The End of Blu-ray

Nightfire said:
Well you contradicted yourself on back to back post here.




And here. Now that you are in an emotional state, this is even more fun.





Despite outselling the PS3, the 360 was not selling "incredibly well", especially in the early years. The Wii took both of them to school and had the 360 came with an HDDVD, it would have taken plenty of more PS3 sales with a bunch of people willing to get the "Wii360" as the 360 itself was much cheaper to produce as was hddvd drives over BR drives.

I am glad you started the next paragraph with the PS4 selling better is irrelevant but then you start alluding to God knows what. The PS4 and XB1 would have both used HDDVD had that format won. Simple as that.

Had Warner went with HDDVD, Sony and Disney would have ad to join them as well, just as Paramount and Universal did when Warner made the announcement as they were always solid in the HDDVD camp up to that time. It's not like Sony stuck with Betamax when it lost the format war. (not sure if they produced movies then, but you get the point)

Even in an ideal streaming world, there is a lot of benefits to physical media such as reliable archiving and large data transfers on secure (USB-fordidden) networks as well as simply having the empowerment of actually owning something. I also loved things like commentary on South Park videos. At this point in it's lifecycle, you could pick up DVDs for dirt cheap, same for DVD Rs. That is still not the case with Blurays as this situation surely would have been better with HDDVD. Streaming has been slowly killing physical media. But the failure of Bluray has done so faster than any of the streaming services and ISPs could have hoped for.
Click to expand...

In order:

Incorrect. I said that Toshiba knew they would lose and instead of fighting an expensive war tried to make a deal. That does not imply "giving up". That implies trying to make a smart business decision that would benefit them in the long run. You are pretending I claimed something when I did not. If I wanted to claim something I would have outright said it. Don't put words in my mouth.

Still incorrect. One has nothing to do with the other. Stop making up false arguments.

From it's launch on Nov 22 2005 until Dec 31st of the same year they shipped 1.5m units, despite the system only entering production a mere 69 days prior to release. In the US, the Wii didn't overtake the 360 until June 2008. The UK, European, Asian, and Japanese markets were a bit more mixed, but you can't say the system wasn't pulling in some very good numbers for years. Around launch I just don't think a HD-DVD drive would have done as much as you think for the 360. At least not without big redesigns to the system itself to take advantage of the drive. They definitely would have needed to add HDMI out of the gate and would have needed a better video player. It would have been a boon for the larger games that needed 2+ discs (like Lost Odyssey or Blue Dragon) but without a change in Microsoft's priorities and a huge marketing push I don't know.

How hard is to understand that I am responding to your statement about MS going with UHD for the XB1S not making sense? What they would have done in some "what if" universe doesn't matter when the point is about what they did in the real world and why they did it.

If Toshiba found a way to convince Warner to go solely HD-DVD, it would have definitely shifted the balance considerably. The question is, how could they do that? WB likely played both sides to be safe and see how the war went. To get WB would have required Toshiba making HD-DVD more compelling to them in some way. Either by getting Fox or Disney on board or maybe giving them some kind of amazing licensing deal (or something, I dunno).

I basically agree with everything in your last paragraph. The BDA messed up, big time, on many things. While HD-DVD would have faced some similar issues had it won, the price would have made it a lot easier to swallow.
 
Derangel said:
In order:

Incorrect. I said that Toshiba knew they would lose and instead of fighting an expensive war tried to make a deal. That does not imply "giving up". That implies trying to make a smart business decision that would benefit them in the long run. You are pretending I claimed something when I did not. If I wanted to claim something I would have outright said it. Don't put words in my mouth.

Still incorrect. One has nothing to do with the other. Stop making up false arguments.

From it's launch on Nov 22 2005 until Dec 31st of the same year they shipped 1.5m units, despite the system only entering production a mere 69 days prior to release. In the US, the Wii didn't overtake the 360 until June 2008. The UK, European, Asian, and Japanese markets were a bit more mixed, but you can't say the system wasn't pulling in some very good numbers for years. Around launch I just don't think a HD-DVD drive would have done as much as you think for the 360. At least not without big redesigns to the system itself to take advantage of the drive. They definitely would have needed to add HDMI out of the gate and would have needed a better video player. It would have been a boon for the larger games that needed 2+ discs (like Lost Odyssey or Blue Dragon) but without a change in Microsoft's priorities and a huge marketing push I don't know.

How hard is to understand that I am responding to your statement about MS going with UHD for the XB1S not making sense? What they would have done in some "what if" universe doesn't matter when the point is about what they did in the real world and why they did it.

If Toshiba found a way to convince Warner to go solely HD-DVD, it would have definitely shifted the balance considerably. The question is, how could they do that? WB likely played both sides to be safe and see how the war went. To get WB would have required Toshiba making HD-DVD more compelling to them in some way. Either by getting Fox or Disney on board or maybe giving them some kind of amazing licensing deal (or something, I dunno).

I basically agree with everything in your last paragraph. The BDA messed up, big time, on many things. While HD-DVD would have faced some similar issues had it won, the price would have made it a lot easier to swallow.
Click to expand...

Well the 360 sold less than 4 million units in all of 2006. In 2007, they only sold 26% of all consoles. There was plenty of room for growth.

A cheaper HDDVD would have helped the 360 every bit as much as it did the PS3. After all, despite PS2, PS4, and PS4 pro having better software than Microsoft's offerings, this was NOT the case for PS3. (Riiidddge Racer!)

Most HD tvs were still 720p/1080i back then so lack of hdmi was not a huge issue.

Warner was the nail in the coffin in Jan 2008, but the point of no return was December of 2006. Toshiba had a chance to stop this with a little investment upfront, but again too little too late.

Screenshot_20190930-124355_YouTube.jpg
 
Nightfire said:
Well the 360 sold less than 4 million units in all of 2006. In 2007, they only sold 26% of all consoles. There was plenty of room for growth.

A cheaper HDDVD would have helped the 360 every bit as much as it did the PS3. After all, despite PS2, PS4, and PS4 pro having better software than Microsoft's offerings, this was NOT the case for PS3. (Riiidddge Racer!)

Most HD tvs were still 720p/1080i back then so lack of hdmi was not a huge issue.

Warner was the nail in the coffin in Jan 2008, but the point of no return was December of 2006. Toshiba had a chance to stop this with a little investment upfront, but again too little too late.

View attachment 190345
Click to expand...


I remember buying a PS3, the only consle I've owned since the NES in the 80's because it was the only even halfway decent Blu-ray player at the time.

I never owned or played a single game on it. It was only a Blu-ray player.
 
Last edited:
Hagrid said:
Poor quality? Not sure where you stream from. Sounds fine to me. Data cap? What is that? Macroblocking?
Click to expand...


You would have to be deaf or blind or purposefully obtuse not to see and hear the difference between crappy uber compressed streams and a physical copy of the Bluray/UHD Bluray.
I really hope that CD and Bluray/4K Bluray don't die out but sadly the vast majority of people prefer convenience over quality.
 
mullet said:
Give me a break, I have over 500 Blu Rays and I will not stop. I have no cable TV just Antenna and I never go to the theater. So the money I save from no cable bill and no theaters, I take that money and buy ONLY movies I will watch more then once and I am still money ahead. I love having a hard copy.

Better Audio 7.1 Atmos....
Better Video quality.
Watch it as many times as you want.
Special features,...
No data usage.
Click to expand...

Nothing beats a [H]ard copy.
 
Nightfire said:
Lol ok, streaming does have its issues, but that may be over the top.
Click to expand...
It isn't. 25GB movie size is actually on the low side. I believe Netflix uses HEVC, which is roughly 2x as efficient has H.264. A 4k Movie on netflix is about 15MB, which is the equivalent of 30GB on a Blu Ray. It ain't enough. It looks fine if you don't pay attention or have never seen a good picture, but otherwise, there's tons of noise in dark parts of the image. There's a reason why the best looking blu rays were close to 50GB, while for UHD they're often 70GB or more.

I don't even get why this matters. A disk is a disk and the prices are high if you get the movie when it first comes out (about 30 bucks for new movies), but the prices drop and for older flicks, they're often under 20. FFS, 4K today sells for less than Blu ray when it came out and less than DVDs when they came out (and I'm going only by retail sales, because for DVD etailers were offering insane coupons for DVDs.

But honestly, who cares about the size of a movie? Blu Rays are often super cheap if you wait a while to pick them up...and if you really need to see it right away, redbox has you covered for 2 bucks (or less)...rent it, and if you want to buy it, wait a few months to a year.

There's just no comparison between Streaming and a Blu Ray or UHD. They're significantly better, especially if there are dark scenes.
 
I remember when Inwas floored by the quality of DVD haha it was so crisp and sparkly.

Then streaming came along and regular DVD looks about the same.
 
Streaming is okay, but it's like watching a show with a filter on it. I get that most people like the convenience of it, but it's horrible in general. Never do a 4k UHD stream vs 4k UHD disc compare because once you do you can't unsee the differences. After doing a compare it's like every issue of 4kUHD streaming gets highlighted especially in the darker scenes. Streaming has it's place, but for me I'd never ever spend money to "buy" a streaming copy. To me those are worthless for more reasons than they can just steal it from you if your streaming provider has a dispute with the content maker.
 
Nightfire said:
Lol ok, streaming does have its issues, but that may be over the top.
Click to expand...

My entire movie collection consists of rips directly off of blurays without any transcoding.

They range in size from 14GB (oldest, shortest blurays) to over 40GB (newest, longest blurays)

I don't like compounding compression artifacting, so I believe in never transcoding anything unless it is the last resort.
 
the arguments about quality of hardcopy vs streaming is a dead one. You already lost. The vast majority of people are totally fine with re-encodes and post-processing trickery to get their movies and audio. You would have to be in some kind of reality distortion bubble to think that anyone outside of an impossibly too-small-to-care-about minority is not happy with the quality that they can get with "uhd" streaming. In a world where people are paying hundreds of dollars on bluetooth earphones to listen to their streaming music (so that's audio that's been lossy encoded at least 2 times - probably more) - in such a world, where do you think it makes any sense for companies to cater to you as a market?

Hardcopies do not provide recurring revenue.
Hardcopies do not allow the distributor control over how many times you view it or how long you can view it for.
Hardcopies provide a means for creating high quality copies which they dont get money for
Hardcopies do not provide telemetry metrics
Hardcopies are expensive to produce and distribute (cost money to transport, protect from theft, stock, and market)
Hardcopies require specialized playback devices that tend to be large relative to alternative options and not ever usually bundled in a tv set.
Hardcopies require the content to be ripped (legal grey area to illegal depending on locality) in order to play on devices without access to the actual playback device.


It's in companies best interest to get rid of hardcopies because on absolutely every level they make more money from digital copies with far less investment

It's in the consumer's best interest to get rid of h ardcopies because most people do not re-watch the same content all the time and so owning copies doesn't make sense and ripping and encoding hardcopies puts them in a legal grey area even if they had the technical skills to do it (which most do not) in order to playback the media on devices other than their main tv, like mobile devices.

Just give up the argument. Nobody cares how much more quality a blue ray has over streaming. The public has spoken that it's good enough. Just like how the public is fine with listening to double+ reencoded music instead of direct flac streams. This war has only 1 outcome.

Those of us who see what will be lost have been defeated.
 
Ranger101 said:
You would have to be deaf or blind or purposefully obtuse not to see and hear the difference between crappy uber compressed streams and a physical copy of the Bluray/UHD Bluray.
I really hope that CD and Bluray/4K Bluray don't die out but sadly the vast majority of people prefer convenience over quality.
Click to expand...
He probably the typical know nothing that owns one of those 70" sharp TVs he got on BF for $200 and thinks it is glorious. I have a LG C9 65" and a decent 5.1.2 Atmos setup and is awesome.
 
Darth Ender said:
the arguments about quality of hardcopy vs streaming is a dead one. You already lost. The vast majority of people are totally fine with re-encodes and post-processing trickery to get their movies and audio. You would have to be in some kind of reality distortion bubble to think that anyone outside of an impossibly too-small-to-care-about minority is not happy with the quality that they can get with "uhd" streaming. In a world where people are paying hundreds of dollars on bluetooth earphones to listen to their streaming music (so that's audio that's been lossy encoded at least 2 times - probably more) - in such a world, where do you think it makes any sense for companies to cater to you as a market?

Hardcopies do not provide recurring revenue.
Hardcopies do not allow the distributor control over how many times you view it or how long you can view it for.
Hardcopies provide a means for creating high quality copies which they dont get money for
Hardcopies do not provide telemetry metrics
Hardcopies are expensive to produce and distribute (cost money to transport, protect from theft, stock, and market)
Hardcopies require specialized playback devices that tend to be large relative to alternative options and not ever usually bundled in a tv set.
Hardcopies require the content to be ripped (legal grey area to illegal depending on locality) in order to play on devices without access to the actual playback device.


It's in companies best interest to get rid of hardcopies because on absolutely every level they make more money from digital copies with far less investment

It's in the consumer's best interest to get rid of h ardcopies because most people do not re-watch the same content all the time and so owning copies doesn't make sense and ripping and encoding hardcopies puts them in a legal grey area even if they had the technical skills to do it (which most do not) in order to playback the media on devices other than their main tv, like mobile devices.

Just give up the argument. Nobody cares how much more quality a blue ray has over streaming. The public has spoken that it's good enough. Just like how the public is fine with listening to double+ reencoded music instead of direct flac streams. This war has only 1 outcome.

Those of us who see what will be lost have been defeated.
Click to expand...
If quality mattered Betamax would have won :p
 
Ranger101 said:
You would have to be deaf or blind or purposefully obtuse not to see and hear the difference between crappy uber compressed streams and a physical copy of the Bluray/UHD Bluray.
I really hope that CD and Bluray/4K Bluray don't die out but sadly the vast majority of people prefer convenience over quality.
Click to expand...
1080p looks just fine. I hear sound coming through my speakers, I am happy.
I do not need 4K, 50 speakers 1000000 watts of power to enjoy a movie.
 
not going to happen anytime soon 8k/4k streaming is ass and will be ass till we all have gbit
 
vegeta535 said:
That's fine you for you. Don't talk shit about stuff you don't care for tho. People that want the best and willing to spend for it is their choice.
Click to expand...
I was not. I said it's fine for me. Obviously people who want discs are in the minority if they are going to discontinue it. They stream 4K do they not?
 
vegeta535 said:
He probably the typical know nothing that owns one of those 70" sharp TVs he got on BF for $200 and thinks it is glorious. I have a LG C9 65" and a decent 5.1.2 Atmos setup and is awesome.
Click to expand...

I have a 1st gen Samsung 4k 30fps TV, 1st gen 1080P Yamaha amp/Bluray player (no atmos but DTS Master and True HD) and B&W 5.2 surround.

Spec wise my setup is not very [H]ard by current standards but I feel it's not completely flaccid either by virtue of dual subs :D

Fed with a 1080P bluray disk or uncompressed M2TS rip, even upscaled it still looks and sounds significantly better than any
1080P stream or TV broadcast that I personally have seen.

I'm sure the same applies to UHD Bluray disks/rips vs UHD streams and broadcasts. Optical disks/uncompressed rips - accept no substitute.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
My entire movie collection consists of rips directly off of blurays without any transcoding.

They range in size from 14GB (oldest, shortest blurays) to over 40GB (newest, longest blurays)

I don't like compounding compression artifacting, so I believe in never transcoding anything unless it is the last resort.
Click to expand...

I keep my 60 fps gopro videos uncompressed and they look amazing compared to when I tested out compressing them. For everything else, the slightly more grey blacks are not a huge deal.
 
Hagrid said:
I was not. I said it's fine for me. Obviously people who want discs are in the minority if they are going to discontinue it. They stream 4K do they not?
Click to expand...
At 25 Mbps. Uncompressed 4K with HDR at 24 FPS is about 6 Gbps. Which means a 4K stream is compressed at a ratio of 240 to 1. No, thanks. By comparison, a UHD Blu-ray runs at a bitrate of 100 Mbps, which is 60 to 1 compression, or 8 times better than streaming.
 
Hagrid said:
I was not. I said it's fine for me. Obviously people who want discs are in the minority if they are going to discontinue it. They stream 4K do they not?
Click to expand...

I don't really care about the disks.

In fact, I'd rather just buy a file download, it would save me the trouble of ripping it to my media folder.

I just dont want any lower bitrate video or lower quality audio, and I want to make a one time purchase, not subscribe to a service.
 
i want a flying dragon as a loyal pet that can understand speach .... that's about as likely to happen as media not being sold soley under subscription via a service in the near future.
 
vegeta535 said:
He probably the typical know nothing that owns one of those 70" sharp TVs he got on BF for $200 and thinks it is glorious. I have a LG C9 65" and a decent 5.1.2 Atmos setup and is awesome.
Click to expand...
Nope, just a plain 4K smart TV is all I have.
 
maxius said:
not going to happen anytime soon 8k/4k streaming is ass and will be ass till we all have gbit
Click to expand...

Speed matters but bandwidth is and will be the bigger problem. How many 4k movies, even with mega compression can I watch a month with 1TB monthly bandwidth cap? As well, hollywood/tv/content creators in general threaten their own industry by cutting out the audio/videophiles and the home theater market. Why bother to go to 8k? 4k has been pointless for most people till the last year or two. Still is given compression and bandwidth but at least there are more sources available.
 
Darth Ender said:
the arguments about quality of hardcopy vs streaming is a dead one. You already lost. The vast majority of people are totally fine with re-encodes and post-processing trickery to get their movies and audio. You would have to be in some kind of reality distortion bubble to think that anyone outside of an impossibly too-small-to-care-about minority is not happy with the quality that they can get with "uhd" streaming. In a world where people are paying hundreds of dollars on bluetooth earphones to listen to their streaming music (so that's audio that's been lossy encoded at least 2 times - probably more) - in such a world, where do you think it makes any sense for companies to cater to you as a market?

Hardcopies do not provide recurring revenue.
Hardcopies do not allow the distributor control over how many times you view it or how long you can view it for.
Hardcopies provide a means for creating high quality copies which they dont get money for
Hardcopies do not provide telemetry metrics
Hardcopies are expensive to produce and distribute (cost money to transport, protect from theft, stock, and market)
Hardcopies require specialized playback devices that tend to be large relative to alternative options and not ever usually bundled in a tv set.
Hardcopies require the content to be ripped (legal grey area to illegal depending on locality) in order to play on devices without access to the actual playback device.


It's in companies best interest to get rid of hardcopies because on absolutely every level they make more money from digital copies with far less investment

It's in the consumer's best interest to get rid of h ardcopies because most people do not re-watch the same content all the time and so owning copies doesn't make sense and ripping and encoding hardcopies puts them in a legal grey area even if they had the technical skills to do it (which most do not) in order to playback the media on devices other than their main tv, like mobile devices.

Just give up the argument. Nobody cares how much more quality a blue ray has over streaming. The public has spoken that it's good enough. Just like how the public is fine with listening to double+ reencoded music instead of direct flac streams. This war has only 1 outcome.

Those of us who see what will be lost have been defeated.
Click to expand...

So I guess we should settle for what the majority wants instead of leaving a niche market that could still generate huge revenues? Of course, that is ignoring the 'tiny majority of us that struggle to stream high quality movies.

I suppose headphone companies should not sell premium headphones as well since the 'vast majority' would not be able to tell the difference.
 
Hagrid said:
From you, me, or both? I have no problems with streaming and no data cap. Dont be jealous bro.
Click to expand...

It's because you likely have not experienced better or simply don't care to have better. Watching a 55" TV from 12' away you may not notice the artifacting or black crush that many streams have or just don't care. Sit closer or with a larger screen and it's painfully obvious. I find Netflix sound quality to be decent but I've played streams and then switched to my BR player and it's a noticeable difference. You are not going to find DTS Master or Atmos routinely on a stream but then if you just have a sound bar you wouldn't notice anyway.

Darth Ender said:
the arguments about quality of hardcopy vs streaming is a dead one. You already lost. The vast majority of people are totally fine with re-encodes and post-processing trickery to get their movies and audio. You would have to be in some kind of reality distortion bubble to think that anyone outside of an impossibly too-small-to-care-about minority is not happy with the quality that they can get with "uhd" streaming. In a world where people are paying hundreds of dollars on bluetooth earphones to listen to their streaming music (so that's audio that's been lossy encoded at least 2 times - probably more) - in such a world, where do you think it makes any sense for companies to cater to you as a market?

Hardcopies do not provide recurring revenue.
Hardcopies do not allow the distributor control over how many times you view it or how long you can view it for.
Hardcopies provide a means for creating high quality copies which they dont get money for
Hardcopies do not provide telemetry metrics
Hardcopies are expensive to produce and distribute (cost money to transport, protect from theft, stock, and market)
Hardcopies require specialized playback devices that tend to be large relative to alternative options and not ever usually bundled in a tv set.
Hardcopies require the content to be ripped (legal grey area to illegal depending on locality) in order to play on devices without access to the actual playback device.


It's in companies best interest to get rid of hardcopies because on absolutely every level they make more money from digital copies with far less investment

It's in the consumer's best interest to get rid of h ardcopies because most people do not re-watch the same content all the time and so owning copies doesn't make sense and ripping and encoding hardcopies puts them in a legal grey area even if they had the technical skills to do it (which most do not) in order to playback the media on devices other than their main tv, like mobile devices.

Just give up the argument. Nobody cares how much more quality a blue ray has over streaming. The public has spoken that it's good enough. Just like how the public is fine with listening to double+ reencoded music instead of direct flac streams. This war has only 1 outcome.

Those of us who see what will be lost have been defeated.
Click to expand...

This is the way it is for a number of industries. Many are satisfied with the mediocre some are not. My teenagers are perfectly satisfied with watching things on their phones instead on on their computers or on a TV. The sound is good enough for them. A Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion is good enough for most people they don't care to experience more. The thing is there are people who do; it's the same with the PC industry. Most industries have enthusiasts and while they make up a smaller portion of the whole they still make products for them.

While I agree the majority will opt for no physical media there is still a portion that will and it's not just older people. My son loves having physical media for his games if he can. He is sad that most game companies don't offer physical boxes. People thought records were dead...guess what they are back.

For me BR isn't high enough quality I want UHD probably at a minimum, just waiting for true UHD projectors to eventually come down in prices before I upgrade. I'll be doing ATMOS as well at the same time. Trying to watch a regular DVD is like watching standard quality TV, I just can't do it.
 
Design1stcode2nd said:
It's because you likely have not experienced better or simply don't care to have better. Watching a 55" TV from 12' away you may not notice the artifacting or black crush that many streams have or just don't care. Sit closer or with a larger screen and it's painfully obvious. I find Netflix sound quality to be decent but I've played streams and then switched to my BR player and it's a noticeable difference. You are not going to find DTS Master or Atmos routinely on a stream but then if you just have a sound bar you wouldn't notice anyway.



This is the way it is for a number of industries. Many are satisfied with the mediocre some are not. My teenagers are perfectly satisfied with watching things on their phones instead on on their computers or on a TV. The sound is good enough for them. A Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion is good enough for most people they don't care to experience more. The thing is there are people who do; it's the same with the PC industry. Most industries have enthusiasts and while they make up a smaller portion of the whole they still make products for them.

While I agree the majority will opt for no physical media there is still a portion that will and it's not just older people. My son loves having physical media for his games if he can. He is sad that most game companies don't offer physical boxes. People thought records were dead...guess what they are back.

For me BR isn't high enough quality I want UHD probably at a minimum, just waiting for true UHD projectors to eventually come down in prices before I upgrade. I'll be doing ATMOS as well at the same time. Trying to watch a regular DVD is like watching standard quality TV, I just can't do it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we have a 65" 4Km, but mostly watch 1080p. It is probably about 10'-12'.
4K looks good when viewed, but 1080p I can live with fine. I used to watch a small tube black and white TV when younger, and do enjoy the new tech, but I am not going to go crazy if I do not have an 8K TV.
 
Bottom line, the existed of physical media does not hurt streaming one bit, so I am not sure why some of these pro-streamers are so Gung-ho.

The Bluray failure seems to have hurt physical media though, which should be the focus of the thread.
 
Hagrid said:
Yeah, we have a 65" 4Km, but mostly watch 1080p. It is probably about 10'-12'.
4K looks good when viewed, but 1080p I can live with fine. I used to watch a small tube black and white TV when younger, and do enjoy the new tech, but I am not going to go crazy if I do not have an 8K TV.
Click to expand...
I wonder if your tv does upscaling. 1080p upscaled is ok w/my old eyes.
 
Nightfire said:
Bottom line, the existed of physical media does not hurt streaming one bit, so I am not sure why some of these pro-streamers are so Gung-ho.

The Bluray failure seems to have hurt physical media though, which should be the focus of the thread.
Click to expand...
I just did not like the media it was on really. Online downloading? USB stick?
 
Jim Kim said:
I wonder if your tv does upscaling. 1080p upscaled is ok w/my old eyes.
Click to expand...
I have no idea if it is or not. I like 4K and it looks good, but the content just isn't there. So 1080p it is. Yeah, I am not young anymore and my eyes are not the best.
 
Nightfire said:
I keep my 60 fps gopro videos uncompressed and they look amazing compared to when I tested out compressing them. For everything else, the slightly more grey blacks are not a huge deal.
Click to expand...

Because I've been looking at action cameras for a variety of uses, I'd like to ask: by 'uncompressed', do you mean as originally recorded by the camera?

I ask because I was under the impression that you cannot get RAW video on a GoPro. Thanks!
 
Demand for BD dying? Post #4 pretty much sums it up. With over 80 likes it's obvious many [H]ere understand the fact that over a third of Americans do not have access to broadband. And last I looked the USA has dropped from 10th to 15th fastest average internet speed in the last two years alone.

Most people have 1080p TVs now, or better. Yet many are still ignorant to fact that DVDs are only 480p. Or assume up-scaling is just good as a BD. Which no doubt contributes to lack luster sale and rental numbers.
 
Susquehannock said:
Demand for BD dying? Post #4 pretty much sums it up. With over 80 likes it's obvious many [H]ere understand the fact that over a third of Americans do not have access to broadband. And last I looked the USA has dropped from 10th to 15th fastest average internet speed in the last two years alone.

Most people have 1080p TVs now, or better. Yet many are still ignorant to fact that DVDs are only 480p. Or assume up-scaling is just good as a BD. Which no doubt contributes to lack luster sale and rental numbers.
Click to expand...

My dad has a 4k tv, and he watches SD tv I think on composite. I kid you not. I refuse to watch any tv at his house anymore.
 
Design1stcode2nd said:
This is the way it is for a number of industries. Many are satisfied with the mediocre some are not. My teenagers are perfectly satisfied with watching things on their phones instead on on their computers or on a TV. The sound is good enough for them. A Toyota Camry or Ford Fusion is good enough for most people they don't care to experience more. The thing is there are people who do; it's the same with the PC industry. Most industries have enthusiasts and while they make up a smaller portion of the whole they still make products for them.
Click to expand...

Armenius said:
At 25 Mbps. Uncompressed 4K with HDR at 24 FPS is about 6 Gbps. Which means a 4K stream is compressed at a ratio of 240 to 1. No, thanks. By comparison, a UHD Blu-ray runs at a bitrate of 100 Mbps, which is 60 to 1 compression, or 8 times better than streaming.
Click to expand...
I will take 4k @ 10Gbit.....*looks at 10gbit switch*
 
There are still a lot of providers selling 4K Blu-Ray players, I hope the PS5 gets 4K support a little sad the PS4 Pro didn't, if it had I would have likely purchased one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top