[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Now that HD-DVD is dead, might as well make this thread...

[Chongo]

I have a backlog of HD shows/movies to watch on my HR20, I haven't had to time to watch the few HD movies I do have on disc

[dlefebvre]

Buying/Steeling... Who is winning?

Do Majors really want to know the answer to that one?

[jokell82]

Winning is relative. Blu-Ray did just defeat HD DVD, but they're by no means "winning". Maybe when they account for 5% of home video sales we can talk about them winning.

Right now both are in their infancy. I think downloads will probably win out in the long run, but Blu-Ray will enjoy many short term victories.

[climber]

Downloads are pointless to anyone who wants to "own" a copy of a movie like they have for every other media. LP, VHS, Laserdisk, DVD.

Also the resolution and quality are not the same. Heavily compressed 720 does not equal 1080p.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by climber 

Downloads are pointless to anyone who wants to "own" a copy of a movie like they have for every other media. LP, VHS, Laserdisk, DVD.

Also the resolution and quality are not the same. Heavily compressed 720 does not equal 1080p.

Heavily compressed 720p doesn't even equal good quality 720p.

Yeah, I would "rent" a moderate quality 720p movie via a download for $1.99 (assuming the download times were better than they are now), but for those movies I want to "own", I'd much prefer to purchase a disc with pristinely encoded 1080p.

In the meantime, neither side is "winning", when you throw DVD into the mix. The question is whether or not Blu-ray and downloads can move out of niche status in the next 2 years. Now that Blu-ray has defeated HD DVD, it has a strong chance of doing so, but the pricing needs to come down and the players have to get better. Blu-ray price drops are even slower than DVD's were, and the players are far more buggy.

[Eriamjh]

Laserdisc? Haven't bought one since 2000.

The more I read about the Apple TV, the more I am interested in one. Too bad I don't have an HD capable set.

I wanted to rent War of the Worlds after catching part of it on TV, but, alas, HD downloads are only for AppleTV owners and not iTunes. In addition, it wasn't even on the small list of movies available. I guess I have to rent a DVD from a B&M (I am not interested in how much everyone hates Tom Cruise, so save it. I just want to see the tri-pod effects.)

In a year or two, I'll likely get a blu-ray player unless downloads take off and can match the picture quality.

[MacosNerd]

I don't see downloading movies replacing DVDs anytime soon for a couple of reasons.
Some people like to own the movies and its not really feasible to keep movies on a hard drive. Possible yes but storage becomes more of an issue then just keeping a disc on a shelf.

Then there's the video quality. Seems that the movies on itunes will be compressed to some degree while not on the a blu-ray disc. While people don't seem to mind the lower quality for audio, I think losing video quality flies in the the face of the whole Hi-Def thing.

There's also convenience, I'd have to buy the Apple TV device. Why buy a second device to play movies when I already own a blu-ray player. If people don't own a blu-ray yet, they may still question the value of the apple tv over a blu-ray player.

I am, while it has some gee-whizz factor going on, I see a dvd player giving me more for my money.

[starman]

This thread is pointless at this time. It's way too early for this kind of debate.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Then there's the video quality. Seems that the movies on itunes will be compressed to some degree while not on the a blu-ray disc.

If you've made that statement, I'm not sure you quite understand how Blu-ray discs work. They are extremely highly compressed actually.

Fortunately, the compression methods are very good, and the video still looks great.

Yes, iTunes video will be more heavily compressed and you will see more problems in the video, but for many people they simply won't care. Furthermore, the problems are mitigated by the fact that there are no extras (so you don't need the extra space), and AppleTV video is actually only 44% of the resolution of Blu-ray's, and therefore the bitrate needed is much, much lower. Some people are 1080p snobs, but I can tell you that 720p if done right can look awesome.

I'm not saying that AppleTV 720p looks awesome (as I've never downloaded one of those videos), but if done right it could much better than some might think.

While people don't seem to mind the lower quality for audio, I think losing video quality flies in the the face of the whole Hi-Def thing.

Broadcast HD is artifact-ridden, and is extremely popular.

[Doofy]

Blu-Ray will last five years odd.

Then the next big thing will be here. 2160p downloads.

[aristotles]

Considering that you need an Xbox 360 (with the 30% failure rate) and broadband without caps to buy movies above SD resolution but below full HD resolution, I don't see it making much of an impact at all. You also don't get lossless audio, alternate language tracks, subtitles, described video or deleted scenes. The service is also limited in North America to the US.

Apple TV's HD rentals will be a niche product and will not replace people wanting to buy a movie.

Consider this: Families with small children are likely to rent the same movie more than once over a two year period. By the time you add it all up, it would be cheaper can more convenient to buy some of your child's favourites than to rent them repeatedly.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Blu-Ray will last five years odd.

Then the next big thing will be here. 2160p downloads.

If 1080p downloads are not possible for most people with internet access let alone those without, what makes you think that higher resolution downloads will be big in 5 years?

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Considering that you need an Xbox 360 (with the 30% failure rate) and broadband without caps to buy movies above SD resolution but below full HD resolution, I don't see it making much of an impact at all. You also don't get lossless audio, alternate language tracks, subtitles, described video or deleted scenes. The service is also limited in North America to the US.

Apple TV's HD rentals will be a niche product and will not replace people wanting to buy a movie.

Consider this: Families with small children are likely to rent the same movie more than once over a two year period. By the time you add it all up, it would be cheaper can more convenient to buy some of your child's favourites than to rent them repeatedly.

Well the failure rate is actually closer to 13% according to the latest independent study, but that's besides the point (and still WAY too high). I don't necessarily think this is going to be an either/or scenario like HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray was. I think both will have their own niche markets but will stay niche.

Originally Posted by aristotles 

If 1080p downloads are not possible for most people with internet access let alone those without, what makes you think that higher resolution downloads will be big in 5 years?

I think (hope) he was joking.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Blu-Ray will last five years odd.

Then the next big thing will be here. 2160p downloads.

Unlikely. It will 4000p 10-bit uncompressed (or lossless compression) video downloads. Anything less is unacceptable.

[climber]

Can someone please explain why the HD-DVD fanatics, that only a few days ago were spouting the party line about how Blu-ray was inferior because of incomplete profiles, are now saying that downloads are where it is at.

Last time I checked, downloads have less (that is none!) of the extras that even a first generation blu-ray players have.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by climber 

Can someone please explain why the HD-DVD fanatics, that only a few days ago were spouting the party line about how Blu-ray was inferior because of incomplete profiles, are now saying that downloads are where it is at.

Last time I checked, downloads have less (that is none!) of the extras that even a first generation blu-ray players have.

Who are you talking about? Also, did you check if your sarcasm detector is turned on?

[climber]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Who are you talking about? Also, did you check if your sarcasm detector is turned on?

Nobody in particular, but are you suggesting that the profile argument has not been used? I am sure I could find some examples. Sarcasm? perhaps you did not detect mine.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by climber 

Nobody in particular, but are you suggesting that the profile argument has not been used? I am sure I could find some examples. Sarcasm? perhaps you did not detect mine.

The profile argument has been used by many, because it's a good argument. Many of us think crippled profiles for standalone optical players suck. In fact, that's one big problem with downloads. They tend to be bare bones, not to mention that the quality suffers too.

However, that is not to say that downloads won't get traction in a different segment of the consumer crowd. IF bandwidth limitations are much less of a problem in the future, then the convenience factor of downloads are an advantage. I personally am not very interested in downloads for purchases though, unless the hardware is uber cheap (and $230 isn't good enough, esp. with minimal storage space), and the quality is very good.

ie. You're confusing two things. People like me MUCH prefer owning certain titles at good quality 1080p with all the extras, but at the same time can understand how others might be satisfied with much less, especially for rentals.

As for sarcasm, the comment was made because there are a few posts in here asking for uber high-end quality downloads, but they were joking (if you hadn't guessed already).

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Broadcast HD is artifact-ridden, and is extremely popular.

Used to have HD cable. Canned it for OTA HD. OTA HD is much better than HD over cable. Cable compressed the HD and you could see the evidence of it.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

There's also convenience, I'd have to buy the Apple TV device. Why buy a second device to play movies when I already own a blu-ray player. If people don't own a blu-ray yet, they may still question the value of the apple tv over a blu-ray player.

Why buy a Blu-ray player when I already own a Tivo? But, I'd make the same argument against AppleTV - why get that when you can get a Tivo?

[climber]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The profile argument has been used by many, because it's a good argument. Many of us think crippled profiles for standalone optical players suck. In fact, that's one big problem with downloads. They tend to be bare bones, not to mention that the quality suffers too.

However, that is not to say that downloads won't get traction in a different segment of the consumer crowd. IF bandwidth limitations are much less of a problem in the future, then the convenience factor of downloads are an advantage. I personally am not very interested in downloads for purchases though, unless the hardware is uber cheap (and $230 isn't good enough, esp. with minimal storage space), and the quality is very good.

ie. You're confusing two things. People like me MUCH prefer owning certain titles at good quality 1080p with all the extras, but at the same time can understand how others might be satisfied with much less, especially for rentals.

I agree with most of what you say, however I do not think the profile issue is as important as many have claimed. I am personally more interested in a Blu-ray player that does not take minutes to load a disk. Extras like PIP and internet do not interest me. Right now I am waiting for a player that can do all of the lossless audio codecs. I will probably get the Denon unit.

This thread was started because the argument between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is now moot. I find it funny that some people (on both sides) have become so entrenched that they find whatever argument happens to fit. It seems a little convenient that some here are now saying the latest disk war did not matter because downloads are where it is at. I see downloads much like you have stated. Once bandwidth issues are resolved, it will make a great venue for rentals. Within weeks I will have a Apple TV right next to the Blu-ray player.

I do not prefer Blu-ray becouse I am a Sony fanboy or a MS hater. I was mostly interested in one format prevailing sooner rather than later, because otherwise both were doomed to failure. Either format can provide the improvement is video and audio that I want in my system, but the extra disk space Blu-ray make me lean to that format. Some on this board have claimed that Joe six pack does not care, and that downloaded 720p video is "good enough". I prefer wine over beer myself so I suppose my preferences are not typical.

Technically I am still on the sidelines. Regardless of the quality of the PS3, I refuse to hook it up to a preamp that costs five grand. From an aesthetic standpoint alone it is just wrong! I also does not meet all of my requirements, specifically relating to audio.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by climber 

This thread was started because the argument between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is now moot. I find it funny that some people (on both sides) have become so entrenched that they find whatever argument happens to fit. It seems a little convenient that some here are now saying the latest disk war did not matter because downloads are where it is at. I see downloads much like you have stated.

I think you're extrapolating a bit too much.

Even back in the original Blu-ray/HD DVD thread, many voiced concerns about hi-def optical remaining niche, for good reason. Some do think downloads are where it's at, but still, many don't, and just because we aren't enamoured with downloads doesn't mean it won't see some success. (Cue iTunes music example.)

Personally, I believe Blu-ray is not going to be a small niche, but I'm not convinced Blu-ray (or downloads) will displace DVD either in the foreseeable future. I think it's going to be somewhere in between... which is OK cuz Blu-ray players play DVD anyway.

[climber]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I think you're extrapolating a bit too much.

Perhaps you should re-read the title of this thread. It pits one against the other just like it did in the other thread.

[Chuckit]

Downloads are not winning because there is no good download solution yet. If there ever is, it will blow everything away. The Downloads are not winning because there is no good download solution yet. If there ever is, it will blow everything away. The TV is a good 0.1b effort, but it's not there yet. One major thing that needs to happen is that companies need to give up these pipe dreams of fat margins from the Internet. Charging more for a download rental than Blockbuster does for a physical rental (and offering more restrictive terms to boot) is good for the margins, but bad for overall acceptance.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yes, iTunes video will be more heavily compressed and you will see more problems in the video, but for many people they simply won't care. Furthermore, the problems are mitigated by the fact that there are no extras (so you don't need the extra space), and AppleTV video is actually only 44% of the resolution of Blu-ray's, and therefore the bitrate needed is much, much lower. Some people are 1080p snobs, but I can tell you that 720p if done right can look awesome.

Extras are really the only major issue with the downloads themselves. (Funny, I'm waiting for the BR crowd to come in and rant about the lack of extras, after they insisted that Bluray was better than HD-DVD because no one watched extras.) I'm thinking someone will come up with an interactive MP4 format that can handle menus and stuff, or for HDi to make it's appearance in the download arena.

The video quality really won't be an issue for most people.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by climber 

Perhaps you should re-read the title of this thread. It pits one against the other just like it did in the other thread.

Perhaps you should re-read the posts in this thread. Most of the posts seem to be fairly even-handed IMO.

Generally, they say that downloads are niche, and will likely remain so for some time. I think that's correct. Some say it could win out. I wouldn't rule out that possibility either.

The posts also suggest that Blu-ray has some serious advantages over downloads, but it still niche and the question is if and how soon it can really move beyond that to dominate downloads. I think that is also a fair assessment.

I don't see how that really equates to:

Can someone please explain why the HD-DVD fanatics, that only a few days ago were spouting the party line about how Blu-ray was inferior because of incomplete profiles, are now saying that downloads are where it is at.

or

I find it funny that some people (on both sides) have become so entrenched that they find whatever argument happens to fit. It seems a little convenient that some here are now saying the latest disk war did not matter because downloads are where it is at.

ie. You're extrapolating, or at least exaggerating.

Originally Posted by goMac 

Extras are really the only major issue with the downloads themselves. (Funny, I'm waiting for the BR crowd to come in and rant about the lack of extras, after they insisted that Bluray was better than HD-DVD because no one watched extras.) I'm think someone will come up with an interactive MP4 format that can handle menus and stuff, or for HDi to make it's appearance in the download arena.

The video quality really won't be an issue for most people.

The major issue is bandwidth. Extras are actually of secondary concern.

I think MS is pushing iHD now for other stuff, but it seems more like a press release push than anything tangible. They certainly don't seem to be suggesting they'd actually do it for either the Xbox 360 or Vista any time soon.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by climber 

Can someone please explain why the HD-DVD fanatics, that only a few days ago were spouting the party line about how Blu-ray was inferior because of incomplete profiles, are now saying that downloads are where it is at.

Last time I checked, downloads have less (that is none!) of the extras that even a first generation blu-ray players have.

I don't think you understand the argument against complete specs. The issues with complete specs is that if you buy a 1.0 player you can't play 1.1 content.

With digital downloads, that's never really an issue, as shown by the AppleTV. All the new rental content required was an iTunes update and an AppleTV update.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Downloads are not winning because there is no good download solution yet. If there ever is, it will blow everything away.

I dunno, Blu-Ray discs can supposedly hold 50 GB of data. At the theoretical maximum speed of my connection, that would take about 38 hours to download. At the speed speedtest.net tells me I'm getting right now, it would take 45.5 hours. Frankly, if I were concerned about HD quality (I'm not really), I'd be more willing to just go over to Blockbuster and rent a Blu-Ray disc than to wait two days for the movie to download.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I dunno, Blu-Ray discs can supposedly hold 50 GB of data. At the theoretical maximum speed of my connection, that would take about 38 hours to download. In real life, it would probably take longer than that. Frankly, if I were concerned about HD quality (I'm not really), I'd be more willing to just go over to Blockbuster and rent a Blu-Ray disc than to wait a day and a half for the movie to download.

HD movie downloads are about 6 GB.

I agree though. It's a 2 minute drive to my local movie rental shop (which happens to carry both HD DVD and Blu-ray by the way).

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I dunno, Blu-Ray discs can supposedly hold 50 GB of data. At the theoretical maximum speed of my connection, that would take about 38 hours to download. In real life, it would probably take longer than that. Frankly, if I were concerned about HD quality (I'm not really), I'd be more willing to just go over to Blockbuster and rent a Blu-Ray disc than to wait a day and a half for the movie to download.

And that is what he means about there being no good download solution.

[goMac]

You know, the funny thing with this debate is it assumes we're talking about legal downloads. The number of people who download a movie from any sort of source blows away the number of people who own a Bluray player. In that respect, digital downloads are already fairly entrenched. It's more of a question of how to make them legal, and how to get them to your TV.

Heck, I knew people downloading movies back in 2001.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I dunno, Blu-Ray discs can supposedly hold 50 GB of data. At the theoretical maximum speed of my connection, that would take about 38 hours to download. In real life, it would probably take longer than that. Frankly, if I were concerned about HD quality (I'm not really), I'd be more willing to just go over to Blockbuster and rent a Blu-Ray disc than to wait a day and a half for the movie to download.

Eh, you don't need 50 GB for a movie.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

HD movie downloads are about 6 GB.

Are those heavily compressed compared to Blu-Ray or something?

I mean, I've seen plenty of standard-def movies that were too large to fit on one 4.7 GB DVD and required two (or even three) discs. If standard-def movies need 5-9 GB, I don't see how HD movies could avoid needing much more than that. Plus, these new disc formats must have implemented such huge storage sizes for some reason...

Not to mention that even 6 GB would still take a long time to download.

[starman]

All of Star Trek: TOS (non-remastered) is on CBS.com, free, with ads.

Quality is crap, but still interesting.

CBS Brings Trek Online - Paramount Goes Blu-ray | TrekMovie.com

[starman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

HD movie downloads are about 6 GB.

Eh, no. Lots of people checked the sizes of the files on HD and BR discs and they were in the 18-25GB range.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

mean, I've seen plenty of standard-def movies that were too large to fit on one 4.7 GB DVD and required two (or even three) discs. If standard-def movies need 5-9 GB, I don't see how HD movies could avoid needing much more than that.

Standard-def movies don't need that much. I've seen SD movies downloaded from BitTorrent that weighed in at less than a gig.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

Eh, no. Lots of people checked the sizes of the files on HD and BR discs and they were in the 18-25GB range.

Good for them? Eug was talking about HD download file sizes.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Standard-def movies don't need that much. I've seen SD movies downloaded from BitTorrent that weighed in at less than a gig.

I've seen some standard def stuff that can fit on a single CD.

I have a standard dev movie ripped from a DVD with 5.1 audio, which I picked from my collection at random, and it's 1.85 gig. I had the quality settings at pretty high quality, and it's H.264.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Are those heavily compressed compared to Blu-Ray or something?

I mean, I've seen plenty of standard-def movies that were too large to fit on one 4.7 GB DVD and required two (or even three) discs. If standard-def movies need 5-9 GB, I don't see how HD movies could avoid needing much more than that. Plus, these new disc formats must have implemented such huge storage sizes for some reason...

Not to mention that even 6 GB would still take a long time to download.

Much more compressed than Blu-ray, but also much lower resolution, so the smaller size is not as bad as it seems.

720p is only 44% of the pixels of 1080p.

ie. Blu-ray still should be way, way better, but it might not matter to many on smaller TVs.

Originally Posted by starman 

Eh, no. Lots of people checked the sizes of the files on HD and BR discs and they were in the 18-25GB range.

Better reread my post, which you actually quoted in yours, no less.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

All of Star Trek: TOS (non-remastered) is on CBS.com, free, with ads.

Quality is crap, but still interesting.

CBS Brings Trek Online - Paramount Goes Blu-ray | TrekMovie.com

XBox Live has TOS in 720p, remastered.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Are those heavily compressed compared to Blu-Ray or something?

Another issue is that at launch Bluray was using MPEG2, which obviously required the full 50 gigs of space. When they switched to H.264 the file sizes for their movies got a lot smaller.

(I apologize for the multiple posts. Next time I'll get my thoughts in better order and try to do one post. )

[Eug]

Also for downloads, you don't have 3 different audio tracks or lossless.

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

XBox Live has TOS in 720p, remastered.

No.
Sh*t.

But it's not FREE on Xbox Live, is it?

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Good for them? Eug was talking about HD download file sizes.

No.
Sh*t.

I was pointing out the difference in what you're getting from a download vs. Blu-Ray.

Jeez, man, what is your problem today?

[starman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Another issue is that at launch Bluray was using MPEG2, which obviously required the full 50 gigs of space. When they switched to H.264 the file sizes for their movies got a lot smaller.

(I apologize for the multiple posts. Next time I'll get my thoughts in better order and try to do one post. )

Uh, no.

When BR first came out it DID use MPEG2, but 50GB discs came out later than when the discs were initially launched. I'd like to know how you compensate for this obvious temporal anomaly.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

Uh, no.

When BR first came out it DID use MPEG2, but 50GB discs came out later than when the discs were initially launched. I'd like to know how you compensate for this obvious temporal anomaly.

Great. So H.264 encoded Blurays should be substantially smaller than 25 gigs, instead of just being substantially smaller than 50 gigs.. Thanks for the correction.

[Eug]

Actually goMac's correct... in a way. Movie sizes often got smaller later on, if H.264 or VC-1 was used, even though 50 GB became available.

Some of the early discs DID need dual-layer 50 GB, but 50 GB was not available, which added to the sub-par-ness of some of the early MPEG2 Blu-ray releases.

BTW, a lot of Blu-ray releases are in the 30 GB range.

[jokell82]

Wow, you guys really need to chill the fudge out. So hostile over something so meaningless.


xkcd - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language - By Randall Munroe

[goMac]

Originally Posted by starman 

Jeez, man, what is your problem today?

Eug said digital download sizes were around 6 gigs. You said:

Eh, no. Lots of people checked the sizes of the files on HD and BR discs and they were in the 18-25GB range.

Now, "Eh, no" usually implies some form of disagreement with what has been said. In other words, what you posted implied you disagreed with Eug's statement that HD download sizes were around 6 gigs.

Maybe I'm just crazy, having some sort of "problem" today.