Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
People ... stop talking about bitrate. Bitrate does correlate to quality, but only when comparing files in the exact same format. Comparing the file size of a blu-ray movie to the file size of an iTunes movie doesn't make sense. It's like saying Laser Discs are better than DVDs because they are bigger.

Actually, if we compare the video track on a BD dics, it, in 70-80% of the cases, H.264 (the rest is VC-1). It can be directly compared to the H.264 tracks of iTunes Store videos, also at 1080p.

(the LD vs. DVD comparison was particularly bad. The first is an analogue system, the second is digital. Therefore, there isn't even "bitrate" of the former, just "bandwidth".)
 
Thanks for your OPINION.
I heard CD's are dead..... :D

Sales of CDs compared to MP3s sure show they are. Theres a reason companies like Roxio are hurting. No one is burning DVD/CDs anymore. Streaming has taken over at this point. Those still using the old media are looked at the same way you looked at your dad some years ago when everyone else was rocking fancy CD players and he still liked his LP records.
 
Of course Schiller isn't telling the truth. There may be Average Joes (the ones he's referring to as "users") not knwoing the difference between the IQ/AQ of iTunes Store and (well-mastered) BD discs. Audio/videophiles do and will always prefer BD discs.

Self-described "golden ear" audiophiles have been shown (in a blind test) to prefer *wire coat hanger* for their speaker wire. That doesn't speak highly of their ability to judge the quality of what they're listening to.

As for the videophiles, an article earlier this year (when iTunes updated their compression algorithm) showed that, for the most part, the differences between the Blu-Ray and iTunes copy were only visible when the video was paused, and/or there was a long, static shot on a background with a smooth, but slight gradient. I'll grant you the difference is still there, but there seem to be more people out there who claim they can't tell the difference between DVD & Blu-Ray than there are who can actually tell the difference between Blu-Ray and iTunes without screen-capping and pixel-peeking.

Mind you, I prefer Blu-Ray for watching on my TV, but that's because I've got a PS3, so I don't have to waste the HD space. I reserve the digital copies for DVDs, or when I want to watch the movie on my iPhone or iPad.
 
The box art, the extra goodies, the unique boxes, an actual physical product are all reasons still to buy blu ray.

It's nice to have these for collectors as well as everyone else who just want to watch the film in the best consumer quality possible.

I am impressed when I see people's collections of unique blu-rays, different regions, Special Editions, Ultimate Editions, Limited Editions, differences between the cuts. I thoroughly enjoy and endorse that kind of collecting and hope it never goes away.
 
Anyone catch the latest South Park episode, "A Nightmare on FaceTime"?

Randy Marsh proudly announces that he's bought a Blockbuster Video store which he thinks will make the family filthy rich. They're skeptical since streaming has rendered brick and mortar video stores obsolete. Unsurprisingly, there are no customers except some girl in 80's clothes who is looking for Turner & Hooch, but she turns out to be a ghost. iPads are prominently featured, you'd almost think it was an Apple-sponsored episode given the timing... either way it was a hilarious take on physical media vs streaming.

Was pretty funny. I got sad driving by a closed down blockbuster earlier today...ah the good ol days.

Also watch out for the UPS man fellas ;) If you get that one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
h.265 is going to be ratified soon (likely 2013) if I can have my content updated to the new more efficient codec I will likely see a 40-50% reduction in my storage requirements per movie. This can be done with stores like iTunes but Blu-ray is going to require new hardware.

The players are software upgradable but you cannot plugin new codecs. You're still stuck with MPEG2, AVC

I don't think H.265 will gain acceptance THAT fast. First, it must be supported by hardware playback (the chips themselves) to be accepted by Apple (so that playback is flawless and stutter-free), which will take years.
 
h.265 is going to be ratified soon (likely 2013) if I can have my content updated to the new more efficient codec I will likely see a 40-50% reduction in my storage requirements per movie. This can be done with stores like iTunes but Blu-ray is going to require new hardware.

The players are software upgradable but you cannot plugin new codecs. You're still stuck with MPEG2, AVC

Puzzling since blu-ray's storage is fixed (i.e. there's no reason to really try and save space at this juncture in time until MAYBE 4K becomes widely adopted).

The reason h.265 and less storage benefits streaming is to reduce bandwidth and increase quality. But it still will pale in comparison (bitrate wise) to blu-ray. UNLESS the codec does deliver comparable quality. And I don't mean "acceptable" - I mean 1:1 quality for both audio and video.

Further - you're still locked into Apple's ecosystem. Which might be ok for some/you - but not everyone wants their media that "locked"
 
All the complainers said the same thing when Apple lead the industry in getting ride of the floppy drive.

All of the complainers said the same thing when Apple lead the industry in getting ride of ADB/PS2/MIDI/Parallel/SCSI in favor of USB.

All fo the complainers said the same thing when Apple lead the industry in getting ride of VGA in favor of DVI and then getting ride of DVI in favor of Display Port.

Shall I continue?

Please continue.

All those technologies that were phased out were replaced with better ones.

So replacing a 1080p content with ZERO ability to play them or 720P content streamed is a advancement? Think again.

You say "You can stream 1080p content too". Sure with a 35 Mbps connection it still has hiccups and is the quality the same?
 
Played LOTR Box Blu-Ray once and 20-30 netflix DVDs but have since cancelled subscription. Works out to about $10.00 per play (home theatre system) ouch!

I like the idea of high end equipment but the reality is you settle for second best, HD cable is (just) good enough
 
I for one need to burn dvds with data (e.g. physical backup of photos). Not often, but on occasion.
I don't think I am significantly away from any average consumer.
As for Blue Ray I can't say (I don't even watch dvds at all, so in that respect I am in the tail of the gaussian.)

And if "you can have it external" then it does misses the point of the sleekness factor.

Blu ray disks are external. For backups, use Time machine. You can get a 3TB drive quite cheaply, and if you compare it to the price of rewritable BDRWs, it's a far more cost effective solution. You can even rotate disks in Time Machine now for extra redundancy.

Optical disks were great when you needed to distribute large data files to people with Internet connections from the 90s, but these days there are far more versatile storage mediums (not to mention streaming).
 
really?

Not everyone wanted blu ray for watching movies. Some of us want to burn hd videos for family and friends.

USB Sticks, upload HD video to youtube or Vimeo.... I cant believe people still rely on such an old technology as DVDs...
 
Some prototype ARM cores. I suspect we'll see direct support in SoC for h.265 in the next 24 months.

http://hdfpga.blogspot.com/2012/03/qualcomm-demonstrates-hevch265-video.html

Assume all Apple hardware will receive H.265 support in hardware and iTunes Store also switches to H.265. It, however, won't render H.264 unplayable. (Unless Apple explicitly removes / forbids H.264 support) The latter, apart from being about two times less storage friendly, remain playable. If you have the storage, you won't encounter problems because Blu-ray's not being upgraded to H.265.
 
I don't think H.265 will gain acceptance THAT fast. First, it must be supported by hardware playback (the chips themselves) to be accepted by Apple (so that playback is flawless and stutter-free), which will take years.

See my link

and search for HEVC/h.65

http://www.telepresenceoptions.com/2012/10/vidyo_announces_higher_quality/

There is a lot of work going on. I'm not sure people on here acknowledge the gravity of a 50& reduction in data rate. Netflix will be able to stream to twice as many people 5 years from now using the same bandwidth as today (assuming same quality as today as well)
 
Apple's simply following the 80/20 principle. They're doing what they think 80% of consumers want them to do. . .provide smaller, lighter footprint machines with an emphasis on network connectivity and battery life. Take out the optical drive and it's a win for battery life.

In my opinion, Apple's making the right decision by not including Blu-Ray into their machines. Sure, there will be some who want it in there, but the vast majority of folks couldn't care less about having a Blu-Ray drive. Now, being able to stream their content from anywhere with a broadband connection? That appeals to a whole lot of folks, I suspect.

I remember the days when I used to take zippered cases full of CDs and DVDs when going on vacation. Those days are clearly behind us. While streaming quality hasn't caught up to Blu-Ray quality just yet, I suspect that it will in the next 3-4 years, if not sooner. In the meantime, the 80% crowd is just satisfied to be able to access movies and music on the go anytime without having to lug physical media around.

The 80% crowd is willing to sacrifice some picture quality for increased convenience, and I can't say I blame them. I can't think of any time I've seen anyone play a Blu-Ray movie on a computer anyway. Maybe I'm just hanging out with a weird crowd.
 
Two points:
1) Why would *you* hear anyone asking for a thinner or lighter iMac?
2) If people are asking for "cooler and quieter" iMacs and iMacs with "desktop CPUs and GPUs", they're asking for two mutually exclusive things. The desktop parts run hotter, and therefore require larger (and correspondingly louder) fans.

1. I work for a university computer store that sells a lot of Apple gear, so I often get to hear customer's computer requirements/wishes. I also occasionally discuss with customers, co-workers and friends what direction we would like to see different products develop towards, including the iMac. I concede that Apple gets more feedback than me on their products, but it doesn't take a lot effort to hear what common features people are interested in. I've yet to hear even one person say the iMac should be thinner/lighter. I'm sure someone out there wants that, but I find it difficult to believe it's a very popular request.

2. I agree those are mutually exclusive desires, often ask for separately by different people. I was suggesting an "OR" situation, not an "AND" one. For the record though, larger fans are often quieter than smaller ones. To move the same amount of air, a smaller fan must typically spin faster than a larger one and produces more noise as RPMs increase. Reducing space in the iMacs is only going to make heat/noise issues worse and/or further restrict what components can be put inside.
 
I seriously wonder if Apple is out of their minds. It´s one thing to not include bluray, but leaving out an optical drive altogether on a desktop machine? Come on, motha******. I´m seriosly upset about this. Here´s why:

1) I´m a professional photographer, thus handling large amounts of data. Some clients ask for tiff files, which, at 20MP+, tend to be large. So we´re talking about 2 GB of files or more with tight deadlines on a regular basis. I usually burn a DVD for the client, send/hand it over and everything´s fine - now try doing the same via the Cloud. Hopeless when you´re on location in the middle of nowhere. If I had a dollar for every night we spent sending files on a crappy line from a remote village in the alps or wherever, I´d be a rich man.
And there are still "white spots" on the map when it comes to broadband connections. I know a few villages, slap-bang in the middle of germany, where people make their connections via satellite. Or ISDN, if they don´t want to spend 50€ per month. Oh and there´s a 6GB/month limit on it, which translates to roughly two movies in 720p from the iTunes store. Facetime, Skype, voip? Not with a 700ms ping. These folks are big fans of optical drives, I tells ya. I don´t know how the situation is, say, in the US midwest, Australia or the UK. Or any other part of the first world, but it certainly isn´t how phil seems to imagine it.

2) The presentation of the iMac made clear that Jony Ive (and most probably Phil Schiller, too) likes thin edges. Would an optical drive fit in that concept? Nope, it doesn´t. And so they turned that old mantra of "form follows function" (once a big selling point of their products) on its head. People work with these things, folks. It´s not all just watching movies, 'making beautiful cards in iPhoto' or Facebook.

3) I want to backup my data how, when and where I want. Timemachine is all nice and fancy, but I don´t feel comfortable with just that. I have backups in various forms and in various places that will survive even if my house is hit by a bomb. Because they´re not in my house - try doing that with timemachine. Blurays would´ve made that easier.

4) I don´t like the iTunes Store. It is quite comfortable, sure, and it looks nice. And it´s cheaper than Blurays, too. The quality is okay aswell, at least in HD. But there´s so, so many things wrong with it. I live in Germany and thus I am bound to the german store. I do have an account for the US store, too, because some apps or movies I want aren´t available in Germany. But I always have to buy iTunes codes from shady sources in order to buy something. Not cool.
Not to speak of the horrible german synchronisation most movies suffer from. There are bi-lingual versions, yes, but it´s just a handful and not really worth mentioning. And some movies are missing completely.

I have a few other points, but let´s leave it where we are for now.




Sure, you say, the iMac isn´t for me. Go buy a mac pro, you´ll say. But you know the answer to that: The current one is preposterous and the next one isn´t announced before sometime in 2013. And if I had to guess, I´d say it won´t have bluray either.
It would´ve been a consolation if they spec´d their external optical drive (for those stuck in 2005, yes, phil) with BR - but no. All these fancy things like unibody retina macbooks, fusion drives and what have you aren´t worth a penny if you forget who these things are made for and what their actual needs are.
I´d like Apple to go and ask some of their professional customers what they need. And then go and improve on top of that without leaving things out.


Sorry for the long-ish rant, but I had to vent that somewhere. :cool:


/e:


Bluray does 1080p from the start. You can scale it down, though, so it gets even better. :rolleyes:

Buy an external Drive. Simple
 
... The image quality is sharp enough for me.

I hear that a LOT lately. "Good enough". MP3 is "good enough", highly compressed video s "good enough"...

It's amazing to me the no one cares about quality any more.

I tried an experiment a while back. I got some slides I shot years back with real 35mm film and projected them on a screen to an audience. They were COMPLETELY blown away. Comments like "unbelievable color and details and realism" These were just ordinary shots with a 1980's vintage manual-everything Nikon SLR. What's happened is that people have gotten used to this "crap" (TV quality video and MP3 music) or have been brainwashed into thinking that "digital is better".

Digital can be better but mostly the consumer digital formats are VERY poor compared to what consumers used in the 1960's or 1970's (vinyl records and film fo both still and video) Things have gotten cheaper but certainly not better as my experiment with film showed

Technically the 35mm slide has about the same detail as a 24 or 36 megapixel digital image but the dynamic range is far greater and the old Kodak projectors produce a very bright image, brighter than any TV screen with overall quality a bit better than you'd see in the local movie theater.

Cinema uses the same 35mm film but with smaller frame size
 
For me, quality > quantity, especially when a projector is involved. It appears that I'm in the minority.
 
That is good to hear. Still, even with the upgrade, on older you are looking at brute-forcing what you do not have dedicated hardware to decode.

Yup... I don't think any C2D CPU (not even ones clocked at 3.06 GHz) could decode 1080p24 H.265 (let alone p30 / p60). (Newer x86 CPU's may already have the pure computing power.) Same stands for any ARM chip: not even the A6(X) can (software-)decode 1080p24 H.264 without stuttering, let alone H.265. (Speaking of H.264 and the A6, only 720p can be decoded in software on the A6 - but in no way 1080p. Previous ARM CPU's are way worse and only SD decoding is possible on them.)

That is, switching to H.265 as the (only) distribution format of iTunes Store is pretty much unlikely in the next,say, 3-4 years.
 
No, I don't have whatever an AVR is. I don't sit around watchings screens all day so it really doesn't matter to me. I've always seen home theater systems as a waste of space and time.

I don't sit around watching screens all day, either – but when I do want to watch a movie, nothing compares to watching it on Blu-Ray in my home theater: 1080P projector, 120" screen, and 7.1 surround system. I have a small house. The home theater is also the living room (I have a retractable screen), so no space is wasted. The projector and screen were on sale as a package for $1,600 earlier this year, the fairly high-end AVR was $1,000, and I bought the speaker system years ago, so the total expenditure wasn't that much. As for home theaters being a waste of time, well, I don't go out to movie theaters anymore, which saves me the time of driving, waiting in line, waiting for the movie to start, and sitting through the ads and previews of coming attractions.

To those who say Blu-Rays are too expensive, I've found plenty of older titles for $8 at Best Buy and Costco. I also buy them used on Amazon. I don't collect lots of movies, but as a movie buff for most of my fifty-odd years, there are certain classics I like owning, in the best format possible.

It's funny: when I was younger, I remember there was always a desire to get better and better audio fidelity and video quality for home systems. Back in the 1980s, I never dreamed I'd someday own a home theater as good as the screening rooms that only Hollywood directors and such had back then. Now that such systems are available and affordable, it's ironic that far lower quality is "good enough" for the majority of people. Maybe that was always the case, though, and I just assumed that most other people were would-be audio- and videophiles.

I was upset that Apple chose not to support Blu-Ray, and that they're removing the optical drive from their entire product line. I can see removing it from the laptops, but not the Mac Mini or the iMac. But maybe it's indeed true that not enough people care anymore. Honestly, with a dedicated Blu-Ray player, I don't really need one in my Mac. What I'd really like is mid-priced tower like my trusty 2000 G4 PowerMac tower, which I used for eight years, upgrading components as I needed to. But I gave up asking for such a thing in 2008, when I finally broke down and bought a MBP. I'm sure Phil would say that nobody is asking for those anymore, either. An ADT with a Mac Mini or laptop is a good solution, though, because of the ADT's hub.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.