bdbdbd said: dbot said: I watch both Blu-ray and downloaded movies(internet based). At this point, the Blu-ray experience far exceeds the download experience. It takes too long for the downloaded movie to start to play and the compression kills the audio and the video. The quality is currently well below my standards. Your cd/mp3 argument is flawed. iTunes allows you to buy individual songs rather than buying the whole album. If the service was album based rather than being song based, it would be far less successful. You are comparing a purchase model to a rental model. The future of digital distribution is as a rental model. Meaning you will have 24 hours to watch the movie before it is deleted. You know, you're forgetting one thing, which is that people buy HDTV:s to watch SD content with them. If they would care about the quality, they wouldn't be buying the HDTV:s, since the difference in quality of HD content on HDTV and SD content on SDTV is a lot smaller than SD content on SDTV and SD content on HDTV.

People buy HD tv's for the increased picture quality.  They are forced to watch sd programming in instances where the program is not simulcast in HD.  That being said, the picture/audio quality between a HD download and a Blu-ray movie is substantial.  I will not watch a highly compressed video on my HDTV because the quality is distracting.

well Kinda IMO because u can buy standalone BR players cheaper than PS3 nows

dbot said: bdbdbd said: dbot said: I watch both Blu-ray and downloaded movies(internet based). At this point, the Blu-ray experience far exceeds the download experience. It takes too long for the downloaded movie to start to play and the compression kills the audio and the video. The quality is currently well below my standards. Your cd/mp3 argument is flawed. iTunes allows you to buy individual songs rather than buying the whole album. If the service was album based rather than being song based, it would be far less successful. You are comparing a purchase model to a rental model. The future of digital distribution is as a rental model. Meaning you will have 24 hours to watch the movie before it is deleted.   You know, you're forgetting one thing, which is that people buy HDTV:s to watch SD content with them. If they would care about the quality, they wouldn't be buying the HDTV:s, since the difference in quality of HD content on HDTV and SD content on SDTV is a lot smaller than SD content on SDTV and SD content on HDTV. People buy HD tv's for the increased picture quality. They are forced to watch sd programming in instances where the program is not simulcast in HD. That being said, the picture/audio quality between a HD download and a Blu-ray movie is substantial. I will not watch a highly compressed video on my HDTV because the quality is distracting.

 You'd be awfully suprised by the amount of people that buy HDTVs to watch SD stuff.  Many people buy HDTVs because they just want a big, slim TV.  Some people just buy HDTVs because they don't want to have to buy a new TV in the future, but spend all their time watching stuff in SD.  My parents bought a HDTV, but I don't think they've ever watched anything HD on it, same with my friends' parents except they just sometimes watch sports on it and that's about it.  

You know people, it's not that the movies that would be available in physical media, would go DD only, it's just that DD offers a cheap distribution channel for movies that otherwise wouldn't get a distribution.

Todays movie market is still hollywood driven, so the hollywood publishers do basically everything they can to keep the market themselves. This would also mean offering digital distribution.
Consider a situation where the number of movies available would suddenly grow to multiple times as big as it is. What would happen? People would be buing more movies, but also it would hit the current market by increased competition. How many movies outside hollywood are getting international distribution, while nearly everything produced in hollywood is getting international release.
Then consider the european, russian, chinese and indian studios suddenly getting a cheap distribution channel for worlwide distribution. What would happen? Suddenly you'd have atleast 5 times as much content available online that you have on physical media.

bdbdbd said: You know people, it's not that the movies that would be available in physical media, would go DD only, it's just that DD offers a cheap distribution channel for movies that otherwise wouldn't get a distribution. Todays movie market is still hollywood driven, so the hollywood publishers do basically everything they can to keep the market themselves. This would also mean offering digital distribution. Consider a situation where the number of movies available would suddenly grow to multiple times as big as it is. What would happen? People would be buing more movies, but also it would hit the current market by increased competition. How many movies outside hollywood are getting international distribution, while nearly everything produced in hollywood is getting international release. Then consider the european, russian, chinese and indian studios suddenly getting a cheap distribution channel for worlwide distribution. What would happen? Suddenly you'd have atleast 5 times as much content available online that you have on physical media.

That's an excellent point.  Also, the DD model seems to be rental focused at $5 - $6 per viewing; whereas, Blu-ray/DVD is more in the range of $20 -$30 per disc.  Physical media brings a much greater return and provides a barrier to entry. 

 

Blu-ray is an extension of DVD. Not a replacement.

@dbot: It so far has. Increased competition may change it. Getting something for of your movie is better than getting nothing, so it's much better model to sell the movie for 5$ with a number of people buying it than renting it for the same price nobody renting it.

One thing you can use as a proof of DD:s efficiency, would be movie Star Wreck -The Pirkinning (a Star Trek and Babylon 5 parody). It was made by amateurs, so it was free to download (not quite sure is it anymore) and last time i checked, it was downloaded 5 million times. It may not sound a lot, but with that number, it happens to be the most viewed finnish movie of all times. Sure it was free, but considering that most people haven't even heard about the movie and a lot of people would have paid for it (it actually got DVD release later), i think the number it got downloaded was pretty good. Besides, it does prove how (cost) efficient DD is as channel, since it got distributed basically without cost around the world with record setting number, while no-one had ever heard about the movie or the guys who made the movie.

MikeB said: Stillwell said: MikeB said: @ Stillwell Everyone in their right mind should shy away from yet another one of Sony own "special" storage devices, because while it might not go as bad as the BETAMAX, the BR will not be a viable storage device for any lenght of time. Or it may be just as successful for the long run as Sony's introduction of 3.5 inch diskettes and Sony/Philips's introduction of Compact disc was. BR adoption is happening faster than DVD adoption took place. BR disc has an ensured long term future as the PS3 has one by default, using Blu-Ray discs to store games and movies. Even if in a worst case scenario the industry would drop its support (no chance of this happening) there's still Sony Pictures and its partner movie studios to pump out content. In any case if interested in Playstation gaming, it's a non-risk oppertunity. Blu-Ray disc is crucial for gaming in the long term, adding movie playback system software just adds a very interesting additional feature. What a complete load of bullshit. BR adoption is nowhere near DvD adoption. Faster? Hilarious, dude! Like I said, look at the standalone players to get the real picture of peoples intrest in this pos format. It's barely exsistant. And like I also said, analysts project standalone players to overtake PS3 players no sooner than 2016. Pathetic. Same timeframe of availability. DVD hit the mass market in 1997. By June 2003, weekly DVD-Video rentals began out-numbering weekly VHS cassette rentals. That's 6 years, Rome wasn't build in a day. Please cool down, bought a HD DVD player or something?

 It's a good discussion that you guys are having here, even if some of you could stand to be a bit more civil. I'm far from being an expert at any of this technical stuff, but I would like to point out that Stillwell is correct when he says that Blu-Ray's adoption rate lags behind what DVD's were doing at the same point in their respective lifetimes.

http://www.cepro.com/article/blu_ray_adoption_wont_happen_until_2009_research_finds/

According to Bernstein Research, "(t)he interest in upgrading to high-def players is only mild, and Blu-ray ownership won’t hit 25 percent of US households until the end of 2011." They add that "(d)isc ownership is down among Blu-ray owners compared to first-time DVD owners, who owned nearly 30 titles at the same point in the adoption curve, according to the report. Blu-ray households own an average of three titles a piece." Furthermore, " (a)ccording to recent research from Interpret, LLC, Blu-ray awareness has hit 60 percent, but hardware penetration is still low." They point out that although Blu-Ray players are seeing decent sales, much of that is because of the PS3, and that  "many consumers don’t seem to care that they even have a Blu-ray player."

As I said, I'm not sure whether any of this is true or not, but I would be interested in seeing how correct you guys think this research is. And with that, I'm out of here. 

@ Noname2200

Strategy Analytics connected Home Devices service (via CNN) predicts 44% of US households will have Blu-Ray by 2012. 132 million homes worldwide, so about 6 years after introduction.

VHS took 15 years to reach a 100 million units counting from the first VCR recorders being introduced in the united states. Note this figure is VCRs sold which accounts for fewer households as some households will own more than one VCR.

For DVD the 100 million worldwide household figure was reached by the last quarter of 2003. First DVD players hit the market in December 1996 in Japan and March 1997. So after about 6 and a half years.

MikeB said: @ Noname2200 Strategy Analytics connected Home Devices service (via CNN) predicts 44% of US households will have Blu-Ray by 2012. 132 million homes worldwide, so about 6 years after introduction. VHS took 15 years to reach a 100 million units counting from the first VCR recorders being introduced in the united states. Note this figure is VCRs sold which accounts for fewer households as some households will own more than one VCR. For DVD the 100 million worldwide household figure was reached by the last quarter of 2003. First DVD players hit the market in December 1996 in Japan and March 1997. So after about 6 and a half years.

So, USA would make 1/3 from total sales by 2012? I'd call it bad penetration.
Considering how big the HDTV adoption rate would be by then, i think it's pretty bad. Besides, in order to compete DD i'd say that BD would need at least triple adoption rate by 2012. BD most propably is going to win the HD market in the short term, but that's just about it. Long term we have increasing internet speeds and HVD around the corner.