PS3 Pushes Blu-ray Into Nearly 20% of U.S. Homes

[Treblaine]

I'll say this once (hopefully) on this thread and hope it sinks in.

These online streaming services that claim to offer HD video ARE NO BETTER THAN DVD QUALITY!!!

It's a matter of bitrate. See ALL video (DVD, Blu-ray, especially streamed content) is compressed from the initial raw data of 24 bits of colour per pixel and from frame to frame they are compressed too. It is the BITRATE, how much actual data is held per frame (assuming same framerate).

Data = detail

If you have a DVD (480p in USA) at a bitrate of 10Mbits/sec upscaled to 720p and compare that with a "HD Quality video stream" where though the native resolution is 720p though the bitrate is a pitiful 2Mbis/sec... The DVD will look FAR better than the "HD" stream!

I am frankly disgusted that these companies have the nerve to fob of this low bitrate video streams as "HD". The HD standard should have been defined as a minimum bitrate for each codec. Yes, codec makes a difference but not massive difference.

Blu-ray has the read-speed and the capacity to have a high bitrate for feature length movies. Only the best internet connections in the world like South Korea can you find an internet connection that can match the bitrate of a BD drive.

 

[CK76]

Yeah Blu-ray dvds need to come down in price. The only blu-ray dvd I have is the dark knight.

Blu-Ray has dropped far quicker than DVDs or VHSs did. Can get combo packs Blu-Ray/DVD for $20 on day one (I did for Kick Ass at Best Buy).

 

[Treblaine]

Quality aside, I'm surprised instant streaming hasn't taken over yet. It's just so damned convenient. And if MP3s taught us anything, its that people prefer convenience over quality.

But yay for Blu-ray I guess. I have a PS3 and don't own anything on Blu-ray.

I think most people got most of their MP3s DRM-free (either CD rip or file "sharing") or at least that's the format they prefer.

Instant streaming isn't as convenient as you might seem:

-Studio rivalry: Sony owned studios aren't on XBL streaming, and other bullshit power plays mean no single service gives you access to all films that are released

-High commitment: So many have subscription models or at least need credit card details, that does not equal as many compulsive purchases as shopping in a store for a boxed product. Rememeber, the mass market is not THAT online savvy.

-Download technical issues: few people have good enough internet providers, either they can't handle good enough bitrate or their monthly download limit is so easily exceeded with often unpleasant reprimands (throttling).

-Unfamiliar: Blu-ray is functionally almost identical in application to VHS tapes in 1976. Buy product from store, put in machine, press play. Download is distinctly different. I think the only people that can really make it mainstream is Apple, they can sell the most complex ideas to the mainstream.

But I think I know why Blu-ray has not been so successful: DVD has been eked of it's maximum capability thanks to quality upscaling DVD players with HDMI. The other factor is even though people may have 1080p screens they are too small to see much extra detail over 1080p

Just because the detail is there doesn't mean you can automatically see it all. Basically, as big as some HDTVs are, if you sit as far away as most people do with average sized screens you will only be able to see detail little higher than you get with DVD.

For example the idea viewing distance for a 42-inch 1080p HDTV is a mere 5 and a half feet.

View from 12 feet and you will only be able to see as much detail as 480p DVD upscaled to 480p. In fact if you aren't willing to sit closer or get a bigger screen you might as well put a DVD in your blu-ray player.It's all detailed in the science behind the Lechner distance.

Average TV viewing distance means to fully appreciate 1080p movies you need a screen of 69 inches!

 

[DeadRow]

I pretty much only use my PS3 as a BluRay Player nowadays. And at that I only rent BluRays from lovefilm unless I really want the movie (Such as Scott Pilgrim Verus the World).

 

[goldenheart323]

(Note: "BD" is the abbreviation for "Blu-ray Disc")

I like how the story breaks down a little more the more you read it. "More people coming to appreciate the virtues of blu-ray!" (guy who wrote the headline sounds like he must be a hard-core fan considering the rest) reading on, that nearly 20% is now 17% and those people prefer dvd's. Okay so, non-story. Awesome.

Yeah. Weak article with a strange title.
"Consumers are starting to accept the virtues of the Blu-ray Disc format."
Accept? As if they knew the virtues before, but disagreed with them until now?

Going by this article, I can't tell if it's struggling or if it's well on it's way towards mainstream adoption. It's compared to Apple computers, (which have been around for decades & still isn't mainstream,) and NetFlix, (which is too new to be mainstream yet). The article just gives me some numbers with poor context. How about comparing its adoption rate to things like DVD, VCR, etc? You know, things that *have* become mainstream?

Amazon.com has over 800 BD movies for $10 to $15, but they're not new releases. They're older movies. If you buy movies, you probably already have the old movies you want on DVD, which means only HD buffs would be willing to buy it a 2nd time just for the HD aspect. That's a pretty small market. What's worse, is it's not uncommon at all for the BD version to have FEWER extras than the DVD version. People have wised up from all the years of DVD double-dipping. When a bare bones BD is release, more people will just wait for the double-dip BD with all the features before buying. Of course, that's if they have the extra money in this poor economy. Hollywood short changed a lot of BD early adopters by excluding those extras. It reminds me of all these 3DTV's out there. All a TV really needs to be 3D is to be 120Hz, and have a way to tell the glasses when to shutter which side. Some PC graphics cards can already do that on a standard monitor, but for some reason, TV makers can't do that without an extra grand or two.

Edit: Come to think of it, all the 3DTV needs to do is be able to display at 120Hz. Period. The BD player or whatever the video source is can have the hardware to communicate with the 3D glasses. That just makes it more puzzling... if you see their goal is 3D adoption as opposed to just selling more TV's. Imagine how much faster 3D would take off if the people with 120Hz HDTV's only had to buy a 3D BD player & glasses, or better yet, only had to update their PS3 & buy the glasses.
/edit

Question: Money's been tight for me too, so I haven't even been paying much attention to BD lately. Have studios wised up, or are they still releasing BD movies with less extras than their DVD counterparts?

 

[jp201]

dvd will eventually die out and blu ray will be dominant until a new form comes and take blu ray. its just a continious cycle of new and better technology.

 

[PettingZOOPONY]

I got a cheap blu-ray drive for my computer 2 years ago for $150 for all the Blu-ray sales my local target has. Haven't gotten anything really new but I got plenty of good titles for $10.

 

[VanityGirl]

A lot of my friends intially bought the PS3 JUST for the BluRay. The PS3 was the cheapest BluRay player at the time and of course, playing games is a plus.

I don't really use BluRay that much. My PS3 is for games, my 360 is for my massive collection of DVDs and Netflix.

 

[Treblaine]

I pretty much only use my PS3 as a BluRay Player nowadays. And at that I only rent BluRays from lovefilm unless I really want the movie (Such as Scott Pilgrim Verus the World).

(Not using PS3 for games... strange)

How is Love.film for blu-ray rentals. I have a smashing 1080p monitor for my PS3 but have yet to play a single bluray on it as I just can't stand the cost of blu-ray movies that cost as much as a PS3 game yet I know I won't get as many hours of enjoyment.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Blu-ray would be attractive if new releases weren't 29.99, when the same DVD is 9.99-14.99. Then there's always the attractive free option... You would think the Blu-ray would be a bit higher in popularity since hd-dvd is dead and HDTVs are as common as indoor plumbing.

Are you kidding me? DVD prices are around the same as Blu-Ray these days. I ordered "King of New York" on Blu-Ray 3 months ago (Yeah Christopher Walken!!!!). It cost me $20. The price for the DVD version was $30!! I also looked up Blade Runner. $35 for Blu-Ray Special edition. $30 for DVD regular. Granted that DVD prices drop insanelt fast but that point is that they come out just as expensive as blu ray.

 

[darthricardo]

Yeah Blu-ray dvds need to come down in price. The only blu-ray dvd I have is the dark knight.

Blu-Ray has dropped far quicker than DVDs or VHSs did. Can get combo packs Blu-Ray/DVD for $20 on day one (I did for Kick Ass at Best Buy).

This exactly. I don't really get all the complaints about prices, I'm seeing a lot of fairly good Blu-Ray movies for $20 and under. Maybe it's an odd Canadian Wal-Mart thing, but there's even the equivalent of a $10 Blu-Ray discount bin there. Nothing but a good thing for my PS3.

 

[darthricardo]

I pretty much only use my PS3 as a BluRay Player nowadays. And at that I only rent BluRays from lovefilm unless I really want the movie (Such as Scott Pilgrim Verus the World).

No idea what lovefilm is, but this is pretty much my situation ever since I got my new laptop. Damn, but the thing can game.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

... Okay, so how is the ps3 really relevant to those statistics? When the ps3 was selling two units for every one standalone bluray player, it was the cheapest, highest quality bluray player on the market. Now, its nothing resembling either, and the figures show it.

For a long time, the only real reason to own a ps3 was bluray. Now that its got something resembling a video game library, so its a pretty even sell between the two.

Of course, if you have a 1080p television, the idea of playing 720p (or heaven forbid 1080i) games isn't much of a selling point. Theres also that rumor floating around that the ps3 can't actually output anything at 1080p, that even 1080p video is downscaled to 720p then upscaled.

 

[goldenheart323]

What's worse, is it's not uncommon at all for the BD version to have FEWER extras than the DVD version.

Really? Of the 10 or so movies I own on both DVD and BR, they BR always has more content...always. And of the rest...well, for one I've never seen the reaction shots of Teri Garr, and Marty Feldman that are on the BR version of Young Frankenstein, to say nothing of a 'sleeping' Frankenstein (Peter Boyle), sucking his thumb (rofl). Absolutely hilarious. But, there are tons more out there I don't own, so I suppose it's possible. Just seems odd.

Yep. I paid close attention to BD for about the 1st 2yrs it came out. The number one complaint among early adopters seemed to be most every release was either bare bones, or had fewer extras. Sounds like Hollywood finally figured out double dipping's hurting BD more than it's helping fatten their profits.

 

[Treblaine]

Of course, if you have a 1080p television, the idea of playing 720p (or heaven forbid 1080i) games isn't much of a selling point. Theres also that rumor floating around that the ps3 can't actually output anything at 1080p, that even 1080p video is downscaled to 720p then upscaled.

HUUUUHHHHH?!?!?! What?

Assuming the console or the HDTV has a good upscaling algorithm (so no major artefacts are created) it is WAY better to play 720p content on a 1080p screen than 480p. More detail is more detail. 1080i is also better than 720p in the cases where there is no large camera panning movements, a still scene will have as many pixels of detail as 1080p.

"Theres also that rumor floating around that the ps3 can't actually output anything at 1080p"

Why? What? Where? WHERE did you hear that?

That does not make sense. Why would developers spend YEARS crafting their game when apparently there is some secret code to just unlock full 1080p. I've been tweaking PC games of a variety of different hardware and also reading in depth technical analyses of console games and games like uncharted 2 CANNOT be rendered in 1080p with the quality or scope of the game being seriously scaled back.

Remember, 1080p is 2.25x as many pixels as 720p. That means to maintain the same framerate/quality you somehow have to get the the GPU to work well over twice as hard. The Cell can only add embellishments, the limitation on frame-rate and resolution is on the GPU.

The thing is there are a lot of native-1080p games on PS3, but they get there by scaling back overall polygons or using other tricks like having extremely small game worlds or variable resolution.

Gran Turismo 5 (prologue) is only sort-of in native-1080p, It has 1080 vertical resolution but only 1280 horizontal resolution (67% of 1080p). The advantage of this is very efficient scaling to full 1080p with only a very slight "horizontal smudge" so it is very good for people with 1080p screens.

I don't think it is that big an issue that most console games are 720p on 1080p screens due to the way most console gamers actually play on their HDTVs.

See the ideal viewing distance of a 42-inch screen playing 1080p content is a mere 5 and a half feet. The ideal viewing distance for 720p content on a 42-inch screen is just over 8-feet (Lechner distance), an actual typical viewing distance for a screen of that size. THIS EXTENDS to that even if you play 1080p content on a 1080p screen but sit at 720p viewing distance... you might as well use 720p content as you will only be able to see as much detail as 720p even on 1080p content.

But I play my PC and PS3 on a 24-inch monitor at desktop distance (3-feet) so true 1080p is appreciated. But most users I doubt if you'd notice the difference. Too far away from too small a screens.

 

[DeadRow]

No idea what lovefilm is, but this is pretty much my situation ever since I got my new laptop. Damn, but the thing can game.

Lovefilm is an online rental website. I'm paying £14.99 a month and I can have as many rentals in the month as I like, but only two discs at a time.

How is Love.film for blu-ray rentals. I have a smashing 1080p monitor for my PS3 but have yet to play a single bluray on it as I just can't stand the cost of blu-ray movies that cost as much as a PS3 game yet I know I won't get as many hours of enjoyment.

Its brilliant tbh, not had trouble with a single disc they have given me and they ship the next one out pretty much the next day of me putting it back in the post (unless its a weekend in which case its normally there the following monday/tuesday). I've just started renting games from there as well. Biggest reason I never used my PS3, or 360 for that matter, is that I could never see a game that was worth the price tag they put on them these days.

 

[Treblaine]

No idea what lovefilm is, but this is pretty much my situation ever since I got my new laptop. Damn, but the thing can game.

Lovefilm is an online rental website. I'm paying £14.99 a month and I can have as many rentals in the month as I like, but only two discs at a time.

How is Love.film for blu-ray rentals. I have a smashing 1080p monitor for my PS3 but have yet to play a single bluray on it as I just can't stand the cost of blu-ray movies that cost as much as a PS3 game yet I know I won't get as many hours of enjoyment.

Its brilliant tbh, not had trouble with a single disc they have given me and they ship the next one out pretty much the next day of me putting it back in the post (unless its a weekend in which case its normally there the following monday/tuesday). I've just started renting games from there as well. Biggest reason I never used my PS3, or 360 for that matter, is that I could never see a game that was worth the price tag they put on them these days.

Thanks, I'll take a look into Love.film if they are as reliable as you claim (very important to me for online based services) but I wonder if it's more than I want. £15 a month is £180 per year and I don't get to keep any of the HD movies (legally). I'd much rather buy 18 BD films per year (£10 being average cost) or less, according to what I'm keen for.

I think only a few film releases are worth getting on BD, some have inherently low quality like most pre 1980's films, films shot on video like 28 days later (BD version looks IDENTICAL to DVD upscaled to 1080p version) or United 93 and films apparently shot on camcorder like Cloverfield.

Also if they just aren't that cinematic. I wouldn't bother with Get Smart on Blu-ray, it's not a beautiful film nor visually expansive film.

But pro tip on finding cheap games: look in electronics stores who don't specialise in games. Like Currys. They occasionally they greatly underprice games for clearance like I got Motorstorm Pacific Rift for only £4.90 NEW in Currys! That's better than the best online prices.

I have to admit, after getting stuck into Steam pricing I find console game pricing hard to stomach, and that's before they hit you with all the Premium DLC. Hell PC in general you can get 2 new PC games for the price of one used PS3 (with similar release dates) and of course PC gives you so many extra goodies like mods and so on.

I suggest you at least keep up to speed with 2007