[Brien]

Yeah, TDK looked great in IMAX. I'm hoping that Fox drops the whole 3D crap and just hands Nolan enough cash to shoot Batman 3 in IMAX (all of it) like he wants.

[The Final Dakar]

More semi-related news:

Netflix 'now primarily a streaming company,' could offer DVD-less plan this year -- Engadget

It seems like just yesterday we were celebrating Netflix's 2 billionth disc sent, but in announcing the company's Q4 financial results, CEO Reed Hastings called his baby "primarily a streaming company that also offers DVD-by-mail."

Would love to know what % they ship are BR.

Netflix Streaming Video Is 20 Percent of Peak US Internet Traffic

A recent study says that 20 percent of all downstream internet traffic during peak times in the US is Netflix streaming. No wonder Netflix is considering disc-less, streaming-only subscriptions.

The internet is winning the format war.


Semi-semi-related:
Not so shocking: TV networks block Google TV

ABC, CBS, and NBC have all restricted access to the TV episodes on their own websites

Hulu Considers Cutting Hulu Plus Subscription Fee in Half | Peter Kafka | MediaMemo | AllThingsD

Hulu is considering cutting the price of Hulu Plus, the subscription service it began testing in June, sources tell me. I’m told the video site is talking about slashing its $9.95 per-month fee in half, to $4.95.

Reality bites (for the Networks)

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The internet is winning the format war.

What is a Netflix?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Brien 

Yeah, TDK looked great in IMAX. I'm hoping that Fox drops the whole 3D crap and just hands Nolan enough cash to shoot Batman 3 in IMAX (all of it) like he wants.

I don't think money is the only obstacle. I read somewhere that proper IMAX cameras are huge, not very mobile and have ridiculously short reel sizes. It would make the shoot take way longer and really isn't possible for a full length action blockbuster.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

What is a Netflix?

A service that a company in your country will eventually emulate.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I don't think money is the only obstacle. I read somewhere that proper IMAX cameras are huge, not very mobile and have ridiculously short reel sizes. It would make the shoot take way longer and really isn't possible for a full length action blockbuster.

Nonetheless, Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfeister both want to shoot Batman 3 in IMAX, non-3D. If not the entirety, then most of it. And if not on IMAX, then at least on film (not video).

Rumour has it though that Warner is pressuring them to shoot it in 3D, even though both hate the idea.

[The Final Dakar]

Has there been a blockbuster superhero movie in 3D yet? While I wouldn't be interested, I can't fault WB for thinking Dark Knight + 3D = I can't count that high.

But thank god for Nolan (I thought I read somewhere he successfully staved them off)

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

A service that a company in your country will eventually emulate.

The world is not one.

[Spheric Harlot]

Nevertheless, Netflix is making huge amounts of moolah off what you keep claiming is a "total flop".

Even when I last brought it up and supported it with numbers, you had the brazenness to call it a total flop again - just because most of Spain still happens to be on dial up.

(don't most urban ISPs offer on-demand streaming where you live? They certainly do here.)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The world is not one.

I didn't claim it was.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't claim it was.

I know you didn't, just saying. There seems to be no sign of such service in my country.

@Spheric, on demand TV is available from cable companies, even in rural areas yes. At least that's my understanding, I don't have a TV.

BTW Apple TV was predicted to sell 1 million units per quarter, but then it only sells a quarter of that.

[Spheric Harlot]

Who predicted what about which AppleTV? Link please.

The new one sold 250,000 within TWO WEEKS, and most stores around here didn't even GET any until mid-October.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Who predicted what about which AppleTV? Link please.

The new one sold 250,000 within TWO WEEKS, and most stores around here didn't even GET any until mid-October.

Sold Out: Analyst Predicts 4M Apple TVs per Year

It was on Macrumors as well. Why on earth would I want to make up something like that??!

Early Apple TV Sales Estimated at 1 Million Per Quarter - Mac Rumors

So yes, that was the pent up demand for the thing, 250 000 units. Now it's downhill from here.

EDIT: yeah the Apple TV sold 250 000 units since it was announced, when it started shipping is irrelevant. When you're spinning numbers, you've entered Apologistville big boy.

[Spheric Harlot]

You suck at math.

Do numbers and selling out work differently in your world than they do over here in reality?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You suck at math.

Do numbers and selling out work differently in your world than they do over here in reality?

So besides that... eh.. text you wrote, you've got nothing to say one the subject at hand?

[Spheric Harlot]

Yes, but there isn't much point in doing so.

I'll just leave you to yourself and get back here once we have sales numbers for a full quarter (which you'll then ignore and tell us it was a flop, just like video downloads are).

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yes, but there isn't much point in doing so.

I'll just leave you to yourself and get back here once we have sales numbers for a full quarter (which you'll then ignore and tell us it was a flop, just like video downloads are).

No I don't think you have anything to add, which is quite evident. It's true that the sales figures can't span an entire quarter, because they didn't sell the Apple TV for an entire quarter - however it does span the time since it was announced and available for order until the end of the quarter.

It also shows that the sales is quite modest, considering the price and that these 250 000 units were bought by users of the old Apple TV. Steve didn't mention that these were new buyers. So the installed user base will not grow, that being the case - but at 99 dollars, it's an ok update for existing users.

The material available for the Apple TV is also very limited, with major studios not willing to sign up combined with the fact that it's only usable in a handful of countries.

Of course it is a flop. And the video downloads statistic you so gleefully threw out the other day and I rightly called a flop, well I guess I could have expanded a bit on that, seeing as the biggest sales season of video disks is Christmas - but your statistic only spanned the first half or so of 2010.

And you accuse me of being bad in math.. hahaha. Indeed big boy.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I know you didn't, just saying. There seems to be no sign of such service in my country.

That's why I used the word eventually. Man are you desperate to find way to disagree.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's why I used the word eventually. Man are you desperate to find way to disagree.

So you made an unprovable statement and are all in pieces because pointing it out is somehow 'desperately disagreeing'?

I can agree that maybe eventually something like Netflix will be available in my country, but not just eventually. Only death and taxes are a certainty, not Netflix.

What's with the attitude?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

It also shows that the sales is quite modest, considering the price and that these 250 000 units were bought by users of the old Apple TV. Steve didn't mention that these were new buyers.

Please stop making shit up.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The material available for the Apple TV is also very limited, with major studios not willing to sign up combined with the fact that it's only usable in a handful of countries.

What are you talking about? iTunes rental content, presumably?

Have you missed that, at least in the US, it also streams Netflix, which is on the Apple TV and has deals with ALL major studios?

Yes, we know - Spain doesn't have a comparable service, and streaming is dead, despite that fact that even in Spain, every ISP offers it. But voodoo doesn't have a TV for IPTV services, ergo it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Of course it is a flop. And the video downloads statistic you so gleefully threw out the other day and I rightly called a flop, well I guess I could have expanded a bit on that, seeing as the biggest sales season of video disks is Christmas - but your statistic only spanned the first half or so of 2010.

Would you like to discuss the second half now, making up more shit, or would you like to continue sticking to ignoring numbers that actually exist?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

What's with the attitude?

Hey Rob.

I expected you to be back.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

So you made an unprovable statement and are all in pieces because pointing it out is somehow 'desperately disagreeing'?

You didn't say it was an unprovable statement. You disagreed with an argument I did not make.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I can agree that maybe eventually something like Netflix will be available in my country, but not just eventually. Only death and taxes are a certainty, not Netflix.

You don't have to agree. All you have to do is wait.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

What's with the attitude?

Bwahaha, look in a mirror, Mr. Diplomacy.

[Eug]

Nice to see that sometimes there is a little bit of common sense out there in the general public.

The general trend is that once people try 3DTV, they are less likely to want it.



I've seen a few of those 3DTV displays now. It really comes across as "this is totally @#$^@%^&* stupid" after trying it in-store.

[The Final Dakar]

I wonder what the breakdown is on glasses requiring vs. glasses-less.

[finboy]

We've been buying a lot of the DVD+BlueRay combos lately, and some single DVDs of older things. Have you noticed that the DVD quality (in terms of transfer depth, etc.) has gone down? I'll try to think of some specific DVDs I've noticed it on, but man, I've seen a real difference in what we were getting 3-4 years ago and what they're putting out on the crappy DVDs these days.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I wonder what the breakdown is on glasses requiring vs. glasses-less.

If glasses were not required, it might be an option, but I have not yet seen any such glasses-less display for a shipping product at any store. I'm told those machines are far too expensive. I'm guessing that graph is based on only people looking at in-store setups that require those stupid glasses.

My neighbour saw one setup that did not require glasses, for use as a screen for product advertisements, but the cost of that was uber high, and the screen was not to be sold to the mainstream TV consumer.

Maybe those will come with time though. It reminds me of uber high pixel density displays a few years ago. These were restricted to industry and research, etc. Now everyone and their dog has one... albeit not in what we expected. We still don't have them in our consumer monitors, but the iPhone now has it.

If 10.7 gets resolution independence though, I'd expect to start to see more uber high pixel density monitors hit the upper end of the desktop market.

[ghporter]

I haven't even seen a store display that suggests "no glasses." I tried out a Sony 3-D system in a Sony store, and while in appropriate circumstances (like action games or movies that really could make use of depth) the effect was very striking, the battery powered glasses were more trouble than they were worth.

And if I haven't mentioned this earlier, I think that some movies just aren't real candidates for "enhancement" of any kind. I have a rather large DVD collection, and I don't plan on replacing many of those with BluRay discs; how much better can Casablanca look than a great DVD made from an original (pristine) negative that was frame-by-frame cleaned and enhanced, and then played in an up-converting BluRay player? With that said, I just ordered the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy BluRay set. I think the PoC films are the right stuff for BluRay because of all the extra detail in the original film. The flurry of "now on BluRay!!!111One!!" film releases lately has not impressed me. Re-releasing a disc just because you can put the same transfer onto a new type of media doesn't add anything as far as I'm concerned.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Yes, we know - Spain doesn't have a comparable service, and streaming is dead, despite that fact that even in Spain, every ISP offers it.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Please stop making shit up.

You might want to take your own advice. Cable operators do and have offered TV on demand, but ISPs rarely do.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You didn't say it was an unprovable statement. You disagreed with an argument I did not make.

You said eventually a service such as Netflix would come to my country. Which is like I would say, eventually rural Idaho will have 40 MBit DSL. You agree?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You don't have to agree. All you have to do is wait.

Oh ok then. Enjoy that high-speed broadband in rural america. You just have to wait, ok.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Bwahaha, look in a mirror, Mr. Diplomacy.

You realize that when I'm 'discussing' things with Spheric, I'm not replying to you or anyone else. I've certainly not been rude to you in any way, thus odd that you are to me.

Spheric has an age old obsession about me, so I respond in kind. Diplomacy went out the window a long time ago there.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

You might want to take your own advice. Cable operators do and have offered TV on demand, but ISPs rarely do.

Well, uhm, at least in the US, you are hard pressed to find a cable operator that is NOT also an ISP.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

You might want to take your own advice. Cable operators do and have offered TV on demand, but ISPs rarely do.

Actually, over here, pretty much all ISPs DO offer IPTV/VoD - whether to computers or via set-top-box -, and all cable providers are also ISPs.

Which is why I asked earlier.

[Brien]

Yeah. The US sucks, 'member?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And if I haven't mentioned this earlier, I think that some movies just aren't real candidates for "enhancement" of any kind. I have a rather large DVD collection, and I don't plan on replacing many of those with BluRay discs; how much better can Casablanca look than a great DVD made from an original (pristine) negative that was frame-by-frame cleaned and enhanced, and then played in an up-converting BluRay player? With that said, I just ordered the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy BluRay set. I think the PoC films are the right stuff for BluRay because of all the extra detail in the original film. The flurry of "now on BluRay!!!111One!!" film releases lately has not impressed me. Re-releasing a disc just because you can put the same transfer onto a new type of media doesn't add anything as far as I'm concerned.

Casablanca looks great in HD. Remember, a lot of movies and TV shows that are shot on film will benefit from an HD transfer, since film inherently has a much higher resolution than DVD.

DVD on the left, Blu-ray on the right.





But then, I only bought it in HD (on HD DVD) because I didn't have a DVD of it already.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

You said eventually a service such as Netflix would come to my country. Which is like I would say, eventually rural Idaho will have 40 MBit DSL. You agree?

I disagree on DSL.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Oh ok then. Enjoy that high-speed broadband in rural america. You just have to wait, ok.

Yes, exactly.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

If glasses were not required, it might be an option, but I have not yet seen any such glasses-less display for a shipping product at any store. I'm told those machines are far too expensive. I'm guessing that graph is based on only people looking at in-store setups that require those stupid glasses.

I dunno, I just googled to make sure they actually existed.

I'm not implying that they're any type of winner, but I've got to imagine they'd turn less people off than a glasses option (Not sure if they make people more or less prone to side-effects)

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Nice to see that sometimes there is a little bit of common sense out there in the general public.

The general trend is that once people try 3DTV, they are less likely to want it.



I've seen a few of those 3DTV displays now. It really comes across as "this is totally @#$^@%^&* stupid" after trying it in-store.

I just experienced my first home theater 3D. Bah. It sucks.

The worst part is that if you don't have glasses it looks like a hot mess. So unless you fork over a lot of money for a bunch of extra glasses, you are stuck with two viewers at a time.

And it doesn't look anywhere as good as the 3D you get at the theater.

[Eug]

I must admit, this NHL shot would look good in 3D.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Casablanca looks great in HD. Remember, a lot of movies and TV shows that are shot on film will benefit from an HD transfer, since film inherently has a much higher resolution than DVD.

DVD on the left, Blu-ray on the right.

But then, I only bought it in HD (on HD DVD) because I didn't have a DVD of it already.

Your pictures offer an impressing argument for upgrading. I'll have to ponder this..

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by ort888 

I just experienced my first home theater 3D. Bah. It sucks.

The worst part is that if you don't have glasses it looks like a hot mess. So unless you fork over a lot of money for a bunch of extra glasses, you are stuck with two viewers at a time.

And it doesn't look anywhere as good as the 3D you get at the theater.

You must have gotten a bad setup. I have tested it out at ComicCon last year and it was exactly like the theater. Quality and effect was great. However I have yet to see a proper setup in a store, either.

I can deal with the glasses... HOWEVER, $150 glasses just kills it for me and the fact the glasses are specific to a certain TV. Once I found out they had to be battery powered, that REALLY killed it, for me.

BTW: You can turn the 3D off and use it as a normal HDTV if you don't have glasses. You'll have to do this if you have a Super Bowl party because I can't see anyone sane buying $3000 worth of glasses.

[Brien]

If they can get the screens in the 3DS up to 50-60" without breaking the bank I'd probably be more inclined to get a 3DTV, but I have to agree, the cost of shutterglasses is insane, especially since they don't work across brands, or in some cases, even the same brand's models.

[Spheric Harlot]

That's One Huge Nintendo asking for, there.



[starman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I haven't even seen a store display that suggests "no glasses." I tried out a Sony 3-D system in a Sony store, and while in appropriate circumstances (like action games or movies that really could make use of depth) the effect was very striking, the battery powered glasses were more trouble than they were worth.

And if I haven't mentioned this earlier, I think that some movies just aren't real candidates for "enhancement" of any kind. I have a rather large DVD collection, and I don't plan on replacing many of those with BluRay discs; how much better can Casablanca look than a great DVD made from an original (pristine) negative that was frame-by-frame cleaned and enhanced, and then played in an up-converting BluRay player? With that said, I just ordered the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy BluRay set. I think the PoC films are the right stuff for BluRay because of all the extra detail in the original film. The flurry of "now on BluRay!!!111One!!" film releases lately has not impressed me. Re-releasing a disc just because you can put the same transfer onto a new type of media doesn't add anything as far as I'm concerned.

*ANY* film, if it has at least 35mm elements and wasn't filmed in a poor environment, is a candidate for Blu-Ray. As a former film collector, I can assure you that what you get from BR can be far better than what you got from a 35mm print, simply because there are times when copies of a film printed for mass distribution doesn't look as good as the 4k/8k negative transfers you're seeing on BR.

Just because Casablanca was shot on B&W film, doesn't mean it's not worth the upgrade. I just got Rocky Horror on BR and there's a LOT in the costume and set design I never noticed before. Same goes for Oz. I can't wait to see what Fantasia looks like.

I picked up Back to the Future last night, a film I used to own on 35mm. I'm betting it looks awesome (I haven't opened it yet). I also picked up the Alien box set which is supposed to look amazing.

I guess it all depends on how you look at movies.

Oh, and 3D TV sucks. I'll never buy into that.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by starman 

*ANY* film, if it has at least 35mm elements and wasn't filmed in a poor environment, is a candidate for Blu-Ray. As a former film collector, I can assure you that what you get from BR can be far better than what you got from a 35mm print, simply because there are times when copies of a film printed for mass distribution doesn't look as good as the 4k/8k negative transfers you're seeing on BR.

Just because Casablanca was shot on B&W film, doesn't mean it's not worth the upgrade. I just got Rocky Horror on BR and there's a LOT in the costume and set design I never noticed before. Same goes for Oz. I can't wait to see what Fantasia looks like.

I picked up Back to the Future last night, a film I used to own on 35mm. I'm betting it looks awesome (I haven't opened it yet). I also picked up the Alien box set which is supposed to look amazing.

I guess it all depends on how you look at movies.

Oh, and 3D TV sucks. I'll never buy into that.

Wow. How did you store those film prints, and how often did you watch them? Where did you watch them?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Wow. How did you store those film prints, and how often did you watch them? Where did you watch them?

The film was stored in the coolest room in the house with a dehumidifier. I have a 35mm projector. I had two but my friend needed a new head for his since his Simplex died so I sold him mine. Watched them at home.

It's definitely a cool experience watching 35mm at home. Not practical anymore, though. This was LONG ago, before DVD when laserdisc was the best you could get. I still have the projector and some film, but ever since Blu-Ray, there really isn't a need to hang onto the film anymore.

[Eug]

I do now specifically try to go to digital theatres to watch new (big) movies. 2K is much lower resolution than a pristine print, but I swear the prints our local non-digital theatres get are absolutely awful. I dunno, but maybe my exposure to HD DVD and Blu-ray has really soured me on these film prints.

How good were the prints you'd get, and how much did they cost? I never bought into laserdisc because of the cost. Some of the discs (for big movies) were sometimes 3 digits or high 2 digits, and the flipping of the disc really annoyed me a lot too. Didn't the noise of the projector annoy you, or was it sonically isolated?

[starman]

It was isolated.

Movie prices varied. BttF was $150, Star Wars was $600, Tron was $75 (mono), CE3K was $125.

[Eug]

One of the theatres downtown has these "VIP" rooms where the rooms are much smaller, like giant home theatres, with less people but the theatre workers bring the food to you and there are tables beside the seats.

The projectors there are sonically isolated, but I can still make them out during the quiet scenes and it annoys me to no end. That and the fact that a rustling chips bag is that much worse in a small room than a big one. So, I go sit in the big theatres instead with all the rest of the proletariat.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by starman 

*ANY* film, if it has at least 35mm elements and wasn't filmed in a poor environment, is a candidate for Blu-Ray. As a former film collector, I can assure you that what you get from BR can be far better than what you got from a 35mm print, simply because there are times when copies of a film printed for mass distribution doesn't look as good as the 4k/8k negative transfers you're seeing on BR.

I'd agree completely if I didn't have a huge investment in DVDs. Starting out getting BRs for films I wanted to see would be absolutely optimum. But now that I would have to take a considerable amount of time to count my DVDs, replacing them with BRs isn't really economically feasible, at least not en masse. On the other hand, there are some films that I didn't hesitate to buy on BR even though I had them on DVD: 2001: a Space Odessey is a prime (and the first) example. I got How the West Was Won on BR as a gift-this is an excellent example of why some films NEED the extreme clarity and detail of BluRay. Eventually, as I can, I'm slowly collecting more BRs and not buying DVDs unless they're really bargain priced.

By the way, you'd be surprised how robust polyester-based film can be. I found that I'd been given a number of 16mm films WAY back when and only discovered them recently. They've been "sub-optimally" stored (sometimes in a garage, in an attic for a while, etc.) and while the cans were dusty with dried-out labels, the film is still in good shape. Now I gotta get my 16mm projector cleaned up just to see if these films are worth my time...

[Eug]

I would buy Star Wars again on Blu-ray… but only if Han shoots first.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I would buy Star Wars again on Blu-ray… but only if Han shoots first.

Same here. The original theatrical release with Han "being a pirate," and with "Close the blast doors, close the blast doors" followed by "OPEN THE BLAST DOORS!!!!" I wouldn't mind a "two version" release of that one-the original, un-enhanced, "as I saw it in the theater in May, 1977" version and George's "enhanced" version-but without that lame-o "Greedo shot first" hack.

But again, only if Han shoots first.