- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
And Then There Was One . . . [Blu-Ray - the new HDTV disk standard]
- Thread starter c627627
- Start date
OP
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #22
meh, those are standard DVDs and that is so 1993 
. Turning to future: Laurie Fincham, director of research and development for the THX division of Lucasfilma said that there is no place for Blu-ray on the mass market.
"By the time Blu-ray really finds a mass market, we will have 128GB cards. I would guess that getting studios to supply movies on media cards, or offer downloads, will be a lot easier than getting them to sign up to support a disc format."
"In the future I want to be able to carry four to five movies around with me in a wallet, or walk into a store and have someone copy me a movie to a USB device. Stores will like that idea, because it's all about having zero inventory. I don't want to take up shelf space with dozens of HD movies," the scientist is reported to have said.
THX hurried to issue a clarification, no doubt after angry Sony suits contacted them... but hey, that makes A LOT of sense:
A USB3 or another type of stick or card with a couple of dozen GBs, and who needs a spinning disk?
. Turning to future: Laurie Fincham, director of research and development for the THX division of Lucasfilma said that there is no place for Blu-ray on the mass market."By the time Blu-ray really finds a mass market, we will have 128GB cards. I would guess that getting studios to supply movies on media cards, or offer downloads, will be a lot easier than getting them to sign up to support a disc format."
"In the future I want to be able to carry four to five movies around with me in a wallet, or walk into a store and have someone copy me a movie to a USB device. Stores will like that idea, because it's all about having zero inventory. I don't want to take up shelf space with dozens of HD movies," the scientist is reported to have said.
THX hurried to issue a clarification, no doubt after angry Sony suits contacted them... but hey, that makes A LOT of sense:
A USB3 or another type of stick or card with a couple of dozen GBs, and who needs a spinning disk?
OP
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
- Thread Starter
- #23
I think it's obvious, this is all about predicting when large capacity sticks or cards will be affordable. That way you'll store your DVD library in a little box.
Hardware players that could play them will be a fraction of the price of Sony's Blu Ray. I think it's obvious, but what's the time frame on large capacity mini storage? That's the question. Today they exist but cost hundreds of $'s.
Hardware players that could play them will be a fraction of the price of Sony's Blu Ray. I think it's obvious, but what's the time frame on large capacity mini storage? That's the question. Today they exist but cost hundreds of $'s.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
That's fine as they will soon find their niche market sold out at the present gouged prices.
My 1080p upscaling DVD player looks pretty darned great for less than $70.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Location
- Detroit
I realize I'm probably a little late making some comments, but here's my 2c
IMO, that's really overstating the situation. The picture quality from Blu-ray is better, but it's not that much better. A videophile sees the difference as that drastic and feels they "must" have it. But certainly it's not such a major upgrade to Joe six-packs everywhere, and J6P defines the market. We need look no further than Laserdisc as an example. Surely LD looked far better than VHS, everyone could tell that. But only a small percentage of the market, approx. 2%, felt that it was worth the additional monetary investment to buy LD. For the masses, VHS was sufficient. Blu-ray is facing eerily similar circumstances.
Furthermore, standard definition DVD's are not unwatchable on an HDTV, they look rather good in fact. Better than they do on regular 480i standard TV's. Starting with a quality anamorphic transfer and utilizing a good upconverter, the results can be absolutely stunning. On this claim I'm going to have to say the Emperor has no clothes. DVD is natively digital, it's not like connecting an old analog source. If we were talking about LD then sure, I'd say people with an HDTV really have no choice but to upgrade. Alas, this isn't the case.
So there simply isn't some massive built-in incentive to buy into Blu-ray. There's no mandatory or compulsory reason to abandon DVD for the sake of HD. With Windows, Microsoft basically has the power to impose their will on the world. Sony is not in that position. Trying to claim there is such a driving force is misguided.
More food for thought - the reality is that not many homes have even a single HDTV, and the majority of those that do have one only have just the one. Right there that tells you DVD will remain king of the mountain for the foreseeable future. 10+ years after release, HDTV's are still a minority product when it comes to TV sets in use. Consumers are only adopting them slowly. Furthermore, a large reason HDTV's are selling so well now is because of the form factor - not so much the improved picture. I've had a plasma for many years now, and when I first got it more people gave me compliments when it was turned off than they did when it was on! What struck them was how it freed up my family room. Look at how few rear projection models are manufactured now. Soon I believe the only rear projection models left will be DLP based, and IMO those won't last long either. People love flat, and that's the main reason they'd want to upgrade their TV. Picture quality just isn't that big a deal.
Here's my final talking point - price. My supposition is that the primary reason LD never gained market share was because people couldn't afford it. The players were several hundred dollars and the movies weren't cheap. DVD is cheap, Blu-ray is not and Blu-ray is not going to be cheap any time soon. In fact, I just read two articles recently on AVSforum that talked about Blu-ray's high prices. As long as Sony and company maintain a high premium on Blu-ray, it will never be adopted by the masses. People are spoiled by $5 DVD's and $10 new releases. They are not going to pay $20 for old catalog movies and $35 for new releases. And they certainly won't pay $400 for a Blu-ray player when they can get an upconverting DVD player for less than $75.
So let's look at this point by point:
1. The market for HDM (High Def Media, which = HD-DVD and Blu-ray) is inherently small. It's primarily made up of videophiles and people with a relatively large amount of disposable income. Non-HDTV owners, which comprise the majority of the home video market, have literally no use for Blu-ray.
2. DVD is everywhere. In cars, in portable players, cheap hardware allows it in every room with a TV. Trying to overcome that level of saturation is nigh impossible (just ask SACD or DVD-Audio how things went in their fight vs CD and MP3).
3. DVD is cheap and plentiful
4. DVD is versatile. People can inexpensively burn their own, or discs can be ripped and stored on HTPC's or portable video players.
5. Blu-ray isn't the only HD game in town. PPV / on-demand HD (so-called HD lite) is one alternative. Download services are another. Solid state is an option with promise. The window of opportunity isn't looking so good.
Blu-ray has a major uphill battle, and it's one I don't think the format can or will win. I bought into HD-DVD because the price came down to a level where it could have started gaining real market share (let's face it, $100 players sell). As it turns out, Sony saw the threat and bought Warner Brothers support thus ending the HD format war. Now Sony is holding the line on price and hoping / praying that the PS3 carries the format to total victory. Sorry, I don't see it happening. Blu-ray has niche product written all over it. IMO, it will at best have the lifespan of LD, holding out as the format of choice for videophiles until something better comes along. At worst, Blu-ray could be the next SACD. For those that don't know, SACD was a high-def audio format that beat out DVD-Audio but in the end it didn't matter, and it's now a dead format itself... shunned by all but the most fervent of audiophiles.
IMO, that's really overstating the situation. The picture quality from Blu-ray is better, but it's not that much better. A videophile sees the difference as that drastic and feels they "must" have it. But certainly it's not such a major upgrade to Joe six-packs everywhere, and J6P defines the market. We need look no further than Laserdisc as an example. Surely LD looked far better than VHS, everyone could tell that. But only a small percentage of the market, approx. 2%, felt that it was worth the additional monetary investment to buy LD. For the masses, VHS was sufficient. Blu-ray is facing eerily similar circumstances.
Furthermore, standard definition DVD's are not unwatchable on an HDTV, they look rather good in fact. Better than they do on regular 480i standard TV's. Starting with a quality anamorphic transfer and utilizing a good upconverter, the results can be absolutely stunning. On this claim I'm going to have to say the Emperor has no clothes. DVD is natively digital, it's not like connecting an old analog source. If we were talking about LD then sure, I'd say people with an HDTV really have no choice but to upgrade. Alas, this isn't the case.
So there simply isn't some massive built-in incentive to buy into Blu-ray. There's no mandatory or compulsory reason to abandon DVD for the sake of HD. With Windows, Microsoft basically has the power to impose their will on the world. Sony is not in that position. Trying to claim there is such a driving force is misguided.
More food for thought - the reality is that not many homes have even a single HDTV, and the majority of those that do have one only have just the one. Right there that tells you DVD will remain king of the mountain for the foreseeable future. 10+ years after release, HDTV's are still a minority product when it comes to TV sets in use. Consumers are only adopting them slowly. Furthermore, a large reason HDTV's are selling so well now is because of the form factor - not so much the improved picture. I've had a plasma for many years now, and when I first got it more people gave me compliments when it was turned off than they did when it was on! What struck them was how it freed up my family room. Look at how few rear projection models are manufactured now. Soon I believe the only rear projection models left will be DLP based, and IMO those won't last long either. People love flat, and that's the main reason they'd want to upgrade their TV. Picture quality just isn't that big a deal.
Here's my final talking point - price. My supposition is that the primary reason LD never gained market share was because people couldn't afford it. The players were several hundred dollars and the movies weren't cheap. DVD is cheap, Blu-ray is not and Blu-ray is not going to be cheap any time soon. In fact, I just read two articles recently on AVSforum that talked about Blu-ray's high prices. As long as Sony and company maintain a high premium on Blu-ray, it will never be adopted by the masses. People are spoiled by $5 DVD's and $10 new releases. They are not going to pay $20 for old catalog movies and $35 for new releases. And they certainly won't pay $400 for a Blu-ray player when they can get an upconverting DVD player for less than $75.
So let's look at this point by point:
1. The market for HDM (High Def Media, which = HD-DVD and Blu-ray) is inherently small. It's primarily made up of videophiles and people with a relatively large amount of disposable income. Non-HDTV owners, which comprise the majority of the home video market, have literally no use for Blu-ray.
2. DVD is everywhere. In cars, in portable players, cheap hardware allows it in every room with a TV. Trying to overcome that level of saturation is nigh impossible (just ask SACD or DVD-Audio how things went in their fight vs CD and MP3).
3. DVD is cheap and plentiful
4. DVD is versatile. People can inexpensively burn their own, or discs can be ripped and stored on HTPC's or portable video players.
5. Blu-ray isn't the only HD game in town. PPV / on-demand HD (so-called HD lite) is one alternative. Download services are another. Solid state is an option with promise. The window of opportunity isn't looking so good.
Blu-ray has a major uphill battle, and it's one I don't think the format can or will win. I bought into HD-DVD because the price came down to a level where it could have started gaining real market share (let's face it, $100 players sell). As it turns out, Sony saw the threat and bought Warner Brothers support thus ending the HD format war. Now Sony is holding the line on price and hoping / praying that the PS3 carries the format to total victory. Sorry, I don't see it happening. Blu-ray has niche product written all over it. IMO, it will at best have the lifespan of LD, holding out as the format of choice for videophiles until something better comes along. At worst, Blu-ray could be the next SACD. For those that don't know, SACD was a high-def audio format that beat out DVD-Audio but in the end it didn't matter, and it's now a dead format itself... shunned by all but the most fervent of audiophiles.
Expanding slightly on what double jack just said.
My 7.1 surround sound is currently connected to a 5.1 surround system, of which only the front left speaker is actualy plugged in.
If I were to play a song now, then plug all my speakers in and play it again, I could tell it was better.
However the difference is so meaningless to me that its been over a month since I took everything apart and I still havent actualy bothered to sort out which wire goes where for sound.
And I'm, compared to the general public if not to real techies, quite a techie person.
If I cant be bothered spending 15 minutes to do this, J6P is not going to spend $1000 doing it.
My 7.1 surround sound is currently connected to a 5.1 surround system, of which only the front left speaker is actualy plugged in.
If I were to play a song now, then plug all my speakers in and play it again, I could tell it was better.
However the difference is so meaningless to me that its been over a month since I took everything apart and I still havent actualy bothered to sort out which wire goes where for sound.
And I'm, compared to the general public if not to real techies, quite a techie person.
If I cant be bothered spending 15 minutes to do this, J6P is not going to spend $1000 doing it.
Yeah, what doublejack was saying. Most people don't really perceive that much of a difference between 480 DVD quality and, say, 1080p HD. They can certainly tell there is a quality difference, but it's not perceptible enough, especially at a distance, to prompt someone to go "OMG I have to upgrade." And given the price of HD media out there, a massive uptake won't happen soon.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2003
- Location
- New Jersey
I bought an HD DVD player some time ago, and while the difference is not like going from VHS to DVD, it is pretty noticeable. Color saturation is the biggest benefit and sound quality is also improved. One of the reasons I went with Toshiba is because Sony is one of those terrible corporations that has consistently screwed consumers and I will never buy another Sony product. (My brother's computer still has one of their wonderful rule kits stuck in it!
) Sony won the HD war with back room deals and a lot of money. BD was and remains the lesser format though not by much. (The Sony price increases since the demise of HD DVD are a harbinger of what Intel would do if AMD went under.) As consumers who vote with our purchases we would all be wise to give Sony the cold shoulder it so readily deserves.
Cheers!
R7
) Sony won the HD war with back room deals and a lot of money. BD was and remains the lesser format though not by much. (The Sony price increases since the demise of HD DVD are a harbinger of what Intel would do if AMD went under.) As consumers who vote with our purchases we would all be wise to give Sony the cold shoulder it so readily deserves.Cheers!
R7
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
See i made that mistake, even though i got an HD TV DVD was fine, then i watched a HD video and was blown away at the difference, i never thought the diff would of been that great, and now i am hooked, but still wont buy a blu-ray player yet.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Location
- Detroit
That's the rub. The majority of people simply aren't blow away by the difference. You're in the minority.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
I think that were the majority of people to actually view any recent movie in high-definition, they would be blown away.
I'm rather far from a video/audiophile, but I had the opportunity to see high definition video on my HTPC for the first time last night and I can't help but feel that Joe SP would be truly astounded at the difference in quality.
For HTPCs at least, the price point is reasonable. IMHO, $124 isn't too much to pay to enjoy this kind of quality (which I believe to still be kind of bleeding edge). Yes, they'll be selling for $30 a year from now, but I'll pay $8 a month for the premium...
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2004
- Location
- Detroit
I think we have disagreement in semantics. My definition of "blown away" is when someone sees something and instantly gets the feeling that they must have it. There is no question, it will be theirs.
So, when Joe SP sees a movie in high def does he or she notice that it's better than standard definition? Absolutely. Do they care enough to think "man, I gotta have this"? Nope, they do not. Ergo, they are not "blown away". They like High Def, but it simply isn't important to them and they're perfectly fine with standard definition and regular old DVD.
That's why I say it's only a minority that cares about high definition at all in the US. The TV's have been extremely slow to be adopted, and the media - Blu-ray - stands almost no chance IMO.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2004
I have a PS3 and 24" pc monitor. I'm buying new movies on Blu-ray, but there's no way I'm replacing all 200 of my old dvds.
The main problem I see with the average user adopting HD is price. Starting with a tv, a flat panel is pricey. Then the user realizes they need an upscaling dvd player. Then they realize their sound sucks. Their tv shows look crappy and they need to subscribe to hd channels.. Almost everyone I know has a SD tv, and they don't see the upgrade as being worth it. And I can't blame them, this crap isn't cheap.
"Mario Galaxy looks fine on my 'Chiang Hong' tv.."
The main problem I see with the average user adopting HD is price. Starting with a tv, a flat panel is pricey. Then the user realizes they need an upscaling dvd player. Then they realize their sound sucks. Their tv shows look crappy and they need to subscribe to hd channels.. Almost everyone I know has a SD tv, and they don't see the upgrade as being worth it. And I can't blame them, this crap isn't cheap.
"Mario Galaxy looks fine on my 'Chiang Hong' tv.."
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2002
Direct tv HD costs me $75/mo x 24 months = the present cost of a Blu-Ray and a boat load of B-R movies
And that's paying for mostly crap infomercials at night on the premium HD channels
I wish I'd gotten a $500 Blu-Ray player and 40 $30 Blu-Ray movies instead
And that's paying for mostly crap infomercials at night on the premium HD channels
I wish I'd gotten a $500 Blu-Ray player and 40 $30 Blu-Ray movies instead
Similar threads
- Locked
