Forum Archive Home -> Latest Video News -> Blu Ray Player Sales up 72%
Blu Ray Player Sales up 72% | ||||||||
| dvd3500 posted 2009 May 07 06:28 | ||||||||
| Arrr: http://www.pcworld.com/article/164462/us_sales_of_bluray_players_ ... group.html | ||||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 May 07 08:49 | ||||||||
| This is probably a Sony-funded study, the the story is probably nothing more than a Sony press release picked up by the computer-tabloid/rag PC World.
Almost every Blu-ray disc I've seen to date was nothing more than a clone of the DVD, with a higher-resolution (but still unrestored) print of the film. Hardly worth the money. | ||||||||
| cal_tony posted 2009 May 07 10:23 | ||||||||
| Yeah,
I agree completely. I now have my Philips 5990 attached to the slot previously occupied by my Blu-Ray player. For all of last year probably only half a dozen movies even worth the trouble to rent in the the Blu_ray version. and with Blu rentals increasing in price, I probably wont even bother renting more than 4 or 5 for the next year. Tony | ||||||||
| rhegedus posted 2009 May 07 13:28 | ||||||||
You need to see a few more. I've got DVD and BD copies of a few films - the difference is clear. | ||||||||
| redwudz posted 2009 May 07 13:33 | ||||||||
| I still don't have a standalone BD player, but really no reason to buy one as I have two BD ROM drives in my PCs and they work fine, coaxial audio and all to my surround sound system and HDMI video to the projector or my 22" LCD PC monitor.
I've noticed quite a few 'remakes' in BD. I bought '2001' in BD and it does look better than the DVD release. The newer BD releases are much better quality. I have a 12' projector screen and watching a regular DVD is disappointing after watching BDs for while. :) Netfiix upped their BD rental prices, but I get two day turnaround on them, and that's still cheaper than buying them. If I find one I really like, then I buy it. I also back up my purchased BDs to my video server to make them a bit easier to watch on my LCD monitor. I'm beginning to favor ArcSoft Total Media Theatre for a BD player software as it has a bit less 'bloat' than PowerDVD or WinDVD. :) | ||||||||
| lordhutt posted 2009 May 07 14:09 | ||||||||
| I got about a dozen BD's and they all blow regular dvd's away.
Almost like you can jump into the screen it seems so real....Especially some of the scenes from 'Planet Earth' The only one so far that was a let down was Predator....not much different than the regular dvd. | ||||||||
| Xylob the Destroyer posted 2009 May 07 18:40 | ||||||||
Uh-huh, sure... :roll: The players are selling because the prices are coming down, but the discs still sit on the shelves because the price (especially compared to a DVD release of the same thing at the same or indistinguishably "lesser" quality!) is way too high. I'm with ls and tony here. Most (NOT all!) of the Blu-Ray movies I've watched were tremendously underwhelming compared to the DVD of the same program/film. | ||||||||
| greymalkin posted 2009 May 07 19:07 | ||||||||
| hmm...this is the first time i've heard so many complaints about bluray..I don't own any b/c I'm cheap..i bought an hd-dvd player for pennies and the movies are dirt cheap too. I'll buy blu-ray when the player and movies are reasonable...I'm not one who has to get that movie right when it comes out or even a couple years later :).
Every HD DVD I've ever watched was worlds ahead of anything I saw on DVD's, upconverted or not (transformers, polar express, tmnt, eagles farewell I tour, cinderella man). I'm hoping to get 2001 soon :P. Lordsmurf..I'm interested in this process you were talking of where they are taking a higher resolution of the print but not restoring it..could you explain this in more detail? | ||||||||
| greymalkin posted 2009 May 07 19:15 | ||||||||
| Also, that study apparently doesn't consider the ps3 to be a bluray player. It claims that the sale of 400,000 units in 1Q09 marks a 72% increase...but the ps3 sold over 8,000,000 units in 1Q08 in America. | ||||||||
| Xylob the Destroyer posted 2009 May 07 21:12 | ||||||||
| Indeed. Almost everybody I personally know with a "Blu-Ray player" has only a PS3 to use for such purposes (myself included). | ||||||||
| guns1inger posted 2009 May 07 21:33 | ||||||||
| I own a dozen BDs, and the only one that is visually disappointing is the original Halloween, which is no better than a well upscaled DVD. However the extras it has made the purchase worth it, as they were previously only available on the Criterion or laserdisc releases, which would easily have cost me twice as much to purchase. Anything recent - Dark Knight, Wall-E etc - leave DVD for dead visually, aurally, and in the way extras can now be packaged. Wall-E's director's commentary is brilliant, as it shows picture-in-picture concept art, test footage and other material as the director describes scenes and development. No seamless branching and disruptive pauses. And with new HD restorations such as Casablanca being released, the older films should get new life as well. Cost of discs is definitely an issue, which is why the few I own have been selectively chosen and in several cases are ex-rental discs (damn, BD is so much hardier than DVD as well).
That said, I don't see myself buying a standalone BD play any time soon. The PS3 does such a good job, and does so much more than any standalone player currently does. | ||||||||
| Xylob the Destroyer posted 2009 May 08 08:40 | ||||||||
ZZZZZZ zzz zzzzz ZZZZZ zzzz :P I'm sorry, what? Oh yeah, all the stuff studios stopped putting into DVDs over the past few years because they were finding that nobody cares about most of that boring crap and were getting pissed that they had to pay extra $$ for "bonus" features they didn't want and would never watch. I did watch Wall-E just the other night on Blu-Ray and it was visually stunning and beautiful. Just as I remembered it in the theater. Definitely the best movie I saw all last year. | ||||||||
| MOVIEGEEK posted 2009 May 08 09:25 | ||||||||
| Although there are some bad Blu-ray transfers that use MPEG-2(eg Total Recall) overall the difference is obvious on any HDTV.I own a BD player but I only own four BD titles,they were free with the purchase of the player.
If Blu-ray is to succeed they need to lower the prices of the media. | ||||||||
| RLT69 posted 2009 May 08 10:51 | ||||||||
Yeah I guess if you were one of the ones who bought the LOTR latest DVD repacking that included the exclusive scene where you can hear Peter Jackson fart, then I can see where you'd be pissed. I didn't have to pay extra $$ for the DVD extras on the Pixar films. The pixar films extras include shorts, and behind the scenes stuff which are very interesting. You are not paying any less for DVDs that don't have extras. :roll: | ||||||||
| cal_tony posted 2009 May 08 11:04 | ||||||||
| I'll stick with what I said earlier.
However, I will agree that animated movies on Blu-ray look amazing but on the other hand, with an upscaling player, the same movie on DVD is still great looking. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. For most movies, the Bluray improvement in picture quality over DVD is scene by scene. Some pop others don't. The exception to this is Comic book movies. Except for the movie The Spirit, comic book people know how to use Blu-ray to make a visually impressive movie. Finally, it seems like a big limitation to Blu-ray success is no flipper disk. The price differential between DVD and Blu-ray disks is less important to me than the fact that with a DVD disk I have the option to play it in any room in my house, barn or garage and that's what I do when I'm working out in my barn or working on a vehicle in my garage. With a Blu-ray disk I'm limited to playing it in my TV room on my Ps3. And the visual improvement of Blu-ray just isn't enough to overcome this limitation for me. Tony | ||||||||
| wulf109 posted 2009 May 08 12:24 | ||||||||
| My 2 cents
HDTV has gained wide acceptance because the Federal Government mandated the change which should happen officially in June. The feds should mandate an HD DVD format. Blueray players are still much too expensive,the media is absurdly expensive,and the format is nearly impossible to backup. I do have a Sony blueray player,but I've bought less than 6 movies. Netflix is almost always out of stock on the movies I want to watch. The lowest priced player I've seen is $200.00 on newegg. I wouldn't expect the players to drop in price anytime soon,but Sony could cut movie prices. With every price 2-3 times more than standard DVD,blueray is a deadend. | ||||||||
| MOVIEGEEK posted 2009 May 08 13:08 | ||||||||
The transition on June 12th will turn off analog broadcasts and mandate DTV,there's no mandate for HD.HDTV's are gaining acceptance because that's all you can buy now,I haven't seen an SDTV in a store for several years. | ||||||||
| rumplestiltskin posted 2009 May 08 14:59 | ||||||||
| I watched Wall-E recently, as well, though on DVD. What a boring film; BluRay wouldn't help it.
I think the problem with BluRay is threefold: 1. Unless you have a really large HDTV, you won't see the difference unless you sit really close (too close for comfortable viewing). Such large screen HDTV's are ridiculously expensive. 2. DRM - Can't back 'em up like you can a DVD (unless you have the proper equipment which is probably lots more horsepower than the usual PC). 3. The look of film isn't the look of HDTV. Directors are already trying to figure out how to reduce the resolution of their HD video in order to make it look like film. I'm not interested in seeing the pimples on Beyonce's butt; give me my Hollywood illusions. However, once the price drops enough so it's not worthwhile selling "plain old" DVD players, we might see another uptick in sales...until most people realize that 720p digital downloads are plenty "rich" enough and we all stop buying DRM'd discs. (I already have.) | ||||||||
| wulf109 posted 2009 May 08 15:00 | ||||||||
| The mandate for HD broadcasting is what created HD Tv's. The marketing departments of electronic manufacturers ran with it to maximize profits. | ||||||||
| MOVIEGEEK posted 2009 May 08 16:06 | ||||||||
Again HD broadcasting was NOT mandated,the only thing mandated is that it has to be a digital signal(DTV).It is up to the broadcasters to set the resolution. | ||||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 May 08 16:33 | ||||||||
The dirt and film flicker is still present. Because it's high definition, the BD version can look worse, because more small dirt is present and now visible, too. Smart temporal filtering can remove the flicker, and the film can be cleaned physically or digitally. But nobody seems to be doing it. Most BDs I've seen have the same extras as the DVDs -- sometimes years-old DVDs, to boot. In a few cases, the material is dated and a farce, because events in the real world have changed so much as to make the content look silly or quaint -- hardly what you'd expect from a April/May 2009 DVD, right? People can say "BD blows away DVD" all they want, but I have to wander if they also see UFOs, Elvis and wear tinfoil hats -- they're clearly seeing something that us normal folks do not. | ||||||||
| rhegedus posted 2009 May 08 17:00 | ||||||||
So we're all kooks? Is that the basis of your argument? | ||||||||
| videobread posted 2009 May 08 17:23 | ||||||||
| Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.
US consumer purchases of DVD's were $3.1 Billion in the first quarter of 2009. Of that Blu-ray accounted for $230 million. That's 230/3,100 = 7.4%. 7.4% is just barely material. Material is 5% or more by definition - GAAP. Blu-ray has a long way to go to become relevant. I'll go Blu-ray when blanks are below $0.50 each and printable. For the hard earned money I'm very satisfied with DVD. | ||||||||
| Xylob the Destroyer posted 2009 May 08 17:32 | ||||||||
Really? Why do the 2-disc versions of all the latest movies cost more? At least the studios have gotten the picture and started making the extra bullshit an option instead of built in. | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 May 08 17:37 | ||||||||
| Current economic times are causing pressure on DVD sales. Recent earnings reports show DVD sales are way down although movie box office is holding. So are flat panel TV sales.
I expect the media companies to drop Blu-Ray player and media prices this coming Christmas season. Blu-Ray is like tobacco, once you hook them, many will replace old favorite discs and switch buying habits. | ||||||||
| Xylob the Destroyer posted 2009 May 08 17:37 | ||||||||
You just hold on a minute there buddy. We're trying to make a quick buck here by jamming out a "High Def" experience for you. There is no interest on the part of the studios in putting any sort of effort into the production of this product - we are totally in this purely for the $$$. We already busted our asses making the movie (20 years ago). Now buy it! NOW! It's High Def! BUY IT! | ||||||||
| Xylob the Destroyer posted 2009 May 08 17:42 | ||||||||
Unfortunately, yes. I copied most of my VHS onto DVD myself. That was my way of replacing my tapes with DVDs (and I suspect the same of many here), but certainly not how the majority of consumers did it. Obviously most comedies or dramas would not really benefit much from buying the DVD over doing a decent capture/burn. Sci-Fi, action, and anything else with lots of cool special effects &/or multi-track audio is a different story. As for replacing my DVDs with Blu-Rays? Nope. Not gonna happen for a long time, if at all. I thought about replacing my Terminator 2 DVD with the new Blu-Ray that just came out, but then reading the specs on the back realized that the version I had on DVD was superior. Back to what ls said about lazy production of Blu-Ray products. | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 May 08 18:26 | ||||||||
| For example, I'd consider replacing the Star Wars series , Casablanca, varoius movies and selected restored TV series with Blu-Ray when prices are reasonable. | ||||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 May 08 18:48 | ||||||||
You know I like you, but yes, your love affair with BD is a bit kooky. :P I have a stack of BD here that aren't even released yet -- for review purposes (yes, legitimately, Fedex direct from the studios) -- and I almost hate that most of my reviews this month are at least partially negative, due to minimal improvements over DVD versions, or lackluster image quality. The disc has this little piece of paper inside that says something along the lines "this DVD is using the best technology available ... ultimate viewing experience .. be sure to update your player software or firmware .. " blah blah blah. I must have the beta copies or something, because I don't agree at all with the PR rhetoric. So rest assured I'm not talking about old BD from a few years ago or bargain-bin titles. | ||||||||
| gadgetguy posted 2009 May 08 19:11 | ||||||||
I don't have much interest in BD, but reading this is similar to my initial thought when I read the subject. "So? Even if it were 100%, twice nothing is still nothing." | ||||||||
| johns0 posted 2009 May 08 19:47 | ||||||||
| I remember when dvd players were $500 and dvdr blanks were $20 and people said they wouldnt buy them cause they were happy with their vcr and vhs quality movies. | ||||||||
| Xylob the Destroyer posted 2009 May 08 20:12 | ||||||||
Again? Dammit... I got this on VHS, VHS, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD... :lol: | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 May 08 21:09 | ||||||||
Yep, I skipped VHS and laserdisc 'cause I saw DVD coming. I still think we should get an "upgrade" discount. | ||||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 May 08 21:16 | ||||||||
Those people were idiots. The advantages of DVD over VHS were major. Not so with BD over DVD, which is a marginal gain at best (and even then, it's mostly in theory -- surely not in practice). | ||||||||
| greymalkin posted 2009 May 08 21:51 | ||||||||
| I think we need a poll to see how many people see a marked improvement from dvd to hd-dvd/bluray. All this talk of how HD movies are terrible makes me suspect golden eyes syndrome :wink:
I also only have a handful of movies so perhaps I haven't come across these hackjob transfers. | ||||||||
| Browncoat posted 2009 May 08 22:10 | ||||||||
| Every time i've complained about blu-ray quality people say it must be your HDTV. I'm glad to see i'm not Robinson Crusoe.
In another thread someone told me what I was seeing was "film grain" and that it was exactly how the director intended it too look. My DVD version of Predator is FAR superior to the Blu-Ray version.. I think Predator is by far the best example of Blu-Ray at its worst. I agree some Blu-Ray titles look good. I think the size of my HDTV (32") is holding me back from getting the absolute best viewing experience. I was reading somewhere (cant remember where) an expert was saying that you need at least 55" screen to appreciate Blu-Ray. | ||||||||
| stiltman posted 2009 May 08 22:40 | ||||||||
You're saying you cannot see a difference between 480 and 720/1080?? or are you saying Bluray movies are being encoded just as bad as the current DVDs? If the later, I can some what agree to the encoding. If you're saying it's just theory about the differences between 480/720/1080, then you are totally wacked. I have have a 42" and can see the diferences between all three. Granted, not much between 720/1080, but there are huge compared to 480 | ||||||||
| greymalkin posted 2009 May 08 22:51 | ||||||||
| moving this to my post above... | ||||||||
| rhegedus posted 2009 May 09 01:59 | ||||||||
:D
Your experiences appear to be different to the majority of BD owners here. I've been buying 2 disks a month for the past year or so - some replaced DVDs but the newer ones were first time copies. All are stunning. There is some sloppy crap out there - Terminator 1 and Lethal Weapon 1 spring to mind - the trick is to read the reviews first: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/ :wink: | ||||||||
| rhegedus posted 2009 May 09 02:05 | ||||||||
You don't say! :lol: You'd have to sit less than 5-foot away to make it worthwhile. | ||||||||
| Browncoat posted 2009 May 09 04:35 | ||||||||
| One has to wonder why HDTVs are made any smaller than 55" then... | ||||||||
| Browncoat posted 2009 May 09 04:42 | ||||||||
Nice of you to laugh at my 32" TV.. :oops: I only recently upgraded from a 24" | ||||||||
| rhegedus posted 2009 May 09 05:01 | ||||||||
| Not everyone has the room for a 55" TV... ;-)
I suspect the reason why even 32" are HD is to keep production costs down - no point in having 2 separate production lines making 2 separate products. | ||||||||
| guns1inger posted 2009 May 09 05:23 | ||||||||
| Even on a 32" TV there is a marked difference between upscaled DVD and BluRay (with the exception of a few very poor titles). However if you think back to the early days of DVD, there were a lot of releases that were pretty poor - P&S instead of OAR, taken from 1" tape masters instead of scanned from negatives, flippers etc. Every new tech has it's teething problems. | ||||||||
| lordsmurf posted 2009 May 09 07:27 | ||||||||
| BD has potential, we can agree on that -- but Sony has to give up its death grip on the tech --- and studios need to quit being so lazy about the products released.
I'm sorry, but it takes more than extra pixels on screen to make it look better than a DVD. In fact, some errors can make the BD look worse than a DVD, if not addressed properly. Only shot-in-HD productions tend to look good, they are hack-jobbing older prints for the most part. Then again, DVD versions of shot-in-HD is pretty nice too. It reminds me of the Super Nintendo in its latter days, when RARE started to push the tech to its limits, and some games looked almost as good as the new N64 games. DVD is now being pushed to its limits, and BD is being used at its minimums. | ||||||||
| guns1inger posted 2009 May 09 07:35 | ||||||||
| New releases like Dark Knight simply have no equal on DVD, and new restorations such as 2001 and Casablanca are showing what can be done with the format. I still see a lot of very lazy DVD releases of major product, not to mention a lot of cynical release tactics from the studios.
As for Sony . . . . that's a whole other issue. | ||||||||
| yoda313 posted 2009 May 09 08:27 | ||||||||
I'd tend to agree with this. However I am not there quite yet. Case in point - I still only have four Bluray movies. This past winter I bought DARK KNIGHT, INDY 4, and CLONE WARS on plain old dvd because I still can't come to grips with $25 and $30 bluray discs. I can see the difference on blurays even on a my modest 32" 1366x768 westinghouse. However it's not enough to justify the extra 10-15 bucks a pop nor is it worth rebuying some "lesser" movies that I have on dvd. However I will say this - I'll re-buy LOTR and especially STAR WARS the moment it hits BLURAY - or at least as soon as I can. Movies like those need all the extra bitrate they can muster to shine to their fullest potential. | ||||||||
| fritzi93 posted 2009 May 09 11:56 | ||||||||
| Interesting thread. I intend to get BD player this Autumn in time for the BD release of LOTR. Perhaps prices will be reasonable by then. :wink: But the talk of how downloads will supersede blu-ray has me curious.
I did an unprofessional comparison. I DL'ed a one minute 720p sample clip of WALL_E. (From mvlib, any comments on that service would be welcome). Got it at about 260 KB/sec over Comcast, fast enough to be acceptable to me. Then extracted the same clip from DVD. File size of the .mkv and the .mpg are about the same at ~43MB. The file info of the DL'ed sample: General Complete name : G:\WALL_E_Video_Preview.mkv Format : Matroska File size : 43.2 MiB Duration : 1mn 0s Overall bit rate : 5 965 Kbps Encoded date : UTC 2008-11-11 15:54:34 Writing application : mkvmerge v2.2.0 ('Turn It On Again') built on Mar 4 2008 12:58:26 Writing library : libebml v0.7.7 + libmatroska v0.8.1 Video Format : AVC Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec Format profile : High@L4.1 Format settings, CABAC : Yes Format settings, ReFrames : 5 frames Muxing mode : Container profile=Unknown@4.1 Codec ID : V_MPEG4/ISO/AVC Duration : 1mn 0s Bit rate : 4 183 Kbps Width : 1 280 pixels Height : 528 pixels Display aspect ratio : 2.424 Frame rate : 23.976 fps Resolution : 24 bits Colorimetry : 4:2:0 Scan type : Progressive Audio Format : DTS Format/Info : Digital Theater Systems Format profile : ES Codec ID : A_DTS Duration : 1mn 0s Bit rate mode : Constant Bit rate : 1 536 Kbps Channel(s) : 6 channels Channel positions : Front: L C R, Surround: L R, LFE Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz Resolution : 24 bits Language : English Text Format : UTF-8 Codec ID : S_TEXT/UTF8 Codec ID/Info : UTF-8 Plain Text Language : English I chose WALL_E because it looks damn good as upconverted DVD. (MY HTPC plays DVDs at about par with my cheap Philips upconverting player). Played them both repeatedly over my HTPC to a 42" 720p plasma, viewing distance about 2 meters. Yeah, the difference is immediately apparent to me. The wife? Not so much, I had to train her what to look for. :wink: The price to DL the whole movie is $5 bucks, either 720p or 1080p. (File size of the 1080p sample was ~ 80 MB, BTW). I'm thinking the 720p versions of movies would be a viable option for me, once I get a set-top that can play AVC at full resolution from DVD. Please pardon my ignorance, but I presume such players exist? Haven't got around to looking into players yet. I'd like to be able to play such files on both the HTPC and on another TV as well, using a set-top. Speaking of the other TV, we also have a 47" 1080p 120 Hz set. To tell the truth, at normal viewing distances, playing 1080i OTA content there's not much discernible difference between the two TVs. Anyway, I don't really see myself having much use for a Blu-ray burner. Comments would be welcome. | ||||||||
| yoda313 posted 2009 May 09 12:28 | ||||||||
Correct me if I'm wrong but at least in the US isn't Over the Air maxed at 1080i???? Also aren't all of the cable/satellite broadcasts also maxed at 1080i? I guess there can be some on demand content from fios or cable that is 1080p but I thought the cable/sat/fios companies aren't willing/able to pump 1080p content yet? | ||||||||
| ntscuser posted 2009 May 09 12:31 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| fritzi93 posted 2009 May 09 12:41 | ||||||||
Yeah, wrote that without thinking. 1080i, thanks for noticing. :wink: [EDIT] Fixed it. | ||||||||
| yoda313 posted 2009 May 09 13:25 | ||||||||
I think the op was referring to backups without any conversions beyond ripping/burning. | ||||||||
| ntscuser posted 2009 May 09 13:37 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Specialist posted 2009 May 12 15:24 | ||||||||
| Perhaps a more "honest" interpretation of the Blu-ray data saga:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Bluray-sales-skyrocket-provided-y ... 1241718885 | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 May 12 18:49 | ||||||||
1920x1080p @23.976 is a valad ATSC format and ATSC TV tuners are requried to tune it. No TV station has yet chosen to broadcast 24p since it takes all the channel bandwith. 1280x720p @23.976 fps is also supported. A station could broadcast 2 or even three 1280x720p/23.976 movies in 19Mb/s. It would be an interesting marketing plan. As for cable and fios, I haven't seen a set top box yet that supports 1080p out. | ||||||||
| yoda313 posted 2009 May 12 19:01 | ||||||||
So I guess its theoretically possible but economically impractical right now.
That's kind of what I figured.... I'm guessing satellite is the same. | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 May 12 19:15 | ||||||||
| An ASTC station could run a 480i "must carry" primary and then carry two 1280x720p/23.976 movie subchannels with very good quality. The movies could have multiple language tracks and subtitles.
It seems like a good business plan to me. Maybe even a network. | ||||||||
| Specialist posted 2009 May 12 21:46 | ||||||||
| The momentum seems to be shifting in a big way toward these DOWNLOAD modes of video delivery:
1. http://www.apple.com/appletv/ (Apple iTunes) 2. http://www.vudu.com/ (Vudu 1080p) 3. http://www.netflix.com/ (Netflix video downloads) 4. http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/videos/catalog.aspx?d=1 (Xbox 360 Movies) 5. http://www.amazon.com (Amazon Video On Demand) 6. http://www.us.playstation.com/PSN#fbid:ep-Fgovp-rs (Sony Playstation Network) ...ETC... ...and consumers will continue to use a combination of standard DVDs and there will be some Blu-ray uptake, but Blu-ray and physical media will increasingly find it difficult to dominate as physical media dominated in the past. | ||||||||
| stiltman posted 2009 May 12 22:28 | ||||||||
Most if not all, allocate 14mb to their primary and then divide up the rest. They also use VBR on their channels. Marketing wise, it would be a bad move to do SD on their primary when all their syndication is being advertized as HD | ||||||||
| cal_tony posted 2009 May 12 23:04 | ||||||||
Lordsmurf has said a lot of things in this thread that makes sense to me but his above comment is both simple and as true as can be. Well, at least it is to me. Tony | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 May 13 02:42 | ||||||||
Not talking the big 4 here. This would be an independent. New stations mostly go to minority or religious interests. That gets you the license. Then you do Chinese or Indian on the 480i, then run your 720p movies on the subs. The 480i would work ok at 3Mb/s, the 720p/24s could get 8Mb/s ave. each. Quality would be fine. Statistical multiplexing could improve quality further. | ||||||||
| samijubal posted 2009 May 13 12:26 | ||||||||
Dish Network has 1080p for on demand. | ||||||||
| stiltman posted 2009 May 13 13:24 | ||||||||
Ahh gotcha..misunderstood | ||||||||
| edDV posted 2009 May 13 16:37 | ||||||||
But does the box output 1080p/23.976 over HDMI? Most likely it outputs teleceined 1080i/29.97. If so the TV will IVTC to 1080p/23.976. | ||||||||
| samijubal posted 2009 May 13 16:53 | ||||||||
| There's a firmware update for the sat boxes to output 1080p if the TV will accept it, if not it's downconverted. | ||||||||
| Persistence posted 2009 Jun 04 08:04 | ||||||||
The difference between the BD and DVD versions of Planet Earth are very evident to anyone with 20x20 vision and an HDTV screen over 37". The differences are astounding with the screen over 42". No foil hats necessary. Yes, I know that some sequences are a bit doctored or faked, but a great deal of the series is not. One reason why most Hollywood or sports videos look almost the same in SD and HD is because so much of it consists of closeups and quick cuts. Filters and light effects also smudge the resolution. Even lots of long shots or "outdoor" vistas are fake matte screens or digitalizations, thus muting or defeating the impact of HD. Finally there are BD's that are no more than upscaled DVDs. I recall that the BD Master and Commander fell in this category. Neither will the sound be Jen-you-wine DD 5.1 or 7.1 unless the master tracks are mixed with appropriate integrity. Often the only real multi channel sound is in cartoons, which is to say entirely artificial, and gets tiresome fast. A soccer or US football or baseball broadcast optimized for small VGA screens will use lots of cameras and telephoto shots to compensate for the low resolution, so a big HDTV screen adds little benefit. On the other hand, a broadcast optimized for a large HDTV might use more wide angle shots, more "as seen from the bleechers" and be an entirely different story. Old-time outdoor spectacle epics shot in 70mm Super Panavision should also look far better on in HD than SD. Nowadays directors would have made Lawrence of Arabia, on the cheap, with digital camels and deserts. 10 year-olds would have preferred the enhancements of the digital versions (synthed flyovers, splashing blood, exploding bodies); others would squirm and prefer old-fashioned "real live fantasy." |
Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.