Sorry, meant in display tech. Once I upgraded to my current set (55", 1080p, 240hz), I honestly lost track of market trends in TV specs. At the time I bought, 720p was the winner in percentage of TV sales, but no longer know if that is the case. Always seemed to be a low-end segment exclusively for manufacturers to appeal to bargain-shoppers, folks who had held on to NTSC and CRT far too long, and people who simply didn’t give a damn, but at that time costs were high enough that it was a significant price differential. Since manufacturing costs have dropped further, I was curious as to whether 720p/1080i displays were still being produced or dominating any category. 1080p is cheap now. Can’t recall the last time I even saw a 1080i display in a store, let alone 720p.
As it is, I’m still getting 720p and 1080i software and streaming, even worse for 3D users. Streaming and bad mastering have been more bane than boon for a videophile. Keeps the physical formats chugging along, even if for a niche audience.
Semi-related, in CRT days, I recall being surprised upon reading an article in the mid '90s that (what was then considered) large screen 19"+ black-and-white TVs were being phased out. Thought those were gone by the 80s, but they held on far longer than I’d have imagined.
There is no such thing as a 1080i display. All the i’s and p’s refer to the signal, not to the display. A display has a certain resolution, it doesn’t matter if the signal is interlaced or progressive. Interestingly, I remember in the days before Full HD (1980x1080) became the only way, there were many TVs sold with a 768 resolution, called HD ready, which I thought was really incredibly dumb. But then again, many people watch 4:3 content stretched to wide screen, or they watch movies on their phone and are satisfied, so I guess in the end, quality really doesn’t seem to matter to most. I can only echo what others have said: no streaming or HD broadcast rivals the picture clarity and crispness of a Blu-ray.
Ha! Thought you were talking about NZ, exactly the same here. All this casual talk about streaming movies and Netflix etc is meaningless to much of the world.
Good explanation.
I have a 46" HD plasma television and a Blue-Ray player. Watched a blue-ray of Game of Thrones and my jaw was in my lap at the quality of the image. It was incredible.
Since then mainly I’ve watched normal DVD which the player upscales and the results are very good. Nevertheless there is no way DVD compares to BR in quality.
I have also watched several TV series in a compressed format using a USB stick. Theoretically they are low quality but in practice eminently viewable and just as enjoyable. There are artifacts at moments, skin tones gloss, and shifting around in the video can result in freezing so pure data is not ideal but 99% works.
So I’ve decided those few movies and TV shows which are special to me, are worth buying in BR. The rest on DVD are fine and indeed more likely to stored on a hard drive.
Since it was a war of marketing departments, without even the trivial tech differences of Beta/VHS or even 45/33 rpm, you may be more correct than you know.
IIRC, the DVD consortium couldn’t agree on a name and so ended up with the committee-pleasing HD-DVD instead of XVD or DVX - the latter already watered down by DiVX anyway. A cool, tripping name might have turned the tide, but this is why consortiums are so vulnerable to upstarts who get the cool factor.
I know plenty of people (myself included) with plenty of DVDs, and no desire to upgrade any of them from DVD to Blu-Ray.
In the relatively infrequent occasions when I do buy a disc these days(kid movies and cartoons), I do get Blu-Ray, unless the price difference is pronounced, in which case I get DVD.
Most of what I watch is broadcast HD stuff- HBO, Showtime, etc… which is 720p, I believe, and while not optimal, is good enough to me for watching most stuff.
In short, Blu-Ray doesn’t offer anything other than improved resolution over DVD, and for most people, that’s not enough to warrant repeat spending to replace DVDs with Blu-Ray discs, unlike the VHS-DVD transition.
Ah, my bad. I thought you meant availability of 720p or 1080i material, not televisions. Sure, there’s plenty of 720p sets available, even relatively large ones. Do they sell well? Got me. And as noted, 1080p televisions are 1080i televisions.
Dunno, never used Beta, but even on an SDTV bluray has better blacks, handles dark scenes much better etc. On an HDTV it’s like the difference between watching a movie without your glasses on (DVD) and with them on (BR)
Because a lot of parents can’t be assed to control their kids in the car, so instead they have video systems in there, most of which are still DVD based, so they have the Bluray for home, and DVD to shut the brats up on the ride.
I would think that Blu-Ray would be “selling” about as well as DVD has since its inception. Most transactions would be rentals, and I am under the impression that those have died down since the rise in popularity of Netflix and streaming (and the fall of video stores).
As for Disney putting DVDs in with Blu-Rays, I’m pretty sure it’s mainly “Blu-Ray for the home, DVD for the car.”
Something I didn’t know until recently: some studios are releasing “rental versions” of Blu-Ray titles. I got the Les Miserables Blu-Ray from Redbox recently, and although the menu included all of the options, choosing any of the “extras” (including the commentary track) resulted in a message saying that it was not available on this version.
I wonder how long before disc-based video technology is replaced with something closer to SD-card technology, which has the advantage of not being affected by scratches.
One thing I’m glad to see: nobody claiming that Blu-Ray won the format war because somebody cracked the descrambling code for HD-DVD and made it public (so it became possible to copy an HD-DVD disc and play it on pretty much any computer hardware for free).
Blu-ray won because Sony used Blu-ray in the PS3, allowing it to get a massive jump on HD-DVD in the number of players in people’s homes.
Also, Blu-ray is doing as “badly” as it is because people are done dropping serious money on catalog titles. Except for a few major releases, I can think of few movies that I would rebuy to make use of Blu-ray’s increased resolution. But that (and the fact that most catalog movies had never been available to own before) fueled DVD’s big growth.
It is your governments fault with the whole Megavideo nonsence.;)
Streaming is available in much of the rest of the world by using either a good VPN or methods which are sorta/less than/not exactly legal/ethical etc (not that I have any idea about where these sites are!). You might see them here every time some spammer puts up a link to the latest film.
It is now technically possible for someone in say South Africa or France or even Fiji to watch a show minutes after it has been aired in the US or indeed anywhere else. Its a huge potential market and its only going to grow. One business model I have seen proposed (and also implemented) is a tie up with copyright holders and ISP’s, my own ISP has an excellent service in this regard. Indeed, it is claimed that many of the sites that offer online streaming are winked at by the copyright holders, after all, they expose them to a much wider audience and that can only be a good thing long term.
That is all well and good unless your ISP puts a download cap that limits you to about 60 minutes of HD. As far as I know, no cable or DSL provider in the U.S. is doing that. Comcast/Xfinity has been making noises about capping data for users. Of course streaming video from them does not count. ISTM that this is in response to people who are cancelling cable because they have Netflix/Hulu. Both services combined is cheaper than a basic cable, without even factoring in premium channels.
It only took a thirty second preview in full HD on a true HDTV to be completely sold. It truly is a night and day difference.
Obviously the shining jewels are going to be movies made in the last few years. I purchased the (original) Star Trek movies on bluray, and the menu is the prettiest part of the older movies. I think of it this way: a high-res scan of an old wrinkled newspaper clipping won’t make the clipping look better, just make the wrinkles clearer. Brand new movies definitely look amazing, however.
Also, there’s the 3D aspect to consider. I’m not entirely convinced streaming can match physical media in that regard yet.
You can get streamed 3D through services like VUDU. (I rented a movie through it once just to try it out.) It worked okay, but there’s an awful lot of data to have to push and I’d say that any Blu-Ray carrying the 3D data is simply going to look better.
For that matter, I’m one of those people who simply doesn’t buy much on physical media these days. My pretty large DVD collection is sitting in boxes and I only buy a few new titles a year. Then I’m more likely to buy the Blu-Ray, especially if it does come with the additional DVD and the Ultraviolet copy. The only reason I’m still buying any physical CDs is because with the Amazon Autorip service there are times where it can be cheaper to buy the CD, plus it’s nice to have a physical backup. But my CD collection is also sitting in boxes and has for even longer than my DVD collection, ever since I had a hard drive and an iPod big enough to hold everything.
Incorrect. Interlaced and Progressive refer both to the signal, which can be either, AND to the display, which ALSO can be either. Admittedly you are going to find very few interlaced HDTVs, because LCD and Plasma are both natively Progressive scan technologies, but they do exist. CRT HDTVs are (or mostly “were”) sold at native 1080i - http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Sony-FD-Trinitron-WEGA-KV-30HS420-30-1080i-HD-CRT-Television-/48202574. Edit to add, and obviously a standard CRT old school tv was 480i, not 480p.
Beyond that, how many have been remastered from film to actually be in 1080p? I bet a lot are just DVDs reformatted into 1080p without any actual increase in resolution.
Aside from increased resolution, what do Blu-Rays tend to offer?
Are the extras usually worth it in your view?
I’m thinking that if you drew a Venn diagram of people who are really into high definition movies and might be willing to upgrade their library to Blu-Ray in circle 1 and people who are willing and able to use downloading to get them, legally or not, in circle 2, there’d be a lot of overlap.
I have a friend who downloads movies online illegally* and he nearly never finds the extras which would be available on the Blu-Ray, just the movie itself and subtitles. So it seems that it would largely come down to whether the extras are worth the price of getting the Blu-Ray version vs keeping the DVD you already have/getting the DVD version.
*And I’ve told him that’s a very, very naughty thing to do.
There are review sites that judge just that, so you can find out what process was used and what quality it’s resulted in. That said, I haven’t encountered many movies on BR that are truly inferior, just not necessarily remastered to the maximum potential.
Movies have been scanned for disk using the 2K standard for quite some time and then processed and and downsampled to DVD resolution. Even those same scans resampled to HD standards would be a substantial improvement over DVD. (2K is very slightly more than HD resolution but not the same.)
It is NOT worth replacing a good DVD of a film with a BR. Any upscaling player will give you excellent results. Save BR purchases for new films, or older ones that have been restored, remastered and scanned at at least 4K.
