Toshiba fights back......well kind of [Archive]

nightflier

01-15-2008, 01:18 PM

There is one thing you just do not get, the American public is not ready for downloads to replace disc. ...As far as I can see nobody is ready to trust their movie collection on a hard drive that can be corrupted and hacked, potentially ruining their library.

So you speak for the whole American public? LOL. It's absolute nonsense, and you know it. If the American public is willing to trust their whole music collection to disk, then there's no reason to believe they won't trust their movie collections to the same medium. I think the success of iTunes is a perfect example of how wrong your expectations are. You're wrong, and while I can't demonstrate it now, it will become apparent as downloading technology and marketshare increases. Come back here in a year and we'll see how silly your understanding of the American public is.

The only thing downloads will effect is renting, and that is basically it.

With regard to renting, you're attempting to dismiss the importance of it by slyly wedging it into the topic of downloading & owning - entirely unrelated. Yes, I had to cut and paste that sentence out separately from your quote, because as usual you're trying to confuse the argument. Renting is a huge part of this equation. What you don't seem to understand is that downloading is a cultural shift for people. The more they do it, either through Netflix, Amazon, iMovie, or Tivo, it creates an expectation that this is how movies, and even TV shows, are seen.

Netflix, and later Blockbuster revolutionized the renting industry by fundamentally changing two very important facets of renting: staying at home and vastly increasing choice. If you can understand nothing else, you can't possibly tell me that you can't see that downloading expands those conveniences further - not only is the choice expanded exponentially because from one screen the user has far more vendors to choose from, but the technology has advanced to allow the convenience of doing it all from their TV screens, not their slow-to-start and buggy computer in another room.

Now I know that flies in the face of our very real desire to physically touch & own the disks, but the cultural shift is much farther along than you are willing to admit. Yes, there is a psychological shift that has been under way for years. And as an owner of a huge record, CD, and DVD collection, I'll be the first to lament this trend, but I'm smart enough to see the writing on the wall, too. Yes, it's lower quality in a download, but the convenience far outweighs that shortcoming (more on that below).

VOD, PPV has been around for ten years in my neighborhood. In ten years it has blossomed into a $200 million dollar a year business (downloads and VOD combined). In that same period of time the DVD was introduced, and has grown to a $42 billion a year business.

So? just because DVD took off faster, it's no guaranty of BR's potential rise to replace it - the two trends could very well be mutually exclusive, especially if you consider that there was not real movie-downloading option back when DVDs took off. As I've said repeatedly, there are simply too many differences in the movie and related industries between then and now to make that comparison stick. What happened in the past is no guarantee of the future.

Did you also know that DVD sales were down in 2007 for the first time in the history of the format? And don't even try and tell us this is solely because of the strength of Blu-Ray sales, which accounted for a mere 3% of the total movie market. No, the reason it was down is because people are finding other ways to get their entertainment. And while download sales may have trailed behind BR sales, as you asserted elsewhere, total downloads could not possibly have. What else would make up the difference?

Our internet is not ready for mass downloading

Who's saying they have to be mass downloads? What we see now is a gradual, slow but steady growth. This assumption about the Internet is nonsense and shows how little you understand it. People are downloading more video now than they ever were. It may not be HD, and it may not just be movies, but they are downloading. The people experiencing the cultural shift I described above is also quite comfortable waiting for the movie to download. Take Tivo for example, people are perfectly comfortable letting that sucker churn 2-3 hours in the middle of the night to download their movies and shows. The reason is because people also become used to waiting to record the shows that will air later in the week. Waiting for video content is a fact of Internet and cable life that the public is just fine with.

Yes, it may be faster to run to the local blockbuster or best buy and pick up a disk, but then there's always the possibility it will be out, it will not in their chosen format, or it will be hard to find on the shelf. More importantly, instead of picking one or two movies or shows, the public can now select dozens at a time. Yes, they'll have to wait, but it's not like they can watch them at the same time anyhow. While they wait they can watch stuff they have already downloaded.

... and the studios are not going to support downloading over disc, they have already stated this.

Really, they've stated this? OK, my little insider imp, who stated this? How long ago did they say this? I seriously doubt they are singing that tune now.

The vote againist HD DVD by Warner is widely seen as a rejection of Microsoft vision of movie distribution.

Whoa there, little cavalier, slow down that pony, there. How exactly is the "vote againist HD-DVD" by Warner seen as a rejection of Microsoft's vision? Being as little as you are, I wonder how widely you can see that one. Despite Microsoft's encryption being shipped on every HD DVD disks, the company has been just as interested in pushing downloadable distribution. They wisely saw that HD-DVD was a way to get their product out into the market, now they can push it into the online distribution channel, too. And even if it was a rejection of Microsoft's vision (and I certainly don't hear any studios saying that publicly), that's still not a rejection of downloadable content. I haven't heard any studios complaining about Amazon or NetFlix. No the fact is the studios are very well aware that this is a new market they need to be part of, hence the reason they embrace it.

Bluray won this, and you need to face it. I told you it was going to happen, but you insisted that HD DVD was going to pull this out because of the cheaper price. It didn't help then, its not going to help now.

No, lil't, you're lying about what I said. I did not "insist that HD DVD was going to pull this out because of the cheaper price." Price would be a factor, I certainly agree with that, but that was not the only thing I said (go back and read the posts). I suggested in several threads that there were things that Toshiba, Microsoft and the HD-DVD studios could do to help the format. I proposed scenarios that could very well have altered BR's fortunes in this war. But I never said, emphatically and arrogantly like you have, that the outcome was certain. Don't say I did, because that is a bold-faced lie. I only suggested alternate endings to this war.

But more importantly I also suggested that both HD-DVD and BR would be marginalized by downloadable content. And that is precisely what I am suggesting is already happening now. So now, you want us to believe that because BR beat HD-DVD, it will do the same to downloadable content? Sorry, but I don't buy that. You're underestimating how much this format war has hurt BR and given downloadable content real teeth it might not have had without the format war.

Paramount is going neutral(it is going to happen for sure), and Universal will be the last to hold out(countering my earlier prediction because of new events)

Wouldn't it be another kick in the pants for you if they would hold on to the bitter end and start pushing downloadable content as a way to make us the loss in revenue? If they did, they would at least not alienate their loyal HD-DVD customers and be seen as the good guys in this sordid affair. I'm not saying that this will happen, but I would love to see you eat that crow.

And as far as Toshiba having, lost? I'm not there yet either. The HD-DVD players already have ethernet, so what if the next player they produce has a hard drive in it? Being a manufacturer of computers, that would certainly not be a stretch. They are at the forefront of laptop research, so what if this hard drive was solid state? Now you're talking 2-3 time the access speed of disk-based drives. Throw in a digital tuner and that next generation HD-DVD player becomes a really interesting piece of gear. All the technology has already been developped, it's just a matter of putting it together in one box. I'm not saying this is what they'll do, but just think of the potential. At $2-300 each, that's one hell of a product.

You have not been paying much attention to CES as of the last four years have. Downloading has been pushed every year in that period. Same interest generated, and still the public is not ready to buy it.

Same interest generated? Hardly. There's been a market increase this year. Anyhow, people are buying now. Let's pick this up in a year, when we have some real Tivo, Amazon, NetFlix, and iMove sales figures. I don't know what hardware sales were for this past holiday season, but I'm going to guess that they were pretty brisk. Tivo is riding the analog shut-off scare pretty hard in their sales pitch and is really the best option for the millions of homes with analog TVs - if the government rebate applies to their box, that will be a huge boost for them this year. Once it's in people's homes, it's just a few clicks of the remote to start downloading over the internet. As a matter of fact, it's by far the simplest and easiest interface I've seen to do this.

Oh, and yes, I actually have been paying very close attention to CES.

So you can just give your internet sales job a rest.

Well, not to burst your bubble, but in this down-economy of layoffs and retail downturns, my job and jobs like mine have been booming. I bet there aren't many other industries that are paying their employees bonuses this year, are there? I think my industry is benefiting tremendously from the convergence of video and the internet. Maybe your negative view of us is envy and jealousy due to the downturn in your little world?

Opinion pieces from a computer pundit is hardly a basis for fact. Especially since we are talking video, not computers.

Well as the Internet and video continue to converge like they have for the the past five years, we'll see who's right won't we, my little Luddite? Keep waiving that little feather for BR, if you must. And just so we're clear, I'm not saying BR is going to be blown away by downloads, I'm saying it will be marginalized as an option for movie ownership that will represent just a fraction of the movie market as the rest of it moves online. Yes, you can quote me on that.

You know, I stopped with the last thread because it was so full on falsehoods, FUD, and outright lies that I didn't want to burden everyone with your pointless pontifications about your supposed superiority. And if you're going to bring up that old nonsense about me being a liar, then maybe you should read what I wrote again. I have not lied on this board, so please give it a rest. But it just seems that no matter where you troll, you seem to piss off everyone with your condescending tone - as soon as you join in the discussion the whole thread turns to one tense and unpleasant quagmire. I've received dozens of private messages from people who think of you as a pompous bore, and while they try to tell you this as tactfully as possible in just about every post, you just don't seem to get it. If all you're going to do is turn every thread into a miserable debate about yourself, then just don't. I may not be that tactful, but I'll repeat what I said before, how many times do I have to flush before you go away?

dean_martin

01-15-2008, 02:27 PM

Here's an article that ties in recession and gas prices to Warner's decision. However, the interesting thing is the note that Bluray may be the last physical medium for video as internet and technology companies "race" to build online distribution channels. Its coming whether the studios like it or not. And I'm still amazed that the studios have become so financially dependent on vhs, dvd, etc. sales. How did they survive during the days of Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, etc.?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2247267,00.asp?kc=PCRSS03069TX1K0001121

Groundbeef

01-15-2008, 02:45 PM

Here's an article that ties in recession and gas prices to Warner's decision. However, the interesting thing is the note that Bluray may be the last physical medium for video as internet and technology companies "race" to build online distribution channels. Its coming whether the studios like it or not. And I'm still amazed that the studios have become so financially dependent on vhs, dvd, etc. sales. How did they survive during the days of Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, etc.?

]

It was a totally different market. If you wanted to see a movie, you went to the MOVIE THEATER. There was not a choice. No TV, no VHS, no DVD.

Studios also only released a few films versus the volume today. Most movie houses only showed a film or 2 at a time. Multiplexes were not even a thought.

blackraven

01-15-2008, 10:13 PM

pixelthis

01-15-2008, 11:41 PM

I'm sorry, but I may be nieve in saying this. But I don't think the majority of the public is going to want to down load a movie onto a hard drive from the net and then plug it into a TV when you can go to blockbuster and rent a DVD and put it in a cheap DVD player. Most of the public doesnt have high end equipment. Just look at the junk that walmart, target and Kmart sell. And many households have 2-4 TV's and more than 1 DVDP so you can play the DVD in any room. And many people I know have obsolete computers that are just used for school work or browsing the web. Thats why the computer game industry is dying slowly because there are not enough people who have high end computers such as myself that can play the latest games on the highest graphics settings. Thats where PS3 and Xbox come ino play.
And what about people that like to buy movies and have hundreds of moives in their collection. Are they going to have to buy multiple expensive terrabyte hard drives when they can just buy a DVD, I dont think so. Of course, I could be all wrong!

You are.
All thats required for vod on my cable system is a DVR , and something to watch it on.
Its easier to use than a DVD player, and you need it anyway to watch just about anything.
THE CES is all abuzz about downloading movies, Apple has plans for Itunes to offer movies.
The quality is quite good, even if it doesnt match sir t 's cavier wishes and champaing
dreams.
As a matter of fact quite a few companies have gone broke trying to sell quality to the american people, been there, seen that.
I am the only person I know that had a super vhs, or a laserdisc.
My first set was a 20in XbR (the 26 was 1200 bucks) and most thought I was crazy for paying 800 bucks for a "small" tv(about 2400 in todays dollars).
Anybody with Comcasts ondemand service should check it out, its quite good really.
As for taking a hard drive over to watch movies on, well I have a 320 gig usb drive,
more and more sets have USB, and sharing tunes is already commonplace.
And a hard drive might not be reconizable, what do you think an Ipod is?
Or a zune?
The last two optical formats are from an age when the only way to store large amounts
of data were with optical drives, BUT THAT IS QUICKLY BEING SUPPLANTED
by a universe of high speed data over the web, and hard drive and solid state storage
that holds massive amounts of data.
On my first computer upgrading my 4 mgs of ram cost 165 bucks for another 4 mgs.
The HD was 265 mb , and a friend cussed me because I HAD ONE SO BIG.
Compare that to today.
the transformation of mass media to data is slow coming, but it is coming.
If HD or BLU hope to become a "mass" format they need to quit this silly format war
(its not over yet) and concentrate on getting established.
Do you really need a collection when you can crank up a computer and see any movie ever made? THINK ABOUT IT:1:

L.J.

01-16-2008, 08:07 AM

You are.
All thats required for vod on my cable system is a DVR , and something to watch it on.
Its easier to use than a DVD player, and you need it anyway to watch just about anything.
THE CES is all abuzz about downloading movies, Apple has plans for Itunes to offer movies.
The quality is quite good, even if it doesnt match sir t 's cavier wishes and champaing
dreams.
As a matter of fact quite a few companies have gone broke trying to sell quality to the american people, been there, seen that.
I am the only person I know that had a super vhs, or a laserdisc.
My first set was a 20in XbR (the 26 was 1200 bucks) and most thought I was crazy for paying 800 bucks for a "small" tv(about 2400 in todays dollars).
Anybody with Comcasts ondemand service should check it out, its quite good really.
As for taking a hard drive over to watch movies on, well I have a 320 gig usb drive,
more and more sets have USB, and sharing tunes is already commonplace.
And a hard drive might not be reconizable, what do you think an Ipod is?
Or a zune?
The last two optical formats are from an age when the only way to store large amounts
of data were with optical drives, BUT THAT IS QUICKLY BEING SUPPLANTED
by a universe of high speed data over the web, and hard drive and solid state storage
that holds massive amounts of data.
On my first computer upgrading my 4 mgs of ram cost 165 bucks for another 4 mgs.
The HD was 265 mb , and a friend cussed me because I HAD ONE SO BIG.
Compare that to today.
the transformation of mass media to data is slow coming, but it is coming.
If HD or BLU hope to become a "mass" format they need to quit this silly format war
(its not over yet) and concentrate on getting established.
Do you really need a collection when you can crank up a computer and see any movie ever made? THINK ABOUT IT:1:

:Yawn: ................... :sleep:

Rich-n-Texas

01-16-2008, 08:14 AM

Cable TV blows man!

JSE

01-16-2008, 08:15 AM

Groundbeef

01-16-2008, 08:35 AM

Cable TV blows man!

That sounds like a really bad tagline in a Porno Blog.

GMichael

01-16-2008, 08:54 AM

Rich-n-Texas

01-16-2008, 09:00 AM

I'll see about renting a movie from my FIOS VOD service this weekend and report back on it's HD PQ.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-16-2008, 11:57 AM

You don't need highend equipement for video downloads and when the technology catches up, it will be easier than driving to BB to pick up a movie. You will download and play the movie on the TV of your choice. Very simple. Also more "green" since you will save on gas and not clog the atmosphere :ihih: . There you go greenies!

How do you see netflicks in this. Their service does not require you use gas, or clog the atmosphere. They deliver to your door, and you stick the DVD/Bluray back in the mailbox when finished. Plus you do not get a heavily compressed movie(complete with artifacts) and a low bitrate DD soundtrack. You get lightly compressed AVC or VC1 with lossless audio. You do not need a high end system to enjoy that, my buddy enjoys this on a quientet III with a 1080p plasma.

Yes they will. Memory is cheap now and will be even cheaper in years to come. Downloads will probably be cheaper than a Blueray DVD or standard DVD so you will offset the price of memory quickly.

JSE, the studio are not going to undercut their prized revenue stream for downloads. The studio heads of the big 8 studio in Hollywood have already come out saying this publicly. The business model for downloads is not feasible at this time, and most do not believe it will be for years to come. Walmart and two other companies have already shut down their downloading service. The studios are not ready for the downloads, at that is buttress by the fact you do not see more movies for downloading than you currently see on bluray.

Another huge misconception is that people won't trust storing movie on their hardrives. This is just wrong and I will bring up the digitial photography example again. People have had no problem giving up film. The average joe consumer is not like the consumers who frequent this and other boards. People who are concerned about ultimate quality and having high end systems are the minority. To think the general public thinks like people on this board is just naive.

JSE, you are wrong on this one bro. Digital photography is just pictures, it is not a movie that one has invested in. Film was a pain in the bottom. You had to pay for it in the first place, pay for developement, and wait for it to come back. That is not how purchasing a movie is. It is rather easy and brainless to pick digital photography over film. People shop at BB and impulsively buy movies, or they go to Amazon and point and click, and it is delivered to your door. This is not quite the same as downloading a movie, and being forced to watch it before your 24hour window is up. You cannot take a digital download to your friends house, and you have to maintain a backup as well. Joesixpack is not ready for this complexity, they just want to pop the disc and press play.

Movie downloads will be the future. There is no getting around that. It will take some time but it will be the standard one day. Not today and not next year or even the next few years but it will take over. Technology will advance, it's just a matter of time.

The only model that VOD and downloads will take over from is renting. Everyone knows this. Your ardent collector of movies will stick with the disc. I base this on the fact that VOD(or PPV as you will) has been around for a decade and has managed to only grow to a $200 million dollar revenue stream. It has been stuck at around that point since 2003. In that same decade the DVD was born(everyone thought VOD will kill the DVD) and grew to a $42 billion dollar business. While VOD and downloads have been stuck at $200 million dollars, in the last couple of years bluray and HD DVD have grown to a 4 billion dollar market and growing faster than DVD did at the same time in its history.

The bottom line is that BR/HDDVD need to get things straightened out now, not tomorrow. They have limited future and they need to take full advantage while they can.

JSE

We both absolutely agree on this. However I think the Bluray exclusive studio have decided to just leave Universal behind since they are really the only hold outs at this point. Paramount will be on board within the next few months.

Woochifer

01-16-2008, 12:16 PM

Any idea who was buying them? Someone must have been buying them for Sony to bother making them that long.

Betamax was used in professional circles, for editing, archiving, and digital audio (some of the earliest PCM digital recorders recorded onto Betamax tapes). Plus, ED Beta (which originally came out in the late-80s alongside S-VHS) remained the highest quality home video archiving format available to consumers until D-VHS came onto the market in 1998.

JSE

01-16-2008, 12:37 PM

How do you see netflicks in this. Their service does not require you use gas, or clog the atmosphere. They deliver to your door, and you stick the DVD/Bluray back in the mailbox when finished. Plus you do not get a heavily compressed movie(complete with artifacts) and a low bitrate DD soundtrack. You get lightly compressed AVC or VC1 with lossless audio. You do not need a high end system to enjoy that, my buddy enjoys this on a quientet III with a 1080p plasma.

JSE, the studio are not going to undercut their prized revenue stream for downloads. The studio heads of the big 8 studio in Hollywood have already come out saying this publicly. The business model for downloads is not feasible at this time, and most do not believe it will be for years to come. Walmart and two other companies have already shut down their downloading service. The studios are not ready for the downloads, at that is buttress by the fact you do not see more movies for downloading than you currently see on bluray.

The only model that VOD and downloads will take over from is renting. Everyone knows this. Your ardent collector of movies will stick with the disc. I base this on the fact that VOD(or PPV as you will) has been around for a decade and has managed to only grow to a $200 million dollar revenue stream. It has been stuck at around that point since 2003. In that same decade the DVD was born(everyone thought VOD will kill the DVD) and grew to a $42 billion dollar business. While VOD and downloads have been stuck at $200 million dollars, in the last couple of years bluray and HD DVD have grown to a 4 billion dollar market and growing faster than DVD did at the same time in its history.

We both absolutely agree on this. However I think the Bluray exclusive studio have decided to just leave Universal behind since they are really the only hold outs at this point. Paramount will be on board within the next few months.

T, I can agree with you almost 100% on all of the above except for the photography issue in terms of the world "Today". But, I am not talking about "Today". I am talking about the world "tomorrow", in 5 to 7 years-ish. All the industry dynamics and consumer dynamics you refer to above will change and change drastically. Think back 10 years ago about the technology we had. Now think of today. We have come a tremendous distance and the speed of technological advancement is speeding up everyday with each new advance.

Now for the photography reference,

JSE, you are wrong on this one bro. Digital photography is just pictures, it is not a movie that one has invested in.

Just Pictures? This is not true. How is a photo any different than a movie in terms of value? I can replace a movie but there is no way I can replace an image. Myself and many others feel we have a huge investment in our images. I make "some" money off mine, other make their living off of them. Others simply have family photos that are very dear to them. These are investments.

Film was a pain in the bottom. You had to pay for it in the first place, pay for developement, and wait for it to come back. That is not how purchasing a movie is. It is rather easy and brainless to pick digital photography over film.

I guess your not that into photography. For pros, avid and casual photographers, digital has not always made it easier. Film was much easier and less time consuming. Much less expensive equipment and software were/are needed with film. With film, you take the photos, dropped off the film and have it processed in about an hour. It can take me days to go through a couple of rolls of film and to get the final images I want with digital. Trust me, there are a lot of tradeoffs with digital. I find myself sitting in front of the computer much, much more now.

People shop at BB and impulsively buy movies, or they go to Amazon and point and click, and it is delivered to your door. This is not quite the same as downloading a movie, and being forced to watch it before your 24hour window is up. You cannot take a digital download to your friends house, and you have to maintain a backup as well. Joesixpack is not ready for this complexity, they just want to pop the disc and press play.

Again, your pretty much correct in "Today's" world. I am speaking of "Tomorrow's" world. Things will change. You will be able to copy of movie to a small memory card or USB keychain type drive and plug it into your friend's receiver/TV/Hub or whatever. Very easy and really not very different that carrying over a DVD. But again, tomorrow. Not today.

L.J.

01-16-2008, 12:40 PM

However I think the Bluray exclusive studio have decided to just leave Universal behind since they are really the only hold outs at this point. Paramount will be on board within the next few months.

Universal doesn't have to go completely Blu.....neutral is fine with me :)

Woochifer

01-16-2008, 12:54 PM

So long as movie downloads remain locked down by DRM, and view/time limitations, they will remain nothing more than an extension of the existing PPV and VOD markets. I used to think that Blu-ray/HD-DVD had only a few years before their market would dry up, and HD downloads would take over.

But, the schemes unveiled to date (e.g., Xbox Live, and the new Apple TV HD movie downloads) are tepid efforts at best, and do absolutely nothing to actually grow the market. Apple's newly unveiled movie download rental program is promising in that you can move the file between any devices logged onto your iTunes account (a little more transportable than other downloading schemes that lock the file onto one device). But, these rentals only give you a 24 hour window to watch a movie before the file locks up.

While this might cost Blockbuster and Netflix some customers, I doubt that this will shift the habits of people who currently buy DVDs. Until the studios take the locks off and allow customers to download movie files with minimal restriction and usage limits, I think the download market will simply displace existing rental, PPV, and POV avenues, rather than take significant market share away from disc media.

Downloads won't be attractive to consumers until these limits are removed, and removing these limits won't be a good option for the studios until it can be demonstrated that downloads that people "own" create more revenue than they currently get from discs.

The home video industry used to depend on a rental pricing structure on VHS tapes, where new movie releases would carry list prices ranging from $80 to $120 for a period of a few months before getting repriced closer to $20 for retail sell-through. The time period during which this rental pricing was in effect, those titles were not available for PPV, VOD, or any other home video channel.

The DVD turned the industry inside out by creating demand for retail sell-through at the time of release. The studios quickly found that they could make a lot more money by selling DVDs at list prices of $30 (for new releases) and $20 (for library titles) than they could by keeping that rental pricing structure intact. Right now, the majority of the home video market is retail sell-through, and this is the studios' biggest revenue stream. This is why PPV and VOD don't get those titles until they've been out on DVD for a while.

Even with DRM-free downloads that allow for unlimited viewing, there's still the issue of bandwidth. One analyst called this the "Target" question -- does it take less time to download a movie file than picking up a DVD at the local Target store? Right now, for the majority of households, the answer remains no. While we should expect that broadband speeds will continue to improve, if consumers transition over to HD resolution in a big way, then it will take even longer to download HD files and for broadband speeds to make it feasible for impulse purchase.

Groundbeef

01-16-2008, 01:19 PM

The time period during which this rental pricing was in effect, those titles were not available for PPV, VOD, or any other home video channel.

This is why PPV and VOD don't get those titles until they've been out on DVD for a while.

Even with DRM-free downloads that allow for unlimited viewing, there's still the issue of bandwidth. One analyst called this the "Target" question -- does it take less time to download a movie file than picking up a DVD at the local Target store? Right now, for the majority of households, the answer remains no. While we should expect that broadband speeds will continue to improve, if consumers transition over to HD resolution in a big way, then it will take even longer to download HD files and for broadband speeds to make it feasible for impulse purchase.

Not to interupt this little discussion, but I wanted to point out something.

I don't know where XBOX Live fits into the equation, but it gets new movies the same day as DVD releases. I have rented "We Are Marshall" in HD the same day it was released on DVD. Thats the first one to come to mind. There have been others as well. I'll have to check into other titles if you want, but I'd rather not do the work :)

blackraven

01-16-2008, 03:39 PM

Any one ever have a hard drive die. I've had 2. Thats why I keep paper copies of all important documents or photo's. Wait until someone has a collection of movies on a hard drive that die's. Your also assuming that every one will be able to afford mega hard drives and all the associated equipment. I have no doubt that downloading will be the mode of choice for movies, but I don't think that DVD will ever die until Hard drives, memory and computer drop down in price to the level of a $30 DVD player. You are forgetting about all the tens of millions of people at or below the poverty line that will not be able to afford the new equipment that you will need for downloading and storage on a terrabyte hard drive.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-16-2008, 04:59 PM

So you speak for the whole American public? LOL. It's absolute nonsense, and you know it. If the American public is willing to trust their whole music collection to disk, then there's no reason to believe they won't trust their movie collections to the same medium. I think the success of iTunes is a perfect example of how wrong your expectations are. You're wrong, and while I can't demonstrate it now, it will become apparent as downloading technology and marketshare increases. Come back here in a year and we'll see how silly your understanding of the American public is.

Glad your back, I was bored. The American public speaks with their dollars. Music is different than movies. What works for music does not work for movies. Walmart, Google, and movie gallery have all shut down in 2007. Revenue is flat, and the studios are focusing on growing HDM on disc not movie downloads. Can you explain how Bluray/HD DVD even during a war has grown larger than VOD and downloading put together in terms of revuenue? That is because people want the disc, not a DRM infested low quality download. I do not have to speak for the American public, they speak through their money, and it ain't headed towards downloading whether we are speaking of VOD or XBOX live. How wrong was I about bluray? It turns out not one of your scenarios played out, and yet you are still calling me wrong. You said wait till next year about HD DVD and bluray. It didn't even take that long to play out, just like I stated.

With regard to renting, you're attempting to dismiss the importance of it by slyly wedging it into the topic of downloading & owning - entirely unrelated. Yes, I had to cut and paste that sentence out separately from your quote, because as usual you're trying to confuse the argument. Renting is a huge part of this equation. What you don't seem to understand is that downloading is a cultural shift for people. The more they do it, either through Netflix, Amazon, iMovie, or Tivo, it creates an expectation that this is how movies, and even TV shows, are seen.

Renting has not been a huge part of the equation since the studio shifted to a sell through market years ago. Every since they have gone to sell through, rental incomes means less and less to the studios bottom line, and sales of disc are basically funding film projects.

Amazon sells FAR more disc than downloads, FAR MORE.
Netflix rents more disc than downloads as well
There are way more titles on disc than Imovie.

What you don't seem to get is downloading movies is not a growing market, is not economically feasible at this time, and not where analyst see the consumers spending their money. Analyst who follow the movie industry(as opposed to someone who does not seem to know anything about it, and couldn't get his last prediction right) believe that Bluray will be where the consumer puts their money now that the war is pretty much settled. The trend is already there(as evidenced by the fact that bluray alone is already a larger market than both VOD and downloading combined), and whatever cultural shift you predict will happen has not even learned to walk yet.

Netflix, and later Blockbuster revolutionized the renting industry by fundamentally changing two very important facets of renting: staying at home and vastly increasing choice. If you can understand nothing else, you can't possibly tell me that you can't see that downloading expands those conveniences further - not only is the choice expanded exponentially because from one screen the user has far more vendors to choose from, but the technology has advanced to allow the convenience of doing it all from their TV screens, not their slow-to-start and buggy computer in another room.

You are talking about a market that has lost its influence a long time ago. Renting is not what the studio are emphasizing. They are working on growning the largest revenue source for them. It isn't renting, it isn't VOD and it isn't downloading, its HD on disc sale through. VOD and downloading isn't even on the radar with them. Why hasn't VOD taken off? You cannot own it, it has term limits, you have to pay everytime you want to see it, and you cannot burn it to disc unless its nothing more than a TV program. Both VOD and downloading are stagnant while disc sales are growing like crazy. VOD nor downloading have even scratch DVD sales, and with flat revenue, its doesn't look like its touching bluray either. People who collect movies will not go to downloads, that is the bottom line. Evidence is everywhere that proves this. It isn't even apparent that the rental market has been negatively impacted as Blockbuster and Netflicks still send far more disc out than downloads that have occured.

Now I know that flies in the face of our very real desire to physically touch & own the disks, but the cultural shift is much farther along than you are willing to admit. Yes, there is a psychological shift that has been under way for years. And as an owner of a huge record, CD, and DVD collection, I'll be the first to lament this trend, but I'm smart enough to see the writing on the wall, too. Yes, it's lower quality in a download, but the convenience far outweighs that shortcoming (more on that below).

I know this is difficult for you to understand, but early technology adopters push cultural shifts, and their support trickles down to everyone else. It happen with the VCR, Laserdisc, DVD, and now HD DVD and Bluray. With the exception of Laserdisc, all of these formats grew to be huge revenue sources for both manufacturers and the Studios themselves. Neither VOD nor downloading has taken off(its been a decade now) because largely these early adopters are not interested in the product. Neither VOD or downloading is growing, so how is it farther along than I am willing to admit. I can see the numbers very clearly, and they have pointed to stagnation for the last three years.

So? just because DVD took off faster, it's no guaranty of BR's potential rise to replace it - the two trends could very well be mutually exclusive, especially if you consider that there was not real movie-downloading option back when DVDs took off. As I've said repeatedly, there are simply too many differences in the movie and related industries between then and now to make that comparison stick. What happened in the past is no guarantee of the future.

This shows how much you know. BR is already farther along than DVD was at this time period. And once again you are incorrect. PPV came to the bay area in 1997, the same year that the DVD was introduced. It was heavily advertised and very visible. People didn't take to it then. In terms of the comparison, you are wrong. Wooch and I have pointed out that every gauge to measure growth that was there is here now. You have so little knowledge of the movie industry(which is so apparent in our last discussion) you do not even know how to evaluated anything that is related to it. Your assertion in our last discussion didn't even come close to playing out, not even close or in the ballpark of close. What you are attempting to do(AGAIN) is to cloud a clear issue with bull. You are bringing too many unrelated things into a clear arguement. Player sales have nothing to do with internet downloads. Disc sales have nothing to do with internet downloading. Apples to apples mean directly comparing DVD players sales at two years, with Bluray/HD DVD players sales at two years. There is no need to evaluate anything but these two comparisons. You do not bring the internet in this equation at all unless all you are trying to do is derail clarity. Camparing apples against apples shows that HD on disc is growning faster than the DVD did at two years both in player sales, and disc purchased. It is just that clear.

Did you also know that DVD sales were down in 2007 for the first time in the history of the format? And don't even try and tell us this is solely because of the strength of Blu-Ray sales, which accounted for a mere 3% of the total movie market. No, the reason it was down is because people are finding other ways to get their entertainment. And while download sales may have trailed behind BR sales, as you asserted elsewhere, total downloads could not possibly have. What else would make up the difference?

I was the one that told you that DVD sales were down. And you attempts to tie downloading into that equation is not possible because downloading in terms of revenue is stagnant. If you read Warner reasons for going bluray exclusive, one of those reason was people were not buying DVD's because many see it as a format that has matured, and the format war was making everyone wait things out. In other words, they are waiting to see who will win to begin purchasing again. There is absolutely no indication that folks were looking elsewhere for their entertainment as you assert(and with of course no support for your assertion as usual). With revenues stagnant, they are not looking to downloads, and that is apparent. If downloading WAS the reason, you would see a correlation between the DVD decline, and a rise in income from movie downloads going to the studios. It ain't happen bro.

Who's saying they have to be mass downloads? What we see now is a gradual, slow but steady growth.

There is no growth. At least no growth in revenue for the content providers. If you are speaking of free television programs, video off youtube and google, and other free services, you cannot compare that with DVD which is mainly a movie driven medium. Movies are not free. They cost on VOD, and through downloading services like Imovie and XBOX live. Free content is always free whether it is downloaded via Live, or through VOD. You cannot compare that with DVD because there is nothing free on a DVD.

This assumption about the Internet is nonsense and shows how little you understand it. People are downloading more video now than they ever were. It may not be HD, and it may not just be movies, but they are downloading.

So? If it is not movies, then how do you think just downloading low quality video from youtube is going to effect a movie driven format like DVD and Bluray? Those two are about movies first, and television programs second. Snippets of video cannot compare with that.

The people experiencing the cultural shift I described above is also quite comfortable waiting for the movie to download. Take Tivo for example, people are perfectly comfortable letting that sucker churn 2-3 hours in the middle of the night to download their movies and shows. The reason is because people also become used to waiting to record the shows that will air later in the week. Waiting for video content is a fact of Internet and cable life that the public is just fine with.

These people do not buy movies. They rent. Different market, different consumer, and different expectation of quality. You may be comfortable with this, but I do not know anyone who has chosen to wait 2-3 hours for something they can pop in a player and get in 30 seconds. Especially if they go through netflix to get the disc.

Yes, it may be faster to run to the local blockbuster or best buy and pick up a disk, but then there's always the possibility it will be out, it will not in their chosen format, or it will be hard to find on the shelf. More importantly, instead of picking one or two movies or shows, the public can now select dozens at a time. Yes, they'll have to wait, but it's not like they can watch them at the same time anyhow. While they wait they can watch stuff they have already downloaded.

There is also the possibility that the studio don't even offer the movie on VOD or for downloading. That is a much larger chance than not finding it at their retailer. Question to you, have you ever heard of a title being offered for download day and date with the DVD? Not a chance, there is always a window for sale through FIRST, and rental and downloading second.

What if that dozen you choose won't all fit you your hard drive? Then you have to give up something you already saved and want to keep to accomodate new things. That does not happen with disc media.

Really, they've stated this? OK, my little insider imp, who stated this? How long ago did they say this? I seriously doubt they are singing that tune now.

So you are already start the name calling. Okay stupid little uninformed wanna be no nothing, it was stated at CES(which is why Warner made the switch to end the stalemate). It was stated at IFA 2007, and only a stupid little azz like you would trade a $42 billion dollar market for a $200 million dollar one. That is why they run studios, and you get on the internet and make some of the stupidest claims I have ever read. If any studio thought digital distribution was ready for prime time, they would have jumped all over it. The market is too small(its smaller than Bluray), nobody amoung the studios believes its time to abandon disc for download. Did it ever occur to your pee brain that is why you can get more titles on disc than you can get on VOD and downloading? You think to small, and perhaps that is because of your reduced brain size.

Whoa there, little cavalier, slow down that pony, there. How exactly is the "vote againist HD-DVD" by Warner seen as a rejection of Microsoft's vision? Being as little as you are, I wonder how widely you can see that one. Despite Microsoft's encryption being shipped on every HD DVD disks, the company has been just as interested in pushing downloadable distribution. They wisely saw that HD-DVD was a way to get their product out into the market, now they can push it into the online distribution channel, too. And even if it was a rejection of Microsoft's vision (and I certainly don't hear any studios saying that publicly), that's still not a rejection of downloadable content. I haven't heard any studios complaining about Amazon or NetFlix. No the fact is the studios are very well aware that this is a new market they need to be part of, hence the reason they embrace it.

Microsoft vision is to ditch the disc altogether and move to downloads using microsoft windows, XBOX live, and any device with Microsoft software running it. HDi, and VC-1 are both a part of that world. All HD DVD players and disc use HDi, and 98% of HD DVD movies are encoded with VC-1. Since the Bluray studios primarily use MPEG-2 or AVC, you now have 40% percent of movies that will not be using VC-1(and yes I heard that Warner will be releasing using AVC since they no longer have to port over titles to HD DVD). Paramount is currently in negotiations with the BDA, and word has it they are moving over to bluray as well. That means another studio NOT using HDi and VC-1. Universal will be the last to move(which they certainly will make before christmas season) and that will mean another studio not using VC-1. Everyone knows that Microsoft got behind HD DVD because A) they choose HDi and VC-1, and B) they wanted to split the market and keep the consumer as confused as possible so they would adopt neither format and move to downloads. The digitalbits and DVDfile have both reported this openly. By Warner choosing to move exclusive to one side(thereby giving that side 85% of the sales, and 70% of the titles) now bluray can move forward with their plan to replace the DVD, therby throwing a wrench in Microsofts confusion plans. Microsoft lost because now manufacturers have the confidence to manufacture bluray players(10 new manufacturers announced players at CES), computer manufacturers are not confident in putting bluray drives in their computers(all of the HD DVD drive makers other than Toshiba have switched their support), and there will be hardly any disc encoded with either HDi or VC-1, which means no revenue stream from royalites. If you understood the film industry half as much as you fake, even your pee size brain could logically think this through.

No, lil't, you're lying about what I said. I did not "insist that HD DVD was going to pull this out because of the cheaper price." Price would be a factor, I certainly agree with that, but that was not the only thing I said (go back and read the posts). I suggested in several threads that there were things that Toshiba, Microsoft and the HD-DVD studios could do to help the format. I proposed scenarios that could very well have altered BR's fortunes in this war. But I never said, emphatically and arrogantly like you have, that the outcome was certain. Don't say I did, because that is a bold-faced lie. I only suggested alternate endings to this war.

Well price was not a factor, and the things you suggested that could help HD DVD were ludicrous because your knowledge of the industry is nil. Did you forget your little gem about the ship going down in the ocean full of bluray players increasing prices like porkbellies? I didn't say the outcome was certain, but I did state how it was going to play out, and so far, I was right. It doesn't really matter, all of your assertions on the subject were dead wrong, and the momentum is all bluray just like I said it would be.

But more importantly I also suggested that both HD-DVD and BR would be marginalized by downloadable content. And that is precisely what I am suggesting is already happening now. So now, you want us to believe that because BR beat HD-DVD, it will do the same to downloadable content? Sorry, but I don't buy that. You're underestimating how much this format war has hurt BR and given downloadable content real teeth it might not have had without the format war.

Your track record on suggestions is not something I would take to the bank. If downloads were going to marginalize Bluray(we cannot even bring HD DVD into the equation) we would have already seen the erosion of DVD sales, and the increase in VOD and downloads of movies. We have not seen the latter, and the former is firmly traceable to the format war. People who buy disc are not interested in downloads of a lesser quality. The studio are already set to release more titles on disc than they are going to release to VOD, XBOXlive and Amazon. Every bluray exclusive studio as stated they are committed to growing the HD disc market, no such promise was made towards downloads. If you ran a studio, what would you pay attention to, your $42 billion market, or your $200 million dollar one? You would probably choose the latter, which is why you don't run a studio.

Wouldn't it be another kick in the pants for you if they would hold on to the bitter end and start pushing downloadable content as a way to make us the loss in revenue? If they did, they would at least not alienate their loyal HD-DVD customers and be seen as the good guys in this sordid affair. I'm not saying that this will happen, but I would love to see you eat that crow.

You cannot make up a loss in revenue from a stagnant source. Well maybe in your convoluted world you can, but not in the real world. This is more of your stupid logic. How does a studio exclusive to HD DVD come out the good guys pushing downloads over disc based material when the HD DVD player does not store downloads but plays disc. How stupid is this??? That studio would be tarred and feathered if that happened.

Crow is not my speed, but after you last scenarios didn't even come close to playing out, you must be full of the stuff.

And as far as Toshiba having, lost? I'm not there yet either. The HD-DVD players already have ethernet, so what if the next player they produce has a hard drive in it?

Because doing so would add cost to the players, alot more cost and complexity. With that extra cost comes a loss of a talking point. Our players are cheaper than bluray players. With the loss of studio and manufacturing support, HD DVD has nothing left. And really, the best selling HD DVD players are the A2 and A3. The XA-2 has not sold that well, and the A-35 is not doing that well either. So there is no demand for a higher priced players than we currently see now. Your suggestion is plain stupid.

Being a manufacturer of computers, that would certainly not be a stretch. They are at the forefront of laptop research, so what if this hard drive was solid state? Now you're talking 2-3 time the access speed of disk-based drives. Throw in a digital tuner and that next generation HD-DVD player becomes a really interesting piece of gear. All the technology has already been developped, it's just a matter of putting it together in one box. I'm not saying this is what they'll do, but just think of the potential. At $2-300 each, that's one hell of a product.

More stupidity. Why sell a HD DVD player with no movies to support it? It is apparent that studio have already chosen bluray, and you have already lost $420 million dollars and counting. It would be more than stupid of them(but on par with you) for them to lose more money on something that already failed. A digital tuner, and compete with DVR's which would be cheaper? More stupidity. HD DVD is cooked, and only you would be retarded enough to try and revive something that took its last breath two weeks ago,

Same interest generated? Hardly. There's been a market increase this year. Anyhow, people are buying now. Let's pick this up in a year, when we have some real Tivo, Amazon, NetFlix, and iMove sales figures. I don't know what hardware sales were for this past holiday season, but I'm going to guess that they were pretty brisk. Tivo is riding the analog shut-off scare pretty hard in their sales pitch and is really the best option for the millions of homes with analog TVs - if the government rebate applies to their box, that will be a huge boost for them this year. Once it's in people's homes, it's just a few clicks of the remote to start downloading over the internet. As a matter of fact, it's by far the simplest and easiest interface I've seen to do this.

Oh, and yes, I actually have been paying very close attention to CES.

Yeah right, because if you had, you would have clearly known they have been pushing the same stuff for years, repackaged and with a new message every year. None of it took off. This year you have several companies pushing it, with no business plan, no studio support, and no hardware to be seen. Oooooo big time push.

You are becoming the next year kid. Everything is just wait till next year, wait till next year. What do you think things just appear out of nowhere?. Things have to trend up, and with downloading of movies it is not. We are talking movies here, not music or anything else. According to NDP, movie downloading in terms of revenue is flat, and there is no trend upwards, and nothing to suggest so either. Even with all of those XBOX360 sold, XBOX live is flat as a pancake. In spite of the fact that cable companies are selling tons of HD packages(mostly for sports) VOD is flat as a floor. All analyst that follow the MOVIE industry say that the growth area within that industry is with disc sales of HD movies. They that they'll be strong growth from 2008-2011 at the least, and perhaps beyond.

Well, not to burst your bubble, but in this down-economy of layoffs and retail downturns, my job and jobs like mine have been booming. I bet there aren't many other industries that are paying their employees bonuses this year, are there? I think my industry is benefiting tremendously from the convergence of video and the internet. Maybe your negative view of us is envy and jealousy due to the downturn in your little world?

So you really are going to advance this as an arguement? I got a rather large bonus this year, and so did many of the folks that I work with in this business. That does not mean anything. There is nothing about your pityful azz that would make me jealous. I have stated too many times in many posts, I do not care about you, your job, your mom or dad, or your third cousin on your mother side twice removed. I feel sorry for you, because you embarrased yourself time after time for 10 pages in another area on this very topic, and you were wrong as two left shoes on a one right foot man. My world has survive far more economic downturns than yours have. The movie making business did very well during the great depression, one of the few industries that did. The down turn was self inflicted, and has been remedied in one fail swoop. Thanks Warner.

Well as the Internet and video continue to converge like they have for the the past five years, we'll see who's right won't we, my little Luddite? Keep waiving that little feather for BR, if you must. And just so we're clear, I'm not saying BR is going to be blown away by downloads, I'm saying it will be marginalized as an option for movie ownership that will represent just a fraction of the movie market as the rest of it moves online. Yes, you can quote me on that.

Yes, I will put that quote right next to the ship going down quote. Or the earthquake in japan quote also followed by the blurays are like porkbellies quote. This quote will be in good company.

You know, I stopped with the last thread because it was so full on falsehoods, FUD, and outright lies that I didn't want to burden everyone with your pointless pontifications about your supposed superiority. And if you're going to bring up that old nonsense about me being a liar, then maybe you should read what I wrote again. I have not lied on this board, so please give it a rest. But it just seems that no matter where you troll, you seem to piss off everyone with your condescending tone - as soon as you join in the discussion the whole thread turns to one tense and unpleasant quagmire. I've received dozens of private messages from people who think of you as a pompous bore, and while they try to tell you this as tactfully as possible in just about every post, you just don't seem to get it. If all you're going to do is turn every thread into a miserable debate about yourself, then just don't. I may not be that tactful, but I'll repeat what I said before, how many times do I have to flush before you go away?

You lied, and I pointed it out. You lied, and now you are in denial about the lies you told. How about the lie that my video processor/switcher was a mass market product. You didn't lie about that? I do not know ANY product that costs close to $10k that can be labeled as mass market. And how does it become mass market when it has never been released to the market? Or how about the story about the friend at said high end audio company, which turned into the person who works for customer service(who never know shyte about future products released) to another source higher source within the company Which is it? I bet you cannot figure that one out today. That had more lies in it than brownies have nuts. Or what about the DVD player that has the option of playing either DSD native, or PCM, even though the player cannot pass DSD nor process it? What about I use room treatments to make up for channel imbalances? Either this is a lie to hide something else, or stupidity so profound that it scares the color out of your face.

Now if you want to take this issue to 10 pages, and look as stupid as you did before, we have a two page head start.

Mr Peabody

01-16-2008, 06:12 PM

Anybody watch the financial reports? If Apples download plans are so hot why did their stock drop after their show? Because of the lack of new product and enthusiasm for what they did show.

I don't see downloading of one form or the other taking over, at least in the near future. My habits are such I don't see it in my future at all. I have a fairly up to date computer and DSL, I still get the occasional sound drop out on streaming audio or listening to music samples. If this happens with just audio I can imagine what a piece of crap a movie would be. Cable has a long long way to go before they would even make a dent in the market. Not everyone has cable or if they do, not very many people have the dream service Pix seems to have.

With all that being said, you'd have to be blind not to see that certain factions of the industry sure want alternative ways of delivering entertainment to the consumer. Panasonic and a few others are going to start offering TV's with circuitry built in to them to interact with cable. If that isn't a stepping stone I don't know what is. This still don't mean a take over, it just means some one wants a piece of the pie. Comcast has announced some major plans to offer more movies, a projected database of 6,000 titles and they will use 4 analog stations to deliver a movie download. First big draw back is this plan is limited to COMCAST.

Most of you live in larger cities and fail to realize that a good size segment of consumers can't get cable or broadband if they wanted it. You see all this cutting edge stuff and get all excited but not every one gets to play. St. Louis isn't a small town and our cable system isn't much better today than it probably was 20 years ago. Like I posted some where, they, being Charter, just went "digital" last summer. If it wasn't for satelite becoming a viable option for rural areas they'd be out the picture all together.

Anyway just some thoughts to stir in.

L.J.

01-16-2008, 06:12 PM

See.....there you guys go with the long posts again. I have made it pretty clear, but I'll say it again........I'm Lazy. Can someone please sum this up with a sentence or 2 please?

Mr Peabody

01-16-2008, 08:30 PM

See.....there you guys go with the long posts again. I have made it pretty clear, but I'll say it again........I'm Lazy. Can someone please sum this up with a sentence or 2 please?

Whatever will be, will be...

diggity

01-16-2008, 11:31 PM

is it just me, but if they start making downloads available on such a massive scale, wouldn't that make the movies more prone to pirating? the studios' wouldn't want that.

or i may be wrong, its' happened once or twice before!

cheers: dazza

pixelthis

01-17-2008, 12:04 AM

See.....there you guys go with the long posts again. I have made it pretty clear, but I'll say it again........I'm Lazy. Can someone please sum this up with a sentence or 2 please?

Okay here you go, laz-e-boy.
DOWNLOADING IS THE FUTURE.
Sentence 2...Sir T is riled up in inverse porportion to what affects him, the dl issue affects him because he KNOWS that its the future.
OKAY...carry on:1:

GMichael

01-17-2008, 06:08 AM

See.....there you guys go with the long posts again. I have made it pretty clear, but I'll say it again........I'm Lazy. Can someone please sum this up with a sentence or 2 please?

BLU-RAY RULES!!!!!!!!!!!
Downloading is more convenient if done correctly.
Not everyone agrees as to when it will be done correctly.
It has yet to be done correctly IMO.
If and when it is ever done correctly it has a lot of potential to take over.
No matter how correctly it's ever done in the future, some people will still buy disks.
BLU-RAY RULES!!!!!!!!!!!
Our HD-DVD players will make good boat anchors for some.
Mine will be used to play HD-DVD's std DVD's and CD's for many years.
BLU-RAY RULES!!!!!!!!!!!

Rich-n-Texas

01-17-2008, 07:10 AM

You are correct GM. Save your pennies for a shiny new Blu-ray player. I'm sure there is a large population of people who have neither cable/satellite/fiber service nor computers. I know a few myself. The best HD PQ is still OTA, and VOD is tethered to the above mentioned services.

GMichael

01-17-2008, 07:35 AM

Groundbeef

01-17-2008, 09:12 AM

L.J.

01-17-2008, 09:56 AM

BLU-RAY RULES!!!!!!!!!!!
Downloading is more convenient if done correctly.
Not everyone agrees as to when it will be done correctly.
It has yet to be done correctly IMO.
If and when it is ever done correctly it has a lot of potential to take over.
No matter how correctly it's ever done in the future, some people will still buy disks.
BLU-RAY RULES!!!!!!!!!!!
Our HD-DVD players will make good boat anchors for some.
Mine will be used to play HD-DVD's std DVD's and CD's for many years.
BLU-RAY RULES!!!!!!!!!!!

If/when Bluray wins this thing, I'm gonna move my A2 into my bedroom and use it as a DVD player. Once the exclusive HDDVD movies I own come out on BR, I'll replace them and sell off the HDDVD copy.

So now I gotta figure out what I'm gonna do with that empty shelf once the A2 is moved. "But honey, I gotta put something there. That empty spot looks so ugly." Yep, that should work. Thinking maybe an Xbox :eek:

Rich-n-Texas

01-17-2008, 10:17 AM

Knowing your track record and ability to hoodwink the wife L.J. ...shouldn't be any problems. :thumbsup:

GMichael

01-17-2008, 10:47 AM

By then, you may be able to get a BR add on for the Xbox. Then you'll have to move that into the bedroom. Now what will you put in that spot?

Rich-n-Texas

01-17-2008, 10:57 AM

Good job of keeping him on his toes GM (and helping him spend his money!) :thumbsup:

GMichael

01-17-2008, 11:04 AM

He's already been out-upgrading me. I can't keep up as it is.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-17-2008, 01:04 PM

Okay here you go, laz-e-boy.
DOWNLOADING IS THE FUTURE.
Sentence 2...Sir T is riled up in inverse porportion to what affects him, the dl issue affects him because he KNOWS that its the future.
OKAY...carry on:1:

It is the future for folks who like to rent. For those who like to own, not going to happen anytime soon. The analyst who work the film industry all say its at least 10 years down the road. For me it is never until it can match the performance I get on disc. I am sure that is the bench mark for most videophiles. I don't care about convience, I care about quality. For those pro downloaders and VOD'ers like yourself, you don't care about quality, so download away.

O'Shag

01-17-2008, 01:28 PM

GMichael

01-17-2008, 01:48 PM

Isn't HD-DVD supposed to offer a better picture than Blu-Ray? The initial reviews I read suggested that Blu-Ray was somewhat soft compared to HD-DVD. Excuse my ignorance, but I've not yet gotten either. I will at some point in the future though.

Some will say that BR has a better picture, but they are really the same for the most part. The audio on BR is better though. And BR holds much more information so that gives them more potential for growth.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-17-2008, 02:35 PM

Isn't HD-DVD supposed to offer a better picture than Blu-Ray? The initial reviews I read suggested that Blu-Ray was somewhat soft compared to HD-DVD. Excuse my ignorance, but I've not yet gotten either. I will at some point in the future though.

Not to take anything away from Sir G, but a compulation of several of the largest reviewing websites on the net show that since bluray exclusive companies went AVC, bluray PQ has out scored HD DVD by a long shot. Disney has the best PQ and SQ scores of ALL studio. Next is Sony, then Fox, then Warner, Paramount and lastly and deservedly Universal for churning out releases encoded from old masters and DD+

Groundbeef

01-17-2008, 02:37 PM

and DD+

Whats wrong with DD+? Oh....wait sorry, now we are talkin' audio...

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-17-2008, 02:42 PM

Whats wrong with DD+? Oh....wait sorry, now we are talkin' audio...

You are on a friggin roll Beef LOL

GMichael

01-17-2008, 02:53 PM

You are on a friggin roll Beef LOL

Beef on a roll? Is it summer already?

L.J.

01-17-2008, 02:54 PM

Why isn't it over? What advantage does the remaining 2 studios have by staying exclusive? Why not just go neutral and end this thing?

nightflier

01-17-2008, 03:58 PM

Apparently, long posts are not to everyone's liking. That's unfortunate, because there is so much nonsense in your thinking that needs to be addressed. I can't make any promises, but I'll really try my hardest to keep this as short as possible (my apologies to everyone else, but lil't needs special handling).

Glad your back, I was bored. The American public speaks with their dollars. Music is different than movies. What works for music does not work for movies. Walmart, Google, and movie gallery have all shut down in 2007. Revenue is flat, and the studios are focusing on growing HDM on disc not movie downloads. Can you explain how Bluray/HD DVD even during a war has grown larger than VOD and downloading put together in terms of revuenue? That is because people want the disc, not a DRM infested low quality download. I do not have to speak for the American public, they speak through their money, and it ain't headed towards downloading whether we are speaking of VOD or XBOX live. How wrong was I about bluray? It turns out not one of your scenarios played out, and yet you are still calling me wrong. You said wait till next year about HD DVD and bluray. It didn't even take that long to play out, just like I stated.

What works for music (and photography, apparently) is also going to work for movies. Revenue has been flat, but that is not what it will be this year. You want trends, well I'll start by what was said at CES, and I'm not just talking about the sales pitches, I'm also talking about what people said. I saw more interest in digital downloads then ever before and it's going to piggy-back on what people are already doing with their music. They will (and have been) storing their movies on the same hard drives that they have their music collections on.

What is really funny is how you keep referring to sales as the only measure. It's absolutely ridiculous to be so narrow minded. Think about this:

1) Just as most people have ripped, copied from friends, and downloaded a large portion of their digital music collections, this is also the case with movies. You are completely dismissing the widespread practice of piracy and semi-piracy between people.

2) Just as music is being re-engineered and re-recorded to suit a different palate that eliminates things like dynamic range to reduce file size, the same is happening with movie content. Extras, unwanted sound format, languages, and other junk is all stripped out of pirated movies, but now there are programs that change the video and sound within the film to be more applicable to small portable devices and flat screens. And don't think this is just happening with pirated content, either, because that is also what the cable companies, VOD distributors, and the Amazons are doing. It's actually ironic that they are taking a cue from the pirates, just as the music industry did with music pirates and downloading.

3) BR will be valuable for collectors who want to own, but is that population growing or shrinking? You're been raving about how BR movies have so many more new releases, but that means very little to collectors. How many B&W classics are available on BR? And why would anyone bother? How many 70's, 80's, & 90's blockbusters on BR? Not too many I gather. The problem with BR is that it tries to cater to collectors, but it is releasing mostly content that appeals to the renters. Isn't that a kick in the pants?

4) Renting, by the way, is the crux of the argument and (big surprise) you want to downplay that. You mentioned Netflix as a better alternative to downloads, but those are exactly the people that will be drawn to downloading. The truth is that it's just a simple switch for them from receiving disks to downloading the content right to their TVs. Hence the reason the company is now offering downloads - they have wisely read the writing on the wall. People that rent will make downloading the dominant medium. This is because I believe that most people no longer have a desire to own movies - they want to watch them once and move on to other content. For these people, the "DRM-infestation" that we lament here on this board is a minor inconvenience, if they even notice it at all.

5) Speaking of renting, you're completely dismissing the habits millions of Americans who every week or so set their recorders to record what they plan to watch: your Tivo, PVR, and yes, even the VHS crowd. These people have grown accustomed to waiting for content - they will cue it up and download it - movies, tv shows, infomercials, documentaries. Much of what is being cued up for viewing, by the way, is movies from the movie channels. Since people have already paid for their pound of flesh to the cable company, this is essentially "free". Sure it's not as fresh as more current blockbusters, but for that they can use PPV and VOD. I truly believe that the downturn in DVD sales has far less to do with BR or the quality of the movies now coming out of Hollywood, then the simple fact that there is so much more free content available everywhere that people are watching instead.

The bottom line is that your dogged narrow-minded focus on sales figures misses some really big factors in this discussion. So what if VOD sales were stagnant for the past five years? That says very little about what is actually out there in digital format and being enjoyed by millions.

Oh, yes, and if the studios don't like it because they can't squeeze as much blood out of that stone, well the public has plenty of other options for entertainment as I've pointed out above. The studios will either get on board with it, or they'll go the way of the dodo. The "buying public" has no qualms about starving the studios out since they see them as bloated with money already or obsessive about copy-protection and harbor no love for them (just read the online posts). And yes, as much as you might hate to hear it, they see you, lil't, the little insider with the fat paycheck, in the same light.

Amazon sells FAR more disc than downloads, FAR MORE. Netflix rents more disc than downloads as well. There are way more titles on disc than Imovie.

Sure Amazons does, because they have a wide catalog that caters to collectors. Tell me lil't, isn't it true that NetFlix's download business is growing? Are you even willing to admit how much, with your insider info? Funny, you bring Apple's stake in this since they don't actually sell movies on disk. Let's see, we'll compare apples to nothing. Guess what? They are different! You don't say!

What you don't seem to get is downloading movies is not a growing market, is not economically feasible at this time, and not where analyst see the consumers spending their money. Analyst who follow the movie industry(as opposed to someone who does not seem to know anything about it, and couldn't get his last prediction right) believe that Bluray will be where the consumer puts their money now that the war is pretty much settled. The trend is already there(as evidenced by the fact that bluray alone is already a larger market than both VOD and downloading combined), and whatever cultural shift you predict will happen has not even learned to walk yet.

As I pointed out above, just because it's not where analysts are telling the studios they will make the most money (duh), that says nothing about its growth. The fact is downloaded digital video content on the internet is the fastest growing medium / file-format by far. Just because the studios can't figure out how to make money off of it, doesn't mean it's not growing. So the studios are going to doggedly push disk sales over downloads, is that what you're proposing? Well guess what? It didn't work for the music studios, now did it?

This shows how much you know. BR is already farther along than DVD was at this time period. And once again you are incorrect. PPV came to the bay area in 1997, the same year that the DVD was introduced. It was heavily advertised and very visible. People didn't take to it then. In terms of the comparison, you are wrong. Wooch and I have pointed out that every gauge to measure growth that was there is here now.

I guess we'll never agree on this. I categorically disagree with you that the market was anything then like it is now because the change in the internet over this time period makes any comparison impossible. It doesn't look like we'll be able to agree on this, so let's just let the readers who suffer through this thread (my apologies) decide that for themselves.

Player sales have nothing to do with internet downloads. Disc sales have nothing to do with internet downloading. Apples to apples mean directly comparing DVD players sales at two years, with Bluray/HD DVD players sales at two years. There is no need to evaluate anything but these two comparisons. You do not bring the internet in this equation at all unless all you are trying to do is derail clarity. Camparing apples against apples shows that HD on disc is growning faster than the DVD did at two years both in player sales, and disc purchased. It is just that clear.

I was not talking about player sales, I was talking about PVR, Tivo, xBox, and AppleMovie hardware sales. If I wanted to be a real stickler, I could have added media server sales, computers, and routers, but that is getting too computer-ish and I understand you've got a phobia there, so we'll stick to what you can get your little head around. Anyhoo, because these devices offer up the capability to download, they very much have something to do with it. And talking about just players (which you seem insistent on doing) ignores my 5 points above. How convenient. Again trying to limit the scope of the discussion to just the items that agree with your own argument. We'll I'll point out your obfuscations everytime - you don't seem to learn very quickly, do you?

I was the one that told you that DVD sales were down. And you attempts to tie downloading into that equation is not possible because downloading in terms of revenue is stagnant. ...There is absolutely no indication that folks were looking elsewhere for their entertainment as you assert... With revenues stagnant, they are not looking to downloads, and that is apparent. If downloading WAS the reason, you would see a correlation between the DVD decline, and a rise in income from movie downloads going to the studios. It ain't happen bro.

Again, so it's clear: "downloading in terms of revenue" is only a small part of the picture. Don't you get that? You don't want to get that because it flies in the face of your argument. Well just for once, can you please look at the whole picture and not just your little corner? If people were not looking elsewhere for their entertainment, where were they looking? DVD sales were down, were they not? Where did people turn? They turned to renting, free content, and yes, my little nit-wit, the big bad Internet. They, oh my gosh, watched downloaded content on their computers and their portable devices. And they did this, cover-your-ears-Mabel, without "paying" for it! And this isn't the end of civilization as we know it, there sparky. It may be indicative of a decline in the the studios, but life will go on.

There is no growth. At least no growth in revenue for the content providers. If you are speaking of free television programs, video off youtube and google, and other free services, you cannot compare that with DVD which is mainly a movie driven medium. Movies are not free. They cost on VOD, and through downloading services like Imovie and XBOX live. Free content is always free whether it is downloaded via Live, or through VOD. You cannot compare that with DVD because there is nothing free on a DVD.

Well my little fruity cavalier, I am comparing it to DVD (and BR) anyway. So sue me. If people are watching it instead of movies, then it's a useful comparison. And you're forgetting one of my main points, movies from cable movie channels, while not legally "free," are a large part of this unmeasurable content you seem to have such a hard time with. If people are making a digital copy and enjoying a 2-year old movie that aired on cable, then it's sorta "free" and it's keeping them busy from buying that shiny new disk, isn't it? So what if it's not HD quality? It's 2 years old, remember? No need to see it in HD. As long as people are watching something that they did not pay for on disk, it's competing directly for their attention, so yes, the comparison very much applies here. And I haven't even mentioned TV series (24, Prison Break, 6 Feet Under, Battlestar Galactica, etc.). They are a huge draw for digital downloaders, and guess what, they are freely available online! Tell me that doesn't cut into those DVD sales, and then we'll have something to talk about.

So? If it is not movies, then how do you think just downloading low quality video from youtube is going to effect a movie driven format like DVD and Bluray? Those two are about movies first, and television programs second. Snippets of video cannot compare with that.

It's funny how you keep using YouTube, perhaps the lowest quality video provider on the internet, as an example. If that is all you've seen online, no wonder you're so confused. Try surfing the web a little. Sidereel.com is a good place to start. And if you doubt that people are actually downloading these to watch them on their computers of TVs, just look at the download numbers. Now imagine being able to do that from your TV screen? So the quality is not HD, who cares? Well you (and me) and most collectors care, but what kind of economic impact does our little minority have? You might get a lot of support for ownership on this board, but how representative is that really of the general public? If this public is satisfied with 128kbs MP3s, they'll be satisfied with 640x480 in basic DD surround sound. Heck they don't get much better from most cable or satellite channels, so why should this be any different?

These people do not buy movies. They rent. Different market, different consumer, and different expectation of quality. You may be comfortable with this, but I do not know anyone who has chosen to wait 2-3 hours for something they can pop in a player and get in 30 seconds. Especially if they go through netflix to get the disc.

With regard to renting, see my points 3 & 4 above. Waiting 2-3 hours? What does that matter if it's in the middle of the night when they are sleeping? Or in the middle of the day when they're at work? Ever heard of Slingbox? I bet you wish you would have bout stock in that little upstart, huh? Now think of queuing up movies (as well as TV shows and everything else) the same way you do with NetFlix or Blockbuster. But instead of their limited catalog you now have access to theirs as well as those of Amazon, Apple, and a whole host of others? Now add the possibility of queuing up movies that haven't even come out yet? Want to watch the NBA Finals but you have to work? No problem, queue it up now.

Far fetched? Not at all. I purchase my movies from a queue: as soon as they are available on disk, they ship to me, it's all automated. Someday in the near future, I'll be forced to join that bandwagon and do my movies digitally, too - it's called progress, bub. Actually, I've been downloading the presidential debates and watching them on my computer at lunchtime. Yes it takes some time to download, but it's all done in the background and I hardly think about it. I have so much content downloaded, I could watch stuff for days and still have stuff left. I'll probably not even watch it all, but I've got plenty of what I need. It's only a matter of time before I do this for those movies I don't really care to own (and considering what's been belching out of these profit-above-quality studios, that's probably 90% of them).

There is also the possibility that the studio don't even offer the movie on VOD or for downloading. That is a much larger chance than not finding it at their retailer. Question to you, have you ever heard of a title being offered for download day and date with the DVD? Not a chance, there is always a window for sale through FIRST, and rental and downloading second.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but for those who absolutely need to see the movie before it's out, they can get a pirated version. Movies and shows almost always appear well before release. I wouldn't be surprised if the first episode of Lost isn't already floating around out there. But for non-crackers, they won't mind waiting. Why do I say that? Because the decline in theater ticket sales tells me so. If it's too expensive or inconvenient and it will appear on video soon, people will forgo the theater. What is really going to bake your noodle is that digitally, video can easily made available much sooner than it can be distributed on disk - so actually digital downloads into households will appear much faster then disks on shelves. Maybe that fact alone will be a nail in that coffin for movies on disk.

What if that dozen you choose won't all fit you your hard drive? Then you have to give up something you already saved and want to keep to accomodate new things. That does not happen with disc media.

Utter nonsense. This is where your lack of knowledge of technology is most apparent, lil't. Take the Tivo Series 3, for example. It has a SATA external drive hookup. I can plug in a 1Tb drive into that sucker and keep myself watching for some time. And as far as this change not happening with movies on disk, the exact opposite is true. I know quite a few people that have ripped all their CDs into a digital format, made several copies and are perfectly happy getting rid of the disks (I'm always on hand to help out with that part).

The fact is that most people don't want to hold on to the vast majority of their DVDs because they take up so much room - far more than a couple of hard drives, by the way. Of course, there are some disks we all want to keep (Godfather, Citizen Kane, Great Escape, and of course my whole Clint collection), and for those I'll probably eventually get the BR version, but that's not enough for the studios to build a business model on. After all, how happy do your think they will be with a loss of some 90% of their disk revenue (assuming people will only want to own about 10% of the movies they see). If that is what your insider-salary depends on, I'd be a little worried too. No wonder you've got your panties in a bunch over this and want to get as many people as possible to buy BR players. If I were you, I'd buy some Western Digital stock with that fat bonus you got this year, because the on-disk party is almost over....

Okay stupid little uninformed wanna be no nothing, it was stated at CES (which is why Warner made the switch to end the stalemate). It was stated at IFA 2007, and only a stupid little azz like you would trade a $42 billion dollar market for a $200 million dollar one. That is why they run studios, and you get on the internet and make some of the stupidest claims I have ever read. If any studio thought digital distribution was ready for prime time, they would have jumped all over it. The market is too small(its smaller than Bluray), nobody amoung the studios believes its time to abandon disc for download. Did it ever occur to your pee brain that is why you can get more titles on disc than you can get on VOD and downloading? You think to small, and perhaps that is because of your reduced brain size.

As I said, the movie studios can do what they want. Just because they don't see profit margins as big in downloading, that does not mean it's dead. Personally I think they are missing the boat. It's not unheard of for whole companies to do that, you know. Didn't Microsoft miss the Internet boat? Didn't Yahoo miss the simplicity boat? Didn't the music studios miss the downloading boat? What ultimately happens is that they eventually have to jump on board of risk being left behind. If they don't do it, their shareholders will do it for them.

Microsoft vision is to ditch the disc altogether and move to downloads using microsoft windows, XBOX live, and any device with Microsoft software running it. HDi, and VC-1 are both a part of that world. All HD DVD players and disc use HDi, and 98% of HD DVD movies are encoded with VC-1. Since the Bluray studios primarily use MPEG-2 or AVC, you now have 40% percent of movies that will not be using VC-1(and yes I heard that Warner will be releasing using AVC since they no longer have to port over titles to HD DVD). Paramount is currently in negotiations with the BDA, and word has it they are moving over to bluray as well. That means another studio NOT using HDi and VC-1. Universal will be the last to move(which they certainly will make before christmas season) and that will mean another studio not using VC-1. Everyone knows that Microsoft got behind HD DVD because A) they choose HDi and VC-1, and B) they wanted to split the market and keep the consumer as confused as possible so they would adopt neither format and move to downloads. The digitalbits and DVDfile have both reported this openly. By Warner choosing to move exclusive to one side(thereby giving that side 85% of the sales, and 70% of the titles) now bluray can move forward with their plan to replace the DVD, therby throwing a wrench in Microsofts confusion plans. Microsoft lost because now manufacturers have the confidence to manufacture bluray players(10 new manufacturers announced players at CES), computer manufacturers are not confident in putting bluray drives in their computers(all of the HD DVD drive makers other than Toshiba have switched their support), and there will be hardly any disc encoded with either HDi or VC-1, which means no revenue stream from royalites. If you understood the film industry half as much as you fake, even your pee size brain could logically think this through.

Wow, I can't believe you went through the trouble to list all that FUD. If you think for one second that Microsoft is wrong about the upcoming downloading boom, then I don't think you understand the company at all. It will happen, even if they have to make it happen. Whether they will be riding that wave with their own HDi and VC1, or buy out someone else's technology, I can pretty much guarantee that they've already got their surf boards polished. If these past three years all Microsoft wanted to do was postpone BR & Sony's success with their support for HD-DVD, then they have succeeded. I can almost guarantee you that they will be pushing downloads even harder now. I also expect xBox Live to be a major part of that push. If you think Microsoft is dead in the water, then you're not the first that thought that - take a number behind IBM, Borland, Novell and Apple.

Well price was not a factor, and the things you suggested that could help HD DVD were ludicrous because your knowledge of the industry is nil. Did you forget your little gem about the ship going down in the ocean full of bluray players increasing prices like porkbellies? I didn't say the outcome was certain, but I did state how it was going to play out, and so far, I was right. It doesn't really matter, all of your assertions on the subject were dead wrong, and the momentum is all bluray just like I said it would be.

First of all, I never claimed to be an expert, unlike yourself. I listed some scenarios, that from my experience in the computer industry actually did make an impact there. If I was wrong, is that such a horrible crime? Everyone tries to understand the world around them by using references to things they are familiar with. And just because it did not happen (I never said that it would, by the way), that does not mean it would not have had an impact - yes even the ship sinking example that you love to trot out there like a one-trick pony. The fact is, we'll never find out now, will we? People have paid their nickel. lil't, and they want more than your pathetic re-hashing of the same examples.

Groundbeef did a great job of pointing out how so many of your examples, links, and numbers were outdated and no longer applied. See that's the problem with your fancy stats and sales figures, they are all in the past. You can't seem to move on. Your whole world view is based on the past (kind of like your avatar). Well it's over, lil't, it's time to drag you kicking and screaming like the little child that you are, into the future, and that future is digital downloads.

Now I never said that HD-DVD was going to win anything. I said, starting about 6 months ago, that there were too many possibilities for the fortunes to change in the format war. And more importantly, I also said that both formats will be marginalized in the same way that SACD and DVD-A would be. Sure you had lots of reasons for trying to sabotage that comparison, but the fact that music on disk was supplanted by digital music, even when a two higher quality formats appeared, should at least give you pause about the future of the movie industry.

And even if you won't see the overwhelming similarities in the SACD/DVD-A example, I think most everyone else won't be as narrow minded as you. Just like there are still SACDs, there will also be BRs, but really, what percentage of the movie market will they every be able to reach? 10%? 20%, 30%. They are now at 5%, so I'm sure you'll relish in pointing out in a year or so that the numbers have grown 100% (that's FUD for a growth to 10% of the total market, by the way). Of course you'll be downplaying the percentage of downloaded movies with all kinds of FUD about what can and cannot be included in the comparison - you're pretty good at that. In the meantime most of us will be happily enjoying our downloaded movies and remembering how much of a comical character you were. Maybe one day we can download a video of your ranting and raving, wouldn't that be the icing on the cake?

Every bluray exclusive studio as stated they are committed to growing the HD disc market, no such promise was made towards downloads. If you ran a studio, what would you pay attention to, your $42 billion market, or your $200 million dollar one? You would probably choose the latter, which is why you don't run a studio.

I don't run a studio or even own stock in them because I don't invest in Enron-type debacles. Of course they are committed to BR, it's their one last taste of the rich life before they have to settle for more humble pie. You've been touting the $42B vs. $200M figure for some time now. How far in the past did you have to reach back for that little gem? Care to share some updated figures? And what is that $42B figure for? All movie sales, including BR, HD-DVD, VHS, and DVD? Well no wonder it's so much larger than just downloads? So now who's comparing apples to a kumquats?

How does a studio exclusive to HD DVD come out the good guys pushing downloads over disc based material when the HD DVD player does not store downloads but plays disc. How stupid is this??? That studio would be tarred and feathered if that happened.

Not stupid at all: by putting a hard drive inside. For Toshiba, a company that makes computers as well as all sorts of other home entertainment gear, that could be very easy and cost-effective (more on that below). I'm not saying they are going to do this, I'm only suggesting the possibility, so don't start using this as an example of a "lie," you eager lit't beaver.

Because doing so would add cost to the players, alot more cost and complexity. With that extra cost comes a loss of a talking point. Our players are cheaper than bluray players. With the loss of studio and manufacturing support, HD DVD has nothing left. And really, the best selling HD DVD players are the A2 and A3. The XA-2 has not sold that well, and the A-35 is not doing that well either. So there is no demand for a higher priced players than we currently see now. Your suggestion is plain stupid.

For Toshiba that cost would not be hard to sustain. Even if the unit cost $100 more because of a hard drive and tuner, that would still put it on par with all the BR players out there. Even if it's marketed as just an upconverting player/PVR, that just happens to also play HD-DVD, it could be quite a fancy device. Even for $500, it would still be cheaper than any PVR out there except Tivo.

More stupidity. Why sell a HD DVD player with no movies to support it? It is apparent that studio have already chosen bluray, and you have already lost $420 million dollars and counting. It would be more than stupid of them(but on par with you) for them to lose more money on something that already failed. A digital tuner, and compete with DVR's which would be cheaper? More stupidity. HD DVD is cooked, and only you would be retarded enough to try and revive something that took its last breath two weeks ago

Huh? Are you just not able to reason at all? In addition to the HD-DVD titles out there, owners would have one heck of a nice upconverting DVD player, but more importantly, it could download all that new video content that I've been talking about, you know, that you consider insignificant? Over time, as digital video selection expands, it will have a catalog far larger than any BR player will ever have. And as HD downloadable content starts to become more prevalent, it will also play all those HD movies that were previously exclusive of BR too. Throw in a rebate from the government because it has a digital tuner built-in (would love to see that happen), and it would be the ultimate HD all-in-one box to bridge the gap from today's analog world to tomorrow's digital one.

But there's no way to know if that will happen. After all, it's in the future, as a possibility, and you're not comfortable with that, are you? I bet you don't care for modern classical, abstract art and avant-guarde films either? Figures. Well there's a place for Luddites like you: in the past. And I sure hope you stay there.

Yeah right, because if you had, you would have clearly known they have been pushing the same stuff for years, repackaged and with a new message every year. None of it took off. This year you have several companies pushing it, with no business plan, no studio support, and no hardware to be seen. Oooooo big time push.

There are several differences: this year, hard drive technology (in the TV room) will meet that demand. Another detail: just as in the past there were more and more vendors using digital music players to show off high-end audio gear, there were this year more vendors using digital video on disk to show off their wares. Also, with the BR/HD-DVD format war fizzling out, there is a refocusing of the new war between the on-disk folks (you, me and the "collectors") and the digital proponents (the general public). If I can pull another example from the SACD/DVD-A war: it wasn't until that war was over that it became obvious that downloads would drastically drive down disk sales. Funny how there actually are so many similarities between the two format wars, huh, lil't?

You are becoming the next year kid. Everything is just wait till next year, wait till next year. What do you think things just appear out of nowhere?. Things have to trend up, and with downloading of movies it is not. We are talking movies here, not music or anything else.

History is full of examples showing that it takes a little time for revolutions to settle down into a steady change. History is also full of examples of how revolutions occur after a major event or war. The trends are there, you're just not seeing them because you narrow your criteria too much. If you would just for once broaden your view just a tad, you'd see that digital downloads are on the verge of a huge increase in popularity. Just follow the stocks of those companies that are riding that wave - it's quite the contrarian sector in this down economy. Easy to get into too, because the price is still affordable. You should really take a look to carry you over that pink slip fiasco if your company doesn't change, either.

So you really are going to advance this as an arguement? I got a rather large bonus this year, and so did many of the folks that I work with in this business. That does not mean anything.

Well of course you got a bonus, because BR just had a major victory and you work for a BR-only studio - that's no surprise - but it will be short lived. Who know, you'll probably do OK as your company shifts more and more of it's business to online digital content. But if it stays on this sinking ship of disk-only movies, then I'd grab a life-vest pretty quick. In mentioning my bonus I only brought it up as an indication that my industry is doing just fine, thank you. You're doing great as well? Who cares? We're not talking about that and you're completely missing the point. You were insinuating that the computer industry is not doing well - which is a load of horse-crap from an uninformed outsider. It all depends in how well one's company shifts it's focus to new and emerging technologies. My company is migrating from Web 2.0 technologies to more video-focussed ones and I think they are on the right track (or I'd be working on my resume right now if they weren't).

You lied, and I pointed it out. You lied, and now you are in denial about the lies you told. How about the lie that my video processor/switcher was a mass market product. You didn't lie about that? I do not know ANY product that costs close to $10k that can be labeled as mass market. And how does it become mass market when it has never been released to the market?

Since you opened that door, come on in. Let me kick your ass. I apologize to everyone else as the next few paragraphs are off-topic, just skip down to the last paragraph of this post to finish. Unfortunately lil't is an insistent little imp that just can't accept that he could actually be wrong...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I said that the brand name (i.e. Sony) indicated that it was a mass-market product. I may not have known everything about it, but I never claimed to be a know-it-all, either. So I was a little overzealous about calling your precious little toy mass-market. It's still Sony and is thus dragged down in value because of all the other mediocre products the company produces - you can't deny that (sort of like that Onkyo amp you have, no?). But does my statement make me a liar? That's a stretch, and you know it.

Or how about the story about the friend at said high end audio company, which turned into the person who works for customer service(who never know shyte about future products released) to another source higher source within the company Which is it? I bet you cannot figure that one out today. That had more lies in it than brownies have nuts.

Simple: I asked my friend about the product, he didn't know. He emailed the company, they emailed back. I quoted you verbatim from the email.

How exactly does that make me a liar? Oh, you wanted to see the letter on company letterhead? Sorry, email doesn't work that way, didn't you know that? But if you're so intent on finding out, why don't you send them an email and see what their plans are? It's a littl;e after the fact, but it might be informative. Of course, we'll have to trust you to be honest about your quoting too. I guess it cuts both ways, doesn't it? In any case, it does not make me a liar, so drop it.

Or what about the DVD player that has the option of playing either DSD native, or PCM, even though the player cannot pass DSD nor process it?

I said that it could output PCM. I did not say it could play DSD native.

It may be that I didn't quite understand what you asked and that somehow my answer was not specific enough for you to understand (we've seen that before), but I'm pretty sure I did not say that it passed DSD. In any case, I certainly wasn't trying to lie about it. After all, why would I? If you recall, I was only trying to explain what I had remembered ('cause I'm not in front of the TV when I'm online here) what I had set it for back home. What possible advantage would I have gained in "lying" about that?

What about I use room treatments to make up for channel imbalances? Either this is a lie to hide something else, or stupidity so profound that it scares the color out of your face.

If I didn't know exactly what the room treatments corrected for (and I certainly never claimed to be an expert), then this isn't a lie either.

I'll grant you that I don't know as much about this as the pros do. What I do know is that they made a dramatic improvement in the sound - everything became more clear and focussed. And even if I didn't know exactly what the panels and traps were correcting for, I can assure you my friend who installed and configured them for me, did. As a matter of fact, he challenged me about it, because I didn't believe in them - after having them for a month or so I bought them. Regardless, how exactly does that make me a liar?

Now if you want to take this issue to 10 pages, and look as stupid as you did before, we have a two page head start.

That's your obsession. I have a life and I'm only interrupting it here to point out that you are wrong on so many points that it's a miracle I bother to point them out. Instead of challenging me to another 10 pages, let's see if you can trim down your self-aggrandizing pontifications and suggest something that actually holds up.

Anyhow, back to the thread....

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well, lil't, you've done a good job of extending this thread well beyond where it could have been. You've done a good job of spreading FUD. You've done a good job of waiving the BR fan-boy flag. you've done a good job of confusing the issues. You've done a good job of littering your posts with figures that upon closer analysis don't hold up. You've done a good job of intimidating people. You've done a good job of making yourself out to be the court buffoon instead of a terrible knight, LOL. You've done a good job of trying to insult me. And you've done a good job of trying to make me out to be a liar.

But you have not done a good job of explaining to us how BR will win over downloading. And that is really why we're here, no?

O'Shag

01-17-2008, 05:09 PM

blackraven

01-17-2008, 08:39 PM

Every one I know wants or has a Blu-ray player, but not very many people I know have a decent stereo. You hit the nail on the head O'Shag! Blu-ray will be here to stay.

Mr Peabody

01-17-2008, 09:22 PM

Who knows where the average person really falls, I think most here would represent one end of the scale. I'm not even sure the other end, would it some one still with NTSC 480i and cable straight from the wall?

I didn't know where to share this story but this seems like a good place since the thread has gone to hell anyway :) I was moved to a different area in my office and got to talking to a guy across from me, he mentioned he had a HDTV, so I'm thinking, "oh, cool, some one who enjoys the hobby to banter with". So I get to asking him questions, "what size screen"? "A 37", he says. My enthusiasm meter goes down a little. What type of technology is it? "It's a plasma", he says. Meter goes back up. He says he has an upsampling DVD, waiting for Blu-ray to drop in price more, a $150.00. Hmmmm, is this guy serious, I ask myself. Then he asks what size screen I had, I modestly state, "a
62". Well to get to the point, some where in the conversation soon after he mentions his DVD player cost $35.00. Did anyone see the meter crash? I tried to explain though his DVD player said it would upconvert that it probably isn't doing much for $35.00. He wasn't buying that. I will have to ask him if he rents movies and how he gets them for tomorrows episode.

blackraven

01-17-2008, 11:25 PM

pixelthis

01-18-2008, 12:11 AM

It is the future for folks who like to rent. For those who like to own, not going to happen anytime soon. The analyst who work the film industry all say its at least 10 years down the road. For me it is never until it can match the performance I get on disc. I am sure that is the bench mark for most videophiles. I don't care about convience, I care about quality. For those pro downloaders and VOD'ers like yourself, you don't care about quality, so download away.

Dont care about quality?
pshawww,
you , sir T, are a loon.
I had a 20in xrb, one of the first sony put out, a sony laser, a 500$ Sony vhs, a 700$ mitshu S-vhs, a 32in XBR, a 600$ dvdaudio player, you name it.
This is a great tactic, my hats off to ya , you're a great propagandist and I am sure a great company shill.
Truth is , the 1080i (or 720, depends on which way I set it) is better than most of the stuff I have been watching, my entire life.
Set an impossible "standard" and paint the "inferiour" brush on something you dont like because it doesnt meet that rediculous standard.
My current rig is better than most in the country, if not the world, few have 1080p, and of those most are first gen, cant take a 1080p input.
It will be years before even half in this country will have 1080p, if then.
Only 50%, if that, is HD of ANY kind whatsoever.
A LOT ARE LIKE ME. Working stiffs who cant ditch their new 1366x 766p just because its not the latest incremental increase in q.
Blu will look about as good as broadcast HD on my set, most stores display blu on 1080p,
and the pic does look great, but on the 720p sets, I insisted on watching it on the
improvement is more evolutionary than revolutionary, and about a tie with our local HD over VOD.
But I am a collector, and am planning on getting BLADERUNNER on Blu in anticipation
of the future, I like to have a collection before I buy a player, which is a way in the future,
just please dont impunge on my "Q" credentials, people have been marveling at my rigs for years.
As a matter of fact, its the fact that they marvel at it but wont buy their own is support of my statement that most arent that concerned about Q, as long as it looks decent.
You probably get corporate demos, make more than I do, have more access to gear,
my modest system cost more to me in blood relativly speaking than your (probably
imaginary) system.
My modest system is more of a commitment , really than yours is, so dont, please dont
talk about my lack of interest in "quality"
Its a fact that the reason that I wanted this silly "format" war to end because of my concern about a new disc for collectors.
I know about the VOD you seem oblivious to, and I know that if the industry doesnt
quit fiddling while rome is burning the only disc format we will have is DVD.
Tech has advanced, why has the CD beem around so long? Its entrenched.
And a combo of DVD and VOD is a combo Blu or HDDVD is going to have a hard time getting marketshare from, and its getting here faster than you think.
Hasnt your company learned anything from the Elcassette, beta, minidisc, DAT, SACD,
ETC?:1:

GMichael

01-18-2008, 07:08 AM

You just proved my point. Here is a guy that I'm sure is way above the poverty level and he has a relatively cheap HDTV and a walmart $35 DVDP that he thinks is great. Thats going to be the majority of this country. People are not going go fork out the money for expensive high capacity hard drives and the equipment to use it when they can buy $35 DVD players. I think that some of the people on this forum are living in a bubble if they think the majority of the public is tech savy and willing to pay large sums of money for the latest and greatest technology. I'm exposed to a large cross section of the population working in a 40,000 patient per year emergency department and I can tell you it ain't so! Especially in todays economy with food, gas, housing and educational expenses rising almost daily it seems.

You may want to take a walk through your local Sear, Best Buy, Wal*mart or Circuit City. Rows and rows of 40, 50, 60 & 70 inch LCD's, DLP's and plazmas. Then go back home and turn on any sports program. Wait for a commercial. 10/1 says that you'll see one about HD before the game comes back on. HD is catching on. It won't be long before 90% of the average Joe's in this country have it. There are 8 people who work in my department. 6 of them have HD with screens that are 42"+. 4 of them over 50". (granted, one of the women says she can't see a difference, but I'm thinking it's not set up right)

L.J.

01-18-2008, 09:50 AM

You may want to take a walk through your local Sear, Best Buy, Wal*mart or Circuit City. Rows and rows of 40, 50, 60 & 70 inch LCD's, DLP's and plazmas. Then go back home and turn on any sports program. Wait for a commercial. 10/1 says that you'll see one about HD before the game comes back on. HD is catching on. It won't be long before 90% of the average Joe's in this country have it. There are 8 people who work in my department. 6 of them have HD with screens that are 42"+. 4 of them over 50". (granted, one of the women says she can't see a difference, but I'm thinking it's not set up right)

Is it the HD they care about or the flat TV they can hang above the fire place?

The few I know with an HDTV have no HD sources. Most thought that as long as your TV was HD, everything would be in HD.

blackraven

01-18-2008, 10:06 AM

I agree that HD is catching on and that people want HD TV and flat screens. I'm not disputing that. My point is that there are so many low income people that buy cheap DVDP and cheap HDTV's. Have you taken a walk through Walmart, Kmart, Target, and even BB and CC and looked at the cheaper HTTV's. These people are not the ones buying 52" Sony XBR's! I'll bet you that there are more smaller HDTV's sold than 50". Hell, I'm a Dr. and there are 27 Dr's in our emergency medicine group. We are one of the higher paid specialties now and I know of only 4 in our group that have HDTV's so far. And 1 of them is a 27" LCD!

GMichael

01-18-2008, 10:16 AM

nightflier

01-18-2008, 10:39 AM

Sir Terrence and Nightflier, your opinions are both very interesting.

I would have to question one small point Nightflier; you mentioned that Blu-ray and HD-DVD would become marginalized like SACD and DVD-A. Several people I know, that would not be considered as enthusiasts but regular consumers, have already invested heavily in both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players and media. I was surprised at this. Given that SACD and DVD-A immediately levitated towards a more specialized market, I think there is a difference. The number of folks that watch movies as compared to those that are audio enthusiasts, I'd venture to say, is much larger. But very interesting and poignant analysis....

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule. And in this case there will be lots of people who are somewhere between collectors and renters, so I guess it's a bit of a generalization to want to force everyone into two camps as if it was all B&W. But I still think the division applies in a general sense for a majority of consumers.

I also agree that HD is a pretty misunderstood topic, despite all the marketing and advertisements to try and explain it to the general public. I work in a large tech-focussed department (200 employees) and I can tell you that I have yet to find an audio/video enthusiast - kind of ironic considering how management is pushing video so much. Yes, if I take a poll, about 2/3 will say they watch their sports in HD, but they couldn't tell you what it means. Even my own employees, who have to put up with my explanations about it, are more concerned about how many songs they can cram on their LG Chocolates or what TV show they can download to their iPhones, than how it actually looks or sounds. And they sneer at my 4-year old Motorolla phone (I guess Motorolla isn't cool anymore?).

Ironically, lil't and I are probably equally frustrated with this reality. The difference is that I think there is a place for both the low-quality digital format and the high quality disk format to coexist. That said, I also believe that the market trend is pointing to one (the low-quality digital one) being far more popular than the other. Even on this post, most of us can see this when we ask our co-workers. BR will always have a place, just not a dominant one, after all, SACD didn't die and will probably live on for quite some time for us collectors. I guess I'm of the opinion that it's not an absolute, by the numbers, winners & loosers only, right & wrong world. It turns out that there is far more gray than there is B&W in the real world, as O'Shag was correct in pointing out.

blackraven

01-18-2008, 11:04 AM

HDTV is here to stay. It will take a long time for it to be in every household. Just look at the Government offering two $40 vouchers per household to pay for digital to analog converters for people that dont have or cant afford an HDTV set.
Eventually, BR players will become mainstream as prices drop and the players approach the $100 barrier. And it will happen. Just look at how DVD started out. Now you can buy progressive scan players and upconverting players for under $100. They may not be the best, but most of the public doesnt know squat about quality electronics, sound or video. Just look at todays generation who think MP3 is the bomb! There are people at work who don't understand how I could spend $1400 on a CDP and they belive that their $100 CDP or DVDP sounds just as good. And some one at work was telling a few people how his bose surround sound was the best he had ever heard and was recommending it to them. I just shook my head and stayed out of that conversation.

Its interesting to note how the original topic has morphed into something else:6:

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-18-2008, 12:57 PM

Dont care about quality?
pshawww,
you , sir T, are a loon.
I had a 20in xrb, one of the first sony put out, a sony laser, a 500$ Sony vhs, a 700$ mitshu S-vhs, a 32in XBR, a 600$ dvdaudio player, you name it.

Do you have any idea that there is a whole segment of people that think everything you named here is just average? Do you have the communication skills to discuss anything without name calling? Or should we just dismiss you as another immature 12 y/o?

This is a great tactic, my hats off to ya , you're a great propagandist and I am sure a great company shill.
Truth is , the 1080i (or 720, depends on which way I set it) is better than most of the stuff I have been watching, my entire life.
Set an impossible "standard" and paint the "inferiour" brush on something you dont like because it doesnt meet that rediculous standard.

That rediculous impossible standard is the standard for both Bluray and HD DVD. Any product that is going to capture the attention of the folks that drive the video market have to meet that standard or exceed it. There is no going backwards. The good enough folks have a much different mindset than the want the best folks.

My current rig is better than most in the country, if not the world, few have 1080p, and of those most are first gen, cant take a 1080p input.
It will be years before even half in this country will have 1080p, if then.

You current rig would be considered average at best to quite a few videophiles. To joesixpack your system may be off the chain, but there is quite a few folks in this hobby who are not impressed with 720p as their highest resolution. Not when they have already been exposed to 1080p. There were a few panels and DLP's that could not take a 1080p input, but the lions share now can. 1080p projectors can except a 1080p signal, and that is what videophiles use, not 50" plasma or LCD panels.

A LOT ARE LIKE ME. Working stiffs who cant ditch their new 1366x 766p just because its not the latest incremental increase in q.

Anyone who has looked at 1080p images on a properly calibrated display device knows that 1080p is not an incremental increase over 720p. It is twice the resolution, and that is quite noticeable. Working stiffs do not drive technology, they are laggerds behind the trend setters. That's a fact.

Blu will look about as good as broadcast HD on my set, most stores display blu on 1080p,
and the pic does look great, but on the 720p sets, I insisted on watching it on the
improvement is more evolutionary than revolutionary, and about a tie with our local HD over VOD.

Anyone who uses a store as a critical viewing space is not very bright. Stores do not calibrate their sets, and 99% of the display devices in stores are in the torch mode, too bright, has the wrong color temperature, and the gray scale is off. You have harsh lights reflecting off the screen, and more often than not you are too far to see the detail in a 1080p image. If you think that bluray at 1920x1080p with bitrates up to 54mbps looks the same as the typical broadcast resolution of 1440x1080p with a average bitrate of 14.4mbps you are blind as a bat. I am willing to believe based on what you have posted that your set is not properly calibrated. That is the only way you can make the statements you do.

But I am a collector, and am planning on getting BLADERUNNER on Blu in anticipation
of the future, I like to have a collection before I buy a player, which is a way in the future,
just please dont impunge on my "Q" credentials, people have been marveling at my rigs for years.

Woooopie!!! Like I have said, your ceiling is my floor.

As a matter of fact, its the fact that they marvel at it but wont buy their own is support of my statement that most arent that concerned about Q, as long as it looks decent.

As I have said, there is good enough(you and your friends) and those who want the best of the best(that would be most videophiles). The folks that actually drive the video business are not the good enough folks. Sorry.

You probably get corporate demos, make more than I do, have more access to gear,
my modest system cost more to me in blood relativly speaking than your (probably
imaginary) system.
My modest system is more of a commitment , really than yours is, so dont, please dont
talk about my lack of interest in "quality"

If you claim that ones system is "imaginary", can't that same claim be thrown back in your shortsighted face? How you can make this statement and keep a straight face is beyond me. You know peoples committment to their hobby by how much they are willing to spend to get the best performance there is. I am not disputing or contesting your committment to what you have done, I am stating that what you call quality is not what I call quality. You are at good enough, I am at getting the best. 720p is good enough for you, its not for me. Its just that simple. You cannot say your system is more of a committment than mine. You have no clue how much blood and sweat I have put into my system do you?

Its a fact that the reason that I wanted this silly "format" war to end because of my concern about a new disc for collectors.
I know about the VOD you seem oblivious to, and I know that if the industry doesnt
quit fiddling while rome is burning the only disc format we will have is DVD.

I am not oblivious to VOD, I am realistic about it. VOD is not where the studio I work for is putting their resources. It is not where the hollywood studios as a whole are putting their resources. The studio put their resources where the greatest return will come. Based on their actions, its bluray. Warner has basically settled this, so we can effectively move out of the war mode, and into the replacement mode. You are apparently still stuck in the war mode, move on, its over.

Tech has advanced, why has the CD beem around so long? Its entrenched.
And a combo of DVD and VOD is a combo Blu or HDDVD is going to have a hard time getting marketshare from, and its getting here faster than you think.
Hasnt your company learned anything from the Elcassette, beta, minidisc, DAT, SACD,
ETC?:1:

VOD is no competition to disc SALES. Since you do not work in my field or industry, you do not understand that this has been researched over and over again. People who use VOD are not quality oriented, the are convience oriented. They are not buyers, they are renters. Two different types of consumer. Most studios have a plan to replace DVD. They have transition from VHS to DVD. What they did then is simply release the DVD first with a large advertising campaign promoting the extra features and better PQ and SQ, and release the VHS later that was basically featureless. They know how to run their business, you don't.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-18-2008, 09:39 PM

I read nightliars post over and over again and came to this realization. He is trying to evaluate one Industry based on experience in a completely unrelated industry. The film and video business is not like the computer business. They don't operate the same way, do not have the same goals, do not speak the same language, and have different priorities about where their dollar will go. You cannot look at the star through a microscope, you use a telescope. You do not as a human go to the vet to get a check up, you take your pets there. You do not use a frying pan to boil water, and you do not bring analysis based on computer experience to analyze the film and video industry. Most computer geeks think the whole world dances around their computer(much like nightliar thinks) like they do. The world does not.

Computer geeks do not think like videophiles or collectors. Videophiles think of good equipment, an acoustically corrected room, projector resolutions, audio codecs, higher picture resolutions, great SQ and PQ, and usually strive to get the best performance out of their investment. Most people I know that fit this bill do not look to downloading as a primary source of their entertainment, they want a disc with the highest picture resolution and uncompressed audio to show off their system. Alot of folks here fit that bill.
Computer geeks thing about gear and gadgetry. Their vocabulary is completely different than the videophile or collector. They look to the internet for just about all of their entertainment. PQ and SQ are secondary to the comfort of being online, and using their slingbox to stream video everywhere. Gamers follow closely in this same realm, and they are very comfortable with lower quality PQ and SQ coming from the internet. They believe that the tools they are comfortable with should be the tools every is comfortable with. I does not work that way.

I am going to side step the name calling, and address some valid(but mostly invalid) points.

What works for music (and photography, apparently) is also going to work for movies. Revenue has been flat, but that is not what it will be this year. You want trends, well I'll start by what was said at CES, and I'm not just talking about the sales pitches, I'm also talking about what people said. I saw more interest in digital downloads then ever before and it's going to piggy-back on what people are already doing with their music. They will (and have been) storing their movies on the same hard drives that they have their music collections on.

Your first sentence is simply not correct. Downloading music requires far less bandwidth and takes far less time. I can put 256 songs on a one GB stick. You cannot do that with HD movies. Peoples expectation of quality from music has lowered considerably, there is no indication that is the case with video or 1080p panels would not be selling like hotcakes like they are.

This is the first year in the last 15 that I have missed CES. Computer geeks go to CES to find out the latest in computer related gear(that includes internet related things). Videophiles go to see the latest in video gear. What buzz you hear largely depends on where your interested is. If you check the computer focused rags, downloads, internet gear, covergence gear, streaming gear was the buzz. Computer related stuff. To the videophile the buzz was Warners decision, new bluray players, audio codecs from Dts and Dolby, flat panel, DLP and LCD televisions, new movie releases, new video screen technology, and 1080p projectors. Whatever side you sit on, you will get a different perspective of the buzz. Anyone who stats that only their interests were the buzz is ignorant as hell about CES. That show is too huge for just one technology buzz.

Just as most people have ripped, copied from friends, and downloaded a large portion of their digital music collections, this is also the case with movies. You are completely dismissing the widespread practice of piracy and semi-piracy between people.

Most people have not done this, some people have. Don't overstate your point. You have to buy a product before you can rip it. Music downloads are growing, and yes CD sales are decline. But when you look at the overall revenue generated, downloading still is dwarfed by CD disc sales, by a loooooong shot. I have already posted link after link in the other thread that shows piracy actually spurs sales, not take away from them

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070822-a13-billion-fantasy-latest-music-piracy-study-overstates-effect-of-p2p.html

Just as music is being re-engineered and re-recorded to suit a different palate that eliminates things like dynamic range to reduce file size, the same is happening with movie content. Extras, unwanted sound format, languages, and other junk is all stripped out of pirated movies, but now there are programs that change the video and sound within the film to be more applicable to small portable devices and flat screens

This is strictly a computer geeks perspective, not your collector, not your videophile or your average consumer. Computer geeks do not mind doing this because they do not love film, they just want product in any form including altered from its original intent. According to survey after survey conducted by the Studios, the general buying public WANTS the extra value content, even if the videophile doesn't. This is why you see both HD DVD and Bluray pushing interactivity and extra value content. The videophile wants the original aspect ratio, not some altered pan and scan type alterations, not altered low quality audio and video formatted and processed for computer monitors and computer speakers. This is strictly what a computer geek likes and will accept.

BR will be valuable for collectors who want to own, but is that population growing or shrinking? You're been raving about how BR movies have so many more new releases, but that means very little to collectors. How many B&W classics are available on BR? And why would anyone bother? How many 70's, 80's, & 90's blockbusters on BR? Not too many I gather. The problem with BR is that it tries to cater to collectors, but it is releasing mostly content that appeals to the renters. Isn't that a kick in the pants

This is another computer geek perspective. No collector or videophile(I am both) expect B&W classics, 70, or 80's blockbuster this earlier in a new formats roll out. It didn't happen with VHS, Laserdisc, or DVD and it is not going to happen with Bluray. 90's blockbuster are well represented on Bluray for this early. As the format matures, then you will start to see more and more broad based content on the format. It was that way for VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD. If your assertion are true, then SALES of bluray disc would be alot smaller, and RENTALS of bluray disc would be alot larger. Its the reverse, which means your assertions are just plain wrong.

Renting, by the way, is the crux of the argument and (big surprise) you want to downplay that. You mentioned Netflix as a better alternative to downloads, but those are exactly the people that will be drawn to downloading. The truth is that it's just a simple switch for them from receiving disks to downloading the content right to their TVs. Hence the reason the company is now offering downloads - they have wisely read the writing on the wall.

Rental income is not on the radar for studios. They down play it not me. However the studios are always looking for another income stream, so they are slowly releasing catalog titles for rentals to places like apple, XBOX live and Amazon. However these deals are extremely costly to them because they need the content to stay in business. I see downloading as impacting the rental market, that is logical. But sale through via downloading is not happening now, and it will not happen for quite a while. There is no money in it. Its not like music downloads at all.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6523707.html

Not as rosey as you think is it?

I truly believe that the downturn in DVD sales has far less to do with BR or the quality of the movies now coming out of Hollywood, then the simple fact that there is so much more free content available everywhere that people are watching instead.

The computer geeks perspective, not one the reflects what the industry analysis says.

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6517192.html

What drives the DVD business is collectors. Folks who purchase and keep hundreds and thousands of titles in their collections(that would be myself, and alot folks on AVS and HTF) drive DVD business. The average joesixpack is the second kind of consumer that drives sales, but to a far lesser extinct than the collectors. Collectors go out and purchase 4-5 titles weekly, the general consumer has probably 10-20 titles in their collection, and Netflick the rest of their disc. The collectors are not purchasing DVD anymore, and have moved on to HD DVD or Bluray. They however are not buying as much collectively as they did DVD's because of this format war, and the uncertainty it brings to the market. I personally use to buy about 5-10 DVD's a week depending on what is released. I have purchased exactly three DVD since the beginning of 2007. I have split my purchases between the two formats with the emphasis on bluray. I however am not buying 5 disc a week like I was with DVD. That is what is causing the slide in DVD sales, not downloading, and not free content found over the net. You are attempting to brush two unrelated things together, and that is why you are having a hard time bringing me to your side of the argument. I do not think like a computer geek, I think like a collector, and I do analysis like a STUDIO executive would, not like a computer geek trying to do video analysis with computer based filters.

Sure Amazons does, because they have a wide catalog that caters to collectors. Tell me lil't, isn't it true that NetFlix's download business is growing? Are you even willing to admit how much, with your insider info? Funny, you bring Apple's stake in this since they don't actually sell movies on disk. Let's see, we'll compare apples to nothing. Guess what? They are different! You don't say!

Netflix download service is growing, but apples is growing faster. However according to this analysis, downloading is NOT effecting rental by disc. According to NDP downloading is less than a 2% market compared to rentals of disc. While the sales of DVD's is slowing, the rental of DVD's is still quite strong.

http://mediabiz.blogs.cnnmoney.cnn.com/2008/01/15/itunes-rental-news-whacks-netflix-stock/

As I pointed out above, just because it's not where analysts are telling the studios they will make the most money (duh), that says nothing about its growth. The fact is downloaded digital video content on the internet is the fastest growing medium / file-format by far. Just because the studios can't figure out how to make money off of it, doesn't mean it's not growing. So the studios are going to doggedly push disk sales over downloads, is that what you're proposing? Well guess what? It didn't work for the music studios, now did it?

Spoken like a true computer geek. Downloading free content spreading accross the web is not the same thing as a movie purchase. Only a computer geek would try and mix the two together(and you say my perspective is narrow). Television programs that are aired on free broadcast television is not the same thing as a movie sold on a disc. You can find all kinds of free content on the web, but there is next to nothing that can compete apples to apples with a BR disc in terms of HD content. Free content on the web is not of any concern to a movie studio. They care about making movies and selling them. They follow the money trail, and that money trail does not lead them to downloads. It leads them to disc. As a computer geek you cannot understand that, because you do not understand the Hollywood studio culture. You follow Bill Gates.

I was not talking about player sales, I was talking about PVR, Tivo, xBox, and AppleMovie hardware sales. If I wanted to be a real stickler, I could have added media server sales, computers, and routers, but that is getting too computer-ish and I understand you've got a phobia there, so we'll stick to what you can get your little head around.

If you add up all of PVR, TIVO(which is sold at a loss) and Applemovie hardware sales together, it would even touch DVD player sales. I do not have a phobia about computer related hardware, I have no interest. Big difference don't cha think? None of what you mention(with the exception of Tivo) has the interest of the movie collector or the videophile. The general public appears not to have much interested either, just computer geeks, and them only. That is why it is so high on your radar, and not on mine. Do you see any of these devices discussed in detail on this website? I don't.

Again, so it's clear: "downloading in terms of revenue" is only a small part of the picture. Don't you get that? You don't want to get that because it flies in the face of your argument. Well just for once, can you please look at the whole picture and not just your little corner? If people were not looking elsewhere for their entertainment, where were they looking? DVD sales were down, were they not? Where did people turn? They turned to renting, free content,

The only part of the picture the studios are interested in is the revenue picture. Computer geeks emphasize the amount of downloading of free content. Your assertion that the general public turning to renting and free content is based on what? Where are you facts instead of your opinion? How do you measure activity on free content? Where do you get the information that supports your assertions? I would like to see you post it here. Anyone can make the claims you do, where is the support for those claims? If you do not support those claims, why should I believe you. You do have a history of telling lies. Show me proof, or shut the hell up!

Well my little fruity cavalier, I am comparing it to DVD (and BR) anyway. So sue me. If people are watching it instead of movies, then it's a useful comparison. And you're forgetting one of my main points, movies from cable movie channels, while not legally "free," are a large part of this unmeasurable content you seem to have such a hard time with.

More of that 4 y/o name calling. You are the first example of a person that has kids more mature than yourself. Your comparison is not useful and not valid. Movies from cable channels cost the cable companies themselves, which pass the cost on to you. It is just spread over millions of people instead of directly charge to individual customers. If you cannot measure it, how can you compare it? More unsubstantiated claims, no proof of accuracy.

If people are making a digital copy and enjoying a 2-year old movie that aired on cable, then it's sorta "free" and it's keeping them busy from buying that shiny new disk, isn't it?

Sorta free is not completely free. You are attempting to hedge your arguement, and I am not buying it. If people are not watching DVD's, then why is the rental market on DVD's still strong? Why is DVD sales(even in decline) so much larger than downloads?

Sidereel.com is a good place to start. And if you doubt that people are actually downloading these to watch them on their computers of TVs, just look at the download numbers. Now imagine being able to do that from your TV screen? So the quality is not HD, who cares? Well you (and me) and most collectors care, but what kind of economic impact does our little minority have?

First, you cannot put yourself and myself in the same camp. I care about quality images and quality sound. Apparently you do not if you go for altered video, and altered low quality sound coming through computer speakers and viewed on a computer monitor. We do not speak the same language because our interests are as divergent as San Francisco is from New York. Our little minority(of which you are not apart of) helped build the DVD market into the huge $42 billion dollar worldwide business it is. Our little minority(of which you are not apart of) has helped propel the bluray format past the downloading and VOD market less than a year after its launch. That is what impact our little minority has.

With regard to renting, see my points 3 & 4 above. Waiting 2-3 hours? What does that matter if it's in the middle of the night when they are sleeping? Or in the middle of the day when they're at work? Ever heard of Slingbox? I bet you wish you would have bout stock in that little upstart, huh?

Umm, no I do not want stock in that startup. Since the slim box's introduction a couple of years ago, it has only managed to sell 35,000 units. The prime customers appear to be Television stations, not consumers. I have heard no videophiles, or anyone else even mention this product. I do know that two Disney owned stations KABC and KGO both use them everywhere in their studios. I have yet to see one in anyones home. Another geek gadget that appears irrelevant to the consumer. The rest of you comments contain information that only a geek would appreciate.

Far fetched? Not at all. I purchase my movies from a queue: as soon as they are available on disk, they ship to me, it's all automated. Someday in the near future, I'll be forced to join that bandwagon and do my movies digitally, too - it's called progress, bub. Actually, I've been downloading the presidential debates and watching them on my computer at lunchtime.

I know nobody who does this. This must be another one of those geeky things that computer nerds do. Everyone else just watches the debates on television. What you do personally, and what every else does appear to be completely different. But then, I do not have a whole lot of computer geek friends either.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but for those who absolutely need to see the movie before it's out, they can get a pirated version. Movies and shows almost always appear well before release. I wouldn't be surprised if the first episode of Lost isn't already floating around out there. But for non-crackers, they won't mind waiting. Why do I say that? Because the decline in theater ticket sales tells me so. If it's too expensive or inconvenient and it will appear on video soon, people will forgo the theater. What is really going to bake your noodle is that digitally, video can easily made available much sooner than it can be distributed on disk - so actually digital downloads into households will appear much faster then disks on shelves. Maybe that fact alone will be a nail in that coffin for movies on disk.

The general public is not going to download pirated movies. That is a computer geek, or a poor college student kind of thing. Besides, with the price of DVD's dropping so fast, there really isn't a whole lot of reason to download low quality pirated versions of movies.

Regarding movie ticket sales, another attempt to analyze the movie industry with computer geek glasses. Hometheaters are the movie theaters downfall. The better the images we get at home, the better sound we get at home, the less the public wants to go to the movies. You cannot tie that directly to piracy, because the general public does not download pirated movies. However the sales of HTIB, cheap DVD players, and low DVD prices have done more harm to movie theaters than piracy ever can. Secondly, the studios are not going to cannibalize their cash cow to downloads. Apple has a deal with all 6 major hollywood studios. But that deal does not give them access to content ahead of the DVD release, or any other disc based release as far as I know. It also give them selected access to certain titles, not access to all titles like we get on DVD. It is only when the Studios decide that disc based media is not going to make them any more money will they turn to digital downloads. Right now the Studios are dragging their feet in two areas of digital downloading. Movie downloading, and digital distribution to movie theaters. They do not appear to trust their content on either without accessive DRM.

Utter nonsense. This is where your lack of knowledge of technology is most apparent, lil't. Take the Tivo Series 3, for example. It has a SATA external drive hookup. I can plug in a 1Tb drive into that sucker and keep myself watching for some time. And as far as this change not happening with movies on disk, the exact opposite is true. I know quite a few people that have ripped all their CDs into a digital format, made several copies and are perfectly happy getting rid of the disks (I'm always on hand to help out with that part).

The average joesixpack is not going to hook up a SATA external drive to their tivo, and you know that. You are so full of shyt. One point you are forgetting, in order to rip a CD you have to buy it. Anyone just discarding their disc after ripping them is an idiot. If your drive crashes, how do you replace them? Pull them out of your azz? You are speaking only of the computer geek culture, not the ordinary average citizen, not the videophiles, and not the movie collector.

The fact is that most people don't want to hold on to the vast majority of their DVDs because they take up so much room - far more than a couple of hard drives, by the way. Of course, there are some disks we all want to keep (Godfather, Citizen Kane, Great Escape, and of course my whole Clint collection), and for those I'll probably eventually get the BR version, but that's not enough for the studios to build a business model on.

Okay, where is the evidence that the vast majority of people do not want their DVD because they take up so much room? You made this up, because everyone I know that has a collection of movies has a place they put them. Jeeze nightliar, when will you stop the bull****? You are trying to tranfer your thoughts and concerns on everyone. You think for you, I think for me, and let everyone else think for themselves. They do not need your lying mouthpiece to convey their thoughts.

As I said, the movie studios can do what they want. Just because they don't see profit margins as big in downloading, that does not mean it's dead. Personally I think they are missing the boat. It's not unheard of for whole companies to do that, you know. Didn't Microsoft miss the Internet boat? Didn't Yahoo miss the simplicity boat? Didn't the music studios miss the downloading boat? What ultimately happens is that they eventually have to jump on board of risk being left behind. If they don't do it, their shareholders will do it for them.

Since you don't run a movie studio, who cares what you think? How does somebody get left behind when they control the content? They are not getting left behind, you are just too far ahead. When the public at large desires digital downloads, then the studio will respond. They follow the money, and since the public at large has not made a sound in relation to downloading, they are not moving many resources in that direction. There is no money to be made right now.

Wow, I can't believe you went through the trouble to list all that FUD. If you think for one second that Microsoft is wrong about the upcoming downloading boom, then I don't think you understand the company at all. It will happen, even if they have to make it happen. Whether they will be riding that wave with their own HDi and VC1, or buy out someone else's technology, I can pretty much guarantee that they've already got their surf boards polished. If these past three years all Microsoft wanted to do was postpone BR & Sony's success with their support for HD-DVD, then they have succeeded. I can almost guarantee you that they will be pushing downloads even harder now. I also expect xBox Live to be a major part of that push. If you think Microsoft is dead in the water, then you're not the first that thought that - take a number behind IBM, Borland, Novell and Apple.

Microsoft cannot MAKE anything happen in the video business. They do not produce or own content do they? They have to pay for it, and if giving Microsoft content effects the studios bottom line, they ain't getting a damn thing. If you think what I said is FUD, then read.

http://www.parislemon.com/2008/01/bill-gates-all-but-gives-hd-dvd-vote-of.html

The company supported HD DVD because it used its codecs and HDi exclusively. When HD DVD suddenly looks dead, he minimizes his company's involvement with HD DVD. Did you know that in spite of Microsoft being a major HD DVD supporter, they would not participate with Toshiba in negotiations with Warner? The let Toshiba go it alone and that is very telling about how much Microsoft truely supported HD DVD. Amoung people who know the movie industry well, this is common knowledge. To a simple computer geek with no information or knowledge of the movie industry, its FUD. What are you, Bill Gates biach? Microsoft is a big player in the computer business, they are next to nil in the film making business.

First of all, I never claimed to be an expert, unlike yourself. I listed some scenarios, that from my experience in the computer industry actually did make an impact there. If I was wrong, is that such a horrible crime? Everyone tries to understand the world around them by using references to things they are familiar with.

You do not have to openly claim you are an expert, you try and post like you are some authority on the movie business and you are not. Your scenarios were wrong because you are trying to use experience that does not apply to the movie industry. The computer and movie industry are not the same, and to attempt to analyze, and create scenarios in the video business using computer experience is quite frankly stupid. That is like me using my sound experience to analyze the medical field, or dentistry. It is a round peg going in a square hole.

Groundbeef did a great job of pointing out how so many of your examples, links, and numbers were outdated and no longer applied. See that's the problem with your fancy stats and sales figures, they are all in the past. You can't seem to move on. Your whole world view is based on the past (kind of like your avatar). Well it's over, lil't, it's time to drag you kicking and screaming like the little child that you are, into the future, and that future is digital downloads.

Groundbeef addressed issues regarding the XBOX360, not my figures or stats. Do not attempt to lie again liar. You state my figures are from the past? How do you know if you do not have access to them? Every figure that I have quoted, every stat I used as an example came from CURRENT issues of NDP. My company pays millions of dollars for this information, and I think your kotex is in a knot because you cannot dispute them.
My future is with Bluray disc, not downloads. You manage your life, I will manage mine.

Now I never said that HD-DVD was going to win anything. I said, starting about 6 months ago, that there were too many possibilities for the fortunes to change in the format war. And more importantly, I also said that both formats will be marginalized in the same way that SACD and DVD-A would be. Sure you had lots of reasons for trying to sabotage that comparison, but the fact that music on disk was supplanted by digital music, even when a two higher quality formats appeared, should at least give you pause about the future of the movie industry.

Well none of the possibilities you mention came close to happening did they? It does not appear like bluray will be marginalized at all does it? Last week it outsold HD DVD 85-15% in disc sales. It wasn't just the numbers, it was the overall volume of discs moved post Warner annoucement. In one week after Warners announcement, Bluray sold more discs than it did the three weeks leading up to Christmas. Bluray had 9 out of the top 10 best selling HD titles. It appears that whatever was holding folks back, ain't holding them back anymore. SACD and DVD-A never sold the amount of disc that even lowly HD DVD has. Music files, and movies files are not created equal. One can quickly be downloaded, the other is a bandwidth hog. Besides on thing you have not taken into consideration, there is a little war going on between cable and downloading services like Apple, and XBOX live. If the cable puts limits on the amount of downloading that can be done, that will pretty much cap how much people can move through broadband. Both Time Warner and Comcast are flirting with this idea

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/time-warner-download-too-much-and-you-might-pay-30-a-movie/?ref=technology

This ought to bode well for your downloading future.

And even if you won't see the overwhelming similarities in the SACD/DVD-A example, I think most everyone else won't be as narrow minded as you

This statement is for pee brained people like you who don't critically think.

SACD and DVD-A never had any major record label support. Bluray has 6 of 8 major studio now, and will have all eight well before christmas. Bluray has the support of over 100 independent studios world wide, neither SACD or DVD-A had that kind of support.

SACD and DVD-A never sold a million disc. Bluray did in 5 months after it was launched.

SACD and DVD-A require an investment of 6 cables to connect to your reciever. Bluray just requires one HDMI cable when connected to newer receivers.

DVD-A and SACD did not have exclusive support from anyone. Bluray has exclusive support that equals 70% of all movies released if you tally all the movies the 6 studio have released to DVD.

DVD-A and SACD lost out because you could not make it portable. There is already talk of a bluray portable player in the making.

Only Sony committed to releasing SACD players that the masses could afford. Only Pioneer and Panasonic supported DVD-A for the masses. Every new BR player announced at CES was under $500 dollars(with the exception of one), and there were 12 different manufacturers showing players.

SACD and DVD-A ended in a draw, and that killed them both. Bluray has clearly one this one.

The only simularity between DVD-A and SACD war, and HD DVD and bluray war, is that you had two competing formats on the market at the same time. After that, there are few if any simularities.

I don't run a studio or even own stock in them because I don't invest in Enron-type debacles.

Then I guess you never heard of the Dot.com implosion have you. That was a debacle.

Of course they are committed to BR, it's their one last taste of the rich life before they have to settle for more humble pie. You've been touting the $42B vs. $200M figure for some time now. How far in the past did you have to reach back for that little gem? Care to share some updated figures? And what is that $42B figure for? All movie sales, including BR, HD-DVD, VHS, and DVD? Well no wonder it's so much larger than just downloads? So now who's comparing apples to a kumquats?

Humble pie? They own the content that the download services need. It seems to me the downloading services are at the behest of the Studios, not the other way around.

$42 billion and $200 million for a while. Wrong, I just started saying these figures recently. $42 billion worldwide is a 2007 figure for DVD sales. $200 million is a 2005, 2006, and 2007 figure. Downloads and VOD did $212 million dollars in business to the studios in 2007. That is a flat figures that is within $2 million dollars of the total of 2005. In other words, not going anywhere. If you want to take it local only, then its $18 billion dollars for America only for DVD sales. That still leaves downloading in the dust. Now how do you compare that to an unmeasured free content floating around the web? You can't, which is why it is rediculous to make the claims you do.

Not stupid at all: by putting a hard drive inside. For Toshiba, a company that makes computers as well as all sorts of other home entertainment gear, that could be very easy and cost-effective (more on that below). I'm not saying they are going to do this, I'm only suggesting the possibility, so don't start using this as an example of a "lie," you eager lit't beaver.

A lie, nope. Stupid as hell? yep. You are a very poor business person. You don't sink money into something that has already failed in the market. What you are proposing would pit this HD DVD , DVR thing right up against the PS3 and the XBOX360 to a lesser extent. Both are too far ahead for Toshiba to get a footing in that market. You have already lost $450 million dollars, and most folks say that after this firesale that Toshiba is currently on, it could ballon to close to $700-800 million. Now what kind of idiot would sink more money into a losing venture, oops you!

For Toshiba that cost would not be hard to sustain. Even if the unit cost $100 more because of a hard drive and tuner, that would still put it on par with all the BR players out there. Even if it's marketed as just an upconverting player/PVR, that just happens to also play HD-DVD, it could be quite a fancy device. Even for $500, it would still be cheaper than any PVR out there except Tivo.

It wouldn't cost $100 dollars more. Toshiba has been selling all of its players at a loss since inception. In order for them to have to make a profit on the A2 or A3 the price would have to be closer to $399 dollars. You add a drive and a tuner, and yes that product would be $500. Then you lose the talking point you have over bluray because there are players out there cheaper than $500. The S300 is currently going for $268 bucks. The sumsung 1400 is going for about $20 dollars more. Almost all of the new players coming to market are under $500. The HD DVD platform is dead. You can find a upconverting player for less than $100 dollars. You stick to being a computer geek, because business is not your bag.

Huh? Are you just not able to reason at all? In addition to the HD-DVD titles out there, owners would have one heck of a nice upconverting DVD player, but more importantly, it could download all that new video content that I've been talking about, you know, that you consider insignificant? Over time, as digital video selection expands, it will have a catalog far larger than any BR player will ever have

This is a pipe dream. With no new titles coming to the format, how do you sell the format. Content sells the product, not the other way around. You cannot build a player based on second hand content. And the folks that would buy the player are not downloaders. Most folks that purchased the HD DVD player never took advantage of the online interactivity anyway. You are trying to make video folks computer folks, and they are not the same dude.

There are several differences: this year, hard drive technology (in the TV room) will meet that demand. Another detail: just as in the past there were more and more vendors using digital music players to show off high-end audio gear, there were this year more vendors using digital video on disk to show off their wares. Also, with the BR/HD-DVD format war fizzling out, there is a refocusing of the new war between the on-disk folks (you, me and the "collectors") and the digital proponents (the general public).

You are calling the general public digital proponents? False. If that were the case, revenue from downloads would be WAY higher than from disc sales. Secondly, high end wares were not being highlighted with digital music players. That is a bald face lie. When you use high end equipment, you have to be very careful that your sources are as pure as you can get them. High end music equipment is very unforgiving, and the compression artifacts found in highly compressed music would be very audible. Also, the hometheater folks where not using storage disk to show there wares either. They were using either a Bluray player, or a HD DVD player. You obviously were not at CES this year, so there is no use in lying to make your point.

History is full of examples showing that it takes a little time for revolutions to settle down into a steady change. History is also full of examples of how revolutions occur after a major event or war. The trends are there, you're just not seeing them because you narrow your criteria too much. If you would just for once broaden your view just a tad, you'd see that digital downloads are on the verge of a huge increase in popularity.

History is also full of examples of good products that the consumer just didn't want. The Slimbox may be good for computer geeks, but the consumer obviously doesn't want it because it has not sold even 40k units in three years on the market. WebTV was a great idea to computer geeks, but the public didn't buy it. Interactive TV was the rave of computer geeks, and the public thumbed its nose at it. You are not asking me to broaden my view, you are asking me to blur my view. Not going to happen. You are the computer geek that thinks like one, I am a videophile collector who thinks like one. Never the two shall meet in thought, our priorities are too different. Digital downloads for rental are just getting started. Digital downloads for owning, are not feasible in the near future. The next war will be between VOD and movie downloading services. Even amoung the downloading services there is non compatibility. If the digital downloads are the future, you are going to have to get behind one download software, and one download business model, not three different one from three large players.

Well of course you got a bonus, because BR just had a major victory and you work for a BR-only studio - that's no surprise - but it will be short lived. Who know, you'll probably do OK as your company shifts more and more of it's business to online digital content. But if it stays on this sinking ship of disk-only movies, then I'd grab a life-vest pretty quick.

If they go to downloads now, it will be a sinking ship. Every analyst that covers the video business has said such. The time is not here yet

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6487745.html

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6523707.html

Not your pie in the sky digital downloading rosey picture is it?

I said that the brand name (i.e. Sony) indicated that it was a mass-market product. I may not have known everything about it, but I never claimed to be a know-it-all, either. So I was a little overzealous about calling your precious little toy mass-market. It's still Sony and is thus dragged down in value because of all the other mediocre products the company produces - you can't deny that (sort of like that Onkyo amp you have, no?). But does my statement make me a liar? That's a stretch, and you know it.

You didn't call my Sony a mass market product, you called my video switcher a mass market product. It costs over $10k and has never been released to the public. Yes you were overzealous in calling my Sony mass market. Just because it is Sony does not drag it down in value any more so than the name Outlaw drags down its value.

I will repeat the once again, just because I know you are lacking much in the intelligence area. My Onkyos are a upgrade and redesign. Aside from the badge on the front, nothing inside comes from Onkyo including the layout inside. It is a John Curl design in a Onkyo shell. That is it. Since it is custom, you cannot evaluate it like you can evaluate an Outlaw, which is not high end either by the way. Some look at it as a mass market product you know. So before you throw stones, move out of the glass house. One channel of my amps cost more than your entire pre-pro just to get you in perspective.

I said that it could output PCM. I did not say it could play DSD native

You did?

My player has the option of converting to PCM or not. But I prefer not to do any any bass management in the player. That is out of post #69.

If you are saying or not, just what does the not cover? If it doesn't convert to PCM, what does it convert to? There are only two option here nighliar. Either it passes DSD stream straight to the receiver, or it is converted to PCM. You were trying to insinuate that your player can pass the DSD stream natively because those are the only two option out there. LIAR!

This further shows this

Terry says "If you use bass management, delay, or level settings, the signal must be converted to PCM. There are no post processing tools in DSD except on the ultra high end SACD only players."

Nightliars response. "Well, then my Sony player (not too expensive) must be pretty high end." That is in post #66.

Lie lie lie nightliar

It may be that I didn't quite understand what you asked and that somehow my answer was not specific enough for you to understand (we've seen that before), but I'm pretty sure I did not say that it passed DSD. In any case, I certainly wasn't trying to lie about it. After all, why would I?

Now its you didn't understand. Can anyone say backpeddle. Your answer was specific enough, it was also ignorant enough, and stupid enough. Why would you lie? Because you were trying to pass yourself off as knowledgeable on the subject,and your ignorance was making you look real bad. All someone has to do is read the thread all the way through and you could clearly see that. Ray Charles could clearly see that!

If I didn't know exactly what the room treatments corrected for (and I certainly never claimed to be an expert), then this isn't a lie either.

Then you should not have even mention them. You were faking, and trying to hide you were.

Well, lil't, you've done a good job of extending this thread well beyond where it could have been. You've done a good job of spreading FUD. You've done a good job of waiving the BR fan-boy flag. you've done a good job of confusing the issues. You've done a good job of littering your posts with figures that upon closer analysis don't hold up. You've done a good job of intimidating people. You've done a good job of making yourself out to be the court buffoon instead of a terrible knight, LOL. You've done a good job of trying to insult me. And you've done a good job of trying to make me out to be a liar.

Insult you? You don't need me to do that. Spreading FUD. I have supported my assertions with links, facts, and figures. Where are yours?

Once again, you have spread assertions and opinions with no support whatsoever. You are trying to fit round pegs in square holes by analyzing the film industry with your computer experience. Eggs and oranges at best. You are once again trying to pass youself off as an expert, but then turn around and acknowledge you are not. You have called enough names to embarrass a two year old. $hit, you don't need me to embarrass you, you do that to yourself with your worth a penny assertions and opinions.

But you have not done a good job of explaining to us how BR will win over downloading. And that is really why we're here, no?

No, the topic of this thead is toshiba fights back...sort of, not the war between downloads and disc. You hyjacked this thread with your senseless bull$hit. In the future maybe your should read the title of the the thread before responding. You didn't start this one this time.

blackraven

01-18-2008, 11:23 PM

Ouch! Without getting involved in this fight, I have to agree with alot Sir T has to say about BR and downloading's future.

nightflier

01-19-2008, 05:04 PM

I am going to side step the name calling, and address some valid(but mostly invalid) points.

Yeah, if only that were true. Don't even try to come off as the nice guy in this because the post is littered with insults. Here's a sampling:

You do have a history of telling lies. Show me proof, or shut the hell up!

What are you, Bill Gates biach?

...and I think your kotex is in a knot

This statement is for pee brained people like you who don't critically think.

A lie, nope. Stupid as hell? yep.

You are a very poor business person.

You stick to being a computer geek, because business is not your bag.

And I'm not even going to address the way you stereotype computer geeks (which, by the way, I am not). But What is most galling is the condescending tone you take in everyone of your posts. It's insulting and speaks volumes of your inferiority complex. I mean, not only do you call yourself "Sir Terrence The Terrible, The Cavalier" but what's with the one-upsmanship? e.g:

One channel of my amps cost more than your entire pre-pro just to get you in perspective.

Are you going to follow that up with how much bigger your {daddy, car, member, whatever} is as well? A psychologist could write volumes about your insecurities. So before you go stereotyping everyone into evil computer geeks and good video collectors, you should really take a hard look in the mirror. I mean, do you wave your authentic Isildur sword up in the air when you type this stuff, or is it your Sith lightsaber? This isn't a crusade against the downloading hordes, lil't....

At least, the one thing we now know is that I never lied about anything. Yes, you tried to come up with insinuations, suppositions, and conjectures, but really, lil't, nothing has stuck. Just drop it already. It only further convinces me how insecure you are.

OK, so now that we have that out of the way....

What you are basically saying is that there are two types of people in the world: downloaders and collectors, right? Now w/o going into all the silly adjectives you used to describe these into good & evil, your basic assertion is that the video collectors will somehow, by some miraculous coup of mind-boggling economic reversal, save the movie industry from having to distribute video digitally? You assert that the downloaders are the minority and the collectors the majority of the folks out there, right?

I mean is this starting to sound silly yet?

Now you go on by saying that because the studios haven't figured out how to make money from downloading, but because they know how to make money off of disks, they will keep doing just that and maintain the huge margins they enjoyed during the glorious DVD years?

Well, I'll stop there, because unlike you, I don't feel it serves anyone but you to keep arguing point-for-point. Let me just finish with a few details:

- Slingboxes are hugely popular

- Tivos are hugely popular

- External drives are plug & play (ahem, that's geek-talk for "simple to install")

- Your lack of understanding about hard drive technology is telling (and quite surprising really considering your line of work)

- Music on hard drives sans cd, is the norm nowadays (that right, people don't fear owning music digitally)

- The music studios fought downloads tooth & nail and lost

- Pirated content created the online music boom (yes, there are lost of differing opinions on this, but it's pretty much the white elephant in the room)

- Computer-knowledgeable people far outnumber audio/videophiles

- It is possible to be and audio-enthusiast and computer-enthusiast (just look at the other people on this forum)

And I can go on with the fallacies in your theories, but I think this is enough to keep you ruminating for a while, and you'll probably add another ten pages of text to debate it - we all hope you'll restrain yourself. To quote John Stewart on Cross-fire: "just stop it."

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-20-2008, 03:02 PM

Yeah, if only that were true. Don't even try to come off as the nice guy in this because the post is littered with insults. Here's a sampling:

Well cry me a river. Do you want me to get you mommy to change your pampers. If you cannot take it, do not dish it out. Its just that simple.

And I'm not even going to address the way you stereotype computer geeks (which, by the way, I am not). But What is most galling is the condescending tone you take in everyone of your posts. It's insulting and speaks volumes of your inferiority complex. I mean, not only do you call yourself "Sir Terrence The Terrible, The Cavalier" but what's with the one-upsmanship? e.g:

Your online psychology sucks bones. You have a huge problem with going personal when you cannot debate the issue. When you get stuck, you turn on the person and begin psycho-analysis. You are as lousy at this as you are predicting trends in the video market. How one can take a moniker and turn it into all this is weird, stupid, and always inaccurate. Much like your predictions.

And once again(because you are so gruesa cabeza). The Cavaliers are a Drum and Bugle corps that I marched in and support. Not what I call myself. Is this clear to you? Do you have the brain capacity to seperate the two?

Are you going to follow that up with how much bigger your {daddy, car, member, whatever} is as well? A psychologist could write volumes about your insecurities. So before you go stereotyping everyone into evil computer geeks and good video collectors, you should really take a hard look in the mirror. I mean, do you wave your authentic Isildur sword up in the air when you type this stuff, or is it your Sith lightsaber? This isn't a crusade against the downloading hordes, lil't....

And what does this have to do with the topic at hand. I do not care about downloading or downloaders. I care about keeping people informed about movies on disc, because that is where we currently are. This site is about hometheater related stuff, not about computers or computer downloading. This topic is about Toshiba HD DVD fight, not about the downloading habit or equipment. Stay with the topic, or stay out of it.

At least, the one thing we now know is that I never lied about anything. Yes, you tried to come up with insinuations, suppositions, and conjectures, but really, lil't, nothing has stuck. Just drop it already. It only further convinces me how insecure you are.

You have lied. And when its pointed out, you go into denial. Just like a pathological liar does. Pathological liars do not know a lie from the truth, and that describes you perfectly.

OK, so now that we have that out of the way....

So now that we have finally heard your crying and moaning, we can finally talk about audio? Whew, I thought I was debating a woman for a second there.

What you are basically saying is that there are two types of people in the world: downloaders and collectors, right? Now w/o going into all the silly adjectives you used to describe these into good & evil, your basic assertion is that the video collectors will somehow, by some miraculous coup of mind-boggling economic reversal, save the movie industry from having to distribute video digitally? You assert that the downloaders are the minority and the collectors the majority of the folks out there, right?

According to all economic indicators, the downloaders are the minority and the collectors are the majority. In America $18 billion dollars versus $212 million. Now to most folks, this would seem apparent. To the dyslexic maybe not.

Nobody is trying to SAVE anyone. I am simply stating that folks who have purchased disc for the last 10 years are not going to magically or suddenly want to purchase a movie file. Renters and gamers may want to, but that does not discribe the general public at this point clear and simple. The links I posted support this, so now you just need to get to the realization that your analysis of where folks are is just wrong.

Getting to this good versus evil. I did not frame my arguement that way, you may interpret it that way(and you say I have an inferiority complex), but that is not how it is framed. This is a priority issue and nothing more. What a downloader is comfortable doing and accepting is far different than those who enjoy film and want to collect it to build a library. At this point people want to own disc, not files. All of the economic data points to this very clearly. Now if you cannot understand this, then clearly you need your processor checked.

Now you go on by saying that because the studios haven't figured out how to make money from downloading, but because they know how to make money off of disks, they will keep doing just that and maintain the huge margins they enjoyed during the glorious DVD years?

Once again because of you lack of understanding you are turning this on the studios. What you can seem to get in your thick head is the consumers are not clamoring for downloaded movies. Whether we are talking for rent or for purchase. All one has to do is look at the fact that in the same time that bluray has gone from zero to a $4 billion dollar market, the VOD and downloading of movies has remained stagnant in terms of dollars. The studio are looking at dollars, and dollars only. That is the bottom line. Now you may talk about traffic to free stuff, and free stuff via VOD, but that is not on the radar for a studio looking for alternative forms of income. What they want to see is the studio making more and more dollars on downloads. They want to see a healthy demand for downloaded movies. At this time they are seeing neither. The public chooses, and the studios follow the money. That is how Bluray beat HD DVD, and that is how downloaders will have to convince the studios to support downloading.

Well, I'll stop there, because unlike you, I don't feel it serves anyone but you to keep arguing point-for-point. Let me just finish with a few details:

- Slingboxes are hugely popular

Not selling at 35,000 units in three years of sales its not. Considering there have been 650,000 HD DVD players, 3.2 million bluray enabled PS3(in american only), and over 500,000 standalone bluray players sold in the same time frame(in america only), its a pimple on the a$$ of a poodle. I have yet to see a slimbox in anyones home, but I have seen bluray players though.

- Tivos are hugely popular

Tivo has had all kinds of problems financially. They sold their DVR at a loss for years, almost shut down operation in europe(they are greatly scaled back) and are losing ground to DVR's that are given away with set top satellite receivers. They are having all kinds of problems with marketing(this lifetime replacement thing is becoming a disaster), and even on hometheater websites it is not talk about at all. Somewhat popular, I can get with. Hugely popular, no way.

- External drives are plug & play (ahem, that's geek-talk for "simple to install")

Tell this to someone who doesn't know this. I have a external drive hooked to my PS3, and my computer. I do not see videophiles or collectors clamoring for these anywhere in their hometheaters.

- Your lack of understanding about hard drive technology is telling (and quite surprising really considering your line of work)

Your assumption about my lack of understanding is telling as well. This is a hometheater site, so do not expect me to go into my understanding of COMPUTERS here. When I visit sites that talk about computers, it will surprise you at what I know.

- Music on hard drives sans cd, is the norm nowadays (that right, people don't fear owning music digitally)

Movies on hard drives ARE NOT the norm. Since we are talking about movies and not music, you are off topic, and your assertions do not apply.

- The music studios fought downloads tooth & nail and lost

Pure ignorance. The music industry was fighting against music piracy, not legal and legit downloading. Considering that revenue from downloads does not come close to CD sales even in decline, makes it clear they have not lost yet. Can anyone say cart before horse? When the public stops buying CD(might be tough since you cannot propogate a DRM infested music file) demand more music available for downloading, and stop going to amazon or best buy to purchase disc, the record companies will follow the money. Right now they are following the money, and it is clear they are keeping their emphasis on the CD.

- Pirated content created the online music boom (yes, there are lost of differing opinions on this, but it's pretty much the white elephant in the room)

Yes there is a difference of opinion. You have the RIAA saying one thing to control content, and you have the analysts who say the RIAA is blowing smoke up everyones bum. However close scrutiny leans much more towards the analyst than the RIAA. Music is different from movies. Horses are different from cows, and computer geeks(and you are one) are different than videophiles and movie and film lovers and collectors.

- Computer-knowledgeable people far outnumber audio/videophiles

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. The two are so different they cannot even be compared. Unfortunately computer geeks don't buy music as much as audiophiles, and don't buy as many movies as videophiles. So they are basically irrelevant to the topic at hand.

- It is possible to be and audio-enthusiast and computer-enthusiast (just look at the other people on this forum)

I can look at myself, I do not need to look at others. However what I do with my computer, and with my hometheater are two different things. You cannot seem to understand this because there is no balance for you. Based on what you have posted, you know FAR more about computers than hometheater. And that isn't saying much because you know next to nothing about hometheater. Can anyone imagine using acoustical treatment to balance the output of each speaker? Nightliar can.

And I can go on with the fallacies in your theories, but I think this is enough to keep you ruminating for a while, and you'll probably add another ten pages of text to debate it - we all hope you'll restrain yourself. To quote John Stewart on Cross-fire: "just stop it."

When you stop lying(which will probably be never), when you stop mixing two different technologies into one bowl( I do not think you have the thinking capacity), and when you finally understand that you know far less about the film and video business than you are trying to portray, I will stop. However if you keep expousing FUD and foolishness over and over again, I will go 20 pages to beat you down through the core of this earth. Is that pretty clear to you?

pixelthis

01-20-2008, 11:16 PM

Do you have any idea that there is a whole segment of people that think everything you named here is just average? Do you have the communication skills to discuss anything without name calling? Or should we just dismiss you as another immature 12 y/o?

That rediculous impossible standard is the standard for both Bluray and HD DVD. Any product that is going to capture the attention of the folks that drive the video market have to meet that standard or exceed it. There is no going backwards. The good enough folks have a much different mindset than the want the best folks.

You current rig would be considered average at best to quite a few videophiles. To joesixpack your system may be off the chain, but there is quite a few folks in this hobby who are not impressed with 720p as their highest resolution. Not when they have already been exposed to 1080p. There were a few panels and DLP's that could not take a 1080p input, but the lions share now can. 1080p projectors can except a 1080p signal, and that is what videophiles use, not 50" plasma or LCD panels.

Anyone who has looked at 1080p images on a properly calibrated display device knows that 1080p is not an incremental increase over 720p. It is twice the resolution, and that is quite noticeable. Working stiffs do not drive technology, they are laggerds behind the trend setters. That's a fact.

Anyone who uses a store as a critical viewing space is not very bright. Stores do not calibrate their sets, and 99% of the display devices in stores are in the torch mode, too bright, has the wrong color temperature, and the gray scale is off. You have harsh lights reflecting off the screen, and more often than not you are too far to see the detail in a 1080p image. If you think that bluray at 1920x1080p with bitrates up to 54mbps looks the same as the typical broadcast resolution of 1440x1080p with a average bitrate of 14.4mbps you are blind as a bat. I am willing to believe based on what you have posted that your set is not properly calibrated. That is the only way you can make the statements you do.

Woooopie!!! Like I have said, your ceiling is my floor.

As I have said, there is good enough(you and your friends) and those who want the best of the best(that would be most videophiles). The folks that actually drive the video business are not the good enough folks. Sorry.

If you claim that ones system is "imaginary", can't that same claim be thrown back in your shortsighted face? How you can make this statement and keep a straight face is beyond me. You know peoples committment to their hobby by how much they are willing to spend to get the best performance there is. I am not disputing or contesting your committment to what you have done, I am stating that what you call quality is not what I call quality. You are at good enough, I am at getting the best. 720p is good enough for you, its not for me. Its just that simple. You cannot say your system is more of a committment than mine. You have no clue how much blood and sweat I have put into my system do you?

I am not oblivious to VOD, I am realistic about it. VOD is not where the studio I work for is putting their resources. It is not where the hollywood studios as a whole are putting their resources. The studio put their resources where the greatest return will come. Based on their actions, its bluray. Warner has basically settled this, so we can effectively move out of the war mode, and into the replacement mode. You are apparently still stuck in the war mode, move on, its over.

VOD is no competition to disc SALES. Since you do not work in my field or industry, you do not understand that this has been researched over and over again. People who use VOD are not quality oriented, the are convience oriented. They are not buyers, they are renters. Two different types of consumer. Most studios have a plan to replace DVD. They have transition from VHS to DVD. What they did then is simply release the DVD first with a large advertising campaign promoting the extra features and better PQ and SQ, and release the VHS later that was basically featureless. They know how to run their business, you don't.

Run it into the ground.
Sony , (which I am guessing is your company) knows NOTHING about marketing,
and if you're in the marketing dept thats understandable.
THEY put out a videotape player that recorded 1:30 in a 2:00 movie world,
and lost hundreds of millions as a result.
Poured millions into minidisc right when solid state and miniharddrive players were on the horizion.
And El-cassette, well, lets not go there.
You're a prime example, talking about "renters" and "buyers".
There arent two categeories, most people are BOTH.
Talledega nights, a nice piece of fluff, but do I want to shell out the cash to own a copy?
Heck no! Is a pristine picture a high priority on this sitcom on screen?
A decent pq is fine for this.
But bladerunner, cinema paradisio, after dark, fight club, etc, those I want a copy of.
All I am saying is that vod and downloading was big at CES, for rental this is the future for most, and that will hurt the rental stores, where a lot of copies of movies are sold.
The future for any disc format is the collector, you have admitted this so why are you arguing with me?
My main point is that what is the format for collectors going to be?
For a lot of collectors, especially with DVD collections, DVD will do fine.
For a new format the improvement is going to be incremental, and for most that dont have the latest tech It wont even be that.
Basically Sony and other blu types need to buy marketshare, fast, find some way to end this "war" faster than it is ending, or they are going to be like SACD and DVDAUDIO,
selling to a small market of highq types, while the rest of the world is happy with
dvd and VOD. On my upscaler DVD is smooth but not much better than regular,
but a real improvement in upscaling would kill BLU, people could get a vast improvement on their current collections, and download casual fare.
Basically Sony better get their act together, its a changing world, and they will get caught with their pants down (again) if they dont watch it:1:

pixelthis

01-20-2008, 11:25 PM

And a word about watching displays in the store, where do you want me to watch them,
Einstein?
Clearly you werent paying attention, you mention 1080p, I was talking about watching Blu on 720p.
On 720p the improvement is incremental, and unless I hit a high odds superfecta
at the track 720 will be my world for awhile, and that is STILL better than most,
on such a display the incentive to "go blu" isnt that great.
And I HAVE MADE MORE THAN a few salesclerks jaws drop when I have adjusted their sets, I go into the darkened HT section, pick out a set, drop the contrast and backlight to 50%, sure you cant calibrate it in the store but you can get it pretty good if you know what you're doing, and I KNOW what I am doing, and on demo material I bring, I know
pretty close what it should look like.
Why dont you stick to the subject and quit trying to kill the messenger , wiseguy?

pixelthis

01-20-2008, 11:31 PM

Wich direction do you think that market is moving in? Are there more and more larger HD screens being bought, or fewer? Are smaller TV's selling in higher numbers this year or last? Are the cable companies switching from HD to std, or the other way?

they are switching to HD, they have no choice really, what with direct TV going crazy with all of the HD channels.
I'm giving them A chance to upgrade, but that 100+ channels on direct tv is loking better and better all of the time.
Sci0fi so far is the best, the quality is superb, and history, national geo, etc are all fun,
and great what with the writers strike drying up the networks.
And the trend is toward bigger screens, flat ones, and you are really going to get HD with the new set you buy, that is the new broadcast standard, no SD flatties being made
above 20in or so:1:

GMichael

01-21-2008, 06:08 AM

they are switching to HD, they have no choice really, what with direct TV going crazy with all of the HD channels.
I'm giving them A chance to upgrade, but that 100+ channels on direct tv is loking better and better all of the time.
Sci0fi so far is the best, the quality is superb, and history, national geo, etc are all fun,
and great what with the writers strike drying up the networks.
And the trend is toward bigger screens, flat ones, and you are really going to get HD with the new set you buy, that is the new broadcast standard, no SD flatties being made
above 20in or so:1:

Scifi is the best there? It's still std def here.

JSE

01-21-2008, 07:55 AM

Scifi is the best there? It's still std def here.

I get SciFI in HD but HD does not make crappy movies good. Oiy. :skep:

GMichael

01-21-2008, 08:06 AM

I get SciFI in HD but HD does not make crappy movies good. Oiy. :skep:

There are still a few shows I like to watch on Sci-fi. HD would be prefered.

Mr Peabody

01-21-2008, 10:03 AM

Interesting development, HBO offering content on broadband in test markets.
http://www.electronichouse.com/article/hbo_to_begin_offering_content_for_broadband_servic e/C157

Did Pix actually hint he would switch from cable to Directv? Quick! Take a temperature reading in hell.

Sci fi is still standard on Dish as well

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-21-2008, 11:32 AM

Run it into the ground.
Sony , (which I am guessing is your company) knows NOTHING about marketing,
and if you're in the marketing dept thats understandable.

I do not work for Sony, want to try again??

THEY put out a videotape player that recorded 1:30 in a 2:00 movie world,
and lost hundreds of millions as a result.
Poured millions into minidisc right when solid state and miniharddrive players were on the horizion.
And El-cassette, well, lets not go there.

They also invented the walkman portable cassette and cd and that made them millions. And if you think beta was a bomb, take your sorry a$$ to any television station or movie studio all over the world and you will see them everywhere. They didn't lose hundreds of millions, they made billions off the beta. It was more expensive than VHS, and they have sold millions of the recorders all over the world. Get your facts straight.

You're a prime example, talking about "renters" and "buyers".
There arent two categeories, most people are BOTH.

Not according to extensive research conducted by all of the major studios. One will always have an emphasis over the other. Collectors occasionally rent, but mostly buy. Renters rent and occasionally buy. One is looking for a night of entertainment, the other is looking for good titles for their collection. Two different schools of thought.

Talledega nights, a nice piece of fluff, but do I want to shell out the cash to own a copy?
Heck no! Is a pristine picture a high priority on this sitcom on screen?
A decent pq is fine for this.

This is your opinion, and your opinion only. Others may have a completely different opinion than yours. Your opinion is not universal, and cannot be interpreted as such.

But bladerunner, cinema paradisio, after dark, fight club, etc, those I want a copy of.

Great, and other may not like any of these movies. I wouldn't want fight club in HD, it is not my kind of movie.

All I am saying is that vod and downloading was big at CES, for rental this is the future for most, and that will hurt the rental stores, where a lot of copies of movies are sold.
The future for any disc format is the collector, you have admitted this so why are you arguing with me?

VOD has been big at CES for years, yet it hasn't really blown up in the publics eye. If it had, then you would see a steady incline in revenue for both the cable companies and the studio themselves. Did you ever wonder why the cable companies are promoting it so heavily? That is because they are trying to generate interest that is not currently there.

I am not disagreeing about VOD effect on renting. However there is absolutely no evidence at this point that people are turning to VOD over renting a disc from netflix of blockbuster. Their disc rental business is doing very well, their downloading only so so. You are saying that downloading is the wave of the future. I am saying it will be a long while for that culture shift to take place. People have been owning disc since vinyl came into the picture. It is going to take a long time to get them use to managing a file as opposed to a disc.

My main point is that what is the format for collectors going to be?
For a lot of collectors, especially with DVD collections, DVD will do fine.
For a new format the improvement is going to be incremental, and for most that dont have the latest tech It wont even be that.

It is incremental to you because you are not taking advantage of all the resolution there is. A panel that has to downrez a 1080p signal to 720p is not going to look nearly as good as a panel that does 1080p pixel for pixel. So you are making a judgement out of weakness, not out of a strength. Those of us(and there is many more than you think sir) that have been exposed to 1080p pixel for pixel and have the ability to see the effect of downscaling know this. Your panel most likely is not calibrated, so your opinion is not totally informed, it is just your guessing. 1080p has twice the information, more than twice the pixel count of 720p, so you are actually missing information that is on the disc.

Basically Sony and other blu types need to buy marketshare, fast, find some way to end this "war" faster than it is ending, or they are going to be like SACD and DVDAUDIO,
selling to a small market of highq types, while the rest of the world is happy with
dvd and VOD.

This 'war" is over. It is over, get that through your head. Bluray already has six times the shelf space in stores that DVD-A and SACD every had. Bluray has far more promotion of its product that DVD-A and SACD ever had. Bluray has far more of the support both manufacturing and studio than DVD-A and SACD ever had. Bluray has already sold more disc than both DVD-A and SACD combined times 10. Bluray has already sold more players than DVD-A and SACD equipt players, and is a larger market currently by 4 times that both SACD and DVD-A combined. Rather than just brainless repeating a montra that you have heard, stop and critically think about bluray in relationship to DVD-A and SACD. Bluray is just plain further along than DVD-A and SACD. It is a long way from a niche product. A good example of a niche video product would be the Laserdisc. Only two million players sold in America in twenty years of existance. Bluray has already surpassed two million players(via the PS3) months ago.

On my upscaler DVD is smooth but not much better than regular,
but a real improvement in upscaling would kill BLU, people could get a vast improvement on their current collections, and download casual fare.
Basically Sony better get their act together, its a changing world, and they will get caught with their pants down (again) if they dont watch it:1:

Your analysis of the video market is as flawed as nightliars. An upscaled DVD image is no competition to bluray. An upscaled DVD is still 480i no matter how you slice it. That is still six times LESS information than 1080p. Some DVD's upscales look worse than they did not scaled. Anyone can see the improvement of a upscaled DVD image next to a 1080p image.

Downloading to own is not taking off, bluray is. Downlaoding to own has killed off at least three services, bluray is growing. By the time downloading to own takes off, bluray will have such a deep penetration in the video market that it will be tough for downloading to get a foot hold. Downloading to own is just not here yet, bluray is here.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-21-2008, 11:44 AM

And a word about watching displays in the store, where do you want me to watch them,
Einstein?

You watch them in a environment condusive to getting an accurate opinion. What the hell good is comparing televisions in bright harsh light, in the torch mode, with the color and grayscale off and thinking you have done a decent comparison in a store? That is amatuerish at best. This is another example of good enough, but not searching for the best. Another two different schools of thought/

Clearly you werent paying attention, you mention 1080p, I was talking about watching Blu on 720p.
On 720p the improvement is incremental, and unless I hit a high odds superfecta
at the track 720 will be my world for awhile, and that is STILL better than most,
on such a display the incentive to "go blu" isnt that great.

What you cannot grasp is that watching bluray downrezzed to 720p is throwing away information on the disc. Most people think that 720p is HD lite. But one can agree it is in the lower echlon of what HD really is in terms of picture quality. Like I have told you before, another mans ceiling is another floor. When you get that, you'll understand why your opinion and mine are so different.

And I HAVE MADE MORE THAN a few salesclerks jaws drop when I have adjusted their sets, I go into the darkened HT section, pick out a set, drop the contrast and backlight to 50%, sure you cant calibrate it in the store but you can get it pretty good if you know what you're doing, and I KNOW what I am doing, and on demo material I bring, I know
pretty close what it should look like.
Why dont you stick to the subject and quit trying to kill the messenger , wiseguy?

When you do what you propose, you are just scratching the surface. Without calibration tools and access to the user menu, you are just guessing. Backlights are a bandaid, and no serious videophile would use a panel that required a backlight to get the contrast right. If this is your approach, you don't know what you are doing quite frankly. You think you know, but ISF calibration goes far beyond guessing the correct color temperature, not even touching the greyscales, getting contrast in the ballpark but not actually getting it accurate, or correctly adjusting the brightness so shadow detail is corrected. What you are doing ain't $hit compared to the real thing. So stop faking like you know what you are talking about, and get real. Some of us are not fooled by your amatuerish approach to proper calibration. Get this in your head, you little bandaid calibration process couldn't bust a grape in a wine factory in terms of getting picture quality "right".

Mr Peabody

01-21-2008, 02:14 PM

GMichael

01-21-2008, 02:23 PM

Mr Peabody

01-21-2008, 02:46 PM

From what I understand the PS3 is the only one that does play SACD. I can't believe the PS3 and Sony's other BR machines come from the same company, or should I say have the same name, I doubt they actually come from the same company, maybe same umbrella.

I ran across and interesting thing about the PS3 when researching HDMI switchers, it seems that several have a problem passing the PS3 signal where they will other HD content. If anyone is interested Oppo has one that rocks at $99.95, does remoter or auto with a priority port for satelite/cable boxes that remain on all the time. The boxes go into "low priority" to relinquish signal when one of the higher ports senses a signal.

One other interesting thing I saw while researching, a few reviewers actually said they bought the PS3 just for Blu-ray playback. I can't remember which thread the big numbers war was raging but apparently the PS3 is known for BR playback and purchased specifically for it.

GMichael

01-21-2008, 03:00 PM

One other interesting thing I saw while researching, a few reviewers actually said they bought the PS3 just for Blu-ray playback. I can't remember which thread the big numbers war was raging but apparently the PS3 is known for BR playback and purchased specifically for it.

I've seen the same results on a few forums.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-21-2008, 04:54 PM

I find it hard to believe that Blu-ray players have out sold SACD already. I'm not saying it isn't true because I don't know but when I think about how many universal and combo players are out that do SACD, it's just hard to believe with BR going into only it's 3rd generation. If it is true you'd think the software sales would be higher.

Mr. Peabody. They have. You have to remember that universal playback is not a feature that the ordinary consumer wanted, or was found at price points that most consumer purchased at. Universal players were marketed to the audiophile, with DVD playback to boot. This market is much smaller than the market of early adopter to both bluray and HD DVD. Dedicated DVD-A and SACD players represent an even smaller market.

For all intended purposes the PS3 is a bluray player. And when you count them along with standalones, it is almost 10-1 ratio of bluray players versus universal and dedicated DVD-A and SACD players worldwide.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-21-2008, 05:11 PM

From what I understand the PS3 is the only one that does play SACD. I can't believe the PS3 and Sony's other BR machines come from the same company, or should I say have the same name, I doubt they actually come from the same company, maybe same umbrella.

Well you kinda have to give sony a break on this one. All the things that are required of the PS3 require large amounts of processing. The Cell is more powerful by a long way than any of the standalones on the market now. It has to be. In order to keep the price down(which you know was a PS3 problem to gamers) you cannot put a Cell processor in any standalone. So it is understandable that the PS3 would be better than standalones are.

I ran across and interesting thing about the PS3 when researching HDMI switchers, it seems that several have a problem passing the PS3 signal where they will other HD content. If anyone is interested Oppo has one that rocks at $99.95, does remoter or auto with a priority port for satelite/cable boxes that remain on all the time. The boxes go into "low priority" to relinquish signal when one of the higher ports senses a signal.

Good call on the Oppo. I bought two so I could split each of the two HDMI inputs at my receiver into 6 inputs at the oppos. Works like a charm, even with the PS3.

One other interesting thing I saw while researching, a few reviewers actually said they bought the PS3 just for Blu-ray playback. I can't remember which thread the big numbers war was raging but apparently the PS3 is known for BR playback and purchased specifically for it.

This is why I got mine. It was a no brainer even though I do not play games. Its a SACD player(of which it outperforms quite a few SACD players in sound, almost all of them on paper), it is the most upgradeable player on the market (it can decode all of the audio formats (when Dts MA Lossless upgrade comes), its video and audio performance can be improved by firmware upgrades(the upconversion of CD upgrade really came in handy, and the 24fps did as well), and it is a profile 2.0 player from day one(with upcoming BD live firmware upgrade), you can use it to stream audio from the internet(Pandora is a hit in my hometheater as a before movie music), store music on its hardrive, in the future you will be able to connect a HD tuner and use the enternal drive to store shows, and via its USB ports connect a external drive for extra storage. The benefits of this thing was worth the $499 I plunked down for it. Gamers would not use most of this stuff, so I can understand them not being able to justify the earlier price of $599. But to me, it is worth that price.

pixelthis

01-22-2008, 02:38 AM

Scifi is the best there? It's still std def here.

I guess I am prejudiced because I am a big sci-fi fan.
The pq is great, watching atlantis and battlestar in HD is sublime.
But its downright weird watching a grade z picture and see jawdropping pq being
wasted on this crap.
THEY HAD a movie about area 51 (which had nothing to do with area 51) basically a bunch of aliens chasing each other, the movie sucked ass, but the quality was great!
But there is still a lot to enjoy, flash gordon, outer limits, even old episodes of twilight zone look great (anything done in film will be HD, basically)
They have gone a long way from incredible hulk episodes.
And evidently mr p thinks I am a cable fanboy, when nothing could be further from
the truth, its just that my once sucky cable company is actually trying to deliver a quality
product, and I beleive putting credit where credit is due:1:

pixelthis

01-22-2008, 03:17 AM

Sir Terrence the TerribleI do not work for Sony, want to try again??
Well ,let me know who you DO work for so I can stay the hell away from them

They also invented the walkman portable cassette and cd and that made them millions. And if you think beta was a bomb, take your sorry a$$ to any television station or movie studio all over the world and you will see them everywhere. They didn't lose hundreds of millions, they made billions off the beta. It was more expensive than VHS, and they have sold millions of the recorders all over the world. Get your facts straight.

I know all about the pro uses of BETA, and compared to the consumer market its peanuts,
and that was basically it. They didnt invent the CD, it was a group effort, but they did do CD text, which they charge so much for that basically the only CD's with CD text are sony products

Not according to extensive research conducted by all of the major studios. One will always have an emphasis over the other. Collectors occasionally rent, but mostly buy. Renters rent and occasionally buy. One is looking for a night of entertainment, the other is looking for good titles for their collection. Two different schools of thought.

two different schools of thought ? More like two different MOODS.
I'll rent something I just want to see for a night, but I WILL BUY SOMETHING I like a lot.
One doesnt preclude the other and the fact that you dont understand this speaks vollumes

This is your opinion, and your opinion only. Others may have a completely different opinion than yours. Your opinion is not universal, and cannot be interpreted as such.

In other words you dont like it so poo poo, never mind that a lot share my opinion

Great, and other may not like any of these movies. I wouldn't want fight club in HD, it is not my kind of movie.

But you would rent it for a first view, which is what I am saying

VOD has been big at CES for years, yet it hasn't really blown up in the publics eye. If it had, then you would see a steady incline in revenue for both the cable companies and the studio themselves. Did you ever wonder why the cable companies are promoting it so heavily? That is because they are trying to generate interest that is not currently there.

I am not disagreeing about VOD effect on renting. However there is absolutely no evidence at this point that people are turning to VOD over renting a disc from netflix of blockbuster. Their disc rental business is doing very well, their downloading only so so. You are saying that downloading is the wave of the future. I am saying it will be a long while for that culture shift to take place. People have been owning disc since vinyl came into the picture. It is going to take a long time to get them use to managing a file as opposed to a disc.

Tell that to people who are trying to keep dying CD sales active, tell millions of ipod users
that they are having "trouble" managing files. And keep your head in the sand, BTW

It is incremental to you because you are not taking advantage of all the resolution there is. A panel that has to downrez a 1080p signal to 720p is not going to look nearly as good as a panel that does 1080p pixel for pixel. So you are making a judgement out of weakness, not out of a strength. Those of us(and there is many more than you think sir) that have been exposed to 1080p pixel for pixel and have the ability to see the effect of downscaling know this. Your panel most likely is not calibrated, so your opinion is not totally informed, it is just your guessing. 1080p has twice the information, more than twice the pixel count of 720p, so you are actually missing information that is on the disc.

Are you just simpleminded or what? THATS THE POINT.
No I am NOT taking advantage of the full rez of a Blu ray watching it on 720p, and since a 1080p isnt in the near future why bother GETTING Bluray?
And I have been exposed to 1080p pixel for pixel and it looks simply great , so can I borrow 3,400 bucks for a monitor, since in my size room it would take a 52in at least to see the difference?
And where is someone who works for a living getting this money, they are gonna pull it outta their butt?
thE ONLY sets that can even accept 1080p, (forget about 24p) came out this year,
a guy who bought a 1080p set LAST year (that cant even take a 1080p input ) or a guy like me who bought a 1366/ 766 ISNT GOING TO TRADE and pay several thousand
to see the improvement in bluray, wont happen , trust me.
Now you have a few on this board who have to have the latest toy, even with a 720p set they'll buy a blu disc player, people like mr p, but I dont beleive in buying capability I cant use.
And I know that Mr P will protest, proclaim new q that hes seeing, but he also paid several hundred for a power cord, hes' not exactly objective

This 'war" is over. It is over, get that through your head. Bluray already has six times the shelf space in stores that DVD-A and SACD every had. Bluray has far more promotion of its product that DVD-A and SACD ever had. Bluray has far more of the support both manufacturing and studio than DVD-A and SACD ever had. Bluray has already sold more disc than both DVD-A and SACD combined times 10. Bluray has already sold more players than DVD-A and SACD equipt players, and is a larger market currently by 4 times that both SACD and DVD-A combined. Rather than just brainless repeating a montra that you have heard, stop and critically think about bluray in relationship to DVD-A and SACD. Bluray is just plain further along than DVD-A and SACD. It is a long way from a niche product. A good example of a niche video product would be the Laserdisc. Only two million players sold in America in twenty years of existance. Bluray has already surpassed two million players(via the PS3) months ago.

Yeah, it won, and it is STILL in relativly the same place SACD was , since the VIDEO market is a lot bigger
And its gonna stay there because the same nimrods who created the biggest marketing
missfire in history are in charge of marketing IT , and the coming recession/ depression isnt going to help, so pardon if I am not quite as optimistic as you are

Your analysis of the video market is as flawed as nightliars. An upscaled DVD image is no competition to bluray. An upscaled DVD is still 480i no matter how you slice it. That is still six times LESS information than 1080p. Some DVD's upscales look worse than they did not scaled. Anyone can see the improvement of a upscaled DVD image next to a 1080p image.

Yep, and thats not what I AM ARGUING ABOUT.
New tech is possible that could extrapolate data and create an exelent pq from DVD,
this tech is out there , just too expensive , it hasnt been "chipped" yet,but it can be.
And again the number of people who have gone broke selling quality to joe sixpack is legion. On the other hand I remember sheets of cellophane with three bars of color on them, put them on a black and white set and its all of a sudden a "color" set!
They used to sell a ton of these things

Downloading to own is not taking off, bluray is. Downlaoding to own has killed off at least three services, bluray is growing. By the time downloading to own takes off, bluray will have such a deep penetration in the video market that it will be tough for downloading to get a foot hold. Downloading to own is just not here yet, bluray is here.[/QUOTE]

Again not what I am saying, DLD to own is aways off, but with the coming financial storm
people could just decide to make do and live with DVD for collecting and downloading
for rental, sure a Bluray is reletively cheap, but only to HT types, most dont want to pay over 50 to a 100 bucks for a disc player, and thats not the only cost, the biggest cost is the software, which could run into the thousands of dollars. DVD to collect and HD to download could be a choice made in hard financial times, especially since a lot already
have extensive DVD collections, and there is the usual crowd who will see blu as mearly a "gimmick" to get more of their money.
BASICALLY what I am saying is that the war isnt quite over, they are still selling HD players, its not over until tosh caves, they havent yet.
And in these troubled times Sony could wind up with yet another tecnological DO DO BIRD.
Especially with myopic types like you running things:1:

GMichael

01-22-2008, 08:57 AM

I guess I am prejudiced because I am a big sci-fi fan.
The pq is great, watching atlantis and battlestar in HD is sublime.
But its downright weird watching a grade z picture and see jawdropping pq being
wasted on this crap.
THEY HAD a movie about area 51 (which had nothing to do with area 51) basically a bunch of aliens chasing each other, the movie sucked ass, but the quality was great!
But there is still a lot to enjoy, flash gordon, outer limits, even old episodes of twilight zone look great (anything done in film will be HD, basically)
They have gone a long way from incredible hulk episodes.
And evidently mr p thinks I am a cable fanboy, when nothing could be further from
the truth, its just that my once sucky cable company is actually trying to deliver a quality
product, and I beleive putting credit where credit is due:1:

Most of the good Sci-fi shows are rebroadcast on HDNET here. But they aren't this season's episodes. And the sequence is all out of order. I hate that. But yeah, they look stellar.
I wish the Sci-fi channel here would go HD. I do watch a few of their shows even though the video isn't so hot. HD would make me very happy.

I do know who Sir T works for. If he wants to tell you, he will. But it's not Sony.

Mr Peabody

01-22-2008, 06:42 PM

I'd like to know who Sir T works for myself.

pixelthis

01-23-2008, 12:03 AM

Most of the good Sci-fi shows are rebroadcast on HDNET here. But they aren't this season's episodes. And the sequence is all out of order. I hate that. But yeah, they look stellar.
I wish the Sci-fi channel here would go HD. I do watch a few of their shows even though the video isn't so hot. HD would make me very happy.

I do know who Sir T works for. If he wants to tell you, he will. But it's not Sony.

I seem to remember that he said that he worked for a bLU MARKETING GROUP.

With his knowledge of propaganda he probably has PRAVDA in his resume somewhere.
One thing for sure, he has the comprehension of your average brick wall.

And I get UHD, which had atlantis episodes, I guess HDNET stole them:1:

Rich-n-Texas

01-23-2008, 05:34 AM

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-23-2008, 01:15 PM

Sir Terrence the TerribleI do not work for Sony, want to try again??
Well ,let me know who you DO work for so I can stay the hell away from them

Don't worry, they wouldn't let anyone like in the door.

I know all about the pro uses of BETA, and compared to the consumer market its peanuts,
and that was basically it. They didnt invent the CD, it was a group effort, but they did do CD text, which they charge so much for that basically the only CD's with CD text are sony products

Bull. While the price of VHS dropped, beta did not. They didn't need to sell as many beta deck to make as much money as VHS. If it didn't do well, why did it take them till 2002 to quit making it? Sony and Phlips developed the CD, and Sony had the lion share of the patents on the technology. Get your facts straight.

two different schools of thought ? More like two different MOODS.
I'll rent something I just want to see for a night, but I WILL BUY SOMETHING I like a lot.
One doesnt preclude the other and the fact that you dont understand this speaks vollumes

So you lead the American pack. What you do, all Americans do. Americans are so brainless that they look to you to get a cue on what to do. Riiiiiight, and I am a poor white man from the appalachians. If you thought for all Americans, there would be no America.

In other words you dont like it so poo poo, never mind that a lot share my opinion

I do not care what you do. You can flush your 51 y/o head down the toilet for all I care. But your opinion, and the data and facts do not agree. For me, this is never about you or anyone else I debate. It is about facts, and facts only. The fact is, you are either living on another planet, or you are living in another consciousness on this planet. People are not ready to purchase movie files. The data is clear. The surveys that have been done have pointed to this as well. Now if you think your opinion is more accurate than the facts, there is nothing I can say about that. I however choose the facts, not your opnion.

But you would rent it for a first view, which is what I am saying

I do not rent that much. And when I do, its the disc.

Tell that to people who are trying to keep dying CD sales active, tell millions of ipod users
that they are having "trouble" managing files. And keep your head in the sand, BTW

Even with sales declining for CD's, it is still a market that is almost 100 times the size of the downloading music market. Second, CD and music downloads are not movies. Can you understand the difference? When you buy a music as a download, you can move it from your computer to a single device. But it will not let you move it to other devices, especially as DRM to death as music files are. A download from one vendor does not work on the other(Apple files can only be used on apple products, microsoft files only on microsoft). This may work for music, but not having mobility with movie files is basically killing that market. Apple may allow you to move a movie file from your computer to your Ipod, but you cannot move it anywhere else. How do I watch that on my TV, when the file is stuck on the IPOD? Nobody is ready to trust their movie collections to a hard drive. Survey after survey has already proven this. With the evidence so overwhelming against downloading to own, it appears it you that has his head in the sand. A music file is not a movie file. They will never be the same. One is WAY smaller than the other, and the push in the video market is for larger screens and better sound, not the reverse.

Are you just simpleminded or what? THATS THE POINT.
No I am NOT taking advantage of the full rez of a Blu ray watching it on 720p, and since a 1080p isnt in the near future why bother GETTING Bluray?

Then YOU don't get bluray. But 1080p is here for the rest of us, and guess what, the public is buying it by the droves. Sales of 1080p panels have already caught up to 720p panels according to NDP, and will overtake 720p before the end of this year. This is pushing sales of bluray players, and after the warner annoucement, players are selling so well that the chipmakers are running short of chips. Nobody was prepared for the jump in sales of what you term as old technology. So just because you cannot take advantage of blurays resolution, does not mean that everyone has to dump bluray for downloads. And you call me thick headed old fool?

And I have been exposed to 1080p pixel for pixel and it looks simply great , so can I borrow 3,400 bucks for a monitor, since in my size room it would take a 52in at least to see the difference?

What are you, lazy? Get your own stuff. If this is not a priority for you, download. Downloads are perfect for you. The resolution fits your panel, and you first priority is not the best quality, its what you can afford. Any level headed person can understand this. But your lack does not mean you can spread untrue information just because you do not benefit from a technology.

And where is someone who works for a living getting this money, they are gonna pull it outta their butt?

I got to work just like everyone else does. Usually my money comes in the form of a direct deposit. I do not know of anyone that gets paid through the butt. I guess you are the first.

thE ONLY sets that can even accept 1080p, (forget about 24p) came out this year,
a guy who bought a 1080p set LAST year (that cant even take a 1080p input ) or a guy like me who bought a 1366/ 766 ISNT GOING TO TRADE and pay several thousand
to see the improvement in bluray, wont happen , trust me.

The sets that can accept 1080p came out the middle of last year, not just this year. The sets that could not accept 1080p natively could accept 1080i, and the television did the deinterlacing. So there is potentially no loss if the deinterlacing is done well. Based on what I see from sales of 1080p panels, somebody is buying them. They started outselling 720p panels in late November, and have almost caught total sales of 720p panels. So somebody is buying them, and they are buying alot of them at that.

Now you have a few on this board who have to have the latest toy, even with a 720p set they'll buy a blu disc player, people like mr p, but I dont beleive in buying capability I cant use.

That is you. Do you really think that you repesent everyone? People who want the technology will get it. People who want 1080p will get it. People who want a bluray will get it. Its not a priority for you, and I understand that. But what you are attempting to do is spread poison on bluray, just because you cannot get all of the resolution out of it. And the only source you can get the resolution is from downloads, and that is why you are pushing it. Very disengenous and selfish.

And I know that Mr P will protest, proclaim new q that hes seeing, but he also paid several hundred for a power cord, hes' not exactly objective

This sounds like jealousy to me. Why does buying a power cord make him not objective, yet you think you are being objective?

Yeah, it won, and it is STILL in relativly the same place SACD was , since the VIDEO market is a lot bigger
And its gonna stay there because the same nimrods who created the biggest marketing
missfire in history are in charge of marketing IT , and the coming recession/ depression isnt going to help, so pardon if I am not quite as optimistic as you are

So this is a perfect demonstration of what an idiot you are. Do you know that Sony is just one company out of 270 pushing bluray? Did you know that Pioneer has just as much a stake in this as Sony? Did you know that Panasonic has the majority of patents on bluray disc technology? Do you know that Disney has spent more money promoting bluray than any other studio has? Do you know the last recession we had back in the early 2000's didn't effect either player or disc sales of the DVD? They continued to grow year over year. Did you know that research has proven that home based video actually grows during recessions? Why? Because folks would rather cut out going out to dinner, cut back on trips, spend less on high ticket items, and do other cost cutting and stay home for their entertainment. That is why Warner made the decision to switch at the moment they did. If you are going to take advantage of your momentum, you have to do it at the right time.

Yep, and thats not what I AM ARGUING ABOUT.
New tech is possible that could extrapolate data and create an exelent pq from DVD,
this tech is out there , just too expensive , it hasnt been "chipped" yet,but it can be.
And again the number of people who have gone broke selling quality to joe sixpack is legion. On the other hand I remember sheets of cellophane with three bars of color on them, put them on a black and white set and its all of a sudden a "color" set!
They used to sell a ton of these things

Alot you know. There is nothing out there that can making a pig a runway model. Upscaling is the last thing you can do to smoothen out the rough edges of the DVD. That is it. So what do you do, create a product that can magically make 480 lines 1920 lines? The only way to go is up, not sideways. DVD as a format is not making the manufacturers any money, and the studios are beginning to lose money as well. The largest CE companies are acutally losing money producing players thanks to the Chinese with their cheap a$$ players flooding the market.

To compare a product like bluray to cellophane with color bars is like comparing your wacky opinions with facts and figures from NDP. Thats how far your analysis is off the mark

Again not what I am saying, DLD to own is aways off, but with the coming financial storm
people could just decide to make do and live with DVD for collecting and downloading
for rental, sure a Bluray is reletively cheap, but only to HT types, most dont want to pay over 50 to a 100 bucks for a disc player, and thats not the only cost, the biggest cost is the software, which could run into the thousands of dollars.

Just to show you how stupid you sound. You are saying that folks are willing to pay for first broadband cable(for VOD or quicker downloading of movies from Apple), pay for TIVO or rent the box for VOD. What if they want to watch the movie twice. That is extra. What if cable goes out? They are $hit out of luck. What if what they want to see is on disc, but not on VOD or available for download?(there is a window the the disc is released before the download is availble whether talking VOD or downloading from the interent if you can get it at all). In the last recession they didn't do that, so what makes you think that in this recession they will? There is not indications right now things are headed that way at all. All one has to do is look at bluray sales post Warner announcement which have surprised everyone in the industry. DVD early in its life was cheap only to HT people, then it became affordable to everyone. The same will follow here. When folks see how devalued the studio are doing DVD, there interest will peak at bluray. Evidence of that is already showing up.

DVD to collect and HD to download could be a choice made in hard financial times, especially since a lot already
have extensive DVD collections, and there is the usual crowd who will see blu as mearly a "gimmick" to get more of their money.

It COULD be the choice, anything COULD be a choice right? You look at bluray as a gimmick, but I do not see anyone else looking at it that way. Is this more of what I do is what everyone does? Those who collect(much like myself) look at their collections to see what would benefit from the better PQ and SQ, and upgrade as such. There is plenty of research done that points to the fact that folks buy MORE discs during recessions than less. They buy fewer cars, fewer washing machine and dryers, spend less at Walmart for consumable goods, buy less clothes, eat out less, consume less gas, but buy more home media. Home entertainment rules in a recession, because in the long run, it is a cheaper form of entertainment that does not require them to leave the house. The studios are going to transition folks to bluray, and they have a plan to do so. There is already evidence this plan is working. The studio are not going to push downloading because they do not want to spend the money creating the market. They are completely satisfied with Microsoft and Apple building the market, and them taking it over when the demand is there.

BASICALLY what I am saying is that the war isnt quite over, they are still selling HD players, its not over until tosh caves, they havent yet.
And in these troubled times Sony could wind up with yet another tecnological DO DO BIRD.
Especially with myopic types like you running things:1:

Pixel, you do not know your A$$ from a hole in the ground. THE WAR IS OVER. Toshiba is getting rid of inventory, Paramount is already releasing bluray disc in europe, and Universal will be making a move in the fall. Last week disc sales were 85-15 in favor of bluray. Why in the heck do you think that Toshiba is willing to lose $100 on each player sold, and why do you think that Amazon and Best buy are heavily discounting HD DVD products. They are doing it because the war is over, and they are making room for Bluray products which are selling, and which they make a larger profit from. Two major big box retailers are going total bluray. This is information that has already been confirmed, and if you look around, is already happening. It is fairly obvious you have not been looking around, because anyone who has can already see that Bluray is a loooooong way from a technological "do do bird".

I will tell you this, If I had a business, you would be the last person I would let run it. Your ignorance of market trends, the business on a more basic level, and your unwillingness to use surveys, facts or figures to shape your decision making process makes you unfit to run anything resembling a profitable business. Stick to posting your opinions on Audioreview, and please stay out of the video and film industry.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-23-2008, 01:27 PM

I seem to remember that he said that he worked for a bLU MARKETING GROUP.

If this is what you remembered, then you have a VERY faulty little 51 y/o mind.

With his knowledge of propaganda he probably has PRAVDA in his resume somewhere.
One thing for sure, he has the comprehension of your average brick wall.

You probably do not have a resume because idiots are not employable. In order to say what I say is propaganda, you would have to have access to the same information I do. Since you don't, then what you are saying is a plain lie. I have been 100% correct in what I have stated. I told nightliar BEFORE Warner made their move that a major studio was going to back bluray exclusively. Guess what brightness, it did, because I knew the negotiation were taking place, and I knew the basis of which that decision would be based on. You however have made some pretty wild claims of which there is no evidence to even support its truths. My advice, stick to what you know so you don't look stupid, unless that is the effect you are tying to acheive.

If I have the comprehension of your average brick wall, then you have the comprehension of titainium. I know FAR, FAR more about the industry I work in than you will ever in your life. That's a fact. YOu stupid A$$ can't even get where I work right, and your memory makes crap up as well.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-23-2008, 01:31 PM

johnny p

01-23-2008, 01:46 PM

Sir T. fancies himself an expert......

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=31894

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-23-2008, 01:55 PM

Sir T. fancies himself an expert......

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=31894

Funny, I didn't fancy myself with any title. I was asked to do this along with my reviewing chores at Bluray.com. Since I do work for a studio that is bluray exclusive, and I am positioned in my job to get privy information, and all of this was checked and confirmed by the staff, they were the ones that gave me the title.

Do you think I just showed up there and made the proclaimation? If fact, were does it say expert? I thought it said INSIDER. There is a difference last time I checked. The staff there does check the background of every insider, and my company does monitor my activities there so I do not give out information the public is not supposed to hear. So tell me, what is your point?

L.J.

01-23-2008, 01:58 PM

Oooww.....this is starting to get good. I better have a seat.....http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9537/snackxq2.gif

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-23-2008, 02:15 PM

Oooww.....this is starting to get good. I better have a seat.....http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9537/snackxq2.gif

I would say front and center would be good. I am just getting started here.

GMichael

01-23-2008, 02:21 PM

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-23-2008, 02:25 PM

I think it's great that Sir T gives out his time like that. But I may have to start calling him "Dear Terrence" now.

Dear Terrence,

My speakers do not get along anymore. They were a matched set when I got them. You couldn't keep them apart. Wherever one went, the others went. But NOW? They just fight all the time. I've tried talking to them. I've tried positive reinforcement. Nothing seems to work. My father says that I should take them out back and beat the living sh.t out of them. What do you say?

Signed,

Mismatch in the hitch-hatch.

LOLOLOLOLOL....Waaaaaaaahahahahahahaha... this is really good G.

Here is what I say because this is what my parents would have done. Beat the living crap out of those speakers until they learn to get along. If that doesn't work, uplug them and give them an indefinate time out. LOLOL.

You made my day, thanks G

L.J.

01-23-2008, 02:31 PM

GMichael

01-23-2008, 02:35 PM

LOLOLOLOLOL....Waaaaaaaahahahahahahaha... this is really good G.

Here is what I say because this is what my parents would have done. Beat the living crap out of those speakers until they learn to get along. If that doesn't work, uplug them and give them an indefinate time out. LOLOL.

You made my day, thanks G

Glad I could brighten your day.
I enjoy reading your threads, even when I don't get involved. I know where the information is coming from and I enjoy the information and your colorful (if not always forgiving) comments.

LJ,

Got anymore of that popcorn?

L.J.

01-23-2008, 02:42 PM

LJ,

Got anymore of that popcorn?

http://www.doughfest.com/images/popcorn_boxes.jpg

Rich-n-Texas

01-23-2008, 03:20 PM

I'm sooo happy that someone stands up to Pix and puts his feet to the fire. It's sad to think that more of the heavyweights here don't do the same. It's not a matter of it "getting good", its a matter of showing a social misfit how big an a$$ he can be.

Now, wait until you read Pix's response to my posts. It'll be more of the same old attempts at belittling me, right Pix?

L.J.

01-23-2008, 03:37 PM

I'm sooo happy that someone stands up to Pix and puts his feet to the fire. It's sad to think that more of the heavyweights here don't do the same. It's not a matter of it "getting good", its a matter of showing a social misfit how big an a$$ he can be.

Now, wait until you read Pix's response to my posts. It'll be more of the same old attempts at belittling me, right Pix?

To tell ya the truth, I don't read much of his posts :idea:

I have no clue what he's talkin' about half the time.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-23-2008, 03:37 PM

I'm sooo happy that someone stands up to Pix and puts his feet to the fire. It's sad to think that more of the heavyweights here don't do the same. It's not a matter of it "getting good", its a matter of showing a social misfit how big an a$$ he can be.

Rich, I am far less interested in Pix as a person than I am Pix's information. As a person that has worked in the Hollywood studio culture my entire life, I find his information to be 180 degrees from accurate. I find his predictions amateurish(because he uses no data, figures or trends actually applicable to the industry), his perspective kind of one demensional, and for a guy that is 51 y/o his behavior is incredibly immature. I am not interested in making him look bad, but I do want to correct the information he spews from his mouth.

Now, wait until you read Pix's response to my posts. It'll be more of the same old attempts at belittling me, right Pix?

Of course he will. He has no way of making himself look big, until he has tried to make you look small. There is no way to disagree with him without being demonized or called playground style names. In the big apple where I grew up, we called this "no game". You are compensating for being as deep as spit on a sidewalk.

Mr Peabody

01-23-2008, 06:53 PM

O'Shag

01-23-2008, 07:46 PM

The betamax survived because people in the business (video and sound editors) had standardized on beta for the higher quality. Sony was supplying them with product long after the retail demand had dried up.

Speaking of HD-DVD's demize, I wouldn't call this a BR victory, either. Yes, I know I was one who posted multiple scenarios that I figured would have changed the outcome, but it does look now like HD-DVD is going to die a slow painful death. Over at CES, the booths and presentations were overwhelmingly in favor of BR. But the other thing that was apparent was that downloadable content is on every manufacturer's agenda now. The fact is the format war lasted so long that it damaged both sides and gave downloaded content a real chance. Here's an article that came out this morning (apologies for the #$%@# ads):

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9056898&pageNumber=1

I know that's not what everyone who bought an HD player wants to hear, but I think the widespread interest in downloadable content at CES is pretty damning for HD-DVD as well as BR.

I disagree with the opinions expressed in the ComputerWorld article shared by Nightflier, and I do respect Nightflier's opinions and insights. The article's author, yet another nay-sayer a la SACD or 24bit DVD-A, leads a negative charge, which can have the direct effect of causing fear and doubt with the consumer; resulting in an outcome which does not serve those interested in listening to music or watching premium video conversions. Continuing this point regarding the debaucle of the hi-res music scenario; clearly, both hi-res music formats are inherently superior in every way sonically (to regular CD), yet the aspersions cast by nay-sayers were powerful enough to kill any hope of adoption with regular consumers. This is why software for hi-res audio has never evolved, because the manufacturers gave up the ghost - after all, its the general consumer market and not the audio enthusiast market that will yield the revenues they seek. Given time and belief, I'm sure prices would have dropped, and the manufacturers would have been compelled to replace CD as the standard by pricing the new software at the same level as the regular CD. But we all lost out to a large degree on that one.

The primary reason either of the new hi-res video formats have not yet been fully adopted is one of cost, I feel. I'm sure most average-income consumers want to get into the hi-def formats - they are clearly superior - but with movies still at $25 and up, its not at the right price point yet, which will have the vast majority of consumers - including myself - running to pick up a player. I would probably be classified as earning above average, and I do find the propostion of buying $25 movies expensive; thats why I haven't picked up either player yet. Most of us can't and indeed won't spend all of our disposable income on the next great new thing unless it offers the performance benefits at a value-oriented price.

If Sony, Toshiba, and the rest of the players in this re-occuring drama want to truly open the flood gates, then they should charge the same amount for the hi-def format software as they do for regular DVD. A sportman's bet that the floodgates will fly open, and all - including the consumer - will win. I really don't see a problem with two seperate formats. After all, we listen to Vinyl as well as CD. We listen to SACD or DVD-A as well as CD. As long as pricing is value oriented for the consumer, then everybody will reap the benefits...

nightflier

01-23-2008, 08:09 PM

Well cry me a river. Do you want me to get you mommy to change your pampers. If you cannot take it, do not dish it out. Its just that simple.

Hey, you were the one who promised to "sidestep the name calling." Obviously you didn't, but I should expect no less from you lil't. You're small, your reality is small, and your understanding of what is happening in the world is small. That is why I've dubbed you "lil't" without the capital "L" because you couldn't even hold that up if it was there.

Your online psychology sucks bones....How one can take a moniker and turn it into all this is weird, stupid, and always inaccurate.

Well it just so happens that I emailed some of your posts to a real psychologist acquaintance of mine. And guess what, I was right, you are full of yourself, you think you are more than you are and this is likely stemming from some humiliating event in your past life. Now that's not name-calling, nor is it inaccurate, it's what you keep asking for: detailed analysis. You really should have your head examined. It was even recommended I ease up on you. Well, you don't deserve a respite - you're too vain for that. You can throw all the insults you want, in the end, it only shows how sad you really are.

The Cavaliers are a Drum and Bugle corps that I marched in and support. Not what I call myself. Is this clear to you?

Yes, you've said that already, but a cavalier is also "one having the spirit or bearing of a knight; a courtly gentleman; gallant; a man escorting a woman or acting as her partner in dancing" (dictionary.com). And to anyone who didn't know you were a band-nerd, what else would be the conclusion? After all, doesn't "cavalier" also fit so poignantly with "Sir Terrence, The Terrible," and your former avatar of a green plume, and your current one of a musketeer? Well my dear little Cyrano, I call you Pinocchio.

I do not care about downloading or downloaders.

That is painfully obvious.

This site is about hometheater related stuff, not about computers or computer downloading. This topic is about Toshiba HD DVD fight, not about the downloading habit or equipment. Stay with the topic, or stay out of it.

First of all, you can't talk about the HD-DVD and BR format war without discussing what else could overtake those formats. I believe, like many others do, that the format war took long enough to allow other technologies such as downloading to become a major factor that could fill the void left by HD-DVD's demise and DVDs sales slump. My primary reason for believing this is that most titles that appeared on HD-DVD and/or BR were new releases and these typically cater to the renters not the collectors (more on that below). In any case, computers and the internet are a factor not just because they are the primary vehicle for downloading but also because they are the primary method for purchasing HD-DVD and BR disks, not to mention DVDs. You may want to ignore computers and the internet in this equation, but that isn't realistic.

Also, this site is not just about HT. I know that is what you're an "expert" about and feel comfy-cozy discussing, but as I recall, there are sections here that are only remotely, if at all, talk about HT. You know, ones called Analog Room, Rave Recordings, Vintage Gear, Speakers, and guess what, also one called Digital Domain, and even one called Computer Audio. Get your facts straight, lil't, this world is not your oyster. See, this is what I mean when I say that you, lil't, thinks more of yourself then you should - you think of this site as your sandbox but you're just a very small part of it - it's more like you're the turd that the neighbor's cat buried there, but your stink is keeping all the kids in the neighborhood from enjoying the sandbox too.

You have lied. And when its pointed out, you go into denial.

No I have not lied. You have been trying to make this falsehood stick and it hasn't. I have not lied, I had no reason to lie, and all you've been able to show is conjectures and insinuations about it. If anyone is a pathological liar, it is you with your incessant lies about it. By the way, psychologically speaking, this obsession with wanting to vilify others like this speaks volumes about your..., oh we'll just call them "issues" so as not to hurt your feelings too much.

So now that we have finally heard your crying and moaning, we can finally talk about audio? Whew, I thought I was debating a woman for a second there.

You know, for someone throwing around the race card indiscriminately, you really should back off of the insinuations about women before you piss off even more people.

According to all economic indicators, the downloaders are the minority and the collectors are the majority. In America $18 billion dollars versus $212 million. Now to most folks, this would seem apparent. To the dyslexic maybe not.

As I explained before. "Downloaders" in your narrow world view is only those people who have purchased a downloaded movie. The reality is that "downloaders" is all people who download video, whether they pay for it or not. Let's keep those facts straight. You are so hell-bent on limitting your criteria to just what suits your argument that you are completely missing the point of what the rest of us are talking about: all downloaders. Stop dismissing the more accurate definition.

I think you seek to dismiss it because the studios can't make money off of it. How narrow of a view is that? I recall that same kind of narrow-mindedness from the RIAA when they were trying to downplay the impact of Napster. Yes, that made those nasty downloads go away, huh? Or is it because you can't quantify it? That's not a valid reason to dismiss it, either. Just because it's something that you can't comprehend (well we shouldn't be surprised), that is no reason to dismiss it outright. What it is, is very childish behavior - more fodder for a psychologist to ponder.

I am simply stating that folks who have purchased disc for the last 10 years are not going to magically or suddenly want to purchase a movie file. Renters and gamers may want to, but that does not discribe the general public at this point clear and simple.

This is oversimplifying things a bit, isn't it? Funny how you resort to that when you are such a stickler for specifics. Purchasers will download when the content isn't worth owning. Pixel's Talladega Nights example is a perfect case-in-point - people who collect movies aren't likely to want to own that one. What's so poignant about this is that the vast majority of the HD-DVD/BR catalog is Talladega fare. Yes, selection is growing but it's got quite a ways to go to have the depth of the DVD catalog. And one is left to wonder if it will ever have the same titles. Isn't that one of the reasons laserdisks people hold onto their players and disks because DVD never made a superior copy of some of their favorite flicks, right? How many of us still have a VHS or two we haven't been able to find on DVD?

Also, renters and gamers aren't an isolated group of weirdos by themselves, as you like to paint them with your liberal brush. The fact is that almost every collector also rents. After all, how is s/he going to know what is worth owning? And gamers? I don't know a single one who does not own movies. The fact is you can't just divide people into little categories that have no overlap - childish and simple-minded, lil't, sophomoric at best.

Getting to this good versus evil. I did not frame my arguement that way, you may interpret it that way (and you say I have an inferiority complex), but that is not how it is framed.

You have a clear disdain for computer enthusiasts, downloaders, and gamers. That is obvious all over your posts. It's almost as if you have this world-view that somehow you belong to a higher class of movie watchers and the rest of us are the simpleton hoi-polloi who should believe everything you belch out as the gospel truth. Again, this is another example of your offensive arrogance, something that anyone with a modicum of psychology knowledge could pick out of your ramblings.

What a downloader is comfortable doing and accepting is far different than those who enjoy film and want to collect it to build a library. At this point people want to own disc, not files. All of the economic data points to this very clearly. Now if you cannot understand this, then clearly you need your processor checked.

First of all, this thinking falls flat because your categorization of downloaders versus collectors is completely inaccurate. If there is overlap in these two groups that you have so carefully segregated, then you cannot say that only one group has a certain level of comfort. Fact is, we are all downloaders - most everyone has downloaded a video file at some point or another. Where do you draw the line between downloaders and collectors, lilt? That's right, you can't.

The second problem with your generalization is that you cannot speak for all people when you say they "want to own disk." You can't know this for everyone. You may think that your sales data allows you to generalize so much, but that doesn't hold water when you consider the impact of non-sale downloaded content. You are so stuck on "economic data" and that is why you are so myopic. Economic data has two fatal flaws: (1) it is always old; it is what was sold, not what is or will be sold and (2) it ignores what isn't sold, not just pirated content, but also what is paid for with ads or as part of a monthly fee. Now you've done your best to try and convince everyone how these flaws are insignificant, but the fact is they aren't, no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

Finally, you are stuck on this comfort level thing about saving files on disk. This is your own prejudice and based in your own fears about the medium. Music files are downloaded by the millions everyday and only a fraction of those are restored to a physical disk. Most are stored on hard drives. These people have no qualms about it. You know why? Because they back them up. Most people who have an iPod have a complete copy of their music collection on their hard drives. Those of us who have a music streamer with a hard drive have a 3rd copy. Unusual? Hardly, because people who own music this way want it with them at all times wherever they might be, so making a copy onto a secondary device becomes second nature.

And as far as music being different from movies, I'll address that further down.

What you can seem to get in your thick head is the consumers are not clamoring for downloaded movies. Whether we are talking for rent or for purchase. All one has to do is look at the fact that in the same time that bluray has gone from zero to a $4 billion dollar market, the VOD and downloading of movies has remained stagnant in terms of dollars. The studio are looking at dollars, and dollars only. That is the bottom line.

Again with the dollars-only examples. It's not the whole picture, lil't. Just because you're not comfortable with that fact, won't make it go away.

Now you may talk about traffic to free stuff, and free stuff via VOD, but that is not on the radar for a studio looking for alternative forms of income. What they want to see is the studio making more and more dollars on downloads. They want to see a healthy demand for downloaded movies. At this time they are seeing neither.

As Ajani and others have been trying to point out to you, this is shortsighted on the part of the studios. Because Napster happened, people came to expect new things from their music:

(1) Free music
(2) Larger catalogs than what was available in the stores
(3) Music by the single song (which devastated the one cash cow of the music studios: the bundling of music into a complete album)

Now iTunes didn't give the music for free, but it did give people enough freedom to where enough consumers were willing to settle for it and grow Apple's business model. Now I don't need to remind you that the music studios fought these freedoms tooth & nail every step of the way. What people want now is DRM-free music. Yes, I know sales of the DRM-free versions aren't great, but that is because it is easy enough to strip the DRM off of non-DRM files right now - that's right, piracy is alive an well. What happened with music is a pretty damning example of what many people think will is already happening and will continue to happen with movies.

Not selling at 35,000 units in three years of sales its not. Considering there have been 650,000 HD DVD players, 3.2 million bluray enabled PS3(in american only), and over 500,000 standalone bluray players sold in the same time frame(in america only), its a pimple on the a$$ of a poodle. I have yet to see a slimbox in anyones home, but I have seen bluray players though.

The Slingbox is about freedom of choice, and that is what matters. And guess what? The studios are doing their darnedest to try and squash that too - they forced significant changes to customer freedoms enjoyed in the older models and that is one of the main reason sales have slumped. Anyhow, 35,000 players may not be much, but that is an empty statistic for comparison because some of those owners are also HD-DVD, BR, or PS3 owners. How do you include that statistic into your sales figures? And What about the thousands of people who use something else to do the same thing, like oh, I don't know, a computer? And how many BR owners also own a computer? Well, logically, every BR owner on this forum. Your statistics only sound impressive when you strip out all the overlap, and the fact is, there is too much of it. You can't make generalizations like this without accounting for overlap.

Tivo has had all kinds of problems financially. They sold their DVR at a loss for years, almost shut down operation in europe (they are greatly scaled back) and are losing ground to DVR's that are given away with set top satellite receivers. They are having all kinds of problems with marketing (this lifetime replacement thing is becoming a disaster), and even on hometheater websites it is not talk about at all. Somewhat popular, I can get with. Hugely popular, no way.

Boy, reading your post, you'd think Tivo is one sad company (perhaps even sader than you). The fact is that all your info is old. See? You're living in the past with your sales figures. That's actually funny because Tivo certainly rebounded from those doldrums once the series 3 HD units ramped up (which by the way, these have OTA digital tuners that should be one very attractive option for people this coming year as the analog-shutoff approaches). In case you missed the rally (I'm sure you did), the stock jumped over 70% before the x-mas holiday, a lot better than a lot of other companies did (yes, they are back down a bit like everyone else, but it's still above where they were in October, which is a lot better than many other companies today). Your information, as usual is stale and certainly not indicative of future potential.

I have a external drive hooked to my PS3, and my computer. I do not see videophiles or collectors clamoring for these anywhere in their hometheaters.

That's because, lil't, what you "see" in your own little sandbox, isn't a whole lot. Your living room isn't even remotely indicative of what's happening in the market. Again, delusions of grandeur, my friend - look it up if you don't know what that means. Oh, and by the way, if you think USB is adequate for video, you may want to read up on some newer technologies like Firewire-800 and SATA. You really shouldn't throw sand in neighboring sandboxes you're not familiar with, lil't.

Your assumption about my lack of understanding is telling as well. This is a hometheater site, so do not expect me to go into my understanding of COMPUTERS here. When I visit sites that talk about computers, it will surprise you at what I know.

Your lack of understanding about computers is why you aren't able to get your little mind around the concept of downloading over the Internet. Computers and HT are converging faster than you are comfortable with and that scares you. It threatens your livelihood and you don't know how to cope. As I said before, this isn't exclusively a home theater site, and even if it was, ignoring the impact of computer technology on this industry is shortsighted (kind of like the music studios wanted to ignore downloads in the late 90s). You are so obsessed with wanting to group everything and everyone into little categories that you can isolate enough to comprehend them. The problem with this is that your arbitrary categories are no longer realistic - just as this site isn't just about HT, so too is the world of video not just about BR disks. You're the one who's trying to wedge square pegs into round holes, lil't.

Movies on hard drives ARE NOT the norm. Since we are talking about movies and not music, you are off topic, and your assertions do not apply.

Nonsense. Again, this only makes sense in your narrow little world where movie people are only movie people and have no interest in music. Just about everyone here has both movies and music in their collections. And most everyone here has a digital music player so the transition to downloading digital movies using the same methods will be evolutionary for them. And as they see how other people cope with issues that plague your little mind so much like "DRM-infestations" and "hard drive crashes," they will transition to a comfort level about owning video on disk. Many people will still own disks, but they will also own less pertinent video digitally. The two are not mutually exclusive, as you so would like everyone to believe. And the acceptance factor is already taking place.

Now I've read all the arguments about HD not fitting on hard drives and all that nonsense, but the fact is that people won't be using 160gb hard drives for this - they'll be using multi-terabite drives the size of a small book (and if you don't think so, we are already using them to store video in our company). Anyhow, what people will be storing digitally will not be the stuff they want on disk, so the quality or the extras aren't crucial to this. Yes, there will be HD content that will use up a lot of space, but it will only be a portion of everything people download. Most of the video that people will download will be DRM-free time-shifted TV shows from their cable or dish providers.

Finally I want to address this whole business about internet bandwidth, since that seems to be the one thing everyone here seems to stuck on. Basically it does not matter, because as I explained before, people will queue things up to download over time (in the background, at night, and during the middle of the day when they are at work) so the thought of having to wait for content will be forgotten. Even a slow connection will suffice in such a scenario. So what if it takes a whole day to download something? If your box is continuously downloading, then you always have something to watch.

Pure ignorance. The music industry was fighting against music piracy, not legal and legit downloading. Considering that revenue from downloads does not come close to CD sales even in decline, makes it clear they have not lost yet. Can anyone say cart before horse? When the public stops buying CD(might be tough since you cannot propogate a DRM infested music file) demand more music available for downloading, and stop going to amazon or best buy to purchase disc, the record companies will follow the money. Right now they are following the money, and it is clear they are keeping their emphasis on the CD.

The music industry wasn't just fighting piracy, they were fighting choice. People also wanted to buy their music one song at a time and this pissed off the music industry. If you doubt that, check your precious stats for how many people actually download a whole CD's worth of music today, rather than just selections from that whole album. Even greatest hits CDs aren't being downloaded in their entirety, if the option is there.

And again, you are looking at revenue. I'm also going to guess only revenue from music download sites that are tracked by your industry bean-counters, right? And what about subscription and free sites that allow one to listen to music collections without allowing downloads? What about add-supported sites? What about the thousands of songs that people can download for free as a sample of an artist's work? Speaking of artists, what about those sites that artists run themselves, do they appear in your precious stats? Your figures completely miss how much music is actually being listened to. Of course the revenue stream for all these isn't one to bank on, but it's not about revenue, lil't, it's about choice.

By the way, CDs aren't flying off the shelves at Best Buy, in case you haven't noticed - their non-sale prices aren't competitive at all and the selection quite frankly sucks, especially for those of us who buy jazz, classical, and hi-res audio formats. BB is the last place you'll see collectors buy a CD unless they have one amazing sale. I can't remember the last time I paid full-price for a CD at BB, if ever.

Music is different from movies. Horses are different from cows, and computer geeks(and you are one) are different than videophiles and movie and film lovers and collectors.

Computer geek? Please do tell us what that is. And let's see if you can do that without offending everyone again. You say I'm a computer geek because I make my money from this industry? What do you really know about what I do? I also collect movies, but according to your twisted logic that still doesn't make me a collector or videophile. I guess no one can be as true of a collector as you. Oh, I'm sorry, you mentioned before that one has to buy as many movies as you do in a week to be a collector? So it's about money, now? Well, what is it, lil't?

Irrelevant to the topic at hand. The two are so different they cannot even be compared. Unfortunately computer geeks don't buy music as much as audiophiles, and don't buy as many movies as videophiles. So they are basically irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Why don't you tell all of us what distinguishes a computer geek from an audiophile and from a videophile? I doubt you can do this without insulting just about everyone here. But you're used to doing that. So let's have it, lil't. What are these definitions all about?

what I do with my computer, and with my hometheater are two different things. You cannot seem to understand this because there is no balance for you. Based on what you have posted, you know FAR more about computers than hometheater. And that isn't saying much because you know next to nothing about hometheater.

See, if you can't get your head around the fact that your HT processor is a computer and that your computer is also a music/video playing medium, you really are lost. It is you who has no balance - your world of computers is entirely separate from your world of HT, and that is complete lunacy. This is why you can't comprehend how this year's CES was different from previous years.

As I said before, this is the first year that computer technology has reached a level of parity where consumers will be able to use it to supplement their HT experience in a meaningful way. I base that on the following:

(1) Hard drive sizes are large enough to store the video content people want
(2) External storage connectivity has reached a point where it is both fast enough and simple enough for video
(3) Downloadable audio culture is now similar enough to video to allow an easy transition
(4) Internet conveniences such as queueing-up movies with Netflix is now transferable to PVRs in a way that is both convenient and simple enough for people to use it
(5) Home installers are noticing a marked increase in hard drive sales and installations
(6) Computer companies such as Apple, Cisco/LinkSys, WesternDigital, and Creative are successfully transitioning their product lines to digital content storage and management for consumer entertainment

And there are lots of other indicators as well, but I'll keep it to a number you can actually count to, lil't.

When you stop lying (which will probably be never),

Stop beating that dead horse, lil't - it's as flat as pancake.

when you stop mixing two different technologies into one bowl( I do not think you have the thinking capacity),

You can't consider one technology absent from the other. It's just plain unrealistic. I know you want to because it's the only way your simple mind can understand it, but it's completely unlike the way things actually are, lil't. Sorry.

and when you finally understand that you know far less about the film and video business than you are trying to portray

Well as long as you keep coming up with arbitrary definitions, unrealistic segregations, and outdated examples, you don't sound so smart at all, lil't. The fact is your simplistic and narrow view of things only works in that fantasy world you've created in your own little head. You know, the one where your are the pinnacle of knowledge and the rest of us peons are just in awe of your great mind....

I will go 20 pages to beat you down through the core of this earth. Is that pretty clear to you?

"Through the core of this earth?" Yeah, that sounds real mature, lil't. And so much violence... wasn't beating the dead horses enough for you? Look, no one wants to read 20 more pages of your self-aggrandizing bs. I have shown time and time again that your facts and figures don't hold up when scrutinized. You want to see the world through your own rose-colored glasses and the world just isn't pink, as much as you want to believe that it is. Let's talk about things as they are, lil't, not as you want them to be.

And all that violence you keep insinuating, from beating me down to coming to my house to pick fights with my 2-yr old and have your dogs maul me, that's textbook inferiority complex, just like you're amp being bigger, better, or more expensive than mine - look it up if you don't believe me. You really do have issues....

Mr Peabody

01-23-2008, 08:21 PM

SACD/DVD-A superior to redbook in every way? I know on paper it should be but I haven't heard it. When SACD first hit our high end dealer was demo/displaying a $7,500.00 SACD player and doing listening tests, Krell had a CD player at half the price that was noticeably better. I know a product normally improves with each generation, but I guess the format faded before it could show it's stuff. I not against SACD, I just personally have not been convinced of any benefit, where Blu-ray I could clearly see an improvement. A product has to grab you when it hits or it will lose interest. CD/DVD both had large improvements to offer. SACD was debateable at best and HD disc is better but for most you really have to have it side by side to notice. HD discs might have a better chance though as the public puts more HDTV's in their home and come to realize the picture quality and potential.

If people look online the software is coming down in price. I'm not sure why the b&m stores aren't following suit unless they count on that much impulse buying.

pixelthis

01-24-2008, 12:23 AM

Pix, you make it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to like you. I've tried time after time to get along with you but make a wisecrack in your direction and it's full-bore attack mode. You critisize people for their spelling errors but you don't even know how to quote people properly. I make a joke about TI and silicon, and your immediate response is to insult the company. Did you know that once again TI is one of the top 100 companies to work for in the states? Did you know that TI is a leader in advancing the roles of minorities in corporate America? Did you know how diverse TI is with it's hiring practices? Do you have ANY idea how many MILLIONS of products TI has devices in? TI would never hire someone as socially inept as someone like you, and that speaks volumes about your personality. But you don't care, your MO never changes.

They teach arrogance at SMU. Is that where you went to college?

Well, rich, I like you, even tho your comprehension is right down there with sir t.
You made a joke, I joked back, you think I was serious about TI getting its integrated chip from a crashed flying saucer?
NOW i DID SAY SOME RATHER DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT TI, and for the most part, they were true. Sorry if you cant take some criticism.
As for TI'S hiring practices, well so what what? I expect no less from ANY company,
what you describe is the bare minimum.
Unlike you I HAVE BEEN in the south a long time, my entire life. I know probably better than you what happens when one group is persecuted by another. And I DONT LIKE IT.
And I dont care about how many products they have their devices in, etc. That just shows
how much money you can make catering to the lowest common denomonator,
and how much money you can make being a govt contractor.
My experience with TI and its rather mediocre products is a rather long one, I KNOW WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT.
Now back to you, I dont know how to tell you, rich in your own mind, but you're rather, ah, shallow.
You talk about firebirds and hooters girls like you're stuck in another decade or something.
You talk about living in "the moment", great until you get to the next moment.
You are like what a lot of america turns out...LITE.
Like lite beer, scratch under your surface and what do you find? More surface.
Ever read a book? You don't read instruction manuels so I doubt it.
Ever tilt at a windmill? Try to understand something bigger than you?
Sleep with a woman who was more beautiful on the inside than the outside?
Now shallow aint bad, it can be rather amusing, but its just too easy to make jabs
at the un-selfaware.
Now a event is unfolding, in slow motion, kinda. I heard a guy on the net, lost 40 grand in a DAY.
Basically , 401k kid, you're gonna wake up one day, and find that everybody has called in
there notes, China, the middle east, etc. And you 401k will still be there, but the k will stand for krud.
And you're gonna have to go out and find a REAL job, and attract a woman by your own
natural skills, not just pay the going rate.
And eat stuff that youi used to throw away.
And the experience, if it doesnt kill ya, will make you a much better human.
But until then, you're gonna be shallow.
Doesnt mean that I or others dont like you, it just means that you dont get our jokes:1:

pixelthis

01-24-2008, 12:53 AM

Did you see BR players took 93% of sales last month after Warners announcement and Samsung put the nix on the combo player as of May and if I were them I'd put that piece of crap to rest before then. Check reviews.

For the record my DLP is 1080i native resolution. Pix blow all you want I trust my owners manual over your nonsense. You have proven to be a total troll idiot who is losing allies fast. You don't know when to shut up and you especially don't know when to admit you are wrong. Your persistence in trying to talk so much babble thinking it will convince some one is futile. Not only is it futile it's actually what shows everyone how ignorant you are on the subject you are trying to tackle. To incenuate you even went to college is giving you way too much credit. You took advantage of some education hand out and spent 3 years in a stooper at tech school and think you now know something. You are a pathetic loser who wants to insert themselves and pretend you are something you have more than proven you aren't. I used to feel sorry for you when every one was trying to get you off of here. I now realize I made a big mistake. Anyone who remembers your posts or was bored enough to go back an analyze them would realize when ever you got a kind word or attention in a thread you suddenly morfed into a fanboy. As an example, after several months here you never once mentioned SACD but after appearing on a thread and exchanging with Feanor, THEN, all the sudden you have SACD, it's your favorite format, you know everything about it,.... yeah right. If you stuck to what you knew we'd never hear from you again.

your TV will play 1080i, after its upconverted to 720p, which is your sets native resolution.
Which is a good thing, unlike what sir talky will tell you, 720p is higher rez than 1080i,
which being an interlaced format loses half of its resolution everytime theres movement.
And I trust the likes of Joe Kane, a guru who was instrumental in creating several monitors and calibration discs.
This is where I get my info from.
Now you dont understand me mr P but I certainly understand YOU.
You dont come from a technical background, which is fine, but dont think you can bluff your way through with a lot of bluster and hot air.
My knowledge is quite limited but I DO know about the electromagnetic spectrum,
basic electronics (very basic) and when you try to converse on these subjects you get in deep water very fast.
You dont even understand that universal laws apply to ALL of the various types of energy,
As for SACD, yeah, I like the format, have a Samsung upconverting DVD player that plays
SACD and DVDAUDIO, cost me 129 bucks on HSN. And sounds quite nice.
I have various discs from Ivan linns, miles davis, herbie hancock, diana krall, and a few others, not that I have to explain anything to YOU.
Basically I have very modest gear, dont have a choice, really, but I CAN HAVE
a decent experience with this stuff if I dont waste my time and money on crap like
power cords and conditioners.
I do know some things, for instance, music played off of a hard drive will rival a megabuck CD player, so thats what I do instead of buying a megabuck CD player.
If you can hear a difference between the two you're a german shepard.
If you're a human and think you can hear a difference between the two, you're delusional.
Now MR P, keep buying your silly antique tube gear and all of the other crap you waste your money on, I dont have the money to waste myself, and stick to what you know when it comes to electronics, which is basically how to plug a radio into a wall outlet.
get much beyond that and you're in deep water, so please stop trying to tell me that the things I do know are silly just because they arent common sense.
Like for instance, do you know that when you mix two different frequencies together you get the difference between the two?
And when you mix two identical frequencies together they cancel out?
That is electronics 101, and all of your bleating wont change it a BIT:prrr:

pixelthis

01-24-2008, 01:00 AM

I'm sooo happy that someone stands up to Pix and puts his feet to the fire. It's sad to think that more of the heavyweights here don't do the same. It's not a matter of it "getting good", its a matter of showing a social misfit how big an a$$ he can be.

Now, wait until you read Pix's response to my posts. It'll be more of the same old attempts at belittling me, right Pix?

not an attempt, more like a sucessful effort.
I MUST ADMIT, belittling you IS more fun than beating my head against the wall trying to get some sense into sir talkys noggin. The guy is so dense that he makes uranium
look like stryofoam in comparison.
So you want me to belittle you? Concerning what?
I am always eager to please:ihih:

GMichael

01-24-2008, 07:55 AM

I think someone skipped their meds this week. I won't say who.

Rich-n-Texas

01-24-2008, 08:05 AM

Well, rich, I like you, even tho your comprehension is right down there with sir t.
You made a joke, I joked back, you think I was serious about TI getting its integrated chip from a crashed flying saucer?
NOW i DID SAY SOME RATHER DEROGATORY THINGS ABOUT TI, and for the most part, they were true. Sorry if you cant take some criticism.
As for TI'S hiring practices, well so what what? I expect no less from ANY company,
what you describe is the bare minimum.
Unlike you I HAVE BEEN in the south a long time, my entire life. I know probably better than you what happens when one group is persecuted by another. And I DONT LIKE IT.
And I dont care about how many products they have their devices in, etc. That just shows
how much money you can make catering to the lowest common denomonator,
and how much money you can make being a govt contractor.
My experience with TI and its rather mediocre products is a rather long one, I KNOW WHAT i AM TALKING ABOUT.
Now back to you, I dont know how to tell you, rich in your own mind, but you're rather, ah, shallow.
You talk about firebirds and hooters girls like you're stuck in another decade or something.
You talk about living in "the moment", great until you get to the next moment.
You are like what a lot of america turns out...LITE.
Like lite beer, scratch under your surface and what do you find? More surface.
Ever read a book? You don't read instruction manuels so I doubt it.
Ever tilt at a windmill? Try to understand something bigger than you?
Sleep with a woman who was more beautiful on the inside than the outside?
Now shallow aint bad, it can be rather amusing, but its just too easy to make jabs
at the un-selfaware.
Now a event is unfolding, in slow motion, kinda. I heard a guy on the net, lost 40 grand in a DAY.
Basically , 401k kid, you're gonna wake up one day, and find that everybody has called in
there notes, China, the middle east, etc. And you 401k will still be there, but the k will stand for krud.
And you're gonna have to go out and find a REAL job, and attract a woman by your own
natural skills, not just pay the going rate.
And eat stuff that youi used to throw away.
And the experience, if it doesnt kill ya, will make you a much better human.
But until then, you're gonna be shallow.
Doesnt mean that I or others dont like you, it just means that you dont get our jokes:1:
Check the Steel Cage for my response to this sir. http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?p=223529#post223529

johnny p

01-24-2008, 08:10 AM

haha..... my post was for nothing more than my amusement with the responses that ensued...... I think Sir T. has a lot of valuable information, and as far as Pix goes, I enjoy a lot of his posts as well..... I find it humorous that many conversations get so off topic...... Where's Melvin when you need him???

GMichael

01-24-2008, 08:24 AM

your TV will play 1080i, after its upconverted to 720p, which is your sets native resolution.
Which is a good thing, unlike what sir talky will tell you, 720p is higher rez than 1080i,
which being an interlaced format loses half of its resolution everytime theres movement.
And I trust the likes of Joe Kane, a guru who was instrumental in creating several monitors and calibration discs.
This is where I get my info from.
Now you dont understand me mr P but I certainly understand YOU.
You dont come from a technical background, which is fine, but dont think you can bluff your way through with a lot of bluster and hot air.
My knowledge is quite limited but I DO know about the electromagnetic spectrum,
basic electronics (very basic) and when you try to converse on these subjects you get in deep water very fast.
You dont even understand that universal laws apply to ALL of the various types of energy,
As for SACD, yeah, I like the format, have a Samsung upconverting DVD player that plays
SACD and DVDAUDIO, cost me 129 bucks on HSN. And sounds quite nice.
I have various discs from Ivan linns, miles davis, herbie hancock, diana krall, and a few others, not that I have to explain anything to YOU.
Basically I have very modest gear, dont have a choice, really, but I CAN HAVE
a decent experience with this stuff if I dont waste my time and money on crap like
power cords and conditioners.
I do know some things, for instance, music played off of a hard drive will rival a megabuck CD player, so thats what I do instead of buying a megabuck CD player.
If you can hear a difference between the two you're a german shepard.
If you're a human and think you can hear a difference between the two, you're delusional.
Now MR P, keep buying your silly antique tube gear and all of the other crap you waste your money on, I dont have the money to waste myself, and stick to what you know when it comes to electronics, which is basically how to plug a radio into a wall outlet.
get much beyond that and you're in deep water, so please stop trying to tell me that the things I do know are silly just because they arent common sense.
Like for instance, do you know that when you mix two different frequencies together you get the difference between the two?
And when you mix two identical frequencies together they cancel out?
That is electronics 101, and all of your bleating wont change it a BIT:prrr:

Pix,

Do you even know what model Mr P. has? Some of the DLP's do in fact output 1080i. Some even input 1080i and output 1080p. These have a much nicer picture than 720p.

Groundbeef

01-24-2008, 10:10 AM

Dear Terrence,

My speakers do not get along anymore. They were a matched set when I got them. You couldn't keep them apart. Wherever one went, the others went. But NOW? They just fight all the time. I've tried talking to them. I've tried positive reinforcement. Nothing seems to work. My father says that I should take them out back and beat the living sh.t out of them. What do you say?

Signed,

Mismatch in the hitch-hatch.

Dear Mismatch:

I have read your question and have formulated an action plan to get your speakers "back together".

You need to make sure that they are EXACTLY 12' apart. It doens't matter how you achieve this goal. One member resorted to moving a speaker to the porch, (but it was later stolen :nonod: ) with great results.

The 12' gives both speakers the proper breathing room, and also allows them to more fully realize their potential.

As your speakers grow and mature, you may be tempted to move them closer together. Do not allow yourself to fall for this ruse. Even if your speakers weigh 300lbs, 12' is optimal.

Good luck, and many years of happy listening.

GMichael

01-24-2008, 10:27 AM

Dear Mismatch:

I have read your question and have formulated an action plan to get your speakers "back together".

You need to make sure that they are EXACTLY 12' apart. It doens't matter how you achieve this goal. One member resorted to moving a speaker to the porch, (but it was later stolen :nonod: ) with great results.

The 12' gives both speakers the proper breathing room, and also allows them to more fully realize their potential.

As your speakers grow and mature, you may be tempted to move them closer together. Do not allow yourself to fall for this ruse. Even if your speakers weigh 300lbs, 12' is optimal.

Good luck, and many years of happy listening.

OK, I will give it a try. But I do have a few follow-up questions.

My room is only 14 feet wide. With the speakers at 12 feet, that only leaves 1 foot on each side. Will I not have problems with the wall reflections?
Also,
This is a 7.1 system. Please map out how I can have all 8 of these speakers 12 feet from every other? Should I be putting some of them in my basement and attic?

Befuddled in Biffaway.

Rich-n-Texas

01-24-2008, 10:35 AM

Groundbeef

01-24-2008, 10:43 AM

OK, I will give it a try. But I do have a few follow-up questions.

My room is only 14 feet wide. With the speakers at 12 feet, that only leaves 1 foot on each side. Will I not have problems with the wall reflections?
Also,
This is a 7.1 system. Please map out how I can have all 8 of these speakers 12 feet from every other? Should I be putting some of them in my basement and attic?

Befuddled in Biffaway.

Dear Befuddled:

I'm just an advice writer, not a miracle worker. And I'm sorry if you are unable to do the complex equation. 8 speakers, 12' apart. Seems to me you need a room 96' wide in order to meet minimum placement parameters.

Perhaps you need to work a second job to pay for any necessary improvments to your home. Perhaps you can break out a window or 2 and then suspend plastic sheeting to make a temporary "room" until you can complete the upgrade.

GMichael

01-24-2008, 12:33 PM

To tell ya the truth, I don't read much of his posts :idea:

I have no clue what he's talkin' about half the time.

Neither does he. You're not missing much. Here, let me recap.

LCD rules.
DLP drools.
Blu-Ray is the best.
You don't need 1080p. 720p is better anyhow.
Downloads are better than Blu-ray.
The world is ending.
We should all put our heads between our legs and kiss our butts goodbye.
With 401k's, the k stands for crap.
He knows everything.
We know nothing.
TI is a nothing company and doesn't count.
Mark his words. Years from now we'll be thinking back at how we should have listened to him.

Got that? Good. There'll be a quiz tomorrow at 3:50 AM.

GMichael

01-24-2008, 12:38 PM

Dear Befuddled:

I'm just an advice writer, not a miracle worker. And I'm sorry if you are unable to do the complex equation. 8 speakers, 12' apart. Seems to me you need a room 96' wide in order to meet minimum placement parameters.

Perhaps you need to work a second job to pay for any necessary improvments to your home. Perhaps you can break out a window or 2 and then suspend plastic sheeting to make a temporary "room" until you can complete the upgrade.

Dear Beef,

I do not like your answer.
I will now curse you out.
@$%#! $#%^ you #$%^ son of a #$%% @@#$%& may your %%^%&$ rot in $$%#& with %%%#$ and %%*@@!

If you don't have anything helpful to add, then I will continue to ingore your posts just as I have here. Oh, and I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE. Be nice from now on.

Groundbeef

01-24-2008, 12:40 PM

GMichael

01-24-2008, 12:41 PM

Wow, now your ghostwriting for Pixel? And I thought you were above the fray. I'll pass a greenie to you when I'm recharged!

I am above nothing sir.

Groundbeef

01-24-2008, 12:44 PM

Dear Beef,

I do not like your answer.
I will now curse you out.
@$%#! $#%^ you #$%^ son of a #$%% @@#$%& may your %%^%&$ rot in $$%#& with %%%#$ and %%*@@!

If you don't have anything helpful to add, then I will continue to ingore your posts just as I have here. Oh, and I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE. Be nice from now on.

Well, I've never seen a AV board that allows such filth. What kind of mods allow @ or $%! or worst of all $$%#&? If you don't want my advice in the future don't ask stupiid questens!

GMichael

01-24-2008, 12:51 PM

Well, I've never seen a AV board that allows such filth. What kind of mods allow @ or $%! or worst of all $$%#&? If you don't want my advice in the future don't ask stupiid questens!
I see no reason for you to become rude. These personal attacks you are making do not do anyone any good. You young people have no respect.
I don't not know who you or, are even care. Just stick to the topic.

Rich-n-Texas

01-24-2008, 12:54 PM

Rich-n-Texas

01-24-2008, 12:58 PM

I don't not know who you or, are even care. Just stick to the topic.
Dammit! Now I'm confused again. Or who? Are what? :crazy:

L.J.

01-24-2008, 01:10 PM

What was this thread about again :idea:

Rich-n-Texas

01-24-2008, 01:17 PM

Alright let's get back to serious discussion here okay? Y'all are making me look silly. :rolleyes:

bobsticks

01-24-2008, 03:36 PM

Sleep with a woman who was more beautiful on the inside than the outside?.

I am extremely self-aware, but I find that life is easier if I avoid this. True talk.

Smokey

01-24-2008, 04:14 PM

Your TV will play 1080i, after its upconverted to 720p, which is your sets native resolution. Which is a good thing, unlike what sir talky will tell you, 720p is higher rez than 1080i, which being an interlaced format loses half of its resolution everytime theres movement.

And I trust the likes of Joe Kane guru who was instrumental in creating several monitors and calibration discs. This is where I get my info from.

Sorry Pixelthis, but this is completely false. It is just like saying 480p have twice resolution of 480i since 480i loses half of its resolution every time there is movement-which is not true. 480p will show a SMOOTHER picture, not higher resolution.

Same goes for 720p since the only advantage it have is its refresh rate, not resolution. Since pixel determine resolution not refreshing rate, then 720 have close to 1 million pixels (720 x 1280), while 1080i have twice that amount (1080 x 1920). So I don’t see how one million pixels display can have more resolution than 2 million pixels display panel!

Even if we go by your assumption that 1080i loses half of its resolution due to being interlaced, still 1080i show more pixels even if still showing half the picture......

1080i / 2 = 520 (1 field), 520 x 1920 = 1.03 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.
720p (1 frame), 720 x 1280 = 0.92 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.

So as you can see above, even at half frame 1080i still show more pixels than 720p full frame.

Now who did you say you get your information from :D

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-24-2008, 05:53 PM

Mr Peabody

01-24-2008, 06:47 PM

Neither does he. You're not missing much. Here, let me recap.

LCD rules.
DLP drools.
Blu-Ray is the best.
You don't need 1080p. 720p is better anyhow.
Downloads are better than Blu-ray.
The world is ending.
We should all put our heads between our legs and kiss our butts goodbye.
With 401k's, the k stands for crap.
He knows everything.
We know nothing.
TI is a nothing company and doesn't count.
Mark his words. Years from now we'll be thinking back at how we should have listened to him.

Got that? Good. There'll be a quiz tomorrow at 3:50 AM.

Darn it! Some one give GM a greenie for me, he pegged Pix.

The trouble with Pix, we post correct information to his babble yet he remains steadfast in his stupidity, can't show one ioda of evidence to back his position. Great effort by Smokey but it was wasted on Pix. His reference to frequency was something I tried to teach him to no avail. The topic was sound cancellation, I posted several articles explaining how noise cancelling headphones work and that same frequencies increase when coming together NOT cancel, same frequencies cancel when they are 180 degrees out of phase. I don't know where he took "Electronic 101" but he is clueless and fancies himself some kind of engineer. He was ranting some kind of tuner information at me that didn't apply IF he had it correct but even that, he had all twisted. There are too many here who actually want help and appreciate sound advice to waste anymore time on Pix.

Smokey

01-24-2008, 06:58 PM

Great post Smoke. This is the latest example of how a person can speak like they know something, but in actuality, they know nothing.

Thanks Sir T. Coming from you it means alot.

I know you (and probably couple of others) already have discussed 720p vs 1080i with him couple of times, and this is my second time discussing it with him. But he seem just to ignore it and keep saying 720p is higher resolution.

I like Pixelthis and read most of his no-holds-barred style posting, but he need to give more thoughts to his postings :8:

The trouble with Pix, we post correct information to his babble yet he remains steadfast in his stupidity, can't show one ioda of evidence to back his position.

The worst part is that he said he get his information from Joe Kane. Getting information is one thing, but understanding it is another ;)

Not really.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-24-2008, 07:30 PM

Hey, you were the one who promised to "sidestep the name calling." Obviously you didn't, but I should expect no less from you lil't. You're small, your reality is small, and your understanding of what is happening in the world is small. That is why I've dubbed you "lil't" without the capital "L" because you couldn't even hold that up if it was there.

Do you see me complaining like a baby like you have? No, I can take it, and I can dish it out as well. I do not care what you call me, you cannot insult me, harm me, or make me angry.

Well it just so happens that I emailed some of your posts to a real psychologist acquaintance of mine. And guess what, I was right, you are full of yourself, you think you are more than you are and this is likely stemming from some humiliating event in your past life. Now that's not name-calling, nor is it inaccurate, it's what you keep asking for: detailed analysis. You really should have your head examined. It was even recommended I ease up on you. Well, you don't deserve a respite - you're too vain for that. You can throw all the insults you want, in the end, it only shows how sad you really are.

Right, more lying nightliar. I would send your lying post to a psychologist, but it would be a waste of time. Ray Charles can see a compulsive liar. You didn't do any of this, your analysis sucks, and you just cannot stop all of the lying. So what I see here is deflection. If you just say this stupid **** enough, maybe it will take attention off the fact that you lie everytime you post.

Yes, you've said that already, but a cavalier is also "one having the spirit or bearing of a knight; a courtly gentleman; gallant; a man escorting a woman or acting as her partner in dancing" (dictionary.com).

You are beyond pathetic. You are trying to do analysis off a name of a drum corps. You are mentally bankrupt. If you have half a brain cell left, I would be completely surprised.

And to anyone who didn't know you were a band-nerd, what else would be the conclusion? After all, doesn't "cavalier" also fit so poignantly with "Sir Terrence, The Terrible," and your former avatar of a green plume, and your current one of a musketeer? Well my dear little Cyrano, I call you Pinocchio.

Stupid, you kid must be going to work for you. Drum Corps is not band, but I would not expect a lying idiot to know the difference. And please don't mention Pinocchio. Your noise is already in Tokyo behind all of the lies you have told here.

First of all, you can't talk about the HD-DVD and BR format war without discussing what else could overtake those formats. I believe, like many others do, that the format war took long enough to allow other technologies such as downloading to become a major factor that could fill the void left by HD-DVD's demise and DVDs sales slump. My primary reason for believing this is that most titles that appeared on HD-DVD and/or BR were new releases and these typically cater to the renters not the collectors (more on that below). In any case, computers and the internet are a factor not just because they are the primary vehicle for downloading but also because they are the primary method for purchasing HD-DVD and BR disks, not to mention DVDs. You may want to ignore computers and the internet in this equation, but that isn't realistic.

You really should keep your computer analysis out of the film and video business. The movie studio control the content. That's a fact. They choose their avenue of distributions, not you. They have chosen to support Bluray because they know the infrastructure of movie downloads for own just is not there
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6523707.html?industryid=47214

Also, this site is not just about HT. I know that is what you're an "expert" about and feel comfy-cozy discussing, but as I recall, there are sections here that are only remotely, if at all, talk about HT. You know, ones called Analog Room, Rave Recordings, Vintage Gear, Speakers, and guess what, also one called Digital Domain, and even one called Computer Audio. Get your facts straight, lil't, this world is not your oyster.

This site is about audio, not computers. There is a section for you computer geeks, but it is not in the audio section. Downloads are part of the computer culture since you cannot download movies to bluray, HD DVD or DVD players. You get your facts straight.

No I have not lied. You have been trying to make this falsehood stick and it hasn't. I have not lied, I had no reason to lie, and all you've been able to show is conjectures and insinuations about it. If anyone is a pathological liar, it is you with your incessant lies about it. By the way, psychologically speaking, this obsession with wanting to vilify others like this speaks volumes about your..., oh we'll just call them "issues" so as not to hurt your feelings too much.

Pathological liars lie and just do not realize it. Its apart of who they are. I have pointed out your lies, but you just twist that into "I was confused". You are transparent, and we see through you.

You know, for someone throwing around the race card indiscriminately, you really should back off of the insinuations about women before you piss off even more people.

Throwing around the race card?? Have I insulted anyones race, or did someone insult mine? You must live in Pix's world where everything is completely opposite of reality. Women know themselves. But a man that complains like a woman is just plain weird.

As I explained before. "Downloaders" in your narrow world view is only those people who have purchased a downloaded movie. The reality is that "downloaders" is all people who download video, whether they pay for it or not. Let's keep those facts straight. You are so hell-bent on limitting your criteria to just what suits your argument that you are completely missing the point of what the rest of us are talking about: all downloaders. Stop dismissing the more accurate definition.

A studio executive is only interested in HIS studio's bottom line. Not peoples surfing activities on the net. They are interested in what you BUY, and where you BUY it from. A studio is not going to use your loose model to decide if downloading is where the studio emphasis is going to be. THEY USE NUMBERS, THEY USE SALES FIGURES, THE USE INDUSTRY EXPERTS ANALYSIS, they do not use the same criteria as computer geeks use. Thick headed people are amusing, and nothing else.

I think you seek to dismiss it because the studios can't make money off of it. How narrow of a view is that? I recall that same kind of narrow-mindedness from the RIAA when they were trying to downplay the impact of Napster. Yes, that made those nasty downloads go away, huh? Or is it because you can't quantify it? .

The studio(just like your company) are interested in making money. That is it(just like it is with your company). The RIAA does not govern the movie industry, and the movie industry isn't the music industry. I think you non thinkers tend to mix the two together like they operate the same way, because it is easier for your tiny brains to get around.

This is oversimplifying things a bit, isn't it? Funny how you resort to that when you are such a stickler for specifics. Purchasers will download when the content isn't worth owning. Pixel's Talladega Nights example is a perfect case-in-point - people who collect movies aren't likely to want to own that one.

Talladega Nights sold pretty well on both HD DVD and Bluray, and lets not even mention DVD. So that blows a hole in this comment.

What's so poignant about this is that the vast majority of the HD-DVD/BR catalog is Talladega fare. Yes, selection is growing but it's got quite a ways to go to have the depth of the DVD catalog. And one is left to wonder if it will ever have the same titles. Isn't that one of the reasons laserdisks people hold onto their players and disks because DVD never made a superior copy of some of their favorite flicks, right? How many of us still have a VHS or two we haven't been able to find on DVD?

How would you know what the catalog of either format is, you own neither. You call planet earth Talladega fair? Do you call Forgotten Planet Talladega fair? Blade Runner is Talladega fair? Close Encounters is Talladega fair? You know less than my dog about video, and less than my two cats about either HD format. Once again, the DVD did not have classic titles this early in its life, downloading doesn't either. As Bluray matures as a format, they will release the same content they released on DVD. If you are trying to advance the theory that download services will have more content than bluray, you are totally off base. That is computer guy analysis on the film world. Adoption rates to Bluray are already past download to rent and sale. Follow the money.

And you think that we are going to have titles available to downloads, that we will not see on HD? Can you tell my why a studio would withhold a titles
Because they are not making any money selling them as downloads. Easy answer. Apple is the largest download to rent site by a long shot, and last year they had 7 million downloads of movies. Paramount moved that many Transformer copies in a single day on disc.(DVD), and another 50,000 on HD DVD in a single day. Pirates of the Carribean moved twice that many(apples numbers) over a week time. Sony's spiderman box set sold a little less than twice the number of apple totaly downloads in a single week. When a studio executive sees this, he is not going to come to the same conclusion you do.

Also, renters and gamers aren't an isolated group of weirdos by themselves, as you like to paint them with your liberal brush. The fact is that almost every collector also rents. After all, how is s/he going to know what is worth owning? And gamers? I don't know a single one who does not own movies. The fact is you can't just divide people into little categories that have no overlap - childish and simple-minded, lil't, sophomoric at best.

When a collectors rents, it is the disc, not the download. Can you tell me how a collector will be able know what quality the disc is based on the internet download? A collector will rent the bluray disc, look at it, and decide if the QUALITY is up to purchasing(that goes for both the movie and the data on disc). A gamer and a download renter do not care about original aspect ratios, high data rates to keep video quality up, sound quality, uncompressed audio,micro blocking, colorbanding, edge enhancement(which is all over downloads to make them sharper), and picture aliasing. The movie collect will. These are two different markets, with completely different priorities.

You have a clear disdain for computer enthusiasts, downloaders, and gamers. That is obvious all over your posts. It's almost as if you have this world-view that somehow you belong to a higher class of movie watchers and the rest of us are the simpleton hoi-polloi who should believe everything you belch out as the gospel truth.

If you are too dumb to realize that the priority of the videophile and the priorites of the download to renter are completely different, then there is no use in continuing to respond to you. You are demonstrating how much a fool you are. I do not belong to a higher class of viewers, I belong to a different class of viewing from the gamer and download to renter. My priorities are completely difference from theirs. I choose a source optimized for video watching, not a computer screen who maximum resolution is 768p. I choose to get what is on the disc in its native form(1080p at 24fps for film, and 1080p 60 for video or animation), that is not the end all for the casual viewer. They don't care about that. I do not watch movies on computer speakers, they are crappy for this type of purpose because that is not what they are optimized for. I watch my movies in a room that is acoustically treated, with speakers that are time and phase corrected, with controls on reverberation time and early reflections. I use bass traps, a RTA, checkpoint alignment tools to get and keep my system meticulously calibrated. Do you really think the gamer or computer geeks do this? No way in hell.

The second problem with your generalization is that you cannot speak for all people when you say they "want to own disk." You can't know this for everyone. You may think that your sales data allows you to generalize so much, but that doesn't hold water when you consider the impact of non-sale downloaded content.[/quote]

Can you tell me why a studio executive with a eye on maximizing profits and ROI would worry about non-sale downloaded content? What does that offer him or her? Non commerce internet traffic is a computer geeks worry, getting a high ROI is the worry of a Film studio executive. A computer geeks analysis for the film industry, and round hole with a square peg.

You are so stuck on "economic data" and that is why you are so myopic. Economic data has two fatal flaws: (1) it is always old; it is what was sold, not what is or will be sold and (2) it ignores what isn't sold, not just pirated content, but also what is paid for with ads or as part of a monthly fee.

Tell this to the stockholders nightliar. What is SOLD is all they want to hear about. Stockholders want ROI, not information that is not relevant to that end. You obviously do not work with financial reports do you? A industry driven by sales of media is not going to worry about what isn't sold. What ISN'T sold(and not even relevant) does not belong on a financial statement of a company driven by sales. Movie studios do not get revenue from ads, the cable and download rental services do. Movie studio create the content that is SOLD to the cable companies and download services. In order to create revenue streams to cover their costs, the cable and download services use advertising. You do not even have a basic understanding of how anything works, and you look foolish because of it. If studio received ad revenue, you bet your best pair of ballet slippers they would be interested in this revenue stream. They don't, this is left for the cable and download services.

Now you've done your best to try and convince everyone how these flaws are insignificant, but the fact is they aren't, no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

Can you tell me why studio executives do not pay attention to it then? I directly report to one, so why doesn't he mention these things you deem important? Its because it is irrelevant to him.

Finally, you are stuck on this comfort level thing about saving files on disk. This is your own prejudice and based in your own fears about the medium.

I work at a film studio idiot. We move files all over the place here. This has nothing to do with my comfort level, it has more to do with joesixpacks comfort level. Based on disc sales vs downloads, the public is not comfortable with movie files, and that is a fact. If they were, then we would all be downloading, and wouldn't be having this discussion. It is VERY clear based on disc sales versus downloads that the public is not ready to download their collection of movies. Rentals in the future? Most definately, we are already headed that way slowly. But digital sale through is a diaster financially, and anything that is a diaster financially is not going to be the direction a studio will pursue.

Music files are downloaded by the millions everyday and only a fraction of those are restored to a physical disk. Most are stored on hard drives. These people have no qualms about it. You know why? Because they back them up. Most people who have an iPod have a complete copy of their music collection on their hard drives.

Clearly based on sales of disc versus downloading of music, downloading is growing, but is a small fraction of disc sales even in decline. Once again for the thick headed, I can put 200 songs on a 1GB stick, I cannot get a fraction of a music soundtrack in 5.1 on a 1GB movie stick, let alone the video portion as well. I can get thousands of songs on 80 GB ipod. But you could only fit maybe two movies at 1080p at the same data rate it is presented on HD disc, along with the soundtrack. If you think for even a second that 720p encoded in quicktime at a data rate of 4mbps(a apple HD download) looks anything like a 720p at a data rate of 20-25mbps, then you do not understand video at all. Not all HD is created equal.

And as far as music being different from movies, I'll address that further down.

More ignorance to wade through.

Again with the dollars-only examples. It's not the whole picture, lil't. Just because you're not comfortable with that fact, won't make it go away.

Do not run a business. I am sure your stockholders would want you computer based analysis in a room full of folks that invested in a movie studio. Money, money, money nightidiot, that is all studio heads and stockholders want to hear about. A film studio does not have any need to look at non film internet traffic, especially if there is no profit to be made from it. That is a job for internet providers and computer company heads, not the film industry.

As Ajani and others have been trying to point out to you, this is shortsighted on the part of the studios. Because Napster happened, people came to expect new things from their music:
(1) Free music
(2) Larger catalogs than what was available in the stores
(3) Music by the single song (which devastated the one cash cow of the music studios: the bundling of music into a complete album)
This has nothing to do with movies. And just because Ajani tried to point this out means nothing more than at least three people here (you, pixel brain, and Ajani) do not understand the film or video industry, nor how they operate. At least Ajani is bright enough to understand that the push in video is larger screens and better sound. Downloads are not for larger screens, they are for smaller ones. On larger screens all the warts of a 4mbps download show up like your ignorance on this issue. Music has a much shorter profit life than film on disc. It is not likely you could sell a new release today on a different disc based audio format tomorrow. It is clear you can sell video over multiple successive formats. Look at Close encounters. YOu see it on DVD AND bluray. Did you ever see much rap music on SACD or DVD-A along with CD? No.

Now iTunes didn't give the music for free, but it did give people enough freedom to where enough consumers were willing to settle for it and grow Apple's business model. Now I don't need to remind you that the music studios fought these freedoms tooth & nail every step of the way. What people want now is DRM-free music. Yes, I know sales of the DRM-free versions aren't great, but that is because it is easy enough to strip the DRM off of non-DRM files right now - that's right, piracy is alive an well. What happened with music is a pretty damning example of what many people think will is already happening and will continue to happen with movies.
Since when is a pig a dog? Or a dog a cat? Since when is a horse a elephant? They are not. And the movie industry is not the music industry. A movie file is not the same as a music only files. And the equipment you watch a movie on is not the same as music( I do not watch music on my television). Apples business model for music and movies is very different. Their model for music is doing very well. Their model for digital sell through is not. I have already provided a link that stats such. People who cannot think their way out of a paper bag with a arrow pointing toward exit mix music and movies together. Not critical thinkers. I notice you do not argue with Wooch when he points out that you are incorrect. I guess you know who your daddy is huh.

The Slingbox is about freedom of choice, and that is what matters. And guess what? The studios are doing their darnedest to try and squash that too - they forced significant changes to customer freedoms enjoyed in the older models and that is one of the main reason sales have slumped. Anyhow, 35,000 players may not be much, but that is an empty statistic for comparison because some of those owners are also HD-DVD, BR, or PS3 owners. How do you include that statistic into your sales figures? And What about the thousands of people who use something else to do the same thing, like oh, I don't know, a computer? And how many BR owners also own a computer? Well, logically, every BR owner on this forum. Your statistics only sound impressive when you strip out all the overlap, and the fact is, there is too much of it. You can't make generalizations like this without accounting for overlap.
This claim you made about some of the owners being HD DVD, bluray owners is just another lie. Another one!!!!! When will it stop? Do you hear anyone here talking about the slimbox. Nobody talks about the slimbox at Bluray.com, HTF, AVS, or any other VIDEO based AV website. It is clear that you find them at television stations, I have seen them at at least two. I do not include lies in my stats. If there was even a little buzz from AV based websites on this, you would have a point. But anyone who surfs around, does not see that as part of any hometheaters owners equipment. And what stats can you post for all of us to see that supports your notions that some BR and HD DVD owners bought ANY of those 35,000. I am sure you will say you do not have to show anything, that your word is good enough. To me, you word is the worst thing you can offer. Show me the stats, you lie way too much.

Boy, reading your post, you'd think Tivo is one sad company (perhaps even sader than you). The fact is that all your info is old. See? You're living in the past with your sales figures. That's actually funny because Tivo certainly rebounded from those doldrums once the series 3 HD units ramped up (which by the way, these have OTA digital tuners that should be one very attractive option for people this coming year as the analog-shutoff approaches). In case you missed the rally (I'm sure you did), the stock jumped over 70% before the x-mas holiday, a lot better than a lot of other companies did (yes, they are back down a bit like everyone else, but it's still above where they were in October, which is a lot better than many other companies today). Your information, as usual is stale and certainly not indicative of future potential.
There is one tool I have that you do not. NDP figures compliled weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly. If they are so stale, then why do companies all over the world paying millions and millions for the data? If you think my stats are so stale, what stats do you have to trump them? None. That is clear.
Tivo are not movie playback devices. Tivos are not selling as well as bluray players are at this moment. TIVO sales have slowed in the last two quarters, while sales of bluray players are up 20%. Last month Bluray players total 40k in units world wide. That is greater than slimbox since inception, and a little more than Tivo did in the same period. It looks to me like the new kid has already passed the old kid in getting the consumers money. When I go into BB, I see three displays of Bluray players, but I see no displays of TIVO. Do you know why? Retailers give shelf space to the stuff that is currently selling, not stuff that once sold. Amazon has a HD DVD store, and a Bluray store, but they do not have a TIVO store even though Amazon uses TIVO for their downloads. That ought to tell you where the emphasis of that particular retailer. If someone just held you comments up for critical thought, it would have a thread count of zero.

That's because, lil't, what you "see" in your own little sandbox, isn't a whole lot. Your living room isn't even remotely indicative of what's happening in the market. Again, delusions of grandeur, my friend - look it up if you don't know what that means. Oh, and by the way, if you think USB is adequate for video, you may want to read up on some newer technologies like Firewire-800 and SATA. You really shouldn't throw sand in neighboring sandboxes you're not familiar with, lil't.
This is were you need to learn a thing or two. Neither firewire-800 or SATA have provision for the video standard HDCP protocol. Neither of the two allow for clocking data passing through the connector to combat audio jitter. Neither of the two are developed for ANY A/V based product. Unfortunately for you the video industry has already chosen HDMI. The CE industry has already chosen HDMI, so these emerging technologies are too late for video based products because the standard has already been set. If there is going to be ANY video based products being used, the HDMI standard is the only standard that both studios and CE have agreed on because of its robust copy protection, and because it was built from the ground up to serve the video and audio transfer of films from player to receiver. Mention this may show that you are keeping up with computer based products, but shows you do not know the standards set up by the movie industry and the CE that support them. Nice try night liar.

Your lack of understanding about computers is why you aren't able to get your little mind around the concept of downloading over the Internet. Computers and HT are converging faster than you are comfortable with and that scares you. It threatens your livelihood and you don't know how to cope. As I said before, this isn't exclusively a home theater site, and even if it was, ignoring the impact of computer technology on this industry is shortsighted (kind of like the music studios wanted to ignore downloads in the late 90s). You are so obsessed with wanting to group everything and everyone into little categories that you can isolate enough to comprehend them. The problem with this is that your arbitrary categories are no longer realistic - just as this site isn't just about HT, so too is the world of video not just about BR disks. You're the one who's trying to wedge square pegs into round holes, lil't.
You do not know my understanding of computers nightliar, do we use computers as bluray players? Are computer widely used as movie players?. Do we surf the net with our DVD players? The answer to this is a resounding no, which is why this has not relevance in this thread. You are using the example of a few to define the many.
So if there are no groups of anything, and everyone is the same any logical person would agree that the language of hometheater is completely different from computers no matter how converge you say we are. The fact that you treat the music industry exactly the same as the movie industry shows that you know little to nothing about both. The music industry has to fight piracy because of their own doing. The prices of CD has changed little over the years, but the quality of the product has taken a definately step downward. To most, the product as its presented is not a value to them. No body is saying that about DVD or bluray. If they do not like the movie, they don't buy it. You cannot buy a portion of a movie that is good and skip the parts you don't like. You can buy songs you like, and skip an album. A simple download of a movie even losslessly is still a much smaller file size than a movie. Ripped music(as opposed to downloads) can be loaded into a verity of products, downloaded movies are locked into standards(the apple download will not play on zune, and visa versa). I can play a disc on any bluray player, but I cannot play my download with carting my hard drive with me. There is a movement in music for lesser quality, there is no such move in video. Music has not had much success pushing hi rez, video has had much success with HD. These are just a few comparison that set your little stupid thoeries into orbit.

Nonsense. Again, this only makes sense in your narrow little world where movie people are only movie people and have no interest in music. Just about everyone here has both movies and music in their collections. And most everyone here has a digital music player so the transition to downloading digital movies using the same methods will be evolutionary for them. And as they see how other people cope with issues that plague your little mind so much like "DRM-infestations" and "hard drive crashes," they will transition to a comfort level about owning video on disk. Many people will still own disks, but they will also own less pertinent video digitally. The two are not mutually exclusive, as you so would like everyone to believe. And the acceptance factor is already taking place.
People have grown acustom, and have made the decision that portability in music is better than quality. That is why the audio industry has had no success with SACD and DVD-A, and plenty of success with music at 320kbps lossy. I do not expect the performace I get from listening to SACD on my home system to be the same as either of my ipods. When a person loses his music collection, the only thing he can go back to is his ripped music to put his collection back together again. Yes physical media. Good luck in going back to Apple and telling them your hard drive crashed, and you want another free copy to replace your purchased one.
There is no move towards lower quality movies. Television shows are a different animal. Screens sizes are getting larger and larger, and resolution is going higher and higher. All of the downloading business are proprietory, and not open system like disc based systems. DVD and Bluray are plug and play systems, and downloading is not. You cannot find a download that is true 1080p with the necessary bitrate to present a product that is better than disc. HD DVD and Bluray let the quality jeanie out of the bag, and now downloading and VOD have to meet that standard. A file has to be backed up, and that adds cost to the experience. A disc has to be cleaned.
When one looks at the same data as the studio heads look at, there is nothing that supports even a fraction of what you say.

Now I've read all the arguments about HD not fitting on hard drives and all that nonsense, but the fact is that people won't be using 160gb hard drives for this - they'll be using multi-terabite drives the size of a small book (and if you don't think so, we are already using them to store video in our company). Anyhow, what people will be storing digitally will not be the stuff they want on disk, so the quality or the extras aren't crucial to this. Yes, there will be HD content that will use up a lot of space, but it will only be a portion of everything people download. Most of the video that people will download will be DRM-free time-shifted TV shows from their cable or dish providers.
You have just describe a complete different person than the videophile and the collector. This supports what I say when I tell you there are different market segments that meet the priorites of different types of consumer. No one size fits all here.

Finally I want to address this whole business about internet bandwidth, since that seems to be the one thing everyone here seems to stuck on. Basically it does not matter, because as I explained before, people will queue things up to download over time (in the background, at night, and during the middle of the day when they are at work) so the thought of having to wait for content will be forgotten. Even a slow connection will suffice in such a scenario. So what if it takes a whole day to download something? If your box is continuously downloading, then you always have something to watch.
What if they do not want to wait. What if it takes a shorter time to drive to BB and get the disc than it takes to wait for the download. People now days are LESS patient, not more.

The music industry wasn't just fighting piracy, they were fighting choice. People also wanted to buy their music one song at a time and this pissed off the music industry. If you doubt that, check your precious stats for how many people actually download a whole CD's worth of music today, rather than just selections from that whole album. Even greatest hits CDs aren't being downloaded in their entirety, if the option is there.[/quote]

You know, my stats do tell this. However when you look at CD sales versus downloading, downloading is less than 10% of CD sales in terms of revenue. And if you look at total download as a unit, versus disc sales as a unit, disc sales still outsell downloads when the BIG picture is taken into consideration. Downloading is fracturing the business that is for sure, but in the long term, this is not healthy for the industry itself. And what is not healthy for the industry will soon trickly down to the individual artist. Without the money that CD sales bring record companies, fewer artists music will be published, fewer will be recorded, and artists will have to do FAR more concerts to support to support song sales. Some talent will never be developed because their are no A/R departments, and no up front money to do this. Studio will have to depend on lower budgets and alot more projects to make revenue, the good studios will close (already happening in NYC) and the push for even lower quality will take place, because creating music in your basement will not have the finished sound that a studio recording will have. Once again quality will suffer even further than it has. It probably won't matter all that much to the public, they have already gotten used to low quality music anyway.

And again, you are looking at revenue. I'm also going to guess only revenue from music download sites that are tracked by your industry bean-counters, right? And what about subscription and free sites that allow one to listen to music collections without allowing downloads? What about add-supported sites? What about the thousands of songs that people can download for free as a sample of an artist's work? Speaking of artists, what about those sites that artists run themselves, do they appear in your precious stats? Your figures completely miss how much music is actually being listened to. Of course the revenue stream for all these isn't one to bank on, but it's not about revenue, lil't, it's about choice.

Well, lets see how you run a studio or record company on choice. I am sure choice is more than adequate to pay your employees. I am sure choice is going to be an excellent ROI to your stockholders.

Ads supported sites buy their content, and use ads to make up for the price of operating. That content that is sold to ad supported sites shows up on financials.

If a artist is running their own site, I am sure they have financial advisor telling them how the site is doing. If the site cost more to run than the amount of revenue from song sales, then I am sure any competent(which leaves you out) would recommend the site be closed, or the artist will sustain financial losses. This is not reported in my stats, but also a miniscule market when you look at the big picture. Your pespective on this comment is not from a studio head, but from a consumer. Different perspectives, and different views of the market. Apples and oranges. Artist don't run studios, and studio exec don't create music.

By the way, CDs aren't flying off the shelves at Best Buy, in case you haven't noticed - their non-sale prices aren't competitive at all and the selection quite frankly sucks, especially for those of us who buy jazz, classical, and hi-res audio formats. BB is the last place you'll see collectors buy a CD unless they have one amazing sale. I can't remember the last time I paid full-price for a CD at BB, if ever.

In 2007 BB was the largest retailer of both music AND video. Unfortunately jazz, classical and high rez are all niche, nobody will make much money only supporting these genres. The best selling music is rap, rock and country. This you can find plenty of at BB. Your buying habits are not everyone buying habits right?

Computer geek? Please do tell us what that is. And let's see if you can do that without offending everyone again. You say I'm a computer geek because I make my money from this industry?

And I believe you called me a shill? A computer geek lives in a world of computers. When they talk quality, they are talking motherboards, drives, drivers, cards, and other computer related things. They will compromise films to watch them on computers, and video and sound quality are the last thing they think of, unless once again, you are talking computer hardware and software.

What do you really know about what I do?

I have already stated that I am not interested in you personally. So I will tell you again so we do not have to go here again. I do not care about what you do, or about you personally. You are just words on my screen, nothing more, nothing less. At this point you are not even a person to me. Is this clear?

I also collect movies, but according to your twisted logic that still doesn't make me a collector or videophile. I guess no one can be as true of a collector as you. Oh, I'm sorry, you mentioned before that one has to buy as many movies as you do in a week to be a collector? So it's about money, now? Well, what is it, lil't?

You collect movies? Riiiight. What ten? Anyone can say they collect online. The proof is in the pudding.

Why don't you tell all of us what distinguishes a computer geek from an audiophile and from a videophile? I doubt you can do this without insulting just about everyone here. But you're used to doing that. So let's have it, lil't. What are these definitions all about?

easy peasy.

Computer geek= doesn't care about the quality of the movie, just that they can get it to watch on their computers.
Video/audiophile= PQ and SQ is everything.

Computer geek= spends thousand of dollars to keep their computer up to date, or ahead of the curve.

Video/audiophile= spends thousand of dollars on players, speakers, acoustics, wire, cables, amps, preamps, screens, projectors, and are at the cutting edge of audio video products.

Computer geek=cares absolutely nothing about the effect of data rates on PQ and AQ
Audio/videohile= understands that bit rates have a profound effect on both PQ and AQ and want it as high as their ears and eyes can hear and see a result.

Computer geeks=watches video on lower resolution screens great for data, but not high enough to get 1080p pixel for pixel
Audio/videophile=will choose a screen that get the highest resolution of the media(in this case 1080p), tends to go for the larger screen, and audiophiles do not even want a screen in their listening rooms.

computer geeks= have the savvy to download and set up auto backup systems for their low quality collection of television and movies. They do not mind taking the time to maintain a main drive, a back up drive, and can live with the limitation of non portable movie product.(apples only compatible with apple, Microsoft only compatible with microsoft etc)

Audio/videophile= have lived the plug and play simplicity for so long, that the extra effort of maintaining a all of the periphrals that go with downloading seem tedious. You buy the player, plug it in to your receiver, preamp and television, insert disc, and play. That easy. No backups, no time limits, no DRM that prevents mobility, no low quality AQ and SQ. Amazon has made it so easy to get discs, you don't even have to go to BB to get it. You have it mailed to your home or job. Their collections are expensive, and they are not ready to trust any microsoft software( which is prone to crashing and freezing) to run their stuff.

I could go on, but this ought to define enough difference for anyone to see that the priorities of the two are quite different, and where they spend their money is quite different.

See, if you can't get your head around the fact that your HT processor is a computer and that your computer is also a music/video playing medium, you really are lost. It is you who has no balance - your world of computers is entirely separate from your world of HT, and that is complete lunacy. This is why you can't comprehend how this year's CES was different from previous years.

Hmmm, last time I checked, I could do neither a spreadsheet or a powerpoint presentation on my bluray player. Oh, and I could not get my printer hooked up to my HD DVD player either. Damn, I cannot get this USB cable into my DVD player. Regardless of the fact that the enternals of todays players are computers, they do not function like a PC, and cannot do what a PC does. Stupid comment, on par for you.

As I said before, this is the first year that computer technology has reached a level of parity where consumers will be able to use it to supplement their HT experience in a meaningful way. I base that on the following:
(1) Hard drive sizes are large enough to store the video content people want

So what. Until there is a hard drive that can support all 2600 of my DVD's, all 151 of my HD DVD's, all 247 of my blurays, all 1500 of my CD's, all 300 of my vinyl records, all 50 of my master recording tapes(without loss of quality), without worry of crashing, and not costing me an additional penny over the way they are stored now, they are not big enough. Plus, this will matter only when it is clear that the buying public is more comfortable with files than disc. We are not their yet when it comes to movies. Music, almost, but not movies.

(2) External storage connectivity has reached a point where it is both fast enough and simple enough for video

Until we finds this in everyone homes, it is irrelevant at this point. Until the studios move their business models to downloading, this means nothing. You can make it, but it doesn't mean they'll buy it right?

(3) Downloadable audio culture is now similar enough to video to allow an easy transition

Oh really. I can play my downloaded movies anywhere? I get the best quality sound and video from downloads? I can watch my downloaded movies on my big 130" screen? The answer to all of this is no.

(4) Internet conveniences such as queueing-up movies with Netflix is now transferable to PVRs in a way that is both convenient and simple enough for people to use it

But it cannot be transferred anywhere else once its on your TIVO. The DRM on downloads prevents such an act, and it will be like that for the foreseeable future with the studio so paranoid about piracy. Netflix downloads are limited to 720p at 4.5mbps. You put that kind of quality on a screen larger than 50", and your are going to see all kinds of artifacting going on. Keep in mind, the trend in video is larger screens and higher resolutions, and that is a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. With the amount of compression that a 4.5mbps video would have to go through, it wouldn't have the spatial detail of DVD which has a data transfer rate of 10mbps. Wow, even if I were joeblow, that would not be good enough for me.

(5) Home installers are noticing a marked increase in hard drive sales and installations

This is only at the high end, not at the mass market level. I subscribe to a mag called Residential Electronics. They report on the trends of residential house wide installation of hometheaters and house wide sound systems. The largest installation consortium in this country (which supports bluray by the way) reported that the biggest jump in hard drive installs have come from the upper 5% of their client base. That is even small by their standards. Its growing, but its not growning at the pace that their installs that include a Bluray or HD DVD player have. This is great for music and DVD collections, but is useless for bluray since you cannot store it.

(6) Computer companies such as Apple, Cisco/LinkSys, WesternDigital, and Creative are successfully transitioning their product lines to digital content storage and management for consumer entertainment
And there are lots of other indicators as well, but I'll keep it to a number you can actually count to, lil't.

Maybe this is so, but the content providers, and the infrastucture guys(cable and internet providers) are not transitioning quite as quickly. So all of this is meaningless until they do.

Stop beating that dead horse, lil't - it's as flat as pancake.

Follow your own advice.

You can't consider one technology absent from the other. It's just plain unrealistic. I know you want to because it's the only way your simple mind can understand it, but it's completely unlike the way things actually are, lil't. Sorry.

Until the two technologies become one technology, they are absent from one another. There is still no interface(outside of apple and microsoft) that gets the video from my computer to my television. HDMI is not on computers or laptops. When the bridge is so well define that we don't have to discuss it, you have a point. When we come to audioreview and the main topic is downloading movies, then you have a point. I do not see anyone here but you, pixelbrain, and Ajani talking about downloading anything. You don't see it at HTF or AVS(where they are VERY anti download) Until this computer vocabulary is the same as HT vocabulary, they are completely different.

Well as long as you keep coming up with arbitrary definitions, unrealistic segregations, and outdated examples, you don't sound so smart at all, lil't. The fact is your simplistic and narrow view of things only works in that fantasy world you've created in your own little head. You know, the one where your are the pinnacle of knowledge and the rest of us peons are just in awe of your great mind....

I do not look at you as a peon. I look at you as one of the most ignorant people on this website when it comes to understanding the film and video industry. You are clearly trying to erase a mark(prematurely at that) that has seperated the two for years. The computer industry tried to get the refresh rates of computers and televisions to match, it didn't happen. The computer industry tried WebTV to get to folks television with internet streaming, didn't work. Now all of this buzz about internet to television is cropping up again. Well see if it works, but survey after survey conducted on the habits of people viewing habits do not bode well this time either. Internet surfing is a singular activity. Watching television is more a family activity amoung families.

"Through the core of this earth?" Yeah, that sounds real mature, lil't. And so much violence... wasn't beating the dead horses enough for you? Look, no one wants to read 20 more pages of your self-aggrandizing bs. I have shown time and time again that your facts and figures don't hold up when scrutinized. You want to see the world through your own rose-colored glasses and the world just isn't pink, as much as you want to believe that it is. Let's talk about things as they are, lil't, not as you want them to be.
And all that violence you keep insinuating, from beating me down to coming to my house to pick fights with my 2-yr old and have your dogs maul me, that's textbook inferiority complex, just like you're amp being bigger, better, or more expensive than mine - look it up if you don't believe me. You really do have issues....

Once again, I do not care about you, you two year old, your pet snake reggie, or any other personal thing about you. I do not want to care.

Secondly, if you have figures and stats that dispute mind, great, post it where everyone can see them. I have already posted enough links, given enough current stats( I do get stats once a week from the worlds largest data collection source which is NDP). I have seen the numbers with my own eyes, and have watch the trends in my industry just like I am sure you have with yours. But your lying word is useless this time. If you say my figures are outdated, prove it, or shove your words up your bum.

Anyone that can turn pages into physical violence is either an idiot of epic proportions, or piss on themself coward.

You can shove your psycho analysis up your bum as well. I do not see how a compulsive liar has the high ground to judge anyone.

pixelthis

01-25-2008, 12:55 AM

Sorry Pixelthis, but this is completely false. It is just like saying 480p have twice resolution of 480i since 480i loses half of its resolution every time there is movement-which is not true. 480p will show a SMOOTHER picture, not higher resolution.

Same goes for 720p since the only advantage it have is its refresh rate, not resolution. Since pixel determine resolution not refreshing rate, then 720 have close to 1 million pixels (720 x 1280), while 1080i have twice that amount (1080 x 1920). So I don’t see how one million pixels display can have more resolution than 2 million pixels display panel!

Even if we go by your assumption that 1080i loses half of its resolution due to being interlaced, still 1080i show more pixels even if still showing half the picture......

1080i / 2 = 520 (1 field), 520 x 1920 = 1.03 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.
720p (1 frame), 720 x 1280 = 0.92 million pixels are shown every 1/30th of a second.

So as you can see above, even at half frame 1080i still show more pixels than 720p full frame.

Now who did you say you get your information from :D

joe kane, a constant columist at widescreen review.
the last thing he did that I heard of was a calibration disc for HD.
But hes not the only one saying 720p is better than 1080i.
THE TRUTH IS THAT I AM NOT MAKING AN "ASSUMPTION", this is a fact.
Sometimes a 480i picture has as little as 250 lines.
I have heard this over and over, whenever an interlaced picture has movement the resolution collapses, when CRT and 1080i ruled most sets were rated at 700 to 800
lines of resolution.
Progressive scan is ALWAYS better than interlaced.
The computer world went progressive because you couldnt make out the text on an interlaced computer screen.
progressive is always better because you dont have interlace artifacts and the resolution stays constant. The real world rez of a 1080i picture is little better than 600 lines.
And interlaced is SO good that the entire industry is abandoning it in favor of progressive.
1080P is "the top of the world" , then 720p , then 480.
When networks were going HD joe kane started a "progressive" movement, trying to tout the advantages of progressive. He got ABC to broadcast their fare in 720p (which they still do).
Most computer based monitors have a fixed resolution, and most still are 720p, 1080p is new and while popular they still sell 720p, and will for awhile.
But wheres 1080i? Except for plasma, where is this "superiour" format?
btw your math is faulty, its 540 times two, and your argument is based on the phenom
of a 1080i pic NOT losing half of its resolution most of the time. But this does happen.

And when you figure that most LCD sets are 1366 by 766, well, thats more than a single frame at 540, without the interlace artifacts.
WhenI was learning about TV, we were too busy to mess with rez rates, etc, and they were'nt that important really, but every repairman and knowlegable person has the same figure, a 480i ntsc pic over a really good set will yeild around 320 lines of resolution.
You're only talking about a field of 240 lines, after all.
You're not getting "extra " resolution when you deinterlace a 480 pic, you are weaving two fields together to yeild a 480p frame, you're just getting the max amount of rez
possible by getting rid of interlacing
I AM NOT AN EXPERT on the arcane world of resolution of television monitors, but I have been reading widescreen review and several web sites and everywhere I go I READ ABOUT INTERLACE ARTIFACTS , AND HOW you cant get a free lunch, how the rez drops whenever there is movement.
I dont know why people on this board are having trouble with this, but the bizarre rules of the electronics world confound most, including me sometimes, but this isn't hidden info, its on the web.
While I have your ear you need to explain the principle of hetrodyning to MR. P.
He thinks I am making it up. Explain how two frequencies mixed produce the difference between the two, and when they match they cancel out.
He really got his panties in a wad over that one.
Also explain that Bose didnt invent this, but their phones are based on it?
This is another "assumption" thats in every electronics book on the planet that I got into trouble mentioning to a closed mind:1:

pixelthis

01-25-2008, 12:57 AM

Alright let's get back to serious discussion here okay? Y'all are making me look silly. :rolleyes:

I am slamming my hand in a refrigerator door trying my best not to take advantage of THAT one:1:

pixelthis

01-25-2008, 01:14 AM

Pix,

Do you even know what model Mr P. has? Some of the DLP's do in fact output 1080i. Some even input 1080i and output 1080p. These have a much nicer picture than 720p.
Maybe some do, but I HAVE ONLY SEEN progressive models of the few thats left.
And the "1080p" is caused by a process called "wobulation", dont understand quite how it works, but like the spinney color wheel its a fake out designed to fix the myriad shortcomings of DLP.
aND SURE THEY INPUT 1080I AND OUTPUT 1080P, THIS is called deinterlacing,
and its the ONLY way you can see a 1080p pic on last years sets, NONE (HARDLY) WOULD INPUT 1080P.
So for the sake of argument lets say he has 1080i, big whoop, he STILL cant get the max advantage of Blu ray, because he himself said that when he choose 1080p on his player the pic went out.
So he is paying for capability that he isnt using.
Now he might say that the pic is "better" but he also says that a power cord improves
the sound of his amp. He needs to stick with his 1930s era tubes .
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS when gramophone types try to play with modern 21st century electronics:1:

pixelthis

01-25-2008, 01:17 AM

Great post Smoke. This is the latest example of how a person can speak like they know something, but in actuality, they know nothing.

Your statement is basically correct, but I was trying to be a little more polite to smokey,
he actually does know something about electronics, if not resolution of modern display devices:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-25-2008, 01:13 PM

joe kane, a constant columist at widescreen review.
the last thing he did that I heard of was a calibration disc for HD.
But hes not the only one saying 720p is better than 1080i.
THE TRUTH IS THAT I AM NOT MAKING AN "ASSUMPTION", this is a fact.

I have attended many of Kane's workshops, and basically your information is just plain incorrect on so many levels.

There is twice the pixel count in 1080i than 720p. You are going to have more information on the screen at in 1080i than 720p.

Sometimes a 480i picture has as little as 250 lines.
I have heard this over and over, whenever an interlaced picture has movement the resolution collapses, when CRT and 1080i ruled most sets were rated at 700 to 800
lines of resolution.

The last CRT sets brought to the market especially Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, and Sony sets could process over 1000 lines.

The only way resolution would collaspe is if you were able to fast forward slow enough to be able to see scanning going on. We do not watch televsion or movies in a slow forward motion, so this just becomes theory and not practice.

However if the source is 1080p, and all that is being done is deinterlacing, then this is a non issue. Your eyes would have to blink faster than the refresh rate of the television itself to notice any loss of resolution. We don't blink that fast, or that frequently.

Progressive scan is ALWAYS better than interlaced.

Not when the source itself is 1080p. 720p would discard half the information, and 1080i would process all of the information. Because you are already starting with a progressive image, artifacts are minimal with a 1080i display, and at normal viewing distances any advantage that a LCD has with painting the entire picture on the screen at any given moment, is completely lost in slow panel response time. The only benefit you get from 720p is it is better for sporting events, because it (in theory) there is less blur. However that benefit gets erased when you look at most fixed panels smearing during fast motion because their response times are alot slower than CRT. Its not as clear cut as you are trying to make it.

The computer world went progressive because you couldnt make out the text on an interlaced computer screen.

This is true. However we are looking at images on film and video, and that changes the ball game quite a bit.

progressive is always better because you dont have interlace artifacts and the resolution stays constant. The real world rez of a 1080i picture is little better than 600 lines.

With progressive sources, interlaced artifacts are minimal, and at normal viewing distances not even visible. It is only when you start with lower resolutions(like 480i) that this becomes a problem. Once again, the response times of panels is so slow that inspite of the fact the resolution stays constant in the panel, the blurring motion we see with our eyes erases that advantage. Secondly SMALL CRT's that are 1080i have little better than 600 lines. Larger CRT based RPTV however can process up to 1100 lines. When I bought my Toshiba before the upgrade, it was able to clearly show 1100 lines of resolution. You are trying to create an absolute, when there are variables to consider.

And interlaced is SO good that the entire industry is abandoning it in favor of progressive.
1080P is "the top of the world" , then 720p , then 480.

Because the processing power in televisions have not gotten powerful enough to deliver 1080p, not some inherent issues with 1080i specifically. 720p is half the information than 1080i, so your standings are a little off. When our eyes can blink faster than a television can refresh, then you may have an arguement. It can't. We don't blink 30 or 60 times a second do we?

When networks were going HD joe kane started a "progressive" movement, trying to tout the advantages of progressive. He got ABC to broadcast their fare in 720p (which they still do).[/quote}

Since ABC main programming is sports events, it was natural for them to choose 720p. However this choice does not consider the response times of most panels. Also, 720p panels have a hard time with short transitions in the greyscale. They can do black to white fairly well, but transitions WITHIN the greyscale are not handle without smearing, or the total enablility to finely render them.

[quote]Most computer based monitors have a fixed resolution, and most still are 720p, 1080p is new and while popular they still sell 720p, and will for awhile.
But wheres 1080i? Except for plasma, where is this "superiour" format?
btw your math is faulty, its 540 times two, and your argument is based on the phenom
of a 1080i pic NOT losing half of its resolution most of the time. But this does happen.

And when you figure that most LCD sets are 1366 by 766, well, thats more than a single frame at 540, without the interlace artifacts.

We don't look at films frame by frame do we? Interlace artifacts are only a problem from low rez interlaced sources. Since HD on disc is progressive by nature, artifacting is minimal when deinterlacing is well done. 1080i is not necessary anymore because we now have the processing power to do 1080p. There is nothing inherently wrong with 1080i when well done. However this same processing power issue is why most panels sold in 2005 where 720p. That along with the fact that manufacturing techniques did not allow packing pixels any closer without losing substantial brightness. Once again, we do not look at single frames, and we cannot blink faster than the refresh rate. A 1080i television can paint each field faster than we can discern it. That is why the image does NOT lose resolution during movement during NORMAL viewing. You have to create a special circumstance to make what you say correct.

WhenI was learning about TV, we were too busy to mess with rez rates, etc, and they were'nt that important really, but every repairman and knowlegable person has the same figure, a 480i ntsc pic over a really good set will yeild around 320 lines of resolution.

480i is no longer a referenced source for imaging. In the area of HD for broadcast its 720p or 1080i. 720p is perfect for sports, 1080i is better for everything else. When 1080p is brought into the picture 1080i represents all of the information, and 720p is half.

You're only talking about a field of 240 lines, after all.
You're not getting "extra " resolution when you deinterlace a 480 pic, you are weaving two fields together to yeild a 480p frame, you're just getting the max amount of rez
possible by getting rid of interlacing

And by upscaling a 480p source to 1080i, with good deinterlacing artifacts are minimal or non existant.

I AM NOT AN EXPERT on the arcane world of resolution of television monitors, but I have been reading widescreen review and several web sites and everywhere I go I READ ABOUT INTERLACE ARTIFACTS , AND HOW you cant get a free lunch, how the rez drops whenever there is movement.

You are obviously not understanding what you are reading. Resolution only drops if we move the picture slowly(we don't watch anything like that), or we blink faster than the refresh rate(we cannot physically do). Most examples of interlace artifacts come from the transition of 480i to 1080i. Since most DVD players progressively scan the image before it leaves the player, this kinds of artifacts are reduced as well. When you talk about sources such as bluray(1080p native) then this is not an issues at all from normal viewing distances.

I dont know why people on this board are having trouble with this, but the bizarre rules of the electronics world confound most, including me sometimes, but this isn't hidden info, its on the web.

You have to be able to keep this information in context and with caveates intact. It is not as cut and dry as you have tried to make it. We have not even bought scanning rates or 3:2 pulldown into the picture either.

While I have your ear you need to explain the principle of hetrodyning to MR. P.
He thinks I am making it up. Explain how two frequencies mixed produce the difference between the two, and when they match they cancel out.

Not correct. When two signals of match amplitude and frequency are combined, they are in phase and that increases volume. When the two signals are equal in amplitude, but out of phase, they cancel each other out. When two waves crash together in phase, the wave gets higher. When two waves crash together out of phase, the wave loses height. When two identical signals arrive at a microphone at two different times, this creates a cancellation. When the two signals arrive at the mike in phase, they become additive. Your explaination without the detail is incomplete.

He really got his panties in a wad over that one.
Also explain that Bose didnt invent this, but their phones are based on it?
This is another "assumption" thats in every electronics book on the planet that I got into trouble mentioning to a closed mind:1:

Noise cancellation is based on the theory of antiphase signals cancelling out each other. So you have your headphones that are emiting a signal from the speaker, and you have a microphone outside of the ear piece analyzing the ambient information around the headphone. It generates a signal of equal amplitude, but out of phase with the main signal, and that cancels out the ambient signal. It is VERY important that the antiphase signal is of equal amplitude to the in phase main signal or the effect will be lessened in effectiveness.

It is clear that you are not completely understand what you are reading because you are missing all of the detail. The devil is in the details.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-25-2008, 01:34 PM

Your statement is basically correct, but I was trying to be a little more polite to smokey,
he actually does know something about electronics, if not resolution of modern display devices:1:

Actually he was being polite to you.....

pixelthis

01-25-2008, 03:28 PM

I have attended many of Kane's workshops, and basically your information is just plain incorrect on so many levels.

I guess you were the one in the back asleep.
I swore up and down I wouldnt respond to this moron but here goes...

There is twice the pixel count in 1080i than 720p. You are going to have more information on the screen at in 1080i than 720p.

ACTUALLY, NO.
hALF THE TIME you have one field, which is a mere 540 lines.
However you ALWAYS have 720 on a progresive picture

The last CRT sets brought to the market especially Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, and Sony sets could process over 1000 lines.

Yeah, if you had 10 grand

The only way resolution would collaspe is if you were able to fast forward slow enough to be able to see scanning going on. We do not watch televsion or movies in a slow forward motion, so this just becomes theory and not practice.

Its fact , excuse me if I BELEIVE ENGINEERS instead of a corp hack

However if the source is 1080p, and all that is being done is deinterlacing, then this is a non issue. Your eyes would have to blink faster than the refresh rate of the television itself to notice any loss of resolution. We don't blink that fast, or that frequently.

If the source is 1080p THERE IS NO DEINTERLACING.
You dont deinterlace a progressive picture. More nonsense from an idiot that doesnt even know what hes' talking about

Not when the source itself is 1080p. 720p would discard half the information, and 1080i would process all of the information. Because you are already starting with a progressive image, artifacts are minimal with a 1080i display, and at normal viewing distances any advantage that a LCD has with painting the entire picture on the screen at any given moment, is completely lost in slow panel response time. The only benefit you get from 720p is it is better for sporting events, because it (in theory) there is less blur. However that benefit gets erased when you look at most fixed panels smearing during fast motion because their response times are alot slower than CRT. Its not as clear cut as you are trying to make it.

You finally got something right, 1080p IS better than 720p WHICH IS WHAT I SAID.

THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND SCREW UP AGAIN.
DOWNCONVERT a 1080p to 1080i and it WONT display all of the information, its impossible for a 1080i picture to contain as much info as a 1080p, thats why 1080p looks better.
And teh "blur" of LCD APPLIES TO lcd ONLY AND IS VARY RARE THESE DAYS

This is true. However we are looking at images on film and video, and that changes the ball game quite a bit.

Not really. This just says that progressive is better, which is my point, which you missed, as usual

With progressive sources, interlaced artifacts are minimal, and at normal viewing distances not even visible. It is only when you start with lower resolutions(like 480i) that this becomes a problem. Once again, the response times of panels is so slow that inspite of the fact the resolution stays constant in the panel, the blurring motion we see with our eyes erases that advantage. Secondly SMALL CRT's that are 1080i have little better than 600 lines. Larger CRT based RPTV however can process up to 1100 lines. When I bought my Toshiba before the upgrade, it was able to clearly show 1100 lines of resolution. You are trying to create an absolute, when there are variables to consider.

Interlace artifacts are not "minimal" with progressive, THEY DONT EXIST
This is because they are INTERLACE artifacts. GOD, what a maroon.
How do you have interlace artifacts with a PROGRESSIVE image, fool?
And more "blurring" nonsense about panels, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand
And there are no "variables" in the rules of nature. IN 150 YEARS YOU'LL BE DEAD, THATS AN ABSOLUTE ALSO.
And if youi ever think any kind of CRT could show 1100 lines of rez you are delusional

Because the processing power in televisions have not gotten powerful enough to deliver 1080p, not some inherent issues with 1080i specifically. 720p is half the information than 1080i, so your standings are a little off. When our eyes can blink faster than a television can refresh, then you may have an arguement. It can't. We don't blink 30 or 60 times a second do we?

1080i is being abandoned because it is inferiour to progressive formats, and the stores are full of sets that "have the power" to process" 1080p.
Sony has a model that is not only 1080p but 120 hz

When networks were going HD joe kane started a "progressive" movement, trying to tout the advantages of progressive. He got ABC to broadcast their fare in 720p (which they still do).[/quote}

Since ABC main programming is sports events, it was natural for them to choose 720p. However this choice does not consider the response times of most panels. Also, 720p panels have a hard time with short transitions in the greyscale. They can do black to white fairly well, but transitions WITHIN the greyscale are not handle without smearing, or the total enablility to finely render them.

Your opinion, not demostrated in any 720p set I have seen

We don't look at films frame by frame do we? Interlace artifacts are only a problem from low rez interlaced sources. Since HD on disc is progressive by nature, artifacting is minimal when deinterlacing is well done. 1080i is not necessary anymore because we now have the processing power to do 1080p. There is nothing inherently wrong with 1080i when well done. However this same processing power issue is why most panels sold in 2005 where 720p. That along with the fact that manufacturing techniques did not allow packing pixels any closer without losing substantial brightness. Once again, we do not look at single frames, and we cannot blink faster than the refresh rate. A 1080i television can paint each field faster than we can discern it. That is why the image does NOT lose resolution during movement during NORMAL viewing. You have to create a special circumstance to make what you say correct.

Again more talk about deinterlacing progressive.
And we do look at a film a "frame at a time" they just run so fast they give the illusion of movement.
And whats "wrong" with 1080l, LIKE 480I, IS that its a "gimmick, a way to appear to be giving more than you are, sending 540 line fields one at a time and resticing them in the set.
With progressive formats you get an entire frame, you are basically arguing that a 540 line field is MORE than a 720 frame, which is idiotic even for you.
And interlace artifacts do show up, like for instance do you know that you lose half of the res when theres movement? Apparrently not

480i is no longer a referenced source for imaging. In the area of HD for broadcast its 720p or 1080i. 720p is perfect for sports, 1080i is better for everything else. When 1080p is brought into the picture 1080i represents all of the information, and 720p is half.

Total nonsense. 1080i represents all of the information thats sent, which is half the information of a 1080p picture
720p represents all of the information that is sent, the resolution just isnt as high.
And if you go by frame then 1080i is sharper, but you dont send a 1080i frame,
you send two 540 fields that are joined together in the set.
720 is larger than 540, not surprized you dont know that

And by upscaling a 480p source to 1080i, with good deinterlacing artifacts are minimal or non existant.

Again, no

You are obviously not understanding what you are reading. Resolution only drops if we move the picture slowly(we don't watch anything like that), or we blink faster than the refresh rate(we cannot physically do). Most examples of interlace artifacts come from the transition of 480i to 1080i. Since most DVD players progressively scan the image before it leaves the player, this kinds of artifacts are reduced as well. When you talk about sources such as bluray(1080p native) then this is not an issues at all from normal viewing distances.

Of course not because at 1080p blu is progressive, WHICH IS WHAT I AM SAYING

You have to be able to keep this information in context and with caveates intact. It is not as cut and dry as you have tried to make it. We have not even bought scanning rates or 3:2 pulldown into the picture either.

tell a physicist that there are "cavetes" to the laws of nature.
What we know about it changes, BUT IT DOESNT

Not correct. When two signals of match amplitude and frequency are combined, they are in phase and that increases volume. When the two signals are equal in amplitude, but out of phase, they cancel each other out. When two waves crash together in phase, the wave gets higher. When two waves crash together out of phase, the wave loses height. When two identical signals arrive at a microphone at two different times, this creates a cancellation. When the two signals arrive at the mike in phase, they become additive. Your explaination without the detail is incomplete.

Phase might have something to do with sound, but mix two freqs together and you get the difference, if they are identical you get a canceletion.
They built millions of radios that work on this principle , its called hetrodyning

Noise cancellation is based on the theory of antiphase signals cancelling out each other. So you have your headphones that are emiting a signal from the speaker, and you have a microphone outside of the ear piece analyzing the ambient information around the headphone. It generates a signal of equal amplitude, but out of phase with the main signal, and that cancels out the ambient signal. It is VERY important that the antiphase signal is of equal amplitude to the in phase main signal or the effect will be lessened in effectiveness.

Its not a "theory", its a FACT

It is clear that you are not completely understand what you are reading because you are missing all of the detail. The devil is in the details.

I understand what YOU'RE posting, I just cant beleive that anyone can spout such nonsense.
As for the devil being in the details how can you tell with that low rez crap you watch?

And this is my LAST response to your nonsense, its a waste of time to argue with
someone who is so clueless he talks about interlace artifacts from a PROGRESSIVE
signal
Not banging my head into the wall anymore, spread you gibberish all you want, others are going to have to figure out you're full of it.
And I think most have:1:

Mr Peabody

01-25-2008, 08:47 PM

Pix, you need to keep things straight. I said nothing of superhetrodyning. That is some stuff you don't understand that pertains to tuners and has nothing to do with sound waves. Bose may be like Columbus and America, if Bose didn't invent sound cancelling headphones he sure is the one that got the credit. I explained to you and provided several articles that reaffirms what myself and now Sir T have told you about sound frequency increase and decrease and what causes it. I'm still waiting on some minute piece of evidence to back your position.

It doesn't matter what you think my TV or BR does, I paid for it. And despite your foolishness or anyone else who believes you, a BR picture on my TV in 1080i is superior, noticeably so, to SD upconverted. So with that I think it's worth using and worth the money and some day I will have a 1080p set with a BR library to enjoy on it waiting.

pixelthis

01-26-2008, 08:49 PM

:1:
Pix, you need to keep things straight. I said nothing of superhetrodyning. That is some stuff you don't understand that pertains to tuners and has nothing to do with sound waves. Bose may be like Columbus and America, if Bose didn't invent sound cancelling headphones he sure is the one that got the credit. I explained to you and provided several articles that reaffirms what myself and now Sir T have told you about sound frequency increase and decrease and what causes it. I'm still waiting on some minute piece of evidence to back your position.

It doesn't matter what you think my TV or BR does, I paid for it. And despite your foolishness or anyone else who believes you, a BR picture on my TV in 1080i is superior, noticeably so, to SD upconverted. So with that I think it's worth using and worth the money and some day I will have a 1080p set with a BR library to enjoy on it waiting.

YOU'RE the one who needs to "get things straight"
Look around, do some research, maybe you'll learn something, but I doubt it.
And I have BUILT tuners, from crystal sets to regular AM models, no FM however.
And its been so long, doubt if I retain the knowledge to build one now, and why bother?
As for sir talky he's not told me ANYTHING except that hes a dithering looney,
who talks about interlace artifacts in a PROGRESSIVE PICTURE , hes' totally bluffing and making things up, and the fact that you dont realize this makes me understand that
trying to tell you a few simple things was a mistake, if you don't possess the knowledge
to see through sir talkys gibberish then showing you ANYTHING about electronics is hopeless.
Meanwhile try to get some basic physics straight, frequencies WILL cancel out,
doesnt matter if its waves in a pond or sound waves, if mixed the right way they will disapear if equal, you get the difference if not.
This applies to ALL forms of energy, god didnt make differencies in basic laws, true some portions of the spectrum do act differently, thats why they are usefull.
But there I go, trying to explain electricity to a caveman who doesnt understand fire.
Sorry about that.
And yes your BLU is better than SD upconverted, but you will never get the max res without a `1080p , which is my point.
Anfd for some with less refined tastes upconverted is fine, especially when they finally put TRUE upconversion on a chip, which will happen soon:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-27-2008, 11:04 AM

I guess you were the one in the back asleep.
I swore up and down I wouldnt respond to this moron but here goes...

"There is twice the pixel count in 1080i than 720p. You are going to have more information on the screen at in 1080i than 720p".

ACTUALLY, NO.
hALF THE TIME you have one field, which is a mere 540 lines.
However you ALWAYS have 720 on a progresive picture

Umm nimrod. Half the time occurs so fast that our eyes cannot percieve it. That is why the process works so well, and why it can be considered transparent. We cannot see half time, so it is irrelevant to the discussion, and not anything to base an argument on. You always SEE a 1080i signal, regardless if the two field are painted seperatly because the process happens much faster than our eyes/brains process the visible information(it called temporal response). 720p is a fifty percent reduction of data to 1080i based on how our eyes process the spatial information. You do not understand what you are reading when you quote Joe Kane. You are only looking at one side of the equation. You cannot isolate the process from how we perceive the end result.

The last CRT sets brought to the market especially Toshiba, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, and Sony sets could process over 1000 lines.

Yeah, if you had 10 grand

Wrong. Considering that you could purchase a 65" Toshiba theaterwide for $1600 that could do it, your information just isn't factual.

The only way resolution would collaspe is if you were able to fast forward slow enough to be able to see scanning going on. We do not watch televsion or movies in a slow forward motion, so this just becomes theory and not practice.

Its fact , excuse me if I BELEIVE ENGINEERS instead of a corp hack

An engineer would not have said anything different than would I said. So I am glad you are finally learning something.

However if the source is 1080p, and all that is being done is deinterlacing, then this is a non issue. Your eyes would have to blink faster than the refresh rate of the television itself to notice any loss of resolution. We don't blink that fast, or that frequently.

If the source is 1080p THERE IS NO DEINTERLACING.
You dont deinterlace a progressive picture. More nonsense from an idiot that doesnt even know what hes' talking about

Boy, you are kinda faulty with connecting the dots. If the source is 1080p, and a television was native 1080i, there is deinterlacing numb nuts! You do know what the "i" is dont cha? We are talking about 1080i versus 720p and how they handle the signals. Put those dots together grandpa

You finally got something right, 1080p IS better than 720p WHICH IS WHAT I SAID.

THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND SCREW UP AGAIN.
DOWNCONVERT a 1080p to 1080i and it WONT display all of the information, its impossible for a 1080i picture to contain as much info as a 1080p, thats why 1080p looks better.
And teh "blur" of LCD APPLIES TO lcd ONLY AND IS VARY RARE THESE DAYS

Bacon head. Based on the way our eyes and brains process the information, it does not matter if 1080p puts all of the information on the screen simultaneously or at 1080i two times. We cannot perceive a difference spatially, the interlacing process is transparent. The only time that any progressive image becomes SPATIALLY better looking than a interlaced signal is during FAST motion. Motion adaptive circuits in the last CRT based RPTV's effectively erased this advantage depending on how well the algorythm is written. With these engaged you will be hard pressed to tell the difference between interlaced and non interlaced video. You cannot leave out our temporal response to the process. By the time CRT based RPTV last generation sets hit the market, any performance issues that 720p panels had over CRT were pretty much erased.

All it takes is 6ms lag in response time to see motion blur. The typical LCD panel(even the 1080p ones) have a lag of 25ms, with the best out there being a studio professional model with 12ms. So there is no way in the world that blur is rare. Give me a break.

Not really. This just says that progressive is better, which is my point, which you missed, as usual

Progressive is not always better. 720p is not spatially better than 1080i with film or video. It is half the resolution. When it comes to sports, technically on paper 720p is better. But in the field that better is erased by the response time of the panel. That is a fact. Once the panel begins to blur the information, resolution is temporally lost.

Interlace artifacts are not "minimal" with progressive, THEY DONT EXIST
This is because they are INTERLACE artifacts. GOD, what a maroon.
How do you have interlace artifacts with a PROGRESSIVE image, fool?
And more "blurring" nonsense about panels, which has nothing to do with the topic at hand
And there are no "variables" in the rules of nature. IN 150 YEARS YOU'LL BE DEAD, THATS AN ABSOLUTE ALSO.

Once again, stay with what I posted. When taking a 1080p image, and deinterlacing it, with a good deinterlacer artifacts are minimal. Especially if the source is mastered in 1080p because there are no artifacts in the source to trip up a good deinterlacer. Interlacing errors come when you use a 480i source upcoverted to 1080i. All of the artifacts in the interlaced 480i signal will become magnified whe upconverted.

Blurring has nothing to do with the topic at hand?? Is that a way to point away from a performance issue with your theory? Not going to happen. Blurring is as apart of this arguement as interlacing is. If you paint the whole picture in one fail swoop, but it is blurred while the pixels fire up and power down, twist and untwist, you are doing no better than a interlacer splitting one field into two. At least with the instantaneous firing of the phosphors of CRT the interlacing happens faster than we can see it, which allows our eyes to see the whole 1080p signal perceptionally. With the blurring of the panel, you never see that advantage of progressive one time painting of the fields. Its lost in each sucessive frame in fast motion scenes.

http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/lcd-response-time.html

And if youi ever think any kind of CRT could show 1100 lines of rez you are delusional

http://tedwhite.homestead.com/G90.html

It has the same tubes that are in my current set. Read very carefully what it says under resolution. I believe that would be 700 lines for video, and 1100 lines for HDTV 2500x2000 pixels. That would be good enough for 1440p. Now who is delusional? Always look before you leap. My television can produce a 1080p image pixel for pixel, can yours?

1080i is being abandoned because it is inferiour to progressive formats, and the stores are full of sets that "have the power" to process" 1080p.
Sony has a model that is not only 1080p but 120 hz

You just made my point pointy head. The reason 1080i and 720p sets were so popular in the last few years is because they roughly require the same processing to do their jobs. There was not enough power in chips until the beginning of last year, and that is why you see an abundance of 1080p panels.

I understand what YOU'RE posting, I just cant beleive that anyone can spout such nonsense.
As for the devil being in the details how can you tell with that low rez crap you watch?

I watch bluray and HD DVD disc. That is the highest rez crap you can get brainless. My setup can resolve every pixel in both of these formats. Yours cannot.

And this is my LAST response to your nonsense, its a waste of time to argue with
someone who is so clueless he talks about interlace artifacts from a PROGRESSIVE
signal
Not banging my head into the wall anymore, spread you gibberish all you want, others are going to have to figure out you're full of it.
And I think most have:1:

It is obvious you have been banging your head too much already. Your comprehension of what you read has suffered mightly.

pixelthis

01-27-2008, 11:39 PM

.

"There is twice the pixel count in 1080i than 720p. You are going to have more information on the screen at in 1080i than 720p".

ACTUALLY, NO.
hALF THE TIME you have one field, which is a mere 540 lines.
However you ALWAYS have 720 on a progresive picture

Umm nimrod. Half the time occurs so fast that our eyes cannot percieve it. That is why the process works so well, and why it can be considered transparent. We cannot see half time, so it is irrelevant to the discussion, and not anything to base an argument on. You always SEE a 1080i signal, regardless if the two field are painted seperatly because the process happens much faster than our eyes/brains process the visible information(it called temporal response). 720p is a fifty percent reduction of data to 1080i based on how our eyes process the spatial information. You do not understand what you are reading when you quote Joe Kane. You are only looking at one side of the equation. You cannot isolate the process from how we perceive the end result.

Yeah, if you had 10 grand

Wrong. Considering that you could purchase a 65" Toshiba theaterwide for $1600 that could do it, your information just isn't factual.

Its fact , excuse me if I BELEIVE ENGINEERS instead of a corp hack

An engineer would not have said anything different than would I said. So I am glad you are finally learning something.

If the source is 1080p THERE IS NO DEINTERLACING.
You dont deinterlace a progressive picture. More nonsense from an idiot that doesnt even know what hes' talking about

Boy, you are kinda faulty with connecting the dots. If the source is 1080p, and a television was native 1080i, there is deinterlacing numb nuts! You do know what the "i" is dont cha? We are talking about 1080i versus 720p and how they handle the signals. Put those dots together grandpa

Bacon head. Based on the way our eyes and brains process the information, it does not matter if 1080p puts all of the information on the screen simultaneously or at 1080i two times. We cannot perceive a difference spatially, the interlacing process is transparent. The only time that any progressive image becomes SPATIALLY better looking than a interlaced signal is during FAST motion. Motion adaptive circuits in the last CRT based RPTV's effectively erased this advantage depending on how well the algorythm is written. With these engaged you will be hard pressed to tell the difference between interlaced and non interlaced video. You cannot leave out our temporal response to the process. By the time CRT based RPTV last generation sets hit the market, any performance issues that 720p panels had over CRT were pretty much erased.

All it takes is 6ms lag in response time to see motion blur. The typical LCD panel(even the 1080p ones) have a lag of 25ms, with the best out there being a studio professional model with 12ms. So there is no way in the world that blur is rare. Give me a break.

Progressive is not always better. 720p is not spatially better than 1080i with film or video. It is half the resolution. When it comes to sports, technically on paper 720p is better. But in the field that better is erased by the response time of the panel. That is a fact. Once the panel begins to blur the information, resolution is temporally lost.

Once again, stay with what I posted. When taking a 1080p image, and deinterlacing it, with a good deinterlacer artifacts are minimal. Especially if the source is mastered in 1080p because there are no artifacts in the source to trip up a good deinterlacer. Interlacing errors come when you use a 480i source upcoverted to 1080i. All of the artifacts in the interlaced 480i signal will become magnified whe upconverted.

Blurring has nothing to do with the topic at hand?? Is that a way to point away from a performance issue with your theory? Not going to happen. Blurring is as apart of this arguement as interlacing is. If you paint the whole picture in one fail swoop, but it is blurred while the pixels fire up and power down, twist and untwist, you are doing no better than a interlacer splitting one field into two. At least with the instantaneous firing of the phosphors of CRT the interlacing happens faster than we can see it, which allows our eyes to see the whole 1080p signal perceptionally. With the blurring of the panel, you never see that advantage of progressive one time painting of the fields. Its lost in each sucessive frame in fast motion scenes.

http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/lcd-response-time.html

http://tedwhite.homestead.com/G90.html

It has the same tubes that are in my current set. Read very carefully what it says under resolution. I believe that would be 700 lines for video, and 1100 lines for HDTV 2500x2000 pixels. That would be good enough for 1440p. Now who is delusional? Always look before you leap. My television can produce a 1080p image pixel for pixel, can yours?

You just made my point pointy head. The reason 1080i and 720p sets were so popular in the last few years is because they roughly require the same processing to do their jobs. There was not enough power in chips until the beginning of last year, and that is why you see an abundance of 1080p panels.

I watch bluray and HD DVD disc. That is the highest rez crap you can get brainless. My setup can resolve every pixel in both of these formats. Yours cannot.

It is obvious you have been banging your head too much already. Your comprehension of what you read has suffered mightly.

MORE nonsense from the king of gibberish.

An interlaced pic receives 60 fields a second, on an interlace set one field is scanned then another, giving a full frame, and it does happen quite fast.
But the artifacts produced by this process are quite visible, as are scan lines.
You know, EVERYBODY AGREES with me, progressive is better, and its a moot point anyway.
Unless you get a plasma set interlacing is basically dead as a concept, born when a signal couldnt hold an entire frame its time is over.
As for interlace artifacts in a progressive picture , doesnt matter if the progressive pic is the result of deinterlacing or a natural pic straight from the wire, you wont get deinterlacing artifacts, because the pic is painted on the screen one line at a time, the quality of a deinterlaced pic depend on whats doing the deinterlacing.
But this is moot, plasma is selling for less than LCD, the quality problems are becoming known on the street finally, and thats the last holdout for interlacing, the CRT being basically dead as old jobs turkey.
Speaking of which, every review I ever read in HT mag, sound and vision, etc, talked about how a CRT set would never get near a 1,000 lines of rez, which is different than the number of scan lines. Res is determined by a test pattern.
I do remember way back, reading a review on a mitsu rptv, it acheived 900 lines in tests,
but it was hugh and around 10,000 bucks.
I dont doubt the set you were tallking about had a decent pic, about as good as tosh could put out anyway, but I doubt very seriously if it hit 1,000 lines.
They never could get the pitch on the phospers fine enough.
AND the finer the pitch the darker the picture got, this was a limiting factor for the crt, it could only get so sharp, eventually it got so dim that watching it was a chore.
And blurring does have nothing to do with res, its a different subject, and largely a dead issue also.
A 8 ms set like mine( most sets are like that now) will produce minimal if any blurring,
I havent noticed any on mine, really, but its a seperate issue from res completely
but like I said, interlacing is basically dead, sets that paint two fields on a screen, making a full frame, are almost nonexistent now.
About the only functionality of 1080i is that it requires less bandwidth, and modern day deinterlacers can put a frame together better than it being scanned on a screen like it was intended.
But eventually most broadcasters will go progressive, either 720p or 1080p.
720p sets are still selling quite well, eventually broadcasters will notice and start broadcasting in 720p, or maybe even 1080p.
Why broadcast in 1080i when there are almost no sets that use it as a native format?

Rich-n-Texas

01-28-2008, 05:41 AM

:1:

YOU'RE the one who needs to "get things straight"
Look around, do some research, maybe you'll learn something, but I doubt it.
And I have BUILT tuners, from crystal sets to regular AM models, no FM however.
And its been so long, doubt if I retain the knowledge to build one now, and why bother?
As for sir talky he's not told me ANYTHING except that hes a dithering looney,
who talks about interlace artifacts in a PROGRESSIVE PICTURE , hes' totally bluffing and making things up, and the fact that you dont realize this makes me understand that
trying to tell you a few simple things was a mistake, if you don't possess the knowledge
to see through sir talkys gibberish then showing you ANYTHING about electronics is hopeless.
Meanwhile try to get some basic physics straight, frequencies WILL cancel out,
doesnt matter if its waves in a pond or sound waves, if mixed the right way they will disapear if equal, you get the difference if not.
This applies to ALL forms of energy, god didnt make differencies in basic laws, true some portions of the spectrum do act differently, thats why they are usefull.
But there I go, trying to explain electricity to a caveman who doesnt understand fire.
Sorry about that.
And yes your BLU is better than SD upconverted, but you will never get the max res without a `1080p , which is my point.
Anfd for some with less refined tastes upconverted is fine, especially when they finally put TRUE upconversion on a chip, which will happen soon:1:
"Stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." :rolleyes:

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-28-2008, 10:00 AM

MORE nonsense from the king of gibberish.

An interlaced pic receives 60 fields a second, on an interlace set one field is scanned then another, giving a full frame, and it does happen quite fast.
But the artifacts produced by this process are quite visible, as are scan lines.
You know, EVERYBODY AGREES with me, progressive is better, and its a moot point anyway.
Unless you get a plasma set interlacing is basically dead as a concept, born when a signal couldnt hold an entire frame its time is over.
As for interlace artifacts in a progressive picture , doesnt matter if the progressive pic is the result of deinterlacing or a natural pic straight from the wire, you wont get deinterlacing artifacts, because the pic is painted on the screen one line at a time, the quality of a deinterlaced pic depend on whats doing the deinterlacing.
But this is moot, plasma is selling for less than LCD, the quality problems are becoming known on the street finally, and thats the last holdout for interlacing, the CRT being basically dead as old jobs turkey.
Speaking of which, every review I ever read in HT mag, sound and vision, etc, talked about how a CRT set would never get near a 1,000 lines of rez, which is different than the number of scan lines. Res is determined by a test pattern.
I do remember way back, reading a review on a mitsu rptv, it acheived 900 lines in tests,
but it was hugh and around 10,000 bucks.
I dont doubt the set you were tallking about had a decent pic, about as good as tosh could put out anyway, but I doubt very seriously if it hit 1,000 lines.
They never could get the pitch on the phospers fine enough.
AND the finer the pitch the darker the picture got, this was a limiting factor for the crt, it could only get so sharp, eventually it got so dim that watching it was a chore.
And blurring does have nothing to do with res, its a different subject, and largely a dead issue also.
A 8 ms set like mine( most sets are like that now) will produce minimal if any blurring,
I havent noticed any on mine, really, but its a seperate issue from res completely
but like I said, interlacing is basically dead, sets that paint two fields on a screen, making a full frame, are almost nonexistent now.
About the only functionality of 1080i is that it requires less bandwidth, and modern day deinterlacers can put a frame together better than it being scanned on a screen like it was intended.
But eventually most broadcasters will go progressive, either 720p or 1080p.
720p sets are still selling quite well, eventually broadcasters will notice and start broadcasting in 720p, or maybe even 1080p.
Why broadcast in 1080i when there are almost no sets that use it as a native format?

You cannot teach an old dog any tricks. Especially if that dog enjoys being ignorant, uninformed, and enjoys his own press. You are in denial of the facts(no LCD is 8ms when properly measured thats factory measurements which cannot be trusted), You do not understand the big picture(you think like a compartmentalized old fool), do not understand temporal response(or you wouldn't say the stupid things you say about interlaced video). It is rediculous to continue to respond. There is no use in explaining anything to a stupid old idiot

1. How do you make a comment on the PQ of a set you have never seen?
2. How is half the information better than all of the information spread over two fields and temporally transparent better?
3. How does one get proven wrong(no crt can produce over 1,000 lines) with link(and can give more examples at that) and still think he is right? Just ignores what doesn't fit in his ignorant bag.
4. Hasn't this old hand me down every heard of custom lenses for CRT guns to fine tune the pitch of the phosphors?
5. Does this person actually have a brain, or is his whole existance on auto pilot?

Mr Peabody

01-28-2008, 04:46 PM

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-28-2008, 06:50 PM

You see then, talking to Pix is futile. The only thing we can do is try to keep damage control by post the truth and some links to provide others an avenue to learn, and to find out as we have that Pix is dense.

I guess we have all learned haven't we. You had Peruviansky, who was an idiot, and now we have Pix. They just never seem to go away.

Rich-n-Texas

01-28-2008, 07:25 PM

A burden we ALL share.

Woochifer

01-28-2008, 10:08 PM

pixelthis

01-29-2008, 12:35 AM

You cannot teach an old dog any tricks. Especially if that dog enjoys being ignorant, uninformed, and enjoys his own press. You are in denial of the facts(no LCD is 8ms when properly measured thats factory measurements which cannot be trusted), You do not understand the big picture(you think like a compartmentalized old fool), do not understand temporal response(or you wouldn't say the stupid things you say about interlaced video). It is rediculous to continue to respond. There is no use in explaining anything to a stupid old idiot

1. How do you make a comment on the PQ of a set you have never seen?
2. How is half the information better than all of the information spread over two fields and temporally transparent better?
3. How does one get proven wrong(no crt can produce over 1,000 lines) with link(and can give more examples at that) and still think he is right? Just ignores what doesn't fit in his ignorant bag.
4. Hasn't this old hand me down every heard of custom lenses for CRT guns to fine tune the pitch of the phosphors?
5. Does this person actually have a brain, or is his whole existance on auto pilot?

More stupidity.
But look at the bright side, you have mr P and rich in texas from jersey on your side,
MRP is an ignoramus on basic electronics and rich doesnt even know what a TOSLINK
OPTICAL CABLE IS, MAYBE THE FACT THAT they are supporting you is that they know almost as much about the subject as you do, which is next to nothing.
Custom lenses for CRT's, I assume you're talking about magnetic lenses, but it doesnt matter, just more gibberish.
You can't "fine tune" phospers on a crt nimrod, once they are on a Crt they stay there.
Maybe you're thinking that these "custom lenses" will produce a fine enough electron
beam that a really fine pitched tube will show a higher res, well, how do you get around the fact that the tech will only support a certain pitch ?
More bluffing and making stuff up.
And yes a CRT can produce 1,000 lines, but your (most likely ) job as a wallmart greeter
sure wouldnt pay for one, havent messed with this subject for years, its basically a moot issue, but such a CRT would be dim, expensive out the yin yang and only a few were ever made.
As for "links" is your entire life on the net?
Go to sound and vision or HT mag and look through the archives if you've never seen a magazine, which is where I got most of this info, and that was years ago, when the subject of CRT was still relevant, you know, when they still made CRT tv.

As for half the info being better than ALL of the info over two fields, it is when you dont
get interlace artifacts and lose half the res everytime theres a movement.
Again this is moot, interlace sets are going to be a thing of the past soon.
As for an 8ms RESPONSE being a misrepresentation thats the way to go, just deny the facts, yeah, that'll work.
And as for me being an "old man", I WAS taking TV's apart and putting them back together when YOU were just a wet spot on your mammas side of the bed.
Notice that the only two taking you're side, together couldn't figure out how to replace a lightbulb.
Doesnt that tell you something?:1:

pixelthis

01-29-2008, 12:40 AM

"Stick and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." :rolleyes:

How can they? you cant comprehend them.
I saw on another thread that youi don't even know what a toslink cable is.
Can I sell tickets to people so they can watch you hook up your new receiver?
Should be more fun than the superbowl:1:

pixelthis

01-29-2008, 12:53 AM

Back to the original topic ... looks like Toshiba's big fight back has devolved into nothing more than a green light for retailers to thin out their warehouses. The Digital Bits is reporting that some Best Buy and Circuit City stores (whose employees have e-mailed them) have begun clearing out their remaining HD-DVD players and won't restock these units once they're gone. Here's a picture from a CC store.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/miscgfx2/circuitcityclearance.jpg

Won't matter how badly Toshiba, Microsoft, et al want this format war to continue if the retailers have already begun bailing out on their format.

toshiba is increasingly like the black knight in the movie "the holy grail"
He wants to fight so you chop off his arm.
"Just a flesh wound" he cries, so you chop off a leg, etc.
Eventually hes just a torso screaming that hes "still rarin to go" or whatever, and people walk away, just ignoring him.
HD is just about dead (not quite yet) and it seems that everybody but tosh knows this.
Mayby with people like sir T (talky) touting blu ray they still figure they have a chance .
And they might be right.
Sony and its allies have a record of grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.
If a "clearance" sign , not to replace an old player for a new one but to get rid of it
doesnt clue them in nothing will:1:

pixelthis

01-29-2008, 12:58 AM

149$? I assume thats for the top of the line?
And no fanfare, just put the rotting corpse out there so bottomfeeders like groundbeef can jump in, thinking they are getting a "bargain".
Beefy was bragging about how cheap his addon to his 360xbox was (100 or 150 bucks?)
Well, now you can get a top of the line standalone for the same price.
Still think it was a good deal, beef?:17:

pixelthis

01-29-2008, 01:03 AM

You see then, talking to Pix is futile. The only thing we can do is try to keep damage control by post the truth and some links to provide others an avenue to learn, and to find out as we have that Pix is dense.

I really like you Mr P, but you're embarassing yourself.
Anybody that knows just the basics about how CRTS work know that sir talky
is either making stuff or bluffing or both. Hes' a joke and should stick to
pushing outmoded technology.
You'll learn (I hope):1:

GMichael

01-29-2008, 06:29 AM

I really like you Mr P, but you're embarassing yourself.
Anybody that knows just the basics about how CRTS work know that sir talky
is either making stuff or bluffing or both. Hes' a joke and should stick to
pushing outmoded technology.
You'll learn (I hope):1:

Admit it. You're just board at night so you post anything that comes to mind. Did you have trouble making friends as a child? That never went away, did it?

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-29-2008, 03:46 PM

Admit it. You're just board at night so you post anything that comes to mind. Did you have trouble making friends as a child? That never went away, did it?

He is just an old man who thinks they know more than they do. He is alot like Melvin but worse. He has not kept up with the technology he is supposed to know so well. Just ignore him, you do not want him to rub any of his stupid on you.

Mr Peabody

01-29-2008, 04:40 PM

In Germany Sony is offering a significant discount to anyone who trades in a HD-DVD player for a S-300.

L.J.

01-29-2008, 04:56 PM

Link for Mr.P

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=901

nightflier

01-29-2008, 05:21 PM

Nice try, lil't, but no cigar...

_________________________

Anyway, you're too young to smoke aren't you? And that big stogie will be too heavy for you to lift, huh, lil't?

Do you see me complaining like a baby like you have? No, I can take it, and I can dish it out as well. I do not care what you call me, you cannot insult me, harm me, or make me angry.

Oh fer cryin' out loud, get off that goodie-two-shoes high horse. What, did you use a ladder to get get on it, lil't? You're the one who said you were going to curb your insults and then you litter your post with 'em. Grow up and stop twisting this around - if you say you're going to stop with the insults, then stop it.

I would send your lying post to a psychologist...You didn't do any of this, your analysis sucks, and you just cannot stop all of the lying.

No, actually, I did send your posts to a psychologist and he had a field day with your insecurities, your inferiority complex, and your pervasive arrogance. He also said that you're one of those compulsive personality types that can't handle being wrong, that needs to see the world in black & white, who prides himself on seeing everything more clearly than everyone else, and deals with conflict with passive-aggressive coping mechanisms because of father relationship issues. I think he had you pegged pretty spot-on, wouldn't you say, lil't? But since you'll never cop to any of this, let's just skip right to the nonsense you're once again belching forth in your offensive post.

Stupid, you kid must be going to work for you. Drum Corps is not band, but I would not expect a lying idiot to know the difference.

You're really having a hard time being pegged a band-nerd, aren't you? Look, in the absence of anyone else here knowing that you were little drummer boy in the school play, we could only presume that you meant the literal definition of the word cavalier. It fits your avatar, so don't get all hissy because we could not have known this. Get over it and move on, band-nerd.

They have chosen to support Bluray because they know the infrastructure of movie downloads for own just is not there

Nonsense. As you so long-windedly pointed out in your last post, they chose BR because that's how they think they will maximize profits. They aren't interested in downloads because they can't get their money-grubbing minds around the concept of freedom and choice. To be more specific, they can't control downloads with enough DRM where it won't piss off their customers, so they are pushing disks which they feel they can control.

This is a battle about control and reigning in the amount of choice the consumers have become accustomed to with such sacrilegious technologies as Napster, MP3.com, and others all they way to iTunes. If they could have snuffed out that last one in time, they would have. What they are stomping on with their greedy, bloodied iron fist is freedom, and that is not a popular thing to do. Who knows, maybe it will come from some enterprising teen-ager in some far-off place (where their draconian copyright laws aren't enforceable), who wants to view BR movies on his Linux PC - wouldn't that be history repeating itself?

This site is about audio, not computers. There is a section for you computer geeks, but it is not in the audio section. Downloads are part of the computer culture since you cannot download movies to bluray, HD DVD or DVD players. You get your facts straight.

Hold on, my little medieval-minded backwards little know-nothing eager little beaver snot. There is so much wrong in that short little paragraph that I need to slow you down:

1. This site is about audio, computers, and downloads. Just because the last two are just a portion, that does not mean that the current one we are in, "News & Rumors," can't include computer-sourced technologies. Now if we were in the Analog section, your bigotry might have more play (although there's been a few thread there too about LPs and computers), but in this thread, it's OK to talk about these awful technologies that keep you up at night, lil't. Don't worry, you can leave the hallway light on.

2. "A section for you computer geeks," but not in the audio section? I suppose there's special bathrooms for them too? What is this, Jim Crow for audio? No, lil't, I see nothing in your posts that hints at some disdain for "computer geeks", LOL.... How much deep-rooted anger lies behind that statement? Did the computer geeks in your high school beat the band-nerds in the spelling B? And don't even throw down the race card because I mentioned Jim Crow, you're not the only one here with a deep dark natural tan, so go home and cry to your mommy, if that's all you got.

3. "Downloads is part of the computer culture?" What kind of back-*sswards kind of antiquated thinking is that? I guess in your own little hick-town that's true, but we live in an suburbanized and industrialized (can you spell those, lil't?) nation where the cows don't need to pull the plow anymore. Geez, lil't, there are plenty of other ways to download movies. Just because a PS3 player can't do it ('cause apparently someone forgot to include that), doesn't mean it only happens with computers.

Take a good look around, lil't, there are no horse-drawn carts anymore either.

But a man that complains like a woman is just plain weird.

This is sexist, and you know that, even if you are an immature little brat. You are, for lack of a better phrase, a sexist pig.

A studio executive is only interested in HIS studio's bottom line. Not peoples surfing activities on the net. They are interested in what you BUY, and where you BUY it from. A studio is not going to use your loose model to decide if downloading is where the studio emphasis is going to be. THEY USE NUMBERS, THEY USE SALES FIGURES, THE USE INDUSTRY EXPERTS ANALYSIS, they do not use the same criteria as computer geeks use. Thick headed people are amusing, and nothing else.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that the music industry had when Napster pulled the rug out from under them. Technology changes the market and the music industry either had to adapt or loose revenue. Downloads are here to stay and they will eat into the movie-on-disk market as much as they did into the music-on-disk market - that is why any movie studio that does not want to see this and work with it will loose revenue.

This is also why BR will never have the catalog that DVD had - not all the video that's out there is that good, and people will be selective about what they will want to own - they will not buy as many BRs and they did DVDs, especially considering how much more expensive they are to own and play. That is why downloads will grow, because not enough video is worthy of ownership. The studios can accept that and fill the void with downloads, or they can decide to just give up that share of the market.

The studio(just like your company) are interested in making money. That is it(just like it is with your company). The RIAA does not govern the movie industry, and the movie industry isn't the music industry. I think you non thinkers tend to mix the two together like they operate the same way, because it is easier for your tiny brains to get around.

The only way you can think like that is if you truly believe downloading is a mere blip on the radar - the fact is it's a big friggin' battleship group. No one is arguing that disks aren't money makers for the movie industry. What I'm saying is that downloads are a much bigger part of this equation then the movie studios are willing to admit. If you only use revenue figures to quantify downloads as a threat to disk, then you are truly blind to what is happening.

Take Talladega Nights as an example, since that seems to be such a popular movie here, LOL. A person will always pay more for the disk than the download, so even though the disk generated $25 and the download only $5, they were both purchased to be viewed by Joe SixPack. So of course, your conclusion is that disks outsold downloads 5-1 right? Now that's the kind of small-minded numbers-only black-and-white thinking that misses the whole argument that the movie sold two copies, one on disk and the other as a download. Of course download revenues are being dwarfed by disk revenues, but the real stat here is that two movies were sold, one on each platform, a 1-1 ratio.

Talladega Nights sold pretty well on both HD DVD and Bluray, and lets not even mention DVD. So that blows a hole in this comment.

No it doesn't. Talladega nights is a rental-first movie - some people will buy it, but most won't. And I'm not even talking about how many people will be reselling that white-elephant sucker at second-hand video stores and eBay (there are over 100 of them on sale right now). So for all practical purposes, those "owners" were really renters. Again, if you only look at the sales figures, lil't, you're missing the bigger picture. But then again, we should remember, you're so small, and big pictures are so big....

You call planet earth Talladega fair? Do you call Forgotten Planet Talladega fair? Blade Runner is Talladega fair? Close Encounters is Talladega fair?

Yup. Those are all popular movies. Sure SciFi fans (which I'm going to guess you are) will collect Blade Runner, but is that because of great acting? Well maybe for some, but not everyone. Are they classics? Perhaps. But they are also selling on eBay like hotcakes. I found over 700 listings for Planet Earth, 185 for Blade Runner, both more than Talladega Nights, so I guess they are Talladega-fare. You know, I like the term Talladega-fare, I think I'll keep using it.

Once again, the DVD did not have classic titles this early in its life, downloading doesn't either. As Bluray matures as a format, they will release the same content they released on DVD. If you are trying to advance the theory that download services will have more content than bluray, you are totally off base. That is computer guy analysis on the film world. Adoption rates to Bluray are already past download to rent and sale. Follow the money.

Incorrect. BR will never have the catalog of DVD, it just won't happen - the economics won't support it. When BR is as old as DVD is today, the downloads that you so dread will be as common as music. The fact is there's a whole lot of movies that people will just not want on BR. Who's going to shell out $25 for Rocky III, American Pie II, The Karate Kid, or Dirty Dancing? Do I really need to see Ralph Maccio's pimples in 1080p? No thank you. For those there will be downloads. And if you really need to see the infamous Porky's bathroom scene over an over again, lil't, you can watch it upconverted from DVD. I guess that kind of bathroom humor suits you, but for the rest of us once is more than enough.

This isn't a computer guy's analysis either, lil't, because it has nothing to do with downloads and everything to do with supply and demand. The studios aren't going to release those movies on BR because not enough people will waste their money on them (well, I'm sure you've got your eBay search set for Porky's, but the rest of us are a little more mature I think). And don't even bring up some obscure reference that the Karate Kid series will be released on BR ('cause I'm sure you're going to search for it to prove something), the point is it's not going to sell well enough to make it a significant factor. So grow up and look at what's happening everywhere else, already.

Sony's spiderman box set sold a little less than twice the number of apple totaly downloads in a single week. When a studio executive sees this, he is not going to come to the same conclusion you do.

Ah, so now we're actually discussing a true comparison. But that's a hollow argument because you're talking about a box set - of course that's going to be a collector-type item and most AppleTV owners aren't going to download the full set to their 40Gb drive (for many obvious reasons). But, let's remember that we're talking about the reason AppleTV owners bought their units: choice and freedom. They are much more likely to download only one of the movies, not the full box set. And is that included in your precious stats? I think not, because your figures are limited in that they can only compare exact title sales, and cannot account for all the variables. That is the problem with stats - they are always too rigid - they are only an approximation. What I, and other people as well, have been trying to explain to you is that in these examples, the variables that you so readily dismiss are likely to be significant factors and can just as well invalidate your whole claim.

When a collectors rents, it is the disc, not the download. Can you tell me how a collector will be able know what quality the disc is based on the internet download? A collector will rent the bluray disc, look at it, and decide if the QUALITY is up to purchasing(that goes for both the movie and the data on disc). A gamer and a download renter do not care about original aspect ratios, high data rates to keep video quality up, sound quality, uncompressed audio,micro blocking, colorbanding, edge enhancement(which is all over downloads to make them sharper), and picture aliasing. The movie collect will. These are two different markets, with completely different priorities.

These are not two different markets. Take Blade Runner for example, I could see that appealing to the gamer as well as the collector. And these are NOT two different market segments, they overlap, and you can't deal with that because it does not fit in your argument. Reality is not exact or ompletely quatifyable, no matter how much you wish it to be.

You are also assuming that all collectors collect for the same reasons you do, which I'm going to guess from your obsession with SQ and VQ, is for the Sci-Fi effects. What about all the collectors who collect because a movie has a classic Hollywood cache (Citizen Cane, the English Patient, etc.) or how about those collectors who collect because of a theme like politics (13 Days, Last King of Scotland, etc.), or people who collect only musicals, movies with academy-winning actors, documentaries, independent films, hell, movies about just animals, while we're at it... the list goes on. Your understanding of collectors is completely skewed by what you like.

Finally, you're forgetting that not all movie collectors have deep pockets like you and that every purchase is a carefully weighed decision. Just because you can afford the best gear and you have the leisure to buy and watch 5-10 movies a week, that is not even close to the average cosumer, much less the collector. Yes, collectors are about quality, but not all have the funds to own it nor the time to watch as many films as you do. Since when did the definition of a collector become someone with a 6 or 7 figure salary?

You are dellusional if you think you are typical. You so much want the world to be revolving around you that you forget that it's completely unrealistic to think like that. Not only are there no distinct market segments but for those generalizations that you use to make your point, there is a huge amount of overlap between them. And then you presume that collectors collect like you do. Your reality is not everyone else's. And I think this has been a recurring theme that I've tried to point out in other threads, but you don't seem to grasp that.

If you are too dumb to realize that the priority of the videophile and the priorites of the download to renter are completely different, then there is no use in continuing to respond to you. You are demonstrating how much a fool you are. I do not belong to a higher class of viewers, I belong to a different class of viewing from the gamer and download to renter. My priorities are completely difference from theirs. I choose a source optimized for video watching, not a computer screen who maximum resolution is 768p. I choose to get what is on the disc in its native form(1080p at 24fps for film, and 1080p 60 for video or animation), that is not the end all for the casual viewer. They don't care about that. I do not watch movies on computer speakers, they are crappy for this type of purpose because that is not what they are optimized for. I watch my movies in a room that is acoustically treated, with speakers that are time and phase corrected, with controls on reverberation time and early reflections. I use bass traps, a RTA, checkpoint alignment tools to get and keep my system meticulously calibrated. Do you really think the gamer or computer geeks do this? No way in hell.

Funny, I know quite a few gamers who have fairly decent HT setups - a lot nicer than what I can afford. I also know collectors who have very modest HT setups - one guy I know has every wall in the room filled movie and music media - and he is enjoying it all on, gasp, a CRT. Your generalizations about gamers, downloaders, and collectors are silly, incorrect, and frankly quite insulting. You assume that all people who download movies are geeky computer nerds and you think that all collectors are of a higher caliber like you pretend to be. What kind of segregation-minded nonsense are you spewing out?
Only a blunt tool like yourself would have such a narrow minded us-vs-them view of everything. As I said before, this isn't a crusade - I know you think of yourself a knight, but that's only in your own reality, remember, lil't? You are sexist, bigoted, and elitist, and it's about time you were told that you are really just a small sorry little wanabe. I don't care about your fancy mega-buck setup, it does nothing to hide your prejudices and insults.

I don't usually get into it when it's so obvious I'm dealing with such an objectionable personality, but in your case it goes right to the heart of the argument. Your point of view is that of a movie-exec or insider top-down understanding of the industry. Such an elitist view ignores what is really happening in an industry. It also makes it impossible to see it, and hides it from where you are sitting. It is myopic because what sustains the industry are the very consumers that make up the mass of people you can't understand. Your perspective that downloaders are negligible is flat out wrong and your generalizations miss so much I'm amazed you even call yourself an authority on anything.

You know, for someone who calls himself open-minded, fair, dare I say, liberal, you certainly have a pretty elitist view of reality. My comments elsewhere about your similarities with our current president weren't just funny jabs, they are prooving to be disturbingly accurate.

Can you tell me why a studio executive with a eye on maximizing profits and ROI would worry about non-sale downloaded content? What does that offer him or her? Non commerce internet traffic is a computer geeks worry, getting a high ROI is the worry of a Film studio executive. A computer geeks analysis for the film industry

Because there are other ways to make money off of it, it just takes more work (creative advertising, product placement, sponsorship, subscriptions, etc.). Yes, I know that's not what the movie studios want to get into, since they are so used to sluffing it off to a middle man, but if they want to participate in the online world they'll have to start doing just that because that is where the money in downloads is made. If, god forbid, I am actually right, and downloads do take off, do the big studios really want to be loosing all that potential revenue to smaller upstarts that are more flexible, open-minded, and willing to get by on smaller profit margins? If the BR catalog won't ever reach the completeness of the DVD catalog, will the big studios want to loose all that revenue? I think not.

Tell this to the stockholders nightliar. What is SOLD is all they want to hear about. Stockholders want ROI, not information that is not relevant to that end. You obviously do not work with financial reports do you? A industry driven by sales of media is not going to worry about what isn't sold. What ISN'T sold(and not even relevant) does not belong on a financial statement of a company driven by sales.

You are more of a moron than I thought. No, investors, i.e. the ones that buy large numbers of shares, not your etrade buddies, buy companies that have stability, not ones that are volatile. An arrogant inflexible position such as what you propose is not what financial analysts want to see in a company; they are looking for companies that can grow with technology, not ones that are arrogant and rest on old-models for the bulk of their revenue. Quick revenues are fine, but it does not sustain a company over time. You say you share that myopia with your industry insiders, but the fact is they are probably looking at downloads as we speak, you just can't bring yourself to realize that. I am pretty sure there's a portion of the yearly report that every one of those companies already addressing that and if there isn't it's at their own peril.

Movie studios do not get revenue from ads, the cable and download rental services do. Movie studio create the content that is SOLD to the cable companies and download services. In order to create revenue streams to cover their costs, the cable and download services use advertising.

Yadayada. The consumer cares nothing about that and it does not register on their radars. To the consumer, the cable company is in the same camp as the studio, a portion of what they pay for entertainment goes to each - what do they care how large each portion is? If the studios had any brains, they'd see that the cable companies are really direct competitors for the consumer's dollars and would look for a way to sell directly to the public and keep the ad revenue to themselves. Perhaps that is what movie theaters were intended to be once, but they aren't that anymore. The only viable medium today is downloads. Think of this. If Joe SixPack can buy Talladega nights from the studio directly rather than a middle man, he would, even if it was for the same price, because he would feel more comfortable doing just that. If the music industry had just figured that little gem out a little earlier rather than trying to stem the tide of progress, there would not have been an iTunes.

Anyhow, it's all fine with me. The movie studio's inability to see what is really happening is creating opportunities for new companies and technologies to emerge that will take that revenue from them. That's more competition, more choice, more freedom, and ultimately lower prices. I don't think that it's in a company's best interest to stand in the way of progress and even to stifle it - historically that's been a loosing strategy - but that is exactly what they seem to be doing and you're cheering them on. If you're so concerned for them, it sure doesn't show.

Can you tell me why studio executives do not pay attention to it then? I directly report to one, so why doesn't he mention these things you deem important? Its because it is irrelevant to him.

Oh, so now you directly report to a movie studio exec? My how that plot thickens. Do you pick fleas out of his hair too? Let's see, yeah, that gives you a real unbiased and fair-minded point of view, huh? You're a shill, you just can't face up to it.

I work at a film studio idiot. We move files all over the place here. This has nothing to do with my comfort level, it has more to do with joesixpacks comfort level.

Well you don't consider yourself Joe SixPack, so how do you know what Joe's going to do? If he can plug a USB cable into his xBox 360, he can also plug a hard drive in, too. It's not rocket science (well maybe to you it is).

Based on disc sales vs downloads, the public is not comfortable with movie files, and that is a fact. If they were, then we would all be downloading, and wouldn't be having this discussion. It is VERY clear based on disc sales versus downloads that the public is not ready to download their collection of movies.

I already pointed out in many different ways how disk sales are not accurate enough for you to make this generalization. The reason people are not downloading (legally) is because the movie studios are doing everything in their power to kill it. Well guess what? The toothpaste is out of the tube and there's no way it's going back in. Just as the music studios failed in trying to kill downloads, so will the movie studios fail. I can pretty much guarantee that - yeah I know you don't want my guarantees, well let's see what happens over the next few years.

Rentals in the future? Most definately, we are already headed that way slowly. But digital sale through is a diaster financially, and anything that is a diaster financially is not going to be the direction a studio will pursue.

It's the renters that will make disks sales less necessary - it's a habit building activity. Sure many rented movies will eventually arrive on disk, but some, perhaps many, won't. There just won't be enough demand. Yes, I'm talking about all those straight-to-video titles today. Sooner or later, the studios won't even bother putting them out on disk to save costs and they will only be available as downloads (you know, the ones you won't admit are in your DVD collection: Bring It On IV, Beauty and The Beast, John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut...)

And speaking of older movies, many of them will not make it to BR because it's not what collectors want. Will BR even be worth it for many of the classics? Do you need to see the Treasure of the Sierra Madre in Technicolor 1080p with 7.1 surround sound? Will these old soundtracks ever be re-mixed well enough to please the true old movie fan? Aren't we just talking about matrixed surround formats, anyhow?

Clearly based on sales of disc versus downloading of music, downloading is growing, but is a small fraction of disc sales even in decline.

The fact that it is growing should give you pause lil't.

Once again for the thick headed, I can put 200 songs on a 1GB stick, I cannot get a fraction of a music soundtrack in 5.1 on a 1GB movie stick, let alone the video portion as well.

Well only a band-nerd like yourself would try and put Drumline on a 1Gb stick. If that's what your company is using to move files around, no wonder you can't see it happening, duh. I said external hard drives, lil't, don't try and whittle out of that.

I can get thousands of songs on 80 GB ipod. But you could only fit maybe two movies at 1080p at the same data rate it is presented on HD disc, along with the soundtrack.

More stupidity. People who care about sound quality are using far less compression (just like several presenters at CES, interestingly enough) but let's skip that detail so as not to confuse you. The fact is that if I'm going to put a movie on my iPod with a 3 1/2" screen, I can guarantee you it won't need to be HD or have surround sound. Only someone as obsessive-compulsive as yourself would want to do that. See the rest of the people who have more common-sense would download the iPod version formatted for that screen and in stereo, and probably without the extras or the Spanish language 5.1 soundtrack.

If you think for even a second that 720p encoded in quicktime at a data rate of 4mbps(a apple HD download) looks anything like a 720p at a data rate of 20-25mbps, then you do not understand video at all. Not all HD is created equal.

Never said it did. But if I'm Joe SixPack and I have a 720p TV, what do I care? Only if I sit there and compare with two identical TVs in my living room (yeah, that'll happen), would Joe be just the slightest bit concerned about it.

Money, money, money nightidiot, that is all studio heads and stockholders want to hear about. A film studio does not have any need to look at non film internet traffic, especially if there is no profit to be made from it.

Well I've already explained stocks to you above, but you're pretty thick-headed, aren't you lil't? Doesn't that make your head heavy? Careful, don't fall over... A film studio very much has a need to look at non-film internet traffic, they could learn a thing or two, especially if it will take market share away and hand it to smaller players. Just because there is not as much profit to be made from it, it will still undercut their disks sales, and that is reason enough to look at it.

And I'm sorry that you and your movie exec friends haven't figured out how to make enough blood money from it, that fact won't make it go away. Didn't you learn in kindergarten that wishing bad things away doesn't work.... Anyhow, when has lower profitability ever, in recent memory, been a reason to ignore a growing trend. I don't think you understand economics as well as you think, lil't.

At least Ajani is bright enough to understand that the push in video is larger screens and better sound.

What push is that, lil't? And isn't there just as big of a push towards smaller screens and smaller sound? They sure are pushing v-cast and similar technologies too. And there sure is more video on the internet than ever before. I would guess it's a wash, but since your numbers are only about actual sales that ignore the vast majority of downloads, we won't find out from you. That's probably a good thing.

Downloads are not for larger screens, they are for smaller ones. On larger screens all the warts of a 4mbps download show up like your ignorance on this issue.

Again, trying to compartmentalize this into unrealistic generalizations. Not all downloads are 4mbps. Some are better and some are worse. And just for clarification, I never said that AppleTV is the "standard" that every download should be equated to, whatever you think that might be. HD downloads will also happen, you can't fight progress on this lil't.

Music has a much shorter profit life than film on disc. It is not likely you could sell a new release today on a different disc based audio format tomorrow. It is clear you can sell video over multiple successive formats. Look at Close encounters. YOu see it on DVD AND bluray. Did you ever see much rap music on SACD or DVD-A along with CD? No.

Well I do see plenty of classical on CD & SACD. Rap music may be what you listen to lil't, but it also isn't exemplary of the whole industry. And just because you can sell something on multiple successive formats doesn't mean you should (see the Bogart example above).

And who's to say this re-releasing of movies (and music) isn't pissing off the consumers? After all, if I paid for it on LP, why should I pay for it again on 8-track, then once again on cassette, then on CD, again on SACD, and then finally(I can only hope?) as a download? Regardless of quality, I can think of quite a few people who think it's perfectly OK to create an MP3 of that song from the original LP and keep making copies for every device in the house. That is called choice, but the music industry calls in piracy and equates these poor consumers to terrorists and drug-dealers in TV ads. Yes, I think that pisses people off.

What gives music a shorter "profit life" is the fact that one can copy it. DVD movies were headed that way until the movie industry squashed that. Heck you've even made the argument that what doomed SACD was the fact you couldn't copy it. The movie industry is not seen in a positive light, and frankly as a shill for them, lil't, you aren't either.

And the movie industry is not the music industry. A movie file is not the same as a music only files. And the equipment you watch a movie on is not the same as music( I do not watch music on my television).

Wow, there sparky, way too many stupid statements to correct....

The music industry serves as a pretty historical example, if you ask me. I say this because the posturing of the music studios and the arguments they have made for their posturing are pretty much the ones the movie studios are making now. Guess what? It's not just that history will be repeating itself, it's that it's already happening. If the crackers can't figure out how to crack the BR code, then they'll continue doing it with DVD and then move to downloads, a scenario that will not, just as with music, help BR sales.

Oh, and it case you had never heard of cable-music, satellite radio streaming, internet music streaming, music servers, and AppleTV, people actually do use their TVs to select music. Most of these services will display the album cover art as the screen saver, neat, huh? Maybe you should take notes, this is bleeding-edge technology, you know (well in your case it is).

Apples business model for music and movies is very different. Their model for music is doing very well. Their model for digital sell through is not. I have already provided a link that stats such. People who cannot think their way out of a paper bag with a arrow pointing toward exit mix music and movies together. Not critical thinkers.

Simplistic thinking lil't. AppleTV isn't up to the standards that are needed for it to be a viable medium. At standard res., a 40Gb hard drive, and limited connectivity, it's clear they released the product as an extension of their music service or perhaps a bridge to their upcoming HD-capable player (due out this summer with HDMI, SATA, and 1080p, according to the reports). In any case, if you consider today's AppleTV SOTA in downloading technology, then it's no surprise you don't get it. This year this market will grow a lot faster than you and your industry execs will like. Too bad.

I notice you do not argue with Wooch when he points out that you are incorrect. I guess you know who your daddy is huh.

Yeah, and it ain't wooch. I know you too are friends, and frankly I can only guess this is so because opposites attract. He doesn't insult people, he doesn't make them feel small, and he certainly makes very good, well reasoned arguments that are worth considering. You make people not like you, he doesn't. I guess it all comes down to how much of a jerk you are.

This claim you made about some of the owners being HD DVD, bluray owners is just another lie. Another one!!!!! When will it stop? Do you hear anyone here talking about the slimbox. Nobody talks about the slimbox at Bluray.com, HTF, AVS, or any other VIDEO based AV website.

You know that's the fascinating thing about logic when dealing with intolerant absolutists such as yourself. If there is only one Slingbox owner out there who also owns a BR or HD-DVD player, that makes my statement true. So you see, lil't, no lies - just truth. Actually it makes you the lier for saying it. Isn't that a kick in the pants?

And just so you don't go cryin' foul, I can say with certainty that, statistically, there is more than one Slingbox user out there who also owns an HD-DVD or BR player. Oh, and just so we're clear, statistically there will be at least be someone on each of your favorite sites who also owns one - just because they don't mention it, it does not mean it ain't so. See how stupid your inflexible positions are, lil't? And I can do that without any selectively chosen links or colored opinons - truth, lil't, you should try it sometime.

There is one tool I have that you do not. NDP figures compliled weekly, monthly, quarterly, and yearly. If they are so stale, then why do companies all over the world paying millions and millions for the data? If you think my stats are so stale, what stats do you have to trump them? None. That is clear.

The only tool I see is you, LOL. Look, if NDP figures are weekly, monthly, quarterly and yearly, then they have to be in the past, right? Unless you have a crystal ball, you have no way to guarantee what is going to happen. None of us do. I don't need to refute anything, it's just a fact of statistics that they can only show the past. The future is unknown (well outside of your Sci-Fi fantasy world, of course - you go on with your bad self, lil't).

Tivo are not movie playback devices. Tivos are not selling as well as bluray players are at this moment. TIVO sales have slowed in the last two quarters, while sales of bluray players are up 20%. Last month Bluray players total 40k in units world wide.

Old info. Tivo is doing well enough. And just so that you don't go misinforming everyone, Tivo is a movie playback device in much the same way that the xBox and countless other devices are. BR sales are up? Great. Maybe it's because of HD-DVD's decline and not the fact that they are beating down on Tivo. Tivo is just one of many ways people can download movies, so to compare it to BR player sales is just misdirected. Really lil't, you need to get a grip on the fact that your precious stats don't always hold up. They show part of the picture, not all of it.

That is greater than slimbox since inception

Do you even know what the Slingbox does? I didn't bring it up to be compared in sales figures to BR. I brought it up because it is one of many ways that the culture of watching video is changing. You better go check out what it actually does, lil't, so that you can finagle another pointless misdirected argument against it to waste everyone's time. Here's the wedsite: http://www.slingmedia.com/. Oh, and there's a dumbed-down little video clip explaining it all, for extra dense people like yourself. Now go. We know you're dying to see it.

nightflier

01-29-2008, 05:23 PM

Well, apparently there's 5000 word limit, and I exceeded it. Unfortunately it takes more than that to correct lil't. So here's the rest:

__________________________________________________ __________________
Flyin' jeanies, sexism, bums, lies, the end of music, what's next, lil't? (part 2)

When I go into BB, I see three displays of Bluray players, but I see no displays of TIVO. Do you know why? Retailers give shelf space to the stuff that is currently selling, not stuff that once sold.

Well it sure looks like you don't know anything about advertising either. The products that are advertised are typically those that are NOT selling, lil't. After all, you don't see commercials for GM's best selling models on TV do you? No. You see commercials for their big lumbering SUVs that they can't move out fast enough before they become obsolete. Or you see commercials for the luxury models that people really can't afford. Same is true for BB and CC, they aren't advertising their top-selling TV at a discount, are they? No, it's the one clunker that isn't moving. Now I'm not saying that's always the case, with all products but 3 displays of BR at BB doesn't tell me that they are flying off the shelves, either.

And just for the record, my local BB was flat out of Tivo's before Christmas, but they had plenty of BR players and they clearly weren't moving as fast as they wanted because guess what? The price was too high. See, many people think of it as a disk player plain and simple and they can't bring themselves to shell out $400+ for them. Of course, you'll quickly point out that this isn't representative of the whole industry, right? Who cares? I'm not just comparing Tivo to BR, I'm comparing all non-disk technologies against BR and those numbers, lil't, is worth considering.

Amazon has a HD DVD store, and a Bluray store, but they do not have a TIVO store even though Amazon uses TIVO for their downloads. That ought to tell you where the emphasis of that particular retailer.

You are full of it. Here is a perfect example of how you lie - you think people won't actually check it out. Amazon has a link right off their menu for Unbox, but they lump BR & HD-DVD in with all the DVDs. Or were your findings based on old information? Typical.

You lied.

Plain and simple.

This is were you need to learn a thing or two. Neither firewire-800 or SATA have provision for the video standard HDCP protocol. Neither of the two allow for clocking data passing through the connector to combat audio jitter. Neither of the two are developed for ANY A/V based product. Unfortunately for you the video industry has already chosen HDMI....Nice try night liar.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you are narrow minded. You only see each example in the context you want to see it in. You do not have the mental capacity for anything beyond your petty little reality.

If you recall we were talking about your little game console's USB port and you were all huffy about the fact that you could plug a hard drive into it. I responded with the fact that USB 2.0 is not adequate for video and then you go on about HDMI as the standard for video. You are so confined by the need to control all aspects of an argument that you completely miss it. Firewire-800 (or SATA like the Tivo has) would make a much more adequate streaming video interface - it was designed to be that from the beginning. And because the system considers them internal to the operating system, there is no need for HDCP - Oops, was that too much computereze for you? You're a moron, really.

You do not know my understanding of computers nightliar, do we use computers as bluray players? Are computer widely used as movie players?. Do we surf the net with our DVD players? The answer to this is a resounding no, which is why this has not relevance in this thread.

Sorry to burst your bubble, lil't, but we do. Blu-Ray players and HD-DVD players have been appearing on computers for some time and many if not most computers that are sold off-the-shelf in stores like BB have movie capabilities. Yes, computers are widely used as movie players. Even here at my work all our employee training is done with video. Why else would computers include software to play movies? Maybe in your little fantasy world they are used exclusively for spreadsheets, but is that really representative, lil't? And yes, this point definitely has relevance in this thread, lil't.

So if there are no groups of anything, and everyone is the same any logical person would agree that the language of hometheater is completely different from computers no matter how converge you say we are.

Everything really has to be black & white for you, huh, lil't? Are you really that much of a twit? I never said it was an all or nothing proposition - you did. I said there was overlap, I didn't say there were no distinctions. Only an absolutist like yourself has to see the world in such narrow terms. And learn to write in English, will you? Your grammar is deplorable - I'm not talking about typos, here, 'cause god, you're a bad typist too, but with the grammar, you'll probably try and use that as a reason to say you did not say something when you really did.

The prices of CD has changed little over the years, but the quality of the product has taken a definately step downward. To most, the product as its presented is not a value to them. No body is saying that about DVD or bluray.

Actually the way films are crancked out of the Hollywood movie-mill, is pretty formulaic if you ask me. Even if the special effects are amazing, that doesn't do anything for a crappy movie (in the case of SciFi, Planet Earth and Serenety are two good examples). My point is that I wouldn't so quickly dismiss "quality" of the movie as one of the many reasons people are not as willing to pay top dollar for them anymore.

And as far as music is concerned, aside from dynamic compression, which is really a very recent awareness by most people, the quality of music hasn't been cited as a driving factor to a music downturn. If you're going to argue that the music isn't as good, the same argument can be made for movies. In either case, that's a very weak argument, here, lil't.

Or maybe your definition of "quality" isn't everyone else's? You standards are entirely different, right? Yeah, that's starting to sound like a broken record.

You cannot buy a portion of a movie that is good and skip the parts you don't like. You can buy songs you like, and skip an album.

This isn't true at all. It's because the movie studios don't allow people to unbundle movies in the same way they unbundle albums. The fact is that music was unbundled by Napster and that if it had been up to the studios, it would never have happened. This is also why it will most likely be somewhere outside of the movie studio's control that movies will be unbundled. Consider this: if you could download a movie with just the soundtrack you want in the language you want, it would reduce file sizes substantially. And if you only had a 720p TV, and you could download that version of the movie, wouldn't that also make life easier? Maybe people don't care to have the extras, either? And if now you could purchase this from Unbox at 30% less than the full HD-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink-included version, I can guarantee people will buy it.

Oh, that's right I'm not allowed to "guarantee" anything. Geez, get over yourself, already.

Ripped music(as opposed to downloads) can be loaded into a verity of products, downloaded movies are locked into standards(the apple download will not play on zune, and visa versa).

And you think this endears the studios (who make these restrictions) to the consumers? Just as music can be unlocked, movies will also be unlocked. And this is not because someone wants to pirate it, it's because they will want to watch it on a device that isn't supported out-of-the-box (see my Linux example above). It will happen because there are just too many people out there who can make it happen. The movie industry does not have it's bloody claws on the throat of every country, market, medium, and format the same way, as much as you and your exec friends would appreciate that, I'm sure.

Wait a minute, did you say Zune? Now I know you're not going to tell us that's a universal standard, LOL. And, by the way, you cannot move legally-downloaded music off that Zune, either, lil't.

I can play a disc on any bluray player, but I cannot play my download with carting my hard drive with me.

Some believe you should have that capability. Anyhow, your BR disks are locked pretty tight. Don't bother taking that disk on your next trip to any other country either. This is really the first time I heard anyone say that the BR format is a free and open one, LOL.

There is a movement in music for lesser quality, there is no such move in video.

Ahem, yes there is. Just because it's not part of your top-down reality of things, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When video is re-sampled for portable devices it is most definitely of lower quality. I seriously doubt PSP movies are 1080p, lil't.

People have grown acustom, and have made the decision that portability in music is better than quality. That is why the audio industry has had no success with SACD and DVD-A, and plenty of success with music at 320kbps lossy.

Yeah, right, as if 320kbps was the standard and represented the lion's share of downloads from iTunes. Not so, lil't.

Good luck in going back to Apple and telling them your hard drive crashed, and you want another free copy to replace your purchased one.

I guess you haven't used iTunes, either. You know for someone who pontificates so loudly over these technologies, you really should actually check some of them out. Yes, iTunes keeps an online catalog of what you purchased. You're such a pain in the a** when you try to pass yourself off as all-knowing about technologies you hardly undertsand, lil't. Could you be more annoying?

All of the downloading business are proprietory, and not open system like disc based systems.

As I said above, I don't think I've ever heard that BR isn't proprietary or better yet, more so than downloading. Are you really going to hang your coat on that hook? All that "proprietory" download business you refer to isn't thriving because it is "proprietory," LOL. It's the standard everyday downloading that is growing by leaps and bounds. Again, you're only looking at title sales, lil't, and it's not the whole picture.

You cannot find a download that is true 1080p with the necessary bitrate to present a product that is better than disc.

Right now, download isn't trying to be better quality. It can suffice to be near HD quality with basic surround sound. In the future it will be more, but for now it does not have to be. Remember, lil't, this isn't a comparison on quality, it's a comparison about how much time people spend watching each type of video. And every minute they watch, gasp, standard quality content is more time spent away from watching BR.

HD DVD and Bluray let the quality jeanie out of the bag, and now downloading and VOD have to meet that standard. A file has to be backed up, and that adds cost to the experience. A disc has to be cleaned.

The quality jeanie? Actually it's spelled genie, lil't, but you were probably Dreaming of Jeanie? 'Cause only in your dreams is that the case, LOL. The quality was out of the bag with HDTV, and while BR will go higher, up to 1080p, for most people the most dramatic improvement was from 480p to 1080i. As I explained VOD does not have to meet that demand. All they have to offer is HD-comparable quality, maybe even S-video quality. That is because, as I explained above, they can simply compete on time spent watching and the quality then is secondary. As important as you think quality is (in your own little flying genie world), to most everyone else content is more important. After all, most people will sit and watch a 720p movie but they won't sit through it if the storyline, acting, and/or premise put them to sleep. That's why we have remote controls - if only we could remotely turn you off...

What if they do not want to wait. What if it takes a shorter time to drive to BB and get the disc than it takes to wait for the download. People now days are LESS patient, not more.

I'm going to guess you haven't understood the concept of time-shifting. Oh, that's right another technology you haven't tried yet but are rabid about destroying. You probably don't do it because the quality on your PVR isn't up to that of your BR, huh? Stop wasting my time. I explained that once people build up a considerable library of downloaded content, adding to it will not be something they notice. Yes, they can drive to BB faster than it takes to download a single video, but my narrow-minded little imp, we're not talking about a single video, we're talking about dozens of all types TV, Cable-only, downloaded movies, rentals, etc. all on one box. In the future it won't be dozens, if will be multiples of that.

However when you look at CD sales versus downloading, downloading is less than 10% of CD sales in terms of revenue.

As I explained above, you're comparing an album to a single song. You can't make this comparison, it's not valid, so stop wasting everyone's time with that tired argument.

And if you look at total download as a unit, versus disc sales as a unit, disc sales still outsell downloads when the BIG picture is taken into consideration.

What big picture is that? The one where genies are flying around and you're fighting evil downloading computer geeks on your flying dragon, lightsaber in hand? Put down the game-controller and return to earth, lil't. "Total download as a unit?" What is that? Are you comparing complete album downloads to disk purchases? Yeah, that's a valid comparison, huh, not! Explain your numbers before you go making fancy claims, lil't.

Downloading is fracturing the business that is for sure, but in the long term, this is not healthy for the industry itself. And what is not healthy for the industry will soon trickly down to the individual artist. Without the money that CD sales bring record companies, fewer artists music will be published, fewer will be recorded, and artists will have to do FAR more concerts to support to support song sales. Some talent will never be developed because their are no A/R departments, and no up front money to do this. Studio will have to depend on lower budgets and alot more projects to make revenue, the good studios will close (already happening in NYC) and the push for even lower quality will take place, because creating music in your basement will not have the finished sound that a studio recording will have. Once again quality will suffer even further than it has. It probably won't matter all that much to the public, they have already gotten used to low quality music anyway.

So, let me get this straight. Because it's bad for the individual artists, the market capitalism that created this little scenario that you painted has to develop a conscience and change its evil ways? What planet are you on? Just because something is bad it does not mean it's just magically going to stop happening - especially in the business world. I'm not saying it isn't sad for the artists (if it is as you describe), but please grow up and face reality, lil't: bad things happen in the big world. Geez. So because you feel sorry for them we're supposed to agree with you? Do you really think your precious exec friends are going to give a flying fart (or a flying genie, LOL)? 'Don't think so.

Well, lets see how you run a studio or record company on choice. I am sure choice is more than adequate to pay your employees. I am sure choice is going to be an excellent ROI to your stockholders.

So in the paragraph above you're whining about the poor artists and the fate of music, then here you flip around and return to your cold-hearted capitalist stance. So which side are you on, really? To recap, choice is what people want and will pay for. Whichever format offers the most choice will dominate the other. I'm betting on downloads, but obviously you're betting against technology and progress. Well we'll see how that works out for you, lil't.

In 2007 BB was the largest retailer of both music AND video. Unfortunately jazz, classical and high rez are all niche, nobody will make much money only supporting these genres. The best selling music is rap, rock and country. This you can find plenty of at BB. Your buying habits are not everyone buying habits right?

Never said my habits were everyone's. What I said was that the BB catalog was not very deep, and I'll add that is the case with both movies and music, by the way. You were trying to forward the argument that it was adequate and I'm pointing out that the collector as well as the bargain hunter have very little reason to shop at BB.

And I believe you called me a shill? A computer geek lives in a world of computers. When they talk quality, they are talking motherboards, drives, drivers, cards, and other computer related things. They will compromise films to watch them on computers, and video and sound quality are the last thing they think of, unless once again, you are talking computer hardware and software.

You are such an arrogant jerk. Do you know how you come off? Do you even read your own posts? So you're going to sit there and tell me that all the computer-employed people who also have HT setups don't care about sound and audio quality? Crawl back into your Cromagnon cave, will you...

You are just words on my screen, nothing more, nothing less. At this point you are not even a person to me. Is this clear?

Anything you can't deal with does not exist? Real mature, there. Well you're a person to me, lil't. A very short, vindictive, arrogant, sexist, and bigoted one, but a little spec of a person nonetheless. I guess I actually comprehend that a real person had to be typing the nonsense you put on the screen. And that you, well, must think my responses just appear like magic. Kind of like those flying genies?

You collect movies? Riiiight. What ten? Anyone can say they collect online. The proof is in the pudding.

Again, you know nothing of what I own, so just drop it before you dig another hole for yourself. ...Don't fall in that pudding!

easy peasy.

Computer geek= doesn't care about the quality of the movie, just that they can get it to watch on their computers.
Video/audiophile= PQ and SQ is everything.

Computer geek= spends thousand of dollars to keep their computer up to date, or ahead of the curve.

Video/audiophile= spends thousand of dollars on players, speakers, acoustics, wire, cables, amps, preamps, screens, projectors, and are at the cutting edge of audio video products.

Computer geek=cares absolutely nothing about the effect of data rates on PQ and AQ
Audio/videohile= understands that bit rates have a profound effect on both PQ and AQ and want it as high as their ears and eyes can hear and see a result.

Computer geeks=watches video on lower resolution screens great for data, but not high enough to get 1080p pixel for pixel
Audio/videophile=will choose a screen that get the highest resolution of the media(in this case 1080p), tends to go for the larger screen, and audiophiles do not even want a screen in their listening rooms.

computer geeks= have the savvy to download and set up auto backup systems for their low quality collection of television and movies. They do not mind taking the time to maintain a main drive, a back up drive, and can live with the limitation of non portable movie product.(apples only compatible with apple, Microsoft only compatible with microsoft etc)

Audio/videophile= have lived the plug and play simplicity for so long, that the extra effort of maintaining a all of the periphrals that go with downloading seem tedious. You buy the player, plug it in to your receiver, preamp and television, insert disc, and play. That easy. No backups, no time limits, no DRM that prevents mobility, no low quality AQ and SQ. Amazon has made it so easy to get discs, you don't even have to go to BB to get it. You have it mailed to your home or job. Their collections are expensive, and they are not ready to trust any microsoft software( which is prone to crashing and freezing) to run their stuff.

I could go on, but this ought to define enough difference for anyone to see that the priorities of the two are quite different, and where they spend their money is quite different.

Easy peasy? What, were you just weaned from the bottle? You're such an immature little dim-wit that this is just getting too easy. So lemme get this straight, so that we're not wasting any more time; a computer geek:

- doesn't care about the quality of the movie
- watches movies on their computers.
- spends thousand of dollars to keep their computer up to date but zilch on the HT gear
- cares absolutely nothing about the effect of data rates on PQ and AQ
- watches video on lower resolution screens great for data, but not high enough to get 1080p pixel for pixel
- has low quality collections of television and movies.
- can live with the limitation of non portable movie product
- trusts any microsoft software (which is prone to crashing and freezing)

Could you be more insulting? I am amazed that no one else here is telling you this, because I'm going to guess you've insulted a good many people here, I'm sure. You make yourself out to be the biggest pompous blow-hard with this nonsense. Oh, I almost forgot, computer geeks do

- know how to spell the word "periphrals"

You really are a piece of work. I didn't think you could sink much lower, but you never seem to amaze everyone here with how much more of an elitist irritant you can make of yourself.

Hmmm, last time I checked, I could do neither a spreadsheet or a powerpoint presentation on my bluray player. Oh, and I could not get my printer hooked up to my HD DVD player either. Damn, I cannot get this USB cable into my DVD player. Regardless of the fact that the enternals of todays players are computers, they do not function like a PC, and cannot do what a PC does. Stupid comment, on par for you.

Only someone as dumb and uneducated as you would think that a computer is only used for spreadsheets and presentations. And just to make the point, you can actually connect a USB printer to any USB port on your player, if you install the necessary software. What you fail to grasp, lil't is that I can do just about everything you can do with that HD-DVD player on my computer. Likewise, I can install another OS on a PS3 and I can run it like a computer. Just because it's not done that often, does not mean it's not possible, because they are all, at their core, computers. See being such an absolutist really trips you up, doesn't it. And no, lil't, these computers are not all linked up to Skynet or send terminators back through time. You little chicken - afraid of computers, LOL.

So what. Until there is a hard drive that can support all 2600 of my DVD's, all 151 of my HD DVD's, all 247 of my blurays, all 1500 of my CD's, all 300 of my vinyl records, all 50 of my master recording tapes(without loss of quality), without worry of crashing, and not costing me an additional penny over the way they are stored now, they are not big enough. Plus, this will matter only when it is clear that the buying public is more comfortable with files than disc. We are not their yet when it comes to movies.

How much time do you need to get there? I know of several storage mechanisms being developped that have the technology to store far more than your precious little video collection on a device the size of an iPod. You probably don't believe me - what else is new? Well it is true. It's not commercially viable, but it's only a matter of time. How much time are you willing to wait? And don't say something stupid here, lil't, you don't want to make a fool of yourself yet again.

Music, almost, but not movies.

If music is there, then the adoption of the concept is there. And while you may not feel comfortable with it, chicken lil't, it's coming to a showroom near you a lot faster than BR can ramp up to have enough of the total catalog of DVD.

Until we finds this in everyone homes, it is irrelevant at this point. Until the studios move their business models to downloading, this means nothing.

It's that kind of backwards-looking & thinking that keeps progress from moving ahead faster. It's still going to happen, even if you fight it every step of the way, lil't.

Oh really. I can play my downloaded movies anywhere? I get the best quality sound and video from downloads? I can watch my downloaded movies on my big 130" screen? The answer to all of this is no.

Only you have these absurd needs. You are not representative of the buying public, we already established that, lil't.

But it cannot be transferred anywhere else once its on your TIVO. The DRM on downloads prevents such an act, and it will be like that for the foreseeable future with the studio so paranoid about piracy.

May with Tivo, but not if it happens outside of their region of control like a computer, which, if history is any indication, is exactly what will happen. They can choose to embrace progress of stifle it, but we all know where that leads.

Netflix downloads are limited to 720p at 4.5mbps. You put that kind of quality on a screen larger than 50", and your are going to see all kinds of artifacting going on. Keep in mind, the trend in video is larger screens and higher resolutions, and that is a trend that has been going on for more than a decade. With the amount of compression that a 4.5mbps video would have to go through, it wouldn't have the spatial detail of DVD which has a data transfer rate of 10mbps. Wow, even if I were joeblow, that would not be good enough for me.

You sound like the Republican candidates for president: 911, terrirrsts, 911, terrirrsts, 911, terrirrsts, 911, fear the uncertainty, fear the future, look to the comfortable past....

Look, you're just deluding yourself. Just because you have a big screen, a big amp, and a big collection, and a big....(well you get the point), it doesn't mean Joe SixPack has all that. A 50" screen with 1080p? How many of those are already in people's homes? If what's in people's homes is less than that, they'll be just fine with what Netflix is offering. Im sure they did their own market research to arrive at the current specs.

This is only at the high end, not at the mass market level. I subscribe to a mag called Residential Electronics....

Funny how you switch to this "at the high end" argument when you yourself are obviously on the high-end as well. Then it's ok to compare everyone else to it, because, after all, they, like you, have just as much fear about downloads, are just as dumb about USB connections, and are just as sexist and bigoted, right? I think not, lil't. You're unique and not in a cute-baby-face-way, but in a short-bus-to-school way.

Until the two technologies become one technology, they are absent from one another. There is still no interface(outside of apple and microsoft) that gets the video from my computer to my television.

Again it's all black & white. Sorry, lil't, Apple and Microsoft aren't the only game in town. And the technologies are converging, only you want to keep them separate. Stupid, lil't, real stupid.

HDMI is not on computers or laptops.

Maybe not on your Commodore 64, lil't, but it is on a whole lot of computer now. I'm pretty sure every apple has HDMI and most multimedia PCs do too. To say it's not there at all just shows how absolutist and narrow-minded, not to mention ignorant, you really are.

You don't see it at HTF or AVS(where they are VERY anti download)

Oh, so that's why you are so dead-set against downloading? Outside of AR, you only hang out in forums that share your exact ideas? Anyone can find a forum that agrees with their own point of view (even voyeurs, noze-picking-diaper-wearing children like yourself, apparently). And don't go back to HTF and AVS telling all your little buddies there about how I called them all weirdos, you know that's not the point. I'm just saying that there are plenti of forums that agree totally with your own ideas - this hardly makes those ideas the norm. In your own little circle of industry insiders and shills, I'm sure you are the bomb - that's not necessarily the case here.

The computer industry tried to get the refresh rates of computers and televisions to match, it didn't happen. The computer industry tried WebTV to get to folks television with internet streaming, didn't work. Now all of this buzz about internet to television is cropping up again.

All old news. WebTV, are you kidding me? That's your gauge? You're making my point about how outdated your info is, lil't. Just as Groundbeef poointed out in another thread.

Internet surfing is a singular activity. Watching television is more a family activity amoung families.

Yeah, and Internet surfing is all people do on their computers, too, huh? Just stop it already, you're getting stale and reeking. Go pick a fight with a rabbit turd, at least you'll have a chance at stinking more.

Once again, I do not care about you, you two year old,...or any other personal thing about you. I do not want to care.

Then why threaten us with bodily harm? You're the one with the violent outbursts and the bloodlust. Maybe you've been watching R-rated movies? Now, you know what your mommy said about that, lil't.

I have already posted enough links, given enough current stats( I do get stats once a week from the worlds largest data collection source which is NDP). I have seen the numbers with my own eyes, and have watch the trends in my industry just like I am sure you have with yours. If you say my figures are outdated, prove it, or shove your words up your bum.

Up my bum? You can't say the word *ss? You're so infantile. I've pointed out how all you stats are flawed. They only present a partial picture, perhaps just a fractional one, but certainly not a complete one. I take them as such just like everyone else should. If you can't handle that, tough.

You can shove your psycho analysis up your bum as well.

There you go with the "up your bum" comments again. Are you really sure you're not gay or at least a little sexually ambiguous (big comcept, look it up)? Look, you're the one with the complex. It's all over your posts. I didn't write all that nonsense, you did. Deal with it, lil't.

Rich-n-Texas

01-29-2008, 07:15 PM

:yikes: Geeez nightflier, you must've been saving up for days!

If I did that they'd turn blue! :(

JSE

01-29-2008, 08:40 PM

That's it!

Sir T, Nightflier........................................ ...

Both of you are in time out! :nono: Noses in the corners.

My finger is killing me from scrolling.

Respect My Authoritiiii!

JSE

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-29-2008, 09:30 PM

Well, apparently there's 5000 word limit, and I exceeded it. Unfortunately it takes more than that to correct lil't. So here's the rest:

__________________________________________________ __________________
Flyin' jeanies, sexism, bums, lies, the end of music, what's next, lil't? (part 2)

Well it sure looks like you don't know anything about advertising either. The products that are advertised are typically those that are NOT selling, lil't. After all, you don't see commercials for GM's best selling models on TV do you? No. You see commercials for their big lumbering SUVs that they can't move out fast enough before they become obsolete. Or you see commercials for the luxury models that people really can't afford. Same is true for BB and CC, they aren't advertising their top-selling TV at a discount, are they? No, it's the one clunker that isn't moving. Now I'm not saying that's always the case, with all products but 3 displays of BR at BB doesn't tell me that they are flying off the shelves, either.

I would like to see you provide sales figures that prove that bluray players are not moving. They are outselling your beloved TIVO. So if BR players are doing bad, TIVO must be in hell. Read their second quarter result from 2007 and weep.

http://investor.tivo.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=262025

Record net loss of $17.7 million. Oh they are in great shape.

And just for the record, my local BB was flat out of Tivo's before Christmas, but they had plenty of BR players and they clearly weren't moving as fast as they wanted because guess what? The price was too high. See, many people think of it as a disk player plain and simple and they can't bring themselves to shell out $400+ for them. Of course, you'll quickly point out that this isn't representative of the whole industry, right? Who cares? I'm not just comparing Tivo to BR, I'm comparing all non-disk technologies against BR and those numbers, lil't, is worth considering.

Well guess what. BR players outsold the TIVO during the christmas season, and have continued to do that as of last week according to NDP. That would be 2008 information. You cannot compare all non disk technologies, but you cannot watch movies on all non disc technologies right? This is about movie watching, not about computer technology. They have their own section. This thread is not about computer technology as well is it?

You are full of it. Here is a perfect example of how you lie - you think people won't actually check it out. Amazon has a link right off their menu for Unbox, but they lump BR & HD-DVD in with all the DVDs. Or were your findings based on old information? Typical.

You lied.

Plain and simple.

Unbox is Amazons movie downloading site. That is not a TIVO store last time I checked.

No bluray store liar

http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_5936752_2?ie=UTF8&node=193640011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=top-1&pf_rd_r=1ZFTZY1WF4DF6EKXY4KQ&pf_rd_t=301&pf_rd_p=336815201&pf_rd_i=Blu-ray%20

No HD DVD store?

http://www.amazon.com/b/ref=amb_link_5662732_1?ie=UTF8&node=193642011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=auto-sparkle&pf_rd_r=02R2YGK47XZ815VYM5RD&pf_rd_t=301&pf_rd_p=317950501&pf_rd_i=HD%20DVD%20

So now who is the liar nightliar. As usual you do not know what you speak of.

See this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that you are narrow minded. You only see each example in the context you want to see it in. You do not have the mental capacity for anything beyond your petty little reality.

You want to throw everything but the kitchen sink into the mix just to cloud the issue. Nope, not going to happen.

If you recall we were talking about your little game console's USB port and you were all huffy about the fact that you could plug a hard drive into it. I responded with the fact that USB 2.0 is not adequate for video and then you go on about HDMI as the standard for video. You are so confined by the need to control all aspects of an argument that you completely miss it. Firewire-800 (or SATA like the Tivo has) would make a much more adequate streaming video interface - it was designed to be that from the beginning. And because the system considers them internal to the operating system, there is no need for HDCP - Oops, was that too much computereze for you? You're a moron, really.

Computers are not the topic at hand. Firewwire and SATA are not approved transmission interfaces for either format. And no true HD content can be transmitted without HDCP interface(or an interface that supports copy protection) because that is the industry protocol. We are not talking about computers, we are talking about Bluray and HD DVD. The titles is about Toshiba and the format war right?

Sorry to burst your bubble, lil't, but we do. Blu-Ray players and HD-DVD players have been appearing on computers for some time and many if not most computers that are sold off-the-shelf in stores like BB have movie capabilities. Yes, computers are widely used as movie players. Even here at my work all our employee training is done with video. Why else would computers include software to play movies? Maybe in your little fantasy world they are used exclusively for spreadsheets, but is that really representative, lil't? And yes, this point definitely has relevance in this thread, lil't.

Sorry, but no research or survey points to the fact that people are using computers to replace their television set for movie watching. If that were the case, DVD players wouldn't sell, and BR players wouldn't be selling. All facts point to the DVD and television as the primary movie viewing tools. By even mentioning computers and movie watching, you are majoring in minors. Can anyone say shill?

Everything really has to be black & white for you, huh, lil't? Are you really that much of a twit? I never said it was an all or nothing proposition - you did. I said there was overlap, I didn't say there were no distinctions. Only an absolutist like yourself has to see the world in such narrow terms. And learn to write in English, will you? Your grammar is deplorable - I'm not talking about typos, here, 'cause god, you're a bad typist too, but with the grammar, you'll probably try and use that as a reason to say you did not say something when you really did.

Nothing to do with Toshiba, Bluray, DVD or any other topic related thing. I don't come to audioreview to practice typing perfect english, just like you don't come here to tell the truth liar

Actually the way films are crancked out of the Hollywood movie-mill, is pretty formulaic if you ask me. Even if the special effects are amazing, that doesn't do anything for a crappy movie (in the case of SciFi, Planet Earth and Serenety are two good examples). My point is that I wouldn't so quickly dismiss "quality" of the movie as one of the many reasons people are not as willing to pay top dollar for them anymore.

Your opinion=$hit. Where are the links and facts to support this rubbish?

And as far as music is concerned, aside from dynamic compression, which is really a very recent awareness by most people, the quality of music hasn't been cited as a driving factor to a music downturn. If you're going to argue that the music isn't as good, the same argument can be made for movies. In either case, that's a very weak argument, here, lil't.

Recent awareness. We audio guys knew about this in the early 90's. We discussed it here in the late nineties on audioreview with the old crew.

http://www.geocities.com/mjareviews/rant7.html

May I call your attention to these words

"Enter the early '90s and the digital limiter. Finally, engineers could get their CDs as loud as vinyl and consistently peak to full scale without risk of excessive clipping or audible compression. They could now take full advantage of the upper regions of the CD's dynamic range, and for the first half of the decade or so, it was good."

You may are just finding out about this, but alot of folks right here at audioreview knew about it a long time ago. Catch up little liar. Hmmm..Little Liar, that'll be your new name.

Or maybe your definition of "quality" isn't everyone else's? You standards are entirely different, right? Yeah, that's starting to sound like a broken record.

Funny, so are you!

This isn't true at all. It's because the movie studios don't allow people to unbundle movies in the same way they unbundle albums. The fact is that music was unbundled by Napster and that if it had been up to the studios, it would never have happened. This is also why it will most likely be somewhere outside of the movie studio's control that movies will be unbundled. Consider this: if you could download a movie with just the soundtrack you want in the language you want, it would reduce file sizes substantially. And if you only had a 720p TV, and you could download that version of the movie, wouldn't that also make life easier? Maybe people don't care to have the extras, either? And if now you could purchase this from Unbox at 30% less than the full HD-everything-but-the-kitchen-sink-included version, I can guarantee people will buy it.

Apple downloads only include the movie, so that makes it unbundled when compared to the DVD. The movie studios send it to apple unbundle, they send it to cable companies unbundles, they send it to XBOX live unbundled. Do you see any extras included with the movies they offer. Nope, because it is already unbundled when it get to them. You are once again late to the party, and out of touch with the trends. A 720p download at 4mbps will look spatially deficient next to a HD DVD or bluray player downscaling to 720p. Perhaps you need to read Dan Raemers article on the issue.

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6497&Itemid=5

Or perhaps a demo would be in order here

http://xylon.haloapplications.com/bluray/kingdomofheaven/05/

And considering the downloading and VOD market shrunk last year from $212 million in 2006 to a final tally of $123 million, I would say the public is not ready for downloading anything right now. I wonder what made the downloading side contract so profoundly. Ah, maybe it was the fact that cable did so terrible in 2007, and apple actually grew stealing alot of business from VOD. Here is the new war right here, and why downloading is not ready for prime time. Apple lands big Hollywood contract, Warner and Comcast put caps on downloading. Comcast signs contract for 1000 new HD movies, but they are play over the same pipeline they want to limit downloads on. Wow, I have my popcorn ready.

Oh, that's right I'm not allowed to "guarantee" anything. Geez, get over yourself, already.

Follow your own advice. It might help you little liar.

And you think this endears the studios (who make these restrictions) to the consumers? Just as music can be unlocked, movies will also be unlocked. And this is not because someone wants to pirate it, it's because they will want to watch it on a device that isn't supported out-of-the-box (see my Linux example above). It will happen because there are just too many people out there who can make it happen. The movie industry does not have it's bloody claws on the throat of every country, market, medium, and format the same way, as much as you and your exec friends would appreciate that, I'm sure.

No problem. If piracy becomes an issue, then the studio will just withhold content, which will eventually starve the downloading market. Why do you think the studio want to abandon the DVD so bad? It is in the best interest of the downloading service to police their own networks, or risk losing content. That is the bottom line. Besides, unlike a disc, if you tamper with the protection on digital downloads, the file will be rendered useless. As long as the studio have BD+, BD watermark as tools to combat piracy, it will be a long while or if ever you see a full 1080p download with all of the bells and whistles on the internet. Keys that are revokeable on the fly are very difficult to pirate.

Wait a minute, did you say Zune? Now I know you're not going to tell us that's a universal standard, LOL. And, by the way, you cannot move legally-downloaded music off that Zune, either, lil't.

Or the Apple device as well. As long as downloading is locked in this fashion, it will never take off.

Some believe you should have that capability. Anyhow, your BR disks are locked pretty tight. Don't bother taking that disk on your next trip to any other country either. This is really the first time I heard anyone say that the BR format is a free and open one, LOL.

I can take my disc to my friends house and play it on his PS3. He can take that same disc over to his daughters house and play it on her Panasonic bluray player. In a very short time, I will be able to take my bluray disc on a trip anywhere and play it on my bluray portable. I however cannot take a movie that is on my hard drive and move it to another computer. If I have it on my Ipod, I cannot connect it to my television, nor can I get it off the Ipod either.

Ahem, yes there is. Just because it's not part of your top-down reality of things, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When video is re-sampled for portable devices it is most definitely of lower quality. I seriously doubt PSP movies are 1080p, lil't.

Thanks for making my point.

Yeah, right, as if 320kbps was the standard and represented the lion's share of downloads from iTunes. Not so, lil't.

I know, its 128kbps. That even worse.

I guess you haven't used iTunes, either. You know for someone who pontificates so loudly over these technologies, you really should actually check some of them out. Yes, iTunes keeps an online catalog of what you purchased. You're such a pain in the a** when you try to pass yourself off as all-knowing about technologies you hardly undertsand, lil't. Could you be more annoying?

Oh really? So when I lose all of my music, Apple will replace it all for free? Yes, one time only. If you have another problem, its too bad. I don't understand that?

As I said above, I don't think I've ever heard that BR isn't proprietary or better yet, more so than downloading. Are you really going to hang your coat on that hook? All that "proprietory" download business you refer to isn't thriving because it is "proprietory," LOL. It's the standard everyday downloading that is growing by leaps and bounds. Again, you're only looking at title sales, lil't, and it's not the whole picture.

Hey little liar, I am looking at what studio heads look at. They don't care about casual downloading, they care about revenue. When you get that through you thick head and small brain, we are going to get somewhere. While region coding is optional on bluray disc, I know of but one studio that is actually using it. So the Bluray disc is quite a bit less locked down that downloading any day. I can take my Bluray copy of Sunshine and play it in a player in London. Can you move a download like that without carry a computer? Nope,

Right now, download isn't trying to be better quality. It can suffice to be near HD quality with basic surround sound. In the future it will be more, but for now it does not have to be. Remember, lil't, this isn't a comparison on quality, it's a comparison about how much time people spend watching each type of video. And every minute they watch, gasp, standard quality content is more time spent away from watching BR.

Isn't trying? Its not capable period. Would you like to post a study that compares how people watch video. I can tell you right now, the DVD and the television is by far the most popular way of viewing movies. That is an undisputeable fact. Casual downloading of low quality video is not the same as watching a true 1080p on a 1080p television.

The quality jeanie? Actually it's spelled genie, lil't, but you were probably Dreaming of Jeanie? 'Cause only in your dreams is that the case, LOL. The quality was out of the bag with HDTV, and while BR will go higher, up to 1080p, for most people the most dramatic improvement was from 480p to 1080i. As I explained VOD does not have to meet that demand. All they have to offer is HD-comparable quality, maybe even S-video quality. That is because, as I explained above, they can simply compete on time spent watching and the quality then is secondary. As important as you think quality is (in your own little flying genie world), to most everyone else content is more important. After all, most people will sit and watch a 720p movie but they won't sit through it if the storyline, acting, and/or premise put them to sleep. That's why we have remote controls - if only we could remotely turn you off...

VOD took the largest dive in revenue last year. Apparently not many folks agree with your assesment on their new 1080p televisions which so happen to past 720p panels in sales in the fourth quarter of 2007. There are tons of complaints about VOD PQ, and when you compare that with the real deal(that would be 1080p from the disc) it looks damn right fuzzy and out of focus. Genie, Genee, Jeanie or Jeany, it doesn't matter. I am not here to be a perfect speller, I am here to make sure that your lies are not misconstrued as fact. The people that choose quantity over quality are not going to make downloads a success. That model will never capture the videophile, and you need them to drive the technology. That is a basic fact when dealing with video technology. The videophiles are the ones that made the bluray format twice the sizes of the downloading market in a single year in terms of revenue.

I'm going to guess you haven't understood the concept of time-shifting. Oh, that's right another technology you haven't tried yet but are rabid about destroying. You probably don't do it because the quality on your PVR isn't up to that of your BR, huh? Stop wasting my time. I explained that once people build up a considerable library of downloaded content, adding to it will not be something they notice. Yes, they can drive to BB faster than it takes to download a single video, but my narrow-minded little imp, we're not talking about a single video, we're talking about dozens of all types TV, Cable-only, downloaded movies, rentals, etc. all on one box. In the future it won't be dozens, if will be multiples of that.

I have two TIVO series three THX approved PVR. And no, it is not up to snuff with my bluray player. And stupid little liar, the boxes disc space is limited. And I can drive to BB and buy 20 movies before a single download is finished. And there is a good chance if the download is HD, that it is not available especially on VOD which has VERY little content right now.

As I explained above, you're comparing an album to a single song. You can't make this comparison, it's not valid, so stop wasting everyone's time with that tired argument.

You say its not valid. That does not make it invalid by any means. Can you stop wasting all of our time with ALL of your arguments?

What big picture is that? The one where genies are flying around and you're fighting evil downloading computer geeks on your flying dragon, lightsaber in hand? Put down the game-controller and return to earth, lil't. "Total download as a unit?" What is that? Are you comparing complete album downloads to disk purchases? Yeah, that's a valid comparison, huh, not! Explain your numbers before you go making fancy claims, lil't.

I explained it well enough that a monkey could understand. However, for a little liar, maybe more explanation is needed.

So, let me get this straight. Because it's bad for the individual artists, the market capitalism that created this little scenario that you painted has to develop a conscience and change its evil ways? What planet are you on? Just because something is bad it does not mean it's just magically going to stop happening - especially in the business world. I'm not saying it isn't sad for the artists (if it is as you describe), but please grow up and face reality, lil't: bad things happen in the big world. Geez. So because you feel sorry for them we're supposed to agree with you? Do you really think your precious exec friends are going to give a flying fart (or a flying genie, LOL)? 'Don't think so.

Now you face a few realities. You say downloads is the thing. I say no its not. I say look at the evidence the studio executives want to see. The numbers. You say that is not important that we should be looking at people casual downloading habit. I say how does that pay the bills, and replace sales of DVD's. You have no answer but to look at the big picture. I say the big picture to the studio is revenue. And here is what they see.

2006=$212 million
2007=$123 million.

Looks like VOD and Downloading as the execs see it must have really hit the skids.

So in the paragraph above you're whining about the poor artists and the fate of music, then here you flip around and return to your cold-hearted capitalist stance. So which side are you on, really? To recap, choice is what people want and will pay for. Whichever format offers the most choice will dominate the other. I'm betting on downloads, but obviously you're betting against technology and progress. Well we'll see how that works out for you, lil't.

So people got their choice. Now the music industry is any a mess, the artist are not getting the proper royalities, but as long as the consumer get's his choice, nothing else matters. The health of the industry be damned. In the long run, this trade off will not work. In the film industry, this will not happen. The model for music and movies is completely different. Any comparison between them are apples and soft drinks.

Never said my habits were everyone's. What I said was that the BB catalog was not very deep, and I'll add that is the case with both movies and music, by the way. You were trying to forward the argument that it was adequate and I'm pointing out that the collector as well as the bargain hunter have very little reason to shop at BB.

There is more than one place to purchase a movie other than BB. Amazon really has the largest catalog of movies. Second(to the thick headed small brained) no video format has come out with a large deep catalog. It took time for that to happen. However it did happen with VHS, then with DVD, and it will with Bluray as well. You can bet the studio will not let another opportunity to sell the entire library again on yet another video format. Can you find classic movies on downloading services? I think not.

You are such an arrogant jerk. Do you know how you come off? Do you even read your own posts? So you're going to sit there and tell me that all the computer-employed people who also have HT setups don't care about sound and audio quality? Crawl back into your Cromagnon cave, will you...

Oooooooo. swallowed your kotex pad again huh. I really like it when you talk to me that way! Read again little liar. I said that people who alter the picture and sound do not care about PQ or SQ. I said nothing about computer-employed people with HT. If they have a HT of any quality, they will not settle for watching a artifact laden download at 4mbps. If they are little low quality nerds like you and Pixel, then it doesn't mean a thing. All they want is the content in any form. Remember, it was you who stated above that people wanted the content and not the quality.

Anything you can't deal with does not exist? Real mature, there. Well you're a person to me, lil't. A very short, vindictive, arrogant, sexist, and bigoted one, but a little spec of a person nonetheless. I guess I actually comprehend that a real person had to be typing the nonsense you put on the screen. And that you, well, must think my responses just appear like magic. Kind of like those flying genies?

I am striking all kinds of nerves huh. You are a nothing to me, that is a fact. You are just a bunch of lying words on a screen that I enjoy picking apart, and showing your true lying self. Only a nobody has to lie, and you are a prime example of a nobody.

Again, you know nothing of what I own, so just drop it before you dig another hole for yourself. ...Don't fall in that pudding!

Who cares what you own. You don't know a volume knob from a acoustical panel, so why would I care about what you own. You stated you owned a DVD player that can output PCM from DSD sources or not. So no player can or not, then this player you have must not be real. You say you used acoustical panels to account for imbalances between channels. I say you don't have any pudding upstairs to fall in.

Easy peasy? What, were you just weaned from the bottle?

No more than you had your pampers changed ten minutes ago

You're such an immature little dim-wit that this is just getting too easy.

Is this your three year old talking on your behalf again???

So lemme get this straight, so that we're not wasting any more time; a computer geek:

- doesn't care about the quality of the movie
- watches movies on their computers.
- spends thousand of dollars to keep their computer up to date but zilch on the HT gear
- cares absolutely nothing about the effect of data rates on PQ and AQ
- watches video on lower resolution screens great for data, but not high enough to get 1080p pixel for pixel
- has low quality collections of television and movies.
- can live with the limitation of non portable movie product
- trusts any microsoft software (which is prone to crashing and freezing)

I think you just about got it right.

Could you be more insulting? I am amazed that no one else here is telling you this, because I'm going to guess you've insulted a good many people here, I'm sure. You make yourself out to be the biggest pompous blow-hard with this nonsense. Oh, I almost forgot, computer geeks do

Dude, you must be about to crap your diaper. Enhance your calm.

- know how to spell the word "periphrals"

Well they should. Its part of their lingo right? LOL

You really are a piece of work. I didn't think you could sink much lower, but you never seem to amaze everyone here with how much more of an elitist irritant you can make of yourself.

I am just a mean bad snob. That Terrible person Sir Terrence. You sound like a crying baby. Be careful, you could dehydrate if you don't drink water after all this crying, complaining and name calling. LOL

Only someone as dumb and uneducated as you would think that a computer is only used for spreadsheets and presentations. And just to make the point, you can actually connect a USB printer to any USB port on your player, if you install the necessary software. What you fail to grasp, lil't is that I can do just about everything you can do with that HD-DVD player on my computer. Likewise, I can install another OS on a PS3 and I can run it like a computer. Just because it's not done that often, does not mean it's not possible, because they are all, at their core, computers. See being such an absolutist really trips you up, doesn't it. And no, lil't, these computers are not all linked up to Skynet or send terminators back through time. You little chicken - afraid of computers, LOL.

Umm little liar. They do not provide support for printers on movie players. And USB ports are not all that common either on movie player either(only the ps3 has them). We are talking bluray players, not computers. Wow, I am afraid of computers? Wow, then I must be about to piss my shorts everyday I step into work. Can you play a HD DVD movie on your computer you now own? No you can't. So when you can, then you can do everything a HD DVD player can do. Can you play bluray movies on the computer you now own? Nope, and when you can, then it can do everything a bluray player does. When I can hook up a keyboard and surf the net on my A-35 HD DVD player then you have a point. The only point you have right now is on the top of your head.

How much time do you need to get there? I know of several storage mechanisms being developped that have the technology to store far more than your precious little video collection on a device the size of an iPod. You probably don't believe me - what else is new? Well it is true. It's not commercially viable, but it's only a matter of time. How much time are you willing to wait? And don't say something stupid here, lil't, you don't want to make a fool of yourself yet again.

Well, if it is not commercially viable, then its vaporware to the consumer. Bluray is here NOW, so talking about what is not here is pretty pointless don't cha think? You are the just wait, just wait guy, and Bluray is already here and growing. Oh but Sir T, you just wait, just wait some more.....No, I would just rather play HD movies on my player now than wait for something to come from the computer field to solve my not quite so here downloaded movie collection.

If music is there, then the adoption of the concept is there. And while you may not feel comfortable with it, chicken lil't, it's coming to a showroom near you a lot faster than BR can ramp up to have enough of the total catalog of DVD.

Well, it has to find its footing, because a loss of $87 million dollar in a single year while the other made close to $300 million in disc sales alone in the same year, it doesn't look promising for your half BUM theory does it. Folks are still buying music discs at 20 times the rate they are buying downloaded music.

It's that kind of backwards-looking & thinking that keeps progress from moving ahead faster. It's still going to happen, even if you fight it every step of the way, lil't.

Your progess. You know, the one that operates off folks casual downloading habits and not the one that works off money. Progress will only move as fast as it can provide revenue in the film and video business. When you computer geeks begin to purchase more movies than videophiles, you little dream may just happen. Unfortunately in 2007 that did not happen by a long shot. When you combine the revenue totals for both DVD, HD DVD and Bluray together against downloads, downloading looks more like something you do when you plant you BUM over the toilet.

Only you have these absurd needs. You are not representative of the buying public, we already established that, lil't.

AVSforum, HTF, this forum, Bluray.com are all loaded with people who want the same things I want. These are the guys that drive video technology, and the ones that completely reject downloading for just these absurd needs.

May with Tivo, but not if it happens outside of their region of control like a computer, which, if history is any indication, is exactly what will happen. They can choose to embrace progress of stifle it, but we all know where that leads.

If they chose to stifle it, it leads nowhere. The studio control the content, and were they want to the content to be used. When bluray drives are installed on computer(and they will be by the loads later this year, and in 2009) the same restrictions on the movement of data that apply to a disc player will apply to the computer. It will have to deal with BD+ and BD watermarks just like the players do. You will not be able to download the disc to your hard drive(just like you can't with the ps3), you will not be able to copy it(BD+ will prevent that) and you will not be able to propagate it to another computer, or upload it on the net(BD watermark will not allow it). So computer will have no advantage over the player. It will still have to support HDCP content protection protocols.

You sound like the Republican candidates for president: 911, terrirrsts, 911, terrirrsts, 911, terrirrsts, 911, fear the uncertainty, fear the future, look to the comfortable past....

And you sound like Bill Gates little biach. Ok maybe you are.....

Look, you're just deluding yourself. Just because you have a big screen, a big amp, and a big collection, and a big....(well you get the point), it doesn't mean Joe SixPack has all that. A 50" screen with 1080p? How many of those are already in people's homes? If what's in people's homes is less than that, they'll be just fine with what Netflix is offering. Im sure they did their own market research to arrive at the current specs.

According to NDP screens 50" and over that support 1080p are in about 15 million homes, and according to them with prices dropping 16% this year, they expect them in 40-45 million homes by the end of the year. Netflix didn't need to do any market research, that spec is all they could do with the pipeline downloads have. Apple and XBOX live have the same problem. Apples HD 4mbps, XBOXlive 6.8mbps, and netflix is about 1.5mbps. All of these transmission rates are less than DVD are. None of these so called HD downloads look any better than a well mastered DVD.

Funny how you switch to this "at the high end" argument when you yourself are obviously on the high-end as well. Then it's ok to compare everyone else to it, because, after all, they, like you, have just as much fear about downloads, are just as dumb about USB connections, and are just as sexist and bigoted, right? I think not, lil't. You're unique and not in a cute-baby-face-way, but in a short-bus-to-school way.

Funny, I am totally dumb about USB connection, but I have a USB hub connecting my ipod, my cellphone, my printer, and my external hard drive. Ooo, I am totally dumb. But wait, dumb me, I also use it from my ps3 to an external drive as well.

I don't fear downloads, I am real about them. They are not going to replace disc anytime soon. That is a fact that EVERYONE in my industry acknowledges, not just myself. So you go ahead with trying to plug your industry into mine right this instant and see how far you get. Is digital sell through coming. Yep, it certain is. But it ain't happening now, and it will not happen for year to come. The model isn't there, the infrastructure isn't there, and the movie studio have decided that disc is where they want to put their energy. When the computer compaines build the infrastructure and business model, the studios will swoop in and move their movies to their own servers, and those wonderful downloading services will be left with an empty bag. Mark my words on that one! The studio will never give up their distribution to other services. There is too much money, and too much control to give up.

Again it's all black & white. Sorry, lil't, Apple and Microsoft aren't the only game in town. And the technologies are converging, only you want to keep them separate. Stupid, lil't, real stupid.

I do not see how I play any role in this. Do you see Apple wanting to get in bed with Microsoft? No. Do you see the cable companies wanting to get in bed with the downloading services? No. These guys are keeping themselves seperate because they all what the money for themselves. The cable companies do not want their VOD to lose traction to internet downloads. So the limit the amount of downloading from the internet services to protect their own turf. The downloading services(mainly Apple) are more aggressive about signing deals, and they are not going to lose market share to the cable companies. And while these two slug it out, bluray will continue as the only platform for HD movies on disc unchallenge by any other disc based media. Thats not my fault, its your industry fault.

Maybe not on your Commodore 64, lil't, but it is on a whole lot of computer now. I'm pretty sure every apple has HDMI and most multimedia PCs do too. To say it's not there at all just shows how absolutist and narrow-minded, not to mention ignorant, you really are.

Whats a commodore 64? Have not seen those at any computer store lately.

I hate to tell ya this, but multimedia computers are not flying off shelves right now. I have three company issued brand spanking new laptops. One has a HD DVD drive in it. Guess what, no HDMI. HDMI is about as rare on a computer as a USB hookup is on a DVD player.

Oh, so that's why you are so dead-set against downloading? Outside of AR, you only hang out in forums that share your exact ideas? Anyone can find a forum that agrees with their own point of view (even voyeurs, noze-picking-diaper-wearing children like yourself, apparently). And don't go back to HTF and AVS telling all your little buddies there about how I called them all weirdos, you know that's not the point. I'm just saying that there are plenti of forums that agree totally with your own ideas - this hardly makes those ideas the norm. In your own little circle of industry insiders and shills, I'm sure you are the bomb - that's not necessarily the case here.

I am sure my little buddies at HTF or AVS does not care about a one deminsional personalited nerd calling them names. They known the mentality of those pesky little screen staring nerds. I am sure they think the same as I so about you. You are nothing. You are a small red pimple on the BUM of an elephant. You have the brain of a tsetse fly, but they seem to know how to use the capacity better. Nobody care about a nothing like you. You are just words, lies, and a moniker on a website.

All old news. WebTV, are you kidding me? That's your gauge? You're making my point about how outdated your info is, lil't. Just as Groundbeef poointed out in another thread.

No I am not kidding. As far back as webtv the computer industry has been trying to get into the television business. I mention webtv just to show how long its been. I bet your little brat is better at following the dots than you are.

Yeah, and Internet surfing is all people do on their computers, too, huh? Just stop it already, you're getting stale and reeking. Go pick a fight with a rabbit turd, at least you'll have a chance at stinking more.

I already pick a fight with a rat turd. His name is little liar, formerly know as nightliar, formerly known as nightfliar. Nothing stinks as bad as this rat turds information.

Then why threaten us with bodily harm? You're the one with the violent outbursts and the bloodlust. Maybe you've been watching R-rated movies? Now, you know what your mommy said about that, lil't.

You are a major drama queen. I don't care about you, your little brat or anything about you. YOU ARE JUST WORDS, JUST WORDS. You are not even human to me, so don't make this personal, becaues its not. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, YOU ARE NOTHING ZERO, ZILCH, NIGH. Can you not understand this?

Up my bum? You can't say the word *ss? You're so infantile. I've pointed out how all you stats are flawed. They only present a partial picture, perhaps just a fractional one, but certainly not a complete one. I take them as such just like everyone else should. If you can't handle that, tough.

You must not like the english, they like the word BUM. For you it works two fold. Your an a$$ and a loser. A BUM! LOL

There you go with the "up your bum" comments again. Are you really sure you're not gay or at least a little sexually ambiguous (big comcept, look it up)? Look, you're the one with the complex. It's all over your posts. I didn't write all that nonsense, you did. Deal with it, lil't.

Call the englishmen gay, they use the word. Its part of their language, much like bollocks which is just what you have spent an entire thread posting. Now take you know nothing, sorry a$$, incorrect, shill type self back to nothingville where your family and dog reside. Do care about cha, don't want to know ya, and you can go to sleep tomorrow and never wake up, and I would just go to work.

pixelthis

01-30-2008, 12:03 AM

Admit it. You're just board at night so you post anything that comes to mind. Did you have trouble making friends as a child? That never went away, did it?

You quote me and then say nothing about the quote.
You need to lay off the psychotropic drugs, they're affecting your chain of thought.
What I posted WAS true, Mr P is showing his ignorance about the subject, hes' just supporting sir talky because the stupid nimrod is a pain in my side, doesnt matter that
hes a drooling loon thats making stuff up.
Cathode ray tube? Probably never seen a toilet paper tube:1:

pixelthis

01-30-2008, 12:08 AM

Mr Peabody

01-30-2008, 05:56 AM

GMichael

01-30-2008, 06:22 AM

He is just an old man who thinks they know more than they do. He is alot like Melvin but worse. He has not kept up with the technology he is supposed to know so well. Just ignore him, you do not want him to rub any of his stupid on you.

Too late. I can already feel my IQ going down. Still not down to double digits though. I'll have to talk to him some more.

GMichael

01-30-2008, 06:31 AM

You quote me and then say nothing about the quote.
You need to lay off the psychotropic drugs, they're affecting your chain of thought.
What I posted WAS true, Mr P is showing his ignorance about the subject, hes' just supporting sir talky because the stupid nimrod is a pain in my side, doesnt matter that
hes a drooling loon thats making stuff up.
Cathode ray tube? Probably never seen a toilet paper tube:1:

At least my thought has a chain. Yours seems to jump around aimlessly without a goal other than to try to make yourself look smarter than you really are. So far, it's not working.

GMichael

01-30-2008, 06:34 AM

JSE

01-30-2008, 06:47 AM

Didn't work. Now my eyes hurt.
Try something else.

It's almost like T read my post and said - "I'll show JSE, I will create an even longer thread! Buwaaaaahahahahaha!" :hand:

T, Nightflier................hands on your desks. Time for some ruler action! :nonod:

Smmmmmmmack! Smmmmmmmmack!

That'll teach um.

JSE

Groundbeef

01-30-2008, 07:53 AM

Doesn't TiVo only work with DirecTV? What may be hurting sales is the fact that cable and Dish offer there own DVR's. As an interesting side note my Dish DVR has an ethernet port for downloading movies. I don't know if this is just another option or it's meant to try to keep the satelite bandwidth from being used up. I don't plan to use it, nor do I use PPV, it's just my habit.

No, in fact TIVO lost its contract w/DirecTV about 2-3 years ago, and it really put a pinch on it's stock price.

Initially TIVO was the "DVR" for DirecTV until DirecTV wanted all the pie, and not just slice of the monthly revenue.

Now the series 3 TIVO ONLY works w/cable. BTW TIVO series 3 is the HD model, and it sucks for me that I have DirecTV, and not cable.

TIVO machines have a USB connection that you can use to plug in an ethernet cable. This way I have my 2 Tivo Units linked on my homes network. I can shift programming between the 2 and also access my machine on the interent to schedule programming. I can also get movies from AMAZON, but I'd rather do that with my XBOX as they are in HD.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Rich-n-Texas

01-30-2008, 08:42 AM

Beefy, one guy I work with has a series 3 with cable, but another co-worker has only OTA broadcast and he also has a series 3. I have Verizon FIOS and I could get a series three and get a Cable Card from Verizon. They don't like to let people know that but it can be done. There was quite a long discussion about it on the AVS forums:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=621323&page=87

Post #2585 :rolleyes:

CableCards work fine with the TiVo on FiOS.

Some customer service reps just don't know about the TivoHD / Tivo Series3. Most of these folks are not technically literate; most are high-school graduates who took a 6 week training course.
I was tempted when I got FIOS but I'd be paying extra costs for TiVo's subscription.

Mr Peabody

01-30-2008, 09:08 AM

Groundbeef

01-30-2008, 11:11 AM

Beefy, one guy I work with has a series 3 with cable, but another co-worker has only OTA broadcast and he also has a series 3. I have Verizon FIOS and I could get a series three and get a Cable Card from Verizon. They don't like to let people know that but it can be done. There was quite a long discussion about it on the AVS forums:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=621323&page=87

Post #2585 :rolleyes:

I was tempted when I got FIOS but I'd be paying extra costs for TiVo's subscription.

I guess I wasn't clear. The problem for ME is that the Tivo Series 3 CANNOT be used for DirecTV. It's not possible. I could get it for OTA, but I can get OTA on my DirecTV D10, and then save it on my series 2. Granted the s-cable ain't HD, but it does a passing job.

You need a cable card for Series 3, and for obvious reasons DirecTV doesn't use cable cards.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-30-2008, 06:16 PM

You quote me and then say nothing about the quote.
You need to lay off the psychotropic drugs, they're affecting your chain of thought.
What I posted WAS true, Mr P is showing his ignorance about the subject, hes' just supporting sir talky because the stupid nimrod is a pain in my side, doesnt matter that
hes a drooling loon thats making stuff up.
Cathode ray tube? Probably never seen a toilet paper tube:1:

I have seen a toilet paper tube. It was sitting on top of your head and read "old dunce". You have fallen way behind on your CRT technology. Especially when talking front projectors and custom projection sets.

pixelthis

01-31-2008, 01:06 AM

I have seen a toilet paper tube. It was sitting on top of your head and read "old dunce". You have fallen way behind on your CRT technology. Especially when talking front projectors and custom projection sets.

Way behind on CRT tech???
THATS RICH!
I havent even bothered with paying attention to "crt tech" since they became obsolete.
Don't know much about buggy whips and eight track players either.
And I've "fallen behind?"
Even on front projectors new tech like 3 chip LCD and SXRD, DLP, ETC are the coming thing.
Maybe theres a few CRT front projectors out there but in brightness and resolution they would be beat by the new tech.
I don't waste my time on stuff thats pretty much obsolete.
Even an "old dunce" like me knows that, fenderhead.:1:

pixelthis

01-31-2008, 01:10 AM

Too late. I can already feel my IQ going down. Still not down to double digits though. I'll have to talk to him some more.

Son, your "IQ would have to go UP to even lay sight on "double digits"
You had SACD FOR AWHILE and didnt even know it.
I would match wits with you except your "match" is a bit damp:1:

Rich-n-Texas

01-31-2008, 06:09 AM

I guess I wasn't clear. The problem for ME is that the Tivo Series 3 CANNOT be used for DirecTV. It's not possible. I could get it for OTA, but I can get OTA on my DirecTV D10, and then save it on my series 2. Granted the s-cable ain't HD, but it does a passing job.

You need a cable card for Series 3, and for obvious reasons DirecTV doesn't use cable cards.
I reread reread you post beefy and now I understand. As a mater of fact, when I had SD DirecTV, I had the box (I forget the model #, R something); it was a DirecTV PVR with the TiVo logo on the front panel. One reason I dropped D*TV was their unethical (in my mind) business practices. They didn't make it very clear that if I dropped all "Local" channels, I'd lose some digital channels as well. This was their way of forcing me to upgade my STB to HD, but at the time I was only interested in getting the network channels and their affiliates OTA. My antenna worked fine, the picture on my HDTV was exceptional, so why should I have to upgrade? It just irritated me.

GMichael

01-31-2008, 06:21 AM

Son, your "IQ would have to go UP to even lay sight on "double digits"
You had SACD FOR AWHILE and didnt even know it.
I would match wits with you except your "match" is a bit damp:1:

Even your jokes are getting lame. Try harder. I'll give you a free shot at it.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

01-31-2008, 11:08 AM

Way behind on CRT tech???
THATS RICH!
I havent even bothered with paying attention to "crt tech" since they became obsolete.
Don't know much about buggy whips and eight track players either.
And I've "fallen behind?"
Even on front projectors new tech like 3 chip LCD and SXRD, DLP, ETC are the coming thing.
Maybe theres a few CRT front projectors out there but in brightness and resolution they would be beat by the new tech.
I don't waste my time on stuff thats pretty much obsolete.
Even an "old dunce" like me knows that, fenderhead.:1:

Sorry bobble head, I know no panel that can do 1440p, at least not one that is even remotely affordable to anyone but Bill Gates.

My television can do 1440p pixel for pixel, is a CRT, and at that resolution can still meet SMPTE standards for light levels. So can these three.

http://www.curtpalme.com/ElectrohomeMarquee.shtm

http://www.curtpalme.com/SonyG90.shtm

http://www.curtpalme.com/Barco1208.shtm

All of these including my television may be older technology, but performance wise they can beat the pants of of any fixed panel display in just about every area.

CRT's(as old as it is) can still outperform panels in the areas of contrast, color dynamics, greyscale accuracy, and flexiblity(can be optimized for different resolutions). I personally go for the best, not the newest. The coming thing is not always the best thing, and brightness does not make goodness

nightflier

02-01-2008, 10:54 AM

I can see why TiVo would be having problems. You can get similar features even on certain DVD recorders with hard drive. I don't know of any HD yet. Unless TiVo offered lower prices or a unique feature they are pretty much out in the cold.

PVR doesn't compare on price or features. Now I'm not a Tivo owner, but several of my friends own them and love them so my info is second hand, from their website, and from reviews. Noneteless I think they really have a couple of good products available. They are also running a $200 rebate right now, so that should bring the price down even further.

From my observations, the new Tivo HD Series has some compelling features, some of which are available elsewhere (like on much more expensive PVRs) but that Tivo seems to bring together better, with a simple, clean interface. And most of these will actually work w/o the monthly subscription fee as well:

- HD over-the-air tuner.
This will help people who currently use analog TVs & Tuners, including most current PVRs and VCRs.

- 160Gb hard drive on the $299 model.
This is good for 20 hours of HD recording or 140+ hours of SD

- External hard drive option.
This can expand capacity up to 500Gb (60 hours of HD & 400+ hours of SD), and Western Digital has a larger capacity drive in the works - I think the 750Gb drive is already out. Since SATA is internal to the OS, there are no copy-protection issues to be concerned about either - Once it's connected, it becomes part of the Tivo.

- Ethernet connectivity wired & optional wireless.
This allows the Tivo to become part of a home network. This allows internet downloads for video and audio. It also allows the Tivo to become a media hub to manage video/music libraries, kind of like a Squeezebox. It also can control other Tivos throughout the house or you can use your computer to program your Tivo.

- Links up to online rental services like Unbox.
There are other similar services, but I think what is key here, is that it brings it all together in a very simple interface all in one place: the TV room. No more trips to the video store in the dead of night or having to manage worn and abused disks through the mail.

- Has cable card slots.
I know cable card has it's share of warts, but it's a very quick and easy way to add cable to the set and have everything in one box.

And just so that lil't's nonsense doesn't misinform everyone, the company's problems that he mentions are definitely old news. The stock price has been steady (albeit having suffered the same sell-off that the whole tech sector has), but after today's news of its victory in court (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/02/01/tivo-sings-a-happy-song.aspx), the price is actually back to the price it peaked at in late December.

Product-wise the company has two technically sound HD units that are seeing slow but steady growth, and the analog shut-off in 2009 should also spur sales. Add to that the marketing agreements it has cemented with companies like Western Digital, Linksys/Cisco and, yes, even Slingbox, not to mention numerous sponsorships, Tivo will probably do quite well this coming year.

And for those who think Tivo will not survive, there has been quite a bit of acquisition press surrounding Tivo with companies such as Apple and Google as potential suiters. Yes Tivo has had some problems in the past, but to equate it to WebTV, like lil't's off-the-cuff comment, is just ignorant. The fact that it does not work with Satellite TV (Dish) is a problem, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way, either. Besides, satellite is having it's own share of problems.

Anyhow, I think the product is very attractive, especially since it makes all those technical features simple for even Joe Sixpack to use - and if you are computer-savvy, it can do all that too. Furthermore it brings downloaded rentals much closer to the average consumer, and that is a very important factor, hence the reason I brought it into this discussion. Just think what it would do for downloads if all the existing Tivo owners were to rent one downloaded movie this year, three next year, ten the following year... well you get my point - it's only a few easy-to understand clicks away and that is significant.

And just so we're clear, no I don't own Tivo stock and I don't work for the company. My observations are just that, observations. I may buy a Tivo in the future, but that's because it's a good product.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-02-2008, 02:13 PM

Well, that was a overly enthusiastic description of a product that was introduced in 1999 and still has not found all that much traction with the public. As far as the comment on the stock price, well a sudden jump because of a court decision does nothing to tell how the product is actually doing on the market. If we were to look pre-decision, it peaked in December, and when Christmas sales were totaled, it fell back to its pre-christmas place.

There is still no evidence that joesixpack is ready for wireless home networks, external hard drives attached to Tivo, and there is still no way to move anything from one place to the next like a disc can be used in one player in a house, and in another player in a different house. There is also no evidence that Tivo is being used to replace a disc based DVD or Bluray player. From all of the surveys that have been done, Tivo(and most PVR and DVR) are being used to replace the family VCR, not the family DVD player. Amazon still sells 6 times the discs than they do downloads on unbox.

Unbox is a basic zero compared to what Apple has done in market share. It is more compressed than overly compressed apple downloads. Most soundtracks are basically stereo or low bit 5.1, the video has more compression than DVD, and with sales of larger screen sizes(42+ are booming right now) the warts of downloads are very visible. With TIVO so attached to unbox, it limits its appeal. That is evident by how many units were moved over the christmas season. Considering Tivo has to compete with(less flexible and cheaper) cable HD DVR's, its future is not all that certain no matter what little liar says. Now one can see cable companies deploying Tivo software within their own DVR's, and having a tough time doing it, and getting the product in the field at previously announced roll out dates. Considering the fact that Apple stole the lion share of download/VOD revenue last year, and the introduction of Apple TV, the market is getting crowded and confusing. Also considering the cable companies moves to limit downloading in favor of pushing their own VOD, all of this could turn into a war and actually erode business for everyone. What you see above is someone who is emphasizing the good, de-emphasizing the bad in an attempt to create a much rosier picture than there really is.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-02-2008, 02:17 PM

BTW, thanks nightflier for showing this shill up for what he is.
But dont expect much in the way of reason from sir talky.
He thinks that there are INTERLACE artifacts in a PROGRESSIVE picture.
Thats what you have to work with:1:

If you were following the discussion instead of bellowing off like an idiot, we were talking about 1080p to 1080i conversion. In that context(instead of the can't keep up because I am a dumb old fart) poor interlacing has the potential of creating interlace artifacts from a progessive picture. Now a idiot who cannot draw lines between the dots would proabaly have a hard time keeping up with the discussion, much like this idiot has. Reason is one thing, idiocracy is another.

nightflier

02-02-2008, 05:37 PM

Mr Peabody

02-02-2008, 06:02 PM

Groundbeef

02-03-2008, 05:45 AM

The number one use of Tivo, DVR etc according to the folks I talk to who own them is to be able to watch their favorite programs on their own time frame. To be able to record and watch it when you have the time.

The wife and I Tivo (yes Tivo, we don't own a knockoff DVR from DirecTV) pretty much anything we want to watch. Then we start watching programs about 20 minutes after they start. In this fashion we can skip every commercial and essentially watch the program commercial free and still end at the same time.

Works great for Lost, get the kiddies in bed at 8:00. Make some tea (beer for me) and relax and watch the program.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-03-2008, 06:00 PM

OK, I'm not going to argue this point for point again. Just know that your analysis is way off. Your prejudice against computer-originated technology jades any kind of unbiased perspective you could possibly have. Just on the technical details, you don't even understand the advances that Tivo brings to the table. The way you describe them smacks of a complete lack of understanding of the technology.

Sorry, I don't look at technology in a vacum. I look at it from a perspective of how people are embracing and supporting it with their dollars, and how they are CURRENTLY using it. I have two tivo's in my house, so the very idea that I do not understand the product is ludicrous. People are not embracing tivo in a way you describe, and that is a reality you have to deal with.

And as far as the stock price, you know as well as everyone else that the whole tech sector took a dive after December. The fact that Tivo returned to where it was before the run-up at the end of the year shows that the company is doing just fine. And then, Friday's run up shows that it has tremendous potential since the price at the end of the day was as high as the December run up. You don't know anything about the stock market either, do you? Gawd, it's tiring having to point this out again.

If you call being in the toilet fine, then it is doing fine. But I hardly call eight dollars a share healthy for a CE company. Their stock was in the toilet at below six dollars a share at the end of November, and peaked to the same level they were at Christmas post court decision. Special event peaks that do not reflect the real world performance of the stock. Tivo is not doing all that well, and anyone that can analyze the rise and fall of a stock price based on events can see that.

You just want to piss on another good product and it's really irritating considering how technologically backwards you are. You're just a bitter old Luddite who probably sneers at iPod-wearing teenagers as you drive by them in your oldsmobile, huh? It probably has an 8track player, doesn't it, LOL. Are you really going to go out so bitter, miserable, and angry? If your whole life revolves around crapping on everyone else in online forums, then you really have some issues (but we've already determined that haven't we?). You know, maybe you should buy yourself a Tivo - even the logo is smiling.

You're not just small, lil't, you are truly pathetic, too. Get a life.

Well considering I own three Ipods, drive a hybrid two seater and a hybrid SUV, I would not consider myself all that backward. I am a realist, not a pie in the sky painter like you are. Your analysis is one sided, unbalanced, and not reflecting at any level what is currently happening in the market, and what trends that market reflects. As long as Tivo is attached to unbox, is slow rolling out its products in the cable market, and continues to miss targets dates, it will suffer in the stock market, and in the consumer market as well. Is it a good product? Yes it is. But to most, it is a replacement for the VCR, and not any disc based player. When that changes, I will be the first to admit that. Until it changes, I would prefer to be more real about about the product, and its influence on the market.

There is another reality. You know nothing about me, about my life, state of mind, or any other personal thing about me. So skip the personal comments, and focus on artificially pumping up products that support your industry. The only problem with this, is you are not very good at it.

pixelthis

02-03-2008, 09:34 PM

If you were following the discussion instead of bellowing off like an idiot, we were talking about 1080p to 1080i conversion. In that context(instead of the can't keep up because I am a dumb old fart) poor interlacing has the potential of creating interlace artifacts from a progessive picture. Now a idiot who cannot draw lines between the dots would proabaly have a hard time keeping up with the discussion, much like this idiot has. Reason is one thing, idiocracy is another.

What a delusional idiot.
There is no reason to convert 1080p to 1080i, and no matter, if you start off with a progressive format and convert it to interlace, you will STILL get interlacing artifacts,
bacause interlacing artifacts are the result of laying two fields on a tube.
Doesnt matter where those two fields came from, progressive converted to interlace or a broadcast 1080i pic.
And 24 fps pixel for pixel just shows that you're making stuff up.
Your house must look like a best buy warehouse blew up, its awfully conveienent
how you always manage to "have" a certain piece of gear, be it a hybrid car, a projection
video rig, a direct view, etc.
Obviously you're making stuff up.
Pixel for pixel is brand new, older sets dont have it.
And if you do have a set capable of 1440p (which is pure vaporware) the picture would be quite dim.
AND the CRT is basically dead, there are some esoteric models out there but just arent relevant to any kind of serious discussion.
As for CRT being "superiour " to the new panels, bull.
Is that why you can't get a CRT anymore except for a 26in standard def from walmart?
GEE, I guess everybodies wrong except you, because they're snapping up flat panels like nobodies business.
Dimness, weight, bulkiness, visible pixel structure, and a real world limit of around 900
lines of resolution are probably some of the reasons.
You like CRT because thats all they let you have in that one room walkup with a neon MOTEL sign outside the window probably.
What a loser:1:

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-04-2008, 11:57 AM

What a delusional idiot.
There is no reason to convert 1080p to 1080i, and no matter, if you start off with a progressive format and convert it to interlace, you will STILL get interlacing artifacts,
bacause interlacing artifacts are the result of laying two fields on a tube.

There is a reason to interlace a 1080p image. If you television is native 1080i, then interlacing is a must or the set will not produce a picture. Secondly, advanced video processing has virtually eleminated most all interlacing artifacts to the point that you cannot tell a 1080i image from a 1080p one. Thirdly all depends on how many lines the CRT can put up on the screen. Displays that are large(RPTV) but can only display 700 lines or so, will have more visible interlacing artifacts that a CRT that does 2500x2000 lines like my set, and the projectors I linked to. That is because the lines become so fine our eyes cannot detect them. The proof is in the pudding however, and I told you that you are oversimplfying the process.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/gearworks/1106gear/

And 24 fps pixel for pixel just shows that you're making stuff up.

Hate to kill your horse, but the PS3 has a 24fps mode for film playback, and it outputs a native 1080p signal. With test signals put together by the guys that redesigned my television set, my television clearly displayed every bit of information on the test signals without even the slightest bit of degradation. You are welcome to bring your hillbilly butt to my house and check it out for yourself.

Your house must look like a best buy warehouse blew up, its awfully conveienent
how you always manage to "have" a certain piece of gear, be it a hybrid car, a projection
video rig, a direct view, etc.
Obviously you're making stuff up.

I detect a hint of jealousy here. I do not know about what it is like in appalachian mountains where you come from, but in the bay area hybrid cars are a dime a dozen. Lots of people have projection setups. Just because you cannot afford these things, does not mean that everyone can't.

Pixel for pixel is brand new, older sets dont have it.

Pixel for pixel is a processing algorythm. The processing can be found within the set, or an outboard processor. As long as the CRT has the necessary resolution, the processing can send the algorythm to the projector for display via an outboard processor. That describes my setup. My television is just basically a monitor with D/A conversion built in. The outboard processor does all of the video processing.

And if you do have a set capable of 1440p (which is pure vaporware) the picture would be quite dim.

Not quite. There is a reason you use 9" guns on such a small screen. Increased brightness. My CRT guns are basically short throw version of the G90 CRT's. The G90 CRT's are designed for screens that are up to 300" and still meet SPMTE requirements for brightness. Since my screen is alot smaller than 300", it is no problem to get 1440p and still make light levels that exceed SMPTE standards by a least a factor of 3. SMPTE recommends total brightness levels to be 16.5fl across the entire screen. My television does 49.5ftl with a 1440p test signal. That is how you deal with diming factor of higher resolutions.

http://tedwhite.homestead.com/G90.html

Welcome to the world of custom equipment. They can be built to meet any standard as long as you can afford it.

AND the CRT is basically dead, there are some esoteric models out there but just arent relevant to any kind of serious discussion.
As for CRT being "superiour " to the new panels, bull.

CRT is far from dead, but is not sold in stores. You purchase them from places like this

http://www.curtpalme.com/index.shtml

Is that why you can't get a CRT anymore except for a 26in standard def from walmart?

You would be the Walmart type. When I said you know nothing about high end CRT and custom setups, this shows it. I am not talking about direct view television. I am talking about projection, and custom projection sets. You could not find a good quality RPTV at Walmart even when these were popular. More of that hillbilly mentality.

GEE, I guess everybodies wrong except you, because they're snapping up flat panels like nobodies business.

The American public has always chosen form over substance. That is why Britney Spears is mention on network news. It might be convient, easy and simple to hang a panel on a wall, but panels have alot of problems of their own in many respects. I never said anyone is wrong, but the best high end CRT projection and rear projection sets still are the ulimate way of viewing video.

Dimness, weight, bulkiness, visible pixel structure, and a real world limit of around 900
lines of resolution are probably some of the reasons.
You like CRT because thats all they let you have in that one room walkup with a neon MOTEL sign outside the window probably.
What a loser:1:

Dimness is conquered by using large CRT guns(9"). Visual pixel structure is dealt with my using higher quality CRT guns capable of higher resolutions(like the three projectors I pointed out to you, but you are trying to ignore), real world testing on my set, and the three projectors yield a solid 1100 lines. Once again, you know nothing about higher end CRT displays.

And as far as the last comment. A one tooth man who is old, stupid and backwards cannot insult me. I just do not care. The limit of your knowledge of CRT stops at direct views. You apparently know nothing else higher than that.

pixelthis

02-05-2008, 01:38 AM

Sir Terrence the Terrible]There is a reason to interlace a 1080p image. If you television is native 1080i, then interlacing is a must or the set will not produce a picture. Secondly, advanced video processing has virtually eleminated most all interlacing artifacts to the point that you cannot tell a 1080i image from a 1080p one. Thirdly all depends on how many lines the CRT can put up on the screen. Displays that are large(RPTV) but can only display 700 lines or so, will have more visible interlacing artifacts that a CRT that does 2500x2000 lines like my set, and the projectors I linked to. That is because the lines become so fine our eyes cannot detect them. The proof is in the pudding however, and I told you that you are oversimplfying the process.

Don't know why I keep wasting time with this loser but here goes.
If you have a 1080i set it wont interlace 1080p, like mr P you wont get a picture, because all sets on the market that are 1080i wont take 1080p, so your argument is moot, like always, and dont mention a bunch of vaporware from some lab that will never be commercial , or at best shown in a few millonares homes, what does that matter to
ANYBODY.
And if you can't tell a 1080p from a 1080i no matter how much proccessing is involved, well, that explains a lot.
And the larger a display the more visible the line structure, true, which is why deinterlacing became popular in the first place. You are talking about interlacing, which is stupid, any interlaced picture of size will show a visible line structure.
Which is why any large picture, especially front projectors, are DEINTERLACED.
yOU HAVE crts AS GUNS IN YOUR FRONT PROJECTOR , well, they must be progressive, making a large screen projector with interlaced pic wouldnt make any sense,
it just wouldnt look good

Hate to kill your horse, but the PS3 has a 24fps mode for film playback, and it outputs a native 1080p signal. With test signals put together by the guys that redesigned my television set, my television clearly displayed every bit of information on the test signals without even the slightest bit of degradation. You are welcome to bring your hillbilly butt to my house and check it out for yourself.

Yeah, and next time I buy a set I will have a bunch of guys come to MY house and redesign it, just like everybody does.
Your statement proves my point that 24fps is new btw.
If your statement about your custom gear is a lie, then you are a liar, but if its true then that is even worse, because you are making marketing decisions for a large company and are TOTALLY out of touch with reality.
Do you really think most people have "custom designed TV " sets in there house?

I detect a hint of jealousy here. I do not know about what it is like in appalachian mountains where you come from, but in the bay area hybrid cars are a dime a dozen. Lots of people have projection setups. Just because you cannot afford these things, does not mean that everyone can't.

Yeah, yeah, like most people on one of the two coasts of this country you dismiss the vast population in the middle that buys stuff from stores, instead of "having the guys"
from the "lab" COBBLE UP SOMETHING.
I AM TALKING ABOUT REALITY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT VAPORWARE.
I am sure its all s++ts and giggles out there in La La land, why dont you visit America once in awhile?

Pixel for pixel is a processing algorythm. The processing can be found within the set, or an outboard processor. As long as the CRT has the necessary resolution, the processing can send the algorythm to the projector for display via an outboard processor. That describes my setup. My television is just basically a monitor with D/A conversion built in. The outboard processor does all of the video processing.

I know at least a dozen people with a similar setup (sarcasm intended)

Not quite. There is a reason you use 9" guns on such a small screen. Increased brightness. My CRT guns are basically short throw version of the G90 CRT's. The G90 CRT's are designed for screens that are up to 300" and still meet SPMTE requirements for brightness. Since my screen is alot smaller than 300", it is no problem to get 1440p and still make light levels that exceed SMPTE standards by a least a factor of 3. SMPTE recommends total brightness levels to be 16.5fl across the entire screen. My television does 49.5ftl with a 1440p test signal. That is how you deal with diming factor of higher resolutions.

Yeah, you use rediculously expensive 9" guns instead of 7" ones.
Why dont you talk about the real world instead of a few esoteric pieces designed mostly
for presentations?

Welcome to the world of custom equipment. They can be built to meet any standard as long as you can afford it.
Which is not of any relevance at all, as only a handfull can, and out of those only a
few will care.
My cousin is worth 2.5 mill, and all he ever watches is teh news and finance channels,
I had to explain a DVR to him when he came over the other day

CRT is far from dead, but is not sold in stores. You purchase them from places like this

I am talking about a real commercial product.
The best amp I ever had was a three stage built with FET'S, and I built it.
I wouldnt use it in any comparison because its irrelevant, because you cant go out and buy one

You would be the Walmart type. When I said you know nothing about high end CRT and custom setups, this shows it. I am not talking about direct view television. I am talking about projection, and custom projection sets. You could not find a good quality RPTV at Walmart even when these were popular. More of that hillbilly mentality.

I dont buy my gear at Wallmart ass, but thats the ONLY place most ever see CRT these days, and I am not talking about custom setups, most of which are overpriced, difficult to usae and have no real world relevance

The American public has always chosen form over substance. That is why Britney Spears is mention on network news. It might be convient, easy and simple to hang a panel on a wall, but panels have alot of problems of their own in many respects. I never said anyone is wrong, but the best high end CRT projection and rear projection sets still are the ulimate way of viewing video.

Your opinion, and mostly pure snobbery and wrong.
OLED is the future, LCD will get us there, not CRT, and of those front projection
"standard bearers" most are DLP and SXRD, CRT is a dead end, wont even be here in a few years

Dimness is conquered by using large CRT guns(9"). Visual pixel structure is dealt with my using higher quality CRT guns capable of higher resolutions(like the three projectors I pointed out to you, but you are trying to ignore), real world testing on my set, and the three projectors yield a solid 1100 lines. Once again, you know nothing about higher end CRT displays.

And dont care to, as these are dinosaurs.
I used to work for a company that had 9" ceiling mount front projectors for pretty much the reasons you suggested, they still had to turn the lights out and people would nap.
Right before I left they were replacing ALL of these.
Without economies of scale, in paticular the business market, CRT is doomed,
so enjoy your atavistic fantasy world of retro tech, it aint gonna be here long

And as far as the last comment. A one tooth man who is old, stupid and backwards cannot insult me. I just do not care. The limit of your knowledge of CRT stops at direct views. You apparently know nothing else higher than that.

I dont waste my time with obsolete junk.
There is nothing a CRT can do that a DLP, or SXRD or lcos can't do, but they can do plenty that a CRT can't do.
CRT has been around my entire life, I am well aquainted with both front and direct view,
and RPTV(had three).
And I am damned glad to see them slide down over the horizon.
There is nothing they can do that more advanced , cheaper,newer tech can do better:1:

GMichael

02-05-2008, 06:19 AM

Breath Pixie, breath. Take a long slow inhale. Now hold it for a 5 count. Then let it out slowly.
Repeat until the voices go quiet.

Groundbeef

02-05-2008, 06:55 AM

Breath Pixie, breath. Take a long slow inhale. Now hold it for a 5 count. Then let it out slowly.
Repeat until the voices go quiet.

I like the part where he removes Sir T's quote marks, so it looks like he is arguing with himself.

GMichael

02-05-2008, 07:01 AM

I like the part where he removes Sir T's quote marks, so it looks like he is arguing with himself.

He still hasn't figued out how to do that right. And yet, he expects us to believe that he's Mr. Smart.

Hello Max,
I think your shoe is ringing.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-05-2008, 07:01 AM

I like the part where he removes Sir T's quote marks, so it looks like he is arguing with himself.

Did you also notice the part where he completely sidesteps the links I posted to projectors that go to 1100, effectively blowing a whole in is arugment that CRT do not go past 1000 lines? Or how about the link that states that there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p visually, and it was tested. The real telling thing is that he refusing to talk about what he does understand, and dismisses it entirely.

Pixel is one of those guys that like to put it out, and take nothing in. In the end you're bankrupt and stupid.

Mr Peabody

02-05-2008, 05:32 PM

pixelthis

02-06-2008, 12:20 AM

He still hasn't figued out how to do that right. And yet, he expects us to believe that he's Mr. Smart.

Hello Max,
I think your shoe is ringing.

I just dont care to.
AND i TOOK YOUR ADVICE ABOUJT BREATHING AND YOU'RE STILL HERE
dang:1:

pixelthis

02-06-2008, 12:31 AM

Did you also notice the part where he completely sidesteps the links I posted to projectors that go to 1100, effectively blowing a whole in is arugment that CRT do not go past 1000 lines? Or how about the link that states that there is no difference between 1080i and 1080p visually, and it was tested. The real telling thing is that he refusing to talk about what he does understand, and dismisses it entirely.

Pixel is one of those guys that like to put it out, and take nothing in. In the end you're bankrupt and stupid.

You proved my point so I didnt see any real need to.
Mainly that the CRT is dead except for the lab and a few installs that only plutocrats
could afford.
At MIT they had a 2,000p direct view display, CRT.
But that doesnt mean a crap if you cant walk into the store and buy one, or even order one.
I dont care to talk about stuff that the "guys" put together for you, etc.
THE TRUTH IS THAT COMMERCIALY the CRT is dead, and thats all thats relevant.
Any decent 9" gun front projector setup will run into the thousands, and is
nonsense from a cost effective standpoint, there is just no reason to own one of these

pixelthis

02-06-2008, 12:43 AM

On one post Pix argues with me that ANY RCA will work in place of a component cable, who knows what resolution he is getting, he's probably lucky to see 480i and he wants to argue here resolution....

I'm seeing those HD-DVD players show up on Craig's List. Most are cheap but one guy wanted $1k for the player and 67 movies, good luck.

Everytime you post something you show your ignorance.
You have a right to be a dumba**s , dont abuse the privilge.

Those rca cables dont pass an entire signal, one passes blue, one passes red, one passes green and information.

There are three componet cables because one cant handle the bandwidth , also keeping the different colors seperated helps keep interferrence down.
But one RCA cable is just as good as the other, there isnt any magic juice that makes a "componet" cable "special".
Have a repairman tell you if you dont beleive me, its a simple matter of running a signal with a freq generator through the cable, read it on the other side with a scope,
there is NO signal loss.
I do have two componet cables made by monster, but that is just for the quality.
One is now doing duty as three channels of my six channel out on my SACD player.
Another is on my DVD recorder.
The only thing I use for HD is HDMI nowadays , anyway.
But if you want to waste your money on marketing gimmicks go ahead.
But I wasnt offering advice to you, fenderhead, I was offering it to the one who started the thread, he seemed pretty wise, wise enough not to waste his money on gimmicks.
Unlike you.:1:

pixelthis

02-06-2008, 12:49 AM

I like the part where he removes Sir T's quote marks, so it looks like he is arguing with himself.

Might as well be arguing with myself, sir talky is as dense as he is delusional.

Not that its any of your business.
You named yourself after a cow thats been through a blender and have shown on previous posts that you are a very young person, nothing wrong with that, but your world view is a bit limited, in other words you're still wet behind the ears.:1:

pixelthis

02-06-2008, 12:53 AM

I guess that about covers it, anybody have ANYTHING to say that makes sense, is relevant to the real world , or isnt ignorant, misinformed, vicious, or just
gibberish?
I DIDNT THINK SO:ciappa:

GMichael

02-06-2008, 06:18 AM

I just dont care to.
AND i TOOK YOUR ADVICE ABOUJT BREATHING AND YOU'RE STILL HERE
dang:1:
Come now Pix. Implying that I'm one on the voices in your head just isn't funny. It's not even insulting to me. I'll give you another shot. Go ahead. Put some thought into it this time.

How oh how will you ever graduate my troll classes with a weak effort like that?

GMichael

02-06-2008, 06:22 AM

You named yourself after a cow thats been through a blender .:1:

That's better. At least I got a smile out of this part.
Keep working at it. You'll get there.

GMichael

02-06-2008, 06:24 AM

I guess that about covers it, anybody have ANYTHING to say that makes sense, is relevant to the real world , or isnt ignorant, misinformed, vicious, or just
gibberish?
I DIDNT THINK SO:ciappa:

Nope. But then again, neither did you. Maybe you'll pass my class after all.

nightflier

02-06-2008, 04:16 PM

If I didn't know better, I'd say you're bi-polar too.

Sorry, I don't look at technology in a vacum. I look at it from a perspective of how people are embracing and supporting it with their dollars, and how they are CURRENTLY using it. I have two tivo's in my house, so the very idea that I do not understand the product is ludicrous. People are not embracing tivo in a way you describe, and that is a reality you have to deal with.

You look at technology only through sales figures and that is myopic. You just can't get a handle on the fact that the sales figures are not enough. It is why you're missing the whole download concept. It seems to me that the only perspective you have of how people are currently using Tivo is your own. I'm sorry you're just not able to figure out what else you can do with it. That says nothing about how others are using it. See, this is just one of those things you can't measure with sales figures.

By the way, I didn't say people were embracing Tivo in any way. What I was describing is what it can do, how it's applicable to this discussion, and how it will change the way people get their entertainment. How people are currently using it can't be known by you or anyone else. I'm describing the product and it's potential, that's all.

If you call being in the toilet fine, then it is doing fine. But I hardly call eight dollars a share healthy for a CE company. Their stock was in the toilet at below six dollars a share at the end of November, and peaked to the same level they were at Christmas post court decision. Special event peaks that do not reflect the real world performance of the stock. Tivo is not doing all that well, and anyone that can analyze the rise and fall of a stock price based on events can see that.

Again, complete nonsense. Only you would suggest that companies can be evaluated by their stock price. Let's think about this. If IBM is hovering around $100 a share and Google at $500 a share, that does not at all mean that Google is 500 times as healthy as IBM. Ever heard of market capitalization? Read up on your Economics for Dummies book, will you? There are thousands of publicly traded companies with low stock prices that are doing just fine. The measure of a company through it's stock has far more to do with a consistent and sustained drop in price. The fact that Tivo can rebound is a sign it isn't as bad off as you make it out to be.

Oh, and Tivo is still hovering around $8 a share; so no, that court decision news wasn't a transitory jump. Granted, the price isn't the $14 it was in '04, nor the whopping $80 at the end of the millennium, but geez, how many companies are still being measured by that stick? Right now, the price is where it has been for the past 2-3 years and that means that the company is doing just fine. No it's not on my list of stocks to buy right now, but that is hardly a reason to shun the product line. All your information about Tivo is based on old news, your own narrow experience at home, and misguided emotional opinions. That is hardly something to base an educated analysis on - and certainly nothing to base a purchasing decision on.

Well considering I own three Ipods, drive a hybrid two seater and a hybrid SUV, I would not consider myself all that backward. I am a realist, not a pie in the sky painter like you are.

Oh, so you own a couple of outdated Tivos and iPods and now all of a sudden we're supposed to believe you know technology? Your admission of your fears about technology paints you like a technophobe more than anything else. Oh, and just so we're clear, Tivos and iPods are about the simplest technologies you could use to do what these devices do. Even my 2 yr. old knows how to work my iPod so they hardly make you technologically savvy, lil't. And what's with the hybrid SUV? Are we supposed to think that makes you a nice person or something? It certainly says nothing about your technological know-how - it works just like a regular automatic (well for everyone else, at least, I don't know what else you go through to turn it on and drive). Again, more evidence that you surround yourself with simple technologies because you're a technophobe.

As long as Tivo is attached to unbox, is slow rolling out its products in the cable market, and continues to miss targets dates, it will suffer in the stock market, and in the consumer market as well.

Again, only in your narrow mind is it limited to Unbox, lil't. Slow rolling out and missing target dates? That's in the past, we already covered that. And because it is old news, it has little impact on its stock price right now. And as far as the cable market is concerned, we can't know what will happen. I imagine that the satellite companies and Tivo are just itching to ink a new agreement - there is just too much competition for the consumers' attention to keep fighting this to a stalemate.

But to most, it is a replacement for the VCR, and not any disc based player. When that changes, I will be the first to admit that. Until it changes, I would prefer to be more real about about the product, and its influence on the market.

"But to most"? What makes you the authority on speaking for everyone? Tivo's most popular feature is season pass, and that's already more than any VCR can do. So why don't you be a good little boy and admit that. Oh, don't want to? Then don't say you will. I've been trying to get you to commit to a statement for some time and you have yet to put your writing where your mouth is.

There is another reality. You know nothing about me, about my life, state of mind, or any other personal thing about me.

Actually the more you type away with your long-winded rebuttals, insults, evasions, fan-boyisms, bi-polar responses, and yes, even lies, the more we find out about you. I know there aren't many people here who are willing to challenge you on your outdated stats and you "insider" information, but someone has to point out how narrow-minded and incomplete it is. If you actually considered that, you'd realize that your perspective isn't accurate enough to command the authority you think you have here. It's really academic that your rigid point of view cannot be representative, but somehow you can't accept that and so you get personal with everyone who challenges you. Ultimately, in the course of responding in this way you wind up demonstrating obvious emotional issues - well that's your own doing, lil't.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-06-2008, 07:05 PM

If I didn't know better, I'd say you're bi-polar too.

You don't know better, and who cares what you have to say.

You look at technology only through sales figures and that is myopic. You just can't get a handle on the fact that the sales figures are not enough. It is why you're missing the whole download concept. It seems to me that the only perspective you have of how people are currently using Tivo is your own. I'm sorry you're just not able to figure out what else you can do with it. That says nothing about how others are using it. See, this is just one of those things you can't measure with sales figures.

Sales figures tell how popular a product really is, not what some cumputer geeks think is popular. Technology is nothing until somebody embraces it. You believe in technology for technology sake. I do not share that belief. Tivo is tied to unbox, it is sold as a seperate component, and it just beginning to find its way into cable boxes. It however has not sold enough units to make it popular(even if it is a good product), and it certainly is not being used at you state in any great numbers.

By the way, I didn't say people were embracing Tivo in any way. What I was describing is what it can do, how it's applicable to this discussion, and how it will change the way people get their entertainment. How people are currently using it can't be known by you or anyone else. I'm describing the product and it's potential, that's all.

If they are not buying the product in numbers that make it popular, then all of this is irrelevant. You brought downloading into this discussion, and it is not about downloading at all. No matter where someone is talking about bluray or HD DVD, you chime in with this download $hit. Tivo knows how folks are using their PVR, its tied in directly to their computers. They sell this information to folks like NDP, so data can be amassed and analyzed. If you do not think Tivo knows, you are a fool. Wait, you are anyway.

Again, complete nonsense. Only you would suggest that companies can be evaluated by their stock price. Let's think about this. If IBM is hovering around $100 a share and Google at $500 a share, that does not at all mean that Google is 500 times as healthy as IBM. Ever heard of market capitalization? Read up on your Economics for Dummies book, will you? There are thousands of publicly traded companies with low stock prices that are doing just fine. The measure of a company through it's stock has far more to do with a consistent and sustained drop in price. The fact that Tivo can rebound is a sign it isn't as bad off as you make it out to be.

I never made any such suggestion. I said that Tivo is not doing all that well, and its stock prices show this. They lost $17 million in the second quarter, about $10 million in the third, and I have yet to see the final 2007 figure overall. You cannot tell me a company is doing just fine and they cannot meet roll out projections, and have lost $27 million in two quarter. Now I may not be a wall street type, but I manage my own portfolio and have learned enough to understand a healthy company, from a not so healthy one. Tivo rebound was not performance driven, it was driven by a court decision. All one has to do is look at before and after.

Oh, and Tivo is still hovering around $8 a share; so no, that court decision news wasn't a transitory jump. Granted, the price isn't the $14 it was in '04, nor the whopping $80 at the end of the millennium, but geez, how many companies are still being measured by that stick? Right now, the price is where it has been for the past 2-3 years and that means that the company is doing just fine. No it's not on my list of stocks to buy right now, but that is hardly a reason to shun the product line. All your information about Tivo is based on old news, your own narrow experience at home, and misguided emotional opinions. That is hardly something to base an educated analysis on - and certainly nothing to base a purchasing decision on.

Did you go and check the stock price and its trend? It was below $5 a share at the end of November. It jumped to about $8 just before christmas, and right after christmas dropped back to $6 dollars a share. Post court decision it jumped up to $8 a share. This is current information, and flies in the face of your lies about it being old. You keep lying over and over saying something is old, when you do not have access to it, or cannot argue against it. Face it, you do not have the information I have, so you do not know how old it is. I do not get emotional when I post here, and you should not continue with you stupid psycho analysis. You are as wrong with that as you are with your understanding of the market, sales, revenue, a business plan, trends, and what is hot, and what is not.

Oh, so you own a couple of outdated Tivos and iPods and now all of a sudden we're supposed to believe you know technology?

I do not believe I told anyone here when I purchased my stuff. So how do you arrive to this idiotic conclusion?

Your admission of your fears about technology paints you like a technophobe more than anything else.

I never said I feared technology, so where did you get this idiotic conclusion?

Oh, and just so we're clear, Tivos and iPods are about the simplest technologies you could use to do what these devices do. Even my 2 yr. old knows how to work my iPod so they hardly make you technologically savvy, lil't. And what's with the hybrid SUV? Are we supposed to think that makes you a nice person or something? It certainly says nothing about your technological know-how - it works just like a regular automatic (well for everyone else, at least, I don't know what else you go through to turn it on and drive). Again, more evidence that you surround yourself with simple technologies because you're a technophobe.

Who said I didn't know how to use tivo or an ipod? Where did you get that idioctic conclusion? What does this have to do with Toshiba, Bluray, fighting back or well kind of?
You are just blaring out stuff like a stone fool. You know nothing about my life. Now you just said that tivo and Ipod where so easy to use that your crappy diaper kid can use it, now you are critisizing someone for keeping their life simple. What kind of schetzo thought process is this. Technology can be used to entertain, and make ones life simplier. If it cannot do that, then just what purpose does it serve? Your mentality is exactly the same as you two year old. Your intelligence factor is probably that the same as well.

Again, only in your narrow mind is it limited to Unbox, lil't. Slow rolling out and missing target dates? That's in the past, we already covered that. And because it is old news, it has little impact on its stock price right now. And as far as the cable market is concerned, we can't know what will happen. I imagine that the satellite companies and Tivo are just itching to ink a new agreement - there is just too much competition for the consumers' attention to keep fighting this to a stalemate.

Missing target dates occured as recently as last month in the northeast with its cable companies set top boxes. Amazon uses Tivo especially for its downloads. Amazon's website is the most advertising I have seen for Tivo, so for all intended purposes, its locked into Amazons unbox. As far as overall sales, it ain't. And that is why the stock prices suck, and the company has not been doing well.

"But to most"? What makes you the authority on speaking for everyone? Tivo's most popular feature is season pass, and that's already more than any VCR can do. So why don't you be a good little boy and admit that. Oh, don't want to? Then don't say you will. I've been trying to get you to commit to a statement for some time and you have yet to put your writing where your mouth is.

Tivo records programs, that is its primary function. Everything else just makes that easier. It cannot play DVD's, CD, or blurays. So it functions more like a VCR than anything else. Season pass is nothing more than a program manger that does not require a timer. Big deal, its made a step above the VCR. The simple fact is people must find the Bluray player more interesting than Tivo, because they are certainly outselling them, and by a long shot. Tivo is not replacing disc media.

What would make things alot more simple is if you understand that you cannot COMMIT me do anything. You control you, I control me. Can you understand this?

Actually the more you type away with your long-winded rebuttals, insults, evasions, fan-boyisms, bi-polar responses, and yes, even lies, the more we find out about you. I know there aren't many people here who are willing to challenge you on your outdated stats and you "insider" information, but someone has to point out how narrow-minded and incomplete it is. If you actually considered that, you'd realize that your perspective isn't accurate enough to command the authority you think you have here. It's really academic that your rigid point of view cannot be representative, but somehow you can't accept that and so you get personal with everyone who challenges you. Ultimately, in the course of responding in this way you wind up demonstrating obvious emotional issues - well that's your own doing, lil't.

When you can come up with information that succesfully rebuts mine, then you can call what I say what you describe above. So far all I have seen is your computer geek opinion, enough lies to make pinocchio nose stretch from Japan to England via a western route, over sold ideas that have no basis in reality, and a uninteresting peek into the life of a computer geek(something I do not care about in the least).

Post a link, a fact, post ANYTHING that supports your assertions aside from your half a$$ opinions. You are just mad and frustrated that you cannot get any traction against what I have posted. You cannot call it lies, because you have not provided anything that rebuts it aside from your opinion. I take facts over opinion any day, especially opinions coming from a known liar like you. You just like for the sake of it, you cannot help yourself. Your pride is making you lie, you lack of information is making you lie, you lack of facts is making you lie, and the fact your opinion is counter to the truth makes you lie. I do not think you need anything to tell a lie but a chance.

Before I came back, you could tell lies and get away with it(except with Wooch who has definately got your number). Now I am here to rebut your lies as well, and you just hate it. Now go back to the liar lair before I ask Woochifer to deal with you. You seem deathly afraid when he speaks.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-06-2008, 07:16 PM

You proved my point so I didnt see any real need to.
Mainly that the CRT is dead except for the lab and a few installs that only plutocrats
could afford.
At MIT they had a 2,000p direct view display, CRT.
But that doesnt mean a crap if you cant walk into the store and buy one, or even order one.
I dont care to talk about stuff that the "guys" put together for you, etc.
THE TRUTH IS THAT COMMERCIALY the CRT is dead, and thats all thats relevant.
Any decent 9" gun front projector setup will run into the thousands, and is
nonsense from a cost effective standpoint, there is just no reason to own one of these

This is such a poor mans arguement. You can lead a old dog to a trail, but you cannot make the fool walk. I posted a link to where you can order a high end CRT, so you can order one knucklehead. Now just because YOU cannot afford it(which is your problem not mine) does not mean others cannot get it. You just hang in their with you computer screen/television.

Oh and by the way, did you know that bluray discs are authored in 1080p 24fps? So something has to interlace the picture for 1080i displays right? Well that would be the player. So once again for the foolish, 1080p has to be interlace for a 1080i display, so you DO have to interlace 1080p.

pixelthis

02-06-2008, 11:28 PM

This is such a poor mans arguement. You can lead a old dog to a trail, but you cannot make the fool walk. I posted a link to where you can order a high end CRT, so you can order one knucklehead. Now just because YOU cannot afford it(which is your problem not mine) does not mean others cannot get it. You just hang in their with you computer screen/television.

Oh and by the way, did you know that bluray discs are authored in 1080p 24fps? So something has to interlace the picture for 1080i displays right? Well that would be the player. So once again for the foolish, 1080p has to be interlace for a 1080i display, so you DO have to interlace 1080p.

Actually, no.

You DO have to interlace 1080p for a 1080i display, question is who would want to?
For one thing 1080i displays are practically nonexistent.
Front projectors, even the custom one you talk about, just about has to have a progressive display , if not you'll see the line structure.
Blu does play 1080i, true, but this is for the few atavistic throwbacks with this kind of display.
I have seen a 1080p picture on a 1080p display, 24fps pixel for pixel, even in a lighted store it looks fantastic, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND why anyone would want to downconvert it and screw it up with interlace artifacts.
I didn't say that you couldn't deinterlace 1080p, I just said you'd have to be an idiot to do so.
I guess you qualify:1:

pixelthis

02-06-2008, 11:33 PM

That's better. At least I got a smile out of this part.
Keep working at it. You'll get there.

You think I actually give a rats ass? THINK A LOT ABOUT YOURSELF DONT YOU?

You never contribute a friggin thing, probably because you don't know jack about the
subject, or little else.
About all you're good for is a living example arguing against recreational drug use

Get a "smile" outta THAT, ass?:1:

pixelthis

02-06-2008, 11:44 PM

pixelthis

02-06-2008, 11:47 PM

He still hasn't figued out how to do that right. And yet, he expects us to believe that he's Mr. Smart.

Hello Max,
I think your shoe is ringing.

And you wasted your youth watching get smart

WHile I was watching Emma on the "avengers"

Even as a kid I outclassed you:1:

GMichael

02-07-2008, 06:53 AM

And you wasted your youth watching get smart

WHile I was watching Emma on the "avengers"

Even as a kid I outclassed you:1:

Who said I didn't watch both? Don't forget The Man from Uncle while you're at it.

Groundbeef

02-07-2008, 07:44 AM

GM, with Pix at a 10:1 ratio (10 responses for every 1 initial post he makes) he is gonna out post you in about 4 weeks.

And seeing as how rep points are dolled out, you may make it to the bottom of the list even faster!

GMichael

02-07-2008, 07:51 AM

Rich-n-Texas

02-07-2008, 09:41 AM

Life will still go on.
Besides, I like being on the bottom.
AH HAH!!!

And you said you didn't know the answer as to how the contest works! :incazzato:

It's a bottoms-up game and I'm going to WIN!!! :ihih:

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-07-2008, 09:59 AM

BTW I'll ORDER ONE OF YOUR "HIGH END " CRT DISPLAYS
when I want to pay thousands for a device that I'll have to twin to get the brightness and picture of a 1,000$ dlp projector from circuit city.:1:

What a stupid statement. Your DLP cannot spread its high brightness over 300", the high end projector can. Now I clearly understand your standard of quality. Its not performance oriented, its price oriented.

GMichael

02-07-2008, 10:47 AM

AH HAH!!!

And you said you didn't know the answer as to how the contest works! :incazzato:

It's a bottoms-up game and I'm going to WIN!!! :ihih:

What contest? I just like being on the bottom. If you don't believe me, you can ask my wife. :ihih:

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-07-2008, 10:57 AM

Actually, no.

You DO have to interlace 1080p for a 1080i display, question is who would want to?
For one thing 1080i displays are practically nonexistent.

Oh really. What about the millions of 1080i RPTV that have been sold over the last 3-5 years? Sometimes its not just what you see, but what you cannot see.

Front projectors, even the custom one you talk about, just about has to have a progressive display , if not you'll see the line structure.

Mine is progressive, but it can also accept and natively display 480i, 540p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p as can the projectors I linked to can, try that with a fixed panel. This is the glorious flexibility of three gun CRT. It is not a given that you will see line structure. It all depends on how far you sit from the display, and how close the line structure really is. 1080i television that can actually support 1000 lines and above(upper end mitsubishi, Toshibas theaterwide 65", and some hitachi models) you would be hard pressed to see any line structure at 8-10 feet away. This is not single gun CRT.

Blu does play 1080i, true, but this is for the few atavistic throwbacks with this kind of display.

Well, since you cannot tell 1080i from 1080p at normal viewing distances, this comment should be taken with a grain of salt.

I have seen a 1080p picture on a 1080p display, 24fps pixel for pixel, even in a lighted store it looks fantastic, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND why anyone would want to downconvert it and screw it up with interlace artifacts.

A poor interlacing circuit will yield poor results. A poor deinterlacing circuit will yield poor results. There are quite a few progessive scanned television that deinterlace poorly. Interlacing is not downcoverting, it is just splitting fields. Downconversion is what happens when a bluray disc is played through your television. You lose half of the information on disc when it is downconverted to 720p. No deinterlacing in the world will recover lost resolution. Once again, increased refresh rates and proprietary processing effectively erased interlacing artifacts on better RPTV and projectors.

I didn't say that you couldn't deinterlace 1080p, I just said you'd have to be an idiot to do so.
I guess you qualify:1:

I cannot hold a match to you in this area. So all owners of 1080i sets are idiots? That pretty idiotic in itself.

Mr Peabody

02-07-2008, 07:29 PM

Agent 99 wasn't chopped liver. Pix works for KAOS. Too bad we can't put him under the cloak of silence and leave him there.

E-Stat

02-07-2008, 08:48 PM

Agent 99 wasn't chopped liver. Pix works for KAOS. Too bad we can't put him under the cloak of silence and leave him there.
That would be the Cone of silence!

http://www.wouldyoubelieve.com/graphics/cone_title.gif

rw

Mr Peabody

02-07-2008, 09:07 PM

That would be the Cone of silence!

http://www.wouldyoubelieve.com/graphics/cone_title.gif

rw

Missed by this...... much :)

pixelthis

02-07-2008, 10:55 PM

What a stupid statement. Your DLP cannot spread its high brightness over 300", the high end projector can. Now I clearly understand your standard of quality. Its not performance oriented, its price oriented.

you mean OVER 25 FEET?
What is WRONG with YOU?

ARE YOU RUNNING A CINEPLEX OR SOMETHING?

And the fact that you equate "size" with quality shows your ignorance.

My first serious monitor was a 20in Sony XBR, about 700$, 21 to 28 hundred in todays dollars, bought it in the mid eighties, one of the first XBR'S, AND AN EXELENT TV

A 300" in screen, yeah, EVERYBODY has one of those.
I have been arguing with someone totally out of touch with the real world.
Ever hear of psycotropic drugs? They might help:1:

pixelthis

02-07-2008, 10:57 PM

pixelthis

02-07-2008, 11:08 PM

Agent 99 wasn't chopped liver. Pix works for KAOS. Too bad we can't put him under the cloak of silence and leave him there.

Agent 99 was a crack ho compared to the incomparable emma peel:1:

GMichael

02-08-2008, 07:23 AM

That would be the Cone of silence!

http://www.wouldyoubelieve.com/graphics/cone_title.gif

rw

WHAT?

WHAT?

HUH?

WHAT?!

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-08-2008, 09:19 AM

you mean OVER 25 FEET?
What is WRONG with YOU?

ARE YOU RUNNING A CINEPLEX OR SOMETHING?

And the fact that you equate "size" with quality shows your ignorance.

My first serious monitor was a 20in Sony XBR, about 700$, 21 to 28 hundred in todays dollars, bought it in the mid eighties, one of the first XBR'S, AND AN EXELENT TV

A 300" in screen, yeah, EVERYBODY has one of those.
I have been arguing with someone totally out of touch with the real world.
Ever hear of psycotropic drugs? They might help:1:

I think you are missing the point old man. The point is that a high end three gun projection system is far better in so many areas than the new digital displays. Light output is just one of them.

I didn't equate size with quality, I just made a point you know like top of your head. But for a person who equates price with performance, you have alot of room to talk.

So now you understand you know far less than you think you do.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-08-2008, 09:26 AM

BTW speaking of cineplexes the local 16 screener has video projectors on its screens for local ads'.
Not a tube in the house, all DLP, and about the only place in the REAL world that I have seen a 300" screen:1:

Just because a theater has DLP projectors does not mean a thing. And when I was referring to 300" screens, I was referring to the upper limit of those projectors. They can be used on any screen size from 90 TO 300".

You need to get your dino butt out sometime. There are alot of folks with 100" to 130" screens out there. Just about every large size custom installation uses at least a 100" screen.

Welcome to the world of custom dino-man.

Groundbeef

02-08-2008, 09:29 AM

I didn't equate size with quality, I just made a point you know like top of your head. .

File that phrase under "Things NOT to say out loud in the Sauna"

GMichael

02-08-2008, 10:02 AM

File that phrase under "Things NOT to say out loud in the Sauna"
Stop peaking will ya?:eek6:

Mr Peabody

02-08-2008, 10:10 AM

GB, you read my mind.

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-08-2008, 11:36 AM

You guys are just crazy. Welcome to the club.

nightflier

02-08-2008, 02:10 PM

Back to the insults and the disparaging tone, I see. Glad to have you back, lil't. Yes, you definitely are bi-polar.

Sales figures tell how popular a product really is, not what some cumputer geeks think is popular.

Where do you get this nonsense? From anti-"cumputer" geek meetings in your basement? Sales figures only tell you what the recent fad was. It tells you nothing about how an existing installed base of products is being used. Your insistence on only looking at the most recent sales figures is the reason why you just don't get how this works. As I've pointed out over and over again, the fact that an unmeasurable amount of downloaded content is free makes it impossible to say how popular it is as compared to a disk medium - just as you can't measure how many times people re-watch movies they already own. There are just too many unknown variables for you to claim that sales figures are all anyone should be basing their future purchasing decisions on - this is myopic to the extreme.

You brought downloading into this discussion, and it is not about downloading at all. No matter where someone is talking about bluray or HD DVD, you chime in with this download $hit.

There you go crapping again. Are you sure that diaper is on tight enough? I'll repeat it again for the really dense lil'ts out there: if people are watching something else instead of BR disks, it is relevant: it affects the time they have left to watch BR disks. How can you not understand this? How many different ways do I have to say this to make you understand it?

And because a lot of the downloaded content is free, there is no NDP or other sales figure to measure this, hence we can't know how much downloads are really impacting BR. Your assertion that only paid-for downloaded movies are competing with BR is completely missing the bigger picture. Just because it's all you can measure does not not mean it's all there is. How many times to I have to repeat this?

Tivo knows how folks are using their PVR, its tied in directly to their computers. They sell this information to folks like NDP, so data can be amassed and analyzed. If you do not think Tivo knows, you are a fool.

So then since you have access to that information, why don't you refute what I said? Because there is nothing to refute. Unbox downloads are increasing, albeit slowly, and Tivo subscriptions are too. You just don't want to admit that because it doesn't agree with your argument that BR trumps everything. You are so hell bent on pointing out how much more money is generated through BR sales, as compared to Unbox downloads, that you conveniently forget all the other ways that entertainment content can be is downloaded.

Let me illustrate the point. There was another thread about Porn & BR. Now I've seen some stats on Porn content downloads and I can tell you that it's pretty high. I can also say with some certainty that just about every person downloading porn isn't exactly keen on having this information measured. So it's pretty likely that Porn is one type on content that will have the largest discrepancy between sales figures and actually downloaded content (whether it is paid for, bootlegged, or free). Porn downloaders have no interest in being part of your little NDP figures, I can guarantee you that.

I said that Tivo is not doing all that well, and its stock prices show this. They lost $17 million in the second quarter, about $10 million in the third, and I have yet to see the final 2007 figure overall.

This is another pointless statement. It's like giving a fraction w/o a denominator. Was Tivo able to weather a $27M loss? As a matter of fact, yes. Still don't know what Market Capitalization is, do you, lil't? Next time read up on things before blurting out half-truths and hysteria. In a fiscally tight year, with expensive new product launches, and pending court cases, this was expected and they certainly let Wall Street know this in their reports. And the fact that they went from $17M to $10M shows that the losses were decreasing and let's not forget that you are talking about the traditional summer slump for technology sales, so stop with the doom and gloom pontifications, already. You know so little about the market that you really should not tread there.

Now I may not be a wall street type, but I manage my own portfolio and have learned enough to understand a healthy company, from a not so healthy one. Tivo rebound was not performance driven, it was driven by a court decision. All one has to do is look at before and after.

Well if you manage your own portfolio, then it's a wonder you've got enough to buy all those movies. You must get one hell of a pay-off, I mean salary, to be able to keep pissing your money away like that because you haven't learned much about the market. Tivo's surge at the end of the year was certainly performance-driven, and had very little to do with any court cases. Actually, looking at the news reports, the court case wasn't going Tivo's way, then. I guess you conveniently forgot to mention that, huh? And I already mentioned that the drop after the holiday was not only typical for the January time frame, but was exacerbated by the tech sector doldrums across the industry. The whole market came down in January, but I guess that wasn't relevant to your argument either? And just so we're clear, the court case was last week and the price is still hovering well above the slump-price and there have been a number of sell-to-hold reversals already. So stop trying to convince everyone that Tivo is in trouble - it simply isn't. Why else would Google & Apple be looking to buy them? Stick to what you know, lil't.

Did you go and check the stock price and its trend?...This is current information, and flies in the face of your lies about it being old.

I said that your information about Tivo's product line was old. It was based on hubris you think you heard somewhere in the past year. I never said the stock price info that you gave was old. As a matter of fact, as I explained above, the stock price is much better served by my explanation than yours. And that's a fact. You're out of your element, lil't, so give it up.

You keep lying over and over saying something is old, when you do not have access to it, or cannot argue against it.

No you keep misunderstanding what I'm saying, cherry-picking only those tiny details that support your argument, and using them to make mountains out of molehills. I've had to correct your "misunderstandings" so many times, it comprises the vast majority of my posts now and is really a waste of time for everyone else. Read a little more carefully already. You know, they make glasses for myopia, lil't.

Face it, you do not have the information I have, so you do not know how old it is.

Just because you have information, does not mean it cannot be disputed - it certainly doesn't mean that because it hails from your super-expensive and secretive sources, it therefore isn't old. Do you actually want us to believe that because you bring the information here, somehow it is more relevant? How pig-headed arrogant is that? Your information is old because all of it is from the past - that's just the nature of sales figures, lil't. If you can't deal with that, then you aren't dealing with reality and well, then there's not much else to discuss - one can't argue with an insane person. And sales figures are statistical approximations based on samplings, they are never complete. In your case, as I've pointed out enough times already, they are far from complete. That's also reality and apparently you can't deal with that either. So I guess we'll add temporary insanity to the long list of emotional problems you seem to be suffering from.

I do not get emotional when I post here, and you should not continue with you stupid psycho analysis. You are as wrong with that as you are with your understanding of the market, sales, revenue, a business plan, trends, and what is hot, and what is not.

Yeah, right. You're as cool as a cucumber, huh? The psychoanalysis (one word, lil't, it's not that hard to spell), was just an answer to all your posts just pregnant with evidence of your emotional issues. I should not continue? Then stop offering up more fodder. You are a library of psychoanalysis - a treasure trove for anyone with even a modicum of interest in the megalomania, paranoia, sexism, and inferiority complexes that exude from your posts. Just as I am correct about my analysis of the market, sales, revenue, and trends surrounding downloaded content, so too is my analysis of your psychoses spot on. Deal with it - or get help.

I never said I feared technology, so where did you get this idiotic conclusion?

It is blatantly apparent from your disdain for anything remotely related to computers, programming, or systems engineering. You didn't have to say it, it was obvious enough. Did the computer geeks really beat you and your band-nerd buddies in the school spelling B? Or did they just snag your instruments and threw them on the roof when you walked by? Boy, high school must have really been a nightmare for you.

Who said I didn't know how to use tivo or an ipod? Where did you get that idioctic conclusion? What does this have to do with Toshiba, Bluray, fighting back or well kind of? You are just blaring out stuff like a stone fool.

Stone fool? Is that what you yelled at the computer geeks in high school? No wonder. From the fact that you see your Tivo as just a glorified VCR, it's obvious you don't use it to it's full potential. Why didn't you just keep your VCR? Oh, I mean your Betamax, right? I doubt you have your Tivo connected to your network (actually I doubt you even have a home network - that's way too computer-geeky for you).

What does this have to do with Toshiba & BR? Again, for the umptieth time:

- Downloads (paid and free) matter to the format because they compete against it.

- I brought Tivo in this discussion because you asserted that downloading was only for computer geeks and wasn't making the move from the computer room to the TV room (were "families gather," remember, what you said lil't?) Well, Tivo shoots a big hole in that theory and makes downloading about as simple as recording a TV show.

- It's a cultural shift that has been taking place. It is as convenient or perhaps even more so than Netflix.

- Your inability to understand technology and it's potential is the reason you can't possibly comprehend where this industry is going.

- You have a top-down business-executive-focussed view of the industry and that view misses what is really going on in Joe Sixpack's house.

So does that summarize the progression to this point enough for you? Geez, I'm doing nothing but repeating myself and you just refuse to read. It's really frustrating and childish, lil't.

You know nothing about my life. Now you just said that tivo and Ipod where so easy to use that your crappy diaper kid can use it, now you are critisizing someone for keeping their life simple. What kind of schetzo thought process is this.

Nothing "schetzo" about that. You know how to use the basic features of a Tivo and an iPod. My two-year old does too, so if you're going to brag about how technologically savvy you are by using your knowledge of the Tivo & iPod interface, I can tell you that you are on par with him. Hence the reason why I believe you are still in diapers and emotionally stunted for someone your age. I mean, I know that as we age we eventually regress, but you're planning on staying in diapers until you get there, aren't you. So yes, I guess I do know quite a bit about you from what you've bragged about, what you "let slip," and what you inferred. Remember, you threated to come to my house and injure my family, remember? I say that's pretty messed up and also pretty emotionally involved. Do I need to take a restraining order out against you?

Technology can be used to entertain, and make ones life simplier. If it cannot do that, then just what purpose does it serve?

If you think that technology's purpose is to entertain, you really have a narrow view of it. See this is how I can say that you are narrow minded, because you say absolutely untenable things like this and you actually come back to defend them later. It's really incredible how you'll defend a false premise to your last breath - it's a psychological disorder, lil't, and you can look that up too, if you don't believe me.

Amazon uses Tivo especially for its downloads. Amazon's website is the most advertising I have seen for Tivo, so for all intended purposes, its locked into Amazons unbox. As far as overall sales, it ain't. And that is why the stock prices suck, and the company has not been doing well.

Again, so much wrong with this statement, that we need to break it down:

(1) Amazon doesn''t use Tivo especially for it's downloads. I don't even know what you're trying to say with this - it's completely illogical.
(2) So if Amazon is the most advertising you've seen, then for all intents and purposes...? Who made you the sole authority? You do this a lot you know. Sorry to burst your bubble (actually I'm not sorry), but your experience isn't everyone else's.
(3) Tivo is locked into Unbox? What about free downloads? Oh I guess you didn't figure on those, did you? Tivo isn't locked into anything - Unbox is just one venue. Who knows what other agreements will be made? Well, you certainly don't.
(4) As far as overall sales? Is "sales" your mantra in life? Geez, how many times do I have to tell you that sales aren't everything, especially when we're talking about downloads.
(5) And this is not why "the stock price sucks," because it doesn't suck. And even if it wasn't a good price, it's not because of Unbox sales, lil't. Your statement says that Unbox is Tivo's only source of revenue. Nonsense.

Tivo records programs, that is its primary function. Everything else just makes that easier. It cannot play DVD's, CD, or blurays. So it functions more like a VCR than anything else. Season pass is nothing more than a program manger that does not require a timer. Big deal, its made a step above the VCR. The simple fact is people must find the Bluray player more interesting than Tivo, because they are certainly outselling them, and by a long shot. Tivo is not replacing disc media.

I never said Tivo is going to replace disk media. Gawd you are dense. I never even said that downloads would. What I said was that BR will never have the catalog of DVD because downloads (including those through Tivo) will make it unnecessary for every current DVD title to be converted to BR. This is simple logic, lil't. BR just isn't the medium for everything - it will never be - it just does not make economic sense. Now stop twisting around what I didn't even say in the first place. You are the liar, here lil't.

What would make things alot more simple is if you understand that you cannot COMMIT me do anything.

Yes, we know that. You're a slippery, slimy little newt aren't you? 'Won't commit to anything. Then why should we listen to anything you say?

When you can come up with information that succesfully rebuts mine, then you can call what I say what you describe above. So far all I have seen is your computer geek opinion, enough lies to make pinocchio nose stretch from Japan to England via a western route, over sold ideas that have no basis in reality, and a uninteresting peek into the life of a computer geek(something I do not care about in the least).

"make pinocchio nose stretch from Japan to England via a western route?" Am I actually talking to someone who says these things? What am I wasting my time here for? I think your diaper might be on a little too tight, now, lil't. Just about everything I've brought into the conversation has rebuffed your conclusions, lil't. If you can't address them directly, then that's on you. Stop wasting my time.

You are just mad and frustrated that you cannot get any traction against what I have posted. You cannot call it lies, because you have not provided anything that rebuts it aside from your opinion.

No traction? In your own mind, maybe. Read what I wrote an weep. If you can't address reality, then you're insane and then we have nothing to talk about. Why don't you address the following facts:

- All sales figures are recorded from events in the past. They are in the past.

- Statistics are approximations from sampled data. They cannot possibly encompass everything.

- You cannot control for all variables and in the case of this debate, you can't control for most (bootlegging, free content, advertising-based content, older content, the list goes on and on...).

- Your understanding of downloading is limited because you don't understand the technology, the culture, and the need for it.

- As I've pointed out at length, your analysis of Tivo, the company, is incorrect.

- Your cozy association with the industry biases your analysis.

- Your understanding of the industry is elitist, not representative.

- Your argumentative style only addresses select portions of another person's argument. You're always careful to zero in on just what you need and casually toss everything else aside. If you don't believe me, check out some of your other debates.

- Your word choice, style, demeanor, defensive posture, and impulsive character undermines your own arguments. You state impossibly rigid absolutes that you cannot logically defend.

- Your word choice, style, demeanor, defensive posture, and impulsive character demonstrates emotional issues and impede your capacity for making a coherent argument.

Now I can go on, but why don't you start with these facts. These are not opinions, they are facts. You can dismiss them as opinions if you want, but then that would invariably make the ones about your writing style true.

I take facts over opinion any day, especially opinions coming from a known liar like you. You just like for the sake of it, you cannot help yourself. Your pride is making you lie, you lack of information is making you lie, you lack of facts is making you lie, and the fact your opinion is counter to the truth makes you lie. I do not think you need anything to tell a lie but a chance.

I have not lied. You have not been able to make any claims about lying stick. You keep saying it, as if you secretly hope that it will then somehow become true. This isn't Fox News, lil't - it doesn't work that way, here. You should take a good look at the quote at the bottom of my posts, I placed it there specifically because of people like you:

"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." - George Santayana

Before I came back, you could tell lies and get away with it (except with Wooch who has definately got your number). Now I am here to rebut your lies as well, and you just hate it. Now go back to the liar lair before I ask Woochifer to deal with you. You seem deathly afraid when he speaks.

"Liar lair?" I can't believe I'm arguing against someone who speaks like that. What, did you get that from one of your Dungeons & Dragons manuals? I'm dealing with a child here! So now you're the crusader who came here to put me in my place? If only you actually had more than your insider information that none of us can confirm or deny. Or if only your facts weren't so full of holes and jaded with selectivity. Or if only you could be a little more mature? Or if only you knew something useful about technology, market trends, and academics. If only...

And don't even try to bring Wooch into this. What, do you need your big brother to help you out again? Why can't you defend your own arguments? You come here with all these absolutes and everyone is supposed to just agree with your extrapolations. Well excuse me for actually disagreeing with them (that's what this forum is for, remember?). My arguments are both academic and relevant to this discussion, you just can't discuss them on that level. I'm sorry you can't do that. For you you to sit here and beg Wooch to prop you up again is just plain childish.

You are such a child, lil't. I can't believe I'm arguing against someone who talks like you do...

GMichael

02-08-2008, 02:26 PM

And so, it begins.

again

Groundbeef

02-08-2008, 02:36 PM

And so, it begins.

again

Dammit, now no one is going to be warned about what not to say in a Sauna.

JSE

02-08-2008, 02:43 PM

And so, it begins.

again

My Author-i-ti hs been disrespected again!

I give up. :incazzato:

This might not be the longest thread ever in terms of the number of posts but if you printed them out on paper, we might wipe out an entire Amazon Rainforest.

JSE

GMichael

02-08-2008, 02:46 PM

My Author-i-ti hs been disrespected again!

I give up. :incazzato:

This might not be the longest thread ever in terms of the number of posts but if you printed them out on paper, we might wipe out an entire Amazon Rainforest.

JSE

Thank goodness we live in a paperless society.

L.J.

02-08-2008, 03:18 PM

Well this is one crazy thread. It all seemed to go down hill starting at post #8. That guy should be banned!

JSE

02-08-2008, 04:08 PM

Well this is one crazy thread. It all seemed to go down hill starting at post #8. That guy should be banned!

Yeah, he's a little smartass troublemaker. :ciappa:

Rich-n-Texas

02-08-2008, 04:15 PM

Guys, he won't be back until Monday. Mrs. GM doesn't allow him to play on the computer on weekends. :rolleyes:

Sir Terrence the Terrible

02-08-2008, 08:07 PM

Back to the insults and the disparaging tone, I see. Glad to have you back, lil't. Yes, you definitely are bi-polar.

Rolls eyes. Same old $hit. I am bored to tears

Where do you get this nonsense? From anti-"cumputer" geek meetings in your basement? Sales figures only tell you what the recent fad was. It tells you nothing about how an existing installed base of products is being used. Your insistence on only looking at the most recent sales figures is the reason why you just don't get how this works. As I've pointed out over and over again, the fact that an unmeasurable amount of downloaded content is free makes it impossible to say how popular it is as compared to a disk medium - just as you can't measure how many times people re-watch movies they already own. There are just too many unknown variables for you to claim that sales figures are all anyone should be basing their future purchasing decisions on - this is myopic to the extreme.

Build your business on free content nightliar, see how far it gets when you factor in how much it cost to keep it on your servers, the cost of maintaining your servers, and the purchase of additional servers to house more free content. Please, tell us how you will succeed that business plan, and what fool would fund it. Disc sales tell what the base is doing, downloading revenue tells what a computer based model is doing. Lets talk about free content that is unmeasurable. Youtube, loads of free content, and they know exactly how many hits each video on their servers has had. And guess what, youtube which has the largest subscriber base of any video sharing site, hasn't made a dime in its existance. Before google bought them, they didn't even have a business plan. If google had not bought them, most analyst believe they would have been in big trouble financially. They were also being sued for copyright infringement because as much as 60% of their content was stolen. Free content cost somebody, and if it is free to view, it is probably marred with advertising so the company can make money to support operations. Money money money!!

There you go crapping again. Are you sure that diaper is on tight enough? I'll repeat it again for the really dense lil'ts out there: if people are watching something else instead of BR disks, it is relevant: it affects the time they have left to watch BR disks. How can you not understand this? How many different ways do I have to say this to make you understand it?

But you have to prove this statement, and there is no proof its happening. Downloads did less than HALF the business that HD on disc did last year. Free content is irrelevant because it has been around forever in the form of broadcast television. In spite of broadcast television, the DVD grew to a $24 billion dollar business in ten years. Downloading via VOD just broke $1 billion total in ten years. If free download have effected anything, it has been broadcast television who has seen its ratings drop every year since the DVD came to market, and the internet became a news destination. Once again, where is your proof this is happening.

And because a lot of the downloaded content is free, there is no NDP or other sales figure to measure this, hence we can't know how much downloads are really impacting BR. Your assertion that only paid-for downloaded movies are competing with BR is completely missing the bigger picture. Just because it's all you can measure does not not mean it's all there is. How many times to I have to repeat this?

There has always been free content, but disc sales still grew. What is your point? Studio executives do not care about free content unless advertising is attached. That is measure through NDP. Nothing is really free, it cost somebody something right? What you do see is a trend with downloading going up, and television viewers going down. Disc sales certainly are not dropping, at least not at my studio.

So then since you have access to that information, why don't you refute what I said? Because there is nothing to refute. Unbox downloads are increasing, albeit slowly, and Tivo subscriptions are too. You just don't want to admit that because it doesn't agree with your argument that BR trumps everything. You are so hell bent on pointing out how much more money is generated through BR sales, as compared to Unbox downloads, that you conveniently forget all the other ways that entertainment content can be is downloaded.

Unbox is doing a fraction of the business that apple is. And I mean a fraction. Growth, yes. But at a snails pace. Tivo is giving away free months, you do not do that with a product that is supposedly(by a computer geeks measure) doing just wonderful. And stop your crying about how well BR is doing, you are acting like that kid of yours

Let me illustrate the point. There was another thread about Porn & BR. Now I've seen some stats on Porn content downloads and I can tell you that it's pretty high. I can also say with some certainty that just about every person downloading porn isn't exactly keen on having this information measured. So it's pretty likely that Porn is one type on content that will have the largest discrepancy between sales figures and actually downloaded content (whether it is paid for, bootlegged, or free). Porn downloaders have no interest in being part of your little NDP figures, I can guarantee you that.

I hate to tell you this, but porn is followed by NDP in the form of legit downloads(and once again you are lying it ain't that high). It is by the number of downloads, so they do not need to know that nightliar is a pervert who has abrasions on his palm. They just know the number of downloads. Free porn distributed is the problem of the porn industry. Porn is not going to sell BR players, and has been around for years on internet. Its effects are well understood, its not new.

This is another pointless statement. It's like giving a fraction w/o a denominator. Was Tivo able to weather a $27M loss? As a matter of fact, yes. Still don't know what Market Capitalization is, do you, lil't? Next time read up on things before blurting out half-truths and hysteria. In a fiscally tight year, with expensive new product launches, and pending court cases, this was expected and they certainly let Wall Street know this in their reports. And the fact that they went from $17M to $10M shows that the losses were decreasing and let's not forget that you are talking about the traditional summer slump for technology sales, so stop with the doom and gloom pontifications, already. You know so little about the market that you really should not tread there.

Stop trying to blow smoke up everyones a$$. Who are you trying to kid here? The fact they lost $27 million dollars in two quarters shows my dog Darnell that this company is doing rather poorly. In the third quarter they lost an additional $11.5 million, $1.5 million MORE than the second. They are giving away free months of service, what thriving 10 y/o business does that unless sales are not meeting the operating costs. Not so bright, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it does not make it Naomi Campbell. Only an idiot would say that my losses went from $17 million to $10 million, and say "see my business is doing GREAT!!".

Well if you manage your own portfolio, then it's a wonder you've got enough to buy all those movies. You must get one hell of a pay-off, I mean salary, to be able to keep pissing your money away like that because you haven't learned much about the market. Tivo's surge at the end of the year was certainly performance-driven, and had very little to do with any court cases. Actually, looking at the news reports, the court case wasn't going Tivo's way, then. I guess you conveniently forgot to mention that, huh? And I already mentioned that the drop after the holiday was not only typical for the January time frame, but was exacerbated by the tech sector doldrums across the industry. The whole market came down in January, but I guess that wasn't relevant to your argument either? And just so we're clear, the court case was last week and the price is still hovering well above the slump-price and there have been a number of sell-to-hold reversals already. So stop trying to convince everyone that Tivo is in trouble - it simply isn't. Why else would Google & Apple be looking to buy them? Stick to what you know, lil't.

The fact that I have so many movies is a testament to how I manage my assets. Don't hate.

You are just a plain liar, nothing more. The court case ended on 1/30/08 was reported on the news and online on either 1/31/08 or 2/01/08

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/020208dnbustivo.99f72e.html

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/31/appeals-court-upholds-tivo-patent-claims-against-echostar

If tivo surge was performance driven, then why the day before the court case was their stock at 6.80, and after the decision it jumped to 8.77?

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/tivo-shares-soar-29-court/story.aspx?guid=F9BA4F2A-165E-4FE8-8850-22536A859FF9

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2008/01/31/tivo-shares-jump-court-says-dish-infringed-patents/

Apparently the performance you speak of was in the court room, and not at retail. The reason Apple and Google want them is because it does not cost them all that much to buy them, and it can be used to store downloads which makes it an outlet to your television. That makes good sense, but that does not mean tivo is healthy, it means Tivo is weak.

Now lets look at the other side of the coin. Tivo did not make the sales estimate they set for Christmas, that is according to NDP. When the annouce their christmas totals,in the next two days their stock hit the floor. So this whole weak tech bull$hit does not fly. Its all in the figures dummy.

I said that your information about Tivo's product line was old. It was based on hubris you think you heard somewhere in the past year. I never said the stock price info that you gave was old. As a matter of fact, as I explained above, the stock price is much better served by my explanation than yours. And that's a fact. You're out of your element, lil't, so give it up.

You are trying to paint a pretty picture on dirty ground. The way you describe the events of Tivo is nothing more than another lie. With a click on my computer, I can see tivo performance via NDP for the last 5 years. I see the timetable of their rollout announcement, and what happens to their stock when they do not meet them. They announced two items right after christmas, and BEFORE January that killed their stock price. 1. They did meet sales projections for the Christmas season, 2. They did not meet a roll out date for getting Tivo in a cable system in the northeast into the box on time. This was reported in NDP on December 31st, and their stock dropped two points in 2 days. It may not seem like much, but they were only at 8.67 at its peak on December 26. You cannot lie your way out of the facts lil liar.

No you keep misunderstanding what I'm saying, cherry-picking only those tiny details that support your argument, and using them to make mountains out of molehills. I've had to correct your "misunderstandings" so many times, it comprises the vast majority of my posts now and is really a waste of time for everyone else. Read a little more carefully already. You know, they make glasses for myopia, lil't.

Yawn, stop crying like a little girl.

Just because you have information, does not mean it cannot be disputed - it certainly doesn't mean that because it hails from your super-expensive and secretive sources, it therefore isn't old. Do you actually want us to believe that because you bring the information here, somehow it is more relevant? How pig-headed arrogant is that? Your information is old because all of it is from the past - that's just the nature of sales figures, lil't. If you can't deal with that, then you aren't dealing with reality and well, then there's not much else to discuss - one can't argue with an insane person. And sales figures are statistical approximations based on samplings, they are never complete. In your case, as I've pointed out enough times already, they are far from complete. That's also reality and apparently you can't deal with that either. So I guess we'll add temporary insanity to the long list of emotional problems you seem to be suffering from.

You have already tried this argument before. Sales figures are point of sale, not guestimates. A cash register rings, a sale is recorded and reported. Do not bull$hit me idiot. Wooch already proved how stupid this arguement you are trying to make is. I cannot believe you are stupid enough to repeat it.

Yeah, right. You're as cool as a cucumber, huh? The psychoanalysis (one word, lil't, it's not that hard to spell), was just an answer to all your posts just pregnant with evidence of your emotional issues. I should not continue? Then stop offering up more fodder. You are a library of psychoanalysis - a treasure trove for anyone with even a modicum of interest in the megalomania, paranoia, sexism, and inferiority complexes that exude from your posts. Just as I am correct about my analysis of the market, sales, revenue, and trends surrounding downloaded content, so too is my analysis of your psychoses spot on. Deal with it - or get help.

This is what you do when you cannot argue the issue. Yawn

It is blatantly apparent from your disdain for anything remotely related to computers, programming, or systems engineering. You didn't have to say it, it was obvious enough. Did the computer geeks really beat you and your band-nerd buddies in the school spelling B? Or did they just snag your instruments and threw them on the roof when you walked by? Boy, high school must have really been a nightmare for you.

Yawn. Too stupid to respond to.

Stone fool? Is that what you yelled at the computer geeks in high school? No wonder. From the fact that you see your Tivo as just a glorified VCR, it's obvious you don't use it to it's full potential. Why didn't you just keep your VCR? Oh, I mean your Betamax, right? I doubt you have your Tivo connected to your network (actually I doubt you even have a home network - that's way too computer-geeky for you).

It is obvious the AMERICAN PUBLIC does not know its potential, and apparently does not want to use it as you do. Can you prove I do not have a network? Or is this just another one of your lies. I think it is a lie. Networks are not geeky, what is geeky is having a computer nerd try and tell me that the American public is ready to hookup external drives to their Tivo's. Its possible, but I have yet to see one case of that amoung my friends who are Tivo nuts.

What does this have to do with Toshiba & BR? Again, for the umptieth time:

- Downloads (paid and free) matter to the format because they compete against it.

Hence the sales figures. Downloads(everything including VOD, PPV,internet) $123 million in 2007 a major loss from $200 million in 2006. Bluray $322 million in disc sales, $4 billion in player sales. 2006- $20 million in disc sales, and $200 million in player sales. Rough competition for bluray huh? Bluray kicked downloads butt in 2007.

- I brought Tivo in this discussion because you asserted that downloading was only for computer geeks and wasn't making the move from the computer room to the TV room (were "families gather," remember, what you said lil't?) Well, Tivo shoots a big hole in that theory and makes downloading about as simple as recording a TV show.

Great, but there are millions of VCR's still out there in use, and based on the sales of Tivo over the last five years, they have not made a scratch on that number.

- It's a cultural shift that has been taking place. It is as convenient or perhaps even more so than Netflix.

Then why is netflix disc rentals so much larger than Tivo box sales? What are you dyslexic. Why is netflix disc rentals making them money, and tivo cannot make money. You are overselling your point again, or you are just plain lying about this cultural shift.

- Your inability to understand technology and it's potential is the reason you can't possibly comprehend where this industry is going.

Oh, I understand the technology alright, I just reject your assertions on the technology, and the trends, and sales do not support your assertions as well.

- You have a top-down business-executive-focussed view of the industry and that view misses what is really going on in Joe Sixpack's house.

You are projecting what is going on in your house in to joesixpacks house. I do not see joesixpacks house with Tivo hooked to networks and media centers. That is much to complex for most folks to deal with. Plug and play, that is what sells. Not download, manage and maintain. This is why Bluray is doing so much better than tivo, downloads, and VOD. People are not choosing downloads over disc, and they are not choosing VOD over disc. What you can get on bluray disc now, you cannot get via VOD or downloading.

So does that summarize the progression to this point enough for you? Geez, I'm doing nothing but repeating myself and you just refuse to read. It's really frustrating and childish, lil't.

When you post something that is factual and not a lie, or something unrealistic and not the opposite, then I will get your point. Right now you are just repeating lie after lie, and purposely not supporting it so you cannot be checked on your lying. When your lies are refuted, you cry like a woman having her time of the month.

Nothing "schetzo" about that. You know how to use the basic features of a Tivo and an iPod. My two-year old does too, so if you're going to brag about how technologically savvy you are by using your knowledge of the Tivo & iPod interface, I can tell you that you are on par with him. Hence the reason why I believe you are still in diapers and emotionally stunted for someone your age. I mean, I know that as we age we eventually regress, but you're planning on staying in diapers until you get there, aren't you. So yes, I guess I do know quite a bit about you from what you've bragged about, what you "let slip," and what you inferred. Remember, you threated to come to my house and injure my family, remember? I say that's pretty messed up and also pretty emotionally involved. Do I need to take a restraining order out against you?

When your snotty nose kid can mix a movie soundtrack that includes over 500 channels of effects, dialog and music come back to me. You really are a drama queen. I do not care about you, your family, your dog or anything else to do with you. You are just printing on a page, and your family even less than that. And if you think you know all about me based on what is posted here, the reverb decay time in your head is three minutes long. In other words there is nothing up there but space.

If you think that technology's purpose is to entertain, you really have a narrow view of it. See this is how I can say that you are narrow minded, because you say absolutely untenable things like this and you actually come back to defend them later. It's really incredible how you'll defend a false premise to your last breath - it's a psychological disorder, lil't, and you can look that up too, if you don't believe me.

I did say it was to make our lives easier, why did you skip that? More cherry picking?. The rest.....yawn.

Again, so much wrong with this statement, that we need to break it down:

(1) Amazon doesn''t use Tivo especially for it's downloads. I don't even know what you're trying to say with this - it's completely illogical.

http://www.tivo.com/mytivo/domore/movieandtvdownloads/index.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/tivo

http://www.pvrblog.com/pvr/2007/03/tivo_amazon_unb.html

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/hands+on-amazon-unbox-on-tivo-working-together-for-movie-downloading-hijinks-244512.php

I do not think I need to comment any further on this. Of course you can use a computer with unbox, but that does not sell tivo on amazon. Money money.

(2) So if Amazon is the most advertising you've seen, then for all intents and purposes...? Who made you the sole authority? You do this a lot you know. Sorry to burst your bubble (actually I'm not sorry), but your experience isn't everyone else's.

Well, neither is yours. So does that invalidate your opinion as well?

(3) Tivo is locked into Unbox? What about free downloads? Oh I guess you didn't figure on those, did you? Tivo isn't locked into anything - Unbox is just one venue. Who knows what other agreements will be made? Well, you certainly don't.

Free is free, but it cost somebody something. You cannot make a video for free, you cannot make a television program for free. It may not cost the consumer, but it sure cost the provider. I am not fond of having advertising slicing accross my screen when watching free downloaded content just so the content provider can pay for it. Build a business on free content foo, I want to see just how far you get.

(4) As far as overall sales? Is "sales" your mantra in life? Geez, how many times do I have to tell you that sales aren't everything, especially when we're talking about downloads.

To a business man sales are EVERYTHING stupid. How do you run a business on freebies dummy? Does your company run on nothing? How do you get paid? Are you retarded or something? If it is free, it will have advertisements to offset the cost of the content. That is the way the free thing works. I do not want to look at Walmart advertisements flashing on my screen when I am viewing something. Alot of folks don't either that is why there are commercial zappers on DVR's.

(5) And this is not why "the stock price sucks," because it doesn't suck. And even if it wasn't a good price, it's not because of Unbox sales, lil't. Your statement says that Unbox is Tivo's only source of revenue. Nonsense.

For a CE company, 8.48 a share does suck. Sony is 42.88. Just to give you a comparison of what happens when a product either flunks out, or is flunking out. When HD DVD was doing well, Toshiba CE USA was at a little less than 10 bucks a share. It is now at 6.75. Tivo was 42 dollars a share back when it started. It is now 8.48 today. Since 1/5/2001 Tivo price has never been above $10 dollars a share. I did not attribute tivo stock price to unbox, I attributed to lackluster sales of its box, and its inability to meet projections they set. Can you get your kid to read for you? How can somebody say that I think tivo only revenue is unbox when I mentioned the cable system?

I never said Tivo is going to replace disk media. Gawd you are dense. I never even said that downloads would. What I said was that BR will never have the catalog of DVD because downloads (including those through Tivo) will make it unnecessary for every current DVD title to be converted to BR. This is simple logic, lil't. BR just isn't the medium for everything - it will never be - it just does not make economic sense. Now stop twisting around what I didn't even say in the first place. You are the liar, here lil't.

How can you say that bluray will not have the catalog that DVD has? It just got started a year and 4 months ago. Downloads have been around for years. How can you make this statement and be expected to be taken seriously? Can you predict the future? Do you have this little crystal ball that can tell you bluray future? Your simple logic makes no sense whatsoever. You have to author and master a movie in order for it to be ready for download. You have to do the same to ready a movie for a disc. Just what steps are you saving if replication costs are pretty much nil right now on large orders? A disc has to be made, a download has to be stored on a server. The profit margin on a download is a fraction of what it is on disc. Disc is selling better than downloads. Disc is a larger market than downloads. A new disc format is larger than downloads. Why would any sane person choose the lesser to release their movies? Why would any good business man choose downloads over disc when they have seen disc sales of a new format surpass downloads in a single year? Why would I release my movies to downloads when I have watched downloading revenue drop $80 million dollars, and watch a new format go up by $260 million plus? This is nothing more than dyslexic little liars logic. It makes no damn sense at all.

Yes, we know that. You're a slippery, slimy little newt aren't you? 'Won't commit to anything. Then why should we listen to anything you say?

To a person who has not put forth a single link, fact, or anything to support his assertions. Pot, black, black, pot good to meet you.

"make pinocchio nose stretch from Japan to England via a western route?" Am I actually talking to someone who says these things? What am I wasting my time here for? I think your diaper might be on a little too tight, now, lil't. Just about everything I've brought into the conversation has rebuffed your conclusions, lil't. If you can't address them directly, then that's on you. Stop wasting my time.

You rebuffed it with what? I didn't see anything. Links, factual info, where? Just alot of typing is all I have seen, oh some lying and unrealistic crap as well.

No traction? In your own mind, maybe. Read what I wrote an weep. If you can't address reality, then you're insane and then we have nothing to talk about. Why don't you address the following facts:

- All sales figures are recorded from events in the past. They are in the past.

So I take it you think they are useless. I suppose your business does not use them, they are the past. So what do you use to guide your business, your imagination? What do you report to your stockholders, the last time you change you kids diapers?

- Statistics are approximations from sampled data. They cannot possibly encompass everything.

I am not talking sales statistics, I am talking point of sales. Huge difference. For the retarded. The register rings, the sale is recorded and reported. That is not a stat, it is a snapshot of a purchase. This is not sampled, it is direct reporting of sales. Can your pea brain grasp this.

- You cannot control for all variables and in the case of this debate, you can't control for most (bootlegging, free content, advertising-based content, older content, the list goes on and on...).

Ad based are recorded in NDP. You do not put bootlegging, free content, older content and the list goes on, on a revenue balance sheet. That goes somewhere else. Follow the money, not the freebies if your business is going to survive. This shows you do not understand the movie business at all. You may understand computers, but that is not the same as the movie business.

- Your understanding of downloading is limited because you don't understand the technology, the culture, and the need for it.

Do we NEED to download? Nope, lasted centuries without it. Besides, you do not know what I understand, and what I do not. Hell, you do not know what YOU understand based on what I have read.

- As I've pointed out at length, your analysis of Tivo, the company, is incorrect.

Prove it with facts, not your opinion.

- Your cozy association with the industry biases your analysis.

Your lack of knowledge of the entertainment industry biases yours.

- Your understanding of the industry is elitist, not representative.

Your opinion, and a rather uniformed one at that.

- Your argumentative style only addresses select portions of another person's argument. You're always careful to zero in on just what you need and casually toss everything else aside. If you don't believe me, check out some of your other debates.

If you don't like the way I debate, then don't debate me. But stop the crying already. I toss irrelevant and unnecessary points you try to drag in to muddle the arguement.

- Your word choice, style, demeanor, defensive posture, and impulsive character undermines your own arguments. You state impossibly rigid absolutes that you cannot logically defend.

Yawn......thanks Dr. Spock.

-
Your word choice, style, demeanor, defensive posture, and impulsive character demonstrates emotional issues and impede your capacity for making a coherent argument.

This is some fancy hot air. Are you trying to impress somebody?

Now I can go on, but why don't you start with these facts. These are not opinions, they are facts. You can dismiss them as opinions if you want, but then that would invariably make the ones about your writing style true.

Words from the all knowing. Alright everyone, stop thinking, little liar is going to do that for you. He knows everything. This is nothing more than an opinion. Calling it facts is like saying arnold the pig is as fine as Catherine Zeta-Jones

I have not lied. You have not been able to make any claims about lying stick. You keep saying it, as if you secretly hope that it will then somehow become true. This isn't Fox News, lil't - it doesn't work that way, here. You should take a good look at the quote at the bottom of my posts, I placed it there specifically because of people like you:

A compulsive liar does not know he lies. He just does it. When a compulsive liar gets uncovered, he denies it. This is that denial.

"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim." - George Santayana

Nice.....but I cannot see how it applies to this discussion unless you are referring to yourself.

"Liar lair?" I can't believe I'm arguing against someone who speaks like that. What, did you get that from one of your Dungeons & Dragons manuals? I'm dealing with a child here! So now you're the crusader who came here to put me in my place? If only you actually had more than your insider information that none of us can confirm or deny. Or if only your facts weren't so full of holes and jaded with selectivity. Or if only you could be a little more mature? Or if only you knew something useful about technology, market trends, and academics. If only...

Yawn

And don't even try to bring Wooch into this. What, do you need your big brother to help you out again? Why can't you defend your own arguments? You come here with all these absolutes and everyone is supposed to just agree with your extrapolations. Well excuse me for actually disagreeing with them (that's what this forum is for, remember?). My arguments are both academic and relevant to this discussion, you just can't discuss them on that level. I'm sorry you can't do that. For you you to sit here and beg Wooch to prop you up again is just plain childish.

Ooooohhhh, you mention Wooch and the world can smell you crapping in your pants. You really are scared of him aren't you? LOLOLOLOLOL

This forum is for trading factual information. It is for debating and disagreeing factual information. It is not a platform for you to spin the truth and lie through your teeth.

You are such a child, lil't. I can't believe I'm arguing against someone who talks like you do...

If I am a child, then you are still in your mother womb.

Well, that was easy.......anyone for asopao de pollo? Its damn good eating!!!