Support NeoGAF

[Ponn]

Reaching :lol

Yes, because the $400 DVD player you bought in 2001 was entirely representative of reality. Wasn't reaching at all. Or claiming that DVD installed base doubling every year was bad in 1997-1999 but incredible in 2000-2001. I'm sorry, but if I'm reaching, I am certainly not the only one who is.

I got my player in 1997 bud, never said 2001. The numbers are right there for you, I did all your work and I take my own personal experience and "the guy that wrote the book on DVD's" word more then your's any day. And yes a jump of 13.9 million to 50+ million is incredible. And a complete doubling of DVD library and consistent day and date releases of all titles on VHS and DVD.

What do you and Deku above you have??

 

[Deku]

What do you and Deku above you have??

Have what? Go back and read my post.

 

[maharg]

Actually I was referring to:

Although its current retail price is listed at $499.95, I managed to pick one up for $400 and I have even seen the DVD-A320 go for as little as $349.97.

Gee. Paints a rather extreme view of the price of DVD players in 2000. Guy Who Worked At Blockbuster thought this was normal? Sorry, it wasn't. $300 or less was the norm for what NORMAL PEOPLE would buy then. $150 was pretty easy to get, and even $99 was possible if you wanted shit.

What is reaching if not painting an extreme point of view as the norm? That's what you did.

Also, what? 13 to 50? Excuse me? Maybe you should read your own damn numbers:

o 8.5 million DVD-Video players shipped in the U.S. (Installed base of 13,922,000.)
...
o 12.7 million DVD-Video players shipped in the U.S. (Installed base of 26,629,000.)

You even used those numbers in your initial post quoting it. Where the hell did 50m come from.

Ah I see, you're referring to the growth in the two 3 year periods. Well wtf do you expect. A growth of "double every year" is obviously going to show a larger growth in the second three years than the first. The rate of growth was, however, constant. Did you expect DVD to sell 50m units in its first three years? Because no one sane would have.

Oh and it might help if you actually quoted something from this "the digital bits guy" rather than linking to his book.

 

[Ponn]

Actually I was referring to:

Gee. Paints a rather extreme view of the price of DVD players in 2000. Guy Who Worked At Blockbuster thought this was normal? Sorry, it wasn't. $300 or less was the norm for what NORMAL PEOPLE would buy then. $150 was pretty easy to get, and even $99 was possible if you wanted shit.

What is reaching if not painting an extreme point of view as the norm? That's what you did.

Also, what? 13 to 50? Excuse me? Maybe you should read your own damn numbers:


You even used those numbers in your initial post quoting it. Where the hell did 50m come from.

Ah I see, you're referring to the growth in the two 3 year periods. Well wtf do you expect. A growth of "double every year" is obviously going to show a larger growth in the second three years than the first. The rate of growth was, however, constant. Did you expect DVD to sell 50m units in its first three years? Because no one sane would have.

Yes, and in my original post on this subject I said 300 was still about the range of DVD Players, i'm sorry I did not add the unless you wanted a really crappy DVD part.

And my jump correlation was between before the PS2 launch and after. It's not my fault you tried to drag it into your own numbers game of comparing the first 3 years to the immediate year after.

Seriously, I said my side and I have offered more then enough evidence to back myself and no one else has offered jack or shit except speculation so unless you want to offer up something more i'm done.

 

[maharg]

Yes, my numbers game sucks and yours is Truth itself. Why? Because you worked at Blockbuster.

 

[Diablos]

If the PS3 only had a 1x Blu-Ray drive that would really, really suck. 4x would be ideal.

Why do I get the feeling that all of this new and touchy hardware being thrown into PS3's development is gonna mean lots of defective consoles? :|

 

[NotMSRP]

Time your time Sony at releasing the PS3. Late 2006 or any time in 2007 is a ok with me.

 

[sonycowboy]

It seems that the IGN article may not have been so wrong after all.

An update on the BD-ROM physical format: (thanks to Quaz51 at B3D)

It appears (not confirmed) that the physical transfer speed of Blu-Ray may have been misinterpreted by folks:

http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/d...physicalformatspecifications_jan05b-12909.pdf

Reference velocity (1X) 4.917 m/s
Linear velocity: 7.367 m/s (Movie application)
User data transfer rate: 53.948 Mbit/s (Movie application)

In BD-Movie applications a BD player rotates discs 1.5 times the reference linear velocity of the BD-ROM

So, if the reading by the poster is correct (and it seems that way), then a 1x BD-ROM is only 36Mbps. The 54Mbps is specifically reference relative to the movie application as requiring 1.5x the rotational velocity of the BD-ROM reference.

So, if the PS3 only has a 2x BD-ROM drive, then we may only get 72Mbps as opposed to 108Mbps. Unless, somehow they continue with the rotational increase for BD-ROM even at the 2x level (which would essentially be 3x for read). Not entirely impossible, but the 54Mbps looks like an exception the format likely needed to be able to process 1080p video at an acceptable rate.

I think it's reasonable to assume that all read applications should be able to work at 54Mbps as I can't specifically think of a reason why movie data should be the only data that can be read at 1.5Mbps. However, a 2x drive, might only net you 72Mbps.

All somewhat confusing at this point, but it could set up a bit of disappointment for disc transfer speed.

 

[Fafalada]

All somewhat confusing at this point, but it could set up a bit of disappointment for disc transfer speed.

On the more positive note though - Sony has a PD drive out (professional bluelaser media with basically the same spec as BRD) that runs at equivalent of 3xspeed BRD - and can sustain that speed even in CAV mode.
While that's still a little slower then peak 12xDVD speed, it easily beats it on average. Of course it remains to be seen how much any of this will apply to BRD unit in PS3, but it's the first realworld benchmark data we have that somewhat relates to BRD performance, so I found it pretty interesting (especially the seek times).

 

[Alcibiades]

while the PS2 definitely helped... I think the surge started happening when computer makers started including them as normal features in their systems...

I remember buying Fargo a really long time ago, probably before the PS2 debut, and some Jurassic Park movies at some point as well, purchases that stemmed from the fact that I had a DVD player in the computer already...

 

[Pimpwerx]

On the more positive note though - Sony has a PD drive out (professional bluelaser media with basically the same spec as BRD) that runs at equivalent of 3xspeed BRD - and can sustain that speed even in CAV mode.
While that's still a little slower then peak 12xDVD speed, it easily beats it on average. Of course it remains to be seen how much any of this will apply to BRD unit in PS3, but it's the first realworld benchmark data we have that somewhat relates to BRD performance, so I found it pretty interesting (especially the seek times).

What were the seek times like? Got a link? PEACE.

EDIT: nm, found it at the other place. 100m sounds good.