backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 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