Here is my alternative to Blu-Ray....

http://www.vudu.com

It costs the same as a Blu-Ray player, but all the movies work, no specs, and the HD 1080p movies are a max of $25. Sounds good to me. Also, no waiting. If I'm gonna have Comcast, may as well use it for something other than MMO's. I don't think this is as far away as people think it is.



The above result is with a bit torrent client seeding 8 torrents so the upload is a bit off.

[Post edited by spoonard on Feb 18, 2008]

I'm going to stay away from digital downloads. I can't deny HD goodness so I'll get a combo player eventually. I hope Toshiba makes a combo player with a reon chip,Divx support,and support for all HD audio.

AH yes, another Broadband Internet Customer poised to embrace HD downloads and HD VOD.

My 20Mbps/20Mbps Verizon FiOS connection is great for downloading(and uploading) huge HD movies in a short period of time.

Toshiba should release a Hybrid HD DVD/DVD/ HD Streaming player.

They already have Ethernet built into their HD DVD players, so I am sure it would only be a small design change.

Add a modestly sized Hard Disc Drive(Toshiba is the leading manufacturer of Laptop Hard Drives you know), and watch the Blu Ball FanBoys crumble to their knees in utter disgust.

Cheaper than Netflix, Cheaper than BlockBuster, and to quote Michael Bay, FiOS is "Awesome".

Queue the explosion....BOOM !!

And I don't need to pay $800 for a standalone Blu player, or buy ANY Blu discs.

[Post edited by VideoCipher on Feb 18, 2008]

Quote:
I can't deny HD goodness

This is FULL 1080p HD movies for a maximum of $25.00!! Not $30 - $40!!! So, all you would be denying is Sony's bank account of your money. Why pay for more when you can have the same for alot less?

Please guys, stop grasping at straws, I mean just get it over with and save your $$$ for a PS3 or set top BR. Stop looking at all these formats, and fly by night alternatives that are just destined to fail.

You guys ALREADY wasted your $$$ on one LOSING format, which is not your fault,why do it again and punish yourself again. This time I will have no pity for you.

Get on the bandwagon fellas, you can either ride with us, or get left behind!! Remember Sony BR "Beyond High Def" and "It's in our DNA"

Paying for a machine where the movies cost between $30 and $40 and may or may not be able to play correctly IS "punishing one's self" if you ask me. That's not a bandwagon, that's a ship of fools. And the sooner that boat sinks, the better.

[Post edited by spoonard on Feb 18, 2008]

So then all you do is buy a PS3 for $400 AND you get the benefit of playing games if you wanted, and also you can stream content with the wi fi from your PC.

Imaging having all your DivX files, photos, AND Music files available thru Sony's slick Cross Bar interface, all done thru the PS3!!! What a great piece of equipment!

You could also get a say, a 500GB external hard drive and fill that up with content and hok it up through the USB OF THE PS3 hub as well.

EITHER way, YOU WIN!!!! Case closed!

[Post edited by Blu_Bawla on Feb 18, 2008]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: digital downloads are the future, but that future is still a long way off. Firstly, studios who have been involved in this whole "format war" for HD, are not going to turn around and say, "Hey, forget all that, let's just make all of our movies available for download at a mere fraction of the cost! That would be a great business decision!". NO studio wants downloads yet. Sure, you can download PPV movies if you just want to watch it once as an alternative to rental, but if you think downloading movies in HD so that you can keep them forever is going to happen, think again. Besides, a 500GB hard drive will store what? 30 HD movies? Wow. What an impressive collection. On top of that, you get no alternative sound options, no commentaries, and no other features. And if your system crashes, you are SOL. Until massive storage devices (100 times a 500 GB) are available, with some sort of backup system, and customers can download all of the features of a disc in one shot, downloads will remain a niche market for those with no foresight, and people downloading pirated versions.

Quote:
Paying for a machine where the movies cost between $30 and $40 and may or may not be able to play correctly IS "punishing one's self" if you ask me. That's not a bandwagon, that's a ship of fools. And the sooner that boat sinks, the better.

This sounds like another ignorant comment. FYI, I have about 55 Blu-rays and the average price I paid for them is about $16-18. But yeah, I am a fool for sure.

I love how people fear HD crashes. They are a LOT more stable than they were years ago. A crash is a pretty slim chance nowadays.
Still, its pretty shocking how close we are to getting a good stream on HD movies from our broadband right now. Being able to save them permanently is just as good on a drive as a disk. People argue about having a "physical" copy...well, what makes my movie on a physical drive I can take anywhere any different than a disk I can take anywhere. No case?

As for extras..it isnt like Fox has extras on half their disks anyway, so no loss. Besides, I saw many Blu fans fighting in that argument months back that it didnt matter because it left more room for the movie's compression and it was more important WHAT mvovies you could get, not what extras it had.

For what its worth:

I will probably go the way of the HD download at some point (I'm a PS3 owner). I enjoy the movies that I have on Blu and I have quite a good time with the few games that I have.

However, my movie downloads will probably be very similar to how I currently use Itunes. I'll download a few here and there, but when a piece of good work comes out, I like to have a physical copy. I currently own a good bit more CDs then I have downloaded. I don't have a fear of the hard drive crashing and I'm sure that we'll have some pretty good sized HDs to take care of all of those movies. In the end, I don't really think that HD download service are in direct competition to Blu. Its just another option to get the content that we want and I'm all for that..

Give me a 50 MBps connection to the interweb, give me 50TB hard drives..

Uni

Quote:
As for extras..it isnt like Fox has extras on half their disks anyway, so no loss. Besides, I saw many Blu fans fighting in that argument months back that it didnt matter because it left more room for the movie's compression and it was more important WHAT mvovies you could get, not what extras it had.

And that's an argument against Blu-Ray, not one in favor of downloads. If the SD editions have special features, and the Blu does not, it's just another reason not to buy the Blu version. If Sony and Fox can't figure out how to maximize the amount of material they can include on a disc still, than that's bad news. I'm not being completely biased here, because some HD DVD titles are/were the same way, but not having all of the features and options is absolutely a strike against downloads. Plus you still haven't addressed the problem of a drive being substantial enough to contain a decent size movie collection. Also, unless you can transfer the content you have on disc to the drive, so you don't have to re-buy movies via download, that's another reason it will not take over.

[Post edited by interplanetaryspy on Feb 18, 2008]

I don't understand the people who have argued how much better HD-DVD is over Blu-ray because of the extra content, but who are now arguing for digital downloads as their new HD source. I totally respect the opinions of those who prefer HD-DVD for the interactive features, but you lose credibility if you now say that you'll download your films from now on. Same goes for those who tout DVD upconversion as good enough.

Either the HD-DVD features were important or they weren't. Fair enough if you're mad right now, but why suddenly pretend that interactive features and high HD audiovisual quality aren't such a big deal after all?

christ almighty
dont these hd-dud-ded fangirls know when to call it a day?

"it aint over till toshiba says its over"
WELL TOSHITBA-----HAVE----SAID ITS OVER

so just deal with it

In all honesty,

When digital downloads become feasible, in say 5 to 10 years, they will at best be a itunes type market set up. It will always be an alternative to buying hard copy disks. The reason? Not storage, not quality or bandwidth. The reason is that Mom and Pop, the same ones who shop @ walmart, are in no way tech savvy. They will always opt to buy the disk at a store, which is easier for them.

Anyway just my 2c.

Quote:
When digital downloads become feasible, in say 5 to 10 years

5-10 years??? WTF?!? With Vudu the playback is instant. Even with the 1080p movies. Instant playback isn't feasible to you? A 4Mb connection isn't unfeasible by any means and that's all you need for the instant playback of HD movies. And they are available through even DSL providers now for less than $50/month. Feasibility has nothing to do with it. It's feasible NOW.

Saavy has little to do with it also. If "mom & pop" can navigate a standard DVD menu, they can use a Vudu, and Apple TV, and Amazon Unbox, even Xbox Live.

[Post edited by spoonard on Feb 19, 2008]

Well, there's also another HD disc alternative (if interested) - HD VMD - see the growing LIST of Movies

Note: this format does not support the newer lossless audio types.

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

How is this possible, with the contracts SONY has signed with the movie studios.
And what does the players cost and who makes them?

You're funny I.B. how would you know what the fine details are in those 'Sony contracts' with the studios? Some of you guys must think the studios must be 'slaves' to Sony (LOL). The studios OWN their content (not Sony) and would never allow another competitor to prevent them from re-selling that content in any way possible - disc, download, PPV, etc.

As for the player costs... take a moment IB to click the "Buy Now" by each player's listing. Prices start at $199 and go up from there, $395, $595, $800. And no, I don't know anyone personally who has purchased one of these players yet.

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

JIMI I was'nt trying to be funny. If you do not know me by now, I am truely serious when I ask questions in here. I do not try to jerk anyone around, although I have been passionate about some peoples comments in here. Remember I want every bang for my buck, it's all about the movies.

Quote:
5-10 years??? WTF?!? With Vudu the playback is instant. Even with the 1080p movies. Instant playback isn't feasible to you? A 4Mb connection isn't unfeasible by any means and that's all you need for the instant playback of HD movies. And they are available through even DSL providers now for less than $50/month. Feasibility has nothing to do with it. It's feasible NOW.

Yea again, I was talking more about digital downloads in terms of a replacement for owning a hard copy of the movie. Streaming services are basically rentals and will remain utilized as such. Make no mistake, They are no replacement for owning the movie. In terms of feasibility yes it is in certain areas. Problem is only 22% (according to OECD) of Americans have broadband in their homes. So what I guess I should have said is: We will not see more widespread proliferation of digital downloads or streaming services until disk storage is vastly expanded and broadband internet (really FIOS or better) is more common. Which is what I meant with 5 to 10 years.