I wasn't aware that Netflix Instant was doing 40 Mbps 1080p content.
I was aware that "5.1" is sad compared to lossless 7.1 which is available on most BDs.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs Suggests Blu-ray Not Coming to Mac Anytime Soon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I wasn't aware that Netflix Instant was doing 40 Mbps 1080p content.
I was aware that "5.1" is sad compared to lossless 7.1 which is available on most BDs.
It supposedly does 1080p, but I've never seen it with my comcast connection. Even with my PS3 hardwired into the router.
More than likely it's not 40 Mbps.
Do you not have 7.1? Cause most if not all the BD movies I have watched have 7.1 audio. With some pretty big quality differences (384Kbps audio stream versus 6Mbps stream).
Did I say anything about 40 Mbps? Nope. What I was referring to was the following:
Netflix on PS3 goes disc-free, gets 1080p streaming and 5.1 surround sound (update)
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/14/netflix-on-ps3-goes-disc-free-gets-1080i-streaming-and-5-1-surr/
Considering a 20% drop in DVD sales last year, I'm shocked Blu-Ray's piece of pie for physical media hasn't grown more quickly just by the inflation effect.
Hmmm, delicious. Does vudu work while the PSN is down? I can still get Netflix to run while it's down for the count, but I've heard reports of people losing the ability to get netflix working as of today.
Is that a number 6000 I see in the upper right of my post?
Still up:
http://sonyrumors.net/2011/05/04/reminder-even-with-psn-down-netflix-and-vudu-still-work/
In the event it was down, I was going to make you a bet: Vudu service is restored on the PS3 before everyone with profile 1.0 and 1.1 Blu-Ray players gets access to the BD Live special features on their Blu-Ray disks.
Last edited by a moderator:
My error - I said "1080p" instead of "BD-quality 1080p". If you want to download 1080p that's been over-compressed to "VHS quality", your option.
An edit to my post is significant:
In the event it was down, I was going to make you a bet: Vudu service is restored on the PS3 before everyone with profile 1.0 and 1.1 Blu-Ray players gets access to the BD Live special features on their Blu-Ray disks.
They'll get it about the same time that Photoshop CS5 is 64-bit on Apple OS9.
In otherwords, "never" and "it doesn't matter". Some early adopters of new tech don't get the latest features a few years later. How's your Iphone 3G on the latest IOS?
Last edited by a moderator:
And it was also be a naive non-comparison as BD and Youtube target different types of video media.
Because I restricted the argument to that because that is BD's primary target media. Read the god damn argument.
Oh what! Now BD is more popular than the internet! -- Which was my point, the topic of this thread, and the only logical way to parse your argument (which was stupid to begin with, but well, you knew that)
By definition an obscure thing is less likely to appear anywhere. Hence the descriptive word: obscure.
I did and now I'm rolling my eyes.
Distribution of even obscure movies on Youtube is illegal. Are you still advocating that?
It cites sources, so as long as the research was ok, then there's nothing questionable about that article.
Since you seem to claim that this only includes mainstream media, not any alternative releases of Blu-ray, clearly you have read the research that this article is based on.
Tell us about this research. Were you pleased with it, and what would you improve, if you could?
You're clearly not interested in being argued with, because you refuse to consider widely accepted Media Studies theory or even read my argument properly. I only said BD was more popular in Mainstream media (Which is true), that is not the only place where media exists. Basic stats and graph analysis points this out quite clearly, there is a 1:1 split with a bias to the tail. Because after a while media becomes to obscure to even Release video on BD or even DVD, the bias goes towards internet media.
The Long Tail theory is a generally accepted theory to predict sales based on medium and obscurity there it can be used to explain popularity and retail behaviour. Its quite frankly your problem if you don't want to consider it, every single company and university worth a damn disagrees with you.
Maybe you need a graph that can be self explanatory to your level of critical thinking
Last edited:
With all due respect, the difference between DVD 5.1 and BD 7.1 is not that great. I have 7.1, I have very revealing speakers, appropriately amped, but movies are not the place to worry all that much about absolute sound quality.
With classical music, OTOH, I can tell exactly where my few thousand dollar speaker setup is lacking and I would love to move to a nicer set.
Streaming 5.1 may have its own problems that make it worse, I'll grant you that.
Actually most BD movies are 5.1. Only a few are 7.1. The important difference is the BD has lossless audio while DVD are lossy.
But that's exactly what I did, dear boy, and it was a stupid argument that pertains nothing to this discussion. At. All. Compare Youtube and BD all you like, I don't see the point in it - all that remains is that you clumsily claimed that "the internet" was a far more popular medium than BluRay, in every possible sense, when obviously it isn't. When it comes to what BD is actually made and marketed for (i.e. professionally made content, distributed by sales) "the internet" in all it's aspects is completely put to shame by BD and other physical media (optical media to be precise).
Claiming that "the internet" is a far more popular medium than BluRay, in every possible sense, makes no caveats - it's really not possible to misunderstand or misrepresent that claim. It may be what you want to be true, but it is not.
Making up theoretical graphs is not interesting to me and honestly, even if it was interesting to this discussion; it just claims that obscure movies are hard to find.
What a shocker. So what? That's completely irrelevant to the fact that BD can and will easily cater to anyone who cares to publish his movie on a disc. If they are hard to find, well that's just the free market speaking, saying "I don't care about this particular movie".
This infantile behavior, wishful thinking and asinine presentation of theoretical graphs is such a crazy way to make an argument and really only shows how confused you are about a simple thing. Namely that there is no reason in the world that Macs are sold with DVD drives, but shun BD.
Actually, the long tail theory is not a theoretical graph. It also doesn't say that obscure media is hard to find. On the contrary, it says the internet makes obscure media easy to find. The long tail is only possible because of channels like the internet.
Why don't you acquaint yourself with the basics in a non-academic way, and we can start from there.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html
Last edited:
Check the specs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Audio) - most BD 5.1 profiles are highly compressed. The 5.1 lossless are 6 channel up to 192Khz.
Chances are that a BD with only 5.1 has lossy audio.
Last edited:
We had this same conversation last fall. You made the same argument then, and, like then, I pointed out some Blu-Ray players currently for sale were not using Profile 2.0. I just checked, and some electronic companies (ex. Magnavox) are still making them and selling them in big box stores (ex. Sears). After five years, can we really call today's buyers "early adopters?"
Not sure. I don't have one, but I'm guessing they don't run into too many apps in the iTunes Store they cannot play.
It was you who called it obscure, I'm just regurgitating your own verbiage back to you.
I'm sorry it appeared I took it seriously. Wasn't my intention, since it doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Macs have DVD drives, not BD drives, yet BD is the current (and for the foreseeable future) the mainstream technology. If you want internet, Macs have that too, you know.
As for stores that sell less mainstream things, they exist too. (not according to your graph, but they do)
Do you think that people buying Magnavox BD players at Sears are likely to even notice that they don't have BD-live?
I thought that you bought highly compressed music and videos at Itunes, and applications at the "App Store®©℠"....
It also doesn't address the crux of where I was going, which was that once you have the Admin password to install an App, there's nothing stopping you from also installing some patches on the OS. Thus, whatever "shortcomings" OS X has in terms of DRM can technically be addressed by a third party software company, with or without Apple's explicit "permission".
Actually, I suspect that you simply want to avoid the reality of all of the sub-1080p alternatives. The problem with this approach is that the human customer doesn't care: he is free to seek his "entertainment" in a plethora of different forms & formats. Even (gasp!) RADIO.
And clearly documented as such, so as to prevent miscommunications.
Beause the consumer is the one who decides what his Eyeballs watch.
My apologies, but it sounds like you're now trying to shift the goalposts to restrict the discussion to only those media forms which are viable as profitable business models for small, independent distributors. Is that what you're trying to say? Or are you trying to suggest that YouTube itself doesn't turn a profit for Google?
Sorry, but the only way that this example of Youtube would be dishonest would be if YouTube wasn't part of the Internet.
Perhaps so (I'm not being that judgemental), but that other poster is not entirely to blame: you disagreed, but you've also not delivered up any quantitative data that clearly counters his claim, regardless of how rash or incorrect the claim may have been.
IMO - - and admittedly restricted to simple perspectives - - the claim does appear fairly reasonable (or not "highly unreasonable", if you prefer), since I know that my family generally spends more time each day with eyeballs on the internet as entertainment than as eyeballs watching our personal media library collections. YMMV of course since this last part is anecdotal, but you're trying to climb a steep hill that's being made in a 6,000 posts long thread that's only available ... on the Internet.
Just which merits are these? Please be specific.
Does this mean that part of the BD licence restrictions explicitly prohibit the printing of any classical Three Stooges or Marx Brothers comedies? What about Mel Brooks or Jerry Lewis? Afterall, a lot of people would opine that they're "nonsense" too.
Apologies for my poor attempt at humor, but the point I'm making here is that one man's trash is another man's treasure, and just because you consider Youtube to be 'nonsensical' doesn't mean that it is doomed to fail as a business model.
And considering that BD products classically come from Hollywood should be another clue that "Intellectual Highbrow" content isn't a business requirement either (that's another weak attempt at a witty joke). But more seriously, all of this is simply entertainment that is intended within its business case model to make money. Bottom line is money, which for visually oriented media ultimately comes down to engaging eyeballs. Since humans only can have their eyes open for a finite percentage of the day, the "Demand" side has an upper limit, so the Supply side venues are in competition over their slice of a finite pie.
Sorry if I'm being more holistic than you're comfortable with, but for all of those Cable TV companies that are delivering digital TV to their households over an internet connection ... that means that conventional "Broadcast TV" counts for the ~80% of the US population too, right? And how many hours of TV does each household in the USA typically watch each night? Or would you feel more comfortable with TV simply remaining as it has been for decades as its own "Pie Slice"? Yes, it is one whose eyeball pie slice has been shrinking due to competition from "Internet", but that's a tangent.
Sorry, but I'm not yet even considering convergence. The broad question is of the different basic protocols for delivery of entertainment media today, and for the eyeball visual based "moving image", it basically falls into: TCP/IP ("Internet"), ATSC (OTA Television), and physical media (DVD, BD).
My impression was that the intended comparison was at the above-listed high level, and not niggling down in the weeds to try to childishly play "Gotcha".
Sorry you feel that way. Of course, I'm more disappointed in you for having a derrogatory attitude towards someone who you claimed provided utterly no quantitative documentation, while then failing to back up your own claims.
But what do I know? I'm just a guy who politely asked upfront for quantitiative data to substantiate the claims ... and had a claimant sling insults instead of the requested data.
-hh
I imagine, when they wonder why that menu is grayed out when trying to access it on their brand new Blu-Ray player, yes, they might.
Heavens, no. The iPod is the Devil's MP3 player! I rock a brown Zune. I'm really hoping to compliment it with a brown Microsoft Windows touch based tablet when they release one....in the fall.....of 2012.
Last edited:
So I guess you won't be watching the Blu-ray version of classics like Taxi Driver which is only in "sad" 5.1. And I suppose the HBO series Game of Thrones is out of the question given that Comcast only offers it in 1080i and 5.1.
Media obscure according to mainstream, not obscure according to long tail.
That long tail represents the stores that sell obscure things far beyond what is capable for a physical store. There are just too many restrictions with physical media. The threshold is just so much more.
Also note this is not my graph or my theory. However you seem to refuse to see otherwise.
These are statistics from 2006 before DD was popular or even really existed but the basic principle is the same. The amount of media is continuously growing, and most of it can only be found on the internet where there is practically unlimited space.
You need to start attacking my arguments or attacking the theory because all you seem to do is red herrings.
Last edited:
Netflix Dolby 5.1 is "sad" compared to the DTS-HD Master Audio lossless 5.1 on Taxi Driver. You should know that, and should be ashamed for bringing this up as an issue.
It seems like we'll need to use paragraphs instead of nouns/adjectives when comparing downloaded video to BD.
And "Game of Thrones" is out of the question, period.
Last edited:
Indeed.
The friendly discussion would be "Yeh, I don't want BD, but if you want the option that's fine with me".
It would be so obvious, but so difficult for some.
Agreed. I'll happily exit the fray, if just for the sake of the mods' sanity.
However, don't be fooled by some of those claiming to be the voice of reason in this thread. If you go back to the beginning of a lot of discussions that went south with regard to civility, they tend to be the ones that lit the match.
If the actual HD digital downloads services offered FLAC at least (which has a more "compact" compression ratio than TrueHD/DTS-HD MLP compression scheme), i would for sure use them as an alternative option to get the movies i want.
I'm so ashamed by the fact that no one (studios, music companies and the likes) still doesn't see FLAC as a more "viable" codec for sharing compressed lossless audio over the net, without sacrificing quality.
- Status