Bluray in Unibody Macbook [Archive]

johnny13oi

Apr 22, 2009, 11:38 PM

Ivan P

Apr 22, 2009, 11:42 PM

Are there even slot loading bluray drives available?:confused:

The PS3 has one, so I don't see why not ;)

jav6454

Apr 23, 2009, 12:36 AM

I was wondering would it be possible to install a bluray burner into the unibody macbook?

I id search , but only came up with an answer about an older Macbook Pro 17".

If you could hook it up the following would happen:

1. OS X would see the drive and label it correctly.
2. OS X would not be able to play the movie
3. ???
4. You rage at the fact you installed it just to find out it won't work with OS X.

waloshin

Apr 23, 2009, 01:48 AM

http://store.fastmac.com/product_info.php?products_id=338

WOW! Not worth it!

r.j.s

Apr 23, 2009, 04:44 AM

if the dvd drive in the aluminum macbook is the same size as the white macbooks then yes it can be done. The M1330 uses the same exact dvd drive as the white macbook and was offered with a bluray drive option. So if you can find one of those and the aluminum takes the same size as the white macbook you should be fine.

The fact that the option is there for the Dell doesn't mean the same drive will fit into a Mac. It may be that the drive is too thick or too big for the MB, and there was just more open space in the Dell when it had the DVD drive in it.

MBHockey

Apr 23, 2009, 05:49 AM

If you could hook it up the following would happen:

1. OS X would see the drive and label it correctly.
2. OS X would not be able to play the movie
3. ???
4. You rage at the fact you installed it just to find out it won't work with OS X.

Plex can play unencrypted Blu-ray movies.

But why you would want Blu-ray on a 13" screen makes no sense to me (unless you have a nice external to hook it up to).

jav6454

Apr 23, 2009, 10:28 AM

Plex can play unencrypted Blu-ray movies.

But why you would want Blu-ray on a 13" screen makes no sense to me (unless you have a nice external to hook it up to).

Just curious, how many movies are unecrypted. I didn't even knew they were:eek:

old-wiz

Apr 23, 2009, 10:37 AM

Just curious, how many movies are unecrypted. I didn't even knew they were:eek:

+1 on that. I've never heard of unencrypted blu-ray movies unless it's home movies.

TheNightPhoenix

Apr 23, 2009, 10:39 AM

All bought ones are encrypted, home made ones aren't, much like DVDs.

jav6454

Apr 23, 2009, 10:46 AM

All bought ones are encrypted, home made ones aren't, much like DVDs.

I see. So all Blu-Rays from movies we buy are encrypted.... dam

MBHockey

Apr 23, 2009, 02:17 PM

Yeah, i thought it was obvious you'd have to use something like AnyDVD HD to make the blu-ray discs Plex-friendly.

Kardashian

Apr 23, 2009, 02:22 PM

Plex can play unencrypted Blu-ray movies.

But why you would want Blu-ray on a 13" screen makes no sense to me (unless you have a nice external to hook it up to).

Again, useless.

One of the main selling points for studio's with Blu-ray is the encryption.

No new releases, from genuine sellers are going to be unencrypted.

NT1440

Apr 23, 2009, 02:27 PM

The PS3 has one, so I don't see why not ;)

The PS3 doesnt have a burner in it, does it?:confused:

r.j.s

Apr 23, 2009, 03:14 PM

The PS3 doesnt have a burner in it, does it?:confused:

No.

Xapphire13

Apr 24, 2009, 03:34 AM

Plex can play unencrypted Blu-ray movies.

But why you would want Blu-ray on a 13" screen makes no sense to me (unless you have a nice external to hook it up to).

High definition isn't about screen size... it's about pixel density (the 'definition'). So the 13" screen makes perfect sense for blu-ray as it has a high pixel density.

A 42" full HD screen (1920x1080) would be approx. 52.4 PPI (pixels per inch)
The macbooks 13.3" screen (1280x800) is approx. 113.5 PPI

Do the math =]

Ivan P

Apr 24, 2009, 03:37 AM

The PS3 doesnt have a burner in it, does it?:confused:

I was answering the question about slot-loading Bluray drives, I didn't see anything about burners.

Matek

Apr 24, 2009, 04:12 AM

High definition isn't about screen size... it's about pixel density (the 'definition'). So the 13" screen makes perfect sense for blu-ray as it has a high pixel density.

A 42" full HD screen (1920x1080) would be approx. 52.4 PPI (pixels per inch)
The macbooks 13.3" screen (1280x800) is approx. 113.5 PPI.

Do the math =]LOL, I'm afraid someone misinformed you, buddy. HD is not about pixel density, it's about resolution (which often has correlation with screen size). The consequence however is of course the increase in pixel density. If you watch a DVD on your 42" full HD TV, it will have the lower, 576p pal resolution. If you watch a Bluray, it will be in 1080p, so yes, the pixel density will increase.

But that doesn't mean a MacBook is appropriate for Full HD content. Since Full HD resolution is 1920x1080 and the MacBooks screen is only 1280x800, it can either display only half of the video or resize it down and lose a lot of detail.

Xapphire13

Apr 24, 2009, 04:19 AM

LOL, I'm afraid someone misinformed you, buddy. HD is not about pixel density, it's about resolution (which often has correlation with screen size). The consequence however is of course the increase in pixel density. If you watch a DVD on your 42" full HD TV, it will have the lower, 576p pal resolution. If you watch a Bluray, it will be in 1080p, so yes, the pixel density will increase.

But that doesn't mean a MacBook is appropriate for Full HD content. Since Full HD resolution is 1920x1080 and the MacBooks screen is only 1280x800, it can either display only half of the video or resize it down and lose a lot of detail.

Im talking about the actual physical pixels that are there.... not the pixels that a video has... if you look at a 800x600 picture on a 100 PPI screen and then on a 50 PPI screen, the 100 PPI will have a smaller picture but it will look alot more real and appear to be of better quality.

The bigger the screen the bigger the pixels need to be to fill in that size... do you really want to be watching on a screen that has bigger pixels? Do you look at pictures zoomed so you can see blocking?

r.j.s

Apr 24, 2009, 05:01 AM

Im talking about the actual physical pixels that are there.... not the pixels that a video has... if you look at a 800x600 picture on a 100 PPI screen and then on a 50 PPI screen, the 100 PPI will have a smaller picture but it will look alot more real and appear to be of better quality.

There's still not any more actual definition. By your explanation, movies played on an iPod are HD, because there are more PPI (163 for Touch). It's an illusion.

Xapphire13

Apr 24, 2009, 05:08 AM

There's still not any more actual definition. By your explanation, movies played on an iPod are HD, because there are more PPI (163 for Touch). It's an illusion.

There is a lot more 'definition'...

Mac OS X's dictionary definition of 'definition'

2 the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, esp. of an image in a photograph or on a screen.
• the capacity of an instrument or device for making images distinct in outline : [in combination ] high-definition television.

Now.. more pixel density has the ability to provide more defined pictures... obviously it must be coupled with resolution for larger things... but i was trying to say that screen size does not matter... After all, they dont increase the resolution of full HD TVs when they make them bigger do they? a 22" full HD and 42" full HD screen have the same 1920x1080 resolution... but i can guarantee the picture on the 22" will look more crisp.

Plus the macbooks screen has enough resolution for 720i/p video to be displayed fully.

r.j.s

Apr 24, 2009, 05:16 AM

Plus the macbooks screen has enough resolution for 720i/p video to be displayed fully.

Semantics aside, it's not HD.

But in order for blu-ray movie playback to be practical it must be 1080p. 720 ≠ 1080.

I have a 26" 720p tv that downscales 1080i input for display. I have the same 1080i input on my 52" 1080p in the living room. There is no question, the 52" is sharper and clearer. In order for HD to be practical, both the source and the display must match resolution. Size has nothing to do with it.

Xapphire13

Apr 24, 2009, 05:21 AM

Semantics aside, it's not HD.

But in order for blu-ray movie playback to be practical it must be 1080p. 720 ≠ 1080.

I have a 26" 720p tv that downscales 1080i input for display. I have the same 1080i input on my 52" 1080p in the living room. There is no question, the 52" is sharper and clearer. In order for HD to be practical, both the source and the display must match resolution. Size has nothing to do with it.

720 is classed as HD, and 1080i is only technically showing 540 horizontal lines at anyone time... less than 720p even :o. And of course the picture is going to look better on your 1080p tv, your other tv is downscaling whereas your other one is not. You cant compare downscaled picture to original resolution picture.

r.j.s

Apr 24, 2009, 05:25 AM

But my 26" has higher ppi.

Xapphire13

Apr 24, 2009, 05:28 AM

But you cant compare downscaled with non-downscaled... and the pixel density in both of your tv's are similar..

26" 720i/p - approx. 56.5 PPI
52" 1080i/p - approx. 42.3 PPI

r.j.s

Apr 24, 2009, 05:36 AM

Yet your comparing blu-ray playback on a 1080p screen to a macbook's 800px screen.

It would have to downscale.

MBHockey

Apr 24, 2009, 05:38 AM

Again, useless.

One of the main selling points for studio's with Blu-ray is the encryption.

No new releases, from genuine sellers are going to be unencrypted.

You should have read the whole thread before posting.

High definition isn't about screen size... it's about pixel density (the 'definition'). So the 13" screen makes perfect sense for blu-ray as it has a high pixel density.

A 42" full HD screen (1920x1080) would be approx. 52.4 PPI (pixels per inch)
The macbooks 13.3" screen (1280x800) is approx. 113.5 PPI

Do the math =]

It doesn't matter. If you want to incorrectly look at pixel density, go ahead. Either way, there is little difference in image quality between a regular DVD9 and Blu-ray on a 13" screen when you are sitting 6 feet away. How do I know? Because I have a blu-ray burner and use AnyDVD HD to make ISOs Plex-friendly. It doesn't look any better.

Xapphire13

Apr 24, 2009, 05:43 AM

Yet your comparing blu-ray playback on a 1080p screen to a macbook's 800px screen.

It would have to downscale.

Blu-rays are not always 1080i/p they can also be 720i/p... in which the macbook screen can play natively...

Either way, there is little difference in image quality between a regular DVD9 and Blu-ray on a 13" screen when you are sitting 6 feet away.

Why would you sit 6 ft away from it?

Shuttleworth

Apr 24, 2009, 05:44 AM

But why you would want Blu-ray on a 13" screen makes no sense to me (unless you have a nice external to hook it up to).

So you don't have to have a Blu-ray disc for home and a DVD for your MacBook?

MBHockey

Apr 24, 2009, 07:08 AM

Blu-rays are not always 1080i/p they can also be 720i/p... in which the macbook screen can play natively...

Why would you sit 6 ft away from it?

yeah and 720p on a 13" screen is nothing to marvel at. Does it look better? Slightly. Is it worth $1000? No, unless you are one of those idiots who just likes telling people you have an internal blu ray drive.

How far do you sit away from a 13" screen when watching a movie? 3 feet? Same result.

MBHockey

Apr 24, 2009, 07:11 AM

So you don't have to have a Blu-ray disc for home and a DVD for your MacBook?

In your tortured syntax, you seem to be agreeing with me. But I'm not totally sure.

Shuttleworth

Apr 24, 2009, 08:44 AM

In your tortured syntax, you seem to be agreeing with me. But I'm not totally sure.

It was perfectly clear, I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing, you wondered why anyone would want to watch Blu-ray on a 13" screen, I put forward the suggestion that if you buy Blu-ray discs for use at home, on your Blu-ray player, you will not be able to watch them on your MacBook unless it had a built in Blu-ray player, so you will need to buy the DVD of the film as well as well.

r.j.s

Apr 24, 2009, 02:48 PM

It was perfectly clear, I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing, you wondered why anyone would want to watch Blu-ray on a 13" screen, I put forward the suggestion that if you buy Blu-ray discs for use at home, on your Blu-ray player, you will not be able to watch them on your MacBook unless it had a built in Blu-ray player, so you will need to buy the DVD of the film as well as well.

I use the digital copy that comes on most, but not all, movies. They need to make that standard.

Cheffy Dave

Apr 24, 2009, 03:06 PM

Just curious, how many movies are unecrypted. I didn't even knew they were:eek:

You've got to be kidding!:eek:

MBHockey

Apr 24, 2009, 05:16 PM

It was perfectly clear, I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing, you wondered why anyone would want to watch Blu-ray on a 13" screen, I put forward the suggestion that if you buy Blu-ray discs for use at home, on your Blu-ray player, you will not be able to watch them on your MacBook unless it had a built in Blu-ray player, so you will need to buy the DVD of the film as well as well.

Most come with a digital copy (as pointed out already) that is iTunes-ready.

But it seems some people really do think they'd be able to tell the difference between Blu-ray and a 2 GB MP4 on the MB screen.

mosx

Apr 25, 2009, 03:21 AM

Most come with a digital copy (as pointed out already) that is iTunes-ready.

But it seems some people really do think they'd be able to tell the difference between Blu-ray and a 2 GB MP4 on the MB screen.

First of all, only about 50 discs so far have "digital copies" of the movie. Out of a couple thousand movies already released on blu-ray.

Secondly, I HAVE watched a blu-ray disc on my UniBody MacBook. External Lite-On blu-ray reader in Windows. The difference is night and day. Theres no question that blu-ray looks better. Down scaled to 1280x800 is ALWAYS going to look better than soft upscaled (those iPod ready files) or hardware upscaled (DVD, in Windows) 640x480 up to 1280x800. Going from 640x480 to 1280x800 means that the pixel count has to be increased by 3 times to reach that resolution. You're ALWAYS going to get better results when going from a 2MP image down to a 1MP image when compared to a 0.3MP image going UP to 1MP.