Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
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
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff |
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/17/09
11/18/09
There will need to be a large increase in bandwidth (both per-user and overall backbone) or a large increase in the processing power possessed by the average consumer (to decompress more intensive compression) before streaming can compare in quality with physical media. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
That having been said, I download 1080p movies from time to time because free "good enough" is better than $30 "perfect". #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
'I download 1080p movies from time to time because free "good enough" is better than $15 "perfect".'
Everyone happy? #laserdiscs
11/18/09
Fuck the quality argument. Rent bluray for quality, I *buy* bluray for the extras, which you won't find in a digital download from torrents. Take Star Trek, for instance... the extra features packed into that set were better then the movie itself, and worth the 25 bucks I put down.
One last thing, "normal" people wouldn't know how to use a torrent if you wrote them a step by step guide with fancy pictures. While it's popularity has increased, it's still considered fringe.
11/18/09
For movies I only have a passing interest in, though, I'll download before I rent, mostly out of laziness. I hate having to return movies.
11/18/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
Gizmodo turned into a total bar fight over this last year at about this time.
I still think Blu-ray will never reach the saturation that DVDs had achieved. Not only that, it's true replacement will arrive in 2-3 years with widespread acceptance with on the third to fourth year. And yes, I subtracted the past year from when I said it a year ago.
*** Dusty goes back inside to watch the hornet's nest from the safety of his home *** #laserdiscs
11/18/09
After the grueling multi-year death-match between HD-DVD and Blu-ray, I just don't see movie studios and consumers sitting through that again. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
CEDs are intriguing because they are actually movies recorded on vinyl discs. So the novel, forgotten technology appeal it off the chart. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
fun fact, though: laserdiscs are analog. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
no way. they scratch easily and are really, really brittle, and will shatter if flexed or dropped.
compared to a VHS, they were pathetic in terms of physical integrity. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
no no, it's just that my sarcasm checker utilizes my funny detector in order to verify the presence of sarcasm. i looked into it, and my funny detector - working fine. it didn't go off for obvious reasons. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
11/17/09
[www.highdefdigest.com] #laserdiscs
11/17/09
Talk about eye candy! #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
Your BR to LD comparison would probably be off. Way off.
Although LaserDiscs were not in nearly as many homes as VHS, they WERE in a lot. LDs were available for the entire 1980s and MOST of the 1990s. Thousands upon thousands of titles were available, and in the seventeen plus years they were available, I am sure many consumers bought them.
I dont know the numbers either - but I would be that total LD sales far outnumbered BD sales as of current.
As for the size, yes, DVDs are smaller - 5 inches as opposed to 12 - but bear in mind there were also 5" laserdiscs, which held a smaller amount of video, as well as 8" discs.
The 12" discs were basically the size of a standard LP record - which took a lot less space than a VHS tape in a clamshell. So to compare it to DVD, yes, it was bigger - but space-wise, on your shelf, you held a LOT more discs to VHS tapes. Usually about 6 to 1.
Furthermore, LDs could do a lot more than current DVDs and even BRDs can do - for example, exact frame search. You could, on your remote, type in the exact frame number you wanted to see. It was perfect for examining special effects, animation, finding something or someone in a background that went by too qucikly and for finding lots and lots of errors and flubs.
LDs WERE the Blu-Ray of the 1980s and 1990s. DVDs exist SOLELY because of the LD, and MUCH respect is owed to that obsolete but INCREDIBLE technology. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
I do not know what the definition of "failure" is for a product, and if your point of comparison is media sales, then you could make a case that all physical media sales will be a "failure" in our future. If we are comparing media players, BR has already destroyed Laserdisc when we consider time on the market as well as consumer awareness. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
HD-DVD, Betamax, Laserdisc and Minidiscs were all failures since they never hit mainstream popularity. One could make an argument that Blu-ray may already be too well known to be a "failure" compared to those formats. We all know a non-geek with a BR player, and that is unlikely with the formats above.
Perhaps BR will be a "failure" from the sense that geeks will start using some yet-unknown download option with BR quality video within the next five years. But, in my opinion, whatever is going to replace BR has not reached the market yet, so I believe it may be amusing to say it will fail - it is, at least, premature. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
Blu-ray is not much more important. It'll most probably die in the US before it ever gets to the size of the DVD market. DVD will be the last mainstream physical format. Samsung gives it five years. I agree with them. #laserdiscs
11/17/09
11/17/09
You're wrong about a great many things.
Firstly, LD wasnt a failure - it just lived its lifespan. All video formats will eventually be replaced. Yes, VHS was a MUCH bigger presence, but LD did very well.
The point I was making was that Blu Ray has not, as of yet, surpassed the sales that LD did in its seventeen years on the market.
That being said, I am IN the Blu-Ray industry - I want it to succeed, and am far more positive about BRs future than many others on this board. I suspect it will be around for about ten more years.
Blu ray has NOT come close to the DVD sales for point of entry. No where near.
And believe me, I wish it had!
As for BR 'destroying' LD, again, ot even close. Youd be surprised how many people have no idea what Blu Ray is, and how may more people have heard of it but really don't understand the difference between it and DVD #laserdiscs
11/18/09
CNET says, "first-quarter 2009 sales of stand-alone Blu-ray players (read: not including the PS3) in the U.S. surpassed 400,000 units.", and cepro.com says, "More than 3.3 million [stand-alone] Blu-ray players have sold through the first three quarters of 2009."
It's tough to find current figures for stand-alone players, but it sounds like somewhere near 10 million already, and if you count PlayStation 3 consoles (which all have BD players), then Blu-ray has already passed LaserDisc.
So - rather than shunned, maybe you'll be lauded as a tech visionary blog-commenter, hey? ;-) #laserdiscs
11/17/09