Jobs and Mac say "no thanks" to BluRay

[Worf101]

Seems Steve would rather have us use streaming vid from Itunes or some other source. Seems he thinks that BluRay is a "a bag of hurt." The licensing fees for use of BluRays in MacBooks is too effin much and so, no go.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10066317-37.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.0

I take no side in this debate. I don't own a BR player but will get one soon as Oppo makes one.

Da Worfster

[Mr Peabody]

I'm surprised, I can understand Mac wanted to promote downloads so they can get their piece of the pie, what about BR from a pure storage stand point.

I personally don't watch any video on my computer unless it's a brief U-tube or something. I also won't be one to embrace downloads. I'm just not that into incorporating computer into other aspects of my entertainment. I realize I'm probably a minority in this. It will be just another download vs disc debate.

[pixelthis]

HES RIGHT, STORAGE alone is reason enough to have a Blu drive.
But as far as movie watching, downloads are fine for computers.
Also for the home.
Blu is going to be a great way to watch movies but the higher res is probably gonna be lost in a notebook.
But storage, I think he missed that one:1:

[kexodusc]

Yep, pretty predictable. For all the nice-guy talk Apple delivers, they're pretty self-serving too. BluRay is not good for iTunes and HD digital downloads, so why would Apple support that? I wouldn't if I was in their position.
The storage component on the surface is a good argument, but honestly given the price of TB drives and such, very, very, very few potential Mac owners are going to be considering BluRay as a legit storage option, or even need it. Where that would have a lot more appeal is in the business world, and most of those guys use PC anyway.

Don't think it's gonna matter. The market's big enough for both of them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yep, pretty predictable. For all the nice-guy talk Apple delivers, they're pretty self-serving too. BluRay is not good for iTunes and HD digital downloads, so why would Apple support that? I wouldn't if I was in their position.

And why would a computer geek care about film, its presentation, or its quality. Its about video, and video only for these guys, they could care less about high quality 1080p and great sound through a quality sound system. Video is good enough through a computer screen, and sound is good enough for them through computer speakers.


The storage component on the surface is a good argument, but honestly given the price of TB drives and such, very, very, very few potential Mac owners are going to be considering BluRay as a legit storage option, or even need it. Where that would have a lot more appeal is in the business world, and most of those guys use PC anyway.

Don't think it's gonna matter. The market's big enough for both of them.

I have three large storage drives attached to my desktop computer. I would not consider these very portable, but I would consider a bluray disc quite portable.

I agree with you, the market is diverse enough, and big enough for both. Folks that like quality presentation of film are going to choose bluray, and those who think that video is good enough will choose downloads. Different needs and desires, and a market to satisfy both.

[Woochifer]

Surprising announcement given that Apple has had a seat on the BDA board since day one. But, not so surprising given how Apple's ecosystem around iTunes is evolving, as Kex pointed out. Apple is currently the #1 provider of downloaded video content, and that's a market that they would obviously like to see grow. Blu-ray is a competitor in that sense.

It took the computer industry years before DVD drives became standard issue, and I would suspect that Apple will quietly add a Blu-ray option at some point (rumor is that the latest beta versions of Mac OS X have frameworks added for Blu-ray support), simply because the market adoption will get to a point that Apple can no longer ignore it.

For now, DVD media is sufficient for packaged software, and external HDs are now cheap enough to serve as economical backup devices (and Apple's backup app, Time Machine, is clearly designed to primarily work with external drives and not disc media).

I think that Apple has got some plans of their own for the living room. One potential clue is in their newly introduced Macbook and Macbook Pro models. Both of these computers shipped with the new DisplayPort connector for external video output, rather than HDMI or DVI or VGA. The premise here is that DisplayPort is capable of 4,096 x 2,160 resolution, which is much greater than the maximum resolution possible with HDMI. DisplayPort is also capable of delivering audio signals over the same cable.

No idea what this means, but Apple very well could be looking to establish their own beachhead in the living room and do so while bypassing what the other CE giants are doing. I've seen rumors of Apple working on their own flat panel TV with integrated media center capabilities, and these announcements would fit right into that plan. While I don't see how they would sustain that kind of product line with HDTV price points and margins getting squeezed, Apple does have a track record of adding value to otherwise commodified products, which allows them to maintain some of the highest margins in the industry.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Surprising announcement given that Apple has had a seat on the BDA board since day one. But, not so surprising given how Apple's ecosystem around iTunes is evolving, as Kex pointed out. Apple is currently the #1 provider of downloaded video content, and that's a market that they would obviously like to see grow. Blu-ray is a competitor in that sense.

It took the computer industry years before DVD drives became standard issue, and I would suspect that Apple will quietly add a Blu-ray option at some point (rumor is that the latest beta versions of Mac OS X have frameworks added for Blu-ray support), simply because the market adoption will get to a point that Apple can no longer ignore it.

For now, DVD media is sufficient for packaged software, and external HDs are now cheap enough to serve as economical backup devices (and Apple's backup app, Time Machine, is clearly designed to primarily work with external drives and not disc media).

I think that Apple has got some plans of their own for the living room. One potential clue is in their newly introduced Macbook and Macbook Pro models. Both of these computers shipped with the new DisplayPort connector for external video output, rather than HDMI or DVI or VGA. The premise here is that DisplayPort is capable of 4,096 x 2,160 resolution, which is much greater than the maximum resolution possible with HDMI. DisplayPort is also capable of delivering audio signals over the same cable.

No idea what this means, but Apple very well could be looking to establish their own beachhead in the living room and do so while bypassing what the other CE giants are doing. I've seen rumors of Apple working on their own flat panel TV with integrated media center capabilities, and these announcements would fit right into that plan. While I don't see how they would sustain that kind of product line with HDTV price points and margins getting squeezed, Apple does have a track record of adding value to otherwise commodified products, which allows them to maintain some of the highest margins in the industry.

Actually Wooch, if you look at the 1.3a standards increased bandwidth, it does take you up to 2160p with Deep color and YXCC color as well. Unfortunately displayport is going to be another one of those technologies that never reach the hometheater crowd unless Apple figures out a way to make it compatible with BD+ and the crap that is AACS. The big guns of the consumer electronic companies want HDMI, a standard they can control rather than Displayport, a standard they cannot. Also, what good is a 2160p interface going to be in a world where 1080p is the standard? Does anyone think that we are headed to resolution that are higher than 1080p anytime soon? Don't hold your breath on this one, it will be years before we see anything even remotely higher than 1080p. The infrastructure just isn't there from a scanning, authoring(they are just coming out with more effiecient tools for 1080p) and from an encoding perspective as well. There are rumors that Apple is working on display with ports that hook them directly to the internet, and primed for Itunes downloads. Toshiba is also working in that direction as well. Personally with the rumors I have been hearing, I think Jobs is going to retire soon anyway.

[nightflier]

Actually Wooch, if you look at the 1.3a standards increased bandwidth, it does take you up to 2160p with Deep color and YXCC color as well.

OK, but that means that there would have to be HDMI components that also go higher than 1080p. A fat pipe is only as wide as what's on either end. What Apple seems to be doing with DisplayPort is creating a fat pipe on both ends too. The source would be an internet-connected AppleTV-type device and the screen could be something they license one of the major manufacturers to include as an input along with HDMI. Even with higher resolution capable HDMI, it will be years before the components that connect via HDMI will follow suit. More importantly, the market would have to be there. Apple doesn't care about all that, they're building it, and they know that their iTunes audience will come along - they have the advantage of being both on the software and the hardware side of this equation.

But I think the real thrust behind this is copy-protection. If Apple can set it's own standard with DisplayPort, then it won't have to cow-tow to Hollywood's HDCP standard. Apple may be hoping that smaller media providers and artists will bypass Hollywood altogether and jump on board with a more free and open Apple standard (whatever that will entail). Of course, Apple will license this technology out too, thus creating more revenue.

Now granted, I'm not going to guess as to whether Apple will succeed in this, but it certainly is an interesting proposition. Apple's been butting heads with Hollywood over copy-protection for some time now, and this may be the thing that gets around the problem. Even if DisplayPort doesn't gain appreciable market share, the threat of it alone will give Apple bargaining muscle. Jobs is no dummy, so he may very well be onto something. Whether he retires or not, I'm sure he wants to go out with a bang and not a whimper - DisplayPort could be just explosive and disruptive enough.

[pixelthis]

Actually Wooch, if you look at the 1.3a standards increased bandwidth, it does take you up to 2160p with Deep color and YXCC color as well. Unfortunately displayport is going to be another one of those technologies that never reach the hometheater crowd unless Apple figures out a way to make it compatible with BD+ and the crap that is AACS. The big guns of the consumer electronic companies want HDMI, a standard they can control rather than Displayport, a standard they cannot. Also, what good is a 2160p interface going to be in a world where 1080p is the standard? Does anyone think that we are headed to resolution that are higher than 1080p anytime soon? Don't hold your breath on this one, it will be years before we see anything even remotely higher than 1080p. The infrastructure just isn't there from a scanning, authoring(they are just coming out with more effiecient tools for 1080p) and from an encoding perspective as well. There are rumors that Apple is working on display with ports that hook them directly to the internet, and primed for Itunes downloads. Toshiba is also working in that direction as well. Personally with the rumors I have been hearing, I think Jobs is going to retire soon anyway.

YOU ARE PROBABLY RIGHT about 2160, but never say never.
If, in 98, you told someone that a 32" flat screen HDTV could be had
for under 500 bucks in 2008, and that 1080p would be quit common
by then, they would have locked you up.
just a few days ago I saw a TINY HDTV camcorder in sd card
format!!!
CAME WITH TWO 8 gb SD cards, total price, 600 and change.
Amazing the way the tech is moving, really, they were saying solid
state video storage by 2020 in 2000, its a reality now:1:

[Mr Peabody]

I read an article that speculated 4k will be the next rez format. At this point there aren't many cameras capable of even recording that rez. They say it's used some in the medical field and the Panasonic 150" plasma is 4k rez. The article claimed that a 150" screen at 1080p would look grainy. My question is what did they use for a source. There are also some 4k projectors available that are used in theaters as well. With this in mind it makes Wooch's info quite interesting. The article also thought 4k in a consumer market would be pretty far down the road. But, what if in the next couple years Apple could provide a 4k download or stream. That would certainly shoot BR right out of the saddle, maybe. I still think downloads, even at such an advantage, will take some doing to make it easy enough for Joe 6-pak to use it.

I also saw Sony has two models of combo HDTV and PC. Both come with a recording Blu-ray drive. The more expensive one has 1TB of hard drive. Both have a 22" screen. I seen them on the Circuit City website if anyone is interested in looking. I'm sure most large Sony dealers will have them.

[kexodusc]

Could just be me, but at 50" and smaller screens, is added resolution really going to bring a lot more to the table to the average consumer? Especially in places like China, Japan, and Europe where room sizes are typically smaller?
Maybe instead of 2K and 4K res, people should be thinking of other ways to improve PQ?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

OK, but that means that there would have to be HDMI components that also go higher than 1080p. A fat pipe is only as wide as what's on either end. What Apple seems to be doing with DisplayPort is creating a fat pipe on both ends too. The source would be an internet-connected AppleTV-type device and the screen could be something they license one of the major manufacturers to include as an input along with HDMI. Even with higher resolution capable HDMI, it will be years before the components that connect via HDMI will follow suit. More importantly, the market would have to be there. Apple doesn't care about all that, they're building it, and they know that their iTunes audience will come along - they have the advantage of being both on the software and the hardware side of this equation.

No, what Apple is attempting to do is not pay for liscenses for HDMI technology, and attempt to push a non liscensed technology. And why go through all that trouble for music applications? I can tell you this right now, none of the studios are going to liscense their movies to flow down an unprotected pipeline like displayport. The CE industry is solely behind HDMI, so just where in hometheater applications does apple think this will go? I am going to venture to say, not very far. The computer industry has not had alot of luck with getting their technology accepted by the movie studios.


But I think the real thrust behind this is copy-protection. If Apple can set it's own standard with DisplayPort, then it won't have to cow-tow to Hollywood's HDCP standard. Apple may be hoping that smaller media providers and artists will bypass Hollywood altogether and jump on board with a more free and open Apple standard (whatever that will entail). Of course, Apple will license this technology out too, thus creating more revenue.

Sorry dude, they are going to have to cow tow to HDCP if they want movies. In the film industry, Apple is not a player. If they want to play within the film industry via downloads, they are going to have to adopt the technology the film industry has chosen to support. The HDCP standard is what they have choosen, and Apple has to get with the program if they want the movies delivered via downloads. Hollywood is not going to adopt displayport, they are already major players in HDMI. Apple is not going to make the money they want to make dealing with smaller media providers. Face it, consumers want television programming and movies, and unfortunately for Apple, the Hollywood studios are the only sources that provide that content.


Now granted, I'm not going to guess as to whether Apple will succeed in this, but it certainly is an interesting proposition. Apple's been butting heads with Hollywood over copy-protection for some time now, and this may be the thing that gets around the problem. Even if DisplayPort doesn't gain appreciable market share, the threat of it alone will give Apple bargaining muscle. Jobs is no dummy, so he may very well be onto something. Whether he retires or not, I'm sure he wants to go out with a bang and not a whimper - DisplayPort could be just explosive and disruptive enough.

You sadly overestimate the computer industry's power in Hollywood. Yes Apple has been butting heads with Hollywood over copy protection, and they are not winning the battle either. The threat of Displayport doesn't scare any studio, they already broadly support HDMI, and Apple has to get with the program, or lose the content. Displayport is a computer industry connection, and will probably remain in the computer industry.

You really need to learn how Hollywood film studio work. You seem to think the computer industry can push the film industry around like its nothing. How far away from the truth this is.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I read an article that speculated 4k will be the next rez format. At this point there aren't many cameras capable of even recording that rez. They say it's used some in the medical field and the Panasonic 150" plasma is 4k rez. The article claimed that a 150" screen at 1080p would look grainy. My question is what did they use for a source. There are also some 4k projectors available that are used in theaters as well. With this in mind it makes Wooch's info quite interesting. The article also thought 4k in a consumer market would be pretty far down the road. But, what if in the next couple years Apple could provide a 4k download or stream. That would certainly shoot BR right out of the saddle, maybe. I still think downloads, even at such an advantage, will take some doing to make it easy enough for Joe 6-pak to use it.

Mr Peabody,
There are no camera that I know of capable of 4k used in the film industry. As a matter of fact, Panaflex cameras are still the most dominate film camera's in use today. Its a film camera, not a digital camera. Most digital cameras in use right now only support
720p or 1080i. Very few support 1080p. This is why most HD concerts on bluray are 1080i

The pipeline for a 4k download or stream would be far larger than we currently have, or what has been talked about for the future. Right now, only a few classic films have even been scanned at 4k because it is so expensive to do, let alone store. Even if they could create the technology, where would they get the product? Most all films these days are routinely scanned at 2k, which is equivalent to 1080p, not 4k. Who would pay for the scanning of films at 4k? The studio won't do it for downloads they wouldn't get enough in return, and Apple would not get a good ROI if they paid for it because it would drive up the cost of downloading. 4k is so far down the line, its is crazy to mention it at this point. We have not even talked about how Apple would get a 4k film through the likes of Time warner or comcast cable, who are already testing downloading limits for heavy users. Downloading one film even using VC-1 compression would probably be a months worth of downloading, and pop the cap they set on maximum download limits.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Could just be me, but at 50" and smaller screens, is added resolution really going to bring a lot more to the table to the average consumer? Especially in places like China, Japan, and Europe where room sizes are typically smaller?
Maybe instead of 2K and 4K res, people should be thinking of other ways to improve PQ?

At 50" and smaller, not even 1080p brings all that much to the table, let alone 4k.

[Mr Peabody]

AT&T is beginning something called U-verse in the area. This is a fiber optic system where they plan to compete with cable. I talked to a girl who has the feed and if what she told me is correct their DVR's do not have a hard drive. It's like you have a storage space some where. One of her boxes broke and I mentioned it was a pain when that happens because you lose all your recorded content on the hard drive. She began to tell me she didn't lose anything and the box didn't contain the hard drive, she could even tell her box what to record from any computer with internet access. This system sounds pretty interesting. I wonder what, if anything, they use for copy protection. When I had my cable box I could record my stuff onto DVD but it wouldn't allow HD recording. I didn't get into recording with her. I wish I had thought of it at the time. My satelite boxes have no provision to copy HD content either. It would be interesting to see what extent you could use the Blu-ray burner in that Sony combo.

[pixelthis]

AT&T is beginning something called U-verse in the area. This is a fiber optic system where they plan to compete with cable. I talked to a girl who has the feed and if what she told me is correct their DVR's do not have a hard drive. It's like you have a storage space some where. One of her boxes broke and I mentioned it was a pain when that happens because you lose all your recorded content on the hard drive. She began to tell me she didn't lose anything and the box didn't contain the hard drive, she could even tell her box what to record from any computer with internet access. This system sounds pretty interesting. I wonder what, if anything, they use for copy protection. When I had my cable box I could record my stuff onto DVD but it wouldn't allow HD recording. I didn't get into recording with her. I wish I had thought of it at the time. My satelite boxes have no provision to copy HD content either. It would be interesting to see what extent you could use the Blu-ray burner in that Sony combo.

MY GUESS would be that its some kinda server system, but that is just a guess:1:

[pixelthis]

Could just be me, but at 50" and smaller screens, is added resolution really going to bring a lot more to the table to the average consumer? Especially in places like China, Japan, and Europe where room sizes are typically smaller?
Maybe instead of 2K and 4K res, people should be thinking of other ways to improve PQ?

We are well into the HD age so how about some kind of color
standard instead of everybody making a wildass guess?
I am talking about a digital reference signal that would set your set to a reference standard. If you wanted you could "bloom" the reds as much as you wanted, but if you wanted accurate you could switch this on.
AS for 1080p dont let sir cranky tell ya wrong, 1080p does
make a difference, espescially for Blu-ray.
At least on a 42" set, well worth the trouble, really, and when you consider that most if not all broadcst is 1080i which is deinterlaced
to 1080p easier than downconverted to 720p, well, its great, especially
when you sit closer to the screen, or watch a lot of newer movies.:1:

[kexodusc]

We are well into the HD age so how about some kind of color
standard instead of everybody making a wildass guess?
I am talking about a digital reference signal that would set your set to a reference standard. If you wanted you could "bloom" the reds as much as you wanted, but if you wanted accurate you could switch this on.
AS for 1080p dont let sir cranky tell ya wrong, 1080p does
make a difference, espescially for Blu-ray.
At least on a 42" set, well worth the trouble, really, and when you consider that most if not all broadcst is 1080i which is deinterlaced
to 1080p easier than downconverted to 720p, well, its great, especially
when you sit closer to the screen, or watch a lot of newer movies.:1:
I have 2 TV sets in my house, a 32" and a 51".
Problem is when I sit 6 feet away or more, I don't notice nearly as a big a difference going to 1080p as I do going from 480p. On 32" LCD, the difference between 1080i and 1080p are very hard to notice, even in scenes with lots of motion. It's at a point where I have to really focus hard to pic out any artifacts. Improved resolution isn't adding new detail really.
I'm not surprised really, a lot of people have long said the that the difference between 720p and 1080i on such sets was minimal as well for "busy scenes".

On the larger TV, there are some benefits to going to 1080 for sure. But where the jump from 480p pictures was a huge revolutionary improvement, the 1080i or 1080p levels are much less drastic at distances where I'm comfortable sitting. That's about 7 feet minimum on the 51" set. It doesn't work in a room any closer than that, and I typically sit further back. It's definitely better, but given the decreasingly sliding scale of incremental improvements, I'm reluctant to thing resolution is the way to go.

My own thoughts are similar to yours. Color accuracy and saturation, and contrast improvements would still seem to be areas where bigger improvements could be made that would have more universal benefit, regardless of screen size and distance from viewing area.

Or how about we get the cable/satellite industry to move to MPEG 4 or better asap...

[nightflier]

AT&T is beginning something called U-verse in the area. This is a fiber optic system where they plan to compete with cable....

This would solve the problem of people owning the content. If the recorded data is never "downloaded" then there's no ownership transfer. HDCP becomes pretty irrelevant. Maybe this is the model that Apple is looking to apply DisplayPort to?


You really need to learn how Hollywood film studio work. You seem to think the computer industry can push the film industry around like its nothing. How far away from the truth this is.

You just couldn't get through a post without throwing in a dig, could you?

The way I see it, the movie industry (and the music industry) is a circle-the-wagons-but-keep-progress-away kind of player. At every junction they refuse to adopt new technologies and use all their resources to keep innovative technologies that they can't control out of the consumer's hands. Yes, you can put BR on the exception pedestal, if you like, but I would suggest that the battle with Toshiba's HD-DVD was more important than that at the time, so they made an exception. In the computer industry, however, there's a healthy resistance to corporate domination of a medium: movements such as open source, public domain, and creative commons are some of the big ones. But if there is one thing that has always been true of technology, it's that any attempt to stifle it always fails in the long run.

Apple has a technology that has the potential to be better than HDMI. Maybe they do hope that the movie studios play along, but while they wait that out, I'm sure they'll be happy to sign on all those independent studios, free audio/video sources (YouTube, Pandora, etc.), commercial TV programming, and their own iTunes licenced content. Even if they won't make money off the sale of this content, they'll still make money off of selling the hardware pieces to make this work. What I think you're missing is that Apple already has each of these in its product line - everything from the internet connected AppleTV to the displays. All it has to do is add a DisplayPort to the next version of each of these, and it has completed the chain, w/o any cow-towing to Hollywood's HDMI with HDCP.

And if you think that Hollywood isn't influenced by the computer industry, then maybe you've forgotten about the now virtually ubiquitous iPod? If I remember right, most magazines didn't give the first iPods much thrift either when the MP3 download battles were being fought with the RIAA They cited the uncertainty of the legality of compressed audio files as the main reason. Despite it's legal troubles, the fact remains that MP3 technology nearly dismembered the music industry. Then when they had enough, this industry finally realized that it had to join the iTunes borg or disappear altogether. Today, whenever Apple makes a decision, they are more than happy to oblige - and when apple said they'll only make pennies on each download, they begrudgingly swallowed that bitter pill too.

While I can't know how successful Apple will be with DisplayPort, I suspect that they would like nothing more than to have the movie studios kneel before them like the music studios now do. If the music industry debacle is any indication of what we are likely to see in the future with Hollywood, then the winners in this battle won't be the ones who own the content, but rather the ones who control access to it. One can own the rights of all the Hollywood blockbusters, but if there's no way to sell it to anyone anymore, then the loss is just as bitter. You said yourself that Hollywood isn't interested in downloads - well that myopia will be their anchor to bear. If people stop buying movie tickets, and maybe someday even the disks to own the movies, then this industry will change dramatically. When all is said and done, Hollywood will be more than happy to sign a deal where they'll only make pennies on each download.

Of course, we're talking about what might happen, and that's all in the future, but you have to admit that this is a pretty crafty circumvention of Hollywood's strangle-hold on content. And before you go debating every point I made here, why don't we just see what happens in the next few years? Ironically, what Mr.P is describing is the convergence of downloaded content and a Slingbox-type of control over it with none of the headaches associated with having to access huge movie files. If I recall correctly you were the one who said that Slingbox was pretty much irrelevant, that downloads were of no interest to Hollywood, and that the greatest impediment to HD content downloads was bandwidth. It seems to me that each of these issues is here being addressed, and best of all, by circumventing all the nastiness that is HDCP. In this example, you're 0 for 3, despite all that knowledge and insider access.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This would solve the problem of people owning the content. If the recorded data is never "downloaded" then there's no ownership transfer. HDCP becomes pretty irrelevant. Maybe this is the model that Apple is looking to apply DisplayPort to?

If a movie is not stored(it always has to be downloaded or how does it get to your set) it can be encypted. The studios are not going to send their product unencrypted through any pipeline, even if it is not stored. At this point they are very keen to areas where pirates can steal content. You can bet they are going to slap some sort of encryption on any movie passed through u-verse.



You just couldn't get through a post without throwing in a dig, could you?

Try another filter. The one you have now see's EVERYTHING as a dig. You are too defensive, probably because you are advancing probable theories based on your limited knowledge of the moving and shaking in the Hollywood film community.


The way I see it, the movie industry (and the music industry) is a circle-the-wagons-but-keep-progress-away kind of player. At every junction they refuse to adopt new technologies and use all their resources to keep innovative technologies that they can't control out of the consumer's hands. Yes, you can put BR on the exception pedestal, if you like, but I would suggest that the battle with Toshiba's HD-DVD was more important than that at the time, so they made an exception. In the computer industry, however, there's a healthy resistance to corporate domination of a medium: movements such as open source, public domain, and creative commons are some of the big ones. But if there is one thing that has always been true of technology, it's that any attempt to stifle it always fails in the long run.

Nightliar, this shows just how blind you are. The movie industry is not in the same financial condition as the music industry, so the way you see it shows you just cannot see. New technology for the computer industry is not translated to new technology to the hometheater community. The computer industry is not the film industry,or the home video industry. Your constant attempts to throw them together as one shows that you do not understand the very industry you are analyzing. The film industry openly embraced HDMI and bluray, both are new technologies suited to the VIDEO market. Just because they do not trust the computer industry technology does not mean they are not embracing new technology.


Apple has a technology that has the potential to be better than HDMI. Maybe they do hope that the movie studios play along, but while they wait that out, I'm sure they'll be happy to sign on all those independent studios, free audio/video sources (YouTube, Pandora, etc.), commercial TV programming, and their own iTunes licenced content. Even if they won't make money off the sale of this content, they'll still make money off of selling the hardware pieces to make this work. What I think you're missing is that Apple already has each of these in its product line - everything from the internet connected AppleTV to the displays. All it has to do is add a DisplayPort to the next version of each of these, and it has completed the chain, w/o any cow-towing to Hollywood's HDMI with HDCP.

The Film industry choose HDMI because it fit their needs. If displayport fit their needs, they would have probably adopted it. According to Wiki, displayport maxes out at 2560x1600 while HDMI 1.3a is capable of 4096x2160. According to Wiki displayport does not support Dts MA lossless or Dolby trueHD, it does not support communications between CE devices, and it does not pass xvYCC colorspace. HDMI supports all of these, so that shows that displayport is not suitable for hometheater and CE applications. Once again, what you think is important(Apple TV) is not important to the average hometheater owner. I see plenty of hometheater owners talking about bluray players, LCD, Plasma's, and bitsreaming of audio. What I do not hear anyone talking about when it comes to their hometheaters is tivo, Apple TV, or displayport. Your are tranferring what you think is important to everyone, and that has been your mistake in every debate we have ever had. According to Apple themselves, the biggest use of the Ipod is music and television programming, not youtube, not pandora. Commercial television programming cost them money, and they charge for television programming. Its not given away free, that is for sure. It is rented, just like their movies. What the independents can provide to apple is not where the demand is, free or not.

[qoute]And if you think that Hollywood isn't influenced by the computer industry, then maybe you've forgotten about the now virtually ubiquitous iPod? If I remember right, most magazines didn't give the first iPods much thrift either when the MP3 download battles were being fought with the RIAA They cited the uncertainty of the legality of compressed audio files as the main reason. Despite it's legal troubles, the fact remains that MP3 technology nearly dismembered the music industry. Then when they had enough, this industry finally realized that it had to join the iTunes borg or disappear altogether. Today, whenever Apple makes a decision, they are more than happy to oblige - and when apple said they'll only make pennies on each download, they begrudgingly swallowed that bitter pill too. [/quote]

Once again you are melding the music industry with the film industry. They are not the same, and their business plans are not the same. The film industry could care less about the Ipod. What they care about is HDTV television penitration, because that is what drives sales of bluray players and disc. When the Ipod was released, I saw no Hollywood studio breaking down the doors of Apple to provide content. I know with Disney and Sony they are having a very tough row at getting their top tier releases on Itunes at the same numbers they get them on disc. They are still having this problem some several years after the Ipod release. Once again, you are over playing your computer cards.


While I can't know how successful Apple will be with DisplayPort, I suspect that they would like nothing more than to have the movie studios kneel before them like the music studios now do. If the music industry debacle is any indication of what we are likely to see in the future with Hollywood, then the winners in this battle won't be the ones who own the content, but rather the ones who control access to it. One can own the rights of all the Hollywood blockbusters, but if there's no way to sell it to anyone anymore, then the loss is just as bitter. You said yourself that Hollywood isn't interested in downloads - well that myopia will be their anchor to bear. If people stop buying movie tickets, and maybe someday even the disks to own the movies, then this industry will change dramatically. When all is said and done, Hollywood will be more than happy to sign a deal where they'll only make pennies on each download.

You are having some very vivid dreams. The film industry has never went to the computer industry for anything, it has always been the other way around. As long their are disc being produced, Apple will always have go before the studios with their hat in hand. As long as there are movie theaters, Apple is just a second tier delivery format. When theater tickets are not sold, and when disc are not sold, the market for downloads will be so big that Apple will have to compete with other download (or storage) delivery systems for content. As a matter of fact, the world might be so different that even downloads might be obsolete. How about a flash drive with a movie on it that plugs directly into a movie player? While people are still buying movie tickets and disc's, you forward looking foolishness is just what it is, flights of fancy.


Of course, we're talking about what might happen, and that's all in the future, but you have to admit that this is a pretty crafty circumvention of Hollywood's strangle-hold on content. And before you go debating every point I made here, why don't we just see what happens in the next few years? Ironically, what Mr.P is describing is the convergence of downloaded content and a Slingbox-type of control over it with none of the headaches associated with having to access huge movie files. If I recall correctly you were the one who said that Slingbox was pretty much irrelevant, that downloads were of no interest to Hollywood, and that the greatest impediment to HD content downloads was bandwidth. It seems to me that each of these issues is here being addressed, and best of all, by circumventing all the nastiness that is HDCP. In this example, you're 0 for 3, despite all that knowledge and insider access.

Slingbox is still irrelevant. I still do not read anyone talking about slingbox integration in their hometheaters. My cable just slapped a download limit that would allow me to download about 10 movies a month along with my regular downloading(music). Sorry, but I buy WAY more than 10 movies a month. Why are they doing this, because of bandwidth, and theat issue has NOT been addressed.

Since none of what you say has happen, I cannot be 0 for 3, but you could be dreaming(or out of touch with reality). So far the only thing you have proven is that you know as much about the film industry as I know about heart surgery. You continue to advance a false theory that the film industry is going to have to cow tow to the computer industry. I hate to bring you some bad news, but what Microsoft did with HD DVD has soured whatever inroads the computer industry could have made in the film industry. You can bet your best pair of shoes that it will be quite a while before any significant deals with computer related companies will happen. There is a profound mistrust of the computer industry because of just what you have stated, their free spirit. The film industry believes(and I have heard this too many times to count) that the computer industry does not value its product. So they are not going to beat Apple, Microsoft or any company like them doors down for anything at this point. Sorry, but at least you can continue to dream.

[E-Stat]

I don't own a BR player but will get one soon as Oppo makes one.
Soon, (http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/high-definition-dvd-players-hd-dvd-blu-ray/oppo-bdp-83-blu-ray) grasshopper. I haven't made the move yet either.

rw

[nightflier]

There is a profound mistrust of the computer industry because of just what you have stated, their free spirit. The film industry believes(and I have heard this too many times to count) that the computer industry does not value its product. So they are not going to beat Apple, Microsoft or any company like them doors down for anything at this point. Sorry, but at least you can continue to dream.

Look, we have a different point of view. I was discussing the topic, and you come in and address me personally. Well, lil't, I guess it just goes to show that you can't be amture enough to discuss anything without insulting. I have said this before, and you deny it, but you turn everyone off. Now I'm not going to address you directly because you don't deserve that kind of consideration.

Now regarding your points, I disagree. I think that the change we've seen the last couple of years in the music industry is a very real possibility for the change we could see in the movie industry. DisplayPort may not be the technology that makes it happen, but that's no indication that it won't. Movies are being comodotized and their value, even in HD with all the add-ons and higher quality sound & video, may just not be worth what we think it is. And regarding the iPod, it also displays video, and although it is often low-quality, not all of it has to be. If we consider that now TVs are coming with iPod docks, I suspect that this is a very fast-changing phenomenon.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Look, we have a different point of view. I was discussing the topic, and you come in and address me personally. Well, lil't, I guess it just goes to show that you can't be amture enough to discuss anything without insulting. I have said this before, and you deny it, but you turn everyone off. Now I'm not going to address you directly because you don't deserve that kind of consideration.


I addressed your comments. You personally are like gum on the bottom of my shoes. I have told you countless times, I do not care one bit about you. You could leave this planet tomorrow, and I will get up, eat breakfast, and go to work as usual. I will however challenge your words when I know they are wrong(which seems like all the time when discussing film and video). Stop taking everything so personally so it does not become personal.

Like I have said before, you are a uneducated fool nightliar. You make up all of these uneducated predictions and analysis, and when called on it, you get defensive and out pops the passive aggressive crap. Just face it, you do not know enough about the film and video industry to make any lame predictions, so you just need to stick with the computer industry.


Now regarding your points, I disagree. I think that the change we've seen the last couple of years in the music industry is a very real possibility for the change we could see in the movie industry.

Once again, you don't know $hit about the film and video industry, so any prediction you make, is a uneducated prediction, which means useless. The music industry was guilty of collusion in trying to keep the price of CD's too high, and they did not pay attention to the demographic that was purchasing their product. If they had, the would have quickly lowered their prices, and they would not be in the mess they are in now. The film and video industry have not done that at all. They have allowed disc prices to fall in a very natural way on the market, and sales of bluray players has jumped 321% over last year, and disc sales nearly double that.


DisplayPort may not be the technology that makes it happen, but that's no indication that it won't.

If it cannot pass the new audio codecs, cannot do 2 way communication, and does not support xvYCC colorspace, then it does not meet the needs of the video industry. There is your indication it won't. The industry has already thrown its support behind HDMI, and they are not going to support a technology they cannot control. Displayport is an open standard connection, and I can guarantee no major film studio is going to allow their movies to travel down a connection that does not support BD+, BD watermark and AACS. There is the other indication it won't. Do you need more indications it won't?


Movies are being comodotized and their value, even in HD with all the add-ons and higher quality sound & video, may just not be worth what we think it is. And regarding the iPod, it also displays video, and although it is often low-quality, not all of it has to be. If we consider that now TVs are coming with iPod docks, I suspect that this is a very fast-changing phenomenon.

Again you are wrong. If movies were comodotized, and do not have the value we think they have, then why are the studio pushing BD+, BD watermark, and AACS down our throats? Why do they have HUGE insurance policies on their film libraries? Because their catalog titles have a huge value to them, and they want it protected from theft. Disney catalog titles are worth hundreds of billions of dollars, so you can hardly call it a product with no assigned economic value. This shows how little you know about the film industry. Stick with computers, you just do not have the education to talk about the business side of the film industry. You are much to ignorant on the issue.

An Ipod screen is so small, what the heck is quality on it? What good would it do to release HD movies when it cannot even support 720x480 on its screen? It isn't even able to provide basic DVD resolution as the screen is too small. TV's with Ipod decks are a marketing gimmick, that so far has seen very little traction in the market. LG released a flatpanel with a Ipod deck, and special software to improve the picture quality. It didn't sell, and was discontinued shortly after it was released to the market. At little dose of reality is in order nightliar. They also have TV's coming out with built in bluray players as well. You are reaching, really reaching in giving the computer industry more power than they really have. As I have said before, after Microsoft's debacle with HD DVD, it will be a long time before the film industry will get cozy with the computer industry, except when they can make money off of them. So far, they see Bluray as the money maker, and downloading as just an alternate source of making small change.

Your ability to do analysis on the film industry has made you look foolish. You said the war between HD DVD and Bluray has left an open for downloading to grow. Didn't happen. Bluray has become a MUCH larger revenue source for the studios, and downloads revenue has been largely flat this year AGAIN!!! So much for that.

Your contentions that Bluray was just going to be a niche product proved wrong about 6 million players, and 10 million bluray discs ago. It is already three times the size of the last niche video product the Laserdisc, and has sold 8 times as many disc in less than three years(laserdisc was twenty years old)

Folks on this website had to read ten pages of this kind of uninformed crap, and not one bit of it came to pass. So if anyone has a poor record of prediction, you wear the dunce cap proudly I am sure.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

We are well into the HD age so how about some kind of color
standard instead of everybody making a wildass guess?
I am talking about a digital reference signal that would set your set to a reference standard. If you wanted you could "bloom" the reds as much as you wanted, but if you wanted accurate you could switch this on.
AS for 1080p dont let sir cranky tell ya wrong, 1080p does
make a difference, espescially for Blu-ray.
At least on a 42" set, well worth the trouble, really, and when you consider that most if not all broadcst is 1080i which is deinterlaced
to 1080p easier than downconverted to 720p, well, its great, especially
when you sit closer to the screen, or watch a lot of newer movies.:1:

Pix, there are color standards. Its called ITU-R BT standard REC 709 and SMPTE standard C. You can find this color space on any calibration disc for HD sources, its not a guess at all.

[E-Stat]

The music industry was guilty of collusion in trying to keep the price of CD's too high, and they did not pay attention to the demographic that was purchasing their product. If they had, the would have quickly lowered their prices, and they would not be in the mess they are in now.
Which is one of the most ironic aspects of the evolving audio story - as opposed to the video story. I would never have thought that the primary source for music purchases would become the $.99 iTunes download with the equivalent video performance of VHS tape running at SLP. Just ponder if that trend extended to films - instead of buying the movie, you chose to purchase individual *popular* scenes. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Which is one of the most ironic aspects of the evolving audio story - as opposed to the video story. I would never have thought that the primary source for music purchases would become the $.99 iTunes download with the equivalent video performance of VHS tape running at SLP. Just ponder if that trend extended to films - instead of buying the movie, you chose to purchase individual *popular* scenes. :)

rw

LOLOL. Can you imagine a download of just your favorite scenes. How would you put that in context to the rest of the movie? LOL

[Mr Peabody]

A company called Amex has made an outboard Blu-ray drive especially designed to be used with Apple products. It's hard to believe Apple don't want a slice of that pie but maybe they feel after licensing fees the effort isn't worth it for any profit left.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

A company called Amex has made an outboard Blu-ray drive especially designed to be used with Apple products. It's hard to believe Apple don't want a slice of that pie but maybe they feel after licensing fees the effort isn't worth it for any profit left.

Mr. P, Liscensing fees for bluray technology are not that expensive for anyone already on the board of the BDA. What Apple doesn't want to do is pay any liscensing fees, which is why they support displayport(which is an open standard with no fees to pay) over HDMI which has a small fee that must be paid.

Rumor has it that if Apple continues this kind of anti-bluray behavior, they will not have their seat that much longer. I think they will get with the program eventually, or they will have a very hard time negotiating future liscensing for movies for Itunes. Microsoft is already having a tough time getting more top tier Disney and Sony movies because of their support for HD DVD. They are already smarting from the fact the most studios have turned away from using VC-1 to using AVC, which has cost them in royalty payments.

[kexodusc]

Which is one of the most ironic aspects of the evolving audio story - as opposed to the video story. I would never have thought that the primary source for music purchases would become the $.99 iTunes download with the equivalent video performance of VHS tape running at SLP. Just ponder if that trend extended to films - instead of buying the movie, you chose to purchase individual *popular* scenes. :)

rw
Interesting...I bet many would feel ripped-off an awful lot less if they paid $0.99 just to watch the previews, which are often the best parts of the movie anyway...

[nightflier]

Well, you can keep on insulting me, lil't, but that accomplishes only two things: it makes you the belligerent, passive-aggressive, and obnoxious one and it does nothing for making a respectable case about your arguments. You're kind of like the McCain of this debate, and we all know what's happened to his poll numbers. But while I'm sure you'd love to continue throwing insults (most children are like that), let's get back to the argument.

- Whether you like the quality or not, that TV with the iPod dock (not deck, by the way), is still out there for sale. Likewise, the AppleTV is out there too and even though people are using it primarily for audio, it is already directly connected to iTunes and makes the transition to movies pretty simple for the average consumer.

- That LG player that's connected directly to Netflix, must give you fits, huh? What if that's the hot seller this x-mas season? Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

- If we take CDs and BRs as being the highest quality formats out there, then compressed files and downloads are somewhere below that right? Well guess which audio medium is outselling the CD? Why could the same not happen for lower-quality video? While you love to bash lower quality video, there is still the very real possibility that someone would pay a fraction of the price for it (compared to BR). There are two factors that play into this: the files are smaller and these files won't need 1080p/DTS-MA capable setups to be enjoyed.

- You dismiss anything that isn't hugely profitable. That's very much like the music industry's position was and now very much the stance of the movie industry. My simple point is that this is myopic. At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, I don't think that's the time to be posturing with expensive alternatives. People are being very choosy this fall about what they will pay for. I am thus fairly certain that a full audio/video setup and the highest quality movies are less important than just being able to see the damn film, regardless of resolution. Even movie theaters are hurting big time. Your position is very much that of the fat cats, and that is why I think you are way off base. We won't find that out right away (so please don't waste everyone's time by debating me point for point the minute I post). But over time, I believe that the movie industry will swallow its pride and be forced to join the download bandwagon.

You can believe otherwise. You can rant & rave. You can cry foul. You can continue to whine. God knows, we've seen you do this over & over again. But progress is progress. If Apple has a technology that works and is, if not better, at least enough for the majority of consumers, then that's the technology that will win out. BR and it's copy protection will still be there, but what will that matter when the majority of the movies are on something a couple of notches below it? I think your inability to see the potential of iPod movies and downloads is shortsighted and pompous to say the least.

So instead of continuing your childish behavior, why don't we return to this discussion in a couple of years and see who was right?

[Mr Peabody]

Any one have a theory as to why DTS-MA seems not to be used very much on BR movies? Dolby had the most use in DVD but DTS had a good showing of titles, on BR DTS-MA seems to be down right scarce. Good for me I guess, my player can't handle it. I do find it curious.

[nightflier]

Because those nitwits in Hollywood couldn't come up with a single standard, so we'll have the same asinine shenanigans that we had with DTS: it will be supported only one some select titles.

[nightflier]

Well, what do you know? Lenovo is also joining the Display Port bandwagon, by including it in their new x301 series laptops. Since we have to purchase some new laptops at my work, I'll see if we can squeeze in a 301 in the purchase.

By the way, I did a little hunting around regarding the Display Port. and found a couple of interesting links:

- HDMI to Display Port cable ($40):
http://www.hdtvsupply.com/displayport-to-hdmi-adapter.html

- Samsung's 30" Display Port LCD (no price yet):
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/25/samsungs-30-inch-lcd-with-worlds-first-displayport-game-on/

In reading up on DisplayPort 1.1, I noticed that it's been with us for a while already and that it was approved by VESA in 2006. Apparently these are the companies that currently support it:

AMD,
Analogix,
Apple,
ASRock,
ASUSTeK,
Dell,
Genesis Microchip,
Hewlett-Packard,
Hosiden Corporation,
Intel,
Integrated Device Technology,
JAE,
Lenovo,
Luxtera,
Molex,
NVIDIA,
NXP Semiconductors,
Palit Microsystems Palit,
Parade Technologies,
Philips,
Quantum Data,
Samsung,
Sparkle Computer,
Texas Instruments,
Tyco Electronics.

Computer-side heavy, I know, but I think Phillips and Samsung are the two big home entertainment names here. It's also looking like the support for display port is mostly coming from companies based in the Far East. Sony was also expected to add the Display Port on its XBR6 series televisions, but that did not happen. Apparently they will be waiting out the debate brewing between Display Port and HDMI. There are also other technologies such as USB/Kleer vying for a share of that market, so there's a lot of unknowns.

What is clear is that Display Port is not as capable of a standard as HDMI. It's primary limitations being:

1. No xvYCC color space support
2. No Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA bitstream support
3. No support for Consumer Electronics control signals
4. No compatibility with DVI

But I think that the Display Port proponents are banking on these specs not being important to the average consumer who may not have equipment (i.e. the money to purchase the necessary equipment) to take advantage of these. And even if they do, how many have their systems optimized to truly see the benefits of the xvYCC color space, and how many movies are there really that have DTS-MA support? The Display Port camp may have found a niche that they can exploit.

Of course HDMI has the advantage of being the de-facto standard in home electronics, but it hasn't made those inroads on the computer side, and that's a space that Display Port could definitely fill. Granted, DVI was a miserable failure in that same space (and having a pre-pro with DVI and no HDMI, I am acutely aware of that), but I also think that TV manufacturers aren't as interested in getting stuck in the crossfire of this new format war. My guess is that they'll quietly add Display Ports to their TVs in addition to HDMI and let the sparks fly elsewhere. As a consumer, I applaud the choice and would much prefer having the option, rather than being locked into one standard. Anyhow, here's an even-keeled article on the technology that lists many of the pros and cons:

http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6594089

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, you can keep on insulting me, lil't, but that accomplishes only two things: it makes you the belligerent, passive-aggressive, and obnoxious one and it does nothing for making a respectable case about your arguments. You're kind of like the McCain of this debate, and we all know what's happened to his poll numbers. But while I'm sure you'd love to continue throwing insults (most children are like that), let's get back to the argument.

Well, this is worth a penny. Here it is...... and a tissue and toilet paper as well. You are more like McCain than I am. Tell a lie enough times, and it becomes true(at least in your empty head it does)


- Whether you like the quality or not, that TV with the iPod dock (not deck, by the way), is still out there for sale. Likewise, the AppleTV is out there too and even though people are using it primarily for audio, it is already directly connected to iTunes and makes the transition to movies pretty simple for the average consumer.

Apple TV has horrible picture quality. If they are using it for audio, then it couldn't be high resolution audio because all Apple TV supports is lossy formats. Not much good in a lossless world is it? That TV with the Ipod deck, dock, hookup or whatever it is has suffered from dismal sales. It is going to be dropped from LG lineup, that is for certain.


- That LG player that's connected directly to Netflix, must give you fits, huh? What if that's the hot seller this x-mas season? Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

More prognostication? There are two bluray players also able to download Netflix, and I hope they do well on the market. However, when the folks that buy it put netflix offerings against the bluray PQ, I am sure netflix will not be their choice.

-
If we take CDs and BRs as being the highest quality formats out there, then compressed files and downloads are somewhere below that right? Well guess which audio medium is outselling the CD? Why could the same not happen for lower-quality video? While you love to bash lower quality video, there is still the very real possibility that someone would pay a fraction of the price for it (compared to BR). There are two factors that play into this: the files are smaller and these files won't need 1080p/DTS-MA capable setups to be enjoyed.

I hate to deliver this bad news to you, but the CD market in spite of its nearly seven year slide is still twenty times the size of the download market. What you cannot seem to get through your empty head is music is digital files, small digital files compared to video. Research after research has shown that people will buy low quality MP3 files because they are cheap, convient and they like the song(quality be damn). However, with larger and larger video monitors, there is push for better quality video, which is why Bluray is doing so well now. We can forgive low quality audio, but not low quality video. Secondly, the folks that purchase these low quality audio files do not care about audio or video quality. That is why a computer geek(much like yourself) will sit in front of a computer monitor(that does not support the proper colorspace for HD video and is definately uncalibrated for SD video) and watch a movie or television show, and listen to the audio on cheap, low performing computer speakers(2 at that). The film and video industry is not supported by these people, the computer industry is


- You dismiss anything that isn't hugely profitable. That's very much like the music industry's position was and now very much the stance of the movie industry. My simple point is that this is myopic.

Money is the driving force behind business. Does your company give away its services for free? I think not, or you wouldn't be employed. It takes money to create a product, do you know of anyone who creates a product, markets it, but it doesn't cost a dime?

Dummy(that can't be insulting to you, its accurate), the music industry didn't lower the price of CD's for decades, that cannot be said for the cost of a DVD or Bluray can it? The music industry, and the film and video industry are quite different. The day you get that through your thick skull, is the day you will finally have some sort of epiphany(though I cannot imagine a dummy becoming less of one, especially you)

Who cares what you think, you don't run a film studio do you? You are just another uneducated joe attempted to pass you computer based logic on the film industry.


At a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, I don't think that's the time to be posturing with expensive alternatives. People are being very choosy this fall about what they will pay for. I am thus fairly certain that a full audio/video setup and the highest quality movies are less important than just being able to see the damn film, regardless of resolution.

This is your perspective, and is not supported by any data I have seen over any recession we have experienced in decades. A two hundred and fifty dollar bluray player, and twenty dollar disc are not high ticket items. During our last recession, DVD players sales grew more in 2001-2003 than from 1997 to 2001. Disc sales tripled in that two years compared to the same period. Rentals went through the roof during that period. Since Bluray player are cheaper than a new computer, I think your company is in much more danger than Sony, Disney or Fox.


Even movie theaters are hurting big time. Your position is very much that of the fat cats, and that is why I think you are way off base. We won't find that out right away (so please don't waste everyone's time by debating me point for point the minute I post). But over time, I believe that the movie industry will swallow its pride and be forced to join the download bandwagon.

Boy, you sure did bring in a red herring. Hey brightness, movie theaters have been hurting for close to a decade, where have you been, under a rock? The studio will shift to downloading when

1. It makes them money, which it isn't now.
2. When the infrastructure is there, which it is not.
3. When the quality of the download equals what we currently get. 1080p, lossless 16bit or 24bit 48 or 96khz sample rate audio bit for bit. Until it can, it will never get me as a consumer. I buy 100-200 disc a year, that is who the film and video business is looking for, not some cheap azz downloader who rents, not buys.


You can believe otherwise. You can rant & rave. You can cry foul. You can continue to whine. God knows, we've seen you do this over & over again.

Please tell me you said this while staring in the mirror.


But progress is progress. If Apple has a technology that works and is, if not better, at least enough for the majority of consumers, then that's the technology that will win out.

Who said downloading is the only way for progress to take place, kinda one deminisional thinking isn't it(but typical for you). Apple technology is not 1080p. Apple technology is not lossless audio. Apple TV is not a staple for hometheater owners. Apple TV may work for computer geeks who do not care about video or audio quality, but to a hometheater enthusiast who desire quality, its not good enough.


BR and it's copy protection will still be there, but what will that matter when the majority of the movies are on something a couple of notches below it? I think your inability to see the potential of iPod movies and downloads is shortsighted and pompous to say the least.

Downloads have copy protection as well, you know this or you should. You have a maximum amount of devices that you can transfer a file to, and for rental a certain time period to watch. I think you ability to put everyone in the same frame as yourself(you know, does not care a bit about quality) is narrow minded. You think to small, you are out of touch with the average hometheater enthusiast, and when it comes to marketing trends in the film and video business, you are going in the opposite direction. That is why it is never good for you to think. Nobody wants to sit and watch a movie on a 3.5" screen, they watch television programming, and music videos. Nobody wants to watch while listening to two channel audio. If that is your idea of a premiere event, great, but its not mine.


So instead of continuing your childish behavior, why don't we return to this discussion in a couple of years and see who was right?

Why wait. We already have a rich history of your predictions that already have not come to fruition. Oh, you better hope a ship load of Ipods do not go down in the ocean. Its going to raise the price of Ipods on the shelves. Wasn't it you who said you couldn't buy new equipment because you had other responsibilities? Was buying pampers for yourself one of them?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Because those nitwits in Hollywood couldn't come up with a single standard, so we'll have the same asinine shenanigans that we had with DTS: it will be supported only one some select titles.

This is how smart you are idiot. Universal and Fox both have contracts to release all of their blurays in Dts MA. Warner is currently in negotiation with Dts as well for simular agreement. This show just how stupid it is for a computer geek with limited knowledge of the film industry to come to these kinds of conclusions. There are more than 100 titles currently with Dts MA audio on them. You wanna try again?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, what do you know? Lenovo is also joining the Display Port bandwagon, by including it in their new x301 series laptops. Since we have to purchase some new laptops at my work, I'll see if we can squeeze in a 301 in the purchase.

By the way, I did a little hunting around regarding the Display Port. and found a couple of interesting links:

- HDMI to Display Port cable ($40):
http://www.hdtvsupply.com/displayport-to-hdmi-adapter.html

- Samsung's 30" Display Port LCD (no price yet):
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/25/samsungs-30-inch-lcd-with-worlds-first-displayport-game-on/

In reading up on DisplayPort 1.1, I noticed that it's been with us for a while already and that it was approved by VESA in 2006. Apparently these are the companies that currently support it:

AMD,
Analogix,
Apple,
ASRock,
ASUSTeK,
Dell,
Genesis Microchip,
Hewlett-Packard,
Hosiden Corporation,
Intel,
Integrated Device Technology,
JAE,
Lenovo,
Luxtera,
Molex,
NVIDIA,
NXP Semiconductors,
Palit Microsystems Palit,
Parade Technologies,
Philips,
Quantum Data,
Samsung,
Sparkle Computer,
Texas Instruments,
Tyco Electronics.

Computer-side heavy, I know, but I think Phillips and Samsung are the two big home entertainment names here. It's also looking like the support for display port is mostly coming from companies based in the Far East. Sony was also expected to add the Display Port on its XBR6 series televisions, but that did not happen. Apparently they will be waiting out the debate brewing between Display Port and HDMI. There are also other technologies such as USB/Kleer vying for a share of that market, so there's a lot of unknowns.

Thanks for proving my point. All computer manufacturers. Philips and Samsung make transmitters that support data transfer for both HDMI and Displayport. HDMI is not an unknown, it is the standard data tranfer interface for the CE industry. It will be tomorrow, and the day after that as well, so there is no chance in hell you are going to see another interface for Bluray, DVD, cable boxes or any other video based technology. That Samsung television is being marketed to the computer industry, not the consumer electronics side. The specs of the television bare this out. 10bit color depth? My processor supports 48bit color depth and my television and projector can play it back in full glory. A 6 second response time? There are LCD panels already out that do better. 1000:1 contrast? Well I must admit, not many LCD panels do that much better, plasma's got them beat in this area.

Lets interject some realism here

http://hdmi.org/pdf/InterfaceOff_Feb2007.pdf

This comes from a person who reports on the computer industry itself, Not so rosy for displayport is it? He says many of the same things I have said, and why your prediction are so dang....well.... simple minded.



Founding members of HDMI
Hitachi, Ltd.
Panasonic Corporation
Philips Consumer Electronics International B.V.
Silicon Image, Inc.
Sony Corporation
Thomson, Inc.
Toshiba Corporation

All manufacturers of video based players.


What is clear is that Display Port is not as capable of a standard as HDMI. It's primary limitations being:

1. No xvYCC color space support
2. No Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA bitstream support
3. No support for Consumer Electronics control signals
4. No compatibility with DVI

But I think that the Display Port proponents are banking on these specs not being important to the average consumer who may not have equipment (i.e. the money to purchase the necessary equipment) to take advantage of these. And even if they do, how many have their systems optimized to truly see the benefits of the xvYCC color space, and how many movies are there really that have DTS-MA support? The Display Port camp may have found a niche that they can exploit.

These specs brightness are a part of the bluray spec. The bluray spec is not going to change with the introduction of Displayport. Nobody is going to give up Dts MA just to support a new interface between components, and it is stupid to think otherwise. Especially if it is a less capable technology for video related material than HDMI is. Please, do not think anymore. If anyone has purchased a DLP, plasma or LCD in the last two years, the display is optimized for xvYCC color space. Even my dinosour CRT projector and RPTV supports it. There are more than 100+ movies with Dts MA on them, and many more on the way via Universal, Fox, and perhaps Warner as well. This shows just how far behind the curve you are when it comes to hometheater. You don't even know the Bluray standards, so your comments are just as off base as your lame predictions.


Of course HDMI has the advantage of being the de-facto standard in home electronics, but it hasn't made those inroads on the computer side, and that's a space that Display Port could definitely fill. Granted, DVI was a miserable failure in that same space (and having a pre-pro with DVI and no HDMI, I am acutely aware of that), but I also think that TV manufacturers aren't as interested in getting stuck in the crossfire of this new format war. My guess is that they'll quietly add Display Ports to their TVs in addition to HDMI and let the sparks fly elsewhere. As a consumer, I applaud the choice and would much prefer having the option, rather than being locked into one standard. Anyhow, here's an even-keeled article on the technology that lists many of the pros and cons:

http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6594089

HDMI is the de facto standard in hometheater, and that is not going to change. The BDA is not going to start dropping manditory stuff, or alter its specs just to use Displayport. HDMI was not designed for the computer industry, so in roads there are not important. I am going to file this prediction right next to the one you said that HD DVD was going to win, and along with the other predictions you made(all ten pages of them), in the garbage. There is no format war(except in your twisted head), HDMI is for CE, Displayport is for the computer industry. Its just that simple, you make it difficult trying to push the interests of the computer industry on the film and video industry. There is a reason the two are seperate entities.

[Mr Peabody]

Are these movies with Dts-MA listed anywhere?

NF, you may want to drop in on AtomicAdam's thread about blogs, he had a computer/software/website question you might be able to help with

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Are these movies with Dts-MA listed anywhere?

NF, you may want to drop in on AtomicAdam's thread about blogs, he had a computer/software/website question you might be able to help with

Mr P.
No real need for a list here. All fox titles have Dts MA tracks, as well as New Line Cinema stuff. All Universals have Dts-MA tracks, and if things keep going positively in negotiations(Dts is really wheeling and dealing around town) Warner will have all of its releases in Dts MA as well.

I did a 7.1 mix for Nightmare Before Christmas that was released in Dts MA 7.1 a couple of weeks ago, and look for other titles from Disney that will include it as well(I think Disney will be moving away from PCM unfortunately).

[Mr Peabody]

I saw Pinnochio will have a 7.1 mix, I wonder how they do that from a mono original soundtrack. I hope they turn out better than some of the DVD's I've heard that attempt to do a surround mix from mono or old stereo. The largest problem is the tone of the original, it's impossible to match that with something from today. You'd almost have to do the whole thing over or strip everything away but the vocals then redo the sound effects.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I saw Pinnochio will have a 7.1 mix, I wonder how they do that from a mono original soundtrack. I hope they turn out better than some of the DVD's I've heard that attempt to do a surround mix from mono or old stereo. The largest problem is the tone of the original, it's impossible to match that with something from today. You'd almost have to do the whole thing over or strip everything away but the vocals then redo the sound effects.

Actually Mr. P, its is quite easy to get a 7.1 mix from Pinnochio. Disney keeps its original elements(the seperate stems for effects, music and dialog) in near perfect condition. All we have to do is take those stems and digitize them, de hiss and de pop them, give them directional cues via joystick panning(or programming) tweak the EQ, and boom there you are. Remember, the mono mix is a compendium of the original stems. Just like they were mixed for mono at the time(most theaters were mono) does not mean they cannot be mixed for multichannel later. We do not use final mixes to create other mixes, we use the original stems to do that. A lot of repurposing in the past never went back to the original stems. They just integrated newly recorded elements with the old elements which is not really the right way to repurpose a soundtrack, but the only way if your original elements are in poor condition, and cannot be restored. Its not as difficult(but it is time consuming) as you think.

[Feanor]

Sir T and 'flier are at it again. Wasn't it after a acrimonious clash with the latter that Sir T stomped off the last time? Well I hope that doesn't happen again though Sir T and I have disagreed about this and that.

Also, I'm just as glad at time that I'm so far behind the curve that all the minutiae they're clawing each other about is petty much irrelevant to me. They contrary predictions will have worked out one way or the other before I have to worry about them.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T and 'flier are at it again. Wasn't it after a acrimonious clash with the latter that Sir T stomped off the last time? Well I hope that doesn't happen again though Sir T and I have disagreed about this and that.

You might want to go back and read the post again. It wasn't me that stomped off the last time.


Also, I'm just as glad at time that I'm so far behind the curve that all the minutiae they're clawing each other about is petty much irrelevant to me. They contrary predictions will have worked out one way or the other before I have to worry about them.

There is really nothing to work out. Displayport MAY be a computer interface, and HDMI is the de facto standard for CE. The CE industry is not going to alter specs, and drop features just to accomodate a computer interface. We have already seen what happens when the computer industry takes a role in the CE business. Its the disaster called DVI which had all kinds of problems interfacing with HDMI, and had too many issues till it was finally dropped for HDMI. Displayport is free and open until HDCP has to be layered in, then its not free anymore because HDCP requires a liscense, and without that liscense you are not going to get content.

Its not any more difficult than this.

[Worf101]

"Can't we all jes... git along????"

Ah guess not!!!!! Sigh, what happens when you like two guys who just keep pokin' one another in the eye and tappin' one another in the ball sack. Play nice dang it!!!

Da Worfster

[nightflier]

...that accomplishes only two things: it makes you the belligerent, passive-aggressive, and obnoxious one and it does nothing for making a respectable case about your arguments.

Let's face it, your insults only make you look more and more stupid. Keep it up, it's not going to endear you to anyone here...


Apple TV has horrible picture quality.

But for a lot of people (i.e. the non-videophile crowd), it's enough. With Display Port it will be better.


However, when the folks that buy it put netflix offerings against the bluray PQ, I am sure netflix will not be their choice.

Well let's see: $30 for a BR disk that they have to go pick up at the store, or $5 for a download they can get w/o leaving the couch. Gee I wonder which one they'll choose more often? I mean not every movie is a SciFi or Adventure flic, either. I doubt people will pay $30 for comedies and kids movies. Yes, sometimes they will, but my guess is that they'll opt for the $5 option more often. And if they don't have all the fancy gear to take full advantage of BR in the first place (for example they might have a PS3 as BR player, but not a TV that can do 1080p or a receiver that can do the full DTS-MA), then my guess that will also be a factor.


We can forgive low quality audio, but not low quality video.

Who's "we"? You? So now you speak for everyone? Figures.


The folks that purchase these low quality audio files do not care about audio or video quality. That is why a computer geek(much like yourself) will sit in front of a computer monitor(that does not support the proper colorspace for HD video and is definately uncalibrated for SD video) and watch a movie or television show, and listen to the audio on cheap, low performing computer speakers(2 at that).

There you go insulting everyone again. So let me get this straight: all the millions of people who download compressed audio files are "computer geeks" and are absolute dimwits when it comes to audio? Boy, you sure know how to make yourself popular.


The film and video industry is not supported by these people, the computer industry is

No, I actually think that the vast majority of people who watch movies are not videophiles or as discriminating as you are about quality. As a matter of fact, I'll repeat what I've said about you so many times already: you are the exception rather than the norm. Most people just want to watch the movie and aren't sitting there comparing picture quality with two TVs side-by-side and they don't sit there and A/B movie soundtracks to hear which one really does sounds a hair better. No that honor goes to perfectionist little irritants like lil't so that they can pontificate about it later in their online forums.


Money is the driving force behind business. Does your company give away its services for free? I think not, or you wouldn't be employed. It takes money to create a product, do you know of anyone who creates a product, markets it, but it doesn't cost a dime?

Well, I don't want to get into politics, but yeah, I know of one big one: the state gives lots of stuff away for free. But in the private sector, the same can be said for advertisers. Kind of like the 5 free BR disks you got when you bought that PS3 you're always raving about. Sure, the public ends up paying for these freebies, but there's plenty to be had for free. You'll probably dismiss this as rubbish, but that's a concept we "computer geeks" and the quality-be-damned evil music downloaders are intimately familiar with. Free content is a culture that you Hollywood-types just can't understand, don't want to see, and hope goes away. But guess what? That toothpaste has been squeezed out of that tube and it won't be so easy to get it back in. Free content is something the public expects and if Hollywood won't provide it, they will find it elsewhere, i.e. with Display Port and a small sacrifice in quality, if they have to.


The music industry, and the film and video industry are quite different. The day you get that through your thick skull, is the day you will finally have some sort of epiphany

Why is your needle stuck on this? Is it truly impossible for one industry to follow the example of another? I think not. I've given lots of examples, but you just want to see the whole world in individual little completely unrelated little boxes. Everything to you is black & white and any suggestion that there is a gray area is so anathema to your whole world view that you go into fits over anyone who would suggest this. You really are commitable, you know.


A two hundred and fifty dollar bluray player, and twenty dollar disc are not high ticket items.

But the TV, Receiver & Speakers are.


During our last recession, DVD players sales grew more in 2001-2003

We aren't exactly in the same kind of recession. Have you tried to get a loan lately? Credit cards maxed out? Mortgage too high? No exactly as problematic in 2002. You should probably keep your ignorance out of discussions about the economy, because you're not exactly the best economist on this forum.


Rentals went through the roof during that period.

Maybe because back then (just like now with BR) owning the DVDs and taking full advantage of it's potential was still a bit expensive? And just as rentals were huge then, downloads may actually fill that role this time around. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants for you?


Since Bluray player are cheaper than a new computer

I can buy a laptop for $400 (www.acer.com), but to watch a BR in the typical American living room in all it's glory I need a new player, a new TV, a new receiver, and new speakers (not to mention all the other things like cables, stands, etc.).


The studio will shift to downloading when

1. It makes them money, which it isn't now.
2. When the infrastructure is there, which it is not.
3. When the quality of the download equals what we currently get.



Hogwash. They'll switch sooner, just watch. Downloads are cheaper for the consumer, and that's something you just can't wrap your little tiny head around.


Apple technology is not 1080p. Apple technology is not lossless audio. Apple TV is not a staple for hometheater owners. Apple TV may work for computer geeks who do not care about video or audio quality, but to a hometheater enthusiast who desire quality, its not good enough.

Again, videophiles such as yourself are not the norm. Average consumers don't care about your specs - they just want to see the latest movies.


Downloads have copy protection as well, you know this or you should.

Again, another indication of your narrow view of everything. Downloads is more than just the latest Hollywood movies. It includes internet video, tv shows, older movies with advertising, and lost of other content. Most of these other forms of entertainment don't have HDCP.


You have a maximum amount of devices that you can transfer a file to, and for rental a certain time period to watch.

Hence the reason that consumers are so irritated with copy protection. Display Port has the potential to provide more HDCP-free content than HDMI, and that's a factor you should keep in mind.


I think you ability to put everyone in the same frame as yourself(you know, does not care a bit about quality) is narrow minded.

I never said that I don't care about quality - is that something you're trying to get people to believe? It's a lie, and you know it. I also don't try to speak for everyone. That's you, actually.


You think to small, you are out of touch with the average hometheater enthusiast

From the movie My Uncle Vinny: "Oh yeah, and you blend!" You are so far from the average Joe, that it's amazing you purport to speak for him. Not only are you completely clueless about the average Joe, but if you did ever meet him, you'd piss him off so much with your elitism that he'd kick your little smart-alack a$$.


Nobody wants to sit and watch a movie on a 3.5" screen, they watch television programming, and music videos. Nobody wants to watch while listening to two channel audio. If that is your idea of a premiere event, great, but its not mine.

Exactly, it's not your cup of tea. But this statement says so much about how out-of-touch you are with the real world. lil't, I hang out with the average Joe, I know the average Joe. The average Joe is a friend of mine. lil't, you're no the average Joe.

[Mr Peabody]

Samsung added a downloadable upgrade to the 2550 to make it play Netflix STANDARD VIDEO movies on demand. I don't get it, that would look and sound so bad compared to BR I don't understand who would do this. It's for members of Netflix and I don't think the movies are any addition charge so maybe it's just an added perk. Me personally, it's hard to watch a SD channel from satelite. It's a pretty smart way of getting people used to the concept though. I just can't see some one paying the cost of a 2550 to watch BR sitting and watching SD streams. But, I am coming to realize I'm not "normal". They say admitting it is the first step to recovery, that's if I wanted to recover :)

[Worf101]

Heard a conversation on Fox Sports Radio. Guy was quoting that BR player prices would be below $200 by "Black Friday" (the day after Thanksgiving, nothing to do with Barrack:biggrin5:). However, even though the announcer already IS a BR owner he called the price of disks (around $30) a "total ripoff".

He not me claims that BR disk only account for 4% of DVD SALES as most folks prefer to rent BR disks for now. I'm just passing along his comments for clarification. I trust little the loudmouths on the radio say so I'm asking you folks to gimme the real skinny on BR Disk sales and whether such a reduction in price (which has historically worked in the past) is too little too late during a recession.

Da Worfster

[kexodusc]

Heard a conversation on Fox Sports Radio. Guy was quoting that BR player prices would be below $200 by "Black Friday" (the day after Thanksgiving, nothing to do with Barrack:biggrin5:). However, even though the announcer already IS a BR owner he called the price of disks (around $30) a "total ripoff".

He not me claims that BR disk only account for 4% of DVD SALES as most folks prefer to rent BR disks for now. I'm just passing along his comments for clarification. I trust little the loudmouths on the radio say so I'm asking you folks to gimme the real skinny on BR Disk sales and whether such a reduction in price (which has historically worked in the past) is too little too late during a recession.

Da Worfster

I hear ya Worfster. It's pretty sad when a guy can join one them mail-order Video clubs with all the hidden shipping costs and privacy invasions and still get better deals on BluRays than at the mall.

[GMichael]

Heard a conversation on Fox Sports Radio. Guy was quoting that BR player prices would be below $200 by "Black Friday" (the day after Thanksgiving, nothing to do with Barrack:biggrin5:). However, even though the announcer already IS a BR owner he called the price of disks (around $30) a "total ripoff".

He not me claims that BR disk only account for 4% of DVD SALES as most folks prefer to rent BR disks for now. I'm just passing along his comments for clarification. I trust little the loudmouths on the radio say so I'm asking you folks to gimme the real skinny on BR Disk sales and whether such a reduction in price (which has historically worked in the past) is too little too late during a recession.

Da Worfster

I bought a BR disc in August. Also bought a PS3 game at the same time. Both were $30. Watched the movie and got 2 hours of enjoyment. ($15/hr) If I ever watch it again that cost will get cut down. Played the game for 130 hours so far, and will probably play it again tonight. (0.23/hr)
I haven't bought any more BR disc since. May not anytime soon.

[kexodusc]

I bought a BR disc in August. Also bought a PS3 game at the same time. Both were $30. Watched the movie and got 2 hours of enjoyment. ($15/hr) If I ever watch it again that cost will get cut down. Played the game for 130 hours so far, and will probably play it again tonight. (0.23/hr)
I haven't bought any more BR disc since. May not anytime soon.
Well, when you put it like that....
Prices must be dropping somewhat though, I've purchased the following for less than $20 CDN...(and 3 less than $15)

300
3:10 To Yuma
Casino Royale
Appleseed Ex Machina
I Am Legend
Assassination of Jesse James
Harry Potter: Order of the Phoenix
Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire
Transformers

Had to pay $27 or so for Iron Man though, the only real ball-breaker.

New releases are kinda high, but so are new releases on DVD, and when I think back to the pricing of DVD's back in 1999-2001, this ain't so bad.

[Rich-n-Texas]

You can pre-order The Dark Night @ Amazon right now for $24.95, which includes a digital copy that can be transfered to a computer or portable media player. Other recently released movies:

Incedible Hulk: $24.95
Wall-E: $24.95
Hellboy II: $26.95
Get Smart: $24.95

With the exception of The Incrdeible Hulk, these titles are available for pre-order, but other titles available now include:

Batman Begins: $17.95
Transformers (Special 2 disk edition): $19.95
Casino Royale (Two disk collectors edition): $25.95
Iron Man: $25.95

In more cases than not, these are out-the-door prices, so to me the cost of this cutting edge (as of now) technology is right in line with similar DVD titles. I honestly don't know where people are coming up with $30 price tags.

(Note: The price shown for Iron Man is what I paid for it on Oct. 1st.)

[Feanor]

I bought a BR disc in August. Also bought a PS3 game at the same time. Both were $30. Watched the movie and got 2 hours of enjoyment. ($15/hr) If I ever watch it again that cost will get cut down. Played the game for 130 hours so far, and will probably play it again tonight. (0.23/hr)
I haven't bought any more BR disc since. May not anytime soon.

I can't really figure why I'd pay $30 for a BluRay or even $15 for a DVD. I'm a well-know cheapskate but I'd rather rent for Zip.ca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip.ca) for about C$2.50 a movie. Heck, that's six viewings for $15. The last flick I bought was Der Untergang (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363163/) six or eight months ago, and I was a special case given I'm a minor WWII and Nazi history buff.

I can't entirely convince my wife of this approach, though. She a sucker for the used DVD bin at Blockbuster. Her collection is about 500 DVDs.

[Rich-n-Texas]

I can't figure out why you'd buy a "BlueRay" period. You still watch an analog TV don't you?

[Feanor]

I can't figure out why you'd buy a "BlueRay" period. You still watch an analog TV don't you?

So very true :cryin:

[Rich-n-Texas]

I'll start the fund drive to get you into the 21st century as well. Sound good? We'll start with a bake sale. :thumbsup:

[johnny p]

I can't figure out why you'd pay MSRP for a blu-ray .......

I get ALL of my movies on sale..... DVD or Blu-ray..... plenty of $15 blu-rays out there if you look.... and not just junk titles either.

I buy used a lot too though.

[Mr Peabody]

If you go into most of the B&M stores the titles are higher, wanting to make money on that impulse buyer like GM. Those who can wait, can save with online purchase of Br movies. On average a BR is about $10.00 more than the same title on DVD.

It's not hard to believe a sub $199.00 BR player on "black Friday" when the Sony s300 and Samsung 1500 are basically there. I don't think that price will be the norm but who knows people are snagging the Sony s550 for $299.00 online which is a heck of a deal.

I do think the software prices are keeping most people from jumping on BR It's a bit of a sticker shock when you walk down the isle of Wal-Mart who is known for cheap prices and see BR titles for $30.00 and $35.00. I was at Target Saturday and walked the isle just to see if any deals, and there wasn't, Iron Man was $35.00. Not everyone is willing, able or knows to shop online.

[Worf101]

Thanks for the knowledge. Nice tro know they didn't pull that $30.00 figure out of their butts. More information for me to ponder.

Da Worfster

[kexodusc]

Well, here's my unsolicited thoughts on the relevance of the $30 BluRay this year:

I'm probably not the average a/v consumer - I suspect I spend more on that stuff than vast majority of Joe-the-Plumber's would (as would most regulars on an a/v site like this). I have by ar.com standards what I expect to be a small video collection - maybe 150-200 DVD's or so and another 20-30 various TV series complete seasons. I've never actually counted so it could be more than that now that I start thinking, but when I see guys like Wooch and Mrs. Feanor claim 500+ I know I'm a minor leaguer on the video side of things. I probably only purchase 10-15 or so a year. Maybe, and that's if it was a good year. I only like owning DVD's I know I'll watch enough that its cheaper to buy once than rent as much as I'll watch it. Okay, I don't always do that calculation - but a movie like, oh, say, "The Transporter"...seen it, liked it, but don't care if I ever see it again. Not gonna buy it. It's a rental...once. I'll watch it on TV, or probably never again. Now a classic like the Godfather, Full Metal Jacket, Goonies...I'll buy that.

My rent-to-purchase ratio would be at least 10:1. Some months it could be 20-1 or more.
I suspect the vast majority of DVD owners and BluRay owners were the same.

To that extent, the software pricing is not much of an issue, and shouldn't be a deterrent to adopting your first BluRay player, since BluRays are only nominally more expensive to rent on average than a DVD.

I suspect by this time next year BluRay titles will be cheaper to buy, same as it was with DVD.

As for guys still sitting on the fence...at $200, I say why the hell not? Especially for folks on this forum. I owned no less than 3 DVD players in my main system from early 2000 through 2006, some were bought used, etc, but each was an upgrade. I might even buy 1 last Oppo just for good measure since their cheap and better now at 1/3 the MSPR of the last player I bought.

I suspect for a great many people, the first BluRay player they buy will get relegated to secondary system duty before too long, but still serve the household.

In the meantime, jump on the BluRay train and enjoy 1080p in all its glory.

I know money doesn't grow on trees, but $200 is less than:
- a bad night out with the boys,
- I lose on the damn Chargers to my brother annually
- the cost of me forgetting my wife's birthday,
- annual speeding/parking ticket expense.

You guys deserve no less.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Great post Kex! I'm pretty much of the same attitude. The list of DVD's & BD's I own can be counted on two hands; the majority of which are concert DVD's, so the occasional $15 - $25 expense for a BD title is pretty much insignificant in the big financial picture.

All seriousness aside for just one minute... when did Mr. Feanor become Mrs. Feanor? How should we address you now Bill Bailey? Also, can you post up a pic of yourself? :ihih:

[bfalls]

"Can't we all jes... git along????"

Ah guess not!!!!! Sigh, what happens when you like two guys who just keep pokin' one another in the eye and tappin' one another in the ball sack. Play nice dang it!!!

Da Worfster

I'm not afraid to say so, but I enjoy the conflict. There's a lot of information to be gleened. The back and forth banter is much more entertaining than reading a white paper. I don't really care for the insults from either side, but without them the discussion would have the entertainment value of a high-school debate, informational, but not too entertaining. Kudos to both sides, but I believe Sir T has more than an upper edge on this one. Time well spent reading.

[Mr Peabody]

Rich, keep up here, you obviously missed one of Feanor's posts, I think, sometimes humor goes over my head, but, in case, Mr. Feanor don't buy movies but Mrs. Feanor likes to raid the used movie bin at the local rental joint and has built up a mighty DVD collection of about 500 titles. This is the referred to collection and Mrs. Feanor. Bill has to have some one to take care of him :)

[nightflier]

I'm going to guess that the one way that Display Port is going to cross-over from the PC side to the HT side is through gaming. I suspect that aside from Apple-branded gear, game consoles will be the first non-PC devices to start including it. The big advantage on the PC side over VGA, DVI and HDMI, is that it lowers the manufacturing costs and in that industry margins are already razor-thin. PC Gaming consoles are essentially computers, so Display Port will also reduce costs for them and they could even include a cheap $10 Display Port to HDMI converter cable, if necessary to sweeten the deal.

[Mr Peabody]

I thought earlier in this post it was stated Displayport wasn't HD capable or some such short coming vs HDMI. Graphics is very important in the gaming arena.

[pixelthis]

ONE thing blu has done is get me back into the rental store(like the 30 times I went looking for IRON MAN)
dvd JUST COULDN'T COMPETE against VOD in HD.
However with Blu its no contest.
I have seven titles now, will buy more, but renting discs has augmented my viewing enjoyment considerably.
There is one disc you just have to see, DOOMSDAY.
This is a disc I wanted to dislike, but the color and detail was just amazing, as was the sound, and I found myself getting into the story.
Terminator II is the best bargain, at fourteen bucks you get the
remastered HD version that was used on the shortlived WMA HD format, a very highq release.
Once again a BLU PURCHASE is a no-brainer, its the bargain of a lifetime.
AND dont worry about "upconversion", its actually a nonissue.
You are going to find that DVD , after watching HD for awhile, simply wont cut it, no matter how good the "upconversion"(which really isn'tan "upconversion " at all).
I just watched a weekend of football in HD, every day I watch the price is right, which is simply amazing in HD (trust me), its got to the point that everything I watch is in HD these days, SD DVD in comparison is just BLAHHH.:1:

[Mr Peabody]

The movie companies must be counting on people having the same attitude as you Pix. The software, except a couple examples as you mentioned like T2, the price of a BR new release is double a standard DVD. Every DVD new release I've seen so far recently has sold for $14.99 to $15.99 and that's in B&M stores. The BR same title is $30.00 give or take. I think Kung Fu Panda was $27.95 and that was on Amazon. Some of the BR players may be dropping in price but the software is staying high. I wanted to buy my kids Tinker Bell, again $15.00 vs $30.00, I'm not going to be watching it, no brainer, the DVD is fine. If the difference was within $5.00 or so I might have gone ahead and bought BR. I have a BR player for the TV where they do the most viewing. I really find this interesting since both DVD and BR same titles come from same company, the DVD new releases have actually dropped about $5.00. New releases on DVD used to cost $20.00 or more. They may be $15.00 for the first week and then go up but you can now buy new release DVD's all day long for $15.00 and they stay there or drop as time goes on while BR disc remain hubbering around $30.00. Some can claim this isn't so and show a few sales online but normal pricing is just how I stated it, especially for B&M stores. $30.00 is just out of range for me to spend for a movie. The few titles I own have either been bought via online specials or used. I won't start buying off the shelf BR discs until they drop about $10.00.

[Rich-n-Texas]

Rich, keep up here, you obviously missed one of Feanor's posts, I think, sometimes humor goes over my head, but, in case, Mr. Feanor don't buy movies but Mrs. Feanor likes to raid the used movie bin at the local rental joint and has built up a mighty DVD collection of about 500 titles. This is the referred to collection and Mrs. Feanor. Bill has to have some one to take care of him :)
Okay, I get it. I occasionally have a "topspeed" moment.

Great thread nevertheless so I'll return to my seat in the balcony. :yesnod:

[Mr Peabody]

Speaking of him, I wonder where the ole tugboat driver has been lately?

[nightflier]

I thought earlier in this post it was stated Displayport wasn't HD capable or some such short coming vs HDMI. Graphics is very important in the gaming arena.

According to Wikipedia:

Technical specifications

* 10.8 Gbit/s forward link channel supports high resolution displays with a single cable.†
* 8B/10B data transmission (up to 2.7 GHz symbol rate, up to 4 lanes, 8B/10B modulation).
* Reduced bandwidth transmission for 15 metre cable (at least 1920x1080p60, 24 bpp).
* Full bandwidth transmission for 2 metre cable.
* Supports color depth of 6, 8, 10, 12 and 16 bits per color component.
* Supports YCbCr color space (ITU-R BT.601-5 and BT.709-4), 4:2:2 chroma subsampling
* Supports legacy signal streams (analog and DVI/HDMI]]); backward compatibility achieved with adapters/dongles
* 128-bit AES DisplayPort Content Protection (DPCP) support, and support for 40-bit High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) from version 1.1 onwards.
* Supports internal and external connections so that one standard can be used by computer makers reducing costs.[4]
* Open and extensible standard to help with broad adoption.

General and technical overviews can be downloaded at DisplayPort.org.

† Not taking into account blanking (20-30% overhead for GTF, 10-20% for CVT-RB):
1920 × 1080 × 60fps × 24bpp = 3.0 Gbit/s,
1920 × 1200 × 60fps × 30bpp = 4.1 Gbit/s,
2560 × 1600 × 60fps × 30bpp = 7.4 Gbit/s,
4096 × 2160 × 24fps × 36bpp = 7.7 Gbit/s,
Note: Bpp is the number of bits for each pixel; for RGB and YCbCr 4:4:4, the bpp value is three times the bits per color component (bpc); for YCbCr 4:2:2 subsampling, the bpp value is twice the bpc value.