provider for the same price (or less) and get it instantly without worrying about overages.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

itunes 8 has mention of Bluray in the "about itunes" info

if you watch hd content on a cheap computer monitor or a low-end, small display then yeah for a lot of people 6 or 8 GB HD downloads are great. If you are running a high end projector or other large, high-end, display nothing you can download in a reasonable amount of time will come even close to bluray. not to mention the lack of lossless sound, which to me has just as much impact as picture quality when watching a bluray...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

it'd be nice if apple could at least SUPPORT blu-ray in the OS, so users can install a blu-ray drive in the 2nd bay of their mac pros....


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

iTunes movie rentals are good for watching on computers with small displays, smaller TVs and people like my parents who bought a 60" Pioneer plasma television and feed it a standard definition composite signal off the back of their Express Vu receiver.

Blu-Ray is for people who want full out 1080i or 1080p (dependent on source material) pictures and uncompressed multichannel sound - one area I've found the difference is really noticeable when you watch and listen to a concert DVD and BR disc and music video download. Why should I settle for reduced quality voluntarily when Blu Ray is available? Because a bunch of "Mac fanbois" (sometimes I think the term used on the IT Nerd blog cuts uncomfortably close to the truth) say I should?

Frankly, the only reason why Blu Ray is "a bag of hurt" according to Steve Jobs is because each BR disc sold represents a lost sale for the iTunes store.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Many people do not have access to real High Speed Internet, and those that have fake High Speed like Rogers or Sympatico are capped and throttled - thus, DVD or BluRay is the only practical means of moving movies and such. I doubt that Canada will ever catch up with progressive minded nations like Korea, where they are in the process of phasing out their 100Mb/s Internet in favour of 1Gb/s. It makes the 1-3Mb/s stuff Bell hands out look like stone aged chump change. Not to mention that Korea also has a large wireless network, with WiFi in urban cores and WiMax in the outlying areas.

The limiting factor for BluRay right now does not have an officially adopted data standard, though the ISO is working on that with the replacement for ISO-9660, thus, except for playback of movies, it serves no practical use for computers (except for pirating movies). Perhaps the other limit is the installed base of conventional TVs that can not benefit from BluRay, with the exception that more movie can be put on a disk, which is not a selling point.

High definition is a selling point, but considering the schlock that Hollywood is putting out lately, no one is in a rush to shell out large money for no returns. It's all about using up what people already have, and people overall are happy with movies on DVD on a regular TV, and thus, are not in a rush to buy something that is both expensive, and may be obsoleted in four seconds. Not that BluRay is going to be obsolete, but I think people are scared off, since they were through it with LP-Cassette-CD (with no public interest in anything beyond CD), and thus, people are scared of the Beta-VHS-DVD deal...

Until the ISO comes out with a real standard for storing data on a BluRay disk, it just will not be deployed too far and wide, especially when current CD and DVDs can handle pretty much everything that anyone would want at this time, at least as far as data goes, as well as conventional audio and video work...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Amiga2000HD said:


> iTunes movie rentals are good for watching on computers with small displays, smaller TVs and people like my parents who bought a 60" Pioneer plasma television and feed it a standard definition composite signal off the back of their Express Vu receiver.
> 
> Blu-Ray is for people who want full out 1080i or 1080p (dependent on source material) pictures and uncompressed multichannel sound - one area I've found the difference is really noticeable when you watch and listen to a concert DVD and BR disc and music video download. Why should I settle for reduced quality voluntarily when Blu Ray is available? Because a bunch of "Mac fanbois" (sometimes I think the term used on the IT Nerd blog cuts uncomfortably close to the truth) say I should?
> 
> Frankly, the only reason why Blu Ray is "a bag of hurt" according to Steve Jobs is because each BR disc sold represents a lost sale for the iTunes store.


I think you're off base here. I watch iTunes rentals on our 46" LCD-HDTV all the time at 720p because, quite frankly, there's not a l lot of difference in definition between 720p and 1080p unless you're very close—like within a few feet of the TV. Broadcast quality for HD maxes out at 720p anyway, and broadcast quality HD is good enough for my aging eyes at this point. 

I have a Blu-Ray player as well, which I never use, because I'm not really keen on paying the Blu-Ray tax to purchase movies, and it's much easier to rent movies through iTunes than to rent them from the video store. And my biggest beef with Blu-Ray is the length of time it takes both to load and search for things on the disc. I really don't think the extra quality is worth the trade off in time. Maybe that will change.

I agree with chas-m: Blu-Ray is an interesting idea, but I don't think the price is worth it just yet. As Dr. G says, we shall see.


----------



## chewy (Feb 16, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> I think you're off base here. I watch iTunes rentals on our 46" LCD-HDTV all the time at 720p because, quite frankly, there's not a l lot of difference in definition between 720p and 1080p unless you're very close—like within a few feet of the TV. Broadcast quality for HD maxes out at 720p anyway, and broadcast quality HD is good enough for my aging eyes at this point.


Just curious, do the iTunes rentals have 5.1 surround sound, or are they in stereo only?


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

assuming 20/20 vision, on a 46" display you would need to be sitting about 4.5 feet away from it to appreciate the difference between 720 lines of resolution and 1080. Personally i feel that for most people getting a 1080p set under 50" is a waste of money. you would be better served buying a 768p set with better processing than cheap 1080p set with sub-par processing. its a whole other discussion, but resolution is actually the 4th item on the ISF's image hierarchy list



> Broadcast quality for HD maxes out at 720p anyway, and broadcast quality HD is good enough for my aging eyes at this point.


this, however, is untrue. most broadcast HD is 1080i, with a few network channels and several speciality cable channels also broadcasting in 720p

keep in mind that like almost anything to do with a/v stuff, any component is only as good as the weakest link in the chain. one might not see the difference between itunes, downloaded avi files, broadcast cable and bluray on one's particular setup, but that doesn't mean the difference isn't there...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Transition? Hardly. Scoff? Laughable.
> 
> But SD cards and USB sticks are not suitable for archiving/transferring large amounts of data


Really? This will come as a shock to my 32GB SD card ...

Also, you may have missed that Apple actually supports booting the new MacBooks/MBPs off SD cards. I think you're not fully plugged in as to what's going on with the format.



> Blu-Ray currently holds up to *50 GB *of data (a nice omission on your part).


Yeah, "up to." My car goes "up to" 200MPH.

The Blu-Ray discs I see in the stores say 25GB.



















Perhaps you're referring to dual-layer? Too rich for my blood, thanks ...



> In five years there will be storage capacities will be passing the 200 GB mark. Last year Pioneer announced that they can produce 400 Gb discs.


So you *do* agree with me that in five years people will scoff at 25-50GB discs! Good to know! 



> Blu-Ray is going to be around for a while. Get used to it.


Not in its present form, as you just above admitted ...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Amiga2000HD said:


> Frankly, the only reason why Blu Ray is "a bag of hurt" according to Steve Jobs is because each BR disc sold represents a lost sale for the iTunes store.


This, like a lot of your post, is untrue.

Steve's comment (which you apparently didn't see or hear in context, because there's no ambiguity about this) refers to having to license all the varying technologies, protection schemes and so on to put a Blu-Ray recorder in a mac. It's the same kind of nightmare Apple has gone through with MPEG-2, which ultimately was so annoying to the company that they went out and invented MPEG-4.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

We'll see how long BluRay sticks, and I hope it remains for a long time.

Just thinking about this today, as I'm getting a new MBP any week now for some perspective that storage mediums sizes have taken off:

First computer bought 15 years ago:

4MB of RAM
270MB HDD.

Today:

4MB x 1000 -> 4GB of RAM
270MB x 1851 = 500GB


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

You know, Chas_M all the creative editing and quoting of my posts to suit your own purposes serves nothing but undermine you. My points stand. Too bad you resort to hyperbole. 

I seem to remember your expert analysis of the format wars was that it was going to be decided by porn. :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

chas_m said:


> Really? This will come as a shock to my 32GB SD card ...
> 
> Also, you may have missed that Apple actually supports booting the new MacBooks/MBPs off SD cards. I think you're not fully plugged in as to what's going on with the format.


What's awesome about that is it'll be significantly SLOWER than using an external backup HD. Have fun with that. 



> Yeah, "up to." My car goes "up to" 200MPH.


And they say people only use 10 percent of their brains. 



> The Blu-Ray discs I see in the stores say 25GB.


Maybe you should try places other than WalMart?



> Perhaps you're referring to dual-layer? Too rich for my blood, thanks ...


Can you offer anything substantial for a rebuttal? 



> So you *do* agree with me that in five years people will scoff at 25-50GB discs! Good to know!


 I guess not :lmao:



> Not in its present form, as you just above admitted ...


Thanks for coming out.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

There's so many "experts" in here spreading all kinds of misinformation...

I hope nobody reading these comments assumes any of it is true. Because most of it is wrong.

A7


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Like what, specifically?


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> Like what, specifically?


I don't have the time nor the energy to deal with it all, or to deal with all the rebuttal that comes from correcting people who think they know better. But I will say that my comment was not directed at anything YOU said. 

A7


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

*What isn't a transitional format?*

Isn't every technology ever invented a transitional technology to the next it replaces? Sorry, my PS3 doesn't load anything on a BR disk slowly. My PS3 and Samsung BR player up convert older DVD's quite dramatically. Rogers' will never allow me to download any HD movie without screwing me on my monthly bill and BR movies are just incredible in 1080p. One of the main reasons I became obsessed with HDTV content and technology. Yes, I admit it... I'm MACINIST and I'm a HIGHDEFoholic. As a disk format, BR will be here for a while. Not because of it's technology but because people were sick of the BR vs. HD (Toshiba) format wars for those 2-3 years. The daily diminishing premium for BR products gets smaller every month, until 10 years down the line, the next thing comes up to replace it at a premium over it's predecessor - a natural progression.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

chewy said:


> Just curious, do the iTunes rentals have 5.1 surround sound, or are they in stereo only?


Both, depending on how you choose to set it up. If you want top picture and top sound, use the HDMI cable.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

a7mc said:


> I don't have the time nor the energy to deal with it all, or to deal with all the rebuttal that comes from correcting people who think they know better. But I will say that my comment was not directed at anything YOU said.
> 
> A7


I suspect what you say may be wrong as well, but I don't have time to explain to you why I believe this is so. Just take my word for it.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

jicon said:


> We'll see how long BluRay sticks, and I hope it remains for a long time.


For the record, I didn't actually say (or infer) that you wouldn't be able to buy a Blu-Ray player or recorder five years from now. I said that the format will be superseded by superior formats in the near future.

Blu-Ray took an exceptionally long time to get to market, fought a bloody and expensive war with HD-DVD, and while all that was going on others (as MannyP pointed out himself) were developing better, higher-capacity variants and alternatives. It might surprise many of you to know that Blu-Ray has already been around for almost 10 years.

It's highly likely that one of these alternatives or variants is going to emerge as cheaper, faster, more better, and diminish Blu-Ray's day in the sun.

In my view, Blu-Ray will likely be a memory before it reaches its 20th anniversary. This would make it a relatively short-lived format compared to LPs, CDs, VHS and DVD.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> You know, Chas_M all the creative editing


I didn't edit or alter your post in any way. I simply quoted the points I wanted to respond to, just like everyone here does with most posts. YOU were the one who brought up the larger-capacity alternatives, not I.



> I seem to remember your expert analysis of the format wars was that it was going to be decided by porn. :lmao:


And indeed, I was right. As soon as they moved to BR it was all over for HD-DVD, despite the backing of several huge content conglomerates.

Meet me back here in five years or so and we'll see who was right, I guess.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

chas_m said:


> I didn't edit or alter your post in any way. I simply quoted the points I wanted to respond to, just like everyone here does with most posts. YOU were the one who brought up the larger-capacity alternatives, not I.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wrong. The porn industry chose HD-DVD early on in the game but it didn't matter, Porn is predominantly bought and viewed on-line.

It wasn't until Warner Bros. chose to drop HD-DVD and use Blu-Ray exclusively after seeing strong sales for Blu-Ray. It was a dog-pile after that: BestBuy, WalMart, and Netflix all jumped on the bandwagon within a month of Warner's announcement.

When Microsoft et al heard of Warners announcement at CES, "cancelled all the meetings it had scheduled with journalists at high profile Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas and called off a press conference booked for Sunday evening".

One month later, MS pulls their HD-DVD players.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

a7mc said:


> I don't have the time nor the energy to deal with it all, or to deal with all the rebuttal that comes from correcting people who think they know better. But I will say that my comment was not directed at anything YOU said.
> 
> A7


Oh, good! 

I was worried that I may have been erroneous in my understanding of the specifics.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> I don't have the time nor the energy to deal with it all, or to deal with all the rebuttal that comes from correcting people who think they know better. But I will say that my comment was not directed at anything YOU said.
> 
> A7
> /QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

chas_m said:


> In my view, Blu-Ray will likely be a memory before it reaches its 20th anniversary. This would make it a relatively short-lived format compared to LPs, CDs, VHS and DVD.


DVD: same thing happened. Format wars between MMCD and SD groups were finally pressured into settlement by IBM. Sony didn't introduce the format until 1997 in the US! These days 10 years for a format is a pretty long time. 20 years is way damn legendary. I can't think of any technology being unchanged or transitioned for 20 years except vinyl. And it's not like BR is like going from VHS tapes to DVD. BR's are the same physically as a DVD, making it more possible for BR players to be backwards compatible with DVD's and CD's. This didn't happen before with Laser Disc, Cassettes, VHS,Beta, floppy which were all physically different yet are standards most of us remember and invested in at the time. The longest running format was probably the LP (vinyl) but it's last 10 to 15 years of existence is debatable being only saved by club DJ's, antique collectors and people that invested heavily in it prior. So even a 10 year life span to me, is worth it as it's not different then many of the previous transitions.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> Blu-Ray took an exceptionally long time to get to market, fought a bloody and expensive war with HD-DVD, and while all that was going on others (as MannyP pointed out himself) were developing better, higher-capacity variants and alternatives. It might surprise many of you to know that Blu-Ray has already been around for almost 10 years.


BluRay was derived from IBM's Blue Laser system, but instead of an actual laser which is bulky, BluRay uses a special laser diode which is tiny in comparison. The main hurdle was to develop a laser diode that would last more than a few hours, which was eventually accomplished - and now one can expect the diode to last more than 10,000 hours before failure. BluRay had greater write densities because the wavelength of the laser is much shorter than that of conventional red laser systems used in CD and DVD formats.

HD-DVD was an attempt to beat BluRay to the market by introducing a violet laser diode, which sits between red and blue as far as wavelength and write density goes. Violet laser diodes did not have the problems that blue laser diodes has, that is, they are more conventional in construction. Ultimately, HD-DVD would never achieve the same ultimate capacities that BluRay can achieve.

When both emerged on the market, manufacturers and studios lined up and started a "war", but BluRay won out because they collected the most manufacturers, most studios, and supported by the gaming industry, and did so rapidly. The "war" was not expensive or protracted, HD-DVD folded pretty fast, especially when they could not gain the support of the DVD Forum - making it ironic that BluRay is fully compatible with the DVD Video standard, while HD-DVD was not.



> It's highly likely that one of these alternatives or variants is going to emerge as cheaper, faster, more better, and diminish Blu-Ray's day in the sun.
> 
> In my view, Blu-Ray will likely be a memory before it reaches its 20th anniversary. This would make it a relatively short-lived format compared to LPs, CDs, VHS and DVD.


The alternatives simply do not have the read speeds to compete, and the data on them is too open to corruption or alteration. Plus the cost, with a BluRay disk ultimately being less than a tenth of the cost of an equivalent SD card for a given size. DVD itself nearly didn't make it to prime time, especially in the days before the DVD Forum, where each manufacturer made proprietary disks for their proprietary players, with systems like DIVX (not to be confused with the DivX codec) - stuff that guaranteed that VHS would be the standard for another five years or more. Not that VHS is "obsolete", people still use VHS machines on a regular basis in order to record TV shows for viewing later on.

BluRay hasn't really been adopted by computer people yet - but considering the bloat curve when it comes to software, it will not be long until software can no longer fit on a DVD-DL...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MACinist said:


> Isn't every technology ever invented a transitional technology to the next it replaces?


Technically you are right, everything's in a state of flux -- but some product cycles are much longer than others.

For example, we're still using CDs to listen to music, more than 20 years after their initial appearance. Records, on the other hand, were strong for almost a century and are still in wide use today -- you can even buy new releases on vinyl!

Furthermore, sometimes you get stuck with no "transition path" -- I have Beta and Laserdisc stuff that never came out on DVD. You can convert them to digital, but it's a PITA particularly if you don't already have the original equipment.

So some formats are going to be longer-lasting than others. Regular DVDs, for example, are a sure bet to be around for quite a while yet, in part because the technology is "good enough" and in part because it's so cheap.

Had Blu-Ray come to market more quickly, it might have supplanted DVD, but it didn't and it's now seen (and priced) as a "high-end luxury" format. Ask any laserdisc owner how well "high-end luxury formats" have worked out.

B-R is even less popular in the computer world (as a storage format) than it is as a video format, and this is (in my view) the kiss of death.

Blu-Ray is in the same niche as SACDs, Audio DVDs etc. and will remain there until they get dirt cheap. The replacements for Blu-Ray are already on their way and ultimately I think one of them is likely to replace B-R in the marketplace.

I'm not arguing with anyone that BR movies look great on your expensive equipment. Unquestionably they do.

So did (and do -- it's still a better format for films actually!) my laserdiscs.



> Yes, I admit it... I'm MACINIST and I'm a HIGHDEFoholic.


My point precisely. You're one of the elite (and I do not mean this as any form of insult), a "connoisseur" who loves the very best and is willing to pay for it. Me too (when I feel it's a good investment).

Sadly, people like us make up a TINY percentage of the market.

Also, having invested a healthy sum in regular DVDs (and before that laserdiscs) over the years (and having much more limited space now than I did in Florida), I'm disinclined to re-buy my favourite films in B-R (apart from perhaps a few where I know the experience would be hugely different than the regular DVDs, for example the "Planet Earth" series), when an upscaling DVD player offers a reasonable compromise. 



> The daily diminishing premium for BR products gets smaller every month, until 10 years down the line, the next thing comes up to replace it at a premium over it's predecessor - a natural progression.


That's a bet I'd take -- 10 years from now B-R as we know it today will be largely a memory, long supplanted by a superior storage/visual medium.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I don't get it Chas_M, you seem to have it in your mind that Blu-Ray just isn't cutting it with respects to adoption rates. It took a good five or six years before DVD became ubiquitous. Blu-Ray really didn't hit significant adoption rates until Sony released the PS3, and has been been doing phenomenally (according to reports at CES)--Blu-Ray sales in 2008 were 4x the amount they sold in 2007. And we're in the middle of a recession. Imagine that.

Historically, the adoption rates of DVDs, CDs and VHS tapes have been blown out of the water by Blu-Ray. In three years, Blu-Ray has penetrated 8% of households in the US. DVDs had barely reached 4%. VHS had about 1%. That, to me, says a lot.

CD burners were finally becoming affordable about 10-11 years ago--even Steve Jobs himself made the mistake of underestimating the demand of CD writers in early iMacs! Back then, it was almost unheard of to use DVD discs to distribute anything other than video. Alex Lindsay of DvGarage/PixelCorps had an anecdote about trying to get his DV Toolkit tutorials replicated at a DVD plant--they looked at him like he was crazy. They had never had a request for such a thing.

Don't be mistaken, Blu-Ray prices have been dropping like crazy. EVERY new technology enters markets with "luxury" pricing--I remember external CD-R drives costing approx. $1000 in 1995. DVD-R drives in 2000-2001 cost around $600. Today, you can get internal BR-R drives for under $400.00 (I've seen some around $250).

If I were you, I'd hold off on any wagers.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

> In three years, Blu-Ray has penetrated 8% of households in the US. DVDs had barely reached 4%. VHS had about 1%. That, to me, says a lot


True but a big chunk of that penetration came on the back of the PS3 many of which will never play a Blu-Ray movie. Still prices are dropping fast and its clear B-R is here to stay until direct downloading takes its place.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> It's the same kind of nightmare Apple has gone through with MPEG-2, which ultimately was so annoying to the company that they went out and invented MPEG-4.


 Apple created *MPEG*-4?!?

QuickTime may have been chosen as the preferred container format but the MPEG-4 spec is for the various MPEG-4 codecs which can be put into other container formats (eg. avi with some horrible hacks, .mkv, etc.)


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Andrew's right, the BR adoption rate Manny quoted is bogus. If the PS3 hadn't included BR the adoption rate would be more like 2%, and it's only just now that those BR units are being used as movie players.

Prices are dropping because if they hadn't the format would ALREADY be gone. Players and discs are STILL much more expensive than DVDs, and kind of require much more expensive equipment to appreciate them. The TCO is still WAY too high, particularly here in Canada.

And though Manny is absolutely correct in saying that every new technology enters the market with luxury pricing (hey, I paid $2000 for a betamax in 1978!), two considerations he leaves out are:

1. 10 years after its invention, BR is *still* at luxury pricing. BR discs account for 12% of DVD sales (that's 88% for DVDs). The price thing IS going down, BUT:

2. BR's replacement is on the way. VHS didn't have that problem for 20 years, but when DVD finally appeared, look how fast VHS disappeared.

My contention is that BR won't have time to become the dominant video platform before something cheaper/faster/more/better comes along. That's all.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

chas_m said:


> Records, on the other hand, were strong for almost a century and are still in wide use today -- you can even buy new releases on vinyl!


That's exaggerated. You make it sound like it's mainstream. It's a niche market catering mostly to disk jockeys and collectors. The death of vinyl already happened decades ago. And even the niche market will fade as products from Serato will further obsolete the use of vinyl for cueing, scratching and mixing music. As well, you cannot compare a lifespan of a technology from the last century to one in current. Things change much faster now as the industrial sector has evolved so much in the last 50 years. 



chas_m said:


> For example, we're still using CDs to listen to music, more than 20 years after their initial appearance.


That's fading into a niche market as well. Downloading music and playing it through data form is mainstream. The transition will be slower however vs. vinyl because DVD and BLURAY players, are backwards compatible with CD's. People don't feel the need to throw out their music investments if they can still widely play them on current technology. HMV was struggling and couldn't compete with legal and illegal downloading. They had to broaden their portfolio to, of all things, DVD's and Blu Rays to stay afloat. As mentioned, since bandwith today is not affordable for large file downloads like BR's, I don't see it being in danger until that changes. 



chas_m said:


> Furthermore, sometimes you get stuck with no "transition path" -- I have Beta and Laserdisc stuff that never came out on DVD. You can convert them to digital, but it's a PITA particularly if you don't already have the original equipment.


That particular content didn't transition but the delivery method of that content did. There are many things that didn't move from vinyl, vhs, cassette to digital if you really looked for it but that is unrelated to the transition I am referring to. 



chas_m said:


> Regular DVDs, for example, are a sure bet to be around for quite a while yet, in part because the technology is "good enough" and in part because it's so cheap.


How soon some of us forget... DVD's were as expensive as BR's were in it's initial release. BR's are not even that big of a premium today if you took a look... take for example at BB today:

Dark Knight 2 disk special edition DVD: 36.99
Dark Knight 2 disk special edition Blu Ray: 39.99

For an extra 3 bucks (8%), I'll take the better picture, thanks. 

When I bought my first DVD player, and it was only after at least 3 years of it's public release, I remember paying close to $400 at FutureShop. And that was just a mediocre one. Blu Ray players today are much cheaper in general. You can get a new model Samsung for $249 at BB now which seems to be the average. 

DVD's are "good enough" for most, correct but when pricing becomes par people will pick the better picture quality just like they picked CD quality over cassette when the two were close in price. A good indication of this is checking out your local movie rental shops and how quickly the BR sections are expanding. 



chas_m said:


> Had Blu-Ray come to market more quickly, it might have supplanted DVD, but it didn't and it's now seen (and priced) as a "high-end luxury" format. Ask any laserdisc owner how well "high-end luxury formats" have worked out.
> 
> B-R is even less popular in the computer world (as a storage format) than it is as a video format, and this is (in my view) the kiss of death.
> 
> Blu-Ray is in the same niche as SACDs, Audio DVDs etc. and will remain there until they get dirt cheap. The replacements for Blu-Ray are already on their way and ultimately I think one of them is likely to replace B-R in the marketplace.


Wow, you are really missing the mark on this one. It doesn't sound like a niche market to me:  BR sales nearly doubled from year ago even in one of the biggest recessions since the great depression.  
Why deny the numbers?



chas_m said:


> Also, having invested a healthy sum in regular DVDs (and before that laserdiscs) over the years (and having much more limited space now than I did in Florida), I'm disinclined to re-buy my favourite films in B-R (apart from perhaps a few where I know the experience would be hugely different than the regular DVDs, for example the "Planet Earth" series), when an upscaling DVD player offers a reasonable compromise.


My point precisly, you DON'T HAVE TO. The BR player will play those DVD's as it's backwards compatible. Most will keep them and only buy new releases. More so now when it's only a couple dollar premium and widely when it's at par. Backwards compatibility is key to all consumers during format transitions. 

I work as a buyer for one of the worlds biggest IT distributors. The most common product request I get from resellers that carry CE products (this includes BestBuy, Dell.ca, Staples etc..) is Blu Ray Players. 

If you put your ear to the train tracks, you may hear the train comin.. 

Only the day online bandwith restrictions change, streaming technology gets better and DRM gets fixed, will I then contemplate the demise of Blu-Ray.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

*Niche market??*



> CES 2009: Blu-ray Disc Association Press Conference
> 
> Andy Parsons, President of the BDA as well as a VP with Pioneer, opened the conference with a series of statistics demonstrating Blu-ray's impressive sales performance. It seems, these days, that hardly a day goes by without a pundit somewhere predicting the format's imminent failure. It was the BDA's intention to illustrate just how short sighted and erroneous these reports are. By reporting hard numbers, it is now clear that Blu-ray has attained a dominant place in the consumer electronics industry. These up-to-date numbers show that since inception, *in roughly two-and-a-half years on the market, Blu-ray has sold over 10.7 million players in the United States market*. This number includes PS3 systems that make up approximately 65% of the players reported with standalone players making up the remaining 35%. PC drives are not included in these numbers. *By contrast, DVD, widely acclaimed as the most successful consumer electronics format ever launched, had only sold 5.4 million players by the end if the format's third year on the market.* Clearly, Blu-ray is heavily outpacing DVD adoption.
> 
> ...


Blu-ray.com - CES 2009: Blu-ray Disc Association Press Conference


----------



## preformalover (May 23, 2009)

My opion is that apple only intigrates things either 1.) they have been reasearched and tested like crazy for preformance and compatibility 2.) apple made it like firewire


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Bogus? Wrong. The adoption rate may be "inflated" by PS3 sales, the fact of the matter remains: Blu-Ray _movie_ sales are 400 percent--*400 PERCENT*--than last year. VHS movie sales in the first three years of it's introduction to the consumer market amounted close to 22 million; Blu-Ray was over 24 million.

And your history on BR is a little fuzzy: BR was first prototyped in 2000 and announced in 2002; the Blu-Ray spec was only finalized in 2004. The first consumer devices weren't in select stores until 2003 (around $4000) but didn't really proliferate into mainstream stores until *2006*.

Any way you slice it, BR _hasn't_ been on the market 10 years.

And please, stop with the luxury crap. It doesn't work for Microsoft's advertising and it doesn't work here. BR has been on the market for approx. three years. But prices dropped fast not because of the industry trying to keep it alive, but because it fought HD-DVD because THEY drove prices down to compete. Once you go down, it's difficult to go back up... unless your the oil industry. 

And of course BR replacement EVERY technology has a replacement on the horizon--all technology does. You make a lot of assumptions that this new tech will be affordable and in demand. Once people make a commitment to migrate to a new platform, it's rare they're willing to jump to the next technology on a whim. Chances are whatever new technologies arrive on the horizon will not be high in demand with consumers, but will be attractive to pro-markets for industrial use. But it doesn't matter... it doesn't exist!

This whole exercise of speculation on something that doesn't exist is mindless at best.

VHS tapes only went extinct recently (after 30 years). The last delivery of VHS tapes to stores was in 2008 and announced they would stop carrying tapes altogether.

So please explain how Blu-Ray is going to flat-out die within 10 years. You've offered nothing but vague predictions with nothing to back it up.



chas_m said:


> Andrew's right, the BR adoption rate Manny quoted is bogus. If the PS3 hadn't included BR the adoption rate would be more like 2%, and it's only just now that those BR units are being used as movie players.
> 
> Prices are dropping because if they hadn't the format would ALREADY be gone. Players and discs are STILL much more expensive than DVDs, and kind of require much more expensive equipment to appreciate them. The TCO is still WAY too high, particularly here in Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## countryharvest (May 24, 2009)

*blu ray*

You can find blu ray support at the moment, no need to get snow leopard...check around.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Chealion said:


> Apple created *MPEG*-4?!?
> 
> QuickTime may have been chosen as the preferred container format but the MPEG-4 spec is for the various MPEG-4 codecs which can be put into other container formats (eg. avi with some horrible hacks, .mkv, etc.)


I am guilty of grossly oversimplifying things, you are right.

But Apple's participation in the development of the spec led to easier terms of licensing compared to MPEG-2.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MACinist said:


> That's exaggerated. You make it sound like it's mainstream. It's a niche market catering mostly to disk jockeys and collectors. The death of vinyl already happened decades ago.


Absolutely not. CDs did not take off immediately due to incredibly high pricing compared to records back in the 80s. It took at least five years before CDs started outpacing records, which would mean it happened TWO decades ago.

Vinyl sales these days ARE a niche market, but I didn't say it wasn't. Downloaded movies are a "niche" market -- AT THE MOMENT.



> As well, you cannot compare a lifespan of a technology from the last century to one in current.


That's ridiculous. Been to a cinema lately? Film is still with us, over 110 years and still going strong. Other formats are still nibbling around the edges of film.

Some formats last a long time. Some don't. 

My view is that Blu-Ray is "the new VHS." VHS spent 10 years overcoming its rivals, finally became dominant for about 10 years, then a superior alternative came along and BOOM it was gone very quickly. That's what I think is going to happen to Blu-Ray.



> The transition will be slower however vs. vinyl because DVD and BLURAY players, are backwards compatible with CD's.


Not sure what makes you think future formats won't be backward compatible ...



> As mentioned, since bandwith today is not affordable for large file downloads like BR's, I don't see it being in danger until that changes.


Ever been on a FiOS connection? If that (or something like it) ever gets really widespread in North America, you can kiss BR goodbye pretty quickly, and kiss hello to iTunes all over again.

Not that I'm saying that downloading will replace Blu-Ray; I don't think so (at least not in the short term). But even just looking at 5.25 round shiny things, several alternatives are starting to leave the lab and could arrive in the marketplace fairly soon (say before Obama's first term), all of them promising more/better/faster/CHEAPER. 



> How soon some of us forget... DVD's were as expensive as BR's were in it's initial release. BR's are not even that big of a premium today if you took a look... take for example at BB today:
> 
> Dark Knight 2 disk special edition DVD: 36.99
> Dark Knight 2 disk special edition Blu Ray: 39.99


I agree that disk prices are FINALLY starting to come down, and this is a good thing for Blu-Ray lovers and the format itself. But it's still easier to find bargain prices on regular DVDs, the discrepancy in the cost of players is still significant (to the tune of about $150-200), and what BR defenders keep forgetting is that you really "need" a fancy sound system and LARGE hdtv to properly enjoy the advantages of BR, so you HAVE to add those costs (a grand or more) into the TCO.



> You can get a new model Samsung for $249 at BB now which seems to be the average.


And you can get an upscaling DVD player for around $49 at Wal-Mart. I rest my case.



> A good indication of this is checking out your local movie rental shops and how quickly the BR sections are expanding.


I'm not denying that BR is finally catching on, in particular in the states where HDTVs are a *hell* of a lot cheaper than they are up here. BR is seen as an after-market add-on for HDTV owners and on that level it's starting to work out for them.

All I've been saying is that I believe the "next great thing" will be along BEFORE Blu-Ray has a chance to be the mainstream format (ie better than 50% of DVD sales/rentals) for very long if at all.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Actually, I think what will disappear over time is the concept of having to have a hard copy of songs, movies, books, or whatever. At one time, there was no way to watch/listen to/view media without the actual specimen in your hand (or your machine). When CD's came out, it was easy to think the spinning motion was just like a record, where the record player reads the information where the needle meets the groove. It took a while before I realized that CD players don't work that way, and that the spinning actually has nothing to do with the location of the information (hence 40 second anti-shock discmans, for example, where if a player is bumped, you don't hear the effects until 40 seconds later).

One time I had two digital players onscreen at the same time playing different songs from the same disc while it was spinning. That led me to understand that with digital technology, the information is sent into RAM (the more RAM, the more content is stored, and Blu-Ray players need to store a $HITLOAD of content), where it is read back as a soundfile, movie, or whatever. But the actual song/movie/book/whatever does not even have to be stored on your computer, let alone DVD-player or Blu-Ray player. Witness Airtunes and iTunes song samples. It would be very simple to for Apple to turn those samples into full blown songs that do not need to "live" in your computer at all.

That's the next revolution, my friends. You won't need to horde all your media like a squirrel on disks, hard drives or whatever, because what you're looking for will be available with a few keystrokes and a nominal fee anywhere at any time. Like a worldwide public library. That's why Blu-Ray is based on more of an old-school technology and why it is transitional at best. It's like MicroSoft and friends trying to compete with what Apple was doing five years ago. Much can happen in five years.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

chas_m said:


> That's ridiculous. Been to a cinema lately? Film is still with us, over 110 years and still going strong. Other formats are still nibbling around the edges of film.


i'm not sure thats an acurate analogy. i would consider film a medium, and with in that there are several formats (8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 70mm..etc..). And even though 35mm has been the main format for most of mainstream film there's actually a bunch of different 35mm formats.

To call film a format would be the same as calling digital media a format. (in which case dvd & blu-ray are the same)



chas_m said:


> And you can get an upscaling DVD player for around $49 at Wal-Mart. I rest my case.


a $49 upscaling dvd player from walmart will have much inferior image quality compared to a dvd upconverted by a blu-ray player.

also, i don't think the BR player #s are THAT inflated by PS3 sales because MANY people bought a PS3 BECAUSE it was a blu-ray player (myself included...if it wasn't i might have choose an xbox 360.... *shudders*)

blu-ray will be THE format of choice for the next decade, but i do agree it will never reach the sales #s DVD had at it's peak.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

chas_m said:


> Absolutely not. CDs did not take off immediately due to incredibly high pricing compared to records back in the 80s. It took at least five years before CDs started outpacing records, which would mean it happened TWO decades ago.


Not sure what you are trying to rebuttal here. I clearly said "..decades ago". 



chas_m said:


> Vinyl sales these days ARE a niche market, but I didn't say it wasn't. Downloaded movies are a "niche" market -- AT THE MOMENT.


When someone refers to something as "*..widely used*", one would assume they are NOT referring to a "niche" market. Keep back peddling. 



chas_m said:


> That's ridiculous. Been to a cinema lately? Film is still with us, over 110 years and still going strong. Other formats are still nibbling around the edges of film.


Obsurd. There are many different forms of film. To say it stayed the same for 110 years is delusional. If that's the angle you want to argue, then one can say that CD, DVD and BR are all the same. They are disks with same size, played in same players (although I won't). 



chas_m said:


> My view is that Blu-Ray is "the new VHS." VHS spent 10 years overcoming its rivals, finally became dominant for about 10 years, then a superior alternative came along and BOOM it was gone very quickly. That's what I think is going to happen to Blu-Ray.


I'm not sure you get it. VHS transition is what a lot of other formats went through as well. Same with DVD which is touted as the most successful adoption ever. You are laying out the transition history of most formats. And no, VHS was a huge clunky tape with zero backwards compatibility and zero forward compatibility unless you got a combo player that never really took off. If your point is that BR had to fight another format, then will have a 10 year run before something else comes into play, then we have no arguement. You just have a weird way of saying it. At the same time, a dominant 10 year run does not mean the format was a dud. Especially in these times when ideas come to fruition quicker then ever before. 






chas_m said:


> Not sure what makes you think future formats won't be backward compatible ...


Was only referring to CD's, never eluded to future formats. 



chas_m said:


> Ever been on a FiOS connection? If that (or something like it) ever gets really widespread in North America, you can kiss BR goodbye pretty quickly, and kiss hello to iTunes all over again.


Ha... where I live, apparently I have the fastest and most exclusive residential service in Canada @ 100mbps:



> About CityPlace
> 
> Located near Toronto's Rogers Centre (SkyDome), CityPlace is a carefully planned residential project that features an innovative, state-of-the-art fibre-optic network delivered by TELUS. It's the fastest residential Internet in Canada.


TELUS | CityPlace

I think most of us here said the same thing. Why repeat? However, that doesn't look like it's coming. So called "experts" have repeatedly said we will be running out of bandwith in the next couple years. And the recession, ain't going to help changing to a new billion dollar infrastructure. 

Study: Internet could run out of capacity in two years | Root | Macworld 



chas_m said:


> Not that I'm saying that downloading will replace Blu-Ray; I don't think so (at least not in the short term). But even just looking at 5.25 round shiny things, several alternatives are starting to leave the lab and could arrive in the marketplace fairly soon (say before Obama's first term), all of them promising more/better/faster/CHEAPER.


Like what? These are the facts I am looking for CHAS. Lay it out for all of us. With some timeliness. We are all waiting to hear about these new and emerging technologies that are going to take the world by storm, flip the recession into a progression and send BR's, DVD's, CD's into format heaven. I find nothing better then learning something new and changing my views based on that new knowledge. 



chas_m said:


> I agree that disk prices are FINALLY starting to come down, and this is a good thing for Blu-Ray lovers and the format itself.


Well, you should go back and edit your threads to your numerous LUXURY and PREMIUM allegations. 



chas_m said:


> But it's still easier to find bargain prices on regular DVDs, the discrepancy in the cost of players is still significant (to the tune of about $150-200), and what BR defenders keep forgetting is that you really "need" a fancy sound system and LARGE hdtv to properly enjoy the advantages of BR, so you HAVE to add those costs (a grand or more) into the TOC.


They are "BARGAIN" price for a reason. Everything older becomes a "bargain" when a new technology comes into the scene. At the same time, I hope you are not referring to those $5 bin baskets at Wal-Mart of movies that are old and have very little commercial success. BR will not be re-creating these titles anytime soon as they know it's not profitable. 

How can you argue about an older technology player being cheaper then newer during a transition. It is more accurate to compare a DVD players cost during it's first 3 years of adoption to a BR player now which is way cheaper then DVD was at first. I have said this before. 

Sound system -> *no* (to this day I don't have one and I don't need one to enjoy the picture). HDTV - yes, but that's why HDTV has been the hottest TV technology for the past 3 to 4 years. 99% of flat panels are HDTV compatible. People are upgrading to flat panels not only because of the picture mind you, they are also realizing the TV may pay for itself on the energy savings. Let alone the aesthetic appeal. 





chas_m said:


> And you can get an upscaling DVD player for around $49 at Wal-Mart. I rest my case.


You make me laugh. As that's supposed back up everything you said. Please refer to my comment about that. Please do rest it though, whatever it is. 





chas_m said:


> I'm not denying that BR is finally catching on, in particular in the states where HDTVs are a *hell* of a lot cheaper than they are up here. BR is seen as an after-market add-on for HDTV owners and on that level it's starting to work out for them.


Beg to differ about the HDTV pricing in the US (conversion aside) but that's not even something I want to argue with you. Now you are *not* denying that BR is finally catching on... man... all this time and effort. Keep back peddling. tptptptptptptptp

Of course it would be an add on. Isn't the TV the major purchase always. It's like saying you get your new 4GB Ram stick and then find a computer for it after. 



chas_m said:


> All I've been saying is that I believe the "next great thing" will be along BEFORE Blu-Ray has a chance to be the mainstream format (ie better than 50% of DVD sales/rentals) for very long if at all.


Take a bite out of your own advice and "Seriously, put up some facts *Nostradamus!!!!!*



chas_m said:


> Seriously, put up some facts.


:lmao::lmao: I think I have tried to, but we've been asking the same of you.

I give you credit, you are relentless. Sometimes I feel it's saying something for the sake of saying something and plugging your ears at the same time but no wonder you can put up 8000 posts in 2 years. :clap::clap:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Chas_M: Clearly, your take on the history of home video is quite skewed and riddled with holes. Your belief that Blu-Ray is "the new VHS" that will be beaten out by some magical technology that doesn't exist is incredibly flawed: VHS was a clunky media that had a mediocre picture and little convenience (be kind and please rewind!). DVD beat it out with a better picture and sound and features that VHS could not offer. 

And the fact that the very points you make about Blu-Ray's issues are the exact same issues VHS and DVD faced during their proliferation mean BR can and will continue to thrive in the coming decade (and then some).

One problem that digital downloads has is that at some point, you need to archive it. Fact. THAT's a hurdle digital downloads must contend with. The fatal flaw with companies managing/storing your purchases for you is that it depends on the solvency of the company. Once they go under, you lose everything. Microsoft has burned their customers time and time again with their music services. The beauty of a disc: No wires. No large footprint. And relatively little clutter (compared to stacks of external HDs with wires all over the place.)

Having your friends over for a movie is nice when they can sift through your collection. Apple tried to mimic it with cover flow, but let's be honest, it just doesn't compare to the real thing.

Not only that, the service must work across the board on any device, on any computer with minimal muss and fuss. Apple is the only company that is coming close--and even THAT isn't ideal. There's no catch-all solution that is attractive enough for the general populace. Companies have tried to converge TV and PC to act as a seamless platform and nobody has nailed it.

Digital downloads require hardware (PC, MP3 player, and/or a device to bridge to your TV), high speed with a health cap and plenty of storage space. A great deal of the files delivered via digital downloads are inferior quality. Audiophile loath their shoddy quality.

One benefit that Blu-Ray has given to Hollywood: Digital copies. I got the steelbox edition of The Dark Knight. The "luxury" price? $29. I don't need to spend $20.00 at the iTMS to watch it on my iPod and I don't need to worry about archiving it. 

And before you demand facts from other, please be sure to offer some yourself. You've been nothing if not consistent with your errors time and time again.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

well i think this thread needs to be locked up b/c all the wheels are spinning hard 

I've had fun reading all the rebuttals


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

i-rui said:


> i'm not sure thats an acurate analogy. i would consider film a medium, and with in that there are several formats (8mm, 16mm, 35mm, 70mm..etc..)


All of which have been around longer than VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray *combined.*




> qa $49 upscaling dvd player from walmart will have much inferior image quality compared to a dvd upconverted by a blu-ray player.


Unquestionably. Nobody here is challenging the idea that Blu-Ray looks/sounds great.

But upscaling is "good enough" for people with modest HD and LCD TVs. And "good enough" (or "mediocre" as us snobs say) carries the day most of the time. America in particular LOVES mediocre; witness NTSC and the North American definitions of "high def" as proof. Who won the videotape wars: the format with the best picture and sound quality (Beta) or the one that was cheapest to use because you could cram three movies on one tape (VHS)?

Again, I rest my case.



> blu-ray will be THE format of choice for the next decade, but i do agree it will never reach the sales #s DVD had at it's peak.


I think it will peter out before 10 years, but essentially we're on the same page.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MACinist said:


> Not sure what you are trying to rebuttal here. I clearly said "..decades ago".


That implies more than two.




> When someone refers to something as "*..widely used*", one would assume they are NOT referring to a "niche" market. Keep back peddling.


I'm not back pedaling at all. New vinyl records are available at every indie record store in North America. They *are* widely bought and much more popular than you think (because you're not some bearded college kid anymore). I was not even referring to "DJ" use of vinyl, I'm talking about new albums on vinyl. Walk into any trendy record store and see for yourself -- typically the "record" section for new vinyl is right alongside the T-Shirts and posters in terms of sales/popularity. 



> Obsurd. There are many different forms of film. To say it stayed the same for 110 years is delusional. If that's the angle you want to argue, then one can say that CD, DVD and BR are all the same. They are disks with same size, played in same players (although I won't).


All this statement shows is that you are EXTREMELY ignorant about the history of film.



> If your point is that BR had to fight another format, then will have a 10 year run before something else comes into play, then we have no arguement.


That is EXACTLY what I'm saying, with the exception that I don't think it will take 10 years, probably a little less. Something between five and ten.



> At the same time, a dominant 10 year run does not mean the format was a dud.


I never said or inferred that it was "a dud." It's a great format -- I just think it will be superceded before long. That's all.



> Ha... where I live, apparently I have the fastest and most exclusive residential service in Canada @ 100mbps:


Awesome. I'm jealous. An HD movie digital file from a Blu-Ray source using H.264 would clock in at around 4GB I should think. How long would it take you to download a 4GB file if it were available for purchase?

If your answer is anything less than the running time of a typical movie, then I think you see where I'm going with this. When broadband improves to the point where most middle-class customers have access to FiOS type speeds, the need to buy a player or own a shiny metal disc will collapse.



> We are all waiting to hear about these new and emerging technologies that are going to take the world by storm, flip the recession into a progression and send BR's, DVD's, CD's into format heaven. I find nothing better then learning something new and changing my views based on that new knowledge.


I'm not sure why you can't google "beyond blu-ray" any faster than I can, but here's a small sampling to whet your appetite:

Blu-ray has 'five years left' says Samsung
(head of Samsung UK agrees with me)

GRIFFIN'S GADGETS: BEYOND BLU-RAY AND HD-DVD

Here's a few on one of the most likely contenders, a 4-thousand-lines (that's twice today's highest high-def) system known colloquially as "4K" or sometimes "Ultra HD" (MacDoc has talked this up extensively in the past):

https://www.ntt-review.jp/archive/ntttechnical.php?contents=ntr200705le1.html

RED ONE DIGITAL CAMERA - Ultra High Definition 4k Technology - UHDTV, HDTV

Ultra hdtv cometh - The Inquirer

Asus graphics reach quadhd - The Inquirer

And on the computer-storage front, where Blu-Ray has failed miserably:

GE microholographic storage promises cheap 500GB discs, Blu-ray and DVD compatibility

Gizmodo - GE Makes Holographic Storage Breakthrough For Cheap(er) 500GB Discs - Holographic Storage

Oh, and how about an example? (As best as can be managed via YouTube, anyway):
YouTube - Afghanistan in RED ONE 4K High Definition

That should keep you busy for a while ...



> Well, you should go back and edit your threads to your numerous LUXURY and PREMIUM allegations.


Absolutely not. Blu-Ray and its attendant costs (big HDTV, big sound system) continue to make it a "luxury," "premium" and "boutique" item, not mainstream. The fact that BR still only accounts for 12% of DVD sales three years after finally winning the format war is proof.

Say, isn't the Mac -- with it's 10-12% marketshare -- also a "luxury," "premium," "boutique" item to most computer users? <light bulb>



> At the same time, I hope you are not referring to those $5 bin baskets at Wal-Mart of movies that are old and have very little commercial success.


No, I'm not.



> BR will not be re-creating these titles anytime soon as they know it's not profitable.


Oh, thanks for reminding me of ANOTHER issue I have with BR: no matter how long the format sticks around, the chances of obscure or cult stuff getting onto it is incredibly low, meaning small-audience favourites continue their march into oblivion ... this is one area where digital downloads (if that became the next "big" medium) can save those films -- just as with iTunes, where nothing is EVER out of print so too would digital allow any film, regardless of its popularity with the unwashed masses, to be available.



> How can you argue about an older technology player being cheaper then newer during a transition. It is more accurate to compare a DVD players cost during it's first 3 years of adoption to a BR player now which is way cheaper then DVD was at first. I have said this before.


Because I'm pointing out that the high cost of entry still keeps a lot of people from buying Blu-Ray. It's still hella expensive compared to DVDs at this point (yes, DVDs and VHS and all that were expensive when they were at this point in their lives, I'm not arguing that, but it's moot: they are competing for dollars TODAY.)



> People are upgrading to flat panels not only because of the picture mind you, they are also realizing the TV may pay for itself on the energy savings. Let alone the aesthetic appeal.


My observation (having been in literally hundreds of people's homes since I moved here -- I'm a burglar you see  ) is that HDTV in Canada has *nowhere near* the adoption rate of the states, in part because of the CRIMINALLY higher prices here (for TVs, for sound systems, for Blu-Ray players -- let's just say Canada isn't impacting the "catching-on" rate for any of this stuff significantly.

A year before I moved, I bought a 46" 1080i HDTV -- shipped -- for $800. Good luck duplicating that deal here in Canada, two and a half years later ...

[snip other blah blah blah]

You just fundamentally don't get what I'm saying, in part at least due to obvious comprehension problems. Let me try again:

1. I did not say, nor believe, that Blu-Ray sucks.

2. I did not say, nor infer, nor believe, that Blu-Ray isn't enjoying some hard-won (and long overdue) popularity.

3. All I've been saying -- that you're not comprehending -- is that Blu-Ray isn't the kind of "semi-permanent" format people think it is. Heck, floppies are still around if you look, but I wouldn't call them a viable format anymore, would you?

4. It's my educated view that Blu-Ray will be superceded by other technologies before another 10 years goes by, and that I doubt it will ever surpass DVD sales before that occurs.

That's it. Hopefully I've broken it down enough for you to understand.

If you'd like to check back with me in let's say eight years time and we'll see who turned out to be right, that's fine; I'll be here.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

chas_m said:


> All of which have been around longer than VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray *combined.*


What is the point of this statement? It's professional format that has evolved. What does this have to do with mainstream consumer adoption of a format? 



chas_m said:


> But upscaling is "good enough" for people with modest HD and LCD TVs. And "good enough" (or "mediocre" as us snobs say) carries the day most of the time. America in particular LOVES mediocre; witness NTSC and the North American definitions of "high def" as proof. Who won the videotape wars: the format with the best picture and sound quality (Beta) or the one that was cheapest to use because you could cram three movies on one tape (VHS)?


Seriously, read up on the format war between VHS and BETAMAX. 
Videotape format war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




chas_m said:


> I think it will peter out before 10 years, but essentially we're on the same page.


LOL, what page is that flip flopper!!

In 5 years?:


> Myself, I believe Blu-Ray to be a transitional format at best. Five years from now people will scoff at 25GB on a disk.


In 10 years? (total 20):


> My view is that Blu-Ray is "the new VHS." VHS spent 10 years overcoming its rivals, finally became dominant for about 10 years, then a superior alternative came along and BOOM it was gone very quickly. That's what I think is going to happen to Blu-Ray.


So already at 10 years? But thought they'd be gone within 5?:
I


> t might surprise many of you to know that Blu-Ray has already been around for almost 10 years.


So 20 years? :


> In my view, Blu-Ray will likely be a memory before it reaches its 20th anniversary. This would make it a relatively short-lived format compared to LPs, CDs, VHS and DVD.


Ok.. 10? or a memory at 10? :


> That's a bet I'd take -- 10 years from now B-R as we know it today will be largely a memory, long supplanted by a superior storage/visual medium.


C'mon... give me some facts Chas... please. I really want to see your point. Honestly.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

MACinist said:


> C'mon... give me some facts Chas... please. I really want to see your point. Honestly.


See the post I got in before you finished yours. 

If you still don't get it, well we can talk about it in eight years or so. I don't have any clearer way to put it than my previous post.


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

chas_m said:


> That implies more than two.


Pluralism stands in opposition of one. 




chas_m said:


> I'm not back pedaling at all. New vinyl records are available at every indie record store in North America. They *are* widely bought and much more popular than you think (because you're not some bearded college kid anymore). I was not even referring to "DJ" use of vinyl, I'm talking about new albums on vinyl. Walk into any trendy record store and see for yourself -- typically the "record" section for new vinyl is right alongside the T-Shirts and posters in terms of sales/popularity.


Your use of 'widely' may be related to your understanding of pluralism. 



> According to Nielsen, consumers purchased more than 1.51 billion music products (albums, singles, music videos and digital tracks), which is a 10.5% increase over 2007. Physical media sales were down by 14%, while digital single sales climbed by 27% to 1.07 billion and digital album sales were up by 32% to 65.8 million, the market research firm estimates.
> 
> Surprisingly, vinyl albums made a comeback in 2008 and an 89% increase in sales from 990,000 to 1.88 million.


Even in it's "comeback" last year over the previous, that's less then 1% of total music products sold. Hardly a widely purchased format in my opinion but you may be taking that 1% to the bank and resting your case with. 




chas_m said:


> All this statement shows is that you are EXTREMELY ignorant about the history of film.


Enlighten me "Mr. I'm open to any opinion or fact out there that is exactly as mine." 



chas_m said:


> That is EXACTLY what I'm saying, with the exception that I don't think it will take 10 years, probably a little less. Something between five and ten.


....flip.



chas_m said:


> Awesome. I'm jealous. An HD movie digital file from a Blu-Ray source using H.264 would clock in at around 4GB I should think. How long would it take you to download a 4GB file if it were available for purchase?
> 
> If your answer is anything less than the running time of a typical movie, then I think you see where I'm going with this. When broadband improves to the point where most middle-class customers have access to FiOS type speeds, the need to buy a player or own a shiny metal disc will collapse.


Unfortunately I still get throttled during download but not by Telus. So, it's marginally better then Robbers and Bell. With some tweaking of Transmission, I get better at times but you can't expect a regular consumer to do that. And BR movies still take a while (too long). The only thing that make it feasible is that I have no cap. 



chas_m said:


> Blu-ray has 'five years left' says Samsung
> (head of Samsung UK agrees with me)


Neo Nazi Skinheads agree with Hitler, doesn't make it anymore true. As your earlier threads, this has no facts but mere opinion. 




chas_m said:


> GRIFFIN'S GADGETS: BEYOND BLU-RAY AND HD-DVD


Perfect, an article from 2007 before the format war ended. Very relevant today. 



chas_m said:


> Here's a few on one of the most likely contenders, a 4-thousand-lines (that's twice today's highest high-def) system known colloquially as "4K" or sometimes "Ultra HD" (MacDoc has talked this up extensively in the past):


Yes, and ask Dave how much he enjoys the re-releases of BR movies on his PS3 these days or the upconversion of older titles. 



chas_m said:


> https://www.ntt-review.jp/archive/ntttechnical.php?contents=ntr200705le1.html
> 
> RED ONE DIGITAL CAMERA - Ultra High Definition 4k Technology - UHDTV, HDTV
> 
> ...


Seriously. These technologies have as much of a chance of being mainstream in the next 10 years as you not responding to this thread - none. 

I gotta enjoy whatever is left of my Sunday.. we'll get back to you on the rest before the wifey kills me.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> That's the next revolution, my friends. You won't need to horde all your media like a squirrel on disks, hard drives or whatever, because what you're looking for will be available with a few keystrokes and a nominal fee anywhere at any time. Like a worldwide public library. That's why Blu-Ray is based on more of an old-school technology and why it is transitional at best.


Sure, but your point is predicated on having broadband Internet access across the board, which is not happening. Too many areas simply do not have broadband, and for many that do, it is with pathetic "service providers" that charge a king's ransom while capping, throttling, having bad latency or low speeds that are inconsistent. Outside of places like Goderich, where they are going Fiber Optic - our infrastructure is far to retrograde, and far too dependent on some dumb corporates that know nothing about computers or data, but are looking to score large on the subscriptions.

If you are looking at a long range scheme, all "technologies" are transitional - but there will still be a requirement for mass data storage media, like BluRay, or whatever, since people will still have to have data backed up and accessible. The Internet is simply not accessible with any reliability. You can't just take your machine somewhere and "plug in", unless it is WiFi. And then, WiFi is sketchy at best, since coverage areas are tiny, and most places just don't have it at all.

Plus there is the fact that the studios and companies would prefer to sell stuff like DVD's, since that is cash in - while streaming video costs much in the vast infrastructure of servers needed to handle traffic. That is a real problem, because on release day, everyone will want it instantly, so they are going to have to have a pretty big server and costly Internet bandwidth to handle it. Of course, the Studios could go to torrents, or torrent like technology, but that would make their current bout of lawsuits look dumb.

After having been in the computing field for thirty years - this stuff is always talked about, but it always comes down to the same thing - that computers need both an online component to move data, but also need some kind of physical media because some data just takes too long to transfer any other way. It's like the old saying - what's the fastest way to move 1GB of data? FexEx! Well, that may not be true now, since transfer speeds are far higher than in the old days when the ARPANet had a 1Mb/s backbone, but if I want to watch a high-def movie, the fastest way will be to pick one up somewhere, rather than spending hours downloading it.

The situation may be different if our nation's goal was to have real High Speed Internet, like South Korea, where they are going from 100Mb/s to 1Gb/s; but the real goal in our nation is to run the most expensive possible service that is hobbled by a backbone which is near saturation, and services that are capped, throttled and clobbered in other ways, and that even that pathetic level is not available to much of the nation at all.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

keebler27 said:


> well i think this thread needs to be locked up b/c all the wheels are spinning hard
> 
> I've had fun reading all the rebuttals


What? Afraid of debate?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

UltraHD? Frankly, I'm not surprised you would link to that. At all. You don't even care to make any point that's releveant. You're just using the shot-gunning this thread with any and every little thought that bounces into your head--even if it contradicts your earlier points.

There is no way ultraHD is going to hit mainstream--it's an industrial format at best, and is suited for theatres, effects & production houses and the über-elite. If you think BR is a "luxury" format, Chas_M, there's NO way that will hit consumer markets with affordable prices. Noone will have a television good enough (or big enough) to even warrant such overkill. Seriously.

The holographic media is pretty much vaporware at this point. It's all talk. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, BR will have competing capacities, anyway, by the time that stuff gets delivered.

Oops. So much for that idea.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> Sure, but your point is predicated on having broadband Internet access across the board, which is not happening. Too many areas simply do not have broadband, and for many that do, it is with pathetic "service providers" that charge a king's ransom while capping, throttling, having bad latency or low speeds that are inconsistent. Outside of places like Goderich, where they are going Fiber Optic - our infrastructure is far to retrograde, and far too dependent on some dumb corporates that know nothing about computers or data, but are looking to score large on the subscriptions.
> 
> If you are looking at a long range scheme, all "technologies" are transitional - but there will still be a requirement for mass data storage media, like BluRay, or whatever, since people will still have to have data backed up and accessible. The Internet is simply not accessible with any reliability. You can't just take your machine somewhere and "plug in", unless it is WiFi. And then, WiFi is sketchy at best, since coverage areas are tiny, and most places just don't have it at all.
> 
> ...


Good arguments, Evan. But one thing I appreciate about AppleTV is that on release day, or any day for that matter, the iTunes Store is _never_ out of copies. It's hard to put a price on convenience.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Those who don't agree, that's fine.

Nobody is 100% sure of the future, and I could certainly be wrong. But my opinion is that BR will be superceded, and that it will happen before 10 years goes by.

You might want to bookmark this thread and come back in eight years or so (don't laugh -- look at the number of resurrected threats going on these days) and rub my face in it.

Or bow to my superior prescience.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Superior prescience? If you say so. Even a shotgun can hit a bullseye with enough buckshot.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> One problem that digital downloads has is that at some point, you need to archive it. Fact. THAT's a hurdle digital downloads must contend with. The fatal flaw with companies managing/storing your purchases for you is that it depends on the solvency of the company. Once they go under, you lose everything. Microsoft has burned their customers time and time again with their music services. The beauty of a disc: No wires. No large footprint. And relatively little clutter (compared to stacks of external HDs with wires all over the place.)


and lets not forget the DRM issues, you can't lend your "download copy" to someone else, or more importantly you can't *sell it or trade it* if you don't like it.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

> and lets not forget the DRM issues, you can't lend your "download copy" to someone else, or more importantly you can't sell it or trade it if you don't like it.


Which is why the studio's are pushing hard for download services to become the norm. If it were up to the studio's you'd never own a physical copy and would simply pay to watch it any time you felt like it. Blu-Ray will be around for a while and will replace DVD...if only for the fact its harder to pirate then DVD...but most consumers are driven by convenience not quality (see VHS to DVD, Vinyl to Tape to CD to MP3 etc) so which ever ends to being perceived as more convenient by the masses is what will prevail.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> What? Afraid of debate?


not afraid at all - it's just turning more personal than factual is all and the original post was asking about blu-ray and SL. Safe to say we've veered off that vector quite handily 

Since no one can predict the future, it's just opinions based on a few details - not sure how many are factual or just pulling rabbits out of the hat 

For me, I bought into BR by buying a player and enjoying the better picture AND sound on my system, but I haven't (and won't) buy BR movies b/c I don't think they'll last a long time. I'd like to see the quality of dloadable movies get to the same point (or better) than BR, but the file sizes right now would be massive.

Maybe Apple or someone else will come up with technology to compress a higher quality file type, but for my own eyes and ears (and I don't pose to be an expert), but I'm liking BR far better than any download I've seen - which is understandable given it's not apples to apples.

Cheerios,
Keebler


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> Good arguments, Evan. But one thing I appreciate about AppleTV is that on release day, or any day for that matter, the iTunes Store is _never_ out of copies. It's hard to put a price on convenience.


As a rental model it's fantastic, but I still prefer to buy physical discs in full 1080p with all the extras or extended cuts.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

keebler27 said:


> For me, I bought into BR by buying a player and enjoying the better picture AND sound on my system, but I haven't (and won't) buy BR movies b/c I don't think they'll last a long time.


Excuse my ignorance on BR - regular HD movies will look/sound better on a BR player? Or do you mean you rent BR movies?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

jeepguy said:


> and lets not forget the DRM issues, you can't lend your "download copy" to someone else, or more importantly you can't *sell it or trade it* if you don't like it.


That's a good point.

While Apple offers "Plus" tracks without DRM, they come with their own special watermark embedded within the file that I'm sure pisses off privacy advocates.

One thing that digital downloads never have to worry about is also one of their drawbacks: They never have to worry about dumping stock. You'll never see fire sales with deep discounts. Movies that go for $9.99/$20.99 are easily 50% at your local video store.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

darkscot said:


> Excuse my ignorance on BR - regular HD movies will look/sound better on a BR player? Or do you mean you rent BR movies?


not sure what you mean, but i'll clarify what i said and hopefully that will make sense.

i meant renting BR movies from rogers and/or zip.ca versus HD downloads from Itunes.
The latter isn't obviously the same quality and it shows. They're not terrible, but the BR are better and they should given the uncompressed audio and 1080P video.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
keebler


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Good arguments, Evan. But one thing I appreciate about AppleTV is that on release day, or any day for that matter, the iTunes Store is _never_ out of copies. It's hard to put a price on convenience.


Though I don't have AppleTV - I entirely see your point. To get to that point, there are a number of items that need to be addressed as part of a national goal:

- We need a real Internet backbone operated by companies that know networking, and that only do networking; not just retreaded companies that offer horror and outrage in every other bussiness the diddle in.
- We need to have a fiber optic structure that not only operates in dense urban areas or in selected towns, but everywhere.
- In places that are too remote for fiber optic, then we need to have real WiMax access, with sufficient bandwidth for media.
- We need the CRTC to stop diddling with "technology". Torrents or torrent-like protocols are the future, as no broadcaster or studio can possibly afford all of the servgers and bandwidth required for streaming.
-We need to reject an Internet based on proprietary protocols requiring proprietary OSes. It should be open source and unrestricted, so that technology can be incubated and developed, rather than clobbered by hard capitalists looking to make a quick buck.

We can not entirely replace everything with Internet downloads. Books are still easier to read as books, where they are entirely portable. For years "computer people" have attempted various schemes to do away with "the old". Things like paperless offices - where more paper is created and wasted than ever before, or data is lost because of some computer crash or misplaces CrackBerry...

TV has taken an odd direction, with more and more channels showing less and less programming. This is a major gap which can be filled by the Internet, where people can watch what they want, from anywhere, without the CRTC deciding for us. But it can only be filled if we end up with some real High Speed. This is not some oddball request from a dirt farmer a hundred miles from the nearest donkey track. I live in the city, and can not obtain high speed internet, barring satellite, which is tres expensive. For me, downloading TV shows is a long process of hitting hotspots and the local libraries - and that situation will never improve until we reject the hard capitalists which refuse to allow actual Internet companies from setting up shop and doing things right.

However, media like BluRay are still valid. I think the problem with the collapse of video stores is less about the Internet, and more about the poor quality of movies being shoved out of Hollywood. How many times do we need to see the same twelve Hollywood plotlines before it's time to move on to some other entertainment. Same with the decline in CD sales. CD sales wouldn't have declined if there were record stores around to buy CDs at, and if the record companies put out stuff people want to hear. If it wasn't for giant boxed sets that include the kitchen sink - the record companies would be zapped...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> While Apple offers "Plus" tracks without DRM, they come with their own special watermark embedded within the file that I'm sure pisses off privacy advocates.
> 
> One thing that digital downloads never have to worry about is also one of their drawbacks: They never have to worry about dumping stock. You'll never see fire sales with deep discounts. Movies that go for $9.99/$20.99 are easily 50% at your local video store.


Actually, all tracks on iTunes now come without DRM. Part of the "new deal" Jobs worked out with the record companies after demonstrating quite handily that online music stores are a viable way of selling music.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jeepguy said:


> As a rental model it's fantastic, but I still prefer to buy physical discs in full 1080p with all the extras or extended cuts.


I hear you about the extras, jeepguy, but since I have a pretty good memory, I find there's not really that many discs i need to own physically, except for maybe some concert ones like The Last Waltz that stand up well to repeated viewings. There's only so many times I can re-watch a movie, whereas I can listen to the same song hundreds of times. I keep most of those movies locked in the vault inside my head where I can random-access them any time. Minus the extras, I suppose, except for Jack-Jack Attack or some others.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

keebler27 said:


> nI'd like to see the quality of dloadable movies get to the same point (or better) than BR, but the file sizes right now would be massive.
> 
> Maybe Apple or someone else will come up with technology to compress a higher quality file type


This has already happened. It's called h.264.

A "rip" of a Blu-Ray disc converted to h.264 (which admitted is a lossy format but the quality difference is extremely hard to detect) creates a file of approx. 4GB for a 90 minute film.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

if you find the difference between an actual bluray and 4gb bluray rip, regardless of compression codec, "extremely hard to detect" then perhaps you aren't aware of what it is you're actually looking for? 

do you wear glasses/contacts? what display do you watch this content on? has it been calibrated?


----------



## MACinist (Nov 17, 2003)

chas_m said:


> A "rip" of a Blu-Ray disc converted to h.264 (which admitted is a lossy format but the quality difference is extremely hard to detect) creates a file of approx. 4GB for a 90 minute film.



Maybe just my eyes but I do see a noticeable difference on H.264 (MP4 class 10) rips. Not sure why, but I always felt that Matroska (.mkv for video) seemed to hold better quality for BR.


----------



## Zoiks (Sep 5, 2005)

Does anyone smell a lot of urine in this thread?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

[


MACinist said:


> Maybe just my eyes but I do see a noticeable difference on H.264 (MP4 class 10) rips. Not sure why, but I always felt that Matroska (.mkv for video) seemed to hold better quality for BR.


Haven't tried that, I will ask to see an example of that.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

chas_m said:


> This has already happened. It's called h.264.
> 
> A "rip" of a Blu-Ray disc converted to h.264 (which admitted is a lossy format but the quality difference is extremely hard to detect) creates a file of approx. 4GB for a 90 minute film.


On my screen (46" Sharp Aqous) there is a vast difference between a 4GB rip and a Blu-ray, even apple uses 6 to 8GB for it's 720p rental content.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Zoiks said:


> Does anyone smell a lot of urine in this thread?


Oh, yeah! beejacon

Now it is all about how some crummy lossy video format is "better" than some real video, and that BluRay is doomed because some hitherto unknown format may or may not come to fruition...


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

> do you wear glasses/contacts? what display do you watch this content on? has it been calibrated?


im still curious about these questions chas...care to answer?


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

broad said:


> if you find the difference between an actual bluray and 4gb bluray rip, regardless of compression codec, "extremely hard to detect" then perhaps you aren't aware of what it is you're actually looking for?
> 
> do you wear glasses/contacts? what display do you watch this content on? has it been calibrated?


I think these are excellent questions and I'm curious to hear an answer too.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

well, obviously from his south park caricature we can deduce that he wears glasses.... the other answers may be harder to find out...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Those might not be glasses. They could be laugh lines.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

chas has been active on the board in both this thread and several others since i originally posted those questions

shame he doesnt want to share...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MACinist said:


> Maybe just my eyes but I do see a noticeable difference on H.264 (MP4 class 10) rips. Not sure why, but I always felt that Matroska (.mkv for video) seemed to hold better quality for BR.


.mkv is simply a container for video - if it looks better, it is because the movie was encoded with a better quality codec, while it could look terrible if someone went to town compressing the video all to bits...


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

broad said:


> chas has been active on the board in both this thread and several others since i originally posted those questions
> 
> shame he doesnt want to share...


Do you wear glasses? What's your blood type? Have you ever taken illicit drugs? Are you single or married? What's your social insurance number, just out of curiousity?

Better yet, why does it matter to you so much if Chas_m doesn't choose to answer this question? Maybe a little respect for privacy would be in order here.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

iheartmac said:


> Do all of the changes and upgrades to Snow Leopard mean that we'll see Blu-ray players that much sooner? Like, the next generation of iMacs perhaps?


To come back to the original question, I think the "Is Blu-Ray worth it?" debate gives you some idea why Apple hasn't included it so far. I imagine including Blu-Ray technology would just crank up the price of Macs, which would have the opposite effect Apple is looking for. And it probably would dissuade people from downloading movies from the iTunes store as well. Personally, I don't see enough of an improvement to warrant the extra cost, and the search and load time on Blu-Ray underwhelms me at this point. I got a Blu-Ray player at Christmas time and I kind of wish I had saved my money, to be honest.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

broad said:


> chas has been active on the board in both this thread and several others since i originally posted those questions
> 
> shame he doesnt want to share...


Because he has nothing to say. He made a prediction that BluRay is going to be obsolete very soon - even though no successor technology has come along, not even in scientific journals or in rumour blogs.

He also based it by referencing technologies like LPs (that had decades of acceptance before the energy crunch pushed research in to CDs in order to conserve materials), or CDs (which are still used all over the place for all kinds of purposes), or VHS (which studios dumped in favour of DVD because DVD manufacturing is automated and offers a lower cost per unit). All of these forms of media are still in use, and are not "dead".

BluRay simply fills the gap above DVD when it comes to data storage. The "fight" between BluRay and HD-DVD was more about the laser diodes used rather than any formatting, since BluRay was hampered by a problem with finding a stable material for the blue laser diodes that would last more than 10-100 hours, while HD-DVD had a more conventional violet laser diode that offered more stability and reliability, but was a longer wavelength that would result in less capacity per disk. HD-DVD mostly died because blue laser diodes became very stable and long lived, and thus, would make BluRay sustainable as a platform for years into the future. The other problem was that HD-DVD could not find acceptance by the DVD Forum, being backed by only one studio and a handful of manufacturers, while most studios and manufacturers supported BluRay. BluRay is entirely superior to HD-DVD simply because the blue laser diode is capable of shorter wavelengths, and thus, higher recording densities, when compared to a reddish-violet output of the HD-DVD laser diode.

I think the market dictated much of the terms, since the installed base entirely accepts DVD, since BluRay offers no benefit when played on a conventional TV; so BluRay really finds it's market when it comes to video gaming, where the bulk of units are sold, while the HDTV crowd is still small in comparison.


----------



## broad (Jun 2, 2009)

> A "rip" of a Blu-Ray disc converted to h.264 (which admitted is a lossy format but the quality difference is extremely hard to detect) creates a file of approx. 4GB for a 90 minute film.


was the statement made by chas, which i, in my experience, find untrue. this is a discussion forum, hence i am "discussing" the issue. i am simply asking some questions to determine whether other factors are influencing chas' perception of the, in my opinion, vast difference between a physical BD and and a 4GB BD rip.



> Do you wear glasses? What's your blood type? Have you ever taken illicit drugs? Are you single or married? What's your social insurance number, just out of curiousity?


if you cant see the difference between me asking questions to glean some facts about a discussion we are having vs the personal stuff you are asking then you obviously are missing the point...

in response though: no 20/20 vision, B+, puffed but never inhaled, very single, 123456789..


----------

