Here's another article with an interesting read that may help you:

http://www.discmakers.com/community/resources/Edge/2008/dvdvsbluray.asp

Thanks for the link to that article. It left me quite depressed about the long term future of HD.

Bob.

yup. I know what you mean.

HD will live. Blu-Ray may not.

Sign the petition to make BR licensing affordable.

Or just let Blu-Ray die. Fine with me, I don't have any stake in it, and I suspect neither do you.

The sooner BR dies, the sooner we will get alternatives.

A year from now, Sony will be wondering why so few people buy even the $99.99 BR players.

The answer:
In frugal times, very few people want to buy a new box for their living room to see only a small number of studio movies in marginally better resolution than what they would get with the $69 (often Sony!) upscaling DVD player they already own.

Currently, downloading is more of an option in the first world, not in the U.S. because of the third world internet infrastructure we have, with so few people having true broadband access. (However, our new administration has already signaled that they see this as a strategic priority, so there is some hope that in two years time we could move from 14th place worldwide to say sixth or seventh, which would make a big difference in audience here).

There's no way that Blu-Ray will make it past a small, niche market if these costs don't change. No independent producers are going to pay anywhere near these fees just to line the pockets of companies like AACS. Also, isn't it in Apple's best interest to allow Blu-Ray to die on the vine, as they're a big player with media these days with iTunes/Apple TV? There are going to be more and more options for delivery and viewing that bypass Blu-Ray. I just purchased a http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=572Western Digital HD Media Player[/link] based on a recommendation on this forum. Not only can I use it to load a large number of movies for my family to watch from a single hard drive, but I can use it to show my HD movies via projector. I was going to buy a Blu-Ray burner and then a player for this purpose, but for $100 for this Media Player, why would I?

Then, at my low level of production, I can distribute HD copies of any work I produce via data disc. I recorded a concert with 3 HD cameras at a very expensive private school recently, and I asked a large number of families if anyone wanted it on a Blu-Ray disc. These families certainly had the funds to go Blu-Ray, but not one wanted that option on a disc. I gave them each a SD DVD, a data disc with an HD version to load on their computers/Apple TV's (which I DID get requests for), and a disc with mp4 video versions of each song for their iPods. You know which one was the biggest hit? The disc with the iPod versions.

How about if one develops his or her own logo and rename it something like "bluer-ray" , "deep-blu-ray" , "blu-laser ray", "ray-blue" etc.???
Do we have to still pay for those fees?

From what I have gathered for most of us you can get permission to use the logo for free.
The killer is AACS which you are forced to use for replicated disks. If the disk doesn't have AACS the disk will simply not play. This is coded into the player. You need to read all three articles that Blink provided links to to truly grasp what an unholy mess this is.
On the other hand content protection and it's licencing costs is optional on SD DVD and HD DVD. There's many titles for which content protection is simply pointless. We regularly do runs of 500 to 1,000 of corporate promo videos. The client would be very happy if someone were to pirate them!

The whole mess gets even stupider when you consider that AACS was cracked long ago. Effectively producers are being forced to pay for protection that they well might not even want and that doesn't work if they do want it.

Bob.

I'm with you Coursedesign on upscaling DVD players.

There is a difference but the investment in HD is still hard to recoup.
With the economic condition HD is going to be pushed further in the future.

OGUL:
To take your comment further:

If you have a crystal case, a black folding case, and a semi-transparent blue case,
can you identify what the disc inside should play on?

Do we even need a logo?

The sooner BR dies, the sooner we will get alternatives.

Why do you want lots of different disc formats for delivery of movies? When we had only two nobody benefited much, except maybe for those constant Blu-Ray BOGO sales on Amazon. HD-DVD died because it deserved to die. I had a Toshiba HD-DVD player for three weeks and without the special coating that BD discs have, most of the HD-DVDs from Netflix would come full of scratches (stupid people are partially responsible for not being able to handle discs properly), and most of them would lock-up the player to the point where the only way out was to unplug its AC cable. Since I started receiving movies on Blu-Ray from Netflix already a year and counting, it's very rare that I see a single scratch on BDs, although I see lots of fingerprints from, again, stupid people that don't handle discs properly. However, a few cotton balls with lens cleaner and a very gentle brush to remove the cotton lints, and the disc is like a mirror. And no rental BD has ever locked my Blu-Ray player. I would say it's a really good format.

However, you still have other choices for getting Hollywood HD content, albeit at much lower quality, in the form of cable and satellite on demand services, or regular HD channels where you can see the movies without curse words, scenes cut off and lots of commercials.

A year from now, Sony will be wondering why so few people buy even the $99.99 BR players.

That's purely in your head. You have no way of knowing that, or anything that hints at that.

...studio movies in marginally better resolution than what they would get with the $69 (often Sony!) upscaling DVD player they already own.

If to you the difference between Blu-Ray and an upscaled DVD is "marginal" then either you have a pathetic TV set, undated glasses, or you simply don't appreciate good picture quality. That people may be happy with upscaled quality or that it may be enough for some, I can agree with that, but the difference is far from "marginal".

Currently, downloading is more of an option in the first world, not in the U.S. because of the third world internet infrastructure we have, with so few people having true broadband access.

As a former member of a third world country (Argentina) and having lived in the US for five years, I can assure you have no idea what you're talking about. While much better speeds are yet to come, you can't even compare the broadband of a typical US cable company like Time Warner that gives me 6 or 7 Mbps for about $50 a month, to the pathetic service the same type of company provides in a real third world country.

Why do you want lots of different disc formats for delivery of movies?

I don't, but BD combines technical excellence with commercial incompetence.

Sony's sales prevention department has been very successful in making it extremely difficult for videographers to use BD, so we need to say "Next!"

A year from now, Sony will be wondering why so few people buy even the $99.99 BR players.

Do you see any significant enthusiasm among consumers to get BD players? I don't see it here in Los Angeles, and this place has a lot of early adopters.

If to you the difference between Blu-Ray and an upscaled DVD is "marginal" then either you have a pathetic TV set, undated glasses, or you simply don't appreciate good picture quality.

I have a "TV set" that is the envy of everyone who has seen it. 100% of guests' jaws have dropped on seeing the picture, my glasses are good enough to give me 20/15 vision (1.33 overseas), and I have enjoyed the best quality HD possible since the early 1990s. I don't watch cable or satellite TV, because the quality is not even close to what I get [free!] over the air without recompression.

I can't vouch for the $19.95 upscaling players that are now available, but my Sony ditto is absolutely astonishing when using the HDMI output. Is it Blu-Ray quality? No, but it is amazingly acceptable even for a picky person.

The speed on a cable company internet connection is shared among up to 500 subscribers in a neighborhood. In the beginning this is no problem, but when subscribers increase and your neighbors' kids are pulling torrents you may be lucky to get dial-up speeds.

DSL doesn't have this problem, but the speeds aren't great either (although if you're close enough to a CO you can get 7Mbps DSL).

FIOS (Verizon's Fiber To The Home) rocks, with up to 50 Mbps and beyond. That I think is the future.

Not the cable company. Or their service attitude.

"FIOS (Verizon's Fiber To The Home) rocks, with up to 50 Mbps and beyond. That I think is the future."

I was speaking to some people from Korea. Really made me feel like I live in a third world country. They think nothing of downloading gigabyte files off local servers. If I recall correctly they can get actual download speeds of 1GB/40mins Not hard to see from that how you could download one HD movie per day at the same quality as on a BD disk.

Bob.

Reply by: Coursedesign

OK, now we can agree on that.

Sony's sales prevention department has been very successful in making it extremely difficult for videographers to use BD, so we need to say "Next!"

Since the format is technologically superior, I would think that it's better for videographers to unite and stand up to Sony and the rest of the BD association and demand easier licensing and procedures in place to be able to use the format as much as possible. I think that's probably faster than creating a new association to come up with a new physical format that will have an easier licensing scheme.

A year from now, Sony will be wondering why so few people buy even the $99.99 BR players.

I don't see a terrible enthusiasm on anybody but video geeks and maybe a few more people, but I can say the same for the first few years of DVD. Let's not forget that DVDs were available in most stores in 1999 and before, with first or second generation DVD players at $300 or $400, and most people here in the US didn't care for them, even people that had enough money to put a DVD player in each room in their house at that price. It took a few years for VHS to disappear and DVD to emerge, and I think there's a big chance the same will happen with BD.

If to you the difference between Blu-Ray and an upscaled DVD is "marginal" then either you have a pathetic TV set, undated glasses, or you simply don't appreciate good picture quality.

I don't think there are $19.95 upscaling DVD players, but I have a very decent, albeit not high end, upscaling DVD player, the Panasonic S52, as well as the upscaling my Sony BDP-S300 provides (better than the Panasonic) and a decent Sony HDTV and while the difference between BD and upscaling is not day and night, it is substantial to me. There may be scenes that were shot so well and have such contrast that might trick the eye and appear to have less of a difference, but for the most part, there is more than a marginal difference.

The speed on a cable company internet connection is shared among up to 500 subscribers in a neighborhood. In the beginning this is no problem, but when subscribers increase and your neighbors' kids are pulling torrents you may be lucky to get dial-up speeds.

That shared internet connection in cable is a nice sales pitch for ADSL, but in practice it's BS. Even if it's technically correct, I have lived in small and big neighborhoods, and I have had cable and ADSL, and Cable always runs like hell while ADSL feels sluggish, and it's way more expensive for the same speed.

I was speaking to some people from Korea. Really made me feel like I live in a third world country. They think nothing of downloading gigabyte files off local servers. If I recall correctly they can get actual download speeds of 1GB/40mins Not hard to see from that how you could download one HD movie per day at the same quality as on a BD disk.

Here's the thing, and I'm just guessing, but South Korea (you didn't specify, but in North Korea you don't have electrical power to turn on the computer that you don't even have) is a much smaller country, with a lower population, which means their cables and air waves have to travel a lot less and the're a lot less people using all that internet power. Being that they are a technologically advanced country, they probably have the newest technology, but with far less people to use, it's analog to you getting on a no speed limit highway at rush hour compared to the same highway at 3 AM.

Still, whenever we get to that point of being able to download a BD movie in 30 minutes, I don't want that kind of service. I want the speed, yes, but to me the concept of delivering movies over the internet as opposed to getting them on a disc just drives me up the wall. I enjoy having on my hands a movie in a disc with its box, with a cover that was designed by an artist, and the art printed over the disc itself. That doesn't compare to have a file in my computer. That's just as bad as purchasing music on iTunes (which I never did, and never will) as opposed to purchasing a CD. Even if we don't talk about the obvious difference in quality, having a bunch of files in my hard drive doesn't compare to having the good old CD with the art, booklet, and case. That I can then rip that CD to MP3 to take on my MP3 player while I go out to exercise, that's great, but I don't want files on my computer to be the only way of having purchased movies and music.

There are some that are convinced that downloading/streaming will be the future. I couldn't disagree more. It's simply NOT a viable solution on a mass scale. It works NOW because not too many (relatively speaking) are using this option. But try to imagine a couple 100 million people downloading the new movie of the moment at the same time on a Friday night. After the third or forth connection drop, or corrupt download people will be screaming for their shiny plastic disks again.

Downloads also don't work in a car or at the cottage where high speed internet or cable doesn't exist.... and NEVER will. You have to download and then burn to a disk... or load onto a stick... or what ever the case. Oh yes... I can see lots of people putting up with that ;)

Don't get me wrong... I don't think downloads are a passing fad... I think it's here and it will get more popular.... but it WILL NOT take over physical media by ANY stretch. MP3 sure hasn't done it with CD's... and it won't... it has simply become an elegant option for some.

"But try to imagine a couple 100 million people downloading the new movie of the moment at the same time on a Friday night. "

That is not a problem you might think it to be at all. You're assuming 100 million people would each need to make their own connection to a server. Thankfully the internet was designed to cope with this kind of traffic.

I'd also argue there's a much, much bigger problem if 100 million people also decide to buy, rent or watch the movie in a cinema on the one day. The internet is far better equiped to handle the problem than physical supply chains or seats in a fixed venue.

I'd also ask you to consider the environmental impact of manufacturing 100 million or so shiny disks using toxic chemicals that'll ultimately end up as landfill.

The reality (and one I personally am none to happy with) is that population densities will continue to increase. Family units are now shrinking. Down here 30% of the population live in single person dwellings and that's much the same in the rest of the developed world and 3rd world countries are heading the same way faster than the developed world. Sadly more and more of humanity will be housed in shoe box apartments. People simply will not have the space for bookshelves of books or DVDs or CDs. There's a generation growing up who don't even own TVs, all the entertainment comes from a computer. South Korea is a great place to see the future that awaits us all. Thankfully not one I think I'll live to see in this country but I cannot find a single shred of evidence to suggest it's not inevitable at some point in the future.

Bob.

"I'd also ask you to consider the environmental impact of manufacturing 100 million or so shiny disks using toxic chemicals that'll ultimately end up as landfill."
We do it daily... and have been for years. LP's dvd's, cd's, tapes, dvd-ram... etc. And it will continue.

"That is not a problem you might think it to be at all. You're assuming 100 million people would each need to make their own connection to a server."
The internet... yes. Servers.... No. Bestbuy once has a sale on hd dvd players. I think it was $99? Their system crash at least 3 times.... couldn't handle the traffic. Tempers were flaring the next day on the various internet sites.

Most of the US severs have already seen the writing on the wall with this download stuff. They're starting to come out with downloading maximums, and penalties for going over. This is just a large coincidence.... right.

I'll also add bob that people have made all these great predictions about computers and the internet that have turned out to be dead wrong.

Internet shopping will end malls and shops... then we had the .com bubble burst. people don't trust the internet... there's very little in the way of accountability. If I buy a disc at best buy and it's defective... I exchange it no problems.

Computers will put an end to paper.... It has done the exact opposite

MP3 download will put an end to the CD... I don't know about your neck of the woods bob, but mp3 downloads have done NOTHING to close down the cd stores in my area. If anything they have gotten busier. If there is one thing the internet has been great for... it's advertising.

There are people like you and I that have come to accept this new way of doing things (downloading). I can't remember the last time I actually ordered a physical vegas disk. But for most people... when they hand over their hard earned money... they expect something in return that they can see, feel , and touch in return

MP3 has had ample time to prove this download theory.... and it has failed to take over the cd. The same will happen with movies.

I enjoy having on my hands a movie in a disc with its box, with a cover that was designed by an artist, and the art printed over the disc itself. That doesn't compare to have a file in my computer. That's just as bad as purchasing music on iTunes (which I never did, and never will) as opposed to purchasing a CD.

I can tell you never purchased music on iTunes, because if you had, you would be praising the organic feel of flipping through the artist-designed covers with Cover Flow.

I'm about to dump all my CDs, still have hundreds left after my previous cleanout a few years ago. I just think I can use the space better than storing clunky jewel cases.

Of course I could just store the disks in paper sleeves or special binders with 4 disks to a page, but why? It's not like I'm going to pull out a disk and put it into some mechanical music player (most likely a DVD-player, are CD players even sold today?) just to listen to a few songs.


It is obviously easier to implement Gigabit internet in a location with higher population density. In Japan and South Korea, that means the whole country; in the U.S. it means islands of high speed access, with the islands growing like bacteria in a petri dish.

I traveled over the Thanksgiving weekend through some very very rural areas in Central Valley (California), and was very happy to have broadband internet even in places like Visalia and even places without a name, just endless fields of food on a stick.

I got about 750 kbps downloads on my iPhone and the rural 3G network. That certainly made surfing pretty snappy, not just posting in this forum while riding as a passenger, but also downloading some of the many apps that were free last Friday.

Internet speeds will grow even in the U.S., it seems to be a priority of the incoming administration, where they have stated they see it as a business enabler, especially in rural areas.

"I'm about to dump all my CDs, still have hundreds left after my previous cleanout a few years ago. I just think I can use the space better than storing clunky jewel cases."

Course,
There are many people like you who believe the space could be used better. But there are also a great many people who believe in displaying their books in great libraries, or their stamps laid out in plaques on the wall..... or their movies in a display case. This will always be true and it will never change.

I download music every so often. It's fast and it's easy. But when I'm serious about a particular selection... then I go to the store and buy the cd. I can't say I've downloaded movies from the net as of yet, but I have ordered many a VOD movies in my moments of boredom... which is almost the same thing. But when I'm serious about a movie... I go to the store and buy it. When buying Dramas i will usually buy as dvd, but when buying heavy action movies and science fiction, I will buy Blu Ray every time.

I don't object to this new download thing at all. But it is not the end-all of end-all's. I see it and use it as merely a convenience... but for me, it will never REPLACE the physical media. Further more... I KNOW that I am not unique in this respect.

Well, the thought of buying a movie hasn't occurred to me in a long time.

BD movies are clearly overpriced right now (at full price...), but street prices will continue to fall.

Still, there are few movies I want to see often enough that I would feel a need to own them rather than getting them from Netflix each time.

Today's Blu-Ray is tomorrow's laser disc.

There will be better formats coming, you can bet on that, and then it's nice to have saved all that money through an all-you-can-eat Netflix plan at $19.95/month (even though they're going to charge a dollar more or so per month for Blu-Ray soon).

From Monday's New York Times:

While CD sales dropped last year, sales of [vinyl] records were up 36 percent.

All right then, I'll concede to the dark side.

:O)

(I actually appreciate the sound of vinyl on a good turntable with a good RIAA stage. It can sound jawdroppingly wonderful.)