backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by Holytrinity.. on Mar 28 at 10:10 PM


"No Country For Old Men" is a Blu-ray Disc top-seller
"No Country For Old Men" pushes Blu-ray Disc to nine million sold

With Blu-ray Disc the high-definition winner, it will no longer have to play in any sort of numbers race against a competing format. Still, that does not prevent tracking firms from keeping tabs on the gradual growth of the format.

Particularly since the beginning of 2008, when the writing was freshly written on the wall thanks to Warner Bros., Blu-ray Disc sales have picked up the pace considerably. According to Hollywood in Hi-Def, HMR research figured that Blu-ray Disc movie sales hit the 3 million mark in the first 11 weeks of this year. Should the pace continue, the format should hit at least 15 million units for 2008.

To put things into perspective, only 6 million Blu-ray Disc movies were sold since the format’s inception through 2007. While the growing number of players on the market directly affects software sales, consumers may now be willing to purchase more software with HD DVD out of the picture.

Helping push Blu-ray Disc to the nine million total mark as of mid-March was Miramax’s recent release of No Country For Old Men. Spurred by its Oscar win for Best Picture, No Country For Old Men sold 68,000 units within its first week of release – twice as many as the second best-selling Blu-ray Disc movie, Hitman.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

BR needs a boost
By martinrichards23 on 3/28/2008 7:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing I see can make BR a success in the short/medium term is if a film comes out that genuinely looks a lot better in HD (and not just to us geeks, but to your mum and dad as well), and it catches peoples imagination, prompting them to purchase a Blu-ray DVD player.

Like when there are large sporting events, sales of large TVs go up a lot because people want to make the most of it.

Something like the new Indiana Jones film would do the trick.




RE: BR needs a boost
By gigahertz20 on 3/28/2008 7:31:57 AM , Rating: 3
WHAT U TALKING BOUT martinrichards23!

Every film that comes out in a Blu-Ray format looks way better than the same title in DVD format. You don't need to be a geek to notice the difference, just a pair of eyes.

BR will be a success as time goes on, players will get cheaper, BR burners will get faster and cheaper, media will get cheaper. It's just going to take awhile like it did for DVD, everybody has their money tied up in DVD players and racks of DVD movies in their living rooms. It will take time for people to eventually switch over just like it did for VHS to DVD. 6 years from now, DVD will be VHS.


RE: BR needs a boost
By 777 on 3/28/2008 7:50:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It will take time for people to eventually switch over just like it did for VHS to DVD. 6 years from now, DVD will be VHS.


Great point! Nobody seems to remember when VHS came out those crappy decks cost $300 - $400.00 and this was way back in the mid 1980's, heaven forbid in beginning of Blu-ray one would have to pay $400.00. Toshiba had dirt cheap prices because it was trying to win the war and was loosing a bundle selling their hardware at those lowball prices.

quote:
Every film that comes out in a Blu-Ray format looks way better than the same title in DVD format.


I guess some people have never seen a DVD on a 50in LCD, it looks terrible! In fact most high def monitors don't play anything standard def that looks good. Sure on a 27" glass tube DVD looks pretty good, but not on these new Hi-def LCD's.


RE: BR needs a boost
By theapparition on 3/28/2008 8:16:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nobody seems to remember when VHS came out those crappy decks cost $300 - $400.00 and this was way back in the mid 1980's

I remember my first VCR. JVC front load (not that crappy top load style). Price family paid for it......$1200 (1980?). Quite a bit more than your numbers, not adjusted for inflation.
I reminded myself that when I paid close to 1k for my first BR player.


RE: BR needs a boost
By martinrichards23 on 3/28/2008 8:52:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I guess some people have never seen a DVD on a 50in LCD, it looks terrible! In fact most high def monitors don't play anything standard def that looks good. Sure on a 27" glass tube DVD looks pretty good, but not on these new Hi-def LCD's.


Exactly, but a lot of people are still using their old CRT tv, and will eventually upgrade to a 32" LCD, they will never care what it looks like on 50".


RE: BR needs a boost
By walk2k on 3/28/2008 1:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually studies show the majority of HD sets sold are between 50-59" (27%. The next most popular size is 40-49" (27%), then your 30-39" at 23%.

And those are 2006 figures, no doubt the trend is towards larger sizes.


RE: BR needs a boost
By CorrND on 3/28/2008 1:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have a source for these stats? Seems hard to believe.


RE: BR needs a boost
By martinrichards23 on 3/28/2008 1:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't believe that, certainly not in the UK anyway. Many shops don't even stock them that big, 32" is definitely the standard, 42" would be considered large, and 50" extremely large.

Shops stock far more 26/27" ones than 42".


RE: BR needs a boost
By Hiawa23 on 3/28/2008 9:27:50 AM , Rating: 3
I only bought an HDTV for my PS3 & Xbox 360 gaming, & really fine with standard DVDs, but bought the HD DVD player for Transformers, & other than gaming I really don't need HD for TV & movies. I think the way the economy is & most families here in the states not even owning an HDTV, I expect Blu ray to pickup slowly, but thanks to the PS3, should continue to move alot of players. I just think with every thing that most of American families have to deal with, financially, HD movies are at the bottom of the priorities list.


RE: BR needs a boost
By Pryde on 3/28/2008 7:55:26 AM , Rating: 1
High Def looks a lot better on a true 1080p (1920x1200 Full HD). Problem is that most HDTVs sold are only 720p (1366x768 HD Ready). Normal TVs only have 576p (720×576)

Full HD has 5x the amount of pixel over standard 576p
HD Ready only has about 2.5x as many Pixels over 576p

As the size of the TV gets larger the difference really makes a huge improvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_telev...


RE: BR needs a boost
By Pryde on 3/28/2008 7:57:51 AM , Rating: 2
Can't see a edit button

1080p is 1920x1080


RE: BR needs a boost
By 777 on 3/28/2008 7:58:28 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed!


RE: BR needs a boost
By theapparition on 3/28/2008 8:27:22 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree with your terms.

Full HD (in the US) is either 1080p, 1080i, or 720p as defined by the ATSC standard. Although, for most arguments, we purist would like to consider 1080p as being "Full HD".

You are correct that most TV's sold are 720p, usually 1366x768 (LCD) or 1024x768 (Plasma) resolution, but that has nothing to do with HD "ready". HD ready means that the TV does not come with a built in tuner.....implies nothing on the resolution capability. A TV that is HD ready will should be able to display a processed HD signal, that's all.

PAL (EU) runs at 576i (not 576p) and NTSC (US) runs at 480i (technically 525 lines, of which 480 are visible).

I agree with the intent of your post, just wanted to correct some details.


RE: BR needs a boost
By 16nm on 3/28/2008 9:53:32 AM , Rating: 1
Full HD is 1080p which is 50% more resolution than 720p which is 50% more resolution than DVD (480p)

720p is just HD, not "Full HD"

It's silly, I know, but that's where we stand today.

I find it's less confusing to see it as:

1080p HD (High)
720p MD (Medium)
480p SD (Standard)


RE: BR needs a boost
By Murst on 3/28/2008 10:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
The difference between the resolutions is much greater than 50%. You have to remember that resolution is width * height...

Arguing what's "Full HD" vs "HD" is just silly. "Full HD" is just a stupid marketing term. Since only 1080p TVs are currently being marketed as "Full HD", however, I think its reasonable to assume that when someone says "Full HD", they are refering to 1080p.


RE: BR needs a boost
By 16nm on 3/28/2008 11:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
That's very true. There are 50% greater horizontal lines but total number of pixels are even greater than that. This only applies to LCD screens, of course.


RE: BR needs a boost
By theapparition on 3/28/2008 12:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
Are you argreeing or disagreeing with me? Not sure.

I stated that as defined by the ATSC spec, there is no such thing as full HD, there is only HD.


RE: BR needs a boost
By 16nm on 3/28/2008 7:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you argreeing or disagreeing with me?


Neither agreeing or disagreeing.


RE: BR needs a boost
By walk2k on 3/28/2008 1:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe 2 years ago most HDTVs were 720p but today you can barely find a 720p set in the store unless you are talking 30" or less.


RE: BR needs a boost
By walk2k on 3/28/2008 1:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
Well, maybe under 40" that is. Once you get over about 42" 1080p sets dominate the showroom.


RE: BR needs a boost
By Holytrinity on 3/28/2008 9:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As the size of the TV gets larger the difference really makes a huge improvement.


This is very true. However, as the size of the TV gets larger, standard definition looks increasingly worse (assuming a constant seating distance from the display). So if, like myself, you have a large DVD collection you need to consider this fact. This is why I own a 32" Full HD (native 1920x1080) display. I sit close enough to it for the resolution increase from 1280x720 to be beneficial on games and BD, and my DVD's also look pretty good on it too.


RE: BR needs a boost
By martinrichards23 on 3/28/2008 8:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every film that comes out in a Blu-Ray format looks way better than the same title in DVD format. You don't need to be a geek to notice the difference, just a pair of eyes.


Nobody questions that HD does actually look a lot better, but a lot of people are simply happy with their standard DVD player and DVDs, in reality most people don't consider television very important, and have no idea what difference HD would make, they just follow the latest trend, and Blu-ray is not a trend, yet.


RE: BR needs a boost
By Strunf on 3/28/2008 9:09:14 AM , Rating: 1
Doubt of it, the gap between the VHS and the DVD is much bigger than between the DVD and the Blu-ray.

The DVD offered over the VHS:
+ no rewind
+ picture quality
+ no degradation with time or number of plays
+ interactive features
+ smaller size for the media
+/- Zones (depends cause the NTSC, Secam and Pal Secam never really helped the tapes to move from one country to another)

The Blu-ray offers over the DVD :
+/- better quality but not really that better for 90% of the people.
- more complicated security systems like HDCP and others...

IMO in 6 yeas the DVD will still be selling far more than Blu-ray.


RE: BR needs a boost
By Hulk on 3/28/2008 11:39:52 AM , Rating: 2
I am curious as to where you got your 90% figure?

EVERY single person that has seen Blu-Ray or HD-DVD video on my 52" 1080p LCD has been amazed by the picture quality.

So unless you can point to a source for your figure that is just your imagination and wishful thinking.


RE: BR needs a boost
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/28/2008 1:11:18 PM , Rating: 1
Blu-Ray differences over an upscaled DVD are not apparent to most people until your at 1080p and on 42" or higher.

Most people own TV's in the 720p range which is less of an improvement over existing DVD's.

You need to take into account that the format only provides the raw input quality, it still needs to be processed and displayed on a display device, which makes a huge difference.


RE: BR needs a boost
By walk2k on 3/28/2008 1:19:31 PM , Rating: 2
Most people today, but that is changing.
The majority of HDTVs sold in 2006 were 50-59", and no doubt that trend continues to be larger, and at that size you can barely find 720p sets any more. The future is clearly 50"+ and 1080p.


No way
By straycat74 on 3/28/2008 8:50:18 AM , Rating: 1
will 'no country for old men' help sales. What a piece of crap. I am so sorry I will never get that time back. Can someone tell me the plot or what in the hell happened in the end?




RE: No way
By gigahertz20 on 3/28/2008 9:16:21 AM , Rating: 1
You want us to explain to you the plot of the movie and what happened? LoL, just google the name of the movie or go to imdb.com and read a summary....it's not that great of a movie btw imho


RE: No way
By Hiawa23 on 3/28/2008 10:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
will 'no country for old men' help sales. What a piece of crap. I am so sorry I will never get that time back. Can someone tell me the plot or what in the hell happened in the end?

after watching the movie, I had to go to Wikipedia, cause it seems like it just came to an end, I had no idea what happened, & I was loving it up to that point of the hotel scene where apparently the Spanish guys kills the main guy, but while watching the movie all it showed was the spanish guys speeding off & in th enext scene T lee looking at the guy in the morge. I hated that, as the movie was setting up for a great climax & it just wasn't there, but before that I thought the movie was excellent.


RE: No way
By Xodus Maximus on 3/28/2008 11:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
I never saw the movie, by choice, it seems like the kind of movie I loose patience watching, so why bother.

Did anyone notice on the cover that the names "Josh Brolin" and "Tommy Lee Jones" are under the wrong pictures, they are backwards...I doubt it was artistic intent...more like a typo.

The way I see it, if a studio can't take the time to get a poster/cover for the movie "typo" free, then I can't take the time to waste 2 hours of my life watching their movie.


RE: No way
By Chaser on 3/28/2008 11:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
To me it was a Pulp Ficton kind of movie in some respects. The ending was stupid, meaningless and boring. Especially compared to the build up. What a let down.


RE: No way
By BansheeX on 3/28/2008 12:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I didn't like it too much either. Fargo was better. This is one of those "academic-to-a-fault" movies that got a lot of critical acclaim for its symbolism and an exaggerated human condition. Course, if you're truly smart, you see how contrived the setup was when he decides to go back and give water to the dead mexican. Stupidest thing I've ever seen a character do and it contradicts his intelligence later in the film. It's clearly a case of the author forcing his hand because he needed a way in which the villain could implicate his involvement. That way was by having the character go back to the scene of the crime in the middle of the night and get jumped so that his car's serial plates are left behind. He probably couldn't think of anything better, so he prayed academics would blame it on character stupidity and call it a work of genius anyway.


RE: No way
By bdewong on 3/28/2008 1:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
when he decides to go back and give water to the dead mexican.

Did you not think that he went back to steal the drugs and not give the guy water?

And about the cover art. It always confuses me as to why they put different names under the picture of the actors, but it happens quite often. Not a mistake, just how they do it.

Oh and about the movie, I felt the same way about the movie that Hiawa23 felt.


Never understood the drive for HD
By BobDole on 3/28/2008 11:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, some of you people talk like you can't even watch a movie without it being HD.

I could care less.

Does HD make the movie better?
Does it make the writting better?
Does it make the story better?
Does it make the acting better?

I watch a movie because I enjoy the movie, not because of how it looks. I have no problem sticking to my DVD, and 27" CRT TV.




By Hiawa23 on 3/28/2008 12:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, some of you people talk like you can't even watch a movie without it being HD.

I could care less.

Does HD make the movie better?
Does it make the writting better?
Does it make the story better?
Does it make the acting better?

I watch a movie because I enjoy the movie, not because of how it looks. I have no problem sticking to my DVD, and 27" RT TV.


I agree 100%. I got one 20" HDTV that I use for my PC & 360 & PS3 gaming, all 10 of my other gaming consoles are on stadard TVs, & the only room that has a HDTV in my home is my gameroom. Yes, HD makes the movies look better, makes TV programs look better, but I am sure a Lexus drives better than my Honda or my Lancer, I just don't need it, & I think the masses don't need or want or can pay for it. I am fine with standard def, with 5.1 DD sound. Some act like they can't go back to standard def or something. I also have no issues with DVD & my 27" Toshiba SD TV. I don't watch much TV to begin with & the programs I do watch, mainly are Netflix movies are fine as is to me in SD. I know the tech guys always have this view but most owners don't really care about HD, or enough to spend up to $1000 plus for a TV, & another $300 plus for a player. If it wasn't for the PS3 having Blu ray I wouldn't care about it either.


RE: Never understood the drive for HD
By TropicalJ on 3/28/2008 1:23:26 PM , Rating: 3
Good for you, but I also enjoy the overall experience which can be enhanced greatly with a nice TV, blu-ray, and a nice set of speakers. Some people like to watch a basketball game courtside, while others are content in the bleacher seats.


RE: Never understood the drive for HD
By ioKain on 3/28/2008 4:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
Therein lies the problem for the bluray camp/fanboys. You're a minority.


By TropicalJ on 3/28/2008 6:40:15 PM , Rating: 3
Of course we're the minority, just like DVD Players used to be the minority compared to VHS. But as LCD's drop in price to even more affordable levels, and Blu-Ray prices drop to near DVD levels then it will change.


No reason
By viperpa on 3/28/2008 11:03:54 AM , Rating: 2
I have a whole bunch of DVD's and have no reason to get a Blu Ray player or movies anytime soon. The quality of a DVD suits me just fine. Would any normal person care if the color shades are just slightly better? I don't watch enough tv to warrant spending $400 on Blu-Ray. I was looking at HP laptops and the Blu Ray player option was $300 where as the DVD player/burner was less than $100. Tell me which one would I pick?

I care about the quality of the movie, if the movie is worth seeing. I want to know I am not going to waisting $20 to $30 a movie because it's garbage.




RE: No reason
By Holytrinity on 3/28/2008 10:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The quality of a DVD suits me just fine.


You say this because you're probably watching those DVD's on a CRT TV. If you compare equal sized LCD and CRT TV's, you will notice that a DVD will look significantly better on the CRT TV. This is because an LCD TV will "bring out" all the little imperfections of the low resolution DVD much more than a CRT TV will. If you have an LCD TV and you want movies to look as good as a DVD movie that is being displayed on a CRT, that is when high definition video (such as BD and HD-DVD) is required.

So if you want the absolute BEST quality for your movies, you would pair up a HD-DVD/BD movie with a 720p/1080i CRT TV.


RE: No reason
By Holytrinity on 3/28/2008 10:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you compare equal sized LCD and CRT TV's


That should read:

If you compare equal sized 16:9 LCD and CRT TV's...


DVD > Blu-ray
By karielash on 3/28/2008 9:38:17 AM , Rating: 1

Just get a decent upscaling DVD player (less than $100), display quality is more than good enough for your average viewer, no need to send $400 on Blu-Ray. The problem is most of the comments are from enthusiasts who are blinded by the technology more than actual usefulness of the technology to the everyday person in the street. $400 is not an acceptable price point for the average person.




RE: DVD > Blu-ray
By martinrichards23 on 3/28/2008 10:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
That's exactly right, the average dailytech reader is nothing like the average consumer, it is no surprise that blu-ray has had a slow start.


Call it
By gigahertz20 on 3/28/2008 7:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?

<Takes out quarter from pocket>

Who wants to call it?




no comment
By denzelmaniac on 3/28/2008 9:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
is it just me or they actually switched Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin on that picture. Just look at the name tags...




BD sales
By wallijonn on 3/28/2008 11:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To put things into perspective, only 6 million Blu-ray Disc movies were sold since the format’s inception through 2007.


I bet that the lion's share of those "sales" were BOGOs, which would mean that nearly 3 million were actually sold (also take into account the "5 Free Movies" deals.)

Current prices for new releases are hovering around $28 per, with retail prices being $30 to $40, and with most people probably electing to buy on 'Day of Release' to get an extra ~$3 taken off the price.

Yes, I want to re-buy "Independence Day" and "iRobot," for example, but not at ~$30 apiece. I'll wait until they go on sale. Until then the SD versions will have 'to do'. [So far I have "double dipped," (and in some cases "triple dipped," "Stargate," "Fifth Element" as examples) on over 30 movies.]




By pomaikai on 3/28/2008 11:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
I have a DVD player in my truck. There is no way Iam going to buy a copy for my truck and a Blu-Ray version for the house. I am waiting until it can be very easily ripped and converted. This way I can make a copy for the car, make a copy to stream and store the original in the closet. Blu Ray is lacking in what alot of people want, the ability to convert from one format to another.




BD vs SD
By wallijonn on 3/28/2008 11:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to BD to differentiate itself from SD further. I'd like to see 'Unrated Director's Extended Cuts' on BD instead of the other way around. Presently BD has the theatrical cuts but SD has the unrated extended director's cut versions, along with many extras which come out on SD but not on BD.It would seem more logical for it to be the opposite since BD has more storage space.

Yes, I'll wait for the Director's Cut of "Fearless" to come to BD (over 40 extra minutes). I just am not going to hold my breath until they do.

When I had the option of buying 'XXX' in the extended unrated director's cut on SD for $4.99, on sale, or the BD theatrical version for $27, I went with the SD version, if only because I would always be wondering what the SD version looked like.




Just wondering
By TropicalJ on 3/28/2008 1:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
Just wondering, how long did it take DVD to surpass VHS sales? I think it was only a short time.




Huh?
By sweetsauce on 3/28/2008 2:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to Hollywood in Hi-Def, HMR research figured that Blu-ray Disc movie sales hit the 3 million mark in the first 11 weeks of this year. Should the pace continue, the format should hit at least 15 million units for 2008.
You sound like idiotic baseball announcers that say a batter is on pace to hit 260 home runs that year because he started the season with 10 home runs in 6 games.




Is that all???
By jabber on 3/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is that all???
By Lonyo on 3/28/2008 7:12:45 AM , Rating: 5
And by the time the something else comes along to replace it, it too will take a hell of a long time to make any ground.
People will want higher definition video once the price of players, films and the TV's that play them all come down.
Of course DVD sells much better. It's cheaper, it's more widespread, and it doesn't need a new expensive TV to be worth getting.
Bluray probably will eventually go mainstream, and yes, something will come along as its successor, but that won't suddenly kill it off, just like Bluray hasn't killed off DVD.


RE: Is that all???
By bill3 on 3/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is that all???
By xsilver on 3/28/2008 10:00:20 AM , Rating: 2
while digital downloads is a threat I think the threat of a new greater format is greater. Only problem is that it doesnt exist yet.

I mean if tomorrow it was announced that a 400gb/disc density was going to be released and supported by major studios coming in christmas 2009, what would you do?

I think BD sales would plummet as people would just hold out for the new format. Conspiracy theorists would then say that IF a new format was developed, sony would try to hold it back because they have already invested so heavily in BD via ps3 etc.


RE: Is that all???
By pomaikai on 3/28/2008 11:38:56 AM , Rating: 3
The problem holding Blu Ray back now is the lack of the ability to convert it to other formats. How many families have more than one TV? How many families have more than one DVD player? Who wants to buy a DVD format and a Blu Ray format so they can watch the movie on different TVs in the house? At $400 a pop I will not upgrade until I can convert the blu ray to DVD.


RE: Is that all???
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2008 11:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
Considering the space of Bluray, they could probably fit an image of the DVD version on the disc. Since I doubt many Blu-ray releases even come close to filling a 50GB disc.


RE: Is that all???
By therealnickdanger on 3/28/2008 1:29:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Since I doubt many Blu-ray releases even come close to filling a 50GB disc.

Your doubts are misplaced:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=76...

Most BD-only releases hover in the high 30s to low 40s (in total disc space used), however, more and more releases are getting close to the 50GB limit. Keep in mind that you can have a nearly transparent, 5-star transfer at around 18GB, leaving the rest of that space for audio tracks and special features. However, some releases, like "Click" used the MPEG-2 codec for video and darn well almost filled all 50GB with just the movie! Every movie is different.


RE: Is that all???
By CorrND on 3/28/2008 1:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Is that all???
By TerranMagistrate on 3/28/2008 2:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Digital downloads will be as much of a threat to Blu-Ray as pay-per-view was to VHS.

With the cost of bandwidth actually increasing in some cases and with millions of people in the U.S. still on cheap dail-up or DSL, DDing being anything of a threat to any physical movie format is but a fleeting dream.

Why do bitter Blu-Ray nay-sayers still push this failing argument?


RE: Is that all???
By tmouse on 3/28/2008 10:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just not sure Bluray will have the same benefits as DVD since other methods are currently being developed while DVD had a longer time to “just settle in” before the HD generation. Depends on how fast Sony and the others who make TVs and Players drop the prices. The question I'm sure they are asking is: "Is it worth it to make more profit in the short term and risk a quick end due to low market penetration or risk lower profits for faster adaption which could result in a longer transition time?"


RE: Is that all???
By gigahertz20 on 3/28/2008 7:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
Public happy with DVD? I don't think so. I have a 720P HD TV and the only HD content I can watch is from the comcast HD channels I get. I'd love to be able to watch movies in HD, but the prices on Blu-Ray players are still too high for my taste.

The only thing that will suck for Blu-Ray movies is they are going to be a real b*tch to create "back-up copies" as we like to call them. We're talking about back up sizes that are around 22 gigs like the Blu-Ray Ice Age 2 movie.

I personally don't see Blu-Ray movies taking off until they get cheap Blu-Ray burners that can burn these 22 gig movies fast, and the Blue-Ray media needs to get alot cheaper as well. I'm probably going to hold off until I can cheaply burn these movies like DVD movies.

Oh and so much for downloading torrents of Blu-Ray movies, 22 gigs is going to take a hell of a long time, most people will just stick to downloading 4.7 gig DVD movies until Internet speeds are way faster.


RE: Is that all???
By bill3 on 3/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Is that all???
By cicatriz63 on 3/28/2008 9:02:42 AM , Rating: 2
its pretty obvious that YOU dont do very much downloading because its very easy to find actual DVD ISOs that are the full 4.7GB


RE: Is that all???
By Strunf on 3/28/2008 9:15:57 AM , Rating: 1
I think you misunderstood his point or I did, by 1.4GB DVD rips is probably speaking of a movie with the xvid/divx/h264 codec, with them you can have the same quality with far less space taken.

This leads me to think that most people wouldn't see any difference between a 4.7GB DVD made with a mpeg 4 codec and the 25 GB Blu-ray version of it.


RE: Is that all???
By gigahertz20 on 3/28/2008 9:19:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This leads me to think that most people wouldn't see any difference between a 4.7GB DVD made with a mpeg 4 codec and the 25 GB Blu-ray version of it.


You clearly have never seen a Blu-Ray movie on a 1080P TV.


RE: Is that all???
By mmntech on 3/28/2008 9:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
But who has a 1080p TV? Most people I know with HDTVs, including myself, only have 720p TVs. At 1080p, you really need a huge TV to get the full effect, which most people either can't afford or don't have room for. You guys are also forgetting that we're living in an age where people prefer low quality MP3 files instead of CDs and LPs. Why would video be any different? While 720p offers 2.67x the resolution, most people don't notice the difference between it and an upscaled DVD.


RE: Is that all???
By Oregonian2 on 3/28/2008 2:06:49 PM , Rating: 2
I've a 58" 1080p Plasma (about three months old now). With an OPPO 981HD regular DVD player, quality made regular DVD's look very very good. But those are more than 4.7Gb, more like 7.5Gb. DVD9's not DVD5's. Single layer ones can look "okay" though, even given a filesize, there's quite a range of quality that can be had depending upon those making it (and probably varies with original source and how it's converted). That said, HD sources do look better than the best OPPO upconverted DVD's, but it's arguing "very good" vs "great". Both quite acceptable. OPPO has a new top-of-the-line DVD upconverter that's about twice the price of the 981. Curious to know if it can possibly be even better (to the point of being noticeable in practice).


RE: Is that all???
By AlphaVirus on 3/28/2008 2:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But who has a 1080p TV? Most people I know with HDTVs, including myself, only have 720p TVs.

Just because the 10, 20, or 30 houses you have visited do not have 1080P, does not mean the other 3 billion in the world do not have one.

quote:
At 1080p, you really need a huge TV to get the full effect...

Majority of B&M shops stock between 32"-52" 1080P tv's, ask them to turn them on and you will notice that even the small 32" will look great.
quote:
...which most people either can't afford or don't have room for.

Just because you can't afford it you should not assume "most" people cant. And if you currently have a CRT TV, chances are you have room for a 1080P of 32" or higher.

quote:
You guys are also forgetting that we're living in an age where people prefer low quality MP3 files instead of CDs and LPs.

Perhaps you do but I prefer higher quality mp3, aac, wma, etc files. I do not understand how you came to this conclusion.

quote:
Why would video be any different?

Because poor quality can cause eye strain after so long. Also the 'better' the picture quality, the more immersive the movie will become.

quote:
While 720p offers 2.67x the resolution, most people don't notice the difference between it and an upscaled DVD.

Must I comment on this? Must people make blank claims of "not noticing the difference of upscaled dvd and HD"?
There is a reason it is called High Definition, enough said.


RE: Is that all???
By Strunf on 3/28/2008 5:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just because the 10, 20, or 30 houses you have visited do not have 1080P, does not mean the other 3 billion in the world do not have one.

Do you imply that all those people have HD TV?... chances are there's still far more CRTs and < 32" HDTV around than anything else.

quote:
Because poor quality can cause eye strain after so long.

lol when I think I played 800x600 games for soo long, when I think I have seen movies on CRTs TV for ages... what a revelation the HD TV is good for your health...

quote:
Also the 'better' the picture quality, the more immersive the movie will become.

Pfft I can even get immersed with a black and white text book...

quote:
There is a reason it is called High Definition, enough said.

Ya it's like Turbo cache its called that way for a reason, or full speed USB... or hundreds of other MARKETING names.


RE: Is that all???
By aeroxander on 3/28/2008 9:09:56 AM , Rating: 2
That and you obviously don't do much movie watching in a proper home theater. If I want to watch a movie such as Transformers, the latest Pixar movie, or blockbuster movie, I want to watch it in full surround sound, 1080p, not in a compressed piece of crap off the internet. Until internet speeds get alot faster I'll be going to rent Blu-rays from Blockbuster down the road.

I agree digital downloads will be the next thing, and I think they're good for TV shows but for a full 1080p Hi-def movie digital download is not there yet. Plus I doubt mom and pop know how to go onto their xbox (if they have one) and download the movie they want to watch.

I want to see TV go digital download, pay for what you want to watch rather than pay for a majority of crap and a few shows that you watch.


RE: Is that all???
By tmouse on 3/28/2008 9:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I want to watch it in full surround sound, 1080p


quote:
I doubt mom and pop know how to go onto their xbox (if they have one) and download the movie they want to watch.


If they do not have or know how to use an xbox then I doubt "mom and pop" HAVE full surround sound, 1080p anyway.
Mom and Pop and other masses will drive the market far more than the techno-elite; its just pure numbers.


RE: Is that all???
By 16nm on 3/28/2008 10:03:17 AM , Rating: 2
Right, because everyone has a "mom and pop" so the numbers are there. lol.

My mother was thinking about buying a high def tele but was dreading the idea of spending that much. I took her to Circuit City this Easter weekend and bought a DTV converter box to hook to her old 27" Sony tele. She is extremely satisfied with the results. Her reception was pretty poor before. Now, it's great. She's got twice the channels and a crystal clear image. She'll probably never buy an HDTV and I would have to agree that it would be money wasted.


RE: Is that all???
By Murst on 3/28/2008 10:28:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If they do not have or know how to use an xbox then I doubt "mom and pop" HAVE full surround sound, 1080p anyway.

That's pretty funny. What makes it hillarious is that you actually believe it is true.

I know quite a few parents who don't know how to use an xbox but have a 1080p TV and surround sound. Some of these people spent over 15k for their home theater setups.

Why would they ever need to know how to use an XBox if they don't play games? Do you honestly think that the only people who care about surround sound and 1080p are Xbox players?


RE: Is that all???
By tmouse on 3/28/2008 3:20:23 PM , Rating: 2
Wow guess the concept I was trying to express just went over your head. It has nothing really to do with Xboxes or ps3s in particular. I was trying to express the view that mom and pop probably will not need any proficiency to download movies when the market exists it will be as easy as ordering a ppv, and even if the quality is not the same due to some compression they will not notice because the majority probably will not have the right equipment set up in the right environment to notice.


RE: Is that all???
By danrien on 3/28/2008 10:27:22 AM , Rating: 2
obviously, you are in the majority of consumers here.


RE: Is that all???
By walk2k on 3/28/2008 1:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually flash memory is probably the "next" thing, but we are talking 8-10 years at best.

Downloading is fine rentals but most people want to own a copy and build a library of movies.

Not to mention the internet as it is right now would crumbe if J6P was downloading 50GB movies every day! Downloading will be limited to standard-def and/or highly compressed 720p for the forseeable future until FTTH is a reality in every city.


RE: Is that all???
By gigahertz20 on 3/28/2008 9:10:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, I can tell you dont do any downloading because actual DVD rips are usually about 1.4 GB's (due to compression) and the quality is pretty decent.


Well that wouldn't be a full DVD rip then, I was talking about a full DVD with no compression, nothing left out = ~ 4.7GB or double that for dual layer. I don't even mess with DVD rips, I stick to movies that have been converted to Xvid and Divx formats, they have amazing quality and full movies usually run around 700Mb.

Digital downloads will be the future, but future games are going to be huge in size, as the graphics in games advance the size of games will continue to increase. You can't expect people to download > 50GB for a game. Most Americans have very slow internet connections.

To give you an example, look at the new Metal Gear Solid 4 game, (http://gizmodo.com/363075/blu+ray-cannot-contain-m... the creator Hideo Kojima said a 50GB Blu-Ray disc does not hold enough capacity for the game, they have to continue to cut and compress it.

Downloadable games work now, especially the Valve Steam service, which is amazing. In the future though, when game sizes are huge, downloading them is going to eat up a lot of bandwidth.


RE: Is that all???
By Strunf on 3/28/2008 9:23:20 AM , Rating: 2
Over 50GB for a game? The guy is probably talking out of his butt... chances are he made that statement to make it to the news, had he said the game would hold in single Blu-ray disc no one would speak of it. Either that or the coders keep getting worst at their job...


RE: Is that all???
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/28/2008 10:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
They were obsessed with lots of uncompressed audio and cutscenes in MSG4, that sucked up most of the 50GB on the disk. The game itself doesn't even cover a 25GB I would bet.


RE: Is that all???
By tmouse on 3/28/2008 10:00:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think the vast majority are happy with DVD. As you state HD investments are substantial (compared to "regular" TVs and DVD players). While the end of the format competition will have some effect I think it will be miniscule at best. The rate of adoption will follow the adoption of HD TV sales which are growing; but slowly since (at least in the US) TVs have been priced as commodity items for so long and the price of necessities are going up so fast.


RE: Is that all???
By meepstone on 3/28/2008 10:38:56 AM , Rating: 2
By your logic we could also say that by the time something "else" comes along to replace it, bluray will be mainstream and we can say the same thing about the new thing coming along to replace it.

"this something else" compared to bluray sales will be next to nothing


RE: Is that all???
By stargazr on 3/28/2008 10:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
You really couldn't compare the numbers with DVD sales. Blu-ray has been out barely 3 years. Happy with DVD? Maybe you are but clearly more & more people would want HD than SD.


RE: Is that all???
By Chaser on 3/28/2008 11:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
Oh really? And how many DVD's had been sold since it's release? And DVD didn't have a competing format other than VHS at the time.

quote:
By the time it goes mainstream (if ever) something else will have come along to replace it.

And I'm sure you buy into that one then.

quote:
Looks like SACD/DVD-A all over again. The public are happy with what they have already - DVD!

Maybe one. But lucky for the rest of us your priorities don't speak for the general "public". Try again.


RE: Is that all???
By Oregonian2 on 3/28/2008 2:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh really? And how many DVD's had been sold since it's release? And DVD didn't have a competing format other than VHS at the time.


A lot. Last year sometime I commented about some obscure exercise DVD that by itself (in one year) had outsold all of Blu-Ray combined sales to date (by a lot).

Blu-Ray has a big disadvantage as compared to the launch of regular DVD's. Acceptance of DVD's (like audio CD's btw) didn't require other equipment of any significance to be purchased or upgraded. Just the player and one was off to the races. For Blu-ray, an HDTV is required, and what's more its usually a LOT more expensive than the player as well. We just upgraded our TV a few months ago replacing our old 13-year old one. The new plasma costed about ten times what a blu-ray player costs now. Blu-Ray's market isn't all those using DVD's -- it's only those using an HDTV, which still is a minority (I think). The HDTV's have to come first.


RE: Is that all???
By Fallen Kell on 3/28/2008 4:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lot. Last year sometime I commented about some obscure exercise DVD that by itself (in one year) had outsold all of Blu-Ray combined sales to date (by a lot).


I think you are taking his point out of context. Let us go back in time to when the DVD format was only 3 years old... that would be 1999-2000. It took an additional 3 YEARS (June 2003) just for RENTALS to of DVD's to be the same as RENTALS of VHS.

Oh and did I note that the DVD format was the FASTEST EVER introduction of any NEW consumer electronics device in history? And you are complaining that the Blu-Ray landmark of 9 million movies sold in 2 years (really the first player and movie sold in June 2006), is slow?

Lets look at the numbers for DVD, it was June 1999 when DVD video sales reached 30 million. Yes, that is 2.5 or so years from the release of the first movie. In a year from now, let us see where Blu-Ray sales are. It is projected that 15-20 million by the end of this year, add 3 months on top and probably in the 22-25 million range. Not bad considering the primary market is only the people with HD-TV's, and not ALL TV owning households that the DVD market had available when it was introduced.


RE: Is that all???
By jpeyton on 3/28/2008 4:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow compared to DVD sales thats almost next to nothing.

For those of us with memories of the 1990s, we can remember when DVD sales were almost next to nothing compared to VHS sales.

VHS had a long run on the market. DVD will have a long run as well. With HDTV prices falling through the floor, people will eventually move on to adopt HD content at a quicker pace.

The industry/market/consumer find ways to keep moving forward. If they didn't, no consumer electronics company would exist longer than the typical 5 year life cycle of a product.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki