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

[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.

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.


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]

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! 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!

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.