Support NeoGAF

[theultimo]

Simple. 1080i makes the picture fuzzier and less clear.

You must have a horrible de-interlacer. 1080i is clearer on most 1080i/1080p sets. Even competent 720p sets have good 1080i picture quality. Resolution plays a BIG part in this.

 

[Clouseau]

I never said they didn't. I know they do.

I was talking about this line:

They could be saving a lot of bandwidth and just broadcast in 720p.

Uhh.....720p takes up less bandwidth than 1080i. Anything else need explaining? :lol

 

[ZeoVGM]

Two things.

1) lol @ ComputerNerd
2) Blu-ray is not replacing DVD, even if it beats HD-DVD.

 

[bishoptl]

ComputerNerd
Listen to my posts
in REAL TIME AUDIO

juicy

 

[Newzboyz99]

Ok just post a fatality gif and end that stupid arguement. :lol

 

[ComputerNerd]

????????????
WHAT?
WTF are talking about? Profit for WHO? The studios? NO! Discs cost pennies to print for the studios, and allow them to continuously make profit off the same film by releasing then re-releasing special editions. Not to mention that the total potential user base will ALWAYS*(we're talkin the foreseeable future here) be bigger with physical media.
Do you have ANY knowledge of ANYTHING related to this discussion or do you just string together random opinions based on bits and pieces of info that you've seen in people's posts and op'ed pieces without possessing the necessary facilities to properly digest the information before spouting nonsense on a message board and looking like a complete fool?

I'm talking about a 5 year timespan. In 5 years, downloadable movies should start to grow exponentially, and soon after take over disk-based movies. And the cost of making a movie downloadable vs. on disk is less.

And you're acting as if they can't re-release movies on download services. Special editions can certainly pop up on those services. What would stop that?

I think you're afraid your HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player may become obsolete before the usual 10-year timespan for disk-based media normally lasts. I sense a note of fear in you.

 

[Phoenix]

You also missed his point. On Demand could also be a Blu-Ray replacement. When those services expand, Blu-Ray may be pointless completely.

The market for digital delivery (people actually willing to pay) is trivial, almost to the point of being laughable. All of the players invested in digital delivery are bleeding money out the ASS to build infrastructure for a market that isn't yet there. The only profitable players in this space are profitable in OTHER areas to cover the massive ass-raping that digital delivery is bringing them right now.

 

[ComputerNerd]

juicy

Touche. Meh, I like having a custom title, even if it does bash me.

 

[milanbaros]

Why do people think it will take 30GB movies to make downloading movies popular. I think 2bn songs have been sold on itunes at a tenth of the file size of a music CD. I just think they need to be comparable to DVDs.

 

[Phoenix]

I'm talking about a 5 year timespan. In 5 years, downloadable movies should start to grow exponentially, and soon after take over disk-based movies. And the cost of making a movie downloadable vs. on disk is less.

And you're acting as if they can't re-release movies on download services. Special editions can certainly pop up on those services. What would stop that?

I think you're afraid your HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player may become obsolete before the usual 10-year timespan for disk-based media normally lasts. I sense a note of fear in you.

You've jumped the gun by about 10 years. Right now even early adopters aren't on the digital bandwagon. Hell all the players are still trying to get digital delivery down so you can burn the movies that you buy online.

 

[AmishNazi]

The only thing I remember 1080i or p being less desirable for is games. Actually if we use logic and his lack of being able to back up his point that's probably where he got it from.

As for digital distrubution I really don't see it happening outside of rentals, for the obvious Re-Release rapage that's going on right now.

 

[MickeyKnox]

I'm talking about a 5 year timespan. In 5 years, downloadable movies should start to grow exponentially, and soon after take over disk-based movies. And the cost of making a movie downloadable vs. on disk is less.

And you're acting as if they can't re-release movies on download services. Special editions can certainly pop up on those services. What would stop that?

I think you're afraid your HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player may become obsolete before the usual 10-year timespan for disk-based media normally lasts. I sense a note of fear in you.

 

[theultimo]

Ok just post a fatality gif and end that stupid arguement. :lol

I think this fits better.

 

[BlueTsunami]

ComputerNerd needs his ****en nick changed fast. The dude is as illiterate and ignorant to technology as a rere that fell on his head a second time.

 

[ComputerNerd]

Uhh.....720p takes up less bandwidth than 1080i. Anything else need explaining? :lol

720p = 921,600 pixels
1080i = 1,036,800 pixels

I will concede my earlier point that 720p pushes more data, but the difference isn't that large. You stated it was a large difference in favor of 1080i.

 

[ComputerNerd]

ComputerNerd needs his ****en nick changed fast. The dude is as illiterate and ignorant to technology as a rere that fell on his head a second time.

My title was changed.

I may have been wrong on a point or two (the one about 720p pushing more data comes to mind), but the vast majority of my points are correct.

Downloadable movies will become market leader before Blu-Ray or HDDVD do.

 

[Crag Dweller]

This has nothing to do with this thread, but I just had to say how shitty that brickwork is. Must of let the labors lay the brick that day.:lol

 

[davepoobond]

Why do people think it will take 30GB movies to make downloading movies popular. I think 2bn songs have been sold on itunes at a tenth of the file size of a music CD. I just think they need to be comparable to DVDs.

1) audio files are a lot smaller than video files
2) downloading will always be perceived as a rip off since studios charge 20 bucks for a download. a download that you don't even get to "keep" half the time.
3) retailers who rely on dvd sales will choke publishers (the target and disney ordeal, for example) if they offer downloads at a somewhat reasonable price
4) dvd resolution < hd resolution.

 

[Clouseau]

720p = 921,600 pixels
1080i = 1,036,800 pixels

I will concede my earlier point that 720p pushes more data, but the difference isn't that large. You stated it was a large difference in favor of 1080i.

Wrong again.

720p pushes 921,600 per frame.
1080i pushes 1.04 million per field. There's 2 fields in a frame....INTERLACED

So 1080i is pushing around 2.07 million pixels when fully DEINTERLACED.

 

[AmishNazi]

I may have been wrong on a point or two (Point # 1:the one about 720p pushing more data comes to mind), but the vast majority of my points are correct.

Point # 2:Downloadable movies will become market leader before Blu-Ray or HDDVD do.

:lol :lol


Fixed.

 

[ComputerNerd]

Wrong again.

720p pushes 921,600 per frame.
1080i pushes 1.04 million per field. There's 2 fields in a frame....INTERLACED

So 1080i is pushing around 2.07 million pixels when fully DEINTERLACED.

We're talking about 1080i. Not 1080p.

We all know 1080p is vastly better than either 720p or 1080i. Common sense. But that's not what we were talking about.

 

[Raistlin]

720p = 921,600 pixels
1080i = 1,036,800 pixels

I will concede my earlier point that 720p pushes more data, but the difference isn't that large. You stated it was a large difference in favor of 1080i.

You have no grasp of the subject if you think it's a simple as the pixel counts above.

The large difference in favor of 1080i is due to finished output resolution.

 

[Clouseau]

We're talking about 1080i. Not 1080p.

We all know 1080p is vastly better than either 720p or 1080i. Common sense. But that's not what we were talking about.

Oy vey....

1080i can put out the same amount of resolution as 1080p IF IT IS PROPERLY DEINTERLACED!!! Can I borrow that brickwall.gif please?

 

[Raistlin]

We're talking about 1080i. Not 1080p.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

The problem is we ARE talking about 1080i ... you've got no clue how telecine works.

We all know 1080p is vastly better than either 720p or 1080i. Common sense. But that's not what we were talking about.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[BlueTsunami]

Its like ComputerNerd is trying to confuse us all but is failing miserably

 

[MickeyKnox]

Oy vey....

1080i can put out the same amount of resolution as 1080p IF IT IS PROPERLY DEINTERLACED!!! Can I borrow that brickwall.gif please?

Guys, this is getting ridiculous.
The dude is completely clueless, he has 0 knowledge regarding anything that's been talked about in this thread.
He is either a troll or the type of person who would shit their pants and walk around all day without changing clothes.
Let's just shake our heads and walk away.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I say hes deadmeat. Hes the only person that I've argued with that is able to throw out false information, get called on it and keep going. Like a boxer..OKIE DOKE..unf unf...and jab, and duck and duck and duck and duck again....

 

[ComputerNerd]

Various points I've made in this thread. The vast majority of them are correct:

Downloadable movies will be cheaper
Downloadable movies will start in SD, and move to HD
CD's only have a couple good songs, and the rest are filler. Which makes services like ITunes much cheaper than buying CD's.

On Demand could also be a Blu-Ray replacement. When those services expand, Blu-Ray may be pointless completely.
On Demand offers HD movies at this very second.
To most users, they prefer getting an SD movie than paying $10 more for an HD movie.

Right now, the only thing we're missing is the linkup from the computer to the cable box. You don't think we will get that in 4-5 years?


720p > 1080i.

720p pumps more data than 1080i. Resulting in a clearer picture.

Both of those are accomplishable (central storage location and streaming it throughout the house) in 5 years, and at a cheap enough price to become the market leader a few years after that.

The disks still have to be manufactured and shipped. Downloads are almost pure profit, especially if they use a 3rd party service like ITunes.

Simple. 1080i makes the picture fuzzier and less clear.

 

[Phoenix]

We're talking about 1080i. Not 1080p.

We all know 1080p is vastly better than either 720p or 1080i. Common sense. But that's not what we were talking about.

 

[Lord Error]

I'm talking about a 5 year timespan. In 5 years, downloadable movies should start to grow exponentially, and soon after take over disk-based movies. And the cost of making a movie downloadable vs. on disk is less.

Cool. If that happens, five years down the line I'll switch to downloads. It's FIVE years though! Even if it's less than that, why on Earth would i not buy HD movies in the disc format available now, when I have devices that play them, and TV that can display them? I'm supposed to watch inferior looking movies for years more just because something that could be more "mass-market friendly" is coming years down the line? That doesn't make any sense to me, especially considering that there's a very good chance that downloadable movies won't be anywhere near as high quality encoded as these discs are.

 

[theultimo]

Various points I've made in this thread. The vast majority of them are correct:

Downloadable movies will be cheaper
Downloadable movies will start in SD, and move to HD
CD's only have a couple good songs, and the rest are filler. Which makes services like ITunes much cheaper than buying CD's.

On Demand could also be a Blu-Ray replacement. When those services expand, Blu-Ray may be pointless completely.
On Demand offers HD movies at this very second.
To most users, they prefer getting an SD movie than paying $10 more for an HD movie.

Right now, the only thing we're missing is the linkup from the computer to the cable box. You don't think we will get that in 4-5 years?


720p > 1080i.

720p pumps more data than 1080i. Resulting in a clearer picture.

Both of those are accomplishable (central storage location and streaming it throughout the house) in 5 years, and at a cheap enough price to become the market leader a few years after that.

The disks still have to be manufactured and shipped. Downloads are almost pure profit, especially if they use a 3rd party service like ITunes.

Simple. 1080i makes the picture fuzzier and less clear.

..wow

 

[theBishop]

CD's only have a couple good songs, and the rest are filler.

Hint: stop listening to shitty music.

 

[mrklaw]

720p > 1080i.

OMG - Joe Kane is posting on GAF!

 

[Raistlin]

Various points I've made in this thread. The vast majority of them are correct:

no

Downloadable movies will be cheaper
Downloadable movies will start in SD, and move to HD

Sure, HD ... but what does that mean? When do you propose the infastructure will be available to offer downloadable content that matches current BluRay offerings, let alone future ones that really push the platform?

CD's only have a couple good songs, and the rest are filler. Which makes services like ITunes much cheaper than buying CD's.

What does this have to do with movies? Are we going to purchase abridged movies now at a cheaper price? Basically highlight reels?

On Demand could also be a Blu-Ray replacement. When those services expand, Blu-Ray may be pointless completely.
On Demand offers HD movies at this very second.

Again ... at what quality?

To most users, they prefer getting an SD movie than paying $10 more for an HD movie.

Considering BluRay sales are growing, I don't know how you can make that assumption.

Right now, the only thing we're missing is the linkup from the computer to the cable box. You don't think we will get that in 4-5 years?

Yeah ... that's all we're missing.

720p > 1080i.

Just stop

720p pumps more data than 1080i. Resulting in a clearer picture.

:lol :lol :lol :lol Seriously, are you touched?

Both of those are accomplishable (central storage location and streaming it throughout the house) in 5 years, and at a cheap enough price to become the market leader a few years after that.

Sure.

The disks still have to be manufactured and shipped. Downloads are almost pure profit, especially if they use a 3rd party service like ITunes.

Beyond the many problems with your point ... can you tell me why you think downloads are cheaper when using a 3rd party service? Maybe in the sort run ... but obviously not in the long run.

What ... do you think Apple offers the services for free? :lol

Simple. 1080i makes the picture fuzzier and less clear.

:lol

 

[plagiarize]

Various points I've made in this thread. The vast majority of them are correct:

Downloadable movies will be cheaper
Downloadable movies will start in SD, and move to HD
CD's only have a couple good songs, and the rest are filler. Which makes services like ITunes much cheaper than buying CD's.

On Demand could also be a Blu-Ray replacement. When those services expand, Blu-Ray may be pointless completely.
On Demand offers HD movies at this very second.
To most users, they prefer getting an SD movie than paying $10 more for an HD movie.

Right now, the only thing we're missing is the linkup from the computer to the cable box. You don't think we will get that in 4-5 years?


720p > 1080i.

720p pumps more data than 1080i. Resulting in a clearer picture.

you know what data is right? it's raw information. a 1080i feed is more raw information than 720p. lets do the math okay? 720p is a full field frame of video at 60 frames per second. that is 1280 x 720 which equals = 921600 pixels per frame.

1080 is interlaced, and sends half a frame every 1/60th of a second. so (1920 x 1080) / 2 equals = 1036800 pixels per half frame. in other words 720p is 55.3 million pixels per second where as 1080i is 62.2 million pixels per second.

1080 is clearly pumping more data.

Both of those are accomplishable (central storage location and streaming it throughout the house) in 5 years, and at a cheap enough price to become the market leader a few years after that.

The disks still have to be manufactured and shipped. Downloads are almost pure profit, especially if they use a 3rd party service like ITunes.

Simple. 1080i makes the picture fuzzier and less clear.

when we are talking about FILM sources we are dealing with 24 frames per second. 1080i being sixty frames per second is therefore more than enough to capture a film which has been transferred at 1920 x 1080 or 1080p. 720p cannot do this for a film as despite it being more than enough pixels per second it has to throw away resolution with every frame.

therefore, even a 720p tv that can deinterlace and downscale well will display a *film* sent to it at 1080i just as well as it would a film sent to it at 720p. the tv takes the even fields and the odd fields from each frame of video, and recombines them to create a 1080p image which it then scales down to 720p.

if you have a 1080p set, 1080i FILM sources are recombined into crystal clear uninterlaced 1080p. 720p sources are upscaled but information has been lost compared to a 1080p FILM.

if you are talking video (such as you may see from a videogame) at 60 frames per second then yes, 720p is better than 1080i, but not when we are talking film. again, a game that that runs at 30 fps will look better (on a 1080p set) or no worse (on a 720p set) outputting at 1080i as compared to 720p.

anything else is just down to tvs that can't properly handle 1080i.

 

[AmishNazi]

Downloadable movies will be cheaper
Downloadable movies will start in SD, and move to HD
CD's only have a couple good songs, and the rest are filler. Which makes services like ITunes much cheaper than buying CD's.

Thing is that movies don't have filler. Now the ability to download certain episodes of a show instead of a whole season....

Downloadable games. Yes. Music. Yes. Movies. Nope.

Like people said before HD's fail and the majority of the population likes to be able to look at a physical representation of their movie collection. Downloadable movies would only be popular with computer nerds, and hell it wouldn't even be that popular with us.

 

[Raistlin]

you know what data is right? it's raw information. a 1080i feed is more raw information than 720p. lets do the math okay? 720p is a full field frame of video at 60 frames per second. that is 1280 x 720 which equals = 921600 pixels per frame.

1080 is interlaced, and sends half a frame every 1/60th of a second. so (1920 x 1080) / 2 equals = 1036800 pixels per half frame. in other words 720p is 55.3 million pixels per second where as 1080i is 62.2 million pixels per second.

1080 is clearly pumping more data.


when we are talking about FILM sources we are dealing with 24 frames per second. 1080i being sixty frames per second is therefore more than enough to capture a film which has been transferred at 1920 x 1080 or 1080p. 720p cannot do this for a film as despite it being more than enough pixels per second it has to throw away resolution with every frame.

therefore, even a 720p tv that can deinterlace and downscale well will display a *film* sent to it at 1080i just as well as it would a film sent to it at 720p. the tv takes the even fields and the odd fields from each frame of video, and recombines them to create a 1080p image which it then scales down to 720p.

if you have a 1080p set, 1080i FILM sources are recombined into crystal clear uninterlaced 1080p. 720p sources are upscaled but information has been lost compared to a 1080p FILM.

if you are talking video (such as you may see from a videogame) at 60 frames per second then yes, 720p is better than 1080i, but not when we are talking film. again, a game that that runs at 30 fps will look better (on a 1080p set) or no worse (on a 720p set) outputting at 1080i as compared to 720p.

anything else is just down to tvs that can't properly handle 1080i.

Your math is showing BW of the feed ... when you take into consideration the end displayed image, the gap is much wider.

Per actual frame of original source material, 720p produces 921,600 pixels.

Per actual frame of original source material (assuming proper deinterlace), 1080i produces 2,073,600 pixels (ie. the same as 1080p).

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

no it won't.
Not even going into IQ and AQ, you people are grossly underestimating the financial reasoning behind keeping films primarily on a disc based solution.
Discs = more money for the studios than digital downloads = digital downloads won't replace physical media.

IMO...

People will sacrifice both IQ and AQ (to some degree) for convenience. CD's (or even crappy Tapes) vs Vinyl is a good example of that, or even how 128 bit mp3's are considered "good enough" even though CD's have uncompressed audio with bit rate of 1411.2 kb/s. To me, that proves that past a certain quality level, people will gladly trade quality for convenience.

Personally, I've noticed people being far more picky about image quality, and even then, as long as general image quality is just "good", they'll except it, especially if it's a few bucks cheaper. Heck, I could see more people complaining about a lack of special features than anything else.

Physical media requires actual physical manufacturing, from the actual discs to the dvd cases, then physically boxing and moving said releases (via shipping) all over the world. I suspect that downloadable media could remove some of those costs, and that the industry could sell downloadable content cheaper while still making a profit.

I'm not saying that there will be no physical media in five years, obviously there will still be the need/want archive things. My thought is that there "should" be enough of an downloadable alternative to break us out of this "one disc format to rule them all" cycle.

It's going to be interesting to see how downloadable media changes consoles. Will future consoles even feature disk drives? Or maybe they'll break the consoles into two sku's, i.e. the cheaper core model will feature no drive, while the more expensive model does include a drive.

 

[Ponn]

Troll fodder but i'm bored waiting on a download, even on broadband.

Various points I've made in this thread. The vast majority of them are correct:

Downloadable movies will be cheaper

You can't prove this, no prices have been announced and the comparison would be off anyways. On Demand movies and downloadable movies will be ala carte. You won't go near the amount of extras you will on Blu-ray or HD-DVD or choices.

Downloadable movies will start in SD, and move to HD

Yea, so. I can buy HD movies on Blu-ray and HD-DVD now.

CD's only have a couple good songs, and the rest are filler. Which makes services like ITunes much cheaper than buying CD's.

Awesome for iTunes.

On Demand could also be a Blu-Ray replacement. When those services expand, Blu-Ray may be pointless completely.

And we could have flying cars and not be dependant on oil still in 5 years. When you get me a price on the harddrive/cable modem/computer/tv hookup setup I need to download these movies, get me the same extra features as blu-ray/HDDVD movies, exact quality in sound and image and can guarantee the portability and no loss of hard drive crash or powersurge I may consider it. Till then discs look fine and simple on my shelf.

To most users, they prefer getting an SD movie than paying $10 more for an HD movie.

And i'm sure these same technophile are biting at the bit to jump right into the complicated mess of downloadable movies over computer with extra box sold by Apple. You people claiming this disc-less future need to seperate the people that actually BUY movies to those that RENT them.

 

[The Elite]

If Blu-Ray happens to beat out HD DVD by the end of the year and then Sony and other B-Ray player manufacturers set their sights on the general market... one thing will have to happen.

They will need to sell their players as DVD players with Blu-Ray functionality. You basically tell people, "Hey, this will play your DVDs but if you upgrade to a hi-def TV you are set to play Blu-Ray content". This will bring a lot more consumers in than bullying them into transfering to a new format. Trust me, DVD has just come into it's own over the past 2-3 years and asking consumers to switch yet again will not go over so well.

The idea of a DVD players that will play a new hi-def Blu-Ray disc will work.

 

[Bad_Boy]

I read ComputerNerd's posts and hear this in my head.

:lol :lol

 

[ComputerNerd]

Your math is showing BW of the feed ... when you take into consideration the end displayed image, the gap is much wider.

Per actual frame of original source material, 720p produces 921,600 pixels.

Per actual frame of original source material (assuming proper deinterlace), 1080i produces 2,073,600 pixels (ie. the same as 1080p).

Deinterlacing, IMO, is only proper if the data source is in 60 FPS. Otherwise you get more image distortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1

I don't see anything here about Blu-Ray disks being recorded in 1080i/60 (via VC-1).

I may be wrong, but are there any Blu-Ray movies recorded in 60 FPS?

Edit: Nevermind, seems like Blu-Ray is strictly 24 FPS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray

Edit 2: Oh, and to respond to something earlier, I do know what telecine is. I just don't think it makes a difference in this thread.

 

[Vustadumas]

BTW, what does the NYP have to do with basically a story based on actual quotes from people in the industry??? I don't see anything in the story that is tabloid. HD-DVD is in deep trouble and its plain as day.

HD-DVD is fine, for now. I'd give it a few years before it's completely discontinuted. I think Blu-Ray will eventually win out, but it'll be a hollow victory. Digital distribution will eventually take over, but I think it might be a tough sale at the start, as most consumer's, myself included, like to have a tangible copy of what we buy.

 

[DrXym]

I'm not going to say it was obvious but it was certainly pretty clear from the very outset that Blu-Ray was most likely to win. Naturally there was (and still is some) potential for a massive screwup by Sony + friends, but it hasn't happened (yet) and the sheer weight of new titles for BD and zero for HD DVD and sales figures really says it all.

Looking globally one must also consider Europe. Neither Blu-Ray or HD DVD have achieved even slight market penetration. In 9 days from now Blu-Ray will surge ahead by 1 million players. Game over man. It's very, very hard to see a situation that could turn that around.

 

[charlequin]

:lol
The "HD" content available on these services is shit.

Three words, three letters: FAT HEAD MODE, MP3. People who consider themselves AV enthusiasts are in the topmost bracket of ability to distinguish differences in IQ. Most consumers will hover as close to the side of people who don't even adjust the AR on their SD broadcasts as they do to those who can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p at a glance. Those consumers aren't nearly as likely to invest money in an alternate physical media format as they are to take advantage of a new service with no initial buy-in cost (like either an Internet or cable-based movie download service would be.)

Just like hi-def audio formats have a niche success but never approached the success of CD (and have already been thoroughly surpassed by poor quality downloadable audio media), just like few consumers actually have speaker setups properly tuned for (say) 5.1 sound.

EDIT: And time has already shown that AV enthusiasts are a big enough market on their own to maintain the existence of AV enthusiast-quality media.... Blu-Ray isn't going to die even if it doesn't take over for DVD.

 

[MickeyKnox]

It's really cute how all of you dedicated AV types think that your concepts of "acceptable quality" are even remotely relevant to the marketplace as a whole.

Three words, three letters: FAT HEAD MODE, MP3. People who consider themselves AV enthusiasts are in the topmost bracket of ability to distinguish differences in IQ. Most consumers will hover as close to the side of people who don't even adjust the AR on their SD broadcasts as they do to those who can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p at a glance. Those consumers aren't nearly as likely to invest money in an alternate physical media format as they are to take advantage of a new service with no initial buy-in cost (like either an Internet or cable-based movie download service would be.)

Just like hi-def audio formats have a niche success but never approached the success of CD (and have already been thoroughly surpassed by poor quality downloadable audio media), just like few consumers actually have speaker setups properly tuned for (say) 5.1 sound.

I also think it's really cute you didn't take the time to read the other posts where we the "topmost bracket" explain that it's all about FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE MOVIE STUDIOS.
The digital distribution market/model is no where near ready to net them as much profit as disc based sales would and which makes dd irrelevant.

 

[Manmademan]

I also think it's really cute you didn't take the time to read the other posts where we the "topmost bracket" explain that it's all about FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO THE MOVIE STUDIOS.
The digital distribution market/model is no where near ready to net them as much profit as disc based sales would and which makes dd irrelevant.

QFT.

I also love how some posters are claiming Comcast "on demand" is going to render Blu-Ray/HD-DVD irrelevant. They're two completely different products. SD "on demand" has been around for YEARS and hasn't put a dent in DVD sales at all.

Itunes doesn't help this argument, either. Track for track it costs the exact same thing to download a cd as it does to go out and buy it- and no one in their right mind wants to "cherry pick" dvd chapters like CD tracks.

DVD "collector's editions" with tangible extras (think the LOTR boxsets, T2 ultimate edition, Band of Brothers with the metal case...) are BIG business. Studios make money hand over fist re-releasing editions and consumers fall all over themselves to buy them.
They'd give up this revenue stream why again?

Don't forget america is getting older as well. the percentage of the population that only wants to be able to "just buy it and stick it in" without worrying about download times or DRM restrictions is only going to get bigger.

Physical media isn't going away anytime soon. get used to it

 

[DarienA]

QFT.

I also love how some posters are claiming Comcast "on demand" is going to render Blu-Ray/HD-DVD irrelevant. They're two completely different products. SD "on demand" has been around for YEARS and hasn't put a dent in DVD sales at all.

Itunes doesn't help this argument, either. Track for track it costs the exact same thing to download a cd as it does to go out and buy it- and no one in their right mind wants to "cherry pick" dvd chapters like CD tracks.

DVD "collector's editions" with tangible extras (think the LOTR boxsets, T2 ultimate edition, Band of Brothers with the metal case...) are BIG business. Studios make money hand over fist re-releasing editions and consumers fall all over themselves to buy them.
They'd give up this revenue stream why again?

Don't forget america is getting older as well. the percentage of the population that only wants to be able to "just buy it and stick it in" without worrying about download times or DRM restrictions is only going to get bigger.

Physical media isn't going away anytime soon. get used to it

No matter how many good reasons you give the "download is gonna take over soon" folks that they are wrong, they just never listen.

 

[theultimo]

No matter how many good reasons you give the "download is gonna take over soon" folks that they are wrong, they just never listen.

This arguments reminds me of Kazaa Movie Sharing and **AA issues.

"P2P is killing our business, it will destroy the system as we know it!"

Did it?


Really?

 

[Ranger X]

That is one of the most awesome image i've ever seen.