Blu-ray, in General

[aox]

Mods: should this get its own thread? ("The Future of Blu-Ray" or "Holographic Video Discs")

While it is almost universally agreed that Blu-Ray will be the final physical medium before the complete switch to digital downloads/streaming, I would like to submit the possibility of HVD (Holographic Video Disc).

These discs are same size as BDs, DVDs, and CDs, but can hold up to about 6 terabytes of information. Which, I think would be enough to hold a 35mm film scanned at 4K.

Before this gets shouted down, keep in mind the current battle in the United States for net neutrality and placing a cap on our downloads. The old studios have shown themselves uninterested in change; albeit, less so than the record companies. However, by placing caps on how much data can stream in the US, they could effectively squeeze companies like Netflix and Hulu and maintain a physical medium monopoly. These, or something similar, could be the next step.

[Brian C]

We'll need to see a better display standard (i.e., better than 1080p) take hold before HVD can even hit the market in any substantial way. Hard to see that happening anytime soon.

It was different when BD came around, because HDTV of at least 720p resolution was already becoming the new home standard, and DVD of course was inferior to that. But those kinds of conditions don't exist now - in fact, it's probably closer to the opposite.

[aox]

We'll need to see a better display standard (i.e., better than 1080p) take hold before HVD can even hit the market in any substantial way. Hard to see that happening anytime soon.

It was different when BD came around, because HDTV of at least 720p resolution was already becoming the new home standard, and DVD of course was inferior to that. But those kinds of conditions don't exist now - in fact, it's probably closer to the opposite.

Your point is valid and well taken. I would only suggest that there is technology that is looking to be unleashed onto the market that could sustain HDV.

However, after seeing the war of getting the public to embrace Blu-Ray (and I think it was only because people were essentially forced to upgrade to 720/1080 with TVs and cable), I imagine the success of this over the average consumer may be extremely marginal at best. While I would argue that you have to be almost blind to not see the difference between 480 and 1080, and I have on this board to the point of annoyance , I think the argument becomes a lot harder to make between 1080 and 4320p on a 46" TV.

[swo17]

I recently upgraded to a 100" screen in my basement and I literally couldn't ever go any bigger than this unless I bought a mansion with a dedicated movie theater in it. I don't see there being a market for ultra HD in the home.

[triodelover]

However, after seeing the war of getting the public to embrace Blu-Ray (and I think it was only because people were essentially forced to upgrade to 720/1080 with TVs and cable)...

I know I'm going to regret this, but the public have embraced Blu-ray? I don't think the data will support this. Even if they have, people can tire of being told about the "next great thing", particularly in a down economy where their focus is on more mundane things like paying the mortgage and feeding the kids. Besides, the industry is too busy trying to ram 3-D down their throats. You'll have to wait for that to fizzle first.

[aox]

Perhaps I should have said, 'embracing'?

[triodelover]

Perhaps I should have said, 'embracing'?

If you add "at a snail's pace". [-o<

[fdm]

However, after seeing the war of getting the public to embrace Blu-Ray (and I think it was only because people were essentially forced to upgrade to 720/1080 with TVs and cable)...

I know I'm going to regret this, but the public have embraced Blu-ray? I don't think the data will support this. Even if they have, people can tire of being told about the "next great thing", particularly in a down economy where their focus is on more mundane things like paying the mortgage and feeding the kids. Besides, the industry is too busy trying to ram 3-D down their throats. You'll have to wait for that to fizzle first.

Looks like they've already moved on to the next great thing: 4K TV. Hope blu-rays stick around awhile, thinking that they're my last next great thing.

[Alphonse Doinel]

I'm waiting for 8K TVs, when they also give you a new set of eyeballs.

[eerik]

2K is not a huge upgrade from 1080p

With 4K, 6K, 8K and so on there is a lack of content. Most of the older films are remastered at 2K and most of the newer films are produced at 2K resolution. Wasn't even The Social Network's DI done in 2K, although it was shot in 4K?

[aox]

Maybe, but with 35mm or 70mm film, that shouldn't matter. You can scan the negative at 8K.

[eerik]

Maybe, but with 35mm or 70mm film, that shouldn't matter. You can scan the negative at 8K.

Yes, but if studios/distributors don't bother making new transfers for Blu-ray and use 10-year-old masters, that technically are 1080p/i but don't look much better than 480p, then I doubt they are going to spend much money on 8K transfers.

[Brian C]

But seriously, unless you own a movie theater or Cowboys Stadium, you're not going to have a screen big enough to take advantage of 4K resolution. And eerik's point is also an excellent one - even putting aside the trend towards releasing less on physical media instead of more, there's no reason to think the studios are even remotely interested in playing along with this anyway.

This whole discussion is frankly a bit silly.

[aox]

well, please note that I made that point in my second or third post in relation to "46 TVs.

I think the argument becomes a lot harder to make between 1080 and 4320p on a 46" TV.

[eerik]

well, please note that I made that point in my second or third post in relation to "46 TVs.

I think the argument becomes a lot harder to make between 1080 and 4320p on a 46" TV.

If by 4320p you mean 4K resolution then let me correct you: 1080p marks the vertical height of the picture, whereas 4K marks the horisontal width. 4K resolution at 16:9 aspect ratio would be something like 4096x2304p.

Update: read the previous page and clicked the link, nevermind

[Brian C]

Sorry, aox, I sounded more hostile than I meant to. What I meant was more like, "the idea of 4K for home video is frankly a bit silly."

[MichaelB]

However, after seeing the war of getting the public to embrace Blu-Ray (and I think it was only because people were essentially forced to upgrade to 720/1080 with TVs and cable)...

I know I'm going to regret this, but the public have embraced Blu-ray? I don't think the data will support this.

The mere fact that dual-format releases are increasing rather than diminishing, and that Blu-ray purists like MoC have done a 180-degree U-turn and jumped on that particular bandwagon is a bit of a giveaway...

I come from a very large family (23 first cousins alone), and I can't think of anyone besides myself who's adopted Blu-ray. And these are mostly well-heeled, culturally aware middle-class professionals, so there shouldn't be any financial barriers.

[zedz]

I think the big issue with adoption might be functionality. The new formats that have taken over from the old very fast - CD and DVD - offered very obvious and very basic improvements in functionality, such as instant access to tracks or availablity of bonus materials.

The vast majority of consumers just aren't as interested in simple audiophile / technophile improvements in quality. In many cases they can't even hear or see them (just look at how many people habitually stretch everything to fill their widescreen TVs).

And compounding this is how the industry have fumbled the HD ball badly with the protracted HD-DVD / Blu-Ray squabble and continued anti-consumer measures that have meant Blu-Ray actually offers a decrease in functionality in certain key areas: load times, region locking, bookmarking / auto-resume, firmware and authoring issues that mean there's always a (remote) chance that a given disc might be unplayable or unwatchable on your machine.

And moreover, for all its vaunted technical improvements, we've yet to see very much in the way of compelling new kinds of content or content-delivery developed specifically for the format (I mean, does anybody really care about BD-Live, or watching people sitting behind a microphone in the corner of the screen while listening to a commentary).

If you Just Want to See a Movie (like 99% of consumers), what's the big appeal of the format?

That said, Blu-Ray will no doubt take over eventually, but only incrementally, as old DVD players die and they're replaced by new DVD players (which, hey presto! also play Blu-Rays). That backwards compatibility is probably the smartest thing about the format, and it's what's going to keep it out of the technophile ghetto in the long term.

[MichaelB]

I think the big issue with adoption might be functionality. The new formats that have taken over from the old very fast - CD and DVD - offered very obvious and very basic improvements in functionality, such as instant access to tracks or availablity of bonus materials.

Absolutely - and DVD also came at an attractive price, whereas laserdiscs were seen as an expensive and fiddly niche format.

The vast majority of consumers just aren't as interested in simple audiophile / technophile improvements in quality. In many cases they can't even hear or see them (just look at how many people habitually stretch everything to fill their widescreen TVs).

Absolutely true. My wife can now reasonably reliably tell the difference between black-and-white SD and HD, but she honestly doesn't have a clue with colour material - I daresay she could have a better track record if she actually cared, but she doesn't. And she's a lot more representative of the general public than the people who hang around these parts.

We should never forget that VHS won the format war over Betamax, despite the latter being technically superior and getting a three-year head start. JVC knew it couldn't compete on quality, but it sure as hell could compete on being able to timeshift umpteen soap opera episodes onto four-hour tapes in LP mode!

[swo17]

Are there still a lot of people with large enough screens (>40") that can't see the benefits of HD though? I had a non-technophile friend of mine tell me just the other day that he now finally gets the big deal about HD since he recently bought a 55" widescreen TV. So naturally, I can only assume that this happens to everyone who buys a TV that big. The problem of course, from the perspective of mass consumer adoption, is the large financial hurdle required to be able to appreciate HD. I think more and more people are getting there, but it's not happening over night.

[MichaelB]

Are there still a lot of people with large enough screens (>40") that can't see the benefits of HD though? I had a non-technophile friend of mine tell me just the other day that he now finally gets the big deal about HD since he recently bought a 55" widescreen TV. So naturally, I can only assume that this happens to everyone who buys a TV that big.

Not necessarily. We have a 42" set, and my wife couldn't give two hoots about whether the picture is HD or not. In fact, she's currently watching a low-bitrate Freeview SD broadcast.

[swo17]

Maybe that 40" threshhold is too small then, like 40" is where you can start noticing but it's not until maybe 80" that your screen compels you to notice. Now that I think about it, my wife often said she couldn't tell the difference on a 50" plasma, but on our 100" screen, she finally gets it. Of course, only crazy people buy screens that big, so probably all hope is lost.

[aox]

When I went to college in 1999, I left all of my 100s of CDs home and spent the entire school year listening exclusively to MP3s from Napster. They sounded great! And look how many I can take around with me!

When I came home in May 2000, I was in my old room in my parents' house, I remember vividly putting in the first CD I had interacted with in 9 months into my player, hitting play, and within 7 second noticing the quality. It was night and day. The summer before, I couldn't tell the difference. The CD filled my room and ears with frequencies. I had to submerge myself with the inferior product until I could recognize the greatness of the CD (I discovered vinyl a few years later; whoa).

Anyway, I couldn't immediately tell the difference between DVD and BD, until I got my setup in 2008 and only watched BDs exclusively. I put a DVD in about 4-5 months later and it was instantly apparent how much of a difference there truly is. Now I have a hard time seeing the difference between VHS and DVD. Same goes for my g/f who argued with me for a whole year that there was no difference. We moved in together and also saw BDs exclusively. She popped in a DVD a few months later and the same thing was apparent to her. She now 'sees it', and she laughed at our second xmas together when her family repeated that they couldn't tell the difference; she finally saw my side.

Obviously, this won't work for every consumer because they won't take the time to care. But I figured I would share this anecdote. Sorry if I repeated my self from a previous post.

[perkizitore]

I can see the difference in my 40 inch screen and i could see it even back in 2006 in my local video store. On the other hand, i am a very 'visual' person, i can't appreciate sound quality much or i just don't care to.

[flyonthewall2983]

Maybe that 40" threshhold is too small then, like 40" is where you can start noticing but it's not until maybe 80" that your screen compels you to notice. Now that I think about it, my wife often said she couldn't tell the difference on a 50" plasma, but on our 100" screen, she finally gets it. Of course, only crazy people buy screens that big, so probably all hope is lost.

You're on to something there. I have a 42" and I didn't notice the drastic difference that there was when I bought my first DVD player and starting selling off my VHS tapes. But I do think if I had a bigger screen, the difference would be more apparent. Big props on convincing your wife to get a 100", btw.

As for the MP3/CD argument, I really don't notice much of a difference if the MP3 is in good quality with no defects. And I am a big music fan, arguably moreso than film/TV.