[J'nathus]

I fired up Casino Royale on my PS3 last night and enjoyed the sharpness of the movie and the smoothness of the animation. Then I reverted to my ripped .m4v version, which is greatly inferior on the same screen, but about as good as an up-scaled DVD. That difference is VERY noticeable, but after a while I sort of get over it and wonder if Blu-Ray is ABSOLUTELY necessary going forward.

I've heard rumblings that Blu-Ray will be our last media-based movie standard, which I'm not so sure that's true or not.

Additionally, I have a friend who wants to buy a new MacBook Pro, but he keeps holding out as each successive generation doesn't have a Blu-Ray drive. Even though Blu-Ray drives are getting more affordable for PC, I still haven't felt a desire to get one. It's not like DVD drives of the past where I was VERY excited to add movie-viewing capability to my PC / laptop and couldn't imagine having a computer without it in the future.

What's everyone's thoughts? Is Blu-Ray essential going forward? Is it a must-have killer piece of hardware that defines your computer purchasing schemes? Are you getting all of your movies in Blu-Ray going forward?

Personally, I am a gaming graphics snob who can't see past the ugliness of some games, so hi-def works for me . . . in theory, but the inability to do iPod compatible format conversion, combined with the slow spin-up of movies (even in my PS3) and the lack of ubiquity in computers... is it really where we're headed?

(Keeping this in perspective - it seems like it wasn't all that long ago that DVD drives became standard in computers.)

[PeopleLikeFrank]

I think it's struggling a little more as a platform than Sony would like. Standalone players obviously haven't really been taking off, and though the PS3 is doing better now, it's still behind the competitors for the console scene.

I just think there isn't a wild incentive to go Blu-Ray for most people yet. The thing about DVD was that it was a much bigger quality jump from VHS than Blu-Ray is from DVD, but also importantly, it was more usable than VHS. No rewinding, chapters, and extra content brought a lot to the table, and Blu-Ray doesn't have any nifty improvements like that. Certainly nothing that has made most folks want to shell out hundreds of dollars for a player. I think it's turned out that more people are interested in HD cable or satellite.

Add the fact that 25GB is also pretty weak when faced with multi-hundred GB HDs, making it less than totally exciting as a data format.

Still, it's likely gaining momentum. The things that would prevent me from predicting that it'll just be skipped over by downloadable media are the fact that fast network speeds are still taking a long time to roll out, and the fact that people still like to have a physical object in their sweaty hands (or under the Xmas tree).

Personally though, unless holographic discs become reasonably priced, I don't see myself ever using optical again as a data medium. If it can't backup basically everything I've got in one or two discs, I'd rather just get more hard drives. If the players get cheap, I might pick one up for my computer for movie purposes, but honestly I'm pretty much done with having CDs and DVDs taking up space around the house. I haven't bought CDs or gone into a game store for ages. I still go to a local video store, but that's partially to support an excellent local business, and partially because the online scene for films just isn't there yet IMO.

[J'nathus]

nobody, on July 11th 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

Standalone players obviously haven't really been taking off, and though the PS3 is doing better now, it's still behind the competitors for the console scene.

I just think there isn't a wild incentive to go Blu-Ray for most people yet. The thing about DVD was that it was a much bigger quality jump from VHS than Blu-Ray is from DVD, but also importantly, it was more usable than VHS. No rewinding, chapters, and extra content brought a lot to the table, and Blu-Ray doesn't have any nifty improvements like that. Certainly nothing that has made most folks want to shell out hundreds of dollars for a player. I think it's turned out that more people are interested in HD cable or satellite.

Add the fact that 25GB is also pretty weak when faced with multi-hundred GB HDs, making it less than totally exciting as a data format.

Still, it's likely gaining momentum. The things that would prevent me from predicting that it'll just be skipped over by downloadable media are the fact that fast network speeds are still taking a long time to roll out, and the fact that people still like to have a physical object in their sweaty hands (or under the Xmas tree).

Personally though, unless holographic discs become reasonably priced, I don't see myself ever using optical again as a data medium. If it can't backup basically everything I've got in one or two discs, I'd rather just get more hard drives. If the players get cheap, I might pick one up for my computer for movie purposes, but honestly I'm pretty much done with having CDs and DVDs taking up space around the house. I haven't bought CDs or gone into a game store for ages. I still go to a local video store, but that's partially to support an excellent local business, and partially because the online scene for films just isn't there yet IMO.

I thought the PS3's uptake was because it was late coming to the scene. I knew a couple of people that were waiting for the PS3 instead of getting an X-Box 360 and I knew one other who got an X-Box 360 and eventually went to a PS3 . . .although his motivation is the games, not so much Blu-Ray.

I watched all of heroes on Netflix streaming on my X-Box 360 and I must say that the HD streaming is quite good. It's not 1080P good, but it appears better than my movie rips (which is impressive), especially as it's 16:9 and fits to all corners of my TV. I agree that internet speeds aren't there yet for that sort of thing... at least not for everybody. However, if the customer base I interact with are any indication, dial-up users are becoming a VERY TINY minority.

I've heard that the broadcast digital signal can actually be better HD than what cable companies are sending down to customers. That's a bit hard to believe, but I'd have to see it it to be sure.

The movement away from media is an idea I firmly support. Even though it's kind of wasting money, I've been buying and in some cases rebuying games on Steam because it's just an easier / more convenient system than going through my huge disc binder and installing all of those discs. Yeah, the download is slower than installing from the media, but with my 15 Mbps connection . . . it's not by all that much anymore. I just download what I want RIGHT NOW and the rest I set to download overnight. By the morning, it's all done.

With Blu-Ray though . . the 50 GB that those discs fit... we're a LONG way away from being able to stream anything that'll embarrass that kind of quality.

It's been pointed out that CDs may be better quality than MP3s, but MP3s became ubiquitous because of their versatility and ease of use. Youtube has caught on for the same reasons. You begin to wonder if people who appreciate Blu-Ray will become like the people who appreciate vaccuum tube amplifiers... ideally it's better, but it just isn't going to be what everyone uses.

[teflon]

Apparently about 80% of PS3 owners (probably just in the US this stat) use their BD drive for watching movies.

Personally I find the difference between HD and SD to be really light and day. Take Terminator 2, for example. On DVD it looks good if not great, and the special effects blend in quite well. On BD and HDDVD those same special effects start to look like arse. Still quite good when you think back to 1991, but by todays standards they stand out like a sore thumb.
Its at that point that you know that the step up is worth it.

When you can go back to a film and watch it over and over, picking up new little nuances to the actor's performances, its quite likely its a good film. Now you can go back and its not just the performance, but all the great work that the set designers put in. Things that most people will miss, you can now see them and they're sharp and clear.

Thats the reason for Blu Ray. Just more detail in every single frame.

The reason why Blu Ray is going to stick around and quite possibly the last or next to last major format is cos of a few things. First the industry doesn't want another shop fought format war, so they will hold off as long as possible on switching over. Equally shops need to be able to sell something to you, so they will carry on stocking DVDs and BDs for years to come.
But the main reason is that there isn't a resolution to go to from here. RED have come out with 2K and 4K resolution, sure, but those are horizontal resolutions. Which means that you can forget about 2K, its basically 1080p, and 4K would need both incredible compression and bigger disks. But you can still forget about it because all digitally recorded films are currently recorded in 1080p (with very few exceptions), in those instances they cannot be rescanned like 35mm tape can in order to get a higher resolution, so there is no need for a higher resolution format until Holywood moves over to one.
Also, 35mm tape can get scanned at higher and higher resolutions, and its debatable where you dont get any more detail out of it, but you will get ever increasing amounts of film grain, at which point studios step in with excessive DNR and then sharpening and you've got something that looks like crap. Even at 1080p its easy for a remaster of an old film to come out looking complete rubbish, and it would be trickier at 4K and up to do this.

As to why streaming can and will overtake BD. Again its debatable. Cable and satellite is all very heavily compressed, and there isn't the bandwidth for at least 5 years for streaming to be viable at even half the bit rate of Blu Ray. But eventually it will get there. However, you then have to ask where all these films are going to be stored. 2TB drives exist, yes, but the average laptop has 250GB and down. Even at half the size of BD, thats only 40 films, and thats not taking into account the other things that will be on there. You complained about having to trawl through CD books to install a game compared to Steam. As yet its either stream of store it yourself because you aint ever downloading it again without paying. Its really quite restrictive on video right now.

Your comparison with MP3s is a good one where originally they were clearly inferior to CDs in quality, but are now approaching that standard. But on the other hand its a bad one, since people dont want to watch films whilst jogging in the park. Music and Video are two completely different ball parks, ably demonstrated by the iTunes store. It took Apple a long time to break into Video and even then it was quite half hearted...

Anyway, Ive ranted on for long enough I think. But the gist of my argument is that Streaming is plenty good enough for just watching or renting TV and film. But when it comes to owning, a lot of people will want a physical product. After all, the music industry still sells a lot of CDs, MP3 downloads are more oriented towards singles than albums.

[J'nathus]

teflon, on July 11th 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

the industry doesn't want another shop fought format war

As to why streaming can and will overtake BD. Again its debatable. Cable and satellite is all very heavily compressed, and there isn't the bandwidth for at least 5 years for streaming to be viable at even half the bit rate of Blu Ray. But eventually it will get there. However, you then have to ask where all these films are going to be stored. 2TB drives exist, yes, but the average laptop has 250GB and down. Even at half the size of BD, thats only 40 films, and thats not taking into account the other things that will be on there. You complained about having to trawl through CD books to install a game compared to Steam. As yet its either stream of store it yourself because you aint ever downloading it again without paying. Its really quite restrictive on video right now.

Your comparison with MP3s is a good one where originally they were clearly inferior to CDs in quality, but are now approaching that standard. But on the other hand its a bad one, since people dont want to watch films whilst jogging in the park. Music and Video are two completely different ball parks, ably demonstrated by the iTunes store. It took Apple a long time to break into Video and even then it was quite half hearted...

I agree and disagree with you on a lot of fronts. My this is a hearty discussion.

I'm sure the industry doesn't want another format war, but I wouldn't doubt that something else might come out at some point. I'm sure when DVDs came out, we couldn't fathom 50 GB in one disc. Equally, there may simply be a new format that can hold 500 GB in a disc. Sounds impossible . . . NOW!

I'm with you on the stream / download ideal, but you kind of jump back and forth. I can redownload my steam games until I'm blue in the face. As of yet, there isn't any restriction. This is a fun distinction because Blizzard's World of Warcraft client download takes for freakin' EVER to download because they ONLY do this bit-torrent type of download. 4.7 GB is something I can EASILY download within an hour (if not a half hour on the right connection). But I guess that people downloading the game is too much for their servers to handle . . . one of the many reasons I'm so turned off against that game.

Additionally, I don't think the iTunes ideal of downloading media to your machine will be the way to go forward. I think it'll be streaming in HD for a monthly fee . . . not unlike what NetFlix is doing. This will allow you to maintain access to a library of content like you might have if you bought downloaded episodes on iTunes, but without the bulk of storing them on your computer. They say the future is supposed to be cloud computing, and although I don't personally like that idea (yet) . . . I think plenty of people will be MORE than happy not to have to store a ton of resources locally. As it is, I no longer employ a local E-mail client on my computer, as it's just easier to go to www.google.com/ig with my little E-mail widget thingy loaded. However, that is because my power user desires are mostly satisfied by the capabilities of Gmail today.

As far as the quality of 1080P Blu-ray goes.... you're preaching to the converted, but like all things technological that I like, there are limitations to my means and I don't see myself ousting my DVD collection in lieu of Blu-ray titles anytime soon . . . and I tend to be the 'earlier' of tech adopters.

As I made an example with MP3s, I really think that plenty of people will be happy with streaming because it gives them access to far more of their content than buying Blu-Ray discs will. I've had people tell me they see no difference between DVD and Blu-Ray. ALTHOUGH they might be looking at a DVD on a Blu-Ray player (which also up-scales that DVD). If they simply used the yellow, red and white plugs to put the DVD to the TV they'd see a MASSIVE difference (I've tried that to see if upscaling was really worth it . . . IT IS!!!).

[teflon]

Sorry, I was half asleep...

As yet there isnt a Video download store that lets you re-download your films. Everything is one download only and then back it up yourself. If its lost or deleted its gone unless you buy it again.
You're probably right when you say that downloading to keep isn't the future. Its just not flexible enough and far more prone to accidents than a BD or DVD.
The other reason could be price. Online stores dont compete on price. All of them are essentially fixed price at the same as or higher than a brand new DVD. When BDs are coming down in price shortly after release to that price point. Then there's a premium for HD too.

Streaming, going on what your saying, would effectively be as it is today on Netflix and with DVD and BD rentals. And the movie equivalent to MP3's subscription services. It cant replace owning of media, but it can replace rental of disks, just as rental by post has mostly replaced going to a shop and renting.

OH, and you need to sit anyone who says that about BD and DVD down infront of a decent TV, set up properly at the right distance from the screen (2.5x its diagonal size) and do a double blind test on several films. Particularly jungle scenes. In fact just make them watch Lost.
If they still refuse to accept the facts, then shoot them. They wouldn't survive the revolution anyway...

[J'nathus]

teflon, on July 12th 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

Streaming, going on what your saying, would effectively be as it is today on Netflix and with DVD and BD rentals. And the movie equivalent to MP3's subscription services. It cant replace owning of media, but it can replace rental of disks, just as rental by post has mostly replaced going to a shop and renting.

OH, and you need to sit anyone who says that about BD and DVD down infront of a decent TV, set up properly at the right distance from the screen (2.5x its diagonal size) and do a double blind test on several films. Particularly jungle scenes. In fact just make them watch Lost.
If they still refuse to accept the facts, then shoot them. They wouldn't survive the revolution anyway...

I think it can replace the owning of media. If you have access to everything you want on-demand, there really isn't a need to own media. I think it'll boil down to what's 'good enough' for most people and the convenience of access vs the need to go out and obtain media will probably prevail.

People who say that BD and DVD are the same can have seen certain examples. Possibly only broadcast HD or some of the early BD items. Casino Royale isn't nearly as sharp as some of my more recent Blu-Ray discs.

About shooting them... not visceral enough. I would have to bludgeon them to death with any available item . . . a golf club, baseball bat, their big old TV.

[Rev-O]

Random musings:
I'm waiting for blu-ray before I update my MBP. Of course, I'm waiting to find an extra $2500 so I could afford the MBP with blu-ray as well

Pretty much all my movie purchases are blu-ray now. Haven't bought a DVD since end of 2008.

When, oh when, will Appleseed show up on Blu-ray?

I know a person who owns a stand alone player and has an issue with blu-ray. He says "I think blu-ray has too much detail. I don't like it when they do close ups. I hate looking at all the pores on someone's nose! You don't see all the pores on someone's nose in real life!" I kinda mentioned that if you got so close to a person's head that their face filled your entire field of vision, you'd probably notice the pores on their nose.

[the Battle Cat]

Rev-O, on July 12th 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

I know a person who owns a stand alone player and has an issue with blu-ray. He says "I think blu-ray has too much detail. I don't like it when they do close ups. I hate looking at all the pores on someone's nose! You don't see all the pores on someone's nose in real life!" I kinda mentioned that if you got so close to a person's head that their face filled your entire field of vision, you'd probably notice the pores on their nose.

I want to see those nose pores. I want to see the tiny blackheads and nose hairs. I demand being able to see the tiny bit of spinach between their teeth, the hair poking out their ears, and the mole they thought they hid under pancake makeup. It's about damn time actors can no longer hide their hideous countenances behind the blur of outdated technology! Let us see them for what they actually are in the cold harsh glare of stark detail.

[J'nathus]

Rev-O, on July 12th 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

I'm waiting for blu-ray before I update my MBP. Of course, I'm waiting to find an extra $2500 so I could afford the MBP with blu-ray as well

Pretty much all my movie purchases are blu-ray now. Haven't bought a DVD since end of 2008.

I know a person who owns a stand alone player and has an issue with blu-ray. He says "I think blu-ray has too much detail. I don't like it when they do close ups. I hate looking at all the pores on someone's nose! You don't see all the pores on someone's nose in real life!" I kinda mentioned that if you got so close to a person's head that their face filled your entire field of vision, you'd probably notice the pores on their nose.

I have seen Blu-ray on PC laptops and the implementation always leaves one wanting. I wouldn't be surprised if part of the issue of getting it into Apple products isn't the result of some kind of issue of getting it to work in a rock solid sort of fashion. I will say the temptation to upgrade will be stronger for me when there's Blu-ray on the new products. I hope they sort out the overheating issues I've heard that has been plaguing the 9-series GeForce items on the MBPs.

About the 'too much detail' . . . I sort of agree on that front. Not that I don't want to see pores, but that the makeup becomes more obvious and therefore more distracting by helping to break the suspension of disbelief.

All this talk has made me want to get a new Blu-Ray movie to enjoy on my Hi-Def TV. Thankfully nothing I MUST have is calling my name at the moment. . . And NO I DO NOT WANT SUGGESTIONS!

[Ichigo27]

Animated movies on blue ray and video from playstation 3 titles look better then movies that are converted. Advent children is a fine example of that even though they didn't do anything to the textures to make everything look like a pixar film.

Playstation 3 has been having rough times with the lack of interest with people on the content side and people are aren't willing to pay a bit extra for a console alone, instead buying a 360 for 200 dollars plus tax and 50 dollars for a live gold or live arcade games then their 360 working for 1 year unless they have a 360 that actually works past that period.

Average gamers are very smart aren't they. 9_9

[J'nathus]

Ichigo27, on July 12th 2009, 02:15 PM, said:

Playstation 3 has been having rough times with the lack of interest with people on the content side and people are aren't willing to pay a bit extra for a console alone, instead buying a 360 for 200 dollars plus tax and 60 dollars for a live gold or live arcade games then working for 1 year.

Average gamers are very smart aren't they. 9_9

Well, with the netflix streaming and downloadable / rentable movies, the X-Box has a diffrent focus. X-box Live Gold membership is $50 / year BTW.

I see the gamer community split down the middle on the X-Box 360 vs PS3 issue. Fan boys on both sides.

My 1.0 Blu-Ray player is DEFINITELY a second fiddle effort when compared to the PS3's speed and smoothness. Does Sony make any players that respond like the PS3? Do they want to?

[Rev-O]

I already had an Xbox 360 and a Wii, so when the time came to get a blu-ray player I waffled between a PS3 and a stand alone unit. Didn't take long for me to decide to get a stand alone unit (panasonic) and spend the difference on some movies. Already have enough consoles to satisfy me and didn't really need another one. Wouldn't be surprised if a lot of folks who bought a console early on while the format war (HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray) didn't follow the same path.

Btw, Appleseed 2 on blu-ray is awesome. Storywise, not as good as Appleseed, tho.

[Ichigo27]

J, on July 12th 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

I see the gamer community split down the middle on the X-Box 360 vs PS3 issue. Fan boys on both sides.

I think the xbox community is having users that are bored with the 360s overall, it's just not as much to make a big impact. Quite a bit of 360 owners are still loyal as f*&# to microsoft no matter how bad microsoft is doing with exclusives or even releasing as many as sony is making a big deal about in the past 2 years. You have people who have a ps3 because of the playstation brand (cows) then you have people who own a playstation 3 because of some of the good exclusives.

J, on July 12th 2009, 04:32 PM, said:

My 1.0 Blu-Ray player is DEFINITELY a second fiddle effort when compared to the PS3's speed and smoothness. Does Sony make any players that respond like the PS3? Do they want to?

A friend of mines father went through 5 blu ray players, that clearly shows how hard it is to find a blu ray player that's as good at playing blu ray movies as the playstation 3.

[teflon]

the Battle Cat, on July 12th 2009, 07:20 PM, said:

It's about damn time actors can no longer hide their hideous countenances behind the blur of outdated technology!.

See above, that was my point exactly. When everything looks so good it can come full circle and look bad, but then surprise you by looking quite good in numerous way, or when you can see the scars from a boob job on a porn star, you know the format is a winner.

J, on July 12th 2009, 07:44 PM, said:

All this talk has made me want to get a new Blu-Ray movie to enjoy on my Hi-Def TV. Thankfully nothing I MUST have is calling my name at the moment. . . And NO I DO NOT WANT SUGGESTIONS!

I can heartily recommend Akira on BD (sadly it has zero extras on it, would've been brilliant to get some retrospectives and making of on a very influential film). Run Lola Run was, for me, also a great film, simple, 90's and clever. Pan's Labyrinth too, just brilliantly dark (and Im talking pitch black here). All three great films.
Oh wait, you don't want suggestions, so I wont recommend those 3 films to you then

Ichigo27, on July 12th 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

Animated movies on blue ray and video from playstation 3 titles look better then movies that are converted. Advent children is a fine example of that even though they didn't do anything to the textures to make everything look like a pixar film.

Definitely, Wall-E looks fantastic, and I can't wait to get my hands on Finding Nemo. Not to mention the stellar restoration work that is being done to the entirety of Disney's back catalogue. I havent seen them, but everything Ive read says they look amazing.
Having said that, Zulu is also supposed to be one of the best remasters of a film yet. Considering how old it is, the level of detail that was put into the film originally really shows, and it is a massive step up from the DVD.

J, on July 12th 2009, 10:32 PM, said:

Fan boys on both sides.
My 1.0 Blu-Ray player is DEFINITELY a second fiddle effort when compared to the PS3's speed and smoothness. Does Sony make any players that respond like the PS3? Do they want to?

I just picked the console that was right for me. The PS3 had more interesting and plentiful exclusives, and Sony really need to push them hard (without letting MS steal them away). Im glad that I did go PS3, since aside from about 4 or 5 titles, there's nothing that captures my imagination on 360, whilst literally half of my collection of games are exclusives...
Sony and others (Panasonic's devices, be they TVs or DVRs or whatever are really starting to stand out at the moment as being practically the top rung) do make speedy BD players that can stand up to the PS3. Unfortunately they're pretty expensive. The only reason the PS3 is so good is because of the Cell processor. Simples.

[Ichigo27]

As for Akira I am very surprised that the blu ray version doesn't even include the segment on how they remastered the film, for blu ray movie that was delayed in the US I expected bandai to add something fantastic to the release.

[teflon]

Yeah I was a bit disappointed by the lack of anything. I do remember that there was meant to be a booklet that came with it, but unfortunately my pre-order didn't fall within the first batch of disks, which were the only ones to get it.
Might see how much they go for on ebay...

[edddeduck]

Rev-O, on July 12th 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

Random musings:
When, oh when, will Appleseed show up on Blu-ray?

I do know anime will really benefit from better definition

I had a friend who said why buy DVD anime it's a waste of money, we then watched a few Bebop episodes on his TV rip then fired up my DVD night and day

Blueray will make this even better as the edges etc will be sharper colors more solid the only problem is will it make me hate my DVD collection :'(

[Frost]

I certainly hope it's not our last disc-based media form.

Steam =

I would also have to buy movies three times over to use them on every platform I have, if I were to go digital.

F that!

[The Liberator]

Why? Because you view them on three different entertainment systems?

Liberator.