|
|
|
Samsung questions longevity of Blu-ray format
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 5 September, 2008
According to an interview posted on Pocket-lint.co.uk, Samsung believes that the Blu-ray format will only have a 5 year life span from this point out before it is replaced by either HD downloads or a completely different physical media format.
"I think it [Blu-ray] has 5 years left, I certainly wouldn't give it 10", Andy Griffiths, director of consumer electronics for Samsung UK said ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Member
|
7. September 2008 @ 12:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Now I'll admit I'm techno idiot so remember this as you read
5 years???
seems a little short to me, maybe 10 years from now we'll see a fade out, why????
I consistantly see "HD" everywhere. Whether it be on my box top cable, or internet.
I truly believe the internet, or cable(as in pay per view) is going to be the true future for movie watching.
Ok I'm done.
and remember I'm an idiot.
LD
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
salsa36
Member
|
7. September 2008 @ 19:51 |
Link to this message
|
It is Samsung!!!!
Who cares what they think!, for sure if any new format is stupid enough to compete with the Blu Ray it won't be developed by them, they are koreans, the new technology is produced in USA and Japan.
Sony will decide what's next on HD not Samsung..........
|
|
hermes_vb
Senior Member
|
7. September 2008 @ 20:37 |
Link to this message
|
Even though I have the money to buy a BD player, I don't feel like expending that kind of money for one. I could even buy a PS3 which is the best player for your money, but still I'd hate to buy one because I'm not a gamer and a great piece of equipment would be underused. Give me a sub $200 player and movies that cost $15-$20, and we have a deal. Otherwise I don't feel like increasing my pile of expensive tech crap.
|
AfterDawn Addict
23 product reviews
|
7. September 2008 @ 23:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by salsa36:
It is Samsung!!!!
Who cares what they think!, for sure if any new format is stupid enough to compete with the Blu Ray it won't be developed by them, they are koreans, the new technology is produced in USA and Japan.
Sony will decide what's next on HD not Samsung..........
500 GB Blu-Ray Discs, 100GB for the HD Movie and 400GB for SUPER DRM2 Copy Protection!
$1000 players with built in "call the cops if DRM FREE media is played!"
Thats what Sony wants.
|
|
ematrix
Junior Member
|
8. September 2008 @ 00:50 |
Link to this message
|
The comments of Mr. Griffiths reflect what the numbers have been telling them, Blu-ray isn't doing as well as they whished for, since it's only appealing to a few, and they realize that the window of opportunity is narrowing, and the format's lifespan is shortening, since in a few years 2160p HDTV picture will be presented, which will provide closer to identical resolutions in film negatives.
It's a fact that optical discs are in their way to obsolence, since everyday more consumers are interested in investing on non-optical disc media, which eventually could be used potencially to deliver movies, which could explain why more people everyday are reluctant to spend money on BD, which is generally seen as an optical disc only slighty nicer than DVD.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. September 2008 @ 05:32
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
8. September 2008 @ 08:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ematrix:
in a few years 2160p HDTV picture will be presented, which will provide closer to identical resolutions in film negatives.
Due to the limitations of human ocular physiology, at normal viewing distances (i.e. 8 - 10 feet) you will need screen sizes in excess of 100 inches to take advantage of resolutions above 1920 x 1080.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
In the normal sized living room and with average HDTV sizes of 42 - 50 inches, 1080p is quite enough for the human eye.
In addition, how much do you think those 2160p HDTV's will cost???
Best case scenario at launch:
2160p HDTV - let's say 60 to 70 inches = $10,000 (at the very least)
2160p movie on a 100 Gig flash drive = $50 per movie (if we're lucky)
- and you can bet you'll have military strength DRM on that movie as well.
Forget about downloading a 2160p movie on your bandwidth-capped ISP connection.
The masses would really go for that I'm sure.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. September 2008 @ 09:13
|
|
oappi
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
8. September 2008 @ 09:20 |
Link to this message
|
Everybody in here might already know that codec used in blu-ray is not the best one if you want to save space.
h264 and 20 layer bd disk (500gb) should be more than fine for 2x1080 (2160),
If there is 2x pixels in Height and 2x in Lenght it means it´s only 4 times the mb size of todays 1080 hd. Meaning that even with todays codecs its only 160-200gb. That means that blu-ray can have nearly 10 times more pixels. Taking a squere root to that is bit over 3x1080 and this is with that crappy codec they now use. This is why bd was so good in so many ppls eyes it just has so mutch unused potential. Personaly i think HD as it self is good way to fight agains "pirates". They might not notice it but think about it. How many who could pay would want to download 10gb most likely very badly seeded torrent making the download time few weeks insted paying less than $20 for real thing?
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
8. September 2008 @ 10:08 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by core2kid:
500 GB Blu-Ray Discs, 100GB for the HD Movie and 400GB for SUPER DRM2 Copy Protection!
$1000 players with built in "call the cops if DRM FREE media is played!"
Thats what Sony wants.
not to put a dampener on things, but that "feature" is already built into blu-ray and FOX have already publicly stated that it will be included with all their releases, but they did state it will only be used for gathering statistical data on usage! yeah right.. and AT&T didn't break the law either!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. September 2008 @ 10:38
|
|
hermes_vb
Senior Member
|
8. September 2008 @ 13:39 |
Link to this message
|
h.264 is an amazing codec, and the best encoders, believe it or not, are free. I've been playing with it encoding some of my movies and they look great at a fraction of the size. On the other hand it takes a lot of PC power to encode. Two cores are not enough anymore...
If I always hear voices surrounding me, does it mean Im crazy or that I hear in Dolby 5.1?
 |
|
ematrix
Junior Member
|
8. September 2008 @ 15:44 |
Link to this message
|
I only said that 2160p will be presented in a few years, which will reduce Blu-ray's lifespan, because more people everyday anticipates that something better is coming in a few years, that they could rather wait for that instead of investing on BD, specially when optical discs are slowly becaming obsolete.
As for we actually needing such higher resolutions, to be fair the same 'human eye perception' argument applies for DVD as well, which viewed on large flat panel screens at 8-10 feet distance is quite pleasant for the human eye.
My point (with no intent or desire to start another tiresome DVD versus BD discussion) is that in all fairness, we must not argue why people should or shouldn't preffer Blu-ray over DVD, and then disregard the same scenario when comparing Blu-ray against a potencially new format in the few years to come, when the bottom line is that either format's resolution can provide a satisfying visual experience.
For example... if consumers knew in advance that Quad Core processors where to be created, they would have waited for them instead of investing in replacing single core processors for Dual Core processors two years ago. But in all fairness, if your single core processor works fine for you, there's no need to replace it, but if you must, no doubt you would preffer the best processor availible.
My point that if DVD works fine for the masses, there's no need to replace it, after all isn't like you can't play DVD movies anymore, but when it comes to technological advances, mass consumers preffer to make huge steps for their money, and Blu-ray is more like an intermission of something much better to came in a few years, I of one would rather wait for that, so I can spend my money wisely.
That's why, if I'm going to play movies from optical discs, I would rather stick with DVD until another media (non-optical of course) is used commercially to deliver movies, that for me will be worth more than investing now on Blu-ray, specially when I know in advance that the promise of something much better is coming.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. September 2008 @ 05:35
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
8. September 2008 @ 16:48 |
Link to this message
|
ematrix:
There is a big problem with your argument though.
By the time 2160p comes out, the prices for this new format will be much higher than BluRay.
Like my best case scenario:
2160 display - $10,000
2160 movie on flash or some other medium - $50 per movie
2160 playback machine - $1000
Good luck selling that to the general public.
By the time 2160 comes out BluRay players can be $100 or less and movies will be $10 to $15.
We'll hear the same thing all over again: "1080p is good enough. No need to go to 2160p since it's too expensive at this time and 1080p looks good enough for me."
|
|
juankerr
Member
|
8. September 2008 @ 16:58 |
Link to this message
|
...and when 2160p comes out there will be people like ematrix who'll say: "Don't get 2160 now. 4320p is being presented soon and is what you should wait for. A new format using 4320p is the future!"
When does it ever end?
|
|
oappi
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
8. September 2008 @ 18:34 |
Link to this message
|
@ematrix
Have you even seen blu-ray movie? even i can tell with my 24" monitor if the movie is dvd or blu-ray. Some dvd movies look terrible if they are long enought. At some point i really thought i would rather watch that movie on vhs that dvd. Thank god we now have disks with plenty of space.
And i just pointed that most likely blu-ray is not going nowhere because we can have layers added to bd disks. Even vhs didnt have "LP" or "EP" option when they hit the stores and how long the format was alive? Well i say keep on waiting
It is also kinda stupid to compare something like bd-disks to computer prosessors.. If you buy computers that way you would never be able to buy new one because there is always something behind the corner. Like mores law says every 18months the number of transistors duble which usualy means ~dubling the speed. Also in some tasks it is better to have single or dual core since most programs cant use more than two cores and you get higher mhz with less cores. Mostlikely when most software supports quad cores you will be buying new computer.
|
|
ematrix
Junior Member
|
9. September 2008 @ 03:48 |
Link to this message
|
I did say that I didn't want to turn this into a tiresome DVD vs. BD debate, but...
@error5
I'm not saying that a new 2160p format will be cheaper than Blu-ray, and I'm not disregarding that will be expensive, but then again BD is expensive today. The average consumer wants to spend their money wisely, and if they anticipate that something better than BD is coming in a few years, due to the increasing interest and consumption for non-optical disc media, why spend money now when they can wait for the next best thing?
Also i wonder, the reason why you support Blu-ray is because it offers a higher resolution, yet you quickly disregard 2160p even so it offers an even higher resolution, doesn't that kinda contradict the sole purpose of "getting higher resolution" you stand for? I for one have it very clear what I'm looking for in order to skip my preferrence for DVD... a new video format on a non-optical disc media, that could make a revolutionary step from DVD, simple as that.
The problem is that everytime anybody says "I'll pass on BD until something better comes along, DVD looks good enough for me", inmediatelly starts the attack from BD supporters, trying to debate any oppinion that differs from theirs; but when the same scenario repeats for BD vs. 2160p format, now you want to use the same "I'll pass on 2160p format, BD looks good enough for me" argument.
If you support Blu-ray and feel that works for you, good for you, but you should respect and accept that others don't share your same view in the matter, and rather continue to enjoy DVD and wait a few years, so they can invest in something better than BD.
@juankerr
When does it ever end? That's a question you should ask to manufactures, which benefit from developing new formats and technology with short lifespans, so people keep spending their money in the newest stuff; as well ask the movie studios, which largely benefit from reselling the same movies you already own, over and over again.
Despite the appereances, I'm not against HD but indeed reluctant in investing in another optical disc format. Not only do I need a new video format, but also a new media to go along with it to convince me. If someone should offer us today a 1080p format embedded on a non-optical disc media, even so I still believe that DVD is good enough for me, I would be more inclined to try it out, as I would recognized the attemp to make a revolutionary step from DVD, and if the benefits combined of a new format and media convinces me, maybe even support it.
Blu-ray may be a new format, but it's embedded in a 26 years old media which is slowly becaming obsolete; granted that uses a thinner blue/violet laser which makes it possible to store more information on a slighty refined layer disc, but the bottom line is that we're still talking of optical discs, and for me that's a negative disadvantage.
The times of optical discs are passing, slowly but they are passing, and more consumers each day are interested in more reliable media, therefore is more likely that an non-optical disc media will be used for 2160p, which will be a revolutionary step from DVD and BD both, not only as video format, but as media for movies as well.
@oappi
Yes, I have seen repeatly Blu-ray movies on large flat panel screens, and so far there's nothing about BD that convices me in investing on it, when I can achieve pleasant and satisfying results from upscaling my already own DVD movies. Also consider that better the transfer on DVD, meaning that if the movie was restored and remastered properly, you will achieve better results from upscaling them.
Yes, optical discs could be used in the future to deliver a 2160p format, but you would need to reinvest on new equipment (players, recorders) that could handle multiple layers BD discs required for a 2160p format, since it needs to store a four times larger resolution and twice the video bitrate than 1080p BD movies, which of course would be much more expensive to manufacture, and with more layers it increases the risk of failure when producing, recording and playing them.
Therefore if I have to invest in optical discs, I rather do so for DVD, for which everybody has already invested in equipment and large movie collections, and is much cheaper and accesible than BD, until the next revolutionary format and media for movies comes along in a few years.
Finally I'm going to disregard your insulting allusion, I'm smarter and more polite to reply to that, specially I'm not in the mood to start a hatred discussion, when we should all respect and accept each other oppinion and preferrences, which has been laking in these DVD vs. BD discussions... some preffer DVD, others preffer BD, there no need to insult and attack, after all "the sun shines for everybody"
But when I compared BD vs. 2160p to computer processors, it's an analogy about current and future technological advances, which I want to believe some guys got it with no difficulty. Indeed there's always something new and better in the future, but the difference is that in the case of 2160p, we both know it's coming and we got a clue by when.
Even so this is offtopic, if people knew in advance that Quad Core processors where on their way, they could have waited for them instead of investing on Dual Core processors two years ago. Is no brainer that you need more juice for some tasks on your computers, therefore the need for Dual Core or Quad Core processors, but then most average users don't require that extra juice, when a single core processor is all they need for what they do daily on their computers.
If your computer doesn't fulfill your needs, or simply died on you, please by all means buy a new one, and make sure it has the newest stuff availible, but if the computer you have works for you, then hold on to it and wait for the moment you really need to replace it, and then get the newest stuff availible at such time... "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"
Following this analogy, if you feel that Blu-ray will fulfill your needs, and you require it to view movies, good for you; but if you feel that DVD works for you, and you're content with it to view movies, then hold on to it and wait for the moment you really need to replace it, most likely this will happen when a newer format and media becames availible for movies.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. September 2008 @ 05:40
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
9. September 2008 @ 08:31 |
Link to this message
|
ematrix:
So if we follow your logic then people should NEVER buy any new technology since there will always be something newer and better on the horizon.
When 1080p came out:
"I'll wait for 2160p. It's better."
When 2160p comes out:
"I'll wait for 4320p, since it's got better resolution."
When 4320p comes out:
"I'll wait for the 8640p, 3-dimensional, virtual reality holodeck technology since it's going to be much better."
When BluRay discs cam out:
"I'll wait for movies on flash drives."
When flash drive movies come out:
"I'll wait for super high-speed, instantaneous ultra HD downloads."
When super high-speed, instantaneous ultra HD downloads come out:
"I'll wait for super high speed solid state drives or holographic storage - whichever comes first."
When super high speed solid state drives or holographic storage come out:
"I'll wait for brain implants with input ports at the back of your skull connected to your visual and auditory cortex. Just plug in and enjoy the movie"
----
The thing is some people realize that they may die tomorrow.
So they choose to enjoy what's available today.
For them that's money well-spent.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. September 2008 @ 09:01
|
|
oappi
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. September 2008 @ 13:46 |
Link to this message
|
@ematrix
Sorry if you felt insulted by me. That was not my intention.. Just saying that you shouldn´t compare prosesors that have successor every half year or so to something that usualy lasts +10 years. I bought quad core (qx9650) but most games or "software" rearly uses all 4 cores and from the looks of it i might be buying 16 core cpu when most games and software can use 4 cores.
I really dont have a problem if you want dont want to invest something which prize will slash in half at every few years. but i quote you "bottom line is that either format's resolution can provide a satisfying visual experience." Thats just your opinion to me bd totaly was satisfying visual experience and I quess for most with good 1080 flatscreen. Maybe you demand better picture quality or your flatscreen isn´t that good (or bd driver had malfuntion) (just saying some of the flats screens are mutch better than others, and not insulting you =)).
i have to admid i haven´t seen upscaled dvd but can´t imagine it could bring pixels that were not there in the fist place? Most dvd:s are very watchable, but when movie is 3 hours or more especially fog scenes look like crap. Still dvd might be good enought for most people since it seems people prefer to record their stuff on hdd insted of disk. There bd disks would have had upperhand.
But like error5 wrote bd´s current defenition is good enought for +50" tv. Some cant even see difference between 720 and 1080 until +30". i Bought my bd-drive to my computer for 109€ which is under $155 and ordered bd movies at the prize of $17.5-$20 from amazon.com. only con is that i live in europe and have to carefully look which movies are region free. Pretty cheap if you ask me =).
Quoting ematrix again
"My point that if DVD works fine for the masses, there's no need to replace it, after all isn't like you can't play DVD movies anymore, but when it comes to technological advances, mass consumers preffer to make huge steps for their money"
You call a dvd huge step? 560x486 (best vhs resolution) to 720x480 (dvd resolution). Blu-ray 1920x1080 seems quite a leap to me, but hey thats just me.
Why cant blu-ray work for the masses? i dont remember how fast dvd came mainstream but even those players were not cheap at first. Even south park had a joke how expensive dvd was and how only their rich friend token could afford it. Most likely there will be another format in future. Only thing at sight that could beat bd is downloads. I just dont see that happening unless nations around the world decided to put huge amount of money to replace old phone cables and put fiber cables to every home. That would be cool, but dont see it happening.
It is just confusing me that you are at the sametime saying dvd is enought and blu-ray isn´t. im sorry but i find that really hard to understand since vhs->dvd difference was nearly nothing else than transfering movie to optical disks which was pro for computer users. What did standalone owner got from this? well atleast discs that will break more easily than vhs. With blu-ray we got ~5x the number of pixels and many hours of sd recording space.
"Yes, optical discs could be used in the future to deliver a 2160p format, but you would need to reinvest on new equipment (players, recorders) that could handle multiple layers BD discs required for a 2160p format"
eh what did i say about EP and LP on vhs? People with only SP had to buy new vcr to watch/record those and most where happy because they could play their old vhs with out jumping to something totaly new format.
With sony holding the bd rights it would take company as large as sony to compete even with better format.
|
Member
|
9. September 2008 @ 20:19 |
Link to this message
|
I dont think this is true ppl want to have hard copy of things like me, i dont think downloading HD videos is the wave of the future, im always afraid of my PC crashing more then my disc play braking.
|
|
ematrix
Junior Member
|
9. September 2008 @ 22:00 |
Link to this message
|
@error5
Precisely because life is short, everybody has a choice how to live it; if you feel that the best for you is to spend your money on early adopt every new technological advance that's availible, that's your choice, but you should respect that others preffer to use what they already own, so they can spend their money more wisely in the future.
I'm not saying that you should never buy any new technology, but if anyone reading this believes that BD is only a slighty improvement over DVD, and the bottom line you're content with DVD and the results from upscaling them, then by all means use it and enjoy it, regardless of what anybody has to say... it's your choice and yours alone.
It all cames down to respect and accept everybody own personal choice and prefference; if you feel that Blu-ray will fulfill your needs, good for you; but if others feel that DVD works for them, and rather wait for something much better than BD so they can spend their money wisely, that's good for them and you should respect that, instead of insisting on the contrary.
@oappi
The hole computer processor analogy is just an example of what's happenning today with the technological advances in home entertainment; again if you feel that you must have Quad Core processor or Blu-ray to fulfill your needs, good for you; but if the average user is content with single core processor or DVD, as they fullfil their needs, you should respect that as well.
Please allow me to tell you a story, to kinda end this analogy about computer processors, please be patient... my first PC had a AMD K62 processor, and I kept using it until it died on me, because it fulfilled my needs, yet during the time I had that PC, my friends bought new ones every year just to keep up with the new stuff.
Therefore while I spend once to have my PC with AMD K62 replaced by a PC with AMD Duron (which was one of the best processors at the time) they invested several times to have their PC/processors updated anually, and at the end we all ended up at the same point, having top of the line PCs, the difference is that during that period of 4-5 years, they spend much more money than I did, while I choosed to spend my money more wisely and only when I needed to.
Years after that, when my AMD Duron PC needed to be replaced (while my friends kept investing several times to have their PC/processors updated anually) again I looked for the best stuff availible, in this case i went for an Athlon 64 proccesor (again one of the best at the time)
But one week after I bought it, the Athlon 64 X2 proccesor was released; bad luck, no doubt about it, but if you think about it, if I had known in advance about this, I would have waited for it, not because I needed the extra juice, but because I was going to spend in a new PC anyway.
How all this relate to DVD vs. BD vs. 2160p format? It's very simple, as both are manners of technological advances. You can be an early adopter, maybe even price insensitive, that doesn't mind investing a lot of money, in getting every new stuff that's availible, that's your choice and i can respect that.
But you should also respect that others choose to spend their money more wisely, to make use of what they already invested in DVD, and wait a few more years for something much grander that BD will be worth investing in, but in this case we both know in advance that 2160p is coming.
I'm not denying the look of BD movies on flat panel screens, but if you ever try upscaling DVD, you would realize that it might not look like BD does, but sure the look of upscaled DVD movies is pretty amazing, which for many users is satisfying enough rather than investing on Blu-ray. The bottom line is that either upscaled DVD or BD can provide a satisfying visual experience, is everybody's choice stick with what fulfills their needs, and you should respect any oppinion that differs from yours.
I totally agree, a 50" flat panel screen should be enough for a 1080p picture, either from a BD or an upscaled DVD, and have seen several brands and models of screens, some of which are better for BD and upscaled DVD both; I have seen screens that everything looks amazing, that even you can't tell the difference from BD to upscaled DVD, yet I have seen screens so bad, that even BD movies look like wornout VHS or pixelated VCD.
As I said before: "I'm not against HD but indeed reluctant in investing in another optical disc format. Not only do I need a new video format, but also a new media to go along with it to convince me," which is a possibility for which I find 2160p atractive.
Also I said: "If someone should offer us today a 1080p format embedded on a non-optical disc media, even so I still believe that DVD is good enough for me, I would be more inclined to try it out, as I would recognized the attemp to make a revolutionary step from DVD, and if the benefits combined of a new format and media convinces me, maybe even support it."
More and more people are moving away from optical discs, I for one follow such path, and in 5 years non-optical disc media will be much more accesible than it's today. In the mean time, if DVD works fine for the masses, there's no need to replace it for another optical disc, because when it comes to technological advances, early adopters choose to invest in every new stuff released, but average consumers preffer to make huge steps for their money.
S-VHS and Laser Disc (560x480) never became mainstream, mainly because the masses didn't believe their minor improvement would be enough to invest on them in order to replace VHS... I think that's what is going to happen to Blu-ray as well. I'm sure that some consumers were early adopters and supporters of both S-VHS and Laser Disc, learned the hard way not to invest in every new stuff released, and rather wait for something that from every aspect and angle possible, is worth spending on it.
DVD was a huge step, a revolutionaty step from VHS, not only was a switch from an analog to digital format, with a higher resolution than other formats availible at the time, such as S-VHS and Laser Disc, with extra content and multiple options of audio and subtitles, and all was delivered in a compact optical disc, which are more reliable than VHS tapes, and easier to handle, store and reproduce than 12" LD discs... the sum of all allowed DVD to became what it is today.
There's nothing to be confused, I'm against BD as an optical disc, media which is slowly becaming obsolete, and simply doesn't appeal for me. If I'm going to play movies from discs, I rather use DVDs, for which I already invested in, and from which I can achieve amazing results from upscaling them, rather than invest in BD.
If I have to invest now in a 1080p format, it needs to be delivered on a non-optical disc in order to convince me to try it out, and maybe even support it. If this doesn't happen, then I look forward for a 2160p format that could deliver movies on the media I looking for, because if I'm going to invest a lot of money in replacing equipment and movies, it better be a media that will endure much more than optical discs, and that's the general thought of the average consumer, that chooses to spend their money wisely.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. September 2008 @ 05:47
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
9. September 2008 @ 23:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ematrix:
and that's the general thought of the average consumer, that chooses to spend their money wisely.
What good is your money if you're too old, too demented, or even too dead to enjoy it?
Besides, I'll bet the average consumer is still learning about 720p/1080i/1080p. They're not even thinking about future formats at this time. You say j6p is waiting for 2160p? Give me a break.
|
|
ematrix
Junior Member
|
10. September 2008 @ 05:05 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by error5:
What good is your money if you're too old, too demented, or even too dead to enjoy it?
That's not for you to judge nor criticize, that's everybody personal choice how to live their lives and how to spend their money. If you choose to spend your money on every new gadget and piece of tech availible, that's your choice and it's respectful, you should do the same by respecting others choose to spend their money wisely, by not investing in every new stuff availible.
Originally posted by error5:
Besides, I'll bet the average consumer is still learning about 720p/1080i/1080p.
To be fair maybe you're right, yet I wonder if that's actually the case; after all for the past years, mayor networks have broadcasted HD signals over the air, as well as cable and satellite companies have been providing HD channels; Blu-ray and HD-DVD were introduced, and HD content has been availible throw internet. I think the average consumer knows more about HD that you give them credit for.
Originally posted by error5:
They're not even thinking about future formats at this time. You say j6p is waiting for 2160p? Give me a break.
I never said J6P is waiting for 2160p, nor thinking about future formats at this time. I said that the average consumer wants to spend their money wisely, and if they anticipate that something better than BD is coming in a few years, due to the increasing interest and consumption for non-optical disc media, while optical discs are slowly becaming obsolete, why spend money now when they can wait for the next best thing?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. September 2008 @ 06:36
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
10. September 2008 @ 07:54 |
Link to this message
|
ematrix: Again, give me a break.
The average consumer is just starting to learn about BluRay and high def. He still sees movies on discs everywhere.
It's only in these types of forums that flash media, HD downloads, 2K/4K, and future formats are being discussed.
When the average consumer sees the 1080p sign on a flat screen in a store chances are he still needs someone to explain to him what it means.
Ask 10 random people on the street and ask them if they are aware of your 2160p, or of movies on flash media. I'll be surprised if more than 1 or 2 out of 10 are even thinking about future formats at this time.
Quote:
To be fair maybe you're right, yet I wonder if that's actually the case; after all for the past years, mayor networks have broadcasted HD signals over the air, as well as cable and satellite companies have been providing HD channels; Blu-ray and HD-DVD were introduced, and HD content has been availible throw internet. I think the average consumer knows more about HD that you give them credit for.
Why then do most HDTV owners still don't subscribe to HDTV programming? They connect SD sources to their new HDTV and that's it. Most people don't even know what an HDMI cable is.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6495849.html
Quote:
Industry research has generally indicated that anywhere from 40%-60% of HD sets are still being fed exclusively with standard-definition content, either because consumers don?t know any better or they haven?t bothered to sign up for HD cable or satellite service or to hook their TVs up to over-the-air antennas to receive local broadcast HD signals.
The CEA?s own research, in fact, indicated that in 2007, only 44% of HDTV owners are actually receiving HD programming. A CEA spokesperson explained that this was because many consumers buy the wide-screen sets simply to watch DVD movies.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. September 2008 @ 08:05
|
|
ematrix
Junior Member
|
10. September 2008 @ 18:29 |
Link to this message
|
@error5
I once believed the same, but once you realize that there's HD content in any form availible, you conclude that either people are content with DVD and SD programming and/or do make use of HD content, but don't care to consume Blu-ray, precisely because the average consumer doesn't see the benefit in investing in another optical disc format/media.
I'll bet that there's more people downloading HD content, than people buying BD movies at stores, since the concept of downloading music and movies isn't unknown to J6P. If you asked 10 random people on the street if they are aware of this, it's likely that most of them would respond that not only they know about it, also preffer to download music and movies than buy the discs at stores.
Certanly the people that frequent these forum, know more about Blu-ray, flash media, HD downloads, 2K/4K, and future formats than the average consumer, yet not all of them are consuming BD. The problem is that you assume that once the average consumer knows about HD, he'll inmediatelly start to consume Blu-ray, when in fact not everybody that owns a HDTV is interested in consuming it.
Let me say this as simple as possible, nobody is denying that Blu-ray offers higher resolution than DVD, but the average consumer sees no benefit in investing in movies on another optical disc media, since he's been investing on DVD movies for the past decade, so J6P is eager to invest in another form to deliver movies (which most likely will happen when 2160p is introduced) and anticipates that will happen in a few years, due to the increase interest and consumption of non-optical disc media.
I never said J6P is waiting for 2160p, nor thinking about future formats at this time, so give it a rest. J6P has moved away from audio CD, and more people each day are buying portable MP3 players, USB/flash cards, etc. so the concept of something completely different than optical discs, that could be used for movies as well isn't unknown to them, even looks forward to be able to show off that he has something cool in his hands... therefore why spend money now when they can wait for the next best thing?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. September 2008 @ 18:48
|
|
error5
Senior Member
|
10. September 2008 @ 20:05 |
Link to this message
|
Now I know you're making thing up as you go along.
Originally posted by ematrix:
I'll bet that there's more people downloading HD content, than people buying BD movies at stores, since the concept of downloading music and movies isn't unknown to J6P.
We're not talking about music here.
We're talking about movies - high-definition movies.
Downloading a single song will take you maybe a minute or two.
Do you know how long it takes to download an 8 to 10 Gigabyte high-definition movie encode? Not to mention a BD rip which could take as much as 30 to 45 Gigabytes???
Now show me actual statistics that show that the movie studios are actually making more money from HIGH-DEFINITION movie downloads than from BluRay disc sales. I want actual dollar values and actual numbers OK - and from reputable sources.
and NO - illegal downloads don't count.
PLUS - we haven't even considered the factor of newly-imposed bandwidth caps now enforced by the major ISP's.
Originally posted by ematrix:
If you asked 10 random people on the street if they are aware of this, it's likely that most of them would respond that not only they know about it, also preffer to download music and movies than buy the discs at stores.
Like I said, downloading music is one thing, downloading HIGH-DEF movies is another. Try downloading an HD movie when your ISP is throttling your connection at 3.5Mbps.
Originally posted by ematrix:
(which most likely will happen when 2160p is introduced) and anticipates that will happen in a few years
A few years??? It's already here!!
Now try selling Westinghouse's 52-inch 2160p HDTV to the masses. It should be easy - it costs only $50,000. A lot of people should be lining up to buy at that price.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/ces2007-we...eview-2018.html
|
|
juankerr
Member
|
10. September 2008 @ 20:48 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by error5:
Now show me actual statistics that show that the movie studios are actually making more money from HIGH-DEFINITION movie downloads than from BluRay disc sales.
Let me help you with the numbers. These are from Adams Media Research (1/2008).
Hi-def Discs Already Double Size of Download Market
Total revenue from HD discs in 2007 = $260 million
Total revenue from internet downloads (both SD and HD) = $123 million
Also from the article: far more homes in the US have disc players (>90 million) than have high-speed internet access.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Staff Member
4 product reviews
|
10. September 2008 @ 23:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by error5:
Now show me actual statistics that show that the movie studios are actually making more money from HIGH-DEFINITION movie downloads than from BluRay disc sales.
Let me help you with the numbers. These are from Adams Media Research (1/2008).
Hi-def Discs Already Double Size of Download Market
Total revenue from HD discs in 2007 = $260 million
Total revenue from internet downloads (both SD and HD) = $123 million
Also from the article: far more homes in the US have disc players (>90 million) than have high-speed internet access.
Since January I'm sure that gap has grown even larger, probably substantially larger.
|
|
