Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
The simple quick reason why they didn't put them both together is because people don't want to spend $20 on DVDs anymore and Blu-ray was supposed to allow studios to sell movies for $20-30 again. If they make it a combo movie to dupe would-be DVD buyers they would either need to keep the price in line with Blu-ray or customers will probably be mad that they can't just buy a DVD without the Blu-ray side. The whole point of selling a movie on Blu-ray (to the studio) is the added profit over DVD.
I'd rather not, since that means that people wonder which side the DVD version is on, as I doubt it will be standardized (is the label correspond to the side you're reading or the side that should be facing up?)
Instead, they need to have Blu-ray/DVD content on the same side at different layers. That's more worthwhile.
I'm happy they are finally doing this and all, but it seems obvious that doing it right away would have made less impetus for people to buy Bluray players at the outset. It makes sense to me for them to wait like they did, allowing three years of people buying overly expensive players. Now that the price is coming down, it makes less sense.
Anyway, I myself am waiting until GOOD Bluray players get into the $80-100 range before buying one, but I might go ahead and in the near future pick up some must-haves in this format if I see a deal. I ALMOST bought the new Star Trek on Bluray when I was in Best Buy on Black Friday just so that I would have it when I finally broke down (my wife) and got a player.
Why? Because Sony wanted to corner the entire market, and doing dual-format releases means sharing the royalties with the DVD format. They thought that Blu-Ray + PS3 = guaranteed win across the board, and they're very stubborn about admitting when they're wrong. Remember, this is the company that held off so long on giving up the Walkman that Apple had already _won_ the digital music player market before they even got started. And this is the same company that was so convinced that flatpanel TVs would never take off that by the time they changed their mind they needed to ask rival company Samsung to help them get their own flatpanel TV line off the ground.
@mistergalarza:
They are one of the nine founding companies and they are clearly the public face of the BDA, in part due to how closely Blu-Ray and the PS3 have been associated with each other, and in part due to the fact that Sony is the only member of the BDA that has made any attempt to publicly associate themselves with the format. If they're not in charge, I'd still suspect that they are treated as a king among equals. After all, even with how poorly the PS3 has performed, it was probably one of the most significant driving forces behind Blu-Ray's "defeat" of HD-DVD, what with how all PS3 consoles were bundled in with standalone Blu-Ray players when citing how many more people had adopted the format over HD-DVD.
@Nick: That is similar to my idea of a multi-LASER player. You add the DVD LASER, BR LASER, and HD LASER about 60 degrees apart. Whichever disc is inserted, the corresponding LASER is activated.
For one, to any hardware today, data is data, there is no "video" or "audio", just data. The data rate of current lasers (players) is well above that of both audio and video streams on any blu-ray disc today.
Additionally, separating the audio and video streams like that would only lead to further complicate the technical issue of keeping them in sync.
@cbstryker: oh, stryker. do you know how many gadgets and gizmos are around today that at some point were "completely pointless?" the double AA battery, for example. Jesus and the Apostles had no use for it, but now it's essential to everyday life. c'mon man. bring your A game.
@jayhawk11 is not a fan of smallpox.: Assuming no other bottlenecks (like server speeds), DVD quality video transfers at a rate of roughly 8-10 Mbps. Blu-ray video tops off at around 40. While technically, yes, the capability exists in some places in America (and I'm ignorantly assuming you're in America) to get a real-life 40Mbps downstream connection, it's far from the norm, even among the readership here, much less the average consumer.
Add to that the average consumer not caring as much about every pixel as we techies do, and the even lower standards folks have for streaming video, then yeah. The motivation, the resources, and the tech needed for Netflix to start streaming Blu-rays to your living room is still a few years off at least.
@jayhawk11 is not a fan of smallpox.: Vudu HDX comes close enough to Blu-ray that the vast majority of consumers will not be able to tell them apart in normal viewing conditions. Zune Video 1080p streaming on Xbox Live is also competitive with Blu-ray.
jayhawk11 is not a fan of smallpox. promoted this comment
Edited by uchendunwachukwu at 12/01/09 3:26 PM
uchendunwachukwu was starred
uchendunwachukwu was unstarred
@uchendunwachukwu: I know about Vudu. I'm more concerned about lossless audio. I'm an audio nerd, so that's a bigger deal to me. As far as video quality, yeah Zune Marketplace and Netflix HD is pretty solid.
Still, at this point OCEntertainment is hitting the nail on the head. Nothing is going to beat Blu-ray's quality because we simply can't sustain it, both on the server backends and the average consumer's connection speed.
@jayhawk11 is not a fan of smallpox.: The trouble with lossless audio is very few people have the equipment and acoustics, much less the ears to appreciate it.
Will anyone ever need to burn a blue ray. I back up on external HD's that are much cheaper. I stream all my HD movies from my Media center. Isn't the industry moving away from disks altogether
@The Analrapist: Half Analyst Half Therapist: It'll be good for people in commercials, television and film to give their clients a BR screener of their material. Other than that, unless you're making your own home movies to play on your blueray player, it won't be a large market like CDs and DVDs were. Still a good business to get into, but not the same large scale.
Am I the only one that's tired of the nX speeds on optical drives. Twelve times WHAT? A 12x Blu-ray drive must be slower than my old 52x CD-Rom drive right? Why not just list the sustained read and write speeds in mb/s?
@Perk-i: its pretty annoying. whats even better is the class system used for SD cards. apparently, everything uses a different multiplier. i dont know how they set it. for blu-ray, 1x = 4.5MB/s
@Perk-i: The concept of nX marketing is by the same genius who came up with the eject and load button under the disc tray. I should send that person a fruit basket annually to show my appreciation.
Now, I'm no engineer, but I'm pretty sure 12x is equivalent to 1.5 * the speed of an 8x drive. Calling that a slight increase is like saying that someone who is 9'6" is only slightly taller than myself, being 6'4".
12/02/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Instead, they need to have Blu-ray/DVD content on the same side at different layers. That's more worthwhile.
12/01/09
Anyway, I myself am waiting until GOOD Bluray players get into the $80-100 range before buying one, but I might go ahead and in the near future pick up some must-haves in this format if I see a deal. I ALMOST bought the new Star Trek on Bluray when I was in Best Buy on Black Friday just so that I would have it when I finally broke down (my wife) and got a player.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
They are one of the nine founding companies and they are clearly the public face of the BDA, in part due to how closely Blu-Ray and the PS3 have been associated with each other, and in part due to the fact that Sony is the only member of the BDA that has made any attempt to publicly associate themselves with the format. If they're not in charge, I'd still suspect that they are treated as a king among equals. After all, even with how poorly the PS3 has performed, it was probably one of the most significant driving forces behind Blu-Ray's "defeat" of HD-DVD, what with how all PS3 consoles were bundled in with standalone Blu-Ray players when citing how many more people had adopted the format over HD-DVD.
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Gizmodo is dual sided!
12/01/09
Dear Patent Office:
see comment above.
- Nick
12/01/09
Boom. A true multi-media player.
12/01/09
12/01/09
For one, to any hardware today, data is data, there is no "video" or "audio", just data. The data rate of current lasers (players) is well above that of both audio and video streams on any blu-ray disc today.
Additionally, separating the audio and video streams like that would only lead to further complicate the technical issue of keeping them in sync.
12/01/09
12/02/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Add to that the average consumer not caring as much about every pixel as we techies do, and the even lower standards folks have for streaming video, then yeah. The motivation, the resources, and the tech needed for Netflix to start streaming Blu-rays to your living room is still a few years off at least.
12/01/09
12/01/09
Still, at this point OCEntertainment is hitting the nail on the head. Nothing is going to beat Blu-ray's quality because we simply can't sustain it, both on the server backends and the average consumer's connection speed.
12/01/09
12/01/09
This way I do not have to buy the same copy twice just so I can watch movies while making dinner.
12/01/09
09/30/09
Like, how long to burn a blu-ray in 8x and 12x?
I want one of those, but still waiting for the prices to drop, specially the blank disc prices.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
The cost of the burners (which still are over $200) and the cost/availability of the media (ie: high and rare).
When you can get a DVD burner for $26 and 4.2GB for $0.25 or less... it's hard to justify the extra cost.
09/30/09