Aided by the major motion picture studios, Sony's Blu-ray format has emerged as the undisputed technology for high-definition DVD video, but according to new market data released by ABI Research, Blu-ray cannot rest on its laurels. A bright future for high-definition DVD is not a foregone conclusion.
One of the primary challenges facing Blu-ray, says principal analyst Steve Wilson, is that many consumers are...
Based on my purely subjective experience, I believe this is a temporary phenomenon and will change rapidly. When I first got a HD display I was awed by the clarity of blu-ray AND upscaled DVDs as compared to standard DVD. At the time I remember thinking I didn't need to replace my standard DVD collection at all since I found the upscaled picture so acceptable. But after a few weeks of watching blu-ray and HD television I began to notice flaws in the upscaled DVD picture that I hadn't noticed before. My thinking completely turned around when I started watching "Star Wars I" using upscaled DVD. Imperfections that I wouldn't have noticed before had become glaring.
If my experience is any guide, I suspect that the same will happen with the general public. Blu-ray and HD broadcasts will spoil them and what was perfectly acceptable in the past will become unbearable.
Based on my purely subjective experience, I believe that upconverted DVDs WILL be acceptable to many, perhaps even most viewers. Only time will tell. If Blu-ray prices drop low enough and soon enough, then it will be more competitive with upconverting players. But if that doesn't happen, then the format may never gain adequate traction. Another concern for Blu-ray is the rapidly emerging internet video technology. While HD offerings are not common today, the technology is moving in that direction very quickly. I believe Blu-ray has a very narrow window of opportunity to succeed.
Time will tell, but I am not sure people will jump on Blu-Ray over upscaled DVD. Most people with HDTV's already see HD from their cable or over the air. They don't have to see it on Blu-Ray to see the difference. They will go to Blu-Ray if it doesn't cost them much more or nothing more. But, at the current premiums it isn't worth it.
I agree here, and I am upscaling DVDs to my HDTV @ 1080p, and they look better than cable HD. So my incentive to buy Blu-Ray is low and I won't until at least 2.0 is mainstream. Better yet, is when there is an affordable carousel like I have for DVDs.
I agree here, and I am upscaling DVDs to my HDTV @ 1080p, and they look better than cable HD. So my incentive to buy Blu-Ray is low and I won't until at least 2.0 is mainstream. Better yet, is when there is an affordable carousel like I have for DVDs.
If you your upscaling DVDs look better then your cable HD then your cable company is compressing your HD signal a lot. I have one of the best upscalling DVD players (OPPO) and it does not look better then my cable HD.
If you want to see what real HD is like look at digital TV over the air. But, be forewarned, once you get hooked you will never be able to go back. LOL
David
P.s. How big is your TV and how far back do you watch it from? This may be why you don't see a difference. DB
Time will tell, but I am not sure people will jump on Blu-Ray over upscaled DVD. Most people with HDTV's already see HD from their cable or over the air. They don't have to see it on Blu-Ray to see the difference. They will go to Blu-Ray if it doesn't cost them much more or nothing more. But, at the current premiums it isn't worth it.
Especially since some cable or OnDemand HD presentations look better than BR!!! A few examples: CASINO ROYALE, EVIL DEAD II, and most recently FIRST KNIGHT. Yes, one can say it is the fault of the transfers. But paying hundreds of dollars for a lesser return makes no sense to me. (Especially those of us without 1080p sets.)
I assume what you're saying is that some movies on cable HD are better than some (different) movies on BR. If so then of course that has EVERYTHING to do with the transfer and NOTHING to do with the format itself.
That's like watching Norbit on BR and Caddyshack on cable HD and concluding that cable HD is funnier than BR.
Well, I mentioned some specific titles that I've seen on both Cable and BR.
Of course, I assume that the fault lies with the BR transfers. But that has been a BR issue since they first debuted! And, although at least FIFTH ELEMENT was re-released with a better transfer, it seems to have been an issue for BR since inception. Not trying to say that affects ALL titles. But there have been enough for me to determine that BR isn't really necessary or worth the money. (Especially now that OnDemand is presenting a couple movies in HD both prior to and during theatrical release!!!)
I didn't realize there were different HD transfers involved. Was that an anomaly because BR and HD DVD were new? Going forward would there still be separate transfers?
One thing you forgot to mention - audio. With cable or satellite or broadcast you only get DD 5.1. With BR you get much better sound.
I have yet to see any broadcast over the last 6 years equal the clean delivery of good DVD or even marginal Blu-ray. If not OTA the results tend to be even worse due to shaving video bits and odds are high you are taking another hit in the audio due to shaving audio bits.
If high fidelity is the desired result it would seem to make sense that the blu-ray version would get higher marks. I watched Casino Royal and noted the lack of detail in many scenes but without seeing the transfer I don't know if that is poor mastering or being faithful to the original. In the case of broadcast media services it is possible to jack up detail which still would not be high fidelity but it will create the perception of a more detailed image.
As with DVD, it is reasonable to expect the early years of blu-ray to have some quality problems. That said I am pleased to no end so far... For clarity, that is based on the torture test of 1080p at 3 screen heights. While that may be a torture test in our broadcast world it is what the system is supposed to be capable of!
One problem with cable or OnDemand HD is that they very often resize the video to fit the 16/9 aspect ratio instead of keeping the original aspect ratio (OAR). Some people perceive that the video is better because of this.
In the early days some Blu-Ray disks had some bad transfers. Today, this rarely happens. Fifth Element was re-released to resolve a bad transfer (which was giving Blu-Ray a bad name).
I have watched HD-DVD (quality is equal to Blu-Ray) vs. cable HD and HD-DVD has always beaten cable. And the sound is always far better.
My biggest complaint with my HD satellite feed is they sometimes modify the HD aspect ration to fit 16:9. That's a mistake. I'd much rather see bars than watch a distorted image. Imagine watching Angelina Jolie with a waist as big as her hips! My preference would be to standardize on 16:9 for all content. Use bars for older content when necessary.
That's correct. I'd much rather see bars on the right and left if the alternative is chopping off people heads or distorting the picture. A separate problem occurs in broadcasts from the BBC which sometimes has a 16:9 picture inside our 16:9 frame with borders on the left, right, top and bottom. I'm guessing that's because the BBC picture has a smaller number of pixels than we use.
While I was a HD-DVD supporter...
Due to the loss of the battle...
Have been looking at a 'Blu' machine(s)
[Mainly one of the duo machines due to owning over 100 HD=DVD's]...
But it seems that current gas prices keep me from purchasing even a basic 'Blu' machine at this time!!
So if many are feeling the pinch like myself the purchase of new electronics will be on a as need to bases, only if something breaks down, no mater how much better the replacement will be.
Two months later I have not seen the expected price drop of the 'Blu' machines <many machines and software even went up in price?!> and only "NEW" ''low price'' machine from 'Phillips' is being blasted in the reviews due to lack of spec's and codec support.
That Philips machine is super hideous. It's ugly and ill-spec'd. It's cheap ($340 at Sam's Club) for a profile 1.1 Blu player. That's it.
I would take a look at the LG BH200. It still has a few disc playback issues here and there. (Name a standalone that doesn't!) The only major flaw that people complain about is that it stretches 4:3 SD DVD's when upconverting. (Disturbingly a lot of upconverters do that as well.)
Two months later I have not seen the expected price drop of the 'Blu' machines
Who expected or said that? We would have been lucky if pricing would have remained the same! Remember most of these products were subsidized by the war - we never paid the real price at the time!
With volume we might see similar or slightly lower pricing by next Christmas season. It may take another season beyond that to see some really low high volume prices.
Two months later I have not seen the expected price drop of the 'Blu' machines
Who expected or said that? ......
Many 'CNet' reports and Famous Bill over at "Digital Bits"
What is funny is shortly after the 'Toshiba' announcement 'CNet' did a quick turn and started telling readers not to purchase any 'HD' format due to lack of firmware after supporting/pushing 'Blu' for months.
Remember most of these products were subsidized by the war - we never paid the real price at the time!
Interesting. I've heard conjecture that this might be the case, but no publication was ever willing to state as much, or to provide pricing break-down. Could you please elaborate Richard? Specifically, I'd like to know build cost vs. sale cost, as well as who was making up the difference (ie. who subsidized selling at a loss).
Then again, maybe I'm just reading your statement wrong, and you're just conjecturing as well. But since you're writing it as fact, I assume you have the juicy details to back it up.
It's called common sense. You had Toshiba HD DVD players suddenly go from several hundred dollars to $100-$200, almost overnight. PLUS 5 free HD DVDs. There is no technological explanation for prices to drop that quickly. And Sony has always sold playstation consoles at a slight loss because they more than make up for it on game sales and royalties.
The fact that there were few (if any) mfrs other than Toshiba offering those cheap HD DVD players should be enough evidence. Do you honestly think Samsung and LG would be left out of the sub $200 HD DVD player market?
Anything sold by Toshiba and Sony was subsidized (by them). Why? To try and become the defacto standard through sales volume. It didn't work for either one.
Anyone who thinks HD DVD players would have continued to be < $200 is naive.
Common sense or not, when a representative of a publication like HDTV Magazine makes a statement like that, I expect they better be prepared to back it up. I've been reading this pub for a long time, any they never make statements like that without solid foundation.
I personally am interested because I have always thought the same but never able to find anyone willing to prove it.
That's why I want to know if Richard is just going along with the conjecture, assumptions and "common sense" of everyone else, or if he has facts to back up his statement.
I don't know of anybody in the industry who disagrees. As long as the reader understands that NOTHING is free then common sense plays a role in understanding why this would be so on the surface. The only question that rarely gets answered is how much subsidizing took place?
The only people that have those 'facts' are Toshiba and Sony - and that's proprietary information that they're never going to release.
That is a fact! We can only estimate what costs may be and doing so is a lengthy endeavor.
As Yoda might say: Common concensus does not a fact make
Just because everyone believes something to be true, doesn't make it so.
But thank you for providing those figures, that DOES back up your statement. Do you know if they figured in for economies of scale and overlapping licencing agreements for patents they may already be paying royalties on, or were those individual component prices?
