Blu-ray backer Sony has announced that the format’s likely to outsell DVD globally in 2011, with over 5m Blu-ray discs having been sold around the world this year already. According to a report by Digitimes, Tim Meade, Asia Pacific Vice President for Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, said at a recent press conference in Taipei …
re: "have you tried playing the same film (BD and DVD) and flicking between them? I can definitely spot the difference."
No. Have you tried watching a whole film on DVD and then watching it on BD? Would the BD experience be _that_ much more satisfying?
I tried flicking between Sky HD and Sky SD at my sister's gaff, and couldn't tell the difference. But that's just an invitation to come up with some excuses as to why it wasn't any better. Probably that the TV wasn't true 1080p HD or that it was set up badly or that Sky HD isn't as good as a BD or or or...
The argument for HD _always_ relies on the need for getting better kit and being a spod about it's setup.
Guess what? There's a concensus that PC's are plateau-ing in terms of necessary spec for the average user. Ever thought the same might be happening in the living room?
Enhanced quality... (IF you can notice it and IF you are really bothered by it) does it change the ending of the film? Do you feel better for being able to see individual splats of sweat or blood? Am I about to go and shell out another wad of hard earned cash for the same film I already own? naaaa - I bought it once... sod that for a game of soldiers.
We, as consumers, are being shafted left, right and centre (mostly in the [shopping] centre)... Is it any wonder the world is so tuned in to illegal downloads?
52 comments and nobody mentioned the following....
52 comments about how much difference exists between dvds and bluray and if the upgrade worths its pennies...
except the 1:1 pixel mapping chipset of the screen, encoder quality used to encode the blueray from its source, video convertor quality on the blueray player, inches and others - surprisingly, nobody mentioned the following:
OPTIMAL VIEWING POSITION
There is an optimal viewing position while watching HD material as well as SD. A general rule of thumb for the average joe to understand is the following:
screen size(diagonal) * 2 = the distance your eyes must be from the screen(not your feet).
For a more idiot proof online calculator visit this:
(more skilled videophiles must search it their own - google is man's best friend (like dog used to be once)
Watching a HD film in a shorter or bigger distance than this, will end up you loosing the "HD experience".
STOP sign, because ppl must always research more before adapting a new technology.
40:60? Anybody with a gradeschool education knows that's the same as 2:3. Why inflate the numbers?
Anybody remember the episode where Spock spouted the impressive fiigure "One to the third power?" It's kind of like that.
As for other arguments about quality: I don't think anybody is claiming that BD isn't better than DVD. It's not entirely a question of how much better it is. It's a question of perception by the general public. Yeah, the quality is better, but is DVD Good Enough? Once again I bring up Laserdisc vs. VHS. Anybody who has seen them side-by-side -- especially if they saw them at their peak, before DVD was even a gleam in its daddy's eye -- would agree that Laserdisc quality was far superior to that of VHS, and it was a permanent medium -- no wear, no breakage, no deterioration (with a few notable exceptions). Yet adoption was poor. Why? Because most people cared less about the quality, within reason, than the convenience.
BD has less of a hill to climb. They're physically small and convenient to handle and store -- unlike Laserdisc -- and backwards-compatible with the most popular current format -- unlike Laserdisc -- and can be written to by the consumer -- unlike Laserdisc. The current prices are forbidding if you're just a casual viewer.
Eventually players will come down in price, nobody will sell DVD players any more (but the BD players will play your DVD collection), people will stop manufacturing movies on DVDs. Convenience is not the factor it was with LD because it's the same as for DVD.
... Unless the studios insist on weighing it down with DRM that makes it impossible to play the damned things. That make it easier and more convenient to download the movie via P2P, stripped of Draconian copy protection and region coding, than it is to buy the disc legally and play it as you want to. People are starting to get pissed off, guys. Cut the crap, it's getting real old. And the more customers you alienate by treating them like criminals, the fewer you'll have.
So there's this VHS tape my daughter likes to watch, that we checked out of the local library. Guess what? It's got Macrovision, which some of you will remember from the bad old days. Guess what? Doesn't play on her setup, which is an old but rather nice Mitsubishi VHS deck and a capture card in her computer. Most tapes aren't a problem, but this one wouldn't play. It wasn't the tape deck, it was the Macrovision -- the capture card couldn't hold synch.
So she played it in my room a few times, which has an old but rather nice Sony VHS deck and a regular television. But that was kind of inconvenient for me. Know what I did next?
You probably guessed it. I would have been happy checking out the tape from the library every few weeks, but noooo. Now I'm a criminal.
Know how much the studio lost on that? Zilch. Zip. Nada. But I'm sure they'll try to turn it into a statistic showing that they lost millions of dollars because of me.
I don't generally post anonymously but I think I'd better this time.
You get HD because you buy a TV these days
Sales of HD TV sets are misleading because you can't buy anything other than 1080p sets these days. So HD is not a consumer choice, just someone replacing a clapped out TV.
What you're getting with a 1080p, especially if you're upconverting, is the experience you used to get with a typical projection TV (of any quality, that is). They all used non-interlacing and line doubling, its the only way to stop the picture looking grainy. Adding a proper 1080p feed doesn't really make much difference to the picture because your eyes are having to resolve too much detail -- they're just not built for it (especially if the scene's got movement in it)(whch explains why HD demonstrators in the stores usually have a slide show, the impact of a movie is size and sound).
As for BD disks taking over. They might except that most people have several players, not just the one. I think the only way you could really get the BD market to catch fire is if you packaged SD DVDs along with the HD ones. Otherwise you're locking out equipment which means you've got to make a choice, and the delta isn't that good to sell just HD for most people and most material.
Digitaky capture a movie
with a studio camera that has megapixels and the picture would probaly looj HD on a tv made back in the 80s
A few points I have -
1. Like many others I dont know anyone with a BD player or PS3 yet and my friends love their gadgets. Something wrong there for a start!
2. Yes DVD is good enough. I watch a £3 dvd on a Saturday night with the Gf, a bottle of wine and a pizza. I appreciate HD stuff (I see a lot of movies at the cinema) but I'm not bothered about HD use at home. A well mastered DVD looks more then fine to me.
3. How many DVD/BD's do you watch more than once? In my collection I have maybe 5 that have been watched more than once. The question is...do I really need to keep any of these disks that are just taking up space? Do I really need to pay a premium to have the disk? Downloads please.
4. Does 95% of the Hollywood output really warrant the HD treatment? Do I need Dodgeball/anything by Eddie Murphy or Adam Sandler/bad remake if 1080p? Not really.
BD is just too late really. It will be a niche product, by 2010 we'll be looking elsewhere. If not then if I can hold out till 2015 then I can just jump on the next ultra-HD format that you know they are working on right now.
Market churn anyone?
BD is a dead end, too poor, too complex, too late
Disk media is a dead end.
Strange, nobody seems to have mentioned that you can pick up a 1Gb USB pendrive for less than a pound these days, a 2Gb one costs 99p plus VAT from Aria.
How long before there is a solid state format that is cheaper, more convenient, and more compact than a disk?
It takes longer to burn a DVD than copy the files to a pendrive.
I have a 4Gb SDcard that is the size of my fingernail.
I agree generally with the Quality isn't important comments.
I watch TV and DVD on a 22" Widescreen monitor, via DVI from a Linux HTPC, so no Blu-ray for me (despite the fact that Sony Blu-ray players actually run Linux- check out their website download section!) I have the added bonus that I can hide it with a painting when not in use (which is most of the time),
Given the size of my living room, I would have to give up too much space to a 46" monster, and I would have to sit at the opposite end of the room to watch it- no thank you.
I put in 6.1 surround sound, but the family insisted I remove it- they said it just sounded too strange, so back to plain old stereo.
If you want to spend lots of money on the cinema "experience" fine - But the great majority won't.
SONY, DRM, PRICEDROP......
SONY + DRM = ARTIFICIALLY HIGH PRICE FOR AS LONG AS THE MARKET WILL BEAR.
MESSAGE TO SONY......SHOVE YUR HIGH PRICES AND DRM UP YUR ARSE.
Jeesus, Does anyone actually watch the movie anymore or does everyone just pixel peep the DVD encoding with a box of kleenex...
Recently moved to a 37" LCD, normal dvd player via scart, not impressed, transformed my vast £3.99 tesco DVD collection.
bought a £30 sumvision upscaling player with HDMI, bloody hell, now there's a difference worth £30,
funny though, a shit film is still shit, but.... Coyote Ugly looks a whole lot better, oi' pixel geeks, pass the kleenex :-) .
nearly forgot, ferrite rings, way back in the eighties I worked in an upmarket high end hifi shop, I bought ferrite rings for pennies and sold them for pounds, (attach them to your speaker cable) the hi fi audiophile mags of the day told everyone that it would make their listening experience sooo much better....... but these folk listened to the hifi not to the music
my point, well, if the moles in my garden are too lazy to put the scaffolding clips on securely then.........................
I have to point out.......
I have had a HD LCD TV and a Blu-Ray player for almost a year now, and to be honest until fairly recently I was struggling to tell the difference between an upscaled DVD and a Blu-Ray.
Then I got my eyes tested and discovered that I needed glasses for a relatively minor sight issue. My sight didn't seem bad, but I was getting tired looking at VDU's all day.
Now the difference is plainly obvious between Blu-Ray and upscaled DVD.
I'm not saying that everyone should go and rush out to buy one because there's no point in watching anything not in HD. My purchase was the result of "post-bonus money spunking" and I still buy as many DVD's as I do Blu-Rays, if not even slightly more. But I AM suggesting that those people who say they "can't tell the difference", are either using the wrong kit, or should consider a visit to the optician.
Re: I have to point out.......
Good point to make Andy!
My local optician has an ad in the window ... "Are your eyes HD ready? Come in for a test."
I wonder how many people think that SD DVDs are perfectly acceptable because they are just as fuzzy as 'real life'? If you're getting by in life with no (or the wrong) glasses, HD is a wake up call ... I have specs which I wear at the cinema or when watching a powerpoint on the office projector or when watching HD Sky TV and BD movies on my PS3 but otherwise I don't wear them.
"I tried flicking between Sky HD and Sky SD at my sister's gaff, and couldn't tell the difference. But that's just an invitation to come up with some excuses as to why it wasn't any better. Probably that the TV wasn't true 1080p HD or that it was set up badly or that Sky HD isn't as good as a BD or or or..."
Shirley, you can't be serious ....? Now that IS night and day! Sky HD vs Sky SD is very much different. Artifacting on most channels seem like bad DVDs, where as Sky HD gives them in a sort of sharper detail (ala DVDs). Personally think that SkyHD is a complete waste of money, but there you go..
(Oh, Sky HD is only in 720, and not 1080 - if it was 1080, it still wouldn't be worth it until they added more quality channels ["quality" being the word for today])
[Physical format is here to stay for quite some time.. and unfortunately so is DRM - Fact, so deal with it - I'll still be here in 5 years time]
i tend to wear my glasses for ps3 games and nice looking movies... but with some DVDs i have to take them off as i can see the artifacts too much (v poor encoding).
sky is only 720? im on virgin and their box can output 1080i.
just watching the difference between planet earth SD and HD is enough for anyone surely? the additional stuff you can make out really makes the world of difference!
Sometimes on Sky the HD channels are showing *exactly* (ie same pic quality etc) what the SD channels are. Sky One and C4 do this quite a bit.
So before doing a comparison make sure that whatever prog is on (say) Sky One is actually in HD (it should say so on the prog info). And if you can't tell the difference after that then it's either a duff setup or your eyes are screwed.
SD vs HD...
It actually quite surprises me by how much people underestimate the difference between SD and HD. Even Anon up there who makes the point that (UK) DVD is 576i seems to underestimate the situation. Yes it's a 25% increase to go from 576 lines to 720, but that is literally only half the picture. Since it is progressive, 720p is 720 lines 50 times a second, whereas interlaced 576i is 576 lines only 25 times a second (and that is a simplified version ignoring the weird defects interlacing can introduce). Also the increase in spatial resolution is massive - from 720 pixels wide in 576i to 1280 in 720p (over a 75% increase). It all adds up to nearly 4.5 times the amount of detail per second when you include the difference between interlaced and progressive. And of course that is just 720p... 1080p is even better. That's 1920x1080, 50 times a second. 5 times the h x v resolution of DVD and 10 times the detail when including p vs i.
Then of course there is the superior compression technology that is used in Blu-ray (MPEG-4/AVC vs MPEG-2) that makes the difference even bigger, and not to mention the difference HD audio can make (though admittedly even less people have hd-capable sound systems than have hd displays).
Naturally this all means a lot less if the viewer can't see all the detail in 1080p (or even 720p) - but larger screen TV's are definitely becoming more standard, and you certainly don't need a 42" TV to be able to appreciate the difference between SD and 720p (though for 1080p that does indeed seem to be about the benchmark "normal" viewing distances).
So Bluray wants to go from marginal high end product to mainstay in a little over 2 years? sure, right after the porcine flying schools become popular.
The statistics listed mean nothing - 11million bluray discs sold globally? that is less than one disc per PS3 sold (14 million), let alone the dozen standalone players sold. Hardly a riproaring success. So bluray to account for 15% of all players sold? where, his local high end audio shop? Sure if you take the PS3 sales into account that may be possible. Bluray to dvd to rise to 40/60 ration by 2010 - where, his personal film collection?
Bluray may one day surplant DVD if there is no other viable alternative available to replace DVD, but until then it is simply this generation's Laserdisc. I mean, this is a format surviving solely on the back of a games console - if you took that to the dragon's den, they would collapse in heaps of laughter.
And I predict the bottom will fall out of the disc market because we'll all just be downloading films. The product life cycle for Blu-Ray will be a fraction of the time that DVDs have prevailed.
1/ Downloading is so easy.
2/ Downloadable movies are portable.
a. you'll want to re-purchase the download version because it would take you many hours per film to rip and transcode (even more so if you've purchased discs with excessive DRM)
b. you can legally share amongst your devices
3/ Apple has introduced films for download via iTunes - in HD format if you have Apple TV. Others are sure to follow - Sky?
4/ Downloads are cheap (comparatively)! Usually £6.99 or £9.99.
5/ A couple of external hard drives plus maybe an Apple TV or similar take up far less room.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap