Blu-ray may die off as well

http://www.current.com.au/2008/02/20/article/HXGEAZOXNF.html

Toshiba is putting the blame on downloads!?

I would rather have disc media than digital downloads take over but it could happen. As an HD-DVD supporter I'm upset about what has happened but I would rather have Blu-ray win against digital downloads.

Don't believe everything you read on the web. Don't worry Blu ray has a brite future ahead of it because of people like you and me.

After all of this fighting over HD DVD vs. Blu Ray, now that a side has won, everyone wants to talk about downloads. DOWNLOADS WILL NOT WIN OVER DISCS. Until the sound and video quality can be equal to discs with all of the same features as discs, and until storage devices exist that can handle massive collections of movies, downloads are not a realistic option, unless you have no intention of buying movies anyway. And if you'd rather download or rent, than you're not the market for BUYING discs anyway, so that demographic doesn't matter in terms of disc sales.

Blu-ray will last until the next thing comes along. Perhaps until those holographic cube thingies I saw on some movie. What movie was that again?

In all seriousness, VOD and downloads will more affect the rental market eventually when the infrastructure is in place to bring it to the majority of people for comparable prices and HD quality. We Westerners are pretty darn lazy. Why walk, err I mean DRIVE to the video store to rent when you can download or call up an instant VOD rental for only $1 more? And no risk of late fees either!

But I think for the foreseeable future, such offerings will not affect actual sales of HDM.

Skyhawk, My cable bill gave me a nose bleed because not only was I ordering HD movies but the wife and the kids was doing it as well. For now on it's NetFLIX. No more VoDs at 5 bucks a pop.

Well downloads may be faster and better in a couple of years. I don't expect mass adoption of Blu-ray in a long time. Even if downloads do become better I would rather physically own my movies. At first I believed chances of HDM going mainstream were ruined now that HD-DVD is dead, but hopefully other companies in the BDA will drop the prices on their finished units. All standalone players should cost less than the PS3. I just have this feeling that $ony is forcing the other companies to charge more. Hopefully Panasonic will give $ony some hell, I know they have been rivals for along time. IMHO Panasonic is a much better company.

Even if HD downloads do catch on with the masses, and who knows when that'll be (not anytime soon that's for sure) most companies that offer them will compress the hell out of the video and offer it at 720p/1080i and only include DD 5.1 audio tracks and probably no special features. So, to that I say, NO THANKS!

I will always want an actual hard copy of a movie in a nice case with inserts because I'm a collector. I also want a beautiful 1080p picture with full lossless audio, both in high bitrates. I consider myself a teckie, yet I don't like downloads and I feel many if not most of the people out there would concur with me.

So, to anyone who thinks that downloads will overtake Blu-ray (hi-def packaged media) in the next 5 or even 10 years, I say you're fooling yourself. Maybe in the next generation, and even then it's unlikely.

Let's put it this way: if MP3 downloads such as iTunes and P2P have not killed the CD what makes Toshiba, Apple, Microsoft, and others think that HD movie downloads will kill the DVD (HD and SD)? They are crazy. lol

Quote:
Let's put it this way: if MP3 downloads such as iTunes and P2P have not killed the CD

The CD isn't dead but it'll never be what it once was. I know people that haven't bought a hard copy of album in over two years. Do I think Blu-Ray will be successful? Yes, do I think it will attain the success of DVD? That's debatable, over the last several years the market seems to skew more to convenience then quality. So while we might all rip digital downloads for their low quality. The average person might not care. I know I personally can't stand to listen to MP3's on anything other then headphones but I know some people who hook their Ipod's up to there home stereo systems.

Quote:
The CD isn't dead but it'll never be what it once was. I know people that haven't bought a hard copy of album in over two years. Do I think Blu-Ray will be successful? Yes, do I think it will attain the success of DVD? That's debatable, over the last several years the market seems to skew more to convenience then quality. So while we might all rip digital downloads for their low quality. The average person might not care. I know I personally can't stand to listen to MP3's on anything other then headphones but I know some people who hook their Ipod's up to there home stereo systems.

While I agree that unfortunately too many people settle for the convenience of having low quality MP3's that they can carry around and transfer from computer to MP3 player and vice versa, I believe that there will always be a market for people who prefer quality over convenience. For as long as I live, I will always fall into that latter category.

Currently I myself am sort of forced to listed to 320kb/s (notice they're still the highest bitrate) quality MP3's due to the capacity limitation of my 80GB Zune player and having way to many albums to fit as wave audio or WMA lossless, but as soon as much larger capacity drives will be available in an MP3 player that I actually like (such as the Zune), then I will rip all of my music into one of the lossless formats. Perhaps into FLAC. Notice that by having the actual disc of an album, I am afforded a choice in the future to re-rip the music into another format.

[Post edited by gvortex7 on Feb 21, 2008]

Quote:
I believe that there will always be a market for people who prefer quality over convenience. For as long as I live, I will always fall into that latter category.

Absolutely agree, I prefer quality over convenience any day of the week. All of my albums are ripped to my computer in lossless. I'm just simply saying we'll probably never see another hard copy format as completely dominant for as long as VHS or DVD were, the market has changed. That being said I do believe Blu-Ray will be much more successful then some naysayers say it will.

[Post edited by Movielover316 on Feb 21, 2008]

Quote:
Absolutely agree, I prefer quality over convenience any day of the week. All of my albums are ripped to my computer in lossless. I'm just simply saying we'll probably never see another hard copy format as completely dominant as long as VHS or DVD the market has changed. That being said I do believe Blu-Ray will be much more successful then some naysayers say it will.

You're probably right about Blu-ray or any other future packaged media not being able to duplicate DVD's success, but as long as all the movies I want get released on Blu-ray, then I really don't care how its success is measured. I will consider it a success for me.

And if the average movie watcher is satisfied with the "good enough" picture and sound quality of DVD's then more power to them. They really wouldn't know what they'd be missing anyway.

[Post edited by gvortex7 on Feb 21, 2008]

Quote:
And if the average movie watcher is satisfied with the "good enough" picture and sound quality of DVD's then more power to them. They really wouldn't know what they'd be missing anyway.

Yup, some of my friends think I'm crazy because I'll rebuy DVD's if they remaster the picture or offer better sound but I don't care what they think. It's worth it to me even if it isn't worth it to them.

If you're truly a movie lover, I don't understand not wanting to see and hear it in the best way possible.

[Post edited by Movielover316 on Feb 21, 2008]

Let's not forget that the raging success of MP3's is not due to the fact that they're preferred!

I attribute the success of MP3 to the now defunct Napster revolution, where thousands of people amassed collections of as many songs as they could gather. These songs still get passed around today and will continue to do so while giving the illusion of a successful format. Sure, it set a foundation for people to buy some new releases once Napster was cracked down on, but without the foundation it would never have been as big as it appears to be.

Regrettably, I missed the download MP3s thing...not a big music listener at the time, but I now look back and wish I had darn near every song ever put out at hand. Oh well.

You can bank on there not being anything to worry about when it comes to Blu-ray having to compete with any downloadable media, mainly because the quality of accessible, downloadable media cannot compete with the quality of the media found on HD discs. The fact that there's nowhere to start a collection of downloaded HD movies also indicates that there will be no apparent HD movie download revolution either.

Quote:
Yup, some of my friends think I'm crazy because I'll rebuy DVD's if they remaster the picture or offer better sound but I don't care what they think. It's worth it to me even if it isn't worth it to them.

I'm the same way.

Quote:
If you're truly a movie lover, I don't understand not wanting to see and hear it in the best way possible.

Right on. That would be the million dollar question to all self proclaimed movie buffs.

Quote:
You can bank on there not being anything to worry about when it comes to Blu-ray having to compete with any downloadable media, mainly because the quality of accessible, downloadable media cannot compete with the quality of the media found on HD discs. The fact that there's nowhere to start a collection of downloaded HD movies also indicates that there will be no apparent HD movie download revolution either.

Not to mention the infrastructure for downloading in the U.S. for example. A large portion of the country still only has dial-up connection or no connection at all. Everyone likes to bring up fiber optic systems being rolled out all over, but they always fail to mention that only a small percentage of the population will have access to that in the foreseeable future. Also, let's assume you do have a super fast connection already, the HD content that's being offered now is super compressed for both audio and video. Why would anyone want to pay good money for such substandard quality?
I don't even know if a full Blu-ray disc's worth of 50GB material will ever even be offered as downloadable content. Can you imagine having to wait that long for a movie to download? What happend to instant access? There are just way too many loopholes for that to become a viable alternative to HDM.

Quote:
Let's put it this way: if MP3 downloads such as iTunes and P2P have not killed the CD

Are you kidding me? I don't know anyone who's bought a single CD since I-Tunes (actually that now defunct network Napster) has hit the net... Honestly, I myself got tired of being forced to buy a whole CD just to get 2 or 3 good songs out of 12 - 14 and I was psyched to have the option of only buying those songs that were quality.

Besides, every MP3 package like that out there (or AAC in Apple's case) allows you to burn your songs to CD so no it didn't kill the CD but it certainly altered the way we use and buy them.

As for Digital Downloads of HD Movies, most people would be happy with the quality but there are three problems with the format...

1. The set top box is prohibitively ineffective as far as cost goes.

2. Limited storage would require them to allow you to keep the license and download on demand as you wanted to watch the movie instead of being forced to store up all your movies on an inadequate storage medium that very well could fail.

3. the used market is non-existant so they would have to come up with a way for you to be able to resell your license for less money than a new license which is something they would never do because there's no difference between used and new in a digital download.

[Post edited by el_terrible on Feb 21, 2008]

A [good] compilation of music is like a movie: not only is it given a title as a whole, it is intended to be experienced from beginning to end. To download only one or two "favorites" is like watching your favorite scenes from a movie and no more.

I still enjoy CDs.

I do "understand" though. To each their own.

el_terrible... LOL - I've got iTunes and buy more CDs nowadays than I ever have - constantly adding discs, both new and used titles.

Here's what may be the next big thing in HD... 1440p resolution/content

A few days ago I received the March 2008 issue of WIDESCREEN REVIEW. A bonus demo/promo DVD was included, produced by Disney and Monster Cable, with various insights into home theater, technology, interviews with experts from various companies, 10-minute Disney Blu-ray demo (nice), etc. It's mainly geared to those 'new' into home theater, although there were a few pro-type comments too.

The guy from HDMI.org talked about their company's expansion in HDMI adaptation (1.3a etc), and showed a chart outlining the various resolutions capable of the HDMI cable (with an oversized image of 'inside' the cable etc), showing that the best available resolution is not 1080p, but 1440p, even though no consumer content exists yet for that resolution.

So, maybe a future 1440p disc format will be forthcoming...?

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

1440p would be possible, but then again it's for the rich and famous, which 1440p is going to be needed for their 70"+ Displays. I wouldn't spend any more money for a 50" 1440p TV. It's like spending $1,500.00 for a new Sony 32" M series 1080p with weak contrast ratio.

I have no doubt that Blu-ray will survive. However, I highly doubt they will copy DVDs success and I doubt that DVD will go away anytime soon. The average Joe values price and convenience over quality and has more options to get their movie fix than ever.

Blu-ray will also be more than the next-generation laserdisc it will be somewhere in between. And as someone said, as long as I can get my favorite movies on Blu-ray isn't that what counts for the movie fan? It is kinda like Seinfeld's joke about Mc Donalds showing off how many burgers they have sold. Quantity does not always equal quality.

Now, lets start enjoying some movies.

Quote:
A [good] compilation of music is like a movie: not only is it given a title as a whole, it is intended to be experienced from beginning to end.

And how many albums fit that category today? The fact that there might be 1 or 2 wonder hits on a new $20 CD provides extra incentive to download instead of collect. This factor along with file size, the inability for most young listeners to tell the difference in quality with low bitrate MP3s, that portability and playback device really don't affect that quality (as would playing a movie on your cell phone), the sheer choice of illegal easily accessed material, etc. all contribute to music downloads eating away at CD sales.

The only CD music stores in our city that aren't surviving by keeping half their stock in DVD movies are specialty stores - like one we have downtown with a floor filled with nothing but Jazz, and upstairs nothing but Classical. That place is always filled with people.

Quote:
Here's what may be the next big thing in HD... 1440p resolution/content

You mean Ultra HD, it provides a video resolution containing 16 times as many pixels as current HD. Whereas HDTV uses 1,080 lines of resolution, ultra HD contains 4,320. Ultra HD uses 7,680 x 4,320 pixels in a widescreen aspect ratio of 16x9, making for a total of approximately 33 million pixels (33 megapixels). Also Ultra HD also offers improved sound quality: a 22.2 channel sound system reproduces 24 different channels of audio in three vertical layers of speakers, compared to currently available surround sound systems that use 5 or 6 channels.

But it is still at the concept stage, it will likely not be available to the public for some years.

But isn't it available Tuesday on Blu-ray?

what has to be kept in mind we all said cd was going to last forever, but has time goes by digital downloads are slowly taking over cds. I believe this will happen within the next five years for movies too. There will still be market for a physical copy of movie but this will generally apply to movie buffs. The general population will take up movie downloads because most people look for convenience over going to shop and buying a movie. There many people who are downloading movies on the net they do not care if the quality is not a1 has long as they see the movie. The friends i talk too can't even tell the difference between standard definition and hi definition. So if there is a option to buy a movie download for 10 dollars or 25 dollars for a blu ray copy i know which copy the general market will chose.

[Post edited by trigun74 on Feb 22, 2008]

Quote:
what has to be kept in mind we all said cd was going to last forever, but has time goes by digital downloads are slowly taking over cds. I believe this will happen within the next five years for movies too. There will still be market for a physical copy of movie but this will generally apply to movie buffs. The general population will take up movie downloads because most people look for convenience over going to shop and buying a movie. There many people who are downloading movies on the net they do not care if the quality is not a1 has long as they see the movie. The friends i talk too can't even tell the difference between standard definition and hi definition. So if there is a option to buy a movie download for 10 dollars or 25 dollars for a blu ray copy i know which copy the general market will chose.

While that may become the sad reality for the majority of the people, I do believe that there will always be a market for people who care about audio/video quality and who would rather buy a movie in a packaged form. I would definitely fall into that category.

Try telling an audiophile that he cannot get his SACD release of the newest Peter Gabriel album, and that his only option would be to download it as a 320kb/s (best case scenario) MP3 from Itunes, and he'd tell you to go to hell. Well, the same would apply to videophiles as well.

If someone told me that if I wanted to download Star Wars (episode IV) from somewhere online and the best quality I could get would be 720p at a 6Mbps video bitrate and only DD5.1 audio, while the same movie is available on Blu-ray in 1080p at a 30Mbps video bitrate and 7.1 PCM audio, I would not hesitate for a moment to go out and buy the movie on Blu-ray. See I believe that the option will always be there for people like me to get the best possible version of a movie which in this case would be on Blu-ray. Offering it as downloadable content will always be an alternative to owning a hard copy of a movie or an album.

Downloads have the hightest chance because of TiVo. I've heard it's easy to use and easy to understand. I don't see why you can't pay a little more to see any movie you want with the use of a different TiVo machine.

I have no doubt that downloads will become important, just as iTunes did, but again, I want my shiny disc to show it off...

I think downloads and Blu-Ray could co-exist. But you also have to factor in the fact that standard DVDs probably aren't going anywhere... something's gotta give. My guess is BR would win out over downloads.

They can co-exist, in the same way disc buying and renting co-exist today. For a collector of movies, downloads are not a viable option. If you don't care to own movies, and just want to see them in HD, then absolutely, downloads are the way to go.

I just hope that wide screen DVDs win the war against full screen DVDs soon.

"I just hope that wide screen DVDs win the war against full screen DVDs soon." --Skyhawk

Sky,

I'm not sure if you're just teasing or not, but I thought that that war had been won long ago. Not so, however (as anybody browsing Wal-Mart can tell you). Just recently Warner Bros. started releasing several of their newest movies in standard-definition packages that include widescreen on one side of the disc and full-screen on the other (remember years ago when that was common for studios like MGM?). WB are probably trying to save money by not having to produce separate discs, I dunno. It's discouraging, though, to have to watch the pan-and-scan versions of these things for even a moment or two (for reviewing purposes).

John

John,

I was surprised that the two recent releases of Rise of the Silver Surfer and Rush Hour 3 on DVD. Had the Pan and scan version as well as the widescreen. I really thought we had moved past the point of needing both on one disc, just in case.

John, I was kinda serious. There is no doubt that the aspect ratio war will eventually be won in favor of wide-screen when the majority of people have wide screen TVs, but that's still going to take some time.

I've witnessed people walk out of our video rental store empty handed because the "full screen" versions were all rented and only the wide screen versions of a day & date release were available. While checking out our local Walmart's hi-def selection awhile back, I overheard a couple going through a throw-away DVD bin behind us saying "Oh too bad this isn't full screen, because I love this movie!", then leaving the movie behind. I believe every movie in the bin was $3.99.

Even the name "Full Screen" is terribly misleading and objectively I'd think that version of the movie must contain a "fuller" aspect not seen in the corresponding "wide screen" version. Sometimes I feel like buying about 100 full screen version titles, then taking them all back after opening and telling them "this isn't full screen as advertised! There's BIG BLACK BARS on both sides of my TV display while watching them!".

Sky,

I've always been half-amused, half-exasperated by Disney's keep-case claims that a movie comes in a "family-friendly" full-screen aspect ratio. Full-screen is "family friendly"? Or, better yet, the studios still use the disclaimer with full-screen at start-up that says, "This movie has been modified to fit your screen." No, my screen is wide. It doesn't fit. And it doesn't fit at least a third of all the televisions out there!

John

I think the US is the only country that still does Fullscreen releases.

No, unfortunately Canada does also.

John Pucccio said -

Quote:
"It's discouraging, though, to have to watch the pan-and-scan versions of these things for even a moment or two (for reviewing purposes)."

Yeah, the ONLY 'full-screen' transfers that I hear are 'OK' to watch that way are some of the films shot in the Super 35 process (which is preferred by James Cameron), as long as the content being filmed is more 'centered' and not at the extreme outer L/R edges of the frame, which avoids having to 'pan and scan' the image too much.

Problem is, I believe that most Super35 films released on DVD are not presented in FF from an actual S35 master, but rather usually from a 1.85:1 'open matte' print.

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

Quote:
I think the US is the only country that still does Fullscreen releases.

... so does Asia, Middle East... and any other 3rd world country that doesn't care, nor can afford a wide screen hdtv set, cares for FULLSCREEN RELEASES. Hate to break to all of you but... FULLSCREEN movies are STILL VERY MUCH IN DEMAND.

Errr... dude, just in case you haven't seen the news in the last 20 years, not every country in Asia or the Middle East is a Third World country.

Well... other than FOX News I mean...

Love,

Yeah, it's pan-and-scan that I'm referring to: those movies shot and/or released in a widescreen aspect ratio that are then cut, edited, hacked, and butchered to fit a 1.33:1 screen ratio.

I'm not talking about films originally shot at 1.33:1 or 1.44:1 and then released on disc in the aspect ratio of their original camera negatives (e.g., Kubrick's films), or, of course, older movies, which I love, shot at 1.37:1.

Still, my preference is for the film's theatrical-release aspect ratio, no matter how it was shot. I figure if the director intended his film to look a certain way when he exhibited it theatrically, that's the way I'd like to see it in my home.

John

I can just imagine the look on Mr. and Mrs. J6P's face when they finally do upgrade to a wide screen TV and pop in a DVD from their beloved Full-Screen collection of movies. Then they'll realize that "full screen" wasn't as full as they thought. Do I smell a class action lawsuit in the making? *kidding*

<sarcasm alert>Everyone here knows that this is just another Sony conspiracy, who pays the studios to release movies in alternate full-screen format. This way, by the time the J6Ps get their first HDTV, they'll be forced to double dip and replace those pan 'n' scan disks with Blu-ray!</sarcasm alert>

[Post edited by Skyhawk on Feb 24, 2008]

Actually, it is my understanding that many Kubrick films were actually shot with the intention of being widescreen, and were released in theatres in widescreen, but since they were shot with mattes, Kubrick had them released in open matte for broadcast and home video, so they wouldn't be butchered to fit standard TVs. The new special edition releases are actually in the director's intended aspect ratio. The Shining, for example, is now in 1.66:1. Sydney Pollack, on the other hand, did shoot some movies in full screen because he didn't want there to be any alterations made to his movies when they were broadcast. There's a special feature about that on The Interpreter that everyone who still thinks Full Screen is the better format should watch.

Skyhawk... your funny post ^above - great!

-JIMI (the Voodoo Child)

is everyone aware of how many people do not have high speed? a lot more than you might think.
also, all human beings are, genetically, collectors. DLC cannot catch on until you can keep the movie, and also get some kind of insert.

Well I switched my netflixs from hd-dvd to blu-ray and I decided to try the netflix online video and wow. It looks nice on my hdtv. Sure its not as good as a high def media but getting it now is amasing.