Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Maximum PC/ Mac|Life
37 Followers
Maximum PC
543 Followers
Victor Barrera
11005 Followers
Jack Johnson
245 Followers
darkhorse003
937 Followers
satori3000
118 Followers
the311neoDec 17, 2010
cherry poppin, daddy!
blackplight4uDec 17, 2010
It is about time!! The prices have been very high, I have to admit I have seen a great price shift in the past year or so. On blue ray DVD and DVD Players. They did not speak to the fact that every Blue-ray disc is not recorded at the same resolution. Some are 1080+ some are just at 1080 so you get different quality recordings that is more so noticed on the older movies. Used to work at Best Buy and the Sony representative spoke to this issue. Many people define Blue-Ray as a Resolution All on it own. Yet, you could buy a Blue-ray disk and the resolution could look like ^$*$(>. Food for thought!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
arschgaudiDec 17, 2010
I like how you wrote an entire paragraph but really didn't say anything.
boulderbumDec 18, 2010
Streaming media is great for a quick fix. If you just want to watch a quick movie and don't care about quality, Netflix works and some rental services' HD offerings are okay too.
For my purchased movies, however, I have either iTunes format for portability (easy to take on my iPhone, then finish up on my Apple TV) or Blu Ray for quality. You simply cannot beat the bitrate of HDMI and physical formats. "Avatar" has a peak bitrate over 40 Mbps while a lot of the streamed "HD" content comes in at around 4-7 Mbps which means its way too compressed to carry the same detail in the picture and sound.
Also, you can now pick up Blu Ray players for $100 and tons of bargain bin Blu Rays for $7-10! Heck, even classics like "Dark Knight" are now available for $9.99!
gkiltzDec 18, 2010
There is no way to further refine the technology except on the fly.
As the usage increases, everyone up and down the line will learn little tricks to make the quality better.
rickthebrickDec 18, 2010
For me $10 a movie is not a bargain. I rarely watch a movie more than once. I am a widower whose children are all gone so it is usually only me that would watch the movie. I can still get into a theater for around $10 so why would I wait 6 or more months to watch it at home for around the same price? The question is why would one want to watch an old movie when most people have stopped talking about it? There use to be theaters that would charge less than half the price to watch a movie since they would have movies that were more than a year old. I would pay $4 or $5 to watch an old movie in a theater.
superkendallDec 18, 2010
Movie tickets now these days often approach $10, probably over if you consider gas you use to get to the theater (I just paid $17 for Tron Legacy).
So the cost is about equal - but the best part of a physical disc is you also get things like the commentary tracks, which often provide really interesting insights into a movie.
I stil stream some movies that I only want to see once, but any movie I care about much I at least rent, and sometimes buy the Blu-Ray simply because it's a better experience overall.
blackplight4uDec 18, 2010
I want to say out of all the comments in this discussion "attempt" yours is the most insightful! Thanks for bringing up some important points to this subject!
boulderbumDec 19, 2010
Thanks!
somedummyDec 18, 2010
It's the Best Buy training.
th3wh1terabb1tDec 17, 2010
You used to work at Best Buy but don't know how to spell Blu-Ray? lulz
charlesdkraussDec 17, 2010
How quickly people forget. When DVD players and DVD media first came out it also was much more expensive than VHS. Eventually prices went down. Same thing is happening with blu-ray.
ghostrunner1Dec 18, 2010
The p in 1080p is for progressive, not plus sign, there is no 1080+ available...
blackplight4uDec 18, 2010
Sorry but this is certainly not completely true. I am aware of the "p" in 1080 as well as the "i" for interlaced. But, I don't know if you are aware of ultra HD? It is certainly higher resolution and yes it does exist. Not all blue-ray is rated at the same resolution is the point to my comment.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ghostrunner1Dec 18, 2010
Blu Ray is NOT Ultra HD. You said about Blu Ray "Some are 1080+ some are just at 1080 so you get different quality recordings" which is patently false.
breakspiritDec 18, 2010
Nice try to cover up your obvious ignorance.
d0x360_Dec 18, 2010
Im sure you mean Blu-Ray right Mr. Best Buy technoman. The issue with first gen blu-rays wasnt the resolution they were encoded it. More often than not it was due to the fact that alot of them were encoded in mpeg2 or a really quick and sloppy job using AVC. They were all 1080p
blackplight4uDec 18, 2010
I am sure you mean to say, "they where encoded". Not, "they where encoded it"? Right Mr. Encode? The fact remains that there are alot of devices on the market that offer the consumer above HD quality rating hince the plus + that you may have misunderstood (it was written to say 1080 and above) . As one comment states below that you can stream video and it still will not match the quality of blu-ray, due to limitations in data transfer rates or streaming. Enjoy your search for encoded Blu-ray.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
d0x360_Dec 19, 2010
You are really gonna correct my typo? You know hince isn't a word right? You have no idea what you're talking about here so argue away and prove my point.
blackplight4uDec 19, 2010
This is cheap shot paradise brought to you by d0x360... I am mature enough to discuss the issue without taking cheap shots. And my point of the existence of resolution higher than 1080p? Well there is Ultra HD and my point has been proven above and beyond clarity. Coming to a store near you d0x360.
wf80diditDec 18, 2010
It's spelled Blu-Ray.
rblancarteDec 17, 2010
Geez, the teaser is almost as long as the article itself.
That being said - there is little info here other than sales of Blu-Ray are high and continue to grow. And 3D is in the future of Blu-Ray as the best medium out there.
FPSmotoDec 17, 2010
I've bought most of my blu-rays on amazon for under $10 a piece. I'm up to nearly 50 now and to me, it's completely worth it. I now have a good majority of my favorite films and since I've owned my PS3, I've had nothing but great HD experiences so far. This was just another Beta vs. VHS battle, cept this time it was HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray won and is finally spending their well deserved bragging rights.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
lnmagicDec 18, 2010
It was a useless battle. With VHS vs Betamax, one machine couldn't play both media. It's clearly not the case with HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray, as I have a drive installed on my PC which can play and burn both formats. The plus? HD-DVD titles can be picked up for $3 while still giving the same video performance as Blu-Ray.
Both sides should have just gotten what they could and pushed for multi-format players.
FPSmotoDec 18, 2010
Why have multiple formats and HAVE to buy a player that supports both of them when I can get the great majority of my movies on Blu Ray?
lnmagicDec 19, 2010
Why have an in-dash stereo in your car that supports an iPod AND mp3? Because you can, and because it really shouldn't heavily affect the price.
superkendallDec 18, 2010
Actually earlier encodings are often crappier than more recent ones, and HD-DVD encodings are often crappier because the discs had less physical space than blu-ray discs (which was one of many reasons whey HD-DVD not only lost, but should never have been pursued to start with). HD-DVD discs are a good bargain but in ten years I'm way more likely to be able to play back a Blu-Ray disc...
lnmagicDec 19, 2010
I have full 1080P videos on HD-DVD. Blu-Ray discs have far more storage than what is necessary with excellent video quality and an h.264 codec. Granted, 3D video takes a lot more room, but we're far from seeing wide implementation of that technology in the home. I've viewed both on my PC with a nice monitor, and cannot tell the difference - not on still frames, not when I zoom in, and certainly not with normal playback.
HD-DVD failed to heavily market their technology early on because they offered a full specification and only cost an additional 10% to manufacture, compared to a DVD.
The point is that no consumer video would technically be full quality video with zero compression. They both use codecs to compress the video (especially red space).
lnmagicDec 19, 2010
Correction, they are now h.264 so I can watch them in WMC, but not the codec used on disc.
jasoncoxDec 17, 2010
"after Blu-ray defeated the HD-DVD format in the high definition wars"
Blu-Ray defeated HD-DVD? I wasn't aware of this. What I was aware of is that Sony started throwing a ton of money around to the movie studies to get them to choose Blu-Ray over HD-DVD even as consumers were already choosing HD-DVD over Blu-Ray.
(yes, I'm still bitter)
trdrstvDec 17, 2010
I know, I know... HD-DVD was a better spec (you know, a FINISHED ONE), but even though it took Bluray until Rev 2.0 (or 3 whole years) to match what HD-DVD did out of the gate, at least they got there.
superkendallDec 18, 2010
There was nothing about HD-DVD that was better. It had less physical space which was the only really important thing. The only plus it had was a more fleshed out internet connected aspect, which no-one used (and they continue to ignore in the form of BD-Live today).
trdrstvDec 19, 2010
"There was nothing about HD-DVD that was better"
First off, HD-DVD had a finished spec so there was none of that "Profile 1.0, 1.1, 2.0" nonsense so if a disc had a move and special features that worked on one player, it worked on another.
Out of the Gate it had Internet access and Persistant storage required. BD-Live may be dead on the vine, but how many bluray players do you see with Netflix, Vudu, pandora etc... support ?
HD-DVD's have no region code.
HD-DVD had built in 'managed copy'.
HD-DVD's players have Mandatory (not optional) Dolby Digitalplus and Dolby DigitalHD support.
HD-DVD players also had a secondary video and audio decoder (for Pip) mandatory.
HD-DVD's had a manufacturing advantage where they could use the same equipment that they used for DVDs.
HD-DVD's have a thicker layer of protection to prevent a scratch from reaching the data layer of the disc.
They also had less expensive players and media and the first to offer 'flipper discs' where you'd have the movie in HD on one side and a DVD on the other.
So yeah... Eventually Bluray had a lot of these features or their own workarounds to the problem, but simply put it took them around 3 years to "closely match" what HD-DVD did out of the gate.
Oh, and the space issue is less important than the Codec you use. Both HD-DVD and Bluray support VC-1 and even though you CAN fill 50 gb of space to get a 1080p picture using MPEG2 (looking at you Pirates of the Caribbean) you could get a much better picture in much less space if you used a modern codec instead of one that's 15 years old.
bluebirdgmDec 18, 2010
It wasn't Sony "throwing money at studios" that led to Blu-ray's dominance--if I'm not mistaken, it was HD-DVD that first made a studio switch to exclusively their side (namely Paramount) after both formats were introduced. By the time studios started abandoning HD-DVD, it was already getting trounced by Blu-ray by a margin of two to one.
Blu-ray won because of one thing: the PS3. Even though not everyone who bought a PS3 didn't become a big Blu-ray buyer, the sheer number of PS3 sales compared to HD-DVD hardware sales still translated to overwhelming numbers in disc sales.
lnmagicDec 18, 2010
I suspect part of it was the same reason Betamax lost long ago: pornography. I believe HD-DVD did not approve of porn being put onto HD-DVDs, and that industry can be a bit monolithic.
bluebirdgmDec 18, 2010
Actually it was the other way around--the (unfounded) rumors were that Sony didn't want porn on their format. The first HD porn releases were on HD-DVD. That doesn't necessarily mean it was because Blu-ray banned porn; I'd chalk it up to the fact that it was cheaper to manufacture HD-DVDs at the time, since it was easier to convert DVD manufacturing lines to HD-DVDs than it was for Blu-ray (because HD-DVDs and DVDs have their data layers the same distance from the playing surface of the disc, while Blu-ray's is considerably closer--this is why Blu-ray stores more data per layer, and why having a special scratch-resistant coating was more of a concern for Blu-ray; but I digress).
Anyway, the whole "porn is the reason VHS won over Beta" thing is a myth--porn helped popularize the VHS format, but by the time it did, Beta was already well on its way out.
b3owulfDec 18, 2010
So there were two formats competing.... and now there is only one. How is that not getting defeated?
superkendallDec 18, 2010
So if there's a war, and the weapon is money, how is loss by one side not a defeat?
You shouldn't be bitter because HD-DVD never stood a chance from the start. They were betrayed by Microsoft and when Disney went Blu-Ray only (which they did from the very beginning) that was absolutely the end of whatever format Disney was not supporting, end of story.
ajajadudeDec 18, 2010
If no HD-DVD movies are no longer being made, how was the format NOT defeated? I don't see any HD-DVD players being sold in stores and I don't see any new releases on HD-DVD. Where's your logic headed?
jasoncoxDec 17, 2010
I know only one person who owns a Blu-Ray player... and she only buys one or two Blu-Rays per year. 95% of the movies she watches come in via Netflix. Physical media is dead.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
trdrstvDec 17, 2010
I know someone who doesn't have an HDTV, but bought a Bluray player to use it for DVD's and the Wifi Streaming of Netflix on demand.
arschgaudiDec 18, 2010
I know this ass-clown that actually thinks physical media is dead. Serious, this pompous wind-bag actually declared in a tech forum that "Physical media was dead".
fraggalDec 18, 2010
@arschgaudi You are a dick
arschgaudiDec 18, 2010
Thanks
superkendallDec 18, 2010
New technologies never replace, they only splinter use. You can for example claim the car killed the oxcart. But throughout the world, even the U.S., people are hooking carts up to animals eery day.
And with the imposition of usage caps being more and more common, digital downloads will be a part of life but certainly never eliminate discs (which you can actually share with friends).
ajajadudeDec 18, 2010
Which is bulls**t. Physical media will not die as long as ISPs are literally choking the internet with slow speeds and bandwidth caps. And not only that but digital media is choking itself out by putting severe restraints on content via DRM.
vgreanoDec 17, 2010
I only interested in this article because of the Vader thumbnail.
jaybird1905Dec 17, 2010
No.
addiktionDec 19, 2010
Exactly, its just the Christmas season. Everything always gets sold more quickly and in more numbers during holidays. Especially when you can't go outside and enjoy your time and are racked up inside your house all day long because of the snow.
searching4socksDec 17, 2010
Meh, physical media seems like a hassle most of the time. Maybe if they quoted numbers about a huge sales increase instead of just an increase in production, then I'd believe it. But honestly, it just seems like a big hassle and cost for something that really isn't that convienent for me personally.
TomHanks4Dec 18, 2010
agree. streaming is so much more convenient. i doubt we will ever see another physical media standard come out to replace blu ray, the days of worrying about media are nearly behind us. streaming isn't quite there yet in every situation, but in time physical media will seem as antiquated as the telegraph.
superkendallDec 18, 2010
The storage and bandwidth demands for full 2046x2046x2046 holography disagree with you.
Today's so called "3D" is a pitiful thing compared with that.
TomHanks4Dec 18, 2010
and transferring 1 megabyte over modems used to take hours if not days, and computers once came with 4k of ram, and get off my lawn
the "streaming isn't as high quality" problem is very, very temporary.
kcswankoDec 17, 2010
physical media sucks!
randaiiDec 18, 2010
Yeah I love streaming like everyone else but I love my blu-ray copy of Back to the Future owning a physical copy is a must for some movies
superkendallDec 18, 2010
Blu-Ray is breaking through because discs are finally getting to a reasonable cost point to buy. I had never really bought many blu-ray discs before but this year there were a bunch of great black friday deals for discs on Amazon - like whole seasons of Mad Men for just $10 each. A season of a great show for $10? Yes please.
portnoyDec 18, 2010
My sister just bought a Blu-Ray player and none of us could see any difference at all between that and her old DVD player on her brand new 42" LCD set, other than the Blu-Ray player being SOO DAMNED SLOW! I'll probably buy one when I can get a player for under $100 that turns on within 20 seconds of power and disk begins playing immediately. But as things sit it's like waiting for an old Commodore 64 to load from cassette.
enantiodromiaDec 18, 2010
if you dont see a difference than something is not right. maybe the HDCP isnt working, and you are just getting an analog signal.
digghasnoethicsDec 18, 2010
Pump it out at 3m wide and you can tell when the cameraman couldn't pull focus accurately.
Upscaled DVD can only really work on the small LCD TVs.
cjmnewsDec 18, 2010
If it is connected with HDMI, HDCP is working.
If it is connected with Component cables, you're not getting 1080p, it's 1080i.
portnoyDec 18, 2010
No, we're all using hdmi for hookups.
cjmnewsDec 18, 2010
There is not a lot of difference. You get a little clarity, and sometimes more color. That's about it. It is not worth the cost difference to move to BR. Sure BR could have 3D, but that's a useless fad too.
Just wait a couple more years and we'll have streaming everywhere. BR is a temporary transition that will not really go mainstream.
You can forget the quick start up. Too many things to check like key revocation lists and firmware updates and online connectivity to get quick start up from BR.
Upconverted DVD is good enough for most people, and comparing it with BR shows me not to bother wasting my money on BR players or Discs.
ajajadudeDec 18, 2010
As long as internet speeds remain slow and download caps are in place for major ISPs, you'll never see streaming take over physical media. Especially if downloading a movie costs almost as much as buying a physical copy.
portnoyDec 18, 2010
That's the way I see it too. I've bought a couple hundred dvd's over the years and with streaming netflix coming for my Boxee Box I don't see much need to buy them at that rate in the future.
enantiodromiaDec 18, 2010
all that money pumped into the hd-dvd vs blu-ray war, and the industry didn't even see where consumers were actually heading: to downloads and streaming.
sure, netflix is fast, but not faster than a torrent.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hipmanDec 18, 2010
Are torrents faster than instant?.Can you download a 20gb+ movie in real-time?.
nexuspDec 18, 2010
I can download a 6gb - 10gb HD rip in a couple of hours or a 3D 30gb rip in a day. That's good enough for me. I would prob have a bunch of movies on que by then anyway. It only takes an hour to get a HD Episode of whatever. This is with my current speeds which can be increased with a phone call. There are better avenues then torrents out there and even private trackers faster then the public ones. This is all theory of-course. I don't condone piracy. :).
TomHanks4Dec 18, 2010
nothing against torrents, but netflix is much, much faster. you choose something, hit play, and... it plays.
enantiodromiaDec 20, 2010
a: the bit rate of "instant streaming" is way lower than playing a local video file. you should all know this by now.
b: no one is downloading 20G movie files; most HD movies are 4G-7G
c: you are still limited to what Netflix and iTunes have to offer
d: less than 1% of the county have enough bandwidth to their homes to even hope to stream real HD to their house
e: you can download entire seasons, or all seasons, of most tv shows in an hour or two from torrents
f: you cannot make decent playlists from Netflix and iTunes content
But hey, if you a limited selected of low bit rate "HD" which you must play one at a time instead of using playlists like a person , I'm not going to stop you from enjoying it, but don't make it sound like Netflix is the end-all be-all movie and tv show solution.
portnoyDec 18, 2010
Like I said, she has a 40" set. Mine is the largest in my family at 42" I just don't see any diff. at those sizes. Maybe that wouldn't hold if we had sets right next to each other for "side by side comparisons" but if you need to do that to see a difference there is effectively no difference at all. That only leaves the difference in boot and load times which from what I've seen with hers is really profound. I won't wait minutes for Safari to load on my Mac, I'm not going to wait minutes for a movie to load on a disk player either.
gkiltzDec 18, 2010
It came too late. Too much of the country has broadband.
brijazzDec 18, 2010
Bottom line: if you want the best image on your shiny new HDTV, Blu-ray is the only way to go. No other mass-market physical media nor any streamed download will deliver the same image quality.
I simply don't understand people who insist on buying an HDTV, but then skimp on the HD programming.
yournamehereDec 18, 2010
so, the equate more production of blu-rays to sales? Sorry, production and actual sales figures are not the same thing.