Blu-ray is dead - heckuva job, Sony!

By | October 28, 2008, 12:31pm PDT

Blu-ray is in a death spiral. 12 months from now Blu-ray will be a videophile niche, not a mass market product.

With only a 4% share of US movie disc sales and HD download capability arriving, the Blu-ray disc Association (BDA) is still smoking dope. Even $150 Blu-ray players won’t save it.

16 months ago I called the HD war for Blu-ray. My bad. Who dreamed they could both lose?

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory
Delusional Sony exec Rick Clancy needs to put the crack pipe down and really look at the market dynamics.

In a nutshell: consumers drive the market and they don’t care about Blu-ray’s theoretical advantages. Especially during a world-wide recession.

Remember Betamax? SACD? Minidisk? Laser Disk? DVD-Audio? There are more losers than winners in consumer storage formats.

It’s all about volume. 8 months after Toshiba threw in the towel, Blu-ray still doesn’t have it.

The Blu-ray Disc Association doesn’t get it
$150 Blu-ray disc players are a good start, but it won’t take Blu-ray over the finish line. The BDA is stuck in the past with a flawed five-year-old strategy.

The original game plan
Two things killed the original strategy. First the fight with HD DVD stalled the industry for two years. Initial enthusiasm for high definition video on disk was squandered.

Second, the advent of low cost up-sampling DVD players dramatically cut the video quality advantage of Blu-ray DVDs. Suddenly, for $100, your average consumer can put good video on their HDTV using standard DVDs. When Blu-ray got started no one dreamed this would happen.

Piggies at the trough
The Blu-ray Disc Association hoped for a massive cash bonanza as millions of consumers discovered that standard DVDs looked awful on HDTV. To cash in they loaded Blu-ray licenses with costly fees. Blu-ray doesn’t just suck for consumers: small producers can’t afford it either.

According to Digital Content Producer Blu-ray doesn’t cut it for business:

  • Recordable discs don’t play reliably across the range of Blu-ray players - so you can’t do low-volume runs yourself.
  • Service bureau reproduction runs $20 per single layer disc in quantities of 300 or less.
  • Hollywood style printed/replicated Blu-ray discs are considerably cheaper once you reach the thousand unit quantity: just $3.50 per disc.
  • High-quality authoring programs like Sony Blu-print or Sonic Solutions Scenarist cost $40,000.
  • The Advanced Access Content System - the already hacked DRM - has a one-time fee of $3000 plus a per project cost of almost $1600 plus $.04 per disk. And who defines “project?”
  • Then the Blu-ray disc Association charges another $3000 annually to use their very exclusive - on 4% of all video disks! - logo.

That’s why you don’t see quirky indie flicks on Blu-ray. Small producers can’t afford it - even though they shoot in HDV and HD.

The Storage Bits take
Don’t expect Steve Jobs to budge from his “bag of hurt” understatement. Or Final Cut Studio support for Blu-ray. I suspect that Jobs is using his Hollywood clout from his board seat on Disney and his control of iTunes to try to talk sense to the BDA.

But the BDA won’t budge. They, like so much of Hollywood, are stuck in the past.

A forward looking strategy would include:

  • Recognition that consumers don’t need Blu-ray. It is a nice-to-have and must be priced accordingly.
  • Accept the money spent on Blu-ray is gone and will never earn back the investment. Then you can begin thinking clearly about how to maximize Blu-ray penetration.
  • The average consumer will probably pay $50 more for a Blu-ray player that is competitive with the average up-sampling DVD player. Most of the current Blu-ray players are junk: slow, feature-poor and way over-priced.
  • Disk price margins can’t be higher than DVDs and probably should be less. The question the studios need to ask is: “do we want to be selling disks in 5 years?” No? Then keep it up. Turn distribution over to your very good friends at Comcast, Apple and Time Warner. You’ll be like Procter & Gamble paying Safeway to stock your products.
  • Fire all the market research firms telling you how great it is going to be. They are playing you. Your #1 goal: market share. High volume is your only chance to earn your way out of this mess and keep some control of your distribution.

Time is short. Timid incrementalism will kill you.

Like Agent Smith delivering the bad news to a complacent cop: “No, Lieutenant, your men are already dead.”

Comments welcome, of course.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Robin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small.

Disclosure

Robin Harris

Robin Harris is a president of TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm in northern Arizona. He also writes StorageMojo.com, a blog which accepts advertising from companies in the storage industry, and has a 25 year history with IT vendors. He has many industry contacts, many of whom are friends and all of whom he has opinions about. Robin has relationships with many companies in the technology industry. Every company he writes about may have sought to influence his opinion through carefully-crafted marketing messages and self-serving white papers, gifts ranging from desk calendars, t-shirts, lunches and trips as well as analyst or consulting assignments. He also invests in some technology companies. He may accept payment for services in stock as well. Robin discloses financial investments in or client relationships with companies named in Storage Bits. To help readers sort out the gold from the dross in his writings, Robin tries to communicate his reasons as clearly as he can. If you agree, you are intelligent and discerning. If you disagree, well, you disagree. In all cases, Robin encourages readers to subject everything they read, see or hear on the internet or from politicians to some simple questions: * What assumptions are implicit in the world view and judgments of the author? * What, if any, is the factual basis for the opinions the author expresses? * Is it reasonable, logical and clear? Your critical faculties: use ‘em or lose ‘em!

Biography

Robin Harris

Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. He introduced a couple of multi-billion dollar storage products (DLT, the first Fibre Channel array) to market, as well as a many smaller ones. Earlier he spent 10 years marketing servers and networks. After leaving corporate life he founded TechnoQWAN, a consulting and analyst firm. He also developed StorageMojo into one of the top storage industry blogs.

Robin writes, consults, coaches and lives among the mountains of northern Arizona.

821
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Blu-ray is dead - heckuva job, Sony!
jd78 30th Oct
Turns out you were wrong Robin. It's fun to look back on articles like this though! grin
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed
Resplendent 28th Oct 2008
They really have priced themselves out of the "Average Joe" market. Why should I pay to get all of my DVDs on BDs again when they're usually at least 10$ more expensive?
0 Votes
+ -
I want to buy more Blue discs, but I just can't justify it when a new release appears at Best Buy for $15 on DVD and $30 on Blue at the same time. Give me a break! Blue are not TWICE as good as DVDs, particularly on my player which outputs DVDs at 1080p. Until the price of the content drops significantly, Blue will never gain market share. I refuse to pay more than $5 more for it.
0 Votes
+ -
Why Robin Will Be Wrong Again
jhilgeman 29th Oct 2008
No offense, Robin, but when CDs came out, they had a really long, rough start:

1. CD Players were expensive
2. CDs were pricey.
3. Nobody could burn their own CDs.
4. Production was extremely expensive (indie artists couldn't afford that).
5. Most people didn't think the quality was better enough for the money.

Now look at the current situation:

1. Blu-Ray players are starting to become standard options on new laptops and PCs, and are becoming cheaper and cheaper.

2. Blu-Ray movie supplies are already there (Blockbuster, NetFlix, Best Buy, etc...)

3. Consumer Blu-Ray burning is already a reality, and overall production costs are dropping.

For people like BillDem who don't want to pay $30 for a Blu-Ray, that's fine, just give it time. VHS was around for a long time while everyone switched over to DVD, and some people still use VHS today. I have TROUBLE selling my old VHS movies on CraigsList for more than $1 each.

In a few years, Blu-Ray will be in almost every home that currently has a DVD player, and we will be arguing about the next latest and greatest media format.
0 Votes
+ -
Or not!
EclipseDS Updated - 29th Oct 2008
"In a few years, Blu-Ray will be in almost every home that currently has a DVD player, and we will be arguing about the next latest and greatest media format" - Not at the current price point. $300 for the player and $30 for a BD? I'll pass, thanks.
0 Votes
+ -
You Sure
BDigital 29th Oct 2008
When I bought my first DVD player is was a floor model by Mitsubishi and was 400+ dollars, while a NIB was going for 600+. Back in the mid 90's that was a pile of money for something that had a very small following. (only 1 Blockbuster in Milwaukee even rented DVDs at that point). Yet here we are years later, and they give them away for $20 some weeks. Blu Ray will take the same course over time. The download market is not to the point yet that disc based films have to worry.
0 Votes
+ -
A blu-ray movie with out an HDTV is kind worthless. Sure I could have the player and it if it was cheap enough I could use it on my regular TV with regular DVDs but the Blu-Ray content is of no use to me. I could buy a HDTV but I can't justify the expense. That's the problem with Blu-Ray.
0 Votes
+ -
HDTV in homes?
chuckster1954 30th Oct 2008
I'm just an average Joe and I have had a HD plasma TV for 3 years and a DLP HDTV for over a year. I did have HDTV programing thru a dish but now use our local cable as they provide a large HD programing option. While I spent 3 months in Houston,TX. I used the DLP TV with a HD antenna and picked up several local channels transmitting HD digital which was very impressive. I still buy regular dvd disks as so far the pricing of the two brands of HDDVD has just been unreasonable, I could afford it, I just choose not to be raped by the industry! Everybody who can afford TV can afford a HD TV.
0 Votes
+ -
now that's a rational response...
kfumike 30th Oct 2008
I agree. Even 37" HDTVs are expensive. $599 is the cheapest I've seen. But, ignore the hype for flat panel displays and get in on the ground floor with a DLP or CRT rear projection HDTV. They can be found for much less and look just as good. They're just a little bigger. If you have the room, who cares.
0 Votes
+ -
Only two reasons to switch to HD, programming is no longer available for standard, or my standard TV dies.

Change in viewing quality does not equal the change in price...yet.
0 Votes
+ -
Difference does not justify the price.
thebeefman 30th Oct 2008
I am an avid HDTV user and have experimented with all the technologies out there. Unlike the intro duction of the DVD and CD (both replacing extremely inferior media), the difference in the BD compared the the newer look forward players just does not warrant the price. I choose to pass but would reevaluate if the price becomes more comparible.
0 Votes
+ -
$22 from on line retail for new releases
HighQualitySound 29th Oct 2008
and players are already under $200.

Name brand quality DVD players still cost $100. Not a big jump in cost.
0 Votes
+ -
$22?
Jack-Booted EULA 29th Oct 2008
Maybe wait a few weeks and rent the std res one at Redbox for $21 less?

:o)
0 Votes
+ -
Only the upconverting ones
voska1 30th Oct 2008
No, that's not true. Name brand DVD players are cheap, $30 if you can find one. For $100 you get the upconverting name brand DVD player. It's difficult to find non upconverting name brand DVD players but they exist from time to time in places from time to time. I've seen Panasonic, Toshiba, and Sony DVD players for $30 in the past year.
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed
agredon 1st Nov 2008
Upconverting DVD Players are alot less than $100. I bought a Toshiba HD-DVD Player with 2 free HD Movies for $79 which I use mainly to watch regular DVDs [and some HD DVDs from Blockbuster Online] upconverted to 1080. Figure $20 for the free movies and that's only ~$59.
0 Votes
+ -
$22
rkinne01 6th Dec 2008
Yeah Blu players cost $300 that IS a big jump.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong and here's why
Update victim 29th Oct 2008
Blu-Ray provides no improvement in the display on my analog television sets and unless I spring ;for a 1080i system it will have no improvement over ordinary DVD. Blu-Ray is as noted in the article overpriced and under performing. There is no reason to pay more for lower performance.
0 Votes
+ -
1080i ??? Get it straight!
riveroad 29th Oct 2008
I suppose you could buy a 1080i screen but if you actually want to benefit from blu-ray, you should get a 1080p.

Your last statement says it all, you don't know what performance you are looking for, so don't pay for it! Wait for some 16-year old kid to sell you something at best buy and be happy you got it.
0 Votes
+ -
Quibbling over non-issues
bmerc 29th Oct 2008
The difference between 1080i and 1080p is the de-interlacing, not the resolution.

A properly de-interlaced 1080i signal produces the same image as a 1080p signal, so your criticism is trivial.
0 Votes
+ -
Right, plus...
brble 29th Oct 2008
...I think the post he was responding to was basically saying the minimum required to benefit, so unless he's going to buy a new set that goes at least to 1080i, there's not much point in BD for him. (yes, I know 720p is a standard too, but it's fading)
0 Votes
+ -
No, it doesn't
michael@... 29th Oct 2008
A 1080i signal only has half the information content of a 1080p signal.
A de-interlaced 1080i signal and a 1080p signal both produce the exact same number of pixels, they are identical.

Film is 24FPS. To get 24FPS to 60FPS, frames are simply repeated. You're not throwing away critical information, you're just losing redundancy.
0 Votes
+ -
Interlace
A.Sinic 30th Oct 2008
A properly de-interlaced 1080i signal produces the same image as a 1080p signal

Huh? Are you kidding? Firstly, there is no such thing as "properly de-interlaced". There is no perfect algorithm for this, you will get temporal distortion in anything with fast movement.

1080p requires some considerable additional data. Now, that is not necessarily a bad thing because progressive scanned video is easier to compress that interlaced, so you can actually save bandwidth on the compressed stream.

But dont take my word for it. There are technical papers from the European Broadcasting Union at http://www.ebu.ch that say the same thing, and it has been demonstrated at many broadcast trade shows.

If you could really make a de-interlacer that performs as you claim, you would be a very rich person. But you canna change the laws of physics Cap'n.
0 Votes
+ -
non-issues?
kfumike 30th Oct 2008
bmerc,

That would be fine if we we were looking at pictures and not moving video. 1080i and 1080p look a lot different. Why do you think manufacturers would bother to make 1080p video if the diffrence between it and 1080i were "trivial" ? Read more on interlacing and progressive video before posting remarks. You look silly.
0 Votes
+ -
Can faster race cars be made?
Ole Man 31st Oct 2008
Possibly, but it's doubtful.

How many foolish race enthusiasts have squandered and dumped money into more powerful engines while their neighbors and fans are floundering in debt?

Plenty! And do they care if the foolish "public" keep dumping cash down a rabbit hole instead of paying off their debt?

No! And life goes on. The "economy" is in peril. Foolish people keep blowing money and chasing rainbows. The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

Does anyone know why? Does anyone even care? Very few. And those who don't will keep vilifying and ridiculing them. Life goes on.
0 Votes
+ -
Blu Ray Truth
jshaible1s 29th Oct 2008
LoL, it's funny to hear an educated person imply that Blu Ray HD is a step backwards compared to crappy standard DVD or even lame untrue upscaled garbage DVD's. Blu Ray is a step forward you get a much better picture, full 1080P resolution, True HD. This gives the best possible picture. 1080i is not good enough, if your going HD go 1080P. The difference is 1080i is an interlaced picture which means 1/2 the picture is displayed then the the other half pops up. It happens so fast that the naked eye sees the hole picture yet your eye still detects some flicker and or distortion. 1080P is progressive scan which means the full picture is all at once for the best true image reproduction. Lets also mention other Blu Ray benefits, they can hold more than twice the content of standard DVD. What does this mean for us? It means longer movies, much larger in depth games, more special features and options. Again how could you call this a step backwards? Lets also mention that Blu Rays are harder to scratch, this means you won't have as many scratched, flawed discs and will have to replace less of them as time goes by. Now for the fools who think Blu Ray is dead lol lets look at all the new HDMI 1.3 technologies such as HD audio, yes Dolby True HD and Master HD are the absolute best audio formats and can only be obtained on Blu Ray. Now lets look at the video advantage of HDMI 1.3 known as "deep color" what this means is that old DVDs and tv's, show only millions of colors while the new "deep color" technology will show extreme colors in the billions, giving you the best visuals your eye can differentiate between. And guess what format you'll get this technology on.... You guessed it, Blu Ray. Don't listen to fools who don't understand that you must drudge through the bad before you reach the good. Blu Ray is superior and the only way to get the quality HD that you bought that expensive HDTV to get you. Don't buy a nice HD tv then screw yourself by playing standard def movies. Do it right go for the best. Blu Ray is so much better if you do your research, I still can't believe this article claims that believing in Blu Ray is living in the past, it's just opposite my friends, it is your future for best quality video/audio.
0 Votes
+ -
OK, so...
brble 29th Oct 2008
...what would prevent a downloaded movie from having all the same capabilities you just listed? i.e., the same data, just not on a sanctioned Blu-Ray disc?

That's the point of the article. Blu-Ray was mis-managed so that it is uninteresting to the general public, and will remain so long enough to have another, more palatable format come out and displace it (downloads).

I have a 50" 1080p plasma set with an HD-DVD player on it, and up-converted standard DVDs look pretty good on it. Not as good as the HD-DVDs, but still very good. I bought the HD-DVD player cheap, less than $100, and it's worth it alone in its up-convert quality, and that works for me. Looking at that quality, Blu-Ray just doesn't seem worth the money at this point.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm glad I'm not a stockholder!

I still enjoy my old CRT TVs and plain old CD/DVDs. Most people can't afford to convert their collections to a different format, and spend more on fancy shmancy new hardware than they paid for their cars.

All this "digital" TV and HDTV is fine for young twerps, but Congress had no business outlawing analog broadcasting. What's wrong with having both? Those Congressmen should be drawn and quartered, or tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail.

Too bad you guys can't see past the end of your nose. Why do you think they busted their guts to switch TVs over to digital? Well, they can't "hack" and control analog appliances like they can digital. Pretty soon you'll be seeing "viruses" on your TVs. Pay up or they'll shut it down, just like Microsoft does with (supposed to be yours but in all practicality belongs to them, since they control it) Windows computers.

And the HDTV hullabaloo. So what if you get a better picture. It was good enough to begin with (at least until they started "converting" it, since then it's been all screwed up). No one cares if little boys eat such stuff up, until they inflict their garbage on EVERYONE.

Why are they doing all this "stuff"? Well, what no one (that I see) can see is, because they can squeeze more digital content signal into bandwidth than they can analog signal. What's wrong with that, you ask? Well, what you don't seem to be able to see is, the bandwidth is in the public domain. It belongs to you, me, the next guy, and the next, and the next, ect and so on, and to all their mommas, sisters, aunts, cousins, and inlaws. So they are STEALING what is in the public domain and auctioning it off (giving) it to the media monoliths to sell back to us, at hundreds of times what its monetary value is. So how do you like being ripped off for what belongs to you?

You might as well get used to it. that's how Government, Wall Street, and Corporations work now. That's what's wrong with the "economy". And don't expect your new President to do anything about it. It's the System, like a serpent with a thousand heads, every one of which grows back if you chop it off, that maintains the status quo. Did you notice, it is your "government" that is using YOUR monies to "bail out" the bankers who stole all your money to begin with, and is waltzing out the door with millions of it in their pockets.

All this from Blu Ray? Yeah, you bet! Aauugh, that's just an old nut blowing off steam. Don't you believe it, Sonny........
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
jctcom Updated - 30th Oct 2008
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
I appreciate the quality of anything
Ole Man 29th Oct 2008
but I don't appreciate anything being forced on me in the name of quality. Don't try pi$$ing on me and telling me it's raining.

And yes, I do drive a car, and trucks, and buses, and bulldozers, and backhoes, and forklifts, and cranes, bobcats, tractors, and horses and buggies. Just about anything except planes and trains, and I wouldn't be afraid to try them. Just because I'm old doesn't mean I'm stupid.

I'm glad you appreciate your "better quality". Just keep it to yourself and don't try running over me with it. Lots of people know how to operate computers, media players, recorders, converters, TVs, broadcasters, repeaters, and real advanced high quality technology like that. It don't take a young whipper-snapper to be smart.
0 Votes
+ -
Technological obsolescence happens all the time. It's necessary to move technology forward. It's impossible to move forward while you have to support old technologies.

The notion of a digital signal being used to hack a TV is technological idiocy. If you had any understanding of how a digital broadcast worked you'd understand that any extra data (such as your supposed TV virus) in the signal would do nothing more than just cause odd colors to appear in the screen. Or mess up the picture. Not because your TV is in any way effected, but because they would have to embed the "virus" in the signal. Now you could argue that that is "hacking", but keep in mind that they could do that with analog signals too.

In the case of the digital switchover, it's not being done because they want control. It's being done because they want money. The FCC will take the freed up frequencies (699.25 to 801.25) and "reallocate" them after the digital switch. In reallocating them they will likely auction off the block to the highest bidder getting them money.

Now while HDTV quality is the selling point to consumers, I don't believe it's the main reason they're pushing it. Digital broadcast, and in turn HDTV, allows them to add more channels while still freeing up space to make more money as described above. That's doing more with less. Isn't that exactly the mentality our economy needs right now?

There are a few things that you don't seem to understand about the switch over.

1) If you pay for cable, Digital Cable, Satellite, or any payed service that hooks to your TV with a cable, then the switch over does not effect you. At all.

2) You only need to worry about the switch over if you're still using old metallic rabbit ears to watch over the air broadcasts.

3) If you don't want to get a new TV, and still want to watch over the air, you can get a coupon for $40 to help pay for it. Since the cost of a converter box is somewhere between $40 and $80. A quick search on bestbuy.com shows the majority of the converters selling at $60 bucks. $20 bucks to avoid monthly fees of up to 60 dollars for cable? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

4) If you have purchased a new TV recently (within the last few years) chances are that it already has a digital receiver and you won't need to change anything. Just check with your manufacturer.

Old nut blowing off steam? Sounds more and more likely.
0 Votes
+ -
Wow
bbqbeef 30th Oct 2008
Neanderthal conspiracy theorist. Go outside and worship by the closest crop circle.
"IDIOCY"

I always wondered what was wrong with "technology innovation" by those with your frame of mind. Now I know. Some people are too smart for their own good (or anybody else's good for that matter).

For your information, they didn't shoot all the mules and burn all the wagons when they invented automobiles.

Lots of smart people scoffed at the idea of a virus on your computer 20 years ago, or so, didn't they.

The world is doomed because it depends on the masses who can't see beyond the end of their nose. Even worse, they deride anyone who can.

Most humans possess the characteristics of some animal, primarily, sheep.
0 Votes
+ -
@ bbqbeef
Ole Man 30th Oct 2008
Get thee behind me, Satan.
0 Votes
+ -
Partly Agree, but the details...
jglmdvc@... 29th Oct 2008
I think that on a high def TV and a well mastered disc, 1080 is stunning. However, I have seen plenty of high def discs that just stink.

I can't help but draw analogies to Sony's SACD, which had the potential for high definition music, and they reportedly released standard definition recordings on the new discs, making the better medium meaningless.

Blu-ray has potential, as did HDDVD, but knowing what Sony did before, I would be hard pressed to waste money on a set of discs that may not look better than standard dvd.

Frankly, the new Toshiba upsampling DVD player gives new life to the 1000 DVDs I have. It will be a long long time before I toss out the money to replace them with a half-baked system like Blu-ray.

Now if they release Lord of the Rings on Blu-ray I might have to reconsider all this...
0 Votes
+ -
Stop right there
tcecala@... 29th Oct 2008
Guy's,

First... Interlacing is a misnomer.. Back in the days of television, 1/30 sec scan rates meant that your eye(which needs 1/60 sec) would pick up flickering because only half the 525 lines of resolution in television transmission could appear in that time. So in order to eliminate that, they would interlace by scanning lines 1,3,5... and then returning to the top and scanning lines 2,4,6. Phospher Glow would take care of the rest. Since then, faster scan rates have made it so there is really no need to interlace and that these lines can be displayed successively. Interlacing was only a means to fool the 1/60 a second rate at which you eye needs.
There is an advantage from Blue Ray and that is the smaller/faster laser aperture which allows you to pack more data bits into a smaller space on the disk. This means almost twice the amount of data is on BD Discs than on a DVD. This also allows for lower spin rates on the CD because there are more bits per nm than a conventional DVD. Thus a DVD has problems storing a single HD Movie because of increased resolution that's why Blue Ray was invented. The Difference with DVD and BD is DVD has resolution of 740 X 480 and BD would be 1024 X 768 (More Resolution or Pixels) which means larger size MPEG files.
All in all it's about real estate on the medium and which has the room. Interlaced or Progrssive, just a preference of the eye. No-one could say there isn't any advantage with Blue-Ray, that's wrong. The problem is if Sony let's the ball drop and someone else comes out with a better, more affordable medium before Blue-Ray catch's on, then they loose-out. And yeah, my buddy had a laser-disc player and we went to Blockbuster to rent LD's... but that too went the way of the past.
0 Votes
+ -
Eyes
A.Sinic 30th Oct 2008
Your eyes do not need 60Hz. Much of the world uses 50Hz for television. But cinema film uses only 24Hz. Does that seem too flickery to you?

These numbers all come from old technology. Phospher tubes only held the image for a certain time, so they needed to be refreshed. 50Hz and 60Hz were chosen because they matched the frequency of the respective mains electric system, not just in the TV set but in the studio lights.

Interlace was a technique to let you send more lines of TV with no increase in bandwidth. That only made sense in the analogue days. Progressive scan is easier to work with, and especially to compress. Today you can save more bandwidth using a good compression on 1080p than you can with the "inherent" saving in 1080i.

Interlace is an artifact of history, and makes negative engineering sense today.
0 Votes
+ -
Umm, who cares?
naoyusimi 3rd Nov 2008
Well, obviously most of the apparent videophiles dissecting this to death, but most people? Don't.

Most people just want to watch a few movies at home. Not everyone has to have the latest and greatest technology. Most right now can't afford it. Most are happy if they buy a movie once in awhile and rent new releases maybe once a week. Even I don't have to have the latest anything anymore, and I can afford it more now than I ever could before in my life. I have a collected only a bare FEW of the movies I love the most. The rest I RENT. How many times can one watch them, anyway? Unless a movie is REALLY, REALLY special to me, I'm only going to watch it maybe twice. What, spend 20, 30 bucks, or more, for something I use once or twice? Why? I can use that money for something else.

From what I've seen, the differences are not something to get THAT excited about. I used to be an audiophile. Now, I like good sound, but it's just not as important to me anymore . . . maybe I'm just getting old. My vision & hearing aren't 100% anymore, and I'm only 43. But also, there are simply more important things to worry about in the world.
0 Votes
+ -
BD Resolution Correction
ScotlynHatt 22nd Jul 2009
BD provides a 1920x1080 resolution
0 Votes
+ -
Average buyer
tbcass 30th Oct 2008
The average person isn't that picky. To them 720P is more than good enough as is an upconverted DVD. Videofiles like many of you are hyper critical but don't mean much as far as sales. The average person simply wants to watch a movie. While they like HD quality they won't pay a big premium for it. When Blu Ray players and media come down to DVD prices it will sell.
0 Votes
+ -
Let the "Chips" Fall where they may
freddieboy 30th Oct 2008
I agree, I have a 1080P 60 inch Sony and blue ray is awesome. So
is HD which I still have i.e. Xbox HD player and I bought it only
on the onset that Blue ray won the market, so I got it for 50
bucks and a slew of HD movies, some of my favorites, why? for
the heck of doing it. I wish this battle didn't exist and I hope
Sony can pull it out of the hat. I don't care if its blue ray or HD or
Future "D". Its obvious that upscaling does look better than
nothing, but having a 1080p and nothing to show the gold from
a DVD, it would be sad.
Get it together Sony or get out! Truth Blue Ray will become
better and cheaper, with time, maybe, I hope something does, in
the meantime we are at the moguls mercy.
0 Votes
+ -
Sigh . . .
CobraA1 30th Oct 2008
"Blu Ray is a step forward you get a much better picture, full 1080P resolution, True HD."

Most people don't care. Resolution is just not enough to justify the extra costs.

"Lets also mention other Blu Ray benefits, they can hold more than twice the content of standard DVD."

Most people don't care. Most people aren't using it as a storage medium.

"It means longer movies"

Not if the movie is in HD. The extra space simply holds the extra pixels for the HD format.

"much larger in depth games"

Most consoles use their own formats for games. They don't use movie disks or formats.

. . . and the Wii pretty much proved that fun is more important than depth.

"more special features and options"

Most people don't care. They just want to watch the movie.

"Again how could you call this a step backwards?"

Three words: Digital Rights Management.

"Lets also mention that Blu Rays are harder to scratch"

Not interested. Call me back when they become impossible to scratch, not merely harder.

"Now for the fools who think Blu Ray is dead lol lets look at all the new HDMI 1.3 technologies such as HD audio, yes Dolby True HD and Master HD are the absolute best audio formats and can only be obtained on Blu Ray."

My hearing isn't that great to begin with. I doubt I could tell the difference. Only audiophiles will care.

"Now lets look at the video advantage of HDMI 1.3 known as 'deep color' what this means is that old DVDs and tv's, show only millions of colors while the new 'deep color' technology will show extreme colors in the billions, giving you the best visuals your eye can differentiate between."

Our eyes can't tell the difference. Why do you think we've been using millions of colors for so long on computers? Because anything beyond that is overkill. Nobody except the most picky videophiles can tell the difference between millions and billions of colors.

Nobody cares about this stuff, other than audiophiles and videophiles. Regular consumers don't care.
0 Votes
+ -
The human eye indeed cannot detect millions of colors,
but it can easily detect more than 256 shades of a given
hue
. (especially Green, which our eyes are most
sensitive to). If you display a gradient in Photoshop from
pure 0,0,0 RGB Black to pure 0,255,0 RGB Green or
0,255,255 Cyan or 255,255,255 White, and make it fill the
screen, you'll definitely see banding in the low end and
midrange (less so in the high end), even on a CRT, even in
"True Color" mode.

True color is 256 levels each of Red, Green, and Blue. 256?
= 16,777,216.

Some of the banding is because of the 2.2 gamma
correction done on sRGB systems (older Macs used 1.8
gamma) to make up for the fact that our eyes are not
linear, and an uncorrected 128,128,128 RGB gray does
NOT look like it?s ?way between black and white (way too
dim for that). But gamma correction increases banding in
the low end, because dimmer shades have numbers that
have to be increased more, and since the original values
were whole numbers, the gaps between adjacent levels
increase.

Deep color, as I understand it, goes beyond simply having
more shades between minimum and maximum brightness.
It increases the distance between min. and max.
brightness as well. It means that you can have a white far
brighter than 255,255,255 RGB. It also means no banding
because the intensity levels, even in the low end of gamma
correction, are much closer together.

Even if 8-bits-per-pixel color depth were enough for the
final results (and it isn?t), it?s not enough for
intermediate processing such as gamma correction, color
correction, and yes, the codec, and still leave enough for a
pristine bandless picture. This is why scanners, Photoshop,
etc. offer up to 16 bits per pixel (the latest
Photoshops CS3 and CS4 offer 32-bits floating-point per
pixel, for vastly increased range as well as resolution).
0 Votes
+ -
Read the Article befor showing your A$$
jwlynn64@... 30th Oct 2008
The article clearly states that Blu-ray is going to lose market share to video on demand that will also be in 1080P. All the features in the world won't make overpricing your product successful against a comparable product.
0 Votes
+ -
That is the crux of the problem.
ShadeTree 30th Oct 2008
No one is doing true 1080P downloads. It just takes too damn long to download! They play games like lowering the frame rate or reducing the color. Oops I quess you just showed your A$$!
0 Votes
+ -
The crux?
hasta la Vista, bah-bie 31st Oct 2008
No one is doing true 1080P downloads. It just takes too damn long to download!

That will change in time. It's inevitable.

They play games like lowering the frame rate or reducing the color. Oops I quess you just showed your A$$!

Optical devices will go the way of the floppy disc. We may be loading flash drives or cards that will negate the DVD/CD-Rom drive, in the near future.

If you're really that attached to discs then get a stand-alone player and play it through your videophile home theater, which is what Blu-Ray was meant for anyway..
0 Votes
+ -
Theory or practical???
manpaul 30th Dec 2008
You saying DVD's color capability is in the millions while blue-ray's in the billions. My question is can an average human detect color differences in those ranges? Cause if one cannot, then it's all completely useless and a possible waste of resources.
0 Votes
+ -
happy
got it in one
0 Votes
+ -
I do agree that Blu-Ray is better, but the consumers are NOT buying them. I think you may have misunderstood what the author was attempting to relay to his readers.

Only 4% market share, after a year is horrible!

Prices need to come down!
0 Votes
+ -
Oh Dear. video for audiophiles anyone?
paul_bruford@... 31st Dec 2008
This is all sounding a bit familiar. Just the same kind of nonsense you get from 'hi end audio' losers.
so should my 1080p hdtv have special low noise capacitors in it's PSU? or what about the huge pulse the smpsu prodices during flyback? should I have a linear PSU. what about my non 1080p compliant eyes?
will I be able to see the billions of 'new' colours.

and as for more content.... who actually watches all the tons and tons of crap (err sorry 'special features') that gets dumped onto DVD's at the moment. and you think more of this is a good idea?

Blu ray and Tosh HD-DVD both died for the same reason.

a) the whole vhs/betamax thing puts people off.

b) reselling data over and over again in slightly different formats to the same muppet end users is a marketing ploy that has had it's day.

If you want to spend all your money on the latest toys, do so, enjoy yourself. But please dont confuse the qualitative and quantatative. if you think $1000's of kit and a home cinema with jus the right ambient light, optimum view position etc etc etc etc etc etc makes the movie more fun. Then good for you. Me? I pay more attemtion to what is happening on the screen happy
as adam ant put it
a lot of people in this great big world
just searching for the "pure" sound
they're just looking to the machine
they don't listen to the noise
the family of noise is here
and it's come to save you and me
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah but you are in the minority
jctcom 29th Oct 2008
owning an analogue TV set. Most people have moved on and have digital TV set's already that are at least 1080i. So while you might not benefit from Bu-ray the masses will since they have the TV's to benefit from it.
Turns out you were wrong Robin. It's fun to look back on articles like this though! grin

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix