**There WILL be Blu-Ray on New Macs!**

[HaiRy]

I don't think you've ever looked at how people look at new technology. If you'd like, I can show a few examples.

Follow up on PM, lets not wreck the thread!

 

[racer1441]

Are you sure you even clicked on those images to view them in full size? There is a BIG different in the screengrabs that Eminemdrdre00 posted.

In fact, a screen larger than 23 inches should yield significant results between SD and HD content (23 inches and larger usually have a resolution of 1920 x 1200). I'm talking about computer monitors BTW. For HDTVs, it's pretty similar in range as well. Most LCD HDTVs carry 1366 x 768 panels, so it's still much higher resolution than SD. Remember, SD is 720 x 480, and if it's widesceen 16:9, that 720 x 480 is STRETCHED, making the image even blurrier. So 720 x 480 upscaled to 1920 x 1080. See the significant resolution loss from going up? HD is more than TWICE the resolution of SD.

If you can't see the difference, something is really WRONG with your eyes. Oh, and I'm hoping you're not one of those people that has an HDTV, but has a blu-ray or HD player connected with standard composite cables.

"OH THERE AIN'T NO DIFFERENCE MAN I GOT MY PS3 HOOKED UP TO AN HDTV."
"Are you sure you hooked it up with HDMI cables?"
"WHAT'S THAT?"

Or you may be one of those people that stands like 20 feet away watching a movie? From that distance, yes, resolution plays less of an impact, since your eyes can't focus into those tiny pixels from so far away.

There is no worthwhile viable difference on any of those screen shots. There is a point, and we've reached it, that more pixels and resolution is just for use on the label of the box. It's pointless. Just like the Direct TV guys....just throw a million-i sticker on the device and be happy.

Hard media is on the way out anyway. Let's see where Blueray is in a year....I'm betting it's gone by then.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

There is no worthwhile viable difference on any of those screen shots. There is a point, and we've reached it, that more pixels and resolution is just for use on the label of the box. It's pointless. Just like the Direct TV guys....just throw a million-i sticker on the device and be happy.

Hard media is on the way out anyway. Let's see where Blueray is in a year....I'm betting it's gone by then.

I have a real concern for the state of your vision.

You see no difference when the difference is more than obvious. And there is no resolution barrier where things stop improving.

You really need to get your eyes checked.

 

[Tilpots]

There is no worthwhile viable difference on any of those screen shots. There is a point, and we've reached it, that more pixels and resolution is just for use on the label of the box. It's pointless. Just like the Direct TV guys....just throw a million-i sticker on the device and be happy.

Hard media is on the way out anyway. Let's see where Blueray is in a year....I'm betting it's gone by then.

I'll take that bet. Whatcha wanna lose?

 

[Tilpots]

Hard media is on the way out anyway. Let's see where Blueray is in a year....I'm betting it's gone by then.

I'll take that bet. Whatcha wanna lose?

 

[jbrenn]

But a single-layer BD is $15 now, and will cost the same as a CD in less than two years.

I dont know where you found the $15 single-layer BD but that is way over priced. You can buy single disks for around $5 you can get them around $3 if you get a spindle.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817607016
$4.79
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817501029
$43.99 for 15
http://www.frys.com/product/5900884?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
$34.99 for 15
http://www.frys.com/product/5981574?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
$5.99

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

There is no worthwhile viable difference on any of those screen shots. There is a point, and we've reached it, that more pixels and resolution is just for use on the label of the box. It's pointless. Just like the Direct TV guys....just throw a million-i sticker on the device and be happy.

Hard media is on the way out anyway. Let's see where Blueray is in a year....I'm betting it's gone by then.

lol, you're wrong on just about everything here. Are you looking at the full res images of those screen shots. You aren't going to see a difference looking at thumbnails or shrunken images. If you can't see a difference in those pictures you are quite frankly in need of a new pair of eyeballs. DVD is very washed out, blury, and nowhere near as nice looking. Also, there will never be enough pixels. If you have a 50' display, you need more pixels. With peoples constant need for bigger and better, technology will never stop advancing. You think that when they came out with the color tv they said alright no we have reached the pinnacle of technology and don't need anything better?

And bluray nor any other physical media will not go out anytime soon. Unless DRM can be sorted out, people will not flock towards digital copies of things. People want to be able to take a movie to a friends house, watch it on their iPod, laptop, and play it on their tv. Unless they can do all of that stuff, they are not going to lock down to a non physical media. We are getting closer, but we are still a lot farther than a year before people will be alright with no physical media.

 

[senseless]

The difference between Hollywood standard DVDs and Blu-Ray is not astounding. However, standard DV home video vs HD (Blu-Ray) is night and day. The resolution and color improvement is huge, for some reason.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

The difference between Hollywood standard DVDs and Blu-Ray is not astounding. However, standard DV home video vs HD (Blu-Ray) is night and day. The resolution and color improvement is huge, for some reason.

You can't be serious. Indiana Jones on DVD looks pretty crappy on our 52''. On Blu-Ray, however, it looks almost as if you are there.

 

[iCan2]

blu ray issues

Yep, as I hear it you might very well be surprised in the Fall or Winter '09. I hear very big changes are underway for the Mac Pro.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

You can't be serious. Indiana Jones on DVD looks pretty crappy on our 52''. On Blu-Ray, however, it looks almost as if you are there.

i think it's pretty obvious that these people aren't looking at properly set up systems. I don't know how someone CAN'T tell a difference between DVD and BR. If there wasn't a big difference do you think people would be wasting money upgrading?

 

[iGEORGIAban]

So buy one separately and install it yourself.

lol well im getting a MBP, so i guess if that option comes up i will, but most likely ill buy a bluray player.

 

[fiercetiger224]

There is no worthwhile viable difference on any of those screen shots. There is a point, and we've reached it, that more pixels and resolution is just for use on the label of the box. It's pointless. Just like the Direct TV guys....just throw a million-i sticker on the device and be happy.

Hard media is on the way out anyway. Let's see where Blueray is in a year....I'm betting it's gone by then.

Do you even work with video? I'm a videographer, and I'm very picky when it comes to quality. There's NEVER a point where resolution and pixels don't matter. It's almost like saying that if a movie is made prior to 2000, that the movie isn't worth buying just because it wasn't filmed in HD. Not true at all. Standard 35mm film has much higher resolution than HD, so if you compare an older movie, say Home Alone between Blu-ray and DVD, BIG night and day difference. Why do you think most movies are still filmed in 35mm vs digital? Simple. Much higher resolution and better dynamic range that digital video can't capture.

Hell, do you even play any videogames? Saying more resolution and pixels for use on the label of the box? What? I think pixels and resolution are even more important for videogames especially. Have you seen PS3 games like Uncharted and Metal Gear Solid 4 in HD 720p vs downscaling those games in SD 480i/p? BIIIIIIG night and day difference. So where's your argument going now? Pixels and resolution don't matter?

Wow hard media is on the way out? For music maybe, but not movies. If you wanna have a digital download that has DRM, and not being physically able to bring it over to someone's house to either watch it with them or let them borrow it...It's like you're supporting DRM. Hard media is always going to have a place on the market. How do you think retailers make their money? Without it, those retailers wouldn't have jobs.

Maybe your one of those avid bootleggers who doesn't care about quality, and just bootlegs all their movies online. Or maybe you just joined the forums just to troll? You just joined this month...So I assume you probably have a hate for Blu-ray since you were uhh...Supporting HD-DVD or something?

 

[Bjohnson33]

I just don't see the point of Blu-Ray for most people unless they have it hooked up to a pretty big external monitor, or watching on the 24" iMac. Is there really that much quality increase going from DVD to Blu-Ray when you're watching it on a 13 - 17" screen sitting maybe two feet away from you? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know - is it worth it on a smaller screen?

I can see people wanting Blu-Ray if they're doing back-ups or publishing video, but for me, I can't really see myself spending any extra for a drive like that. If it dropped to the same price as the DVD-RW drives currently being sold, then great. Otherwise, no thanks.

 

[neil1980]

I'd say most watch films on bigger screens than that... 13-17 may be noticeable depending on how close your sat.

I really cant see hard media for films dying until internet speeds increase massively and computers have waaaay more storage space than now (few hundred TB instead of GB)

I don't think its a coincidence that the CD for music started to die out around about the time broadband made its appearance... I mean I remember downloading an album on dial up that took about 4 hours and now your looking at minutes or seconds.

When you can download a 720p film in under 15 minutes and you have that much storage space you can store hundred or thousands of films no hassle.... thats when bluray can worry.

As it stands I'd rather go for the higher quality that I can watch anywhere

 

[fiercetiger224]

I can see people wanting Blu-Ray if they're doing back-ups or publishing video, but for me, I can't really see myself spending any extra for a drive like that. If it dropped to the same price as the DVD-RW drives currently being sold, then great. Otherwise, no thanks.

Isn't that the point though? Eventually Blu-ray will become standard once it gets cheap enough. How long did it take DVD to get cheap enough that they started coming standard across computers? Did you ever buy a DVD-ROM drive to replace an aging CD drive? Blu-rays will be awesome once it becomes mainstream.

I haven't gotten a Blu-ray burner myself, but once Final Cut Studio has full support for it, I can see myself spending money on a burner. Standard Blu-ray movie players are starting to kick off as well, since they're much cheaper, and because they don't cost much more than a DVD player. So in a year, I expect Blu-ray to start becoming more mainstream. Even Blu-ray sections in retailers are getting bigger and bigger every 3 months.

 

[L0s7man]

Blue-Ray is useful. There's no denying that. How many films of 15GB each can you store on your HDD? And the quality of those is lower than Blue-Ray. 50GB is A LOT. REALLY A LOT. It's going to take few more years before broadband/hdd space will make it obsolete.

It would be a nice option. Simple. You want it, you get it. You don't, you don't. You can get BR films even cheaper than DVDs. So if you have the drive, that's nice.

If the screen was full hd and blue-ray wasn't a ridiculously expensive option, that I'd be happy to pick it up.

Also, I'd like to be able to store bunch of my photos on one BR disk ;-) Hard drives are not secure enough - they do fail. And I like my photos - with a 12MP camera (which is an overkill, I know, but whatever, makes nice photos for a compact), each photo is 6MB. It might not sound like much, but when I can get 600 photos from 1 day trip (if I copy all the photos my friends did), that's quite a lot to store forever and ever.

If you trust you whole photo collection to a HDD, that's walking a thin line my friend...

 

[panzer06]

Blue-Ray is useful. There's no denying that. How many films of 15GB each can you store on your HDD? And the quality of those is lower than Blue-Ray. 50GB is A LOT. REALLY A LOT. It's going to take few more years before broadband/hdd space will make it obsolete.

snip

This is one of the best (and simple) reasons I've seen to explain why digital distribution of FullHD movies is a long long way off. Fitting 20 50GB movies on a 1TB drives is a big impediment. I have over 100 Bluray movies. I'd need a SAN to store all the content. Factor that in and you get a quite a few Bluray players indeed.

We'll eventually get Bluray on the Mac. Just a matter of time.

Cheers,

 

[Fishrrman]

RE:
"There is no worthwhile viable difference on any of those screen shots."

If you can't discern the qualitative differences between those images, there is either:
- something wrong with your display, or,
- something wrong with your eyes, or,
- something wrong with your eyeglasses.

I'm 60, and my "computer vision" isn't what it used to be. I'm also one of those guys who was thinking, "why would I ever want BluRay?"

THEN I stumbled upon that page showing the improved visual quality that BluRay offers. After seeing that, the question becomes "why mess around with ordinary DVD when you can an image as good as BluRay?"

You've been bested in the forum, and you're trying to find a way out of it.

- John

 

[Cave Man]

Blue-Ray is useful. There's no denying that. How many films of 15GB each can you store on your HDD? And the quality of those is lower than Blue-Ray. 50GB is A LOT. REALLY A LOT. It's going to take few more years before broadband/hdd space will make it obsolete.

There are no 50 gb Blu-ray movies. The largest I've seen is 32 gb and the average is about 20 gb. Unless you want to keep the HD audio, all of them can be downsized to about 10 gb with no perceptible loss of quality.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

I just don't see the point of Blu-Ray for most people unless they have it hooked up to a pretty big external monitor, or watching on the 24" iMac. Is there really that much quality increase going from DVD to Blu-Ray when you're watching it on a 13 - 17" screen sitting maybe two feet away from you? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know - is it worth it on a smaller screen?

There isn't really a difference below 720p or 26''. That's one reason why there aren't portable Blu-Ray players.

 

[geoffreak]

I think Blu-ray as a video medium is on the way out as it is on the way in. While download 1080p video services won't be seen en masse for a few years, this would be about the time that Blu-ray would get cheap enough to truly replace DVDs as an affordable media. This will likely happen within the next 2-3 years.

There will be quite a bit of competition between the two delivery systems, with Hollywood and slow internet connected users wanting Blu-ray versus high speed internet connected users wanting downloads. Although the latter group would be smaller, they would also be the group that spends the most on movies. I can't say for sure how long this fight will go on for, but I expect that Blu-ray will enjoy around 3-4 years as a strong competitor while high speed internet becomes mainstream.

The Blu-ray format will continue even after video sales dwindle. As density in optical media increases, we'll be seeing disks that can reach 200GB or higher become affordable backup solutions. Backing up to tape will become obsolete due to the significantly lower cost of backing up to Blu-ray. The next long term backup solution won't come along until holographic storage, which will actually be used as short term storage as well because of the read and write speeds that put SSDs to shame.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

There will be quite a bit of competition between the two delivery systems, with Hollywood and slow internet connected users wanting Blu-ray versus high speed internet connected users wanting downloads. Although the latter group would be smaller, they would also be the group that spends the most on movies. I can't say for sure how long this fight will go on for, but I expect that Blu-ray will enjoy around 3-4 years as a strong competitor while high speed internet becomes mainstream.

We'll need at least 100 megabytes per second to make downloading 1080p movies with great sound feasible.

The Blu-ray format will continue even after video sales dwindle. As density in optical media increases, we'll be seeing disks that can reach 200GB or higher become affordable backup solutions. Backing up to tape will become obsolete due to the significantly lower cost of backing up to Blu-ray. The next long term backup solution won't come along until holographic storage, which will actually be used as short term storage as well because of the read and write speeds that put SSDs to shame.

Backing up to tape is already obsolete. People just continue to do it because it stores for a long time and it's cheap.

Adding to holographic storage, GE is working on UV optical discs that go up to 500 GB.