Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

That's not how it is for everybody at all, it costs my fiancee and I $38 for 2 tickets (plus food costs extra on top) to go to the movies here in Australia. There are a lot of people who don't see the sense in paying that kind of money when u can wait a very short 2 months for the blu-ray release which costs less and u get to keep the movie forever rather than just paying to see it once.

I did not read the article the same way. I don't think the price is important. I think what it was saying is that there is a correlation between tickets and home media sales. Usually if a movie is popular in the cinemas it is also popular in home sales and if it is not in cinemas then the same at home. It was just explaining the obvious, and to put it simply, since sales are primarily driven by new releases, one (but not the only one) reason home sales in Q1 where low was the movies sucked.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

Youtube is already streaming 4k... even though maybe two people might have the hardware to actually take advantage of it.

and I am worth many billions (if I use the Vietnamese dong to calculate my worth, 20,550 VND=1 USD)

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

I don't understand, why wouldn't a 4k tv in the 46-60" range be any better than a 1080p tv of the same size? If I'm not mistaken, the higher the resolution, the more detail you can make out from the same distance.

Most can't tell the difference in 720p or 1080p or 1080i on a normal size screen at normal distance. If you are watching TV from 2 or 3 feet away you probably could, but from 10 or 15, the difference would be minimal. And if the difference is minimal, is it worth several times the price? We aren't talking the perceivable difference between DVD and Blu-ray. The lines in 1080p are already so close together, your eyes aren't going to see that much more with more data. I think there is a reason that 1080p became a standard and some of that has to do with what the human eye can perceive in a certain size screen at a given distance. But you do start to see a difference on large, projection screen TVs. I am sure Hef could use a 4K setup at the Playboy Mansion unless he is using actual film projectors, which wouldn't surprise me. If you have Hugh Hefner on Twitter, he often announces what he is showing for movie night at the mansion.

The data stream for 4K is enormous too. And the size of movies would be gigantic too, hundreds of GBs. So, new cable, new HDMI standard, etc. etc..

But even 4K could be streamed from a media server with the existing gigabyte network standard.


Here's some people on a Danish TV show, in a showroom. Most can't tell which is 720p vs 1080p. Click on the CC to get the English. None said they would pay the difference for "Full HD" even if they picked it as being the 1080p set. So when 4K comes and a 4K set means you have to change everything, again, and it costs 3 - 5 times as much as 1080p TV, is it worth it?

YouTube - Blind-test: 1080p vs. 720p

Here is a 4K TV at last year's CES show. Its 152". That is what 4K is for, not a normal size Tv. Price? $55,000 So for the price of a supercar, you can have a TV.

YouTube - CES 2010: Panasonic 152in 4kTV

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Streaming quality gets better daily.

no, if this is true then please quantify how much better it is today then yesterday. Honestly because of caps and traffic the opposite is true. For example someone that used Netflix default in Canada at the beginning/end of last year would have Netflixes highest quality DL. But if he remains with the default Netflix changed it to their lowest quality http://blog.netflix.com/2011/03/netf...by-23-for.html

Its better then the compressed 1080i HD offerings from cable and satellite TV.

no, there is little difference between 1080p and 1080i, and from a strictly pixel (amount of data) 1080i60 is exactly the same as 1080p30. Both have 1080x1920 pixels per frame and 30 frames a second. What will make a qualitative difference between the two is how compressed it. Now it can be that some providers on some channels compress it more and then for that example the DL will be better, but for the most part DL is a lot more compressed.

You do watch Satellite or cable TV don't you?

I know it was not asked to me, but no, I watch over the air with an antenna this is the best quality for "live" stuff like network TV or sports or news and BDs for the rest like films and TV shows once the season is over. I also do watch some DL but as a last resort (forgot to tape the show of a series I am watching and want to see it before the next episode)

[LetoAtreides82]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Most can't tell the difference in 720p or 1080p or 1080i on a normal size screen at normal distance. If you are watching TV from 2 or 3 feet away you probably could, but from 10 or 15, the difference would be minimal. And if the difference is minimal, is it worth several times the price? We aren't talking the perceivable difference between DVD and Blu-ray. The lines in 1080p are already so close together, your eyes aren't going to see that much more with more data. I think there is a reason that 1080p became a standard and some of that has to do with what the human eye can perceive in a certain size screen at a given distance. But you do start to see a difference on large, projection screen TVs. I am sure Hef could use a 4K setup at the Playboy Mansion unless he is using actual film projectors, which wouldn't surprise me. If you have Hugh Hefner on Twitter, he often announces what he is showing for movie night at the mansion.

The data stream for 4K is enormous too. And the size of movies would be gigantic too, hundreds of GBs. So, new cable, new HDMI standard, etc. etc..

But even 4K could be streamed from a media server with the existing gigabyte network standard.


Here's some people on a Danish TV show, in a showroom. Most can't tell which is 720p vs 1080p. Click on the CC to get the English.

YouTube - Blind-test: 1080p vs. 720p

HDMI can already handle 4k:
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/4K.aspx

As for that video, the guy at the end actually explains why they couldn't tell the difference, you have to get closer to see the benefit of higher resolution.

With a 40" display, you can see the full benefit of 720p at around 7.5 feet, whereas with 1080p you'd have to be just a little over 5 feet from the screen to see the full benefit.
Here's a chart that explains it:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

HDMI can already handle 4k:
http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/hdmi_1_4/4K.aspx

As for that video, the guy at the end actually explains why they couldn't tell the difference, you have to get closer to see the benefit of higher resolution.

With a 40" display, you can see the full benefit of 720p at around 7.5 feet, whereas with 1080p you'd have to be just a little over 5 feet from the screen to see the full benefit.
Here's a chart that explains it:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter

I don't sit 3 feet in front of my TV. I would say they were at normal viewing distances. I don't have 10s of thousands of dollars for a TV either. And if 4K was streaming through 1.3 or 1.4 HDMI, obviously they were compressing and decompressing the signal, right? But maybe not. Its a lot of data though.

IMAX isn't even shot in 4k, its shot in 2 2K projectors. According to this article, the optimal size for a 4K screen is 25 feet. This is the YouTube site saying they support 4k, the go on to say, Because 4K represents the highest quality of video available, there are a few limitations that you should be aware of. First off, video cameras that shoot in 4K aren’t cheap, and projectors that show videos in 4K are typically the size of a small refrigerator. And, as we mentioned, watching these videos on YouTube will require super-fast broadband. So it looks like you can stream 4k over the internet.

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2...deo-comes.html


Here's the 4K playlist on YouTube. My low 30mb is handling the download fine. I just don't have a 25 ft 4k TV to watch it on.

[ikms]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

I don't understand, why wouldn't a 4k tv in the 46-60" range be any better than a 1080p tv of the same size?

It would be "better" but we are in the realm of diminishing returns. At normal viewing distances, people with average visual acuity are going to have a real hard time seeing any improvement. At my parents house watching a 65" DLP TV, the "living room" layout keeps my eyes 15'+ from the set - a distance at which I am hard pressed to tell if the source is a DVD or Blu-Ray. I sit much closer to my own 45" TV, but that is because I like a wider viewing angle, and I actually enjoying seeing all the pixels I am paying for

[LetoAtreides82]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I don't sit 3 feet in front of my TV. I would say they were at normal viewing distances. I don't have 10s of thousands of dollars for a TV either. And if 4K was streaming through 1.3 or 1.4 HDMI, obviously they were compressing and decompressing the signal, right?

I don't know how far they were from the tv, the clip doesn't say. As for prize we're talking about the future, I think we'll start seeing them in 2020 at the $3,000 range.

The HDMI question I don't know, but that wouldn't matter much anyways, cables are pretty cheap.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by LetoAtreides82

I don't know how far they were from the tv, the clip doesn't say. As for prize we're talking about the future, I think we'll start seeing them in 2020 at the $3,000 range.

The HDMI question I don't know, but that wouldn't matter much anyways, cables are pretty cheap.

But again, the industry is using 10' TVs. That is what I am saying. You aren't going to see 4k normal size TVs, it will be for projectors and giant screens that are going to be much more then $3000. More like $15,000. 4K projectors is what' going to be the reasonable way to obtain it for the niche that has that kind of room.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by ikms

It would be "better" but we are in the realm of diminishing returns. At normal viewing distances, people with average visual acuity are going to have a real hard time seeing any improvement. At my parents house watching a 65" DLP TV, the "living room" layout keeps my eyes 15'+ from the set - a distance at which I am hard pressed to tell if the source is a DVD or Blu-Ray. I sit much closer to my own 45" TV, but that is because I like a wider viewing angle, and I actually enjoying seeing all the pixels I am paying for

Exactly. Most will be hard pressed to see any improvement. So why ditch everything and get new players, TVs and wait..again.. for new media. And most likely, no one is going to broadcast 4k TV feeds.

[LetoAtreides82]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

But again, the industry is using 10' TVs. That is what I am saying. You aren't going to see 4k normal size TVs, it will be for projectors and giant screens that are going to be much more then $3000. More like $15,000. 4K projectors is what' going to be the reasonable way to obtain it for the niche that has that kind of room.

I guess we'll know who's right in less than ten years, got this page bookmarked.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I don't sit 3 feet in front of my TV. I would say they were at normal viewing distances. I don't have 10s of thousands of dollars for a TV either.

I don't get this. You talk a great deal about being an early adopter and such. But you don't even realize that technology advances and prices fall. You said you bought an HDTV 6-7 years ago (if I remember correctly), how much did you pay for it and what size was it? what was the size of the TV before that? The first plasma (flat panel HDTVs) came out in 1997 how much do you think they cost? how about the first HDTVs before that.

I also don't get that you don't realize that the average TV size is an ever growing numbers that some industry insiders believe will be 60" by 2015.

[punkguy03]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't get this. You talk a great deal about being an early adopter and such. But you don't even realize that technology advances and prices fall. You said you bought an HDTV 6-7 years ago (if I remember correctly), how much did you pay for it and what size was it? what was the size of the TV before that? The first plasma (flat panel HDTVs) came out in 1997 how much do you think they cost? how about the first HDTVs before that.


I also don't get that you don't realize that the average TV size is an ever growing numbers that some industry insiders believe will be 60" by 2015.

Things totally change, we will have to see. I remember buying a flat screen like 22inch for 900 bucks or something probably 6 years ago. I also remember my first dvd player was 120 bucks and all it played was dvds and cds no cd-r's or anything special. Oddly tho that dvd player still works.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

But again, the industry is using 10' TVs. That is what I am saying. You aren't going to see 4k normal size TVs, it will be for projectors and giant screens that are going to be much more then $3000. More like $15,000. 4K projectors is what' going to be the reasonable way to obtain it for the niche that has that kind of room.

not realy, when I started using projectors, it was an VGA Sharp (640x480) that was close to 10 years ago, and even though it was second hand it was still relatively expensive. Today you can buy a brand new 1080p projector for under 3k$ (actualy under 2k$). As for room, you don't need anything special, possibly a wall for the screen, but then again if that is too special then you can always get a tripod for it. I realy don't know why people fear projectors so much. They are cheap, easy and fun.

As for TVs the first Plasmas where over 10k, they where not even HD and small compared to today. I can't understand why you don't realize that the price today is immaterial to the price next year, in 5 years or in 10 years.

[Steedeel]

None of this changes the fact that streams are vastly inferior technology to full1080p hd bluray. That is a fact. Also it is not just USA which will affect future markets. One of the posters above got it spot on when they stated that streaming is fine for once only catch up. As far as films are concerned no way. I would struggle to accept a inferior format having got used to bluray.

Slick1ru2, i am no way a 'regular customer' i just don't see how people can look past the poor image quality of ALL streaming. You don't watch on a 50 inch plasma, i do. I know streaming looks awful at that size. That is just a fact. All the hype and marketing about a digital future is really about trying to control our habits. These companies don't care about quality they just want our money. People are buying into it because they are stupid enough to believe hype. They do not realize that eventually we wont control a single thing and something as simple as selecting a film to watch will be a case of passwords and Internet services 'going down' for the day or week. Nothing as simple as picking a film from a shelf and just happily watching.

Finally if you believe USA will have 98 percent coverage by 2017 then...oh dear!

[slick1ru2]

Well, there is a big difference between $900 or $10,000 and $500,000. The price of 4K is much higher then plasma and LCD was when introduced.

BD is a just a media storage device. You stream data to your TV from the player to your TV. They aren't magical or anything. You guys are way too tied up with the source.

Steedeel, the 1080p NetFlix is can only be streamed on a PS3 and only since October and only in the U.S. with a 3 or 4 mpbs connection. So let me guess. You are knocking something you haven't ever seen. I'd take the word of the guys on HD Nation who said looks at least as good as HD Cable TV because they actually saw it and aren't biased.



.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Well, there is a big difference between $900 or $10,000 and $500,000. The price of 4K is much higher then plasma and LCD was when introduced.

BD is a just a media storage device. You stream data to your TV from the player to your TV. They aren't magical or anything. You guys are way too tied up with the source.

Steedeel, the 1080p NetFlix is can only be streamed on a PS3 and only since October and only in the U.S. with a 3 or 4 mpbs connection. So let me guess. You are knocking something you haven't ever seen. I'd take the word of the guys on HD Nation who said looks at least as good as HD Cable TV because they actually saw it and aren't biased.

Does that mean you haven't seen it either?

As for being too tied to the source, people have been pretty open about why they like physical media, no? There's nothing inherently illegitimate about a preference for having the media in your physical possession, is there?

[punkguy03]

Originally Posted by octagon

Does that mean you haven't seen it either?

As for being too tied to the source, people have been pretty open about why they like physical media, no? There's nothing inherently illegitimate about a preference for having the media in your physical possession, is there?

The debate between these two (slick and steeldeal) has nothing to do really with your preference. One believes that streaming can NEVER be as good as blu and the other says it can (and has presented some supporting data to support it).

Streaming has the POTENTIAL to get as good as blu-ray in the FUTURE. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong)that is some not all of course, that slick is saying, if you want to have blu-rays and streaming then go for it. There is nothing wrong with having multiple formats, as slick and I have actually discussed on here.
It is about choices and knowing about all of your options, whatever they may be.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by octagon

Does that mean you haven't seen it either?

As for being too tied to the source, people have been pretty open about why they like physical media, no? There's nothing inherently illegitimate about a preference for having the media in your physical possession, is there?

Of course I've seen it, check my signature. But if I hadn't I would take the word of 2 guys who have a show on HD saying that it looks at least as good as HD Cable vs someone on a forum saying basically all streaming media is garbage.

And what's the name of the thread? Eventually something is going to replace BD. Streaming may be it. Someday. Just like I still have DVDs and VHS doesn't mean I am getting rid of BD when or if it happens.

[Steedeel]

punkguy it's Steedeel!

Yes, i repeat streaming will never match Bluray. When i see hd advertised available for downloading or streaming in my opinion that is not really what the consumers are getting.
Also i just like the look of my blurays on my shelf and always will. You guys talk about all the freedom of choice and variety available with streaming. That will not remain the case and people who buy into this 'format' will probably have to sign up with three or more providers to get everything they like. In other words it will be similar to cable and satellite now!