PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Mr. Kennedy on February 17, 2008, 09:15:48 AM
-
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/16/toshiba-pulls-hd-dvd-support-blu-ray-wins/#comments
Ok folks, you\'ve been waiting. We have an answer.
I don\'t really know how this effects us as consumers other than if you want hi-def movies you need to buy blu-ray. Other than that, Sony and others in the BDA can sit back and watch the money roll in.
-
The competition was great up front; Sony adopted MPEG-4 AVC and VC-1 for optional video codecs, only because HD-DVD did it first. Not to mention player prices had to be competitive.
I\'m just glad the better format won.
-
Good thing the market is more certain now.
-
Good thing the market is more certain now.
Yeah but competition is always good for pricing. Let\'s hope that prices remain reasonable, i\'m actually hoping they\'ll lower, but they won\'t.
-
the price is still reasonable, you can get a blu ray player for $400 nowadays compare to a year ago where they cost $1,000.
About half a year ago, the price of a blu ray player from sony is $500, then in Oct. Sony dropped it down to $400. And during the christmas holiday season, Sony temporarily dropped it down to $300 and goes back up to $400 after the holiday season.
If you are still interested in buying a blu ray player, get a ps3 or wait till another 6 months or by the end of the year where newer blu ray models should have more features and price should go lower, as low as $300. Who knows, you maybe able to get it cheaper during the winter holiday season too. As cheap as $200.
If you want a blu ray player costing under $400 now. You are asking too much. Expect crappier quality player for such a cheap player.
-
I can\'t wait to take advantage of all the HD-DVD clearances now :)
-
Yeah but competition is always good for pricing. Let\'s hope that prices remain reasonable, i\'m actually hoping they\'ll lower, but they won\'t.
This is not allays the case although it sounds reasonable and it is generally applicable in general theory and in general perception. There are occasions such as natural oligopoly or natural monopoly where fewer "competitors" may actually lead to lower prices and higher volumes.
In the case of HD-DVD vs Blu Ray, the existence of two formats created uncertainty in the market which leads often to low sales, full library support did not exist for both thus created two separate library camps, etc. And in case of providing support for two formats simultaneously may actually be much less cost efficient (affects pricing). Furthermore it is not like the format is produced by one manufacturer only. Then there is the marketing perspective pointing towards the need to push the format for mass establishment and to persuade the consumer that Blu Ray is the new way to go despite the existence of DVD. And of course there is the interdependence between movie companies and the format providers, as well as the need to promote the players themselves. There are so many factors.
And in case of suspicion of deliberate price fixation by all blu ray manufacturers thats an illegal practice and may end up into fines.
The market needed one format for cost efficiency and better consumer satisfaction.
-
This makes me feel even better about my recent purchase of a PS3.
-
This is not allays the case although it sounds reasonable and it is generally applicable in general theory and in general perception. There are occasions such as natural oligopoly or natural monopoly where fewer "competitors" may actually lead to lower prices and higher volumes.
In the case of HD-DVD vs Blu Ray, the existence of two formats created uncertainty in the market which leads often to low sales, full library support did not exist for both thus created two separate library camps, etc. And in case of providing support for two formats simultaneously may actually be much less cost efficient (affects pricing). Furthermore it is not like the format is produced by one manufacturer only. Then there is the marketing perspective pointing towards the need to push the format for mass establishment and to persuade the consumer that Blu Ray is the new way to go despite the existence of DVD. And of course there is the interdependence between movie companies and the format providers, as well as the need to promote the players themselves. There are so many factors.
And in case of suspicion of deliberate price fixation by all blu ray manufacturers thats an illegal practice and may end up into fines.
The market needed one format for cost efficiency and better consumer satisfaction.
Your argument might hold some ground except that DVD prices have already dictated that the movie companies are going to set prices, and as long as the consumer buys them, they\'ll keep them there.
I\'m not saying that HD-DVD competition would lower the prices. Just saying there is even less incentive now that all of the movie companies are using the same media.
-
Your argument might hold some ground except that DVD prices have already dictated that the movie companies are going to set prices, and as long as the consumer buys them, they\'ll keep them there.
I\'m not saying that HD-DVD competition would lower the prices. Just saying there is even less incentive now that all of the movie companies are using the same media.
If I got it straight you saying that prices are set mostly by the movie companies and that having too camps (half on HD-DVD and half on BR) would push for more price drops between the movie companies?
If movie companies have the tendency to compete in different formats they have the same tendency in competing each other on the same format as well. HD-DVD, Blu Ray or one common format doesnt make much difference. The format wars is not of their concern since none of the two formats are a product of their own, only the media on the disk which they are competing at regardless of format. Also knowing that the specific industry finally adopts one format only, it is strategically wise not to start competing in prices with the aim to help one format survive over another, since that lower price may become the norm when one format is settled, generating lower future revenues as a result. And in case of two formats and two camps existing it will never happen. They all realize this is bad business (and very disadvantageous for the consumer) compared to supporting one format. Doing that means reducing prices and fragmenting their sales too much which is irrational. Lowering prices aims to increase market share or profits which was impossible with two formats creating uncertainty in the market. This format competition was temporary in nature with not high tendency by movie companies to reduce prices because of that format competition. They prefer to observe and automatically follow only one format which they believe can sell and promote their movies better.
-
No, I\'m saying that the format will pretty much have a set price that everyone in the industry is going to agree upon and that will be that. When the price of production of Blu-ray goes down, their profit margin will just go up. Don\'t expect the consumer to win because HD-DVD is done. Its just as dumb as the logic that HD-DVD would bring prices down. It might affect how much the actual players costs, but the discs are going to be price gouged no matter what.
-
No, I\'m saying that the format will pretty much have a set price that everyone in the industry is going to agree upon and that will be that. When the price of production of Blu-ray goes down, their profit margin will just go up. Don\'t expect the consumer to win because HD-DVD is done. Its just as dumb as the logic that HD-DVD would bring prices down. It might affect how much the actual players costs, but the discs are going to be price gouged no matter what.
What you said I believe has been already addressed in both of my posts. You probably didnt read carefully
-
What you said I believe has been already addressed in both of my posts. You probably didnt read carefully
You don\'t even half way comprehend what he is trying to say, so don\'t try and pass it off as tho you already "addressed" the issues.
He is saying that without another format, Blu Ray disc prices are going to be expensive and he is right. They are not going to lower prices to match with DVD\'s, because DVD\'s have a standard $15 dollar price tag. Quite simply, due to production and the fact it\'s a "hi-def" format, we won\'t see those prices. With another format, like HD DVD, we most likely would of seen slightly cheaper prices due to the fact they had a direct competitor.
And before someone links to a few $15 dollar Blu Ray, that does not account for the majority and the majority is what counts.
-
It\'ll come down in prices just like the way DVDs did. They, too, cost $30 back in 1998. By 2000, Costco was selling them for $18 or less.
-
It\'ll come down in prices just like the way DVDs did. They, too, cost $30 back in 1998. By 2000, Costco was selling them for $18 or less.
LIC doesnt get it.
-
With another format, like HD DVD, we most likely would of seen slightly cheaper prices due to the fact they had a direct competitor.
Except HD-DVD\'s were more expensive than Blu-ray\'s. :)
-
This is econ 101; the manufacturer doesn\'t set prices, the consumer does. If people find Blu-Ray too expensive at $30 (and I\'m sure they will), the market will find a way to make them cheaper. In technology terms this usually means as time goes on the manufacturing process will get cheaper and the authoring software will have matured to a point where it won\'t take a super-skilled encoding studio to create a Blu-Ray disc.
Everything gets cheaper as time goes on. No reason to think the sky is falling.
-
Good luck with that guys, price isn\'t going to change that much. When a company can sell gobs of product at the current price, they aren\'t going to have any incentive to bring the price down.
And there is NO COMPETITION, HD-DVD or otherwise. You really think movie companies are going to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to compete with each other on prices? With that logic there should be a drastic drop in PS3 and Xbox360 game prices because they are "competing".
HD-DVD wasn\'t going to do shit except bring down the player prices, maybe MAYBE they\'d force blu-ray to drop 5 bucks on their typical movie, but thats being optimistic.
DVD\'s were a harder sell. People are much more willing these days to adopt a new format so Blu-ray can still justify a higher cost due to it being "hi-def"
-
Good luck with that guys, price isn\'t going to change that much. When a company can sell gobs of product at the current price, they aren\'t going to have any incentive to bring the price down.
And there is NO COMPETITION, HD-DVD or otherwise. You really think movie companies are going to shoot themselves in the foot by trying to compete with each other on prices? With that logic there should be a drastic drop in PS3 and Xbox360 game prices because they are "competing".
HD-DVD wasn\'t going to do shit except bring down the player prices, maybe MAYBE they\'d force blu-ray to drop 5 bucks on their typical movie, but thats being optimistic.
DVD\'s were a harder sell. People are much more willing these days to adopt a new format so Blu-ray can still justify a higher cost due to it being "hi-def"
K, will bring this quote back in 3 years when you\'re buying your bargain bin Blu-Rays @ $5.99 :thumb:
-
So help me god if i\'m still here in 3 years :thumb:
-
^^^thinking of running away in that time? j/k.:p
-
Format war = bad.
mmmmkay?
As for video game prices going down......most of my PS2 games were bought new at $20. :D
-
The argument that Blu Ray will start selling huge loads in the current price therefore it will retain a high price is only an assumption. The price will fall to replace DVDs and achieve mass adoption. The current price is not consumer firendly
Secondly the format industry has many of the characteristics of natural monopoly so competition in the format doesnt matter as much.
Third, the highest percentage of the price is determined by the movie companies and not by those supplying the disk format. An example of this: Out of a $20 DVD, $9 includes the production, distribution, marketing etc of the disk. Around $11 is a profit for the movie company. And these movie companies do not have any incentives to support and lower profits on a specific format by lowering their prices even if two formats exist. They automatically shift to one format once they get the signal of mass adoption.
The competition did not have any real substance. Those bringing up benefits of competition in the specific industry as an argument they are talking about a ghost. It is not substantial.
-
Except HD-DVD\'s were more expensive than Blu-ray\'s. :)
Not sure where you are buying from. HD DVDs were always less expensive than Blu Ray.
And Blu RAY will not replace DVD, it\'s a niche format at it\'s best.
-
Umm Raz,
I think Samwise was joking right there.
I don\'t see the problem of blu ray replacing DVD.
-
And Blu RAY will not replace DVD, it\'s a niche format at it\'s best.
sour grapes!
tagging for future reference.
-
Not sure where you are buying from. HD DVDs were always less expensive than Blu Ray.
And Blu RAY will not replace DVD, it\'s a niche format at it\'s best.
They said the same about VHS. Now that is a niche format, only to be phased out by DVRs. My parents still use VHS to tape shows. I was thinking of buying a VCR to record tv shows but my computer does that better so I have no use for one.
-
History proves that prices of Blu-Ray dics will come down,...cheaper processing and manufacturing will do that...but i do think it will take a bit longer for it to replace dvd\'s if at all,...i mean i do see a difference between regular dvd\'s and blu-ray, but to the average joe i think dvd\'s will do just fine.....but once everybody gets on board i think we\'ll start to see significant drops in price...
-
it will take some time before blu-ray disc replace DVD\'s - only 28 percent of Americans own an HDTV (which is impressive, but a minority none the less).
When it does, it will be a mere bridge to digital distribution.
However, I own a PS3, and I like watching things in high-def, so it is my format of choice at the moment. I don\'t see any other threats coming in the near future, and don\'t give me any holographic disc crap.
-
Umm Raz,
I think Samwise was joking right there.
I wasn\'t joking. At least over here HD-DVD\'s are more expensive. I thought that was the case in the US too? I might be thinking of those combo discs, but I heard they were like $5 bucks more than similar Blu-ray\'s.
-
HD DVD did have more specials but they didn\'t sell that well compared to their BR counterparts. Consumers made their choice, and not just in the US.
-
I wasn\'t joking. At least over here HD-DVD\'s are more expensive. I thought that was the case in the US too? I might be thinking of those combo discs, but I heard they were like $5 bucks more than similar Blu-ray\'s.
combo discs were more expensive.
-
You don\'t even half way comprehend what he is trying to say, so don\'t try and pass it off as tho you already "addressed" the issues.
Good luck with that guys, price isn\'t going to change that much. When a company can sell gobs of product at the current price, they aren\'t going to have any incentive to bring the price down.
DVD\'s were a harder sell. People are much more willing these days to adopt a new format so Blu-ray can still justify a higher cost due to it being "hi-def"
And Blu RAY will not replace DVD, it\'s a niche format at it\'s best.
:)
-
HD DVD did have more specials but they didn\'t sell that well compared to their BR counterparts. Consumers made their choice, and not just in the US.
And the movie companies as well ;)
History proves that prices of Blu-Ray dics will come down,...cheaper processing and manufacturing will do that...but i do think it will take a bit longer for it to replace dvd\'s if at all,...i mean i do see a difference between regular dvd\'s and blu-ray, but to the average joe i think dvd\'s will do just fine.....but once everybody gets on board i think we\'ll start to see significant drops in price...
Yep. The probability is high that they will. There was no real price competition and there was no chance on earth that both formats could prevail. It was only a transitory stage on which of the two was going to remain. It was either none or one since the beginning but some simply dont realize it, claiming that competition was going to reduce prices. The only form of competition was on which format was going to absorb the highest movie support. The existence of two different formats was economically inefficient for both library support and cost efficiency. The competition was fictitious. Besides who was going to reduce prices? The format suppliers who have the lowest profit margins from the disks? Or the movie companies who only care to shift towards a uniform market that is absent of uncertainty and is more cost efficient? And the demand isnt even inelastic to expect that prices wont go down.
The fact that the average joe may be satisfied with DVDs currently, may push for farther price reduction and addition of extra features.
It is not very different than the DVD market. This current stage is the beginning of the products life cycle.
-
combo discs were more expensive.
As they should be.
On the other hand, regular HD DVD were cheaper than Blu Ray.
HD DVD did have more specials but they didn\'t sell that well compared to their BR counterparts. Consumers made their choice, and not just in the US.
Did they? Or was the biggest factor because of the PS3 and the Blu-Ray drive?
And either way, it\'s still a niche format at it\'s best. Until every person can take advantage and notice a different in hi-def formats, it\'ll play second string to DVD.
-
what\'s this extra "still" doing in there now?
is it a niche format or still a niche format?
-
You know what I meant, so quit being an anal fuckin\' tard.
-
no, i didn\'t know what you meant.
claiming BD will be a niche format, and claiming it is still a niche format has two completely different meanings.
perhaps all the positive news of huge BD sales since your initial comment changed your tune?
-
As they should be.
So if a movie was only available on HD-DVD as a combo disc, then wouldn\'t you be forced to buy it and pay more than you would for a similar movie on Blu-ray?
On the other hand, regular HD DVD were cheaper than Blu Ray.
At least in the US. Not everywhere.
-
no, i didn\'t know what you meant.
claiming BD will be a niche format, and claiming it is still a niche format has two completely different meanings.
perhaps all the positive news of huge BD sales since your initial comment changed your tune?
Minus the fact I don\'t keep up with sales numbers and I haven\'t changed my tune? I always said any hi-def format will be a niche format. Nor could I care less about any sales numbers. All I care about is the price, I the consumer pays.
-
k, hopefully somebody with more interest bumps this thread a year from now when BD is soaring along.
-
Yea not to keep harping on this issue, but the migration seems easy enough to me...
Only 1 cable to connect to your HDTV or HT system, Netflix offers Blu-ray at no extra charge, the PS3\'s got it, helps get you puzzy, etc...
-
Yea not to keep harping on this issue, but the migration seems easy enough to me...
Only 1 cable to connect to your HDTV or HT system, Netflix offers Blu-ray at no extra charge, the PS3\'s got it, helps get you puzzy, etc...
Minus the facts.........
1: Viewing distance.
2: Proper calibration.
3: Proper sets.
4: Varying degree\'s of quality movie to movie .
5: Size of set + viewing distance
6: Not everyone can notice hi-def. I know quite a few people who notice no difference.
The list goes on and on.
You guys act like that if you put in a hi-def disc, you will notice the difference right off.
-
you will.
unless they don\'t own a HDTV, the difference is noticeable instantly (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102&page=19).
"proper sets"?
-
And either way, it\'s still a niche format at it\'s best. Until every person can take advantage and notice a different in hi-def formats, it\'ll play second string to DVD.
yeah because if you knew a little bit about product cycles and marketing you would have known that this is applicable for almost any newly introduced product related to technology and it is temporary thus you have no valid point.
-
nvm, was going to post pics here from that link for a comparison but the pics doesn\'t work.
-
you will.
unless they don\'t own a HDTV, the difference is noticeable instantly (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102&page=19).
"proper sets"?
You honestly have no clue what you\'re talking about.
It all depends on the size of the set compared to the viewing distance and resolution.
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.carltonbale.com%2Fresolution_chart.png&hash=c9436818584b8af3e4b05a7edc7e491bc9cca894)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.carltonbale.com%2Fdistance_chart.png&hash=88b2765094c228053bc5445742b7c8861fd1a168)
In conclusion: If you are a videophile with a properly setup viewing room, you should definitely be able to notice the resolution enhancement that 1080p brings. However, if you are an average consumer with a plasma on the far wall of your family room, you are not likely to be sitting close enough to notice any advantage
576 resolution 720 1080
32" inches 8\' feet 6\' 4\'
37" 10\' 7\' 5\'
40" 10.5\' 8\' 5\'
42" 11\' 8\' 5.5\'
46" 12\' 9\' 6\'
50" 13\' 10\' 6.5\'
52" 13.5\' 10\' 7\'
65" 17\' 13\' 8.5\'
Any more dumb and just plain wrong comments?
-
yes, you\'re arguing something different to avoid the point.
is HD recognizable over SD on a HDTV.
please keep to the specific discussion next time.
-
yes, you\'re arguing something different to avoid the point.
is HD recognizable over SD on a HDTV.
please keep to the specific discussion next time.
And I just posted something showing that for some people, it is not going to be noticeable. And if people aren\'t going to notice the advantage of HD, they have no reason to adopt it.
Please know what you\'re talking about the next time.
And what point? As usual, you have no point.
-
now it\'s "some" people?
it was "quite a few" earlier.
care to keep changing your status?
the average person can easily tell the difference between SD and HD, and will not be "satisfied" with DVD\'s on all the new HDTV\'s that are being sold everyday.
ergo, BD will not be a niche format, or still be a niche format, whichever you decide at any given time.
-
now it\'s "some" people?
it was "quite a few" earlier.
care to keep changing your status?
the average person can easily tell the difference between SD and HD, and will not be "satisfied" with DVD\'s on all the new HDTV\'s that are being sold everyday.
ergo, BD will not be a niche format, or still be a niche format, whichever you decide at any given time.
You want to argue over one word used - "some". You know what I meant. I\'ll say it this time and I\'ll rephrase yet again.
Most people will not notice the difference, as the average person sits further away than the viewing guide recommends. Just because HDTV\'s are sold all the time means nothing, as for the most part, standard TV\'s are being done away with. Just because it is sold, does not mean people will take advantage of the HDTV. Do you honestly think people are going to re-arrange their living room just to watch a friggin\' movi?
The average person will not notice the difference and will be satisfied just fine with standard DVDs.
Hi-def = niche format.
-
no, i do not know what you meant.
this is what people do to back peddle after making a claim.
they alter the fine details and suggest the other party should comprehend or is an idiot.
do you remember when people claimed $1,000 DVD players were a niche? who needs DD 5.1 sound because owning a home theater is foolish?
you\'re burying your face into that chart and not acknowledging what\'s important. people are not buying HDTV\'s and home theaters to just watch DVD\'s when Hi-Def is an option.
i\'m actually surprised you would stick to this nonsense theory and not even slide a "maybe" or "possibly" in there.
if Hi-def downloads were accessible or practical, you might be remotely near correct.
didn\'t see this (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080127-blu-ray-is-smokin-hot-hd-formats-outpacing-dvd.html)?
-
people are not buying HDTV\'s and home theaters to just watch DVD\'s when Hi-Def is an option.
that\'s quite true. There are many other reasons why people buy hdtv beside watching DVDs like playing videogames console in high def, and blu ray movies in high def doesn\'t hurt either. terrestrial and cable broadcast in high def looks great too...
-
One side note: I\'d wager that most consumers make the decision to buy an HDTV based on the experience of seeing one in an electronics store showroom. In that environment, they are probably viewing the screen from 3-5\' away. Easily close enough to notice the improved resolution.
I bet they do not say to themselves "I don\'t need to buy that because when I install it in my living room, the screen will be too far away to notice the difference." To me that would be crediting the average consumer with WAY too much intelligence! :)
-
Minus the facts.........
1: Viewing distance.
2: Proper calibration.
3: Proper sets.
4: Varying degree\'s of quality movie to movie .
5: Size of set + viewing distance
6: Not everyone can notice hi-def. I know quite a few people who notice no difference.
The list goes on and on.
You guys act like that if you put in a hi-def disc, you will notice the difference right off.
1-6 and you really only have 3 different thoughts. So yeah, list can go on and on if you keep going redundant.
Blue Ray is 1080p and DVD is 480p. You seriously don\'t think you\'d notice a difference? I mean you guys use to bitch about the smallest jaggies in games and you can seriously defend standard DVDs against Blue Ray?
Not really sure what viewing distance and screen size has to do with clarity of the image and whether you notice the difference or not. Unless the movie was shot with a handy cam (IE Blair Witch) you will notice a difference the second the screen pops up with an image no matter how far back or close you are and no matter the screen size.
By the way, you can buy an HD-DVD player now for 90 bucks and it includes 7 movies. How\'s that for a liquidation sale?
-
My bro and his girlfriend who aren\'t even home theater enthusiasts definitely notice the difference on their 50" SXRD. His gf even pushes to get the BR version of every movie they buy/rent because of it.
It\'s not just lines of resolution that increases. It\'s color information, menu interactivity, and sound fidelity.
Bottom line is it\'s a smarter, more flexible, and more advanced format. Just like how interlacing is dying, DVD needs to die as well.
Blue Ray is 1080p and DVD is 480i.
Just a small correction
.
-
they made Progressive scan DVD players.
were originally 480i
whether your TV would deinterlace the signal anyways is debatable.
-
Progressive player or not, the source is still very interlaced. In addition to de-interlacing, players also upscale DVD to 1080p, but the source is still 480i.
-
Even when you take out the viewing distance and what not, Blu Ray just not offer the benefits that DVD offered over VHS. People did not adopt DVD due to video quality, they adopted it for low price and convient features such as no rewinding / menus / and other stuff, standard stuff now\'a\'days.
One side note: I\'d wager that most consumers make the decision to buy an HDTV based on the experience of seeing one in an electronics store showroom. In that environment, they are probably viewing the screen from 3-5\' away. Easily close enough to notice the improved resolution.
I bet they do not say to themselves "I don\'t need to buy that because when I install it in my living room, the screen will be too far away to notice the difference." To me that would be crediting the average consumer with WAY too much intelligence!
The same showroom models that have the contrast and brightness cranked up to the max? Right... There is no arguing that they are closer to the display to notice a difference, but those models are not properly calibrated either - so are they really noticing what hi-def can offer? No, they aren\'t.
And what happens when they get home and they put that small-ass 38" screen 8 - 10 feet away from their seats? All of a sudden, the increased resolution is no longer a factor.
sound fidelity.
The average person either lacks a sound system or is still running a 5.1 . They aren\'t going to take advantage of all the new audio codecs and what not. I also fall into this catergory, as I couldn\'t care less about sound quality.
they alter the fine details and suggest the other party should comprehend or is an idiot.
I\'m not suggesting you\'re an idiot. I know you\'re an idiot .
You simply nitpick things to try and prove some absurd point.
I don\'t need a "possibly" or "maybe". Blu-Ray and any hi-def format is a niche format. It\'s a transition format, that the early adopters will enjoy, but the general audience won\'t embrace. It\'s the in bewteen format, that only serves to show what the future can hold and pave the way for an actual format to take over DVD. Will that format be Blu Ray? No, most certainly not.
I own both formats and I would never recommend someone to buy into either format to replace DVD. With the current prices and so many variables needing to be correct to take advantage of hi-def, it simply is not worth it. If it was not for the fact that I\'m an early adopter and I love new stuff, I probably wouldn\'t buy either format. But I do, so I am part of the group that helps hi-def formats maintain that niche status, as opposed to a "DEAD" status.
And before you post that stupid link again, get back to me when that is a constant.
-
lol at "transition format" now
keep refining that argument till you might squeek out something accurate.
-
Progressive player or not, the source is still very interlaced. In addition to de-interlacing, players also upscale DVD to 1080p, but the source is still 480i.
I think you might be right that the source is interlace. I think that most DVD movies are 480i @ 48 fields per second. Honestly, I am not 100% sure on this.
They did this to make it easier to output it as 60 fields per second for interlace TV like NTSC and PAL.
Then for progressive scan tv like EDTV and HDTV. it still process the 48 fields per second as 60 fields per second by repeating every 4th fields evenly. Then those 60 fields will be converted to 24 fps by removing the repeating fields back to 48 fields per second, then deinterlace the 48 fields per second to 24 frames per second....Finally, the 24fps will be repeating into 60 frames per second by doing 3 - 2 pull down.
Why bother with this headaches? I am not sure, maybe it has to do with back in the days, NTSC and PAL are still the norm or something, so by encoding the 24fps as 48 fields per second into the dvd would be easier and cheaper to playback on interlaced TV like NTSC and PAL.
With High Def movies on Blu Ray and HD-DVD. This is different. Almost all 1080p movies are encoded as 24 frames per second and for 1080p tv, the player just simply do a 3-2 pulldown. Easy and straightforward job there, no deinterlacing require so it should has no deinterlacing errors.
And some players allow 24fps output for 1080p film sources for hdtv that support 24 fps, which let the TV do ther "pulldown" whether it\'s 3-2 pulldown for 60fps or 3-3 pulldown for 72 fps...
Some 1080p movies that were mastered early in the days are probably still in 1080i format, but are still encoded into the blu ray disc as 1080p because it was deinterlaced during the encoding. And if the deinterlacing is done right all the time, you should get the correct progressive frames all the same...
-
Blu Ray just not offer the benefits that DVD offered over VHS. People did not adopt DVD due to video quality, they adopted it for low price and convient features such as no rewinding / menus / and other stuff, standard stuff now\'a\'days.
believe it or not, one of the biggest reasons why many people adopted DVD over VHS is because of picture quality too, beside having convenient navigation menu and stuffs.
If picture quality isn\'t important, consumers would have accepted VCDs but they didn\'t. If navigation menu, and chapter skips, and no need to rewind are really that important to consumers. Then laserdiscs would have taken off because laserdiscs have those features.
but why didn\'t many consumers accepted laserdiscs? the number reason is the size of these disc is like 12" in diameter or 30 cm. Too big, in comparison CDs are only 3.5" or 12 cm.
And why didn\'t VCDs taken off since it\'s 12 cm which is more convenient to store than VHS tape? number #1 reason is picture quality.
VCD has the same resolution as VHS, which is 320 x 240. but VCD carries more resolution in color for channel blue and channel red than VHS, 1/4th of black compare to 1/16th of black that VHS carries. But because of compression quality back in the day isn\'t as efficient as nowadays and the encoder is MPEG-1. It does hurts the picture, which does have a lot of noticable compression artifacts. Second is, because its a digital signal which is precise, the picture looks really pixelated on 480i TV. Because 240 has to be output to 480i and with no good upscaler, it doesn\'t look good.
VHS on the other hand, doesn\'t have this problems because its an analog signal. it can ouput the 320 x 240i into 320 x 480i with no problems. No need to require a video scaler because its analog. it can interpolate those pixels into two and still comes out nicely with no pixelation. Also, VHS don\'t have any compression artifacts because its doesn\'t use any video compression like digital lossy video encoder does...
Also, there is this S-VHS format which doesn\'t get consumers acceptance either even though it has 560 x 420 resolution which is the same as laserdiscs. Sure the picture quality has 3.5 times more detail than VHS, but because it doesn\'t offer the convenience of menu nagivation, and the such. so, it bombed.
[SIZE="3"]So, that led me to believe DVD finally gained consumers acceptance because of picture quality, it\'s the same size as CD, and easier menu navigation.[/SIZE]
what makes DVD picture looks so good is that DVD resolution is 720 x 480i or more than 4 times the resolution of VHS, and the 480i is the same resolution as NTSC so no need of a video scaler to scale to match the tv\'s lines like VCD does. Another big reason the more efficient encoder of MPEG-2. Another benefit is the dual layers that DVD can support. Which means it can store 3 hours or longer of a movie on a dvd disc than any older formats could like VCD, VHS, laserdisc...so no need to flip the disc, change disc, or change tape either...
-
There\'s really alot of great points bein\' thrown around from all sides, but i honestly must say that the leap from dvd to say blu-ray isn\'t as big as it was for vhs to dvd...i mean with vhs we all know that it loses it quality and clarity over time,..dvds?...nope..5, 10 years from now that clear clarity will still be there and i\'m not going to get into the technical side of it, because i really don\'t know about encoding and interlacing and all that,...i\'m only speaking from the consumer side of it.
Now if companies start to just drop dvd\'s altogether and force people to buy blu-ray then i can see blu-ray dominating,...since that is what is happening with cable and satellite tv...(i heard that everybody will have to buy either cable or satellite if they want to watch tv at all)...so those people that live in tha boonies can\'t use those old rabbit ears antennas anymore.....i still think that eventually blu-ray will dominate because everytime a movie comes out on dvd, i always see the blu-ray counterpart being advertised right beside it....but me personally i have seen the difference in the spider-man blu-ray that came with my ps3, but i\'am perfectly fine with my other dvd collection that shows and performs at an already high quality....dvd\'s perform like a high end bmw or benz while blu-ray is like a lambo or porsche....:fro:
-
lol at "transition format" now
keep refining that argument till you might squeek out something accurate.
Nothing wrong with what I said. I did not refine the agrument, I simply stated my opinion on it and why Blu Ray is a niche format that will not replace DVD.
There\'s really alot of great points bein\' thrown around from all sides, but i honestly must say that the leap from dvd to say blu-ray isn\'t as big as it was for vhs to dvd...i mean with vhs we all know that it loses it quality and clarity over time,..dvds?...nope..5, 10 years from now that clear clarity will still be there and i\'m not going to get into the technical side of it, because i really don\'t know about encoding and interlacing and all that,...i\'m only speaking from the consumer side of it.
And the average consumer speaks. They don\'t know about all the techincal mumbo-jumbo. They need sure fire reasons to buy into hi-def and so far, they don\'t have any.
-
the "average consumer" is snatching up BD players at record paces and will certainly continue as more and more titles are released. not sure why you continue to ignore this.
you fit right into the J6P demographic and sure hopped right in.
-
Now if companies start to just drop dvd\'s altogether and force people to buy blu-ray then i can see blu-ray dominating,...since that is what is happening with cable and satellite tv...(i heard that everybody will have to buy either cable or satellite if they want to watch tv at all)...so those people that live in tha boonies can\'t use those old rabbit ears antennas anymore.....
umm...that\'s not true. If your analog tv or hdtv has ATSC digital tuner built in, then [SIZE="4"]you still can watch digital broadcast with simply using the existing rabbit ear antenna[/SIZE] that you already own that you use on your NTSC aka analog tv.
Its uses the same RF coaxial cable. Anything that is digital require only one single cable and will still come out precise, while analog video and audio will have lots of interference and noises for using one single cable for video and audio.
Because ATSC tuner uses the MPEG-2 for all digital video broadcast of 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i. The specs for the maximum bandwidth is 19.8 Mbps. And the antenna can receive that much data, actually higher than that. As high as 50 mbps or higher. Even the RF coaxial cable can accept up to 1 gbps of digital data. 1 gbps = 1,000 mbps. possibly higher.
So, a single RF coaxial cable should be way more than enough to receive HD broadcast using MPEG-2 compression.
So, no need to switch to Cable TV or Satellite TV in order to watch free terrestrial aka over the air digital broadcast. Unless you want to get more channels, than cable or satellite tv makes sense...but come at price of monthly payment...
-
oh, one last thing i would like to add. By February 17, 2009. All NTSC ota broadcast will be turned off in U.S.A.. If your old tv doesn\'t have a digital ATSC tuner, then you need to buy an external ATSC tuner in order to watch ota broadcast.
-
the "average consumer" is snatching up BD players at record paces and will certainly continue as more and more titles are released. not sure why you continue to ignore this.
you fit right into the J6P demographic and sure hopped right in.
How do I fit into the J6P? I actually know the advantages and disadvantages of both formats and what not. I actually understand viewing distance . The average person does not - the average consumer that is. So, please think before you post (I know that is hard for you).
I\'m not ignoring anything. A few weeks of good sales don\'t mean anything in the long term. Get back to me when the sales are constant. Or when Wal-Mart starts devoting most it\'s floor space to BLU-RAY over regular DVD.
-
I think the whole screen size vs. viewing distance thing is a bit absurd. I can very easily see the difference on my (after American standards) "miniscule" 32" HDTV from 7-8 feet away. I don\'t understand how you can keep saying otherwise just from some Excel chart. It\'s simply not true. Not at \'normal\' sizes at \'normal\' viewing distances anyway.
And I even have a fairly good upconverting DVD player so the difference in picture quality is smaller than with a more standard DVD player vs. HD.
-
I think the whole screen size vs. viewing distance thing is a bit absurd. I can very easily see the difference on my (after American standards) "miniscule" 32" HDTV from 7-8 feet away. I don\'t understand how you can keep saying otherwise just from some Excel chart. It\'s simply not true. Not at \'normal\' sizes at \'normal\' viewing distances anyway.
And I even have a fairly good upconverting DVD player so the difference in picture quality is smaller than with a more standard DVD player vs. HD.
So now your personal opinion goes against proven fact?
Quite simply, at a certain distance, certain resolutions are in fact not noticeable. If you see them you are either suffering a placebo effect or you have beyond excellent vision.
-
Lol... your point is my point, only reversed. You believe some Excel chart, not real life. But whatever, I don\'t expect you to change your opinion.
But please don\'t condescend me. I can very clearly see the difference on a 32" HDTV from 7 feet away. And that\'s just 720P. This is not my \'personal opinion\' or a placebo effect. It\'s a fact. It\'s not debatable.
I\'m not an idiot, I know my stuff and I can tell the difference between SD and HD.
EDIT: Besides, what\'s the point of a HDTV. The contrast ratio is worse than CRT\'s. But calibrated or not the pixel resolution is way bigger than an SD set. This is true for all HDTV\'s and not \'certain sets\' or depending on being properly calibrated.
-
you can\'t generalize everyone with a \'graph\'.
people buy what they want, and with the ever increasing sales of HDTV\'s, it won\'t be DVD.
graph posted by lic claiming the average person can\'t tell the difference between SD and HD vs millions of sales of HD players.
hmmm, i can\'t decide.
perhaps 6 months from now, you\'ll refine your argument again when proved wrong. (https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi102.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm110%2Fapisme369%2Fimontoyoulook6.png&hash=d95999695f9b69ab89e9d489ef59b7ba41a6eca9)
-
I give up.
I understand perfectly.
You\'re all idiots.
Thank you.
I can very clearly see the difference on a 32" HDTV from 7 feet away. And that\'s just 720P. This is not my \'personal opinion\' or a placebo effect. It\'s a fact. It\'s not debatable.
It is debatable, by the way.
-
How is fact debatable? I either see the difference or I don\'t. It\'s like trying to debate whether or not you\'re a human. It makes no sense since it\'s not a question of opinion.
Now whether or not you\'re the idiot is debatable. ;)
-
classic lic, resorting to insults when losing a debate and backed into a corner. just like the old days!
-
classic lic, resorting to insults when losing a debate and backed into a corner. just like the old days!
lol
-
classic lic, resorting to insults when losing a debate and backed into a corner. just like the old days!
Kinda like you always avoiding the main point and trying to get out of it?
Classic stuff.
:thumb:
-
main point was you proclaiming BD is a niche format, then it\'s still a niche format, then it\'s a transition format.
so what is it really?
-
main point was you proclaiming BD is a niche format, then it\'s still a niche format, then it\'s a transition format.
so what is it really?
[SIZE=100] IT\'S A FUCKING NICHE FORMAT. CAN YOU READ THAT?
[/SIZE][/COLOR]
thank you.
-
ironic you put it in blue, lol.
glad to see you all riled up.
-
Blue was on purpose.
Thanks for noticing!
-
While you guys really went deep into this. For the most part dvd is not going anywhere soon. Most people can\'t tell the difference and really don\'t care right now. But as technology gets better and bluray becomes cheaper people will adapt. Right now its just not a big deal. When all the right movies come to blueray and they push the format difference down people throat. DVD will go the way of VHS.
It just take times and you would be fool to think bluray isn\'t the next top format.
-
Most people CAN tell the difference. I just showed a few of my parent\'s folks Planet Earth on blu-ray and they were awed by the clarity. Mind you, they don\'t even know what hi-def is. They just change channels on their cable. But they do know clarity when they see it....they just don\'t know what it\'s called.
-
People Happy With DVD, Not Likely To Switch to Hi-Def, Says Study: from IMDB
Relatively few consumers are planning to make the transition from DVDs to high-definition HD DVD or Blu-ray, according to a survey by NPD Group. The researchers said that among owners of HDTV sets, seven out of 10 say they see no need to purchase high-definition players, maintaining that they are satisfied with the quality of their current players. "one of the main challenges for the next-generation" format, NPD Group senior entertainment industry analyst Russ Crupnick told Bloomberg News, "is you have a product out there that is pretty darn good in consumers\' eyes."
-
Yeah but how many of those people still have standard TVs. The difference isn\'t that great with a standard TV so you aren\'t getting the full experience. And I wouldn\'t expect the IMDB studies to be much more than a webpoll or email response.
-
even with players and media being dumped in the river at clearance prices, BD still won with 77% of the sales last week.
-
even with players and media being dumped in the river at clearance prices, BD still won with 77% of the sales last week.
And we all know Sales=King.....just thought i\'d help you out there mm....:thumb:
-
< - Doing his part to help HD DVD and Blu Ray sales, I guess.
Now that almost all HD DVD\'s are $15 bucks, I\'m picking some more up, along with a back up player. Also bought a few Blu Ray\'s here and there lately.
-
I got Kingdom of Heaven (DC version) on order for blu-ray. Ridley Scott and his directors cuts have never disappointed me.
I\'ll get No Country for Old Men later. Now if I could find Pan\'s Labyrinth.
-
KoH: DC is awsome. I would love to have it on Blu-ray.
-
I got Kingdom of Heaven (DC version) on order for blu-ray. Ridley Scott and his directors cuts have never disappointed me.
I\'ll get No Country for Old Men later. Now if I could find Pan\'s Labyrinth.
Eh?
Amazon.com
WalMart.
Everyplace known to man has Pan\'s Labyrinth. I keep putting off picking it up. Right now I\'m stocking up on slightly used HD DVD\'s for about $10 bucks a piece.
-
I wouldn\'t mind checkin\' out pan\'s labyrinth,...the only thing that\'s discouraged me from picking it up is the subtitles,...i didn\'t know it wasn\'t in english,...
-
what\'s wrong with subtitles?
-
yea, dont not see that movie because of subtitles. its really good
if you watch the news, then your already programmed to watch movies with subtitles..and the news ticker is like 50 times worse.
-
I don\'t mind movies with subtitles. I\'d rather have realism of the movie and read subtitles than have something like Russians speak in perfect, American accents.
-
what\'s wrong with subtitles?
Nothing wrong with them, per say. I tend not to buy movies with subtitles, as often times I will only watch one with subtitles once. That\'s the only reason I have never bought Pan\'s. A lot of my favorite movies have subtitles (Seven Samurai and Battle Royale are two examples) but I rarely watch them, due to the fact I don\'t feel like sitting and reading.
-
Eh?
Amazon.com
WalMart.
Everyplace known to man has Pan\'s Labyrinth. I keep putting off picking it up. Right now I\'m stocking up on slightly used HD DVD\'s for about $10 bucks a piece.
Not where I live. It\'s spot is always empty.
-
http://www.amazon.com/Pans-Labyrinth-Blu-ray-Ivana-Baquero/dp/B000WSLAUO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1204520192&sr=1-2
didnt realize amazon was a brick and mortar...unless your bunking with unicron again..then your s.o.l.
-
Me? I thought he was with you. :eek:
-
i always lose track of that whore
-
http://www.amazon.com/Pans-Labyrinth-Blu-ray-Ivana-Baquero/dp/B000WSLAUO/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1204520192&sr=1-2
didnt realize amazon was a brick and mortar...unless your bunking with unicron again..then your s.o.l.
Ya know what sucks? Last week, I had just ordered about 5 BR movies from Amazon and forgot to put Pan in it. :)
Anyway, it\'s all moot now. I\'ll get it when I get it. :)
-
Ya know what sucks? Last week, I had just ordered about 5 BR movies from Amazon and forgot to put Pan in it. :)
Anyway, it\'s all moot now. I\'ll get it when I get it. :)
That\'s nothing. I done five SEPARATE orders in one day.
I got home, figured I\'d order some stuff for my kids, so I ordered "Scooby Doo: Season 3" and "World War Z" (for me, obviously). A little later I decided to order another book. Few hours later, I went back and ordered "Scooby-Doo / Dynomutt: The Complete series", even later I went back and ordered "Halloween (Blu-Ray)" and one final time, I ordered "Shaun of the Dead (HD DVD) ".
Separate shipping on all of \'em.
I really should plan this stuff ahead of time. I do it quite often. Just like I live maybe two miles away from a store , that I pass ON THE WAY to work and I still order stuff online. I\'m just way too lazy to go IN the store. I\'d rather pay shipping than be bothered with it.
-
That\'s nothing. I done five SEPARATE orders in one day.
I got home, figured I\'d order some stuff for my kids, so I ordered "Scooby Doo: Season 3" and "World War Z" (for me, obviously). A little later I decided to order another book. Few hours later, I went back and ordered "Scooby-Doo / Dynomutt: The Complete series", even later I went back and ordered "Halloween (Blu-Ray)" and one final time, I ordered "Shaun of the Dead (HD DVD) ".
Separate shipping on all of \'em.
I really should plan this stuff ahead of time. I do it quite often. Just like I live maybe two miles away from a store , that I pass ON THE WAY to work and I still order stuff online. I\'m just way too lazy to go IN the store. I\'d rather pay shipping than be bothered with it.
Heh! Now I don\'t feel so bad. :) I\'ll order Pan\'s with No Country for Old Men. Release date is March 11th, I think.