Study Says Blu-ray Can't Save Disc-Based Media

[admin]

Here’s one more reason last year’s high-def format war between HD DVD and Blu-ray was so destructive. While miring potential customers in confusion it wasted much of physical media’s remaining days in the sun. According to a study conducted by Futuresource, Blu-ray sales won’t save physical media. Although we’ve seen high def disc sales are indeed growing, the study concludes that physical, pre-packaged disc media is flat and going nowhere fast.
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blu-ray-disc-based-media/image_thumb

Discuss "Study Says Blu-ray Can't Save Disc-Based Media" here. Read the article (http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blu-ray-disc-based-media).

[gliz]

I will be buying a bluray player soon (Panasonic DMP-BD35 ). I plan to keep buying shiny disks until they stop selling them. Infect I have been on a CD buying spree lately. I am not looking forward to these going away. I like to have something in my had for my cash, what say y’all?

[GZA]

the day the stop putting out actually cds and dvds is the day i stop paying for media. if im just going to get a little download for my itunes i well just download it for free because it turns out to be the same. i like owning something, i work hard for my money and want something to show for it and something i can pawn off when times get hard

[fredk]

I think you got it partially right in the last sentance of the article. Its all about providing value. The funny thing is, Sony and the big studios have been concentrating on the value it provides to the wrong group; themselves.

Bluray, and any protected media, electronic or otherwise, offers a lot more value to the studios than it does to the buying public.

Yes, the image is a little nicer on my 50" display, but its not hollycrapwow better. I can wait until there is not price difference, or I can wait until full def downloads become practical for me. Whichever...

[GlocksRock]

Doing away with physical media is a big mistake.

[Matt34]

Is the bandwidth there to support online HD downloading? I don't see the issue as long as online stores can provide a database so you can download media you have purchased in case of a hard drive failure. I have a backup drive but you can never tell. I'll feel better when flash-based HD can match the current capacities of mechanical ones.

[jostenmeat]

I think you got it partially right in the last sentance of the article. Its all about providing value. The funny thing is, Sony and the big studios have been concentrating on the value it provides to the wrong group; themselves.

You do realize that Panasonic owns all the patents concerning Bluray.

Bluray, and any protected media, electronic or otherwise, offers a lot more value to the studios than it does to the buying public.

If you say so. What, you don't think DDs are going to be loaded with DRM as well?

Yes, the image is a little nicer on my 50" display, but its not hollycrapwow better. I can wait until there is not price difference, or I can wait until full def downloads become practical for me. Whichever...

I could not disagree more, but I use a JVC PJ with 42 deg viewing angle. Even the best transfers that I know of on DVD are unwatchable compared to a mid level BD transfer. An excellent BD transfer leaves even all of the movie theaters in the dust IMO. Heck, I don't even need to compare. DVD is simply unwatchable for me, period.

[Matt34]

I could not disagree more, but I use a JVC PJ with 42 deg viewing angle. Even the best transfers that I know of on DVD are unwatchable compared to a mid level BD transfer. An excellent BD transfer leaves even all of the movie theaters in the dust IMO. Heck, I don't even need to compare. DVD is simply unwatchable for me, period.

+1
Even at 720P I can tell the difference on my 50" from about 10-12' away. I really became a believer in HDTV.:D

[gliz]

One other point, what if these files get coded in souch a way that they can only be played on your stuff and you cannot watch them at your friends house. As to the person that said dvd's are unwatchable, I think that is a little over the top. I bet that if they did a double blind test (with blu-ray) with 720p,1080i and 1080P, I bet the unknowing naked human eye could not spot the diffrence

[en sabur nur]

+1
Even at 720P I can tell the difference on my 50" from about 10-12' away. I really became a believer in HDTV.:D

That's good for those who can, but they are the minority. Bluray picture quality is markedly better than dvd (usually), but the mainstream consumer is not as concerned as the enthusiasts.
I think the mainstream public will do more renting of Bluray disks (the studios want them to buy... alot, like they did with dvd. But unless they're buying for the children. I just don't see the excitement and fervor for owning Bluray like I saw for owning DVD's, at least not in the mainstream public. That boat has sailed.
Digital downloads will have a market with renters, but long-term ownership...I don't think so. Besides the DRM restrictions, what if everyone (content owners and manufacturers) can't decide on which format to use, what about storage for the files, what if the download company goes out of business and the biggest of all (at least for now) where will the bandwith come from for all of this downloading? Will the ISP's allow it. All of those questions have to be answered before downloading has a bright future with the mainstream public, otherwise it will be a niche market. If the past is an indicator, they'll screw it up. In order for "download to own movies" to take off, there will have to be fluid exchange with all approved hardware. The way it looks now, if you buy something from one distributor (itunes, Xbox Live, Playstation Store), they don't work with your other hardware. That will never go mainstream like dvd. It will be profitable! But it won't be as mainstream as dvd because the hardware and software don't work together.

[jinjuku]

Doing away with physical media is a big mistake.

Welcome to the near future where media companies will finally get what they want:

Total control of anything your put down your hard earned $$ for. HDCP/Broad Cast Flag/Streaming encrypted content that you don't own. The beauty of keeping it off of media is less of a target to crack against.

[jinjuku]

the day the stop putting out actually cds and dvds is the day i stop paying for media. if im just going to get a little download for my itunes i well just download it for free because it turns out to be the same. i like owning something, i work hard for my money and want something to show for it and something i can pawn off when times get hard

You do own something with a digital download (especially the DRM free stuff). You own all the effort and manpower that went into the song/movie/what ever.

It's like complaining that the restaurant wont let you leave with the glass your drink came in. It's just a delivery mechanism.

You are mixing the message and the messenger up.

[en sabur nur]

One other point, what if these files get coded in souch a way that they can only be played on your stuff and you cannot watch them at your friends house. As to the person that said dvd's are unwatchable, I think that is a little over the top. I bet that if they did a double blind test (with blu-ray) with 720p,1080i and 1080P, I bet the unknowing naked human eye could not spot the diffrence

I agree. There is far more to good picture quality than resolution. People say that they know, but they keep making posts about picture quality based solely on resolution. They're are some Bluray disks that hardly look any better than the dvd! I think most consumers would still watch dvd's, even after seeing Bluray quality! A well-transferred dvd still looks good, not just watchable.

[gmichael]

One other point, what if these files get coded in souch a way that they can only be played on your stuff and you cannot watch them at your friends house. As to the person that said dvd's are unwatchable, I think that is a little over the top. I bet that if they did a double blind test (with blu-ray) with 720p,1080i and 1080P, I bet the unknowing naked human eye could not spot the diffrence

I can. With my 106" screen it's easy to pick out which is which. That said, DVD's are still not all that bad. I wouldn't call them unwatchable.
The movies I can download on the PS3 seem pretty good too though. Right up there with BR. It's just that I don't like to spend $7.00 for something that's not going to be mine. For $20 or 30 I could own the movie and watch it for a lifetime. Downloading is nice for when I have friends over and everyone wants to see something that I don't have. It's great to be able to put on most any movie for a party.

But please, PLEASE, don't take discs away. :eek:

[Highbar]

I think getting rid of disks is a big mistake. Yes I like having something in my possession but at the same time I like to be able to take it with me where ever I go. I understand that you can take digital media with you but only if you want to take a computer or harddrive with you. And how much bandwidth are these movies going to take to download? They are talking about huge amounts of bandwidth that even on a cable line is likely to hours to complete for a full HD movie. In that time most of us could go to the store buy the movie, go get some snacks to eat, get home and watch it.

I like my shiny little disks.

[KenC]

I don't buy the whole 'average consumer can't tell the difference' argument. HDTVs are selling like hotcakes. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is the difference between SDTV and HDTV, period. And don't get me started on upsampling. There's no substitute for resolution. Not to mention the vastly superior compression (both algorithm and bitrate).

Digital downloading will continue to be a growing market. But if you want that, you've had it for a long time now - it's called pay-per-view. If, on the other hand, you want to own the media, optical discs are still the best choice.

The holy grail for the studios is not the DRM built into Blu-ray. They make no bones about the fact that they want to be paid each time the film is watched. "Want to watch your downloaded Snow White? Disney says it's not available at the moment, in preparation for the super upgraded version coming next year." It's not as unlikely as you think.

[niget2002]

I don't buy the whole 'average consumer can't tell the difference' argument. HDTVs are selling like hotcakes. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is the difference between SDTV and HDTV, period. And don't get me started on upsampling. There's no substitute for resolution. Not to mention the vastly superior compression (both algorithm and bitrate).

Digital downloading will continue to be a growing market. But if you want that, you've had it for a long time now - it's called pay-per-view. If, on the other hand, you want to own the media, optical discs are still the best choice.

The holy grail for the studios is not the DRM built into Blu-ray. They make no bones about the fact that they want to be paid each time the film is watched. "Want to watch your downloaded Snow White? Disney says it's not available at the moment, in preparation for the super upgraded version coming next year." It's not as unlikely as you think.


It's not that they can't tell the difference... it's that they don't care. My dad bought a nice shiny HDtv... what pissed him off was, "Why did I buy a widescreen tv if there's still going to be bars at the top and bottom?" They don't care about the technology, they don't care about "reproducing" what the director wanted you to see... they want a big tv and they want the entire screen used all the time. I am happy to say my dad is not one of those that pushes the expand button causing everyone to be either short and wide or skinny and tall.

He will agree that an HD signal looks better than an SD signal on his tv, but for him as long as the picture shows up on the screen and he can see it from his chair, that's all that matters.

[j_garcia]

He will agree that an HD signal looks better than an SD signal on his tv, but for him as long as the picture shows up on the screen and he can see it from his chair, that's all that matters.

That's how my dad was before too, that is, until I bought him a blu-ray player :D He knew video could look good on his new HDTV but regular broadcast still looked average. He craved more and BD delivered.

I have been saying for years that physical media would go away, but I don't think it will go away SOON. It will take a while before the infrastructure is really there for direct to your home access to HD video on demand. I've actually cut back buying discs of late, partially because of the economy and also because I don't want a HUGE collection that will eventually become more or less obsolete. Now that Netflix has a sufficient selection, I signed up and am going to take advantage of that venue to find out which discs will be worthy of a purchase for me.

[Dezoris]

In my opinion there is around 1% of consumer broadband services available that could physically transfer bluray quality video and uncompressed audio over the internet.

These companies who put out these estimates don't understand how much network infrastructure would need to be in place to eliminate disk media.

We are at least 5 years away from fiber or 20Mbs connections to become more common place in homes and thats not enough.

However I have always agreed about one thing with digital distribution:
consumers will eat that sh*t up. Compressed video and audio will take hold because it's easier to sell to those who don't know any better.

I am all for streaming, if they can get me bluray quality audio and video. But thats not going to happen in the next 10 years.

[Wayde Robson]

I'm not sure exactly how it works or where it's going but I fear the race to DIgital Downloads is a race to bottom-of-the-barrel transfers and audio.

I write a lot of Media reviews for Blu-ray discs. When a BD movie is poorly done I have a studio to blame. There is accountability. I don't see this with digital downloads.

Sure, there could be... you could see the "offical" SPHE HD-file-of-your-choice with the offical SPHE 7.1 DTS-HD-MA audio score. But I really think what's happening with digital downloads is we don't know who did the transfer and they're usually not as good.

But like I said, I could be wrong. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

[GZA]

You do own something with a digital download (especially the DRM free stuff). You own all the effort and manpower that went into the song/movie/what ever.

It's like complaining that the restaurant wont let you leave with the glass your drink came in. It's just a delivery mechanism.

You are mixing the message and the messenger up.

i know what your saying and i get it because it costs people money to make the material but i still well not pay for a download. i am more then happy to spend money on blu ray movies and cd in physical form. i own over 500 cds and 250 records and several blu rays. i like to buy the stuff, im addicted to it i just wont pay for a download ever.

my friend had a old 720p samsung and a new 1080p samsung lcd both in the same room. we hooked up a blu ray play and check out the difference. on a 40inch tv for 7 feet back i seen no difference. but i think any bigger size of tv would show picture quality difference

[MidnightSensi]

You can still burn your downloads to CDs... and with lightscribe and other label options you can even have the artwork.

I see it going both ways, but, the reality is artists will start to have to make money though touring rather than albums, because people aint payin' for something they can't feel and touch. I'm not sure why, it doesn't even really matter, because its just the way it is and the sooner the music industry figures that out the better off they will be.

Electronic music still sells some vinyl and digital downloads (320s, lossless, whatever), but a lot of DJs are also producers or at least know producers, so they don't gank the music as much (they'll gank the non-electronic stuff though).

[davidtwotrees]

The number of people I know in my age group (47) that own movies is very small. I also work in a lot of homes. People rent movies. Busy people like netflix. I can also tell you that in my age group, people are struggling with the technology in their homes. I'm a painting contractor and work in over fifty homes a year. The rank and file are not tech saavy. People on these boards tend to respond from an audioholics perspective. Which is sooooooo far removed from what rank and file americans are with respect to audio and video in their homes that it's almost funny.
Now, the under 30 crowd may be a different thing.
I currently have streaming video in my home and like it. But my bandwidth is poor and totally affects the vid quality. I think cable tv is a waste of money, so I won't get a cable modem for my computer........In this economy I am going to spend less on technology. I rent movies and buy my cds.
If they can get me this streaming hidef video cheaply then I'm all for it- I own music because I can listen to it over and over........watching a two hour movie more than once is rare for me so I don't want to own it.........

[GZA]

You can still burn your downloads to CDs... and with lightscribe and other label options you can even have the artwork.

I see it going both ways, but, the reality is artists will start to have to make money though touring rather than albums, because people aint payin' for something they can't feel and touch. I'm not sure why, it doesn't even really matter, because its just the way it is and the sooner the music industry figures that out the better off they will be.

Electronic music still sells some vinyl and digital downloads (320s, lossless, whatever), but a lot of DJs are also producers or at least know producers, so they don't gank the music as much (they'll gank the non-electronic stuff though).


i just do it for free then. i hate to say it because its not the way i want to do things. im just saying if thats what we well be forced to do they well not get my money, if they want it they can release it on actual discs.

[allargon]

You can still burn your downloads to CDs... and with lightscribe and other label options you can even have the artwork.

I see it going both ways, but, the reality is artists will start to have to make money though touring rather than albums, because people aint payin' for something they can't feel and touch. I'm not sure why, it doesn't even really matter, because its just the way it is and the sooner the music industry figures that out the better off they will be.

Electronic music still sells some vinyl and digital downloads (320s, lossless, whatever), but a lot of DJs are also producers or at least know producers, so they don't gank the music as much (they'll gank the non-electronic stuff though).

Err... they've been doing the touring thing for decades. Most artists have to PAY the record companies for studio time, pressings, etc. They only make money off tours and certain licensing (t-shirts) deals. The royalty percentage earned by most non-headline artists is in the single digits.

I keep reading Blu-Ray is this percentage of DVD's, etc., etc. If that is the case, DVD sales must be dropping like rocks. I know too many people with high def sets that don't even have HD cable/sat service much less Blu-Ray. Moreover, one of my neighbors in my upper middle class neighborhood told me how her family doesn't have HD (yet), but they are content with Netflix's streaming service. Now, these are people with some disposable income and technically savvy not interested in Blu-Ray or even DVD anymore. Methinks Samsung and LG hedged their bets properly but bundling Netflix into their Blu-Ray players.

[BMXTRIX]

You do own something with a digital download (especially the DRM free stuff). You own all the effort and manpower that went into the song/movie/what ever.
Yes, all that readily available HD DRM free stuff. :rolleyes:

It's like complaining that the restaurant wont let you leave with the glass your drink came in. It's just a delivery mechanism.
No, it's like going into a restaurant and having to pay for a drink, but them asking you where your glass is to put the drink in. And, by the way, if you spill the drink, they won't replace it, and you can't share the drink with a friend, or take it to their house, or leave their restaurant with it, and if you want another drink, you better have brought another glass along.

You are mixing the message and the messenger up.
The message that some people try to push is that digital downloads are cheap and easy, and at this point it is BS. The DD as a rental scheme is an awesome idea. Replace physical rentals with DD in a Netflix type fashion, but instead of STREAMING - offer them as full downloads onto local hard drives with no expiration - 2 or 3 at a time. It may take a day or two to get a download, but you get the full HD version. Very nifty compared to what I've heard of the quality of current streaming movies.

I have just had to purchase a 1TB hard drive, which I'm still trying to figure out how to properly integrate into my A/V system in a manner which allows my digital content to work smoothly through my home.

I can say, that even with things like AppleTV and other devices out there, DD is a long way from even starting to be as consumer friendly as the optical disc.

[BMXTRIX]

Here’s one more reason last year’s high-def format war between HD DVD and Blu-ray was so destructive. While miring potential customers in confusion it wasted much of physical media’s remaining days in the sun. According to a study conducted by Futuresource, Blu-ray sales won’t save physical media. Although we’ve seen high def disc sales are indeed growing, the study concludes that physical, pre-packaged disc media is flat and going nowhere fast.
Good article, and I agree with it. DVD has seen unprecidented success in the global market, so any format which is able to maintain that level of success is not exactly a 'loser' of a product.

Any idea where the original article is? The link that AH gives to Futuresource is a generic page, not the actual article. I would really like to read the original.

[efzauner]

I just got a couple of Panasonic 50inch 720P plasmas and a panasonic BR and a PS3. Finally did it. yes the BR is beter but I am amazed at the the regular DVD quality. However. I watched Indiana Jones kingdom of Crystal Scull on regular DVD and the sad thing is that the special features are of better image quality than the movie itself. You dont think this will also happen for BR? I quality as to be all the way from the cameras to the final BR. Any corner cutting along the way will result in crap.. I believe if all DVDs where made as good as the Jones extra features we would not need HD for 50inches or lower. Watching KF Panda on DVD was also amazing picture quality.

BUT... in my about to begin construction dedicated HT room with 100 inch screen. yes BR will rule!

[jostenmeat]

I bet that if they did a double blind test (with blu-ray) with 720p,1080i and 1080P, I bet the unknowing naked human eye could not spot the diffrence

Well, firstly, 1080i and 1080p are the same resolution. It's just the delivery that is different. 720p? I don't know of single bluray that has that resolution. I don't know of any disc of any kind that has that resolution. I'm sure it exists, but I've never come across one.

The only 1080i blurays I own out of my pretty decent collection are not even movies, at least not in the typical sense. Two are classical music concerts, the Brandenburg Concertos directed by Abbado, and the NY Phil performing in Pyongyang. The only other I own in 1080i, IIRC, is the documentary titled Ganges. All three do suffer compared to the excellent transfers.

I agree. There is far more to good picture quality than resolution. People say that they know, but they keep making posts about picture quality based solely on resolution. They're are some Bluray disks that hardly look any better than the dvd! I think most consumers would still watch dvd's, even after seeing Bluray quality! A well-transferred dvd still looks good, not just watchable.

You are right that there is a lot to a good picture. However, I think resolution is the easiest thing to pick out. Color accuracy, palette, EE, DNR, shadow detail, and the like are a bit more subtle IMO.

If one's setup is not conducive to being able to tell between the rez's, then of course you can't see it. If one's setup has the proper viewing angle, then you can see it. Very simple. IOW, even with 20/20 vision, with a 50" TV, you cannot notice the difference, whatsoever, between 720 and 1080 at 9 ft away. You do not get to achieve full benefit of 1080p until you are 6.5 ft away from a 50". Again, that's with 20/20 vision.

The above is fact, but as far as our back and forth of opinions, I'll repeat, even the very best DVD transfers I know of are simply unwatchable on my setup. 42 degree viewing angle. With or without my Anchor Bay VP, it hardly matters, DVD is unwatchable for me.

I can. With my 106" screen it's easy to pick out which is which. That said, DVD's are still not all that bad. I wouldn't call them unwatchable.

That's cool. I guess I have a huge screen. 225% larger than yours. Or more than 1000% larger than gliz's display. If some of the others haven't been paying attention, it's the advent of affordable 1080p projection that allows us to go bigger. People would curtail their size before, precisely because of the limitations of resolution available.

I think getting rid of disks is a big mistake. Yes I like having something in my possession but at the same time I like to be able to take it with me where ever I go. I understand that you can take digital media with you but only if you want to take a computer or harddrive with you. And how much bandwidth are these movies going to take to download? They are talking about huge amounts of bandwidth that even on a cable line is likely to hours to complete for a full HD movie. In that time most of us could go to the store buy the movie, go get some snacks to eat, get home and watch it.

I like my shiny little disks.

+1. My brother, his GF and roommate, and I have been swapping plenty of BDs already. Just my Godfather collection is pushing 200 GBs on its own. I wonder what LOTR will bring. The great majority of my discs are 50 GB each. And I've got a lot of discs.

I don't buy the whole 'average consumer can't tell the difference' argument. HDTVs are selling like hotcakes. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is the difference between SDTV and HDTV, period. And don't get me started on upsampling. There's no substitute for resolution. Not to mention the vastly superior compression (both algorithm and bitrate).

Thank you. It's been already said at these boards that the difference in vertical lines of resolution between BD and DVD is GREATER than the difference between DVD and VHS!

The holy grail for the studios is not the DRM built into Blu-ray. They make no bones about the fact that they want to be paid each time the film is watched. "Want to watch your downloaded Snow White? Disney says it's not available at the moment, in preparation for the super upgraded version coming next year." It's not as unlikely as you think.

Oh Gawd that will suck so bad.

It's not that they can't tell the difference... it's that they don't care.

Not to disagree, but so what? Lots of people have been gravitating to listening to music on the tiny terrible speakers built into a laptop. More and more everyday. Does that mean CD's are dead, and might as well get rid of them? I dunno that I really see the relevance.

In my opinion there is around 1% of consumer broadband services available that could physically transfer bluray quality video and uncompressed audio over the internet.

THAT MUCH? I'd be surprised if it was a percent of a percent.

Compressed video and audio will take hold because it's easier to sell to those who don't know any better.

EXACTLY.

I am all for streaming, if they can get me bluray quality audio and video. But thats not going to happen in the next 10 years.

In all honesty, I'd bet good money we won't get the same quality. Satellite supposedly has the ability to give us really top notch video, but they don't. It's all compression artifacted up the ying yang. People don't know, don't care, etc. I agree. But that doesn't mean that we should be ok with that.

I'm not sure exactly how it works or where it's going but I fear the race to DIgital Downloads is a race to bottom-of-the-barrel transfers and audio.

EXACTLY.

I write a lot of Media reviews for Blu-ray discs. When a BD movie is poorly done I have a studio to blame. There is accountability. I don't see this with digital downloads.

+1

But like I said, I could be wrong. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

Again, I'd bet good money that you're right. Unfortunately.

i know what your saying and i get it because it costs people money to make the material but i still well not pay for a download. i am more then happy to spend money on blu ray movies and cd in physical form. i own over 500 cds and 250 records and several blu rays. i like to buy the stuff, im addicted to it i just wont pay for a download ever.

+1.

my friend had a old 720p samsung and a new 1080p samsung lcd both in the same room. we hooked up a blu ray play and check out the difference. on a 40inch tv for 7 feet back i seen no difference. but i think any bigger size of tv would show picture quality difference

Even with 20/20 vision, you cannot at all discern the diference between 720 and 1080 from 7 ft. You will begin to notice the tiniest of improvement at 6.5 ft. You do not obtain full benefit until you are 5 ft close to a 40" display.

I can also tell you that in my age group, people are struggling with the technology in their homes. I'm a painting contractor and work in over fifty homes a year. The rank and file are not tech saavy. People on these boards tend to respond from an audioholics perspective. Which is sooooooo far removed from what rank and file americans are with respect to audio and video in their homes that it's almost funny.

You're right. However, this issue is not relegated to only AV. It's the same for any kind of tech. Even cell phones! You name it. Cameras, camcorders, GPS, whatever.

i just do it for free then. i hate to say it because its not the way i want to do things. im just saying if thats what we well be forced to do they well not get my money, if they want it they can release it on actual discs.

+1.

Err... they've been doing the touring thing for decades. Most artists have to PAY the record companies for studio time, pressings, etc. They only make money off tours and certain licensing (t-shirts) deals. The royalty percentage earned by most non-headline artists is in the single digits.

Interesting. I believe with big pop artists, they tour to sell cd's. With chump change earning classical musicians, they make cd's so that people actually come to their concerts.

[jinjuku]

Yes, all that readily available HD DRM free stuff. :rolleyes:


No, it's like going into a restaurant and having to pay for a drink, but them asking you where your glass is to put the drink in. And, by the way, if you spill the drink, they won't replace it, and you can't share the drink with a friend, or take it to their house, or leave their restaurant with it, and if you want another drink, you better have brought another glass along.


The message that some people try to push is that digital downloads are cheap and easy, and at this point it is BS. The DD as a rental scheme is an awesome idea. Replace physical rentals with DD in a Netflix type fashion, but instead of STREAMING - offer them as full downloads onto local hard drives with no expiration - 2 or 3 at a time. It may take a day or two to get a download, but you get the full HD version. Very nifty compared to what I've heard of the quality of current streaming movies.

I have just had to purchase a 1TB hard drive, which I'm still trying to figure out how to properly integrate into my A/V system in a manner which allows my digital content to work smoothly through my home.

I can say, that even with things like AppleTV and other devices out there, DD is a long way from even starting to be as consumer friendly as the optical disc.

I am not sure why you are arguing with my points. We are both seated in the same choir and feel the same way about the 'Consumer Panacea' that the studios and execs would like the common public to think that digital downloads are.

The day physical delivery media disappears is they day you can kiss the doctrine of first sale goodbye. Not looking forward to it (DRM free audio not with standing of course).

[en sabur nur]

[QUOTE=jostenmeat;518409]




You are right that there is a lot to a good picture. However, I think resolution is the easiest thing to pick out. Color accuracy, palette, EE, DNR, shadow detail, and the like are a bit more subtle IMO.

Contrast is the easiest to pick out. That's the first thing that catches the human eye.
1.Contrast
2.Color Accuracy
3.Color Saturation
4.Resolution
























.

[fredk]

I don't much care who owns the original patents for Bluray, the format is being driven by Sony and the content owners, and its principle aim is content control.

I would agree with many here that Mr. and Ms. America don't much care about the underlying technology. When their old TV dies, they go out and buy a new one that fits their budged and plug it in to what they currently have for content distribution/display.

Josten. I am very familiar with the technical blah blah, distances etc. At 6 feet (give or take) from my display, HD dosn't wow me. It just dosn't. Yes, I see the difference, I am even aware that not many displays out there are capable of displaying the full vertical resolution of HD, but that my RP set is in or above the 75th percentile. It still dosn't wow me. AND, that is with an off the shelf HTPC scaler. I could get a noticably better image with FDDshow or a high end scaler.

I do know that folks with projectors and larger screens do notice more of a difference. You, and they, are in the minority.

Digital content does seem to be a race to the bottom. Again, its because the vast majority of people don't care that much about high fidelity.

[jostenmeat]

Contrast is the easiest to pick out. That's the first thing that catches the human eye.
1.Contrast
2.Color Accuracy
3.Color Saturation
4.Resolution

That's straight from ISF, yes? I agree, contrast is pretty easy to spot! Just throw a floodlight on the tv, and you will notice! :p Ok, I agree, contrast and black levels are easier to spot, depending on how different we are talking about. After all, the lighting conditions play such an enormous role, and that can vary so much, room to room. As for accuracy and saturation, I think resolution is easier to distinguish, given an immersive viewing angle that allows for at least the full benefit of 1080p. If one can't benefit from the greater resolution, then of course color accuracy and saturation will be easier to detect. (duh).

I don't much care who owns the original patents for Bluray, the format is being driven by Sony and the content owners, and its principle aim is content control.

If you say so. If I lived in an AV bubble, and never visited THIS forum, I would have no idea. All I would know is that I throw a bluray on, and all jaws drop. I even had a director over a month or two ago, just freshly inducted into the DGA, and even he said it's the greatest pic he's ever seen. Even with just the entry level, superceded, open-box, JVC RS1u that I use.

Josten. I am very familiar with the technical blah blah, distances etc. At 6 feet (give or take) from my display, HD dosn't wow me. It just dosn't. Yes, I see the difference, I am even aware that not many displays out there are capable of displaying the full vertical resolution of HD, but that my RP set is in or above the 75th percentile. It still dosn't wow me. AND, that is with an off the shelf HTPC scaler. I could get a noticably better image with FDDshow or a high end scaler.

Why does one need a scaler for native hi-def? Honest question. Or are you talking about SD sources, and TV broadcasts at 720?

So, you are a bit familiar with blah blah. I am a bit familiar with blah blah. You see only modest difference. I see so much difference that I have not watched a DVD since 2007. Even the very best DVD transfers I know of are unwatchable. (Yeah, that's the third time I said that here).

I do know that folks with projectors and larger screens do notice more of a difference. You, and they, are in the minority.

Which is fine, but does that mean BD is not a much greater improvement over DVD? Because only a smaller % of folks can appreciate that, it becomes untrue? Then consider that perhaps the most avid reviewer of BD titles here uses a rather modest sized display. BTW, I wouldn't have to type out the blah blah if people actually stated their distance and/or viewing angle. Do you think I like doing it? It's annoying, having done it at least a hundred times, but it's so hard to guess one way or the other. Display size means absolutely nothing without considering the distance. As for those who never mention it without being asked or prompted, you, and they, are in the majority.

Digital content does seem to be a race to the bottom. Again, its because the vast majority of people don't care that much about high fidelity.

I agree. Again, I'll say that doesn't mean we have to be ok with that.

[Derelict]

I still don't buy into the idea that consumers can't tell the difference. Certainly I can agree with previous posters saying that consumer may not care about the difference, but it is there.

A valid comparison would be music and compression. Saying that 1080 versus 480 lines of resolution makes no difference is the same as saying lossless audio and mp3s are the same even after you buy some good speakers(which is the equivalent of upgrading from a SD TV to a HD one). I think pretty much anyone here would agree the difference is huge, but most consumers aren't even aware of the fact that almost all their music sounds "inferior".

It seems this also applies to the movies people watch.

[lsiberian]

I have a very low end projector which I love dearly and view on a 73" screen(thanks to a pesky light switch). And sit about 9 to 10 ft away.

I can tell you that the difference between Blu-ray and dvd is huge even on my low end projector. And I have terrible eye sight. Even when I had a SD 27" tv(It was a great upgrade to the PJ). I could tell the difference. And we aren't even getting into the SQ or what it can do for video games.

Digital Downloads from iTunes actually have some of the best quality I have seen or heard for compressed formats. MP3s can be alright if properly ripped, but I'll stick to my cd's I don't want an MP3 players in my car. I want a CD player. CD Players are better. I miss my old CD changer from my old car. Give me CDs any day. What I don't understand is why the recording industry didn't hammer the point home that MP3s have far less quality than CDs. These guys have marketing teams. If Bose can sell cubes for 2000 to the world then why can't record companies sell cds?

[Soundman]

I know what the research suggests, but I believe there are some major flaws in it. I don't see physical media going away any time soon, if ever.
Look at the music industry for example. We've had the technology to easily download music for a long time, and it's just starting to take off. There are still alot of CD's being sold because quite frankly 90% or more of the downloadable music is utter crap. The media that has seen a surge lately is vinyl. Interesting isn't.
As for movies, the obstacles are even greater, just getting the technology in place to make it convenient, having a universal type system, etc could take 10-20 yrs or more.
Also, something that hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread is that we assume that every home has an Internet connection. This is a huge barrier. Look at what's happened recently with the digital/analog conversion date. They pushed it back again! Why? I don't know. I guess too many peope are still using analog TV's with no access to digital media. If these people aren't paying for digital TV, do you really think all these people are paying for an Internet connection!? No. If physical media goes away, they are allienating alot of people. I happen to know a number of people that have no Internet connection that have a big movie collection. This whole thing just isn't going to work for a very long time.

[lsiberian]

I know what the research suggests, but I believe there are some major flaws in it. I don't see physical media going away any time soon, if ever.
Look at the music industry for example. We've had the technology to easily download music for a long time, and it's just starting to take off. There are still alot of CD's being sold because quite frankly 90% or more of the downloadable music is utter crap. The media that has seen a surge lately is vinyl. Interesting isn't.
As for movies, the obstacles are even greater, just getting the technology in place to make it convenient, having a universal type system, etc could take 10-20 yrs or more.
Also, something that hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread is that we assume that every home has an Internet connection. This is a huge barrier. Look at what's happened recently with the digital/analog conversion date. They pushed it back again! Why? I don't know. I guess too many peope are still using analog TV's with no access to digital media. If these people aren't paying for digital TV, do you really think all these people are paying for an Internet connection!? No. If physical media goes away, they are allienating alot of people. I happen to know a number of people that have no Internet connection that have a big movie collection. This whole thing just isn't going to work for a very long time.

10-20 yrs????

The infrastructure is being built as we speak. Much of it already exists.

The biggest problem with hd movie media is the required bandwidth to move it. Once we defeat that I wouldn't be surprised to see movies downloads take off. Fiber is still limited in what it can carry though. We will probably need some more advanced algorithms. One way to increase it would be to use different parts of the visible spectrum. If we could use and process colors using fiber then the technology would have great potential.

a 7 color system would allow us to put 3 bits on a beam. a 15 color system would allow 4 bits a beam. and so forth. so that would allow us to increase the data transferred.

[Soundman]

10-20 yrs????

The infrastructure is being built as we speak. Much of it already exists.

The biggest problem with hd movie media is the required bandwidth to move it. Once we defeat that I wouldn't be surprised to see movies downloads take off. Fiber is still limited in what it can carry though. We will probably need some more advanced algorithms. One way to increase it would be to use different parts of the visible spectrum. If we could use and process colors using fiber then the technology would have great potential.

a 7 color system would allow us to put 3 bits on a beam. a 15 color system would allow 4 bits a beam. and so forth. so that would allow us to increase the data transferred.

Data transfer speed is a big barrier to overcome, but what I'm saying is it's going to take more then just have the technology available. It then needs to be readily available, then it needs to be affordable, then for it to be the preferred format, there will need to be universal acceptance and universal compatibility with a number of devices for it to truely replace disc media. This is going to take a significant amount of time if ever. This, of course, is not a good thing for the consumer anyway. It just gives more power to Hollywood, so they can strip away more of our rights.

[jliedeka]

I don't see streaming and digital downloads replacing media until we get real broadband in this country. Charter is rolling out the new DOCSIS service at 60Mb which is still only 3/5 what they have in Korea. I barely get a megabit over my DSL meaning it would take days to download the equivalent of a BluRay.

Jim

[en sabur nur]

Data transfer speed is a big barrier to overcome, but what I'm saying is it's going to take more then just have the technology available. It then needs to be readily available, then it needs to be affordable, then for it to be the preferred format, there will need to be universal acceptance and universal compatibility with a number of devices for it to truely replace disc media. This is going to take a significant amount of time if ever. This, of course, is not a good thing for the consumer anyway. It just gives more power to Hollywood, so they can strip away more of our rights.

I agree. Even if/when the speed becomes a non-issue, the content owners and the manufacturers will probably take so long to ever come to an agreement over standards, that consumers won't buy it. Think back to how they almost ruined the dvd market. When they got behind one standard they all made money and created an whole new market, generating more money than they could ever deserve!:D

Convenience trumps quality, almost all the time. That's a major reason why Apples' itunes became so successful. They make it easy to spend your money with them. The hardware and software works well with each other, for the most part. The hardware, although very sophisticated, works almost like a home appliance. Then they top it off by making everything so pretty and appealing to the eye. It works! If content owners and hardware manufactures and ISP service providers can make the video digital download process as seamless and painless as possible to the consumer, then they've got a hit. If don't, it will never reach it's full potential.

[fredk]

You have it exactly right Derelict. To most people its just not gonna be wow enough for them to care.

Josten. I use a scaler to upscale my DVDs as I don't care about bluray. Just 'cause I live in a bubble doesn't mean I can't enjoy my 50" 1080p screen to its fullest. ;)

Itunes is already the largest music distributor in the world. That would suggest that the only thing keeping downloads from dominating the movie market is bandwidth/cost.

My grandmother owned a record player. I like discs. My daughter has nothing but mp3's. Time moves on.

[Thunder18]

leaves Blu-Ray the de facto choice in high definition media.

Time Warner Cable to expand bandwidth caps, 40GB per month:
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/05/time-warner-cable-to-expand-bandwidth-caps-40gb-per-month

We've been going back and forth about the end of physical media, but it looks like if the if the internet providers get their way, they'll kill off streaming media before it really has a chance to do Blu-Ray any real damage. Comcast has already set a 250 GB cap and now Time Warner has had a successful round of trials with a 40 GB bandwidth cap for low to moderate users. I'm forseeing at the very least a tiered system with increasing GB caps for an escalating amount of money and at worst a tiered system like I just mentioned except there will be a limit at all tiers and no unlimited data plan at all.

One thing they mention in the article that never occurred to me before was how online video gaming will be affected. I'm not sure how many GB's i'm using while playing a game online via Xbox360 or PS3, but I bet it can really get up there when having a marathon gaming session. What do you want to bet Microsoft and Netflix will be watching this development very closely.

[lsiberian]

leaves Blu-Ray the de facto choice in high definition media.

Time Warner Cable to expand bandwidth caps, 40GB per month:
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/05/time-warner-cable-to-expand-bandwidth-caps-40gb-per-month

We've been going back and forth about the end of physical media, but it looks like if the if the internet providers get their way, they'll kill off streaming media before it really has a chance to do Blu-Ray any real damage. Comcast has already set a 250 GB cap and now Time Warner has had a successful round of trials with a 40 GB bandwidth cap for low to moderate users. I'm forseeing at the very least a tiered system with increasing GB caps for an escalating amount of money and at worst a tiered system like I just mentioned except there will be a limit at all tiers and no unlimited data plan at all.

One thing they mention in the article that never occurred to me before was how online video gaming will be affected. I'm not sure how many GB's i'm using while playing a game online via Xbox360 or PS3, but I bet it can really get up there when having a marathon gaming session. What do you want to bet Microsoft and Netflix will be watching this development very closely.

I would cancel my service the day of the announcement. That is ridiculous.
40GB? I get more bandwidth for my website than that. 250 is reasonable even 100. But 40? are these guys crazy.

Actually I just figured out why they are doing that. They own record labels and movie rights. They are doing this to protect those.

[Thunder18]

Actually I just figured out why they are doing that. They own record labels and movie rights. They are doing this to protect those.

That makes sense for Time Warner, but what about Comcast? They're the ringleader on this one. I really hope the other internet providers don't follow suit, but you know how companies are...Airline industry with the baggage fees, auto insurance providers determining premiums using credit, universtal default clauses with credit card providers. Companies have a bad habit of following each other when it comes to consumer limitations.

[jostenmeat]

leaves Blu-Ray the de facto choice in high definition media.

Time Warner Cable to expand bandwidth caps, 40GB per month:
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/05/time-warner-cable-to-expand-bandwidth-caps-40gb-per-month

We've been going back and forth about the end of physical media, but it looks like if the if the internet providers get their way, they'll kill off streaming media before it really has a chance to do Blu-Ray any real damage. . .


I would cancel my service the day of the announcement. That is ridiculous.
40GB? I get more bandwidth for my website than that. 250 is reasonable even 100. But 40? are these guys crazy.

Agreed. If I wanted to watch only one of my bluray discs, I'd have to download the first half of the movie during one month, and then wait until the next month for the second half of the movie. I bet I could fit in 9 movies for the year, if I didn't DL anything else.

[TwisterZ]

Well this has been a fun read. I work in a store selling Low to mid grade audio and video. There has been a lot of talk here about people either can't tell the difference or don't want to pay for it so won't admit to seeing a difference. I have 3 demos set up

1) the first is for the picture, 2 samsung 50" 720p plasmas one with a panasonic DVD the other with a panasonic Blu Ray and the matching disc. Both running the same chapter of the 1st Narnia movie.

2) this one for sound, JBL speakers Denon Reciever & Denon Blu Ray. I switch back and forth between Dolby TruHD & Dolby Digital.

3) One system with Infinity speakers & one with Bose AM10's both being fed a digital signal from the same DVD Audio player.

In 6 months I have had one person who didn't see a difference on #1 (It might have helped if I could have gotten them to actually look at the screens)

The Dolby TruHD demo Has only been up for a couple weeks now but everybody notices a big difference.

On the Bose demo 8 people prefer the Infinity Sound, 1 likes the Bose and 1 thinks all beers taste the same.

Now to the subject at hand. The streaming I have played with leaves the audio in the dark ages, so overly compressed that the all life has been rung out of it. I will watch a lot of things on the stream but any blockbuster movie or concert performance will still have to be on a disc.

[croseiv]

Well this has been a fun read. I work in a store selling Low to mid grade audio and video. There has been a lot of talk here about people either can't tell the difference or don't want to pay for it so won't admit to seeing a difference. I have 3 demos set up

1) the first is for the picture, 2 samsung 50" 720p plasmas one with a panasonic DVD the other with a panasonic Blu Ray and the matching disc. Both running the same chapter of the 1st Narnia movie.

2) this one for sound, JBL speakers Denon Reciever & Denon Blu Ray. I switch back and forth between Dolby TruHD & Dolby Digital.

3) One system with Infinity speakers & one with Bose AM10's both being fed a digital signal from the same DVD Audio player.

In 6 months I have had one person who didn't see a difference on #1 (It might have helped if I could have gotten them to actually look at the screens)

The Dolby TruHD demo Has only been up for a couple weeks now but everybody notices a big difference.

On the Bose demo 8 people prefer the Infinity Sound, 1 likes the Bose and 1 thinks all beers taste the same.

Now to the subject at hand. The streaming I have played with leaves the audio in the dark ages, so overly compressed that the all life has been rung out of it. I will watch a lot of things on the stream but any blockbuster movie or concert performance will still have to be on a disc.

As for 720p vs. 1080p, it depends on how far away from the set you are really. For me, when I got mine, 1080p sets were just hitting the market and were very expensive. Now it's really all that's out there, so it would be silly to get a 720p set now. However, at a distance of 11 ft, which is how far away I view my display, it's a quite a bit more difficult to tell a difference between the two resolutions.

[allargon]

I would cancel my service the day of the announcement. That is ridiculous.


Good luck with that. AT&T made sure to follow Time Warner Cable's lead in Beaumont, TX with caps. That keeps one from easily switching broadband providers. Yeah, you can dump Time Warner Cable and U-verse/DSL and use a 3rd party DSL (Earthlink, Speakeasy, Megapath) *if* you live close enough to the CO. But, you will likely be giving up larger download speeds (10, 16, 18, 22, etc.) to go back down to 6 Mbps or less. There's the pain.

[TwisterZ]

As for 720p vs. 1080p, it depends on how far away from the set you are really.

That's right I get people to back up from the TV's at work all the time.

720p is about the same picture quality as an analog movie theater and the movie industry says the middle of the theater should be 1.5 times the width of the screen (50" TV = 43" wide X 1.5 = 5.375 feet). The THX recommendation is 1.3 times the width of the screen (4.66 feet). In my demo we are only about 2-3 feet from the 50" TV's.

[croseiv]

That's right I get people to back up from the TV's at work all the time.

720p is about the same picture quality as an analog movie

In theory, but in my experience, my display's resolution/PQ seems much better than what is shown at the theater. Theaters seem darker and grainier, with poorer resolution.

In my demo we are only about 2-3 feet from the 50" TV's.

But how many folks actually sit 2-3 feet from their sets???

[jostenmeat]

In theory, but in my experience, my display's resolution/PQ seems much better than what is shown at the theater. Theaters seem darker and grainier, with poorer resolution.

"Grainier" is a function of the film itself. It is what film actually looks like.

Some people DO prefer "video". It's been said, for instance, with Burn After Reading, that the film consistently has grain. BUT, that the extras look very smooth, since it's all HD video. So, in fact, there are persons that wished that the film could've used the HD video cameras instead.

But, I'm sure they used film for a reason.

But how many folks actually sit 2-3 feet from their sets???

When considering the 50", I've never once heard of a viewing angle that large. Then again, it is just a demo.

[croseiv]

When considering the 50", I've never once heard of a viewing angle that large. Then again, it is just a demo.

That's my point. In order to really see a difference between 720p vs 1080p, you have to be fairly close to the set. In my room it's sort of a moot point since I sit at a distance of 11 ft. Which I have no doubt you already know..:)

[jostenmeat]

That's my point. In order to really see a difference between 720p vs 1080p, you have to be fairly close to the set. In my room it's sort of a moot point since I sit at a distance of 11 ft. Which I have no doubt you already know..:)

I actually didn't! Now that we have colluded in unnecessarily hijacking a perfectly fine thread, what's your gear in the photos up front? The speakers, the silver component, those treatments . . .

[croseiv]

I actually didn't! Now that we have colluded in unnecessarily hijacking a perfectly fine thread, what's your gear in the photos up front? The speakers, the silver component, those treatments . . .

Happy Friday dude....BTW you are more than welcome to come have a listen.

[Soundman]

leaves Blu-Ray the de facto choice in high definition media.

Time Warner Cable to expand bandwidth caps, 40GB per month:
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/05/time-warner-cable-to-expand-bandwidth-caps-40gb-per-month

One thing they mention in the article that never occurred to me before was how online video gaming will be affected. I'm not sure how many GB's i'm using while playing a game online via Xbox360 or PS3, but I bet it can really get up there when having a marathon gaming session. What do you want to bet Microsoft and Netflix will be watching this development very closely.

I don't see this being a major problem for online gaming. There isn't that much information being downloaded during a gaming session. There is information being sent and received, but nothing compared to downloading a full Length movie in HD.

[lsiberian]

I don't see this being a major problem for online gaming. There isn't that much information being downloaded during a gaming session. There is information being sent and received, but nothing compared to downloading a full Length movie in HD.

Depends on the game and how they implement server to client communication. Some games do this very inefficiently others do it better.

[JLMEMT]

Good luck with that. AT&T made sure to follow Time Warner Cable's lead in Beaumont, TX with caps. That keeps one from easily switching broadband providers. Yeah, you can dump Time Warner Cable and U-verse/DSL and use a 3rd party DSL (Earthlink, Speakeasy, Megapath) *if* you live close enough to the CO. But, you will likely be giving up larger download speeds (10, 16, 18, 22, etc.) to go back down to 6 Mbps or less. There's the pain.

I have become spoiled too and like speed in my downloads. But think about this logically for a minute.

What good does the highest speed, above 10, really do for you if you can't download half of what you want to in a month??

I think part of this is that they are simply not willing to spend the money it would require to do the upgrades to allow everyone that pays for those speeds unlimited.

If it was just really about media rights, etc couldn't they just as easily price these highest speeds up to where they would make an equivalent amount of money off of the internet?

[jcilforever]

I like to be able to own and use what you purchase and not have a company determine when and how you should use the content but gravitate towards new technology.

Also most of us do not back up our content every day so when your computer crashes you loose content and would loose money with downloadable content like purchasing MP3 and eventually movies.

So I like the Netflix Roku player that now sends 1080P (just updated and also has HDMI connector) granted they are working on getting the quality up to par through netflix (netfilx bandwith issue), but are also working with other companies to offer content. I like the ability to "rent" without buying and the ones that are worth buying having my own copy to take with me, watch in the car, on a plane etc.

I also have IPTV and am not happy with the quality due to drop outs. Also my set top box does not have a HD so I can't record programs and do not want to pay tivo $ every month to record it. When it comes down to it our real limitation is infustructure (bandwith).

Until we have wireless devices that are able to transmit and recieve at a cinema quality I do not see media going away. It probably will and we will be charged per use.

[aarond]

here is a good article from CE Pro http://www.cepro.com/article/how_men_in_their_30s_use_electronics
it is a survey of men in there 30s. it shows that content is more important than quality to them.

[mg428]

So did I buy a region-modified Oppo BDP-83 for 750 including international shipping while owning a PS3 for vain?

[cwall99]

It's like complaining that the restaurant wont let you leave with the glass your drink came in. It's just a delivery mechanism.

You are mixing the message and the messenger up.

Yeah, but when I buy a disk, I can pop that movie into my player whenever I want and view it.

If I'm buying a drink, I can't redrink it, so your analogy sorta breaks down pretty quick.

The other thing is that while impressive strides have been made in terms of the reliability of cable networks, what happens in those weird times when you lose your network.

Or, in this economy, maybe you lose your job? Hey, I'm in Detroit here, we have close to 20% unemployment in some areas.

If you can't pay for cable, you can't access your movies. However, if you have a disc and you still have your gear, you don't need to pay that monthly access fee just to watch media you bought the right to watch whenever and wherever you choose.

[cwall99]

I actually didn't! Now that we have colluded in unnecessarily hijacking a perfectly fine thread, what's your gear in the photos up front? The speakers, the silver component, those treatments . . .

And those two SVS subs!!! Yikes!!!

[basspig]

How can most people tell the difference between DVD and Blu-ray, when they watch a 37" plasma or LCD from 15' away? That's how video is viewed in most homes that I've visited. Until that, and the "just good enough" philosophy (the Flip camera crowd) is addressed, real HD distribution will languish.

For me, watching Blu-ray on a 154" screen is heavenly, especially from 9' away. I have a lot of DVDs, too, and upscaled, they look about as good as what I've seen in the local Loew's theaters, but a good BD title can look breathtaking.

My big beef with Blu-ray is all that Java garbage they run. Sometimes it takes 7 minutes to get to the main menu from the moment the disc drawer closes. Other titles can be playing in mere seconds. It's extremely annoying when you want to show something to some guests without making them wait to the point of leaving the room, bored.


Oh, uhh.. one more thing... when all the ISPs impliment bandwidth capping and pay per gigabyte metered billing, all the streaming media will be out of business, literally in one night.