Will 2010 (Finally) Be Blu-ray's Year?

I cannot comprehend how there are so many people on this forum who spend mega money on their computers to get the best visual experience possible (OMG MHz!) but then say Blu-ray is too expensive and Netfix streaming is fine. Streaming video looks worse than upscaled DVD, the latter of which doesn't even approach the quality of a properly mastered Blu-ray.
 
nilepez said:
If it's on a home server, you can stream BD's. Sure there's DRm, but there's DRM on DVDs, and that isn't stopping you (or anyone else with a media server).

I can promise you that BDs are selling for less than DVDs did 9 or 10 years ago. And BD's are following the exact same sale price structure as CDs and DVDs. I bought 8 movies last week for around $80.00. If you count the $10.00 rebate on Braveheart (for anyone with the movie on DVD), it was under $75.00.

And yes, if you're watching on a big set, the differences are small, but I'd rather pay a few bucks more (and it's generally no more than 5 bucks more than a DVD with the same features) now for a BD than buy a DVD today and then have to buy the BD later.

Streaming video just doesn't do it for me...maybe someday...but it's not their yet.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with that. Streamed Netflix on my TV in the livingroom looks like shit versus my Blu-Ray movies or even my DVD movies. Hulu looks nice but they have a very small selection.
 
I don't know why people keep on stating that http .com downloadables and some proprietary download services look worse than Blu ray - Yes most do, very slightly anyhow.

If you are saving a .mpg file to your harddrive through a .com, then yes the quality can be bad, and its capped.

But most satellite providers and cable providers have things called HD PVRs, which record pure HD digital signals (usually at a bitrate right inbetween DVD and Blu) for probably about 20 channels or so (depending on where you are) That is completely seperate digital data - from the data they use for internet, and of course zero restrictions on how many GB it takes up.

If you record the Superbowl in HD on an HDPVR, it does not count toward your GB limit for internet (at least no cable provider I know of does it this way) About 2 hours of HD programming will probably somewhere around 16 to 20GB (right inbetween DVD and Blu) Many people download a Terabyte of video each month in Canada and the US - its just not coming down the "internet" pipe (which is usually capped somewhere around 60GB/month). BTW: When the US moved to all terrestrial digital earlier this year - most of Canada did as well, but we kept the analog channels because of our somewhat limited channel selection.
 
1.5TB and 2TB drives rarely are installed in computers nowadays.

Most requests are to have them as replacements for HDPVR drives because they fill up in less than 3 months or so, and people don't want to erase their current programs.

Unfortunately, most HDPVRs only have one SATA drive, which makes it even more important to have a ginormous HD in that device.
 
Being a quality-oriented enthusiast, I think this is great for Blu-ray. I can't stand the quality of digitally-distributed media. I'll continue to hope that in the future, besides the convenient but crappy quality streams, there will always be a "master" quality on the market available to consumers.
 
ZenOps said:
I don't know why people keep on stating that http .com downloadables and some proprietary download services look worse than Blu ray - Yes most do, very slightly anyhow.

If you are saving a .mpg file to your harddrive through a .com, then yes the quality can be bad, and its capped.

But most satellite providers and cable providers have things called HD PVRs, which record pure HD digital signals (usually at a bitrate right inbetween DVD and Blu) for probably about 20 channels or so (depending on where you are) That is completely seperate digital data - from the data they use for internet, and of course zero restrictions on how many GB it takes up.
Click to expand...

Not comparable at all... broadcast HD isn't even close to Blu, and I wonder about your comment on streaming is only "slightly" worse... that's like saying $1 is only "slightly" worse to have than $100 as a budget for buying some stuff. I use a TivoHD religiously with a beefed-up hard drive setup, but it doesn't compare to Blu.
 
I think it might be. With quality players like the Panasonic BD60 available for just over $100, why buy another DVD player?

As long as they continue to play DVD's without issue.

The ability to buy 60" HDTV's for under $1000 isn't going to hurt.
 
I just put a BD drive in my HTPC last night, so 2010 will definitely be a Blu Ray year for me. I don't know about the finally part, as the uptake has been pretty damn fast.

As far as quality:
Blu Ray > OTA HD >>> streaming "HD".

Now where is my LOTR Blu Ray?
 
Well, the ISP's are trying their damnedest to kill this whole idea, so we'll have to see.

It's the ISP's that need to get out of the stone age, and stop treating bits as gold dust.


tec805 said:
Sorry, Blu-ray is going to be the next Laser Disc. Digital formats are just too popular for the in-the-know crowd. The media industry needs to figure out how to cash in on it. I stopped buying dvd's a couple years ago - why should I start buying BD's when something else will be coming around the corner that will make them obsolete?

I love my little WD TV Live media player!
Click to expand...
 
Well, broadcast HD is definitely better than DVD. I don't think anyone will argue that. So take "slightly worse than Blu" with a grain of salt.

Broadcast HD is limited only by the bandwidth they want to send out, and the decoding speed of the receiver. Of course if anyone spends the extra $10 and legally subscribes to a commerical-free "movie" channel, its pretty much slightly better than DVD quality movies 24 hours/day recordable with the stipulation you have to remind yourself to set the recorder to when they are broadcasting it (And please respect copyright laws)

H.264 (Mpeg-4) is a very nice compression medium. Yes, its used by Bluray - its also used by Broadcast HD. "Digital Satellite TV quality, for example, was reported to be achievable at 1.5 Mbit/s, compared to the current operation point of MPEG 2 video at around 3.5 Mbit/s." Wikiquote: Thats of course regular satellite TV compared to an Mpeg2 stream (DVD).

Other than the DRM, the actual compression is pretty much similar between Bluray and Broadcast HD. Broadcast HD is usually much lower bitrate because they compress 100+ channels of DVD quality programming and 20 channels or so of HD (better than DVD and worse than Blu) into every coaxial cable or satellite.
 
I have close to 800 titles on DVD, which is some 1200 discs worth. I am quite confident I have over $10,000 invested in them.

I could probably replace them all today, at today's prices, for about half that. Maybe a little more. If I could replace them all with BR, I figure the cost would be about the same or just a bit less.

Serpico said:
I was on the DVD train shortly after it left the station. Blu Ray movies, players, drives, and blank media, declined in price significantly faster than DVD ever did, I'm talking three years faster.

Thanks to Amazon its actually cost less for me to replace my DVDs with Blu Ray. Between their crazy prices and regular buy-2-get-1-free deals, its been much cheaper than when I was buying DVDs ten years ago, and it looks so much better.



It won't be there until some insane codec comes out, one that modern PCs would probably have a hard time decoding. Until then you're comparing a very high bitrate source on a Blu Ray against one significantly lower using a comparable codec that is being streamed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one will look better.
Click to expand...
 
IMO satellite has been glossed over as an ridiculously effective means of mass data transportation of the last decade or so in the shadow of terrestrial fiber.

http://tmo.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-165/165B.pdf

The average "TV" satellite has maybe 80 or so "Ku-band" transponders.

The newest satellites are now using "Ka-band" transponders, each of which are bordering on being able to transmit 500Mbits/sec worth of data - each. If you use it as broadcast medium, it is not "shared" between users.
 
I agree with the majority of the BR supporters. I just tried streaming a movie for the first time with Netflix (Windows media center, W7) on my 52" calibrated LCD. I was appalled by the quality. Worse then DVD.

Bluray is 45-50 Megabit for video and audio.

Average broadband is 5 Megabit or so.

Average streaming movie bitrate is probably 1 Megabit or less.

Many ISPs are looking into charging by-the-byte.

You do the math.


tec805 said:
Sorry, Blu-ray is going to be the next Laser Disc. Digital formats are just too popular for the in-the-know crowd. The media industry needs to figure out how to cash in on it. I stopped buying dvd's a couple years ago - why should I start buying BD's when something else will be coming around the corner that will make them obsolete?

I love my little WD TV Live media player!
Click to expand...

As someone "in-the-know," I prefer bluray to streaming.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Not comparable at all... broadcast HD isn't even close to Blu, and I wonder about your comment on streaming is only "slightly" worse... that's like saying $1 is only "slightly" worse to have than $100 as a budget for buying some stuff. I use a TivoHD religiously with a beefed-up hard drive setup, but it doesn't compare to Blu.
Click to expand...

Broadcast HD is pretty decent. Cable HD (well, UVERSE which I tried) what a dissapointment. Not even DVD quality IMO.
 
okashira said:
Broadcast HD is pretty decent. Cable HD (well, UVERSE which I tried) what a dissapointment. Not even DVD quality IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant "cable HD" when I said "broadcast HD", :).... my bad on using the wrong term there.
 
It could /not/ be Blu-Ray's year if they keep thinking they can get away with charging $25+ for movies. I've got 83 Blu-Rays (including TV seasons) but I've been buying a lot less lately because the movies seem to vacillate between being reasonably priced ($10-15) and absurdly priced ($25-35).
 
u guys are late to the party, 2007 was the year for me ;). 320+ BDs now, 2 standalone BD players, 3 BDROMs, 1 BD Burner.

BTW: Lost Season 1-5 on Blu-Ray is available for $22/SEASON on amazon DEAL OF TODAY ONLY!
 
"Every 12 years - satellites get approximately a 24x increase in bandwidth." - Satellite geeks estimate.

Much like Moores law "Transistors double every 24 months."

Why 12 years? Thats how long it usually takes for a satellites to run out of stationary orbit fuel and solar wings decay due to radiation. There is no "incremental" capacity of even 2x more bandwidth 6 years in - because they simply cannot afford to shoot up a satellite whenever they want to. Its usually only at end of life that countries can afford to send up a replacement satellite, and its usually a huge leap in capacity as long as it actually makes it to orbit (which is never agiven in satellite tech.)

The HD-programming that you have been recieveing from HD satellite TV 12 years ago (1997) might just be replaced with a satellite that has 24x the data capacity today.
 
BTW: The last big 12 year jump in satellite tech was C to Ku band, which was also signified by the switch from analog to digital.

Huge improvement - if just for the idea you no longer needed a 9-foot dish to get a signal.
 
I think part of the devide here between people here that are 'in the know' and the general public is the level of importance they place on quality.

Some people seem a tad snobbish about just how awesome bluray looks compared to dvd and while it certainly does look excellent under the right circumstances (i.e. having a good tv, good surround sound, etc), the general public still doesnt have or want the setup that would really wow someone.

Most that do buy an hdtv arent usually getting the high end sets and some arent even buying surround sets to go along with them. So while prices are coming down for all of this home theater equipment needed to make bluray shine, its still not at a level that most people really care to invest in. they may invest in the tv, but thats not the only important piece in show casing the advantages. The point is, even owning an hdtv isnt really going to convince the average user to buy into bluray when they alreay own a bunch of dvd movies and the prospect of rebuying those movies certainly isnt appealing. BluRay has also just come at a bad time with economy issues slowing growth everywhere for the forseeable future.

I think BluRay will be around for a long time, but definitely see digital services taking over after that instead of another disc format. They are barely in their infancy now, so we still have a few years to go before digital delivery is pushed to the masses, but even today, services like on demand and netflix are popular among the general public. I wonder if services like netflix and on demand are more popular than bluray among the general public. In that respect, bluray might be similar to laser disc, the format is clearly superior to digital offerings and yet still does not find mass appeal becuase of various factors like cost and ease of access.
 
trooper11 said:
I think part of the devide here between people here that are 'in the know' and the general public is the level of importance they place on quality.

Some people seem a tad snobbish about just how awesome bluray looks compared to dvd and while it certainly does look excellent under the right circumstances (i.e. having a good tv, good surround sound, etc), the general public still doesnt have or want the setup that would really wow someone.

Most that do buy an hdtv arent usually getting the high end sets and some arent even buying surround sets to go along with them. So while prices are coming down for all of this home theater equipment needed to make bluray shine, its still not at a level that most people really care to invest in. they may invest in the tv, but thats not the only important piece in show casing the advantages. The point is, even owning an hdtv isnt really going to convince the average user to buy into bluray when they alreay own a bunch of dvd movies and the prospect of rebuying those movies certainly isnt appealing. BluRay has also just come at a bad time with economy issues slowing growth everywhere for the forseeable future.

I think BluRay will be around for a long time, but definitely see digital services taking over after that instead of another disc format. They are barely in their infancy now, so we still have a few years to go before digital delivery is pushed to the masses, but even today, services like on demand and netflix are popular among the general public. I wonder if services like netflix and on demand are more popular than bluray among the general public. In that respect, bluray might be similar to laser disc, the format is clearly superior to digital offerings and yet still does not find mass appeal becuase of various factors like cost and ease of access.
Click to expand...

You really don't need that much money in a TV setup to set the benefits of BD. Sure not all BD movies are created equal and often DVD is close enough in quality to BD that its not an issue for the average person. But when the BD is better, its often much better than DVD.

I have nothing against video streaming and downloads, but I won't buy them for new content that I can get on BD. With a tool like AnyDVD BD's are actually flexible, just a space hog.
 
Disclosure. I have a decent Home Theater setup with BD (PS3), HD DVD (they're still 1080p & lossless audio folks) as well as Netflix (Xbox 360) streaming and HD via DirecTV.

Blu-ray IS finally gaining traction with the average user, but economically, this has been a horrible time to launch a new format.

Right now the only place you can watch a movie in higher quality than BD is at the theater (WTF? is that guy in front of me TEXTING? "Dude, you just ruined the movie for my date and I. Give me my $30 back!")

All most people need is a 46-50" HDTV, BD Player and a properly setup 5.1 HTIB (home theater in a box) and suddenly the movie theater is a LOT less relavant. $25 BD sure is a lot cheaper than a night at the theater and you can pause or rewind the movie, so text to your heart's content.

HD On Demand (DirecTV or Cable) is overpriced. Buying HD on Xbox or PS3 is also too expensive and overly restricted. Pay the same (or more) for an HD download than BD and I can't even take it anywhere? FAIL.

Netflix Streaming is convenient. No, the quality isn't nearly as good, but they do rotate content and it sure is easy.

If the ISP's start charging by the byte, BD benefits, but may also face a future challenge from kiosks dishing out rentals on SDXC (64GB cards available early next year) which have the capacity to hold more content at BD Quality levels without requiring a laser. They'll probably be big enough to hold 4k (2160p) if that ever comes to market.
 
It's all about the price. Now that blu's are very competitively priced against DVD's, the sales should improved. $149 or less blu players. This week Harry potter 6 is $15.99 at amazon. Once they hit this price in retail stores is makes no sense to pay that for a DVD.

And LOTS of households now have HDTV's. I'm not even sure you can still buy the old definition tv's anymore.

I think I've been buying blu's since oct 2008. Not tons mind you, but things like die hard box set, and other favorites I got on blu. I tend not to buy a movie on dvd at all anymore unless its something that isnt going to be on blu for a long while if ever.
 
webdev511 said:
If the ISP's start charging by the byte, BD benefits, but may also face a future challenge from kiosks dishing out rentals on SDXC (64GB cards available early next year) which have the capacity to hold more content at BD Quality levels without requiring a laser. They'll probably be big enough to hold 4k (2160p) if that ever comes to market.
Click to expand...

What kind of hardware/software would you need to play this format?
 
With so many Blurays going for under $9 on black friday, it would really be a shame if the format didn't take off pretty soon. I've been buying my movies exclusively in BD for almost a year now.

I also bought my lady friend and parents BD-ROM's for their computers, so we'll see what they think.
 
webdev511 said:
...If the ISP's start charging by the byte, BD benefits, but may also face a future challenge from kiosks dishing out rentals on SDXC (64GB cards available early next year) which have the capacity to hold more content at BD Quality levels without requiring a laser. They'll probably be big enough to hold 4k (2160p) if that ever comes to market.
Click to expand...

2160p is 4x the amount of data. current movies (1080p) are anywhere from 20gb to 50gb of data. A typical short movie in 2160p would be 80gb minimum, up to 200gb. Blu ray will not be readily suitable for that (unless they add alot more layers), but the flash cards might, by the time that format is introduced.
 
With so many Blurays going for under $9 on black friday, it would really be a shame if the format didn't take off pretty soon. I've been buying my movies exclusively in BD for almost a year now.

I also bought my lady friend and parents BD-ROM's for their computers, so we'll see what they think.
 
heatlesssun said:
You really don't need that much money in a TV setup to set the benefits of BD. Sure not all BD movies are created equal and often DVD is close enough in quality to BD that its not an issue for the average person. But when the BD is better, its often much better than DVD.

I have nothing against video streaming and downloads, but I won't buy them for new content that I can get on BD. With a tool like AnyDVD BD's are actually flexible, just a space hog.
Click to expand...

And thats the point, you illustrated it with your post. First, even with an hdtv, most people havent been motived by the quality difference to invest in bluray or replace their existing dvd collection. Second, for the masses that use a pc to watch media, streaming service is much easier then having to worry about things like anydvd (regardless of how 'easy' it is for us).

So far, the value of quality hasnt been high enough for the general consumer. Now as prices continue to fall, the choice becomes easier and im sure that will lead to more adoption, but the x factor is how fast streaming services are pushed into homes via settop boxes and through pcs and if the quality of service is enough to keep general users from flocking to bluray.
 
-=Antimatter=- said:
With so many Blurays going for under $9 on black friday, it would really be a shame if the format didn't take off pretty soon.
Click to expand...

BD pricing is pretty aggressive *right now* even without the Black Friday sales. This morning's Amazon Gold Box deal:

Lost: The Complete Seasons 1-5
DVD: 72.99
BD: 108.99

I picked up a dozen BDs from the Warner Bros online store last summer. Through discount codes I paid roughly $11/title- and half of em were 2-disc or premium special editions that "retail" for $35.00.
 
I'm not motivated to replace my modest DVD collection(about 100 or so DVDs), but every movie purchase I make in the future will definitely be BD. What's the point otherwise? We got 2 HDTVs in the house, 2 BD players, what's the point buying DVDs at that point.
 
i have around 87 Blu-ray movies now, i've been riding the Blu-ray train since 2 years, people that are focusing on download are missing the fact that it's not only about the video it's about the lossless audio, mkv are around 10 GB while some blu-ray movies are filling a 50 GB disc (extras are there but they don't weight more than 10GB), it's all about the setup, i have a 10K$ HT setup and i want to get the most out of my HT experience, MKVs can come close in video quality but in audio no chance, i started buying Blu-rays when they were between 15-25$, now they are 8-20$, if u want movies on their release day u still pay around 20$, if no u can wait till they are on sale.

btw i don't go to movies anymore and my next step is to have a 165" projection screen.

this is an expensive hobby, but as we accept people buying 1000$ processors , 1500 $ VGAs or spending 600 $ on a cooling system, people are paying 20$ for a movie and K$ on AV setups.

are the above seing a performance increase worth their money? the same go for MKV VS blu-ray. it's a personal choice,

if u don;t like blu-ray don't get them, but at least acknowledge that they are simply the best AV media out there, no consumable product comr close to them now.
 
eh, 4k movies will never happen @home.

while there is significant PQ difference (provided the SOURCE film or digital is clean enough to begin w/) upgrading from 480i->1080p, there won't be for for any resolution beyond that. i have seen 2k, 4k, 8k footage projected onto 150" diagonal screens and they are very close, obviously most avg. joes won't have 100"+ front projectors so they wouldn't see the diff. i have 37" and a 100" projector. 1080p is good enough for the home.

the next 'evolution' will be downloads. most avg. joe is satisifed w/.mp3's, they will be satisifed w/crappy low-bitrate 720p or 1080p streams (see CBS&Youtube 1080p streams). to them that is already overkill. it's more of a convenience now than audiovisual quality. if quality was a concern for the avg. joe SACD/DVD-Audio would have succeeded in huge ways.

&also, you really believe movie studios are going to issue movies@4k resolution? you are gravely mistaken. it was pulling teeth just to get MPAA to be happy w/BD+&AACS copy protection. the 'managed copy' just came out a handful of days ago (2+ yrs after format debut) and you expect them to just hop onto the 4k train? there is no way that is going to happen.

the next evolution will be star trek TNG-like holodeck-esque stuff. 3-D polarized content is next, after that it'll be heavily leaning towards replicating holodex.
 
B-r will catch on if it joins DVDs in the $5 bin. Until then, it won't.

And it's nice the hardware is finally near $100, and occasionally below it (like on Black Fri.). Can we see it for $50? DVD players are under $20 - at least the cheap stuff.
 
MADNOD said:
this is an expensive hobby, but as we accept people buying 1000$ processors , 1500 $ VGAs or spending 600 $ on a cooling system, people are paying 20$ for a movie and K$ on AV setups.

are the above seing a performance increase worth their money? the same go for MKV VS blu-ray. it's a personal choice,

if u don;t like blu-ray don't get them, but at least acknowledge that they are simply the best AV media out there, no consumable product comr close to them now.
Click to expand...


i dont think anyone is arguing that bluray doesnt allow for the higest quality video and audio you can get on physical media. the argument is why bluray may not take become the next dvd as far as mass appeal and use. you just said yourself that it can be an expensive hobby, that does not equal mass use. Now of course you can buy an hdtv for relatively cheap, and anyone needing a new tv is going to get an hdtv of some sort, but even now there are alot of people that dont have the setup thats going to make it worth buying into bluray unless they are in the habit of buying new movies (i.e. tvs that arent good enough or large enough to show off 1080p content). As prices continue to fall, adoption will rise simply becuase people are replacing their dvd players and pricing wont be much more than a dvd player was.

the fact is, this wouldnt be the first time a techinically superior format has been slow to take off and eventaully be superceeded by an alternative. Im not saying this will happen to bluray, but you cant deny the possibility considering all the alternatives out there.
 
beowulf7 said:
B-r will catch on if it joins DVDs in the $5 bin. Until then, it won't.

And it's nice the hardware is finally near $100, and occasionally below it (like on Black Fri.). Can we see it for $50? DVD players are under $20 - at least the cheap stuff.
Click to expand...

$5 bin only has B-movies from the 60's/70's generally :p .

The hardware also plays DVD's... it's not like you have to throw out your current movies.
 
Uncle said:
Thanks for the enlightenment. Can't argue with facts. I guess whats eating me is that I would like to have choice, and I just saw Sony with deeper pockets win out over Toshiba, even though at the time I thought that Toshiba had the better product.
Click to expand...

But Toshiba had already lost the battle. When Toshiba paid 150 million to Paramount/Dreamworks, the outcome was already decided. All that Sony accomplished by paying WB to become BD exclusive was to put Toshiba out of it's misery.

And let's not forget that the main reason that Toshiba went with an alternate technology was because they owned so much of the IP.

IMO, BD is the better tech, though I'm well aware that it has a slow start up, which could probably be fixed by loading the the BDJ from sram and using the disks to update the JVM libraries as needed....but there may be security reasons for not doing that (though what's the point, given that the DRM is broken).
 
heatlesssun said:
For now you are correct. In time as broadband improves I would imagine that downloaded and streamed content will become as good and even better than today's BD content. But today is not that day.

If you like downloaded and streamed content then more power to you but there's nothing digitally distributed that compares to BD ATM.
Click to expand...

Sure, but Heatles, we've been hearing that song and dance since 2000 or 2001. Search the web (i've posted links before), and you'll find articles claiming that DVD might not gain mass acceptance, because of digital downloads and streaming. Most of America probably hadn't heard of DVD at that point. They certainly didn't own a player.

When bandwidth catches up, I'll worry about it. I don't see that happening in the next 10 years. My parents have access to 50Mb/s Symmetric FTTH. How many on this board have that? At best, they have FIOS. As I recall, the highest quality DVDs use almost 10MB/s. I've never clocked BD, but I suspect it's higher than that....someone can correct me if i'm wrong.
 
nilepez said:
Sure, but Heatles, we've been hearing that song and dance since 2000 or 2001. Search the web (i've posted links before), and you'll find articles claiming that DVD might not gain mass acceptance, because of digital downloads and streaming. Most of America probably hadn't heard of DVD at that point. They certainly didn't own a player.

When bandwidth catches up, I'll worry about it. I don't see that happening in the next 10 years. My parents have access to 50Mb/s Symmetric FTTH. How many on this board have that? At best, they have FIOS. As I recall, the highest quality DVDs use almost 10MB/s. I've never clocked BD, but I suspect it's higher than that....someone can correct me if i'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

DVD's go up to 10mbps (mbit/sec) roughly, while BD's go to ~50mbps, respectively for the better encodes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top