Recommended Posts

Too early to tell.

Like others have said, it took a while before DVD finally overthrew VHS.

With the way technology moves NOW as opposed to 10 years ago Blu Ray will be replaced by the time it matures. Everyone knows that downloads will overtake it, if you say otherwise you are just lying to yourself, its only a matter of time.

I didn't even bother reading the article, probably written by a HD-DVD supporter still scorn by Blu-Ray's crushing victory :p I was a HD-DVD supporter and still wished it won, but at the same time I'm not gonna go around spreading crap about how Blu-Ray's days are numbered either. Blu-Ray won and it's here to stay and I seriously doubt digital downloads will kill it either. Maybe in the EU and/or NA where high speed broadband has a much higher penetration/cheaper cost. However, in countries like Australia, which already has a low high speed broadband penetration/higher cost and it will be going backwards (thanks to Rudd's new mandatory filters, thanks there bud :rolleyes: ) I think Blu-Ray still going to be the main choice for most people. So Blu-Ray might not be the next DVD but it's not going the way of the Dodo either.

EDIT: Also I don't see digital downloads been that good, they aren't proper HD (only slightly better then DVD - this is mainly to keep the size down, once faster internet connections become more easily available I'm sure that will change, plus by then HDD space for files so big won't be much of an issue either) and I've noticed with some services you don't even get to own it, you gotta pay to view it each time, no thanks. Also, once it's really takes off (which it will, no doubt) DRM is going to play a big part in it, everyone is praising video downloading as the future, but will they once it's DRM infested? (sure Blu-Ray is too, but as a fixed medium the DRM only needs to be so much, on a download they might get even more anal; eg locking it to been viewed only on the PC/device you downloaded it to etc)

Edited by Xerxes
With the way technology moves NOW as opposed to 10 years ago Blu Ray will be replaced by the time it matures. Everyone knows that downloads will overtake it, if you say otherwise you are just lying to yourself, its only a matter of time.

Everything inevitably gets "replaced" in the technology world.

That however doesn't mean it can't flourish, create a market and still exist, even when shifting through replacement/being completely replaced.

Physical products don't vaporise or expire when a new product starts to take over.

This is NOT just what I am saying myself, it's what everyone I know who also has Entered the HD world agrees with me IS saying!!!

Has Blu-Ray fandom become a religion or something? I know this is an old post, but COME ON! I am one of those HD people and honestly I think Blu-Ray is a waste of time, especially in comparison to HD-DVD (although the choices have since been narrowed).

He mentioned Videophile, how did you missed that?

I am a huge Movie buff, also a Videophile, I gotta see it Sharp and clear!

Then stop sitting 5 feet from your 72" television. Upscaled DVD's look almost just as good from proper viewing distances on most anything but a 47" or larger.

But most people today buy 40"+ HDTVs, which is why I started that Huge HDTV thread (which was finally closed, thankfully). So, since everyone is buying big 1080p HDTVs, people would want the true (non-upscaled) 1080p signal. Cable and DVDs need to be upscaled to 1080p, which is not as good as the true 1080p signal. The only way to get that is through Blu-ray.
Actually it's true. My cousin used to have a 27" regular TV. It broke and now he bought a 46" HDTV and his house is too small too. My co-worker used to have just a 20" regular TV and now he upgraded to a 52" HDTV. Let's face it, people today live large. The larger your TV, the more you'll want the true 1080p signal.

IN response to these comments, your are both wrong. While many people do buy larger ones first, the "extra" TV's are bought more often since more and more people are either a) having kids b) getting larger houses or c) getting more than one home. People buy the small ones for anything and everything, whereas you sell the larger ones for on average 1-2 rooms per house, usually only one room (the living room and master bed room are the two most common).

Yup and we're having another one now.

No we are not, we are having something similar to the second stock market crash in the I think mid 70's.

That's the point. During times of economic crisis (such as, when there's 25% unemployment and even greater numbers of underemployment), people turn to entertainment for escapism - movies, games, etc.

When people make less money they spend less money. Right now, DVD costs less, so they will buy DVD and not Blu-Ray. A majority of people care more about whether or not it is widescreen than care about it being HD or not.

Well it's usually $12-15 per ticket.

That is horribly overpriced. On average here it is $8-$12 per ticket, and you get one hell of a viewing experience with it.

Downloads don't have as good of a picture quality.

How so? Fast, cheap and easy ones maybe but if you try to get decent downloads there are ones that are released in full HD. I have several full series of anime that are 720p already through digital downloads (not illegal series, pre-license series).

How so? Fast, cheap and easy ones maybe but if you try to get decent downloads there are ones that are released in full HD. I have several full series of anime that are 720p already through digital downloads (not illegal series, pre-license series).

No downloads of HD content are the same quality as physical.

That's factual.

I'm discussing raw statistics as well (bitrate/audio quality/codecs/etc).

If you can't notice a difference, kudos to you I guess, but there is 110% a difference.

I rip my own BR/HD-DVD movies, and I leave the video files untouched (raw VC-1/AVC), you're looking at 16GB+ per movie. Eastern Promises, a BR title I recently ripped is 18GB, with an average bitrate of around 22mbps. Find me a web based HD movie (rent or buy) in that quality.

I think Blu-Ray is a waste of time, especially in comparison to HD-DVD (although the choices have since been narrowed).

Can you also please explain this remark for me?

If you're talking about pricing, fair enough when HD-DVD was relevant on the market it was cheaper than BR (current HD-DVD prices are void, as they are only the way they are right now due to the format being dead).

I have several full series of anime that are 720p already through digital downloads (not illegal series, pre-license series).

Wow! Either you're exaggerating or you're waiting days for a download to finish. I seriously doubt that ANY download out there is as good as a Blu-ray disc.

Who said they are as good now? Nobody. They will eventually increase in quality to be on par with other mediums. Is it really that hard to think out a year or two? You people are acting like they will be the way they are forever. Its not some wacko crazy idea that digital downloads will increase in quality.

Who said they are as good now? Nobody. They will eventually increase in quality to be on par with other mediums. Is it really that hard to think out a year or two? You people are acting like they will be the way they are forever. Its not some wacko crazy idea that digital downloads will increase in quality.

Increased quality = more data. More data = longer downloads. Longer downloads = a boring life.

Increased quality = more data. More data = longer downloads. Longer downloads = a boring life.

wow, you guys REALLY cant think ahead. Are you saying a few years from now, that people will have the same speed connections? Even with the advancment of fiber, which is pushing cable companies to up the speed, they will just stay the same?

No downloads of HD content are the same quality as physical.

True, but who's complaining when you are on an PC? If people want the higher quality, then they obviously can wait for it just like they can wait for it to A) come out or B) come in the mail (netflix). If a service similar to digital cable is provided for movie purposes then downloads shouldn't be a problem since they will have dedicated servers for such things. Not to mention the world is moving closer and closer to a fiber-optic based web connection and as that improves we will see much MUCH faster download speeds.

Can you also please explain this remark for me?

If you're talking about pricing, fair enough when HD-DVD was relevant on the market it was cheaper than BR (current HD-DVD prices are void, as they are only the way they are right now due to the format being dead).

HD-DVD has a faster read speed, is cheaper, and overall better. While it may not have the storage capacity it also doesn't over-compensate. It was the perfect HD medium and the only reason it lost was because of the PS3's push for Blu-Ray forcing it to be bought for the next gen console (although that strategy didn't work for UMD's for the PSP since no one bought the PSP).

Wow! Either you're exaggerating or you're waiting days for a download to finish. I seriously doubt that ANY download out there is as good as a Blu-ray disc.

No, it takes me roughly 20-30 minutes to download via torrent and or 10-15 minutes to download a single episode via direct downloads. Sound quality is generally good but it ain't 5.1 or 7.1 (usually stereo only). So it is reasonable to assume that digital downloads for current 1 hour programming would be a mere half hour to 45 minutes of download time depending on how many people are downloading it, and a full length movie would take no more than 1 hour to 3 hours depending on length as well as speed. Not too bad if you ask me. And this is at 720p, not 1080p. 1080p could be 1/3 slower, and increase times more for things such as 7.1 surround sound and such (although uncompressed sound is overrated).

Increased quality = more data. More data = longer downloads. Longer downloads = a boring life.

This is assuming people want to watch the movie the instant they download it (many people don't even watch newly bought DVD's until at least a few hours after purchase) as well as assuming that download speeds don't improve along with compression methods.

True, but who's complaining when you are on an PC? If people want the higher quality, then they obviously can wait for it just like they can wait for it to A) come out or B) come in the mail (netflix). If a service similar to digital cable is provided for movie purposes then downloads shouldn't be a problem since they will have dedicated servers for such things. Not to mention the world is moving closer and closer to a fiber-optic based web connection and as that improves we will see much MUCH faster download speeds.

Not everyone is on a PC.

And as long as broadband infrastructure is imbalanced worldwide we cannot go download only.

You seriously think the movie studios would be idiotic enough to ignore the market for people who can't get 24mb broadband with unlimited bandwidth caps?

Physical will always have a demand, at least for the foreseeable future.

HD-DVD has a faster read speed, is cheaper, and overall better. While it may not have the storage capacity it also doesn't over-compensate. It was the perfect HD medium and the only reason it lost was because of the PS3's push for Blu-Ray forcing it to be bought for the next gen console (although that strategy didn't work for UMD's for the PSP since no one bought the PSP).

Blu Ray can actually support the higher bitrates, and better quality audio codecs (helped by disc size).

So I genuinely have no idea outside of the pricing how people think HD-DVD is better.

Overall though there's not much difference between what's on the discs, so I don't understand people bitter about HD-DVD bombing. Aside from having to wait a bit longer for standalone BR prices to drop.

wow, you guys REALLY cant think ahead. Are you saying a few years from now, that people will have the same speed connections? Even with the advancment of fiber, which is pushing cable companies to up the speed, they will just stay the same?

In 5 years time, my (Belgian) ISP changed it's speeds.

In the very beginning, we had 4Mbits.

Upgrade to 5Mbits in the same year.

Upgrade to 6Mbits the year after.

Upgrade to 12mbits later on

Upgrade to 15mbits last year

Upgrade to 20mbits 3 months ago.

Data volume went from 5GB to 30GB.

So yes, it will be possible. Our ISP has this kind of service already. Movie streaming on demand (and the bandwith doesn't count in your monthly allowance).

for me, i don't see the point of buying blu ray.

if i walked into my local currys store here in the UK i'd be able to buy a dvd player, even one of those upscaling ones if i was so inclined, for ?70. if i want a blu-ray players it's more than double that price.

then when i go to play.com and look at the latest releases. on blu-ray they cost around 1/3 more usually.

i don't think the perceived advantage is worth the cost at the moment. ok sure it looks kick ass but i'm hardly struggling to see or hear whats happening with a normal DVD

Not everyone is on a PC.

And as long as broadband infrastructure is imbalanced worldwide we cannot go download only.

Never said it would completely phase out physical media. In fact, I doubt it ever will, since I even prefer physical media. I just hate all the negativity around digital downloads when the only bad thing that can happen to them is the charges accompanied with the people who distribute them (things like DRM and such).

Blu Ray can actually support the higher bitrates, and better quality audio codecs (helped by disc size).

So I genuinely have no idea outside of the pricing how people think HD-DVD is better.

Overall though there's not much difference between what's on the discs, so I don't understand people bitter about HD-DVD bombing. Aside from having to wait a bit longer for standalone BR prices to drop.

HD-DVD could also support those bitrates. The support for such things really comes from the amount of storage space, since more storage means more quality media can be put on. Even normal DVD's could give you HD video, problem was 9GB of space wasn't enough for HD movies and sound, so Blu-Ray and HD-DVD were made which had a higher storage capacity. Blu-Ray was the new technology and HD-DVD was the evolution of DVD technology (which is also why it was cheaper).

And a bit longer? ALOT longer. The HD-DVD prices were dropping way before the format war ended. You could get an HD-DVD player for $99 (360 one) while the Blu-Ray players at the time were still upwards of $500 (PS3 itself). HD-DVD was a faster, cheaper, and better media.

^

The HD-DVD prices were dropping as HD-DVD was always trailing.

It's called trying to gain marketshare in a market you're losing in where there can only be one winner.

If HD-DVD could've survived alongside Blu Ray you can bet such drastic price cuts wouldn't have been happening as quickly, but that wasn't possible, it was all or nothing to conclude the HD war.

The drastic price cuts went a long way in putting Toshiba in as much debt as they seen from losing the war.

Never said it would completely phase out physical media. In fact, I doubt it ever will, since I even prefer physical media. I just hate all the negativity around digital downloads when the only bad thing that can happen to them is the charges accompanied with the people who distribute them (things like DRM and such).

HD-DVD could also support those bitrates. The support for such things really comes from the amount of storage space, since more storage means more quality media can be put on. Even normal DVD's could give you HD video, problem was 9GB of space wasn't enough for HD movies and sound, so Blu-Ray and HD-DVD were made which had a higher storage capacity. Blu-Ray was the new technology and HD-DVD was the evolution of DVD technology (which is also why it was cheaper).

And a bit longer? ALOT longer. The HD-DVD prices were dropping way before the format war ended. You could get an HD-DVD player for $99 (360 one) while the Blu-Ray players at the time were still upwards of $500 (PS3 itself). HD-DVD was a faster, cheaper, and better media.

Wrong. Blu-ray can support much higher bitrates than HD-DVD. That has to do with the laser, not the storage capacity. A 25GB single-layer Blu-ray can handle a higher bitrate than a 30GB dual-layer HD-DVD for playback. While you can get 1080p video from a DVD9, the laser won't read at the high bitrates of HD-DVD or Blu-ray. All HD is not created equal.

Audio equivalent - same 3:40 song, one in real audio, one in 192k mp3, one in .wav. Which has a higher bitrate and takes up more space?

The reason you could get HD-DVD players so cheap is because Toshiba were essentially the only manufacturers, and it was a toss-up of lose money now and hopefully reap the benefits down the line from royalties, or sell at cost/small profit, and lose much of the pricing edge over Blu-ray. Unfortunatly, they priced themselves out of any other manufacturer coming in later -- they went scorched earth, hoping to win, but would have lost in the end anyway as a format.

wow, you guys REALLY cant think ahead. Are you saying a few years from now, that people will have the same speed connections? Even with the advancment of fiber, which is pushing cable companies to up the speed, they will just stay the same?

Ok, suppose speed does increase dramatically. Who wants to watch movies on their computer all day?? With me, I'd rather sit and relax on my couch and watch movies on the bigger TV in my living room.

Problem is, most people can't see the advantages of HD over SD until someone shows them. With VHS->DVD the difference was a little more clear.

But it's easy - HD TV has not quite yet arrived.

VHS > DVD was simple, you didn't need to get a new TV or anything extra. In fact, I would suggest the DVD really was the start of SCART cables instead of analog wires. However if you want to enjoy the richness of Blue Ray or HD at all, you need a new TV, simple as.

Although the majority of TVs are now with HD automatically, I should think many consumers simply aren't willing to part with their pre-HD set so there is no need to get a blue ray player just yet.

Although I haven't yet seen a full whack HD setup as yet, I know the difference isn't as obvious as it was with VHS and DVD. However, when this financial boo boo is in the past, perhaps in a couple of years Blue Ray will be all the rage. It seems just a slow starter.

Although one other thing that is worth noting. . . all these special editions on DVD over the past few years, extra features, cut scenes blah blah, perhaps consumers think that they have wasted all this money on DVD special editions, and now they are somewhat obsolete already? Maybe this is putting many others off from getting into the whole Blue Ray market?

Ok, suppose speed does increase dramatically. Who wants to watch movies on their computer all day?? With me, I'd rather sit and relax on my couch and watch movies on the bigger TV in my living room.

This is where you miss the point. In a few years, PCs will be connected to TVs, wait a minute, a little bit like Windows Media Centre edition! Then you'll download a DVD from the net to keep and watch it through the TV from the comfort of your sofa :p

i guess i'm part of the minority that doesn't see the point in upgrading to blu-ray yet.

the only thing i enjoyed watching on a large screen in blu-ray was the planet earth thing at my friend's house. while everything else looked really awesome, i didn't feel that the quality of my entertainment was diminished much when watching it on dvd or even regular tv.

i watch some sitcoms and movies every now and then but i cannot yet justify the cost of a big screen/blu-ray yet.

This is where you miss the point. In a few years, PCs will be connected to TVs, wait a minute, a little bit like Windows Media Centre edition! Then you'll download a DVD from the net to keep and watch it through the TV from the comfort of your sofa

it can be done already

Ok, suppose speed does increase dramatically. Who wants to watch movies on their computer all day?? With me, I'd rather sit and relax on my couch and watch movies on the bigger TV in my living room.

It's called a Sony PS3, Xbox 360, a Media Center PC, new Blu-Ray players from Samsung can stream movies from Netflix, ...

No need to watch a movie in front of your PC.... It's 2008 you now... soon 2009....

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!