backtop

Print 155 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Sep 15 at 12:56 PM
Andy Griffiths, director of consumer electronics at Samsung forsees a short future for Blu-ray

Blu-ray has 5 years left before it is replaced by a new technology or format according to Samsung. Andy Griffiths, director of consumer electronics at Samsung UK told gadget news site Pocket-lint "I think it [Blu-ray] has 5 years left, I certainly wouldn't give it 10".

Griffiths believes that 2008 will be the Blu-ray format's prime year. "It's going to be huge", he told Pocket-lint. "We are heavily back-ordered at the moment." With the move to offer cheaper players and one clear choice following the Blu-ray/HD DVD battle, Griffiths says the format will be a short term winner.

In the article, Griffiths also mentions that Samsung is putting its faith in its OLED HD technology. The new technology is almost ready, but is being held back by high manufacturing costs. "We will launch the OLED technology when it's at a price that will be appealing to the consumer, unfortunately that's not yet."

Griffiths, predicts by 2010 OLED technology will become mainstream and that it will replace LCD. "It's gonna be big, but at the moment it's a great story, not commercial, product," said Griffiths

Samsung previewed two OLED screen televisions at IFA in Berlin earlier in the month, introducing larger models than Sony. Coming in at 14-inch and 31-inch models, the screens are incredibly thin, and produce vivid contrasts and colors. Sony settled for second place with 9-inch and 27-inch models.

Griffiths believes a completely HD future is around the corner, "In 2012 we will be in a true HD world. Everything from your television to your camcorder will be offering you pictures in high-definition, and we plan to offer you that HD world from all angles." From Griffiths’ perspective, this future may not include Blu-ray.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Meandering Article?
By DNAgent on 9/7/2008 12:03:12 PM , Rating: 5
Is it just me or does this article start off about Blu-Ray (a media storage format) and end up talking almost entirely about OLED (a media display format) without making any connection between the two? If this article is about a projection that blu-ray will be replaced by a superior/alternative media, shouldn't there be some discussion of what that format might be and why the claim is being made?

I realize I'm bi*ching, but I expected something completely different from the title.




RE: Meandering Article?
By BigToque on 9/7/2008 12:17:18 PM , Rating: 4
I don't see the connection either.

I'm also not sure why Blu-Ray wouldn't be around in 5 years. The market is currently being flooded with HDTV's and in 5 years I doubt they're going to start selling even higher resolution TV's that would take advantage of a better disc format.

In my opinion, Blu-Ray and DVD are going to be around for a very long time. Just like CD's.


RE: Meandering Article?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 3:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The market is currently being flooded with HDTV's and in 5 years I doubt they're going to start selling even higher resolution TV's that would take advantage of a better disc format.
And even if they do, we get to rekindle the argument of upscaled vs native.. but this time its going to be upscaled 1080p to 4k or 4k!

You can't see it, but trust us!! its there!!


RE: Meandering Article?
By MrPoletski on 9/8/2008 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 4
well fer christs sakes if they are updating the HD format again in the future will they increase the bloody framerate up to at least 60FPS instead of 30/24.

HD is a waste of time if everything is motion blurred.


RE: Meandering Article?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 4:55:50 PM , Rating: 4
Because its pointless to have more than 24hz in the theatre because of the viewing conditions the bright light reflecting on a surface in which all the surroundings are dark result in an afterimage which tricks the eyes into thinking that the transitioning is smooth.

Second unlike video games, it is very easy to counteract motion, with a motion blur (yes you used the wrong wording by saying that everything is motion blurred, what you are describing is playback that is not smooth and seems to jump around which is not motion blurring ) which is something that your eyes already do on their own when viewing moving objects (ex: looking at a snowflake in a moving car vs while standing still).

Third, new TV's can display 24hz(FPS) video at 120hz, which one again tricks your eyes into thinking the image you are seeing is more smooth.

Fourth, it would be far too expensive when you consider that you can use these mentioned tips and tricks to get the exact same results.

60FPS as I have debated before has its place in gaming, where motion blurring and frame reproduction is just not possible, but it has no place and most would consider it unneeded in the movie realm.


RE: Meandering Article?
By MrPoletski on 9/10/2008 3:06:10 AM , Rating: 3
No it's not pointless, when you have fast moving objects that 24fps motion blur will completely destroy any fidelity of the object. Sure, my eyes may do motion blur as well, but they do it by persistance of vision, so the blurred image is built up over time allowing my brain to decipher details better.

Also, I was not referring to video games at all, I was referring to video motion. 'Tricking' your eyes will never be as good as giving your eyes the real thing.

It should also not be that expensive, as the delta compression algorithm will become more efficient the higher the framerate (less changes), so certainly not double the space requirements.


RE: Meandering Article?
By omnicronx on 9/10/2008 11:38:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
No it's not pointless, when you have fast moving objects that 24fps motion blur will completely destroy any fidelity of the object.
My entire post was an effort to explain to you that these effects are something that your eyes do on an everyday basis. Personally I can't even stand 120HZ monitors, they make the video so fluid that it no longer seems real in some situations, kind of gives that that behind the scenes feeling or as some call it "The Soap Opera Effect". Believe it or not, in the theater with motion blurring effects, you only need 18 frames per second in most sequences. Not to mention the fact that almost all theaters within the past 30 years have been using the same technique used in these new monitors today, by displaying every frame 3 times simulating 72HZ. This combined with the room being dark results in a smooth and lifelike image.
quote:
It should also not be that expensive, as the delta compression algorithm will become more efficient the higher the framerate (less changes), so certainly not double the space requirements.

Once again, this is just not the case, 60p video can take as much as 66% more space than 24p. Specs of video cameras used in movies that have recently used digital film clearly show this. You also have to account for the price of the cameras to film these movies, and the new equipment that would be needed for all movie theaters (which process which is still in progress from analogue to digital and will not be fully complete for a few years)


RE: Meandering Article?
By MrPoletski on 9/15/2008 12:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"My entire post was an effort to explain to you that these effects are something that your eyes do on an everyday basis."


And my point was that I think you're wrong. Motion blur out of a camera provides you with an average over 1/24th of a second of the light falling into its lense. It shows you this for 1/24th of a second, perhaps blinking off 2 or 3 times during this 1/24th of a second.

Light falling into your eye builds up an image on your retina over time. Now being as you can see 60 fps flicker it stands to reason that a definite different image can be formed on your retina and perceived by you if it is only displayed for 1/60th of a second. So If I inserted 1 frame of a picture into 60fps footage of anything, you'd see it.

So then it also stands to reason that the motion blurred trace left on your retina as the object moves through your field of vision would be less blurry than the one on the film. So in 1/48ths of a second time the residual image from the light currently falling on my retina will have completely dispersed - or sooner (like 1/60th). Also, the average of the previous light that does still exist as persistance of vision on my retina is biased towards the more recently landed light.

Sharper image, how much sharper is directly proportional to the speed of the moving objects in question.

But do you see the relevant difference between your eye and a camera now?

quote:
"Personally I can't even stand 120HZ monitors, they make the video so fluid that it no longer seems real in some situations, kind of gives that that behind the scenes feeling or as some call it "The Soap Opera Effect"."


now how on earth could reproducing the light falling on your eyes more accurately in the time frame lead to any possibly of it looking more 'fluid' in its motion than it actually is? That sir, is more likely due to the image enhancing technologies used on LCD's to deal with their reaction times and such. Common practice is to negative bias a group of pixels just lit (or dimmed) as they are no longer used in the drawing of the object (i.e. it passes), which will make them switch faster. So I gather anyway.

quote:
"Believe it or not, in the theater with motion blurring effects, you only need 18 frames per second in most sequences."


If the scene were perfectly still then I would hazard a guess that 0FPS would be perfectly good, heck, you won't even need motion blur for this scene. You can bet your ass those 18fps scene are generally static. Being as we are talking about a potential HD new format better than before thingamy, lets take to more extreme examples of action movies and suchlike.

quote:
"Not to mention the fact that almost all theaters within the past 30 years have been using the same technique used in these new monitors today, by displaying every frame 3 times simulating 72HZ. This combined with the room being dark results in a smooth and lifelike image."


It TRICKS your eyes into thinking it's got information it doesn't have.

quote:
"Once again, this is just not the case, 60p video can take as much as 66% more space than 24p."


So... nowhere near double like I said...

quote:
"Specs of video cameras used in movies that have recently used digital film clearly show this. You also have to account for the price of the cameras to film these movies, and the new equipment that would be needed for all movie theaters (which process which is still in progress from analogue to digital and will not be fully complete for a few years)"


woah woah, who gives a rats ass? the new HD format is coming anyway, so all this crap about replacing cameras is happening anyway.


RE: Meandering Article?
By TheDoc9 on 9/8/2008 5:54:54 PM , Rating: 3
I'm betting samsung is going to be rolling out a download service around the time these new sets are released. Pioneer already has one for it's plasma TV's, and with their own service they have more control over it and the profit.


RE: Meandering Article?
By PaxtonFettel on 9/7/2008 12:21:23 PM , Rating: 1
YEs, but I think it's Samsungs fault rather than DT's. They're basically saying Blu-Ray is going to die but we haven't got any idea what's going to replace it.


RE: Meandering Article?
By daftrok on 9/7/2008 12:56:34 PM , Rating: 5
I think I know what's gonna replace it:
http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/PQI-Launche...


RE: Meandering Article?
By myhipsi on 9/8/2008 8:27:43 AM , Rating: 4
I think you're right. With solid state memory becoming so cheap and reliable, why not sell movies and games on memory cards? I would estimate that Blu-ray will be the last iteration of optical storage, at least for the consumer. Mechanical storage will be slowly phased out with the advent of cheap, reliable, abundant non-volatile memory.


RE: Meandering Article?
By whirabomber on 9/8/2008 9:52:13 AM , Rating: 3
I agree with the memory card/thumb drive approach. For instance, PNY is going to offer a thumb drive with Ghostbusters I pre-loaded. I don't have any information on whether the movie is HD or not, but the offering is a preview of things to come.

I have no problem taking a 16gb stick to Blockbuster, tossing on 2-3 movie rentals, popping the drive into my PS3/360 and watching some nice HD movies with nothing to return. Think DIVX (the self expiring DVD) on a thumb drive.


RE: Meandering Article?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/8/2008 11:01:42 AM , Rating: 2
DivX went the way of the do-do almost as soon as it was released. Worse than the Bob interface for market life.

Downloads and streaming are the wave of the future. Why have portable media at all? DVD's and thumb drives are already being replaced by downloads.

Also, I agree with the other posters about the headline. What does Blu-Ray have to do with OLED? Or perhaps that was the hook to get everyone to read and post. The authors get paid by the post.


RE: Meandering Article?
By Etsp on 9/8/2008 11:12:17 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know what aspect of DivX you're talking about, but the one I know is a codec that has been used very widely by those who share video content for a very long time. (My personal knowledge comes from video not offered in the US, like anime, but yes, it's used in pirated movies as well...) The codec is currently on version 6.8 If you're talking about a streaming content interface, then maybe they did offer something like that and it didn't work out, I don't know. But the codec itself is still going strong and will be for years to come.


RE: Meandering Article?
By TheDoc9 on 9/8/2008 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
He's referring to a failed product called DIVX released by circuit city back when DVD first came out. Some early DVD players could connect to a server with a telephone modem and it would either lock or unlock a DIVX disc, depending on how much time you had left to view it. Basically the early days of DRM locked media, except now it's all downloaded and locked/unlocked on the net.

I don't see download-able media de-throning blu-rays anytime soon. The quality just isn't there, and you can't save all your media without vast amounts of hard drive space. It's also extreemly hard for me at least to justify paying $20+ for something digital that was free and created out of nothing.

Hard copies on the other hand are full quality rips with extras, you can have how ever many you want and maintain your privacy, and space is not an issue.

Eventually it may happen that this prediction comes to pass and by the time it does people will regret what they gave up, and it will be too late.


RE: Meandering Article?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 10:56:43 AM , Rating: 2
I just don't see it, margins are just way too high selling movies on a CD-like medium. The movie industry controls what they want or they do not want to do, whats best for the consumer is not always best for the movie industry. I really don't expect to see movies on flash based memory cards for quite some time. Flash based cards are getting damn cheap.. but they will never touch a medium that consists polycarbonate and other cheap plastics (that also happen to scratch, resulting in even more sales for the stupid people who go and re buy the same movie.)

If you think the movie industry is going to let go of this cash cow without a fight, you may be in for a surprise.


RE: Meandering Article?
By wordsworm on 9/8/2008 10:57:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would estimate that Blu-ray will be the last iteration of optical storage, at least for the consumer.


afaik, we're a long way away from reaching maximal potential for optical, and optical thus far is far cheaper to produce. The only reason blu-ray is still expensive is that the manufacturers are owned by big media companies which don't want you to be able to copy their copyrighted materials.

There will be advances in optical technology - maybe that's not guaranteed, but I have little reason to doubt it.


RE: Meandering Article?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 10:47:40 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously they they are going push their own technology, but they left out one important detail. Sure OLED's will be the big thing in a few years, but that does not mean there will be a new format to compliment it. The ATSC HD spec WILL NOT change in the next 25 years. We will be stuck with 1080i or if we are lucky time coded 1080i broadcasts that can be IVTC'd to 24 fps 1080p for a while. This being said, the primary use in most households for their TV will be doing just that.. watching TV. It took us over 60 for us to make the switch for NTSC to digital ATSC, and that change won't even occur until early next year. It also costs billions of dollars to make sure a switch.

The next high definition format will be stuck in the same boat as Blu-ray, a high margin, high priced niche market. Samsung can dream.. but if they really think we are all going to shell out even more money to get a bit more detail on a mass market scale, they are highly mistaken.


RE: Meandering Article?
By wordsworm on 9/8/2008 11:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
"The ATSC HD spec WILL NOT change in the next 25 years."

I disagree - whenever the average consumer can easily copy copyrighted material is when they'll want to upgrade. The next spin of technology is likely to come about 5 years from now.


RE: Meandering Article?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 11:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I disagree - whenever the average consumer can easily copy copyrighted material is when they'll want to upgrade.
So I guess its on the government to shell out billions if not trillions of dollars to change a spec that at this time has not even been rolled out yet? It would take twice the time you are saying just to plan out a new spec, and probably more to get the gears in motion. It was also the TV stations responsibility (although it was heavily subsidized) to replace their analogue antennas and repeaters with the new technology (specifically for OTA HD), which is required as part of the changeover.

Furthermore, what makes you think that a new technology is going to stop people from copying copyright material? We are already legally allowed to use PVR's in our homes, do you really think that people would switch to a service that did not allow us to record TV at all?

I just do not see any technology on the horizon, OLED included, that will force the FCC to switch to another format. I think my 25 year guess is an understatement, it could be longer before we see a new television spec.


RE: Meandering Article?
By wordsworm on 9/14/2008 12:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
The current administration in the US doesn't really seem to care about its proles. It has done quite a bit to strip them of their rights, has covered up the biggest event in recent American history, has conducted a multi-billion dollar illegal war, and continues to persecute people who use drugs - what does it care if it taxes the heck out of the proles in order to protect the interests of the wealthy? In order to protect the interests of Hollywood's profit margin, they have to keep making technology high-end so that it's harder for the average user to make copies. ie, if it costs $50 for a blank blu-Ray, and all broadcasts for movies are in that quality range, it's going to be hard for the average consumer to keep up.


RE: Meandering Article?
By bubba551 on 9/8/2008 9:10:02 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe gaming consoles will be introduced that take cartridges rather than those antiquated disc.


RE: Meandering Article?
By Silver2k7 on 9/8/2008 10:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
thats a good one :-)

like the 8-bit days.. but probably more like a gameboy cartridge..


RE: Meandering Article?
By The0ne on 9/7/2008 3:21:23 PM , Rating: 5
You are correct sir. Stupid reporting imo.


RE: Meandering Article?
By amanojaku on 9/7/2008 3:22:24 PM , Rating: 1
You're right, neither the article nor Andy Griffiths explained the connection. What I understand is there are several OLED technologies, one of which is stacked OLED (SOLED.) SOLED allows the red, blue and green subpixels to be stacked on top of each other instead of side-by-side like current displays. As a result, you can get up to three times the pixel resolution of current HD displays, and better color quality. Blu-Ray and other HD video storage technologies would have to be enhanced with more pixels (through increased storage space or compression, and bit rates) to support the increased SOLED resolution, but that doesn't mean Blu-Ray is automatically obsolete. You could display the image on an SOLED display, it just needs to be upscaled like composite or S-Video is to HDTV. This is all theory, so we'll have to wait until we see products implementing the technology.

http://www.universaldisplay.com/default.asp?conten...


RE: Meandering Article?
By CZroe on 9/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Meandering Article?
By amanojaku on 9/7/2008 5:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea what you're talking about. Like any "new" display technology it will take a while before large sizes can be manufactured with high quality and low cost, but OLED can certainly display HDTV resolutions.

http://www.physorg.com/news4160.html
http://www.samsung.com/us/business/semiconductor/n...
http://www.oled-display.net/oled-television


RE: Meandering Article?
By sxr7171 on 9/8/2008 1:42:28 AM , Rating: 4
Are you serious here? There are telephones that feature OLED screens with 240x320 pixels crammed into a 2.6" diagonal screen. Do the math.


RE: Meandering Article?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 11:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
Have you done the math? He said DPI!! Chances are that the LCD on my cell phone probably has a higher dpi (240x320) on a 2.4" screen than a phones using current OLED technology. 300DPI, which is what most people would call, the perfect amount to see (from around 30cm away and with 20/20 vision) something totally clear is possible with OLED's, but as the OP stated, the technology to do the same thing on CRT and other types of screens has been available since before some of us were born.

Its a well known fact that although LCD's offer more vivid colors, and sharper edges, that CRT's are what I would call 'finer' displays. Having a fixed pixel size does have its downsides, and currently, DPI is one of them.


RE: Meandering Article?
By BruceLeet on 9/7/2008 6:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
The article implies, atleast to me that Samsung is working on a new format to go with hits HD OLEDs


RE: Meandering Article?
By EglsFly on 9/7/2008 11:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
This article doesn't make sense. OLED is a display technology like others have said, not a media format.
Second, some people still feel that DVD up-scale is good enough, let alone Blu-Ray, therefore most do not see the need for any replacement.
Third,
quote:
Samsung previewed two OLED screen televisions at IFA in Berlin earlier in the month, introducing larger models than Sony. Coming in at 14-inch and 31-inch models, the screens are incredibly thin, and produce vivid contrasts and colors. Sony settled for second place with 9-inch and 27-inch models.
, Sony was the first to release a OLED TV, so I don't see how they are trying to pull this settling for 2nd place bit...
So basically this entire story is a complete waste of everybody's time.


RE: Meandering Article?
By sxr7171 on 9/8/2008 2:23:30 AM , Rating: 5
Come on, it's two articles for the price of one.


OLED?
By shin0bi272 on 9/7/2008 12:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
"Samsung is putting its faith in its OLED HD technology."

First off OLED isnt a media format as some have said already. Its a replacement for LCD tvs and not a very good one either. OLEDs have a very short lifetime for their blue LEDs, around 3000 hrs, and the red LEDs lasting about 10,000 hrs. Yeah they will be much thinner and possibly even foldable or expandable but that doesnt replace Bluray in any way what so ever.

Secondly, the lifetime issue of the OLED tech has lead me to say we should skip OLEDs and wait for Nanocrystal displays. Same concept as OLEDs only they arent organic and last 100,000 hrs or so on all colors. Theres no reason to bother with OLEDs when they die so soon and theres a better technology on the horizon.




RE: OLED?
By shin0bi272 on 9/7/2008 1:01:56 PM , Rating: 3
Oh also on the actual Blu-ray front. Blu-ray can theoretically hold up to 200 gigs and someone a little while ago managed to squeeze 16 layers onto one giving it 400gigs... how exactly is blu-ray dead?


RE: OLED?
By JustTom on 9/7/2008 1:38:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well, to be fair he did not say dead now he said dead in 5 years. I still think he is wrong though...


RE: OLED?
By sxr7171 on 9/7/2008 11:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
If in fact over the next few years 400GB Blu-ray becomes available and somewhat common it would survive as a great data backup medium.

For movies, if 50Mbps Fios-like speeds become available commonly in 5 years (and I don't see a reason why it couldn't be) then a 30GB HD movie download will complete in about an hour. I would pay them for it and place the file on my home server and enjoy it from any room in the house with a media extender. The home server backs it up for me automatically.

Considering I picked up a few Terabyte drives for $139 a piece recently I can't see why we won't see 3TB drives at that price 5 years from now. That's about 90 HD movies stored for $139 for those who don't backup or about $1.50 a movie ($3 for those who backup). If these movies are sold at $8-15 at discount for not having to press discs, transport them, and pay the distributor + retailer this could work for many people. Blu-Ray will continue to be used mostly by people who can't or won't set up a computer network. I also think that in 5 years pretty much all tech savvy people will a home server and a good number of consumers will have one as well. After all, the HP MediaSmart Server is right now so easy to take home and set up in about 20 minutes for anyone, technically inclined or not. Third party software can and will make video streaming as easy as pie. The included software is pretty good as it is.


RE: OLED?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 11:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
BD-Video will never be sold on discs more than 50GB unless Sony somehow has some magic way of ensuring that ALL current BD players can support it. For the same reason as they won't ever have colors high than 8bit(deep color etc), they wont have discs bigger than 50GB, its just not in the spec.

200GB Data discs are already on the horizon for BD, but unfortunately, BD-movies will never take advantage...


RE: OLED?
By djc208 on 9/10/2008 10:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
Um, is this the same Sony that's already released 3 revisions of it's inital released BD spec?

Sure they're supposed to be backwards compatible, but beyond that unless you shelled out for the PS3, most stand-alone Blue-Ray players are already obsolete since they don't support the additional features from the last BD spec change like PIP and ethernet.

Someone comes up with ultra-violet ray DVDs with more space to supplant the poorly entrenched BD and offers super-iron-clad copy protection and Sony would probably roll out a new spec tomorrow to stay alive.


RE: OLED?
By omnicronx on 9/10/2008 12:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
The base functionality is possible on all of the three revisions (1.0,1.1 and 2.0), i.e you can play movies. If they were to change the size of the media, this would no longer be true as it would require additional hardware. Blu-ray group can not just merely say that everyone who has an old BD player can no longer play movies. The only way this would be possible, is if they had separate releases, i.e 50GBx4 and 200GBx1 versions, which would not only be a terribly expensive, but a terrible business decision. This is not even taking into account the legal actions that would occur against them, specifically anyone who previously licensed out the technology under the Blu-ray name.


RE: OLED?
By Lonearchon on 9/7/2008 2:53:11 PM , Rating: 3
OLED lifetime have been improved greatly reds and greens life are beyond 100,000 hrs. blue is still the hold back but they have blues rated at 62,000 hrs. this near the average rating of LCD life


RE: OLED?
By shin0bi272 on 9/7/2008 5:02:35 PM , Rating: 2
cool you got a link?


RE: OLED?
By shin0bi272 on 9/8/2008 3:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
I guess not... So I did some searching. There is a 2.2" oled that has a 60k lifetime buuuut its at 200cd/m2 which is freaking dark.

Then you have sony's XEL-1 OLED TV that has a half-life of 17,000 hrs and thats a retail OLED TV.
http://www.oled-display.net/sonys-xel-1-oled-tv-li...

I still say wait for nanocrystal displays.


RE: OLED?
By plonk420 on 9/9/2008 5:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
have fun waiting. for me, it'll either be an oLED or SED, which have taken long enough. hopefully one or two more $300 DLP projector bulbs will last me until both are somewhat affordable (tho i'm not sure i'll want to downgrade in picture size)...


Yeah, right...
By Oralen on 9/7/2008 12:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
"According to Samsung"... Means the guy is just talking out of his a**...

Samsung has, or whishes for another product in five years, and they have no love for Sony's format. That's all those "predictions" mean.

So who care what Samsung has to say?

Blu-Ray has the support of Hollywood now, and it takes a loooong time for those guys to agree about anything. You think they will change it that soon? They still have a headache about the format war, and it's not even finished: DVD still has the masses.

Besides, Blu-Ray has'nt even hit mainstream yet. In five year, it won't be dying. Quite the contrary: it will have replaced DVD and will be in full steam.

And don't talk to me about downloads replacing physical media: that transition will take ages, because you need everybody to trust and get used to ditching one of the conerstone of "possession": holding something in your hand in exchange for your money.

I don't like Sony, but they have the format.
Samsung should get used to it.




RE: Yeah, right...
By cmdrdredd on 9/7/2008 1:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And don't talk to me about downloads replacing physical media: that transition will take ages, because you need everybody to trust and get used to ditching one of the conerstone of "possession": holding something in your hand in exchange for your money.


Also, with companies like Comcast capping your downloads to a certain amount each month, it willl SEVERELY limit downloading HD content or streaming. Not to mention most of the time it's compressed to such a degree that it doesn't look HD anymore. Plus, you lose the studio quality lossless sound that is found on Blu-Ray in the form of Uncompressed PCM, DolbyTrueHD, and DTS-HD MA. Those formats won't be available on streams or downloads. Sound means a lot and for those who enjoy Blu-Ray now, that sound quality is enjoyed as well.


RE: Yeah, right...
By StevoLincolnite on 9/7/2008 3:07:42 PM , Rating: 2
There is away around that though, by having some things un-metered, for instance in Australia every ISP has a Download cap, Telstra our largest Telco has "Free Zone" where you can still game over there servers for free, and download other content, I can imagine that if the American ISP's move to all Download limited connections, then I would imagine your ISP's would make deals with other ISP's for free traffic, and launch free servers for subscribers.
Then you have stuff like Free Peering over PIPE and WAIX.
It's not all doom and gloom, just means that ISP's will offer other incentives to draw in customers.


RE: Yeah, right...
By Xavitar on 9/7/2008 4:00:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And don't talk to me about downloads replacing physical media: that transition will take ages, because you need everybody to trust and get used to ditching one of the conerstone of "possession": holding something in your hand in exchange for your money.

When I hold my MP3's and FLAC audio files in my hand, they feel affordable, accessible and infinitely portable. Er...

My point is that the next generation of consumers are extremely comfortable with, and even prefer, intangible media. If they own a movie, they want to be able to watch it effortlessly on their TV, in their car, on a computer, on a portable device. They don't want a cumbersome disc to keep track of, which is easily damaged and requires a special player. They want a universal digital format that can be obtained effortlessly and transported infinitely, and never breaks or wears out. This is the future of all media, but music and video happen to be the first to go this way.

quote:
Also, with companies like Comcast capping your downloads to a certain amount each month, it willl SEVERELY limit downloading HD content or streaming. Not to mention most of the time it's compressed to such a degree that it doesn't look HD anymore. Plus, you lose the studio quality lossless sound that is found on Blu-Ray in the form of Uncompressed PCM, DolbyTrueHD, and DTS-HD MA. Those formats won't be available on streams or downloads. Sound means a lot and for those who enjoy Blu-Ray now, that sound quality is enjoyed as well.

First of all, the U.S. courts already ruled that Comcast cannot cap its customers' bandwidth. That battle is currently being won by the consumer, so that's a moot point. Internet bandwidth competition is heating up and we can assume that with the advent of consumer-level optical connections, bandwidth will continue to increase to meet demand. The demand comes primarily from high-bandwidth content... Such as streaming video.

Both of you guys are being very short-sighted.

Internet infrastructure and competition in the provider market is sufficient to provide high-enough quality media that widespread adoption of BluRay will never catch on in the same way that DVD's did. Is there a place for BluRay? Sure. It provides the highest possible quality audio and video for early adopters of HD technology at this time. That being said, by the time the mainstream consumers have a demand for HD media, that demand will be better met by services like NetFlix that can provide instant access to huge libraries of media at a fraction of the cost.

Not only that, but as the Internet continues to evolve, it will be better suited to meet the needs of tomorrow's media content. In a way, the Internet is the universal media distribution channel. Binary data is infinitely portable and transmittable. There is no need to lock it down in a physical format. All that does is limit our possibilities, and the next generation of consumers understands and appreciates that fact. As do the companies, such as Samsung, that are on the cutting edge. They recognize that hard media formats are a dying breed.


RE: Yeah, right...
By cmdrdredd on 9/7/2008 6:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First of all, the U.S. courts already ruled that Comcast cannot cap its customers' bandwidth. That battle is currently being won by the consumer, so that's a moot point.


Starting october 1 comcast is limiting every single non-business subscriber to 250GB per month.

It's a limit, they are doing it, so it will affect the future of streaming media.


RE: Yeah, right...
By foolsgambit11 on 9/8/2008 9:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
The OP said something about a bandwidth limit, and you come back with a download limit.

Now, I don't know if the OP's right, but your comment certainly didn't refute it. I mean, you do know there's a difference between bandwidth and total traffic, yes?


RE: Yeah, right...
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 11:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean, you do know there's a difference between bandwidth and total traffic, yes?
Do you? a 250GB bandwidth Cap == you can download or upload up to 250GB combined.. amazingly that happens to mean the exact same thing as total traffic..

That's a grand total of 5 BD's a month, and that's if you use absolutely no other bandwidth. (if their is no compression used on the video stream)

I feel that Cable and Satellite providers (cable especially with their On-Demand services) are a much more likely candidate for such a service. Full streaming over the internet would be seen as a downgrade to BD, as chances are, bit rate and the audio format would be the ones to take the hit in exchange for lower overall bit rate.

Even cable companies with their current technology would struggle to stream 1080p with TrueHD, or DTS-MA over an on-demand-service.


RE: Yeah, right...
By cmdrdredd on 9/7/2008 6:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not only that, but as the Internet continues to evolve, it will be better suited to meet the needs of tomorrow's media content. In a way, the Internet is the universal media distribution channel. Binary data is infinitely portable and transmittable. There is no need to lock it down in a physical format. All that does is limit our possibilities, and the next generation of consumers understands and appreciates that fact. As do the companies, such as Samsung, that are on the cutting edge. They recognize that hard media formats are a dying breed.


You forget that everything on Netflix is compressed and not full 1080p with lossless sound. Even the Dish network offering 1080p VOD is compressed thus it isn't the full resolution that Blu-Ray gets. Combine that with Comcast's cap, the slow rollout of internet services that go past 12Mb/s, and the fact that in some areas of the country there is no high speed. They don't even have access to any cable/dsl. They can only use dialup on very old phone lines that barely pull 56k or use satellite which has its own issues. They can't get high speed internet to stream media, but they can go down to walmart and buy Blu-Ray disks to play on their PS3 and their 50" plasma.


RE: Yeah, right...
By jimbojimbo on 9/8/2008 3:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
I figure in 5 years Hollywood would have sold all of its movies on BluRay as well as their director's cuts. What to do? Oh yeah, release it in yet another format so they can get people to re-buy their movies!


In AV forums - I agree with BR's 5 year life span
By Belard on 9/7/2008 9:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that 5 years is the top that Blu-Ray (BR) will live before its replaced. This is not because BR is a bad product(Even thou HD-Disc media has lost momentum with this format war) is just that if you follow tech trends with what we have today and whats coming up in a few years - Pretty much all disc media will start to die.

What replacedBR? SSD/Flash.

Today, you can buy 2~4GB of FLASH memory for $10. A year ago, that would have been $25~75. 2 years ago 1GB = $75+. Flash memory keys have replaced DVD-R discs.

So - a FLASH (no-write version) can be made cheaply in a few years that can HOLD at least 50GB of data. It will need to cost no more than $1 to make thou.

Hopefully it will be NO SMALLER than Compact-Flash because that allows enough room to but a label on it and locate the card. it can be THIN like today's SD-FLASH cards, but not that tiny.

So here is the beauty of all of this. When the Flash-Cards come out with movies - it will REQUIRE NO NEW TECHNOLOGY!

It can use the same codecs and de-corders used on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray! And there is no EXPENSIVE drive in install. Just a slot. The first Flash Players can be as small as a portable DVD-Player... off the bat and sell for $100 or so. Why? Again, nothing is being developed from scatch... and better yet - when the capacity needs to increase to 100~200GB - increase the data storage on the card itself! No need to change the interface!

It means direct access to ANY part of a 3hr epic movie in a second!

As of today, the cheapest 32GB Flash card is $85. That'll hold many movies in 1080res. Wow, my 1GB Compact Flash card from 3 years ago was $120! So its very realisitic for 64GB to get down to $1-2 (especially READ ONLY) in 3-4 years and that is WHEN Blu-Ray will start to die.

In 5 years, it will be the beginning of no longer have a need for Optical drives or Hard Drives. No more spinning parts. Today's mini-towers will become GIANTS in terms of size.




By mindless1 on 9/7/2008 10:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's not going to happen. They will ramp up capacity so that a single flash chip does have much greater capacity but they will never get the whole flash chip, controller, PCB, casing, all into a product that costs less than the whole smallest size product with one modern chip does today.

It will still cost more than a disc does. Content owners may be more likely to strike deals with ISPs to provide more bandwidth and without caps on such sponsored streams.

Yes solid state storage will replace mechanical drives but even if capacity goes up the price won't be that low for the smallest of it's kind.


By Belard on 9/13/2008 10:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
... and nobody will ever need more than 640K of memory...
... Graphics, sound? Who needs those on a computer? That's for toys... (reference from PC/DOS industry in reference to Amiga) as well as "Multitasking? Who would need to do more than one thing on a computer at the same time?"

I'm not talking about FLASH USB keys as a storage device, but using its technology as an example. Look at the packaging of SD memory cards. Two thin pieces of cheap plastic on a single piece of PCB. Also, unlike TRUE flash, it would be READ ONLY.

How much were blank CD-R discs in 1996? In case you don't remember, I bought some one sale for $10 a disc. Failure rate was about 50%. It took 10 years for a disc medium to go from $10 to less than 10cents. Flash based memory development and lower costs has exceeded the rate of Disc medium.

Considering the ease of making Blu-Ray into a 4-layer disc (100GB), the format isn't going to be replaced by another disc... A SolidSate medium is the next logical step.

A 4GB compact flash cost more than 4GB SD-Card... both are more expensive than a flash-drive. So compare the price of a flash drive/SD-card from 4 years ago when they started to become mainstream. $75 for 128mb was average. I still have my 256mb Lexar with a write-protection switch (Don't see any of those anymore - out of about 300 to chose from, only 3 sizes from some no-name brand has a switch)

In 4 years, the capacity has increased 15x (2GB) at 1/15th the price ($5~6). In 4 more years with cheap standard package simular to SD-Card, its easy to see that it'll replace Blu-Ray... as long as the storage space is at least 20+GB, it can hold a 2hr 1080 HD movie. So let's take our 2GB $5 sample with just 10x size increase = 20~24GB flash drive will costs $5 retail. That's about $1 to manufacture. A blu-Ray disc movie is about 60~80cents to make... not including packaging. The smaller size and weight means shipping and space usage is reduced.

But I don't think it will take 4 years for 24GB to costs $5... I'd bet it will happen by 2010... so a 64GB card costing $5 before 2012 is very realistic.

These will replace Blu-Ray.
1 - harder to damage.
2 - Cheap storage
3 - Low-cots
4 - people like to BUY physical media.
5 - HD-Tech is already done... no engineering to do.
6 - No moving parts = no expensive drives.
7 - Instant access to any part of a movie... better than ANY blu-Ray or 200GB optical media... faster than a Hard Drive.


By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 12:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Today, you can buy 2~4GB of FLASH memory for $10. A year ago, that would have been $25~75. 2 years ago 1GB = $75+. Flash memory keys have replaced DVD-R discs.
Do the math, even if movie studios could buy flash memory for 10cents a GB, thats still 5 times more than they would pay for an optical medium.

Just in case you need to know, 10c times 50(50GB in current Blu-ray discs) = 5$.. compare that to the ~1$ (probably less) it costs to make a CD.

Now I am not a mathematician, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that using a flash memory based format will be far more costly than any optical format.

Anyone who thinks that the movie industry is going to let go of optical mediums in exchange for a flash based medium any time soon is highly mistaken. I would make a bet on, on-demand or streaming services coming to reality long before we will see a flash based medium.


By Belard on 9/13/2008 11:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
0c times 50(50GB in current Blu-ray discs) = 5$.. compare that to the ~1$ (probably less) it costs to make a CD.


Do the math in the FUTURE... Movies are on DVD by the way. You can buy a 1-2GB flash drive for $5. Ya know, I actually paid $18 for my latest 2GB drive 3 weeks ago, even thou they have bins of 2-4GB drives for $8~12 at a Frys. I bought the SONY because of its design. I didn't want a CAP (I lose those) and I don't like sliders since they tend to slip out of position. Sony has a high end design that is spring loaded, very sweet. When I pull it out of a computer, it snaps shut... Push the button, it pops out. Also the cheap $5 drives don't tend to last long.

Anyways... we're talking THE FUTURE. It costs about $1 to make a 1-2GB flash device today. Same as a DVD disc with printed material and packaging. And companies who want to make huge Standard Def titles (like TV shows) can still put a lot of material onto the same type of card or a cheaper lower capacity card.

On-Demand Video has issues with those who LIKE to own what they pay for. Look at MS's own music downloading service - they've changed and those who had OLD accounts will soon be voided. So validating those songs that the people bought will not be possible.

Now, I have Cable/DVR/OnDemand - and yes, I do watch some shows on demand (free). But I still buy movies I really like on discs. They are proper aspect ratios, include extras and more importantly - far better picture quality than the compressed crap the comes over the cable. It has its uses. But a rental of a movie is typically $5 which is good for about 1-3 days depending on the service. A Disc that costs $5~20 can be played as many times as I want, whenever I want. When you have a kid who watches Pixar movies, anime, etc several times - On-Demand would be super expensive.

The DRM downloaded content ends up costing more than owning a physical medium. Again, for some - its a prefered storage (and I'm not refering to video pirates who pay nothing for their downloaded videos).

A typical DRM movie is $15~20. Same as a physical medium. What do you get? A DRM movie that is LOCKED to your computer.

1 What if you upgrade your computer? Some allow you to DL to 2 PCs and a media player (iPod).

2 What if you want to take your movie with you to a friends or family home to watch it with friends? Oops... or yeah, bring your computer and your NAS.

3 What if you get a virus or your hardware fails and all your videos are lost? Oops, having fun re-downloading all of those... and may have to pay for them too.

4 What if you want to watch your video in a part of your home that is NOT your computer. Some people have 4~8 TVs in their houses with a DVD and or VCR device. Oh yeah, a network... how many people ACTUALLY have a A/V network? Especially in an Apartment?

5 Not everyone has high-speed internet. The time it would take to DL a HD movie, a person can go to a store and buy 5 movies and come back before the download is done.

6 Did I say something about extras? yeah, none for downloads.

7 Storage costs. Lets say you have that xbox 20GB, forget it. A PS3 or Xbox with 120GB HD will hold about 8~10 movies... oops. Okay, spend $200~500 for a dedicated player like AppleTV. I personally own about 500+ DVDs. I do kind of perfer to scan my collection to see what I feel like watchng or a friend may check out what I have. So if a HD movie eats up 20GB of space, that is 5 movies per 100GB, so a single 500GB HD will hold about 25movies. Avg cost for a EXT. 500GB HD = $100. That's $4 per movie to storage on a powered device (that costs money to run)... When the drive fails, you'll need to replace it... that is a WHEN, not an IF. If you set up a RAID-1, that'll protect your movies (saves from re-downloads and possible re-purchases) but that more than doubles your costs as you need to buy an external (or internal) RAID setup.

So you'll end up paying $8~10 to store a $15 movie download that is NOT transportable. Not resellable either. You may add your power costs per year as well. In the near future 1TB drives will also be $100 or less... so that means $2~5 to store each movie download + cost of download + electrical bill.

The $5 DVD movie I paid for (or future SolidState memory) takes up a bit of space, can play anywhere at any time without any added costs... and since IT WILL be a small memory card - that means it'll play in a future iPod device with ease... easier than a PSP and of course plugging a DVD player to an iPod is not realistic.

OnDemand and streaming is here. The problems it has today are the same in the future. My DVR in the living room has shows I recorded... I can't watch them in my bed room or take them to a friends house to watch. That is a fact of the limitation of DRM/stored movies.


REAL Audio
By thomp237 on 9/7/2008 2:37:50 PM , Rating: 2
I really wish people would stop claiming the Sony, Onkyo, Bose HT-in-a-box crap was audio. Fine its 7.1 in a box, but what moron decided that was a good thing.

Bose sucks, deal with it!!




RE: REAL Audio
By Hyperion1400 on 9/7/2008 2:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Onkyo makes some nice mid-high end receivers, but you are right. Home-theater-in-a-box solutions aren't worth what you pay for them. The being said, RCA>Bose b/c Bose = overpriced fancy turd w/ good marketing.


RE: REAL Audio
By cmdrdredd on 9/7/2008 3:19:47 PM , Rating: 2

The Onkyo HT-S6100 is a nice HTIB system that will work for small to medium sized rooms no problem. It supports TrueHD and DTS-HD MA decoding as well as Component to HDMI switching.

Not all HTIB systems are poor quality. Onkyo gives you an actual quality receiver in the box and the speakers aren't half bad at all. I've heard them first hand. It's not Martin Logan, or high end JBL etc but it is decent for someone not wanting to put tons of money into separate components.
quote:
Actually, Onkyo makes some nice mid-high end receivers, but you are right. Home-theater-in-a-box solutions aren't worth what you pay for them. The being said, RCA>Bose b/c Bose = overpriced fancy turd w/ good marketing.


RE: REAL Audio
By Hyperion1400 on 9/7/2008 3:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
Don't get me wrong I love Onkyo's receivers. However, I am not as big a fan of there sub 1k HT speakers set-ups as say, Kenwood.


Replacement-
By GiantPandaMan on 9/7/2008 4:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
Simple answer.

Broadband, or ultra-high broadband. Why buy media or a separate player when tv's/receivers will just be able to pull the signal off the net? Though I think Samsung's timeline is probably a little too short. It might be true for Korea, Japan, and, maybe, Europe, since their broadband is so far advanced compared to the USA's.




RE: Replacement-
By cmdrdredd on 9/7/2008 6:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Simple answer. Broadband, or ultra-high broadband. Why buy media or a separate player when tv's/receivers will just be able to pull the signal off the net? Though I think Samsung's timeline is probably a little too short. It might be true for Korea, Japan, and, maybe, Europe, since their broadband is so far advanced compared to the USA's.


1) it will ALWAYS be compressed because to companies like Comcast it's about numbers. They have like 200 HD channels but they look like SD on a quality set. Hardly what I'd consider to be moving forward.
2) companies like Comcast again will limit te bandwidth available to users to stream from servers not controlled by them. They want you to pay a ridiculous amount of money to get VOD from them and they are going to start capping you to 250GB a month to prevelt HD streaming media adpotion.
3) You won't get lossless sound which to me is a huge deal. I want to have lossless.


RE: Replacement-
By giantpandaman2 on 9/8/2008 5:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
1) Who says you have to get it through Comcast? There's already many stores that sell hi-def movies through the net that have nothing to do with Comcast.
2) They'll try, but they can't control what other countries do. And when other countries start using their ultra-high bandwidth for hi-def movies, etc. US consumers will scream bloody murder if the cable monopolies here don't allow us to get it.
3) Why couldn't you? A TV, receiver, etc. with a flash drive or a hard drive could easily store lossless sound.

From a business standpoint consumer electronics companies will love this. Why? Don't have to pay any fees to blu-ray consortium, etc. They could get a slice of the pie if their receivers, tv's, etc. connect to specific services.

Content lovers love it because they get end to end drm and, possibly, tracking.

Consumers will love the convenience. Though their privacy will likely be compromised, but, hey, we gave up most of that a long time ago.


RE: Replacement-
By Pneumothorax on 9/8/2008 8:56:02 AM , Rating: 2
We have been screaming "bloody murder" for many things such as cellphone service, broadband prices and such... and of course nothing happens. If CRAPcast gets away with their bandwidth metering, other companies will be sure to follow. Remember, the USA is run by corporations and joe "six-pack" who actually thinks he's in power.


Not me..
By ummduh on 9/7/2008 12:25:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In 2012 we will be in a true HD world. Everything from your television to your...


Well, thats not going to be including me.. Unless normal sized HD tv's come down in price another grand or so by then.




RE: Not me..
By walk2k on 9/7/2008 1:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
Another grand? What size do you consider "normal" because there are already hundreds of HDTVs at 40-50" UNDER a grand. You want it for free??


RE: Not me..
By JustTom on 9/7/2008 1:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
Free would be really nice. Can I have two?


RE: Not me..
By Phlargo on 9/7/2008 4:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah.. in the future, HDTVS should come with the overpriced TV and internet services!


Will be a happy day indeed !
By shady3005 on 9/7/2008 12:22:01 PM , Rating: 1
When blu-ray's demise is announced. Most people don't need those uber expensive players and tvs.

I am hoping by that time , even high end HDTVs will be affordable. So , sony's blu-ray is gonna miss the mass market bus anyway.




RE: Will be a happy day indeed !
By cmdrdredd on 9/7/2008 3:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When blu-ray's demise is announced. Most people don't need those uber expensive players and tvs. I am hoping by that time , even high end HDTVs will be affordable. So , sony's blu-ray is gonna miss the mass market bus anyway.


Not by a long shot. Blu-Ray will be around for some time to come. HD is moving to the mass market bit by bit. It wasn't overnight that every home had a SD TV. Maybe it's just that we're not old enough to remember the times when technology was so new. You think a $1000 TV is expensive today? A few years ago a VCR would cost $600. That my friends, is expensive. Now you're getting 10x or so the quality of VHS with 7.1 lossless sound for $400 and we complain. Common...

I suppose it could be attributed to technology not jumping forward at an extreme rate anymore. A few years ago the jump was so huge, these days we've almost reached the limits of picture technology and what your eye can actually perceive on screen.


By Hyperion1400 on 9/7/2008 3:12:48 PM , Rating: 1
But back then, technology moved backwards. Betamax was replaced by by VHS after all :P


RE: Will be a happy day indeed !
By BansheeX on 9/7/2008 7:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When blu-ray's demise is announced.

Huh? With what exactly, and at what benefit? What's better than 24/96 lossless sound? What's better than 1080p video on source material that barely has detail beyond that?

I don't question that a new disc format will come out and offer 1TB storage eventually, but how does that improve upon what blu-ray is already offering for today's movies and games, to the extent that all the sudden people who you claim couldn't afford BRD or tell the difference will choose it en masse over BRD? This is nonsense. What happened to HD-DVD isn't happening to BRD, get over it already.


BD layers, 1, 2, 4, 8
By Segerstein on 9/7/2008 3:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's all about the disk's capacity.
1 layer - 25GB
2 layers - 50GB
4 layers - 100GB
8 layers - 200GB

In the world of 1/1Gbps fiber optics internet access and 10TB+ HDDs, yes, BD disks seem redundant.

Getting 10TB+ harddisks, not a problem. It only depends on manufacturers. You buy a piece of equipment and you have it.

But the transition from copper to fiber optics is going to be much much more costly. The whole infrastructure has to be replaced. I cannot see it done in 5 years. Maybe in 10 years. The cheapest way is to replace copper cables with fiber as they near the end of their life time.

Note: maybe the Samsung guy is a bit biased, you know the level of development of internet access in S Korea ... ;-)




RE: BD layers, 1, 2, 4, 8
By Guttersnipe on 9/7/2008 8:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
course beyond 2 layers the yields and costs make those things vaporware for the most part.

as for people saying hd is not that different from sd, get real. 1080p is 6 times the resolution of dvd. many don't see much difference beecause they are using garbage equipment that doesn't fully resolve the resolution possible despite what marketing nonsense and claims of hd support on the box. and thats too bad.


RE: BD layers, 1, 2, 4, 8
By Belard on 9/8/2008 3:55:36 PM , Rating: 2
While Digital Downloads have a place, movie collectors like to OWN physical media. What you download cannot be taken to another part of the home easiy, taken on a trip, played at a friends home because of DRM.

Maybe up to 4 layers will be used on Blu-Ray, but I'm not counting on it. Its not so much capacity, but costs, size and the next thing.

With a Read-Only Flash card with a HD movie on it, that is the only thing what will replace Blu-Ray. There will NOT be another disc media to replace Blue-Ray.


Blu-ray vs. OLED??
By dl429 on 9/7/2008 9:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
What does the shelf life of Blu-ray have to do with OLED. If anything the success of OLED and all HDTV technologies is good news for Blu-ray. To say HDTV's future is good but that HD movies are only gonna last for 5 years makes no sense to me. This is especially true considering the bandwith constraints of cable internet providers(see comcast stories).




RE: Blu-ray vs. OLED??
By mindless1 on 9/7/2008 10:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct, HD OLED sets will make Blu-ray all the more valuable to have around, but basically what it seems like Samsung is suggesting is that their product is going to be so darn dazzling that we'll all be rushing to come up with a higher definition format to make good use of it.

It's a chicken-and-egg scenario. We'll have to see just how well Blu-ray really takes off with mass adoption before the manufacturers will have any confidence in return on investment over the next better format. Those who feel upsampled DVDs are satisfactory and don't feel the need to wholeheartedly adopt Blu-Ray today are all the more likely to not feel the need to switch from Blu-Ray to the next better format.

I tend to agree with the latter camp, beyondo a certain point it doesn't matter if you see every grain in the brick on a building or every pore on the actors' faces, that it is a bit odd when you sit close enough to a HD TV to see every tiny detail with the result being that the actors heads are much bigger than real life. OMG THEY'RE G1ANTZ!!!


RE: Blu-ray vs. OLED??
By dl429 on 9/7/2008 10:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
1080P is plenty of resolution for the average HDTV size of around 50in. In fact many LCD tv's had 1080p long before plasma tv's did however reviewers preferred the plasma in 720p due to black levels and contrast. Resolution only accounts for so much of the picture quality. Blu-ray will fill the HD movie gap just fine until digital downloads become a reality.


Hmm
By jfmeister on 9/7/2008 1:45:40 PM , Rating: 3
According to Samsung, HD will be mainstream in 2012. So if it is, that's 4 years of Blu-Ray and only a year will be left. That means everyone will be equiped with Blu-Ray, why think of killing it after 5 years when DVD lasted for that long when everyone will be on the same bandwagon?

"Let's all switch and be mainstream in 2012.By then we will have converted our DVD librairy to B-R so that we switch again after that." There might be a live stream alternative, but I don't forsee Blu-Ray disapearing in 5years.

Completely stupid...




RE: Hmm
By Hyperion1400 on 9/7/2008 2:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see anything outright replacing Blu-ray in 5 years. What I see is something more cyclical like we have been having for the past few formats. A new format is introduced in an attempt to improve quality and phase out an aging format (VHS to DVD, and now DVD to Blu). And this being a free market economy where no one is forced to switch it takes some time to convert everyone. So we have have a period of a few years where two plus formats exist and one is slowly replace. Don't forget, DVD hasn't even hit double digits yet. If a new format is released 5 years from now to replace Blu-ray, BR will have had a 7 year run as the shiz. Not bad considering the rapid advancement of tech.

Also, entry costs to Blu-ray aren't half bad for us DT reading computer nerds. You can pick up a Blu-ray reader for under $200 and a great 24" Scepter for $350. Drop $250 on some Sennheisser HD 580s ($500 for HD 650s if you got the scratch >:) and then $100-150 for a 256MB Nvidia 8600- 512 MB ATI 3850; you've not only got a great little personal HTPC but a decent gaming rig as well. You may or may not want to invest in a sound card depending on what kind of codec your mobo uses... or if you are running Vista. But, imo and X-fi is totally worth it.


Need cheaper players
By cyriene on 9/7/2008 11:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
Unless the players get cheaper it still isn't worth it for me for only a few years of use. Of course, I am a poor college student with a crappy TV that barely works now and can't afford any HD stuff. But 5 years isn't a long time, I've had my DVD player longer than that




RE: Need cheaper players
By cmdrdredd on 9/7/2008 3:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless the players get cheaper it still isn't worth it for me for only a few years of use. Of course, I am a poor college student with a crappy TV that barely works now and can't afford any HD stuff. But 5 years isn't a long time, I've had my DVD player longer than that


It will last longer than that.


Apples to Oranges
By msheredy on 9/8/2008 1:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
Subject says enough...




By ultimatebob on 9/8/2008 11:08:01 AM , Rating: 1
Honestly, I'm already having trouble distinguishing between a 1080i upscaled DVD and a 1080p BluRay disk on a 40" screen at more than an 8 feet viewing distance. Unless I get a really huge TV, how is this new technology going to benefit me?




5 years left?
By Flunk on 9/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: 5 years left?
By Final8ty on 9/7/2008 12:25:39 PM , Rating: 5
Saying BR is not much better than DVD is like saying HDTV 1080P is not much better than standard TV as that exactly what your saying.


RE: 5 years left?
By Gondorff on 9/7/2008 12:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well... if you don't have a 1080p TV, like most of the world still, then it isn't much better. For most, the DVD is good enough, especially when you would end up spending $5k or more getting the 1080p HDTV + nice speaker setup to take advantage of the bonuses of BluRay. That's a bit of a difficult jump to take. And if you're not willing to make the full jump (e.g. only 720p etc.), then up-res'ed DVD is likely just as good.


RE: 5 years left?
By daftrok on 9/7/2008 12:50:33 PM , Rating: 5
First off, 1080p TVs cost like 1100 bucks:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001413EJ8/...

Second off a decent sound system costs $600 bucks with all the bells and whistles (HD sound, 7.1, HDMI, etc.):
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001AMY7ZQ/...

And third you can get a PS3 bundle with some savings:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet...

So really there is no difficult jump, its just that the average consumer isn't as informed about how to go HD for cheap so they don't do it.

And for those that think that DVD upscaled is ok and HD isn't all that:
http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

Think again.


RE: 5 years left?
By SilthDraeth on 9/7/2008 1:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
I know there is a large enough section of the population that can afford HDTVs, and $1100 isn't that bad of a price, but that gets you like a 32" TV. Where in the past, $1100 got you a 50" TV.

I make 3k a month. I know that is still considered not that high, but it is a decent amount, and I can't just go out on a whim and buy an HDTV for cash, and a huge percent of the population actually make quite a bit less than I do.

Unless of course all of the DT readers are self made millionaires.


RE: 5 years left?
By walk2k on 9/7/2008 1:17:03 PM , Rating: 4
Look again. $1100 gets you very nice, brand-name 40-42" 1080p LCD.

If you hunt around for bargain brands (Insignia etc) or closeouts you can find 47-50" models for that even.

$1100 will even get you a decent FP and some paint for a wall..


RE: 5 years left?
By Googer on 9/7/2008 2:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
Costco has 1080p Panasonic Plasma TVs for Under $1,000


RE: 5 years left?
By 9nails on 9/7/2008 3:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
I've been told that Costco doesn't carry current models. You're likely buying a last generation model set at the appropriately discounted price. Myself, I'd rather toss in the extra $100 now and get a latest model with the next generation of features.


RE: 5 years left?
By rockyct on 9/7/2008 8:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would be inaccurate to say Costco doesn't carry new models, because that just isn't true. However, some of their electronics are Costco only models to make it harder to price shop. Also, the difference in features are not that much anymore with the lower end TVs. The number of connectors are typically the same, resolution is the same or just doesn't matter (1080p vs. 720p on a 32" LCD), so what's left is the quality of the picture and a newer TV does not necessarily mean a nicer picture.

Anyway, Costco also has a much nicer return policy. No restrictions for 90 days, and after that the manufacture warranty is extended to 2 years.


RE: 5 years left?
By Noya on 9/8/2008 1:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Myself, I'd rather toss in the extra $100 now and get a latest model with the next generation of features.


If you think $100 separates a brand new model and a closeout/older model, you're wildly optimistic and don't know HDTV prices.


RE: 5 years left?
By rupaniii on 9/7/2008 5:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, seriously.
SONY S panel this year is actually nice, got upgraded to 1080 and contrast is just a hair under their V panel.
Toshiba is always at that price point.
Bluray: PS3 is an awesome value, if not, get the rebranded Funai Magnavox/Insignia model for $250 with movies. It's not aweful.
Looks like a good time to me.


RE: 5 years left?
By 67STANG on 9/7/2008 8:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
I bought a 42" LG 1080p LCD from Best buy about 6 months ago for $1,050 on sale... Totally happy with it, picture is great. Can't believe you can't get these for under 800 bucks 6 months later...


RE: 5 years left?
By onwisconsin on 9/7/2008 2:39:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Unless of course all of the DT readers are self made millionaires.


Actually we are...we can't tell our secrets

;)


RE: 5 years left?
By TeXWiller on 9/7/2008 3:59:05 PM , Rating: 1
The HD market should cater for all sizes, that is, people with small apartments, volatile living conditions and price elasticity approaching to infinity at $300. 32 inch screen is simply too big for some of these markets.


RE: 5 years left?
By sxr7171 on 9/7/2008 11:32:00 PM , Rating: 1
Are you serious? Do you have any idea how close you have to sit in front of a 1080p 24" display for it to make a difference? People with less than 32" displays are best served by SD seriously unless you expect to sit about 2 feet from it in which case those exist as: computer monitors.


RE: 5 years left?
By daftrok on 9/7/2008 4:46:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"$1100 isn't that bad of a price, but that gets you like a 32" TV. Where in the past, $1100 got you a 50" TV."

...what? in the link it shows a 50" DLP slim 1080P TV for $1100. Not in the past, not 32"...did you even click the link?


RE: 5 years left?
By CZroe on 9/7/2008 4:47:33 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with you, but the scaling in the LoTR example you linked to doesn't account for DVD being closer to standard-def (640x480) stretched to anamorphic 16:9 (That's the meaning of "anamorphic"). Basically, a DVD uses the same resolution to store anamorphic widescreen as 4:3 standard-aspect content. It shrinks it, lowering the resolution, to add letterboxing if the player is set to output 4:3. It stretches it without reducing the resolution to output a scaled 720x480 16:9 image... so it's not even true 720x480 and certainly not 852x480 like the comparison implied. The full-screen comparisons are much more serviceable. :)


RE: 5 years left?
By sxr7171 on 9/7/2008 11:28:14 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for that link. That should shut up all the people "who can't tell the difference" I often wonder if they are in need of a visit to an optometrist.

When I first got my PS3 can hooked it up to my 720p projector, even though bu a mistake in the settings it was playing at a downsampled 480p it looked so much better than a DVD upsampled. Even running 1080p downsampled to 720p on my projector it looks amazing. I can't wait to be able to afford a 1080p projector.


RE: 5 years left?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 12:31:03 AM , Rating: 3
> "even though bu a mistake in the settings it was playing at a downsampled 480p it looked so much better than a DVD "

Err, if you think 1080p downsampled to 480p looks better than a native 480p signal, you've simply demonstrated the power of the placebo effect.


RE: 5 years left?
By sxr7171 on 9/8/2008 1:47:42 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe you should consider than if an image is captured at a higher resolution there is more actual source data with which to create a smaller representation. When upscaling you are merely taking less data and making the rest up as guesses.

If you even read the link (as evidently you didn't) you would note that the HD comparison images were in fact downsampled from 1080p to show the difference in source fidelity. Maybe you should see for yourself before talking.


RE: 5 years left?
By Noya on 9/8/2008 1:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
I totally agree, 1080i/p down sampled to 480p almost always looks better than native 480i/p (DVD).


RE: 5 years left?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 12:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
Masher is 100% correct. If the Source was exactly the same, a native 480p video will look exactly the same as a video downsampled from 1080p to 480p, that is, if the player is doing the downsampling. In fact some would argue that native 480p should look better, as the signal has remained 100% in tact. The reason masher is saying this is regardless of the source resolution, the video stream being outputted by the player is and always will be 480p.

Where you may notice that the 1080p video is better, is when you are using displays that are 720p or higher. In this scenario, the source of both formats remain intact until it reaches the TV, so 1080p(if your Tv supports 1080p input) would be downsampled to 720p and 480p would be upsampled to 720p. The same also applies if the player is doing the scaling.

That test in the link provided is flawed for a few reasons, for one, I can see right off the get go, that the file sizes are not the same (55kb compared to 65kb) which is kind of suspect. Second(which ties into the first reason), they are different frames, you can't just do this test assuming that the frame you have captured is not in motion(which they are in most of these captures, i have seen the movie enough times to know this). Assuming that 3:2 pulldown was performed on the 480p version, you have no idea if this frame was part of the sequence in which two frames are combined. The chances that the author could not sync even one frame correctly on any of his example is really suspect. Doing the exact same test on the same frames, I can almost guarantee that this would not reveal the same results.(i also recall a while back that that article was proved to be fake i.e he altered the images, but that's a different story all together)

There is a reason that when 720P lcd's first came out, that everyone wondered why EDTV's(854x480p) sometimes looked better when watching DVD's, this is because the TV was doing absolutely no scaling, and was displaying the video in its original form, as scaling technology on original 720p displays were very poor.(still is today on many cheaper displays)


RE: 5 years left?
By plonk420 on 9/8/2008 7:02:33 AM , Rating: 2
Err, if you think DVD is a native 480p signal, you've simply demonstrated the power of the placebo effect.

DVD on a 4:3 as well as 16:9 is scaled either in both directions or horizontally. and yes, 1080p scaled down to 480p DOES look better than a DVD. at least on an 88" screen. tho i wouldn't say "MUCH".


RE: 5 years left?
By omnicronx on 9/8/2008 2:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DVD on a 4:3 as well as 16:9 is scaled either in both directions or horizontally. and yes, 1080p scaled down to 480p DOES look better than a DVD. at least on an 88" screen. tho i wouldn't say "MUCH".
But how can it?

Both formats (BD/DVD) should have been encoded using the same master. That being said, 480p and 1080p video are both scaled from the original source. So that 480p video has already been scaled from whatever resolution (if there is one i.e analogue which can be infinite) to 480p with the maximum amount of detail possible. Because of this merely adding in an extra step of scaling (i.e 1080p to 480p) can not possibly add more detail to the video.

Here are the steps for the naysayers if they can not wrap their heads around it

scenario #1: source resolution -----> 480p

scenario #2: source resolution -----> 1080p -----> 480p

Regardless of which way the scaling is done, the final product should be the same.

As masher said, its all placebo effect.


RE: 5 years left?
By plonk420 on 9/9/2008 7:24:35 AM , Rating: 2
have you actually seen, tested your claim, though?

i'll admit i didn't blind ABX it, but i can say it looks better, at least by the scaler on the InFocus IN4850 (and the DVD vs Blu-Ray/HD decode quality in the PS3 or ffdshow). since i can say it in that way, take it as you will. maybe the mastering was done differently in a way that looked better downscaled on the Blu-Ray or HD transport stream. but i'm about 80-90% confident it looked better (DVD vs HD test material: pre-remaster Fifth Element, The Island, Lord of the Rings, Serenity, Kung Fu Hustle, Flightplan).


RE: 5 years left?
By omnicronx on 9/9/2008 8:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I have tested my claim, i have a Toshiba tlp-et1 projector which is also a widescreen 854x480p native player.

It actually may look better for your setup though, because the projector is doing the scaling, not the dvd player. The scenario the others have mentioned when they said that 1080p to 480p looked better is when the player was doing the scaling and actually outputting 480p before it reaches the tv/projector.

In your scenario chances are that your BD player was outputting 1080p, and your projector was doing the scaling, which I have personally had some great results with, and definitely can look better than vanilla 480p. My projector for example does do a bunch of extra filtering, (looks to be some sort of AA, noise filtering etc) only on component inputs.

Rule of thumb: when the player is doing the scaling, 480p is 480p.. if the source material was the same (which it usually is) and when the tv/projector is doing the scaling, its all up to the technology (scaling, filters etc), which is why scaled 1080p scaled to 480p can look much better (or much worse depending on the TV) than plain 480p.

I think this is where most of the confusion lies, I don't see why anyone would even have their BD set to 480p output as unless you are using a ps3, and it is surely not the default setting of most players out there. Also almost all lcds within the past few years support at least 720p and probably 1080i, even if it is an EDTV, so there is almost no reason for anyone to be outputting at 480p in the first place.


RE: 5 years left?
By omnicronx on 9/9/2008 8:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
p.s I also just noticed that your player only accepts inputs up to 1080i, which can yield totally different results depending on the quality of the scaler and how well the video is deinterlaced. Many projectors like to add a ton of noise filtering with 1080i input.


RE: 5 years left?
By RjBass on 9/7/2008 11:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm willing to do ya one better. 32" 1080p for $650 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...

Bundled with the PS3 your looking at a total of $1050 for the TV, the DVD and some gaming to boot.

Add in a decent 5.1 surround system for about $400 and you have yourself a kicken little home theater with all the HD capabilities for under $1500. Thats a hell of a deal there.


RE: 5 years left?
By nangryo on 9/8/2008 12:47:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And for those that think that DVD upscaled is ok and HD isn't all that:
http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

Think again.


Why don't you try compare WINDVD 9.0 With ALL2HD scaling for DVD playback and compare it yourself with Bluray playback, instead of using WINDVD 6 for comparison.

Upscaling technique does matter . And more, comparing still picture and motion picture on upscaling version does matter.

People notice less the difference for it. Try it your self.
(I already try it on my 24" HD LCD, and the difference is not that much)


RE: 5 years left?
By sxr7171 on 9/8/2008 2:03:23 AM , Rating: 2
Buddy do you even know what you're talking about? WinDVD6 was used for capture and Photoshop Bicubic resampling was done for upscaling. Let me tell you right now that there is no video upscaling technique that can upscale a still frame better than that. And we are comparing stills. That shows you how much less information is present in a DVD source. It should be intuitive if you think about it. DVD resolution has FOUR times less information than a Blu-Ray picture. Don't kid yourself here.


RE: 5 years left?
By Fireshade on 9/8/2008 6:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
WinDVD6 was used for capture and Photoshop Bicubic resampling was done for upscaling. Let me tell you right now that there is no video upscaling technique that can upscale a still frame better than that.

Oh, that's where you're wrong.
There is a better technique known to professionals and manufacturers: Super resolution - http://toolfarm.com/plugins/index.php/The_Deemon_S...
BTW, Photoshop Bicubic resampling is so old skool.

quote:
And we are comparing stills. That shows you how much less information is present in a DVD source.

Which is pretty useless. Movies are experienced in motion. That's what counts. The question really is: does HD really add that much to the viewer's experience. The answer: only to those who can afford 52+ inch HDTV's.


RE: 5 years left?
By gramboh on 9/8/2008 5:48:16 AM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why people think interpolating data can be as good as adding significantly more NEW data to the video stream. Yes, upscaling with a quality engine and a good recent source DVD looks good and better than playing the same DVD on a 10 year old DVD player, but it does not look as good as Blu-ray on a decent 1080P set, not even close (for reference I've tested on a Samsung 4665F 46in 1080P LCD).


RE: 5 years left?
By Final8ty on 9/7/2008 4:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
My comment was not about circumstances & if & buts.

As you can apply Well & ifs to anything in life & detract from the main point.

BR is better than DVD & that's it, whether you personally are able to take advantage of it because of your pockets is irrelevant as the technology is there to do so.

If you want to take a top spec Linn Hi-Fi & cant afford decent speakers & slap some Amstrad £30 speakers with the results sounding not much better than the Amstrad midi that the speakers came from, that does not make the Linn not much better than the Amstrad midi to the world because you cant afford the speakers to do it justice.


RE: 5 years left?
By kelmon on 9/7/2008 12:43:38 PM , Rating: 5
Well, the difference between DVD and Blu-ray only becomes really apparent when you watch it on a big screen TV. I have no intention of ever buying a TV bigger than 32" because I don't want the TV to dominate the room. DVD is absolutely fine on our current TV so I honestly don't see the point in investing in Blu-Ray, particularly when DVD costs utter peanuts.

If you have or want a big TV then Blu-Ray is going to be great for you. For everyone else your mileage may well vary...

Anyway, I'm skipping Blu-Ray and going direct to digital downloads.


RE: 5 years left?
By abhaxus on 9/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: 5 years left?
By kelmon on 9/7/2008 2:04:55 PM , Rating: 3
That's nice and all but I can't say that I've ever watched a DVD and thought that the sound was bad. If something is "good enough" then there is no incentive to replace it, particularly when you already have the equipment and it's cheap. I rushed out and bought DVD when it became available in the UK for various reasons so I'm very happy to be an early adopter, but with Blu-Ray I feel no incentive to do the same.

I should note that I, in no way, consider myself a video- or audiophile. Heck, I think the audio quality of 128kbps iTunes track is fine and that would get my lynched by audiophiles.

As and when my current DVD player breaksdown (hopefully in a quite a few years time since it is relatively new) then I will consider Blu-Ray if it is sensibly priced. But when that happens I won't be in the slightest bit surprised to find that we've moved on to digital downloads, if the networks can handle it.


RE: 5 years left?
By StevoLincolnite on 9/7/2008 2:55:11 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, I have never watched a DVD and ever thought it was bad, but then again I don't watch any T.V, I mainly just watch free streamed T.V shows from the internet, NO advertising then.

However, I'm not a big sound buff either, my "High Quality" Audio set-up consists of sub-par tinny laptop speakers with a slight crackle, which does me fine, Image quality isn't an issue, however I draw the line if it's incredibly pixelated, or it's a Cinema rip.

So I probably will never get a HDTV or a decent sound system, the only thing my TV gets used for is the Xbox 360, and it seems like a waste of money upgrading for that alone.


RE: 5 years left?
By sxr7171 on 9/8/2008 2:15:24 AM , Rating: 1
So basically you have low standards. That's fine, but why do think everyone should have your low standards or that the market should adhere to your bottom 5 percentile mentality?


RE: 5 years left?
By kelmon on 9/9/2008 2:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
I don't recall saying that my opinion should be the same as others, simply that I was expressing my personal opinion on the subject.

Still, if you want to have this discussion, why do you think that everyone should have your elitist standards? The door swings both ways in this argument and the low adoption rate of Blu-Ray rather suggests that people don't really care.


RE: 5 years left?
By mydogfarted on 9/7/2008 9:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm calling Bullsh*t here. I've got a 26" 1080i Aquos and a 52" 1080i rear projection Sony that I've played both standard DVD players and Blu-Ray disks via my PS3. If you think that it is only midly better, I'd suggest a trip to the eye doctor. Even on my 'tiny' 26" Aquos, the Blu-Ray is amazingly better. I picked up the Blade Runner Briefcase box set on Blu-Ray - a remaster of a 20+ year old movie, and the detail of the buildings at 1080i looks better than some of the CGI we've seen in the last few years on SD DVD.


RE: 5 years left?
By sxr7171 on 9/8/2008 2:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
Sure that makes sense for television. TV programs are filmed to not occupy a large part of your field of vision.

Movies however were being filmed in 70MM format in order to engage your peripheral vision. In fact the format was designed to occupy a large part of your field of vision. With a 32" TV there's no way you'll even be close to the what the format is meant to be. That said, I suppose if you like watching movies as if they are TV shows, DVD would be fine.


RE: 5 years left?
By Fireshade on 9/8/2008 6:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Movies however were being filmed in 70MM format in order to engage your peripheral vision. In fact the format was designed to occupy a large part of your field of vision.

Sorry, but that's nonsense.
Movies are still shot on 35mm film (anamorphic). Today only IMAX is shot at 70mm.
Whether or not the movie is filmed to "engage your peripheral vision" is really up to the director and his photographer. The majority of movies out there have close-ups of faces and such: seriously not meant to "engage your peripheral vision".


RE: 5 years left?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/7/2008 1:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "Saying BR is not much better than DVD is like saying HDTV 1080P is not much better than standard TV "

Not quite. There's a substantial difference between an upscaled DVD image and one at SD. Is an actual 1080p image sharper? From a technical perspective, of course. But the fact still remains that many people (including about half of those who have viewed my 103" screen) just don't see much of a difference between a good upscaler and actual 1080p.

Of course, there's no reason BD can't itself be upscaled. At some point in the near future, we'll be seeing TVs with 4K resolution. . . and then there really be no comparison.


RE: 5 years left?
By kelmon on 9/7/2008 2:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
103"!?! Bloody hell...


RE: 5 years left?
By StevoLincolnite on 9/7/2008 2:58:34 PM , Rating: 3
As Guru Tugginmypudha says: You will go cross-eyed!


RE: 5 years left?
By plonk420 on 9/8/2008 7:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
friend just upgraded his 96" screen to 120" or so... gawd, Projection is magical :D (i got his, but i can't get the projector far back enough as well as SIT far back enough in my apartment for anything bigger than ~88")


RE: 5 years left?
By MaulBall789 on 9/7/2008 3:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
Is it not enough that you have more amassed knowledge than the rest of the entire world combined that you have to rub it in our collective faces with your 103" HDTV? It's not a gripe so much as HD envy.

Out of curiosity, is it a ceiling mounted DLP/LCD projecting onto a screen or a single unit plasma flatpanel?


RE: 5 years left?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/7/2008 3:49:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's simply a ceiling mounted front projector. A 100" plasma is about $70K, comfortably outside my price range.


RE: 5 years left?
By Lord 666 on 9/7/2008 6:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
Why rate this post down; its the most humility Masher's communicated on DT.

I was thinking of a previous chat from a while ago; have you purchased the digital camera yet? Check out the Nikon D700 to be mounted onto the telescope. Much better for astrophotography with the ability to auto everything along with exception ISO and full frame.


RE: 5 years left?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/7/2008 8:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
I wound up buying the Canon Xti. On the subject of humility, however, I should have listened to you, or whoever it was who told me the kit glass was worthless. It was indeed.

I've since bought the L-series 70-200, though, and have been extraordinarily pleased with it.


RE: 5 years left?
By sxr7171 on 9/8/2008 2:20:47 AM , Rating: 1
No kidding, considering you're too cheap to get a $400 Blu-Ray player.


RE: 5 years left?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 10:51:24 AM , Rating: 2
If I didn't have a Blu Ray player, how do you think I'd be feeding my projector a 1080p signal? My old HD-DVD players are gathering dust in the basement.


RE: 5 years left?
By jgvandemeer on 9/8/2008 12:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
Give one to me!


RE: 5 years left?
By sxr7171 on 9/8/2008 2:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
What part of 4 times the information doesn't sink into your head? That's like comparing an image from a webcam blown up to 103" to at least something from a 2MP camera to 103".

If you are broke, don't expect that everyone else should wait for you to get enough money to get an ACTUAL HD player.


RE: 5 years left?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 11:09:16 AM , Rating: 2
You've misunderstood. I'm comparing the images from a BD disc to those upscaled from a standard DVD, but played on the same projector.

If I freeze frames, then compare between the two the difference is night and day. But if I simply bring people in, sit them down, and have them watch a disc, half the time they don't know whether its BD or SD.


RE: 5 years left?
By Final8ty on 9/12/2008 2:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not quite. There's a substantial difference between an upscaled DVD image and one at SD. Is an actual 1080p image sharper? From a technical perspective, of course. But the fact still remains that many people (including about half of those who have viewed my 103" screen) just don't see much of a difference between a good upscaler and actual 1080p. Of course, there's no reason BD can't itself be upscaled. At some point in the near future, we'll be seeing TVs with 4K resolution. . . and then there really be no comparison.


Your comparison is flawed as if most of the people who visited you had just left home & came from a 103" screen at standard definition of thire own & the first thing they noticed that your 103" picture was shaper than theirs.

There is also no comparison of picture quality of varying brands & models of 103" screens.

In the CRT days the first thing i noticed that 32" screens never looked as sharp to me at the same viewing distance as a 15-20" screen, the fact is your a little over 50-60% above the avg screen size for 1080P so sharpness is going to less than on a smaller screen, the first thing that would be noticed is the size.

You have to play the same movie that was 1080p at source on BR & DVD to make a worth while, do you notice the difference, just going from random upscalled DVD to BR on a screen that people are not a custom to just don't cut it.


RE: 5 years left?
By Samus on 9/8/2008 2:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
Define HD then... because DVD's are 480P and BLURAY are 1080P. They're both extremely high resolution and look great even on a TV capable of 1080P because they're both progressive, non-interlaced formats. The audio difference is also negligable.

99% of the country (United States) doesn't have a 1080P TV. Less than half have a TV that even does 720P.


RE: 5 years left?
By Simgamer on 9/7/2008 12:39:22 PM , Rating: 4
We still have to get past the bandwith limiting that the ISP's are implementing;>cough Comcast cough< in their battle for supremacy over who will provide content. They don't want us D/Ling HD content and making them merely the conduit rather than the seller.


RE: 5 years left?
By CZroe on 9/7/2008 4:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
"Very few people are bothering because it isn't really that much better than DVD."
So, just what do you think THOSE consumers will be buying in 5 years? A new SD format? You think the market for BD will shrink as new customers enter the HD market? It can never be as big as DVD because there are too many alternatives (digital distirbution) that still don't eliminate the need for a packaged, portable, "purchase and own-able," 1080p format video media disc.

I think it's pretty short-sighted to say that BD has about 5 years left if there isn't a display technology to demand a larger or more feature-filled form of video media disc. On the contrary, I think that DVDs will see serious slow-down in 5 years (perhaps overtaken by BD). I mean, it's only a continuation of the trend (slower DVD sales spurred the manufacturers to support a successor format; BD).

That said, I think content makers don't realize that they need to make it cheap to build a BD collection. Catalog movie releases even *vaguely* related need to be released in cheap box sets to make it relatively easy to buy in bulk to replace a DVD collection. It would speed the adoption of the format while not cheapening it so much that stand-alone movie sales would have to be as cheap as or cheaper than DVD. Granted, I do see more box sets in catalog releases than DVD started out with, but the price doesn't match (Mission Impossible, Die Hard, Rambo, Spiderman, Resident Evil, "Best of Warner: Vol X," etc). On top of that, Wal-Mart and other places are applying this same concept to DVDs in "double-feature" packs for dirt cheap, though any collector likely has one of the two and will resist the double-dip release.


RE: 5 years left?
By BansheeX on 9/7/2008 7:21:46 PM , Rating: 1
You are absolutely correct, this guy's words should have been shot down by every person on this forum based on that logic alone. After all, if you hold that people can't tell the difference between 480i and 1080p, then why is something above 1080p magically going to convert those people? Stupid. 1080p is a significant transition and the beginning of a new and long-lasting era. I mean, we've had analog NTSC resolution for over four decades. OLED as a display technology will outperform LCD, but it's not going usher in a replacement for blu-ray and HD. Not after governments and companies everywhere just spent billions over ten years cooperating and upgrading to it. Not when Halo 3 had to be upscaled from 540p to get 60fps on today's hardware.

Anandtech is simply CHOCK FULL of 360/HD-DVD sour grapes fans who lost their asses after endless 100+ post pro HD-DVD threads on DailyTech, practically advertising Toshiba's fire sales on a daily basis. Now they've found a dumbass quote from a Samsung exec backed by no reasoning whatsoever to base an entire article on after six months of ignoring blu-ray's strides. Yeah, no bias there.


RE: 5 years left?
By Flunk on 9/8/2008 12:56:53 AM , Rating: 3
I think you missed my point entirely.

My point is that with the current uptake of the Blueray format, in 5 years it will still not be the undisputed king format that we all want. My point is not that they do or do not look better but that consumers do not care, even some with HD sets which are still not exactly ubiquitous.

And at that point, I don't see another physical format making much sense.

To clarify I have always supported the Blueray format because of it's superior storage capacity. I want a backup to fit on one disc, thanks.


RE: 5 years left?
By Meinolf on 9/7/2008 7:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
Just think if Playstation 3 wasn't a cheap Blueray player not to many people buying just plain players out there.


Puh-lease
By BansheeX on 9/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Puh-lease
By BansheeX on 9/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Puh-lease
By xsilver on 9/7/2008 7:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
ok i'll bite:
whats stopping anybody from releasing a next gen format that still adopts 1080p but with an optical density of more than 25gb/layer?
I personally think that 1080 will last as long as recording equipment is unable to keep up; as of now there are still a significant amount of shows that are still not recorded in HD.


RE: Puh-lease
By BansheeX on 9/7/2008 7:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody's stopping them from doing it. It will happen. We'll eventually get HVD discs with 1TB storage, and so on. The problem is, we've finally reached a sufficient capacity for the source material. Most 1080p movies with lossless audio don't even use 25gb. Tell me how hundreds of millions of people freshly converted to blu-ray and experiencing that are suddenly going to dump then cheap blu-ray and DVD and spend thousands upgrading to Samsung's just because the disc has XXXGb more capacity on it. They won't. It's nonsense. It's pure fantasy by sour grapes HD-DVD fans on this site who want to leapfrog BD in disgust after losing their ass and being proven idiots after a year of arguing.


RE: Puh-lease
By xsilver on 9/7/2008 8:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
um the same way blu ray got around people wanting to hold on to their dvd collection? backwards compatability...


RE: Puh-lease
By Meinolf on 9/8/2008 12:15:16 PM , Rating: 1
25 years I don't think so. You might have predicted it but no way is it going to last 25 years.


RE: Puh-lease
By djxtreme on 9/9/2008 7:54:06 PM , Rating: 2
why don't we just keep watching VHS until they make up their minds and I don't have to keep buying new hardware, and then NEW media formatted discs(or whatever)of everything I own?????


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il

Latest Headlines
2/10/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 10, 2012, 5:50 PM
2/9/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 9, 2012, 11:54 AM
2/8/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 8, 2012, 1:11 PM
Ex-Acer CEO Slapped With Lawsuit for Joining Lenovo
February 7, 2012, 5:38 PM
2/7/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews
February 7, 2012, 12:23 PM
2/6/2012 Daily Hardware Reviews -- Intel 520 240GB SSD Edition
February 6, 2012, 12:04 PM
botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki