Blu-ray Licensing to Get Easier and Cheaper

[thedarkhorse]

There's also an environmental impact if Apple puts Blu-Ray drives in their computers: Blu-ray movies use less plastic for its packaging and its actual media. Less plastic = lower carbon footprint.

BJ

well if that's the case you should calculate how much energy it takes to power the servers and infrastructure to download an HD movie and look at that "carbon footprint" too.

 

[Tallest Skil]

You just wrote "Don't buy BDs".

In the context of "now" or "at all"? I meant neither.

 

[kastenbrust]

Tell me that you left a zero or two off of that number... Nowhere is anywhere close to achieving a commercially viable fusion reactor for a LONG time. After plenty of research I am thinking that if you want "green" energy, you're going to have to go Nuclear > Breeder/Fast Reactor Nuclear > Fusion.

Actually they are very close to Nuclear Fusion, its already been achieved in South Korea, and Oxford Uni here i the UK, it just cant be sustained in a perpetual state which is whats necessary to make it commercially viable to produce energy. However the flux state of plasma which is required to make it commercially viable is only around 3 years away, you should watch this BBC documentary titled "Can we make a star on earth" (which is what fusion technically is) its absolutely fascinating:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hr6bk/Horizon_20082009_Can_We_Make_a_Star_on_Earth/

If you cant watch iPlayer i would recommend downloading it, its not for idiots though, its quite technical and full on.

I used to think it was decades away as well until i saw that, but the UK, France and South Korea are kind of in a race now to achieve it in a commercially viable way first. The US had a go but unfortunately the US government forces your scientists to use 40 year old bomb technology which isn't very commercially viable to produce nuclear fusion reactions. (Basically they have to blow up a nuclear hydrogen bomb in a small box every time they want to make some energy).

 

[cube]

In the context of "now" or "at all"? I meant neither.

Don't buy BDs. Rent.

 

[illegallydead]

Actually they are very close to Nuclear Fusion, its already been achieved in South Korea, and Oxford Uni here i the UK, it just cant be sustained in a perpetual state which is whats necessary to make it commercially viable to produce energy. However the flux state of plasma which is required to make it commercially viable is only around 3 years away, you should watch this BBC documentary titled "Can we make a star on earth" (which is what fusion technically is) its absolutely fascinating:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hr6bk/Horizon_20082009_Can_We_Make_a_Star_on_Earth/

If you cant watch iPlayer i would recommend downloading it, its not for idiots though, its quite technical and full on.

I used to think it was decades away as well until i saw that.

huh, i will have to take a look at that. They still need to find ways to actually harness the energy efficiently, right now it is just capturing the waste heat and making steam...

And yes, they have created fusion plenty already, in more places than just Korea and the UK. Its all in making it last for more than like a few nanoseconds.... I would be surprised if they are actually THAT close to making it last for even a few seconds, let alone "perpetual". Anyway, this discussion has veered a bit off topic, haha licensing rules > which is better, Blu-ray or DL > Fusion lol that is why I love these forums

 

[ryanw]

Super Hi-Vision vs Bluray vs HDTV

Personally, I'd like to see them use a better compression technique before giving us more pixels.

The problem I have with HDTV is in fast moving, high action sequences, there is tons of compression noise and distortion.

Blu-Ray supports H.264, why is everyone still encoding with Mpeg2?

Why not switch HDTV to H.264 compression instead of MPEG2?

Use the same bits more efficiently.

After all that, then we can look at Super Hi-Vision. But it looks like Super Hi-Vision is talking about using Mpeg2 also. Kinda' pathetic.

 

[illegallydead]

Don't buy BDs. Rent.

People still want to actually OWN movies (at least some good ones)
What happens years from now when you want to watch a certain movie and Netflix or whatever doesn't carry it anymore? That is some of the gripe about digital DL's... the only place you have it is on you hard drive. What happens when your HDD crashes? Or when DRM changes? It becomes a problem. A lot of people like to have the comfort of having an actual "physical" copy of the movie they paid good $$$ for...

 

[JesterJJZ]

The CD has been on the market since October 1982 and it still offers better sound quality then any digital download. Why? Because it is a lossless encode. Digital downloads are still not lossless because of the huge amount of data that would have to be transferred. I can't imagine the space required not only on the server, but on the end users computers. Now if it is impractical to sell lossless music imagine what happens when someone tries to sell 1080p movies? It could be done using very low bit rates, but just like the digital download still can't match a CD for sound quality, neither could the video.

Thank you.

 

[Mad Mac]

^^^

There is a significant difference in detail on the bricks (in the foreground). The colors and contrast are different as well. And this is just a still capture.

Add motion to it (it's a movie after all) and the sharp details of Blu-ray make a huge difference. iTunes' blurry detail will simply be a blurrier mess with motion.

The benefits of having physical media far outweigh "convenience" unless you're super lazy. Popping in a disc into a player is not exactly hard.

Plus, all the extras that come with a Blu-ray (and even regular dvd) such as outtakes, bloopers, behind-the-scenes, etc. aren't even available with a digital download.

And lastly, audio (which is half the experience) is superior on a Blu-ray disc.

Just because there are people that prefer blurry video and artifacted audio for the sake of convenience doesn't mean that everybody else needs to fall in line. I'll take CDs for music and Blu-rays for video any day, all day.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Huh? 720p = 921,600 pixels. 1080p = 2,073,600 pixels. Thats not marginal, thats more than double the resolution. Not only that but you're upgrading the bitrate from 4.5Mbps to, in some cases, well over 40Mbps.

I was referring to playing 1080P on a 720P projector. I said other than the compression difference, you can't make pixels where they don't exist. The Panasonic will scale and discard the extra resolution. That makes Blu-Ray marginal at best.

Ah that made me laugh out loud. That is truly spoken like someone who does not have a good surround sound setup.

You don't have a clue what setup I have. I followed the Audiophool newsgroups and forums for a long time and finally concluded most of them had bigger imaginations than hearing ability. All their golden ear claims disappear when scientific double blind tests are used. Under those conditions, they suddenly can't tell a $100 receiver from a $4000 Krell amplifier so spare me the "it's better because the numbers say so" trype. It only shows your complete and total ignorance of audio. Go look into the AAC format and the double blind studies at various bit rates with it. At 256-bit (DRM-free audio content on iTunes), it's impossible to tell from the uncompressed sources. While it's true that Dolby Digital isn't the be-all, end all format to use for 5-channel reproduction, it's movies we're talking about here, not music. In other words, reproducing explosions with the highest possible fidelity just isn't all that important. Gee, that explosion sounded more clear that THAT explosion. Bologna. Show me some double blind test data to prove your claims or walk away. Running your mouth about things you are ignorant about doesn't cut it.

As for my audio system (where sound really counts), my upstairs system alone has $2000 ribbon speakers, $1000 in amplification (Yamaha sliding Class A-AB 130 watt amplifier for the Carver ribbons with a custom made active crossover network and a Carver 350 watt amplifier for the bass drivers. The system is extremely sensitive to transients (nature of low-mass ribbons; these same ribbons are used in $50,000 Genesis speakers and the 60-inch version is used in $100,0000 Genesis speakers). The ribbons handle from 250Hz-20kHz. The bass drivers go down to 27Hz without a subwoofer. I used to use a CD player as a source, but now I have an Apple TV to feed my entire 5600+ song collection directly to it and use an iPod Touch as a remote for the system. That was the best move I ever made. Sound quality is identical to the original source material (home server is using Apple Lossless for all CDs for archival purposes and they also play around the house; 256-bit AAC copy is used for mobile and iPod applications). I also have my Roland digital piano anchored between the two ribbon towers and it can play through them for an audience in the room (yes, I play piano).

Downstairs in the home theater room, I have the aforementioned Panasonic PT-AX100U 720P projector and a 93" screen at 8 feet from the listening couch. I have a Yamaha 7.1 channel receiver (used in 6.1 channel mode given the limitations of my room's dimensions and a half bathroom off to the side in the back along with a non-centered rear sliding glass door to the room behind it. I use PSB B-15 "Image" speakers all around the room. They are $379/pair (front 3 are all identical which sit on speaker stands just beneath the bottom of the screen) and one in the rear center is also the same (total of two pairs). These speakers are rated +/- 1dB. With room interaction after treatment, I achieve about +/- 3dB over the entire frequency range) and the S50 surrounds which use the exact same drivers but use two pairs angled 30 degrees in opposite directions from the side in a bipolar configuration are $799/pair. I have a Definitive PF1500 15" 250 watt subwoofer that seamlessly cross-over to satellites at 80Hz. After much moving and measuring with a sound pressure meter, I found a location that achieves flat response at the listening location for the sub. You'd never know it was there.

So go head MosX, post your audio setup that is supposed to make me be tone deaf, unable to hear music and forget that I've been both a musician and an audiophile.

Let me break it down for you real quick. Apple TV HD generally uses Dolby Digital encoded at 384Kbps. That's 384Kbps for 5 channels and a subwoofer. And Dolby Digital has a variable bitrate that dedicates more bits to the more active channels. You're already talking about an average of 64Kbps per channel. But if something is going on in the center, with light activity in the front left and rights, your rears and subwoofer could get even less than 64kbps.

A variable rate 128kbit MP3 (which is actually 64kbit per channel) isn't too shabby sounding (an AAC variable one is better, but that's moot here). It's the old fixed rate 128kbit MP3s with poor encoders that sounded so poor. In any case, music is one thing, but movie soundtracks are another. In typical movies, 85% of all sound output comes from the center channel, mostly for dialogue. 50% of the sound output from the other speakers beyond ambient levels in movies are used for sound effects (typically planes, engines, explosions, you name it). I'm not that worried that James Bond's AK-47 in Goldeneye has enough bits allocated to it. It sounds just fine for a gun making loud noise. Even so, Apple could and would benefit from DTS support for their movies. Dolby Digital is far from perfect. But Dolby TRUE-HD, etc. is beyond what is needed to convey good quality surround sound in a movie. There is a point of diminishing returns and the higher bit-rate DTS 6.1 (found on many conventional DVDs) is certainly that point, IMO. I used to worry about that sort of thing and have many DTS only DVDs (meaning no 5.1 AC-3, only 2-channel) and now all that means is I only have 2-channel Dolby Pro Logic for those DVDs when encoded into MP4. I don't even notice the DTS/AC-3 differences without a direct comparison and even then most of them go away with level matching (yes, I used to participate in all kinds of audiophoolery), but now I just enjoy watching the movie and save the audio-pickery for music, not explosions.

With Blu-Ray you get uncompressed PCM, 16-bit 48KHz, or losslessly compressed. That means you're getting the same raw uncompressed feed for audio that the engineers had when they mixed and cut the track.

And that means NOTHING in the grand scheme of things. My CDs are lossless 16-bit 44.1kHz and guess what? The 256-kbit AAC versions (that's only 128kbit per channel) are IDENTICAL to them to the human ear. Find me even ONE double blind study that proves different. Otherwise, you're just spewing numbers out of your mouth that are meaningless.

And honestly, if you think the difference isn't that great, then you're just proving you don't have a blu-ray player OR a good audio setup. So far I've watched quite a few blu-rays that I also had DVD versions of, a couple of those with DTS audio tracks on the DVD.

I've seen Blu-Ray at Hi-Fi shops. Yes, it's nice looking, but largely irrelevant to my current 720P projector setup as I already mentioned (maybe you'd like to buy me a 1080P projector? I'll spring for the BD player then. No? I didn't think so). The audio quality is far more dependent for most people on their playback gear and I dare say 99% of the public has CRAP playback equipment. Do you seriously think for one minute your uncompressed CD quality sound with Blu-Ray is going to sound BETTER on a $200 5.1 All-in-one speaker system most people use than even plain Dolby Digital on my $3200 home theater audio system (that doesn't include the video parts of the system) or my $4000 2-channel music only audiophile system? No, it won't even be CLOSE. People I've had over to listen to my system are foaming at the mouth when they hear/see it, but most don't want to put that kind of money out to get it. I'm betting you have a system that's a few steps above that JVC, but I seriously doubt I'm dealing with someone that has an esoteric $10,000 audio system connected to his Blu-Ray player.

Perfect example: The Dark Knight. Beginning of the movie when the Tumbler plows through the concrete wall and crushes those cars. On the blu-ray disc with the Dolby TrueHD track you can hear the concrete being torn apart and and feel it as well if you have a good subwoofer. You can hear every piece hit the ground and all of the metal and glass in the cars being bent or broken under the weight. On the DVD its just a loud and dull boom. Later in the

My question for you is what's wrong with your DVD player? I have that DVD and it does not just make a "dull boom". Yes, I'm calling you a LIAR at this point. You're making things up like a good troll does. Why would you even own the DVD version if you have Blu-Ray? Oops, caught.

movie when the Joker blows up the hospital. If you have a good subwoofer and good speaker and receiver setup, you hear every little detail and you feel it. It literally moved my couch, even though I was sitting on it. The DVD? Loud booms, all coming from the front.

Once again, "hear every little detail" is abstract and means nothing. What detail did you hear? What detail was missing from the DVD? Your couch moving has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. That's the reproduction end of things, not the source player. Once again, you show your total ignorance of audio or you wouldn't use that example. You don't even know what to listen for. I've been there and done that. You are clearly clueless about what compression does.

I mean honestly, you're comparing 64kbps average audio per channel to uncompressed audio. The difference there will be noticeable on anything other than a Bose system or some $150 Walmart system.

Funny you say that because nobody ever sold 128Kbps MP3s. It's always been AAC or WMA, higher quality formats than MP3 at those low bitrates

Who said anything about "sold" ??? Maybe you missed the entire Napster/Limewire thing. 99% of those are 128-bit (64-bit per channel) and many sound like crap. With a good encoder and variable bit-rate, however, even a 128-bit MP3 is capable of good sound these days. And no it won't always be noticeable. You look at numbers. I listen to sound. If you are honest, you should look at some double blind studies on compressed audio formats and learn what is and what is not actually audible. Comparing an AC-3 to a DTS track on a DVD does not constitute a good comparison either as they are almost always NOT properly level matched off the DVD. Do a proper A/B switch with double blind testing and most of the claims people make magically disappear. This is audiophile nonsense class 101.

And like I explained before, which you have chosen to ignore, people who are listening to music are generally doing so in their car, on their stock iPod earbuds, or some cheap boom box.

The key word there is MUSIC. You are talking about movie soundtracks which contain very little of that (especially that which is not heavily compressed and by compressed I mean a compressor for dynamic range, not an encoded format compression). So these people who use cheap earbuds (I do not; I have Koss Studio Pros for regular earphone listening and JVC noise-canceling for airplanes and riding on my tractor) and don't care about quality sound where it's important. Do you think these same people will care one-bit about sound quality when watching a movie? No, they won't. They'll take that "couch moving" el cheapo subwoofer you picked up at Fry's for $299 and that is clearly incapable of producing proper sound output (if it's just making "booms" with DVDs) over a $1200-2000 model that is capable of proper bass reproduction any day of the week. These are the same people who like "trunk flapper" subs that make a lot of "boom boom" noise in their car, but have no clue (or need it seems) for quality HiFi reproduction. And you think they want Blu-Ray? They probably do because they like NUMBERS. That doesn't mean they have the proper equipment to watch/hear it properly. A 1080P 42" LCD might as well be 480P at 20 feet away.

Convenience? What convenience? It's a lot more convenient for the average person to go to their local grocery store and swipe their card on a Red Box unit or go to the local video store than it is to wait potentially hours to download a movie from iTunes or Apple TV.

You clearly have a warped view of convenience. If I decide I want to watch a movie right now, do I want to go take a shower, get dressed and cleaned up and head to that grocery store or video store or do I just want to go downstairs and turn on my system, select an HD movie to watch off a menu and hit buy/play??? You're telling me the trip to the video store is MORE CONVENIENT???? And people think you're not a troll??? LOL.

And, again, what about the restrictions? If I don't have an Apple TV, I'm stuck with sub-DVD quality video. If its a rental I can't play it on my 80GB

*IF* you *DON'T* have an AppleTV? I'm sorry. What were we talking about in this thread? I thought it was AppleTV versus Blu-Ray. Now you're talking about SD iTunes movies on a laptop or something? Why not just bring up VHS while you're at it? Honestly, your thread is so darn long that I'm wondering if I'll ever get through it all. Most of it is crap like this that has nothing to do with anything. Even so, there are plenty of people that would rather rent an SD movie off iTunes, sync it onto their iPod Touch and head on out of the house (that is convenience) than drive to the grocery store, bring home a DVD, run it through Handbrake for a few hours and THEN load it onto their iPod Touch to watch on-the-go even if it's not HD (and it doesn't need to be for an iPod or a small TV). Seriously, you need to look at your target audience and what they are doing with their movies before judging them.

5.5G iPod that cost more than $100 more than my blu-ray player did, just because Apple refuses to release a software update enabling the feature. I have to go through the hassle of hooking up my iPhone to my HDTV, which can only output 480i video when connected to a $50 component cable, or I

Now you're talking about using iPods in your Home Theater???? Do you even KNOW what an iPod IS??? Do you know what it's used for? No, I don't think you have a clue about anything at this point. I really do not. That's one of the stupidest things I ever read. Why would you ever want to use an Ipod in your home theater? They're meant for travel and to play on their tiny screen, not to watch on a giant 100+ inch projector.

have to hook up roughly $50 worth of cables and adapters to use my UniBody MacBook, plus I have to fight with OS X to properly disable the built-in display without sleeping the system and using an external keyboard and mouse.

Ah, now you're getting into Mac bashing. I wondered when it would start. I see. Your iPod comments were another attempt to bash Apple products in general. They don't have ANYTHING to do with this 'discussion' but you managed to drag nearly ALL of Apple's products into it anyway so you could do your Troll Apple Bashing thing. I got you. This is why you should be banned as a troll. You have nothing to say but bash Apple products on here. You don't even believe most of what you wrote. It's just to fool people on here who don't know any better and try to get them to buy Sony instead. What fun your life must be spending half your day reading forums on products you hate just to get rises out of people. How pathetic is more like it. Why don't you go cruising around the room your couch that moves so easily with bass, eh? The rest of your message is another 10 pages long, but since we've reached Trollville, I'll leave it for the dust bunnies.

I know full well that BR is better than say iTunes HD movies, but given the quality difference vs. convenience factor of not having to deal with disks, I still prefer digital downloads.

But then again I don't veg out and watch TV as much as some people here apparently do.

See the comparison images below:
...(cut)

Thanks for the post Polaris. That's the best example ever to show what I've been trying to say. The differences aren't NEARLY as huge as certain people want to claim they are. The convenience of renting a movie online in less than a minute instead of having to drive to the store is huge to some of us, however. I didn't convert my entire DVD and CD libraries over to iTunes compatible formats because I "want" compression (actually there's Apple Lossless for CDs), but because I want convenience. The DVDs made with Handbrake at high quality settings look nearly identical to the source material. And no more FBI warnings, endless menus, etc. I don't even have to get up off the couch to start the next movie!

 

[megfilmworks]

I think we can all agree:

BR is better than ATV
ATV is better than HD cable.

But are the differences enough to attract the "average user"?
No.
Consumers like convenience.
Witness the biggest surge in media; lo def. That's where the money is now.
Lousy cameras in cell phones, watching tv on cell phones, podcasts on phones and computers, Wii vs Xbox or PS3, etc.
I like HD, but the market is LD.

Besides, BR is a decades old technology, rigged to squeeze some more money out of a gullible public.
I have 3 BD players, but I still say FAIL for BD.

 

[Jetson]

Get a freakin' life, people!

 

[*LTD*]

People care about Blu Ray even less than everyone here thinks.

Give it up already, people. This whole Blu Ray outcry is strictly an internet tech-forum issue. No one else could give a damn. It's a niche argument that exists only in certain corners of cyberspace. Same with that whole "where's my Firewire!?" crap.

Down with ****ing disks, extra players and other ******** physical media. It just takes up space and needs to be stored. I'll tolerate SD cards and USB keys, but that's where I draw the line.

Apple TV/iTunes is on the right track. Whatever it takes and for however long it takes to make digital downloads and beaming content to my TV a reality . . . I'm all for it.

 

[jackfrost123]

Why not switch HDTV to H.264 compression instead of MPEG2?

Havent's they switched to h.264? Are they in their right minds...

People care about Blu Ray even less than everyone here thinks.
Apple TV/iTunes is on the right track. Whatever it takes and for however long it takes to make digital downloads and beaming **** to my TV a reality . . . I'm all for it.

I don't disagree with you essentially but they are going to enforce the blue ray format/drive in computers and media for sure. Plus if/when blue ray disks became affordable I wouldn't mind taking a few disk bakups of sensitive data, something that neither usb sticks nor flash cards are good for, a disk is cheap and you store it away.

1TB disks go into production in 2013. 400GB in 2011.

///edit, ok, got it, you mean blue ray disks...Can you enlighten us?

 

[Tallest Skil]

edit, ok, got it, you mean blue ray disks...Can you enlighten us?

Yep, I meant Blu-ray. Enlighten? About what?

 

[jackfrost123]

Nah it's ok bro, thanks for the heads up, I just googled the pioneer 1tb and 400gb disk you referred to, at the beginning I was taken aback by these numbers as I wasn't aware of these developments.

 

[Mad Mac]

I think we can all agree:
BR is better than ATV
ATV is better than HD cable.

Apparently not all can agree to this. The Apple koolaid is strong in this thread.

But are the differences enough to attract the "average user"?
No.

So is that what Apple has become? Supplier to the "average user"?

While we're at it, the "average user" won't notice a difference between 8bit and 6 bit LCD panel so lets just all use laptop panels for the Cinema Displays. And let's just use slower bus speeds because the "average user" won't notice. And slower CPUs in the computers (you won't notice a difference between 2.5 and 2.4GHz in a double blind test ). And lousy sounding earbuds. And compressed audio tracks. And compressed video tracks. And generations old video cards in our top-of-the-line Mac Pro. The "average user" just wants thin and shiny.

Oh wait, I think I just described where Apple is heading and its fanbase.

rigged to squeeze some more money out of a gullible public.

Gullible? Yeah right. Gullible is paying good money to own a lower quality product (audio and video) for the sake of convenience. Gullible is paying for a product with missing features (outtakes, commentary, behind-the-scenes). Gullible is thinking that downloads are convenient. You can't take that download and play it wherever like you can with physical media.

And last I checked, Blu-ray is available as an option from every other PC manufacturer. Nobody is forcing you to buy it. On the flipside, Apple is trying to force you to iTunes since they won't give you the option of Blu-ray. Only ignorant people give up freedom of choice for convenience.

 

[Grimace]

We're in a time of transition from physical media to downloadable media. Both will be around for a while without any being more dominant, but Blu-ray is probably going to be the last physical media format. Just my guess!

 

[Vancouvercanuck]

No need to waste time to talk to Tallest Skil that blu-ray is better, if he/she doesnt think its necessary, thats her opinion. It doesnt has to be right or wrong

 

[Tallest Skil]

No need to waste time to talk to Tallest Skil that blu-ray is better, if he/she doesnt think its necessary, thats her opinion. It doesnt has to be right or wrong

Did I EVER say that it wasn't necessary? Ever?

I HAVE one. It's an internal drive that also does HD DVD.

It isn't that I don't care about the CONTENT, I just don't care about the FORMAT. Blu-ray is using decades-old tech and a disgusting and unnecessary system of DRM to do something that is easily accomplished with solid state electronics or hard drive to hard drive downloads.

1080p looks better than 480p. If you can't see that, you need to be diagnosed with an ocular impairment. 4320p looks sufficiently better than 1080p for it to be an upgrade from that. To the human eye, nothing above 4320p is measurably distinguishable.

Blu-ray as a format is a farce. The content held on Blu-ray is not, however.

 

[kabunaru]

This is like an Xbox 360 vs PS3 comparison.

 

[megfilmworks]

How can you compare two screenshots from a non calibrated source?
The colors and black levels are not set the same.
And the ATV actually looks better here. Look at the tree on the left.
I'm sure if they were calibrated to match the BD would be better, but these pics prove nothing.

 

[Slim02]

How can you compare two screenshots from a non calibrated source?
The colors and black levels are not set the same.
And the ATV actually looks better here. Look at the tree on the left.
I'm sure if they were calibrated to match the BD would be better, but these pics prove nothing.

Them pics do prove some thing.. That you are blind..

 

[megfilmworks]

Them pics do prove some thing.. That you are blind..

Funny, but if they were calibrated to match then maybe you would have a point.

 

[Slim02]

Funny, but if they were calibrated to match then maybe you would have a point.

Calibrated? They are playing on the same damn HDTV.. You can not calibrated a ATV or a Blu-ray player.. You can only calibrated a TV..